Locked. There are disputes about this question’s content being resolved at this time. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
For algorithms running in
O(16^N)
If we triple the size, the time is multiplied by what number??
This is an interesting question because while equivalent questions for runtimes like Θ(n) or Θ(n3) have clean answers, the answer here is a bit more nuanced.
Let's start with a simpler question. We have an algorithm whose runtime is Θ(n2), and on a "sufficiently large" input the runtime is T seconds. What should we expect the runtime to be once we triple the size of the input? To answer this, let's imagine, just for simplicity's sake, that the actual runtime of this function is closely approximated by cn2, and let's have k be the "sufficiently large" input we plugged into it. Then, plugging in 3k, we see that the runtime is
c(3k)2 = 9ck2 = 9(ck2) = 9T.
That last step follows because the cost of running the algorithm on an input of size k is T, meaning that ck2 = T.
Something important to notice here - tripling the size of the input does not change the fact that the runtime here is Θ(n2). The runtime is still quadratic; we're just changing how big the input is.
More generally, for any algorithm whose runtime is Θ(nm) for some fixed constant m, the runtime will grow by roughly a factor of 3m if you triple the size of the input. That's because
c(3k)m = 3mckm = 3mT.
But something interesting happens if we try performing this same analysis on a function whose runtime is Θ(4n). Let's imagine that we ran this algorithm on some input k and it took T time units to finish. Then running this algorithm on an input of size 3k will take time roughly
c43k = c4k42k = T42k = 16kT.
Notice how we aren't left with a constant multiple of the original cost, but rather something that's 16k times bigger. In particular, that means that the amount by which the algorithm slows down will depend on how big the input is. For example, the slowdown going from input size 10 to input size 30 is a factor of 1620, while the slowdown going from input size 30 to input size 90 is a staggering 1660. For what it's worth, 1660 = 2240, which is pretty close to the number of atoms in the observable universe.
And, intuitively, that makes sense. Exponential functions grow at a rate proportional to how big they already are. That means that the scale in runtime for doubling or tripling the size of the input will lead to a runtime change that depends on the size of that input.
And, as above, notice that the runtime is not now Θ(43n). The runtime is still Θ(4n); we're just changing which inputs we're plugging in.
So, to summarize:
The runtime of the function slows down by a factor of 42n if you triple the size of the input n. This means that the slowdown depends on how big the input is.
The runtime of the function stays at Θ(4n) when we do this. All that's changing is where we're evaluating the 4n.
Hope this helps!
The time complexity of the algorithm represents the growth in run-time of the algorithm with respect to the growth in input size. So, if our input size increases by 3 times, that means we have now new value for our input size.
Hence, time complexity of the algorithm still remains same. i.e O(4^N)
To my understanding, the noise floor for each USRP may be different. I want to know how I can calculate the noise floor without physically going into the fft and spotting it out manually. I want to know if there is a block in GNU Radio that will calculate this, or if there is a stream of blocks I can use to calculate it. Please provide a block diagram in your answer ( block 1 ---> block 2 ---> ...etc.).
For my application, let's say I have a QT GUI frequency sink that is showing all noise at the moment. I want to calculate the noise floor so that I have a value that represents "no signal present" ie. noise. Once I have this value, I plan to set a threshold 5dB higher than the noise floor to indicate that a signal has been detected. I've been able to kind of eye ball the average noise value from the QT GUI Frequency Sink but that's not good enough for me. I want to be able to calculate it and not have to look into the plot every time to update the noise value every time I change USRPs.
For instance:
You can see the average noise value for this is around -55dB. I want to calculate this without having to eye ball it. This way, when a signal gets transmitted at (in this example) 0Hz, then the power of the signal will increase and I can see if a signal was detected.
I was working with PIC18f4550 and the program is critical to speed. when I multiply two floating variables it tooks the PIC about 140 cycles to perform the multiplication. I am measuring it with PIC18f4550 timer1.
variable_1 = variable_2 * variable_3; // took 140 cycles to implement
On the the other hand when I add the same two variables the PIC tooks 280 cycles to perfom the addition.
variable_1 = variable_2 + variable_3; // took 280 cycles to implement
I have seen that the number of cycles vary if the variables changed depend on their exponents.
What is the reason of those more cycles? though I was thinking the addition is more simple than multiplication.
Is there any solution?
For floating point addition, the operands need to be adjusted so that they have the same exponent before the add, and that involves shifting one of the mantissas across byte boundaries, whereas a multiply is basically multiplying the mantissas and adding the exponents.
Since the PIC apparently has a small hardware multiplier, it may not be surprising that sometimes the multiply can be faster than doing a multi-byte shift (especially if the PIC only has single bit shift instructions).
Unless a processor has direct support for it, floating point is always slow, and you should certainly consider arranging your code to use fixed point if at all possible. Getting rid of the floating point library would probably free up a lot of code space as well.
I have propably very stupid/simple question to GnuRadio users.
I have a Random Source as a source of bits [-1, 1]. And I want to multiply every bit with cosinus to make bpsk modulator.
Problem is that Bits are generated as fast as possible... (dont have enything in common with samp_rate). When I have 1 period of cosinus, there are generated many bits from Random Source.
Question is, how can I slow down bit rate generation ??
Thanks for any help
(I dont want to use DPSK Mod :))
Strictly speaking you can not delay the generation of bits. However you can increase the duration of each symbol. This can be done with the repeat block of GNU Radio. This block takes a parameter called interpolation that corresponds to the number of times an input item will be repeated at the output.
So you find the period of your cosine in samples, lets say p. For each random bit produced by the Random source block, you repeated it p times with the repeat block. With this way you increase the duration of your random symbol. Then you pass the resulting samples to the multiply block of your flowgraph.
I've got a GPS track produced by gpxlogger(1) (supplied as a client for gpsd). GPS receiver updates its coordinates every 1 second, gpxlogger's logic is very simple, it writes down location (lat, lon, ele) and a timestamp (time) received from GPS every n seconds (n = 3 in my case).
After writing down a several hours worth of track, gpxlogger saves several megabyte long GPX file that includes several thousands of points. Afterwards, I try to plot this track on a map and use it with OpenLayers. It works, but several thousands of points make using the map a sloppy and slow experience.
I understand that having several thousands of points of suboptimal. There are myriads of points that can be deleted without losing almost anything: when there are several points making up roughly the straight line and we're moving with the same constant speed between them, we can just leave the first and the last point and throw away anything else.
I thought of using gpsbabel for such track simplification / optimization job, but, alas, it's simplification filter works only with routes, i.e. analyzing only geometrical shape of path, without timestamps (i.e. not checking that the speed was roughly constant).
Is there some ready-made utility / library / algorithm available to optimize tracks? Or may be I'm missing some clever option with gpsbabel?
Yes, as mentioned before, the Douglas-Peucker algorithm is a straightforward way to simplify 2D connected paths. But as you have pointed out, you will need to extend it to the 3D case to properly simplify a GPS track with an inherent time dimension associated with every point. I have done so for a web application of my own using a PHP implementation of Douglas-Peucker.
It's easy to extend the algorithm to the 3D case with a little understanding of how the algorithm works. Say you have input path consisting of 26 points labeled A to Z. The simplest version of this path has two points, A and Z, so we start there. Imagine a line segment between A and Z. Now scan through all remaining points B through Y to find the point furthest away from the line segment AZ. Say that point furthest away is J. Then, you scan the points between B and I to find the furthest point from line segment AJ and scan points K through Y to find the point furthest from segment JZ, and so on, until the remaining points all lie within some desired distance threshold.
This will require some simple vector operations. Logically, it's the same process in 3D as in 2D. If you find a Douglas-Peucker algorithm implemented in your language, it might have some 2D vector math implemented, and you'll need to extend those to use 3 dimensions.
You can find a 3D C++ implementation here: 3D Douglas-Peucker in C++
Your x and y coordinates will probably be in degrees of latitude/longitude, and the z (time) coordinate might be in seconds since the unix epoch. You can resolve this discrepancy by deciding on an appropriate spatial-temporal relationship; let's say you want to view one day of activity over a map area of 1 square mile. Imagining this relationship as a cube of 1 mile by 1 mile by 1 day, you must prescale the time variable. Conversion from degrees to surface distance is non-trivial, but for this case we simplify and say one degree is 60 miles; then one mile is .0167 degrees. One day is 86400 seconds; then to make the units equivalent, our prescale factor for your timestamp is .0167/86400, or about 1/5,000,000.
If, say, you want to view the GPS activity within the same 1 square mile map area over 2 days instead, time resolution becomes half as important, so scale it down twice further, to 1/10,000,000. Have fun.
Have a look at Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm for smoothening complex polygons, also Douglas-Peucker line simplification algorithm can help you reduce your points.
OpenSource GeoKarambola java library (no Android dependencies but can be used in Android) that includes a GpxPathManipulator class that does both route & track simplification/reduction (3D/elevation aware).
If the points have timestamp information that will not be discarded.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/geokarambola/
This is the algorith in action, interactively
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hvHFyZfcY58/Vsye7nVrmiI/AAAAAAAAHdg/2-NFVfofbd4ShZcvtyCDpi2vXoYkZVFlQ/w360-h640-no/movie360x640_05_82_05.gif
This algorithm is based on reducing the number of points by eliminating those that have the greatest XTD (cross track distance) error until a tolerated error is satisfied or the maximum number of points is reached (both parameters of the function), wichever comes first.
An alternative algorithm, for on-the-run stream like track simplification (I call it "streamplification") is:
you keep a small buffer of the points the GPS sensor gives you, each time a GPS point is added to the buffer (elevation included) you calculate the max XTD (cross track distance) of all the points in the buffer to the line segment that unites the first point with the (newly added) last point of the buffer. If the point with the greatest XTD violates your max tolerated XTD error (25m has given me great results) then you cut the buffer at that point, register it as a selected point to be appended to the streamplified track, trim the trailing part of the buffer up to that cut point, and keep going. At the end of the track the last point of the buffer is also added/flushed to the solution.
This algorithm is lightweight enough that it runs on an AndroidWear smartwatch and gives optimal output regardless of if you move slow or fast, or stand idle at the same place for a long time. The ONLY thing that maters is the SHAPE of your track. You can go for many minutes/kilometers and, as long as you are moving in a straight line (a corridor within +/- tolerated XTD error deviations) the streamplify algorithm will only output 2 points: those of the exit form last curve and entry on next curve.
I ran in to a similar issue. The rate at which the gps unit takes points is much larger that needed. Many of the points are not geographically far away from each other. The approach that I took is to calculate the distance between the points using the haversine formula. If the distance was not larger than my threshold (0.1 miles in my case) I threw away the point. This quickly gets the number of points down to a manageable size.
I don't know what language you are looking for. Here is a C# project that I was working on. At the bottom you will find the haversine code.
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/09/gps-using-the-netduino/
Hope this gets you going.
Bob
This is probably NP-hard. Suppose you have points A, B, C, D, E.
Let's try a simple deterministic algorithm. Suppose you calculate the distance from point B to line A-C and it's smaller than your threshold (1 meter). So you delete B. Then you try the same for C to line A-D, but it's bigger and D for C-E, which is also bigger.
But it turns out that the optimal solution is A, B, E, because point C and D are close to the line B-E, yet on opposite sides.
If you delete 1 point, you cannot be sure that it should be a point that you should keep, unless you try every single possible solution (which can be n^n in size, so on n=80 that's more than the minimum number of atoms in the known universe).
Next step: try a brute force or branch and bound algorithm. Doesn't scale, doesn't work for real-world size. You can safely skip this step :)
Next step: First do a determinstic algorithm and improve upon that with a metaheuristic algorithm (tabu search, simulated annealing, genetic algorithms). In java there are a couple of open source implementations, such as Drools Planner.
All in all, you 'll probably have a workable solution (although not optimal) with the first simple deterministic algorithm, because you only have 1 constraint.
A far cousin of this problem is probably the Traveling Salesman Problem variant in which the salesman cannot visit all cities but has to select a few.
You want to throw away uninteresting points. So you need a function that computes how interesting a point is, then you can compute how interesting all the points are and throw away the N least interesting points, where you choose N to slim the data set sufficiently. It sounds like your definition of interesting corresponds to high acceleration (deviation from straight-line motion), which is easy to compute.
Try this, it's free and opensource online Service:
https://opengeo.tech/maps/gpx-simplify-optimizer/
I guess you need to keep points where you change direction. If you split your track into the set of intervals of constant direction, you can leave only boundary points of these intervals.
And, as Raedwald pointed out, you'll want to leave points where your acceleration is not zero.
Not sure how well this will work, but how about taking your list of points, working out the distance between them and therefore the total distance of the route and then deciding on a resolution distance and then just linear interpolating the position based on each step of x meters. ie for each fix you have a "distance from start" measure and you just interpolate where n*x is for your entire route. (you could decide how many points you want and divide the total distance by this to get your resolution distance). On top of this you could add a windowing function taking maybe the current point +/- z points and applying a weighting like exp(-k* dist^2/accuracy^2) to get the weighted average of a set of points where dist is the distance from the raw interpolated point and accuracy is the supposed accuracy of the gps position.
One really simple method is to repeatedly remove the point that creates the largest angle (in the range of 0° to 180° where 180° means it's on a straight line between its neighbors) between its neighbors until you have few enough points. That will start off removing all points that are perfectly in line with their neighbors and will go from there.
You can do that in Ο(n log(n)) by making a list of each index and its angle, sorting that list in descending order of angle, keeping how many you need from the front of the list, sorting that shorter list in descending order of index, and removing the indexes from the list of points.
def simplify_points(points, how_many_points_to_remove)
angle_map = Array.new
(2..points.length - 1).each { |next_index|
removal_list.add([next_index - 1, angle_between(points[next_index - 2], points[next_index - 1], points[next_index])])
}
removal_list = removal_list.sort_by { |index, angle| angle }.reverse
removal_list = removal_list.first(how_many_points_to_remove)
removal_list = removal_list.sort_by { |index, angle| index }.reverse
removal_list.each { |index| points.delete_at(index) }
return points
end