I have two lists of timestamps and I'm trying to create a map between them that uses the imu_ts as the true time and tries to find the nearest vicon_ts value to it. The output is a 3xd matrix where the first row is the imu_ts index, the third row is the unix time at that index, and the second row is the index of the closest vicon_ts value above the timestamp in the same column.
Here's my code so far and it works, but it's really slow. I'm not sure how to vectorize it.
function tmap = sync_times(imu_ts, vicon_ts)
tstart = max(vicon_ts(1), imu_ts(1));
tstop = min(vicon_ts(end), imu_ts(end));
%trim imu data to
tmap(1,:) = find(imu_ts >= tstart & imu_ts <= tstop);
tmap(3,:) = imu_ts(tmap(1,:));%Use imu_ts as ground truth
%Find nearest indecies in vicon data and map
vic_t = 1;
for i = 1:size(tmap,2)
%
while(vicon_ts(vic_t) < tmap(3,i))
vic_t = vic_t + 1;
end
tmap(2,i) = vic_t;
end
The timestamps are already sorted in ascending order, so this is essentially an O(n) operation but because it's looped it runs slowly. Any vectorized ways to do the same thing?
Edit
It appears to be running faster than I expected or first measured, so this is no longer a critical issue. But I would be interested to see if there are any good solutions to this problem.
Have a look at knnsearch in MATLAB. Use cityblock distance and also put an additional constraint that the data point in vicon_ts should be less than its neighbour in imu_ts. If it is not then take the next index. This is required because cityblock takes absolute distance. Another option (and preferred) is to write your custom distance function.
I believe that your current method is sound, and I would not try and vectorize any further. Vectorization can actually be harmful when you are trying to optimize some inner loops, especially when you know more about the context of your data (e.g. it is sorted) than the Mathworks engineers can know.
Things that I typically look for when I need to optimize some piece of code liek this are:
All arrays are pre-allocated (this is the biggest driver of performance)
Fast inner loops use simple code (Matlab does pretty effective JIT on basic commands, but must interpret others.)
Take advantage of any special data features that you have, e.g. use sort appropriate algorithms and early exit conditions from some loops.
You're already doing all this. I recommend no change.
A good start might be to get rid of the while, try something like:
for i = 1:size(tmap,2)
C = max(0,tmap(3,:)-vicon_ts(i));
tmap(2,i) = find(C==min(C));
end
Related
I would like to optimize this piece of Matlab code but so far I have failed. I have tried different combinations of repmat and sums and cumsums, but all my attempts seem to not give the correct result. I would appreciate some expert guidance on this tough problem.
S=1000; T=10;
X=rand(T,S),
X=sort(X,1,'ascend');
Result=zeros(S,1);
for c=1:T-1
for cc=c+1:T
d=(X(cc,:)-X(c,:))-(cc-c)/T;
Result=Result+abs(d');
end
end
Basically I create 1000 vectors of 10 random numbers, and for each vector I calculate for each pair of values (say the mth and the nth) the difference between them, minus the difference (n-m). I sum over of possible pairs and I return the result for every vector.
I hope this explanation is clear,
Thanks a lot in advance.
It is at least easy to vectorize your inner loop:
Result=zeros(S,1);
for c=1:T-1
d=(X(c+1:T,:)-X(c,:))-((c+1:T)'-c)./T;
Result=Result+sum(abs(d),1)';
end
Here, I'm using the new automatic singleton expansion. If you have an older version of MATLAB you'll need to use bsxfun for two of the subtraction operations. For example, X(c+1:T,:)-X(c,:) is the same as bsxfun(#minus,X(c+1:T,:),X(c,:)).
What is happening in the bit of code is that instead of looping cc=c+1:T, we take all of those indices at once. So I simply replaced cc for c+1:T. d is then a matrix with multiple rows (9 in the first iteration, and one fewer in each subsequent iteration).
Surprisingly, this is slower than the double loop, and similar in speed to Jodag's answer.
Next, we can try to improve indexing. Note that the code above extracts data row-wise from the matrix. MATLAB stores data column-wise. So it's more efficient to extract a column than a row from a matrix. Let's transpose X:
X=X';
Result=zeros(S,1);
for c=1:T-1
d=(X(:,c+1:T)-X(:,c))-((c+1:T)-c)./T;
Result=Result+sum(abs(d),2);
end
This is more than twice as fast as the code that indexes row-wise.
But of course the same trick can be applied to the code in the question, speeding it up by about 50%:
X=X';
Result=zeros(S,1);
for c=1:T-1
for cc=c+1:T
d=(X(:,cc)-X(:,c))-(cc-c)/T;
Result=Result+abs(d);
end
end
My takeaway message from this exercise is that MATLAB's JIT compiler has improved things a lot. Back in the day any sort of loop would halt code to a grind. Today it's not necessarily the worst approach, especially if all you do is use built-in functions.
The nchoosek(v,k) function generates all combinations of the elements in v taken k at a time. We can use this to generate all possible pairs of indicies then use this to vectorize the loops. It appears that in this case the vectorization doesn't actually improve performance (at least on my machine with 2017a). Maybe someone will come up with a more efficient approach.
idx = nchoosek(1:T,2);
d = bsxfun(#minus,(X(idx(:,2),:) - X(idx(:,1),:)), (idx(:,2)-idx(:,1))/T);
Result = sum(abs(d),1)';
Update: here are the results for the running times for the different proposals (10^5 trials):
So it looks like the transformation of the matrix is the most efficient intervention, and my original double-loop implementation is, amazingly, the best compared to the vectorized versions. However, in my hands (2017a) the improvement is only 16.6% compared to the original using the mean (18.2% using the median).
Maybe there is still room for improvement?
I've got an ODE system working perfectly. But now, I want in each iteration, sort in ascending order the solution vector. I've tried many ways but I could not do it. Does anyone know how to do?
Here is a simplified code:
function dtemp = tanque1(t,temp)
for i=1:N
if i==1
dtemp(i)=(((-k(i)*At*(temp(i)-temp(i+1)))/(y))-(U*As(i)*(temp(i)-Tamb)))/(ro(i)*vol_nodo*cp(i));
end
if i>1 && i<N
dtemp(i)=(((k(i)*At*(temp(i-1)-temp(i)))/(y))-((k(i)*At*(temp(i)-temp(i+1)))/(y))-(U*As(i)*(temp(i)-Tamb)))/(ro(i)*vol_nodo*cp(i));
end
if i==N
dtemp(i)=(((k(i)*At*(temp(i-1)-temp(i)))/(y))-(U*As(i)*(temp(i)-Tamb)))/(ro(i)*vol_nodo*cp(i));
end
end
end
Test Script:
inicial=343.15*ones(200,1);
[t temp]=ode45(#tanque1,0:360:18000,inicial);
It looks like you have three different sets of differential equations depending on the index i of the solution vector. I don't think you mean "sort," but rather a more efficient way to implement what you've already done - basically vectorization. Provided I haven't accidentally made any typos (you should check), the following should do what you need:
function dtemp = tanque1(t,temp)
dtemp(1) = (-k(1)*At*(temp(1)-temp(2))/y-U*As(1)*(temp(1)-Tamb))/(ro(1)*vol_nodo*cp(1));
dtemp(2:N-1) = (k(2:N-1).*(diff(temp(1:N-1))-diff(temp(2:N)))*At/y-U*As(2:N-1).*(temp(2:N-1)-Tamb))./(vol_nodo*ro(2:N-1).*cp(2:N-1));
dtemp(N) = (k(N)*At*(temp(N-1)-temp(N))/y-U*As(N)*(temp(N)-Tamb))/(ro(N)*vol_nodo*cp(N));
You'll still need to define N and the other parameters and ensure that temp is returned as a column vector. You could also try replacing N with the end keyword, which might be faster. The two uses of diff make the code shorter, but, depending on the value of N, they may also speed up the calculation. They could be replaced with temp(1:N-2)-temp(2:N-1) and temp(2:N-1)-temp(3:N). It may be possible to collapse these down to a single vectorized equation, but I'll leave that as an exercise for you to attempt if you like.
Note that I also removed a great many unnecessary parentheses for clarity. As you learn Matlab you'll to get used to the order of operations and figure out when parentheses are needed.
In Matlab, is it possible to measure local variation of a signal across an entire signal without using for loops? I.e., can I implement the following:
window_length = <something>
for n = 1:(length_of_signal - window_length/2)
global_variance(n) = var(my_signal(1:window_length))
end
in a vectorized format?
If you have the image processing toolbox, you can use STDFILT:
global_std = stdfilt(my_signal(:),ones(window_length,1));
% square to get the variance
global_variance = global_std.^2;
You could create a 2D array where each row is shifted one w.r.t. to the row above, and with the number of rows equal to the window width; then computing the variance is trivial. This doesn't require any toolboxes. Not sure if it's much faster than the for loop though:
longSignal = repmat(mySignal(:), [1 window_length+1]);
longSignal = reshape(longSignal(1:((length_of_signal+1)*window_length)), [length_of_signal+1, window_length])';
global_variance = sum(longSignal.*longSignal, 2);
global_variance = global_variance(1:length_of_signal-window_length));
Note that the second column is shifted down by one relative to the one above - this means that when we have the blocks of data on which we want to operate in rows, so I take the transpose. After that, the sum operator will sum over the first dimension, which gives you a row vector with the results you want. However, there is a bit of wrapping of data going on, so we have to limit to the number of "good" values.
I don't have matlab handy right now (I'm at home), so I was unable to test the above - but I think the general idea should work. It's vectorized - I can't guarantee it's fast...
Check the "moving window standard deviation" function at Matlab Central. Your code would be:
movingstd(my_signal, window_length, 'forward').^2
There's also moving variance code, but it seems to be broken.
The idea is to use filter function.
I have a function which does the following loop many, many times:
for cluster=1:max(bins), % bins is a list in the same format as kmeans() IDX output
select=bins==cluster; % find group of values
means(select,:)=repmat_fast_spec(meanOneIn(x(select,:)),sum(select),1);
% (*, above) for each point, write the mean of all points in x that
% share its label in bins to the equivalent row of means
delta_x(select,:)=x(select,:)-(means(select,:));
%subtract out the mean from each point
end
Noting that repmat_fast_spec and meanOneIn are stripped-down versions of repmat() and mean(), respectively, I'm wondering if there's a way to do the assignment in the line labeled (*) that avoids repmat entirely.
Any other thoughts on how to squeeze performance out of this thing would also be welcome.
Here is a possible improvement to avoid REPMAT:
x = rand(20,4);
bins = randi(3,[20 1]);
d = zeros(size(x));
for i=1:max(bins)
idx = (bins==i);
d(idx,:) = bsxfun(#minus, x(idx,:), mean(x(idx,:)));
end
Another possibility:
x = rand(20,4);
bins = randi(3,[20 1]);
m = zeros(max(bins),size(x,2));
for i=1:max(bins)
m(i,:) = mean( x(bins==i,:) );
end
dd = x - m(bins,:);
One obvious way to speed up calculation in MATLAB is to make a MEX file. You can compile C code and perform any operations you want. If you're searching for the fastest-possible performance, turning the operation into a custom MEX file would likely be the way to go.
You may be able to get some improvement by using ACCUMARRAY.
%# gather array sizes
[nPts,nDims] = size(x);
nBins = max(bins);
%# calculate means. Not sure whether it might be faster to loop over nDims
meansCell = accumarray(bins,1:nPts,[nBins,1],#(idx){mean(x(idx,:),1)},{NaN(1,nDims)});
means = cell2mat(meansCell);
%# subtract cluster means from x - this is how you can avoid repmat in your code, btw.
%# all you need is the array with cluster means.
delta_x = x - means(bins,:);
First of all: format your code properly, surround any operator or assignment by whitespace. I find your code very hard to comprehend as it looks like a big blob of characters.
Next of all, you could follow the other responses and convert the code to C (mex) or Java, automatically or manually, but in my humble opinion this is a last resort. You should only do such things when your performance is not there yet by a small margin. On the other hand, your algorithm doesn't show obvious flaws.
But the first thing you should do when trying to improve performance: profile. Use the MATLAB profiler to determine which part of your code is causing your problems. How much would you need to improve this to meet your expectations? If you don't know: first determine this boundary, otherwise you will be looking for a needle in a hay stack which might not even be in there in the first place. MATLAB will never be the fastest kid on the block with respect to runtime, but it might be the fastest with respect to development time for certain kinds of operations. In that respect, it might prove useful to sacrifice the clarity of MATLAB over the execution speed of other languages (C or even Java). But in the same respect, you might as well code everything in assembler to squeeze all of the performance out of the code.
Another obvious way to speed up calculation in MATLAB is to make a Java library (similar to #aardvarkk's answer) since MATLAB is built on Java and has very good integration with user Java libraries.
Java's easier to interface and compile than C. It might be slower than C in some cases, but the just-in-time (JIT) compiler in the Java virtual machine generally speeds things up very well.
Instead of concatening results to this, Is there other way to do the following, I mean the loop will persist but vector=[vector,sum(othervector)]; can be gotten in any other way?
vector=[];
while a - b ~= 0
othervector = sum(something') %returns a vector like [ 1 ; 3 ]
vector=[vector,sum(othervector)];
...
end
vector=vector./100
Well, this really depends on what you are trying to do. Starting from this code, you might need to think about the actions you are doing and if you can change that behavior. Since the snippet of code you present shows little dependencies (i.e. how are a, b, something and vector related), I think we can only present vague solutions.
I suspect you want to get rid of the code to circumvent the effect of constantly moving the array around by concatenating your new results into it.
First of all, just make sure that the slowest portion of your application is caused by this. Take a look at the Matlab profiler. If that portion of your code is not a major time hog, don't bother spending a lot of time on improving it (and just say to mlint to ignore that line of code).
If you can analyse your code enough to ensure that you have a constant number of iterations, you can preallocate your variables and prevent any performance penalty (i.e. write a for loop in the worst case, or better yet really vectorized code). Or if you can `factor out' some variables, this might help also (move any loop invariants outside of the loop). So that might look something like this:
vector = zeros(1,100);
while a - b ~= 0
othervector = sum(something);
vector(iIteration) = sum(othervector);
iIteration = iIteration + 1;
end
If the nature of your code doesn't allow this (e.g. you are iterating to attain convergence; in that case, beware of checking equality of doubles: always include a tolerance), there are some tricks you can perform to improve performance, but most of them are just rules of thumb or trying to make the best of a bad situation. In this last case, you might add some maintenance code to get slightly better performance (but what you gain in time consumption, you lose in memory usage).
Let's say, you expect the code to run 100*n iterations most of the time, you might try to do something like this:
iIteration = 0;
expectedIterations = 100;
vector = [];
while a - b ~= 0
if mod(iIteration,expectedIterations) == 0
vector = [vector zeros(1,expectedIterations)];
end
iIteration = iIteration + 1;
vector(iIteration) = sum(sum(something));
...
end
vector = vector(1:iIteration); % throw away uninitialized
vector = vector/100;
It might not look pretty, but instead of resizing the array every iteration, the array only gets resized every 100th iteration. I haven't run this piece of code, but I've used very similar code in a former project.
If you want to optimize for speed, you should preallocate the vector and have a counter for the index as #Egon answered already.
If you just want to have a different way of writing vector=[vector,sum(othervector)];, you could use vector(end + 1) = sum(othervector); instead.