I am porting a Matlab/Octave code to C. One of the implementations I need to port is the DST transform.
In Matlab/Octave, this is done using
A =[0.00000 4.24264 5.65685 7.07107 8.48528 0.00000]
res = dst(A)
ans =
22.3599 -4.7499 -4.4287 2.9465 -6.8864 1.9383
In C, I have done what the FFTW3 documentation says:
n = 6;
fftw_plan plan = fftw_plan_r2r_1d( n, in, out, FFTW_RODFT10, FFTW_ESTIMATE);
fftw_execute ( plan );
where in is the input array. The result of this is, out:
42.588457
-9.899495
0.000000
2.449490
-11.411543
5.656854
Why are those results so different? Any ideas of what I am doing wrong here, if any?
If you are looking for exactly the same tranform, you may try the RODFT00 flag instead.
According to docs of fftw, matlab, octave, it seems to fit, except for a 2 factor. Output of fftw may be twice the one of matlab or octave.
http://www.mathworks.fr/fr/help/pde/ug/dst.html
http://octave.sourceforge.net/signal/function/dst.html
http://www.fftw.org/doc/1d-Real_002dodd-DFTs-_0028DSTs_0029.html
Bye,
tried this x=[ 0
-0.041389004581424
-0.049979175343607
-0.057007496876302
-0.062473969179509
-0.066378592253228
-0.068721366097459
-0.069502290712203
-0.068721366097459
-0.066378592253228
-0.062473969179509
-0.057007496876302
-0.049979175343607
-0.041389004581424
0.500000000000000
-0.500000000000000]
matlab's dst gives :
dst(x)=[-0.524649937006448
-0.208549082037091
0.175438242940290
-0.201365706563574
0.122632326416342
0.023410695189363
-0.170916792532103
0.404635063593086
-0.557336293807673
0.766827077578399
-0.834391996423464
0.916008576298954
-0.836787527646708
0.743037852780101
-0.522660424688284
0.285317021943821]
using FFTW with "FFTW_RODFT00" flag
gives
[-1.0493
-0.417098
0.350876
-0.402731
0.245265
0.0468214
-0.341834
0.80927
-1.11467
1.53365
-1.66878
1.83202
-1.67358
1.48608
-1.04532
0.570634]
Basically a factor of two is the difference, even if one uses same flag
Related
I'm dealing with some problem about reproducing results of ANN. Namely in the parameters of ANN there are 2 that I cannot address:
net. Inputs{i}.range
net.output.range
The documentation is very lapidary and cannot help me to understand how it works. Both seem to have massive impact on the output. Let's consider this MWE:
net=feedforwardnet(10);
net.inputs{1}.size=3;
%net.inputs{1}.range=[0 100;0 100;0 100];
%net.output.range=[1 200;];
net.layers{2}.size=1;
L1=[-1.1014, -2.1138, -2.6975;
-2.3545, 0.7693, 1.7621;
-1.1258, -1.4171, -3.1113;
-0.7845, -3.7105, 0.1605;
0.3993, 0.7042, 3.5076;
0.283, -3.914, -1.3428;
-2.0566, -3.4762, 1.3239;
-1.0626, 0.3662, 2.9169;
0.1367, 2.5801, 2.5867;
0.7155, 2.6237, 2.5376;];
B1=[3.5997, 3.1386, 2.7002, 1.8243, -1.9267, -1.6754, 0.8252, 1.0865, -0.0005, 0.6126];
L2=[0.5005, -1.0932, 0.34, -1.5099, 0.5896, 0.5881, 0.4769, 0.6728, -0.9407, -1.0296];
B2=0.1567;
net.IW{1}=L1;
net.Lw{2,1}=L2;
net.b{1}=B1';
net.b{2}=B2;
input=[40; 30; 20];
output=net(input)
If you uncomment line 3 and 4 the result rises from 0.1464 to 119.1379. I'm trying to reproduce this aspect of Matlab ANN in another environment, but the documentation is too short and does not explain anything.
What do these two parameters exactly do? I mean, what exact function is applied on the input and output data?
I'm testing the y = SinC(x) function with single hidden layer feedforward neural networks (SLFNs) with 20 neurons.
With a SLFN, in the output layer, the output weight(OW) can be described by
OW = pinv(H)*T
after adding regularized parameter gamma, which
OW = pinv(I/gamma+H'*H)*H'*T
with
gamma -> Inf, pinv(H'*H)*H'*T == pinv(H)*T, also pinv(H'*H)*H' == pinv(H).
But when I try to calculate pinv(H'*H)*H' and pinv(H), I find a huge difference between these two when neurons number is over 5 (under 5, they are equal or almost the same).
For example, when H is 10*10 matrix, cond(H) = 21137561386980.3, rank(H) = 10,
H = [0.736251410036783 0.499731137079796 0.450233920602169 0.296610970576716 0.369359425954153 0.505556211442208 0.502934880027889 0.364904559142718 0.253349959726753 0.298697900877265;
0.724064281864009 0.521667364351399 0.435944895257239 0.337878535128756 0.364906002569385 0.496504064726699 0.492798607017131 0.390656915261343 0.289981152837390 0.307212326718916;
0.711534656474153 0.543520341487420 0.421761457948049 0.381771374416867 0.360475582262355 0.487454209236671 0.482668250979627 0.417033287703137 0.329570921359082 0.315860145366824;
0.698672860220896 0.565207057974387 0.407705930918082 0.427683127210120 0.356068794706095 0.478412571446765 0.472552121296395 0.443893207685379 0.371735862991355 0.324637323886021;
0.685491077062637 0.586647027111176 0.393799811411985 0.474875155650945 0.351686254239637 0.469385056318048 0.462458480695760 0.471085139463084 0.415948455902421 0.333539494486324;
0.672003357663056 0.607763454504209 0.380063647372632 0.522520267708374 0.347328559602877 0.460377531907542 0.452395518357816 0.498449772544129 0.461556360076788 0.342561958147251;
0.658225608290477 0.628484290731116 0.366516925684188 0.569759064961507 0.342996293691614 0.451395814182317 0.442371323528726 0.525823695636816 0.507817005881821 0.351699689941632;
0.644175558300583 0.648743139215935 0.353177974096445 0.615761051907079 0.338690023332811 0.442445652121229 0.432393859824045 0.553043275759248 0.553944175102542 0.360947346089454;
0.629872705346690 0.668479997764613 0.340063877672496 0.659781468051379 0.334410299080102 0.433532713184646 0.422470940392161 0.579948548513999 0.599160649563718 0.370299272759337;
0.615338237874436 0.687641820315375 0.327190410302607 0.701205860709835 0.330157655029498 0.424662569229062 0.412610204098877 0.606386924575225 0.642749594844498 0.379749516620049];
T=[-0.806458764562879 -0.251682808380338 -0.834815868451399 -0.750626822371170 0.877733363571576 1 -0.626938984683970 -0.767558933097629 -0.921811074815239 -1]';
There is a huge difference between pinv(H'*H)*H*T and pinv(H)*T, where
pinv(H'*H)*H*T = [-4803.39093243484 3567.08623820149 668.037919243849 5975.10699147077
1709.31211566970 -1328.53407325092 -1844.57938928594 -22511.9388736373
-2377.63048959478 31688.5125271114]';
pinv(H)*T = [-19780274164.6438 -3619388884.32672 -76363206688.3469 16455234.9229156
-135982025652.153 -93890161354.8417 283696409214.039 193801203.735488
-18829106.6110445 19064848675.0189]'.
I also find that if I round H , round(H,2), pinv(H'*H)*H*T and pinv(H)*T return the same answer. So I guess one of the reason might be the float calculation issue inside the matlab.
But since cond(H) is large, any small change of H may result in large difference in the inverse of H. I think the round function may not be a good option to test. As Cris Luengo mentioned, with large cond,the numerical imprecision will affect the accuracy of inverse.
In my test, I use 1000 training samples Input:[-10,10], with noise between [-0.2,0.2], and test samples are noise free. 20 neurons are selected. The OW = pinv(H)*Tcan give reasonable results for SinC training, while the performance for OW = pinv(H'*H)*T is worse. Then I try to increase the precision of H'*H by pinv(vpa(H'*H)), there's no significant improvement.
Does anyone know how to solve this?
After some research, the answer is that ELM is very sentive to scaling and activation function.
Please refer to this paper for details: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2797143.2797161
And paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8533625 demonstrated a noval algorithm to improve the perforamance of ELM for scaling.
I have the following code that generates a matrix of 15 blocks that will then be used in a Montecarlo approach as multiple starting points. How can I get the same exact result in a smarter way?
assume that J=15*100 are the total simulation and paramNum the number of parameters
[10^-10*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-9*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-8*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-7*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-6*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-5*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) rand*10^-5*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-4*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) rand*10^-4*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-3*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-2*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-1*ones(paramNum,round(J/15)) 10^-abs(randn/2)*ones(paramNum,round(J/15))];
you could do
v = 10.^[-10:-5 rand*10^-5 -4:-1 10^-abs(randn/2)];
repmat(repelem(v, 1, round(J/15)), paramNum) .* ...
repmat(ones(paramNum,round(J/15)), numel(v))
Or mimic the repmat/repelem functionality with a for loop. The first is shorter, the later is more understandable.
By the way... it's less than 15 blocks...
Stability (Numerical analysis)
Trying to apply the answer I saw in this question, a+x=a worked just fine with a+eps(a)/2. Suppose we have x^b+a=a, where b is a small integer, say 3 and a=2000. Then a+(eps(a))^3 or a+(eps(a)/2)^3 will always return number a. Can someone help with the measurement of x? Any way, even different from eps will do just fine.
p.s. 1938+(eps(1938)/0.00000000469)^3 is the last number that returns ans = 1.9380e+003.
1938+(eps(1938)/0.0000000047)^3 returns a=1938. Does that have to do with anything?
x = (eps(a)/2).^(1/(b-eps(a)/2))
if b = 3,
(eps(1938)/2).^(1/(3-eps(1938)/2)) > eps(1938)/0.0000000047
I am new to Mathematica and I am having difficulties with one thing. I have this Table that generates 10 000 times 13 numbers (12 numbers + 1 that is a starting number). I need to create a Histogram from all 10 000 13th numbers. I hope It's quite clear, quite tricky to explain.
This is the table:
F = Table[(Xi = RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[], 12];
Mu = -0.00644131;
Sigma = 0.0562005;
t = 1/12; s = 0.6416;
FoldList[(#1*Exp[(Mu - Sigma^2/2)*t + Sigma*Sqrt[t]*#2]) &, s,
Xi]), {SeedRandom[2]; 10000}]
The result for the following histogram could be a table that will take all the 13th numbers to one table - than It would be quite easy to create an histogram. Maybe with "select"? Or maybe you know other ways to solve this.
You can access different parts of a list using Part or (depending on what parts you need) some of the more specialised commands, such as First, Rest, Most and (the one you need) Last. As noted in comments, Histogram[Last/#F] or Histogram[F[[All,-1]]] will work fine.
Although it wasn't part of your question, I would like to note some things you could do for your specific problem that will speed it up enormously. You are defining Mu, Sigma etc 10,000 times, because they are inside the Table command. You are also recalculating Mu - Sigma^2/2)*t + Sigma*Sqrt[t] 120,000 times, even though it is a constant, because you have it inside the FoldList inside the Table.
On my machine:
F = Table[(Xi = RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[], 12];
Mu = -0.00644131;
Sigma = 0.0562005;
t = 1/12; s = 0.6416;
FoldList[(#1*Exp[(Mu - Sigma^2/2)*t + Sigma*Sqrt[t]*#2]) &, s,
Xi]), {SeedRandom[2]; 10000}]; // Timing
{4.19049, Null}
This alternative is ten times faster:
F = Module[{Xi, beta}, With[{Mu = -0.00644131, Sigma = 0.0562005,
t = 1/12, s = 0.6416},
beta = (Mu - Sigma^2/2)*t + Sigma*Sqrt[t];
Table[(Xi = RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[], 12];
FoldList[(#1*Exp[beta*#2]) &, s, Xi]), {SeedRandom[2];
10000}] ]]; // Timing
{0.403365, Null}
I use With for the local constants and Module for the things that are other redefined within the Table (Xi) or are calculations based on the local constants (beta). This question on the Mathematica StackExchange will help explain when to use Module versus Block versus With. (I encourage you to explore the Mathematica StackExchange further, as this is where most of the Mathematica experts are hanging out now.)
For your specific code, the use of Part isn't really required. Instead of using FoldList, just use Fold. It only retains the final number in the folding, which is identical to the last number in the output of FoldList. So you could try:
FF = Module[{Xi, beta}, With[{Mu = -0.00644131, Sigma = 0.0562005,
t = 1/12, s = 0.6416},
beta = (Mu - Sigma^2/2)*t + Sigma*Sqrt[t];
Table[(Xi = RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[], 12];
Fold[(#1*Exp[beta*#2]) &, s, Xi]), {SeedRandom[2];
10000}] ]];
Histogram[FF]
Calculating FF in this way is even a little faster than the previous version. On my system Timing reports 0.377 seconds - but such a difference from 0.4 seconds is hardly worth worrying about.
Because you are setting the seed with SeedRandom, it is easy to verify that all three code examples produce exactly the same results.
Making my comment an answer:
Histogram[Last /# F]