I have the following problem. There is a matrix A of size NxN, where N = 200 000. It is very sparse, there are exactly M elements in each row, where M={6, 18, 40, 68, 102} (I have 5 different scenarios), the rest are zeros.
Now I would like to get all the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of matrix A.
Problem is, I cannot put matrix A into memory as it is around 160 GB of data. What I am looking for is a software that allows nice storing of sparse matrix (without zeros, my matrix is just few MB) and then putting this stored matrix without zeros to the algorithm that calculates eigenvalues and vectors.
Can any of you recommend me a software for that?
EDIT: I found out I can reconfigure my matrix A so it becomes a band matrix. Then I could use LAPACK to get the eigenvalues and eigenvectors (concretely: http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/doclib/iss/2013/mkl/mklman/GUID-D3C929A9-8E33-4540-8854-AA8BE61BB08F.htm). Problem is, I need all the vectors, and since my matrix is NxN, I cannot allow LAPACK to store the solution (all eigenvectors) in the memory. The best way would be a function that will give me first K eigenvectors, then I rerun the program to get the next K eigenvectors and so on, so I can save the results in a file.
You may try to use the SLEPC library http://www.grycap.upv.es/slepc/description/summary.htm :
"SLEPc the Scalable Library for Eigenvalue Problem Computations, is a software library for the solution of large sparse eigenproblems on parallel computers."
Read the second chapter of their users'manual, "EPS: Eigenvalue Problem Solver". They are focused on methods that preserve sparcity...but a limited number of eigenvalues and eigenvectors are computed.
I hope our matrices have good properties (positive definite for instance...).
EPSIsPositive(EPS eps,PetscBool *pos);
You may be interrested in "spectrum slicing" to compute all eigenvalues in a given interval... Or you may set a target and compute the closest eigenvalue around this target.
See http://www.grycap.upv.es/slepc/documentation/current/docs/manualpages/EPS/EPSSetWhichEigenpairs.html#EPSSetWhichEigenpairs
See examples http://www.grycap.upv.es/slepc/documentation/current/src/eps/examples/tutorials/index.html
Why do you need to compute all eigenvectors for such large matrices ?
Bye,
Related
Let A be an n x n sparse matrix, represented by a sequence of m tuples of the form (i,j,a) --- with indices i,j (between 0 and n-1) and a being a value a in the underlying field F.
What algorithms are used, in practice, to solve linear systems of equations of the form Ax = b? Please describe them, don't just link somewhere.
Notes:
I'm interested both in exact solutions for finite fields, and in exact and bounded-error solutions for reals or complex numbers using floating-point representation. I suppose exact or bounded-solutions for rational numbers are also interesting.
I'm particularly interested in parallelizable solutions.
A is not fixed, i.e. you don't just get different b's for the same A.
The main two algorithms that I have used and parallelised are the Wiedemann algorithm and the Lanczos algorithm (and their block variants for GF(2) computations), both of which are better than structured gaussian elimination.
The LaMacchia-Odlyzo paper (the one for the Lanczos algorithm) will tell you what you need to know. The algorithms involve repeatedly multiplying your sparse matrix by a sequence of vectors. To do this efficiently, you need to use the right data structure (linked list) to make the matrix-vector multiply time proportional to the number of non-zero values in the matrix (i.e. the sparsity).
Paralellisation of these algorithms is trivial, but optimisation will depend upon the architecture of your system. The parallelisation of the matrix-vector multiply is done by splitting the matrix into blocks of rows (each processor gets one block), each block of rows multiplies by the vector separately. Then you combine the results to get the new vector.
I've done these types of computations extensively. The original authors that broke the RSA-129 factorisation took 6 weeks using structured gaussian elimination on a 16,384 processor MasPar. On the same machine, I worked with Arjen Lenstra (one of the authors) to solve the matrix in 4 days with block Wiedemann and 1 day with block Lanczos. Unfortunately, I never published the result!
I am using armadillo mostly for symmetric and triangular matrices. I wanted to be efficient in terms of memory storage. However, it seems there is no other way than to create a new mat and fill with zeros(for triangular) or with duplicates(for symmetric) the lower/upper part of the matrix.
Is there a more efficient way of using triangular/symmetric matrices using Armadillo?
Thanks,
Antoine
There is no specific support for triangular or banded matrices in Armadillo. However, since version 3.4 support for sparse matrices has gradually been added. Depending on what Armadillo functions you need, and the sparsity of your matrix, you might gain from using SpMat<type> which implements the compressed sparse column (CSC) format. For each nonzero value in your matrix the CSC format stores the row index along with the value so you would likely not save much memory for a triangular matrix. A banded diagonal matrix should however consume significantly less memory.
symmatu()/symmatl() and trimatu()/trimatl()
may be what you are looking for:
http://arma.sourceforge.net/docs.html
I have a huge dataset. We are talking about 100 3D matrices with 121x145x121 cells. Any cell has a value between 0 and 1, and I need a way to cluster these cells according to their correlation. The problem is the dataset is too big for any algorithm I know; even using just half of it (any matrix is a MRI scan of a brain) we have around 400 billion pairs. Any ideas?
As a first step I would be tempted to try K-means clustering.
This appears in the Matlab statistics toolbox as the function kmeans.
In this algorithm you only end up computing the distances between the K current centres and the data, so the number of pairs is much smaller than comparing all choices.
In Matlab, I've also found that the speed of the operation can be quite dependent on the organisation of your matrix (due to memory caching and optimisation issues). I would recommend transforming your 3d matrices so that the columns (held together in memory) correspond to the 100 values for a particular cell.
This can be done with the permute function.
Try a weighted K-means++ clustering algorithm. Create one matrix of the sum of values for all the 100 input matrices at every point to produce one "grey scale" matrix, then adjust the K-means++ algorithm to work with weighted, (wt), values.
In the initialization phase choose one new data point at random as a new center, using a weighted probability distribution where a point x is chosen with probability proportional to D(X)^2 x wt^2 .
The assignment step should be okay, but when computing the centroids in the update step adjust the formula to account for the weights. (Or use the same formula but each point is used wt times).
You may not be able to use a library function to do this but you start with a 100 fold decrease in number of points and matrices to work with.
I am trying to apply Random Projections method on a very sparse dataset. I found papers and tutorials about Johnson Lindenstrauss method, but every one of them is full of equations which makes no meaningful explanation to me. For example, this document on Johnson-Lindenstrauss
Unfortunately, from this document, I can get no idea about the implementation steps of the algorithm. It's a long shot but is there anyone who can tell me the plain English version or very simple pseudo code of the algorithm? Or where can I start to dig this equations? Any suggestions?
For example, what I understand from the algorithm by reading this paper concerning Johnson-Lindenstrauss is that:
Assume we have a AxB matrix where A is number of samples and B is the number of dimensions, e.g. 100x5000. And I want to reduce the dimension of it to 500, which will produce a 100x500 matrix.
As far as I understand: first, I need to construct a 100x500 matrix and fill the entries randomly with +1 and -1 (with a 50% probability).
Edit:
Okay, I think I started to get it. So we have a matrix A which is mxn. We want to reduce it to E which is mxk.
What we need to do is, to construct a matrix R which has nxk dimension, and fill it with 0, -1 or +1, with respect to 2/3, 1/6 and 1/6 probability.
After constructing this R, we'll simply do a matrix multiplication AxR to find our reduced matrix E. But we don't need to do a full matrix multiplication, because if an element of Ri is 0, we don't need to do calculation. Simply skip it. But if we face with 1, we just add the column, or if it's -1, just subtract it from the calculation. So we'll simply use summation rather than multiplication to find E. And that is what makes this method very fast.
It turned out a very neat algorithm, although I feel too stupid to get the idea.
You have the idea right. However as I understand random project, the rows of your matrix R should have unit length. I believe that's approximately what the normalizing by 1/sqrt(k) is for, to normalize away the fact that they're not unit vectors.
It isn't a projection, but, it's nearly a projection; R's rows aren't orthonormal, but within a much higher-dimensional space, they quite nearly are. In fact the dot product of any two of those vectors you choose will be pretty close to 0. This is why it is a generally good approximation of actually finding a proper basis for projection.
The mapping from high-dimensional data A to low-dimensional data E is given in the statement of theorem 1.1 in the latter paper - it is simply a scalar multiplication followed by a matrix multiplication. The data vectors are the rows of the matrices A and E. As the author points out in section 7.1, you don't need to use a full matrix multiplication algorithm.
If your dataset is sparse, then sparse random projections will not work well.
You have a few options here:
Option A:
Step 1. apply a structured dense random projection (so called fast hadamard transform is typically used). This is a special projection which is very fast to compute but otherwise has the properties of a normal dense random projection
Step 2. apply sparse projection on the "densified data" (sparse random projections are useful for dense data only)
Option B:
Apply SVD on the sparse data. If the data is sparse but has some structure SVD is better. Random projection preserves the distances between all points. SVD preserves better the distances between dense regions - in practice this is more meaningful. Also people use random projections to compute the SVD on huge datasets. Random Projections gives you efficiency, but not necessarily the best quality of embedding in a low dimension.
If your data has no structure, then use random projections.
Option C:
For data points for which SVD has little error, use SVD; for the rest of the points use Random Projection
Option D:
Use a random projection based on the data points themselves.
This is very easy to understand what is going on. It looks something like this:
create a n by k matrix (n number of data point, k new dimension)
for i from 0 to k do #generate k random projection vectors
randomized_combination = feature vector of zeros (number of zeros = number of features)
sample_point_ids = select a sample of point ids
for each point_id in sample_point_ids do:
random_sign = +1/-1 with prob. 1/2
randomized_combination += random_sign*feature_vector[point_id] #this is a vector operation
normalize the randomized combination
#note that the normal random projection is:
# randomized_combination = [+/-1, +/-1, ...] (k +/-1; if you want sparse randomly set a fraction to 0; also good to normalize by length]
to project the data points on this random feature just do
for each data point_id in dataset:
scores[point_id, j] = dot_product(feature_vector[point_id], randomized_feature)
If you are still looking to solve this problem, write a message here, I can give you more pseudocode.
The way to think about it is that a random projection is just a random pattern and the dot product (i.e. projecting the data point) between the data point and the pattern gives you the overlap between them. So if two data points overlap with many random patterns, those points are similar. Therefore, random projections preserve similarity while using less space, but they also add random fluctuations in the pairwise similarities. What JLT tells you is that to make fluctuations 0.1 (eps)
you need about 100*log(n) dimensions.
Good Luck!
An R Package to perform Random Projection using Johnson- Lindenstrauss Lemma
RandPro
I've been searching everywhere and I've only found how to create a covariance matrix from one vector to another vector, like cov(xi, xj). One thing I'm confused about is, how to get a covariance matrix from a cluster. Each cluster has many vectors. how to get them into one covariance matrix. Any suggestions??
info :
input : vectors in a cluster, Xi = (x0,x1,...,xt), x0 = { 5 1 2 3 4} --> a column vector
(actually it's an MFCC feature vector which has 12 coefficients per vector, after clustering them with k-means, 8 cluster, now i want to get the covariance matrix for each cluster to use it as the covariance matrix in Gaussian Mixture Model)
output : covariance matrix n x n
The question you are asking is: Given a set of N points of dimension D (e.g. the points you initially clustered as "speaker1"), fit a D-dimensional gaussian to those points (which we will call "the gaussian which represents speaker1"). To do so, merely calculate the sample mean and sample covariance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_normal_distribution#Estimation_of_parameters or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_mean_and_covariance
Repeat for the other k=8 speakers. I believe you may be able to use a "non-parametric" stochastic process, or modify the algorithm (e.g. run it a few times on many speakers), to remove your assumption of k=8 speakers. Note that the standard k-means clustering algorithms (and other common algorithms like EM) are very fickle in that they will give you different answers depending on how you initialize, so you may wish to perform appropriate regularization to penalize "bad" solutions as you discover them.
(below is my answer before you clarified your question)
covariance is a property of two random variables, which is a rough measure of how much changing one affects the other
a covariance matrix is merely a representation for the NxM separate covariances, cov(x_i,y_j), each element from the set X=(x1,x2,...,xN) and Y=(y1,y2,...,yN)
So the question boils down to, what you are actually trying to do with this "covariance matrix" you are searching for? Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients... does each coefficient correspond to each note of an octave? You have chosen k=12 as the number of clusters you'd like? Are you basically trying to pick out notes in music?
I'm not sure how covariance generalizes to vectors, but I would guess that the covariance between two vectors x and y is just E[x dot y] - (E[x] dot E[y]) (basically replace multiplication with dot product) which would give you a scalar, one scalar per element of your covariance matrix. Then you would just stick this process inside two for-loops.
Or perhaps you could find the covariance matrix for each dimension separately. Without knowing exactly what you're doing though, one cannot give further advice than that.