Opened 6 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#20445 closed enhancement (fixed)
Iteration through finite Coxeter groups
Reported by:  stumpc5  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.3 
Component:  combinatorics  Keywords:  
Cc:  tscrim, chapoton, nthiery, vripoll  Merged in:  
Authors:  Travis Scrimshaw, Christian Stump  Reviewers:  Christian Stump, Travis Scrimshaw 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  d3ef5a8 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  d3ef5a848c90cd0fba80b0fe61f48d2693f9ea5b 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
The algorithm in chevie is very different from the algorithm we currently have:
ForEachElement:=function(W,f)local l,g; if not IsFinite(W) then Error("only for finite Coxeter groups"); elif W.nbGeneratingReflections=0 then f(W.identity);return; fi; l:=List([0..W.nbGeneratingReflections],i> ReflectionSubgroup(W,W.reflectionsLabels{[1..i]})); l:=List([1..Length(l)1],i>ReducedRightCosetRepresentatives(l[i+1],l[i])); g:=function(x,v)local y; if Length(v)=0 then f(x); else for y in v[1] do g(x*y,v{[2..Length(v)]});od; fi; end; g(W.identity,l); end;
We should also implement that algorithm (maybe even with hardcoded coset representatives in the finite case) so that we can see if this is indeed faster.
The two needed methods are
############################################################################# ## #F ReducedInRightCoset( <W> , <w> ) . . . . . reduced element in coset W.w ## ## w is an automorphism of a parent Coxeter group of W. ## 'ReducedInRightCoset' returns the unique element in the right ## coset W.w which is Wreduced. ## AbsCoxOps.ReducedInRightCoset:=function(W,w)local i; while true do i := FirstLeftDescending(W, w); if i=false then return w; fi; w := W.reflections[i] * w; od; end; ############################################################################# ## #F ReducedRightCosetRepresentatives( <W>, <H> ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . #F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . distinguished right coset representatives ## ## 'ReducedRightCosetRepresentatives' returns a list of reduced words in the ## Coxeter group <W> that are distinguished right coset representatives for ## the right cosets H\W where H is a reflection subgroup of W. ## ReducedRightCosetRepresentatives:=function(W, H)local res, totest, new; totest:=Set([W.identity]); res:=Set([W.identity]); repeat new:=Concatenation(List(totest,w>List( W.reflections{W.generatingReflections},s>ReducedInRightCoset(H, w*s)))); UniteSet(res,totest); totest:=Difference(new,res); until Length(totest)=0; InfoChevie2("#I nb. of cosets: ",Length(res),"\n"); SortBy(res,x>CoxeterLength(W,x)); return res; end;
Change History (40)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
 Branch set to u/stumpc5/20445
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit set to 3d5bd19b3628eccdad189d2eb6db08a89295cab0
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
a2ef2e4  added a few sentences to the doc

dc01066  started to add 'optional  gap3'

fd0c9cc  added optional gap3

1537a79  added optional gap3

60acebc  Merge branch 'u/stumpc5/11187' into u/stumpc5/20445

3d5bd19  first version of the algorithm in chevie

comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by
 Summary changed from Iteration through Coxeter groups to Iteration through finite Coxeter groups
Last 10 new commits:
8810c41  fixed one doctest + work on the invariant form

2ba3740  fixed another doctest + a typo

e28bbec  edited the length function to always use the reduced word

8f79ffa  just playing with first methods

a2ef2e4  added a few sentences to the doc

dc01066  started to add 'optional  gap3'

fd0c9cc  added optional gap3

1537a79  added optional gap3

60acebc  Merge branch 'u/stumpc5/11187' into u/stumpc5/20445

3d5bd19  first version of the algorithm in chevie

comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
Travis, I implemented a first version of the algoritm, getting all needed cosets in E7 takes 2/3 of our iteration time, but constructing the elements in the end takes about 30secs. If you find the time, I am sure you see how to speed the algorithm. The function is parabolic_iteration
.
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 3d5bd19b3628eccdad189d2eb6db08a89295cab0 to eb75f71f18ff6faf5a3d2436caa691d74bdc460d
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from eb75f71f18ff6faf5a3d2436caa691d74bdc460d to 26d89e25c84a7c569fe0cffae8ec457baf3e3e67
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
feebf97  finalized the invariant form

4955d68  added the missing optional gap3 in the cython file

c5c43bc  the next round of optional gap3 insertions

6d788c9  Merge branch 'u/stumpc5/11187' into u/stumpc5/20445

26d89e2   made the computation of reduced_coset_repesentatives really fast ~0.1sec in E8

comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 26d89e25c84a7c569fe0cffae8ec457baf3e3e67 to e7eb93cc439710460b9be384cfb47ae63188d5c7
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
e7eb93c  pushed a new version of the parabolic algorithm that is 30% faster than ours

comment:10 Changed 6 years ago by
sage: timeit("for w in W.iteration('depth',False): pass",number=5) 5 loops, best of 3: 6.33 s per loop sage: from sage.combinat.root_system.reflection_group_c import parabolic_iteration sage: timeit("for w in parabolic_iteration(W): pass",number=5) 5 loops, best of 3: 4.28 s per loop
Okay, I can now get down quite a bit from our last weeks algorithm. Drawback is that it needs quite some memory (for E8, we have to keep E7 in memory). I provide an alternative in which order the parabolic is computed, but that doesn't seem to speed the computation.
 If @tscrim looks at the code and improves it further, we might beat the 5 minutes for E8!
 The code can also perfectly be paralellized!
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from e7eb93cc439710460b9be384cfb47ae63188d5c7 to 7eebd4b5cdecf9263eff38253b16d8ca9d777a3c
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
7eebd4b  minor tweak

comment:12 Changed 6 years ago by
I locally reimplemented the multiplication of PermutationGroupElement
. This resulted in
sage: W = ReflectionGroup(['E',7]) sage: from sage.combinat.root_system.reflection_group_c import parabolic_iteration sage: timeit("for w in parabolic_iteration(W): pass",number=5) 5 loops, best of 3: 2.4 s per loop
If we provide a very restricted implementation of permutations ourselves, we might get down further quite a bit. Remark: the algorithm without the multiplication and creation of new permutation group elements only takes .5sec
, so there is a lot to improve still.
comment:13 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 7eebd4b5cdecf9263eff38253b16d8ca9d777a3c to 88ec6a0d7a77fe89034218fb05a328de8fbfaa37
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
88ec6a0  implemented a local perm grp elt multiplication

comment:14 Changed 6 years ago by
I just redid the computations and it seems to be about twice as fast as in gap3:
sage: W = ReflectionGroup(['E',7]) sage: from sage.combinat.root_system.reflection_group_c import parabolic_iteration sage: timeit("for w in parabolic_iteration(W): pass",number=5) 5 loops, best of 3: 1.56 s per loop sage: timeit("for w in parabolic_iteration(W): pass",number=5) 5 loops, best of 3: 1.43 s per loop sage: W = ReflectionGroup(['E',8]) sage: %time for w in parabolic_iteration(W): pass CPU times: user 9min 12s, sys: 3.81 s, total: 9min 16s Wall time: 9min 16s
So we are slowly approaching the 5min...
comment:15 followup: ↓ 17 Changed 6 years ago by
Took 3.5Gb of RAM with this ticket, but on my laptop, this is what I got:
sage: W = ReflectionGroup(['E',8]) sage: from sage.combinat.root_system.reflection_group_c import parabolic_iteration sage: %time for w in parabolic_iteration(W): pass CPU times: user 4min 23s, sys: 604 ms, total: 4min 23s Wall time: 4min 23s
comment:16 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 88ec6a0d7a77fe89034218fb05a328de8fbfaa37 to bc3c926b27ccca4371b28a4dbac0169d639ff191
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 15 ; followup: ↓ 23 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
CPU times: user 4min 23s, sys: 604 ms, total: 4min 23s Wall time: 4min 23s
Great, I believe you can claim to be the first person ever who iterated through E8 in less than 5 minutes! (I was expecting that since 1. your computer was about twice as fast as mine last week, and 2. you took ~8 minutes to iter through E8 in chevie, and my code is about twice as fast as the chevie code.)
 I would really like to see how to implement our own permutation group elements with only what we need. I would hope that to again result in some speedup. One question there: we have w(\beta) = w(\beta), so we would not need to record the complete permutation on all roots, but on the positive roots would be enough. That would speed several computations such as creating new elements and testing for equality), but it would have the drawback that we constantly need to work mod N (N=nr of positive roots), e.g., we would have such checks and mod's when multiplying two permutations.
 We should get your parallelization to work with this so that people can then use many cores to actually do stuff with the elements in type E8.
comment:18 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from bc3c926b27ccca4371b28a4dbac0169d639ff191 to e7408933724f8453cd0ec1bc3ed9c73fac403c4a
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
0db28d6  fixed doctests that have not been run last week!

7afc02c  Fixing doctests in combinat/root_system/coxeter_group.py.

0269425  Blanket fix bare except block.

9b0ef92  Making it an AttributeError.

0985005  Merge branch 'public/11187' into u/stumpc5/20445

e740893  uses the local multiplication now also in the other iterator

comment:19 Changed 6 years ago by
Travis, could you also now run
sage: W = ReflectionGroup(['E',8]) sage: %time for w in W.iteration("depth",False): pass
It now also uses the local multiplication, so it should also speed quite a bit. On my machine, it's only 1.5 times as slow.
comment:20 Changed 6 years ago by
With doing other things on my laptop:
sage: W = ReflectionGroup(['E',8]) sage: %time for w in W.iteration("depth",False): pass CPU times: user 6min 39s, sys: 22.5 ms, total: 6min 39s Wall time: 6min 39s
comment:21 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from e7408933724f8453cd0ec1bc3ed9c73fac403c4a to abfff5ffdf5e3d7a90bdaa542ecca3ba2691bffe
comment:22 followup: ↓ 24 Changed 6 years ago by
@Nicolas: I just now see that you (I think) accidentally edited my comment (comment 5 above from here) instead of replying three weeks ago. Could you quickly recheck?
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 17 ; followup: ↓ 25 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to stumpc5:
 I would really like to see how to implement our own permutation group elements with only what we need. I would hope that to again result in some speedup. One question there: we have w(\beta) = w(\beta), so we would not need to record the complete permutation on all roots, but on the positive roots would be enough. That would speed several computations such as creating new elements and testing for equality), but it would have the drawback that we constantly need to work mod N (N=nr of positive roots), e.g., we would have such checks and mod's when multiplying two permutations.
This business sounds of the same nature as what we have for affine permutations (in window notation). Would there be a way to use the same implementation behind the scene?
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 22 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to stumpc5:
@Nicolas: I just now see that you (I think) accidentally edited my comment (comment 5 above from here) instead of replying three weeks ago. Could you quickly recheck?
Oops, reverted!
comment:25 in reply to: ↑ 23 ; followup: ↓ 27 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
Replying to stumpc5: This business sounds of the same nature as what we have for affine permutations (in window notation). Would there be a way to use the same implementation behind the scene?
And also with colored permutations, isn't it? The main difference is that here (and also in signed permutations) one works mod N, for colored permutations one works "+N mod kN", and for affine permutation one does not work mod anything.
I would propose to first work out the implementation here and then see if we can use it also in the other places. I only don't see how to actually do the implementation in an optimal way, so some support of yours and/or Travis is appreciated.
Some concrete questions:
 It seems that we should use the same data structure as for
PermutationGroupElement
:self.perm = <int *>sig_malloc(sizeof(int) * self.N)
Do you agree? Can we even get anything significantly better than sticking toPermutationGroupElement
if we do it ourselves? This also asks whether we can do better when multiplying elements, I do not see whatcdef PermutationGroupElement prod = PermutationGroupElement.__new__(PermutationGroupElement)
does or how long it takes, see the method_new_mul_
inreflection_group_c.pyx
.
 It seems that we are using
PermutationGroupElement
in a few places (when talking toGAP3
}), but this might just be that we need the cycle string representation for that.
comment:26 Changed 6 years ago by
@Travis: Could you have a brief look at the _new_mul_
in reflection_group_c.pyx
to check whether I am missing something, or whether I could use that as a first improvement in this algorithm.
I indeed plan to have this ticket only contain the improvements for now (then having plenty of options for iterating through finite Coxeter groups), postponing the work and testing for a new data structure to a new ticket.
comment:27 in reply to: ↑ 25 ; followups: ↓ 28 ↓ 29 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to stumpc5:
I would propose to first work out the implementation here and then see if we can use it also in the other places. I only don't see how to actually do the implementation in an optimal way, so some support of yours and/or Travis is appreciated.
I'm really starting to consider that what we should do is create our own separate project where we write all of this independently (in, say, C/C++). At this stage, I'm somewhat concerned with the additional overhead that Cython could impose and the lack of complete memory control. Although I cannot commit serious time to working on this for then next two weeks (I will be in grading and math mode). Over the summer starting in June, I should be able to do so.
Some concrete questions:
 It seems that we should use the same data structure as for
PermutationGroupElement
:self.perm = <int *>sig_malloc(sizeof(int) * self.N)Do you agree? Can we even get anything significantly better than sticking toPermutationGroupElement
if we do it ourselves?
I think we can avoid a bit of overhead of maintaining the GAP and category information. Although it is hard to tell how much of an impact this will have on things.
This also asks whether we can do better when multiplying elements, I do not see what
cdef PermutationGroupElement prod = PermutationGroupElement.__new__(PermutationGroupElement)does or how long it takes, see the method
_new_mul_
inreflection_group_c.pyx
.
This creates a new element in memory, but it does not call the __init__
. It is essential and done in Python kernel, so we won't get any better.
 It seems that we are using
PermutationGroupElement
in a few places (when talking toGAP3
}), but this might just be that we need the cycle string representation for that.
GAP4 doesn't store things as cycle strings AFAIK, and so I doubt GAP3 does either.Replying to stumpc5:
I would propose to first work out the implementation here and then see if we can use it also in the other places. I only don't see how to actually do the implementation in an optimal way, so some support of yours and/or Travis is appreciated.
I'm really starting to consider that what we should do is create our own separate project where we write all of this independently (in, say, C/C++). At this stage, I'm somewhat concerned with the additional overhead that Cython could impose and the lack of complete memory control. Although I cannot commit serious time to working on this for then next two weeks (I will be in grading and math mode). Over the summer starting in June, I should be able to do so.
Some concrete questions:
 It seems that we should use the same data structure as for
PermutationGroupElement
:self.perm = <int *>sig_malloc(sizeof(int) * self.N)Do you agree? Can we even get anything significantly better than sticking toPermutationGroupElement
if we do it ourselves?
I think we can avoid a bit of overhead of maintaining the GAP and category information. Although it is hard to tell how much of an impact this will have on things.
This also asks whether we can do better when multiplying elements, I do not see what
cdef PermutationGroupElement prod = PermutationGroupElement.__new__(PermutationGroupElement)does or how long it takes, see the method
_new_mul_
inreflection_group_c.pyx
.
This creates a new element in memory, but it does not call the __init__
. It is essential and done in Python kernel, so we won't get any better.
 It seems that we are using
PermutationGroupElement
in a few places (when talking toGAP3
}), but this might just be that we need the cycle string representation for that.
GAP4 doesn't store things as cycle strings AFAIK, and so I doubt GAP3 does either. We could very likely replace these calls with something better (if we are calling GAP3).
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
Replying to stumpc5: I'm really starting to consider that what we should do is create our own separate project where we write all of this independently (in, say, C/C++). At this stage, I'm somewhat concerned with the additional overhead that Cython could impose and the lack of complete memory control. Although I cannot commit serious time to working on this for then next two weeks (I will be in grading and math mode). Over the summer starting in June, I should be able to do so.
Let me quickly ask: by "create our own separate project where we write all of this independently (in, say, C/C++)" you mean implementing this permutation group element there and then use it from our sage implementation, right?
I'd be happy to follow and help with than whenever you find the time, but at first I will likely only be watching you doing it...
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 27 ; followup: ↓ 30 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
I'm really starting to consider that what we should do is create our own separate project where we write all of this independently (in, say, C/C++). At this stage, I'm somewhat concerned with the additional overhead that Cython could impose and the lack of complete memory control. Although I cannot commit serious time to working on this for then next two weeks (I will be in grading and math mode). Over the summer starting in June, I should be able to do so.
We can discuss this in Meudon.
I think we can avoid a bit of overhead of maintaining the GAP and category information. Although it is hard to tell how much of an impact this will have on things.
For the record: I just checked, and the data structure for permutation group elements is just a reference to the parent and a Clist of ints; plus a few slots which are unused by default (e.g. a reference to a gap element). So the only overhead is copying over the reference to the parent, and a bit of extra memory allocation
Of course, the parent itself has stuff about GAP and categories, but that's initialized once for all, and does not influence arithmetic on elements.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 29 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
Replying to tscrim:
I'm really starting to consider that what we should do is create our own separate project where we write all of this independently (in, say, C/C++). At this stage, I'm somewhat concerned with the additional overhead that Cython could impose and the lack of complete memory control. Although I cannot commit serious time to working on this for then next two weeks (I will be in grading and math mode). Over the summer starting in June, I should be able to do so.
We can discuss this in Meudon.
Sounds good.
I think we can avoid a bit of overhead of maintaining the GAP and category information. Although it is hard to tell how much of an impact this will have on things.
For the record: I just checked, and the data structure for permutation group elements is just a reference to the parent and a Clist of ints; plus a few slots which are unused by default (e.g. a reference to a gap element). So the only overhead is copying over the reference to the parent, and a bit of extra memory allocation
Of course, the parent itself has stuff about GAP and categories, but that's initialized once for all, and does not influence arithmetic on elements.
I am partially worried about how much these extra copy operations cost on the E_{8} iteration scale, as well as the inherent overhead of the generated code from Cython. Plus I like having code where we completely control the memory allocations. It might end up that we really don't see much of an improvement, but I think it is worth trying.
comment:31 Changed 4 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/stumpc5/20445 to public/combinat/finite_coxeter_iteration20445
 Commit changed from abfff5ffdf5e3d7a90bdaa542ecca3ba2691bffe to 111d92a26b5d12d7ebaf1c323275326aa24c0318
 Milestone changed from sage7.2 to sage8.3
comment:32 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from 111d92a26b5d12d7ebaf1c323275326aa24c0318 to f061066b8e9338f224de6ab9770d119446744704
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
f061066  Doing some cleanup and now ready for review.

comment:33 Changed 4 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Christian Stump, Travis Scrimshaw
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:34 Changed 4 years ago by
some failing doctests, missing optional gap3
comment:35 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from f061066b8e9338f224de6ab9770d119446744704 to 06e5a466d419de10227f82c5157abf7c1d059c26
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
06e5a46  Fixing doctests.

comment:36 Changed 4 years ago by
Fixed.
comment:37 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from 06e5a466d419de10227f82c5157abf7c1d059c26 to 348ece0da4f7c7530e1789ac6a42c696cb69b449
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
d622df2  started the discriminant of a reflection group

3d4f036  implemented the discriminant up and downstairs

1c82a89  Merge branch 'public/combinat/finite_coxeter_iteration20445' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into 20445

348ece0  removed a few comments

comment:38 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from 348ece0da4f7c7530e1789ac6a42c696cb69b449 to d3ef5a848c90cd0fba80b0fe61f48d2693f9ea5b
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
d3ef5a8  removed a few comments

comment:39 Changed 4 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
looked through Travis' changes...
comment:40 Changed 4 years ago by
 Branch changed from public/combinat/finite_coxeter_iteration20445 to d3ef5a848c90cd0fba80b0fe61f48d2693f9ea5b
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed