Related
I have a 3d array A, e.g. A=rand(N,N,K).
I need an array B s.t.
B(n,m) = norm(A(:,:,n)*A(:,:,m)' - A(:,:,m)*A(:,:,n)','fro')^2 for all indices n,m in 1:K.
Here's the looping code:
B = zeros(K,K);
for n=1:K
for m=1:K
B(n,m) = norm(A(:,:,n)*A(:,:,m)' - A(:,:,m)*A(:,:,n)','fro')^2;
end
end
I don't want to loop through 1:K.
I can create an array An_x_mt of size NK x NK s.t.
An_x_mt equals A(:,:,n)*A(:,:,m)' for all n,m in 1:K by
An_x_mt = Ar*Ac_t;
with
Ac_t=reshape(permute(A,[2 1 3]),size(A,1),[]);
Ar=Ac_t';
How do I create an array Am_x_nt also of size NK x NK s.t.
Am_x_nt equals A(:,:,m)*A(:,:,n)' for all n,m in 1:K
so that I could do
B = An_x_mt - Am_x_nt
B = reshape(B,N,N,[]);
B = reshape(squeeze(sum(sum(B.^2,1),2)),K,K);
Thx
For those who can't/won't use mmx and want to stick to pure Matlab code, here's how you could do it. mat2cell and cell2mat functions are your friends:
[N,~,nmat]=size(A);
Atc = reshape(permute(A,[2 1 3]),N,[]); % A', N x N*nmat
Ar = Atc'; % A, N*nmat x N
Anmt_2d = Ar*Atc; % An*Am'
Anmt_2d_cell = mat2cell(Anmt_2d,N*ones(nmat,1),N*ones(nmat,1));
Amnt_2d_cell = Anmt_2d_cell'; % ONLY products transposed, NOT their factors
Amnt_2d = cell2mat(Amnt_2d_cell); % Am*An'
Anm = Anmt_2d - Amnt_2d;
Anm = Anm.^2;
Anm_cell = mat2cell(Anm,N*ones(nmat,1),N*ones(nmat,1));
d = cellfun(#(c) sum(c(:)), Anm_cell); % squared Frobenius norm of each product; nmat x nmat
Alternatively, after computing Anmt_2d_cell and Amnt_2d_cell, you could convert them to 3d with the 3rd dimension encoding the (n,m) and (m,n) indices and then do the rest of the computations in 3d. You would need the permn() utility from here https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/7147-permn-v-n-k
Anmt_3d = cat(3,Anmt_2d_cell);
Amnt_3d = cat(3,Amnt_2d_cell);
Anm_3d = Anmt_3d - Amnt_3d;
Anm_3d = Anm_3d.^2;
Anm = squeeze(sum(sum(Anm_3d,1),2));
d = zeros(nmat,nmat);
nm=permn(1:nmat, 2); % all permutations (n,m) with repeat, by-row order
d(sub2ind([nmat,nmat],nm(:,1),nm(:,2))) = Anm;
For some reason, the 2nd option (3D arrays) is twice faster.
Hopes this helps.
I would like to generate all the possible adjacency matrices (zero diagonale) of an undirected graph of n nodes.
For example, with no relabeling for n=3 we get 23(3-1)/2 = 8 possible network configurations (or adjacency matrices).
One solution that works for n = 3 (and which I think is quite stupid) would be the following:
n = 3;
A = [];
for k = 0:1
for j = 0:1
for i = 0:1
m = [0 , i , j ; i , 0 , k ; j , k , 0 ];
A = [A, m];
end
end
end
Also I though of the following which seems to be faster but something is wrong with my indexing since 2 matrices are missing:
n = 3
C = [];
E = [];
A = zeros(n);
for i = 1:n
for j = i+1:n
A(i,j) = 1;
A(j,i) = 1;
C = [C,A];
end
end
B = ones(n);
B = B- diag(diag(ones(n)));
for i = 1:n
for j = i+1:n
B(i,j) = 0;
B(j,i) = 0;
E = [E,B];
end
end
D = [C,E]
Is there a faster way of doing this?
I would definitely generate the off-diagonal elements of the adjacency matrices with binary encoding:
n = 4; %// number of nodes
m = n*(n-1)/2;
offdiags = dec2bin(0:2^m-1,m)-48; %//every 2^m-1 possible configurations
If you have the Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox, then squareform will easily create the matrices for you, one by one:
%// this is basically a for loop
tmpcell = arrayfun(#(k) squareform(offdiags(k,:)),1:size(offdiags,1),...
'uniformoutput',false);
A = cat(2,tmpcell{:}); %// concatenate the matrices in tmpcell
Although I'd consider concatenating along dimension 3, then you can see each matrix individually and conveniently.
Alternatively, you can do the array synthesis yourself in a vectorized way, it's probably even quicker (at the cost of more memory):
A = zeros(n,n,2^m);
%// lazy person's indexing scheme:
[ind_i,ind_j,ind_k] = meshgrid(1:n,1:n,1:2^m);
A(ind_i>ind_j) = offdiags.'; %'// watch out for the transpose
%// copy to upper diagonal:
A = A + permute(A,[2 1 3]); %// n x n x 2^m matrix
%// reshape to n*[] matrix if you wish
A = reshape(A,n,[]); %// n x (n*2^m) matrix
I have a 30-vector, x where each element of x follows a standardised normal distribution.
So in Matlab,
I have:
for i=1:30;
x(i)=randn;
end;
Now I want to create 30*30=900 elements from vector, x to make a 900-vector, C defined as follows:
I am unable to do the loop for two variables (k and l) properly. I have:
for k=1:30,l=1:30;
C(k,l)=(1/30)*symsum((x(i))*(x(i-abs(k-l))),1,30+abs(k-l));
end
It says '??? Undefined function or method 'symsum' for input arguments of type
'double'.'
I hope to gain from this a 900-vector, C which I will then rewrite as a matrix. The reason I have using two indices k and l instead of one is because I eventually want these indices to denote the (k,l)-entry of such a matrix so it is important that that my 900-vector will be in the form of C = [ row 1 row 2 row 3 ... row 30 ] so I can use the reshape tool i.e.
C'=reshape(C,30,30)
Could anyone help me with the code for the summation and getting such a 900 vector.
Let's try to make this a bit efficient.
n = 30;
x = randn(n,1);
%# preassign C for speed
C = zeros(n);
%# fill only one half of C, since it's symmetric
for k = 2:n
for l = 1:k-1
%# shift the x-vector by |k-l| and sum it up
delta = k-l; %# k is always larger than l
C(k,l) = sum( x(1:end-delta).*x(1+delta:end) );
end
end
%# fill in the other half of C
C = C + C';
%# add the diagonal (where delta is 0, and thus each
%# element of x is multiplied with itself
C(1:n+1:end) = sum(x.^2);
It seems to me that you want a matrix C of 30x30 elements.
Given the formula that you provided I would do
x = randn(1,30)
C = zeros(30,30)
for k=1:30
for l=1:30
v = abs(k-l);
for i =1:30-v
C(k,l) = C(k,l) + x(i)*x(i+v);
end
end
end
if you actually need the vector you can obtain it from the matrix.
Suppose I have a matrix A and I sort the rows of this matrix. How do I replicate the same ordering on a matrix B (same size of course)?
E.g.
A = rand(3,4);
[val ind] = sort(A,2);
B = rand(3,4);
%// Reorder the elements of B according to the reordering of A
This is the best I've come up with
m = size(A,1);
B = B(bsxfun(#plus,(ind-1)*m,(1:m)'));
Out of curiosity, any alternatives?
Update: Jonas' excellent solution profiled on 2008a (XP):
n = n
0.048524 1.4632 1.4791 1.195 1.0662 1.108 1.0082 0.96335 0.93155 0.90532 0.88976
n = 2m
0.63202 1.3029 1.1112 1.0501 0.94703 0.92847 0.90411 0.8849 0.8667 0.92098 0.85569
It just goes to show that loops aren't anathema to MATLAB programmers anymore thanks to JITA (perhaps).
A somewhat clearer way to do this is to use a loop
A = rand(3,4);
B = rand(3,4);
[sortedA,ind] = sort(A,2);
for r = 1:size(A,1)
B(r,:) = B(r,ind(r,:));
end
Interestingly, the loop version is faster for small (<12 rows) and large (>~700 rows) square arrays (r2010a, OS X). The more columns there are relative to rows, the better the loop performs.
Here's the code I quickly hacked up for testing:
siz = 10:100:1010;
tt = zeros(100,2,length(siz));
for s = siz
for k = 1:100
A = rand(s,1*s);
B = rand(s,1*s);
[sortedA,ind] = sort(A,2);
tic;
for r = 1:size(A,1)
B(r,:) = B(r,ind(r,:));
end,tt(k,1,s==siz) = toc;
tic;
m = size(A,1);
B = B(bsxfun(#plus,(ind-1)*m,(1:m).'));
tt(k,2,s==siz) = toc;
end
end
m = squeeze(mean(tt,1));
m(1,:)./m(2,:)
For square arrays
ans =
0.7149 2.1508 1.2203 1.4684 1.2339 1.1855 1.0212 1.0201 0.8770 0.8584 0.8405
For twice as many columns as there are rows (same number of rows)
ans =
0.8431 1.2874 1.3550 1.1311 0.9979 0.9921 0.8263 0.7697 0.6856 0.7004 0.7314
Sort() returns the index along the dimension you sorted on. You can explicitly construct indexes for the other dimensions that cause the rows to remain stable, and then use linear indexing to rearrange the whole array.
A = rand(3,4);
B = A; %// Start with same values so we can programmatically check result
[A2 ix2] = sort(A,2);
%// ix2 is the index along dimension 2, and we want dimension 1 to remain unchanged
ix1 = repmat([1:size(A,1)]', [1 size(A,2)]); %//'
%// Convert to linear index equivalent of the reordering of the sort() call
ix = sub2ind(size(A), ix1, ix2)
%// And apply it
B2 = B(ix)
ok = isequal(A2, B2) %// confirm reordering
Can't you just do this?
[val ind]=sort(A);
B=B(ind);
It worked for me, unless I'm understanding your problem wrong.
Suppose I have an AxBxC matrix X and a BxD matrix Y.
Is there a non-loop method by which I can multiply each of the C AxB matrices with Y?
As a personal preference, I like my code to be as succinct and readable as possible.
Here's what I would have done, though it doesn't meet your 'no-loops' requirement:
for m = 1:C
Z(:,:,m) = X(:,:,m)*Y;
end
This results in an A x D x C matrix Z.
And of course, you can always pre-allocate Z to speed things up by using Z = zeros(A,D,C);.
You can do this in one line using the functions NUM2CELL to break the matrix X into a cell array and CELLFUN to operate across the cells:
Z = cellfun(#(x) x*Y,num2cell(X,[1 2]),'UniformOutput',false);
The result Z is a 1-by-C cell array where each cell contains an A-by-D matrix. If you want Z to be an A-by-D-by-C matrix, you can use the CAT function:
Z = cat(3,Z{:});
NOTE: My old solution used MAT2CELL instead of NUM2CELL, which wasn't as succinct:
[A,B,C] = size(X);
Z = cellfun(#(x) x*Y,mat2cell(X,A,B,ones(1,C)),'UniformOutput',false);
Here's a one-line solution (two if you want to split into 3rd dimension):
A = 2;
B = 3;
C = 4;
D = 5;
X = rand(A,B,C);
Y = rand(B,D);
%# calculate result in one big matrix
Z = reshape(reshape(permute(X, [2 1 3]), [A B*C]), [B A*C])' * Y;
%'# split into third dimension
Z = permute(reshape(Z',[D A C]),[2 1 3]);
Hence now: Z(:,:,i) contains the result of X(:,:,i) * Y
Explanation:
The above may look confusing, but the idea is simple.
First I start by take the third dimension of X and do a vertical concatenation along the first dim:
XX = cat(1, X(:,:,1), X(:,:,2), ..., X(:,:,C))
... the difficulty was that C is a variable, hence you can't generalize that expression using cat or vertcat. Next we multiply this by Y:
ZZ = XX * Y;
Finally I split it back into the third dimension:
Z(:,:,1) = ZZ(1:2, :);
Z(:,:,2) = ZZ(3:4, :);
Z(:,:,3) = ZZ(5:6, :);
Z(:,:,4) = ZZ(7:8, :);
So you can see it only requires one matrix multiplication, but you have to reshape the matrix before and after.
I'm approaching the exact same issue, with an eye for the most efficient method. There are roughly three approaches that i see around, short of using outside libraries (i.e., mtimesx):
Loop through slices of the 3D matrix
repmat-and-permute wizardry
cellfun multiplication
I recently compared all three methods to see which was quickest. My intuition was that (2) would be the winner. Here's the code:
% generate data
A = 20;
B = 30;
C = 40;
D = 50;
X = rand(A,B,C);
Y = rand(B,D);
% ------ Approach 1: Loop (via #Zaid)
tic
Z1 = zeros(A,D,C);
for m = 1:C
Z1(:,:,m) = X(:,:,m)*Y;
end
toc
% ------ Approach 2: Reshape+Permute (via #Amro)
tic
Z2 = reshape(reshape(permute(X, [2 1 3]), [A B*C]), [B A*C])' * Y;
Z2 = permute(reshape(Z2',[D A C]),[2 1 3]);
toc
% ------ Approach 3: cellfun (via #gnovice)
tic
Z3 = cellfun(#(x) x*Y,num2cell(X,[1 2]),'UniformOutput',false);
Z3 = cat(3,Z3{:});
toc
All three approaches produced the same output (phew!), but, surprisingly, the loop was the fastest:
Elapsed time is 0.000418 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.000887 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.001841 seconds.
Note that the times can vary quite a lot from one trial to another, and sometimes (2) comes out the slowest. These differences become more dramatic with larger data. But with much bigger data, (3) beats (2). The loop method is still best.
% pretty big data...
A = 200;
B = 300;
C = 400;
D = 500;
Elapsed time is 0.373831 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.638041 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.724581 seconds.
% even bigger....
A = 200;
B = 200;
C = 400;
D = 5000;
Elapsed time is 4.314076 seconds.
Elapsed time is 11.553289 seconds.
Elapsed time is 5.233725 seconds.
But the loop method can be slower than (2), if the looped dimension is much larger than the others.
A = 2;
B = 3;
C = 400000;
D = 5;
Elapsed time is 0.780933 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.073189 seconds.
Elapsed time is 2.590697 seconds.
So (2) wins by a big factor, in this (maybe extreme) case. There may not be an approach that is optimal in all cases, but the loop is still pretty good, and best in many cases. It is also best in terms of readability. Loop away!
Nope. There are several ways, but it always comes out in a loop, direct or indirect.
Just to please my curiosity, why would you want that anyway ?
To answer the question, and for readability, please see:
ndmult, by ajuanpi (Juan Pablo Carbajal), 2013, GNU GPL
Input
2 arrays
dim
Example
nT = 100;
t = 2*pi*linspace (0,1,nT)’;
# 2 experiments measuring 3 signals at nT timestamps
signals = zeros(nT,3,2);
signals(:,:,1) = [sin(2*t) cos(2*t) sin(4*t).^2];
signals(:,:,2) = [sin(2*t+pi/4) cos(2*t+pi/4) sin(4*t+pi/6).^2];
sT(:,:,1) = signals(:,:,1)’;
sT(:,:,2) = signals(:,:,2)’;
G = ndmult (signals,sT,[1 2]);
Source
Original source. I added inline comments.
function M = ndmult (A,B,dim)
dA = dim(1);
dB = dim(2);
# reshape A into 2d
sA = size (A);
nA = length (sA);
perA = [1:(dA-1) (dA+1):(nA-1) nA dA](1:nA);
Ap = permute (A, perA);
Ap = reshape (Ap, prod (sA(perA(1:end-1))), sA(perA(end)));
# reshape B into 2d
sB = size (B);
nB = length (sB);
perB = [dB 1:(dB-1) (dB+1):(nB-1) nB](1:nB);
Bp = permute (B, perB);
Bp = reshape (Bp, sB(perB(1)), prod (sB(perB(2:end))));
# multiply
M = Ap * Bp;
# reshape back to original format
s = [sA(perA(1:end-1)) sB(perB(2:end))];
M = squeeze (reshape (M, s));
endfunction
I highly recommend you use the MMX toolbox of matlab. It can multiply n-dimensional matrices as fast as possible.
The advantages of MMX are:
It is easy to use.
Multiply n-dimensional matrices (actually it can multiply arrays of 2-D matrices)
It performs other matrix operations (transpose, Quadratic Multiply, Chol decomposition and more)
It uses C compiler and multi-thread computation for speed up.
For this problem, you just need to write this command:
C=mmx('mul',X,Y);
here is a benchmark for all possible methods. For more detail refer to this question.
1.6571 # FOR-loop
4.3110 # ARRAYFUN
3.3731 # NUM2CELL/FOR-loop/CELL2MAT
2.9820 # NUM2CELL/CELLFUN/CELL2MAT
0.0244 # Loop Unrolling
0.0221 # MMX toolbox <===================
I would like to share my answer to the problems of:
1) making the tensor product of two tensors (of any valence);
2) making the contraction of two tensors along any dimension.
Here are my subroutines for the first and second tasks:
1) tensor product:
function [C] = tensor(A,B)
C = squeeze( reshape( repmat(A(:), 1, numel(B)).*B(:).' , [size(A),size(B)] ) );
end
2) contraction:
Here A and B are the tensors to be contracted along the dimesions i and j respectively. The lengths of these dimensions should be equal, of course. There's no check for this (this would obscure the code) but apart from this it works well.
function [C] = tensorcontraction(A,B, i,j)
sa = size(A);
La = length(sa);
ia = 1:La;
ia(i) = [];
ia = [ia i];
sb = size(B);
Lb = length(sb);
ib = 1:Lb;
ib(j) = [];
ib = [j ib];
% making the i-th dimension the last in A
A1 = permute(A, ia);
% making the j-th dimension the first in B
B1 = permute(B, ib);
% making both A and B 2D-matrices to make use of the
% matrix multiplication along the second dimension of A
% and the first dimension of B
A2 = reshape(A1, [],sa(i));
B2 = reshape(B1, sb(j),[]);
% here's the implicit implication that sa(i) == sb(j),
% otherwise - crash
C2 = A2*B2;
% back to the original shape with the exception
% of dimensions along which we've just contracted
sa(i) = [];
sb(j) = [];
C = squeeze( reshape( C2, [sa,sb] ) );
end
Any critics?
I would think recursion, but that's the only other non- loop method you can do
You could "unroll" the loop, ie write out all the multiplications sequentially that would occur in the loop