Develop Reference

How to use Gradient Descent to solve this multiple terms trigonometry function?

Question is like this:
f(x) = A sin(2π * L * x) + B cos(2π * M * x) + C sin(2π * N * x)
and L,M,N are constants integer, 0 <= L,M,N <= 100
and A,B,C can be any possible integers.
Here is the given data:
x = [0,0.01,0.02,0.03,0.04,0.05,0.06,0.07,0.08,0.09,0.1,0.11,0.12,0.13,0.14,0.15,0.16,0.17,0.18,0.19,0.2,0.21,0.22,0.23,0.24,0.25,0.26,0.27,0.28,0.29,0.3,0.31,0.32,0.33,0.34,0.35,0.36,0.37,0.38,0.39,0.4,0.41,0.42,0.43,0.44,0.45,0.46,0.47,0.48,0.49,0.5,0.51,0.52,0.53,0.54,0.55,0.56,0.57,0.58,0.59,0.6,0.61,0.62,0.63,0.64,0.65,0.66,0.67,0.68,0.69,0.7,0.71,0.72,0.73,0.74,0.75,0.76,0.77,0.78,0.79,0.8,0.81,0.82,0.83,0.84,0.85,0.86,0.87,0.88,0.89,0.9,0.91,0.92,0.93,0.94,0.95,0.96,0.97,0.98,0.99]
y = [4,1.240062433,-0.7829654986,-1.332487982,-0.3337640721,1.618033989,3.512512389,4.341307895,3.515268061,1.118929599,-2.097886967,-4.990538967,-6.450324073,-5.831575611,-3.211486891,0.6180339887,4.425660706,6.980842552,7.493970785,5.891593744,2.824429495,-0.5926374511,-3.207870455,-4.263694544,-3.667432785,-2,-0.2617162175,0.5445886005,-0.169441247,-2.323237059,-5.175570505,-7.59471091,-8.488730333,-7.23200463,-3.924327772,0.6180339887,5.138501587,8.38127157,9.532377045,8.495765687,5.902113033,2.849529206,0.4768388529,-0.46697525,0.106795821,1.618033989,3.071952496,3.475795162,2.255463709,-0.4905371745,-4,-7.117914956,-8.727599664,-8.178077181,-5.544088451,-1.618033989,2.365340134,5.169257268,5.995297102,4.758922924,2.097886967,-0.8873135564,-3.06024109,-3.678989552,-2.666365632,-0.6180339887,1.452191817,2.529722611,2.016594378,-0.01374122059,-2.824429495,-5.285215072,-6.302694708,-5.246870619,-2.210419738,2,6.13956874,8.965976562,9.68000641,8.201089581,5.175570505,1.716858387,-1.02183483,-2.278560533,-1.953524751,-0.6180339887,0.7393509358,1.129293593,-0.02181188158,-2.617913164,-5.902113033,-8.727381729,-9.987404016,-9.043589913,-5.984648344,-1.618033989,2.805900027,6.034770001,7.255101454,6.368389697]
enter image description here
How to use Gradient Descent to solve this multiple terms trigonometry function?

Gradient descent is not well suited for optimisation over integers. You can try a navie relaxation where you solve in floats, and hope the rounded solution is still ok.
from autograd import grad, numpy as jnp
import numpy as np
def cast(params):
[A, B, C, L, M, N] = params
L = jnp.minimum(jnp.abs(L), 100)
M = jnp.minimum(jnp.abs(M), 100)
N = jnp.minimum(jnp.abs(N), 100)
return A, B, C, L, M, N
def pred(params, x):
[A, B, C, L, M, N] = cast(params)
return A *jnp.sin(2 * jnp.pi * L * x) + B*jnp.cos(2*jnp.pi * M * x) + C * jnp.sin(2 * jnp.pi * N * x)
x = [0,0.01,0.02,0.03,0.04,0.05,0.06,0.07,0.08,0.09,0.1,0.11,0.12,0.13,0.14,0.15,0.16,0.17,0.18,0.19,0.2,0.21,0.22,0.23,0.24,0.25,0.26,0.27,0.28,0.29,0.3,0.31,0.32,0.33,0.34,0.35,0.36,0.37,0.38,0.39,0.4,0.41,0.42,0.43,0.44,0.45,0.46,0.47,0.48,0.49,0.5,0.51,0.52,0.53,0.54,0.55,0.56,0.57,0.58,0.59,0.6,0.61,0.62,0.63,0.64,0.65,0.66,0.67,0.68,0.69,0.7,0.71,0.72,0.73,0.74,0.75,0.76,0.77,0.78,0.79,0.8,0.81,0.82,0.83,0.84,0.85,0.86,0.87,0.88,0.89,0.9,0.91,0.92,0.93,0.94,0.95,0.96,0.97,0.98,0.99]
y = [4,1.240062433,-0.7829654986,-1.332487982,-0.3337640721,1.618033989,3.512512389,4.341307895,3.515268061,1.118929599,-2.097886967,-4.990538967,-6.450324073,-5.831575611,-3.211486891,0.6180339887,4.425660706,6.980842552,7.493970785,5.891593744,2.824429495,-0.5926374511,-3.207870455,-4.263694544,-3.667432785,-2,-0.2617162175,0.5445886005,-0.169441247,-2.323237059,-5.175570505,-7.59471091,-8.488730333,-7.23200463,-3.924327772,0.6180339887,5.138501587,8.38127157,9.532377045,8.495765687,5.902113033,2.849529206,0.4768388529,-0.46697525,0.106795821,1.618033989,3.071952496,3.475795162,2.255463709,-0.4905371745,-4,-7.117914956,-8.727599664,-8.178077181,-5.544088451,-1.618033989,2.365340134,5.169257268,5.995297102,4.758922924,2.097886967,-0.8873135564,-3.06024109,-3.678989552,-2.666365632,-0.6180339887,1.452191817,2.529722611,2.016594378,-0.01374122059,-2.824429495,-5.285215072,-6.302694708,-5.246870619,-2.210419738,2,6.13956874,8.965976562,9.68000641,8.201089581,5.175570505,1.716858387,-1.02183483,-2.278560533,-1.953524751,-0.6180339887,0.7393509358,1.129293593,-0.02181188158,-2.617913164,-5.902113033,-8.727381729,-9.987404016,-9.043589913,-5.984648344,-1.618033989,2.805900027,6.034770001,7.255101454,6.368389697]
def loss(params):
p = pred(params, np.array(x))
return jnp.mean((np.array(y)-p)**2)
params = np.array([np.random.random()*100 for _ in range(6)])
for _ in range(10000):
g = grad(loss)
params = params - 0.001*g(params)
print("Relaxed solution", cast(params), "loss=", loss(params))
constrained_params = np.round(cast(params))
print("Integer solution", constrained_params, "loss=", loss(constrained_params))
print()
Since the problem will have a lot of local minima, you might need to run it multiple times.

It's quite hard to use gradient descent to find a solution to this problem, because it tends to get stuck when changing the L, M, or N parameters. The gradients for those can push it away from the right solution, unless it is very close to an optimal solution already.
There are ways to get around this, such as basinhopping or random search, but because of the function you're trying to learn, you have a better alternative.
Since you're trying to learn a sinusoid function, you can use an FFT to find the frequencies of the sine waves. Once you have those frequencies, you can find the amplitudes and phases used to generate the same sine wave.
Pardon the messiness of this code, this is my first time using an FFT.
import scipy.fft
import numpy as np
import math
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def get_top_frequencies(x, y, num_freqs):
x = np.array(x)
y = np.array(y)
# Find timestep (assume constant timestep)
dt = abs(x[0] - x[-1]) / (len(x) - 1)
# Take discrete FFT of y
spectral = scipy.fft.fft(y)
freq = scipy.fft.fftfreq(y.shape[0], d=dt)
# Cut off top half of frequencies. Assumes input signal is real, and not complex.
spectral = spectral[:int(spectral.shape[0] / 2)]
# Double amplitudes to correct for cutting off top half.
spectral *= 2
# Adjust amplitude by sampling timestep
spectral *= dt
# Get ampitudes for all frequencies. This is taking the magnitude of the complex number
spectral_amplitude = np.abs(spectral)
# Pick frequencies with highest amplitudes
highest_idx = np.argsort(spectral_amplitude)[::-1][:num_freqs]
# Find amplitude, frequency, and phase components of each term
highest_amplitude = spectral_amplitude[highest_idx]
highest_freq = freq[highest_idx]
highest_phase = np.angle(spectral[highest_idx]) / math.pi
# Convert it into a Python function
function = ["def func(x):", "return ("]
for i, components in enumerate(zip(highest_amplitude, highest_freq, highest_phase)):
amplitude, freq, phase = components
plus_sign = " +" if i != (num_freqs - 1) else ""
term = f"{amplitude:.2f} * math.cos(2 * math.pi * {freq:.2f} * x + math.pi * {phase:.2f}){plus_sign}"
function.append(" " + term)
function.append(")")
return "\n ".join(function)
x = [0,0.01,0.02,0.03,0.04,0.05,0.06,0.07,0.08,0.09,0.1,0.11,0.12,0.13,0.14,0.15,0.16,0.17,0.18,0.19,0.2,0.21,0.22,0.23,0.24,0.25,0.26,0.27,0.28,0.29,0.3,0.31,0.32,0.33,0.34,0.35,0.36,0.37,0.38,0.39,0.4,0.41,0.42,0.43,0.44,0.45,0.46,0.47,0.48,0.49,0.5,0.51,0.52,0.53,0.54,0.55,0.56,0.57,0.58,0.59,0.6,0.61,0.62,0.63,0.64,0.65,0.66,0.67,0.68,0.69,0.7,0.71,0.72,0.73,0.74,0.75,0.76,0.77,0.78,0.79,0.8,0.81,0.82,0.83,0.84,0.85,0.86,0.87,0.88,0.89,0.9,0.91,0.92,0.93,0.94,0.95,0.96,0.97,0.98,0.99]
y = [4,1.240062433,-0.7829654986,-1.332487982,-0.3337640721,1.618033989,3.512512389,4.341307895,3.515268061,1.118929599,-2.097886967,-4.990538967,-6.450324073,-5.831575611,-3.211486891,0.6180339887,4.425660706,6.980842552,7.493970785,5.891593744,2.824429495,-0.5926374511,-3.207870455,-4.263694544,-3.667432785,-2,-0.2617162175,0.5445886005,-0.169441247,-2.323237059,-5.175570505,-7.59471091,-8.488730333,-7.23200463,-3.924327772,0.6180339887,5.138501587,8.38127157,9.532377045,8.495765687,5.902113033,2.849529206,0.4768388529,-0.46697525,0.106795821,1.618033989,3.071952496,3.475795162,2.255463709,-0.4905371745,-4,-7.117914956,-8.727599664,-8.178077181,-5.544088451,-1.618033989,2.365340134,5.169257268,5.995297102,4.758922924,2.097886967,-0.8873135564,-3.06024109,-3.678989552,-2.666365632,-0.6180339887,1.452191817,2.529722611,2.016594378,-0.01374122059,-2.824429495,-5.285215072,-6.302694708,-5.246870619,-2.210419738,2,6.13956874,8.965976562,9.68000641,8.201089581,5.175570505,1.716858387,-1.02183483,-2.278560533,-1.953524751,-0.6180339887,0.7393509358,1.129293593,-0.02181188158,-2.617913164,-5.902113033,-8.727381729,-9.987404016,-9.043589913,-5.984648344,-1.618033989,2.805900027,6.034770001,7.255101454,6.368389697]
print(get_top_frequencies(x, y, 3))
That produces this function:
def func(x):
return (
5.00 * math.cos(2 * math.pi * 10.00 * x + math.pi * 0.50) +
4.00 * math.cos(2 * math.pi * 5.00 * x + math.pi * -0.00) +
2.00 * math.cos(2 * math.pi * 3.00 * x + math.pi * -0.50)
)
Which is not quite the format you specified - you asked for two sins and one cos, and for no phase parameter. However, using the trigonometric identity cos(x) = sin(pi/2 - x), you can convert this into an equivalent expression that matches what you want:
def func(x):
return (
5.00 * math.sin(2 * math.pi * -10.00 * x) +
4.00 * math.cos(2 * math.pi * 5.00 * x) +
2.00 * math.sin(2 * math.pi * 3.00 * x)
)
And there's the original function!

How calculate a double integral accurately using python

I'm trying to calculate a double integral given by :
import scipy.special as sc
from numpy.lib.scimath import sqrt as csqrt
from scipy.integrate import dblquad
def g_re(alpha, beta, k, m):
psi = csqrt(alpha ** 2 + beta ** 2 - k ** 2)
return np.real(
sc.jv(m, alpha)
* sc.jv(m, beta)
* sc.jv(m, alpha)
* np.sin(beta)
* sc.jv(m, -1j * psi)
* np.exp(-psi)
/ (alpha ** 2 * psi)
)
def g_im(alpha, beta, k, m):
psi = csqrt(alpha ** 2 + beta ** 2 - k ** 2)
return np.imag(
sc.jv(m, alpha)
* sc.jv(m, beta)
* sc.jv(m, alpha)
* np.sin(beta)
* sc.jv(m, -1j * psi)
* np.exp(-psi)
/ (alpha ** 2 * psi)
)
k = 5
m = 0
tuple_args = (k, m)
ans = dblquad(g_re, 0.0, np.inf, 0, np.inf, args=tuple_args)[0]
ans += 1j * dblquad(g_im, 0.0, np.inf, 0, np.inf, args=tuple_args)[0]
The integration intervals are along the positive real axes ([0, np.inf[). When calculating I got the following warning :
/tmp/a.py:10: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in multiply
sc.jv(m, alpha)
g/home/nschloe/.local/lib/python3.9/site-packages/scipy/integrate/quadpack.py:879: IntegrationWarning: The maximum number of subdivisions (50) has been achieved.
If increasing the limit yields no improvement it is advised to analyze
the integrand in order to determine the difficulties. If the position of a
local difficulty can be determined (singularity, discontinuity) one will
probably gain from splitting up the interval and calling the integrator
on the subranges. Perhaps a special-purpose integrator should be used.
quad_r = quad(f, low, high, args=args, full_output=self.full_output,
I subdivided the domain of integration but I still got the same warning. Could you help me please.

Is this correct for modeling gravity as a second order ODE?

This is my first question on here, so apologies if the formatting is off.
I want to model Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation as a second-order differential equation in Python, but the resulting graph doesn’t make sense. For reference, here's the equation and [here's the result][2]. This is my code
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import odeint
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# dy/dt
def model(r, t):
g = 6.67408 * (10 ** -11)
m = 5.972 * 10 ** 24
M = 1.989 * 10 ** 30
return -m * r[1] + ((-g * M * m) / r ** 2)
r0 = [(1.495979 * 10 ** 16), 299195800]
t = np.linspace(-(2 * 10 ** 17), (2 * 10 ** 17))
r = odeint(model, r0, t)
plt.plot(t, r)
plt.xlabel('time')
plt.ylabel('r(t)')
plt.show()
I used this website as a base for the code
I have virtually no experience with using Python as an ODE solver. What am I doing wrong? Thank you!

To integrate a second order ode, you need to treat it like 2 first order odes. In the link you posted all the examples are second order, and they do this.
m d^2 r/ dt^2 = - g M m / r^2
r = u[0]
dr / dt = u[1]
(1) d/dt(u[0]) = u[1]
m * d/dt(u[1]) = -g M m / u[0]^2 =>
(2) d/dt(u[1]) = -g M / u[0]^2
In python this looks like
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import odeint
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def model(u, t):
g = 6.67408 * (10 ** -11)
M = 1.989 * 10 ** 30
return (u[1], (-g * M ) / (u[0] ** 2))
r0 = [(1.495979 * 10 ** 16), 299195800]
t = np.linspace(0, 5 * (10 ** 15), 500000)
r_t = odeint(model, r0, t)
r_t = r_t[:,0]
plt.plot(t, r_t)
plt.xlabel('time')
plt.ylabel('r(t)')
plt.show()
I also made some changes to your time list. What I got for the graph looks like so
which makes sense to me. You have a mass escaping away from a large mass but at an incredible starting distance and speed, so r(t) should pretty much be linear in time.
Then I brought the speed of 299195800 down to 0, resulting in

What would be the computationally faster way to implement this 2D numerical integration?

I am interested in doing a 2D numerical integration. Right now I am using the scipy.integrate.dblquad but it is very slow. Please see the code below. My need is to evaluate this integral 100s of times with completely different parameters. Hence I want to make the processing as fast and efficient as possible. The code is:
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from scipy.special import erf
from scipy.special import j0
import time
q = np.linspace(0.03, 1.0, 1000)
start = time.time()
def f(q, z, t):
return t * 0.5 * (erf((t - z) / 3) - 1) * j0(q * t) * (1 / (np.sqrt(2 * np.pi) * 2)) * np.exp(
-0.5 * ((z - 40) / 2) ** 2)
y = np.empty([len(q)])
for n in range(len(q)):
y[n] = integrate.dblquad(lambda t, z: f(q[n], z, t), 0, 50, lambda z: 10, lambda z: 60)[0]
end = time.time()
print(end - start)
Time taken is
212.96751403808594
This is too much. Please suggest a better way to achieve what I want to do. I tried to do some search before coming here, but didn't find any solution. I have read quadpy can do this job better and very faster but I have no idea how to implement the same. Please help.

You could use Numba or a low-level-callable
Almost your example
I simply pass function directly to scipy.integrate.dblquad instead of your method using lambdas to generate functions.
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from scipy.special import erf
from scipy.special import j0
import time
q = np.linspace(0.03, 1.0, 1000)
start = time.time()
def f(t, z, q):
return t * 0.5 * (erf((t - z) / 3) - 1) * j0(q * t) * (1 / (np.sqrt(2 * np.pi) * 2)) * np.exp(
-0.5 * ((z - 40) / 2) ** 2)
def lower_inner(z):
return 10.
def upper_inner(z):
return 60.
y = np.empty(len(q))
for n in range(len(q)):
y[n] = integrate.dblquad(f, 0, 50, lower_inner, upper_inner,args=(q[n],))[0]
end = time.time()
print(end - start)
#143.73969149589539
This is already a tiny bit faster (143 vs. 151s) but the only use is to have a simple example to optimize.
Simply compiling the functions using Numba
To get this to run you need additionally Numba and numba-scipy. The purpose of numba-scipy is to provide wrapped functions from scipy.special.
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from scipy.special import erf
from scipy.special import j0
import time
import numba as nb
q = np.linspace(0.03, 1.0, 1000)
start = time.time()
#error_model="numpy" -> Don't check for division by zero
#nb.njit(error_model="numpy",fastmath=True)
def f(t, z, q):
return t * 0.5 * (erf((t - z) / 3) - 1) * j0(q * t) * (1 / (np.sqrt(2 * np.pi) * 2)) * np.exp(
-0.5 * ((z - 40) / 2) ** 2)
def lower_inner(z):
return 10.
def upper_inner(z):
return 60.
y = np.empty(len(q))
for n in range(len(q)):
y[n] = integrate.dblquad(f, 0, 50, lower_inner, upper_inner,args=(q[n],))[0]
end = time.time()
print(end - start)
#8.636585235595703
Using a low level callable
The scipy.integrate functions also provide the possibility to pass C-callback function instead of a Python function. These functions can be written for example in C, Cython or Numba, which I use in this example. The main advantage is, that no Python interpreter interaction is necessary on function call.
An excellent answer of #Jacques Gaudin shows an easy way to do this including additional arguments.
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from scipy.special import erf
from scipy.special import j0
import time
import numba as nb
from numba import cfunc
from numba.types import intc, CPointer, float64
from scipy import LowLevelCallable
q = np.linspace(0.03, 1.0, 1000)
start = time.time()
def jit_integrand_function(integrand_function):
jitted_function = nb.njit(integrand_function, nopython=True)
#error_model="numpy" -> Don't check for division by zero
#cfunc(float64(intc, CPointer(float64)),error_model="numpy",fastmath=True)
def wrapped(n, xx):
ar = nb.carray(xx, n)
return jitted_function(ar[0], ar[1], ar[2])
return LowLevelCallable(wrapped.ctypes)
#jit_integrand_function
def f(t, z, q):
return t * 0.5 * (erf((t - z) / 3) - 1) * j0(q * t) * (1 / (np.sqrt(2 * np.pi) * 2)) * np.exp(
-0.5 * ((z - 40) / 2) ** 2)
def lower_inner(z):
return 10.
def upper_inner(z):
return 60.
y = np.empty(len(q))
for n in range(len(q)):
y[n] = integrate.dblquad(f, 0, 50, lower_inner, upper_inner,args=(q[n],))[0]
end = time.time()
print(end - start)
#3.2645838260650635

Generally it is much, much faster to do a summation via matrix operations than to use scipy.integrate.quad (or dblquad). You could rewrite your f(q, z, t) to take in a q, z and t vector and return a 3D-array of f-values using np.tensordot, then multiply your area element (dtdz) with the function values and sum them using np.sum. If your area element is not constant, you have to make an array of area-elements and use np.einsum To take your integration limits into account you can use a masked array to mask the function values outside your integration limits before summarizing. Take note that np.einsum overlooks the masks, so if you use einsum you can use np.where to set function values outside your integration limits to zero. Example (with constant area element and simple integration limits):
import numpy as np
import scipy.special as ss
import time
def f(q, t, z):
# Making 3D arrays before computation for readability. You can save some time by
# Using tensordot directly when computing the output
Mq = np.tensordot(q, np.ones((len(t), len(z))), axes=0)
Mt = np.tensordot(np.ones(len(q)), np.tensordot(t, np.ones(len(z)), axes = 0), axes = 0)
Mz = np.tensordot(np.ones((len(q), len(t))), z, axes = 0)
return Mt * 0.5 * (ss.erf((Mt - Mz) / 3) - 1) * (Mq * Mt) * (1 / (np.sqrt(2 * np.pi) * 2)) * np.exp(
-0.5 * ((Mz - 40) / 2) ** 2)
q = np.linspace(0.03, 1, 1000)
t = np.linspace(0, 50, 250)
z = np.linspace(10, 60, 250)
#if you have constand dA you can shave some time by computing dA without using np.diff
#if dA is variable, you have to make an array of dA values and np.einsum instead of np.sum
t0 = time.process_time()
dA = np.diff(t)[0] * np.diff(z)[0]
func_vals = f(q, t, z)
I = np.sum(func_vals * dA, axis=(1, 2))
t1 = time.process_time()
this took 18.5s on my 2012 macbook pro (2.5GHz i5) with dA = 0.04. Doing things this way also allows you to easily choose between precision and efficiency, and to set dA to a value that makes sense when you know how your function behaves.
However, it is worth noting that if you want a larger amount of points, you have to split up your integral, or else you risk maxing out your memory (1000 x 1000 x 1000) doubles requires 8GB of ram. So if you are doing very big integrations with high presicion it can be worth doing a quick check on the memory required before running.

Fitting data with a custom distribution using scipy.stats

So I noticed that there is no implementation of the Skewed generalized t distribution in scipy. It would be useful for me to fit this is distribution to some data I have. Unfortunately fit doesn't seem to be working in this case for me. To explain further I have implemented it like so
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import scipy.stats as st
from scipy.special import beta
class sgt(st.rv_continuous):
def _pdf(self, x, mu, sigma, lam, p, q):
v = q ** (-1 / p) * \
((3 * lam ** 2 + 1) * (
beta(3 / p, q - 2 / p) / beta(1 / p, q)) - 4 * lam ** 2 *
(beta(2 / p, q - 1 / p) / beta(1 / p, q)) ** 2) ** (-1 / 2)
m = 2 * v * sigma * lam * q ** (1 / p) * beta(2 / p, q - 1 / p) / beta(
1 / p, q)
fx = p / (2 * v * sigma * q ** (1 / p) * beta(1 / p, q) * (
abs(x - mu + m) ** p / (q * (v * sigma) ** p) * (
lam * np.sign(x - mu + m) + 1) ** p + 1) ** (
1 / p + q))
return fx
def _argcheck(self, mu, sigma, lam, p, q):
s = sigma > 0
l = -1 < lam < 1
p_bool = p > 0
q_bool = q > 0
all_bool = s & l & p_bool & q_bool
return all_bool
This all works fine and I can generate random variables with given parameters no problem. The _argcheck is required as a simple positive params only check is not suitable.
sgt_inst = sgt(name='sgt')
vars = sgt_inst.rvs(mu=1, sigma=3, lam = -0.1, p = 2, q = 50, size = 100)
However, when I try fit these parameters I get an error
sgt_inst.fit(vars)
RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in subtract
numpy.max(numpy.abs(fsim[0] - fsim[1:])) <= fatol):
and it just returns
What I find strange is that when I implement the example custom Gaussian distribution as shown in the docs, it has no problem running the fit method.
Any ideas?

As fit docstring says,
Starting estimates for the fit are given by input arguments; for any arguments not provided with starting estimates, self._fitstart(data) is called to generate such.
Calling sgt_inst._fitstart(data) returns (1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 0, 1) (the first five are shape parameters, the last two are loc and scale). Looks like _fitstart is not a sophisticated process. The parameter l it picks does not meet your argcheck requirement.
Conclusion: provide your own starting parameters for fit, e.g.,
sgt_inst.fit(data, 0.5, 0.5, -0.5, 2, 10)
returns (1.4587093459289049, 5.471769032259468, -0.02391466905874927, 7.07289326147152
4, 0.741434497805832, -0.07012808188413872, 0.5308181287869771) for my random data.