Creating a 2D Gaussian random field from a given 2D variance - python

I've been trying to create a 2D map of blobs of matter (Gaussian random field) using a variance I have calculated. This variance is a 2D array. I have tried using numpy.random.normal since it allows for a 2D input of the variance, but it doesn't really create a map with the trend I expect from the input parameters. One of the important input constants lambda_c should manifest itself as the physical size (diameter) of the blobs. However, when I change my lambda_c, the size of the blobs does not change if at all. For example, if I set lambda_c = 40 parsecs, the map needs blobs that are 40 parsecs in diameter. A MWE to produce the map using my variance:
import numpy as np
import random
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib.pyplot import show, plot
import scipy.integrate as integrate
from scipy.interpolate import RectBivariateSpline
n = 300
c = 3e8
G = 6.67e-11
M_sun = 1.989e30
pc = 3.086e16 # parsec
Dds = 1097.07889283e6*pc
Ds = 1726.62069147e6*pc
Dd = 1259e6*pc
FOV_arcsec_original = 5.
FOV_arcmin = FOV_arcsec_original/60.
pix2rad = ((FOV_arcmin/60.)/float(n))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix = 1./pix2rad
x_pix = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,n)
y_pix = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,n)
X_pix,Y_pix = np.meshgrid(x_pix,y_pix)
conc = 10.
M = 1e13*M_sun
r_s = 18*1e3*pc
lambda_c = 40*pc ### The important parameter that doesn't seem to manifest itself in the map when changed
rho_s = M/((4*np.pi*r_s**3)*(np.log(1+conc) - (conc/(1+conc))))
sigma_crit = (c**2*Ds)/(4*np.pi*G*Dd*Dds)
k_s = rho_s*r_s/sigma_crit
theta_s = r_s/Dd
Renorm = (4*G/c**2)*(Dds/(Dd*Ds))
#### Here I just interpolate and zoom into my field of view to get better resolutions
A = np.sqrt(X_pix**2 + Y_pix**2)*pix2rad/theta_s
A_1 = A[100:200,0:100]
n_x = n_y = 100
FOV_arcsec_x = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)
FOV_arcmin_x = FOV_arcsec_x/60.
pix2rad_x = ((FOV_arcmin_x/60.)/float(n_x))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_x = 1./pix2rad_x
FOV_arcsec_y = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)
FOV_arcmin_y = FOV_arcsec_y/60.
pix2rad_y = ((FOV_arcmin_y/60.)/float(n_y))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_y = 1./pix2rad_y
x1 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x)
y1 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y)
X1,Y1 = np.meshgrid(x1,y1)
n_x_2 = 500
n_y_2 = 500
x2 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x_2)
y2 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y_2)
X2,Y2 = np.meshgrid(x2,y2)
interp_spline = RectBivariateSpline(y1,x1,A_1)
A_2 = interp_spline(y2,x2)
A_3 = A_2[50:450,0:400]
n_x_3 = n_y_3 = 400
FOV_arcsec_x = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)*400./500.
FOV_arcmin_x = FOV_arcsec_x/60.
pix2rad_x = ((FOV_arcmin_x/60.)/float(n_x_3))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_x = 1./pix2rad_x
FOV_arcsec_y = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)*400./500.
FOV_arcmin_y = FOV_arcsec_y/60.
pix2rad_y = ((FOV_arcmin_y/60.)/float(n_y_3))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_y = 1./pix2rad_y
x3 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x_3)
y3 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y_3)
X3,Y3 = np.meshgrid(x3,y3)
n_x_4 = 1000
n_y_4 = 1000
x4 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x_4)
y4 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y_4)
X4,Y4 = np.meshgrid(x4,y4)
interp_spline = RectBivariateSpline(y3,x3,A_3)
A_4 = interp_spline(y4,x4)
############### Function to calculate variance
variance = np.zeros((len(A_4),len(A_4)))
def variance_fluctuations(x):
for i in xrange(len(x)):
for j in xrange(len(x)):
if x[j][i] < 1.:
variance[j][i] = (k_s**2)*(lambda_c/r_s)*((np.pi/x[j][i]) - (1./(x[j][i]**2 -1)**3.)*(((6.*x[j][i]**4. - 17.*x[j][i]**2. + 26)/3.)+ (((2.*x[j][i]**6. - 7.*x[j][i]**4. + 8.*x[j][i]**2. - 8)*np.arccosh(1./x[j][i]))/(np.sqrt(1-x[j][i]**2.)))))
elif x[j][i] > 1.:
variance[j][i] = (k_s**2)*(lambda_c/r_s)*((np.pi/x[j][i]) - (1./(x[j][i]**2 -1)**3.)*(((6.*x[j][i]**4. - 17.*x[j][i]**2. + 26)/3.)+ (((2.*x[j][i]**6. - 7.*x[j][i]**4. + 8.*x[j][i]**2. - 8)*np.arccos(1./x[j][i]))/(np.sqrt(x[j][i]**2.-1)))))
variance_fluctuations(A_4)
#### Creating the map
mean = 0
delta_kappa = np.random.normal(0,variance,A_4.shape)
xfinal = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,1000)
yfinal = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,1000)
Xfinal, Yfinal = np.meshgrid(xfinal,yfinal)
plt.contourf(Xfinal,Yfinal,delta_kappa,100)
plt.show()
The map looks like this, with the density of blobs increasing towards the right. However, the size of the blobs don't change and the map looks virtually the same whether I use lambda_c = 40*pc or lambda_c = 400*pc.
I'm wondering if the np.random.normal function isn't really doing what I expect it to do? I feel like the pixel scale of the map and the way samples are drawn make no link to the size of the blobs. Maybe there is a better way to create the map using the variance, would appreciate any insight.
I expect the map to look something like this , the blob sizes change based on the input parameters for my variance :

This is quite a well visited problem in (surprise surprise) astronomy and cosmology.
You could use lenstool: https://lenstools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples/gaussian_random_field.html
You could also try here:
https://andrewwalker.github.io/statefultransitions/post/gaussian-fields
Not to mention:
https://github.com/bsciolla/gaussian-random-fields
I am not reproducing code here because all credit goes to the above authors. However, they did just all come right out a google search :/
Easiest of all is probably a python module FyeldGenerator, apparently designed for this exact purpose:
https://github.com/cphyc/FyeldGenerator
So (adapted from github example):
pip install FyeldGenerator
from FyeldGenerator import generate_field
from matplotlib import use
use('Agg')
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
plt.figure()
# Helper that generates power-law power spectrum
def Pkgen(n):
def Pk(k):
return np.power(k, -n)
return Pk
# Draw samples from a normal distribution
def distrib(shape):
a = np.random.normal(loc=0, scale=1, size=shape)
b = np.random.normal(loc=0, scale=1, size=shape)
return a + 1j * b
shape = (512, 512)
field = generate_field(distrib, Pkgen(2), shape)
plt.imshow(field, cmap='jet')
plt.savefig('field.png',dpi=400)
plt.close())
This gives:
Looks pretty straightforward to me :)
PS: FoV implied a telescope observation of the gaussian random field :)

A completely different and much quicker way may be just to blur the delta_kappa array with gaussian filter. Try adjusting sigma parameter to alter the blobs size.
from scipy.ndimage.filters import gaussian_filter
dk_gf = gaussian_filter(delta_kappa, sigma=20)
Xfinal, Yfinal = np.meshgrid(xfinal,yfinal)
plt.contourf(Xfinal,Yfinal,dk_ma,100, cmap='jet')
plt.show();
this is image with sigma=20
this is image with sigma=2.5

ThunderFlash, try this code to draw the map:
# function to produce blobs:
from scipy.stats import multivariate_normal
def blob (positions, mean=(0,0), var=1):
cov = [[var,0],[0,var]]
return multivariate_normal(mean, cov).pdf(positions)
"""
now prepare for blobs generation.
note that I use less dense grid to pick blobs centers (regulated by `step`)
this makes blobs more pronounced and saves calculation time.
use this part instead of your code section below comment #### Creating the map
"""
delta_kappa = np.random.normal(0,variance,A_4.shape) # same
step = 10 #
dk2 = delta_kappa[::step,::step] # taking every 10th element
x2, y2 = xfinal[::step],yfinal[::step]
field = np.dstack((Xfinal,Yfinal))
print (field.shape, dk2.shape, x2.shape, y2.shape)
>> (1000, 1000, 2), (100, 100), (100,), (100,)
result = np.zeros(field.shape[:2])
for x in range (len(x2)):
for y in range (len(y2)):
res2 = blob(field, mean = (x2[x], y2[y]), var=10000)*dk2[x,y]
result += res2
# the cycle above took over 20 minutes on Ryzen 2700X. It could be accelerated by vectorization presumably.
plt.contourf(Xfinal,Yfinal,result,100)
plt.show()
you may want to play with var parameter in blob() to smoothen the image and with step to make it more compressed.
Here is the image that I got using your code (somehow axes are flipped and more dense areas on the top):

Related

Obtaining an isosurface from 3D data and the corresponding indices

I have a 3D numpy array of temperature values on a grid. From this I can compute the gradients using dTdx, dTdy, dYdz = np.gradient(T). Now I'm only interested in the values of the gradients on the isosurface where the temperature is 900. What I want to do is something like (pseudo-codish):
import nympy as np
def regular(x,y,z,q=100,k=175,a=7.1e-5):
R = np.sqrt(x**2+y**2+z**2)
return 100 / (2*np.pi*k) * (1/R) * np.exp(-0.5/a*(R+x))
x = np.arange(-1.5,0.5+res/2,res)*1e-3
y = np.arange(-1.0,1.0+res/2,res)*1e-3
z = np.arange(0.0,0.5+res/2,res)*1e-3
Y,X,Z = np.meshgrid(y,x,z)
T = regular(X,Y,Z)
dTdx, dTdy, dYdz = np.gradient(T)
(xind,yind,zind) = <package>.get_contour_indices(X,Y,Z,T,value=900)
x_gradients_at_isosurface = dTdx[xind,yind,zind]
...
I've tried:
import numpy as np
from skimage import measure
contour_data = measure.find_contours(T[:,:,0],900)
contour_data = np.int_(np.round(contour_data[0]))
xs,ys = contour_data[:,0],contour_data[:,1]
gradients_of_interest = np.array([G[x,y,0] for x,y in zip( xs,ys )])
which works fine, but only works for 2D data. I'm looking for the 3D equivalent. I've found the following:
import plotly.graph_objects as go
surf = go.Isosurface(x=X.flatten(),y=Y.flatten(),z=Z.flatten(),value=T.flatten(),isomin=900,isomax=900)
fig = go.Figure(data=surf)
plt.show()
But I'm not interested in plotting it. I want to know the indices where the temperature is T=900 so I can use it on the gradients. Any ideas?
You need skimage.measure.marching_cubes.

Image reconstruction with compressed sensing

I'm trying to code a demonstration of compressed sensing for my final year project but am getting poor image reconstruction when using the Lasso algorithm. I've relied on the following as a reference: http://www.pyrunner.com/weblog/2016/05/26/compressed-sensing-python/
However my code has some differences:
I use scikit-learn to perform a lasso optimisation (basis pursuit) as opposed to using cvxpy to perform an l_1 minimisation with an equality constraint as in the article.
I construct psi differently/more simply, testing seems to show that it's correct.
I use a different package to read and write the image.
import numpy as np
import scipy.fftpack as spfft
import scipy.ndimage as spimg
import imageio
from sklearn.linear_model import Lasso
x_orig = imageio.imread('gt40.jpg', pilmode='L') # read in grayscale
x = spimg.zoom(x_orig, 0.2) #zoom for speed
ny,nx = x.shape
k = round(nx * ny * 0.5) #50% sample
ri = np.random.choice(nx * ny, k, replace=False)
y = x.T.flat[ri] #y is the measured sample
# y = np.expand_dims(y, axis=1) ---- this doesn't seem to make a difference, was presumably required with cvxpy
psi = spfft.idct(np.identity(nx*ny), norm='ortho', axis=0) #my construction of psi
# psi = np.kron(
# spfft.idct(np.identity(nx), norm='ortho', axis=0),
# spfft.idct(np.identity(ny), norm='ortho', axis=0)
# )
# psi = 2*np.random.random_sample((nx*ny,nx*ny)) - 1
theta = psi[ri,:] #equivalent to phi*psi
lasso = Lasso(alpha=0.001, max_iter=10000)
lasso.fit(theta, y)
s = np.array(lasso.coef_)
x_recovered = psi#s
x_recovered = x_recovered.reshape(nx, ny).T
x_recovered_final = x_recovered.astype('uint8') #recovered image is float64 and has negative values..
imageio.imwrite('gt40_recovered.jpg', x_recovered_final)
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post images yet so here is a link to the original zoomed image, the image recovered with lasso and the image recovered with cvxpy (described later):
https://imgur.com/a/LROSug6
As you can see not only is the recovery poor but the image completely corrupted - the colours seem to be negative and the detail from the 50% sample lost. I think I've managed to track down the problem to the Lasso regression - it returns a vector that, when inverse transformed, has values that are not necessarily in the 0-255 range as expected for the image. So the conversion to from dtype float64 to uint8 is rather random (e.g. -55 becomes 255-55=200).
Following this I tried swapping out lasso for the same optimisation as in the article (minimising the l_1 norm subject to theta*s=y using cvxpy):
import cvxpy as cvx
x_orig = imageio.imread('gt40.jpg', pilmode='L') # read in grayscale
x = spimg.zoom(x_orig, 0.2)
ny,nx = x.shape
k = round(nx * ny * 0.5)
ri = np.random.choice(nx * ny, k, replace=False)
y = x.T.flat[ri]
psi = spfft.idct(np.identity(nx*ny), norm='ortho', axis=0)
theta = psi[ri,:] #equivalent to phi*psi
#NEW CODE STARTS:
vx = cvx.Variable(nx * ny)
objective = cvx.Minimize(cvx.norm(vx, 1))
constraints = [theta#vx == y]
prob = cvx.Problem(objective, constraints)
result = prob.solve(verbose=True)
s = np.array(vx.value).squeeze()
x_recovered = psi#s
x_recovered = x_recovered.reshape(nx, ny).T
x_recovered_final = x_recovered.astype('uint8')
imageio.imwrite('gt40_recovered_altopt.jpg', x_recovered_final)
This took nearly 6 hours but finally I got a somewhat satisfactory result. However I would like to perform a demonstration of lasso if possible. Any help in getting the lasso to return appropriate values or somehow converting its result appropriately would be very much appreciated.

Gaussian notch filter in Python

I'm trying to design a Gaussian notch filter in Python to remove periodic noise.I tried implementing the following formula:
Gaussian Notch Filter
And here is the code:
import numpy as np
def gaussian_bandpass_filter(image):
image_array = np.array(image)
#Fourier Transform
fourier_transform = np.fft.fftshift(np.fft.fft2(image_array))
#Size of Image
m = np.shape(fourier_transform)[0]
n = np.shape(fourier_transform)[1]
u = np.arange(m)
v = np.arange(n)
# Find the center
u0 = int(m/2)
v0 = int(n/2)
# Bandwidth
D0 = 10
gaussian_filter = np.zeros(np.shape(fourier_transform))
for x in u:
for y in v:
D1 = math.sqrt((x-m/2-u0)**2 + (y-n/2-v0)**2)
D2 = math.sqrt((x-m/2+u0)**2 + (y-n/2+v0)**2)
gaussian_filter[x][y] = 1 - math.exp(-0.5 * D1*D2/(D0**2))
#Apply the filter
fourier_transform = fourier_transform + gaussian_filter
image_array = np.fft.ifft2(np.fft.ifftshift(fourier_transform))
return image_array
this function is supposed to apply the Gaussian notch filter to an image and return the filtered image but it doesn't seem to work. I don't know where I went wrong with this (maybe I didn't understand the formula correctly?) so if anyone could help me I would really appreciate it.
Edit:
As an example, here is a noisy image.
Using the existing gaussian_filter function in scipy.ndimage library, I get this, which is acceptable.
But my function returns this. (I'm using PIL.Image.fromarray function to convert array to image)

Filtering 1D numpy arrays in Python

Explanation:
I have two numpy arrays: dataX and dataY, and I am trying to filter each array to reduce the noise. The image shown below shows the actual input data (blue dots) and an example of what I want it to be like(red dots). I do not need the filtered data to be as perfect as in the example but I do want it to be as straight as possible. I have provided sample data in the code.
What I have tried:
Firstly, you can see that the data isn't 'continuous', so I first divided them into individual 'segments' ( 4 of them in this example), and then applied a filter to each 'segment'. Someone suggested that I use a Savitzky-Golay filter. The full, run-able code is below:
import scipy as sc
import scipy.signal
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Sample Data
ydata = np.array([1,0,1,2,1,2,1,0,1,1,2,2,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,2,7,6,8,6,8,6,6,8,6,6,8,6,6,7,6,5,5,6,6, 10,11,12,13,12,11,10,10,11,10,12,11,10,10,10,10,12,12,10,10,17,16,15,17,16, 17,16,18,19,18,17,16,16,16,16,16,15,16])
xdata = np.array([1,2,3,1,5,4,7,8,6,10,11,12,13,10,12,13,17,16,19,18,21,19,23,21,25,20,26,27,28,26,26,26,29,30,30,29,30,32,33, 1,2,3,1,5,4,7,8,6,10,11,12,13,10,12,13,17,16,19,18,21,19,23,21,25,20,26,27,28,26,26,26,29,30,30,29,30,32])
# Used a diff array to find where there is a big change in Y.
# If there's a big change in Y, then there must be a change of 'segment'.
diffy = np.diff(ydata)
# Create empty numpy arrays to append values into
filteredX = np.array([])
filteredY = np.array([])
# Chose 3 to be the value indicating the change in Y
index = np.where(diffy >3)
# Loop through the array
start = 0
for i in range (0, (index[0].size +1) ):
# Check if last segment is reached
if i == index[0].size:
print xdata[start:]
partSize = xdata[start:].size
# Window length must be an odd integer
if partSize % 2 == 0:
partSize = partSize - 1
filteredDataX = sc.signal.savgol_filter(xdata[start:], partSize, 3)
filteredDataY = sc.signal.savgol_filter(ydata[start:], partSize, 3)
filteredX = np.append(filteredX, filteredDataX)
filteredY = np.append(filteredY, filteredDataY)
else:
print xdata[start:index[0][i]]
partSize = xdata[start:index[0][i]].size
if partSize % 2 == 0:
partSize = partSize - 1
filteredDataX = sc.signal.savgol_filter(xdata[start:index[0][i]], partSize, 3)
filteredDataY = sc.signal.savgol_filter(ydata[start:index[0][i]], partSize, 3)
start = index[0][i]
filteredX = np.append(filteredX, filteredDataX)
filteredY = np.append(filteredY, filteredDataY)
# Plots
plt.plot(xdata,ydata, 'bo', label = 'Input Data')
plt.plot(filteredX, filteredY, 'ro', label = 'Filtered Data')
plt.xlabel('X')
plt.ylabel('Y')
plt.title('Result')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
This is my result:
When each point is connected, the result looks as follows.
I have played around with the order, but it seems like a third order gave the best result.
I have also tried these filters, among a few others:
scipy.signal.medfilt
scipy.ndimage.filters.uniform_filter1d
But so far none of the filters I have tried were close to what I really wanted. What is the best way to filter data such as this? Looking forward to your help.
One way to get something looking close to your ideal would be clustering + linear regression.
Note that you have to provide the number of clusters and I also cheated a bit in scaling up y before clustering.
import numpy as np
from scipy import cluster, stats
ydata = np.array([1,0,1,2,1,2,1,0,1,1,2,2,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,2,7,6,8,6,8,6,6,8,6,6,8,6,6,7,6,5,5,6,6, 10,11,12,13,12,11,10,10,11,10,12,11,10,10,10,10,12,12,10,10,17,16,15,17,16, 17,16,18,19,18,17,16,16,16,16,16,15,16])
xdata = np.array([1,2,3,1,5,4,7,8,6,10,11,12,13,10,12,13,17,16,19,18,21,19,23,21,25,20,26,27,28,26,26,26,29,30,30,29,30,32,33, 1,2,3,1,5,4,7,8,6,10,11,12,13,10,12,13,17,16,19,18,21,19,23,21,25,20,26,27,28,26,26,26,29,30,30,29,30,32])
def split_to_lines(x, y, k):
yo = np.empty_like(y, dtype=float)
# get the cluster centers and the labels for each point
centers, map_ = cluster.vq.kmeans2(np.array((x, y * 2)).T.astype(float), k)
# for each cluster, use the labels to select the points belonging to
# the cluster and do a linear regression
for i in range(k):
slope, interc, *_ = stats.linregress(x[map_==i], y[map_==i])
# use the regression parameters to construct y values on the
# best fit line
yo[map_==i] = x[map_==i] * slope + interc
return yo
import pylab
pylab.plot(xdata, ydata, 'or')
pylab.plot(xdata, split_to_lines(xdata, ydata, 4), 'ob')
pylab.show()

Find a easier way to cluster 2-d scatter data into grid array data

I have figured out a method to cluster disperse point data into structured 2-d array(like rasterize function). And I hope there are some better ways to achieve that target.
My work
1. Intro
1000 point data has there dimensions of properties (lon, lat, emission) whicn represent one factory located at (x,y) emit certain amount of CO2 into atmosphere
grid network: predefine the 2-d array in the shape of 20x20
http://i4.tietuku.com/02fbaf32d2f09fff.png
The code reproduced here:
#### define the map area
xc1,xc2,yc1,yc2 = 113.49805889531724,115.5030664238035,37.39995194888143,38.789235929357105
map = Basemap(llcrnrlon=xc1,llcrnrlat=yc1,urcrnrlon=xc2,urcrnrlat=yc2)
#### reading the point data and scatter plot by their position
df = pd.read_csv("xxxxx.csv")
px,py = map(df.lon, df.lat)
map.scatter(px, py, color = "red", s= 5,zorder =3)
#### predefine the grid networks
lon_grid,lat_grid = np.linspace(xc1,xc2,21), np.linspace(yc1,yc2,21)
lon_x,lat_y = np.meshgrid(lon_grid,lat_grid)
grids = np.zeros(20*20).reshape(20,20)
plt.pcolormesh(lon_x,lat_y,grids,cmap = 'gray', facecolor = 'none',edgecolor = 'k',zorder=3)
2. My target
Finding the nearest grid point for each factory
Add the emission data into this grid number
3. Algorithm realization
3.1 Raster grid
note: 20x20 grid points are distributed in this area represented by blue dot.
http://i4.tietuku.com/8548554587b0cb3a.png
3.2 KD-tree
Find the nearest blue dot of each red point
sh = (20*20,2)
grids = np.zeros(20*20*2).reshape(*sh)
sh_emission = (20*20)
grids_em = np.zeros(20*20).reshape(sh_emission)
k = 0
for j in range(0,yy.shape[0],1):
for i in range(0,xx.shape[0],1):
grids[k] = np.array([lon_grid[i],lat_grid[j]])
k+=1
T = KDTree(grids)
x_delta = (lon_grid[2] - lon_grid[1])
y_delta = (lat_grid[2] - lat_grid[1])
R = np.sqrt(x_delta**2 + y_delta**2)
for i in range(0,len(df.lon),1):
idx = T.query_ball_point([df.lon.iloc[i],df.lat.iloc[i]], r=R)
# there are more than one blue dot which are founded sometimes,
# So I'll calculate the distances between the factory(red point)
# and all blue dots which are listed
if (idx > 1):
distance = []
for k in range(0,len(idx),1):
distance.append(np.sqrt((df.lon.iloc[i] - grids[k][0])**2 + (df.lat.iloc[i] - grids[k][1])**2))
pos_index = distance.index(min(distance))
pos = idx[pos_index]
# Only find 1 point
else:
pos = idx
grids_em[pos] += df.so2[i]
4. Result
co2 = grids_em.reshape(20,20)
plt.pcolormesh(lon_x,lat_y,co2,cmap =plt.cm.Spectral_r,zorder=3)
http://i4.tietuku.com/6ded65c4ac301294.png
5. My question
Can someone point out some drawbacks or error of this method?
Is there some algorithms more aligned with my target?
Thanks a lot!
There are many for-loop in your code, it's not the numpy way.
Make some sample data first:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from scipy.spatial import KDTree
import pylab as pl
xc1, xc2, yc1, yc2 = 113.49805889531724, 115.5030664238035, 37.39995194888143, 38.789235929357105
N = 1000
GSIZE = 20
x, y = np.random.multivariate_normal([(xc1 + xc2)*0.5, (yc1 + yc2)*0.5], [[0.1, 0.02], [0.02, 0.1]], size=N).T
value = np.ones(N)
df_points = pd.DataFrame({"x":x, "y":y, "v":value})
For equal space grids you can use hist2d():
pl.hist2d(df_points.x, df_points.y, weights=df_points.v, bins=20, cmap="viridis");
Here is the output:
Here is the code to use KdTree:
X, Y = np.mgrid[x.min():x.max():GSIZE*1j, y.min():y.max():GSIZE*1j]
grid = np.c_[X.ravel(), Y.ravel()]
points = np.c_[df_points.x, df_points.y]
tree = KDTree(grid)
dist, indices = tree.query(points)
grid_values = df_points.groupby(indices).v.sum()
df_grid = pd.DataFrame(grid, columns=["x", "y"])
df_grid["v"] = grid_values
fig, ax = pl.subplots(figsize=(10, 8))
ax.plot(df_points.x, df_points.y, "kx", alpha=0.2)
mapper = ax.scatter(df_grid.x, df_grid.y, c=df_grid.v,
cmap="viridis",
linewidths=0,
s=100, marker="o")
pl.colorbar(mapper, ax=ax);
the output is:

Categories

Resources