Here Get intersecting rows across two 2D numpy arrays they got intersecting rows by using the function np.intersect1d. So i changed the function to use np.setdiff1d to get the set difference but it doesn't work properly. The following is the code.
def set_diff2d(A, B):
nrows, ncols = A.shape
dtype={'names':['f{}'.format(i) for i in range(ncols)],
'formats':ncols * [A.dtype]}
C = np.setdiff1d(A.view(dtype), B.view(dtype))
return C.view(A.dtype).reshape(-1, ncols)
The following data is used for checking the issue:
min_dis=400
Xt = np.arange(50, 3950, min_dis)
Yt = np.arange(50, 3950, min_dis)
Xt, Yt = np.meshgrid(Xt, Yt)
Xt[::2] += min_dis/2
# This is the super set
turbs_possible_locs = np.vstack([Xt.flatten(), Yt.flatten()]).T
# This is the subset
subset = turbs_possible_locs[np.random.choice(turbs_possible_locs.shape[0],50, replace=False)]
diffs = set_diff2d(turbs_possible_locs, subset)
diffs is supposed to have a shape of 50x2, but it is not.
Ok, so to fix your issue try the following tweak:
def set_diff2d(A, B):
nrows, ncols = A.shape
dtype={'names':['f{}'.format(i) for i in range(ncols)], 'formats':ncols * [A.dtype]}
C = np.setdiff1d(A.copy().view(dtype), B.copy().view(dtype))
return C
The problem was - A after .view(...) was applied was broken in half - so it had 2 tuple columns, instead of 1, like B. I.e. as a consequence of applying dtype you essentially collapsed 2 columns into tuple - which is why you could do the intersection in 1d in the first place.
Quoting after documentation:
"
a.view(some_dtype) or a.view(dtype=some_dtype) constructs a view of the array’s memory with a different data-type. This can cause a reinterpretation of the bytes of memory.
"
Src https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/generated/numpy.ndarray.view.html
I think the "reinterpretation" is exactly what happened - hence for the sake of simplicity I would just .copy() the array.
NB however I wouldn't square it - it's always A which gets 'broken' - whether it's an assignment, or inline B is always fine...
Related
I have a nested loop that has to loop through a huge amount of data.
Assuming a data frame with random values with a size of 1000,000 rows each has an X,Y location in 2D space. There is a window of 10 length that go through all the 1M data rows one by one till all the calculations are done.
Explaining what the code is supposed to do:
Each row represents a coordinates in X-Y plane.
r_test is containing the diameters of different circles of investigations in our 2D plane (X-Y plane).
For each 10 points/rows, for every single diameter in r_test, we compare the distance between every point with the remaining 9 points and if the value is less than R we add 2 to H. Then we calculate H/(N**5) and store it in c_10 with the index corresponding to that of the diameter of investigation.
For this first 10 points finally when the loop went through all those diameters in r_test, we read the slope of the fitted line and save it to S_wind[ii]. So the first 9 data points will have no value calculated for them thus giving them np.inf to be distinguished later.
Then the window moves one point down the rows and repeat this process till S_wind is completed.
What's a potentially better algorithm to solve this than the one I'm using? in python 3.x?
Many thanks in advance!
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
####generating input data frame
df = pd.DataFrame(data = np.random.randint(2000, 6000, (1000000, 2)))
df.columns= ['X','Y']
####====creating upper and lower bound for the diameter of the investigation circles
x_range =max(df['X']) - min(df['X'])
y_range = max(df['Y']) - min(df['Y'])
R = max(x_range,y_range)/20
d = 2
N = 10 #### Number of points in each window
#r1 = 2*R*(1/N)**(1/d)
#r2 = (R)/(1+d)
#r_test = np.arange(r1, r2, 0.05)
##===avoiding generation of empty r_test
r1 = 80
r2= 800
r_test = np.arange(r1, r2, 5)
S_wind = np.zeros(len(df['X'])) + np.inf
for ii in range (10,len(df['X'])): #### maybe the code run slower because of using len() function instead of a number
c_10 = np.zeros(len(r_test)) +np.inf
H = 0
C = 0
N = 10 ##### maybe I should also remove this
for ind in range(len(r_test)):
for i in range (ii-10,ii):
for j in range(ii-10,ii):
dd = r_test[ind] - np.sqrt((df['X'][i] - df['X'][j])**2+ (df['Y'][i] - df['Y'][j])**2)
if dd > 0:
H += 1
c_10[ind] = (H/(N**2))
S_wind[ii] = np.polyfit(np.log10(r_test), np.log10(c_10), 1)[0]
You can use numpy broadcasting to eliminate all of the inner loops. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to get rid of the outermost loop, but the others are not too hard to avoid.
The inner loops are comparing ten 2D points against each other in pairs. That's just dying for using a 10x10x2 numpy array:
# replacing the `for ind` loop and its contents:
points = np.hstack((np.asarray(df['X'])[ii-10:ii, None], np.asarray(df['Y'])[ii-10:ii, None]))
differences = np.subtract(points[None, :, :], points[:, None, :]) # broadcast to 10x10x2
squared_distances = (differences * differences).sum(axis=2)
within_range = squared_distances[None,:,:] < (r_test*r_test)[:, None, None] # compare squares
c_10 = within_range.sum(axis=(1,2)).cumsum() * 2 / (N**2)
S_wind[ii] = np.polyfit(np.log10(r_test), np.log10(c_10), 1)[0] # this is unchanged...
I'm not very pandas savvy, so there's probably a better way to get the X and Y values into a single 2-dimensional numpy array. You generated the random data in the format that I'd find most useful, then converted into something less immediately useful for numeric operations!
Note that this code matches the output of your loop code. I'm not sure that's actually doing what you want it to do, as there are several slightly strange things in your current code. For example, you may not want the cumsum in my code, which corresponds to only re-initializing H to zero in the outermost loop. If you don't want the matches for smaller values of r_test to be counted again for the larger values, you can skip that sum (or equivalently, move the H = 0 line to in between the for ind and the for i loops in your original code).
I am trying to find the indices of the n smallest values in a list of tensors in pytorch. Since these tensors might contain many non-unique values, I cannot simply compute percentiles to obtain the indices. The ordering of non-unique values does not matter however.
I came up with the following solution but am wondering if there is a more elegant way of doing it:
import torch
n = 10
tensor_list = [torch.randn(10, 10), torch.zeros(20, 20), torch.ones(30, 10)]
all_sorted, all_sorted_idx = torch.sort(torch.cat([t.view(-1) for t in tensor_list]))
cum_num_elements = torch.cumsum(torch.tensor([t.numel() for t in tensor_list]), dim=0)
cum_num_elements = torch.cat([torch.tensor([0]), cum_num_elements])
split_indeces_lt = [all_sorted_idx[:n] < cum_num_elements[i + 1] for i, _ in enumerate(cum_num_elements[1:])]
split_indeces_ge = [all_sorted_idx[:n] >= cum_num_elements[i] for i, _ in enumerate(cum_num_elements[:-1])]
split_indeces = [all_sorted_idx[:n][torch.logical_and(lt, ge)] - c for lt, ge, c in zip(split_indeces_lt, split_indeces_ge, cum_num_elements[:-1])]
n_smallest = [t.view(-1)[idx] for t, idx in zip(tensor_list, split_indeces)]
Ideally a solution would pick a random subset of the non-unique values instead of picking the entries of the first tensor of the list.
Pytorch does provide a more elegant (I think) way to do it, with torch.unique_consecutive (see here)
I'm going to work on a tensor, not a list of tensors because as you did yourself, there's just a cat to do. Unraveling the indices afterward is not hard either.
# We want to find the n=3 min values and positions in t
n = 3
t = torch.tensor([1,2,3,2,0,1,4,3,2])
# To get a random occurrence, we create a random permutation
randomizer = torch.randperm(len(t))
# first, we sort t, and get the indices
sorted_t, idx_t = t[randomizer].sort()
# small util function to extract only the n smallest values and positions
head = lambda v,w : (v[:n], w[:n])
# use unique_consecutive to remove duplicates
uniques_t, counts_t = head(*torch.unique_consecutive(sorted_t, return_counts=True))
# counts_t.cumsum gives us the position of the unique values in sorted_t
uniq_idx_t = torch.cat([torch.tensor([0]), counts_t.cumsum(0)[:-1]], 0)
# And now, we have the positions of uniques_t values in t :
final_idx_t = randomizer[idx_t[uniq_idx_t]]
print(uniques_t, final_idx_t)
#>>> tensor([0,1,2]), tensor([4,0,1])
#>>> tensor([0,1,2]), tensor([4,5,8])
#>>> tensor([0,1,2]), tensor([4,0,8])
EDIT : I think the added permutation solves your need-random-occurrence problem
Just for practice, I am using nested lists (for exaple, [[1, 0], [0, 1]] is the 2*2 identity matrix) as matrices. I am trying to compute determinant by reducing it to an upper triangular matrix and then by multiplying its diagonal entries. To do this:
"""adds two matrices"""
def add(A, B):
S = []
for i in range(len(A)):
row = []
for j in range(len(A[0])):
row.append(A[i][j] + B[i][j])
S.append(row)
return S
"""scalar multiplication of matrix with n"""
def scale(n, A):
return [[(n)*x for x in row] for row in A]
def detr(M):
Mi = M
#the loops below are supossed to convert Mi
#to upper triangular form:
for i in range(len(Mi)):
for j in range(len(Mi)):
if j>i:
k = -(Mi[j][i])/(Mi[i][i])
Mi[j] = add( scale(k, [Mi[i]]), [Mi[j]] )[0]
#multiplies diagonal entries of Mi:
k = 1
for i in range(len(Mi)):
k = k*Mi[i][i]
return k
Here, you can see that I have set M (argument) equal to Mi and and then operated on Mi to take it to upper triangular form. So, M is supposed to stay unmodified. But after using detr(A), print(A) prints the upper triangular matrix. I tried:
setting X = M, then Mi = X
defining kill(M): return M and then setting Mi = kill(M)
But these approaches are not working. This was causing some problems as I was trying to use detr(M) in another function, problems which I was able to bypass, but why is this happening? What is the compiler doing here, why was M modified even though I operated only on Mi?
(I am using Spyder 3.3.2, Python 3.7.1)
(I am sorry if this question is silly, but I have only started learning python and new to coding in general. This question means a lot to me because I still don't have a deep understanding of this language.)
See python documentation about assignment:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/copy.html
Assignment statements in Python do not copy objects, they create bindings between a target and an object. For collections that are mutable or contain mutable items, a copy is sometimes needed so one can change one copy without changing the other.
You need to import copy and then use Mi = copy.deepcopy(M)
See also
How to deep copy a list?
I'm doing data analysis that involves minimizing the least-square-error between a set of points and a corresponding set of orthogonal functions. In other words, I'm taking a set of y-values and a set of functions, and trying to zero in on the x-value that gets all of the functions closest to their corresponding y-value. Everything is being done in a 'data_set' class. The functions that I'm comparing to are all stored in one list, and I'm using a class method to calculate the total lsq-error for all of them:
self.fits = [np.poly1d(np.polyfit(self.x_data, self.y_data[n],10)) for n in range(self.num_points)]
def error(self, x, y_set):
arr = [(y_set[n] - self.fits[n](x))**2 for n in range(self.num_points)]
return np.sum(arr)
This was fine when I had significantly more time than data, but now I'm taking thousands of x-values, each with a thousand y-values, and that for loop is unacceptably slow. I've been trying to use np.vectorize:
#global scope
def func(f,x):
return f(x)
vfunc = np.vectorize(func, excluded=['x'])
…
…
#within data_set class
def error(self, x, y_set):
arr = (y_set - vfunc(self.fits, x))**2
return np.sum(arr)
func(self.fits[n], x) works fine as long as n is valid, and as far as I can tell from the docs, vfunc(self.fits, x) should be equivalent to
[self.fits[n](x) for n in range(self.num_points)]
but instead it throws:
ValueError: cannot copy sequence with size 10 to array axis with dimension 11
10 is the degree of the polynomial fit, and 11 is (by definition) the number of terms in it, but I have no idea why they're showing up here. If I change the fit order, the error message reflects the change. It seems like np.vectorize is taking each element of self.fits as a list rather than a np.poly1d function.
Anyway, if someone could either help me understand np.vectorize better, or suggest another way to eliminate that loop, that would be swell.
As the functions in question all have a very similar structure we can "manually" vectorize once we've extracted the poly coefficients. In fact, the function is then a quite simple one-liner, eval_many below:
import numpy as np
def poly_vec(list_of_polys):
O = max(p.order for p in list_of_polys)+1
C = np.zeros((len(list_of_polys), O))
for p, c in zip(list_of_polys, C):
c[len(c)-p.order-1:] = p.coeffs
return C
def eval_many(x,C):
return C#np.vander(x,11).T
# make example
list_of_polys = [np.poly1d(v) for v in np.random.random((1000,11))]
x = np.random.random((2000,))
# put all coeffs in one master matrix
C = poly_vec(list_of_polys)
# test
assert np.allclose(eval_many(x,C), [p(x) for p in list_of_polys])
from timeit import timeit
print('vectorized', timeit(lambda: eval_many(x,C), number=100)*10)
print('loopy ', timeit(lambda: [p(x) for p in list_of_polys], number=10)*100)
Sample run:
vectorized 6.817315469961613
loopy 56.35076989419758
Please help my poor knowledge of signal processing.
I want to smoothen some data. Here is my code:
import numpy as np
from scipy.signal import butter, filtfilt
def testButterworth(nyf, x, y):
b, a = butter(4, 1.5/nyf)
fl = filtfilt(b, a, y)
return fl
if __name__ == '__main__':
positions_recorded = np.loadtxt('original_positions.txt', delimiter='\n')
number_of_points = len(positions_recorded)
end = 10
dt = end/float(number_of_points)
nyf = 0.5/dt
x = np.linspace(0, end, number_of_points)
y = positions_recorded
fl = testButterworth(nyf, x, y)
I am pretty satisfied with results except one point:
it is absolutely crucial to me that the start and end point in returned values equal to the start and end point of input. How can I introduce this restriction?
UPD 15-Dec-14 12:04:
my original data looks like this
Applying the filter and zooming into last part of the graph gives following result:
So, at the moment I just care about the last point that must be equal to original point. I try to append copy of data to the end of original list this way:
the result is as expected even worse.
Then I try to append data this way:
And the slice where one period ends and next one begins, looks like that:
To do this, you're always going to cheat somehow, since the true filter applied to the true data doesn't behave the way you require.
One of the best ways to cheat with your data is to assume it's periodic. This has the advantages that: 1) it's consistent with the data you actually have and all your changing is to append data to the region you don't know about (so assuming it's periodic as as reasonable as anything else -- although may violate some unstated or implicit assumptions); 2) the result will be consistent with your filter.
You can usually get by with this by appending copies of your data to the beginning and end of your real data, or just small pieces, depending on your filter.
Since the FFT assumes that the data is periodic anyway, that's often a quick and easy approach, and is fully accurate (whereas concatenating the data is an estimation of an infinitely periodic waveform). Here's an example of the FFT approach for a step filter.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
x = np.arange(0, 128)
y = (np.sin(.22*(x+10))>0).astype(np.float)
# filter
y2 = np.fft.fft(y)
f0 = np.fft.fftfreq(len(x))
y2[(f0<-.25) | (f0>.25)] = 0
y3 = abs(np.fft.ifft(y2))
plt.plot(x, y)
plt.plot(x, y3)
plt.xlim(-10, 140)
plt.ylim(-.1, 1.1)
plt.show()
Note how the end points bend towards each other at either end, even though this is not consistent with the periodicity of the waveform (since the segments at either end are very truncated). This can also be seen by adjusting waveform so that the ends are the same (here I used x+30 instead of x+10, and here the ends don't need to bend to match-up so they stay at level with the end of the data.
Note, also, to have the endpoints actually be exactly equal you would have to extend this plot by one point (at either end), since it periodic with exactly the wavelength of the original waveform. Doing this is not ad hoc though, and the result will be entirely consistent with your analysis, but just representing one extra point of what was assumed to be infinite repeats all along.
Finally, this FFT trick works best with waveforms of length 2n. Other lengths may be zero padded in the FFT. In this case, just doing concatenations to either end as I mentioned at first might be the best way to go.
The question is how to filter data and require that the left endpoint of the filtered result matches the left endpoint of the data, and same for the right endpoint. (That is, in general, the filtered result should be close to most of the data points, but not necessarily exactly match any of them, but what if you need a match at both endpoints?)
To make the filtered result exactly match the endpoints of a curve, one could add a padding of points at either end of the curve and adjust the y-position of this padding so that the endpoints of the valid part of the filter exactly matched the end points of the original data (without the padding).
In general, this can be done by either iterating towards a solution, adjusting the padding y-position until the ends line up, or by calculating a few values and then interpolating to determine the y-positions that would be required for the matched endpoints. I'll do the second approach.
Here's the code I used, where I simulated the data as a sine wave with two flat pieces on either side (note, that these flat pieces are not the padding, but I'm just trying to make data that looks a bit like the OPs).
import numpy as np
from scipy.signal import butter, filtfilt
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
#### op's code
def testButterworth(nyf, x, y):
#b, a = butter(4, 1.5/nyf)
b, a = butter(4, 1.5/nyf)
fl = filtfilt(b, a, y)
return fl
def do_fit(data):
positions_recorded = data
#positions_recorded = np.loadtxt('original_positions.txt', delimiter='\n')
number_of_points = len(positions_recorded)
end = 10
dt = end/float(number_of_points)
nyf = 0.5/dt
x = np.linspace(0, end, number_of_points)
y = positions_recorded
fx = testButterworth(nyf, x, y)
return fx
### simulate some data (op should have done this too!)
def sim_data():
t = np.linspace(.1*np.pi, (2.-.1)*np.pi, 100)
y = np.sin(t)
c = np.ones(10, dtype=np.float)
z = np.concatenate((c*y[0], y, c*y[-1]))
return z
### code to find the required offset padding
def fit_with_pads(v, data, n=1):
c = np.ones(n, dtype=np.float)
z = np.concatenate((c*v[0], data, c*v[1]))
fx = do_fit(z)
return fx
def get_errors(data, fx):
n = (len(fx)-len(data))//2
return np.array((fx[n]-data[0], fx[-n]-data[-1]))
def vary_padding(data, span=.005, n=100):
errors = np.zeros((4, n)) # Lpad, Rpad, Lerror, Rerror
offsets = np.linspace(-span, span, n)
for i in range(n):
vL, vR = data[0]+offsets[i], data[-1]+offsets[i]
fx = fit_with_pads((vL, vR), data, n=1)
errs = get_errors(data, fx)
errors[:,i] = np.array((vL, vR, errs[0], errs[1]))
return errors
if __name__ == '__main__':
data = sim_data()
fx = do_fit(data)
errors = vary_padding(data)
plt.plot(errors[0], errors[2], 'x-')
plt.plot(errors[1], errors[3], 'o-')
oR = -0.30958
oL = 0.30887
fp = fit_with_pads((oL, oR), data, n=1)[1:-1]
plt.figure()
plt.plot(data, 'b')
plt.plot(fx, 'g')
plt.plot(fp, 'r')
plt.show()
Here, for the padding I only used a single point on either side (n=1). Then I calculate the error for a range of values shifting the padding up and down from the first and last data points.
For the plots:
First I plot the offset vs error (between the fit and the desired data value). To find the offset to use, I just zoomed in on the two lines to find the x-value of the y zero crossing, but to do this more accurately, one could calculate the zero crossing from this data:
Here's the plot of the original "data", the fit (green) and the adjusted fit (red):
and zoomed in the RHS:
The important point here is that the red (adjusted fit) and blue (original data) endpoints match, even though the pure fit doesn't.
Is this a valid approach? Of the various options, this seems the most reasonable since one isn't usually making any claims about the data that isn't being shown, and also for show region has an accurately applied filter. For example, FFTs usually assume the data is zero or periodic beyond the boundaries. Certainly, though, to be precise one should explain what was done.