First for those, who are not familiar with Simulink, there is a imaginable outside-Simulink partial solution:
I need to create a vector satisfying the following conditions:
known initial value a1
known final value a2
it has a pre-defined step size, but the length is not pre-determined
the first derivative over the whole range is limited to v_max resp. -v_max
the second derivative over the whole range is limited to a_max resp. -a_max
the third derivative over the whole range is limited to j_max resp. -j_max
at the first and the final point all derivatives are zero.
Before you ask "what have you tried so far", I just had the idea to solve it outside Simulink and I tried the whole stuff below ;)
But maybe you guys have a good idea, while I keep working on my own solution.
I'd like to generate smooth ramp signals (3rd derivative limited) based on a trigger signal in Simulink.
To get a triggered step I created a triggered subsystem propagating the trigger output. It looks like that:
But I actually don't want a step, I need a very smooth ramp with limited derivatives up to the 3rd order. The math behind is:
displacement: x
speed: v = x'
acceleration: a = v' = x''
jerk: j = a' = v'' = x'''
(If this looks familiar to you, I once had a very similar question. I thought about a bounty on it, but after the necessary edit of the question both answers would have been invalid)
As there are just rate limiters of 1st order, I used two derivates and a double integration to resolve my problem. But there is a mayor drawback, I can not ignore anymore. For the sake of illustration I chose a relatively big step size of 0.1.
The complete minimal example (Fixed Step, stepsize: 0.1, ode4): Download here
It can be seen, that the signal not even reaches the intended step height of 10 and furthermore is not constant at the end.
Over the development process of my whole model, this approach was satisfactory enough for small step sizes. But I reached the point where I really need the smooth ramp as intended. That means I need a finally constant signal at exactly the value, specified by the step height gain.
I already spent days to resolve the problem, and hope to fine some help here now.
Some of my ideas:
dynamically increase the step height over the actual desired value and saturate the final output. If the rate limits,step height and the simulation step size wouldn't be flexible one could probably find a satisfying solution. But as everything has to be flexible, there are too much cases where the acceleration and jerk limit is violated.
I tried to use the Matlab function block and write my own 3rd order rate limiter. Though it seems possible for me for the trigger moment, I have no solution how to smooth the "deceleration" at the end of the ramp. Also I'd need C-compilers, which would make it hard to use my model on other systems without problems. (At least I think so.)
The solver can not be changed siginificantly (either ode3 or ode4) and a fixed step size is mandatory (0.00001 to 0.01).
Currently used, not really useful approach:
For a dynamic amplification of 1.07 I get the following output (all values normalised on their limits):
Though the displacement looks nice, the violation of the acceleration limit is very harmful.
For a dynamic amplification of 1.05 I get the following output (all values normalised on their limits):
The acceleration stays in its boundaries, but the displacement does not reach the intended value. (not really clear in the picture) The jerk is still to big. (I could live with that, but it's not nice)
So it appears to me that a inside-Simulink solutions is far from reality. Any ideas how to create a well-behaving custom function block?
Simulation step size, step height, and the rate limits are known before the simulation starts. (But I have a lot of these triggered smooth ramps in a row, it should feed a event-discrete control). So I could imagine to create the whole smooth ramp outside simulink and save it as a timeseries object and append it on the current signal when the trigger is activated.
The problems you see are because the difference is not conditioned very well.
Taking the difference amplifies the numerical that exists in your simulation.
Also the jerk will always be large if you try to apply an actual step.
I guess for your approach it would be better to work the other way around:
i.e. make a jerk, acceleration and velocity with which your step is achieved.
I think your looking for something like the ref3 block:
http://www.dct.tue.nl/home_of_ref3.htm
Note the disclaimer on the site and that it is a little cumbersome to use.
An easy (yet to be improved) way is to use a rate limiter and then a state space model with a filter. From the filter you get the velocity, which in turn you can apply a rate limiter to. You continue with rate-limiter and filters until you have the desired curve.
Otherwise you can come up with numerical rate-limiters of higher order using ie runge kutta formulas or finite differences. However it was pointed out, that they may suffer from bad conditioning.
What I usually do is to use one rate limiter and a filter of 3rd Order and just tune the time constant (1 tripple pole), such that my needs are met. This works well, esp
Integrator chains of length > 1 are unstable!
There is a huge field of research dealing with trajectory planning. The easiest way might be to use FIR filters (Biagotti et al) or to implement an online trajectory planner (Ezair et al 2014 / Knierim et al 2012).
Related
I am using Matlab for this project. I have introduced some modifications to the ode45 solver.
I am using sometimes up to 64 components, all in the [0,1] interval and the components sum up to 1.
At some intervals I halt the integration process in order to run a quick check to see whether further integration is needed and I am looking for some clever way to efficiently figure this one.
I have found four cases and I should be able to detect each of them during a check:
1: The system has settled into an equilibrium and all components are unchanged.
2: Three or more components are wildly fluctuating in a periodic manner.
3: One or two components are changing very rapidly with low amplitude and short frequency.
4: None of the above is true and the integration must be continued.
To give an idea: I have found it to be a good practice to use the last ~5k states generated by the ode45 solver to a function for this purpose.
In short: how does one detect equilibrium or a nonchanging periodic pattern during ODE integration?
Steady-state only occurs when the time derivatives your model function computes are all 0. A periodic solution like you described corresponds rather to a limit cycle, i.e. oscillations around an unstable equilibrium. I don't know if there are methods to detect these cycles. I might update my answers to give more info on that. Maybe an idea would be to see if the last part of the signal correlates with itself (with a delay corresponding to the cycle period).
Note that if you are only interested in the steady state, an implicit method like ode15s may be more efficient, as it can "dissipate" all the transient fluctuations and use much larger time steps than explicit methods, which must resolve the transient accurately to avoid exploding. However, they may also dissipate small-amplitude limit cycles. A pragmatic solution is then to slightly perturb the steady-state values and see if an explicit integration converges towards the unperturbed steady-state.
Something I often do is to look at the norm of the difference between the solution at each step and the solution at the last step. If this difference is small for a sufficiently high number of steps, then steady-state is reached. You can also observe how the norm $||frac{dy}{dt}||$ converges to zero.
This question is actually better suited for the computational science forum I think.
I'm trying to understand Unity Physics engine (PhysX), Can somebody explain that what exactly Default Solver Iterations and Default Solver Velocity Iterations are?
This is from Unity documentation :
Default Solver Iterations: Define how many solver processes Unity runs
on every physics frame. Solvers are small physics engine tasks which
determine a number of physics interactions, such as the movements of
joints or managing contact between overlapping Rigidbody components.
This affects the quality of the solver output and it’s advisable to
change the property in case non-default Time.fixedDeltaTime is used,
or the configuration is extra demanding. Typically, it’s used to
reduce the jitter resulting from joints or contacts.
Please provide some example of how it works and how does increase or decreasing it affects the final result?
I asked this question on Unity Forum and Hyblademin answered it:
In mathematics, an iterative solution method is any algorithm which
approximately solves a system of unknown values like [x1, x2, x3 ...
xn] by repeating a set of steps (iterating). Often, the system of
interest is a set of linear equations exactly like those seen in
algebra class but with a prohibitively high number of unknowns.
Starting with a guess for the solution to each unknown, which could be
based on a similar, known system or could be from a common starting
point like [1, 1, 1 ... 1], a procedure is carried out which gives an
approximate solution which will be closer to the exact values. After
only one iteration, the approximation won't be a very good one unless
the initial guess was already close. But the procedure can be repeated
with the first approximation as the new input, which will give a
closer approximation.
After repeating a few more times, we can expect a reliable
approximation. It still isn't exact, which we could confirm by just
plugging in our answers into our original system and seeing that it
isn't quite right (after simplifying, we would end up with things like
10=10.001 or something to that effect). That said, if the
approximation is close enough for our application, we stop iterating
and use it.
These lecture notes courtesy of a Notre Dame course give a nice
example of this in action using the well-known Jacobi method. Carrying
out an iteration of an iterative method outputs an approximation that
is better than the input because the methods are defined in a way that
causes this to happen, and this is a property called convergence. When
looking at why any given method converges, things get abstract pretty
quickly. I think this is outside the scope of your question,
especially since I don't know what method(s) Unity uses anyway.
When physics is calculated in Unity, we end up with a lot of systems
of equations. We could draw a free-body diagram to show forces and
torques during a collision for a given FixedUpdate in a Unity runtime
to show this. We could try to solve them "directly", which means to
use logical relationships to determine the exact results of the values
(like solving for x in algebra class), but even if the systems are on
the simple side, doing a lot of them will slow the execution to a
crawl. Luckily, iterative, "indirect" methods can be used to get a
pretty good approximation at a fraction of the computing cost.
Increasing the number of iterations will lead to more precise
approximate solutions. There is a point where increasing the number of
iterations gives an increase in precision that is not at all worth the
processing overhead of doing another iteration. But the number of
iterations for this point depends on what you need your project to do.
Sometimes a given arrangement of physics objects will result in jitter
with the default settings that might be improved with more solver
iterations, which is mentioned in the manual entry. There isn't a
great way to determine if changing solver iteration counts will
improve behavior or performance in the way that you need, except for
just trial and error (use the Profiler for a more-objective indication
of performance impact).
https://forum.unity.com/threads/what-does-default-solver-iteration-means.673912/#post-4512004
I have a question about curve fitting, I have many curves like the one in the picture.
X axis : time
Y axis : temperature
Each sample comes out every 30s.
GOAL : predict the value at the end of the transient
What would you do in this situation?
What I am doing is this :
for every new sample I start a new fitting (and so each fitting is independent from the previous one) and check the value of the fitted curve 2 hours (all curves I have set before 2h) after the start of the measurement. If for a number (let's say 5) of subsequent fitting the value in the future stays more or less the same(+-0.2°C) I so assume that the estimation is the right one.
This approach seems to me far too simple and I think I am not exploiting all information. For example the info of the error I am making punctually (e.g. at minute 4:00 I predict and at 4:30 I see that I am doing an error).
In the picture the red part of the curve is excluded (but the real data in the future passes through it). the estimation is the blue one. You see in this case I don't have a good prediction... In general I have also more flat curves.
Based on the comments above, I tried to formulate an answer as no one else is giving some input.
I think your are using a good basic procedure. Better results may be obtained by using a more appropriate fitting curve, which includes all the dominant dynamics, but avoids overfitting of the data. Based on your figure, the simplest form I could think of is:
s + a(1-e^(-t/tau))
with parameters s (the initial temperature), a (amplitude = steady state value) and tau (dominant time constant). As you mentioned yourself, limiting the allowed range for the parameters may avoid overfitting and increase the quality of your estimation.
Using a random high order function, like you are using now, may give good interpolation results, but are dangerous to use for extrapolation, because strange effects may occur outside the fitting region.
Alternatives
Using the error (eg. correcting for the extrapolated error) may be possible, but is tricky and may not always give good results.
Training a neural network to perform the estimation is probably overkill, but may give better results if applied correctly. Note that you need a lot of training data which should be representative for the data for which you will use the neural network later on.
Imagine I have a rectangular reference value for the position/displacement x and I need to smooth it.
The math for translatoric movements is quite simple:
speed: v = x'
acceleration: a = v' = x''
jerk. j = a' = v'' = x'''
I need to limit all these values. So I thought about using rate limiters in Simulink:
This approach works perfect for ramp signals, as you can see in the following output:
BUT, my reference signals for x are no ramps, they are rectangles/steps. Hence the rate limiters are not working, because the derivatives they get to limit are already infinite and Simulink throws an error. How can I resolve this problem? Is there actually a more elegant way to implement the high order rate-limiters? I guess this approach could be unstable in some cases.
continue reading: related question
Even though it seems absurd, the following approach is working: integration and instant derivation does the trick:
leading to:
More elegant, faster and simpler solutions for the whole smoothing problem are highly appreciated!
It's generally not a good idea to differentiate signals in Simulink because of numerical issues, I would advise to start with the higher order derivatives (e.g. acceleration) and integrate, much more robust numerically. This is what the doc about the derivative block says:
The Derivative block output might be very sensitive to the dynamics of
the entire model. The accuracy of the output signal depends on the
size of the time steps taken in the simulation. Smaller steps allow a
smoother and more accurate output curve from this block. However,
unlike with blocks that have continuous states, the solver does not
take smaller steps when the input to this block changes rapidly.
Depending on the dynamics of the driving signal and model, the output
signal of this block might contain unexpected fluctuations. These
fluctuations are primarily due to the driving signal output and solver
step size.
Because of these sensitivities, structure your models to use
integrators (such as Integrator blocks) instead of Derivative blocks.
Integrator blocks have states that allow solvers to adjust step size
and improve accuracy of the simulation. See Circuit Model for an
example of choosing the best-form mathematical model to avoid using
Derivative blocks in your models.
See also Best-Form Mathematical Models for more details.
I was trying to do something similar. I was looking for a "Smooth Ramp". Here is what I found:
A simpler approach is to combine ramp with a second order lag. Then the signal approachs s-shape. And your derivatives will exist and be smooth as well. Only thing to remember is that the 2nd or lag must be critically damped.
Y(s) = H(s)*X(s) where H(s) = K*wo^2/(s^2 + 2*zeta*wo*s + wo^2). Here you define zeta = 1.0. Then the s-shape is retained for any K and wo value. Note that X(s) has already been hit by a ramp. In matlab or any other tools, linear ramp and 2nd lag are standard blocks.
Good luck!
I think the 'Transfer Fcn' block is what you're looking for.
If you leave the equation in the default form 1/(s+1) you have a low-pass filter which can be tuned to what you need by changing the numerator and denominator coefficients.
I am working on optical flow, and based on the lecture notes here and some samples on the Internet, I wrote this Python code.
All code and sample images are there as well. For small displacements of around 4-5 pixels, the direction of vector calculated seems to be fine, but the magnitude of the vector is too small (that's why I had to multiply u,v by 3 before plotting them).
Is this because of the limitation of the algorithm, or error in the code? The lecture note shared above also says that motion needs to be small "u, v are less than 1 pixel", maybe that's why. What is the reason for this limitation?
#belisarius says "LK uses a first order approximation, and so (u,v) should be ideally << 1, if not, higher order terms dominate the behavior and you are toast. ".
A standard conclusion from the optical flow constraint equation (OFCE, slide 5 of your reference), is that "your motion should be less than a pixel, less higher order terms kill you". While technically true, you can overcome this in practice using larger averaging windows. This requires that you do sane statistics, i.e. not pure least square means, as suggested in the slides. Equally fast computations, and far superior results can be achieved by Tikhonov regularization. This necessitates setting a tuning value(the Tikhonov constant). This can be done as a global constant, or letting it be adjusted to local information in the image (such as the Shi-Tomasi confidence, aka structure tensor determinant).
Note that this does not replace the need for multi-scale approaches in order to deal with larger motions. It may extend the range a bit for what any single scale can deal with.
Implementations, visualizations and code is available in tutorial format here, albeit in Matlab not Python.