We Keep Coding

Program to fit a hyperbola to linear data using least squares (Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm) not working as expected

I have a 1D array data which I am trying to model as hyperbola using three parameters. I am trying to implement the Levenberg Marquardt algorithm using the leastsq function from scipy.optimize library. However, my program is getting stuck at an iteration where a number is getting divided by a zero, and I don't understand why.
Some background: The 1D array data are basically lacunarity values for different box sizes. I've generated the lacunarity data from some sound files, the context to which can be found here.
In the algorithm, the least squares function takes three inputs:
(a) initial guess for the three parameters
(b) the x coordinate for the least squares problem - that's basically a 1D array of integers from 1 to 100 in my problem
(c) the y coordinate for the least squares problem - this is the 1D array that stores the lacunarity values. So Lacunarity values are a function of x, where x varies from 1 to 100.
The hyperbola is modeled using three parameters a,b and c as
The code gives the following error:
"OverflowError: cannot convert float infinity to integer"
The code:
#import
from scipy import *
from scipy.optimize import leastsq
import matplotlib.pylab as plt
import numpy as np
import codecs, json
from math import *
# Define your function to calculate the residuals.
#The fitting function holds your parameter values.
def residuals(p, y, x):
err = y-pval(x,p)
return err
def pval(x, p):
z = x
for i in range(100):
print(x)
print(x[i]**p[1])
z[i] = p[0]/(x[i]**p[1])+p[2]
return z
#read in your data
obj_text = codecs.open('textfiles\CC1.json', 'r', encoding='utf-8').read()
b_new = json.loads(obj_text)
data = np.array(b_new)
x = np.arange(1,101)
y = data[1:101]
#guess at initial parameters
A1_0=1.0
A2_0=1.0
A3_0=0.5
#leastsq package calls the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
pname = (['A1','A2','A3'])
p0 = array([A1_0 , A2_0, A3_0])
plsq = leastsq(residuals, p0, args=(y, x), maxfev=2000)
# Now, plot your data
plt.plot(x,y,'xo',x,pval(x,plsq[0]),'x')
title('Least-squares fit to data')
xlabel('x')
ylabel('y')
legend(['Data', 'Fit'],loc=4)
# Your best-fit paramters are kept within plsq[0].
print(plsq[0])
According to the error, the value of x changes to 0 at some point in the iteration, and the first parameter a ends up getting divided by zero which gives the error.
To troubleshoot, I printed the values x[i]^b and the array x while executing the code, and you can see the values here. I see that the array x is getting modified which shouldn't happen. x should remain a 1D array of natural numbers from 1 to 100 and not get modified in the iteration. I couldn't identify where exactly is the code modifying the array x.
I expect the array x to remain unchanged and the code to print the final three values of the parameters a,b and c.
EDIT: I made some changes to my code after which it worked successfully. Following are those edits incase anyone would be interested:
Did not define z as z = x, but rather just defined it as z = np.arange(1,101). The result was that the array x did not change anymore which is what was expected.
Changed the datatype of arrays x and y to float using
x = np.array(x, dtype=np.float64)
I got stuck once more, at the piece of code which plots the data. I got the errors" 'title' not defined. Similar errors for xlabel, ylabel. So I just removed those lines and just stuck with
plt.plot(x,y,'red',x,pval(x,plsq[0]),'blue')
plt.show()

Not a direct answer to your question, but since you're using exponentiation (**), I strongly recommend that you convert all your numbers to Decimal beforehand, in order to avoid the precision-loss inherent in floating-point arithmetic on large values.
For example:
import decimal
decimal.getcontext().prec = 100
A1_0=Decimal("1.0")
A2_0=Decimal("1.0")
A3_0=Decimal("0.5")
x = [Decimal(f) for f in x]
y = [Decimal(f) for f in y]
Perhaps your zero will "turn up" to be a small value close to zero...

How to plot the pdf and cdf for an arbitrary function in python? [duplicate]

The random module (http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html) has several fixed functions to randomly sample from. For example random.gauss will sample random point from a normal distribution with a given mean and sigma values.
I'm looking for a way to extract a number N of random samples between a given interval using my own distribution as fast as possible in python. This is what I mean:
def my_dist(x):
# Some distribution, assume c1,c2,c3 and c4 are known.
f = c1*exp(-((x-c2)**c3)/c4)
return f
# Draw N random samples from my distribution between given limits a,b.
N = 1000
N_rand_samples = ran_func_sample(my_dist, a, b, N)
where ran_func_sample is what I'm after and a, b are the limits from which to draw the samples. Is there anything of that sort in python?

You need to use Inverse transform sampling method to get random values distributed according to a law you want. Using this method you can just apply inverted function
to random numbers having standard uniform distribution in the interval [0,1].
After you find the inverted function, you get 1000 numbers distributed according to the needed distribution this obvious way:
[inverted_function(random.random()) for x in range(1000)]
More on Inverse Transform Sampling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_transform_sampling
Also, there is a good question on StackOverflow related to the topic:
Pythonic way to select list elements with different probability

This code implements the sampling of n-d discrete probability distributions. By setting a flag on the object, it can also be made to be used as a piecewise constant probability distribution, which can then be used to approximate arbitrary pdf's. Well, arbitrary pdfs with compact support; if you efficiently want to sample extremely long tails, a non-uniform description of the pdf would be required. But this is still efficient even for things like airy-point-spread functions (which I created it for, initially). The internal sorting of values is absolutely critical there to get accuracy; the many small values in the tails should contribute substantially, but they will get drowned out in fp accuracy without sorting.
class Distribution(object):
"""
draws samples from a one dimensional probability distribution,
by means of inversion of a discrete inverstion of a cumulative density function
the pdf can be sorted first to prevent numerical error in the cumulative sum
this is set as default; for big density functions with high contrast,
it is absolutely necessary, and for small density functions,
the overhead is minimal
a call to this distibution object returns indices into density array
"""
def __init__(self, pdf, sort = True, interpolation = True, transform = lambda x: x):
self.shape = pdf.shape
self.pdf = pdf.ravel()
self.sort = sort
self.interpolation = interpolation
self.transform = transform
#a pdf can not be negative
assert(np.all(pdf>=0))
#sort the pdf by magnitude
if self.sort:
self.sortindex = np.argsort(self.pdf, axis=None)
self.pdf = self.pdf[self.sortindex]
#construct the cumulative distribution function
self.cdf = np.cumsum(self.pdf)
#property
def ndim(self):
return len(self.shape)
#property
def sum(self):
"""cached sum of all pdf values; the pdf need not sum to one, and is imlpicitly normalized"""
return self.cdf[-1]
def __call__(self, N):
"""draw """
#pick numbers which are uniformly random over the cumulative distribution function
choice = np.random.uniform(high = self.sum, size = N)
#find the indices corresponding to this point on the CDF
index = np.searchsorted(self.cdf, choice)
#if necessary, map the indices back to their original ordering
if self.sort:
index = self.sortindex[index]
#map back to multi-dimensional indexing
index = np.unravel_index(index, self.shape)
index = np.vstack(index)
#is this a discrete or piecewise continuous distribution?
if self.interpolation:
index = index + np.random.uniform(size=index.shape)
return self.transform(index)
if __name__=='__main__':
shape = 3,3
pdf = np.ones(shape)
pdf[1]=0
dist = Distribution(pdf, transform=lambda i:i-1.5)
print dist(10)
import matplotlib.pyplot as pp
pp.scatter(*dist(1000))
pp.show()
And as a more real-world relevant example:
x = np.linspace(-100, 100, 512)
p = np.exp(-x**2)
pdf = p[:,None]*p[None,:] #2d gaussian
dist = Distribution(pdf, transform=lambda i:i-256)
print dist(1000000).mean(axis=1) #should be in the 1/sqrt(1e6) range
import matplotlib.pyplot as pp
pp.scatter(*dist(1000))
pp.show()

Here is a rather nice way of performing inverse transform sampling with a decorator.
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
def inverse_sample_decorator(dist):
def wrapper(pnts, x_min=-100, x_max=100, n=1e5, **kwargs):
x = np.linspace(x_min, x_max, int(n))
cumulative = np.cumsum(dist(x, **kwargs))
cumulative -= cumulative.min()
f = interp1d(cumulative/cumulative.max(), x)
return f(np.random.random(pnts))
return wrapper
Using this decorator on a Gaussian distribution, for example:
#inverse_sample_decorator
def gauss(x, amp=1.0, mean=0.0, std=0.2):
return amp*np.exp(-(x-mean)**2/std**2/2.0)
You can then generate sample points from the distribution by calling the function. The keyword arguments x_min and x_max are the limits of the original distribution and can be passed as arguments to gauss along with the other key word arguments that parameterise the distribution.
samples = gauss(5000, mean=20, std=0.8, x_min=19, x_max=21)
Alternatively, this can be done as a function that takes the distribution as an argument (as in your original question),
def inverse_sample_function(dist, pnts, x_min=-100, x_max=100, n=1e5,
**kwargs):
x = np.linspace(x_min, x_max, int(n))
cumulative = np.cumsum(dist(x, **kwargs))
cumulative -= cumulative.min()
f = interp1d(cumulative/cumulative.max(), x)
return f(np.random.random(pnts))

I was in a similar situation but I wanted to sample from a multivariate distribution, so, I implemented a rudimentary version of Metropolis-Hastings (which is an MCMC method).
def metropolis_hastings(target_density, size=500000):
burnin_size = 10000
size += burnin_size
x0 = np.array([[0, 0]])
xt = x0
samples = []
for i in range(size):
xt_candidate = np.array([np.random.multivariate_normal(xt[0], np.eye(2))])
accept_prob = (target_density(xt_candidate))/(target_density(xt))
if np.random.uniform(0, 1) < accept_prob:
xt = xt_candidate
samples.append(xt)
samples = np.array(samples[burnin_size:])
samples = np.reshape(samples, [samples.shape[0], 2])
return samples
This function requires a function target_density which takes in a data-point and computes its probability.
For details check-out this detailed answer of mine.

import numpy as np
import scipy.interpolate as interpolate
def inverse_transform_sampling(data, n_bins, n_samples):
hist, bin_edges = np.histogram(data, bins=n_bins, density=True)
cum_values = np.zeros(bin_edges.shape)
cum_values[1:] = np.cumsum(hist*np.diff(bin_edges))
inv_cdf = interpolate.interp1d(cum_values, bin_edges)
r = np.random.rand(n_samples)
return inv_cdf(r)
So if we give our data sample that has a specific distribution, the inverse_transform_sampling function will return a dataset with exactly the same distribution. Here the advantage is that we can get our own sample size by specifying it in the n_samples variable.

Sample a truncated integer power law in Python?

What function can I use in Python if I want to sample a truncated integer power law?
That is, given two parameters a and m, generate a random integer x in the range [1,m) that follows a distribution proportional to 1/x^a.
I've been searching around numpy.random, but I haven't found this distribution.

AFAIK, neither NumPy nor Scipy defines this distribution for you. However, using SciPy it is easy to define your own discrete distribution function using scipy.rv_discrete:
import numpy as np
import scipy.stats as stats
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def truncated_power_law(a, m):
x = np.arange(1, m+1, dtype='float')
pmf = 1/x**a
pmf /= pmf.sum()
return stats.rv_discrete(values=(range(1, m+1), pmf))
a, m = 2, 10
d = truncated_power_law(a=a, m=m)
N = 10**4
sample = d.rvs(size=N)
plt.hist(sample, bins=np.arange(m)+0.5)
plt.show()

I don't use Python, so rather than risk syntax errors I'll try to describe the solution algorithmically. This is a brute-force discrete inversion. It should translate quite easily into Python. I'm assuming 0-based indexing for the array.
Setup:
Generate an array cdf of size m with cdf[0] = 1 as the first entry, cdf[i] = cdf[i-1] + 1/(i+1)**a for the remaining entries.
Scale all entries by dividing cdf[m-1] into each -- now they actually are CDF values.
Usage:
Generate your random values by generating a Uniform(0,1) and
searching through cdf[] until you find an entry greater than your
uniform. Return the index + 1 as your x-value.
Repeat for as many x-values as you want.
For instance, with a,m = 2,10, I calculate the probabilities directly as:
[0.6452579827864142, 0.16131449569660355, 0.07169533142071269, 0.04032862392415089, 0.02581031931145657, 0.017923832855178172, 0.013168530260947229, 0.010082155981037722, 0.007966147935634743, 0.006452579827864143]
and the CDF is:
[0.6452579827864142, 0.8065724784830177, 0.8782678099037304, 0.9185964338278814, 0.944406753139338, 0.9623305859945162, 0.9754991162554634, 0.985581272236501, 0.9935474201721358, 1.0]
When generating, if I got a Uniform outcome of 0.90 I would return x=4 because 0.918... is the first CDF entry larger than my uniform.
If you're worried about speed you could build an alias table, but with a geometric decay the probability of early termination of a linear search through the array is quite high. With the given example, for instance, you'll terminate on the first peek almost 2/3 of the time.

Use numpy.random.zipf and just reject any samples greater than or equal to m

numpy.random.normal different distribution: selecting values from distribution

I have a power-law distribution of energies and I want to pick n random energies based on the distribution. I tried doing this manually using random numbers but it is too inefficient for what I want to do. I'm wondering is there a method in numpy (or other) that works like numpy.random.normal, except instead of a using normal distribution, the distribution may be specified. So in my mind an example might look like (similar to numpy.random.normal):
import numpy as np
# Energies from within which I want values drawn
eMin = 50.
eMax = 2500.
# Amount of energies to be drawn
n = 10000
photons = []
for i in range(n):
# Method that I just made up which would work like random.normal,
# i.e. return an energy on the distribution based on its probability,
# but take a distribution other than a normal distribution
photons.append(np.random.distro(eMin, eMax, lambda e: e**(-1.)))
print(photons)
Printing photons should give me a list of length 10000 populated by energies in this distribution. If I were to histogram this it would have much greater bin values at lower energies.
I am not sure if such a method exists but it seems like it should. I hope it is clear what I want to do.
EDIT:
I have seen numpy.random.power but my exponent is -1 so I don't think this will work.

Sampling from arbitrary PDFs well is actually quite hard. There are large and dense books just about how to efficiently and accurately sample from the standard families of distributions.
It looks like you could probably get by with a custom inversion method for the example that you gave.

If you want to sample from an arbitrary distribution you need the inverse of the cumulative density function (not the pdf).
You then sample a probability uniformly from range [0,1] and feed this into the inverse of the cdf to get the corresponding value.
It is often not possible to obtain the cdf from the pdf analytically.
However, if you're happy to approximate the distribution, you could do so by calculating f(x) at regular intervals over its domain, then doing a cumsum over this vector to get an approximation of the cdf and from this approximate the inverse.
Rough code snippet:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import scipy.interpolate
def f(x):
"""
substitute this function with your arbitrary distribution
must be positive over domain
"""
return 1/float(x)
#you should vary inputVals to cover the domain of f (for better accurracy you can
#be clever about spacing of values as well). Here i space them logarithmically
#up to 1 then at regular intervals but you could definitely do better
inputVals = np.hstack([1.**np.arange(-1000000,0,100),range(1,10000)])
#everything else should just work
funcVals = np.array([f(x) for x in inputVals])
cdf = np.zeros(len(funcVals))
diff = np.diff(funcVals)
for i in xrange(1,len(funcVals)):
cdf[i] = cdf[i-1]+funcVals[i-1]*diff[i-1]
cdf /= cdf[-1]
#you could also improve the approximation by choosing appropriate interpolator
inverseCdf = scipy.interpolate.interp1d(cdf,inputVals)
#grab 10k samples from distribution
samples = [inverseCdf(x) for x in np.random.uniform(0,1,size = 100000)]
plt.hist(samples,bins=500)
plt.show()

Why don't you use eval and put the distribution in a string?
>>> cmd = "numpy.random.normal(500)"
>>> eval(cmd)
you can manipulate the string as you wish to set the distribution.

Generating numbers with Gaussian function in a range using python

I want to use the gaussian function in python to generate some numbers between a specific range giving the mean and variance
so lets say I have a range between 0 and 10
and I want my mean to be 3 and variance to be 4
mean = 3, variance = 4
how can I do that ?

Use random.gauss. From the docs:
random.gauss(mu, sigma)
Gaussian distribution. mu is the mean, and sigma is the standard deviation. This is slightly
faster than the normalvariate() function defined below.
It seems to me that you can clamp the results of this, but that wouldn't make it a Gaussian distribution. I don't think you can satisfy all the constraints simultaneously. If you want to clamp it to the range [0, 10], you could get your numbers:
num = min(10, max(0, random.gauss(3, 4)))
But then the resulting distribution of numbers won't be truly Gaussian. In this case, it seems you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

There's probably a better way to do this, but this is the function I ended up creating to solve this problem:
import random
def trunc_gauss(mu, sigma, bottom, top):
a = random.gauss(mu,sigma))
while (bottom <= a <= top) == False:
a = random.gauss(mu,sigma))
return a
If we break it down line by line:
import random
This allows us to use functions from the random library, which includes a gaussian random number generator (random.gauss).
def trunc_gauss(mu, sigma, bottom, top):
The function arguments allow us to specify the mean (mu) and variance (sigma), as well as the top and bottom of our desired range.
a = random.gauss(mu,sigma))
Inside the function, we generate an initial random number according to a gaussian distribution.
while (bottom <= a <= top) == False:
a = random.gauss(mu,sigma))
Next, the while loop checks if the number is within our specified range, and generates a new random number as long as the current number is outside our range.
return a
As soon as the number is inside our range, the while loop stops running and the function returns the number.
This should give a better approximation of a gaussian distribution, since we don't artificially inflate the top and bottom boundaries of our range by rounding up or down the outliers.
I'm quite new to Python, so there are most probably simpler ways, but this worked for me.

I was working on some numerical analytical computation and I ran into this python tutorial site - http://www.python-course.eu/weighted_choice_and_sample.php
Now, this is what I proffer as a solution should anyone be too busy as to not hit the site.
I don't know how many gaussian values you need so I'll go with 100 as n, mu you gave as 3 and variance as 4 which makes sigma = 2. Here's the code:
from random import gauss
n = 100
values = []
frequencies = {}
while len(values) < n:
value = gauss(3, 2)
if 0 < value < 10:
frequencies[int(value)] = frequencies.get(int(value), 0) + 1
values.append(value)
print(values)
I hope this helps. You can get the plot as well. It's all in the tutorials.

If you have a small range of integers, you can create a list with a gaussian distribution of the numbers within that range and then make a random choice from it.

import numpy as np
from random import uniform
from scipy.special import erf,erfinv
import math
def trunc_gauss(mu, sigma,xmin=np.nan,xmax=np.nan):
"""Truncated Gaussian distribution.
mu is the mean, and sigma is the standard deviation.
"""
if np.isnan(xmin):
zmin=0
else:
zmin = erf((xmin-mu)/sigma)
if np.isnan(xmax):
zmax=1
else:
zmax = erf((xmax-mu)/sigma)
y = uniform(zmin,zmax)
z = erfinv(y)
# This will not come up often but if y >= 0.9999999999999999
# due to the truncation of the ervinv function max z = 5.805018683193454
while math.isinf(z):
z = erfinv(uniform(zmin,zmax))
return mu + z*sigma

You can use minimalistic code for 150 variables:
import numpy as np
s = np.random.normal(3,4,150) #<= mean = 3, variance = 4
print(s)
Normal distribution is another like random, stochastic distribution.
So, we can check it by:
import seaborn as sns
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
AA1_plot = sns.distplot(s, kde=True, rug=False)
plt.show()