The code in question is here:
function k = whileloop(odefun,args)
...
while (sign(costheta) == originalsign)
y=y(:) + odefun(0,y(:),vars,param)*(dt); % Line 4
costheta = dot(y-normpt,normvec);
k = k + 1;
end
...
end
and to clarify, odefun is F1.m, an m-file of mine. I pass it into the function that contains this while-loop. It's something like whileloop(#F1,args). Line 4 in the code-block above is the Euler method.
The reason I'm using a while-loop is because I want to trigger upon the vector "y" crossing a plane defined by a point, "normpt", and the vector normal to the plane, "normvec".
Is there an easy change to this code that will speed it up dramatically? Should I attempt learning how to make mex files instead (for a speed increase)?
Edit:
Here is a rushed attempt at an example of what one could try to test with. I have not debugged this. It is to give you an idea:
%Save the following 3 lines in an m-file named "F1.m"
function ydot = F1(placeholder1,y,placeholder2,placeholder3)
ydot = y/10;
end
%Run the following:
dt = 1.5e-12 %I do not know about this. You will have to experiment.
y0 = [.1,.1,.1];
normpt = [3,3,3];
normvec = [1,1,1];
originalsign = sign(dot(y0-normpt,normvec));
costheta = originalsign;
y = y0;
k = 0;
while (sign(costheta) == originalsign)
y=y(:) + F1(0,y(:),0,0)*(dt); % Line 4
costheta = dot(y-normpt,normvec);
k = k + 1;
end
disp(k);
dt should be sufficiently small that it takes hundreds of thousands of iterations to trigger.
Assume I must use the Euler method. I have a stochastic differential equation with state-dependent noise if you are curious as to why I tell you to take such an assumption.
I would focus on your actual ODE integration. The fewer steps you have to take, the faster the loop will run. I would only worry about the speed of the sign check after you've optimized the actual integration method.
It looks like you're using the first-order explicit Euler method. Have you tried a higher-order integrator or an implicit method? Often you can increase the time step significantly.
Related
I need help with a problem. I written a program to calculate the value of a function using the Newton Raphson method. However, the function also has a variable i would like to iterate over, V. The program runs fine until the second iteration of the outer for loop, then the inner for loop will not run further once it reaches the Newton Raphson function. If someone has any ideas of what is wrong, I would greatly appreciate it. The error i get is: Warning: Solution does not exist because the system is inconsistent.
The code is below for detail.
for V = 1:50;
syms x;
f(V)= Il-x-Is.*(exp((q.*(V+x.*Rs))./(1000.*y.*K.*T))-1)-((V+x.*Rs)./Rsh);
g(V)=diff(f(V));
x0 = 0;
i = 1;
for i=1:10
f0=vpa(subs(f,x,x0));
f0_der=vpa(subs(g,x,x0));
y=x0-f0/f0_der; % Newton Raphson
x0=y;
end
end
Assuming you have a function defined like
func = #(x,V) V+x+exp(x);
There are plenty of options that avoid expensive symbolic calculations.
Firstly, making a vector of values of x0 using fzero and a for loop:
for V = 1:50
x0(V) = fzero(#(x) func(x,V),0);
end
Secondly, the same thing again but written as an anonymous function, so you can call x0(1.5) or x0(1:50):
x0 = #(V) arrayfun(#(s) fzero(#(x) func(x,s),0),V);
Finally, if you want to use ten steps of Newton's method and calculate the derivative symbolically (although this is not a great method),
syms y Vsym
g = matlabFunction(diff(func(y,Vsym),y),'Vars',[y Vsym]);
for V = 1:50
x0(V) = 0;
for i = 1:10
x0(V) = x0(V)-func(x0(V),V)/g(x0(V),V); % Newton Raphson
end
end
Which at least will be more efficient in the loops because it's just using anonymous functions.
I have 100 equations with 5 variables. Is there a function in Matlab which I can use to find the optimal solution of these equations?
My problem is to find argmin ||(a-ic)^2 + (b-jd)^2 + e - h(i,j)|| over all i, j from -10 to 10. ie.
%% Note: not Matlab code. Just showing the Math.
for i = -10:10
for j = -10:10
(a-ic)^2 + (b-jd)^2 + e = h(i,j)
known: h(i,j) is a 10*10 matrix,and i,j are indexes
expected: the optimal result of a,b,c,d,e
You can try using lsqnonlin as follows.
%% define a helper function in your .m file
function f = fun(x)
a=x(1); b=x(2); c=x(3); d=x(4); e=x(5); % Using variable names from your question. In other situations, be careful when overwriting e.
f=zeros(21*21,0); % size(f) is taken from your question. You should make this a variable for good practice.
for i = -10:10
for j = -10:10
f(10*(i+10+1)+(j+10+1)) = (a-i*c)^2 + (b-j*d)^2 + e - h(i,j); % 10 is taken from your question.
end
end
end
(Aside, why is your h(i,j) taking negative indices??)
In your main function you can simply write
function out=myproblem(x0)
out=lsqnonlin(#fun,x0);
end
In your cmd, you can call with specific initial try such as
myproblem([0,0,0,0,0])
Helper function over anonymous because in my experience helpers get sped up by JIT while anonymous do not. I also opted to reshape in the loops as an opposed to actually call reshape after because I expect reshape to cost significant extra time. Remember that O(1) in fun is not O(1) in lsqnonlin.
(As always, a solution to a nonlinear problem is not guaranteed.)
I am currently working on an assignment where I need to create two different controllers in Matlab/Simulink for a robotic exoskeleton leg. The idea behind this is to compare both of them and see which controller is better at assisting a human wearing it. I am having a lot of trouble putting specific equations into a Matlab function block to then run in Simulink to get results for an AFO (adaptive frequency oscillator). The link has the equations I'm trying to put in and the following is the code I have so far:
function [pos_AFO, vel_AFO, acc_AFO, offset, omega, phi, ampl, phi1] = LHip(theta, eps, nu, dt, AFO_on)
t = 0;
% syms j
% M = 6;
% j = sym('j', [1 M]);
if t == 0
omega = 3*pi/2;
theta = 0;
phi = pi/2;
ampl = 0;
else
omega = omega*(t-1) + dt*(eps*offset*cos(phi1));
theta = theta*(t-1) + dt*(nu*offset);
phi = phi*(t-1) + dt*(omega + eps*offset*cos(phi*core(t-1)));
phi1 = phi*(t-1) + dt*(omega + eps*offset*cos(phi*core(t-1)));
ampl = ampl*(t-1) + dt*(nu*offset*sin(phi));
offset = theta - theta*(t-1) - sym(ampl*sin(phi), [1 M]);
end
pos_AFO = (theta*(t-1) + symsum(ampl*(t-1)*sin(phi* (t-1))))*AFO_on; %symsum needs input argument for index M and range
vel_AFO = diff(pos_AFO)*AFO_on;
acc_AFO = diff(vel_AFO)*AFO_on;
end
https://www.pastepic.xyz/image/pg4mP
Essentially, I don't know how to do the subscripts, sigma, or the (t+1) function. Any help is appreciated as this is due next week
You are looking to find the result of an adaptive process therefore your algorithm needs to consider time as it progresses. There is no (t-1) operator as such. It is just a mathematical notation telling you that you need to reuse an old value to calculate a new value.
omega_old=0;
theta_old=0;
% initialize the rest of your variables
for [t=1:N]
omega[t] = omega_old + % here is the rest of your omega calculation
theta[t] = theta_old + % ...
% more code .....
% remember your old values for next iteration
omega_old = omega[t];
theta_old = theta[t];
end
I think you forgot to apply the modulo operation to phi judging by the original formula you linked. As a general rule, design your code in small pieces, make sure the output of each piece makes sense and then combine all pieces and make sure the overall result is correct.
This post builds on my post about quickly evaluating analytic Jacobian in Matlab:
fast evaluation of analytical jacobian in MATLAB
The key difference is that now, I am working with the Hessian and I have to evaluate close to 700 matlabFunctions (instead of 1 matlabFunction, like I did for the Jacobian) each time the hessian is evaluated. So there is an opportunity to do things a little differently.
I have tried to do this two ways so far and I am thinking about implementing a third and was wondering if anyone has any other suggestions. I will go through each method with a toy example, but first some preprocessing to generate these matlabFunctions:
PreProcessing:
% This part of the code is calculated once, it is not the issue
dvs = 5;
X=sym('X',[dvs,1]);
num = dvs - 1; % number of constraints
% multiple functions
for k = 1:num
f1(X(k+1),X(k)) = (X(k+1)^3 - X(k)^2*k^2);
c(k) = f1;
end
gradc = jacobian(c,X).'; % .' performs transpose
parfor k = 1:num
hessc{k} = jacobian(gradc(:,k),X);
end
parfor k = 1:num
hess_name = strcat('hessian_',num2str(k));
matlabFunction(hessc{k},'file',hess_name,'vars',X);
end
METHOD #1 : Evaluate functions in series
%% Now we use the functions to run an "optimization." Just for an example the "optimization" is just a for loop
fprintf('This is test A, where the functions are evaluated in series!\n');
tic
for q = 1:10
x_dv = rand(dvs,1); % these are the design variables
lambda = rand(num,1); % these are the lagrange multipliers
x_dv_cell = num2cell(x_dv); % for passing large design variables
for k = 1:num
hess_name = strcat('hessian_',num2str(k));
function_handle = str2func(hess_name);
H_temp(:,:,k) = lambda(k)*function_handle(x_dv_cell{:});
end
H = sum(H_temp,3);
end
fprintf('The time for test A was:\n')
toc
METHOD # 2: Evaluate functions in parallel
%% Try to run a parfor loop
fprintf('This is test B, where the functions are evaluated in parallel!\n');
tic
for q = 1:10
x_dv = rand(dvs,1); % these are the design variables
lambda = rand(num,1); % these are the lagrange multipliers
x_dv_cell = num2cell(x_dv); % for passing large design variables
parfor k = 1:num
hess_name = strcat('hessian_',num2str(k));
function_handle = str2func(hess_name);
H_temp(:,:,k) = lambda(k)*function_handle(x_dv_cell{:});
end
H = sum(H_temp,3);
end
fprintf('The time for test B was:\n')
toc
RESULTS:
METHOD #1 = 0.008691 seconds
METHOD #2 = 0.464786 seconds
DISCUSSION of RESULTS
This result makes sense because, the functions evaluate very quickly and running them in parallel waists a lot of time setting up and sending out the jobs to the different Matlabs ( and then getting the data back from them). I see the same result on my actual problem.
METHOD # 3: Evaluating the functions using the GPU
I have not tried this yet, but I am interested to see what the performance difference is. I am not yet familiar with doing this in Matlab and will add it once I am done.
Any other thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
I'm running a set of ODEs with ode45 in MATLAB and I need to save one of the variables (that's not the derivative) for later use. I'm using the function 'assignin' to assign a temporary variable in the base workspace and updating it at each step. This seems to work, however, the size of the array does not match the size of the solution vector acquired from ode45. For example, I have the following nested function:
function [Z,Y] = droplet_momentum(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0)
options = odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);
[Z,Y] = ode45(#momentum,zspan,Y0,options);
function DY = momentum(z,y)
DY = zeros(4,1);
%Entrained Total Velocity
Ve = sin(theta)*(y(4));
%Total Relative Velocity
Urs = sqrt((y(1) - y(4))^2 + (y(2) - Ve*cos(theta))^2 + (y(3))^2);
%Coefficients
PSI = K*Urs/y(1);
PHI = P*Urs/y(1);
%Liquid Axial Velocity
DY(1) = PSI*sign(y(1) - y(4))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(1) - y(4))*G)^(2/3));
%Liquid Radial Velocity
DY(2) = PSI*sign(y(2) - Ve*cos(theta))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(2) - ...
Ve*cos(theta))*G)^(2/3));
%Liquid Tangential Velocity
DY(3) = PSI*sign(y(3))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(3))*G)^(2/3));
%Gaseous Axial Velocity
DY(4) = (1/z/y(4))*((PHI/z)*sign(y(1) - y(4))*(1 + ...
(1/6)*(abs(y(1) - y(4))*G)^(2/3)) + Ve*Ve - y(4)*y(4));
assignin('base','Ve_step',Ve);
evalin('base','Ve_out(end+1) = Ve_step');
end
end
In the above code, theta (radians), K (negative value), P, & G are constants and for the sake of this example can be taken as any value. Zspan is just the integration time step for the ODE solver and Y0 is the initial conditions vector (4x1). Again, for the sake of this example these can take any reasonable value. Now in the main file, the function is called with the following:
Ve_out = 0;
[Z,Y] = droplet_momentum(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0);
Ve_out = Ve_out(2:end);
This method works without complaint from MATLAB, but the problem is that the size of Ve_out is not the same as the size of Z or Y. The reason for this is because MATLAB calls the ODE function multiple times for its algorithm, so the solution is going to be slightly smaller than Ve_out. As am304 suggested, I could just simply calculated DY by giving the ode function a Z and Y vector such as DY = momentum(Z,Y), however, I need to get this working with 'assignin' (or similar method) because another version of this problem has an implicit dependence between DY and Ve and it would be too computationally expensive to calculate DY at every iteration (I will be running this problem for many iterations).
Ok, so let's start off with a quick example of an SSCCE:
function [Z,Y] = khan
options = odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);
[Z,Y] = ode45(#momentum,[0 12],[0 0],options);
end
function Dy = momentum(z,y)
Dy = [0 0]';
Dy(1) = 3*y(1) + 2* y(2) - 2;
Dy(2) = y(1) - y(2);
Ve = Dy(1)+ y(2);
assignin('base','Ve_step',Ve);
evalin('base','Ve_out(end+1) = Ve_step;');
assignin('base','T_step',z);
evalin('base','T_out(end+1) = T_step;');
end
By running [Z,Y] = khan as the command line, I get a complete functional code that demonstrates your problem, without all the headaches associated. My patience for this has been exhausted: live and learn.
This seems to work, however, the size of the array does not match the
size of the solution vector acquired from ode45
Note that I added two lines to your code which extracts time variable. From the command prompt, one simply has to run the following to understand what's going on:
Ve_out = [];
T_out = [];
[Z,Y] = khan;
size (Z)
size (T_out)
size (Ve_out)
plot (diff(T_out))
ans =
109 1
ans =
1 163
ans =
1 163
Basically ode45 is an iterative algorithm, which means it will regularly course correct (that's why you regularly see diff(T) = 0). You can't force the algorithm to do what you want, you have to live with it.
So your options are
1. Use a fixed step algorithm
2. Have a function call that reproduces what you want after the ode45 algorithm has done its dirty work. (am304's solution)
3. Collects the data with the time function, then have an algorithm parse through everything to removes the extra data.
Can you not do something like that? Obviously check the sizes of the matrices/vectors are correct and amend the code accordingly.
[Z,Y] = droplet_momentum2(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0);
DY = momentum(Z,Y);
Ve = sin(theta)*(0.5*z*DY(4) + y(4));
i.e. once the ODE is solved, computed the derivative DY as a function of Z and Y (which have just been solved by the ODE) and finally Ve.