I would like to use a for loop within a for loop (I think) to produce a number of vectors which I can use separately to use polyfit with.
I have a 768x768 matrix and I have split this into 768 separate cell vectors. However I want to split each 1x768 matrix into sections of 16 points - i.e. 48 new vectors which are 16 values in length. I want then to do some curve fitting with this information.
I want to name each of the 48 vectors something different however I want to do this for each of the 768 columns. I can easily do this for either separately but I was hoping that there was a way to combine them. I tried to do this as a for statement within a for statement however it doesn't work, I wondered if anyone could give me some hints on how to produce what I want. I have attached the code.
Qne is my 768*768 matrix with all the points.
N1=768;
x=cell(N,1);
for ii=1:N1;
x{ii}=Qnew(1:N1,ii);
end
for iii = 1:768;
x2{iii}=x{iii};
for iv = 1:39
N2=20;
x3{iii}=x2{iii}(1,(1+N2*iv:N2+N2*iv));
%Gx{iv}=(x3{iv});
end
end
Use a normal 2D matrix for your inner split. Why? It's easy to reshape, and many of the fitting operations you'll likely use will operate on columns of a matrix already.
for ii=1:N1
x{ii} = reshape(Qnew(:, ii), 16, 48);
end
Now x{ii} is a 2D matrix, size 16x48. If you want to address the jj'th split window separately, you can say x{ii}(:, jj). But often you won't have to. If, for example, you want the mean of each window, you can just say mean(x{ii}), which will take the mean of each column, and give you a 48-element row vector back out.
Extra reference for the unasked question: If you ever want overlapping windows of a vector instead of abutting, see buffer in the signal processing toolbox.
Editing my answer:
Going one step further, a 3D matrix is probably the best representation for equal-sized vectors. Remembering that reshape() reads out columnwise, and fills the new matrix columnwise, this can be done with a single reshape:
x = reshape(Qnew, 16, 48, N1);
x is now a 16x48x768 3D array, and the jj'th window of the ii'th vector is now x(:, jj, ii).
Related
I'm currently working on implementing a gradient check function in which it requires to get certain index values from the result matrix. Could someone tell me how to get a group of values from the matrix?
To be specific, for a result matrx res with size M x N, I'll need to get element res(3,1), res(4,2), res(1,3), res(2,4)...
In my case, M is dimension and N is batch size and there's a label array whose size is 1xbatch_size, [3 4 1 2...]. So the desired values are res(label(:),1:batch_size). Since I'm trying to practice vectorization programming and it's better not using loop. Could someone tell me how to get a group of value without a iteration?
Cheers.
--------------------------UPDATE----------------------------------------------
The only idea I found is firstly building a 'mask matrix' then use the original result matrix to do element wise multiplication (technically called 'Hadamard product', see in wiki). After that just get non-zero element out and do the sum operation, the code in matlab should look like:
temp=Mask.*res;
desired_res=temp(temp~=0); %Note: the temp(temp~=0) extract non-zero elements in a 'column' fashion: it searches temp matrix column by column then put the non-zero number into container 'desired_res'.
In my case, what I wanna do next is simply sum(desired_res) so I don't need to consider the order of those non-zero elements in 'desired_res'.
Based on this idea above, creating mask matrix is the key aim. There are two methods to do this job.
Codes are shown below. In my case, use accumarray function to add '1' in certain location (which are stored in matrix 'subs') and add '0' to other space. This will give you a mask matrix size [rwo column]. The usage of full(sparse()) is similar. I made some comparisons on those two methods (repeat around 10 times), turns out full(sparse) is faster and their time costs magnitude is 10^-4. So small difference but in a large scale experiments, this matters. One benefit of using accumarray is that it could define the matrix size while full(sparse()) cannot. The full(sparse(subs, 1)) would create matrix with size [max(subs(:,1)), max(subs(:,2))]. Since in my case, this is sufficient for my requirement and I only know few of their usage. If you find out more, please share with us. Thanks.
The detailed description of those two functions could be found on matlab's official website. accumarray and full, sparse.
% assume we have a label vector
test_labels=ones(10000,1);
% method one, accumarray(subs,1,[row column])
tic
subs=zeros(10000,2);
subs(:,1)=test_labels;
subs(:,2)=1:10000;
k1=accumarray(subs,1,[10, 10000]);
t1=toc % to compare with method two to check which one is faster
%method two: full(sparse(),1)
tic
k2=full(sparse(test_labels,1:10000,1));
t2=toc
I'm working with a fairly large 3D matrix (32x87x378), and I want to be able to extract every Nth element of a matrix, while keeping them in the same order. Similar to a previous question I asked: Matlab: Extracting Nth element of a matrix, while maintaining the original order of matrix
The method I was given was quite practical (and simple) and works well in most instances. For a random (1x20) matrix, where I wanted every 5th value, beginning with 4 and 5 (so that I am left with a 1x8 matrix (ab) of elements 4,5,9,10,14,15,19,20). It is done as follows:
r = rand(1,20);
n = 5;
ab = r(sort([4:n:numel(r) 5:n:numel(r)]))
My question is, how can this method be used for a 3D matrix r for it's 3rd dimension (or can it?), such as this:
r = rand(2,5,20);
It should be fairly simple, such as this:
n = 5;
ab = r(sort([4:n:numel(r) 5:n:numel(r)],3));
However, this will then give me a 1x80 matrix, as it does not preserve the original dimensions. Is there a way to correct this using the sort function? I'm also open to other suggestions, but I just want to be sure I am not missing anything.
Thanks in advance.
See if this is what you are after -
ab = r(:,:,sort([4:n:size(r,3) 5:n:size(r,3)]))
I've organized some data into a nested structure that includes several subjects, 4-5 trials per subject, then identifying data like height, joint torque over a gait cycle, etc. So, for example:
subject(2).trial(4).torque
gives a matrix of joint torques for the 4th trial of subject 2, where the torque matrix columns represent degrees of freedom (hip, knee, etc.) and the rows represent time increments from 0 through 100% of a stride. What I want to do is take the mean of 5 trials for each degree of freedom and use that to represent the subject (for that degree of freedom). When I try to do it like this for the 1st degree of freedom:
for i = 2:24
numTrialsThisSubject = size(subject(i).trial, 2);
subject(i).torque = mean(subject(i).trial(1:numTrialsThisSubject).torque(:,1), 2);
end
I get this error:
??? Scalar index required for this type of multi-level indexing.
I know I can use a nested for loop to loop through the trials, store them in a temp matrix, then take the mean of the temp columns, but I'd like to avoid creating another variable for the temp matrix if I can. Is this possible?
You can use a combination of deal() and cell2mat().
Try this (use the built-in debugger to run through the code to see how it works):
for subject_k = 2:24
% create temporary cell array for holding the matrices:
temp_torques = cell(length(subject(subject_k).trial), 1);
% deal the matrices from all the trials (copy to temp_torques):
[temp_torques{:}] = deal(subject(subject_k).trial.torque);
% convert to a matrix and concatenate all matrices over rows:
temp_torques = cell2mat(temp_torques);
% calculate mean of degree of freedom number 1 for all trials:
subject(subject_k).torque = mean(temp_torques(:,1));
end
Notice that I use subject_k for the subject counter variable. Be careful with using i and j in MATLAB as names of variables, as they are already defined as 0 + 1.000i (complex number).
As mentioned above in my comment, adding another loop and temp variable turned out to be the simplest execution.
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'm currently working in an area that is related to simulation and trying to design a data structure that can include random variables within matrices. To motivate this let me say I have the following matrix:
[a b; c d]
I want to find a data structure that will allow for a, b, c, d to either be real numbers or random variables. As an example, let's say that a = 1, b = -1, c = 2 but let d be a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
The data structure that I have in mind will give no value to d. However, I also want to be able to design a function that can take in the structure, simulate a uniform(0,1), obtain a value for d using an inverse CDF and then spit out an actual matrix.
I have several ideas to do this (all related to the MATLAB icdf function) but would like to know how more experienced programmers would do this. In this application, it's important that the structure is as "lean" as possible since I will be working with very very large matrices and memory will be an issue.
EDIT #1:
Thank you all for the feedback. I have decided to use a cell structure and store random variables as function handles. To save some processing time for large scale applications, I have decided to reference the location of the random variables to save time during the "evaluation" part.
One solution is to create your matrix initially as a cell array containing both numeric values and function handles to functions designed to generate a value for that entry. For your example, you could do the following:
generatorMatrix = {1 -1; 2 #randn};
Then you could create a function that takes a matrix of the above form, evaluates the cells containing function handles, then combines the results with the numeric cell entries to create a numeric matrix to use for further calculations:
function numMatrix = create_matrix(generatorMatrix)
index = cellfun(#(c) isa(c,'function_handle'),... %# Find function handles
generatorMatrix);
generatorMatrix(index) = cellfun(#feval,... %# Evaluate functions
generatorMatrix(index),...
'UniformOutput',false);
numMatrix = cell2mat(generatorMatrix); %# Change from cell to numeric matrix
end
Some additional things you can do would be to use anonymous functions to do more complicated things with built-in functions or create cell entries of varying size. This is illustrated by the following sample matrix, which can be used to create a matrix with the first row containing a 5 followed by 9 ones and the other 9 rows containing a 1 followed by 9 numbers drawn from a uniform distribution between 5 and 10:
generatorMatrix = {5 ones(1,9); ones(9,1) #() 5*rand(9)+5};
And each time this matrix is passed to create_matrix it will create a new 10-by-10 matrix where the 9-by-9 submatrix will contain a different set of random values.
An alternative solution...
If your matrix can be easily broken into blocks of submatrices (as in the second example above) then using a cell array to store numeric values and function handles may be your best option.
However, if the random values are single elements scattered sparsely throughout the entire matrix, then a variation similar to what user57368 suggested may work better. You could store your matrix data in three parts: a numeric matrix with placeholders (such as NaN) where the randomly-generated values will go, an index vector containing linear indices of the positions of the randomly-generated values, and a cell array of the same length as the index vector containing function handles for the functions to be used to generate the random values. To make things easier, you can even store these three pieces of data in a structure.
As an example, the following defines a 3-by-3 matrix with 3 random values stored in indices 2, 4, and 9 and drawn respectively from a normal distribution, a uniform distribution from 5 to 10, and an exponential distribution:
matData = struct('numMatrix',[1 nan 3; nan 2 4; 0 5 nan],...
'randIndex',[2 4 9],...
'randFcns',{{#randn , #() 5*rand+5 , #() -log(rand)/2}});
And you can define a new create_matrix function to easily create a matrix from this data:
function numMatrix = create_matrix(matData)
numMatrix = matData.numMatrix;
numMatrix(matData.randIndex) = cellfun(#feval,matData.randFcns);
end
If you were using NumPy, then masked arrays would be the obvious place to start, but I don't know of any equivalent in MATLAB. Cell arrays might not be compact enough, and if you did use a cell array, then you would have to come up with an efficient way to find the non-real entries and replace them with a sample from the right distribution.
Try using a regular or sparse matrix to hold the real values, and leave it at zero wherever you want a random variable. Then alongside that store a sparse matrix of the same shape whose non-zero entries correspond to the random variables in your matrix. If you want, the value of the entry in the second matrix can be used to indicate which distribution (ie. 1 for uniform, 2 for normal, etc.).
Whenever you want to get a purely real matrix to work with, you iterate over the non-zero values in the second matrix to convert them to samples, and then add that matrix to your first.