I want to write an implementation of a (not a binary) tree and and run some algorithms on it. The reason for using the matlab is that the rest of all programs are in matlab and it would be usful for some analysis and plotting. From an initial search in matlab i found that there aren't thing like pointers in matlab. So I'd like to know the best ( in terms on convinience) possible way to do this in matlab ? or any other ways ?
You can do this with MATLAB objects but you must make sure you use handle objects and not value objects because your nodes will contain cross-references to other nodes (i.e. parent, next sibling, first child).
This question is very old but still open. So I would just like to point readers to this implementation in plain MATLAB made by yours truly. Here is a tutorial that walks you through its use.
Matlab is very well suited to handle any kind of graphs (not only trees) represented as adjacency matrix or incidence matrix.
Matrices (representing graphs) can be either dense or sparse, depending on the properties of your graphs.
Last but not least, graph theory and linear algebra are in very fundamental ways related to each other see for example, so Matlab will be able to provide for you a very nice platform to harness such relationships.
Related
I am working on a small project in Matlab just because of my interest in image processing and I have not studied a degree or a course related to image processing.
I want to understand a small concept about feature extraction and feature vectors. I have read some articles about that and in general I can understand that, but my question is:
For example, I want to extract some information from different objects of a binary image, the information is about length, width and distance between the objects. In one application I want to extract the features on which I want to apply some algorithms to compute width of all the objects and ignore the length and distance. Can we name this as feature extraction regarding the width? And storing them in different vectors as Feature Vectors?
It makes me think that, I might be complicating the simple things. Should I use some other terminologies for this instead of feature extraction and feature vectors?
Please suggest me if I am going in the right direction or not?
Thank you!
Feature extraction is the process of computing numerical values on regions/objects/shapes/blobs detected in an image. [Sometimes the detection itself can be called extraction and the features need not be numbers.]
The feature values can indeed be stored in vectors, usually they fill a table. Sometimes they are structured in a more complicated way (such as a graph f.i.). Most of the time they are used for classification/recognition purposes or they can just be the output of the process on hand.
I have a curve which looks roughly / qualitative like the curves displayed in those 3 images.
The only thing I know is that the first part of the curve is hardware-specific supposed to be a linear curve and the second part is some sort of logarithmic part (might be a combination of two logarithmic curves), i.e. linlog camera. But I couldn't tell the mathematic structure of the equation, e.g. wether it looks like a*log(b)+c or a*(log(c+b))^2 etc. Is there a way to best fit/find out a good regression for this type of curve and is there a certain way to do this specifically in MATLAB? :-) I've got the student version, i.e. all toolboxes etc.
fminsearch is a very general way to find best-fit parameters once you have decided on a parametric equation. And the optimization toolbox has a range of more-sophisticated ways.
Comparing the merits of one parametric equation against another, however, is a deep topic. The main thing to be aware of is that you can always tweak the equation, adding another term or parameter or whatever, and get a better fit in terms of lower sum-squared-error or whatever other goodness-of-fit metric you decide is appropriate. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to keep adding parameters: your solution might be becoming overly complex. In the end the most reliable way to compare how well two different parametric models are doing is to cross-validate: optimize the parameters on a subset of the data, and evaluate only on data that the optimization procedure has not yet seen.
You can try the "function finder" on my curve fitting web site zunzun.com and see what it comes up with - it is free. If you have any trouble please email me directly and I'll do my best to help.
James Phillips
zunzun#zunzun.com
I am studying Support Vector Machines (SVM) by reading a lot of material. However, it seems that most of it focuses on how to classify the input 2D data by mapping it using several kernels such as linear, polynomial, RBF / Gaussian, etc.
My first question is, can SVM handle high-dimensional (n-D) input data?
According to what I found, the answer is YES!
If my understanding is correct, n-D input data will be
constructed in Hilbert hyperspace, then those data will be
simplified by using some approaches (such as PCA ?) to combine it together / project it back to 2D plane, so that
the kernel methods can map it into an appropriate shape such a line or curve can separate it into distinguish groups.
It means most of the guides / tutorials focus on step (3). But some toolboxes I've checked cannot plot if the input data greater than 2D. How can the data after be projected to 2D?
If there is no projection of data, how can they classify it?
My second question is: is my understanding correct?
My first question is, does SVM can handle high-dimensional (n-D) input data?
Yes. I have dealt with data where n > 2500 when using LIBSVM software: http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/. I used linear and RBF kernels.
My second question is, does it correct my understanding?
I'm not entirely sure on what you mean here, so I'll try to comment on what you said most recently. I believe your intuition is generally correct. Data is "constructed" in some n-dimensional space, and a hyperplane of dimension n-1 is used to classify the data into two groups. However, by using kernel methods, it's possible to generate this information using linear methods and not consume all the memory of your computer.
I'm not sure if you've seen this already, but if you haven't, you may be interested in some of the information in this paper: http://pyml.sourceforge.net/doc/howto.pdf. I've copied and pasted a part of the text that may appeal to your thoughts:
A kernel method is an algorithm that depends on the data only through dot-products. When this is the case, the dot product can be replaced by a kernel function which computes a dot product in some possibly high dimensional feature space. This has two advantages: First, the ability to generate non-linear decision boundaries using methods designed for linear classifiers. Second, the use of kernel functions allows the user to apply a classifier to data that have no obvious fixed-dimensional vector space representation. The prime example of such data in bioinformatics are sequence, either DNA or protein, and protein structure.
It would also help if you could explain what "guides" you are referring to. I don't think I've ever had to project data on a 2-D plane before, and it doesn't make sense to do so anyway for data with a ridiculous amount of dimensions (or "features" as it is called in LIBSVM). Using selected kernel methods should be enough to classify such data.
I need to construct an interpolating function from a 2D array of data. The reason I need something that returns an actual function is, that I need to be able to evaluate the function as part of an expression that I need to numerically integrate.
For that reason, "interp2" doesn't cut it: it does not return a function.
I could use "TriScatteredInterp", but that's heavy-weight: my grid is equally spaced (and big); so I don't need the delaunay triangularisation.
Are there any alternatives?
(Apologies for the 'late' answer, but I have some suggestions that might help others if the existing answer doesn't help them)
It's not clear from your question how accurate the resulting function needs to be (or how big, 'big' is), but one approach that you could adopt is to regress the data points that you have using a least-squares or Kalman filter-based method. You'd need to do this with a number of candidate function forms and then choose the one that is 'best', for example by using an measure such as MAE or MSE.
Of course this requires some idea of what the form underlying function could be, but your question isn't clear as to whether you have this kind of information.
Another approach that could work (and requires no knowledge of what the underlying function might be) is the use of the fuzzy transform (F-transform) to generate line segments that provide local approximations to the surface.
The method for this would be:
Define a 2D universe that includes the x and y domains of your input data
Create a 2D fuzzy partition of this universe - chosing partition sizes that give the accuracy you require
Apply the discrete F-transform using your input data to generate fuzzy data points in a 3D fuzzy space
Pass the inverse F-transform as a function handle (along with the fuzzy data points) to your integration function
If you're not familiar with the F-transform then I posted a blog a while ago about how the F-transform can be used as a universal approximator in a 1D case: http://iainism-blogism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/fuzzy-wuzzy-was.html
To see the mathematics behind the method and extend it to a multidimensional case then the University of Ostravia has published a PhD thesis that explains its application to various engineering problems and also provides an example of how it is constructed for the case of a 2D universe: http://irafm.osu.cz/f/PhD_theses/Stepnicka.pdf
If you want a function handle, why not define f=#(xi,yi)interp2(X,Y,Z,xi,yi) ?
It might be a little slow, but I think it should work.
If I understand you correctly, you want to perform a surface/line integral of 2-D data. There are ways to do it but maybe not the way you want it. I had the exact same problem and it's annoying! The only way I solved it was using the Surface Fitting Tool (sftool) to create a surface then integrating it.
After you create your fit using the tool (it has a GUI as well), it will generate an sftool object which you can then integrate in (2-D) using quad2d
I also tried your method of using interp2 and got the results (which were similar to the sfobject) but I had no idea how to do a numerical integration (line/surface) with the data. Creating thesfobject and then integrating it was much faster.
It was the first time I do something like this so I confirmed it using a numerically evaluated line integral. According to Stoke's theorem, the surface integral and the line integral should be the same and it did turn out to be the same.
I asked this question in the mathematics stackexchange, wanted to do a line integral of 2-d data, ended up doing a surface integral and then confirming the answer using a line integral!
Does MATLAB have a built-in function to find general properties like center of mass & moments of inertia for a polygon defined as a list of (non-integer valued) points?
regionprops performs this task for integer valued points, on the assumption that these represent indices of pixels in an image. But the only functions I can find that treat non integral point lists are polyarea and inpolygon.
My kludge for now is to create a bwconncomp structure with all the points multiplied by some large value (like 10,000), then feeding it in to regionprops, but wondered if there is a more elegant solution.
You should check out the submission POLYGEOM by H.J. Sommer on the MathWorks File Exchange. It looks like it has all the property measurements you want, and nice documentation describing the formulae used in the code.
I don't know of a function in MATLAB that would do this for you.
However, poly2mask might be of use for you to create the pixel masks to feed into regionprops. I also suggest that, should you decide to go this route, you carefully test how much the discretization affects the results, so that you don't create crazy large arrays (and waste time) for no real gain in accuracy.
One possibility is to farm out the calculations to the Java Topology Suite. I don't know about "moments of inertia", but it does at least have a centroid method.