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 - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.
Post a Comment
Read more