I am currently working on an assignment where I need to create two different controllers in Matlab/Simulink for a robotic exoskeleton leg. The idea behind this is to compare both of them and see which controller is better at assisting a human wearing it. I am having a lot of trouble putting specific equations into a Matlab function block to then run in Simulink to get results for an AFO (adaptive frequency oscillator). The link has the equations I'm trying to put in and the following is the code I have so far:
function [pos_AFO, vel_AFO, acc_AFO, offset, omega, phi, ampl, phi1] = LHip(theta, eps, nu, dt, AFO_on)
t = 0;
% syms j
% M = 6;
% j = sym('j', [1 M]);
if t == 0
omega = 3*pi/2;
theta = 0;
phi = pi/2;
ampl = 0;
else
omega = omega*(t-1) + dt*(eps*offset*cos(phi1));
theta = theta*(t-1) + dt*(nu*offset);
phi = phi*(t-1) + dt*(omega + eps*offset*cos(phi*core(t-1)));
phi1 = phi*(t-1) + dt*(omega + eps*offset*cos(phi*core(t-1)));
ampl = ampl*(t-1) + dt*(nu*offset*sin(phi));
offset = theta - theta*(t-1) - sym(ampl*sin(phi), [1 M]);
end
pos_AFO = (theta*(t-1) + symsum(ampl*(t-1)*sin(phi* (t-1))))*AFO_on; %symsum needs input argument for index M and range
vel_AFO = diff(pos_AFO)*AFO_on;
acc_AFO = diff(vel_AFO)*AFO_on;
end
https://www.pastepic.xyz/image/pg4mP
Essentially, I don't know how to do the subscripts, sigma, or the (t+1) function. Any help is appreciated as this is due next week
You are looking to find the result of an adaptive process therefore your algorithm needs to consider time as it progresses. There is no (t-1) operator as such. It is just a mathematical notation telling you that you need to reuse an old value to calculate a new value.
omega_old=0;
theta_old=0;
% initialize the rest of your variables
for [t=1:N]
omega[t] = omega_old + % here is the rest of your omega calculation
theta[t] = theta_old + % ...
% more code .....
% remember your old values for next iteration
omega_old = omega[t];
theta_old = theta[t];
end
I think you forgot to apply the modulo operation to phi judging by the original formula you linked. As a general rule, design your code in small pieces, make sure the output of each piece makes sense and then combine all pieces and make sure the overall result is correct.
Related
I am trying to use the Metropolis Hastings algorithm with a random walk sampler to simulate samples from a function $$ in matlab, but something is wrong with my code. The proposal density is the uniform PDF on the ellipse 2s^2 + 3t^2 ≤ 1/4. Can I use the acceptance rejection method to sample from the proposal density?
N=5000;
alpha = #(x1,x2,y1,y2) (min(1,f(y1,y2)/f(x1,x2)));
X = zeros(2,N);
accept = false;
n = 0;
while n < 5000
accept = false;
while ~accept
s = 1-rand*(2);
t = 1-rand*(2);
val = 2*s^2 + 3*t^2;
% check acceptance
accept = val <= 1/4;
end
% and then draw uniformly distributed points checking that u< alpha?
u = rand();
c = u < alpha(X(1,i-1),X(2,i-1),X(1,i-1)+s,X(2,i-1)+t);
X(1,i) = c*s + X(1,i-1);
X(2,i) = c*t + X(2,i-1);
n = n+1;
end
figure;
plot(X(1,:), X(2,:), 'r+');
You may just want to use the native implementation of matlab mhsample.
Regarding your code, there are a few things missing:
- function alpha,
- loop variable i (it might be just n but it is not suited for indexing since it starts at zero).
And you should always allocate memory in matlab if you want to fill it dynamically, i.e. X in your case.
To expand on the suggestions by #max, the code appears to work if you change the i indices to n and replace
n = 0;
with
n = 2;
X(:,1) = [.1,.1];
It would probably be better to assign X(:,1) to random values within your accept region (using the same code you use later), and/or include a burn-in period.
Depending upon what you are going to do with this, it may also make things cleaner to evaluate the argument to sin in the f function to keep it within 0 to 2 pi (likely by shifting the value by 2 pi if it exceeds those bounds)
I wanted to compute a finite difference with respect to the change of the function in Matlab. In other words
f(x+e_i) - f(x)
is what I want to compute. Note that its very similar to the first order numerical partial differentiation (forward differentiation in this case) :
(f(x+e_i) - f(x)) / (e_i)
Currently I am using for loops to compute it but it seems that Matlab is much slower than I thought. I am doing it as follows:
function [ dU ] = numerical_gradient(W,f,eps)
%compute gradient or finite difference update numerically
[D1, D2] = size(W);
dU = zeros(D1, D2);
for d1=1:D1
for d2=1:D2
e = zeros([D1,D2]);
e(d1,d2) = eps;
f_e1 = f(W+e);
f_e2 = f(W-e);
%numerical_derivative = (f_e1 - f_e2)/(2*eps);
%dU(d1,d2) = numerical_derivative
numerical_difference = f_e1 - f_e2;
dU(d1,d2) = numerical_difference;
end
end
it seems that its really difficult to vectorize the above code because for numerical differences follow the definition of the gradient and partial derivatives which is:
df_dW = [ ..., df_dWi, ...]
where df_dWi assumes the other coordinates are fixed and it only worries about the change of the variable Wi. Thus, I can't just change all the coordinates at once.
Is there a better way to do this? My intuition tells me that the best way to do this is to implement this not in matlab but in some other language, say C and then have matlab call that library. Is that true? Does it mean that the best solution is some Matlab library that does this for me?
I did see:
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/332414-what-is-the-quickest-way-to-find-a-gradient-or-finite-difference-in-matlab-of-a-real-function-in-hig
but unfortunately, it computes exact derivatives, which isn't what I am looking for. I am explicitly looking for differences or "bad approximation" to the gradient.
Since it seems this code is not easy to vectorize (in fact my intuition tells me its not possible to do so) my only other idea is to implement this finite difference function in C and then have C call the function. Is this a good idea? Anyone know how to do this?
I did try reading the following:
https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/matlab_external/standalone-example.html
but it was too difficult to understand for me because I have no idea what a mex file is, if I need to have a arrayProduct.c file as well as a mex.h file, if I also needed a matlab file, etc. If there just existed a way to simply download a working example with all the functions they suggest there and some instructions to compile it, then it would be super helpful. But just reading the hmtl/article like that its impossible for me to infer what they want me to do.
For the sake of completness it seems reddit has some comments in its discussion of this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/matlab/comments/623m7i/how_does_one_compute_a_single_finite_differences/
Here is a more efficient doing so:
function [ vNumericalGrad ] = CalcNumericalGradient( hInputFunc, vInputPoint, epsVal )
numElmnts = size(vInputPoint, 1);
vNumericalGrad = zeros([numElmnts, 1]);
refVal = hInputFunc(vInputPoint);
for ii = 1:numElmnts
% Set the perturbation vector
refInVal = vInputPoint(ii);
vInputPoint(ii) = refInVal + epsVal;
% Compute Numerical Gradient
vNumericalGrad(ii) = (hInputFunc(vInputPoint) - refVal) / epsVal;
% Reset the perturbation vector
vInputPoint(ii) = refInVal;
end
end
This code allocate less memory.
The above code performance will be totally controlled by the speed of the hInputFunction.
The small tricks compared to original code are:
No memory reallocation of e each iteration.
Instead of addition of vectors W + e there are 2 assignments to the array.
Decreasing the calls to hInputFunction() by half by defining the reference value outside the loop (This only works for Forward / Backward difference).
Probably this will be very close to C code unless you can code in C more efficiently the function which computes the value (hInputFunction).
A full implementation can be found in StackOverflow Q44984132 Repository (It was Posted in StackOverflow Q44984132).
See CalcFunGrad( vX, hObjFun, difMode, epsVal ).
A way better approach (numerically more stable, no issue of choosing the perturbation hyperparameter, accurate up to machine precision) is to use algorithmic/automatic differentiation. For this you need the Matlab Deep Learning Toolbox. Then you can use dlgradient to compute the gradient. Below you find the source code attached corresponding to your example.
Most importantly, you can examine the error and observe that the deviation of the automatic approach from the analytical solution is indeed machine precision, while for the finite difference approach (I choose second order central differences) the error is orders of magnitude higher. For 100 points and a range of $[-10, 10]$ this errors are somewhat tolerable, but if you play a bit with Rand_Max and n_points you observe that the errors become larger and larger.
Error of algorithmic / automatic diff. is: 1.4755528111219851e-14
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9999999999348703e-01 for perturbation 1.0000000000000001e-01
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9999999632850161e-03 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-02
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9999905867860374e-05 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-03
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9664569947425062e-07 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-04
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.0537897883625319e-07 for perturbation 1.0000000000000001e-05
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.5469326944467290e-06 for perturbation 9.9999999999999995e-07
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.3322061696937969e-05 for perturbation 9.9999999999999995e-08
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.7059535957436630e-04 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-08
Error of finite difference diff. is: 4.9702408787320664e-04 for perturbation 1.0000000000000001e-09
Source Code:
f2.m
function y = f2(x)
x1 = x(:, 1);
x2 = x(:, 2);
x3 = x(:, 3);
y = x1.^2 + 2*x2.^2 + 2*x3.^3 + 2*x1.*x2 + 2*x2.*x3;
f2_grad_analytic.m:
function grad = f2_grad_analytic(x)
x1 = x(:, 1);
x2 = x(:, 2);
x3 = x(:, 3);
grad(:, 1) = 2*x1 + 2*x2;
grad(:, 2) = 4*x2 + 2*x1 + 2 * x3;
grad(:, 3) = 6*x3.^2 + 2*x2;
f2_grad_AD.m:
function grad = f2_grad_AD(x)
x1 = x(:, 1);
x2 = x(:, 2);
x3 = x(:, 3);
y = x1.^2 + 2*x2.^2 + 2*x3.^3 + 2*x1.*x2 + 2*x2.*x3;
grad = dlgradient(y, x);
CalcNumericalGradient.m:
function NumericalGrad = CalcNumericalGradient(InputPoints, eps)
% (Central, second order accurate FD)
NumericalGrad = zeros(size(InputPoints) );
for i = 1:size(InputPoints, 2)
perturb = zeros(size(InputPoints));
perturb(:, i) = eps;
NumericalGrad(:, i) = (f2(InputPoints + perturb) - f2(InputPoints - perturb)) / (2 * eps);
end
main.m:
clear;
close all;
clc;
n_points = 100;
Rand_Max = 20;
x_test_FD = rand(n_points, 3) * Rand_Max - Rand_Max/2;
% Calculate analytical solution
grad_analytic = f2_grad_analytic(x_test_FD);
grad_AD = zeros(n_points, 3);
for i = 1:n_points
x_test_dl = dlarray(x_test_FD(i,:) );
grad_AD(i,:) = dlfeval(#f2_grad_AD, x_test_dl);
end
Err_AD = norm(grad_AD - grad_analytic);
fprintf("Error of algorithmic / automatic diff. is: %.16e\n", Err_AD);
eps_range = [1e-1, 1e-2, 1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5, 1e-6, 1e-7, 1e-8, 1e-9];
for i = 1:length(eps_range)
eps = eps_range(i);
grad_FD = CalcNumericalGradient(x_test_FD, eps);
Err_FD = norm(grad_FD - grad_analytic);
fprintf("Error of finite difference diff. is: %.16e for perturbation %.16e\n", Err_FD, eps);
end
I'm trying to verify if my implementation of Logistic Regression in Matlab is good. I'm doing so by comparing the results I get via my implementation with the results given by the built-in function mnrfit.
The dataset D,Y that I have is such that each row of D is an observation in R^2 and the labels in Y are either 0 or 1. Thus, D is a matrix of size (n,2), and Y is a vector of size (n,1)
Here's how I do my implementation:
I first normalize my data and augment it to include the offset :
d = 2; %dimension of data
M = mean(D) ;
centered = D-repmat(M,n,1) ;
devs = sqrt(sum(centered.^2)) ;
normalized = centered./repmat(devs,n,1) ;
X = [normalized,ones(n,1)];
I will be doing my calculations on X.
Second, I define the gradient and hessian of the likelihood of Y|X:
function grad = gradient(w)
grad = zeros(1,d+1) ;
for i=1:n
grad = grad + (Y(i)-sigma(w'*X(i,:)'))*X(i,:) ;
end
end
function hess = hessian(w)
hess = zeros(d+1,d+1) ;
for i=1:n
hess = hess - sigma(w'*X(i,:)')*sigma(-w'*X(i,:)')*X(i,:)'*X(i,:) ;
end
end
with sigma being a Matlab function encoding the sigmoid function z-->1/(1+exp(-z)).
Third, I run the Newton algorithm on gradient to find the roots of the gradient of the likelihood. I implemented it myself. It behaves as expected as the norm of the difference between the iterates goes to 0. I wrote it based on this script.
I verified that the gradient at the wOPT returned by my Newton implementation is null:
gradient(wOP)
ans =
1.0e-15 *
0.0139 -0.0021 0.2290
and that the hessian has strictly negative eigenvalues
eig(hessian(wOPT))
ans =
-7.5459
-0.0027
-0.0194
Here's the wOPT I get with my implementation:
wOPT =
-110.8873
28.9114
1.3706
the offset being the last element. In order to plot the decision line, I should convert the slope wOPT(1:2) using M and devs. So I set :
my_offset = wOPT(end);
my_slope = wOPT(1:d)'.*devs + M ;
and I get:
my_slope =
1.0e+03 *
-7.2109 0.8166
my_offset =
1.3706
Now, when I run B=mnrfit(D,Y+1), I get
B =
-1.3496
1.7052
-1.0238
The offset is stored in B(1).
I get very different values. I would like to know what I am doing wrong. I have some doubt about the normalization and 'un-normalization' process. But I'm not sure, may be I'm doing something else wrong.
Additional Info
When I tape :
B=mnrfit(normalized,Y+1)
I get
-1.3706
110.8873
-28.9114
which is a rearranged version of the opposite of my wOPT. It contains exactly the same elements.
It seems likely that my scaling back of the learnt parameters is wrong. Otherwise, it would have given the same as B=mnrfit(D,Y+1)
I have a set of three vectors (stored into a 3xN matrix) which are 'entangled' (e.g. some value in the second row should be in the third row and vice versa). This 'entanglement' is based on looking at the figure in which alpha2 is plotted. To separate the vector I use a difference based approach where I calculate the difference of one value with respect the three next values (e.g. comparing (1,i) with (:,i+1)). Then I take the minimum and store that. The method works to separate two of the three vectors, but not for the last.
I was wondering if you guys can share your ideas with me how to solve this problem (if possible). I have added my coded below.
Thanks in advance!
Problem in figures:
clear all; close all; clc;
%%
alpha2 = [-23.32 -23.05 -22.24 -20.91 -19.06 -16.70 -13.83 -10.49 -6.70;
-0.46 -0.33 0.19 2.38 5.44 9.36 14.15 19.80 26.32;
-1.58 -1.13 0.06 0.70 1.61 2.78 4.23 5.99 8.09];
%%% Original
figure()
hold on
plot(alpha2(1,:))
plot(alpha2(2,:))
plot(alpha2(3,:))
%%% Store start values
store1(1,1) = alpha2(1,1);
store2(1,1) = alpha2(2,1);
store3(1,1) = alpha2(3,1);
for i=1:size(alpha2,2)-1
for j=1:size(alpha2,1)
Alpha1(j,i) = abs(store1(1,i)-alpha2(j,i+1));
Alpha2(j,i) = abs(store2(1,i)-alpha2(j,i+1));
Alpha3(j,i) = abs(store3(1,i)-alpha2(j,i+1));
[~, I] = min(Alpha1(:,i));
store1(1,i+1) = alpha2(I,i+1);
[~, I] = min(Alpha2(:,i));
store2(1,i+1) = alpha2(I,i+1);
[~, I] = min(Alpha3(:,i));
store3(1,i+1) = alpha2(I,i+1);
end
end
%%% Plot to see if separation worked
figure()
hold on
plot(store1)
plot(store2)
plot(store3)
Solution using extrapolation via polyfit:
The idea is pretty simple: Iterate over all positions i and use polyfit to fit polynomials of degree d to the d+1 values from F(:,i-(d+1)) up to F(:,i). Use those polynomials to extrapolate the function values F(:,i+1). Then compute the permutation of the real values F(:,i+1) that fits those extrapolations best. This should work quite well, if there are only a few functions involved. There is certainly some room for improvement, but for your simple setting it should suffice.
function F = untangle(F, maxExtrapolationDegree)
%// UNTANGLE(F) untangles the functions F(i,:) via extrapolation.
if nargin<2
maxExtrapolationDegree = 4;
end
extrapolate = #(f) polyval(polyfit(1:length(f),f,length(f)-1),length(f)+1);
extrapolateAll = #(F) cellfun(extrapolate, num2cell(F,2));
fitCriterion = #(X,Y) norm(X(:)-Y(:),1);
nFuncs = size(F,1);
nPoints = size(F,2);
swaps = perms(1:nFuncs);
errorOfFit = zeros(1,size(swaps,1));
for i = 1:nPoints-1
nextValues = extrapolateAll(F(:,max(1,i-(maxExtrapolationDegree+1)):i));
for j = 1:size(swaps,1)
errorOfFit(j) = fitCriterion(nextValues, F(swaps(j,:),i+1));
end
[~,j_bestSwap] = min(errorOfFit);
F(:,i+1) = F(swaps(j_bestSwap,:),i+1);
end
Initial solution: (not that pretty - Skip this part)
This is a similar solution that tries to minimize the sum of the derivatives up to some degree of the vector valued function F = #(j) alpha2(:,j). It does so by stepping through the positions i and checks all possible permutations of the coordinates of i to get a minimal seminorm of the function F(1:i).
(I'm actually wondering right now if there is any canonical mathematical way to define the seminorm so we get our expected results... I initially was going for the H^1 and H^2 seminorms, but they didn't quite work...)
function F = untangle(F)
nFuncs = size(F,1);
nPoints = size(F,2);
seminorm = #(x,i) sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),1,2)))) + ...
sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),2,2)))) + ...
sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),3,2)))) + ...
sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),4,2))));
doSwap = #(x,swap,i) [x(:,1:i-1), x(swap,i:end)];
swaps = perms(1:nFuncs);
normOfSwap = zeros(1,size(swaps,1));
for i = 2:nPoints
for j = 1:size(swaps,1)
normOfSwap(j) = seminorm(doSwap(F,swaps(j,:),i),i);
end
[~,j_bestSwap] = min(normOfSwap);
F = doSwap(F,swaps(j_bestSwap,:),i);
end
Usage:
The command alpha2 = untangle(alpha2); will untangle your functions:
It should even work for more complicated data, like these shuffled sine-waves:
nPoints = 100;
nFuncs = 5;
t = linspace(0, 2*pi, nPoints);
F = bsxfun(#(a,b) sin(a*b), (1:nFuncs).', t);
for i = 1:nPoints
F(:,i) = F(randperm(nFuncs),i);
end
Remark: I guess if you already know that your functions will be quadratic or some other special form, RANSAC would be a better idea for larger number of functions. This could also be useful if the functions are not given with the same x-value spacing.
I'm running a set of ODEs with ode45 in MATLAB and I need to save one of the variables (that's not the derivative) for later use. I'm using the function 'assignin' to assign a temporary variable in the base workspace and updating it at each step. This seems to work, however, the size of the array does not match the size of the solution vector acquired from ode45. For example, I have the following nested function:
function [Z,Y] = droplet_momentum(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0)
options = odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);
[Z,Y] = ode45(#momentum,zspan,Y0,options);
function DY = momentum(z,y)
DY = zeros(4,1);
%Entrained Total Velocity
Ve = sin(theta)*(y(4));
%Total Relative Velocity
Urs = sqrt((y(1) - y(4))^2 + (y(2) - Ve*cos(theta))^2 + (y(3))^2);
%Coefficients
PSI = K*Urs/y(1);
PHI = P*Urs/y(1);
%Liquid Axial Velocity
DY(1) = PSI*sign(y(1) - y(4))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(1) - y(4))*G)^(2/3));
%Liquid Radial Velocity
DY(2) = PSI*sign(y(2) - Ve*cos(theta))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(2) - ...
Ve*cos(theta))*G)^(2/3));
%Liquid Tangential Velocity
DY(3) = PSI*sign(y(3))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(3))*G)^(2/3));
%Gaseous Axial Velocity
DY(4) = (1/z/y(4))*((PHI/z)*sign(y(1) - y(4))*(1 + ...
(1/6)*(abs(y(1) - y(4))*G)^(2/3)) + Ve*Ve - y(4)*y(4));
assignin('base','Ve_step',Ve);
evalin('base','Ve_out(end+1) = Ve_step');
end
end
In the above code, theta (radians), K (negative value), P, & G are constants and for the sake of this example can be taken as any value. Zspan is just the integration time step for the ODE solver and Y0 is the initial conditions vector (4x1). Again, for the sake of this example these can take any reasonable value. Now in the main file, the function is called with the following:
Ve_out = 0;
[Z,Y] = droplet_momentum(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0);
Ve_out = Ve_out(2:end);
This method works without complaint from MATLAB, but the problem is that the size of Ve_out is not the same as the size of Z or Y. The reason for this is because MATLAB calls the ODE function multiple times for its algorithm, so the solution is going to be slightly smaller than Ve_out. As am304 suggested, I could just simply calculated DY by giving the ode function a Z and Y vector such as DY = momentum(Z,Y), however, I need to get this working with 'assignin' (or similar method) because another version of this problem has an implicit dependence between DY and Ve and it would be too computationally expensive to calculate DY at every iteration (I will be running this problem for many iterations).
Ok, so let's start off with a quick example of an SSCCE:
function [Z,Y] = khan
options = odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);
[Z,Y] = ode45(#momentum,[0 12],[0 0],options);
end
function Dy = momentum(z,y)
Dy = [0 0]';
Dy(1) = 3*y(1) + 2* y(2) - 2;
Dy(2) = y(1) - y(2);
Ve = Dy(1)+ y(2);
assignin('base','Ve_step',Ve);
evalin('base','Ve_out(end+1) = Ve_step;');
assignin('base','T_step',z);
evalin('base','T_out(end+1) = T_step;');
end
By running [Z,Y] = khan as the command line, I get a complete functional code that demonstrates your problem, without all the headaches associated. My patience for this has been exhausted: live and learn.
This seems to work, however, the size of the array does not match the
size of the solution vector acquired from ode45
Note that I added two lines to your code which extracts time variable. From the command prompt, one simply has to run the following to understand what's going on:
Ve_out = [];
T_out = [];
[Z,Y] = khan;
size (Z)
size (T_out)
size (Ve_out)
plot (diff(T_out))
ans =
109 1
ans =
1 163
ans =
1 163
Basically ode45 is an iterative algorithm, which means it will regularly course correct (that's why you regularly see diff(T) = 0). You can't force the algorithm to do what you want, you have to live with it.
So your options are
1. Use a fixed step algorithm
2. Have a function call that reproduces what you want after the ode45 algorithm has done its dirty work. (am304's solution)
3. Collects the data with the time function, then have an algorithm parse through everything to removes the extra data.
Can you not do something like that? Obviously check the sizes of the matrices/vectors are correct and amend the code accordingly.
[Z,Y] = droplet_momentum2(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0);
DY = momentum(Z,Y);
Ve = sin(theta)*(0.5*z*DY(4) + y(4));
i.e. once the ODE is solved, computed the derivative DY as a function of Z and Y (which have just been solved by the ODE) and finally Ve.