I have written a code where i have to control, if the position (x,y) (saved in the Matrix Mat) is inside of a circular object which is centered at (posx,posy). If so the point gets a value val otherwise its zero.
My Code looks like this but as a matter of fact it is advertised to NOT use loops in matlab. Since i use not 1 but 2 loops, i was wondering if there is a more effective way for solving my problem.
Mat = zeros(300); %creates my coordinate system with zeros
...
for i =lowlimitx:highlimitx %variable boundary of my object
for j=lowlimity:highlimity
helpsqrdstnc = abs(posx-i)^2 + abs(posy-j)^2; %square distance from center
if helpsqrdstnc < radius^2
Mat(i,j)= val(helpsqrdstnc);
end
end
end
the usual way to optimize matlab code is to vectorize the operations. This is because built in functions and operators is in general much faster. For your case this would leave you with this code:
Mat = zeros(300); %creates my coordinate system with zeros
...
xSq = abs(posx-(lowlimitx:highlimitx)).^2;
ySq = abs(posy-(lowlimity:highlimity)).^2;
helpsqrdstnc = bsxfun(#plus,xSq,ySq.'); %bsxfun to do [xSq(1)+ySq(1),xSq(2)+ySq(1),...; xSq(1)+ySq(2),xSq(2)+ySq(2)...; ...]
Mat(helpsqrdstnc < radius^2)= val(helpsqrdstnc(helpsqrdstnc < radius^2));
where helpsqrdstnc must be the same size as Mat. There may also be neseccary to do a reshape here, but you will notice that by yourself if you get a column vector.
This does of course assume that radius, posx and posy is constant, but reading the question this seems to be the case. However, I do not know exactly how val looks, so it I have not managed to test the code. I also think that val(helpsqrdstnc) is tedious, since this refer to the distance, which does not neseccarily need to be an integer.
Related
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 to construct the following function in MATLAB and am having trouble.
Consider the function s(t) defined for t in [0,4) by
{ sin(pi*t/2) , for t in [0,1)
s(t) = { -(t-2)^3 , for t in [1,3)*
{ sin(pi*t/2) , for t in [3,4)
(i) Generate a column vector s consisting of 512 uniform
samples of this function over the interval [0,4). (This
is best done by concatenating three vectors.)
I know it has to be something of the form.
N = 512;
s = sin(5*t/N).' ;
But I need s to be the piecewise function, can someone provide assistance with this?
If I understand correctly, you're trying to create 3 vectors which calculate the specific function outputs for all t, then take slices of each and concatenate them depending on the actual value of t. This is inefficient as you're initialising 3 times as many vectors as you actually want (memory), and also making 3 times as many calculations (CPU), most of which will just be thrown away. To top it off, it'll be a bit tricky to use concatenate if your t is ever not as you expect (i.e. monotonically increasing). It might be an unlikely situation, but better to be general.
Here are two alternatives, the first is imho the nice Matlab way, the second is the more conventional way (you might be more used to that if you're coming from C++ or something, I was for a long time).
function example()
t = linspace(0,4,513); % generate your time-trajectory
t = t(1:end-1); % exclude final value which is 4
tic
traj1 = myFunc(t);
toc
tic
traj2 = classicStyle(t);
toc
end
function trajectory = myFunc(t)
trajectory = zeros(size(t)); % since you know the size of your output, generate it at the beginning. More efficient than dynamically growing this.
% you could put an assert for t>0 and t<3, otherwise you could end up with 0s wherever t is outside your expected range
% find the indices for each piecewise segment you care about
idx1 = find(t<1);
idx2 = find(t>=1 & t<3);
idx3 = find(t>=3 & t<4);
% now calculate each entry apprioriately
trajectory(idx1) = sin(pi.*t(idx1)./2);
trajectory(idx2) = -(t(idx2)-2).^3;
trajectory(idx3) = sin(pi.*t(idx3)./2);
end
function trajectory = classicStyle(t)
trajectory = zeros(size(t));
% conventional way: loop over each t, and differentiate with if-else
% works, but a lot more code and ugly
for i=1:numel(t)
if t(i)<1
trajectory(i) = sin(pi*t(i)/2);
elseif t(i)>=1 & t(i)<3
trajectory(i) = -(t(i)-2)^3;
elseif t(i)>=3 & t(i)<4
trajectory(i) = sin(pi*t(i)/2);
else
error('t is beyond bounds!')
end
end
end
Note that when I tried it, the 'conventional way' is sometimes faster for the sampling size you're working on, although the first way (myFunc) is definitely faster as you scale up really a lot. In anycase I recommend the first approach, as it is much easier to read.
I want to find the nearest column of a matrix with a vector.
Consider the matrix is D and the vector is y. I want an acceleration method for this function
function BOOLEAN = IsExsist(D,y)
[~, Ysize, ~] = size(D);
BOOLEAN = 0;
MIN = 1.5;
for i=1:Ysize
if(BOOLEAN == 1)
break;
end;
if(norm(y - D(:,i),1) < MIN )
BOOLEAN = 1;
end;
end;
end
I am assuming you are looking to "accelerate" this procedure. For the same, try this -
[~,nearest_column_number] = min(sum(abs(bsxfun(#minus,D,y))))
The above code uses 1-Norm (as used by you) along all the columns of D w.r.t. y. nearest_column_number is your desired output.
If you are interested in using a threshold MIN for the getting the first nearest column number, you may use the following code -
normvals = sum(abs(bsxfun(#minus,D,y)))
nearest_column_number = find(normvals<MIN,1)
BOOLEAN = ~isempty(nearest_column_number)
nearest_column_number and BOOLEAN are the outputs you might be interested in.
If you are looking to make a function out of it, just wrap in the above code into the function format you were using, as you already have the desired output from the code.
Edit 1: If you are using this procedure for a case with large D matrices with sizes like 9x88800, use this -
normvals = sum(abs(bsxfun(#minus,D,y)));
BOOLEAN = false;
for k = 1:numel(normvals)
if normvals(k) < MIN
BOOLEAN = true;
break;
end
end
Edit 2: It appears that you are calling this procedure/function a lot of times, which is the bottleneck here. So, my suggestion at this point would be to look into your calling function and see if you could reduce the number of calls, otherwise use your own code or try this slight modified version of it -
BOOLEAN = false;
for k = 1:numel(y)
if norm(y - D(:,k),1) < MIN %// You can try replacing this with "if sum(abs(y - D(:,i),1)) < MIN" to see if it gives any performance improvement
BOOLEAN = true;
break;
end
end
To find the nearest column of a matrix D to a column vector y, with respect to 1-norm distance, you can use pdist2:
[~, index] = min(pdist2(y.',D.','minkowski',1));
What you are currently trying to do is optimize your Matlab implementation of linear search.
No matter how much you optimize that it will always need to calculate all D=88800 distances over all d=9 dimensions for each search.
Now that's easy to implement in Matlab as discussed in the other answer, but if you are planning to do many such searches, I would recommend to use a different data-structure and search-algorithm instead.
A good canditate would be (binary) space partioning which recursively splits your space into two parts along your dimensions. This adds quite some intial overhead to create the tree and makes insert- and remove-operations a bit more expensive. But as I understand your comments, searches are much more frequent and their execution will reduce in complexits from O(D) downto O(log(D)) which is a tremendous improvement for this problem size.
I think that there should be some usable Matlab-implementations of BSP around, e.g. on Mathworks file-exchange.
But if you don't manage to find one, I'd be happy to provide some pointers as well.
I am trying to get the angle between every vector in a large array (1896378x4 -EDIT: this means I need 1.7981e+12 angles... TOO LARGE, but if there's room to optimize the code, let me know anyways). It's too slow - I haven't seen it finish yet. Here's the steps towards optimizing I've taken:
First, logically what I (think I) want (just use Bt=rand(N,4) for testing):
[ro,col]=size(Bt);
angbtwn = zeros(ro-1); %too long to compute!! total non-zero = ro*(ro-1)/2
count=1;
for ii=1:ro-1
for jj=ii+1:ro
angbtwn(count) = atan2(norm(cross(Bt(ii,1:3),Bt(jj,1:3))), dot(Bt(ii,1:3),Bt(jj,1:3))).*180/pi;
count=count+1;
end
end
So, I though I'd try and vectorize it, and get rid of the non-built-in functions:
[ro,col]=size(Bt);
% angbtwn = zeros(ro-1); %TOO LONG!
for ii=1:ro-1
allAxes=Bt(ii:ro,1:3);
repeachAxis = allAxes(ones(ro-ii+1,1),1:3);
c = [repeachAxis(:,2).*allAxes(:,3)-repeachAxis(:,3).*allAxes(:,2)
repeachAxis(:,3).*allAxes(:,1)-repeachAxis(:,1).*allAxes(:,3)
repeachAxis(:,1).*allAxes(:,2)-repeachAxis(:,2).*allAxes(:,1)];
crossedAxis = reshape(c,size(repeachAxis));
normedAxis = sqrt(sum(crossedAxis.^2,2));
dottedAxis = sum(repeachAxis.*allAxes,2);
angbtwn(1:ro-ii+1,ii) = atan2(normedAxis,dottedAxis)*180/pi;
end
angbtwn(1,:)=[]; %angle btwn vec and itself
%only upper left triangle are values...
Still too long, even to pre-allocate... So I try to do sparse, but not implemented right:
[ro,col]=size(Bt);
%spalloc:
angbtwn = sparse([],[],[],ro,ro,ro*(ro-1)/2);%zeros(ro-1); %cell(ro,1)
for ii=1:ro-1
...same
angbtwn(1:ro-ii+1,ii) = atan2(normedAxis,dottedAxis)*180/pi; %WARNED: indexing = >overhead
% WHAT? Can't index sparse?? what's the point of spalloc then?
end
So if my logic can be improved, or if sparse is really the way to go, and I just can't implement it right, let me know where to improve. THANKS for your help.
Are you trying to get the angle between every pair of vectors in Bt? If Bt has 2 million vectors that's a trillion pairs each (apparently) requiring an inner product to get the angle between. I don't know that any kind of optimization is going to help have this operation finish in a reasonable amount of time in MATLAB on a single machine.
In any case, you can turn this problem into a matrix multiplication between matrices of unit vectors:
N=1000;
Bt=rand(N,4); % for testing. A matrix of N (row) vectors of length 4.
[ro,col]=size(Bt);
magnitude = zeros(N,1); % the magnitude of each row vector.
units = zeros(size(Bt)); % the unit vectors
% Compute the unit vectors for the row vectors
for ii=1:ro
magnitude(ii) = norm(Bt(ii,:));
units(ii,:) = Bt(ii,:) / magnitude(ii);
end
angbtwn = acos(units * units') * 360 / (2*pi);
But you'll run out of memory during the matrix multiplication for largish N.
You might want to use pdist with 'cosine' distance to compute the 1-cos(angbtwn).
Another perk for this approach that it does not compute n^2 values but exaxtly .5*(n-1)*n unique values :)
I've been getting into Matlab more and more lately and another question came up during my latest project.
I generate several rectangles (or meshs) within an overall boundary.
These meshs can have varying spacings/intervals.
I do so, because I want to decrease the mesh/pixel resolution of certain areas of a digital elevation model. So far, everything works fine.
But because the rectangles can be chosen in a GUI, it might happen that the rectangles overlap. This overlap is what I want to find, and remove. Would they have the same spacing, e.g. rectangle 1&2 would look something like this:
[t1x, t1y] = meshgrid(1:1:9,1:1:9);
[t2x, t2y] = meshgrid(7:1:15,7:1:15);
[t3x, t3y] = meshgrid(5:1:17,7:1:24);
In this case, I could just use unique, to find the overlapping areas.
However, they look more like this:
[t1x, t1y] = meshgrid(1:2:9,1:2:9);
[t2x, t2y] = meshgrid(7:3:15,7:3:15);
[t3x, t3y] = meshgrid(5:4:17,7:4:24);
Therefore, unique cannot be applied, because mesh 1 might very well overlap with mesh 2 without having the same nodes. For convenience and further processing, all rectangles / meshes are brought into column notation and put in one result matrix within my code:
result = [[t1x(:), t1y(:)]; [t2x(:), t2y(:)]; [t3x(:), t3y(:)]];
Now I was thinking about using 2 nested for-loops to solve this problem, sth like this (which does not quite work yet):
res = zeros(length(result),1);
for i=1:length(result)
currX = result(i,1);
currY = result(i,2);
for j=1:length(result)
if result(j,1)< currX < result(j+1,1) && result(j,2)< currY < result(j+1,2)
res(j) = 1;
end
end
end
BUT: First of all, this does not quite work yet, because I get an out of bounds error due to length(result)=j+1 and moreover, res(j) = 1 seems to get overwritten by the loop.
But this was just for testing and demonstratin anyway.
Because the meshes shown here are just examples, and the ones I use are fairly big, the result Matrix contains up to 2000x2000 = 4 mio nodes --> lenght(result) ~4mio.
Putting this into a nested for-loop running over the entire length will most likely kill my memory.
Therefore I was hoping to find a sophisticade solution which does not require a nested loop, but takes advantage of Matlabs find and clever matrix indexing.
I am not able to think of something, but was hoping to get help here.
Discussions and help is very much appreciated!
Cheers,
Theo
Here follows a quick stab (not extensively tested):
% Example meshes
[t1x, t1y] = meshgrid(1:2:9,1:2:9);
[t2x, t2y] = meshgrid(7:3:15,7:3:15);
% Group points for convenience
A = [t1x(:), t1y(:)];
B = [t2x(:), t2y(:)];
% Compare which points of A within edges of B (and viceversa)
idxA = A(:,1) >= B(1,1) & A(:,1) <= B(end,1) & A(:,2) >= B(1,2) & A(:,2) <= B(end,2);
idxB = B(:,1) >= A(1,1) & B(:,1) <= A(end,1) & B(:,2) >= A(1,2) & B(:,2) <= A(end,2);
% Plot result of identified points
plot(A(:,1),A(:,2), '*r')
hold on
plot(B(:,1),B(:,2), '*b')
plot([A(idxA,1); B(idxB,1)], [A(idxA,2); B(idxB,2)], 'sk')
I squared the points that were identified as overlapping:
Also, related to your question is this Puzzler: overlapping rectangles by Doug Hull of TMW.