Using Octave 4.2.1 on Windows with the qt graphics toolkit (I can't use gnuplot because it crashes in some other part of the code). I have a dataset which is 35x7x4 (35 data points for 7 conditions on 4 channels) - you can use random data for the purpose of this exercise.
I am trying to create 4 subplots (1 for each channel), with 7 bar graphs on each subplot (one per condition) to see how the distribution of data changes with each condition. Each of the 7x4 = 28 distributions has its own set of bins and frequencies, and I can't seem to be able to combine the 7 datasets on one graph (subplot).
Posting the whole of the code would be too complicated, but here's a simplified version:
nb_channels = 4;
nb_conditions = 7;
nbins = 15;
freq = zeros(nbins,nb_conditions,nb_channels);
xbin = zeros(nbins,nb_conditions,nb_channels);
plot_colours = [91 237 165 255 68 112 255;
155 125 165 192 114 173 0;
213 49 165 0 196 71 255];
plot_colours = plot_colours / 255;
for k = 1:nb_channels
for n = 1:nb_conditions
% some complex calculations to generate temp variable
[freq(:,n,k),xbin(:,n,k)] = hist(temp,nbins);
end
end
figure
for k = 1:nb_channels
subplot(2,2,k)
for n = 1:nb_conditions
bar(xbin(:,n,k),freq(:,n,k),'FaceColor',plot_colours(:,n))
hold on
end
hold off
legend('condition #1','condition #2','condition #3','condition #4','condition #5','condition #6','condition #7')
end
which gives something like this:
So you can't really see anything, all the bars are on top of each other. In addition, Octave doesn't support transparency property for patch objects (which is what bar charts use), so I can't overlay the histograms on top of each other, which I would really quite like to do.
Is there a better way to approach this? It seems that bar will only accept a vector for x data and not a matrix, so I am stuck in having to use hold on and loop through the various conditions, instead of using a matrix approach.
OK, so I'll try to answer my own question based on the suggestions made in the comments:
Suggestion 1: make all the bins the same
This does improve the results somewhat but it's still an issue due to the lack of transparency for patch objects.
Code changes:
nbins = 15;
xbin = linspace(5.8,6.5,nbins);
for k = 1:nb_channels
for n = 1:nb_conditions
% some complex calculations to generate temp variable
freq_flow(:,n,k) = hist(temp,xbin);
end
end
figure
for k = 1:nb_channels
subplot(2,2,k)
for n = 1:nb_conditions
bar(xbin,freq_flow(:,n,k),'FaceColor',plot_colours(:,n))
hold on
end
hold off
xlim([5.8 6.3])
legend('condition #1','condition #2','condition #3','condition #4','condition #5','condition #6','condition #7')
end
Which gives the following plot:
Suggestion 2: Use line plots instead of bar charts
This helps a bit more in terms of readability. However, the result is a bit "piece-wise".
Code changes:
figure
for k = 1:nb_channels
subplot(2,2,k)
for n = 1:nb_conditions
plot(xbin,freq_flow(:,n,k),'LineStyle','none','marker','.',...
'markersize',12,'MarkerEdgeColor',plot_colours(:,n),...
'MarkerFaceColor',plot_colours(:,n))
hold on
end
hold off
xlim([5.8 6.3])
legend('condition #1','condition #2','condition #3','condition #4','condition #5','condition #6','condition #7')
end
Which gives the following result:
The legend is a bit screwed but I can probably sort that out.
A variation on this I also tried was to plot just the points as markers, and then a fitted normal distribution on top. I won't post all the code here, but the result looks something like this:
Suggestion 3: transparency workaround with gnuplot
Unfortunately, before I even got to the transparency workaround, gnuplot keeps crashing when trying to plot the figure. There's something it doesn't like with subplots and legends I think (which is why I moved to qt graphics toolkit in the first place, as I had exactly the same issue in other parts of the code).
Solution 4: use 3D bar graph
I found this on SO: 3D histogram with gnuplot or octave
and used it as such:
figure
for k = 1:size(flow_factor,2)
subplot(2,2,k)
h = my_bar3(freq_flow(:,:,k));
fvcd = kron((1:numel(freq_flow(:,:,k)))', ones(6,1));
set(h, 'FaceVertexCData',fvcd, 'FaceColor','flat', 'CDataMapping','scaled')
colormap hsv; axis tight; view(50,25)
ylbl = cell(length(xbin),1);
for k=1:length(xbin)
ylb{k} = num2str(xbin(k));
end
set(gca,'YTick',1:2:nbins);
set(gca,'YTickLabel',ylb(1:2:end));
end
to produce:
Which isn't bad, but probably not as clear as the line plots.
Conclusion
On balance, I will probably end up using one of the line plots approaches, as they tend to be clearer.
Related
I have here an equation that is in the image
I'm trying to make the plot where y-axis is this equation, and x-axis is time - just a vector.
All the initials I have:
%Initials
Beta=[24 123 117 262 108 45]*10^-5; %pcm
Lambda=[0.0127 0.0317 0.1160 0.3106 1.4006 3.8760]; %1/s
LAMBDA=10^-4 ; %s
W=[ 0.376 -0.0133 -0.0426 -0.153 -0.972 -3.38 -29.5]
Rho=400*10^-5
t=linspace(1,30,7)
This is the code I'm using:
for n=1:7
for j=1:6
S1=Rho*sum(exp(W(n)'.*t)/(W(n)'.*(LAMBDA+(sum(Beta(j).*Lambda(j)./(W(n)+Lambda(j))^2)))))
end
end
semilogy(t,S1,'b','linewidth',2);
And S1 returns too much answers, and as I undestand it should give only 7...
And I am new to matlab and coding in general, so if the answer is obviuos I still don't know how to make it work :D
Let's clarify a few things first.
In order to do a 2D plot (of any kind), you need two vectors in Matlab. They should be of equal length. One for all the x-coordinates. Another for all the y-coordinates.
You get the x-coordinates in t=linspace(1,30,7). However, you do not have the corresponding y-coordinates.
In your case, it is best to phrase your formula as a function of t. And let's break down the sums for clarity. For example,
function num = oscillation_modes_of_sort(t)
outer_sum = 0;
for j=1:numel(W)
inner_sum = 0;
for i=1:numel(Beta)
inner_sum = inner_sum + Beta(i)*Lambda(i)/(W(j)+Lambda(i))^2;
end
outer_sum = out_sum + exp(W(j)*t)/(W(j)*(LAMBDA+inner_sum));
end
num = Rho * outer_sum;
end
Now, your y-coordinates will be oscillation_modes_of_sort(t).
There are ways to either make the code more brief or make it more friendly if W and Beta are much much longer. But let's do those at a future time.
I am trying to create Training and Testing set out of my ground truth(observation) data which are presented in a tif (raster) format.
Actually, I have a hyperspectral image (Satellite image) which has 200 dimensions(channels/bands) along with the corresponding label(17 class) which are stored in another image. Now, my goal is to implement a classification algorithm and then check the accuracy with the testing dataset.
My problem is, that I do not know how can I describe to my algorithm that which pixel belongs to which class and then split them to taring and testing set.
I have provided a face idea of my goal which is as follows:
But I do not want to do this since I have 145 * 145 pixels dim, so it's not easy to define the location of these pixels and manually assign to their corresponding class.
note that the following example is for 3D image and I have 200D image and I have the labels (ground truth) so I do not need to specify them like the following code but I do want to assign them to their pixels member.
% Assigning pixel(by their location)to different groups.
tpix=[1309,640 ,1;... % Group 1
1218,755 ,1;...
1351,1409,2;... % Group 2
673 ,394 ,2;...
285 ,1762,3;... % Group 3
177 ,1542,3;...
538 ,1754,4;... % Group 4
432 ,1811,4;...
1417,2010,5;... % Group 5
163 ,1733,5;...
652 ,677 ,6;... % Group 6
864 ,1032,6];
row=tpix(:,1); % y-value
col=tpix(:,2); % x-value
group=tpix(:,3); % group number
ngroup=max(group);
% create trainingset
train=[];
for i=1:length(group)
train=[train; r(row(i),col(i)), g(row(i),col(i)), b(row(i),col(i))];
end %for
Do I understand this right? At the seconlast line the train variable gets the values it has until now + the pixels in red, green and blue? Like, you want them to be displayed only in red,green and blue? Only certain ones or all of them? I could imagine that we define an image matrix and then place the values in the images red, green and blue layers. Would that help? I'd make you the code if this is you issue :)
Edit: Solution
%download the .mats from the website and put them in folder of script
load 'Indian_pines_corrected.mat';
load 'Indian_pines_gt.mat';
ipc = indian_pines_corrected;
gt = indian_pines_gt;
%initiating cell
train = cell(16,1);
%loop to search class number of the x and y pixel coordinates
for c = 1:16
for i = 1:145
for j = 1:145
% if the classnumber is equal to the number in the gt pixel,
% then place the pixel from ipc(x,y,:) it in the train{classnumber}(x,y,:)
if gt(i,j) == c
train{c}(i,j,:) = ipc(i,j,:);
end %if
end %for j
end %for i
end %for c
Now you get the train cell that has a matrix in each cell. Each cell is one class and has only the pixels inside that you want. You can check for yourself if the classes correspond to the shape.
Eventually, I could solve my problem. The following code reshapes the matrix(Raster) to vector and then I index the Ground Truth data to find the corresponding pixel's location in Hyperspectral image.
Note that I am looking for an efficient way to construct Training and Testing set.
GT = indian_pines_gt;
data = indian_pines_corrected;
data_vec=reshape(data, 145*145,200);
GT_vec = reshape(GT,145*145,1);
[GT_vec_sort,idx] = sort(GT_vec);
%INDEXING.
index = find(and(GT_vec_sort>0,GT_vec_sort<=16));
classes_num = GT_vec_sort(index);
%length(index)
for k = 1: length(index)
classes(k,:) = data_vec(idx(index(k)),:);
end
figure(1)
plot(GT_vec_sort)
New.
I have done the following for creating Training and Testing set for #Hyperspectral images(Pine dataset). No need to use for loop
clear all
load('Indian_pines_corrected.mat');
load Indian_pines_gt.mat;
GT = indian_pines_gt;
data = indian_pines_corrected;
%Convert image from raster to vector.
data_vec = reshape(data, 145*145, 200);
%Provide location of the desired classes.
GT_loc = find(and(GT>0,GT<=16));
GT_class = GT(GT_loc)
data_value = data_vec(GT_loc,:)
% explanatories plus Respond variable.
%[200(variable/channel)+1(labels)= 201])
dat = [data_value, GT_class];
% create random Test and Training set.
[m,n] = size(dat);
P = 0.70 ;
idx = randperm(m);
Train = dat(idx(1:round(P*m)),:);
Test = dat(idx(round(P*m)+1:end),:);
X_train = Train(:,1:200); y_train = Train(:, 201);
X_test = Test(:,1:200); y_test = Test(:, 201);
Apologies for the long post but this takes a bit to explain. I'm trying to make a script that finds the longest linear portion of a plot. Sample data is in a csv file here, it is stress and strain data for calculating the shear modulus of 3D printed samples. The code I have so far is the following:
x_data = [];
y_data = [];
x_data = Data(:,1);
y_data = Data(:,2);
plot(x_data,y_data);
grid on;
answer1 = questdlg('Would you like to load last attempt''s numbers?');
switch answer1
case 'Yes'
[sim_slopes,reg_data] = regr_and_longest_part(new_x_data,new_y_data,str2num(answer2{3}),str2num(answer2{2}),K);
case 'No'
disp('Take a look at the plot, find a range estimate, and press any button to continue');
pause;
prompt = {'Eliminate values ABOVE this x-value:','Eliminate values BELOW this x-value:','Size of divisions on x-axis:','Factor for similarity of slopes:'};
dlg_title = 'Point elimination';
num_lines = 1;
defaultans = {'0','0','0','0.1'};
if isempty(answer2) < 1
defaultans = {answer2{1},answer2{2},answer2{3},answer2{4}};
end
answer2 = inputdlg(prompt,dlg_title,num_lines,defaultans);
uv_of_x_range = str2num(answer2{1});
lv_of_x_range = str2num(answer2{2});
x_div_size = str2num(answer2{3});
K = str2num(answer2{4});
close all;
iB = find(x_data > str2num(answer2{1}),1,'first');
iS = find(x_data > str2num(answer2{2}),1,'first');
new_x_data = x_data(iS:iB);
new_y_data = y_data(iS:iB);
[sim_slopes, reg_data] = regr_and_longest_part(new_x_data,new_y_data,str2num(answer2{3}),str2num(answer2{2}),K);
end
[longest_section0, Midx]= max(sim_slopes(:,4)-sim_slopes(:,3));
longest_section=1+longest_section0;
long_sec_x_data_start = x_div_size*(sim_slopes(Midx,3)-1)+lv_of_x_range;
long_sec_x_data_end = x_div_size*(sim_slopes(Midx,4)-1)+lv_of_x_range;
long_sec_x_data_start_idx=find(new_x_data >= long_sec_x_data_start,1,'first');
long_sec_x_data_end_idx=find(new_x_data >= long_sec_x_data_end,1,'first');
long_sec_x_data = new_x_data(long_sec_x_data_start_idx:long_sec_x_data_end_idx);
long_sec_y_data = new_y_data(long_sec_x_data_start_idx:long_sec_x_data_end_idx);
[b_long_sec, longes_section_reg_data] = robustfit(long_sec_x_data,long_sec_y_data);
plot(long_sec_x_data,b_long_sec(1)+b_long_sec(2)*long_sec_x_data,'LineWidth',3,'LineStyle',':','Color','k');
function [sim_slopes,reg_data] = regr_and_longest_part(x_points,y_points,x_div,lv,K)
reg_data = cell(1,3);
scatter(x_points,y_points,'.');
grid on;
hold on;
uv = lv+x_div;
ii=0;
while lv <= x_points(end)
if uv > x_points(end)
uv = x_points(end);
end
ii=ii+1;
indices = find(x_points>lv & x_points<uv);
temp_x_points = x_points((indices));
temp_y_points = y_points((indices));
if length(temp_x_points) <= 2
break;
end
[b,stats] = robustfit(temp_x_points,temp_y_points);
reg_data{ii,1} = b(1);
reg_data{ii,2} = b(2);
reg_data{ii,3} = length(indices);
plot(temp_x_points,b(1)+b(2)*temp_x_points,'LineWidth',2);
lv = lv+x_div;
uv = lv+x_div;
end
sim_slopes = NaN(length(reg_data),4);
sim_slopes(1,:) = [reg_data{1,1},0,1,1];
idx=1;
for ii=2:length(reg_data)
coff =sim_slopes(idx,1);
if abs(reg_data{ii,1}-coff) <= K*coff
C=zeros(ii-sim_slopes(idx,3)+1,1);
for kk=sim_slopes(idx,3):ii
C(kk)=reg_data{kk,1};
end
sim_slopes(idx,1)=mean(C);
sim_slopes(idx,2)=std(C);
sim_slopes(idx,4)=ii;
else
idx = idx + 1;
sim_slopes(idx,1)=reg_data{ii,1};
sim_slopes(idx,2)=0;
sim_slopes(idx,3)=ii;
sim_slopes(idx,4)=ii;
end
end
end
Apologies for the code not being well optimized, I'm still relatively new to MATLAB. I did not use derivatives because my data is relatively noisy and derivation might have made it worse.
I've managed to get the get the code to find the longest straight part of the plot by splitting the data up into sections called x_div_size then performing a robustfit on each section, the results of which are written into reg_data. The code then runs through reg_data and finds which lines have the most similar slopes, determined by the K factor, by calculating the average of the slopes in a section of the plot and makes a note of it in sim_slopes. It then finds the longest interval with max(sim_slopes(:,4)-sim_slopes(:,3)) and performs a regression on it to give the final answer.
The problem is that it will only consider the first straight portion that it comes across. When the data is plotted, it has a few parts where it seems straightest:
As an example, when I run the script with answer2 = {'0.2','0','0.0038','0.3'} I get the following, where the black line is the straightest part found by the code:
I have the following questions:
It's clear that from about x = 0.04 to x = 0.2 there is a long straight part and I'm not sure why the script is not finding it. Playing around with different values the script always seems to pick the first longest straight part, ignoring subsequent ones.
MATLAB complains that Warning: Iteration limit reached. because there are more than 50 regressions to perform. Is there a way to bypass this limit on robustfit?
When generating sim_slopes there might be section of the plot whose slope is too different from the average of the previous slopes so it gets marked as the end of a long section. But that section sometimes is sandwiched between several other sections on either side which instead have similar slopes. How would it be possible to tell the script to ignore one wayward section and to continue as if it falls within the tolerance allowed by the K value?
Take a look at the Douglas-Peucker algorithm. If you think of your (x,y) values as the vertices of an (open) polygon, this algorithm will simplify it for you, such that the largest distance from the simplified polygon to the original is smaller than some threshold you can choose. The simplified polygon will be the set of straight lines. Find the two vertices that are furthest apart, and you're done.
MATLAB has an implementation in the Mapping Toolbox called reducem. You might also find an implementation on the File Exchange (but be careful, there is also really bad code on there). Or, you can roll your own, it's quite a simple algorithm.
You can also try using the ischange function to detect changes in the intercept and slope of the data, and then extract the longest portion from that.
Using the sample data you provided, here is what I see from a basic attempt:
>> T = readtable('Data.csv');
>> T = rmmissing(T); % Remove rows with NaN
>> T = groupsummary(T,'Var1','mean'); % Average duplicate timestamps
>> [tf,slopes,intercepts] = ischange(T.mean_Var2, 'linear', 'SamplePoints', T.Var1); % find changes
>> plot(T.Var1, T.mean_Var2, T.Var1, slopes.*T.Var1 + intercepts)
which generates the plot
You should be able to extract the longest segment based on the indices given by find(tf).
You can also tune the parameters of ischange to get fewer or more segments. Adding the name-value pair 'MaxNumChanges' with a value of 4 or 5 produces more linear segments with a tighter fit to the curve, for example, which effectively removes the kink in the plot that you see.
I am trying to implement code for the light speed labeling technique described in this article (I cannot use the Image Processing Toolbox): https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ef31/7c257603004d818ca1e2a2aa67d36d40147e.pdf (see section 2, page 7).
Here is my Matlab code for LSL equivalence construction (algorithm 14, step 2).
function [EQ,ERAi,nea] = LSL_equivalence(EQ,ERim1,RLCi,ERAim1,ERAi,NERi,nea,lImg)
% LSL_EQUIVALENCE build the associative table between er and ea
% GOAL: to create a Look Up Table to be applied to ERi to create EAi.
for er = 1:2:NERi % check segments one by one
% read the boundaries of each segment to obtain de relative labels of every agacent segment in the prev line
j0 = RLCi(er);
j1 = RLCi(er+1);
er0 = ERim1(j0+1); % label of the first segment
er1 = ERim1(j1+1); % the label of the last segment
% check label parity: segments are odd, background is even
% bitand([1 2 3 4 5],1) == [1 0 1 0 1]
if bitand(er0,1) == 0 % if er0 is even
er0 = er0 + 1;
end
if bitand(er1,1) == 0 % if er1 is even
er1 = er1 -1;
end
if er1 >= er0 % if there is an adjacency
ea = ERAim1(er0+1); % absolute label of the first segment
a = EQ(ea+1); % a is the ancestor (smallest label of the equivalence class)
for erk = (er0+2):2:er1
eak = ERAim1(erk+1);
ak = EQ(eak+1);
% min extraction and propagation
if a < ak
EQ(eak+1) = a;
else
a = ak;
EQ(ea+1) = a;
ea = eak;
end
end
ERAi(er+1) = a; % the global min of all ak ancestors
else % if there are no adjacent labels make a new label
nea = nea + 1;
ERAi(er+1) = nea;
end
end
end
I am having some trouble with indexes, as the pseudo code described in the article has indexes starting with 0 and Matlab works with 1. I have already found some C++ code in this Stack Overflow post Implementing LSL for Connected Component Labeling/Blob Extraction (I applied suggested changes) and also in this git repo https://github.com/prittt/YACCLAB/blob/master/include/labeling_lacassagne_2016_code.inc. I fail to see the differences.
Also, I'm having some trouble understanding what an equivalence class is (which is what goes in matrix EQ). Thanks ahead of time!
I realize this is coming a bit late, but I just put up a piece of code that is similar to what the light speed labeling algorithm does. I'll give a brief description of how I solved the index problem.
The first step of LSL is take each column of pixels and finds the start and stop positions of consecutively labeled pixels. You can do that in Matlab like this:
I = imread('text.png');
[rows,cols] = find(xor(I(2:end,:),I(1:end-1,:)));
What this gives you is the row and column of the start and stop position of each run of pixels in a column, except its non-inclusive indexing. By non-inclusive indexing I mean the indices of pixels runs from I(r(2*n-1),c(2*n-1)) to I(r(2*n)-1,c(2*n)) for each pixel run (n). You should note that the paper operates along rows where the above code operates along columns, but the same principle applies. You should also note that the above code does not cover the circumstance of labeled pixels on the edge of the image.
If you want to see a complete implementation, I posted my code on the Matlab File Exchange. I don't claim that it copies LSL exactly, but it works on many of the same principles.
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/70323-ftllabel?s_tid=prof_contriblnk
I've made a plot of 10 points
10 10
248,628959661970 66,9462583977501
451,638770451973 939,398361884535
227,712826026548 18,1775336366957
804,449583613070 683,838613746355
986,104241895970 783,736480083219
29,9919502693899 534,137567882728
535,664190667238 885,359450931142
87,0772199008924 899,004898906140
990 990
With the first column as x-coordinates and the other column as y-coordinates
Leading to the following Plot:
Using the following code: scatter(Problem.Points(:,1),Problem.Points(:,2),'.b')
I then also calculated the euclidean distances using Problem.DistanceMatrix = pdist(Problem.Points);
Problem.DistanceMatrix = squareform(Problem.DistanceMatrix);
I replaced the distances by 1*10^6 when they are larger than a certain value.
This lead to the following table:
Then, I would like to plot the lines between the corresponding points, preferably with their distances, but only in case the distance < 1*10^6.
Specifically i want to plot the line [1,2] [1,4] [1,7] [2,4] etc.
My question is, can this be done and how?
Assuming one set of your data is in something called xdata and the other in ydata and then the distances in distances, the following code should accomplish what you want.
hold on
for k = 1:length(xdata)
for j = 1:length(ydata)
if(distances(k,j) < 1e6)
plot([xdata(k) xdata(j)], [ydata(k) ydata(j)]);
end
end
end
You just need to iterate through your matrix and then if the value is less than 1e6, then plot the line between the kth and jth index points. This will however double plot lines, so it will plot from k to j, and also from j to k, but it is quick to code and easy to understand. I got the following plot with this.
This should do the trick:
P = [
10.0000000000000 10.0000000000000;
248.6289596619700 66.9462583977501;
451.6387704519730 939.3983618845350;
227.7128260265480 18.1775336366957;
804.4495836130700 683.8386137463550;
986.1042418959700 783.7364800832190;
29.9919502693899 534.1375678827280;
535.6641906672380 885.3594509311420;
87.0772199008924 899.0048989061400;
990.0000000000000 990.0000000000000
];
P_len = size(P,1);
D = squareform(pdist(P));
D(D > 600) = 1e6;
scatter(P(:,1),P(:,2),'*b');
hold on;
for i = 1:P_len
pi = P(i,:);
for j = 1:P_len
pj = P(j,:);
d = D(i,j);
if ((d > 0) && (d < 1e6))
plot([pi(1) pj(1)],[pi(2) pj(2)],'-r');
end
end
end
hold off;
Final output:
On a side note, the part in which you replaces the distance values trespassing a certain treshold (it looks like it's 600 by looking at your distances matrix) with 1e6 can be avoided by just inserting that threshold into the loop for plotting the lines. I mean... it's not wrong, but I just think it's an unnecessary step.
D = squareform(pdist(P));
% ...
if ((d > 0) && (d < 600))
plot([pi(1) pj(1)],[pi(2) pj(2)],'-r');
end
A friend of mine suggested using gplot
gplot(Problem.AdjM, Problem.Points(:,:), '-o')
With problem.points as the coordinates and Problem.AdjM as the adjacency matrix. The Adjacency matrix was generated like this:
Problem.AdjM=Problem.DistanceMatrix;
Problem.AdjM(Problem.AdjM==1000000)=0;
Problem.AdjM(Problem.AdjM>0)=1;
Since the distances of 1*10^6 was the replacement of a distance that is too large, I put the adjacency there to 0 and all the other to 1.
This lead to the following plot, which was more or less what I wanted:
Since you people have been helping me in such a wonderful way, I just wanted to add this:
I added J. Mel's solution to my code, leading to two exactly the same figures:
Since the figures get the same outcome, both methods should be all right. Furthermore, since Tommasso's and J Mel's outcomes were equal earlier, Tommasso's code must also be correct.
Many thanks to both of you and all other people contributing!