I am learning MatLab on my own, and I have this assignment in my book which I don't quite understand. Basically I am writing a function that will calculate sine through the use of Taylor series. My code is as follows so far:
function y = sine_series(x,n);
%SINE_SERIES: computes sin(x) from series expansion
% x may be entered as a vector to allow for multiple calculations simultaneously
if n <= 0
error('Input must be positive')
end
j = length(x);
k = [1:n];
y = ones(j,1);
for i = 1:j
y(i) = sum((-1).^(k-1).*(x(i).^(2*k -1))./(factorial(2*k-1)));
end
The book is now asking me to include an optional output err which will calculate the difference between sin(x) and y. The book hints that I may use nargout to accomplish this, but there are no examples in the book on how to use this, and reading the MatLab help on the subject did not make my any wiser.
If anyone can please help me understand this, I would really appreciate it!
The call to nargout checks for the number of output arguments a function is called with. Depending on the size of nargout you can assign entries to the output argument varargout. For your code this would look like:
function [y varargout]= sine_series(x,n);
%SINE_SERIES: computes sin(x) from series expansion
% x may be entered as a vector to allow for multiple calculations simultaneously
if n <= 0
error('Input must be positive')
end
j = length(x);
k = [1:n];
y = ones(j,1);
for i = 1:j
y(i) = sum((-1).^(k-1).*(x(i).^(2*k -1))./(factorial(2*k-1)));
end
if nargout ==2
varargout{1} = sin(x)'-y;
end
Compare the output of
[y] = sine_series(rand(1,10),3)
and
[y err] = sine_series(rand(1,10),3)
to see the difference.
Related
Andrew Ng's course in Coursera, which Stanford's Machine Learning course, features programming assignments that deal with implementing the algorithms taught in class. The goal of this assignment is to implement linear regression through gradient descent with an input set of X, y, theta, alpha (learning rate), and number of iterations.
I implemented this solution in Octave, the prescribed language in the course.
function [theta, J_history] = gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, num_iters)
m = length(y);
J_history = zeros(num_iters, 1);
numJ = size(theta, 1);
for iter = 1:num_iters
for i = 1:m
for j = 1:numJ
temp = theta(j) - alpha /m * X(i, j) * (((X * theta)(i, 1)) - y(i, 1));
theta(j) = temp
end
prediction = X * theta;
J_history(iter, 1) = computeCost(X,y,theta)
end
end
On the other hand, here is the cost function:
function J = computeCost(X, y, theta)
m = length(y);
J = 0;
prediction = X * theta;
error = (prediction - y).^2;
J = 1/(2 * m) .* sum(error);
end
This does not pass the submit() function. The submit() function simply validates the data through passing an unknown test case.
I have checked other questions on StackOverflow but I really don't get it. :)
Thank you very much!
Your gradient seems to be correct and as already pointed out in the answer given by #Kasinath P, it is likely that the problem is that the code is too slow. You just need to vectorize it. In Matlab/Octave, you usually need to avoid for loops (note that although you have parfor in Matlab, it is not yet available in octave). So it is always better, performance-wise, to write something like A*x instead of iterating over each row of A with a for loop. You can read about vectorization here.
If I understand correctly, X is a matrix of size m*numJ where m is the number of examples, and numJ is the number of features (or the dimension of the space where each point lies. In that case, you can rewrite your cost function as
(1/(2*m)) * (X*theta-y)'*(X*theta-y);%since ||v||_2^2=v'*v for any vector v in Euclidean space
Now, we know from basic matrix calculus that for any two vectors s and v that are functions from R^{num_J} to R^m, the Jacobian of s^{t}v is given by
s^{t}Jacobian(v)+v^{t}*Jacobian(s) %this Jacobian will have size 1*num_J.
Applying that to your cost function, we obtain
jacobian=(1/m)*(theta'*X'-y')*X;
So if you just replace
for i = 1:m
for j = 1:numJ
%%% theta(j) updates
end
end
with
%note that the gradient is the transpose of the Jacobian we've computed
theta-=alpha*(1/m)*X'*(X*theta-y)
you should see a great increase in performance.
your computecost code is correct
and Better follow the vectorized implementation of Gradient Descent.
You are just iterating and it is slow and may have error.
That course aims you to do vectorized implementation as it is simple and handy at the same time.
I knew this because I did that after sweating a lot.
Vectorization is good:)
I am attempting to use Octave to solve for a differential equation using Euler's method.
The Euler method was given to me (and is correct), which works for the given Initial Value Problem,
y*y'' + (y')^2 + 1 = 0; y(1) = 1;
That initial value problem is defined in the following Octave function:
function [YDOT] = f(t, Y)
YDOT(1) = Y(2);
YDOT(2) = -(1 + Y(2)^2)/Y(1);
The question I have is about this function definition. Why is YDOT(1) != 1? What is Y(2)?
I have not found any documentation on the definition of a function using function [YDOT] instead of simply function YDOT, and I would appreciate any clarification on what the Octave code is doing.
First things first: You have a (non linear) differential equation of order two which will require you to have two initial conditions. Thus the given information from above is not enough.
The following is defined for further explanations: A==B means A is identical to B; A=>B means B follows from A.
It seems you are mixing a few things. The guy who gave you the files rewrote the equation in the following way:
y*y'' + (y')^2 + 1 = 0; y(1) = 1; | (I) y := y1 & (II) y' := y2
(I) & (II)=>(III): y' = y2 = y1' | y2==Y(2) & y1'==YDOT(1)
Ocatve is "matrix/vector oriented" so we are writing everything in vectors or matrices. Rather writing y1=alpha and y2=beta we are writing y=[alpha; beta] where y(1)==y1=alpha and y(2)==y2=beta. You will soon realize the tremendous advantage of using especially this mathematical formalization for ALL of your problems.
(III) & f(t,Y)=>(IV): y2' == YDOT(2) = y'' = (-1 -(y')^2) / y
Now recall what is y' and y from the definitions in (I) and (II)!
y' = y2 == Y(2) & y = y1 == Y(1)
So we can rewrite equation (IV)
(IV): y2' == YDOT(2) = (-1 -(y')^2) / y == -(1 + Y(2)^2)/Y(1)
So from equation (III) and (IV) we can derive what you already know:
YDOT(1) = Y(2)
YDOT(2) = -(1 + Y(2)^2)/Y(1)
These equations are passed to the solver. Differential equations of all types are solved numerically by retrieving the "next" value in a near neighborhood to some "previously known" value. (The step size inside this neighborhood is one of the key questions when writing solvers!) So your solver uses your initial condition Y(1)==y(1)=1 to make the next step and calculate the "next" value. So right at the start YDOT(1)=Y(2)==y(2) but you didn't tell us this value! But from then on YDOT(1) is varied by the solver in dependency to the function shape to solve your problem and give you ONE unique y(t) solution.
It seems you are using Octave for the first time so let's make a last comment on function [YDOT] = f(t, Y). In general a function is defined in this way:
function[retVal1, retVal2, ...] = myArbitraryName(arg1, arg2, ...)
Where retVal is the return value or output and arg is the argument or input.
I'm trying to compute the Fourier coefficients for a waveform using MATLAB. The coefficients can be computed using the following formulas:
T is chosen to be 1 which gives omega = 2pi.
However I'm having issues performing the integrals. The functions are are triangle wave (Which can be generated using sawtooth(t,0.5) if I'm not mistaking) as well as a square wave.
I've tried with the following code (For the triangle wave):
function [ a0,am,bm ] = test( numTerms )
b_m = zeros(1,numTerms);
w=2*pi;
for i = 1:numTerms
f1 = #(t) sawtooth(t,0.5).*cos(i*w*t);
f2 = #(t) sawtooth(t,0.5).*sin(i*w*t);
am(i) = 2*quad(f1,0,1);
bm(i) = 2*quad(f2,0,1);
end
end
However it's not getting anywhere near the values I need. The b_m coefficients are given for a
triangle wave and are supposed to be 1/m^2 and -1/m^2 when m is odd alternating beginning with the positive term.
The major issue for me is that I don't quite understand how integrals work in MATLAB and I'm not sure whether or not the approach I've chosen works.
Edit:
To clairify, this is the form that I'm looking to write the function on when the coefficients have been determined:
Here's an attempt using fft:
function [ a0,am,bm ] = test( numTerms )
T=2*pi;
w=1;
t = [0:0.1:2];
f = fft(sawtooth(t,0.5));
am = real(f);
bm = imag(f);
func = num2str(f(1));
for i = 1:numTerms
func = strcat(func,'+',num2str(am(i)),'*cos(',num2str(i*w),'*t)','+',num2str(bm(i)),'*sin(',num2str(i*w),'*t)');
end
y = inline(func);
plot(t,y(t));
end
Looks to me that your problem is what sawtooth returns the mathworks documentation says that:
sawtooth(t,width) generates a modified triangle wave where width, a scalar parameter between 0 and 1, determines the point between 0 and 2π at which the maximum occurs. The function increases from -1 to 1 on the interval 0 to 2πwidth, then decreases linearly from 1 to -1 on the interval 2πwidth to 2π. Thus a parameter of 0.5 specifies a standard triangle wave, symmetric about time instant π with peak-to-peak amplitude of 1. sawtooth(t,1) is equivalent to sawtooth(t).
So I'm guessing that's part of your problem.
After you responded I looked into it some more. Looks to me like it's the quad function; not very accurate! I recast the problem like this:
function [ a0,am,bm ] = sotest( t, numTerms )
bm = zeros(1,numTerms);
am = zeros(1,numTerms);
% 2L = 1
L = 0.5;
for ii = 1:numTerms
am(ii) = (1/L)*quadl(#(x) aCos(x,ii,L),0,2*L);
bm(ii) = (1/L)*quadl(#(x) aSin(x,ii,L),0,2*L);
end
ii = 0;
a0 = (1/L)*trapz( t, t.*cos((ii*pi*t)/L) );
% now let's test it
y = ones(size(t))*(a0/2);
for ii=1:numTerms
y = y + am(ii)*cos(ii*2*pi*t);
y = y + bm(ii)*sin(ii*2*pi*t);
end
figure; plot( t, y);
end
function a = aCos(t,n,L)
a = t.*cos((n*pi*t)/L);
end
function b = aSin(t,n,L)
b = t.*sin((n*pi*t)/L);
end
And then I called it like:
[ a0,am,bm ] = sotest( t, 100 );
and I got:
Sweetness!!!
All I really changed was from quad to quadl. I figured that out by using trapz which worked great until the time vector I was using didn't have enough resolution, which led me to believe it was a numerical issue rather than something fundamental. Hope this helps!
To troubleshoot your code I would plot the functions you are using and investigate, how the quad function samples them. You might be undersampling them, so make sure your minimum step size is smaller than the period of the function by at least factor 10.
I would suggest using the FFTs that are built-in to Matlab. Not only is the FFT the most efficient method to compute a spectrum (it is n*log(n) dependent on the length n of the array, whereas the integral in n^2 dependent), it will also give you automatically the frequency points that are supported by your (equally spaced) time data. If you compute the integral yourself (might be needed if datapoints are not equally spaced), you might calculate frequency data that are not resolved (closer spacing than 1/over the spacing in time, i.e. beyond the 'Fourier limit').
Let's say I have a function, like:
function [result] = Square( x )
result = x * x;
end
And I have an array like the following,
x = 0:0.1:1;
I want to have an y array, which stores the squares of x's using my Square function. Sure, one way would be the following,
y = zeros(1,10);
for i = 1:10
y(i) = Square(x(i));
end
However, I guess there should be a more elegant way of doing it. I tried some of my insights and made some search, however couldn't find any solution. Any suggestions?
For the example you give:
y = x.^2; % or
y = x.*x;
in which .* and .^ are the element-wise versions of * and ^. This is the simplest, fastest way there is.
More general:
y = arrayfun(#Square, x);
which can be elegant, but it's usually pretty slow compared to
y = zeros(size(x));
for ii = 1:numel(x)
y(ii) = Square(x(ii)); end
I'd actually advise to stay away from arrayfun until profiling has showed that it is faster than a plain loop. Which will be seldom, if ever.
In new Matlab versions (R2008 and up), the JIT accelerates loops so effectively that things like arrayfun might actually disappear in a future release.
As an aside: note that I've used ii instead of i as the loop variable. In Matlab, i and j are built-in names for the imaginary unit. If you use it as a variable name, you'll lose some performance due to the necessary name resolution required. Using anything other than i or j will prevent that.
You want arrayfun.
arrayfun(#Square, x)
See help arrayfun
(tested only in GNU Octave, I do not have MATLAB)
Have you considered the element-by-element operator .*?
See the documentation for arithmetic operators.
I am going to assume that you will not be doing something as simple as a square operation and what you are trying to do is not already vectorised in MATLAB.
It is better to call the function once, and do the loop in the function. As the number of elements increase, you will notice significant increase in operation time.
Let our functions be:
function result = getSquare(x)
result = x*x; % I did not use .* on purpose
end
function result = getSquareVec(x)
result = zeros(1,numel(x));
for idx = 1:numel(x)
result(:,idx) = x(idx)*x(idx);
end
end
And let's call them from a script:
y = 1:10000;
tic;
for idx = 1:numel(y)
res = getSquare(y(idx));
end
toc
tic;
res = getSquareVec(y);
toc
I ran the code a couple of times and turns out calling the function only once is at least twice as fast.
Elapsed time is 0.020524 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.008560 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.019019 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.007661 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.022532 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.006731 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.023051 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.005951 seconds.
Within my daily work, I have got to maximize a particular function making use of fminsearch; the code is:
clc
clear all
close all
f = #(x,c,k) -(x(2)/c)^3*(((exp(-(x(1)/c)^k)-exp(-(x(2)/c)^k))/((x(2)/c)^k-(x(1)/c)^k))-exp(-(x(3)/c)^k))^2;
c = 10.1;
k = 2.3;
X = fminsearch(#(x) f(x,c,k),[4,10,20]);
It works fine, as I expect, but not the issue is coming up: I need to bound x within certain limits, as:
4 < x(1) < 5
10 < x(2) < 15
20 < x(3) < 30
To achieve the proper results, I should use the optimization toolbox, that I unfortunately cannot hand.
Is there any way to get the same analysis by making use of only fminsearch?
Well, not using fminsearch directly, but if you are willing to download fminsearchbnd from the file exchange, then yes. fminsearchbnd does a bound constrained minimization of a general objective function, as an overlay on fminsearch. It calls fminsearch for you, applying bounds to the problem.
Essentially the idea is to transform your problem for you, in a way that your objective function sees as if it is solving a constrained problem. It is totally transparent. You call fminsearchbnd with a function, a starting point in the parameter space, and a set of lower and upper bounds.
For example, minimizing the rosenbrock function returns a minimum at [1,1] by fminsearch. But if we apply purely lower bounds on the problem of 2 for each variable, then fminsearchbnd finds the bound constrained solution at [2,4].
rosen = #(x) (1-x(1)).^2 + 105*(x(2)-x(1).^2).^2;
fminsearch(rosen,[3 3]) % unconstrained
ans =
1.0000 1.0000
fminsearchbnd(rosen,[3 3],[2 2],[]) % constrained
ans =
2.0000 4.0000
If you have no constraints on a variable, then supply -inf or inf as the corresponding bound.
fminsearchbnd(rosen,[3 3],[-inf 2],[])
ans =
1.4137 2
Andrey has the right idea, and the smoother way of providing a penalty isn't hard: just add the distance to the equation.
To keep using the anonymous function:
f = #(x,c,k, Xmin, Xmax) -(x(2)/c)^3*(((exp(-(x(1)/c)^k)-exp(-(x(2)/c)^k))/((x(2)/c)^k-(x(1)/c)^k))-exp(-(x(3)/c)^k))^2 ...
+ (x< Xmin)*(Xmin' - x' + 10000) + (x>Xmax)*(x' - Xmax' + 10000) ;
The most naive way to bound x, would be giving a huge penalty for any x that is not in the range.
For example:
function res = f(x,c,k)
if x(1)>5 || x(1)<4
penalty = 1000000000000;
else
penalty = 0;
end
res = penalty - (x(2)/c)^3*(((exp(-(x(1)/c)^k)-exp(-(x(2)/c)^k))/((x(2)/c)^k-(x(1)/c)^k))-exp(-(x(3)/c)^k))^2;
end
You can improve this approach, by giving the penalty in a smoother way.