Skip to main content

performance tuning - Efficient way to replace a value in packed array of integers


When working with integer label matrices returned by such functions as MorphologicalComponents, ImageForestingComponents etc. it is often necessary to replace a certain label (or a list of labels) with other label(s) without unpacking the matrix. The immediately obvious solutions via Replace/ReplaceAll or via Position unpack packed arrays and for this reason aren't appropriate.


I can imagine writing a Do loop and performing in-place modification of the matrix using Part but it is ugly and expectedly slow (although it is memory-efficient because it won't create a copy of the original matrix). Probably compilation can help with the performance, but I'm sure there must be simpler way to perform such a basic operation without unpacking the matrix.


The question is: what is the best way to replace a list of values in a packed array of integers with other integer values while keeping the array packed?




Here is a couple of examples:





  1. Setting the largest component to be background:


    img = Import["http://i.stack.imgur.com/2a2j6.png"];
    cellM = MorphologicalComponents[ColorNegate@img, CornerNeighbors -> False];
    largest = SortBy[ComponentMeasurements[cellM, "Area"], Last][[-1, 1]];
    (*the obvious solution: inefficient and unpacks*)
    cellM2 = cellM /. largest -> 0;
    cellM2 // Colorize


  2. Shifting indices of all the components except the background (0) by a constant value (motivation: combining two label matrices):



    (*the obvious solution: inefficient and unpacks*)
    cellM3 = cellM /. i_Integer /; i != 0 :> i + 10000;
    cellM3 // Colorize


Answers to questions in the comments (now deleted):




  • From my little experience, the most usual needs are split into the two cases shown above:





    1. a very few (usually only one) values need to be replaced;




    2. all the values excepting a very few (usually only one) need to be replaced.






  • Since the obtained label matrices are intended for further processing with ComponentMeasurements, SelectComponents etc. it is highly desirable to keep them packed just for achieving decent timings. But from the other side, it is very easy to hit the memory limit of a usual laptop (or even PC) just keeping in the memory 2-3 unpacked label matrices of the usual size of modern photos (for example, about 2000×1200 pixels) during image processing.






Answer



Using the method I showed for directly change the background value of a SparseArray? we can efficiently replace the Background of a SparseArray. Conversion to sparse allows specification of the background. Therefore one replacement method is:


fn1[array_?ArrayQ, old_, new_] :=
SparseArray[array, Automatic, old] /.
(sa : SparseArray)[a_, b_, _, d_] :> sa[a, b, new, d]

However this does not achieve the goal of keeping the array packed.


Better appears to be the numeric approach that I alluded to in my Related: links and which ciao posted in a comment. With a tweak or two of my own:



fn2[a_?ArrayQ, old_, new_] := BitXor[1, Unitize[a - old]] (new - old) + a;

Test:


(* cellM from Question example data *)

(r0 = cellM /. largest -> 0); // RepeatedTiming
(r1 = fn1[cellM, 2, 0]); // RepeatedTiming
(r2 = fn2[cellM, 2, 0]); // RepeatedTiming

r0 == r1 == r2



{0.0620, Null}

{0.00557, Null}

{0.00499, Null}

True


r1 is a SparseArray; conversion overhead is modest:


Developer`ToPackedArray @ Normal @ r1; // RepeatedTiming


{0.0014, Null}

The second operation is easily recast in terms this one, e.g.


(s0 = cellM /. i_Integer /; i != 0 :> i + 10000); // RepeatedTiming

(s2 = fn2[cellM + 10000, 10000, 0]); // RepeatedTiming


s0 == s2


{0.3270, Null}

{0.00621, Null}

True




With the syntax change requested and extension to multiple replacements by repeated application:


rep[
a_ /; MatrixQ[a, IntegerQ],
{rls__} | rls_ /; MatchQ[{rls}, {(_Integer -> _Integer) ..}]
] :=
Fold[BitXor[1, Unitize[# - #2[[1]]]] (#2[[2]] - #2[[1]]) + # &, a, {rls}]

Comments

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}]

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}]

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.