ans = 
Resultados de
Hey everyone,
I’m currently working with MATLAB R2025b and using the MQTT blocks from the Industrial Communication Toolbox inside Simulink. I’ve run into an issue that’s driving me a bit crazy, and I’m not sure if it’s a bug or if I’m missing something obvious.
Here’s what’s happening:
- I open the MQTT Configure block.
- I fill out all the required fields — Broker address, Port, Client ID, Username, and Password.
- When I click Test Connection, it says “Connection established successfully.” So far so good.
- Then I click Apply, close the dialog, set the topic name, and try to run the simulation.
- At this point, I get the following error:Caused by: Invalid value for 'ClientID', 'Username' or 'Password'.
- When I reopen the MQTT config block, I notice that the Password field is empty again — even though I definitely entered it before and the connection test worked earlier.
It seems like Simulink is somehow not saving the password after hitting Apply, which leads to the authentication error during simulation.
Has anyone else faced this? Is this a bug in R2025b, or do I need to configure something differently to make the password persist?
Would really appreciate any insights, workarounds, or confirmations from anyone who has used MQTT in Simulink recently.
Thanks in advance!
I'm working on training neural networks without backpropagation / automatic differentiation, using locally derived analytic forms of update rules. Given that this allows a direct formula to be derived for the update rule, it removes alot of the overhead that is otherwise required from automatic differentiation.
However, matlab's functionalities for neural networks are currently solely based around backpropagation and automatic differentiation, such as the dlgradient function and requiring everything to be dlarrays during training.
I have two main requests, specifically for functions that perform a single operation within a single layer of a neural network, such as "dlconv", "fullyconnect", "maxpool", "avgpool", "relu", etc:
- these functions should also allow normal gpuArray data instead of requiring everything to be dlarrays.
- these functions are currently designed to only perform the forward pass. I request that these also be designed to perform the backward pass if user requests. There can be another input user flag that can be "forward" (default) or "backward", and then the function should have all the necessary inputs to perform that operation (e.g. for "avgpool" forward pass it only needs the avgpool input data and the avgpool parameters, but for the "avgpool" backward pass it needs the deriviative w.r.t. the avgpool output data, the avgpool parameters, and the original data dimensions). I know that there is a maxunpool function that achieves this for maxpool, but it has significant issues when trying to use it this way instead of by backpropagation in a dlgradient type layer, see (https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/2179587-making-a-custom-way-to-train-cnns-and-i-am-noticing-that-avgpool-is-significantly-faster-than-maxpo?s_tid=srchtitle).
I don't know how many people would benefit from this feature, and someone could always spend their time creating these functionalities themselves by matlab scripts, cuDNN mex, etc., but regardless it would be nice for matlab to have this allowable for more customizable neural net training.
Please share with us how you are using AI in your control design workflows and what you want to hear most in our upcoming talk, 4 Ways to Improve Control Design Workflows with AI.
Arkadiy
Hello Everyone, I’m Vikram Kumar Singh, and I’m excited to be part of this amazing MATLAB community!
I’m deeply interested in learning more from all of you and contributing wherever I can. Recently, I completed a project on modeling and simulation of a Li-ion battery with a Battery Management System (BMS) for fault detection and management.
I’d love to share my learnings and also explore new ideas together with this group. Looking forward to connecting and growing with the community!
Excited for MATLAB EXPO 2025!
I’m a Master’s student in Electrical Engineering at UNSW Sydney, researching EV fleet charging and hybrid energy strategies integrating battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
LinkedIn link: www.linkedin.com/in/yuanzhe-chen-6b2158351
ResearchGate link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuanzhe-Chen-9?ev=hdr_xprf
#MATLABEXPO #EV #FCEV #SmartGrid
Edit 15 Oct 2025: Removed incorrect code. Replaced symmatrix2sym and symfunmatrix2symfun with sym and symfun respectively (latter supported as of 2024b).
The Symbolic Math Toolbox does not have its own dot and and cross functions. That's o.k. (maybe) for garden variety vectors of sym objects where those operations get shipped off to the base Matlab functions
x = sym('x',[3,1]); y = sym('y',[3,1]);
which dot(x,y)
dot(x,y)
which cross(x,y)
cross(x,y)
clearvars
x = symmatrix('x',[3,1]); y = symmatrix('y',[3,1]);
z = symmatrix('z',[1,1]);
sympref('AbbreviateOutput',false);
dot() expands the result, which isn't really desirable for exposition.
eqn = z == dot(x,y)
Also, dot() returns the the result in terms of the conjugate of x, which can't be simplifed away at the symmatrix level
assumeAlso(sym(x),'real')
class(eqn)
try
eqn = z == simplify(dot(x,y))
catch ME
ME.message
end
To get rid of the conjugate, we have to resort to sym
eqn = simplify(sym(eqn))
but again we are in expanded form, which defeats the purpose of symmatrix (et. al.)
But at least we can do this to get a nice equation
eqn = z == x.'*y
dot errors with symfunmatrix inputs
clearvars
syms t real
x = symfunmatrix('x(t)',t,[3,1]); y = symfunmatrix('y(t)',t,[3,1]);
try
dot(x,y)
catch ME
ME.message
end
Cross works (accidentally IMO) with symmatrix, but expands the result, which isn't really desirable for exposition
clearvars
x = symmatrix('x',[3,1]); y = symmatrix('y',[3,1]);
z = symmatrix('z',[3,1]);
eqn = z == cross(x,y)
And it doesn't work at all if an input is a symfunmatrix
syms t
w = symfunmatrix('w(t)',t,[3,1]);
try
eqn = z == cross(x,w);
catch ME
ME.message
end
In the latter case we can expand with
eqn = z == cross(sym(x),symfun(w)) % x has to be converted
But we can't do the same with dot (as shown above, dot doesn't like symfun inputs)
try
eqn = z == dot(sym(x),symfun(w))
catch ME
ME.message
end
Looks like the only choice for dot with symfunmatrix is to write it by hand at the matrix level
x.'*w
or at the sym/symfun level
sym(x).'*symfun(w) % assuming x is real
Ideally, I'd like to see dot and cross implemented for symmatrix and symfunmatrix types where neither function would evaluate, i.e., expand, until both arguments are subs-ed with sym or symfun objects of appropriate dimension.
Also, it would be nice if symmatrix could be assumed to be real. Is there a reason why being able to do so wouldn't make sense?
try
assume(x,'real')
catch ME
ME.message
end
Excited to link and sync to be a part of better learning experience
happy to be here
Excited to link up
Hello everyone , i am excited to learn more!
AI for Engineered Systems
47%
Cloud, Software Factories, & DevOps
0%
Electrification
13%
Autonomous Systems and Robotics
13%
Model-Based Design
7%
Wireless Communications
20%
15 votos
Something that I periodically wonder about is whether an integration with the Rubi integration rules package would improve symbolic integration in Matlab's Symbolic Toolbox. The project is open-source with an MIT-licensed, has a Mathematica implementation, and supposedly SymPy is working on an implementation. Much of my intrigue comes from this 2022 report that compared the previous version of Rubi (4.16.1) against various CAS systems, including Matlab 2021a (Mupad):
While not really an official metric for Rubi, this does "feel" similar to my experience computing symbolic integrals in Matlab Symbolic Toolbox vs Maple/Mathematica. What do y'all think?
Hi. I'm interested to learn more about MATLAB.
excited to learn more on Mathworks
Looking forward to the Expo!
Registration is now open for MathWorks annual virtual event MATLAB EXPO 2025 on November 12 – 13, 2025!
Register now and start building your customized agenda today!
Explore. Experience. Engage.
Join MATLAB EXPO to connect with MathWorks and industry experts to learn about the latest trends and advancements in engineering and science. You will discover new features and capabilities for MATLAB and Simulink that you can immediately apply to your work.
For some time now, this has been bugging me - so I thought to gather some more feedback/information/opinions on this.
What would you classify Recursion? As a loop or as a vectorized section of code?
For context, this query occured to me while creating Cody problems involving strict (so to speak) vectorization - (Everyone is more than welcome to check my recent Cody questions).
To make problems interesting and/or difficult, I (and other posters) ban functions and functionalities - such as for loops, while loops, if-else statements, arrayfun() and the rest of the fun() family functions. However, some of the solutions including the reference solution I came up with for my latest problem, contained recursion.
I am rather divided on how to categorize it. What do you think?
Have you ever been enrolled in a course that uses an LMS and there is an assignment that invovles posting a question to, or answering a question in, a discussion group? This discussion group is meant to simulate that experience.
The functionality would allow report generation straight from live scripts that could be shared without exposing the code. This could be useful for cases where the recipient of the report only cares about the results and not the code details, or when the methodology is part of a company know how, e.g. Engineering services companies.
In order for it to be practical for use it would also require that variable values could be inserted into the text blocks, e.g. #var_name# would insert the value of the variable "var_name" and possibly selecting which code blocks to be hidden.
Modern engineering requires both robust hardware and powerful simulation tools. MATLAB and Simulink are widely used for data analysis, control design, and embedded system development. At the same time, Kasuo offers a wide range of components—from sensors and connectors to circuit protection devices—that engineers rely on to build real-world systems.
By combining these tools, developers can bridge the gap between simulation and implementation, ensuring their designs are reliable and ready for deployment.
Example Use Case: Sensor Data Acquisition and Processing
- Kasuo Hardware Setup
- Select a Kasuo sensor (e.g., temperature, microphone, or motion sensor).
- Connect it to a DAQ or microcontroller board for data collection.
- Data Acquisition in MATLAB
- Use MATLAB’s Data Acquisition Toolbox to stream sensor data directly.
- Example snippet:
s = daq("ni");
addinput(s,
"Dev1", "ai0", "Voltage");
data = read(s, seconds(
5), "OutputFormat", "Matrix");
plot(data);
- Signal Processing with Simulink
- Build a Simulink model to filter noise, detect anomalies, or design control logic.
- Simulink enables real-time visualization and iterative tuning.
- Validation & Protection Simulation
- Add Kasuo’s circuit protection components (e.g., TVS diodes, surge suppressors) in the physical design.
- Use Simulink to simulate stress conditions, validating system robustness before hardware testing.
Benefits of the Workflow
- Faster prototyping with MATLAB & Simulink.
- Greater reliability by incorporating Kasuo protection devices.
- Seamless transition from model to hardware implementation.
Conclusion
Kasuo’s electronic components provide the hardware foundation for many embedded and signal processing applications. When combined with MATLAB and Simulink, engineers can design, simulate, and validate systems more efficiently—reducing risks and development time.
