My question regards using the scipy.interpolate.RectBivariateSpline function to interpolate a 2D mesh. I am essentially trying to emulate functionality of Matlab's interp2 function.
For a particular (light) use case, I call RectBivariateSpline on x and y vectors, which are regularly spaced, monotonically increasing vectors, e.g.:
x = np.arange(0., 20., 1.) # shape (20,)
y = np.arange(0., 20., 1.) # shape (20,)
and some 2D field, e.g.:
fld = np.reshape(np.arange(0., 400., 1.), (20, 20)) # shape (20, 20)
i.e.:
fn = sp.interpolate.RectBivariateSpline(x, y, fld)
To evaluate the interpolation, then, at particular xi, yi coordinates (or arrays, obeying numpy broadcasting), the docs advise to call the RectBivariateSpline.ev function, i.e.:
val1 = fn.ev(1, 1) # Ans: 21
val2 = fn.ev([1, 2], [1, 2]) # Ans: [21, 22]
This allows the user to find one interpolated value, for say (xi, yi) = (1.5, 1.5), or many interpolated values, say on a particular domain (regular or irregular grid).
My question is this: for large xi, yi arrays, how can I make the fn.ev call faster? Compared to the Matlab interp2 call, it is pretty slow (by an order of magnitude or worse).
Following the function call in the debugger, I have found that ev is actually a wrapper for RectBivariateSpline.__call__. This again is a wrapper for a call to the fitpack functions (in C / Fortran) on which Scipy's interpolation functionality is based. The __call__ function has an optional keyword grid, defaulted to False and absent from ev, which allows you to pass two vectors defining an orthogonal grid. Calling with grid set to True leads to the call of the fitpack routine bispev which is MUCH faster than the documented ev function which calls fitpack bispeu. (I assume the performance boost is because bispev exploits the regular grid, while bispeu may simply loop through all the index pairs... though I'm not sure).
In any event, I want to call an .ev like function in such a way that I can interpolate a grid that may not be completely regular (but is close) and that will be faster than the current call to bispeu. "Regularizing" the grid and going with bispev IS an option, and the end results are PRETTY close, and the routine is MUCH faster that way (by a factor of 20!)... however, Matlab interp2 allows the slightly irregular grid and computes with the same speed. I have considered trying to write my own C function, but I'm highly doubtful that such a lowly one as I can do any better than what's already in Scipy and written by geniuses. :)
So.. is there a way I can have my cake and eat it too? Is there some awesome little tricky way I can call the spline evaluator? I have thought about making my own bespoke wrapper for the fitpack calls... but the documentation for fitpack is not readily available (certainly not in the Scipy release I have), and I'd like to avoid that extra work if possible. Also note that this problem is especially irksome because I'm having to call it twice, once for the real and imaginary components of my original field (Matlab takes complex meshes). At the end of the day, I want to give Matlab the BOOT... but this speed issue could be a killer.
Thank you for your time.
Related
I have a lengthy symbolic expression that involves rational polynomials (basic arithmetic and integer powers). I'd like to simplify it into a single (simple) rational polynomial.
numden does it, but it seems to use some expensive optimization, which probably addresses a more general case. When tried on my example below, it crashed after a few hours--out of memory (32GB).
I believe something more efficient is possible even if I don't have a cpp access to matlab functionality (e.g. children).
Motivation: I have an objective function that involves polynomials. I manually derived it, and I'd like to verify and compare the derivatives: I subtract the two expressions, and the result should vanish.
Currently, my interest in this is academic since practically, I simply substitute some random expression, get zero, and it's enough for me.
I'll try to find the time to play with this as some point, and I'll update here about it, but I posted in case someone finds it interesting and would like to give it a try before that.
To run my function:
x = sym('x', [1 32], 'real')
e = func(x)
The function (and believe it or not, this is just the Jacobian, and I also have the Hessian) can't be pasted here since the text limit is 30K:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1imOAa4VS87WDkOwAK0NoFCJPTK_2QIRj
I have a differential equation that's a function of around 30 constants. The differential equation is a system of (N^2+1) equations (where N is typically 4). Solving this system produces N^2+1 functions.
Often I want to see how the solution of the differential equation functionally depends on constants. For example, I might want to plot the maximum value of one of the output functions and see how that maximum changes for each solution of the differential equation as I linearly increase one of the input constants.
Is there a particularly clean method of doing this?
Right now I turn my differential-equation-solving script into a large function that returns an array of output functions. (Some of the inputs are vectors & matrices). For example:
for i = 1:N
[OutputArray1(i, :), OutputArray2(i, :), OutputArray3(i, :), OutputArray4(i, :), OutputArray5(i, :)] = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
Here I loop through the function. The function solves a differential equation, and then returns the set of solution functions for that input parameter, and then each is appended as a row to a matrix.
There are a few issues I have with my method:
If I want to see the solution to the differential equation for a different parameter, I have to redefine the function so that it is an input of one of the thirty other parameters. For the sake of code readability, I cannot see myself explicitly writing all of the input parameters as individual inputs. (Although I've read that structures might be helpful here, but I'm not sure how that would be implemented.)
I typically get lost in parameter space and often have to update the same parameter across multiple scripts. I have a script that runs the differential-equation-solving function, and I have a second script that plots the set of simulated data. (And I will save the local variables to a file so that I can load them explicitly for plotting, but I often get lost figuring out which file is associated with what set of parameters). The remaining parameters that are not in the input of the function are inside the function itself. I've tried making the parameters global, but doing so drastically slows down the speed of my code. Additionally, some of the inputs are arrays I would like to plot and see before running the solver. (Some of the inputs are time-dependent boundary conditions, and I often want to see what they look like first.)
I'm trying to figure out a good method for me to keep track of everything. I'm trying to come up with a smart method of saving generated figures with a file tag that displays all the parameters associated with that figure. I can save such a file as a notepad file with a generic tagging-number that's listed in the title of the figure, but I feel like this is an awkward system. It's particularly awkward because it's not easy to see what's different about a long list of 30+ parameters.
Overall, I feel as though what I'm doing is fairly simple, yet I feel as though I don't have a good coding methodology and consequently end up wasting a lot of time saving almost-identical functions and scripts to solve fairly simple tasks.
It seems like what you really want here is something that deals with N-D arrays instead of splitting up the outputs.
If all of the OutputArray_ variables have the same number of rows, then the line
for i = 1:N
[OutputArray1(i, :), OutputArray2(i, :), OutputArray3(i, :), OutputArray4(i, :), OutputArray5(i, :)] = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
seems to suggest that what you really want your function to return is an M x K array (where in this case, K = 5), and you want to pack that output into an M x K x N array. That is, it seems like you'd want to refactor your DE_Simulation to give you something like
for i = 1:N
OutputArray(:,:,i) = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
If they aren't the same size, then a struct or a table is probably the best way to go, as you could assign to one element of the struct array per loop iteration or one row of the table per loop iteration (the table approach would assume that the size of the variables doesn't change from iteration to iteration).
If, for some reason, you really need to have these as separate outputs (and perhaps later as separate inputs), then what you probably want is a cell array. In that case you'd be able to deal with the variable number of inputs doing something like
for i = 1:N
[OutputArray{i, 1:K}] = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
I hesitate to even write that, though, because this almost certainly seems like the wrong data structure for what you're trying to do.
Good evening everyone,
I want to create a function
f(x) = [f1(x), f2(x), ... , fn(x)]
in MatLab, with an arbitrary form and number for the fi. In my current case they are meant to be basis elements for a finite-dimensional function space, so for example a number of multi variable polynomials. I want to able to be able to set form (e.g. hermite/lagrange polynomials, ...) and number via arguments in some sort of "function creating" function, so I would like to solve this for arbitrary functions fi.
Assume for now that the fi are fi:R^d -> R, so vector input to scalar output. This means the result from f should be a n-dim vector containing the output of all n functions. The number of functions n could be fairly large, as there is permutation involved. I also need to evaluate the resulting function very often, so I hope to do it as efficiently as possible.
Currently I see two ways to do this:
Create a cell with each fi using a loop, using something like
funcell{i}=matlabFunction(createpoly(degree, x),'vars',{x})
and one of the functions from the symbolic toolbox and a symbolic x (vector). It is then possible to create the desired function with cellfun, e.g.
f=#(x) cellfun(#(v) v(x), funcell)
This is relatively short, easy and what can be found when doing searches. It even allows extension to vector output using 'UniformOutput',false and cell2mat. On the downside it is very inefficient, first during creation because of matlabFunction and then during evaluation because of cellfun.
The other idea I had is to create a string and use eval. One way to do this would be
stringcell{i}=[char(createpoly(degree, x)),';']
and then use strjoin. In theory this should yield an efficient function. There are two problems however. The first is the use of eval (mostly on principle), the second is inserting the correct arguments. The symbolic toolbox does not allow symbols of the form x(i), so the resulting string will not contain them either. The only remedy I have so far is some sort of string replacement on the xi that are allowed, but this is also far from elegant.
So I do have ways to do what I need right now, but I would appreciate any ideas for a better solution.
From my understanding of the problem, you could do the straightforward:
Initialization step:
my_fns = cell(n, 1); %where n is number of functions
my_fns{1} = #f1; % Assuming f1 is defined in f1.m etc...
my_fns{2} = #f2;
Evaluation at x:
z = zeros(n, 1);
for i=1:n,
z(i) = my_fns{i}(x)
end
For example if you put it in my_evaluate.m:
function z = my_evaluate(my_fns, x)
z = zeros(n, 1);
for i=1:n,
z(i) = my_fns{i}(x)
end
How might this possibly be sped up?
Depends on if you have special structure than can be exploited.
Are there calculations common to some subset of f1 through fn that need not be repeated with each function call? Eg. if the common calculation step is costly, you could do y = f_helper(x) and z(i) = fi(x, y).
Can the functions f1...fn be vector / matrix friendly, allowing evaluation of multiple points with each function call?
The big issue is how fast your function calls f1 through fn are, not how you collect the results from those calls in a vector.
I am trying to vectorise a for loop. I have a set of coordinates listed in a [68x200] matrix called plt2, and I have another set of coordinates listed in a [400x1] matrix called trans1. I want to create a three dimensional array called dist1, where in dist1(:,:,1) I have all of the values of plt2 with the first value of trans1 subtracted, all the way through to the end of trans1. I have a for loop like this which works but is very slow:
for i=1:source_points;
dist1(:,:,i)=plt2-trans1(i,1);
end
Thanks for any help.
If I understood correctly, this can be easily solved with bsxfun:
dist1 = bsxfun(#minus, plt2, shiftdim(trans1,-2));
Or, if speed is important, use this equivalent version (thanks to #chappjc), which seems to be much faster:
dist1 = bsxfun(#minus, plt2, reshape(trans1,1,1,[]));
In general, bsxfun is a very useful function for cases like this. Its behaviour can be summarized as follows: for any singleton dimension of any of its two input arrays, it applies an "implicit" for loop to the other array along the same dimension. See the doc for further details.
Vectorizing is a good first optimization, and is usually much easier than going all in writing your own compiled mex-function (in c).
However, the golden middle-way for power users is Matlab Coder (this also applies to slightly harder problems than the one posted, where vectorization is more or less impossible). First, create a small m-file function around the slow code, in your case:
function dist1 = do_some_stuff(source_points,dist1,plt2,trans1)
for i=1:source_points;
dist1(:,:,i)=plt2-trans1(i,1);
end
Then create a simple wrapper function which calls do_some_stuff as well as defines the inputs. This file should really be only 5 rows, with only the bare essentials needed. Matlab Coder uses the wrapper function to understand what typical proper inputs to do_some_stuff are.
You can now fire up the Matlab Coder gui from the Apps section and simply add do_some_stuff under Entry-Point Files. Press Autodefine types and select your wrapper function. Go to build and press build, and you are good to go! This approach usually bumps up the execution speed substantially with almost no effort.
BR
Magnus
I have a function which does the following loop many, many times:
for cluster=1:max(bins), % bins is a list in the same format as kmeans() IDX output
select=bins==cluster; % find group of values
means(select,:)=repmat_fast_spec(meanOneIn(x(select,:)),sum(select),1);
% (*, above) for each point, write the mean of all points in x that
% share its label in bins to the equivalent row of means
delta_x(select,:)=x(select,:)-(means(select,:));
%subtract out the mean from each point
end
Noting that repmat_fast_spec and meanOneIn are stripped-down versions of repmat() and mean(), respectively, I'm wondering if there's a way to do the assignment in the line labeled (*) that avoids repmat entirely.
Any other thoughts on how to squeeze performance out of this thing would also be welcome.
Here is a possible improvement to avoid REPMAT:
x = rand(20,4);
bins = randi(3,[20 1]);
d = zeros(size(x));
for i=1:max(bins)
idx = (bins==i);
d(idx,:) = bsxfun(#minus, x(idx,:), mean(x(idx,:)));
end
Another possibility:
x = rand(20,4);
bins = randi(3,[20 1]);
m = zeros(max(bins),size(x,2));
for i=1:max(bins)
m(i,:) = mean( x(bins==i,:) );
end
dd = x - m(bins,:);
One obvious way to speed up calculation in MATLAB is to make a MEX file. You can compile C code and perform any operations you want. If you're searching for the fastest-possible performance, turning the operation into a custom MEX file would likely be the way to go.
You may be able to get some improvement by using ACCUMARRAY.
%# gather array sizes
[nPts,nDims] = size(x);
nBins = max(bins);
%# calculate means. Not sure whether it might be faster to loop over nDims
meansCell = accumarray(bins,1:nPts,[nBins,1],#(idx){mean(x(idx,:),1)},{NaN(1,nDims)});
means = cell2mat(meansCell);
%# subtract cluster means from x - this is how you can avoid repmat in your code, btw.
%# all you need is the array with cluster means.
delta_x = x - means(bins,:);
First of all: format your code properly, surround any operator or assignment by whitespace. I find your code very hard to comprehend as it looks like a big blob of characters.
Next of all, you could follow the other responses and convert the code to C (mex) or Java, automatically or manually, but in my humble opinion this is a last resort. You should only do such things when your performance is not there yet by a small margin. On the other hand, your algorithm doesn't show obvious flaws.
But the first thing you should do when trying to improve performance: profile. Use the MATLAB profiler to determine which part of your code is causing your problems. How much would you need to improve this to meet your expectations? If you don't know: first determine this boundary, otherwise you will be looking for a needle in a hay stack which might not even be in there in the first place. MATLAB will never be the fastest kid on the block with respect to runtime, but it might be the fastest with respect to development time for certain kinds of operations. In that respect, it might prove useful to sacrifice the clarity of MATLAB over the execution speed of other languages (C or even Java). But in the same respect, you might as well code everything in assembler to squeeze all of the performance out of the code.
Another obvious way to speed up calculation in MATLAB is to make a Java library (similar to #aardvarkk's answer) since MATLAB is built on Java and has very good integration with user Java libraries.
Java's easier to interface and compile than C. It might be slower than C in some cases, but the just-in-time (JIT) compiler in the Java virtual machine generally speeds things up very well.