我有两个numpy数组NS,EW来总结。它们中的每一个在不同的位置都有缺失的值,如
NS = array([[ 1., 2., nan],
[ 4., 5., nan],
[ 6., nan, nan]])
EW = array([[ 1., 2., nan],
[ 4., nan, nan],
[ 6., nan, 9.]]如何以numpy方式执行求和操作,如果一个数组在一个位置有nan,它将将nan作为零处理,如果两个数组在同一个位置都有nan,则保持nan不变。
我希望看到的结果是
SUM = array([[ 2., 4., nan],
[ 8., 5., nan],
[ 12., nan, 9.]])当我尝试
SUM=np.add(NS,EW)它给了我
SUM=array([[ 2., 4., nan],
[ 8., nan, nan],
[ 12., nan, nan]])当我尝试
SUM = np.nansum(np.dstack((NS,EW)),2)它给了我
SUM=array([[ 2., 4., 0.],
[ 8., 5., 0.],
[ 12., 0., 9.]])当然,我可以通过元素级操作来实现我的目标,
for i in range(np.size(NS,0)):
for j in range(np.size(NS,1)):
if np.isnan(NS[i,j]) and np.isnan(EW[i,j]):
SUM[i,j] = np.nan
elif np.isnan(NS[i,j]):
SUM[i,j] = EW[i,j]
elif np.isnan(EW[i,j]):
SUM[i,j] = NS[i,j]
else:
SUM[i,j] = NS[i,j]+EW[i,j]但速度很慢。因此,我正在寻找一个解决这个问题的更大胆的解决方案。
谢谢你提前提供帮助!
发布于 2017-02-13 17:27:32
方法#1 :使用np.where的一种方法
def sum_nan_arrays(a,b):
ma = np.isnan(a)
mb = np.isnan(b)
return np.where(ma&mb, np.nan, np.where(ma,0,a) + np.where(mb,0,b))样本运行-
In [43]: NS
Out[43]:
array([[ 1., 2., nan],
[ 4., 5., nan],
[ 6., nan, nan]])
In [44]: EW
Out[44]:
array([[ 1., 2., nan],
[ 4., nan, nan],
[ 6., nan, 9.]])
In [45]: sum_nan_arrays(NS, EW)
Out[45]:
array([[ 2., 4., nan],
[ 8., 5., nan],
[ 12., nan, 9.]])方法2 :可能是一种混合了boolean-indexing的更快的方法-
def sum_nan_arrays_v2(a,b):
ma = np.isnan(a)
mb = np.isnan(b)
m_keep_a = ~ma & mb
m_keep_b = ma & ~mb
out = a + b
out[m_keep_a] = a[m_keep_a]
out[m_keep_b] = b[m_keep_b]
return out运行时测试-
In [140]: # Setup input arrays with 4/9 ratio of NaNs (same as in the question)
...: a = np.random.rand(3000,3000)
...: b = np.random.rand(3000,3000)
...: a.ravel()[np.random.choice(range(a.size), size=4000000, replace=0)] = np.nan
...: b.ravel()[np.random.choice(range(b.size), size=4000000, replace=0)] = np.nan
...:
In [141]: np.nanmax(np.abs(sum_nan_arrays(a, b) - sum_nan_arrays_v2(a, b))) # Verify
Out[141]: 0.0
In [142]: %timeit sum_nan_arrays(a, b)
10 loops, best of 3: 141 ms per loop
In [143]: %timeit sum_nan_arrays_v2(a, b)
10 loops, best of 3: 177 ms per loop
In [144]: # Setup input arrays with lesser NaNs
...: a = np.random.rand(3000,3000)
...: b = np.random.rand(3000,3000)
...: a.ravel()[np.random.choice(range(a.size), size=4000, replace=0)] = np.nan
...: b.ravel()[np.random.choice(range(b.size), size=4000, replace=0)] = np.nan
...:
In [145]: np.nanmax(np.abs(sum_nan_arrays(a, b) - sum_nan_arrays_v2(a, b))) # Verify
Out[145]: 0.0
In [146]: %timeit sum_nan_arrays(a, b)
10 loops, best of 3: 69.6 ms per loop
In [147]: %timeit sum_nan_arrays_v2(a, b)
10 loops, best of 3: 38 ms per loop发布于 2017-02-13 18:50:53
实际上,您的nansum方法几乎奏效了,您只需要再次添加nans:
def add_ignore_nans(a, b):
stacked = np.array([a, b])
res = np.nansum(stacked, axis=0)
res[np.all(np.isnan(stacked), axis=0)] = np.nan
return res
>>> add_ignore_nans(a, b)
array([[ 2., 4., nan],
[ 8., 5., nan],
[ 12., nan, 9.]])这将比@Divakar的回答慢,但我想说的是,您已经非常接近了!:-)
发布于 2017-02-13 18:23:18
我认为我们可以用Divakar的第二种方法更简洁一些。使用a = NS和b = EW
na = numpy.isnan(a)
nb = numpy.isnan(b)
a[na] = 0
b[nb] = 0
a += b
na &= nb
a[na] = numpy.nan假设这在您的场景中是可行的,则在可能的情况下执行这些操作以节省内存。最后的结果在a中。
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42209838
复制相似问题