Related
I have implemented a univariate linear regression in python. The code is given below:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
x = np.array([1,2,4,3,5,7,9,11])
y = np.array([3,5,9,7,11,15,19,23])
def hypothesis(w0,w1,x):
return w0 + w1*x
def cost_cal(y,w0,w1,x,m):
diff = hypothesis(w0,w1,x)-y
diff_sqr = np.square(diff)
total_cost = np.sum(diff)
total_cost_sqr = (1/(2*m)) * np.sum(diff_sqr)
return total_cost, total_cost_sqr
def gradient_descent(w0,w1,alpha,x,m,y):
cost, cost_sqr = cost_cal(y,w0,w1,x,m)
temp0 = (alpha/m) * cost
temp1 = (alpha/m) * np.sum(cost*x)
w0 = w0 - temp0
w1 = w1 - temp1
return w0,w1
These are my hypothesis, cost, and gradient_descent functions implemented in python. When I use the initial weight w0 = 0 and w1 = 0, my minimized cost is 0.12589726000013188. But, if I initialize the w0 = -1 and w1 = -2, the minimized cost is 0.5035890400005265. What is the reason behind the different minimum costs using different initial weight values? As the error function MSE, is a convex function, shouldn't it reach the global minimum? Am I doing something wrong?
w0=0
w1=0
alpha =0.0001
m = 8
z = 5000
c = np.zeros(z)
cs = np.zeros(z)
w0_arr=np.zeros(z)
w1_arr=np.zeros(z)
index = np.zeros(z)
i = 0
while (i<z):
index[i] = i
c[i],cs[i] = cost_cal(y,w0,w1,x,m)
#print(i, c[i], cs[i])
w0, w1 = gradient_descent(w0,w1,alpha,x,m,y)
w0_arr[i],w1_arr[i] = w0,w1
i=i+1
inc = np.argmin(cs)
print(inc)
print(cs[inc])
The answer might vary based on your initial vector u choose in weight space. Apart from fact that the cost function is convex the curve has many critical points so it completely depends on the initial point or weights where we end up whether in local or global minima.
image link
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ltxplazySpc/XQG4aprY2iI/AAAAAAAABVo/xAqLIln9OWkig5rq4AU2sBFuPBuxW5CFQCLcBGAs/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/local_vs_global_minima.PNG
as per the image in the given link if u start from an initial point which is at the left corner we end up landing in global minima if we start from the right end we end up landing in local minima. Cost may vary by a huge difference but in most cases, the difference is not very large in case of local or global minima so if the cost is varying by big difference u need to cross-check once. Picking initial weights randomly is a good practice they should not be set manually.
in gradient_descent function, temp0 is assigned an array instead of the value, the sum of that array must be done before adding.
My objective is to perform an Inverse Laplace Transform on some decay data (NMR T2 decay via CPMG). For that, we were provided with the CONTIN algorithm. This algorithm was adapted to Matlab by Iari-Gabriel Marino, and it works very well. I want to adapt this code into Python. The core of the problem is with scipy.optimize.fmin, which is not minimizing the mean square deviation (MSD) in any way similar to Matlab's fminsearch. The latter results in a good minimization, while the former doesn't.
I have gone through line by line of my adapted code in Python, and the original Matlab. I checked every matrix and every output. I used this to identify that the critical point is in fmin. I also tried scipy.optimize.minimize and other minimization algorithms, but none gave even remotely satisfactory results.
I have made two MWE, for Python and Matlab, to make it reproducible to all. The example data were obtained from the documentation of the matlab function. Apologies if this is long code, but I don't really know how to shorten it without sacrificing readability and clarity. I tried to have the lines match as closely as possible. I am using Python 3.7.3, scipy v1.3.0, numpy 1.16.2, Matlab R2018b, on Windows 8.1. It's a relatively recent Anaconda install (<2 months).
My code:
import numpy as np
from scipy.optimize import fmin
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def msd(g, y, A, alpha, R, w, constraints):
""" msd: mean square deviation. This is the function to be minimized by fmin"""
if 'zero_at_extremes' in constraints:
g[0] = 0
g[-1] = 0
if 'g>0' in constraints:
g = np.abs(g)
r = np.diff(g, axis=0, n=2)
yfit = A # g
# Sum of weighted square residuals
VAR = np.sum(w * (y - yfit) ** 2)
# Regularizor
REG = alpha ** 2 * np.sum((r - R # g) ** 2)
# output to be minimized
return VAR + REG
# Objective: match this distribution
g0 = np.array([0, 0, 10.1625, 25.1974, 21.8711, 1.6377, 7.3895, 8.736, 1.4256, 0, 0]).reshape((-1, 1))
s0 = np.logspace(-3, 6, len(g0)).reshape((-1, 1))
t = np.linspace(0.01, 500, 100).reshape((-1, 1))
sM, tM = np.meshgrid(s0, t)
A = np.exp(-tM / sM)
np.random.seed(1)
# Creates data from the initial distribution with some random noise.
data = (A # g0) + 0.07 * np.random.rand(t.size).reshape((-1, 1))
# Parameters and function start
alpha = 1E-2 # regularization parameter
s = np.logspace(-3, 6, 20).reshape((-1, 1)) # x of the ILT
g0 = np.ones(s.size).reshape((-1, 1)) # guess of y of ILT
y = data # noisy data
options = {'maxiter':1e8, 'maxfun':1e8} # for the fmin function
constraints=['g>0', 'zero_at_extremes'] # constraints for the MSD function
R=np.zeros((len(g0) - 2, len(g0)), order='F') # Regularizor
w=np.ones(y.reshape(-1, 1).size).reshape((-1, 1)) # Weights
sM, tM = np.meshgrid(s, t, indexing='xy')
A = np.exp(-tM/sM)
g0 = g0 * y.sum() / (A # g0).sum() # Makes a "better guess" for the distribution, according to algorithm
print('msd of input data:\n', msd(g0, y, A, alpha, R, w, constraints))
for i in range(5): # Just for testing. If this is extremely high, ~1000, it's still bad.
g = fmin(func=msd,
x0 = g0,
args=(y, A, alpha, R, w, constraints),
**options,
disp=True)[:, np.newaxis]
msdfit = msd(g, y, A, alpha, R, w, constraints)
if 'zero_at_extremes' in constraints:
g[0] = 0
g[-1] = 0
if 'g>0' in constraints:
g = np.abs(g)
g0 = g
print('New guess', g)
print('Final msd of g', msdfit)
# Visualize the fit
plt.plot(s, g, label='Initial approximation')
plt.plot(np.logspace(-3, 6, 11), np.array([0, 0, 10.1625, 25.1974, 21.8711, 1.6377, 7.3895, 8.736, 1.4256, 0, 0]), label='Distribution to match')
plt.xscale('log')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
Matlab:
% Objective: match this distribution
g0 = [0 0 10.1625 25.1974 21.8711 1.6377 7.3895 8.736 1.4256 0 0]';
s0 = logspace(-3,6,length(g0))';
t = linspace(0.01,500,100)';
[sM,tM] = meshgrid(s0,t);
A = exp(-tM./sM);
rng(1);
% Creates data from the initial distribution with some random noise.
data = A*g0 + 0.07*rand(size(t));
% Parameters and function start
alpha = 1e-2; % regularization parameter
s = logspace(-3,6,20)'; % x of the ILT
g0 = ones(size(s)); % initial guess of y of ILT
y = data; % noisy data
options = optimset('MaxFunEvals',1e8,'MaxIter',1e8); % constraints for fminsearch
constraints = {'g>0','zero_at_the_extremes'}; % constraints for MSD
R = zeros(length(g0)-2,length(g0));
w = ones(size(y(:)));
[sM,tM] = meshgrid(s,t);
A = exp(-tM./sM);
g0 = g0*sum(y)/sum(A*g0); % Makes a "better guess" for the distribution
disp('msd of input data:')
disp(msd(g0, y, A, alpha, R, w, constraints))
for k = 1:5
[g,msdfit] = fminsearch(#msd,g0,options,y,A,alpha,R,w,constraints);
if ismember('zero_at_the_extremes',constraints)
g(1) = 0;
g(end) = 0;
end
if ismember('g>0',constraints)
g = abs(g);
end
g0 = g;
end
disp('New guess')
disp(g)
disp('Final msd of g')
disp(msdfit)
% Visualize the fit
semilogx(s, g)
hold on
semilogx(logspace(-3,6,11), [0 0 10.1625 25.1974 21.8711 1.6377 7.3895 8.736 1.4256 0 0])
legend('First approximation', 'Distribution to match')
hold off
function out = msd(g,y,A,alpha,R,w,constraints)
% msd: The mean square deviation; this is the function
% that has to be minimized by fminsearch
% Constraints and any 'a priori' knowledge
if ismember('zero_at_the_extremes',constraints)
g(1) = 0;
g(end) = 0;
end
if ismember('g>0',constraints)
g = abs(g); % must be g(i)>=0 for each i
end
r = diff(diff(g(1:end))); % second derivative of g
yfit = A*g;
% Sum of weighted square residuals
VAR = sum(w.*(y-yfit).^2);
% Regularizor
REG = alpha^2 * sum((r-R*g).^2);
% Output to be minimized
out = VAR+REG;
end
Here is the optimization in Python
Here is the optimization in Matlab
I have checked the output of MSD of g0 before starting, and both give the value of 2651. After minimization, Python goes up, to 4547, and Matlab goes down to 0.1381.
I think the problem is one of the following. It's in my implementation, that is, I am using fmin wrong, or there's some other passage I got wrong, but I can't figure out what. The fact the MSD increases when it should have decreased with a minimization function is damning. Reading the documentation, the scipy implementation is different from Matlab's (they use the Nelder Mead method described in Lagarias, per their documentation), while scipy uses the original Nelder Mead). Maybe that affects significantly? Or perhaps my initial guess is too bad for scipy's algorithm?
So, quite a long time since I posted this, but I wanted to share what I ended up learning and doing.
The Inverse Laplace Transform for CPMG data is a bit of a misnomer, and it's more properly called just inversion. The general problem is solving a Fredholm integral of the first kind. One way of doing this is the Tikhonov regularization method. Turns out, you can describe this problem quite easily using numpy, and solve it with a scipy package, so I don't have to "reinvent" the wheel with this.
I used the solution shown in this post, and the names here reflect that solution.
def tikhonov_regularized_inversion(
kernel: np.ndarray, alpha: float, data: np.ndarray
) -> np.ndarray:
data = data.reshape(-1, 1)
I = alpha * np.eye(*kernel.shape)
C = np.concatenate([kernel, I], axis=0)
d = np.concatenate([data, np.zeros_like(data)])
x, _ = nnls(C, d.flatten())
Here, kernel is a matrix containing all the possible exponential decay curves, and my solution judges the contribution of each decay curve in the data I received. First, I stack my data as a column, then pad it with zeros, creating the vector d. I then stack my kernel on top of a diagonal matrix containing the regularization parameter alpha along the diagonal, of the same size as the kernel. Last, I call the convenient nnls, a non negative least square solver in scipy.optimize. This is because there's no reason to have a negative contribution, only no contribution.
This solved my problem, it's quick and convenient.
I would like to sample from an arbitrary function in Python.
In Fast arbitrary distribution random sampling it was stated that one could use inverse transform sampling and in Pythonic way to select list elements with different probability it was mentioned that one should use inverse cumulative distribution function. As far as I undestand those methods only work the univariate case. My function is multivariate though and too complex that any of the suggestions in https://stackoverflow.com/a/48676209/4533188 would apply.
Prinliminaries: My function is based on Rosenbrock's banana function, which value we can get the value of the function with
import scipy.optimize
scipy.optimize.rosen([1.1,1.2])
(here [1.1,1.2] is the input vector) from scipy, see https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-0.15.1/reference/generated/scipy.optimize.rosen.html.
Here is what I came up with: I make a grid over my area of interest and calculate for each point the function value. Then I sort the resulting data frame by the value and make a cumulative sum. This way we get "slots" which have different sizes - points which have large function values have larger slots than points with small function values. Now we generate random values and look into which slot the random value falls into. The row of the data frame is our final sample.
Here is the code:
import scipy.optimize
from itertools import product
from dfply import *
nb_of_samples = 50
nb_of_grid_points = 30
rosen_data = pd.DataFrame(array([item for item in product(*[linspace(fm[0], fm[1], nb_of_grid_points) for fm in zip([-2,-2], [2,2])])]), columns=['x','y'])
rosen_data['z'] = [np.exp(-scipy.optimize.rosen(row)**2/500) for index, row in rosen_data.iterrows()]
rosen_data = rosen_data >> \
arrange(X.z) >> \
mutate(z_upperbound=cumsum(X.z)) >> \
mutate(z_upperbound=X.z_upperbound/np.max(X.z_upperbound))
value = np.random.sample(1)[0]
def get_rosen_sample(value):
return (rosen_data >> mask(X.z_upperbound >= value) >> select(X.x, X.y)).iloc[0,]
values = pd.DataFrame([get_rosen_sample(s) for s in np.random.sample(nb_of_samples)])
This works well, but I don't think it is very efficient. What would be a more efficient solution to my problem?
I read that Markov chain Monte Carlo might helping, but here I am in over my head for now on how to do this in Python.
I was in a similar situation, so, I implemented a rudimentary version of Metropolis-Hastings (which is an MCMC method) to sample from a bivariate distribution. An example follows.
Say, we want to sample from the following denisty:
def density1(z):
z = np.reshape(z, [z.shape[0], 2])
z1, z2 = z[:, 0], z[:, 1]
norm = np.sqrt(z1 ** 2 + z2 ** 2)
exp1 = np.exp(-0.5 * ((z1 - 2) / 0.8) ** 2)
exp2 = np.exp(-0.5 * ((z1 + 2) / 0.8) ** 2)
u = 0.5 * ((norm - 4) / 0.4) ** 2 - np.log(exp1 + exp2)
return np.exp(-u)
which looks like this
The following function implements MH with multivariate normal as the proposal
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
Run MH and plot samples
samples = metropolis_hastings(density1)
plt.hexbin(samples[:,0], samples[:,1], cmap='rainbow')
plt.gca().set_aspect('equal', adjustable='box')
plt.xlim([-3, 3])
plt.ylim([-3, 3])
plt.show()
Check out this repo of mine for details.
I was recently trying to plot a nonlinear decision boundary, and the function ended up being a partially horizontal hyperbola, where there were multiple y-values for a given x. Although I got it to work, I know there has to be a more pythonic or numpythonic way of plotting this line.
Background: The problem was a perceptron classifier on a set of inputs that were not linearly separable. In order to find this, the inputs were mapped to a general hyperbola function to increase the dimensionality to 5, and have these separable by a hyperplane. The equation for the decision boundary that will be plotted is
d(x) = w0 + w1xx + w2yy + w3xy + wx + w5y
Through the course of the perceptron's gradient descent, the values for w0-w5 are found, and the boundary is the x,y value when d(x)=0.
Current implementation: I got it to work, but I think it is hacky. I first have to create an array of the given size so that I can append these values, and I have to delete the initialized value the first time I append my found value. I then sweep through my the space on my graph and find a y-value, first by guessing high, second by guessing low, in order to find both possible y-values. I put these found values at the front and back of D, in order to plot this using matplotlib.
D = np.array([[0], [0]])
x_min, x_max = X[:, 0].min() - 1, X[:, 0].max() + 1
a_iter, b_iter = 0, 0 # used as initial guess for numeric solver
for xx in range(x_min, x_max):
# used to print top and bottom sides of hyperbola
yya = fsolve(lambda yy: W[:,0] + W[:,1]*xx**2 + W[:,2]*yy**2 + W[:,3]*xx*yy + W[:,4]*xx + W[:,5]*yy, max(a_iter, 7))
yyb = fsolve(lambda yy: W[:,0] + W[:,1]*xx**2 + W[:,2]*yy**2 + W[:,3]*xx*yy + W[:,4]*xx + W[:,5]*yy, b_iter)
a_iter = yya
b_iter = yyb
# add these points to a single matrix for printing
dda = np.array([[xx],[yya]])
ddb = np.array([[xx],[yyb]])
D = np.concatenate((dda, D), axis=1)
if xx == x_min: # delete initial [0; 0]
D = dda
D = np.concatenate((D, ddb), axis=1)
I know there has to be a better way to do this. Any insight is appreciated.
Edit: Apologies, I realize that without an image this is really difficult to understand. The main issue of finding multiple roots and populating a numpy array are a bit generic. I don't have enough rep to post images, but the link is below
nonlinear classifier
If you want plot an implicit equation curve, you can use pyplot.contour(), here is an example:
np.random.seed(1)
w = np.random.randn(6)
def f(x, y, w):
return w[0] + w[1]*x**2 + w[2]*y**2 + w[3]*x*y + w[4]*x + w[5]*y
X, Y = np.mgrid[-2:2:100j, -2:2:100j]
pl.contour(X, Y, f(X, Y, w), levels=[0])
there are parameterized options too - a trig one, branches centered at 0, pi
t = np.linspace(-np.pi/3, np.pi/3, 200) # 0 centered branch
y = 1/np.cos(t)
x = 1*np.tan(t)
plt.plot(x, y) # (default blue)
Out[94]: [<matplotlib.lines.Line2D at 0xe26e6a0>]
t = np.linspace(np.pi-np.pi/3, np.pi+np.pi/3, 200) # pi centered branch
y = 1/np.cos(t)
x = 1*np.tan(t)
plt.plot(x, y) # (default orange)
Out[96]: [<matplotlib.lines.Line2D at 0xf68e780>]
sympy ought to be up to finding the full denormalized, rotated, offset parameterized hyperbola coefficients from the bivariate polynomial ws
(or continue the hackage with a fit)
I'm looking for a way to plot a curve through some experimental data. The data shows a small linear regime with a shallow gradient, followed by a steep linear regime after a threshold value.
My data is here: http://pastebin.com/H4NSbxqr
I could fit the data with two lines relatively easily, but I'd like to fit with a continuous line ideally - which should look like two lines with a smooth curve joining them around the threshold (~5000 in the data, shown above).
I attempted this using scipy.optimize curve_fit and trying a function which included the sum of a straight line and an exponential:
y = a*x + b + c*np.exp((x-d)/e)
although despite numerous attempts, it didn't find a solution.
If anyone has any suggestions please, either on the choice of fitting distribution / method or the curve_fit implementation, they would be greatly appreciated.
If you don't have a particular reason to believe that linear + exponential is the true underlying cause of your data, then I think a fit to two lines makes the most sense. You can do this by making your fitting function the maximum of two lines, for example:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
def two_lines(x, a, b, c, d):
one = a*x + b
two = c*x + d
return np.maximum(one, two)
Then,
x, y = np.genfromtxt('tmp.txt', unpack=True, delimiter=',')
pw0 = (.02, 30, .2, -2000) # a guess for slope, intercept, slope, intercept
pw, cov = curve_fit(two_lines, x, y, pw0)
crossover = (pw[3] - pw[1]) / (pw[0] - pw[2])
plt.plot(x, y, 'o', x, two_lines(x, *pw), '-')
If you really want a continuous and differentiable solution, it occurred to me that a hyperbola has a sharp bend to it, but it has to be rotated. It was a bit difficult to implement (maybe there's an easier way), but here's a go:
def hyperbola(x, a, b, c, d, e):
""" hyperbola(x) with parameters
a/b = asymptotic slope
c = curvature at vertex
d = offset to vertex
e = vertical offset
"""
return a*np.sqrt((b*c)**2 + (x-d)**2)/b + e
def rot_hyperbola(x, a, b, c, d, e, th):
pars = a, b, c, 0, 0 # do the shifting after rotation
xd = x - d
hsin = hyperbola(xd, *pars)*np.sin(th)
xcos = xd*np.cos(th)
return e + hyperbola(xcos - hsin, *pars)*np.cos(th) + xcos - hsin
Run it as
h0 = 1.1, 1, 0, 5000, 100, .5
h, hcov = curve_fit(rot_hyperbola, x, y, h0)
plt.plot(x, y, 'o', x, two_lines(x, *pw), '-', x, rot_hyperbola(x, *h), '-')
plt.legend(['data', 'piecewise linear', 'rotated hyperbola'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
I was also able to get the line + exponential to converge, but it looks terrible. This is because it's not a good descriptor of your data, which is linear and an exponential is very far from linear!
def line_exp(x, a, b, c, d, e):
return a*x + b + c*np.exp((x-d)/e)
e0 = .1, 20., .01, 1000., 2000.
e, ecov = curve_fit(line_exp, x, y, e0)
If you want to keep it simple, there's always a polynomial or spline (piecewise polynomials)
from scipy.interpolate import UnivariateSpline
s = UnivariateSpline(x, y, s=x.size) #larger s-value has fewer "knots"
plt.plot(x, s(x))
I researched this a little, Applied Linear Regression by Sanford, and the Correlation and Regression lecture by Steiger had some good info on it. They all however lack the right model, the piecewise function should be
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import lmfit
dfseg = pd.read_csv('segreg.csv')
def err(w):
th0 = w['th0'].value
th1 = w['th1'].value
th2 = w['th2'].value
gamma = w['gamma'].value
fit = th0 + th1*dfseg.Temp + th2*np.maximum(0,dfseg.Temp-gamma)
return fit-dfseg.C
p = lmfit.Parameters()
p.add_many(('th0', 0.), ('th1', 0.0),('th2', 0.0),('gamma', 40.))
mi = lmfit.minimize(err, p)
lmfit.printfuncs.report_fit(mi.params)
b0 = mi.params['th0']; b1=mi.params['th1'];b2=mi.params['th2']
gamma = int(mi.params['gamma'].value)
import statsmodels.formula.api as smf
reslin = smf.ols('C ~ 1 + Temp + I((Temp-%d)*(Temp>%d))' % (gamma,gamma), data=dfseg).fit()
print reslin.summary()
x0 = np.array(range(0,gamma,1))
x1 = np.array(range(0,80-gamma,1))
y0 = b0 + b1*x0
y1 = (b0 + b1 * float(gamma) + (b1 + b2)* x1)
plt.scatter(dfseg.Temp, dfseg.C)
plt.hold(True)
plt.plot(x0,y0)
plt.plot(x1+gamma,y1)
plt.show()
Result
[[Variables]]
th0: 78.6554456 +/- 3.966238 (5.04%) (init= 0)
th1: -0.15728297 +/- 0.148250 (94.26%) (init= 0)
th2: 0.72471237 +/- 0.179052 (24.71%) (init= 0)
gamma: 38.3110177 +/- 4.845767 (12.65%) (init= 40)
The data
"","Temp","C"
"1",8.5536,86.2143
"2",10.6613,72.3871
"3",12.4516,74.0968
"4",16.9032,68.2258
"5",20.5161,72.3548
"6",21.1613,76.4839
"7",24.3929,83.6429
"8",26.4839,74.1935
"9",26.5645,71.2581
"10",27.9828,78.2069
"11",32.6833,79.0667
"12",33.0806,71.0968
"13",33.7097,76.6452
"14",34.2903,74.4516
"15",36,56.9677
"16",37.4167,79.8333
"17",43.9516,79.7097
"18",45.2667,76.9667
"19",47,76
"20",47.1129,78.0323
"21",47.3833,79.8333
"22",48.0968,73.9032
"23",49.05,78.1667
"24",57.5,81.7097
"25",59.2,80.3
"26",61.3226,75
"27",61.9194,87.0323
"28",62.3833,89.8
"29",64.3667,96.4
"30",65.371,88.9677
"31",68.35,91.3333
"32",70.7581,91.8387
"33",71.129,90.9355
"34",72.2419,93.4516
"35",72.85,97.8333
"36",73.9194,92.4839
"37",74.4167,96.1333
"38",76.3871,89.8387
"39",78.0484,89.4516
Graph
I used #user423805 's answer (found via google groups thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lmfit-py/7I2zv2WwFLU ) but noticed it had some limitations when trying to use three or more segments.
Instead of applying np.maximum in the minimizer error function or adding (b1 + b2) in #user423805 's answer, I used the same linear spline calculation for both the minimizer and end-usage:
# least_splines_calc works like this for an example with three segments
# (four threshold params, three gamma params):
#
# for 0 < x < gamma0 : y = th0 + (th1 * x)
# for gamma0 < x < gamma1 : y = th0 + (th1 * x) + (th2 * (x - gamma0))
# for gamma1 < x : y = th0 + (th1 * x) + (th2 * (x - gamma0)) + (th3 * (x - gamma1))
#
def least_splines_calc(x, thresholds, gammas):
if(len(thresholds) < 2):
print("Error: expected at least two thresholds")
return None
applicable_gammas = filter(lambda gamma: x > gamma , gammas)
#base result
y = thresholds[0] + (thresholds[1] * x)
#additional factors calculated depending on x value
for i in range(0, len(applicable_gammas)):
y = y + ( thresholds[i + 2] * ( x - applicable_gammas[i] ) )
return y
def least_splines_calc_array(x_array, thresholds, gammas):
y_array = map(lambda x: least_splines_calc(x, thresholds, gammas), x_array)
return y_array
def err(params, x, data):
th0 = params['th0'].value
th1 = params['th1'].value
th2 = params['th2'].value
th3 = params['th3'].value
gamma1 = params['gamma1'].value
gamma2 = params['gamma2'].value
thresholds = np.array([th0, th1, th2, th3])
gammas = np.array([gamma1, gamma2])
fit = least_splines_calc_array(x, thresholds, gammas)
return np.array(fit)-np.array(data)
p = lmfit.Parameters()
p.add_many(('th0', 0.), ('th1', 0.0),('th2', 0.0),('th3', 0.0),('gamma1', 9.),('gamma2', 9.3)) #NOTE: the 9. / 9.3 were guesses specific to my data, you will need to change these
mi = lmfit.minimize(err_alt, p, args=(np.array(dfseg.Temp), np.array(dfseg.C)))
After minimization, convert the params found by the minimizer into an array of thresholds and gammas to re-use linear_splines_calc to plot the linear splines regression.
Reference: While there's various places that explain least splines (I think #user423805 used http://www.statpower.net/Content/313/Lecture%20Notes/Splines.pdf , which has the (b1 + b2) addition I disagree with in its sample code despite similar equations) , the one that made the most sense to me was this one (by Rob Schapire / Zia Khan at Princeton) : https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring07/cos424/scribe_notes/0403.pdf - section 2.2 goes into linear splines. Excerpt below:
If you're looking to join what appears to be two straight lines with a hyperbola having a variable radius at/near the intersection of the two lines (which are its asymptotes), I urge you to look hard at Using an Hyperbola as a Transition Model to Fit Two-Regime Straight-Line Data, by Donald G. Watts and David W. Bacon, Technometrics, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Aug., 1974), pp. 369-373.
The formula is drop dead simple, nicely adjustable, and works like a charm. From their paper (in case you can't access it):
As a more useful alternative form we consider an hyperbola for which:
(i) the dependent variable y is a single valued function of the independent variable x,
(ii) the left asymptote has slope theta_1,
(iii) the right asymptote has slope theta_2,
(iv) the asymptotes intersect at the point (x_o, beta_o),
(v) the radius of curvature at x = x_o is proportional to a quantity delta. Such an hyperbola can be written y = beta_o + beta_1*(x - x_o) + beta_2* SQRT[(x - x_o)^2 + delta^2/4], where beta_1 = (theta_1 + theta_2)/2 and beta_2 = (theta_2 - theta_1)/2.
delta is the adjustable parameter that allows you to either closely follow the lines right to the intersection point or smoothly merge from one line to the other.
Just solve for the intersection point (x_o, beta_o), and plug into the formula above.
BTW, in general, if line 1 is y_1 = b_1 + m_1 *x and line 2 is y_2 = b_2 + m_2 * x, then they intersect at x* = (b_2 - b_1) / (m_1 - m_2) and y* = b_1 + m_1 * x*. So, to connect with the formalism above, x_o = x*, beta_o = y* and the two m_*'s are the two thetas.
There is a straightforward method (not iterative, no initial guess) pp.12-13 in https://fr.scribd.com/document/380941024/Regression-par-morceaux-Piecewise-Regression-pdf
The data comes from the scanning of the figure published by IanRoberts in his question. Scanning for the coordinates of the pixels in not accurate. So, don't be surprised by additional deviation.
Note that the abscisses and ordinates scales have been devised by 1000.
The equations of the two segments are
The approximate values of the five parameters are written on the above figure.