# The Stingray Modeling API Explained¶

Some more in-depth explanations of how the Stingray modeling API works.

Who should be using this API? Basically, anyone who wants to model power spectral products with parametric functions. The purpose of this API is two-fold: (1) provide convenient methods and classes in order to model a large range of typical data representations implemented in Stingray (2) provide a more general framework for users to build their own models

A note on terminology: in this tutorial, we largely use model to denote both the parametric model describing the underlying process that generated the data, and the statistical model used to account for uncertainties in the measurement process.

The modeling subpackage defines a wider range of classes for typical statistical models than most standard modelling packages in X-ray astronomy, including likelihoods for Gaussian-distributed uncertainties (what astronomers call the $$\chi^2$$ likelihood), Poisson-distributed data (e.g. light curves) and $$\chi^2$$-distributed data (confusingly, not what astronomers call the $$\chi^2$$ likelihood, but the likelihood of data with $$\chi^2$$-distributed uncertainties appropriate for power spectra). It also defines a superclass LogLikelihood that make extending the framework to other types of data uncertainties straightforward. It supports Bayesian modelling via the Posterior class and its subclasses (for different types of data, equivalent to the likelihood classes) and provides support for defining priors.

The class ParameterEstimation and its data type-specific subclasses implement a range of operations usually done with power spectra and other products, including optimization (fitting), sampling (via Markov-Chain Monte Carlo), calibrating models comparison metrics (particularly likelihood ratio tests) and outlier statistics (for finding periodic signal candidates).

Overall, it is designed to be as modular as possible and extensible to new data types and problems in many places, though we do explicitly not aim to provide a fully general modelling framework (for example, at the moment, we have given no thought to modeling multi-variate data, though this may change in the future).

## Some background¶

Modeling power spectra and light curves with parametric models is a fairly standard task. Stingray aims to make solving these problems as easy as possible.

We aim to integrate our existing code with astropy.modeling for for maximum compatibility. Please note, however, that we are only using the models, not the fitting interface, which is too constrained for our purposes.

[1]:

%load_ext autoreload
# ignore warnings to make notebook easier to see online
# COMMENT OUT THESE LINES FOR ACTUAL ANALYSIS
import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings("ignore")

[2]:

%matplotlib inline
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

try:
import seaborn as sns
sns.set_palette("colorblind")
except ImportError:

import numpy as np

from astropy.modeling import models


The models and API of astropy.modeling.models is explained in the astropy documentation in more detail.

Here’s how you instantiate a simple 1-D Gaussian:

[3]:

g = models.Gaussian1D()

[4]:

# Generate fake data
np.random.seed(0)
x = np.linspace(-5., 5., 200)
y = 3 * np.exp(-0.5 * (x - 1.3)**2 / 0.8**2)
y += np.random.normal(0., 0.2, x.shape)
yerr = 0.2

plt.figure(figsize=(8,5))
plt.errorbar(x, y, yerr=yerr, fmt='ko')


[4]:

<ErrorbarContainer object of 3 artists>


## Likelihoods and Posteriors¶

In general, model fitting will happen either in a frequentist (Maximum Likelihood) or Bayesian framework. Stingray’s strategy is to let the user define a posterior in both cases, but ignore the prior in the former case.

Let’s first make some fake data:

[5]:

# define power law component
pl = models.PowerLaw1D()

# fix x_0 of power law component
pl.x_0.fixed = True

# define constant
c = models.Const1D()

# make compound model
plc = pl + c


We’re going to pick some fairly standard parameters for our data:

[6]:

# parameters for fake data.
alpha = 2.0
amplitude = 5.0
white_noise = 2.0


And now a frequency array:

[7]:

freq = np.linspace(0.01, 10.0, int(10.0/0.01))


Now we can set the parameters in the model:

[8]:

from astropy.modeling.fitting import _fitter_to_model_params

_fitter_to_model_params(plc, [amplitude, alpha, white_noise])


[9]:

psd_shape = plc(freq)


As a last step, we need to add noise by picking from a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of freedom:

[10]:

powers = psd_shape*np.random.chisquare(2, size=psd_shape.shape[0])/2.0


Let’s plot the result:

[11]:

plt.figure(figsize=(12,7))
plt.loglog(freq, powers, ds="steps-mid", label="periodogram realization")
plt.loglog(freq, psd_shape, label="power spectrum")

plt.legend()

[11]:

<matplotlib.legend.Legend at 0x7ff22998cfd0>


## Maximum Likelihood Fitting¶

Let’s assume we’ve observed this periodogram from our source. We would now like to estimate the parameters. This requires the definition of likelihood, which describes the probability of observing the data plotted above given some underlying model with a specific set of parameters. To say it differently, the likelihood encodes what we know about the underlying model (here a power law and a constant) and the statistical properties of the data (power spectra generally follow a chi-square distribution) and then allows us to compare data and model for various parameters under the assumption of the statistical uncertainties.

In order to find the best parameter set, one generally maximizes the likelihood function using an optimization algorithm. Because optimization algorithms generally minimize functions, they effectively minimize the log-likelihood, which comes out to be the same as maximizing the likelihood itself.

Below is an implementation of the $$\chi^2$$ likelihood as appropriate for power spectral analysis, with comments for easier understanding. The same is also implemented in posterior.py in Stingray:

[12]:

logmin = -1e16
class PSDLogLikelihood(object):

def __init__(self, freq, power, model, m=1):
"""
A Chi-square likelihood as appropriate for power spectral analysis.

Parameters
----------
freq : iterable
x-coordinate of the data

power : iterable
y-coordinte of the data

model: an Astropy Model instance
The model to use in the likelihood.

m : int
1/2 of the degrees of freedom, i.e. the number of powers
that were averaged to obtain the power spectrum input into
this routine.

"""

self.x = ps.freq # the x-coordinate of the data (frequency array)
self.y = ps.power # the y-coordinate of the data (powers)
self.model = model # an astropy.models instance
self.m = m

self.params = [k for k,l in self.model.fixed.items() if not l]
self.npar = len(self.params) # number of free parameters

def evaluate(self, pars, neg=False):
"""
Evaluate the log-likelihood.

Parameters
----------
pars : iterable
The list of parameters for which to evaluate the model.

neg : bool, default False
If True, compute the *negative* log-likelihood, otherwise
compute the *positive* log-likelihood.

Returns
-------
loglike : float
The log-likelihood of the model

"""
# raise an error if the length of the parameter array input into
# this method doesn't match the number of free parameters in the model
if np.size(pars) != self.npar:
raise Exception("Input parameters must" +
" match model parameters!")

# set parameters in self.model to the parameter set to be used for
# evaluation
_fitter_to_model_params(self.model, pars)

# compute the values of the model at the positions self.x
mean_model = self.model(self.x)

# if the power spectrum isn't averaged, compute simple exponential
# likelihood (chi-square likelihood for 2 degrees of freedom)
if self.m == 1:
loglike = -np.sum(np.log(mean_model)) - \
np.sum(self.y/mean_model)
# otherwise use chi-square distribution to compute likelihood
else:
loglike = -2.0*self.m*(np.sum(np.log(mean_model)) +
np.sum(self.y/mean_model) +
np.sum((2.0 / (2. * self.m) - 1.0) *
np.log(self.y)))

if not np.isfinite(loglike):
loglike = logmin

if neg:
return -loglike
else:
return loglike

def __call__(self, parameters, neg=False):
return self.evaluate(parameters, neg)



Let’s make an object and see what it calculates if we put in different parameter sets. First, we have to make our sample PSD into an actual Powerspectrum object:

[13]:

from stingray import Powerspectrum

ps = Powerspectrum()
ps.freq = freq
ps.power = powers
ps.df = ps.freq[1] - ps.freq[0]
ps.m = 1

[14]:

loglike = PSDLogLikelihood(ps.freq, ps.power, plc, m=ps.m)

[15]:

test_pars = [1, 5, 100]
loglike(test_pars)

[15]:

-4835.88214847462

[16]:

test_pars = [4.0, 10, 2.5]
loglike(test_pars)

[16]:

-2869.5582486265116

[17]:

test_pars = [2.0, 5.0, 2.0]
loglike(test_pars)

[17]:

-2375.704120812954


Something close to the parameters we put in should yield the largest log-likelihood. Feel free to play around with the test parameters to verify that this is true.

You can similarly import the PSDLogLikelihood class from stingray.modeling and do the same:

[18]:

from stingray.modeling import PSDLogLikelihood

loglike = PSDLogLikelihood(ps.freq, ps.power, plc, m=ps.m)
loglike(test_pars)

[18]:

-2375.704120812954


To estimate the parameters, we can use an optimization routine, such as those implemented in scipy.optimize.minimize. We have wrapped some code around that, to make your lives easier. We will not reproduce the full code here, just demonstrate its functionality.

Now we can instantiate the PSDParEst (for PSD Parameter Estimation) object. This can do more than simply optimize a single model, but we’ll get to that later.

The PSDParEst object allows one to specify the fit method to use (however, this must be one of the optimizers in scipy.optimize). The parameter max_post allows for doing maximum-a-posteriori fits on the Bayesian posterior rather than maximum likelihood fits (see below for more details). We’ll set it to False for now, since we haven’t defined any priors:

[19]:

from stingray.modeling import PSDParEst

parest = PSDParEst(ps, fitmethod="L-BFGS-B", max_post=False)


In order to fit a model, make an instance of the appropriate LogLikelihood or Posterior subclass, andsimply call the fit method with that instance and starting parameters you would like to fit.

[20]:

loglike = PSDLogLikelihood(ps.freq, ps.power, plc, m=ps.m)

[21]:

loglike.model.parameters

[21]:

array([2., 1., 5., 2.])

[22]:

loglike.npar

[22]:

3

[23]:

starting_pars = [3.0, 1.0, 2.4]
res = parest.fit(loglike, starting_pars)


The result is an OptimizationResults object, which computes various summaries and useful quantities.

For example, here’s the value of the likelihood function at the maximum the optimizer found:

[24]:

res.result

[24]:

2183.789677035487


Note: Optimizers routinely get stuck in local minima (corresponding to local maxima of the likelihood function). It is usually useful to run an optimizer several times with different starting parameters in order to get close to the global maximum.

Most useful are the estimates of the parameters at the maximum likelihood and their uncertainties:

[25]:

print(res.p_opt)
print(res.err)

[4.72916493 2.09193061 2.10372265]
[3.78311696 0.7300253  0.55312843]


Note: uncertainties are estimated here via the covariance matrix between parameters, i.e. the inverse of the Hessian at the maximum. This only represents the true uncertainties for specific assumptions about the likelihood function (Gaussianity), so use with care!

It also computes Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for model comparison purposes:

[26]:

print("AIC: " + str(res.aic))
print("BIC: " + str(res.bic))

AIC: 2189.789677035487
BIC: 2204.512942872433


Finally, it also produces the values of the mean function for the parameters at the maximum. Let’s plot that and compare with the power spectrum we put in:

[27]:

plt.figure(figsize=(12,8))
plt.loglog(ps.freq, psd_shape, label="true power spectrum",lw=3)
plt.loglog(ps.freq, ps.power, label="simulated data")
plt.loglog(ps.freq, res.mfit, label="best fit", lw=3)
plt.legend()

[27]:

<matplotlib.legend.Legend at 0x7ff259161910>


That looks pretty good!

You can print a summary of the fitting results by calling print_summary:

[28]:

res.print_summary(loglike)

The best-fit model parameters plus errors are:
0) Parameter amplitude_0         :
4.72916              +/- 3.78312
[      None       None]
1) Parameter x_0_0               :
1.00000              (Fixed)
2) Parameter alpha_0             :
2.09193              +/- 0.73003
[      None       None]
3) Parameter amplitude_1         :
2.10372              +/- 0.55313
[      None       None]

Fitting statistics:
-- number of data points: 1000
-- Deviance [-2 log L] D = 4367.579354.3
-- The Akaike Information Criterion of the model is: 2189.789677035487.
-- The Bayesian Information Criterion of the model is: 2204.512942872433.
-- The figure-of-merit function for this model  is: 1079.682849.5f and the fit for 997 dof is 1.082932.3f
-- Summed Residuals S = 69267.121618.5f
-- Expected S ~ 6000.000000.5 +/- 109.544512.5


### Likelihood Ratios¶

The parameter estimation code has more functionality than act as a simple wrapper around scipy.optimize. For example, it allows for easy computation of likelihood ratios. Likelihood ratios are a standard way to perform comparisons between two models (though they are not always statistically meaningful, and should be used with caution!).

To demonstrate that, let’s make a broken power law model

[29]:

# broken power law model
bpl = models.BrokenPowerLaw1D()

bplc = bpl + c

[30]:

bplc.param_names

[30]:

('amplitude_0', 'x_break_0', 'alpha_1_0', 'alpha_2_0', 'amplitude_1')

[31]:

# define starting parameters
bplc_start_pars = [2.0, 1.0, 3.0, 1.0, 2.5]

[32]:

loglike_bplc = PSDLogLikelihood(ps.freq, ps.power, bplc, m=ps.m)

[33]:

pval, plc_opt, bplc_opt = parest.compute_lrt(loglike, starting_pars, loglike_bplc, bplc_start_pars)

[34]:

print("Likelihood Ratio: " + str(pval))

Likelihood Ratio: 2.2374827070098036


## Bayesian Parameter Estimation¶

For Bayesian parameter estimation, we require a prior along with the likelihood defined above. Together, they form the posterior, the probability of the parameters given the data, which is what we generally want to compute in science.

Since there are no universally accepted priors for a model (they depend on the problem at hand and your physical knowledge about the system), they cannot be easily hard-coded in stingray. Consequently, setting priors is slightly more complex.

Analogously to the LogLikelihood above, we can also define a Posterior object. Each posterior object has three methods: logprior, loglikelihood and logposterior.

We have pre-defined some Posterior objects in posterior.py for common problems, including power spectral analysis. We start by making a PSDPosterior object:

[35]:

from stingray.modeling import PSDPosterior

[36]:

lpost = PSDPosterior(ps.freq, ps.power, plc, m=ps.m)


The priors are set as a dictionary of functions:

[37]:

import scipy.stats

# flat prior for the power law index
p_alpha = lambda alpha: ((-1. <= alpha) & (alpha <= 5.))

# flat prior for the power law amplitude
p_amplitude = lambda amplitude: ((0.01 <= amplitude) & (amplitude <= 10.0))

# normal prior for the white noise parameter
p_whitenoise = lambda white_noise: scipy.stats.norm(2.0, 0.1).pdf(white_noise)

priors = {}
priors["alpha_0"] = p_alpha
priors["amplitude_0"] = p_amplitude
priors["amplitude_1"] = p_whitenoise



There’s a function set_logprior in stingray.modeling that sets the prior correctly:

[38]:

from stingray.modeling import set_logprior

[39]:

lpost.logprior = set_logprior(lpost, priors)


You can also set the priors when you instantiate the posterior object:

[40]:

lpost = PSDPosterior(ps.freq, ps.power, plc, priors=priors, m=ps.m)


Much like before with the log-likelihood, we can now also compute the log-posterior for various test parameter sets:

[41]:

test_pars = [1.0, 2.0, 4.0]
print("log-prior: " + str(lpost.logprior(test_pars)))
print("log-likelihood: " + str(lpost.loglikelihood(test_pars)))
print("log-posterior: " + str(lpost(test_pars)))

log-prior: -198.61635344021062
log-likelihood: -2412.2493594640564
log-posterior: -2610.865712904267


When the prior is zero (so the log-prior is -infinity), it automatically gets set to a very small value in order to avoid problems when doing the optimization:

[42]:

test_pars = [6, 6, 3.0]
print("log-prior: " + str(lpost.logprior(test_pars)))
print("log-likelihood: " + str(lpost.loglikelihood(test_pars)))
print("log-posterior: " + str(lpost(test_pars)))

log-prior: -1e+16
log-likelihood: -2534.0567826161864
log-posterior: -1e+16

[43]:

test_pars = [5.0, 2.0, 2.0]
print("log-prior: " + str(lpost.logprior(test_pars)))
print("log-likelihood: " + str(lpost.loglikelihood(test_pars)))
print("log-posterior: " + str(lpost(test_pars)))

log-prior: 1.383646559789373
log-likelihood: -2184.6739536386162
log-posterior: -2183.290307078827


We can do the same parameter estimation as above, except now it’s called maximum-a-posteriori instead of maximum likelihood and includes the prior (notice we set max_post=True):

[44]:

parest = PSDParEst(ps, fitmethod='BFGS', max_post=True)
res = parest.fit(lpost, starting_pars)

[45]:

print("best-fit parameters:")
for p,e in zip(res.p_opt, res.err):
print("%.4f +/- %.4f"%(p,e))

best-fit parameters:
4.8949 +/- 0.0762
2.0690 +/- 0.0636
2.0547 +/- 0.0149


The same outputs exist as for the Maximum Likelihood case:

[46]:

res.print_summary(lpost)

The best-fit model parameters plus errors are:
0) Parameter amplitude_0         :
4.89491              +/- 0.07623
[      None       None]
1) Parameter x_0_0               :
1.00000              (Fixed)
2) Parameter alpha_0             :
2.06898              +/- 0.06363
[      None       None]
3) Parameter amplitude_1         :
2.05471              +/- 0.01489
[      None       None]

Fitting statistics:
-- number of data points: 1000
-- Deviance [-2 log L] D = 4367.845867.3
-- The Akaike Information Criterion of the model is: 2188.688941098666.
-- The Bayesian Information Criterion of the model is: 2203.412206935612.
-- The figure-of-merit function for this model  is: 1104.686605.5f and the fit for 997 dof is 1.108011.3f
-- Summed Residuals S = 75870.935552.5f
-- Expected S ~ 6000.000000.5 +/- 109.544512.5


Unlike in the maximum likelihood case, we can also sample from the posterior probability distribution. The method sample uses the emcee package to do MCMC.

Important: Do not sample from the likelihood function. This is formally incorrect and can lead to incorrect inferences about the problem, because there is no guarantee that a posterior with improper (flat, infinite) priors will be bounded!

Important: emcee has had a major upgrade to version 3, which came with a number of API changes. To ensure compatibility with stingray, please update emcee to the latest version, if you haven’t already.

Much like the optimizer, the sampling method requires a model and a set of starting parameters t0. Optionally, it can be useful to also input a covariance matrix, for example from the output of the optimizer.

Finally, the user should specify the number of walkers as well as the number of steps to use for both burn-in and sampling:

[47]:

sample = parest.sample(lpost, res.p_opt, cov=res.cov, nwalkers=400,
niter=100, burnin=300, namestr="psd_modeling_test")


Chains too short to compute autocorrelation lengths.
-- The acceptance fraction is: 0.640200.5
R_hat for the parameters is: [0.33858822 0.00779588 0.00477259]
-- Posterior Summary of Parameters:

parameter        mean            sd              5%              95%

---------------------------------------------

theta[0]         4.92699673203164       0.5826084748010877      4.001167475075788       5.916405947428704

theta[1]         2.0850162824299567     0.08840420643721274     1.945198565812  2.236054242762929

theta[2]         2.059927524015745      0.06916995745141118     1.944976347964247       2.172179088048585



The sampling method returns an object with various attributes that are useful for further analysis, for example the acceptance fraction:

[48]:

sample.acceptance

[48]:

0.6402000000000001


Or the mean and confidence intervals of the parameters:

[49]:

sample.mean

[49]:

array([4.92699673, 2.08501628, 2.05992752])

[50]:

sample.ci

[50]:

array([[4.00116748, 1.94519857, 1.94497635],
[5.91640595, 2.23605424, 2.17217909]])


The method print_results prints the results:

[51]:

sample.print_results()

-- The acceptance fraction is: 0.640200.5
R_hat for the parameters is: [0.33858822 0.00779588 0.00477259]
-- Posterior Summary of Parameters:

parameter        mean            sd              5%              95%

---------------------------------------------

theta[0]         4.92699673203164       0.5826084748010877      4.001167475075788       5.916405947428704

theta[1]         2.0850162824299567     0.08840420643721274     1.945198565812  2.236054242762929

theta[2]         2.059927524015745      0.06916995745141118     1.944976347964247       2.172179088048585



Similarly, the method plot_results produces a bunch of plots:

[52]:

fig = sample.plot_results(nsamples=1000, fig=None, save_plot=True,
filename="modeling_tutorial_mcmc_corner.pdf")


## Calibrating Likelihood Ratio Tests¶

In order to use likelihood ratio tests for model comparison, one must compute the p-value of obtaining a likelihood ratio at least as high as that observed given that the null hypothesis (the simpler model) is true. The distribution of likelihood ratios under that assumption will only follow an analytical distribution if * the models are nested, i.e. the simpler model is a special case of the more complex model and * the parameter values that transform the complex model into the simple one do not lie on the boundary of parameter space.

Imagine e.g. a simple model without a QPO, and a complex model with a QPO, where in order to make the simpler model out of the more complex one you would set the QPO amplitude to zero. However, the amplitude cannot go below zero, thus the critical parameter value transforming the complex into the simple model lie on the boundary of parameter space.

If these two conditions are not given, the observed likelihood ratio must be calibrated via simulations of the simpler model. In general, one should not simulate from the best-fit model alone: this ignores the uncertainty in the model parameters, and thus may artificially inflate the significance of the result.

In the purely frequentist (maximum likelihood case), one does not know the shape of the probability distribution for the parameters. A rough approximation can be obtained by assuming the likelihood surface to be a multi-variate Gaussian, with covariances given by the inverse Fisher information. One may sample from that distribution and then simulate fake data sets using the sampled parameters. Each simulated data set will be fit with both models to compute a likelihood ratio, which is then used to build a distribution of likelihood ratios from the simpler model to compare the observed likelihood ratio to.

In the Bayesian case, one may sample from the posterior for the parameters directly and then use these samples as above to create fake data sets in order to derive a posterior probability distribution for the likelihood ratios and thus a posterior predictive p-value.

For the statistical background of much of this, see Protassov et al, 2002.

Below, we set up code that will do exactly that, for both the frequentist and Bayesian case.

[53]:

import copy

def _generate_model(lpost, pars):
"""
Helper function that generates a fake PSD similar to the
one in the data, but with different parameters.

Parameters
----------
lpost : instance of a Posterior or LogLikelihood subclass
The object containing the relevant information about the
data and the model

pars : iterable
A list of parameters to be passed to lpost.model in oder
to generate a model data set.

Returns:
--------
model_data : numpy.ndarray
An array of model values for each bin in lpost.x

"""
# get the model
m = lpost.model

# reset the parameters
_fitter_to_model_params(m, pars)

# make a model spectrum
model_data = lpost.model(lpost.x)

return model_data

def _generate_psd(ps, lpost, pars):
"""
Generate a fake power spectrum from a model.

Parameters:
----------
lpost : instance of a Posterior or LogLikelihood subclass
The object containing the relevant information about the
data and the model

pars : iterable
A list of parameters to be passed to lpost.model in oder
to generate a model data set.

Returns:
--------
sim_ps : stingray.Powerspectrum object
The simulated Powerspectrum object

"""

model_spectrum = _generate_model(lpost, pars)

# use chi-square distribution to get fake data
model_powers = model_spectrum*np.random.chisquare(2*ps.m,
size=model_spectrum.shape[0])/(2.*ps.m)

sim_ps = copy.copy(ps)

sim_ps.powers = model_powers

return sim_ps

def _compute_pvalue(obs_val, sim):
"""
Compute the p-value given an observed value of a test statistic
and some simulations of that same test statistic.

Parameters
----------
obs_value : float
The observed value of the test statistic in question

sim: iterable
A list or array of simulated values for the test statistic

Returns
-------
pval : float [0, 1]
The p-value for the test statistic given the simulations.

"""

# cast the simulations as a numpy array
sim = np.array(sim)

# find all simulations that are larger than
# the observed value
ntail = sim[sim > obs_val].shape[0]

# divide by the total number of simulations
pval = ntail/sim.shape[0]

return pval

def calibrate_lrt(ps, lpost1, t1, lpost2, t2, sample=None, neg=True, max_post=False,
nsim=1000, niter=200, nwalker=500, burnin=200, namestr="test"):

# set up the ParameterEstimation object
parest = PSDParEst(ps, fitmethod="L-BFGS-B", max_post=False)

# compute the observed likelihood ratio
lrt_obs, res1, res2 = parest.compute_lrt(lpost1, t1,
lpost2, t2,
neg=neg,
max_post=max_post)

# simulate parameter sets from the simpler model
if not max_post:
# using Maximum Likelihood, so I'm going to simulate parameters
# from a multivariate Gaussian

# set up the distribution
mvn = scipy.stats.multivariate_normal(mean=res1.p_opt, cov=res1.cov)

# sample parameters
s_all = mvn.rvs(size=nsim)

else:
if sample is None:
# sample the posterior using MCMC
sample = parest.sample(lpost, res1.p_opt, cov=res1.cov,
nwalkers=nwalker, niter=niter,
burnin=burnin, namestr=namestr)

# pick nsim samples out of the posterior sample
s_all = sample[np.random.choice(sample.shape[0], nsim, replace=False)]

lrt_sim = np.zeros(nsim)

# now I can loop over all simulated parameter sets to generate a PSD
for i,s in enumerate(s_all):

# generate fake PSD
sim_ps = _generate_psd(ps, lpost1, s)

# make LogLikelihood objects for both:
if not max_post:
sim_lpost1 = PSDLogLikelihood(sim_ps.freq, sim_ps.power,
model=lpost1.model, m=sim_ps.m)
sim_lpost2 = PSDLogLikelihood(sim_ps.freq, sim_ps.power,
model=lpost2.model, m=sim_ps.m)
else:
# make a Posterior object
sim_lpost1 = PSDPosterior(sim_ps.freq, sim_ps.power,
lpost1.model, m=sim_ps.m)
sim_lpost1.logprior = lpost1.logprior

sim_lpost2 = PSDPosterior(sim_ps.freq, sim_ps.power,
lpost2.model, m=sim_ps.m)
sim_lpost2.logprior = lpost2.logprior

parest_sim = PSDParEst(sim_ps, max_post=max_post)

lrt_sim[i], _, _ = parest_sim.compute_lrt(sim_lpost1, t1,
sim_lpost2, t2,
neg=neg,
max_post=max_post)

# now I can compute the p-value:
pval = _compute_pvalue(lrt_obs, lrt_sim)
return pval

[54]:

pval = calibrate_lrt(ps, loglike, starting_pars,
loglike_bplc, bplc_start_pars,
max_post=False, nsim=100)

[55]:

print("The p-value for rejecting the simpler model is: " + str(pval))

The p-value for rejecting the simpler model is: 0.97


As expected, the p-value for rejecting the powerlaw model is fairly large: since we simulated from that model, we would be surprised if it generated a small p-value, causing us to reject this model (note, however, that if the null hypothesis is true, the p-value will be uniformely distributed between 0 and 1. By definition, then, you will get a p-value smaller or equal to 0.01 in approximately one out of a hundred cases)

We can do the same with the Bayesian model, in which case the result is called a posterior predictive p-value, which, in turn, is often used in posterior model checking (not yet implemented!).

We have not yet defined a PSDPosterior object for the bent power law model, so let’s do that. First, let’s define some priors:

[56]:

import scipy.stats

# flat prior for the power law indices
p_alpha1 = lambda alpha: ((-1. <= alpha) & (alpha <= 5.))
p_alpha2 = lambda alpha: ((-1. <= alpha) & (alpha <= 5.))

# flat prior for the break frequency
p_x_break = lambda xbreak: ((0.01 <= xbreak) & (10.0 >= xbreak))

# flat prior for the power law amplitude
p_amplitude = lambda amplitude: ((0.01 <= amplitude) & (amplitude <= 10.0))

# normal prior for the white noise parameter
p_whitenoise = lambda white_noise: scipy.stats.norm(2.0, 0.1).pdf(white_noise)

priors = {}
priors["alpha_1_0"] = p_alpha
priors["alpha_2_0"] = p_alpha

priors["amplitude_0"] = p_amplitude
priors["amplitude_1"] = p_whitenoise
priors["x_break_0"] = p_x_break



Now we can set up the PSDPosterior object:

[57]:

lpost_bplc = PSDPosterior(ps.freq, ps.power, bplc, priors=priors, m=ps.m)

[58]:

lpost_bplc(bplc_start_pars)

[58]:

-2230.14039643262


And do the posterior predictive p-value. Since we’ve already sampled from the simple model, we can pass that sample to the calibrate_lrt function, in order to cut down on computation time (if the keyword sample is not given, it will automatically run MCMC:

[59]:

pval = calibrate_lrt(ps, lpost, starting_pars,
lpost_bplc, bplc_start_pars,
sample=sample.samples,
max_post=True, nsim=100)

[60]:

print("The posterior predictive p-value is: p = " + str(pval))

The posterior predictive p-value is: p = 1.0


Again, we find that the p-value does not suggest rejecting the powerlaw model.

Of course, a slightly modified version is implemented in stingray as a subclass of the PSDParEst class:

[61]:

from stingray.modeling import PSDParEst

[62]:

parest = PSDParEst(ps, fitmethod="BFGS")

[63]:

pval = parest.calibrate_lrt(lpost, starting_pars, lpost_bplc, bplc_start_pars,
sample=sample.samples, nsim=100, max_post=True, seed=200)

[64]:

print(pval)

0.2


## Bayesian-ish QPO Searches¶

When searching for quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in light curves that are not constant (for example because they are bursts or have other types of variability), one must take care that the variable background is accurately modelled (most standard tools assume that the light curve is constant).

In Vaughan et al, 2010, a method was introduced to search for QPOs in the presence of red noise (stochastic variability), and in Huppenkothen et al, 2013 it was extended to magnetar bursts, and in Inglis et al, 2015 and Inglis et al, 2016 a similar approach was used to find QPOs in solar flares.

Based on a model for the broadband spectral noise, the algorithm finds the highest outlier in a test statistic based on the data-model residuals (under the assumption that if the broadband model is correct, the test statistic $$T_R = \max_j(2 D_j/m_j)$$ for $$j$$ power spectral bins with powers $$D_j$$ and model powers $$m_j$$ will be distributed following a $$\chi^2$$ distribution with two degrees of freedom). The observed test statistic $$T_R$$ is then compared to a theoretical distribution based on simulated power spectra without an outlier in order to compute a posterior predictive p-value as above for the likelihood ratio.

Since the concept is very similar to that above, we do not show the full code here. Instead, the p-value can be calculated using the method calibrate_highest_outlier, which belongs to the PSDParEst class:

[65]:

# compute highest outlier in the data, and the frequency and index
# where that power occurs
max_power, max_freq, max_ind = parest._compute_highest_outlier(lpost, res)

[66]:

max_power

[66]:

array([16.79715722])

[67]:

pval = parest.calibrate_highest_outlier(lpost, starting_pars, sample=sample,
max_post=True,
nsim=100, niter=200, nwalkers=500,
burnin=200, namestr="test")

[68]:

pval

[68]:

0.15


## Convenience Functions¶

For convenience, we have implemented some simple functions to reduce overhead with having to instantiate objects of the various classes.

Note that these convenience function use similar approaches and guesses in all cases; this might work for some simple quicklook analysis, but when preparing publication-ready results, one should approach the analysis with more care and make sure the options chosen are appropriate for the problem at hand.

### Fitting a power spectrum with some model¶

The code above allows for a lot of freedom in building an appropriate model for your application. However, in everyday life, one might occasionally want to do a quick fit for various applications, without having to go too much into details. Below is a convenience function written for exactly that purpose.

Please note that while this aims to use reasonable defaults, this is unlikely to produce publication-ready results!

So let’s fit a power law and a constant to some data, which we’ll create below:

[69]:

from stingray import Powerspectrum

m = 1
nfreq = 100000
freq = np.linspace(1, 1000, nfreq)

np.random.seed(100)  # set the seed for the random number generator
noise = np.random.exponential(size=nfreq)

model = models.PowerLaw1D() + models.Const1D()
model.x_0_0.fixed = True

alpha_0 = 2.0
amplitude_0 = 100.0
amplitude_1 = 2.0

model.alpha_0 = alpha_0
model.amplitude_0 = amplitude_0
model.amplitude_1 = amplitude_1

p = model(freq)
power = noise * p

ps = Powerspectrum()
ps.freq = freq
ps.power = power
ps.m = m
ps.df = freq[1] - freq[0]
ps.norm = "leahy"



What does this data set look like?

[70]:

plt.figure()
plt.loglog(ps.freq, ps.power, ds="steps-mid", lw=2, color="black")

[70]:

[<matplotlib.lines.Line2D at 0x7ff1f9f77b80>]


In order to fit this, we’ll write a convenience function that can take the power spectrum, a model, some starting parameters and just run with it:

[71]:

from stingray.modeling import PSDLogLikelihood, PSDPosterior, PSDParEst

def fit_powerspectrum(ps, model, starting_pars, max_post=False, priors=None,
fitmethod="L-BFGS-B"):

if priors:
lpost = PSDPosterior(ps, model, priors=priors)
else:
lpost = PSDLogLikelihood(ps.freq, ps.power, model, m=ps.m)

parest = PSDParEst(ps, fitmethod=fitmethod, max_post=max_post)
res = parest.fit(lpost, starting_pars, neg=True)

return parest, res



Let’s see if it works. We’ve already defined our model above, but to be explicit, let’s define it again:

[72]:

model_to_test = models.PowerLaw1D() + models.Const1D()
model_to_test.x_0_0.fixed = True


Now we just need some starting parameters:

[73]:

t0 = [80, 1.5, 2.5]

[74]:

parest, res = fit_powerspectrum(ps, model_to_test, t0)

[75]:

res.p_opt

[75]:

array([109.14539343,   2.07102572,   2.00200532])


Looks like it worked! Let’s plot the result, too:

[76]:

plt.figure()
plt.figure()
plt.loglog(ps.freq, ps.power, ds="steps-mid", lw=2, color="black")
plt.plot(ps.freq, res.mfit, lw=3, color="red")

[76]:

[<matplotlib.lines.Line2D at 0x7ff22a4fe640>]

<Figure size 432x288 with 0 Axes>


You can find the function in the scripts sub-module:

[77]:

from stingray.modeling.scripts import fit_powerspectrum

[78]:

parest, res = fit_powerspectrum(ps, model_to_test, t0)
res.p_opt

[78]:

array([108.96093418,   2.0699128 ,   2.00198643])


### Fitting Lorentzians¶

Fitting Lorentzians to power spectra is a routine task for most astronomers working with power spectra, hence there is a function that can produce either Maximum Likelihood or Maximum-A-Posteriori fits of the data.

[79]:

l = models.Lorentz1D

[80]:

l.param_names

[80]:

('amplitude', 'x_0', 'fwhm')

[81]:

def fit_lorentzians(ps, nlor, starting_pars, fit_whitenoise=True, max_post=False, priors=None,
fitmethod="L-BFGS-B"):

model = models.Lorentz1D()

if nlor > 1:
for i in range(nlor-1):
model += models.Lorentz1D()

if fit_whitenoise:
model += models.Const1D()

parest = PSDParEst(ps, fitmethod=fitmethod, max_post=max_post)
lpost = PSDPosterior(ps.freq, ps.power, model, priors=priors, m=ps.m)
res = parest.fit(lpost, starting_pars, neg=True)

return parest, res


Let’s make a dataset so we can test it!

[82]:

np.random.seed(400)
nlor = 3

x_0_0 = 0.5
x_0_1 = 2.0
x_0_2 = 7.5

amplitude_0 = 150.0
amplitude_1 = 50.0
amplitude_2 = 15.0

fwhm_0 = 0.1
fwhm_1 = 1.0
fwhm_2 = 0.5

whitenoise = 2.0

model = models.Lorentz1D(amplitude_0, x_0_0, fwhm_0) + \
models.Lorentz1D(amplitude_1, x_0_1, fwhm_1) + \
models.Lorentz1D(amplitude_2, x_0_2, fwhm_2) + \
models.Const1D(whitenoise)

p = model(ps.freq)
noise = np.random.exponential(size=len(ps.freq))

power = p*noise

plt.figure()
plt.loglog(ps.freq, power, lw=1, ds="steps-mid", c="black")
plt.loglog(ps.freq, p, lw=3, color="red")

[82]:

[<matplotlib.lines.Line2D at 0x7ff2396417f0>]


Let’s make this into a Powerspectrum object:

[83]:

import copy

[84]:

ps_new = copy.copy(ps)

[85]:

ps_new.power = power


So now we can fit this model with our new function, but first, we need to define the starting parameters for our fit. The starting parameters will be [amplitude, x_0, fwhm] for each component plus the white noise component at the end:

[86]:

t0 = [150, 0.4, 0.2, 50, 2.3, 0.6, 20, 8.0, 0.4, 2.1]
parest, res = fit_lorentzians(ps_new, nlor, t0)


Let’s look at the output:

[87]:

res.p_opt

[87]:

array([ 1.49011854e+02,  1.06004236e+00, -4.00733295e-05,  4.54780918e+01,
1.89830161e+00,  1.10287737e+00,  1.01732386e+01,  7.49528676e+00,
6.72319819e-01,  1.99444430e+00])


Cool, that seems to work! For convenience PSDParEst also has a plotting function:

[88]:

parest.plotfits(res, save_plot=False, namestr="lorentzian_test")


The function exists in the library as well for ease of use:

[89]:

from stingray.modeling import fit_lorentzians

[90]:

parest, res = fit_lorentzians(ps_new, nlor, t0)

[91]:

res.p_opt

[91]:

array([1.47811631e+02, 3.65200027e-02, 1.35036166e-03, 4.03665876e+01,
1.89162600e+00, 1.20693953e+00, 1.05461311e+01, 7.49865621e+00,
6.36152472e-01, 1.99437422e+00])