Related
I'm plotting x and y points. This results in a curved line, the line is first bending and then after a point its straight and after some time it bends again. I want to retrieve those two points. Though x is linear and y is plotted against x but y is not linearly dependent on x.
I tried matplotlib for plotting and numpy polynomial functions, and am currently looking into splines, but it seems that for these y needs to be directly dependent on x.
Your data is noisy, so you can't use a simple numerical derivative. Instead, as you may have found already, you should fit it with a spline and then check the curvature of the spline.
Keying off this answer, you can fit a spline and calculate the second derivative (curvature) like this:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.interpolate import UnivariateSpline
x = file['n']
y = file['Ds/2']
y_spline = UnivariateSpline(x, y)
x_range = np.linspace(x[0], x[-1], 1000) # or could use x_range = x
y_spline_deriv = y_spl.derivative(n=2)
curvature = y_spline_deriv(x_range)
Then you can find the start and end of the straight region like this:
straight_points = np.where(curvature.abs() <= 0.1)[0] # pick your threshold
start_idx = straight_points[0]
end_idx = straight_points[-1]
start_x = x_range[start_idx]
end_x = x_range[end_idx]
Alternatively, if you're mainly interested in finding the flattest part of the curve (as shown in your graphic), you could try calculating the first derivative and then finding regions where the slope is within some small amount of the minimum slope anywhere in the data. In that case, just substitute y_spline_deriv = y_spl.derivative(n=1) in the code above.
My objective is to randomly generate good looking continuous functions, good looking meaning that functions which can be recovered from their plots.
Essentially I want to generate a random time series data for 1 second with 1024 samples per second. If I randomly choose 1024 values, then the plot looks very noisy and nothing meaningful can be extracted out of it. In the end I have attached plots of two sinusoids, one with a frequency of 3Hz and another with a frequency of 100Hz. I consider 3Hz cosine as a good function because I can extract back the timeseries by looking at the plot. But the 100 Hz sinusoid is bad for me as I cant recover the timeseries from the plot. So in the above mentioned meaning of goodness of a timeseries, I want to randomly generate good looking continuos functions/timeseries.
The method I am thinking of using is as follows (python language):
(1) Choose 32 points in x-axis between 0 to 1 using x=linspace(0,1,32).
(2) For each of these 32 points choose a random value using y=np.random.rand(32).
(3) Then I need an interpolation or curve fitting method which takes as input (x,y) and outputs a continuos function which would look something like func=curve_fit(x,y)
(4) I can obtain the time seires by sampling from the func function
Following are the questions that I have:
1) What is the best curve-fitting or interpolation method that I can
use. They should also be available in python.
2) Is there a better method to generate good looking functions,
without using curve fitting or interpolation.
Edit
Here is the code I am using currently for generating random time-series of length 1024. In my case I need to scale the function between 0 and 1 in the y-axis. Hence for me l=0 and h=0. If that scaling is not needed you just need to uncomment a line in each function to randomize the scaling.
import numpy as np
from scipy import interpolate
from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
## Curve fitting technique
def random_poly_fit():
l=0
h=1
degree = np.random.randint(2,11)
c_points = np.random.randint(2,32)
cx = np.linspace(0,1,c_points)
cy = np.random.rand(c_points)
z = np.polyfit(cx, cy, degree)
f = np.poly1d(z)
y = f(x)
# l,h=np.sort(np.random.rand(2))
y = MinMaxScaler(feature_range=(l,h)).fit_transform(y.reshape(-1, 1)).reshape(-1)
return y
## Cubic Spline Interpolation technique
def random_cubic_spline():
l=0
h=1
c_points = np.random.randint(4,32)
cx = np.linspace(0,1,c_points)
cy = np.random.rand(c_points)
z = interpolate.CubicSpline(cx, cy)
y = z(x)
# l,h=np.sort(np.random.rand(2))
y = MinMaxScaler(feature_range=(l,h)).fit_transform(y.reshape(-1, 1)).reshape(-1)
return y
func_families = [random_poly_fit, random_cubic_spline]
func = np.random.choice(func_families)
x = np.linspace(0,1,1024)
y = func()
plt.plot(x,y)
plt.show()
Add sin and cosine signals
from numpy.random import randint
x= np.linspace(0,1,1000)
for i in range(10):
y = randint(0,100)*np.sin(randint(0,100)*x)+randint(0,100)*np.cos(randint(0,100)*x)
y = MinMaxScaler(feature_range=(-1,1)).fit_transform(y.reshape(-1, 1)).reshape(-1)
plt.plot(x,y)
plt.show()
Output:
convolve sin and cosine signals
for i in range(10):
y = np.convolve(randint(0,100)*np.sin(randint(0,100)*x), randint(0,100)*np.cos(randint(0,100)*x), 'same')
y = MinMaxScaler(feature_range=(-1,1)).fit_transform(y.reshape(-1, 1)).reshape(-1)
plt.plot(x,y)
plt.show()
Output:
I am trying to sample around 1000 points from a 3-D ellipsoid, uniformly. Is there some way to code it such that we can get points starting from the equation of the ellipsoid?
I want points on the surface of the ellipsoid.
Theory
Using this excellent answer to the MSE question How to generate points uniformly distributed on the surface of an ellipsoid? we can
generate a point uniformly on the sphere, apply the mapping f :
(x,y,z) -> (x'=ax,y'=by,z'=cz) and then correct the distortion
created by the map by discarding the point randomly with some
probability p(x,y,z).
Assuming that the 3 axes of the ellipsoid are named such that
0 < a < b < c
We discard a generated point with
p(x,y,z) = 1 - mu(x,y,y)/mu_max
probability, ie we keep it with mu(x,y,y)/mu_max probability where
mu(x,y,z) = ((acy)^2 + (abz)^2 + (bcx)^2)^0.5
and
mu_max = bc
Implementation
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(42)
# Function to generate a random point on a uniform sphere
# (relying on https://stackoverflow.com/a/33977530/8565438)
def randompoint(ndim=3):
vec = np.random.randn(ndim,1)
vec /= np.linalg.norm(vec, axis=0)
return vec
# Give the length of each axis (example values):
a, b, c = 1, 2, 4
# Function to scale up generated points using the function `f` mentioned above:
f = lambda x,y,z : np.multiply(np.array([a,b,c]),np.array([x,y,z]))
# Keep the point with probability `mu(x,y,z)/mu_max`, ie
def keep(x, y, z, a=a, b=b, c=c):
mu_xyz = ((a * c * y) ** 2 + (a * b * z) ** 2 + (b * c * x) ** 2) ** 0.5
return mu_xyz / (b * c) > np.random.uniform(low=0.0, high=1.0)
# Generate points until we have, let's say, 1000 points:
n = 1000
points = []
while len(points) < n:
[x], [y], [z] = randompoint()
if keep(x, y, z):
points.append(f(x, y, z))
Checks
Check if all points generated satisfy the ellipsoid condition (ie that x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 + z^2/c^2 = 1):
for p in points:
pscaled = np.multiply(p,np.array([1/a,1/b,1/c]))
assert np.allclose(np.sum(np.dot(pscaled,pscaled)),1)
Runs without raising any errors. Visualize the points:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(projection="3d")
points = np.array(points)
ax.scatter(points[:, 0], points[:, 1], points[:, 2])
# set aspect ratio for the axes using https://stackoverflow.com/a/64453375/8565438
ax.set_box_aspect((np.ptp(points[:, 0]), np.ptp(points[:, 1]), np.ptp(points[:, 2])))
plt.show()
These points seem evenly distributed.
Problem with currently accepted answer
Generating a point on a sphere and then just reprojecting it without any further corrections to an ellipse will result in a distorted distribution. This is essentially the same as setting this posts's p(x,y,z) to 0. Imagine an ellipsoid where one axis is orders of magnitude bigger than another. This way, it is easy to see, that naive reprojection is not going to work.
Consider using Monte-Carlo simulation: generate a random 3D point; check if the point is inside the ellipsoid; if it is, keep it. Repeat until you get 1,000 points.
P.S. Since the OP changed their question, this answer is no longer valid.
J.F. Williamson, "Random selection of points distributed on curved surfaces", Physics in Medicine & Biology 32(10), 1987, describes a general method of choosing a uniformly random point on a parametric surface. It is an acceptance/rejection method that accepts or rejects each candidate point depending on its stretch factor (norm-of-gradient). To use this method for a parametric surface, several things have to be known about the surface, namely—
x(u, v), y(u, v) and z(u, v), which are functions that generate 3-dimensional coordinates from two dimensional coordinates u and v,
The ranges of u and v,
g(point), the norm of the gradient ("stretch factor") at each point on the surface, and
gmax, the maximum value of g for the entire surface.
The algorithm is then:
Generate a point on the surface, xyz.
If g(xyz) >= RNDU01()*gmax, where RNDU01() is a uniform random variate in [0, 1), accept the point. Otherwise, repeat this process.
Chen and Glotzer (2007) apply the method to the surface of a prolate spheroid (one form of ellipsoid) in "Simulation studies of a phenomenological model for elongated virus capsid formation", Physical Review E 75(5), 051504 (preprint).
Here is a generic function to pick a random point on a surface of a sphere, spheroid or any triaxial ellipsoid with a, b and c parameters. Note that generating angles directly will not provide uniform distribution and will cause excessive population of points along z direction. Instead, phi is obtained as an inverse of randomly generated cos(phi).
import numpy as np
def random_point_ellipsoid(a,b,c):
u = np.random.rand()
v = np.random.rand()
theta = u * 2.0 * np.pi
phi = np.arccos(2.0 * v - 1.0)
sinTheta = np.sin(theta);
cosTheta = np.cos(theta);
sinPhi = np.sin(phi);
cosPhi = np.cos(phi);
rx = a * sinPhi * cosTheta;
ry = b * sinPhi * sinTheta;
rz = c * cosPhi;
return rx, ry, rz
This function is adopted from this post: https://karthikkaranth.me/blog/generating-random-points-in-a-sphere/
One way of doing this whch generalises for any shape or surface is to convert the surface to a voxel representation at arbitrarily high resolution (the higher the resolution the better but also the slower). Then you can easily select the voxels randomly however you want, and then you can select a point on the surface within the voxel using the parametric equation. The voxel selection should be completely unbiased, and the selection of the point within the voxel will suffer the same biases that come from using the parametric equation but if there are enough voxels then the size of these biases will be very small.
You need a high quality cube intersection code but with something like an elipsoid that can optimised quite easily. I'd suggest stepping through the bounding box subdivided into voxels. A quick distance check will eliminate most cubes and you can do a proper intersection check for the ones where an intersection is possible. For the point within the cube I'd be tempted to do something simple like a random XYZ distance from the centre and then cast a ray from the centre of the elipsoid and the selected point is where the ray intersects the surface. As I said above, it will be biased but with small voxels, the bias will probably be small enough.
There are libraries that do convex shape intersection very efficiently and cube/elipsoid will be one of the options. They will be highly optimised but I think the distance culling would probably be worth doing by hand whatever. And you will need a library that differentiates between a surface intersection and one object being totally inside the other.
And if you know your elipsoid is aligned to an axis then you can do the voxel/edge intersection very easily as a stack of 2D square intersection elipse problems with the set of squares to be tested defined as those that are adjacent to those in the layer above. That might be quicker.
One of the things that makes this approach more managable is that you do not need to write all the code for edge cases (it is a lot of work to get around issues with floating point inaccuracies that can lead to missing or doubled voxels at the intersection). That's because these will be very rare so they won't affect your sampling.
It might even be quicker to simply find all the voxels inside the elipse and then throw away all the voxels with 6 neighbours... Lots of options. It all depends how important performance is. This will be much slower than the opther suggestions but if you want ~1000 points then ~100,000 voxels feels about the minimum for the surface, so you probably need ~1,000,000 voxels in your bounding box. However even testing 1,000,000 intersections is pretty fast on modern computers.
Depending on what "uniformly" refers to, different methods are applicable. In any case, we can use the parametric equations using spherical coordinates (from Wikipedia):
where s = 1 refers to the ellipsoid given by the semi-axes a > b > c. From these equations we can derive the relevant volume/area element and generate points such that their probability of being generated is proportional to that volume/area element. This will provide constant volume/area density across the surface of the ellipsoid.
1. Constant volume density
This method generates points on the surface of an ellipsoid such that their volume density across the surface of the ellipsoid is constant. A consequence of this is that the one-dimensional projections (i.e. the x, y, z coordinates) are uniformly distributed; for details see the plot below.
The volume element for a triaxial ellipsoid is given by (see here):
and is thus proportional to sin(theta) (for 0 <= theta <= pi). We can use this as the basis for a probability distribution that indicates "how many" points should be generated for a given value of theta: where the area density is low/high, the probability for generating a corresponding value of theta should be low/high, too.
Hence, we can use the function f(theta) = sin(theta)/2 as our probability distribution on the interval [0, pi]. The corresponding cumulative distribution function is F(theta) = (1 - cos(theta))/2. Now we can use Inverse transform sampling to generate values of theta according to f(theta) from a uniform random distribution. The values of phi can be obtained directly from a uniform distribution on [0, 2*pi].
Example code:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from numpy import sin, cos, pi
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0)
a, b, c = 10, 3, 1
N = 5000
phi = rng.uniform(0, 2*pi, size=N)
theta = np.arccos(1 - 2*rng.random(size=N))
x = a*sin(theta)*cos(phi)
y = b*sin(theta)*sin(phi)
z = c*cos(theta)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(projection='3d')
ax.scatter(x, y, z, s=2)
plt.show()
which produces the following plot:
The following plot shows the one-dimensional projections (i.e. density plots of x, y, z):
import seaborn as sns
sns.kdeplot(data=dict(x=x, y=y, z=z))
plt.show()
2. Constant area density
This method generates points on the surface of an ellipsoid such that their area density is constant across the surface of the ellipsoid.
Again, we start by calculating the corresponding area element. For simplicity we can use SymPy:
from sympy import cos, sin, symbols, Matrix
a, b, c, t, p = symbols('a b c t p')
x = a*sin(t)*cos(p)
y = b*sin(t)*sin(p)
z = c*cos(t)
J = Matrix([
[x.diff(t), x.diff(p)],
[y.diff(t), y.diff(p)],
[z.diff(t), z.diff(p)],
])
print((J.T # J).det().simplify())
This yields
-a**2*b**2*sin(t)**4 + a**2*b**2*sin(t)**2 + a**2*c**2*sin(p)**2*sin(t)**4 - b**2*c**2*sin(p)**2*sin(t)**4 + b**2*c**2*sin(t)**4
and further simplifies to (dividing by (a*b)**2 and taking the sqrt):
sin(t)*np.sqrt(1 + ((c/b)**2*sin(p)**2 + (c/a)**2*cos(p)**2 - 1)*sin(t)**2)
Since for this case the area element is more complex, we can use rejection sampling:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from numpy import cos, sin
def f_redo(t, p):
return (
sin(t)*np.sqrt(1 + ((c/b)**2*sin(p)**2 + (c/a)**2*cos(p)**2 - 1)*sin(t)**2)
< rng.random(size=t.size)
)
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0)
N = 5000
a, b, c = 10, 3, 1
t = rng.uniform(0, np.pi, size=N)
p = rng.uniform(0, 2*np.pi, size=N)
redo = f_redo(t, p)
while redo.any():
t[redo] = rng.uniform(0, np.pi, size=redo.sum())
p[redo] = rng.uniform(0, 2*np.pi, size=redo.sum())
redo[redo] = f_redo(t[redo], p[redo])
x = a*np.sin(t)*np.cos(p)
y = b*np.sin(t)*np.sin(p)
z = c*np.cos(t)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(projection='3d')
ax.scatter(x, y, z, s=2)
plt.show()
which yields the following distribution:
The following plot shows the corresponding one-dimensional projections (x, y, z):
I've been having invalid input errors when working with scipy interp2d function. It turns out the problem comes from the bisplrep function, as showed here:
import numpy as np
from scipy import interpolate
# Case 1
x = np.linspace(0,1)
y = np.zeros_like(x)
z = np.ones_like(x)
tck = interpolate.bisplrep(x,y,z) # or interp2d
Returns: ValueError: Invalid inputs
It turned out the test data I was giving interp2d contained only one distinct value for the 2nd axis, as in the test sample above. The bisplrep function inside interp2d considers it as an invalid output:
This may be considered as an acceptable behaviour: interp2d & bisplrep expect a 2D grid, and I'm only giving them values along one line.
On a side note, I find the error message quite unclear. One could include a test in interp2d to deal with such cases: something along the lines of
if len(np.unique(x))==1 or len(np.unique(y))==1:
ValueError ("Can't build 2D splines if x or y values are all the same")
may be enough to detect this kind of invalid input, and raise a more explicit error message, or even directly call the more appropriate interp1d function (which works perfectly here)
I thought I had correctly understood the problem. However, consider the following code sample:
# Case 2
x = np.linspace(0,1)
y = x
z = np.ones_like(x)
tck = interpolate.bisplrep(x,y,z)
In that case, y being proportional to x, I'm also feeding bisplrep with data along one line. But, surprisingly, bisplrep is able to compute a 2D spline interpolation in that case. I plotted it:
# Plot
def plot_0to1(tck):
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
X = np.linspace(0,1,10)
Y = np.linspace(0,1,10)
Z = interpolate.bisplev(X,Y,tck)
X,Y = np.meshgrid(X,Y)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = Axes3D(fig)
ax.plot_surface(X, Y, Z,rstride=1, cstride=1, cmap=cm.coolwarm,
linewidth=0, antialiased=False)
plt.show()
plot_0to1(tck)
The result is the following:
where bisplrep seems to fill the gaps with 0's, as better showed when I extend the plot below:
Regarding of whether adding 0 is expected, my real question is: why does bisplrep work in Case 2 but not in Case 1?
Or, in other words: do we want it to return an error when 2D interpolation is fed with input along one direction only (Case 1 & 2 fail), or not? (Case 1 & 2 should return something, even if unpredicted).
I was originally going to show you how much of a difference it makes for 2d interpolation if your input data are oriented along the coordinate axes rather than in some general direction, but it turns out that the result would be even messier than I had anticipated. I tried using a random dataset over an interpolated rectangular mesh, and comparing that to a case where the same x and y coordinates were rotated by 45 degrees for interpolation. The result was abysmal.
I then tried doing a comparison with a smoother dataset: turns out scipy.interpolate.interp2d has quite a few issues. So my bottom line will be "use scipy.interpolate.griddata".
For instructive purposes, here's my (quite messy) code:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
import matplotlib.cm as cm
n = 10 # rough number of points
dom = np.linspace(-2,2,n+1) # 1d input grid
x1,y1 = np.meshgrid(dom,dom) # 2d input grid
z = np.random.rand(*x1.shape) # ill-conditioned sample
#z = np.cos(x1)*np.sin(y1) # smooth sample
# first interpolator with interp2d:
fun1 = interp.interp2d(x1,y1,z,kind='linear')
# construct twice finer plotting and interpolating mesh
plotdom = np.linspace(-1,1,2*n+1) # for interpolation and plotting
plotx1,ploty1 = np.meshgrid(plotdom,plotdom)
plotz1 = fun1(plotdom,plotdom) # interpolated points
# construct 45-degree rotated input and interpolating meshes
rotmat = np.array([[1,-1],[1,1]])/np.sqrt(2) # 45-degree rotation
x2,y2 = rotmat.dot(np.vstack([x1.ravel(),y1.ravel()])) # rotate input mesh
plotx2,ploty2 = rotmat.dot(np.vstack([plotx1.ravel(),ploty1.ravel()])) # rotate plotting/interp mesh
# interpolate on rotated mesh with interp2d
# (reverse rotate by using plotx1, ploty1 later!)
fun2 = interp.interp2d(x2,y2,z.ravel(),kind='linear')
# I had to generate the rotated points element-by-element
# since fun2() accepts only rectangular meshes as input
plotz2 = np.array([fun2(xx,yy) for (xx,yy) in zip(plotx2.ravel(),ploty2.ravel())])
# try interpolating with griddata
plotz3 = interp.griddata(np.array([x1.ravel(),y1.ravel()]).T,z.ravel(),np.array([plotx1.ravel(),ploty1.ravel()]).T,method='linear')
plotz4 = interp.griddata(np.array([x2,y2]).T,z.ravel(),np.array([plotx2,ploty2]).T,method='linear')
# function to plot a surface
def myplot(X,Y,Z):
fig = plt.figure()
ax = Axes3D(fig)
ax.plot_surface(X, Y, Z,rstride=1, cstride=1,
linewidth=0, antialiased=False,cmap=cm.coolwarm)
plt.show()
# plot interp2d versions
myplot(plotx1,ploty1,plotz1) # Cartesian meshes
myplot(plotx1,ploty1,plotz2.reshape(2*n+1,-1)) # rotated meshes
# plot griddata versions
myplot(plotx1,ploty1,plotz3.reshape(2*n+1,-1)) # Cartesian meshes
myplot(plotx1,ploty1,plotz4.reshape(2*n+1,-1)) # rotated meshes
So here's a gallery of the results. Using random input z data, and interp2d, Cartesian (left) vs rotated interpolation (right):
Note the horrible scale on the right side, noting that the input points are between 0 and 1. Even its mother wouldn't recognize the data set. Note that there are runtime warnings during the evaluation of the rotated data set, so we're being warned that it's all crap.
Now let's do the same with griddata:
We should note that these figures are much closer to each other, and they seem to make way more sense than the output of interp2d. For instance, note the overshoot in the scale of the very first figure.
These artifacts always arise between input data points. Since it's still interpolation, the input points have to be reproduced by the interpolating function, but it's pretty weird that a linear interpolating function overshoots between data points. It's clear that griddata doesn't suffer from this issue.
Consider an even more clear case: the other set of z values, which are smooth and deterministic. The surfaces with interp2d:
HELP! Call the interpolation police! Already the Cartesian input case has inexplicable (well, at least by me) spurious features in it, and the rotated input case poses the threat of s͔̖̰͕̞͖͇ͣ́̈̒ͦ̀̀ü͇̹̞̳ͭ̊̓̎̈m̥̠͈̣̆̐ͦ̚m̻͑͒̔̓ͦ̇oͣ̐ͣṉ̟͖͙̆͋i͉̓̓ͭ̒͛n̹̙̥̩̥̯̭ͤͤͤ̄g͈͇̼͖͖̭̙ ̐z̻̉ͬͪ̑ͭͨ͊ä̼̣̬̗̖́̄ͥl̫̣͔͓̟͛͊̏ͨ͗̎g̻͇͈͚̟̻͛ͫ͛̅͋͒o͈͓̱̥̙̫͚̾͂.
So let's do the same with griddata:
The day is saved, thanks to The Powerpuff Girls scipy.interpolate.griddata. Homework: check the same with cubic interpolation.
By the way, a very short answer to your original question is in help(interp.interp2d):
| Notes
| -----
| The minimum number of data points required along the interpolation
| axis is ``(k+1)**2``, with k=1 for linear, k=3 for cubic and k=5 for
| quintic interpolation.
For linear interpolation you need at least 4 points along the interpolation axis, i.e. at least 4 unique x and y values have to be present to get a meaningful result. Check these:
nvals = 3 # -> RuntimeWarning
x = np.linspace(0,1,10)
y = np.random.randint(low=0,high=nvals,size=x.shape)
z = x
interp.interp2d(x,y,z)
nvals = 4 # -> no problem here
x = np.linspace(0,1,10)
y = np.random.randint(low=0,high=nvals,size=x.shape)
z = x
interp.interp2d(x,y,z)
And of course this all ties in to you question like this: it makes a huge difference if your geometrically 1d data set is along one of the Cartesian axes, or if it's in a general way such that the coordinate values assume various different values. It's probably meaningless (or at least very ill-defined) to try 2d interpolation from a geometrically 1d data set, but at least the algorithm shouldn't break if your data are along a general direction of the x,y plane.
I am new to python.
I have a line curve in the 3D space defined by a set of given points.
Can anyone suggest how I can use the interpolate with spline functions of the scipy package to get the spline coefficients of the curve just like the spline.coeff function in MATLAB?
Thank you!
EDIT:
I have used the
tck = interpolate.SmoothBivariateSpline(pts2[:,0], pts2[:,1], pts2[:,2])
test_pts = pts2[:,2]-tck.ev(pts2[:,0], pts2[:,1])
print test_pts
but this is for surfaces apparently and not for line curves pts2 is a Nx3 numpy array containing the coordinates of the points
ok I figured out what I was doing wrong. my input points where too few. now I have another question. The function get_coeffs is supposed to return the spline coefficients at every not. In which order those coefficients are returned? I have an array of 79 tx and 79 ty which represent the knots and I get an array of 1x5625 when I call the function to call the knots
I too am new to python, but my recent searching led me to a very helpful scipy interpolation tutorial. From my reading of this I concur that the BivariateSpline family of classes/functions are intended for interpolating 3D surfaces rather than 3D curves.
For my 3D curve fitting problem (which I believe is very similar to yours, but with the addition of wanting to smooth out noise) I ended up using scipy.interpolate.splprep (not to be confused with scipy.interpolate.splrep). From the tutorial linked above, the spline coefficients your are looking for are returned by splprep.
The normal output is a 3-tuple, (t,c,k) , containing the
knot-points, t , the coefficients c and the order k of the spline.
The docs keep referring to these procedural functions as an "older, non object-oriented wrapping of FITPACK" in contrast to the "newer, object-oriented" UnivariateSpline and BivariateSpline classes. I would have preferred "newer, object-oriented" myself, but as far as I can tell UnivariateSpline only handles the 1-D case whereas splprep handles N-D data directly.
Below is a simple test-case that I used to figure out these functions:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy import interpolate
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
# 3D example
total_rad = 10
z_factor = 3
noise = 0.1
num_true_pts = 200
s_true = np.linspace(0, total_rad, num_true_pts)
x_true = np.cos(s_true)
y_true = np.sin(s_true)
z_true = s_true/z_factor
num_sample_pts = 80
s_sample = np.linspace(0, total_rad, num_sample_pts)
x_sample = np.cos(s_sample) + noise * np.random.randn(num_sample_pts)
y_sample = np.sin(s_sample) + noise * np.random.randn(num_sample_pts)
z_sample = s_sample/z_factor + noise * np.random.randn(num_sample_pts)
tck, u = interpolate.splprep([x_sample,y_sample,z_sample], s=2)
x_knots, y_knots, z_knots = interpolate.splev(tck[0], tck)
u_fine = np.linspace(0,1,num_true_pts)
x_fine, y_fine, z_fine = interpolate.splev(u_fine, tck)
fig2 = plt.figure(2)
ax3d = fig2.add_subplot(111, projection='3d')
ax3d.plot(x_true, y_true, z_true, 'b')
ax3d.plot(x_sample, y_sample, z_sample, 'r*')
ax3d.plot(x_knots, y_knots, z_knots, 'go')
ax3d.plot(x_fine, y_fine, z_fine, 'g')
fig2.show()
plt.show()