We Keep Coding

nans and infs error in python for self-defined function that uses curve_fit()

I am trying to find how to use a self-defined function to obtain high order moment like h3 moment of gauss-hermite function from arrays in python. I will explain my full setup of code to help you understand this problem better.
I am creating maps of statistics (like standard deviation, h3, h4 etc) of velocity values of galaxy simulations. I have a galaxy simulation snapshot with spatial 'x_new', 'y_new' values of the stars and velocity 'vz_new' values of the stars that occupy those spatial coordinates. I have divided the x-y plane of the galaxy into cells and then allowed the velocity values of the stars to fall into the corresponding cells. Then I usually just take the standard deviation using np.std(), which is an in-built numpy function, of the array of velocity values in every cell and plot a map using those numbers.
However for obtaining h3 or h4 values, I needed to obtain a spectrum from each cell of velocity values first, then define a Gauss-Hermite function, then obtain a curve fitting of the velocity values to that Gauss-Hermite function and then obtain h3 or h4 value from that curve fit. So, I tried to define my own function, get_h3(). This is the part where I am experiencing some "NAN" errors like:ValueError: array must not contain infs or NaNs
This is the relevant part of the code I am using. :
import pynbody
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import sys
from scipy import stats
from scipy.stats import norm
import pylab as plb
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
# import plot lib
import seaborn as sns
#the galaxy spatial coordinates are stored in arrays x_new, y_new. The velocity values are stored in array v_new.
#laying a grid on the galaxy snapshot on an x-y plane
x_new = x_new // 2 + 20
y_new = y_new // 2 + 20
k=(40)
cells = [[[] for y_new in range(k)] for x_new in range(k)] #creating cells or pixels on x-y plane
#letting vz_new values to fall into the grid cells
for ycell in range(k):
for xcell in range(k):
cells[ycell][xcell] = vz_new[(y_new == ycell) & (x_new == xcell)]
for ycell in range(k):
for xcell in range(k):
this = cells[ycell][xcell]
#print(ycell, xcell, len(this), this, sep='\t')
#Define function to get h3 value from velocity arrays in every cell. This will involve nested functions.
#We will take the velocity array and create a spectrum using plt.hist to get velocity values and corresponding frequencies.
def get_h3(dataV):
counts, binz, bars = plt.hist(dataV, density=True, bins=150)
x_h = binz[:-1]
y_h = counts
n = len(x_h)
mean = sum(x_h * y_h) / n
sigma = sum(y_h * (x_h - mean)**2) / n
# Let's define the Gauss-Hermite function
#a=amplitude, x0=location of peak, sig=std dev, h3, h4
def gh_func(x_h, a, x0, sig, h3, h4):
return (
a * np.exp(-0.5 * ( (x_h - x0) / sig )**2) *
(
1 +
h3 * (
((x_h - x0) / sig)**1 + (-np.sqrt(3)) +
((x_h - x0) / sig)**3 * (2 / np.sqrt(3))
) +
h4 * (
(np.sqrt(6) / 4) +
((x_h - x0) / sig)**2 * (-np.sqrt(6)) +
((x_h - x0) / sig)**4 * (np.sqrt(6) / 3)
)
)
)
popt, pcov = curve_fit(
gh_func, x_h, y_h,
p0=( np.max(y_h), mean, sigma, 0, 0 ), maxfev=5000
) #i'm taking h3=0 and h4=0 as guesses
return popt[3] #this popt[3] is our h3 value
####-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#getting h3 from velocity values in each cell-I THINK THIS IS WHERE THE MAIN ISSUE IS.
h3 = [[[] for y_new in range(k)] for x_new in range(k)]
#cells[ycell][xcell]=
for ycell in range(k):
for xcell in range(k):
#cells[ycell][xcell] = np.array(vz_new[(y_new == ycell) & (x_new == xcell)],dtype=object)
cells[ycell][xcell] = vz_new[(y_new == ycell) & (x_new == xcell)]
# QUESTION: is there a way to replace invalid nans or infs with 0 for this next part?
h3[ycell][xcell] = get_h3(cells[ycell][xcell])
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
# heatmap
ax=sns.heatmap(h3, cmap='RdBu')
ax.invert_yaxis()
#plt.savefig('spec_heatmap_150bins_15deg_trial7.png')
plt.show()
Can someone help me understand how to handle these errors or define a function that could ignore nan and infs values? My experience with programming is not extensive, so apologies if anything is unclear. Let me know and I will further clarify. Thanks a lot.

Planetary orbit shown as linear graph using rk4

I am trying to simulate the orbit of a planet around a star using the Runge-Kutta 4 method. After speaking to tutors my code should be correct. However, I am not generating my expected 2D orbital plot but instead a linear plot. This is my first time using solve_ivp to solve a second order differential. Can anyone explain why my plots are wrong?
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
# %% Define derivative function
def f(t, z):
x = z[0] # Position x
y = z[1] # Position y
dx = z[2] # Velocity x
dy = z[3] # Velocity y
G = 6.674 * 10**-11 # Gravitational constant
M = 2 # Mass of binary stars in solar masses
c = 2*G*M
r = np.sqrt(y**2 + x**2) # Distance of planet from stars
zdot = np.empty(6) # Array for integration solutions
zdot[0] = x
zdot[1] = y
zdot[2] = dx # Velocity x
zdot[3] = dy #Velocity y
zdot[4] = (-c/(r**3))*(x) # Acceleration x
zdot[5] = (-c/(r**3))*(y) # Acceleration y
return zdot
# %% Define time spans, initial values, and constants
tspan = np.linspace(0., 10000., 100000000)
xy0 = [0.03, -0.2, 0.008, 0.046, 0.2, 0.3] # Initial positions x,y in R and velocities
# %% Solve differential equation
sol = solve_ivp(lambda t, z: f(t, z), [tspan[0], tspan[-1]], xy0, t_eval=tspan)
# %% Plot
#plot
plt.grid()
plt.subplot(2, 2, 1)
plt.plot(sol.y[0],sol.y[1], color='b')
plt.subplot(2, 2, 2)
plt.plot(sol.t,sol.y[2], color='g')
plt.subplot(2, 2, 3)
plt.plot(sol.t,sol.y[4], color='r')
plt.show()

With the ODE function as given, you are solving in the first components the system
xdot = x
ydot = y
which has well-known exponential solutions. As the exponential factor is the same long both solutions, the xy-plot will move along a line through the origin.
The solution is of course to fill zdot[0:2] with dx,dy, and zdot[2:4] with ax,ay or ddx,ddy or however you want to name the components of the acceleration. Then the initial state also has only 4 components. Or you need to make and treat position and velocity as 3-dimensional.
You need to put units to your constants and care that all use the same units. G as cited is in m^3/kg/s^2, so that any M you define will be in kg, any length is in m and any velocity in m/s. Your constants might appear ridiculously small in that context.
It does not matter what the comment in the code says, there will be no magical conversion. You need to use actual conversion computations to get realistic numbers. For instance using the numbers
G = 6.67408e-11 # m^3 s^-2 kg^-1
AU = 149.597e9 # m
Msun = 1.988435e30 # kg
hour = 60*60 # seconds in an hour
day = hour * 24 # seconds in one day
year = 365.25*day # seconds in a year (not very astronomical)
one could guess that for a sensible binary system of two stars of equal mass one has
M = 2*Msun # now actually 2 sun masses
x0 = 0.03*AU
y0 = -0.2*AU
vx0 = 0.008*AU/day
vy0 = 0.046*AU/day
For the position only AU makes sense as unit, the speed could also be in AU/hour. By https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4033996/developing-keplers-first-law and Cannot get RK4 to solve for position of orbiting body in Python the speed for a circular orbit of radius R=0.2AU around a combined mass of 2*M is
sqrt(2*M*G/R)=sqrt(4*Msun*G/(0.2*AU)) = 0.00320 * AU/hour = 0.07693 AU/day
which is ... not too unreasonable if the given speeds are actually in AU/day. Invoke the computations from https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4050575/application-of-the-principle-of-conservation to compute if the Kepler ellipse would look sensible
r0 = (x0**2+y0**2)**0.5
dotr0 = (x0*vx0+y0*vy0)/r0
L = x0*vy0-y0*vx0 # r^2*dotphi = L constant, L^2 = G*M_center*R
dotphi0 = L/r0**2
R = L**2/(G*2*M)
wx = R/r0-1; wy = -dotr0*(R/(G*2*M))**0.5
E = (wx*wx+wy*wy)**0.5; psi = m.atan2(wy,wx)
print(f"half-axis R={R/AU} AU, eccentr. E={E}, init. angle psi={psi}")
print(f"min. rad. = {R/(1+E)/AU} AU, max. rad. = {R/(1-E)/AU} AU")
which returns
half-axis R=0.00750258 AU, eccentr. E=0.96934113, init. angle psi=3.02626659
min. rad. = 0.00380969 AU, max. rad. = 0.24471174 AU
This gives an extremely thin ellipse, which is not that astonishing as the initial velocity points almost directly to the gravity center.
orbit variants with half-day steps marked, lengths in AU
If the velocity components were swapped one would get
half-axis R=0.07528741 AU, eccentr. E=0.62778767, init. angle psi=3.12777251
min. rad. = 0.04625137 AU, max. rad. = 0.20227006 AU
This is a little more balanced.

Two dimensional FFT using python results in slightly shifted frequency

I know there have been several questions about using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method in python, but unfortunately none of them could help me with my problem:
I want to use python to calculate the Fast Fourier Transform of a given two dimensional signal f, i.e. f(x,y). Pythons documentation helps a lot, solving a few issues, which the FFT brings with it, but i still end up with a slightly shifted frequency compared to the frequency i expect it to show. Here is my python code:
from scipy.fftpack import fft, fftfreq, fftshift
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import math
fq = 3.0 # frequency of signal to be sampled
N = 100.0 # Number of sample points within interval, on which signal is considered
x = np.linspace(0, 2.0 * np.pi, N) # creating equally spaced vector from 0 to 2pi, with spacing 2pi/N
y = x
xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x, y) # create 2D meshgrid
fnc = np.sin(2 * np.pi * fq * xx) # create a signal, which is simply a sine function with frequency fq = 3.0, modulating the x(!) direction
ft = np.fft.fft2(fnc) # calculating the fft coefficients
dx = x[1] - x[0] # spacing in x (and also y) direction (real space)
sampleFrequency = 2.0 * np.pi / dx
nyquisitFrequency = sampleFrequency / 2.0
freq_x = np.fft.fftfreq(ft.shape[0], d = dx) # return the DFT sample frequencies
freq_y = np.fft.fftfreq(ft.shape[1], d = dx)
freq_x = np.fft.fftshift(freq_x) # order sample frequencies, such that 0-th frequency is at center of spectrum
freq_y = np.fft.fftshift(freq_y)
half = len(ft) / 2 + 1 # calculate half of spectrum length, in order to only show positive frequencies
plt.imshow(
2 * abs(ft[:half,:half]) / half,
aspect = 'auto',
extent = (0, freq_x.max(), 0, freq_y.max()),
origin = 'lower',
interpolation = 'nearest',
)
plt.grid()
plt.colorbar()
plt.show()
And what i get out of this when running it, is:
Now you see that the frequency in x direction is not exactly at fq = 3, but slightly shifted to the left. Why is this?
I would assume that is has to do with the fact, that FFT is an algorithm using symmetry arguments and
half = len(ft) / 2 + 1
is used to show the frequencies at the proper place. But I don't quite understand what the exact problem is and how to fix it.
Edit: I have also tried using a higher sampling frequency (N = 10000.0), which did not solve the issue, but instead shifted the frequency slightly too far to the right. So i am pretty sure that the problem is not the sampling frequency.
Note: I'm aware of the fact, that the leakage effect leads to unphysical amplitudes here, but in this post I am primarily interested in the correct frequencies.

I found a number of issues
you use 2 * np.pi twice, you should choose one of either linspace or the arg to sine as radians if you want a nice integer number of cycles
additionally np.linspace defaults to endpoint=True, giving you an extra point for 101 instead of 100
fq = 3.0 # frequency of signal to be sampled
N = 100 # Number of sample points within interval, on which signal is considered
x = np.linspace(0, 1, N, endpoint=False) # creating equally spaced vector from 0 to 2pi, with spacing 2pi/N
y = x
xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x, y) # create 2D meshgrid
fnc = np.sin(2 * np.pi * fq * xx) # create a signal, which is simply a sine function with frequency fq = 3.0, modulating the x(!) direction
you can check these issues:
len(x)
Out[228]: 100
plt.plot(fnc[0])
fixing the linspace endpoint now means you have an even number of fft bins so you drop the + 1 in the half calc
matshow() appears to have better defaults, your extent = (0, freq_x.max(), 0, freq_y.max()), in imshow appears to fubar the fft bin numbering
from scipy.fftpack import fft, fftfreq, fftshift
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import math
fq = 3.0 # frequency of signal to be sampled
N = 100 # Number of sample points within interval, on which signal is considered
x = np.linspace(0, 1, N, endpoint=False) # creating equally spaced vector from 0 to 2pi, with spacing 2pi/N
y = x
xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x, y) # create 2D meshgrid
fnc = np.sin(2 * np.pi * fq * xx) # create a signal, which is simply a sine function with frequency fq = 3.0, modulating the x(!) direction
plt.plot(fnc[0])
ft = np.fft.fft2(fnc) # calculating the fft coefficients
#dx = x[1] - x[0] # spacing in x (and also y) direction (real space)
#sampleFrequency = 2.0 * np.pi / dx
#nyquisitFrequency = sampleFrequency / 2.0
#
#freq_x = np.fft.fftfreq(ft.shape[0], d=dx) # return the DFT sample frequencies
#freq_y = np.fft.fftfreq(ft.shape[1], d=dx)
#
#freq_x = np.fft.fftshift(freq_x) # order sample frequencies, such that 0-th frequency is at center of spectrum
#freq_y = np.fft.fftshift(freq_y)
half = len(ft) // 2 # calculate half of spectrum length, in order to only show positive frequencies
plt.matshow(
2 * abs(ft[:half, :half]) / half,
aspect='auto',
origin='lower'
)
plt.grid()
plt.colorbar()
plt.show()
zoomed the plot:

Rotating 1D numpy array of radial intensities into 2D array of spacial intensities

I have a numpy array filled with intensity readings at different radii in a uniform circle (for context, this is a 1D radiative transfer project for protostellar formation models: while much better models exist, my supervisor wasnts me to have the experience of producing one so I understand how others work).
I want to take that 1d array, and "rotate" it through a circle, forming a 2D array of intensities that could then be shown with imshow (or, with a bit of work, aplpy). The final array needs to be 2d, and the projection needs to be Cartesian, not polar.
I can do it with nested for loops, and I can do it with lookup tables, but I have a feeling there must be a neat way of doing it in numpy or something.
Any ideas?
EDIT:
I have had to go back and recreate my (frankly horrible) mess of for loops and if statements that I had before. If I really tried, I could probably get rid of one of the loops and one of the if statements by condensing things down. However, the aim is not to make it work with for loops, but see if there is a built in way to rotate the array.
impB is an array that differs slightly from what I stated it was before. Its actually just a list of radii where particles are detected. I then bin those into radius bins to get the intensity (or frequency if you prefer) in each radius. R is the scale factor for my radius as I run the model in a dimensionless way. iRes is a resolution scale factor, essentially how often I want to sample my radial bins. Everything else should be clear.
radJ = np.ndarray(shape=(2*iRes, 2*iRes)) # Create array of 2xRadius square
for i in range(iRes):
n = len(impB[np.where(impB[:] < ((i+1.) * (R / iRes)))]) # Count number of things within this radius +1
m = len(impB[np.where(impB[:] <= ((i) * (R / iRes)))]) # Count number of things in this radius
a = (((i + 1) * (R / iRes))**2 - ((i) * (R / iRes))**2) * math.pi # A normalisation factor based on area.....dont ask
for x in range(iRes):
for y in range(iRes):
if (x**2 + y**2) < (i * iRes)**2:
if (x**2 + y**2) >= (i * iRes)**2: # Checks for radius, and puts in cartesian space
radJ[x+iRes,y+iRes] = (n-m) / a # Put in actual intensity bins
radJ[x+iRes,-y+iRes] = (n-m) / a
radJ[-x+iRes,y+iRes] = (n-m) / a
radJ[-x+iRes,-y+iRes] = (n-m) / a

Nested loops are a simple approach for that. With ri_data_r and y containing your radius values (difference to the middle pixel) and the array for rotation, respectively, I would suggest:
from scipy import interpolate
import numpy as np
y = np.random.rand(100)
ri_data_r = np.linspace(-len(y)/2,len(y)/2,len(y))
interpol_index = interpolate.interp1d(ri_data_r, y)
xv = np.arange(-1, 1, 0.01) # adjust your matrix values here
X, Y = np.meshgrid(xv, xv)
profilegrid = np.ones(X.shape, float)
for i, x in enumerate(X[0, :]):
for k, y in enumerate(Y[:, 0]):
current_radius = np.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2)
profilegrid[i, k] = interpol_index(current_radius)
print(profilegrid)
This will give you exactly what you are looking for. You just have to take in your array and calculate an symmetric array ri_data_r that has the same length as your data array and contains the distance between the actual data and the middle of the array. The code is doing this automatically.

I stumbled upon this question in a different context and I hope I understood it right. Here are two other ways of doing this. The first uses skimage.transform.warp with interpolation of desired order (here we use order=0 Nearest-neighbor). This method is slower but more precise and needs less memory then the second method.
The second one does not use interpolation, therefore is faster but also less precise and needs way more memory because it stores each 2D array containing one tilt until the end, where they are averaged with np.nanmean().
The difference between both solutions stemmed from the problem of handling the center of the final image where the tilts overlap the most, i.e. the first one would just add values with each tilt ending up out of the original range. This was "solved" by clipping the matrix in each step to a global_min and global_max (consult the code). The second one solves it by taking the mean of the tilts where they overlap, which forces us to use the np.nan.
Please, read the Example of usage and Sanity check sections in order to understand the plot titles.
Solution 1:
import numpy as np
from skimage.transform import warp
def rotate_vector(vector, deg_angle):
# Credit goes to skimage.transform.radon
assert vector.ndim == 1, 'Pass only 1D vectors, e.g. use array.ravel()'
center = vector.size // 2
square = np.zeros((vector.size, vector.size))
square[center,:] = vector
rad_angle = np.deg2rad(deg_angle)
cos_a, sin_a = np.cos(rad_angle), np.sin(rad_angle)
R = np.array([[cos_a, sin_a, -center * (cos_a + sin_a - 1)],
[-sin_a, cos_a, -center * (cos_a - sin_a - 1)],
[0, 0, 1]])
# Approx. 80% of time is spent in this function
return warp(square, R, clip=False, output_shape=((vector.size, vector.size)))
def place_vectors(vectors, deg_angles):
matrix = np.zeros((vectors.shape[-1], vectors.shape[-1]))
global_min, global_max = 0, 0
for i, deg_angle in enumerate(deg_angles):
tilt = rotate_vector(vectors[i], deg_angle)
global_min = tilt.min() if global_min > tilt.min() else global_min
global_max = tilt.max() if global_max < tilt.max() else global_max
matrix += tilt
matrix = np.clip(matrix, global_min, global_max)
return matrix
Solution 2:
Credit for the idea goes to my colleague Michael Scherbela.
import numpy as np
def rotate_vector(vector, deg_angle):
assert vector.ndim == 1, 'Pass only 1D vectors, e.g. use array.ravel()'
square = np.ones([vector.size, vector.size]) * np.nan
radius = vector.size // 2
r_values = np.linspace(-radius, radius, vector.size)
rad_angle = np.deg2rad(deg_angle)
ind_x = np.round(np.cos(rad_angle) * r_values + vector.size/2).astype(np.int)
ind_y = np.round(np.sin(rad_angle) * r_values + vector.size/2).astype(np.int)
ind_x = np.clip(ind_x, 0, vector.size-1)
ind_y = np.clip(ind_y, 0, vector.size-1)
square[ind_y, ind_x] = vector
return square
def place_vectors(vectors, deg_angles):
matrices = []
for deg_angle, vector in zip(deg_angles, vectors):
matrices.append(rotate_vector(vector, deg_angle))
matrix = np.nanmean(np.array(matrices), axis=0)
return np.nan_to_num(matrix, copy=False, nan=0.0)
Example of usage:
r = 100 # Radius of the circle, i.e. half the length of the vector
n = int(np.pi * r / 8) # Number of vectors, e.g. number of tilts in tomography
v = np.ones(2*r) # One vector, e.g. one tilt in tomography
V = np.array([v]*n) # All vectors, e.g. a sinogram in tomography
# Rotate 1D vector to a specific angle (output is 2D)
angle = 45
rotated = rotate_vector(v, angle)
# Rotate each row of a 2D array according to its angle (output is 2D)
angles = np.linspace(-90, 90, num=n, endpoint=False)
inplace = place_vectors(V, angles)
Sanity check:
These are just simple checks which by no means cover all possible edge cases. Depending on your use case you might want to extend the checks and adjust the method.
# I. Sanity check
# Assuming n <= πr and v = np.ones(2r)
# Then sum(inplace) should be approx. equal to (n * (2πr - n)) / π
# which is an area that should be covered by the tilts
desired_area = (n * (2 * np.pi * r - n)) / np.pi
covered_area = np.sum(inplace)
covered_frac = covered_area / desired_area
print(f'This method covered {covered_frac * 100:.2f}% '
'of the area which should be covered in total.')
# II. Sanity check
# Assuming n <= πr and v = np.ones(2r)
# Then a circle M with radius m <= r should be the largest circle which
# is fully covered by the vectors. I.e. its mean should be no less than 1.
# If n = πr then m = r.
# m = n / π
m = int(n / np.pi)
# Code for circular mask not included
mask = create_circular_mask(2*r, 2*r, center=None, radius=m)
m_area = np.mean(inplace[mask])
print(f'Full radius r={r}, radius m={m}, mean(M)={m_area:.4f}.')
Code for plotting:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.figure(figsize=(16, 8))
plt.subplot(121)
rotated = np.nan_to_num(rotated) # not necessary in case of the first method
plt.title(
f'Output of rotate_vector(), angle={angle}°\n'
f'Sum is {np.sum(rotated):.2f} and should be {np.sum(v):.2f}')
plt.imshow(rotated, cmap=plt.cm.Greys_r)
plt.subplot(122)
plt.title(
f'Output of place_vectors(), r={r}, n={n}\n'
f'Covered {covered_frac * 100:.2f}% of the area which should be covered.\n'
f'Mean of the circle M is {m_area:.4f} and should be 1.0.')
plt.imshow(inplace)
circle=plt.Circle((r, r), m, color='r', fill=False)
plt.gcf().gca().add_artist(circle)
plt.gcf().gca().legend([circle], [f'Circle M (m={m})'])

Find time shift of two signals using cross correlation

I have two signals which are related to each other and have been captured by two different measurement devices simultaneously.
Since the two measurements are not time synchronized there is a small time delay between them which I want to calculate. Additionally, I need to know which signal is the leading one.
The following can be assumed:
no or only very less noise present
speed of the algorithm is not an issue, only accuracy and robustness
signals are captured with an high sampling rate (>10 kHz) for several seconds
expected time delay is < 0.5s
I though of using-cross correlation for that purpose.
Any suggestions how to implement that in Python are very appreciated.
Please let me know if I should provide more information in order to find the most suitable algorithmn.

A popular approach: timeshift is the lag corresponding to the maximum cross-correlation coefficient. Here is how it works with an example:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy import signal
import numpy as np
def lag_finder(y1, y2, sr):
n = len(y1)
corr = signal.correlate(y2, y1, mode='same') / np.sqrt(signal.correlate(y1, y1, mode='same')[int(n/2)] * signal.correlate(y2, y2, mode='same')[int(n/2)])
delay_arr = np.linspace(-0.5*n/sr, 0.5*n/sr, n)
delay = delay_arr[np.argmax(corr)]
print('y2 is ' + str(delay) + ' behind y1')
plt.figure()
plt.plot(delay_arr, corr)
plt.title('Lag: ' + str(np.round(delay, 3)) + ' s')
plt.xlabel('Lag')
plt.ylabel('Correlation coeff')
plt.show()
# Sine sample with some noise and copy to y1 and y2 with a 1-second lag
sr = 1024
y = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, sr)
y = np.tile(np.sin(y), 5)
y += np.random.normal(0, 5, y.shape)
y1 = y[sr:4*sr]
y2 = y[:3*sr]
lag_finder(y1, y2, sr)
In the case of noisy signals, it is common to apply band-pass filters first. In the case of harmonic noise, they can be removed by identifying and removing frequency spikes present in the frequency spectrum.

Numpy has function correlate which suits your needs: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.correlate.html

To complement Reveille's answer above (I reproduce his algorithm), I would like to point out some ideas for preprocessing the input signals.
Since there seems to be no fit-for-all (duration in periods, resolution, offset, noise, signal type, ...) you may play with it.
In my example the application of a window function improves the detected phase shift (within resolution of the discretization).
import numpy as np
from scipy import signal
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
r2d = 180.0/np.pi # conversion factor RAD-to-DEG
delta_phi_true = 50.0/r2d
def detect_phase_shift(t, x, y):
'''detect phase shift between two signals from cross correlation maximum'''
N = len(t)
L = t[-1] - t[0]
cc = signal.correlate(x, y, mode="same")
i_max = np.argmax(cc)
phi_shift = np.linspace(-0.5*L, 0.5*L , N)
delta_phi = phi_shift[i_max]
print("true delta phi = {} DEG".format(delta_phi_true*r2d))
print("detected delta phi = {} DEG".format(delta_phi*r2d))
print("error = {} DEG resolution for comparison dphi = {} DEG".format((delta_phi-delta_phi_true)*r2d, dphi*r2d))
print("ratio = {}".format(delta_phi/delta_phi_true))
return delta_phi
L = np.pi*10+2 # interval length [RAD], for generality not multiple period
N = 1001 # interval division, odd number is better (center is integer)
noise_intensity = 0.0
X = 0.5 # amplitude of first signal..
Y = 2.0 # ..and second signal
phi = np.linspace(0, L, N)
dphi = phi[1] - phi[0]
'''generate signals'''
nx = noise_intensity*np.random.randn(N)*np.sqrt(dphi)
ny = noise_intensity*np.random.randn(N)*np.sqrt(dphi)
x_raw = X*np.sin(phi) + nx
y_raw = Y*np.sin(phi+delta_phi_true) + ny
'''preprocessing signals'''
x = x_raw.copy()
y = y_raw.copy()
window = signal.windows.hann(N) # Hanning window
#x -= np.mean(x) # zero mean
#y -= np.mean(y) # zero mean
#x /= np.std(x) # scale
#y /= np.std(y) # scale
x *= window # reduce effect of finite length
y *= window # reduce effect of finite length
print(" -- using raw data -- ")
delta_phi_raw = detect_phase_shift(phi, x_raw, y_raw)
print(" -- using preprocessed data -- ")
delta_phi_preprocessed = detect_phase_shift(phi, x, y)
Without noise (to be deterministic) the output is
-- using raw data --
true delta phi = 50.0 DEG
detected delta phi = 47.864788975654 DEG
...
-- using preprocessed data --
true delta phi = 50.0 DEG
detected delta phi = 49.77938053468019 DEG
...

Numpy has a useful function, called correlation_lags for this, which uses the underlying correlate function mentioned by other answers to find the time lag. The example displayed at the bottom of that page is useful:
from scipy import signal
from numpy.random import default_rng
rng = default_rng()
x = rng.standard_normal(1000)
y = np.concatenate([rng.standard_normal(100), x])
correlation = signal.correlate(x, y, mode="full")
lags = signal.correlation_lags(x.size, y.size, mode="full")
lag = lags[np.argmax(correlation)]
Then lag would be -100