I am printing moving averages on a mplfinance plot, as expected there are gaps.
On most charting software, i.e. TradingView etc, they do not have gaps on the moving averages - and presume they are pulling the data from previous -n elements (even with a discontinuous jump they accept this).
I have two questions please:
How can I run a moving average without a gap (understanding it would
be skewed within n elements of the discontinuity)... i.e. pull in the day prior and use this for moving average calculation but do not display that day (so that the moving average will already be running on the left hand side of the plot - for below that would be startng at Dec 21st)?
If i wanted to calculate this moving average outside of mplfinance internal function (or change to exponential moving average etc) how would I go about adding this as a separate plot on top of the candlesticks?
And my code is below:
import mplfinance as mpf
import pandas as pd
from polygon import RESTClient
import yfinance as yf
import datetime
start = datetime.date(2021,12,21)
end = datetime.date(2021,12,23)
yfResults = yf.download("AAPL", start=start, end=end, period='1d', interval='5m')
mpf.plot(yfResults, type='candlestick', xrotation=0, style='yahoo', tight_layout=True, volume=True, mav=(9, 20), figratio=(48,24))
As you have implied, those systems that show no gap at the beginning of the moving average do so by using data prior to the data displayed as part of the moving average calculation. You can accomplish the same thing by setting kwarg xlim=(min,max) in your call to mpf.plot() by setting min equal to one less than your largest moving average, and max=len(data) ... so for example given your code above, do:
mpf.plot( yfResults, type='candlestick', xrotation=0, style='yahoo',
tight_layout=True, volume=True, mav=(9, 20), figratio=(48,24),
xlim=(19,len(yfResults)) )
You can calculate and plot any additional data using the mpf.make_addplot() api and the addplot kwarg. For further details, see https://github.com/matplotlib/mplfinance/blob/master/examples/addplot.ipynb
TL;DR: How can I get a subrange of a violinplot whilst keeping accurate quartile lines?
I am using seaborn violinplots to make static charts for a report, but as far as I can tell, there's no way to redraw a particular area between limits whilst retaining the 25/median/75 quartile lines of the original dataset.
Here's my example dataset as a violin. The 25/median/75 values are left side: 1.0/5.0/9.0; right side: 2.0/5.0/9.0
My data has such a long tail that all the useful info is scrunched up into a tiny area. I want to ignore (but not throw away) the tail and show a closer look at the interesting bit.
I tried to reset the ylim using ax.set(ylim=(0, upp)), but the resultant graph is not great: it's jaggy and the inner lines don't meet the violin edge.
Is there a way to reset the y-axis limits but get a better quality result?
Next I tried to cut off the tail by dropping values from the dataset. I dropped anything over the 97th centile. The violin looks way better, but the quartile lines have been recalculated for this new dataset. They're showing a median of about 4, not 5 as per the original dataset.
I'm using inner="quartile", so the code that gets called in Seaborn is _ViolinPlotter::draw_quartiles
def draw_quartiles(self, ax, data, support, density, center, split=False):
"""Draw the quartiles as lines at width of density."""
q25, q50, q75 = np.percentile(data, [25, 50, 75])
self.draw_to_density(ax, center, q25, support, density, split,
linewidth=self.linewidth,
dashes=[self.linewidth * 1.5] * 2)
As you can see, it assumes (understandably) that one wants to draw the quartile lines at percentiles 25, 50 and 75. It'd be amazeballs if there was a way I could call draw_to_density with my own values (is there?).
At the moment, I am attempting to manually adjust the position of the lines. It's trivial to figure out & set the y-values:
for l in ax.lines:
l.set_ydata(<get correct quartile value from original dataset>)
but I'm finding it hard to figure out the limits for x, i.e. the density of the distribution at the quartiles. It seems to involve gaussian kde, and tbh it's getting hacky and inelegant at this point. Is there an easy way to calculate how long each line should be?
What do you suggest?
Thanks for your help
Lnr
W/ Thanks to #JohanC.
added gridsize=1000 to the params of the violinplot and used ax.set(ylim=(0, upp)) to resize the y-axis to show the range from 0 to upp where upp is the upper limit. Much prettier lookin' graph:
I am wondering if there is a method to approach this problem.
The reason I need this is because for a certain trend of data I need to use a specific formula and for the next trend of the data I need to use a different formula.
Also, the data is not simple but there are two distinct slopes.
All data points are in excel cells.I haven't started the code yet. I am thinking about using (0,1,2,3,4) data points and finding slope and keep moving by 1 (1,2,3,4,5) then somehow calculate a difference in the 2 slopes and when they are significant. to call that the transition point
You may be able to reduce the problem to finding inflection points. This can be defined as point where the data flattens briefly to either resume a trend, change it (but in the same direction), or reverse it. You can do this by finding small time clusters with slope of zero. Or a better idea would be to divide your y data into horizontal bins. If a certain threshold of number of data points in a bin is reached, a change in trend is in progress. You can vary the inflection sensitivity by varying the bin size and/or varying the minimum number of points in a bin.
I am working on a program that needs to fit numerous cosine waves in order to determine one of the parameters for the function. The equation that I am using is y = y_0 + Acos((4*pi*L)/x + pi) where L is the value that I am trying to obtain from the best fit line.
I know that it is possible to do this correctly by hand for each set of data, but what is the best way to automate this process? I am currently reading in the data from text files, and running a loop with the initial paramiters changing until I have an array of paramater values that have an amplitude similar to the data, then I check the percent difference between points on the center peak and two end peaks to try to pick the best one. It in consistently picking lower values than what I get when fitting by hand (almost exactly one phase off). So is there a way to improve this method, or another method that works better?
Edit: My LabVIEW version has a cos fitting VI which is what I am using, the problem is when I try to automate the fitting by changing the initial parameters using a loop, I cant figure out how to get the program to pick the same best fit line as a human would pick.
Why not just use a Fast Fourier Transform? This should be way faster than fitting a cosine. In the result vector of complex numbers look for the largest peak of in the totals. You're given frequency (position in the FFT result vector), amplitude and phase.
You can evaluate the goodness of the fit by computing the difference between fitting curve and your data. A VI does this in the "Advanced curve fitting" palette. Then all you have to do is pick up the best fit.
I've got a GPS track produced by gpxlogger(1) (supplied as a client for gpsd). GPS receiver updates its coordinates every 1 second, gpxlogger's logic is very simple, it writes down location (lat, lon, ele) and a timestamp (time) received from GPS every n seconds (n = 3 in my case).
After writing down a several hours worth of track, gpxlogger saves several megabyte long GPX file that includes several thousands of points. Afterwards, I try to plot this track on a map and use it with OpenLayers. It works, but several thousands of points make using the map a sloppy and slow experience.
I understand that having several thousands of points of suboptimal. There are myriads of points that can be deleted without losing almost anything: when there are several points making up roughly the straight line and we're moving with the same constant speed between them, we can just leave the first and the last point and throw away anything else.
I thought of using gpsbabel for such track simplification / optimization job, but, alas, it's simplification filter works only with routes, i.e. analyzing only geometrical shape of path, without timestamps (i.e. not checking that the speed was roughly constant).
Is there some ready-made utility / library / algorithm available to optimize tracks? Or may be I'm missing some clever option with gpsbabel?
Yes, as mentioned before, the Douglas-Peucker algorithm is a straightforward way to simplify 2D connected paths. But as you have pointed out, you will need to extend it to the 3D case to properly simplify a GPS track with an inherent time dimension associated with every point. I have done so for a web application of my own using a PHP implementation of Douglas-Peucker.
It's easy to extend the algorithm to the 3D case with a little understanding of how the algorithm works. Say you have input path consisting of 26 points labeled A to Z. The simplest version of this path has two points, A and Z, so we start there. Imagine a line segment between A and Z. Now scan through all remaining points B through Y to find the point furthest away from the line segment AZ. Say that point furthest away is J. Then, you scan the points between B and I to find the furthest point from line segment AJ and scan points K through Y to find the point furthest from segment JZ, and so on, until the remaining points all lie within some desired distance threshold.
This will require some simple vector operations. Logically, it's the same process in 3D as in 2D. If you find a Douglas-Peucker algorithm implemented in your language, it might have some 2D vector math implemented, and you'll need to extend those to use 3 dimensions.
You can find a 3D C++ implementation here: 3D Douglas-Peucker in C++
Your x and y coordinates will probably be in degrees of latitude/longitude, and the z (time) coordinate might be in seconds since the unix epoch. You can resolve this discrepancy by deciding on an appropriate spatial-temporal relationship; let's say you want to view one day of activity over a map area of 1 square mile. Imagining this relationship as a cube of 1 mile by 1 mile by 1 day, you must prescale the time variable. Conversion from degrees to surface distance is non-trivial, but for this case we simplify and say one degree is 60 miles; then one mile is .0167 degrees. One day is 86400 seconds; then to make the units equivalent, our prescale factor for your timestamp is .0167/86400, or about 1/5,000,000.
If, say, you want to view the GPS activity within the same 1 square mile map area over 2 days instead, time resolution becomes half as important, so scale it down twice further, to 1/10,000,000. Have fun.
Have a look at Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm for smoothening complex polygons, also Douglas-Peucker line simplification algorithm can help you reduce your points.
OpenSource GeoKarambola java library (no Android dependencies but can be used in Android) that includes a GpxPathManipulator class that does both route & track simplification/reduction (3D/elevation aware).
If the points have timestamp information that will not be discarded.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/geokarambola/
This is the algorith in action, interactively
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hvHFyZfcY58/Vsye7nVrmiI/AAAAAAAAHdg/2-NFVfofbd4ShZcvtyCDpi2vXoYkZVFlQ/w360-h640-no/movie360x640_05_82_05.gif
This algorithm is based on reducing the number of points by eliminating those that have the greatest XTD (cross track distance) error until a tolerated error is satisfied or the maximum number of points is reached (both parameters of the function), wichever comes first.
An alternative algorithm, for on-the-run stream like track simplification (I call it "streamplification") is:
you keep a small buffer of the points the GPS sensor gives you, each time a GPS point is added to the buffer (elevation included) you calculate the max XTD (cross track distance) of all the points in the buffer to the line segment that unites the first point with the (newly added) last point of the buffer. If the point with the greatest XTD violates your max tolerated XTD error (25m has given me great results) then you cut the buffer at that point, register it as a selected point to be appended to the streamplified track, trim the trailing part of the buffer up to that cut point, and keep going. At the end of the track the last point of the buffer is also added/flushed to the solution.
This algorithm is lightweight enough that it runs on an AndroidWear smartwatch and gives optimal output regardless of if you move slow or fast, or stand idle at the same place for a long time. The ONLY thing that maters is the SHAPE of your track. You can go for many minutes/kilometers and, as long as you are moving in a straight line (a corridor within +/- tolerated XTD error deviations) the streamplify algorithm will only output 2 points: those of the exit form last curve and entry on next curve.
I ran in to a similar issue. The rate at which the gps unit takes points is much larger that needed. Many of the points are not geographically far away from each other. The approach that I took is to calculate the distance between the points using the haversine formula. If the distance was not larger than my threshold (0.1 miles in my case) I threw away the point. This quickly gets the number of points down to a manageable size.
I don't know what language you are looking for. Here is a C# project that I was working on. At the bottom you will find the haversine code.
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/09/gps-using-the-netduino/
Hope this gets you going.
Bob
This is probably NP-hard. Suppose you have points A, B, C, D, E.
Let's try a simple deterministic algorithm. Suppose you calculate the distance from point B to line A-C and it's smaller than your threshold (1 meter). So you delete B. Then you try the same for C to line A-D, but it's bigger and D for C-E, which is also bigger.
But it turns out that the optimal solution is A, B, E, because point C and D are close to the line B-E, yet on opposite sides.
If you delete 1 point, you cannot be sure that it should be a point that you should keep, unless you try every single possible solution (which can be n^n in size, so on n=80 that's more than the minimum number of atoms in the known universe).
Next step: try a brute force or branch and bound algorithm. Doesn't scale, doesn't work for real-world size. You can safely skip this step :)
Next step: First do a determinstic algorithm and improve upon that with a metaheuristic algorithm (tabu search, simulated annealing, genetic algorithms). In java there are a couple of open source implementations, such as Drools Planner.
All in all, you 'll probably have a workable solution (although not optimal) with the first simple deterministic algorithm, because you only have 1 constraint.
A far cousin of this problem is probably the Traveling Salesman Problem variant in which the salesman cannot visit all cities but has to select a few.
You want to throw away uninteresting points. So you need a function that computes how interesting a point is, then you can compute how interesting all the points are and throw away the N least interesting points, where you choose N to slim the data set sufficiently. It sounds like your definition of interesting corresponds to high acceleration (deviation from straight-line motion), which is easy to compute.
Try this, it's free and opensource online Service:
https://opengeo.tech/maps/gpx-simplify-optimizer/
I guess you need to keep points where you change direction. If you split your track into the set of intervals of constant direction, you can leave only boundary points of these intervals.
And, as Raedwald pointed out, you'll want to leave points where your acceleration is not zero.
Not sure how well this will work, but how about taking your list of points, working out the distance between them and therefore the total distance of the route and then deciding on a resolution distance and then just linear interpolating the position based on each step of x meters. ie for each fix you have a "distance from start" measure and you just interpolate where n*x is for your entire route. (you could decide how many points you want and divide the total distance by this to get your resolution distance). On top of this you could add a windowing function taking maybe the current point +/- z points and applying a weighting like exp(-k* dist^2/accuracy^2) to get the weighted average of a set of points where dist is the distance from the raw interpolated point and accuracy is the supposed accuracy of the gps position.
One really simple method is to repeatedly remove the point that creates the largest angle (in the range of 0° to 180° where 180° means it's on a straight line between its neighbors) between its neighbors until you have few enough points. That will start off removing all points that are perfectly in line with their neighbors and will go from there.
You can do that in Ο(n log(n)) by making a list of each index and its angle, sorting that list in descending order of angle, keeping how many you need from the front of the list, sorting that shorter list in descending order of index, and removing the indexes from the list of points.
def simplify_points(points, how_many_points_to_remove)
angle_map = Array.new
(2..points.length - 1).each { |next_index|
removal_list.add([next_index - 1, angle_between(points[next_index - 2], points[next_index - 1], points[next_index])])
}
removal_list = removal_list.sort_by { |index, angle| angle }.reverse
removal_list = removal_list.first(how_many_points_to_remove)
removal_list = removal_list.sort_by { |index, angle| index }.reverse
removal_list.each { |index| points.delete_at(index) }
return points
end