Related
I was asked this during a coding interview but wasn't able to solve this. Any pointers would be very helpful.
I was given an integer list (think of it as a number line) which needs to be rearranged so that the difference between elements is equal to M (an integer which is given). The list needs to be rearranged in such a way that the value of the max absolute difference between the elements' new positions and the original positions needs to be minimized. Eventually, this value multiplied by 2 is returned.
Test cases:
//1.
original_list = [1, 2, 3, 4]
M = 2
rearranged_list = [-0.5, 1.5, 3.5, 5.5]
// difference in values of original and rearranged lists
diff = [1.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1.5]
max_of_diff = 1.5 // list is rearranged in such a way so that this value is minimized
return_val = 1.5 * 2 = 3
//2.
original_list = [1, 2, 4, 3]
M = 2
rearranged_list = [-1, 1, 3, 5]
// difference in values of original and rearranged lists
diff = [2, 1, 1, 2]
max_of_diff = 2 // list is rearranged in such a way so that this value is minimized
return_val = 2 * 2 = 4
Constraints:
1 <= list_length <= 10^5
1 <= M <= 10^4
-10^9 <= list[i] <= 10^9
There's a question on leetcode which is very similar to this: https://leetcode.com/problems/minimize-deviation-in-array/ but there, the operations that are performed on the array are mentioned while that's not been mentioned here. I'm really stumped.
Here is how you can think of it:
The "rearanged" list is like a straight line that has a slope that corresponds to M.
Here is a visualisation for the first example:
The black dots are the input values [1, 2, 3, 4] where the index of the array is the X-coordinate, and the actual value at that index, the Y-coordinate.
The green line is determined by M. Initially this line runs through the origin at (0, 0). The red line segments represent the differences that must be taken into account.
Now the green line has to move vertically to its optimal position. We can see that we only need to look at the difference it makes with the first and with the last point. The other two inputs will never contribute to an extreme. This is generally true: there are only two input elements that need to be taken into account. They are the points that make the greatest (signed -- not absolute) difference and the least difference.
We can see that we need to move the green line in such a way that the signed differences with these two extremes are each others opposite: i.e. their absolute difference becomes the same, but the sign will be opposite.
Twice this absolute difference is what we need to return, and it is actually the difference between the greatest (signed) difference and the least (signed) difference.
So, in conclusion, we must generate the values on the green line, find the least and greatest (signed) difference with the data points (Y-coordinates) and return the difference between those two.
Here is an implementation in JavaScript running the two examples you provided:
function solve(y, slope) {
let low = Infinity;
let high = -Infinity;
for (let x = 0; x < y.length; x++) {
let dy = y[x] - x * slope;
low = Math.min(low, dy);
high = Math.max(high, dy);
}
return high - low;
}
console.log(solve([1, 2, 3, 4], 2)); // 3
console.log(solve([1, 2, 4, 3], 2)); // 4
I have an array of non-negative values. I want to build an array of values who's sum is 20 so that they are proportional to the first array.
This would be an easy problem, except that I want the proportional array to sum to exactly
20, compensating for any rounding error.
For example, the array
input = [400, 400, 0, 0, 100, 50, 50]
would yield
output = [8, 8, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1]
sum(output) = 20
However, most cases are going to have a lot of rounding errors, like
input = [3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 18]
naively yields
output = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10]
sum(output) = 16 (ouch)
Is there a good way to apportion the output array so that it adds up to 20 every time?
There's a very simple answer to this question: I've done it many times. After each assignment into the new array, you reduce the values you're working with as follows:
Call the first array A, and the new, proportional array B (which starts out empty).
Call the sum of A elements T
Call the desired sum S.
For each element of the array (i) do the following:
a. B[i] = round(A[i] / T * S). (rounding to nearest integer, penny or whatever is required)
b. T = T - A[i]
c. S = S - B[i]
That's it! Easy to implement in any programming language or in a spreadsheet.
The solution is optimal in that the resulting array's elements will never be more than 1 away from their ideal, non-rounded values. Let's demonstrate with your example:
T = 36, S = 20. B[1] = round(A[1] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 33, S = 18. B[2] = round(A[2] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 30, S = 16. B[3] = round(A[3] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 27, S = 14. B[4] = round(A[4] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 24, S = 12. B[5] = round(A[5] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 21, S = 10. B[6] = round(A[6] / T * S) = 1. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 18, S = 9. B[7] = round(A[7] / T * S) = 9. (ideally, 10)
Notice that comparing every value in B with it's ideal value in parentheses, the difference is never more than 1.
It's also interesting to note that rearranging the elements in the array can result in different corresponding values in the resulting array. I've found that arranging the elements in ascending order is best, because it results in the smallest average percentage difference between actual and ideal.
Your problem is similar to a proportional representation where you want to share N seats (in your case 20) among parties proportionnaly to the votes they obtain, in your case [3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 18]
There are several methods used in different countries to handle the rounding problem. My code below uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota method used in Switzerland, which basically allocates the seats remaining after an integer division by (N+1) to parties which have the highest remainder:
def proportional(nseats,votes):
"""assign n seats proportionaly to votes using Hagenbach-Bischoff quota
:param nseats: int number of seats to assign
:param votes: iterable of int or float weighting each party
:result: list of ints seats allocated to each party
"""
quota=sum(votes)/(1.+nseats) #force float
frac=[vote/quota for vote in votes]
res=[int(f) for f in frac]
n=nseats-sum(res) #number of seats remaining to allocate
if n==0: return res #done
if n<0: return [min(x,nseats) for x in res] # see siamii's comment
#give the remaining seats to the n parties with the largest remainder
remainders=[ai-bi for ai,bi in zip(frac,res)]
limit=sorted(remainders,reverse=True)[n-1]
#n parties with remainter larger than limit get an extra seat
for i,r in enumerate(remainders):
if r>=limit:
res[i]+=1
n-=1 # attempt to handle perfect equality
if n==0: return res #done
raise #should never happen
However this method doesn't always give the same number of seats to parties with perfect equality as in your case:
proportional(20,[3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 18])
[2,2,2,2,1,1,10]
You have set 3 incompatible requirements. An integer-valued array proportional to [1,1,1] cannot be made to sum to exactly 20. You must choose to break one of the "sum to exactly 20", "proportional to input", and "integer values" requirements.
If you choose to break the requirement for integer values, then use floating point or rational numbers. If you choose to break the exact sum requirement, then you've already solved the problem. Choosing to break proportionality is a little trickier. One approach you might take is to figure out how far off your sum is, and then distribute corrections randomly through the output array. For example, if your input is:
[1, 1, 1]
then you could first make it sum as well as possible while still being proportional:
[7, 7, 7]
and since 20 - (7+7+7) = -1, choose one element to decrement at random:
[7, 6, 7]
If the error was 4, you would choose four elements to increment.
A naïve solution that doesn't perform well, but will provide the right result...
Write an iterator that given an array with eight integers (candidate) and the input array, output the index of the element that is farthest away from being proportional to the others (pseudocode):
function next_index(candidate, input)
// Calculate weights
for i in 1 .. 8
w[i] = candidate[i] / input[i]
end for
// find the smallest weight
min = 0
min_index = 0
for i in 1 .. 8
if w[i] < min then
min = w[i]
min_index = i
end if
end for
return min_index
end function
Then just do this
result = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
result[next_index(result, input)]++ for 1 .. 20
If there is no optimal solution, it'll skew towards the beginning of the array.
Using the approach above, you can reduce the number of iterations by rounding down (as you did in your example) and then just use the approach above to add what has been left out due to rounding errors:
result = <<approach using rounding down>>
while sum(result) < 20
result[next_index(result, input)]++
So the answers and comments above were helpful... particularly the decreasing sum comment from #Frederik.
The solution I came up with takes advantage of the fact that for an input array v, sum(v_i * 20) is divisible by sum(v). So for each value in v, I mulitply by 20 and divide by the sum. I keep the quotient, and accumulate the remainder. Whenever the accumulator is greater than sum(v), I add one to the value. That way I'm guaranteed that all the remainders get rolled into the results.
Is that legible? Here's the implementation in Python:
def proportion(values, total):
# set up by getting the sum of the values and starting
# with an empty result list and accumulator
sum_values = sum(values)
new_values = []
acc = 0
for v in values:
# for each value, find quotient and remainder
q, r = divmod(v * total, sum_values)
if acc + r < sum_values:
# if the accumlator plus remainder is too small, just add and move on
acc += r
else:
# we've accumulated enough to go over sum(values), so add 1 to result
if acc > r:
# add to previous
new_values[-1] += 1
else:
# add to current
q += 1
acc -= sum_values - r
# save the new value
new_values.append(q)
# accumulator is guaranteed to be zero at the end
print new_values, sum_values, acc
return new_values
(I added an enhancement that if the accumulator > remainder, I increment the previous value instead of the current value)
How can i generate a random number between A = 1 and B = 10 where each number has a different probability?
Example: number / probability
1 - 20%
2 - 20%
3 - 10%
4 - 5%
5 - 5%
...and so on.
I'm aware of some hard-coded workarounds which unfortunately are of no use with larger ranges, for example A = 1000 and B = 100000.
Assume we have a
Rand()
method which returns a random number R, 0 < R < 1, can anyone post a code sample with a proper way of doing this ? prefferable in c# / java / actionscript.
Build an array of 100 integers and populate it with 20 1's, 20 2's, 10 3's, 5 4's, 5 5's, etc. Then just randomly pick an item from the array.
int[] numbers = new int[100];
// populate the first 20 with the value '1'
for (int i = 0; i < 20; ++i)
{
numbers[i] = 1;
}
// populate the rest of the array as desired.
// To get an item:
// Since your Rand() function returns 0 < R < 1
int ix = (int)(Rand() * 100);
int num = numbers[ix];
This works well if the number of items is reasonably small and your precision isn't too strict. That is, if you wanted 4.375% 7's, then you'd need a much larger array.
There is an elegant algorithm attributed by Knuth to A. J. Walker (Electronics Letters 10, 8 (1974), 127-128; ACM Trans. Math Software 3 (1977), 253-256).
The idea is that if you have a total of k * n balls of n different colors, then it is possible to distribute the balls in n containers such that container no. i contains balls of color i and at most one other color. The proof is by induction on n. For the induction step pick the color with the least number of balls.
In your example n = 10. Multiply the probabilities with a suitable m such that they are all integers. So, maybe m = 100 and you have 20 balls of color 0, 20 balls of color 1, 10 balls of color 2, 5 balls of color 3, etc. So, k = 10.
Now generate a table of dimension n with each entry being a probability (the ration of balls of color i vs the other color) and the other color.
To generate a random ball, generate a random floating-point number r in the range [0, n). Let i be the integer part (floor of r) and x the excess (r – i).
if (x < table[i].probability) output i
else output table[i].other
The algorithm has the advantage that for each random ball you only make a single comparison.
Let me work out an example (same as Knuth).
Consider simulating throwing a pair of dice.
So P(2) = 1/36, P(3) = 2/36, P(4) = 3/36, P(5) = 4/36, P(6) = 5/36, P(7) = 6/36, P(8) = 5/36, P(9) = 4/36, P(10) = 3/36, P(11) = 2/36, P(12) = 1/36.
Multiply by 36 * 11 to get 393 balls, 11 of color 2, 22 of color 3, 33 of color 4, …, 11 of color 12.
We have k = 393 / 11 = 36.
Table[2] = (11/36, color 4)
Table[12] = (11/36, color 10)
Table[3] = (22/36, color 5)
Table[11] = (22/36, color 5)
Table[4] = (8/36, color 9)
Table[10] = (8/36, color 6)
Table[5] = (16/36, color 6)
Table[9] = (16/36, color 8)
Table[6] = (7/36, color 8)
Table[8] = (6/36, color 7)
Table[7] = (36/36, color 7)
Assuming that you have a function p(n) that gives you the desired probability for a random number:
r = rand() // a random number between 0 and 1
for i in A to B do
if r < p(i)
return i
r = r - p(i)
done
A faster way is to create an array of (B - A) * 100 elements and populate it with numbers from A to B such that the ratio of the number of each item occurs in the array to the size of the array is its probability. You can then generate a uniform random number to get an index to the array and directly access the array to get your random number.
Map your uniform random results to the required outputs according to the probabilities.
E.g., for your example:
If `0 <= Round() <= 0.2`: result = 1.
If `0.2 < Round() <= 0.4`: result = 2.
If `0.4 < Round() <= 0.5`: result = 3.
If `0.5 < Round() <= 0.55`: result = 4.
If `0.55 < Round() <= 0.65`: result = 5.
...
Here's an implementation of Knuth's Algorithm. As discussed by some of the answers it works by
1) creating a table of summed frequencies
2) generates a random integer
3) rounds it with ceiling function
4) finds the "summed" range within which the random number falls and outputs original array entity based on it
Inverse Transform
In probability speak, a cumulative distribution function F(x) returns the probability that any randomly drawn value, call it X, is <= some given value x. For instance, if I did F(4) in this case, I would get .6. because the running sum of probabilities in your example is {.2, .4, .5, .55, .6, .65, ....}. I.e. the probability of randomly getting a value less than or equal to 4 is .6. However, what I actually want to know is the inverse of the cumulative probability function, call it F_inv. I want to know what is the x value given the cumulative probability. I want to pass in F_inv(.6) and get back 4. That is why this is called the inverse transform method.
So, in the inverse transform method, we are basically trying to find the interval in the cumulative distribution in which a random Uniform (0,1) number falls. This works out to the algorithm that perreal and icepack posted. Here is another way to state it in terms of the cumulative distribution function
Generate a random number U
for x in A .. B
if U <= F(x) then return x
Note that it might be more efficient to have the loop go from B to A and check if U >= F(x) if the smaller probabilities come at the beginning of the distribution
Let's say I have an array of floating point numbers, in sorted (let's say ascending) order, whose sum is known to be an integer N. I want to "round" these numbers to integers while leaving their sum unchanged. In other words, I'm looking for an algorithm that converts the array of floating-point numbers (call it fn) to an array of integers (call it in) such that:
the two arrays have the same length
the sum of the array of integers is N
the difference between each floating-point number fn[i] and its corresponding integer in[i] is less than 1 (or equal to 1 if you really must)
given that the floats are in sorted order (fn[i] <= fn[i+1]), the integers will also be in sorted order (in[i] <= in[i+1])
Given that those four conditions are satisfied, an algorithm that minimizes the rounding variance (sum((in[i] - fn[i])^2)) is preferable, but it's not a big deal.
Examples:
[0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.1, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14]
=> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1]
[0.1, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.8]
=> [0, 0, 0, 1, 1]
[0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1]
=> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1]
[0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 9.2, 9.2]
=> [0, 0, 1, 1, 9, 9] is preferable
=> [0, 0, 0, 0, 10, 10] is acceptable
[0.5, 0.5, 11]
=> [0, 1, 11] is fine
=> [0, 0, 12] is technically not allowed but I'd take it in a pinch
To answer some excellent questions raised in the comments:
Repeated elements are allowed in both arrays (although I would also be interested to hear about algorithms that work only if the array of floats does not include repeats)
There is no single correct answer - for a given input array of floats, there are generally multiple arrays of ints that satisfy the four conditions.
The application I had in mind was - and this is kind of odd - distributing points to the top finishers in a game of MarioKart ;-) Never actually played the game myself, but while watching someone else I noticed that there were 24 points distributed among the top 4 finishers, and I wondered how it might be possible to distribute the points according to finishing time (so if someone finishes with a large lead they get a larger share of the points). The game tracks point totals as integers, hence the need for this kind of rounding.
For the curious, here is the test script I used to identify which algorithms worked.
One option you could try is "cascade rounding".
For this algorithm you keep track of two running totals: one of floating point numbers so far, and one of the integers so far.
To get the next integer you add the next fp number to your running total, round the running total, then subtract the integer running total from the rounded running total:-
number running total integer integer running total
1.3 1.3 1 1
1.7 3.0 2 3
1.9 4.9 2 5
2.2 8.1 3 8
2.8 10.9 3 11
3.1 14.0 3 14
Here is one algorithm which should accomplish the task. The main difference to other algorithms is that this one rounds the numbers in correct order always. Minimizing roundoff error.
The language is some pseudo language which probably derived from JavaScript or Lua. Should explain the point. Note the one based indexing (which is nicer with x to y for loops. :p)
// Temp array with same length as fn.
tempArr = Array(fn.length)
// Calculate the expected sum.
arraySum = sum(fn)
lowerSum = 0
-- Populate temp array.
for i = 1 to fn.lengthf
tempArr[i] = { result: floor(fn[i]), // Lower bound
difference: fn[i] - floor(fn[i]), // Roundoff error
index: i } // Original index
// Calculate the lower sum
lowerSum = lowerSum + tempArr[i].result
end for
// Sort the temp array on the roundoff error
sort(tempArr, "difference")
// Now arraySum - lowerSum gives us the difference between sums of these
// arrays. tempArr is ordered in such a way that the numbers closest to the
// next one are at the top.
difference = arraySum - lowerSum
// Add 1 to those most likely to round up to the next number so that
// the difference is nullified.
for i = (tempArr.length - difference + 1) to tempArr.length
tempArr.result = tempArr.result + 1
end for
// Optionally sort the array based on the original index.
array(sort, "index")
One really easy way is to take all the fractional parts and sum them up. That number by the definition of your problem must be a whole number. Distribute that whole number evenly starting with the largest of your numbers. Then give one to the second largest number... etc. until you run out of things to distribute.
Note this is pseudocode... and may be off by one in an index... its late and I am sleepy.
float accumulator = 0;
for (i = 0; i < num_elements; i++) /* assumes 0 based array */
{
accumulator += (fn[i] - floor(fn[i]));
fn[i] = (fn[i] - floor(fn[i]);
}
i = num_elements;
while ((accumulator > 0) && (i>=0))
{
fn[i-1] += 1; /* assumes 0 based array */
accumulator -= 1;
i--;
}
Update: There are other methods of distributing the accumulated values based on how much truncation was performed on each value. This would require keeping a seperate list called loss[i] = fn[i] - floor(fn[i]). You can then repeat over the fn[i] list and give 1 to the greatest loss item repeatedly (setting the loss[i] to 0 afterwards). Its complicated but I guess it works.
How about:
a) start: array is [0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, 0.8], N=3, presuming it's sorted
b) round them all the usual way: array is [0 0 0 1 1]
c) get the sum of the new array and subtract it from N to get the remainder.
d) while remainder>0, iterate through elements, going from the last one
- check if the new value would break rule 3.
- if not, add 1
e) in case that remainder<0, iterate from first one to the last one
- check if the new value would break rule 3.
- if not, subtract 1
Essentially what you'd do is distribute the leftovers after rounding to the most likely candidates.
Round the floats as you normally would, but keep track of the delta from rounding and associated index into fn and in.
Sort the second array by delta.
While sum(in) < N, work forwards from the largest negative delta, incrementing the rounded value (making sure you still satisfy rule #3).
Or, while sum(in) > N, work backwards from the largest positive delta, decrementing the rounded value (making sure you still satisfy rule #3).
Example:
[0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.1, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14] N=1
1. [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] sum=0
and [[-0.02, 0], [-0.03, 1], [-0.05, 2], [-0.06, 3], [-0.07, 4], [-0.08, 5],
[-0.09, 6], [-0.1, 7], [-0.11, 8], [-0.12, 9], [-0.13, 10], [-0.14, 11]]
2. sorting will reverse the array
3. working from the largest negative remainder, you get [-0.14, 11].
Increment `in[11]` and you get [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1] sum=1
Done.
Can you try something like this?
in [i] = fn [i] - int (fn [i]);
fn_res [i] = fn [i] - in [i];
fn_res → is the resultant fraction.
(I thought this was basic ...), Are we missing something?
Well, 4 is the pain point. Otherwise you could do things like "usually round down and accumulate leftover; round up when accumulator >= 1". (edit: actually, that might still be OK as long as you swapped their position?)
There might be a way to do it with linear programming? (that's maths "programming", not computer programming - you'd need some maths to find the feasible solution, although you could probably skip the usual "optimisation" part).
As an example of the linear programming - with the example [1.3, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2, 2.8, 3.1] you could have the rules:
1 <= i < 2
1 <= j < 2
1 <= k < 2
2 <= l < 3
3 <= m < 4
i <= j <= k <= l <= m
i + j + k + l + m = 13
Then apply some linear/matrix algebra ;-p Hint: there are products to do the above based on things like the "Simplex" algorithm. Common university fodder, too (I wrote one at uni for my final project).
The problem, as I see it, is that the sorting algorithm is not specified. Or more like - whether it's a stable sort or not.
Consider the following array of floats:
[ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ]
The sum is 1. The integer array then should be:
[ 0 0 0 0 1 ]
However, if the sorting algorithm isn't stable, it could sort the "1" somewhere else in the array...
Make the summed diffs are to be under 1, and check to be sorted.
some like,
while(i < sizeof(fn) / sizeof(float)) {
res += fn[i] - floor(fn[i]);
if (res >= 1) {
res--;
in[i] = ceil(fn[i]);
}
else
in[i] = floor(fn[i]);
if (in[i-1] > in[i])
swap(in[i-1], in[i++]);
}
(it's paper code, so i didn't check the validity.)
Below a python and numpy implementation of #mikko-rantanen 's code. It took me a bit to put this together, so this may be helpful to future Googlers despite the age of the topic.
import numpy as np
from math import floor
original_array = np.array([1.2, 1.5, 1.4, 1.3, 1.7, 1.9])
# Calculate length of original array
# Need to substract 1, as indecies start at 0, but product of dimensions
# results in a count starting at 1
array_len = original_array.size - 1 # Index starts at 0, but product at 1
# Calculate expected sum of original values (must be integer)
expected_sum = np.sum(original_array)
# Collect values for temporary array population
array_list = []
lower_sum = 0
for i, j in enumerate(np.nditer(original_array)):
array_list.append([i, floor(j), j - floor(j)]) # Original index, lower bound, roundoff error
# Calculate the lower sum of values
lower_sum += floor(j)
# Populate temporary array
temp_array = np.array(array_list)
# Sort temporary array based on roundoff error
temp_array = temp_array[temp_array[:,2].argsort()]
# Calculate difference between expected sum and the lower sum
# This is the number of integers that need to be rounded up from the lower sum
# The sort order (roundoff error) ensures that the value closest to be
# rounded up is at the bottom of the array
difference = int(expected_sum - lower_sum)
# Add one to the number most likely to round up to eliminate the difference
temp_array_len, _ = temp_array.shape
for i in xrange(temp_array_len - difference, temp_array_len):
temp_array[i,1] += 1
# Re-sort the array based on original index
temp_array = temp_array[temp_array[:,0].argsort()]
# Return array to one-dimensional format of original array
array_list = []
for i in xrange(temp_array_len):
array_list.append(int(temp_array[i,1]))
new_array = np.array(array_list)
Calculate sum of floor and sum of numbers.
Round sum of numbers, and subtract with sum of floor, the difference is how many ceiling we need to patch(how many +1 we need).
Sorting the array with its difference of ceiling to number, from small to large.
For diff times(diff is how many ceiling we need to patch), we set result as ceiling of number. Others set result as floor of numbers.
public class Float_Ceil_or_Floor {
public static int[] getNearlyArrayWithSameSum(double[] numbers) {
NumWithDiff[] numWithDiffs = new NumWithDiff[numbers.length];
double sum = 0.0;
int floorSum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
int floor = (int)numbers[i];
int ceil = floor;
if (floor < numbers[i]) ceil++; // check if a number like 4.0 has same floor and ceiling
floorSum += floor;
sum += numbers[i];
numWithDiffs[i] = new NumWithDiff(ceil,floor, ceil - numbers[i]);
}
// sort array by its diffWithCeil
Arrays.sort(numWithDiffs, (a,b)->{
if(a.diffWithCeil < b.diffWithCeil) return -1;
else return 1;
});
int roundSum = (int) Math.round(sum);
int diff = roundSum - floorSum;
int[] res = new int[numbers.length];
for (int i = 0; i < numWithDiffs.length; i++) {
if(diff > 0 && numWithDiffs[i].floor != numWithDiffs[i].ceil){
res[i] = numWithDiffs[i].ceil;
diff--;
} else {
res[i] = numWithDiffs[i].floor;
}
}
return res;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
double[] arr = { 1.2, 3.7, 100, 4.8 };
int[] res = getNearlyArrayWithSameSum(arr);
for (int i : res) System.out.print(i + " ");
}
}
class NumWithDiff {
int ceil;
int floor;
double diffWithCeil;
public NumWithDiff(int c, int f, double d) {
this.ceil = c;
this.floor = f;
this.diffWithCeil = d;
}
}
Without minimizing the variance, here's a trivial one:
Sort values from left to right.
Round all down to the next integer.
Let the sum of those integers be K. Increase the N-K rightmost values by 1.
Restore original order.
This obviously satisfies your conditions 1.-4. Alternatively, you could round to the closest integer, and increase N-K of the ones you had rounded down. You can do this greedily by the difference between the original and rounded value, but each run of rounded-down values must only be increased from right to left, to maintain sorted order.
If you can accept a small change in the total while improving the variance this will probabilistically preserve totals in python:
import math
import random
integer_list = [int(x) + int(random.random() <= math.modf(x)[0]) for x in my_list]
to explain it rounds all numbers down and adds one with a probability equal to the fractional part i.e. one in ten 0.1 will become 1 and the rest 0
this works for statistical data where you are converting a large numbers of fractional persons into either 1 person or 0 persons
I've read a bunch of tutorials about the proper way to generate a logarithmic distribution of tagcloud weights. Most of them group the tags into steps. This seems somewhat silly to me, so I developed my own algorithm based on what I've read so that it dynamically distributes the tag's count along the logarthmic curve between the threshold and the maximum. Here's the essence of it in python:
from math import log
count = [1, 3, 5, 4, 7, 5, 10, 6]
def logdist(count, threshold=0, maxsize=1.75, minsize=.75):
countdist = []
# mincount is either the threshold or the minimum if it's over the threshold
mincount = threshold<min(count) and min(count) or threshold
maxcount = max(count)
spread = maxcount - mincount
# the slope of the line (rise over run) between (mincount, minsize) and ( maxcount, maxsize)
delta = (maxsize - minsize) / float(spread)
for c in count:
logcount = log(c - (mincount - 1)) * (spread + 1) / log(spread + 1)
size = delta * logcount - (delta - minsize)
countdist.append({'count': c, 'size': round(size, 3)})
return countdist
Basically, without the logarithmic calculation of the individual count, it would generate a straight line between the points, (mincount, minsize) and (maxcount, maxsize).
The algorithm does a good approximation of the curve between the two points, but suffers from one drawback. The mincount is a special case, and the logarithm of it produces zero. This means the size of the mincount would be less than minsize. I've tried cooking up numbers to try to solve this special case, but can't seem to get it right. Currently I just treat the mincount as a special case and add "or 1" to the logcount line.
Is there a more correct algorithm to draw a curve between the two points?
Update Mar 3: If I'm not mistaken, I am taking the log of the count and then plugging it into a linear equation. To put the description of the special case in other words, in y=lnx at x=1, y=0. This is what happens at the mincount. But the mincount can't be zero, the tag has not been used 0 times.
Try the code and plug in your own numbers to test. Treating the mincount as a special case is fine by me, I have a feeling it would be easier than whatever the actual solution to this problem is. I just feel like there must be a solution to this and that someone has probably come up with a solution.
UPDATE Apr 6: A simple google search turns up a many of the tutorials I've read, but this is probably the most complete example of stepped tag clouds.
UPDATE Apr 28: In response to antti.huima's solution: When graphed, the curve that your algorithm creates lies below the line between the two points. I've been trying to juggle the numbers around but still can't seem to come up with a way to flip that curve to the other side of the line. I'm guessing that if the function was changed to some form of logarithm instead of an exponent it would do exactly what I'd need. Is that correct? If so, can anyone explain how to achieve this?
Thanks to antti.huima's help, I re-thought out what I was trying to do.
Taking his method of solving the problem, I want an equation where the logarithm of the mincount is equal to the linear equation between the two points.
weight(MIN) = ln(MIN-(MIN-1)) + min_weight
min_weight = ln(1) + min_weight
While this gives me a good starting point, I need to make it pass through the point (MAX, max_weight). It's going to need a constant:
weight(x) = ln(x-(MIN-1))/K + min_weight
Solving for K we get:
K = ln(MAX-(MIN-1))/(max_weight - min_weight)
So, to put this all back into some python code:
from math import log
count = [1, 3, 5, 4, 7, 5, 10, 6]
def logdist(count, threshold=0, maxsize=1.75, minsize=.75):
countdist = []
# mincount is either the threshold or the minimum if it's over the threshold
mincount = threshold<min(count) and min(count) or threshold
maxcount = max(count)
constant = log(maxcount - (mincount - 1)) / (maxsize - minsize)
for c in count:
size = log(c - (mincount - 1)) / constant + minsize
countdist.append({'count': c, 'size': round(size, 3)})
return countdist
Let's begin with your mapping from the logged count to the size. That's the linear mapping you mentioned:
size
|
max |_____
| /
| /|
| / |
min |/ |
| |
/| |
0 /_|___|____
0 a
where min and max are the min and max sizes, and a=log(maxcount)-b. The line is of y=mx+c where x=log(count)-b
From the graph, we can see that the gradient, m, is (maxsize-minsize)/a.
We need x=0 at y=minsize, so log(mincount)-b=0 -> b=log(mincount)
This leaves us with the following python:
mincount = min(count)
maxcount = max(count)
xoffset = log(mincount)
gradient = (maxsize-minsize)/(log(maxcount)-log(mincount))
for c in count:
x = log(c)-xoffset
size = gradient * x + minsize
If you want to make sure that the minimum count is always at least 1, replace the first line with:
mincount = min(count+[1])
which appends 1 to the count list before doing the min. The same goes for making sure the maxcount is always at least 1. Thus your final code per above is:
from math import log
count = [1, 3, 5, 4, 7, 5, 10, 6]
def logdist(count, maxsize=1.75, minsize=.75):
countdist = []
mincount = min(count+[1])
maxcount = max(count+[1])
xoffset = log(mincount)
gradient = (maxsize-minsize)/(log(maxcount)-log(mincount))
for c in count:
x = log(c)-xoffset
size = gradient * x + minsize
countdist.append({'count': c, 'size': round(size, 3)})
return countdist
what you have is that you have tags whose counts are from MIN to MAX; the threshold issue can be ignored here because it amounts to setting every count below threshold to the threshold value and taking the minimum and maximum only afterwards.
You want to map the tag counts to "weights" but in a "logarithmic fashion", which basically means (as I understand it) the following. First, the tags with count MAX get max_weight weight (in your example, 1.75):
weight(MAX) = max_weight
Secondly, the tags with the count MIN get min_weight weight (in your example, 0.75):
weight(MIN) = min_weight
Finally, it holds that when your count decreases by 1, the weight is multiplied with a constant K < 1, which indicates the steepness of the curve:
weight(x) = weight(x + 1) * K
Solving this, we get:
weight(x) = weight_max * (K ^ (MAX - x))
Note that with x = MAX, the exponent is zero and the multiplicand on the right becomes 1.
Now we have the extra requirement that weight(MIN) = min_weight, and we can solve:
weight_min = weight_max * (K ^ (MAX - MIN))
from which we get
K ^ (MAX - MIN) = weight_min / weight_max
and taking logarithm on both sides
(MAX - MIN) ln K = ln weight_min - ln weight_max
i.e.
ln K = (ln weight_min - ln weight_max) / (MAX - MIN)
The right hand side is negative as desired, because K < 1. Then
K = exp((ln weight_min - ln weight_max) / (MAX - MIN))
So now you have the formula to calculate K. After this you just apply for any count x between MIN and MAX:
weight(x) = max_weight * (K ^ (MAX - x))
And you are done.
On a log scale, you just plot the log of the numbers linearly (in other words, pretend you're plotting linearly, but take the log of the numbers to be plotted first).
The zero problem can't be solved analytically--you have to pick a minimum order of magnitude for your scale, and no matter what you can't ever reach zero. If you want to plot something at zero, your choices are to arbitrarily give it the minimum order of magnitude of the scale, or to omit it.
I don't have the exact answer, but i think you want to look up Linearizing Exponential Data. Start by calculate the equation of the line passing through the points and take the log of both sides of that equation.