For loop within for loop: pendulum modeling - python

I am new to programming, and working on a relatively complicated problem. I am modeling a linear forced pendulum, and need to figure out how the amplitude of the swinging motion (in radians) depends on the friction (q-value) and the frequency of the driving force (Omega_D). So, I thought I would need a for-loop inside a for-loop because I need to do plots of Omega_D vs Amplitude for 3 q-values. Thus, iterating 3 times for q, and many more times within that for Omega_D. However, what I wrote is only giving me one amplitude value per q value. Here is my code; let me know what suggestions you may have.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from ode import rk4_step
def derivs(t, starting_values):
d0dt = starting_values[1]
d20dt2 = g/l * starting_values[0] - starting_values[3] * \
starting_values[1] + starting_values[4] * np.sin(starting_values[5] * t)
dqdt = 0.
dFdt = 0.
dldt = 0.
d_Omega_dt = 0. # defining these for later use in RK4
derivatives = np.array([d0dt, d20dt2, dqdt, dFdt, dldt, d_Omega_dt])
return derivatives
qs = [0.1, 1.0, 1.6] #Pick arbitrary q-values to run through
for i in qs:
theta_0 = 10. #initial values, chosen at random
theta_v0 = 10.
l = 1.
Omega_D = np.linspace(0.5, 5, 100)
F_D = .3
for x in Omega_D:
starting_values = [theta_0, theta_v0, l, i, F_D, x]
solution = np.copy(starting_values)
last_values = np.zeros(solution.size)
dt = .01
g = -9.8
t = 0.
Amp = 0.
starttime = 150.
while Amp == 0. : #Amp==0 because it never actually WILL be zero.
#So, the while loop to find amplitude only needs to run \
#until a nonzero amp is found
two_values_ago = np.copy(last_values)
last_values = np.copy(solution)
t = t + dt
solution = rk4_step(solution, derivs, t, dt) #take a step
if solution[1] == 0 and t > starttime: #if somehow we hit v=0 exactly
Amp == np.abs(solution[0])
print Amp
#This if statement interpolates to find the amp at the point where v=0
if solution[1] * last_values[1] < 0 and t > starttime:
fit_vs = np.array([two_values_ago[1], last_values[1]])
fit_xs = np.array([two_values_ago[0], last_values[0]])
v_interp = 0.
Amp = np.abs(np.interp(v_interp, fit_vs, fit_xs))
w = np.sqrt(-g / l) # This is the natural frequency
#Calculate the analytic soln
exact_solution = F_D / np.sqrt((w**2 - Omega_D**2)**2 + (i * Omega_D)**2)
#plot num and exact solns together
plt.plot(Omega_D, exact_solution)
plt.plot(Omega_D, Amp)
plt.title('q = ')
plt.ylabel('Amplitude (radians)')
plt.xlabel('$\Omega_{D}$ (rad/s)')
print Amp
plt.show()

Your problem is with indentation. This portion of the code is being run as part of the "outer" for loop, which means it is run for only the last value of "Amp" that is left when the inner "for" loop finishes:
w = np.sqrt(-g / l) # This is the natural frequency
#Calculate the analytic soln
exact_solution = F_D / np.sqrt((w**2 - Omega_D**2)**2 + (i * Omega_D)**2)
#plot num and exact solns together
plt.plot(Omega_D, exact_solution)
plt.plot(Omega_D, Amp)
plt.title('q = ')
plt.ylabel('Amplitude (radians)')
plt.xlabel('$\Omega_{D}$ (rad/s)')
print Amp
You need to indent one level more so it is run as part of the inner "for" loop.
Also, this line is not doing what you want:
Amp == np.abs(solution[0])
You are trying to assign np.abs(solution[0]) to Amp, but instead you are testing if np.abs(solution[0]) is equal to Amp (but then tossing away the result of the test). This line should be:
Amp = np.abs(solution[0])

Related

How to include numbers we need in a list which is generated by some stochastic algorithm

I need to implement a stochastic algorithm that provides as output the times and the states at the corresponding time points of a dynamic system. We include randomness in defining the time points by retrieving a random number from the uniform distribution. What I want to do, is to find the state at time points 0,1,2,...,24. Given the randomness of the algorithm, the time points 1, 2, 3,...,24 are not necessarily hit. We my include rounding at two decimal places, but even with rounding I can not find/insert all of these time points. The question is, how to change the code so as to be able to include in the list of the time points the numbers 1, 2,..., 24 while preserving the stochasticity of the algorithm ? Thanks for any suggestion.
import numpy as np
import random
import math as m
np.random.seed(seed = 5)
# Stoichiometric matrix
S = np.array([(-1, 0), (1, -1)])
# Reaction parameters
ke = 0.3; ka = 0.5
k = [ke, ka]
# Initial state vector at time t0
X1 = [200]; X2 = [0]
# We will update it for each time.
X = [X1, X2]
# Initial time is t0 = 0, which we will update.
t = [0]
# End time
tfinal = 24
# The propensity vector R concerning the last/updated value of time
def ReactionRates(k, X1, X2):
R = np.zeros((2,1))
R[0] = k[1] * X1[-1]
R[1] = k[0] * X2[-1]
return R
# We implement the Gillespie (SSA) algorithm
while True:
# Reaction propensities/rates
R = ReactionRates(k,X1,X2)
propensities = R
propensities_sum = sum(R)[0]
if propensities_sum == 0:
break
# we include randomness
u1 = np.random.uniform(0,1)
delta_t = (1/propensities_sum) * m.log(1/u1)
if t[-1] + delta_t > tfinal:
break
t.append(t[-1] + delta_t)
b = [0,R[0], R[1]]
u2 = np.random.uniform(0,1)
# Choose j
lambda_u2 = propensities_sum * u2
for j in range(len(b)):
if sum(b[0:j-1+1]) < lambda_u2 <= sum(b[1:j+1]):
break # out of for j
# make j zero based
j -= 1
# We update the state vector
X1.append(X1[-1] + S.T[j][0])
X2.append(X2[-1] + S.T[j][1])
# round t values
t = [round(tt,2) for tt in t]
print("The time steps:", t)
print("The second component of the state vector:", X2)
After playing with your model, I conclude, that interpolation works fine.
Basically, just append the following lines to your code:
ts = np.arange(tfinal+1)
xs = np.interp(ts, t, X2)
and if you have matplotlib installed, you can visualize using
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.plot(t, X2)
plt.plot(ts, xs)
plt.show()

Simulate a coupled ordinary differential equation

I want to write a program which turns a 2nd order differential equation into two ordinary differential equations but I don't know how I can do that in Python.
I am getting lots of errors, please help in writing the code correctly.
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
N = 30 # Number of coupled oscillators.
alpha=0.25
A = 1.0
# Initial positions.
y[0] = 0 # Fix the left-hand side at zero.
y[N+1] = 0 # Fix the right-hand side at zero.
# The range(1,N+1) command only prints out [1,2,3, ... N].
for p in range(1, N+1): # p is particle number.
y[p] = A * np.sin(3 * p * np.pi /(N+1.0))
####################################################
# Initial velocities.
####################################################
v[0] = 0 # The left and right boundaries are
v[N+1] = 0 # clamped and don't move.
# This version sets them all the particle velocities to zero.
for p in range(1, N+1):
v[p] = 0
w0 = [v[p], y[p]]
def accel(t,w):
v[p], y[p] = w
global a
a[0] = 0.0
a[N+1] = 0.0
# This version loops explicitly over all the particles.
for p in range(1,N+1):
a[p] = [v[p], y(p+1)+y(p-1)-2*y(p)+ alpha * ((y[p+1] - y[p])**2 - (y[p] - y[p-1])**2)]
return a
duration = 50
t = np.linspace(0, duration, 800)
abserr = 1.0e-8
relerr = 1.0e-6
solution = solve_ivp(accel, [0, duration], w0, method='RK45', t_eval=t,
vectorized=False, dense_output=True, args=(), atol=abserr, rtol=relerr)
Most general-purpose solvers do not do structured state objects. They just work with a flat array as representation of the state space points. From the construction of the initial point you seem to favor the state space ordering
[ v[0], v[1], ... v[N+1], y[0], y[1], ..., y[N+1] ]
This allows to simply split both and to assemble the derivatives vector from the velocity and acceleration arrays.
Let's keep things simple and separate functionality in small functions
a = np.zeros(N+2)
def accel(y):
global a ## initialized to the correct length with zero, avoids repeated allocation
a[1:-1] = y[2:]+y[:-2]-2*y[1:-1] + alpha*((y[2:]-y[1:-1])**2-(y[1:-1]-y[:-2])**2)
return a
def derivs(t,w):
v,y = w[:N+2], w[N+2:]
return np.concatenate([accel(y), v])
or keeping the theme of avoiding allocations
dwdt = np.zeros(2*N+4)
def derivs(t,w):
global dwdt
v,y = w[:N+2], w[N+2:]
dwdt[:N+2] = accel(y)
dwdt[N+2:] = v
return dwdt
Now you only need to set
w0=np.concatenate([v,y])
to rapidly get to a more interesting class of errors.

Large angle pendulum plot did not show as expected

I am trying to plot the relationship between period and amplitude for an undamped and undriven pendulum for when small angle approximation breaks down, however, my code did not do what I expected...
I think I should be expecting a strictly increasing graph as shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34zcw_nNFGU
Here is my code, I used zero crossing method to calculate period:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
from itertools import chain
# Second order differential equation to be solved:
# d^2 theta/dt^2 = - (g/l)*sin(theta) - q* (d theta/dt) + F*sin(omega*t)
# set g = l and omega = 2/3 rad per second
# Let y[0] = theta, y[1] = d(theta)/dt
def derivatives(t,y,q,F):
return [y[1], -np.sin(y[0])-q*y[1]+F*np.sin((2/3)*t)]
t = np.linspace(0.0, 100, 10000)
#initial conditions:theta0, omega0
theta0 = np.linspace(0.0,np.pi,100)
q = 0.0 #alpha / (mass*g), resistive term
F = 0.0 #G*np.sin(2*t/3)
value = []
amp = []
period = []
for i in range (len(theta0)):
sol = solve_ivp(derivatives, (0.0,100.0), (theta0[i], 0.0), method = 'RK45', t_eval = t,args = (q,F))
velocity = sol.y[1]
time = sol.t
zero_cross = 0
for k in range (len(velocity)-1):
if (velocity[k+1]*velocity[k]) < 0:
zero_cross += 1
value.append(k)
else:
zero_cross += 0
if zero_cross != 0:
amp.append(theta0[i])
# period calculated using the time evolved between the first and last zero-crossing detected
period.append((2*(time[value[zero_cross - 1]] - time[value[0]])) / (zero_cross -1))
plt.plot(amp,period)
plt.title('Period of oscillation of an undamped, undriven pendulum \nwith varying initial angular displacemnet')
plt.xlabel('Initial Displacement')
plt.ylabel('Period/s')
plt.show()
enter image description here
You can use the event mechanism of solve_ivp for such tasks, it is designed for such "simple" situations
def halfperiod(t,y): return y[1]
halfperiod.terminal=True # stop when root found
halfperiod.direction=1 # find sign changes from negative to positive
for i in range (1,len(theta0)): # amp==0 gives no useful result
sol = solve_ivp(derivatives, (0.0,100.0), (theta0[i], 0.0), method = 'RK45', events =(halfperiod,) )
if sol.success and len(sol.t_events[-1])>0:
period.append(2*sol.t_events[-1][0]) # the full period is twice the event time
amp.append(theta0[i])
This results in the plot

Solving ODE numerically with Python

I am solving an ODE for an harmonic oscillator numerically with Python. When I add a driving force it makes no difference, so I'm guessing something is wrong with the code. Can anyone see the problem? The (h/m)*f0*np.cos(wd*i) part is the driving force.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# This code solves the ODE mx'' + bx' + kx = F0*cos(Wd*t)
# m is the mass of the object in kg, b is the damping constant in Ns/m
# k is the spring constant in N/m, F0 is the driving force in N,
# Wd is the frequency of the driving force and x is the position
# Setting up
timeFinal= 16.0 # This is how far the graph will go in seconds
steps = 10000 # Number of steps
dT = timeFinal/steps # Step length
time = np.linspace(0, timeFinal, steps+1)
# Creates an array with steps+1 values from 0 to timeFinal
# Allocating arrays for velocity and position
vel = np.zeros(steps+1)
pos = np.zeros(steps+1)
# Setting constants and initial values for vel. and pos.
k = 0.1
m = 0.01
vel0 = 0.05
pos0 = 0.01
freqNatural = 10.0**0.5
b = 0.0
F0 = 0.01
Wd = 7.0
vel[0] = vel0 #Sets the initial velocity
pos[0] = pos0 #Sets the initial position
# Numerical solution using Euler's
# Splitting the ODE into two first order ones
# v'(t) = -(k/m)*x(t) - (b/m)*v(t) + (F0/m)*cos(Wd*t)
# x'(t) = v(t)
# Using the definition of the derivative we get
# (v(t+dT) - v(t))/dT on the left side of the first equation
# (x(t+dT) - x(t))/dT on the left side of the second
# In the for loop t and dT will be replaced by i and 1
for i in range(0, steps):
vel[i+1] = (-k/m)*dT*pos[i] + vel[i]*(1-dT*b/m) + (dT/m)*F0*np.cos(Wd*i)
pos[i+1] = dT*vel[i] + pos[i]
# Ploting
#----------------
# With no damping
plt.plot(time, pos, 'g-', label='Undampened')
# Damping set to 10% of critical damping
b = (freqNatural/50)*0.1
# Using Euler's again to compute new values for new damping
for i in range(0, steps):
vel[i+1] = (-k/m)*dT*pos[i] + vel[i]*(1-(dT*(b/m))) + (F0*dT/m)*np.cos(Wd*i)
pos[i+1] = dT*vel[i] + pos[i]
plt.plot(time, pos, 'b-', label = '10% of crit. damping')
plt.plot(time, 0*time, 'k-') # This plots the x-axis
plt.legend(loc = 'upper right')
#---------------
plt.show()
The problem here is with the term np.cos(Wd*i). It should be np.cos(Wd*i*dT), that is note that dT has been added into the correct equation, since t = i*dT.
If this correction is made, the simulation looks reasonable. Here's a version with F0=0.001. Note that the driving force is clear in the continued oscillations in the damped condition.
The problem with the original equation is that np.cos(Wd*i) just jumps randomly around the circle, rather than smoothly moving around the circle, causing no net effect in the end. This can be best seen by plotting it directly, but the easiest thing to do is run the original form with F0 very large. Below is F0 = 10 (ie, 10000x the value used in the correct equation), but using the incorrect form of the equation, and it's clear that the driving force here just adds noise as it randomly moves around the circle.
Note that your ODE is well behaved and has an analytical solution. So you could utilize sympy for an alternate approach:
import sympy as sy
sy.init_printing() # Pretty printer for IPython
t,k,m,b,F0,Wd = sy.symbols('t,k,m,b,F0,Wd', real=True) # constants
consts = {k: 0.1, # values
m: 0.01,
b: 0.0,
F0: 0.01,
Wd: 7.0}
x = sy.Function('x')(t) # declare variables
dx = sy.Derivative(x, t)
d2x = sy.Derivative(x, t, 2)
# the ODE:
ode1 = sy.Eq(m*d2x + b*dx + k*x, F0*sy.cos(Wd*t))
sl1 = sy.dsolve(ode1, x) # solve ODE
xs1 = sy.simplify(sl1.subs(consts)).rhs # substitute constants
# Examining the solution, we note C3 and C4 are superfluous
xs2 = xs1.subs({'C3':0, 'C4':0})
dxs2 = xs2.diff(t)
print("Solution x(t) = ")
print(xs2)
print("Solution x'(t) = ")
print(dxs2)
gives
Solution x(t) =
C1*sin(3.16227766016838*t) + C2*cos(3.16227766016838*t) - 0.0256410256410256*cos(7.0*t)
Solution x'(t) =
3.16227766016838*C1*cos(3.16227766016838*t) - 3.16227766016838*C2*sin(3.16227766016838*t) + 0.179487179487179*sin(7.0*t)
The constants C1,C2 can be determined by evaluating x(0),x'(0) for the initial conditions.

Failure of non linear fit to sine curve

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 )

Categories

Resources