Debugging repository

We have decided to get to the bottom of the unusual behavior of MPTK,
since the next steps of our work on CMP depend on it.
This entails comparing the results from my MATLAB implementation with those of MPTK (and CMPTK) on the same dictionary.
I have decomposed one signal of dimension 1024 samples,
with a dictionary of modulated Gaussian windows of scale 64 samples,
with a hop size of 8 samples.
The MPTK dictionary is defined as follows (couldn’t use pre html tags for some reason, so I attach it as a png):


dfdsf.png
This “windowOpt = 0” business means that the variance of the Gaussian window is set to the default 0.02.
In my MATLAB code I have attempted to do the same. Here is how MPTK computes the window (actually only half of it is needed) of even length length:

optional = 0.02;
optional = 1/(2*optional*(length+1)*(length+1));
for ( i = 0; i < length/2; i++, p1++, p2-- ) {
k = (double) i - ( (double) (length - 1) )/2.0;
newPoint = exp(-k*k*optional);
*p2 = *p1 = (Dsp_Win_t) newPoint;
}

Put together, p1 and p2 define the entire window.
Here is how I compute the same Gaussian window in MATLAB:

winVals = zeros(1,size);
optional = 0.02;
optional = 1/(2*optional*(size+1)*(size+1));
counter = 1;
for ii=0:floor(size/2)-1
kk = ii - (size-1)/2;
winVals(counter) = exp(-kk.^2*optional);
winVals(size - counter + 1) = exp(-kk.^2*optional);
counter = counter + 1;
end

Both dictionaries have 3993 complex atoms.
So far, everything checks out.

In the graph below, I show the ratios of residual energies due to my implementation to those produced by MPTK/CMPTK.
Above the periwinkle dashed line, the residual is larger in MATLAB that in MPTK; and vice versa below the line.
We see for the most part the differences of MP/MPTK are negligible.
This could be due to some indexes being one off, some of which I did find in my code and fixed.
For CMP/CMPTK however, the story is different. (I am only performing one cycle of refinement in each case.)
There are no reported increases of the residual energy in CMP,
but in CMPTK there are plenty, beginning with atom 11.

ex1_energydifferences.png
Let’s have a look at the residual decreases of CMP in MATLAB:

2: Energy reduction of 0.27118%
3: Energy reduction of 0.13418%
4: Energy reduction of 0.37532%
5: Energy reduction of 0.073902%
6: Energy reduction of 15.5745%
7: Energy reduction of 5.8543%
8: Energy reduction of 1.0909%
9: Energy reduction of 1.764%
10: Energy reduction of 1.497%

And now of CMPTK

2: Energy reduction of 0.266262% from 1 of 1 possible cycles
3: Energy reduction of 0.131654% from 1 of 1 possible cycles
4: Energy reduction of 0.40187% from 1 of 1 possible cycles
5: Energy reduction of 0.0768828% from 1 of 1 possible cycles
6: Energy reduction of 4.58075% from 1 of 1 possible cycles <-----
7: Energy reduction of 11.134% from 1 of 1 possible cycles
8: Energy reduction of 2.4887% from 1 of 1 possible cycles
9: Energy reduction of 1.68054% from 1 of 1 possible cycles
10: Energy reduction of 1.72243% from 1 of 1 possible cycles

All looks compatible until iteration 5 (arrow). We see that in the graph above too, when CMPTK performance takes a nose dive like my recent investments in CMP, Inc.

So what is the atom that causes trouble at iteration 11?
There is nothing unusual about it. It begins at sample 80 (shouldn’t that be 79 if we begin indexing at 0?), has a frequency of 0.015625*8192 = 128 Hz, an amp of 0.277851, and a phase of -1.82707. This atom causes the residual energy to increase 1.146%.
Here is where we take a look at the residual just before and just after this atom comes into play.

(Editors note: several hours passed between these two paragraphs, during which I had a long think to the bus stop, and some more think over dinner.)

Upon returning to home, I decided to perform the ultimate test of sanity: put two atoms from the dictionary in a signal, and see what happens. With this I believe I have cornered the problem. Take a look at the following movie.
My MATLAB implementation vs. MPTK. One is slow, and one is speedy.
Which one will win?
ex1_MP_atoms.mov. Clearly, MPTK has made a very poor choice. And I believe it all comes down to the position index selecting the atom in the block.
What happens when I make off by one in my MATLAB MP those positions at which I am searching for the largest magnitude projection (i.e., the atom hop size)?:ex1_MP_atoms2.mov.
Not only do I pick up the same wrong atoms as MPTK, my computer’s battery nears empty. The 2-norm of the differences of the residuals is 1e-4 — which is not too large, but not too small.
Finally, when I shift the dictionary such that the atoms line up with how MPTK expects them, and keep my erroneous MP, I get the following: ex1_MP_atoms3.mov. Yay! It works!!!

But wait. That’s not all. Often I see the following behavior: ex1_MP_atoms4.mov. That first projection was a doozy for MPTK. It left a massive dirac. And those 3 atoms aren’t even close to each other to interfere. And here is one where it happens twice: ex1_MP_atoms5.mov. My MP converges after 3 steps with an SRR of 94 dB; while MPTK has a paltry 31 dB SRR. The only thing I can think of is that MPTK is so fast that it becomes extremely excited when something fits so perfectly that it twists its atoms in knots before subtraction.

So, not only do we need to change the positions at which MPTK searches for maximums,
but also something in the atom creation causing those diracs. And then CMPTK will hopefully be ready for the next step.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s