Related
I'm trying to devise a (good) way to choose a random number from a range of possible numbers where each number in the range is given a weight. To put it simply: given the range of numbers (0,1,2) choose a number where 0 has an 80% probability of being selected, 1 has a 10% chance and 2 has a 10% chance.
It's been about 8 years since my college stats class, so you can imagine the proper formula for this escapes me at the moment.
Here's the 'cheap and dirty' method that I came up with. This solution uses ColdFusion. Yours may use whatever language you'd like. I'm a programmer, I think I can handle porting it. Ultimately my solution needs to be in Groovy - I wrote this one in ColdFusion because it's easy to quickly write/test in CF.
public function weightedRandom( Struct options ) {
var tempArr = [];
for( var o in arguments.options )
{
var weight = arguments.options[ o ] * 10;
for ( var i = 1; i<= weight; i++ )
{
arrayAppend( tempArr, o );
}
}
return tempArr[ randRange( 1, arrayLen( tempArr ) ) ];
}
// test it
opts = { 0=.8, 1=.1, 2=.1 };
for( x = 1; x<=10; x++ )
{
writeDump( weightedRandom( opts ) );
}
I'm looking for better solutions, please suggest improvements or alternatives.
Rejection sampling (such as in your solution) is the first thing that comes to mind, whereby you build a lookup table with elements populated by their weight distribution, then pick a random location in the table and return it. As an implementation choice, I would make a higher order function which takes a spec and returns a function which returns values based on the distribution in the spec, this way you avoid having to build the table for each call. The downsides are that the algorithmic performance of building the table is linear by the number of items and there could potentially be a lot of memory usage for large specs (or those with members with very small or precise weights, e.g. {0:0.99999, 1:0.00001}). The upside is that picking a value has constant time, which might be desirable if performance is critical. In JavaScript:
function weightedRand(spec) {
var i, j, table=[];
for (i in spec) {
// The constant 10 below should be computed based on the
// weights in the spec for a correct and optimal table size.
// E.g. the spec {0:0.999, 1:0.001} will break this impl.
for (j=0; j<spec[i]*10; j++) {
table.push(i);
}
}
return function() {
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)];
}
}
var rand012 = weightedRand({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1});
rand012(); // random in distribution...
Another strategy is to pick a random number in [0,1) and iterate over the weight specification summing the weights, if the random number is less than the sum then return the associated value. Of course, this assumes that the weights sum to one. This solution has no up-front costs but has average algorithmic performance linear by the number of entries in the spec. For example, in JavaScript:
function weightedRand2(spec) {
var i, sum=0, r=Math.random();
for (i in spec) {
sum += spec[i];
if (r <= sum) return i;
}
}
weightedRand2({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1}); // random in distribution...
Generate a random number R between 0 and 1.
If R in [0, 0.1) -> 1
If R in [0.1, 0.2) -> 2
If R in [0.2, 1] -> 3
If you can't directly get a number between 0 and 1, generate a number in a range that will produce as much precision as you want. For example, if you have the weights for
(1, 83.7%) and (2, 16.3%), roll a number from 1 to 1000. 1-837 is a 1. 838-1000 is 2.
I use the following
function weightedRandom(min, max) {
return Math.round(max / (Math.random() * max + min));
}
This is my go-to "weighted" random, where I use an inverse function of "x" (where x is a random between min and max) to generate a weighted result, where the minimum is the most heavy element, and the maximum the lightest (least chances of getting the result)
So basically, using weightedRandom(1, 5) means the chances of getting a 1 are higher than a 2 which are higher than a 3, which are higher than a 4, which are higher than a 5.
Might not be useful for your use case but probably useful for people googling this same question.
After a 100 iterations try, it gave me:
==================
| Result | Times |
==================
| 1 | 55 |
| 2 | 28 |
| 3 | 8 |
| 4 | 7 |
| 5 | 2 |
==================
Here are 3 solutions in javascript since I'm not sure which language you want it in. Depending on your needs one of the first two might work, but the the third one is probably the easiest to implement with large sets of numbers.
function randomSimple(){
return [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2][Math.floor(Math.random()*10)];
}
function randomCase(){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100)
switch(n){
case n<80:
return 0;
case n<90:
return 1;
case n<100:
return 2;
}
}
function randomLoop(weight,num){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100),amt=0;
for(var i=0;i<weight.length;i++){
//amt+=weight[i]; *alternative method
//if(n<amt){
if(n<weight[i]){
return num[i];
}
}
}
weight=[80,90,100];
//weight=[80,10,10]; *alternative method
num=[0,1,2]
8 years late but here's my solution in 4 lines.
Prepare an array of probability mass function such that
pmf[array_index] = P(X=array_index):
var pmf = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1]
Prepare an array for the corresponding cumulative distribution function such that
cdf[array_index] = F(X=array_index):
var cdf = pmf.map((sum => value => sum += value)(0))
// [0.8, 0.9, 1]
3a) Generate a random number.
3b) Get an array of elements that are more than or equal to this number.
3c) Return its length.
var r = Math.random()
cdf.filter(el => r >= el).length
This is more or less a generic-ized version of what #trinithis wrote, in Java: I did it with ints rather than floats to avoid messy rounding errors.
static class Weighting {
int value;
int weighting;
public Weighting(int v, int w) {
this.value = v;
this.weighting = w;
}
}
public static int weightedRandom(List<Weighting> weightingOptions) {
//determine sum of all weightings
int total = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
total += w.weighting;
}
//select a random value between 0 and our total
int random = new Random().nextInt(total);
//loop thru our weightings until we arrive at the correct one
int current = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
current += w.weighting;
if (random < current)
return w.value;
}
//shouldn't happen.
return -1;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Weighting> weightings = new ArrayList<Weighting>();
weightings.add(new Weighting(0, 8));
weightings.add(new Weighting(1, 1));
weightings.add(new Weighting(2, 1));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
System.out.println(weightedRandom(weightings));
}
}
How about
int [ ] numbers = { 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 2 } ;
then you can randomly select from numbers and 0 will have an 80% chance, 1 10%, and 2 10%
This one is in Mathematica, but it's easy to copy to another language, I use it in my games and it can handle decimal weights:
weights = {0.5,1,2}; // The weights
weights = N#weights/Total#weights // Normalize weights so that the list's sum is always 1.
min = 0; // First min value should be 0
max = weights[[1]]; // First max value should be the first element of the newly created weights list. Note that in Mathematica the first element has index of 1, not 0.
random = RandomReal[]; // Generate a random float from 0 to 1;
For[i = 1, i <= Length#weights, i++,
If[random >= min && random < max,
Print["Chosen index number: " <> ToString#i]
];
min += weights[[i]];
If[i == Length#weights,
max = 1,
max += weights[[i + 1]]
]
]
(Now I'm talking with a lists first element's index equals 0) The idea behind this is that having a normalized list weights there is a chance of weights[n] to return the index n, so the distances between the min and max at step n should be weights[n]. The total distance from the minimum min (which we put it to be 0) and the maximum max is the sum of the list weights.
The good thing behind this is that you don't append to any array or nest for loops, and that increases heavily the execution time.
Here is the code in C# without needing to normalize the weights list and deleting some code:
int WeightedRandom(List<float> weights) {
float total = 0f;
foreach (float weight in weights) {
total += weight;
}
float max = weights [0],
random = Random.Range(0f, total);
for (int index = 0; index < weights.Count; index++) {
if (random < max) {
return index;
} else if (index == weights.Count - 1) {
return weights.Count-1;
}
max += weights[index+1];
}
return -1;
}
I suggest to use a continuous check of the probability and the rest of the random number.
This function sets first the return value to the last possible index and iterates until the rest of the random value is smaller than the actual probability.
The probabilities have to sum to one.
function getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities) {
var r = Math.random(),
index = probabilities.length - 1;
probabilities.some(function (probability, i) {
if (r < probability) {
index = i;
return true;
}
r -= probability;
});
return index;
}
var i,
probabilities = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1],
count = probabilities.map(function () { return 0; });
for (i = 0; i < 1e6; i++) {
count[getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities)]++;
}
console.log(count);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
Thanks all, this was a helpful thread. I encapsulated it into a convenience function (Typescript). Tests below (sinon, jest). Could definitely be a bit tighter, but hopefully it's readable.
export type WeightedOptions = {
[option: string]: number;
};
// Pass in an object like { a: 10, b: 4, c: 400 } and it'll return either "a", "b", or "c", factoring in their respective
// weight. So in this example, "c" is likely to be returned 400 times out of 414
export const getRandomWeightedValue = (options: WeightedOptions) => {
const keys = Object.keys(options);
const totalSum = keys.reduce((acc, item) => acc + options[item], 0);
let runningTotal = 0;
const cumulativeValues = keys.map((key) => {
const relativeValue = options[key]/totalSum;
const cv = {
key,
value: relativeValue + runningTotal
};
runningTotal += relativeValue;
return cv;
});
const r = Math.random();
return cumulativeValues.find(({ key, value }) => r <= value)!.key;
};
Tests:
describe('getRandomWeightedValue', () => {
// Out of 1, the relative and cumulative values for these are:
// a: 0.1666 -> 0.16666
// b: 0.3333 -> 0.5
// c: 0.5 -> 1
const values = { a: 10, b: 20, c: 30 };
it('returns appropriate values for particular random value', () => {
// any random number under 0.166666 should return "a"
const stub1 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0);
const result1 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result1).toEqual('a');
stub1.restore();
const stub2 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.1666);
const result2 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result2).toEqual('a');
stub2.restore();
// any random number between 0.166666 and 0.5 should return "b"
const stub3 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.17);
const result3 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result3).toEqual('b');
stub3.restore();
const stub4 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.3333);
const result4 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result4).toEqual('b');
stub4.restore();
const stub5 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.5);
const result5 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result5).toEqual('b');
stub5.restore();
// any random number above 0.5 should return "c"
const stub6 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.500001);
const result6 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result6).toEqual('c');
stub6.restore();
const stub7 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(1);
const result7 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result7).toEqual('c');
stub7.restore();
});
});
Shortest solution in modern JavaScript
Note: all weights need to be integers
function weightedRandom(items){
let table = Object.entries(items)
.flatMap(([item, weight]) => Array(item).fill(weight))
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)]
}
const key = weightedRandom({
"key1": 1,
"key2": 4,
"key3": 8
}) // returns e.g. "key1"
here is the input and ratios : 0 (80%), 1(10%) , 2 (10%)
lets draw them out so its easy to visualize.
0 1 2
-------------------------------------________+++++++++
lets add up the total weight and call it TR for total ratio. so in this case 100.
lets randomly get a number from (0-TR) or (0 to 100 in this case) . 100 being your weights total. Call it RN for random number.
so now we have TR as the total weight and RN as the random number between 0 and TR.
so lets imagine we picked a random # from 0 to 100. Say 21. so thats actually 21%.
WE MUST CONVERT/MATCH THIS TO OUR INPUT NUMBERS BUT HOW ?
lets loop over each weight (80, 10, 10) and keep the sum of the weights we already visit.
the moment the sum of the weights we are looping over is greater then the random number RN (21 in this case), we stop the loop & return that element position.
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 21) //(80 > 21) so break on first pass
break;
}
//position will be 0 so we return array[0]--> 0
lets say the random number (between 0 and 100) is 83. Lets do it again:
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 83) //(90 > 83) so break
break;
}
//we did two passes in the loop so position is 1 so we return array[1]---> 1
I have a slotmachine and I used the code below to generate random numbers. In probabilitiesSlotMachine the keys are the output in the slotmachine, and the values represent the weight.
const probabilitiesSlotMachine = [{0 : 1000}, {1 : 100}, {2 : 50}, {3 : 30}, {4 : 20}, {5 : 10}, {6 : 5}, {7 : 4}, {8 : 2}, {9 : 1}]
var allSlotMachineResults = []
probabilitiesSlotMachine.forEach(function(obj, index){
for (var key in obj){
for (var loop = 0; loop < obj[key]; loop ++){
allSlotMachineResults.push(key)
}
}
});
Now to generate a random output, I use this code:
const random = allSlotMachineResults[Math.floor(Math.random() * allSlotMachineResults.length)]
Enjoy the O(1) (constant time) solution for your problem.
If the input array is small, it can be easily implemented.
const number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 99); // Generate a random number from 0 to 99
let element;
if (number >= 0 && number <= 79) {
/*
In the range of 0 to 99, every number has equal probability
of occurring. Therefore, if you gather 80 numbers (0 to 79) and
make a "sub-group" of them, then their probabilities will get added.
Hence, what you get is an 80% chance that the number will fall in this
range.
So, quite naturally, there is 80% probability that this code will run.
Now, manually choose / assign element of your array to this variable.
*/
element = 0;
}
else if (number >= 80 && number <= 89) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 1;
}
else if (number >= 90 && number <= 99) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 2;
}
I'm trying to devise a (good) way to choose a random number from a range of possible numbers where each number in the range is given a weight. To put it simply: given the range of numbers (0,1,2) choose a number where 0 has an 80% probability of being selected, 1 has a 10% chance and 2 has a 10% chance.
It's been about 8 years since my college stats class, so you can imagine the proper formula for this escapes me at the moment.
Here's the 'cheap and dirty' method that I came up with. This solution uses ColdFusion. Yours may use whatever language you'd like. I'm a programmer, I think I can handle porting it. Ultimately my solution needs to be in Groovy - I wrote this one in ColdFusion because it's easy to quickly write/test in CF.
public function weightedRandom( Struct options ) {
var tempArr = [];
for( var o in arguments.options )
{
var weight = arguments.options[ o ] * 10;
for ( var i = 1; i<= weight; i++ )
{
arrayAppend( tempArr, o );
}
}
return tempArr[ randRange( 1, arrayLen( tempArr ) ) ];
}
// test it
opts = { 0=.8, 1=.1, 2=.1 };
for( x = 1; x<=10; x++ )
{
writeDump( weightedRandom( opts ) );
}
I'm looking for better solutions, please suggest improvements or alternatives.
Rejection sampling (such as in your solution) is the first thing that comes to mind, whereby you build a lookup table with elements populated by their weight distribution, then pick a random location in the table and return it. As an implementation choice, I would make a higher order function which takes a spec and returns a function which returns values based on the distribution in the spec, this way you avoid having to build the table for each call. The downsides are that the algorithmic performance of building the table is linear by the number of items and there could potentially be a lot of memory usage for large specs (or those with members with very small or precise weights, e.g. {0:0.99999, 1:0.00001}). The upside is that picking a value has constant time, which might be desirable if performance is critical. In JavaScript:
function weightedRand(spec) {
var i, j, table=[];
for (i in spec) {
// The constant 10 below should be computed based on the
// weights in the spec for a correct and optimal table size.
// E.g. the spec {0:0.999, 1:0.001} will break this impl.
for (j=0; j<spec[i]*10; j++) {
table.push(i);
}
}
return function() {
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)];
}
}
var rand012 = weightedRand({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1});
rand012(); // random in distribution...
Another strategy is to pick a random number in [0,1) and iterate over the weight specification summing the weights, if the random number is less than the sum then return the associated value. Of course, this assumes that the weights sum to one. This solution has no up-front costs but has average algorithmic performance linear by the number of entries in the spec. For example, in JavaScript:
function weightedRand2(spec) {
var i, sum=0, r=Math.random();
for (i in spec) {
sum += spec[i];
if (r <= sum) return i;
}
}
weightedRand2({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1}); // random in distribution...
Generate a random number R between 0 and 1.
If R in [0, 0.1) -> 1
If R in [0.1, 0.2) -> 2
If R in [0.2, 1] -> 3
If you can't directly get a number between 0 and 1, generate a number in a range that will produce as much precision as you want. For example, if you have the weights for
(1, 83.7%) and (2, 16.3%), roll a number from 1 to 1000. 1-837 is a 1. 838-1000 is 2.
I use the following
function weightedRandom(min, max) {
return Math.round(max / (Math.random() * max + min));
}
This is my go-to "weighted" random, where I use an inverse function of "x" (where x is a random between min and max) to generate a weighted result, where the minimum is the most heavy element, and the maximum the lightest (least chances of getting the result)
So basically, using weightedRandom(1, 5) means the chances of getting a 1 are higher than a 2 which are higher than a 3, which are higher than a 4, which are higher than a 5.
Might not be useful for your use case but probably useful for people googling this same question.
After a 100 iterations try, it gave me:
==================
| Result | Times |
==================
| 1 | 55 |
| 2 | 28 |
| 3 | 8 |
| 4 | 7 |
| 5 | 2 |
==================
Here are 3 solutions in javascript since I'm not sure which language you want it in. Depending on your needs one of the first two might work, but the the third one is probably the easiest to implement with large sets of numbers.
function randomSimple(){
return [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2][Math.floor(Math.random()*10)];
}
function randomCase(){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100)
switch(n){
case n<80:
return 0;
case n<90:
return 1;
case n<100:
return 2;
}
}
function randomLoop(weight,num){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100),amt=0;
for(var i=0;i<weight.length;i++){
//amt+=weight[i]; *alternative method
//if(n<amt){
if(n<weight[i]){
return num[i];
}
}
}
weight=[80,90,100];
//weight=[80,10,10]; *alternative method
num=[0,1,2]
8 years late but here's my solution in 4 lines.
Prepare an array of probability mass function such that
pmf[array_index] = P(X=array_index):
var pmf = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1]
Prepare an array for the corresponding cumulative distribution function such that
cdf[array_index] = F(X=array_index):
var cdf = pmf.map((sum => value => sum += value)(0))
// [0.8, 0.9, 1]
3a) Generate a random number.
3b) Get an array of elements that are more than or equal to this number.
3c) Return its length.
var r = Math.random()
cdf.filter(el => r >= el).length
This is more or less a generic-ized version of what #trinithis wrote, in Java: I did it with ints rather than floats to avoid messy rounding errors.
static class Weighting {
int value;
int weighting;
public Weighting(int v, int w) {
this.value = v;
this.weighting = w;
}
}
public static int weightedRandom(List<Weighting> weightingOptions) {
//determine sum of all weightings
int total = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
total += w.weighting;
}
//select a random value between 0 and our total
int random = new Random().nextInt(total);
//loop thru our weightings until we arrive at the correct one
int current = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
current += w.weighting;
if (random < current)
return w.value;
}
//shouldn't happen.
return -1;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Weighting> weightings = new ArrayList<Weighting>();
weightings.add(new Weighting(0, 8));
weightings.add(new Weighting(1, 1));
weightings.add(new Weighting(2, 1));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
System.out.println(weightedRandom(weightings));
}
}
How about
int [ ] numbers = { 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 2 } ;
then you can randomly select from numbers and 0 will have an 80% chance, 1 10%, and 2 10%
This one is in Mathematica, but it's easy to copy to another language, I use it in my games and it can handle decimal weights:
weights = {0.5,1,2}; // The weights
weights = N#weights/Total#weights // Normalize weights so that the list's sum is always 1.
min = 0; // First min value should be 0
max = weights[[1]]; // First max value should be the first element of the newly created weights list. Note that in Mathematica the first element has index of 1, not 0.
random = RandomReal[]; // Generate a random float from 0 to 1;
For[i = 1, i <= Length#weights, i++,
If[random >= min && random < max,
Print["Chosen index number: " <> ToString#i]
];
min += weights[[i]];
If[i == Length#weights,
max = 1,
max += weights[[i + 1]]
]
]
(Now I'm talking with a lists first element's index equals 0) The idea behind this is that having a normalized list weights there is a chance of weights[n] to return the index n, so the distances between the min and max at step n should be weights[n]. The total distance from the minimum min (which we put it to be 0) and the maximum max is the sum of the list weights.
The good thing behind this is that you don't append to any array or nest for loops, and that increases heavily the execution time.
Here is the code in C# without needing to normalize the weights list and deleting some code:
int WeightedRandom(List<float> weights) {
float total = 0f;
foreach (float weight in weights) {
total += weight;
}
float max = weights [0],
random = Random.Range(0f, total);
for (int index = 0; index < weights.Count; index++) {
if (random < max) {
return index;
} else if (index == weights.Count - 1) {
return weights.Count-1;
}
max += weights[index+1];
}
return -1;
}
I suggest to use a continuous check of the probability and the rest of the random number.
This function sets first the return value to the last possible index and iterates until the rest of the random value is smaller than the actual probability.
The probabilities have to sum to one.
function getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities) {
var r = Math.random(),
index = probabilities.length - 1;
probabilities.some(function (probability, i) {
if (r < probability) {
index = i;
return true;
}
r -= probability;
});
return index;
}
var i,
probabilities = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1],
count = probabilities.map(function () { return 0; });
for (i = 0; i < 1e6; i++) {
count[getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities)]++;
}
console.log(count);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
Thanks all, this was a helpful thread. I encapsulated it into a convenience function (Typescript). Tests below (sinon, jest). Could definitely be a bit tighter, but hopefully it's readable.
export type WeightedOptions = {
[option: string]: number;
};
// Pass in an object like { a: 10, b: 4, c: 400 } and it'll return either "a", "b", or "c", factoring in their respective
// weight. So in this example, "c" is likely to be returned 400 times out of 414
export const getRandomWeightedValue = (options: WeightedOptions) => {
const keys = Object.keys(options);
const totalSum = keys.reduce((acc, item) => acc + options[item], 0);
let runningTotal = 0;
const cumulativeValues = keys.map((key) => {
const relativeValue = options[key]/totalSum;
const cv = {
key,
value: relativeValue + runningTotal
};
runningTotal += relativeValue;
return cv;
});
const r = Math.random();
return cumulativeValues.find(({ key, value }) => r <= value)!.key;
};
Tests:
describe('getRandomWeightedValue', () => {
// Out of 1, the relative and cumulative values for these are:
// a: 0.1666 -> 0.16666
// b: 0.3333 -> 0.5
// c: 0.5 -> 1
const values = { a: 10, b: 20, c: 30 };
it('returns appropriate values for particular random value', () => {
// any random number under 0.166666 should return "a"
const stub1 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0);
const result1 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result1).toEqual('a');
stub1.restore();
const stub2 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.1666);
const result2 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result2).toEqual('a');
stub2.restore();
// any random number between 0.166666 and 0.5 should return "b"
const stub3 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.17);
const result3 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result3).toEqual('b');
stub3.restore();
const stub4 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.3333);
const result4 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result4).toEqual('b');
stub4.restore();
const stub5 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.5);
const result5 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result5).toEqual('b');
stub5.restore();
// any random number above 0.5 should return "c"
const stub6 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.500001);
const result6 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result6).toEqual('c');
stub6.restore();
const stub7 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(1);
const result7 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result7).toEqual('c');
stub7.restore();
});
});
Shortest solution in modern JavaScript
Note: all weights need to be integers
function weightedRandom(items){
let table = Object.entries(items)
.flatMap(([item, weight]) => Array(item).fill(weight))
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)]
}
const key = weightedRandom({
"key1": 1,
"key2": 4,
"key3": 8
}) // returns e.g. "key1"
here is the input and ratios : 0 (80%), 1(10%) , 2 (10%)
lets draw them out so its easy to visualize.
0 1 2
-------------------------------------________+++++++++
lets add up the total weight and call it TR for total ratio. so in this case 100.
lets randomly get a number from (0-TR) or (0 to 100 in this case) . 100 being your weights total. Call it RN for random number.
so now we have TR as the total weight and RN as the random number between 0 and TR.
so lets imagine we picked a random # from 0 to 100. Say 21. so thats actually 21%.
WE MUST CONVERT/MATCH THIS TO OUR INPUT NUMBERS BUT HOW ?
lets loop over each weight (80, 10, 10) and keep the sum of the weights we already visit.
the moment the sum of the weights we are looping over is greater then the random number RN (21 in this case), we stop the loop & return that element position.
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 21) //(80 > 21) so break on first pass
break;
}
//position will be 0 so we return array[0]--> 0
lets say the random number (between 0 and 100) is 83. Lets do it again:
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 83) //(90 > 83) so break
break;
}
//we did two passes in the loop so position is 1 so we return array[1]---> 1
I have a slotmachine and I used the code below to generate random numbers. In probabilitiesSlotMachine the keys are the output in the slotmachine, and the values represent the weight.
const probabilitiesSlotMachine = [{0 : 1000}, {1 : 100}, {2 : 50}, {3 : 30}, {4 : 20}, {5 : 10}, {6 : 5}, {7 : 4}, {8 : 2}, {9 : 1}]
var allSlotMachineResults = []
probabilitiesSlotMachine.forEach(function(obj, index){
for (var key in obj){
for (var loop = 0; loop < obj[key]; loop ++){
allSlotMachineResults.push(key)
}
}
});
Now to generate a random output, I use this code:
const random = allSlotMachineResults[Math.floor(Math.random() * allSlotMachineResults.length)]
Enjoy the O(1) (constant time) solution for your problem.
If the input array is small, it can be easily implemented.
const number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 99); // Generate a random number from 0 to 99
let element;
if (number >= 0 && number <= 79) {
/*
In the range of 0 to 99, every number has equal probability
of occurring. Therefore, if you gather 80 numbers (0 to 79) and
make a "sub-group" of them, then their probabilities will get added.
Hence, what you get is an 80% chance that the number will fall in this
range.
So, quite naturally, there is 80% probability that this code will run.
Now, manually choose / assign element of your array to this variable.
*/
element = 0;
}
else if (number >= 80 && number <= 89) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 1;
}
else if (number >= 90 && number <= 99) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 2;
}
I'm trying to devise a (good) way to choose a random number from a range of possible numbers where each number in the range is given a weight. To put it simply: given the range of numbers (0,1,2) choose a number where 0 has an 80% probability of being selected, 1 has a 10% chance and 2 has a 10% chance.
It's been about 8 years since my college stats class, so you can imagine the proper formula for this escapes me at the moment.
Here's the 'cheap and dirty' method that I came up with. This solution uses ColdFusion. Yours may use whatever language you'd like. I'm a programmer, I think I can handle porting it. Ultimately my solution needs to be in Groovy - I wrote this one in ColdFusion because it's easy to quickly write/test in CF.
public function weightedRandom( Struct options ) {
var tempArr = [];
for( var o in arguments.options )
{
var weight = arguments.options[ o ] * 10;
for ( var i = 1; i<= weight; i++ )
{
arrayAppend( tempArr, o );
}
}
return tempArr[ randRange( 1, arrayLen( tempArr ) ) ];
}
// test it
opts = { 0=.8, 1=.1, 2=.1 };
for( x = 1; x<=10; x++ )
{
writeDump( weightedRandom( opts ) );
}
I'm looking for better solutions, please suggest improvements or alternatives.
Rejection sampling (such as in your solution) is the first thing that comes to mind, whereby you build a lookup table with elements populated by their weight distribution, then pick a random location in the table and return it. As an implementation choice, I would make a higher order function which takes a spec and returns a function which returns values based on the distribution in the spec, this way you avoid having to build the table for each call. The downsides are that the algorithmic performance of building the table is linear by the number of items and there could potentially be a lot of memory usage for large specs (or those with members with very small or precise weights, e.g. {0:0.99999, 1:0.00001}). The upside is that picking a value has constant time, which might be desirable if performance is critical. In JavaScript:
function weightedRand(spec) {
var i, j, table=[];
for (i in spec) {
// The constant 10 below should be computed based on the
// weights in the spec for a correct and optimal table size.
// E.g. the spec {0:0.999, 1:0.001} will break this impl.
for (j=0; j<spec[i]*10; j++) {
table.push(i);
}
}
return function() {
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)];
}
}
var rand012 = weightedRand({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1});
rand012(); // random in distribution...
Another strategy is to pick a random number in [0,1) and iterate over the weight specification summing the weights, if the random number is less than the sum then return the associated value. Of course, this assumes that the weights sum to one. This solution has no up-front costs but has average algorithmic performance linear by the number of entries in the spec. For example, in JavaScript:
function weightedRand2(spec) {
var i, sum=0, r=Math.random();
for (i in spec) {
sum += spec[i];
if (r <= sum) return i;
}
}
weightedRand2({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1}); // random in distribution...
Generate a random number R between 0 and 1.
If R in [0, 0.1) -> 1
If R in [0.1, 0.2) -> 2
If R in [0.2, 1] -> 3
If you can't directly get a number between 0 and 1, generate a number in a range that will produce as much precision as you want. For example, if you have the weights for
(1, 83.7%) and (2, 16.3%), roll a number from 1 to 1000. 1-837 is a 1. 838-1000 is 2.
I use the following
function weightedRandom(min, max) {
return Math.round(max / (Math.random() * max + min));
}
This is my go-to "weighted" random, where I use an inverse function of "x" (where x is a random between min and max) to generate a weighted result, where the minimum is the most heavy element, and the maximum the lightest (least chances of getting the result)
So basically, using weightedRandom(1, 5) means the chances of getting a 1 are higher than a 2 which are higher than a 3, which are higher than a 4, which are higher than a 5.
Might not be useful for your use case but probably useful for people googling this same question.
After a 100 iterations try, it gave me:
==================
| Result | Times |
==================
| 1 | 55 |
| 2 | 28 |
| 3 | 8 |
| 4 | 7 |
| 5 | 2 |
==================
Here are 3 solutions in javascript since I'm not sure which language you want it in. Depending on your needs one of the first two might work, but the the third one is probably the easiest to implement with large sets of numbers.
function randomSimple(){
return [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2][Math.floor(Math.random()*10)];
}
function randomCase(){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100)
switch(n){
case n<80:
return 0;
case n<90:
return 1;
case n<100:
return 2;
}
}
function randomLoop(weight,num){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100),amt=0;
for(var i=0;i<weight.length;i++){
//amt+=weight[i]; *alternative method
//if(n<amt){
if(n<weight[i]){
return num[i];
}
}
}
weight=[80,90,100];
//weight=[80,10,10]; *alternative method
num=[0,1,2]
8 years late but here's my solution in 4 lines.
Prepare an array of probability mass function such that
pmf[array_index] = P(X=array_index):
var pmf = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1]
Prepare an array for the corresponding cumulative distribution function such that
cdf[array_index] = F(X=array_index):
var cdf = pmf.map((sum => value => sum += value)(0))
// [0.8, 0.9, 1]
3a) Generate a random number.
3b) Get an array of elements that are more than or equal to this number.
3c) Return its length.
var r = Math.random()
cdf.filter(el => r >= el).length
This is more or less a generic-ized version of what #trinithis wrote, in Java: I did it with ints rather than floats to avoid messy rounding errors.
static class Weighting {
int value;
int weighting;
public Weighting(int v, int w) {
this.value = v;
this.weighting = w;
}
}
public static int weightedRandom(List<Weighting> weightingOptions) {
//determine sum of all weightings
int total = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
total += w.weighting;
}
//select a random value between 0 and our total
int random = new Random().nextInt(total);
//loop thru our weightings until we arrive at the correct one
int current = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
current += w.weighting;
if (random < current)
return w.value;
}
//shouldn't happen.
return -1;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Weighting> weightings = new ArrayList<Weighting>();
weightings.add(new Weighting(0, 8));
weightings.add(new Weighting(1, 1));
weightings.add(new Weighting(2, 1));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
System.out.println(weightedRandom(weightings));
}
}
How about
int [ ] numbers = { 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 2 } ;
then you can randomly select from numbers and 0 will have an 80% chance, 1 10%, and 2 10%
This one is in Mathematica, but it's easy to copy to another language, I use it in my games and it can handle decimal weights:
weights = {0.5,1,2}; // The weights
weights = N#weights/Total#weights // Normalize weights so that the list's sum is always 1.
min = 0; // First min value should be 0
max = weights[[1]]; // First max value should be the first element of the newly created weights list. Note that in Mathematica the first element has index of 1, not 0.
random = RandomReal[]; // Generate a random float from 0 to 1;
For[i = 1, i <= Length#weights, i++,
If[random >= min && random < max,
Print["Chosen index number: " <> ToString#i]
];
min += weights[[i]];
If[i == Length#weights,
max = 1,
max += weights[[i + 1]]
]
]
(Now I'm talking with a lists first element's index equals 0) The idea behind this is that having a normalized list weights there is a chance of weights[n] to return the index n, so the distances between the min and max at step n should be weights[n]. The total distance from the minimum min (which we put it to be 0) and the maximum max is the sum of the list weights.
The good thing behind this is that you don't append to any array or nest for loops, and that increases heavily the execution time.
Here is the code in C# without needing to normalize the weights list and deleting some code:
int WeightedRandom(List<float> weights) {
float total = 0f;
foreach (float weight in weights) {
total += weight;
}
float max = weights [0],
random = Random.Range(0f, total);
for (int index = 0; index < weights.Count; index++) {
if (random < max) {
return index;
} else if (index == weights.Count - 1) {
return weights.Count-1;
}
max += weights[index+1];
}
return -1;
}
I suggest to use a continuous check of the probability and the rest of the random number.
This function sets first the return value to the last possible index and iterates until the rest of the random value is smaller than the actual probability.
The probabilities have to sum to one.
function getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities) {
var r = Math.random(),
index = probabilities.length - 1;
probabilities.some(function (probability, i) {
if (r < probability) {
index = i;
return true;
}
r -= probability;
});
return index;
}
var i,
probabilities = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1],
count = probabilities.map(function () { return 0; });
for (i = 0; i < 1e6; i++) {
count[getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities)]++;
}
console.log(count);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
Thanks all, this was a helpful thread. I encapsulated it into a convenience function (Typescript). Tests below (sinon, jest). Could definitely be a bit tighter, but hopefully it's readable.
export type WeightedOptions = {
[option: string]: number;
};
// Pass in an object like { a: 10, b: 4, c: 400 } and it'll return either "a", "b", or "c", factoring in their respective
// weight. So in this example, "c" is likely to be returned 400 times out of 414
export const getRandomWeightedValue = (options: WeightedOptions) => {
const keys = Object.keys(options);
const totalSum = keys.reduce((acc, item) => acc + options[item], 0);
let runningTotal = 0;
const cumulativeValues = keys.map((key) => {
const relativeValue = options[key]/totalSum;
const cv = {
key,
value: relativeValue + runningTotal
};
runningTotal += relativeValue;
return cv;
});
const r = Math.random();
return cumulativeValues.find(({ key, value }) => r <= value)!.key;
};
Tests:
describe('getRandomWeightedValue', () => {
// Out of 1, the relative and cumulative values for these are:
// a: 0.1666 -> 0.16666
// b: 0.3333 -> 0.5
// c: 0.5 -> 1
const values = { a: 10, b: 20, c: 30 };
it('returns appropriate values for particular random value', () => {
// any random number under 0.166666 should return "a"
const stub1 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0);
const result1 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result1).toEqual('a');
stub1.restore();
const stub2 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.1666);
const result2 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result2).toEqual('a');
stub2.restore();
// any random number between 0.166666 and 0.5 should return "b"
const stub3 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.17);
const result3 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result3).toEqual('b');
stub3.restore();
const stub4 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.3333);
const result4 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result4).toEqual('b');
stub4.restore();
const stub5 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.5);
const result5 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result5).toEqual('b');
stub5.restore();
// any random number above 0.5 should return "c"
const stub6 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.500001);
const result6 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result6).toEqual('c');
stub6.restore();
const stub7 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(1);
const result7 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result7).toEqual('c');
stub7.restore();
});
});
Shortest solution in modern JavaScript
Note: all weights need to be integers
function weightedRandom(items){
let table = Object.entries(items)
.flatMap(([item, weight]) => Array(item).fill(weight))
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)]
}
const key = weightedRandom({
"key1": 1,
"key2": 4,
"key3": 8
}) // returns e.g. "key1"
here is the input and ratios : 0 (80%), 1(10%) , 2 (10%)
lets draw them out so its easy to visualize.
0 1 2
-------------------------------------________+++++++++
lets add up the total weight and call it TR for total ratio. so in this case 100.
lets randomly get a number from (0-TR) or (0 to 100 in this case) . 100 being your weights total. Call it RN for random number.
so now we have TR as the total weight and RN as the random number between 0 and TR.
so lets imagine we picked a random # from 0 to 100. Say 21. so thats actually 21%.
WE MUST CONVERT/MATCH THIS TO OUR INPUT NUMBERS BUT HOW ?
lets loop over each weight (80, 10, 10) and keep the sum of the weights we already visit.
the moment the sum of the weights we are looping over is greater then the random number RN (21 in this case), we stop the loop & return that element position.
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 21) //(80 > 21) so break on first pass
break;
}
//position will be 0 so we return array[0]--> 0
lets say the random number (between 0 and 100) is 83. Lets do it again:
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 83) //(90 > 83) so break
break;
}
//we did two passes in the loop so position is 1 so we return array[1]---> 1
I have a slotmachine and I used the code below to generate random numbers. In probabilitiesSlotMachine the keys are the output in the slotmachine, and the values represent the weight.
const probabilitiesSlotMachine = [{0 : 1000}, {1 : 100}, {2 : 50}, {3 : 30}, {4 : 20}, {5 : 10}, {6 : 5}, {7 : 4}, {8 : 2}, {9 : 1}]
var allSlotMachineResults = []
probabilitiesSlotMachine.forEach(function(obj, index){
for (var key in obj){
for (var loop = 0; loop < obj[key]; loop ++){
allSlotMachineResults.push(key)
}
}
});
Now to generate a random output, I use this code:
const random = allSlotMachineResults[Math.floor(Math.random() * allSlotMachineResults.length)]
Enjoy the O(1) (constant time) solution for your problem.
If the input array is small, it can be easily implemented.
const number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 99); // Generate a random number from 0 to 99
let element;
if (number >= 0 && number <= 79) {
/*
In the range of 0 to 99, every number has equal probability
of occurring. Therefore, if you gather 80 numbers (0 to 79) and
make a "sub-group" of them, then their probabilities will get added.
Hence, what you get is an 80% chance that the number will fall in this
range.
So, quite naturally, there is 80% probability that this code will run.
Now, manually choose / assign element of your array to this variable.
*/
element = 0;
}
else if (number >= 80 && number <= 89) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 1;
}
else if (number >= 90 && number <= 99) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 2;
}
i got stucked in a chalenge in codeFights.my code pass the simple test and fail in just 2 from five of hidden tests her is the chalenge instruction:
Ratiorg got statues of different sizes as a present from CodeMaster for his birthday, each statue having an non-negative integer size. Since he likes to make things perfect, he wants to arrange them from smallest to largest so that each statue will be bigger than the previous one exactly by 1. He may need some additional statues to be able to accomplish that. Help him figure out the minimum number of additional statues needed.
Example
For statues = [6, 2, 3, 8], the output should be
makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) = 3.
Ratiorg needs statues of sizes 4, 5 and 7.
Input/Output
[time limit] 4000ms (js)
[input] array.integer statues
An array of distinct non-negative integers.
Constraints:
1 ≤ statues.length ≤ 10,
0 ≤ statues[i] ≤ 20.
[output] integer
The minimal number of statues that need to be added to existing statues such that it contains every integer size from an interval [L, R] (for some L, R) and no other sizes.
and here is my code :
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
//range the table from min to max
var rang=statues.sort();
var some=0;
//if the table is one element
if(rang.length-1==0){
return 0;
}else{
//if the table contain more then one element
for(i=0;i<=rang.length-2;i++){
//add the deference of two consecutive position -1
//to find the number of missing numbers
some+=(rang[i+1]-rang[i]-1);
}
return some;
}
}
Everything is correct, except the sorting part.
You have used sort function to sort the array in increasing order
var rang = statues.sort();
But if sort function is not provided a compare function, it converts its elements in strings and then sort it in unicode order.
For eg: [2,1,11] will be sorted as [1,11,2] which will give undesired output.
Correct way is
var rang = statues.sort(function (a, b){
return (a - b)
});
SO THE LOGIC TO SOLVE THIS QUESTION IS:
Find the Smallest and Largest Element in Array.
Get the count of can say, difference of Largest and Smallest value of array in order to calculate, how many elements must be there to make it as a continuous array
. Like from 5 to 9, count of total elements must be 5 ( i.e.5,6,7,8,9) and also add 1 to the result to make count inclusive.
Find the Length of the Array
Subtract the count i.e. "difference of largest and smallest value " with the length of array
PYTHON CODE (For explanation):
def makeArrayConsecutive2(statues):
max_height = max(statues)
min_height = min(statues)
array_length = len(statues)
count_of_element = max_height - min_height + 1
# '1 ' is added to make it inclusive
return count_of_element-array_length
and Python one liner :
def makeArrayConsecutive2(statues):
return max(statues)-min(statues)-len(statues)+1
I agree with Deepak's Solution. The question is ready not about sorting but helping to figure out the minimum number of additional statues needed. You only need to get the max and min values.
int makeArrayConsecutive2(int[] statues)
{
int min=Integer.MAX_VALUE,max=-1;
for(int i=0;i<statues.length;i++)
{
if(statues[i] < min){ min = statues[i]; }
if(statues[i] > max){ max = statues[i]; }
}
return (max-min)+1 - statues.length;
}
Solution in typescript. Create a new array from the min and max from the status array using a for loop. Subtract new array length with status array length.
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues: number[]): number {
let min = Math.min(...statues);
let max = Math.max(...statues);
let arr = [];
for (let i = min; i <= max; i++) {
arr.push(i);
}
return arr.length - statues.length;
}
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
const nums = [];
for (let i = Math.min(...statues); i <= Math.max(...statues); i++) {
if (!statues.includes(i)) {
nums.push(i);
}
}
return nums.length;
}
console.log(makeArrayConsecutive2([6, 2, 3, 8]))
Sorting (nlogn)is not required. Below is the solution in Java.
int makeArrayConsecutive2(int[] statues) {
int max = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
int min = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
for (int i = 0; i < statues.length; i++) {
max = Math.max(max, statues[i]);
min = Math.min(min, statues[i]);
}
return (max - min) + 1 - statues.length;
}
This Code works
var statues = [2, 3, 6, 8];
var newStatues = [];
Function declaration
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
statues.sort(function(a, b) { return a - b });
for(var i = statues[0]; i <= statues[statues.length-1]; i++) {
newStatues.push(i);
}
return console.log(newStatues.length - statues.length);
}
Function Calling
makeArrayConsecutive2(statues);
Best solution goes here in just O(1) complexity:
let n = statues.length;
let max = Math.max.apply(null, statues);
let min = Math.min.apply(null, statues);
return max - min - n + 1;
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
var rang = statues.sort(function (a, b){
return (a - b)
});
var some=0;
if(rang.length-1==0){
return 0;
}else{
for(i=0;i<=rang.length-2;i++){
some+=(rang[i+1]-rang[i]-1);
}
return some;
}
}
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
const n = statues.length;
const min = Math.min(...statues);
const max = Math.max(...statues);
return max - min - n + 1;
}
If we subtract the minimum from the maximum element, then we get the number of elements that should be in the final array. Now subtract the already existing number of elements from this amount and add 1, then we get the result we need - the number of missing elements
Just for fun in C#
static int makeArrayConsecutive2(int[] statues)
{
List<int> ConsecutiveNums = new List<int>();
for(int i = statues.Min(); i != statues.Max() + 1; i++)
ConsecutiveNums.Add(i);
return ConsecutiveNums.Count - statues.Length;
}
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
return Math.max(...statues) - Math.min(...statues) + 1 -(statues.length)
}
I don't think we need a Looping there, that's my solution
you can try using for loop and ternary operation by the following code
def makeArrayConsecutive2(statues):
count=0
for i in range (min(statues),max(statues)):
count=count+1 if i not in statues else count
return count
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
s = statues.sort(function(a, b){return a - b});
n = statues.length;
val = 0;
for (let i=0;i<n-1;i++) {
val += (Math.abs(s[i]-s[i+1]))-1;
}
return val;
}
sort(statues.begin(), statues.end());
int count = 0;
for(int i = 1;i<statues.size(); i++){
int diff = statues[i]-statues[i-1];
if(diff>1){
count+=diff-1;
}
}
return count;
Solution in PHP
function solution($statues) {
return max($statues) - min($statues) - count($statues) + 1;
}
PHP solution for question.
function solution($statues) {
sort($statues);
$missing = 0;
$lowest = min($statues);
$highest = max($statues);
$numbers = range($lowest, $highest);
foreach($numbers as $number){
if(!in_array($number, $statues)){
$missing++;
}
}
return $missing;
}
here is code in python
def solution(statues):
statues.sort()
c = 0
for i in range(len(statues)-1):
if statues[i+1]-statues[i] > 1:
c += statues[i+1]-statues[i] -1
return (c)
I'm trying to devise a (good) way to choose a random number from a range of possible numbers where each number in the range is given a weight. To put it simply: given the range of numbers (0,1,2) choose a number where 0 has an 80% probability of being selected, 1 has a 10% chance and 2 has a 10% chance.
It's been about 8 years since my college stats class, so you can imagine the proper formula for this escapes me at the moment.
Here's the 'cheap and dirty' method that I came up with. This solution uses ColdFusion. Yours may use whatever language you'd like. I'm a programmer, I think I can handle porting it. Ultimately my solution needs to be in Groovy - I wrote this one in ColdFusion because it's easy to quickly write/test in CF.
public function weightedRandom( Struct options ) {
var tempArr = [];
for( var o in arguments.options )
{
var weight = arguments.options[ o ] * 10;
for ( var i = 1; i<= weight; i++ )
{
arrayAppend( tempArr, o );
}
}
return tempArr[ randRange( 1, arrayLen( tempArr ) ) ];
}
// test it
opts = { 0=.8, 1=.1, 2=.1 };
for( x = 1; x<=10; x++ )
{
writeDump( weightedRandom( opts ) );
}
I'm looking for better solutions, please suggest improvements or alternatives.
Rejection sampling (such as in your solution) is the first thing that comes to mind, whereby you build a lookup table with elements populated by their weight distribution, then pick a random location in the table and return it. As an implementation choice, I would make a higher order function which takes a spec and returns a function which returns values based on the distribution in the spec, this way you avoid having to build the table for each call. The downsides are that the algorithmic performance of building the table is linear by the number of items and there could potentially be a lot of memory usage for large specs (or those with members with very small or precise weights, e.g. {0:0.99999, 1:0.00001}). The upside is that picking a value has constant time, which might be desirable if performance is critical. In JavaScript:
function weightedRand(spec) {
var i, j, table=[];
for (i in spec) {
// The constant 10 below should be computed based on the
// weights in the spec for a correct and optimal table size.
// E.g. the spec {0:0.999, 1:0.001} will break this impl.
for (j=0; j<spec[i]*10; j++) {
table.push(i);
}
}
return function() {
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)];
}
}
var rand012 = weightedRand({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1});
rand012(); // random in distribution...
Another strategy is to pick a random number in [0,1) and iterate over the weight specification summing the weights, if the random number is less than the sum then return the associated value. Of course, this assumes that the weights sum to one. This solution has no up-front costs but has average algorithmic performance linear by the number of entries in the spec. For example, in JavaScript:
function weightedRand2(spec) {
var i, sum=0, r=Math.random();
for (i in spec) {
sum += spec[i];
if (r <= sum) return i;
}
}
weightedRand2({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1}); // random in distribution...
Generate a random number R between 0 and 1.
If R in [0, 0.1) -> 1
If R in [0.1, 0.2) -> 2
If R in [0.2, 1] -> 3
If you can't directly get a number between 0 and 1, generate a number in a range that will produce as much precision as you want. For example, if you have the weights for
(1, 83.7%) and (2, 16.3%), roll a number from 1 to 1000. 1-837 is a 1. 838-1000 is 2.
I use the following
function weightedRandom(min, max) {
return Math.round(max / (Math.random() * max + min));
}
This is my go-to "weighted" random, where I use an inverse function of "x" (where x is a random between min and max) to generate a weighted result, where the minimum is the most heavy element, and the maximum the lightest (least chances of getting the result)
So basically, using weightedRandom(1, 5) means the chances of getting a 1 are higher than a 2 which are higher than a 3, which are higher than a 4, which are higher than a 5.
Might not be useful for your use case but probably useful for people googling this same question.
After a 100 iterations try, it gave me:
==================
| Result | Times |
==================
| 1 | 55 |
| 2 | 28 |
| 3 | 8 |
| 4 | 7 |
| 5 | 2 |
==================
Here are 3 solutions in javascript since I'm not sure which language you want it in. Depending on your needs one of the first two might work, but the the third one is probably the easiest to implement with large sets of numbers.
function randomSimple(){
return [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2][Math.floor(Math.random()*10)];
}
function randomCase(){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100)
switch(n){
case n<80:
return 0;
case n<90:
return 1;
case n<100:
return 2;
}
}
function randomLoop(weight,num){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100),amt=0;
for(var i=0;i<weight.length;i++){
//amt+=weight[i]; *alternative method
//if(n<amt){
if(n<weight[i]){
return num[i];
}
}
}
weight=[80,90,100];
//weight=[80,10,10]; *alternative method
num=[0,1,2]
8 years late but here's my solution in 4 lines.
Prepare an array of probability mass function such that
pmf[array_index] = P(X=array_index):
var pmf = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1]
Prepare an array for the corresponding cumulative distribution function such that
cdf[array_index] = F(X=array_index):
var cdf = pmf.map((sum => value => sum += value)(0))
// [0.8, 0.9, 1]
3a) Generate a random number.
3b) Get an array of elements that are more than or equal to this number.
3c) Return its length.
var r = Math.random()
cdf.filter(el => r >= el).length
This is more or less a generic-ized version of what #trinithis wrote, in Java: I did it with ints rather than floats to avoid messy rounding errors.
static class Weighting {
int value;
int weighting;
public Weighting(int v, int w) {
this.value = v;
this.weighting = w;
}
}
public static int weightedRandom(List<Weighting> weightingOptions) {
//determine sum of all weightings
int total = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
total += w.weighting;
}
//select a random value between 0 and our total
int random = new Random().nextInt(total);
//loop thru our weightings until we arrive at the correct one
int current = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
current += w.weighting;
if (random < current)
return w.value;
}
//shouldn't happen.
return -1;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Weighting> weightings = new ArrayList<Weighting>();
weightings.add(new Weighting(0, 8));
weightings.add(new Weighting(1, 1));
weightings.add(new Weighting(2, 1));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
System.out.println(weightedRandom(weightings));
}
}
How about
int [ ] numbers = { 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 2 } ;
then you can randomly select from numbers and 0 will have an 80% chance, 1 10%, and 2 10%
This one is in Mathematica, but it's easy to copy to another language, I use it in my games and it can handle decimal weights:
weights = {0.5,1,2}; // The weights
weights = N#weights/Total#weights // Normalize weights so that the list's sum is always 1.
min = 0; // First min value should be 0
max = weights[[1]]; // First max value should be the first element of the newly created weights list. Note that in Mathematica the first element has index of 1, not 0.
random = RandomReal[]; // Generate a random float from 0 to 1;
For[i = 1, i <= Length#weights, i++,
If[random >= min && random < max,
Print["Chosen index number: " <> ToString#i]
];
min += weights[[i]];
If[i == Length#weights,
max = 1,
max += weights[[i + 1]]
]
]
(Now I'm talking with a lists first element's index equals 0) The idea behind this is that having a normalized list weights there is a chance of weights[n] to return the index n, so the distances between the min and max at step n should be weights[n]. The total distance from the minimum min (which we put it to be 0) and the maximum max is the sum of the list weights.
The good thing behind this is that you don't append to any array or nest for loops, and that increases heavily the execution time.
Here is the code in C# without needing to normalize the weights list and deleting some code:
int WeightedRandom(List<float> weights) {
float total = 0f;
foreach (float weight in weights) {
total += weight;
}
float max = weights [0],
random = Random.Range(0f, total);
for (int index = 0; index < weights.Count; index++) {
if (random < max) {
return index;
} else if (index == weights.Count - 1) {
return weights.Count-1;
}
max += weights[index+1];
}
return -1;
}
I suggest to use a continuous check of the probability and the rest of the random number.
This function sets first the return value to the last possible index and iterates until the rest of the random value is smaller than the actual probability.
The probabilities have to sum to one.
function getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities) {
var r = Math.random(),
index = probabilities.length - 1;
probabilities.some(function (probability, i) {
if (r < probability) {
index = i;
return true;
}
r -= probability;
});
return index;
}
var i,
probabilities = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1],
count = probabilities.map(function () { return 0; });
for (i = 0; i < 1e6; i++) {
count[getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities)]++;
}
console.log(count);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
Thanks all, this was a helpful thread. I encapsulated it into a convenience function (Typescript). Tests below (sinon, jest). Could definitely be a bit tighter, but hopefully it's readable.
export type WeightedOptions = {
[option: string]: number;
};
// Pass in an object like { a: 10, b: 4, c: 400 } and it'll return either "a", "b", or "c", factoring in their respective
// weight. So in this example, "c" is likely to be returned 400 times out of 414
export const getRandomWeightedValue = (options: WeightedOptions) => {
const keys = Object.keys(options);
const totalSum = keys.reduce((acc, item) => acc + options[item], 0);
let runningTotal = 0;
const cumulativeValues = keys.map((key) => {
const relativeValue = options[key]/totalSum;
const cv = {
key,
value: relativeValue + runningTotal
};
runningTotal += relativeValue;
return cv;
});
const r = Math.random();
return cumulativeValues.find(({ key, value }) => r <= value)!.key;
};
Tests:
describe('getRandomWeightedValue', () => {
// Out of 1, the relative and cumulative values for these are:
// a: 0.1666 -> 0.16666
// b: 0.3333 -> 0.5
// c: 0.5 -> 1
const values = { a: 10, b: 20, c: 30 };
it('returns appropriate values for particular random value', () => {
// any random number under 0.166666 should return "a"
const stub1 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0);
const result1 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result1).toEqual('a');
stub1.restore();
const stub2 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.1666);
const result2 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result2).toEqual('a');
stub2.restore();
// any random number between 0.166666 and 0.5 should return "b"
const stub3 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.17);
const result3 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result3).toEqual('b');
stub3.restore();
const stub4 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.3333);
const result4 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result4).toEqual('b');
stub4.restore();
const stub5 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.5);
const result5 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result5).toEqual('b');
stub5.restore();
// any random number above 0.5 should return "c"
const stub6 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.500001);
const result6 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result6).toEqual('c');
stub6.restore();
const stub7 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(1);
const result7 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result7).toEqual('c');
stub7.restore();
});
});
Shortest solution in modern JavaScript
Note: all weights need to be integers
function weightedRandom(items){
let table = Object.entries(items)
.flatMap(([item, weight]) => Array(item).fill(weight))
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)]
}
const key = weightedRandom({
"key1": 1,
"key2": 4,
"key3": 8
}) // returns e.g. "key1"
here is the input and ratios : 0 (80%), 1(10%) , 2 (10%)
lets draw them out so its easy to visualize.
0 1 2
-------------------------------------________+++++++++
lets add up the total weight and call it TR for total ratio. so in this case 100.
lets randomly get a number from (0-TR) or (0 to 100 in this case) . 100 being your weights total. Call it RN for random number.
so now we have TR as the total weight and RN as the random number between 0 and TR.
so lets imagine we picked a random # from 0 to 100. Say 21. so thats actually 21%.
WE MUST CONVERT/MATCH THIS TO OUR INPUT NUMBERS BUT HOW ?
lets loop over each weight (80, 10, 10) and keep the sum of the weights we already visit.
the moment the sum of the weights we are looping over is greater then the random number RN (21 in this case), we stop the loop & return that element position.
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 21) //(80 > 21) so break on first pass
break;
}
//position will be 0 so we return array[0]--> 0
lets say the random number (between 0 and 100) is 83. Lets do it again:
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 83) //(90 > 83) so break
break;
}
//we did two passes in the loop so position is 1 so we return array[1]---> 1
I have a slotmachine and I used the code below to generate random numbers. In probabilitiesSlotMachine the keys are the output in the slotmachine, and the values represent the weight.
const probabilitiesSlotMachine = [{0 : 1000}, {1 : 100}, {2 : 50}, {3 : 30}, {4 : 20}, {5 : 10}, {6 : 5}, {7 : 4}, {8 : 2}, {9 : 1}]
var allSlotMachineResults = []
probabilitiesSlotMachine.forEach(function(obj, index){
for (var key in obj){
for (var loop = 0; loop < obj[key]; loop ++){
allSlotMachineResults.push(key)
}
}
});
Now to generate a random output, I use this code:
const random = allSlotMachineResults[Math.floor(Math.random() * allSlotMachineResults.length)]
Enjoy the O(1) (constant time) solution for your problem.
If the input array is small, it can be easily implemented.
const number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 99); // Generate a random number from 0 to 99
let element;
if (number >= 0 && number <= 79) {
/*
In the range of 0 to 99, every number has equal probability
of occurring. Therefore, if you gather 80 numbers (0 to 79) and
make a "sub-group" of them, then their probabilities will get added.
Hence, what you get is an 80% chance that the number will fall in this
range.
So, quite naturally, there is 80% probability that this code will run.
Now, manually choose / assign element of your array to this variable.
*/
element = 0;
}
else if (number >= 80 && number <= 89) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 1;
}
else if (number >= 90 && number <= 99) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 2;
}