I'm trying to estimate the (unknown) original datapoints that went into calculating a (known) moving average. However, I do know some of the original datapoints, and I'm not sure how to use that information.
I am using the method given in the answers here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/67907/extract-data-points-from-moving-average, but in MATLAB (my code below). This method works quite well for large numbers of data points (>1000), but less well with fewer data points, as you'd expect.
window = 3;
datapoints = 150;
data = 3*rand(1,datapoints)+50;
moving_averages = [];
for i = window:size(data,2)
moving_averages(i) = mean(data(i+1-window:i));
end
length = size(moving_averages,2)+(window-1);
a = (tril(ones(length,length),window-1) - tril(ones(length,length),-1))/window;
a = a(1:length-(window-1),:);
ai = pinv(a);
daily = mtimes(ai,moving_averages');
x = 1:size(data,2);
figure(1)
hold on
plot(x,data,'Color','b');
plot(x(window:end),moving_averages(window:end),'Linewidth',2,'Color','r');
plot(x,daily(window:end),'Color','g');
hold off
axis([0 size(x,2) min(daily(window:end))-1 max(daily(window:end))+1])
legend('original data','moving average','back-calculated')
Now, say I know a smattering of the original data points. I'm having trouble figuring how might I use that information to more accurately calculate the rest. Thank you for any assistance.
You should be able to calculate the original data exactly if you at any time can exactly determine one window's worth of data, i.e. in this case n-1 samples in a window of length n. (In your case) if you know A,B and (A+B+C)/3, you can solve now and know C. Now when you have (B+C+D)/3 (your moving average) you can exactly solve for D. Rinse and repeat. This logic works going backwards too.
Here is an example with the same idea:
% the actual vector of values
a = cumsum(rand(150,1) - 0.5);
% compute moving average
win = 3; % sliding window length
idx = hankel(1:win, win:numel(a));
m = mean(a(idx));
% coefficient matrix: m(i) = sum(a(i:i+win-1))/win
A = repmat([ones(1,win) zeros(1,numel(a)-win)], numel(a)-win+1, 1);
for i=2:size(A,1)
A(i,:) = circshift(A(i-1,:), [0 1]);
end
A = A / win;
% solve linear system
%x = A \ m(:);
x = pinv(A) * m(:);
% plot and compare
subplot(211), plot(1:numel(a),a, 1:numel(m),m)
legend({'original','moving average'})
title(sprintf('length = %d, window = %d',numel(a),win))
subplot(212), plot(1:numel(a),a, 1:numel(a),x)
legend({'original','reconstructed'})
title(sprintf('error = %f',norm(x(:)-a(:))))
You can see the reconstruction error is very small, even using the data sizes in your example (150 samples with a 3-samples moving average).
Related
The problem:
If a large number of fair N-sided dice are rolled, the average of the simulated rolls is likely to be close to the mean of 1,2,...N i.e. the expected value of one die. For example, the expected value of a 6-sided die is 3.5.
Given N, simulate 1e8 N-sided dice rolls by creating a vector of 1e8 uniformly distributed random integers. Return the difference between the mean of this vector and the mean of integers from 1 to N.
My code:
function dice_diff = loln(N)
% the mean of integer from 1 to N
A = 1:N
meanN = sum(A)/N;
% I do not have any idea what I am doing here!
V = randi(1e8);
meanvector = V/1e8;
dice_diff = meanvector - meanN;
end
First of all, make sure everytime you ask a question that it is as clear as possible, to make it easier for other users to read.
If you check how randi works, you can see this:
R = randi(IMAX,N) returns an N-by-N matrix containing pseudorandom
integer values drawn from the discrete uniform distribution on 1:IMAX.
randi(IMAX,M,N) or randi(IMAX,[M,N]) returns an M-by-N matrix.
randi(IMAX,M,N,P,...) or randi(IMAX,[M,N,P,...]) returns an
M-by-N-by-P-by-... array. randi(IMAX) returns a scalar.
randi(IMAX,SIZE(A)) returns an array the same size as A.
So, if you want to use randi in your problem, you have to use it like this:
V=randi(N, 1e8,1);
and you need some more changes:
function dice_diff = loln(N)
%the mean of integer from 1 to N
A = 1:N;
meanN = mean(A);
V = randi(N, 1e8,1);
meanvector = mean(V);
dice_diff = meanvector - meanN;
end
For future problems, try using the command
help randi
And matlab will explain how the function randi (or other function) works.
Make sure to check if the code above gives the desired result
As pointed out, take a closer look at the use of randi(). From the general case
X = randi([LowerInt,UpperInt],NumRows,NumColumns); % UpperInt > LowerInt
you can adapt to dice rolling by
Rolls = randi([1 NumSides],NumRolls,NumSamplePaths);
as an example. Exchanging NumRolls and NumSamplePaths will yield Rolls.', or transpose(Rolls).
According to the Law of Large Numbers, the updated sample average after each roll should converge to the true mean, ExpVal (short for expected value), as the number of rolls (trials) increases. Notice that as NumRolls gets larger, the sample mean converges to the true mean. The image below shows this for two sample paths.
To get the sample mean for each number of dice rolls, I used arrayfun() with
CumulativeAvg1 = arrayfun(#(jj)mean(Rolls(1:jj,1)),[1:NumRolls]);
which is equivalent to using the cumulative sum, cumsum(), to get the same result.
CumulativeAvg1 = (cumsum(Rolls(:,1))./(1:NumRolls).'); % equivalent
% MATLAB R2019a
% Create Dice
NumSides = 6; % positive nonzero integer
NumRolls = 200;
NumSamplePaths = 2;
% Roll Dice
Rolls = randi([1 NumSides],NumRolls,NumSamplePaths);
% Output Statistics
ExpVal = mean(1:NumSides);
CumulativeAvg1 = arrayfun(#(jj)mean(Rolls(1:jj,1)),[1:NumRolls]);
CumulativeAvgError1 = CumulativeAvg1 - ExpVal;
CumulativeAvg2 = arrayfun(#(jj)mean(Rolls(1:jj,2)),[1:NumRolls]);
CumulativeAvgError2 = CumulativeAvg2 - ExpVal;
% Plot
figure
subplot(2,1,1), hold on, box on
plot(1:NumRolls,CumulativeAvg1,'b--','LineWidth',1.5,'DisplayName','Sample Path 1')
plot(1:NumRolls,CumulativeAvg2,'r--','LineWidth',1.5,'DisplayName','Sample Path 2')
yline(ExpVal,'k-')
title('Average')
xlabel('Number of Trials')
ylim([1 NumSides])
subplot(2,1,2), hold on, box on
plot(1:NumRolls,CumulativeAvgError1,'b--','LineWidth',1.5,'DisplayName','Sample Path 1')
plot(1:NumRolls,CumulativeAvgError2,'r--','LineWidth',1.5,'DisplayName','Sample Path 2')
yline(0,'k-')
title('Error')
xlabel('Number of Trials')
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.
My calculation involves cosh(x) and sinh(x) when x is around 700 - 1000 which reaches MATLAB's limit and the result is NaN. The problem in the code is elastic_restor_coeff rises when radius is small (below 5e-9 in the code). My goal is to do another integral over a radius distribution from 1e-9 to 100e-9 which is still a work in progress because I get stuck at this problem.
My work around solution right now is to approximate the real part of chi_para with a step function when threshold2 hits a value of about 300. The number 300 is obtained from using the lowest possible value of radius and look at the cut-off value from the plot. I think this approach is not good enough for actual calculation since this value changes with radius so I am looking for a better approximation method. Also, the imaginary part of chi_para is difficult to approximate since it looks like a pulse instead of a step.
Here is my code without an integration over a radius distribution.
k_B = 1.38e-23;
T = 296;
radius = [5e-9,10e-9, 20e-9, 30e-9,100e-9];
fric_coeff = 8*pi*1e-3.*radius.^3;
elastic_restor_coeff = 8*pi*1.*radius.^3;
time_const = fric_coeff/elastic_restor_coeff;
omega_ar = logspace(-6,6,60);
chi_para = zeros(1,length(omega_ar));
chi_perpen = zeros(1,length(omega_ar));
threshold = zeros(1,length(omega_ar));
threshold2 = zeros(1,length(omega_ar));
for i = 1:length(radius)
for k = 1:length(omega_ar)
omega = omega_ar(k);
fric_coeff = 8*pi*1e-3.*radius(i).^3;
elastic_restor_coeff = 8*pi*1.*radius(i).^3;
time_const = fric_coeff/elastic_restor_coeff;
G_para_func = #(t) ((cosh(2*k_B*T./elastic_restor_coeff.*exp(-t./time_const))-1).*exp(1i.*omega.*t))./(cosh(2*k_B*T./elastic_restor_coeff)-1);
G_perpen_func = #(t) ((sinh(2*k_B*T./elastic_restor_coeff.*exp(-t./time_const))).*exp(1i.*omega.*t))./(sinh(2*k_B*T./elastic_restor_coeff));
chi_para(k) = (1 + 1i*omega*integral(G_para_func, 0, inf));
chi_perpen(k) = (1 + 1i*omega*integral(G_perpen_func, 0, inf));
threshold(k) = 2*k_B*T./elastic_restor_coeff*omega;
threshold2(k) = 2*k_B*T./elastic_restor_coeff*(omega*time_const - 1);
end
figure(1);
semilogx(omega_ar,real(chi_para),omega_ar,imag(chi_para));
hold on;
figure(2);
semilogx(omega_ar,real(chi_perpen),omega_ar,imag(chi_perpen));
hold on;
end
Here is the simplified function that I would like to approximate:
where x is iterated in a loop and the maximum value of x is about 700.
I'm trying to code a loop in Matlab that iteratively solves for an optimal vector s of zeros and ones. This is my code
N = 150;
s = ones(N,1);
for i = 1:N
if s(i) == 0
i = i + 1;
else
i = i;
end
select = s;
HI = (item_c' * (weights.*s)) * (1/(weights'*s));
s(i) = 0;
CI = (item_c' * (weights.*s)) * (1/(weights'*s));
standarderror_afterex = sqrt(var(CI - CM));
standarderror_priorex = sqrt(var(HI - CM));
ratio = (standarderror_afterex - standarderror_priorex)/(abs(mean(weights.*s) - weights'*select));
ratios(i) = ratio;
s(i) = 1;
end
[M,I] = min(ratios);
s(I) = 0;
This code sets the element to zero in s, which has the lowest ratio. But I need this procedure to start all over again, using the new s with one zero, to find the ratios and exclude the element in s that has the lowest ratio. I need that over and over until no ratios are negative.
Do I need another loop, or do I miss something?
I hope that my question is clear enough, just tell me if you need me to explain more.
Thank you in advance, for helping out a newbie programmer.
Edit
I think that I need to add some form of while loop as well. But I can't see how to structure this. This is the flow that I want
With all items included (s(i) = 1 for all i), calculate HI, CI and the standard errors and list the ratios, exclude item i (s(I) = 0) which corresponds to the lowest negative ratio.
With the new s, including all ones but one zero, calculate HI, CI and the standard errors and list the ratios, exclude item i, which corresponds to the lowest negative ratio.
With the new s, now including all ones but two zeros, repeat the process.
Do this until there is no negative element in ratios to exclude.
Hope that it got more clear now.
Ok. I want to go through a few things before I list my code. These are just how I would try to do it. Not necessarily the best way, or fastest way even (though I'd think it'd be pretty quick). I tried to keep the structure as you had in your code, so you could follow it nicely (even though I'd probably meld all the calculations down into a single function or line).
Some features that I'm using in my code:
bsxfun: Learn this! It is amazing how it works and can speed up code, and makes some things easier.
v = rand(n,1);
A = rand(n,4);
% The two lines below compute the same value:
W = bsxfun(#(x,y)x.*y,v,A);
W_= repmat(v,1,4).*A;
bsxfun dot multiplies the v vector with each column of A.
Both W and W_ are matrices the same size as A, but the first will be much faster (usually).
Precalculating dropouts: I made select a matrix, where before it was a vector. This allows me to then form a variable included using logical constructs. The ~(eye(N)) produces an identity matrix and negates it. By logically "and"ing it with select, then the $i$th column is now select, with the $i$th element dropped out.
You were explicitly calculating weights'*s as the denominator in each for-loop. By using the above matrix to calculate this, we can now do a sum(W), where the W is essentially weights.*s in each column.
Take advantage of column-wise operations: the var() and the sqrt() functions are both coded to work along the columns of a matrix, outputting the action for a matrix in the form of a row vector.
Ok. the full thing. Any questions let me know:
% Start with everything selected:
select = true(N);
stop = false; % Stopping flag:
while (~stop)
% Each column leaves a variable out...
included = ~eye(N) & select;
% This calculates the weights with leave-one-out:
W = bsxfun(#(x,y)x.*y,weights,included);
% You can comment out the line below, if you'd like...
W_= repmat(weights,1,N).*included; % This is the same as previous line.
% This calculates the weights before dropping the variables:
V = bsxfun(#(x,y)x.*y,weights,select);
% There's different syntax, depending on whether item_c is a
% vector or a matrix...
if(isvector(item_c))
HI = (item_c' * V)./(sum(V));
CI = (item_c' * W)./(sum(W));
else
% For example: item_c is a matrix...
% We have to use bsxfun() again
HI = bsxfun(#rdivide, (item_c' * V),sum(V));
CI = bsxfun(#rdivide, (item_c' * W),sum(W));
end
standarderror_afterex = sqrt(var(bsxfun(#minus,HI,CM)));
standarderror_priorex = sqrt(var(bsxfun(#minus,CI,CM)));
% or:
%
% standarderror_afterex = sqrt(var(HI - repmat(CM,1,size(HI,2))));
% standarderror_priorex = sqrt(var(CI - repmat(CM,1,size(CI,2))));
ratios = (standarderror_afterex - standarderror_priorex)./(abs(mean(W) - sum(V)));
% Identify the negative ratios:
negratios = ratios < 0;
if ~any(negratios)
% Drop out of the while-loop:
stop = true;
else
% Find the most negative ratio:
neginds = find(negratios);
[mn, mnind] = min(ratios(negratios));
% Drop out the most negative one...
select(neginds(mnind),:) = false;
end
end % end while(~stop)
% Your output:
s = select(:,1);
If for some reason it doesn't work, please let me know.
I have a set of three vectors (stored into a 3xN matrix) which are 'entangled' (e.g. some value in the second row should be in the third row and vice versa). This 'entanglement' is based on looking at the figure in which alpha2 is plotted. To separate the vector I use a difference based approach where I calculate the difference of one value with respect the three next values (e.g. comparing (1,i) with (:,i+1)). Then I take the minimum and store that. The method works to separate two of the three vectors, but not for the last.
I was wondering if you guys can share your ideas with me how to solve this problem (if possible). I have added my coded below.
Thanks in advance!
Problem in figures:
clear all; close all; clc;
%%
alpha2 = [-23.32 -23.05 -22.24 -20.91 -19.06 -16.70 -13.83 -10.49 -6.70;
-0.46 -0.33 0.19 2.38 5.44 9.36 14.15 19.80 26.32;
-1.58 -1.13 0.06 0.70 1.61 2.78 4.23 5.99 8.09];
%%% Original
figure()
hold on
plot(alpha2(1,:))
plot(alpha2(2,:))
plot(alpha2(3,:))
%%% Store start values
store1(1,1) = alpha2(1,1);
store2(1,1) = alpha2(2,1);
store3(1,1) = alpha2(3,1);
for i=1:size(alpha2,2)-1
for j=1:size(alpha2,1)
Alpha1(j,i) = abs(store1(1,i)-alpha2(j,i+1));
Alpha2(j,i) = abs(store2(1,i)-alpha2(j,i+1));
Alpha3(j,i) = abs(store3(1,i)-alpha2(j,i+1));
[~, I] = min(Alpha1(:,i));
store1(1,i+1) = alpha2(I,i+1);
[~, I] = min(Alpha2(:,i));
store2(1,i+1) = alpha2(I,i+1);
[~, I] = min(Alpha3(:,i));
store3(1,i+1) = alpha2(I,i+1);
end
end
%%% Plot to see if separation worked
figure()
hold on
plot(store1)
plot(store2)
plot(store3)
Solution using extrapolation via polyfit:
The idea is pretty simple: Iterate over all positions i and use polyfit to fit polynomials of degree d to the d+1 values from F(:,i-(d+1)) up to F(:,i). Use those polynomials to extrapolate the function values F(:,i+1). Then compute the permutation of the real values F(:,i+1) that fits those extrapolations best. This should work quite well, if there are only a few functions involved. There is certainly some room for improvement, but for your simple setting it should suffice.
function F = untangle(F, maxExtrapolationDegree)
%// UNTANGLE(F) untangles the functions F(i,:) via extrapolation.
if nargin<2
maxExtrapolationDegree = 4;
end
extrapolate = #(f) polyval(polyfit(1:length(f),f,length(f)-1),length(f)+1);
extrapolateAll = #(F) cellfun(extrapolate, num2cell(F,2));
fitCriterion = #(X,Y) norm(X(:)-Y(:),1);
nFuncs = size(F,1);
nPoints = size(F,2);
swaps = perms(1:nFuncs);
errorOfFit = zeros(1,size(swaps,1));
for i = 1:nPoints-1
nextValues = extrapolateAll(F(:,max(1,i-(maxExtrapolationDegree+1)):i));
for j = 1:size(swaps,1)
errorOfFit(j) = fitCriterion(nextValues, F(swaps(j,:),i+1));
end
[~,j_bestSwap] = min(errorOfFit);
F(:,i+1) = F(swaps(j_bestSwap,:),i+1);
end
Initial solution: (not that pretty - Skip this part)
This is a similar solution that tries to minimize the sum of the derivatives up to some degree of the vector valued function F = #(j) alpha2(:,j). It does so by stepping through the positions i and checks all possible permutations of the coordinates of i to get a minimal seminorm of the function F(1:i).
(I'm actually wondering right now if there is any canonical mathematical way to define the seminorm so we get our expected results... I initially was going for the H^1 and H^2 seminorms, but they didn't quite work...)
function F = untangle(F)
nFuncs = size(F,1);
nPoints = size(F,2);
seminorm = #(x,i) sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),1,2)))) + ...
sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),2,2)))) + ...
sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),3,2)))) + ...
sum(sum(abs(diff(x(:,1:i),4,2))));
doSwap = #(x,swap,i) [x(:,1:i-1), x(swap,i:end)];
swaps = perms(1:nFuncs);
normOfSwap = zeros(1,size(swaps,1));
for i = 2:nPoints
for j = 1:size(swaps,1)
normOfSwap(j) = seminorm(doSwap(F,swaps(j,:),i),i);
end
[~,j_bestSwap] = min(normOfSwap);
F = doSwap(F,swaps(j_bestSwap,:),i);
end
Usage:
The command alpha2 = untangle(alpha2); will untangle your functions:
It should even work for more complicated data, like these shuffled sine-waves:
nPoints = 100;
nFuncs = 5;
t = linspace(0, 2*pi, nPoints);
F = bsxfun(#(a,b) sin(a*b), (1:nFuncs).', t);
for i = 1:nPoints
F(:,i) = F(randperm(nFuncs),i);
end
Remark: I guess if you already know that your functions will be quadratic or some other special form, RANSAC would be a better idea for larger number of functions. This could also be useful if the functions are not given with the same x-value spacing.