Skip to main content

Improved interpolation of mostly-structured 3d data


This question arose in response to a comment by Leonid to my answer for this question. He noted that for unstructured grids, Interpolation can only use InterpolationOrder->1. For example:


data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2}, {x, -10, 10}, {y, -10, 10}], 1];
dataDelete = Delete[data, RandomInteger[{1, Length[data]}]]
intD = Interpolation[dataDelete]
(* Interpolation::udeg: Interpolation on unstructured grids is currently only supported for InterpolationOrder->1 or InterpolationOrder->All. Order will be reduced to 1. *)


which gives a result much worse than All-order Interpolation. So, here's my question:


For data that is largely structured, but is missing one (or a few?) grid points, is there any way to figure out where the grid is missing points? This would allow you to first use linear interpolation to find a good guess for the value of the function at the missing grid points, then add that grid point to the dataset, only to interpolate the whole thing after. Then the error in the interpolation will be localized to the reconstructed region. Something like


dataReconstructed=Append[dataDelete,Sequence @@ Flatten@{#, intD @@ #} & /@missingcoords]
intReconstructed = Interpolation[dataReconstructed]

A manual example:


todelete = RandomInteger[{1, Length[data]}];
dataDelete = Delete[data, todelete];
intD = Interpolation[dataDelete]
missingcoords = {data[[todelete, {1, 2}]]}


dataReconstructed = Append[dataDelete,Sequence @@ Flatten@{#, intD @@ #} & /@missingcoords]
intReconstructed = Interpolation[dataReconstructed]

Comparing these two methods using exact[x_, y_] := x^2 + y^2:


Plot3D[intD[x, y] - exact[x, y], {x, -10, 10}, {y, -10, 10}]

Mathematica graphics


has differences all over the interpolated region, worse at the missing point. But:


Plot3D[intReconstructed[x, y] - exact[x, y], {x, -10, 10}, {y, -10, 10}]


Mathematica graphics


is much better everywhere except for the missing points.


In order to do this for a set where I don't know which grid points are missing, is there a way to figure out where the missing grid points are in a mostly structured grid?



Answer



How to figure out where the missing grid points are... This maybe not as robust as it gets


Take your data


data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2}, {x, -10, 10}, {y, -10, 10}], 
   1];
dataDelete = Delete[data, RandomInteger[{1, Length[data]}]];


and extract the domain coordinates


d = dataDelete[[All, ;; -2]];

Choose the step to be the commonest of the differences in each direction


step = #2@
     First@Commonest[
       Join @@ Differences /@ Sort /@ GatherBy[d, #]] & @@@ {
    {First, Last},
    {Last, First}

   };

Choose the range, the limits, to be the minimum and maximum of all rows and coloumns


limits = Through@{Min, Max}[#] & /@ Transpose@d;

Take the complement of a perfect grid and your data grid


Complement[Tuples[Range @@ Transpose@limits], d]

I got {{-3, 6}}


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more