Suppose that I have a data set that contains a cyclical event and I am identifying a threshold (peaks) to separate each event (to eventually find the coefficient of variation).
I have multiple trials of this data - the speed of these events is sometimes significantly faster than others. This data is also a bit noisy, so some 'false local maximas' are sometimes picked up if I don't set the 'minpeakdistance' constraint within the 'findpeaks' function.
I am trying to find a way to ensure that regardless of speed, I am finding 'true local maximas'. I have been visually inspecting each trial to ensure that I have identified only true peaks - if I have also identified false peaks, I have been adjusted the mpd value for that specific trial - but this is literally going to take days.
Any suggestions?
Example:
For most trials of my collection, the following line of code only identifies true maximas:
mpd = 'minpeakdistance';
eval(['[t' num2str(a) '.Mspine.pks(:,1),t' num2str(a) '.Mspine.locs] = findpeaks(t' num2str(a) '.Mspine.xyz(:,1), mpd,25);']);
But, for trial 11, they are moving much faster, so the mpd has to be adjusted to 9; however, if I apply an mpd value of 9 to all of the trials, it will pick up false local maximas.
theI would go over to the frequency domain to find this "cyclical event". Specifically, if you know the rate at which data is sampled/generated, using a FFT will indicate the relative strengths of all periodic events in your data. Have a look at: http://www.mathworks.se/help/matlab/ref/fft.html
Related
I would like to predict the switching behavior of time-dependent signals. Currently the signal has 3 states (1, 2, 3), but it could be that this will change in the future. For the moment, however, it is absolutely okay to assume three states.
I can make the following assumptions about these states (see picture):
the signals repeat periodically, possibly with variations concerning the time of day.
the duration of state 2 is always constant and relatively short for all signals.
the duration of states 1 and 3 are also constant, but vary for the different signals.
the switching sequence is always the same: 1 --> 2 --> 3 --> 2 --> 1 --> [...]
there is a constant but unknown time reference between the different signals.
There is no constant time reference between my observations for the different signals. They are simply measured one after the other, but always at different times.
I am able to rebuild my model periodically after i obtained more samples.
I have the following problems:
I can only observe one signal at a time.
I can only observe the signals at different times.
I cannot trigger my measurement with the state transition. That means, when I measure, I am always "in the middle" of a state. Therefore I don't know when this state has started and also not exactly when this state will end.
I cannot observe a certain signal for a long duration. So, i am not able to observe a complete period.
My samples (observations) are widespread in time.
I would like to get a prediction either for the state change or the current state for the current time. It is likely to happen that i will never have measured my signals for that requested time.
So far I have tested the TimeSeriesPredictor from the ML.NET Toolbox, as it seemed suitable to me. However, in my opinion, this algorithm requires that you always pass only the data of one signal. This means that assumption 5 is not included in the prediction, which is probably suboptimal. Also, in this case I had problems with the prediction not changing, which should actually happen time-dependently when I query multiple predictions. This behavior led me to believe that only the order of the values entered the model, but not the associated timestamp. If I have understood everything correctly, then exactly this timestamp is my most important "feature"...
So far, i did not do any tests on Regression-based approaches, e.g. FastTree, since my data is not linear, but keeps changing states. Maybe this assumption is not valid and regression-based methods could also be suitable?
I also don't know if a multiclassifier is required, because I had understood that the TimeSeriesPredictor would also be suitable for this, since it works with the single data type. Whether the prediction is 1.3 or exactly 1.0 would be fine for me.
To sum it up:
I am looking for a algorithm which is able to recognize the switching patterns based on lose and widespread samples. It would be okay to define boundaries, e.g. state duration 3 of signal 1 will never last longer than 30s or state duration 1 of signal 3 will never last longer 60s.
Then, after the algorithm has obtained an approximate model of the switching behaviour, i would like to request a prediction of a certain signal state for a certain time.
Which methods can I use to get the best prediction, preferably using the ML.NET toolbox or based on matlab?
Not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but if detecting spikes and changes using signals is what you're looking for, check out the anomaly detection algorithms in ML.NET. Here are two tutorials that show how to use them.
Detect anomalies in product sales
Spike detection
Change point detection
Detect anomalies in time series
Detect anomaly period
Detect anomaly
One way to approach this would be to first determine the periodicity of each of the signals independently. This could be done by looking at the frequency distribution of time differences between measurements of state 2 only and separately for each signal.
This will give a multinomial distribution. The shortest time difference will be the duration of the switching event (after discarding time differences less than the max duration of state 2). The second shortest peak will be the duration between the end of one switching event and the start of the next.
When you have the 3 calculations of periodicity you can simply calculate the difference between each of them. Given you have the timestamps of the measurements of state 2 for each signal you should be able to calculate the time of switching for all other signals.
I have two data set, let us name them "actual speed" and "desired speed". My main objective is to match actual speed with the desired speed.
But for doing that in my case, I need to tune FF(1x10), Integral(10x8) and Proportional gain table(10x8).
My approach till now was as follows:-
First, start the iteration with having 0.1 as the initial value in the first cells(FF[0]) of the FF table
Then find the R-square or Co-relation between two dataset( i.e. Actual Speed and Desired Speed)
Increment the value of first cell(FF[0]) by 0.25 and then again compute R-square or Co-relation of two data set.
Once the cell(FF[0]) value reaches 2(Gains Maximum value. Already defined by the lab). Evaluate R-square and re-write the gain value in FF[0] which gives min. error between the two curve.
Then tune the Integral and Proportional table in the same way for the same RPM Range
Once It is tune then go for higher RPM range and repeat step 2-5 (RPM Range: 800-1000; 1000-1200;....;3000-3200)
Now the problem is that this process is taking way too long time to complete. For example it takes around 1 Hr. time to tune one cell of FF. Which is actually very slow.
If possible, Please suggest any other approach which I can try to tune the tables. I am using MATLAB R2010a and I can't shift to any other version of MATLAB because my controller can communicate with this version only and I can't use any app for tuning since my GUI is already communicating with the controller and those two datasets are being made in real-time
In the given figure, lets us take (X1,Y1) curve as Desired speed and (X2,Y2) curve as Actual speed
UPDATE
In the course of testing an algorithm I computed option prices for random input values using the standard pricing function blsprice implemented in MATLAB's Financial Toolbox.
Surprisingly ( at least for me ) ,
the function seems to return negative option prices for certain combinations of input values.
As an example take the following:
> [Call,Put]=blsprice(67.6201,170.3190,0.0129,0.80,0.1277)
Call =-7.2942e-15
Put = 100.9502
If I change time to expiration to 0.79 or 0.81, the value becomes non-negative as I would expect.
Did anyone of you ever experience something similar and can come up with a short explanation why that happens?
I don't know which version of the Financial Toolbox you are using but for me (TB 2007b) it works fine.
When running:
[Call,Put]=blsprice(67.6201,170.3190,0.0129,0.80,0.1277)
I get the following:
Call = 9.3930e-016
Put = 100.9502
Which is indeed positive
Bit late but I have come across things like this before. The small negative value can be attributed to numerical rounding error and / or truncation error within the routine used to compute the cumulative normal distribution.
As you know computers are not perfect and small numerical error always persists in all calculations, in my view therefore the question one should must ask instead is - what is the accuracy of the input parameters being used and therefore what is the error tolerance for outputs.
The way I thought about it when I encountered it before was that, in finance, typical annual stock price return variance are of the order of 30% which means the mean returns are typically sampled with standard error of roughly 30% / sqrt(N) which is roughly of the order of +/- 1% assuming 2 years worth of data (so N = 260 x 2 = 520, any more data you have the other problem of stationarity assumption). Therefore on that basis the answer you got above could have been interpreted as zero given the error tolerance.
Also we typically work to penny / cent accuracy and again on that basis the answer you had could be interpreted as zero.
Just thought I'd give my 2c hope this is helpful in some ways if you are still checking for answers!
Hi I am trying to cluster using linkage(). Here is the code I am trying..
Y = pdist(data);
Z = linkage(Y);
T = cluster(Z,'maxclust',4096);
I am getting error as follows
The number of elements exceeds the maximum allowed size in
MATLAB.
Error in ==> linkage at 135
Z = linkagemex(Y,method);
data size is 56710*128. How can I apply the code on small chunks of data and then merge those clusters optimally?? Or any other solution to the problem.
Matlab probably cannot cluster this many objects with this algorithm.
Most likely they use distance matrixes in their implementation. A pairwise distance matrix for 56710 objects needs 56710*56709/2=1,607,983,695 entries, or some 12 GB of RAM; most likely also a working copy of this is needed. Chances are that the default Matlab data structures are not prepared to handle this amount of data (and you won't want to wait for the algorithm to finish either; probably that is why they "allow" only a certain amount).
Try using a subset, and see how well it scales. If you use 1000 instances, does it work? How long does the computation take? If you increase to 2000, how much longer does it take?
I am new with signal processing, i have following signals which i've got after some pre-processing on original signals.
You can see some of them has some similarities with others and some doesn't. but the problem is They have various range(in this example from 1000 to 3000).
Question
How can i analysis their properties scale-free(what i mean from properties is statistical properties of signals or whatever)??
Note that i don't want to cross-comparing the signals, i just want independent signals signatures which i can run some process on them sometime later.
Anything would help.
If you want to make a filter that separates signals that follow this pattern from signals that don't, well, there's tons of things you could do!
Just think practically. As a first shot at it, you could do something like this (in this order):
Check if the signals are all-positive
Check if the first element is close in value to the last element
Check if the maximum lies "in the middle" somewhere
Check if the first value is small, then the signal grows, then shrinks again
Check if the growth rates are gradual. You could for example analyze their derivatives (after smoothing):
a. derivative should be all-positive for a while, then all-negative.
b. derivative should be smooth (no jumps greater than some tolerance)
Without additional knowledge about the signal's nature/origin, it's going to be hard to come up with more meaningful metrics than these...