I want to create a 2D numpy array of size (N_r * N_z).
Across columns, the elements for 1 specific column (say j) shall be created based on the value r_thresh[j].
So 1 column (say j) out of the total of N_z columns in the numpy 2D array is created as:
(np.arange(N_r) + 0.5) * r_thresh[j] # this gives an array of size (1, N_r)
Of course, the column j + 1 shall be created as:
(np.arange(N_r) + 0.5) * r_thresh[j+1] # this gives an array of size (1, N_r)
r_thresh is a numpy array of size (1, N_z), already populated with values before I want to create the 2D array.
I want to ask you how do I go further and use this ''rule'' of creating each element of the numpy 2D array and actually create the whole array, in the most efficient way possible (speed-wise).
I initially wrote all the code using 2 nested for loops and plain python lists and the code worked, but took forever to run.
More experienced programmers told me to avoid for loops and use numpy because it's the best.
I now understand how to create 1D arrays using numpy np.arange() instruction, but I lack the knowledge on how to extrapolate this to 2 Dimensions.
Thanks!
The easiest way is to use einsum. In the case of r_thresh with the shape of (N_z,), you can use this code:
res = np.einsum("i,j->ij", np.arange(N_r) + 0.5, r_thresh)
Also, you can reshape np.arange(N_r) + 0.5 to the shape (N_r,1) and r_thresh to the shape (1,N_z). Thus, you can use the dot product (for Python version > 3.5):
res = (np.arange(N_r) + 0.5).reshape(N_r,1) # r_thresh.reshape(1,N_z)
or following to the comment of hpaulj:
res = (np.arange(N_r) + 0.5)[:,None] # r_thresh[None,:]
EDIT1
The comment of hpaulj is also very helpful (I pasted this into my answer to see better):
res = (np.arange(N_r) + 0.5)[:,None] * r_thresh
res = np.outer(np.arange(N_r) + 0.5, r_thresh)
IN ADDITION
You can also use tensordot:
res = np.tensordot((np.arange(N_r) + 0.5)[:,None], r_thresh[:,None], axes=[[-1],[-1]])
Related
I wrote the following function, which takes as inputs three 1D array (namely int_array, x, and y) and a number lim. The output is a number as well.
def integrate_to_lim(int_array, x, y, lim):
if lim >= np.max(x):
res = 0.0
if lim <= np.min(x):
res = int_array[0]
else:
index = np.argmax(x > lim) # To find the first element of x larger than lim
partial = int_array[index]
slope = (y[index-1] - y[index]) / (x[index-1] - x[index])
rest = (x[index] - lim) * (y[index] + (lim - x[index]) * slope / 2.0)
res = partial + rest
return res
Basically, outside form the limit cases lim>=np.max(x) and lim<=np.min(x), the idea is that the function finds the index of the first value of the array x larger than lim and then uses it to make some simple calculations.
In my case, however lim can also be a fairly big 2D array (shape ~2000 times ~1000 elements)
I would like to rewrite it such that it makes the same calculations for the case that lim is a 2D array.
Obviously, the output should also be a 2D array of the same shape of lim.
I am having a real struggle figuring out how to vectorize it.
I would like to stick only to the numpy package.
PS I want to vectorize my function because efficiency is important and as I understand using for loops is not a good choice in this regard.
Edit: my attempt
I was not aware of the function np.take, which made the task way easier.
Here is my brutal attempt that seems to work (suggestions on how to clean up or to make the code faster are more than welcome).
def integrate_to_lim_vect(int_array, x, y, lim_mat):
lim_mat = np.asarray(lim_mat) # Make sure that it is an array
shape_3d = list(lim_mat.shape) + [1]
x_3d = np.ones(shape_3d) * x # 3 dimensional version of x
lim_3d = np.expand_dims(lim_mat, axis=2) * np.ones(x_3d.shape) # also 3d
# I use np.argmax on the 3d matrices (is there a simpler way?)
index_mat = np.argmax(x_3d > lim_3d, axis=2)
# Silly calculations
partial = np.take(int_array, index_mat)
y1_mat = np.take(y, index_mat)
y2_mat = np.take(y, index_mat - 1)
x1_mat = np.take(x, index_mat)
x2_mat = np.take(x, index_mat - 1)
slope = (y1_mat - y2_mat) / (x1_mat - x2_mat)
rest = (x1_mat - lim_mat) * (y1_mat + (lim_mat - x1_mat) * slope / 2.0)
res = partial + rest
# Make the cases with np.select
condlist = [lim_mat >= np.max(x), lim_mat <= np.min(x)]
choicelist = [0.0, int_array[0]] # Shoud these options be a 2d matrix?
output = np.select(condlist, choicelist, default=res)
return output
I am aware that if the limit is larger than the maximum value in the array np.argmax returns the index zero (leading to wrong results). This is why I used np.select to check and correct for these cases.
Is it necessary to define the three dimensional matrices x_3d and lim_3d, or there is a simpler way to find the 2D matrix of the indices index_mat?
Suggestions, especially to improve the way I expanded the dimension of the arrays, are welcome.
I think you can solve this using two tricks. First, a 2d array can be easily flattened to a 1d array, and then your answers can be converted back into a 2d array with reshape.
Next, your use of argmax suggests that your array is sorted. Then you can find your full set of indices using digitize. Thus instead of a single index, you will get a complete array of indices. All the calculations you are doing are intrinsically supported as array operations in numpy, so that should not cause any problems.
You will have to specifically look at the limiting cases. If those are rare enough, then it might be okay to let the answers be derived by the default formula (they will be garbage values), and then replace them with the actual values you desire.
Currently, I have a 4d array, say,
arr = np.arange(48).reshape((2,2,3,4))
I want to apply a function that takes a 2d array as input to each 2d array sliced from arr. I have searched and read this question, which is exactly what I want.
The function I'm using is im2col_sliding_broadcasting() which I get from here. It takes a 2d array and list of 2 elements as input and returns a 2d array. In my case: it takes 3x4 2d array and a list [2, 2] and returns 4x6 2d array.
I considered using apply_along_axis() but as said it only accepts 1d function as parameter. I can't apply im2col function this way.
I want an output that has the shape as 2x2x4x6. Surely I can achieve this with for loop, but I heard that it's too time expensive:
import numpy as np
def im2col_sliding_broadcasting(A, BSZ, stepsize=1):
# source: https://stackoverflow.com/a/30110497/10666066
# Parameters
M, N = A.shape
col_extent = N - BSZ[1] + 1
row_extent = M - BSZ[0] + 1
# Get Starting block indices
start_idx = np.arange(BSZ[0])[:, None]*N + np.arange(BSZ[1])
# Get offsetted indices across the height and width of input array
offset_idx = np.arange(row_extent)[:, None]*N + np.arange(col_extent)
# Get all actual indices & index into input array for final output
return np.take(A, start_idx.ravel()[:, None] + offset_idx.ravel()[::stepsize])
arr = np.arange(48).reshape((2,2,3,4))
output = np.empty([2,2,4,6])
for i in range(2):
for j in range(2):
temp = im2col_sliding_broadcasting(arr[i, j], [2,2])
output[i, j] = temp
Since my arr in fact is a 10000x3x64x64 array. So my question is: Is there another way to do this more efficiently ?
We can leverage np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided based scikit-image's view_as_windows to get sliding windows. More info on use of as_strided based view_as_windows.
from skimage.util.shape import view_as_windows
W1,W2 = 2,2 # window size
# create sliding windows along last two axes1
w = view_as_windows(arr,(1,1,W1,W2))[...,0,0,:,:]
# Merge the window axes (tha last two axes) and
# merge the axes along which those windows were created (3rd and 4th axes)
outshp = arr.shape[:-2] + (W1*W2,) + ((arr.shape[-2]-W1+1)*(arr.shape[-1]-W2+1),)
out = w.transpose(0,1,4,5,2,3).reshape(outshp)
The last step forces a copy. So, skip it if possible.
I am trying to vectorize an operation using numpy, which I use in a python script that I have profiled, and found this operation to be the bottleneck and so needs to be optimized since I will run it many times.
The operation is on a data set of two parts. First, a large set (n) of 1D vectors of different lengths (with maximum length, Lmax) whose elements are integers from 1 to maxvalue. The set of vectors is arranged in a 2D array, data, of size (num_samples,Lmax) with trailing elements in each row zeroed. The second part is a set of scalar floats, one associated with each vector, that I have a computed and which depend on its length and the integer-value at each position. The set of scalars is made into a 1D array, Y, of size num_samples.
The desired operation is to form the average of Y over the n samples, as a function of (value,position along length,length).
This entire operation can be vectorized in matlab with use of the accumarray function: by using 3 2D arrays of the same size as data, whose elements are the corresponding value, position, and length indices of the desired final array:
sz_Y = num_samples;
sz_len = Lmax
sz_pos = Lmax
sz_val = maxvalue
ind_len = repmat( 1:sz_len ,1 ,sz_samples);
ind_pos = repmat( 1:sz_pos ,sz_samples,1 );
ind_val = data
ind_Y = repmat((1:sz_Y)',1 ,Lmax );
copiedY=Y(ind_Y);
mask = data>0;
finalarr=accumarray({ind_val(mask),ind_pos(mask),ind_len(mask)},copiedY(mask), [sz_val sz_pos sz_len])/sz_val;
I was hoping to emulate this implementation with np.bincounts. However, np.bincounts differs to accumarray in two relevant ways:
both arguments must be of same 1D size, and
there is no option to choose the shape of the output array.
In the above usage of accumarray, the list of indices, {ind_val(mask),ind_pos(mask),ind_len(mask)}, is 1D cell array of 1x3 arrays used as index tuples, while in np.bincounts it must be 1D scalars as far as I understand. I expect np.ravel may be useful but am not sure how to use it here to do what I want. I am coming to python from matlab and some things do not translate directly, e.g. the colon operator which ravels in opposite order to ravel. So my question is how might I use np.bincount or any other numpy method to achieve an efficient python implementation of this operation.
EDIT: To avoid wasting time: for these multiD index problems with complicated index manipulation, is the recommend route to just use cython to implement the loops explicity?
EDIT2: Alternative Python implementation I just came up with.
Here is a heavy ram solution:
First precalculate:
Using index units for length (i.e., length 1 =0) make a 4D bool array, size (num_samples,Lmax+1,Lmax+1,maxvalue) , holding where the conditions are satisfied for each value in Y.
ALLcond=np.zeros((num_samples,Lmax+1,Lmax+1,maxvalue+1),dtype='bool')
for l in range(Lmax+1):
for i in range(Lmax+1):
for v in range(maxvalue+!):
ALLcond[:,l,i,v]=(data[:,i]==v) & (Lvec==l)`
Where Lvec=[len(row) for row in data]. Then get the indices for these using np.where and initialize a 4D float array into which you will assign the values of Y:
[indY,ind_len,ind_pos,ind_val]=np.where(ALLcond)
Yval=np.zeros(np.shape(ALLcond),dtype='float')
Now in the loop in which I have to perform the operation, I compute it with the two lines:
Yval[ind_Y,ind_len,ind_pos,ind_val]=Y[ind_Y]
Y_avg=sum(Yval)/num_samples
This gives a factor of 4 or so speed up over the direct loop implementation. I was expecting more. Perhaps, this is a more tangible implementation for Python heads to digest. Any faster suggestions are welcome :)
One way is to convert the 3 "indices" to a linear index and then apply bincount. Numpy's ravel_multi_index is essentially the same as MATLAB's sub2ind. So the ported code could be something like:
shape = (Lmax+1, Lmax+1, maxvalue+1)
posvec = np.arange(1, Lmax+1)
ind_len = np.tile(Lvec[:,None], [1, Lmax])
ind_pos = np.tile(posvec, [n, 1])
ind_val = data
Y_copied = np.tile(Y[:,None], [1, Lmax])
mask = posvec <= Lvec[:,None] # fill-value independent
lin_idx = np.ravel_multi_index((ind_len[mask], ind_pos[mask], ind_val[mask]), shape)
Y_avg = np.bincount(lin_idx, weights=Y_copied[mask], minlength=np.prod(shape)) / n
Y_avg.shape = shape
This is assuming data has shape (n, Lmax), Lvec is Numpy array, etc. You may need to adapt the code a little to get rid of off-by-one errors.
One could argue that the tile operations are not very efficient and not very "numpythonic". Something with broadcast_arrays could be nice, but I think I prefer this way:
shape = (Lmax+1, Lmax+1, maxvalue+1)
posvec = np.arange(1, Lmax+1)
len_idx = np.repeat(Lvec, Lvec)
pos_idx = np.broadcast_to(posvec, data.shape)[mask]
val_idx = data[mask]
Y_copied = np.repeat(Y, Lvec)
mask = posvec <= Lvec[:,None] # fill-value independent
lin_idx = np.ravel_multi_index((len_idx, pos_idx, val_idx), shape)
Y_avg = np.bincount(lin_idx, weights=Y_copied, minlength=np.prod(shape)) / n
Y_avg.shape = shape
Note broadcast_to was added in Numpy 1.10.0.
I am trying to create 3D array in python using Numpy and by multiplying 2D array in to 3rd dimension. I am quite new in Numpy multidimensional arrays and basically I am missing something important here.
In this example I am trying to make 10x10x20 3D array using base 2D array(10x10) by copying it 20 times.
My starting 2D array:
a = zeros(10,10)
for i in range(0,9):
a[i+1, i] = 1
What I tried to create 3D array:
b = zeros(20)
for i in range(0,19):
b[i]=a
This approach is probably stupid. So what is correct way to approach construction of 3D arrays from base 2D arrays?
Cheers.
Edit
Well I was doing things wrongly probably because of my R background.
Here is how I did it finally
b = zeros(20*10*10)
b = b.reshape((20,10,10))
for i in b:
for m in range(0, 9):
i[m+1, m] = 1
Are there any other ways to do the same?
There are many ways how to construct multidimensional arrays.
If you want to construct a 3D array from given 2D arrays you can do something like
import numpy
# just some 2D arrays with shape (10,20)
a1 = numpy.ones((10,20))
a2 = 2* numpy.ones((10,20))
a3 = 3* numpy.ones((10,20))
# creating 3D array with shape (3,10,20)
b = numpy.array((a1,a2,a3))
Depending on the situation there are other ways which are faster. However, as long as you use built-in constructors instead of loops you are on the fast side.
For your concrete example in Edit I would use numpy.tri
c = numpy.zeros((20,10,10))
c[:] = numpy.tri(10,10,-1) - numpy.tri(10,10,-2)
Came across similar problem...
I needed to modify 2D array into 3D array like so:
(y, x) -> (y, x, 3).
Here is couple solutions for this problem.
Solution 1
Using python tool set
array_3d = numpy.zeros(list(array_2d.shape) + [3], 'f')
for z in range(3):
array_3d[:, :, z] = array_2d.copy()
Solution 2
Using numpy tool set
array_3d = numpy.stack([array_2d.copy(), ]*3, axis=2)
That is what I came up with. If someone knows numpy to give a better solution I would love to see it! This works but I suspect there is a better way performance-wise.
In NumPy, is there an easy way to broadcast two arrays of dimensions e.g. (x,y) and (x,y,z)? NumPy broadcasting typically matches dimensions from the last dimension, so usual broadcasting will not work (it would require the first array to have dimension (y,z)).
Background: I'm working with images, some of which are RGB (shape (h,w,3)) and some of which are grayscale (shape (h,w)). I generate alpha masks of shape (h,w), and I want to apply the mask to the image via mask * im. This doesn't work because of the above-mentioned problem, so I end up having to do e.g.
mask = mask.reshape(mask.shape + (1,) * (len(im.shape) - len(mask.shape)))
which is ugly. Other parts of the code do operations with vectors and matrices, which also run into the same issue: it fails trying to execute m + v where m has shape (x,y) and v has shape (x,). It's possible to use e.g. atleast_3d, but then I have to remember how many dimensions I actually wanted.
how about use transpose:
(a.T + c.T).T
numpy functions often have blocks of code that check dimensions, reshape arrays into compatible shapes, all before getting down to the core business of adding or multiplying. They may reshape the output to match the inputs. So there is nothing wrong with rolling your own that do similar manipulations.
Don't offhand dismiss the idea of rotating the variable 3 dimension to the start of the dimensions. Doing so takes advantage of the fact that numpy automatically adds dimensions at the start.
For element by element multiplication, einsum is quite powerful.
np.einsum('ij...,ij...->ij...',im,mask)
will handle cases where im and mask are any mix of 2 or 3 dimensions (assuming the 1st 2 are always compatible. Unfortunately this does not generalize to addition or other operations.
A while back I simulated einsum with a pure Python version. For that I used np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided and np.nditer. Look into those functions if you want more power in mixing and matching dimensions.
as another angle: if you encounter this pattern frequently, it may be useful to create a utility function to enforce right-broadcasting:
def right_broadcasting(arr, target):
return arr.reshape(arr.shape + (1,) * (target.ndim - arr.ndim))
Although if there are only two types of input (already having 3 dims or having only 2), id say the single if statement is preferable.
Indexing with np.newaxis creates a new axis in that place. Ie
xyz = #some 3d array
xy = #some 2d array
xyz_sum = xyz + xy[:,:,np.newaxis]
or
xyz_sum = xyz + xy[:,:,None]
Indexing in this way creates an axis with shape 1 and stride 0 in this location.
Why not just decorate-process-undecorate:
def flipflop(func):
def wrapper(a, mask):
if len(a.shape) == 3:
mask = mask[..., None]
b = func(a, mask)
return np.squeeze(b)
return wrapper
#flipflop
def f(x, mask):
return x * mask
Then
>>> N = 12
>>> gs = np.random.random((N, N))
>>> rgb = np.random.random((N, N, 3))
>>>
>>> mask = np.ones((N, N))
>>>
>>> f(gs, mask).shape
(12, 12)
>>> f(rgb, mask).shape
(12, 12, 3)
Easy, you just add a singleton dimension at the end of the smaller array. For example, if xyz_array has shape (x,y,z) and xy_array has shape (x,y), you can do
xyz_array + np.expand_dims(xy_array, xy_array.ndim)