# Most efficient way to build block / banded SparseArray

I have a matrix that I generate with a procedure that looks like this:

blaMX[ptsX_Integer, ptsY_Integer] :=
Table[
With[
{
ix = 1 + Floor[(i - 1)/(ptsY)], jx = 1 + Floor[(j - 1)/(ptsY)],
iy = Mod[i, ptsY, 1], jy = Mod[j, ptsY, 1]
},
If[iy != jy,
0,
k1[ix, jx]
] +
If[ix != jx,
0,
k2[iy, jy]
]
],
{i, ptsX*ptsY},
{j, ptsX*ptsY}
];


where I have two square matrices k1 of dimension ptsX and k2 of dimension ptsY

It generates a block-diagonal matrix with a bunch of block-bands. The basic structure looks like:

blaMX[6, 9] /. {_k1 -> 1, _k2 -> 2, c -> 3} // MatrixPlot where each of those diagonal blocks is k2 duplicated:

blaMX[3, 6][[7 ;; 12, 7 ;; 12]] /. _k1 -> 0 // Grid

k2[1,1] k2[1,2] k2[1,3] k2[1,4] k2[1,5] k2[1,6]
k2[2,1] k2[2,2] k2[2,3] k2[2,4] k2[2,5] k2[2,6]
k2[3,1] k2[3,2] k2[3,3] k2[3,4] k2[3,5] k2[3,6]
k2[4,1] k2[4,2] k2[4,3] k2[4,4] k2[4,5] k2[4,6]
k2[5,1] k2[5,2] k2[5,3] k2[5,4] k2[5,5] k2[5,6]
k2[6,1] k2[6,2] k2[6,3] k2[6,4] k2[6,5] k2[6,6]


Each band is made up of blocks, as an unwrapping of k1 with the Band starting at {n+(i-1)*ptsY, n+(j-1)*ptsY} being k1[[i+1, j+1]] (essentially just using Quotient:

With[{n = 1},
Table[
blaMX[6, 9][[
(i - 1)*9 + n,
(j - 1)*9 + n
]] /. _k2 -> 0,
{i, 6},
{j, 6}
]
] // Grid


Now, my generation procedure is wildly inefficient. I do ptsX^2 * ptsY^2 work, when I really only have ptsX * ptsY * (ptsX + ptsY - 1) (which is just 2 n^3 - n^2 if ptsX == ptsY == n) non-zero elements.

So, what is the best way to build a matrix of this form? My current version looks like:

makeKMat[k1_, k2_] :=
With[{
k1SparseRules =
With[{ptsX = Length@k1, ptsY = Length@k2},
Flatten[
Table[
Band[{(i - 1)*ptsY + 1, (j - 1)*ptsY + 1}, {i*ptsY, j*ptsY}] ->
k1[[i, j]],
{i, ptsX},
{j, ptsX}
],
1
]
],
k2SparseRules =
With[{ptsX = Length@k1, ptsY = Length@k2},
{
Band[{1, 1}] ->
ConstantArray[k2, ptsX]
}
]
},
With[{k3 = SparseArray[k2SparseRules]},
SparseArray[k1SparseRules, Dimensions[k3]] + k3
]
];


And this works:

k1Pts = 6;
k2Pts = 9;
k1Test = Array[k1, {k1Pts, k1Pts}];
k2Test = Array[k2, {k2Pts, k2Pts}];
kMatTest = makeKMat[k1Test, k2Test];
kMatTest == blaMX[6, 9]

True


And is pretty fast, all considered:

k1Test2 = RandomReal[{}, {15, 15}];
k2Test2 = RandomReal[{}, {15, 15}];

{tt, mx} = makeKMat[k1Test2, k2Test2] // RepeatedTiming;
tt

0.0071

{tt2, lmx} = lazyMX[k1Test2, k2Test2] // RepeatedTiming;
tt2

0.338


But, I can't help but feel that this could be done more efficiently. Can someone propose a better way to build a block-banded SparseArray like this?

### Some mild goal-post moving:

What if we wanted to extend this to an $N$-dimensional system? A way to implement this element-wise would be:

getCrds[i_, j_, gridDivs_] :=
FoldList[
With[{tot = #[], new = #2},
Append[
Map[
Mod[1 + Quotient[# - 1, tot], new, 1] &,
{i, j}
],
tot*new
]
] &,
{i, j, 1},
gridDivs
][[2 ;;, ;; 2]];

makeNDKMat[ks : {__List}] :=
With[{gridDivs = Length /@ ks},
Table[
With[{divvy = getCrds[i, j, gridDivs]},
Total@
Table[
If[AllTrue[Delete[divvy, k], Apply[Equal]],
ks[[k, Sequence @@ divvy[[k]]]],
0
],
{k, Length@gridDivs}
]
],
{i, Times @@ gridDivs},
{j, Times @@ gridDivs}
]
]


For example, in 4D this looks like:

k1T = Array[k1, {2, 2}];
k2T = Array[k2, {3, 3}];
k3T = Array[k3, {4, 4}];
k4T = Array[k4, {5, 5}];
k4DLazy =
makeNDKMat[{k4T, k3T, k2T, k1T}] /. {_k1 -> 1, _k2 -> 2, _k3 ->
3, _k4 -> 4};
k4DLazy // MatrixPlot How could we efficiently build a sparse representation of this?

This is definately faster. It took me some time to figure out the combinatorics and there might still be some potential for improvement within the compiled functions.

getColumnIndices = Compile[{{m, _Integer}, {n, _Integer}, {i, _Integer}},
Transpose[Partition[
Partition[
Join[
Table[k, {k, 1, i n}],
Flatten[Table[Table[k, {j, 1, n}], {k, i n + 1, i n + n}]],
Table[k, {k, i n + n + 1, m n}]
], {1}], {n}]],
RuntimeAttributes -> {Listable},
Parallelization -> True,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
];

getValues = Compile[{{k1row, _Real, 1}, {k2, _Real, 2}, {i, _Integer}},
Block[{A},
A = Join[
Table[CompileGetElement[k1row, k], {l, 1, Length[k2]}, {k, 1, i}],
k2,
Table[CompileGetElement[k1row, k], {l, 1, Length[k2]}, {k, i + 2, Length[k1row]}],
2];
Do[A[[k, k + i]] += CompileGetElement[k1row, i + 1], {k, 1, Length[k2]}];
A
],
RuntimeAttributes -> {Listable},
Parallelization -> True,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
];

makeKMat3[k1_, k2_] := With[{m = Length[k1], n = Length[k2]},
SparseArray @@ {Automatic, {m n, m n}, 0, {1, {
Range[0, (m n ) (m + n - 1), m + n - 1],
Flatten[getColumnIndices[m, n, Range[0, m - 1]], 2]
},
Flatten[getValues[k1, k2, Range[0, m - 1]]]
}}
]


Just to give you an idea of the timings:

m = 100;
n = 6;
k1 = RandomReal[{-1, 1}, {m, m}];
k2 = RandomReal[{-1, 1}, {n, n}];
A = makeKMat2[k1, k2]; // RepeatedTiming
B = makeKMat3[k1, k2]; // RepeatedTiming
Max[Abs[A - B]]


{0.11, Null}

{0.000481, Null}

0.

The idea for the "higher dimensional" case is similar to the idea above. I exploit that the "ColumnIndices" of the resulting matrices (when partitioned into column indices per row) stay rectangular so that column indices from the diagonal matrices can be joined to it from the left and right. Some extra index list (diagidx) is needed for book keeping of those column indices of the blocks that belong to the diagonal entries. All in all, only operations on the nonzero values and the column indices are performed. No SparseArrays are built intermediately: Even building a SparseArray from row pointers, column indices and nonzero values has still some considerable overhead, probably because there is a consistency checker involved in the backend. That's a pitty since I know that I produce consistent data. This issue is also closely related to this post by Szabolcs.

getValues2 = Compile[{{k1row, _Real, 1}, {blockvals, _Real, 2}, {diagidx, _Integer, 1}, {i, _Integer}},
Block[{A},
A = Join[
Table[CompileGetElement[k1row, k], {l, 1, Dimensions[blockvals][]}, {k, 1, i}],
blockvals,
Table[CompileGetElement[k1row, k], {l, 1, Dimensions[blockvals][]}, {k, i + 2, Length[k1row]}],
2];
Do[A[[k, CompileGetElement[diagidx, k] + i]] += CompileGetElement[k1row, i + 1], {k, 1, Length[blockvals]}];
A
],
RuntimeAttributes -> {Listable},
Parallelization -> True,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
];

getColumnIndices2 = Compile[{
{blockci, _Integer, 3}, {diagci, _Integer,
3}, {m, _Integer}, {n, _Integer}, {i, _Integer}
},
If[i > 0,
If[i < m - 1,
Join[diagci[[All, 1 ;; i]], blockci + i n, diagci[[All, i + 1 ;; m - 1]] + (n), 2],
Join[diagci[[All, 1 ;; i]], blockci + i n, 2]
],
Join[blockci + i n, diagci[[All, i + 1 ;; m - 1]] + (n), 2]
],
RuntimeAttributes -> {Listable},
Parallelization -> True,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
];

toSparseArrayData[b_?MatrixQ] := {
Partition[SparseArray[b]["ColumnIndices"], Dimensions[b][]],
b,
Dimensions[b][],
Range[Dimensions[b][]]
}

toSparseArray[X_] :=
With[{d1 = Dimensions[X[]][], d2 = Dimensions[X[]][]},
SparseArray @@ {Automatic, {d1, d1}, 0,
{1, {Range[0, d1 d2, d2], Flatten[X[], 1]}, Flatten[X[]]}}
]

iteration[X_, a_] := With[{
m = Length[a],
blockci = X[],
blockvals = X[],
n = X[],
diagidx = X[]
},
With[{ran = Range[0, m - 1]},
{
Join @@ getColumnIndices2[blockci, Transpose[Partition[Partition[Range[(m - 1) n], 1], n]], m, n, ran],
Join @@ getValues2[a, blockvals, diagidx, ran],
m n,
Join @@ Outer[Plus, ran, diagidx]
}
]
]

makeKMat3ND[ks : {__List}] :=
toSparseArray[Fold[iteration, toSparseArrayData[ks[]], Rest[ks]]]


Usage example and timing test:

SeedRandom;
ks = Table[RandomReal[{-1, 1}, {RandomInteger[{3, 8}]}[[{1, 1}]]], 6];
A = makeKMat2ND[Reverse@ks]; // AbsoluteTiming
B = makeKMat3ND[ks]; // AbsoluteTiming
Max[Abs[A - B]]


{24.0011, Null}

{0.038756, Null}

8.88178*10^-16

This is the sparsity pattern of the resulting matrix: • Wow. Honestly just wow. – b3m2a1 Feb 15 '18 at 20:18
• This is great work ++1 – mrz Feb 21 '18 at 19:41
• @b3m2a1 Thank you very much for the bounty! May I ask where this sort of "fractal" iterations get applied? – Henrik Schumacher Feb 22 '18 at 7:30
• It pops up in a specific version of discrete variable representation. This is the type of process you use for building the kinetic energy term in multiple dimensions for a direct product basis (which leads to a representation that is diagonal in the different coordinates, hence block-banded in the way I presented). – b3m2a1 Feb 22 '18 at 7:34
• Reminds me of link – Emy Mar 17 '18 at 16:38

Not faster, but maybe easier to implement

makeKMat2[k1_, k2_] := Module[{A, m, n},
m = Length[k1];
n = Length[k2];
A = Map[SparseArray[Band[{1, 1}] -> #, {n, n}, 0.] &, k1, {2}];
With[{B = SparseArray@k2}, Do[A[[i, i]] += B, {i, 1, m}]];
ArrayFlatten[A]
]


Your implementation needs about 0.0048s; mine needs 0.0051s on my machine.

(b3m2a1 comment)
Note that this has a simple extension to the N-dimensional case:

makeKMat2ND[ks : {__List}] := Fold[makeKMat2, ks]

• Very nice. I'm gonna be sharing this code with others so the easier it is to read for people without Mathematica experience the better. – b3m2a1 Feb 15 '18 at 7:49
• Good to hear! I was also tempted to compute the "ColumnIndices" and "RowPointers" of the resulting matrix by hand since building from the "FullForm" of the matrix is usually much faster than letting Mathematica assemble it. But I am somewhat relieved that I don't have to do that. Although it should not be too complicated as each row has the same number of entries... – Henrik Schumacher Feb 15 '18 at 8:31
• One difficulty, how can I keep make sure to keep the entire thing as a SparseArray? If I feed it: makeKMat2[RandomReal[{}, {10, 10}], RandomReal[{}, {10, 10}]] it unwraps to a List for me, presumably owing to some auto-determined memory optimization, while if I feed it more regular data: makeKMat2[Table[i + j, {i, 10}, {j, 10}], Table[i + j, {i, 10}, {j, 10}]] it's happy to keep it Sparse. This becomes more of a problem as I move to 4D and beyond, which I was hoping I could do recursively with this. – b3m2a1 Feb 15 '18 at 9:27
• When using ArrayFlatten it is important that all occuring SparseArray have the same "Background" (aka. as default values). When casting dense, real matrices to sparse ones by applying SparseArray to them, the "Background" is automatically set to 0. (machine precision) while building sparse arrays with the constructor have 0 as background by default. Adding ,0. as last argument to SparseArray cures this. I also edited the post. – Henrik Schumacher Feb 15 '18 at 9:45
• Moreover: Feel free to add as much information as other users might find useful. – Henrik Schumacher Feb 15 '18 at 9:47

This is slightly faster and certainly more compact than the uncompiled implementation in Henrik's answer:

makeKMat[k1_?SquareMatrixQ, k2_?SquareMatrixQ] := Module[{m = Length[k1], n = Length[k2]},
KroneckerProduct[k1, IdentityMatrix[n, SparseArray]] +
KroneckerProduct[IdentityMatrix[m, SparseArray], k2]]


and as b3m2a1 notes, the extension can be done as

makeKMatND[ks : {__?SquareMatrixQ}] := Fold[makeKMat[#2, #1] &, ks]


Using the examples in the OP:

MatrixPlot[makeKMat[ConstantArray[1, {9, 9}], ConstantArray[2, {6, 6}]]] AbsoluteTiming[tst =
makeKMatND[{ConstantArray[4, {5, 5}], ConstantArray[3, {4, 4}],
ConstantArray[2, {3, 3}], ConstantArray[1, {2, 2}]}];][]
0.000406914

MatrixPlot[tst, MaxPlotPoints -> Infinity] • +1 for SquareMatrixQ. I did not know that it existed! And for the KroneckerProduct` trick. I learnt it from here several days later and I was really suprised that it worked so well. – Henrik Schumacher Mar 17 '18 at 11:28
• By sheer chance, I was rereading Van Loan's paper when I came across this old question... :D – J. M. will be back soon Mar 17 '18 at 11:36
• Wow, thanks! That's a nice overview on Kronecker products. This will turn out very useful one day! – Henrik Schumacher Mar 17 '18 at 11:55
• Very cool! I had never heard of a Kronecker product (being a chemist who masquerades as a mathematician). Very cool to know that this type of operation has a full calculus behind it (and fun to see that this matrix built from Kronecker deltas is called a Kronecker product). – b3m2a1 Mar 21 '18 at 7:13
• @b3m2a1 I'm a chemist pretending to be a mathematician (with varying degrees of success); to be perfectly fair, I didn't learn about Kronecker products until I was well out of school. ;) – J. M. will be back soon Mar 21 '18 at 7:19