Im trying to build a simple input/output matrix (where you can calculate the multiplier effect in a simple economy if demand increases). But for some reason the final result is not adding up.
#include <iostream>
#include <Eigen/Dense>
using namespace std;
using namespace Eigen;
void InputOutput(){
MatrixXf ProdA(5, 5);;
VectorXf Intd(5);
VectorXf Finald(5);
ProdA <<
10, 20, 0, 0, 5,
20, 30, 20, 10, 10,
10, 10, 0, 10, 10,
10, 40, 20, 5, 5,
20, 20, 30, 5, 5;
Intd << 55, 40, 20, 30, 10;
Finald << 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
VectorXf ones(5);
ones << 1, 1, 1, 1, 1;
Finald = ProdA * ones + Intd;
MatrixXf AMatrix = MatrixXf::Zero(ProdA.rows(), ProdA.cols());
AMatrix = ProdA.array() / (Finald.replicate(1, ProdA.cols())).array();
cout << "Here is the Coefficient vector production needed:\n" << AMatrix << endl;
MatrixXf IminA(5, 5);;
IminA = MatrixXf::Identity(AMatrix.rows(), AMatrix.cols()) - AMatrix;
cout << "Here is the matrix of production:\n" << ProdA << endl;
cout << "Here is the vector Internal demand:\n" << Intd << endl;
cout << "Here is the vector Final demand:\n" << Finald << endl;
cout << "Here is the Coefficient vector production needed:\n" << AMatrix << endl;
MatrixXf IminAinv(5, 5);;
IminAinv = IminA.inverse();
cout << "The inverse of CoMatrix - Imatrix is:\n" << IminAinv << endl;
cout << "To check, final demand is:\n" << (IminAinv * Intd) << endl;
When I verify if the (I-A)inverse matrix (or IminAinv) is properly calculated it doesn't add up. By multiplying the IminAinv by Internal demand (int), I should get the same Intd. That is if Intd isn't changed. Instead I get a bigger number. Also if I calculate the inverse of the IminA matrix myself, I get something different then eigen.
So something goes wrong in getting the inverse of Identity matrix - Coefficient matrix. But what?
Thanks!
EDIT :
After some more digging into why there are some differences in the final results, I discovered that those "underlying mechanisms" mentioned in Case 2 were, in fact, my own mistake out of inadvertence while entering the matrices' values.
Here follows the original answer with these mistakes taken care of.
The actual problem does not lie in the inversion of the AMatrix but in a much more subtle detail.
You are using this command to perform the division in the definition of AMatrix:
AMatrix = ProdA.array() / (Finald.replicate(1, ProdA.cols())).array();
But if you check the results of this replicate operation on Finald you get:
...
cout << "Here is the replicated final demand vector:\n" << (Finald.replicate(1, ProdA.cols())).array() << endl;
...
>>
Here is the replicated final demand vector:
90 90 90 90 90
130 130 130 130 130
60 60 60 60 60
110 110 110 110 110
90 90 90 90 90
whereas the correct one should be:
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
You can transpose the replicated final demand vector like this:
MatrixXf Finaldrep(5,5);
Finaldrep = (Finald.replicate(1, ProdA.cols())).array().transpose();
and then of course:
AMatrix = ProdA.array() / Finaldrep.array();
which yields:
cout << "Here is the transposed replicated final demand vector:\n" << Finaldrep << endl;
...
>>
Here is the transposed replicated final demand vector:
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
90 130 60 110 90
So, let's see what are the differences in your intermediate and final results in both these cases:
Case 1
ie Your current approach
Here is the Coefficient vector production needed:
0.111111 0.222222 0 0 0.0555556
0.153846 0.230769 0.153846 0.0769231 0.0769231
0.166667 0.166667 0 0.166667 0.166667
0.0909091 0.363636 0.181818 0.0454545 0.0454545
0.222222 0.222222 0.333333 0.0555556 0.0555556
The determinant of IminA is: 0.420962
The inverse of CoMatrix - Imatrix is:
1.27266 0.468904 0.131153 0.0688064 0.13951
0.443909 1.68132 0.377871 0.215443 0.240105
0.451292 0.628205 1.25318 0.287633 0.312705
0.404225 0.841827 0.423093 1.20242 0.224877
0.586957 0.777174 0.586957 0.23913 1.27174
To check, final demand is:
94.8349
108.09
86.7689
102.689
95
I have also added the determinant of IminA
Case 2
ie using the reversed final demand vector
Here is the Coefficient vector production needed:
0.111111 0.153846 0 0 0.0555556
0.222222 0.230769 0.333333 0.0909091 0.111111
0.111111 0.0769231 0 0.0909091 0.111111
0.111111 0.307692 0.333333 0.0454545 0.0555556
0.222222 0.153846 0.5 0.0454545 0.0555556
The determinant of IminA is: 0.420962
The inverse of CoMatrix - Imatrix is:
1.27266 0.324626 0.196729 0.0562962 0.13951
0.641202 1.68132 0.818721 0.254615 0.346818
0.300861 0.289941 1.25318 0.156891 0.20847
0.494053 0.712316 0.77567 1.20242 0.27485
0.586957 0.538044 0.880435 0.195652 1.27174
To check, final demand is:
90
130
60
110
90
Now, I understand that the Finald check still does not produce the exact values of the originally defined Finald, but I believe that this has something to do with the precision or some other underlying mechanism. (see NOTE)
As a proof of concept here are some results obtained with MATLAB, using the second case (reversed) for the replicated Final Demand Vector (denom):
>> AMatrixcm = ProdA ./ Finaldfullcm
AMatrixcm =
0.1111 0.1538 0 0 0.0556
0.2222 0.2308 0.3333 0.0909 0.1111
0.1111 0.0769 0 0.0909 0.1111
0.1111 0.3077 0.3333 0.0455 0.0556
0.2222 0.1538 0.5000 0.0455 0.0556
>> IminAcm = eye(5) - AMatrixcm
IminAcm =
0.8889 -0.1538 0 0 -0.0556
-0.2222 0.7692 -0.3333 -0.0909 -0.1111
-0.1111 -0.0769 1.0000 -0.0909 -0.1111
-0.1111 -0.3077 -0.3333 0.9545 -0.0556
-0.2222 -0.1538 -0.5000 -0.0455 0.9444
>> det(IminAcm)
ans =
0.4210
>> IminAinvcm = inv(IminAcm)
IminAinvcm =
1.2727 0.3246 0.1967 0.0563 0.1395
0.6412 1.6813 0.8187 0.2546 0.3468
0.3009 0.2899 1.2532 0.1569 0.2085
0.4941 0.7123 0.7757 1.2024 0.2748
0.5870 0.5380 0.8804 0.1957 1.2717
>> Finaldcheckcm = IminAinvcm * Intdc
Finaldcheckcm =
90.0000
130.0000
60.0000
110.0000
90.0000
It is quite clear that the second case results are (almost) identical to the MATLAB ones.
NOTE: Here you can see that the MATLAB output is identical to the original Finald, however, if you perform the last matrix multiplication (the one in the validation of the Final Demand vector) by hand, you will see that in fact both MATLAB and Case 2 versions of IminAinv yield the same result as the final output of Case 2, ie [88.9219, 125.728, 59.5037, 105.543, 84.5808].
This is why I think that there is some other mechanism involved in these differences. (See EDIT on top of post)
Related
I am currently developing a chess engine in C++, and I am in the process of debugging my move generator. For this purpose, I wrote a simple perft() function:
int32_t Engine::perft(GameState game_state, int32_t depth)
{
int32_t last_move_nodes = 0;
int32_t all_nodes = 0;
Timer timer;
timer.start();
int32_t output_depth = depth;
if (depth == 0)
{
return 1;
}
std::vector<Move> legal_moves = generator.generate_legal_moves(game_state);
for (Move move : legal_moves)
{
game_state.make_move(move);
last_move_nodes = perft_no_print(game_state, depth - 1);
all_nodes += last_move_nodes;
std::cout << index_to_square_name(move.get_from_index()) << index_to_square_name(move.get_to_index()) << ": " << last_move_nodes << "\n";
game_state.unmake_move(move);
}
std::cout << "\nDepth: " << output_depth << "\nTotal nodes: " << all_nodes << "\nTotal time: " << timer.get_milliseconds() << "ms/" << timer.get_milliseconds()/1000.0f << "s\n\n";
return all_nodes;
}
int32_t Engine::perft_no_print(GameState game_state, int32_t depth)
{
int32_t nodes = 0;
if (depth == 0)
{
return 1;
}
std::vector<Move> legal_moves = generator.generate_legal_moves(game_state);
for (Move move : legal_moves)
{
game_state.make_move(move);
nodes += perft_no_print(game_state, depth - 1);
game_state.unmake_move(move);
}
return nodes;
}
It's results for the initial chess position (FEN: rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1) for depths 1 and 2 match the results of stockfish's perft command, so I assume they are correct:
h2h3: 1
h2h4: 1
g2g3: 1
g2g4: 1
f2f3: 1
f2f4: 1
e2e3: 1
e2e4: 1
d2d3: 1
d2d4: 1
c2c3: 1
c2c4: 1
b2b3: 1
b2b4: 1
a2a3: 1
a2a4: 1
g1h3: 1
g1f3: 1
b1c3: 1
b1a3: 1
Depth: 1
Total nodes: 20
Total time: 1ms/0.001s
h2h3: 20
h2h4: 20
g2g3: 20
g2g4: 20
f2f3: 20
f2f4: 20
e2e3: 20
e2e4: 20
d2d3: 20
d2d4: 20
c2c3: 20
c2c4: 20
b2b3: 20
b2b4: 20
a2a3: 20
a2a4: 20
g1h3: 20
g1f3: 20
b1c3: 20
b1a3: 20
Depth: 2
Total nodes: 400
Total time: 1ms/0.001s
The results stop matching at depth 3, though:
Stockfish:
go perft 3
a2a3: 380
b2b3: 420
c2c3: 420
d2d3: 539
e2e3: 599
f2f3: 380
g2g3: 420
h2h3: 380
a2a4: 420
b2b4: 421
c2c4: 441
d2d4: 560
e2e4: 600
f2f4: 401
g2g4: 421
h2h4: 420
b1a3: 400
b1c3: 440
g1f3: 440
g1h3: 400
Nodes searched: 8902
My engine:
h2h3: 361
h2h4: 380
g2g3: 340
g2g4: 397
f2f3: 360
f2f4: 436
e2e3: 380
e2e4: 437
d2d3: 380
d2d4: 437
c2c3: 399
c2c4: 326
b2b3: 300
b2b4: 320
a2a3: 280
a2a4: 299
g1h3: 281
g1f3: 280
b1c3: 357
b1a3: 320
Depth: 3
Total nodes: 7070
Total time: 10ms/0.01s
I figured that my move generator was just buggy, and tried to track down the bugs by making a move the engine gives incorrect values for on the board and then calling perft() with depth = 2 on it to find out which moves are missing. But for all moves I tried this with, the engine suddenly starts to output the correct results I expected to get earlier!
Here is an example for the move a2a3:
When calling perft() on the initial position in stockfish, it calculates 380 subnodes for a2a3 at depth 3.
When calling perft() on the initial position in my engine, it calculates 280 subnodes for a2a3 at depth 3.
When calling perft() on the position you get after making the move a2a3 in the initial position in my engine, it calculates the correct number of total nodes at depth 2, 380:
h7h5: 19
h7h6: 19
g7g5: 19
g7g6: 19
f7f5: 19
f7f6: 19
e7e5: 19
e7e6: 19
d7d5: 19
d7d6: 19
c7c5: 19
c7c6: 19
b7b5: 19
b7b6: 19
a7a5: 19
a7a6: 19
g8h6: 19
g8f6: 19
b8c6: 19
b8a6: 19
Depth: 2
Total nodes: 380
Total time: 1ms/0.001s
If you have any idea what the problem could be here, please help me out. Thank you!
EDIT:
I discovered some interesting new facts that might help to solve the problem, but I don't know what to do with them:
For some reason, using std::sort() like this in perft():
std::sort(legal_moves.begin(), legal_moves.end(), [](auto first, auto second){ return first.get_from_index() % 8 > second.get_from_index() % 8; });
to sort the vector of legal moves causes the found number of total nodes for the initial position (for depth 3) to change from the wrong 7070 to the (also wrong) 7331.
When printing the game state after calling game_state.make_move() in perft(), it seems to have had no effect on the position bitboards (the other properties change like they are supposed to). This is very strange, because isolated, the make_move() method works just fine.
I'm unsure if you were able to pin down the issue but from the limited information available in the question, the best I can assume (and something I faced myself earlier) is that there is a problem in your unmake_move() function when it comes to captures since
Your perft fails only at level 3 - this is when the first legal capture is possible, move 1 and 2 can have no legal captures.
Your perft works fine when it's at depth 1 in the position after a2a3 rather than when it's searching at depth 3 from the start
This probably means that your unmake_move() fails at a depth greater than 1 where you need to restore some of the board's state that cannot be derived from just the move parameter you are passing in (e.g. enpassant, castling rights etc. before you made the move).
This is how you would like to debug your move generator using perft.
Given startpos as p1, generate perft(3) for your engine and sf. (you did that)
Now check any move that have different nodes, you pick a2a3. (you did that)
Given startpos + a2a3 as p2, generate perft(2) for your engine and sf. (you partially did this)
Now check any move that have different nodes in step 3. Let's say move x.
Given startpos + a2a3 + x as p3, generate perft(1) for your engine and sf.
Since that is only perft(1) by this time you will be able to figure out the wrong move or the missing move from your generator. Setup that last position or p3 on the board and see the wrong/missing moves from your engine compared to sf perft(1) result.
Consider the following code snippet of this class template...
template<class T>
class FileTemplate {
private:
std::vector<T> vals_;
std::string filenameAndPath_;
public:
inline FileTemplate( const std::string& filenameAndPath, const T& multiplier ) :
filenameAndPath_( filenameAndPath ) {
std::fstream file;
if ( !filenameAndPath_.empty() ) {
file.open( filenameAndPath_ );
T val = 0;
while ( file >> val ) {
vals_.push_back( val );
}
file.close();
for ( unsigned i = 0; i < vals_.size(); i++ ) {
vals_[i] *= multiplier;
}
file.open( filenameAndPath_ );
for ( unsigned i = 0; i < vals_.size(); i++ ) {
file << vals_[i] << " ";
}
file.close();
}
}
inline std::vector<T> getValues() const {
return vals_;
}
};
When used in main as such with the lower section commented out with the following pre-populated text file:
values.txt
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
int main() {
std::string filenameAndPath( "_build/values.txt" );
std::fstream file;
FileTemplate<unsigned> ft( filenameAndPath, 5 );
std::vector<unsigned> results = ft.getValues();
for ( auto r : results ) {
std::cout << r << " ";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
/*
FileTemplate<float> ft2( filenameAndPath, 2.5f );
std::vector<float> results2 = ft2.getValues();
for ( auto r : results2 ) {
std::cout << r << " ";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
*/
std::cout << "\nPress any key and enter to quit." << std::endl;
char q;
std::cin >> q;
return 0;
}
and I run this code through the debugger sure enough both the output to the screen and file are changed to
values.txt - overwritten are -
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
then lets say I don't change any code just stop the debugging or running of the application, and let's say I run this again 2 more times, the outputs respectively are:
values.txt - iterations 2 & 3
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
125 250 375 500 625 750 875 1000 1125 1250
Okay good so far; now lets reset our values in the text file back to default and lets uncomment the 2nd instantiation of this class template for the float with a multiplier value of 2.5f and then run this 3 times.
values.txt - reset to default
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-iterations 1,2 & 3 with both unsigned & float the multipliers are <5,2.5> respectively. 5 for the unsigned and 2.5 for the float
- Iteration 1
cout:
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
12.5 25 37.5 50 62.5 75 87.5 100 112.5
values.txt:
12.5 25 37.5 50 62.5 75 87.5 100 112.5
- Iteration 2
cout:
60
150 12.5 62.5 93.75 125 156.25 187.5 218.75 250 281.25
values.txt:
150 12.5 62.5 93.75 125 156.25 187.5 218.75 250 281.25
- Iteration 3
cout:
750 60
1875 150 12.5 156.25 234.375 312.5 390.625 468.75 546.875 625 703.125
values.txt:
1875 150 12.5 156.25 234.375 312.5 390.625 468.75 546.875 625 703.125
A couple of questions come to mind: it is two fold regarding the same behavior of this program.
The first and primary question is: Are the file read and write calls being done at compile time considering this is a class template and the constructor is inline?
After running the debugger a couple of times; why is the output incrementing the number of values in the file? I started off with 9, but after an iteration or so there are 10, then 11.
This part just for fun if you want to answer:
The third and final question yes is opinion based but merely for educational purposes for I would like to see what the community thinks about this: What are the pros & cons to this type of programming? What are the potentials and the limits? Are their any practical real world applications & production benefits to this?
In terms of the other issues. The main issue is that you are not truncating the file when you do the second file.open statement, you need :
file.open( filenameAndPath_, std::fstream::trunc|std::fstream::out );
What is happening, is that, when you are reading unsigned int from a file containing floating points, it is only reading the first number (e.g. 12.5) up to the decimal place and then stopping (e.g. reading only 12)
, because there is no other text on the line that looks like an unsigned int. This means it only reads the number 12 and then multiplies it by 5 to get the 60, and writes it to the file.
Unfortunately because you don't truncate the file when writing the 60, it leaves the original text at the end which is interpreted as additional numbers in the next read loop. Hence, 12.5 appears in the file as 60 5
stream buffers
Extracts as many characters as possible from the stream and inserts them into the output sequence controlled by the stream buffer object pointed by sb (if any), until either the input sequence is exhausted or the function fails to insert into the object pointed by sb.
(http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/istream/istream/operator%3E%3E/)
I' trying to get cloud of points from two stereo images using OpenCV, but I can't get coordinates.
I found points coordinates using Optical Flow
I found projection matrixes for cameras.
Mat RT1;<br>
hconcat(R, T1, RT1);<br>
Mat P1 = C*RT1;<br>
R is 3x3 rotation matrix, T is 3x1 transform matrix (column), P1 - projection matrix.
I pass them to triangulatePoints function
triangulatePoints(P1, P2, leftPoints, rightPoints, out);
P1 and P2 is 3x4 projection matrix (Mat_<double>).
leftPoints and rightPoints is std::vector of Point2f.
What is out? It should be 1xN matrix of 4D coords. Is this Vec4f?
I am trying get coordinates
for (int i = 0; i < out.cols; i++)
{
Vec4f vec = out.at<Vec4f>(0, i);
float w = vec[3];
stream << "v " << vec[0] / w << " " << vec[1]/w << " " << vec[2]/w << "\n";
}
But I have two problems:
This cycle throw exception (works for small i, about 20% of out.cols)
OpenCV Error: Assertion failed (dims <= 2 && data && (unsigned)i0 <
(unsigned)si ze.p[0] && (unsigned)(i1 * DataType<_Tp>::channels) <
(unsigned)(size.p1 * cha nnels()) &&
((((sizeof(size_t)<<28)|0x8442211) >> ((DataType<_Tp>::depth) & ((1 <<
3) - 1))*4) & 15) == elemSize1()) in cv::Mat::at, file
c:\opencv\build\includ e\opencv2\core\mat.inl.hpp, line 89
I think this is some kind of Index Out Range Exception
Result is very strange:
Image
So, I am doing something wrong. How correctly work with this function and get 3D coordinates of points? I'll hope you can help me.
I don't understand exactly your approach in getting the coordinates.
As far as I see, you should not be accessing elements like
out.at<Vec4f>(0, i);
Instead, do it like this:
float x = out.at<float>(0, i);
float y = out.at<float>(1, i);
float z = out.at<float>(2, i);
float w = out.at<float>(3, i);
stream << "v " << x << " " << y << " " << z << "\n";
Or use double... depending whether you out is of type CV_32F or CV_64F.
Here is how I do it:
Mat points3DHomogeneous;
triangulatePoints(projectionMatrixL, projectionMatrixR, pointsL, pointsR, points3DHomogeneous);
projectionMatrixL:
projectionMatrixR:
pointsL:
700 250
200 300
600 350
400 400
500 450
600 500
700 550
800 600
150 650
1000 700
pointsR:
690 250
180 300
590 350
385 400
495 450
575 500
691 550
782 600
120 650
960 700
points3DHomogeneous is the result:
So I'm trying to make a graphing application, and I'm using Desmos as a base for that.
The thing I'm struggling with is the way Desmos handles the subdivisions of the axes. When you zoom in or out the scales are always on "easy" simple numbers like 5, 100, 1000 etc. So my question is: how does one go about simplifying their scale with any level of zoom?
BTW: Using C++
I was going to write a description of how to do this in general, but then I realize that the code may be easier than explaining.
Most important step: define precisely what you mean by "easy simple" numbers.
Example #1: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, ... , 1073741824, ...
These are powers of two. So, a straightforward ceil(log(x)/log(2.0)) will solve it.
Example #2: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, ...
There is a mixture of powers of two, and some multiples of it. Let's take a closer look.
A subset of these can be described as powers of ten.
Changing the formula to ceil(log(x)/log(10.0)) will solve it.
For each power-of-ten, its multiples by 2.0 and 5.0 are also "easy simple numbers".
Inside each iteration, after checking the power-of-ten value, also check the two multiples. If it fits inside one of the multiple, that value can be returned as result.
Code
The following code is only meant to explain the concept. It is not efficient - an efficient version should have used logarithm to get the result in O(1) time.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <limits>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
double getNiceAxisLength(double value, double baseLength, double step, const std::vector<double>& subSteps)
{
typedef std::vector<double>::const_iterator VecDoubleIter;
if (value < 0.0)
{
throw std::invalid_argument("Error: value must be non-negative. Take absolute value if necessary.");
}
if (baseLength <= 0.0)
{
throw std::invalid_argument("Error: baseLength must be positive.");
}
if (step <= 1.0)
{
throw std::invalid_argument("Error: step must be strictly greater than 1.");
}
for (VecDoubleIter iter = subSteps.begin(); iter != subSteps.end(); ++iter)
{
double subStep = *iter;
if (subStep <= 1.0 || subStep >= step)
{
throw std::invalid_argument("Error: each subStep must be strictly greater than 1, and strictly smaller than step.");
}
}
// make ascending.
std::vector<double> sortedSubSteps(subSteps.begin(), subSteps.end());
std::sort(sortedSubSteps.begin(), sortedSubSteps.end());
if (value <= baseLength)
{
return baseLength;
}
double length = baseLength;
double terminateLength = numeric_limits<double>::max() / step;
while (length < terminateLength)
{
for (VecDoubleIter iter = sortedSubSteps.begin(); iter != sortedSubSteps.end(); ++iter)
{
double subStep = *iter;
if (value <= length * subStep)
{
return (length * subStep);
}
}
double nextLength = length * step;
if (value <= nextLength)
{
return nextLength;
}
length = nextLength;
}
return baseLength;
}
int main()
{
double baseLength = 1.0;
double step = 10.0;
std::vector<double> subSteps;
subSteps.push_back(2.5);
subSteps.push_back(5);
for (int k = 0; k < 1000; k += ((k >> 2) + 1))
{
double value = k;
double result = getNiceAxisLength(value, baseLength, step, subSteps);
cout << "k: " << value << " result: " << result << endl;
}
cout << "Hello world!" << endl;
return 0;
}
Output
k: 0 result: 1
k: 1 result: 1
k: 2 result: 2.5
k: 3 result: 5
k: 4 result: 5
k: 6 result: 10
k: 8 result: 10
k: 11 result: 25
k: 14 result: 25
k: 18 result: 25
k: 23 result: 25
k: 29 result: 50
k: 37 result: 50
k: 47 result: 50
k: 59 result: 100
k: 74 result: 100
k: 93 result: 100
k: 117 result: 250
k: 147 result: 250
k: 184 result: 250
k: 231 result: 250
k: 289 result: 500
k: 362 result: 500
k: 453 result: 500
k: 567 result: 1000
k: 709 result: 1000
k: 887 result: 1000
Hello world!
Hello world!
I'm trying to calculate the covariance of a multichannel image patch (using cv::calcCovarMatrix), so I can in turn calculate the Mahalonobis distance of a pixel from that patch and I'm really struggling to find the right options to reshape the matrix into the right format.
For example if my matrix has 3 rows, 4 columns, and 2 channels:
// Channel 1:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2
// Channel 2:
99 98 97 96
95 94 93 92
91 90 89 88
What I believe I need is to reshape the image into a shape with 3x4=12 rows and 2 columns (or its transpose):
// Desired result:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88
Is this the correct format for cv::calcCovarMatrix?
What parameters do I need for .reshape() to achieve this?
An example in code:
#include <opencv2/opencv.hpp>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
// Construct channel 1
cv::Mat_<float> channel1 = (cv::Mat_<float>(3, 4) << 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0,
5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0,
9.0, 0.0, 1.0, 2.0);
std::cout << "Channel 1: " << std::endl;
std::cout << channel1 << std::endl;
// Construct channel 2
cv::Mat_<float> channel2 = (cv::Mat_<float>(3, 4) << 99.0, 98.0, 97.0, 96.0,
95.0, 94.0, 93.0, 92.0,
91.0, 90.0, 89.0, 88.0);
std::cout << "Channel 2: " << std::endl;
std::cout << channel2 << std::endl;
// Merge together
std::vector<cv::Mat> stack;
cv::Mat merged;
stack.push_back(channel1);
stack.push_back(channel2);
cv::merge(stack, merged);
std::cout << "Merged:" <<std::endl;
std::cout << merged << std::endl;
// Reshape
cv::Mat reshaped = merged.reshape(0,1).reshape(1); // <----Need help with this line
std::cout << "Reshaped:" <<std::endl;
std::cout << reshaped << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Not tested, but looking at the docs and the calcCovarMatrix() implementation, you should do something like
cv::Mat reshaped = merged.reshape(1,1);
or
cv::Mat reshaped = merged.reshape(1,3*4);
It seems that calcCovarMatrix() can process both column matrices and row-matrices.
You can take a look at the code in opencv/modules/core/src/matmul.cpp, line 2097