Background: I receive a long and lat as parameters to a web service. They are typically up to 6 decimal places. When a new request is received, I calculate the distance between the last recorded loc and the long/lat in the params of the request. If the distance is greater than a certain threshold of miles apart, I update the current loc.
Problem: I use the geokit gem/plugin to calculate the distance between the locs. Very rarely, a bug shows up (the zero distance bug mentioned on the author's site - I'm using 1.4.1 which claims the bug is fixed, but I still see it occurring shrug) that causes the distance calc to return something wildly inaccurate when calculating the distance between two points that are identical (this occurs if the user is not moving). This is causing updates to the user's current loc that should not be happening. You're probably wondering - well if it's just updating the loc to be exactly the same coordinates, who cares? Well, the answer is that a bunch of other crap occurs when the loc is updated that makes it an actual issue.
Attempted Solution: I tried to add in logic to manually check if the two locs are identical before calculating the distance and then just skipping the calc and not updating if that is the case. The incoming parameters are long/lats with 6 decimal precision; whereas, in my database, I store the values as floats, which appears to only store 4 decimal places. This is causing my float comparison to always fail and the inappropriate loc updates continue to occur.
Phew, ok so the actual question is: How should I perform this comparison? Should I truncate 2 of the decimal places from the incoming lat/longs, round up somehow so the fourth digit is correct and then compare? Or, should I do a "within a certain range" sort of comparison (e.g. reported_loc.long > current_loc.long - .0001 && reported_loc.long < current_loc.long + .0001)? Also any recommendations for existing ruby gem/plugins or built in functions to do this sort of thing would be much appreciated.
Here is sample output from the log:
[update_loc] Last location history record at lat: 41.5024, long: -81.6816
[update_loc] Current loc at lat: 41.502467, long: -81.681623
[update_loc] Distance from current loc and last loc history: 5795.10615113555 miles
[update_loc] Locs not identical and distance greater than threshold, inserting new loc history
[update_loc] Location update complete
Thank you
Tom
The usual way to test if two numbers are close is to use abs, ie,
(reported_loc.long - current_loc.long).abs <= tol
where tol is some pre-specified tolerance, eg, 0.0001.
A GPS receiver can give you a location with a precision of many decimals, but that doesn't mean that the measurement is actually that accurate.
Usually about 95% of the measurements lie within a circle of a couple of meters, which is about the same accuracy that you can store with a 32bits float.
However, you will clearly notice rounding errors when you plot a gps log as floats on a map.
Anyway, to do this comparison, I'd use a range instead of rounding the incoming value and comparing that to the database value. You won't be able to detect the smallest movements anymore, but at least you won't get false positives anymore either.
As you're using floats to store stuff, you clearly don't care about millimeters or centimeters anyway.
Related
I'm hoping that this is a fairly simple solution, but I'm fairly new to Dynamics 365 development and the documentation and prior questions I've seen so far haven't been too helpful.
I need to create a specifically rounded calculated field within an entity. Currently the field has been set up as a decimal type and I have the precision value set to 0 to produce a whole number.
The calculation I am currently using in the field calculation editor is simply x + y / 100. However whatever result comes from that needs to be always rounded up to the next whole number rather than the nearest one. Is there a way to force the field logic to always round upwards?
If a direct answer isn't available, any resources would be appreciated.
I would say it is working as expected since less than 0.5 will round off to lower nearest number (floor) and greater than 0.5 will round off to higher nearest number (ceiling).
To handle your scenario, to always round off to higher nearest number (ceiling) - I may recommend this: Add 49 like (x + y + 49)/100, in other words 0.49 to formula. This quirk came from top of my head but this may be the best option in calculated field perspective.
I’ve got a statistical/mathematical problem I’m stumped on and I was really hoping to get some help. I’m working on a research where I need to compare a weekly graph with its own history to see when in the past it was almost the same. Think of this as “finding the closest match”. The information is displayed as a line graph, but it’s readily available as raw data:
Date...................Result
08/10/18......52.5
08/07/18......60.2
08/06/18......58.5
08/05/18......55.4
08/04/18......55.2
and so on...
What I really want is the output to be a form of correlation between the current data points with the other set of 5 concurrent data points in history. So, something like:
Date range.....................Correlation
07/10/18-07/15/18....0.98
We’ll be getting a code written in Python for the software to do this automatically (so that as new data is added, it automatically runs and finds the closest set of numbers to match the current one).
Here’s where the difficulty sets in: Since numbers are on a general upward trend over time, we don’t want it to compare the absolute value (since the numbers might never really match). One suggestion has been to compare the delta (rate of change as a percentage over the previous day), or using a log scale.
I’m wondering: how do I go about this? What kind of calculation I can use to get the desired results? I’ve looked at the different kind of correlation equations, but they don’t account for the “shape” of the data, and they generally just average it out. The shape of the line chart is the important thing.
Thanks very much in advance!
I would simply divide the data of each week by their average (i.e., normalize them to an average of 1), then sum the squares of the differences of each day of each pair of weeks. This sum is what you want to minimize.
If you don't care about how much a graph oscillates relative to its mean, you can normalize also the variance. For each week, calculate mean and variance, then subtract the mean and divide by the root of the variance. Each week will have mean 0 and variance 1. Then minimize the sum of squares of differences like before.
If the normalization of data is all you can change in your workflow, just leave out the sum of squares of differences minimization part.
iOS has an issue recording through some USB audio devices. It cannot be reliably reproduced (happens every 1 in ~2000-3000 records in batches and silently disappears), and we currently manually check our audio for any recording issues. It results in small numbers of samples (1-20) being shifted by a small number that sounds like a sort of 'crackle'.
They look like this:
closer:
closer:
another, single sample error elsewhere in the same audio file:
The question is, how can these be algorithmically be detected (assuming direct access to samples) whilst not triggering false positives on high frequency audio with waveforms like this:
Bonus points: after determining as many errors as possible, how can the audio be 'fixed'?
Dirty audio file - pictured
Another dirty audio file
Clean audio with valid high frequency - pictured
More bonus points: what could be causing this issue in the iOS USB audio drivers/hardware (assuming it is there).
I do not think there is an out of the box solution to find the disturbances, but here is one (non standard) way of tackling the problem. Using this, I could find most intervals and I only got a small number of false positives, but the algorithm could certainly use some fine tuning.
My idea is to find the start and end point of the deviating samples. The first step should be to make these points stand out more clearly. This can be done by taking the logarithm of the data and taking the differences between consecutive values.
In MATLAB I load the data (in this example I use dirty-sample-other.wav)
y1 = wavread('dirty-sample-pictured.wav');
y2 = wavread('dirty-sample-other.wav');
y3 = wavread('clean-highfreq.wav');
data = y2;
and use the following code:
logdata = log(1+data);
difflogdata = diff(logdata);
So instead of this plot of the original data:
we get:
where the intervals we are looking for stand out as a positive and negative spike. For example zooming in on the largest positive value in the plot of logarithm differences we get the following two figures. One for the original data:
and one for the difference of logarithms:
This plot could help with finding the areas manually but ideally we want to find them using an algorithm. The way I did this was to take a moving window of size 6, computing the mean value of the window (of all points except the minimum value), and compare this to the maximum value. If the maximum point is the only point that is above the mean value and at least twice as large as the mean it is counted as a positive extreme value.
I then used a threshold of counts, at least half of the windows moving over the value should detect it as an extreme value in order for it to be accepted.
Multiplying all points with (-1) this algorithm is then run again to detect the minimum values.
Marking the positive extremes with "o" and negative extremes with "*" we get the following two plots. One for the differences of logarithms:
and one for the original data:
Zooming in on the left part of the figure showing the logarithmic differences we can see that most extreme values are found:
It seems like most intervals are found and there are only a small number of false positives. For example running the algorithm on 'clean-highfreq.wav' I only find one positive and one negative extreme value.
Single values that are falsely classified as extreme values could perhaps be weeded out by matching start and end-points. And if you want to replace the lost data you could use some kind of interpolation using the surrounding data-points, perhaps even a linear interpolation will be good enough.
Here is the MATLAB-code I used:
function test20()
clc
clear all
y1 = wavread('dirty-sample-pictured.wav');
y2 = wavread('dirty-sample-other.wav');
y3 = wavread('clean-highfreq.wav');
data = y2;
logdata = log(1+data);
difflogdata = diff(logdata);
figure,plot(data),hold on,plot(data,'.')
figure,plot(difflogdata),hold on,plot(difflogdata,'.')
figure,plot(data),hold on,plot(data,'.'),xlim([68000,68200])
figure,plot(difflogdata),hold on,plot(difflogdata,'.'),xlim([68000,68200])
k = 6;
myData = difflogdata;
myPoints = findPoints(myData,k);
myData2 = -difflogdata;
myPoints2 = findPoints(myData2,k);
figure
plotterFunction(difflogdata,myPoints>=k,'or')
hold on
plotterFunction(difflogdata,myPoints2>=k,'*r')
figure
plotterFunction(data,myPoints>=k,'or')
hold on
plotterFunction(data,myPoints2>=k,'*r')
end
function myPoints = findPoints(myData,k)
iterationVector = k+1:length(myData);
myPoints = zeros(size(myData));
for i = iterationVector
subVector = myData(i-k:i);
meanSubVector = mean(subVector(subVector>min(subVector)));
[maxSubVector, maxIndex] = max(subVector);
if (sum(subVector>meanSubVector) == 1 && maxSubVector>2*meanSubVector)
myPoints(i-k-1+maxIndex) = myPoints(i-k-1+maxIndex) +1;
end
end
end
function plotterFunction(allPoints,extremeIndices,markerType)
extremePoints = NaN(size(allPoints));
extremePoints(extremeIndices) = allPoints(extremeIndices);
plot(extremePoints,markerType,'MarkerSize',15),
hold on
plot(allPoints,'.')
plot(allPoints)
end
Edit - comments on recovering the original data
Here is a slightly zoomed out view of figure three above: (the disturbance is between 6.8 and 6.82)
When I examine the values, your theory about the data being mirrored to negative values does not seem to fit the pattern exactly. But in any case, my thought about just removing the differences is certainly not correct. Since the surrounding points do not seem to be altered by the disturbance, I would probably go back to the original idea of not trusting the points within the affected region and instead using some sort of interpolation using the surrounding data. It seems like a simple linear interpolation would be a quite good approximation in most cases.
To answer the question of why it happens -
A USB audio device and host are not clock synchronous - that is to say that the host cannot accurately recover the relationship between the host's local clock and the word-clock of the ADC/DAC on the audio interface. Various techniques do exist for clock-recovery with various degrees of effectiveness. To add to the problem, the bus clock is likely to be unrelated to either of the two audio clocks.
Whilst you might imagine this not to be too much of a concern for audio receive - audio capture callbacks could happen when there is data - audio interfaces are usually bi-directional and the host will be rendering audio at regular interval, which the other end is potentially consuming at a slightly different rate.
In-between are several sets of buffers, which can over- or under-run, which is what looks to be happening here; the interval between it happening certainly seems about right.
You might find that changing USB audio device to one built around a different chip-set (or, simply a different local oscillator) helps.
As an aside both IEEE1394 audio and MPEG transport streams have the same clock recovery requirement. Both of them solve the problem with by embedding a local clock reference packet into the serial bitstream in a very predictable way which allows accurate clock recovery on the other end.
I think the following algorithm can be applied to samples in order to determine a potential false positive:
First, scan for high amount of high frequency, either via FFT'ing the sound block by block (256 values maybe), or by counting the consecutive samples above and below zero. The latter should keep track of maximum consecutive above zero, maximum consecutive below zero, the amount of small transitions around zero and the current volume of the block (0..1 as Audacity displays it). Then, if the maximum consecutive is below 5 (sampling at 44100, and zeroes be consecutive, while outstsanding samples are single, 5 responds to 4410Hz frequency, which is pretty high), or the sum of small transitions' lengths is above a certain value depending on maximum consecutive (I believe the first approximation would be 3*5*block size/distance between two maximums, which roughly equates to period of the loudest FFT frequency. Also it should be measured both above and below threshold, as we can end up with an erroneous peak, which will likely be detected by difference between main tempo measured on below-zero or above-zero maximums, also by std-dev of peaks. If high frequency is dominant, this block is eligible only for zero-value testing, and a special means to repair the data will be needed. If high frequency is significant, that is, there is a dominant low frequency detected, we can search for peaks bigger than 3.0*high frequency volume, as well as abnormal zeroes in this block.
Also, your gaps seem to be either highly extending or plain zero, with high extends to be single errors, and zero errors range from 1-20. So, if there is a zero range with values under 0.02 absolute value, which is directly surrounded by values of 0.15 (a variable to be finetuned) or higher absolute value AND of the same sign, count this point as an error. Single values that stand out can be detected if you calculate 2.0*(current sample)-(previous sample)-(next sample) and if it's above a certain threshold (0.1+high frequency volume, or 3.0*high frequency volume, whichever is bigger), count this as an error and average.
What to do with zero gaps found - we can copy values from 1 period backwards and 1 period forwards (averaging), where "period" is of the most significant frequency of the FFT of the block. If the "period" is smaller than the gap (say we've detected a gap of zeroes in a high-pitched part of the sound), use two or more periods, so the source data will all be valid (in this case, no averaging can be done, as it's possible that the signal 2 periods forward from the gap and 2 periods back will be in counterphase). If there are more than one frequency of about equal amplitude, we can plain sample these with correct phases, cutting the rest of less significant frequencies altogether.
The outstanding sample should IMO just be averaged by 2-4 surrounding samples, as there seems to be only a single sample ever encountered in your sound files.
The discrete wavelet transform (DWT) may be the solution to your problem.
A FFT calculation is not very useful in your case since its an average representation of relative frequency content over the entire duration of the signal, and thus impossible to detect momentary changes. The dicrete short time frequency transform (STFT) tries to tackle this by computing the DFT for short consecutive time-blocks of the signal, the length of which is determine by the length (and shape) of a window, but since the resolution of the DFT is dependent on the data/block-length, there is a trade-off between resolution in freqency OR in time, and finding this magical fixed window-size can be tricky!
What you want is a time-frequency analysis method with good time resolution for high-frequency events, and good frequency resolution for low-frequency events... Enter the discrete wavelet transform!
There are numerous wavelet transforms for different applications and as you might expect, it's computationally heavy. The DWT may not be practical solution to your problem, but it's worth considering. Good luck with your problem. Some friday-evening reading:
http://klapetek.cz/wdwt.html
http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11242003-185039/unrestricted/09_ds_chapter2.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_transform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_wavelet_transform
You can try the following super-simple approach (maybe it's enough):
Take each point in your wave-form and subtract its predecessor (look at the changes from one point to the next).
Look at the distribution of these changes and find their standard deviation.
If any given difference is beyond X times this standard deviation (either above or below), flag it as a problem.
Determine the best value for X by playing with it and seeing how well it performs.
Most "problems" should come as a pair of two differences beyond your cutoff, one going up, and one going back down.
To stick with the super-simple approach, you can then fix the data by just interpolating linearly between the last good point before your problem-section and the first good point after. (Make sure you don't just delete the points as this will influence (raise) the pitch of your audio.)
What is an algorithm to compare multiple sets of numbers against a target set to determine which ones are the most "similar"?
One use of this algorithm would be to compare today's hourly weather forecast against historical weather recordings to find a day that had similar weather.
The similarity of two sets is a bit subjective, so the algorithm really just needs to diferentiate between good matches and bad matches. We have a lot of historical data, so I would like to try to narrow down the amount of days the users need to look through by automatically throwing out sets that aren't close and trying to put the "best" matches at the top of the list.
Edit:
Ideally the result of the algorithm would be comparable to results using different data sets. For example using the mean square error as suggested by Niles produces pretty good results, but the numbers generated when comparing the temperature can not be compared to numbers generated with other data such as Wind Speed or Precipitation because the scale of the data is different. Some of the non-weather data being is very large, so the mean square error algorithm generates numbers in the hundreds of thousands compared to the tens or hundreds that is generated by using temperature.
I think the mean square error metric might work for applications such as weather compares. It's easy to calculate and gives numbers that do make sense.
Since your want to compare measurements over time you can just leave out missing values from the calculation.
For values that are not time-bound or even unsorted, multi-dimensional scatter data it's a bit more difficult. Choosing a good distance metric becomes part of the art of analysing such data.
Use the pearson correlation coefficient. I figured out how to calculate it in an SQL query which can be found here: http://vanheusden.com/misc/pearson.php
In finance they use Beta to measure the correlation of 2 series of numbers. EG, Beta could answer the question "Over the last year, how much would the price of IBM go up on a day that the price of the S&P 500 index went up 5%?" It deals with the percentage of the move, so the 2 series can have different scales.
In my example, the Beta is Covariance(IBM, S&P 500) / Variance(S&P 500).
Wikipedia has pages explaining Covariance, Variance, and Beta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance)
Look at statistical sites. I think you are looking for correlation.
As an example, I'll assume you're measuring temp, wind, and precip. We'll call these items "features". So valid values might be:
Temp: -50 to 100F (I'm in Minnesota, USA)
Wind: 0 to 120 Miles/hr (not sure if this is realistic but bear with me)
Precip: 0 to 100
Start by normalizing your data. Temp has a range of 150 units, Wind 120 units, and Precip 100 units. Multiply your wind units by 1.25 and Precip by 1.5 to make them roughly the same "scale" as your temp. You can get fancy here and make rules that weigh one feature as more valuable than others. In this example, wind might have a huge range but usually stays in a smaller range so you want to weigh it less to prevent it from skewing your results.
Now, imagine each measurement as a point in multi-dimensional space. This example measures 3d space (temp, wind, precip). The nice thing is, if we add more features, we simply increase the dimensionality of our space but the math stays the same. Anyway, we want to find the historical points that are closest to our current point. The easiest way to do that is Euclidean distance. So measure the distance from our current point to each historical point and keep the closest matches:
for each historicalpoint
distance = sqrt(
pow(currentpoint.temp - historicalpoint.temp, 2) +
pow(currentpoint.wind - historicalpoint.wind, 2) +
pow(currentpoint.precip - historicalpoint.precip, 2))
if distance is smaller than the largest distance in our match collection
add historicalpoint to our match collection
remove the match with the largest distance from our match collection
next
This is a brute-force approach. If you have the time, you could get a lot fancier. Multi-dimensional data can be represented as trees like kd-trees or r-trees. If you have a lot of data, comparing your current observation with every historical observation would be too slow. Trees speed up your search. You might want to take a look at Data Clustering and Nearest Neighbor Search.
Cheers.
Talk to a statistician.
Seriously.
They do this type of thing for a living.
You write that the "similarity of two sets is a bit subjective", but it's not subjective at all-- it's a matter of determining the appropriate criteria for similarity for your problem domain.
This is one of those situation where you are much better off speaking to a professional than asking a bunch of programmers.
First of all, ask yourself if these are sets, or ordered collections.
I assume that these are ordered collections with duplicates. The most obvious algorithm is to select a tolerance within which numbers are considered the same, and count the number of slots where the numbers are the same under that measure.
I do have a solution implemented for this in my application, but I'm looking to see if there is something that is better or more "correct". For each historical day I do the following:
function calculate_score(historical_set, forecast_set)
{
double c = correlation(historical_set, forecast_set);
double avg_history = average(historical_set);
double avg_forecast = average(forecast_set);
double penalty = abs(avg_history - avg_forecast) / avg_forecast
return c - penalty;
}
I then sort all the results from high to low.
Since the correlation is a value from -1 to 1 that says whether the numbers fall or rise together, I then "penalize" that with the percentage difference the averages of the two sets of numbers.
A couple of times, you've mentioned that you don't know the distribution of the data, which is of course true. I mean, tomorrow there could be a day that is 150 degree F, with 2000km/hr winds, but it seems pretty unlikely.
I would argue that you have a very good idea of the distribution, since you have a long historical record. Given that, you can put everything in terms of quantiles of the historical distribution, and do something with absolute or squared difference of the quantiles on all measures. This is another normalization method, but one that accounts for the non-linearities in the data.
Normalization in any style should make all variables comparable.
As example, let's say that a day it's a windy, hot day: that might have a temp quantile of .75, and a wind quantile of .75. The .76 quantile for heat might be 1 degree away, and the one for wind might be 3kmh away.
This focus on the empirical distribution is easy to understand as well, and could be more robust than normal estimation (like Mean-square-error).
Are the two data sets ordered, or not?
If ordered, are the indices the same? equally spaced?
If the indices are common (temperatures measured on the same days (but different locations), for example, you can regress the first data set against the second,
and then test that the slope is equal to 1, and that the intercept is 0.
http://stattrek.com/AP-Statistics-4/Test-Slope.aspx?Tutorial=AP
Otherwise, you can do two regressions, of the y=values against their indices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation. You'd still want to compare slopes and intercepts.
====
If unordered, I think you want to look at the cumulative distribution functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_distribution_function
One relevant test is Kolmogorov-Smirnov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov-Smirnov_test
You could also look at
Student's t-test,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test
or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcoxon_signed-rank_test
to test equality of means between the two samples.
And you could test for equality of variances with a Levene test http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35a.htm
Note: it is possible for dissimilar sets of data to have the same mean and variance -- depending on how rigorous you want to be (and how much data you have), you could consider testing for equality of higher moments, as well.
Maybe you can see your set of numbers as a vector (each number of the set being a componant of the vector).
Then you can simply use dot product to compute the similarity of 2 given vectors (i.e. set of numbers).
You might need to normalize your vectors.
More : Cosine similarity
We use a data acquisition card to take readings from a device that increases its signal to a peak and then falls back to near the original value. To find the peak value we currently search the array for the highest reading and use the index to determine the timing of the peak value which is used in our calculations.
This works well if the highest value is the peak we are looking for but if the device is not working correctly we can see a second peak which can be higher than the initial peak. We take 10 readings a second from 16 devices over a 90 second period.
My initial thoughts are to cycle through the readings checking to see if the previous and next points are less than the current to find a peak and construct an array of peaks. Maybe we should be looking at a average of a number of points either side of the current position to allow for noise in the system. Is this the best way to proceed or are there better techniques?
We do use LabVIEW and I have checked the LAVA forums and there are a number of interesting examples. This is part of our test software and we are trying to avoid using too many non-standard VI libraries so I was hoping for feedback on the process/algorithms involved rather than specific code.
There are lots and lots of classic peak detection methods, any of which might work. You'll have to see what, in particular, bounds the quality of your data. Here are basic descriptions:
Between any two points in your data, (x(0), y(0)) and (x(n), y(n)), add up y(i + 1) - y(i) for 0 <= i < n and call this T ("travel") and set R ("rise") to y(n) - y(0) + k for suitably small k. T/R > 1 indicates a peak. This works OK if large travel due to noise is unlikely or if noise distributes symmetrically around a base curve shape. For your application, accept the earliest peak with a score above a given threshold, or analyze the curve of travel per rise values for more interesting properties.
Use matched filters to score similarity to a standard peak shape (essentially, use a normalized dot-product against some shape to get a cosine-metric of similarity)
Deconvolve against a standard peak shape and check for high values (though I often find 2 to be less sensitive to noise for simple instrumentation output).
Smooth the data and check for triplets of equally spaced points where, if x0 < x1 < x2, y1 > 0.5 * (y0 + y2), or check Euclidean distances like this: D((x0, y0), (x1, y1)) + D((x1, y1), (x2, y2)) > D((x0, y0),(x2, y2)), which relies on the triangle inequality. Using simple ratios will again provide you a scoring mechanism.
Fit a very simple 2-gaussian mixture model to your data (for example, Numerical Recipes has a nice ready-made chunk of code). Take the earlier peak. This will deal correctly with overlapping peaks.
Find the best match in the data to a simple Gaussian, Cauchy, Poisson, or what-have-you curve. Evaluate this curve over a broad range and subtract it from a copy of the data after noting it's peak location. Repeat. Take the earliest peak whose model parameters (standard deviation probably, but some applications might care about kurtosis or other features) meet some criterion. Watch out for artifacts left behind when peaks are subtracted from the data.
Best match might be determined by the kind of match scoring suggested in #2 above.
I've done what you're doing before: finding peaks in DNA sequence data, finding peaks in derivatives estimated from measured curves, and finding peaks in histograms.
I encourage you to attend carefully to proper baselining. Wiener filtering or other filtering or simple histogram analysis is often an easy way to baseline in the presence of noise.
Finally, if your data is typically noisy and you're getting data off the card as unreferenced single-ended output (or even referenced, just not differential), and if you're averaging lots of observations into each data point, try sorting those observations and throwing away the first and last quartile and averaging what remains. There are a host of such outlier elimination tactics that can be really useful.
You could try signal averaging, i.e. for each point, average the value with the surrounding 3 or more points. If the noise blips are huge, then even this may not help.
I realise that this was language agnostic, but guessing that you are using LabView, there are lots of pre-packaged signal processing VIs that come with LabView that you can use to do smoothing and noise reduction. The NI forums are a great place to get more specialised help on this sort of thing.
This problem has been studied in some detail.
There are a set of very up-to-date implementations in the TSpectrum* classes of ROOT (a nuclear/particle physics analysis tool). The code works in one- to three-dimensional data.
The ROOT source code is available, so you can grab this implementation if you want.
From the TSpectrum class documentation:
The algorithms used in this class have been published in the following references:
[1] M.Morhac et al.: Background
elimination methods for
multidimensional coincidence gamma-ray
spectra. Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research A 401
(1997) 113-
132.
[2] M.Morhac et al.: Efficient one- and two-dimensional Gold
deconvolution and its application to
gamma-ray spectra decomposition.
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
Physics Research A 401 (1997) 385-408.
[3] M.Morhac et al.: Identification of peaks in
multidimensional coincidence gamma-ray
spectra. Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Research Physics A
443(2000), 108-125.
The papers are linked from the class documentation for those of you who don't have a NIM online subscription.
The short version of what is done is that the histogram flattened to eliminate noise, and then local maxima are detected by brute force in the flattened histogram.
I would like to contribute to this thread an algorithm that I have developed myself:
It is based on the principle of dispersion: if a new datapoint is a given x number of standard deviations away from some moving mean, the algorithm signals (also called z-score). The algorithm is very robust because it constructs a separate moving mean and deviation, such that signals do not corrupt the threshold. Future signals are therefore identified with approximately the same accuracy, regardless of the amount of previous signals. The algorithm takes 3 inputs: lag = the lag of the moving window, threshold = the z-score at which the algorithm signals and influence = the influence (between 0 and 1) of new signals on the mean and standard deviation. For example, a lag of 5 will use the last 5 observations to smooth the data. A threshold of 3.5 will signal if a datapoint is 3.5 standard deviations away from the moving mean. And an influence of 0.5 gives signals half of the influence that normal datapoints have. Likewise, an influence of 0 ignores signals completely for recalculating the new threshold: an influence of 0 is therefore the most robust option.
It works as follows:
Pseudocode
# Let y be a vector of timeseries data of at least length lag+2
# Let mean() be a function that calculates the mean
# Let std() be a function that calculates the standard deviaton
# Let absolute() be the absolute value function
# Settings (the ones below are examples: choose what is best for your data)
set lag to 5; # lag 5 for the smoothing functions
set threshold to 3.5; # 3.5 standard deviations for signal
set influence to 0.5; # between 0 and 1, where 1 is normal influence, 0.5 is half
# Initialise variables
set signals to vector 0,...,0 of length of y; # Initialise signal results
set filteredY to y(1,...,lag) # Initialise filtered series
set avgFilter to null; # Initialise average filter
set stdFilter to null; # Initialise std. filter
set avgFilter(lag) to mean(y(1,...,lag)); # Initialise first value
set stdFilter(lag) to std(y(1,...,lag)); # Initialise first value
for i=lag+1,...,t do
if absolute(y(i) - avgFilter(i-1)) > threshold*stdFilter(i-1) then
if y(i) > avgFilter(i-1)
set signals(i) to +1; # Positive signal
else
set signals(i) to -1; # Negative signal
end
# Adjust the filters
set filteredY(i) to influence*y(i) + (1-influence)*filteredY(i-1);
set avgFilter(i) to mean(filteredY(i-lag,i),lag);
set stdFilter(i) to std(filteredY(i-lag,i),lag);
else
set signals(i) to 0; # No signal
# Adjust the filters
set filteredY(i) to y(i);
set avgFilter(i) to mean(filteredY(i-lag,i),lag);
set stdFilter(i) to std(filteredY(i-lag,i),lag);
end
end
Demo
> For more information, see original answer
This method is basically from David Marr's book "Vision"
Gaussian blur your signal with the expected width of your peaks.
this gets rid of noise spikes and your phase data is undamaged.
Then edge detect (LOG will do)
Then your edges were the edges of features (like peaks).
look between edges for peaks, sort peaks by size, and you're done.
I have used variations on this and they work very well.
I think you want to cross-correlate your signal with an expected, exemplar signal. But, it has been such a long time since I studied signal processing and even then I didn't take much notice.
I don't know very much about instrumentation, so this might be totally impractical, but then again it might be a helpful different direction. If you know how the readings can fail, and there is a certain interval between peaks given such failures, why not do gradient descent at each interval. If the descent brings you back to an area you've searched before, you can abandon it. Depending upon the shape of the sampled surface, this also might help you find peaks faster than search.
Is there a qualitative difference between the desired peak and the unwanted second peak? If both peaks are "sharp" -- i.e. short in time duration -- when looking at the signal in the frequency domain (by doing FFT) you'll get energy at most bands. But if the "good" peak reliably has energy present at frequencies not existing in the "bad" peak, or vice versa, you may be able to automatically differentiate them that way.
You could apply some Standard Deviation to your logic and take notice of peaks over x%.