I have an optimization problem where I'm trying to find an array that needs to optimize two functions simultaneously.
In the minimal example below I have two known arrays w and x and an unknown array y. I initialize array y to contains only 1s.
I then specify function np.sqrt(np.sum((x-np.array)**2) and want to find the array y where
np.sqrt(np.sum((x-y)**2) approaches 5
np.sqrt(np.sum((w-y)**2) approaches 8
The code below can be used to successfully optimize y with respect to a single array, but I would like to find that the solution that optimizes y with respect to both x and y simultaneously, but am unsure how to specify the two constraints.
y should only consist of values greater than 0.
Any ideas on how to go about this ?
w = np.array([6, 3, 1, 0, 2])
x = np.array([3, 4, 5, 6, 7])
y = np.array([1, 1, 1, 1, 1])
def func(x, y):
z = np.sqrt(np.sum((x-y)**2)) - 5
return np.zeros(x.shape[0],) + z
r = opt.root(func, x0=y, method='hybr')
print(r.x)
# array([1.97522498 3.47287981 5.1943792 2.10120135 4.09593969])
print(np.sqrt(np.sum((x-r.x)**2)))
# 5.0
One option is to use scipy.optimize.minimize instead of root, Here you have multiple solver options and some of them (ie SLSQP) allow you to specify multiple constraints. Note that I changed the variable names so that x is the array you want to optimise and y and z define the constraints.
from scipy.optimize import minimize
import numpy as np
x0 = np.array([1, 1, 1, 1, 1])
y = np.array([6, 3, 1, 0, 2])
z = np.array([3, 4, 5, 6, 7])
constraint_x = dict(type='ineq',
fun=lambda x: x) # fulfilled if > 0
constraint_y = dict(type='eq',
fun=lambda x: np.linalg.norm(x-y) - 5) # fulfilled if == 0
constraint_z = dict(type='eq',
fun=lambda x: np.linalg.norm(x-z) - 8) # fulfilled if == 0
res = minimize(fun=lambda x: np.linalg.norm(x), constraints=[constraint_y, constraint_z], x0=x0,
method='SLSQP', options=dict(ftol=1e-8)) # default 1e-6
print(res.x) # [1.55517124 1.44981672 1.46921122 1.61335466 2.13174483]
print(np.linalg.norm(res.x-y)) # 5.00000000137866
print(np.linalg.norm(res.x-z)) # 8.000000000930026
This is a minimizer so besides the constraints it also wants a function to minimize, I chose just the norm of y, but setting the function to a constant (ie lambda x: 1) would have also worked.
Note also that the constraints are not exactly fulfilled, you can increase the accuracy by setting optional argument ftol to a smaller value ie 1e-10.
For more information see also the documentation and the corresponding sections for each solver.
Related
I have an array of data-points, for example:
[10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1]
and I need to perform the following sum on the values:
However, the problem is that I need to perform this sum on each value > i. For example, using the last 3 values in the set the sum would be:
and so on up to 10.
If i run something like:
import numpy as np
x = np.array([10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1])
alpha = 1/np.log(2)
for i in x:
y = sum(x**(alpha)*np.log(x))
print (y)
It returns a single value of y = 247.7827060452275, whereas I need an array of values. I think I need to reverse the order of the data to achieve what I want but I'm having trouble visualising the problem (hope I explained it properly) as a whole so any suggestions would be much appreciated.
The following computes all the partial sums of the grand sum in your formula
import numpy as np
# Generate numpy array [1, 10]
x = np.arange(1, 11)
alpha = 1 / np.log(2)
# Compute parts of the sum
parts = x ** alpha * np.log(x)
# Compute all partial sums
part_sums = np.cumsum(parts)
print(part_sums)
You really do not any explicit loop, or a non-numpy operation (like sum()) here. numpy takes care of all your needs.
Consider the linear regression of Y on X, where (xi, yi) = (2, 7), (0, 2), (5, 14) for i = 1, 2, 3. The solution is (a, b) = (2.395, 2.079), obtained using the regression function on a hand-held calculator.
I want to calculate the slope and the intercept of a linear fit using
the pykalman module. I'm getting
ValueError: The shape of all parameters is not consistent. Please re-check their values.
I'd really appreciate if someone would help me.
Here is my code :
from pykalman import KalmanFilter
import numpy as np
measurements = np.asarray([[7], [2], [14]])
initial_state_matrix = [[1], [1]]
transition_matrix = [[1, 0], [0, 1]]
observation_covariance_matrix = [[1, 0],[0, 1]]
observation_matrix = [[2, 1], [0, 1], [5, 1]]
kf1 = KalmanFilter(n_dim_state=2, n_dim_obs=6,
transition_matrices=transition_matrix,
observation_matrices=observation_matrix,
initial_state_mean=initial_state_matrix,
observation_covariance=observation_covariance_matrix)
kf1 = kf1.em(measurements, n_iter=0)
(smoothed_state_means, smoothed_state_covariances) = kf1.smooth(measurements)
print smoothed_state_means
Here's the code snippet:
from pykalman import KalmanFilter
import numpy as np
kf = KalmanFilter()
(filtered_state_means, filtered_state_covariances) = kf.filter_update(filtered_state_mean = [[0],[0]], filtered_state_covariance = [[90000,0],[0,90000]], observation=np.asarray([[7],[2],[14]]),transition_matrix = np.asarray([[1,0],[0,1]]), observation_matrix = np.asarray([[2,1],[0,1],[5,1]]), observation_covariance = np.asarray([[.1622,0,0],[0,.1622,0],[0,0,.1622]]))
print filtered_state_means
print filtered_state_covariances
for x in range(0, 1000):
(filtered_state_means, filtered_state_covariances) = kf.filter_update(filtered_state_mean = filtered_state_means, filtered_state_covariance = filtered_state_covariances, observation=np.asarray([[7],[2],[14]]),transition_matrix = np.asarray([[1,0],[0,1]]), observation_matrix = np.asarray([[2,1],[0,1],[5,1]]), observation_covariance = np.asarray([[.1622,0,0],[0,.1622,0],[0,0,.1622]]))
print filtered_state_means
print filtered_state_covariances
filtered_state_covariance was chosen large because we have no idea where our filter_state_mean is initially and the observations are just [[y1],[y2],[y3]]. Observation_matrix is [[x1,1],[x2,1],[x3,1]] thus giving second element as our intercept. Imagine it like this y1 = m*x1+c where m and c are slope and intercept respectively. In our case filtered_state_mean = [[m],[c]]. Notice that the new filtered_state_means is used as filtered_state_mean for new kf.filter_update() (in iterating loop) because we now know where mean lies with filtered_state_covariance = filtered_state_covariances. Iterating it 1000 times converges the mean to real value. If you want to know about the function/method used the link is: https://pykalman.github.io/
If the system state does not change between measurements (also called vacuous movement step), then transition_matrix φ = I.
I'm not sure if what I'm going to say now is true or not. So please correct me if I am wrong
observation_covariance matrix must be of size m x m where m is the number of observations (in our case = 3). The diagonal elements are just variances I believe variance_y1, variance_y2 and variance_y3 and off-diagonal elements are covariances. For example element (1,2) in matrix is standard deviation of y1,(COMMA NOT PRODUCT) standard deviation of y2 and is equal to element (2,1). Similarly for other elements. Can someone help me include uncertainty in x1, x2 and x3. I mean how do you implement uncertainties in x in the above code.
The Problem:
I want to calculate the dot product of a very large set of data. I am able to do this in a nested for-loop, but this is way too slow.
Here is a small example:
import numpy as np
points = np.array([[0.5, 2, 3, 5.5, 8, 11], [1, 2, -1.5, 0.5, 4, 5]])
lines = np.array([[0, 2, 4, 6, 10, 10, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 4, 0]])
x1 = lines[0][0:-1]
y1 = lines[1][0:-1]
L1 = np.asarray([x1, y1])
# calculate the relative length of the projection
# of each point onto each line
a = np.diff(lines)
b = points[:,:,None] - L1[:,None,:]
print(a.shape)
print(b.shape)
[rows, cols, pages] = np.shape(b)
Z = np.zeros((cols, pages))
for k in range(cols):
for l in range(pages):
Z[k][l] = a[0][l]*b[0][k][l] + a[1][l]*b[1][k][l]
N = np.linalg.norm(a, axis=0)**2
relativeProjectionLength = np.squeeze(np.asarray(Z/N))
In this example, the first two dimensions of both a and b represent the x- and y-coordinates that I need for the dot product.
The shape of a is (2,7) and b has (2,6,7). Since the dot product reduces the first dimension I would expect the result to be of the shape (6,7). How can I calculate this without the slow loops?
What I have tried:
I think that numpy.dot with correct broadcasting could do the job, however I have trouble setting up the dimensions correctly.
a = a[:, None, :]
Z = np.dot(a,b)
This on gives me the following error:
shapes (2,1,7) and (2,6,7) not aligned: 7 (dim 2) != 6 (dim 1)
You can use np.einsum -
np.einsum('ij,ikj->kj',a,b)
Explanation :
Keep the last axes aligned for the two inputs.
Sum-reduce the first from those.
Let the rest stay, which is the second axis of b.
Usual rules on whether to use einsum or stick to a loopy-dot based method apply here.
numpy.dot does not reduce the first dimension. From the docs:
For N dimensions it is a sum product over the last axis of a and the second-to-last of b:
dot(a, b)[i,j,k,m] = sum(a[i,j,:] * b[k,:,m])
That is exactly what the error is telling you: it is attempting to match axis 2 in the first vector to axis 1 in the second.
You can fix this using numpy.rollaxis or better yet numpy.moveaxis. Instead of a = a[:, None, :], do
a = np.movesxis(a, 0, -1)
b = np.moveaxis(b, 0, -2)
Z = np.dot(a, b)
Better yet, you can construct your arrays to have the correct shape up front. For example, transpose lines and do a = np.diff(lines, axis=0).
What is the easiest and fastest way to interpolate between two arrays to get new array.
For example, I have 3 arrays:
x = np.array([0,1,2,3,4,5])
y = np.array([5,4,3,2,1,0])
z = np.array([0,5])
x,y corresponds to data-points and z is an argument. So at z=0 x array is valid, and at z=5 y array valid. But I need to get new array for z=1. So it could be easily solved by:
a = (y-x)/(z[1]-z[0])*1+x
Problem is that data is not linearly dependent and there are more than 2 arrays with data. Maybe it is possible to use somehow spline interpolation?
This is a univariate to multivariate regression problem. Scipy supports univariate to univariate regression, and multivariate to univariate regression. But you can instead iterate over the outputs, so this is not such a big problem. Below is an example of how it can be done. I've changed the variable names a bit and added a new point:
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
X = np.array([0, 5, 10])
Y = np.array([[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5],
[5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0],
[8, 6, 5, 1, -4, -5]])
XX = np.array([0, 1, 5]) # Find YY for these
YY = np.zeros((len(XX), Y.shape[1]))
for i in range(Y.shape[1]):
f = interp1d(X, Y[:, i])
for j in range(len(XX)):
YY[j, i] = f(XX[j])
So YY are the result for XX. Hope it helps.
I am learning numpy/scipy, coming from a MATLAB background. The xcorr function in Matlab has an optional argument "maxlag" that limits the lag range from –maxlag to maxlag. This is very useful if you are looking at the cross-correlation between two very long time series but are only interested in the correlation within a certain time range. The performance increases are enormous considering that cross-correlation is incredibly expensive to compute.
In numpy/scipy it seems there are several options for computing cross-correlation. numpy.correlate, numpy.convolve, scipy.signal.fftconvolve. If someone wishes to explain the difference between these, I'd be happy to hear, but mainly what is troubling me is that none of them have a maxlag feature. This means that even if I only want to see correlations between two time series with lags between -100 and +100 ms, for example, it will still calculate the correlation for every lag between -20000 and +20000 ms (which is the length of the time series). This gives a 200x performance hit! Do I have to recode the cross-correlation function by hand to include this feature?
Here are a couple functions to compute auto- and cross-correlation with limited lags. The order of multiplication (and conjugation, in the complex case) was chosen to match the corresponding behavior of numpy.correlate.
import numpy as np
from numpy.lib.stride_tricks import as_strided
def _check_arg(x, xname):
x = np.asarray(x)
if x.ndim != 1:
raise ValueError('%s must be one-dimensional.' % xname)
return x
def autocorrelation(x, maxlag):
"""
Autocorrelation with a maximum number of lags.
`x` must be a one-dimensional numpy array.
This computes the same result as
numpy.correlate(x, x, mode='full')[len(x)-1:len(x)+maxlag]
The return value has length maxlag + 1.
"""
x = _check_arg(x, 'x')
p = np.pad(x.conj(), maxlag, mode='constant')
T = as_strided(p[maxlag:], shape=(maxlag+1, len(x) + maxlag),
strides=(-p.strides[0], p.strides[0]))
return T.dot(p[maxlag:].conj())
def crosscorrelation(x, y, maxlag):
"""
Cross correlation with a maximum number of lags.
`x` and `y` must be one-dimensional numpy arrays with the same length.
This computes the same result as
numpy.correlate(x, y, mode='full')[len(a)-maxlag-1:len(a)+maxlag]
The return vaue has length 2*maxlag + 1.
"""
x = _check_arg(x, 'x')
y = _check_arg(y, 'y')
py = np.pad(y.conj(), 2*maxlag, mode='constant')
T = as_strided(py[2*maxlag:], shape=(2*maxlag+1, len(y) + 2*maxlag),
strides=(-py.strides[0], py.strides[0]))
px = np.pad(x, maxlag, mode='constant')
return T.dot(px)
For example,
In [367]: x = np.array([2, 1.5, 0, 0, -1, 3, 2, -0.5])
In [368]: autocorrelation(x, 3)
Out[368]: array([ 20.5, 5. , -3.5, -1. ])
In [369]: np.correlate(x, x, mode='full')[7:11]
Out[369]: array([ 20.5, 5. , -3.5, -1. ])
In [370]: y = np.arange(8)
In [371]: crosscorrelation(x, y, 3)
Out[371]: array([ 5. , 23.5, 32. , 21. , 16. , 12.5, 9. ])
In [372]: np.correlate(x, y, mode='full')[4:11]
Out[372]: array([ 5. , 23.5, 32. , 21. , 16. , 12.5, 9. ])
(It will be nice to have such a feature in numpy itself.)
Until numpy implements the maxlag argument, you can use the function ucorrelate from the pycorrelate package. ucorrelate operates on numpy arrays and has a maxlag keyword. It implements the correlation from using a for-loop and optimizes the execution speed with numba.
Example - autocorrelation with 3 time lags:
import numpy as np
import pycorrelate as pyc
x = np.array([2, 1.5, 0, 0, -1, 3, 2, -0.5])
c = pyc.ucorrelate(x, x, maxlag=3)
c
Result:
Out[1]: array([20, 5, -3])
The pycorrelate documentation contains a notebook showing perfect match between pycorrelate.ucorrelate and numpy.correlate:
matplotlib.pyplot provides matlab like syntax for computating and plotting of cross correlation , auto correlation etc.
You can use xcorr which allows to define the maxlags parameter.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
data = np.arange(0,2*np.pi,0.01)
y1 = np.sin(data)
y2 = np.cos(data)
coeff = plt.xcorr(y1,y2,maxlags=10)
print(*coeff)
[-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10] [ -9.81991753e-02 -8.85505028e-02 -7.88613080e-02 -6.91325329e-02
-5.93651264e-02 -4.95600447e-02 -3.97182508e-02 -2.98407146e-02
-1.99284126e-02 -9.98232812e-03 -3.45104289e-06 9.98555430e-03
1.99417667e-02 2.98641953e-02 3.97518558e-02 4.96037706e-02
5.94189688e-02 6.91964864e-02 7.89353663e-02 8.86346584e-02
9.82934198e-02] <matplotlib.collections.LineCollection object at 0x00000000074A9E80> Line2D(_line0)
#Warren Weckesser's answer is the best as it leverages numpy to get performance savings (and not just call corr for each lag). Nonetheless, it returns the cross-product (eg the dot product between the inputs at various lags). To get the actual cross-correlation I modified his answer w/ an optional mode argument, which if set to 'corr' returns the cross-correlation as such:
def crosscorrelation(x, y, maxlag, mode='corr'):
"""
Cross correlation with a maximum number of lags.
`x` and `y` must be one-dimensional numpy arrays with the same length.
This computes the same result as
numpy.correlate(x, y, mode='full')[len(a)-maxlag-1:len(a)+maxlag]
The return vaue has length 2*maxlag + 1.
"""
py = np.pad(y.conj(), 2*maxlag, mode='constant')
T = as_strided(py[2*maxlag:], shape=(2*maxlag+1, len(y) + 2*maxlag),
strides=(-py.strides[0], py.strides[0]))
px = np.pad(x, maxlag, mode='constant')
if mode == 'dot': # get lagged dot product
return T.dot(px)
elif mode == 'corr': # gets Pearson correlation
return (T.dot(px)/px.size - (T.mean(axis=1)*px.mean())) / \
(np.std(T, axis=1) * np.std(px))
I encountered the same problem some time ago, I paid more attention to the efficiency of calculation.Refer to the source code of MATLAB's function xcorr.m, I made a simple one.
import numpy as np
from scipy import signal, fftpack
import math
import time
def nextpow2(x):
if x == 0:
y = 0
else:
y = math.ceil(math.log2(x))
return y
def xcorr(x, y, maxlag):
m = max(len(x), len(y))
mx1 = min(maxlag, m - 1)
ceilLog2 = nextpow2(2 * m - 1)
m2 = 2 ** ceilLog2
X = fftpack.fft(x, m2)
Y = fftpack.fft(y, m2)
c1 = np.real(fftpack.ifft(X * np.conj(Y)))
index1 = np.arange(1, mx1+1, 1) + (m2 - mx1 -1)
index2 = np.arange(1, mx1+2, 1) - 1
c = np.hstack((c1[index1], c1[index2]))
return c
if __name__ == "__main__":
s = time.clock()
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
b = [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
c = xcorr(a, b, 3)
e = time.clock()
print(c)
print(e-c)
Take the results of a certain run as an exmple:
[ 29. 56. 90. 130. 110. 86. 59.]
0.0001745000000001884
comparing with MATLAB code:
clear;close all;clc
tic
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
b = [6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
c = xcorr(a, b, 3)
toc
29.0000 56.0000 90.0000 130.0000 110.0000 86.0000 59.0000
时间已过 0.000279 秒。
If anyone can give a strict mathematical derivation about this,that would be very helpful.
I think I have found a solution, as I was facing the same problem:
If you have two vectors x and y of any length N, and want a cross-correlation with a window of fixed len m, you can do:
x = <some_data>
y = <some_data>
# Trim your variables
x_short = x[window:]
y_short = y[window:]
# do two xcorrelations, lagging x and y respectively
left_xcorr = np.correlate(x, y_short) #defaults to 'valid'
right_xcorr = np.correlate(x_short, y) #defaults to 'valid'
# combine the xcorrelations
# note the first value of right_xcorr is the same as the last of left_xcorr
xcorr = np.concatenate(left_xcorr, right_xcorr[1:])
Remember you might need to normalise the variables if you want a bounded correlation
Here is another answer, sourced from here, seems faster on the margin than np.correlate and has the benefit of returning a normalised correlation:
def rolling_window(self, a, window):
shape = a.shape[:-1] + (a.shape[-1] - window + 1, window)
strides = a.strides + (a.strides[-1],)
return np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided(a, shape=shape, strides=strides)
def xcorr(self, x,y):
N=len(x)
M=len(y)
meany=np.mean(y)
stdy=np.std(np.asarray(y))
tmp=self.rolling_window(np.asarray(x),M)
c=np.sum((y-meany)*(tmp-np.reshape(np.mean(tmp,-1),(N-M+1,1))),-1)/(M*np.std(tmp,-1)*stdy)
return c
as I answered here, https://stackoverflow.com/a/47897581/5122657
matplotlib.xcorr has the maxlags param. It is actually a wrapper of the numpy.correlate, so there is no performance saving. Nevertheless it gives exactly the same result given by Matlab's cross-correlation function. Below I edited the code from matplotlib so that it will return only the correlation. The reason is that if we use matplotlib.corr as it is, it will return the plot as well. The problem is, if we put complex data type as the arguments into it, we will get "casting complex to real datatype" warning when matplotlib tries to draw the plot.
<!-- language: python -->
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def xcorr(x, y, maxlags=10):
Nx = len(x)
if Nx != len(y):
raise ValueError('x and y must be equal length')
c = np.correlate(x, y, mode=2)
if maxlags is None:
maxlags = Nx - 1
if maxlags >= Nx or maxlags < 1:
raise ValueError('maxlags must be None or strictly positive < %d' % Nx)
c = c[Nx - 1 - maxlags:Nx + maxlags]
return c