Related
Background
I've been working for some time on attempting to solve the (notoriously painful) Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA) multi-lateration problem, in 3-dimensions and using 4 nodes. If you're unfamiliar with the problem, it is to determine the coordinates of some signal source (X,Y,Z), given the coordinates of n nodes, the time of arrival of the signal at each node, and the velocity of the signal v.
My solution is as follows:
For each node, we write (X-x_i)**2 + (Y-y_i)**2 + (Z-z_i)**2 = (v(t_i - T)**2
Where (x_i, y_i, z_i) are the coordinates of the ith node, and T is the time of emission.
We have now 4 equations in 4 unknowns. Four nodes are obviously insufficient. We could try to solve this system directly, however that seems next to impossible given the highly nonlinear nature of the problem (and, indeed, I've tried many direct techniques... and failed). Instead, we simplify this to a linear problem by considering all i/j possibilities, subtracting equation i from equation j. We obtain (n(n-1))/2 =6 equations of the form:
2*(x_j - x_i)*X + 2*(y_j - y_i)*Y + 2*(z_j - z_i)*Z + 2 * v**2 * (t_i - t_j) = v**2 ( t_i**2 - t_j**2) + (x_j**2 + y_j**2 + z_j**2) - (x_i**2 + y_i**2 + z_i**2)
Which look like Xv_1 + Y_v2 + Z_v3 + T_v4 = b. We try now to apply standard linear least squares, where the solution is the matrix vector x in A^T Ax = A^T b. Unfortunately, if you were to try feeding this into any standard linear least squares algorithm, it'll choke up. So, what do we do now?
...
The time of arrival of the signal at node i is given (of course) by:
sqrt( (X-x_i)**2 + (Y-y_i)**2 + (Z-z_i)**2 ) / v
This equation implies that the time of arrival, T, is 0. If we have that T = 0, we can drop the T column in matrix A and the problem is greatly simplified. Indeed, NumPy's linalg.lstsq() gives a surprisingly accurate & precise result.
...
So, what I do is normalize the input times by subtracting from each equation the earliest time. All I have to do then is determine the dt that I can add to each time such that the residual of summed squared error for the point found by linear least squares is minimized.
I define the error for some dt to be the squared difference between the arrival time for the point predicted by feeding the input times + dt to the least squares algorithm, minus the input time (normalized), summed over all 4 nodes.
for node, time in nodes, times:
error += ( (sqrt( (X-x_i)**2 + (Y-y_i)**2 + (Z-z_i)**2 ) / v) - time) ** 2
My problem:
I was able to do this somewhat satisfactorily by using brute-force. I started at dt = 0, and moved by some step up to some maximum # of iterations OR until some minimum RSS error is reached, and that was the dt I added to the normalized times to obtain a solution. The resulting solutions were very accurate and precise, but quite slow.
In practice, I'd like to be able to solve this in real time, and therefore a far faster solution will be needed. I began with the assumption that the error function (that is, dt vs error as defined above) would be highly nonlinear-- offhand, this made sense to me.
Since I don't have an actual, mathematical function, I can automatically rule out methods that require differentiation (e.g. Newton-Raphson). The error function will always be positive, so I can rule out bisection, etc. Instead, I try a simple approximation search. Unfortunately, that failed miserably. I then tried Tabu search, followed by a genetic algorithm, and several others. They all failed horribly.
So, I decided to do some investigating. As it turns out the plot of the error function vs dt looks a bit like a square root, only shifted right depending upon the distance from the nodes that the signal source is:
Where dt is on horizontal axis, error on vertical axis
And, in hindsight, of course it does!. I defined the error function to involve square roots so, at least to me, this seems reasonable.
What to do?
So, my issue now is, how do I determine the dt corresponding to the minimum of the error function?
My first (very crude) attempt was to get some points on the error graph (as above), fit it using numpy.polyfit, then feed the results to numpy.root. That root corresponds to the dt. Unfortunately, this failed, too. I tried fitting with various degrees, and also with various points, up to a ridiculous number of points such that I may as well just use brute-force.
How can I determine the dt corresponding to the minimum of this error function?
Since we're dealing with high velocities (radio signals), it's important that the results be precise and accurate, as minor variances in dt can throw off the resulting point.
I'm sure that there's some infinitely simpler approach buried in what I'm doing here however, ignoring everything else, how do I find dt?
My requirements:
Speed is of utmost importance
I have access only to pure Python and NumPy in the environment where this will be run
EDIT:
Here's my code. Admittedly, a bit messy. Here, I'm using the polyfit technique. It will "simulate" a source for you, and compare results:
from numpy import poly1d, linspace, set_printoptions, array, linalg, triu_indices, roots, polyfit
from dataclasses import dataclass
from random import randrange
import math
#dataclass
class Vertexer:
receivers: list
# Defaults
c = 299792
# Receivers:
# [x_1, y_1, z_1]
# [x_2, y_2, z_2]
# [x_3, y_3, z_3]
# Solved:
# [x, y, z]
def error(self, dt, times):
solved = self.linear([time + dt for time in times])
error = 0
for time, receiver in zip(times, self.receivers):
error += ((math.sqrt( (solved[0] - receiver[0])**2 +
(solved[1] - receiver[1])**2 +
(solved[2] - receiver[2])**2 ) / c ) - time)**2
return error
def linear(self, times):
X = array(self.receivers)
t = array(times)
x, y, z = X.T
i, j = triu_indices(len(x), 1)
A = 2 * (X[i] - X[j])
b = self.c**2 * (t[j]**2 - t[i]**2) + (X[i]**2).sum(1) - (X[j]**2).sum(1)
solved, residuals, rank, s = linalg.lstsq(A, b, rcond=None)
return(solved)
def find(self, times):
# Normalize times
times = [time - min(times) for time in times]
# Fit the error function
y = []
x = []
dt = 1E-10
for i in range(50000):
x.append(self.error(dt * i, times))
y.append(dt * i)
p = polyfit(array(x), array(y), 2)
r = roots(p)
return(self.linear([time + r for time in times]))
# SIMPLE CODE FOR SIMULATING A SIGNAL
# Pick nodes to be at random locations
x_1 = randrange(10); y_1 = randrange(10); z_1 = randrange(10)
x_2 = randrange(10); y_2 = randrange(10); z_2 = randrange(10)
x_3 = randrange(10); y_3 = randrange(10); z_3 = randrange(10)
x_4 = randrange(10); y_4 = randrange(10); z_4 = randrange(10)
# Pick source to be at random location
x = randrange(1000); y = randrange(1000); z = randrange(1000)
# Set velocity
c = 299792 # km/ns
# Generate simulated source
t_1 = math.sqrt( (x - x_1)**2 + (y - y_1)**2 + (z - z_1)**2 ) / c
t_2 = math.sqrt( (x - x_2)**2 + (y - y_2)**2 + (z - z_2)**2 ) / c
t_3 = math.sqrt( (x - x_3)**2 + (y - y_3)**2 + (z - z_3)**2 ) / c
t_4 = math.sqrt( (x - x_4)**2 + (y - y_4)**2 + (z - z_4)**2 ) / c
print('Actual:', x, y, z)
myVertexer = Vertexer([[x_1, y_1, z_1],[x_2, y_2, z_2],[x_3, y_3, z_3],[x_4, y_4, z_4]])
solution = myVertexer.find([t_1, t_2, t_3, t_4])
print(solution)
It seems like the Bancroft method applies to this problem? Here's a pure NumPy implementation.
# Implementation of the Bancroft method, following
# https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Bancroft_Method
M = np.diag([1, 1, 1, -1])
def lorentz_inner(v, w):
return np.sum(v * (w # M), axis=-1)
B = np.array(
[
[x_1, y_1, z_1, c * t_1],
[x_2, y_2, z_2, c * t_2],
[x_3, y_3, z_3, c * t_3],
[x_4, y_4, z_4, c * t_4],
]
)
one = np.ones(4)
a = 0.5 * lorentz_inner(B, B)
B_inv_one = np.linalg.solve(B, one)
B_inv_a = np.linalg.solve(B, a)
for Lambda in np.roots(
[
lorentz_inner(B_inv_one, B_inv_one),
2 * (lorentz_inner(B_inv_one, B_inv_a) - 1),
lorentz_inner(B_inv_a, B_inv_a),
]
):
x, y, z, c_t = M # np.linalg.solve(B, Lambda * one + a)
print("Candidate:", x, y, z, c_t / c)
My answer might have mistakes (glaring) as I had not heard the TDOA term before this afternoon. Please double check if the method is right.
I could not find solution to your original problem of finding dt corresponding to the minimum error. My answer also deviates from the requirement that other than numpy no third party library had to be used (I used Sympy and largely used the code from here). However I am still posting this thinking that somebody someday might find it useful if all one is interested in ... is to find X,Y,Z of the source emitter. This method also does not take into account real-life situations where white noise or errors might be present or curvature of the earth and other complications.
Your initial test conditions are as below.
from random import randrange
import math
# SIMPLE CODE FOR SIMULATING A SIGNAL
# Pick nodes to be at random locations
x_1 = randrange(10); y_1 = randrange(10); z_1 = randrange(10)
x_2 = randrange(10); y_2 = randrange(10); z_2 = randrange(10)
x_3 = randrange(10); y_3 = randrange(10); z_3 = randrange(10)
x_4 = randrange(10); y_4 = randrange(10); z_4 = randrange(10)
# Pick source to be at random location
x = randrange(1000); y = randrange(1000); z = randrange(1000)
# Set velocity
c = 299792 # km/ns
# Generate simulated source
t_1 = math.sqrt( (x - x_1)**2 + (y - y_1)**2 + (z - z_1)**2 ) / c
t_2 = math.sqrt( (x - x_2)**2 + (y - y_2)**2 + (z - z_2)**2 ) / c
t_3 = math.sqrt( (x - x_3)**2 + (y - y_3)**2 + (z - z_3)**2 ) / c
t_4 = math.sqrt( (x - x_4)**2 + (y - y_4)**2 + (z - z_4)**2 ) / c
print('Actual:', x, y, z)
My solution is as below.
import sympy as sym
X,Y,Z = sym.symbols('X,Y,Z', real=True)
f = sym.Eq((x_1 - X)**2 +(y_1 - Y)**2 + (z_1 - Z)**2 , (c*t_1)**2)
g = sym.Eq((x_2 - X)**2 +(y_2 - Y)**2 + (z_2 - Z)**2 , (c*t_2)**2)
h = sym.Eq((x_3 - X)**2 +(y_3 - Y)**2 + (z_3 - Z)**2 , (c*t_3)**2)
i = sym.Eq((x_4 - X)**2 +(y_4 - Y)**2 + (z_4 - Z)**2 , (c*t_4)**2)
print("Solved coordinates are ", sym.solve([f,g,h,i],X,Y,Z))
print statement from your initial condition gave.
Actual: 111 553 110
and the solution that almost instantly came out was
Solved coordinates are [(111.000000000000, 553.000000000000, 110.000000000000)]
Sorry again if something is totally amiss.
I want to 1. express Simpson's Rule as a general function for integration in python and 2. use it to compute and plot the Fourier Series coefficients of the function .
I've stolen and adapted this code for Simpson's Rule, which seems to work fine for integrating simple functions such as ,
or
Given period , the Fourier Series coefficients are computed as:
where k = 1,2,3,...
I am having difficulty figuring out how to express . I'm aware that since this function is odd, but I would like to be able to compute it in general for other functions.
Here's my attempt so far:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from numpy import *
def f(t):
k = 1
for k in range(1,10000): #to give some representation of k's span
k += 1
return sin(t)*sin(k*t)
def trapezoid(f, a, b, n):
h = float(b - a) / n
s = 0.0
s += f(a)/2.0
for j in range(1, n):
s += f(a + j*h)
s += f(b)/2.0
return s * h
print trapezoid(f, 0, 2*pi, 100)
This doesn't give the correct answer of 0 at all since it increases as k increases and I'm sure I'm approaching it with tunnel vision in terms of the for loop. My difficulty in particular is with stating the function so that k is read as k = 1,2,3,...
The problem I've been given unfortunately doesn't specify what the coefficients are to be plotted against, but I am assuming it's meant to be against k.
Here's one way to do it, if you want to run your own integration or fourier coefficient determination instead of using numpy or scipy's built in methods:
import numpy as np
def integrate(f, a, b, n):
t = np.linspace(a, b, n)
return (b - a) * np.sum(f(t)) / n
def a_k(f, k):
def ker(t): return f(t) * np.cos(k * t)
return integrate(ker, 0, 2*np.pi, 2**10+1) / np.pi
def b_k(f, k):
def ker(t): return f(t) * np.sin(k * t)
return integrate(ker, 0, 2*np.pi, 2**10+1) / np.pi
print(b_k(np.sin, 0))
This gives the result
0.0
On a side note, trapezoid integration is not very useful for uniform time intervals. But if you desire:
def trap_integrate(f, a, b, n):
t = np.linspace(a, b, n)
f_t = f(t)
dt = t[1:] - t[:-1]
f_ab = f_t[:-1] + f_t[1:]
return 0.5 * np.sum(dt * f_ab)
There's also np.trapz if you want to use pre-builtin functionality. Similarly, there's also scipy.integrate.trapz
I'm trying to implement a multiclass logistic regression classifier that distinguishes between k different classes.
This is my code.
import numpy as np
from scipy.special import expit
def cost(X,y,theta,regTerm):
(m,n) = X.shape
J = (np.dot(-(y.T),np.log(expit(np.dot(X,theta))))-np.dot((np.ones((m,1))-y).T,np.log(np.ones((m,1)) - (expit(np.dot(X,theta))).reshape((m,1))))) / m + (regTerm / (2 * m)) * np.linalg.norm(theta[1:])
return J
def gradient(X,y,theta,regTerm):
(m,n) = X.shape
grad = np.dot(((expit(np.dot(X,theta))).reshape(m,1) - y).T,X)/m + (np.concatenate(([0],theta[1:].T),axis=0)).reshape(1,n)
return np.asarray(grad)
def train(X,y,regTerm,learnRate,epsilon,k):
(m,n) = X.shape
theta = np.zeros((k,n))
for i in range(0,k):
previousCost = 0;
currentCost = cost(X,y,theta[i,:],regTerm)
while(np.abs(currentCost-previousCost) > epsilon):
print(theta[i,:])
theta[i,:] = theta[i,:] - learnRate*gradient(X,y,theta[i,:],regTerm)
print(theta[i,:])
previousCost = currentCost
currentCost = cost(X,y,theta[i,:],regTerm)
return theta
trX = np.load('trX.npy')
trY = np.load('trY.npy')
theta = train(trX,trY,2,0.1,0.1,4)
I can verify that cost and gradient are returning values that are in the right dimension (cost returns a scalar, and gradient returns a 1 by n row vector), but i get the error
RuntimeWarning: divide by zero encountered in log
J = (np.dot(-(y.T),np.log(expit(np.dot(X,theta))))-np.dot((np.ones((m,1))-y).T,np.log(np.ones((m,1)) - (expit(np.dot(X,theta))).reshape((m,1))))) / m + (regTerm / (2 * m)) * np.linalg.norm(theta[1:])
why is this happening and how can i avoid this?
The proper solution here is to add some small epsilon to the argument of log function. What worked for me was
epsilon = 1e-5
def cost(X, y, theta):
m = X.shape[0]
yp = expit(X # theta)
cost = - np.average(y * np.log(yp + epsilon) + (1 - y) * np.log(1 - yp + epsilon))
return cost
You can clean up the formula by appropriately using broadcasting, the operator * for dot products of vectors, and the operator # for matrix multiplication — and breaking it up as suggested in the comments.
Here is your cost function:
def cost(X, y, theta, regTerm):
m = X.shape[0] # or y.shape, or even p.shape after the next line, number of training set
p = expit(X # theta)
log_loss = -np.average(y*np.log(p) + (1-y)*np.log(1-p))
J = log_loss + regTerm * np.linalg.norm(theta[1:]) / (2*m)
return J
You can clean up your gradient function along the same lines.
By the way, are you sure you want np.linalg.norm(theta[1:]). If you're trying to do L2-regularization, the term should be np.linalg.norm(theta[1:]) ** 2.
Cause:
This is happening because in some cases, whenever y[i] is equal to 1, the value of the Sigmoid function (theta) also becomes equal to 1.
Cost function:
J = (np.dot(-(y.T),np.log(expit(np.dot(X,theta))))-np.dot((np.ones((m,1))-y).T,np.log(np.ones((m,1)) - (expit(np.dot(X,theta))).reshape((m,1))))) / m + (regTerm / (2 * m)) * np.linalg.norm(theta[1:])
Now, consider the following part in the above code snippet:
np.log(np.ones((m,1)) - (expit(np.dot(X,theta))).reshape((m,1)))
Here, you are performing (1 - theta) when the value of theta is 1. So, that will effectively become log (1 - 1) = log (0) which is undefined.
I'm guessing your data has negative values in it. You can't log a negative.
import numpy as np
np.log(2)
> 0.69314718055994529
np.log(-2)
> nan
There are a lot of different ways to transform your data that should help, if this is the case.
def cost(X, y, theta):
yp = expit(X # theta)
cost = - np.average(y * np.log(yp) + (1 - y) * np.log(1 - yp))
return cost
The warning originates from np.log(yp) when yp==0 and in np.log(1 - yp) when yp==1. One option is to filter out these values, and not to pass them into np.log. The other option is to add a small constant to prevent the value from being exactly 0 (as suggested in one of the comments above)
Add epsilon value[which is a miniature value] to the log value so that it won't be a problem at all.
But i am not sure if it will give accurate results or not .
I'm implementing Bayesian Changepoint Detection in Python/NumPy (if you are interested have a look at the paper). I need to compute likelihoods for data in ranges [a, b], where a and b can have all values from 1 to n. However I can prune the computation at some points, so that I don't have to compute every likelihood. On the other hand some likelihoods are used more than once, so that I can save time by saving the values in a matrix P[a, b]. Right now I check whether the value is already computed, whenever I use it, but I find that a bit of a hassle. It looks like this:
# ...
P = np.ones((n, n)) * np.inf # a likelihood can't get inf, so I use it
# as pseudo value
for a in range(n):
for b in range(a, n):
# The following two lines get annoying and error prone if you
# use P more than once
if P[a, b] == np.inf:
P[a, b] = likelihood(data, a, b)
Q[a] += P[a, b] * g[a] * Q[a - 1] # some computation using P[a, b]
# ...
I wonder, whether there is a more intuitive and pythonic way to achieve this, without having the if ... statement before every use of a P[a, b]. Something like an automagical function call if some condition is not met. I could of course make the likelihood function aware of the fact that it could save values, but then it needs some kind of state (e.g. becomes an object). I want to avoid that.
The likelihood function
Since it was asked for in a comment, I add the likelihood function. It actually computes the conjugate prior and then the likelihood. And all in log representation... So it is quite complicated.
from scipy.special import gammaln
def gaussian_obs_log_likelihood(data, t, s):
n = s - t
mean = data[t:s].sum() / n
muT = (n * mean) / (1 + n)
nuT = 1 + n
alphaT = 1 + n / 2
betaT = 1 + 0.5 * ((data[t:s] - mean) ** 2).sum() + ((n)/(1 + n)) * (mean**2 / 2)
scale = (betaT*(nuT + 1))/(alphaT * nuT)
# splitting the PDF of the student distribution up is /much/ faster. (~ factor 20)
prob = 1
for yi in data[t:s]:
prob += np.log(1 + (yi - muT)**2/(nuT * scale))
lgA = gammaln((nuT + 1) / 2) - np.log(np.sqrt(np.pi * nuT * scale)) - gammaln(nuT/2)
return n * lgA - (nuT + 1)/2 * prob
Although I work with Python 2.7, both answers for 2.7 and 3.x are appreciated.
I would use a sibling of defaultdict for this (you can't use defaultdict directly since it won't tell you the key that is missing):
class Cache(object):
def __init__(self):
self.cache = {}
def get(self, a, b):
key = (a,b)
result = self.cache.get(key, None)
if result is None:
result = likelihood(data, a, b)
self.cache[key] = result
return result
Another approach would be using a cache decorator on likelihood as described here.
I'd like to implement Euler's method (the explicit and the implicit one)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_method) for the following model:
x(t)' = q(x_M -x(t))x(t)
x(0) = x_0
where q, x_M and x_0 are real numbers.
I know already the (theoretical) implementation of the method. But I couldn't figure out where I can insert / change the model.
Could anybody help?
EDIT: You were right. I didn't understand correctly the method. Now, after a few hours, I think that I really got it! With the explicit method, I'm pretty sure (nevertheless: could anybody please have a look at my code? )
With the implicit implementation, I'm not very sure if it's correct. Could please anyone have a look at the implementation of the implicit method and give me a feedback what's correct / not good?
def explizit_euler():
''' x(t)' = q(xM -x(t))x(t)
x(0) = x0'''
q = 2.
xM = 2
x0 = 0.5
T = 5
dt = 0.01
N = T / dt
x = x0
t = 0.
for i in range (0 , int(N)):
t = t + dt
x = x + dt * (q * (xM - x) * x)
print '%6.3f %6.3f' % (t, x)
def implizit_euler():
''' x(t)' = q(xM -x(t))x(t)
x(0) = x0'''
q = 2.
xM = 2
x0 = 0.5
T = 5
dt = 0.01
N = T / dt
x = x0
t = 0.
for i in range (0 , int(N)):
t = t + dt
x = (1.0 / (1.0 - q *(xM + x) * x))
print '%6.3f %6.3f' % (t, x)
Pre-emptive note: Although the general idea should be correct, I did all the algebra in place in the editor box so there might be mistakes there. Please, check it yourself before using for anything really important.
I'm not sure how you come to the "implicit" formula
x = (1.0 / (1.0 - q *(xM + x) * x))
but this is wrong and you can check it by comparing your "explicit" and "implicit" results: they should slightly diverge but with this formula they will diverge drastically.
To understand the implicit Euler method, you should first get the idea behind the explicit one. And the idea is really simple and is explained at the Derivation section in the wiki: since derivative y'(x) is a limit of (y(x+h) - y(x))/h, you can approximate y(x+h) as y(x) + h*y'(x) for small h, assuming our original differential equation is
y'(x) = F(x, y(x))
Note that the reason this is only an approximation rather than exact value is that even over small range [x, x+h] the derivative y'(x) changes slightly. It means that if you want to get a better approximation of y(x+h), you need a better approximation of "average" derivative y'(x) over the range [x, x+h]. Let's call that approximation just y'. One idea of such improvement is to find both y' and y(x+h) at the same time by saying that we want to find such y' and y(x+h) that y' would be actually y'(x+h) (i.e. the derivative at the end). This results in the following system of equations:
y'(x+h) = F(x+h, y(x+h))
y(x+h) = y(x) + h*y'(x+h)
which is equivalent to a single "implicit" equation:
y(x+h) - y(x) = h * F(x+h, y(x+h))
It is called "implicit" because here the target y(x+h) is also a part of F. And note that quite similar equation is mentioned in the Modifications and extensions section of the wiki article.
So now going to your case that equation becomes
x(t+dt) - x(t) = dt*q*(xM -x(t+dt))*x(t+dt)
or equivalently
dt*q*x(t+dt)^2 + (1 - dt*q*xM)*x(t+dt) - x(t) = 0
This is a quadratic equation with two solutions:
x(t+dt) = [(dt*q*xM - 1) ± sqrt((dt*q*xM - 1)^2 + 4*dt*q*x(t))]/(2*dt*q)
Obviously we want the solution that is "close" to the x(t) which is the + solution. So the code should be something like:
b = (q * xM * dt - 1)
x(t+h) = (b + (b ** 2 + 4 * q * x(t) * dt) ** 0.5) / 2 / q / dt
(editor note:) Applying the binomial complement, this formula has the numerically more stable form for small dt, where then b < 0,
x(t+h) = (2 * x(t)) / ((b ** 2 + 4 * q * x(t) * dt) ** 0.5 - b)