Related
I have a complex algorithm which calculates the result of a function f(x). In the real world f(x) is a continuous function. However due to rounding errors in the algorithm this is not the case in the computer program. The following diagram gives an example:
Furthermore I have a list of several thousands values Fi.
I am looking for all the x values which meet an Fi value i.e. f(xi)=Fi
I can solve this problem with by simply iterating through the x values like in the following pseudo code:
for i=0 to NumberOfChecks-1 do
begin
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
//loop through the value list to see if the function result matches a value in the list
for j=0 to NumberOfValuesInTheList-1 do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[j])<Epsilon then
begin
//mark that element j of the list matches
//and store the corresponding x value in the list
end
end
end
Of course it is necessary to use a high number of checks. Otherwise I will miss some x values. The higher the number of checks the more complete and accurate is the result. It is acceptable that the list is 90% or 95% complete.
The problem is that this brute force approach takes too much time. As I mentioned before the algorithm for f(x) is quite complex and with a high number of checks it takes too much time.
What would be a better solution for this problem?
Another way to do this is in two parts: generate all of the results, sort them, and then merge with the sorted list of existing results.
First step is to compute all of the results and save them along with the x value that generated them. That is:
results = list of <x, result>
for i = 0 to numberOfChecks
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
results.Add(x, FunctionResult)
end for
Now, sort the results list by FunctionResult, and also sort the FunctionResult-ListValues array by result.
You now have two sorted lists that you can move through linearly:
i = 0, j = 0;
while (i < results.length && j < ListValues.length)
{
diff = ListValues[j] - results[i];
if (Abs(diff) < Episilon)
{
// mark this one with the x value
// and move to the next result
i = i + 1
}
else if (diff > 0)
{
// list value is much larger than result. Move to next result.
i = i + 1
}
else
{
// list value is much smaller than result. Move to next list value.
j = j + 1
}
}
Sort the list, producing an array SortedListValues that contains
the sorted ListValues and an array SortedListValueIndices that
contains the index in the original array of each entry in
SortedListValues. You only actually need the second of these and
you can create both of them with a single sort by sorting an array
of tuples of (value, index) using value as the sort key.
Iterate over your range in 0..NumberOfChecks-1 and compute the
value of the function at each step, and then use a binary chop
method to search for it in the sorted list.
Pseudo-code:
// sort as described above
SortedListValueIndices = sortIndices(ListValues);
for i=0 to NumberOfChecks-1 do
begin
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
// do a binary chop to find the closest element in the list
highIndex = NumberOfValuesInTheList-1;
lowIndex = 0;
while true do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[lowIndex]])<Epsilon then
begin
// find all elements in the range that match, breaking out
// of the loop as soon as one doesn't
for j=lowIndex to NumberOfValuesInTheList-1 do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[j]])>=Epsilon then
break
//mark that element SortedListValueIndices[j] of the list matches
//and store the corresponding x value in the list
end
// break out of the binary chop loop
break
end
// break out of the loop once the indices match
if highIndex <= lowIndex then
break
// do the binary chop searching, adjusting the indices:
middleIndex = (lowIndex + 1 + highIndex) / 2;
if ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[middleIndex] < FunctionResult then
lowIndex = middleIndex;
else
begin
highIndex = middleIndex;
lowIndex = lowIndex + 1;
end
end
end
Possible complications:
The binary chop isn't taking the epsilon into account. Depending on
your data this may or may not be an issue. If it is acceptable that
the list is only 90 or 95% complete this might be ok. If not then
you'll need to widen the range to take it into account.
I've assumed you want to be able to match multiple x values for each FunctionResult. If that's not necessary you can simplify the code.
Naturally this depends very much on the data, and especially on the numeric distribution of Fi. Another problem is that the f(x) looks very jumpy, eliminating the concept of "assumption of nearby value".
But one could optimise the search.
Picture below.
Walking through F(x) at sufficient granularity, define a rough min
(red line) and max (green line), using suitable tolerance (the "air"
or "gap" in between). The area between min and max is "AREA".
See where each Fi-value hits AREA, do a stacked marking ("MARKING") at X-axis accordingly (can be multiple segments of X).
Where lots of MARKINGs at top of each other (higher sum - the vertical black "sum" arrows), do dense hit tests, hence increasing the overall
chance to get as many hits as possible. Elsewhere do more sparse tests.
Tighten this schema (decrease tolerance) as much as you dare.
EDIT: Fi is a bit confusing. Is it an ordered array or does it have random order (as i assumed)?
Jim Mischel's solution would work in a O(i+j) instead of the O(i*j) solution that you currently have. But, there is a (very) minor bug in his code. The correct code would be :
diff = ListValues[j] - results[i]; //no abs() here
if (abs(diff) < Episilon) //add abs() here
{
// mark this one with the x value
// and move to the next result
i = i + 1
}
the best methods will relay on the nature of your function f(x).
The best solution is if you can create the reversing to F(x) and use it
as you said F(x) is continuous:
therefore you can start evaluating small amount of far points, then find ranges that makes sense, and refine your "assumption" for x that f(x)=Fi
it is not bullet proof, but it is an option.
e.g. Fi=5.7; f(1)=1.4 ,f(4)=4,f(16)=12.6, f(10)=10.1, f(7)=6.5, f(5)=5.1, f(6)=5.8, you can take 5 < x < 7
on the same line as #1, and IF F(x) is hard to calculate, you can use Interpolation, and then evaluate F(x) only at the values that are probable.
Given are an iterator it over data points, the number of data points we have n, and the maximum number of samples we want to use to do some calculations (maxSamples).
Imagine a function calculateStatistics(Iterator it, int n, int maxSamples). This function should use the iterator to retrieve the data and do some (heavy) calculations on the data element retrieved.
if n <= maxSamples we will of course use each element we get from the iterator
if n > maxSamples we will have to choose which elements to look at and which to skip
I've been spending quite some time on this. The problem is of course how to choose when to skip an element and when to keep it. My approaches so far:
I don't want to take the first maxSamples coming from the iterator, because the values might not be evenly distributed.
Another idea was to use a random number generator and let me create maxSamples (distinct) random numbers between 0 and n and take the elements at these positions. But if e.g. n = 101 and maxSamples = 100 it gets more and more difficult to find a new distinct number not yet in the list, loosing lot of time just in the random number generation
My last idea was to do the contrary: to generate n - maxSamples random numbers and exclude the data elements at these positions elements. But this also doesn't seem to be a very good solution.
Do you have a good idea for this problem? Are there maybe standard known algorithms for this?
To provide some answer, a good way to collect a set of random numbers given collection size > elements needed, is the following. (in C++ ish pseudo code).
EDIT: you may need to iterate over and create the "someElements" vector first. If your elements are large they can be "pointers" to these elements to save space.
vector randomCollectionFromVector(someElements, numElementsToGrab) {
while(numElementsToGrab--) {
randPosition = rand() % someElements.size();
resultVector.push(someElements.get(randPosition))
someElements.remove(randPosition);
}
return resultVector;
}
If you don't care about changing your vector of elements, you could also remove random elements from someElements, as you mentioned. The algorithm would look very similar, and again, this is conceptually the same idea, you just pass someElements by reference, and manipulate it.
Something worth noting, is the quality of psuedo random distributions as far as how random they are, grows as the size of the distribution you used increases. So, you may tend to get better results if you pick which method you use based on which method results in the use of more random numbers. Example: if you have 100 values, and need 99, you should probably pick 99 values, as this will result in you using 99 pseudo random numbers, instead of just 1. Conversely, if you have 1000 values, and need 99, you should probably prefer the version where you remove 901 values, because you use more numbers from the psuedo random distribution. If what you want is a solid random distribution, this is a very simple optimization, that will greatly increase the quality of "fake randomness" that you see. Alternatively, if performance matters more than distribution, you would take the alternative or even just grab the first 99 values approach.
interval = n/(n-maxSamples) //an euclidian division of course
offset = random(0..(n-1)) //a random number between 0 and n-1
totalSkip = 0
indexSample = 0;
FOR it IN samples DO
indexSample++ // goes from 1 to n
IF totalSkip < (n-maxSamples) AND indexSample+offset % interval == 0 THEN
//do nothing with this sample
totalSkip++
ELSE
//work with this sample
ENDIF
ENDFOR
ASSERT(totalSkip == n-maxSamples) //to be sure
interval represents the distance between two samples to skip.
offset is not mandatory but it allows to have a very little diversity.
Based on the discussion, and greater understanding of your problem, I suggest the following. You can take advantage of a property of prime numbers that I think will net you a very good solution, that will appear to grab pseudo random numbers. It is illustrated in the following code.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
const int SOME_LARGE_PRIME = 577; //This prime should be larger than the size of your data set.
const int NUM_ELEMENTS = 100;
int lastValue = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < NUM_ELEMENTS; i++) {
lastValue += SOME_LARGE_PRIME;
cout << lastValue % NUM_ELEMENTS << endl;
}
}
Using the logic presented here, you can create a table of all values from 1 to "NUM_ELEMENTS". Because of the properties of prime numbers, you will not get any duplicates until you rotate all the way around back to the size of your data set. If you then take the first "NUM_SAMPLES" of these, and sort them, you can iterate through your data structure, and grab a pseudo random distribution of numbers(not very good random, but more random than a pre-determined interval), without extra space and only one pass over your data. Better yet, you can change the layout of the distribution by grabbing a random prime number each time, again must be larger than your data set, or the following example breaks.
PRIME = 3, data set size = 99. Won't work.
Of course, ultimately this is very similar to the pre-determined interval, but it inserts a level of randomness that you do not get by simply grabbing every "size/num_samples"th element.
This is called the Reservoir sampling
I have an Array with 1 and 0 spread over the array randomly.
int arr[N] = {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1....................N}
Now I want to retrive all the 1's in the array as fast as possible, but the condition is I should not loose the exact position(based on index) of the array , so sorting option not valid.
So the only option left is linear searching ie O(n) , is there anything better than this.
The main problem behind linear scan is , I need to run the scan even
for X times. So I feel I need to have some kind of other datastructure
which maintains this list once the first linear scan happens, so that
I need not to run the linear scan again and again.
Let me be clear about final expectations-
I just need to find the number of 1's in a certain range of array , precisely I need to find numbers of 1's in the array within range of 40-100. So this can be random range and I need to find the counts of 1 within that range. I can't do sum and all as I need to iterate over the array over and over again because of different range requirements
I'm surprised you considered sorting as a faster alternative to linear search.
If you don't know where the ones occur, then there is no better way than linear searching. Perhaps if you used bits or char datatypes you could do some optimizations, but it depends on how you want to use this.
The best optimization that you could do on this is to overcome branch prediction. Because each value is zero or one, you can use it to advance the index of the array that is used to store the one-indices.
Simple approach:
int end = 0;
int indices[N];
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
if( arr[i] ) indices[end++] = i; // Slow due to branch prediction
}
Without branching:
int end = 0;
int indices[N];
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
indices[end] = i;
end += arr[i];
}
[edit] I tested the above, and found the version without branching was almost 3 times faster (4.36s versus 11.88s for 20 repeats on a randomly populated 100-million element array).
Coming back here to post results, I see you have updated your requirements. What you want is really easy with a dynamic programming approach...
All you do is create a new array that is one element larger, which stores the number of ones from the beginning of the array up to (but not including) the current index.
arr : 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
count : 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 7
(I've offset arr above so it lines up better)
Now you can compute the number of 1s in any range in O(1) time. To compute the number of 1s between index A and B, you just do:
int num = count[B+1] - count[A];
Obviously you can still use the non-branch-prediction version to generate the counts initially. All this should give you a pretty good speedup over the naive approach of summing for every query:
int *count = new int[N+1];
int total = 0;
count[0] = 0;
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
total += arr[i];
count[i+1] = total;
}
// to compute the ranged sum:
int range_sum( int *count, int a, int b )
{
if( b < a ) return range_sum(b,a);
return count[b+1] - count[a];
}
Well one time linear scanning is fine. Since you are looking for multiple scans across ranges of array I think that can be done in constant time. Here you go:
Scan the array and create a bitmap where key = key of array = sequence (1,2,3,4,5,6....).The value storedin bitmap would be a tuple<IsOne,cumulativeSum> where isOne is whether you have a one in there and cumulative Sum is addition of 1's as and wen you encounter them
Array = 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Tuple: (1,1) (1,2) (0,2) (0,2) (1,3) (0,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6) (0,6) (1,7) (0,7)
CASE 1: When lower bound of cumulativeSum has a 0. Number of 1's [6,11] =
cumulativeSum at 11th position - cumulativeSum at 6th position = 7 - 3 = 4
CASE 2: When lower bound of cumulativeSum has a 1. Number of 1's [2,11] =
cumulativeSum at 11th position - cumulativeSum at 2nd position + 1 = 7-2+1 = 6
Step 1 is O(n)
Step 2 is 0(1)
Total complexity is linear no doubt but for your task where you have to work with the ranges several times the above Algorithm seems to be better if you have ample memory :)
Does it have to be a simple linear array data structure? Or can you create your own data structure which happens to have the desired properties, for which you're able to provide the required API, but whose implementation details can be hidden (encapsulated)?
If you can implement your own and if there is some guaranteed sparsity (to either 1s or 0s) then you might be able to offer better than linear performance. I see that you want to preserve (or be able to regenerate) the exact stream, so you'll have to store an array or bitmap or run-length encoding for that. (RLE will be useless if the stream is actually random rather than arbitrary but could be quite useful if there are significant sparsity or patterns with long strings of one or the other. For example a black&white raster of a bitmapped image is often a good candidate for RLE).
Let's say that your guaranteed that the stream will be sparse --- that no more than 10%, for example, of the bits will be 1s (or, conversely that more than 90% will be). If that's the case then you might model your solution on an RLE and maintain a count of all 1s (simply incremented as you set bits and decremented as you clear them). If there might be a need to quickly get the number of set bits for arbitrary ranges of these elements then instead of a single counter you can have a conveniently sized array of counters for partitions of the stream. (Conveniently-sized, in this case, means something which fits easily within memory, within your caches, or register sets, but which offers a reasonable trade off between computing a sum (all the partitions fully within the range) and the linear scan. The results for any arbitrary range is the sum of all the partitions fully enclosed by the range plus the results of linear scans for any fragments that are not aligned on your partition boundaries.
For a very, very, large stream you could even have a multi-tier "index" of partition sums --- traversing from the largest (most coarse) granularity down toward the "fragments" to either end (using the next layer of partition sums) and finishing with the linear search of only the small fragments.
Obviously such a structure represents trade offs between the complexity of building and maintaining the structure (inserting requires additional operations and, for an RLE, might be very expensive for anything other than appending/prepending) vs the expense of performing arbitrarily long linear search/increment scans.
If:
the purpose is to be able to find the number of 1s in the array at any time,
given that relatively few of the values in the array might change between one moment when you want to know the number and another moment, and
if you have to find the number of 1s in a changing array of n values m times,
... you can certainly do better than examining every cell in the array m times by using a caching strategy.
The first time you need the number of 1s, you certainly have to examine every cell, as others have pointed out. However, if you then store the number of 1s in a variable (say sum) and track changes to the array (by, for instance, requiring that all array updates occur through a specific update() function), every time a 0 is replaced in the array with a 1, the update() function can add 1 to sum and every time a 1 is replaced in the array with a 0, the update() function can subtract 1 from sum.
Thus, sum is always up-to-date after the first time that the number of 1s in the array is counted and there is no need for further counting.
(EDIT to take the updated question into account)
If the need is to return the number of 1s in a given range of the array, that can be done with a slightly more sophisticated caching strategy than the one I've just described.
You can keep a count of the 1s in each subset of the array and update the relevant subset count whenever a 0 is changed to a 1 or vice versa within that subset. Finding the total number of 1s in a given range within the array would then be a matter of adding the number of 1s in each subset that is fully contained within the range and then counting the number of 1s that are in the range but not in the subsets that have already been counted.
Depending on circumstances, it might be worthwhile to have a hierarchical arrangement in which (say) the number of 1s in the whole array is at the top of the hierarchy, the number of 1s in each 1/q th of the array is in the second level of the hierarchy, the number of 1s in each 1/(q^2) th of the array is in the third level of the hierarchy, etc. e.g. for q = 4, you would have the total number of 1s at the top, the number of 1s in each quarter of the array at the second level, the number of 1s in each sixteenth of the array at the third level, etc.
Are you using C (or derived language)? If so, can you control the encoding of your array? If, for example, you could use a bitmap to count. The nice thing about a bitmap, is that you can use a lookup table to sum the counts, though if your subrange ends aren't divisible by 8, you'll have to deal with end partial bytes specially, but the speedup will be significant.
If that's not the case, can you at least encode them as single bytes? In that case, you may be able to exploit sparseness if it exists (more specifically, the hope that there are often multi index swaths of zeros).
So for:
u8 input = {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1....................N};
You can write something like (untested):
uint countBytesBy1FromTo(u8 *input, uint start, uint stop)
{ // function for counting one byte at a time, use with range of less than 4,
// use functions below for longer ranges
// assume it's just one's and zeros, otherwise we have to test/branch
uint sum;
u8 *end = input + stop;
for (u8 *each = input + start; each < end; each++)
sum += *each;
return sum;
}
countBytesBy8FromTo(u8 *input, uint start, uint stop)
{
u64 *chunks = (u64*)(input+start);
u64 *end = chunks + ((start - stop) >> 3);
uint sum = countBytesBy1FromTo((u8*)end, 0, stop - (u8*)end);
for (; chunks < end; chunks++)
{
if (*chunks)
{
sum += countBytesBy1FromTo((u8*)chunks, 0, 8);
}
}
}
The basic trick, is exploiting the ability to cast slices of your target array to single entities your language can look at in one swoop, and test by inference if ANY of the values of it are zeros, and then skip the whole block. The more zeros, the better it will work. In the case where your large cast integer always has at least one, this approach just adds overhead. You might find that using a u32 is better for your data. Or that adding a u32 test between the 1 and 8 helps. For datasets where zeros are much more common than ones, I've used this technique to great advantage.
Why is sorting invalid? You can clone the original array, sort the clone, and count and/or mark the locations of the 1s as needed.
Generate a random number in range [x..y] where x and y are any arbitrary floating point numbers. Use function random(), which returns a random floating point number in range [0..1] from P uniformly distributed numbers (call it "density"). Uniform distribution must be preserved and P must be scaled as well.
I think, there is no easy solution for such problem. To simplify it a bit, I ask you how to generate a number in interval [-0.5 .. 0.5], then in [0 .. 2], then in [-2 .. 0], preserving uniformness and density? Thus, for [0 .. 2] it must generate a random number from P*2 uniformly distributed numbers.
The obvious simple solution random() * (x - y) + y will generate not all possible numbers because of the lower density for all abs(x-y)>1.0 cases. Many possible values will be missed. Remember, that random() returns only a number from P possible numbers. Then, if you multiply such number by Q, it will give you only one of P possible values, scaled by Q, but you have to scale density P by Q as well.
If I understand you problem well, I will provide you a solution: but I would exclude 1, from the range.
N = numbers_in_your_random // [0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8] will be 5
// This turns your random number generator to return integer values between [0..N[;
function randomInt()
{
return random()*N;
}
// This turns the integer random number generator to return arbitrary
// integer
function getRandomInt(maxValue)
{
if (maxValue < N)
{
return randomInt() % maxValue;
}
else
{
baseValue = randomInt();
bRate = maxValue DIV N;
bMod = maxValue % N;
if (baseValue < bMod)
{
bRate++;
}
return N*getRandomInt(bRate) + baseValue;
}
}
// This will return random number in range [lower, upper[ with the same density as random()
function extendedRandom(lower, upper)
{
diff = upper - lower;
ndiff = diff * N;
baseValue = getRandomInt(ndiff);
baseValue/=N;
return lower + baseValue;
}
If you really want to generate all possible floating point numbers in a given range with uniform numeric density, you need to take into account the floating point format. For each possible value of your binary exponent, you have a different numeric density of codes. A direct generation method will need to deal with this explicitly, and an indirect generation method will still need to take it into account. I will develop a direct method; for the sake of simplicity, the following refers exclusively to IEEE 754 single-precision (32-bit) floating point numbers.
The most difficult case is any interval that includes zero. In that case, to produce an exactly even distribution, you will need to handle every exponent down to the lowest, plus denormalized numbers. As a special case, you will need to split zero into two cases, +0 and -0.
In addition, if you are paying such close attention to the result, you will need to make sure that you are using a good pseudorandom number generator with a large enough state space that you can expect it to hit every value with near-uniform probability. This disqualifies the C/Unix rand() and possibly the*rand48() library functions; you should use something like the Mersenne Twister instead.
The key is to dissect the target interval into subintervals, each of which is covered by different combination of binary exponent and sign: within each subinterval, floating point codes are uniformly distributed.
The first step is to select the appropriate subinterval, with probability proportional to its size. If the interval contains 0, or otherwise covers a large dynamic range, this may potentially require a number of random bits up to the full range of the available exponent.
In particular, for a 32-bit IEEE-754 number, there are 256 possible exponent values. Each exponent governs a range which is half the size of the next greater exponent, except for the denormalized case, which is the same size as the smallest normal exponent region. Zero can be considered the smallest denormalized number; as mentioned above, if the target interval straddles zero, the probability of each of +0 and -0 should perhaps be cut in half, to avoid doubling its weight.
If the subinterval chosen covers the entire region governed by a particular exponent, all that is necessary is to fill the mantissa with random bits (23 bits, for 32-bit IEEE-754 floats). However, if the subinterval does not cover the entire region, you will need to generate a random mantissa that covers only that subinterval.
The simplest way to handle both the initial and secondary random steps may be to round the target interval out to include the entirety of all exponent regions partially covered, then reject and retry numbers that fall outside it. This allows the exponent to be generated with simple power-of-2 probabilities (e.g., by counting the number of leading zeroes in your random bitstream), as well as providing a simple and accurate way of generating a mantissa that covers only part of an exponent interval. (This is also a good way of handling the +/-0 special case.)
As another special case: to avoid inefficient generation for target intervals which are much smaller than the exponent regions they reside in, the "obvious simple" solution will in fact generate fairly uniform numbers for such intervals. If you want exactly uniform distributions, you can generate the sub-interval mantissa by using only enough random bits to cover that sub-interval, while still using the aforementioned rejection method to eliminate values outside the target interval.
well, [0..1] * 2 == [0..2] (still uniform)
[0..1] - 0.5 == [-0.5..0.5] etc.
I wonder where have you experienced such an interview?
Update: well, if we want to start caring about losing precision on multiplication (which is weird, because somehow you did not care about that in the original task, and pretend we care about "number of values", we can start iterating. In order to do that, we need one more function, which would return uniformly distributed random values in [0..1) — which can be done by dropping the 1.0 value would it ever appear. After that, we can slice the whole range in equal parts small enough to not care about losing precision, choose one randomly (we have enough randomness to do that), and choose a number in this bucket using [0..1) function for all parts but the last one.
Or, you can come up with a way to code enough values to care about—and just generate random bits for this code, in which case you don't really care whether it's [0..1] or just {0, 1}.
Let me rephrase your question:
Let random() be a random number generator with a discrete uniform distribution over [0,1). Let D be the number of possible values returned by random(), each of which is precisely 1/D greater than the previous. Create a random number generator rand(L, U) with a discrete uniform distribution over [L, U) such that each possible value is precisely 1/D greater than the previous.
--
A couple quick notes.
The problem in this form, and as you phrased it is unsolvable. That
is, if N = 1 there is nothing we can do.
I don't require that 0.0 be one of the possible values for random(). If it is not, then it is possible that the solution below will fail when U - L < 1 / D. I'm not particularly worried about that case.
I use all half-open ranges because it makes the analysis simpler. Using your closed ranges would be simple, but tedious.
Finally, the good stuff. The key insight here is that the density can be maintained by independently selecting the whole and fractional parts of the result.
First, note that given random() it is trivial to create randomBit(). That is,
randomBit() { return random() >= 0.5; }
Then, if we want to select one of {0, 1, 2, ..., 2^N - 1} uniformly at random, that is simple using randomBit(), just generate each of the bits. Call this random2(N).
Using random2() we can select one of {0, 1, 2, ..., N - 1}:
randomInt(N) { while ((val = random2(ceil(log2(N)))) >= N); return val; }
Now, if D is known, then the problem is trivial as we can reduce it to simply choosing one of floor((U - L) * D) values uniformly at random and we can do that with randomInt().
So, let's assume that D is not known. Now, let's first make a function to generate random values in the range [0, 2^N) with the proper density. This is simple.
rand2D(N) { return random2(N) + random(); }
rand2D() is where we require that the difference between consecutive possible values for random() be precisely 1/D. If not, the possible values here would not have uniform density.
Next, we need a function that selects a value in the range [0, V) with the proper density. This is similar to randomInt() above.
randD(V) { while ((val = rand2D(ceil(log2(V)))) >= V); return val; }
And finally...
rand(L, U) { return L + randD(U - L); }
We now may have offset the discrete positions if L / D is not an integer, but that is unimportant.
--
A last note, you may have noticed that several of these functions may never terminate. That is essentially a requirement. For example, random() may have only a single bit of randomness. If I then ask you to select from one of three values, you cannot do so uniformly at random with a function that is guaranteed to terminate.
Consider this approach:
I'm assuming the base random number generator in the range [0..1]
generates among the numbers
0, 1/(p-1), 2/(p-1), ..., (p-2)/(p-1), (p-1)/(p-1)
If the target interval length is less than or equal to 1,
return random()*(y-x) + x.
Else, map each number r from the base RNG to an interval in the
target range:
[r*(p-1)*(y-x)/p, (r+1/(p-1))*(p-1)*(y-x)/p]
(i.e. for each of the P numbers assign one of P intervals with length (y-x)/p)
Then recursively generate another random number in that interval and
add it to the interval begin.
Pseudocode:
const p;
function rand(x, y)
r = random()
if y-x <= 1
return x + r*(y-x)
else
low = r*(p-1)*(y-x)/p
high = low + (y-x)/p
return x + low + rand(low, high)
In real math: the solution is just the provided:
return random() * (upper - lower) + lower
The problem is that, even when you have floating point numbers, only have a certain resolution. So what you can do is apply above function and add another random() value scaled to the missing part.
If I make a practical example it becomes clear what I mean:
E.g. take random() return value from 0..1 with 2 digits accuracy, ie 0.XY, and lower with 100 and upper with 1100.
So with above algorithm you get as result 0.XY * (1100-100) + 100 = XY0.0 + 100.
You will never see 201 as result, as the final digit has to be 0.
Solution here would be to generate again a random value and add it *10, so you have accuracy of one digit (here you have to take care that you dont exceed your given range, which can happen, in this case you have to discard the result and generate a new number).
Maybe you have to repeat it, how often depends on how many places the random() function delivers and how much you expect in your final result.
In a standard IEEE format has a limited precision (i.e. double 53 bits). So when you generate a number this way, you never need to generate more than one additional number.
But you have to be careful that when you add the new number, you dont exceed your given upper limit. There are multiple solutions to it: First if you exceed your limit, you start from new, generating a new number (dont cut off or similar, as this changes the distribution).
Second possibility is to check the the intervall size of the missing lower bit range, and
find the middle value, and generate an appropiate value, that guarantees that the result will fit.
You have to consider the amount of entropy that comes from each call to your RNG. Here is some C# code I just wrote that demonstrates how you can accumulate entropy from low-entropy source(s) and end up with a high-entropy random value.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Security.Cryptography;
namespace SO_8019589
{
class LowEntropyRandom
{
public readonly double EffectiveEntropyBits;
public readonly int PossibleOutcomeCount;
private readonly double interval;
private readonly Random random = new Random();
public LowEntropyRandom(int possibleOutcomeCount)
{
PossibleOutcomeCount = possibleOutcomeCount;
EffectiveEntropyBits = Math.Log(PossibleOutcomeCount, 2);
interval = 1.0 / PossibleOutcomeCount;
}
public LowEntropyRandom(int possibleOutcomeCount, int seed)
: this(possibleOutcomeCount)
{
random = new Random(seed);
}
public int Next()
{
return random.Next(PossibleOutcomeCount);
}
public double NextDouble()
{
return interval * Next();
}
}
class EntropyAccumulator
{
private List<byte> currentEntropy = new List<byte>();
public double CurrentEntropyBits { get; private set; }
public void Clear()
{
currentEntropy.Clear();
CurrentEntropyBits = 0;
}
public void Add(byte[] entropy, double effectiveBits)
{
currentEntropy.AddRange(entropy);
CurrentEntropyBits += effectiveBits;
}
public byte[] GetBytes(int count)
{
using (var hasher = new SHA512Managed())
{
count = Math.Min(count, hasher.HashSize / 8);
var bytes = new byte[count];
var hash = hasher.ComputeHash(currentEntropy.ToArray());
Array.Copy(hash, bytes, count);
return bytes;
}
}
public byte[] GetPackagedEntropy()
{
// Returns a compact byte array that represents almost all of the entropy.
return GetBytes((int)(CurrentEntropyBits / 8));
}
public double GetDouble()
{
// returns a uniformly distributed number on [0-1)
return (double)BitConverter.ToUInt64(GetBytes(8), 0) / ((double)UInt64.MaxValue + 1);
}
public double GetInt(int maxValue)
{
// returns a uniformly distributed integer on [0-maxValue)
return (int)(maxValue * GetDouble());
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var random = new LowEntropyRandom(2); // this only provides 1 bit of entropy per call
var desiredEntropyBits = 64; // enough for a double
while (true)
{
var adder = new EntropyAccumulator();
while (adder.CurrentEntropyBits < desiredEntropyBits)
{
adder.Add(BitConverter.GetBytes(random.Next()), random.EffectiveEntropyBits);
}
Console.WriteLine(adder.GetDouble());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
}
Since I'm using a 512-bit hash function, that is the max amount of entropy that you can get out of the EntropyAccumulator. This could be fixed, if necessarily.
If I understand your problem correctly, it's that rand() generates finely spaced but ultimately discrete random numbers. And if we multiply it by (y-x) which is large, this spreads these finely spaced floating point values out in a way that is missing many of the floating point values in the range [x,y]. Is that all right?
If so, I think we have a solution already given by Dialecticus. Let me explain why he is right.
First, we know how to generate a random float and then add another floating point value to it. This may produce a round off error due to addition, but it will be in the last decimal place only. Use doubles or something with finer numerical resolution if you want better precision. So, with that caveat, the problem is no harder than finding a random float in the range [0,y-x] with uniform density. Let's say y-x = z. Obviously, since z is a floating point it may not be an integer. We handle the problem in two steps: first we generate the random digits to the left of the decimal point and then generate the random digits to the right of it. Doing both uniformly means their sum is uniformly distributed across the range [0,z] too. Let w be the largest integer <= z. To answer our simplified problem, we can first pick a random integer from the range {0,1,...,w}. Then, step #2 is to add a random float from the unit interval to this random number. This isn't multiplied by any possibly large values, so it has as fine a resolution as the numerical type can have. (Assuming you're using an ideal random floating point number generator.)
So what about the corner case where the random integer was the largest one (i.e. w) and the random float we added to it was larger than z - w so that the random number exceeds the allowed maximum? The answer is simple: do all of it again and check the new result. Repeat until you get a digit in the allowed range. It's an easy proof that a uniformly generated random number which is tossed out and generated again if it's outside an allowed range results in a uniformly generated random in the allowed range. Once you make this key observation, you see that Dialecticus met all your criteria.
When you generate a random number with random(), you get a floating point number between 0 and 1 having an unknown precision (or density, you name it).
And when you multiply it with a number (NUM), you lose this precision, by lg(NUM) (10-based logarithm). So if you multiply by 1000 (NUM=1000), you lose the last 3 digits (lg(1000) = 3).
You may correct this by adding a smaller random number to the original, which has this missing 3 digits. But you don't know the precision, so you can't determine where are they exactly.
I can imagine two scenarios:
(X = range start, Y = range end)
1: you define the precision (PREC, eg. 20 digits, so PREC=20), and consider it enough to generate a random number, so the expression will be:
( random() * (Y-X) + X ) + ( random() / 10 ^ (PREC-trunc(lg(Y-X))) )
with numbers: (X = 500, Y = 1500, PREC = 20)
( random() * (1500-500) + 500 ) + ( random() / 10 ^ (20-trunc(lg(1000))) )
( random() * 1000 + 500 ) + ( random() / 10 ^ (17) )
There are some problems with this:
2 phase random generation (how much will it be random?)
the first random returns 1 -> result can be out of range
2: guess the precision by random numbers
you define some tries (eg. 4) to calculate the precision by generating random numbers and count the precision every time:
- 0.4663164 -> PREC=7
- 0.2581916 -> PREC=7
- 0.9147385 -> PREC=7
- 0.129141 -> PREC=6 -> 7, correcting by the average of the other tries
That's my idea.
There is a file that contains 10G(1000000000) number of integers, please find the Median of these integers. you are given 2G memory to do this. Can anyone come up with an reasonable way? thanks!
Create an array of 8-byte longs that has 2^16 entries. Take your input numbers, shift off the bottom sixteen bits, and create a histogram.
Now you count up in that histogram until you reach the bin that covers the midpoint of the values.
Pass through again, ignoring all numbers that don't have that same set of top bits, and make a histogram of the bottom bits.
Count up through that histogram until you reach the bin that covers the midpoint of the (entire list of) values.
Now you know the median, in O(n) time and O(1) space (in practice, under 1 MB).
Here's some sample Scala code that does this:
def medianFinder(numbers: Iterable[Int]) = {
def midArgMid(a: Array[Long], mid: Long) = {
val cuml = a.scanLeft(0L)(_ + _).drop(1)
cuml.zipWithIndex.dropWhile(_._1 < mid).head
}
val topHistogram = new Array[Long](65536)
var count = 0L
numbers.foreach(number => {
count += 1
topHistogram(number>>>16) += 1
})
val (topCount,topIndex) = midArgMid(topHistogram, (count+1)/2)
val botHistogram = new Array[Long](65536)
numbers.foreach(number => {
if ((number>>>16) == topIndex) botHistogram(number & 0xFFFF) += 1
})
val (botCount,botIndex) =
midArgMid(botHistogram, (count+1)/2 - (topCount-topHistogram(topIndex)))
(topIndex<<16) + botIndex
}
and here it is working on a small set of input data:
scala> medianFinder(List(1,123,12345,1234567,123456789))
res18: Int = 12345
If you have 64 bit integers stored, you can use the same strategy in 4 passes instead.
You can use the Medians of Medians algorithm.
If the file is in text format, you may be able to fit it in memory just by converting things to integers as you read them in, since an integer stored as characters may take more space than an integer stored as an integer, depending on the size of the integers and the type of text file. EDIT: You edited your original question; I can see now that you can't read them into memory, see below.
If you can't read them into memory, this is what I came up with:
Figure out how many integers you have. You may know this from the start. If not, then it only takes one pass through the file. Let's say this is S.
Use your 2G of memory to find the x largest integers (however many you can fit). You can do one pass through the file, keeping the x largest in a sorted list of some sort, discarding the rest as you go. Now you know the x-th largest integer. You can discard all of these except for the x-th largest, which I'll call x1.
Do another pass through, finding the next x largest integers less than x1, the least of which is x2.
I think you can see where I'm going with this. After a few passes, you will have read in the (S/2)-th largest integer (you'll have to keep track of how many integers you've found), which is your median. If S is even then you'll average the two in the middle.
Make a pass through the file and find count of integers and minimum and maximum integer value.
Take midpoint of min and max, and get count, min and max for values either side of the midpoint - by again reading through the file.
partition count > count => median lies within that partition.
Repeat for the partition, taking into account size of 'partitions to the left' (easy to maintain), and also watching for min = max.
Am sure this'd work for an arbitrary number of partitions as well.
Do an on-disk external mergesort on the file to sort the integers (counting them if that's not already known).
Once the file is sorted, seek to the middle number (odd case), or average the two middle numbers (even case) in the file to get the median.
The amount of memory used is adjustable and unaffected by the number of integers in the original file. One caveat of the external sort is that the intermediate sorting data needs to be written to disk.
Given n = number of integers in the original file:
Running time: O(nlogn)
Memory: O(1), adjustable
Disk: O(n)
Check out Torben's method in here:http://ndevilla.free.fr/median/median/index.html. It also has implementation in C at the bottom of the document.
My best guess that probabilistic median of medians would be the fastest one. Recipe:
Take next set of N integers (N should be big enough, say 1000 or 10000 elements)
Then calculate median of these integers and assign it to variable X_new.
If iteration is not first - calculate median of two medians:
X_global = (X_global + X_new) / 2
When you will see that X_global fluctuates not much - this means that you found approximate median of data.
But there some notes :
question arises - Is median error acceptable or not.
integers must be distributed randomly in a uniform way, for solution to work
EDIT:
I've played a bit with this algorithm, changed a bit idea - in each iteration we should sum X_new with decreasing weight, such as:
X_global = k*X_global + (1.-k)*X_new :
k from [0.5 .. 1.], and increases in each iteration.
Point is to make calculation of median to converge fast to some number in very small amount of iterations. So that very approximate median (with big error) is found between 100000000 array elements in only 252 iterations !!! Check this C experiment:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#define ARRAY_SIZE 100000000
#define RANGE_SIZE 1000
// probabilistic median of medians method
// should print 5000 as data average
// from ARRAY_SIZE of elements
int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
int iter = 0;
int X_global = 0;
int X_new = 0;
int i = 0;
float dk = 0.002;
float k = 0.5;
srand(time(NULL));
while (i<ARRAY_SIZE && k!=1.) {
X_new=0;
for (int j=i; j<i+RANGE_SIZE; j++) {
X_new+=rand()%10000 + 1;
}
X_new/=RANGE_SIZE;
if (iter>0) {
k += dk;
k = (k>1.)? 1.:k;
X_global = k*X_global+(1.-k)*X_new;
}
else {
X_global = X_new;
}
i+=RANGE_SIZE+1;
iter++;
printf("iter %d, median = %d \n",iter,X_global);
}
return 0;
}
Opps seems i'm talking about mean, not median. If it is so, and you need exactly median, not mean - ignore my post. In any case mean and median are very related concepts.
Good luck.
Here is the algorithm described by #Rex Kerr implemented in Java.
/**
* Computes the median.
* #param arr Array of strings, each element represents a distinct binary number and has the same number of bits (padded with leading zeroes if necessary)
* #return the median (number of rank ceil((m+1)/2) ) of the array as a string
*/
static String computeMedian(String[] arr) {
// rank of the median element
int m = (int) Math.ceil((arr.length+1)/2.0);
String bitMask = "";
int zeroBin = 0;
while (bitMask.length() < arr[0].length()) {
// puts elements which conform to the bitMask into one of two buckets
for (String curr : arr) {
if (curr.startsWith(bitMask))
if (curr.charAt(bitMask.length()) == '0')
zeroBin++;
}
// decides in which bucket the median is located
if (zeroBin >= m)
bitMask = bitMask.concat("0");
else {
m -= zeroBin;
bitMask = bitMask.concat("1");
}
zeroBin = 0;
}
return bitMask;
}
Some test cases and updates to the algorithm can be found here.
I was also asked the same question and i couldn't tell an exact answer so after the interview i went through some books on interviews and here is what i found from Cracking The Coding interview book.
Example: Numbers are randomly generated and stored into an (expanding) array. How
wouldyoukeep track of the median?
Our data structure brainstorm might look like the following:
• Linked list? Probably not. Linked lists tend not to do very well with accessing and
sorting numbers.
• Array? Maybe, but you already have an array. Could you somehow keep the elements
sorted? That's probably expensive. Let's hold off on this and return to it if it's needed.
• Binary tree? This is possible, since binary trees do fairly well with ordering. In fact, if the binary search tree is perfectly balanced, the top might be the median. But, be careful—if there's an even number of elements, the median is actually the average
of the middle two elements. The middle two elements can't both be at the top. This is probably a workable algorithm, but let's come back to it.
• Heap? A heap is really good at basic ordering and keeping track of max and mins.
This is actually interesting—if you had two heaps, you could keep track of the bigger
half and the smaller half of the elements. The bigger half is kept in a min heap, such
that the smallest element in the bigger half is at the root.The smaller half is kept in a
max heap, such that the biggest element of the smaller half is at the root. Now, with
these data structures, you have the potential median elements at the roots. If the
heaps are no longer the same size, you can quickly "rebalance" the heaps by popping
an element off the one heap and pushing it onto the other.
Note that the more problems you do, the more developed your instinct on which data
structure to apply will be. You will also develop a more finely tuned instinct as to which of these approaches is the most useful.