I am trying to solve a problem of finding the roots of a function using the Newton-Raphson (NR) method in the C language. The functions in which I would like to find the roots are mostly polynomial functions but may also contain trigonometric and logarithmic.
The NR method requires finding the differential of the function. There are 3 ways to implement differentiation:
Symbolic
Numerical
Automatic (with sub types being forward mode and reverse mode. For this particular question, I would like to focus on forward mode)
I have thousands of these functions all requiring finding roots in the quickest time possible.
From the little that I do know, Automatic differentiation is in general quicker than symbolic because it handles the problem of "expression swell" alot more efficiently.
My question therefore is, all other things being equal, which method of differentiation is more computationally efficient: Automatic Differentiation (and more specifically, forward mode) or Numeric differentiation?
If your functions are truly all polynomials, then symbolic derivatives are dirt simple. Letting the coefficients of the polynomial be stored in an array with entries p[k] = a_k, where index k corresponds to the coefficient of x^k, then the derivative is represented by the array with entries dp[k] = (k+1) p[k+1]. For multivariable polynomial, this extends straightforwardly to multidimensional arrays. If your polynomials are not in standard form, e.g. if they include terms like (x-a)^2 or ((x-a)^2-b)^3 or whatever, a little bit of work is needed to transform them into standard form, but this is something you probably should be doing anyways.
If the derivative is not available, you should consider using the secant or regula falsi methods. They have very decent convergence speed (φ-order instead of quadratic). An additional benefit of regula falsi, is that the iterations remains confined to the initial interval, which allows reliable root separation (which Newton does not).
Also note than in the case of numerical evaluation of the derivatives, you will require several computations of the functions, at best two of them. Then the actual convergence speed drops to √2, which is outperformed by the derivative-less methods.
Also note that the symbolic expression of the derivatives is often more costly to evaluate than the functions themselves. So one iteration of Newton costs at least two function evaluations, spoiling the benefit of the convergence rate.
I don't understand how someone could come up with a simple 3x3 matrix called kernel, so when applied to the image, it would produce some awesome effect. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(image_processing) . Why does it work? How did people come up with those kernels (trial and error?)? Is it possible to prove it will always work for all images?
I don't understand how someone could come up with a simple 3x3 matrix called kernel, so when applied to the image, it would produce some awesome effect. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(image_processing).
If you want to dig into the history, you'll need to check some other terms. In older textbooks on image processing, what we think of as kernels today are more likely to be called "operators." Another key term is convolution. Both these terms hint at the mathematical basis of kernels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution
You can read about mathematical convolution in the textbook Computer Vision by Ballard and Brown. The book dates back to the early 80s, but it's still quite useful, and you can read it for free online:
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/BOOKS/BANDB/toc.htm
From the table of contents to the Ballard and Brown book you'll find a link to a PDF for section 2.2.4 Spatial Properties.
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/BOOKS/BANDB/LIB/bandb2_2.pdf
In the PDF, scroll down to the section "The Convolution Theorem." This provides the mathematical background for convolution. It's a relatively short step from thinking about convolution expressed as functions and integrals to the application of the same principles to the discrete world of grayscale (or color) data in 2D images.
You will notice that a number of kernels/operators are associated with names: Sobel, Prewitt, Laplacian, Gaussian, and so on. These names help suggest that there's a history--really quite a long history--of mathematical development and image processing research that has lead to the large number of kernels in common use today.
Gauss and Laplace lived long before us, but their mathematical work has trickled down into forms we can use in image processing. They didn't work on kernels for image processing, but mathematical techniques they developed are directly applicable and commonly used in image processing. Other kernels were developed specifically for processing images.
The Prewitt operator (kernel), which is quite similar to the Sobel operator, was published in 1970, if Wikipedia is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prewitt_operator
Why does it work?
Read about the mathematical theory of convolution to understand how one function can be "passed over" or "dragged" across another. That can explain the theoretical basis.
Then there's the question of why individual kernels work. In you look at the edge transition from dark to light in an image, and if you plot the pixel brightness on a 2D scatterplot, you'll notice that the values in the Y-axis increase rapidly about the edge transition in the image. That edge transition is a slope. A slope can be found using the first derivative. Tada! A kernel that approximates a first derivative operator will find edges.
If you know there's such a thing in optics as Gaussian blur, then you might wonder how it could be applied to a 2D image. Thus the derivation of the Gaussian kernel.
The Laplacian, for instance, is an operator that, according to the first sentence from the Wikipedia entry, "is a differential operator given by the divergence of the gradient of a function on Euclidean space."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplacian
Hoo boy. It's quite a leap from that definition to a kernel. The following page does a fine job of explaining the relationship between derivatives and kernels, and it's a quick read:
http://www.aishack.in/2011/04/the-sobel-and-laplacian-edge-detectors/
You'll also see that one form of the Laplacian kernel is simply named the "edge-finding" kernel in the Wikipedia entry you cited.
There is more than one edge-finding kernel, and each has its place. The Laplacian, Sobel, Prewitt, Kirsch, and Roberts kernels all yield different results, and are suited for different purposes.
How did people come up with those kernels (trial and error?)?
Kernels were developed by different people following a variety of research paths.
Some kernels (to my memory) were developed specifically to model the process of "early vision." Early vision isn't what happens only to early humans, or only for people who rise at 4 a.m., but instead refers to the low-level processes of biological vision: sensing of basic color, intensity, edges, and that sort of thing. At the very low level, edge detection in biological vision can be modeled with kernels.
Other kernels, such as the Laplacian and Gaussian, are approximations of mathematical functions. With a little effort you can derive the kernels yourself.
Image editing and image processing software packages will often allow you to define your own kernel. For example, if you want to identify a shape in an image small enough to be defined by a few connected pixels, then you can define a kernel that matches the shape of the image feature you want to detect. Using custom kernels to detect objects is too crude to work in most real-world applications, but sometimes there are reasons to create a special kernel for a very specific purpose, and sometimes a little trial and error is necessary to find a good kernel.
As user templatetypedef pointed out, you can think of kernels intuitively, and in a fairly short time develop a feel for what each would do.
Is it possible to prove it will always work for all images?
Functionally, you can throw a 3x3, 5x5, or NxN kernel at an image of the appropriate size and it'll "work" in the sense that the operation will be performed and there will be some result. But then the ability to compute a result whether it's useful or not isn't a great definition of "works."
One information definition of whether a kernel "works" is whether convolving an image with that kernel produces a result that you find useful. If you're manipulating images in Photoshop or GIMP, and if you find that a particular enhancement kernel doesn't yield quite what you want, then you might say that kernel doesn't work in the context of your particular image and the end result you want. In image processing for computer vision there's a similar problem: we must pick one or more kernels and other (often non-kernel based) algorithms that will operate in sequence to do something useful such as identify faces, measures the velocity of cars, or guide robots in assembly tasks.
Homework
If you want to understand how you can translate a mathematical concept into a kernel, it helps to derive a kernel by yourself. Even if you know what the end result of the derivation should be, to grok the notion of kernels and convolution it helps to derive a kernel from a mathematical function by yourself, on paper, and (preferably) from memory.
Try deriving the 3x3 Gaussian kernel from the mathematical function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function
Deriving the kernel yourself, or at least finding an online tutorial and reading closely, will be quite revealing. If you'd rather not do the work, then you may not appreciate the way that some mathematical expression "translates" to a bunch of numbers in a 3x3 matrix. But that's okay! If you get the general sense of a common kernel is useful, and if you observe how two similar kernels produce slightly different results, then you'll develop a good feel for them.
Intuitively, a convolution of an image I with a kernel K produces a new image that's formed by computing a weighted sum, for each pixel, of all the nearby pixels weighted by the weights in K. Even if you didn't know what a convolution was, this idea still seems pretty reasonable. You can use it to do a blur effect (by using a Gaussian weighting of nearby pixels) or to sharpen edges (by subtracting each pixel from its neighbors and putting no weight anywhere else.) In fact, if you knew you needed to do all these operations, it would make sense to try to write a function that given I and K did the weighted sum of nearby pixels, and to try to optimize that function as aggressively as possible (since you'd probably use it a lot).
To get from there to the idea of a convolution, you'd probably need to have a background in Fourier transforms and Fourier series. Convolutions are a totally natural idea in that domain - if you compute the Fourier transformation of two images and multiply the transforms together, you end up computing the transform of the convolution. Mathematicians had worked that out a while back, probably by answering the very natural question "what function has a Fourier transform defined by the product of two other Fourier transforms?," and from there it was just a matter of time before the connection was found. Since Fourier transforms are already used extensively in computing (for example, in signal processing in networks), my guess is that someone with a background in Fourier series noticed that they needed to apply a kernel K to an image I, then recognized that this is way easier and more computationally efficient when done in frequency space.
I honestly have no idea what the real history is, but this is a pretty plausible explanation.
Hope this helps!
There is a good deal of mathematical theory about convolutions, but the kernel examples you link to are simple to explain intuitively:
[ 0 0 0]
[ 0 1 0]
[ 0 0 0]
This one says to take the original pixel and nothing else, so it yields just the original image.
[-1 -1 -1]
[-1 8 -1]
[-1 -1 -1]
This one says to subtract the eight neighbors from eight times the original pixel. First consider what happens in a smooth part of the image, where there is solid, unchanging color. Eight times the original pixel equals the sum of eight identical neighbors, so the difference is zero. Thus, smooth parts of the image become black. However, parts of the images where there are changes do not become black. Thus, this kernel highlights changes, so it highlights places where one shape ends and another begins: the edges of objects in the image.
[ 0 1 0]
[ 1 -4 1]
[ 0 1 0]
This is similar to the one above, but it is tuned differently.
[ 0 -1 0]
[-1 5 -1]
[0 -1 0]
Observe that this is just the negation of the edge detector above plus the first filter we saw, the one for the original image. So this kernel both highlights edges and adds that to the original image. The result is the original image with more visible edges: a sharpening effect.
[ 1 2 1]
[ 2 4 2]
[ 1 2 1]
[ 1 1 1]
[ 1 1 1]
[ 1 1 1]
Both of these blend the original pixel with its neighbors. So they blur the image a little.
There are two ways of thinking about (or encoding) an image: the spatial domain and the frequency domain. A spatial representation is based on pixels, so it's more familiar and easier to obtain. Both the image and the kernel are expressed in the spatial domain.
To get to the frequency domain, you need to use a Fourier or related transform, which is computationally expensive. Once you're there, though, many interesting manipulations are simpler. To blur an image, you can just chop off some high-frequency parts — like cropping the image in the spatial domain. Sharpening is the opposite, akin to increasing the contrast of high-frequency information.
Most of the information of an image is in the high frequencies, which represent detail. Most interesting detail information is at a small, local scale. You can do a lot by looking at neighboring pixels. Blurring is basically taking a weighted average of neighboring pixels. Sharpening consists of looking at the difference between a pixel and its neighbors and enhancing the contrast.
A kernel is usually produced by taking a frequency-domain transformation, then keeping only the high-frequency part and expressing it in the spatial domain. This can only be done for certain transformation algorithms. You can compute the ideal kernel for blurring, sharpening, selecting certain kinds of lines, etc., and it will work intuitively but otherwise seems like magic because we don't really have a "pixel arithmetic."
Once you have a kernel, of course, there's no need to get into the frequency domain at all. That hard work is finished, conceptually and computationally. Convolution is pretty friendly to all involved, and you can seldom simplify any further. Of course, smaller kernels are friendlier. Sometimes a large kernel can be expressed as a convolution of small sub-kernels, which is a kind of factoring in both the math and software senses.
The mathematical process is pretty straightforward and has been studied since long before there were computers. Most common manipulations can be done mechanically on an optical bench using 18th century equipment.
I think the best way to explain them is to start in 1d and discuss the z-transform and its inverse. That switches from the time domain to the frequency domain — from describing a wave as a timed sequence of samples to describing it as the amplitude of each frequency that contributes to it. The two representations contain the same amount of information, they just express it differently.
Now suppose you had a wave described in the frequency domain and you wanted to apply a filter to it. You might want to remove high frequencies. That would be a blur. You might want to remove low frequencies. That would be a sharpen or, in extremis, an edge detect.
You could do that by just forcing the frequencies you don't want to 0 — e.g. by multiplying the entire range by a particular mask, where 1 is a frequency you want to keep and 0 is a frequency you want to eliminate.
But what if you want to do that in the time domain? You could transfer to the frequency domain, apply the mask, then transform back. But that's a lot of work. So what you do (approximately) is transform the mask from the frequency domain to the time domain. You can then apply it in the time domain.
Following the maths involved for transforming back and forth, in theory to apply that you'd have to make each output sample a weighted sum of every single input sample. In the real world you make a trade-off. You use the sum of, say, 9 samples. That gives you a smaller latency and less processing cost than using, say, 99 samples. But it also gives you a less accurate filter.
A graphics kernel is the 2d analogue of that line of thought. They tend to be small because processing cost grows with the square of the edge length so it gets expensive very quickly. But you can approximate any sort of frequency domain limiting filter.
I want to code a genetic algorithm in C for optimizing a function of 10 variables (x1 to x10). However I am not able to figure out which encoding I should use. I have mostly seen binary encoding being used in example but the variables in my case can take real values. Also, is value encoding a good option for these types of problems?
For real valued problems I would suggest to try CMA-ES or another ES variant. CMA-ES certainly is the current state of the art for real-valued problems. It is designed to find good solutions in multidimensional problems quickly. There are implementations available on Hansen's page. There's also a C# implementation in the work for HeuristicLab. Evolution strategies are algorithms that were specifically designed for real-valued optimization problems. They are very similar to genetic algorithms (both were invented around the same time, but in different places). The main distinction is that for ES the main driver is mutation and it features a clever adaption of the mutation strength. Without this adaption the (local) optimum cannot be located in time. CMA-ES is easy to configure, all it needs is the initial standard deviation and optionally the population size (otherwise there's a formula that estimates this given the problem size).
Genetic algorithms can of course also be applied, but you have to use some specific operators which are able to mutate variables only with very small degree. For example there's the Breeder Genetic Algorithm from Mühlenbein. In general however genetic algorithms are more suited for problems that need a right combination of things. E.g. which items to include in a knapsack problem or which functions and terminals to combine to a formula (genetic programming). Less for problems, where you need to find the right value for something. Although of course there are variants of the genetic algorithm to solve these, look for Real coded Genetic Algorithm (RCGA or RGA).
Another algorithm suited for real-valued problems is Particle Swarm Optimization, but in my opinion it is harder to configure. I'd start with SPSO-2011 the 2011 standard PSO.
If your problem contains integer variables choices become more difficult. Evolution strategies do not perform so well when variables are discrete, because the adaptation schemes for integer variables are different. A genetic algorithm becomes an interesting first-choice algorithm again.
A genetic algorithm is best used when two answers that are pretty close to optimal will make something else pretty close to optimal when combined. The problem with a pure binary encoding is that if you don't check your crossover you end up getting two answers which may not have all that much to do with the original answers.
That said, this is only really an issue if your number of variables is very small and the amount of data in your variables is large. As far as picking an encoding, it's more of an art than a science and it depends on your problem. I would suggest going with an encoding that fits the amount of precision you want. With 10 variables you won't got that far wrong however you encode it, an 8-bit ASCII encoder would probably work fine.
Hope that helps.
This question already has an answer here:
How to generate the audio spectrum using fft in C++? [closed]
(1 answer)
Closed 9 years ago.
How would I go about implementing a spectrum analyser like the ones in WinAmp below?
Just by looking at it, I think that these bars are rendered to display the 'volume level' of a specific frequency band of the incoming audio data; however, I'm not sure how to actually calculate this data needed for the rather easy task of drawing the bars.
From what I've been told and understand, calculating these values can be done by using an FFT — however, I'm not exactly sure how to calculate those, given a buffer of input data — am I on the right track about FFTs? How would I apply an FFT on the input data and get, say, an integer out of the FFT that represents the 'volume' of a specific frequency band?
The drawing part isn't a problem, since I can just draw directly to my framebuffer and render that out. I'm doing this as a project on an FPGA, using a Nios II soft-CPU, in case anyone's wondering about potential hardware limitations. Audio data comes in as 24-bit data at 96kHz.
You're probably looking for FFTw.
edit:
To elaborate on your question:
calculating these values can be done by using an FFT — however, I'm not exactly sure how to calculate those, given a buffer of input data: yes, you're right; that's exactly how it's done. You take a (necssarily small, due to the time-frequency uncertainty principle) sample segment out of the currently playing audio data, and feed it to a (typically) discrete, real-only FFT (one of the best known, most widely used and fastest being the DCT family of DFTs - in fact there are highly optimized versions of most DCTs in FFTw). Then you take out the next sample segment and repeat the process.
The output of the FFT will be the freqeuncy decomposition of the audio signal that has been fed in - you then need to decide how to display it (i.e. which function to use on the outputs of the FFT, common candidates being f(x) = x; f(x) = sqrt(x); f(x) = log(x)) and also how to present/animate the following readings (e.g. you could average each band in the temporal direction or you could have the maximums "fall off" slowly).
rage-edit:
Additional links since it appears somebody knows how to downvote but not how to use google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFTW
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:m6ou54tn_soJ:www.fftw.org/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=it&client=firefox-a
http://web.archive.org/web/20130123131356/http://fftw.org/
It's pretty straight forward - just use one of the many FFT algorithms! Most of them require floating point calculations, but a google search brings up methods with just integers. You are spot on though, FFT's are what you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Fourier_transform
To understand how to apply a FFT, you should have a read of this page on discrete fourier transforms, although it's quite heavy on maths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Fourier_transform
To implement it on your FPGA, I'd have a look at the source code of this project:
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/demos-spectrum.html
Here's a previous SO question that gives a summary of how it works (in any language).
How to generate the audio spectrum using fft in C++?
There's an immense amount of information on creating what by the way is called a "Spectrum Analyser", there must be dozens of complete implementations where the source code is freely available. Just page through a google search for "Spectrum analyser source code C" for example.
Recently I asked this question: How to get the fundamental frequency from FFT? (you don't actually need to read it)
My doubt right now it: how to use the cepstral algorithm?
I just don't know how to use it because the only language that I know is ActionScript 3, and for this reason I have few references about the native functions found in C, Java and so on, and how I should implement them on AS. Most articles are about these languages =/
(althought, answers in other languages than AS are welcome, just explain how the script works please)
The articles I found about cepstral to find the fundamental frequency of a FFT result told me that I should do this:
signal → FT → abs() → square → log → FT → abs() → square → power cepstrum
mathematically:
|F{log(|F{f(t)}|²)}|²
Important info:
I am developing a GUITAR TUNER in flash
This is the first time I am dealing with advanced sound
I am using an FFT to extract frequency bins from the signal that reaches user's microphone, but I got stuck in getting the fundamental frequency from it
I don't know:
How to apply a square in an ARRAY (I mean, the data that my FFT gives me is an array. Should I multiply it by itself? ActionScript's debug throws errors when I try to fftResults * fftResults)
How to apply the "log". I would not know how to apply it even if I had a single number.
What is the difference between complex cepstral and power cepstral. Also, what of them should I use? I am trying to develop a guitar tuner.
Thanks!
Note that the output of an FFT is an array of complex values, i.e. each bin = re + j*im. I think you can just combine the abs and square operations and calculate re*re + im*im for each bin. This gives you a single positive value for each bin, and obviously you can calculate the log value for each bin quite easily. You then need to do a second FFT on this log squared data and again using the output of this second FFT you will calculate re*re + im*im for each bin. You will then have an array of postive values which will have one or more peaks representing the fundamental frequency or frequencies of your input.
The autocorrelation is the easiest and most logical approach, and the best place to start.
To get this working, start with a simple autocorrelation, and then, if necessary, improve it following the outline provided by YIN. (YIN is based on the autocorrelation with refinements. But whether or not you'll need these refinements depends on details of your situation.) This way also, you can learn as you go rather than trying to understand the whole thing in one shot.
Although FFT approaches can also work, they are a bit more confusing. The issue is that what you are really after is the period, and this isn't well represented by the FFT. The missing fundamental is a good example of this, where if you have 2Hz and 3Hz, the fundamental is 1Hz, but is nowhere in the FFT, while 1Hz is obvious in a time based representation (e.g. the autocorrelation). Add to this that overtones aren't necessarily harmonic, and noise, etc... and all of these issues make it usually best to start with a direct approach to the problem.
There are many ways of finding fundamental frequency (F0).
For languages like Java etc there are many libraries with those type of algorithms already implemented (you can study their sources).
MFCC (based on cepstral) implemented in Comirva (Open source).
Audacity (beta version!) (Open source) presents cepstrum, autocorellation, enhanced autocorellation,
Yin based on autocorrelation (example )
Finding max signal values after FFT
All these algorithms may be be very helpful for you. However easiest way to get F0 (one value in Hz) would be to use Yin.