In my model, I am saving results from numerous Parameter Variation runs in a Histogram Data object.
Here are my Histogram Data settings:
Number of intervals: 7
Value range:
Automatically detected
Initial Interval Size: 10
I then print out these results using the following :
//if final replication, write Histogram Data into Excel
if(getCurrentReplication() == lastReplication){
double intervalWidth = histogramData.getIntervalWidth();
int intervalQty = histogramData.getNumberOfIntervals();
for(int i = 0; i < intervalQty; i++){
traceln(intervalWidth*i + " " + histogramData.getPDF(i));
excelRecords.setCellValue(String.valueOf(intervalWidth*i) + " - " + String.valueOf(intervalWidth*(i+1)), 1, rowIndex, columnIndex);
excelRecords.setCellValue(histogramData.getPDF(i), 1, rowIndex, columnIndex+1);
rowIndex++;
}
}
Example of my intended results:
10 - 80%
20 - 10%
30 - 5%
40 - 2%
50...
60...
Actual results:
0.0 0.0
10.0 0.0
20.0 0.0
30.0 0.998782775272379
40.0 0.0011174522089635631
50.0 9.9772518657461E-5
60.0 0.0
Results after settings initial interval size to 0.1:
0.0 0.9974651710510558
4.0 0.001117719851502934
8.0 9.181270208774101E-4
12.0 2.3951139675062872E-4
16.0 1.5967426450041916E-4
20.0 9.979641531276197E-5
24.0 0.0
How would I go about obtaining my desired results? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something about the HistogramData object?
Thank you for your help.
The function you are using (getPDF(i)) returns value for the interval in fractions (not in percentages). So, you have to multiply the value by 100 in order to get it as a percentage. As for histogram bars, model analyze the results, specified interval numbers and interval size. After that, it will build the respective number of bars that cover all results. In your case, intervals from 0 to 30 do not provide any results and bars are not presented (PDF here is 0.0).
Related
This is (supposed to be) a function which makes sure that the the sum of a number of slider's values always adds up to globalTotal.
A slider value can be changed manually by the user to changer.value and then when applying this function to the values of the other sliders, it can determine their new or endVal.
It takes the startVal of the slider which needs changing and the original value of the slider that changed changerStartVal and can determine the new value others by weighting.
The problem and my question is. Sometimes remainingStartVals can be zero (when the slider changing gets moved all the way to maximum) or startVal can be zero (when the slider changing is moved to zero and then another slider is moved). When this happens I get a divide-by-zero or a multiply-by-zero respectively. Both of which are bad and lead to incorrect results. Is there an easy way to fix this?
func calcNewVal(startVal: Float, changerStartVal: Float) -> Float {
let remainingStartVals = globalTotal - changerStartVal
let remainingNewVals = globalTotal - changer.value
let endVal = ((startVal * (100 / remainingStartVals)) / 100) * remainingNewVals
return endVal
}
This is a mathematical problem, not a problem related to Swift or any specific programming language so I'll answer with mathematical formulas and explanations rather than code snippets.
I don't really understand your algorithm either. For example in this line:
let endVal = ((startVal * (100 / remainingStartVals)) / 100) * remainingNewVals
you first multiply by 100 and then divide by 100, so you could just leave all these 100 factors out in the first place!
However, I think I understand what you're trying to achieve and the problem is that there is no generic solution. Before writing an algorithm you have to define exactly how you want it to behave, including all edge cases.
Let's define:
vi as the value of the i-th slider and
Δi as the change of the i-th slider's value
Then you have to think of the following cases:
Case 1:
0 < vi ≤ 1 for all sliders (other than the one you changed)
This is probably the common case you were thinking about. In this case you want to adjust the values of your unchanged sliders so that their total change is equal to the change Δchanged of the slider you changed. In other words:
∑i Δi = 0
If you have 3 sliders this reduces to:
Δ1 + Δ2 + Δ3 = 0
And if the slider that changed is the one with i = 1 then this requirement would read:
Δ1 = – (Δ2 + Δ3)
You want the sliders to adjust proportionally which means that this change Δ1 should not be distributed equally on the other sliders but depending on their current value:
Δ2 = – w2 * Δ1
Δ3 = – w3 * Δ1
The normed weight factors are
w2 = v2 / (v2 + v3)
w3 = v3 / (v2 + v3)
Thus we get:
Δ2 = – v2 / (v2 + v3) * Δ1
Δ3 = – v3 / (v2 + v3) * Δ1
So these are the formulas to applied for this particular case.
However, there are quite a few other cases that don't work with this approach:
Case 2:
vi = 0 for at least one, but not all of the sliders (other than the one you changed)
In this case the approach from case 1 would still work (plus it would be the logical thing to do). However, a slider's value would never change if it's zero. All of the change will be distributed over the sliders with a value > 0.
Case 3:
vi = 0 for all sliders (other than the one you changed)
In this case the proportional change doesn't work because there is simply no information how to distribute the change over the sliders. They're all zero! This is actually your zero division problem: In the case where we have 3 sliders and the slider 1 changes we'll get
v2 + v3 = 0
This is only another manifestation of the fact that the weight factors wi are simply undefined. Thus, you'll have to manually define what will happen in this case.
The most plausible thing to do in this case is to distribute the change evenly over all sliders:
Δi = – (1 / n) * Δ1
where n is the number of sliders (excluding the one that was changed!). With this logic, every slider gets "the same share" of the change.
Now that we're clear with our algorithm you can implement these cases in code. Here some pseudo code as an example:
if sum(valuesOfAllSlidersOtherThanTheSliderThatChanged) == 0 {
for allUnchangedSliders {
// distribute change evenly over the sliders
Δi = – (1 / n) * Δ_changedSlider
}
}
else {
for allUnchangedSliders {
// use weight factor to change proportionally
Δi = – v_i / ∑(v_i) * Δ_changedSlider
}
}
Please be aware that you must cache the values of the current state of your sliders at the beginning or (even better) first compute all the changes and then apply all the changes in a batch. Otherwise you will use a value v2' that you just computed for determining the value v3' which will obviously result in incorrect values.
Hey #Sean the simplest adjustment that I could think of here is to check if the remainingStartVals is not 0 that means that there are weights assigned to the other sliders and also check if a single slider had a weight to begin with which means its startVal shouldn't be equal to 0
func calcNewVal(startVal: Float, changerStartVal: Float) -> Float{
var endVal = 0
let remainingStartVals = globalTotal - changerStartVal
if remainingStartVals != 0 || startVal != 0{
let remainingNewVals = globalTotal - changer.value
endVal = ((startVal * (100 / remainingStartVals)) / 100) * remainingNewVals
}
return endVal
}
Check out this question:
Swift probability of random number being selected?
The top answer suggests to use a switch statement, which does the job. However, if I have a very large number of cases to consider, the code looks very inelegant; I have a giant switch statement with very similar code in each case repeated over and over again.
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider? (like ~30)
This is a Swift implementation strongly influenced by the various
answers to Generate random numbers with a given (numerical) distribution.
For Swift 4.2/Xcode 10 and later (explanations inline):
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = Double.random(in: 0.0 ..< sum)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Examples:
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [0.2, 0.3, 0.5])
returns 0 with probability 0.2, 1 with probability 0.3,
and 2 with probability 0.5.
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [1.0, 2.0])
return 0 with probability 1/3 and 1 with probability 2/3.
For Swift 3/Xcode 8:
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
For Swift 2/Xcode 7:
func randomNumber(probabilities probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, combine: +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerate() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider?
Sure. Write a function that generates a number based on a table of probabilities. That's essentially what the switch statement you've pointed to is: a table defined in code. You could do the same thing with data using a table that's defined as a list of probabilities and outcomes:
probability outcome
----------- -------
0.4 1
0.2 2
0.1 3
0.15 4
0.15 5
Now you can pick a number between 0 and 1 at random. Starting from the top of the list, add up probabilities until you've exceeded the number you picked, and use the corresponding outcome. For example, let's say the number you pick is 0.6527637. Start at the top: 0.4 is smaller, so keep going. 0.6 (0.4 + 0.2) is smaller, so keep going. 0.7 (0.6 + 0.1) is larger, so stop. The outcome is 3.
I've kept the table short here for the sake of clarity, but you can make it as long as you like, and you can define it in a data file so that you don't have to recompile when the list changes.
Note that there's nothing particularly specific to Swift about this method -- you could do the same thing in C or Swift or Lisp.
This seems like a good opportunity for a shameless plug to my small library, swiftstats:
https://github.com/r0fls/swiftstats
For example, this would generate 3 random variables from a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1:
import SwiftStats
let n = SwiftStats.Distributions.Normal(0, 1.0)
print(n.random())
Supported distributions include: normal, exponential, binomial, etc...
It also supports fitting sample data to a given distribution, using the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the distribution.
See the project readme for more info.
You could do it with exponential or quadratic functions - have x be your random number, take y as the new random number. Then, you just have to jiggle the equation until it fits your use case. Say I had (x^2)/10 + (x/300). Put your random number in, (as some floating-point form), and then get the floor with Int() when it comes out. So, if my random number generator goes from 0 to 9, I have a 40% chance of getting 0, and a 30% chance of getting 1 - 3, a 20% chance of getting 4 - 6, and a 10% chance of an 8. You're basically trying to fake some kind of normal distribution.
Here's an idea of what it would look like in Swift:
func giveY (x: UInt32) -> Int {
let xD = Double(x)
return Int(xD * xD / 10 + xD / 300)
}
let ans = giveY (arc4random_uniform(10))
EDIT:
I wasn't very clear above - what I meant was you could replace the switch statement with some function that would return a set of numbers with a probability distribution that you could figure out with regression using wolfram or something. So, for the question you linked to, you could do something like this:
import Foundation
func returnLevelChange() -> Double {
return 0.06 * exp(0.4 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 0.1
}
newItemLevel = oldItemLevel * returnLevelChange()
So that function returns a double somewhere between -0.05 and 2.1. That would be your "x% worse/better than current item level" figure. But, since it's an exponential function, it won't return an even spread of numbers. The arc4random_uniform(10) returns an int from 0 - 9, and each of those would result in a double like this:
0: -0.04
1: -0.01
2: 0.03
3: 0.1
4: 0.2
5: 0.34
6: 0.56
7: 0.89
8: 1.37
9: 2.1
Since each of those ints from the arc4random_uniform has an equal chance of showing up, you get probabilities like this:
40% chance of -0.04 to 0.1 (~ -5% - 10%)
30% chance of 0.2 to 0.56 (~ 20% - 55%)
20% chance of 0.89 to 1.37 (~ 90% - 140%)
10% chance of 2.1 (~ 200%)
Which is something similar to the probabilities that other person had. Now, for your function, it's much more difficult, and the other answers are almost definitely more applicable and elegant. BUT you could still do it.
Arrange each of the letters in order of their probability - from largest to smallest. Then, get their cumulative sums, starting with 0, without the last. (so probabilities of 50%, 30%, 20% becomes 0, 0.5, 0.8). Then you multiply them up until they're integers with reasonable accuracy (0, 5, 8). Then, plot them - your cumulative probabilities are your x's, the things you want to select with a given probability (your letters) are your y's. (you obviously can't plot actual letters on the y axis, so you'd just plot their indices in some array). Then, you'd try find some regression there, and have that be your function. For instance, trying those numbers, I got
e^0.14x - 1
and this:
let letters: [Character] = ["a", "b", "c"]
func randLetter() -> Character {
return letters[Int(exp(0.14 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 1)]
}
returns "a" 50% of the time, "b" 30% of the time, and "c" 20% of the time. Obviously pretty cumbersome for more letters, and it would take a while to figure out the right regression, and if you wanted to change the weightings you're have to do it manually. BUT if you did find a nice equation that did fit your values, the actual function would only be a couple lines long, and fast.
Check out this question:
Swift probability of random number being selected?
The top answer suggests to use a switch statement, which does the job. However, if I have a very large number of cases to consider, the code looks very inelegant; I have a giant switch statement with very similar code in each case repeated over and over again.
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider? (like ~30)
This is a Swift implementation strongly influenced by the various
answers to Generate random numbers with a given (numerical) distribution.
For Swift 4.2/Xcode 10 and later (explanations inline):
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = Double.random(in: 0.0 ..< sum)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Examples:
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [0.2, 0.3, 0.5])
returns 0 with probability 0.2, 1 with probability 0.3,
and 2 with probability 0.5.
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [1.0, 2.0])
return 0 with probability 1/3 and 1 with probability 2/3.
For Swift 3/Xcode 8:
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
For Swift 2/Xcode 7:
func randomNumber(probabilities probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, combine: +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerate() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider?
Sure. Write a function that generates a number based on a table of probabilities. That's essentially what the switch statement you've pointed to is: a table defined in code. You could do the same thing with data using a table that's defined as a list of probabilities and outcomes:
probability outcome
----------- -------
0.4 1
0.2 2
0.1 3
0.15 4
0.15 5
Now you can pick a number between 0 and 1 at random. Starting from the top of the list, add up probabilities until you've exceeded the number you picked, and use the corresponding outcome. For example, let's say the number you pick is 0.6527637. Start at the top: 0.4 is smaller, so keep going. 0.6 (0.4 + 0.2) is smaller, so keep going. 0.7 (0.6 + 0.1) is larger, so stop. The outcome is 3.
I've kept the table short here for the sake of clarity, but you can make it as long as you like, and you can define it in a data file so that you don't have to recompile when the list changes.
Note that there's nothing particularly specific to Swift about this method -- you could do the same thing in C or Swift or Lisp.
This seems like a good opportunity for a shameless plug to my small library, swiftstats:
https://github.com/r0fls/swiftstats
For example, this would generate 3 random variables from a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1:
import SwiftStats
let n = SwiftStats.Distributions.Normal(0, 1.0)
print(n.random())
Supported distributions include: normal, exponential, binomial, etc...
It also supports fitting sample data to a given distribution, using the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the distribution.
See the project readme for more info.
You could do it with exponential or quadratic functions - have x be your random number, take y as the new random number. Then, you just have to jiggle the equation until it fits your use case. Say I had (x^2)/10 + (x/300). Put your random number in, (as some floating-point form), and then get the floor with Int() when it comes out. So, if my random number generator goes from 0 to 9, I have a 40% chance of getting 0, and a 30% chance of getting 1 - 3, a 20% chance of getting 4 - 6, and a 10% chance of an 8. You're basically trying to fake some kind of normal distribution.
Here's an idea of what it would look like in Swift:
func giveY (x: UInt32) -> Int {
let xD = Double(x)
return Int(xD * xD / 10 + xD / 300)
}
let ans = giveY (arc4random_uniform(10))
EDIT:
I wasn't very clear above - what I meant was you could replace the switch statement with some function that would return a set of numbers with a probability distribution that you could figure out with regression using wolfram or something. So, for the question you linked to, you could do something like this:
import Foundation
func returnLevelChange() -> Double {
return 0.06 * exp(0.4 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 0.1
}
newItemLevel = oldItemLevel * returnLevelChange()
So that function returns a double somewhere between -0.05 and 2.1. That would be your "x% worse/better than current item level" figure. But, since it's an exponential function, it won't return an even spread of numbers. The arc4random_uniform(10) returns an int from 0 - 9, and each of those would result in a double like this:
0: -0.04
1: -0.01
2: 0.03
3: 0.1
4: 0.2
5: 0.34
6: 0.56
7: 0.89
8: 1.37
9: 2.1
Since each of those ints from the arc4random_uniform has an equal chance of showing up, you get probabilities like this:
40% chance of -0.04 to 0.1 (~ -5% - 10%)
30% chance of 0.2 to 0.56 (~ 20% - 55%)
20% chance of 0.89 to 1.37 (~ 90% - 140%)
10% chance of 2.1 (~ 200%)
Which is something similar to the probabilities that other person had. Now, for your function, it's much more difficult, and the other answers are almost definitely more applicable and elegant. BUT you could still do it.
Arrange each of the letters in order of their probability - from largest to smallest. Then, get their cumulative sums, starting with 0, without the last. (so probabilities of 50%, 30%, 20% becomes 0, 0.5, 0.8). Then you multiply them up until they're integers with reasonable accuracy (0, 5, 8). Then, plot them - your cumulative probabilities are your x's, the things you want to select with a given probability (your letters) are your y's. (you obviously can't plot actual letters on the y axis, so you'd just plot their indices in some array). Then, you'd try find some regression there, and have that be your function. For instance, trying those numbers, I got
e^0.14x - 1
and this:
let letters: [Character] = ["a", "b", "c"]
func randLetter() -> Character {
return letters[Int(exp(0.14 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 1)]
}
returns "a" 50% of the time, "b" 30% of the time, and "c" 20% of the time. Obviously pretty cumbersome for more letters, and it would take a while to figure out the right regression, and if you wanted to change the weightings you're have to do it manually. BUT if you did find a nice equation that did fit your values, the actual function would only be a couple lines long, and fast.
I want to apply a Gaussian filter of dimension 5x5 pixels on an image of 512x512 pixels. I found a scipy function to do that:
scipy.ndimage.filters.gaussian_filter(input, sigma, truncate=3.0)
How I choose the parameter of sigma to make sure that my Gaussian window is 5x5 pixels?
Check out the source code here: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/scipy/ndimage/filters.py
You'll see that gaussian_filter calls gaussian_filter1d for each axis. In gaussian_filter1d, the width of the filter is determined implicitly by the values of sigma and truncate. In effect, the width w is
w = 2*int(truncate*sigma + 0.5) + 1
So
(w - 1)/2 = int(truncate*sigma + 0.5)
For w = 5, the left side is 2. The right side is 2 if
2 <= truncate*sigma + 0.5 < 3
or
1.5 <= truncate*sigma < 2.5
If you choose truncate = 3 (overriding the default of 4), you get
0.5 <= sigma < 0.83333...
We can check this by filtering an input that is all 0 except for a single 1 (i.e. find the impulse response of the filter) and counting the number of nonzero values in the filtered output. (In the following, np is numpy.)
First create an input with a single 1:
In [248]: x = np.zeros(9)
In [249]: x[4] = 1
Check the change in the size at sigma = 0.5...
In [250]: np.count_nonzero(gaussian_filter1d(x, 0.49, truncate=3))
Out[250]: 3
In [251]: np.count_nonzero(gaussian_filter1d(x, 0.5, truncate=3))
Out[251]: 5
... and at sigma = 0.8333...:
In [252]: np.count_nonzero(gaussian_filter1d(x, 0.8333, truncate=3))
Out[252]: 5
In [253]: np.count_nonzero(gaussian_filter1d(x, 0.8334, truncate=3))
Out[253]: 7
Following the excellent previous answer:
set sigma s = 2
set window size w = 5
evaluate the 'truncate' value: t = (((w - 1)/2)-0.5)/s
filtering: filtered_data = scipy.ndimage.filters.gaussian_filter(data, sigma=s, truncate=t)
I'd like to create a range slider that has different sensitivity levels.
It needs to act differently depending on the specific part in the range the user has chosen.
i.e. - if my slider's range is 1-100,000, then setting the range at lower values will jump by 1, and setting the range at the higher values will jump by 100.
eBay implemented this kind of slider in their website (notice the price range slider on the left): http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?LH_FS=0&_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=car&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo=490&_udhi=21%2C000%2C000
Any idea?
Set the slider's range to be 0 - 5. Then calculate the desired value as 10 ^ sliderValue. This basically gives you a logarithmic scale.
If you want discrete, but different linear ranges, then the answer by kabram is probably more what you want.
Update:
Set the slider's range from 0.0 to 5.0. As the slider's value changes, the calculated value becomes:
double newValue = pow(10, slider.value);
where slider is the UISlider. pow is a standard C math function. This gives you the following:
slider.value newValue
0.0 1.0
1.0 10.0
2.0 100.0
3.0 1000.0
4.0 10000.0
5.0 100000.0
Since the slider is not showing the associated value, why don't you simply add an action outlet to the value-change event and compute the appropriate jumps.
So for e.g., set the slider's range to 1 to 100. Let's assume you are showing the computed range using a label.
Label's value will then be:
if slider.value < 10, then value = range
else if slider.value < 20 then value = 10 + (slider.value - 10) * 2 // increments of 2
else if slider.value < 50 then value = 10 + 10 * 2 + (slider.value - 20) * 5 // increments of 5
...
you get the idea?