I have a class implementing an audio stream that can be read at varying speed (including reverse and fast varying / "scratching")... I use linear interpolation for the read part and everything works quite decently..
But now I want to implement writing to the stream at varying speed as well and that requires me to implement a kind of "reverse interpolation" i.e. Deduce the input sample vector Z that, interpolated with vector Y will produce the output X (which I'm trying to write)..
I've managed to do it for constant speeds, but generalising for varying speeds (e.g accelerating or decelerating) is proving more complicated..
I imagine this problem has been solved repeatedly, but I can't seem to find many clues online, so my specific question is if anyone has heard of this problem and can point me in the right direction (or, even better, show me a solution :)
Thanks!
I would not call it "reverse interpolation" as that does not exists (my first thought was you were talking about extrapolation!). What you are doing is still simply interpolation, just at an uneven rate.
Interpolation: finding a value between known values
Extrapolation: finding a value beyond known values
Interpolating to/from constant rates is indeed much much simpler than the generic quest of "finding a value between known values". I propose 2 solutions.
1) Interpolate to a significantly higher rate, and then just sub-sample to the nearest one (try adding dithering)
2) Solve the generic problem: for each point you need to use the neighboring N points and fit a order N-1 polynomial to them.
N=2 would be linear and would add overtones (C0 continuity)
N=3 could leave you with step changes at the halfway point between your source samples (perhaps worse overtones than N=2!)
N=4 will get you C1 continuity (slope will match as you change to the next sample), surely enough for your application.
Let me explain that last one.
For each output sample use the 2 previous and 2 following input samples. Call them S0 to S3 on a unit time scale (multiply by your sample period later), and you are interpolating from time 0 to 1. Y is your output and Y' is the slope.
Y will be calculated from this polynomial and its differential (slope)
Y(t) = At^3 + Bt^2 + Ct + D
Y'(t) = 3At^2 + 2Bt + C
The constraints (the values and slope at the endpoints on either side)
Y(0) = S1
Y'(0) = (S2-S0)/2
Y(1) = S2
Y'(1) = (S3-S1)/2
Expanding the polynomial
Y(0) = D
Y'(0) = C
Y(1) = A+B+C+D
Y'(1) = 3A+2B+C
Plugging in the Samples
D = S1
C = (S2-S0)/2
A + B = S2 - C - D
3A+2B = (S3-S1)/2 - C
The last 2 are a system of equations that are easily solvable. Subtract 2x the first from the second.
3A+2B - 2(A+B)= (S3-S1)/2 - C - 2(S2 - C - D)
A = (S3-S1)/2 + C - 2(S2 - D)
Then B is
B = S2 - A - C - D
Once you have A, B, C and D you can put in an time 't' in the polynomial to find a sample value between your known samples.
Repeat for every output sample, reuse A,B,C&D if the next output sample is still between the same 2 input samples. Calculating t each time is similar to Bresenham's line algorithm, you're just advancing by a different amount each time.
Related
I have a custom (discrete) probability distribution defined somewhat in the form: f(x)/(sum(f(x')) for x' in a given discrete set X). Also, 0<=x<=1.
So I have been trying to implement it in python 3.8.2, and the problem is that the numerator and denominator both come out to be really small and python's floating point representation just takes them as 0.0.
After calculating these probabilities, I need to sample a random element from an array, whose each index may be selected with the corresponding probability in the distribution. So if my distribution is [p1,p2,p3,p4], and my array is [a1,a2,a3,a4], then probability of selecting a2 is p2 and so on.
So how can I implement this in an elegant and efficient way?
Is there any way I could use the np.random.beta() in this case? Since the difference between the beta distribution and my actual distribution is only that the normalization constant differs and the domain is restricted to a few points.
Note: The Probability Mass function defined above is actually in the form given by the Bayes theorem and f(x)=x^s*(1-x)^f, where s and f are fixed numbers for a given iteration. So the exact problem is that, when s or f become really large, this thing goes to 0.
You could well compute things by working with logs. The point is that while both the numerator and denominator might underflow to 0, their logs won't unless your numbers are really astonishingly small.
You say
f(x) = x^s*(1-x)^t
so
logf (x) = s*log(x) + t*log(1-x)
and you want to compute, say
p = f(x) / Sum{ y in X | f(y)}
so
p = exp( logf(x) - log sum { y in X | f(y)}
= exp( logf(x) - log sum { y in X | exp( logf( y))}
The only difficulty is in computing the second term, but this is a common problem, for example here
On the other hand computing logsumexp is easy enough to to by hand.
We want
S = log( sum{ i | exp(l[i])})
if L is the maximum of the l[i] then
S = log( exp(L)*sum{ i | exp(l[i]-L)})
= L + log( sum{ i | exp( l[i]-L)})
The last sum can be computed as written, because each term is now between 0 and 1 so there is no danger of overflow, and one of the terms (the one for which l[i]==L) is 1, and so if other terms underflow, that is harmless.
This may however lose a little accuracy. A refinement would be to recognize the set A of indices where
l[i]>=L-eps (eps a user set parameter, eg 1)
And then compute
N = Sum{ i in A | exp(l[i]-L)}
B = log1p( Sum{ i not in A | exp(l[i]-L)}/N)
S = L + log( N) + B
I am dealing with a problem which is a variant of a subset-sum problem, and I am hoping that the additional constraint could make it easier to solve than the classical subset-sum problem. I have searched for a problem with this constraint but I have been unable to find a good example with an appropriate algorithm either on StackOverflow or through googling elsewhere.
The problem:
Assume you have two lists of positive numbers A1,A2,A3... and B1,B2,B3... with the same number of elements N. There are two sums Sa and Sb. The problem is to find the simultaneous set Q where |sum (A{Q}) - Sa| <= epsilon and |sum (B{Q}) - Sb| <= epsilon. So, if Q is {1, 5, 7} then A1 + A5 + A7 - Sa <= epsilon and B1 + B5 + B7 - Sb <= epsilon. Epsilon is an arbitrarily small positive constant.
Now, I could solve this as two completely separate subset sum problems, but removing the simultaneity constraint results in the possibility of erroneous solutions (where Qa != Qb). I also suspect that the additional constraint should make this problem easier than the two NP complete problems. I would like to solve an instance with 18+ elements in both lists of numbers, and most subset-sum algorithms have a long run time with this number of elements. I have investigated the pseudo-polynomial run time dynamic programming algorithm, but this has the problems that a) the speed relies on a short bit-depth of the list of numbers (which does not necessarily apply to my instance) and b) it does not take into account the simultaneity constraint.
Any advice on how to use the simultaneity constraint to reduce the run time? Is there a dynamic programming approach I could use to take into account this constraint?
If I understand your description of the problem correctly (I'm confused about why you have the distance symbols around "sum (A{Q}) - Sa" and "sum (B{Q}) - Sb", it doesn't seem to fit the rest of the explanation), then it is in NP.
You can see this by making a reduction from Subset sum (SUB) to Simultaneous subset sum (SIMSUB).
If you have a SUB problem consisting of a set X = {x1,x2,...,xn} and a target called t and you have an algorithm that solves SIMSUB when given two sets A = {a1,a2,...,an} and B = {b1,b2,...,bn}, two intergers Sa and Sb and a value for epsilon then we can solve SUB like this:
Let A = X and let B be a set of length n consisting of only 0's. Set Sa = t, Sb = 0 and epsilon = 0. You can now run the SIMSUB algorithm on this problem and get the solution to your SUB problem.
This shows that SUBSIM is as least as hard as SUB and therefore in NP.
I have some float numbers like:
586.3212341231,-847.3829941845
I want to use sigmoid function to make the floats in a range of [1,-1] for example :
0.842931342,-0.481238571
Any thoughts about it?
I tried scipy but it gives me wrong outcomes.
There are many such functions: see this Wikipedia link for examples. The graphic there in particular gives examples resulting in your desired range, though the endpoints 1 and -1 are not obtainable for finite values of the parameter x.
The simplest function there is
x / (1 + abs(x))
If you really want your first two sample float numbers to be mapped to your second two float numbers, you can tune your function to be
(a + x) / (b + abs(x))
for particular values of a and b. For two desired values of x and f(x) you can find a and b by solving two simultaneous linear equations. I used sympy to get the following for your sample values:
a = 246.362120860444
b = 401.521207478205
So your final resulting function is
(246.362120860444 + x) / (401.521207478205 + abs(x))
I tested this and it gives just the values you want. Here are two plots showing that this gives your desired range (-1, 1). The first one shows your two points best.
I understand how to render (two dimensional) "Escape Time Group" fractals (Julia and Mandelbrot), but I can't seem to get a Mobius Transformation or a Newton Basin rendered.
I'm trying to render them using the same method (by recursively using the polynomial equation on each pixel 'n' times), but I have a feeling these fractals are rendered using totally different methods. Mobius 'Transformation' implies that an image must already exist, and then be transformed to produce the geometry, and the Newton Basin seems to plot each point, not just points that fall into a set.
How are these fractals graphed? Are they graphed using the same iterative methods as the Julia and Mandelbrot?
Equations I'm Using:
Julia: Zn+1 = Zn^2 + C
Where Z is a complex number representing a pixel, and C is a complex constant (Correct).
Mandelbrot: Cn+1 = Cn^2 + Z
Where Z is a complex number representing a pixel, and C is the complex number (0, 0), and is compounded each step (The reverse of the Julia, correct).
Newton Basin: Zn+1 = Zn - (Zn^x - a) / (Zn^y - a)
Where Z is a complex number representing a pixel, x and y are exponents of various degrees, and a is a complex constant (Incorrect - creating a centered, eight legged 'line star').
Mobius Transformation: Zn+1 = (aZn + b) / (cZn + d)
Where Z is a complex number representing a pixel, and a, b, c, and d are complex constants (Incorrect, everything falls into the set).
So how are the Newton Basin and Mobius Transformation plotted on the complex plane?
Update: Mobius Transformations are just that; transformations.
"Every Möbius transformation is
a composition of translations,
rotations, zooms (dilations) and
inversions."
To perform a Mobius Transformation, a shape, picture, smear, etc. must be present already in order to transform it.
Now how about those Newton Basins?
Update 2: My math was wrong for the Newton Basin. The denominator at the end of the equation is (supposed to be) the derivative of the original function. The function can be understood by studying 'NewtonRoot.m' from the MIT MatLab source-code. A search engine can find it quite easily. I'm still at a loss as to how to graph it on the complex plane, though...
Newton Basin:
f(x) = x - f(x) / f'(x)
In Mandelbrot and Julia sets you terminate the inner loop if it exceeds a certain threshold as a measurement how fast the orbit "reaches" infinity
if(|z| > 4) { stop }
For newton fractals it is the other way round: Since the newton method is usually converging towards a certain value we are interested how fast it reaches its limit, which can be done by checking when the difference of two consecutive values drops below a certain value (usually 10^-9 is a good value)
if(|z[n] - z[n-1]| < epsilon) { stop }
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I need to write a reliable method to retrieve the answer to the following scenario...
Given a line segment AB and an arbitrary point C, how would I find the closest point to A on a line parallel to AB that passes through point C? (Reliable mentioned above refers to the algorithms ability to find D while allowing the coordinates for A, B, and C to be completely arbitrary and unpredictable. I've ran in to a quite a few solutions that I was not able to adapt to all possible scenarios, sadly...)
In the case of the data displayed in the picture below, how would I reliably find the x,y coordinates of D?
A = <425, 473>
B = <584, 533>
C = <371, 401>
D = <???, ???>
Knowing that AB and CD are parallel, that obviously means the slopes are the same.
I have tried many different formulas to no avail and have been working on this for weeks now. I'm stumped!
It's a minimization problem.
In general, the Euclidean distance between two points (A and B) in N dimensional space is given by
Dist(A,B) = sqrt((A1-B1)^2 + ... + (AN-BN)^2)
If you need to find the minimum distance between a space curve A(t) (a 1-dimensional object embedded in some N dimensional space) and a point B, then you need to solve this equation:
d Dist(A(t),B) / dt = 0 // (this is straightforward calculus: we're at either a minimum or maximum when the rate of change is 0)
and test that set of roots (t1, t2, etc) against the distance function to find which one yields the smallest value of D.
Now to find the equation for the parallel line passing through C in y=mx+b form:
m = (Ay - By)/(Ax-Bx)
b = Cy - mCx
Let's write this in space-curve form as and plug it into our formula from part 1:
Dist(D(t),A) = sqrt((t-Ax)^2 + (m*t+b-Ay)^2)
taking our derivative:
d Dist(D(t),A)/ dt = d sqrt((t-Ax)^2 + (m*t+b-Ay)^2) / dt
= (t + (m^2)*t - Ax + m*b - m*Ay)/sqrt(t^2 + (m^2)t^2 - 2*t*Ax + 2*m*t*b - 2*m*t*Ay + (Ax)^2 + (Ay)^2 + b^2 - 2*b*Ay )
= ((1+m^2)*t - Ax + m*b - m*Ay)/sqrt((1+m^2)*(t^2) + 2*t*(m*b - Ax - m*Ay) + (Ax)^2 + (Ay)^2 + b^2 - 2*b*Ay )
Settings this equal to 0 and solving for t yields:
t = (Ax-m*b+m*Ay)/(1+m^2)
as the only root (you can check this for yourself by substituting back in and verifying that everything cancels as desired).
Plugging this value of t back in to our space curve yields the following:
D=<(Ax-m*b+m*Ay)/(1+m^2),b+m*(Ax-m*b+m*Ay)/(1+m^2)>
You can then plug in your expressions for m and b if you want an explicit solution in terms A,B,C, or if you only want the numerical solution you can just compute it as a three step process:
m = (Ay - By)/(Ax-Bx)
b = Cy - mCx
D=<(Ax-m*b+m*Ay)/(1+m^2),b+m*(Ax-m*b+m*Ay)/(1+m^2)>
This will be valid for all cases with parallel straight lines. One caveat when implementing it as a numerical (rather than analytical) code: if the lines are oriented vertically, calculating m = (Ay-By)/(Ax-Bx) will result in division by 0, which will make your code not work. You can throw in a safety valve as follows:
if( Ax == Bx) {
D = <Cx,Ay>
} else {
// normal calculation here
}
For serious numerical work, you probably want to implement that in terms of tolerances rather than a direct comparison due to roundoff errors and all that fun stuff (i.e., abs(Ax-Bx) < epsilon, rather than Ax==Bx)