I have two arrays that have the shapes N X T and M X T. I'd like to compute the correlation coefficient across T between every possible pair of rows n and m (from N and M, respectively).
What's the fastest, most pythonic way to do this? (Looping over N and M would seem to me to be neither fast nor pythonic.) I'm expecting the answer to involve numpy and/or scipy. Right now my arrays are numpy arrays, but I'm open to converting them to a different type.
I'm expecting my output to be an array with the shape N X M.
N.B. When I say "correlation coefficient," I mean the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.
Here are some things to note:
The numpy function correlate requires input arrays to be one-dimensional.
The numpy function corrcoef accepts two-dimensional arrays, but they must have the same shape.
The scipy.stats function pearsonr requires input arrays to be one-dimensional.
Correlation (default 'valid' case) between two 2D arrays:
You can simply use matrix-multiplication np.dot like so -
out = np.dot(arr_one,arr_two.T)
Correlation with the default "valid" case between each pairwise row combinations (row1,row2) of the two input arrays would correspond to multiplication result at each (row1,row2) position.
Row-wise Correlation Coefficient calculation for two 2D arrays:
def corr2_coeff(A, B):
# Rowwise mean of input arrays & subtract from input arrays themeselves
A_mA = A - A.mean(1)[:, None]
B_mB = B - B.mean(1)[:, None]
# Sum of squares across rows
ssA = (A_mA**2).sum(1)
ssB = (B_mB**2).sum(1)
# Finally get corr coeff
return np.dot(A_mA, B_mB.T) / np.sqrt(np.dot(ssA[:, None],ssB[None]))
This is based upon this solution to How to apply corr2 functions in Multidimentional arrays in MATLAB
Benchmarking
This section compares runtime performance with the proposed approach against generate_correlation_map & loopy pearsonr based approach listed in the other answer.(taken from the function test_generate_correlation_map() without the value correctness verification code at the end of it). Please note the timings for the proposed approach also include a check at the start to check for equal number of columns in the two input arrays, as also done in that other answer. The runtimes are listed next.
Case #1:
In [106]: A = np.random.rand(1000, 100)
In [107]: B = np.random.rand(1000, 100)
In [108]: %timeit corr2_coeff(A, B)
100 loops, best of 3: 15 ms per loop
In [109]: %timeit generate_correlation_map(A, B)
100 loops, best of 3: 19.6 ms per loop
Case #2:
In [110]: A = np.random.rand(5000, 100)
In [111]: B = np.random.rand(5000, 100)
In [112]: %timeit corr2_coeff(A, B)
1 loops, best of 3: 368 ms per loop
In [113]: %timeit generate_correlation_map(A, B)
1 loops, best of 3: 493 ms per loop
Case #3:
In [114]: A = np.random.rand(10000, 10)
In [115]: B = np.random.rand(10000, 10)
In [116]: %timeit corr2_coeff(A, B)
1 loops, best of 3: 1.29 s per loop
In [117]: %timeit generate_correlation_map(A, B)
1 loops, best of 3: 1.83 s per loop
The other loopy pearsonr based approach seemed too slow, but here are the runtimes for one small datasize -
In [118]: A = np.random.rand(1000, 100)
In [119]: B = np.random.rand(1000, 100)
In [120]: %timeit corr2_coeff(A, B)
100 loops, best of 3: 15.3 ms per loop
In [121]: %timeit generate_correlation_map(A, B)
100 loops, best of 3: 19.7 ms per loop
In [122]: %timeit pearsonr_based(A, B)
1 loops, best of 3: 33 s per loop
#Divakar provides a great option for computing the unscaled correlation, which is what I originally asked for.
In order to calculate the correlation coefficient, a bit more is required:
import numpy as np
def generate_correlation_map(x, y):
"""Correlate each n with each m.
Parameters
----------
x : np.array
Shape N X T.
y : np.array
Shape M X T.
Returns
-------
np.array
N X M array in which each element is a correlation coefficient.
"""
mu_x = x.mean(1)
mu_y = y.mean(1)
n = x.shape[1]
if n != y.shape[1]:
raise ValueError('x and y must ' +
'have the same number of timepoints.')
s_x = x.std(1, ddof=n - 1)
s_y = y.std(1, ddof=n - 1)
cov = np.dot(x,
y.T) - n * np.dot(mu_x[:, np.newaxis],
mu_y[np.newaxis, :])
return cov / np.dot(s_x[:, np.newaxis], s_y[np.newaxis, :])
Here's a test of this function, which passes:
from scipy.stats import pearsonr
def test_generate_correlation_map():
x = np.random.rand(10, 10)
y = np.random.rand(20, 10)
desired = np.empty((10, 20))
for n in range(x.shape[0]):
for m in range(y.shape[0]):
desired[n, m] = pearsonr(x[n, :], y[m, :])[0]
actual = generate_correlation_map(x, y)
np.testing.assert_array_almost_equal(actual, desired)
For those interested in computing the Pearson correlation coefficient between a 1D and 2D array, I wrote the following function, where x is a 1D array and y a 2D array.
def pearsonr_2D(x, y):
"""computes pearson correlation coefficient
where x is a 1D and y a 2D array"""
upper = np.sum((x - np.mean(x)) * (y - np.mean(y, axis=1)[:,None]), axis=1)
lower = np.sqrt(np.sum(np.power(x - np.mean(x), 2)) * np.sum(np.power(y - np.mean(y, axis=1)[:,None], 2), axis=1))
rho = upper / lower
return rho
Example run:
>>> x
Out[1]: array([1, 2, 3])
>>> y
Out[2]: array([[ 1, 2, 3],
[ 6, 7, 12],
[ 9, 3, 1]])
>>> pearsonr_2D(x, y)
Out[3]: array([ 1. , 0.93325653, -0.96076892])
Related
I have a list of 2 dimensional arrays (same shape), and would like to get the mean and deviation for all terms, in a result array of the same shape as the inputs. I have trouble understanding from the doc whether this is possible. All my attempts with axis and keepdims parameters produce results of different shapes.
I would like for example to have: mean([x, x]) equal to x, and std([x, x]) zeroes shaped like x.
Is this possible without reshaping the arrays ? If not, how to do it with reshaping ?
Example:
>> x= np.array([[1,2],[3,4]])
>>> y= np.array([[2,3],[4,5]])
>>> np.mean([x,y])
3.0
I want [[1.5,2.5],[3.5,4.5]] instead.
As Divikar points out, you can pass the list of arrays to np.mean and specify axis=0 to average over corresponding values from each array in the list:
In [13]: np.mean([x,y], axis=0)
Out[13]:
array([[ 1.5, 2.5],
[ 3.5, 4.5]])
This works for lists of arbitrary length. For just two arrays, (x+y)/2.0 is faster:
In [20]: %timeit (x+y)/2.0
100000 loops, best of 3: 1.96 µs per loop
In [21]: %timeit np.mean([x,y], axis=0)
10000 loops, best of 3: 21.6 µs per loop
Is there a way I can find the r confidence interval in Python?
In R i could do something like:
cor.test(m, h)
Pearson's product-moment correlation
data: m and h
t = 0.8974, df = 4, p-value = 0.4202
alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.6022868 0.9164582
sample estimates:
cor
0.4093729
In Python I can calculate r (cor) using:
r,p = scipy.stats.pearsonr(df.age, df.pets)
But that doesn't return the r confidence interval.
Here's one way to calculate confidence internal
First get the correlation value (pearson's)
In [85]: from scipy import stats
In [86]: corr = stats.pearsonr(df['col1'], df['col2'])
In [87]: corr
Out[87]: (0.551178607008175, 0.0)
Use the Fisher transformation to get z
In [88]: z = np.arctanh(corr[0])
In [89]: z
Out[89]: 0.62007264620685021
And, the sigma value i.e standard error
In [90]: sigma = (1/((len(df.index)-3)**0.5))
In [91]: sigma
Out[91]: 0.013840913308956662
Get normal 95% interval probability density function for normal continuous random variable apply two-sided conditional formula
In [92]: cint = z + np.array([-1, 1]) * sigma * stats.norm.ppf((1+0.95)/2)
Finally take hyperbolic tangent to get interval values for 95%
In [93]: np.tanh(cint)
Out[93]: array([ 0.53201034, 0.56978224])
I have a matrix A (nXm) . My ultimate goal is to get Z of dimension (nXmXm) Currently I am doing it using this but can it be done without using for loop using some matrix.tensordot or matrix.multiply.outer
for i in range(0,A.shape[0]):
Z[i,:,:] = np.outer(A[i,:],A[i,:])
You could use numpy's Einstein summation, like this:
np.einsum('ij, ik -> ijk', a, a)
Just for completeness, the timing comparison with the also excellent answer (+1) from unutbu:
In [39]: A = np.random.random((1000,50))
In [40]: %timeit using_einsum(A)
100 loops, best of 3: 11.6 ms per loop
In [41]: %timeit using_broadcasting(A)
100 loops, best of 3: 10.2 ms per loop
In [42]: %timeit orig(A)
10 loops, best of 3: 27.8 ms per loop
Which teaches me that
unutbu's machine is faster than mine
broadcasting would be slightly faster than np.einsum
for i in range(0,A.shape[0]):
Z[i,:,:] = np.outer(A[i,:],A[i,:])
means
Z_ijk = A_ij * A_ik
which can be computed using NumPy broadcasting:
Z = A[:, :, np.newaxis] * A[:, np.newaxis, :]
A[:, :, np.newaxis] has shape (n, m, 1) and A[:, np.newaxis, :] has shape
(n, 1, m). Multiplying the two causes both arrays to be broadcasted up to
shape (n, m, m).
NumPy multiplication is always performed elementwise. The values along the
broadcasted axis are the same everywhere, so elementwise multiplication results
in Z_ijk = A_ij * A_ik.
import numpy as np
def orig(A):
Z = np.empty(A.shape+(A.shape[-1],), dtype=A.dtype)
for i in range(0,A.shape[0]):
Z[i,:,:] = np.outer(A[i,:],A[i,:])
return Z
def using_broadcasting(A):
return A[:, :, np.newaxis] * A[:, np.newaxis, :]
Here is a sanity check showing this produces the correct result:
A = np.random.random((1000,50))
assert np.allclose(using_broadcasting(A), orig(A))
By choosing A.shape[0] to be large we get an example which shows off the
advantage of broadcasting over looping in Python:
In [107]: %timeit using_broadcasting(A)
10 loops, best of 3: 6.12 ms per loop
In [108]: %timeit orig(A)
100 loops, best of 3: 16.9 ms per loop
For a current project I have to compute the inner product of a lot of vectors with the same matrix (which is quite sparse). The vectors are associated with a two dimensional grid so I store the vectors in a three dimensional array:
E.g:
X is an array of dim (I,J,N). The matrix A is of dim (N,N). Now the task is to compute A.dot(X[i,j]) for each i,j in I,J.
For numpy arrays, this is quite easily accomplished with
Y = X.dot(A.T)
Now I'd like to store A as sparse matrix since it is sparse and only contains a very limited number of nonzero entries which results in a lot of unnecessary multiplications. Unfortunately, the above solution won't work since the numpy dot doesn't work with sparse matrices. And to the best of my knowledge there is not tensordot-like operation for scipy sparse.
Does anybody know a nice and efficient way to compute the above array Y with a sparse matrix A?
The obvious approach is to run a loop over your vectors and use the sparse matrix's .dot method:
def naive_sps_x_dense_vecs(sps_mat, dense_vecs):
rows, cols = sps_mat.shape
I, J, _ = dense_vecs.shape
out = np.empty((I, J, rows))
for i in xrange(I):
for j in xrange(J):
out[i, j] = sps_mat.dot(dense_vecs[i, j])
return out
But you may be able to speed things up a little by reshaping your 3d array to 2d and avoid the Python looping:
def sps_x_dense_vecs(sps_mat, dense_vecs):
rows, cols = sps_mat.shape
vecs_shape = dense_vecs.shape
dense_vecs = dense_vecs.reshape(-1, cols)
out = sps_mat.dot(dense_vecs.T).T
return out.reshape(vecs.shape[:-1] + (rows,))
The problem is that we need to have the sparse matrix be the first argument, so that we can call its .dot method, which means that the return is transposed, which in turns means that after transposing, the last reshape is going to trigger a copy of the whole array. So for fairly large values of I and J, combined with not-so-large values of N, the latter method will be several times faster than the former, but performance may even be reversed for other combinations of the parameters:
n, i, j = 100, 500, 500
a = sps.rand(n, n, density=1/n, format='csc')
vecs = np.random.rand(i, j, n)
>>> np.allclose(naive_sps_x_dense_vecs(a, vecs), sps_x_dense_vecs(a, vecs))
True
n, i, j = 100, 500, 500
%timeit naive_sps_x_dense_vecs(a, vecs)
1 loops, best of 3: 3.85 s per loop
%timeit sps_x_dense_vecs(a, vecs)
1 loops, best of 3: 576 ms per
n, i, j = 1000, 200, 200
%timeit naive_sps_x_dense_vecs(a, vecs)
1 loops, best of 3: 791 ms per loop
%timeit sps_x_dense_vecs(a, vecs)
1 loops, best of 3: 1.3 s per loop
You could use jaxto achieve what you are looking for. Let's suppose your sparse matrix is in csr_arrayformat. You would first transform it into a jax BCOO array
from scipy import sparse
from jax.experimental import sparse as jaxsparse
import jax.numpy as jnp
def convert_to_BCOO(x):
x = x.transpose() #get the transpose
x = x.tocoo()
x = jaxsparse.BCOO((x.data, jnp.column_stack((x.row, x.col))),
shape=x.shape)
x = L.sort_indices()
You could then use jax.sparsify to create a sparsified dot product as follows.
def dot(x, y):
return jnp.dot(x, y)
sp_dot = jaxsparse.sparsify(dot)
A_transpose = convert_to_BCOO(A)
Y = sp_dot(X,A_transpose)
The function sp_dot now follows the exact same rules as numpy.dot.
Hope this helps!
I have two 2-D arrays with the same first axis dimensions. In python, I would like to convolve the two matrices along the second axis only. I would like to get C below without computing the convolution along the first axis as well.
import numpy as np
import scipy.signal as sg
M, N, P = 4, 10, 20
A = np.random.randn(M, N)
B = np.random.randn(M, P)
C = sg.convolve(A, B, 'full')[(2*M-1)/2]
Is there a fast way?
You can use np.apply_along_axis to apply np.convolve along the desired axis. Here is an example of applying a boxcar filter to a 2d array:
import numpy as np
a = np.arange(10)
a = np.vstack((a,a)).T
filt = np.ones(3)
np.apply_along_axis(lambda m: np.convolve(m, filt, mode='full'), axis=0, arr=a)
This is an easy way to generalize many functions that don't have an axis argument.
With ndimage.convolve1d, you can specify the axis...
np.apply_along_axis won't really help you, because you're trying to iterate over two arrays. Effectively, you'd have to use a loop, as described here.
Now, loops are fine if your arrays are small, but if N and P are large, then you probably want to use FFT to convolve instead.
However, you need to appropriately zero pad your arrays first, so that your "full" convolution has the expected shape:
M, N, P = 4, 10, 20
A = np.random.randn(M, N)
B = np.random.randn(M, P)
A_ = np.zeros((M, N+P-1), dtype=A.dtype)
A_[:, :N] = A
B_ = np.zeros((M, N+P-1), dtype=B.dtype)
B_[:, :P] = B
A_fft = np.fft.fft(A_, axis=1)
B_fft = np.fft.fft(B_, axis=1)
C_fft = A_fft * B_fft
C = np.real(np.fft.ifft(C_fft))
# Test
C_test = np.zeros((M, N+P-1))
for i in range(M):
C_test[i, :] = np.convolve(A[i, :], B[i, :], 'full')
assert np.allclose(C, C_test)
for 2D arrays, the function scipy.signal.convolve2d is faster and scipy.signal.fftconvolve can be even faster (depending on the dimensions of the arrays):
Here the same code with N = 100000
import time
import numpy as np
import scipy.signal as sg
M, N, P = 10, 100000, 20
A = np.random.randn(M, N)
B = np.random.randn(M, P)
T1 = time.time()
C = sg.convolve(A, B, 'full')
print(time.time()-T1)
T1 = time.time()
C_2d = sg.convolve2d(A, B, 'full')
print(time.time()-T1)
T1 = time.time()
C_fft = sg.fftconvolve(A, B, 'full')
print(time.time()-T1)
>>> 12.3
>>> 2.1
>>> 0.6
Answers are all the same with slight differences due to different computation methods used (e.g., fft vs direct multiplication, but i don't know what exaclty convolve2d uses):
print(np.max(np.abs(C - C_2d)))
>>>7.81597009336e-14
print(np.max(np.abs(C - C_fft)))
>>>1.84741111298e-13
Late answer, but worth posting for reference. Quoting from comments of the OP:
Each row in A is being filtered by the corresponding row in B. I could
implement it like that, just thought there might be a faster way.
A is on the order of 10s of gigabytes in size and I use overlap-add.
Naive / Straightforward Approach
import numpy as np
import scipy.signal as sg
M, N, P = 4, 10, 20
A = np.random.randn(M, N) # (4, 10)
B = np.random.randn(M, P) # (4, 20)
C = np.vstack([sg.convolve(a, b, 'full') for a, b in zip(A, B)])
>>> C.shape
(4, 29)
Each row in A is convolved with each respective row in B, essentially convolving M 1D arrays/vectors.
No Loop + CUDA Supported Version
It is possible to replicate this operation by using PyTorch's F.conv1d. We have to imagine A as a 4-channel, 1D signal of length 10. We wish to convolve each channel in A with a specific kernel of length 20. This is a special case called a depthwise convolution, often used in deep learning.
Note that torch's conv is implemented as cross-correlation, so we need to flip B in advance to do actual convolution.
import torch
import torch.nn.functional as F
#torch.no_grad()
def torch_conv(A, B):
M, N, P = A.shape[0], A.shape[1], B.shape[1]
C = F.conv1d(A, B[:, None, :], bias=None, stride=1, groups=M, padding=N+(P-1)//2)
return C.numpy()
# Convert A and B to torch tensors + flip B
X = torch.from_numpy(A) # (4, 10)
W = torch.from_numpy(np.fliplr(B).copy()) # (4, 20)
# Do grouped conv and get np array
Y = torch_conv(X, W)
>>> Y.shape
(4, 29)
>>> np.allclose(C, Y)
True
Advantages of using a depthwise convolution with torch:
No loops!
The above solution can also run on CUDA/GPU, which can really speed things up if A and B are very large matrices. (From OP's comment, this seems to be the case: A is 10GB in size.)
Disadvantages:
Overhead of converting from array to tensor (should be negligible)
Need to flip B once before the operation