i've been trying to do this question but no matter how i go about it i get this error.
any ideas ?
The question is
"Matrix dimensions must agree"
bb = [1,1.18,1]; %-- Filter Coefficients
nn = 1:150;
L2 = 0:9; % M - 1(10-1 = 9)
%1st at 0.3
w1 = (0.2*cos(0.44*pi*nn)) .* (exp(-1i * 0.3 * 3.14 * L2)) ;
%2nd at 0.44
w2 = 0.2*cos(0.44*pi*nn) .* exp(-1i*0.44*3.14*L2);
%3rd at 0.7
w3 = 0.2*cos(0.44*pi*nn) .* exp(-1i*0.7*3.14*L2);
wt = w1 + w2 + w3;
HTOTAL = freqz(bb, 1, wt);
H1 = freqz(bb, 1, w1); %
H2 = freqz(bb, 1, w2); %
H3 = freqz(bb, 1, w3); %
%set the value of x to see the filter
x = 1;
subplot(2,1,1); plot(wx, abs(HH))
subplot(2,1,2); plot(wx, angle(HH))
xlabel('Normalized Radian Frequency')
You're trying to element-wise multiply (0.2*cos(0.44*pi*nn)) by (exp(-1i*0.3*3.14*L2)). The issue here is that the first array contains nn = 150 elements, while the second contains L2 = 10 elements.
Looking at the original question, it looks like you're required to use a filter length (L2) of 10, but your nn array ranges from 1 to 150 instead of the required 0 to 9.
You should use (0.2*cos(0.44*pi*L2)) instead of (0.2*cos(0.44*pi*nn)) to fix your "Matrix dimensions must agree" error.
Related
I've had problems with my code as I've tried to make an integral compute, but it will not for the power, P2.
I've tried using anonymous function handles to use the integral() function on MATLAB as well as just using int(), but it will still not compute. Are the values too small for MATLAB to integrate or am I just missing something small?
Any help or advice would be appreciated to push me in the right direction. Thanks!
The problem in the code is in the bottom of the section labelled "Power Calculations". My integral also gets quite messy if that makes a difference.
%%%%%%%%%%% Parameters %%%%%%%%%%%%
n0 = 1; %air
n1 = 1.4; %layer 1
n2 = 2.62; %layer 2
n3 = 3.5; %silicon
L0 = 650*10^(-9); %centre wavelength
L1 = 200*10^(-9): 10*10^(-9): 2200*10^(-9); %lambda from 200nm to 2200nm
x = ((pi./2).*(L0./L1)); %layer phase thickness
r01 = ((n0 - n1)./(n0 + n1)); %reflection coefficient 01
r12 = ((n1 - n2)./(n1 + n2)); %reflection coefficient 12
r23 = ((n2 - n3)./(n2 + n3)); %reflection coefficient 23
t01 = ((2.*n0)./(n0 + n1)); %transmission coefficient 01
t12 = ((2.*n1)./(n1 + n2)); %transmission coefficient 12
t23 = ((2.*n2)./(n2 + n3)); %transmission coefficient 23
Q1 = [1 r01; r01 1]; %Matrix Q1
Q2 = [1 r12; r12 1]; %Matrix Q2
Q3 = [1 r23; r23 1]; %Matrix Q3
%%%%%%%%%%%% Graph of L vs R %%%%%%%%%%%
R = zeros(size(x));
for i = 1:length(x)
P = [exp(j.*x(i)) 0; 0 exp(-j.*x(i))]; %General Matrix P
T = ((1./(t01.*t12.*t23)).*(Q1*P*Q2*P*Q3)); %Transmission
T11 = T(1,1); %T11 value
T21 = T(2,1); %T21 value
R(i) = ((abs(T21./T11))^2).*100; %Percent reflectivity
end
plot(L1,R)
title('Percent Reflectance vs. wavelength for 2 Layers')
xlabel('Wavelength (m)')
ylabel('Reflectance (%)')
%%%%%%%%%%% Power Calculation %%%%%%%%%%
syms L; %General lamda
y = ((pi./2).*(L0./L)); %Layer phase thickness with variable Lamda
P1 = [exp(j.*y) 0; 0 exp(-j.*y)]; %Matrix P with variable Lambda
T1 = ((1./(t01.*t12.*t23)).*(Q1*P1*Q2*P1*Q3)); %Transmittivity matrix T1
I = ((6.16^(15))./((L.^(5)).*exp(2484./L) - 1)); %Blackbody Irradiance
Tf11 = T1(1,1); %New T11 section of matrix with variable Lambda
Tf2 = (((abs(1./Tf11))^2).*(n3./n0)); %final transmittivity
P1 = Tf2.*I; %Power before integration
L_initial = 200*10^(-9); %Initial wavelength
L_final = 2200*10^(-9); %Final wavelength
P2 = int(P1, L, L_initial, L_final) %Power production
I've refactored your code
to make it easier to read
to improve code reuse
to improve performance
to make it easier to understand
Why do you use so many unnecessary parentheses?!
Anyway, there's a few problems I saw in your code.
You used i as a loop variable, and j as the imaginary unit. It was OK for this one instance, but just barely so. In the future it's better to use 1i or 1j for the imaginary unit, and/or m or ii or something other than i or j as the loop index variable. You're helping yourself and your colleagues; it's just less confusing that way.
Towards the end, you used the variable name P1 twice in a row, and in two different ways. Although it works here, it's confusing! Took me a while to unravel why a matrix-producing function was producing scalars instead...
But by far the biggest problem in your code is the numerical problems with the blackbody irradiance computation. The term
L⁵ · exp(2484/L) - 1
for λ₀ = 200 · 10⁻⁹ m will require computing the quantity
exp(1.242 · 10¹⁰)
which, needless to say, is rather difficult for a computer :) Actually, the problem with your computation is two-fold. First, the exponentiation is definitely out of range of 64 bit IEEE-754 double precision, and will therefore result in ∞. Second, the parentheses are wrong; Planck's law should read
C/L⁵ · 1/(exp(D) - 1)
with C and D the constants (involving Planck's constant, speed of light, and Boltzmann constant), which you've presumably precomputed (I didn't check the values. I do know choice of units can mess these up, so better check).
So, aside from the silly parentheses error, I suspect the main problem is that you simply forgot to rescale λ to nm. Changing everything in the blackbody equation to nm and correcting those parentheses gives the code
I = 6.16^(15) / ( (L*1e+9)^5 * (exp(2484/(L*1e+9)) - 1) );
With this, I got a finite value for the integral of
P2 = 1.052916498836486e-010
But, again, you'd better double-check everything.
Note that I used quadgk(), because it's one of the better ones available on R2010a (which I'm stuck with), but you can just as easily replace this with integral() available on anything newer than R2012a.
Here's the code I ended up with:
function pwr = my_fcn()
% Parameters
n0 = 1; % air
n1 = 1.4; % layer 1
n2 = 2.62; % layer 2
n3 = 3.5; % silicon
L0 = 650e-9; % centre wavelength
% Reflection coefficients
r01 = (n0 - n1)/(n0 + n1);
r12 = (n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2);
r23 = (n2 - n3)/(n2 + n3);
% Transmission coefficients
t01 = (2*n0) / (n0 + n1);
t12 = (2*n1) / (n1 + n2);
t23 = (2*n2) / (n2 + n3);
% Quality factors
Q1 = [1 r01; r01 1];
Q2 = [1 r12; r12 1];
Q3 = [1 r23; r23 1];
% Initial & Final wavelengths
L_initial = 200e-9;
L_final = 2200e-9;
% plot reflectivity for selected lambda range
plot_reflectivity(L_initial, L_final, 1000);
% Compute power production
pwr = quadgk(#power_production, L_initial, L_final);
% Helper functions
% ========================================
% Graph of lambda vs reflectivity
function plot_reflectivity(L_initial, L_final, N)
L = linspace(L_initial, L_final, N);
R = zeros(size(L));
for ii = 1:numel(L)
% Transmission
T = transmittivity(L(ii));
% Percent reflectivity
R(ii) = 100 * abs(T(2,1)/T(1,1))^2 ;
end
plot(L, R)
title('Percent Reflectance vs. wavelength for 2 Layers')
xlabel('Wavelength (m)')
ylabel('Reflectance (%)')
end
% Compute transmittivity matrix for a single wavelength
function T = transmittivity(L)
% Layer phase thickness with variable Lamda
y = pi/2 * L0/L;
% Matrix P with variable Lambda
P1 = [exp(+1j*y) 0
0 exp(-1j*y)];
% Transmittivity matrix T1
T = 1/(t01*t12*t23) * Q1*P1*Q2*P1*Q3;
end
% Power for a specific wavelength. Note that this function
% accepts vector-valued wavelengths; needed for quadgk()
function pwr = power_production(L)
pwr = zeros(size(L));
for ii = 1:numel(L)
% Transmittivity matrix
T1 = transmittivity(L(ii));
% Blackbody Irradiance
I = 6.16^(15) / ( (L(ii)*1e+9)^5 * (exp(2484/(L(ii)*1e+9)) - 1) );
% final transmittivity
Tf2 = abs(1/T1(1))^2 * n3/n0;
% Power before integration
pwr(ii) = Tf2 * I;
end
end
end
I have to use matlab to find the convolution over the range 0 <= n <= 20.
x[n] = δ[n] + δ[n-2] and h[n] = 2*(3^n)u[n]
I have tried to do this and i was met with a "X is not the same length as Y" when trying to plot it and have tried to correct it. Could someone let me know if this is correct?
n = [0:20];
x =[1 0 1];
h= 2*3.^n;
y = conv(x,h);
ysize = size(y,2)
z = [0:(ysize-1)];
ysize = size (y,2);
p = stem(z ,y ,'r' ,'filled');
set (p, 'LineWidth', 2, 'MarkerSize', 4);
title ('y[n] = x[n] * h[n]');
xlabel ('n');
ylabel ('y[n]');
I have tested your code. And it is giving the following output (no error of size) Code is perfect.
I calculated the convolution online that results the same. Your code is perfect.
Consider a difference equation with its initial conditions.
5y(n) + y(n-1) - 3y(n-2) = (1/5^n) u(n), n>=0
y(n-1) = 2, y(n-2) = 0
How can I determine y(n) in Matlab?
Use an approach similar to this (using filter), but specifying initial conditions as done here (using filtic).
I'm assuming your initial conditions are: y(-1)=2, y(-2)=0.
num = 1; %// numerator of transfer function (from difference equation)
den = [5 1 -3]; %// denominator of transfer function (from difference equation)
n = 0:100; %// choose as desired
x = (1/5).^n; %// n is >= 0, so u(n) is 1
y = filter(num, den, x, filtic(num, den, [2 0], [0 0]));
%// [2 0] reflects initial conditions on y, and [0 0] those on x.
Here's a plot of the result, obtained with stem(n,y).
The second line of your code does not give initial conditions, because it refers to the index variable n. Since Matlab only allows positive integer indices, I'll assume that you mean y(1) = 0 and y(2) = 2.
You can get an iteration rule out of your first equation by simple algebra:
y(n) = ( (1/5^n) u(n) - y(n-1) + 3y(n-2) ) / 5
Code to apply this rule in Matlab:
n_max = 100;
y = nan(n_max, 1);
y(1) = 0;
y(2) = 2;
for n = 3 : n_max
y(n) = ( (1/5^n) * u(n) - y(n-1) + 3 * y(n-2) ) / 5;
end
This code assumes that the array u is already defined. n_max specifies how many elements of y to compute.
f1 = 1 ;
N = 1024 ;
fs = 200 ;
ts = 1/fs ;
t = -(N/(2*fs)):ts:(N/(2*fs)) ;
theta=rand(0:2*pi);
X = sin(2*pi*f1*t+theta) ;
plot(t,x)
grid
Error using +
Matrix dimensions must agree.
And how can i calculate the autocorrelation of x function Rxx(n) ?
Replace the theta line by
theta = 2*pi*rand; %// generates a random number between 0 and 2*pi
and the plot line by
plot(t, X); %// capital "X", as you have defined previously
For the autocorrelation, you can use conv (correlation for real signals is equivalent to convolution with a time-reversal):
c = conv(X,fliplr(X));
plot(-(N/fs):ts:(N/fs), c)
To add to what Luis Mendo has answered, the reason for the error message is that:
>> size(t)
ans =
1 1025
>> size(theta)
ans =
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
So you are trying to add two things which are not the same dimension in X = sin(2*pi*f1*t+theta), hence the error message.
Use Luis's suggestions to fix your code.
I wrote a code to implement steepest descent backpropagation with which I am having issues. I am using the Machine CPU dataset and have scaled the inputs and outputs into range [0 1]
The codes in matlab/octave is as follows:
steepest descent backpropagation
%SGD = Steepest Gradient Decent
function weights = nnSGDTrain (X, y, nhid_units, gamma, max_epoch, X_test, y_test)
iput_units = columns (X);
oput_units = columns (y);
n = rows (X);
W2 = rand (nhid_units + 1, oput_units);
W1 = rand (iput_units + 1, nhid_units);
train_rmse = zeros (1, max_epoch);
test_rmse = zeros (1, max_epoch);
for (epoch = 1:max_epoch)
delW2 = zeros (nhid_units + 1, oput_units)';
delW1 = zeros (iput_units + 1, nhid_units)';
for (i = 1:rows(X))
o1 = sigmoid ([X(i,:), 1] * W1); %1xn+1 * n+1xk = 1xk
o2 = sigmoid ([o1, 1] * W2); %1xk+1 * k+1xm = 1xm
D2 = o2 .* (1 - o2);
D1 = o1 .* (1 - o1);
e = (y_test(i,:) - o2)';
delta2 = diag (D2) * e; %mxm * mx1 = mx1
delta1 = diag (D1) * W2(1:(end-1),:) * delta2; %kxm * mx1 = kx1
delW2 = delW2 + (delta2 * [o1 1]); %mx1 * 1xk+1 = mxk+1 %already transposed
delW1 = delW1 + (delta1 * [X(i, :) 1]); %kx1 * 1xn+1 = k*n+1 %already transposed
end
delW2 = gamma .* delW2 ./ n;
delW1 = gamma .* delW1 ./ n;
W2 = W2 + delW2';
W1 = W1 + delW1';
[dummy train_rmse(epoch)] = nnPredict (X, y, nhid_units, [W1(:);W2(:)]);
[dummy test_rmse(epoch)] = nnPredict (X_test, y_test, nhid_units, [W1(:);W2(:)]);
printf ('Epoch: %d\tTrain Error: %f\tTest Error: %f\n', epoch, train_rmse(epoch), test_rmse(epoch));
fflush (stdout);
end
weights = [W1(:);W2(:)];
% plot (1:max_epoch, test_rmse, 1);
% hold on;
plot (1:max_epoch, train_rmse(1:end), 2);
% hold off;
end
predict
%Now SFNN Only
function [o1 rmse] = nnPredict (X, y, nhid_units, weights)
iput_units = columns (X);
oput_units = columns (y);
n = rows (X);
W1 = reshape (weights(1:((iput_units + 1) * nhid_units),1), iput_units + 1, nhid_units);
W2 = reshape (weights((((iput_units + 1) * nhid_units) + 1):end,1), nhid_units + 1, oput_units);
o1 = sigmoid ([X ones(n,1)] * W1); %nxiput_units+1 * iput_units+1xnhid_units = nxnhid_units
o2 = sigmoid ([o1 ones(n,1)] * W2); %nxnhid_units+1 * nhid_units+1xoput_units = nxoput_units
rmse = RMSE (y, o2);
end
RMSE function
function rmse = RMSE (a1, a2)
rmse = sqrt (sum (sum ((a1 - a2).^2))/rows(a1));
end
I have also trained the same dataset using the R RSNNS package mlp and the RMSE for train set (first 100 examples) are around 0.03 . But in my implementation I cannot achieve lower RMSE than 0.14 . And sometimes the errors grow for some higher learning rates, and no learning rate gets me lower RMSE than 0.14. Also a paper i referred report the RMSE in for the train set is around 0.03
I wanted to know where is the problem i the code. I have followed Raul Rojas book and confirmed that things are okay.
In backprobagation code the line
e = (y_test(i,:) - o2)';
is not correct, because the o2 is the output from the train set and i am finding the difference from one example from the test set y_test. The line should have been as below:
e = (y(i,:) - o2)';
which correctly finds the difference between the predicted output by the current model and the target output of the corresponding example.
This took me 3 days to find this one, I am fortunate enough to find this freaking bug which stopped me from going into further modifications.