Related
After asking this question on math.stackexchange.com I figured this might be a better place after all...
I have a small list of positive numbers rounded to (say) two decimals:
1.15 (can be 1.145 - 1.154999...)
1.92 (can be 1.915 - 1.924999...)
2.36 (can be 2.355 - 2.364999...)
2.63 (can be 2.625 - 2.634999...)
2.78 (can be 2.775 - 2.784999...)
3.14 (can be 3.135 - 3.144999...)
24.04 (can be 24.035 - 24.044999...)
I suspect that these numbers are fractions of integers and that all numerators or all denominators are equal. Choosing 100 as a common denominator would work in this case, that would leave the last value as 2404/100. But there could be a 'simpler' solution with much smaller integers.
How do I efficiently find the smallest common numerator and/or denominator? Or (if that is different) the one that would result in the smallest maximum denominator resp. numerator?
Of course I could brute force for small lists/numbers and few decimals. That would find 83/72, 138/72, 170/72, 189/72, 200/72, 226/72 and 1731/72 for this example.
Assuming the numbers don't have too many significant digits and aren't too big you can try increasing the denominator until you find a valid solution. It is not just brute-forcing. Additionally the following script is staying at the number violating the constraints as long as there is nothing found, in the hope of getting the denominator higher faster, without having to calculate for the non-problematic numbers.
It works based on the following formula:
x / y < a / b if x * b < a * y
This means a denominator d is valid if:
ceil(loNum * d / loDen) * hiDen < hiNum * d
The ceil(...) part calculates the smallest possible numerator satisfying the constraint of the low boundary and the rest is checking if it also satysfies the high boundary.
Better would be to work with real integer calculations, e.g. just longs in Java, then the ceil part becomes:
(loNum * d + loDen - 1) / loDen
function findRatios(arr) {
let lo = [], hi = [], consecutive = 0, d = 1
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
let x = '' + arr[i], len = x.length, dot = x.indexOf('.'),
num = parseInt(x.substr(0, dot) + x.substr(dot + 1)) * 10,
den = Math.pow(10, len - dot),
loGcd = gcd(num - 5, den), hiGcd = gcd(num + 5, den)
lo[i] = {num: (num - 5) / loGcd, den: den / loGcd}
hi[i] = {num: (num + 5) / hiGcd, den: den / hiGcd}
}
for (let index = 0; consecutive < arr.length; index = (index + 1) % arr.length) {
if (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index])) {
consecutive = 1
d++
while (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index]))
d++
} else {
consecutive++
}
}
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
console.log(Math.ceil(lo[i].num * d / lo[i].den) + ' / ' + d)
}
function gcd(x, y) {
while(y) {
let t = y
y = x % y
x = t
}
return x
}
function valid(d, lo, hi) {
let n = Math.ceil(lo.num * d / lo.den)
return n * hi.den < hi.num * d
}
findRatios([1.15, 1.92, 2.36, 2.63, 2.78, 3.14, 24.04])
How would I go about scoring two sequences of numbers such that
5, 8, 28, 31 (differences of 3, 20 and 3)
6, 9, 26, 29 differences of 3, 17 and 3
are considered similar "enough" but a sequence of
8 11 31 34 (differences of 3, 20 and 3, errors of 3, 3, 3, 3)
Is too dissimilar to allow?
The second set of numbers has an absolute error of
1 1 2 2 and that is low "enough" to accept.
If that error was too high I'd like to be able to reject it.
To give a little background, these are indicators of time and when events arrived to a computer. The first sequence is the expected time of arrival and the second sequence is the actual times they arrived. Knowing that the sequence is at least in the correct order I need to be able to score the similarity to the expectation and accept or reject it by tweaking some sort of value.
If it were standard deviation for a set of numbers where order didn't matter I could just reject the second set based on its own standard deviation.
Since this is not the case I had the idea of measuring deviance and position error.
Position error shouldn't exceed 3, though this number should not be integer - it needs to be decimal as the numbers are more realistically floating point, or at least accurate to 6 decimal places.
It also needs to work equally well, or perhaps offer a variant in which a much longer series of numbers can be scored fairly.
In the longer series of numbers it it not likely the position error will exceed 3 so the position error would still be fairly low.
This is a partial solution I have found using a Person's correlation coefficient series for each time x fits into y. It uses the form of the equation that works off expected values. The comments describe it fairly well.
function getPearsonsCorrelation(x, y)
{
/**
* Pearsons can be calculated in an alternative fashion as
* p(x, y) = (E(xy) - E(x)*E(y))/sqrt[(E(x^2)-(E(x))^2)*(E(y^2)-(E(y))^2)]
* where p(x, y) is the Pearson's correlation result, E is a function referring to the expected value
* E(x) = var expectedValue = 0; for(var i = 0; i < x.length; i ++){ expectedValue += x[i]*p[i] }
* where p[i] is the probability of that variable occurring, here we substitute in 1 every time
* hence this simplifies to E(x) = sum of all x values
* sqrt is the square root of the result in square brackets
* ^2 means to the power of two, or rather just square that value
**/
var maxdelay = y.length - x.length; // we will calculate Pearson's correlation coefficient at every location x fits into y
var xl = x.length
var results = [];
for(var d = 0; d <= maxdelay; d++){
var xy = [];
var x2 = [];
var y2 = [];
var _y = y.slice(d, d + x.length); // take just the segment of y at delay
for(var i = 0; i < xl; i ++){
xy.push(x[i] * _y[i]); // x*y array
x2.push(x[i] * x[i]); // x squareds array
y2.push(_y[i] * _y[i]); // y squareds array
}
var sum_x = 0;
var sum_y = 0;
var sum_xy = 0;
var sum_x2 = 0;
var sum_y2 = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < xl; i ++){
sum_x += x[i]; // expected value of x
sum_y += _y[i]; // expected value of y
sum_xy += xy[i]; // expected value of xy/n
sum_x2 += x2[i]; // expected value of (x squared)/n
sum_y2 += y2[i]; // expected value of (y squared)/n
}
var numerator = xl * sum_xy - sum_x * sum_y; // expected value of xy - (expected value of x * expected value of y)
var denomLetSide = xl * sum_x2 - sum_x * sum_x; // expected value of (x squared) - (expected value of x) squared
var denomRightSide = xl * sum_y2 - sum_y * sum_y; // expected value of (y squared) - (expected value of y) squared
var denom = Math.sqrt(denomLetSide * denomRightSide);
var pearsonsCorrelation = numerator / denom;
results.push(pearsonsCorrelation);
}
return results;
}
I have a input stream where the input element consist of Date, Depth and Area.
I want to plot the Area against the Depth and want therefor to take out a window of Depth e.g. between 1.0-100.0m.
The problem is that I want to down sample the input stream since there can be many inputs with close Depth values.
I want to partition the input into x bins, e.g. 2 bins means all depth values between 1-50 is averaged in the first bin and 51-100 in the second bin.
I was thinking something like this:
var q = from e in input
where (e.Depth > 1) && (e.Depth <= 100)
// here I need some way of partition the sequence into bins
// and averaging the elements.
Split a collection into `n` parts with LINQ? wants to do something similar without rx.
Modified answer as per your comment. steps = number of buckets.
var min = 1, max = 100;
var steps = 10;
var f = (max - min + 1) / steps; // The extra 1 is really an epsilon. #hack
var q = from e in input
where e.Depth > 1 && e.depth <= 100
let x = e.Depth - min
group e by x < max ? (x - (x % f)) : ;
This is the function we're grouping by for the given e.Depth.
This probably won't work so great with floating point values (due to precision), unless you floor/ceil the selection, but then you might run out of integers, so you may need to scale a bit... something like group e by Math.Floor((x - (x % f)) * scaleFactor).
This should do what you want
static int GetBucket(double value, double min, double max, int bucketCount)
{
return (int)((value - min) / (max - min) * bucketCount + 0.5);
}
var grouped = input.GroupBy(e => GetBucket(e.Depth, 1, 100, 50));
I would like to generate a random string (or a series of random strings, repetitions allowed) of length between 1 and n characters from some (finite) alphabet. Each string should be equally likely (in other words, the strings should be uniformly distributed).
The uniformity requirement means that an algorithm like this doesn't work:
alphabet = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
len = rand(1, n)
s = ""
for(i = 0; i < len; ++i)
s = s + alphabet[rand(0, 25)]
(pseudo code, rand(a, b) returns a integer between a and b, inclusively, each integer equally likely)
This algorithm generates strings with uniformly distributed lengths, but the actual distribution should be weighted toward longer strings (there are 26 times as many strings with length 2 as there are with length 1, and so on.) How can I achieve this?
What you need to do is generate your length and then your string as two distinct steps. You will need to first chose the length using a weighted approach. You can calculate the number of strings of a given length l for an alphabet of k symbols as k^l. Sum those up and then you have the total number of strings of any length, your first step is to generate a random number between 1 and that value and then bin it accordingly. Modulo off by one errors you would break at 26, 26^2, 26^3, 26^4 and so on. The logarithm based on the number of symbols would be useful for this task.
Once you have you length then you can generate the string as you have above.
Okay, there are 26 possibilities for a 1-character string, 262 for a 2-character string, and so on up to 2626 possibilities for a 26-character string.
That means there are 26 times as many possibilities for an (N)-character string than there are for an (N-1)-character string. You can use that fact to select your length:
def getlen(maxlen):
sz = maxlen
while sz != 1:
if rnd(27) != 1:
return sz
sz--;
return 1
I use 27 in the above code since the total sample space for selecting strings from "ab" is the 26 1-character possibilities and the 262 2-character possibilities. In other words, the ratio is 1:26 so 1-character has a probability of 1/27 (rather than 1/26 as I first answered).
This solution isn't perfect since you're calling rnd multiple times and it would be better to call it once with an possible range of 26N+26N-1+261 and select the length based on where your returned number falls within there but it may be difficult to find a random number generator that'll work on numbers that large (10 characters gives you a possible range of 2610+...+261 which, unless I've done the math wrong, is 146,813,779,479,510).
If you can limit the maximum size so that your rnd function will work in the range, something like this should be workable:
def getlen(chars,maxlen):
assert maxlen >= 1
range = chars
sampspace = 0
for i in 1 .. maxlen:
sampspace = sampspace + range
range = range * chars
range = range / chars
val = rnd(sampspace)
sz = maxlen
while val < sampspace - range:
sampspace = sampspace - range
range = range / chars
sz = sz - 1
return sz
Once you have the length, I would then use your current algorithm to choose the actual characters to populate the string.
Explaining it further:
Let's say our alphabet only consists of "ab". The possible sets up to length 3 are [ab] (2), [ab][ab] (4) and [ab][ab][ab] (8). So there is a 8/14 chance of getting a length of 3, 4/14 of length 2 and 2/14 of length 1.
The 14 is the magic figure: it's the sum of all 2n for n = 1 to the maximum length. So, testing that pseudo-code above with chars = 2 and maxlen = 3:
assert maxlen >= 1 [okay]
range = chars [2]
sampspace = 0
for i in 1 .. 3:
i = 1:
sampspace = sampspace + range [0 + 2 = 2]
range = range * chars [2 * 2 = 4]
i = 2:
sampspace = sampspace + range [2 + 4 = 6]
range = range * chars [4 * 2 = 8]
i = 3:
sampspace = sampspace + range [6 + 8 = 14]
range = range * chars [8 * 2 = 16]
range = range / chars [16 / 2 = 8]
val = rnd(sampspace) [number from 0 to 13 inclusive]
sz = maxlen [3]
while val < sampspace - range: [see below]
sampspace = sampspace - range
range = range / chars
sz = sz - 1
return sz
So, from that code, the first iteration of the final loop will exit with sz = 3 if val is greater than or equal to sampspace - range [14 - 8 = 6]. In other words, for the values 6 through 13 inclusive, 8 of the 14 possibilities.
Otherwise, sampspace becomes sampspace - range [14 - 8 = 6] and range becomes range / chars [8 / 2 = 4].
Then the second iteration of the final loop will exit with sz = 2 if val is greater than or equal to sampspace - range [6 - 4 = 2]. In other words, for the values 2 through 5 inclusive, 4 of the 14 possibilities.
Otherwise, sampspace becomes sampspace - range [6 - 4 = 2] and range becomes range / chars [4 / 2 = 2].
Then the third iteration of the final loop will exit with sz = 1 if val is greater than or equal to sampspace - range [2 - 2 = 0]. In other words, for the values 0 through 1 inclusive, 2 of the 14 possibilities (this iteration will always exit since the value must be greater than or equal to zero.
In retrospect, that second solution is a bit of a nightmare. In my personal opinion, I'd go for the first solution for its simplicity and to avoid the possibility of rather large numbers.
Building on my comment posted as a reply to the OP:
I'd consider it an exercise in base
conversion. You're simply generating a
"random number" in "base 26", where
a=0 and z=25. For a random string of
length n, generate a number between 1
and 26^n. Convert from base 10 to base
26, using symbols from your chosen
alphabet.
Here's a PHP implementation. I won't guaranty that there isn't an off-by-one error or two in here, but any such error should be minor:
<?php
$n = 5;
var_dump(randstr($n));
function randstr($maxlen) {
$dict = 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz';
$rand = rand(0, pow(strlen($dict), $maxlen));
$str = base_convert($rand, 10, 26);
//base convert returns base 26 using 0-9 and 15 letters a-p(?)
//we must convert those to our own set of symbols
return strtr($str, '1234567890abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz', $dict);
}
Instead of picking a length with uniform distribution, weight it according to how many strings are a given length. If your alphabet is size m, there are mx strings of size x, and (1-mn+1)/(1-m) strings of length n or less. The probability of choosing a string of length x should be mx*(1-m)/(1-mn+1).
Edit:
Regarding overflow - using floating point instead of integers will expand the range, so for a 26-character alphabet and single-precision floats, direct weight calculation shouldn't overflow for n<26.
A more robust approach is to deal with it iteratively. This should also minimize the effects of underflow:
int randomLength() {
for(int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
double d = Math.random();
if(d > (m - 1) / (m - Math.pow(m, -i))) {
return i;
}
}
return 0;
}
To make this more efficient by calculating fewer random numbers, we can reuse them by splitting intervals in more than one place:
int randomLength() {
for(int i = n; i > 0; i -= 5) {
double d = Math.random();
double c = (m - 1) / (m - Math.pow(m, -i))
for(int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {
if(d > c) {
return i - j;
}
c /= m;
}
}
for(int i = n % 0; i > 0; i--) {
double d = Math.random();
if(d > (m - 1) / (m - Math.pow(m, -i))) {
return i;
}
}
return 0;
}
Edit: This answer isn't quite right. See the bottom for a disproof. I'll leave it up for now in the hope someone can come up with a variant that fixes it.
It's possible to do this without calculating the length separately - which, as others have pointed out, requires raising a number to a large power, and generally seems like a messy solution to me.
Proving that this is correct is a little tough, and I'm not sure I trust my expository powers to make it clear, but bear with me. For the purposes of the explanation, we're generating strings of length at most n from an alphabet a of |a| characters.
First, imagine you have a maximum length of n, and you've already decided you're generating a string of at least length n-1. It should be obvious that there are |a|+1 equally likely possibilities: we can generate any of the |a| characters from the alphabet, or we can choose to terminate with n-1 characters. To decide, we simply pick a random number x between 0 and |a| (inclusive); if x is |a|, we terminate at n-1 characters; otherwise, we append the xth character of a to the string. Here's a simple implementation of this procedure in Python:
def pick_character(alphabet):
x = random.randrange(len(alphabet) + 1)
if x == len(alphabet):
return ''
else:
return alphabet[x]
Now, we can apply this recursively. To generate the kth character of the string, we first attempt to generate the characters after k. If our recursive invocation returns anything, then we know the string should be at least length k, and we generate a character of our own from the alphabet and return it. If, however, the recursive invocation returns nothing, we know the string is no longer than k, and we use the above routine to select either the final character or no character. Here's an implementation of this in Python:
def uniform_random_string(alphabet, max_len):
if max_len == 1:
return pick_character(alphabet)
suffix = uniform_random_string(alphabet, max_len - 1)
if suffix:
# String contains characters after ours
return random.choice(alphabet) + suffix
else:
# String contains no characters after our own
return pick_character(alphabet)
If you doubt the uniformity of this function, you can attempt to disprove it: suggest a string for which there are two distinct ways to generate it, or none. If there are no such strings - and alas, I do not have a robust proof of this fact, though I'm fairly certain it's true - and given that the individual selections are uniform, then the result must also select any string with uniform probability.
As promised, and unlike every other solution posted thus far, no raising of numbers to large powers is required; no arbitrary length integers or floating point numbers are needed to store the result, and the validity, at least to my eyes, is fairly easy to demonstrate. It's also shorter than any fully-specified solution thus far. ;)
If anyone wants to chip in with a robust proof of the function's uniformity, I'd be extremely grateful.
Edit: Disproof, provided by a friend:
dato: so imagine alphabet = 'abc' and n = 2
dato: you have 9 strings of length 2, 3 of length 1, 1 of length 0
dato: that's 13 in total
dato: so probability of getting a length 2 string should be 9/13
dato: and probability of getting a length 1 or a length 0 should be 4/13
dato: now if you call uniform_random_string('abc', 2)
dato: that transforms itself into a call to uniform_random_string('abc', 1)
dato: which is an uniform distribution over ['a', 'b', 'c', '']
dato: the first three of those yield all the 2 length strings
dato: and the latter produce all the 1 length strings and the empty strings
dato: but 0.75 > 9/13
dato: and 0.25 < 4/13
// Note space as an available char
alphabet = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz "
result_string = ""
for( ;; )
{
s = ""
for( i = 0; i < n; i++ )
s += alphabet[rand(0, 26)]
first_space = n;
for( i = 0; i < n; i++ )
if( s[ i ] == ' ' )
{
first_space = i;
break;
}
ok = true;
// Reject "duplicate" shorter strings
for( i = first_space + 1; i < n; i++ )
if( s[ i ] != ' ' )
{
ok = false;
break;
}
if( !ok )
continue;
// Extract the short version of the string
for( i = 0; i < first_space; i++ )
result_string += s[ i ];
break;
}
Edit: I forgot to disallow 0-length strings, that will take a bit more code which I don't have time to add now.
Edit: After considering how my answer doesn't scale to large n (takes too long to get lucky and find an accepted string), I like paxdiablo's answer much better. Less code too.
Personally I'd do it like this:
Let's say your alphabet has Z characters. Then the number of possible strings for each length L is:
L | Z
--------------------------
1 | 26
2 | 676 (= 26 * 26)
3 | 17576 (= 26 * 26 * 26)
...and so on.
Now let's say your maximum desired length is N. Then the total number of possible strings from length 1 to N that your function could generate would be the sum of a geometric sequence:
(1 - (Z ^ (N + 1))) / (1 - Z)
Let's call this value S. Then the probability of generating a string of any length L should be:
(Z ^ L) / S
OK, fine. This is all well and good; but how do we generate a random number given a non-uniform probability distribution?
The short answer is: you don't. Get a library to do that for you. I develop mainly in .NET, so one I might turn to would be Math.NET.
That said, it's really not so hard to come up with a rudimentary approach to doing this on your own.
Here's one way: take a generator that gives you a random value within a known uniform distribution, and assign ranges within that distribution of sizes dependent on your desired distribution. Then interpret the random value provided by the generator by determining which range it falls into.
Here's an example in C# of one way you could implement this idea (scroll to the bottom for example output):
RandomStringGenerator class
public class RandomStringGenerator
{
private readonly Random _random;
private readonly char[] _alphabet;
public RandomStringGenerator(string alphabet)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(alphabet))
throw new ArgumentException("alphabet");
_random = new Random();
_alphabet = alphabet.Distinct().ToArray();
}
public string NextString(int maxLength)
{
// Get a value randomly distributed between 0.0 and 1.0 --
// this is approximately what the System.Random class provides.
double value = _random.NextDouble();
// This is where the magic happens: we "translate" the above number
// to a length based on our computed probability distribution for the given
// alphabet and the desired maximum string length.
int length = GetLengthFromRandomValue(value, _alphabet.Length, maxLength);
// The rest is easy: allocate a char array of the length determined above...
char[] chars = new char[length];
// ...populate it with a bunch of random values from the alphabet...
for (int i = 0; i < length; ++i)
{
chars[i] = _alphabet[_random.Next(0, _alphabet.Length)];
}
// ...and return a newly constructed string.
return new string(chars);
}
static int GetLengthFromRandomValue(double value, int alphabetSize, int maxLength)
{
// Looping really might not be the smartest way to do this,
// but it's the most obvious way that immediately springs to my mind.
for (int length = 1; length <= maxLength; ++length)
{
Range r = GetRangeForLength(length, alphabetSize, maxLength);
if (r.Contains(value))
return length;
}
return maxLength;
}
static Range GetRangeForLength(int length, int alphabetSize, int maxLength)
{
int L = length;
int Z = alphabetSize;
int N = maxLength;
double possibleStrings = (1 - (Math.Pow(Z, N + 1)) / (1 - Z));
double stringsOfGivenLength = Math.Pow(Z, L);
double possibleSmallerStrings = (1 - Math.Pow(Z, L)) / (1 - Z);
double probabilityOfGivenLength = ((double)stringsOfGivenLength / possibleStrings);
double probabilityOfShorterLength = ((double)possibleSmallerStrings / possibleStrings);
double startPoint = probabilityOfShorterLength;
double endPoint = probabilityOfShorterLength + probabilityOfGivenLength;
return new Range(startPoint, endPoint);
}
}
Range struct
public struct Range
{
public readonly double StartPoint;
public readonly double EndPoint;
public Range(double startPoint, double endPoint)
: this()
{
this.StartPoint = startPoint;
this.EndPoint = endPoint;
}
public bool Contains(double value)
{
return this.StartPoint <= value && value <= this.EndPoint;
}
}
Test
static void Main(string[] args)
{
const int N = 5;
const string alphabet = "acegikmoqstvwy";
int Z = alphabet.Length;
var rand = new RandomStringGenerator(alphabet);
var strings = new List<string>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)
{
strings.Add(rand.NextString(N));
}
Console.WriteLine("First 10 results:");
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
Console.WriteLine(strings[i]);
}
// sanity check
double sumOfProbabilities = 0.0;
for (int i = 1; i <= N; ++i)
{
double probability = Math.Pow(Z, i) / ((1 - (Math.Pow(Z, N + 1))) / (1 - Z));
int numStrings = strings.Count(str => str.Length == i);
Console.WriteLine("# strings of length {0}: {1} (probability = {2:0.00%})", i, numStrings, probability);
sumOfProbabilities += probability;
}
Console.WriteLine("Probabilities sum to {0:0.00%}.", sumOfProbabilities);
Console.ReadLine();
}
Output:
First 10 results:
wmkyw
qqowc
ackai
tokmo
eeiyw
cakgg
vceec
qwqyq
aiomt
qkyav
# strings of length 1: 1 (probability = 0.00%)
# strings of length 2: 38 (probability = 0.03%)
# strings of length 3: 475 (probability = 0.47%)
# strings of length 4: 6633 (probability = 6.63%)
# strings of length 5: 92853 (probability = 92.86%)
Probabilities sum to 100.00%.
My idea regarding this is like:
you have 1-n length string.there 26 possible 1 length string,26*26 2 length string and so on.
you can find out the percentage of each length string of the total possible strings.for example percentage of single length string is like
((26/(TOTAL_POSSIBLE_STRINGS_OF_ALL_LENGTH))*100).
similarly you can find out the percentage of other length strings.
Mark them on a number line between 1 to 100.ie suppose percentage of single length string is 3 and double length string is 6 then number line single length string lies between 0-3 while double length string lies between 3-9 and so on.
Now take a random number between 1 to 100.find out the range in which this number lies.I mean suppose for examplethe number you have randomly chosen is 2.Now this number lies between 0-3 so go 1 length string or if the random number chosen is 7 then go for double length string.
In this fashion you can see that length of each string choosen will be proportional to the percentage of the total number of that length string contribute to the all possible strings.
Hope I am clear.
Disclaimer: I have not gone through above solution except one or two.So if it matches with some one solution it will be purely a chance.
Also,I will welcome all the advice and positive criticism and correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks and regard
Mawia
Matthieu: Your idea doesn't work because strings with blanks are still more likely to be generated. In your case, with n=4, you could have the string 'ab' generated as 'a' + 'b' + '' + '' or '' + 'a' + 'b' + '', or other combinations. Thus not all the strings have the same chance of appearing.
I'm looking for an algorithm that places tick marks on an axis, given a range to display, a width to display it in, and a function to measure a string width for a tick mark.
For example, given that I need to display between 1e-6 and 5e-6 and a width to display in pixels, the algorithm would determine that I should put tickmarks (for example) at 1e-6, 2e-6, 3e-6, 4e-6, and 5e-6. Given a smaller width, it might decide that the optimal placement is only at the even positions, i.e. 2e-6 and 4e-6 (since putting more tickmarks would cause them to overlap).
A smart algorithm would give preference to tickmarks at multiples of 10, 5, and 2. Also, a smart algorithm would be symmetric around zero.
As I didn't like any of the solutions I've found so far, I implemented my own. It's in C# but it can be easily translated into any other language.
It basically chooses from a list of possible steps the smallest one that displays all values, without leaving any value exactly in the edge, lets you easily select which possible steps you want to use (without having to edit ugly if-else if blocks), and supports any range of values. I used a C# Tuple to return three values just for a quick and simple demonstration.
private static Tuple<decimal, decimal, decimal> GetScaleDetails(decimal min, decimal max)
{
// Minimal increment to avoid round extreme values to be on the edge of the chart
decimal epsilon = (max - min) / 1e6m;
max += epsilon;
min -= epsilon;
decimal range = max - min;
// Target number of values to be displayed on the Y axis (it may be less)
int stepCount = 20;
// First approximation
decimal roughStep = range / (stepCount - 1);
// Set best step for the range
decimal[] goodNormalizedSteps = { 1, 1.5m, 2, 2.5m, 5, 7.5m, 10 }; // keep the 10 at the end
// Or use these if you prefer: { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
// Normalize rough step to find the normalized one that fits best
decimal stepPower = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, -Math.Floor(Math.Log10((double)Math.Abs(roughStep))));
var normalizedStep = roughStep * stepPower;
var goodNormalizedStep = goodNormalizedSteps.First(n => n >= normalizedStep);
decimal step = goodNormalizedStep / stepPower;
// Determine the scale limits based on the chosen step.
decimal scaleMax = Math.Ceiling(max / step) * step;
decimal scaleMin = Math.Floor(min / step) * step;
return new Tuple<decimal, decimal, decimal>(scaleMin, scaleMax, step);
}
static void Main()
{
// Dummy code to show a usage example.
var minimumValue = data.Min();
var maximumValue = data.Max();
var results = GetScaleDetails(minimumValue, maximumValue);
chart.YAxis.MinValue = results.Item1;
chart.YAxis.MaxValue = results.Item2;
chart.YAxis.Step = results.Item3;
}
Take the longest of the segments about zero (or the whole graph, if zero is not in the range) - for example, if you have something on the range [-5, 1], take [-5,0].
Figure out approximately how long this segment will be, in ticks. This is just dividing the length by the width of a tick. So suppose the method says that we can put 11 ticks in from -5 to 0. This is our upper bound. For the shorter side, we'll just mirror the result on the longer side.
Now try to put in as many (up to 11) ticks in, such that the marker for each tick in the form i*10*10^n, i*5*10^n, i*2*10^n, where n is an integer, and i is the index of the tick. Now it's an optimization problem - we want to maximize the number of ticks we can put in, while at the same time minimizing the distance between the last tick and the end of the result. So assign a score for getting as many ticks as we can, less than our upper bound, and assign a score to getting the last tick close to n - you'll have to experiment here.
In the above example, try n = 1. We get 1 tick (at i=0). n = 2 gives us 1 tick, and we're further from the lower bound, so we know that we have to go the other way. n = 0 gives us 6 ticks, at each integer point point. n = -1 gives us 12 ticks (0, -0.5, ..., -5.0). n = -2 gives us 24 ticks, and so on. The scoring algorithm will give them each a score - higher means a better method.
Do this again for the i * 5 * 10^n, and i*2*10^n, and take the one with the best score.
(as an example scoring algorithm, say that the score is the distance to the last tick times the maximum number of ticks minus the number needed. This will likely be bad, but it'll serve as a decent starting point).
Funnily enough, just over a week ago I came here looking for an answer to the same question, but went away again and decided to come up with my own algorithm. I am here to share, in case it is of any use.
I wrote the code in Python to try and bust out a solution as quickly as possible, but it can easily be ported to any other language.
The function below calculates the appropriate interval (which I have allowed to be either 10**n, 2*10**n, 4*10**n or 5*10**n) for a given range of data, and then calculates the locations at which to place the ticks (based on which numbers within the range are divisble by the interval). I have not used the modulo % operator, since it does not work properly with floating-point numbers due to floating-point arithmetic rounding errors.
Code:
import math
def get_tick_positions(data: list):
if len(data) == 0:
return []
retpoints = []
data_range = max(data) - min(data)
lower_bound = min(data) - data_range/10
upper_bound = max(data) + data_range/10
view_range = upper_bound - lower_bound
num = lower_bound
n = math.floor(math.log10(view_range) - 1)
interval = 10**n
num_ticks = 1
while num <= upper_bound:
num += interval
num_ticks += 1
if num_ticks > 10:
if interval == 10 ** n:
interval = 2 * 10 ** n
elif interval == 2 * 10 ** n:
interval = 4 * 10 ** n
elif interval == 4 * 10 ** n:
interval = 5 * 10 ** n
else:
n += 1
interval = 10 ** n
num = lower_bound
num_ticks = 1
if view_range >= 10:
copy_interval = interval
else:
if interval == 10 ** n:
copy_interval = 1
elif interval == 2 * 10 ** n:
copy_interval = 2
elif interval == 4 * 10 ** n:
copy_interval = 4
else:
copy_interval = 5
first_val = 0
prev_val = 0
times = 0
temp_log = math.log10(interval)
if math.isclose(lower_bound, 0):
first_val = 0
elif lower_bound < 0:
if upper_bound < -2*interval:
if n < 0:
copy_ub = round(upper_bound*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1))
times = copy_ub // round(interval*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1)) + 2
else:
times = upper_bound // round(interval) + 2
while first_val >= lower_bound:
prev_val = first_val
first_val = times * copy_interval
if n < 0:
first_val *= (10**n)
times -= 1
first_val = prev_val
times += 3
else:
if lower_bound > 2*interval:
if n < 0:
copy_ub = round(lower_bound*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1))
times = copy_ub // round(interval*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1)) - 2
else:
times = lower_bound // round(interval) - 2
while first_val < lower_bound:
first_val = times*copy_interval
if n < 0:
first_val *= (10**n)
times += 1
if n < 0:
retpoints.append(first_val)
else:
retpoints.append(round(first_val))
val = first_val
times = 1
while val <= upper_bound:
val = first_val + times * interval
if n < 0:
retpoints.append(val)
else:
retpoints.append(round(val))
times += 1
retpoints.pop()
return retpoints
When passing in the following three data-points to the function
points = [-0.00493, -0.0003892, -0.00003292]
... the output I get (as a list) is as follows:
[-0.005, -0.004, -0.003, -0.002, -0.001, 0.0]
When passing this:
points = [1.399, 38.23823, 8309.33, 112990.12]
... I get:
[0, 20000, 40000, 60000, 80000, 100000, 120000]
When passing this:
points = [-54, -32, -19, -17, -13, -11, -8, -4, 12, 15, 68]
... I get:
[-60, -40, -20, 0, 20, 40, 60, 80]
... which all seem to be a decent choice of positions for placing ticks.
The function is written to allow 5-10 ticks, but that could easily be changed if you so please.
Whether the list of data supplied contains ordered or unordered data it does not matter, since it is only the minimum and maximum data points within the list that matter.
This simple algorithm yields an interval that is multiple of 1, 2, or 5 times a power of 10. And the axis range gets divided in at least 5 intervals. The code sample is in java language:
protected double calculateInterval(double range) {
double x = Math.pow(10.0, Math.floor(Math.log10(range)));
if (range / x >= 5)
return x;
else if (range / (x / 2.0) >= 5)
return x / 2.0;
else
return x / 5.0;
}
This is an alternative, for minimum 10 intervals:
protected double calculateInterval(double range) {
double x = Math.pow(10.0, Math.floor(Math.log10(range)));
if (range / (x / 2.0) >= 10)
return x / 2.0;
else if (range / (x / 5.0) >= 10)
return x / 5.0;
else
return x / 10.0;
}
I've been using the jQuery flot graph library. It's open source and does axis/tick generation quite well. I'd suggest looking at it's code and pinching some ideas from there.