Develop Reference

Why does my functions seem to integrate and not differentiate? (pywt.cwt)

I am really confused by the function pywt.cwt, as I've not been able to get it to work. The function seems to integrate instead of differentiating. I would like to work it as the following: Example CWT, but my graph looks like this: My CWT. The idea is to integrate the raw signal (av) with cumtrapz, then differentiate with a gaussian CWT (=> S1), and then once more differentiate with gaussian CWT (=> S2).
As you can see in the pictures, the bottom peaks of the red line should line up in the valleys, but the land under the top peaks for me, and the green line should move 1/4th period to the left but moves to the right... Which makes me think it integrates for some reason.
I currently have no idea what causes this... Does anyone happen to know what is going on?
Thanks in advance!
#Get data from pandas
av = dfRange['y']
#remove gravity & turns av right way up
av = av - dfRange['y'].mean()
av = av * -1
#Filter
[b,a] = signal.butter(4, [0.9/(55.2/2), 20/(55.2/2)], 'bandpass')
av = signal.filtfilt(b,a, av)
#Integrate and differentiate av => S1
integrated_av = integrate.cumtrapz(av)
[CWT_av1, frequency1] = pywt.cwt(integrated_av, 8.8 , 'gaus1', 1/55.2)
CWT_av1 = CWT_av1[0]
CWT_av1 = CWT_av1 * 0.05
#differentiate S1 => S2
[CWT_av2, frequency2] = pywt.cwt(CWT_av1, 8.8 , 'gaus1', 1/55.2)
CWT_av2 = CWT_av2[0]
CWT_av2 = CWT_av2 * 0.8
#Find Peaks
inv_CWT_av1 = CWT_av1 * -1
av1_min, _ = signal.find_peaks(inv_CWT_av1)
av2_max, _ = signal.find_peaks(CWT_av2)
#Plot
plt.style.use('seaborn')
plt.figure(figsize=(25, 7), dpi = 300)
plt.plot_date(dfRange['recorded_naive'], av, linestyle = 'solid', marker = None, color = 'steelblue')
plt.plot_date(dfRange['recorded_naive'][:-1], CWT_av1[:], linestyle = 'solid', marker = None, color = 'red')
plt.plot(dfRange['recorded_naive'].iloc[av1_min], CWT_av1[av1_min], "ob", color = 'red')
plt.plot_date(dfRange['recorded_naive'][:-1], CWT_av2[:], linestyle = 'solid', marker = None, color = 'green')
plt.plot(dfRange['recorded_naive'].iloc[av2_max], CWT_av2[av2_max], "ob", color = 'green')
plt.gcf().autofmt_xdate()
plt.show()

I'm not sure this is your answer, but an observation from playing with pywt...
From the documentation the wavelets are basically given by the differentials of a Gaussian but there is an order dependent normalisation constant.
Plotting the differentials of a Guassian against the wavelets (extracted by putting in an impulse response) gives the following:
The interesting observation is that the order dependent normalisation constant sometimes seems to include a '-1'. In particular, it does for the first order gaus1.
So, my question is, could you actually have differentiation as you expect, but also multiplication by -1?
Code for the graph:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pywt
dt = 0.01
t = dt * np.arange(100)
# Calculate the differentials of a gaussian by quadrature:
# start with the gaussian y = exp(-(x - x_0) ^ 2 / dt)
ctr = t[len(t) // 2]
gaus = np.exp(-np.power(t - ctr, 2)/dt)
gaus_quad = [np.gradient(gaus, dt)]
for i in range(7):
gaus_quad.append(np.gradient(gaus_quad[-1], dt))
# Extract the wavelets using the impulse half way through the dataset
y = np.zeros(len(t))
y[len(t) // 2] = 1
gaus_cwt = list()
for i in range(1, 9):
cwt, cwt_f = pywt.cwt(y, 10, f'gaus{i}', dt)
gaus_cwt.append(cwt[0])
fig, axs = plt.subplots(4, 2)
for i, ax in enumerate(axs.flatten()):
ax.plot(t, gaus_cwt[i] / np.max(np.abs(gaus_cwt[i])))
ax.plot(t, gaus_quad[i] / np.max(np.abs(gaus_quad[i])))
ax.set_title(f'gaus {i+1}', x=0.2, y=1.0, pad=-14)
ax.axhline(0, c='k')
ax.set_xticks([])
ax.set_yticks([])

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

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):

Fitting a quadratic function in python without numpy polyfit

I am trying to fit a quadratic function to some data, and I'm trying to do this without using numpy's polyfit function.
Mathematically I tried to follow this website https://neutrium.net/mathematics/least-squares-fitting-of-a-polynomial/ but somehow I don't think that I'm doing it right. If anyone could assist me that would be great, or If you could suggest another way to do it that would also be awesome.
What I've tried so far:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd
ones = np.ones(3)
A = np.array( ((0,1),(1,1),(2,1)))
xfeature = A.T[0]
squaredfeature = A.T[0] ** 2
b = np.array( (1,2,0), ndmin=2 ).T
b = b.reshape(3)
features = np.concatenate((np.vstack(ones), np.vstack(xfeature), np.vstack(squaredfeature)), axis = 1)
featuresc = features.copy()
print(features)
m_det = np.linalg.det(features)
print(m_det)
determinants = []
for i in range(3):
featuresc.T[i] = b
print(featuresc)
det = np.linalg.det(featuresc)
determinants.append(det)
print(det)
featuresc = features.copy()
determinants = determinants / m_det
print(determinants)
plt.scatter(A.T[0],b)
u = np.linspace(0,3,100)
plt.plot(u, u**2*determinants[2] + u*determinants[1] + determinants[0] )
p2 = np.polyfit(A.T[0],b,2)
plt.plot(u, np.polyval(p2,u), 'b--')
plt.show()
As you can see my curve doesn't compare well to nnumpy's polyfit curve.
Update:
I went through my code and removed all the stupid mistakes and now it works, when I try to fit it over 3 points, but I have no idea how to fit over more than three points.
This is the new code:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd
ones = np.ones(3)
A = np.array( ((0,1),(1,1),(2,1)))
xfeature = A.T[0]
squaredfeature = A.T[0] ** 2
b = np.array( (1,2,0), ndmin=2 ).T
b = b.reshape(3)
features = np.concatenate((np.vstack(ones), np.vstack(xfeature), np.vstack(squaredfeature)), axis = 1)
featuresc = features.copy()
print(features)
m_det = np.linalg.det(features)
print(m_det)
determinants = []
for i in range(3):
featuresc.T[i] = b
print(featuresc)
det = np.linalg.det(featuresc)
determinants.append(det)
print(det)
featuresc = features.copy()
determinants = determinants / m_det
print(determinants)
plt.scatter(A.T[0],b)
u = np.linspace(0,3,100)
plt.plot(u, u**2*determinants[2] + u*determinants[1] + determinants[0] )
p2 = np.polyfit(A.T[0],b,2)
plt.plot(u, np.polyval(p2,u), 'r--')
plt.show()

Instead using Cramer's Rule, actually solve the system using least squares. Remember that Cramer's Rule will only work if the total number of points you have equals the desired order of polynomial plus 1.
If you don't have this, then Cramer's Rule will not work as you're trying to find an exact solution to the problem. If you have more points, the method is unsuitable as we will create an overdetermined system of equations.
To adapt this to more points, numpy.linalg.lstsq would be a better fit as it solves the solution to the Ax = b by computing the vector x that minimizes the Euclidean norm using the matrix A. Therefore, remove the y values from the last column of the features matrix and solve for the coefficients and use numpy.linalg.lstsq to solve for the coefficients:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
ones = np.ones(4)
xfeature = np.asarray([0,1,2,3])
squaredfeature = xfeature ** 2
b = np.asarray([1,2,0,3])
features = np.concatenate((np.vstack(ones),np.vstack(xfeature),np.vstack(squaredfeature)), axis = 1) # Change - remove the y values
determinants = np.linalg.lstsq(features, b)[0] # Change - use least squares
plt.scatter(xfeature,b)
u = np.linspace(0,3,100)
plt.plot(u, u**2*determinants[2] + u*determinants[1] + determinants[0] )
plt.show()
I get this plot now, which matches what the dashed curve is in your graph, also matching what numpy.polyfit gives you:

How to fix this likelihood in python and plot it?

For a linear logistic regression model formulated as follows:
I was trying to code the likelihood and plot it to see what it looks like. This is how I've implemented it:
# Define likelihood function
def likelihood(beta):
# reshape correctly
beta = np.array(beta).reshape(-1, 1)
# X beta has x_i^T * \beta in every entry
Xbeta = np.matmul(X, beta).flatten()
exp_argument = np.multiply(newrows.y.values, Xbeta)
numerator = np.exp(exp_argument.sum())
denominator = np.prod((1 + np.exp(Xbeta)))
return numerator / denominator
# Prepare a grid
b1 = np.linspace(-10, -8.5, 100) # these values chosen by trial and error
b2 = np.linspace(4.5, 6.2, 100) # these values chosen by trial and error
B1, B2 = np.meshgrid(b1, b2)
# Evaluate function at the gridpoints
Zbeta = np.array([likelihood(thing) for thing in zip(B1.ravel(), B2.ravel())])
Zbeta = Zbeta.reshape(B1.shape)
# Surface plot
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(15, 6))
ax = fig.add_subplot(121, projection='3d')
ax.plot_surface(B1, B2, Zbeta)
ax.set_xlabel('x')
ax.set_ylabel('y')
ax = fig.add_subplot(122)
ax.contour(B1, B2, Zbeta)
plt.show()
Here the matrix X is a matrix containing "fake" Bernoulli observations. It is a well known dataset called BeetleMortality, which looks like this and I've stored it in a Pandas Dataframe called data.
which are basically Binomial observations. I've created Bernoulli observations as follows:
newrows = np.zeros((data.NumberExposed.sum(), 2))
for index, row in data.iterrows():
obs = np.zeros(int(row.NumberExposed), dtype=int)
obs[:int(row.NumberKilled)] = 1
np.random.shuffle(obs)
obs = obs.reshape(-1, 1)
doses = np.repeat(row.Dose, len(obs)).reshape(-1, 1)
obs = np.hstack((doses, obs))
from_index = int(row.CumulativeN - row.NumberExposed)
to_index = int(row.CumulativeN)
newrows[from_index:to_index] = obs
# Save it as a dataframe
newrows = pd.DataFrame(newrows, columns=['x', 'y'])
# Notice that if you wanted to check that these calculations are correct use: newrows.groupby('x').sum()
newrows.head()
Everything seems to work fine, except that when I try to plot this I obtain the following plot:
Which makes absolutely no sense.. Any help? Maybe I'm implementing the likelihood function in the wrong way?

In matplotlib, how can I plot a multi-colored line, like a rainbow

I would like to plot parallel lines with different colors. E.g. rather than a single red line of thickness 6, I would like to have two parallel lines of thickness 3, with one red and one blue.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Merci
Even with the smart offsetting (s. below), there is still an issue in a view that has sharp angles between consecutive points.
Zoomed view of smart offsetting:
Overlaying lines of varying thickness:

Plotting parallel lines is not an easy task. Using a simple uniform offset will of course not show the desired result. This is shown in the left picture below.
Such a simple offset can be produced in matplotlib as shown in the transformation tutorial.
Method1
A better solution may be to use the idea sketched on the right side. To calculate the offset of the nth point we can use the normal vector to the line between the n-1st and the n+1st point and use the same distance along this normal vector to calculate the offset point.
The advantage of this method is that we have the same number of points in the original line as in the offset line. The disadvantage is that it is not completely accurate, as can be see in the picture.
This method is implemented in the function offset in the code below.
In order to make this useful for a matplotlib plot, we need to consider that the linewidth should be independent of the data units. Linewidth is usually given in units of points, and the offset would best be given in the same unit, such that e.g. the requirement from the question ("two parallel lines of width 3") can be met.
The idea is therefore to transform the coordinates from data to display coordinates, using ax.transData.transform. Also the offset in points o can be transformed to the same units: Using the dpi and the standard of ppi=72, the offset in display coordinates is o*dpi/ppi. After the offset in display coordinates has been applied, the inverse transform (ax.transData.inverted().transform) allows a backtransformation.
Now there is another dimension of the problem: How to assure that the offset remains the same independent of the zoom and size of the figure?
This last point can be addressed by recalculating the offset each time a zooming of resizing event has taken place.
Here is how a rainbow curve would look like produced by this method.
And here is the code to produce the image.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
dpi = 100
def offset(x,y, o):
""" Offset coordinates given by array x,y by o """
X = np.c_[x,y].T
m = np.array([[0,-1],[1,0]])
R = np.zeros_like(X)
S = X[:,2:]-X[:,:-2]
R[:,1:-1] = np.dot(m, S)
R[:,0] = np.dot(m, X[:,1]-X[:,0])
R[:,-1] = np.dot(m, X[:,-1]-X[:,-2])
On = R/np.sqrt(R[0,:]**2+R[1,:]**2)*o
Out = On+X
return Out[0,:], Out[1,:]
def offset_curve(ax, x,y, o):
""" Offset array x,y in data coordinates
by o in points """
trans = ax.transData.transform
inv = ax.transData.inverted().transform
X = np.c_[x,y]
Xt = trans(X)
xto, yto = offset(Xt[:,0],Xt[:,1],o*dpi/72. )
Xto = np.c_[xto, yto]
Xo = inv(Xto)
return Xo[:,0], Xo[:,1]
# some single points
y = np.array([1,2,2,3,3,0])
x = np.arange(len(y))
#or try a sinus
x = np.linspace(0,9)
y=np.sin(x)*x/3.
fig, ax=plt.subplots(figsize=(4,2.5), dpi=dpi)
cols = ["#fff40b", "#00e103", "#ff9921", "#3a00ef", "#ff2121", "#af00e7"]
lw = 2.
lines = []
for i in range(len(cols)):
l, = plt.plot(x,y, lw=lw, color=cols[i])
lines.append(l)
def plot_rainbow(event=None):
xr = range(6); yr = range(6);
xr[0],yr[0] = offset_curve(ax, x,y, lw/2.)
xr[1],yr[1] = offset_curve(ax, x,y, -lw/2.)
xr[2],yr[2] = offset_curve(ax, xr[0],yr[0], lw)
xr[3],yr[3] = offset_curve(ax, xr[1],yr[1], -lw)
xr[4],yr[4] = offset_curve(ax, xr[2],yr[2], lw)
xr[5],yr[5] = offset_curve(ax, xr[3],yr[3], -lw)
for i in range(6):
lines[i].set_data(xr[i], yr[i])
plot_rainbow()
fig.canvas.mpl_connect("resize_event", plot_rainbow)
fig.canvas.mpl_connect("button_release_event", plot_rainbow)
plt.savefig(__file__+".png", dpi=dpi)
plt.show()
Method2
To avoid overlapping lines, one has to use a more complicated solution.
One could first offset every point normal to the two line segments it is part of (green points in the picture below). Then calculate the line through those offset points and find their intersection.
A particular case would be when the slopes of two subsequent line segments equal. This has to be taken care of (eps in the code below).
from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
dpi = 100
def intersect(p1, p2, q1, q2, eps=1.e-10):
""" given two lines, first through points pn, second through qn,
find the intersection """
x1 = p1[0]; y1 = p1[1]; x2 = p2[0]; y2 = p2[1]
x3 = q1[0]; y3 = q1[1]; x4 = q2[0]; y4 = q2[1]
nomX = ((x1*y2-y1*x2)*(x3-x4)- (x1-x2)*(x3*y4-y3*x4))
denom = float( (x1-x2)*(y3-y4) - (y1-y2)*(x3-x4) )
nomY = (x1*y2-y1*x2)*(y3-y4) - (y1-y2)*(x3*y4-y3*x4)
if np.abs(denom) < eps:
#print "intersection undefined", p1
return np.array( p1 )
else:
return np.array( [ nomX/denom , nomY/denom ])
def offset(x,y, o, eps=1.e-10):
""" Offset coordinates given by array x,y by o """
X = np.c_[x,y].T
m = np.array([[0,-1],[1,0]])
S = X[:,1:]-X[:,:-1]
R = np.dot(m, S)
norm = np.sqrt(R[0,:]**2+R[1,:]**2) / o
On = R/norm
Outa = On+X[:,1:]
Outb = On+X[:,:-1]
G = np.zeros_like(X)
for i in xrange(0, len(X[0,:])-2):
p = intersect(Outa[:,i], Outb[:,i], Outa[:,i+1], Outb[:,i+1], eps=eps)
G[:,i+1] = p
G[:,0] = Outb[:,0]
G[:,-1] = Outa[:,-1]
return G[0,:], G[1,:]
def offset_curve(ax, x,y, o, eps=1.e-10):
""" Offset array x,y in data coordinates
by o in points """
trans = ax.transData.transform
inv = ax.transData.inverted().transform
X = np.c_[x,y]
Xt = trans(X)
xto, yto = offset(Xt[:,0],Xt[:,1],o*dpi/72., eps=eps )
Xto = np.c_[xto, yto]
Xo = inv(Xto)
return Xo[:,0], Xo[:,1]
# some single points
y = np.array([1,1,2,0,3,2,1.,4,3]) *1.e9
x = np.arange(len(y))
x[3]=x[4]
#or try a sinus
#x = np.linspace(0,9)
#y=np.sin(x)*x/3.
fig, ax=plt.subplots(figsize=(4,2.5), dpi=dpi)
cols = ["r", "b"]
lw = 11.
lines = []
for i in range(len(cols)):
l, = plt.plot(x,y, lw=lw, color=cols[i], solid_joinstyle="miter")
lines.append(l)
def plot_rainbow(event=None):
xr = range(2); yr = range(2);
xr[0],yr[0] = offset_curve(ax, x,y, lw/2.)
xr[1],yr[1] = offset_curve(ax, x,y, -lw/2.)
for i in range(2):
lines[i].set_data(xr[i], yr[i])
plot_rainbow()
fig.canvas.mpl_connect("resize_event", plot_rainbow)
fig.canvas.mpl_connect("button_release_event", plot_rainbow)
plt.show()
Note that this method should work well as long as the offset between the lines is smaller then the distance between subsequent points on the line. Otherwise method 1 may be better suited.

The best that I can think of is to take your data, generate a series of small offsets, and use fill_between to make bands of whatever color you like.
I wrote a function to do this. I don't know what shape you're trying to plot, so this may or may not work for you. I tested it on a parabola and got decent results. You can also play around with the list of colors.
def rainbow_plot(x, y, spacing=0.1):
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
colors = ['red', 'yellow', 'green', 'cyan','blue']
top = max(y)
lines = []
for i in range(len(colors)+1):
newline_data = y - top*spacing*i
lines.append(newline_data)
for i, c in enumerate(colors):
ax.fill_between(x, lines[i], lines[i+1], facecolor=c)
return fig, ax
x = np.linspace(0,1,51)
y = 1-(x-0.5)**2
rainbow_plot(x,y)