I have function in my model that counts user's score:
def score
(MULTIPLER * Math::log10(bets.count * summary_value ** accuracy + 1)).floor
end
My point is to test that it grows logarithmically?
The point of a test isn't to prove it always works (this is the area for static typing/proofs), but to check that it is probably working. This is normally good enough. I'm guessing you are doing it for a game, and what to ensure the function doesn't "grow" too quickly.
A way we could do that is to try a number of values, and check whether they are following a general logarithmic pattern.
For example, consider a pure logarithmic function f(x) = log(x) (any base):
If f(x) = y, then f(x^n) = f(x) * n.
So, if f(x^n) == (f(x) * n), then the function is logarithmic.
Compare that to a linear function, eg f(x) == x * 2. f(x^n) = x^n * 2, ie x^(n - 1) times bigger (a lot bigger).
You may have a more complex logarithmic function, eg f(x) = log(x + 7) + 3456. The pattern still holds though, just less accurately. So what I did was:
Attempt to calculate the constant value, by using x = 1
Find the difference f(x^n) - f(x) * n.
Find the absolute difference of f((x*100)^n) - f(100x) * n
If (3)/(2) is less than 10, it is almost certainly not linear, and probably logarithmic. The 10 is just an arbitrary number. Most linear functions will be different by a factor of more than a billion. Even functions like sqrt(x) will have a bigger difference than 10.
My example code will just have the score method take a parameter, and test against that (to keep it simple + I don't have your supporting code).
require 'rspec'
require 'rspec/mocks/standalone'
def score(input)
Math.log2(input * 3 + 1000 * 3) * 3 + 100 + Math.sin(input)
end
describe "score" do
it "grows logarithmacally based on input" do
x = 50
n = 8
c = score(1)
result1 = (score(x ** n) - c) / ((score(x) -c) * n)
x *= 100
result2 = (score(x ** n) - c) / ((score(x) -c) * n)
(result2 / result1).abs.should be < 10
end
end
Though I almost forget complex math knowledge, it seems the fact can't stop me answering the question.
My suggestion as follows
describe "#score" do
it "grows logarithmically" do
round_1 = FactoryGirl.create_list(:bet, 10, value: 5).score
round_2 = FactoryGirl.create_list(:bet, 11, value: 5).score
# Then expect some math relation between round_1 and round_2,
# calculated by you manually.
end
end
If you need to treat this function like a black box, the only true solution is to get a bunch of values and see if their curve is well-approximated by a logarithmic curve, focusing on large n. If you could put reasonable bounds on it, like a log(n) < score(n) < b log(n) for some values a and b then you could just check that.
Generally speaking, the best way to see if a function grows is to plot some data on a graph. Just use some graph plotting gem and evaluate the result.
A logarithmic function will always look like this:
(source: sosmath.com)
You can then adjust how fast it grows through your parameters, and replot the graph, until you found yourself happy with the result.
Related
(This is not a homework problem. If there is a class that offers this question as homework, please tell me as I would love to take it.)
This is related to the birthday problem.
I'm looking for a practical algorithm to calculate the number of items necessary to exceed a collision probability of p for large spaces. I need this for evaluating the suitability of hashing algorithms for storing large numbers of items.
For example, f(365, .5) should return 23, the number of people needed to exceed 0.5 probability that anyone share the same birthday.
I have created a simple implementation using an exact collision probability calculation:
def _items_for_p(buckets, p):
"""Return the number of items for chance of collision to exceed p."""
logger.debug('_items_for_p($r, $r)', buckets, p)
up = buckets
down = 1
while up > (down + 1):
n = (up + down) // 2
logger.debug('up=%r, down=%r, n=%r', up, down, n)
if _collision_p(buckets, n) > p:
logger.debug('Lowering up to %r', n)
up = n
else:
logger.debug('Raising down to %r', n)
down = n
return up
def _collision_p(buckets, items):
"""Return the probability of a collision."""
return 1 - _no_collision_p(buckets, items)
def _no_collision_p(buckets, items):
"""Return the probability of no collision."""
logger.debug('_no_collision_p(%r, %r)', buckets, items)
fac = math.factorial
return fac(buckets) / ((buckets ** items) * fac(buckets - items))
Needless to say, this does not work for the large spaces I want to work with (2^256, 2^512, etc).
I am looking for an algorithm that can calculate this in a reasonable amount of time with reasonable accuracy. The Wikipedia page provides mathematical approximations, but admittedly my math is a bit rusty, and I don't want to spend a lot of time investigating one approximation only to find that I cannot both generalize it and implement it quickly.
Solution to generalised birthday problem or probability p=0.5:
As noted by Wikipedia there is no proven formula that is quick to compute, but there is a formula that is conjectured to be exact. The formula involves computing square roots, natural logarithms, and basic arithmetic:
Sqrt(2*d*ln 2) + (3 - 2 * ln 2)/6 + (9 - 4(ln 2)^2)/(72 + Sqrt(2*d*ln 2) ) - 2 ln(2)^2/(135* d)
so you can feed in your d=2^256 and find out the answer that is conjectured to be exact.
Here's a quick attempt at implementing it, limited to the accuracy of python floats:
def solve_birthday_problem( d ):
ln2 = math.log(2)
term1 = (2*d*ln2)**0.5
term2 = (3 - 2 * ln2)/6.0
term3 = (9 - 4*(ln2)**2)/(72 + (2*d*ln2)**0.5 )
term4 = 2*ln2**2/(135.0 * d)
return math.ceil(term1 + term2 + term3 - term4)
You will need to fix it up to get an accurate precision integer result. The decimal library may be what is needed to fix this.
Determining the square root through successive approximation is implemented using the following algorithm:
Begin by guessing that the square root is x / 2. Call that guess g.
The actual square root must lie between g and x/g. At each step in the successive approximation, generate a new guess by averaging g and x/g.
Repeat step 2 until the values of g and x/g are as close together as the precision of the hardware allows. In Java, the best way to check for this condition is to test whether the average is equal to either of the values used to generate it.
What really confuses me is the last statement of step 3. I interpreted it as follows:
private double sqrt(double x) {
double g = x / 2;
while(true) {
double average = (g + x/g) / 2;
if(average == g || average == x/g) break;
g = average;
}
return g;
}
This seems to just cause an infinite loop. I am following the algorithm exactly, if the average equals either g or x/g (the two values used to generate it) then we have our answer ?
Why would anyone ever use that approach, when they could simply use the formulas for (2n^2) = 4n^2 and (n + 1)^2 = n^2 + 2n + 1, to populate each bit in the mantissa, and divide the exponent by two, multiplying the mantissa by two iff the the mod of the exponent with two equals 1?
To check if g and x/g are as close as the HW allow, look at the relative difference and compare
it with the epsilon for your floating point format. If it is within a small integer multiple of epsilon, you are OK.
Relative difference of x and y, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_difference
The epsilon for 32-bit IEEE floats is about 1.0e-7, as in one of the other answers here, but that answer used the absolute rather than the relative difference.
In practice, that means something like:
Math.abs(g-x/g)/Math.max(Math.abs(g),Math.abs(x/g)) < 3.0e-7
Never compare floating point values for equality. The result is not reliable.
Use a epsilon like so:
if(Math.abs(average-g) < 1e-7 || Math.abs(average-x/g) < 1e-7)
You can change the epsilon value to be whatever you need. Probably best is something related to the original x.
John Carmack has a special function in the Quake III source code which calculates the inverse square root of a float, 4x faster than regular (float)(1.0/sqrt(x)), including a strange 0x5f3759df constant. See the code below. Can someone explain line by line what exactly is going on here and why this works so much faster than the regular implementation?
float Q_rsqrt( float number )
{
long i;
float x2, y;
const float threehalfs = 1.5F;
x2 = number * 0.5F;
y = number;
i = * ( long * ) &y;
i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
y = * ( float * ) &i;
y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );
#ifndef Q3_VM
#ifdef __linux__
assert( !isnan(y) );
#endif
#endif
return y;
}
FYI. Carmack didn't write it. Terje Mathisen and Gary Tarolli both take partial (and very modest) credit for it, as well as crediting some other sources.
How the mythical constant was derived is something of a mystery.
To quote Gary Tarolli:
Which actually is doing a floating
point computation in integer - it took
a long time to figure out how and why
this works, and I can't remember the
details anymore.
A slightly better constant, developed by an expert mathematician (Chris Lomont) trying to work out how the original algorithm worked is:
float InvSqrt(float x)
{
float xhalf = 0.5f * x;
int i = *(int*)&x; // get bits for floating value
i = 0x5f375a86 - (i >> 1); // gives initial guess y0
x = *(float*)&i; // convert bits back to float
x = x * (1.5f - xhalf * x * x); // Newton step, repeating increases accuracy
return x;
}
In spite of this, his initial attempt a mathematically 'superior' version of id's sqrt (which came to almost the same constant) proved inferior to the one initially developed by Gary despite being mathematically much 'purer'. He couldn't explain why id's was so excellent iirc.
Of course these days, it turns out to be much slower than just using an FPU's sqrt (especially on 360/PS3), because swapping between float and int registers induces a load-hit-store, while the floating point unit can do reciprocal square root in hardware.
It just shows how optimizations have to evolve as the nature of underlying hardware changes.
Greg Hewgill and IllidanS4 gave a link with excellent mathematical explanation.
I'll try to sum it up here for ones who don't want to go too much into details.
Any mathematical function, with some exceptions, can be represented by a polynomial sum:
y = f(x)
can be exactly transformed into:
y = a0 + a1*x + a2*(x^2) + a3*(x^3) + a4*(x^4) + ...
Where a0, a1, a2,... are constants. The problem is that for many functions, like square root, for exact value this sum has infinite number of members, it does not end at some x^n. But, if we stop at some x^n we would still have a result up to some precision.
So, if we have:
y = 1/sqrt(x)
In this particular case they decided to discard all polynomial members above second, probably because of calculation speed:
y = a0 + a1*x + [...discarded...]
And the task has now came down to calculate a0 and a1 in order for y to have the least difference from the exact value. They have calculated that the most appropriate values are:
a0 = 0x5f375a86
a1 = -0.5
So when you put this into equation you get:
y = 0x5f375a86 - 0.5*x
Which is the same as the line you see in the code:
i = 0x5f375a86 - (i >> 1);
Edit: actually here y = 0x5f375a86 - 0.5*x is not the same as i = 0x5f375a86 - (i >> 1); since shifting float as integer not only divides by two but also divides exponent by two and causes some other artifacts, but it still comes down to calculating some coefficients a0, a1, a2... .
At this point they've found out that this result's precision is not enough for the purpose. So they additionally did only one step of Newton's iteration to improve the result accuracy:
x = x * (1.5f - xhalf * x * x)
They could have done some more iterations in a loop, each one improving result, until required accuracy is met. This is exactly how it works in CPU/FPU! But it seems that only one iteration was enough, which was also a blessing for the speed. CPU/FPU does as many iterations as needed to reach the accuracy for the floating point number in which the result is stored and it has more general algorithm which works for all cases.
So in short, what they did is:
Use (almost) the same algorithm as CPU/FPU, exploit the improvement of initial conditions for the special case of 1/sqrt(x) and don't calculate all the way to precision CPU/FPU will go to but stop earlier, thus gaining in calculation speed.
I was curious to see what the constant was as a float so I simply wrote this bit of code and googled the integer that popped out.
long i = 0x5F3759DF;
float* fp = (float*)&i;
printf("(2^127)^(1/2) = %f\n", *fp);
//Output
//(2^127)^(1/2) = 13211836172961054720.000000
It looks like the constant is "An integer approximation to the square root of 2^127 better known by the hexadecimal form of its floating-point representation, 0x5f3759df" https://mrob.com/pub/math/numbers-18.html
On the same site it explains the whole thing. https://mrob.com/pub/math/numbers-16.html#le009_16
According to this nice article written a while back...
The magic of the code, even if you
can't follow it, stands out as the i =
0x5f3759df - (i>>1); line. Simplified,
Newton-Raphson is an approximation
that starts off with a guess and
refines it with iteration. Taking
advantage of the nature of 32-bit x86
processors, i, an integer, is
initially set to the value of the
floating point number you want to take
the inverse square of, using an
integer cast. i is then set to
0x5f3759df, minus itself shifted one
bit to the right. The right shift
drops the least significant bit of i,
essentially halving it.
It's a really good read. This is only a tiny piece of it.
The code consists of two major parts. Part one calculates an approximation for 1/sqrt(y), and part two takes that number and runs one iteration of Newton's method to get a better approximation.
Calculating an approximation for 1/sqrt(y)
i = * ( long * ) &y;
i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
y = * ( float * ) &i;
Line 1 takes the floating point representation of y and treats it as an integer i. Line 2 shifts i over one bit and subtracts it from a mysterious constant. Line 3 takes the resulting number and converts it back to a standard float32. Now why does this work?
Let g be a function that maps a floating point number to its floating point representation, read as an integer. Line 1 above is setting i = g(y).
The following good approximation of g exists(*):
g(y) ≈ Clog_2 y + D for some constants C and D. An intuition for why such a good approximation exists is that the floating point representation of y is roughly linear in the exponent.
The purpose of line 2 is to map from g(y) to g(1/sqrt(y)), after which line 3 can use g^-1 to map that number to 1/sqrt(y). Using the approximation above, we have g(1/sqrt(y)) ≈ Clog_2 (1/sqrt(y)) + D = -C/2 log_2 y + D. We can use these formulas to calculate the map from g(y) to g(1/sqrt(y)), which is g(1/sqrt(y)) ≈ 3D/2 - 1/2 * g(y). In line 2, we have 0x5f3759df ≈ 3D/2, and i >> 1 ≈ 1/2*g(y).
The constant 0x5f3759df is slightly smaller than the constant that gives the best possible approximation for g(1/sqrt(y)). That is because this step is not done in isolation. Due to the direction that Newton's method tends to miss in, using a slightly smaller constant tends to yield better results. The exact optimal constant to use in this setting depends on your input distribution of y, but 0x5f3759df is one such constant that gives good results over a fairly broad range.
A more detailed description of this process can be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root#Algorithm
(*) More explicitly, let y = 2^e*(1+f). Taking the log of both sides, we get log_2 y = e + log_2(1+f), which can be approximated as log_2 y ≈ e + f + σ for a small constant sigma. Separately, the float32 encoding of y expressed as an integer is g(y) ≈ 2^23 * (e+127) + f * 2^23. Combining the two equations, we get g(y) ≈ 2^23 * log_2 y + 2^23 * (127 - σ).
Using Newton's method
y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );
Consider the function f(y) = 1/y^2 - num. The positive zero of f is y = 1/sqrt(num), which is what we are interested in calculating.
Newton's method is an iterative algorithm for taking an approximation y_n for the zero of a function f, and calculating a better approximation y_n+1, using the following equation: y_n+1 = y_n - f(y_n)/f'(y_n).
Calculating what that looks like for our function f gives the following equation: y_n+1 = y_n - (-y_n+y_n^3*num)/2 = y_n * (3/2 - num/2 * y_n * y_n). This is exactly what the line of code above is doing.
You can learn more about the details of Newton's method here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method
Let's say that I know the probability of a "success" is P. I run the test N times, and I see S successes. The test is akin to tossing an unevenly weighted coin (perhaps heads is a success, tails is a failure).
I want to know the approximate probability of seeing either S successes, or a number of successes less likely than S successes.
So for example, if P is 0.3, N is 100, and I get 20 successes, I'm looking for the probability of getting 20 or fewer successes.
If, on the other hadn, P is 0.3, N is 100, and I get 40 successes, I'm looking for the probability of getting 40 our more successes.
I'm aware that this problem relates to finding the area under a binomial curve, however:
My math-fu is not up to the task of translating this knowledge into efficient code
While I understand a binomial curve would give an exact result, I get the impression that it would be inherently inefficient. A fast method to calculate an approximate result would suffice.
I should stress that this computation has to be fast, and should ideally be determinable with standard 64 or 128 bit floating point computation.
I'm looking for a function that takes P, S, and N - and returns a probability. As I'm more familiar with code than mathematical notation, I'd prefer that any answers employ pseudo-code or code.
Exact Binomial Distribution
def factorial(n):
if n < 2: return 1
return reduce(lambda x, y: x*y, xrange(2, int(n)+1))
def prob(s, p, n):
x = 1.0 - p
a = n - s
b = s + 1
c = a + b - 1
prob = 0.0
for j in xrange(a, c + 1):
prob += factorial(c) / (factorial(j)*factorial(c-j)) \
* x**j * (1 - x)**(c-j)
return prob
>>> prob(20, 0.3, 100)
0.016462853241869437
>>> 1-prob(40-1, 0.3, 100)
0.020988576003924564
Normal Estimate, good for large n
import math
def erf(z):
t = 1.0 / (1.0 + 0.5 * abs(z))
# use Horner's method
ans = 1 - t * math.exp( -z*z - 1.26551223 +
t * ( 1.00002368 +
t * ( 0.37409196 +
t * ( 0.09678418 +
t * (-0.18628806 +
t * ( 0.27886807 +
t * (-1.13520398 +
t * ( 1.48851587 +
t * (-0.82215223 +
t * ( 0.17087277))))))))))
if z >= 0.0:
return ans
else:
return -ans
def normal_estimate(s, p, n):
u = n * p
o = (u * (1-p)) ** 0.5
return 0.5 * (1 + erf((s-u)/(o*2**0.5)))
>>> normal_estimate(20, 0.3, 100)
0.014548164531920815
>>> 1-normal_estimate(40-1, 0.3, 100)
0.024767304545069813
Poisson Estimate: Good for large n and small p
import math
def poisson(s,p,n):
L = n*p
sum = 0
for i in xrange(0, s+1):
sum += L**i/factorial(i)
return sum*math.e**(-L)
>>> poisson(20, 0.3, 100)
0.013411150012837811
>>> 1-poisson(40-1, 0.3, 100)
0.046253037645840323
I was on a project where we needed to be able to calculate the binomial CDF in an environment that didn't have a factorial or gamma function defined. It took me a few weeks, but I ended up coming up with the following algorithm which calculates the CDF exactly (i.e. no approximation necessary). Python is basically as good as pseudocode, right?
import numpy as np
def binomial_cdf(x,n,p):
cdf = 0
b = 0
for k in range(x+1):
if k > 0:
b += + np.log(n-k+1) - np.log(k)
log_pmf_k = b + k * np.log(p) + (n-k) * np.log(1-p)
cdf += np.exp(log_pmf_k)
return cdf
Performance scales with x. For small values of x, this solution is about an order of magnitude faster than scipy.stats.binom.cdf, with similar performance at around x=10,000.
I won't go into a full derivation of this algorithm because stackoverflow doesn't support MathJax, but the thrust of it is first identifying the following equivalence:
For all k > 0, sp.misc.comb(n,k) == np.prod([(n-k+1)/k for k in range(1,k+1)])
Which we can rewrite as:
sp.misc.comb(n,k) == sp.misc.comb(n,k-1) * (n-k+1)/k
or in log space:
np.log( sp.misc.comb(n,k) ) == np.log(sp.misc.comb(n,k-1)) + np.log(n-k+1) - np.log(k)
Because the CDF is a summation of PMFs, we can use this formulation to calculate the binomial coefficient (the log of which is b in the function above) for PMF_{x=i} from the coefficient we calculated for PMF_{x=i-1}. This means we can do everything inside a single loop using accumulators, and we don't need to calculate any factorials!
The reason most of the calculations are done in log space is to improve the numerical stability of the polynomial terms, i.e. p^x and (1-p)^(1-x) have the potential to be extremely large or extremely small, which can cause computational errors.
EDIT: Is this a novel algorithm? I've been poking around on and off since before I posted this, and I'm increasingly wondering if I should write this up more formally and submit it to a journal.
I think you want to evaluate the incomplete beta function.
There's a nice implementation using a continued fraction representation in "Numerical Recipes In C", chapter 6: 'Special Functions'.
I can't totally vouch for the efficiency, but Scipy has a module for this
from scipy.stats.distributions import binom
binom.cdf(successes, attempts, chance_of_success_per_attempt)
An efficient and, more importantly, numerical stable algorithm exists in the domain of Bezier Curves used in Computer Aided Design. It is called de Casteljau's algorithm used to evaluate the Bernstein Polynomials used to define Bezier Curves.
I believe that I am only allowed one link per answer so start with Wikipedia - Bernstein Polynomials
Notice the very close relationship between the Binomial Distribution and the Bernstein Polynomials. Then click through to the link on de Casteljau's algorithm.
Lets say I know the probability of throwing a heads with a particular coin is P.
What is the probability of me throwing
the coin T times and getting at least
S heads?
Set n = T
Set beta[i] = 0 for i = 0, ... S - 1
Set beta[i] = 1 for i = S, ... T
Set t = p
Evaluate B(t) using de Casteljau
or at most S heads?
Set n = T
Set beta[i] = 1 for i = 0, ... S
Set beta[i] = 0 for i = S + 1, ... T
Set t = p
Evaluate B(t) using de Casteljau
Open source code probably exists already. NURBS Curves (Non-Uniform Rational B-spline Curves) are a generalization of Bezier Curves and are widely used in CAD. Try openNurbs (the license is very liberal) or failing that Open CASCADE (a somewhat less liberal and opaque license). Both toolkits are in C++, though, IIRC, .NET bindings exist.
If you are using Python, no need to code it yourself. Scipy got you covered:
from scipy.stats import binom
# probability that you get 20 or less successes out of 100, when p=0.3
binom.cdf(20, 100, 0.3)
>>> 0.016462853241869434
# probability that you get exactly 20 successes out of 100, when p=0.3
binom.pmf(20, 100, 0.3)
>>> 0.0075756449257260777
From the portion of your question "getting at least S heads" you want the cummulative binomial distribution function. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution for the equation, which is described as being in terms of the "regularized incomplete beta function" (as already answered). If you just want to calculate the answer without having to implement the entire solution yourself, the GNU Scientific Library provides the function: gsl_cdf_binomial_P and gsl_cdf_binomial_Q.
The DCDFLIB Project has C# functions (wrappers around C code) to evaluate many CDF functions, including the binomial distribution. You can find the original C and FORTRAN code here. This code is well tested and accurate.
If you want to write your own code to avoid being dependent on an external library, you could use the normal approximation to the binomial mentioned in other answers. Here are some notes on how good the approximation is under various circumstances. If you go that route and need code to compute the normal CDF, here's Python code for doing that. It's only about a dozen lines of code and could easily be ported to any other language. But if you want high accuracy and efficient code, you're better off using third party code like DCDFLIB. Several man-years went into producing that library.
Try this one, used in GMP. Another reference is this.
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(1)
x=np.random.binomial(20,0.6,10000) #20 flips of coin,probability of
heads percentage and 10000 times
done.
sum(x>12)/len(x)
The output is 41% of times we got 12 heads.
Suppose you have a list of floating point numbers that are approximately multiples of a common quantity, for example
2.468, 3.700, 6.1699
which are approximately all multiples of 1.234. How would you characterize this "approximate gcd", and how would you proceed to compute or estimate it?
Strictly related to my answer to this question.
You can run Euclid's gcd algorithm with anything smaller then 0.01 (or a small number of your choice) being a pseudo 0. With your numbers:
3.700 = 1 * 2.468 + 1.232,
2.468 = 2 * 1.232 + 0.004.
So the pseudo gcd of the first two numbers is 1.232. Now you take the gcd of this with your last number:
6.1699 = 5 * 1.232 + 0.0099.
So 1.232 is the pseudo gcd, and the mutiples are 2,3,5. To improve this result, you may take the linear regression on the data points:
(2,2.468), (3,3.7), (5,6.1699).
The slope is the improved pseudo gcd.
Caveat: the first part of this is algorithm is numerically unstable - if you start with very dirty data, you are in trouble.
Express your measurements as multiples of the lowest one. Thus your list becomes 1.00000, 1.49919, 2.49996. The fractional parts of these values will be very close to 1/Nths, for some value of N dictated by how close your lowest value is to the fundamental frequency. I would suggest looping through increasing N until you find a sufficiently refined match. In this case, for N=1 (that is, assuming X=2.468 is your fundamental frequency) you would find a standard deviation of 0.3333 (two of the three values are .5 off of X * 1), which is unacceptably high. For N=2 (that is, assuming 2.468/2 is your fundamental frequency) you would find a standard deviation of virtually zero (all three values are within .001 of a multiple of X/2), thus 2.468/2 is your approximate GCD.
The major flaw in my plan is that it works best when the lowest measurement is the most accurate, which is likely not the case. This could be mitigated by performing the entire operation multiple times, discarding the lowest value on the list of measurements each time, then use the list of results of each pass to determine a more precise result. Another way to refine the results would be adjust the GCD to minimize the standard deviation between integer multiples of the GCD and the measured values.
This reminds me of the problem of finding good rational-number approximations of real numbers. The standard technique is a continued-fraction expansion:
def rationalizations(x):
assert 0 <= x
ix = int(x)
yield ix, 1
if x == ix: return
for numer, denom in rationalizations(1.0/(x-ix)):
yield denom + ix * numer, numer
We could apply this directly to Jonathan Leffler's and Sparr's approach:
>>> a, b, c = 2.468, 3.700, 6.1699
>>> b/a, c/a
(1.4991896272285252, 2.4999594813614263)
>>> list(itertools.islice(rationalizations(b/a), 3))
[(1, 1), (3, 2), (925, 617)]
>>> list(itertools.islice(rationalizations(c/a), 3))
[(2, 1), (5, 2), (30847, 12339)]
picking off the first good-enough approximation from each sequence. (3/2 and 5/2 here.) Or instead of directly comparing 3.0/2.0 to 1.499189..., you could notice than 925/617 uses much larger integers than 3/2, making 3/2 an excellent place to stop.
It shouldn't much matter which of the numbers you divide by. (Using a/b and c/b you get 2/3 and 5/3, for instance.) Once you have integer ratios, you could refine the implied estimate of the fundamental using shsmurfy's linear regression. Everybody wins!
I'm assuming all of your numbers are multiples of integer values. For the rest of my explanation, A will denote the "root" frequency you are trying to find and B will be an array of the numbers you have to start with.
What you are trying to do is superficially similar to linear regression. You are trying to find a linear model y=mx+b that minimizes the average distance between a linear model and a set of data. In your case, b=0, m is the root frequency, and y represents the given values. The biggest problem is that the independent variables X are not explicitly given. The only thing we know about X is that all of its members must be integers.
Your first task is trying to determine these independent variables. The best method I can think of at the moment assumes that the given frequencies have nearly consecutive indexes (x_1=x_0+n). So B_0/B_1=(x_0)/(x_0+n) given a (hopefully) small integer n. You can then take advantage of the fact that x_0 = n/(B_1-B_0), start with n=1, and keep ratcheting it up until k-rnd(k) is within a certain threshold. After you have x_0 (the initial index), you can approximate the root frequency (A = B_0/x_0). Then you can approximate the other indexes by finding x_n = rnd(B_n/A). This method is not very robust and will probably fail if the error in the data is large.
If you want a better approximation of the root frequency A, you can use linear regression to minimize the error of the linear model now that you have the corresponding dependent variables. The easiest method to do so uses least squares fitting. Wolfram's Mathworld has a in-depth mathematical treatment of the issue, but a fairly simple explanation can be found with some googling.
Interesting question...not easy.
I suppose I would look at the ratios of the sample values:
3.700 / 2.468 = 1.499...
6.1699 / 2.468 = 2.4999...
6.1699 / 3.700 = 1.6675...
And I'd then be looking for a simple ratio of integers in those results.
1.499 ~= 3/2
2.4999 ~= 5/2
1.6675 ~= 5/3
I haven't chased it through, but somewhere along the line, you decide that an error of 1:1000 or something is good enough, and you back-track to find the base approximate GCD.
The solution which I've seen and used myself is to choose some constant, say 1000, multiply all numbers by this constant, round them to integers, find the GCD of these integers using the standard algorithm and then divide the result by the said constant (1000). The larger the constant, the higher the precision.
This is a reformulaiton of shsmurfy's solution when you a priori choose 3 positive tolerances (e1,e2,e3)
The problem is then to search smallest positive integers (n1,n2,n3) and thus largest root frequency f such that:
f1 = n1*f +/- e1
f2 = n2*f +/- e2
f3 = n3*f +/- e3
We assume 0 <= f1 <= f2 <= f3
If we fix n1, then we get these relations:
f is in interval I1=[(f1-e1)/n1 , (f1+e1)/n1]
n2 is in interval I2=[n1*(f2-e2)/(f1+e1) , n1*(f2+e2)/(f1-e1)]
n3 is in interval I3=[n1*(f3-e3)/(f1+e1) , n1*(f3+e3)/(f1-e1)]
We start with n1 = 1, then increment n1 until the interval I2 and I3 contain an integer - that is floor(I2min) different from floor(I2max) same with I3
We then choose smallest integer n2 in interval I2, and smallest integer n3 in interval I3.
Assuming normal distribution of floating point errors, the most probable estimate of root frequency f is the one minimizing
J = (f1/n1 - f)^2 + (f2/n2 - f)^2 + (f3/n3 - f)^2
That is
f = (f1/n1 + f2/n2 + f3/n3)/3
If there are several integers n2,n3 in intervals I2,I3 we could also choose the pair that minimize the residue
min(J)*3/2=(f1/n1)^2+(f2/n2)^2+(f3/n3)^2-(f1/n1)*(f2/n2)-(f1/n1)*(f3/n3)-(f2/n2)*(f3/n3)
Another variant could be to continue iteration and try to minimize another criterium like min(J(n1))*n1, until f falls below a certain frequency (n1 reaches an upper limit)...
I found this question looking for answers for mine in MathStackExchange (here and here).
I've only managed (yet) to measure the appeal of a fundamental frequency given a list of harmonic frequencies (following the sound/music nomenclature), which can be useful if you have a reduced number of options and is feasible to compute the appeal of each one and then choose the best fit.
C&P from my question in MSE (there the formatting is prettier):
being v the list {v_1, v_2, ..., v_n}, ordered from lower to higher
mean_sin(v, x) = sum(sin(2*pi*v_i/x), for i in {1, ...,n})/n
mean_cos(v, x) = sum(cos(2*pi*v_i/x), for i in {1, ...,n})/n
gcd_appeal(v, x) = 1 - sqrt(mean_sin(v, x)^2 + (mean_cos(v, x) - 1)^2)/2, which yields a number in the interval [0,1].
The goal is to find the x that maximizes the appeal. Here is the (gcd_appeal) graph for your example [2.468, 3.700, 6.1699], where you find that the optimum GCD is at x = 1.2337899957639993
Edit:
You may find handy this JAVA code to calculate the (fuzzy) divisibility (aka gcd_appeal) of a divisor relative to a list of dividends; you can use it to test which of your candidates makes the best divisor. The code looks ugly because I tried to optimize it for performance.
//returns the mean divisibility of dividend/divisor as a value in the range [0 and 1]
// 0 means no divisibility at all
// 1 means full divisibility
public double divisibility(double divisor, double... dividends) {
double n = dividends.length;
double factor = 2.0 / divisor;
double sum_x = -n;
double sum_y = 0.0;
double[] coord = new double[2];
for (double v : dividends) {
coordinates(v * factor, coord);
sum_x += coord[0];
sum_y += coord[1];
}
double err = 1.0 - Math.sqrt(sum_x * sum_x + sum_y * sum_y) / (2.0 * n);
//Might happen due to approximation error
return err >= 0.0 ? err : 0.0;
}
private void coordinates(double x, double[] out) {
//Bhaskara performant approximation to
//out[0] = Math.cos(Math.PI*x);
//out[1] = Math.sin(Math.PI*x);
long cos_int_part = (long) (x + 0.5);
long sin_int_part = (long) x;
double rem = x - cos_int_part;
if (cos_int_part != sin_int_part) {
double common_s = 4.0 * rem;
double cos_rem_s = common_s * rem - 1.0;
double sin_rem_s = cos_rem_s + common_s + 1.0;
out[0] = (((cos_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L) * cos_rem_s) / (cos_rem_s + 5.0);
out[1] = (((sin_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L) * sin_rem_s) / (sin_rem_s + 5.0);
} else {
double common_s = 4.0 * rem - 4.0;
double sin_rem_s = common_s * rem;
double cos_rem_s = sin_rem_s + common_s + 3.0;
double common_2 = ((cos_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L);
out[0] = (common_2 * cos_rem_s) / (cos_rem_s + 5.0);
out[1] = (common_2 * sin_rem_s) / (sin_rem_s + 5.0);
}
}