I want to generate 500000 random numbers of Poisson distribution with lambda = 1, and T=6 by using the composition method which can be describes as follows:
Generate uniform r.v. z1, z2, …
Stop when z1.z2..zm<=exp(-lamda*T)
Assign k = m – 1
Then count how many number in each of 10 intervals ([0,1],[2,3],…, [16,17], [18,∞)].
I know that MATLAB has a built-in function poissrnd for above task. However, I want to use the above algorithm to do it by myself. I tried do it and compared it with the result of the poissrnd function, but my code gives a wrong result. Could you look at my code and give me some comments?
num_generated = 500000;
lambda=1;T=6;
k_vec=[]; %% Store k
for i=1:number_generated
multiple=1;
for j=1:number_generated
%% Step 1: Generate uniform in the interval [0,1]: z1,z2...
z=rand();
%% Step 2: Stop when z1z2...zm<=exp(-lambda*T)
multiple=multiple*z;
if(multiple<=exp(-lambda*T))
k=j-1;
k_vec=[k_vec k]; % Record k in vec
break;
end
end
end
range_1 = sum( k_vec(:)==0 )+sum(k_vec(:)==1) % # number with in range [0,1]
range_2 = sum( k_vec(:)==2 )+sum( k_vec(:)==3) % # number with in range [2,3]
range_3 = sum( k_vec(:)==4 )+sum( k_vec(:)==5) % # number with in range [4,5]
range_4 = sum( k_vec(:)==6 )+sum( k_vec(:)==7) % # number with in range [6,7]
range_5 = sum( k_vec(:)==8 )+sum( k_vec(:)==9) % # number with in range [8,9]
range_6 = sum( k_vec(:)==10 )+sum( k_vec(:)==11) % # number with in range [10,11]
range_7 = sum( k_vec(:)==12 )+sum( k_vec(:)==13) % # number with in range [12,13]
range_8 = sum( k_vec(:)==14 )+sum( k_vec(:)==15) % # number with in range [14,15]
range_9 = sum( k_vec(:)==16 )+sum( k_vec(:)==17) % # number with in range [16,17]
range_10 = sum(k_vec(:)>=18) % # number with in range [18,+infty)
You don't know how many random values it will take for multiple to converge, so you need to change your for loop over j to a while loop that continues as long as multiple > exp(-lambda*T).
By changing this to a while loop, you now need k to be a counter and to increment it on each iteration of the loop:
(Warning: Untested Code)
for i = 1:number_generated
multiple = 1;
k = 0; %// Initialize counter for each number generated
while multiple > exp(-lambda*T) %// replace `for` loop
k = k + 1; %// Increment counter
%% Step 1: Generate uniform in the interval [0,1]: z1,z2...
z = rand();
%% Step 2: Stop when z1z2...zm<=exp(-lambda*T)
multiple = multiple*z;
end
%// If we exit the loop, we know multiple <= exp(-lambda*T)
k = k - 1;
k_vec = [k_vec k]; % Record k in vec
end
You should also avoid at all costs using sequential variable names like range_1, range_2, ... Matlab is designed to handle arrays and matrices, so you should used them. The simplest way to do this in your case, without even looping or vectorization, is:
range(1) = sum(...
range(2) = sum(...
...
range(10) = sum(...
Now you have one variable in your workspace rather than 10 and any operations you perform on this variable will be much easier.
I don't use Matlab so I can't give you the exact syntax for a fix. At a minimum, it looks like you're forgetting to reset multiple and k for each new Poisson. Also, you're only generating a single z.
A working implementation to get num_generated Poisson outcomes should look something like the following pseudocode:
threshold = Math.exp(-lambda * T)
loop num_generated times {
%% Each time through this loop produces a single Poisson outcome
count = 0
product = 1.0
while (product = product * rand()) >= threshold {
count += 1
}
%% count now has a valid Poisson value, do what you want with it
}
Related
I am using below Matlab code to calculate power function [ without using built-in function] to calculate power = b^e.
At the moment , I am unable to get power function going that support fractional exponential values b^(1/2) = sqrt(b) or 3.4 ^ (1/4) to calculate power due inefficient approach , because it loops e times. I need help in efficient logic for fractional exponent.
Thank you
b = [-32:32]; % example input values
e = [-3:3]; % example input values but doesn't support fraction's
power_function(b,e)
p = 1;
if e < 0
e = abs(e);
multiplier = 1/b;
else
multiplier = b;
end
for k = 1:e
p(:) = p * multiplier; % n-th root for any given number
end
I am looking for an optimal way to program this summation ratio. As input I have two vectors v_mn and x_mn with (M*N)x1 elements each.
The ratio is of the form:
The vector x_mn is 0-1 vector so when x_mn=1, the ration is r given above and when x_mn=0 the ratio is 0.
The vector v_mn is a vector which contain real numbers.
I did the denominator like this but it takes a lot of times.
function r_ij = denominator(v_mn, M, N, i, j)
%here x_ij=1, to get r_ij.
S = [];
for m = 1:M
for n = 1:N
if (m ~= i)
if (n ~= j)
S = [S v_mn(i, n)];
else
S = [S 0];
end
else
S = [S 0];
end
end
end
r_ij = 1+S;
end
Can you give a good way to do it in matlab. You can ignore the ratio and give me the denominator which is more complicated.
EDIT: I am sorry I did not write it very good. The i and j are some numbers between 1..M and 1..N respectively. As you can see, the ratio r is many values (M*N values). So I calculated only the value i and j. More precisely, I supposed x_ij=1. Also, I convert the vectors v_mn into a matrix that's why I use double index.
If you reshape your data, your summation is just a repeated matrix/vector multiplication.
Here's an implementation for a single m and n, along with a simple speed/equality test:
clc
%# some arbitrary test parameters
M = 250;
N = 1000;
v = rand(M,N); %# (you call it v_mn)
x = rand(M,N); %# (you call it x_mn)
m0 = randi(M,1); %# m of interest
n0 = randi(N,1); %# n of interest
%# "Naive" version
tic
S1 = 0;
for mm = 1:M %# (you call this m')
if mm == m0, continue; end
for nn = 1:N %# (you call this n')
if nn == n0, continue; end
S1 = S1 + v(m0,nn) * x(mm,nn);
end
end
r1 = v(m0,n0)*x(m0,n0) / (1+S1);
toc
%# MATLAB version: use matrix multiplication!
tic
ninds = [1:m0-1 m0+1:M];
minds = [1:n0-1 n0+1:N];
S2 = sum( x(minds, ninds) * v(m0, ninds).' );
r2 = v(m0,n0)*x(m0,n0) / (1+S2);
toc
%# Test if values are equal
abs(r1-r2) < 1e-12
Outputs on my machine:
Elapsed time is 0.327004 seconds. %# loop-version
Elapsed time is 0.002455 seconds. %# version with matrix multiplication
ans =
1 %# and yes, both are equal
So the speedup is ~133×
Now that's for a single value of m and n. To do this for all values of m and n, you can use an (optimized) double loop around it:
r = zeros(M,N);
for m0 = 1:M
xx = x([1:m0-1 m0+1:M], :);
vv = v(m0,:).';
for n0 = 1:N
ninds = [1:n0-1 n0+1:N];
denom = 1 + sum( xx(:,ninds) * vv(ninds) );
r(m0,n0) = v(m0,n0)*x(m0,n0)/denom;
end
end
which completes in ~15 seconds on my PC for M = 250, N= 1000 (R2010a).
EDIT: actually, with a little more thought, I was able to reduce it all down to this:
denom = zeros(M,N);
for mm = 1:M
xx = x([1:mm-1 mm+1:M],:);
denom(mm,:) = sum( xx*v(mm,:).' ) - sum( bsxfun(#times, xx, v(mm,:)) );
end
denom = denom + 1;
r_mn = x.*v./denom;
which completes in less than 1 second for N = 250 and M = 1000 :)
For a start you need to pre-alocate your S matrix. It changes size every loop so put
S = zeros(m*n, 1)
at the start of your function. This will also allow you to do away with your else conditional statements, ie they will reduce to this:
if (m ~= i)
if (n ~= j)
S(m*M + n) = v_mn(i, n);
Otherwise since you have to visit every element im afraid it may not be able to get much faster.
If you desperately need more speed you can look into doing some mex coding which is code in c/c++ but run in matlab.
http://www.mathworks.com.au/help/matlab/matlab_external/introducing-mex-files.html
Rather than first jumping into vectorization of the double loop, you may want modify the above to make sure that it does what you want. In this code, there is no summing of the data, instead a vector S is being resized at each iteration. As well, the signature could include the matrices V and X so that the multiplication occurs as in the formula (rather than just relying on the value of X to be zero or one, let us pass that matrix in).
The function could look more like the following (I've replaced the i,j inputs with m,n to be more like the equation):
function result = denominator(V,X,m,n)
% use the size of V to determine M and N
[M,N] = size(V);
% initialize the summed value to one (to account for one at the end)
result = 1;
% outer loop
for i=1:M
% ignore the case where m==i
if i~=m
for j=1:N
% ignore the case where n==j
if j~=n
result = result + V(m,j)*X(i,j);
end
end
end
end
Note how the first if is outside of the inner for loop since it does not depend on j. Try the above and see what happens!
You can vectorize from within Matlab to speed up your calculations. Every time you use an operation like ".^" or ".*" or any matrix operation for that matter, Matlab will do them in parallel, which is much, much faster than iterating over each item.
In this case, look at what you are doing in terms of matrices. First, in your loop you are only dealing with the mth row of $V_{nm}$, which we can use as a vector for itself.
If you look at your formula carefully, you can figure out that you almost get there if you just write this row vector as a column vector and multiply the matrix $X_{nm}$ to it from the left, using standard matrix multiplication. The resulting vector contains the sums over all n. To get the final result, just sum up this vector.
function result = denominator_vectorized(V,X,m,n)
% get the part of V with the first index m
Vm = V(m,:)';
% remove the parts of X you don't want to iterate over. Note that, since I
% am inside the function, I am only editing the value of X within the scope
% of this function.
X(m,:) = 0;
X(:,n) = 0;
%do the matrix multiplication and the summation at once
result = 1-sum(X*Vm);
To show you how this optimizes your operation, I will compare it to the code proposed by another commenter:
function result = denominator(V,X,m,n)
% use the size of V to determine M and N
[M,N] = size(V);
% initialize the summed value to one (to account for one at the end)
result = 1;
% outer loop
for i=1:M
% ignore the case where m==i
if i~=m
for j=1:N
% ignore the case where n==j
if j~=n
result = result + V(m,j)*X(i,j);
end
end
end
end
The test:
V=rand(10000,10000);
X=rand(10000,10000);
disp('looped version')
tic
denominator(V,X,1,1)
toc
disp('matrix operation')
tic
denominator_vectorized(V,X,1,1)
toc
The result:
looped version
ans =
2.5197e+07
Elapsed time is 4.648021 seconds.
matrix operation
ans =
2.5197e+07
Elapsed time is 0.563072 seconds.
That is almost ten times the speed of the loop iteration. So, always look out for possible matrix operations in your code. If you have the Parallel Computing Toolbox installed and a CUDA-enabled graphics card installed, Matlab will even perform these operations on your graphics card without any further effort on your part!
EDIT: That last bit is not entirely true. You still need to take a few steps to do operations on CUDA hardware, but they aren't a lot. See Matlab documentation.
I have been doing linear programming problems in my class by graphing them but I would like to know how to write a program for a particular problem to solve it for me. If there are too many variables or constraints I could never do this by graphing.
Example problem, maximize 5x + 3y with constraints:
5x - 2y >= 0
x + y <= 7
x <= 5
x >= 0
y >= 0
I graphed this and got a visible region with 3 corners. x=5 y=2 is the optimal point.
How do I turn this into code? I know of the simplex method. And very importantly, will all LP problems be coded in the same structure? Would brute force work?
There are quite a number of Simplex Implementations that you will find if you search.
In addition to the one mentioned in the comment (Numerical Recipes in C),
you can also find:
Google's own Simplex-Solver
Then there's COIN-OR
GNU has its own GLPK
If you want a C++ implementation, this one in Google Code is actually accessible.
There are many implementations in R including the boot package. (In R, you can see the implementation of a function by typing it without the parenthesis.)
To address your other two questions:
Will all LPs be coded the same way? Yes, a generic LP solver can be written to load and solve any LP. (There are industry standard formats for reading LP's like mps and .lp
Would brute force work? Keep in mind that many companies and big organizations spend a long time on fine tuning the solvers. There are LP's that have interesting properties that many solvers will try to exploit. Also, certain computations can be solved in parallel. The algorithm is exponential, so at some large number of variables/constraints, brute force won't work.
Hope that helps.
I wrote this is matlab yesterday, which could be easily transcribed to C++ if you use Eigen library or write your own matrix class using a std::vector of a std::vector
function [x, fval] = mySimplex(fun, A, B, lb, up)
%Examples paramters to show that the function actually works
% sample set 1 (works for this data set)
% fun = [8 10 7];
% A = [1 3 2; 1 5 1];
% B = [10; 8];
% lb = [0; 0; 0];
% ub = [inf; inf; inf];
% sample set 2 (works for this data set)
fun = [7 8 10];
A = [2 3 2; 1 1 2];
B = [1000; 800];
lb = [0; 0; 0];
ub = [inf; inf; inf];
% generate a new slack variable for every row of A
numSlackVars = size(A,1); % need a new slack variables for every row of A
% Set up tableau to store algorithm data
tableau = [A; -fun];
tableau = [tableau, eye(numSlackVars + 1)];
lastCol = [B;0];
tableau = [tableau, lastCol];
% for convienience sake, assign the following:
numRows = size(tableau,1);
numCols = size(tableau,2);
% do simplex algorithm
% step 0: find num of negative entries in bottom row of tableau
numNeg = 0; % the number of negative entries in bottom row
for i=1:numCols
if(tableau(numRows,i) < 0)
numNeg = numNeg + 1;
end
end
% Remark: the number of negatives is exactly the number of iterations needed in the
% simplex algorithm
for iterations = 1:numNeg
% step 1: find minimum value in last row
minVal = 10000; % some big number
minCol = 1; % start by assuming min value is the first element
for i=1:numCols
if(tableau(numRows, i) < minVal)
minVal = tableau(size(tableau,1), i);
minCol = i; % update the index corresponding to the min element
end
end
% step 2: Find corresponding ratio vector in pivot column
vectorRatio = zeros(numRows -1, 1);
for i=1:(numRows-1) % the size of ratio vector is numCols - 1
vectorRatio(i, 1) = tableau(i, numCols) ./ tableau(i, minCol);
end
% step 3: Determine pivot element by finding minimum element in vector
% ratio
minVal = 10000; % some big number
minRatio = 1; % holds the element with the minimum ratio
for i=1:numRows-1
if(vectorRatio(i,1) < minVal)
minVal = vectorRatio(i,1);
minRatio = i;
end
end
% step 4: assign pivot element
pivotElement = tableau(minRatio, minCol);
% step 5: perform pivot operation on tableau around the pivot element
tableau(minRatio, :) = tableau(minRatio, :) * (1/pivotElement);
% step 6: perform pivot operation on rows (not including last row)
for i=1:size(vectorRatio,1)+1 % do last row last
if(i ~= minRatio) % we skip over the minRatio'th element of the tableau here
tableau(i, :) = -tableau(i,minCol)*tableau(minRatio, :) + tableau(i,:);
end
end
end
% Now we can interpret the algo tableau
numVars = size(A,2); % the number of cols of A is the number of variables
x = zeros(size(size(tableau,1), 1)); % for efficiency
% Check for basicity
for col=1:numVars
count_zero = 0;
count_one = 0;
for row = 1:size(tableau,1)
if(tableau(row,col) < 1e-2)
count_zero = count_zero + 1;
elseif(tableau(row,col) - 1 < 1e-2)
count_one = count_one + 1;
stored_row = row; % we store this (like in memory) column for later use
end
end
if(count_zero == (size(tableau,1) -1) && count_one == 1) % this is the case where it is basic
x(col,1) = tableau(stored_row, numCols);
else
x(col,1) = 0; % this is the base where it is not basic
end
end
% find function optimal value at optimal solution
fval = x(1,1) * fun(1,1); % just needed for logic to work here
for i=2:numVars
fval = fval + x(i,1) * fun(1,i);
end
end
Statement of Problem:
I have an array M with m rows and n columns. The array M is filled with non-zero elements.
I also have a vector t with n elements, and a vector omega
with m elements.
The elements of t correspond to the columns of matrix M.
The elements of omega correspond to the rows of matrix M.
Goal of Algorithm:
Define chi as the multiplication of vector t and omega. I need to obtain a 1D vector a, where each element of a is a function of chi.
Each element of chi is unique (i.e. every element is different).
Using mathematics notation, this can be expressed as a(chi)
Each element of vector a corresponds to an element or elements of M.
Matlab code:
Here is a code snippet showing how the vectors t and omega are generated. The matrix M is pre-existing.
[m,n] = size(M);
t = linspace(0,5,n);
omega = linspace(0,628,m);
Conceptual Diagram:
This appears to be a type of integration (if this is the right word for it) along constant chi.
Reference:
Link to reference
The algorithm is not explicitly stated in the reference. I only wish that this algorithm was described in a manner reminiscent of computer science textbooks!
Looking at Figure 11.5, the matrix M is Figure 11.5(a). The goal is to find an algorithm to convert Figure 11.5(a) into 11.5(b).
It appears that the algorithm is a type of integration (averaging, perhaps?) along constant chi.
It appears to me that reshape is the matlab function you need to use. As noted in the link:
B = reshape(A,siz) returns an n-dimensional array with the same elements as A, but reshaped to siz, a vector representing the dimensions of the reshaped array.
That is, create a vector siz with the number m*n in it, and say A = reshape(P,siz), where P is the product of vectors t and ω; or perhaps say something like A = reshape(t*ω,[m*n]). (I don't have matlab here, or would run a test to see if I have the product the right way around.) Note, the link does not show an example with one number (instead of several) after the matrix parameter to reshape, but I would expect from the description that A = reshape(t*ω,m*n) might also work.
You should add a pseudocode or a link to the algorithm you want to implement. From what I could understood I have developed the following code anyway:
M = [1 2 3 4; 5 6 7 8; 9 10 11 12]' % easy test M matrix
a = reshape(M, prod(size(M)), 1) % convert M to vector 'a' with reshape command
[m,n] = size(M); % Your sample code
t = linspace(0,5,n); % Your sample code
omega = linspace(0,628,m); % Your sample code
for i=1:length(t)
for j=1:length(omega) % Acces a(chi) in the desired order
chi = length(omega)*(i-1)+j;
t(i) % related t value
omega(j) % related omega value
a(chi) % related a(chi) value
end
end
As you can see, I also think that the reshape() function is the solution to your problems. I hope that this code helps,
The basic idea is to use two separate loops. The outer loop is over the chi variable values, whereas the inner loop is over the i variable values. Referring to the above diagram in the original question, the i variable corresponds to the x-axis (time), and the j variable corresponds to the y-axis (frequency). Assuming that the chi, i, and j variables can take on any real number, bilinear interpolation is then used to find an amplitude corresponding to an element in matrix M. The integration is just an averaging over elements of M.
The following code snippet provides an overview of the basic algorithm to express elements of a matrix as a vector using the spectral collapsing from 2D to 1D. I can't find any reference for this, but it is a solution that works for me.
% Amp = amplitude vector corresponding to Figure 11.5(b) in book reference
% M = matrix corresponding to the absolute value of the complex Gabor transform
% matrix in Figure 11.5(a) in book reference
% Nchi = number of chi in chi vector
% prod = product of timestep and frequency step
% dt = time step
% domega = frequency step
% omega_max = maximum angular frequency
% i = time array element along x-axis
% j = frequency array element along y-axis
% current_i = current time array element in loop
% current_j = current frequency array element in loop
% Nchi = number of chi
% Nivar = number of i variables
% ivar = i variable vector
% calculate for chi = 0, which only occurs when
% t = 0 and omega = 0, at i = 1
av0 = mean( M(1,:) );
av1 = mean( M(2:end,1) );
av2 = mean( [av0 av1] );
Amp(1) = av2;
% av_val holds the sum of all values that have been averaged
av_val_sum = 0;
% loop for rest of chi
for ccnt = 2:Nchi % 2:Nchi
av_val_sum = 0; % reset av_val_sum
current_chi = chi( ccnt ); % current value of chi
% loop over i vector
for icnt = 1:Nivar % 1:Nivar
current_i = ivar( icnt );
current_j = (current_chi / (prod * (current_i - 1))) + 1;
current_t = dt * (current_i - 1);
current_omega = domega * (current_j - 1);
% values out of range
if(current_omega > omega_max)
continue;
end
% use bilinear interpolation to find an amplitude
% at current_t and current_omega from matrix M
% f_x_y is the bilinear interpolated amplitude
% Insert bilinear interpolation code here
% add to running sum
av_val_sum = av_val_sum + f_x_y;
end % icnt loop
% compute the average over all i
av = av_val_sum / Nivar;
% assign the average to Amp
Amp(ccnt) = av;
end % ccnt loop
I have 2 matrices: V which is square MxM, and K which is MxN. Calling the dimension across rows x and the dimension across columns t, I need to evaluate the integral (i.e sum) over both dimensions of K times a t-shifted version of V, the answer being a function of the shift (almost like a convolution, see below). The sum is defined by the following expression, where _{} denotes the summation indices, and a zero-padding of out-of-limits elements is assumed:
S(t) = sum_{x,tau}[V(x,t+tau) * K(x,tau)]
I manage to do it with a single loop, over the t dimension (vectorizing the x dimension):
% some toy matrices
V = rand(50,50);
K = rand(50,10);
[M N] = size(K);
S = zeros(1, M);
for t = 1 : N
S(1,1:end-t+1) = S(1,1:end-t+1) + sum(bsxfun(#times, V(:,t:end), K(:,t)),1);
end
I have similar expressions which I managed to evaluate without a for loop, using a combination of conv2 and\or mirroring (flipping) of a single dimension. However I can't see how to avoid a for loop in this case (despite the appeared similarity to convolution).
Steps to vectorization
1] Perform sum(bsxfun(#times, V(:,t:end), K(:,t)),1) for all columns in V against all columns in K with matrix-multiplication -
sum_mults = V.'*K
This would give us a 2D array with each column representing sum(bsxfun(#times,.. operation at each iteration.
2] Step1 gave us all possible summations and also the values to be summed are not aligned in the same row across iterations, so we need to do a bit more work before summing along rows. The rest of the work is about getting a shifted up version. For the same, you can use boolean indexing with a upper and lower triangular boolean mask. Finally, we sum along each row for the final output. So, this part of the code would look like so -
valid_mask = tril(true(size(sum_mults)));
sum_mults_shifted = zeros(size(sum_mults));
sum_mults_shifted(flipud(valid_mask)) = sum_mults(valid_mask);
out = sum(sum_mults_shifted,2);
Runtime tests -
%// Inputs
V = rand(1000,1000);
K = rand(1000,200);
disp('--------------------- With original loopy approach')
tic
[M N] = size(K);
S = zeros(1, M);
for t = 1 : N
S(1,1:end-t+1) = S(1,1:end-t+1) + sum(bsxfun(#times, V(:,t:end), K(:,t)),1);
end
toc
disp('--------------------- With proposed vectorized approach')
tic
sum_mults = V.'*K; %//'
valid_mask = tril(true(size(sum_mults)));
sum_mults_shifted = zeros(size(sum_mults));
sum_mults_shifted(flipud(valid_mask)) = sum_mults(valid_mask);
out = sum(sum_mults_shifted,2);
toc
Output -
--------------------- With original loopy approach
Elapsed time is 2.696773 seconds.
--------------------- With proposed vectorized approach
Elapsed time is 0.044144 seconds.
This might be cheating (using arrayfun instead of a for loop) but I believe this expression gives you what you want:
S = arrayfun(#(t) sum(sum( V(:,(t+1):(t+N)) .* K )), 1:(M-N), 'UniformOutput', true)