Skip to main content

Performance: Collapsing repeated contiguous rows & cols from a matrix


In this answer I needed to remove contiguous zero-valued cols and rows from a matrix, leaving only two of them in place, no matter what the original number was.


I made up this code:


m = RandomVariate[BinomialDistribution[1, 10^-3], {400, 400}]; 
rule = {h__, {0 ..}, w : {0 ..}, {0 ..}, t__} -> {h, w, w, t};

mClean = Transpose[Transpose[m //. rule] //. rule];
Dimensions@mClean

But it is way too slow.
I'm pretty sure this code can be enhanced. Any better ideas?



Answer



Linked lists - based solution


The real reason for the slowdown seems to be the same as usual for ReplaceRepeated - multiple copying of large arrays. I can offer a solution which would still be rule-based, but uses linked lists to avoid the mentioned slowdown. Here are auxiliary functions:


zeroVectorQ[x_] := VectorQ[x, IntegerQ] && Total[Unitize[x]] == 0;


toLinkedList[l_List] := Fold[ll[#2, #1] &, ll[], Reverse[l]]

ClearAll[rzvecs];
rzvecs[mat_List] :=  rzvecs[ll[First@#, ll[]], Last@#] &@toLinkedList[mat];

rzvecs[accum_, rest : (ll[] | ll[_, ll[_, ll[]]])] := 
   List @@ Flatten[ll[accum, rest], Infinity, ll];

rzvecs[accum_, ll[head_?zeroVectorQ, ll[_?zeroVectorQ, tail : ll[_?zeroVectorQ, Except[ll[]]]]]] :=
   rzvecs[accum, ll[head, tail]];


rzvecs[accum_, ll[head_?zeroVectorQ, ll[_?zeroVectorQ, tail_]]] :=
   rzvecs[ll[ll[accum, head], head], tail];

rzvecs[accum_, ll[head_, tail_]] := rzvecs[ll[accum, head], tail];

Now the main function:


removeZeroVectors[mat_] := Nest[Transpose[rzvecs[#]] &, mat, 2]

Benchmarks



Now the benchmarks:


m = RandomVariate[BinomialDistribution[1, 10^-3], {600, 600}];
(res = removeZeroVectors[m]); // AbsoluteTiming
(res1 = Transpose[Transpose[m //. rule] //. rule]); // AbsoluteTiming
res == res1

(*
    {0.046875, Null}
    {3.715820, Null}
    True

*)

Remarks


I have been promoting the uses of linked lists for some time now. In my opinion, in Mathematica they allow one to stay of the higher level of abstraction while achieving very decent (for the top-level code) performance. They also allow one to avoid many non-obvious performance-tuning tricks which take time to come up with, and even more time to understand for others. The algorithms expressed with linked lists are usually rather straight-forward and can be directly read off from the code.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
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