Develop Reference

Simulate the compound random variable S

Let S=X_1+X_2+...+X_N where N is a nonnegative integer-valued random variable and X_1,X_2,... are i.i.d random variables.(If N=0, we set S=0).
Simulate S in the case where N ~ Poi(100) and X_i ~ Exp(0.5). (draw histograms and use the numpy or scipy built-in functions).And check the equations E(S)=E(N)*E(X_1) and Var(S)=E(N)*Var(X_1)+E(X_1)^2 *Var(N)
I was trying to solve it, but I'm not sure yet of everything and also got stuck on the histogram part. Note: I'm new to python or more generally , new to programming.
My work:
import scipy.stats as stats
import matplotlib as plt
N = stats.poisson(100)
X = stats.expon(0.5)
arr = X.rvs(N.rvs())
S = 0
for i in arr:
S=S+i
print(arr)
print("S=",S)
expected_S = (N.mean())*(X.mean())
variance_S = (N.mean()*X.var()) + (X.mean()*X.mean()*N.var())
print("E(X)=",expected_S)
print("Var(S)=",variance_S)

Your existing code mostly looks sensible, but I'd simplify:
arr = X.rvs(N.rvs())
S = 0
for i in arr:
S=S+i
down to:
S = X.rvs(N.rvs()).sum()
To draw a histogram, you need many samples from this distribution, which is now easily accomplished via:
arr = []
for _ in range(10_000):
arr.append(X.rvs(N.rvs()).sum())
or, equivalently, using a list comprehension:
arr = [X.rvs(N.rvs()).sum() for _ in range(10_000)]
to plot these in a histogram, you need the pyplot module from Matplotlib, so your import should be:
from matplotlib.pyplot import plt
plt.hist(arr, 50)
The 50 above says to use that number of "bins" when drawing the histogram. We can also compare these to the mean and variance you calculated by assuming the distribution is well approximated by a normal:
approx = stats.norm(expected_S, np.sqrt(variance_S))
_, x, _ = plt.hist(arr, 50, density=True)
plt.plot(x, approx.pdf(x))
This works because the second value returned from matplotlib's hist method are the locations of the bins. I used density=True so I could work with probability densities, but another option could be to just multiply the densities by the number of samples to get expected counts like the previous histogram.
Running this gives me:

Calculating cross-correlation with fft returning backwards output

I'm trying to cross correlate two sets of data, by taking the fourier transform of both and multiplying the conjugate of the first fft with the second fft, before transforming back to time space. In order to test my code, I am comparing the output with the output of numpy.correlate. However, when I plot my code, (restricted to a certain window), it seems the two signals go in opposite directions/are mirrored about zero.
This is what my output looks like
My code:
import numpy as np
import pyplot as plt
phl_data = np.sin(np.arange(0, 10, 0.1))
mlac_data = np.cos(np.arange(0, 10, 0.1))
N = phl_data.size
zeroes = np.zeros(N-1)
phl_data = np.append(phl_data, zeroes)
mlac_data = np.append(mlac_data, zeroes)
# cross-correlate x = phl_data, y = mlac_data:
# take FFTs:
phl_fft = np.fft.fft(phl_data)
mlac_fft = np.fft.fft(mlac_data)
# fft of cross-correlation
Cw = np.conj(phl_fft)*mlac_fft
#Cw = np.fft.fftshift(Cw)
# transform back to time space:
Cxy = np.fft.fftshift(np.fft.ifft(Cw))
times = np.append(np.arange(-N+1, 0, dt),np.arange(0, N, dt))
plt.plot(times, Cxy)
plt.xlim(-250, 250)
# test against convolving:
c = np.correlate(phl_data, mlac_data, mode='same')
plt.plot(times, c)
plt.show()
(both data sets have been padded with N-1 zeroes)

The documentation to numpy.correlate explains this:
This function computes the correlation as generally defined in signal processing texts:
c_{av}[k] = sum_n a[n+k] * conj(v[n])
and:
Notes
The definition of correlation above is not unique and sometimes correlation may be defined differently. Another common definition is:
c'_{av}[k] = sum_n a[n] conj(v[n+k])
which is related to c_{av}[k] by c'_{av}[k] = c_{av}[-k].
Thus, there is not a unique definition, and the two common definitions lead to a reversed output.

Python: Kernel Density Estimation for positive values

I want to get kernel density estimation for positive data points. Using Python Scipy Stats package, I came up with the following code.
def get_pdf(data):
a = np.array(data)
ag = st.gaussian_kde(a)
x = np.linspace(0, max(data), max(data))
y = ag(x)
return x, y
This works perfectly for most data sets, but it gives an erroneous result for "all positive" data points. To make sure this works correctly, I use numerical integration to compute the area under this curve.
def trapezoidal_2(ag, a, b, n):
h = np.float(b - a) / n
s = 0.0
s += ag(a)[0]/2.0
for i in range(1, n):
s += ag(a + i*h)[0]
s += ag(b)[0]/2.0
return s * h
Since the data is spread in the region (0, int(max(data))), we should get a value close to 1, when executing the following line.
b = 1
data = st.pareto.rvs(b, size=10000)
data = list(data)
a = np.array(data)
ag = st.gaussian_kde(a)
trapezoidal_2(ag, 0, int(max(data)), int(max(data))*2)
But it gives a value close to 0.5 when I test.
But when I intergrate from -100 to max(data), it provides a value close to 1.
trapezoidal_2(ag, -100, int(max(data)), int(max(data))*2+200)
The reason is, ag (KDE) is defined for values less than 0, even though the original data set contains only positive values.
So how can I get a kernel density estimation that considers only positive values, such that area under the curve in the region (o, max(data)) is close to 1?

The choice of the bandwidth is quite important when performing kernel density estimation. I think the Scott's Rule and Silverman's Rule work well for distribution similar to a Gaussian. However, they do not work well for the Pareto distribution.
Quote from the doc:
Bandwidth selection strongly influences the estimate obtained from
the KDE (much more so than the actual shape of the kernel). Bandwidth selection
can be done by a "rule of thumb", by cross-validation, by "plug-in
methods" or by other means; see [3], [4] for reviews. gaussian_kde
uses a rule of thumb, the default is Scott's Rule.
Try with different bandwidth values, for example:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy import stats
b = 1
sample = stats.pareto.rvs(b, size=3000)
kde_sample_scott = stats.gaussian_kde(sample, bw_method='scott')
kde_sample_scalar = stats.gaussian_kde(sample, bw_method=1e-3)
# Compute the integrale:
print('integrale scott:', kde_sample_scott.integrate_box_1d(0, np.inf))
print('integrale scalar:', kde_sample_scalar.integrate_box_1d(0, np.inf))
# Graph:
x_span = np.logspace(-2, 1, 550)
plt.plot(x_span, stats.pareto.pdf(x_span, b), label='theoretical pdf')
plt.plot(x_span, kde_sample_scott(x_span), label="estimated pdf 'scott'")
plt.plot(x_span, kde_sample_scalar(x_span), label="estimated pdf 'scalar'")
plt.xlabel('X'); plt.legend();
gives:
integrale scott: 0.5572130540733236
integrale scalar: 0.9999999999968957
and:
We see that the kde using the Scott method is wrong.

Normal distributed sub-sampling from a numpy array in python

I have a numpy array whose values are distributed in the following manner
From this array I need to get a random sub-sample which is normally distributed.
I need to get rid of the values from the array which are above the red line in the picture. i.e. I need to get rid of some occurences of certain values from the array so that my distribution gets smoothened when the abrupt peaks are removed.
And my array's distribution should become like this:
Can this be achieved in python, without manually looking for entries corresponding to the peaks and remove some occurences of them ? Can this be done in a simpler way ?

The following kind of works, it is rather aggressive, though:
It works by ordering the samples, transforming to uniform and then trying to select a regular griddish subsample. If you feel it is too aggressive you could increase ns which is essentially the number of samples kept.
Also, please note that it requires the knowledge of the true distribution. In case of normal distribution you should be fine with using sample mean and unbiased variance estimate (the one with n-1).
Code (without plotting):
import scipy.stats as ss
import numpy as np
a = ss.norm.rvs(size=1000)
b = ss.uniform.rvs(size=1000)<0.4
a[b] += 0.1*np.sin(10*a[b])
def smooth(a, gran=25):
o = np.argsort(a)
s = ss.norm.cdf(a[o])
ns = int(gran / np.max(s[gran:] - s[:-gran]))
grid, dp = np.linspace(0, 1, ns, endpoint=False, retstep=True)
grid += dp/2
idx = np.searchsorted(s, grid)
c = np.flatnonzero(idx[1:] <= idx[:-1])
while c.size > 0:
idx[c+1] = idx[c] + 1
c = np.flatnonzero(idx[1:] <= idx[:-1])
idx = idx[:np.searchsorted(idx, len(a))]
return o[idx]
ap = a[smooth(a)]
c, b = np.histogram(a, 40)
cp, _ = np.histogram(ap, b)

find peaks location in a spectrum numpy

I have a TOF spectrum and I would like to implement an algorithm using python (numpy) that finds all the maxima of the spectrum and returns the corresponding x values.
I have looked up online and I found the algorithm reported below.
The assumption here is that near the maximum the difference between the value before and the value at the maximum is bigger than a number DELTA. The problem is that my spectrum is composed of points equally distributed, even near the maximum, so that DELTA is never exceeded and the function peakdet returns an empty array.
Do you have any idea how to overcome this problem? I would really appreciate comments to understand better the code since I am quite new in python.
Thanks!
import sys
from numpy import NaN, Inf, arange, isscalar, asarray, array
def peakdet(v, delta, x = None):
maxtab = []
mintab = []
if x is None:
x = arange(len(v))
v = asarray(v)
if len(v) != len(x):
sys.exit('Input vectors v and x must have same length')
if not isscalar(delta):
sys.exit('Input argument delta must be a scalar')
if delta <= 0:
sys.exit('Input argument delta must be positive')
mn, mx = Inf, -Inf
mnpos, mxpos = NaN, NaN
lookformax = True
for i in arange(len(v)):
this = v[i]
if this > mx:
mx = this
mxpos = x[i]
if this < mn:
mn = this
mnpos = x[i]
if lookformax:
if this < mx-delta:
maxtab.append((mxpos, mx))
mn = this
mnpos = x[i]
lookformax = False
else:
if this > mn+delta:
mintab.append((mnpos, mn))
mx = this
mxpos = x[i]
lookformax = True
return array(maxtab), array(mintab)
Below is shown part of the spectrum. I actually have more peaks than those shown here.

This, I think could work as a starting point. I'm not a signal-processing expert, but I tried this on a generated signal Y that looks quite like yours and one with much more noise:
from scipy.signal import convolve
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
#Obtaining derivative
kernel = [1, 0, -1]
dY = convolve(Y, kernel, 'valid')
#Checking for sign-flipping
S = np.sign(dY)
ddS = convolve(S, kernel, 'valid')
#These candidates are basically all negative slope positions
#Add one since using 'valid' shrinks the arrays
candidates = np.where(dY < 0)[0] + (len(kernel) - 1)
#Here they are filtered on actually being the final such position in a run of
#negative slopes
peaks = sorted(set(candidates).intersection(np.where(ddS == 2)[0] + 1))
plt.plot(Y)
#If you need a simple filter on peak size you could use:
alpha = -0.0025
peaks = np.array(peaks)[Y[peaks] < alpha]
plt.scatter(peaks, Y[peaks], marker='x', color='g', s=40)
The sample outcomes:
For the noisy one, I filtered peaks with alpha:
If the alpha needs more sophistication you could try dynamically setting alpha from the peaks discovered using e.g. assumptions about them being a mixed gaussian (my favourite being the Otsu threshold, exists in cv and skimage) or some sort of clustering (k-means could work).
And for reference, this I used to generate the signal:
Y = np.zeros(1000)
def peaker(Y, alpha=0.01, df=2, loc=-0.005, size=-.0015, threshold=0.001, decay=0.5):
peaking = False
for i, v in enumerate(Y):
if not peaking:
peaking = np.random.random() < alpha
if peaking:
Y[i] = loc + size * np.random.chisquare(df=2)
continue
elif Y[i - 1] < threshold:
peaking = False
if i > 0:
Y[i] = Y[i - 1] * decay
peaker(Y)
EDIT: Support for degrading base-line
I simulated a slanting base-line by doing this:
Z = np.log2(np.arange(Y.size) + 100) * 0.001
Y = Y + Z[::-1] - Z[-1]
Then to detect with a fixed alpha (note that I changed sign on alpha):
from scipy.signal import medfilt
alpha = 0.0025
Ybase = medfilt(Y, 51) # 51 should be large in comparison to your peak X-axis lengths and an odd number.
peaks = np.array(peaks)[Ybase[peaks] - Y[peaks] > alpha]
Resulting in the following outcome (the base-line is plotted as dashed black line):
EDIT 2: Simplification and a comment
I simplified the code to use one kernel for both convolves as #skymandr commented. This also removed the magic number in adjusting the shrinkage so that any size of the kernel should do.
For the choice of "valid" as option to convolve. It would probably have worked just as well with "same", but I choose "valid" so I didn't have to think about the edge-conditions and if the algorithm could detect spurios peaks there.

As of SciPy version 1.1, you can also use find_peaks:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.signal import find_peaks
np.random.seed(0)
Y = np.zeros(1000)
# insert #deinonychusaur's peaker function here
peaker(Y)
# make data noisy
Y = Y + 10e-4 * np.random.randn(len(Y))
# find_peaks gets the maxima, so we multiply our signal by -1
Y *= -1
# get the actual peaks
peaks, _ = find_peaks(Y, height=0.002)
# multiply back for plotting purposes
Y *= -1
plt.plot(Y)
plt.plot(peaks, Y[peaks], "x")
plt.show()
This will plot (note that we use height=0.002 which will only find peaks higher than 0.002):
In addition to height, we can also set the minimal distance between two peaks. If you use distance=100, the plot then looks as follows:
You can use
peaks, _ = find_peaks(Y, height=0.002, distance=100)
in the code above.

After looking at the answers and suggestions I decided to offer a solution I often use because it is straightforward and easier to tweak.
It uses a sliding window and counts how many times a local peak appears as a maximum as window shifts along the x-axis. As #DrV suggested, no universal definition of "local maximum" exists, meaning that some tuning parameters are unavoidable. This function uses "window size" and "frequency" to fine tune the outcome. Window size is measured in number of data points of independent variable (x) and frequency counts how sensitive should peak detection be (also expressed as a number of data points; lower values of frequency produce more peaks and vice versa). The main function is here:
def peak_finder(x0, y0, window_size, peak_threshold):
# extend x, y using window size
y = numpy.concatenate([y0, numpy.repeat(y0[-1], window_size)])
x = numpy.concatenate([x0, numpy.arange(x0[-1], x0[-1]+window_size)])
local_max = numpy.zeros(len(x0))
for ii in range(len(x0)):
local_max[ii] = x[y[ii:(ii + window_size)].argmax() + ii]
u, c = numpy.unique(local_max, return_counts=True)
i_return = numpy.where(c>=peak_threshold)[0]
return(list(zip(u[i_return], c[i_return])))
along with a snippet used to produce the figure shown below:
import numpy
from matplotlib import pyplot
def plot_case(axx, w_f):
p = peak_finder(numpy.arange(0, len(Y)), -Y, w_f[0], w_f[1])
r = .9*min(Y)/10
axx.plot(Y)
for ip in p:
axx.text(ip[0], r + Y[int(ip[0])], int(ip[0]),
rotation=90, horizontalalignment='center')
yL = pyplot.gca().get_ylim()
axx.set_ylim([1.15*min(Y), yL[1]])
axx.set_xlim([-50, 1100])
axx.set_title(f'window: {w_f[0]}, count: {w_f[1]}', loc='left', fontsize=10)
return(None)
window_frequency = {1:(15, 15), 2:(100, 100), 3:(100, 5)}
f, ax = pyplot.subplots(1, 3, sharey='row', figsize=(9, 4),
gridspec_kw = {'hspace':0, 'wspace':0, 'left':.08,
'right':.99, 'top':.93, 'bottom':.06})
for k, v in window_frequency.items():
plot_case(ax[k-1], v)
pyplot.show()
Three cases show parameter values that render (from left to right panel):
(1) too many, (2) too few, and (3) an intermediate amount of peaks.
To generate Y data, I used the function #deinonychusaur gave above, and added some noise to it from #Cleb's answer.
I hope some might find this useful, but it's efficiency primarily depends on actual peak shapes and distances.

Finding a minimum or a maximum is not that simple, because there is no universal definition for "local maximum".
Your code seems to look for a miximum and then accept it as a maximum if the signal falls after the maximum below the maximum minus some delta value. After that it starts to look for a minimum with similar criteria. It does not really matter if your data falls or rises slowly, as the maximum is recorded when it is reached and appended to the list of maxima once the level fallse below the hysteresis threshold.
This is a possible way to find local minima and maxima, but it has several shortcomings. One of them is that the method is not symmetric, i.e. if the same data is run backwards, the results are not necessarily the same.
Unfortunately, I cannot help much more, because the correct method really depends on the data you are looking at, its shape and its noisiness. If you have some samples, then we might be able to come up with some suggestions.