I'm trying to define a function in python that performs sliding window on multiple signals (and using the resulting SW as input for ripser).
What I want to achieve is this (examples with sines, sorry for bad drawing skills)
picture describing my goal
I have 14 signals of 10000 points, so a 14 x 10000 matrix, and I want to perform a sliding window on all the signals making them correlated in some way by grouping all the points for all the signals in each window, given its dimension.
I tried first using the code made by Christoper Tralie, but this gives me an error on the dimension of X, so now I'm trying to modify it.
def slidingWindowMultipleSignals(I, dim, Tau, dT):
'''
Performs the sliding window on multiple signals.
Author: Christopher J. Tralie
'''
N = I.shape[0] #Number of frames
P = I.shape[1] #Number of pixels (possibly after PCA)
pix = np.arange(P)
NWindows = int(np.floor((N-dim*Tau)/dT))
X = np.zeros((NWindows, dim*P))
idx = np.arange(N)
for i in range(NWindows):
idxx = dT*i + Tau*np.arange(dim)
start = int(np.floor(idxx[0]))
end = int(np.ceil(idxx[-1]))+2
if end >= I.shape[0]:
X = X[0:i, :]
break
f = scipy.interpolate.interp2d(pix, idx[start:end+1], I[idx[start:end+1], :], kind='linear')
X[i, :] = f(pix, idxx).flatten()
return X
The problem is that I don't know what to modify for making it doing the thing I described with the image.
Can someone point me to the right direction?
I suspect the problem is located in the line
NWindows = int(np.floor((N-dim*Tau)/dT))
specifically with the use of /. I'd check the dtypes of dim, Tau and dT. If all are integers, or if some are floats, / may not behave in exactly the same way.
Also, python expects the body of the function to be indented, which it isn't in your example.
Related
I've been fooling around lately with taking the webcam's video steam and giving it a pixel-dependent time delay.
A very simple example for that idea is the famous rolling shutter, but when applied in order of seconds instead of 1/100ths, it looks like this https://youtu.be/mQ0hS7l9ckY
Now, rolling shutter is fun and all, but I want something more general. I want a delay map, a (height, width, 3) shaped array that tells my how far back to go in the video. A pseudo-code for this would be
output_image[y, x, c] = video_cache[delay_map[y,x,c], y, x, c]
where the first index of the video cache is time, y,x are self-explanatory, and c is the color channel (BGR because open cv is weird).
In essence, each pixel of the output is a pixel of the video at the same position, but at a time determined by the delay map at the very same position.
Here's the solution I have now: I flattened everything, I access the video cache similar to how you unravel multi-index nonsense, and once I'm done I reshape the result into an image.
This solution works pretty fast, and I'm pretty proud of it. It almost keeps up with my webcam's frame rate (I think I average on 20 of these per second).
I think the flattening and reshaping of each frame costs me some time, and if I could get rid of those I'd get much better results.
Link to the whole file at the bottom.
Here's a skeleton of my implementation.
I have a class called CircularCacheDelayAccess. It stores a cache of video frames (with given number of frames, called cache_size in my implementation). It enables you to store frames, and get the delay-mapped frame.
Instead of pushing all the frames around each time I store a new one, I keep an index that goes around in a circle, and video[delay=3] would be found via something like cache[index-3]. Thanks to python's funny negative index tricks, I don't even have to get the positive modulo.
The delay_map is actually a float array; when I use circ_cache.getFrame I input the integer part of delay_map.flatten(), and then I use the fractional part to interpolate between frames.
class CircularCacheDelayAccess:
def __init__(self, img_shape: tuple, cache_size: int):
self.image_shape = img_shape
self.cache_size = cache_size
# some useful stuff
self.multi_index_shape = (cache_size,) + img_shape
self.image_size = int(np.prod(img_shape))
self.size = cache_size * self.image_size
# the index, going around in circles
self.cache_index = 0
self.cache = np.empty(self.size)
# raveled_image_indices is a running index over a frame; it is the same thing as writing
# y, x, c = np.mgrid[0:height, 0:width, 0:3]
# raveled_image_indices = c + 3 * (x + width * y)
# but it's a lot easier
self.raveled_image_indices = np.arange(self.image_size)
def store(self, image: np.ndarray):
# (in my implementation I check that the shape matches and raise a ValueError if it does not)
self.cache_index = (self.cache_index + 1) % self.cache_size
# since cache holds entire image frames, the start of each frame is index * image size
cIndex = self.image_size * self.cache_index
self.cache[cIndex: cIndex + self.image_size] = image.flatten()
def getFrame(self, delay_map: np.ndarray):
# delay_map may either have shape == self.image_shape, or shape = (self.image_size,)
# (more asserts, for the shape of delay_map, and to check its values do not exceed the cache size)
# (if delay_map.shape == image_shape, I flatten it. If we were already given a flattened version,
# there's no need to do so)
frame = self.cache[self.image_size * (self.cache_index - delay_map) + self.raveled_image_indices]\
.reshape(self.image_shape)
return frame
As I've already stated, this works pretty good, but I think I could get it to work better if I could just side-step the flatten and reshape steps.
Also, keeping a flattened version of an array that makes sense in its full-shaped form is pretty awkward.
And, I've mentioned the interpolation part. It felt wrong to do that in CircularCacheDelayAccess, but doing the interpolation after I getFrame twice means I need the fractional part of delay_map to be in the full-shaped form, and I need the int part flattened, which is pretty silly.\
Here are some fun examples which would probably be pretty hard to understand without seeing the video, but are still fun to look at. It looks even better with a face, but I don't think I should show my face here, so sorry about that:
horizontal rolling shutter, color delay psychedelia, my weirdest effect so far
And here is a link to the entire code, with capture and stuff if you wanna mess around with it and read the entire code.
Thanks in advance!
I am trying to construct two sliding windows over a multivariate sequence of data (m*n). The first window should be fixed and the second one is rolling over the data samples. Both windows have the same size. I followed this postdistance calculations, FFT, Sliding window and built upon that. I am struggling to implement it. The python snippet of the code is below:
sliding_dist(data,window_size):
window_size = 10
n = len(data)
dist = np.zeros(n)
for i in range(n - window_size):
fixed_window = data[i:window_size, :]
rolling_window = data[i:i + window_size,:]
ditance = np.linalg.norm(fixed_window - rolling_window)
dist[i] = ditance
return dist
My problem is how to fix the first window and keep the second on rolling over data sample n. Logically, I am not quite sure whether the implementation of for loop and indexes are correct or should I change them. Also, I have issue with the indexes I got an error about the shape: ValueError: operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (9,3) (10,3)
Edit:
I just edited the code to take the fixed window out of the for loop. It solved the previous error ValueError: operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (9,3) (10,3) :
sliding_dist(data,window_size):
window_size = 10
n = len(data)
dist = np.zeros(n)
fixed_window = data[:window_size, :]
for i in range(n - window_size):
rolling_window = data[i:i + window_size,:]
ditance = np.linalg.norm(fixed_window - rolling_window)
dist[i] = ditance
return dist
I am still not sure about whether the way I implemented the two sliding windows is correct or not? Please could anyone have some thoughts and help on this.
I understand the basics of how vectorization works, but I'm struggling to see how to apply that knowledge to my use case. I have a working algorithm for some image processing. However, the particular algorithm that I'm working with doesn't process the entire image as there is a border to account for the "window" that gets shifted around the image.
I'm trying to use this to better understand Numpy's vectorization, but I can't figure out how to account for the window and the border. Below is what I have in vanilla python (with the actual algorithm redacted, I'm only asking for help on how to vectorize). I looked into np.fromfunction and a few other options, but have had no luck. Any suggestions would be welcome at this point.
half_k = np.int(np.floor(k_size / 2));
U = np.zeros(img_a.shape, dtype=np.float64);
V = np.zeros(img_b.shape, dtype=np.float64);
for y in range(half_k, img_a.shape[0] - half_k):
for x in range(half_k, img_a.shape[1] - half_k):
# init variables for window calc goes here
for j in range(y - half_k, y + half_k + 1):
for i in range(x - half_k, x + half_k + 1):
# stuff init-ed above gets added to here
# final calc on things calculated in windows goes here
U[y][x] = one_of_the_window_calculations
V[y][x] = the_other_one
return U, V
I think you can create an array of the indices of the patches with a function like this get_patch_idx in the first place
def get_patch_idx(ind,array_shape,step):
row_nums,col_nums = array_shape
col_idx = ind-(ind//col_nums)*col_nums if ind%col_nums !=0 else col_nums
row_idx = ind//col_nums if ind%col_nums !=0 else ind//col_nums
if col_idx+step==col_nums or row_idx+step==row_nums or col_idx-step==-1 or row_idx-step==-1: raise ValueError
upper = [(row_idx-1)*col_nums+col_idx-1,(row_idx-1)*col_nums+col_idx,(row_idx-1)*col_nums+col_idx+1]
middle = [row_idx*col_nums+col_idx-1,row_idx*col_nums+col_idx,row_idx*col_nums+col_idx+1]
lower = [(row_idx+1)*col_nums+col_idx-1,(row_idx+1)*col_nums+col_idx,(row_idx+1)*col_nums+col_idx+1]
return [upper,middle,lower]
Assume you have an (10,8) array, and half_k is 1
test = np.linspace(1,80,80).reshape(10,8)*2
mask = np.linspace(0,79,80).reshape(10,8)[1:-1,1:-1].ravel().astype(np.int)
in which the indices in mask are allowed, then you can create an array of indices of the patches
patches_inds = np.array([get_patch_idx(ind,test.shape,1) for ind in mask])
with this patches_inds, patches of the original array test can be sliced with np.take
patches = np.take(test,patches_inds)
This will bypass for loop efficiently.
I have some code for calculating missing values in an image, based on neighbouring values in a 2D circular window. It also uses the values from one or more temporally-adjacent images at the same locations (i.e. the same 2D window shifted in the 3rd dimension).
For each position that is missing, I need to calculate the value based not necessarily on all the values available in the whole window, but only on the spatially-nearest n cells that do have values (in both images / Z-axis positions), where n is some value less than the total number of cells in the 2D window.
At the minute, it's much quicker to calculate for everything in the window, because my means of sorting to get the nearest n cells with data is the slowest part of the function as it has to be repeated each time even though the distances in terms of window coordinates do not change. I'm not sure this is necessary and feel I must be able to get the sorted distances once, and then mask those in the process of only selecting available cells.
Here's my code for selecting the data to use within a window of the gap cell location:
# radius will in reality be ~100
radius = 2
y,x = np.ogrid[-radius:radius+1, -radius:radius+1]
dist = np.sqrt(x**2 + y**2)
circle_template = dist > radius
# this will in reality be a very large 3 dimensional array
# representing daily images with some gaps, indicated by 0s
dataStack = np.zeros((2,5,5))
dataStack[1] = (np.random.random(25) * 100).reshape(dist.shape)
dataStack[0] = (np.random.random(25) * 100).reshape(dist.shape)
testdata = dataStack[1]
alternatedata = dataStack[0]
random_gap_locations = (np.random.random(25) * 30).reshape(dist.shape) > testdata
testdata[random_gap_locations] = 0
testdata[radius, radius] = 0
# in reality we will go through every gap (zero) location in the data
# for each image and for each gap use slicing to get a window of
# size (radius*2+1, radius*2+1) around it from each image, with the
# gap being at the centre i.e.
# testgaplocation = [radius, radius]
# and the variables testdata, alternatedata below will refer to these
# slices
locations_to_exclude = np.logical_or(circle_template, np.logical_or
(testdata==0, alternatedata==0))
# the places that are inside the circular mask and where both images
# have data
locations_to_include = ~locations_to_exclude
number_available = np.count_nonzero(locations_to_include)
# we only want to do the interpolation calculations from the nearest n
# locations that have data available, n will be ~100 in reality
number_required = 3
available_distances = dist[locations_to_include]
available_data = testdata[locations_to_include]
available_alternates = alternatedata[locations_to_include]
if number_available > number_required:
# In this case we need to find the closest number_required of elements, based
# on distances recorded in dist, from available_data and available_alternates
# Having to repeat this argsort for each gap cell calculation is slow and feels
# like it should be avoidable
sortedDistanceIndices = available_distances.argsort(kind = 'mergesort',axis=None)
requiredIndices = sortedDistanceIndices[0:number_required]
selected_data = np.take(available_data, requiredIndices)
selected_alternates = np.take(available_alternates , requiredIndices)
else:
# we just use available_data and available_alternates as they are...
# now do stuff with the selected data to calculate a value for the gap cell
This works, but over half of the total time of the function is taken in the argsort of the masked spatial distance data. (~900uS of a total 1.4mS - and this function will be running tens of billions of times, so this is an important difference!)
I am sure that I must be able to just do this argsort once outside of the function, when the spatial distance window is originally set up, and then include those sort indices in the masking, to get the first howManyToCalculate indices without having to re-do the sort. The answer might involve putting the various bits that we are extracting from, into a record array - but I can't figure out how, if so. Can anyone see how I can make this part of the process more efficient?
So you want to do the sorting outside of the loop:
sorted_dist_idcs = dist.argsort(kind='mergesort', axis=None)
Then using some variables from the original code, this is what I could come up with, though it still feels like a major round-trip..
loc_to_incl_sorted = locations_to_include.take(sorted_dist_idcs)
sorted_dist_idcs_to_incl = sorted_dist_idcs[loc_to_incl_sorted]
required_idcs = sorted_dist_idcs_to_incl[:number_required]
selected_data = testdata.take(required_idcs)
selected_alternates = alternatedata.take(required_idcs)
Note the required_idcs refer to locations in the testdata and not available_data as in the original code. And this snippet I used take for the purpose of conveniently indexing the flattened array.
#moarningsun - thanks for the comment and answer. These got me on the right track, but don't quite work for me when the gap is < radius from the edge of the data: in this case I use a window around the gap cell which is "trimmed" to the data bounds. In this situation the indices reflect the "full" window and thus can't be used to select cells from the bounded window.
Unfortunately I edited that part of my code out when I clarified the original question but it's turned out to be relevant.
I've realised now that if you use argsort again on the output of argsort then you get ranks; i.e. the position that each item would have when the overall array was sorted. We can safely mask these and then take the smallest number_required of them (and do this on a structured array to get the corresponding data at the same time).
This implies another sort within the loop, but in fact we can use partitioning rather than a full sort, because all we need is the smallest num_required items. If num_required is substantially less than the number of data items then this is much faster than doing the argsort.
For example with num_required = 80 and num_available = 15000 the full argsort takes ~900µs whereas argpartition followed by index and slice to get the first 80 takes ~110µs. We still need to do the argsort to get the ranks at the outset (rather than just partitioning based on distance) in order to get the stability of the mergesort, and thus get the "right one" when distance is not unique.
My code as shown below now runs in ~610uS on real data, including the actual calculations that aren't shown here. I'm happy with that now, but there seem to be several other apparently minor factors that can have an influence on the runtime that's hard to understand.
For example putting the circle_template in the structured array along with dist, ranks, and another field not shown here, doubles the runtime of the overall function (even if we don't access circle_template in the loop!). Even worse, using np.partition on the structured array with order=['ranks'] increases the overall function runtime by almost two orders of magnitude vs using np.argpartition as shown below!
# radius will in reality be ~100
radius = 2
y,x = np.ogrid[-radius:radius+1, -radius:radius+1]
dist = np.sqrt(x**2 + y**2)
circle_template = dist > radius
ranks = dist.argsort(axis=None,kind='mergesort').argsort().reshape(dist.shape)
diam = radius * 2 + 1
# putting circle_template in this array too doubles overall function runtime!
fullWindowArray = np.zeros((diam,diam),dtype=[('ranks',ranks.dtype.str),
('thisdata',dayDataStack.dtype.str),
('alternatedata',dayDataStack.dtype.str),
('dist',spatialDist.dtype.str)])
fullWindowArray['ranks'] = ranks
fullWindowArray['dist'] = dist
# this will in reality be a very large 3 dimensional array
# representing daily images with some gaps, indicated by 0s
dataStack = np.zeros((2,5,5))
dataStack[1] = (np.random.random(25) * 100).reshape(dist.shape)
dataStack[0] = (np.random.random(25) * 100).reshape(dist.shape)
testdata = dataStack[1]
alternatedata = dataStack[0]
random_gap_locations = (np.random.random(25) * 30).reshape(dist.shape) > testdata
testdata[random_gap_locations] = 0
testdata[radius, radius] = 0
# in reality we will loop here to go through every gap (zero) location in the data
# for each image
gapz, gapy, gapx = 1, radius, radius
desLeft, desRight = gapx - radius, gapx + radius+1
desTop, desBottom = gapy - radius, gapy + radius+1
extentB, extentR = dataStack.shape[1:]
# handle the case where the gap is < search radius from the edge of
# the data. If this is the case, we can't use the full
# diam * diam window
dataL = max(0, desLeft)
maskL = 0 if desLeft >= 0 else abs(dataL - desLeft)
dataT = max(0, desTop)
maskT = 0 if desTop >= 0 else abs(dataT - desTop)
dataR = min(desRight, extentR)
maskR = diam if desRight <= extentR else diam - (desRight - extentR)
dataB = min(desBottom,extentB)
maskB = diam if desBottom <= extentB else diam - (desBottom - extentB)
# get the slice that we will be working within
# ranks, dist and circle are already populated
boundedWindowArray = fullWindowArray[maskT:maskB,maskL:maskR]
boundedWindowArray['alternatedata'] = alternatedata[dataT:dataB, dataL:dataR]
boundedWindowArray['thisdata'] = testdata[dataT:dataB, dataL:dataR]
locations_to_exclude = np.logical_or(boundedWindowArray['circle_template'],
np.logical_or
(boundedWindowArray['thisdata']==0,
boundedWindowArray['alternatedata']==0))
# the places that are inside the circular mask and where both images
# have data
locations_to_include = ~locations_to_exclude
number_available = np.count_nonzero(locations_to_include)
# we only want to do the interpolation calculations from the nearest n
# locations that have data available, n will be ~100 in reality
number_required = 3
data_to_use = boundedWindowArray[locations_to_include]
if number_available > number_required:
# argpartition seems to be v fast when number_required is
# substantially < data_to_use.size
# But partition on the structured array itself with order=['ranks']
# is almost 2 orders of magnitude slower!
reqIndices = np.argpartition(data_to_use['ranks'],number_required)[:number_required]
data_to_use = np.take(data_to_use,reqIndices)
else:
# we just use available_data and available_alternates as they are...
pass
# now do stuff with the selected data to calculate a value for the gap cell
I want to plot an approximation of the number "pi" which is generated by a function of two uniformly distributed random variables. The goal is to show that with a higher sample draw the function value approximates "pi".
Here is my function for pi:
def pi(n):
x = rnd.uniform(low = -1, high = 1, size = n) #n = size of draw
y = rnd.uniform(low = -1, high = 1, size = n)
a = x**2 + y**2 <= 1 #1 if rand. draw is inside the unit cirlce, else 0
ac = np.count_nonzero(a) #count 1's
af = np.float(ac) #create float for precision
pi = (af/n)*4 #compute p dependent on size of draw
return pi
My problem:
I want to create a lineplot that plots the values from pi() dependent on n.
My fist attempt was:
def pipl(n):
for i in np.arange(1,n):
plt.plot(np.arange(1,n), pi(i))
print plt.show()
pipl(100)
which returns:
ValueError: x and y must have same first dimension
My seocond guess was to start an iterator:
def y(n):
n = np.arange(1,n)
for i in n:
y = pi(i)
print y
y(1000)
which results in:
3.13165829146
3.16064257028
3.06519558676
3.19839679359
3.13913913914
so the algorithm isn't far off, however i need the output as a data type which matplotlib can read.
I read:
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/routines.array-creation.html#routines-array-creation
and tried tom implement the function like:
...
y = np.array(pi(i))
...
or
...
y = pi(i)
y = np.array(y)
...
and all the other functions that are available from the website. However, I can't seem to get my iterated y values into one that matplotlib can read.
I am fairly new to python so please be considerate with my simple request. I am really stuck here and can't seem to solve this issue by myself.
Your help is really appreciated.
You can try with this
def pipl(n):
plt.plot(np.arange(1,n), [pi(i) for i in np.arange(1,n)])
print plt.show()
pipl(100)
that give me this plot
If you want to stay with your iterable approach you can use Numpy's fromiter() to collect the results to an array. Like:
def pipl(n):
for i in np.arange(1,n):
yield pi(i)
n = 100
plt.plot(np.arange(1,n), np.fromiter(pipl(n), dtype='f32'))
But i think Numpy's vectorize would be even better in this case, it makes the resulting code much more readable (to me). With this approach you dont need the pipl function anymore.
# vectorize the function pi
pi_vec = np.vectorize(pi)
# define all n's
n = np.arange(1,101)
# and plot
plt.plot(n, pi_vec(n))
A little side note, naming a function pi which does not return a true pi seems kinda tricky to me.