In MATLAB:
Using the X and Y values below, write a MATLAB function SECOND_DERIV in MATLAB. The output of the function should be the approximate value for the second derivative of the data at x, the input variable of the function.
Use the forward difference method and interpolate to get your final answer;
X=[1,1.2,1.44,1.73,2.07,2.49,2.99,3.58,4.3,5.16,6.19,7.43,8.92,10.7,12.84,15.41,18.49];
Y=[18.89,19.25,19.83,20.71,21.96,23.6,25.56,27.52,28.67,27.2,19.38,-2.05,-50.9,-152.82,-354.73,-741.48,-1465.11];
This is my coding:
function output = SECOND_DERIV(R)
X=[1,1.2,1.44,1.73,2.07,2.49,2.99,3.58,4.3,5.16,6.19,7.43,8.92,10.7,12.84,15.41,18.49];
Y=[18.89,19.25,19.83,20.71,21.96,23.6,25.56,27.52,28.67,27.2,19.38,-2.05,-50.9,-152.82,-354.73,-741.48,-1465.11];
%forward difference method first time.
XX=X(1:end-1)
%first derivative.
dydx=diff(Y)./diff(X)
%second derivative.
dydx2=diff(dydx)
%forward difference method second time.
XXX=XX(1:end-1)
%get the second derivative from input x.
output= interp1(XXX,dydx2,x,'linear','extrap')
end
I do not know what wrong with it.
This is the result I got from my course's web
First, there is no "the" approximate value but rather only "an" approximate value among an infinite set of approximation schemes. In that sense your excercise is ill-defined (but, to be fair, there is probably something you had in the lessons, that completes information).
Using forward differences twice is almost as bad an approximation as it can get. With each forward difference you are displacing the abscissa of the preferred (central difference) approximation by half a sample distance towards the "past".
For the first difference this can be justified by the fact that you might want to stick with the original X-samples. But in the second step you introduce a second displacement by half a sample distance. In order to keep approximation error at least reasonably low, the least you can do is to correct the displacement afterwards by one sample distance towards the "future". This doesn't bring you exactly back to central differences because of non-equidistance, but it's the minimal correction that should be done for the sake of accuracy.
Hence I would replace
XXX=XX(1:end-1)
by
XXX=XX(2:end)
But again, like so many school excercises, the problem is ill-defined and it is difficult to tell from the distance, if this is what is expected from you.
Related
I'm trying to do a simulation of a 2-body mass-spring-damper. I've set up a state-space model that I'm pretty confident in and set an input of a displacement and velocity at the base in just one degree of freedom. Upon getting my outputs, I expected that the output vector would just be the state vector at each time step. However, when plotting the output vector corresponding to displacement for each mass in the vertical direction (the input direction), it looked much more like a velocity (0 at the extrema of the input). The plots are shown below:
When I integrated the top 2 plots, I got the following:
Now, I obviously can just accept the outputs as they are and assume I am right in my understanding. But, I want to be sure. From the documentation page:
lsim(___) also returns the time vector t used for simulation and the
state trajectories x (for state-space models only)
I'm just hoping to find out whether or not I am correct in that the output matrix columns correspond to the history of the state derivatives before I go base an analysis on a bad assumption.
I figured it out. My B-matrix expected [derivative, state,...] but I had them in the opposite order.
i have plotted a graph between time vs theta when time increases theta decreases up to some time ofter that it started increasing now i want to find what rate it is decreasing. equation theta=exp(-t/tau) i have to find tau ? can any one help me please..
It is not entirely clear from your question where you think that your problem is. But, when I read your question, it sounds like you are trying to fit an equation to some real data. Specifically, it sounds like: (1) you have some real data, (2) only part of the data is interesting to you, and (3) for that interesting data, you want to fit it to the equation theta=exp(-t/tau).
If that is indeed what you want, then you first must find just those data points that you think should be fit with the equation. I would plot your data points and then, by eye, decide which are the ones that are relevant to you. Discard the rest.
Next, you need to fit them to your equation. Since your equation is an exponential, the easiest way to find "tau" is to convert it to a linear equation. When you do this, you get 'log(theta) = -t / tau'. Or, said similarly, log(theta) = -1/tau * t.
If you take the log of all of your theta data points and plot them versus t, you should see a straight line. If this is truly the equation that will match your data, your data points should go through log(theta) = 0.0 at t = 0.0. If so, you can find tau by evaluating the slope of the line: slope = mean(log(theta)./t). Then, tau = -1/slope.
If your data points did not go through zero, you will need to shift them by some time offset so that they do go through zero. Then you can evaluate the slope and get your tau value.
This isn't really a Matlab question, by the way. Computationally, this is a very simple problem, so if Matlab is new to you, you might be making this harder than it needs to be. It could just as easily be done in Excel (or any spreadsheet) or whatever tool might be easier to use.
I am trying to measure the PSD of a stochastic process in matlab, but I am not sure how to do it. I have posted the exact same question here, but I thought I might have more luck here.
The stochastic process describes wind speed, and is represented by a vector of real numbers. Each entry corresponds to the wind speed in a point in space, measured in m/s. The points are 0.0005 m apart. How do I measure and plot the PSD? Let's call the vector V. My first idea was to use
[p, w] = pwelch(V);
loglog(w,p);
But is this correct? The thing is, that I'm given an analytical expression, which the PSD should (in theory) match. By plotting it with these two lines of code, it looks all wrong. Specifically it looks as though it could need a translation and a scaling. Other than that, the shapes of the two are similar.
UPDATE:
The image above actually doesn't depict the PSD obtained by using pwelch on a single vector, but rather the mean of the PSD of 200 vectors, since these vectors stems from numerical simulations. As suggested, I have tried scaling by 2*pi/0.0005. I saw that you can actually give this information to pwelch. So I tried using the code
[p, w] = pwelch(V,[],[],[],2*pi/0.0005);
loglog(w,p);
instead. As seen below, it looks much nicer. It is, however, still not perfect. Is that just something I should expect? Taking the squareroot is not the answer, by the way. But thanks for the suggestion. For one thing, it should follow Kolmogorov's -5/3 law, which it does now (it follows the green line, which has slope -5/3). The function I'm trying to match it with is the Shkarofsky spectral density function, which is the one-dimensional Fourier transform of the Shkarofsky correlation function. Is it not possible to mark up math, here on the site?
UPDATE 2:
I have tried using [p, w] = pwelch(V,[],[],[],1/0.0005); as I was suggested. But as you can seem it still doesn't quite match up. It's hard for me to explain exactly what I'm looking for. But what I would like (or, what I expected) is that the dip, of the computed and the analytical PSD happens at the same time, and falls off with the same speed. The data comes from simulations of turbulence. The analytical expression has been fitted to actual measurements of turbulence, wherein this dip is present as well. I'm no expert at all, but as far as I know the dip happens at the small length scales, since the energy is dissipated, due to viscosity of the air.
What about using the standard equation for obtaining a PSD? I'd would do this way:
Sxx(f) = (fft(x(t)).*conj(fft(x(t))))*(dt^2);
or
Sxx = fftshift(abs(fft(x(t))))*(dt^2);
Then, if you really need, you may think of applying a windowing criterium, such as
Hanning
Hamming
Welch
which will only somehow filter your PSD.
Presumably you need to rescale the frequency (wavenumber) to units of 1/m.
The frequency units from pwelch should be rescaled, since as the documentation explains:
W is the vector of normalized frequencies at which the PSD is
estimated. W has units of rad/sample.
Off the cuff my guess is that the scaling factor is
scale = 1/0.0005/(2*pi);
or 318.3 (m^-1).
As for the intensity, it looks like taking a square root might help. Perhaps your equation reports an intensity, not PSD?
Edit
As you point out, since the analytical and computed PSD have nearly identical slopes they appear to obey similar power laws up to 800 m^-1. I am not sure to what degree you require exponents or offsets to match to be satisfied with a specific model, and I am not familiar with this particular theory.
As for the apparent inconsistency at high wavenumbers, I would point out that you are entering the domain of very small numbers and therefore (1) floating point issues and (2) noise are probably lurking. The very nice looking dip in the computed PSD on the other hand appears very real but I have no explanation for it (maybe your noise is not white?).
You may want to look at this submission at matlab central as it may be useful.
Edit #2
After inspecting documentation of pwelch, it appears that you should pass 1/0.0005 (the sampling rate) and not 2*pi/0.0005. This should not affect the slope but will affect the intercept.
The dip in PSD in your simulation results looks similar to aliasing artifacts
that I have seen in my data when the original data were interpolated with a
low-order method. To make this clearer - say my original data was spaced at
0.002m, but in the course of cleaning up missing data, trying to save space, whatever,
I linearly interpolated those data onto a 0.005m spacing. The frequency response
of linear interpolation is not well-behaved, and will introduce peaks and valleys
at the high wavenumber end of your spectrum.
There are different conventions for spectral estimates - whether the wavenumber
units are 1/m, or radians/m. Single-sided spectra or double-sided spectra.
help pwelch
shows that the default settings return a one-sided spectrum, i.e. the bin for some
frequency ω will include the power density for both +ω and -ω.
You should double check that the idealized spectrum to which you are comparing
is also a one-sided spectrum. Otherwise, you'll need to half the values of your
one-sided spectrum to get values representative of the +ω side of a
two-sided spectrum.
I agree with Try Hard that it is the cyclic frequency (generally Hz, or in this case 1/m)
which should be specified to pwelch. That said, the returned frequency vector
from pwelch is also in those units. Analytical
spectral formulae are usually written in terms of angular frequency, so you'll
want to be sure that you evaluate it in terms of radians/m, but scale back to 1/m
for plotting.
In my project i have hige surfaces of 20.000 points computed by a algorithm. This algorithm, sometimes, has an error, computing 1 or more points in an small area incorrectly.
This error can not be solved in the algorithm, but needs to be detected afterwards.
The error can be seen in the next figure:
As you can see, there is a point wrongly computed that not only breaks the full homogeneous surface, but also destroys the aestetics of the plot (wich is also important in the project.)
Sometimes it can be more than a point, in general no more than 5 or 6. The error is allways the Z axis, so no need to check X and Y
I have been squeezing my mind to find a bit "generic" algorithm to detect this poitns.
I thougth that maybe taking patches of surface and meaning the Z, then detecting the points out of the variance... but I dont think it will work allways.
Any ideas?
NOTE: I dont want someone to write code for me, just an idea.
PD: relevant code for the avobe image:
[x,y] = meshgrid([-2:.07:2]);
Z = x.*exp(-x.^2-y.^2);
subplot(1,2,1)
surf(x,y,Z,gradient(Z))
subplot(1,2,2)
Z(35,35)=Z(35,35)+0.3;
surf(x,y,Z,gradient(Z))
The standard trick is to use a Laplacian, looking for the largest outliers. (This is not unlike what Mohsen posed for an answer, but is actually a bit easier.) You could even probably do it with conv2, so it would be pretty efficient.
I could offer a few ways to implement the idea. A simple one is to use my gridfit tool, found on the File Exchange. (Gridfit essentially uses a Laplacian for its smoothing operation.) Fit the surface with all points included, then look for the single point that was perturbed the most by the fit. Exclude it, then rerun the fit, again looking for the largest outlier. (With gridfit, you can use weights to give points a zero weight, a simple way to exclude a point or list of points.) When the largest perturbation that was needed is small enough, you can decide to stop the process. A nice thing is gridfit will also impute new values for the outliers, filling in all of the holes.
A second approach is to use the Laplacian directly, in more of a filtering approach. Here, you simply compute a value at each point that is the average of each neighbor to the left, right, above, and below. The single value that is most largely in disagreement with its computed average is replaced with a new value. Or, you can use a weighted average of the new value with the old one there. Again, iterate until the process does not generate anything larger than some tolerance. (This is the basis of an old outlier detection and correction scheme that I recall from the Fortran IMSL libraries, but probably dates back to roughly 30 years ago.)
Since your functions seems to vary smoothly these abrupt changes can be detected by looking into the derivatives. You can
Take the derivative in one direction
Calculate mean and standard deviation of derivative
Find the points by looking for points that are further from mean by certain multiple of standard deviation.
Here is the code
U=diff(Z);
V=(U-mean(U(:)))/std(U(:));
surf(x(2:end,:),y(2:end,:),V)
V=[zeros(1,size(V,2)); V];
V(abs(V)<10)=0;
V=sign(V);
W=cumsum(V);
[I,J]=find(W);
outliers = [I, J];
For your example you get this plot for V with a peak at around 21.7 while second peak is at around 1.9528, so maybe a threshold of 10 is ok.
and running the code returns
outliers =
35 35
The need for cumsum is for the cases that you have a patch of points next to each other that are incorrect.
I am trying to compare two data sets in MATLAB. To do this I need to filter the data sets by Fourier transforming the data, filtering it and then inverse Fourier transforming it.
When I inverse Fourier transform the data however I get a spike at either end of the red data set (picture shows the first spike), it should be close to zero at the start, like the blue line. I am comparing many data sets and this only happens occasionally.
I have three questions about this phenomenon. First, what may be causing it, secondly, how can I remedy it, and third, will it affect the data further along the time series or just at the beginning and end of the time series as it appears to from the picture.
Any help would be great thanks.
When using DFT you must remember the DFT assumes a Periodic Signal (As a Superposition of Harmonic Functions).
As you can see, the start point is exact continuation of the last point in harmonic function manner.
Did you perform any Zero Padding in the Spectrum Domain?
Anyhow, Windowing might reduce the Overshooting.
Knowing more about the filter and the Original data might be helpful.
If you say spike near zero frequencies, I answer check the DC component.
You seem interested by the shape, so doing
x = x - mean(x)
or
x -= mean(x)
or
x -= x.mean()
(I love numpy!)
will just constrain the dataset to begin with null amplitude at zero-frequency and to go ahead with comapring the spectra's amplitude.
(as a side-note: did you check that you approprately use fftshift and ifftshift? this has always been the source of trouble for me)
Could be the numerical equivalent of Gibbs' phenomenon. If that's correct, there's no way to remedy it except for filtering.