Related
Goal
I would like to compute the 3D volume integral of a numeric scalar field.
Code
For this post, I will use an example of which the integral can be exactly computed. I have therefore chosen the following function:
In Python, I define the function, and a set of points in 3D, and then generate the discrete values at these points:
import numpy as np
# Make data.
def function(x, y, z):
return x**y**z
N = 5
grid = np.meshgrid(
np.linspace(0, 1, N),
np.linspace(0, 1, N),
np.linspace(0, 1, N)
)
points = np.vstack(list(map(np.ravel, grid))).T
x = points[:, 0]
y = points[:, 1]
z = points[:, 2]
values = [function(points[i, 0], points[i, 1], points[i, 2])
for i in range(len(points))]
Question
How can I find the integral, if I don't know the underlying function, i.e. if I only have the coordinates (x, y, z) and the values?
A nice way to go about this would be using scipy's tplquad integration. However, to use that, we need a function and not a cloud point.
An easy way around that is to use an interpolator, to get a function approximating our cloud point - we can for example use scipy's RegularGridInterpolator if the data is on a regular grid:
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from scipy.interpolate import RegularGridInterpolator
# Make data.
def function(x,y,z):
return x*y*z
N = 5
xmin, xmax = 0, 1
ymin, ymax = 0, 1
zmin, zmax = 0, 1
x = np.linspace(xmin, xmax, N)
y = np.linspace(ymin, ymax, N)
z = np.linspace(zmin, zmax, N)
values = function(*np.meshgrid(x,y,z, indexing='ij'))
# Interpolate:
function_interpolated = RegularGridInterpolator((x, y, z), values)
# tplquad integrates func(z,y,x)
f = lambda z,y,x : my_interpolating_function([z,y,x])
result, error = integrate.tplquad(f, xmin, xmax, lambda _: ymin, lambda _:ymax,lambda *_: zmin, lambda *_: zmax)
In the example above, we get result = 0.12499999999999999 - close enough!
The easiest way to achieve what you are looking for is probably scipy's integration function. Here your example:
from scipy import integrate
# Make data.
def func(x,y,z):
return x**y**z
ranges = [[0,1], [0,1], [0,1]]
result, error = integrate.nquad(func, ranges)
Are you aware that the function that you created is different from the one that you show in the image. The one you created is an exponential (x^y^z) while the one that you are showing is just multiplications. If you want to represent the function in the image, use
def func(x,y,z):
return x*y*z
Hope this answers your question, otherwise just write a comment!
Edit:
Misread your post. If you only have the results, and they are not regularly spaced, you would have to figure out some form of interpolation (i.e. linear) and a lookup-table. If you do not know how to create that, let me know. The rest of the stated answer could still be used if you define func to return interpolated values from your original data
The first answer explains nicely the principal approach to handle this. Just wanted to illustrate an alternative way by showing the power of sklearn package and machine learning regression.
Doing the meshgrid in 3D gives a very large numpy array,
import numpy as np
N = 5
xmin, xmax = 0, 1
ymin, ymax = 0, 1
zmin, zmax = 0, 1
x = np.linspace(xmin, xmax, N)
y = np.linspace(ymin, ymax, N)
z = np.linspace(zmin, zmax, N)
grid = np.array(np.meshgrid(x,y,z, indexing='ij'))
grid.shape = (3, 5, 5, 5) # 2*5*5*5 = 250 numbers
Which is visually not very intuitive with 250 numbers. With different possible indexing ('ij' or 'xy'). Using regression we can get the same result with few input points (15-20).
# building random combinations from (x,y,z)
X = np.random.choice(x, 20)[:,None]
Y = np.random.choice(y, 20)[:,None]
Z = np.random.choice(z, 20)[:,None]
xyz = np.concatenate((X,Y,Z), axis = 1)
data = np.multiply.reduce(xyz, axis = 1)
So the input (grid) is just a 2D numpy array,
xyz.shape
(20, 3)
With the corresponding data,
data.shape = (20,)
Now the regression function and integration,
from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from scipy import integrate
pipe=Pipeline([('polynomial',PolynomialFeatures(degree=3)),('modal',LinearRegression())])
pipe.fit(xyz, data)
def func(x,y,z):
return pipe.predict([[x, y, z]])
ranges = [[0,1], [0,1], [0,1]]
result, error = integrate.nquad(func, ranges)
print(result)
0.1257
This approach is useful with limited number of points.
Based on your requirements, it sounds like the most appropriate technique would be Monte Carlo integration:
# Step 0 start with some empirical data
observed_points = np.random.uniform(0,1,size=(10000,3))
unknown_fn = lambda x: np.prod(x) # just used to generate fake values
observed_values = np.apply_along_axis(unknown_fn, 1, observed_points)
K = 1000000
# Step 1 - assume that f(x,y,z) can be approximated by an interpolation
# of the data we have (you could get really fancy with the
# selection of interpolation method - we'll stick with straight lines here)
from scipy.interpolate import LinearNDInterpolator
f_interpolate = LinearNDInterpolator(observed_points, observed_values)
# Step 2 randomly sample from within convex hull of observed data
# Step 2a - Uniformly sample from bounding 3D-box of data
lower_bounds = observed_points.min(axis=0)
upper_bounds = observed_points.max(axis=0)
sampled_points = np.random.uniform(lower_bounds, upper_bounds,size=(K, 3))
# Step 2b - Reject points outside of convex hull...
# Luckily, we get a np.nan from LinearNDInterpolator in this case
sampled_values = f_interpolate(sampled_points)
rejected_idxs = np.argwhere(np.isnan(sampled_values))
# Step 2c - Remember accepted values of estimated f(x_i, y_i, z_i)
final_sampled_values = np.delete(sampled_values, rejected_idxs, axis=0)
# Step 3 - Calculate estimate of volume of observed data domain
# Since we sampled uniformly from the convex hull of data domain,
# each point was selected with P(x,y,z)= 1 / Volume of convex hull
volume = scipy.spatial.ConvexHull(observed_points).volume
# Step 4 - Multiply estimated volume of domain by average sampled value
I_hat = volume * final_sampled_values.mean()
print(I_hat)
For a derivation of why this works see this: https://cs.dartmouth.edu/wjarosz/publications/dissertation/appendixA.pdf
From https://stackoverflow.com/a/30460089/2202107, we can generate CDF of a normal distribution:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
N = 100
Z = np.random.normal(size = N)
# method 1
H,X1 = np.histogram( Z, bins = 10, normed = True )
dx = X1[1] - X1[0]
F1 = np.cumsum(H)*dx
#method 2
X2 = np.sort(Z)
F2 = np.array(range(N))/float(N)
# plt.plot(X1[1:], F1)
plt.plot(X2, F2)
plt.show()
Question: How do we generate the "original" normal distribution, given only x (eg X2) and y (eg F2) coordinates?
My first thought was plt.plot(x,np.gradient(y)), but gradient of y was all zero (data points are evenly spaced in y, but not in x) These kind of data is often met in percentile calculations. The key is to get the data evenly space in x and not in y, using interpolation:
x=X2
y=F2
num_points=10
xinterp = np.linspace(-2,2,num_points)
yinterp = np.interp(xinterp, x, y)
# for normalizing that sum of all bars equals to 1.0
tot_val=1.0
normalization_factor = tot_val/np.trapz(np.ones(len(xinterp)),yinterp)
plt.bar(xinterp, normalization_factor * np.gradient(yinterp), width=0.2)
plt.show()
output looks good to me:
I put my approach here for examination. Let me know if my logic is flawed.
One issue is: when num_points is large, the plot looks bad, but it's a issue in discretization, not sure how to avoid it.
Related posts:
I failed to understand why the answer was so complicated in https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/6065/131632
I also didn't understand why my approach was different than Generate distribution given percentile ranks
Usually I use Scipy.optimize.curve_fit to fit custom functions to data.
Data in this case was always a 1 dimensional array.
Is there a similiar function for a two dimensional array?
So, for example, I have a 10x10 numpy array. Then I have a function that does some stuff and creates a 10x10 numpy array, and I want to fit the function, so that the resulting 10x10 array has the best fit to the input array.
Maybe an example is better :)
data = pyfits.getdata('data.fits') #fits is an image format, this gives me a NxM numpy array
mod1 = pyfits.getdata('mod1.fits')
mod2 = pyfits.getdata('mod2.fits')
mod3 = pyfits.getdata('mod3.fits')
mod1_1D = numpy.ravel(mod1)
mod2_1D = numpy.ravel(mod2)
mod3_1D = numpy.ravel(mod3)
def dostuff(a,b): #originaly this is a function for 2D arrays
newdata = (mod1_1D*12)+(mod2_1D)**a - mod3_1D/b
return newdata
Now a and b should be fitted, so that newdata is as close as possible to data.
What I got so far:
data1D = numpy.ravel(data)
data_X = numpy.arange(data1D.size)
fit = curve_fit(dostuff,data_X,data1D)
But print fit only gives me
(array([ 1.]), inf)
I do have some nans in the arrays, maybe thats a problem?
The goal is to express the 2D function as a 1D function: g(x, y, ...) --> f(xy, ...)
Converting the coordinate pair (x, y) into a single number xy may seem tricky at first. But it's actually quite simple. Just enumerate all data points and you have a single number that uniquely defines each coordinate pair. The fitted function simply has to reconstruct the original coordinates, do it's calculations and return the result.
Example that fits a 2D linear gradient in a 20x10 image:
import scipy as sp
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
n, m = 10, 20
# noisy example data
x = np.arange(m).reshape(1, m)
y = np.arange(n).reshape(n, 1)
z = x + y * 2 + np.random.randn(n, m) * 3
def f(xy, a, b):
i = xy // m # reconstruct y coordinates
j = xy % m # reconstruct x coordinates
out = i * a + j * b
return out
xy = np.arange(z.size) # 0 is the top left pixel and 199 is the top right pixel
res = sp.optimize.curve_fit(f, xy, np.ravel(z))
z_est = f(xy, *res[0])
z_est2d = z_est.reshape(n, m)
plt.subplot(2, 1, 1)
plt.plot(np.ravel(z), label='original')
plt.plot(z_est, label='fitted')
plt.legend()
plt.subplot(2, 2, 3)
plt.imshow(z)
plt.xlabel('original')
plt.subplot(2, 2, 4)
plt.imshow(z_est2d)
plt.xlabel('fitted')
I would recommend using symfit for this, I wrote that to take care of all of the magic for you automatically.
In symfit you would just write the equation pretty much as you would on paper, and then you can run the fit.
I would do something like this:
from symfit import parameters, variables, Fit
# Assuming all this data is in the form of NxM arrays
data = pyfits.getdata('data.fits')
mod1 = pyfits.getdata('mod1.fits')
mod2 = pyfits.getdata('mod2.fits')
mod3 = pyfits.getdata('mod3.fits')
a, b = parameters('a, b')
x, y, z, u = variables('x, y, z, u')
model = {u: (x * 12) + y**a - z / b}
fit = Fit(model, x=mod1, y=mod2, z=mod3, u=data)
fit_result = fit.execute()
print(fit_result)
Unfortunatelly I have not yet included examples of the kind you need in the docs yet, but if you just look at the docs I think you can figure it out in case this doesn't work out of the box.
Lets say I have a path in a 2d-plane given by a parametrization, for example the archimedian spiral:
x(t) = a*φ*cos(φ), y(t) = a*φ*sin(φ)
Im looking for a way to discretize this with a numpy array,
the problem is if I use
a = 1
phi = np.arange(0, 10*np.pi, 0.1)
x = a*phi*np.cos(phi)
y = a*phi*np.sin(phi)
plt.plot(x,y, "ro")
I get a nice curve but the points don't have the same distance, for
growing φ the distance between 2 points gets larger.
Im looking for a nice and if possible fast way to do this.
It might be possible to get the exact analytical formula for your simple spiral, but I am not in the mood to do that and this might not be possible in a more general case. Instead, here is a numerical solution:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
a = 1
phi = np.arange(0, 10*np.pi, 0.1)
x = a*phi*np.cos(phi)
y = a*phi*np.sin(phi)
dr = (np.diff(x)**2 + np.diff(y)**2)**.5 # segment lengths
r = np.zeros_like(x)
r[1:] = np.cumsum(dr) # integrate path
r_int = np.linspace(0, r.max(), 200) # regular spaced path
x_int = np.interp(r_int, r, x) # interpolate
y_int = np.interp(r_int, r, y)
plt.subplot(1,2,1)
plt.plot(x, y, 'o-')
plt.title('Original')
plt.axis([-32,32,-32,32])
plt.subplot(1,2,2)
plt.plot(x_int, y_int, 'o-')
plt.title('Interpolated')
plt.axis([-32,32,-32,32])
plt.show()
It calculates the length of all the individual segments, integrates the total path with cumsum and finally interpolates to get a regular spaced path. You might have to play with your step-size in phi, if it is too large you will see that the spiral is not a smooth curve, but instead built from straight line segments. Result:
I am trying to recreate maximum likelihood distribution fitting, I can already do this in Matlab and R, but now I want to use scipy. In particular, I would like to estimate the Weibull distribution parameters for my data set.
I have tried this:
import scipy.stats as s
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def weib(x,n,a):
return (a / n) * (x / n)**(a - 1) * np.exp(-(x / n)**a)
data = np.loadtxt("stack_data.csv")
(loc, scale) = s.exponweib.fit_loc_scale(data, 1, 1)
print loc, scale
x = np.linspace(data.min(), data.max(), 1000)
plt.plot(x, weib(x, loc, scale))
plt.hist(data, data.max(), density=True)
plt.show()
And get this:
(2.5827280639441961, 3.4955032285727947)
And a distribution that looks like this:
I have been using the exponweib after reading this http://www.johndcook.com/distributions_scipy.html. I have also tried the other Weibull functions in scipy (just in case!).
In Matlab (using the Distribution Fitting Tool - see screenshot) and in R (using both the MASS library function fitdistr and the GAMLSS package) I get a (loc) and b (scale) parameters more like 1.58463497 5.93030013. I believe all three methods use the maximum likelihood method for distribution fitting.
I have posted my data here if you would like to have a go! And for completeness I am using Python 2.7.5, Scipy 0.12.0, R 2.15.2 and Matlab 2012b.
Why am I getting a different result!?
My guess is that you want to estimate the shape parameter and the scale of the Weibull distribution while keeping the location fixed. Fixing loc assumes that the values of your data and of the distribution are positive with lower bound at zero.
floc=0 keeps the location fixed at zero, f0=1 keeps the first shape parameter of the exponential weibull fixed at one.
>>> stats.exponweib.fit(data, floc=0, f0=1)
[1, 1.8553346917584836, 0, 6.8820748596850905]
>>> stats.weibull_min.fit(data, floc=0)
[1.8553346917584836, 0, 6.8820748596850549]
The fit compared to the histogram looks ok, but not very good. The parameter estimates are a bit higher than the ones you mention are from R and matlab.
Update
The closest I can get to the plot that is now available is with unrestricted fit, but using starting values. The plot is still less peaked. Note values in fit that don't have an f in front are used as starting values.
>>> from scipy import stats
>>> import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
>>> plt.plot(data, stats.exponweib.pdf(data, *stats.exponweib.fit(data, 1, 1, scale=02, loc=0)))
>>> _ = plt.hist(data, bins=np.linspace(0, 16, 33), normed=True, alpha=0.5);
>>> plt.show()
It is easy to verify which result is the true MLE, just need a simple function to calculate log likelihood:
>>> def wb2LL(p, x): #log-likelihood
return sum(log(stats.weibull_min.pdf(x, p[1], 0., p[0])))
>>> adata=loadtxt('/home/user/stack_data.csv')
>>> wb2LL(array([6.8820748596850905, 1.8553346917584836]), adata)
-8290.1227946678173
>>> wb2LL(array([5.93030013, 1.57463497]), adata)
-8410.3327470347667
The result from fit method of exponweib and R fitdistr (#Warren) is better and has higher log likelihood. It is more likely to be the true MLE. It is not surprising that the result from GAMLSS is different. It is a complete different statistic model: Generalized Additive Model.
Still not convinced? We can draw a 2D confidence limit plot around MLE, see Meeker and Escobar's book for detail).
Again this verifies that array([6.8820748596850905, 1.8553346917584836]) is the right answer as loglikelihood is lower that any other point in the parameter space. Note:
>>> log(array([6.8820748596850905, 1.8553346917584836]))
array([ 1.92892018, 0.61806511])
BTW1, MLE fit may not appears to fit the distribution histogram tightly. An easy way to think about MLE is that MLE is the parameter estimate most probable given the observed data. It doesn't need to visually fit the histogram well, that will be something minimizing mean square error.
BTW2, your data appears to be leptokurtic and left-skewed, which means Weibull distribution may not fit your data well. Try, e.g. Gompertz-Logistic, which improves log-likelihood by another about 100.
Cheers!
I know it's an old post, but I just faced a similar problem and this thread helped me solve it. Thought my solution might be helpful for others like me:
# Fit Weibull function, some explanation below
params = stats.exponweib.fit(data, floc=0, f0=1)
shape = params[1]
scale = params[3]
print 'shape:',shape
print 'scale:',scale
#### Plotting
# Histogram first
values,bins,hist = plt.hist(data,bins=51,range=(0,25),normed=True)
center = (bins[:-1] + bins[1:]) / 2.
# Using all params and the stats function
plt.plot(center,stats.exponweib.pdf(center,*params),lw=4,label='scipy')
# Using my own Weibull function as a check
def weibull(u,shape,scale):
'''Weibull distribution for wind speed u with shape parameter k and scale parameter A'''
return (shape / scale) * (u / scale)**(shape-1) * np.exp(-(u/scale)**shape)
plt.plot(center,weibull(center,shape,scale),label='Wind analysis',lw=2)
plt.legend()
Some extra info that helped me understand:
Scipy Weibull function can take four input parameters: (a,c),loc and scale.
You want to fix the loc and the first shape parameter (a), this is done with floc=0,f0=1. Fitting will then give you params c and scale, where c corresponds to the shape parameter of the two-parameter Weibull distribution (often used in wind data analysis) and scale corresponds to its scale factor.
From docs:
exponweib.pdf(x, a, c) =
a * c * (1-exp(-x**c))**(a-1) * exp(-x**c)*x**(c-1)
If a is 1, then
exponweib.pdf(x, a, c) =
c * (1-exp(-x**c))**(0) * exp(-x**c)*x**(c-1)
= c * (1) * exp(-x**c)*x**(c-1)
= c * x **(c-1) * exp(-x**c)
From this, the relation to the 'wind analysis' Weibull function should be more clear
I was curious about your question and, despite this is not an answer, it compares the Matlab result with your result and with the result using leastsq, which showed the best correlation with the given data:
The code is as follows:
import scipy.stats as s
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy.random as mtrand
from scipy.integrate import quad
from scipy.optimize import leastsq
## my distribution (Inverse Normal with shape parameter mu=1.0)
def weib(x,n,a):
return (a / n) * (x / n)**(a-1) * np.exp(-(x/n)**a)
def residuals(p,x,y):
integral = quad( weib, 0, 16, args=(p[0],p[1]) )[0]
penalization = abs(1.-integral)*100000
return y - weib(x, p[0],p[1]) + penalization
#
data = np.loadtxt("stack_data.csv")
x = np.linspace(data.min(), data.max(), 100)
n, bins, patches = plt.hist(data,bins=x, normed=True)
binsm = (bins[1:]+bins[:-1])/2
popt, pcov = leastsq(func=residuals, x0=(1.,1.), args=(binsm,n))
loc, scale = 1.58463497, 5.93030013
plt.plot(binsm,n)
plt.plot(x, weib(x, loc, scale),
label='weib matlab, loc=%1.3f, scale=%1.3f' % (loc, scale), lw=4.)
loc, scale = s.exponweib.fit_loc_scale(data, 1, 1)
plt.plot(x, weib(x, loc, scale),
label='weib stack, loc=%1.3f, scale=%1.3f' % (loc, scale), lw=4.)
plt.plot(x, weib(x,*popt),
label='weib leastsq, loc=%1.3f, scale=%1.3f' % tuple(popt), lw=4.)
plt.legend(loc='upper right')
plt.show()
I had the same problem, but found that setting loc=0 in exponweib.fit primed the pump for the optimization. That was all that was needed from #user333700's answer. I couldn't load your data -- your data link points to an image, not data. So I ran a test on my data instead:
import scipy.stats as ss
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
N=30
counts, bins = np.histogram(x, bins=N)
bin_width = bins[1]-bins[0]
total_count = float(sum(counts))
f, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1)
f.suptitle(query_uri)
ax.bar(bins[:-1]+bin_width/2., counts, align='center', width=.85*bin_width)
ax.grid('on')
def fit_pdf(x, name='lognorm', color='r'):
dist = getattr(ss, name) # params = shape, loc, scale
# dist = ss.gamma # 3 params
params = dist.fit(x, loc=0) # 1-day lag minimum for shipping
y = dist.pdf(bins, *params)*total_count*bin_width
sqerror_sum = np.log(sum(ci*(yi - ci)**2. for (ci, yi) in zip(counts, y)))
ax.plot(bins, y, color, lw=3, alpha=0.6, label='%s err=%3.2f' % (name, sqerror_sum))
return y
colors = ['r-', 'g-', 'r:', 'g:']
for name, color in zip(['exponweib', 't', 'gamma'], colors): # 'lognorm', 'erlang', 'chi2', 'weibull_min',
y = fit_pdf(x, name=name, color=color)
ax.legend(loc='best', frameon=False)
plt.show()
There have been a few answers to this already here and in other places. likt in Weibull distribution and the data in the same figure (with numpy and scipy)
It still took me a while to come up with a clean toy example so I though it would be useful to post.
from scipy import stats
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
#input for pseudo data
N = 10000
Kappa_in = 1.8
Lambda_in = 10
a_in = 1
loc_in = 0
#Generate data from given input
data = stats.exponweib.rvs(a=a_in,c=Kappa_in, loc=loc_in, scale=Lambda_in, size = N)
#The a and loc are fixed in the fit since it is standard to assume they are known
a_out, Kappa_out, loc_out, Lambda_out = stats.exponweib.fit(data, f0=a_in,floc=loc_in)
#Plot
bins = range(51)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(1, 1, 1)
ax.plot(bins, stats.exponweib.pdf(bins, a=a_out,c=Kappa_out,loc=loc_out,scale = Lambda_out))
ax.hist(data, bins = bins , density=True, alpha=0.5)
ax.annotate("Shape: $k = %.2f$ \n Scale: $\lambda = %.2f$"%(Kappa_out,Lambda_out), xy=(0.7, 0.85), xycoords=ax.transAxes)
plt.show()
In the meantime, there is really good package out there: reliability. Here is the documentation: reliability # readthedocs.
Your code simply becomes:
from reliability.Fitters import Fit_Weibull_2P
...
wb = Fit_Weibull_2P(failures=data)
plt.show()
Saves a lot of headaches and makes beautiful plots, too.
the order of loc and scale is messed up in the code:
plt.plot(x, weib(x, scale, loc))
the scale parameter should come first.