Related
What I mean to ask is for a hash-table following the standard size of a prime number, is it possible to have some scenario (of inserted keys) where no further insertion of a given element is possible even though there's some empty slots? What kind of hash-function would achieve that?
So, most hash functions allow for collisions ("Hash Collisions" is the phrase you should google to understand this better, by the way.) Collisions are handled by having a secondary data structure, like a list, to store all of the values inserted at keys with the same hash.
Because these data structures can generally store arbitrarily many elements, you will always be able to insert into the hash table, but the performance will get worse and worse, approaching the performance of the backing data structure.
If you do not have a backing data structure, then you can be unable to insert as soon as two things get added to the same position. Since a good hash function distributes things evenly and effectively randomly, this would happen pretty quickly (see "The Birthday Problem").
There are failure-to-insert scenarios for some but not all hash table implementations.
For example, closed hashing aka open addressing implementations use some logic to create a sequence of buckets in which they'll "probe" for values not found at the hashed-to bucket due to collisions. In the real world, sometimes the sequence-creation is pretty basic, for example:
the programmer might have hard-coded N prime numbers, thinking the odds of adding in each of those in turn and still not finding an empty bucket are low (but a malicious user who knows the hash table design may be able to calculate values to make the table fail, or it may simply be so full that the odds are no longer good, or - while emptier - a statistical freak event)
the programmer might have done something like picked a prime number they liked - say 13903 - to add to the last-probed bucket each time until a free one is found, but if the table size happens to be 13903 too it'll keep checking the same bucket.
Still, there are probing approaches such as linear probing that guarantee to try all buckets (unless the implementation goes out of its way to put a limit on retries). It has some other "issues" though, and won't always be the best choice.
If a hash table is implemented using open addressing instead of separate chaining, then it is a good idea to leave at least 1 slot empty to simplify the algorithm.
In open addressing when we are trying to find an element, we first compute the hash index i, then check the table at indexes {i, i + 1, i + 2, ... N - 1, (wrapping around) 0, 1, 2, ...}, until we either find the element we want or hit an empty slot. You can see that in this algorithm, if no slot is empty but the element can't be found, then the search would loop forever.
However, I should emphasize that enforcing merely simplifies the search algorithm. Because alternatively, the search algorithm can remember the starting index i, and halt the search if the entire table has been scanned and it lands back at index i.
Currently I am loooking for a way to develop an algorithm which is supposed to analyse a large dataset (about 600M records). The records have parameters "calling party", "called party", "call duration" and I would like to create a graph of weighted connections among phone users.
The whole dataset consists of similar records - people mostly talk to their friends and don't dial random numbers but occasionaly a person calls "random" numbers as well. For analysing the records I was thinking about the following logic:
create an array of numbers to indicate the which records (row number) have already been scanned.
start scanning from the first line and for the first line combination "calling party", "called party" check for the same combinations in the database
sum the call durations and divide the result by the sum of all call durations
add the numbers of summed lines into the array created at the beginning
check the array if the next record number has already been summed
if it has already been summed then skip the record, else perform step 2
I would appreciate if anyone of you suggested any improvement of the logic described above.
p.s. the edges are directed therefore the (calling party, called party) is not equal to (called party, calling party)
Although the fact is not programming related I would like to emphasize that due to law and respect for user privacy all the informations that could possibly reveal the user identity have been hashed before the analysis.
As always with large datasets the more information you have about the distribution of values in them the better you can tailor an algorithm. For example, if you knew that there were only, say, 1000 different telephone numbers to consider you could create a 1000x1000 array into which to write your statistics.
Your first step should be to analyse the distribution(s) of data in your dataset.
In the absence of any further information about your data I'm inclined to suggest that you create a hash table. Read each record in your 600M dataset and calculate a hash address from the concatenation of calling and called numbers. Into the table at that address write the calling and called numbers (you'll need them later, and bear in mind that the hash is probably irreversible), add 1 to the number of calls and add the duration to the total duration. Repeat 600M times.
Now you have a hash table which contains the data you want.
Since there are 600 M records, it seems to be large enough to leverage a database (and not too large to require a distributed Database). So, you could simply load this into a DB (MySQL, SQLServer, Oracle, etc) and run the following queries:
select calling_party, called_party, sum(call_duration), avg(call_duration), min(call_duration), max (call_duration), count(*) from call_log group by calling_party, called_party order by 7 desc
That would be a start.
Next, you would want to run some Association analysis (possibly using Weka), or perhaps you would want to analyze this information as cubes (possibly using Mondrian/OLAP). If you tell us more, we can help you more.
Algorithmically, what the DB is doing internally is similar to what you would do yourself programmatically:
Scan each record
Find the record for each (calling_party, called_party) combination, and update its stats.
A good way to store and find records for (calling_party, called_party) would be to use a hashfunction and to find the matching record from the bucket.
Althought it may be tempting to create a two dimensional array for (calling_party, called_party), that will he a very sparse array (very wasteful).
How often will you need to perform this analysis? If this is a large, unique dataset and thus only once or twice - don't worry too much about the performance, just get it done, e.g. as Amrinder Arora says by using simple, existing tooling you happen to know.
You really want more information about the distribution as High Performance Mark says. For starters, it's be nice to know the count of unique phone numbers, the count of unique phone number pairs, and, the mean, variance and maximum of the count of calling/called phone numbers per unique phone number.
You really want more information about the analysis you want to perform on the result. For instance, are you more interested in holistic statistics or identifying individual clusters? Do you care more about following the links forward (determining who X frequently called) or following the links backward (determining who X was frequently called by)? Do you want to project overviews of this graph into low-dimensional spaces, i.e. 2d? Should be easy to indentify indirect links - e.g. X is near {A, B, C} all of whom are near Y so X is sorta near Y?
If you want fast and frequently adapted results, then be aware that a dense representation with good memory & temporal locality can easily make a huge difference in performance. In particular, that can easily outweigh a factor ln N in big-O notation; you may benefit from a dense, sorted representation over a hashtable. And databases? Those are really slow. Don't touch those if you can avoid it at all; they are likely to be a factor 10000 slower - or more, the more complex the queries are you want to perform on the result.
Just sort records by "calling party" and then by "called party". That way each unique pair will have all its occurrences in consecutive positions. Hence, you can calculate the weight of each pair (calling party, called party) in one pass with little extra memory.
For sorting, you can sort small chunks separately, and then do a N-way merge sort. That's memory efficient and can be easily parallelized.
As much as I like using GUIDs as the unique identifiers in my system, it is not very user-friendly for fields like an order number where a customer may have to repeat that to a customer service representative.
What's a good algorithm to use to generate order number so that it is:
Unique
Not sequential (purely for optics)
Numeric values only (so it can be easily read to a CSR over phone or keyed in)
< 10 digits
Can be generated in the middle tier without doing a round trip to the database.
UPDATE (12/05/2009)
After carefully reviewing each of the answers posted, we decided to randomize a 9-digit number in the middle tier to be saved in the DB. In the case of a collision, we'll regenerate a new number.
If the middle tier cannot check what "order numbers" already exists in the database, the best it can do will be the equivalent of generating a random number. However, if you generate a random number that's constrained to be less than 1 billion, you should start worrying about accidental collisions at around sqrt(1 billion), i.e., after a few tens of thousand entries generated this way, the risk of collisions is material. What if the order number is sequential but in a disguised way, i.e. the next multiple of some large prime number modulo 1 billion -- would that meet your requirements?
<Moan>OK sounds like a classic case of premature optimisation. You imagine a performance problem (Oh my god I have to access the - horror - database to get an order number! My that might be slow) and end up with a convoluted mess of psuedo random generators and a ton of duplicate handling code.</moan>
One simple practical answer is to run a sequence per customer. The real order number being a composite of customer number and order number. You can easily retrieve the last sequence used when retriving other stuff about your customer.
One simple option is to use the date and time, eg. 0912012359, and if two orders are received in the same minute, simply increment the second order by a minute (it doesn't matter if the time is out, it's just an order number).
If you don't want the date to be visible, then calculate it as the number of minutes since a fixed point in time, eg. when you started taking orders or some other arbitary date. Again, with the duplicate check/increment.
Your competitors will glean nothing from this, and it's easy to implement.
Maybe you could try generating some unique text using a markov chain - see here for an example implementation in Python. Maybe use sequential numbers (rather than random ones) to generate the chain, so that (hopefully) the each order number is unique.
Just a warning, though - see here for what can possibly happen if you aren't careful with your settings.
One solution would be to take the hash of some field of the order. This will not guarantee that it is unique from the order numbers of all of the other orders, but the likelihood of a collision is very low. I would imagine that without "doing a round trip to the database" it would be challenging to make sure that the order number is unique.
In case you are not familiar with hash functions, the wikipedia page is pretty good.
You could base64-encode a guid. This will meet all your criteria except the "numeric values only" requirement.
Really, though, the correct thing to do here is let the database generate the order number. That may mean creating an order template record that doesn't actually have an order number until the user saves it, or it might be adding the ability to create empty (but perhaps uncommitted) orders.
Use primitive polynomials as finite field generator.
Your 10 digit requirement is a huge limitation. Consider a two stage approach.
Use a GUID
Prefix the GUID with a 10 digit (or 5 or 4 digit) hash of the GUID.
You will have multiple hits on the hash value. But not that many. The customer service people will very easily be able to figure out which order is in question based on additional information from the customer.
The straightforward answer to most of your bullet points:
Make the first six digits a sequentially-increasing field, and append three digits of hash to the end. Or seven and two, or eight and one, depending on how many orders you envision having to support.
However, you'll still have to call a function on the back-end to reserve a new order number; otherwise, it's impossible to guarantee a non-collision, since there are so few digits.
We do TTT-CCCCCC-1A-N1.
T = Circuit type (D1E=DS1 EEL, D1U=DS1 UNE, etc.)
C = 6 Digit Customer ID
1 = The customer's first location
A = The first circuit (A=1, B=2, etc) at this location
N = Order type (N=New, X=Disconnect, etc)
1 = The first order of this kind for this circuit
Goal
How to encode the data that describes how to re-order a static list from a one order to another order using the minimum amount of bytes possible?
Original Motivation
Originally this problem arose while working on a problem relaying sensor data using expensive satellite communication. A device had a list of about 1,000 sensors they were monitoring. The sensor list couldn't change. Each sensor had a unique id. All data was being logged internally for eventual analysis, the only thing that end users needed daily was which sensor fired in which order.
The entire project was scrapped, but this problem seems too interesting to ignore. Also previously I talked about "swaps" because I was thinking of the sorting algorithm, but really it's the overall order that's important, the steps required to arrive at that order probably wouldn't matter.
How the data was ordered
In SQL terms you could think of it like this.
**Initial Load**
create table sensor ( id int, last_detected datetime, other stuff )
-- fill table with ids of all sensors for this location
Day 0: Select ID from Sensor order by id
(initially data is sorted by the sensor.id because its a known value)
Day 1: Select ID from Sensor order by last_detected
Day 2: Select ID from Sensor order by last_detected
Day 3: Select ID from Sensor order by last_detected
Assumptions
The starting list and ending list is composed of the exact same set of items
Each sensor has a unique id (32 bit integer)
The size of the list will be approximately 1,000 items
Each sensors may fire multiple times per minute or not at all for days
Only the change in ID sort order needs to be relayed.
Computation resources for figuring optimal solutions is cheap / unlimited
Data costs are expensive, roughly a dollar per kilobyte.
Data could only be sent as whole byte (octet) increments
The Day 0 order is known by the sender and receiver to start with
For now assume the system functions perfectly and no error checking is required
As I said the project/hardware is no more so this is now just an academic problem.
The Challenge!
Define an Encoder
Given A. Day N sort order
Given B. Day N + 1 sort order
Return C. a collection of bytes that describe how to convert A to B using the least number of bytes possible
Define a Decoder
Given A. Day N sort order
Given B. a collection of bytes
Return C. Day N + 1 sort order
Have fun everyone.
As an academic problem, one approach would be to look at Algorithm P section 3.3.2 of Vol II of Knuth's the art of computer programming, which maps every permutation on N objects into an integer between 0 and N!-1. If every possible permutation is equally likely at any time, then the best you can do is to compute and transmit this (multi-precision) integer. In practice, giving each sensor a 10-bit number and then packing those 10 bit numbers up so you have e.g. 4 numbers packed into each chunk of 5 bytes would do almost as well.
Schemes based on diff or off the shelf compression make use of knowledge that not all permutations are equally likely. You may have knowledge of this based on the equipment, or you could see if this is case by looking at previous data. Fine if it works. In some cases with sensors and satellites you might want to worry about rare exceptions where you get worst case behaviour of your compression scheme and you suddenly have more data to transmit than you bargained for.
I have a list of requirements for a software project, assembled from the remains of its predecessor. Each requirement should map to one or more categories. Each of the categories consists of a group of keywords. What I'm trying to do is find an algorithm that would give me a score ranking which of the categories each requirement is likely to fall into. The results would be use as a starting point to further categorize the requirements.
As an example, suppose I have the requirement:
The system shall apply deposits to a customer's specified account.
And categories/keywords:
Customer Transactions: deposits, deposit, customer, account, accounts
Balance Accounts: account, accounts, debits, credits
Other Category: foo, bar
I would want the algorithm to score the requirement highest in category 1, lower in category 2, and not at all in category 3. The scoring mechanism is mostly irrelevant to me, but needs to convey how much more likely category 1 applies than category 2.
I'm new to NLP, so I'm kind of at a loss. I've been reading Natural Language Processing in Python and was hoping to apply some of the concepts, but haven't seen anything that quite fits. I don't think a simple frequency distribution would work, since the text I'm processing is so small (a single sentence.)
You might want to look the category of "similarity measures" or "distance measures" (which is different, in data mining lingo, than "classification".)
Basically, a similarity measure is a way in math you can:
Take two sets of data (in your case, words)
Do some computation/equation/algorithm
The result being that you have some number which tells you how "similar" that data is.
With similarity measures, this number is a number between 0 and 1, where "0" means "nothing matches at all" and "1" means "identical"
So you can actually think of your sentence as a vector - and each word in your sentence represents an element of that vector. Likewise for each category's list of keywords.
And then you can do something very simple: take the "cosine similarity" or "Jaccard index" (depending on how you structure your data.)
What both of these metrics do is they take both vectors (your input sentence, and your "keyword" list) and give you a number. If you do this across all of your categories, you can rank those numbers in order to see which match has the greatest similarity coefficient.
As an example:
From your question:
Customer Transactions: deposits,
deposit, customer, account, accounts
So you could construct a vector with 5 elements: (1, 1, 1, 1, 1). This means that, for the "customer transactions" keyword, you have 5 words, and (this will sound obvious but) each of those words is present in your search string. keep with me.
So now you take your sentence:
The system shall apply deposits to a
customer's specified account.
This has 2 words from the "Customer Transactions" set: {deposits, account, customer}
(actually, this illustrates another nuance: you actually have "customer's". Is this equivalent to "customer"?)
The vector for your sentence might be (1, 0, 1, 1, 0)
The 1's in this vector are in the same position as the 1's in the first vector - because those words are the same.
So we could say: how many times do these vectors differ? Lets compare:
(1,1,1,1,1)
(1,0,1,1,0)
Hm. They have the same "bit" 3 times - in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th position. They only differ by 2 bits. So lets say that when we compare these two vectors, we have a "distance" of 2. Congrats, we just computed the Hamming distance! The lower your Hamming distance, the more "similar" the data.
(The difference between a "similarity" measure and a "distance" measure is that the former is normalized - it gives you a value between 0 and 1. A distance is just any number, so it only gives you a relative value.)
Anyway, this might not be the best way to do natural language processing, but for your purposes it is the simplest and might actually work pretty well for your application, or at least as a starting point.
(PS: "classification" - as you have in your title - would be answering the question "If you take my sentence, which category is it most likely to fall into?" Which is a bit different than saying "how much more similar is my sentence to category 1 than category 2?" which seems to be what you're after.)
good luck!
The main characteristics of the problem are:
Externally defined categorization criteria (keyword list)
Items to be classified (lines from the requirement document) are made of a relatively small number of attributes values, for effectively a single dimension: "keyword".
As defined, no feedback/calibrarion (although it may be appropriate to suggest some of that)
These characteristics bring both good and bad news: the implementation should be relatively straight forward, but a consistent level of accuracy of the categorization process may be hard to achieve. Also the small amounts of various quantities (number of possible categories, max/average number of words in a item etc.) should give us room to select solutions that may be CPU and/or Space intentsive, if need be.
Yet, even with this license got "go fancy", I suggest to start with (and stay close to) to a simple algorithm and to expend on this basis with a few additions and considerations, while remaining vigilant of the ever present danger called overfitting.
Basic algorithm (Conceptual, i.e. no focus on performance trick at this time)
Parameters =
CatKWs = an array/hash of lists of strings. The list contains the possible
keywords, for a given category.
usage: CatKWs[CustTx] = ('deposits', 'deposit', 'customer' ...)
NbCats = integer number of pre-defined categories
Variables:
CatAccu = an array/hash of numeric values with one entry per each of the
possible categories. usage: CatAccu[3] = 4 (if array) or
CatAccu['CustTx'] += 1 (hash)
TotalKwOccurences = counts the total number of keywords matches (counts
multiple when a word is found in several pre-defined categories)
Pseudo code: (for categorizing one input item)
1. for x in 1 to NbCats
CatAccu[x] = 0 // reset the accumulators
2. for each word W in Item
for each x in 1 to NbCats
if W found in CatKWs[x]
TotalKwOccurences++
CatAccu[x]++
3. for each x in 1 to NbCats
CatAccu[x] = CatAccu[x] / TotalKwOccurences // calculate rating
4. Sort CatAccu by value
5. Return the ordered list of (CategoryID, rating)
for all corresponding CatAccu[x] values about a given threshold.
Simple but plausible: we favor the categories that have the most matches, but we divide by the overall number of matches, as a way of lessening the confidence rating when many words were found. note that this division does not affect the relative ranking of a category selection for a given item, but it may be significant when comparing rating of different items.
Now, several simple improvements come to mind: (I'd seriously consider the first two, and give thoughts to the other ones; deciding on each of these is very much tied to the scope of the project, the statistical profile of the data to be categorized and other factors...)
We should normalize the keywords read from the input items and/or match them in a fashion that is tolerant of misspellings. Since we have so few words to work with, we need to ensure we do not loose a significant one because of a silly typo.
We should give more importance to words found less frequently in CatKWs. For example the word 'Account' should could less than the word 'foo' or 'credit'
We could (but maybe that won't be useful or even helpful) give more weight to the ratings of items that have fewer [non-noise] words.
We could also include consideration based on digrams (two consecutive words), for with natural languages (and requirements documents are not quite natural :-) ) word proximity is often a stronger indicator that the words themselves.
we could add a tiny bit of importance to the category assigned to the preceding (or even following, in a look-ahead logic) item. Item will likely come in related series and we can benefit from this regularity.
Also, aside from the calculation of the rating per-se, we should also consider:
some metrics that would be used to rate the algorithm outcome itself (tbd)
some logic to collect the list of words associated with an assigned category and to eventually run statistic on these. This may allow the identification of words representative of a category and not initially listed in CatKWs.
The question of metrics, should be considered early, but this would also require a reference set of input item: a "training set" of sort, even though we are working off a pre-defined dictionary category-keywords (typically training sets are used to determine this very list of category-keywords, along with a weight factor). Of course such reference/training set should be both statistically significant and statistically representative [of the whole set].
To summarize: stick to simple approaches, anyway the context doesn't leave room to be very fancy. Consider introducing a way of measuring the efficiency of particular algorithms (or of particular parameters within a given algorithm), but beware that such metrics may be flawed and prompt you to specialize the solution for a given set at the detriment of the other items (overfitting).
I was also facing the same issue of creating a classifier based only on keywords. I was having a class keywords mapper file and which contained class variable and list of keywords occurring in a particular class. I came with the following algorithm to do and it is working really fine.
# predictor algorithm
for docs in readContent:
for x in range(len(docKywrdmppr)):
catAccum[x]=0
for i in range(len(docKywrdmppr)):
for word in removeStopWords(docs):
if word.casefold() in removeStopWords(docKywrdmppr['Keywords'][i].casefold()):
print(word)
catAccum[i]=catAccum[i]+counter
print(catAccum)
ind=catAccum.index(max(catAccum))
print(ind)
predictedDoc.append(docKywrdmppr['Document Type'][ind])