Faster computation of double for loop? - r

I have a piece of working code that is taking too many hours (days?) to compute.
I have a sparse matrix of 1s and 0s, I need to subtract each row from any other row, in all possible combinations, multiply the resulting vector by another vector, and finally average the values in it so to get a single scalar which I need to insert in a matrix. What I have is:
m <- matrix(
c(0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0), nrow=4,ncol=4,
byrow = TRUE)
b <- c(1,2,3,4)
for (j in 1:dim(m)[1]){
for (i in 1:dim(m)[1]){
a <- m[j,] - m[i,]
a[i] <- 0L
a[a < 0] <- 0L
c <- a*b
d[i,j] <- mean(c[c > 0])
}
}
The desired output is matrix with the same dimensions of m, where each entry is the result of these operations.
This loop works, but are there any ideas on how to make this more efficient? Thank you

My stupid solution is to use apply or sapply function, instead of for loop to do the iterations:
sapply(1:dim(m)[1], function(k) {z <- t(apply(m, 1, function(x) m[k,]-x)); diag(z) <- 0; z[z<0] <- 0; apply(t(apply(z, 1, function(x) x*b)),1,function(x) mean(x[x>0]))})
I tried to compare your solution and this in terms of running time in my computer, yours takes
t1 <- Sys.time()
d1 <- m
for (j in 1:dim(m)[1]){
for (i in 1:dim(m)[1]){
a <- m[j,] - m[i,]
a[i] <- 0L
a[a < 0] <- 0L
c <- a*b
d1[i,j] <- mean(c[c > 0])
}
}
Sys.time()-t1
Yours needs Time difference of 0.02799988 secs. For mine, it is reduced a bit but not too much, i.e., Time difference of 0.01899815 secs, when you run
t2 <- Sys.time()
d2 <- sapply(1:dim(m)[1], function(k) {z <- t(apply(m, 1, function(x) m[k,]-x)); diag(z) <- 0; z[z<0] <- 0; apply(t(apply(z, 1, function(x) x*b)),1,function(x) mean(x[x>0]))})
Sys.time()-t2
You can try it on your own computer with larger matrix, good luck!

1) create test sparse matrix:
nc <- nr <- 100
p <- 0.001
require(Matrix)
M <- Matrix(0L, nr, nc, sparse = T) # 0 matrix
n1 <- ceiling(p * (prod(dim(M)))) # 1 count
M[1:n1] <- 1L # fill only first column, to approximate max non 0 row count
# (each row has at maximum 1 positive element)
sum(M)/(prod(dim(M)))
b <- 1:ncol(M)
sum(rowSums(M))
So, if the proportion given is correct then we have at most 10 rows that contain non 0 elements
Based on this fact and your supplied calculations:
# a <- m[j, ] - m[i, ]
# a[i] <- 0L
# a[a < 0] <- 0L
# c <- a*b
# mean(c[c > 0])
we can see that the result will be meaningful only form[, j] rows which have at least 1 non 0 element
==> we can skip calculations for all m[, j] which contain only 0s, so:
minem <- function() { # write as function
t1 <- proc.time() # timing
require(data.table)
i <- CJ(1:nr, 1:nr) # generate all combinations
k <- rowSums(M) > 0L # get index where at least 1 element is greater that 0
i <- i[data.table(V1 = 1:nr, k), on = 'V1'] # merge
cat('at moust', i[, sum(k)/.N*100], '% of rows needs to be calculated \n')
i[k == T, rowN := 1:.N] # add row nr for 0 subset
i2 <- i[k == T] # subset only those indexes who need calculation
a <- M[i2[[1]],] - M[i2[[2]],] # operate on all combinations at once
a <- drop0(a) # clean up 0
ids <- as.matrix(i2[, .(rowN, V2)]) # ids for 0 subset
a[ids] <- 0L # your line: a[i] <- 0L
a <- drop0(a) # clean up 0
a[a < 0] <- 0L # the same as your line
a <- drop0(a) # clean up 0
c <- t(t(a)*b) # multiply each row with vector
c <- drop0(c) # clean up 0
c[c < 0L] <- 0L # for mean calculation
c <- drop0(c) # clean up 0
r <- rowSums(c)/rowSums(c > 0L) # row means
i[k == T, result := r] # assign results to data.table
i[is.na(result), result := NaN] # set rest to NaN
d2 <- matrix(i$result, nr, nr, byrow = F) # create resulting matrix
t2 <- proc.time() # timing
cat(t2[3] - t1[3], 'sec \n')
d2
}
d2 <- minem()
# at most 10 % of rows needs to be calculated
# 0.05 sec
Test on smaller example if results matches
d <- matrix(NA, nrow(M), ncol(M))
for (j in 1:dim(M)[1]) {
for (i in 1:dim(M)[1]) {
a <- M[j, ] - M[i, ]
a[i] <- 0L
a[a < 0] <- 0L
c <- a*b
d[i, j] <- mean(c[c > 0])
}
}
all.equal(d, d2)
Can we get results for your real data size?:
# generate data:
nc <- nr <- 6663L
b <- 1:nr
p <- 0.0001074096 # proportion of 1s
M <- Matrix(0L, nr, nc, sparse = T) # 0 matrix
n1 <- ceiling(p * (prod(dim(M)))) # 1 count
M[1:n1] <- 1L
object.size(as.matrix(M))/object.size(M)
# storing this data in usual matrix uses 4000+ times more memory
# calculation:
d2 <- minem()
# at most 71.57437 % of rows needs to be calculated
# 28.33 sec
So you need to convert your matrix to sparse one with
M <- Matrix(m, sparse = T)

Related

Error in while (e_i$X1 < 12 | e_i$X2 < 12) { : argument is of length zero

In an earlier question (R: Logical Conditions Not Being Respected), I learned how to make the following simulation :
Step 1: Keep generating two random numbers "a" and "b" until both "a" and "b" are greater than 12
Step 2: Track how many random numbers had to be generated until it took for Step 1 to be completed
Step 3: Repeat Step 1 and Step 2 100 times
res <- matrix(0, nrow = 0, ncol = 3)
for (j in 1:100){
a <- rnorm(1, 10, 1)
b <- rnorm(1, 10, 1)
i <- 1
while(a < 12 | b < 12) {
a <- rnorm(1, 10, 1)
b <- rnorm(1, 10, 1)
i <- i + 1
}
x <- c(a,b,i)
res <- rbind(res, x)
}
head(res)
[,1] [,2] [,3]
x 12.14232 12.08977 399
x 12.27158 12.01319 1695
x 12.57345 12.42135 302
x 12.07494 12.64841 600
x 12.03210 12.07949 82
x 12.34006 12.00365 782
Question: Now, I am trying to make a slight modification to the above code - Instead of "a" and "b" being produced separately, I want them to be produced "together" (in math terms: "a" and "b" were being produced from two independent univariate normal distributions, now I want them to come from a bivariate normal distribution).
I tried to modify this code myself:
library(MASS)
Sigma = matrix(
c(1,0.5, 0.5, 1), # the data elements
nrow=2, # number of rows
ncol=2, # number of columns
byrow = TRUE) # fill matrix by rows
res <- matrix(0, nrow = 0, ncol = 3)
for (j in 1:100){
e_i = data.frame(mvrnorm(n = 1, c(10,10), Sigma))
e_i$i <- 1
while(e_i$X1 < 12 | e_i$X2 < 12) {
e_i = data.frame(mvrnorm(n = 1, c(10,10), Sigma))
e_i$i <- i + 1
}
x <- c(e_i$X1, e_i$X2 ,i)
res <- rbind(res, x)
}
res = data.frame(res)
But this is producing the following error:
Error in while (e_i$X1 < 12 | e_i$X2 < 12) { : argument is of length
zero
If I understand your code correctly you are trying to see how many samples occur before both values are >=12 and doing that for 100 trials? This is the approach I would take:
library(MASS)
for(i in 1:100){
n <- 1
while(any((x <- mvrnorm(1, mu=c(10,10), Sigma=diag(0.5, nrow=2)+0.5))<12)) n <- n+1
if(i==1) res <- data.frame("a"=x[1], "b"=x[2], n)
else res <- rbind(res, data.frame("a"=x[1], "b"=x[2], n))
}
Here I am assigning the results of a mvrnorm to x within the while() call. In that same call, it evaluates whether either are less than 12 using the any() function. If that evaluates to FALSE, n (the counter) is increased and the process repeated. Once TRUE, the values are appended to your data.frame and it goes back to the start of the for-loop.
Regarding your code, the mvrnorm() function is returning a vector, not a matrix, when n=1 so both values go into a single variable in the data.frame:
data.frame(mvrnorm(n = 1, c(10,10), Sigma))
Returns:
mvrnorm.n...1..c.10..10...Sigma.
1 9.148089
2 10.605546
The matrix() function within your data.frame() calls, along with some tweaks to your use of i, will fix your code:
library(MASS)
Sigma = matrix(
c(1,0.5, 0.5, 1), # the data elements
nrow=2, # number of rows
ncol=2, # number of columns
byrow = TRUE) # fill matrix by rows
res <- matrix(0, nrow = 0, ncol = 3)
for (j in 1:10){
e_i = data.frame(matrix(mvrnorm(n = 1, c(10,10), Sigma), ncol=2))
i <- 1
while(e_i$X1[1] < 12 | e_i$X2[1] < 12) {
e_i = data.frame(matrix(mvrnorm(n = 1, c(10,10), Sigma), ncol=2))
i <- i + 1
}
x <- c(e_i$X1, e_i$X2 ,i)
res <- rbind(res, x)
}
res = data.frame(res)

R: Find set of columns which contain most 1s in matrix of 0 and 1

I have a matrix of 1s and 0s where the rows are individuals and the columns are events. A 1 indicates that an event happened to an individual and a 0 that it did not.
I want to find which set of (in the example) 5 columns/events that cover the most rows/individuals.
Test Data
#Make test data
set.seed(123)
d <- sapply(1:300, function(x) sample(c(0,1), 30, T, c(0.9,0.1)))
colnames(d) <- 1:300
rownames(d) <- 1:30
My attempt
My initial attempt was just based on combining the set of 5 columns with the highest colMeans:
#Get top 5 columns with highest row coverage
col_set <- head(sort(colMeans(d), decreasing = T), 5)
#Have a look the set
col_set
>
197 199 59 80 76
0.2666667 0.2666667 0.2333333 0.2333333 0.2000000
#Check row coverage of the column set
sum(apply(d[,colnames(d) %in% names(col_set)], 1, sum) > 0) / 30 #top 5
>
[1] 0.7
However this set does not cover the most rows. I tested this by pseudo-random sampling 10.000 different sets of 5 columns, and then finding the set with the highest coverage:
#Get 5 random columns using colMeans as prob in sample
##Random sample 10.000 times
set.seed(123)
result <- lapply(1:10000, function(x){
col_set2 <- sample(colMeans(d), 5, F, colMeans(d))
cover <- sum(apply(d[,colnames(d) %in% names(col_set2)], 1, sum) > 0) / 30 #random 5
list(set = col_set2, cover = cover)
})
##Have a look at the best set
result[which.max(sapply(result, function(x) x[["cover"]]))]
>
[[1]]
[[1]]$set
59 169 262 68 197
0.23333333 0.10000000 0.06666667 0.16666667 0.26666667
[[1]]$cover
[1] 0.7666667
The reason for supplying the colMeans to sample is that the columns with the highest coverages are the ones I am most interested in.
So, using pseudo-random sampling I can collect a set of columns with higher coverage than when just using the top 5 columns. However, since my actual data sets are larger than the example I am looking for a more efficient and rational way of finding the set of columns with the highest coverage.
EDIT
For the interested, I decided to microbenchmark the 3 solutions provided:
#Defining G. Grothendieck's coverage funciton outside his solutions
coverage <- function(ix) sum(rowSums(d[, ix]) > 0) / 30
#G. Grothendieck top solution
solution1 <- function(d){
cols <- tail(as.numeric(names(sort(colSums(d)))), 20)
co <- combn(cols, 5)
itop <- which.max(apply(co, 2, coverage))
co[, itop]
}
#G. Grothendieck "Older solution"
solution2 <- function(d){
require(lpSolve)
ones <- rep(1, 300)
res <- lp("max", colSums(d), t(ones), "<=", 5, all.bin = TRUE, num.bin.solns = 10)
m <- matrix(res$solution[1:3000] == 1, 300)
cols <- which(rowSums(m) > 0)
co <- combn(cols, 5)
itop <- which.max(apply(co, 2, coverage))
co[, itop]
}
#user2554330 solution
bestCols <- function(d, n = 5) {
result <- numeric(n)
for (i in seq_len(n)) {
result[i] <- which.max(colMeans(d))
d <- d[d[,result[i]] != 1,, drop = FALSE]
}
result
}
#Benchmarking...
microbenchmark::microbenchmark(solution1 = solution1(d),
solution2 = solution2(d),
solution3 = bestCols(d), times = 10)
>
Unit: microseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
solution1 390811.850 497155.887 549314.385 578686.3475 607291.286 651093.16 10
solution2 55252.890 71492.781 84613.301 84811.7210 93916.544 117451.35 10
solution3 425.922 517.843 3087.758 589.3145 641.551 25742.11 10
This looks like a relatively hard optimization problem, because of the ways columns interact. An approximate strategy would be to pick the column with the highest mean; then delete the rows with ones in that column, and repeat. You won't necessarily find the best solution this way, but you should get a fairly good one.
For example,
set.seed(123)
d <- sapply(1:300, function(x) sample(c(0,1), 30, T, c(0.9,0.1)))
colnames(d) <- 1:300
rownames(d) <- 1:30
bestCols <- function(d, n = 5) {
result <- numeric(n)
for (i in seq_len(n)) {
result[i] <- which.max(colMeans(d))
d <- d[d[,result[i]] != 1,, drop = FALSE]
}
cat("final dim is ", dim(d))
result
}
col_set <- bestCols(d)
sum(apply(d[,colnames(d) %in% col_set], 1, sum) > 0) / 30 #top 5
This gives 90% coverage.
The following provides a heuristic to find an approximate solution. Find the N=20 columns, say, with the most ones, cols, and then use brute force to find every subset of 5 columns out of those 20. The subset having the highest coverage is shown below and its coverage is 93.3%.
coverage <- function(ix) sum(rowSums(d[, ix]) > 0) / 30
N <- 20
cols <- tail(as.numeric(names(sort(colSums(d)))), N)
co <- combn(cols, 5)
itop <- which.max(apply(co, 2, coverage))
co[, itop]
## [1] 90 123 197 199 286
coverage(co[, itop])
## [1] 0.9333333
Repeating this for N=5, 10, 15 and 20 we get coverages of 83.3%, 86.7%, 90% and 93.3%. The higher the N the better the coverage but the lower the N the less the run time.
Older solution
We can approximate the problem with a knapsack problem that chooses the 5 columns with largest numbers of ones using integer linear programming.
We get the 10 best solutions to this approximate problem, get all columns which are in at least one of the 10 solutions. There are 14 such columns and we then use brute force to find which subset of 5 of the 14 columns has highest coverage.
library(lpSolve)
ones <- rep(1, 300)
res <- lp("max", colSums(d), t(ones), "<=", 5, all.bin = TRUE, num.bin.solns = 10)
coverage <- function(ix) sum(rowSums(d[, ix]) > 0) / 30
# each column of m is logical 300-vector defining possible soln
m <- matrix(res$solution[1:3000] == 1, 300)
# cols is the set of columns which are in any of the 10 solutions
cols <- which(rowSums(m) > 0)
length(cols)
## [1] 14
# use brute force to find the 5 best columns among cols
co <- combn(cols, 5)
itop <- which.max(apply(co, 2, coverage))
co[, itop]
## [1] 90 123 197 199 286
coverage(co[, itop])
## [1] 0.9333333
You can try to test if there is a better column and exchange this with the one currently in the selection.
n <- 5 #Number of columns / events
i <- rep(1, n)
for(k in 1:10) { #How many times itterate
tt <- i
for(j in seq_along(i)) {
x <- +(rowSums(d[,i[-j]]) > 0)
i[j] <- which.max(colSums(x == 0 & d == 1))
}
if(identical(tt, i)) break
}
sort(i)
#[1] 90 123 197 199 286
mean(rowSums(d[,i]) > 0)
#[1] 0.9333333
Taking into account, that the initial condition influences the result you can take random starts.
n <- 5 #Number of columns / events
x <- apply(d, 2, function(x) colSums(x == 0 & d == 1))
diag(x) <- -1
idx <- which(!apply(x==0, 1, any))
x <- apply(d, 2, function(x) colSums(x != d))
diag(x) <- -1
x[upper.tri(x)] <- -1
idx <- unname(c(idx, which(apply(x==0, 1, any))))
res <- sample(idx, n)
for(l in 1:100) {
i <- sample(idx, n)
for(k in 1:10) { #How many times itterate
tt <- i
for(j in seq_along(i)) {
x <- +(rowSums(d[,i[-j]]) > 0)
i[j] <- which.max(colSums(x == 0 & d == 1))
}
if(identical(tt, i)) break
}
if(sum(rowSums(d[,i]) > 0) > sum(rowSums(d[,res]) > 0)) res <- i
}
sort(res)
#[1] 90 123 197 199 286
mean(rowSums(d[,res]) > 0)
#[1] 0.9333333

Function for simulation game in R

I have a classic dice simulation problem, which I'm struggling to implement since I'm new with R syntax. The function (which I have called simu) works as follows:
Start with 0 points
Simulate n random draws of three six-sided dice
For each draw:
If sum of three dice >12 --> +1 point
If sum of three dice <6 --> -1 point
Otherwise (ie sum between 6 and 12):
If three dice have same number --> +5 points
Otherwise --> 0 points
Return total # of points obtained at the end of n simulations
Having tried a number of different methods I seem to be pretty close with:
simu <- function(n){
k <- 0
for(i in 1:n) {
a <- sample(y,1,replace=TRUE)
b <- sample(y,1,replace=TRUE)
c <- sample(y,1,replace=TRUE)
if ((a + b + c) > 12) {
k <- k+1
} else if ((a + b + c) < 6) {
k <- k-1
} else if ((a == b) & (b == c)) {
k <- k+5
} else k <- 0
}
return(k)
}
The problem seems to be that I am failing to iterate over new simulations (for a, b, c) for each "i" in the function.
I have commented the only issue I have found... The last else that always re-initialize k to 0. Instead it should have been k <- k + 0 but it does not change anything to remove it.
y <- seq(1,6) # 6-sided dice
simu <- function(n){
k <- 0
for(i in 1:n) {
a <- sample(y,1,replace=TRUE)
b <- sample(y,1,replace=TRUE)
c <- sample(y,1,replace=TRUE)
if ((a + b + c) > 12) {
k <- k+1
} else if ((a + b + c) < 6) {
k <- k-1
} else if ((a == b) & (b == c)) {
k <- k+5
} #else k <- 0
}
return(k)
}
The results look quite fine :
> simu(1000)
[1] 297
> simu(100)
[1] 38
If you are going to use R, then you should learn to create vectorized operations instead of 'for' loops. Here is a simulation of 1 million rolls of the dice that took less than 1 second to calculate. I am not sure how long the 'for' loop approach would have taken.
n <- 1000000 # trials
start <- proc.time() # time how long it takes
result <- matrix(0L, ncol = 6, nrow = n)
colnames(result) <- c('d1', 'd2', 'd3', 'sum', 'same', 'total')
# initial the roll of three dice
result[, 1:3] <- sample(6L, n * 3L, replace = TRUE)
# compute row sum
result[, 'sum'] <- as.integer(rowSums(result[, 1:3]))
# check for being the same
result[, 'same'] <- result[,1L] == result[, 2L] & result[, 2L] == result[, 3L]
result[, 'total'] <- ifelse(result[, 'sum'] > 12L,
1L,
ifelse(result[, 'sum'] < 6L,
-1L,
ifelse(result[, 'same'] == 1L,
5L,
0L
)
)
)
table(result[, 'total'])
-1 0 1 5
46384 680762 259083 13771
cat("simulation took:", proc.time() - start, '\n')
simulation took: 0.7 0.1 0.8 NA NA
I am not sure that's what you need, but you can try something like that:
# Draw the dice(s) - returns vector of length == n_dices
draw <- function(sides = 6, dices = 3){
sample(1:sides, dices, replace = T)
}
# test simulation x and return -1, 0, 1, 1 or 5
test <- function(x){
(sum(x) > 12)*1 + (sum(x) < 6)*(-1) + (sum(x) >= 6 &
sum(x) <= 12 &
var(x) == 0)*5
}
# simulate n draws of x dices with y sides
simu <- function(sides = 6, dices = 3, n = 100){
sum(replicate(n, test(draw(sides, dices))))
}
# run simulations of 100 draws for 1, 2, ..., 11, 12-side dices (3 dices each simulation)
dt <- lapply(1:12, function(side) replicate(100, simu(side, 3, 100)))
# plot dicstribution of scores
par(mfrow = c(3,4))
lapply(1:length(dt), function(i) hist(dt[[i]],
main = sprintf("%i sides dice", i),
xlab = "Score"
)
)

compare the information between two matrices R

I have two matrices, one is generated out of the other by deleting some rows. For example:
m = matrix(1:18, 6, 3)
m1 = m[c(-1, -3, -6),]
Suppose I do not know which rows in m were eliminated to create m1, how should I find it out by comparing the two matrices? The result I want looks like this:
1, 3, 6
The actual matrix I am dealing with is very big. I was wondering if there is any efficient way of conducting it.
Here are some approaches:
1) If we can assume that there are no duplicated rows in m -- this is the case in the example in the question -- then:
which(tail(!duplicated(rbind(m1, m)), nrow(m)))
## [1] 1 3 6
2) Transpose m and m1 giving tm and tm1 since it is more efficient to work on columns than rows.
Define match_indexes(i) which returns a vector r such that each row in m[r, ] matches m1[i, ].
Apply that to each i in 1:n1 and remove the result from 1:n.
n <- nrow(m); n1 <- nrow(m1)
tm <- t(m); tm1 <- t(m1)
match_indexes <- function(i) which(colSums(tm1[, i] == tm) == n1)
setdiff(1:n, unlist(lapply(1:n1, match_indexes)))
## [1] 1 3 6
3) Calculate an interaction vector for each matrix and then use setdiff and finally match to get the indexes:
i <- interaction(as.data.frame(m))
i1 <- interaction(as.data.frame(m1))
match(setdiff(i, i1), i)
## [1] 1 3 6
Added If there can be duplicates in m then (1) and (3) will only return the first of any multiply occurring row in m not in m1.
m <- matrix(1:18, 6, 3)
m1 <- m[c(2, 4, 5),]
m <- rbind(m, m[1:2, ])
# 1
which(tail(!duplicated(rbind(m1, m)), nrow(m)))
## 1 3 6
# 2
n <- nrow(m); n1 <- nrow(m1)
tm <- t(m); tm1 <- t(m1)
match_indexes <- function(i) which(colSums(tm1[, i] == tm) == n1)
setdiff(1:n, unlist(lapply(1:n1, match_indexes)))
## 1 3 6 7
# 3
i <- interaction(as.data.frame(m))
i1 <- interaction(as.data.frame(m1))
match(setdiff(i, i1), i)
## 1 3 6
A possible way is to represent each row as a string:
x1 <- apply(m, 1, paste0, collapse = ';')
x2 <- apply(m1, 1, paste0, collapse = ';')
which(!x1 %in% x2)
# [1] 1 3 6
Some benchmark with a large matrix using my solution and G. Grothendieck's solutions:
set.seed(123)
m <- matrix(rnorm(20000 * 5000), nrow = 20000)
m1 <- m[-sample.int(20000, 1000), ]
system.time({
which(tail(!duplicated(rbind(m1, m)), nrow(m)))
})
# user system elapsed
# 339.888 2.368 342.204
system.time({
x1 <- apply(m, 1, paste0, collapse = ';')
x2 <- apply(m1, 1, paste0, collapse = ';')
which(!x1 %in% x2)
})
# user system elapsed
# 395.428 0.568 395.955
system({
n <- nrow(m); n1 <- nrow(m1)
tm <- t(m); tm1 <- t(m1)
match_indexes <- function(i) which(colSums(tm1[, i] == tm) == n1)
setdiff(1:n, unlist(lapply(1:n1, match_indexes)))
})
# > 15 min, not finish
system({
i <- interaction(as.data.frame(m))
i1 <- interaction(as.data.frame(m1))
match(setdiff(i, i1), i)
})
# run out of memory. My 32G RAM machine crashed.
We can also use do.call
which(!do.call(paste, as.data.frame(m)) %in% do.call(paste, as.data.frame(m1)))
#[1] 1 3 6

Select a subset of combinations

Suppose that I have a 20 X 5 matrix, I would like to select subsets of the matrix and do some computation with them. Further suppose that each sub-matrix is 7 X 5. I could of course do
ncomb <- combn(20, 7)
which gives me all possible combinations of 7 row indices, and I can use these to obtain sub-matrices. But with a small, 20 X 5 matrix, there are already 77520 possible combination. So I would like to instead randomly sample some of the combinations, e.g., 5000 of them.
One possibility is the following:
ncomb <- combn(20, 7)
ncombsub <- ncomb[, sample(77520, 5000)]
In other words, I obtain all possible combinations, and then randomly select only 5000 of the combinations. But I imagine it would be problematic to compute all possible combinations if I had a larger matrix - say, 100 X 7.
So I wonder if there is a way to get subsets of combinations without first obtaining all possible combinations.
Your approach:
op <- function(){
ncomb <- combn(20, 7)
ncombsub <- ncomb[, sample(choose(20,7), 5000)]
return(ncombsub)
}
A different strategy that simply samples seven rows from the original matrix 5000 times (replacing any duplicate samples with a new sample until 5000 unique row combinations are found):
me <- function(){
rowsample <- replicate(5000,sort(sample(1:20,7,FALSE)),simplify=FALSE)
while(length(unique(rowsample))<5000){
rowsample <- unique(rowsample)
rowsample <- c(rowsample,
replicate(5000-length(rowsample),
sort(sample(1:20,7,FALSE)),simplify=FALSE))
}
return(do.call(cbind,rowsample))
}
This should be more efficient because it prevents you from having to calculate all of the combinations first, which will get costly as the matrix gets larger.
And yet, some benchmarking reveals that is not the case. At least on this matrix:
library(microbenchmark)
microbenchmark(op(),me())
Unit: milliseconds
expr min lq median uq max neval
op() 184.5998 201.9861 206.3408 241.430 299.9245 100
me() 411.7213 422.9740 429.4767 474.047 490.3177 100
I ended up doing what #Roland suggested, by modifying combn(), and byte-compiling the code:
combn_sub <- function (x, m, nset = 5000, seed=123, simplify = TRUE, ...) {
stopifnot(length(m) == 1L)
if (m < 0)
stop("m < 0", domain = NA)
if (is.numeric(x) && length(x) == 1L && x > 0 && trunc(x) ==
x)
x <- seq_len(x)
n <- length(x)
if (n < m)
stop("n < m", domain = NA)
m <- as.integer(m)
e <- 0
h <- m
a <- seq_len(m)
len.r <- length(r <- x[a] )
count <- as.integer(round(choose(n, m)))
if( count < nset ) nset <- count
dim.use <- c(m, nset)
##-----MOD 1: Change the output matrix size--------------
out <- matrix(r, nrow = len.r, ncol = nset)
if (m > 0) {
i <- 2L
nmmp1 <- n - m + 1L
##----MOD 2: Select a subset of indices
set.seed(seed)
samp <- sort(c(1, sample( 2:count, nset - 1 )))
##----MOD 3: Start a counter.
counter <- 2L
while (a[1L] != nmmp1 ) {
if (e < n - h) {
h <- 1L
e <- a[m]
j <- 1L
}
else {
e <- a[m - h]
h <- h + 1L
j <- 1L:h
}
a[m - h + j] <- e + j
#-----MOD 4: Whenever the counter matches an index in samp,
#a combination of row indices is produced and stored in the matrix `out`
if(samp[i] == counter){
out[, i] <- x[a]
if( i == nset ) break
i <- i + 1L
}
#-----Increase the counter by 1 for each iteration of the while-loop
counter <- counter + 1L
}
}
array(out, dim.use)
}
library("compiler")
comb_sub <- cmpfun(comb_sub)

Resources