similar to: crossprod is slower than t(AA)%*BB

Hi I have a square matrix Ainv of size N-by-N where N ~ 1000 I have a rectangular matrix H of size N by n where n ~ 4. I have a vector d of length N. I need X = solve(t(H) %*% Ainv %*% H) %*% t(H) %*% Ainv %*% d and H %*% X. It is possible to rewrite X in the recommended crossprod way: X <- solve(quad.form(Ainv, H), crossprod(crossprod(Ainv, H), d)) where quad.form() is a little

I found out the other day that crossprod() will take a single matrix argument; crossprod(x) notionally returns crossprod(x,x). The two forms do not return identical matrices: x <- matrix(rnorm(3000000),ncol=3) M1 <- crossprod(x) M2 <- crossprod(x,x) R> max(abs(M1-M2)) [1] 1.932494e-08 But what really surprised me is that crossprod(x) is slower than crossprod(x,x): R>

Hi everyone, I do a lot of work with large variance matrices, and I like to use "crossprod" for speed and to keep everything symmetric, i.e. I often compute "crossprod(Q %*% t(A))" for "A %*% Sigma %*% t(A)", where "Sigma" decomposes as "t(Q) %*% Q". I notice in the code that "crossprod", current definition > crossprod function (x,

Dear R-users, I found a strange problem working with products of two matrices, say: a <- A[i, ] ; crossprod(a) where i is a set of integers selecting rows. When i is empty the result is in a sense random. After some trials the right answer (a matrix of zeros) appears. --------------- Illustration -------------------- R : Copyright 2003, The R Development Core Team Version 1.8.0

The following is at least as much out of intellectual curiosity as for practical reasons. On reviewing some code written by novices to R, I came across: crossprod(x, y)[1,1] I thought, "That isn't a very S way of saying that, I wonder what the penalty is for using 'crossprod'." To my surprise the penalty was substantially negative. Handily the client had S-PLUS as

Hi the manpage says that crossprod(x,y) is formally equivalent to, but faster than, the call 't(x) %*% y'. I have a vector 'a' and a matrix 'A', and need to evaluate 't(a) %*% A %*% a' many many times, and performance is becoming crucial. With f1 <- function(a,X){ ignore <- t(a) %*% X %*% a } f2 <- function(a,X){ ignore <-

hi, the help page for crossprod states that crossprod(A,B) is faster than t(A) %*% B; experimentation certainly bears this out. more alarming is the evidence that crossprod(t(A), B) is faster than A %*% B: on a PII laptop, 128MB memory, win98, R-1.5.0.-patched precompiled (no ATLAS): > A <- matrix(rnorm(250000),500,500) > B <- matrix(rnorm(250000),500,500) > for (i in 1:5) {

# Your mailer is set to "none" (default on Windows), # hence we cannot send the bug report directly from R. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs@r-project.org # ###################################################### # The last line of following code produces a segmentation fault: x <- 1:10 f <- gl(5,2)

Hi I've got two builds of R, one using g77 (version 3.4.6) and the other using gfortran (version 4.1.2). The two builds are otherwise identical as far as I can tell. The one which used g77 performs crossprod()s roughly twice as fast as the gfortran one. I'm wondering if this rings a bell with anyone, and if so, are you aware of any configure settings which will improve the performance

What is the difference between the above two operations ? [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, Couldn't is.unsorted() bail out immediately here (after comparing the first 2 elements): > x <- 20000000:1 > system.time(is.unsorted(x), gcFirst=TRUE) user system elapsed 0.084 0.040 0.124 > x <- 200000000:1 > system.time(is.unsorted(x), gcFirst=TRUE) user system elapsed 0.772 0.440 1.214 Thanks! H.

Dear addresses, I need perform a batch of 10 000 simulations for each of 4 options considered. (The idea is to obtain the parameter estimates in a heteroskedastic linear regression model - with additive or mixed heteroskedasticity - via the Kenward-Roger small-sample adjusted covariance matrix of disturbances). For this purpose I wrote an R program which would capture all possible options (true

Hello, I have come across a troubling problem in which my call to crossprod will occasionally produce NaNs. That is, a proper matrix cross-product will be produced except that some of the matrix elements will arbitrarily be NaN. For my purposes, this is extremely bad. On several different R sessions run this morning this example below may fail a few times out of a million, though sometimes not at

write.table with large data frames takes quite a long time > system.time({ + write.table(df, '/tmp/dftest.txt', row.names=FALSE) + }, gcFirst=TRUE) user system elapsed 97.302 1.532 98.837 A reason is because dimnames is always called, causing 'anonymous' row names to be created as character vectors. Avoiding this in src/library/utils, along the lines of Index:

Hi R-helpers, Does anyone know why adding which() makes the select call more efficient than just using logical selection in a dataframe? Doesn't which() technically add another conversion/function call on top of the logical selection? Here is a reproducible example with a slight difference in timing. # Surrogate data - the timing here isn't interesting urltext <-

Hi, I was trying to evaluate the pearson correlation and the p-values for an nxm matrix, where each row represents a vector. One way to do it would be to iterate through each row, and find its correlation value( and the p-value) with respect to the other rows. Is there some function by which I can use the matrix as input? Ideally, the output would be an nxn matrix, containing the p-values

Hi all, I have been searching all sorts of documentation, reference cards, cheat sheets but can't find why R's crossprod(A, B) which is identical to A%*%B does not produce the same as Matlabs cross(A, B) Supposedly both calculate the cross product, and say so, or where do I go wrong? R is only doing sums in the crossprod however, as indicated by (z <- crossprod(1:4)) # = sum(1 +

This is a Request For Comment, also BCCed to 390 package maintainers of reverse dependencies of the Matrix package. Most users and package authors working with our 'Matrix' package will be using it for numerical computations, and so will be using "dMatrix" (d : double precision) matrix objects M, and indirectly, e.g., for M >= c will also use "lMatrix" (l:

Hi Martin I got stung by this last week. glmnet produces a coefficient matrix of class ?dgCMatrix? If a predictor matrix was created using sparseMatrix as follows, one gets unexpected results, as this simple example shows. My fix was easy (I always convert the predictor matrix to class ?dgCMatrix? now) Trevor > y=Matrix(diag(4)) > y 4 x 4 diagonal matrix of class "ddiMatrix"

Hi Martin, package arules heavily relies on ngCMatrix and uses multiplication and addition for logical operations. I think it makes sense that in a mixed operation with one dgCMatrix and one ngCMatrix the ngCMatrix should be "promoted" to a dgCMatrix. The current behavior of %*% and friends is in deed confusing: > m <- matrix(sample(c(0,1), 5*5, replace=TRUE), nrow=5) >