I would like to align and count vectors with different time stamps to count the corresponding bins.
Let's assume I have 3 matrix from [N,edges] = histcounts in the following structure. The first row represents the edges, so the bins. The second row represents the values. I would like to sum all values with the same bin.
A = [0 1 2 3 4 5;
5 5 6 7 8 5]
B = [1 2 3 4 5 6;
2 5 7 8 5 4]
C = [2 3 4 5 6 7 8;
1 2 6 7 4 3 2]
Now I want to sum all the same bins. My final result should be:
result = [0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8;
5 7 12 16 ...]
I could loop over all numbers, but I would like to have it fast.
You can use accumarray:
H = [A B C].'; %//' Concatenate the histograms and make them column vectors
V = [unique(H(:,1)) accumarray(H(:,1)+1, H(:,2))].'; %//' Find unique values and accumulate
V =
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5 7 12 16 22 17 8 3 2
Note: The H(:,1)+1 is to force the bin values to be positive, otherwise MATLAB will complain. We still use the actual bins in the output V. To avoid this, as #Daniel says in the comments, use the third output of unique (See: https://stackoverflow.com/a/27783568/2732801):
H = [A B C].'; %//' stupid syntax highlighting :/
[U, ~, IU] = unique(H(:,1));
V = [U accumarray(IU, H(:,2))].';
If you're only doing it with 3 variables as you've shown then there likely aren't going to be any performance hits with looping it.
But if you are really averse to the looping idea, then you can do it using arrayfun.
rng = 0:8;
output = arrayfun(#(x)sum([A(2,A(1,:) == x), B(2,B(1,:) == x), C(2,C(1,:) == x)]), rng);
output = cat(1, rng, output);
output =
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5 7 12 16 22 17 8 3 2
This can be beneficial for particularly large A, B, and C variables as there is no copying of data.
Related
This question pops up quite often in one form or another (see for example here or here). So I thought I'd present it in a general form, and provide an answer which might serve for future reference.
Given an arbitrary number n of vectors of possibly different sizes, generate an n-column matrix whose rows describe all combinations of elements taken from those vectors (Cartesian product) .
For example,
vectors = { [1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20] }
should give
combs = [ 1 3 10
1 3 20
1 6 10
1 6 20
1 9 10
1 9 20
2 3 10
2 3 20
2 6 10
2 6 20
2 9 10
2 9 20 ]
The ndgrid function almost gives the answer, but has one caveat: n output variables must be explicitly defined to call it. Since n is arbitrary, the best way is to use a comma-separated list (generated from a cell array with ncells) to serve as output. The resulting n matrices are then concatenated into the desired n-column matrix:
vectors = { [1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20] }; %// input data: cell array of vectors
n = numel(vectors); %// number of vectors
combs = cell(1,n); %// pre-define to generate comma-separated list
[combs{end:-1:1}] = ndgrid(vectors{end:-1:1}); %// the reverse order in these two
%// comma-separated lists is needed to produce the rows of the result matrix in
%// lexicographical order
combs = cat(n+1, combs{:}); %// concat the n n-dim arrays along dimension n+1
combs = reshape(combs,[],n); %// reshape to obtain desired matrix
A little bit simpler ... if you have the Neural Network toolbox you can simply use combvec:
vectors = {[1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20]};
combs = combvec(vectors{:}).' % Use cells as arguments
which returns a matrix in a slightly different order:
combs =
1 3 10
2 3 10
1 6 10
2 6 10
1 9 10
2 9 10
1 3 20
2 3 20
1 6 20
2 6 20
1 9 20
2 9 20
If you want the matrix that is in the question, you can use sortrows:
combs = sortrows(combvec(vectors{:}).')
% Or equivalently as per #LuisMendo in the comments:
% combs = fliplr(combvec(vectors{end:-1:1}).')
which gives
combs =
1 3 10
1 3 20
1 6 10
1 6 20
1 9 10
1 9 20
2 3 10
2 3 20
2 6 10
2 6 20
2 9 10
2 9 20
If you look at the internals of combvec (type edit combvec in the command window), you'll see that it uses different code than #LuisMendo's answer. I can't say which is more efficient overall.
If you happen to have a matrix whose rows are akin to the earlier cell array you can use:
vectors = [1 2;3 6;10 20];
vectors = num2cell(vectors,2);
combs = sortrows(combvec(vectors{:}).')
I've done some benchmarking on the two proposed solutions. The benchmarking code is based on the timeit function, and is included at the end of this post.
I consider two cases: three vectors of size n, and three vectors of sizes n/10, n and n*10 respectively (both cases give the same number of combinations). n is varied up to a maximum of 240 (I choose this value to avoid the use of virtual memory in my laptop computer).
The results are given in the following figure. The ndgrid-based solution is seen to consistently take less time than combvec. It's also interesting to note that the time taken by combvec varies a little less regularly in the different-size case.
Benchmarking code
Function for ndgrid-based solution:
function combs = f1(vectors)
n = numel(vectors); %// number of vectors
combs = cell(1,n); %// pre-define to generate comma-separated list
[combs{end:-1:1}] = ndgrid(vectors{end:-1:1}); %// the reverse order in these two
%// comma-separated lists is needed to produce the rows of the result matrix in
%// lexicographical order
combs = cat(n+1, combs{:}); %// concat the n n-dim arrays along dimension n+1
combs = reshape(combs,[],n);
Function for combvec solution:
function combs = f2(vectors)
combs = combvec(vectors{:}).';
Script to measure time by calling timeit on these functions:
nn = 20:20:240;
t1 = [];
t2 = [];
for n = nn;
%//vectors = {1:n, 1:n, 1:n};
vectors = {1:n/10, 1:n, 1:n*10};
t = timeit(#() f1(vectors));
t1 = [t1; t];
t = timeit(#() f2(vectors));
t2 = [t2; t];
end
Here's a do-it-yourself method that made me giggle with delight, using nchoosek, although it's not better than #Luis Mendo's accepted solution.
For the example given, after 1,000 runs this solution took my machine on average 0.00065935 s, versus the accepted solution 0.00012877 s. For larger vectors, following #Luis Mendo's benchmarking post, this solution is consistently slower than the accepted answer. Nevertheless, I decided to post it in hopes that maybe you'll find something useful about it:
Code:
tic;
v = {[1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20]};
L = [0 cumsum(cellfun(#length,v))];
V = cell2mat(v);
J = nchoosek(1:L(end),length(v));
J(any(J>repmat(L(2:end),[size(J,1) 1]),2) | ...
any(J<=repmat(L(1:end-1),[size(J,1) 1]),2),:) = [];
V(J)
toc
gives
ans =
1 3 10
1 3 20
1 6 10
1 6 20
1 9 10
1 9 20
2 3 10
2 3 20
2 6 10
2 6 20
2 9 10
2 9 20
Elapsed time is 0.018434 seconds.
Explanation:
L gets the lengths of each vector using cellfun. Although cellfun is basically a loop, it's efficient here considering your number of vectors will have to be relatively low for this problem to even be practical.
V concatenates all the vectors for easy access later (this assumes you entered all your vectors as rows. v' would work for column vectors.)
nchoosek gets all the ways to pick n=length(v) elements from the total number of elements L(end). There will be more combinations here than what we need.
J =
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
1 2 6
1 2 7
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 6
1 3 7
1 4 5
1 4 6
1 4 7
1 5 6
1 5 7
1 6 7
2 3 4
2 3 5
2 3 6
2 3 7
2 4 5
2 4 6
2 4 7
2 5 6
2 5 7
2 6 7
3 4 5
3 4 6
3 4 7
3 5 6
3 5 7
3 6 7
4 5 6
4 5 7
4 6 7
5 6 7
Since there are only two elements in v(1), we need to throw out any rows where J(:,1)>2. Similarly, where J(:,2)<3, J(:,2)>5, etc... Using L and repmat we can determine whether each element of J is in its appropriate range, and then use any to discard rows that have any bad element.
Finally, these aren't the actual values from v, just indices. V(J) will return the desired matrix.
I need to find the maximum among values with same labels, in matlab, and I am trying to avoid using for loops.
Specifically, I have an array L of labels and an array V of values, same size. I need to produce an array S which contains, for each value of L, the maximum value of V. An example will explain better:
L = [1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,1,2,3,4]
V = [5,4,3,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,8,7,6]
Then, the values of the output array S will be:
s(1) = 9 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 1 are: 5,4,3,9 -> max = 9)
s(2) = 8 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 2 are: 2,1,2,8 -> max = 8)
s(3) = 7 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 3 are: 3,4,5,7 -> max = 7)
s(4) = 8 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 4 are: 6,7,8,6 -> max = 8)
this can be trivially implemented by traversing the arrays L and V with a for loop, but in Matlab for loops are slow, so I was looking for a faster solution. Any idea?
This is a standard job for accumarray.
Three cases need to be considered, with increasing generality:
Integer labels.
Integer labels, specify fill value.
Remove gaps; or non-integer labels. General case.
Integer labels
You can just use
S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max).';
In your example, this gives
>> L = [1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 7];
>> V = [5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6];
>> S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max).'
S =
9 8 7 8
Integer labels, specify fill value
If there are gaps between integers in L, the above will give a 0 result for the non-existing labels. If you want to change that fill value (for example to NaN), use a fifth input argument in acccumarray:
S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).';
Example:
>> L = [1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 7]; %// last element changed
>> V = [5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6]; %// same as in your example
>> S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).'
S =
9 8 7 8 NaN NaN 6
Remove gaps; or non-integer labels. General case
When the gaps between integer labels are large, using a fill value may be inefficient. In that case you may want to get only the meaningful values in S, without fill values, i.e.skip non-existing labels. Also, it may be the case that L doesn't necessarily contain integers.
These two issues are solved by applying unique to the labels before using accumarray:
[~, ~, Li] = unique(L); %// transform L into consecutive integers
S = accumarray(Li(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).';
Example:
>> L = [1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 7.8]; %// note: non-integer values
>> V = [5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6 ]; %// same as in your example
>> [~, ~, Li] = unique(L); %// transform L into consecutive integers
>> S = accumarray(Li(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).'
S =
9 5 8 7 8 6
helper=[L.', V.'];
helper=sortrows(helper,-2);
[~,idx,~]=unique(helper(:,1));
S=helper(idx,2);
What I do is: I join the two arrays as columns. Then I sort them regarding second column with biggest element first. Then I get the idx of the unique Values in L before I return the corresponding Values from V.
The solution from Luis Mendo is faster. But as far as I see his solution doesn't work if there is a zero,negative value or a noninteger inside L:
Luis solution: Elapsed time is 0.722189 seconds.
My solution: Elapsed time is 2.575943 seconds.
I used:
L= ceil(rand(1,500)*10);
V= ceil(rand(1,500)*250);
and ran the code 10000 times.
This question pops up quite often in one form or another (see for example here or here). So I thought I'd present it in a general form, and provide an answer which might serve for future reference.
Given an arbitrary number n of vectors of possibly different sizes, generate an n-column matrix whose rows describe all combinations of elements taken from those vectors (Cartesian product) .
For example,
vectors = { [1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20] }
should give
combs = [ 1 3 10
1 3 20
1 6 10
1 6 20
1 9 10
1 9 20
2 3 10
2 3 20
2 6 10
2 6 20
2 9 10
2 9 20 ]
The ndgrid function almost gives the answer, but has one caveat: n output variables must be explicitly defined to call it. Since n is arbitrary, the best way is to use a comma-separated list (generated from a cell array with ncells) to serve as output. The resulting n matrices are then concatenated into the desired n-column matrix:
vectors = { [1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20] }; %// input data: cell array of vectors
n = numel(vectors); %// number of vectors
combs = cell(1,n); %// pre-define to generate comma-separated list
[combs{end:-1:1}] = ndgrid(vectors{end:-1:1}); %// the reverse order in these two
%// comma-separated lists is needed to produce the rows of the result matrix in
%// lexicographical order
combs = cat(n+1, combs{:}); %// concat the n n-dim arrays along dimension n+1
combs = reshape(combs,[],n); %// reshape to obtain desired matrix
A little bit simpler ... if you have the Neural Network toolbox you can simply use combvec:
vectors = {[1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20]};
combs = combvec(vectors{:}).' % Use cells as arguments
which returns a matrix in a slightly different order:
combs =
1 3 10
2 3 10
1 6 10
2 6 10
1 9 10
2 9 10
1 3 20
2 3 20
1 6 20
2 6 20
1 9 20
2 9 20
If you want the matrix that is in the question, you can use sortrows:
combs = sortrows(combvec(vectors{:}).')
% Or equivalently as per #LuisMendo in the comments:
% combs = fliplr(combvec(vectors{end:-1:1}).')
which gives
combs =
1 3 10
1 3 20
1 6 10
1 6 20
1 9 10
1 9 20
2 3 10
2 3 20
2 6 10
2 6 20
2 9 10
2 9 20
If you look at the internals of combvec (type edit combvec in the command window), you'll see that it uses different code than #LuisMendo's answer. I can't say which is more efficient overall.
If you happen to have a matrix whose rows are akin to the earlier cell array you can use:
vectors = [1 2;3 6;10 20];
vectors = num2cell(vectors,2);
combs = sortrows(combvec(vectors{:}).')
I've done some benchmarking on the two proposed solutions. The benchmarking code is based on the timeit function, and is included at the end of this post.
I consider two cases: three vectors of size n, and three vectors of sizes n/10, n and n*10 respectively (both cases give the same number of combinations). n is varied up to a maximum of 240 (I choose this value to avoid the use of virtual memory in my laptop computer).
The results are given in the following figure. The ndgrid-based solution is seen to consistently take less time than combvec. It's also interesting to note that the time taken by combvec varies a little less regularly in the different-size case.
Benchmarking code
Function for ndgrid-based solution:
function combs = f1(vectors)
n = numel(vectors); %// number of vectors
combs = cell(1,n); %// pre-define to generate comma-separated list
[combs{end:-1:1}] = ndgrid(vectors{end:-1:1}); %// the reverse order in these two
%// comma-separated lists is needed to produce the rows of the result matrix in
%// lexicographical order
combs = cat(n+1, combs{:}); %// concat the n n-dim arrays along dimension n+1
combs = reshape(combs,[],n);
Function for combvec solution:
function combs = f2(vectors)
combs = combvec(vectors{:}).';
Script to measure time by calling timeit on these functions:
nn = 20:20:240;
t1 = [];
t2 = [];
for n = nn;
%//vectors = {1:n, 1:n, 1:n};
vectors = {1:n/10, 1:n, 1:n*10};
t = timeit(#() f1(vectors));
t1 = [t1; t];
t = timeit(#() f2(vectors));
t2 = [t2; t];
end
Here's a do-it-yourself method that made me giggle with delight, using nchoosek, although it's not better than #Luis Mendo's accepted solution.
For the example given, after 1,000 runs this solution took my machine on average 0.00065935 s, versus the accepted solution 0.00012877 s. For larger vectors, following #Luis Mendo's benchmarking post, this solution is consistently slower than the accepted answer. Nevertheless, I decided to post it in hopes that maybe you'll find something useful about it:
Code:
tic;
v = {[1 2], [3 6 9], [10 20]};
L = [0 cumsum(cellfun(#length,v))];
V = cell2mat(v);
J = nchoosek(1:L(end),length(v));
J(any(J>repmat(L(2:end),[size(J,1) 1]),2) | ...
any(J<=repmat(L(1:end-1),[size(J,1) 1]),2),:) = [];
V(J)
toc
gives
ans =
1 3 10
1 3 20
1 6 10
1 6 20
1 9 10
1 9 20
2 3 10
2 3 20
2 6 10
2 6 20
2 9 10
2 9 20
Elapsed time is 0.018434 seconds.
Explanation:
L gets the lengths of each vector using cellfun. Although cellfun is basically a loop, it's efficient here considering your number of vectors will have to be relatively low for this problem to even be practical.
V concatenates all the vectors for easy access later (this assumes you entered all your vectors as rows. v' would work for column vectors.)
nchoosek gets all the ways to pick n=length(v) elements from the total number of elements L(end). There will be more combinations here than what we need.
J =
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
1 2 6
1 2 7
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 6
1 3 7
1 4 5
1 4 6
1 4 7
1 5 6
1 5 7
1 6 7
2 3 4
2 3 5
2 3 6
2 3 7
2 4 5
2 4 6
2 4 7
2 5 6
2 5 7
2 6 7
3 4 5
3 4 6
3 4 7
3 5 6
3 5 7
3 6 7
4 5 6
4 5 7
4 6 7
5 6 7
Since there are only two elements in v(1), we need to throw out any rows where J(:,1)>2. Similarly, where J(:,2)<3, J(:,2)>5, etc... Using L and repmat we can determine whether each element of J is in its appropriate range, and then use any to discard rows that have any bad element.
Finally, these aren't the actual values from v, just indices. V(J) will return the desired matrix.
I need to find the maximum among values with same labels, in matlab, and I am trying to avoid using for loops.
Specifically, I have an array L of labels and an array V of values, same size. I need to produce an array S which contains, for each value of L, the maximum value of V. An example will explain better:
L = [1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,1,2,3,4]
V = [5,4,3,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,8,7,6]
Then, the values of the output array S will be:
s(1) = 9 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 1 are: 5,4,3,9 -> max = 9)
s(2) = 8 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 2 are: 2,1,2,8 -> max = 8)
s(3) = 7 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 3 are: 3,4,5,7 -> max = 7)
s(4) = 8 (the values V(i) such that L(i) == 4 are: 6,7,8,6 -> max = 8)
this can be trivially implemented by traversing the arrays L and V with a for loop, but in Matlab for loops are slow, so I was looking for a faster solution. Any idea?
This is a standard job for accumarray.
Three cases need to be considered, with increasing generality:
Integer labels.
Integer labels, specify fill value.
Remove gaps; or non-integer labels. General case.
Integer labels
You can just use
S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max).';
In your example, this gives
>> L = [1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 7];
>> V = [5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6];
>> S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max).'
S =
9 8 7 8
Integer labels, specify fill value
If there are gaps between integers in L, the above will give a 0 result for the non-existing labels. If you want to change that fill value (for example to NaN), use a fifth input argument in acccumarray:
S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).';
Example:
>> L = [1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 7]; %// last element changed
>> V = [5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6]; %// same as in your example
>> S = accumarray(L(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).'
S =
9 8 7 8 NaN NaN 6
Remove gaps; or non-integer labels. General case
When the gaps between integer labels are large, using a fill value may be inefficient. In that case you may want to get only the meaningful values in S, without fill values, i.e.skip non-existing labels. Also, it may be the case that L doesn't necessarily contain integers.
These two issues are solved by applying unique to the labels before using accumarray:
[~, ~, Li] = unique(L); %// transform L into consecutive integers
S = accumarray(Li(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).';
Example:
>> L = [1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 7.8]; %// note: non-integer values
>> V = [5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6 ]; %// same as in your example
>> [~, ~, Li] = unique(L); %// transform L into consecutive integers
>> S = accumarray(Li(:), V(:), [], #max, NaN).'
S =
9 5 8 7 8 6
helper=[L.', V.'];
helper=sortrows(helper,-2);
[~,idx,~]=unique(helper(:,1));
S=helper(idx,2);
What I do is: I join the two arrays as columns. Then I sort them regarding second column with biggest element first. Then I get the idx of the unique Values in L before I return the corresponding Values from V.
The solution from Luis Mendo is faster. But as far as I see his solution doesn't work if there is a zero,negative value or a noninteger inside L:
Luis solution: Elapsed time is 0.722189 seconds.
My solution: Elapsed time is 2.575943 seconds.
I used:
L= ceil(rand(1,500)*10);
V= ceil(rand(1,500)*250);
and ran the code 10000 times.
This question already has answers here:
Got confused with a vector indexed by a matrix, in Matlab
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Suppose:
a =
1 2 3
4 5 6
2 3 4
and
b =
1 3 2
6 4 8
In MATLABa(b) gives:
>> a(b)
ans =
1 2 4
3 2 6
What is the reason for this output?
when you have a matrix a:
a =
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
and b:
b =
1 3 4
3 2 6
then a(b) is a way of adressing items in a and gives you:
>> a(b)
ans =
1 7 2
7 4 8
to understand this you have to think of a als a single column vector
>> a(:)
ans =
1
4
7
2
5
8
3
6
9
now the first row of b (1 3 4) addresses elements in this vector so the first, the 3rd and the forth element of that single column vector which are 1 7 and 2 are adressed. Next the secound row of b is used as adresses for a secound line in the output so the 3rd, the 2nd and the 6th elements are taken from a, those are 7 4 and 8.
It's just a kind of matrix indexing.
Matrix indexes numeration in 'a' matrix is:
1 4 7
2 5 8
3 6 9
This is a possible duplicate to this post where I gave an answer: Got confused with a vector indexed by a matrix, in Matlab
However, I would like to duplicate my answer here as I think it is informative.
That's a very standard MATLAB operation that you're doing. When you have a vector or a matrix, you can provide another vector or matrix in order to access specific values. Accessing values in MATLAB is not just limited to single indices (i.e. A(1), A(2) and so on).
For example, let's say we had a vector a = [1 2 3 4]. Let's also say we had b as a matrix such that it was b = [1 2 3; 1 2 3; 1 2 3]. By doing a(b) to access the vector, what you are essentially doing is a lookup. The output is basically the same size as b, and you are creating a matrix where there are 3 rows, and each element accesses the first, second and third element. Not only can you do this for a vector, but you can do this for a matrix as well.
Bear in mind that when you're doing this for a matrix, you access the elements in column major format. For example, supposing we had this matrix:
A = [1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8]
A(1) would be 1, A(2) would be 3, A(3) would be 5 and so on. You would start with the first column, and increasing indices will traverse down the first column. Once you hit the 5th index, it skips over to the next column. So A(5) would be 2, A(6) would be 4 and so on.
Here are some examples to further your understanding. Let's define a matrix A such that:
A = [5 1 3
7 8 0
4 6 2]
Here is some MATLAB code to strengthen your understanding for this kind of indexing:
A = [5 1 3; 7 8 0; 4 6 2]; % 3 x 3 matrix
B = [1 2 3 4];
C = A(B); % C should give [5 7 4 1]
D = [5 6 7; 1 2 3; 4 5 6];
E = A(D); % E should give [8 6 3; 5 7 4; 1 8 6]
F = [9 8; 7 6; 1 2];
G = A(F); % G should give [2 0; 3 6; 5 7]
As such, the output when you access elements this way is whatever the size of the vector or matrix that you specify as the argument.
In order to be complete, let's do this for a vector:
V = [-1 9 7 3 0 5]; % A 6 x 1 vector
B = [1 2 3 4];
C = V(B); % C should give [-1 9 7 3]
D = [1 3 5 2];
E = V(D); % E should give [-1 7 0 9]
F = [1 2; 4 5; 6 3];
G = V(F); % G should give [-1 9; 3 0; 5 7]
NB: You have to make sure that you are not providing indexes that would make the accessing out of bounds. For example if you tried to specify the index of 5 in your example, it would give you an error. Also, if you tried anything bigger than 9 in my example, it would also give you an error. There are 9 elements in that 3 x 3 matrix, so specifying a column major index of anything bigger than 9 will give you an out of bounds error.