# Fitting with time delay scan -Raise- ## Objective 1. Understand why raise model is needed 2. Fitting with raise model 3. Save and Load fitting result 4. Calculates species associated coefficent from fitting result 5. Evaluates F-test based confidence interval In this example, we only deal with gaussian irf ```python # import needed module import numpy as np import matplotlib.pyplot as plt import TRXASprefitpack from TRXASprefitpack import solve_seq_model, rate_eq_conv plt.rcParams["figure.figsize"] = (12,9) ``` ## Version information ```python print(TRXASprefitpack.__version__) ``` 0.7.1 ## Seqential Decay Dynamics with finite raise time ```python # Generates fake experiment data # Model: GS -> 1 -> 2 -> GS # lifetime tau1: 200 fs (raise) # tau2: 800 fs (decay), tau2: 10 ps (decay) # fwhm paramter of gaussian IRF: 100 fs tau_1 = 0.2 tau_2 = 0.8 tau_3 = 10 fwhm = 0.1 # initial condition y0 = np.array([1, 0, 0, 0]) # set time range (mixed step) t_seq1 = np.arange(-1, -0.5, 0.1) t_seq2 = np.arange(-0.5, 0.5, 0.05) t_seq3 = np.arange(0.5, 1, 0.1) t_seq4 = np.arange(1, 10, 0.5) t_seq5 = np.arange(10, 110, 10) t_seq = \ np.hstack((t_seq1, t_seq2, t_seq3, t_seq4, t_seq5)) eigval_seq, V_seq, c_seq = \ solve_seq_model(np.array([tau_1, tau_2, tau_3]), y0) # Now generates measured transient signal # First and Last element is ground state abs_1 = [0, 1, 1, 0] abs_2 = [0, 0.5, 0.8, 0] abs_3 = [0, -0.5, 0.7, 0] abs_4 = [0, 0.6, 0.3, 0] t0 = np.array([0, 0, 0, 0]) # set time zero of each scan = 0 # generate measured data y_obs_1 = rate_eq_conv(t_seq-t0[0], fwhm, abs_1, eigval_seq, V_seq, c_seq, irf='g') y_obs_2 = rate_eq_conv(t_seq-t0[1], fwhm, abs_2, eigval_seq, V_seq, c_seq, irf='g') y_obs_3 = rate_eq_conv(t_seq-t0[2], fwhm, abs_3, eigval_seq, V_seq, c_seq, irf='g') y_obs_4 = rate_eq_conv(t_seq-t0[3], fwhm, abs_4, eigval_seq, V_seq, c_seq, irf='g') # generate random noise with (S/N = 5) # Define noise level (S/N=5) w.r.t peak eps_obs_1 = np.max(np.abs(y_obs_1))/5*np.ones_like(y_obs_1) eps_obs_2 = np.max(np.abs(y_obs_2))/5*np.ones_like(y_obs_2) eps_obs_3 = np.max(np.abs(y_obs_3))/5*np.ones_like(y_obs_3) eps_obs_4 = np.max(np.abs(y_obs_4))/5*np.ones_like(y_obs_4) # generate random noise noise_1 = np.random.normal(0, eps_obs_1, t_seq.size) noise_2 = np.random.normal(0, eps_obs_2, t_seq.size) noise_3 = np.random.normal(0, eps_obs_3, t_seq.size) noise_4 = np.random.normal(0, eps_obs_4, t_seq.size) # generate measured intensity i_obs_1 = y_obs_1 + noise_1 i_obs_2 = y_obs_2 + noise_2 i_obs_3 = y_obs_3 + noise_3 i_obs_4 = y_obs_4 + noise_4 # print real values print('-'*24) print(f'fwhm: {fwhm}') print(f'tau_1: {tau_1}') print(f'tau_2: {tau_2}') print(f'tau_3: {tau_3}') for i in range(4): print(f't_0_{i+1}: {t0[i]}') print('-'*24) print('Excited Species contribution') print(f'scan 1: {abs_1[1]} \t {abs_1[2]}') print(f'scan 2: {abs_2[1]} \t {abs_2[2]}') print(f'scan 3: {abs_3[1]} \t {abs_3[2]}') print(f'scan 4: {abs_4[1]} \t {abs_4[2]}') param_exact = [fwhm, t0[0], t0[1], t0[2], t0[3], tau_1, tau_2, tau_3] ``` ------------------------ fwhm: 0.1 tau_1: 0.2 tau_2: 0.8 tau_3: 10 t_0_1: 0 t_0_2: 0 t_0_3: 0 t_0_4: 0 ------------------------ Excited Species contribution scan 1: 1 1 scan 2: 0.5 0.8 scan 3: -0.5 0.7 scan 4: 0.6 0.3 ```python # plot model experimental data plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_1, eps_obs_1, label='1') plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_2, eps_obs_2, label='2') plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_3, eps_obs_3, label='3') plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_4, eps_obs_4, label='4') plt.legend() plt.show() ``` ![png](Fit_Transient_Raise_files/Fit_Transient_Raise_6_0.png) ```python plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_1, eps_obs_1, label='1') plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_2, eps_obs_2, label='2') plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_3, eps_obs_3, label='3') plt.errorbar(t_seq, i_obs_4, eps_obs_4, label='4') plt.legend() plt.xlim(-0.5, 2) plt.show() ``` ![png](Fit_Transient_Raise_files/Fit_Transient_Raise_7_0.png) Eventhough actual time zero of each time scan are exactly zero, time zero seems to be shifted when raise time is finite (or > IRF) ## Fitting with Exponential Decay model try to fit these curve with exponential decay model with three lifetime constant ```python # import needed module for fitting from TRXASprefitpack import fit_transient_exp # time, intensity, eps should be sequence of numpy.ndarray t = [t_seq] intensity = [np.vstack((i_obs_1, i_obs_2, i_obs_3, i_obs_4)).T] eps = [np.vstack((eps_obs_1, eps_obs_2, eps_obs_3, eps_obs_4)).T] # set initial guess irf = 'g' # shape of irf function fwhm_init = 0.2 t0_init = np.array([0, 0, 0, 0]) tau_init = np.array([0.1, 1, 8]) # use global optimization method: AMPGO fit_result_decay = fit_transient_exp(irf, fwhm_init, t0_init, tau_init, False, method_glb='ampgo', t=t, intensity=intensity, eps=eps) ``` ```python print(fit_result_decay) ``` ```python # plot fitting result and experimental data color_lst = ['red', 'blue', 'green', 'black'] for i in range(4): plt.errorbar(t[0], intensity[0][:, i], eps[0][:, i], label=f'expt {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.errorbar(t[0], fit_result_decay['fit'][0][:, i], label=f'fit {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.legend() plt.show() ``` ![png](Fit_Transient_Raise_files/Fit_Transient_Raise_12_0.png) ```python # plot with shorter time range for i in range(4): plt.errorbar(t[0], intensity[0][:, i], eps[0][:, i], label=f'expt {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.errorbar(t[0], fit_result_decay['fit'][0][:, i], label=f'fit {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.legend() plt.xlim(-1, 2) plt.show() ``` ![png](Fit_Transient_Raise_files/Fit_Transient_Raise_13_0.png) Exponential decay model with two lifetime constant well represent modeled time scan curve with finite raise time. However, it gives delayed time zero (actual time zero is $0$) and broadened irf (actual irf is 100 fs). To deal with such problem we need to consider raise model. $\exp(-t/\tau_{i+1}) - \exp(-t/\tau_1)$. ## Fitting with Raise Model Now include, finite raise time ```python # import needed module for fitting from TRXASprefitpack import fit_transient_raise # time, intensity, eps should be sequence of numpy.ndarray t = [t_seq] intensity = [np.vstack((i_obs_1, i_obs_2, i_obs_3, i_obs_4)).T] eps = [np.vstack((eps_obs_1, eps_obs_2, eps_obs_3, eps_obs_4)).T] # set initial guess irf = 'g' # shape of irf function fwhm_init = 0.2 t0_init = np.array([0, 0, 0, 0]) tau_init = np.array([0.1, 1, 8]) # first tau is raise time constant # use global optimization method: AMPGO fit_result_raise = fit_transient_raise(irf, fwhm_init, t0_init, tau_init, False, method_glb='ampgo', t=t, intensity=intensity, eps=eps) ``` ```python # print fitting result print(fit_result_raise) ``` [Model information] model : raise irf: g fwhm: 0.1420 eta: 0.0000 base: False [Optimization Method] global: ampgo leastsq: trf [Optimization Status] nfev: 3423 status: 0 global_opt msg: Requested Number of global iteration is finished. leastsq_opt msg: `ftol` termination condition is satisfied. [Optimization Results] Total Data points: 232 Number of effective parameters: 16 Degree of Freedom: 216 Chi squared: 224.0295 Reduced chi squared: 1.0372 AIC (Akaike Information Criterion statistic): 23.8893 BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion statistic): 79.0371 [Parameters] fwhm_G: 0.14200868 +/- 0.12332934 ( 86.85%) t_0_1_1: 0.05624516 +/- 0.05359544 ( 95.29%) t_0_1_2: 0.05160202 +/- 0.06867133 ( 133.08%) t_0_1_3: -0.02150996 +/- 0.05897826 ( 274.19%) t_0_1_4: 0.04161519 +/- 0.04504457 ( 108.24%) tau_1: 0.15228303 +/- 0.08250323 ( 54.18%) tau_2: 1.04184215 +/- 0.26000147 ( 24.96%) tau_3: 12.11109480 +/- 2.25185368 ( 18.59%) [Parameter Bound] fwhm_G: 0.1 <= 0.14200868 <= 0.4 t_0_1_1: -0.4 <= 0.05624516 <= 0.4 t_0_1_2: -0.4 <= 0.05160202 <= 0.4 t_0_1_3: -0.4 <= -0.02150996 <= 0.4 t_0_1_4: -0.4 <= 0.04161519 <= 0.4 tau_1: 0.05 <= 0.15228303 <= 0.4 tau_2: 0.4 <= 1.04184215 <= 6.4 tau_3: 1.6 <= 12.11109480 <= 25.6 [Component Contribution] DataSet dataset_1: #tscan tscan_1 tscan_2 tscan_3 tscan_4 decay 1 -10.16% -36.02% -64.87% 62.83% decay 2 89.84% 63.98% 35.13% 37.17% [Parameter Correlation] Parameter Correlations > 0.1 are reported. (t_0_1_1, fwhm_G) = 0.528 (t_0_1_2, fwhm_G) = 0.427 (t_0_1_2, t_0_1_1) = 0.398 (t_0_1_3, fwhm_G) = 0.425 (t_0_1_3, t_0_1_1) = 0.414 (t_0_1_3, t_0_1_2) = 0.299 (t_0_1_4, fwhm_G) = 0.61 (t_0_1_4, t_0_1_1) = 0.578 (t_0_1_4, t_0_1_2) = 0.453 (t_0_1_4, t_0_1_3) = 0.524 (tau_1, fwhm_G) = -0.659 (tau_1, t_0_1_1) = -0.695 (tau_1, t_0_1_2) = -0.554 (tau_1, t_0_1_3) = -0.591 (tau_1, t_0_1_4) = -0.813 (tau_2, fwhm_G) = 0.239 (tau_2, t_0_1_1) = 0.366 (tau_2, t_0_1_2) = 0.356 (tau_2, t_0_1_4) = 0.346 (tau_2, tau_1) = -0.572 (tau_3, fwhm_G) = -0.122 (tau_3, t_0_1_1) = -0.156 (tau_3, t_0_1_2) = -0.124 (tau_3, t_0_1_3) = -0.135 (tau_3, t_0_1_4) = -0.184 (tau_3, tau_1) = 0.338 (tau_3, tau_2) = -0.55 ```python # plot fitting result and experimental data color_lst = ['red', 'blue', 'green', 'black'] for i in range(4): plt.errorbar(t[0], intensity[0][:, i], eps[0][:, i], label=f'expt {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.errorbar(t[0], fit_result_raise['fit'][0][:, i], label=f'fit {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.legend() plt.show() ``` ![png](Fit_Transient_Raise_files/Fit_Transient_Raise_18_0.png) ```python # plot with shorter time range for i in range(4): plt.errorbar(t[0], intensity[0][:, i], eps[0][:, i], label=f'expt {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.errorbar(t[0], fit_result_raise['fit'][0][:, i], label=f'fit {i+1}', color=color_lst[i]) plt.legend() plt.xlim(-1, 2) plt.show() ``` ![png](Fit_Transient_Raise_files/Fit_Transient_Raise_19_0.png) 1. Raise model narrowed IRF than decay model (but still much broader irf than real irf) 2. Raise model correctly estimate time zero 3. Raise model gives slightly better chi squared and AIC value ```python # Compare fitting value and exact value for i in range(len(fit_result_raise['x'])): print(f"{fit_result_raise['param_name'][i]}: {fit_result_raise['x'][i]} (fit) \t {param_exact[i]} (exact)") ``` fwhm_G: 0.1420086781289063 (fit) 0.1 (exact) t_0_1_1: 0.05624515935759496 (fit) 0 (exact) t_0_1_2: 0.05160202235539871 (fit) 0 (exact) t_0_1_3: -0.02150995767989459 (fit) 0 (exact) t_0_1_4: 0.04161519488619747 (fit) 0 (exact) tau_1: 0.15228303252953107 (fit) 0.2 (exact) tau_2: 1.041842146894771 (fit) 0.8 (exact) tau_3: 12.111094803123384 (fit) 10 (exact) Fitting result and exact result are match well. For future use or transfer your fitting result to your collaborator or superviser, you want to save or load fitting result from file. ```python # save fitting result to file from TRXASprefitpack import save_TransientResult, load_TransientResult save_TransientResult(fit_result_raise, 'example_raise') # save fitting result to example_decay_2.h5 loaded_result = load_TransientResult('example_raise') # load fitting result from example_decay_2.h5 ``` Now deduce species associated difference coefficient from sequential decay model ```python y0 = np.array([1, 0, 0, 0]) # initial cond eigval, V, c = solve_seq_model(loaded_result['x'][5:], y0) # compute scaled V matrix V_scale = np.einsum('j,ij->ij', c, V) diff_abs_fit = np.linalg.solve(V_scale[1:-1, 1:-1].T, loaded_result['c'][0]) # slice first last column and row corresponding to ground state # compare with exact result print('-'*24) print('[Species Associated Difference Coefficent]') print('scan # \t ex 1 (fit) \t ex 1 (exact) \t ex 2 (fit) \t ex 2 (exact)') print(f'1 \t {diff_abs_fit[0,0]} \t {abs_1[1]} \t {diff_abs_fit[1,0]} \t {abs_1[2]}') print(f'2 \t {diff_abs_fit[0,1]} \t {abs_2[1]} \t {diff_abs_fit[1,1]} \t {abs_2[2]}') print(f'3 \t {diff_abs_fit[0,2]} \t {abs_3[1]} \t {diff_abs_fit[1,2]} \t {abs_3[2]}') print(f'4 \t {diff_abs_fit[0,3]} \t {abs_4[1]} \t {diff_abs_fit[1,3]} \t {abs_4[2]}') ``` ------------------------ [Species Associated Difference Coefficent] scan # ex 1 (fit) ex 1 (exact) ex 2 (fit) ex 2 (exact) 1 0.9433545132025304 1 0.9556289542374516 1 2 0.4539620781341119 0.5 0.8085121499172329 0.8 3 -0.4609098098236544 -0.5 0.7056147982734182 0.7 4 0.6677648517000669 0.6 0.24794124777296256 0.3 It also matches well, as expected. ## Summary Raise model would be useful when S/N of experimental data is not good.