Comments (33)
As this eventually plugs into ApproxFun's multivariate side, @dlfivefifty, do you have a recommendation regarding the dimensions of the convenience constructors?
from fasttransforms.jl.
What's the usage of the convenience constructors?
from fasttransforms.jl.
from fasttransforms.jl.
I think what this package really needs is some inconvenience constructors š
I think he just means "convenience" as in they are not necessary for the package, but included for convenience.
from fasttransforms.jl.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Well, no constructor is more inconvenient than a useless constructor! They stay as is for now.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Another potential improvement to add to the list is to transpose the data. Givens rotations have better memory localization in row-major ordering, and the 1D row FFTs wouldn't need to transpose if they were 1D column FFTs.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Is it possible to allow Spherical harmonics analysis for arrays with an even number of columns? This currently kills my Julia session:
using FastTransforms
x=rand(100,100)
PA = FastTransforms.plan_analysis(x)
O=zeros(x)
A_mul_B!(O,PA,x)
while it works fine for an uneven number of columns, e.g. x=rand(100,99)
from fasttransforms.jl.
In principle, yes, it just requires choosing a convention. The problem is equivalent to creating a Fourier interpolant through an even number of points. For three points, we return an expansion in the basis {1, sin(Īø), cos(Īø)}, but for four points should the expansion be in the basis {1, sin(Īø), cos(Īø), sin(2Īø)}, {1, sin(Īø), cos(Īø), cos(2Īø)} or a weighted average of the two? (In the code, the natural choice would be the first option.)
The current segfault behaviour is undeniably undesirable, apologies.
from fasttransforms.jl.
No problem. I think since there is no obvious reason for picking one or the other option, choosing the the one that is most natural to code should be ok? Thanks for implementing this in Julia, so far I had to call into SHTOOLS, and having a Julia-native solution helps a lot.
from fasttransforms.jl.
The segfault issue is now fixed on master. The added test shows that using either odd or even equispaced longitudinal grids results in the resolution of a function on the sphere to approximately machine precision --- roughly the same spherical harmonic coefficients.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Thanks again, everything is working for me now.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Super!
from fasttransforms.jl.
Sorry to bother again, but there seems to be a similar issue when doing the actual transform, which occurs only for larger arrays. Here is an MWE:
using FastTransforms
four2d = rand(720,1440)
coefs = FastTransforms.fourier2sph(four2d)
println("Works!")
four2d = rand(1440,2879)
coefs = FastTransforms.fourier2sph(four2d)
println("Works!")
four2d = rand(1440,2880)
coefs = FastTransforms.fourier2sph(four2d)
println("Segfault!")
The first two transforms work, while the third one does not, so to my guess is a combination of even number of columns + large array seems to cause this...
from fasttransforms.jl.
This is now because you're using a larger number of columns than the dimension of the space of degree 1439 harmonics. I'll try to push a fix shortly, but for now this works:
julia> padfour2d = [four2d; zeros(1,2880)];
julia> coefs = fourier2sph(padfour2d; sketch = :none); # Pro-tip: the sketch keyword reduces the pre-computation by about half
from fasttransforms.jl.
Amazing package @MikaelSlevinsky!
I'm wondering if it is possible to add a plan_fourier2sph
function. Also it would be helpful if you had an example of how to use current plan_sph2fourier
.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Thanks! Actually, P = plan_sph2fourier(A)
is all you need because P*A
is equivalent to sph2fourier(A)
, but P\A
is also the planned version of fourier2sph(A)
.
The best usage examples are in tests:
or there's a handful here:
https://github.com/JuliaApproximation/SpectralTimeStepping.jl/tree/master/NonlocalSphere
Those are all of the codes for the experiments and figures of https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.04902.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Thanks for the quick reply and the links. New question:
F = sphrandn(Float64, 1024, 1024);
G = sph2fourier(F; sketch = :none);
P = plan_sph2fourier(F);
K = P*F;
norm(K-G)
Results in
8.017458048386342e-11
Why is the norm of the difference not zero?
from fasttransforms.jl.
The sketch
keyword gets passed directly to the interpolative decompositions in the butterfly algorithm. The planned functions can also take the same keywords. The default for sketch
is a type of random column selection whereas :none
uses RRQR to compute ID's. More info on the keywords for ID's can be found here https://github.com/JuliaMatrices/LowRankApprox.jl. For spherical harmonic transforms, I always use sketch = :none
for high degrees: it gives better accuracy and it's roughly twice as fast. For accuracy, you can always compare with the SlowSphericalHarmonicPlan(A)
.
Note that the reason for the API inconsistency (leg2cheb
and cheb2leg
both have their own plans), is that the spherical harmonic connection problem is not 1-1. Rather than having errors in assuming that fourier2sph
works like the inverse of a square matrix, I stubbornly want to enforce that it's a weighted least squares ;).
from fasttransforms.jl.
The latest release (0.3.0) has multithreading support for the O(n3) algorithms, so the degree n = 1024 cutoff is somewhat obsolete. Just fire up Julia with export JULIA_NUM_THREADS=8
(or your maximum) in terminal.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Looking at the tests, it appears that julia 0.7 has introduced a performance degradation that must be fixed. Compare v0.6 https://travis-ci.org/MikaelSlevinsky/FastTransforms.jl/jobs/414184117 with v0.7 https://travis-ci.org/MikaelSlevinsky/FastTransforms.jl/jobs/414184119 in particular the fast plan and thin plan tests. Also, I don't know why the in-place A_mul_B!
(mul!
) methods are allocating on the first and second calls, but if the thinplantests.jl
are run again, then the allocations disappear.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Itās mostly a type inference change, so checking @code_warntype should put that out.
from fasttransforms.jl.
This is a v0.7 MWE setup that's destroying the FMM-based transforms:
import Base: size, getindex, setindex!
import LinearAlgebra: rank
struct ThreadSafeVector{T} <: AbstractVector{T}
V::Matrix{T}
function ThreadSafeVector{T}(V::Matrix{T}) where T
@assert size(V, 2) == Threads.nthreads()
new{T}(V)
end
end
ThreadSafeVector(V::Matrix) = ThreadSafeVector{eltype(V)}(V)
ThreadSafeVector(v::Vector) = ThreadSafeVector(repmat(v, 1, Threads.nthreads()))
@inline size(v::ThreadSafeVector) = (size(v.V, 1), )
@inline getindex(v::ThreadSafeVector{T}, i::Integer) where T = v.V[i, Threads.threadid()]
@inline setindex!(v::ThreadSafeVector{T}, x, i::Integer) where T = v.V[i, Threads.threadid()] = x
threadsafezeros(::Type{T}, n::Integer) where T = ThreadSafeVector{T}(zeros(T, n, Threads.nthreads()))
threadsafeones(::Type{T}, n::Integer) where T = ThreadSafeVector{T}(ones(T, n, Threads.nthreads()))
abstract type AbstractLowRankMatrix{T} <: AbstractMatrix{T} end
"""
Store the singular value decomposition of a matrix:
A = UĪ£V'
"""
struct LowRankMatrix{T} <: AbstractLowRankMatrix{T}
U::Matrix{T}
Ī£::Diagonal{T}
V::Matrix{T}
temp::ThreadSafeVector{T}
end
LowRankMatrix(U::Matrix{T}, Ī£::Diagonal{T}, V::Matrix{T}) where T = LowRankMatrix(U, Ī£, V, threadsafezeros(T, length(Ī£.diag)))
size(L::LowRankMatrix) = size(L.U, 1), size(L.V, 1)
rank(L::LowRankMatrix) = length(L.Ī£.diag)
function getindex(L::LowRankMatrix{T},i::Integer,j::Integer) where T
ret = zero(T)
U, Ī£, V, r = L.U, L.Ī£, L.V, rank(L)
for k = r:-1:1
ret += U[i,k]*Ī£[k,k]*V[j,k]
end
ret
end
function test_mul!(y::AbstractVecOrMat{T}, L::LowRankMatrix{T}, x::AbstractVecOrMat{T}, istart::Int, jstart::Int, INCX::Int, INCY::Int) where T
m, n = size(L)
ishift, jshift = istart-INCY, jstart-INCX
temp = L.temp
@inbounds for k = 1:rank(L)
temp[k] = zero(T)
for j = 1:n
temp[k] += L.V[j,k]*x[jshift+j*INCX]
end
temp[k] *= L.Ī£[k,k]
end
@inbounds for k = 1:rank(L)
tempk = temp[k]
for i = 1:m
y[ishift+i*INCY] += L.U[i,k]*tempk
end
end
y
end
After running that, this shows a significant degradation (in v0.7)
x = randn(10000)
y = zero(x)
L = LowRankMatrix(rand(1000, 20), Diagonal(rand(20)), rand(1000, 20))
@time test_mul!(y, L, x, 1, 1, 2, 2);
@time test_mul!(y, L, x, 1, 1, 2, 2);
from fasttransforms.jl.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the ThreadSafeVector
type. This is all pure Julia code... surprising! Even smaller example:
import Base: size, getindex, setindex!
import LinearAlgebra: rank
abstract type AbstractLowRankMatrix{T} <: AbstractMatrix{T} end
"""
Store the singular value decomposition of a matrix:
A = UĪ£V'
"""
struct LowRankMatrix{T} <: AbstractLowRankMatrix{T}
U::Matrix{T}
Ī£::Diagonal{T}
V::Matrix{T}
temp::Vector{T}
end
LowRankMatrix(U::Matrix{T}, Ī£::Diagonal{T}, V::Matrix{T}) where T = LowRankMatrix(U, Ī£, V, zeros(T, length(Ī£.diag)))
size(L::LowRankMatrix) = size(L.U, 1), size(L.V, 1)
rank(L::LowRankMatrix) = length(L.Ī£.diag)
function getindex(L::LowRankMatrix{T},i::Integer,j::Integer) where T
ret = zero(T)
U, Ī£, V, r = L.U, L.Ī£, L.V, rank(L)
for k = r:-1:1
ret += U[i,k]*Ī£[k,k]*V[j,k]
end
ret
end
function test_mul!(y::AbstractVecOrMat{T}, L::LowRankMatrix{T}, x::AbstractVecOrMat{T}, istart::Int, jstart::Int, INCX::Int, INCY::Int) where T
m, n = size(L)
ishift, jshift = istart-INCY, jstart-INCX
temp = L.temp
@inbounds for k = 1:rank(L)
temp[k] = zero(T)
for j = 1:n
temp[k] += L.V[j,k]*x[jshift+j*INCX]
end
temp[k] *= L.Ī£[k,k]
end
@inbounds for k = 1:rank(L)
tempk = temp[k]
for i = 1:m
y[ishift+i*INCY] += L.U[i,k]*tempk
end
end
y
end
x = randn(10000)
y = zero(x)
L = LowRankMatrix(rand(1000, 20), Diagonal(rand(20)), rand(1000, 20))
@time test_mul!(y, L, x, 1, 1, 2, 2);
@time test_mul!(y, L, x, 1, 1, 2, 2);
from fasttransforms.jl.
Ah, perhaps it's because Diagonal
is now typed by the underlying array.
from fasttransforms.jl.
In less recent versions, there was only one A_mul_B!
(before the name change). Now, HierarchicalMatrices
and FastTransforms
have their own mul!
that is sometimes separate from LinearAlgebra
.
This change sabotages some attempts to use mul!
for allocation-free transforms since that calls the abstract dense fallbacks. Some transforms need an explicit FastTransforms.mul!
, which is unacceptable: this package has every right to override mul!
when using different types. @dlfivefifty
from fasttransforms.jl.
Not sure why thereās a separate mul!
here. But mul!
in Base is a bit broken, because it should use traits. I made a PR but we couldnāt agree to names, so that PR now lives in LazyArrays.jl
from fasttransforms.jl.
I think part of the problem may be that mul!
(A_mul_B!
) used to reside in Base
, but now it's in LinearAlgebra
. Perhaps HierarchicalMatrices
needs more than just the Compat
patch, i.e. using LinearAlgebra
.
from fasttransforms.jl.
It's more than that. Adjoint
, Transpose
, UpperTriangular
, etc. overrides of mul!
have a cascading effect where to add your own overrides requiring more and more ambiguity overrides. The solution to this is to use traits.
My feeling is forget about LinearAlgebra.mul!
and switch over to LazyArrays, which also has a more descriptive syntax:
c .= Ī± .* Mul(A,b) .+ Ī² .* c
This will support all the Base types that mul!
does and more (e.g., it knows that view(Adjoint(view(A,1:2,1:3)), 1:5, 2:3)
is BLAS row major and lowers to the correct BLAS routines.).
The plan is that a trait-like mul!
or LazyArray's approach will be incorporated into Base/LinearAlgebra in the future.
from fasttransforms.jl.
how can I set up allocation free spherical harmonic transforms? I may have missed something, but I can't track down a version of
function *(P::SphericalHarmonicPlan, X::AbstractMatrix)
mul!(zero(X), P, X)
end
that lets me pass my own field to write to instead of zero(X)
. Should I just be writing my own method, or is that somehow dangerous?
Also, is there any fix for the performance regression?
from fasttransforms.jl.
As long as X
and Y
have the same sizes and P = plan_sph2fourier(X)
, then I think mul!(Y, P, X)
is what you're looking for. (There is no support for lmul!(P, X)
at the moment.)
from fasttransforms.jl.
The segfault issue is now fixed on master. The added test shows that using either odd or even equispaced longitudinal grids results in the resolution of a function on the sphere to approximately machine precision --- roughly the same spherical harmonic coefficients.
I was wondering, support for even numbered polar angles/longitudes does not seem to be implemented anymore. Could it be reimplemented? I'd argue that most grids used by models/data (e.g. in meteorology) that I have encountered, have an even number of angles/longitudes, so that it would be extremely convenient to have this working.
Thanks.
from fasttransforms.jl.
Yes, that feature (annoying to the developer) didn't make it to the new world. MikaelSlevinsky/FastTransforms#23
from fasttransforms.jl.
Related Issues (20)
- jac2cheb: Crash on M1 (with Rosetta)
- Remove DSP dependency HOT 4
- Should multiplication of `FTPlan` take `StridedArray`s as arguments instead of `Array`s? HOT 1
- Move Chebyshev functionality to Chebyshevtransforms.jl
- What algorithm does cheb2leg() use? HOT 2
- Potentially suboptimal performance in r2r transforms? HOT 1
- sph methods slow? HOT 4
- Chebyshev transforms do not work with the FFTW v1.6. HOT 2
- Add a slow path in ultra2ultra transforms?
- Reduction in accuracy in `cheb2leg ā leg2cheb` on v0.15 HOT 4
- Regression in `ultra2ultra` with identical orders HOT 1
- Write test for Normalization in `cheb2leg` and `leg2cheb` HOT 4
- `cheb2ultra` seems unreasonably slow HOT 2
- Julia rewrite of libFastTransforms HOT 2
- 1d transforms with multi-dimensional regions are slow HOT 3
- Use Toeplitz-dot-Hankel for very large dimensional transforms HOT 4
- Add multidimensional interface for lib transforms HOT 3
- Avoid reexporting dependencies?
- Move out forwardrecurrence and clenshaw
- Segmentation fault for spherical harmonic transform HOT 5
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
š Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. ššš
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ā¤ļø Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from fasttransforms.jl.