Given a set of 2d data points with coordinates x and y (left picture), is there an easy way to construct a triangular mesh on top of it (right picture)? i.e. return a list of tuples that indicates which vertices are connected. The solution is not unique, but any reasonable mesh would suffice.
You can use scipy.spatial.Delaunay. Here is an example from the
import numpy as np
points = np.array([[-1,1],[-1.3, .6],[0,0],[.2,.8],[1,.85],[-.1,-.4],[.4,-.15],[.6,-.6],[.9,-.2]])
from scipy.spatial import Delaunay
tri = Delaunay(points)
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.triplot(points[:,0], points[:,1], tri.simplices)
plt.plot(points[:,0], points[:,1], 'o')
plt.show()
Here is the result on an input similar to yours:
The triangles are stored in the simplices attribute of the Delaunay object which reference the coordinates stored in the points attribute:
>>> tri.points
array([[-1. , 1. ],
[-1.3 , 0.6 ],
[ 0. , 0. ],
[ 0.2 , 0.8 ],
[ 1. , 0.85],
[-0.1 , -0.4 ],
[ 0.4 , -0.15],
[ 0.6 , -0.6 ],
[ 0.9 , -0.2 ]])
>>> tri.simplices
array([[5, 2, 1],
[0, 3, 4],
[2, 0, 1],
[3, 0, 2],
[8, 6, 7],
[6, 5, 7],
[5, 6, 2],
[6, 3, 2],
[3, 6, 4],
[6, 8, 4]], dtype=int32)
If you are looking for which vertices are connected, there is an attribute containing that info also:
>>> tri.vertex_neighbor_vertices
(array([ 0, 4, 7, 12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 33, 36], dtype=int32), array([3, 4, 2, 1, 5, 2, 0, 5, 1, 0, 3, 6, 0, 4, 2, 6, 0, 3, 6, 8, 2, 1,
6, 7, 8, 7, 5, 2, 3, 4, 8, 6, 5, 6, 7, 4], dtype=int32))
You can try scipy.spatial.Delaunay. From that link:
points = np.array([[0, 0], [0, 1.1], [1, 0], [1, 1]])
from scipy.spatial import Delaunay
tri = Delaunay(points)
plt.triplot(points[:,0], points[:,1], tri.simplices)
plt.plot(points[:,0], points[:,1], 'o')
plt.show()
Output:
I think Delanuay gives something closer to a convex hull. In OP's picture A is not connected to C, it is connected to B which is connected to C which gives a different shape.
One solution could be running Delanuay first then removing triangles whose angles exceed a certain degree, eg 90, or 100. A prelim code could look like
from scipy.spatial import Delaunay
points = [[101, 357], [198, 327], [316, 334], [ 58, 299], [162, 258], [217, 240], [310, 236], [153, 207], [257, 163]]
points = np.array(points)
tri = Delaunay(points,furthest_site=False)
newsimp = []
for t in tri.simplices:
A,B,C = points[t[0]],points[t[1]],points[t[2]]
e1 = B-A; e2 = C-A
num = np.dot(e1, e2)
denom = np.linalg.norm(e1) * np.linalg.norm(e2)
d1 = np.rad2deg(np.arccos(num/denom))
e1 = C-B; e2 = A-B
num = np.dot(e1, e2)
denom = np.linalg.norm(e1) * np.linalg.norm(e2)
d2 = np.rad2deg(np.arccos(num/denom))
d3 = 180-d1-d2
degs = np.array([d1,d2,d3])
if np.any(degs > 110): continue
newsimp.append(t)
plt.triplot(points[:,0], points[:,1], newsimp)
which gives the shape seen above. For more complicated shapes removing large sides could be necessary too,
for t in tri.simplices:
...
n1 = np.linalg.norm(e1); n2 = np.linalg.norm(e2)
...
res.append([n1,n2,d1,d2,d3])
res = np.array(res)
m = res[:,[0,1]].mean()*res[:,[0,1]].std()
mask = np.any(res[:,[2,3,4]] > 110) & (res[:,0] < m) & (res[:,1] < m )
plt.triplot(points[:,0], points[:,1], tri.simplices[mask])
Related
Given two arrays, a and b, how to find efficiently all combinations of elements in b that have equal value in a?
here is an example:
Given
a = [0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2]
b = [1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 3, 7, 22, 10]
how would you calculate
c = [[1, 2],
[1, 4],
[2, 4],
[5, 9],
[3, 7],
[3, 22],
[3, 10],
[7, 22],
[7, 10],
[22, 10]]
?
a can be assumed to be sorted.
I can do this with loops, a la:
import torch
a = torch.tensor([0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2])
b = torch.tensor([1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 3, 7, 22, 10])
jumps = torch.cat((torch.tensor([0]),
torch.where(a.diff() > 0)[0] + 1,
torch.tensor([len(a)])))
cs = []
for i in range(len(jumps) - 1):
cs.append(torch.combinations(b[jumps[i]:jumps[i + 1]]))
c = torch.cat(cs)
Is there any efficient way to avoid the loop? The solution should work for CPU and CUDA.
Also, the solution should have runtime O(m * m), where m is the largest number of equal elements in a and not O(n * n) where n is the length of of a.
I prefer solutions for pytorch, but I am curious for solution for numpy as well.
I think the overhead of using torch is only justified for bigger datasets, as there is basically no computational difficulty in the function, imho you can achieve same results with:
from collections import Counter
def find_combinations1(a, b):
count_a = Counter(a)
combinations = []
for x in set(b):
if count_a[x] == b.count(x):
combinations.append(x)
return combinations
or even a simpler:
def find_combinations2(a, b):
return list(set(a) & set(b))
With pytorch I assume the most simple approach is:
import torch
def find_combinations3(a, b):
a = torch.tensor(a)
b = torch.tensor(b)
eq = torch.eq(a, b.view(-1, 1))
indices = torch.nonzero(eq)
return indices[:, 1]
This option has of course a time complexity of O(n*m) where n is the size of a and m is the size of b, and O(n+m) is the memory for the tensors.
I have two arrays:
l1 = [2,1,5,6,1,2,4,5,6,1]
l2 = [7,8,4,1,3,4,8]
I want to plot a seaborn violinplot with different color per list (a separate violin for l1 and l2).
Is there a way to do so without creating a dataframe and pd.melt from them?
You can give the parameters to sns.violinplot() without provding a dataframe, as follows:
import seaborn as sns
l1 = [2, 1, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4]
l2 = [7, 8, 4, 1, 3, 4, 8]
flag = [0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1]
sns.violinplot(y=l1 + l2, x=["l1"]*len(l1) + ["l2"]*len(l2),
hue=flag + flag, palette=['crimson', 'cornflowerblue'])
To only use the l1 vs l2 information:
import seaborn as sns
l1 = [2, 1, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4]
l2 = [7, 8, 4, 1, 3, 4, 8]
sns.violinplot(y=l1 + l2, x=["l1"] * len(l1) + ["l2"] * len(l2), palette=['tomato', 'cornflowerblue'])
My question is how to make a vandermonde matrix. This is the definition:
In linear algebra, a Vandermonde matrix, named after Alexandre-Théophile Vandermonde, is a matrix with the terms of a geometric progression in each row, i.e., an m × n matrix
I would like to make a 4*4 version of this.
So farI have defined values but only for one row as follows
a=2
n=4
for a in range(n):
for i in range(n):
v.append(a**i)
v = np.array(v)
print(v)
I dont know how to scale this. Please help!
Given a starting column a of length m you can create a Vandermonde matrix v with n columns a**0 to a**(n-1)like so:
import numpy as np
m = 4
n = 4
a = range(1, m+1)
v = np.array([a]*n).T**range(n)
print(v)
#[[ 1 1 1 1]
# [ 1 2 4 8]
# [ 1 3 9 27]
# [ 1 4 16 64]]
As proposed by michael szczesny you could use numpy.vander.
But this will not be according to the definition on Wikipedia.
x = np.array([1, 2, 3, 5])
N = 4
np.vander(x, N)
#array([[ 1, 1, 1, 1],
# [ 8, 4, 2, 1],
# [ 27, 9, 3, 1],
# [125, 25, 5, 1]])
So, you'd have to use numpy.fliplr aswell:
x = np.array([1, 2, 3, 5])
N = 4
np.fliplr(np.vander(x, N))
#array([[ 1, 1, 1, 1],
# [ 1, 2, 4, 8],
# [ 1, 3, 9, 27],
# [ 1, 5, 25, 125]])
This could also be achieved without numpy using nested list comprehensions:
x = [1, 2, 3, 5]
N = 4
[[xi**i for i in range(N)] for xi in x]
# [[1, 1, 1, 1],
# [1, 2, 4, 8],
# [1, 3, 9, 27],
# [1, 5, 25, 125]]
# Vandermonde Matrix
def Vandermonde_Matrix(D, k):
'''
D = {(x_i,y_i): 0<=i<=n}
----------------
k degree
'''
n = len(D)
V = np.zeros(shape=(n, k))
for i in range(n):
V[i] = np.power(np.array(D[i][0]), np.arange(k))
return V
Lets say I have a Python Numpy array a.
a = numpy.array([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11])
I want to create a matrix of sub sequences from this array of length 5 with stride 3. The results matrix hence will look as follows:
numpy.array([[1,2,3,4,5],[4,5,6,7,8],[7,8,9,10,11]])
One possible way of implementing this would be using a for-loop.
result_matrix = np.zeros((3, 5))
for i in range(0, len(a), 3):
result_matrix[i] = a[i:i+5]
Is there a cleaner way to implement this in Numpy?
Approach #1 : Using broadcasting -
def broadcasting_app(a, L, S ): # Window len = L, Stride len/stepsize = S
nrows = ((a.size-L)//S)+1
return a[S*np.arange(nrows)[:,None] + np.arange(L)]
Approach #2 : Using more efficient NumPy strides -
def strided_app(a, L, S ): # Window len = L, Stride len/stepsize = S
nrows = ((a.size-L)//S)+1
n = a.strides[0]
return np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided(a, shape=(nrows,L), strides=(S*n,n))
Sample run -
In [143]: a
Out[143]: array([ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11])
In [144]: broadcasting_app(a, L = 5, S = 3)
Out[144]:
array([[ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5],
[ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8],
[ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]])
In [145]: strided_app(a, L = 5, S = 3)
Out[145]:
array([[ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5],
[ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8],
[ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]])
Starting in Numpy 1.20, we can make use of the new sliding_window_view to slide/roll over windows of elements.
And coupled with a stepping [::3], it simply becomes:
from numpy.lib.stride_tricks import sliding_window_view
# values = np.array([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11])
sliding_window_view(values, window_shape = 5)[::3]
# array([[ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5],
# [ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8],
# [ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]])
where the intermediate result of the sliding is:
sliding_window_view(values, window_shape = 5)
# array([[ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5],
# [ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6],
# [ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7],
# [ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8],
# [ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9],
# [ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10],
# [ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]])
Modified version of #Divakar's code with checking to ensure that memory is contiguous and that the returned array cannot be modified. (Variable names changed for my DSP application).
def frame(a, framelen, frameadv):
"""frame - Frame a 1D array
a - 1D array
framelen - Samples per frame
frameadv - Samples between starts of consecutive frames
Set to framelen for non-overlaping consecutive frames
Modified from Divakar's 10/17/16 11:20 solution:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40084931/taking-subarrays-from-numpy-array-with-given-stride-stepsize
CAVEATS:
Assumes array is contiguous
Output is not writable as there are multiple views on the same memory
"""
if not isinstance(a, np.ndarray) or \
not (a.flags['C_CONTIGUOUS'] or a.flags['F_CONTIGUOUS']):
raise ValueError("Input array a must be a contiguous numpy array")
# Output
nrows = ((a.size-framelen)//frameadv)+1
oshape = (nrows, framelen)
# Size of each element in a
n = a.strides[0]
# Indexing in the new object will advance by frameadv * element size
ostrides = (frameadv*n, n)
return np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided(a, shape=oshape,
strides=ostrides, writeable=False)
I have my X and Y numpy arrays:
X = np.array([0,1,2,3])
Y = np.array([0,1,2,3])
And my function which maps x,y values to Z points:
def z(x,y):
return x+y
I wish to produce the obvious thing required for a 3D plot: the 2-dimensional numpy array for the corresponding Z-values. I believe it should look like:
Z = np.array([[0, 1, 2, 3],
[1, 2, 3, 4],
[2, 3, 4, 5],
[3, 4, 5, 6]])
I can do this in several lines, but I'm looking for the briefest most elegant piece of code.
For a function that is array aware it is more economical to use an open grid:
>>> import numpy as np
>>>
>>> X = np.array([0,1,2,3])
>>> Y = np.array([0,1,2,3])
>>>
>>> def z(x,y):
... return x+y
...
>>> XX, YY = np.ix_(X, Y)
>>> XX, YY
(array([[0],
[1],
[2],
[3]]), array([[0, 1, 2, 3]]))
>>> z(XX, YY)
array([[0, 1, 2, 3],
[1, 2, 3, 4],
[2, 3, 4, 5],
[3, 4, 5, 6]])
If your grid axes are ranges you can directly create the grid using np.ogrid
>>> XX, YY = np.ogrid[:4, :4]
>>> XX, YY
(array([[0],
[1],
[2],
[3]]), array([[0, 1, 2, 3]]))
If the function is not array aware you can make it so using np.vectorize:
>>> def f(x, y):
... if x > y:
... return x
... else:
... return -x
...
>>> np.vectorize(f)(*np.ogrid[-3:4, -3:4])
array([[ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3],
[-2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2],
[-1, -1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1],
[ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[ 1, 1, 1, 1, -1, -1, -1],
[ 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, -2, -2],
[ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, -3]])
One very short way to achieve what you want is to produce a meshgrid from your coordinates:
X,Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
z = X+Y
or more general:
z = f(X,Y)
or even in one line:
z = f(*np.meshgrid(x,y))
EDIT:
If your function also may return a constant, you have to somehow infer the dimensions that the result should have. If you want to continue using meshgrids one very simple way would be re-write your function in this way:
def f(x,y):
return x*0+y*0+a
where a would be your constant. numpy would then take care of the dimensions for you. This is of course a bit weird looking, so instead you could write
def f(x,y):
return np.full(x.shape, a)
If you really want to go with functions that work both on scalars and arrays, it's probably best to go with np.vectorize as in #PaulPanzer's answer.