Interleave two vectors - vectorization

I'm trying my first steps with SIMD and I was wondering what the right approach is to the following problem. Consider two vectors:
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
How to "interleave" the elements of those vectors so that they become:
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 | | 2 | 6 | 3 | 7 |
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
I was surprised I could not find an instruction for doing it, given the great many kinds of shuffles, broadcasts, permutes, ... Probably it could be done with some unpacklo and unpackhi and what not, but I was wondering if there is a canonical way of doing it as it seems to be quite common problem (SoA vs. AoS). For simplicity let's assume AVX(2) and vectors of four floats.
Edit:
Floats vs. doubles
The comment below (correctly) suggest I should use unpcklps and unpckhps for floats. Which instruction should I use to unpack vector of four doubles? I'm asking because _mm256_unpacklo_pd/_mm256_unpackhi_pd:
Unpack and interleave double-precision (64-bit) floating-point elements from the high half of each 128-bit lane in a and b, and store the results in dst.
DEFINE INTERLEAVE_HIGH_QWORDS(src1[127:0], src2[127:0]) {
dst[63:0] := src1[127:64]
dst[127:64] := src2[127:64]
RETURN dst[127:0]
}
dst[127:0] := INTERLEAVE_HIGH_QWORDS(a[127:0], b[127:0])
dst[255:128] := INTERLEAVE_HIGH_QWORDS(a[255:128], b[255:128])
dst[MAX:256] := 0
So what it apparently does is:
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 4 | 2 | 6 | | 1 | 5 | 3 | 7 |
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+

Related

Classification with Integers and Types

Let's say we have the following dataset
Label | Features |
-----------------------------------
Age | Size | Weight | shoeSize |
20 | 180 | 80 | 42 |
40 | 173 | 56 | 38 |
as i know features in machine learning should be normalized and the ones mentioned above can be normalized really good. but what if i want to extend the feature list for for example the following features
| Gender | Ethnicity |
| 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 0 | 3 |
| 0 | 2 |
where the Gender values 0 and 1 are for female and male. and the Ethnicity values 1, 2 and 3 are for asian, hispanic and european. since these values reference types i am note sure if they can be normalized.
if they can not be normalized how can i handle mixing values like the size with types like the enthnicity.

Calculate a bunch of data to display on stacked bar

I'm struggeling with creating my first chart.
i have a dataset of ordinal scaled data from a survey.
There i have several question with the possible answer from 1 - 5.
So have around 110 answers from different persons which i want to collect and show in a stacked bar.
Those data looks like:
| taste | region | brand | price |
| 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
...
to can display that in a stacked bar chart, i need to sum that.
so i know at the end it need to be calculated like:
| | taste | region | brand | price |
| 1 | 60 | 20 | 32 | 12 |
| 2 | 23 | 32 | 54 | 22 |
| 3 | 24 | 66 | 36 | 65 |
| 4 | 55 | 68 | 28 | 54 |
| 5 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 22 |
(this is just to demonstarte, the values are not correct)
Or somehow there is already a function for it on spss but i have now idea where an how.
Any advice how to do that?
I can't think of a single command but there are many ways to get to where you want. Here's one:
first recreating your sample data:
data list list/ taste region brand price .
begin data
1 3 4 2
1 1 5 1
1 3 4 3
2 2 5 1
1 1 4 5
5 3 5 2
1 5 5 2
2 4 1 3
1 3 5 4
1 4 4 5
end data.
Now counting the values for each row:
vector t(5) r(5) b(5) p(5).
* the vector command is only nescessary so the new variables will be ordered compfortably for the following parts.
do repeat vl= 1 to 5/t=t1 to t5/r=r1 to r5/b=b1 to b5/p=p1 to p5.
compute t=(taste=vl).
compute r=(region=vl).
compute b=(brand=vl).
compute p=(price=vl).
end repeat.
Now we can aggregate and restructure to arrive to the the exact data structure you specified:
aggregate /outfile=* /break= /t1 to t5 r1 to r5 b1 to b5 p1 to p5 = sum(t1 to p5).
varstocases /make taste from t1 to t5 /make region from r1 to r5
/make brand from b1 to b5/ make price from p1 to p5/index=val(taste).
compute val = char.substr(val,2,1).
alter type val(f1).

weka gives 100% correctly classified instances for every dataset

I'm not able to get accuracy, as every dataset I provide provides 100% accuracy for every classifier algorithm I apply. My data set is of 10 people.
It gives the same accuracy for naive bayes, J48, JRip classifier algorithm.
+----+-------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+------+-------+-------+-------+
| id | name | q1 | q2 | q3 | m1 | m2 | tut | fl | proj | fexam | total | grade |
+----+-------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1 | abv | 5 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 40 | 100 | p |
| 2 | ca | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 40 | 48 | f |
| 3 | ga | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 20 | 59 | f |
| 4 | ui | 5 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 13 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 39 | 94 | p |
| 5 | pa | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 22 | 46 | f |
| 6 | la | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 11 | 26 | f |
| 7 | ka | 5 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 24 | 51 | f |
| 8 | ma | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 20 | 60 | p |
| 9 | ash | 2 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 30 | 81 | p |
| 10 | opo | 4 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 35 | 69 | p |
+----+-------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+------+-------+-------+-------+
Make sure to not include any unique identifier column.
Also don't include the total.
Most likely, the classifiers learned that "name" is a good predictor and/or that you need total > 59 points total to pass.
I suggest you even withhold at least one exercise because of that - some classifiers will still learn that the sum of the individual points is necessary to pass.
I assume you want to find out if one part is most indicative of passing, i.e. "if you do well on part 3, you will likely pass". But to answer this question, you need to account for e.g. different amount of points per question, etc. - otherwise, your predictor will just identify which question has the most points...
Also, 10 is a much too small sample size!
You can see from the output that is displayed that the tree that J48 generated used only the variable fl, so I do not think that you have the problem that #Anony-Mousse referred to.
I notice that you are testing on the training set (see the "Test Options" radio buttons at upper left of the GUI). That almost always overestimates the accuracy. What you are seeing is overfitting. Instead, use cross-validation to get a better estimate of the accuracy you could expect on new data. With only 10 data points, you should use either 10 folds or 5.
Try testing your model on cross-validation on "k splits" or Percentage split.
Generally in Percentage Split: Training set is of 2/3 of dataset and Test set is 1/3.
Also, What I feel that your dataset is very small... There are chances of high accuracy in that case.

Does endianness refer to ordering within a defined array or memory or also the actual memory used?

I'm having trouble expressing my question in words, but I think I can express it visually quite simply. Storing the string abcd, is the difference between Big and Little Endian this:
memory address | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ...
little endian | d | c | b | a |
big endian | a | b | c | d |
Or this:
memory address | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ...
little endian | d | c | b | a |
big endian | a | b | c | d |
My attempt in words: does "endianness" refer to the ordering of bytes within a specific memory "array", where in both cases the array begins at the same point in memory, or does it refer to both the ordering and the actual array used?
Endianness refers to the ordering of bytes used to store a single multi-byte numerical value. The "big endian" system in your second image is storing 4-byte integers unaligned, which no system would normally do.

How to do a goedel numbering for bit strings?

I'm looking for a concept for doing a Gödel numbering for bit strings, i.e. for arbitrary binary data.
Approach 1 (failing): Simply interpret the binary data as data of an unsigned integer.
This fails, because e.g. the two different strings "01" and "001" both represent the same integer 1.
Is there a standard way of doing this? Is 0 usually included or excluded from the Gödel numbering?
The original Gödel numbering used prime numbers and unique encoding of symbols. If you want to do it for strings consisting of "0" and "1", you need positive codes for "0" (say 1) and "1" (say 2). Then numbering of "01" is
21 * 32
while numbering of "001" is
21 * 31 * 52
For longer strings use next prime numbers. However, note that Gödel numbering goals did not include any practical considerations, he simply needed numbering as a tool in the proof of his theorem. In practice for fairly short strings you will exceed range of integers in your language, so you need to use either a language with arbitrary large integers built-in (like Scheme) or a library supporting bignums in language without them built-in.
A super simple solution is to prepend a 1 to the binary data and then interpret the result as an unsigned integer value. This way, no 0-digits get lost at the left side of the bit string.
Illustration how well this works:
One obvious way to order bit strings is to order them first by length and then lexicographically:
+------------+
| bit string |
+------------+
| ε |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| 00 |
| 01 |
| 10 |
| 11 |
| 000 |
| 001 |
| 010 |
| 011 |
| 100 |
| 101 |
| 110 |
| ... |
+------------+
(ε denotes the empty string with no digits.)
Now we add an index number n to this table, starting with 1, and then look at the binary representation of the index number n. We will make a nice discovery there:
+------------+--------------+-------------+
| bit string | n in decimal | n in binary |
+------------+--------------+-------------+
| ε | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 2 | 10 |
| 1 | 3 | 11 |
| 00 | 4 | 100 |
| 01 | 5 | 101 |
| 10 | 6 | 110 |
| 11 | 7 | 111 |
| 000 | 8 | 1000 |
| 001 | 9 | 1001 |
| 010 | 10 | 1010 |
| 011 | 11 | 1011 |
| 100 | 12 | 1100 |
| 101 | 13 | 1101 |
| 110 | 14 | 1110 |
| ... | ... | ... |
+------------+--------------+-------------+
This works out surprisingly well, because the binary representation of n (the index of each bit string when ordering in a very obvious way) is nothing else than a 1 prepended to the original bit string and then the whole thing interpreted as an unsigned integral value.
If you prefer a 0-based Goedel numbering, then subtract 1 from the resulting integer value.
Conversion formulas in pseudo code:
// for starting with 1
n_base1 = integer(prepend1(s))
s = removeFirstDigit(bitString(n_base1))
// for starting with 0
n_base0 = integer(prepend1(s)) - 1
s = removeFirstDigit(bitString(n_base0 + 1))

Resources