Related
I have large sets of 3D data consisting of 1D signals acquired in 2D space.
The first step in processing this data is thresholding all signals to find the arrival of a high-amplitude pulse. This pulse is present in all signals and arrives at different times.
After thresholding, the 3D data set should be reordered so that every signal starts at the arrival of the pulse and what came before is thrown away (the end of the signals is of no importance, as of now i concatenate zeros to the end of all signals so the data remains the same size).
Now, I have implemented this in the following manner:
First, i start by calculating the sample number of the first sample exceeding the threshold in all signals
M = randn(1000,500,500); % example matrix of realistic size
threshold = 0.25*max(M(:,1,1)); % 25% of the maximum in the first signal as threshold
[~,index] = max(M>threshold); % indices of first sample exceeding threshold in all signals
Next, I want all signals to be shifted so that they all start with the pulse. For now, I have implemented it this way:
outM = zeros(size(M)); % preallocation for speed
for i = 1:size(M,2)
for j = 1:size(M,3)
outM(1:size(M,1)+1-index(1,i,j),i,j) = M(index(1,i,j):end,i,j);
end
end
This works fine, and i know for-loops are not that slow anymore, but this easily takes a few seconds for the datasets on my machine. A single iteration of the for-loop takes about 0.05-0.1 sec, which seems slow to me for just copying a vector containing 500-2000 double values.
Therefore, I have looked into the best way to tackle this, but for now I haven't found anything better.
I have tried several things: 3D masks, linear indexing, and parallel loops (parfor).
for 3D masks, I checked to see if any improvements are possible. Therefore i first contruct a logical mask, and then compare the speed of the logical mask indexing/copying to the double nested for loop.
%% set up for logical mask copying
AA = logical(ones(500,1)); % only copy the first 500 values after the threshold value
Mask = logical(zeros(size(M)));
Jepla = zeros(500,size(M,2),size(M,3));
for i = 1:size(M,2)
for j = 1:size(M,3)
Mask(index(1,i,j):index(1,i,j)+499,i,j) = AA;
end
end
%% speed comparison
tic
Jepla = M(Mask);
toc
tic
for i = 1:size(M,2)
for j = 1:size(M,3)
outM(1:size(M,1)+1-index(1,i,j),i,j) = M(index(1,i,j):end,i,j);
end
end
toc
The for-loop is faster every time, even though there is more that's copied.
Next, linear indexing.
%% setup for linear index copying
%put all indices in 1 long column
LongIndex = reshape(index,numel(index),1);
% convert to linear indices and store in new variable
linearIndices = sub2ind(size(M),LongIndex,repmat(1:size(M,2),1,size(M,3))',repelem(1:size(M,3),size(M,2))');
% extend linear indices with those of all values to copy
k = zeros(numel(M),1);
count = 1;
for i = 1:numel(LongIndex)
values = linearIndices(i):size(M,1)*i;
k(count:count+length(values)-1) = values;
count = count + length(values);
end
k = k(1:count-1);
% get linear indices of locations in new matrix
l = zeros(length(k),1);
count = 1;
for i = 1:numel(LongIndex)
values = repelem(LongIndex(i)-1,size(M,1)-LongIndex(i)+1);
l(count:count+length(values)-1) = values;
count = count + length(values);
end
l = k-l;
% create new matrix
outM = zeros(size(M));
%% speed comparison
tic
outM(l) = M(k);
toc
tic
for i = 1:size(M,2)
for j = 1:size(M,3)
outM(1:size(M,1)+1-index(1,i,j),i,j) = M(index(1,i,j):end,i,j);
end
end
toc
Again, the alternative approach, linear indexing, is (a lot) slower.
After this failed, I learned about parallelisation, and though this would for sure speed up my code.
By reading some of the documentation around parfor and trying it out a bit, I changed my code to the following:
gcp;
outM = zeros(size(M));
inM = mat2cell(M,size(M,1),ones(size(M,2),1),size(M,3));
tic
parfor i = 1:500
for j = 1:500
outM(:,i,j) = [inM{i}(index(1,i,j):end,1,j);zeros(index(1,i,j)-1,1)];
end
end
end
toc
I changed it so that "outM" and "inM" would both be sliced variables, as I read this is best. Still this is very slow, a lot slower than the original for loop.
So now the question, should I give up on trying to improve the speed of this operation? Or is there another way in which to do this? I have searched a lot, and for now do not see how to speed this up.
Sorry for the long question, but I wanted to show what I tried.
Thank you in advance!
Not sure if an option in your situation, but looks like cell arrays are actually faster here:
outM2 = cell(size(M,2),size(M,3));
tic;
for i = 1:size(M,2)
for j = 1:size(M,3)
outM2{i,j} = M(index(1,i,j):end,i,j);
end
end
toc
And a second idea which also came out faster, batch all data which have to be shifted by the same value:
tic;
for i = 1:unique(index).'
outM(1:size(M,1)+1-i,index==i) = M(i:end,index==i);
end
toc
It totally depends on your data if this approach is actually faster.
And yes integer valued and logical indexing can be mixed
I have a system of 5 ODEs with nonlinear terms involved. I am trying to vary 3 parameters over some ranges to see what parameters would produce the necessary behaviour that I am looking for.
The issue is I have written the code with 3 for loops and it takes a very long time to get the output.
I am also storing the parameter values within the loops when it meets a parameter set that satisfies an ODE event.
This is how I have implemented it in matlab.
function [m,cVal,x,y]=parameters()
b=5000;
q=0;
r=10^4;
s=0;
n=10^-8;
time=3000;
m=[];
cVal=[];
x=[];
y=[];
val1=0.1:0.01:5;
val2=0.1:0.2:8;
val3=10^-13:10^-14:10^-11;
for i=1:length(val1)
for j=1:length(val2)
for k=1:length(val3)
options = odeset('AbsTol',1e-15,'RelTol',1e-13,'Events',#eventfunction);
[t,y,te,ye]=ode45(#(t,y)systemFunc(t,y,[val1(i),val2(j),val3(k)]),0:time,[b,q,s,r,n],options);
if length(te)==1
m=[m;val1(i)];
cVal=[cVal;val2(j)];
x=[x;val3(k)];
y=[y;ye(1)];
end
end
end
end
Is there any other way that I can use to speed up this process?
Profile viewer results
I have written the system of ODEs simply with the a format like
function s=systemFunc(t,y,p)
s= zeros(2,1);
s(1)=f*y(1)*(1-(y(1)/k))-p(1)*y(2)*y(1)/(p(2)*y(2)+y(1));
s(2)=p(3)*y(1)-d*y(2);
end
f,d,k are constant parameters.
The equations are more complicated than what's here as its a system of 5 ODEs with lots of non linear terms interacting with each other.
Tommaso is right. Preallocating will save some time.
But I would guess that there is fundamentally not a lot you can do since you are running ode45 in a loop. ode45 itself may be the bottleneck.
I would suggest you profile your code to see where the bottleneck is:
profile on
parameters(... )
profile viewer
I would guess that ode45 is the problem. Probably you will find that you should actually focus your time on optimizing the systemFunc code for performance. But you won't know that until you run the profiler.
EDIT
Based on the profiler output and additional code, I see some things that will help
It seems like the vectorization of your values is hurting you. Instead of
#(t,y)systemFunc(t,y,[val1(i),val2(j),val3(k)])
try
#(t,y)systemFunc(t,y,val1(i),val2(j),val3(k))
where your system function is defined as
function s=systemFunc(t,y,p1,p2,p3)
s= zeros(2,1);
s(1)=f*y(1)*(1-(y(1)/k))-p1*y(2)*y(1)/(p2*y(2)+y(1));
s(2)=p3*y(1)-d*y(2);
end
Next, note that you don't have to preallocate space in the systemFunc, just combine them in the output:
function s=systemFunc(t,y,p1,p2,p3)
s = [ f*y(1)*(1-(y(1)/k))-p1*y(2)*y(1)/(p2*y(2)+y(1)),
p3*y(1)-d*y(2) ];
end
Finally, note that ode45 is internally taking about 1/3 of your runtime. There is not much you will be able to do about that. If you can live with it, I would suggest increasing your 'AbsTol' and 'RelTol' to more reasonable numbers. Those values are really small, and are making ode45 run for a really long time. If you can live with it, try increasing them to something like 1e-6 or 1e-8 and see how much the performance increases. Alternatively, depending on how smooth your function is, you might be able to do better with a different integrator (like ode23). But your mileage will vary based on how smooth your problem is.
I have two suggestions for you.
Preallocate the vectors in which you store your results and use an
increasing index to populate them into each iteration.
Since the options you use are always the same, instantiate then
outside the loop only once.
Final code:
function [m,cVal,x,y] = parameters()
b = 5000;
q = 0;
r = 10^4;
s = 0;
n = 10^-8;
time = 3000;
options = odeset('AbsTol',1e-15,'RelTol',1e-13,'Events',#eventfunction);
val1 = 0.1:0.01:5;
val1_len = numel(val1);
val2 = 0.1:0.2:8;
val2_len = numel(val2);
val3 = 10^-13:10^-14:10^-11;
val3_len = numel(val3);
total_len = val1_len * val2_len * val3_len;
m = NaN(total_len,1);
cVal = NaN(total_len,1);
x = NaN(total_len,1);
y = NaN(total_len,1);
res_offset = 1;
for i = 1:val1_len
for j = 1:val2_len
for k = 1:val3_len
[t,y,te,ye] = ode45(#(t,y)systemFunc(t,y,[val1(i),val2(j),val3(k)]),0:time,[b,q,s,r,n],options);
if (length(te) == 1)
m(res_offset) = val1(i);
cVal(res_offset) = val2(j);
x(res_offset) = val3(k);
y(res_offset) = ye(1);
end
res_offset = res_offset + 1;
end
end
end
end
If you only want to preserve result values that have been correctly computed, you can remove the rows containing NaNs at the bottom of your function. Indexing on one of the vectors will be enough to clear everything:
rows_ok = ~isnan(y);
m = m(rows_ok);
cVal = cVal(rows_ok);
x = x(rows_ok);
y = y(rows_ok);
In continuation of the other suggestions, I have 2 more suggestions for you:
You might want to try with a different solver, ODE45 is for non-stiff problems, but from the looks of it, it might seem like your problem could be stiff (parameters have a different order of magnitude). Try for instance with the ode23s method.
Secondly, without knowing which event you are looking for, maybe it is possible for you to use a logarithmic search rather than a linear one. e.g. the Bisection method. This will severely cut down on the number of times you have to solve the equation.
Oftentimes I need to dynamically fill a vector in Matlab. However this is sligtly annoying since you first have to define an empty variable first, e.g.:
[a,b,c]=deal([]);
for ind=1:10
if rand>.5 %some random condition to emphasize the dynamical fill of vector
a=[a, randi(5)];
end
end
a %display result
Is there a better way to implement this 'push' function, so that you do not have to define an empty vector beforehand? People tell me this is nonsensical in Matlab- if you think this is the case please explain why.
related: Push a variable in a vector in Matlab, is-there-an-elegant-way-to-create-dynamic-array-in-matlab
In MATLAB, pre-allocation is the way to go. From the docs:
for and while loops that incrementally increase the size of a data structure each time through the loop can adversely affect performance and memory use.
As pointed out in the comments by m7913d, there is a question on MathWorks' answers section which addresses this same point, read it here.
I would suggest "over-allocating" memory, then reducing the size of the array after your loop.
numloops = 10;
a = nan(numloops, 1);
for ind = 1:numloops
if rand > 0.5
a(ind) = 1; % assign some value to the current loop index
end
end
a = a(~isnan(a)); % Get rid of values which weren't used (and remain NaN)
No, this doesn't decrease the amount you have to write before your loop, it's even worse than having to write a = []! However, you're better off spending a few extra keystrokes and minutes writing well structured code than making that saving and having worse code.
It is (as for as I known) not possible in MATLAB to omit the initialisation of your variable before using it in the right hand side of an expression. Moreover it is not desirable to omit it as preallocating an array is almost always the right way to go.
As mentioned in this post, it is even desirable to preallocate a matrix even if the exact number of elements is not known. To demonstrate it, a small benchmark is desirable:
Ns = [1 10 100 1000 10000 100000];
timeEmpty = zeros(size(Ns));
timePreallocate = zeros(size(Ns));
for i=1:length(Ns)
N = Ns(i);
timeEmpty(i) = timeit(#() testEmpty(N));
timePreallocate(i) = timeit(#() testPreallocate(N));
end
figure
semilogx(Ns, timeEmpty ./ timePreallocate);
xlabel('N')
ylabel('time_{empty}/time_{preallocate}');
% do not preallocate memory
function a = testEmpty (N)
a = [];
for ind=1:N
if rand>.5 %some random condition to emphasize the dynamical fill of vector
a=[a, randi(5)];
end
end
end
% preallocate memory with the largest possible return size
function a = testPreallocate (N)
last = 0;
a = zeros(N, 1);
for ind=1:N
if rand>.5 %some random condition to emphasize the dynamical fill of vector
last = last + 1;
a(last) = randi(5);
end
end
a = a(1:last);
end
This figure shows how much time the method without preallocating is slower than preallocating a matrix based on the largest possible return size. Note that preallocating is especially important for large matrices due the the exponential behaviour.
I have an integrated error expression E = int[ abs(x-p)^2 ]dx with limits x|0 to x|L. The variable p is a polynomial of the form 2*(a*sin(x)+b(a)*sin(2*x)+c(a)*sin(3*x)). In other words, both coefficients b and c are known expressions of a. An additional equation is given as dE/da = 0. If the upper limit L is defined, the system of equations is closed and I can solve for a, giving the three coefficients.
I managed to get an optimization routine to solve for a purely based on maximizing L. This is confirmed by setting optimize=0 in the code below. It gives the same solution as if I solved the problem analytically. Therefore, I know the equations to solve for the coefficent a are correct.
I know the example I presented can be solved with pencil and paper, but I'm trying to build an optimization function that is generalized for this type of problem (I have a lot to evaluate). Ideally, polynomial is given as an input argument to a function which then outputs xsol. Obviously, I need to get the optimization to work for the polynomial I presented here before I can worry about generalizations.
Anyway, I now need to further optimize the problem with some constraints. To start, L is chosen. This allows me to calculate a. Once a is know, the polynomial is a known function of x only i.e p(x). I need to then determine the largest INTERVAL from 0->x over which the following constraint is satisfied: |dp(x)/dx - 1| < tol. This gives me a measure of the performance of the polynomial with the coefficient a. The interval is what I call the "bandwidth". I would like to emphasis two things: 1) The "bandwidth" is NOT the same as L. 2) All values of x within the "bandwidth" must meet the constraint. The function dp(x)/dx does oscillate in and out of the tolerance criteria, so testing the criteria for a single value of x does not work. It must be tested over an interval. The first instance of violation defines the bandwidth. I need to maximize this "bandwidth"/interval. For output, I also need to know which L lead to such an optimization, hence I know the correct a to choose for the given constraints. That is the formal problem statement. (I hope I got it right this time)
Now my problem is setting this whole thing up with MATLAB's optimization tools. I tried to follow ideas from the following articles:
Tutorial for the Optimization Toolbox™
Setting optimize=1 for the if statement will work with the constrained optimization. I thought some how nested optimization is involved, but I couldn't get anything to work. I provided known solutions to the problem from the IMSL optimization library to compare/check with. They are written below the optimization routine. Anyway, here is the code I've put together so far:
function [history] = testing()
% History
history.fval = [];
history.x = [];
history.a = [];
%----------------
% Equations
polynomial = #(x,a) 2*sin(x)*a + 2*sin(2*x)*(9/20 -(4*a)/5) + 2*sin(3*x)*(a/5 - 2/15);
dpdx = #(x,a) 2*cos(x)*a + 4*cos(2*x)*(9/20 -(4*a)/5) + 6*cos(3*x)*(a/5 - 2/15);
% Upper limit of integration
IC = 0.8; % initial
LB = 0; % lower
UB = pi/2; % upper
% Optimization
tol = 0.003;
% Coefficient
% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dpda = #(x,a) 2*sin(x) + 2*sin(2*x)*(-4/5) + 2*sin(3*x)*1/5;
dEda = #(L,a) -2*integral(#(x) (x-polynomial(x,a)).*dpda(x,a),0,L);
a_of_L = #(L) fzero(#(a)dEda(L,a),0); % Calculate the value of "a" for a given "L"
EXITFLAG = #(L) get_outputs(#()a_of_L(L),3); % Be sure a zero is actually calculated
% NL Constraints
% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Equality constraint (No inequality constraints for parent optimization)
ceq = #(L) EXITFLAG(L) - 1; % Just make sure fzero finds unique solution
confun = #(L) deal([],ceq(L));
% Objective function
% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% (Set optimize=0 to test coefficent equations and proper maximization of L )
optimize = 1;
if optimize
%%%% Plug in solution below
else
% Optimization options
options = optimset('Algorithm','interior-point','Display','iter','MaxIter',500,'OutputFcn',#outfun);
% Optimize objective
objective = #(L) -L;
xsol = fmincon(objective,IC,[],[],[],[],LB,UB,confun,options);
% Known optimized solution from IMSL library
% a = 0.799266;
% lim = pi/2;
disp(['IMSL coeff (a): 0.799266 Upper bound (L): ',num2str(pi/2)])
disp(['code coeff (a): ',num2str(history.a(end)),' Upper bound: ',num2str(xsol)])
end
% http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7921133/anonymous-functions-calling-functions-with-multiple-output-forms
function varargout = get_outputs(fn, ixsOutputs)
output_cell = cell(1,max(ixsOutputs));
[output_cell{:}] = (fn());
varargout = output_cell(ixsOutputs);
end
function stop = outfun(x,optimValues,state)
stop = false;
switch state
case 'init'
case 'iter'
% Concatenate current point and objective function
% value with history. x must be a row vector.
history.fval = [history.fval; optimValues.fval];
history.x = [history.x; x(1)];
history.a = [history.a; a_of_L(x(1))];
case 'done'
otherwise
end
end
end
I could really use some help setting up the constrained optimization. I'm not only new to optimizations, I've never used MATLAB to do so. I should also note that what I have above does not work and is incorrect for the constrained optimization.
UPDATE: I added a for loop in the section if optimizeto show what I'm trying to achieve with the optimization. Obviously, I could just use this, but it seems very inefficient, especially if I increase the resolution of range and have to run this optimization many times. If you uncomment the plots, it will show how the bandwidth behaves. By looping over the full range, I'm basically testing every L but surely there's got to be a more efficient way to do this??
UPDATE: Solved
So it seems fmincon is not the only tool for this job. In fact I couldn't even get it to work. Below, fmincon gets "stuck" on the IC and refuses to do anything...why...that's for a different post! Using the same layout and formulation, fminbnd finds the correct solution. The only difference, as far as I know, is that the former was using a conditional. But my conditional is nothing fancy, and really unneeded. So it's got to have something to do with the algorithm. I guess that's what you get when using a "black box". Anyway, after a long, drawn out, painful, learning experience, here is a solution:
options = optimset('Display','iter','MaxIter',500,'OutputFcn',#outfun);
% Conditional
index = #(L) min(find(abs([dpdx(range(range<=L),a_of_L(L)),inf] - 1) - tol > 0,1,'first'),length(range));
% Optimize
%xsol = fmincon(#(L) -range(index(L)),IC,[],[],[],[],LB,UB,confun,options);
xsol = fminbnd(#(L) -range(index(L)),LB,UB,options);
I would like to especially thank #AndrasDeak for all their support. I wouldn't have figured it out without the assistance!
I have a matrix time-series data for 8 variables with about 2500 points (~10 years of mon-fri) and would like to calculate the mean, variance, skewness and kurtosis on a 'moving average' basis.
Lets say frames = [100 252 504 756] - I would like calculate the four functions above on over each of the (time-)frames, on a daily basis - so the return for day 300 in the case with 100 day-frame, would be [mean variance skewness kurtosis] from the period day201-day300 (100 days in total)... and so on.
I know this means I would get an array output, and the the first frame number of days would be NaNs, but I can't figure out the required indexing to get this done...
This is an interesting question because I think the optimal solution is different for the mean than it is for the other sample statistics.
I've provided a simulation example below that you can work through.
First, choose some arbitrary parameters and simulate some data:
%#Set some arbitrary parameters
T = 100; N = 5;
WindowLength = 10;
%#Simulate some data
X = randn(T, N);
For the mean, use filter to obtain a moving average:
MeanMA = filter(ones(1, WindowLength) / WindowLength, 1, X);
MeanMA(1:WindowLength-1, :) = nan;
I had originally thought to solve this problem using conv as follows:
MeanMA = nan(T, N);
for n = 1:N
MeanMA(WindowLength:T, n) = conv(X(:, n), ones(WindowLength, 1), 'valid');
end
MeanMA = (1/WindowLength) * MeanMA;
But as #PhilGoddard pointed out in the comments, the filter approach avoids the need for the loop.
Also note that I've chosen to make the dates in the output matrix correspond to the dates in X so in later work you can use the same subscripts for both. Thus, the first WindowLength-1 observations in MeanMA will be nan.
For the variance, I can't see how to use either filter or conv or even a running sum to make things more efficient, so instead I perform the calculation manually at each iteration:
VarianceMA = nan(T, N);
for t = WindowLength:T
VarianceMA(t, :) = var(X(t-WindowLength+1:t, :));
end
We could speed things up slightly by exploiting the fact that we have already calculated the mean moving average. Simply replace the within loop line in the above with:
VarianceMA(t, :) = (1/(WindowLength-1)) * sum((bsxfun(#minus, X(t-WindowLength+1:t, :), MeanMA(t, :))).^2);
However, I doubt this will make much difference.
If anyone else can see a clever way to use filter or conv to get the moving window variance I'd be very interested to see it.
I leave the case of skewness and kurtosis to the OP, since they are essentially just the same as the variance example, but with the appropriate function.
A final point: if you were converting the above into a general function, you could pass in an anonymous function as one of the arguments, then you would have a moving average routine that works for arbitrary choice of transformations.
Final, final point: For a sequence of window lengths, simply loop over the entire code block for each window length.
I have managed to produce a solution, which only uses basic functions within MATLAB and can also be expanded to include other functions, (for finance: e.g. a moving Sharpe Ratio, or a moving Sortino Ratio). The code below shows this and contains hopefully sufficient commentary.
I am using a time series of Hedge Fund data, with ca. 10 years worth of daily returns (which were checked to be stationary - not shown in the code). Unfortunately I haven't got the corresponding dates in the example so the x-axis in the plots would be 'no. of days'.
% start by importing the data you need - here it is a selection out of an
% excel spreadsheet
returnsHF = xlsread('HFRXIndices_Final.xlsx','EquityHedgeMarketNeutral','D1:D2742');
% two years to be used for the moving average. (250 business days in one year)
window = 500;
% create zero-matrices to fill with the MA values at each point in time.
mean_avg = zeros(length(returnsHF)-window,1);
st_dev = zeros(length(returnsHF)-window,1);
skew = zeros(length(returnsHF)-window,1);
kurt = zeros(length(returnsHF)-window,1);
% Now work through the time-series with each of the functions (one can add
% any other functions required), assinging the values to the zero-matrices
for count = window:length(returnsHF)
% This is the most tricky part of the script, the indexing in this section
% The TwoYearReturn is what is shifted along one period at a time with the
% for-loop.
TwoYearReturn = returnsHF(count-window+1:count);
mean_avg(count-window+1) = mean(TwoYearReturn);
st_dev(count-window+1) = std(TwoYearReturn);
skew(count-window+1) = skewness(TwoYearReturn);
kurt(count-window +1) = kurtosis(TwoYearReturn);
end
% Plot the MAs
subplot(4,1,1), plot(mean_avg)
title('2yr mean')
subplot(4,1,2), plot(st_dev)
title('2yr stdv')
subplot(4,1,3), plot(skew)
title('2yr skewness')
subplot(4,1,4), plot(kurt)
title('2yr kurtosis')