Develop Reference

Python, Four-bar linkage angle-time plot

I'm trying to plot the angle vs. time plot for the output angle of a four-bar linkage (angle fi4 in the image below). This angle is calculated using the solution from the https://scholar.cu.edu.eg/?q=anis/files/week04-mdp206-position_analysis-draft.pdf, page 23.
I'm now trying to plot the fi_4(t) plot and am getting some strange results. The diagram displays the input angle fi2 as blue and output angle fi4 as red. Why is the fi2 fluctuating over time? Shouldn't the fi4 have some sort of sine curve?
Am I missing something here?
Four-bar linkage:
The code:
from __future__ import division
import math
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Input
#lengths of links (tube testing machine actual lengths)
a = 45.5 #mm
b = 250 #mm
c = 140 #mm
d = 244.244 #mm
# Solution for fi2 being a time function, f(time) = angle
f = 16.7/60 #/s
omega = 2 * np.pi * f #rad/s
t = np.linspace(0, 50, 100)
y = a * np.sin(omega * t)
x = a * np.cos(omega * t)
fi2 = np.arctan(y/x)
# Solution of the vector loop equation
#https://scholar.cu.edu.eg/?q=anis/files/week04-mdp206-position_analysis-draft.pdf
K1 = d/a
K2 = d/c
K3 = (a**2 - b**2 + c**2 + d**2)/(2*a*c)
A = np.cos(fi2) - K1 - K2*np.cos(fi2) + K3
B = -2*np.sin(fi2)
C = K1 - (K2+1)*np.cos(fi2) + K3
fi4_1 = 2*np.arctan((-B+np.sqrt(B**2 - 4*A*C))/(2*A))
fi4_2 = 2*np.arctan((-B-np.sqrt(B**2 - 4*A*C))/(2*A))
# Plot the fi2 time diagram and fi4 time diagram
plt.plot(t, np.degrees(fi2), color = 'blue')
plt.plot(t, np.degrees(fi4_2), color = 'red')
plt.show()
Diagram:

The linespace(0, 50, 100) is too fast. Replacing it with:
t = np.linspace(0, 5, 100)
Second, all the calculations involving the bare np.arctan() are incorrect. You should use np.arctan2(y, x), which determines the correct quadrant (unlike anything based on y/x where the respective signs of x and y are lost). So:
fi2 = np.arctan2(y, x) # not: np.arctan(y/x)
...
fi4_1 = 2 * np.arctan2(-B + np.sqrt(B**2 - 4*A*C), 2*A)
fi4_2 = 2 * np.arctan2(-B - np.sqrt(B**2 - 4*A*C), 2*A)
Putting some labels on your plots and showing both solutions for θ_4:
plt.plot(t, np.degrees(fi2) % 360, color = 'k', label=r'$θ_2$')
plt.plot(t, np.degrees(fi4_1) % 360, color = 'b', label=r'$θ_{4_1}$')
plt.plot(t, np.degrees(fi4_2) % 360, color = 'r', label=r'$θ_{4_2}$')
plt.xlabel('t [s]')
plt.ylabel('degrees')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
With these mods, we get:

BTW, do you want to see an amazingly lazy way of solving problems like these? Much more inefficient than your code, but much easier to derive (e.g. for other structures) without trying to express the closed form of your solution:
from scipy.optimize import fsolve
def polar(r, theta):
return r * np.array((np.cos(theta), np.sin(theta)))
def f(th34, th2):
th3, th4 = th34 # solve simultaneously for theta_3 and theta_4
pb_23 = polar(a, th2) + polar(b, th3) # point B based on links a, b
pb_14 = polar(d, 0) + polar(c, th4) # point B based on links d, c
return pb_23 - pb_14 # error: difference of the two
def solve(th2):
th4_1 = np.array([fsolve(f, [0, -1.5], args=(th2_k,))[1] for th2_k in th2])
th4_2 = np.array([fsolve(f, [0, 1.5], args=(th2_k,))[1] for th2_k in th2])
return th4_1, th4_2
Application:
t = np.linspace(0, 5, 100)
th2 = omega * t
th4_1, th4_2 = solve(th2)
twopi = 2 * np.pi
np.allclose(th4_1 % twopi, fi4_1 % twopi)
# True
np.allclose(th4_2 % twopi, fi4_2 % twopi)
# True
Depending on the structure of your mechanism (e.g. 5 links), you may have more than two solutions, and of course more angles, so you'd have to adapt the code above. But you get the idea.
Be warned: fsolve iterates to find a suitable (close enough) solution, so as I said, it is much slower than your closed form.
Update (some clarification/explanation):
The function f computes the position of the point B in two different ways (via R2-R3 and via R1-R4) and returns the difference (as a vector). We solve for the difference to be zero.
That function takes two arguments: one 2-dimensional variable (th34, which is an array [th3, th4]) and one parameter th2; the parameter is constant during one run of fsolve.
The values [0, -1.5] and [0, 1.5] are initialization values (guesses) for th34 (th3 and th4). We call fsolve twice to get the two possible solutions.
All angles refer to your figure. I use th for θ (theta, not phi), but I kept along the original fi4_1 and fi4_2 for comparison.
Modulo 2*pi, th4_1 should be equal to fi4_1 etc., which is tested by np.allclose to account for numerical rounding errors.

Multivariate curve-fitting in python for estimating the parameter and order of ellipse-like shapes

I'm trying to find the best parameters (a, b, and c) of the following function (general formula of circle, ellipse, or rhombus):
(|x|/a)^c + (|y|/b)^c = 1
of two arrays of independent data (x and y) in python. My main objective is to estimate the best value of (a, b, and c) based on my x and y variable. I am using curve_fit function from scipy, so here is my code with a demo x, and y.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
alpha = 5
beta = 3
N = 500
DIM = 2
np.random.seed(2)
theta = np.random.uniform(0, 2*np.pi, (N,1))
eps_noise = 0.2 * np.random.normal(size=[N,1])
circle = np.hstack([np.cos(theta), np.sin(theta)])
B = np.random.randint(-3, 3, (DIM, DIM))
noisy_ellipse = circle.dot(B) + eps_noise
X = noisy_ellipse[:,0:1]
Y = noisy_ellipse[:,1:]
def func(xdata, a, b,c):
x, y = xdata
return (np.abs(x)/a)**c + (np.abs(y)/b)**c
xdata = np.transpose(np.hstack((X, Y)))
ydata = np.ones((xdata.shape[1],))
pp, pcov = curve_fit(func, xdata, ydata, maxfev = 1000000, bounds=((0, 0, 1), (50, 50, 2)))
plt.scatter(X, Y, label='Data Points')
x_coord = np.linspace(-5,5,300)
y_coord = np.linspace(-5,5,300)
X_coord, Y_coord = np.meshgrid(x_coord, y_coord)
Z_coord = func((X_coord,Y_coord),pp[0],pp[1],pp[2])
plt.contour(X_coord, Y_coord, Z_coord, levels=[1], colors=('g'), linewidths=2)
plt.legend()
plt.xlabel('X')
plt.ylabel('Y')
plt.show()
By using this code, the parameters are [4.69949891, 3.65493859, 1.0] for a, b, and c.
The problem is that I usually get the value of c the smallest in its bound, while in this demo data it (i.e., c parameter) supposes to be very close to 2 as the data represent an ellipse.
Any help and suggestions for solving this issue are appreciated.

A curve which equation is (|x/a|)^c + (|y/b|)^c = 1 is called "Superellipse" :
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Superellipse.html
For large c the superellipse tends to a rectangular shape.
For c=2 the curve is an ellipse, or a circle in the particular case a=b.
For c close to 1 the superellipse tends to a rhombus shape.
For c larger than 0 and lower than 1 the superellipse looks like a (squashed) astroid with sharp vertices. This kind of shape will not be considered below.
Before looking to the right question of the OP, it is of interest to study the regression behaviour for fitting a superellipse to scattered data. A short experimental and simplified approach tends to make understand the mathematical difficulty, prior the programming difficulties.
When the scatter increases the computed value of c (corresponding to the minimum of MSE ) decreases. Also the minimum becomes more and more difficult to localize. This is certainly a difficulty for the softwares.
For even larger scatter the value of c=1 leads to a rhombus shape.
So, it is not surprizing that in the example highly scattered published by the OP the software gave a rhombus as fitted curve.
If this was not the expected result, one have to chose another goal than the minimum MSE. For example if the goal is to obtain an elliptic shape, one have to set c=2. The result on the next figure shows that the MSE is worse than with the preceeding rhombus shape. But the elliptic fitting is well achieved.
NOTE : In case of large scatter the result depends a lot from the choice of criteria of fitting (MSE, MAE, ..., and with respect to what variable). This can be the cause of very different results from a software to another if the criterias of fitting (sometime not explicit) are different.
Among the criterias of fitting, if it is specified that the rhombus shape is excluded, one have to define more representative criteria and/or model and implement them in the software.
IMPORTANCE OF CRITERIA OF FITTING :
In order to show how the choice of criteria of fitting is important especially in case of data highly scattered, we will make the study again with a different criteria.
Instead of the preceeding criteria which was the MSE of the errors on the superellipse equation itself, that was :
we chose a different criteria, for example the MSE of the errors on the radial coordinate in polar system :
The notations are defined on the next picture :
Some results from the empirical study for increasing scatter :
We observe that the numerical calculus with the second criteria is more robust that with the first. Cases with higher scatter can be treated With the second criteria of fitting .
The drawback it that this second criteria is probably not considered in the available softwares. So one have to implement the above formulas in the existing software if possible. Or to write a software especially adapted.
Nevertheless this discussion about criteria of fitting is somehow out of subject because the criteria of fitting should not result from mathematical considerations only. If the problem comes from a practical need in physic or technology the criteria of fitting might be derived from the reality without choice.

I have modified your code (though you took it from https://stackoverflow.com/a/47881806/10640534) quite a lot, but I think I have what you expect. I am using a different equation, which I found here. I have also used the new Numpy random generators, but I believe that is only aesthetic for this problem. I am drawing the ellipse using patches from matplotlib, which indeed is aesthetic, but definitely a way better solution to represent your conic. Importantly, I am using the dogbox method for curve_fit because other methods do not converge; occasionally the ellipse is not matched and decreasing the added noise (e.g., rng.normal(0, 1, (500, 2)) / 1e2 instead of rng.normal(0, 1, (500, 2)) / 1e1 helps). Anyway, snippet and figure below.
import numpy as np
from numpy.random import default_rng
from matplotlib.patches import Ellipse
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
def func(data, a, b, h, k, A):
x, y = data
return ((((x - h) * np.cos(A) + (y - k) * np.sin(A)) / a) ** 2
+ (((x - h) * np.sin(A) - (y - k) * np.cos(A)) / b) ** 2)
rng = default_rng(3)
numPoints = 500
center = rng.random(2) * 10 - 5
theta = rng.uniform(0, 2 * np.pi, (numPoints, 1))
circle = np.hstack([np.cos(theta), np.sin(theta)])
ellipse = (circle.dot(rng.random((2, 2)) * 2 * np.pi - np.pi)
+ (center[0], center[1]) + rng.normal(0, 1, (500, 2)) / 1e1)
pp, pcov = curve_fit(func, (ellipse[:, 0], ellipse[:, 1]), np.ones(numPoints),
p0=(1, 1, center[0], center[1], np.pi / 2),
method='dogbox')
plt.scatter(ellipse[:, 0], ellipse[:, 1], label='Data Points')
plt.gca().add_patch(Ellipse(xy=(pp[2], pp[3]), width=2 * pp[0],
height=2 * pp[1], angle=pp[4] * 180 / np.pi,
fill=False))
plt.gca().set_aspect('equal')
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
To incorporate the value of the exponent, I have used your equation and generated an ellipse according to this answer. This results in:
import numpy as np
from numpy.random import default_rng
from matplotlib.patches import Ellipse
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit, root
from scipy.special import ellipeinc
def angles_in_ellipse(num, a, b):
assert(num > 0)
assert(a < b)
angles = 2 * np.pi * np.arange(num) / num
if a != b:
e = (1.0 - a ** 2.0 / b ** 2.0) ** 0.5
tot_size = ellipeinc(2.0 * np.pi, e)
arc_size = tot_size / num
arcs = np.arange(num) * arc_size
res = root(lambda x: (ellipeinc(x, e) - arcs), angles)
angles = res.x
return angles
def func(data, a, b, c):
x, y = data
return (np.absolute(x) / a) ** c + (np.absolute(y) / b) ** c
a = 10
b = 20
n = 100
phi = angles_in_ellipse(n, a, b)
e = (1.0 - a ** 2.0 / b ** 2.0) ** 0.5
arcs = ellipeinc(phi, e)
noise = default_rng(0).normal(0, 1, n) / 2
pp, pcov = curve_fit(func, (b * np.sin(phi) + noise,
a * np.cos(phi) + noise),
np.ones(n), method='lm')
plt.scatter(b * np.sin(phi) + noise, a * np.cos(phi) + noise,
label='Data Points')
plt.gca().add_patch(Ellipse(xy=(0, 0), width=2 * pp[0], height=2 * pp[1],
angle=0, fill=False))
plt.gca().set_aspect('equal')
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
As you decrease noise values, pp will tend to (b, a, 2).

Curve fitting of complex data

I want to fit complex data set with a two functions which shared the same parameters. For this I used
def funcReal(x,a,b,c,d):
return np.real((a + 1j*b)*(np.exp(1j*k*x - kappa1*x) - np.exp(kappa2*x)) + (c + 1j*d)*(np.exp(-1j*k*x - kappa1*x) - np.exp(-kappa2*x)))
def funcImag(x,a,b,c,d):
return np.imag((a + 1j*b)*(np.exp(1j*k*x - kappa1*x) - np.exp(kappa2*x)) + (c + 1j*d)*(np.exp(-1j*k*x - kappa1*x) - np.exp(-kappa2*x)))`
poptReal, pcovReal = curve_fit(funcReal, x, yReal)
poptImag, pcovImag = curve_fit(funcImag, x, yImag)
Here funcReal is the real part of my model, funcImag the imaginary part, yReal the real part of the data and yImag the imaginary part of the data.
However, both fits does not give me the same parameters for the real and imaginary part.
My question is there a package or a method such that I can realized multi fits for multiple data sets and multiple functions with shared parameters?

To fit both the complex function given above, we can treat the real and imaginary components as a coordinate point, or as a vector. Since curve_fit doesn't care about the order at which data points are inserted in the vectors x (independent data) and y (dependent data), we can simply split the complex data and stack the real and imaginary components using hstack. See the example below.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
kappa1 = np.pi
kappa2 = -0.01
def long_function(x, a, b, c, d):
return (a + 1j*b)*(np.exp(1j*k*x - kappa1*x) - np.exp(kappa2*x)) + (c + 1j*d)*(np.exp(-1j*k*x - kappa1*x) - np.exp(-kappa2*x))
def funcBoth(x, a, b, c, d):
N = len(x)
x_real = x[:N//2]
x_imag = x[N//2:]
y_real = np.real(long_function(x_real, a, b, c, d))
y_imag = np.imag(long_function(x_imag, a, b, c, d))
return np.hstack([y_real, y_imag])
# Create an independent variable with 100 measurements
N = 100
x = np.linspace(0, 10, N)
# True values of the dependent variable
y = long_function(x, a=1.1, b=0.3, c=-0.2, d=0.23)
# Add uniform complex noise (real + imaginary)
noise = (np.random.rand(N) + 1j * np.random.rand(N) - 0.5 - 0.5j) * 0.1
yNoisy = y + noise
# Split the measurements into a real and imaginary part
yReal = np.real(yNoisy)
yImag = np.imag(yNoisy)
yBoth = np.hstack([yReal, yImag])
# Find the best-fit solution
poptBoth, pcovBoth = curve_fit(funcBoth, np.hstack([x, x]), yBoth)
# Compute the best-fit solution
yFit = long_function(x, *poptBoth)
print(poptBoth)
# Plot the results
plt.figure(figsize=(9, 4))
plt.subplot(121)
plt.plot(x, np.real(yNoisy), "k.", label="Noisy y")
plt.plot(x, np.real(y), "r--", label="True y")
plt.plot(x, np.real(yFit), label="Best fit")
plt.ylabel("Real part of y")
plt.xlabel("x")
plt.legend()
plt.subplot(122)
plt.plot(x, np.imag(yNoisy), "k.")
plt.plot(x, np.imag(y), "r--")
plt.plot(x, np.imag(yFit))
plt.ylabel("Imaginary part of y")
plt.xlabel("x")
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
Result:
The best-fit parameters that were found in this example were a = 1.14, b = 0.375, c = -0.236, and d = 0.163, which are close enough to the true parameter values given the amplitude of the noise that I inserted here.

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 )

Python: two-curve gaussian fitting with non-linear least-squares

My knowledge of maths is limited which is why I am probably stuck. I have a spectra to which I am trying to fit two Gaussian peaks. I can fit to the largest peak, but I cannot fit to the smallest peak. I understand that I need to sum the Gaussian function for the two peaks but I do not know where I have gone wrong. An image of my current output is shown:
The blue line is my data and the green line is my current fit. There is a shoulder to the left of the main peak in my data which I am currently trying to fit, using the following code:
import matplotlib.pyplot as pt
import numpy as np
from scipy.optimize import leastsq
from pylab import *
time = []
counts = []
for i in open('/some/folder/to/file.txt', 'r'):
segs = i.split()
time.append(float(segs[0]))
counts.append(segs[1])
time_array = arange(len(time), dtype=float)
counts_array = arange(len(counts))
time_array[0:] = time
counts_array[0:] = counts
def model(time_array0, coeffs0):
a = coeffs0[0] + coeffs0[1] * np.exp( - ((time_array0-coeffs0[2])/coeffs0[3])**2 )
b = coeffs0[4] + coeffs0[5] * np.exp( - ((time_array0-coeffs0[6])/coeffs0[7])**2 )
c = a+b
return c
def residuals(coeffs, counts_array, time_array):
return counts_array - model(time_array, coeffs)
# 0 = baseline, 1 = amplitude, 2 = centre, 3 = width
peak1 = np.array([0,6337,16.2,4.47,0,2300,13.5,2], dtype=float)
#peak2 = np.array([0,2300,13.5,2], dtype=float)
x, flag = leastsq(residuals, peak1, args=(counts_array, time_array))
#z, flag = leastsq(residuals, peak2, args=(counts_array, time_array))
plt.plot(time_array, counts_array)
plt.plot(time_array, model(time_array, x), color = 'g')
#plt.plot(time_array, model(time_array, z), color = 'r')
plt.show()

This code worked for me providing that you are only fitting a function that is a combination of two Gaussian distributions.
I just made a residuals function that adds two Gaussian functions and then subtracts them from the real data.
The parameters (p) that I passed to Numpy's least squares function include: the mean of the first Gaussian function (m), the difference in the mean from the first and second Gaussian functions (dm, i.e. the horizontal shift), the standard deviation of the first (sd1), and the standard deviation of the second (sd2).
import numpy as np
from scipy.optimize import leastsq
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
######################################
# Setting up test data
def norm(x, mean, sd):
norm = []
for i in range(x.size):
norm += [1.0/(sd*np.sqrt(2*np.pi))*np.exp(-(x[i] - mean)**2/(2*sd**2))]
return np.array(norm)
mean1, mean2 = 0, -2
std1, std2 = 0.5, 1
x = np.linspace(-20, 20, 500)
y_real = norm(x, mean1, std1) + norm(x, mean2, std2)
######################################
# Solving
m, dm, sd1, sd2 = [5, 10, 1, 1]
p = [m, dm, sd1, sd2] # Initial guesses for leastsq
y_init = norm(x, m, sd1) + norm(x, m + dm, sd2) # For final comparison plot
def res(p, y, x):
m, dm, sd1, sd2 = p
m1 = m
m2 = m1 + dm
y_fit = norm(x, m1, sd1) + norm(x, m2, sd2)
err = y - y_fit
return err
plsq = leastsq(res, p, args = (y_real, x))
y_est = norm(x, plsq[0][0], plsq[0][2]) + norm(x, plsq[0][0] + plsq[0][1], plsq[0][3])
plt.plot(x, y_real, label='Real Data')
plt.plot(x, y_init, 'r.', label='Starting Guess')
plt.plot(x, y_est, 'g.', label='Fitted')
plt.legend()
plt.show()

You can use Gaussian mixture models from scikit-learn:
from sklearn import mixture
import matplotlib.pyplot
import matplotlib.mlab
import numpy as np
clf = mixture.GMM(n_components=2, covariance_type='full')
clf.fit(yourdata)
m1, m2 = clf.means_
w1, w2 = clf.weights_
c1, c2 = clf.covars_
histdist = matplotlib.pyplot.hist(yourdata, 100, normed=True)
plotgauss1 = lambda x: plot(x,w1*matplotlib.mlab.normpdf(x,m1,np.sqrt(c1))[0], linewidth=3)
plotgauss2 = lambda x: plot(x,w2*matplotlib.mlab.normpdf(x,m2,np.sqrt(c2))[0], linewidth=3)
plotgauss1(histdist[1])
plotgauss2(histdist[1])
You can also use the function below to fit the number of Gaussian you want with ncomp parameter:
from sklearn import mixture
%pylab
def fit_mixture(data, ncomp=2, doplot=False):
clf = mixture.GMM(n_components=ncomp, covariance_type='full')
clf.fit(data)
ml = clf.means_
wl = clf.weights_
cl = clf.covars_
ms = [m[0] for m in ml]
cs = [numpy.sqrt(c[0][0]) for c in cl]
ws = [w for w in wl]
if doplot == True:
histo = hist(data, 200, normed=True)
for w, m, c in zip(ws, ms, cs):
plot(histo[1],w*matplotlib.mlab.normpdf(histo[1],m,np.sqrt(c)), linewidth=3)
return ms, cs, ws

coeffs 0 and 4 are degenerate - there is absolutely nothing in the data that can decide between them. you should use a single zero level parameter instead of two (ie remove one of them from your code). this is probably what is stopping your fit (ignore the comments here saying this is not possible - there are clearly at least two peaks in that data and you should certainly be able to fit to that).
(it may not be clear why i am suggesting this, but what is happening is that coeffs 0 and 4 can cancel each other out. they can both be zero, or one could be 100 and the other -100 - either way, the fit is just as good. this "confuses" the fitting routine, which spends its time trying to work out what they should be, when there is no single right answer, because whatever value one is, the other can just be the negative of that, and the fit will be the same).
in fact, from the plot, it looks like there may be no need for a zero level at all. i would try dropping both of those and seeing how the fit looks.
also, there is no need to fit coeffs 1 and 5 (or the zero point) in the least squares. instead, because the model is linear in those you could calculate their values each loop. this will make things faster, but is not critical. i just noticed you say your maths is not so good, so probably ignore this one.