I am trying to normalize some Nx3 data. If X is a Nx3 array and D is a Nx1 array, in MATLAB, I can do
Y = X./D
If I do the following in Python, I get an error
X = np.random.randn(100,3)
D = np.linalg.norm(X,axis=1)
Y = X/D
ValueError: operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (100,3) (100,)
Any suggestions?
Edit: Thanks to dm2.
Y = X/D.reshape((100,1))
Another way is to use scikitlearn.
from sklearn import preprocessing
Y = preprocessing.normalize(X)
From numpy documentation on array broadcasting:
When operating on two arrays, NumPy compares their shapes
element-wise. It starts with the trailing (i.e. rightmost) dimensions
and works its way left. Two dimensions are compatible when
they are equal, or
one of them is 1
Both of your arrays have the same first dimension, but your X array is 2-dimensional, while your D array is 1-dimensional, which means the shapes of these two arrays do not meet the requirements to be broadcast together.
To make sure they do, you could reshape your D array into a 2-dimensional array of shape (100,1), which would satisfy the requirements to broadcast: rightmost dimensions are 3 and 1 (one of them is 1) and the other dimensions are equal (100 and 100).
So:
Y = X/D.reshape((-1,1))
or
Y = X/D.reshape((100,1))
or
Y = X/D[:,np.newaxis]
Should give you the result you're after.
As I am attempting to use one presented python script, its core part contains the NumPy array summation of a (0,6) array, while I'm coming across a broadcasting error. The basic broadcasting rules of numerical operations on NumPy arrays tell me ValueError will generate when I want to sum a (1000,6) array and a (0,6) array.
print a.shape
#(1000,6)
print b.shape
#(0,6)
a += b + 0.5
As might have been expected, "ValueError: operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (1000,6)(0,6)(1000,6)" reported
I was wondering if there is anyway to fix this? Changing the shape of (0,6) array, or adding an extra dimension?
I am trying to calculate the first and second order moments for a portfolio of stocks (i.e. expected return and standard deviation).
expected_returns_annual
Out[54]:
ticker
adj_close CNP 0.091859
F -0.007358
GE 0.095399
TSLA 0.204873
WMT -0.000943
dtype: float64
type(expected_returns_annual)
Out[55]: pandas.core.series.Series
weights = np.random.random(num_assets)
weights /= np.sum(weights)
returns = np.dot(expected_returns_annual, weights)
So normally the expected return is calculated by
(x1,...,xn' * (R1,...,Rn)
with x1,...,xn are weights with a constraint that all the weights have to sum up to 1 and ' means that the vector is transposed.
Now I am wondering a bit about the numpy dot function, because
returns = np.dot(expected_returns_annual, weights)
and
returns = np.dot(expected_returns_annual, weights.T)
give the same results.
I tested also the shape of weights.T and weights.
weights.shape
Out[58]: (5,)
weights.T.shape
Out[59]: (5,)
The shape of weights.T should be (,5) and not (5,), but numpy displays them as equal (I also tried np.transpose, but there is the same result)
Does anybody know why numpy behave this way? In my opinion the np.dot product automatically shape the vector the right why so that the vector product work well. Is that correct?
Best regards
Tom
The semantics of np.dot are not great
As Dominique Paul points out, np.dot has very heterogenous behavior depending on the shapes of the inputs. Adding to the confusion, as the OP points out in his question, given that weights is a 1D array, np.array_equal(weights, weights.T) is True (array_equal tests for equality of both value and shape).
Recommendation: use np.matmul or the equivalent # instead
If you are someone just starting out with Numpy, my advice to you would be to ditch np.dot completely. Don't use it in your code at all. Instead, use np.matmul, or the equivalent operator #. The behavior of # is more predictable than that of np.dot, while still being convenient to use. For example, you would get the same dot product for the two 1D arrays you have in your code like so:
returns = expected_returns_annual # weights
You can prove to yourself that this gives the same answer as np.dot with this assert:
assert expected_returns_annual # weights == expected_returns_annual.dot(weights)
Conceptually, # handles this case by promoting the two 1D arrays to appropriate 2D arrays (though the implementation doesn't necessarily do this). For example, if you have x with shape (N,) and y with shape (M,), if you do x # y the shapes will be promoted such that:
x.shape == (1, N)
y.shape == (M, 1)
Complete behavior of matmul/#
Here's what the docs have to say about matmul/# and the shapes of inputs/outputs:
If both arguments are 2-D they are multiplied like conventional matrices.
If either argument is N-D, N > 2, it is treated as a stack of matrices residing in the last two indexes and broadcast accordingly.
If the first argument is 1-D, it is promoted to a matrix by prepending a 1 to its dimensions. After matrix multiplication the prepended 1 is removed.
If the second argument is 1-D, it is promoted to a matrix by appending a 1 to its dimensions. After matrix multiplication the appended 1 is removed.
Notes: the arguments for using # over dot
As hpaulj points out in the comments, np.array_equal(x.dot(y), x # y) for all x and y that are 1D or 2D arrays. So why do I (and why should you) prefer #? I think the best argument for using # is that it helps to improve your code in small but significant ways:
# is explicitly a matrix multiplication operator. x # y will raise an error if y is a scalar, whereas dot will make the assumption that you actually just wanted elementwise multiplication. This can potentially result in a hard-to-localize bug in which dot silently returns a garbage result (I've personally run into that one). Thus, # allows you to be explicit about your own intent for the behavior of a line of code.
Because # is an operator, it has some nice short syntax for coercing various sequence types into arrays, without having to explicitly cast them. For example, [0,1,2] # np.arange(3) is valid syntax.
To be fair, while [0,1,2].dot(arr) is obviously not valid, np.dot([0,1,2], arr) is valid (though more verbose than using #).
When you do need to extend your code to deal with many matrix multiplications instead of just one, the ND cases for # are a conceptually straightforward generalization/vectorization of the lower-D cases.
I had the same question some time ago. It seems that when one of your matrices is one dimensional, then numpy will figure out automatically what you are trying to do.
The documentation for the dot function has a more specific explanation of the logic applied:
If both a and b are 1-D arrays, it is inner product of vectors
(without complex conjugation).
If both a and b are 2-D arrays, it is matrix multiplication, but using
matmul or a # b is preferred.
If either a or b is 0-D (scalar), it is equivalent to multiply and
using numpy.multiply(a, b) or a * b is preferred.
If a is an N-D array and b is a 1-D array, it is a sum product over
the last axis of a and b.
If a is an N-D array and b is an M-D array (where M>=2), it is a sum
product over the last axis of a and the second-to-last axis of b:
In NumPy, a transpose .T reverses the order of dimensions, which means that it doesn't do anything to your one-dimensional array weights.
This is a common source of confusion for people coming from Matlab, in which one-dimensional arrays do not exist. See Transposing a NumPy Array for some earlier discussion of this.
np.dot(x,y) has complicated behavior on higher-dimensional arrays, but its behavior when it's fed two one-dimensional arrays is very simple: it takes the inner product. If we wanted to get the equivalent result as a matrix product of a row and column instead, we'd have to write something like
np.asscalar(x # y[:, np.newaxis])
adding a trailing dimension to y to turn it into a "column", multiplying, and then converting our one-element array back into a scalar. But np.dot(x,y) is much faster and more efficient, so we just use that.
Edit: actually, this was dumb on my part. You can, of course, just write matrix multiplication x # y to get equivalent behavior to np.dot for one-dimensional arrays, as tel's excellent answer points out.
The shape of weights.T should be (,5) and not (5,),
suggests some confusion over the shape attribute. shape is an ordinary Python tuple, i.e. just a set of numbers, one for each dimension of the array. That's analogous to the size of a MATLAB matrix.
(5,) is just the way of displaying a 1 element tuple. The , is required because of older Python history of using () as a simple grouping.
In [22]: tuple([5])
Out[22]: (5,)
Thus the , in (5,) does not have a special numpy meaning, and
In [23]: (,5)
File "<ipython-input-23-08574acbf5a7>", line 1
(,5)
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
A key difference between numpy and MATLAB is that arrays can have any number of dimensions (upto 32). MATLAB has a lower boundary of 2.
The result is that a 5 element numpy array can have shapes (5,), (1,5), (5,1), (1,5,1)`, etc.
The handling of a 1d weight array in your example is best explained the np.dot documentation. Describing it as inner product seems clear enough to me. But I'm also happy with the
sum product over the last axis of a and the second-to-last axis of b
description, adjusted for the case where b has only one axis.
(5,) with (5,n) => (n,) # 5 is the common dimension
(n,5) with (5,) => (n,)
(n,5) with (5,1) => (n,1)
In:
(x1,...,xn' * (R1,...,Rn)
are you missing a )?
(x1,...,xn)' * (R1,...,Rn)
And the * means matrix product? Not elementwise product (.* in MATLAB)? (R1,...,Rn) would have size (n,1). (x1,...,xn)' size (1,n). The product (1,1).
By the way, that raises another difference. MATLAB expands dimensions to the right (n,1,1...). numpy expands them to the left (1,1,n) (if needed by broadcasting). The initial dimensions are the outermost ones. That's not as critical a difference as the lower size 2 boundary, but shouldn't be ignored.
I have two matrices to multiply. One is the weight matrix W, whose size is 900x2x2. Another is input matrix I, whose size is 2x2.
I want to perform a summation over c = WI which will be a 900x1 matrix, but when I perform the operation it multiplies them and gives me a 900x2x2 matrix again.
Question #2 (related): So I made both of them 2D and multiplied 900x4 * 4x1, but that gives me an error saying:
ValueError: operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (900,4) (4,1)
It seems you are trying to lose the last two axes of the first array against the only two axes of the second weight array with that matrix-multiplication. We could translate that idea into NumPy code with np.tensordot and assuming arr1 and arr2 as the input arrays respectively, like so -
np.tensordot(arr1,arr2,axes=([1,2],[0,1]))
Another simpler way to put into NumPy code would be with np.einsum, like so -
np.einsum('ijk,jk',arr1,arr2)
Consider the following simple example:
X = numpy.zeros([10, 4]) # 2D array
x = numpy.arange(0,10) # 1D array
X[:,0] = x # WORKS
X[:,0:1] = x # returns ERROR:
# ValueError: could not broadcast input array from shape (10) into shape (10,1)
X[:,0:1] = (x.reshape(-1, 1)) # WORKS
Can someone explain why numpy has vectors of shape (N,) rather than (N,1) ?
What is the best way to do the casting from 1D array into 2D array?
Why do I need this?
Because I have a code which inserts result x into a 2D array X and the size of x changes from time to time so I have X[:, idx1:idx2] = x which works if x is 2D too but not if x is 1D.
Do you really need to be able to handle both 1D and 2D inputs with the same function? If you know the input is going to be 1D, use
X[:, i] = x
If you know the input is going to be 2D, use
X[:, start:end] = x
If you don't know the input dimensions, I recommend switching between one line or the other with an if, though there might be some indexing trick I'm not aware of that would handle both identically.
Your x has shape (N,) rather than shape (N, 1) (or (1, N)) because numpy isn't built for just matrix math. ndarrays are n-dimensional; they support efficient, consistent vectorized operations for any non-negative number of dimensions (including 0). While this may occasionally make matrix operations a bit less concise (especially in the case of dot for matrix multiplication), it produces more generally applicable code for when your data is naturally 1-dimensional or 3-, 4-, or n-dimensional.
I think you have the answer already included in your question. Numpy allows the arrays be of any dimensionality (while afaik Matlab prefers two dimensions where possible), so you need to be correct with this (and always distinguish between (n,) and (n,1)). By giving one number as one of the indices (like 0 in 3rd row), you reduce the dimensionality by one. By giving a range as one of the indices (like 0:1 in 4th row), you don't reduce the dimensionality.
Line 3 makes perfect sense for me and I would assign to the 2-D array this way.
Here are two tricks that make the code a little shorter.
X = numpy.zeros([10, 4]) # 2D array
x = numpy.arange(0,10) # 1D array
X.T[:1, :] = x
X[:, 2:3] = x[:, None]