I am simulating the case "Cavity driven lid" and I try to get all the stream lines with the stream tracer of paraview, but I only get the ones that intersect the reference line, and because of that there are vortices that are not visible. How can I see all the stream-lines in the domain?
Thanks a lot in adavance.
To add a little bit to Mathieu's answer, if you really want streamlines everywhere, then you can create a Stream Tracer With Custom Source (as Mathieu suggested) and set your data to both the Input and the Seed Source. That will create a streamline originating from every point in your dataset, which is pretty much what you asked for.
However, while you can do this, you will probably not be happy with the results. First of all, unless your data is trivially small, this will take a long time to compute and create a large amount of data. Even worse, the result will be so dense that you won't be able to see anything. You will get all those interesting streamlines through vortices, but they will be completely hidden by all the boring streamlines around them.
Thus, you are better off with trying to derive a data set that contains seed points that are likely to trace a stream through the vortices that you are interested in. One thing you might want to try is to compute the vorticity of your vector field (Gradient Of Unstructured Data Set when turning on advanced option Compute Vorticity), find the magnitude of that (Calculator), and then use the Threshold filter to pull out the cells with large vorticity. Then use that as your Seed Source.
Another (probably better) option if your data is 2D or you can extract an interesting surface along the flow of your data is to use the Surface LIC plugin. Details can be found at https://www.paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView/Line_Integral_Convolution.
You have to choose a representative source for your streamline.
You could use a "Sphere Source", so in the StreamTracer properties.
If that fails, you can use a StreamTracerWithCustomSource and use your own source that you will have to create yourself first.
Related
I need to write a program where part of the TensorFlow nodes need to keep being there storing some global information(mainly variables and summaries) while the other part need to be changed/reorganized as program runs.
The way I do now is to reconstruct the whole graph in every iteration. But then, I have to store and load those information manually from/to checkpoint files or numpy arrays in every iteration, which makes my code really messy and error prone.
I wonder if there is a way to remove/modify part of my computation graph instead of reset the whole graph?
Changing the structure of TensorFlow graphs isn't really possible. Specifically, there isn't a clean way to remove nodes from a graph, so removing a subgraph and adding another isn't practical. (I've tried this, and it involves surgery on the internals. Ultimately, it's way more effort than it's worth, and you're asking for maintenance headaches.)
There are some workarounds.
Your reconstruction is one of them. You seem to have a pretty good handle on this method, so I won't harp on it, but for the benefit of anyone else who stumbles upon this, a very similar method is a filtered deep copy of the graph. That is, you iterate over the elements and add them in, predicated on some condition. This is most viable if the graph was given to you (i.e., you don't have the functions that built it in the first place) or if the changes are fairly minor. You still pay the price of rebuilding the graph, but sometimes loading and storing can be transparent. Given your scenario, though, this probably isn't a good match.
Another option is to recast the problem as a superset of all possible graphs you're trying to evaluate and rely on dataflow behavior. In other words, build a graph which includes every type of input you're feeding it and only ask for the outputs you need. Good signs this might work are: your network is parametric (perhaps you're just increasing/decreasing widths or layers), the changes are minor (maybe including/excluding inputs), and your operations can handle variable inputs (reductions across a dimension, for instance). In your case, if you have only a small, finite number of tree structures, this could work well. You'll probably just need to add some aggregation or renormalization for your global information.
A third option is to treat the networks as physically split. So instead of thinking of one network with mutable components, treat the boundaries between fixed and changing pieces are inputs and outputs of two separate networks. This does make some things harder: for instance, backprop across both is now ugly (which it sounds like might be a problem for you). But if you can avoid that, then two networks can work pretty well. It ends up feeling a lot like dealing with a separate pretraining phase, which you many already be comfortable with.
Most of these workarounds have a fairly narrow range of problems that they work for, so they might not help in your case. That said, you don't have to go all-or-nothing. If partially splitting the network or creating a supergraph for just some changes works, then it might be that you only have to worry about save/restore for a few cases, which may ease your troubles.
Hope this helps!
I thought this should be a simple task, I just can't find the way to do it:
I am using 'imregister' (MATLAB) to register two medical X-ray images.
To ensure I get the best registration outcome as possible, I use some image processing techniques such as contrast enhancement, blackening of objects that are different between images and even cropping.
The outcome of this seems to be quite satisfying.
Now, I want to perform the exact same registaration on the original images, so that I can display the two ORIGINAL images automatically in alignment.
I think that an output parameter such as tform serves this purpose of performing a certain registration on any two images, but unfortunately 'imregister' does not provide such a parameter, as far as I know.
It does provide as an output the spatial referencing object R_reg which might be the answer, but I still haven't figured out how to use it to re-preform the registration.
I should mention that since I am dealing with medical X-ray images on which non of the feature-detecting algorithms seem to work well enough to perform registration, I can only use intensity-based (as opposed to feature-based) registration, and therefore am using 'imregister'.
Does anyone know how I can accomplish this?
Thanks!
Noga
So to make an answer out of my comment, there are 2 things you can do depending on the Matlab release you are using:
Option 1: R2013a and earlier
I suggest modifying the built-in imregister function by forcing tform to be an output and save that function under another name.
For example:
function [movingReg,Rreg,tform] = imregister2(varargin)
save that, add it to your path and you're good to go. If you type edit imregister you will notice that the 1st line calls imregtform to get the geometric transformation required, while the last line calls imwarp, to apply that geometric transformation. Which leads us to Option 2.
Option 2: R2013b and later
Well in that case you can directly use imregtform to get the tform object and then use imwarpto apply it. Easy isn't it?
Hope that makes things clearer!
I have data sets for two groups, with one being much smaller than the other. For that reason, I am using the MatLab bootstrapping function to estimate the performance of the smaller group. I have code that draws on my original data, and it generates 1000 'new' means. However, it is not clear as to how many of the original data points are used each time. Obviously, if all the original data was used, the same mean would continue to be generated.
Can anyone help me out with this?
Bootstrapping comes from sampling with replacement. You'll use the same number of points as the original data, but some of them will be repeated. There are some variants of bootstrapping which work slightly differently, however. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(statistics).
I am trying to work out the best way to structure an application that in essence is a peak detection program. In my line of work I have been given charge of developing a system that essentially is looking at pulses in a stream of data and doing calculations on the peak data.
At the moment the software is implemented in LabVIEW. I'm sure many of you on here would understand why I'd love to see the end of that environment. I would like to redesign this in Scala (and possibly use Play if I was to make it use a web frontend) but I am not sure how best to approach the initial peak-detection component.
I've seen many tutorials for peak detection in various languages and I understand from a theoretical perspective many of the algorithms. What I am not sure is how would I approach this from the most Scala/Play idiomatic way?
Obviously I don't expect someone to write the code for me but I would really appreciate any pointers as to the direction I should take that makes the most sense. Since I cannot be too specific on the use case I'll try to give an overview of what I'm trying to do below:
Interfacing with data acquisition hardware to send out control voltages and read back "streams" of data.
I should be able to work the hardware side out, but is there a specific structure that would be best for the returned stream? I don't necessarily know ahead of time how much data I'll be reading so a stream that can be buffered and chunked would probably be appropriate.
Scan through the stream to find peaks and measure their height and trigger an event.
Peaks are usually about 20 samples wide or so but that depends on sample rate so I don't want to hard-code anything like that. I assume a sliding window would be necessary so peaks don't get "cut off" on the edge of a buffer. As a peak arrives I need to record and act on it. I think reactive streams and so on may be appropriate but I'm not sure. I will be making live graphs etc with the data so however it is done I need a way to send an event immediately on a successful detection.
The streams can be quite long and are at high sample-rates (minimum of 250ksamples per second) so I'd prefer not to have to buffer the entire stream to memory. The only information that needs to be permanent is the peak voltage data. I will need a way to visualise the raw stream for calibration purposes but I imagine that should be pretty simple.
The full application is much more complex and I'll need to do some initial filtering of noise and drift but I believe I should be able to work that out once I know what kind of implementation I should build on.
I've tried to look into Play's Iteratees and such but they are a little hard to follow. If they are an appropriate fit then I'm happy to work on learning them but since I'm not sure if that is the best way to approach the problem I'd love to know where I should look.
Reactive frameworks and the like certainly look interesting and I can see how I could really easily build the rest of the application around them but I'm just not sure how best to implement a streaming peak detection function on top of them beyond something simple like triggering when a value is over a threshold (as mentioned previously a "peak" can be quite wide and the signal is noisy).
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
This is not a solution to this question but I'm writing this as an answer because of space/formatting limitations in the comments section.
Since you are exploring options I would suggest the following:
Assuming you have a large enough buffer to keep a window of data in memory (W=tXw) you can calculate the peak for the buffer using your existing algorithm. Next you can collect the next few samples data in a delta buffer (d) (a much smaller window). The delta buffer is the size of your increment. Assuming this is time series data you can easily create the new sliding window by removing the first delta (dXt) values from the buffer W and adding d values to the buffer. This is how Spark-streaming implements reduceByWindow function on a DStream. Iteratee can also help here.
If your system is distributed then you can use stream processing systems (Storm, Spark-streaming) to get better latency and throughput at the cost of distributing the system.
If you are really resource constrained and can live approximate results that bounded I would suggest you look at implementing a combination of probabilistic data structures such as count-min-sketch, hyperloglog and bloom filter.
I have a picture.1200*1175 pixel.I want to train a net(mlp or hopfield) to learn a specific part of it(201*111pixel) to save its weight to use in a new net(with the same previous feature)only without train it to find that specific part.now there are this questions :what kind of nets is useful;mlp or hopfield,if mlp;the number of hidden layers;the trainlm function is unuseful because "out of memory" error.I convert the picture to a binary image,is it useful?
What exactly do you need the solution to do? Find an object with an image (like "Where's Waldo"?). Will the target object always be the same size and orientation? Might it look different because of lighting changes?
If you just need to find a fixed pattern of pixels within a larger image, I suggest using a straightforward correlation measure, such as crosscorrelation to find it efficiently.
If you need to contend with any of the issues mentioned above, then there are two basic solutions: 1. Build a model using examples of the object in different poses, scalings, etc. so that the model will recognize any of them, or 2. Develop a way to normalize the patch of pixels being examined, to minimize the effect of those distortions (like Hu's invariant moments). If nothing else, yuo'll want to perform some sort of data reduction to get the number of inputs down. Technically, you could also try a model which is invariant to rotations, etc., but I don't know how well those work. I suspect that they are more tempermental than traditional approaches.
I found AdaBoost to be helpful in picking out only important bits of an image. That, and resizing the image to something very tiny (like 40x30) using a Gaussian filter will speed it up and put weight on more of an area of the photo rather than on a tiny insignificant pixel.