I'm currently trying to compute matrix exponentiation, and for that I use the well known algorithm of exponentiation by squaring.
def mat_mul(a, b):
n = len(a)
c = []
for i in range(n):
c.append([0]*n)
for j in range(n):
for k in range(n) :
c[i][j] += (a[i][k]*b[k][j])
return c
def mat_pow(a, n):
if n<=0:
return None
if n==1:
return a
if n==2:
return mat_mul(a, a)
t1 = mat_pow(a, n//2)
if n%2 == 0:
return mat_mul(t1, t1)
return mat_mul(t1, mat_mul(a, t1))
The problem is that my algorithm is still too slow, and after some research, I found out that it was because contrary to what I thought, the time of matrix multiplication depends on the matrix size and on the numbers in the matrix.
In fact, the numbers in my matrix become very large, so after some time, the multiplication becomes way slower. Typically, I have M, a 13*13 matrix filled with random 1 and 0, and I want to compute M(108). The integers in the matrix can have hundreds of digits.
I'd like to know if there is a way to avoid that problem.
I've seen that I could use matrix diagonalization, but the problem is I can't use external libraries (like numpy). So the diagonalization algorithm seems a bit too complicated.
the time of matrix multiplication depends on the matrix size and on the numbers in the matrix.
Well, of course, you are multiplying integers of arbitrary size. CPUs have no support for multiplication of those, so it will be very slow, and become slower as the integers grow.
The integers in the matrix can have hundreds of digits. I'd like to know if there is a way to avoid that problem.
There are several ways:
Avoid integers, use floating point numbers and handle the error however your project needs. This will greatly increase the speed and most importantly it won't depend on the size of the numbers anymore. The memory usage will also greatly decrease too.
Use a better algorithm. You already suggested this one, but this is one of the best ways to increase performance if the better algorithm gives you way better bounds.
Optimize it in a low-level systems language. This can give you some performance back, around an order of magnitude or so. Python is a very bad choice for high-performance computing unless you use specialized libraries that do the work for you like numpy.
Ideally, you should be doing all 3 if you actually need the performance.
Related
I need to generate a 2D array in python whose entries are given by a different function above and under the diagonal.
I tried the following:
x = np.reshape(np.logspace(0.001,10,2**12),(1,4096))
def F(a,x):
y = x.T
Fu = np.triu(1/(2*y**2) * (y/x)**a * ((2*a+1) + (a-1)) / (a+1))
Fl = np.tril(1/(2*y**3) * (x/y)**a * a/(2*a+1), -1)
return Fu + Fl
and this works, but it's a bit too inefficient since it's computing a lot of values that are discarded anyway, some of which are especially slow due to the (x/y)**a term which leads to an overflow for high a (80+). This takes me 1-2s to run, depending on the value of a, but I need to use this function thousands of times, so any improvement would be welcome. Is there a way to avoid computing the whole matrix twice before discarding the upper or lower triangular (which would also avoid the overflow problem), and make this function faster?
You can move the multiplication before so to avoid multiplying a big temporary array (Numpy operations are done from the left to the right). You can also precompute (x/y)**a from (y/a)**a since it is just its inverse. Doing so is faster because computing the power of a floating-point number is slow (especially in double precision). Additionally, you can distribute the (x/y)**a operation so to compute x**a/y**a. This is faster because there is only O(2n) values to compute instead of O(n²). That being said, this operation is not numerically stable in your case because of the big power, so it is not safe. You can finally use numexpr so to compute the power in parallel using multiple threads. You can also compute the sum in-place so to avoid creating expensive temporary arrays (and more efficiently use your RAM). Here is the resulting code:
def F_opt(a,x):
y = x.T
tmp = numexpr.evaluate('(y/x)**a')
Fu = np.triu(1/(2*y**2) * ((2*a+1) + (a-1)) / (a+1) * tmp)
Fl = np.tril(1/(2*y**3) * a/(2*a+1) / tmp, -1)
return np.add(Fu, Fl, out=Fu)
This is 5 times faster on my machine. Note there is still few warning about overflows like in the original code and an additional division by zero warning.
Note that you can make this code a bit faster using a parallel Numba code (especially if a is an integer known at compile-time). If you have access to an (expensive) server-side Nvidia GPU, then you can compute this more efficiently using the cupy package.
Can one get the cartesian outer product of two set of vectors without using two for loops? It is slow because the data is large.
[[f(x,y) for x in vectors] for y in vectors]
I am trying to do an agglomerative clustering project in python and for this, I need to create a distance matrix.
This is the code that I have to define the function for the distance matrix:
def distance_matrix(vectors):
s = np.zeros((len(vectors), len(vectors)))
for i in range(len(vectors)):
for v in range(len(vectors)):
s[i, v] = dissimilarity(vectors[i], vectors[v])
return s
What it should do is take a take a list of NumPy arrays and return a 2D NumPy array d where the entry d[i,j] should contain the dissimilarity between vectors[i] and vectors[j].
In this case, vectors is the list of NumPy arrays and the dissimilarity is calculated by:
def dissimilarity(v1, v2):
return (1-(v1.dot(v2)/(np.linalg.norm(v1)*np.linalg.norm(v2))))
or in other words, the dissimilarity is the cosine dissimilarity between two 1D NumPy arrays.
My goal is to find a way to get the distance matrix without the double for loops but still have the computational time be very small.
In general one cannot do this. In general (but not in this case), the computation time will not change because the work is physically there and exists and nomatter the accounting tricks one might try to rewrite it (a single for loop that acts like two for loops, or a recursive implementation), at the end of the day the work must still be done irrespective of the ordering you do it.
Is there a way to get rid of the for loops? Even if it slows down the run time a bit. – Cat_Smithyyyy03
Your case is special. While one normally has no reason to consider a speedup is possible, you are asking to consider tensor products, or in this case a matrix product. When you think about general matrix multiplication AB=C, a matrix product C is basically the outer product {a dot b} of all vectors a in the rowspace of A and b in the colspace of B.
So, for your case, first normalize all your vectors (so the normalization is not required later), then stack them to form A, then let B=transp(A), then do a matrix multiply.
[[a0 a1 a2] [[a0 [b0 [z0 [aa ab ac .. az
[b0 b1 b2] a1 b1 ... z1 ba bb bc .. bz
( . )( a2] b2] z2]] ) = ( . . )
. . .
. . .
[z0 z1 z2]] za zb zc zz]
Interestingly, now you can then plug this into a fast matrix-multiply algorithm, which is actually faster than O(dim * #vecs^2). Hopefully it's also optimized for self-transpose matrices that would generate symmetric matrices (which might save a factor of 2 work... maybe it has some flag like matrixmult(a,b,outputWillBeSymmetric)).
This is faster than "O(N^2)", unintuitively: This rewrite exposed a substructure in the problem, which can be leveraged to get faster than O(dim * #vecs^2). The leveragable substructure is namely the fact that you are computing the outer product of THE SAME vectors. The fast matrix-multiply algorithm will leverage this.
edit: my original answer was wrong
You have a set of size N and you wish to compute f(a,b) for all a and b in the set.
Unless you know some values are trivial, there is no way to be asymptotically faster than this, because you have to imagine the worst case: Every pair f(a,b) may be unique... so there's no way to do less than roughly N^2 work.
However since your function f is symmetric, you could do half the work, then duplicate it:
N = len(vectors)
for i in range(N):
for v in range(N):
dissim = #...
s[i,v] = dissim
s[v,i] = dissim
(You can avoid calculating your metric in the reflexive case f(a,a) because it's trivial, but that doesn't make things asymptotically faster since the fraction of such work N/N^2 tends to zero as N increases, so it's not that great an optimization... it is reasonable only if you are working with a very small number of vectors.)
Whether you should optimize further depends on whether you need to. Such code should be able to easily handle millions of small vectors. Next steps:
Is there something fishy that is making my code very slow? What could it be? We don't have enough information to comment.
If there is nothing fishy of the sort, you can try rephrasing as matrix operations, in order to stay as much as possible in numpy's optimized C routines instead of bouncing back and forth into python. This is ugly and I would avoid doing it, because your code readability will decrease.
If you are dealing with hundreds of millions of vectors, perhaps consider a more cache-friendly approach where you do for blockI in range(N//10**6): for blockV in range(N//10**6): for i in range(blockI*10**6, (blockI+1)*10**6): for v in range(blockV*...):
If you're dealing with billions of vectors, then look into leveraging gpgpu. This is quite ideal for the gpu and might be a factor of thousands speedup.
I tried to solve a PDE numerically and in the course of this I faced the problem of a triple-nested for loop resembling the 3 spatial dimension. This construct is nested in another time loop, so you can imagine that the computing takes forever for sufficient large node numbers. The code block looks like this
for jy in range(0,cy-1):
for jx in range(0,cx-1):
for jz in range(0,cz-1):
T[n+1,jx,jy,jz] = T[n,jx,jy,jz] + s*(T[n,jx-1,jy,jz] - 2*T[n,jx,jy,jz] + T[n,jx+1,jy,jz]) + s*(T[n,jx,jy-1,jz] - 2*T[n,jx,jy,jz] + T[n,jx,jy+1,jz]) + s*(T[n,jx,jy,jz-1] - 2*T[n,jx,jy,jz] + T[n,jx,jy,jz+1])
It might look intimidating at first, but is quite easy. I have a 3 dimensional matrix representing a solid bulk material, where each point represents the current temperature. The iteratively calculated next temperature at each point is calculated taking into account each point next to that point - so 6 in total. In the case of a 1-dimensional solid the solution is just a simple matrix multiplication. Is there any chance to represent the 3-loop-system above in a simple matrix solution like in the 1D case?
Best regards!
With numpy you can easily do these kinds of matrix operations,
e.g for a 3x3 matrix
import numpy as np
T = np.random.random((3,3,3))
T = T*T - 2*T ... etc.
First off, you need to be a bit more careful with your terminology. A "matrix" is a 2-Dimensional array of numbers. So you are really talking about an array. Numpy, or better yet Scipy, has an data type called an ndarray. You need to be very careful manipulating them, because although they are sometimes used to represent matrices, there are operations that can be performed on 2-D arrays that are not mathematically legal for matrices.
I strongly recommend you use # and not * to perform multiplication of 1- or 2-D matrices, and be sure to add code to check that the operations you are doing are legal mathematically. As a trivial example, Python lets you add a 1 x n or an n x 1 vector to an n x n matrix, even though that is not mathematically correct. The reason it allows it is, as intimated above, because there is no true matrix type in Python.
It very well may be that you can reformulate your problem to use a 3-D array, and by experimentation find the particular operation you are trying to perform. Just keep in mind that the rules of linear algebra are only casually applied in Python.
I have been browsing through the questions, and could find some help, but I prefer having confirmation by asking it directly. So here is my problem.
I have an (numpy) array u of dimension N, from which I want to build a square matrix k of dimension N^2. Basically, each matrix element k(i,j) is defined as k(i,j)=exp(-|u_i-u_j|^2).
My first naive way to do it was like this, which is, I believe, Fortran-like:
for i in range(N):
for j in range(N):
k[i][j]=np.exp(np.sum(-(u[i]-u[j])**2))
However, this is extremely slow. For N=1000, for example, it is taking around 15 seconds.
My other way to proceed is the following (inspired by other questions/answers):
i, j = np.ogrid[:N,:N]
k = np.exp(np.sum(-(u[i]-u[j])**2,axis=2))
This is way faster, as for N=1000, the result is almost instantaneous.
So I have two questions.
1) Why is the first method so slow, and why is the second one so fast ?
2) Is there a faster way to do it ? For N=10000, it is starting to take quite some time already, so I really don't know if this was the "right" way to do it.
Thank you in advance !
P.S: the matrix is symmetric, so there must also be a way to make the process faster by calculating only the upper half of the matrix, but my question was more related to the way to manipulate arrays, etc.
First, a small remark, there is no need to use np.sum if u can be re-written as u = np.arange(N). Which seems to be the case since you wrote that it is of dimension N.
1) First question:
Accessing indices in Python is slow, so best is to not use [] if there is a way to not use it. Plus you call multiple times np.exp and np.sum, whereas they can be called for vectors and matrices. So, your second proposal is better since you compute your k all in once, instead of elements by elements.
2) Second question:
Yes there is. You should consider using only numpy functions and not using indices (around 3 times faster):
k = np.exp(-np.power(np.subtract.outer(u,u),2))
(NB: You can keep **2 instead of np.power, which is a bit faster but has smaller precision)
edit (Take into account that u is an array of tuples)
With tuple data, it's a bit more complicated:
ma = np.subtract.outer(u[:,0],u[:,0])**2
mb = np.subtract.outer(u[:,1],u[:,1])**2
k = np.exp(-np.add(ma, mb))
You'll have to use twice np.substract.outer since it will return a 4 dimensions array if you do it in one time (and compute lots of useless data), whereas u[i]-u[j] returns a 3 dimensions array.
I used np.add instead of np.sum since it keep the array dimensions.
NB: I checked with
N = 10000
u = np.random.random_sample((N,2))
I returns the same as your proposals. (But 1.7 times faster)
I need to estimate the size of a population, by finding the value of n which maximises scipy.misc.comb(n, a)/n**b where a and b are constants. n, a and b are all integers.
Obviously, I could just have a loop in range(SOME_HUGE_NUMBER), calculate the value for each n and break out of the loop once I reach an inflexion in the curve. But I wondered if there was an elegant way of doing this with (say) numpy/scipy, or is there some other elegant way of doing this just in pure Python (e.g. like an integer equivalent of Newton's method?)
As long as your number n is reasonably small (smaller than approx. 1500), my guess for the fastest way to do this is to actually try all possible values. You can do this quickly by using numpy:
import numpy as np
import scipy.misc as misc
nMax = 1000
a = 77
b = 100
n = np.arange(1, nMax+1, dtype=np.float64)
val = misc.comb(n, a)/n**b
print("Maximized for n={:d}".format(int(n[val.argmax()]+0.5)))
# Maximized for n=181
This is not especially elegant but rather fast for that range of n. Problem is that for n>1484 the numerator can already get too large to be stored in a float. This method will then fail, as you will run into overflows. But this is not only a problem of numpy.ndarray not working with python integers. Even with them, you would not be able to compute:
misc.comb(10000, 1000, exact=True)/10000**1001
as you want to have a float result in your division of two numbers larger than the maximum a float in python can hold (max_10_exp = 1024 on my system. See sys.float_info().). You couldn't use your range in that case, as well. If you really want to do something like that, you will have to take more care numerically.
You essentially have a nicely smooth function of n that you want to maximise. n is required to be integral but we can consider the function instead to be a function of the reals. In this case, the maximising integral value of n must be close to (next to) the maximising real value.
We could convert comb to a real function by using the gamma function and use numerical optimisation techniques to find the maximum. Another approach is to replace the factorials with Stirling's approximation. This gives a moderately complicated but tractable algebraic expression. This expression is not hard to differentiate and set to zero to find the extrema.
I did this and obtained
n * (b + (n-a) * log((n-a)/n) ) = a * b - a/2
This is not straightforward to solve algebraically but easy enough numerically (e.g. using Newton's method, as you suggest).
I may have made a mistake in the algebra, but I typed the a = 77, b = 100 example into Wolfram Alpha and got 180.58 so the approach seems to work.