I am looking for algorithm to solve the following problem :
I have two sets of vectors, and I want to find the matrix that best approximate the transformation from the input vectors to the output vectors.
vectors are 3x1, so matrix is 3x3.
This is the general problem. My particular problem is I have a set of RGB colors, and another set that contains the desired color. I am trying to find an RGB to RGB transformation that would give me colors closer to the desired ones.
There is correspondence between the input and output vectors, so computing an error function that should be minimized is the easy part. But how can I minimize this function ?
This is a classic linear algebra problem, the key phrase to search on is "multiple linear regression".
I've had to code some variation of this many times over the years. For example, code to calibrate a digitizer tablet or stylus touch-screen uses the same math.
Here's the math:
Let p be an input vector and q the corresponding output vector.
The transformation you want is a 3x3 matrix; call it A.
For a single input and output vector p and q, there is an error vector e
e = q - A x p
The square of the magnitude of the error is a scalar value:
eT x e = (q - A x p)T x (q - A x p)
(where the T operator is transpose).
What you really want to minimize is the sum of e values over the sets:
E = sum (e)
This minimum satisfies the matrix equation D = 0 where
D(i,j) = the partial derivative of E with respect to A(i,j)
Say you have N input and output vectors.
Your set of input 3-vectors is a 3xN matrix; call this matrix P.
The ith column of P is the ith input vector.
So is the set of output 3-vectors; call this matrix Q.
When you grind thru all of the algebra, the solution is
A = Q x PT x (P x PT) ^-1
(where ^-1 is the inverse operator -- sorry about no superscripts or subscripts)
Here's the algorithm:
Create the 3xN matrix P from the set of input vectors.
Create the 3xN matrix Q from the set of output vectors.
Matrix Multiply R = P x transpose (P)
Compute the inverseof R
Matrix Multiply A = Q x transpose(P) x inverse (R)
using the matrix multiplication and matrix inversion routines of your linear algebra library of choice.
However, a 3x3 affine transform matrix is capable of scaling and rotating the input vectors, but not doing any translation! This might not be general enough for your problem. It's usually a good idea to append a "1" on the end of each of the 3-vectors to make then a 4-vector, and look for the best 3x4 transform matrix that minimizes the error. This can't hurt; it can only lead to a better fit of the data.
You don't specify a language, but here's how I would approach the problem in Matlab.
v1 is a 3xn matrix, containing your input colors in vertical vectors
v2 is also a 3xn matrix containing your output colors
You want to solve the system
M*v1 = v2
M = v2*inv(v1)
However, v1 is not directly invertible, since it's not a square matrix. Matlab will solve this automatically with the mrdivide operation (M = v2/v1), where M is the best fit solution.
eg:
>> v1 = rand(3,10);
>> M = rand(3,3);
>> v2 = M * v1;
>> v2/v1 - M
ans =
1.0e-15 *
0.4510 0.4441 -0.5551
0.2220 0.1388 -0.3331
0.4441 0.2220 -0.4441
>> (v2 + randn(size(v2))*0.1)/v1 - M
ans =
0.0598 -0.1961 0.0931
-0.1684 0.0509 0.1465
-0.0931 -0.0009 0.0213
This gives a more language-agnostic solution on how to solve the problem.
Some linear algebra should be enough :
Write the average squared difference between inputs and outputs ( the sum of the squares of each difference between each input and output value ). I assume this as definition of "best approximate"
This is a quadratic function of your 9 unknown matrix coefficients.
To minimize it, derive it with respect to each of them.
You will get a linear system of 9 equations you have to solve to get the solution ( unique or a space variety depending on the input set )
When the difference function is not quadratic, you can do the same but you have to use an iterative method to solve the equation system.
This answer is better for beginners in my opinion:
Have the following scenario:
We don't know the matrix M, but we know the vector In and a corresponding output vector On. n can range from 3 and up.
If we had 3 input vectors and 3 output vectors (for 3x3 matrix), we could precisely compute the coefficients αr;c. This way we would have a fully specified system.
But we have more than 3 vectors and thus we have an overdetermined system of equations.
Let's write down these equations. Say that we have these vectors:
We know, that to get the vector On, we must perform matrix multiplication with vector In.In other words: M · I̅n = O̅n
If we expand this operation, we get (normal equations):
We do not know the alphas, but we know all the rest. In fact, there are 9 unknowns, but 12 equations. This is why the system is overdetermined. There are more equations than unknowns. We will approximate the unknowns using all the equations, and we will use the sum of squares to aggregate more equations into less unknowns.
So we will combine the above equations into a matrix form:
And with some least squares algebra magic (regression), we can solve for b̅:
This is what is happening behind that formula:
Transposing a matrix and multiplying it with its non-transposed part creates a square matrix, reduced to lower dimension ([12x9] · [9x12] = [9x9]).
Inverse of this result allows us to solve for b̅.
Multiplying vector y̅ with transposed x reduces the y̅ vector into lower [1x9] dimension. Then, by multiplying [9x9] inverse with [1x9] vector we solved the system for b̅.
Now, we take the [1x9] result vector and create a matrix from it. This is our approximated transformation matrix.
A python code:
import numpy as np
import numpy.linalg
INPUTS = [[5,6,2],[1,7,3],[2,6,5],[1,7,5]]
OUTPUTS = [[3,7,1],[3,7,1],[3,7,2],[3,7,2]]
def get_mat(inputs, outputs, entry_len):
n_of_vectors = inputs.__len__()
noe = n_of_vectors*entry_len# Number of equations
#We need to construct the input matrix.
#We need to linearize the matrix. SO we will flatten the matrix array such as [a11, a12, a21, a22]
#So for each row we combine the row's variables with each input vector.
X_mat = []
for in_n in range(0, n_of_vectors): #For each input vector
#populate all matrix flattened variables. for 2x2 matrix - 4 variables, for 3x3 - 9 variables and so on.
base = 0
for col_n in range(0, entry_len): #Each original unknown matrix's row must be matched to all entries in the input vector
row = [0 for i in range(0, entry_len ** 2)]
for entry in inputs[in_n]:
row[base] = entry
base+=1
X_mat.append(row)
Y_mat = [item for sublist in outputs for item in sublist]
X_np = np.array(X_mat)
Y_np = np.array([Y_mat]).T
solution = np.dot(np.dot(numpy.linalg.inv(np.dot(X_np.T,X_np)),X_np.T),Y_np)
var_mat = solution.reshape(entry_len, entry_len) #create square matrix
return var_mat
transf_mat = get_mat(INPUTS, OUTPUTS, 3) #3 means 3x3 matrix, and in/out vector size 3
print(transf_mat)
for i in range(0,INPUTS.__len__()):
o = np.dot(transf_mat, np.array([INPUTS[i]]).T)
print(f"{INPUTS[i]} x [M] = {o.T} ({OUTPUTS[i]})")
The output is as such:
[[ 0.13654096 0.35890767 0.09530002]
[ 0.31859558 0.83745124 0.22236671]
[ 0.08322497 -0.0526658 0.4417611 ]]
[5, 6, 2] x [M] = [[3.02675088 7.06241873 0.98365224]] ([3, 7, 1])
[1, 7, 3] x [M] = [[2.93479472 6.84785436 1.03984767]] ([3, 7, 1])
[2, 6, 5] x [M] = [[2.90302805 6.77373212 2.05926064]] ([3, 7, 2])
[1, 7, 5] x [M] = [[3.12539476 7.29258778 1.92336987]] ([3, 7, 2])
You can see, that it took all the specified inputs, got the transformed outputs and matched the outputs to the reference vectors. The results are not precise, since we have an approximation from the overspecified system. If we used INPUT and OUTPUT with only 3 vectors, the result would be exact.
Related
Assume I have a data like this:
x = np.random.randn(4, 100000)
and I fit a histogram
hist = np.histogramdd(x, density=True)
What I want is to get the probability of number g, e.g. g=0.1. Assume some hypothetical function foo then.
g = 0.1
prob = foo(hist, g)
print(prob)
>> 0.2223124214
How could I do something like this, where I get probability back for a single or a vector of numbers for a fitted histogram? Especially histogram that is N-dimensional.
histogramdd takes O(r^D) memory, and unless you have a very large dataset or very small dimension you will have a poor estimate. Consider your example data, 100k points in 4-D space, the default histogram will be 10 x 10 x 10 x 10, so it will have 10k bins.
x = np.random.randn(4, 100000)
hist = np.histogramdd(x.transpose(), density=True)
np.mean(hist[0] == 0)
gives something arround 0.77 meaning that 77% of the bins in the histogram have no points.
You probably want to smooth the distribution. Unless you have a good reason to not do, I would suggest you to use Gaussian kernel-density Estimate
x = np.random.randn(4, 100000) # d x n array
f = scipy.stats.gaussian_kde(x) # d-dimensional PDF
f([1,2,3,4]) # evaluate the PDF in a given point
I am trying to reconstruct the following matrix of shape (256 x 256 x 2) with SVD components as
U.shape = (256, 256, 256)
s.shape = (256, 2)
vh.shape = (256, 2, 2)
I have already tried methods from documentation of numpy and scipy to reconstruct the original matrix but failed multiple times, I think it maybe 3D matrix has a different way of reconstruction.
I am using numpy.linalg.svd for decompostion.
From np.linalg.svd's documentation:
"... If a has more than two dimensions, then broadcasting rules apply, as explained in :ref:routines.linalg-broadcasting. This means that SVD is
working in "stacked" mode: it iterates over all indices of the first
a.ndim - 2 dimensions and for each combination SVD is applied to the
last two indices."
This means that you only need to handle the s matrix (or tensor in general case) to obtain the right tensor. More precisely, what you need to do is pad s appropriately and then take only the first 2 columns (or generally, the number of rows of vh which should be equal to the number of columns of the returned s).
Here is a working code with example for your case:
import numpy as np
mat = np.random.randn(256, 256, 2) # Your matrix of dim 256 x 256 x2
u, s, vh = np.linalg.svd(mat) # Get the decomposition
# Pad the singular values' arrays, obtain diagonal matrix and take only first 2 columns:
s_rep = np.apply_along_axis(lambda _s: np.diag(np.pad(_s, (0, u.shape[1]-_s.shape[0])))[:, :_s.shape[0]], 1, s)
mat_reconstructed = u # s_rep # vh
mat_reconstructed equals to mat up to precision error.
I have N Gaussian distributions (multivariate) with N different means (covariance is the same for all of them) in D dimensions.
I also have N evaluation points, where I want to evaluate each of these (log) PDFs.
This means I need to get a NxN matrix, call it "kernels". That is, the (i,j)-th entry is the j-th Gaussian evaluated at the i-th point. A naive approach is:
from torch.distributions.multivariate_normal import MultivariateNormal
import numpy as np
# means contains all N means as rows and is thus N x D
# same for eval_points
# cov is not a problem , just a DxD matrix that is equal for all N Gaussians
kernels = np.empty((N,N))
for i in range(N):
for j in range(N):
kernels[i][j] = MultivariateNormal(means[j], cov).log_prob(eval_points[i])
Now one for loop we can get rid of easily, since for example if we wanted all the evaluations of the first Gaussian , we simply do:
MultivariateNormal(means[0], cov).log_prob(eval_points).squeeze()
and this gives us a N x 1 list of values, that is the first Gaussian evaluated at all N points.
My problem is that , in order to get the full N x N matrix , this doesn't work:
kernels = MultivariateNormal(means, cov).log_prob(eval_points).squeeze()
It doesn't figure out that it should evaluate each mean with all evaluation points in eval_points, and it doesn't return a NxN matrix with these which would be what I want. Therefore, I am not able to get rid of the second for loop, over all N Gaussians.
You are passing wrong shaped tensors to MultivariateNormal's constructor. You should pass a collection of mean vectors of shape (N, D) and a collection of precision matrix cov of shape (N, D, D) for N D-dimensional gaussian.
You are passing mu of shape (N, D) but your precision matrix is not well-shaped. You will need to repeat the precision matrix N number of times before passing it to the MultivariateNormal constructor. Here's one way to do it.
N = 10
D = 3
# means contains all N means as rows and is thus N x D
# same for eval_points
# cov is not a problem , just a DxD matrix that is equal for all N Gaussians
mu = torch.from_numpy(np.random.randn(N, D))
cov = torch.from_numpy(make_spd_matrix(D, D))
cov_n = cov[None, ...].repeat_interleave(N, 0)
assert cov_n.shape == (N, D, D)
kernels = MultivariateNormal(mu, cov_n)
I am writing a simple linear regression cost function (Python) for a simple neural network. I have come across the following two alternate ways of summing the error (cost) over m examples using numpy (np) matrices.
The cost function is:
def compute_cost(X, Y, W):
m = Y.size;
H = h(X,W)
error = H-Y
J = (1/(2*m)) * np.sum(error **2, axis=0) #1 (sum squared error over m examples)
return J
X is the input matrix.
Y is the output matrix (labels).
W is the weights matrix.
It seems that the statement:
J = (1/(2*m)) * np.sum(error **2, axis=0) #1 (sum squared error over m examples)
can be replaced by:
J = (1/(2*m)) * np.dot(error.T, error) #2
with the same result.
I do not understand why np.dot is equivalent to summing over m examples or just why the two statements give the same result. Could you please provide some leads and also point me to some link(s) where I can read more and understand this relationship between np.sum and np.dot.
There's nothing special, just simple linear algebra.
According to numpy documentation, np.dot(a,b) performs different operation on different types of inputs.
If both a and b are 1-D arrays, it is inner product of vectors
(without complex conjugation).
If both a and b are 2-D arrays, it is
matrix multiplication, but using matmul or a # b is preferred.
If your error is 1-D array, then the transpose error.T is equal to error, then the operation np.dot is the inner product of them, which equals to the sum of each element to the power of 2.
If your error is 2-D array, then you should follow matrix multiplication principle, so each row of error.T will multiply by each column of error. When your error is a column vector, then the result will be a 1*1 matrix, which is similar to a scalar. when your error is a 1-by-N row vector, then it returns an N-by-N matrix.
Let's say I have a (7,7,3) image with 3 channels.
How can I create a matrix A using the image such that the each row consist of just the pairwise connections of the neighbouring pixel? I know this can be done easily in python with for loops but how can we do this within a tensorflow graph?
Example of matrix A:
[[pixel1 pixel2],
[pixel1 pixel3],
[pixel1 pixel4],
.....so on ]]
You can do this using some matrix algebra. To illustrate the idea, suppose you wanted to do this for a 1D vector.
You can stack the vector with a shifted version of itself to get pairs of neighbors
n = 5
a = tf.range(n)
left = tf.stack([a[1:], a[:n-1]])
left = tf.transpose(left)
By chopping off the tails and repeating for different offset you can get left neighbors and right neighbors
right = tf.stack([a[:n-1], a[1:]])
right = tf.transpose(right)
To ignore edge effects you can chop off the ends and stack again into rank-3 matrix
stacked_neighbors = tf.stack([left[:-1], right[1:]])
Now to interleave the neighbors we can use a trick with transpose and reshape.
stacked_neighbors = tf.transpose(stacked_neighbors, [1, 0, 2])
Since data storage is in row-major order, reshaping into less dimensions than original, reshape flattens excess dimensions on the left
stacked_neighbors = tf.reshape(stacked_neighbors, [6,2])