I have a binary Matrix and would like to get the indices of the non-zero elements, preferably as a vector of cv::Points. There is a function that counts non zero elements, but that's not what I need.
In Matlab, the equivalent call would be simply find().
I could search through the entire matrix and save the indices, but that is not classy!
If you don't mind using numpy module see NumPy For Matlab Users. There is nonzero function which is eqivalent to matlab find.
>>> m = cv.CreateMat(2,2,cv.CV_16SC1)
>>> a = numpy.asarray(m)
>>> a.nonzero()
(array([1, 1]), array([0, 1]))
Related
I have two 1-D arrays in which I would like to calculate the approximate cumulative integral of 1 array with respect to the scalar spacing specified by the 2nd array. MATLAB has a function called cumtrapz that handles this scenario. Is there something similar that I can try within Julia to accomplish the same thing?
The expected result is another 1-D array with the integral calculated for each element.
There is a numerical integration package for Julia (see the link) that defines cumul_integrate(X, Y) and uses the trapezoidal rule by default.
If this package didn't exist, though, you could easily write the function yourself and have a very efficient implementation out of the box because the loop does not come with a performance penalty.
Edit: Added an #assert to check matching vector dimensions and fixed a typo.
function cumtrapz(X::T, Y::T) where {T <: AbstractVector}
# Check matching vector length
#assert length(X) == length(Y)
# Initialize Output
out = similar(X)
out[1] = 0
# Iterate over arrays
for i in 2:length(X)
out[i] = out[i-1] + 0.5*(X[i] - X[i-1])*(Y[i] + Y[i-1])
end
# Return output
out
end
Julia's "higher-order" function "map" looks very useful. But while it is easy to understand how it can be used on functions that have one input, it is not obvious how map can be used when the function has multiple inputs, and when each these may be arrays. I would like discover how map is used in that situation.
Suppose I have the following function:
function randomSample(items, weights)
sample(items, Weights(weights))
end
Example:
Pkg.add("StatsBase")
using StatsBase
randomSample([1,0],[0.5, 0.5])
How can map be used here? I have tried something like:
items = [1 0;1 0;1 0]
weights = [1 0;0.5 0.5;0.75 0.25]
map(randomSample(items,weights))
In the example above, I would expect Julia to output a 3 by 1 array of integers (from the items), each row being either 0 or 1 depending on the corresponding weights.
In your case when items and weights are Matrix you can use the eachrow function like this:
map(randomSample, eachrow(items), eachrow(weights))
If you are on Julia version earlier than 1.1 you can write:
map(i -> randomSample(items[i, :], weights[i, :]), axes(items, 1))
or
map(i -> randomSample(view(items,i, :), view(weights, i, :)), axes(items, 1))
(the latter avoids allocations)
However, in practice I would probably define items and weights as vectors of vectors:
items = [[1, 0],[1, 0],[1, 0]]
weights = [[1, 0], [0.5, 0.5], [0.75, 0.25]]
and then you can simply write:
map(randomSample, items, weights)
or
randomSample.(items, weights)
The reason for my preference is the following:
it is conceptually clearer what is the structure of your data
vector of vectors is easier to mutate (e.g. you can push! a new entry at the end)
vector of vectors can be ragged if needed
in some cases it might be a bit faster (iterating by rows in Julia is not optimal as it uses column-major indexing; of course you can fix it in your Matrix approach by assuming that you store your data columnwise not colwise as you currently do)
(this is not a very strong preference and you can probably choose whatever is more convenient to you)
I need to build a matrix with extremely small entries.
So far I realized that the fastest way to define the kind of matrix that I need is:
Define a vectorized function of coordinates:
func = function(m,n){...}
Combine every possible coordinate using outer:
matrix = outer(1:100,1:100,FUN=func)
Having to deal with extremely small numbers I work in func's environment using brob numbers, its output will therefore be of the same type of a brob:
typeof(func(0:100,0:100) )
[1] "S4"
If I directly plug two vectors 0:100 in my function func it returns a vector of brobs but if I try to use it with outer I get the error:
Error in outer(1:100, 1:100, FUN = func) : invalid first argument
I suppose this is because package Brobdingnag can somehow deal with vectors but not with matrices. Is it right? Is there any way to make it work?
I have the following mathematical formula that I want to program as efficiently as possible in R.
$\sum_{i=1}^{N}(x_i-\bar x)(y_i-\bar y)$
Let's say we have the following example data:
x = c(1,5,7,10,11)
y = c(2,4,8,9,12)
How can I easily get this sum with this data without making a separate function?
Isn't there a package or a function that can compute these mathematical sums?
Use the sum command and vectorized operations: sum((x-mean(x))*(y-mean(y)))
The key revelation here is that the sum function is just taking the sum over the argument (vector, matrix, whatever). In this case, it's sufficient to give it a vector, and in this case, the vector expression is a little more complicated than sum(z), but notice that (x-mean(x))*(y-mean(y)) evaluates to z, so the fact that the command is slightly ornate doesn't really change how the function works. This is true in many places, not just the sum command.
I have a some true and predicted labels
truth <- factor(c("+","+","-","+","+","-","-","-","-","-"))
pred <- factor(c("+","+","-","-","+","+","-","-","+","-"))
and I would like to build the confusion matrix.
I have a function that works on unary elements
f <- function(x,y){ sum(y==pred[truth == x])}
however, when I apply it to the outer product, to build the matrix, R seems unhappy.
outer(levels(truth), levels(truth), f)
Error in outer(levels(x), levels(x), f) :
dims [product 4] do not match the length of object [1]
What is the recommended strategy for this in R ?
I can always go through higher order stuff, but that seems clumsy.
I sometimes fail to understand where outer goes wrong, too. For this task I would have used the table function:
> table(truth,pred) # arguably a lot less clumsy than your effort.
pred
truth - +
- 4 2
+ 1 3
In this case, you are test whether a multivalued vector is "==" to a scalar.
outer assumes that the function passed to FUN can take vector arguments and work properly with them. If m and n are the lengths of the two vectors passed to outer, it will first create two vectors of length m*n such that every combination of inputs occurs, and pass these as the two new vectors to FUN. To this, outer expects, that FUN will return another vector of length m*n
The function described in your example doesn't really do this. In fact, it doesn't handle vectors correctly at all.
One way is to define another function that can handle vector inputs properly, or alternatively, if your program actually requires a simple matching, you could use table() as in #DWin 's answer
If you're redefining your function, outer is expecting a function that will be run for inputs:
f(c("+","+","-","-"), c("+","-","+","-"))
and per your example, ought to return,
c(3,1,2,4)
There is also the small matter of decoding the actual meaning of the error:
Again, if m and n are the lengths of the two vectors passed to outer, it will first create a vector of length m*n, and then reshapes it using (basically)
dim(output) = c(m,n)
This is the line that gives an error, because outer is trying to shape the output into a 2x2 matrix (total 2*2 = 4 items) while the function f, assuming no vectorization, has given only 1 output. Hence,
Error in outer(levels(x), levels(x), f) :
dims [product 4] do not match the length of object [1]