Related
I originally posted this in physics stack exchange but they requested it be posted here as well....
I am trying to create a known signal with a known wavelength, amplitude, and phase. I then want to break this signal apart into all of its frequencies, find amplitudes, phases, and wavelengths for each frequency, then create equations for each frequency based on these new wavelengths, amplitudes, and phases. In theory, the equations should be identical to the individual signals. However, they are not. I am almost positive it is an issue with phase but I cannot figure out how to resolve it. I will post the exact code to reproduce this below. Please help as my phase, wavelength, and amplitudes will vary once I get more complicated signals so it need to work for any combination of these.
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from scipy import fftpack
# create signal
time_vec = np.arange(1, 11, 1)
wavelength = 1/.1
phase = 0
amp = 10
created_signal = amp * np.sin((2 * np.pi / wavelength * time_vec) + phase)
# plot it
fig, axs = plt.subplots(2, 1, figsize=(10,6))
axs[0].plot(time_vec, created_signal, label='exact_data')
# get fft and freq array
sig_fft = fftpack.fft(created_signal)
sample_freq = fftpack.fftfreq(created_signal.size, d=1)
# do inverse fft and verify same curve as original signal. This is fine!
filtered_signal = fftpack.ifft(sig_fft)
filtered_signal += np.mean(created_signal)
# create individual signals for each frequency
filtered_signals = []
for i in range(len(sample_freq)):
high_freq_fft = sig_fft.copy()
high_freq_fft[np.abs(sample_freq) < np.nanmin(sample_freq[i])] = 0
high_freq_fft[np.abs(sample_freq) > np.nanmax(sample_freq[i])] = 0
filtered_sig = fftpack.ifft(high_freq_fft)
filtered_sig += np.mean(created_signal)
filtered_signals.append(filtered_sig)
# get phase, amplitude, and wavelength for each individual frequency
sig_size = len(created_signal)
wavelength = []
ph = []
amp = []
indices = []
for j in range(len(sample_freq)):
wavelength.append(1 / sample_freq[j])
indices.append(int(sig_size * sample_freq[j]))
for j in indices:
phase = np.arctan2(sig_fft[j].imag, sig_fft[j].real)
ph.append([phase])
amp.append([np.sqrt((sig_fft[j].real * sig_fft[j].real) + (sig_fft[j].imag * sig_fft[j].imag)) / (sig_size / 2)])
# create an equation for each frequency based on each phase, amp, and wavelength found from above.
def eqn(filtered_si, wavelength, time_vec, phase, amp):
return amp * np.sin((2 * np.pi / wavelength * time_vec) + phase)
def find_equations(filtered_signals_mean, high_freq_fft, wavelength, filtered_signals, time_vec, ph, amp):
equations = []
for i in range(len(wavelength)):
temp = eqn(filtered_signals[i], wavelength[i], time_vec, ph[i], amp[i])
equations.append(temp + filtered_signals_mean)
return equations
filtered_signals_mean = np.abs(np.mean(filtered_signals))
equations = find_equations(filtered_signals_mean, sig_fft, wavelength,
filtered_signals, time_vec, ph, amp)
# at this point each equation, for each frequency should match identically each signal from each frequency,
# however, the phase seems wrong and they do not match!!??
axs[0].plot(time_vec, filtered_signal, '--', linewidth=3, label='filtered_sig_combined')
axs[1].plot(time_vec, filtered_signals[1], label='filtered_sig[-1]')
axs[1].plot(time_vec, equations[1], label='equations[-1]')
axs[0].legend()
axs[1].legend()
fig.tight_layout()
plt.show()
These are issues with your code:
filtered_signal = fftpack.ifft(sig_fft)
filtered_signal += np.mean(created_signal)
This only works because np.mean(created_signal) is approximately zero. The IFFT already takes the DC component into account, the zero frequency describes the mean of the signal.
filtered_signals = []
for i in range(len(sample_freq)):
high_freq_fft = sig_fft.copy()
high_freq_fft[np.abs(sample_freq) < np.nanmin(sample_freq[i])] = 0
high_freq_fft[np.abs(sample_freq) > np.nanmax(sample_freq[i])] = 0
filtered_sig = fftpack.ifft(high_freq_fft)
filtered_sig += np.mean(created_signal)
filtered_signals.append(filtered_sig)
Here you are, in the first half of the iterations, going through all the frequencies, taking both the negative and positive frequencies into account. For example, when i=1, you take both the -0.1 and the 0.1 frequencies. The second half of the iterations you are applying the IFFT to a zero signal, none of the np.abs(sample_freq) are smaller than zero by definition.
So the filtered_signals[1] contains a sine wave constructed by both the -0.1 and the 0.1 frequency components. This is good. Otherwise it would be a complex-valued function.
for j in range(len(sample_freq)):
wavelength.append(1 / sample_freq[j])
indices.append(int(sig_size * sample_freq[j]))
Here the second half of the indices array contains negative values. Not sure what you were planning with this, but it causes subsequent code to index from the end of the array.
for j in indices:
phase = np.arctan2(sig_fft[j].imag, sig_fft[j].real)
ph.append([phase])
amp.append([np.sqrt((sig_fft[j].real * sig_fft[j].real) + (sig_fft[j].imag * sig_fft[j].imag)) / (sig_size / 2)])
Here, because the indices are not the same as the j in the previous loop, phase[j] doesn't always correspond to wavelength[j], they refer to values from different frequency components in about half the cases. But those cases we shouldn't be evaluating any way. The code assumes a real-valued input, for which the magnitude and phase of only the positive frequencies is sufficient to reconstruct the signal. You should skip all the negative frequencies here.
Next, you build sine waves using the collected information, but using a time_vec that starts at 1, not at 0 as the FFT assumes. And therefore the signal is shifted with respect to the expected value. Furthermore, when phase==0, you should create an even signal (i.e. a cosine, not a sine).
Thus, changing the following two lines of code will create the correct output:
time_vec = np.arange(0, 10, 1)
and
def eqn(filtered_si, wavelength, time_vec, phase, amp):
return amp * np.cos((2 * np.pi / wavelength * time_vec) + phase)
# ^^^
Note that these two changes corrects the plotted graph, but doesn't correct all the issues in the code discussed above.
I solved this finally after 2 days of frustration. I still have no idea why this is the way it is so any insight would be great. The solution is to use the phase produced by arctan2(Im, Re) and modify it according to this equation.
phase = np.arctan2(sig_fft[j].imag, sig_fft[j].real)
formula = ((((wavelength[j]) / 2) - 2) * np.pi) / wavelength[j]
ph.append([phase + formula])
I had to derive this equation from data but I still do not know why this works. Please let me know. Finally!!
I would like to sample from an arbitrary function in Python.
In Fast arbitrary distribution random sampling it was stated that one could use inverse transform sampling and in Pythonic way to select list elements with different probability it was mentioned that one should use inverse cumulative distribution function. As far as I undestand those methods only work the univariate case. My function is multivariate though and too complex that any of the suggestions in https://stackoverflow.com/a/48676209/4533188 would apply.
Prinliminaries: My function is based on Rosenbrock's banana function, which value we can get the value of the function with
import scipy.optimize
scipy.optimize.rosen([1.1,1.2])
(here [1.1,1.2] is the input vector) from scipy, see https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-0.15.1/reference/generated/scipy.optimize.rosen.html.
Here is what I came up with: I make a grid over my area of interest and calculate for each point the function value. Then I sort the resulting data frame by the value and make a cumulative sum. This way we get "slots" which have different sizes - points which have large function values have larger slots than points with small function values. Now we generate random values and look into which slot the random value falls into. The row of the data frame is our final sample.
Here is the code:
import scipy.optimize
from itertools import product
from dfply import *
nb_of_samples = 50
nb_of_grid_points = 30
rosen_data = pd.DataFrame(array([item for item in product(*[linspace(fm[0], fm[1], nb_of_grid_points) for fm in zip([-2,-2], [2,2])])]), columns=['x','y'])
rosen_data['z'] = [np.exp(-scipy.optimize.rosen(row)**2/500) for index, row in rosen_data.iterrows()]
rosen_data = rosen_data >> \
arrange(X.z) >> \
mutate(z_upperbound=cumsum(X.z)) >> \
mutate(z_upperbound=X.z_upperbound/np.max(X.z_upperbound))
value = np.random.sample(1)[0]
def get_rosen_sample(value):
return (rosen_data >> mask(X.z_upperbound >= value) >> select(X.x, X.y)).iloc[0,]
values = pd.DataFrame([get_rosen_sample(s) for s in np.random.sample(nb_of_samples)])
This works well, but I don't think it is very efficient. What would be a more efficient solution to my problem?
I read that Markov chain Monte Carlo might helping, but here I am in over my head for now on how to do this in Python.
I was in a similar situation, so, I implemented a rudimentary version of Metropolis-Hastings (which is an MCMC method) to sample from a bivariate distribution. An example follows.
Say, we want to sample from the following denisty:
def density1(z):
z = np.reshape(z, [z.shape[0], 2])
z1, z2 = z[:, 0], z[:, 1]
norm = np.sqrt(z1 ** 2 + z2 ** 2)
exp1 = np.exp(-0.5 * ((z1 - 2) / 0.8) ** 2)
exp2 = np.exp(-0.5 * ((z1 + 2) / 0.8) ** 2)
u = 0.5 * ((norm - 4) / 0.4) ** 2 - np.log(exp1 + exp2)
return np.exp(-u)
which looks like this
The following function implements MH with multivariate normal as the proposal
def metropolis_hastings(target_density, size=500000):
burnin_size = 10000
size += burnin_size
x0 = np.array([[0, 0]])
xt = x0
samples = []
for i in range(size):
xt_candidate = np.array([np.random.multivariate_normal(xt[0], np.eye(2))])
accept_prob = (target_density(xt_candidate))/(target_density(xt))
if np.random.uniform(0, 1) < accept_prob:
xt = xt_candidate
samples.append(xt)
samples = np.array(samples[burnin_size:])
samples = np.reshape(samples, [samples.shape[0], 2])
return samples
Run MH and plot samples
samples = metropolis_hastings(density1)
plt.hexbin(samples[:,0], samples[:,1], cmap='rainbow')
plt.gca().set_aspect('equal', adjustable='box')
plt.xlim([-3, 3])
plt.ylim([-3, 3])
plt.show()
Check out this repo of mine for details.
I have a set of data from a physic experiment (simple-slit experiment) in university and i am trying to fit this data to a model that i build from the lmfit library.
I want a sinus cardinal square, in this form:
I(X)= I0.sinc²(pi.a.X/(lambda.D))
with a : the width of the slit,
lambda : wavelenght of the light
D : distance camera/slit
I0 : original intensity
import csv as csv
from math import pi
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from lmfit import *
# create data to be fitted
with open('data_1.csv', 'r') as f:
values = list(csv.reader(f, delimiter=','))
values = np.array(values[1:], dtype=np.float)
position = values[:, 0]
intensity = values[:, 1]
#define function model
def fct(x, I0, a, D, b):
return I0 * np.square(np.sinc(pi * a * (x + b) / (0.00000063 * D)))
#b is for the horizontal shift because my experience
#was centered on 700 due to the camera
# do fit
vmodel = Model(fct)
vmodel.set_param_hint('I0', min=0., max=300.)
vmodel.set_param_hint('a', value=0.0005, min=0.0, max=1.)
vmodel.set_param_hint('D', value=0.53, min=0.0, max=1.)
vmodel.set_param_hint('b', min=0., max=2000.)
pars = vmodel.make_params()
result = vmodel.fit(intensity, pars, x=position)
# write report
print(result.fit_report())
#after we plot the data, with position on x and intensity on y
It returns totally wrong values and an error :
RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in double_scalars spercent =
'({0:.2%})'.format(abs(par.stderr/par.value))
[[Model]]
Model(fct)
[[Fit Statistics]]
# function evals = 7
# data points = 1280
# variables = 4
chi-square = 4058147.794
reduced chi-square = 3180.367
Akaike info crit = 10326.876
Bayesian info crit = 10347.494
[[Variables]]
I0: 0 +/- 0 (nan%) (init= 0)
a: 0.00050000 +/- 0 (0.00%) (init= 0.0005)
D: 0.50000000 +/- 0 (0.00%) (init= 0.5)
b: 400 +/- 0 (0.00%) (init= 400)
Could you help me please ? I tried lots of type models from this library but nothing work correctly and i really need it. I already solved 2D problems with a np.square, and other reading things, the major problem is the model.
Waiting for answers,
Thanks,
You probably want to provide reasonable starting values for all your parameter values. As you wrote it, there are no initial values for I0 or b but conveniently(?) these parameters have bounds set, so that initial values can be inferred (probably poorly) as the lower bound -- I don't know how b became 400. Maybe a typo?
Anyway, I would recommend trying
pars = vmodel.make_params(I0=150, b=400)
and then try the fit again.
I'm looking for a way to plot a curve through some experimental data. The data shows a small linear regime with a shallow gradient, followed by a steep linear regime after a threshold value.
My data is here: http://pastebin.com/H4NSbxqr
I could fit the data with two lines relatively easily, but I'd like to fit with a continuous line ideally - which should look like two lines with a smooth curve joining them around the threshold (~5000 in the data, shown above).
I attempted this using scipy.optimize curve_fit and trying a function which included the sum of a straight line and an exponential:
y = a*x + b + c*np.exp((x-d)/e)
although despite numerous attempts, it didn't find a solution.
If anyone has any suggestions please, either on the choice of fitting distribution / method or the curve_fit implementation, they would be greatly appreciated.
If you don't have a particular reason to believe that linear + exponential is the true underlying cause of your data, then I think a fit to two lines makes the most sense. You can do this by making your fitting function the maximum of two lines, for example:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
def two_lines(x, a, b, c, d):
one = a*x + b
two = c*x + d
return np.maximum(one, two)
Then,
x, y = np.genfromtxt('tmp.txt', unpack=True, delimiter=',')
pw0 = (.02, 30, .2, -2000) # a guess for slope, intercept, slope, intercept
pw, cov = curve_fit(two_lines, x, y, pw0)
crossover = (pw[3] - pw[1]) / (pw[0] - pw[2])
plt.plot(x, y, 'o', x, two_lines(x, *pw), '-')
If you really want a continuous and differentiable solution, it occurred to me that a hyperbola has a sharp bend to it, but it has to be rotated. It was a bit difficult to implement (maybe there's an easier way), but here's a go:
def hyperbola(x, a, b, c, d, e):
""" hyperbola(x) with parameters
a/b = asymptotic slope
c = curvature at vertex
d = offset to vertex
e = vertical offset
"""
return a*np.sqrt((b*c)**2 + (x-d)**2)/b + e
def rot_hyperbola(x, a, b, c, d, e, th):
pars = a, b, c, 0, 0 # do the shifting after rotation
xd = x - d
hsin = hyperbola(xd, *pars)*np.sin(th)
xcos = xd*np.cos(th)
return e + hyperbola(xcos - hsin, *pars)*np.cos(th) + xcos - hsin
Run it as
h0 = 1.1, 1, 0, 5000, 100, .5
h, hcov = curve_fit(rot_hyperbola, x, y, h0)
plt.plot(x, y, 'o', x, two_lines(x, *pw), '-', x, rot_hyperbola(x, *h), '-')
plt.legend(['data', 'piecewise linear', 'rotated hyperbola'], loc='upper left')
plt.show()
I was also able to get the line + exponential to converge, but it looks terrible. This is because it's not a good descriptor of your data, which is linear and an exponential is very far from linear!
def line_exp(x, a, b, c, d, e):
return a*x + b + c*np.exp((x-d)/e)
e0 = .1, 20., .01, 1000., 2000.
e, ecov = curve_fit(line_exp, x, y, e0)
If you want to keep it simple, there's always a polynomial or spline (piecewise polynomials)
from scipy.interpolate import UnivariateSpline
s = UnivariateSpline(x, y, s=x.size) #larger s-value has fewer "knots"
plt.plot(x, s(x))
I researched this a little, Applied Linear Regression by Sanford, and the Correlation and Regression lecture by Steiger had some good info on it. They all however lack the right model, the piecewise function should be
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import lmfit
dfseg = pd.read_csv('segreg.csv')
def err(w):
th0 = w['th0'].value
th1 = w['th1'].value
th2 = w['th2'].value
gamma = w['gamma'].value
fit = th0 + th1*dfseg.Temp + th2*np.maximum(0,dfseg.Temp-gamma)
return fit-dfseg.C
p = lmfit.Parameters()
p.add_many(('th0', 0.), ('th1', 0.0),('th2', 0.0),('gamma', 40.))
mi = lmfit.minimize(err, p)
lmfit.printfuncs.report_fit(mi.params)
b0 = mi.params['th0']; b1=mi.params['th1'];b2=mi.params['th2']
gamma = int(mi.params['gamma'].value)
import statsmodels.formula.api as smf
reslin = smf.ols('C ~ 1 + Temp + I((Temp-%d)*(Temp>%d))' % (gamma,gamma), data=dfseg).fit()
print reslin.summary()
x0 = np.array(range(0,gamma,1))
x1 = np.array(range(0,80-gamma,1))
y0 = b0 + b1*x0
y1 = (b0 + b1 * float(gamma) + (b1 + b2)* x1)
plt.scatter(dfseg.Temp, dfseg.C)
plt.hold(True)
plt.plot(x0,y0)
plt.plot(x1+gamma,y1)
plt.show()
Result
[[Variables]]
th0: 78.6554456 +/- 3.966238 (5.04%) (init= 0)
th1: -0.15728297 +/- 0.148250 (94.26%) (init= 0)
th2: 0.72471237 +/- 0.179052 (24.71%) (init= 0)
gamma: 38.3110177 +/- 4.845767 (12.65%) (init= 40)
The data
"","Temp","C"
"1",8.5536,86.2143
"2",10.6613,72.3871
"3",12.4516,74.0968
"4",16.9032,68.2258
"5",20.5161,72.3548
"6",21.1613,76.4839
"7",24.3929,83.6429
"8",26.4839,74.1935
"9",26.5645,71.2581
"10",27.9828,78.2069
"11",32.6833,79.0667
"12",33.0806,71.0968
"13",33.7097,76.6452
"14",34.2903,74.4516
"15",36,56.9677
"16",37.4167,79.8333
"17",43.9516,79.7097
"18",45.2667,76.9667
"19",47,76
"20",47.1129,78.0323
"21",47.3833,79.8333
"22",48.0968,73.9032
"23",49.05,78.1667
"24",57.5,81.7097
"25",59.2,80.3
"26",61.3226,75
"27",61.9194,87.0323
"28",62.3833,89.8
"29",64.3667,96.4
"30",65.371,88.9677
"31",68.35,91.3333
"32",70.7581,91.8387
"33",71.129,90.9355
"34",72.2419,93.4516
"35",72.85,97.8333
"36",73.9194,92.4839
"37",74.4167,96.1333
"38",76.3871,89.8387
"39",78.0484,89.4516
Graph
I used #user423805 's answer (found via google groups thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lmfit-py/7I2zv2WwFLU ) but noticed it had some limitations when trying to use three or more segments.
Instead of applying np.maximum in the minimizer error function or adding (b1 + b2) in #user423805 's answer, I used the same linear spline calculation for both the minimizer and end-usage:
# least_splines_calc works like this for an example with three segments
# (four threshold params, three gamma params):
#
# for 0 < x < gamma0 : y = th0 + (th1 * x)
# for gamma0 < x < gamma1 : y = th0 + (th1 * x) + (th2 * (x - gamma0))
# for gamma1 < x : y = th0 + (th1 * x) + (th2 * (x - gamma0)) + (th3 * (x - gamma1))
#
def least_splines_calc(x, thresholds, gammas):
if(len(thresholds) < 2):
print("Error: expected at least two thresholds")
return None
applicable_gammas = filter(lambda gamma: x > gamma , gammas)
#base result
y = thresholds[0] + (thresholds[1] * x)
#additional factors calculated depending on x value
for i in range(0, len(applicable_gammas)):
y = y + ( thresholds[i + 2] * ( x - applicable_gammas[i] ) )
return y
def least_splines_calc_array(x_array, thresholds, gammas):
y_array = map(lambda x: least_splines_calc(x, thresholds, gammas), x_array)
return y_array
def err(params, x, data):
th0 = params['th0'].value
th1 = params['th1'].value
th2 = params['th2'].value
th3 = params['th3'].value
gamma1 = params['gamma1'].value
gamma2 = params['gamma2'].value
thresholds = np.array([th0, th1, th2, th3])
gammas = np.array([gamma1, gamma2])
fit = least_splines_calc_array(x, thresholds, gammas)
return np.array(fit)-np.array(data)
p = lmfit.Parameters()
p.add_many(('th0', 0.), ('th1', 0.0),('th2', 0.0),('th3', 0.0),('gamma1', 9.),('gamma2', 9.3)) #NOTE: the 9. / 9.3 were guesses specific to my data, you will need to change these
mi = lmfit.minimize(err_alt, p, args=(np.array(dfseg.Temp), np.array(dfseg.C)))
After minimization, convert the params found by the minimizer into an array of thresholds and gammas to re-use linear_splines_calc to plot the linear splines regression.
Reference: While there's various places that explain least splines (I think #user423805 used http://www.statpower.net/Content/313/Lecture%20Notes/Splines.pdf , which has the (b1 + b2) addition I disagree with in its sample code despite similar equations) , the one that made the most sense to me was this one (by Rob Schapire / Zia Khan at Princeton) : https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring07/cos424/scribe_notes/0403.pdf - section 2.2 goes into linear splines. Excerpt below:
If you're looking to join what appears to be two straight lines with a hyperbola having a variable radius at/near the intersection of the two lines (which are its asymptotes), I urge you to look hard at Using an Hyperbola as a Transition Model to Fit Two-Regime Straight-Line Data, by Donald G. Watts and David W. Bacon, Technometrics, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Aug., 1974), pp. 369-373.
The formula is drop dead simple, nicely adjustable, and works like a charm. From their paper (in case you can't access it):
As a more useful alternative form we consider an hyperbola for which:
(i) the dependent variable y is a single valued function of the independent variable x,
(ii) the left asymptote has slope theta_1,
(iii) the right asymptote has slope theta_2,
(iv) the asymptotes intersect at the point (x_o, beta_o),
(v) the radius of curvature at x = x_o is proportional to a quantity delta. Such an hyperbola can be written y = beta_o + beta_1*(x - x_o) + beta_2* SQRT[(x - x_o)^2 + delta^2/4], where beta_1 = (theta_1 + theta_2)/2 and beta_2 = (theta_2 - theta_1)/2.
delta is the adjustable parameter that allows you to either closely follow the lines right to the intersection point or smoothly merge from one line to the other.
Just solve for the intersection point (x_o, beta_o), and plug into the formula above.
BTW, in general, if line 1 is y_1 = b_1 + m_1 *x and line 2 is y_2 = b_2 + m_2 * x, then they intersect at x* = (b_2 - b_1) / (m_1 - m_2) and y* = b_1 + m_1 * x*. So, to connect with the formalism above, x_o = x*, beta_o = y* and the two m_*'s are the two thetas.
There is a straightforward method (not iterative, no initial guess) pp.12-13 in https://fr.scribd.com/document/380941024/Regression-par-morceaux-Piecewise-Regression-pdf
The data comes from the scanning of the figure published by IanRoberts in his question. Scanning for the coordinates of the pixels in not accurate. So, don't be surprised by additional deviation.
Note that the abscisses and ordinates scales have been devised by 1000.
The equations of the two segments are
The approximate values of the five parameters are written on the above figure.
I've been trying to fit the amplitude, frequency and phase of a sine curve given some generated two dimensional toy data. (Code at the end)
To get estimates for the three parameters, I first perform an FFT. I use the values from the FFT as initial guesses for the actual frequency and phase and then fit for them (row by row). I wrote my code such that I input which bin of the FFT I want the frequency to be in, so I can check if the fitting is working well. But there's some pretty strange behaviour. If my input bin is say 3.1 (a non integral bin, so the FFT won't give me the right frequency) then the fit works wonderfully. But if the input bin is 3 (so the FFT outputs the exact frequency) then my fit fails, and I'm trying to understand why.
Here's the output when I give the input bins (in the X and Y direction) as 3.0 and 2.1 respectively:
(The plot on the right is data - fit)
Here's the output when I give the input bins as 3.0 and 2.0:
Question: Why does the non linear fit fail when I input the exact frequency of the curve?
Code:
#! /usr/bin/python
# For the purposes of this code, it's easier to think of the X-Y axes as transposed,
# so the X axis is vertical and the Y axis is horizontal
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import scipy.optimize as optimize
import itertools
import sys
PI = np.pi
# Function which accepts paramters to define a sin curve
# Used for the non linear fit
def sineFit(t, a, f, p):
return a * np.sin(2.0 * PI * f*t + p)
xSize = 18
ySize = 60
npt = xSize * ySize
# Get frequency bin from user input
xFreq = float(sys.argv[1])
yFreq = float(sys.argv[2])
xPeriod = xSize/xFreq
yPeriod = ySize/yFreq
# arrays should be defined here
# Generate the 2D sine curve
for jj in range (0, xSize):
for ii in range(0, ySize):
sineGen[jj, ii] = np.cos(2.0*PI*(ii/xPeriod + jj/yPeriod))
# Compute 2dim FFT as well as freq bins along each axis
fftData = np.fft.fft2(sineGen)
fftMean = np.mean(fftData)
fftRMS = np.std(fftData)
xFreqArr = np.fft.fftfreq(fftData.shape[1]) # Frequency bins along x
yFreqArr = np.fft.fftfreq(fftData.shape[0]) # Frequency bins along y
# Find peak of FFT, and position of peak
maxVal = np.amax(np.abs(fftData))
maxPos = np.where(np.abs(fftData) == maxVal)
# Iterate through peaks in the FFT
# For this example, number of loops will always be only one
prevPhase = -1000
for col, row in itertools.izip(maxPos[0], maxPos[1]):
# Initial guesses for fit parameters from FFT
init_phase = np.angle(fftData[col,row])
init_amp = 2.0 * maxVal/npt
init_freqY = yFreqArr[col]
init_freqX = xFreqArr[row]
cntr = 0
if prevPhase == -1000:
prevPhase = init_phase
guess = [init_amp, init_freqX, prevPhase]
# Fit each row of the 2D sine curve independently
for rr in sineGen:
(amp, freq, phs), pcov = optimize.curve_fit(sineFit, xDat, rr, guess)
# xDat is an linspace array, containing a list of numbers from 0 to xSize-1
# Subtract fit from original data and plot
fitData = sineFit(xDat, amp, freq, phs)
sub1 = rr - fitData
# Plot
fig1 = plt.figure()
ax1 = fig1.add_subplot(121)
p1, = ax1.plot(rr, 'g')
p2, = ax1.plot(fitData, 'b')
plt.legend([p1,p2], ["data", "fit"])
ax2 = fig1.add_subplot(122)
p3, = ax2.plot(sub1)
plt.legend([p3], ['residual1'])
fig1.tight_layout()
plt.show()
cntr += 1
prevPhase = phs # Update guess for phase of sine curve
I've tried to distill the important parts of your question into this answer.
First of all, try fitting a single block of data, not an array. Once you are confident that your model is sufficient you can move on.
Your fit is only going to be as good as your model, if you move on to something not "sine"-like you'll need to adjust accordingly.
Fitting is an "art", in that the initial conditions can greatly change the convergence of the error function. In addition there may be more than one minima in your fits, so you often have to worry about the uniqueness of your proposed solution.
While you were on the right track with your FFT idea, I think your implementation wasn't quite correct. The code below should be a great toy system. It generates random data of the type f(x) = a0*sin(a1*x+a2). Sometimes a random initial guess will work, sometimes it will fail spectacularly. However, using the FFT guess for the frequency the convergence should always work for this system. An example output:
import numpy as np
import pylab as plt
import scipy.optimize as optimize
# This is your target function
def sineFit(t, (a, f, p)):
return a * np.sin(2.0*np.pi*f*t + p)
# This is our "error" function
def err_func(p0, X, Y, target_function):
err = ((Y - target_function(X, p0))**2).sum()
return err
# Try out different parameters, sometimes the random guess works
# sometimes it fails. The FFT solution should always work for this problem
inital_args = np.random.random(3)
X = np.linspace(0, 10, 1000)
Y = sineFit(X, inital_args)
# Use a random inital guess
inital_guess = np.random.random(3)
# Fit
sol = optimize.fmin(err_func, inital_guess, args=(X,Y,sineFit))
# Plot the fit
Y2 = sineFit(X, sol)
plt.figure(figsize=(15,10))
plt.subplot(211)
plt.title("Random Inital Guess: Final Parameters: %s"%sol)
plt.plot(X,Y)
plt.plot(X,Y2,'r',alpha=.5,lw=10)
# Use an improved "fft" guess for the frequency
# this will be the max in k-space
timestep = X[1]-X[0]
guess_k = np.argmax( np.fft.rfft(Y) )
guess_f = np.fft.fftfreq(X.size, timestep)[guess_k]
inital_guess[1] = guess_f
# Guess the amplitiude by taking the max of the absolute values
inital_guess[0] = np.abs(Y).max()
sol = optimize.fmin(err_func, inital_guess, args=(X,Y,sineFit))
Y2 = sineFit(X, sol)
plt.subplot(212)
plt.title("FFT Guess : Final Parameters: %s"%sol)
plt.plot(X,Y)
plt.plot(X,Y2,'r',alpha=.5,lw=10)
plt.show()
The problem is due to a bad initial guess of the phase, not the frequency. While cycling through the rows of genSine (inner loop) you use the fit result of the previous line as initial guess for the next row which does not work always. If you determine the phase from an fft of the current row and use that as initial guess the fit will succeed.
You could change the inner loop as follows:
for n,rr in enumerate(sineGen):
fftx = np.fft.fft(rr)
fftx = fftx[:len(fftx)/2]
idx = np.argmax(np.abs(fftx))
init_phase = np.angle(fftx[idx])
print fftx[idx], init_phase
...
Also you need to change
def sineFit(t, a, f, p):
return a * np.sin(2.0 * np.pi * f*t + p)
to
def sineFit(t, a, f, p):
return a * np.cos(2.0 * np.pi * f*t + p)
since phase=0 means that the imaginary part of the fft is zero and thus the function is cosine like.
Btw. your sample above is still lacking definitions of sineGen and xDat.
Without understanding much of your code, according to http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.optimize.curve_fit.html:
(amp2, freq2, phs2), pcov = optimize.curve_fit(sineFit, tDat,
sub1, guess2)
should become:
(amp2, freq2, phs2), pcov = optimize.curve_fit(sineFit, tDat,
sub1, p0=guess2)
Assuming that tDat and sub1 are x and y, that should do the trick. But, once again, it is quite difficult to understand such a complex code with so many interlinked variables and no comments at all. A code should always be build from bottom up, meaning that you don't do a loop of fits when a single one is not working, you don't add noise until the code works to fit the non-noisy examples... Good luck!
By "nothing fancy" I meant something like removing EVERYTHING that is not related with the fit, and doing a simplified mock example such as:
import numpy as np
import scipy.optimize as optimize
def sineFit(t, a, f, p):
return a * np.sin(2.0 * np.pi * f*t + p)
# Create array of x and y with given parameters
x = np.asarray(range(100))
y = sineFit(x, 1, 0.05, 0)
# Give a guess and fit, printing result of the fitted values
guess = [1., 0.05, 0.]
print optimize.curve_fit(sineFit, x, y, guess)[0]
The result of this is exactly the answer:
[1. 0.05 0.]
But if you change guess not too much, just enough:
# Give a guess and fit, printing result of the fitted values
guess = [1., 0.06, 0.]
print optimize.curve_fit(sineFit, x, y, guess)[0]
the result gives absurdly wrong numbers:
[ 0.00823701 0.06391323 -1.20382787]
Can you explain this behavior?
You can use curve_fit with a series of trigonometric functions, usually very robust and ajustable to the precision that you need just by increasing the number of terms... here is an example:
from scipy import sin, cos, linspace
def f(x, a0,s1,s2,s3,s4,s5,s6,s7,s8,s9,s10,s11,s12,
c1,c2,c3,c4,c5,c6,c7,c8,c9,c10,c11,c12):
return a0 + s1*sin(1*x) + c1*cos(1*x) \
+ s2*sin(2*x) + c2*cos(2*x) \
+ s3*sin(3*x) + c3*cos(3*x) \
+ s4*sin(4*x) + c4*cos(4*x) \
+ s5*sin(5*x) + c5*cos(5*x) \
+ s6*sin(6*x) + c6*cos(6*x) \
+ s7*sin(7*x) + c7*cos(7*x) \
+ s8*sin(8*x) + c8*cos(8*x) \
+ s9*sin(9*x) + c9*cos(9*x) \
+ s10*sin(9*x) + c10*cos(9*x) \
+ s11*sin(9*x) + c11*cos(9*x) \
+ s12*sin(9*x) + c12*cos(9*x)
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
pi/2. / (x.max() - x.min())
x_norm *= norm_factor
popt, pcov = curve_fit(f, x_norm, y)
x_fit = linspace(x_norm.min(), x_norm.max(), 1000)
y_fit = f(x_fit, *popt)
plt.plot( x_fit/x_norm, y_fit )