I have a Problem. I have a Matrix A with integer values between 0 and 5.
for example like:
x=randi(5,10,10)
Now I want to call a filter, size 3x3, which gives me the the most common value
I have tried 2 solutions:
fun = #(z) mode(z(:));
y1 = nlfilter(x,[3 3],fun);
which takes very long...
and
y2 = colfilt(x,[3 3],'sliding',#mode);
which also takes long.
I have some really big matrices and both solutions take a long time.
Is there any faster way?
+1 to #Floris for the excellent suggestion to use hist. It's very fast. You can do a bit better though. hist is based on histc, which can be used instead. histc is a compiled function, i.e., not written in Matlab, which is why the solution is much faster.
Here's a small function that attempts to generalize what #Floris did (also that solution returns a vector rather than the desired matrix) and achieve what you're doing with nlfilter and colfilt. It doesn't require that the input have particular dimensions and uses im2col to efficiently rearrange the data. In fact, the the first three lines and the call to im2col are virtually identical to what colfit does in your case.
function a=intmodefilt(a,nhood)
[ma,na] = size(a);
aa(ma+nhood(1)-1,na+nhood(2)-1) = 0;
aa(floor((nhood(1)-1)/2)+(1:ma),floor((nhood(2)-1)/2)+(1:na)) = a;
[~,a(:)] = max(histc(im2col(aa,nhood,'sliding'),min(a(:))-1:max(a(:))));
a = a-1;
Usage:
x = randi(5,10,10);
y3 = intmodefilt(x,[3 3]);
For large arrays, this is over 75 times faster than colfilt on my machine. Replacing hist with histc is responsible for a factor of two speedup. There is of course no input checking so the function assumes that a is all integers, etc.
Lastly, note that randi(IMAX,N,N) returns values in the range 1:IMAX, not 0:IMAX as you seem to state.
One suggestion would be to reshape your array so each 3x3 block becomes a column vector. If your initial array dimensions are divisible by 3, this is simple. If they don't, you need to work a little bit harder. And you need to repeat this nine times, starting at different offsets into the matrix - I will leave that as an exercise.
Here is some code that shows the basic idea (using only functions available in FreeMat - I don't have Matlab on my machine at home...):
N = 100;
A = randi(0,5*ones(3*N,3*N));
B = reshape(permute(reshape(A,[3 N 3 N]),[1 3 2 4]), [ 9 N*N]);
hh = hist(B, 0:5); % histogram of each 3x3 block: bin with largest value is the mode
[mm mi] = max(hh); % mi will contain bin with largest value
figure; hist(B(:),0:5); title 'histogram of B'; % flat, as expected
figure; hist(mi-1, 0:5); title 'histogram of mi' % not flat?...
Here are the plots:
The strange thing, when you run this code, is that the distribution of mi is not flat, but skewed towards smaller values. When you inspect the histograms, you will see that is because you will frequently have more than one bin with the "max" value in it. In that case, you get the first bin with the max number. This is obviously going to skew your results badly; something to think about. A much better filter might be a median filter - the one that has equal numbers of neighboring pixels above and below. That has a unique solution (while mode can have up to four values, for nine pixels - namely, four bins with two values each).
Something to think about.
Can't show you a mex example today (wrong computer); but there are ample good examples on the Mathworks website (and all over the web) that are quite easy to follow. See for example http://www.shawnlankton.com/2008/03/getting-started-with-mex-a-short-tutorial/
Related
Didn't know how to paraphrase the question well.
Function for example:
Data:https://www.dropbox.com/s/wr61qyhhf6ujvny/data.mat?dl=0
In this case how do I calculate that the rest point of this function is ~1? I have access to the vector that makes the plot.
I guess the mean is an approximation but in some cases it can be pretty bad.
Under the assumption that the "rest" point is the steady-state value in your data and the fact that the steady-state value happens the majority of the times in your data, you can simply bin all of the points and use each unique value as a separate bin. The bin with the highest count should correspond to the steady-state value.
You can do this by a combination of histc and unique. Assuming your data is stored in y, do this:
%// Find all unique values in your data
bins = unique(y);
%// Find the total number of occurrences per unique value
counts = histc(y, bins);
%// Figure out which bin has the largest count
[~,max_bin] = max(counts);
%// Figure out the corresponding y value
ss_value = bins(max_bin);
ss_value contains the steady-state value of your data, corresponding to the most occurring output point with the assumptions I laid out above.
A minor caveat with the above approach is that this is not friendly to floating point data whose unique values are generated by floating point values whose decimal values beyond the first few significant digits are different.
Here's an example of your data from point 2300 to 2320:
>> format long g;
>> y(2300:2320)
ans =
0.99995724232555
0.999957488454868
0.999957733165346
0.999957976465197
0.999958218362579
0.999958458865564
0.999958697982251
0.999958935720613
0.999959172088623
0.999959407094224
0.999959640745246
0.999959873049548
0.999960104014889
0.999960333649014
0.999960561959611
0.999960788954326
0.99996101464076
0.999961239026462
0.999961462118947
0.999961683925704
0.999961904454139
Therefore, what I'd recommend is to perhaps round so that the first 5 or so significant digits are maintained.
You can do this to your dataset before you continue:
num_digits = 5;
y_round = round(y*(10^num_digits))/(10^num_digits);
This will first multiply by 10^n where n is the number of digits you desire so that the decimal point is shifted over by n positions. We round this result, then divide by 10^n to bring it back to the scale that it was before. If you do this, for those points that were 0.9999... where there are n decimal places, these will get rounded to 1, and it may help in the above calculations.
However, more recent versions of MATLAB have this functionality already built-in to round, and you can just do this:
num_digits = 5;
y_round = round(y,num_digits);
Minor Note
More recent versions of MATLAB discourage the use of histc and recommend you use histcounts instead. Same function definition and expected inputs and outputs... so just replace histc with histcounts if your MATLAB version can handle it.
Using the above logic, you could also use the median too. If the majority of data is fluctuating around 1, then the median would have a high probability that the steady-state value is chosen... so try this too:
ss_value = median(y_round);
An issue I've come across multiple times is wanting to take two similar data sets and create histograms from them where the bins are identical, so as to easily calculate things like histogram overlap.
You can define the number of bins (obviously) using
[counts, bins] = hist(data,number_of_bins)
But there's not an obvious way (as far as I can see) to make the bin size equal for several different data sets. If remember when I initially looked finding various people who seem to have the same issue, but no good solutions.
The right, easy way
As pointed out by horchler, this can easily be achieved using either histc (which lets you define your bins vector), or vectorizing your histogram input into hist.
The wrong, stupid way
I'm leaving below as a reminder to others that even stupid questions can yield worthwhile answers
I've been using the following approach for a while, so figured it might be useful for others (or, someone can very quickly point out the correct way to do this!).
The general approach relies on the fact that MATLAB's hist function defines an equally spaced number of bins between the largest and smallest value in your sample. So, if you append a start (smallest) and end (largest) value to your various samples which is the min and max for all samples of interest, this forces the histogram range to be equal for all your data sets. You can then truncate the first and last values to recreate your original data.
For example, create the following data set
A = randn(1,2000)+7
B = randn(1,2000)+9
[counts_A, bins_A] = hist(A, 500);
[counts_B, bins_B] = hist(B, 500);
Here for my specific data sets I get the following results
bins_A(1) % 3.8127 (this is also min(A) )
bins_A(500) % 10.3081 (this is also max(A) )
bins_B(1) % 5.6310 (this is also min(B) )
bins_B(500) % 13.0254 (this is also max(B) )
To create equal bins you can simply first define a min and max value which is slightly smaller than both ranges;
topval = max([max(A) max(B)])+0.05;
bottomval = min([min(A) min(B)])-0.05;
The addition/subtraction of 0.05 is based on knowledge of the range of values - you don't want your extra bin to be too far or too close to the actual range. That being said, for this example by using the joint min/max values this code will work irrespective of the A and B values generated.
Now we re-create histogram counts and bins using (note the extra 2 bins are for our new largest and smallest value)
[counts_Ae, bins_Ae] = hist([bottomval, A, topval], 502);
[counts_Be, bins_Be] = hist([bottomval, B, topval], 502);
Finally, you truncate the first and last bin and value entries to recreate your original sample exactly
bins_A = bins_Ae(2:501)
bins_B = bins_Ae(2:501)
counts_A = counts_Ae(2:501)
counts_B = counts_Be(2:501)
Now
bins_A(1) % 3.7655
bins_A(500) % 13.0735
bins_B(1) % 3.7655
bins_B(500) % 13.0735
From this you can easily plot both histograms again
bar([bins_A;bins_B]', [counts_A;counts_B]')
And also plot the histogram overlap with ease
bar(bins_A,(counts_A+counts_B)-(abs(counts_A-counts_B)))
I have 12 sets of vectors (about 10-20 vectors each) and i want to pick one vector of each set so that a function f that takes the sum of these vectors as argument is maximized. In addition i have constraints for some components of that sum.
Example:
a_1 = [3 2 0 5], a_2 = [3 0 0 2], a_3 = [6 0 1 1], ... , a_20 = [2 12 4 3]
b_1 = [4 0 4 -2], b_2 = [0 0 1 0], b_3 = [2 0 0 4], ... , b_16 = [0 9 2 3]
...
l_1 = [4 0 2 0], l_2 = [0 1 -2 0], l_3 = [4 4 0 1], ... , l_19 = [3 0 9 0]
s = [s_1 s_2 s_3 s_4] = a_x + b_y + ... + l_z
Constraints:
s_1 > 40
s_2 < 100
s_4 > -20
Target: Chose x, y, ... , z to maximize f(s):
f(s) -> max
Where f is a nonlinear function that takes the vector s and returns a scalar.
Bruteforcing takes too long because there are about 5.9 trillion combinations, and since i need the maximum (or even better the top 10 combinations) i can not use any of the greedy algorithms that came to my mind.
The vectors are quite sparse, about 70-90% are zeros. If that is helping somehow ...?
The Matlab Optimization toolbox didnt help either since it doesnt much support for discrete optimization.
Basically this is a lock-picking problem, where the lock's pins have 20 distinct positions, and there are 12 pins. Also:
some of the pin's positions will be blocked, depending on the positions of all the other pins.
Depending on the specifics of the lock, there may be multiple keys that fit
...interesting!
Based on Rasman's approach and Phpdna's comment, and the assumption that you are using int8 as data type, under the given constraints there are
>> d = double(intmax('int8'));
>> (d-40) * (d+100) * (d+20) * 2*d
ans =
737388162
possible vectors s (give or take a few, haven't thought about +1's etc.). ~740 million evaluations of your relatively simple f(s) shouldn't take more than 2 seconds, and having found all s that maximize f(s), you are left with the problem of finding linear combinations in your vector set that add up to one of those solutions s.
Of course, this finding of combinations is no easy feat, and the whole method breaks down anyway if you are dealing with
int16: ans = 2.311325368800510e+018
int32: ans = 4.253529737045237e+037
int64: ans = 1.447401115466452e+076
So, I'll discuss a more direct and more general approach here.
Since we're talking integers and a fairly large search space, I'd suggest using a branch-and-bound algorithm. But unlike the bintprog algorithm, you'd have to use different branching strategies, and of course, these should be based on a non-linear objective function.
Unfortunately, there is nothing like this in the optimization toolbox (or the File Exchange as far as I could find). fmincon is a no-go, since it uses gradient and Hessian information (which will usually be all-zero for integers), and fminsearch is a no-go, since you'll need a really good initial estimate, and the rate of convergence is (roughly) O(N), meaning, for this 20-dimensional problem you'll have to wait quite long before convergence, without the guarantee of having found the global solution.
An interval method could be a possibility, however, I personally have very little experience with this. There is no native interval-related stuff in MATLAB or any of its toolboxes, but there's the freely available INTLAB.
So, if you're not feeling like implementing your own non-linear binary integer programming algorithm, or are not in the mood for an adventure with INTLAB, there's really only one thing left: heuristic methods. In this link there is a similar situation, with an outline of the solution: use the genetic algorithm (ga) from the Global Optimization toolbox.
I would implement the problem roughly like so:
function [sol, fval, exitflag] = bintprog_nonlinear()
%// insert your data here
%// Any sparsity you may have here will only make this more
%// *memory* efficient, not *computationally*
data = [...
... %// this will be an array with size 4-by-20-by-12
... %// (or some permutation of that you find more intuitive)
];
%// offsets into the 3D array to facilitate indexing a bit
offsets = bsxfun(#plus, ...
repmat(1:size(data,1), size(data,3),1), ...
(0:size(data,3)-1)' * size(data,1)*size(data,2)); %//'
%// your objective function
function val = obj(X)
%// limit "X" to integers in [1 20]
X = min(max(round(X),1),size(data,3));
%// "X" will be a collection of 12 integers between 0 and 20, which are
%// indices into the data matrix
%// form "s" from "X"
s = sum(bsxfun(#plus, offsets, X*size(data,1) - size(data,1)));
%// XxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxX
%// Compute the NEGATIVE VALUE of your function here
%// XxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxX
end
%// your "non-linear" constraint function
function [C, Ceq] = nonlcon(X)
%// limit "X" to integers in [1 20]
X = min(max(round(X),1),size(data,3));
%// form "s" from "X"
s = sum(bsxfun(#plus, offsets, X(:)*size(data,1) - size(data,1)));
%// we have no equality constraints
Ceq = [];
%// Compute inequality constraints
%// NOTE: solver is trying to solve C <= 0, so:
C = [...
40 - s(1)
s(2) - 100
-20 - s(4)
];
end
%// useful GA options
options = gaoptimset(...
'UseParallel', 'always'...
...
);
%// The rest really depends on the specifics of the problem.
%// Useful to look at will be at least 'TolCon', 'Vectorized', and of course,
%// 'PopulationType', 'Generations', etc.
%// THE OPTIMZIATION
[sol, fval, exitflag] = ga(...
#obj, size(data,3), ... %// objective function, taking a vector of 20 values
[],[], [],[], ... %// no linear (in)equality constraints
1,size(data,2), ... %// lower and upper limits
#nonlcon, options); %// your "nonlinear" constraints
end
Note that even though your constraints are essentially linear, the way by which you must compute the value for your s necessitates the use of a custom constraint function (nonlcon).
Especially note that this is currently (probably) a sub-optimal way to use ga -- I don't know the specifics of your objective function, so a lot more may be possible. For instance, I currently use a simple round() to convert the input X to integers, but using 'PopulationType', 'custom' (with a custom 'CreationFcn', 'MutationFcn' etc.) might produce better results. Also, 'Vectorized' will likely speed things up a lot, but I don't know whether your function is easily vectorized.
And yes, I use nested functions (I just love those things!); it prevents these huge, usually identical lists of input arguments if you use sub-functions or stand-alone functions, and they can really be a performance boost because there is little copying of data. But, I realize that their scoping rules make them somewhat akin to goto constructs, and so they are -ahum- "not everyone's cup of tea"...you might want to convert them to sub-functions to prevent long and useless discussions with your co-workers :)
Anyway, this should be a good place to start. Let me know if this is useful at all.
Unless you define some intelligence on how the vector sets are organized, there will be no intelligent way of solving your problem other then pure brute force.
Say you find s s.t. f(s) is max given constraints of s, you still need to figure out how to build s with twelve 4-element vectors (an overdetermined system if there ever was one), where each vector has 20 possible values. Sparsity may help, although I'm not sure how it is possible to have a vector with four elements be 70-90% zero, and sparsity would only be useful if there was some yet to be described methodology in how the vector are organized
So I'm not saying you can't solve the problem, I'm saying you need to rethink how the problem is set-up.
I know, this answer is reaching you really late.
Unfortunately, the problem, as is, show not many patterns to be exploited, besides of brute force -Branch&Bound, Master& Slave, etc.- Trying a Master Slave approach -i.e. solving first the function continuous nonlinear problem as master, and solving the discrete selection as slave could help, but with as many combinations, and without any more information over the vectors, there is not too much space for work.
But based on the given continuous almost everywhere functions, based on combinations of sums and multiplication operators and their inverses, the sparsity is a clear point to be exploited here. If 70-90% of vectors are zero, almost a good part of the solution space will be close to zero, or close to infinite. Hence a 80-20 pseudo solution would discard easily the 'zero' combinations, and use only the 'infinite' ones.
This way, the brute-force could be guided.
So say, I have a = [2 7 4 9 2 4 999]
And I'd like to remove 999 from the matrix (which is an obvious outlier).
Is there a general way to remove values like this? I have a set of vectors and not all of them have extreme values like that. prctile(a,99.5) is going to output the largest number in the vector no matter how extreme (or non-extreme) it is.
There are several way to do that, but first you must define what is "extreme'? Is it above some threshold? above some number of standard deviations?
Or, if you know you have exactly n of these extreme events and that their values are larger than the rest, you can use sort and the delete the last n elements. etc...
For example a(a>threshold)=[] will take care of a threshold like definition, while a(a>mean(a)+n*std(a))=[] will take care of discarding values that are n standard deviation above the mean of a.
A completely different approach is to use the median of a, if the vector is as short as you mention, you want to look on a median value and then you can either threshold anything above some factor of that value a(a>n*median(a))=[] .
Last, a way to assess an approach to treat these spikes would be to take a histogram of the data, and work from there...
I can think of two:
Sort your matrix and remove n-elements from top and bottom.
Compute the mean and the standard deviation and discard all values that fall outside:
mean +/- (n * standard deviation)
In both cases n must be chosen by the user.
Filter your signal.
%choose the value
N = 10;
filtered = filter(ones(1,N)/N, 1, signal);
Find the noise
noise = signal - filtered;
Remove noisy elements
THRESH = 50;
signal = signal(abs(noise) < THRESH);
It is better than mean+-n*stddev approach because it looks for local changes so it won't fail on a slowly changing signal like [1 2 3 ... 998 998].
I currently implementing an optimization algorithm that requires me to sample without replacement from several sets. Although I am coding in MATLAB, this is essentially a CS question.
The situation is as follows:
I have a finite number of sets (A, B, C) each with a finite but possibly different number of elements (a1,a2...a8, b1,b2...b10, c1, c2...c25). I also have a vector of probabilities for each set which lists a probability for each element in that set (i.e. for set A, P_A = [p_a1 p_a2... p_a8] where sum(P_A) = 1). I normally use these to create a probability generating function for each set, which given a uniform number between 0 to 1, can spit out one of the elements from that set (i.e. a function P_A(u), which given u = 0.25, will select a2).
I am looking to sample without replacement from the sets A, B, and C. Each "full sample" is a sequence of elements from each of the different sets i.e. (a1, b3, c2). Note that the space of full samples is the set of all permutations of the elements in A, B, and C. In the example above, this space is (a1,a2...a8) x (b1,b2...b10) x (c1, c2...c25) and there are 8*10*25 = 2000 unique "full samples" in my space.
The annoying part of sampling without replacement with this setup is that if my first sample is (a1, b3, c2) then that does not mean I cannot sample the element a1 again - it just means that I cannot sample the full sequence (a1, b3, c2) again. Another annoying part is that the algorithm I am working with requires me do a function evaluation for all permutations of elements that I have not sampled.
The best method at my disposal right now is to keep track the sampled cases. This is a little inefficient since my sampler is forced to reject any case that has been sampled before (since I'm sampling without replacement). I then do the function evaluations for the unsampled cases, by going through each permutation (ax, by, cz) using nested for loops and only doing the function evaluation if that combination of (ax, by, cz) is not included in the sampled cases. Again, this is a little inefficient since I have to "check" whether each permutation (ax, by, cz) has already been sampled.
I would appreciate any advice in regards to this problem. In particular, I am looking a method to sample without replacement and keep track of unsampled cases that does not explicity list out the full sample space (I usually work with 10 sets with 10 elements each so listing out the full sample space would require a 10^10 x 10 matrix). I realize that this may be impossible, though finding efficient way to do it will allow me to demonstrate the true limits of the algorithm.
Do you really need to keep track of all of the unsampled cases? Even if you had a 1-by-1010 vector that stored a logical value of true or false indicating if that permutation had been sampled or not, that would still require about 10 GB of storage, and MATLAB is likely to either throw an "Out of Memory" error or bring your entire machine to a screeching halt if you try to create a variable of that size.
An alternative to consider is storing a sparse vector of indicators for the permutations you've already sampled. Let's consider your smaller example:
A = 1:8;
B = 1:10;
C = 1:25;
nA = numel(A);
nB = numel(B);
nC = numel(C);
beenSampled = sparse(1,nA*nB*nC);
The 1-by-2000 sparse matrix beenSampled is empty to start (i.e. it contains all zeroes) and we will add a one at a given index for each sampled permutation. We can get a new sample permutation using the function RANDI to give us indices into A, B, and C for the new set of values:
indexA = randi(nA);
indexB = randi(nB);
indexC = randi(nC);
We can then convert these three indices into a single unique linear index into beenSampled using the function SUB2IND:
index = sub2ind([nA nB nC],indexA,indexB,indexC);
Now we can test the indexed element in beenSampled to see if it has a value of 1 (i.e. we sampled it already) or 0 (i.e. it is a new sample). If it has been sampled already, we repeat the process of finding a new set of indices above. Once we have a permutation we haven't sampled yet, we can process it:
while beenSampled(index)
indexA = randi(nA);
indexB = randi(nB);
indexC = randi(nC);
index = sub2ind([nA nB nC],indexA,indexB,indexC);
end
beenSampled(index) = 1;
newSample = [A(indexA) B(indexB) C(indexC)];
%# ...do your subsequent processing...
The use of a sparse array will save you a lot of space if you're only going to end up sampling a small portion of all of the possible permutations. For smaller total numbers of permutations, like in the above example, I would probably just use a logical vector instead of a sparse vector.
Check the matlab documentation for the randi function; you'll just want to use that in conjunction with the length function to choose random entries from each vector. Keeping track of each sampled vector should be as simple as just concatenating it to a matrix;
current_values = [5 89 45]; % lets say this is your current sample set
used_values = [used_values; current_values];
% wash, rinse, repeat