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);
I would like to partition a number into an almost equal number of values in each partition. The only criteria is that each partition must be in between 60 to 80.
For example, if I have a value = 300, this means that 75 * 4 = 300.
I would like to know a method to get this 4 and 75 in the above example. In some cases, all partitions don't need to be of equal value, but they should be in between 60 and 80. Any constraints can be used (addition, subtraction, etc..). However, the outputs must not be floating point.
Also it's not that the total must be exactly 300 as in this case, but they can be up to a maximum of +40 of the total, and so for the case of 300, the numbers can sum up to 340 if required.
Assuming only addition, you can formulate this problem into a linear programming problem. You would choose an objective function that would maximize the sum of all of the factors chosen to generate that number for you. Therefore, your objective function would be:
(source: codecogs.com)
.
In this case, n would be the number of factors you are using to try and decompose your number into. Each x_i is a particular factor in the overall sum of the value you want to decompose. I'm also going to assume that none of the factors can be floating point, and can only be integer. As such, you need to use a special case of linear programming called integer programming where the constraints and the actual solution to your problem are all in integers. In general, the integer programming problem is formulated thusly:
You are actually trying to minimize this objective function, such that you produce a parameter vector of x that are subject to all of these constraints. In our case, x would be a vector of numbers where each element forms part of the sum to the value you are trying to decompose (300 in your case).
You have inequalities, equalities and also boundaries of x that each parameter in your solution must respect. You also need to make sure that each parameter of x is an integer. As such, MATLAB has a function called intlinprog that will perform this for you. However, this function assumes that you are minimizing the objective function, and so if you want to maximize, simply minimize on the negative. f is a vector of weights to be applied to each value in your parameter vector, and with our objective function, you just need to set all of these to -1.
Therefore, to formulate your problem in an integer programming framework, you are actually doing:
(source: codecogs.com)
V would be the value you are trying to decompose (so 300 in your example).
The standard way to call intlinprog is in the following way:
x = intlinprog(f,intcon,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub);
f is the vector that weights each parameter of the solution you want to solve, intcon denotes which of your parameters need to be integer. In this case, you want all of them to be integer so you would have to supply an increasing vector from 1 to n, where n is the number of factors you want to decompose the number V into (same as before). A and b are matrices and vectors that define your inequality constraints. Because you want equality, you'd set this to empty ([]). Aeq and beq are the same as A and b, but for equality. Because you only have one constraint here, you would simply create a matrix of 1 row, where each value is set to 1. beq would be a single value which denotes the number you are trying to factorize. lb and ub are the lower and upper bounds for each value in the parameter set that you are bounding with, so this would be 60 and 80 respectively, and you'd have to specify a vector to ensure that each value of the parameters are bounded between these two ranges.
Now, because you don't know how many factors will evenly decompose your value, you'll have to loop over a given set of factors (like between 1 to 10, or 1 to 20, etc.), place your results in a cell array, then you have to manually examine yourself whether or not an integer decomposition was successful.
num_factors = 20; %// Number of factors to try and decompose your value
V = 300;
results = cell(1, num_factors);
%// Try to solve the problem for a number of different factors
for n = 1 : num_factors
x = intlinprog(-ones(n,1),1:n,[],[],ones(1,n),V,60*ones(n,1),80*ones(n,1));
results{n} = x;
end
You can then go through results and see which value of n was successful in decomposing your number into that said number of factors.
One small problem here is that we also don't know how many factors we should check up to. That unfortunately I don't have an answer to, and so you'll have to play with this value until you get good results. This is also an unconstrained parameter, and I'll talk about this more later in this post.
However, intlinprog was only released in recent versions of MATLAB. If you want to do the same thing without it, you can use linprog, which is the floating point version of integer programming... actually, it's just the core linear programming framework itself. You would call linprog this way:
x = linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub);
All of the variables are the same, except that intcon is not used here... which makes sense as linprog may generate floating point numbers as part of its solution. Due to the fact that linprog can generate floating point solutions, what you can do is if you want to ensure that for a given value of n, you could loop over your results, take the floor of the result and subtract with the final result, and sum over the result. If you get a value of 0, this means that you had a completely integer result. Therefore, you'd have to do something like:
num_factors = 20; %// Number of factors to try and decompose your value
V = 300;
results = cell(1, num_factors);
%// Try to solve the problem for a number of different factors
for n = 1 : num_factors
x = linprog(-ones(n,1),[],[],ones(1,n),V,60*ones(n,1),80*ones(n,1));
results{n} = x;
end
%// Loop through and determine which decompositions were successful integer ones
out = cellfun(#(x) sum(abs(floor(x) - x)), results);
%// Determine which values of n were successful in the integer composition.
final_factors = find(~out);
final_factors will contain which number of factors you specified that was successful in an integer decomposition. Now, if final_factors is empty, this means that it wasn't successful in finding anything that would be able to decompose the value into integer factors. Noting your problem description, you said you can allow for tolerances, so perhaps scan through results and determine which overall sum best matches the value, then choose whatever number of factors that gave you that result as the final answer.
Now, noting from my comments, you'll see that this problem is very unconstrained. You don't know how many factors are required to get an integer decomposition of your value, which is why we had to semi-brute-force it. In fact, this is a more general case of the subset sum problem. This problem is NP-complete. Basically, what this means is that it is not known whether there is a polynomial-time algorithm that can be used to solve this kind of problem and that the only way to get a valid solution is to brute-force each possible solution and check if it works with the specified problem. Usually, brute-forcing solutions requires exponential time, which is very intractable for large problems. Another interesting fact is that modern cryptography algorithms use NP-Complete intractability as part of their ciphertext and encrypting. Basically, they're banking on the fact that the only way for you to determine the right key that was used to encrypt your plain text is to check all possible keys, which is an intractable problem... especially if you use 128-bit encryption! This means you would have to check 2^128 possibilities, and assuming a moderately fast computer, the worst-case time to find the right key will take more than the current age of the universe. Check out this cool Wikipedia post for more details in intractability with regards to key breaking in cryptography.
In fact, NP-complete problems are very popular and there have been many attempts to determine whether there is or there isn't a polynomial-time algorithm to solve such problems. An interesting property is that if you can find a polynomial-time algorithm that will solve one problem, you will have found an algorithm to solve them all.
The Clay Mathematics Institute has what are known as Millennium Problems where if you solve any problem listed on their website, you get a million dollars.
Also, that's for each problem, so one problem solved == 1 million dollars!
(source: quickmeme.com)
The NP problem is amongst one of the seven problems up for solving. If I recall correctly, only one problem has been solved so far, and these problems were first released to the public in the year 2000 (hence millennium...). So... it has been about 14 years and only one problem has been solved. Don't let that discourage you though! If you want to invest some time and try to solve one of the problems, please do!
Hopefully this will be enough to get you started. Good luck!
as i know to get zero mean vector from given vector,we should substract mean of given vector from each memeber of this vector.for example let us see following example
r=rand(1,6)
we get
0.8687 0.0844 0.3998 0.2599 0.8001 0.4314
let us create another vector s by following operation
s=r-mean(r(:));
after this we get
0.3947 -0.3896 -0.0743 -0.2142 0.3260 -0.0426
if we calculate mean of s by following formula
mean(s)
we get
ans =
-5.5511e-017
actually as i have checked this number is very small
-5.5511*exp(-017)
ans =
-2.2981e-007
so we should think that our vector has mean zero?so it means that that small deviation from 0 is because of round off error?for exmaple when we are creating white noise or such kind off random uncorrelated sequence of data,actually it is already supposed that even for such small data far from 0,it has zero mean and it is supposed in this case that for example for this case
-5.5511e-017 =0 ?
approximately of course
e-017 means 10 to the power of -17 (10^-17) but still the number is very small and hypothetically it is 0. And if you type
format long;
you will see the real precision used by Matlab
Actually you can refer to the eps command. Although matlab uses double that can encode numbers down to 2.2251e-308 the precission is determined size of the number.
Use it in the format eps(number) - it tell you the how large is the influence of the least significant bit.
on my machine eg. eps(0.3) returns 5.5511e-17 - exactly the number you report.
I am having an issue with viewing double data in matlab console. Actually, I am importing a matrix from my data file. The value of a particular row and column was 1.543 but in the console when I use disp(x) where x is the matrix imported, it is showing as 1.0e+03 * 0.0002. However, when I try to access that particular element in the matrix using disp(x(25,25)) where 25 and 25 are the row and column numbers it is showing to be 1.543. So I am confused. Any clarifications. It is just that when I print the whole matrix it is showing as 1.0e+03 * 0.0002.
The following command should fix it. It is only a display issue, the precision of the actual values in the matrix are not affected:
format shortG
That happens due to high dynamic range of your data.
Try for example :
x = [10^-10 10^10];
disp(x);
The result is:
1.0e+010 *
0.0000 1.0000
It looks like the first value is zero, but it isn't. It is almost zero compared to the second one. That is not surprising. Try to add to the big value the small one, and subtract, and you get zero. That is due to floating point arithmetic.The following expression is true
isequal( (x(1)+x(2)) - x(2) , 0)
What can be done?
1) A really high dynamic range can cause troubles in any kind of computations. Try to understand where it came from, and solve the problem in a broader context.
2). You can try to set
format long
It can improve the situation visually for some of the cases.
I have two arrays of data that I'm trying to amalgamate. One contains actual latencies from an experiment in the first column (e.g. 0.345, 0.455... never more than 3 decimal places), along with other data from that experiment. The other contains what is effectively a 'look up' list of latencies ranging from 0.001 to 0.500 in 0.001 increments, along with other pieces of data. Both data sets are X-by-Y doubles.
What I'm trying to do is something like...
for i = 1:length(actual_latency)
row = find(predicted_data(:,1) == actual_latency(i))
full_set(i,1:4) = [actual_latency(i) other_info(i) predicted_info(row,2) ...
predicted_info(row,3)];
end
...in order to find the relevant row in predicted_data where the look up latency corresponds to the actual latency. I then use this to created an amalgamated data set, full_set.
I figured this would be really simple, but the find function keeps failing by throwing up an empty matrix when looking for an actual latency that I know is in predicted_data(:,1) (as I've double-checked during debugging).
Moreover, if I replace find with a for loop to do the same job, I get a similar error. It doesn't appear to be systematic - using different participant data sets throws it up in different places.
Furthermore, during debugging mode, if I use find to try and find a hard-coded value of actual_latency, it doesn't always work. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I'm really scratching my head over this, so if anyone has any ideas about what might be going on, I'd be really grateful.
You are likely running into a problem with floating point comparisons when you do the following:
predicted_data(:,1) == actual_latency(i)
Even though your numbers appear to only have three decimal places of precision, they may still differ by very small amounts that are not being displayed, thus giving you an empty matrix since FIND can't get an exact match.
One feature of floating point numbers is that certain numbers can't be exactly represented, since they aren't an integer power of 2. This occurs with the numbers 0.1 and 0.001. If you repeatedly add or multiply one of these numbers you can see some unexpected behavior. Amro pointed out one example in his comment: 0.3 is not exactly equal to 3*0.1. This can also be illustrated by creating your look-up list of latencies in two different ways. You can use the normal colon syntax:
vec1 = 0.001:0.001:0.5;
Or you can use LINSPACE:
vec2 = linspace(0.001,0.5,500);
You'd think these two vectors would be equal to one another, but think again!:
>> isequal(vec1,vec2)
ans =
0 %# FALSE!
This is because the two methods create the vectors by performing successive additions or multiplications of 0.001 in different ways, giving ever so slightly different values for some entries in the vector. You can take a look at this technical solution for more details.
When comparing floating point numbers, you should therefore do your comparisons using some tolerance. For example, this finds the indices of entries in the look-up list that are within 0.0001 of your actual latency:
tolerance = 0.0001;
for i = 1:length(actual_latency)
row = find(abs(predicted_data(:,1) - actual_latency(i)) < tolerance);
...
The topic of floating point comparison is also covered in this related question.
You may try to do the following:
row = find(abs(predicted_data(:,1) - actual_latency(i))) < eps)
EPS is accuracy of floating-point operation.
Have you tried using a tolerance rather than == ?