I calculated the elements by double for loop as follows.
N,l=20,10
a=np.random.rand(N,l)
b=np.random.rand(N,l)
r=np.zeros((N,N,l))
for i in range(N):
for j in range(N):
r[i,j]=a[i]*a[j]*(b[i]-b[j])-a[i]/a[j]
Question:
How to vectorize the array and calculate it with broadcasting?
I also want to set the index inot equalsj, which means leave the diagonal element as zero. Can I do that also by vectorization?
You can broadcast all of the arithmetic and remove the loop.s
r2 = (a[:,None]*a) * (b[:,None]-b) - (a[:,None]/a)
# Verify the correctness
np.array_equal(r, r2)
# True
Finally, to set diagonals to zero, either use in-place assignment
r2[(np.arange(N),)*2] = 0
Or, numpy.fill_diagonal, which also fills in-place.
np.fill_diagonal(r2, 0)
Related
Is there any efficient way of doing the following:
Assume I have a vector A of length n, I want to calculate a second vector B, where
B[i] = A[0] * A[1] * .. *A[i-1] * A[i+1] *..*A[n-1]
i.e., B[i] is the multipication of all elements in A except for the i'th elmenet.
Initially, I thought of doing something like:
C = np.prod(A)
B = C/A
But, then I have a problem when I have an element of A which is equal to zero. Of course, I can
find out if I have one zero and then immediately set B to be the all-zero vector except for that
single zero and to put there the multiple of the rest of A and in the case of more than 1 zero to zero out B completely. But this becomes a little cumbersome when I want to do that operation for every row inside a matrix and not just for a single vector.
Of course, I can do it in a loop but I was wondering if there is a more efficient way?
You could slice up to (but not including) i, then from i+1 and on. Concatenate those slices together and multiply.
np.prod(np.concatenate([a[:i], a[i+1:]]))
A possible one liner using np.eye, np.tile and np.prod:
np.prod(np.tile(A, (A.size, 1))[(1 - np.eye(A.size)).astype(bool)].reshape(A.size, -1), axis=1)
What is the significance of the return part when evaluating functions? Why is this necessary?
Your assumption is right: dfdx[0] is indeed the first value in that array, so according to your code that would correspond to evaluating the derivative at x=-1.0.
To know the correct index where x is equal to 0, you will have to look for it in the x array.
One way to find this is the following, where we find the index of the value where |x-0| is minimal (so essentially where x=0 but float arithmetic requires taking some precautions) using argmin :
index0 = np.argmin(np.abs(x-0))
And we then get what we want, dfdx at the index where x is 0 :
print dfdx[index0]
An other but less robust way regarding float arithmetic trickery is to do the following:
# we make a boolean array that is True where x is zero and False everywhere else
bool_array = (x==0)
# Numpy alows to use a boolean array as a way to index an array
# Doing so will get you the all the values of dfdx where bool_array is True
# In our case that will hopefully give us dfdx where x=0
print dfdx[bool_array]
# same thing as oneliner
print dfdx[x==0]
You give the answer. x[0] is -1.0, and you want the value at the middle of the array.`np.linspace is the good function to build such series of values :
def f1(x):
g = np.sin(math.pi*np.exp(-x))
return g
n = 1001 # odd !
x=linspace(-1,1,n) #x[n//2] is 0
f1x=f1(x)
df1=np.diff(f1(x),1)
dx=np.diff(x)
df1dx = - math.pi*np.exp(-x)*np.cos(math.pi*np.exp(-x))[:-1] # to discard last element
# In [3]: np.allclose(df1/dx,df1dx,atol=dx[0])
# Out[3]: True
As an other tip, numpy arrays are more efficiently and readably used without loops.
I currently have the following double loop in my Python code:
for i in range(a):
for j in range(b):
A[:,i]*=B[j][:,C[i,j]]
(A is a float matrix. B is a list of float matrices. C is a matrix of integers. By matrices I mean m x n np.arrays.
To be precise, the sizes are: A: mxa B: b matrices of size mxl (with l different for each matrix) C: axb. Here m is very large, a is very large, b is small, the l's are even smaller than b
)
I tried to speed it up by doing
for j in range(b):
A[:,:]*=B[j][:,C[:,j]]
but surprisingly to me this performed worse.
More precisely, this did improve performance for small values of m and a (the "large" numbers), but from m=7000,a=700 onwards the first appraoch is roughly twice as fast.
Is there anything else I can do?
Maybe I could parallelize? But I don't really know how.
(I am not committed to either Python 2 or 3)
Here's a vectorized approach assuming B as a list of arrays that are of the same shape -
# Convert B to a 3D array
B_arr = np.asarray(B)
# Use advanced indexing to index into the last axis of B array with C
# and then do product-reduction along the second axis.
# Finally, we perform elementwise multiplication with A
A *= B_arr[np.arange(B_arr.shape[0]),:,C].prod(1).T
For cases with smaller a, we could run a loop that iterates through the length of a instead. Also, for more performance, it might be a better idea to store those elements into a separate 2D array instead and perform the elementwise multiplication only once after we get out of the loop.
Thus, we would have an alternative implementation like so -
range_arr = np.arange(B_arr.shape[0])
out = np.empty_like(A)
for i in range(a):
out[:,i] = B_arr[range_arr,:,C[i,:]].prod(0)
A *= out
How to generate a matrix that its entries are random real numbers between zero and one inclusive with the additional constraint : The sum of each row must be less than or equal to one and the sum of each column must be less than or equal to one.
Examples:
matrix = [0.3, 0.4, 0.2;
0.7, 0.0, 0.3;
0.0, 0.5, 0.1]
If you want a matrix that is uniformly distributed and fulfills those constraints, you probably need a rejection method. In Matlab it would be:
n = 3;
done = false;
while ~done
matrix = rand(n);
done = all(sum(matrix,1)<=1) & all(sum(matrix,2)<=1);
end
Note that this will be slow for large n.
If you're looking for a Python way, this is simply a transcription of Luis Mendo's rejection method. For simplicity, I'll be using NumPy:
import numpy as np
n = 3
done = False
while not done:
matrix = np.random.rand(n,n)
done = np.all(np.logical_and(matrix.sum(axis=0) <= 1, matrix.sum(axis=1) <= 1))
If you don't have NumPy, then you can generate your 2D matrix as a list of lists instead:
import random
n = 3
done = False
while not done:
# Create matrix as a list of lists
matrix = [[random.random() for _ in range(n)] for _ in range(n)]
# Compute the row sums and check for each to be <= 1
row_sums = [sum(matrix[i]) <= 1 for i in range(n)]
# Compute the column sums and check for each to be <= 1
col_sums = [sum([matrix[j][i] for j in range(n)]) <= 1 for i in range(n)]
# Only quit of all row and column sums are less than 1
done = all(row_sums) and all(col_sums)
The rejection method will surely give you a uniform solution, but it might take a long time to generate a good matrix, especially if your matrix is large. So another, but more tedious approach is to generate each element such that the sum can only be 1 in each direction. For this you always generate a new element between 0 and the remainder until 1:
n = 3
matrix = zeros(n+1); %dummy line in first row/column
for k1=2:n+1
for k2=2:n+1
matrix(k1,k2)=rand()*(1-max(sum(matrix(k1,1:k2-1)),sum(matrix(1:k1-1,k2))));
end
end
matrix = matrix(2:end,2:end)
It's a bit tricky because for each element you check the row-sum and column-sum until that point, and use the larger of the two for generating a new element (in order to stay below a sum of 1 in both directions). For practical reasons I padded the matrix with a zero line and column at the beginning to avoid indexing problems with k1-1 and k2-1.
Note that as #LuisMendo pointed out, this will have a different distribution as the rejection method. But if your constraints do not consider the distribution, this could do as well (and this will give you a matrix from a single run).
I have a function that assigns value depending on the condition. My dataset size is usually in the range of 30-50k. I am not sure if this is the correct way to use numpy but when it's more than 5k numbers, it gets really slow. Is there a better way to make it faster ?
import numpy as np
N = 5000; #dataset size
L = N/2;
d=0.1; constant = 5;
x=constant+d*np.random.random(N);
matrix = np.zeros([L,N]);
print "Assigning matrix"
for k in xrange(L):
for i in xrange(k+1):
matrix[k,i] = random.random()
for i in xrange(k+1,N-k-1):
if ( x[i] > x[i-k-1] ) and ( x[i] > x[i+k+1] ):
matrix[k,i] = 0
else:
matrix[k,i] = random.random()
for i in xrange(N-k-1,N):
matrix[k,i] = random.random()
If you are using for loops, you are going to lose the speed in numpy. The way to get speed is to use numpys functions and vectorized operations. Is there a way you can create a random matrix:
matrix = np.random.randn(L,k+1)
Then do something to this matrix to get the 0's positioned you want? Can you elaborate on the condition for setting an entry to 0? For example, you can make the matrix then do:
matrix[matrix > value]
To retain all values above a threshold. If the condition can be expressed as some boolean indexer or arithmetic operation, you can speed it up. If it has to be in the for loop (ie it depends on the values surrounding it as the loop cycles) it may not be able to be vectorized.