Evan Cooch
2017-Sep-28 16:10 UTC
[R] building random matrices from vectors of random parameters
Sure -- thanks -- only took me 3-4 attempts to get aperm to work (as opposed to really thinking hard about how it works ;-) On 9/28/2017 11:55 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:> On 28/09/2017 9:10 AM, Evan Cooch wrote: >> Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although >> intended to generate the same result, they don't: >> >> # mapply approach >> >> n = 3 >> sa <- rnorm(n,0.8,0.1) >> so <- rnorm(n,0.5,0.1) >> m <- rnorm(n,1.2,0.1) >> mats = mapply(function(sa1, so1, m1) >> matrix(c(0,sa1*m1,so1,sa1),2,2,byrow=T), sa, so, m, SIMPLIFY = FALSE) >> >> print(mats) >> >> [[1]] >> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >> [1,] 0.0000000 0.8643679 >> [2,] 0.4731249 0.7750431 >> >> [[2]] >> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >> [1,] 0.0000000 0.8838286 >> [2,] 0.5895258 0.7880983 >> >> [[3]] >> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >> [1,] 0.0000000 1.1491560 >> [2,] 0.4947322 0.9744166 >> >> >> Now, the array approach: >> >> # array approach >> >> ms <- array(c(rep(0, 3),sa*m,so,sa), c(3, 2, 2)) >> >> for (i in 1:n) { print(ms[i,,]) >> >> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >> [1,] 0.0000000 0.4731249 >> [2,] 0.8643679 0.7750431 >> >> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >> [1,] 0.0000000 0.5895258 >> [2,] 0.8838286 0.7880983 >> >> ????????? [,1]????? [,2] >> [1,] 0.000000 0.4947322 >> [2,] 1.149156 0.9744166 >> >> >> These matrices are the transpose of those returned by the mapply >> approach. To see if one approach or the other is 'confused', I simply >> rerun setting sd=0 for the parameters -- thus, every matrix will be >> the same. The correct matrix would be: >> >> ????? [,1] [,2] >> [1,]? 0.0 0.96 >> [2,]? 0.5 0.80 >> >> >> In fact, this is what is returned by the mapply approach, while the >> array approach returns the transpose. I gather the 'missing step' is >> to use aperm, but haven't figured out how to get that to work...yet. >> >> >> On 9/28/2017 5:11 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >>> ms <- array(c(rep(0, 5),sa*m,so,sa), c(5, 2, 2)) >> > > > Sorry about that -- I didn't notice the "byrow = T" in your original. > > Duncan Murdoch >[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Jeff Newmiller
2017-Sep-28 17:22 UTC
[R] building random matrices from vectors of random parameters
The use of aperm is unnecessary if you call array() properly. ms <- array(c(rep(0, 5),so,sa*m,sa), c(5, 2, 2)) -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. On September 28, 2017 9:10:26 AM PDT, Evan Cooch <evan.cooch at gmail.com> wrote:>Sure -- thanks -- only took me 3-4 attempts to get aperm to work (as >opposed to really thinking hard about how it works ;-) > >On 9/28/2017 11:55 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> On 28/09/2017 9:10 AM, Evan Cooch wrote: >>> Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although >>> intended to generate the same result, they don't: >>> >>> # mapply approach >>> >>> n = 3 >>> sa <- rnorm(n,0.8,0.1) >>> so <- rnorm(n,0.5,0.1) >>> m <- rnorm(n,1.2,0.1) >>> mats = mapply(function(sa1, so1, m1) >>> matrix(c(0,sa1*m1,so1,sa1),2,2,byrow=T), sa, so, m, SIMPLIFY >FALSE) >>> >>> print(mats) >>> >>> [[1]] >>> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >>> [1,] 0.0000000 0.8643679 >>> [2,] 0.4731249 0.7750431 >>> >>> [[2]] >>> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >>> [1,] 0.0000000 0.8838286 >>> [2,] 0.5895258 0.7880983 >>> >>> [[3]] >>> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >>> [1,] 0.0000000 1.1491560 >>> [2,] 0.4947322 0.9744166 >>> >>> >>> Now, the array approach: >>> >>> # array approach >>> >>> ms <- array(c(rep(0, 3),sa*m,so,sa), c(3, 2, 2)) >>> >>> for (i in 1:n) { print(ms[i,,]) >>> >>> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >>> [1,] 0.0000000 0.4731249 >>> [2,] 0.8643679 0.7750431 >>> >>> ?????????? [,1]????? [,2] >>> [1,] 0.0000000 0.5895258 >>> [2,] 0.8838286 0.7880983 >>> >>> ????????? [,1]????? [,2] >>> [1,] 0.000000 0.4947322 >>> [2,] 1.149156 0.9744166 >>> >>> >>> These matrices are the transpose of those returned by the mapply >>> approach. To see if one approach or the other is 'confused', I >simply >>> rerun setting sd=0 for the parameters -- thus, every matrix will be >>> the same. The correct matrix would be: >>> >>> ????? [,1] [,2] >>> [1,]? 0.0 0.96 >>> [2,]? 0.5 0.80 >>> >>> >>> In fact, this is what is returned by the mapply approach, while the >>> array approach returns the transpose. I gather the 'missing step' is > >>> to use aperm, but haven't figured out how to get that to work...yet. >>> >>> >>> On 9/28/2017 5:11 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >>>> ms <- array(c(rep(0, 5),sa*m,so,sa), c(5, 2, 2)) >>> >> >> >> Sorry about that -- I didn't notice the "byrow = T" in your original. >> >> Duncan Murdoch >> > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >______________________________________________ >R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >PLEASE do read the posting guide >http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Evan Cooch
2017-Sep-28 19:33 UTC
[R] building random matrices from vectors of random parameters
Makes sense, although (re-)learning what aperm does wasn't a wasted exercise. Thanks! On 9/28/2017 1:22 PM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:> The use of aperm is unnecessary if you call array() properly. > > ms <- array(c(rep(0, 5),so,sa*m,sa), c(5, 2, 2))[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Possibly Parallel Threads
- building random matrices from vectors of random parameters
- building random matrices from vectors of random parameters
- building random matrices from vectors of random parameters
- building random matrices from vectors of random parameters
- building random matrices from vectors of random parameters