I want to be able to vectorize the for-loops of this function to then be able to parallelize it in octave. Can these for-loops be vectorized? Thank you very much in advance!
I attach the code of the function commenting on the start and end of each for-loop and if-else.
function [par]=pem_v(tsm,pr)
% tsm and pr are arrays of N by n. % par is an array of N by 8
tss=[27:0.5:32];
tc=[20:0.01:29];
N=size(tsm,1);
% main-loop
for ii=1:N
% I extract the rows in each loop because each one represents a sample
sst=tsm(ii,:); sst=sst'; %then I convert each sample to column vectors
pre=pr(ii,:); pre=pre';
% main-condition
if isnan(nanmean(sst))==1;
par(ii,1:8)=NaN;
else
% first sub-loop
for k=1:length(tss);
idxx=find(sst>=tss(k)-0.25 & sst<=tss(k)+0.25);
out(k)=prctile(pre(idxx),90);
end
% end first sub-loop
tp90=tss(find(max(out)==out));
% second sub-loop
for j=1:length(tc)
cond1=find(sst>=tc(j) & sst<=tp90);
cond2=find(sst>=tp90);
pem=zeros(length(sst),1);
A=[sst(cond1),ones(length(cond1),1)];
B=regress(pre(cond1),A);
pt90=B(1)*(tp90-tc(j));
AA=[(sst(cond2)-tp90)];
BB=regress(pre(cond2)-pt90,AA);
pem(cond1)=max(0,B(1)*(sst(cond1)-tc(j)));
pem(cond2)=max(0,(BB(1)*(sst(cond2)-tp90))+pt90);
clear A B AA BB;
E(j)=sqrt(nansum((pem-pre).^2)/length(pre));
clear pem;
end
% end second sub-loop
tcc=tc(find(E==min(E)));
% sub-condition
if(isempty(tcc)==1);
par(ii,1:9)=NaN;
else
cond1=find(sst>=tcc & sst<=tp90);
cond2=find(sst>=tp90);
pem=zeros(length(sst),1);
A=[sst(cond1),ones(length(cond1),1)];
B=regress(pre(cond1),A);
pt90=B(1)*(tp90-tcc);
AA=[sst(cond2)-tp90];
BB=regress(pre(cond2)-pt90,AA);
pem(cond1)=max(0,B(1)*(sst(cond1)-tcc));
pem(cond2)=max(0,(BB(1)*(sst(cond2)-tp90))+pt90);
RMSE=sqrt(nansum((pem-pre).^2)/length(pre));
% outputs
par(ii,1)=tcc;
par(ii,2)=tp90;
par(ii,3)=B(1);
par(ii,4)=BB(1);
par(ii,5)=RMSE;
par(ii,6)=nanmean(sst);
par(ii,7)=nanmean(pre);
par(ii,8)=nanmean(pem);
end
% end sub-condition
clear pem pre sst RMSE BB B tp90 tcc
end
% end main-condition
end
% end main-loop
You haven't given any example inputs, so I've created some like so:
N = 5; n = 800;
tsm = rand(N,n)*5+27; pr = rand(N,n);
Then, before you even consider vectorising your code, you should keep 4 things in mind...
Avoid calulating the same thing (like the size of a vector) every loop, instead do it before looping
Pre-allocate arrays where possible (declare them as zeros/NaNs etc)
Don't use find to convert logical indices into linear indices, there is no need and it will slow down your code
Don't repeatedly use clear, especially many times within loops. It is slow! Instead, use pre-allocation to ensure the variables are as you expect each loop.
Using the above random inputs, and taking account of these 4 things, the below code is ~65% quicker than your code. Note: this is without even doing any vectorising!
function [par]=pem_v(tsm,pr)
% tsm and pr are arrays of N by n.
% par is an array of N by 8
tss=[27:0.5:32];
tc=[20:0.01:29];
N=size(tsm,1);
% Transpose once here instead of every loop
tsm = tsm';
pr = pr';
% Pre-allocate memory for output 'par'
par = NaN(N, 8);
% Don't compute these every loop, do it before the loop.
% numel simpler than length for vectors, and size is clearer still
ntss = numel(tss);
nsst = size(tsm,1);
ntc = numel(tc);
npr = size(pr, 1);
for ii=1:N
% Extract the columns in each loop because each one represents a sample
sst=tsm(:,ii);
pre=pr(:,ii);
% main-condition. Previously isnan(nanmean(sst))==1, but that's only true if all(isnan(sst))
% We don't need to assign par(ii,1:8)=NaN since we initialised par to a matrix of NaNs
if ~all(isnan(sst));
% first sub-loop, initialise 'out' first
out = zeros(1, ntss);
for k=1:ntss;
% Don't use FIND on an indexing vector. Use the logical index raw, it's quicker
idxx = (sst>=tss(k)-0.25 & sst<=tss(k)+0.25);
% We need a check that some values of idxx are true, otherwise prctile will error.
if nnz(idxx) > 0
out(k) = prctile(pre(idxx), 90);
end
end
% Again, no need for FIND, just reduces speed. This is a theme...
tp90=tss(max(out)==out);
for jj=1:ntc
cond1 = (sst>=tc(jj) & sst<=tp90);
cond2 = (sst>=tp90);
% Use nnz (numer of non-zero) instead of length, since cond1 is now a logical vector of all elements
A = [sst(cond1),ones(nnz(cond1),1)];
B = regress(pre(cond1), A);
pt90 = B(1)*(tp90-tc(jj));
AA = [(sst(cond2)-tp90)];
BB = regress(pre(cond2)-pt90,AA);
pem=zeros(nsst,1);
pem(cond1) = max(0, B(1)*(sst(cond1)-tc(jj)));
pem(cond2) = max(0, (BB(1)*(sst(cond2)-tp90))+pt90);
E(jj) = sqrt(nansum((pem-pre).^2)/npr);
end
tcc = tc(E==min(E));
if ~isempty(tcc);
cond1 = (sst>=tcc & sst<=tp90);
cond2 = (sst>=tp90);
A = [sst(cond1),ones(nnz(cond1),1)];
B = regress(pre(cond1),A);
pt90 = B(1)*(tp90-tcc);
AA = [sst(cond2)-tp90];
BB = regress(pre(cond2)-pt90,AA);
pem = zeros(length(sst),1);
pem(cond1) = max(0, B(1)*(sst(cond1)-tcc));
pem(cond2) = max(0, (BB(1)*(sst(cond2)-tp90))+pt90);
RMSE = sqrt(nansum((pem-pre).^2)/npr);
% Outputs, which we might as well assign all at once!
par(ii,:)=[tcc, tp90, B(1), BB(1), RMSE, ...
nanmean(sst), nanmean(pre), nanmean(pem)];
end
end
end
Related
I have the following data:
N = 10^3;
x = randn(N,1);
y = randn(N,1);
z = randn(N,1);
f = x.^2+y.^2+z.^2;
Now I want to split this continuous 3D space into nB bins.
nB = 20;
[~,~,x_bins] = histcounts(x,nB);
[~,~,y_bins] = histcounts(y,nB);
[~,~,z_bins] = histcounts(z,nB);
And put in each cube average f or nan if no observations happen in the cube:
F = nan(50,50,50);
for iX = 1:20
for iY = 1:20
for iZ = 1:20
idx = (x_bins==iX)&(y_bins==iY)&(z_bins==iZ);
F(iX,iY,iZ) = mean(f(idx));
end
end
end
isosurface(F,0.5)
This code does what I want. My problem is the speed. This code is extremely slow when N > 10^5 and nB = 100.
How can I speed up this code?
I also tried the accumarray() function:
subs=([x_bins,y_bins,z_bins]);
F2 = accumarray(subs,f,[],#mean);
all(F(:) == F2(:)) % false
However, this code produces a different result.
The problem with the code in the OP is that it tests all elements of the data for each element in the output array. The output array has nB^3 elements, the data has N elements, so the algorithm is O(N*nB^3). Instead, one can loop over the N elements of the input, and set the corresponding element in the output array, which is an operation O(N) (2nd code block below).
The accumarray solution in the OP needs to use the fillvals parameter, set it to NaN (3rd code block below).
To compare the results, one needs to explicitly test that both arrays have NaN in the same locations, and have equal non-NaN values elsewhere:
all( ( isnan(F(:)) & isnan(F2(:)) ) | ( F(:) == F2(:) ) )
% \-------same NaN values------/ \--same values--/
Here is code. All three versions produce identical results. Timings in Octave 4.4.1 (no JIT), in MATLAB the loop code should be faster. (Using input data from OP, with N=10^3 and nB=20).
%% OP's code, O(N*nB^3)
tic
F = nan(nB,nB,nB);
for iX = 1:nB
for iY = 1:nB
for iZ = 1:nB
idx = (x_bins==iX)&(y_bins==iY)&(z_bins==iZ);
F(iX,iY,iZ) = mean(f(idx));
end
end
end
toc
% Elapsed time is 1.61736 seconds.
%% Looping over input, O(N)
tic
s = zeros(nB,nB,nB);
c = zeros(nB,nB,nB);
ind = sub2ind([nB,nB,nB],x_bins,y_bins,z_bins);
for ii=1:N
s(ind(ii)) = s(ind(ii)) + f(ii);
c(ind(ii)) = c(ind(ii)) + 1;
end
F2 = s ./ c;
toc
% Elapsed time is 0.0606539 seconds.
%% Other alternative, using accumarray
tic
ind = sub2ind([nB,nB,nB],x_bins,y_bins,z_bins);
F3 = accumarray(ind,f,[nB,nB,nB],#mean,NaN);
toc
% Elapsed time is 0.14113 seconds.
This is a part of my code in Matlab. I tried to make it parallel but there is an error:
The variable gax in a parfor cannot be classified.
I know why the error occurs. because I should tell Matlab that v is an incresing vector which doesn't contain repeated elements. Could anyone help me to use this information to parallelize the code?
v=[1,3,6,8];
ggx=5.*ones(15,14);
gax=ones(15,14);
for m=v
if m > 1
parfor j=1:m-1
gax(j,m-1) = ggx(j,m-1);
end
end
if m<nn
parfor jo=m+1:15
gax(jo,m) = ggx(jo,m);
end
end
end
Optimizing a code should be closely related to its purpose, especially when you use parfor. The code you wrote in the question can be written in a much more efficient way, and definitely, do not need to be parallelized.
However, I understand that you tried to simplify the problem, just to get the idea of how to slice your variables, so here is a fixed version the can run with parfor. But this is surely not the way to write this code:
v = [1,3,6,8];
ggx = 5.*ones(15,14);
gax = ones(15,14);
nn = 5;
for m = v
if m > 1
temp_end = m-1;
temp = ggx(:,temp_end);
parfor ja = 1:temp_end
gax(ja,temp_end) = temp(ja);
end
end
if m < nn
temp = ggx(:,m);
parfor jo = m+1:15
gax(jo,m) = temp(jo);
end
end
end
A vectorized implementation will look like this:
v = [1,3,6,8];
ggx = 5.*ones(15,14);
gax = ones(15,14);
nn = 5;
m1 = v>1; % first condition with logical indexing
temp = v(m1)-1; % get the values from v
r = ones(1,sum(temp)); % generate a vector of indicies
r(cumsum(temp)) = -temp+1; % place the reseting locations
r = cumsum(r); % calculate the indecies
r(cumsum(temp)) = temp; % place the ending points
c = repelem(temp,temp); % create an indecies vector for the columns
inds1 = sub2ind(size(gax),r,c); % convert the indecies to linear
mnn = v<nn; % second condition with logical indexing
temp = v(mnn)+1; % get the values from v
r_max = size(gax,1); % get the height of gax
r_count = r_max-temp+1; % calculate no. of rows per value in v
r = ones(1,sum(r_count)); % generate a vector of indicies
r([1 r_count(1:end-1)+1]) = temp; % set the t indicies
r(cumsum(r_count)+1) = -(r_count-temp)+1; % place the reseting locations
r = cumsum(r(1:end-1)); % calculate the indecies
c = repelem(temp-1,r_count); % create an indecies vector for the columns
inds2 = sub2ind(size(gax),r,c); % convert the indecies to linear
gax([inds1 inds2]) = ggx([inds1 inds2]); % assgin the relevant values
This is indeed quite complicated, and not always necessary. A good thing to remember, though, is that nested for loop are much slower than a single loop, so in some cases (depend on the size of the output), this will may be the fastest solution:
for m = v
if m > 1
gax(1:m-1,m-1) = ggx(1:m-1,m-1);
end
if m<nn
gax(m+1:15,m) = ggx(m+1:15,m);
end
end
Can anyone help vectorize this Matlab code? The specific problem is the sum and bessel function with vector inputs.
Thank you!
N = 3;
rho_g = linspace(1e-3,1,N);
phi_g = linspace(0,2*pi,N);
n = 1:3;
tau = [1 2.*ones(1,length(n)-1)];
for ii = 1:length(rho_g)
for jj = 1:length(phi_g)
% Coordinates
rho_o = rho_g(ii);
phi_o = phi_g(jj);
% factors
fc = cos(n.*(phi_o-phi_s));
fs = sin(n.*(phi_o-phi_s));
Ez_t(ii,jj) = sum(tau.*besselj(n,k(3)*rho_s).*besselh(n,2,k(3)*rho_o).*fc);
end
end
You could try to vectorize this code, which might be possible with some bsxfun or so, but it would be hard to understand code, and it is the question if it would run any faster, since your code already uses vector math in the inner loop (even though your vectors only have length 3). The resulting code would become very difficult to read, so you or your colleague will have no idea what it does when you have a look at it in 2 years time.
Before wasting time on vectorization, it is much more important that you learn about loop invariant code motion, which is easy to apply to your code. Some observations:
you do not use fs, so remove that.
the term tau.*besselj(n,k(3)*rho_s) does not depend on any of your loop variables ii and jj, so it is constant. Calculate it once before your loop.
you should probably pre-allocate the matrix Ez_t.
the only terms that change during the loop are fc, which depends on jj, and besselh(n,2,k(3)*rho_o), which depends on ii. I guess that the latter costs much more time to calculate, so it better to not calculate this N*N times in the inner loop, but only N times in the outer loop. If the calculation based on jj would take more time, you could swap the for-loops over ii and jj, but that does not seem to be the case here.
The result code would look something like this (untested):
N = 3;
rho_g = linspace(1e-3,1,N);
phi_g = linspace(0,2*pi,N);
n = 1:3;
tau = [1 2.*ones(1,length(n)-1)];
% constant part, does not depend on ii and jj, so calculate only once!
temp1 = tau.*besselj(n,k(3)*rho_s);
Ez_t = nan(length(rho_g), length(phi_g)); % preallocate space
for ii = 1:length(rho_g)
% calculate stuff that depends on ii only
rho_o = rho_g(ii);
temp2 = besselh(n,2,k(3)*rho_o);
for jj = 1:length(phi_g)
phi_o = phi_g(jj);
fc = cos(n.*(phi_o-phi_s));
Ez_t(ii,jj) = sum(temp1.*temp2.*fc);
end
end
Initialization -
N = 3;
rho_g = linspace(1e-3,1,N);
phi_g = linspace(0,2*pi,N);
n = 1:3;
tau = [1 2.*ones(1,length(n)-1)];
Nested loops form (Copy from your code and shown here for comparison only) -
for ii = 1:length(rho_g)
for jj = 1:length(phi_g)
% Coordinates
rho_o = rho_g(ii);
phi_o = phi_g(jj);
% factors
fc = cos(n.*(phi_o-phi_s));
fs = sin(n.*(phi_o-phi_s));
Ez_t(ii,jj) = sum(tau.*besselj(n,k(3)*rho_s).*besselh(n,2,k(3)*rho_o).*fc);
end
end
Vectorized solution -
%%// Term - 1
term1 = repmat(tau.*besselj(n,k(3)*rho_s),[N*N 1]);
%%// Term - 2
[n1,rho_g1] = meshgrid(n,rho_g);
term2_intm = besselh(n1,2,k(3)*rho_g1);
term2 = transpose(reshape(repmat(transpose(term2_intm),[N 1]),N,N*N));
%%// Term -3
angle1 = repmat(bsxfun(#times,bsxfun(#minus,phi_g,phi_s')',n),[N 1]);
fc = cos(angle1);
%%// Output
Ez_t = sum(term1.*term2.*fc,2);
Ez_t = transpose(reshape(Ez_t,N,N));
Points to note about this vectorization or code simplification –
‘fs’ doesn’t change the output of the script, Ez_t, so it could be removed for now.
The output seems to be ‘Ez_t’,which requires three basic terms in the code as –
tau.*besselj(n,k(3)*rho_s), besselh(n,2,k(3)*rho_o) and fc. These are calculated separately for vectorization as terms1,2 and 3 respectively.
All these three terms appear to be of 1xN sizes. Our aim thus becomes to calculate these three terms without loops. Now, the two loops run for N times each, thus giving us a total loop count of NxN. Thus, we must have NxN times the data in each such term as compared to when these terms were inside the nested loops.
This is basically the essence of the vectorization done here, as the three terms are represented by ‘term1’,’term2’ and ‘fc’ itself.
In order to give a self-contained answer, I'll copy the original initialization
N = 3;
rho_g = linspace(1e-3,1,N);
phi_g = linspace(0,2*pi,N);
n = 1:3;
tau = [1 2.*ones(1,length(n)-1)];
and generate some missing data (k(3) and rho_s and phi_s in the dimension of n)
rho_s = rand(size(n));
phi_s = rand(size(n));
k(3) = rand(1);
then you can compute the same Ez_t with multidimensional arrays:
[RHO_G, PHI_G, N] = meshgrid(rho_g, phi_g, n);
[~, ~, TAU] = meshgrid(rho_g, phi_g, tau);
[~, ~, RHO_S] = meshgrid(rho_g, phi_g, rho_s);
[~, ~, PHI_S] = meshgrid(rho_g, phi_g, phi_s);
FC = cos(N.*(PHI_G - PHI_S));
FS = sin(N.*(PHI_G - PHI_S)); % not used
EZ_T = sum(TAU.*besselj(N, k(3)*RHO_S).*besselh(N, 2, k(3)*RHO_G).*FC, 3).';
You can check afterwards that both matrices are the same
norm(Ez_t - EZ_T)
I have two matrices A and B, both contain a list of event start and stop times:
A(i,1) = onset time of event i
A(i,2) = offset time of event i
B(j,1) = onset of event j
...
My goal is to get two lists of indecies aIdx and bIdx such that A(aIdx,:) and B(bIdx,:) contain the sets of events that are overlapping.
I've been scratching my head all day trying to figure this one out. Is there a quick, easy, matlaby way to do this?
I can do it using for loops but this seems kind of hacky for matlab:
aIdx = [];
bIdx = []
for i=1:size(A,1)
for j=i:size(B,1)
if overlap(A(i,:), B(j,:)) % overlap is defined elsewhere
aIdx(end+1) = i;
bIdx(end+1) = j;
end
end
end
Here's a zero loop solution:
overlap = #(x, y)y(:, 1) < x(:, 2) & y(:, 2) > x(:, 1)
[tmp1, tmp2] = meshgrid(1:size(A, 1), 1:size(B, 1));
M = reshape(overlap(A(tmp1, :), B(tmp2, :)), size(B, 1), [])';
[aIdx, bIdx] = find(M);
You can do it with one loop:
aIdx = false(size(A,1),1);
bIdx = false(size(B,1),1);
for k = 1:size(B,1)
ai = ( A(:,1) >= B(k,1) & A(:,1) <= B(k,2) ) | ...
( A(:,2) >= B(k,1) & A(:,2) <= B(k,2) );
if any(ai), bIdx(k) = true; end
aIdx = aIdx | ai;
end
There is a way to create a vectorized algorithm. (I wrote a similar function before, but cannot find it right now.) A simply workflow is to (1) combine both matrices, (2) create an index to indicate source of each event, (3) create a matrix indicating start and stop positions, (4) vectorized and sort, (5) find overlaps with diff, cumsum, or combination.
overlap_matrix = zeros(size(A,1),size(B,1))
for jj = 1:size(B,1)
overlap_matrix(:,jj) = (A(:,1) <= B(jj,1)).*(B(jj,1) <= A(:,2));
end
[r,c] = find(overlap_matrix)
% Now A(r(i),:) overlaps with B(c(i),:)
% Modify the above conditional if you want to also check
% whether events in A start in-between the events in B
% as I am only checking the first half of the conditional
% for simplicity.
Completely vectorized code without repmat or reshape (hopefully faster too). I have assumed that the function "overlap" can give a vector of 1's and 0's if complete pairs of A(req_indices,:) and B(req_indices,:) are fed to it. If overlap can return a vector output, then the vectorization can be performed as given below.
Let rows in A matrix be Ra and Rows in B matrix be Rb,
AA=1:Ra;
AAA=AA(ones(Rb,1),:);
AAAA=AAA(:); % all indices of A arranged in desired format, i.e. [11...1,22..2,33...3, ...., RaRa...Ra]'
BB=(1:Rb)';
BBB=BB(:,ones(Ra,1));
BBBB=BBB(:);% all indices of B arranged in desired format, i.e. [123...Rb, 123...Rb,....,123...Rb]'
% Use overlap function
Result_vector = overlap(A(AAAA,:), B(BBBB,:));
Result_vector_without_zeros = find(Result_vector);
aIdx = AAAA(Results_vector_without_zeros);
bIdx = BBBB(Results_vector_without_zeros);
DISADVANTAGE : TOO MUCH RAM CONSUMPTION FOR LARGER MATRICES
I want to vectorize the following MATLAB code. I think it must be simple but I'm finding it confusing nevertheless.
r = some constant less than m or n
[m,n] = size(C);
S = zeros(m-r,n-r);
for i=1:m-r+1
for j=1:n-r+1
S(i,j) = sum(diag(C(i:i+r-1,j:j+r-1)));
end
end
The code calculates a table of scores, S, for a dynamic programming algorithm, from another score table, C.
The diagonal summing is to generate scores for individual pieces of the data used to generate C, for all possible pieces (of size r).
Thanks in advance for any answers! Sorry if this one should be obvious...
Note
The built-in conv2 turned out to be faster than convnfft, because my eye(r) is quite small ( 5 <= r <= 20 ). convnfft.m states that r should be > 20 for any benefit to manifest.
If I understand correctly, you're trying to calculate the diagonal sum of every subarray of C, where you have removed the last row and column of C (if you should not remove the row/col, you need to loop to m-r+1, and you need to pass the entire array C to the function in my solution below).
You can do this operation via a convolution, like so:
S = conv2(C(1:end-1,1:end-1),eye(r),'valid');
If C and r are large, you may want to have a look at CONVNFFT from the Matlab File Exchange to speed up calculations.
Based on the idea of JS, and as Jonas pointed out in the comments, this can be done in two lines using IM2COL with some array manipulation:
B = im2col(C, [r r], 'sliding');
S = reshape( sum(B(1:r+1:end,:)), size(C)-r+1 );
Basically B contains the elements of all sliding blocks of size r-by-r over the matrix C. Then we take the elements on the diagonal of each of these blocks B(1:r+1:end,:), compute their sum, and reshape the result to the expected size.
Comparing this to the convolution-based solution by Jonas, this does not perform any matrix multiplication, only indexing...
I would think you might need to rearrange C into a 3D matrix before summing it along one of the dimensions. I'll post with an answer shortly.
EDIT
I didn't manage to find a way to vectorise it cleanly, but I did find the function accumarray, which might be of some help. I'll look at it in more detail when I am home.
EDIT#2
Found a simpler solution by using linear indexing, but this could be memory-intensive.
At C(1,1), the indexes we want to sum are 1+[0, m+1, 2*m+2, 3*m+3, 4*m+4, ... ], or (0:r-1)+(0:m:(r-1)*m)
sum_ind = (0:r-1)+(0:m:(r-1)*m);
create S_offset, an (m-r) by (n-r) by r matrix, such that S_offset(:,:,1) = 0, S_offset(:,:,2) = m+1, S_offset(:,:,3) = 2*m+2, and so on.
S_offset = permute(repmat( sum_ind, [m-r, 1, n-r] ), [1, 3, 2]);
create S_base, a matrix of base array addresses from which the offset will be calculated.
S_base = reshape(1:m*n,[m n]);
S_base = repmat(S_base(1:m-r,1:n-r), [1, 1, r]);
Finally, use S_base+S_offset to address the values of C.
S = sum(C(S_base+S_offset), 3);
You can, of course, use bsxfun and other methods to make it more efficient; here I chose to lay it out for clarity. I have yet to benchmark this to see how it compares with the double-loop method though; I need to head home for dinner first!
Is this what you're looking for? This function adds the diagonals and puts them into a vector similar to how the function 'sum' adds up all of the columns in a matrix and puts them into a vector.
function [diagSum] = diagSumCalc(squareMatrix, LLUR0_ULLR1)
%
% Input: squareMatrix: A square matrix.
% LLUR0_ULLR1: LowerLeft to UpperRight addition = 0
% UpperLeft to LowerRight addition = 1
%
% Output: diagSum: A vector of the sum of the diagnols of the matrix.
%
% Example:
%
% >> squareMatrix = [1 2 3;
% 4 5 6;
% 7 8 9];
%
% >> diagSum = diagSumCalc(squareMatrix, 0);
%
% diagSum =
%
% 1 6 15 14 9
%
% >> diagSum = diagSumCalc(squareMatrix, 1);
%
% diagSum =
%
% 7 12 15 8 3
%
% Written by M. Phillips
% Oct. 16th, 2013
% MIT Open Source Copywrite
% Contact mphillips#hmc.edu fmi.
%
if (nargin < 2)
disp('Error on input. Needs two inputs.');
return;
end
if (LLUR0_ULLR1 ~= 0 && LLUR0_ULLR1~= 1)
disp('Error on input. Only accepts 0 or 1 as input for second condition.');
return;
end
[M, N] = size(squareMatrix);
if (M ~= N)
disp('Error on input. Only accepts a square matrix as input.');
return;
end
diagSum = zeros(1, M+N-1);
if LLUR0_ULLR1 == 1
squareMatrix = rot90(squareMatrix, -1);
end
for i = 1:length(diagSum)
if i <= M
countUp = 1;
countDown = i;
while countDown ~= 0
diagSum(i) = squareMatrix(countUp, countDown) + diagSum(i);
countUp = countUp+1;
countDown = countDown-1;
end
end
if i > M
countUp = i-M+1;
countDown = M;
while countUp ~= M+1
diagSum(i) = squareMatrix(countUp, countDown) + diagSum(i);
countUp = countUp+1;
countDown = countDown-1;
end
end
end
Cheers