Related
I'd like to create an anonymous function that does something like this:
n = 5;
x = linspace(-4,4,1000);
f = #(x,a,b,n) a(1)*exp(b(1)^2*x.^2) + a(2)*exp(b(2)^2*x.^2) + ... a(n)*exp(b(n)^2*x.^2);
I can do this as such, without passing explicit parameter n:
f1 = #(x,a,b) a(1)*exp(-b(1)^2*x.^2);
for j = 2:n
f1 = #(x,a,b) f1(x,a,b) + a(j)*exp(b(j)^2*x.^2);
end
but it seems, well, kind of hacky. Does someone have a better solution for this? I'd like to know how someone else would treat this.
Your hacky solution is definitely not the best, as recursive function calls in MATLAB are not very efficient, and you can quickly run into the maximum recursion depth (500 by default).
You can introduce a new dimension along which you can sum up your arrays a and b. Assuming that x, a and b are row vectors:
f = #(x,a,b,n) a(1:n)*exp((b(1:n).^2).'*x.^2)
This will use the first dimension as summing dimension: (b(1:n).^2).' is a column vector, which produces a matrix when multiplied by x (this is a dyadic product, to be precise). The resulting n * length(x) matrix can be multiplied by a(1:n), since the latter is a matrix of size [1,n]. This vector-matrix product will also perform the summation for us.
Mini-proof:
n = 5;
x = linspace(-4,4,1000);
a = rand(1,10);
b = rand(1,10);
y = 0;
for k=1:n
y = y + a(k)*exp(b(k)^2*x.^2);
end
y2 = a(1:n)*exp((b(1:n).^2).'*x.^2); %'
all(abs(y-y2))<1e-10
The last command returns 1, so the two are essentially identical.
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'm fairly new to MATLAB. Normal matrix multiplication of a M x K matrix by an K x N matrix -- C = A * B -- has c_ij = sum(a_ik * b_kj, k = 1:K). What if I want this to be instead c_ij = sum(op(a_ik, b_kj), k = 1:K) for some simple binary operation op? Is there any nice way to vectorize this in MATLAB (or maybe even a built-in function)?
EDIT: This is currently the best I can do.
% A is M x K, B is K x N
% op is min
C = zeros(M, N);
for i = 1:M:
C(i, :) = sum(bsxfun(#min, A(i, :)', B));
end
Listed in this post is a vectorized approach that persists with bsxfun by using permute to create singleton dimensions as needed by bsxfun to let the singleton-expansion do its work and thus essentially replacing the loop in the original post. Please be reminded that bsxfun is a memory hungry implementation, so expect speedup with it only until it is stretched too far. Here's the final solution code -
op = #min; %// Edit this with your own function/ operation
C = sum(bsxfun(op, permute(A,[1 3 2]),permute(B,[3 2 1])),3)
NB - The above solution was inspired by Removing four nested loops in Matlab.
if the operator can operate element-by-element (like .*):
if(size(A,2)~=size(B,1))
error(blah, blah, blah...);
end
C = zeros(size(A,1),size(B,2));
for i = 1:size(A,1)
for j = 1:size(B,2)
C(i,j) = sum(binaryOp(A(i,:)',B(:,j)));
end
end
You can always write the loops yourself:
A = rand(2,3);
B = rand(3,4);
op = #times; %# use your own function here
C = zeros(size(A,1),size(B,2));
for i=1:size(A,1)
for j=1:size(B,2)
for k=1:size(A,2)
C(i,j) = C(i,j) + op(A(i,k),B(k,j));
end
end
end
isequal(C,A*B)
Depending on your specific needs, you may be able to use bsxfun in 3D to trick the binary operator. See this answer for more infos: https://stackoverflow.com/a/23808285/1121352
Another alternative would be to use cellfun with a custom function:
http://matlabgeeks.com/tips-tutorials/computation-using-cellfun/
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