I want to fill a 10x15 matrix in MATLAB using the formula z(i, j) = 2 * x(i) + 3 * y(j)^2, so that each entry at (i, j) = z(i, j). I have arrays for x and y, which are of size 10 and 15, respectively.
I've accomplished the task using the code below, but I want to do it in one line, since I'm told it's possible. Any thoughts?
x = linspace(0,1,10);
y = linspace(-0.5,0.5,15);
z = zeros(10,15);
m_1 = 2;
m_2 = 3;
for i = 1:length(x)
for j = 1:length(y)
z(i, j) = m_1*x(i) + m_2*y(i)^2;
end
end
It looks like you have a bug in your original loop:
You are using i index twice: m_1*x(i) + m_2*y(i)^2.
The result is that all the columns of z matrix are the same.
For applying the formula z(i, j) = 2*x(i) + 3*y(j)^2 use the following loop:
x = linspace(0,1,10);
y = linspace(-0.5,0.5,15);
z = zeros(10,15);
m_1 = 2;
m_2 = 3;
for i = 1:length(x)
for j = 1:length(y)
z(i, j) = m_1*x(i) + m_2*y(j)^2;
end
end
For implementing the above loop using one line, we may use meshgrid first.
Replace the loop with:
[Y, X] = meshgrid(y, x);
Z = m_1*X + m_2*Y.^2;
For expansions, read the documentation of meshgrid, it is much better than any of the expansions I can write...
The following command gives the same output as your original loop (but it's probably irrelevant):
Z = repmat((m_1*x + m_2*y(1:length(x)).^2)', [1, length(y)]);
Testing:
max(max(abs(Z - z)))
ans =
0
I am trying to implement a simple pixel level center-surround image enhancement. Center-surround technique makes use of statistics between the center pixel of the window and the surrounding neighborhood as a means to decide what enhancement needs to be done. In the code given below I have compared the center pixel with average of the surrounding information and based on that I switch between two cases to enhance the contrast. The code that I have written is as follows:
im = normalize8(im,1); %to set the range of pixel from 0-255
s1 = floor(K1/2); %K1 is the size of the window for surround
M = 1000; %is a constant value
out1 = padarray(im,[s1,s1],'symmetric');
out1 = CE(out1,s1,M);
out = (out1(s1+1:end-s1,s1+1:end-s1));
out = normalize8(out,0); %to set the range of pixel from 0-1
function [out] = CE(out,s,M)
B = 255;
out1 = out;
for i = s+1 : size(out,1) - s
for j = s+1 : size(out,2) - s
temp = out(i-s:i+s,j-s:j+s);
Yij = out1(i,j);
Sij = (1/(2*s+1)^2)*sum(sum(temp));
if (Yij>=Sij)
Aij = A(Yij-Sij,M);
out1(i,j) = ((B + Aij)*Yij)/(Aij+Yij);
else
Aij = A(Sij-Yij,M);
out1(i,j) = (Aij*Yij)/(Aij+B-Yij);
end
end
end
out = out1;
function [Ax] = A(x,M)
if x == 0
Ax = M;
else
Ax = M/x;
end
The code does the following things:
1) Normalize the image to 0-255 range and pad it with additional elements to perform windowing operation.
2) Calls the function CE.
3) In the function CE obtain the windowed image(temp).
4) Find the average of the window (Sij).
5) Compare the center of the window (Yij) with the average value (Sij).
6) Based on the result of comparison perform one of the two enhancement operation.
7) Finally set the range back to 0-1.
I have to run this for multiple window size (K1,K2,K3, etc.) and the images are of size 1728*2034. When the window size is selected as 100, the time consumed is very high.
Can I use vectorization at some stage to reduce the time for loops?
The profiler result (for window size 21) is as follows:
The profiler result (for window size 100) is as follows:
I have changed the code of my function and have written it without the sub-function. The code is as follows:
function [out] = CE(out,s,M)
B = 255;
Aij = zeros(1,2);
out1 = out;
n_factor = (1/(2*s+1)^2);
for i = s+1 : size(out,1) - s
for j = s+1 : size(out,2) - s
temp = out(i-s:i+s,j-s:j+s);
Yij = out1(i,j);
Sij = n_factor*sum(sum(temp));
if Yij-Sij == 0
Aij(1) = M;
Aij(2) = M;
else
Aij(1) = M/(Yij-Sij);
Aij(2) = M/(Sij-Yij);
end
if (Yij>=Sij)
out1(i,j) = ((B + Aij(1))*Yij)/(Aij(1)+Yij);
else
out1(i,j) = (Aij(2)*Yij)/(Aij(2)+B-Yij);
end
end
end
out = out1;
There is a slight improvement in the speed from 93 sec to 88 sec. Suggestions for any other improvements to my code are welcomed.
I have tried to incorporate the suggestions given to replace sliding window with convolution and then vectorize the rest of it. The code below is my implementation and I'm not getting the result expected.
function [out_im] = CE_conv(im,s,M)
B = 255;
temp = ones(2*s,2*s);
temp = temp ./ numel(temp);
out1 = conv2(im,temp,'same');
out_im = im;
Aij = im-out1; %same as Yij-Sij
Aij1 = out1-im; %same as Sij-Yij
Mij = Aij;
Mij(Aij>0) = M./Aij(Aij>0); % if Yij>Sij Mij = M/Yij-Sij;
Mij(Aij<0) = M./Aij1(Aij<0); % if Yij<Sij Mij = M/Sij-Yij;
Mij(Aij==0) = M; % if Yij-Sij == 0 Mij = M;
out_im(Aij>=0) = ((B + Mij(Aij>=0)).*im(Aij>=0))./(Mij(Aij>=0)+im(Aij>=0));
out_im(Aij<0) = (Mij(Aij<0).*im(Aij<0))./ (Mij(Aij<0)+B-im(Aij<0));
I am not able to figure out where I'm going wrong.
A detailed explanation of what I'm trying to implement is given in the following paper:
Vonikakis, Vassilios, and Ioannis Andreadis. "Multi-scale image contrast enhancement." In Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, 2008. ICARCV 2008. 10th International Conference on, pp. 856-861. IEEE, 2008.
I've tried to see if I could get those times down by processing with colfiltand nlfilter, since both are usually much faster than for-loops for sliding window image processing.
Both worked fine for relatively small windows. For an image of 2048x2048 pixels and a window of 10x10, the solution with colfilt takes about 5 seconds (on my personal computer). With a window of 21x21 the time jumped to 27 seconds, but that is still a relative improvement on the times displayed on the question. Unfortunately I don't have enough memory to colfilt using windows of 100x100, but the solution with nlfilter works, though taking about 120 seconds.
Here the code
Solution with colfilt:
function outval = enhancematrix(inputmatrix,M,B)
%Inputmatrix is a 2D matrix or column vector, outval is a 1D row vector.
% If inputmatrix is made of integers...
inputmatrix = double(inputmatrix);
%1. Compute S and Y
normFactor = 1 / (size(inputmatrix,1) + 1).^2; %Size of column.
S = normFactor*sum(inputmatrix,1); % Sum over the columns.
Y = inputmatrix(ceil(size(inputmatrix,1)/2),:); % Center row.
% So far we have all S and Y, one value per column.
%2. Compute A(abs(Y-S))
A = Afunc(abs(S-Y),M);
% And all A: one value per column.
%3. The tricky part. If Y(i)-S(i) > 0 do something.
doPositive = (Y > S);
doNegative = ~doPositive;
outval = zeros(1,size(inputmatrix,2));
outval(doPositive) = (B + A(doPositive) .* Y(doPositive)) ./ (A(doPositive) + Y(doPositive));
outval(doNegative) = (A(doNegative) .* Y(doNegative)) ./ (A(doNegative) + B - Y(doNegative));
end
function out = Afunc(x,M)
% Input x is a row vector. Output is another row vector.
out = x;
out(x == 0) = M;
out(x ~= 0) = M./x(x ~= 0);
end
And to call it, simply do:
M = 1000; B = 255; enhancenow = #(x) enhancematrix(x,M,B);
w = 21 % windowsize
result = colfilt(inputImage,[w w],'sliding',enhancenow);
Solution with nlfilter:
function outval = enhanceimagecontrast(neighbourhood,M,B)
%1. Compute S and Y
normFactor = 1 / (length(neighbourhood) + 1).^2;
S = normFactor*sum(neighbourhood(:));
Y = neighbourhood(ceil(size(neighbourhood,1)/2),ceil(size(neighbourhood,2)/2));
%2. Compute A(abs(Y-S))
test = (Y>=S);
A = Afunc(abs(Y-S),M);
%3. Return outval
if test
outval = ((B + A) * Y) / (A + Y);
else
outval = (A * Y) / (A + B - Y);
end
function aval = Afunc(x,M)
if (x == 0)
aval = M;
else
aval = M/x;
end
And to call it, simply do:
M = 1000; B = 255; enhancenow = #(x) enhanceimagecontrast(x,M,B);
w = 21 % windowsize
result = nlfilter(inputImage,[w w], enhancenow);
I didn't spend much time checking that everything is 100% correct, but I did see some nice contrast enhancement (hair looks particularly nice).
This answer is the implementation that was suggested by Peter. I debugged the implementation and presenting the final working version of the fast implementation.
function [out_im] = CE_conv(im,s,M)
B = 255;
im = ( im - min(im(:)) ) ./ ( max(im(:)) - min(im(:)) )*255;
h = ones(s,s)./(s*s);
out1 = imfilter(im,h,'conv');
out_im = im;
Aij = im-out1; %same as Yij-Sij
Aij1 = out1-im; %same as Sij-Yij
Mij = Aij;
Mij(Aij>0) = M./Aij(Aij>0); % if Yij>Sij Mij = M/(Yij-Sij);
Mij(Aij<0) = M./Aij1(Aij<0); % if Yij<Sij Mij = M/(Sij-Yij);
Mij(Aij==0) = M; % if Yij-Sij == 0 Mij = M;
out_im(Aij>=0) = ((B + Mij(Aij>=0)).*im(Aij>=0))./(Mij(Aij>=0)+im(Aij>=0));
out_im(Aij<0) = (Mij(Aij<0).*im(Aij<0))./ (Mij(Aij<0)+B-im(Aij<0));
out_im = ( out_im - min(out_im(:)) ) ./ ( max(out_im(:)) - min(out_im(:)) );
To call this use the following code
I = imread('pout.tif');
w_size = 51;
M = 4000;
output = CE_conv(I(:,:,1),w_size,M);
The output for the 'pout.tif' image is given below
The execution time for Bigger image and with 100*100 block size is around 5 secs with this implementation.
I'm trying to make a time stepping code using the 4th order Runge-Kutta method but am running into issues indexing one of my values properly. My code is:
clc;
clear all;
L = 32; M = 32; N = 32; % No. of elements
Lx = 2; Ly = 2; Lz = 2; % Size of each element
dx = Lx/L; dy = Ly/M; dz = Lz/N; % Step size
Tt = 1;
t0 = 0; % Initial condition
T = 50; % Final time
dt = (Tt-t0)/T; % Determining time step interval
% Wave characteristics
H = 2; % Wave height
a = H/2; % Amplitude
Te = 6; % Period
omega = 2*pi/Te; % Wave rotational frequency
d = 25; % Water depth
x = 0; % Location of cylinder axis
u0(1:L,1:M,1:N,1) = 0; % Setting up solution space matrix (u values)
v0(1:L,1:M,1:N,1) = 0; % Setting up solution space matrix (v values)
w0(1:L,1:M,1:N,1) = 0; % Setting up solution space matrix (w values)
[k,L] = disp(d,omega); % Solving for k and wavelength using Newton-Raphson function
%u = zeros(1,50);
%v = zeros(1,50);
%w = zeros(1,50);
time = 1:1:50;
for t = 1:T
for i = 1:L
for j = 1:M
for k = 1:N
eta(i,j,k,t) = a*cos(omega*time(1,t);
u(i,j,k,1) = u0(i,j,k,1);
v(i,j,k,1) = v0(i,j,k,1);
w(i,j,k,1) = w0(i,j,k,1);
umag(i,j,k,t) = a*omega*(cosh(k*(d+eta(i,j,k,t))))/sinh(k*d);
vmag(i,j,k,t) = 0;
wmag(i,j,k,t) = -a*omega*(sinh(k*(d+eta(i,j,k,t))))/sinh(k*d);
uRHS(i,j,k,t) = umag(i,j,k,t)*cos(k*x-omega*t);
vRHS(i,j,k,t) = vmag(i,j,k,t)*sin(k*x-omega*t);
wRHS(i,j,k,t) = wmag(i,j,k,t)*sin(k*x-omega*t);
k1x(i,j,k,t) = dt*uRHS(i,j,k,t);
k2x(i,j,k,t) = dt*(0.5*k1x(i,j,k,t) + dt*uRHS(i,j,k,t));
k3x(i,j,k,t) = dt*(0.5*k2x(i,j,k,t) + dt*uRHS(i,j,k,t));
k4x(i,j,k,t) = dt*(k3x(i,j,k,t) + dt*uRHS(i,j,k,t));
u(i,j,k,t+1) = u(i,j,k,t) + (1/6)*(k1x(i,j,k,t) + 2*k2x(i,j,k,t) + 2*k3x(i,j,k,t) + k4x(i,j,k,t));
k1y(i,j,k,t) = dt*vRHS(i,j,k,t);
k2y(i,j,k,t) = dt*(0.5*k1y(i,j,k,t) + dt*vRHS(i,j,k,t));
k3y(i,j,k,t) = dt*(0.5*k2y(i,j,k,t) + dt*vRHS(i,j,k,t));
k4y(i,j,k,t) = dt*(k3y(i,j,k,t) + dt*vRHS(i,j,k,t));
v(i,j,k,t+1) = v(i,j,k,t) + (1/6)*(k1y(i,j,k,t) + 2*k2y(i,j,k,t) + 2*k3y(i,j,k,t) + k4y(i,j,k,t));
k1z(i,j,k,t) = dt*wRHS(i,j,k,t);
k2z(i,j,k,t) = dt*(0.5*k1z(i,j,k,t) + dt*wRHS(i,j,k,t));
k3z(i,j,k,t) = dt*(0.5*k2z(i,j,k,t) + dt*wRHS(i,j,k,t));
k4z(i,j,k,t) = dt*(k3z(i,j,k,t) + dt*wRHS(i,j,k,t));
w(i,j,k,t+1) = w(i,j,k,t) + (1/6)*(k1z(i,j,k,t) + 2*k2z(i,j,k,t) + 2*k3z(i,j,k,t) + k4z(i,j,k,t));
a(i,j,k,t+1) = ((u(i,j,k,t+1))^2 + (v(i,j,k,t+1))^2 + (w(i,j,k,t+1))^2)^0.5;
end
end
end
end
At the moment, the values seem to be fine for the first iteration but then I have the error Index exceeds matrix dimension in the line calculating eta. I understand that I am not correctly indexing the eta value but am not sure how to correct this.
My goal is to update the value of eta for each loop of t and then use that new eta value for the rest of the calculations.
I'm still quite new to programming and am trying to understand indexing, especially in 3 or 4 dimensional matrices and would really appreciate any advice in correctly calculating this value.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
You declare
time = 1:1:50;
which is just a row vector but access it here
eta(i,j,k,t) = a*cos(omega*time(i,j,k,t));
as if it were an array with 4 dimensions.
To correctly access element x of time you need to use syntax
time(1,x);
(as it is a 1 x 50 array)
In Matlab I want to create the partial derivative of a cost function called J(theta_0, theta_1) (in order to do the calculations necessary to do gradient descent).
The function J(theta_0, theta_1) is defined as:
Lets say h_theta(x) = theta_1 + theta_2*x. Also: alpha is fixed, the starting values of theta_1 and theta_2 are given. Let's say in this example: alpha = 0.1 theta_1 = 0, theta_2 = 1. Also I have all the values for x and y in two different vectors.
VectorOfX =
5
5
6
VectorOfX =
6
6
10
Steps I took to try to solve this in Matlab: I have no clue how to solve this problem in matlab. So I started off with trying to define a function in Matlab and tried this:
theta_1 = 0
theta_2 = 1
syms x;
h_theta(x) = theta_1 + t2*x;
This worked, but is not what I really wanted. I wanted to get x^(i), which is in a vector. The next thing I tried was:
theta_1 = 0
theta_2 = 1
syms x;
h_theta(x) = theta_1 + t2*vectorOfX(1);
This gives the following error:
Error using sym/subsindex (line 672)
Invalid indexing or function definition. When defining a
function, ensure that the body of the function is a SYM
object. When indexing, the input must be numeric, logical or
':'.
Error in prog1>gradientDescent (line 46)
h_theta(x) = theta_1 + theta_2*vectorOfX(x);
I looked up this error and don't know how to solve it for this particular example. I have the feeling that I make matlab work against me instead of using it in my favor.
When I have to perform symbolic computations I prefer to use Mathematica. In that environment this is the code to get the partial derivatives you are looking for.
J[th1_, th2_, m_] := Sum[(th1 + th2*Subscript[x, i] - Subscript[y, i])^2, {i, 1, m}]/(2*m)
D[J[th1, th2, m], th1]
D[J[th1, th2, m], th2]
and gives
Coming back to MATLAB we can solve this problem with the following code
%// Constants.
alpha = 0.1;
theta_1 = 0;
theta_2 = 1;
X = [5 ; 5 ; 6];
Y = [6 ; 6 ; 10];
%// Number of points.
m = length(X);
%// Partial derivatives.
Dtheta1 = #(theta_1, theta_2) sum(2*(theta_1+theta_2*X-Y))/2/m;
Dtheta2 = #(theta_1, theta_2) sum(2*X.*(theta_1+theta_2*X-Y))/2/m;
%// Loop initialization.
toll = 1e-5;
maxIter = 100;
it = 0;
err = 1;
theta_1_Last = theta_1;
theta_2_Last = theta_2;
%// Iterations.
while err>toll && it<maxIter
theta_1 = theta_1 - alpha*Dtheta1(theta_1, theta_2);
theta_2 = theta_2 - alpha*Dtheta2(theta_1, theta_2);
it = it + 1;
err = norm([theta_1-theta_1_Last ; theta_2-theta_2_Last]);
theta_1_Last = theta_1;
theta_2_Last = theta_2;
end
Unfortunately for this case the iterations does not converge.
MATLAB is not very flexible for symbolic computations, however a way to get those partial derivatives is the following
m = 10;
syms th1 th2
x = sym('x', [m 1]);
y = sym('y', [m 1]);
J = #(th1, th2) sum((th1+th2.*x-y).^2)/2/m;
diff(J, th1)
diff(J, th2)
If I'm to integrate a function
y = -((F+h)M^3(cosh(h*M)+M*beta*sinh(h*M)))/(h*M*cosh(h*M)+(-1+h*M^2*beta)*sinh(h*M))- (alpha*(M^2*(F+h)*(-1+2*h^2*M^2+ cosh(2*h*M)-2*h*M*sinh(2*h*M)))/(8*(h*M*cosh(h*M)+(-1+h*M^2*beta)*sinh(h*M))^2));
with respect to x, where
phi = 0.6;
x = 0.5;
M = 2;
theta = -1:0.5:1.5;
F = theta - 1;
h = 1 + phi*cos(2*pi*x);
alpha = 0.2;beta = 0.0;
I have written an Mfile
function r = parameterIntegrate(F,h,M,beta,alpha,theta,phi)
% defining a nested function that uses one variable
phi = 0.6;
x = 0.5;
r = quad(#testf,0,1 + phi*cos(2*pi*x));
% simpson's rule from 0 to h
function y = testf(x)
h = 1 + phi*cos(2*pi*x);
theta = -1:0.5:1.5;
F = theta - 1;
M = 2;
beta = 0;
alpha = 0;
y = -((F+h)*M^3*(cosh(h*M)+M*beta*sinh(h*M)))/(h*M*cosh(h*M)+(-1+h*M^2*beta)*sinh(h*M))- (alpha*(M^2*(F+h)*(-1+2*h^2*M^2+ cosh(2*h*M)-2*h*M*sinh(2*h*M)))/(8*(h*M*cosh(h*M)+(-1+h*M^2*beta)*sinh(h*M))^2));
end
end
and called the function by
tol = [1e-5 1e-3];
q = quad(#parameterIntegrate, 0, h,tol)
or
q = quad(#parameterIntegrate, 0,1 + phi*cos(2*pi*0.5),tol)
its not working its giving me
Error using ==> plus
Matrix dimensions must agree.
What your error message means is that for some line of code, there are 2 matrices, but the dimensions don't match, so it can't add them. What I suggest you do to solve this is as follows:
Figure out exactly which line of code is causing the problem.
If the line has large numbers of variables, simplify them some.
Remember that if there are any matrixs at all, and you don't want to do matrix multiplication/division, use the .*, ./, and .^.
I suspect that if you change your multiplies/divides with step 3, your problem will go away.