[Numpy-discussion] New ufuncs
Charles R Harris
Wed Nov 5 00:03:38 CST 2008
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Anne Archibald
> 2008/11/5 Charles R Harris <email@example.com>:
> > Hi All,
> > I'm thinking of adding some new ufuncs. Some possibilities are
> > expadd(a,b) = exp(a) + exp(b) -- For numbers stored as logs:
> Surely this should be log(exp(a)+exp(b))? That would be extremely useful,
Yes, but the common case seems to be log(sum_i(exp(a_i))), which would be
inefficient if implemented with addexp.reduce.
> > absdiff(a,b) = abs(a - b) -- Useful for forming norms
> > absmax(a,b) = max(abs(a), abs(b))
> > absadd(a,b) = abs(a) + abs(b) -- Useful for L_1 norm and inequalities?
> These I find less exciting, since they can be written easily in terms
> of existing ufuncs. (The expadd can't without an if statement unless
> you want range errors.) There is some small gain in having fewer
> temporaries, but as it stands now each ufunc lives in a byzantine nest
> of code and is hard to scrutinize.
The inner loops are very simple, take a look at the current umathmodule.
It's all the cruft up top that needs to be clarified. But I was mostly
thinking of temporaries and the speed up for small arrays of not having as
much call overhead.
> > I would really like a powadd = abs(a)**p + abs(b)**p, but I can't think
> > an easy way to pass a variable p that is compatible with the way ufuncs
> > without going to three variables, something that might not work with the
> > reduce functions. Along these lines I also think it is time to review
> > generalized ufuncs to see what we can do with them. Thoughts?
How about an abspower(a,p) = abs(a)**p ? That might be more useful.
> It's worth checking what reduce does on ternary ufuncs. It's not clear
> what it *should* do.
I suppose a three variable recursion would be the most natural extension,
but probably not that useful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion