Skip to main content

plotting - Thickness of logarithmic tick marks



Bug introduced in 8 or earlier and persisting through 12.0



I'm trying to plot a graph wit a logarithmic y-axis. Since I'm exporting the graph to pdf and later printing it, I want to manually set the frame and tick marks to a reasonable thickness. However the logarithmic tick marks do not change their thickness.


(Note: I exaggerated the thickness of the tick marks on purpose to illustrate my point.)


LogPlot[x^2, {x, 1, 3}, PlotStyle -> Red, Frame -> True,
FrameStyle -> Directive[Black, AbsoluteThickness[2]],
FrameTicksStyle -> Directive[Black, AbsoluteThickness[2]]
]

Plot with Logarithmic Ticks



I'm working with Mathematica 10 on Mac OS X 10.9.4. In Mathematica Version 9 the logarithmic tick marks change their thickness as expected.


Can anyone reproduce this behavior? Is this a bug or did the FrameTicksStyle change in Mathematica 10?



Answer



Reproduced in v.10.0.0 under Win7 x64. In versions 8.0.4 and 9.0.1 the behavior differs in details but the bug is also present: only major logarithmic frame ticks change their thickness, but not minor ticks.


Let us elaborate. First of all, in v.10 the logarithmic tick specifications are generated dynamically when the plot is rendered by the FrontEnd by calling Charting`ScaledTicks and Charting`ScaledFrameTicks:


LogPlot[x^2, {x, 1, 3}, Frame -> True];
Options[%, FrameTicks]    


{FrameTicks -> {{Charting`ScaledTicks[{Log, Exp}], 

    Charting`ScaledFrameTicks[{Log, Exp}]}, {Automatic, Automatic}}}

Here is what these functions return (I have shortened the output for readability):


Charting`ScaledTicks[{Log, Exp}][1, 10]


{{2.30259, 10, {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{4.60517, 100, {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{6.90776, 1000, {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{9.21034, Superscript[10,4], {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 

{0., Spacer[{0, 0}], {0.005, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{0.693147, Spacer[{0, 0}], {0.005, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}}

It is clear that the thickness specifications are already included and have higher priorities than the FrameTicksStyle directive. That is the reason why the latter has no effect.


So this behavior reflects inconsistent implementation of Charting`ScaledTicks and Charting`ScaledFrameTicks which should NOT include styling into the tick specifications they generate. It is a bug.


Here is a function fixLogPlot which fixes this:


fixLogPlot[gr_] := 
  Show[gr, FrameTicks -> {{# /. _AbsoluteThickness :> (## &[]) &@*
       Charting`ScaledTicks[{Log, 
         Exp}], # /. _AbsoluteThickness :> (## &[]) &@*

       Charting`ScaledFrameTicks[{Log, Exp}]}, {Automatic, 
      Automatic}}];

fixLogPlot@
 LogPlot[x^2, {x, 1, 3}, Frame -> True, 
  FrameTicksStyle -> Directive[Black, AbsoluteThickness[2]]]

plot


UPDATE


Here is universal fix for version 10 which works for all types of log plots:



fixLogPlots[gr_] := 
 gr /. f : (Charting`ScaledTicks | Charting`ScaledFrameTicks)[{Log, Exp}] :>
                                                   (Part[#, ;; , ;; 3] &@*f)

UPDATE 2


And here is universal fix for versions 8 and 9:


fixLogPlots[gr_] := gr /. f : (Ticks | FrameTicks -> _) :> (f /. _Thickness :> (## &[]))

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...
Post a Comment
Read more

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...
Post a Comment
Read more

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?
Post a Comment
Read more