Related
I have an array which contains names and percentages.
Example:
[["JAMES", 3.318], ["JOHN", 3.271], ["ROBERT", 3.143]].
Now I have about a thousand of these names, and I'm trying to figure out how to choose a name randomly based on the percentage of the name (like how James as 3.318% and John as 3.271%), so that name will have that percentage of being picked (Robert will have a 3.143% of being picked). Help would be appreciated.
You can use max_by: (the docs contain a similar example)
array.max_by { |_, weight| rand ** 1.fdiv(weight) }
This assumes that your weights are actual percentages, i.e. 3.1% has to be expressed as 0.031. Or, if you don't want to adjust your weights:
array.max_by { |_, weight| rand ** 100.fdiv(weight) }
I'm using fdiv here to account for possible integer values. If your weights are always floats, you can also use /.
Even though I like #Stefan answer more than mine, I will contribute with a possible solution: I would distribute all my percentages along 100.0 so that they start from 0.0 and end to 100.0.
Imagine I have an array with the following percentages:
a = [10.5, 20.5, 17.8, 51.2]
where
a.sum = 100.0
We could write the following to distribute them along 100.0:
sum = 0.0
b = a.map { |el| sum += el }
and the result would be
b = [10.5, 31.0, 48.8, 100.0]
now I can generate a random number between 0.0 and 100.0:
r = rand(0.0..100.0) # or r = rand * 100.0
imagine r is 45.32.
I select the first element of b that is >= r`
idx = b.index { |el| el >= r }
which in our case would return 2.
Now you can select a[idx].
But I would go with #Stefan answer as well :)
I assume you will be drawing multiple random values, in which case efficiency is important. Moreover, I assume that all names are unique and all percentages are positive (i.e., that pairs with percentages of 0.0 have been removed).
You are given what amounts to a (discrete) probability density function (PDF). The first step is to convert that to a cumulative density function (CDF).
Suppose we are given the following array (whose percentages sum to 100).
arr = [["LOIS", 28.16], ["JAMES", 22.11], ["JOHN", 32.71], ["ROBERT", 17.02]]
First, separate the names from the percentages.
names, probs = arr.transpose
#=> [["LOIS", "JAMES", "JOHN", "ROBERT"],
# [28.16, 22.11, 32.71, 17.02]]
Next compute the CDF.
cdf = probs.drop(1).
each_with_object([0.01 * probs.first]) { |pdf, cdf|
cdf << 0.01 * pdf + cdf.last }
#=> [0.2816, 0.5027, 0.8298, 1.0]
The idea is that we will generate a (pseudo) random number between zero and one, r and find the first value c of the CDF for which r <= c.1 To do this in an efficient way we will perform an intelligent search of the CDF. This is possible because the CDF is an increasing function.
I will do a binary search, using Array#bsearch_index. This method is essentially the same as Array#bseach (whose doc is the relevant one), except the index of cdf is returned rather than the element of cdf is randomly selected. It will shortly be evident why we want the index.
r = rand
#=> 0.6257547400776025
idx = cdf.bsearch_index { |c| r <= c }
#=> 2
Note that we cannot write cdf.bsearch_index { |c| rand <= c } as rand would be executed each time the block is evaluated.
The randomly-selected name is therefore2
names[idx]
#=> "JOHN"
Now let's put all this together.
def setup(arr)
#names, probs = arr.transpose
#cdf = probs.drop(1).
each_with_object([0.01*probs.first]) { |pdf, cdf| cdf << 0.01 * pdf + cdf.last }
end
def random_name
r = rand
#names[#cdf.bsearch_index { |c| r <= c }]
end
Let's try it. Execute setup to compute the instance variables #names and #cdf.
setup(arr)
#names
#=> ["LOIS", "JAMES", "JOHN", "ROBERT"]
#cdf
#=> [0.2816, 0.5027, 0.8298, 1.0]
and then call random_name each time a random name is wanted.
5.times.map { random_name }
#=> ["JOHN", "LOIS", "JAMES", "LOIS", "JAMES"]
1. This is how most discrete random variates are generated in simulation models.
2. Had I used bsearch rather than bsearch_index I would have had to earlier create a hash with cdf=>name key-value pairs in order to retrieve a name for a given randomly-selected CDF value.
This is my solution to the problem:
array = [["name1", 33],["name2", 20],["name3",10],["name4",7],["name5", 30]]
def random_name(array)
random_number = rand(0.000..100.000)
sum = 0
array.each do |x|
if random_number.between?(sum, sum + x[1])
return x[0]
else
sum += x[1]
end
end
end
puts random_name(array)
Have the function PermutationStep (num) take the num parameter being passed and return the next number greater than num using the same digits. For example: if num is 123 return 132, if it's 12453 return 12534. If a number has no greater permutations, return -1 (ie. 999)
Here's my code. I'd like to sort an array of large integers in numerical order. Using the regular sort method doesn't give the right order for some numbers. Is there a sort_by structure that I can replace 'sort' with in my code below?
def PermutationStep(num)
num = num.to_s.split('').map {|i| i.to_i}
permutations = num.permutation.to_a.sort #<= I want to sort by numerical value here
permutations.each_with_index do |n, idx|
if n == num
if n == permutations[-1]
return -1
else
return permutations[idx+1].join.to_i
end
end
end
end
For example, 11121. When I run the code it gives me 11121.I want the next highest permutation, which should be 12111.
Also, when I try { |a,b| b <=> a }, I also get errors.
You can pass a block to sort.
num.permutation.to_a.sort { |x, y| x.to_i <=> y.to_i }
This SO thread may be of some assistance: How does Array#sort work when a block is passed?
num.permutation.to_a is an array of arrays, not an array of integers, which causes the result not what you expected.
Actually you don't need to sort since you only need the minimum integer that is bigger than the input.
def PermutationStep(num)
nums = num.to_s.split('')
permutations = nums.permutation.map{|a| a.join.to_i}
permutations.keep_if{|n| n > num}.min || -1
end
puts PermutationStep(11121) # 11211
puts PermutationStep(999) # -1
Call to_i before your sort the permutations. Once that is done, sort the array an pick the first element greater than your number:
def PermutationStep(num)
numbers = num.to_s.split('')
permutations = numbers.permutation.map { |p| p.join.to_i }.sort
permutations.detect { |p| p > num } || -1
end
You don't need to consider permutations of digits to obtain the next higher number.
Consider the number 126531.
Going from right to left, we look for the first decrease in the digits. That would be 2 < 6. Clearly we cannot obtain a higher number by permuting only the digits after the 2, but we can obtain a higher number merely by swapping 2 and 6. This will not be the next higher number, however.
We therefore look for the smallest digit to the right of 2 that is greater than 2, which would be 3. Clearly, the next higher number will begin 13 and will have the remaining digits ordered smallest to largest. Therefore, the next higher number will be 131256.
You can easily see that the next higher number for 123 is 132, and for 12453 is 12534.
The proof that procedure is correct is easily established by induction, first showing that it is correct for numbers with two digits, then assuming it is correct for numbers with n>=2 digits, showing it is correct for numbers with n+1 digits.
It can be easily implemented in code:
def next_highest(n)
a = n.to_s.reverse.split('').map(&:to_i)
last = -Float::INFINITY
x,ndx = a.each_with_index.find { |d,i| res = d<last; last=d; res }
return nil unless x
swap_val = a[ndx]
swap_ndx = (0...ndx).select { |i| a[i] > swap_val }.min_by{ |i| a[i] }
a[ndx], a[swap_ndx] = a[swap_ndx], swap_val
a[0...ndx] = a[0...ndx].sort.reverse
a.join.reverse
end
next_highest(126531) #=> "131256"
next_highest(109876543210) #=> "110023456789"
OK folks...I could use some help on getting the median of an array in ruby
Here is my code:
def median(array)
array.sort! # sort the array
elements = array.count # count the elements in the array
center = elements/2 # find the center of the array
elements.even? ? (array[center] + array[center+1])/2 : array[center] # if elements are even take both the center numbers of array and divide in half, if odd...get the center number
end
Just not certain where to apply the .to_f since it wont return anything needing a float.
Thanks
I realized you've solved your own problem already, but this version is a little cleaner and safer:
def median(array)
raise ArgumentError, 'Cannot find the median on an empty array' if array.size == 0
sorted = array.sort
midpoint, remainder = sorted.length.divmod(2)
if remainder == 0 # even count, average middle two
sorted[midpoint-1,2].inject(:+) / 2.0
else
sorted[midpoint]
end
end
Use enumerable-statistics.
https://github.com/mrkn/enumerable-statistics
This gem was created by the Ruby committer as a C extension.
I think it is reliable and fast.
It Returns int if the number of array elements is odd. If the number of array elements is even, it returns a float.
require "enumerable/statistics"
arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
arr.median # => 3
arr.median.class # => Integer
arr = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
arr.median # => 3.5
Other useful methods are also available.
mean, variance, stdev, mean_variance, mean_stdev, percentile, value_counts histogram
This is what I have so far:
myArray.map!{ rand(max) }
Obviously, however, sometimes the numbers in the list are not unique. How can I make sure my list only contains unique numbers without having to create a bigger list from which I then just pick the n unique numbers?
Edit:
I'd really like to see this done w/o loop - if at all possible.
(0..50).to_a.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }[0..x]
(0..50).to_a can be replaced with any array.
0 is "minvalue", 50 is "max value"
x is "how many values i want out"
of course, its impossible for x to be permitted to be greater than max-min :)
In expansion of how this works
(0..5).to_a ==> [0,1,2,3,4,5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ -1 } ==> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ 1 } ==> [5, 3, 0, 4, 2, 1] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ rand() - 0.5 } ==> [1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ] # random
[1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ][ 0..2 ] ==> [1, 5, 0 ]
Footnotes:
It is worth mentioning that at the time this question was originally answered, September 2008, that Array#shuffle was either not available or not already known to me, hence the approximation in Array#sort
And there's a barrage of suggested edits to this as a result.
So:
.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }
Can be better, and shorter expressed on modern ruby implementations using
.shuffle
Additionally,
[0..x]
Can be more obviously written with Array#take as:
.take(x)
Thus, the easiest way to produce a sequence of random numbers on a modern ruby is:
(0..50).to_a.shuffle.take(x)
This uses Set:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
return randoms.to_a if randoms.size >= n
end
end
Ruby 1.9 offers the Array#sample method which returns an element, or elements randomly selected from an Array. The results of #sample won't include the same Array element twice.
(1..999).to_a.sample 5 # => [389, 30, 326, 946, 746]
When compared to the to_a.sort_by approach, the sample method appears to be significantly faster. In a simple scenario I compared sort_by to sample, and got the following results.
require 'benchmark'
range = 0...1000000
how_many = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
range.to_a.sample(how_many)
end
=> 0.081083
Benchmark.realtime do
(range).sort_by{rand}[0...how_many]
end
=> 2.907445
Just to give you an idea about speed, I ran four versions of this:
Using Sets, like Ryan's suggestion.
Using an Array slightly larger than necessary, then doing uniq! at the end.
Using a Hash, like Kyle suggested.
Creating an Array of the required size, then sorting it randomly, like Kent's suggestion (but without the extraneous "- 0.5", which does nothing).
They're all fast at small scales, so I had them each create a list of 1,000,000 numbers. Here are the times, in seconds:
Sets: 628
Array + uniq: 629
Hash: 645
fixed Array + sort: 8
And no, that last one is not a typo. So if you care about speed, and it's OK for the numbers to be integers from 0 to whatever, then my exact code was:
a = (0...1000000).sort_by{rand}
Yes, it's possible to do this without a loop and without keeping track of which numbers have been chosen. It's called a Linear Feedback Shift Register: Create Random Number Sequence with No Repeats
[*1..99].sample(4) #=> [64, 99, 29, 49]
According to Array#sample docs,
The elements are chosen by using random and unique indices
If you need SecureRandom (which uses computer noise instead of pseudorandom numbers):
require 'securerandom'
[*1..99].sample(4, random: SecureRandom) #=> [2, 75, 95, 37]
How about a play on this? Unique random numbers without needing to use Set or Hash.
x = 0
(1..100).map{|iter| x += rand(100)}.shuffle
You could use a hash to track the random numbers you've used so far:
seen = {}
max = 100
(1..10).map { |n|
x = rand(max)
while (seen[x])
x = rand(max)
end
x
}
Rather than add the items to a list/array, add them to a Set.
If you have a finite list of possible random numbers (i.e. 1 to 100), then Kent's solution is good.
Otherwise there is no other good way to do it without looping. The problem is you MUST do a loop if you get a duplicate. My solution should be efficient and the looping should not be too much more than the size of your array (i.e. if you want 20 unique random numbers, it might take 25 iterations on average.) Though the number of iterations gets worse the more numbers you need and the smaller max is. Here is my above code modified to show how many iterations are needed for the given input:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
i = 0
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
break if randoms.size > n
i += 1
end
puts "Took #{i} iterations for #{n} random numbers to a max of #{max}"
return randoms.to_a
end
I could write this code to LOOK more like Array.map if you want :)
Based on Kent Fredric's solution above, this is what I ended up using:
def n_unique_rand(number_to_generate, rand_upper_limit)
return (0..rand_upper_limit - 1).sort_by{rand}[0..number_to_generate - 1]
end
Thanks Kent.
No loops with this method
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
require 'benchmark'
max = 1000000
size = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
end
=> 1.9114e-05
Here is one solution:
Suppose you want these random numbers to be between r_min and r_max. For each element in your list, generate a random number r, and make list[i]=list[i-1]+r. This would give you random numbers which are monotonically increasing, guaranteeing uniqueness provided that
r+list[i-1] does not over flow
r > 0
For the first element, you would use r_min instead of list[i-1]. Once you are done, you can shuffle the list so the elements are not so obviously in order.
The only problem with this method is when you go over r_max and still have more elements to generate. In this case, you can reset r_min and r_max to 2 adjacent element you have already computed, and simply repeat the process. This effectively runs the same algorithm over an interval where there are no numbers already used. You can keep doing this until you have the list populated.
As far as it is nice to know in advance the maxium value, you can do this way:
class NoLoopRand
def initialize(max)
#deck = (0..max).to_a
end
def getrnd
return #deck.delete_at(rand(#deck.length - 1))
end
end
and you can obtain random data in this way:
aRndNum = NoLoopRand.new(10)
puts aRndNum.getrnd
you'll obtain nil when all the values will be exausted from the deck.
Method 1
Using Kent's approach, it is possible to generate an array of arbitrary length keeping all values in a limited range:
# Generates a random array of length n.
#
# #param n length of the desired array
# #param lower minimum number in the array
# #param upper maximum number in the array
def ary_rand(n, lower, upper)
values_set = (lower..upper).to_a
repetition = n/(upper-lower+1) + 1
(values_set*repetition).sample n
end
Method 2
Another, possibly more efficient, method modified from same Kent's another answer:
def ary_rand2(n, lower, upper)
v = (lower..upper).to_a
(0...n).map{ v[rand(v.length)] }
end
Output
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [0, 8, 2, 5, 6] expected
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [7, 8, 2, 4, 3] different result for same params
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 1).to_s # [0, 0, 1, 0, 1] repeated values from limited range
puts (ary_rand 5, 9, 0).to_s # [] no such range :)
This is what I have so far:
myArray.map!{ rand(max) }
Obviously, however, sometimes the numbers in the list are not unique. How can I make sure my list only contains unique numbers without having to create a bigger list from which I then just pick the n unique numbers?
Edit:
I'd really like to see this done w/o loop - if at all possible.
(0..50).to_a.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }[0..x]
(0..50).to_a can be replaced with any array.
0 is "minvalue", 50 is "max value"
x is "how many values i want out"
of course, its impossible for x to be permitted to be greater than max-min :)
In expansion of how this works
(0..5).to_a ==> [0,1,2,3,4,5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ -1 } ==> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ 1 } ==> [5, 3, 0, 4, 2, 1] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ rand() - 0.5 } ==> [1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ] # random
[1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ][ 0..2 ] ==> [1, 5, 0 ]
Footnotes:
It is worth mentioning that at the time this question was originally answered, September 2008, that Array#shuffle was either not available or not already known to me, hence the approximation in Array#sort
And there's a barrage of suggested edits to this as a result.
So:
.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }
Can be better, and shorter expressed on modern ruby implementations using
.shuffle
Additionally,
[0..x]
Can be more obviously written with Array#take as:
.take(x)
Thus, the easiest way to produce a sequence of random numbers on a modern ruby is:
(0..50).to_a.shuffle.take(x)
This uses Set:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
return randoms.to_a if randoms.size >= n
end
end
Ruby 1.9 offers the Array#sample method which returns an element, or elements randomly selected from an Array. The results of #sample won't include the same Array element twice.
(1..999).to_a.sample 5 # => [389, 30, 326, 946, 746]
When compared to the to_a.sort_by approach, the sample method appears to be significantly faster. In a simple scenario I compared sort_by to sample, and got the following results.
require 'benchmark'
range = 0...1000000
how_many = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
range.to_a.sample(how_many)
end
=> 0.081083
Benchmark.realtime do
(range).sort_by{rand}[0...how_many]
end
=> 2.907445
Just to give you an idea about speed, I ran four versions of this:
Using Sets, like Ryan's suggestion.
Using an Array slightly larger than necessary, then doing uniq! at the end.
Using a Hash, like Kyle suggested.
Creating an Array of the required size, then sorting it randomly, like Kent's suggestion (but without the extraneous "- 0.5", which does nothing).
They're all fast at small scales, so I had them each create a list of 1,000,000 numbers. Here are the times, in seconds:
Sets: 628
Array + uniq: 629
Hash: 645
fixed Array + sort: 8
And no, that last one is not a typo. So if you care about speed, and it's OK for the numbers to be integers from 0 to whatever, then my exact code was:
a = (0...1000000).sort_by{rand}
Yes, it's possible to do this without a loop and without keeping track of which numbers have been chosen. It's called a Linear Feedback Shift Register: Create Random Number Sequence with No Repeats
[*1..99].sample(4) #=> [64, 99, 29, 49]
According to Array#sample docs,
The elements are chosen by using random and unique indices
If you need SecureRandom (which uses computer noise instead of pseudorandom numbers):
require 'securerandom'
[*1..99].sample(4, random: SecureRandom) #=> [2, 75, 95, 37]
How about a play on this? Unique random numbers without needing to use Set or Hash.
x = 0
(1..100).map{|iter| x += rand(100)}.shuffle
You could use a hash to track the random numbers you've used so far:
seen = {}
max = 100
(1..10).map { |n|
x = rand(max)
while (seen[x])
x = rand(max)
end
x
}
Rather than add the items to a list/array, add them to a Set.
If you have a finite list of possible random numbers (i.e. 1 to 100), then Kent's solution is good.
Otherwise there is no other good way to do it without looping. The problem is you MUST do a loop if you get a duplicate. My solution should be efficient and the looping should not be too much more than the size of your array (i.e. if you want 20 unique random numbers, it might take 25 iterations on average.) Though the number of iterations gets worse the more numbers you need and the smaller max is. Here is my above code modified to show how many iterations are needed for the given input:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
i = 0
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
break if randoms.size > n
i += 1
end
puts "Took #{i} iterations for #{n} random numbers to a max of #{max}"
return randoms.to_a
end
I could write this code to LOOK more like Array.map if you want :)
Based on Kent Fredric's solution above, this is what I ended up using:
def n_unique_rand(number_to_generate, rand_upper_limit)
return (0..rand_upper_limit - 1).sort_by{rand}[0..number_to_generate - 1]
end
Thanks Kent.
No loops with this method
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
require 'benchmark'
max = 1000000
size = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
end
=> 1.9114e-05
Here is one solution:
Suppose you want these random numbers to be between r_min and r_max. For each element in your list, generate a random number r, and make list[i]=list[i-1]+r. This would give you random numbers which are monotonically increasing, guaranteeing uniqueness provided that
r+list[i-1] does not over flow
r > 0
For the first element, you would use r_min instead of list[i-1]. Once you are done, you can shuffle the list so the elements are not so obviously in order.
The only problem with this method is when you go over r_max and still have more elements to generate. In this case, you can reset r_min and r_max to 2 adjacent element you have already computed, and simply repeat the process. This effectively runs the same algorithm over an interval where there are no numbers already used. You can keep doing this until you have the list populated.
As far as it is nice to know in advance the maxium value, you can do this way:
class NoLoopRand
def initialize(max)
#deck = (0..max).to_a
end
def getrnd
return #deck.delete_at(rand(#deck.length - 1))
end
end
and you can obtain random data in this way:
aRndNum = NoLoopRand.new(10)
puts aRndNum.getrnd
you'll obtain nil when all the values will be exausted from the deck.
Method 1
Using Kent's approach, it is possible to generate an array of arbitrary length keeping all values in a limited range:
# Generates a random array of length n.
#
# #param n length of the desired array
# #param lower minimum number in the array
# #param upper maximum number in the array
def ary_rand(n, lower, upper)
values_set = (lower..upper).to_a
repetition = n/(upper-lower+1) + 1
(values_set*repetition).sample n
end
Method 2
Another, possibly more efficient, method modified from same Kent's another answer:
def ary_rand2(n, lower, upper)
v = (lower..upper).to_a
(0...n).map{ v[rand(v.length)] }
end
Output
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [0, 8, 2, 5, 6] expected
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [7, 8, 2, 4, 3] different result for same params
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 1).to_s # [0, 0, 1, 0, 1] repeated values from limited range
puts (ary_rand 5, 9, 0).to_s # [] no such range :)