Computing covariance matrix using numpy and generators - python

Numpy has the function to compute covariance from an array which is fine. However, I would like to do it using generators to save memory. Is there some way to do this without writing my own cov-function?

You can use the following implementation:
from numpy import outer
def gen_cov(g):
mean, covariance = 0, 0
for i, x in enumerate(g):
diff = x - mean
mean += diff/(i+1)
covariance += outer(diff, diff) * i / (i+1)
return covariance/i
You may want to use something different from numpy.outer depending on what the generator elements are. This is a Python implementation of this answer.

Related

Vectorizing or boosting time for an interpolation in Python

I have to boost the time for an interpolation over a large (NxMxT) matrix MTR, where:
N is about 8000;
M is about 10000;
T represents the number of times at which each NxM matrix is calculated (in my case it's 23).
I have to compute the interpolation element-wise, on all the T different times, and return the interpolated values over a different array of times (T_interp, in my case with lenght 47) so, as output, I want an NxMxT_interp matrix.
The code snippet below defines the function I built for the interpolation, using scipy.interpolate.Rbf (y is the array MTR[i,j,:], x is the times array with length T, x_interp is the new array of times with length T_interp:
#==============================================================================
# Interpolate without nans
#==============================================================================
def interp(x,y,x_interp,**kwargs):
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import Rbf
mask = np.isnan(y)
y_mask = np.ma.array(y,mask = mask)
x_new = [x[i] for i in np.where(~mask)[0]]
if len(y_mask.compressed()) == 0:
return [np.nan for i,n in enumerate(x_interp)]
elif len(y_mask.compressed()) == 1:
return [y_mask.compressed() for i,n in enumerate(x_interp)]
interp = Rbf(x_new,y_mask.compressed(),**kwargs)
y_interp = interp(x_interp)
return y_interp
I tried to achieve my goal either by looping over the NxM elements of the MTR matrix:
new_MTR = np.empty((N,M,T_interp))
for i in range(N):
for j in range(M):
new_MTR[i,j,:]=interp(times,MTR[i,j,:],New_times,function = 'linear')
or by using the np.apply_along_axis funtion:
new_MTR = np.apply_along_axis(lambda x: interp(times,x,New_times,function = 'linear'),2,MTR)
In both cases I extimated the time it takes to perform the whole operation and it appears to be slightly better for the np.apply_along_axis function, but still it will take about 15 hours!!
Is there a way to reduce this time? Maybe by vectorizing the entire operation? I don't know much about vectorizing and how it can be done in a situation like mine so any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!

best method of making an array

I'm new to programming and am a bit unsure about how to write my own for loop. This is what I would like please?
Let us subdivide interval [0,1] into n points x0=0,...,xn−1=1.
Write a function compute_discrete_u(epsilon, n) that returns two numpy arrays:
x_array contains the coordinates of the n points
u_array contains the discrete values of u at these points.
u(x)=sin(1x+ϵ)
Thank you!
First of all, you do not need a for loop at all. You want to use numpy, so you can use the vectorized operations that numpy is built upon.
Here's the function you are literally asking for (and most likely not how you should solve your problem):
# Do NOT use this.
import numpy as np
def compute_discrete_u(epsilon, n):
x = np.linspace(0, 1, n)
return x, np.sin(x + expsilon)
That's quite an awkward API. From a design point-of-view, you are mixing two responsibilities in the function:
Generating a certain x vector
Calculating a u vector based on a mathematical function.
You should not do this for complexity and reusability reasons. What if you want a non-uniform x later on?
So here's what you should do:
import numpy as np
def compute_u(x, epsilon):
return np.sin(x + epsilon)
x = np.linspace(0, 1, num=101)
u = compute_u(x, epsilon=1e-3)
This is more easy to understand because the function is just the mathematical function. Additionally, you can compute u for any x array (or single float) you like. If you do not need compute_u elsewhere, you may even completely drop it and write u = np.sin(x + epsilon)

Speeding up nested loops in python

How can I speed up this code in python?
while ( norm_corr > corr_len ):
correlation = 0.0
for i in xrange(6):
for j in xrange(6):
correlation += (p[i] * T_n[j][i]) * ((F[j] - Fbar) * (F[i] - Fbar))
Integral += correlation
T_n =np.mat(T_n) * np.mat(TT)
T_n = T_n.tolist()
norm_corr = correlation / variance
Here, TT is a fixed 6x6 matrix, p is a fixed 1x6 matrix, and F is fixed 1x6 matrix. T_n is the nth power of TT.
This while loop might be repeated for 10^4 times.
The way to do these things quickly is to use Numpy's built-in functions and operators to perform the operations. Numpy is implemented internally with optimized C code and if you set up your computation properly, it will run much faster.
But leveraging Numpy effectively can sometimes be tricky. It's called "vectorizing" your code - you have to figure out how to express it in a way that acts on whole arrays, rather than with explicit loops.
For example in your loop you have p[i] * T_n[j][i], which IMHO can be done with a vector-by-matrix multiplication: if v is 1x6 and m is 6x6 then v.dot(m) is 1x6 that computes dot products of v with the columns of m. You can use transposes and reshapes to work in different dimensions, if necessary.

find 2d elements in a 3d array which are similar to 2d elements in another 3d array

I have two 3D arrays and want to identify 2D elements in one array, which have one or more similar counterparts in the other array.
This works in Python 3:
import numpy as np
import random
np.random.seed(123)
A = np.round(np.random.rand(25000,2,2),2)
B = np.round(np.random.rand(25000,2,2),2)
a_index = np.zeros(A.shape[0])
for a in range(A.shape[0]):
for b in range(B.shape[0]):
if np.allclose(A[a,:,:].reshape(-1, A.shape[1]), B[b,:,:].reshape(-1, B.shape[1]),
rtol=1e-04, atol=1e-06):
a_index[a] = 1
break
np.nonzero(a_index)[0]
But of course this approach is awfully slow. Please tell me, that there is a more efficient way (and what it is). THX.
You are trying to do an all-nearest-neighbor type query. This is something that has special O(n log n) algorithms, I'm not aware of a python implementation. However you can use regular nearest-neighbor which is also O(n log n) just a bit slower. For example scipy.spatial.KDTree or cKDTree.
import numpy as np
import random
np.random.seed(123)
A = np.round(np.random.rand(25000,2,2),2)
B = np.round(np.random.rand(25000,2,2),2)
import scipy.spatial
tree = scipy.spatial.cKDTree(A.reshape(25000, 4))
results = tree.query_ball_point(B.reshape(25000, 4), r=1e-04, p=1)
print [r for r in results if r != []]
# [[14252], [1972], [7108], [13369], [23171]]
query_ball_point() is not an exact equivalent to allclose() but it is close enough, especially if you don't care about the rtol parameter to allclose(). You also get a choice of metric (p=1 for city block, or p=2 for Euclidean).
P.S. Consider using query_ball_tree() for very large data sets. Both A and B have to be indexed in that case.
P.S. I'm not sure what effect the 2d-ness of the elements should have; the sample code I gave treats them as 1d and that is identical at least when using city block metric.
From the docs of np.allclose, we have :
If the following equation is element-wise True, then allclose returns
True.
absolute(a - b) <= (atol + rtol * absolute(b))
Using that criteria, we can have a vectorized implementation using broadcasting, customized for the stated problem, like so -
# Setup parameters
rtol,atol = 1e-04, 1e-06
# Use np.allclose criteria to detect true/false across all pairwise elements
mask = np.abs(A[:,None,] - B) <= (atol + rtol * np.abs(B))
# Use the problem context to get final output
out = np.nonzero(mask.all(axis=(2,3)).any(1))[0]

root mean square in numpy and complications of matrix and arrays of numpy

Can anyone direct me to the section of numpy manual where i can get functions to accomplish root mean square calculations ...
(i know this can be accomplished using np.mean and np.abs .. isn't there a built in ..if no why?? .. just curious ..no offense)
can anyone explain the complications of matrix and arrays (just in the following case):
U is a matrix(T-by-N,or u say T cross N) , Ue is another matrix(T-by-N)
I define k as a numpy array
U[ind,:] is still matrix
in the following fashion
k = np.array(U[ind,:])
when I print k or type k in ipython
it displays following
K = array ([[2,.3 .....
......
9]])
You see the double square brackets (which makes it multi-dim i guess)
which gives it the shape = (1,N)
but I can't assign it to array defined in this way
l = np.zeros(N)
shape = (,N) or perhaps (N,) something like that
l[:] = k[:]
error:
matrix dimensions incompatible
Is there a way to accomplish the vector assignment which I intend to do ... Please don't tell me do this l = k (that defeats the purpose ... I get different errors in program .. I know the reasons ..If you need I may attach the piece of code)
writing a loop is the dumb way .. which I'm using for the time being ...
I hope I was able to explain .. the problems I'm facing ..
regards ...
For the RMS, I think this is the clearest:
from numpy import mean, sqrt, square, arange
a = arange(10) # For example
rms = sqrt(mean(square(a)))
The code reads like you say it: "root-mean-square".
For rms, the fastest expression I have found for small x.size (~ 1024) and real x is:
def rms(x):
return np.sqrt(x.dot(x)/x.size)
This seems to be around twice as fast as the linalg.norm version (ipython %timeit on a really old laptop).
If you want complex arrays handled more appropriately then this also would work:
def rms(x):
return np.sqrt(np.vdot(x, x)/x.size)
However, this version is nearly as slow as the norm version and only works for flat arrays.
For the RMS, how about
norm(V)/sqrt(V.size)
I don't know why it's not built in. I like
def rms(x, axis=None):
return sqrt(mean(x**2, axis=axis))
If you have nans in your data, you can do
def nanrms(x, axis=None):
return sqrt(nanmean(x**2, axis=axis))
Try this:
U = np.zeros((N,N))
ind = 1
k = np.zeros(N)
k[:] = U[ind,:]
I use this for RMS, all using NumPy, and let it also have an optional axis similar to other NumPy functions:
import numpy as np
rms = lambda V, axis=None: np.sqrt(np.mean(np.square(V), axis))
If you have complex vectors and are using pytorch, the vector norm is the fastest approach on CPU & GPU:
import torch
batch_size, length = 512, 4096
batch = torch.randn(batch_size, length, dtype=torch.complex64)
scale = 1 / torch.sqrt(torch.tensor(length))
rms_power = batch.norm(p=2, dim=-1, keepdim=True)
batch_rms = batch / (rms_power * scale)
Using batch vdot like goodboy's approach is 60% slower than above. Using naïve method similar to deprecated's approach is 85% slower than above.

Categories