I have a system from which I need to attain a defined goal G from a starting value G0 by adjusting two actuators A and B with initial values A0 and B0 whose values vary dependently i.e. if I adjust A, B will change slightly but needs to be kept constant at B0.
To attain G I need to move A from -pos to +pos in steps of 1 and after each step, check if abs(G-G0) <2 and also check if B has deviated from B0 i.e. abs(B-B0)<2. If it has I need to adjust its position in the range -pos1 to +pos1 in steps of 1 until B=B0.
The iteration stops when I find a value of A which satisfies G (G=80 in my example below).
At the moment I am using a for loop:
Let's suppose
G=80;
G0=73;
pos0=50;
pos=5;
pos1=7;
for posA=-pos+pos0:1:pos0+pos
A=moveA(posA); %moveA represents the transfer function that takes posA and moves actuator A, returning value A
if abs(G-G0)>2 && abs(B-B0)> 2
for posB=-pos+pos1:1:pos1+pos
B=moveB(posB); %moveB represents the transfer function that takes posB and moves actuator B, returning value B
if abs(B-B0)> 2
break;
else
continue
end
end
else
fprintf(' %i is the value of A to reach goal',A)
break
end
end
I'm looking for suggestions to optimize and speed up this code in MATLAB, as currently it takes a long time iterating.
Related
Given a matrix, it's easy to compute the value and index of the min value:
A = rand(10);
[value, index] = min(A(:));
However I would also like to recover the second min value (idem for max).
I can of course take any of this two approaches:
Converting A to a vector and sorting it.
PROS: I can then recover the second, third... n minimum value
CONS: If A is large, sorting is expensive
Once the min location of A is located, I can replace this value by a large one (eg: Inf) and then run min again.
PROS: Cheaper than sort
CONS: I must modify my matrix (and save the modified value in an aux variable). Also re-running min is costly on a large matrix.
I'm wondering if there is a better solution:
When computing min the algorithm has to keep track of the min value found so far, until a new value has a lower value (then we update the value).
If instead we keep track of the last n min values found so far will allow to recover the minimum n values.
I can implement this, but I'm wondering if it's the best approach or if it's already implemented.
I don't know in which case it would be less expensive than sorting, but an easy, but not so fast way would be to use the following code. I may be wrong, but I don't think you can get faster with build-in functions if you just want the first and the second min.
A = rand(10);
[firstMin, firstMinIndex] = min(A(:));
secondMin = min(A(A~=firstMin));
secondMinIndex = find(A==secondMin); % slow, but use only if you need the index
Here, you go through the matrix two times more, one for the boolean operation, and one for the second min.
After some testing on 2000x2000 and 4000x4000 random matrix, it seems that this code snipset is around 3.5 time faster than the sort function applied on the same matrix.
If you really need more efficiency, you'd have to write your own mex routine, with which you can theoretically get the two values in n+log n-2 comparison, as explained in the link provided by #luismendotomas.
Hope this help !
In a single pass:
a = [53 53 49 49 97 75 4 22 4 37];
first = Inf;
second = Inf;
for i = 1:1:numel(a)
if (a(i) < first)
second = first;
first = a(i);
elseif (a(i) < second && a(i) ~= first)
second = a(i);
end
end
fprintf('First smallest %d\n', first);
fprintf('Second smallest %d\n', second);
You can remove the a(i) ~= first condition if you rather have 4, 4 as output instead of 4, 23
Also, see this SO question
As already mentioned I suppose the best (read: "most efficient") method is to implement the methods from #luismendotomas link.
However, if you want to avoid doing too much programming yourself, then you could apply some k-nearest neighbours algorithm, given you have a lower bound on your data, e.g. if all your data points are positive, you can find the 2 nearest neighbours to 0. Though I am not sure whether this is faster than your initial suggestions or not.
For one k-nearest neighbour algorithm see e.g. this
beesleep has already pointed out that method 2 (by computing the minimum twice) is more efficient that method 1 (by sorting). However the implementation provided in the answer to compute the index of the second minimum via find is, as mentioned, very inefficient.
In fact, to get the index of the second minimum, it is ca. 10x faster to set the first minimum value to inf (as suggested in the question) and then get the index of the second minimum from the min function (as opposed to using find)
[firstMin, firstMinIndex] = min(A(:));
A(firstMinIndex) = inf;
[secondMin, secondMinIndex] = min(A(:));
Here is the code which I used to compare this implementation to the one suggested by beesleep:
for i = 1:10
A = rand(10000);
tic
[firstMin, firstMinIndex] = min(A(:));
secondMin = min(A(A~=firstMin));
secondMinIndex = find(A==secondMin); % slow, but use only if you need the index
t1(i) = toc;
tic
[firstMin, firstMinIndex] = min(A(:));
A(firstMinIndex) = inf;
[secondMin, secondMinIndex] = min(A(:));
t2(i) = toc;
end
disp(mean(t1) / mean(t2))
Let A and B be two matrices of the same size. For a matrix M, let ht(M,t) threshold all the entries of M by t. That is All entries whose absolute value is less than t are set to 0. Suppose I want to find the optimal threshold t such that norm(ht(A,t)-B,'fro')^2 is minimized.
The only way that I can see to do this is deficient: do a for loop over the unique values of A and threshold A and setting C=ht(A,t)-B, compute sum(sum(C.*C)).
This is just too slow when A is large. I have considered sorting the elements of A and finding some efficient way to set a few entries to zero at a time, but I'm not sure this can all be done without a for loop.
Is there a way to do it?
Here's a very simple example (so simple a for loop works easily in this case):
B =
0.101508820368332 0
0 0.301996943246957
Set
A=B+.1*ones(2)
A =
0.201508820368332 0.1
0.1 0.401996943246957
Simple inspection shows that if we zero out the off-diagonal entries of A we minimize the difference between A and B. There are 3 possible threshold values, given by unique(A)=[.1,.2015,.402]. Given a potential threshold value t, we can hard threshold A by:
function [A_thresholded] = ht(A,t)
%
A_thresholded = A .* (abs(A)>t);
The form of the data in a matrix is irrelevant. You can convert them to vectors and simply compute the square-norm. In fact, you can sort the contents of A in increasing order (and permute B to preserve pairing). When you increase the threshold to include one more value in A, the norm only changes by that one increment. Therefore, you can find your solution in O(n log n). Hope this helps.
I am attempting to create a model whereby there is a line - represented as a 1D matrix populated with 1's - and points on the line are generated at random. Every time a point is chosen (A), it creates a 'zone of exclusion' (based on an exponential function) such that choosing another point nearby has a much lower probability of occurring.
Two main questions:
(1) What is the best way to generate an exponential such that I can multiply the numbers surrounding the chosen point to create the zone of exclusion? I know of exppdf however i'm not sure if this allows me to create an exponential which terminates at 1, as I need the zone of exclusion to end and the probability to return to 1 eventually.
(2) How can I modify matrix values plus/minus a specific index (including that index)? I got as far as:
x(1:100) = 1; % Creates a 1D-matrix populated with 1's
p = randi([1 100],1,1);
x(p) =
But am not sure how to go about using the randomly generated number to alter values in the matrix.
Any help would be much appreciated,
Anna
Don't worry about exppdf, pick the width you want (how far away from the selected point does the probability return to 1?) and define some simple function that makes a small vector with zero in the middle and 1 at the edges. So here I'm just modifying a section of length 11 centred on p and doing nothing to the rest of x:
x(1:100)=1;
p = randi([1 100],1,1);
% following just scaled
somedist = (abs(-5:5).^2)/25;
% note - this will fail if p is at edges of data, but see below
x(p-5:p+5)=x(p-5:p+5).*somedist;
Then, instead of using randi to pick points you can use datasample which allows for giving weights. In this case your "data" is just the numbers 1:100. However, to make edges easier I'd suggest initialising with a "weight" vector which has zero padding - these sections of x will not be sampled from but stop you from having to make edge checks.
x = zeros([1 110]);
x(6:105)=1;
somedist = (abs(-5:5).^2)/25;
nsamples = 10;
for n = 1:nsamples
p = datasample(1:110,1,'Weights',x);
% if required store chosen p somewhere
x(p-5:p+5)=x(p-5:p+5).*somedist;
end
For an exponential exclusion zone you could do something like:
somedist = exp(abs(-5:5))/exp(5)-exp(0)/exp(5);
It doesn't quite return to 1 but fairly close. Here's the central region of x (ignoring the padding) after two separate runs:
I'm having trouble creating a random vector V in Matlab subject to the following set of constraints: (given parameters N,D, L, and theta)
The vector V must be N units long
The elements must have an average of theta
No 2 successive elements may differ by more than +/-10
D == sum(L*cosd(V-theta))
I'm having the most problems with the last one. Any ideas?
Edit
Solutions in other languages or equation form are equally acceptable. Matlab is just a convenient prototyping tool for me, but the final algorithm will be in java.
Edit
From the comments and initial answers I want to add some clarifications and initial thoughts.
I am not seeking a 'truly random' solution from any standard distribution. I want a pseudo randomly generated sequence of values that satisfy the constraints given a parameter set.
The system I'm trying to approximate is a chain of N links of link length L where the end of the chain is D away from the other end in the direction of theta.
My initial insight here is that theta can be removed from consideration until the end, since (2) in essence adds theta to every element of a 0 mean vector V (shifting the mean to theta) and (4) simply removes that mean again. So, if you can find a solution for theta=0, the problem is solved for all theta.
As requested, here is a reasonable range of parameters (not hard constraints, but typical values):
5<N<200
3<D<150
L==1
0 < theta < 360
I would start by creating a "valid" vector. That should be possible - say calculate it for every entry to have the same value.
Once you got that vector I would apply some transformations to "shuffle" it. "Rejection sampling" is the keyword - if the shuffle would violate one of your rules you just don't do it.
As transformations I come up with:
switch two entries
modify the value of one entry and modify a second one to keep the 4th condition (Theoretically you could just shuffle two till the condition is fulfilled - but the chance that happens is quite low)
But maybe you can find some more.
Do this reasonable often and you get a "valid" random vector. Theoretically you should be able to get all valid vectors - practically you could try to construct several "start" vectors so it won't take that long.
Here's a way of doing it. It is clear that not all combinations of theta, N, L and D are valid. It is also clear that you're trying to simulate random objects that are quite complex. You will probably have a hard time showing anything useful with respect to these vectors.
The series you're trying to simulate seems similar to the Wiener process. So I started with that, you can start with anything that is random yet reasonable. I then use that as a starting point for an optimization that tries to satisfy 2,3 and 4. The closer your initial value to a valid vector (satisfying all your conditions) the better the convergence.
function series = generate_series(D, L, N,theta)
s(1) = theta;
for i=2:N,
s(i) = s(i-1) + randn(1,1);
end
f = #(x)objective(x,D,L,N,theta)
q = optimset('Display','iter','TolFun',1e-10,'MaxFunEvals',Inf,'MaxIter',Inf)
[sf,val] = fminunc(f,s,q);
val
series = sf;
function value= objective(s,D,L,N,theta)
a = abs(mean(s)-theta);
b = abs(D-sum(L*cos(s-theta)));
c = 0;
for i=2:N,
u =abs(s(i)-s(i-1)) ;
if u>10,
c = c + u;
end
end
value = a^2 + b^2+ c^2;
It seems like you're trying to simulate something very complex/strange (a path of a given curvature?), see questions by other commenters. Still you will have to use your domain knowledge to connect D and L with a reasonable mu and sigma for the Wiener to act as initialization.
So based on your new requirements, it seems like what you're actually looking for is an ordered list of random angles, with a maximum change in angle of 10 degrees (which I first convert to radians), such that the distance and direction from start to end and link length and number of links are specified?
Simulate an initial guess. It will not hold with the D and theta constraints (i.e. specified D and specified theta)
angles = zeros(N, 1)
for link = 2:N
angles (link) = theta(link - 1) + (rand() - 0.5)*(10*pi/180)
end
Use genetic algorithm (or another optimization) to adjust the angles based on the following cost function:
dx = sum(L*cos(angle));
dy = sum(L*sin(angle));
D = sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2);
theta = atan2(dy/dx);
the cost is now just the difference between the vector given by my D and theta above and the vector given by the specified D and theta (i.e. the inputs).
You will still have to enforce the max change of 10 degrees rule, perhaps that should just make the cost function enormous if it is violated? Perhaps there is a cleaner way to specify sequence constraints in optimization algorithms (I don't know how).
I feel like if you can find the right optimization with the right parameters this should be able to simulate your problem.
You don't give us a lot of detail to work with, so I'll assume the following:
random numbers are to be drawn from [-127+theta +127-theta]
all random numbers will be drawn from a uniform distribution
all random numbers will be of type int8
Then, for the first 3 requirements, you can use this:
N = 1e4;
theta = 40;
diffVal = 10;
g = #() randi([intmin('int8')+theta intmax('int8')-theta], 'int8') + theta;
V = [g(); zeros(N-1,1, 'int8')];
for ii = 2:N
V(ii) = g();
while abs(V(ii)-V(ii-1)) >= diffVal
V(ii) = g();
end
end
inline the anonymous function for more speed.
Now, the last requirement,
D == sum(L*cos(V-theta))
is a bit of a strange one...cos(V-theta) is a specific way to re-scale the data to the [-1 +1] interval, which the multiplication with L will then scale to [-L +L]. On first sight, you'd expect the sum to average out to 0.
However, the expected value of cos(x) when x is a random variable from a uniform distribution in [0 2*pi] is 2/pi (see here for example). Ignoring for the moment the fact that our limits are different from [0 2*pi], the expected value of sum(L*cos(V-theta)) would simply reduce to the constant value of 2*N*L/pi.
How you can force this to equal some other constant D is beyond me...can you perhaps elaborate on that a bit more?
I currently implementing an optimization algorithm that requires me to sample without replacement from several sets. Although I am coding in MATLAB, this is essentially a CS question.
The situation is as follows:
I have a finite number of sets (A, B, C) each with a finite but possibly different number of elements (a1,a2...a8, b1,b2...b10, c1, c2...c25). I also have a vector of probabilities for each set which lists a probability for each element in that set (i.e. for set A, P_A = [p_a1 p_a2... p_a8] where sum(P_A) = 1). I normally use these to create a probability generating function for each set, which given a uniform number between 0 to 1, can spit out one of the elements from that set (i.e. a function P_A(u), which given u = 0.25, will select a2).
I am looking to sample without replacement from the sets A, B, and C. Each "full sample" is a sequence of elements from each of the different sets i.e. (a1, b3, c2). Note that the space of full samples is the set of all permutations of the elements in A, B, and C. In the example above, this space is (a1,a2...a8) x (b1,b2...b10) x (c1, c2...c25) and there are 8*10*25 = 2000 unique "full samples" in my space.
The annoying part of sampling without replacement with this setup is that if my first sample is (a1, b3, c2) then that does not mean I cannot sample the element a1 again - it just means that I cannot sample the full sequence (a1, b3, c2) again. Another annoying part is that the algorithm I am working with requires me do a function evaluation for all permutations of elements that I have not sampled.
The best method at my disposal right now is to keep track the sampled cases. This is a little inefficient since my sampler is forced to reject any case that has been sampled before (since I'm sampling without replacement). I then do the function evaluations for the unsampled cases, by going through each permutation (ax, by, cz) using nested for loops and only doing the function evaluation if that combination of (ax, by, cz) is not included in the sampled cases. Again, this is a little inefficient since I have to "check" whether each permutation (ax, by, cz) has already been sampled.
I would appreciate any advice in regards to this problem. In particular, I am looking a method to sample without replacement and keep track of unsampled cases that does not explicity list out the full sample space (I usually work with 10 sets with 10 elements each so listing out the full sample space would require a 10^10 x 10 matrix). I realize that this may be impossible, though finding efficient way to do it will allow me to demonstrate the true limits of the algorithm.
Do you really need to keep track of all of the unsampled cases? Even if you had a 1-by-1010 vector that stored a logical value of true or false indicating if that permutation had been sampled or not, that would still require about 10 GB of storage, and MATLAB is likely to either throw an "Out of Memory" error or bring your entire machine to a screeching halt if you try to create a variable of that size.
An alternative to consider is storing a sparse vector of indicators for the permutations you've already sampled. Let's consider your smaller example:
A = 1:8;
B = 1:10;
C = 1:25;
nA = numel(A);
nB = numel(B);
nC = numel(C);
beenSampled = sparse(1,nA*nB*nC);
The 1-by-2000 sparse matrix beenSampled is empty to start (i.e. it contains all zeroes) and we will add a one at a given index for each sampled permutation. We can get a new sample permutation using the function RANDI to give us indices into A, B, and C for the new set of values:
indexA = randi(nA);
indexB = randi(nB);
indexC = randi(nC);
We can then convert these three indices into a single unique linear index into beenSampled using the function SUB2IND:
index = sub2ind([nA nB nC],indexA,indexB,indexC);
Now we can test the indexed element in beenSampled to see if it has a value of 1 (i.e. we sampled it already) or 0 (i.e. it is a new sample). If it has been sampled already, we repeat the process of finding a new set of indices above. Once we have a permutation we haven't sampled yet, we can process it:
while beenSampled(index)
indexA = randi(nA);
indexB = randi(nB);
indexC = randi(nC);
index = sub2ind([nA nB nC],indexA,indexB,indexC);
end
beenSampled(index) = 1;
newSample = [A(indexA) B(indexB) C(indexC)];
%# ...do your subsequent processing...
The use of a sparse array will save you a lot of space if you're only going to end up sampling a small portion of all of the possible permutations. For smaller total numbers of permutations, like in the above example, I would probably just use a logical vector instead of a sparse vector.
Check the matlab documentation for the randi function; you'll just want to use that in conjunction with the length function to choose random entries from each vector. Keeping track of each sampled vector should be as simple as just concatenating it to a matrix;
current_values = [5 89 45]; % lets say this is your current sample set
used_values = [used_values; current_values];
% wash, rinse, repeat