[Numpy-discussion] Proposed new feature for numpy.einsum: repeated output subscripts as diagonal

Eelco Hoogendoorn hoogendoorn.eelco at gmail.com
Fri Aug 15 11:20:16 EDT 2014


Well, there is the numpy-API C level, and then there is the arcane macro C
level. The two might as well be a completely different language.

Indeed, it should be doing something similar for the inputs. Actually, I
think I wrote a wrapper around einsum/numexpr once that performed this
generalized indexing once... ill see if I can dig that up.


On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Sebastian Berg <sebastian at sipsolutions.net>
wrote:

> On Fr, 2014-08-15 at 16:42 +0200, Eelco Hoogendoorn wrote:
> > Agreed; this addition occurred to me as well. Note that the
> > implemenatation should be straightforward: just allocate an enlarged
> > array, use some striding logic to construct the relevant view, and let
> > einsums internals act on the view. hopefully, you wont even have to
> > touch the guts of einsum at the C level, because id say that isn't for
> > the faint of heart...
> >
>
> I am not sure if einsum isn't pure C :). But even if, it should be doing
> something identical already for duplicate indices on the inputs...
>
> - Sebastian
>
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Sebastian Berg
> > <sebastian at sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> >         On Do, 2014-08-14 at 12:42 -0700, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> >         > I think this would be very nice addition.
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Benjamin Root
> >         <ben.root at ou.edu>
> >         > wrote:
> >         >         You had me at Kronecker delta... :-)  +1
> >         >
> >
> >
> >         Sounds good to me. I don't see a reason for not relaxing the
> >         restriction, unless there is some technical issue, but I doubt
> >         that.
> >
> >         - Sebastian
> >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >         On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Pierre-Andre Noel
> >         >         <noel.pierre.andre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >         >                 (I created issue 4965 earlier today on this
> >         topic, and
> >         >                 I have been
> >         >                 advised to email to this mailing list to
> >         discuss
> >         >                 whether it is a good
> >         >                 idea or not. I include my original post
> >         as-is,
> >         >                 followed by additional
> >         >                 comments.)
> >         >
> >         >                 I think that the following new feature would
> >         make
> >         >                 `numpy.einsum` even
> >         >                 more powerful/useful/awesome than it already
> >         is.
> >         >                 Moreover, the change
> >         >                 should not interfere with existing code, it
> >         would
> >         >                 preserve the
> >         >                 "minimalistic" spirit of `numpy.einsum`, and
> >         the new
> >         >                 functionality would
> >         >                 integrate in a seamless/intuitive manner for
> >         the
> >         >                 users.
> >         >
> >         >                 In short, the new feature would allow for
> >         repeated
> >         >                 subscripts to appear
> >         >                 in the "output" part of the `subscripts`
> >         parameter
> >         >                 (i.e., on the
> >         >                 right-hand side of `->`). The corresponding
> >         dimensions
> >         >                 in the resulting
> >         >                 `ndarray` would only be filled along their
> >         diagonal,
> >         >                 leaving the off
> >         >                 diagonal entries to the default value for
> >         this `dtype`
> >         >                 (typically zero).
> >         >                 Note that the current behavior is to raise
> >         an
> >         >                 exception when repeated
> >         >                 output subscripts are being used.
> >         >
> >         >                 This is simplest to describe with an example
> >         involving
> >         >                 the dual behavior
> >         >                 of `numpy.diag`.
> >         >
> >         >                 ```python
> >         >                 # Extracting the diagonal of a 2-D array.
> >         >                 A = arange(16).reshape(4,4)
> >         >                 print(diag(A)) # Output: [ 0 5 10 15 ]
> >         >                 print(einsum('ii->i', A)) # Same as previous
> >         line
> >         >                 (current behavior).
> >         >
> >         >                 # Constructing a diagonal 2-D array.
> >         >                 v = arange(4)
> >         >                 print(diag(v)) # Output: [[0 0 0 0] [0 1 0
> >         0] [0 0 2
> >         >                 0] [0 0 0 3]]
> >         >                 print(einsum('i->ii', v)) # New behavior
> >         would be same
> >         >                 as previous line.
> >         >                 # The current behavior of the previous line
> >         is to
> >         >                 raise an exception.
> >         >                 ```
> >         >
> >         >                 By opposition to `numpy.diag`, the approach
> >         >                 generalizes to higher
> >         >                 dimensions: `einsum('iii->i', A)` extracts
> >         the
> >         >                 diagonal of a 3-D array,
> >         >                 and `einsum('i->iii', v)` would build a
> >         diagonal 3-D
> >         >                 array.
> >         >
> >         >                 The proposed behavior really starts to shine
> >         in more
> >         >                 intricate cases.
> >         >
> >         >                 ```python
> >         >                 # Dummy values, these should be
> >         probabilities to make
> >         >                 sense below.
> >         >                 P_w_ab = arange(24).reshape(3,2,4)
> >         >                 P_y_wxab = arange(144).reshape(3,3,2,2,4)
> >         >
> >         >                 # With the proposed behavior, the following
> >         two lines
> >         >                 should be equivalent.
> >         >                 P_xyz_ab = einsum('wab,xa,ywxab,zy->xyzab',
> >         P_w_ab,
> >         >                 eye(2), P_y_wxab,
> >         >                 eye(3))
> >         >                 also_P_xyz_ab = einsum('wab,ywaab->ayyab',
> >         P_w_ab,
> >         >                 P_y_wxab)
> >         >                 ```
> >         >
> >         >                 If this is not convincing enough, replace
> >         `eye(2)` by
> >         >                 `eye(P_w_ab.shape[1])` and replace `eye(3)`
> >         by
> >         >                 `eye(P_y_wxab.shape[0])`,
> >         >                 then imagine more dimensions and repeated
> >         indices...
> >         >                 The new notation
> >         >                 would allow for crisper codes and reduce the
> >         >                 opportunities for dumb
> >         >                 mistakes.
> >         >
> >         >                 For those who wonder, the above computation
> >         amounts to
> >         >                 $P(X=x,Y=y,Z=z|A=a,B=b) = \sum_w P(W=w|
> >         A=a,B=b) P(X=x|
> >         >                 A=a)
> >         >                 P(Y=y|W=w,X=x,A=a,B=b) P(Z=z|Y=y)$ with
> >         $P(X=x|A=a)=
> >         >                 \delta_{xa}$ and
> >         >                 $P(Z=z|Y=y)=\delta_{zy}$ (using LaTeX
> >         notation, and
> >         >                 $\delta_{ij}$ is
> >         >                 [Kronecker's
> >         >
> >          delta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta)).
> >         >
> >         >                 (End of original post.)
> >         >
> >         >                 I have been told by @jaimefrio that "The
> >         best way of
> >         >                 getting a new
> >         >                 feature into numpy is putting it in
> >         yourself." Hence,
> >         >                 if discussions
> >         >                 here do reveal that this is a good idea,
> >         then I may
> >         >                 give a try at coding
> >         >                 it myself. However, I currently know nothing
> >         of the
> >         >                 inner workings of
> >         >                 numpy/ndarray/einsum, and I have higher
> >         priorities
> >         >                 right now. This means
> >         >                 that it could take a long while before I
> >         contribute
> >         >                 any code, if I ever
> >         >                 do. Hence, if anyone feels like doing it,
> >         feel free to
> >         >                 do so!
> >         >
> >         >                 Also, I am aware that storing a lot of zeros
> >         in an
> >         >                 `ndarray` may not, a
> >         >                 priori, be a desirable avenue. However,
> >         there are
> >         >                 times where you have
> >         >                 to do it: think of `numpy.eye` as an
> >         example. In my
> >         >                 case of application,
> >         >                 I use such diagonal structures in the
> >         initialization
> >         >                 of an `ndarray`
> >         >                 which is later updated through an iterative
> >         process.
> >         >                 After these
> >         >                 iterations, most of the zeros will be gone.
> >         Do other
> >         >                 people see a use
> >         >                 for such capabilities?
> >         >
> >         >                 Thank you for your time and have a nice day.
> >         >
> >         >                 Sincerely,
> >         >
> >         >                 Pierre-André Noël
> >         >
> >          _______________________________________________
> >         >                 NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> >         >                 NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> >         >
> >          http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >         _______________________________________________
> >         >         NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> >         >         NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> >         >
> >          http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > _______________________________________________
> >         > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> >         > NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> >         > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> >         NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> >         http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140815/f315ae48/attachment.html>


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list