Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
This post was edited and submitted for review 9 months ago and failed to reopen the post:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
From a series of MIDI notes stored in array (with MIDI note number), does an algorithm exist to get the most likely key or scale implied by these notes?
If you're using Python you can use the music21 toolkit to do this:
import music21
score = music21.converter.parse('filename.mid')
key = score.analyze('key')
print(key.tonic.name, key.mode)
if you care about specific algorithms for key finding, you can use them instead of the generic "key":
key1 = score.analyze('Krumhansl')
key2 = score.analyze('AardenEssen')
etc. Any of these methods will work for chords also.
(Disclaimer: music21 is my project, so of course I have a vested interest in promoting it; but you can look at the music21.analysis.discrete module to take ideas from there for other projects/languages. If you have a MIDI parser, the Krumhansl algorithm is not hard to implement).
The algorithm by Carol Krumhansl is the best-known. The basic idea is very straightforward. A reference sample of pitches are drawn from music in a known key, and transposed to the other 11 keys. Major and minor keys must be handled separately. Then a sample of pitches are drawn from the music in an unknown key. This yields a 12-component pitch vector for each of 24 reference samples and one unknown sample, something like:
[ I, I#, II, II# III, IV, IV#, V, V#, VI, VI#, VII ]
[ 0.30, 0.02, 0.10, 0.05, 0.25, 0.20, 0.03, 0.30, 0.05, 0.13, 0.10 0.15]
Compute the correlation coefficient between the unknown pitch vector and each reference pitch vector and choose the best match.
Craig Sapp has written (copyrighted) code, available at http://sig.sapp.org/doc/examples/humextra/keycor/
David Temperley and Daniel Sleator developed a different, more difficult algorithm as part of their (copyrighted) Melisma package, available at
http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/music-analysis/ftp-contents.html
A (free) Matlab version of the Krumhansl algorithm is available from T. Eerola and P. Toiviainen in their Midi Toolbox:
https://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/musiikki/en/research/coe/materials/miditoolbox
There are a number of key finding algorithms around, in particular the ones of Carol Krumhansl (most papers that I've seen always cite Krumhansl's methods)
Assuming no key changes, a simple algorithm could be based on a pitch class histogram (an array with 12 entries for each pitch class (each note in an octave)), when you get a note you add one in the correct entry, then at the end you'll very likely have two most frequent notes that will be 7 semitones (or entries) apart representing the tonic and the dominant, the tonic being the note you're looking for and the dominant being 7 semitones above or 5 semitones below.
The good thing about this approach is that it's scale-independent, it relies on the tonic and the dominant being the two most important notes and occurring more often. The algorithm could probably be made more robust by giving extra weight to the first and last notes of large subdivisions of a piece.
As for detecting the scale then once you have the key you can generate a list of the notes you have above a certain threshold in your histogram as offsets from that root note, so let's say you detect a key of A (from having A and E occur more often) and the notes you have are A C D E G then you would obtain the offsets 0 3 5 7 10, which searching in a database like this one would give you "Minor Pentatonic" as a scale name.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Youtube provides two sorting options: Newest first and Top comments. The "Newest first" is pretty simple that we just sort the comments by their post date. But the "Top comments" seems to be a lot more complex than just sorting by "thumb up"s.
After a short research, I found out that the order of comments depends on those things:
Number of "thumb up"s and "thumb down"s
Post date
Number of replies to that comment
But I don't know how Youtube uses this information to decide the order, like what information is more important and what is less important.
Is there any article about this topic that I could refer to?
Thanks!
I have the answer to your question.
After searching the internet for the answer to this, I never found precisely what I was looking for. So, my colleagues and I decided to experiment using the system with the Youtube comments.
First of all, we sorted what we believed to be popular videos into one section, average videos into another, and less popular into the last. There were 200 videos in each section, and after days of examining we started to notice a pattern. We found that you were right about the three things required, but we also dove a little deeper and found an additional variable.
The Youtube comment system depends on four things:
1) Time it was posted,
2) Like/dislike ratio of a comment,
3) Number of replies,
4) And, believe it or not, WHO posted it.
The average like/dislike ratio of every public comment you've ever posted builds into it, as (what we predicted) they believe that those with low like/dislike ratios would post comments that many people do not like or simply disagree with.
There is an algorithm to it, and it is quite simpler than you might think. Basically there are these things that we called "module points," and you get a certain one based on these four factors. First, here's the things you need to know about module point conversion with TWO of the factors:
For the like/dislike ratio on the comment, multiply that number by ten.
For the amount of replies (NOT from the original poster) that the comment has, there are two module points.
These are the two basic factors that tell the amount of module points the comment has.
For example, if a comment had 27 likes and 8 dislikes, then the ratio would be 3.375. Multiplying by 10, you would then have 33.75 module points. Using the next factor, amount of replies, let's say this comment has 4 direct replies to it. Multiplying 2 by 4, we get 8. This is the part where you add 8 onto the accumulative module points, giving you a total of 41.75 module points.
But we're not done here; this is where it gets tricky.
Using the average like/dislike ratio of a person's total comments that they've ever posted publicly, we found that the formula added onto the accumulative module points is this:
C = MP(R/3) + (MP/10)
where C = Comment Position Variable; MP = Module Points; R = Person's total like/dislike ratio
Trust me, we spend DAYS just on this part, which was probably the most frustrating. Even though the 3 and the 10 within this equation seem random and unnecessary, so far all of the comments we tested this equation on passed the test, but did not pass the test when those two variables were removed. After this equation is done, it gives you a number that we named to be the Position Variable.
However, we are not even done yet, we still haven't talked about time.
I was actually quite surprised that this part didn't take as long as I expected, but it sure was a pain doing this equation every single time for every comment we tested. At first, when testing it, we figured that the time was just there to break the barrier if 2 comments had equal Position Variables.
In fact, I almost called it a wrap on the experiment when this happened, but upon further inspection, we found out there was more to do. We found that some of the comments outranked each other that had the same Position Variable, but the timing seemed to be random! After a few days of inspection, here is where the final result comes in:
There is yet ANOTHER equation that we must find before applying the 4th variable. Using another separate equation, here's what our algebraic deductions came down to:
X = 1/3(S/10 + A) x [absolute value of](A - 3S)
where X = Timing Variable; S = How long ago the video was posted in minutes; A = How long ago the comment was posted in minutes
I wish I was making this up, but unfortunately this is how complicated the system is. There are mathematical reasons behind the other variables, but they are far too complex to explain, it will probably take up atleast three paragraphs worth of explaining. We tested this equation on more than 150 comments, all of them checked out to be true.
Once you find X, which is what we called the Timing Variable, all you have to do from here is apply it to this equation:
N = X(C/4 + 1)
where X = Timing Variable; C = Positioning Variable
N is the answer to all your problems.
This is the final equation, the final answer. The simple conclusion: the higher N, the higher up the comment is.
Note: Special thanks to my colleagues: David Mattison, Josh Williams, Diego Mendieta, Steven Orsette, and Kyle Shropshire. I could have never found out this without them and the work they put into this.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
The game 2048 has exploded in popularity since its release in February 2014. For a description of the game and discussion of optimal algorithms, see What is the optimal algorithm for the game 2048?. Here is the source code.
A blind algorithm for 2048 is one that cannot see the board; the only feedback the algorithm receives is whether or not an attempted slide occurred (we may suppose a blocked slide produces an audible beep). A blind algorithm is practically useful for getting started in 2048 without having to give the game your undivided attention.
Here is my specific question: is there a blind algorithm for 2048 that consistently does better than a mean score of 3500 in 10^6 trials? (only post an answer you have validated)
This is the performance of the LADDER algorithm, which may be notated as (LD* RD*)* (+U). That is, one loops over "left, down repeatedly until stuck, right, down repeated until stuck" and presses up iff left, right, and down are all blocked, which occurs iff the top row(s) are completely empty and the bottom row(s) are completely full. I call this algorithm LADDER because of the letters LDDR, and because I imagine climbing down ladders like Mario in Donkey Kong. The motivation for the algorithm is to maintain an increasing gradient from top to bottom of the board, similar to many of the non-blind algorithms.
Here is a histogram for 10^6 trials of LADDER colored by top tile on the final board with bin width 32 and mean 3478.1. I generated this data by simulating the game and algorithm in Python, using probability .9 that each new tile is a 2, as in the original game. You can't see the 1024 games at this vertical scale but they are sparsely distributed between 8000 and 16000. The fractal structure relates to the number of occurrences of the top tile, second-from-top tile, and so on. By comparison, random button mashing gave a mean of about 800 in 10^4 trials.
The most important in the 2048 game is to concentrate the high numbers along the borders and not in the middle. So a very good strategy is to put everything along the bottom as long as possible. Your LADDER algorithm does this, but I'd like to concentrate more on the left side and not switch to the right side completely. This is the algorithm in pseudo code:
while(true)
{
if (down)
continue;
elseif(left)
continue;
elseif (right)
continue;
else
{
up;
down; //if forced to go up; go back down immediately
}
}
Using your convention this would be:
((D*L)*R)U
in words: go down as long as you can; if you cannot; go left; if you cannot go left; go right. You will rarely need to go up.
Since I won't have time shortly to implement this to use it 10⁶ times; I hope someone else can give the correct statisctics for this, but my guess is this will outperform your LADDER algorithm
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm using MATLAB.
I have a three dimensional array filled with logicals. This array represents data of a cylinder with N uniformly shaped, but arbitrary orientated staples in it. The volume is discretized in voxels (3 dimensional pixels) and a logical '1' means 'at this point in the cylinder IS a part of a staple', while a '0' means 'at this point in the cylinder is air'.
The following picture contains ONE two dimensional slice of the full volume. Imagine the complete volume composed of such slices. White means '1' and black means '0'.
To my problem now: I have to separate each staple as good as possible.
The output products should be N three dimensional arrays with only the voxels belonging to a certain staple being '1', everything else '0'. So that I have arrays that only contain the data of one staple.
The biggest problem is, that '1's of different staples can lie next to each other (touching each other and being entangled), making it difficult to decide to which staple they belong to.
Simplifying is the fact, that boundary voxels of a staple may be cut away, I can work with any output array which preserves the approximate shape of the original staple.
Maybe somebody of you can provide an idea how such a problem could be solved, or even name me algorithms which I can take a look at.
Thanks in advance.
Since the staples are many pixel objects, you can reduce noise using 3d median filtering or bwareaopen to start with. Then bwlabeln can be used to label connected components in the binary array. Then you can use
REGIONPROPS to further analyze each connected object, and see if this is a standalone staple or more. This can be done using features such as 'Perimeter' to identify different cases, but you'll have to investigate yourself these and other regionprops features .
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
StackOverflow crowd. I have a very open-ended software design question.
I've been looking for an elagant solution to this for a while and I was wondering if anyone here had some brilliant insight into the problem. Consider this to be like a data structures puzzle.
What I am trying to do is to create a unit converter that is capable of converting from any unit to any unit. Assume that the lexing and parsing is already done. A few simple examples:
Convert("days","hours") // Yields 24
Convert("revolutions", "degrees") // Yields 360
To make things a little more complicated, it must smoothly handle ambiguities between inputs:
Convert("minutes","hours") // Yields (1/60)
Convert("minutes","revolutions") // Yields (1/21600)
To make things even more fun, it must handle complex units without needing to enumerate all possibilities:
Convert("meters/second","kilometers/hour")
Convert("miles/hour","knots")
Convert("Newton meters","foot pounds")
Convert("Acre feet","meters^3")
There's no right or wrong answer, I'm looking for ideas on how to accomplish this. There's always a brute force solution, but I want something elegant that is simple and scalable.
I would start with a hashtable (or persisted lookup table - your choice how you implement) that carries unit conversions between as many pairs as you care to put in. If you put in every possible pair, then this is your brute force approach.
If you have only partial pairs, you can then do a search across the pairs you do have to find a combination. For example, let's say I have these two entries in my hashtable:
Feet|Inches|1/12
Inches|Centimeters|2.54
Now if I want to convert feet to centimeters, I have a simple graph search: vertices are Feet, Inches, and Centimeters, and edges are the 1/12 and 2.54 conversion factors. The solution in this case is the two edges 1/12, 2.54 (combined via multiplication, of course). You can get fancier with the graph parameters if you want to.
Another approach might be applying abductive reasoning - look into AI texts about algebraic problem solvers for this...
Edit: Addressing Compound Units
Simplified problem: convert "Acres" to "Meters^2"
In this case, the keys are understanding that we are talking about units of length, so why don't we insert a new column into the table for unit type, which can be "length" or "area". This will help performance even in the earlier cases as it gives you an easy column to pare down your search space.
Now the trick is to understand that length^2 = area. Why not add another lookup that stores this metadata:
Area|Length|Length|*
We couple this with the primary units table:
Meters|Feet|3.28|Length
Acres|Feet^2|43560|Area
So the algorithm goes:
Solution is m^2, which is m * m, which is a length * length.
Input is acres, which is an area.
Search the meta table for m, and find the length * length mapping. Note that in more complex examples there may be more than one valid mapping.
Append to the solution a conversion Acres->Feet^2.
Perform the original graph search for Feet->M.
Note that:
The algorithm won't know whether to use area or length as the basic domain in which to work. You can provide it hints, or let it search both spaces.
The meta table gets a little brute-force-ish.
The meta table will need to get smarter if you start mixing types (e.g. Resistance = Voltage / Current) or doing something really ugly and mixing unit systems (e.g. a FooArea = Meters * Feet).
Whatever structure you choose, and your choice may well be directed by your preferred implementation (OO ? functional ? DBMS table ?) I think you need to identify the structure of units themselves.
For example a measurement of 1000km/hr has several components:
a scalar magnitude, 1000;
a prefix, in this case kilo; and
a dimension, in this case L.T^(-1), that is, length divided by time.
Your modelling of measurements with units needs to capture at least this complexity.
As has already been suggested, you should establish what the base set of units you are going to use are, and the SI base units immediately suggest themselves. Your data structure(s) for modelling units would then be defined in terms of those base units. You might therefore define a table (thinking RDBMS here, but easily translatable into your preferred implementation) with entries such as:
unit name dimension conversion to base
foot Length 0.3048
gallon(UK) Length^3 4.546092 x 10^(-3)
kilowatt-hour Mass.Length^2.Time^(-2) 3.6 x 10^6
and so forth. You'll also need a table to translate prefixes (kilo-, nano-, mega-, mibi- etc) into multiplying factors, and a table of base units for each of the dimensions (ie meter is the base unit for Length, second for Time, etc). You'll also have to cope with units such as feet which are simply synonyms for other units.
The purpose of dimension is, of course, to ensure that your conversions and other operations (such as adding 2 feet to 3.5 metres) are commensurate.
And, for further reading, I suggest this book by Cardarelli.
EDIT in response to comments ...
I'm trying to veer away from suggesting (implementation-specific) solutions so I'll waffle a bit more. Compound units, such as kilowatt-hours, do pose a problem. One approach would be to tag measurements with multiple unit-expressions, such as kilowatt and hour, and a rule for combining them, in this case multiplication I could see this getting quite hairy quite quickly. It might be better to restrict the valid set of units to the most common ones in the domain of the application.
As to dealing with measurements in mixed units, well the purpose of defining the Dimension of a unit is to provide some means to ensure that only sensible operations can be applied to measurements-with-units. So, it's sensible to add two lengths (L+L) together, but not a length (L) and a volume (L^3). On the other hand it is sensible to divide a volume by a length (to get an area (L^2)). And it's kind of up to the application to determine if strange units such as kilowatt-hours per square metre are valid.
Finally, the book I link to does enumerate all the possibilities, I guess most sensible applications with units will implement only a selection.
I would start by choosing a standard unit for every quantity(eg. meters for length, newtons for force, etc) and then storing all the conversion factors to that unit in a table
then to go from days to hours, for example, you find the conversion factors for seconds per day and seconds per hour and divide them to find the answer.
for ambiguities, each unit could be associated with all the types of quantities it measures, and to determine which conversion to do, you would take the intersection of those two sets of types(and if you're left with 0 or more than one you would spit out an error)
I assume that you want to hold the data about conversion in some kind of triples (fstUnit, sndUnit, multiplier).
For single unit conversions:
Use some hash functions in O(1) to change the unit stucture to a number, and then put all multipliers in a matrix (you only have to remember the upper-right part, because the reflection is the same, but inversed).
For complex cases:
Example 1. m/s to km/h. You check (m,km) in the matrix, then the (s,h), then multiply the results.
Example 2. m^3 to km^3. You check (m,km) and take it to the third power.
Of course some errors, when types don't match like field and volume.
You can make a class for Units that takes the conversion factor and the exponents of all basic units (I'd suggest to use metric units for this, that makes your life easier). E.g. in Pseudo-Java:
public class Unit {
public Unit(double factor, int meterExp, int secondExp, int kilogrammExp ... [other base units]) {
...
}
}
//you need the speed in km/h (1 m/s is 3.6 km/h):
Unit kmPerH = new Unit(1 / 3.6, 1, -1, 0, ...)
I would have a table with these fields:
conversionID
fromUnit
toUnit
multiplier
and however many rows you need to store all the conversions you want to support
If you want to support a multi-step process (degrees F to C), you'd need a one-to-many relationship with the units table, say called conversionStep, with fields like
conversionID
sequence
operator
value
If you want to store one set of conversions but support multi-step conversions, like storing
Feet|Inches|1/12
Inches|Centimeters|2.54
and supporting converting from Feet to Centimeters, I would store a conversion plan in another table, like
conversionPlanID
startUnits
endUnits
via
your row would look like
1 | feet | centimeters | inches
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
How do you calculate the distance between 2 cities?
If you need to take the curvature of the earth into account, the Great-Circle distance is what you're looking for. The Wikipedia article probably does a better job of explaining how the formula works than me, and there's also this aviation formulary page that covers that goes into more detail.
The formulas are only the first part of the puzzle though, if you need to make this work for arbitrary cities, you'll need a location database to get the lat/long from. Luckily you can get this for free from Geonames.org, although there are commercial db's available (ask google). So, in general, look up the two cities you want, get the lat/long co-orinates and plug them into the formula as in the Wikipedia Worked Example.
Other suggestions:
For a full commercial solution,
there's PC Miler which is used
by many trucking companies to
calculate shipping rates.
Make calls to the Google Maps (or other) api. If you need to do many requests per day, consider caching the results on the server.
Also very important is to consider building an equivalence database for cities, suburbs, towns etc. if you think you'll ever need to group your data. This gets really complicated though, and you may not find a one-size-fits-all solution for your problem.
Last but not least, Joel wrote an article about this problem a while back, so here you go: New Feature: Job Search
You use the Haversine formula.
This is very easy to do with geography type in SQL Server 2008.
SELECT geography::Point(lat1, lon1, 4326).STDistance(geography::Point(lat2, lon2, 4326))
-- computes distance in meters using eliptical model, accurate to the mm
4326 is SRID for WGS84 elipsoidal Earth model
You ca use the A* algorithm to find the shortest path between those two cities and this way you'll have the distance.
If you're talking about the shortest distance between two real cities on a real spherical planet, like Earth, you want the great circle distance.
If you are working in the plane and you want the Euclidean distance "as the crow flies":
// Cities are points x0,y0 and x1,y1 in kilometers or miles or Smoots[1]
dx = x1 - x0;
dy = y1 - y0;
dist = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*y);
No trigonometry needed! Just the Pythagorean theorem and the fact that squares are always positive so you don't need dx = abs(x1 - x0), etc. to get a positive number to pass to sqrt().
Note that you could probably do this in one line and a compiler would probably reduce it the equivalent above code:
dist = sqrt((x1-x0)*(x1-x0) + (y1-y0)*(y1-y0));
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot
You can get the distance between two cities from google map api.
Here is an implementation of it in Python
#!/usr/bin/python
import requests
from sys import argv
def get_distance(origin,destination):
gmap='http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/distancematrix/json'
payload={"origins":origin,"destinations":destination,"sensor":'false' }
try:
a=requests.get(gmap,params=payload)
data = a.json()
origin = str(data['origin_addresses'][0])
destination= str(data['destination_addresses'][0])
distance = data['rows'][0]['elements'][0]['distance']['text']
return distance,origin,destination
except Exception,e:
print "The %s or %destination does not exists :(" %(origin,destination)
exit()
if __name__=="__main__":
if len(argv)<3:
print "sorry Check the format"
else:
origin=argv[1]
destination=argv[2]
distance,origin,destination=get_distance(origin,destination)
print "%s ---> %s : %s" %(origin,destination,distance)
Example link: https://gist.github.com/sarathsp06/cf063e47bcc515b51c84
You find the Lat/Lon of the city, then use a distance estimation algorithm for Lat/Lon coordinates.
if you need a code example I think I have one I could dig up at home, but like many of the previous answers, you need a long / lat db to do the calculation
It is better to use a look-up table for obtaining the distance between two cities.
This makes sense because
* The Formula to calculate the distance ais quite computationally intensive..
* Distance between cities is unlikely to change.
So unless you needs are very specific (like terrain mapping from a satellite or some or topography algorithm or something else), you should really just save the list of cities and distances between them, into a table and look it up as needed.
I've been doing a lot of work with this recently. I'm finding SQL2008's new features really make this easy. I can find all the points that are withing Xkm of a 100k record table in sub-second time...not too shabby.
The great circle (spherical assumption) method in my testing was about 2.5 miles off when compared to the vincenty formula (elipsoidal assumption, which is what the earth is).
The real trick is getting the lat and long..for that I'm using Google.
#Jared - a minor correction to your code example. The last line of the first code example should read:
dist = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
I agree that once you have the info, if it's not going to change, store it somehow. #Marko Tinto Thanks for the T-SQL sample. For those who don't have access to SQL Server or prefer another method: If you need high accuracy, check out Wikipedia's entry on the Vincenty algorithm for more info. I believe there is a js implementation, which would (if not already) be easily ported to other languages. Also, at the bottom of that page is a link to geographicLib, which purports to be 1000 time more accurate than the Vincenty algorithm (if you have data that good, it might matter).
Why would you use something like the Vincenty method? Because the earth is not a perfect sphere and methods like that allow for inputting a more accurate major and minor axis for modeling the earth.
i use distancy
so simple and clean