Skip to main content

performance tuning - Making table of matrix product and efficiency


I want to make a table in which each element is a matrix product:


<< Developer`

n = 2;
m = 6;

matrix = Map[ToPackedArray[#] &, Table[Sin[1.0*i*j], {i, 1, m}, {j, 1, n}, {k, 1, n}]];

vector = {IdentityMatrix[n][[1]]}\[Transpose];

Do[Flatten[Table[ #1\[ConjugateTranspose].(matrix[[#2]].#1) &[vector, i], {i, 1, m}]], {ite, 1, 2*10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{7.430010, Null}*)


In the code above there are two important parts:


First part = Choosing one matrix from the lists of matrices matrix and multiply it by vector.


Second part = Multiplying vector\[ConjugateTranspose] by the result of the first part.


I thought if I convert matrix[[#2]].#1, the first part, into one matrix multiplication, it would be more efficient as instead of many multiplications I calculate all of them in one go:


matrix2 = ToPackedArray[Flatten[Table[matrix[[i]]\[Transpose], {i, 1, m}], 1]];

matrix2 is the desired matrix to do the next step. If you use matrix//MatrixForm, then both the matrices look like each other.


Do[x = matrix2.vector; Flatten[Table[ #1\[ConjugateTranspose].(x[[#2 ;; #2 + n - 1,All]]) &[vector, i], {i, 1, n*m, n}]], {ite, 1, 2*10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{9.080013, Null}*)


I had to still choose different parts of (matrix2.#1),first part, to multiply that part with #1\[ConjugateTranspose],second part.


As you see although I calculate all the matrix multiplications in the first part at once, it is slower. I thought it might be because of this part of code [[#2 ;; #2 + n - 1, All]] in which I had to choose different parts of the result. I tried:


Do[x = matrix2.vector; Flatten[Table[ (x[[#1 ;; #1 + n - 1, All]]) &[i], {i, 1, n*m, n}]], {ite, 1, 2*10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{5.290007, Null}*)

Do[Flatten[Table[ (matrix[[#2]].#1) &[vector, i], {i, 1, m}]], {ite, 1, 2*10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{4.630007, Null}*)

At each iteration for matrix2 I just do the calculation once but for that of matrix at each iteration there are 6 multiplications. In the below I remove the table for matrix2 and replace it with Do for matrix:


Do[x = matrix2.vector, {ite, 1, 2*10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming

(*{0.240000, Null}*)

Do[ Do[(matrix[[#2]].#1) &[vector, i], {i, 1, m}], {ite, 1, 2*10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{2.620004, Null}*)

Now the calculations for matrix2 are faster. Thus, I believe that choosing parts of matrix2.vector causes the calculation gets slower.


How can I overcome this bottleneck? How can I choose parts of a matrix faster?



Answer



You can increase the performance by transposing your matrix and using Dot without explicit [[...]]


<< Developer`

n = 2;
m = 6;

matrix = Table[Sin[1.0*i*j], {i, m}, {j, n}, {k, n}];
matrix3 = ToPackedArray@Transpose@matrix;

vector = N@Transpose@{IdentityMatrix[n]};
vectorHC = ConjugateTranspose@vector;

Flatten[vectorHC.matrix3.vector, {{1, 3, 2, 4, 5}}] == 

 Flatten@Table[#1\[ConjugateTranspose].(matrix[[#2]].#1) &[vector, i], {i, 1, m}]
(* True *)

Do[Flatten[vectorHC.matrix3.vector, {{1, 3, 2, 4, 5}}], {ite, 10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming
(* {0.894130, Null} *)

Do[Flatten[Table[#1\[ConjugateTranspose].(matrix[[#2]].#1) &[vector, i], {i, m}]], 
  {ite, 10^5}] // AbsoluteTiming
(* {8.979821, Null} *)


Converting vector to a floating-point array (N[...]) also increase the performance a bit.


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