Develop Reference

Interpolating non-uniformly distributed points on a 3D sphere

I have several points on the unit sphere that are distributed according to the algorithm described in https://www.cmu.edu/biolphys/deserno/pdf/sphere_equi.pdf (and implemented in the code below). On each of these points, I have a value that in my particular case represents 1 minus a small error. The errors are in [0, 0.1] if this is important, so my values are in [0.9, 1].
Sadly, computing the errors is a costly process and I cannot do this for as many points as I want. Still, I want my plots to look like I am plotting something "continuous".
So I want to fit an interpolation function to my data, to be able to sample as many points as I want.
After a little bit of research I found scipy.interpolate.SmoothSphereBivariateSpline which seems to do exactly what I want. But I cannot make it work properly.
Question: what can I use to interpolate (spline, linear interpolation, anything would be fine for the moment) my data on the unit sphere? An answer can be either "you misused scipy.interpolation, here is the correct way to do this" or "this other function is better suited to your problem".
Sample code that should be executable with numpy and scipy installed:
import typing as ty
import numpy
import scipy.interpolate
def get_equidistant_points(N: int) -> ty.List[numpy.ndarray]:
"""Generate approximately n points evenly distributed accros the 3-d sphere.
This function tries to find approximately n points (might be a little less
or more) that are evenly distributed accros the 3-dimensional unit sphere.
The algorithm used is described in
https://www.cmu.edu/biolphys/deserno/pdf/sphere_equi.pdf.
"""
# Unit sphere
r = 1
points: ty.List[numpy.ndarray] = list()
a = 4 * numpy.pi * r ** 2 / N
d = numpy.sqrt(a)
m_v = int(numpy.round(numpy.pi / d))
d_v = numpy.pi / m_v
d_phi = a / d_v
for m in range(m_v):
v = numpy.pi * (m + 0.5) / m_v
m_phi = int(numpy.round(2 * numpy.pi * numpy.sin(v) / d_phi))
for n in range(m_phi):
phi = 2 * numpy.pi * n / m_phi
points.append(
numpy.array(
[
numpy.sin(v) * numpy.cos(phi),
numpy.sin(v) * numpy.sin(phi),
numpy.cos(v),
]
)
)
return points
def cartesian2spherical(x: float, y: float, z: float) -> numpy.ndarray:
r = numpy.linalg.norm([x, y, z])
theta = numpy.arccos(z / r)
phi = numpy.arctan2(y, x)
return numpy.array([r, theta, phi])
n = 100
points = get_equidistant_points(n)
# Random here, but costly in real life.
errors = numpy.random.rand(len(points)) / 10
# Change everything to spherical to use the interpolator from scipy.
ideal_spherical_points = numpy.array([cartesian2spherical(*point) for point in points])
r_interp = 1 - errors
theta_interp = ideal_spherical_points[:, 1]
phi_interp = ideal_spherical_points[:, 2]
# Change phi coordinate from [-pi, pi] to [0, 2pi] to please scipy.
phi_interp[phi_interp < 0] += 2 * numpy.pi
# Create the interpolator.
interpolator = scipy.interpolate.SmoothSphereBivariateSpline(
theta_interp, phi_interp, r_interp
)
# Creating the finer theta and phi values for the final plot
theta = numpy.linspace(0, numpy.pi, 100, endpoint=True)
phi = numpy.linspace(0, numpy.pi * 2, 100, endpoint=True)
# Creating the coordinate grid for the unit sphere.
X = numpy.outer(numpy.sin(theta), numpy.cos(phi))
Y = numpy.outer(numpy.sin(theta), numpy.sin(phi))
Z = numpy.outer(numpy.cos(theta), numpy.ones(100))
thetas, phis = numpy.meshgrid(theta, phi)
heatmap = interpolator(thetas, phis)
Issue with the code above:
With the code as-is, I have a
ValueError: The required storage space exceeds the available storage space: nxest or nyest too small, or s too small. The weighted least-squares spline corresponds to the current set of knots.
that is raised when initialising the interpolator instance.
The issue above seems to say that I should change the value of s that is one on the parameters of scipy.interpolate.SmoothSphereBivariateSpline. I tested different values of s ranging from 0.0001 to 100000, the code above always raise, either the exception described above or:
ValueError: Error code returned by bispev: 10
Edit: I am including my findings here. They can't really be considered as a solution, that is why I am editing and not posting as an answer.
With more research I found this question Using Radial Basis Functions to Interpolate a Function on a Sphere. The author has exactly the same problem as me and use a different interpolator: scipy.interpolate.Rbf. I changed the above code by replacing the interpolator and plotting:
# Create the interpolator.
interpolator = scipy.interpolate.Rbf(theta_interp, phi_interp, r_interp)
# Creating the finer theta and phi values for the final plot
plot_points = 100
theta = numpy.linspace(0, numpy.pi, plot_points, endpoint=True)
phi = numpy.linspace(0, numpy.pi * 2, plot_points, endpoint=True)
# Creating the coordinate grid for the unit sphere.
X = numpy.outer(numpy.sin(theta), numpy.cos(phi))
Y = numpy.outer(numpy.sin(theta), numpy.sin(phi))
Z = numpy.outer(numpy.cos(theta), numpy.ones(plot_points))
thetas, phis = numpy.meshgrid(theta, phi)
heatmap = interpolator(thetas, phis)
import matplotlib as mpl
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import cm
colormap = cm.inferno
normaliser = mpl.colors.Normalize(vmin=numpy.min(heatmap), vmax=1)
scalar_mappable = cm.ScalarMappable(cmap=colormap, norm=normaliser)
scalar_mappable.set_array([])
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111, projection="3d")
ax.plot_surface(
X,
Y,
Z,
facecolors=colormap(normaliser(heatmap)),
alpha=0.7,
cmap=colormap,
)
plt.colorbar(scalar_mappable)
plt.show()
This code runs smoothly and gives the following result:
The interpolation seems OK except on one line that is discontinuous, just like in the question that led me to this class. One of the answer give the idea of using a different distance, more adapted the the spherical coordinates: the Haversine distance.
def haversine(x1, x2):
theta1, phi1 = x1
theta2, phi2 = x2
return 2 * numpy.arcsin(
numpy.sqrt(
numpy.sin((theta2 - theta1) / 2) ** 2
+ numpy.cos(theta1) * numpy.cos(theta2) * numpy.sin((phi2 - phi1) / 2) ** 2
)
)
# Create the interpolator.
interpolator = scipy.interpolate.Rbf(theta_interp, phi_interp, r_interp, norm=haversine)
which, when executed, gives a warning:
LinAlgWarning: Ill-conditioned matrix (rcond=1.33262e-19): result may not be accurate.
self.nodes = linalg.solve(self.A, self.di)
and a result that is not at all the one expected: the interpolated function have values that may go up to -1 which is clearly wrong.

You can use Cartesian coordinate instead of Spherical coordinate.
The default norm parameter ('euclidean') used by Rbf is sufficient
# interpolation
x, y, z = numpy.array(points).T
interpolator = scipy.interpolate.Rbf(x, y, z, r_interp)
# predict
heatmap = interpolator(X, Y, Z)
Here the result:
ax.plot_surface(
X, Y, Z,
rstride=1, cstride=1,
# or rcount=50, ccount=50,
facecolors=colormap(normaliser(heatmap)),
cmap=colormap,
alpha=0.7, shade=False
)
ax.set_xlabel('x axis')
ax.set_ylabel('y axis')
ax.set_zlabel('z axis')
You can also use a cosine distance if you want (norm parameter):
def cosine(XA, XB):
if XA.ndim == 1:
XA = numpy.expand_dims(XA, axis=0)
if XB.ndim == 1:
XB = numpy.expand_dims(XB, axis=0)
return scipy.spatial.distance.cosine(XA, XB)
In order to better see the differences,
I stacked the two images, substracted them and inverted the layer.

How can I create a Circle with a small notch at bottom in Matplotlib?

I am trying to create a circle on co-ordinate plane and fill the pixels in it with conditional colors. However, the circle also need to show a small triangular notch at the bottom from the center. Something like the attached picture.
I have used the matplotlib's patches class to create acircle and tried different values in attributes but of no help. I googled enough but I couldn't find it.
circle = matplotlib.patches.Circle((0,0),150,facecolor='lightgrey')
ax.add_patch(circle)
Sample
Can someone please help me or provide me a hint or direct me to right library which can do this.

Your problem looks like 2D vector graphics which in this case you should look for SVG
if it is a CAD problem then you can check some CAD libraries
- Python module for parametric CAD
I think CAD approach is much better for engineering operations which you can find https://www.freecadweb.org/wiki/Part_Slice and https://www.freecadweb.org/wiki/Part_SliceApart#Scripting
or for SVG approach found something: https://inkscape.org/~Moini/%E2%98%85multi-bool-extension-cut-difference-division
If you have to do that in mathplotlib then you can export/import vector graphics into plots

I tried to build the proposed shape using parametric equations.
There are some approximations, but if you get the exact geometry equations you could refine this to a better version.
In fact, the key is to define the correct equations ... the ideal case would be to ensure continuity.
This example has some caveats: approximations when joining the 2 circles due to geometrical simplification when drawing the small circle from pi to 0. Small circle start/end angles should be chosen as the interception of the 2 full circles for a more accurate shape continuity. But again, in the end it depends entirely on your shape specification
Heavly inspired from Plot equation showing a circle
import math
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def compute_x_values(r, theta):
return r * np.cos(theta)
def compute_y_values(r, theta):
return r * np.sin(theta)
def compute_circle(r, theta):
return compute_x_values(r, theta), compute_y_values(r, theta)
def build_big_circle(crop_angle, offset, radius):
start_angle = offset + crop_angle
end_angle = offset + (2 * np.pi) - crop_angle
theta = np.linspace(start_angle, end_angle, 250)
# compute main circle vals
x, y = compute_circle(radius, theta)
return x, y
r = 1
offset = - np.pi / 2
crop_angle = np.pi / 20
x, y = build_big_circle(crop_angle, offset, r)
# now the other form:
# its a half circle from pi to 0
theta2 = np.linspace(np.pi, 0, 100)
# according our code above, angular space left on the circle for the notch is
missing_angle = crop_angle * 2
# the length between to points on a circle is given by the formula
# length = 2 * r * sin(angle/2)
l = math.sin(missing_angle / 2) * r * 2
# we want half the length for a future radius
r2 = l / 2
# the above lines could be optimized to this
# r2 = math.sin(crop_angle) * r
# but I kept intermediate steps for sake of geometric clarity
# equation is same of a circle
x1, y1 = compute_circle(r2, theta2)
# change center on y axis to - big circle radius
y1 = y1 - r
# merge the 2
x_total = np.append(x, x1)
y_total = np.append(y, y1)
# create the global figure
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1)
ax.plot(x_total, y_total)
ax.fill(x_total, y_total, facecolor='lightgrey', linewidth=1)
ax.set_aspect(1)
plt.show()
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1)
ax.plot(x, y)
ax.plot(x1, y1)
ax.set_aspect(1)
plt.show()

Using FiPy and Mayavi to solve the diffusion equation in 3D

I'm interested in solving,
\frac{\delta \phi}{\delta t} - D \nabla^2 \phi - \alpha \phi - \gamma \phi = 0
The following is working, but I have a few questions:
Is it possible to increase performance with FiPy? I feel like the nx, ny, nz bins are very small here, despite a long computation time. I don't understand why the arrays X, Y, and Z are so large.
Notice in the first frame, we are zoomed in. How can I force the extents to automatically be [0..nx, 0..ny, 0..nz] in all plots?
Data for the first frame is a sphere of points with values 1.0 surrounded by 0.0. Why does there appear to be a gradient? Is Mayavi interpolating? If so, how can I disable this?
Code:
from fipy import *
import mayavi.mlab as mlab
import numpy as np
import time
# Spatial parameters
nx = ny = nz = 30 # bins
dx = dy = dz = 1 # Must this be an integer?
L = nx * dx
# Diffusion and time step
D = 1.
dt = 10.0 * dx**2 / (2. * D)
steps = 4
# Initial value and radius of concentration
phi0 = 1.0
r = 3.0
# Rates
alpha = 1.0 # Source coeficcient
gamma = .01 # Sink coeficcient
mesh = Grid3D(nx=nx, ny=ny, nz=nz, dx=dx, dy=dy, dz=dz)
X, Y, Z = mesh.cellCenters # These are large arrays
phi = CellVariable(mesh=mesh, name=r"$\phi$", value=0.)
src = phi * alpha # Source term (zeroth order reaction)
degr = -gamma * phi # Sink term (degredation)
eq = TransientTerm() == DiffusionTerm(D) + src + degr
# Initial concentration is a sphere located in the center of a bounded cube
phi.setValue(1.0, where=( ((X-nx/2))**2 + (Y-ny/2)**2 + (Z-nz/2)**2 < r**2) )
# Solve
start_time = time.time()
results = [phi.getNumericValue().copy()]
for step in range(steps):
eq.solve(var=phi, dt=dt)
results.append(phi.getNumericValue().copy())
print 'Time elapsed:', time.time() - start_time
# Plot
for i, res in enumerate(results):
fig = mlab.figure()
res = res.reshape(nx, ny, nz)
mlab.contour3d(res, opacity=.3, vmin=0, vmax=1, contours=100, transparent=True, extent=[0, 10, 0, 10, 0, 10])
mlab.colorbar()
mlab.savefig('diffusion3d_%i.png'%(i+1))
mlab.close()
Time elapsed: 68.2 seconds

It's hard to tell from your question, but in the course of diagnosing things, I discovered that the LinearLUSolver scales very poorly as the dimension of the problem increases (see https://github.com/usnistgov/fipy/issues/474).
For this symmetric problem, PySparse should use the PCG solver and Trilinos should use GMRES. If you didn't install either of these, then you'll get the SciPy sparse solvers, which defaults to LU (I don't know why; something for us to look into), and things will be really slow in 3D. Try adding solver=LinearGMRESSolver() to your eq.solve(...) statement.
As far as the size of X, Y, and Z, you've declared a 30*30*30 cube of cells, so each of the cell center coordinate vectors will be 27000 elements long. Did you have a different expectation for cellCenters?
I suggest you subclass our MayaviDaemon class, or at least look at how it sets up the display in Mayavi. In short, we set a data_set_clipper to the desired bounds.
I don't know.

Method to uniformly randomly populate a disk with points in python

I have an application that requires a disk populated with 'n' points in a quasi-random fashion. I want the points to be somewhat random, but still have a more or less regular density over the disk.
My current method is to place a point, check if it's inside the disk, and then check if it is also far enough away from all other points already kept. My code is below:
import os
import random
import math
# ------------------------------------------------ #
# geometric constants
center_x = -1188.2
center_y = -576.9
center_z = -3638.3
disk_distance = 2.0*5465.6
disk_diam = 5465.6
# ------------------------------------------------ #
pts_per_disk = 256
closeness_criteria = 200.0
min_closeness_criteria = disk_diam/closeness_criteria
disk_center = [(center_x-disk_distance),center_y,center_z]
pts_in_disk = []
while len(pts_in_disk) < (pts_per_disk):
potential_pt_x = disk_center[0]
potential_pt_dy = random.uniform(-disk_diam/2.0, disk_diam/2.0)
potential_pt_y = disk_center[1]+potential_pt_dy
potential_pt_dz = random.uniform(-disk_diam/2.0, disk_diam/2.0)
potential_pt_z = disk_center[2]+potential_pt_dz
potential_pt_rad = math.sqrt((potential_pt_dy)**2+(potential_pt_dz)**2)
if potential_pt_rad < (disk_diam/2.0):
far_enough_away = True
for pt in pts_in_disk:
if math.sqrt((potential_pt_x - pt[0])**2+(potential_pt_y - pt[1])**2+(potential_pt_z - pt[2])**2) > min_closeness_criteria:
pass
else:
far_enough_away = False
break
if far_enough_away:
pts_in_disk.append([potential_pt_x,potential_pt_y,potential_pt_z])
outfile_name = "pt_locs_x_lo_"+str(pts_per_disk)+"_pts.txt"
outfile = open(outfile_name,'w')
for pt in pts_in_disk:
outfile.write(" ".join([("%.5f" % (pt[0]/1000.0)),("%.5f" % (pt[1]/1000.0)),("%.5f" % (pt[2]/1000.0))])+'\n')
outfile.close()
In order to get the most even point density, what I do is basically iteratively run this script using another script, with the 'closeness' criteria reduced for each successive iteration. At some point, the script can not finish, and I just use the points of the last successful iteration.
So my question is rather broad: is there a better way to do this? My method is ok for now, but my gut says that there is a better way to generate such a field of points.
An illustration of the output is graphed below, one with a high closeness criteria, and another with a 'lowest found' closeness criteria (what I want).

A simple solution based on Disk Point Picking from MathWorld:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
n = 1000
r = np.random.uniform(low=0, high=1, size=n) # radius
theta = np.random.uniform(low=0, high=2*np.pi, size=n) # angle
x = np.sqrt(r) * np.cos(theta)
y = np.sqrt(r) * np.sin(theta)
# for plotting circle line:
a = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 500)
cx,cy = np.cos(a), np.sin(a)
fg, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1)
ax.plot(cx, cy,'-', alpha=.5) # draw unit circle line
ax.plot(x, y, '.') # plot random points
ax.axis('equal')
ax.grid(True)
fg.canvas.draw()
plt.show()
It gives.
Alternatively, you also could create a regular grid and distort it randomly:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import matplotlib.tri as tri
n = 20
tt = np.linspace(-1, 1, n)
xx, yy = np.meshgrid(tt, tt) # create unit square grid
s_x, s_y = xx.ravel(), yy.ravel()
ii = np.argwhere(s_x**2 + s_y**2 <= 1).ravel() # mask off unwanted points
x, y = s_x[ii], s_y[ii]
triang = tri.Triangulation(x, y) # create triangluar grid
# distort the grid
g = .5 # distortion factor
rx = x + np.random.uniform(low=-g/n, high=g/n, size=x.shape)
ry = y + np.random.uniform(low=-g/n, high=g/n, size=y.shape)
rtri = tri.Triangulation(rx, ry, triang.triangles) # distorted grid
# for circle:
a = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 500)
cx,cy = np.cos(a), np.sin(a)
fg, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1)
ax.plot(cx, cy,'k-', alpha=.2) # circle line
ax.triplot(triang, "g-", alpha=.4)
ax.triplot(rtri, 'b-', alpha=.5)
ax.axis('equal')
ax.grid(True)
fg.canvas.draw()
plt.show()
It gives
The triangles are just there for visualization. The obvious disadvantage is that depending on your choice of grid, either in the middle or on the borders (as shown here), there will be more or less large "holes" due to the grid discretization.

If you have a defined area like a disc (circle) that you wish to generate random points within you are better off using an equation for a circle and limiting on the radius:
x^2 + y^2 = r^2 (0 < r < R)
or parametrized to two variables
cos(a) = x/r
sin(a) = y/r
sin^2(a) + cos^2(a) = 1
To generate something like the pseudo-random distribution with low density you should take the following approach:
For randomly distributed ranges of r and a choose n points.
This allows you to generate your distribution to roughly meet your density criteria.
To understand why this works imagine your circle first divided into small rings of length dr, now imagine your circle divided into pie slices of angle da. Your randomness now has equal probability over the whole boxed area arou d the circle. If you divide the areas of allowed randomness throughout your circle you will get a more even distribution around the overall circle and small random variation for the individual areas giving you the psudo-random look and feel you are after.
Now your job is just to generate n points for each given area. You will want to have n be dependant on r as the area of each division changes as you move out of the circle. You can proportion this to the exact change in area each space brings:
for the n-th to n+1-th ring:
d(Area,n,n-1) = Area(n) - Area(n-1)
The area of any given ring is:
Area = pi*(dr*n)^2 - pi*(dr*(n-1))
So the difference becomes:
d(Area,n,n-1) = [pi*(dr*n)^2 - pi*(dr*(n-1))^2] - [pi*(dr*(n-1))^2 - pi*(dr*(n-2))^2]
d(Area,n,n-1) = pi*[(dr*n)^2 - 2*(dr*(n-1))^2 + (dr*(n-2))^2]
You could expound this to gain some insight on how much n should increase but it may be faster to just guess at some percentage increase (30%) or something.
The example I have provided is a small subset and decreasing da and dr will dramatically improve your results.
Here is some rough code for generating such points:
import random
import math
R = 10.
n_rings = 10.
n_angles = 10.
dr = 10./n_rings
da = 2*math.pi/n_angles
base_points_per_division = 3
increase_per_level = 1.1
points = []
ring = 0
while ring < n_rings:
angle = 0
while angle < n_angles:
for i in xrange(int(base_points_per_division)):
ra = angle*da + da*math.random()
rr = r*dr + dr*random.random()
x = rr*math.cos(ra)
y = rr*math.sin(ra)
points.append((x,y))
angle += 1
base_points_per_division = base_points_per_division*increase_per_level
ring += 1
I tested it with the parameters:
n_rings = 20
n_angles = 20
base_points = .9
increase_per_level = 1.1
And got the following results:
It looks more dense than your provided image, but I imagine further tweaking of those variables could be beneficial.
You can add an additional part to scale the density properly by calculating the number of points per ring.
points_per_ring = densitymath.pi(dr**2)*(2*n+1)
points_per_division = points_per_ring/n_angles
This will provide a an even better scaled distribution.
density = .03
points = []
ring = 0
while ring < n_rings:
angle = 0
base_points_per_division = density*math.pi*(dr**2)*(2*ring+1)/n_angles
while angle < n_angles:
for i in xrange(int(base_points_per_division)):
ra = angle*da + min(da,da*random.random())
rr = ring*dr + dr*random.random()
x = rr*math.cos(ra)
y = rr*math.sin(ra)
points.append((x,y))
angle += 1
ring += 1
Giving better results using the following parameters
R = 1.
n_rings = 10.
n_angles = 10.
density = 10/(dr*da) # ~ ten points per unit area
With a graph...
and for fun you can graph the divisions to see how well it is matching your distriubtion and adjust.

Depending on how random the points need to be, it may be simple enough to just make a grid of points within the disk, and then displace each point by some small but random amount.

It may be that you want more randomness, but if you just want to fill your disc with an even-looking distribution of points that aren't on an obvious grid, you could try a spiral with a random phase.
import math
import random
import pylab
n = 300
alpha = math.pi * (3 - math.sqrt(5)) # the "golden angle"
phase = random.random() * 2 * math.pi
points = []
for k in xrange(n):
theta = k * alpha + phase
r = math.sqrt(float(k)/n)
points.append((r * math.cos(theta), r * math.sin(theta)))
pylab.scatter(*zip(*points))
pylab.show()

Probability theory ensures that the rejection method is an appropriate method
to generate uniformly distributed points within the disk, D(0,r), centered at origin and of radius r. Namely, one generates points within the square [-r,r] x [-r,r], until a point falls within the disk:
do{
generate P in [-r,r]x[-r,r];
}while(P[0]**2+P[1]**2>r);
return P;
unif_rnd_disk is a generator function implementing this rejection method:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import itertools
def unif_rnd_disk(r=1.0):
pt=np.zeros(2)
while True:
yield pt
while True:
pt=-r+2*r*np.random.random(2)
if (pt[0]**2+pt[1]**2<=r):
break
G=unif_rnd_disk()# generator of points in disk D(0,r=1)
X,Y=zip(*[pt for pt in itertools.islice(G, 1, 1000)])
plt.scatter(X, Y, color='r', s=3)
plt.axis('equal')
If we want to generate points in a disk centered at C(a,b), we have to apply a translation to the points in the disk D(0,r):
C=[2.0, -3.5]
plt.scatter(C[0]+np.array(X), C[1]+np.array(Y), color='r', s=3)
plt.axis('equal')

Using FFT to find the center of mass under periodic boundary conditions

I would like to use the Fourier transform to find the center of a simulated entity under periodic boundary condition; periodic boundary conditions means, that whenever something exits through one side of the box, it is warped around to appear on the opposite side just like in the classic game asteroids.
So what I have is for each time frame a matrix (Nx3) with N the number of points in xyz. what I want to do is determine the center of that cloud even if it all moved over the periodic boundary and is so to say stuck in between.
My idea for an solution would now be do a (mass weigted) histogram of these points and then perform an FFT on that and use the phase of the first Fourier coefficient to determine where in the box the maximum would be.
as a test case I have used
import numpy as np
Points_x = np.random.randn(10000)
Box_min = -10
Box_max = 10
X = np.linspace( Box_min, Box_max, 100 )
### make a Histogram of the points
Histogram_Points = np.bincount( np.digitize( Points_x, X ), minlength=100 )
### make an artifical shift over the periodic boundary
Histogram_Points = np.r_[ Histogram_Points[45:], Histogram_Points[:45] ]
So now I can use FFT since it expects a periodic function anyways.
## doing fft
F = np.fft.fft(Histogram_Points)
## getting rid of everything but first harmonic
F[2:] = 0.
## back transforming
Fist_harmonic = np.fft.ifft(F)
That way I get a sine wave with its maximum exactly where the maximum of the histogram is.
Now I'd like to extract the position of the maximum not by taking the max function on the sine vector, but somehow it should be retrievable from the first (not the 0th) Fourier coefficient, since that should somehow contain the phase shift of the sine to have its maximum exactly at the maximum of the histogram.
Indeed, plotting
Cos_approx = cos( linspace(0,2*pi,100) * angle(F[1]) )
will give
But I can't figure out how to get the position of the peak from this angle.

Using the FFT is overkill when all you need is one Fourier coefficent. Instead, you can simply compute the dot product of your data with
w = np.exp(-2j*np.pi*np.arange(N) / N)
where N is the number of points. (The time to compute all the Fourier coefficients with the FFT is O(N*log(N)). Computing just one coefficient is O(N).)
Here's a script similar to yours. The data is put in y; the coordinates of the data points are in x.
import numpy as np
N = 100
# x coordinates of the data
xmin = -10
xmax = 10
x = np.linspace(xmin, xmax, N, endpoint=False)
# Generate data in y.
n = 35
y = np.zeros(N)
y[:n] = 1 - np.cos(np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, n))
y[:n] /= 0.7 + 0.3*np.random.rand(n)
m = 10
y = np.r_[y[m:], y[:m]]
# Compute coefficent 1 of the discrete Fourier transform.
w = np.exp(-2j*np.pi*np.arange(N) / N)
F1 = y.dot(w)
print "F1 =", F1
# Get the angle of F1 (in the interval [0,2*pi]).
angle = np.angle(F1.conj())
if angle < 0:
angle += 2*np.pi
center_x = xmin + (xmax - xmin) * angle / (2*np.pi)
print "center_x = ", center_x
# Create the first sinusoidal mode for the plot.
mode1 = (F1.real * np.cos(2*np.pi*np.arange(N)/N) -
F1.imag*np.sin(2*np.pi*np.arange(N)/N))/np.abs(F1)
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.clf()
plt.plot(x, y)
plt.plot(x, mode1)
plt.axvline(center_x, color='r', linewidth=1)
plt.show()
This generates the plot:
To answer the question "Why F1.conj()?":
The complex conjugate of F1 is used because of the minus sign in
w = np.exp(-2j*np.pi*np.arange(N) / N) (which I used because it
is a common convention).
Since w can be written
w = np.exp(-2j*np.pi*np.arange(N) / N)
= cos(-2*pi*arange(N)/N) + 1j*sin(-2*pi*arange(N)/N)
= cos(2*pi*arange(N)/N) - 1j*sin(2*pi*arange(N)/N)
the dot product y.dot(w) is basically a projection of y onto
cos(2*pi*arange(N)/N) (the real part of F1) and -sin(2*pi*arange(N)/N)
(the imaginary part of F1). But when we figure out the phase of
the maximum, it is based on the functions cos(...) and sin(...). Taking
the complex conjugate accounts for the opposite sign of the sin()
function. If w = np.exp(2j*np.pi*np.arange(N) / N) were used instead, the
complex conjugate of F1 would not be needed.

You could calculate the circular mean directly on your data.
When calculating the circular mean, your data is mapped to -pi..pi. This mapped data is interpreted as angle to a point on the unit circle. Then the mean value of x and y component is calculated. The next step is to calculate the resulting angle and map it back to the defined "box".
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
Points_x = np.random.randn(10000)+1
Box_min = -10
Box_max = 10
Box_width = Box_max - Box_min
#Maps Points to Box_min ... Box_max with periodic boundaries
Points_x = (Points_x%Box_width + Box_min)
#Map Points to -pi..pi
Points_map = (Points_x - Box_min)/Box_width*2*np.pi-np.pi
#Calc circular mean
Pmean_map = np.arctan2(np.sin(Points_map).mean() , np.cos(Points_map).mean())
#Map back
Pmean = (Pmean_map+np.pi)/(2*np.pi) * Box_width + Box_min
#Plotting the result
plt.figure(figsize=(10,3))
plt.subplot(121)
plt.hist(Points_x, 100);
plt.plot([Pmean, Pmean], [0, 1000], c='r', lw=3, alpha=0.5);
plt.subplot(122,aspect='equal')
plt.plot(np.cos(Points_map), np.sin(Points_map), '.');
plt.ylim([-1, 1])
plt.xlim([-1, 1])
plt.grid()
plt.plot([0, np.cos(Pmean_map)], [0, np.sin(Pmean_map)], c='r', lw=3, alpha=0.5);