I understand that normally I'd use ftest() after prepping my data with iddata(). However, for iddata() to work correctly I need to have both my input and output data be sampled at the same rate. Is there a rate-independent variant of iddata() or any other way which will allow me to accomplish what I need to accomplish?
I am working on the same problem (https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/19458/how-to-compute-transfer-function-from-experimental-data) and I am not sure I found the way to do it, but I share my idea with you, so we might find a solution that works for both of us (if you already have found a way to do it, please share it).
Method 1
If you have your signals in the time domain you can synchronize them and then use the tfestimate function.
% Define timeseries
ts_output = timeseries(x,time1,'Name','output');
ts_input = timeseries(y,time2,'Name','input');
% Synchronization
[ts_output,ts_input] = synchronize(ts_output,ts_input,'uniform',...
'interval',delta_t);
% Compute transfer function
Fs = 1/delta_t;
[Txy,W] = tfestimate(ts_input.data,ts_output.data,[],[],[],Fs);
Method 2
Instead of synchronize you could resample the signal sampled at lower frequency: assume Fs1 > Fs2
[P,Q] = rat(Fs1/Fs2);
y2 = resample(y2,P,Q);
Related
I have a piece of MATLAB code that works fine, but I wanted to know is there any faster way of performing the same task, where each .csv file is a 768*768 dimension matrix
Current code:
for k = 1:143
matFileName = sprintf('ang_thresholded%d.csv', k);
matData = load(matFileName);
imshow(matData)
end
Any help in this regard will be very helpful. Thank You!
In general, its better to separate the loading, computational and graphical stuff.
If you have enough memory, you should try to change your code to:
n_files=143;
% If you know the size of your images a priori:
matData=zeros( 768, 768,n_files); % prealocate for speed.
for k = 1:n_files
matFileName = sprintf('ang_thresholded%d.csv', k);
matData(:,:,k) = load(matFileName);
end
seconds=0.01;
for k=1:n_Files
%clf; %Not needed in your case, but needed if you want to plot more than one thing (hold on)
imshow(matData(:,:,k));
pause(seconds); % control "framerate"
end
Note the use of pause().
Here is another option using Matlab's data stores which are designed to work with large datasets or lots of smaller sets. The TabularTextDatastore is specifically for this kind of text based data.
Something like the following. However, note that since I don't have any test files it is sort of notional example ...
ttds = tabularTextDatastore('.\yourDirPath\*.csv'); %Create the data store
while ttds.hasdata %This turns false after reading the last file.
temp = read(ttds); %Returns a Matlab table class
imshow(temp.Variables)
end
Since it looks like your filenames' numbering is not zero padded (e.g. 1 instead of 001) then the file order might get messed up so that may need addressed as well. Anyway I thought this might be a good alternative approach worth considering depending on what else you want to do with the data and how much of it there might be.
Should it be possible to square a signal by creating a Gain instance and connecting the signal both to the gain input and amplitude control parameter? Because I am seeing odd results at least in Firefox. I can see that Tone.js uses a wave-shaper instead for a pow operation, so perhaps this is the way to go. But I'm curious, since the API says the gain parameter is audio-rate, obviously there must be some delays involved.
This works for me:
var c = new AudioContext();
var o = c.createOscillator();
var g = c.createGain();
g.gain.value = 0;
g.connect(c.destination);
o.connect(g);
o.connect(g.gain);
o.start();
o.stop(c.currentTime + 2);
You can't tell from listening but if you paste the code into http://hoch.github.io/canopy/, you can see that the sine wave has been squared.
Yes, it works to square a signal this way. (I use it in my vocoder.) There should be no delay in doing things this way.
I have several sets of data that I want to fit but not all of them look the same (some look like a Gaussian with one peak, some like two Gaussians with 2 peaks or Lorentzians). I wanted to try this method
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/31562-data-driven-fitting-with-matlab/content/fitit.m
but the program given is not complete so I can not use it (there is no line that defines 'train' and 'test'). I am writing it so that it suits and works for my data (based on the code that it is given and the demo). I was able to find the best fit but I am also trying to use the bootstrap technique in order to find the confidence intervals. My data is xdata and ydata and they are sorted and the duplicates have been removed before I use them in my program.
cpart=cvpartition(size(xdata,1),'k',10);
tr_x=xdata(training(cpart,1));
tr_y=ydata(training(cpart,1));
tst_x=xdata(test(cpart,1));
tst_y=ydata(test(cpart,1));
all_span=linspace(0.01,0.99,99);
s=zeros(length(all_span);
for k=1:length(all_span)
f = #(tr_x,tr_y,tst_x,tst_y) norm(tst_y mylowess (tr_x, tr_y, tst_x, all_span (k)))^2
s(k) = sum(crossval(f,datax,datay,'partition',cpart));
end
[~,mj]=min(s);
n_span=all_span(mj);%n_span is the optimal span
function ys=mylowess(x1,y1,xs,span)
ys1 = smooth(x1,y1,span,'loess');
ys = interp1(x1,ys1,xs,'linear',NaN);
if any(isnan(ys))
ys(xs<x1(1)) = ys1(1);
ys(xs>x1(end)) = ys1(end);
end
So up to this point I understand the program and I have managed to find the optimal span. I want to find the confidence intervals but so far I was not able to make it work.
When I type:
NB=length(xdata);
f=#(xdata,ydata) mylowess(xdata,ydata,xdata,n_span);
yboot2 = bootstrp(NB,f,xdata,ydata)';
I get the following error
Error using griddedInterpolant
The grid vectors are not strictly monotonic increasing.
Error in interp1 (line 186)
F = griddedInterpolant(X,V,method);
Error in mylowess (line 26)
ysmooth=interp1(xdata,ysmooth1,xinput,'linear',NaN);
As I said before there are no duplicates in xdata and I have already sorted xdata before I used them in the program. Can anyone see the mistake I am making? Or is there an easier way to get the confidence intervals?
Thank you for your help.
I have a Matlab project in which I need to make a GUI that receives two mathematical functions from the user. I then need to find their intersection point, and then plot the two functions.
So, I have several questions:
Do you know of any algorithm I can use to find the intersection point? Of course I prefer one to which I can already find a Matlab code for in the internet. Also, I prefer it wouldn't be the Newton-Raphson method.
I should point out I'm not allowed to use built in Matlab functions.
I'm having trouble plotting the functions. What I basically did is this:
fun_f = get(handles.Function_f,'string');
fun_g = get(handles.Function_g,'string');
cla % To clear axes when plotting new functions
ezplot(fun_f);
hold on
ezplot(fun_g);
axis ([-20 20 -10 10]);
The problem is that sometimes, the axes limits do not allow me to see the other function. This will happen, if, for example, I will have one function as log10(x) and the other as y=1, the y=1 will not be shown.
I have already tried using all the axis commands but to no avail. If I set the limits myself, the functions only exist in certain limits. I have no idea why.
3 . How do I display numbers in a static text? Or better yet, string with numbers?
I want to display something like x0 = [root1]; x1 = [root2]. The only solution I found was turning the roots I found into strings but I prefer not to.
As for the equation solver, this is the code I have so far. I know it is very amateurish but it seemed like the most "intuitive" way. Also keep in mind it is very very not finished (for example, it will show me only two solutions, I'm not so sure how to display multiple roots in one static text as they are strings, hence question #3).
function [Sol] = SolveEquation(handles)
fun_f = get(handles.Function_f,'string');
fun_g = get(handles.Function_g,'string');
f = inline(fun_f);
g = inline(fun_g);
i = 1;
Sol = 0;
for x = -10:0.1:10;
if (g(x) - f(x)) >= 0 && (g(x) - f(x)) < 0.01
Sol(i) = x;
i = i + 1;
end
end
solution1 = num2str(Sol(1));
solution2 = num2str(Sol(2));
set(handles.roots1,'string',solution1);
set(handles.roots2,'string',solution2);
The if condition is because the subtraction will never give me an absolute zero, and this seems to somewhat solve it, though it's really not perfect, sometimes it will give me more than two very similar solutions (e.g 1.9 and 2).
The range of x is arbitrary, chosen by me.
I know this is a long question, so I really appreciate your patience.
Thank you very much in advance!
Question 1
I think this is a more robust method for finding the roots given data at discrete points. Looking for when the difference between the functions changes sign, which corresponds to them crossing over.
S=sign(g(x)-f(x));
h=find(diff(S)~=0)
Sol=x(h);
If you can evaluate the function wherever you want there are more methods you can use, but it depends on the size of the domain and the accuracy you want as to what is best. For example, if you don't need a great deal of accurac, your f and g functions are simple to calculate, and you can't or don't want to use derivatives, you can get a more accurate root using the same idea as the first code snippet, but do it iteratively:
G=inline('sin(x)');
F=inline('1');
g=vectorize(G);
f=vectorize(F);
tol=1e-9;
tic()
x = -2*pi:.001:pi;
S=sign(g(x)-f(x));
h=find(diff(S)~=0); % Find where two lines cross over
Sol=zeros(size(h));
Err=zeros(size(h));
if ~isempty(h) % There are some cross-over points
for i=1:length(h) % For each point, improve the approximation
xN=x(h(i):h(i)+1);
err=1;
while(abs(err)>tol) % Iteratively improve aproximation
S=sign(g(xN)-f(xN));
hF=find(diff(S)~=0);
xN=xN(hF:hF+1);
[~,I]=min(abs(f(xN)-g(xN)));
xG=xN(I);
err=f(xG)-g(xG);
xN=linspace(xN(1),xN(2),15);
end
Sol(i)=xG;
Err(i)=f(xG)-g(xG);
end
else % No crossover points - lines could meet at tangents
[h,I]=findpeaks(-abs(g(x)-f(x)));
Sol=x(I(abs(f(x(I))-g(x(I)))<1e-5));
Err=f(Sol)-g(Sol)
end
% We also have to check each endpoint
if abs(f(x(end))-g(x(end)))<tol && abs(Sol(end)-x(end))>1e-12
Sol=[Sol x(end)];
Err=[Err g(x(end))-f(x(end))];
end
if abs(f(x(1))-g(x(1)))<tol && abs(Sol(1)-x(1))>1e-12
Sol=[x(1) Sol];
Err=[g(x(1))-f(x(1)) Err];
end
toc()
Sol
Err
This will "zoom" in to the region around each suspected root, and iteratively improve the accuracy. You can tweak the parameters to see whether they give better behaviour (the tolerance tol, the 15, number of new points to generate, could be higher probably).
Question 2
You would probably be best off avoiding ezplot, and using plot, which gives you greater control. You can vectorise inline functions so that you can evaluate them like anonymous functions, as I did in the previous code snippet, using
f=inline('x^2')
F=vectorize(f)
F(1:5)
and this should make plotting much easier:
plot(x,f(x),'b',Sol,f(Sol),'ro',x,g(x),'k',Sol,G(Sol),'ro')
Question 3
I'm not sure why you don't want to display your roots as strings, what's wrong with this:
text(xPos,yPos,['x0=' num2str(Sol(1))]);
I have written the following code in MATLAB to process large images of the order of 3000x2500 pixels. Currently the operation takes more than half hour to complete. Is there any scope to improve the code to consume less time? I heard parallel processing can make things faster, but I have no idea on how to implement it. How do I do it, given the following code?
function dirvar(subfn)
[fn,pn] = uigetfile({'*.TIF; *.tiff; *.tif; *.TIFF; *.jpg; *.bmp; *.JPG; *.png'}, ...
'Select an image', '~/');
I = double(imread(fullfile(pn,fn)));
ld = input('Enter the lag distance = '); % prompt for lag distance
fh = eval(['#' subfn]); % Function handles
I2 = uint8(nlfilter(I, [7 7], fh));
imshow(I2); % Texture Layer Image
imwrite(I2,'result_mat.tif');
% Zero Degree Variogram
function [gamma] = ewvar(I)
c = (size(I)+1)/2; % Finds the central pixel of moving window
EW = I(c(1),c(2):end); % Determines the values from central pixel to margin of window
h = length(EW) - ld; % Number of lags
gamma = 1/(2 * h) * sum((EW(1:ld:end-1) - EW(2:ld:end)).^2);
end
The input lag distance is usually 1.
You really need to use the profiler to get some improvements out of it. My first guess (as I haven't run the profiler, which you should as suggested already), would be to use as little length operations as possible. Since you are processing every image with a [7 7] window, you can precalculate some parts,
such that you won't repeat these actions
function dirvar(subfn)
[fn,pn] = uigetfile({'*.TIF; *.tiff; *.tif; *.TIFF; *.jpg; *.bmp; *.JPG; *.png'}, ...
'Select an image', '~/');
I = double(imread(fullfile(pn,fn)));
ld = input('Enter the lag distance = '); % prompt for lag distance
fh = eval(['#' subfn]); % Function handles
%% precalculations
wind = [7 7];
center = (wind+1)/2; % Finds the central pixel of moving window
EWlength = (wind(2)+1)/2;
h = EWlength - ld; % Number of lags
%% calculations
I2 = nlfilter(I, wind, fh);
imshow(I2); % Texture Layer Image
imwrite(I2,'result_mat.tif');
% Zero Degree Variogram
function [gamma] = ewvar(I)
EW = I(center(1),center(2):end); % Determines the values from central pixel to margin of window
gamma = 1/(2 * h) * sum((EW(1:ld:end-1) - EW(2:ld:end)).^2);
end
end
Note that by doing so, you trade performance for clearness of your code and coupling (between the function dirvar and the nested function ewvar). However, since I haven't profiled your code (you should do that yourself using your own inputs), you can find what line of your code consumes the most time.
For batch processing, I would also recommend to leave out any input, imshow, imwrite and uigetfile. Those are commands that you typically call from a more high-level function/script and that will force you to enter these inputs even when you want them to stay the same. So instead of that code, make each of the variables they produce (/process) a parameter (/return value) for your function. That way, you could leave MATLAB running during the weekend to process everything (without having manually enter to all those values), even if you are unable to speed up the code.
A few general purpose tricks:
1 - use the MATLAB profiler to determine all the computational bottlenecks
2 - parallel processing can make things faster and there are a lot of tools that you can use, but it depends on how your entire code is set up and whether the code is optimized for it. By far the easiest trick to learn is parfor, where you can replace the top level for loop by parfor. This does mean you must open the MATLAB pool with matlabpool open.
3 - If you have a rather recent Nvidia GPU as well as MATLAB 2011, you can also write some CUDA code.
All in all 30 mins to me is peanuts, so don't fret it too much.
First of all, I strongly suggest you follow the advice by #Egon: Write a separate function that collects a list of files (the excellent UIPICKFILES from the FEX is your friend here), and then runs your filtering code in a loop for each image. Note that you should definitely keep the call to imwrite in your filtering code: In case the analysis crashes at image 48 (e.g. due to power failure), you don't want to lose all the previous work.
Running thusly in batch mode has two big advantages: (1) you can start running your code and go home for the week-end, and (2) you can easily parallelize this outside loop using PARFOR. However, with only a dual-core machine, it is unlikely that you get any significant improvements from parallelization - your OS also wants to run stuff at times, and the overhead of parallelization might be more than the gain from running two workers. Also, 2.5GB of RAM is seriously limiting.
As to your specific code: in my experience using IM2COL is often faster than NLFILTER. im2col creates a nElementsInMask-by-nMasks array out of your image, so that you can apply the filtering in one single operation. With a 7x7 window, the output of im2col will be 3000*2500*49 bytes, which is close to 400MB. Thus, it should just work. All that you need to do is rewrite ewvar so that it works on a 49x1 array of pixels that make up the pixels your mask, which will require some index juggling, if I understand your code correctly.