Permute all unique enumerations of a vector in R - algorithm

I'm trying to find a function that will permute all the unique permutations of a vector, while not counting juxtapositions within subsets of the same element type. For example:
dat <- c(1,0,3,4,1,0,0,3,0,4)
has
factorial(10)
> 3628800
possible permutations, but only 10!/(2!*2!*4!*2!)
factorial(10)/(factorial(2)*factorial(2)*factorial(2)*factorial(4))
> 18900
unique permutations when ignoring juxtapositions within subsets of the same element type.
I can get this by using unique() and the permn() function from the package combinat
unique( permn(dat) )
but this is computationally very expensive, since it involves enumerating n!, which can be an order of magnitude more permutations than I need. Is there a way to do this without first computing n!?

EDIT: Here's a faster answer; again based on the ideas of Louisa Grey and Bryce Wagner, but with faster R code thanks to better use of matrix indexing. It's quite a bit faster than my original:
> ddd <- c(1,0,3,4,1,0,0,3,0,4)
> system.time(up1 <- uniqueperm(d))
user system elapsed
0.183 0.000 0.186
> system.time(up2 <- uniqueperm2(d))
user system elapsed
0.037 0.000 0.038
And the code:
uniqueperm2 <- function(d) {
dat <- factor(d)
N <- length(dat)
n <- tabulate(dat)
ng <- length(n)
if(ng==1) return(d)
a <- N-c(0,cumsum(n))[-(ng+1)]
foo <- lapply(1:ng, function(i) matrix(combn(a[i],n[i]),nrow=n[i]))
out <- matrix(NA, nrow=N, ncol=prod(sapply(foo, ncol)))
xxx <- c(0,cumsum(sapply(foo, nrow)))
xxx <- cbind(xxx[-length(xxx)]+1, xxx[-1])
miss <- matrix(1:N,ncol=1)
for(i in seq_len(length(foo)-1)) {
l1 <- foo[[i]]
nn <- ncol(miss)
miss <- matrix(rep(miss, ncol(l1)), nrow=nrow(miss))
k <- (rep(0:(ncol(miss)-1), each=nrow(l1)))*nrow(miss) +
l1[,rep(1:ncol(l1), each=nn)]
out[xxx[i,1]:xxx[i,2],] <- matrix(miss[k], ncol=ncol(miss))
miss <- matrix(miss[-k], ncol=ncol(miss))
}
k <- length(foo)
out[xxx[k,1]:xxx[k,2],] <- miss
out <- out[rank(as.numeric(dat), ties="first"),]
foo <- cbind(as.vector(out), as.vector(col(out)))
out[foo] <- d
t(out)
}
It doesn't return the same order, but after sorting, the results are identical.
up1a <- up1[do.call(order, as.data.frame(up1)),]
up2a <- up2[do.call(order, as.data.frame(up2)),]
identical(up1a, up2a)
For my first attempt, see the edit history.

The following function (which implements the classic formula for repeated permutations just like you did manually in your question) seems quite fast to me:
upermn <- function(x) {
n <- length(x)
duplicates <- as.numeric(table(x))
factorial(n) / prod(factorial(duplicates))
}
It does compute n! but not like permn function which generates all permutations first.
See it in action:
> dat <- c(1,0,3,4,1,0,0,3,0,4)
> upermn(dat)
[1] 18900
> system.time(uperm(dat))
user system elapsed
0.000 0.000 0.001
UPDATE: I have just realized that the question was about generating all unique permutations not just specifying the number of them - sorry for that!
You could improve the unique(perm(...)) part with specifying unique permutations for one less element and later adding the uniqe elements in front of them. Well, my explanation may fail, so let the source speak:
uperm <- function(x) {
u <- unique(x) # unique values of the vector
result <- x # let's start the result matrix with the vector
for (i in 1:length(u)) {
v <- x[-which(x==u[i])[1]] # leave the first occurance of duplicated values
result <- rbind(result, cbind(u[i], do.call(rbind, unique(permn(v)))))
}
return(result)
}
This way you could gain some speed. I was lazy to run the code on the vector you provided (took so much time), here is a small comparison on a smaller vector:
> dat <- c(1,0,3,4,1,0,0)
> system.time(unique(permn(dat)))
user system elapsed
0.264 0.000 0.268
> system.time(uperm(dat))
user system elapsed
0.147 0.000 0.150
I think you could gain a lot more by rewriting this function to be recursive!
UPDATE (again): I have tried to make up a recursive function with my limited knowledge:
uperm <- function(x) {
u <- sort(unique(x))
l <- length(u)
if (l == length(x)) {
return(do.call(rbind,permn(x)))
}
if (l == 1) return(x)
result <- matrix(NA, upermn(x), length(x))
index <- 1
for (i in 1:l) {
v <- x[-which(x==u[i])[1]]
newindex <- upermn(v)
if (table(x)[i] == 1) {
result[index:(index+newindex-1),] <- cbind(u[i], do.call(rbind, unique(permn(v))))
} else {
result[index:(index+newindex-1),] <- cbind(u[i], uperm(v))
}
index <- index+newindex
}
return(result)
}
Which has a great gain:
> system.time(unique(permn(c(1,0,3,4,1,0,0,3,0))))
user system elapsed
22.808 0.103 23.241
> system.time(uperm(c(1,0,3,4,1,0,0,3,0)))
user system elapsed
4.613 0.003 4.645
Please report back if this would work for you!

One option that hasn't been mentioned here is the allPerm function from the multicool package. It can be used pretty easily to get all the unique permutations:
library(multicool)
perms <- allPerm(initMC(dat))
dim(perms)
# [1] 18900 10
head(perms)
# [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
# [1,] 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
# [2,] 0 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0
# [3,] 4 0 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0
# [4,] 4 4 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0
# [5,] 3 4 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0
# [6,] 4 3 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0
In benchmarking I found it to be faster on dat than the solutions from the OP and daroczig but slower than the solution from Aaron.

I don't actually know R, but here's how I'd approach the problem:
Find how many of each element type, i.e.
4 X 0
2 X 1
2 X 3
2 X 4
Sort by frequency (which the above already is).
Start with the most frequent value, which takes up 4 of the 10 spots. Determine the unique combinations of 4 values within the 10 available spots.
(0,1,2,3),(0,1,2,4),(0,1,2,5),(0,1,2,6)
... (0,1,2,9),(0,1,3,4),(0,1,3,5)
... (6,7,8,9)
Go to the second most frequent value, it takes up 2 of 6 available spots, and determine it's unique combinations of 2 of 6.
(0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(0,4),(0,5),(1,2),(1,3) ... (4,6),(5,6)
Then 2 of 4:
(0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(1,2),(1,3),(2,3)
And the remaining values, 2 of 2:
(0,1)
Then you need to combine them into each possible combination. Here's some pseudocode (I'm convinced there's a more efficient algorithm for this, but this shouldn't be too bad):
lookup = (0,1,3,4)
For each of the above sets of combinations, example: input = ((0,2,4,6),(0,2),(2,3),(0,1))
newPermutation = (-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1)
for i = 0 to 3
index = 0
for j = 0 to 9
if newPermutation(j) = -1
if index = input(i)(j)
newPermutation(j) = lookup(i)
break
else
index = index + 1

Another option is the iterpc package, I believe it is the fastest of the existing method. More importantly, the result is in dictionary order (which may be somehow preferable).
dat <- c(1, 0, 3, 4, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0, 4)
library(iterpc)
getall(iterpc(table(dat), order=TRUE))
The benchmark indicates that iterpc is significant faster than all other methods described here
library(multicool)
library(microbenchmark)
microbenchmark(uniqueperm2(dat),
allPerm(initMC(dat)),
getall(iterpc(table(dat), order=TRUE))
)
Unit: milliseconds
expr min lq mean median
uniqueperm2(dat) 23.011864 25.33241 40.141907 27.143952
allPerm(initMC(dat)) 1713.549069 1771.83972 1814.434743 1810.331342
getall(iterpc(table(dat), order = TRUE)) 4.332674 5.18348 7.656063 5.989448
uq max neval
64.147399 74.66312 100
1855.869670 1937.48088 100
6.705741 49.98038 100

As this question is old and continues to attract many views, this post is solely meant to inform R users of the current state of the language with regards to performing the popular task outlined by the OP. As #RandyLai alludes to, there are packages developed with this task in mind. They are: arrangements and RcppAlgos*.
Efficiency
They are very efficient and quite easy to use for generating permutations of a multiset.
dat <- c(1, 0, 3, 4, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0, 4)
dim(RcppAlgos::permuteGeneral(sort(unique(dat)), freqs = table(dat)))
[1] 18900 10
microbenchmark(algos = RcppAlgos::permuteGeneral(sort(unique(dat)), freqs = table(dat)),
arngmnt = arrangements::permutations(sort(unique(dat)), freq = table(dat)),
curaccptd = uniqueperm2(dat), unit = "relative")
Unit: relative
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
algos 1.000000 1.000000 1.0000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.0000000 100
arngmnt 1.501262 1.093072 0.8783185 1.089927 1.133112 0.3238829 100
curaccptd 19.847457 12.573657 10.2272080 11.705090 11.872955 3.9007364 100
With RcppAlgos we can utilize parallel processing for even better efficiency on larger examples.
hugeDat <- rep(dat, 2)[-(1:5)]
RcppAlgos::permuteCount(sort(unique(hugeDat)), freqs = table(hugeDat))
[1] 3603600
microbenchmark(algospar = RcppAlgos::permuteGeneral(sort(unique(hugeDat)),
freqs = table(hugeDat), nThreads = 4),
arngmnt = arrangements::permutations(sort(unique(hugeDat)), freq = table(hugeDat)),
curaccptd = uniqueperm2(hugeDat), unit = "relative", times = 10)
Unit: relative
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
algospar 1.00000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.00000 1.00000 10
arngmnt 3.23193 3.109092 2.427836 2.598058 2.15965 1.79889 10
curaccptd 49.46989 45.910901 34.533521 39.399481 28.87192 22.95247 10
Lexicographical Order
A nice benefit of these packages is that the output is in lexicographical order:
head(RcppAlgos::permuteGeneral(sort(unique(dat)), freqs = table(dat)))
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
[1,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 4 4
[2,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 3 4
[3,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4 3
[4,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 3 4
[5,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 4 3
[6,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 3 3
tail(RcppAlgos::permuteGeneral(sort(unique(dat)), freqs = table(dat)))
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
[18895,] 4 4 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0
[18896,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1
[18897,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 0
[18898,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0
[18899,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0
[18900,] 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
identical(RcppAlgos::permuteGeneral(sort(unique(dat)), freqs = table(dat)),
arrangements::permutations(sort(unique(dat)), freq = table(dat)))
[1] TRUE
Iterators
Additionally, both packages offer iterators that allow for memory efficient generation of permutation, one by one:
algosIter <- RcppAlgos::permuteIter(sort(unique(dat)), freqs = table(dat))
algosIter$nextIter()
[1] 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 4 4
algosIter$nextNIter(5)
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
[1,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 3 4
[2,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4 3
[3,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 3 4
[4,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 4 3
[5,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 3 3
## last permutation
algosIter$back()
[1] 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
## use reverse iterator methods
algosIter$prevNIter(5)
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
[1,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0
[2,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0
[3,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 0
[4,] 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1
[5,] 4 4 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0
* I am the author of RcppAlgos

Another option is by using the Rcpp package. The difference is that it returns a list.
//[[Rcpp::export]]
std::vector<std::vector< int > > UniqueP(std::vector<int> v){
std::vector< std::vector<int> > out;
std::sort (v.begin(),v.end());
do {
out.push_back(v);
} while ( std::next_permutation(v.begin(),v.end()));
return out;
}
Unit: milliseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval cld
uniqueperm2(dat) 10.753426 13.5283 15.61438 13.751179 16.16061 34.03334 100 b
UniqueP(dat) 9.090222 9.6371 10.30185 9.838324 10.20819 24.50451 100 a

Related

R: summing specific elements in a symmetrical matrix

If I have a correlation matrix, I know I can use upper.tri or lower.tri to sum all values, but is there a way to sum just specific parts of the matrix?
For example, a correlation matrix of 5 variables:
> Matrix
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
[1,] 0 4 3 1 2
[2,] 4 0 3 2 1
[3,] 3 3 0 2 1
[4,] 1 2 2 0 1
[5,] 2 1 1 1 0
If the first 2 variables belong to one group, while 3-5 belong to another, is there a way to just ask for the sum of the inter-group values? e.g., 3+3+1+2+2+1 = 12.
A long winded answer but hopefully generic one to help you!
matrix <- matrix (c(0,4,3,1,2,4,0,3,2,1,3,3,0,2,1,1,2,2,0,1,2,1,1,1,0), nrow=5, ncol=5)
group <- list(group1=c(1,2), group2=c(3,4,5))
sum_matrix <- matrix(data <- rep(NA), nrow = length(group), ncol= length(group))
for (i in 1:length(group))
{
for(j in 1:length(group))
{
ifelse(i==j, sum_matrix[i,j]<- NA, sum_matrix[i,j] <- sum(matrix[group[[i]], group[[j]] ]) )
}
}
sum_matrix
sum(matrix[group2, group1])
sum(matrix[group1, group2])

Example of compress column format for rank-deficient matrices

It is the first time I deal with column-compress storage (CCS) format to store matrices. After googling a bit, if I am right, in a matrix having n nonzero elements the CCS is as follows:
-we define a vector A_v of dimensions n x 1 storing the n non-zero elements
of the matrix
- we define a second vector A_ir of dimensions n x 1 storing the rows of the
non-zero elements of the matrix
-we finally define a third vector A_jc whose elements are the indices of the
elements of A_v which corresponds to the beginning of new column, plus a
final value which is by convention equal t0 n+1, and identifies the end of
the matrix (pointing theoretically to a virtual extra-column).
So for instance,
if
M = [1 0 4 0 0;
0 3 5 2 0;
2 0 0 4 6;
0 0 7 0 8]
we get
A_v = [1 2 3 4 5 7 2 4 6 8];
A_ir = [1 3 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 4];
A_jc = [1 3 4 7 9 11];
my questions are
I) is what I wrote correct, or I misunderstood anything?
II) what if I want to represent a matri with some columns which are zeroes, e.g.,
M2 = [0 1 0 0 4 0 0;
0 0 3 0 5 2 0;
0 2 0 0 0 4 6;
0 0 0 0 7 0 8]
wouldn't the representation of M2 in CCS be identical to the one of M?
Thanks for the help!
I) is what I wrote correct, or I misunderstood anything?
You are perfectly correct. However, you have to take care that if you use a C or C++ library offsets and indices should start at 0. Here, I guess you read some Fortran doc for which indices are starting at 1. To be clear, here is below the C version, which simply translates the indices of your Fortran-style correct answer:
A_v = unmodified
A_ir = [0 2 1 0 1 3 1 2 2 4] (in short [1 3 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 4] - 1)
A_jc = [0 2 3 6 8 10] (in short [1 3 4 7 9 11] - 1)
II) what if I want to represent a matri with some columns which are
zeroes, e.g., M2 = [0 1 0 0 4 0 0;
0 0 3 0 5 2 0;
0 2 0 0 0 4 6;
0 0 0 0 7 0 8]
wouldn't the representation of M2 in CCS be identical to the one of M?
I you have an empty column, simply add a new entry in the offset table A_jc. As this column contains no element this new entry value is simply the value of the previous entry. For instance for M2 (with index starting at 0) you have:
A_v = unmodified
A_ir = unmodified
A_jc = [0 0 2 3 6 8 10] (to be compared to [0 2 3 6 8 10])
Hence the two representations are differents.
If you just start learning about sparse matrices there is an excelllent free book here: http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~saad/IterMethBook_2ndEd.pdf

Finding all subsets of a multiset

Suppose I have a bag which contains 6 balls (3 white and 3 black). I want to find all possible subsets of a given length, disregarding the order. In the case above, there are only 4 combinations of 3 balls I can draw from the bag:
2 white and 1 black
2 black and 1 white
3 white
3 black
I already found a library in my language of choice that does exactly this, but I find it slow for greater numbers. For example, with a bag containing 15 white, 1 black, 1 blue, 1 red, 1 yellow and 1 green, there are only 32 combinations of 10 balls, but it takes 30 seconds to yield the result.
Is there an efficient algorithm which can find all those combinations that I could implement myself? Maybe this problem is not as trivial as I first thought...
Note: I'm not even sure of the right technic words to express this, so feel free to correct the title of my post.
You can do significantly better than a general choose algorithm. The key insight is to treat each color of balls at the same time, rather than each of those balls one by one.
I created an un-optimized implementation of this algorithm in python that correctly finds the 32 result of your test case in milliseconds:
def multiset_choose(items_multiset, choose_items):
if choose_items == 0:
return 1 # always one way to choose zero items
elif choose_items < 0:
return 0 # always no ways to choose less than zero items
elif not items_multiset:
return 0 # always no ways to choose some items from a set of no items
elif choose_items > sum(item[1] for item in items_multiset):
return 0 # always no ways to choose more items than are in the multiset
current_item_name, current_item_number = items_multiset[0]
max_current_items = min([choose_items, current_item_number])
return sum(
multiset_choose(items_multiset[1:], choose_items - c)
for c in range(0, max_current_items + 1)
)
And the tests:
print multiset_choose([("white", 3), ("black", 3)], 3)
# output: 4
print multiset_choose([("white", 15), ("black", 1), ("blue", 1), ("red", 1), ("yellow", 1), ("green", 1)], 10)
# output: 32
No, you don't need to search through all possible alternatives. A simple recursive algorithm (like the one given by #recursive) will give you the answer. If you are looking for a function that actually outputs all of the combinations, rather than just how many, here is a version written in R. I don't know what language you are working in, but it should be pretty straightforward to translate this into anything, although the code might be longer, since R is good at this kind of thing.
allCombos<-function(len, ## number of items to sample
x, ## array of quantities of balls, by color
names=1:length(x) ## names of the colors (defaults to "1","2",...)
){
if(length(x)==0)
return(c())
r<-c()
for(i in max(0,len-sum(x[-1])):min(x[1],len))
r<-rbind(r,cbind(i,allCombos(len-i,x[-1])))
colnames(r)<-names
r
}
Here's the output:
> allCombos(3,c(3,3),c("white","black"))
white black
[1,] 0 3
[2,] 1 2
[3,] 2 1
[4,] 3 0
> allCombos(10,c(15,1,1,1,1,1),c("white","black","blue","red","yellow","green"))
white black blue red yellow green
[1,] 5 1 1 1 1 1
[2,] 6 0 1 1 1 1
[3,] 6 1 0 1 1 1
[4,] 6 1 1 0 1 1
[5,] 6 1 1 1 0 1
[6,] 6 1 1 1 1 0
[7,] 7 0 0 1 1 1
[8,] 7 0 1 0 1 1
[9,] 7 0 1 1 0 1
[10,] 7 0 1 1 1 0
[11,] 7 1 0 0 1 1
[12,] 7 1 0 1 0 1
[13,] 7 1 0 1 1 0
[14,] 7 1 1 0 0 1
[15,] 7 1 1 0 1 0
[16,] 7 1 1 1 0 0
[17,] 8 0 0 0 1 1
[18,] 8 0 0 1 0 1
[19,] 8 0 0 1 1 0
[20,] 8 0 1 0 0 1
[21,] 8 0 1 0 1 0
[22,] 8 0 1 1 0 0
[23,] 8 1 0 0 0 1
[24,] 8 1 0 0 1 0
[25,] 8 1 0 1 0 0
[26,] 8 1 1 0 0 0
[27,] 9 0 0 0 0 1
[28,] 9 0 0 0 1 0
[29,] 9 0 0 1 0 0
[30,] 9 0 1 0 0 0
[31,] 9 1 0 0 0 0
[32,] 10 0 0 0 0 0
>

Adding zeros between every 2 elements of a matrix in matlab/octave

I am interested in how can I add rows and columns of zeros in a matrix so that it looks like this:
1 0 2 0 3
1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
2 3 4 => 2 0 3 0 4
5 4 3 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 4 0 3
Actually I am interested in how can I do this efficiently, because walking the matrix and adding zeros takes a lot of time if you work with a big matrix.
Update:
Thank you very much.
Now I'm trying to replace the zeroes with the sum of their neighbors:
1 0 2 0 3 1 3 2 5 3
1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 5 12... and so on
2 3 4 => 2 0 3 0 4 =>
5 4 3 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 4 0 3
as you can see i'm considering all the 8 neighbors of an element, but again using for and walking the matrix slows me down quite a bit, is there a faster way ?
Let your little matrix be called m1. Then:
m2 = zeros(5)
m2(1:2:end,1:2:end) = m1(:,:)
Obviously this is hard-wired to your example, I'll leave it to you to generalise.
Here are two ways to do part 2 of the question. The first does the shifts explicitly, and the second uses conv2. The second way should be faster.
M=[1 2 3; 2 3 4 ; 5 4 3];
% this matrix (M expanded) has zeros inserted, but also an extra row and column of zeros
Mex = kron(M,[1 0 ; 0 0 ]);
% The sum matrix is built from shifts of the original matrix
Msum = Mex + circshift(Mex,[1 0]) + ...
circshift(Mex,[-1 0]) +...
circshift(Mex,[0 -1]) + ...
circshift(Mex,[0 1]) + ...
circshift(Mex,[1 1]) + ...
circshift(Mex,[-1 1]) + ...
circshift(Mex,[1 -1]) + ...
circshift(Mex,[-1 -1]);
% trim the extra line
Msum = Msum(1:end-1,1:end-1)
% another version, a bit more fancy:
MexTrimmed = Mex(1:end-1,1:end-1);
MsumV2 = conv2(MexTrimmed,ones(3),'same')
Output:
Msum =
1 3 2 5 3
3 8 5 12 7
2 5 3 7 4
7 14 7 14 7
5 9 4 7 3
MsumV2 =
1 3 2 5 3
3 8 5 12 7
2 5 3 7 4
7 14 7 14 7
5 9 4 7 3

Evaluating the distribution of words in a grid

I'm creating a word search and am trying to calculate quality of the generated puzzles by verifying the word set is "distributed evenly" throughout the grid. For example placing each word consecutively, filling them up row-wise is not particularly interesting because there will be clusters and the user will quickly notice a pattern.
How can I measure how 'evenly distributed' the words are?
What I'd like to do is write a program that takes in a word search as input and output a score that evaluates the 'quality' of the puzzle. I'm wondering if anyone has seen a similar problem and could refer me to some resources. Perhaps there is some concept in statistics that might help? Thanks.
The basic problem is distribution of lines in a square or rectangle. You can eighter do this geometrically or using integer arrays. I will try the integer arrays here.
Let M be a matrix of your puzzle,
A B C D
E F G H
I J K L
M N O P
Let the word "EFGH" be an existent word, as well as "CGKO". Then, create a matrix which will contain the count of membership in eighter words in each cell:
0 0 1 0
1 1 2 1
0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0
Apply a rule: the current cell value is equal to the sum of all neighbours (4-way) and multiply with the cell's original value, if the original value is 2 or higher.
0 0 1 0 1 2 2 2
1 1 2 1 -\ 1 3 8 2
0 0 1 0 -/ 1 2 3 2
0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
And sum up all values in rows and columns the matrix:
1 2 2 2 = 7
1 3 8 2 = 14
1 2 3 2 = 8
0 1 1 1 = 3
| | | |
3 7 | 6
14
Then calculate the avarage of both result sets:
(7 + 14 + 8 + 3) / 4 = 32 / 4 = 8
(3 + 7 + 14 + 6) / 4 = 30 / 4 = 7.5
And calculate the avarage difference to the avarage of each result set:
3 <-> 7.5 = 4.5 7 <-> 8 = 1
7 <-> 7.5 = 0.5 14 <-> 8 = 6
14 <-> 7.5 = 6.5 8 <-> 8 = 0
6 <-> 7.5 = 1.5 3 <-> 8 = 5
___avg ___avg
3.25 3
And multiply them together:
3 * 3.25 = 9.75
Which you treat as a distributionscore. You might need to tweak it a little bit to make it work better, but this should calculate distributionscores quite nicely.
Here is an example of a bad distribution:
1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
1 0 0 0 -\ 2 1 0 0 -\ 3 -\ C avg 2.5 -\ C avg-2-avg 0.5
1 0 0 0 -/ 2 1 0 0 -/ 3 -/ R avg 2.5 -/ R avg-2-avg 2.5
1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 _____*
6 4 0 0 1.25 < score
Edit: calc. errors fixed.

Resources