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].
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);
Let A and B be two matrices of the same size. For a matrix M, let ht(M,t) threshold all the entries of M by t. That is All entries whose absolute value is less than t are set to 0. Suppose I want to find the optimal threshold t such that norm(ht(A,t)-B,'fro')^2 is minimized.
The only way that I can see to do this is deficient: do a for loop over the unique values of A and threshold A and setting C=ht(A,t)-B, compute sum(sum(C.*C)).
This is just too slow when A is large. I have considered sorting the elements of A and finding some efficient way to set a few entries to zero at a time, but I'm not sure this can all be done without a for loop.
Is there a way to do it?
Here's a very simple example (so simple a for loop works easily in this case):
B =
0.101508820368332 0
0 0.301996943246957
Set
A=B+.1*ones(2)
A =
0.201508820368332 0.1
0.1 0.401996943246957
Simple inspection shows that if we zero out the off-diagonal entries of A we minimize the difference between A and B. There are 3 possible threshold values, given by unique(A)=[.1,.2015,.402]. Given a potential threshold value t, we can hard threshold A by:
function [A_thresholded] = ht(A,t)
%
A_thresholded = A .* (abs(A)>t);
The form of the data in a matrix is irrelevant. You can convert them to vectors and simply compute the square-norm. In fact, you can sort the contents of A in increasing order (and permute B to preserve pairing). When you increase the threshold to include one more value in A, the norm only changes by that one increment. Therefore, you can find your solution in O(n log n). Hope this helps.
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/
I was wondering what is better style / more efficient:
x = linspace(-1, 1, 100);
or
x = -1:0.01:1;
As Oli Charlesworth mentioned, in linspace you divide the interval [a,b] into N points, whereas with the : form, you step-out from a with a specified step size (default 1) till you reach b.
One thing to keep in mind is that linspace always includes the end points, whereas, : form will include the second end-point, only if your step size is such that it falls on it at the last step else, it will fall short. Example:
0:3:10
ans =
0 3 6 9
That said, when I use the two approaches depends on what I need to do. If all I need to do is sample an interval with a fixed number of points (and I don't care about the step-size), I use linspace.
In many cases, I don't care if it doesn't fall on the last point, e.g., when working with polar co-ordinates, I don't need the last point, as 2*pi is the same as 0. There, I use 0:0.01:2*pi.
As always, use the one that best suits your purposes, and that best expresses your intentions. So use linspace when you know the number of points; use : when you know the spacing.
[Incidentally, your two examples are not equivalent; the second one will give you 201 points.]
As Oli already pointed out, it's usually easiest to use linspace when you know the number of points you want and the colon operator when you know the spacing you want between elements.
However, it should be noted that the two will often not give you exactly the same results. As noted here and here, the two approaches use slightly different methods to calculate the vector elements (here's an archived description of how the colon operator works). That's why these two vectors aren't equal:
>> a = 0:0.1:1;
>> b = linspace(0,1,11);
>> a-b
ans =
1.0e-016 *
Columns 1 through 8
0 0 0 0.5551 0 0 0 0
Columns 9 through 11
0 0 0
This is a typical side-effect of how floating-point numbers are represented. Certain numbers can't be exactly represented (like 0.1) and performing the same calculation in different ways (i.e. changing the order of mathematical operations) can lead to ever so slightly different results, as shown in the above example. These differences are usually on the order of the floating-point precision, and can often be ignored, but you should always be aware that they exist.
I have production (q) values from 4 different methods stored in the 4 matrices. Each of the 4 matrices contains q values from a different method as:
Matrix_1 = 1 row x 20 column
Matrix_2 = 100 rows x 20 columns
Matrix_3 = 100 rows x 20 columns
Matrix_4 = 100 rows x 20 columns
The number of columns indicate the number of years. 1 row would contain the production values corresponding to the 20 years. Other 99 rows for matrix 2, 3 and 4 are just the different realizations (or simulation runs). So basically the other 99 rows for matrix 2,3 and 4 are repeat cases (but not with exact values because of random numbers).
Consider Matrix_1 as the reference truth (or base case ). Now I want to compare the other 3 matrices with Matrix_1 to see which one among those three matrices (each with 100 repeats) compares best, or closely imitates, with Matrix_1.
How can this be done in Matlab?
I know, manually, that we use confidence interval (CI) by plotting the mean of Matrix_1, and drawing each distribution of mean of Matrix_2, mean of Matrix_3 and mean of Matrix_4. The largest CI among matrix 2, 3 and 4 which contains the reference truth (or mean of Matrix_1) will be the answer.
mean of Matrix_1 = (1 row x 1 column)
mean of Matrix_2 = (100 rows x 1 column)
mean of Matrix_3 = (100 rows x 1 column)
mean of Matrix_4 = (100 rows x 1 column)
I hope the question is clear and relevant to SO. Otherwise please feel free to edit/suggest anything in question. Thanks!
EDIT: My three methods I talked about are a1, a2 and a3 respectively. Here's my result:
ci_a1 =
1.0e+008 *
4.084733001497999
4.097677503988565
ci_a2 =
1.0e+008 *
5.424396063219890
5.586301025525149
ci_a3 =
1.0e+008 *
2.429145282593182
2.838897116739112
p_a1 =
8.094614835195452e-130
p_a2 =
2.824626709966993e-072
p_a3 =
3.054667629953656e-012
h_a1 = 1; h_a2 = 1; h_a3 = 1
None of my CI, from the three methods, includes the mean ( = 3.454992884900722e+008) inside it. So do we still consider p-value to choose the best result?
If I understand correctly the calculation in MATLAB is pretty strait-forward.
Steps 1-2 (mean calculation):
k1_mean = mean(k1);
k2_mean = mean(k2);
k3_mean = mean(k3);
k4_mean = mean(k4);
Step 3, use HIST to plot distribution histograms:
hist([k2_mean; k3_mean; k4_mean]')
Step 4. You can do t-test comparing your vectors 2, 3 and 4 against normal distribution with mean k1_mean and unknown variance. See TTEST for details.
[h,p,ci] = ttest(k2_mean,k1_mean);
EDIT : I misinterpreted your question. See the answer of Yuk and following comments. My answer is what you need if you want to compare distributions of two vectors instead of a vector against a single value. Apparently, the latter is the case here.
Regarding your t-tests, you should keep in mind that they test against a "true" mean. Given the number of values for each matrix and the confidence intervals it's not too difficult to guess the standard deviation on your results. This is a measure of the "spread" of your results. Now the error on your mean is calculated as the standard deviation of your results divided by the number of observations. And the confidence interval is calculated by multiplying that standard error with appx. 2.
This confidence interval contains the true mean in 95% of the cases. So if the true mean is exactly at the border of that interval, the p-value is 0.05 the further away the mean, the lower the p-value. This can be interpreted as the chance that the values you have in matrix 2, 3 or 4 come from a population with a mean as in matrix 1. If you see your p-values, these chances can be said to be non-existent.
So you see that when the number of values get high, the confidence interval becomes smaller and the t-test becomes very sensitive. What this tells you, is nothing more that the three matrices differ significantly from the mean. If you have to choose one, I'd take a look at the distributions anyway. Otherwise the one with the closest mean seems a good guess. If you want to get deeper into this, you could also ask on stats.stackexchange.com
Your question and your method aren't really clear :
Is the distribution equal in all columns? This is important, as two distributions can have the same mean, but differ significantly :
is there a reason why you don't use the Central Limit Theorem? This seems to me like a very complex way of obtaining a result that can easily be found using the fact that the distribution of a mean approaches a normal distribution where sd(mean) = sd(observations)/number of observations. Saves you quite some work -if the distributions are alike! -
Now if the question is really the comparison of distributions, you should consider looking at a qqplot for a general idea, and at a 2-sample kolmogorov-smirnov test for formal testing. But please read in on this test, as you have to understand what it does in order to interprete the results correctly.
On a sidenote : if you do this test on multiple cases, make sure you understand the problem of multiple comparisons and use the appropriate correction, eg. Bonferroni or Dunn-Sidak.