This is a question that possibly borders on the intersection of the general usage of MATLAB and/or signal processing. Thought I would first ask the question in a MATLAB forum before trying signal processing.
So our lecturer read out his notes/paper and said the equation
could be implemented as a filter.
At first, it seemed difficult to follow the idea but when realizing that integration is same as finding areas under the curve which seems similar to applying a low pass filter so that only the portion of the signal under the threshold is allowed to pass through, it made a bit of sense. But how - meaning to say which function - can I use to implement the above equation? Do I need three filters or can I use just one? How do I use the terms preceding the integrals in the filter?
Thanks in advance
Related
My problem is similar to this one Numerical Integration, and I have already calculated the numerical solution of my ODEs using bvp4c, with the boundary conditions imposed at rmin=1e-5 (near r=0) and rmax=50. I do not have to keep the infinite interval, since even for $\frac{\lambda}{e^2}<<1$ the solution reaches the asymptotic behavior really fast.
So, I calculated my integral using trapz, but I would like to know if Matlab has a preciser way of doing this. I searched the methods user #drjrm3 mentioned in the question above, but I didn't understand what method I can implement when the integrand involves a combination of components of a vector which keeps the solution.
What I have so far is something like this:
f=trapz(xint,Sxint(3,:).^2. + 0.5*(1-Sxint(1,:).^2.).^2./xint.^2. + 0.5*xint.^2.*Sxint(4,:).^2. + ...
Sxint(1,:).^2.*Sxint(2,:).^2. + 0.1*0.25*xint.^2.*(Sxint(2,:).^2. - 1).^2.)
Thanks in advance for any hint!
integral() and quadqk().
The exact method of integral() in Matlab changes over time. I haven't followed it for a while. A few years ago, I remember reading how it uses adaptive quadrature and were a slightly more advanced version of Guass-Kronrod. Now it seems Matlab doesn't talk about its integration method in the official documentation. Maybe they developed something good and proprietary. You can read the paper they linked the the documentation page and see if what they do is to your liking.
I’m working with the Matlab Curve Fitting tool for the very first time and I have a question. My fit is exponential with two terms and it looks pretty good. The problem is, it won’t start from P(0,0), although my first measurement is.
Is it possible to force a start value onto my fit? Also, how does R-squared work? Is it safe to rely on?
Thank you so much
See a thorough description of this process here
In short, the most common method of fitting to a polynomial in matlab, polyfit, does not allow for forcing through zero (or anywhere else), and so a different function is required, lsqlin, for example.
I'm trying to use naive Bayes classifier to classify my dataset.My questions are:
1- Usually when we try to calculate the likehood we use the formula:
P(c|x)= P(c|x1) * P(c|x2)*...P(c|xn)*P(c) . But in some examples it says in order to avoid getting very small results we use P(c|x)= exp(log(c|x1) + log(c|x2)+...log(c|xn) + logP(c)). can anyone explain more to me the difference between these two formula and are they both used to calculate the "likehood" or the sec one is used to calculate something called "information gain".
2- In some cases when we try to classify our datasets some joints are null. Some ppl use "LAPLACE smoothing" technique in order to avoid null joints. Doesnt this technique influence on the accurancy of our classification?.
Thanks in advance for all your time. I'm just new to this algorithm and trying to learn more about it. So is there any recommended papers i should read? Thanks alot.
I'll take a stab at your first question, assuming you lost most of the P's in your second equation. I think the equation you are ultimately driving towards is:
log P(c|x) = log P(c|x1) + log P(c|x2) + ... + log P(c)
If so, the examples are pointing out that in many statistical calculations, it's often easier to work with the logarithm of a distribution function, as opposed to the distribution function itself.
Practically speaking, it's related to the fact that many statistical distributions involve an exponential function. For example, you can find where the maximum of a Gaussian distribution K*exp^(-s_0*(x-x_0)^2) occurs by solving the mathematically less complex problem (if we're going through the whole formal process of taking derivatives and finding equation roots) of finding where the maximum of its logarithm K-s_0*(x-x_0)^2 occurs.
This leads to many places where "take the logarithm of both sides" is a standard step in an optimization calculation.
Also, computationally, when you are optimizing likelihood functions that may involve many multiplicative terms, adding logarithms of small floating-point numbers is less likely to cause numerical problems than multiplying small floating point numbers together is.
I have a curve which looks roughly / qualitative like the curves displayed in those 3 images.
The only thing I know is that the first part of the curve is hardware-specific supposed to be a linear curve and the second part is some sort of logarithmic part (might be a combination of two logarithmic curves), i.e. linlog camera. But I couldn't tell the mathematic structure of the equation, e.g. wether it looks like a*log(b)+c or a*(log(c+b))^2 etc. Is there a way to best fit/find out a good regression for this type of curve and is there a certain way to do this specifically in MATLAB? :-) I've got the student version, i.e. all toolboxes etc.
fminsearch is a very general way to find best-fit parameters once you have decided on a parametric equation. And the optimization toolbox has a range of more-sophisticated ways.
Comparing the merits of one parametric equation against another, however, is a deep topic. The main thing to be aware of is that you can always tweak the equation, adding another term or parameter or whatever, and get a better fit in terms of lower sum-squared-error or whatever other goodness-of-fit metric you decide is appropriate. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to keep adding parameters: your solution might be becoming overly complex. In the end the most reliable way to compare how well two different parametric models are doing is to cross-validate: optimize the parameters on a subset of the data, and evaluate only on data that the optimization procedure has not yet seen.
You can try the "function finder" on my curve fitting web site zunzun.com and see what it comes up with - it is free. If you have any trouble please email me directly and I'll do my best to help.
James Phillips
zunzun#zunzun.com
I need to construct an interpolating function from a 2D array of data. The reason I need something that returns an actual function is, that I need to be able to evaluate the function as part of an expression that I need to numerically integrate.
For that reason, "interp2" doesn't cut it: it does not return a function.
I could use "TriScatteredInterp", but that's heavy-weight: my grid is equally spaced (and big); so I don't need the delaunay triangularisation.
Are there any alternatives?
(Apologies for the 'late' answer, but I have some suggestions that might help others if the existing answer doesn't help them)
It's not clear from your question how accurate the resulting function needs to be (or how big, 'big' is), but one approach that you could adopt is to regress the data points that you have using a least-squares or Kalman filter-based method. You'd need to do this with a number of candidate function forms and then choose the one that is 'best', for example by using an measure such as MAE or MSE.
Of course this requires some idea of what the form underlying function could be, but your question isn't clear as to whether you have this kind of information.
Another approach that could work (and requires no knowledge of what the underlying function might be) is the use of the fuzzy transform (F-transform) to generate line segments that provide local approximations to the surface.
The method for this would be:
Define a 2D universe that includes the x and y domains of your input data
Create a 2D fuzzy partition of this universe - chosing partition sizes that give the accuracy you require
Apply the discrete F-transform using your input data to generate fuzzy data points in a 3D fuzzy space
Pass the inverse F-transform as a function handle (along with the fuzzy data points) to your integration function
If you're not familiar with the F-transform then I posted a blog a while ago about how the F-transform can be used as a universal approximator in a 1D case: http://iainism-blogism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/fuzzy-wuzzy-was.html
To see the mathematics behind the method and extend it to a multidimensional case then the University of Ostravia has published a PhD thesis that explains its application to various engineering problems and also provides an example of how it is constructed for the case of a 2D universe: http://irafm.osu.cz/f/PhD_theses/Stepnicka.pdf
If you want a function handle, why not define f=#(xi,yi)interp2(X,Y,Z,xi,yi) ?
It might be a little slow, but I think it should work.
If I understand you correctly, you want to perform a surface/line integral of 2-D data. There are ways to do it but maybe not the way you want it. I had the exact same problem and it's annoying! The only way I solved it was using the Surface Fitting Tool (sftool) to create a surface then integrating it.
After you create your fit using the tool (it has a GUI as well), it will generate an sftool object which you can then integrate in (2-D) using quad2d
I also tried your method of using interp2 and got the results (which were similar to the sfobject) but I had no idea how to do a numerical integration (line/surface) with the data. Creating thesfobject and then integrating it was much faster.
It was the first time I do something like this so I confirmed it using a numerically evaluated line integral. According to Stoke's theorem, the surface integral and the line integral should be the same and it did turn out to be the same.
I asked this question in the mathematics stackexchange, wanted to do a line integral of 2-d data, ended up doing a surface integral and then confirming the answer using a line integral!