Skip to main content

functional style - Map a function across a list conditionally


It seems that this is a really basic question, and I feel that the answer should be obvious to me. However, I am not seeing. Can you please help me? Thanks.


Suppose I have a list of data list and a selector list sel. I would like to Map some function f onto elements in list that correspond to True in the selector list sel.


Thus for the input


list = {1, 10, 100};
sel = {True, False, True};

I would like to obtain the output



{f[1], 10, f[100]}

I can think of some complicated ways to accomplish this (e.g., using Table to step through both list and sel using an iterator i; or find the positions of True in sel using Position and then MapAt at those positions), but not simple ways. Do you have any advice?



Answer



Updated with new functions and additional timings


Since this question inspired so many answers, I think there is a need to compare them.
I have included two of my own functions, freely borrowing from previous answers:


wizard1[] :=
 Inner[Compose, sel /. {True -> f, False -> Identity}, list, List]


wizard2[] :=
 Module[{x = list}, x[[#]] = f /@ x[[#]]; x] & @ 
  SparseArray[sel, Automatic, False]@"AdjacencyLists"

(wizard1 may not work as expected if list is a matrix; a workaround is shown in that post.)


Notes


These timings are conducted with Mathematica 7 on Windows 7 and may differ significantly from those conducted on other platforms and versions.


Specifically, I know this affects Leonid's method, as Pick has been improved between versions 7 and 8. His newer form with Developer`ToPackedArray@Boole is slower on my system, so I used the original.


Rojo's first function had to be modified or it fails on packed arrays, but I believe this affects other versions as well.


kguler's method list /. Dispatch[Thread[# -> f1 /@ #] &@Pick[list, sel]] does not produce the correct result if there are duplicates in list and was omitted from the timings.



Timings with symbolic (undefined) f


Here are timings for all functions, when f is undefined:


Mathematica graphics


$x$ is length of list; $y$ is average time in seconds.


We can see that all the methods appear to have the same time complexity with the exception of one, the line at the top on the right-hand side. This is MapAt[f, list, Position[sel, True]] at it makes quite clear "what's wrong with" this method. The warning on this page regarding MapAt rings true.


Timings for 10^5 in the chart by rank are:


$\begin{array}{rl} \text{wizard2} & 0.02248 \\ \text{ecoxlinux2} & 0.02996 \\ \text{wizard1} & 0.03184 \\ \text{leonid} & 0.03244 \\ \text{simon} & 0.03868 \\ \text{ruebenko} & 0.04116 \\ \text{artes3} & 0.0468 \\ \text{rojo3} & 0.04928 \\ \text{verbeia} & 0.05744 \\ \text{rm2} & 0.0656 \\ \text{rm1} & 0.0936 \\ \text{artes2} & 0.0936 \\ \text{artes1} & 0.0966 \\ \text{jm2} & 0.106 \\ \text{rojo2} & 0.1154 \\ \text{rojo4} & 0.1404 \\ \text{kguler4} & 0.1434 \\ \text{kguler2} & 0.1496 \\ \text{kguler1} & 0.1592 \\ \text{jm1} & 0.1654 \\ \text{rojo1} & 0.3432 \\ \text{ecoxlinux1} & 19.797 \end{array}$


Timings with a numeric compilable f


For an array of 10^6 Reals and with f = 1.618` + # & timings are:


$\begin{array}{rl} \text{wizard2} & 0.04864 \\ \text{leonid} & 0.2154 \\ \text{ecoxlinux2} & 0.452 \\ \text{ruebenko} & 0.53 \\ \text{artes3} & 0.577 \\ \text{simon} & 0.639 \\ \text{wizard1} & 0.702 \\ \text{rojo3} & 0.811 \\ \text{rm1} & 0.982 \\ \text{verbeia} & 1.014 \\ \text{artes2} & 1.06 \\ \text{artes1} & 1.123 \\ \text{rojo2} & 1.279 \\ \text{rm2} & 1.357 \\ \text{jm2} & 1.45 \\ \text{rojo4} & 1.747 \\ \text{kguler4} & 1.841 \\ \text{kguler2} & 1.934 \\ \text{kguler1} & 2.012 \\ \text{jm1} & 2.106 \\ \text{rojo1} & 3.37 \end{array}$



We're not done yet.


Leonid wrote his method specifically to allow for auto-compilation within Map, and my second method is directly based on his. We can take this a step further for a Listable function or one constructed of such functions as is f = 1.618` + # & by using f @ in place of f /@ as described here:


Module[{x = list}, x[[#]] = f @ x[[#]]; x] & @ 
  SparseArray[sel, Automatic, False]@"AdjacencyLists" // timeAvg


0.03496




Reference



The functions, as I named and used them, are:


ruebenko[] :=
 Block[{f},
  f[i_, True] := f[i];
  f[i_, False] := i;
  MapThread[f, {list, sel}]
 ]

artes1[] :=
 (If[#1[[2]], f[#1[[1]]], #1[[1]]] &) /@ Transpose[{list, sel}]


artes2[] :=
 If[Last@#, f@First@#, First@#] & /@ Transpose[{list, sel}]

artes3[] :=
 Inner[If[#2, f, Identity][#] &, list, sel, List]

ecoxlinux1[] :=
 MapAt[f, list, Position[sel, True]]


ecoxlinux2[] :=
 Transpose[{list, sel}] /. {{x_, True} :> f[x], {x_, _} :> x}

rm1[] :=
 Transpose[{list, sel}] /. {x_, y_} :> (f^Boole[y])[x] /. 1[x_] :> x

rm2[] :=
 Transpose[{list, sel}] /. {x_, y_} :> (y /. {True -> f, False -> Identity})[x]

rojo1[] :=

 With[{list = Developer`FromPackedArray@list},
  Normal[SparseArray[{i_ /; sel[[i]] :> f[list[[i]]], i_ :> list[[i]]}, Dimensions[list]]]
 ]

rojo2[] :=
 Total[{#~BitXor~1, #} &@Boole@sel {list, f /@ list}]

rojo3[] :=
 If[#1, f[#2], #2] & ~MapThread~ {sel, list}


rojo4[] :=
 #2 /. _ /; #1 :> f[#2] & ~MapThread~ {sel, list}

jm1[] :=
 MapIndexed[If[sel[[Sequence @@ #2]], f[#1], #1] &, list]

jm2[] :=
 MapIndexed[If[Extract[sel, #2], f[#1], #1] &, list]

verbeia[] :=

 If[#2, f[#1], #1] & @@@ Transpose[{list, sel}]

kguler1[] :=
 MapThread[(#2 f[#1] + (1 - #2) #1) &, {list, Boole[#] & /@ sel}]

kguler2[] :=
 (#2 f[#1] + (1 - #2) #1) & @@@ Thread[{list, Boole@sel}]

(*kguler3[]:=
list/.Dispatch@Thread[#->f/@#]&@Pick[list,sel]*)


kguler4[] :=
  Inner[(#2 f[#1] + (1 - #2) #1) &, list, Boole@sel, List]

simon[] :=
 Block[{g},
  g[True, x_] := f[x];
  g[False, x_] := x;
  SetAttributes[g, Listable];
  g[sel, list]

 ]

leonid[] :=
  With[{pos = Pick[Range@Length@list, sel]},
   Module[{list1 = list},
    list1[[pos]] = f /@ list1[[pos]];
    list1
   ]
  ]


wizard1[] :=
 Inner[Compose, sel /. {True -> f, False -> Identity}, list, List]

wizard2[] :=
 Module[{x = list}, x[[#]] = f /@ x[[#]]; x] & @ 
  SparseArray[sel, Automatic, False]@"AdjacencyLists"

Timing code:


SetAttributes[timeAvg, HoldFirst]
timeAvg[func_] := 

  Do[If[# > 0.3, Return[#/5^i]] & @@ Timing@Do[func, {5^i}], {i, 0, 15}]

funcs = {ruebenko, artes1, artes2, artes3,(*ecoxlinux1,*)ecoxlinux2, 
   rm1, rm2, rojo1, rojo2, rojo3, rojo4, jm1, jm2, verbeia, kguler1, 
   kguler2,(*kguler3,*)kguler4, simon, leonid, wizard1, wizard2};

ClearAll[f]
time1 = Table[
  list = RandomInteger[99, n];
  sel = RandomChoice[{True, False}, n];

  timeAvg@ fn[],
  {fn, funcs},
  {n, 10^Range@5}
 ] ~Monitor~ fn

f = 1.618 + # &;
time2long = Table[
    list = RandomReal[99, 1*^6];
    sel = RandomChoice[{True, False}, 1*^6];
    {fn, timeAvg@ fn[]},

    {fn, funcs}
   ] ~Monitor~ fn

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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