我认为:

np.column_stack((a, zeros(shape(a)[0])))

更优雅。

对我来说，下一种方法看起来非常直观和简单。

zeros = np.zeros((2,1)) #2 is a number of rows in your array.   
b = np.hstack((a, zeros))

np。Concatenate也可以

>>> a = np.array([[1,2,3],[2,3,4]])
>>> a
array([[1, 2, 3],
       [2, 3, 4]])
>>> z = np.zeros((2,1))
>>> z
array([[ 0.],
       [ 0.]])
>>> np.concatenate((a, z), axis=1)
array([[ 1.,  2.,  3.,  0.],
       [ 2.,  3.,  4.,  0.]])

我喜欢JoshAdel的回答，因为他关注的是表现。一个较小的性能改进是避免使用零进行初始化的开销，而这些初始化只会被覆盖。当N很大时，这有一个可测量的差异，用空代替零，零的列被写成一个单独的步骤:

In [1]: import numpy as np

In [2]: N = 10000

In [3]: a = np.ones((N,N))

In [4]: %timeit b = np.zeros((a.shape[0],a.shape[1]+1)); b[:,:-1] = a
1 loops, best of 3: 492 ms per loop

In [5]: %timeit b = np.empty((a.shape[0],a.shape[1]+1)); b[:,:-1] = a; b[:,-1] = np.zeros((a.shape[0],))
1 loops, best of 3: 407 ms per loop

我认为一个更直接的解决方案和更快的启动是做以下工作:

import numpy as np
N = 10
a = np.random.rand(N,N)
b = np.zeros((N,N+1))
b[:,:-1] = a

和时间:

In [23]: N = 10

In [24]: a = np.random.rand(N,N)

In [25]: %timeit b = np.hstack((a,np.zeros((a.shape[0],1))))
10000 loops, best of 3: 19.6 us per loop

In [27]: %timeit b = np.zeros((a.shape[0],a.shape[1]+1)); b[:,:-1] = a
100000 loops, best of 3: 5.62 us per loop

使用hstack的一种方法是:

b = np.hstack((a, np.zeros((a.shape[0], 1), dtype=a.dtype)))