I have a distance sensor (acoustic) that has temperature-dependent noise signal. I want to retain the peaks, but get rid of the temperature related noise.
I need a program that checks the absolute value of the difference between the current and previous measurement (e.g. abs(d1[i+1]-d1[i])). If the difference is less than or equal to a threshold (delta), then d2[i+1] = d1[i]. If the difference is greater than delta, then d2[i+1]=d1[i+1]. An example vector looks something like:
data vector d1 is 4,6,5,7,6,5,7,10,55,56,58,30,10
The desired, filtered data (d2) would look something like (in this case delta=1): 4,6,6,7,7,7,7,10,55,55,58,30,10
I looked at lowess() and sma(), but they were unsatisfactory, or my ability to apply them correctly is unsatisfactory. I have used lowess in previous attempts, but it was inconsistent in capturing peaks and valleys. It seems a combination of sapply() and an ifelse() function should be able to do this, but my skill level is too poor. Any help would be most appreciated.
Related
I am relatively new to matlab. I found the consecutive mean of a set of 1E6 random numbers that has mean and standard deviation. Initially the calculated mean fluctuate and then converges to a certain value.
I will like to know the index (i.e 100th position) at which the mean converges. I have no idea how to do that.
I tried using the logical operator but i have to go through 1e6 data points. Even with that i still can't find the index.
Y_c= sigma_c * randn(n_r, 1) + mu_c; %Random number creation
Y_f=sigma_f * randn(n_r, 1) + mu_f;%Random number creation
P_u=gamma*(B*B)/2.*N_gamma+q*B.*N_q + Y_c*B.*N_c; %Calculation of Ultimate load
prog_mu=cumsum(P_u)./cumsum(ones(size(P_u))); %Progressive Cumulative Mean of system response
logical(diff(prog_mu==0)); %Find index
I suspect the issue is that the mean will never truly be constant, but will rather fluctuate around the "true mean". As such, you'll most likely never encounter a situation where the two consecutive values of the cumulative mean are identical. What you should do is determine some threshold value, below which you consider fluctuations in the mean to be approximately equal to zero, and compare the difference of the cumulative mean to that value. For instance:
epsilon = 0.01;
const_ind = find(abs(diff(prog_mu))<epsilon,1,'first');
where epsilon will be the threshold value you choose. The find command will return the index at which the variation in the cumulative mean first drops below this threshold value.
EDIT: As was pointed out, this method may potentially fail if the first few random numbers are generated such that the difference between them is less than the epsilon value, but have not yet converged. I would like to suggest a different approach, then.
We calculate the cumulative means, as before, like so:
prog_mu=cumsum(P_u)./cumsum(ones(size(P_u)));
We also calculate the difference in these cumulative means, as before:
df_prog_mu = diff(prog_mu);
Now, to ensure that conversion has been achieved, we find the first index where the cumulative mean is below the threshold value epsilon and all subsequent means are also below the threshold value. To phrase this another way, we want to find the index after the last position in the array where the cumulative mean is above the threshold:
conv_index = find(~df_prog_mu,1,'last')+1;
In doing so, we guarantee that the value at the index, and all subsequent values, have converged below your predetermined threshold value.
I wouldn't imagine that the mean would suddenly become constant at a single index. Wouldn't it asymptotically approach a constant value? I would reccommend a for loop to calculate the mean (it sounds like maybe you've already done this part?) like this:
avg = [];
for k=1:length(x)
avg(k) = mean(x(1:k));
end
Then plot the consecutive mean:
plot(avg)
hold on % this will allow us to plot more data on the same figure later
If you're trying to find the point at which the consecutive mean comes within a certain range of the true mean, try this:
Tavg = 5; % or whatever your true mean is
err = 0.01; % the range you want the consecutive mean to reach before we say that it "became constant"
inRange = avg>(Tavg-err) & avg<(Tavg+err); % gives you a binary logical array telling you which values fell within the range
q = 1000; % set this as high as you can while still getting a value for consIndex
constIndex = [];
for k=1:length(inRange)
if(inRange(k) == sum(inRange(k:k+q))/(q-1);)
constIndex = k;
end
end
The below answer takes a similar approach but makes an unsafe assumption that the first value to fall within the range is the value where the function starts to converge. Any value could randomly fall within that range. We need to make sure that the following values also fall within that range. In the above code, you can edit "q" and "err" to optimize your result. I would recommend double checking it by plotting.
plot(avg(constIndex), '*')
I have a dataset with 274 samples (9 months) of the daily energy (Watts.hour) used on a residential household. I'm not sure if i'm applying the lpc function correctly.
My code is the following:
filename='9-months.csv';
energy = csvread(filename);
C=zeros(5,1);
counter=0;
N=3;
for n=274:-1:31
w2=energy(1:n-1,1);
a=lpc(w2,N);
energy_estimated=0;
for X = 1:N
energy_estimated = energy_estimated + (-a(X+1)*energy(n-X));
end
w_real=energy(n);
error2=abs(w_real-energy_estimated);
counter=counter+1;
C(counter,1)=error2;
end
mean_error=round(mean(C));
Being "n" the sample on analysis, I will use the energy array's values, from 1 to n-1, to calculate the lpc coefficientes (with N=3).
After that, it will apply the calculated coefficients on the "for" cycle presented, in order to calculate the estimated energy.
Finally, error2 outputs the error between the real energy and estimated value.
On the example presented ( http://www.mathworks.com/help/signal/ref/lpc.html ) some filters are used. Do I need to apply any filter to it? Is my methodology correct?
Thank you very much in advance!
The lpc seems to be used correctly, but there are a few other things about your code. I am adressign the part at he "for n" :
for n=31:274 %for me it would seem more logically to go forward in time
w2=energy(1:n-1,1);
a=lpc(w2,N);
energy_estimate=filter([0 -a(2:end)],1,w2);
energy_estimate=energy_estimate(end);
estimates(n)=energy_estimate;
end
error=energy(31:274)-estimates(31:274)';
meanerror=mean(error); %you dont really round mean errors
filter is exactly what you are trying to do with the X=1:N loop. but this will perform the calculation for the entire w2 vector. If you just want the last value take the (end) command as well.
Now there is no reason to calculate the error for every single value and then add them to a vector you can do that faster after the calculation.
Now if your trying to estimate future values with a lpc it could work like that, but you are implying that every value is only dependend on the last 3 values. Have you tried something like a polynominal approach? i would think that this would be closer to reality.
Problem
I have two arrays (Xa and Xb) that contain measurements of the same physical signal, but they are taken at different sample rates. Lastly, physical logging of Xa data starts at a different time, than that of Xb. The logging of data also stops at different time.
i.e.
(The following is just a summary of important statements, not code.)
sampleRatea > sampleRateb % Resolution of Xa is greater than that of Xb
t0a ~= t0b % Start times are not equal
t1a ~= t1b % End times are not equal
Objective
Find the necessary shift in indices that will best line up these sets of data.
Approach
Use fmincon to find the index that minimizes the mean squared error (MSE) between versions Xa and Xb that are edited to have the same sample rate (perhaps using the interpolation function).
I have tried to do this but it always seems that I have too many degrees of freedom. Is there anyone who can shed some light on a process that might facilitate this process?
Assuming you have two samples with constant frequencies, the problem reduces to something quite simple:
Find scale, location such that:
Xa , at timestamps corresponding to its index, makes the best match with Xb at timstamps corresponding to location + scale * its index.
If you agree with this you can see that only two degrees of freedom are left, if you know the ratio of sample rates it even reduces to just 1 degree of freedom.
I believe that now the hard part is done, but some work still remains:
Judge how good two samples with timestamps and values match
Find the optimal combination of your location and scale parameter
Note that, assuming you complete these 2 steps properly, the solution should be optimal for finding the optimal timestamps. As you are looking for a shift in (integer) indices, translating these timestamps back to indices may not be result in the real optimum but it should be pretty close.
Here is a quick-and-dirty solution that should be enough to get you started. Given your input signals Xa and Xb sampled at sampleRatea and sampleRateb respectively:
g = gcd(sampleRatea,sampleRateb);
Ya = interp(Xa,sampleRateb/g);
Yb = interp(Xb,sampleRatea/g);
Yfs = sampleRatea*sampleRateb/g;
[acor,lag] = xcorr(Ya,Yb);
time_shift = lag(acor == max(acor))/Yfs;
The variable time_shift will tell you the time elapsed between the start of A and the start of B. If B starts first, the result will be negative.
If your sampling rates are relatively prime, this will be horribly inefficient. If one is an integer multiple of the other, or they have a relatively large GCD, it will be much better.
Having read carefully the previous question
Random numbers that add to 100: Matlab
I am struggling to solve a similar but slightly more complex problem.
I would like to create an array of n elements that sums to 1, however I want an added constraint that the minimum increment (or if you like number of significant figures) for each element is fixed.
For example if I want 10 numbers that sum to 1 without any constraint the following works perfectly:
num_stocks=10;
num_simulations=100000;
temp = [zeros(num_simulations,1),sort(rand(num_simulations,num_stocks-1),2),ones(num_simulations,1)];
weights = diff(temp,[],2);
I foolishly thought that by scaling this I could add the constraint as follows
num_stocks=10;
min_increment=0.001;
num_simulations=100000;
scaling=1/min_increment;
temp2 = [zeros(num_simulations,1),sort(round(rand(num_simulations,num_stocks-1)*scaling)/scaling,2),ones(num_simulations,1)];
weights2 = diff(temp2,[],2);
However though this works for small values of n & small values of increment, if for example n=1,000 & the increment is 0.1% then over a large number of trials the first and last numbers have a mean which is consistently below 0.1%.
I am sure there is a logical explanation/solution to this but I have been tearing my hair out to try & find it & wondered anybody would be so kind as to point me in the right direction. To put the problem into context create random stock portfolios (hence the sum to 1).
Thanks in advance
Thank you for the responses so far, just to clarify (as I think my initial question was perhaps badly phrased), it is the weights that have a fixed increment of 0.1% so 0%, 0.1%, 0.2% etc.
I did try using integers initially
num_stocks=1000;
min_increment=0.001;
num_simulations=100000;
scaling=1/min_increment;
temp = [zeros(num_simulations,1),sort(randi([0 scaling],num_simulations,num_stocks-1),2),ones(num_simulations,1)*scaling];
weights = (diff(temp,[],2)/scaling);
test=mean(weights);
but this was worse, the mean for the 1st & last weights is well below 0.1%.....
Edit to reflect excellent answer by Floris & clarify
The original code I was using to solve this problem (before finding this forum) was
function x = monkey_weights_original(simulations,stocks)
stockmatrix=1:stocks;
base_weight=1/stocks;
r=randi(stocks,stocks,simulations);
x=histc(r,stockmatrix)*base_weight;
end
This runs very fast, which was important considering I want to run a total of 10,000,000 simulations, 10,000 simulations on 1,000 stocks takes just over 2 seconds with a single core & I am running the whole code on an 8 core machine using the parallel toolbox.
It also gives exactly the distribution I was looking for in terms of means, and I think that it is just as likely to get a portfolio that is 100% in 1 stock as it is to geta portfolio that is 0.1% in every stock (though I'm happy to be corrected).
My issue issue is that although it works for 1,000 stocks & an increment of 0.1% and I guess it works for 100 stocks & an increment of 1%, as the number of stocks decreases then each pick becomes a very large percentage (in the extreme with 2 stocks you will always get a 50/50 portfolio).
In effect I think this solution is like the binomial solution Floris suggests (but more limited)
However my question has arrisen because I would like to make my approach more flexible & have the possibility of say 3 stocks & an increment of 1% which my current code will not handle correctly, hence how I stumbled accross the original question on stackoverflow
Floris's recursive approach will get to the right answer, but the speed will be a major issue considering the scale of the problem.
An example of the original research is here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/monkeys-stocks-study_n_3021285.html
I am currently working on extending it with more flexibility on portfolio weights & numbers of stock in the index, but it appears my programming & probability theory ability are a limiting factor.......
One problem I can see is that your formula allows for numbers to be zero - when the rounding operation results in two consecutive numbers to be the same after sorting. Not sure if you consider that a problem - but I suggest you think about it (it would mean your model portfolio has fewer than N stocks in it since the contribution of one of the stocks would be zero).
The other thing to note is that the probability of getting the extreme values in your distribution is half of what you want them to be: If you have uniformly distributed numbers from 0 to 1000, and you round them, the numbers that round to 0 were in the interval [0 0.5>; the ones that round to 1 came from [0.5 1.5> - twice as big. The last number (rounding to 1000) is again from a smaller interval: [999.5 1000]. Thus you will not get the first and last number as often as you think. If instead of round you use floor I think you will get the answer you expect.
EDIT
I thought about this some more, and came up with a slow but (I think) accurate method for doing this. The basic idea is this:
Think in terms of integers; rather than dividing the interval 0 - 1 in steps of 0.001, divide the interval 0 - 1000 in integer steps
If we try to divide N into m intervals, the mean size of a step should be N / m; but being integer, we would expect the intervals to be binomially distributed
This suggests an algorithm in which we choose the first interval as a binomially distributed variate with mean (N/m) - call the first value v1; then divide the remaining interval N - v1 into m-1 steps; we can do so recursively.
The following code implements this:
% random integers adding up to a definite sum
function r = randomInt(n, limit)
% returns an array of n random integers
% whose sum is limit
% calls itself recursively; slow but accurate
if n>1
v = binomialRandom(limit, 1 / n);
r = [v randomInt(n-1, limit - v)];
else
r = limit;
end
function b = binomialRandom(N, p)
b = sum(rand(1,N)<p); % slow but direct
To get 10000 instances, you run this as follows:
tic
portfolio = zeros(10000, 10);
for ii = 1:10000
portfolio(ii,:) = randomInt(10, 1000);
end
toc
This ran in 3.8 seconds on a modest machine (single thread) - of course the method for obtaining a binomially distributed random variate is the thing slowing it down; there are statistical toolboxes with more efficient functions but I don't have one. If you increase the granularity (for example, by setting limit=10000) it will slow down more since you increase the number of random number samples that are generated; with limit = 10000 the above loop took 13.3 seconds to complete.
As a test, I found mean(portfolio)' and std(portfolio)' as follows (with limit=1000):
100.20 9.446
99.90 9.547
100.09 9.456
100.00 9.548
100.01 9.356
100.00 9.484
99.69 9.639
100.06 9.493
99.94 9.599
100.11 9.453
This looks like a pretty convincing "flat" distribution to me. We would expect the numbers to be binomially distributed with a mean of 100, and standard deviation of sqrt(p*(1-p)*n). In this case, p=0.1 so we expect s = 9.4868. The values I actually got were again quite close.
I realize that this is inefficient for large values of limit, and I made no attempt at efficiency. I find that clarity trumps speed when you develop something new. But for instance you could pre-compute the cumulative binomial distributions for p=1./(1:10), then do a random lookup; but if you are just going to do this once, for 100,000 instances, it will run in under a minute; unless you intend to do it many times, I wouldn't bother. But if anyone wants to improve this code I'd be happy to hear from them.
Eventually I have solved this problem!
I found a paper by 2 academics at John Hopkins University "Sampling Uniformly From The Unit Simplex"
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nasmith/papers/smith+tromble.tr04.pdf
In the paper they outline how naive algorthms don't work, in a way very similar to woodchips answer to the Random numbers that add to 100 question. They then go on to show that the method suggested by David Schwartz can also be slightly biased and propose a modified algorithm which appear to work.
If you want x numbers that sum to y
Sample uniformly x-1 random numbers from the range 1 to x+y-1 without replacement
Sort them
Add a zero at the beginning & x+y at the end
difference them & subtract 1 from each value
If you want to scale them as I do, then divide by y
It took me a while to realise why this works when the original approach didn't and it come down to the probability of getting a zero weight (as highlighted by Floris in his answer). To get a zero weight in the original version for all but the 1st or last weights your random numbers had to have 2 values the same but for the 1st & last ones then a random number of zero or the maximum number would result in a zero weight which is more likely.
In the revised algorithm, zero & the maximum number are not in the set of random choices & a zero weight occurs only if you select two consecutive numbers which is equally likely for every position.
I coded it up in Matlab as follows
function weights = unbiased_monkey_weights(num_simulations,num_stocks,min_increment)
scaling=1/min_increment;
sample=NaN(num_simulations,num_stocks-1);
for i=1:num_simulations
allcomb=randperm(scaling+num_stocks-1);
sample(i,:)=allcomb(1:num_stocks-1);
end
temp = [zeros(num_simulations,1),sort(sample,2),ones(num_simulations,1)*(scaling+num_stocks)];
weights = (diff(temp,[],2)-1)/scaling;
end
Obviously the loop is a bit clunky and as I'm using the 2009 version the randperm function only allows you to generate permutations of the whole set, however despite this I can run 10,000 simulations for 1,000 numbers in 5 seconds on my clunky laptop which is fast enough.
The mean weights are now correct & as a quick test I replicated woodchips generating 3 numbers that sum to 1 with the minimum increment being 0.01% & it also look right
Thank you all for your help and I hope this solution is useful to somebody else in the future
The simple answer is to use the schemes that work well with NO minimum increment, then transform the problem. As always, be careful. Some methods do NOT yield uniform sets of numbers.
Thus, suppose I want 11 numbers that sum to 100, with a constraint of a minimum increment of 5. I would first find 11 numbers that sum to 45, with no lower bound on the samples (other than zero.) I could use a tool from the file exchange for this. Simplest is to simply sample 10 numbers in the interval [0,45]. Sort them, then find the differences.
X = diff([0,sort(rand(1,10)),1]*45);
The vector X is a sample of numbers that sums to 45. But the vector Y sums to 100, with a minimum value of 5.
Y = X + 5;
Of course, this is trivially vectorized if you wish to find multiple sets of numbers with the given constraint.
I have 500,000 values for a variable derived from financial markets. Specifically, this variable represents distance from the mean (in standard deviations). This variable has a arbitrary distribution. I need a formula that will allow me to select a range around any value of this variable such that an equal (or close to it) amount of data points fall within that range.
This will allow me to then analyze all of the data points within a specific range and to treat them as "similar situations to the input."
From what I understand, this means that I need to convert it from arbitrary distribution to uniform distribution. I have read (but barely understood) that what I am looking for is called "probability integral transform."
Can anyone assist me with some code (Matlab preferred, but it doesn't really matter) to help me accomplish this?
Here's something I put together quickly. It's not polished and not perfect, but it does what you want to do.
clear
randList=[randn(1e4,1);2*randn(1e4,1)+5];
[xCdf,xList]=ksdensity(randList,'npoints',5e3,'function','cdf');
xRange=getInterval(5,xList,xCdf,0.1);
and the function getInterval is
function out=getInterval(yPoint,xList,xCdf,areaFraction)
yCdf=interp1(xList,xCdf,yPoint);
yCdfRange=[-areaFraction/2, areaFraction/2]+yCdf;
out=interp1(xCdf,xList,yCdfRange);
Explanation:
The CDF of the random distribution is shown below by the line in blue. You provide a point (here 5 in the input to getInterval) about which you want a range that gives you 10% of the area (input 0.1 to getInterval). The chosen point is marked by the red cross and the
interval is marked by the lines in green. You can get the corresponding points from the original list that lie within this interval as
newList=randList(randList>=xRange(1) & randList<=xRange(2));
You'll find that on an average, the number of points in this example is ~2000, which is 10% of numel(randList)
numel(newList)
ans =
2045
NOTE:
Please note that this was done quickly and I haven't made any checks to see if the chosen point is outside the range or if yCdfRange falls outside [0 1], in which case interp1 will return a NaN. This is fairly straightforward to implement, and I'll leave that to you.
Also, ksdensity is very CPU intensive. I wouldn't recommend increasing npoints to more than 1e4. I assume you're only working with a fixed list (i.e., you have a list of 5e5 points that you've obtained somehow and now you're just running tests/analyzing it). In that case, you can run ksdensity once and save the result.
I do not speak Matlab, but you need to find quantiles in your data. This is Mathematica code which would do this:
In[88]:= data = RandomVariate[SkewNormalDistribution[0, 1, 2], 10^4];
Compute quantile points:
In[91]:= q10 = Quantile[data, Range[0, 10]/10];
Now form pairs of consecutive quantiles:
In[92]:= intervals = Partition[q10, 2, 1];
In[93]:= intervals
Out[93]= {{-1.397, -0.136989}, {-0.136989, 0.123689}, {0.123689,
0.312232}, {0.312232, 0.478551}, {0.478551, 0.652482}, {0.652482,
0.829642}, {0.829642, 1.02801}, {1.02801, 1.27609}, {1.27609,
1.6237}, {1.6237, 4.04219}}
Verify that the splitting points separate data nearly evenly:
In[94]:= Table[Count[data, x_ /; i[[1]] <= x < i[[2]]], {i, intervals}]
Out[94]= {999, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000}