Develop Reference

Fastest way to sum over rows of sparse matrix

I have a big csr_matrix(1M*1K) and I want to add over rows and obtain a new csr_matrix with the same number of columns but reduced number of rows. Actually my problem is exactly same as this Sum over rows in scipy.sparse.csr_matrix. The only thing is I find the accepted solution to be slow for my purpose. Let me state what I have
map_fn = np.random.randint(0, 10000, 1000000)
map_fn here tells me how my input rows(1M) are mapped into my output rows(10K). For example ith input row gets added up into map_fn[i] output row. I tried the two approaches mentioned in the above question,
namely forming a sparse matrix and using sparse sum. Although the sparse matrix approach looks way better than sparse sum approach but I find it slow for my purpose. Here is the code comparing two approaches:
import scipy.sparse
import numpy as np
import time
print "Setting up input"
s=10000
n=1000000
d=1000
density=1.0/500
X=scipy.sparse.rand(n,d,density=density,format="csr")
map_fn=np.random.randint(0, s, n)
# Approach 1
start_time=time.time()
col = scipy.arange(n)
val = np.ones(n)
S = scipy.sparse.csr_matrix( (val, (map_fn, col)), shape = (s,n))
print "Approach 1 Creation time : ",time.time()-start_time
SX = S.dot(X)
print "Approach 1 Total time : ",time.time()-start_time
#Approach 2
start_time=time.time()
SX = np.zeros((s,X.shape[1]))
for i in range(SX.shape[0]):
SX[i,:] = X[np.where(map_fn==i)[0],:].sum(axis=0)
print "Approach 2 Total time : ",time.time()-start_time
which gives following numbers:
Approach 1 Creation time : 0.187678098679
Approach 1 Total time : 0.286989927292
Approach 2 Total time : 10.208632946
So my question is this is there a better way of doing this? I find forming sparse matrix to be an overkill as it takes more than half of the time. Are there any better alternatives? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks

Starting approach
Adapting sparse solution from this post -
def sparse_matrix_mult_sparseX_mod1(X, rows):
nrows = rows.max()+1
ncols = X.shape[1]
nelem = nrows * ncols
a,b = X.nonzero()
ids = rows[a] + b*nrows
sums = np.bincount(ids, X[a,b].A1, minlength=nelem)
out = sums.reshape(ncols,-1).T
return out
Benchmarking
Original approach #1 -
def app1(X, map_fn):
col = scipy.arange(n)
val = np.ones(n)
S = scipy.sparse.csr_matrix( (val, (map_fn, col)), shape = (s,n))
SX = S.dot(X)
return SX
Timings and verification -
In [209]: # Inputs setup
...: s=10000
...: n=1000000
...: d=1000
...: density=1.0/500
...:
...: X=scipy.sparse.rand(n,d,density=density,format="csr")
...: map_fn=np.random.randint(0, s, n)
...:
In [210]: out1 = app1(X, map_fn)
...: out2 = sparse_matrix_mult_sparseX_mod1(X, map_fn)
...: print np.allclose(out1.toarray(), out2)
...:
True
In [211]: %timeit app1(X, map_fn)
1 loop, best of 3: 517 ms per loop
In [212]: %timeit sparse_matrix_mult_sparseX_mod1(X, map_fn)
10 loops, best of 3: 147 ms per loop
To be fair, we should time the final dense array version from app1 -
In [214]: %timeit app1(X, map_fn).toarray()
1 loop, best of 3: 584 ms per loop
Porting to Numba
We could translate the binned counting step to numba, which might be beneficial for denser input matrices. One of the ways to do so would be -
from numba import njit
#njit
def bincount_mod2(out, rows, r, C, V):
N = len(V)
for i in range(N):
out[rows[r[i]], C[i]] += V[i]
return out
def sparse_matrix_mult_sparseX_mod2(X, rows):
nrows = rows.max()+1
ncols = X.shape[1]
r,C = X.nonzero()
V = X[r,C].A1
out = np.zeros((nrows, ncols))
return bincount_mod2(out, rows, r, C, V)
Timings -
In [373]: # Inputs setup
...: s=10000
...: n=1000000
...: d=1000
...: density=1.0/100 # Denser now!
...:
...: X=scipy.sparse.rand(n,d,density=density,format="csr")
...: map_fn=np.random.randint(0, s, n)
...:
In [374]: %timeit app1(X, map_fn)
1 loop, best of 3: 787 ms per loop
In [375]: %timeit sparse_matrix_mult_sparseX_mod1(X, map_fn)
1 loop, best of 3: 906 ms per loop
In [376]: %timeit sparse_matrix_mult_sparseX_mod2(X, map_fn)
1 loop, best of 3: 705 ms per loop
With the dense output from app1 -
In [379]: %timeit app1(X, map_fn).toarray()
1 loop, best of 3: 910 ms per loop

Python: Find largest array index along a specific dimension which is greater than a threshold

Lets say I have a 4-D numpy array (ex: np.rand((x,y,z,t))) of data with dimensions corresponding to X,Y,Z, and time.
For each X and Y point, and at each time step, I want to find the largest index in Z for which the data is larger than some threshold n.
So my end result should be an X-by-Y-by-t array. Instances where there are no values in the Z-column greater than the threshold should be represented by a 0.
I can loop through element-by-element and construct a new array as I go, however I am operating on a very large array and it takes too long.

Unfortunately, following the example of Python builtins, numpy doesn't make it easy to get the last index, although the first is trivial. Still, something like
def slow(arr, axis, threshold):
return (arr > threshold).cumsum(axis=axis).argmax(axis=axis)
def fast(arr, axis, threshold):
compare = (arr > threshold)
reordered = compare.swapaxes(axis, -1)
flipped = reordered[..., ::-1]
first_above = flipped.argmax(axis=-1)
last_above = flipped.shape[-1] - first_above - 1
are_any_above = compare.any(axis=axis)
# patch the no-matching-element found values
patched = np.where(are_any_above, last_above, 0)
return patched
gives me
In [14]: arr = np.random.random((100,100,30,50))
In [15]: %timeit a = slow(arr, axis=2, threshold=0.75)
1 loop, best of 3: 248 ms per loop
In [16]: %timeit b = fast(arr, axis=2, threshold=0.75)
10 loops, best of 3: 50.9 ms per loop
In [17]: (slow(arr, axis=2, threshold=0.75) == fast(arr, axis=2, threshold=0.75)).all()
Out[17]: True
(There's probably a slicker way to do the flipping but it's the end of day here and my brain is shutting down. :-)

Here's a faster approach -
def faster(a,n,invalid_specifier):
mask = a>n
idx = a.shape[2] - (mask[:,:,::-1]).argmax(2) - 1
idx[~mask[:,:,-1] & (idx == a.shape[2]-1)] = invalid_specifier
return idx
Runtime test -
# Using #DSM's benchmarking setup
In [553]: a = np.random.random((100,100,30,50))
...: n = 0.75
...:
In [554]: out1 = faster(a,n,invalid_specifier=0)
...: out2 = fast(a, axis=2, threshold=n) # #DSM's soln
...:
In [555]: np.allclose(out1,out2)
Out[555]: True
In [556]: %timeit fast(a, axis=2, threshold=n) # #DSM's soln
10 loops, best of 3: 64.6 ms per loop
In [557]: %timeit faster(a,n,invalid_specifier=0)
10 loops, best of 3: 43.7 ms per loop

Sliding standard deviation on a 1D NumPy array

Suppose that you have an array and want to create another array, which's values are equal to standard deviation of first array's 10 elements successively. With the help of for loop, it can be written easily like below code. What I want to do is avoid using for loop for faster execution time. Any suggestions?
Code
a = np.arange(20)
b = np.empty(11)
for i in range(11):
b[i] = np.std(a[i:i+10])

You could create a 2D array of sliding windows with np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided that would be views into the given 1D array and as such won't be occupying any more memory. Then, simply use np.std along the second axis (axis=1) for the final result in a vectorized way, like so -
W = 10 # Window size
nrows = a.size - W + 1
n = a.strides[0]
a2D = np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided(a,shape=(nrows,W),strides=(n,n))
out = np.std(a2D, axis=1)
Runtime test
Function definitions -
def original_app(a, W):
b = np.empty(a.size-W+1)
for i in range(b.size):
b[i] = np.std(a[i:i+W])
return b
def vectorized_app(a, W):
nrows = a.size - W + 1
n = a.strides[0]
a2D = np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided(a,shape=(nrows,W),strides=(n,n))
return np.std(a2D,1)
Timings and verification -
In [460]: # Inputs
...: a = np.arange(10000)
...: W = 10
...:
In [461]: np.allclose(original_app(a, W), vectorized_app(a, W))
Out[461]: True
In [462]: %timeit original_app(a, W)
1 loops, best of 3: 522 ms per loop
In [463]: %timeit vectorized_app(a, W)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.33 ms per loop
So, around 400x speedup there!
For completeness, here's the equivalent pandas version -
import pandas as pd
def pdroll(a, W): # a is 1D ndarray and W is window-size
return pd.Series(a).rolling(W).std(ddof=0).values[W-1:]

Not so fancy, but the code with no loops would be something like this:
a = np.arange(20)
b = [a[i:i+10].std() for i in range(len(a)-10)]

Vectorizing ndimage functions for my code

I want to be able to vectorize this code:
def sobHypot(rec):
a, b, c = rec.shape
hype = np.ones((a,b,c))
for i in xrange(c):
x=ndimage.sobel(abs(rec[...,i])**2,axis=0, mode='constant')
y=ndimage.sobel(abs(rec[...,i])**2,axis=1, mode='constant')
hype[...,i] = np.hypot(x,y)
hype[...,i] = hype[...,i].mean()
index = hype.argmax()
return index
where rec,shape returns (1024,1024,20)

Here's how you can avoid the for-loop with the sobel filter:
import numpy as np
from scipy.ndimage import sobel
def sobHypot_vec(rec):
r = np.abs(rec)
x = sobel(r, 0, mode='constant')
y = sobel(r, 1, mode='constant')
h = np.hypot(x, y)
h = np.apply_over_axes(np.mean, h, [0,1])
return h.argmax()
I'm not sure if the sobel filter is particularly necessary in your application, and this is hard to test without your particular 20-layer 'image', but you could try using np.gradient instead of running the sobel twice. The advantage is that gradient runs in three dimensions. You can ignore the component in the third, and take the hypot of just the first two. This seems wasteful but is actually still faster in my tests.
For a variety of randomly generated images, r = np.random.rand(1024,1024,20) + np.random.rand(1024,1024,20)*1j, this gives the same answer as your code, but test it to be sure, and possibly fiddle with the dx, dy arguments of np.gradient
def grad_max(rec):
g = np.gradient(np.abs(rec))[:2] # ignore derivative in third dimension
h = np.hypot(*g)
h = np.apply_over_axes(np.mean, h, [0,1]) # mean along first and second dimension
return h.argmax()
Using this code for timing:
def sobHypot_clean(rec):
rs = rec.shape
hype = np.ones(rs)
r = np.abs(rec)
for i in xrange(rs[-1]):
ri = r[...,i]
x = sobel(ri, 0, mode='constant')
y = sobel(ri, 1, mode='constant')
hype[...,i] = np.hypot(x,y).mean()
return hype.argmax()
Timing:
In [1]: r = np.random.rand(1024,1024,20) + np.random.rand(1024,1024,20)*1j
# Original Post
In [2]: timeit sobHypot(r)
1 loops, best of 3: 9.85 s per loop
#cleaned up a bit:
In [3]: timeit sobHypot_clean(r)
1 loops, best of 3: 7.64 s per loop
# vectorized:
In [4]: timeit sobHypot_vec(r)
1 loops, best of 3: 5.98 s per loop
# using np.gradient:
In [5]: timeit grad_max(r)
1 loops, best of 3: 4.12 s per loop
Please test any of these functions on your own images to be sure they give the desired output, since different types of arrays could react differently from the simple random tests I did.

paralellize loop over iter

I am having performance issues with my code.
step # IIII consumes hours of time. I used to materialize the
the itertools.prodct before, but thanks to a user I dont do pro_data = product(array_b,array_a) anymore. This helped me with memory issues, but the still is heavily time consuming.
I would like to paralellize it with multithreading or multiprocesisng, whatever you can suggest, I am grateful.
Explanation. I have two arrays that contain x and y values of particles. For each particle (defined by two coordinates) I want to calculate a function with another. For combinations I use the itertools.product method and loop over every particle. I run over 50000 particels in total, so I have N*N/2 combinations to calculate.
Thanks in advance
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from itertools import product,combinations_with_replacement
def func(ar1,ar2,ar3,ar4): #example func that takes four arguments
return (ar1*ar2**22+np.sin(ar3)+ar4)
def newdist(a):
return func(a[0][0],a[0][1],a[1][0],a[1][1])
x_edges = np.logspace(-3,1, num=25) #prepare x-axis for histogram
x_mean = 10**((np.log10(x_edges[:-1])+np.log10(x_edges[1:]))/2)
x_width=x_edges[1:]-x_edges[:-1]
hist_data=np.zeros([len(x_edges)-1])
array1=np.random.uniform(0.,10.,100)
array2=np.random.uniform(0.,10.,100)
array_a = np.dstack((array1,array1))[0]
array_b = np.dstack((array2,array2))[0]
# IIII
for i in product(array_a,array_b):
(result,bins) = np.histogram(newdist(i),bins=x_edges)
hist_data+=result
hist_data = np.array(map(float, hist_data))
plt.bar(x_mean,hist_data,width=x_width,color='r')
plt.show()
-----EDIT-----
I used this code now:
def mp_dist(array_a,array_b, d, bins): #d chunks AND processes
def worker(array_ab, out_q):
""" push result in queue """
outdict = {}
outdict = vec_chunk(array_ab, bins)
out_q.put(outdict)
out_q = mp.Queue()
a = np.swapaxes(array_a, 0 ,1)
b = np.swapaxes(array_b, 0 ,1)
array_size_a=len(array_a)-(len(array_a)%d)
array_size_b=len(array_b)-(len(array_b)%d)
a_chunk = array_size_a / d
b_chunk = array_size_b / d
procs = []
#prepare arrays for mp
array_ab = np.empty((4, a_chunk, b_chunk))
for j in xrange(d):
for k in xrange(d):
array_ab[[0, 1]] = a[:, a_chunk * j:a_chunk * (j + 1), None]
array_ab[[2, 3]] = b[:, None, b_chunk * k:b_chunk * (k + 1)]
p = mp.Process(target=worker, args=(array_ab, out_q))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
resultarray = np.empty(len(bins)-1)
for i in range(d):
resultarray+=out_q.get()
# Wait for all worker processes to finish
for pro in procs:
pro.join()
print resultarray
return resultarray
Problem here is that I cannot control the numbers of processes. How Can I use a mp.Pool() instead?
than

First, lets look at a straightforward vectorization of your problem. I have a feeling that you want your array_a and array_b to be the exact same, i.e. the coordinates of the particles, but I am keeping them separate here.
I have turned your code into a function, to make timing easier:
def IIII(array_a, array_b, bins) :
hist_data=np.zeros([len(bins)-1])
for i in product(array_a,array_b):
(result,bins) = np.histogram(newdist(i), bins=bins)
hist_data+=result
hist_data = np.array(map(float, hist_data))
return hist_data
You can, by the way, generate your sample data in a less convoluted way as follows:
n = 100
array_a = np.random.uniform(0, 10, size=(n, 2))
array_b = np.random.uniform(0, 10, size=(n, 2))
So first we need to vectorize your func. I have done it so it can take any array of shape (4, ...). To spare memory, it is doing the calculation in place, and returning the first plane, i.e. array[0].
def func_vectorized(a) :
a[1] **= 22
np.sin(a[2], out=a[2])
a[0] *= a[1]
a[0] += a[2]
a[0] += a[3]
return a[0]
With this function in place, we can write a vectorized version of IIII:
def IIII_vec(array_a, array_b, bins) :
array_ab = np.empty((4, len(array_a), len(array_b)))
a = np.swapaxes(array_a, 0 ,1)
b = np.swapaxes(array_b, 0 ,1)
array_ab[[0, 1]] = a[:, :, None]
array_ab[[2, 3]] = b[:, None, :]
newdist = func_vectorized(array_ab)
hist, _ = np.histogram(newdist, bins=bins)
return hist
With n = 100 points, they both return the same:
In [2]: h1 = IIII(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
In [3]: h2 = IIII_bis(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
In [4]: np.testing.assert_almost_equal(h1, h2)
But the timing differences are already very relevant:
In [5]: %timeit IIII(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
1 loops, best of 3: 654 ms per loop
In [6]: %timeit IIII_vec(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
100 loops, best of 3: 2.08 ms per loop
A 300x speedup!. If you try it again with longer sample data, n = 1000, you can see that they both scale equally bad, as n**2, so the 300x stays there:
In [10]: %timeit IIII(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
1 loops, best of 3: 68.2 s per loop
In [11]: %timeit IIII_bis(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
1 loops, best of 3: 229 ms per loop
So you are still looking at a good 10 min. of processing, which is not really that much when compared to the more than 2 days that your current solution would require.
Of course, for things to be so nice, you will need to fit a (4, 50000, 50000) array of floats into memory, something that my system cannot handle. But you can still keep things relatively fast, by processing it in chunks. The following version of IIII_vec divides each array into d chunks. As written, the length of the array should be divisible by d. It wouldn't bee too hard to overcome that limitation, but it would obfuscate the true purpose:
def IIII_vec_bis(array_a, array_b, bins, d=1) :
a = np.swapaxes(array_a, 0 ,1)
b = np.swapaxes(array_b, 0 ,1)
a_chunk = len(array_a) // d
b_chunk = len(array_b) // d
array_ab = np.empty((4, a_chunk, b_chunk))
hist_data = np.zeros((len(bins) - 1,))
for j in xrange(d) :
for k in xrange(d) :
array_ab[[0, 1]] = a[:, a_chunk * j:a_chunk * (j + 1), None]
array_ab[[2, 3]] = b[:, None, b_chunk * k:b_chunk * (k + 1)]
newdist = func_vectorized(array_ab)
hist, _ = np.histogram(newdist, bins=bins)
hist_data += hist
return hist_data
First, lets check that it really works:
In [4]: h1 = IIII_vec(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
In [5]: h2 = IIII_vec_bis(array_a, array_b, x_edges, d=10)
In [6]: np.testing.assert_almost_equal(h1, h2)
And now some timings. With n = 100:
In [7]: %timeit IIII_vec(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
100 loops, best of 3: 2.02 ms per loop
In [8]: %timeit IIII_vec_bis(array_a, array_b, x_edges, d=10)
100 loops, best of 3: 12 ms per loop
But as you start having to have a larger and larger array in memory, doing it in chunks starts to pay off. With n = 1000:
In [12]: %timeit IIII_vec(array_a, array_b, x_edges)
1 loops, best of 3: 223 ms per loop
In [13]: %timeit IIII_vec_bis(array_a, array_b, x_edges, d=10)
1 loops, best of 3: 208 ms per loop
With n = 10000 I can no longer call IIII_vec without an array is too big error, but the chunky version is still running:
In [18]: %timeit IIII_vec_bis(array_a, array_b, x_edges, d=10)
1 loops, best of 3: 21.8 s per loop
And just to show that it can be done, I have run it once with n = 50000:
In [23]: %timeit -n1 -r1 IIII_vec_bis(array_a, array_b, x_edges, d=50)
1 loops, best of 1: 543 s per loop
So a good 9 minutes of number crunching, which is not all that bad given it has computed 2.5 billion interactions.

Use vectorized numpy operations. Replace the for-loop over product() with a single newdist() call by creating arguments using meshgrid().
To parallize the problem compute newdist() on slices of array_a, array_b that correspond to subblocks of meshgrid(). Here's an example using slices and multiprocessing.
Here's another example to demonstrate the steps: python loop -> vectorized numpy version -> parallel:
#!/usr/bin/env python
from __future__ import division
import math
import multiprocessing as mp
import numpy as np
try:
from itertools import izip as zip
except ImportError:
zip = zip # Python 3
def pi_loop(x, y, npoints):
"""Compute pi using Monte-Carlo method."""
# note: the method converges to pi very slowly.
return 4 * sum(1 for xx, yy in zip(x, y) if (xx**2 + yy**2) < 1) / npoints
def pi_vectorized(x, y, npoints):
return 4 * ((x**2 + y**2) < 1).sum() / npoints # or just .mean()
def mp_init(x_shared, y_shared):
global mp_x, mp_y
mp_x, mp_y = map(np.frombuffer, [x_shared, y_shared]) # no copy
def mp_pi(args):
# perform computations on slices of mp_x, mp_y
start, end = args
x = mp_x[start:end] # no copy
y = mp_y[start:end]
return ((x**2 + y**2) < 1).sum()
def pi_parallel(x, y, npoints):
# compute pi using multiple processes
pool = mp.Pool(initializer=mp_init, initargs=[x, y])
step = 100000
slices = ((start, start + step) for start in range(0, npoints, step))
return 4 * sum(pool.imap_unordered(mp_pi, slices)) / npoints
def main():
npoints = 1000000
# create shared arrays
x_sh, y_sh = [mp.RawArray('d', npoints) for _ in range(2)]
# initialize arrays
x, y = map(np.frombuffer, [x_sh, y_sh])
x[:] = np.random.uniform(size=npoints)
y[:] = np.random.uniform(size=npoints)
for f, a, b in [(pi_loop, x, y),
(pi_vectorized, x, y),
(pi_parallel, x_sh, y_sh)]:
pi = f(a, b, npoints)
precision = int(math.floor(math.log10(npoints)) / 2 - 1 + 0.5)
print("%.*f %.1e" % (precision + 1, pi, abs(pi - math.pi)))
if __name__=="__main__":
main()
Time performance for npoints = 10_000_000:
pi_loop pi_vectorized pi_parallel
32.6 0.159 0.069 # seconds
It shows that the main performance benefit is from converting the python loop to its vectorized numpy analog.