I tried two methods. The first was to pad X and Y with 0s so they both become of even and equal length, for example:
X = 123 , Y = 45678
becomes:
X = 000123 , Y = 045678
a = 0 , b = 123 , c = 45 , d = 678
but the problem with this implementation is when inputting:
X = 100 and Y = 14
becomes:
X = 0100 , Y = 0014
a = 1 , b = 0 , c = 0 , d = 14
ac = 0
bd = 0
ad + bc = 14
then:
10^4*(0) + 10^2*(14) + 0
notice how 10^2(14) is exactly the problem we started with, this will cause infinite recursion
the second solution I tried was to pad 0s to the right side instead, and then divide the final answer by 10^(# of 0s added) but that also causes infinite recursion in some scenarios.
What should I do?
How can I convert z-score to probability using ruby?
Example:
z_score = 0
probability should be 0.5
z_score = 1.76
probability should be 0.039204
According to this https://stackoverflow.com/a/16197404/1062711 post, here is the function that give you the p proba from the z score
def getPercent(z)
return 0 if z < -6.5
return 1 if z > 6.5
factk = 1
sum = 0
term = 1
k = 0
loopStop = Math.exp(-23)
while term.abs > loopStop do
term = 0.3989422804 * ((-1)**k) * (z**k) / (2*k+1) / (2**k) * (z**(k+1)) /factk
sum += term
k += 1
factk *= k
end
sum += 0.5
1-sum
end
puts getPercent(1.76)
Recently I found this in some code I wrote a few years ago. It was used to rationalize a real value (within a tolerance) by determining a suitable denominator and then checking if the difference between the original real and the rational was small enough.
Edit to clarify : I actually don't want to convert all real values. For instance I could choose a max denominator of 14, and a real value that equals 7/15 would stay as-is. It's not as clear that as it's an outside variable in the algorithms I wrote here.
The algorithm to get the denominator was this (pseudocode):
denominator(x)
frac = fractional part of x
recip = 1/frac
if (frac < tol)
return 1
else
return recip * denominator(recip)
end
end
Seems to be based on continued fractions although it became clear on looking at it again that it was wrong. (It worked for me because it would eventually just spit out infinity, which I handled outside, but it would be often really slow.) The value for tol doesn't really do anything except in the case of termination or for numbers that end up close. I don't think it's relatable to the tolerance for the real - rational conversion.
I've replaced it with an iterative version that is not only faster but I'm pretty sure it won't fail theoretically (d = 1 to start with and fractional part returns a positive, so recip is always >= 1) :
denom_iter(x d)
return d if d > maxd
frac = fractional part of x
recip = 1/frac
if (frac = 0)
return d
else
return denom_iter(recip d*recip)
end
end
What I'm curious to know if there's a way to pick the maxd that will ensure that it converts all values that are possible for a given tolerance. I'm assuming 1/tol but don't want to miss something. I'm also wondering if there's an way in this approach to actually limit the denominator size - this allows some denominators larger than maxd.
This can be considered a 2D minimization problem on error:
ArgMin ( r - q / p ), where r is real, q and p are integers
I suggest the use of Gradient Descent algorithm . The gradient in this objective function is:
f'(q, p) = (-1/p, q/p^2)
The initial guess r_o can be q being the closest integer to r, and p being 1.
The stopping condition can be thresholding of the error.
The pseudo-code of GD can be found in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent
If the initial guess is close enough, the objective function should be convex.
As Jacob suggested, this problem can be better solved by minimizing the following error function:
ArgMin ( p * r - q ), where r is real, q and p are integers
This is linear programming, which can be efficiently solved by any ILP (Integer Linear Programming) solvers. GD works on non-linear cases, but lack efficiency in linear problems.
Initial guesses and stopping condition can be similar to stated above. Better choice can be obtained for individual choice of solver.
I suggest you should still assume convexity near the local minimum, which can greatly reduce cost. You can also try Simplex method, which is great on linear programming problem.
I give credit to Jacob on this.
A problem similar to this is solved in the Approximations section beginning ca. page 28 of Bill Gosper's Continued Fraction Arithmetic document. (Ref: postscript file; also see text version, from line 1984.) The general idea is to compute continued-fraction approximations of the low-end and high-end range limiting numbers, until the two fractions differ, and then choose a value in the range of those two approximations. This is guaranteed to give a simplest fraction, using Gosper's terminology.
The python code below (program "simpleden") implements a similar process. (It probably is not as good as Gosper's suggested implementation, but is good enough that you can see what kind of results the method produces.) The amount of work done is similar to that for Euclid's algorithm, ie O(n) for numbers with n bits, so the program is reasonably fast. Some example test cases (ie the program's output) are shown after the code itself. Note, function simpleratio(vlo, vhi) as shown here returns -1 if vhi is smaller than vlo.
#!/usr/bin/env python
def simpleratio(vlo, vhi):
rlo, rhi, eps = vlo, vhi, 0.0000001
if vhi < vlo: return -1
num = denp = 1
nump = den = 0
while 1:
klo, khi = int(rlo), int(rhi)
if klo != khi or rlo-klo < eps or rhi-khi < eps:
tlo = denp + klo * den
thi = denp + khi * den
if tlo < thi:
return tlo + (rlo-klo > eps)*den
elif thi < tlo:
return thi + (rhi-khi > eps)*den
else:
return tlo
nump, num = num, nump + klo * num
denp, den = den, denp + klo * den
rlo, rhi = 1/(rlo-klo), 1/(rhi-khi)
def test(vlo, vhi):
den = simpleratio(vlo, vhi);
fden = float(den)
ilo, ihi = int(vlo*den), int(vhi*den)
rlo, rhi = ilo/fden, ihi/fden;
izok = 'ok' if rlo <= vlo <= rhi <= vhi else 'wrong'
print '{:4d}/{:4d} = {:0.8f} vlo:{:0.8f} {:4d}/{:4d} = {:0.8f} vhi:{:0.8f} {}'.format(ilo,den,rlo,vlo, ihi,den,rhi,vhi, izok)
test (0.685, 0.695)
test (0.685, 0.7)
test (0.685, 0.71)
test (0.685, 0.75)
test (0.685, 0.76)
test (0.75, 0.76)
test (2.173, 2.177)
test (2.373, 2.377)
test (3.484, 3.487)
test (4.0, 4.87)
test (4.0, 8.0)
test (5.5, 5.6)
test (5.5, 6.5)
test (7.5, 7.3)
test (7.5, 7.5)
test (8.534537, 8.534538)
test (9.343221, 9.343222)
Output from program:
> ./simpleden
8/ 13 = 0.61538462 vlo:0.68500000 9/ 13 = 0.69230769 vhi:0.69500000 ok
6/ 10 = 0.60000000 vlo:0.68500000 7/ 10 = 0.70000000 vhi:0.70000000 ok
6/ 10 = 0.60000000 vlo:0.68500000 7/ 10 = 0.70000000 vhi:0.71000000 ok
2/ 4 = 0.50000000 vlo:0.68500000 3/ 4 = 0.75000000 vhi:0.75000000 ok
2/ 4 = 0.50000000 vlo:0.68500000 3/ 4 = 0.75000000 vhi:0.76000000 ok
3/ 4 = 0.75000000 vlo:0.75000000 3/ 4 = 0.75000000 vhi:0.76000000 ok
36/ 17 = 2.11764706 vlo:2.17300000 37/ 17 = 2.17647059 vhi:2.17700000 ok
18/ 8 = 2.25000000 vlo:2.37300000 19/ 8 = 2.37500000 vhi:2.37700000 ok
114/ 33 = 3.45454545 vlo:3.48400000 115/ 33 = 3.48484848 vhi:3.48700000 ok
4/ 1 = 4.00000000 vlo:4.00000000 4/ 1 = 4.00000000 vhi:4.87000000 ok
4/ 1 = 4.00000000 vlo:4.00000000 8/ 1 = 8.00000000 vhi:8.00000000 ok
11/ 2 = 5.50000000 vlo:5.50000000 11/ 2 = 5.50000000 vhi:5.60000000 ok
5/ 1 = 5.00000000 vlo:5.50000000 6/ 1 = 6.00000000 vhi:6.50000000 ok
-7/ -1 = 7.00000000 vlo:7.50000000 -7/ -1 = 7.00000000 vhi:7.30000000 wrong
15/ 2 = 7.50000000 vlo:7.50000000 15/ 2 = 7.50000000 vhi:7.50000000 ok
8030/ 941 = 8.53347503 vlo:8.53453700 8031/ 941 = 8.53453773 vhi:8.53453800 ok
24880/2663 = 9.34284641 vlo:9.34322100 24881/2663 = 9.34322193 vhi:9.34322200 ok
If, rather than the simplest fraction in a range, you seek the best approximation given some upper limit on denominator size, consider code like the following, which replaces all the code from def test(vlo, vhi) forward.
def smallden(target, maxden):
global pas
pas = 0
tol = 1/float(maxden)**2
while 1:
den = simpleratio(target-tol, target+tol);
if den <= maxden: return den
tol *= 2
pas += 1
# Test driver for smallden(target, maxden) routine
import random
totalpass, trials, passes = 0, 20, [0 for i in range(20)]
print 'Maxden Num Den Num/Den Target Error Passes'
for i in range(trials):
target = random.random()
maxden = 10 + round(10000*random.random())
den = smallden(target, maxden)
num = int(round(target*den))
got = float(num)/den
print '{:4d} {:4d}/{:4d} = {:10.8f} = {:10.8f} + {:12.9f} {:2}'.format(
int(maxden), num, den, got, target, got - target, pas)
totalpass += pas
passes[pas-1] += 1
print 'Average pass count: {:0.3}\nPass histo: {}'.format(
float(totalpass)/trials, passes)
In production code, drop out all the references to pas (etc.), ie, drop out pass-counting code.
The routine smallden is given a target value and a maximum value for allowed denominators. Given maxden possible choices of denominators, it's reasonable to suppose that a tolerance on the order of 1/maxden² can be achieved. The pass-counts shown in the following typical output (where target and maxden were set via random numbers) illustrate that such a tolerance was reached immediately more than half the time, but in other cases tolerances 2 or 4 or 8 times as large were used, requiring extra calls to simpleratio. Note, the last two lines of output from a 10000-number test run are shown following the complete output of a 20-number test run.
Maxden Num Den Num/Den Target Error Passes
1198 32/ 509 = 0.06286837 = 0.06286798 + 0.000000392 1
2136 115/ 427 = 0.26932084 = 0.26932103 + -0.000000185 1
4257 839/2670 = 0.31423221 = 0.31423223 + -0.000000025 1
2680 449/ 509 = 0.88212181 = 0.88212132 + 0.000000486 3
2935 440/1853 = 0.23745278 = 0.23745287 + -0.000000095 1
6128 347/1285 = 0.27003891 = 0.27003899 + -0.000000077 3
8041 1780/4243 = 0.41951449 = 0.41951447 + 0.000000020 2
7637 3926/7127 = 0.55086292 = 0.55086293 + -0.000000010 1
3422 27/ 469 = 0.05756930 = 0.05756918 + 0.000000113 2
1616 168/1507 = 0.11147976 = 0.11147982 + -0.000000061 1
260 62/ 123 = 0.50406504 = 0.50406378 + 0.000001264 1
3775 52/3327 = 0.01562970 = 0.01562750 + 0.000002195 6
233 6/ 13 = 0.46153846 = 0.46172772 + -0.000189254 5
3650 3151/3514 = 0.89669892 = 0.89669890 + 0.000000020 1
9307 2943/7528 = 0.39094049 = 0.39094048 + 0.000000013 2
962 206/ 225 = 0.91555556 = 0.91555496 + 0.000000594 1
2080 564/1975 = 0.28556962 = 0.28556943 + 0.000000190 1
6505 1971/2347 = 0.83979548 = 0.83979551 + -0.000000022 1
1944 472/ 833 = 0.56662665 = 0.56662696 + -0.000000305 2
3244 291/1447 = 0.20110574 = 0.20110579 + -0.000000051 1
Average pass count: 1.85
Pass histo: [12, 4, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
The last two lines of output from a 10000-number test run:
Average pass count: 1.77
Pass histo: [56659, 25227, 10020, 4146, 2072, 931, 497, 233, 125, 39, 33, 17, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
I am building my first large-scale MATLAB program, and I've managed to write original vectorized code for everything so for until I came to trying to create an image representing vector density in stereographic projection. After a couple failed attempts I went to the Mathworks file exchange site and found an open source program which fits my needs courtesy of Malcolm Mclean. With a test matrix his function produces something like this:
And while this is almost exactly what I wanted, his code relies on a triply nested for-loop. On my workstation a test data matrix of size 25000x2 took 65 seconds in this section of code. This is unacceptable since I will be scaling up to a data matrices of size 500000x2 in my project.
So far I've been able to vectorize the innermost loop (which was the longest/worst loop), but I would like to continue and be rid of the loops entirely if possible. Here is Malcolm's original code that I need to vectorize:
dmap = zeros(height, width); % height, width: scalar with default value = 32
for ii = 0: height - 1 % 32 iterations of this loop
yi = limits(3) + ii * deltay + deltay/2; % limits(3) & deltay: scalars
for jj = 0 : width - 1 % 32 iterations of this loop
xi = limits(1) + jj * deltax + deltax/2; % limits(1) & deltax: scalars
dd = 0;
for kk = 1: length(x) % up to 500,000 iterations in this loop
dist2 = (x(kk) - xi)^2 + (y(kk) - yi)^2;
dd = dd + 1 / ( dist2 + fudge); % fudge is a scalar
end
dmap(ii+1,jj+1) = dd;
end
end
And here it is with the changes I've already made to the innermost loop (which was the biggest drain on efficiency). This cuts the time from 65 seconds down to 12 seconds on my machine for the same test matrix, which is better but still far slower than I would like.
dmap = zeros(height, width);
for ii = 0: height - 1
yi = limits(3) + ii * deltay + deltay/2;
for jj = 0 : width - 1
xi = limits(1) + jj * deltax + deltax/2;
dist2 = (x - xi) .^ 2 + (y - yi) .^ 2;
dmap(ii + 1, jj + 1) = sum(1 ./ (dist2 + fudge));
end
end
So my main question, are there any further changes I can make to optimize this code? Or even an alternative method to approach the problem? I've considered using C++ or F# instead of MATLAB for this section of the program, and I may do so if I cannot get to a reasonable efficiency level with the MATLAB code.
Please also note that at this point I don't have ANY additional toolboxes, if I did then I know this would be trivial (using hist3 from the statistics toolbox for example).
Mem consuming solution
yi = limits(3) + deltay * ( 1:height ) - .5 * deltay;
xi = limits(1) + deltax * ( 1:width ) - .5 * deltax;
dx = bsxfun( #minus, x(:), xi ) .^ 2;
dy = bsxfun( #minus, y(:), yi ) .^ 2;
dist2 = bsxfun( #plus, permute( dy, [2 3 1] ), permute( dx, [3 2 1] ) );
dmap = sum( 1./(dist2 + fudge ) , 3 );
EDIT
handling extremely large x and y by breaking the operation into blocks:
blockSize = 50000; % process up to XX elements at once
dmap = 0;
yi = limits(3) + deltay * ( 1:height ) - .5 * deltay;
xi = limits(1) + deltax * ( 1:width ) - .5 * deltax;
bi = 1;
while bi <= numel(x)
% take a block of x and y
bx = x( bi:min(end, bi + blockSize - 1) );
by = y( bi:min(end, bi + blockSize - 1) );
dx = bsxfun( #minus, bx(:), xi ) .^ 2;
dy = bsxfun( #minus, by(:), yi ) .^ 2;
dist2 = bsxfun( #plus, permute( dy, [2 3 1] ), permute( dx, [3 2 1] ) );
dmap = dmap + sum( 1./(dist2 + fudge ) , 3 );
bi = bi + blockSize;
end
This is a good example of why starting a loop from 1 matters. The only reason that ii and jj are initiated at 0 is to kill the ii * deltay and jj * deltax terms which however introduces sequentiality in the dmap indexing, preventing parallelization.
Now, by rewriting the loops you could use parfor() after opening a matlabpool:
dmap = zeros(height, width);
yi = limits(3) + deltay*(1:height) - .5*deltay;
matlabpool 8
parfor ii = 1: height
for jj = 1: width
xi = limits(1) + (jj-1) * deltax + deltax/2;
dist2 = (x - xi) .^ 2 + (y - yi(ii)) .^ 2;
dmap(ii, jj) = sum(1 ./ (dist2 + fudge));
end
end
matlabpool close
Keep in mind that opening and closing the pool has significant overhead (10 seconds on my Intel Core Duo T9300, vista 32 Matlab 2013a).
PS. I am not sure whether the inner loop instead of the outer one can be meaningfully parallelized. You can try to switch the parfor to the inner one and compare speeds (I would recommend going for the big matrix immediately since you are already running in 12 seconds and the overhead is almost as big).
Alternatively, this problem can be solved in using kernel density estimation techniques. This is part of the Statistics Toolbox, or there's this KDE implementation by Zdravko Botev (no toolboxes required).
For the example code below, I get 0.3 seconds for N = 500000, or 0.7 seconds for N = 1000000.
N = 500000;
data = [randn(N,2); rand(N,1)+3.5, randn(N,1);]; % 2 overlaid distrib
tic; [bandwidth,density,X,Y] = kde2d(data); toc;
imagesc(density);
How to make a projection matrix on Three.js which does the mapping from 3d points to screen coordinates described by the rule below?
screen_x = x - z*0.5
screen_y = y - z*0.5
depth = z
The projection matrix represents the following equations:
xx xy xz xt <- x' = (xx*x + xy*y + xz*z + xt) / (wx*x + wy*y + wz*z + 1)
yx yy yz yt y' = (yx*x + yy*y + yz*z + yt) / (wx*x + wy*y + wz*z + 1)
zx zy zz zt z' = (zx*x + zy*y + zz*z + zt) / (wx*x + wy*y + wz*z + 1)
wx wy wz 1
From that all the other elements will be zero, but
screen_x = x-z*0.5 : xx=1, xz=-0.5
screen_y = y-z*0.5 : yy=1, xz=-0.5
depth z'= z : zz=1 (and ww=1)
EDIT This not the general projection matrix, but only applicable to this particular problem.
The general [symmetric] projection matrix is of form
a 0 0 d
0 b 0 e
0 0 c f
0 0 1 0,
from which it follows that x and y will be divided by wx*z == z.