I am asked to write an fft mix radix in matlab, but before that I want to let to do a discrete Fourier transform in a straight forward way. So I decide to write the code according to the formula defined as defined in wikipedia.
[Sorry I'm not allowed to post images yet]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Fourier_transform
So I wrote my code as follows:
%Brutal Force Descrete Fourier Trnasform
function [] = dft(X)
%Get the size of A
NN=size(X);
N=NN(2);
%====================
%Declaring an array to store the output variable
Y = zeros (1, N)
%=========================================
for k = 0 : (N-1)
st = 0; %the dummy in the summation is zero before we add
for n = 0 : (N-1)
t = X(n+1)*exp(-1i*2*pi*k*n/N);
st = st + t;
end
Y(k+1) = st;
end
Y
%=============================================
However, my code seems to be outputting a result different from the ones from this website:
http://www.random-science-tools.com/maths/FFT.htm
Can you please help me detect where exactly is the problem?
Thank you!
============
Never mind it seems that my code is correct....
By default the calculator in the web link applies a window function to the data before doing the FFT. Could that be the reason for the difference? You can turn windowing off from the drop down menu.
BTW there is an FFT function in Matlab
Related
Background: I am working on a problem similar to the nonlinear logistic regression described in the link [1] (my problem is more complicated, but link [1] is enough for the next sections of this post). Comparing my results with those obtained in parallel with a R package, I got similar results for the coefficients, but (very approximately) an opposite logLikelihood.
Hypothesis: The logLikelihood given by fitnlm in Matlab is in fact the negative LogLikelihood. (Note that this impairs consequently the BIC and AIC computation by Matlab)
Reasonning: in [1], the same problem is solved through two different approaches. ML-approach/ By defining the negative LogLikelihood and making an optimization with fminsearch. GLS-approach/ By using fitnlm.
The negative LogLikelihood after the ML-approach is:380
The negative LogLikelihood after the GLS-approach is:-406
I imagine the second one should be at least multiplied by (-1)?
Questions: Did I miss something? Is the (-1) coefficient enough, or would this simple correction not be enough?
Self-contained code:
%copy-pasting code from [1]
myf = #(beta,x) beta(1)*x./(beta(2) + x);
mymodelfun = #(beta,x) 1./(1 + exp(-myf(beta,x)));
rng(300,'twister');
x = linspace(-1,1,200)';
beta = [10;2];
beta0=[3;3];
mu = mymodelfun(beta,x);
n = 50;
z = binornd(n,mu);
y = z./n;
%ML Approach
mynegloglik = #(beta) -sum(log(binopdf(z,n,mymodelfun(beta,x))));
opts = optimset('fminsearch');
opts.MaxFunEvals = Inf;
opts.MaxIter = 10000;
betaHatML = fminsearch(mynegloglik,beta0,opts)
neglogLH_MLApproach = mynegloglik(betaHatML);
%GLS Approach
wfun = #(xx) n./(xx.*(1-xx));
nlm = fitnlm(x,y,mymodelfun,beta0,'Weights',wfun)
neglogLH_GLSApproach = - nlm.LogLikelihood;
Source:
[1] https://uk.mathworks.com/help/stats/examples/nonlinear-logistic-regression.html
This answer (now) only details which code is used. Please see Tom Lane's answer below for a substantive answer.
Basically, fitnlm.m is a call to NonLinearModel.fit.
When opening NonLinearModel.m, one gets in line 1209:
model.LogLikelihood = getlogLikelihood(model);
getlogLikelihood is itself described between lines 1234-1251.
For instance:
function L = getlogLikelihood(model)
(...)
L = -(model.DFE + model.NumObservations*log(2*pi) + (...) )/2;
(...)
Please also not that this notably impacts ModelCriterion.AIC and ModelCriterion.BIC, as they are computed using model.LogLikelihood ("thinking" it is the logLikelihood).
To get the corresponding formula for BIC/AIC/..., type:
edit classreg.regr.modelutils.modelcriterion
this is Tom from MathWorks. Take another look at the formula quoted:
L = -(model.DFE + model.NumObservations*log(2*pi) + (...) )/2;
Remember the normal distribution has a factor (1/sqrt(2*pi)), so taking logs of that gives us -log(2*pi)/2. So the minus sign comes from that and it is part of the log likelihood. The property value is not the negative log likelihood.
One reason for the difference in the two log likelihood values is that the "ML approach" value is computing something based on the discrete probabilities from the binomial distribution. Those are all between 0 and 1, and they add up to 1. The "GLS approach" is computing something based on the probability density of the continuous normal distribution. In this example, the standard deviation of the residuals is about 0.0462. That leads to density values that are much higher than 1 at the peak. So the two things are not really comparable. You would need to convert the normal values to probabilities on the same discrete intervals that correspond to individual outcomes from the binomial distribution.
I need to produce a signal x=-2*cos(100*pi*n)+2*cos(140*pi*n)+cos(200*pi*n)
So I put it like this :
N=1024;
for n=1:N
x=-2*cos(100*pi*n)+2*cos(140*pi*n)+cos(200*pi*n);
end
But What I get is that the result keeps giving out 1
I tried to test each values according to each n, and I get the same results for any n
For example -2*cos(100*pi*n) with n=1 has to be -1.393310473. Instead of that, Matlab gave the result -2 for it and it always gave -2 for any n
I don't know how to fix it, so I hope someone could help me out! Thank you!
Not sure where you get the idea that -2*cos(100*pi) should be anything other than -2. Maybe you are not aware that Matlab works in radians?
Look at your expression. Each term can be factored to contain 2*pi*(an integer). And you should know that cos(2*pi*(an integer)) = 1.
So the results are exactly as expected.
What you are seeing is basically what happens when you under-sample a waveform. You may know that the Nyquist criterion says that you need to have a sampling rate that is at least two times greater than the highest frequency component present; but in your case, you are sampling one point every 50, 70, 100 complete cycles. So you are "far beyond Nyquist". And that can only be solved by sampling more closely.
For example, you could do:
t = linspace(0, 1, 1024); % sample the waveform 1024 times between 0 and 1
f1 = 50;
f2 = 70;
f3 = 100;
signal = -2*cos(2*pi*f1*t) + 2*cos(2*pi*f2*t) + cos(2*pi*f3*t);
figure; plot(t, signal)
I think you are using degrees when you are doing your calculations, so do this:
n = 1:1024
x=-2*cosd(100*pi*n)+2*cosd(140*pi*n)+cosd(200*pi*n);
cosd uses degrees instead of radians. Radians is the default for cos so matlab has a separate function when degree input is used. For me this gave:
-2*cosd(100*pi*1) = -1.3933
The first term that I got using:
x=-2*cosd(100*pi*1)+2*cosd(140*pi*1)+cosd(200*pi*1)
x = -1.0693
Also notice that I defined n as n = 1:1024; this will give all integers from 1,2,...,1024,
there is no need to use a for loop since many of Matlab's built in functions are vectorized. Meaning you can just input a vector and it will calculate the function for every element in the vector.
I have a question if that's ok. I was recently looking for algorithm to calculate MFCCs. I found a good tutorial rather than code so I tried to code it by myself. I still feel like I am missing one thing. In the code below I took FFT of a signal, calculated normalized power, filter a signal using triangular shapes and eventually sum energies corresponding to each bank to obtain MFCCs.
function output = mfcc(x,M,fbegin,fs)
MF = #(f) 2595.*log10(1 + f./700);
invMF = #(m) 700.*(10.^(m/2595)-1);
M = M+2; % number of triangular filers
mm = linspace(MF(fbegin),MF(fs/2),M); % equal space in mel-frequency
ff = invMF(mm); % convert mel-frequencies into frequency
X = fft(x);
N = length(X); % length of a short time window
N2 = max([floor(N+1)/2 floor(N/2)+1]); %
P = abs(X(1:N2,:)).^2./N; % NoFr no. of periodograms
mfccShapes = triangularFilterShape(ff,N,fs); %
output = log(mfccShapes'*P);
end
function [out,k] = triangularFilterShape(f,N,fs)
N2 = max([floor(N+1)/2 floor(N/2)+1]);
M = length(f);
k = linspace(0,fs/2,N2);
out = zeros(N2,M-2);
for m=2:M-1
I = k >= f(m-1) & k <= f(m);
J = k >= f(m) & k <= f(m+1);
out(I,m-1) = (k(I) - f(m-1))./(f(m) - f(m-1));
out(J,m-1) = (f(m+1) - k(J))./(f(m+1) - f(m));
end
end
Could someone please confirm that this is all right or direct me if I made mistake> I tested it on a simple pure tone and it gives me, in my opinion, reasonable answers.
Any help greatly appreciated :)
PS. I am working on how to apply vectorized Cosinus Transform. It looks like I would need a matrix of MxM of transform coefficients but I did not find any source that would explain how to do it.
You can test it yourself by comparing your results against other implementations like this one here
you will find a fully configurable matlab toolbox incl. MFCCs and even a function to reverse MFCC back to a time signal, which is quite handy for testing purposes:
melfcc.m - main function for calculating PLP and MFCCs from sound waveforms, supports many options.
invmelfcc.m - main function for inverting back from cepstral coefficients to spectrograms and (noise-excited) waveforms, options exactly match melfcc (to invert that processing).
the page itself has a lot of information on the usage of the package.
i am trying to calculate the inverse fourier transform of the vector XRECW. for some reason i get a vector of NANs.
please help!!
t = -2:1/100:2;
x = ((2/5)*sin(5*pi*t))./((1/25)-t.^2);
w = -20*pi:0.01*pi:20*pi;
Hw = (exp(j*pi.*(w./(10*pi)))./(sinc(w./(10*pi)))).*(heaviside(w+5*pi)-heaviside(w-5*pi));%low pass filter
xzohw = 0;
for q=1:20:400
xzohw = xzohw + x(q).*(2./w).*sin(0.1.*w).*exp(-j.*w*0.2*((q-1)/20)+0.5);%calculating fourier transform of xzoh
end
xzohw = abs(xzohw);
xrecw = abs(xzohw.*Hw);%filtering the fourier transform high frequencies
xrect=0;
for q=1:401
xrect(q) = (1/(2*pi)).*trapz(xrecw.*exp(j*w*t(q))); %inverse fourier transform
end
xrect = abs(xrect);
plot(t,xrect)
Here's a direct answer to your question of "why" there is a nan. If you run your code, the Nan comes from dividing by zero in line 7 for computing xzohw. Notice that w contains zero:
>> find(w==0)
ans =
2001
and you can see in line 7 that you divide by the elements of w with the (2./w) factor.
A quick fix (although it is not a guarantee that your code will do what you want) is to avoid including 0 in w by using a step which avoids zero. Since pi is certainly not divisible by 100, you can try taking steps in .01 increments:
w = -20*pi:0.01:20*pi;
Using this, your code produces a plot which might resemble what you're looking for. In order to do better, we might need more details on exactly what you're trying to do, or what these variables represent.
Hope this helps!
I’m currently a Physics student and for several weeks have been compiling data related to ‘Quantum Entanglement’. I’ve now got to a point where I have to plot my data (which should resemble a cos² graph - and does) to a sort of “best fit” cos² graph. The lab script says the following:
A more precise determination of the visibility V (this is basically how 'clean' the data is) follows from the best fit to the measured data using the function:
f(b) = A/2[1-Vsin(b-b(center)/P)]
Granted this probably doesn’t mean much out of context, but essentially A is the amplitude, b is an angle and P is the periodicity. Hence this is also a “wave” like the experimental data I have found.
From this I understand, as previously mentioned, I am making a “best fit” curve. However, I have been told that this isn’t possible with Excel and that the best approach is Matlab.
I know intermediate JavaScript but do not know Matlab and was hoping for some direction.
Is there a tutorial I can read for this? Is it possible for someone to go through it with me? I really have no idea what it entails, so any feed back would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot!
Initial steps
I guess we should begin by getting a representation in Matlab of the function that you're trying to model. A direct translation of your formula looks like this:
function y = targetfunction(A,V,P,bc,b)
y = (A/2) * (1 - V * sin((b-bc) / P));
end
Getting hold of the data
My next step is going to be to generate some data to work with (you'll use your own data, naturally). So here's a function that generates some noisy data. Notice that I've supplied some values for the parameters.
function [y b] = generateData(npoints,noise)
A = 2;
V = 1;
P = 0.7;
bc = 0;
b = 2 * pi * rand(npoints,1);
y = targetfunction(A,V,P,bc,b) + noise * randn(npoints,1);
end
The function rand generates random points on the interval [0,1], and I multiplied those by 2*pi to get points randomly on the interval [0, 2*pi]. I then applied the target function at those points, and added a bit of noise (the function randn generates normally distributed random variables).
Fitting parameters
The most complicated function is the one that fits a model to your data. For this I use the function fminunc, which does unconstrained minimization. The routine looks like this:
function [A V P bc] = bestfit(y,b)
x0(1) = 1; %# A
x0(2) = 1; %# V
x0(3) = 0.5; %# P
x0(4) = 0; %# bc
f = #(x) norm(y - targetfunction(x(1),x(2),x(3),x(4),b));
x = fminunc(f,x0);
A = x(1);
V = x(2);
P = x(3);
bc = x(4);
end
Let's go through line by line. First, I define the function f that I want to minimize. This isn't too hard. To minimize a function in Matlab, it needs to take a single vector as a parameter. Therefore we have to pack our four parameters into a vector, which I do in the first four lines. I used values that are close, but not the same, as the ones that I used to generate the data.
Then I define the function I want to minimize. It takes a single argument x, which it unpacks and feeds to the targetfunction, along with the points b in our dataset. Hopefully these are close to y. We measure how far they are from y by subtracting from y and applying the function norm, which squares every component, adds them up and takes the square root (i.e. it computes the root mean square error).
Then I call fminunc with our function to be minimized, and the initial guess for the parameters. This uses an internal routine to find the closest match for each of the parameters, and returns them in the vector x.
Finally, I unpack the parameters from the vector x.
Putting it all together
We now have all the components we need, so we just want one final function to tie them together. Here it is:
function master
%# Generate some data (you should read in your own data here)
[f b] = generateData(1000,1);
%# Find the best fitting parameters
[A V P bc] = bestfit(f,b);
%# Print them to the screen
fprintf('A = %f\n',A)
fprintf('V = %f\n',V)
fprintf('P = %f\n',P)
fprintf('bc = %f\n',bc)
%# Make plots of the data and the function we have fitted
plot(b,f,'.');
hold on
plot(sort(b),targetfunction(A,V,P,bc,sort(b)),'r','LineWidth',2)
end
If I run this function, I see this being printed to the screen:
>> master
Local minimum found.
Optimization completed because the size of the gradient is less than
the default value of the function tolerance.
A = 1.991727
V = 0.979819
P = 0.695265
bc = 0.067431
And the following plot appears:
That fit looks good enough to me. Let me know if you have any questions about anything I've done here.
I am a bit surprised as you mention f(a) and your function does not contain an a, but in general, suppose you want to plot f(x) = cos(x)^2
First determine for which values of x you want to make a plot, for example
xmin = 0;
stepsize = 1/100;
xmax = 6.5;
x = xmin:stepsize:xmax;
y = cos(x).^2;
plot(x,y)
However, note that this approach works just as well in excel, you just have to do some work to get your x values and function in the right cells.