Related
I was wondering if there are any hashing functions to distribute input over n values. The distribution should of course be fairly uniform. But there is a twist. with small changes of n, few elements should get a new hash. Optimally it should split all k uniformly over n values and if n increases to n+1 only k/n-k/(n+1) values would have to move to uniformly distribute in the new hash. Obviously having a hash which simply creates uniform values and then mod it would work, but that would move a lot of hashes to fill the new node. The goal here is that as few values as possible falls into a new bucket.
Suppose 2^{n-1} < N <= 2^n. Then there is a standard trick for turning a hash function H that produces (at least) n bits into one that produces a number from 0 to N.
Compute H(v).
Keep just the first n bits.
If that's smaller than N, stop and output it. Otherwise, start from the top with H(v) instead of v.
Some properties of this technique:
You might worry that you have to repeat the loop many times in some cases. But actually the expected number of loops is at most 2.
If you bump up N and n doesn't have to change, very few things get a new hash: only those ones that had exactly N somewhere in their chain of hashes. (Of course, identifying which elements have this property is kind of hard -- in general it may require rehashing every element!)
If you bump up N and n does have to change, about half of the elements have to be rebucketed. But this happens more and more rarely the bigger N is -- it is an amortized O(1) cost on each bump.
Edit to add an additional comment about the "have to rehash everything" requirement: One might consider modifying step 3 above to "start from the top with the first n bits of H(v)" instead. This reduces the problem with identifying which elements need to be rehashed -- since they'll be in the bucket for the hash of N -- though I'm not confident the resulting hash will have quite as good collision avoidance properties. It certainly makes the process a bit more fragile -- one would want to prove something special about the choice of H (that the bottom few bits aren't "critical" to its collision avoidance properties somehow).
Here is a simple example implementation in Python, together with a short main that shows that most strings do not move when bumping normally, and about half of strings get moved when bumping across a 2^n boundary. Forgive me for any idiosyncracies of my code -- Python is a foreign language.
import math
def ilog2(m): return int(math.ceil(math.log(m,2)))
def hash_into(obj, N):
cur_hash = hash(obj)
mask = pow(2, ilog2(N)) - 1
while (cur_hash & mask) >= N:
# seems Python uses the identity for its hash on integers, which
# doesn't iterate well; let's use literally any other hash at all
cur_hash = hash(str(cur_hash))
return cur_hash & mask
def same_hash(obj, N, N2):
return hash_into(obj, N) == hash_into(obj, N2)
def bump_stat(objs, N):
return len([obj for obj in objs if same_hash(obj, N, N+1)])
alphabet = [chr(x) for x in range(ord('a'),ord('z')+1)]
ascending = alphabet + [c1 + c2 for c1 in alphabet for c2 in alphabet]
def main():
print len(ascending)
print bump_stat(ascending, 10)
print float(bump_stat(ascending, 16))/len(ascending)
# prints:
# 702
# 639
# 0.555555555556
Well, when you add a node, you will want it to fill up, so you will actually want k/(n+1) elements to move from their old nodes to the new one.
That is easily accomplished:
Just generate a hash value for each key as you normally would. Then, to assign key k to a node in [0,N):
Let H(k) be the hash of k.
int hash = H(k);
for (int n=N-1;n>0;--n) {
if ((mix(hash,n) % (i+1))==0) {
break;
}
}
//put it in node n
So, when you add node node 1, it steals half the items from node 0.
When you add node 2, it steals 1/3 of the items from the previous 2 nodes.
And so on...
EDIT: added the mix() function, to mix up the hash differently for every n -- otherwise you get non-uniformities when n is not prime.
Recently I needed to do weighted random selection of elements from a list, both with and without replacement. While there are well known and good algorithms for unweighted selection, and some for weighted selection without replacement (such as modifications of the resevoir algorithm), I couldn't find any good algorithms for weighted selection with replacement. I also wanted to avoid the resevoir method, as I was selecting a significant fraction of the list, which is small enough to hold in memory.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the best approach in this situation? I have my own solutions, but I'm hoping to find something more efficient, simpler, or both.
One of the fastest ways to make many with replacement samples from an unchanging list is the alias method. The core intuition is that we can create a set of equal-sized bins for the weighted list that can be indexed very efficiently through bit operations, to avoid a binary search. It will turn out that, done correctly, we will need to only store two items from the original list per bin, and thus can represent the split with a single percentage.
Let's us take the example of five equally weighted choices, (a:1, b:1, c:1, d:1, e:1)
To create the alias lookup:
Normalize the weights such that they sum to 1.0. (a:0.2 b:0.2 c:0.2 d:0.2 e:0.2) This is the probability of choosing each weight.
Find the smallest power of 2 greater than or equal to the number of variables, and create this number of partitions, |p|. Each partition represents a probability mass of 1/|p|. In this case, we create 8 partitions, each able to contain 0.125.
Take the variable with the least remaining weight, and place as much of it's mass as possible in an empty partition. In this example, we see that a fills the first partition. (p1{a|null,1.0},p2,p3,p4,p5,p6,p7,p8) with (a:0.075, b:0.2 c:0.2 d:0.2 e:0.2)
If the partition is not filled, take the variable with the most weight, and fill the partition with that variable.
Repeat steps 3 and 4, until none of the weight from the original partition need be assigned to the list.
For example, if we run another iteration of 3 and 4, we see
(p1{a|null,1.0},p2{a|b,0.6},p3,p4,p5,p6,p7,p8) with (a:0, b:0.15 c:0.2 d:0.2 e:0.2) left to be assigned
At runtime:
Get a U(0,1) random number, say binary 0.001100000
bitshift it lg2(p), finding the index partition. Thus, we shift it by 3, yielding 001.1, or position 1, and thus partition 2.
If the partition is split, use the decimal portion of the shifted random number to decide the split. In this case, the value is 0.5, and 0.5 < 0.6, so return a.
Here is some code and another explanation, but unfortunately it doesn't use the bitshifting technique, nor have I actually verified it.
A simple approach that hasn't been mentioned here is one proposed in Efraimidis and Spirakis. In python you could select m items from n >= m weighted items with strictly positive weights stored in weights, returning the selected indices, with:
import heapq
import math
import random
def WeightedSelectionWithoutReplacement(weights, m):
elt = [(math.log(random.random()) / weights[i], i) for i in range(len(weights))]
return [x[1] for x in heapq.nlargest(m, elt)]
This is very similar in structure to the first approach proposed by Nick Johnson. Unfortunately, that approach is biased in selecting the elements (see the comments on the method). Efraimidis and Spirakis proved that their approach is equivalent to random sampling without replacement in the linked paper.
Here's what I came up with for weighted selection without replacement:
def WeightedSelectionWithoutReplacement(l, n):
"""Selects without replacement n random elements from a list of (weight, item) tuples."""
l = sorted((random.random() * x[0], x[1]) for x in l)
return l[-n:]
This is O(m log m) on the number of items in the list to be selected from. I'm fairly certain this will weight items correctly, though I haven't verified it in any formal sense.
Here's what I came up with for weighted selection with replacement:
def WeightedSelectionWithReplacement(l, n):
"""Selects with replacement n random elements from a list of (weight, item) tuples."""
cuml = []
total_weight = 0.0
for weight, item in l:
total_weight += weight
cuml.append((total_weight, item))
return [cuml[bisect.bisect(cuml, random.random()*total_weight)] for x in range(n)]
This is O(m + n log m), where m is the number of items in the input list, and n is the number of items to be selected.
I'd recommend you start by looking at section 3.4.2 of Donald Knuth's Seminumerical Algorithms.
If your arrays are large, there are more efficient algorithms in chapter 3 of Principles of Random Variate Generation by John Dagpunar. If your arrays are not terribly large or you're not concerned with squeezing out as much efficiency as possible, the simpler algorithms in Knuth are probably fine.
It is possible to do Weighted Random Selection with replacement in O(1) time, after first creating an additional O(N)-sized data structure in O(N) time. The algorithm is based on the Alias Method developed by Walker and Vose, which is well described here.
The essential idea is that each bin in a histogram would be chosen with probability 1/N by a uniform RNG. So we will walk through it, and for any underpopulated bin which would would receive excess hits, assign the excess to an overpopulated bin. For each bin, we store the percentage of hits which belong to it, and the partner bin for the excess. This version tracks small and large bins in place, removing the need for an additional stack. It uses the index of the partner (stored in bucket[1]) as an indicator that they have already been processed.
Here is a minimal python implementation, based on the C implementation here
def prep(weights):
data_sz = len(weights)
factor = data_sz/float(sum(weights))
data = [[w*factor, i] for i,w in enumerate(weights)]
big=0
while big<data_sz and data[big][0]<=1.0: big+=1
for small,bucket in enumerate(data):
if bucket[1] is not small: continue
excess = 1.0 - bucket[0]
while excess > 0:
if big==data_sz: break
bucket[1] = big
bucket = data[big]
bucket[0] -= excess
excess = 1.0 - bucket[0]
if (excess >= 0):
big+=1
while big<data_sz and data[big][0]<=1: big+=1
return data
def sample(data):
r=random.random()*len(data)
idx = int(r)
return data[idx][1] if r-idx > data[idx][0] else idx
Example usage:
TRIALS=1000
weights = [20,1.5,9.8,10,15,10,15.5,10,8,.2];
samples = [0]*len(weights)
data = prep(weights)
for _ in range(int(sum(weights)*TRIALS)):
samples[sample(data)]+=1
result = [float(s)/TRIALS for s in samples]
err = [a-b for a,b in zip(result,weights)]
print(result)
print([round(e,5) for e in err])
print(sum([e*e for e in err]))
The following is a description of random weighted selection of an element of a
set (or multiset, if repeats are allowed), both with and without replacement in O(n) space
and O(log n) time.
It consists of implementing a binary search tree, sorted by the elements to be
selected, where each node of the tree contains:
the element itself (element)
the un-normalized weight of the element (elementweight), and
the sum of all the un-normalized weights of the left-child node and all of
its children (leftbranchweight).
the sum of all the un-normalized weights of the right-child node and all of
its chilren (rightbranchweight).
Then we randomly select an element from the BST by descending down the tree. A
rough description of the algorithm follows. The algorithm is given a node of
the tree. Then the values of leftbranchweight, rightbranchweight,
and elementweight of node is summed, and the weights are divided by this
sum, resulting in the values leftbranchprobability,
rightbranchprobability, and elementprobability, respectively. Then a
random number between 0 and 1 (randomnumber) is obtained.
if the number is less than elementprobability,
remove the element from the BST as normal, updating leftbranchweight
and rightbranchweight of all the necessary nodes, and return the
element.
else if the number is less than (elementprobability + leftbranchweight)
recurse on leftchild (run the algorithm using leftchild as node)
else
recurse on rightchild
When we finally find, using these weights, which element is to be returned, we either simply return it (with replacement) or we remove it and update relevant weights in the tree (without replacement).
DISCLAIMER: The algorithm is rough, and a treatise on the proper implementation
of a BST is not attempted here; rather, it is hoped that this answer will help
those who really need fast weighted selection without replacement (like I do).
This is an old question for which numpy now offers an easy solution so I thought I would mention it. Current version of numpy is version 1.2 and numpy.random.choice allows the sampling to be done with or without replacement and with given weights.
Suppose you want to sample 3 elements without replacement from the list ['white','blue','black','yellow','green'] with a prob. distribution [0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.1, 0.2]. Using numpy.random module it is as easy as this:
import numpy.random as rnd
sampling_size = 3
domain = ['white','blue','black','yellow','green']
probs = [.1, .2, .4, .1, .2]
sample = rnd.choice(domain, size=sampling_size, replace=False, p=probs)
# in short: rnd.choice(domain, sampling_size, False, probs)
print(sample)
# Possible output: ['white' 'black' 'blue']
Setting the replace flag to True, you have a sampling with replacement.
More info here:
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.random.choice.html#numpy.random.choice
We faced a problem to randomly select K validators of N candidates once per epoch proportionally to their stakes. But this gives us the following problem:
Imagine probabilities of each candidate:
0.1
0.1
0.8
Probabilities of each candidate after 1'000'000 selections 2 of 3 without replacement became:
0.254315
0.256755
0.488930
You should know, those original probabilities are not achievable for 2 of 3 selection without replacement.
But we wish initial probabilities to be a profit distribution probabilities. Else it makes small candidate pools more profitable. So we realized that random selection with replacement would help us – to randomly select >K of N and store also weight of each validator for reward distribution:
std::vector<int> validators;
std::vector<int> weights(n);
int totalWeights = 0;
for (int j = 0; validators.size() < m; j++) {
int value = rand() % likehoodsSum;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (value < likehoods[i]) {
if (weights[i] == 0) {
validators.push_back(i);
}
weights[i]++;
totalWeights++;
break;
}
value -= likehoods[i];
}
}
It gives an almost original distribution of rewards on millions of samples:
0.101230
0.099113
0.799657
I want to pre-compute some values for each combination in a set of combinations. For example, when choosing 3 numbers from 0 to 12, I'll compute some value for each one:
>>> for n in choose(range(13), 3):
print n, foo(n)
(0, 1, 2) 78
(0, 1, 3) 4
(0, 1, 4) 64
(0, 1, 5) 33
(0, 1, 6) 20
(0, 1, 7) 64
(0, 1, 8) 13
(0, 1, 9) 24
(0, 1, 10) 85
(0, 1, 11) 13
etc...
I want to store these values in an array so that given the combination, I can compute its and get the value. For example:
>>> a = [78, 4, 64, 33]
>>> a[magic((0,1,2))]
78
What would magic be?
Initially I thought to just store it as a 3-d matrix of size 13 x 13 x 13, so I can easily index it that way. While this is fine for 13 choose 3, this would have way too much overhead for something like 13 choose 7.
I don't want to use a dict because eventually this code will be in C, and an array would be much more efficient anyway.
UPDATE: I also have a similar problem, but using combinations with repetitions, so any answers on how to get the rank of those would be much appreciated =).
UPDATE: To make it clear, I'm trying to conserve space. Each of these combinations actually indexes into something take up a lot of space, let's say 2 kilobytes. If I were to use a 13x13x13 array, that would be 4 megabytes, of which I only need 572 kilobytes using (13 choose 3) spots.
Here is a conceptual answer and a code based on how lex ordering works. (So I guess my answer is like that of "moron", except that I think that he has too few details and his links have too many.) I wrote a function unchoose(n,S) for you that works assuming that S is an ordered list subset of range(n). The idea: Either S contains 0 or it does not. If it does, remove 0 and compute the index for the remaining subset. If it does not, then it comes after the binomial(n-1,k-1) subsets that do contain 0.
def binomial(n,k):
if n < 0 or k < 0 or k > n: return 0
b = 1
for i in xrange(k): b = b*(n-i)/(i+1)
return b
def unchoose(n,S):
k = len(S)
if k == 0 or k == n: return 0
j = S[0]
if k == 1: return j
S = [x-1 for x in S]
if not j: return unchoose(n-1,S[1:])
return binomial(n-1,k-1)+unchoose(n-1,S)
def choose(X,k):
n = len(X)
if k < 0 or k > n: return []
if not k: return [[]]
if k == n: return [X]
return [X[:1] + S for S in choose(X[1:],k-1)] + choose(X[1:],k)
(n,k) = (13,3)
for S in choose(range(n),k): print unchoose(n,S),S
Now, it is also true that you can cache or hash values of both functions, binomial and unchoose. And what's nice about this is that you can compromise between precomputing everything and precomputing nothing. For instance you can precompute only for len(S) <= 3.
You can also optimize unchoose so that it adds the binomial coefficients with a loop if S[0] > 0, instead of decrementing and using tail recursion.
You can try using the lexicographic index of the combination. Maybe this page will help: http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/348.html
This MSDN page has more details: Generating the mth Lexicographical Element of a Mathematical Combination.
NOTE: The MSDN page has been retired. If you download the documentation at the above link, you will find the article on page 10201 of the pdf that is downloaded.
To be a bit more specific:
When treated as a tuple, you can order the combinations lexicographically.
So (0,1,2) < (0,1,3) < (0,1,4) etc.
Say you had the number 0 to n-1 and chose k out of those.
Now if the first element is zero, you know that it is one among the first n-1 choose k-1.
If the first element is 1, then it is one among the next n-2 choose k-1.
This way you can recursively compute the exact position of the given combination in the lexicographic ordering and use that to map it to your number.
This works in reverse too and the MSDN page explains how to do that.
Use a hash table to store the results. A decent hash function could be something like:
h(x) = (x1*p^(k - 1) + x2*p^(k - 2) + ... + xk*p^0) % pp
Where x1 ... xk are the numbers in your combination (for example (0, 1, 2) has x1 = 0, x2 = 1, x3 = 2) and p and pp are primes.
So you would store Hash[h(0, 1, 2)] = 78 and then you would retrieve it the same way.
Note: the hash table is just an array of size pp, not a dict.
I would suggest a specialised hash table. The hash for a combination should be the exclusive-or of the hashes for the values. Hashes for values are basically random bit-patterns.
You could code the table to cope with collisions, but it should be fairly easy to derive a minimal perfect hash scheme - one where no two three-item combinations give the same hash value, and where the hash-size and table-size are kept to a minimum.
This is basically Zobrist hashing - think of a "move" as adding or removing one item of the combination.
EDIT
The reason to use a hash table is that the lookup performance O(n) where n is the number of items in the combination (assuming no collisions). Calculating lexicographical indexes into the combinations is significantly slower, IIRC.
The downside is obviously the up-front work done to generate the table.
For now, I've reached a compromise: I have a 13x13x13 array which just maps to the index of the combination, taking up 13x13x13x2 bytes = 4 kilobytes (using short ints), plus the normal-sized (13 choose 3) * 2 kilobytes = 572 kilobytes, for a total of 576 kilobytes. Much better than 4 megabytes, and also faster than a rank calculation!
I did this partly cause I couldn't seem to get Moron's answer to work. Also this is more extensible - I have a case where I need combinations with repetitions, and I haven't found a way to compute the rank of those, yet.
What you want are called combinadics. Here's my implementation of this concept, in Python:
def nthresh(k, idx):
"""Finds the largest value m such that C(m, k) <= idx."""
mk = k
while ncombs(mk, k) <= idx:
mk += 1
return mk - 1
def idx_to_set(k, idx):
ret = []
for i in range(k, 0, -1):
element = nthresh(i, idx)
ret.append(element)
idx -= ncombs(element, i)
return ret
def set_to_idx(input):
ret = 0
for k, ck in enumerate(sorted(input)):
ret += ncombs(ck, k + 1)
return ret
I have written a class to handle common functions for working with the binomial coefficient, which is the type of problem that your problem falls under. It performs the following tasks:
Outputs all the K-indexes in a nice format for any N choose K to a file. The K-indexes can be substituted with more descriptive strings or letters. This method makes solving this type of problem quite trivial.
Converts the K-indexes to the proper index of an entry in the sorted binomial coefficient table. This technique is much faster than older published techniques that rely on iteration and it does not use very much memory. It does this by using a mathematical property inherent in Pascal's Triangle. My paper talks about this. I believe I am the first to discover and publish this technique, but I could be wrong.
Converts the index in a sorted binomial coefficient table to the corresponding K-indexes.
Uses Mark Dominus method to calculate the binomial coefficient, which is much less likely to overflow and works with larger numbers.
The class is written in .NET C# and provides a way to manage the objects related to the problem (if any) by using a generic list. The constructor of this class takes a bool value called InitTable that when true will create a generic list to hold the objects to be managed. If this value is false, then it will not create the table. The table does not need to be created in order to perform the 4 above methods. Accessor methods are provided to access the table.
There is an associated test class which shows how to use the class and its methods. It has been extensively tested with 2 cases and there are no known bugs.
To read about this class and download the code, see Tablizing The Binomial Coeffieicent.
It should not be hard to convert this class to C++.
I have the following problem:
Given N objects (N < 30) of different values multiple of a "k" constant i.e. k, 2k, 3k, 4k, 6k, 8k, 12k, 16k, 24k and 32k, I need an algorithm that will distribute all items to M players (M <= 6) in such a way that the total value of the objects each player gets is as even as possible (in other words, I want to distribute all objects to all players in the fairest way possible).
EDIT: By fairest distribution I mean that the difference between the value of the objects any two players get is minimal.
Another similar case would be: I have N coins of different values and I need to divide them equally among M players; sometimes they don't divide exactly and I need to find the next best case of distribution (where no player is angry because another one got too much money).
I don't need (pseudo)code to solve this (also, this is not a homework :) ), but I'll appreciate any ideas or links to algorithms that could solve this.
Thanks!
The problem is strongly NP-complete. This means there is no way to ensure a correct solution in reasonable time. (See 3-partition-problem, thanks Paul).
Instead you'll wanna go for a good approximate solution generator. These can often get very close to the optimal answer in very short time. I can recommend the Simulated Annealing technique, which you will also be able to use for a ton of other NP-complete problems.
The idea is this:
Distribute the items randomly.
Continually make random swaps between two random players, as long as it makes the system more fair, or only a little less fair (see the wiki for details).
Stop when you have something fair enough, or you have run out of time.
This solution is much stronger than the 'greedy' algorithms many suggest. The greedy algorithm is the one where you continuously add the largest item to the 'poorest' player. An example of a testcase where greedy fails is [10,9,8,7,7,5,5].
I did an implementation of SA for you. It follows the wiki article strictly, for educational purposes. If you optimize it, I would say a 100x improvement wouldn't be unrealistic.
from __future__ import division
import random, math
values = [10,9,8,7,7,5,5]
M = 3
kmax = 1000
emax = 0
def s0():
s = [[] for i in xrange(M)]
for v in values:
random.choice(s).append(v)
return s
def E(s):
avg = sum(values)/M
return sum(abs(avg-sum(p))**2 for p in s)
def neighbour(s):
snew = [p[:] for p in s]
while True:
p1, p2 = random.sample(xrange(M),2)
if s[p1]: break
item = random.randrange(len(s[p1]))
snew[p2].append(snew[p1].pop(item))
return snew
def P(e, enew, T):
if enew < e: return 1
return math.exp((e - enew) / T)
def temp(r):
return (1-r)*100
s = s0()
e = E(s)
sbest = s
ebest = e
k = 0
while k < kmax and e > emax:
snew = neighbour(s)
enew = E(snew)
if enew < ebest:
sbest = snew; ebest = enew
if P(e, enew, temp(k/kmax)) > random.random():
s = snew; e = enew
k += 1
print sbest
Update: After playing around with Branch'n'Bound, I now believe this method to be superior, as it gives perfect results for the N=30, M=6 case within a second. However I guess you could play around with the simulated annealing approach just as much.
The greedy solution suggested by a few people seems like the best option, I ran it a bunch of times with some random values, and it seems to get it right every time.
If it's not optimal, it's at the very least very close, and it runs in O(nm) or so (I can't be bothered to do the math right now)
C# Implementation:
static List<List<int>> Dist(int n, IList<int> values)
{
var result = new List<List<int>>();
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
result.Add(new List<int>());
var sortedValues = values.OrderByDescending(val => val);
foreach (int val in sortedValues)
{
var lowest = result.OrderBy(a => a.Sum()).First();
lowest.Add(val);
}
return result;
}
how about this:
order the k values.
order the players.
loop over the k values giving the next one to the next player.
when you get to the end of the players, turn around and continue giving the k values to the players in the opposite direction.
Repeatedly give the available object with the largest value to the player who has the least total value of objects assigned to him.
This is a straight-forward implementation of Justin Peel's answer:
M = 3
players = [[] for i in xrange(M)]
values = [10,4,3,1,1,1]
values.sort()
values.reverse()
for v in values:
lowest=sorted(players, key=lambda x: sum(x))[0]
lowest.append(v)
print players
print [sum(p) for p in players]
I am a beginner with Python, but it seems to work okay. This example will print
[[10], [4, 1], [3, 1, 1]]
[10, 5, 5]
30 ^ 6 isn't that large (it's less than 1 billion). Go through every possible allocation, and pick the one that's the fairest by whatever measure you define.
EDIT:
The purpose was to use the greedy solution with small improvement in the implementation, which is maybe transparent in C#:
static List<List<int>> Dist(int n, IList<int> values)
{
var result = new List<List<int>>();
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
result.Add(new List<int>());
var sortedValues = values.OrderByDescending(val => val);//Assume the most efficient sorting algorithm - O(N log(N))
foreach (int val in sortedValues)
{
var lowest = result.OrderBy(a => a.Sum()).First();//This can be done in O(M * log(n)) [M - size of sortedValues, n - size of result]
lowest.Add(val);
}
return result;
}
Regarding this stage:
var lowest = result.OrderBy(a => a.Sum()).First();//This can be done in O(M * log(n)) [M - size of sortedValues, n - size of result]
The idea is that the list is always sorted (In this code it is done by OrderBy). Eventually, this sorting wont take more than O (log(n)) - because we just need to INSERT at most one item into a sorted list - that should take the same as a binary search.
Because we need to repeat this phase for sortedValues.Length times, the whole algorithm runs in O(M * log(n)).
So, in words, it can be rephrased as:
Repeat the steps below till you finish the Values values:
1. Add the biggest value to the smallest player
2. Check if this player still has the smallest sum
3. If yes, go to step 1.
4. Insert the last-that-was-got player to the sorted players list
Step 4 is the O (log(n)) step - as the list is always sorted.
I would like to randomly iterate through a range. Each value will be visited only once and all values will eventually be visited. For example:
class Array
def shuffle
ret = dup
j = length
i = 0
while j > 1
r = i + rand(j)
ret[i], ret[r] = ret[r], ret[i]
i += 1
j -= 1
end
ret
end
end
(0..9).to_a.shuffle.each{|x| f(x)}
where f(x) is some function that operates on each value. A Fisher-Yates shuffle is used to efficiently provide random ordering.
My problem is that shuffle needs to operate on an array, which is not cool because I am working with astronomically large numbers. Ruby will quickly consume a large amount of RAM trying to create a monstrous array. Imagine replacing (0..9) with (0..99**99). This is also why the following code will not work:
tried = {} # store previous attempts
bigint = 99**99
bigint.times {
x = rand(bigint)
redo if tried[x]
tried[x] = true
f(x) # some function
}
This code is very naive and quickly runs out of memory as tried obtains more entries.
What sort of algorithm can accomplish what I am trying to do?
[Edit1]: Why do I want to do this? I'm trying to exhaust the search space of a hash algorithm for a N-length input string looking for partial collisions. Each number I generate is equivalent to a unique input string, entropy and all. Basically, I'm "counting" using a custom alphabet.
[Edit2]: This means that f(x) in the above examples is a method that generates a hash and compares it to a constant, target hash for partial collisions. I do not need to store the value of x after I call f(x) so memory should remain constant over time.
[Edit3/4/5/6]: Further clarification/fixes.
[Solution]: The following code is based on #bta's solution. For the sake of conciseness, next_prime is not shown. It produces acceptable randomness and only visits each number once. See the actual post for more details.
N = size_of_range
Q = ( 2 * N / (1 + Math.sqrt(5)) ).to_i.next_prime
START = rand(N)
x = START
nil until f( x = (x + Q) % N ) == START # assuming f(x) returns x
I just remembered a similar problem from a class I took years ago; that is, iterating (relatively) randomly through a set (completely exhausting it) given extremely tight memory constraints. If I'm remembering this correctly, our solution algorithm was something like this:
Define the range to be from 0 to
some number N
Generate a random starting point x[0] inside N
Generate an iterator Q less than N
Generate successive points x[n] by adding Q to
the previous point and wrapping around if needed. That
is, x[n+1] = (x[n] + Q) % N
Repeat until you generate a new point equal to the starting point.
The trick is to find an iterator that will let you traverse the entire range without generating the same value twice. If I'm remembering correctly, any relatively prime N and Q will work (the closer the number to the bounds of the range the less 'random' the input). In that case, a prime number that is not a factor of N should work. You can also swap bytes/nibbles in the resulting number to change the pattern with which the generated points "jump around" in N.
This algorithm only requires the starting point (x[0]), the current point (x[n]), the iterator value (Q), and the range limit (N) to be stored.
Perhaps someone else remembers this algorithm and can verify if I'm remembering it correctly?
As #Turtle answered, you problem doesn't have a solution. #KandadaBoggu and #bta solution gives you random numbers is some ranges which are or are not random. You get clusters of numbers.
But I don't know why you care about double occurence of the same number. If (0..99**99) is your range, then if you could generate 10^10 random numbers per second (if you have a 3 GHz processor and about 4 cores on which you generate one random number per CPU cycle - which is imposible, and ruby will even slow it down a lot), then it would take about 10^180 years to exhaust all the numbers. You have also probability about 10^-180 that two identical numbers will be generated during a whole year. Our universe has probably about 10^9 years, so if your computer could start calculation when the time began, then you would have probability about 10^-170 that two identical numbers were generated. In the other words - practicaly it is imposible and you don't have to care about it.
Even if you would use Jaguar (top 1 from www.top500.org supercomputers) with only this one task, you still need 10^174 years to get all numbers.
If you don't belive me, try
tried = {} # store previous attempts
bigint = 99**99
bigint.times {
x = rand(bigint)
puts "Oh, no!" if tried[x]
tried[x] = true
}
I'll buy you a beer if you will even once see "Oh, no!" on your screen during your life time :)
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is doable without storing some state. At the very least, you're going to need some state.
Even if you only use one bit per value (has this value been tried yes or no) then you will need X/8 bytes of memory to store the result (where X is the largest number). Assuming that you have 2GB of free memory, this would leave you with more than 16 million numbers.
Break the range in to manageable batches as shown below:
def range_walker range, batch_size = 100
size = (range.end - range.begin) + 1
n = size/batch_size
n.times do |i|
x = i * batch_size + range.begin
y = x + batch_size
(x...y).sort_by{rand}.each{|z| p z}
end
d = (range.end - size%batch_size + 1)
(d..range.end).sort_by{rand}.each{|z| p z }
end
You can further randomize solution by randomly choosing the batch for processing.
PS: This is a good problem for map-reduce. Each batch can be worked by independent nodes.
Reference:
Map-reduce in Ruby
you can randomly iterate an array with shuffle method
a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
a.shuffle!
=> [5, 2, 8, 7, 3, 1, 6, 4, 9]
You want what's called a "full cycle iterator"...
Here is psudocode for the simplest version which is perfect for most uses...
function fullCycleStep(sample_size, last_value, random_seed = 31337, prime_number = 32452843) {
if last_value = null then last_value = random_seed % sample_size
return (last_value + prime_number) % sample_size
}
If you call this like so:
sample = 10
For i = 1 to sample
last_value = fullCycleStep(sample, last_value)
print last_value
next
It would generate random numbers, looping through all 10, never repeating If you change random_seed, which can be anything, or prime_number, which must be greater than, and not be evenly divisible by sample_size, you will get a new random order, but you will still never get a duplicate.
Database systems and other large-scale systems do this by writing the intermediate results of recursive sorts to a temp database file. That way, they can sort massive numbers of records while only keeping limited numbers of records in memory at any one time. This tends to be complicated in practice.
How "random" does your order have to be? If you don't need a specific input distribution, you could try a recursive scheme like this to minimize memory usage:
def gen_random_indices
# Assume your input range is (0..(10**3))
(0..3).sort_by{rand}.each do |a|
(0..3).sort_by{rand}.each do |b|
(0..3).sort_by{rand}.each do |c|
yield "#{a}#{b}#{c}".to_i
end
end
end
end
gen_random_indices do |idx|
run_test_with_index(idx)
end
Essentially, you are constructing the index by randomly generating one digit at a time. In the worst-case scenario, this will require enough memory to store 10 * (number of digits). You will encounter every number in the range (0..(10**3)) exactly once, but the order is only pseudo-random. That is, if the first loop sets a=1, then you will encounter all three-digit numbers of the form 1xx before you see the hundreds digit change.
The other downside is the need to manually construct the function to a specified depth. In your (0..(99**99)) case, this would likely be a problem (although I suppose you could write a script to generate the code for you). I'm sure there's probably a way to re-write this in a state-ful, recursive manner, but I can't think of it off the top of my head (ideas, anyone?).
[Edit]: Taking into account #klew and #Turtle's answers, the best I can hope for is batches of random (or close to random) numbers.
This is a recursive implementation of something similar to KandadaBoggu's solution. Basically, the search space (as a range) is partitioned into an array containing N equal-sized ranges. Each range is fed back in a random order as a new search space. This continues until the size of the range hits a lower bound. At this point the range is small enough to be converted into an array, shuffled, and checked.
Even though it is recursive, I haven't blown the stack yet. Instead, it errors out when attempting to partition a search space larger than about 10^19 keys. I has to do with the numbers being too large to convert to a long. It can probably be fixed:
# partition a range into an array of N equal-sized ranges
def partition(range, n)
ranges = []
first = range.first
last = range.last
length = last - first + 1
step = length / n # integer division
((first + step - 1)..last).step(step) { |i|
ranges << (first..i)
first = i + 1
}
# append any extra onto the last element
ranges[-1] = (ranges[-1].first)..last if last > step * ranges.length
ranges
end
I hope the code comments help shed some light on my original question.
pastebin: full source
Note: PW_LEN under # options can be changed to a lower number in order to get quicker results.
For a prohibitively large space, like
space = -10..1000000000000000000000
You can add this method to Range.
class Range
M127 = 170_141_183_460_469_231_731_687_303_715_884_105_727
def each_random(seed = 0)
return to_enum(__method__) { size } unless block_given?
unless first.kind_of? Integer
raise TypeError, "can't randomly iterate from #{first.class}"
end
sample_size = self.end - first + 1
sample_size -= 1 if exclude_end?
j = coprime sample_size
v = seed % sample_size
each do
v = (v + j) % sample_size
yield first + v
end
end
protected
def gcd(a,b)
b == 0 ? a : gcd(b, a % b)
end
def coprime(a, z = M127)
gcd(a, z) == 1 ? z : coprime(a, z + 1)
end
end
You could then
space.each_random { |i| puts i }
729815750697818944176
459631501395637888351
189447252093456832526
919263002791275776712
649078753489094720887
378894504186913665062
108710254884732609237
838526005582551553423
568341756280370497598
298157506978189441773
27973257676008385948
757789008373827330134
487604759071646274309
217420509769465218484
947236260467284162670
677052011165103106845
406867761862922051020
136683512560740995195
866499263258559939381
596315013956378883556
326130764654197827731
55946515352016771906
785762266049835716092
515578016747654660267
...
With a good amount of randomness so long as your space is a few orders smaller than M127.
Credit to #nick-steele and #bta for the approach.
This isn't really a Ruby-specific answer but I hope it's permitted. Andrew Kensler gives a C++ "permute()" function that does exactly this in his "Correlated Multi-Jittered Sampling" report.
As I understand it, the exact function he provides really only works if your "array" is up to size 2^27, but the general idea could be used for arrays of any size.
I'll do my best to sort of explain it. The first part is you need a hash that is reversible "for any power-of-two sized domain". Consider x = i + 1. No matter what x is, even if your integer overflows, you can determine what i was. More specifically, you can always determine the bottom n-bits of i from the bottom n-bits of x. Addition is a reversible hash operation, as is multiplication by an odd number, as is doing a bitwise xor by a constant. If you know a specific power-of-two domain, you can scramble bits in that domain. E.g. x ^= (x & 0xFF) >> 5) is valid for the 16-bit domain. You can specify that domain with a mask, e.g. mask = 0xFF, and your hash function becomes x = hash(i, mask). Of course you can add a "seed" value into that hash function to get different randomizations. Kensler lays out more valid operations in the paper.
So you have a reversible function x = hash(i, mask, seed). The problem is that if you hash your index, you might end up with a value that is larger than your array size, i.e. your "domain". You can't just modulo this or you'll get collisions.
The reversible hash is the key to using a technique called "cycle walking", introduced in "Ciphers with Arbitrary Finite Domains". Because the hash is reversible (i.e. 1-to-1), you can just repeatedly apply the same hash until your hashed value is smaller than your array! Because you're applying the same hash, and the mapping is one-to-one, whatever value you end up on will map back to exactly one index, so you don't have collisions. So your function could look something like this for 32-bit integers (pseudocode):
fun permute(i, length, seed) {
i = hash(i, 0xFFFF, seed)
while(i >= length): i = hash(i, 0xFFFF, seed)
return i
}
It could take a lot of hashes to get to your domain, so Kensler does a simple trick: he keeps the hash within the domain of the next power of two, which makes it require very few iterations (~2 on average), by masking out the unnecessary bits. The final algorithm looks like this:
fun next_pow_2(length) {
# This implementation is for clarity.
# See Kensler's paper for one way to do it fast.
p = 1
while (p < length): p *= 2
return p
}
permute(i, length, seed) {
mask = next_pow_2(length)-1
i = hash(i, mask, seed) & mask
while(i >= length): i = hash(i, mask, seed) & mask
return i
}
And that's it! Obviously the important thing here is choosing a good hash function, which Kensler provides in the paper but I wanted to break down the explanation. If you want to have different random permutations each time, you can add a "seed" value to the permute function which then gets passed to the hash function.