This question already has answers here:
Find specific value's count in a vector
(4 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have a NxM matrix for example named A. After some processes I want to count the zero elements.
How can I do this in one line code? I tried A==0 which returns a 2D matrix.
There is a function to find the number of nonzero matrix elements nnz. You can use this function on a logical matrix, which will return the number of true.
In this case, we apply nnz on the matrix A==0, hence the elements of the logical matrix are true, if the original element was 0, false for any other element than 0.
A = [1, 3, 1;
0, 0, 2;
0, 2, 1];
nnz(A==0) %// returns 3, i.e. the number of zeros of A (the amount of true in A==0)
The credits for the benchmarking belong to Divarkar.
Benchmarking
Using the following paramters and inputs, one can benchmark the solutions presented here with timeit.
Input sizes
Small sized datasize - 1:10:100
Medium sized datasize - 50:50:1000
Large sized datasize - 500:500:4000
Varying % of zeros
~10% of zeros case - A = round(rand(N)*5);
~50% of zeros case - A = rand(N);A(A<=0.5)=0;
~90% of zeros case - A = rand(N);A(A<=0.9)=0;
The results are shown next -
1) Small Datasizes
2. Medium Datasizes
3. Large Datasizes
Observations
If you look closely into the NNZ and SUM performance plots for medium and large datasizes, you would notice that their performances get closer to each other for 10% and 90% zeros cases. For 50% zeros case, the performance gap between SUM and NNZ methods is comparatively wider.
As a general observation across all datasizes and all three fraction cases of zeros,
SUM method seems to be the undisputed winner. Again, an interesting thing was observed here that the general case solution sum(A(:)==0) seems to be better in performance than sum(~A(:)).
some basic matlab to know: the (:) operator will flatten any matrix into a column vector , ~ is the NOT operator flipping zeros to ones and non zero values to zero, then we just use sum:
sum(~A(:))
This should be also about 10 times faster than the length(find... scheme, in case efficiency is important.
Edit: in the case of NaN values you can resort to the solution:
sum(A(:)==0)
I'll add something to the mix as well. You can use histc and compute the histogram of the entire matrix. You specify the second parameter to be which bins the numbers should be collected at. If we just want to count the number of zeroes, we can simply specify 0 as the second parameter. However, if you specify a matrix into histc, it will operate along the columns but we want to operate on the entire matrix. As such, simply transform the matrix into a column vector A(:) and use histc. In other words, do this:
histc(A(:), 0)
This should be equivalent to counting the number of zeroes in the entire matrix A.
Well I don't know if I'm answering well the question but you could code it as follows :
% Random Matrix
M = [1 0 4 8 0 6;
0 0 7 4 8 0;
8 7 4 0 6 0];
n = size(M,1); % Number of lines of M
p = size(M,2); % Number of columns of M
nbrOfZeros = 0; % counter
for i=1:n
for j=1:p
if M(i,j) == 0
nbrOfZeros = nbrOfZeros + 1;
end
end
end
nbrOfZeros
Related
Here is an example of convolution given:
I have two questions here:
Why is the vector 𝑥 padded with two 0s on each side? As, the length of kernel ℎ is 3. If 𝑥 is padded with one 0 on each side, the middle element of convolution output would be within the range of the length of 𝑥, why not one 0 on each side?
Explain the following output to me:
>> x = [1, 2, 1, 3];
>> h = [2, 0, 1];
>> y = conv(x, h, 'valid')
y =
3 8
>>
What is valid doing here in the context of the previously shown mathematics on vectors 𝑥 and ℎ?
I can't speak as to the amount of zero padding that is proper .... That being said, any zero padding is making up data that is not there. This isn't necessarily wrong, but you should be aware that the values computing this information may be biased. Sometimes you care about this, sometimes you don't. Introducing 1 zero (in this case) would leave the middle kernel value always in the data, but why should that be a stopping criteria? Importantly, adding on 2 zeros still leaves one multiplication of values that are actually present in the data and the kernel (the x[0]*h[0] and x[3]*h[2] - using 0 based indexing). Adding on a 3rd zero (or more) would just yield zeros in the output since 3 is the length of the kernel. In other words zero padding will always yield an output that is partially based on the actual data (but not completely) for any zero padding from n=1 to n = length(h)-1 (in this case either 1 or 2).
Even though zero padding with length 2 or 1 still has multiplications based on real data, some values are summed over "fake" data (those multiplied with a padded zero). In this case Matlab gives you 3 options for how you want the data returned. First, you can get the full convolution, which includes values that are biased because they include adding in 0 values that aren't really in the data. Alternatively you can get same, which means the length of the output is the length of the data y = [4 3 8 1]. This corresponds to 1 zero but note that for longer kernels you could technically get other lengths between full and same, Matlab just doesn't return those for you.
Finally, and probably most important to understand out of all this, you have the valid option. In your example only 2 samples of the output are computed from summations that occur only from multiplications over real data (i.e. from multiplying samples of the kernel with samples from x and not from zeros). More specifically:
y[2] = h[2]*x[0] + h[1]*x[1] + h[2]*x[2] = 3 //0 based indexing like example
y[3] = h[2]*x[1] + h[1]*x[2] + h[2]*x[3] = 8
Note none of the other y values are computed with only h and x, they all involve a padded zero which is not necessarily indicative of the real data. For example:
y[4] = h[2]*x[2] + h[1]*x[3] + h[2]*0 <= padded zero
I am doing a Monte-Carlo simulation, where each repetition requires the sum or product of a random number of random variables. My problem is how to do this efficiently as the entire simulation should be as vectorized as possible.
For example, say we want to take the sum of 5, 10 and 3 random numbers, represented by the vector len = [5;10;3]. Then what I am currently doing is drawing a full matrix of random numbers:
A = randn(length(len),max(len));
Creating a mask of the non-needed numbers:
lenlen = repmat(len,1,max(len));
idx = repmat(1:max(len),length(len),1);
mask = idx>lenlen;
and then I can "pad", the matrix as I am interested in the sum the padding have to be zero (for the case with the product the padding had to be 1)
A(mask)=0;
To obtain:
A =
1.7708 -1.4609 -1.5637 -0.0340 0.9796 0 0 0 0 0
1.8034 -1.5467 0.3938 0.8777 0.6813 1.0594 -0.3469 1.7472 -0.4697 -0.3635
1.5937 -0.1170 1.5629 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Whereafter I can sum them together
B = sum(A,2);
However, I find it rather superfluous that I have to draw too many random numbers and then throw them away. In the real case, I need in the range of hundred thousands of repetitions and the vector len might vary a lot, i.e. it can easily be that I have to draw twice or three times the number of random numbers than of what is needed.
You can generate the exact amount of random numbers required, create a grouping variable with repelem, and compute the sum of each group using accumarray:
len = [5; 10; 3];
B = accumarray(repelem(1:numel(len), len).', randn(sum(len),1));
You could just use arrayfun or a loop. You say "efficient" and "vectorized" in the same breath, but they are not necessarily the same thing - since the new(ish) JIT compiler, loops are pretty fast in MATLAB. arrayfun is basically a loop in disguise, but means you could create B like so:
len = [5;10;3];
B = arrayfun( #(x) sum( randn(x,1) ), len );
For each element in len, this creates a vector of length len(i) and takes the sum. The output is an array with one value for each value in len.
This will certainly be a lot more memory friendly for large values and largely different values within len. It may therefore be quicker, your mileage may vary but it cuts out a lot of the operations you're doing.
You mention wanting to take the product sometimes, in which case use prod in place of sum.
Edit: rough and ready benchmark to compare arrayfun and a loop...
len = randi([1e3, 1e7], 100, 1);
tic;
B = arrayfun( #(x) sum( randn(x,1) ), len );
toc % ~8.77 seconds
tic;
out=zeros(size(len));
for ii = 1:numel(len)
out(ii) = sum(randn(len(ii),1));
end
toc % ~8.80 seconds
The "advantage" of the loop over arrayfun is you can pre-generate all of the random numbers in one go, then index. This isn't necesarryily quicker because you're addressing much bigger chunks of memory, and the call to randn is the main bottleneck anyway!
tic;
out = zeros(size(len));
rnd = randn(sum(len),1);
idx = [0; cumsum(len)]; % note: cumsum is very quick (~0.001sec here) so negligible
for ii = 1:numel(len)
out(ii) = sum(rnd(idx(ii)+1:idx(ii+1)),1);
end
toc % ~10.2 sec! Slower because of massive call to randn and the indexing into large array.
As stated at the top, arrayfun and looping are basically the same under the hood, so no reason to expect a big time difference.
The sum of multiple random numbers drawn from a specific distribution is also a random number with a (different) specific distribution. Therefore you can just cut the middleman and draw directly from the latter distribution.
In your case you are summing 3, 10 and 5 numbers drawn from a N(0,1) distribution. As explained here, the resulting distributions therefore are N(0,3), N(0,10) and N(0,5). This page explains how you can draw from non-standard normal distributions in Matlab. As such, we can in this case generate those numbers with randn(3,1).*sqrt([5; 10; 3]).
In case you would want 1000 triples, you could then use
randn(3,1000).*sqrt([5; 10; 3])
or pre Matlab2016b
bsxfun(#times, randn(3,1000), sqrt([5; 10; 3]))
which is of course very fast.
Different distributions have different summation rules, but as long as you are not summing up numbers drawn from different distributions the rules are usually quite simple and found quickly with google.
You can do this using a combination of cumsum and diff. The plan is:
Create all the random numbers in a single call to randn up front
Then, use cumsum to produce a vector of cumulative summations
Use cumsum on the list of number-of-samples-per-result to work out where to read out the results
We also need diff to correct for the prior summations.
Note that this method might lose accuracy if you weren't using randn for the random samples, as cumsum would then build up arithmetic rounding errors.
% We want 100 sums of random numbers
numSamples = 100;
% Here's where we define how many random samples contribute to each sum
numRandsPerSample = randi(5, 1, numSamples);
% Let's make all the random numbers in one call
allRands = randn(1, sum(numRandsPerSample));
% Use CUMSUM to build up a cumulative sum of the whole of allRands. We also
% need a leading 0 for the first sum.
allRandsCS = [0, cumsum(allRands)];
% Use CUMSUM again to pick out the places we need to pick from
% allRandsCS
endIdxs = 1 + [0, cumsum(numRandsPerSample)];
% Use DIFF to subtract the prior sums from the result.
result = diff(allRandsCS(endIdxs))
I'm trying to insert multiple values into an array using a 'values' array and a 'counter' array. For example, if:
a=[1,3,2,5]
b=[2,2,1,3]
I want the output of some function
c=somefunction(a,b)
to be
c=[1,1,3,3,2,5,5,5]
Where a(1) recurs b(1) number of times, a(2) recurs b(2) times, etc...
Is there a built-in function in MATLAB that does this? I'd like to avoid using a for loop if possible. I've tried variations of 'repmat()' and 'kron()' to no avail.
This is basically Run-length encoding.
Problem Statement
We have an array of values, vals and runlengths, runlens:
vals = [1,3,2,5]
runlens = [2,2,1,3]
We are needed to repeat each element in vals times each corresponding element in runlens. Thus, the final output would be:
output = [1,1,3,3,2,5,5,5]
Prospective Approach
One of the fastest tools with MATLAB is cumsum and is very useful when dealing with vectorizing problems that work on irregular patterns. In the stated problem, the irregularity comes with the different elements in runlens.
Now, to exploit cumsum, we need to do two things here: Initialize an array of zeros and place "appropriate" values at "key" positions over the zeros array, such that after "cumsum" is applied, we would end up with a final array of repeated vals of runlens times.
Steps: Let's number the above mentioned steps to give the prospective approach an easier perspective:
1) Initialize zeros array: What must be the length? Since we are repeating runlens times, the length of the zeros array must be the summation of all runlens.
2) Find key positions/indices: Now these key positions are places along the zeros array where each element from vals start to repeat.
Thus, for runlens = [2,2,1,3], the key positions mapped onto the zeros array would be:
[X 0 X 0 X X 0 0] % where X's are those key positions.
3) Find appropriate values: The final nail to be hammered before using cumsum would be to put "appropriate" values into those key positions. Now, since we would be doing cumsum soon after, if you think closely, you would need a differentiated version of values with diff, so that cumsum on those would bring back our values. Since these differentiated values would be placed on a zeros array at places separated by the runlens distances, after using cumsum we would have each vals element repeated runlens times as the final output.
Solution Code
Here's the implementation stitching up all the above mentioned steps -
% Calculate cumsumed values of runLengths.
% We would need this to initialize zeros array and find key positions later on.
clens = cumsum(runlens)
% Initalize zeros array
array = zeros(1,(clens(end)))
% Find key positions/indices
key_pos = [1 clens(1:end-1)+1]
% Find appropriate values
app_vals = diff([0 vals])
% Map app_values at key_pos on array
array(pos) = app_vals
% cumsum array for final output
output = cumsum(array)
Pre-allocation Hack
As could be seen that the above listed code uses pre-allocation with zeros. Now, according to this UNDOCUMENTED MATLAB blog on faster pre-allocation, one can achieve much faster pre-allocation with -
array(clens(end)) = 0; % instead of array = zeros(1,(clens(end)))
Wrapping up: Function Code
To wrap up everything, we would have a compact function code to achieve this run-length decoding like so -
function out = rle_cumsum_diff(vals,runlens)
clens = cumsum(runlens);
idx(clens(end))=0;
idx([1 clens(1:end-1)+1]) = diff([0 vals]);
out = cumsum(idx);
return;
Benchmarking
Benchmarking Code
Listed next is the benchmarking code to compare runtimes and speedups for the stated cumsum+diff approach in this post over the other cumsum-only based approach on MATLAB 2014B-
datasizes = [reshape(linspace(10,70,4).'*10.^(0:4),1,[]) 10^6 2*10^6]; %
fcns = {'rld_cumsum','rld_cumsum_diff'}; % approaches to be benchmarked
for k1 = 1:numel(datasizes)
n = datasizes(k1); % Create random inputs
vals = randi(200,1,n);
runs = [5000 randi(200,1,n-1)]; % 5000 acts as an aberration
for k2 = 1:numel(fcns) % Time approaches
tsec(k2,k1) = timeit(#() feval(fcns{k2}, vals,runs), 1);
end
end
figure, % Plot runtimes
loglog(datasizes,tsec(1,:),'-bo'), hold on
loglog(datasizes,tsec(2,:),'-k+')
set(gca,'xgrid','on'),set(gca,'ygrid','on'),
xlabel('Datasize ->'), ylabel('Runtimes (s)')
legend(upper(strrep(fcns,'_',' '))),title('Runtime Plot')
figure, % Plot speedups
semilogx(datasizes,tsec(1,:)./tsec(2,:),'-rx')
set(gca,'ygrid','on'), xlabel('Datasize ->')
legend('Speedup(x) with cumsum+diff over cumsum-only'),title('Speedup Plot')
Associated function code for rld_cumsum.m:
function out = rld_cumsum(vals,runlens)
index = zeros(1,sum(runlens));
index([1 cumsum(runlens(1:end-1))+1]) = 1;
out = vals(cumsum(index));
return;
Runtime and Speedup Plots
Conclusions
The proposed approach seems to be giving us a noticeable speedup over the cumsum-only approach, which is about 3x!
Why is this new cumsum+diff based approach better than the previous cumsum-only approach?
Well, the essence of the reason lies at the final step of the cumsum-only approach that needs to map the "cumsumed" values into vals. In the new cumsum+diff based approach, we are doing diff(vals) instead for which MATLAB is processing only n elements (where n is the number of runLengths) as compared to the mapping of sum(runLengths) number of elements for the cumsum-only approach and this number must be many times more than n and therefore the noticeable speedup with this new approach!
Benchmarks
Updated for R2015b: repelem now fastest for all data sizes.
Tested functions:
MATLAB's built-in repelem function that was added in R2015a
gnovice's cumsum solution (rld_cumsum)
Divakar's cumsum+diff solution (rld_cumsum_diff)
knedlsepp's accumarray solution (knedlsepp5cumsumaccumarray) from this post
Naive loop-based implementation (naive_jit_test.m) to test the just-in-time compiler
Results of test_rld.m on R2015b:
Old timing plot using R2015a here.
Findings:
repelem is always the fastest by roughly a factor of 2.
rld_cumsum_diff is consistently faster than rld_cumsum.
repelem is fastest for small data sizes (less than about 300-500 elements)
rld_cumsum_diff becomes significantly faster than repelem around 5 000 elements
repelem becomes slower than rld_cumsum somewhere between 30 000 and 300 000 elements
rld_cumsum has roughly the same performance as knedlsepp5cumsumaccumarray
naive_jit_test.m has nearly constant speed and on par with rld_cumsum and knedlsepp5cumsumaccumarray for smaller sizes, a little faster for large sizes
Old rate plot using R2015a here.
Conclusion
Use repelem below about 5 000 elements and the cumsum+diff solution above.
There's no built-in function I know of, but here's one solution:
index = zeros(1,sum(b));
index([1 cumsum(b(1:end-1))+1]) = 1;
c = a(cumsum(index));
Explanation:
A vector of zeroes is first created of the same length as the output array (i.e. the sum of all the replications in b). Ones are then placed in the first element and each subsequent element representing where the start of a new sequence of values will be in the output. The cumulative sum of the vector index can then be used to index into a, replicating each value the desired number of times.
For the sake of clarity, this is what the various vectors look like for the values of a and b given in the question:
index = [1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0]
cumsum(index) = [1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4]
c = [1 1 3 3 2 5 5 5]
EDIT: For the sake of completeness, there is another alternative using ARRAYFUN, but this seems to take anywhere from 20-100 times longer to run than the above solution with vectors up to 10,000 elements long:
c = arrayfun(#(x,y) x.*ones(1,y),a,b,'UniformOutput',false);
c = [c{:}];
There is finally (as of R2015a) a built-in and documented function to do this, repelem. The following syntax, where the second argument is a vector, is relevant here:
W = repelem(V,N), with vector V and vector N, creates a vector W where element V(i) is repeated N(i) times.
Or put another way, "Each element of N specifies the number of times to repeat the corresponding element of V."
Example:
>> a=[1,3,2,5]
a =
1 3 2 5
>> b=[2,2,1,3]
b =
2 2 1 3
>> repelem(a,b)
ans =
1 1 3 3 2 5 5 5
The performance problems in MATLAB's built-in repelem have been fixed as of R2015b. I have run the test_rld.m program from chappjc's post in R2015b, and repelem is now faster than other algorithms by about a factor 2:
In MATLAB have a large matrix with transition probabilities transition_probs, and an adjacency matrix adj_mat. I want to compute the cumulative sum of the transition matrix along the columns and then element wise multiply it against the adjacency matrix which acts as a mask in this way:
cumsumTransitionMat = cumsum(transition_probs,2) .* adj_mat;
I get a MEMORY error because with the cumsum all the entries of the matrix are then non-zero.
I would like to avoid this problem by only having the cumulative sum entries where there are non zero entries in the first place. How can this be done without the use of a for loop?
when CUMSUM is applied on rows, for each row it will go and fill with values starting with the first nonzero column it finds up until the last column, thats what it does by definition.
The worst case in terms of storage is when the sparse matrix contains values at the first column, the best case is when all nonzero values occur at the last column. Example:
% worst case
>> M = sparse([ones(5,1) zeros(5,4)]);
>> MM = cumsum(M,2); % completely dense matrix
>> nnz(MM)
ans =
25
% best case
>> MM = cumsum(fliplr(M),2);
If the resulting matrix does not fit in memory, I dont see what else you can do, except maybe use a for-loop over the rows, and process the matrix is smaller batches...
Note that you cannot apply the masking operation before computing the cumulative sum, since this will alter the results. So you cant say cumsum(transition_probs .* adj_mat, 2).
You can apply cumsum on the non-zero elements only. Here is some code:
A = sparse(round(rand(100,1))); %some sparse data
A_cum = A; %instantiate A_cum by copy A
idx_A = find(A); %find non-zeros
A_cum(idx_A) = cumsum(A(idx_A)); %cumsum on non-zeros elements only
You can check the output with
B = cumsum(A);
A_cum B
1 1
0 1
0 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
0 5
0 5
6 6
and isequal(A_cum(find(A_cum)), B(find(A_cum))) gives 1.
I am using 64 bit matlab with 32g of RAM (just so you know).
I have a file (vector) of 1.3 million numbers (integers). I want to make another vector of the same length, where each point is a weighted average of the entire first vector, weighted by the inverse distance from that position (actually it's position ^-0.1, not ^-1, but for example purposes). I can't use matlab's 'filter' function, because it can only average things before the current point, right? To explain more clearly, here's an example of 3 elements
data = [ 2 6 9 ]
weights = [ 1 1/2 1/3; 1/2 1 1/2; 1/3 1/2 1 ]
results=data*weights= [ 8 11.5 12.666 ]
i.e.
8 = 2*1 + 6*1/2 + 9*1/3
11.5 = 2*1/2 + 6*1 + 9*1/2
12.666 = 2*1/3 + 6*1/2 + 9*1
So each point in the new vector is the weighted average of the entire first vector, weighting by 1/(distance from that position+1).
I could just remake the weight vector for each point, then calculate the results vector element by element, but this requires 1.3 million iterations of a for loop, each of which contains 1.3million multiplications. I would rather use straight matrix multiplication, multiplying a 1x1.3mil by a 1.3milx1.3mil, which works in theory, but I can't load a matrix that large.
I am then trying to make the matrix using a shell script and index it in matlab so only the relevant column of the matrix is called at a time, but that is also taking a very long time.
I don't have to do this in matlab, so any advice people have about utilizing such large numbers and getting averages would be appreciated. Since I am using a weight of ^-0.1, and not ^-1, it does not drop off that fast - the millionth point is still weighted at 0.25 compared to the original points weighting of 1, so I can't just cut it off as it gets big either.
Hope this was clear enough?
Here is the code for the answer below (so it can be formatted?):
data = load('/Users/mmanary/Documents/test/insertion.txt');
data=data.';
total=length(data);
x=1:total;
datapad=[zeros(1,total) data];
weights = ([(total+1):-1:2 1:total]).^(-.4);
weights = weights/sum(weights);
Fdata = fft(datapad);
Fweights = fft(weights);
Fresults = Fdata .* Fweights;
results = ifft(Fresults);
results = results(1:total);
plot(x,results)
The only sensible way to do this is with FFT convolution, as underpins the filter function and similar. It is very easy to do manually:
% Simulate some data
n = 10^6;
x = randi(10,1,n);
xpad = [zeros(1,n) x];
% Setup smoothing kernel
k = 1 ./ [(n+1):-1:2 1:n];
% FFT convolution
Fx = fft(xpad);
Fk = fft(k);
Fxk = Fx .* Fk;
xk = ifft(Fxk);
xk = xk(1:n);
Takes less than half a second for n=10^6!
This is probably not the best way to do it, but with lots of memory you could definitely parallelize the process.
You can construct sparse matrices consisting of entries of your original matrix which have value i^(-1) (where i = 1 .. 1.3 million), multiply them with your original vector, and sum all the results together.
So for your example the product would be essentially:
a = rand(3,1);
b1 = [1 0 0;
0 1 0;
0 0 1];
b2 = [0 1 0;
1 0 1;
0 1 0] / 2;
b3 = [0 0 1;
0 0 0;
1 0 0] / 3;
c = sparse(b1) * a + sparse(b2) * a + sparse(b3) * a;
Of course, you wouldn't construct the sparse matrices this way. If you wanted to have less iterations of the inside loop, you could have more than one of the i's in each matrix.
Look into the parfor loop in MATLAB: http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/distcomp/parfor.html
I can't use matlab's 'filter' function, because it can only average
things before the current point, right?
That is not correct. You can always add samples (i.e, adding or removing zeros) from your data or from the filtered data. Since filtering with filter (you can also use conv by the way) is a linear action, it won't change the result (it's like adding and removing zeros, which does nothing, and then filtering. Then linearity allows you to swap the order to add samples -> filter -> remove sample).
Anyway, in your example, you can take the averaging kernel to be:
weights = 1 ./ [3 2 1 2 3]; % this kernel introduces a delay of 2 samples
and then simply:
result = filter(w,1,[data, zeros(1,3)]); % or conv (data, w)
% removing the delay introduced by the kernel
result = result (3:end-1);
You considered only 2 options:
Multiplying 1.3M*1.3M matrix with a vector once or multiplying 2 1.3M vectors 1.3M times.
But you can divide your weight matrix to as many sub-matrices as you wish and do a multiplication of n*1.3M matrix with the vector 1.3M/n times.
I assume that the fastest will be when there will be the smallest number of iterations and n is such that creates the largest sub-matrix that fits in your memory, without making your computer start swapping pages to your hard drive.
with your memory size you should start with n=5000.
you can also make it faster by using parfor (with n divided by the number of processors).
The brute force way will probably work for you, with one minor optimisation in the mix.
The ^-0.1 operations to create the weights will take a lot longer than the + and * operations to compute the weighted-means, but you re-use the weights across all the million weighted-mean operations. The algorithm becomes:
Create a weightings vector with all the weights any computation would need:
weights = (-n:n).^-0.1
For each element in the vector:
Index the relevent portion of the weights vector to consider the current element as the 'centre'.
Perform the weighted-mean with the weights portion and the entire vector. This can be done with a fast vector dot-multiply followed by a scalar division.
The main loop does n^2 additions and subractions. With n equal to 1.3 million that's 3.4 trillion operations. A single core of a modern 3GHz CPU can do say 6 billion additions/multiplications a second, so that comes out to around 10 minutes. Add time for indexing the weights vector and overheads, and I still estimate you could come in under half an hour.