Fixed-Point In Matlab: can it be implemented without Designer/Library? - matlab

I worked in matlab on my design and I used floating point. To rewrite the design in FPGA I need to work with fixed point.
In Matlab licence I have there is not Fixed Point Designeer or library to use function as fi, numerictype, ...
Is it possible to work/implement the fixed-point without this function? FOr example, can all these function be written?

Related

How does MATLAB's fit() function differentiate arbitrary MATLAB expressions for Levenberg-Marquardt to be applicable?

As far as I understand the LM algorithm, it is an improvement over the Newton's method, so very roughly speaking, an algorithm which tries to build a path in the parameter space, leading to the point where the error function is minimal, which follows the direction of the biggest gradient of error function (differentiated with respect to the parameters).
I have written a Newton's method optimizer for a neural network once, as an exercise, and the critical part of the algorithm was that we could apply the chain rule (error backpropagation) to compute the gradient. And it was me who used the chain rule to the write out a formula for the gradients. (Essentially by symbolic differentiating on paper once and coding the resulting formula.)
In MATLAB (Curve Fitting Toolbox), there is a standard fit() function, which claims to use Levenberg-Marquardt's method to fit basically any parametric MATLAB expression as well as a set of prepared models.
Well, I suspect that the prepared models could be pre-differentiated by Mathworks' engineers to generate the code for the gradients. But what about the 'arbitrary' fits?
Is MATLAB trying to do symbolic differentiation implicitly? I highly doubt that anyone can write rules for differentiation of all the complex MATLAB constructions, i.e. classes and enumerations.
Or, maybe MATLAB is just differentiating the function by evaluating it in ξ and ξ+Δξ and dividing by Δξ? But that would require finding the best shift and require n+1 function evaluations, where n is the number of parameters optimized.
And in any case, even this strategy would fail if the function is not differentiable, which I suspect to be the case for almost any general MATLAB expression.
Could anyone give a plausible hypothesis of what is actually happening inside?
(Well, knowing what actually happens inside would be even better, but even an informal insight would be great.)

Piecewise linear constraint in CPLEX API for MATLAB

I am a (almost) beginner with CPLEX and optimization. I am trying to set up an optimization problem in Matlab using the newly added feature of CPLEX (12.7.1), which enables the definition of piecewise linear (PWL) constraints.
However, it is not clear to me how to do it in Matlab. The documentation on this is quite sparse. IBM has only one example (transport.m) , which defines the piecewise linear constraint as a combination of linear equalities and SOSs of type 2. However, this is not really using the newly added feature to directly specify a piecewise linear function. And the procedure in matlab can become quite cumbersome as the number of variables and piecewise constraints increase.
Do you know if there is a way to express it differently, in Matlab?
Thank you
The new piecewise linear constraint support you mention was announced in the release notes here (In version 12.7.0). The MATLAB API was not included in that list. If having the functionality directly in MATLAB is important to you, you could add a request for it in the IBM RFE Community. In the meantime, you'll need to use one of the other APIs (C, C++, Java, .NET, Python).
You could call another executable from within MATLAB using the system command. On the other hand, besides requiring a bit more work, your current technique should be fine.

Why is Matlab function interpn being modified?

The Matlab function interpn does n-grid interpolation. According to the documentation page:
In a future release, interpn will not accept mixed combinations of row and column vectors for the sample and query grids.
This page provides a bit more information but is still kind of cryptic.
My question is this: Why is this modification being implemented? In particular, are there any pitfalls to using interpn?
I am writing a program in fortran that is supposed to produce similar results to a Matlab program that uses interpn as a crucial component. I'm wondering if the Matlab program might have a problem that is related to this modification.
No, I don't think this indicates that there is any sort of problem with using interpn, or any of the other MATLAB interpolation functions.
Over the last few releases MathWorks has been introducing some new/better functionality for interpolation (for example the griddedInterpolant, scatteredInterpolant and delaunayTriangulation classes). This has been going on in small steps since R2009a, when they replaced the underlying QHULL libraries for computational geometry with CGAL.
It seems likely to me that interpn has for a long time supported an unusual form of input arguments (i.e. mixed row and column vectors to define the sample grid) that is probably a bit confusing for people, hardly ever used, and a bit of a pain for MathWorks to support. So as they move forward with the newer functionality, they're just taking the opportunity to simplify some of the syntaxes supported: it doesn't mean that there is any problem with interpn.

Optimization of multivariable function In Matlab

I have a function fun(x,y,z), such that say, x=1:10, y=50:60, z=100:105. Which optimization method (and how) I can use to get the minimum of this function, for example, where (x,y,z)=(3,52,101). I am working in Matlab.
Thank you for any help
Algorithms
There are many many algorithms out there that you can use for direct search optimization such as Nelder-Mead, Particle Swarm, Genetic Algorithm, etc.
I believe Nelder-Mead is a simplex optimization method which is used by fminsearch function in MATLAB.
Also, there is Genetic Algorithm which comes with MATLAB Global Optimization toolbox. You may want to give that a try as well.
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is another direct search method that you can use. However, there is no official toolbox for Particle Swarm method built by Mathworks. The good news is there is quite a few PSO toolbox developed by other people. I personally have used this one and am quite happy with the performance. Its syntax is similar to Genetic Algorithm functions that come with Global Optimization Toolbox.
Discrete Optimization
Regarding your question that you are looking for a set of integer values namely x,y, and z corresponding to the minimum objective function value, I would add a part at the beginning of the objective function that rounds the variables to the closest integers and then feeds them to your main function fun(x,y,z). This way you would discretize your function space.
I hope my answer helps.

Functional form of 2D interpolation in Matlab

I need to construct an interpolating function from a 2D array of data. The reason I need something that returns an actual function is, that I need to be able to evaluate the function as part of an expression that I need to numerically integrate.
For that reason, "interp2" doesn't cut it: it does not return a function.
I could use "TriScatteredInterp", but that's heavy-weight: my grid is equally spaced (and big); so I don't need the delaunay triangularisation.
Are there any alternatives?
(Apologies for the 'late' answer, but I have some suggestions that might help others if the existing answer doesn't help them)
It's not clear from your question how accurate the resulting function needs to be (or how big, 'big' is), but one approach that you could adopt is to regress the data points that you have using a least-squares or Kalman filter-based method. You'd need to do this with a number of candidate function forms and then choose the one that is 'best', for example by using an measure such as MAE or MSE.
Of course this requires some idea of what the form underlying function could be, but your question isn't clear as to whether you have this kind of information.
Another approach that could work (and requires no knowledge of what the underlying function might be) is the use of the fuzzy transform (F-transform) to generate line segments that provide local approximations to the surface.
The method for this would be:
Define a 2D universe that includes the x and y domains of your input data
Create a 2D fuzzy partition of this universe - chosing partition sizes that give the accuracy you require
Apply the discrete F-transform using your input data to generate fuzzy data points in a 3D fuzzy space
Pass the inverse F-transform as a function handle (along with the fuzzy data points) to your integration function
If you're not familiar with the F-transform then I posted a blog a while ago about how the F-transform can be used as a universal approximator in a 1D case: http://iainism-blogism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/fuzzy-wuzzy-was.html
To see the mathematics behind the method and extend it to a multidimensional case then the University of Ostravia has published a PhD thesis that explains its application to various engineering problems and also provides an example of how it is constructed for the case of a 2D universe: http://irafm.osu.cz/f/PhD_theses/Stepnicka.pdf
If you want a function handle, why not define f=#(xi,yi)interp2(X,Y,Z,xi,yi) ?
It might be a little slow, but I think it should work.
If I understand you correctly, you want to perform a surface/line integral of 2-D data. There are ways to do it but maybe not the way you want it. I had the exact same problem and it's annoying! The only way I solved it was using the Surface Fitting Tool (sftool) to create a surface then integrating it.
After you create your fit using the tool (it has a GUI as well), it will generate an sftool object which you can then integrate in (2-D) using quad2d
I also tried your method of using interp2 and got the results (which were similar to the sfobject) but I had no idea how to do a numerical integration (line/surface) with the data. Creating thesfobject and then integrating it was much faster.
It was the first time I do something like this so I confirmed it using a numerically evaluated line integral. According to Stoke's theorem, the surface integral and the line integral should be the same and it did turn out to be the same.
I asked this question in the mathematics stackexchange, wanted to do a line integral of 2-d data, ended up doing a surface integral and then confirming the answer using a line integral!