Skip to main content

list manipulation - Best way to create symmetric matrices


From time to time I need to generate symmetric matrices with relatively expensive cost of element evaluation. Most frequently these are Gram matrices where elements are $L_2$ dot products. Here are two ways of efficient implementation which come to mind: memoization and direct procedural generation.



ClearAll[el, elmem];
el[i_, j_] := Integrate[ChebyshevT[i, x] ChebyshevT[j, x], {x, -1, 1}];
elmem[i_, j_] := elmem[j, i] = el[i, j];

n = 30;
ClearSystemCache[];
a1 = Table[el[i, j], {i, n}, {j, n}]; // Timing
ClearSystemCache[];
a2 = Table[elmem[i, j], {i, n}, {j, n}]; // Timing
ClearSystemCache[];

(a3 = ConstantArray[0, {n, n}];
  Do[a3[[i, j]] = a3[[j, i]] = el[i, j], {i, n}, {j, i}];) // Timing
a1 == a2 == a3


{34.75, Null}

{18.235, Null}

{18.172, Null}


True

Here a1 is a redundant version for comparison, a2 is using memoization, a3 is a procedural-style one which I don't really like but it beats the built-in function here. The results are quite good but I wonder if there are more elegant ways of generating symmetric matrices?



SUMMARY (UPDATED)


Thanks to all participants for their contributions. Now it's time to benchmark. Here is the compilation of all proposed methods with minor modifications.


array[n_, f_] := Array[f, {n, n}];
arraymem[n_, f_] := 
  Block[{mem}, mem[i_, j_] := mem[j, j] = f[i, j]; Array[mem, {n, n}]];

proc[n_, f_] := Block[{res},
  res = ConstantArray[0, {n, n}]; 
  Do[res[[i, j]] = res[[j, i]] = f[i, j], {i, n}, {j, i}];
  res
  ]

acl[size_, fn_] := 
  Module[{rtmp}, rtmp = Table[fn[i, j], {i, 1, size}, {j, 1, i}];
   MapThread[Join, {rtmp, Rest /@ Flatten[rtmp, {{2}, {1}}]}]];


RM1[n_, f_] := 
  SparseArray[{{i_, j_} :> f[i, j] /; i >= j, {i_, j_} :> f[j, i]}, n];
RM2[n_, f_] := 
  Table[{{i, j} -> #, {j, i} -> #} &@f[i, j], {i, n}, {j, i}] // 
    Flatten // SparseArray;

MrWizard1[n_, f_] := 
  Join[#, Rest /@ #~Flatten~{2}, 2] &@Table[i~f~j, {i, n}, {j, i}];
MrWizard2[n_, f_] := Max@##~f~Min@## &~Array~{n, n};


MrWizard3[n_, f_] := Block[{f1, f2},
  f1 = LowerTriangularize[#, -1] + Transpose@LowerTriangularize[#] &@
     ConstantArray[Range@#, #] &;
  f2 = {#, Reverse[(Length@# + 1) - #, {1, 2}]} &;
  f @@ f2@f1@n
  ]


whuber[n_Integer, f_] /; n >= 1 := 
  Module[{data, m, indexes}, 

   data = Flatten[Table[f[i, j], {i, n}, {j, i, n}], 1];
   m = Binomial[n + 1, 2] + 1;
   indexes = 
    Table[m + Abs[j - i] - Binomial[n + 2 - Min[i, j], 2], {i, n}, {j,
       n}];
   Part[data, #] & /@ indexes];

JM[n_Integer, f_, ori_Integer: 1] := 
  Module[{tri = Table[f[i, j], {i, ori, n + ori - 1}, {j, ori, i}]}, 
   Fold[ArrayFlatten[{{#1, Transpose[{Most[#2]}]}, {{Most[#2]}, 

        Last[#2]}}] &, {First[tri]}, Rest[tri]]];

generators = {array, arraymem, proc, acl, RM1, RM2, MrWizard1, 
   MrWizard2, MrWizard3, whuber, JM};

The first three procedures are mine, all other are named after their authors. Let's start from cheap f and (relatively) large dimensions.


fun = Cos[#1 #2] &;
ns = Range[100, 500, 50]
data = Table[ClearSystemCache[]; Timing[gen[n, fun]] // First,
   {n, ns}, {gen, generators}];


Here is a logarithmic diagram for this test:


<< PlotLegends`

ListLogPlot[data // Transpose, PlotRange -> All, Joined -> True, 
 PlotMarkers -> {Automatic, Medium}, DataRange -> {Min@ns, Max@ns}, 
 PlotLegend -> generators, LegendPosition -> {1, -0.5}, 
 LegendSize -> {.5, 1}, ImageSize -> 600, Ticks -> {ns, Automatic}, 
 Frame -> True, FrameLabel -> {"n", "time"}]


enter image description here


Now let's make f numeric:


fun = Cos[N@#1 #2] &;

The result is quite surprising:


enter image description here


As you may guess, the missed quantities are machine zeroes.


The last experiment is old: it doesn't include fresh MrWizard3 and RM's codes are with //Normal. It takes "expensive" f from above and tolerant n:


fun = Integrate[ChebyshevT[#1 , x] ChebyshevT[#2, x], {x, -1, 1}] &;
ns = Range[10, 30, 5]


The result is


enter image description here


As we see, all methods which do not recompute the elements twice behave identically.



Answer



Borrowing liberally from acl's answer:


sim = Join[#, Rest /@ # ~Flatten~ {2}, 2] & @ Table[i ~#~ j, {i, #2}, {j, i}] &;

sim[Subscript[x, ##] &, 5] // Grid


$\begin{array}{ccccc} x_{1,1} & x_{2,1} & x_{3,1} & x_{4,1} & x_{5,1} \\ x_{2,1} & x_{2,2} & x_{3,2} & x_{4,2} & x_{5,2} \\ x_{3,1} & x_{3,2} & x_{3,3} & x_{4,3} & x_{5,3} \\ x_{4,1} & x_{4,2} & x_{4,3} & x_{4,4} & x_{5,4} \\ x_{5,1} & x_{5,2} & x_{5,3} & x_{5,4} & x_{5,5} \end{array}$


Trading efficiency for brevity:


sim2[f_, n_] := Max@## ~f~ Min@## & ~Array~ {n, n}

sim2[Subscript[f, ##] &, 5] // Grid

$\begin{array}{ccccc} x_{1,1} & x_{2,1} & x_{3,1} & x_{4,1} & x_{5,1} \\ x_{2,1} & x_{2,2} & x_{3,2} & x_{4,2} & x_{5,2} \\ x_{3,1} & x_{3,2} & x_{3,3} & x_{4,3} & x_{5,3} \\ x_{4,1} & x_{4,2} & x_{4,3} & x_{4,4} & x_{5,4} \\ x_{5,1} & x_{5,2} & x_{5,3} & x_{5,4} & x_{5,5} \end{array}$



Just for fun, here's a method for fast vectorized (Listable) functions such as your "cheap f" test, showing what's possible if you keep everything packed. (Cos function given a numeric argument so that it evaluates.)


f1 = LowerTriangularize[#, -1] + Transpose@LowerTriangularize[#] & @

       ConstantArray[Range@#, #] &;

f2 = {#, Reverse[(Length@# + 1) - #, {1, 2}]} &;

f3 = # @@ f2@f1 @ #2 &;

f3[Cos[N@# * #2] &, 500]  // timeAvg

sim[Cos[N@# * #2] &, 500] // timeAvg



0.00712


0.1436



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...
Post a Comment
Read more

calculus and analysis - Integral of the Sinc product

Let us consider the following integral $$ B_n = \int_0^\infty \prod_{k=1,3,5,\dots}^n\frac{\sin (x/k)}{x/k}dx $$ By definition, Sinc[x] == Sin[x]/x , therefore B[n_?OddQ] := Integrate[Product[Sinc[x/k], {k, 1, n, 2}], {x, 0, Infinity}] B /@ Range[1, 13, 2] {Pi/2, Pi/2, Pi/2, Pi/2, Pi/2, Pi/2, Pi/2} OK, everything is fine. But... B[15] 467807924713440738696537864469 Pi/935615849440640907310521750000 What's going on? Answer As Eckhard wrote in comments B[n] is the n-th Borwein integral . (The letter B was not accidental :) ) This funny properties of Borwein integrals is related to the Fourier transform of Sinc function FourierTransform[Sinc[x], x, k] 1/2 Sqrt[Pi/2] (Sign[1 - k] + Sign[1 + k]) Plot[%, {k, -2, 2}, Filling -> 0] which is the box function. The result is $\pi/2$ while the sum $$ 1/3+1/5+\dots+1/n $$ B_n = \frac{\pi}{2} - \pi \bigg(\sum_{k=3,5,\ldots}^n\frac{1}{k} -1\biggr)^\frac{n-1}{2}\prod_{k=3,5,\dots}^n\frac{k}{k-1}. $$ For $n=15$ it is equal to $$ \frac{46780...
Post a Comment
Read more

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...
Post a Comment
Read more