There are two vectors:
a = 1:5;
b = 1:2;
in order to find all combinations of these two vectors, I am using the following piece of code:
[A,B] = meshgrid(a,b);
C = cat(2,A',B');
D = reshape(C,[],2);
the result includes all the combinations:
D =
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
1 2
2 2
3 2
4 2
5 2
now the questions:
1- I want to decrease the number of operations to improve the performance for vectors with bigger size. Is there any single function in MATLAB that is doing this?
2- In the case that the number of vectors is more than 2, the meshgrid function cannot be used and has to be replaced with for loops. What is a better solution?
For greater than 2 dimensions, use ndgrid:
>> a = 1:2; b = 1:3; c = 1:2;
>> [A,B,C] = ndgrid(a,b,c);
>> D = [A(:) B(:) C(:)]
D =
1 1 1
2 1 1
1 2 1
2 2 1
1 3 1
2 3 1
1 1 2
2 1 2
1 2 2
2 2 2
1 3 2
2 3 2
Note that ndgrid expects (rows,cols,...) rather than (x,y).
This can be generalized to N dimensions (see here and here):
params = {a,b,c};
vecs = cell(numel(params),1);
[vecs{:}] = ndgrid(params{:});
D = reshape(cat(numel(vecs)+1,vecs{:}),[],numel(vecs));
Also, as described in Robert P.'s answer and here too, kron can also be useful for replicating values (indexes) in this way.
If you have the neural network toolbox, also have a look at combvec, as demonstrated here.
One way would be to combine repmat and the Kronecker tensor product like this:
[repmat(a,size(b)); kron(b,ones(size(a)))]'
ans =
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
1 2
2 2
3 2
4 2
5 2
This can be scaled to more dimensions this way:
a = 1:3;
b = 1:3;
c = 1:3;
x = [repmat(a,1,numel(b)*numel(c)); ...
repmat(kron(b,ones(1,numel(a))),1,numel(c)); ...
kron(c,ones(1,numel(a)*numel(b)))]'
There is a logic! First: simply repeat the first vector. Secondly: Use the tensor product with the dimension of the first vector and repeat it. Third: Use the tensor product with the dimension of (first x second) and repeat (in this case there is not fourth, so no repeat.
Related
I have a matrix (m) of scores for 4 students on 3 different exams.
4 3 1
3 2 5
8 4 6
1 5 2
I want to know, for each student, the exams they did best to worse on. Desired output:
1 2 3
2 3 1
1 3 2
3 1 2
Now, I'm new to the language (and coding in general), so I read GeeksforGeeks' page on sorting in Julia and tried
mapslices(sortperm, -m; dims = 2)
However, this gives something subtly different: a matrix of each row being the index of the sorting.
1 2 3
3 1 2
1 3 2
2 3 1
Perhaps it was obvious, but I now realize this is not actually what I want, but I cannot find a built-in function/fast way to complete this operation. Any ideas? Preferably something which doesn't iterate through items in the matrix/row, as in reality my matrix is very, very large. Thanks!
Such functionality is provided by StatsBase.jl. Here is an example:
julia> using StatsBase
julia> m = [4 3 1
3 2 5
8 4 6
1 5 2]
4×3 Array{Int64,2}:
4 3 1
3 2 5
8 4 6
1 5 2
julia> mapslices(x -> ordinalrank(x, rev=true), m, dims = 2)
4×3 Array{Int64,2}:
1 2 3
2 3 1
1 3 2
3 1 2
You might want to use other rank, depending on how you want to split ties, see here for details.
Figured out something which works!
Run m_index_rank = mapslices(sortperm, -m; dims = 2) on the matrix and get a ranking for each row through index. Then, realizing this is, in each row, an inverse permutation away from the desired output, run mapslices(invperm, m_index_rank; dims = 2) for the desired result.
In one line, this is mapslices(r -> invperm(sortperm(r, rev=true)), m; dims=2) over the desired matrix m. dims = 2 is to carry out the operation row-wise.
I'm marking this resolved for now, but please let me know if there are cleaner/faster ways to do this.
Edit: Replaced my syntactically clunky mapslices(invperm, mapslices(sortperm, -m; dims = 2); dims = 2) with a more natural one, thanks to #phipsgabler
I have a Matrix A. I want to iterate over the inner part of the matrix (B), while also working with the rows and columns that are not part of B.
A = [1 4 5 6 7 1; B = [2 2 2 2;
8 2 2 2 2 1; 2 3 3 2;
9 2 3 3 2 1; 2 8 2 2];
0 2 8 2 2 1;
1 1 1 1 1 1];
I know it is possible to select the part of A like this:
[rows,columns] = size(A);
B = A([2:1:rows-1],[2:1:columns-1]);
for i = 1:(rows*columns)
%do loop stuff
endfor
This however wont work because I also need the outer rows and columns for my calculations. How can I achieve a loop without altering A?
So, why do not use two indexes for the inner matrix?
%....
for i=2:rows-1
for j=2:cols-1
% here, A(i,j) are the B elements, but you
% can still access to A(i-1, j+1) if you want.
end
end
%....
A matrix of size nxn needs to be constructed with the desired properties.
n is even. (given as input to the algorithm)
Matrix should contain integers from 0 to n-1
Main diagonal should contain only zeroes and matrix should be symmetric.
All numbers in each row should be different.
For various n , any one of the possible output is required.
input
2
output
0 1
1 0
input
4
output
0 1 3 2
1 0 2 3
3 2 0 1
2 3 1 0
Now the only idea that comes to my mind is to brute-force build combinations recursively and prune.
How can this be done in a iterative way perhaps efficiently?
IMO, You can handle your answer by an algorithm to handle this:
If 8x8 result is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 0 3 2 5 4 7 6
2 3 0 1 6 7 4 5
3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4
4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3
5 4 7 6 1 0 3 2
6 7 4 5 2 3 0 1
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
You have actually a matrix of two 4x4 matrices in below pattern:
m0 => 0 1 2 3 m1 => 4 5 6 7 pattern => m0 m1
1 0 3 2 5 4 7 6 m1 m0
2 3 0 1 6 7 4 5
3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4
And also each 4x4 is a matrix of two 2x2 matrices with a relation to a power of 2:
m0 => 0 1 m1 => 2 3 pattern => m0 m1
1 0 3 2 m1 m0
In other explanation I should say you have a 2x2 matrix of 0 and 1 then you expand it to a 4x4 matrix by replacing each cell with a new 2x2 matrix:
0 => 0+2*0 1+2*0 1=> 0+2*1 1+2*1
1+2*0 0+2*0 1+2*1 0+2*1
result => 0 1 2 3
1 0 3 2
2 3 0 1
3 2 1 0
Now expand it again:
0,1=> as above 2=> 0+2*2 1+2*2 3=> 0+2*3 1+2*3
1+2*2 0+2*2 1+2*3 0+2*3
I can calculate value of each cell by this C# sample code:
// i: row, j: column, n: matrix dimension
var v = 0;
var m = 2;
do
{
var p = m/2;
v = v*2 + (i%(n/p) < n/m == j%(n/p) < n/m ? 0 : 1);
m *= 2;
} while (m <= n);
We know each row must contain each number. Likewise, each row contains each number.
Let us take CS convention of indices starting from 0.
First, consider how to place the 1's in the matrix. Choose a random number k0, from 1 to n-1. Place the 1 in row 0 at position (0,k0). In row 1, if k0 = 1 in which case there is already a one placed. Otherwise, there are n-2 free positions and place the 1 at position (1,k1). Continue in this way until all the 1 are placed. In the final row there is exactly one free position.
Next, repeat with the 2 which have to fit in the remaining places.
Now the problem is that we might not be able to actually complete the square. We may find there are some constraints which make it impossible to fill in the last digits. The problem is that checking a partially filled latin square is NP-complete.(wikipedia) This basically means pretty compute intensive and there no know short-cut algorithm. So I think the best you can do is generate squares and test if they work or not.
If you only want one particular square for each n then there might be simpler ways of generating them.
The link Ted Hopp gave in his comment Latin Squares. Simple Construction does provide a method for generating a square starting with the addition of integers mod n.
I might be wrong, but if you just look for printing a symmetric table - a special case of latin squares isomorphic to the symmetric difference operation table over a powerset({0,1,..,n}) mapped to a ring {0,1,2,..,2^n-1}.
One can also produce such a table, using XOR(i,j) where i and j are n*n table indexes.
For example:
def latin_powerset(n):
for i in range(n):
for j in range(n):
yield (i, j, i^j)
Printing tuples coming from previously defined special-case generator of symmetric latin squares declared above:
def print_latin_square(sq, n=None):
cells = [c for c in sq]
if n is None:
# find the length of the square side
n = 1; n2 = len(cells)
while n2 != n*n:
n += 1
rows = list()
for i in range(n):
rows.append(" ".join("{0}".format(cells[i*n + j][2]) for j in range(n)))
print("\n".join(rows))
square = latin_powerset(8)
print(print_latin_square(square))
outputs:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 0 3 2 5 4 7 6
2 3 0 1 6 7 4 5
3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4
4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3
5 4 7 6 1 0 3 2
6 7 4 5 2 3 0 1
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
See also
This covers more generic cases of latin squares, rather than that super symmetrical case with the trivial code above:
https://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/latin2.shtml (also pointed in the comments above for symmetric latin square construction)
https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/combinat/sage/combinat/matrices/latin.html
I'm performing input-output calculations in Octave. I have several matrices/vectors in the formula:
F = f' * (I-A)^-1 * Y
All vectors probably contain zeroes. I would like to omit them from the calculation and just return 0 instead. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Miranda
What do you mean when you say "omit them"?
If you want to remove zeros from a vector you can do this:
octave:1> x=[1,2,0,3,4,0,5];
octave:2> x(find(x==0))=[]
x =
1 2 3 4 5
The logic is: x==0 will test each element of x (in this case the test is if it equals zero) and will return a vector of 0's and 1's (0 if the test is false for that element and 1 otherwise)
So:
octave:1> x=[1,2,0,3,4,0,5];
octave:2> x==0
ans =
0 0 1 0 0 1 0
The find() function will return the index value of any non-zero element of it's argument, hence:
octave:3> find(x==0)
ans =
3 6
And then you are just indexing and removing when you do something like:
octave:5> x([3, 6]) = []
x =
1 2 3 4 5
But instead you do it with the output of the find() function (which is the vector [3,6] in this case)
You can do the same for matrices:
octave:7> A = [1,2,0;4,5,0]
A =
1 2 0
4 5 0
octave:8> A(find(A==0))=[]
A =
1
4
2
5
Then use the reshape() function to turn it back into a matrix.
I have a 3D image, divided into contiguous regions where each voxel has the same value. The value assigned to this region is unique to the region and serves as a label. The example image below describes the 2D case:
1 1 1 1 2 2 2
1 1 1 2 2 2 3
Im = 1 4 1 2 2 3 3
4 4 4 4 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 3 3 3
I want to create a graph describing adjaciency between these regions. In the above case, this would be:
0 1 0 1
A = 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 1
1 1 1 0
I'm looking for a speedy solution to do this for large 3D images in MATLAB. I came up with a solution that iterates over all regions, which takes 0.05s per iteration - unfortunately, this will take over half an hour for an image with 32'000 regions. Does anybody now a more elegant way of doing this? I'm posting the current algorithm below:
labels = unique(Im); % assuming labels go continuously from 1 to N
A = zeros(labels);
for ii=labels
% border mask to find neighbourhood
dil = imdilate( Im==ii, ones(3,3,3) );
border = dil - (Im==ii);
neighLabels = unique( Im(border>0) );
A(ii,neighLabels) = 1;
end
imdilate is the bottleneck I would like to avoid.
Thank you for your help!
I came up with a solution which is a combination of Divakar's and teng's answers, as well as my own modifications and I generalised it to the 2D or 3D case.
To make it more efficient, I should probably pre-allocate the r and c, but in the meantime, this is the runtime:
For a 3D image of dimension 117x159x126 and 32000 separate regions: 0.79s
For the above 2D example: 0.004671s with this solution, 0.002136s with Divakar's solution, 0.03995s with teng's solution.
I haven't tried extending the winner (Divakar) to the 3D case, though!
noDims = length(size(Im));
validim = ones(size(Im))>0;
labels = unique(Im);
if noDims == 3
Im = padarray(Im,[1 1 1],'replicate', 'post');
shifts = {[-1 0 0] [0 -1 0] [0 0 -1]};
elseif noDims == 2
Im = padarray(Im,[1 1],'replicate', 'post');
shifts = {[-1 0] [0 -1]};
end
% get value of the neighbors for each pixel
% by shifting the image in each direction
r=[]; c=[];
for i = 1:numel(shifts)
tmp = circshift(Im,shifts{i});
r = [r ; Im(validim)];
c = [c ; tmp(validim)];
end
A = sparse(r,c,ones(size(r)), numel(labels), numel(labels) );
% make symmetric, delete diagonal
A = (A+A')>0;
A(1:size(A,1)+1:end)=0;
Thanks for the help!
Try this out -
Im = padarray(Im,[1 1],'replicate');
labels = unique(Im);
box1 = [-size(Im,1)-1 -size(Im,1) -size(Im,1)+1 -1 1 size(Im,1)-1 size(Im,1) size(Im,1)+1];
mat1 = NaN(numel(labels),numel(labels));
for k2=1:numel(labels)
a1 = find(Im==k2);
for k1=1:numel(labels)
a2 = find(Im==k1);
t1 = bsxfun(#plus,a1,box1);
t2 = bsxfun(#eq,t1,permute(a2,[3 2 1]));
mat1(k2,k1) = any(t2(:));
end
end
mat1(1:size(mat1,1)+1:end)=0;
If it works for you, share with us the runtimes as comparison? Would love to see if the coffee brews any faster than half an hour!
Below is my attempt.
Im = [1 1 1 1 2 2 2;
1 1 1 2 2 2 3;
1 4 1 2 2 3 3;
4 4 4 4 3 3 3;
4 4 4 4 3 3 3];
% mark the borders
validim = zeros(size(Im));
validim(2:end-1,2:end-1) = 1;
% get value of the 4-neighbors for each pixel
% by shifting the images 4 times in each direction
numNeighbors = 4;
adj = zeros([prod(size(Im)),numNeighbors]);
shifts = {[0 1] [0 -1] [1 0] [-1 0]};
for i = 1:numNeighbors
tmp = circshift(Im,shifts{i});
tmp(validim == 0) = nan;
adj(:,i) = tmp(:);
end
% mark neighbors where it does not eq Im
imDuplicates = repmat(Im(:),[1 numNeighbors]);
nonequals = adj ~= imDuplicates;
% neglect the border
nonequals(isnan(adj)) = 0;
% get these neighbor values and the corresponding Im value
compared = [imDuplicates(nonequals == 1) adj(nonequals == 1)];
% construct your 'A' % possibly could be more optimized here.
labels = unique(Im);
A = zeros(numel(labels));
for i = 1:size(compared,1)
A(compared(i,1),compared(i,2)) = 1;
end
#Lisa
Yours reasoning is elegant, though it obviously gives wrong answers for labels on the edges.
Try this simple label matrix:
Im =
1 2 2
3 3 3
3 4 4
The resulting adjacency matrix , according to your code is:
A =
0 1 1 0
1 0 1 1
1 1 0 1
0 1 1 0
which claims an adjacency between labels "2" and "4": obviously wrong. This happens simply because you are reading padded Im labels based on "validim" indices, which now doesn't match the new Im and goes all the way down to the lower borders.