I get some trouble when I try to get the derivative of phi(x) by using the FFT.
l1=nk(T,n0)
l2=nk(T,n0)
l3=tetak(T,n0)
l4=tetak(T,n0)
dn=np.fft.irfft(l1+complex(0,1)*l2)*(N-2)/4
dtk=np.fft.irfft(l3+complex(0,1)*l4)*(N-2)/4
phi_x=np.sqrt(dn)*np.exp(complex(0,1)*dtk)
Here it is how I get phi(x) : I create my function phi(k) in the fourier space, and it is a symmetric function such that his fft has to be real.
This is why I used np.fft.irfft.
So my function is defined as phi(x)= np.fft.irfft(np.real(phi(k))+ 1j*np.imag(phi_k))
(I have written here phi(k) just to be clear).
l1,l2,l3,l4 are just lists of my fourier coefficients with length L, and the number (N-2)/4 is just to normalize.
And N=1000 here
Then I want to compute the second derivative. Thus, I apply a fft; then I multiply by -k**2 and then i take the ifft :
derivative=np.fft.ifft(-k*k*np.fft.fft(phi_x))
I know I have to be careful because np.fft.irfft gives me a length of (2*N-2).
I've already tried :
k_tf1=np.arange(-999,999)*(2*np.pi/L)
999 because of the 2N-2 length of phi(x)
It doesn't work at all
k_tf1 = np.fft.ifftshift(np.arange(-999, 999))
it doesnt'work too
k_tf1=np.fft.fftfreq(phi_x.size,2*np.pi/(L))
It seems to work, but my values are too high.
I also try to add k_tf1=np.fft.fftshift(k_tf1), but it doesn't work.
If someone know the solution ,i would really appreciate !
Related
how are you?.
I'm trying to create a function that calculates the z-transform of a transfer function using the residues method but for that, I need the factors of the characteristic equation and the powers of the factors, so, in order to do that I tried to factorize polynomials with non-integer coefficients but after trying everything that I read I couldn't factorize make maxima to factorize those polynomials the way I need it.
For giving an example, I have this characteristic equation: "s·(s^2+0.1·s)", the factors should be "s^2" and "s + 0.1" but maxima allways gives me "(s^2·(10·s + 1))/10".
Why I'm signalling this?, well, as I learned that maxima treates the outputs equation as list so I can have its dimension and separate the factos by its positions in the list to measure the powers of the factors and do what I need, but like maxima gives me the result that is shown above then the dimension of the list is different and it will make my function to work differently and possibly have errors.
The result that is shown is given by maxima no matter if I use factor, gfactor, or expand or whatever other function that I found and I know that result is because maxima are rationalizing the polynomial before working with it but I don't need that behavior, I only need the pure factors, so, how can I have the result that I want?.
Thanks in advance for the help.
I use the scipy.optimize.minimize ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/tutorial/optimize.html ) function with method='L-BFGS-B.
An example of what it returns is here above:
fun: 32.372210618549758
hess_inv: <6x6 LbfgsInvHessProduct with dtype=float64>
jac: array([ -2.14583906e-04, 4.09272616e-04, -2.55795385e-05,
3.76587650e-05, 1.49213975e-04, -8.38440428e-05])
message: 'CONVERGENCE: REL_REDUCTION_OF_F_<=_FACTR*EPSMCH'
nfev: 420
nit: 51
status: 0
success: True
x: array([ 0.75739412, -0.0927572 , 0.11986434, 1.19911266, 0.27866406,
-0.03825225])
The x value correctly contains the fitted parameters. How do I compute the errors associated to those parameters?
TL;DR: You can actually place an upper bound on how precisely the minimization routine has found the optimal values of your parameters. See the snippet at the end of this answer that shows how to do it directly, without resorting to calling additional minimization routines.
The documentation for this method says
The iteration stops when (f^k - f^{k+1})/max{|f^k|,|f^{k+1}|,1} <= ftol.
Roughly speaking, the minimization stops when the value of the function f that you're minimizing is minimized to within ftol of the optimum. (This is a relative error if f is greater than 1, and absolute otherwise; for simplicity I'll assume it's an absolute error.) In more standard language, you'll probably think of your function f as a chi-squared value. So this roughly suggests that you would expect
Of course, just the fact that you're applying a minimization routine like this assumes that your function is well behaved, in the sense that it's reasonably smooth and the optimum being found is well approximated near the optimum by a quadratic function of the parameters xi:
where Δxi is the difference between the found value of parameter xi and its optimal value, and Hij is the Hessian matrix. A little (surprisingly nontrivial) linear algebra gets you to a pretty standard result for an estimate of the uncertainty in any quantity X that's a function of your parameters xi:
which lets us write
That's the most useful formula in general, but for the specific question here, we just have X = xi, so this simplifies to
Finally, to be totally explicit, let's say you've stored the optimization result in a variable called res. The inverse Hessian is available as res.hess_inv, which is a function that takes a vector and returns the product of the inverse Hessian with that vector. So, for example, we can display the optimized parameters along with the uncertainty estimates with a snippet like this:
ftol = 2.220446049250313e-09
tmp_i = np.zeros(len(res.x))
for i in range(len(res.x)):
tmp_i[i] = 1.0
hess_inv_i = res.hess_inv(tmp_i)[i]
uncertainty_i = np.sqrt(max(1, abs(res.fun)) * ftol * hess_inv_i)
tmp_i[i] = 0.0
print('x^{0} = {1:12.4e} ± {2:.1e}'.format(i, res.x[i], uncertainty_i))
Note that I've incorporated the max behavior from the documentation, assuming that f^k and f^{k+1} are basically just the same as the final output value, res.fun, which really ought to be a good approximation. Also, for small problems, you can just use np.diag(res.hess_inv.todense()) to get the full inverse and extract the diagonal all at once. But for large numbers of variables, I've found that to be a much slower option. Finally, I've added the default value of ftol, but if you change it in an argument to minimize, you would obviously need to change it here.
One approach to this common problem is to use scipy.optimize.leastsq after using minimize with 'L-BFGS-B' starting from the solution found with 'L-BFGS-B'. That is, leastsq will (normally) include and estimate of the 1-sigma errors as well as the solution.
Of course, that approach makes several assumption, including that leastsq can be used and may be appropriate for solving the problem. From a practical view, this requires the objective function return an array of residual values with at least as many elements as variables, not a cost function.
You may find lmfit (https://lmfit.github.io/lmfit-py/) useful here: It supports both 'L-BFGS-B' and 'leastsq' and gives a uniform wrapper around these and other minimization methods, so that you can use the same objective function for both methods (and specify how to convert the residual array into the cost function). In addition, parameter bounds can be used for both methods. This makes it very easy to first do a fit with 'L-BFGS-B' and then with 'leastsq', using the values from 'L-BFGS-B' as starting values.
Lmfit also provides methods to more explicitly explore confidence limits on parameter values in more detail, in case you suspect the simple but fast approach used by leastsq might be insufficient.
It really depends what you mean by "errors". There is no general answer to your question, because it depends on what you're fitting and what assumptions you're making.
The easiest case is one of the most common: when the function you are minimizing is a negative log-likelihood. In that case the inverse of the hessian matrix returned by the fit (hess_inv) is the covariance matrix describing the Gaussian approximation to the maximum likelihood.The parameter errors are the square root of the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix.
Beware that if you are fitting a different kind of function or are making different assumptions, then that doesn't apply.
I have implemented an algorithm that uses two other algorithms for calculating the shortest path in a graph: Dijkstra and Bellman-Ford. Based on the time complexity of the these algorithms, I can calculate the running time of my implementation, which is easy giving the code.
Now, I want to experimentally verify my calculation. Specifically, I want to plot the running time as a function of the size of the input (I am following the method described here). The problem is that I have two parameters - number of edges and number of vertices.
I have tried to fix one parameter and change the other, but this approach results in two plots - one for varying number of edges and the other for varying number of vertices.
This leads me to my question - how can I determine the order of growth based on two plots? In general, how can one experimentally determine the running time complexity of an algorithm that has more than one parameter?
It's very difficult in general.
The usual way you would experimentally gauge the running time in the single variable case is, insert a counter that increments when your data structure does a fundamental (putatively O(1)) operation, then take data for many different input sizes, and plot it on a log-log plot. That is, log T vs. log N. If the running time is of the form n^k you should see a straight line of slope k, or something approaching this. If the running time is like T(n) = n^{k log n} or something, then you should see a parabola. And if T is exponential in n you should still see exponential growth.
You can only hope to get information about the highest order term when you do this -- the low order terms get filtered out, in the sense of having less and less impact as n gets larger.
In the two variable case, you could try to do a similar approach -- essentially, take 3 dimensional data, do a log-log-log plot, and try to fit a plane to that.
However this will only really work if there's really only one leading term that dominates in most regimes.
Suppose my actual function is T(n, m) = n^4 + n^3 * m^3 + m^4.
When m = O(1), then T(n) = O(n^4).
When n = O(1), then T(n) = O(m^4).
When n = m, then T(n) = O(n^6).
In each of these regimes, "slices" along the plane of possible n,m values, a different one of the terms is the dominant term.
So there's no way to determine the function just from taking some points with fixed m, and some points with fixed n. If you did that, you wouldn't get the right answer for n = m -- you wouldn't be able to discover "middle" leading terms like that.
I would recommend that the best way to predict asymptotic growth when you have lots of variables / complicated data structures, is with a pencil and piece of paper, and do traditional algorithmic analysis. Or possibly, a hybrid approach. Try to break the question of efficiency into different parts -- if you can split the question up into a sum or product of a few different functions, maybe some of them you can determine in the abstract, and some you can estimate experimentally.
Luckily two input parameters is still easy to visualize in a 3D scatter plot (3rd dimension is the measured running time), and you can check if it looks like a plane (in log-log-log scale) or if it is curved. Naturally random variations in measurements plays a role here as well.
In Matlab I typically calculate a least-squares solution to two-variable function like this (just concatenates different powers and combinations of x and y horizontally, .* is an element-wise product):
x = log(parameter_x);
y = log(parameter_y);
% Find a least-squares fit
p = [x.^2, x.*y, y.^2, x, y, ones(length(x),1)] \ log(time)
Then this can be used to estimate running times for larger problem instances, ideally those would be confirmed experimentally to know that the fitted model works.
This approach works also for higher dimensions but gets tedious to generate, maybe there is a more general way to achieve that and this is just a work-around for my lack of knowledge.
I was going to write my own explanation but it wouldn't be any better than this.
Basically, I have a set of up to 100 co-ordinates, along with the desired tangents to the curve at the first and last point.
I have looked into various methods of curve-fitting, by which I mean an algorithm with takes the inputted data points and tangents, and outputs the equation of the cure, such as the gaussian method and interpolation, but I really struggled understanding them.
I am not asking for code (If you choose to give it, thats acceptable though :) ), I am simply looking for help into this algorithm. It will eventually be converted to Objective-C for an iPhone app, if that changes anything..
EDIT:
I know the order of all of the points. They are not too close together, so passing through all points is necessary - aka interpolation (unless anyone can suggest something else). And as far as I know, an algebraic curve is what I'm looking for. This is all being done on a 2D plane by the way
I'd recommend to consider cubic splines. There is some explanation and code to calculate them in plain C in Numerical Recipes book (chapter 3.3)
Most interpolation methods originally work with functions: given a set of x and y values, they compute a function which computes a y value for every x value, meeting the specified constraints. As a function can only ever compute a single y value for every x value, such an curve cannot loop back on itself.
To turn this into a real 2D setup, you want two functions which compute x resp. y values based on some parameter that is conventionally called t. So the first step is computing t values for your input data. You can usually get a good approximation by summing over euclidean distances: think about a polyline connecting all your points with straight segments. Then the parameter would be the distance along this line for every input pair.
So now you have two interpolation problem: one to compute x from t and the other y from t. You can formulate this as a spline interpolation, e.g. using cubic splines. That gives you a large system of linear equations which you can solve iteratively up to the desired precision.
The result of a spline interpolation will be a piecewise description of a suitable curve. If you wanted a single equation, then a lagrange interpolation would fit that bill, but the result might have odd twists and turns for many sets of input data.
I am computing a similarity matrix based on Euclidean distance in MATLAB. My code is as follows:
for i=1:N % M,N is the size of the matrix x for whose elements I am computing similarity matrix
for j=1:N
D(i,j) = sqrt(sum(x(:,i)-x(:,j)).^2)); % D is the similarity matrix
end
end
Can any help with optimizing this = reducing the for loops as my matrix x is of dimension 256x30000.
Thanks a lot!
--Aditya
The function to do so in matlab is called pdist. Unfortunately it is painfully slow and doesnt take Matlabs vectorization abilities into account.
The following is code I wrote for a project. Let me know what kind of speed up you get.
Qx=repmat(dot(x,x,2),1,size(x,1));
D=sqrt(Qx+Qx'-2*x*x');
Note though that this will only work if your data points are in the rows and your dimensions the columns. So for example lets say I have 256 data points and 100000 dimensions then on my mac using x=rand(256,100000) and the above code produces a 256x256 matrix in about half a second.
There's probably a better way to do it, but the first thing I noticed was that you could cut the runtime in half by exploiting the symmetry D(i,j)==D(i,j)
You can also use the function norm(x(:,i)-x(:,j),2)
I think this is what you're looking for.
D=zeros(N);
jIndx=repmat(1:N,N,1);iIndx=jIndx'; %'# fix SO's syntax highlighting
D(:)=sqrt(sum((x(iIndx(:),:)-x(jIndx(:),:)).^2,2));
Here, I have assumed that the distance vector, x is initalized as an NxM array, where M is the number of dimensions of the system and N is the number of points. So if your ordering is different, you'll have to make changes accordingly.
To start with, you are computing twice as much as you need to here, because D will be symmetric. You don't need to calculate the (i,j) entry and the (j,i) entry separately. Change your inner loop to for j=1:i, and add in the body of that loop D(j,i)=D(i,j);
After that, there's really not much redundancy left in what that code does, so your only room left for improvement is to parallelize it: if you have the Parallel Computing Toolbox, convert your outer loop to a parfor and before you run it, say matlabpool(n), where n is the number of threads to use.