At present I have a control to which I need to add the facility to apply various acuteness (or sensitivity). The problem is best illustrated as an image:
Graph http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7886/control.png
As you can see, I have X and Y axess that both have arbitrary limits of 100 - that should suffice for this explanation. At present, my control is the red line (linear behaviour), but I would like to add the ability for the other 3 curves (or more) i.e. if a control is more sensitive then a setting will ignore the linear setting and go for one of the three lines. The starting point will always be 0, and the end point will always be 100.
I know that an exponential is too steep, but can't seem to figure a way forward. Any suggestions please?
The curves you have illustrated look a lot like gamma correction curves. The idea there is that the minimum and maximum of the range stays the same as the input, but the middle is bent like you have in your graphs (which I might note is not the circular arc which you would get from the cosine implementation).
Graphically, it looks like this:
(source: wikimedia.org)
So, with that as the inspiration, here's the math...
If your x values ranged from 0 to 1, the function is rather simple:
y = f(x, gamma) = x ^ gamma
Add an xmax value for scaling (i.e. x = 0 to 100), and the function becomes:
y = f(x, gamma) = ((x / xmax) ^ gamma) * xmax
or alternatively:
y = f(x, gamma) = (x ^ gamma) / (xmax ^ (gamma - 1))
You can take this a step further if you want to add a non-zero xmin.
When gamma is 1, the line is always perfectly linear (y = x). If x is less than 1, your curve bends upward. If x is greater than 1, your curve bends downward. The reciprocal value of gamma will convert the value back to the original (x = f(y, 1/g) = f(f(x, g), 1/g).
Just adjust the value of gamma according to your own taste and application needs. Since you're wanting to give the user multiple options for "sensitivity enhancement", you may want to give your users choices on a linear scale, say ranging from -4 (least sensitive) to 0 (no change) to 4 (most sensitive), and scale your internal gamma values with a power function. In other words, give the user choices of (-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4), but translate that to gamma values of (5.06, 3.38, 2.25, 1.50, 1.00, 0.67, 0.44, 0.30, 0.20).
Coding that in C# might look something like this:
public class SensitivityAdjuster {
public SensitivityAdjuster() { }
public SensitivityAdjuster(int level) {
SetSensitivityLevel(level);
}
private double _Gamma = 1.0;
public void SetSensitivityLevel(int level) {
_Gamma = Math.Pow(1.5, level);
}
public double Adjust(double x) {
return (Math.Pow((x / 100), _Gamma) * 100);
}
}
To use it, create a new SensitivityAdjuster, set the sensitivity level according to user preferences (either using the constructor or the method, and -4 to 4 would probably be reasonable level values) and call Adjust(x) to get the adjusted output value. If you wanted a wider or narrower range of reasonable levels, you would reduce or increase that 1.5 value in the SetSensitivityLevels method. And of course the 100 represents your maximum x value.
I propose a simple formula, that (I believe) captures your requirement. In order to have a full "quarter circle", which is your extreme case, you would use (1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100.
What I suggest is that you take a weighted average between y=x and y=(1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100. For example, to have very close to linear (99% linear), take:
y = 0.99*x + 0.01*[(1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100]
Or more generally, say the level of linearity is L, and it's in the interval [0, 1], your formula will be:
y = L*x + (1-L)*[(1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100]
EDIT: I changed cos(x/100) to cos((x*pi)/(2*100)), because for the cos result to be in the range [1,0] X should be in the range of [0,pi/2] and not [0,1], sorry for the initial mistake.
You're probably looking for something like polynomial interpolation. A quadratic/cubic/quartic interpolation ought to give you the sorts of curves you show in the question. The differences between the three curves you show could probably be achieved just by adjusting the coefficients (which indirectly determine steepness).
The graph of y = x^p for x from 0 to 1 will do what you want as you vary p from 1 (which will give the red line) upwards. As p increases the curve will be 'pushed in' more and more. p doesn't have to be an integer.
(You'll have to scale to get 0 to 100 but I'm sure you can work that out)
I vote for Rax Olgud's general idea, with one modification:
y = alpha * x + (1-alpha)*(f(x/100)*100)
alt text http://www4c.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP4501967d41e1aga1b3i00004bdeci2b6be2a59b?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=6
where f(0) = 0, f(1) = 1, f(x) is superlinear, but I don't know where this "quarter circle" idea came from or why 1-cos(x) would be a good choice.
I'd suggest f(x) = xk where k = 2, 3, 4, 5, whatever gives you the desired degre of steepness for &alpha = 0. Pick a value for k as a fixed number, then vary α to choose your particular curve.
For problems like this, I will often get a few points from a curve and throw it through a curve fitting program. There are a bunch of them out there. Here's one with a 7-day free trial.
I've learned a lot by trying different models. Often you can get a pretty simple expression to come close to your curve.
Related
I watched and tried to understand bunch of sites and videos about this, and I came into a weird conclusions and some questions. I need some help to explain which one of the method is right, or even both of them are right (but I got different result from each methods).
I'm sorry that I'm bad at explaining things, the first method is solve the equations normally. But, here the link for the video I tried to learn from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7CfCDkRwfY
Second method is to do cross product for the direction and find the point by set one of the variables as 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jozabh0lFmo
I tried for this example
x+2y+z−1=0
2x+3y−2z+2=0
and turned out for different answers. Is both of the method are correct, or which one? Thank you.
You have two equations with three unknowns.
You can eliminate one variable and solve for a relationship between the remaining two. Let's eliminate z.
Multiply the first equation by 2:
2x + 4y + 2z = 2
Add this to the second equation:
4x + 7y = 0
You can solve for y as a function of x:
y = -4x/7
Substitute this back into the first equation:
x - 8x/7 + z = 1
Simplify by combining the first and second terms:
-x/7 + z = 1
Solve for z:
z = 1 + x/7
Now you have an equation for the line in 3D space.
-inf <= x <= +inf
y = -4x/7
z = 1 + x/7
Both your equations are satisfied by these two points. Since two points are enough to define a line in Euclidean space I'd say I've got the correct answer.
This line goes through the point (0, 0, 1). It also goes through (7, -4, 2)
Here's a parametric representation of that line for -inf <= t <= +inf:
(x, y, z) = (0, 0, 1) + t*(7, -4, 1)
You can see that when t = 0 (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 1) (first point above) and when t = 1 (x, y, z) = (7, -4, 2) (second point above).
I didn't look at either of your videos. This is how I'd solve it.
This is high school algebra.
The diagram and the graph
I have made the above diagram and I placed the values of 1,1 as the parameters of INTEGRAL_f and GAINBLK_f respectively,and the other parameters are as default.
I have no idea why this graph is plotted since I thought that there should be no factor(s) which compose the exponential function.
Can anyone tell me what I am missing?
That's just math. You're have the system (here noted in the Laplace domain) y = 1/s*u and apply to it the positive feedback u = u+y, hence you end up (after solving for y) with the system y = 1/(s-1)*u, which is in state space, with your initial condition of integral block
x' = x+u,
x(0) = 1,
since you have no input, you obtain
x' = x,
x(0) = 1,
which yields x(t)=exp(t). If you want to see something interesting, just take 0 as initial condition of the integral block and add an input. However, if you keep this positive feedback your system is unstable...
I am trying to understand the different behaviors of these two smoothing functions when given apparently equivalent inputs. My understanding was that locpoly just takes a fixed bandwidth argument, while locfit can also include a varying part in its smoothing parameter (a nearest-neighbors fraction, "nn"). I thought setting this varying part to zero in locfit should make the "h" component act like the fixed bandwidth used in locpoly, but this is evidently not the case.
A working example:
library(KernSmooth)
library(locfit)
set.seed(314)
n <- 100
x <- runif(n, 0, 1)
eps <- rnorm(n, 0, 1)
y <- sin(2 * pi * x) + eps
plot(x, y)
lines(locpoly(x, y, bandwidth=0.05, degree=1), col=3)
lines(locfit(y ~ lp(x, nn=0, h=0.05, deg=1)), col=4)
Produces this plot:
locpoly gives the smooth green line, and locfit gives the wiggly blue line. Clearly, locfit has a smaller "effective" bandwidth here, even though the supposed bandwidth parameter has the same value for each.
What are these functions doing differently?
The two parameters both represent smoothing, but they do so in two different ways.
locpoly's bandwidth parameter is relative to the scale of the x-axis here. For example, if you changed the line x <- runif(n, 0, 1) to x <- runif(n, 0, 10), you will see that the green locpoly line becomes much more squiggly despite the fact that you still have the same number of points (100).
locfit's smoothing parameter, h, is independent of the scale, and instead is based on a proportion of the data. The value 0.05 means 5% of the data that is closest to that position is used to fit the curve. So changing the scale would not alter the line.
This also explains the observation made in the comment that changing the value of h to 0.1 makes the two look nearly identical. This makes sense, because we can expect that a bandwidth of 0.05 will contain about 10% of the data if we have 100 points distributed uniformly from 0 to 1.
My sources include the documentation for the locfit package and the documentation for the locpoly function.
I changed your code a bit so we can see more clearly what the actual window widths are:
library(KernSmooth)
library(locfit)
x <- seq(.1, .9, length.out = 80)
y <- rep(0:1, each = 40)
plot(x, y)
lines(locpoly(x, y, bandwidth=0.1, degree=1), col=3)
lines(locfit(y ~ lp(x, nn=0, h=0.1, deg=1)), col=4)
The argument h from locfit appears to be a half-window width. locpoly's bandwidth is clearly doing something else.
KernSmooth's documentation is very ambiguous, but judging from the source code (here and here), it looks like the bandwidth is the standard deviation of a normal density function. Hopefully this is explained in the Kernel Smoothing book they cite.
This may be more of a search for a term, but solutions are also welcome. I'm looking to create n amount of random x,y coordinates. The issue I am having is that I would like the coordinates to be "weighted" or have more of a chance of falling closer to a specific point. I've created something close by using this pseudo code:
x = rand(100) //random integer between 0 and 100
x = rand(x) //random number between 0 and the previous rand value
//randomize x to positive or negative
//repeat for y
This works to pull objects toward 0,0 - however if you create enough points, you can see a pattern of the x and y axis. This is because the even if x manages to get to 100, the chances are high that y will then be closer to.
I'm looking to avoid the formation of this x,y line. Bonus points if there is a way to throw in multiple "weighted coordinates" that the random coordinates would sort of gravitate to, instead of statically to 0,0.
This is easier in polar coordinates. All you have to do is to generate a uniform random angle and a power distributed distance. Here's an example in Python:
import math
from random import random
def randomPoint(aroundX, aroundY, scale, density):
angle = random()*2*math.pi
x = random()
if x == 0:
x = 0.0000001
distance = scale * (pow(x, -1.0/density) - 1)
return (aroundX + distance * math.sin(angle),
aroundY + distance * math.cos(angle))
Here's the distribution of randomPoint(0, 0, 1, 1):
We can shift it to center around another point like 1,2 with randomPoint(1, 2, 1, 1):
We can spread across a larger area by increasing the scale. Here's randomPoint(0, 0, 3, 1):
And we can change the shape, that is the tendency to flock together, by changing the density. randomPoint(0, 0, 1, 3):
I've written a a little function that gives me out a value based on a sine wave when I put in a float between 0 and 1. I'm using it to lerp things around in a game.
public static class Utilities
{
public static float SineMe(float prop)
{
float output = (prop*180f)-90f;
output = Mathf.Sin(output*Mathf.Deg2Rad);
output = (output+1f)/2f;
return output;
}
}
It works fine.. But I was wondering is there a mathematical way of altering the sine wave so I can make it 'steeper' or 'shallower' in the middle?
In the diagram below the blue curve is a sine wave, I'm wondering if I can make it more like the green line.
What you're showing already isn't really sine - the range of sine is between -1 and +1. You're applying the linear function f(x) = (x+1)/2 to change that range. So place another function between the sine and that transform.
To change the shape, you need a non-linear function. So, here's a cubic equation you might try...
g(x) = Ax^3 + Bx^2 + Cx + D
D = 0
C = p
B = 3 - 3C
A = 1 - (B + C)
The parameter p should be given a value between 0.0 and 9.0. If it's 1.0, g(x) is the identity function (the output is the unmodified input). With values between 0.0 and 1.0, it will tend to "fatten" your sine wave (push it away from 0.0 and towards 1.0 or -1.0) which is what you seem to require.
I once "designed" this function as a way to get "fractal waveforms". Using values of p between 1.0 and 9.0 (and particularly between around 3.0 and 6.0) iterative application of this formula is chaotic. I stole the idea from the population fluctuation modelling chaotic function by R. M. May, but that's a quadratic - I wanted something symmetric, so I needed a cubic function. Not really relevant here, and a pretty aweful idea as it happens. Although you certainly get chaotic waveforms, what that really means is huge problems with aliassing - change the sample rate and you get a very different sound. Still, without the iteration, maybe this will give you what you need.
If you iterate enough times with p between 0.0 and 1.0, you end up with a square wave with slightly rounded corners.
Most likely you can just choose a value of p between 0.0 and 1.0, apply that function once, then apply your function to change the range and you'll get what you want.
By the way, there's already a comment suggesting a cheat sheet of "easing functions". "Easing" is a term from animation, and computer animation software often uses Bezier curves for that purpose - the same Bezier curves that vector graphics software often uses. Bezier curves come in quadratic and cubic variants, with cubic being the more common. So what this is doing probably isn't that different. However, cubic Bezier easing gives you more control - you can control the "ease-in" independently of the "ease-out", where my function only provides one parameter.
You can use the y(x) = 1-(1-x)^n function when x = [0..1], as a transform function.
You will just have to replace x by the absolute value of your sinus and report the sign of sinus to the result. In that way you can tweak the sinus slope by increasing n. So what you want is this:
float sinus = Mathf.Sin(output*Mathf.Deg2Rad);
int sign = (sinus >= 0 ? 1 : -1);
int n = 4; // slope parameter
float waveform = sign * ( 1-Mathf.Pow(1-Mathf.Abs(sinus), n) );
You can root the sine function to make it steeper (only working for positive values). The higher the root, the steeper the sine.
Graph of a steeper sine wave function
I discovered this nifty trick for a steeper sine wave (0..1).
f(x) = cos(sin(x)^3)^10
If you need (-1..1):
2 * (f(x) - 0.5)
I think I found the solution.
(0.5+sin(x*π-π/2)/2)^((2*(1-x))^k)
in the interval x = [0.0, 1.0]
with k that control the steepness.
k=0.0 for the unmodified sinus (purple)
k=1.0 (green)
k=2.0 (blue)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wdtfsassev
I was looking for a similar function, not for the whole sine but just half the period.
I bumped into the Logistic function:
f(x) = L / (1 + e^(-k(x-x0)))
where
e = the natural logarithm base (also known as Euler's number),
x0 = the x-value of the sigmoid's midpoint,
L = the curve's maximum value, and
k = the steepness of the curve.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
Works for me
what about
sign(sin(x))*sqrt(abs(sin(x))
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/5nn34xqkfr