I am find the rank of binary matrix in GF(2)( Galois Field). The rank function in matlab cannot find it. For example, Given a matrix 400 by 400 as here. If you use the rank function as
rank(A)
ans=357
However, the correct ans. in GF(2) must be 356 by this code
B=gf(A);
rank(B);
ans=356;
But this way spends a lot a time (about 16s). Hence, I used Gaussian elimination to find the rank in GF(2) with small time. But, it does not works well. Sometime, it returns the true value, but sometime it returns wrong. Please see my code and let me know the problem in my code. Note that, it spend very small time compare with above code
function rankA =GaussEliRank(A)
tic
mat = A;
[m n] = size(A); % read the size of the original matrix A
for i = 1 : n
j = find(mat(i:m, i), 1); % finds the FIRST 1 in i-th column starting at i
if isempty(j)
mat = mat( sum(mat,2)>0 ,:);
rankA=rank(mat);
return;
else
j = j + i - 1; % we need to add i-1 since j starts at i
temp = mat(j, :); % swap rows
mat(j, :) = mat(i, :);
mat(i, :) = temp;
% add i-th row to all rows that contain 1 in i-th column
% starting at j+1 - remember up to j are zeros
for k = find(mat( (j+1):m, i ))'
mat(j + k, :) = bitxor(mat(j + k, :), mat(i, :));
end
end
end
%remove all-zero rows if there are some
mat = mat( sum(mat,2)>0 ,:);
if any(sum( mat(:,1:n) ,2)==0) % no solution because matrix A contains
error('No solution.'); % all-zero row, but with nonzero RHS
end
rankA=sum(sum(mat,2)>0);
end
Let use the gfrank function. It is suitable for your matrix.
Use:
gfrank(A)
ans=
356
More detail: How to find the row rank of matrix in Galois fields?
Related
Hell all, I have some problem when compute the rank of binary matrix that only 1 or 0. The rank of binary matrix will based on the row reduction using boolean operations XOR. Let see the XOR operation:
1 xor 1 =0
1 xor 0= 1
0 xor 0= 0
0 xor 1= 1
Given a binary matrix as
A =
1 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 1
We can see the third row equals first row xor with second row. Hence, the rank of matrix A only 2, instead of 3 by rank matlab function.
I have one way to compute the extractly rank of binary matrix using this code
B=gf(A)
rank(B)
It will return 2. However, when I compute with large size of matrix, for example 400 by 400. It does not return the rank (never stop). Could you suggest to me the good way to find rank of binary matrix for large size? Thank all
UPDATE: this is computation time using tic toc
N=50; Elapsed time is=0.646823 seconds
N=100;Elapsed time is 3.123573 seconds.
N=150;Elapsed time is 7.438541 seconds.
N=200;Elapsed time is 11.349964 seconds.
N=400;Elapsed time is 66.815286 seconds.
Note that check rank is only the condition in my algorithm. However, it take very long long time, then it will affect to my method
Base on the suggestion of R. I will use Gaussian Elimination to find the rank. This is my code. However, it call the rank function (spend some computation times). Could you modify help me without using rank function?
function rankA=GaussEliRank(A)
mat = A;
[m n] = size(A); % read the size of the original matrix A
for i = 1 : n
j = find(mat(i:m, i), 1); % finds the FIRST 1 in i-th column starting at i
if isempty(j)
mat = mat( sum(mat,2)>0 ,:);
rankA=rank(mat); %%Here
return;
else
j = j + i - 1; % we need to add i-1 since j starts at i
temp = mat(j, :); % swap rows
mat(j, :) = mat(i, :);
mat(i, :) = temp;
% add i-th row to all rows that contain 1 in i-th column
% starting at j+1 - remember up to j are zeros
for k = find(mat( (j+1):m, i ))'
mat(j + k, :) = bitxor(mat(j + k, :), mat(i, :));
end
end
end
%remove all-zero rows if there are some
mat = mat( sum(mat,2)>0 ,:);
if any(sum( mat(:,1:n) ,2)==0) % no solution because matrix A contains
error('No solution.'); % all-zero row, but with nonzero RHS
end
rankA=rank(mat); %%Here
end
Let check the matrix A at here. Correct ans is 393 for rank of A.
Once you get the matrix into row echelon form with Gaussian elimination, the rank is the number of nonzero rows. You should be able to replace the code after the loop with something like rankA=sum(sum(mat,2)>0);.
I am looking for an optimal way to program this summation ratio. As input I have two vectors v_mn and x_mn with (M*N)x1 elements each.
The ratio is of the form:
The vector x_mn is 0-1 vector so when x_mn=1, the ration is r given above and when x_mn=0 the ratio is 0.
The vector v_mn is a vector which contain real numbers.
I did the denominator like this but it takes a lot of times.
function r_ij = denominator(v_mn, M, N, i, j)
%here x_ij=1, to get r_ij.
S = [];
for m = 1:M
for n = 1:N
if (m ~= i)
if (n ~= j)
S = [S v_mn(i, n)];
else
S = [S 0];
end
else
S = [S 0];
end
end
end
r_ij = 1+S;
end
Can you give a good way to do it in matlab. You can ignore the ratio and give me the denominator which is more complicated.
EDIT: I am sorry I did not write it very good. The i and j are some numbers between 1..M and 1..N respectively. As you can see, the ratio r is many values (M*N values). So I calculated only the value i and j. More precisely, I supposed x_ij=1. Also, I convert the vectors v_mn into a matrix that's why I use double index.
If you reshape your data, your summation is just a repeated matrix/vector multiplication.
Here's an implementation for a single m and n, along with a simple speed/equality test:
clc
%# some arbitrary test parameters
M = 250;
N = 1000;
v = rand(M,N); %# (you call it v_mn)
x = rand(M,N); %# (you call it x_mn)
m0 = randi(M,1); %# m of interest
n0 = randi(N,1); %# n of interest
%# "Naive" version
tic
S1 = 0;
for mm = 1:M %# (you call this m')
if mm == m0, continue; end
for nn = 1:N %# (you call this n')
if nn == n0, continue; end
S1 = S1 + v(m0,nn) * x(mm,nn);
end
end
r1 = v(m0,n0)*x(m0,n0) / (1+S1);
toc
%# MATLAB version: use matrix multiplication!
tic
ninds = [1:m0-1 m0+1:M];
minds = [1:n0-1 n0+1:N];
S2 = sum( x(minds, ninds) * v(m0, ninds).' );
r2 = v(m0,n0)*x(m0,n0) / (1+S2);
toc
%# Test if values are equal
abs(r1-r2) < 1e-12
Outputs on my machine:
Elapsed time is 0.327004 seconds. %# loop-version
Elapsed time is 0.002455 seconds. %# version with matrix multiplication
ans =
1 %# and yes, both are equal
So the speedup is ~133×
Now that's for a single value of m and n. To do this for all values of m and n, you can use an (optimized) double loop around it:
r = zeros(M,N);
for m0 = 1:M
xx = x([1:m0-1 m0+1:M], :);
vv = v(m0,:).';
for n0 = 1:N
ninds = [1:n0-1 n0+1:N];
denom = 1 + sum( xx(:,ninds) * vv(ninds) );
r(m0,n0) = v(m0,n0)*x(m0,n0)/denom;
end
end
which completes in ~15 seconds on my PC for M = 250, N= 1000 (R2010a).
EDIT: actually, with a little more thought, I was able to reduce it all down to this:
denom = zeros(M,N);
for mm = 1:M
xx = x([1:mm-1 mm+1:M],:);
denom(mm,:) = sum( xx*v(mm,:).' ) - sum( bsxfun(#times, xx, v(mm,:)) );
end
denom = denom + 1;
r_mn = x.*v./denom;
which completes in less than 1 second for N = 250 and M = 1000 :)
For a start you need to pre-alocate your S matrix. It changes size every loop so put
S = zeros(m*n, 1)
at the start of your function. This will also allow you to do away with your else conditional statements, ie they will reduce to this:
if (m ~= i)
if (n ~= j)
S(m*M + n) = v_mn(i, n);
Otherwise since you have to visit every element im afraid it may not be able to get much faster.
If you desperately need more speed you can look into doing some mex coding which is code in c/c++ but run in matlab.
http://www.mathworks.com.au/help/matlab/matlab_external/introducing-mex-files.html
Rather than first jumping into vectorization of the double loop, you may want modify the above to make sure that it does what you want. In this code, there is no summing of the data, instead a vector S is being resized at each iteration. As well, the signature could include the matrices V and X so that the multiplication occurs as in the formula (rather than just relying on the value of X to be zero or one, let us pass that matrix in).
The function could look more like the following (I've replaced the i,j inputs with m,n to be more like the equation):
function result = denominator(V,X,m,n)
% use the size of V to determine M and N
[M,N] = size(V);
% initialize the summed value to one (to account for one at the end)
result = 1;
% outer loop
for i=1:M
% ignore the case where m==i
if i~=m
for j=1:N
% ignore the case where n==j
if j~=n
result = result + V(m,j)*X(i,j);
end
end
end
end
Note how the first if is outside of the inner for loop since it does not depend on j. Try the above and see what happens!
You can vectorize from within Matlab to speed up your calculations. Every time you use an operation like ".^" or ".*" or any matrix operation for that matter, Matlab will do them in parallel, which is much, much faster than iterating over each item.
In this case, look at what you are doing in terms of matrices. First, in your loop you are only dealing with the mth row of $V_{nm}$, which we can use as a vector for itself.
If you look at your formula carefully, you can figure out that you almost get there if you just write this row vector as a column vector and multiply the matrix $X_{nm}$ to it from the left, using standard matrix multiplication. The resulting vector contains the sums over all n. To get the final result, just sum up this vector.
function result = denominator_vectorized(V,X,m,n)
% get the part of V with the first index m
Vm = V(m,:)';
% remove the parts of X you don't want to iterate over. Note that, since I
% am inside the function, I am only editing the value of X within the scope
% of this function.
X(m,:) = 0;
X(:,n) = 0;
%do the matrix multiplication and the summation at once
result = 1-sum(X*Vm);
To show you how this optimizes your operation, I will compare it to the code proposed by another commenter:
function result = denominator(V,X,m,n)
% use the size of V to determine M and N
[M,N] = size(V);
% initialize the summed value to one (to account for one at the end)
result = 1;
% outer loop
for i=1:M
% ignore the case where m==i
if i~=m
for j=1:N
% ignore the case where n==j
if j~=n
result = result + V(m,j)*X(i,j);
end
end
end
end
The test:
V=rand(10000,10000);
X=rand(10000,10000);
disp('looped version')
tic
denominator(V,X,1,1)
toc
disp('matrix operation')
tic
denominator_vectorized(V,X,1,1)
toc
The result:
looped version
ans =
2.5197e+07
Elapsed time is 4.648021 seconds.
matrix operation
ans =
2.5197e+07
Elapsed time is 0.563072 seconds.
That is almost ten times the speed of the loop iteration. So, always look out for possible matrix operations in your code. If you have the Parallel Computing Toolbox installed and a CUDA-enabled graphics card installed, Matlab will even perform these operations on your graphics card without any further effort on your part!
EDIT: That last bit is not entirely true. You still need to take a few steps to do operations on CUDA hardware, but they aren't a lot. See Matlab documentation.
I have been doing linear programming problems in my class by graphing them but I would like to know how to write a program for a particular problem to solve it for me. If there are too many variables or constraints I could never do this by graphing.
Example problem, maximize 5x + 3y with constraints:
5x - 2y >= 0
x + y <= 7
x <= 5
x >= 0
y >= 0
I graphed this and got a visible region with 3 corners. x=5 y=2 is the optimal point.
How do I turn this into code? I know of the simplex method. And very importantly, will all LP problems be coded in the same structure? Would brute force work?
There are quite a number of Simplex Implementations that you will find if you search.
In addition to the one mentioned in the comment (Numerical Recipes in C),
you can also find:
Google's own Simplex-Solver
Then there's COIN-OR
GNU has its own GLPK
If you want a C++ implementation, this one in Google Code is actually accessible.
There are many implementations in R including the boot package. (In R, you can see the implementation of a function by typing it without the parenthesis.)
To address your other two questions:
Will all LPs be coded the same way? Yes, a generic LP solver can be written to load and solve any LP. (There are industry standard formats for reading LP's like mps and .lp
Would brute force work? Keep in mind that many companies and big organizations spend a long time on fine tuning the solvers. There are LP's that have interesting properties that many solvers will try to exploit. Also, certain computations can be solved in parallel. The algorithm is exponential, so at some large number of variables/constraints, brute force won't work.
Hope that helps.
I wrote this is matlab yesterday, which could be easily transcribed to C++ if you use Eigen library or write your own matrix class using a std::vector of a std::vector
function [x, fval] = mySimplex(fun, A, B, lb, up)
%Examples paramters to show that the function actually works
% sample set 1 (works for this data set)
% fun = [8 10 7];
% A = [1 3 2; 1 5 1];
% B = [10; 8];
% lb = [0; 0; 0];
% ub = [inf; inf; inf];
% sample set 2 (works for this data set)
fun = [7 8 10];
A = [2 3 2; 1 1 2];
B = [1000; 800];
lb = [0; 0; 0];
ub = [inf; inf; inf];
% generate a new slack variable for every row of A
numSlackVars = size(A,1); % need a new slack variables for every row of A
% Set up tableau to store algorithm data
tableau = [A; -fun];
tableau = [tableau, eye(numSlackVars + 1)];
lastCol = [B;0];
tableau = [tableau, lastCol];
% for convienience sake, assign the following:
numRows = size(tableau,1);
numCols = size(tableau,2);
% do simplex algorithm
% step 0: find num of negative entries in bottom row of tableau
numNeg = 0; % the number of negative entries in bottom row
for i=1:numCols
if(tableau(numRows,i) < 0)
numNeg = numNeg + 1;
end
end
% Remark: the number of negatives is exactly the number of iterations needed in the
% simplex algorithm
for iterations = 1:numNeg
% step 1: find minimum value in last row
minVal = 10000; % some big number
minCol = 1; % start by assuming min value is the first element
for i=1:numCols
if(tableau(numRows, i) < minVal)
minVal = tableau(size(tableau,1), i);
minCol = i; % update the index corresponding to the min element
end
end
% step 2: Find corresponding ratio vector in pivot column
vectorRatio = zeros(numRows -1, 1);
for i=1:(numRows-1) % the size of ratio vector is numCols - 1
vectorRatio(i, 1) = tableau(i, numCols) ./ tableau(i, minCol);
end
% step 3: Determine pivot element by finding minimum element in vector
% ratio
minVal = 10000; % some big number
minRatio = 1; % holds the element with the minimum ratio
for i=1:numRows-1
if(vectorRatio(i,1) < minVal)
minVal = vectorRatio(i,1);
minRatio = i;
end
end
% step 4: assign pivot element
pivotElement = tableau(minRatio, minCol);
% step 5: perform pivot operation on tableau around the pivot element
tableau(minRatio, :) = tableau(minRatio, :) * (1/pivotElement);
% step 6: perform pivot operation on rows (not including last row)
for i=1:size(vectorRatio,1)+1 % do last row last
if(i ~= minRatio) % we skip over the minRatio'th element of the tableau here
tableau(i, :) = -tableau(i,minCol)*tableau(minRatio, :) + tableau(i,:);
end
end
end
% Now we can interpret the algo tableau
numVars = size(A,2); % the number of cols of A is the number of variables
x = zeros(size(size(tableau,1), 1)); % for efficiency
% Check for basicity
for col=1:numVars
count_zero = 0;
count_one = 0;
for row = 1:size(tableau,1)
if(tableau(row,col) < 1e-2)
count_zero = count_zero + 1;
elseif(tableau(row,col) - 1 < 1e-2)
count_one = count_one + 1;
stored_row = row; % we store this (like in memory) column for later use
end
end
if(count_zero == (size(tableau,1) -1) && count_one == 1) % this is the case where it is basic
x(col,1) = tableau(stored_row, numCols);
else
x(col,1) = 0; % this is the base where it is not basic
end
end
% find function optimal value at optimal solution
fval = x(1,1) * fun(1,1); % just needed for logic to work here
for i=2:numVars
fval = fval + x(i,1) * fun(1,i);
end
end
I have been given an assignment in which I am supposed to write an algorithm which performs polynomial interpolation by the barycentric formula. The formulas states that:
p(x) = (SIGMA_(j=0 to n) w(j)*f(j)/(x - x(j)))/(SIGMA_(j=0 to n) w(j)/(x - x(j)))
I have written an algorithm which works just fine, and I get the polynomial output I desire. However, this requires the use of some quite long loops, and for a large grid number, lots of nastly loop operations will have to be done. Thus, I would appreciate it greatly if anyone has any hints as to how I may improve this, so that I will avoid all these loops.
In the algorithm, x and f stand for the given points we are supposed to interpolate. w stands for the barycentric weights, which have been calculated before running the algorithm. And grid is the linspace over which the interpolation should take place:
function p = barycentric_formula(x,f,w,grid)
%Assert x-vectors and f-vectors have same length.
if length(x) ~= length(f)
sprintf('Not equal amounts of x- and y-values. Function is terminated.')
return;
end
n = length(x);
m = length(grid);
p = zeros(1,m);
% Loops for finding polynomial values at grid points. All values are
% calculated by the barycentric formula.
for i = 1:m
var = 0;
sum1 = 0;
sum2 = 0;
for j = 1:n
if grid(i) == x(j)
p(i) = f(j);
var = 1;
else
sum1 = sum1 + (w(j)*f(j))/(grid(i) - x(j));
sum2 = sum2 + (w(j)/(grid(i) - x(j)));
end
end
if var == 0
p(i) = sum1/sum2;
end
end
This is a classical case for matlab 'vectorization'. I would say - just remove the loops. It is almost that simple. First, have a look at this code:
function p = bf2(x, f, w, grid)
m = length(grid);
p = zeros(1,m);
for i = 1:m
var = grid(i)==x;
if any(var)
p(i) = f(var);
else
sum1 = sum((w.*f)./(grid(i) - x));
sum2 = sum(w./(grid(i) - x));
p(i) = sum1/sum2;
end
end
end
I have removed the inner loop over j. All I did here was in fact removing the (j) indexing and changing the arithmetic operators from / to ./ and from * to .* - the same, but with a dot in front to signify that the operation is performed on element by element basis. This is called array operators in contrast to ordinary matrix operators. Also note that treating the special case where the grid points fall onto x is very similar to what you had in the original implementation, only using a vector var such that x(var)==grid(i).
Now, you can also remove the outermost loop. This is a bit more tricky and there are two major approaches how you can do that in MATLAB. I will do it the simpler way, which can be less efficient, but more clear to read - using repmat:
function p = bf3(x, f, w, grid)
% Find grid points that coincide with x.
% The below compares all grid values with all x values
% and returns a matrix of 0/1. 1 is in the (row,col)
% for which grid(row)==x(col)
var = bsxfun(#eq, grid', x);
% find the logical indexes of those x entries
varx = sum(var, 1)~=0;
% and of those grid entries
varp = sum(var, 2)~=0;
% Outer-most loop removal - use repmat to
% replicate the vectors into matrices.
% Thus, instead of having a loop over j
% you have matrices of values that would be
% referenced in the loop
ww = repmat(w, numel(grid), 1);
ff = repmat(f, numel(grid), 1);
xx = repmat(x, numel(grid), 1);
gg = repmat(grid', 1, numel(x));
% perform the calculations element-wise on the matrices
sum1 = sum((ww.*ff)./(gg - xx),2);
sum2 = sum(ww./(gg - xx),2);
p = sum1./sum2;
% fix the case where grid==x and return
p(varp) = f(varx);
end
The fully vectorized version can be implemented with bsxfun rather than repmat. This can potentially be a bit faster, since the matrices are not explicitly formed. However, the speed difference may not be large for small system sizes.
Also, the first solution with one loop is also not too bad performance-wise. I suggest you test those and see, what is better. Maybe it is not worth it to fully vectorize? The first code looks a bit more readable..
I have 2 matrices: V which is square MxM, and K which is MxN. Calling the dimension across rows x and the dimension across columns t, I need to evaluate the integral (i.e sum) over both dimensions of K times a t-shifted version of V, the answer being a function of the shift (almost like a convolution, see below). The sum is defined by the following expression, where _{} denotes the summation indices, and a zero-padding of out-of-limits elements is assumed:
S(t) = sum_{x,tau}[V(x,t+tau) * K(x,tau)]
I manage to do it with a single loop, over the t dimension (vectorizing the x dimension):
% some toy matrices
V = rand(50,50);
K = rand(50,10);
[M N] = size(K);
S = zeros(1, M);
for t = 1 : N
S(1,1:end-t+1) = S(1,1:end-t+1) + sum(bsxfun(#times, V(:,t:end), K(:,t)),1);
end
I have similar expressions which I managed to evaluate without a for loop, using a combination of conv2 and\or mirroring (flipping) of a single dimension. However I can't see how to avoid a for loop in this case (despite the appeared similarity to convolution).
Steps to vectorization
1] Perform sum(bsxfun(#times, V(:,t:end), K(:,t)),1) for all columns in V against all columns in K with matrix-multiplication -
sum_mults = V.'*K
This would give us a 2D array with each column representing sum(bsxfun(#times,.. operation at each iteration.
2] Step1 gave us all possible summations and also the values to be summed are not aligned in the same row across iterations, so we need to do a bit more work before summing along rows. The rest of the work is about getting a shifted up version. For the same, you can use boolean indexing with a upper and lower triangular boolean mask. Finally, we sum along each row for the final output. So, this part of the code would look like so -
valid_mask = tril(true(size(sum_mults)));
sum_mults_shifted = zeros(size(sum_mults));
sum_mults_shifted(flipud(valid_mask)) = sum_mults(valid_mask);
out = sum(sum_mults_shifted,2);
Runtime tests -
%// Inputs
V = rand(1000,1000);
K = rand(1000,200);
disp('--------------------- With original loopy approach')
tic
[M N] = size(K);
S = zeros(1, M);
for t = 1 : N
S(1,1:end-t+1) = S(1,1:end-t+1) + sum(bsxfun(#times, V(:,t:end), K(:,t)),1);
end
toc
disp('--------------------- With proposed vectorized approach')
tic
sum_mults = V.'*K; %//'
valid_mask = tril(true(size(sum_mults)));
sum_mults_shifted = zeros(size(sum_mults));
sum_mults_shifted(flipud(valid_mask)) = sum_mults(valid_mask);
out = sum(sum_mults_shifted,2);
toc
Output -
--------------------- With original loopy approach
Elapsed time is 2.696773 seconds.
--------------------- With proposed vectorized approach
Elapsed time is 0.044144 seconds.
This might be cheating (using arrayfun instead of a for loop) but I believe this expression gives you what you want:
S = arrayfun(#(t) sum(sum( V(:,(t+1):(t+N)) .* K )), 1:(M-N), 'UniformOutput', true)