lines = ["Pizza", "Vanilla","Los Angeles Pikes","Cookie Washington Tennis Festival","Water Fiesta","Watermelon"]
best= max(set(lines), key=lines.count)
print (best)
The code above returns the greatest occurrence of an element in the list, but in case there is a draw, I want it to return the element with the greatest index. So here I want Watermelon to be printed and if anything is added without a break in the tie the highest index of the draw should be printed.
I need a solution with simple basic code like that seen above and without the importing of libraries. If you could help find a good solution for this it would be really helpful.
You could add the index normalized to a value greater than the length of the array to the result of count. The normalized index will always be less than 1.0, so that it will not affect the first-order comparison, but will guarantee that there are no ties. I would use a small function to do this:
lines = ["Pizza", "Vanilla", "Los Angeles Pikes",
"Cookie Washington Tennis Festival",
"Water Fiesta", "Watermelon"]
def key(x):
return lines.count(x) + lines.index(x) / (len(lines) + 1)
best = max(set(lines), key=key)
print(best)
While your original code returned lines = "Los Angeles Pikes" in my version of Python (because of the way the hashes turned out), the new version returns "Watermelon", as expected.
You can also use a lambda, but I find that a bit harder to read:
best = max(set(lines), key=lambda x: lines.count(x) + lines.index(x) / (len(lines) + 1))
Related
I'm trying to sample an item (which is one of the keys in a dictionary) from a list and later use the index of that item to find its corresponding value (in the same dictionary).
questions= list(capitals.keys())
answers= list(capitals.values())
for q in range(10):
queswrite = random.sample(questions,1)
number = questions.index(queswrite)
crtans = answers[number]
Here,capitals is the original dectionary from which the states(keys) and capitals(values) are being sampled.
But,apparently random.sample() method adds square brackets and single quotes to the sampled item and thus prevents it from being used to reference the list containing the corresponding values.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "F:\test.py", line 30, in
number = questions.index(queswrite)
ValueError: ['Delaware'] is not in list
How can I prevent this?
random.sample() returns a list, containing the number of elements you requested. See the documentation:
Return a k length list of unique elements chosen from the population sequence or set. Used for random sampling without replacement.
If you wanted to pick just one element, you don't want a sample however, you wanted to choose just one. For that you'd use the random.choice() function instead:
question = random.choice(questions)
However, given that you are using a loop, you probably really wanted to get 10 unique questions. Don't use a loop over range(10), instead pick a sample of 10 random questions. That's exactly what random.sample() would do for you:
for question in random.sample(questions, 10):
# pick the answer for this question.
Next, putting both keys and values into two separate lists, then using the index of one to find the other is... inefficient and unnecessary; the keys you pick can be used directly to find the answers:
questions = list(capitals)
for question in random.sample(questions, 10):
crtans = capitals[question]
I have been trying to implement the Stupid Backoff language model (the description is available here, though I believe the details are not relevant to the question).
The thing is, the code's working and producing the result that is expected, but works slower than I expected. I figured out the part that was slowing down everything is here (and NOT in the training part):
def compute_score(self, sentence):
length = len(sentence)
assert length <= self.n
if length == 1:
word = tuple(sentence)
return float(self.ngrams[length][word]) / self.total_words
else:
words = tuple(sentence[::-1])
count = self.ngrams[length][words]
if count == 0:
return self.alpha * self.compute_score(sentence[1:])
else:
return float(count) / self.ngrams[length - 1][words[:-1]]
def score(self, sentence):
""" Takes a list of strings as argument and returns the log-probability of the
sentence using your language model. Use whatever data you computed in train() here.
"""
output = 0.0
length = len(sentence)
for idx in range(length):
if idx < self.n - 1:
current_score = self.compute_score(sentence[:idx+1])
else:
current_score = self.compute_score(sentence[idx-self.n+1:idx+1])
output += math.log(current_score)
return output
self.ngrams is a nested dictionary that has n entries. Each of these entries is a dictionary of form (word_i, word_i-1, word_i-2.... word_i-n) : the count of this combination.
self.alpha is a constant that defines the penalty for going n-1.
self.n is the maximum length of that tuple that the program is looking for in the dictionary self.ngrams. It is set to 3 (though setting it to 2 or even 1 doesn't anything). It's weird because the Unigram and Bigram models work just fine in fractions of a second.
The answer that I am looking for is not a refactored version of my own code, but rather a tip which part of it is the most computationally expensive (so that I could figure out myself how to rewrite it and get the most educational profit from solving this problem).
Please, be patient, I am but a beginner (two months into the world of programming). Thanks.
UPD:
I timed the running time with the same data using time.time():
Unigram = 1.9
Bigram = 3.2
Stupid Backoff (n=2) = 15.3
Stupid Backoff (n=3) = 21.6
(It's on some bigger data than originally because of time.time's bad precision.)
If the sentence is very long, most of the code that's actually running is here:
def score(self, sentence):
for idx in range(len(sentence)): # should use xrange in Python 2!
self.compute_score(sentence[idx-self.n+1:idx+1])
def compute_score(self, sentence):
words = tuple(sentence[::-1])
count = self.ngrams[len(sentence)][words]
if count == 0:
self.compute_score(sentence[1:])
else:
self.ngrams[len(sentence) - 1][words[:-1]]
That's not meant to be working code--it just removes the unimportant parts.
The flow in the critical path is therefore:
For each word in the sentence:
Call compute_score() on that word plus the following 2. This creates a new list of length 3. You could avoid that with itertools.islice().
Construct a 3-tuple with the words reversed. This creates a new tuple. You could avoid that by passing the -1 step argument when making the slice outside this function.
Look up in self.ngrams, a nested dict, with the first key being a number (might be faster if this level were a list; there are only three keys anyway?), and the second being the tuple just created.
Recurse with the first word removed, i.e. make a new tuple (sentence[2], sentence[1]), or
Do another lookup in self.ngrams, implicitly creating another new tuple (words[:-1]).
In summary, I think the biggest problem you have is the repeated and nested creation and destruction of lists and tuples.
I am stuck trying to understand the mechanics behind this combined input(), loop & list-comprehension; from Codegaming's "MarsRover" puzzle. The sequence creates a 2D line, representing a cut-out of the topology in an area 6999 units wide (x-axis).
Understandably, my original question was put on hold, being to broad. I am trying to shorten and to narrow the question: I understand list comprehension basically, and I'm ok experienced with for-loops.
Like list comp:
land_y = [int(j) for j in range(k)]
if k = 5; land_y = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
For-loops:
for i in the range(4)
a = 2*i = 6
ab.append(a) = 0,2,4,6
But here, it just doesn't add up (in my head):
6999 points are created along the x-axis, from 6 points(x,y).
surface_n = int(input())
for i in range(surface_n):
land_x, land_y = [int(j) for j in input().split()]
I do not understand where "i" makes a difference.
I do not understand how the data "packaged" inside the input. I have split strings of integers on another task in almost exactly the same code, and I could easily create new lists and work with them - as I understood the structure I was unpacking (pretty simple being one datatype with one purpose).
The fact that this line follows within the "game"-while-loop confuses me more, as it updates dynamically as the state of the game changes.
x, y, h_speed, v_speed, fuel, rotate, power = [int(i) for i in input().split()]
Maybe someone could give an example of how this could be written in javascript, haskell or c#? No need to be syntax-correct, I'm just struggling with the concept here.
input() takes a line from the standard input. So it’s essentially reading some value into your program.
The way that code works, it makes very hard assumptions on the format of the input strings. To the point that it gets confusing (and difficult to verify).
Let’s take a look at this line first:
land_x, land_y = [int(j) for j in input().split()]
You said you already understand list comprehension, so this is essentially equal to this:
inputs = input().split()
result = []
for j in inputs:
results.append(int(j))
land_x, land_y = results
This is a combination of multiple things that happen here. input() reads a line of text into the program, split() separates that string into multiple parts, splitting it whenever a white space character appears. So a string 'foo bar' is split into ['foo', 'bar'].
Then, the list comprehension happens, which essentially just iterates over every item in that splitted input string and converts each item into an integer using int(j). So an input of '2 3' is first converted into ['2', '3'] (list of strings), and then converted into [2, 3] (list of ints).
Finally, the line land_x, land_y = results is evaluated. This is called iterable unpacking and essentially assumes that the iterable on the right has exactly as many items as there are variables on the left. If that’s the case then it’s just a nice way to write the following:
land_x = results[0]
land_y = results[1]
So basically, the whole list comprehension assumes that there is an input of two numbers separated by whitespace, it then splits those into separate strings, converts those into numbers and then assigns each number to a separate variable land_x and land_y.
Exactly the same thing happens again later with the following line:
x, y, h_speed, v_speed, fuel, rotate, power = [int(i) for i in input().split()]
It’s just that this time, it expects the input to have seven numbers instead of just two. But then it’s exactly the same.
I have an array of team names from NCAA, along with statistics associated with them. The school names are often shortened or left out entirely, but there is usually a common element in all variations of the name (like Alabama Crimson Tide vs Crimson Tide). These names are all contained in an array in no particular order. I would like to be able to take all variations of a team name by fuzzy matching them and rename all variants to one name. I'm working in python 2.7 and I have a numpy array with all of the data. Any help would be appreciated, as I have never used fuzzy matching before.
I have considered fuzzy matching through a for-loop, which would (despite being unbelievably slow) compare each element in the column of the array to every other element, but I'm not really sure how to build it.
Currently, my array looks like this:
{Names , info1, info2, info 3}
The array is a few thousand rows long, so I'm trying to make the program as efficient as possible.
The Levenshtein edit distance is the most common way to perform fuzzy matching of strings. It is available in the python-Levenshtein package. Another popular distance is Jaro Winkler's distance, also available in the same package.
Assuming a simple array numpy array:
import numpy as np
import Levenshtein as lv
ar = np.array([
'string'
, 'stum'
, 'Such'
, 'Say'
, 'nay'
, 'powder'
, 'hiden'
, 'parrot'
, 'ming'
])
We define helpers to give us indexes of Levenshtein and Jaro distances, between a string we have and all strings in the array.
def levenshtein(dist, string):
return map(lambda x: x<dist, map(lambda x: lv.distance(string, x), ar))
def jaro(dist, string):
return map(lambda x: x<dist, map(lambda x: lv.jaro_winkler(string, x), ar))
Now, note that Levenshtein distance is an integer value counted in number of characters, whilst Jaro's distance is a floating point value that normally varies between 0 and 1. Let's test this using np.where:
print ar[np.where(levenshtein(3, 'str'))]
print ar[np.where(levenshtein(5, 'str'))]
print ar[np.where(jaro(0.00000001, 'str'))]
print ar[np.where(jaro(0.9, 'str'))]
And we get:
['stum']
['string' 'stum' 'Such' 'Say' 'nay' 'ming']
['Such' 'Say' 'nay' 'powder' 'hiden' 'ming']
['string' 'stum' 'Such' 'Say' 'nay' 'powder' 'hiden' 'parrot' 'ming']
I have an unbalanced panel data set (countries and years). For simplicity let's say I have one variable, x, that I am measuring. The panel data sorted first by country (a 3-digit numeric country-code) and then by year. I would like to write a .do file that generates a new variable, z_x, containing the standardized values of the variable x. The variables should be standardized by subtracting the mean from the preceding (exclusive) m time periods, and then dividing by the standard deviation from those same time periods. If this is not possible, return a missing value.
Currently, the code I am using to accomplish this is the following (edited now for clarity)
xtset weocountrycode year
sort weocountrycode year
local win_len = 5 // Defining rolling window length.
quietly: rolling sd_x=r(sd) mean_x=r(mean), window(`win_len') saving(stats_x, replace): sum x
use stats_x, clear
rename end year
save, replace
use all_data_PROCESSED_FINAL.dta, clear
quietly: merge 1:1 (weocountrycode year) using stats_x
replace sd_x = . if `x'[_n-`win_len'+1] == . | weocountrycode[_n-`win_len'+1] != weocountrycode[_n] // This and next line are for deleting values that rolling calculates when I actually want missing values.
replace mean_`x' = . if `x'[_n-`win_len'+1] == . | weocountrycode[_n-`win_len'+1] != weocountrycode[_n]
gen z_`x' = (`x' - mean_`x'[_n-1])/sd_`x'[_n-1] // calculate z-score
UPDATE:
My struggle with rolling is that when rolling is set up to use a window length 5 rolling mean, it automatically does window length 1,2,3,4 means for the first, second, third and fourth entries (when there are not 5 preceding entries available to average out). In fact, it does this in general - if the first non-missing value is on entry 5, it will do a length 1 rolling average on entry 5, length 2 rolling average on entry 6, ..... and then finally start doing length 5 moving averages on entry 9. My issue is that I do not want this, so I would like to avoid performing these calculations. Until now, I have only been able to figure out how to delete them after they are done, which is both inefficient and bothersome.
I tried adding an if clause to the -rolling- statement:
quietly: rolling sd_x=r(sd) mean_x=r(mean) if x[_n-`win_len'+1] != . & weocountrycode[_n-`win_len'+1] != weocountrycode[_n], window(`win_len') saving(stats_x, replace): sum x
But it did not fix the problem and the output is "weird" in the sense that
1) If `win_len' is equal to, say, 10, there are 15 missing values in the resulting z_x variable, instead of 9.
2) Even though there are "extra" missing values in z_x, the observations still start out as window length 1 means, then window length 2 means, etc. which makes no sense to me.
Which leads me to believe I fundamentally don't understand 1) what -rolling- is doing and 2) how an if clause works in the context of -rolling-.
Does this help?
Thanks!
I'm not sure I understand completely but I'll try to answer based on what I think your problem is, and based on a comment by #NickCox.
You say:
... when rolling is set up to use a window length 5 rolling mean...
if the first non-missing value is
on entry 5, it will do a length 1 rolling average on entry 5, length 2
rolling average on entry 6, ...
This is expected. help rolling states:
The window size refers to calendar periods, not the number of
observations. If there
are missing data (for example, because of weekends), the actual number of observations used by command may be less than
window(#).
It's not actually doing a "length 1 rolling average", but I get to that later.
Below some examples to see what rolling does:
clear all
set more off
*-------------------------- example data -----------------------------
set obs 92
gen dat = _n - 1
format dat %tq
egen seq = fill(1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2)
tsset dat
tempfile main
save "`main'"
list in 1/12, separator(4)
*------------------- Example 1. None missing ------------------------
rolling mean=r(mean), window(4) stepsize(4) clear: summarize seq, detail
list in 1/12, separator(0)
*------- Example 2. All but one value, missing in first window ------
use "`main'", clear
replace seq = . in 1/3
list in 1/8
rolling mean=r(mean), window(4) stepsize(4) clear: summarize seq, detail
list in 1/12, separator(0)
*------------- Example 3. All missing in first window --------------
use "`main'", clear
replace seq = . in 1/4
list in 1/8
rolling mean=r(mean), window(4) stepsize(4) clear: summarize seq, detail
list in 1/12, separator(0)
Note I use the stepsize option to make things much easier to follow. Because the date variable is in quarters, I set windowsize(4) and stepsize(4) so rolling is just computing averages by year. I hope that's easy to see.
Example 1 does as expected. No problem here.
Example 2 on the other hand, should be more interesting for you. We've said that what matters are calendar periods, so the mean is computed for the whole year (four quarters), even though it contains missings. There are three missings and one non-missing. summarize is computing the mean over the whole year, but summarize ignores missings, so it just outputs the mean of non-missings, which in this case is just one value.
Example 3 has missings for all four quarters of the year. Therefore, summarize outputs . (missing).
Your problem, as I understand it, is that when you face a situation like Example 2, you'd like the output to be missing. This is where I think Nick Cox's advice comes in. You could try something like:
rolling mean=r(mean) N=r(N), window(4) stepsize(4) clear: summarize seq, detail
replace mean = . if N != 4
list in 1/12, separator(0)
This says: if the number of non-missings for the window (r(N), also computed by summarize), is not the same as the window size, then replace it with missing.