Is it possible to iterate implicitly on an array with two indices? Here is a very simple example of what I would like to do :
import numpy as np
x = np.arange(3)
y = np.zeros(3)
for i in range(3):
y[i] = np.sum(x - x[i])
There is an implicit loop (the sum) and an explicit one (for i in range(3))... Is it possible to have a totally implicit version of that?
When possible, you should always try to use mathematics before computer science. Your expression, y[i] = np.sum(x - x[i]) can be rewritten with a little algebra as y[i] = np.sum(x) - x.size * x[i]. This makes it very clear that you can rewrite your code without any loops as:
y = np.sum(x) - x.size * x
As should be obvious, for large arrays it runs much faster than @JoshAdel's solution, x400 faster for an input of size 1000:
>>> x = np.random.normal(size=(1000,))
>>> np.allclose(np.sum(x - x[:,None], 1), np.sum(x) - x.size * x)
True
%timeit np.sum(x - x[:,None], 1)
100 loops, best of 3: 6.33 ms per loop
%timeit np.sum(x) - x.size * x
100000 loops, best of 3: 16.5 us per loop
The following should work:
y = np.sum(x - x[:,None], axis=1)
This solution is using numpy's broadcasting facility. First I'm recasting x which has a shape of (N,) to (N,1) using x[:,None]. You might also see this written as x[:,np.newaxis].
x - x[:,None] creates an (N,N) array whose elements are tmp_{i,j} = x_i - x_j. I then just sum across the rows using the argument axis=1 in np.sum.
See:
In [13]: y = np.zeros(10)
In [14]: x = np.random.normal(size=(10,))
In [15]: for i in range(10):
y[i] = np.sum(x - x[i])
....:
In [16]: y
Out[16]:
array([ 7.99781458, 4.15114434, -17.24655912, -20.35606168,
-5.0211756 , 7.52062868, 8.2501526 , 3.90397351,
10.18746451, 0.61261819])
In [17]: np.sum(x - x[:,None], 1)
Out[17]:
array([ 7.99781458, 4.15114434, -17.24655912, -20.35606168,
-5.0211756 , 7.52062868, 8.2501526 , 3.90397351,
10.18746451, 0.61261819])
In [18]: np.allclose(y, np.sum(x - x[:,None], 1))
Out[18]: True
Timings: Just to point out that using the facilities that numpy provides to operate on arrays is often significantly faster than using standard Python constructs:
In [48]: x = np.random.normal(size=(100,))
In [49]: %timeit y = np.array([sum(x - k) for k in x])
100 loops, best of 3: 6.86 ms per loop
In [67]: %timeit y = np.array([np.sum(x - k) for k in x])
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.54 ms per loop
In [50]: %timeit np.sum(x - x[:,None], 1)
10000 loops, best of 3: 59 µs per loop
In [51]:
In [51]: x = np.random.normal(size=(1000,))
In [52]: %timeit y = np.array([sum(x - k) for k in x])
1 loops, best of 3: 592 ms per loop
In [72]: %timeit y = np.array([np.sum(x - k) for k in x])
100 loops, best of 3: 17.2 ms per loop
In [53]: %timeit np.sum(x - x[:,None], 1)
100 loops, best of 3: 8.67 ms per loop
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With