I have x,y,z data for birds flying.
5.41634053198718 -18.1810946096409 -0.780385429905346
5.35578033638605 -18.1270442655634 -0.776694225482939
5.28687303433952 -18.0715127366784 -0.771968693273565
5.22280640780212 -18.0183932558829 -0.754602789629705
5.15964035792608 -17.9643849978555 -0.745350176350257
5.09014224340910 -17.8968959680244 -0.731112510479869
5.02017144713341 -17.8157826681313 -0.716412745992774
4.94927907542683 -17.7428283683055 -0.705797975911837
4.88058887728044 -17.6828866166493 -0.695765115125014
4.81567941240209 -17.6178084266463 -0.687394977780229
I want to know the kinematic properties of the flight trajectory. Currently, I have tried using smoothing with Matlab spaps function to generate a quintic spline, as is often been done in the literature. I use the spline to generate 1st and 2nd derivatives (velocity and acceleration). This yields the following:
Velocity (m/s)
7.53445215021684
8.69441552364295
8.81064845682925
8.18234102569862
8.90947412371613
10.6002874957899
10.6624464789766
9.82686835741751
8.47284851350541
11.3409318153158
Linear Acceleration (m/s^2)
183.838635562134
102.230396070086
217.935743093510
166.277761581847
195.859134993080
177.605911374232
133.877969039041
111.044847076448
83.5303968061012
691.158834476335
Velocity seems like realistic values, but I do not have experience with calculating acceleration and these values seem wildly high. I even tried just using the equations for velocity and acceleration (time between positions is 0.01 because data were sampled at 100 fps). Papers of other flying animals do not seem to have accelerations this high but I can't figure out where I am going wrong. Can anyone shed some light here? Am I just going about this incorrectly? How can I verify my answers?
If you look for example at the first two elements of your velocity array, they differ by 1.159963373426111m/s in 0.01s, so it is kind of consistent with accelerations of the order of hundreds of m/s^2. Whether this is possible or not for your flying animals I can't tell.
On the other hand, keep in mind that velocities and accelerations are always vector quantities, while I guess you're just looking at the magnitude?
Related
I'm trying to do a simulation of a 2-body mass-spring-damper. I've set up a state-space model that I'm pretty confident in and set an input of a displacement and velocity at the base in just one degree of freedom. Upon getting my outputs, I expected that the output vector would just be the state vector at each time step. However, when plotting the output vector corresponding to displacement for each mass in the vertical direction (the input direction), it looked much more like a velocity (0 at the extrema of the input). The plots are shown below:
When I integrated the top 2 plots, I got the following:
Now, I obviously can just accept the outputs as they are and assume I am right in my understanding. But, I want to be sure. From the documentation page:
lsim(___) also returns the time vector t used for simulation and the
state trajectories x (for state-space models only)
I'm just hoping to find out whether or not I am correct in that the output matrix columns correspond to the history of the state derivatives before I go base an analysis on a bad assumption.
I figured it out. My B-matrix expected [derivative, state,...] but I had them in the opposite order.
What is the fitness function used to solve an inverted pendulum ?
I am evolving neural networks with genetic algorithm. And I don't know how to evaluate each individual.
I tried minimize the angle of pendulum and maximize distance traveled at the end of evaluation time (10 s), but this won't work.
inputs for neural network are: cart velocity, cart position, pendulum angular velocity and pendulum angle at time (t). The output is the force applied at time (t+1)
thanks in advance.
I found this paper which lists their objective function as being:
Defined as:
where "Xmax = 1.0, thetaMax = pi/6, _X'max = 1.0, theta'Max =
3.0, N is the number of iteration steps, T = 0.02 * TS and Wk are selected positive weights." (Using specific values for angles, velocities, and positions from the paper, however, you will want to use your own values depending on the boundary conditions of your pendulum).
The paper also states "The first and second terms determine the accumulated sum of
normalised absolute deviations of X1 and X3 from zero and the third term when minimised, maximises the survival time."
That should be more than enough to get started with, but i HIGHLY recommend you read the whole paper. Its a great read and i found it quite educational.
You can make your own fitness function, but i think the idea of using a position, velocity, angle, and the rate of change of the angle the pendulum is a good idea for the fitness function. You can, however, choose to use those variables in very different ways than the way the author of the paper chose to model their function.
It wouldn't hurt to read up on harmonic oscillators either. They take the general form:
mx" + Bx' -kx = Acos(w*t)
(where B, or A may be 0 depending on whether or not the oscillator is damped/undamped or driven/undriven respectively).
Please help. The condensation algorithm steps to track an object in a frame are:
Initialize a point and choose N random points around it and set the weight to be 1/N.
Propagate the points as per the dynamic model (constant velocity model).
Now, calculate the weights of each particle using an observation model. Till now, there are N particles.
Now, in the resampling step pick N particles from the above set of particles?
What? How can we pick N particles from N particles?
How can we pick N particles from N particles?
Pick N particles with replacement, i.e one particle can be chosen more than one time according to the weight you assign to it.
If you have 3 particles , with weight [0.1 0.2 0.7 ] , then choose the 3rd particle twice and 2nd particle one,hence you have selected get 3 particles from 3 particles itself.
There are many techniques to do this step i.e resampling N particles.Even I am trying to write a code for this part only.
Some sites where you can learn about resampling is :-
Udacity - Artificial Intelligence for Robotics - Link to the course page
IEEE paper- tutorial on Particle filter for online .... by Arulampalam ,gordon maskell, This is a highly cited paper,and almost every where people have taken references for particle filter from here only.
This paper is lecture tutorial in which they have explained resampling nicely, just follow the algorithm, and i think your code will do the resampling Link
I don't know how much detail is required...forgive me if most of this is known. The particle filter attempts to estimate the posterior distribution p(x_t|y_1,...,y_t) based on the observations y_1,...,y_t. The "correction step" relies on the simplification:
p(x_t|y_1,...,y_t) = p(y_t|x_t)p(x_t|y_1,...,y_t-1)/p(y_t|y_1,...,y_t-1)
N points are sampled from this posterior distribution, then evolved according to the right-hand side to approximate the next posterior. We are not dealing with normals so we need to approximate more than just 2 moments. The N points for the next step are then resampled from the new posterior, rather than just using the old points, wherever they have eveolved. The reason is the well-known degeneracy effect - that all points but 1 will tend to 0.
So we are not picking N particles from N particles, but rather throwing away the old particles, and resampling N from the new estimate of the posterior.
I am trying to measure the PSD of a stochastic process in matlab, but I am not sure how to do it. I have posted the exact same question here, but I thought I might have more luck here.
The stochastic process describes wind speed, and is represented by a vector of real numbers. Each entry corresponds to the wind speed in a point in space, measured in m/s. The points are 0.0005 m apart. How do I measure and plot the PSD? Let's call the vector V. My first idea was to use
[p, w] = pwelch(V);
loglog(w,p);
But is this correct? The thing is, that I'm given an analytical expression, which the PSD should (in theory) match. By plotting it with these two lines of code, it looks all wrong. Specifically it looks as though it could need a translation and a scaling. Other than that, the shapes of the two are similar.
UPDATE:
The image above actually doesn't depict the PSD obtained by using pwelch on a single vector, but rather the mean of the PSD of 200 vectors, since these vectors stems from numerical simulations. As suggested, I have tried scaling by 2*pi/0.0005. I saw that you can actually give this information to pwelch. So I tried using the code
[p, w] = pwelch(V,[],[],[],2*pi/0.0005);
loglog(w,p);
instead. As seen below, it looks much nicer. It is, however, still not perfect. Is that just something I should expect? Taking the squareroot is not the answer, by the way. But thanks for the suggestion. For one thing, it should follow Kolmogorov's -5/3 law, which it does now (it follows the green line, which has slope -5/3). The function I'm trying to match it with is the Shkarofsky spectral density function, which is the one-dimensional Fourier transform of the Shkarofsky correlation function. Is it not possible to mark up math, here on the site?
UPDATE 2:
I have tried using [p, w] = pwelch(V,[],[],[],1/0.0005); as I was suggested. But as you can seem it still doesn't quite match up. It's hard for me to explain exactly what I'm looking for. But what I would like (or, what I expected) is that the dip, of the computed and the analytical PSD happens at the same time, and falls off with the same speed. The data comes from simulations of turbulence. The analytical expression has been fitted to actual measurements of turbulence, wherein this dip is present as well. I'm no expert at all, but as far as I know the dip happens at the small length scales, since the energy is dissipated, due to viscosity of the air.
What about using the standard equation for obtaining a PSD? I'd would do this way:
Sxx(f) = (fft(x(t)).*conj(fft(x(t))))*(dt^2);
or
Sxx = fftshift(abs(fft(x(t))))*(dt^2);
Then, if you really need, you may think of applying a windowing criterium, such as
Hanning
Hamming
Welch
which will only somehow filter your PSD.
Presumably you need to rescale the frequency (wavenumber) to units of 1/m.
The frequency units from pwelch should be rescaled, since as the documentation explains:
W is the vector of normalized frequencies at which the PSD is
estimated. W has units of rad/sample.
Off the cuff my guess is that the scaling factor is
scale = 1/0.0005/(2*pi);
or 318.3 (m^-1).
As for the intensity, it looks like taking a square root might help. Perhaps your equation reports an intensity, not PSD?
Edit
As you point out, since the analytical and computed PSD have nearly identical slopes they appear to obey similar power laws up to 800 m^-1. I am not sure to what degree you require exponents or offsets to match to be satisfied with a specific model, and I am not familiar with this particular theory.
As for the apparent inconsistency at high wavenumbers, I would point out that you are entering the domain of very small numbers and therefore (1) floating point issues and (2) noise are probably lurking. The very nice looking dip in the computed PSD on the other hand appears very real but I have no explanation for it (maybe your noise is not white?).
You may want to look at this submission at matlab central as it may be useful.
Edit #2
After inspecting documentation of pwelch, it appears that you should pass 1/0.0005 (the sampling rate) and not 2*pi/0.0005. This should not affect the slope but will affect the intercept.
The dip in PSD in your simulation results looks similar to aliasing artifacts
that I have seen in my data when the original data were interpolated with a
low-order method. To make this clearer - say my original data was spaced at
0.002m, but in the course of cleaning up missing data, trying to save space, whatever,
I linearly interpolated those data onto a 0.005m spacing. The frequency response
of linear interpolation is not well-behaved, and will introduce peaks and valleys
at the high wavenumber end of your spectrum.
There are different conventions for spectral estimates - whether the wavenumber
units are 1/m, or radians/m. Single-sided spectra or double-sided spectra.
help pwelch
shows that the default settings return a one-sided spectrum, i.e. the bin for some
frequency ω will include the power density for both +ω and -ω.
You should double check that the idealized spectrum to which you are comparing
is also a one-sided spectrum. Otherwise, you'll need to half the values of your
one-sided spectrum to get values representative of the +ω side of a
two-sided spectrum.
I agree with Try Hard that it is the cyclic frequency (generally Hz, or in this case 1/m)
which should be specified to pwelch. That said, the returned frequency vector
from pwelch is also in those units. Analytical
spectral formulae are usually written in terms of angular frequency, so you'll
want to be sure that you evaluate it in terms of radians/m, but scale back to 1/m
for plotting.
I am trying to program a 3 body problem using matlab. I was given the formula for the moon's trajectory in its rotational frame in space. It's basically the ydotdot, xdotdot=GM/(x^2+y^2)^3/2 formula. What the formula is, is not that important.
THe problem I am facing is that, I am supposed to code up a program that will numerically solve the moon's trajectory equation. I'm using ODE45 to compare with since my goal is to get the same results as ODE45. My ultimate problem is that, I want to iterate through time in terms of days so tspan= [0 365]. The thins is when I convert Gravitational constant to seconds and then do tspace= [0 365] I get a completely different result then If I were to do [0 365*3600*34] representing the seconds in a year and G= 6.67e-11. It seems that my units are very weird.
I was wondering if anyone can explain why this is happening when I use ODE 45. Why can't I convert seconds to days clearly using ODE45? Is there an extra step I have to do? The only other variables in my problem is radius, distance, and the mass of the 3 bodies.
Thank you so much. I've been working on this for a very very long time. Any help would be much appreciated.
That formula for gravitational acceleration along each axis isn't correct.
Put the earth, with mass M_e, at the origin, with the moon (mass M_m) at (x,y). Then
the earth-moon distance is given by:
R_em = sqrt(x^2 + y^2)
The total earth-moon force is given by:
F_em = G*M_e*M_m/R_em^2
The total acceleration due to Earth's gravity is given by:
a_em = F_em/M_m = G*M_e/R_em^2
and is directed toward the origin. The acceleration along
each axis is then:
xdotdot = -F_em*cos(theta) = -F_em*x/R_em = -G*M_e*x/R_em^(3/2)
ydotdot = -F_em*sin(theta) = -F_em*y/R_em = -G*M_e*y/R_em^(3/2)
Note the x and y factors, which are missing from the formula you stated.
I'm not sure what you mean by "converting the gravitational constant to seconds".
The value you're using for G has units of newton-meter^2/kg^2. So it's already
expressed in the MKS (meter-kilogram-second) system, and the accelerations calculated
using this value will have units of meters/sec^2.
With a third body (say, the sun) at (x_s, y_s), you compute a new R_s representing
the moon-sun distance, and compute new acceleration vectors as above, using the
sun's mass M_s (except the acceleration is now in the direction of (x_s, y_s), rather than (0,0)). The accelerations of the moon from the gravity of the earth and the sun just add component-wise, once everything is put into a common coordinate system (here,
geocentric coordinates -- although heliocentric might be a more convenient choice, if you're simulating the sun-earth-moon system). That, plus the initial positions and velocities, should be all you need to compute the positions and velocities at the next time step.