What is a vectorized way to create multiple powers of a NumPy array?

Question

I have a NumPy array:

arr = [[1, 2],
       [3, 4]]

I want to create a new array that contains powers of arr up to a power order:

# arr_new = [arr^0, arr^1, arr^2, arr^3,...arr^order]
arr_new = [[1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 8],
           [1, 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, 27, 64]]

My current approach uses for loops:

# Pre-allocate an array for powers
arr = np.array([[1, 2],[3,4]])
order = 3
rows, cols = arr.shape
arr_new = np.zeros((rows, (order+1) * cols))

# Iterate over each exponent
for i in range(order + 1):
    arr_new[:, (i * cols) : (i + 1) * cols] = arr**i
print(arr_new)

Is there a faster (i.e. vectorized) approach to creating powers of an array?

---

Benchmarking

Thanks to @hpaulj and @Divakar and @Paul Panzer for the answers. I benchmarked the loop-based and broadcasting-based operations on the following test arrays.

arr = np.array([[1, 2],
                [3,4]])
order = 3

arrLarge = np.random.randint(0, 10, (100, 100))  # 100 x 100 array
orderLarge = 10

The loop_based function is:

def loop_based(arr, order):
    # pre-allocate an array for powers
    rows, cols = arr.shape
    arr_new = np.zeros((rows, (order+1) * cols))
    # iterate over each exponent
    for i in range(order + 1):
        arr_new[:, (i * cols) : (i + 1) * cols] = arr**i
    return arr_new

The broadcast_based function using hstack is:

def broadcast_based_hstack(arr, order):
    # Create a 3D exponent array for a 2D input array to force broadcasting
    powers = np.arange(order + 1)[:, None, None]
    # Generate values (third axis contains array at various powers)
    exponentiated = arr ** powers
    # Reshape and return array
    return np.hstack(exponentiated)   # <== using hstack function

The broadcast_based function using reshape is:

def broadcast_based_reshape(arr, order):
    # Create a 3D exponent array for a 2D input array to force broadcasting
    powers = np.arange(order + 1)[:, None]
    # Generate values (3-rd axis contains array at various powers)
    exponentiated = arr[:, None] ** powers
    # reshape and return array
    return exponentiated.reshape(arr.shape[0], -1)  # <== using reshape function

The broadcast_based function using cumulative product cumprod and reshape:

def broadcast_cumprod_reshape(arr, order):
    rows, cols = arr.shape
    # Create 3D empty array where the middle dimension is
    # the array at powers 0 through order
    out = np.empty((rows, order + 1, cols), dtype=arr.dtype)
    out[:, 0, :] = 1   # 0th power is always 1
    a = np.broadcast_to(arr[:, None], (rows, order, cols))
    # Cumulatively multiply arrays so each multiplication produces the next order
    np.cumprod(a, axis=1, out=out[:,1:,:])
    return out.reshape(rows, -1)

On Jupyter notebook, I used the timeit command and got these results:

Small arrays (2x2):

%timeit -n 100000 loop_based(arr, order)
7.41 µs ± 174 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)

%timeit -n 100000 broadcast_based_hstack(arr, order)
10.1 µs ± 137 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)

%timeit -n 100000 broadcast_based_reshape(arr, order)
3.31 µs ± 61.5 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)

%timeit -n 100000 broadcast_cumprod_reshape(arr, order)
11 µs ± 102 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)

Large arrays (100x100):

%timeit -n 1000 loop_based(arrLarge, orderLarge)
261 µs ± 5.82 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

%timeit -n 1000 broadcast_based_hstack(arrLarge, orderLarge)
225 µs ± 4.15 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

%timeit -n 1000 broadcast_based_reshape(arrLarge, orderLarge)
223 µs ± 2.16 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

%timeit -n 1000 broadcast_cumprod_reshape(arrLarge, orderLarge)
157 µs ± 1.02 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

Conclusions:

It seems that the broadcast based approach using reshape is faster for smaller arrays. However, for large arrays, the cumprod approach scales better and is faster.

Answer 1

Extend arrays to higher dims and let broadcasting do its magic with some help from reshaping -

In [16]: arr = np.array([[1, 2],[3,4]])

In [17]: order = 3

In [18]: (arr[:,None]**np.arange(order+1)[:,None]).reshape(arr.shape[0],-1)
Out[18]: 
array([[ 1,  1,  1,  2,  1,  4,  1,  8],
       [ 1,  1,  3,  4,  9, 16, 27, 64]])

Note that arr[:,None] is essentially arr[:,None,:], but we can skip the trailing ellipsis for brevity.

Timings on a bigger dataset -

In [40]: np.random.seed(0)
    ...: arr = np.random.randint(0,9,(100,100))
    ...: order = 10

# @hpaulj's soln with broadcasting and stacking
In [41]: %timeit np.hstack(arr **np.arange(order+1)[:,None,None])
1000 loops, best of 3: 734 µs per loop

In [42]: %timeit (arr[:,None]**np.arange(order+1)[:,None]).reshape(arr.shape[0],-1)
1000 loops, best of 3: 401 µs per loop

That reshaping part is practically free and that's where we gain performance here alongwith the broadcasting part of course, as seen in the breakdown below -

In [52]: %timeit (arr[:,None]**np.arange(order+1)[:,None])
1000 loops, best of 3: 390 µs per loop

In [53]: %timeit (arr[:,None]**np.arange(order+1)[:,None]).reshape(arr.shape[0],-1)
1000 loops, best of 3: 401 µs per loop

Answer 2

Use broadcasting to generate the values, and reshape or rearrange the values as desired:

In [34]: arr **np.arange(4)[:,None,None]
Out[34]: 
array([[[ 1,  1],
        [ 1,  1]],

       [[ 1,  2],
        [ 3,  4]],

       [[ 1,  4],
        [ 9, 16]],

       [[ 1,  8],
        [27, 64]]])
In [35]: np.hstack(_)
Out[35]: 
array([[ 1,  1,  1,  2,  1,  4,  1,  8],
       [ 1,  1,  3,  4,  9, 16, 27, 64]])