Finding m and c for an equation y = mx + c, with the help of math and plots.
y is data_model_1, x is time.
Avoid other MATLAB functions like fitlm as it defeats the purpose.
I am having trouble finding the constants m and c. I am trying to find both m and c by limiting them to a range (based on smart guess) and I need to deduce the m and c values based on the mean error range. The point where mean error range is closest to 0 should be my m and c values.
load(file)
figure
plot(time,data_model_1,'bo')
hold on
for a = 0.11:0.01:0.13
c = -13:0.1:-10
data_a = a * time + c ;
plot(time,data_a,'r');
end
figure
hold on
for a = 0.11:0.01:0.13
c = -13:0.1:-10
data_a = a * time + c ;
mean_range = mean(abs(data_a - data_model_1));
plot(a,mean_range,'b.')
end
A quick & dirty approach
You can quickly get m and c using fminsearch(). In the first example below, the error function is the sum of squared error (SSE). The second example uses the sum of absolute error. The key here is ensuring the error function is convex.
Note that c = Beta(1) and m = Beta(2).
Reproducible example (MATLAB code[1]):
% Generate some example data
N = 50;
X = 2 + 13*random(makedist('Beta',.7,.8),N,1);
Y = 5 + 1.5.*X + randn(N,1);
% Example 1
SSEh =#(Beta) sum((Y - (Beta(1) + (Beta(2).*X))).^2);
Beta0 = [0.5 0.5]; % Initial Guess
[Beta SSE] = fminsearch(SSEh,Beta0)
% Example 2
SAEh =#(Beta) sum(abs(Y-(Beta(1) + Beta(2).*X)));
[Beta SumAbsErr] = fminsearch(SAEh,Beta0)
This is a quick & dirty approach that can work for many applications.
#Wolfie's comment directs you to the analytical approach to solve a system of linear equations with the \ operator or mldivide(). This is the more correct approach (though it will get a similar answer). One caveat is this approach gets the SSE answer.
[1] Tested with MATLAB R2018a
Related
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.
I am trying to convert my quadprog linear quadratic problem over to fmincon so that later I can add nonlinear constraints. I am having difficulty when I compare my solutions using the two methods (for the same problem). The odd thing is that I get very different cost output when I get almost the same x values. Below is a simplified case of my code without constraints.
Here, my objective function is
%objective function
% cost = a + b*x(1) + c*x(1)^2 + d + e*x(2) + e*x(2)^2
param = [1;2;3;4;5;6];
H = [2*param(3) 0; 0 2*param(6)];
f = [param(2); param(5)];
x0 = [0,0];
[x1,fval1] = quadprog(H,f);
[x2,fval2] = fmincon(#(x) funclinear(x,param), x0);
fval1
fval2
%% defining cost objective function
function cost = funclinear(x, param);
cost=(param(1) + param(2)*x(1) + param(3)*(x(1))^2+ param(4) +param(5)*x(2)+param(6)*(x(2))^2);
end
My resulting x1 and x2 are
x1 =[-3.333333333305555e-01;-4.166666666649305e-01];
x2 =[-3.333333299126037e-01;-4.166666593362859e-01];
which makes sense that they are slightly different since they are different solvers.
However my optimized costs are
fval1 =-1.375000000000000e+00;
fval2 =3.625000000000001e+00;
Does this mean that my objective function is different than my H and f? Any help would be appreciated.
In the quadprog formulation, the constant terms a and d are not considered.
param(1)+param(4) = 1 + 4 = 5
The difference of your results is also 5.
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 have a 30x30 matrix as a base matrix (OD_b1), I also have two base vectors (bg and Ag). My aim is to optimize a matrix (X) who's dimensions are 30X30 such that:
1) the squared difference between vector (bg) and vector of sum of all the columns is minimized.
2)the squared difference between vector (Ag) and vector of sum of all rows is minimized.
3)the squared difference between the elements of matrix (X) and matrix (OD_b1) is minimized.
The mathematical form of the equation is as follows:
I have tried this:
fun=#(X)transpose(bg-sum(X,2))*(bg-sum(X,2))+ (Ag-sum(X,1))*transpose(Ag-sum(X,1))+sumsqr(X_b-X);
[val,X]=fmincon(fun,OD_b1,AA,BB,Aeq,beq,LB,UB)
I don't get errors but it seems like it's stuck.
Is it because I have too many variables or is there another reason?
Thanks in advance
This is a simple, unconstrained least squares problem and hence has a simple solution that can be expressed as the solution to a linear system.
I will show you (1) the precise and efficient way to solve this and (2) how to solve with fmincon.
The precise, efficient solution:
Problem setup
Just so we're on the same page, I initialize the variables as follows:
n = 30;
Ag = randn(n, 1); % observe the dimensions
X_b = randn(n, n);
bg = randn(n, 1);
The code:
A1 = kron(ones(1,n), eye(n));
A2 = kron(eye(n), ones(1,n));
A = (A1'*A1 + A2'*A2 + eye(n^2));
b = A1'*bg + A2'*Ag + X_b(:);
x = A \ b; % solves A*x = b
Xstar = reshape(x, n, n);
Why it works:
I first reformulated your problem so the objective is a vector x, not a matrix X. Observe that z = bg - sum(X,2) is equivalent to:
x = X(:) % vectorize X
A1 = kron(ones(1,n), eye(n)); % creates a special matrix that sums up
% stuff appropriately
z = A1*x;
Similarly, A2 is setup so that A2*x is equivalent to Ag'-sum(X,1). Your problem is then equivalent to:
minimize (over x) (bg - A1*x)'*(bg - A1*x) + (Ag - A2*x)'*(Ag - A2*x) + (y - x)'*(y-x) where y = Xb(:). That is, y is a vectorized version of Xb.
This problem is convex and the first order condition is a necessary and sufficient condition for the optimum. Take the derivative with respect to x and that equation will define your solution! Sample example math for almost equivalent (but slightly simpler problem is below):
minimize(over x) (b - A*x)'*(b - A*x) + (y - x)' * (y - x)
rewriting the objective:
b'b- b'Ax - x'A'b + x'A'Ax +y'y - 2y'x+x'x
Is equivalent to:
minimize(over x) (-2 b'A - 2y'*I) x + x' ( A'A + I) * x
the first order condition is:
(A'A+I+(A'A+I)')x -2A'b-2I'y = 0
(A'A+I) x = A'b+I'y
Your problem is essentially the same. It has the first order condition:
(A1'*A1 + A2'*A2 + I)*x = A1'*bg + A2'*Ag + y
How to solve with fmincon
You can do the following:
f = #(X) transpose(bg-sum(X,2))*(bg-sum(X,2)) + (Ag'-sum(X,1))*transpose(Ag'-sum(X,1))+sum(sum((X_b-X).^2));
o = optimoptions('fmincon');%MaxFunEvals',30000);
o.MaxFunEvals = 30000;
Xstar2 = fmincon(f,zeros(n,n),[],[],[],[],[],[],[],o);
You can then check the answers are about the same with:
normdif = norm(Xstar - Xstar2)
And you can see that gap is small, but that the linear algebra based solution is somewhat more precise:
gap = f(Xstar2) - f(Xstar)
If the fmincon approach hangs, try it with a smaller n just to gain confidence that my linear algebra based solution is more precise, way way faster etc... n = 30 is solving a 30^2 = 900 variable optimization problem: not easy. With the linear algebra approach, you can go up to n = 100 (i.e. 10000 variable problem) or even larger.
I would probably solve this as a QP using quadprog using the following reformulation (keeping the objective as simple as possible to make the problem "less nonlinear"):
min sum(i,v(i)^2)+sum(i,w(i)^2)+sum((i,j),z(i,j)^2)
v = bg - sum(c,x)
w = ag - sum(r,x)
Z = xbase-x
The QP solver is more precise (no gradients using finite differences). This approach also allows you to add additional bounds and linear equality and inequality constraints.
The other suggestion to form the first order conditions explicitly is also a good one: it also has no issue with imprecise gradients (the first order conditions are linear). I usually prefer a quadratic model because of its flexibility.
I have a state space system with matrices A,B,C and D.
I can either create a state space system, sys1 = ss(A,B,C,D), of it or compute the transfer function matrix, sys2 = C*inv(z*I - A)*B + D
However when I draw the bode plot of both systems, they are different while they should be the same.
What is going wrong here? Does anyone have a clue? I know btw that the bodeplot generated by sys1 is correct.
The system can be downloaded here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20782274/system.mat
clear all;
close all;
clc;
Ts = 0.01;
z = tf('z',Ts);
% Discrete system
A = [0 1 0; 0 0 1; 0.41 -1.21 1.8];
B = [0; 0; 0.01];
C = [7 -73 170];
D = 1;
% Set as state space
sys1 = ss(A,B,C,D,Ts);
% Compute transfer function
sys2 = C*inv(z*eye(3) - A)*B + D;
% Compute the actual transfer function
[num,den] = ss2tf(A,B,C,D);
sys3 = tf(num,den,Ts);
% Show bode
bode(sys1,'b',sys2,'r--',sys3,'g--');
Edit: I made a small mistake, the transfer function matrix is sys2 = C*inv(z*I - A)*B + D, instead of sys2 = C*inv(z*I - A)*B - D which I did wrote done before. The problem still holds.
Edit 2: I have noticted that when I compute the denominator, it is correct.
syms z;
collect(det(z*eye(3) - A),z)
Your assumption that sys2 = C*inv(z*I- A)*B + D is incorrect. The correct equivalent to your state-space system (A,B,C,D) is sys2 = C*inv(s*I- A)*B + D. If you want to express it in terms of z, you'll need to invert the relationship z = exp(s*T). sys1 is the correct representation of your state-space system. What I would suggest for sys2 is to do as follows:
sys1 = ss(mjlsCE.A,mjlsCE.B,mjlsCE.C,mjlsCE.D,Ts);
sys1_c = d2c(sys1);
s = tf('s');
sys2_c = sys1_c.C*inv(s*eye(length(sys1_c.A)) - sys1_c.A)*sys1_c.B + sys1_c.D;
sys2_d = c2d(sys2_c,Ts);
That should give you the correct result.
Due to inacurracy of the inverse function extra unobservable poles and zeros are added to the system. For this reason you need to compute the minimal realization of your transfer function matrix.
Meaning
% Compute transfer function
sys2 = minreal(C*inv(z*eye(3) - A)*B + D);
What you are noticing is actually a numerical instability regarding pole-zero pair cancellations.
If you run the following code:
A = [0, 1, 0; 0, 0, 1; 0.41, -1.21, 1.8] ;
B = [0; 0; 0.01] ;
C = [7, -73, 170] ;
D = 1 ;
sys_ss = ss(A, B, C, D) ;
sys_tf_simp = tf(sys_ss) ;
s = tf('s') ;
sys_tf_full = tf(C*inv(s*eye(3) - A)*B + D) ;
zero(sys_tf_simp)
zero(sys_tf_full)
pole(sys_tf_simp)
pole(sys_tf_full)
you will see that the transfer function formulated by matrices directly has a lot more poles and zeros than the one formulated by MatLab's tf function. You will also notice that every single pair of these "extra" poles and zeros are equal- meaning that they cancel with each other if you were to simply the rational expression. MatLab's tf presents the simplified form, with equal pole-zero pairs cancelled out. This is algebraically equivalent to the unsimplified form, but not numerically.
When you call bode on the unsimplified transfer function, MatLab begins its numerical plotting routine with the pole-zero pairs not cancelled algebraically. If the computer was perfect, the result would be the same as in the simplified case. However, numerical error when evaluating the numerator and denominators effectively leaves some of the pole-zero pairs "uncancelled" and as many of these poles are in the far right side of the s plane, they drastically influence the output behavior.
Check out this link for info on this same problem but from the perspective of design: http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/index.php?aux=Extras_PZ
In your original code, you can think of the output drawn in green as what the naive designer wanted to see when he cancelled all his unstable poles with zeros, but the output drawn in red is what he actually got because in practice, finite-precision and real-world tolerances prevent the poles and zeros from cancelling perfectly.
Why is an unobservable / uncontrollable pole? I think this issue comes only because the inverse of a transfer function matrix is inaccurate in Matlab.
Note:
A is 3x3 and the minimal realization has also order 3.
What you did is the inverse of a transfer function matrix, not a symbolic or numeric matrix.
# Discrete system
Ts = 0.01;
A = [0 1 0; 0 0 1; 0.41 -1.21 1.8];
B = [0; 0; 0.01];
C = [7 -73 170];
D = 1;
z = tf('z', Ts)) # z is a discrete tf
A1 = z*eye(3) - A # a tf matrix with a direct feedthrough matrix A
# inverse it, multiply with C and B from left and right, and plus D
G = D + C*inv(A1)*B
G is now a scalar (SISO) transfer function.
Without "minreal", G has order 9 (funny, I don't know how Matlab computes it, perhaps the "Adj(.)/det(.)" method). Matlab cannot cancel the common factors in the numerator and the denominator, because z is of class 'tf' rather than a symbolic variable.
Do you agree or do I have misunderstanding?