Related
total number of ways to reach the nth floor with following types of moves:
Type 1 in a single move you can move from i to i+1 floor – you can use the this move any number of times
Type 2 in a single move you can move from i to i+2 floor – you can use this move any number of times
Type 3 in a single move you can move from i to i+3 floor – but you can use this move at most k times
i know how to reach nth floor by following step 1 ,step 2, step 3 any number of times using dp like dp[i]=dp[i-1]+dp[i-2]+dp[i-3].i am stucking in the condition of Type 3 movement with atmost k times.
someone tell me the approach here.
While modeling any recursion or dynamic programming problem, it is important to identify the goal, constraints, states, state function, state transitions, possible state variables and initial condition aka base state. Using this information we should try to come up with a recurrence relation.
In our current problem:
Goal: Our goal here is to somehow calculate number of ways to reach floor n while beginning from floor 0.
Constraints: We can move from floor i to i+3 at most K times. We name it as a special move. So, one can perform this special move at most K times.
State: In this problem, our situation of being at a floor could be one way to model a state. The exact situation can be defined by the state variables.
State variables: State variables are properties of the state and are important to identify a state uniquely. Being at a floor i alone is not enough in itself as we also have a constraint K. So to identify a state uniquely we want to have 2 state variables: i indicating floor ranging between 0..n and k indicating number of special move used out of K (capital K).
State functions: In our current problem, we are concerned with finding number of ways to reach a floor i from floor 0. We only need to define one function number_of_ways associated with corresponding state to describe the problem. Depending on problem, we may need to define more state functions.
State Transitions: Here we identify how can we transition between states. We can come freely to floor i from floor i-1 and floor i-2 without consuming our special move. We can only come to floor i from floor i-3 while consuming a special move, if i >=3 and special moves used so far k < K.
In other words, possible state transitions are:
state[i,k] <== state[i-1,k] // doesn't consume special move k
state[i,k] <== state[i-2,k] // doesn't consume special move k
state[i,k+1] <== state[i-3, k] if only k < K and i >= 3
We should now be able to form following recurrence relation using above information. While coming up with a recurrence relation, we must ensure that all the previous states needed for computation of current state are computed first. We can ensure the order by computing our states in the topological order of directed acyclic graph (DAG) formed by defined states as its vertices and possible transitions as directed edges. It is important to note that it is only possible to have such ordering if the directed graph formed by defined states is acyclic, otherwise we need to rethink if the states are correctly defined uniquely by its state variables.
Recurrence Relation:
number_of_ways[i,k] = ((number_of_ways[i-1,k] if i >= 1 else 0)+
(number_of_ways[i-2,k] if i >= 2 else 0) +
(number_of_ways[i-3,k-1] if i >= 3 and k < K else 0)
)
Base cases:
Base cases or solutions to initial states kickstart our recurrence relation and are sufficient to compute solutions of remaining states. These are usually trivial cases or smallest subproblems that can be solved without recurrence relation.
We can have as many base conditions as we require and there is no specific limit. Ideally we would want to have a minimal set of base conditions, enough to compute solutions of all remaining states. For the current problem, after initializing all not computed solutions so far as 0,
number_of_ways[0, 0] = 1
number_of_ways[0,k] = 0 where 0 < k <= K
Our required final answer will be sum(number_of_ways[n,k], for all 0<=k<=K).
You can use two-dimensional dynamic programming:
dp[i,j] is the solution value when exactly j Type-3 steps are used. Then
dp[i,j]=dp[i-1,j]+dp[i-2,j]+dp[i-3,j-1], and the initial values are dp[0,0]=0, dp[1,0]=1, and dp[3*m,m]=m for m<=k. You can build up first the d[i,0] values, then the d[i,1] values, etc. Or you can do a different order, as long as all necessary values are already computed.
Following #LaszloLadanyi approach ,below is the code snippet in python
def solve(self, n, k):
dp=[[0 for i in range(k+1)]for _ in range(n+1)]
dp[0][0]=1
for j in range(k+1):
for i in range(1,n+1):
dp[i][j]+=dp[i-1][j]
if i>1:
dp[i][j]+=dp[i-2][j]
if i>2 and j>0:
dp[i][j]+=dp[i-3][j-1]
return sum(dp[n])
Problem is to check whether the given 2D array represents a valid Sudoku or not. Given below are the conditions required
Each row must contain the digits 1-9 without repetition.
Each column must contain the digits 1-9 without repetition.
Each of the 9 3x3 sub-boxes of the grid must contain the digits 1-9 without repetition.
Here is the code I prepared for this, please give me tips on how I can make it faster and reduce runtime and whether by using the dictionary my program is slowing down ?
def isValidSudoku(self, boards: List[List[str]]) -> bool:
r = {}
a = {}
for i in range(len(boards)):
c = {}
for j in range(len(boards[i])):
if boards[i][j] != '.':
x,y = r.get(boards[i][j]+f'{j}',0),c.get(boards[i][j],0)
u,v = (i+3)//3,(j+3)//3
z = a.get(boards[i][j]+f'{u}{v}',0)
if (x==0 and y==0 and z==0):
r[boards[i][j]+f'{j}'] = x+1
c[boards[i][j]] = y+1
a[boards[i][j]+f'{u}{v}'] = z+1
else:
return False
return True
Simply optimizing assignment without rethinking your algorithm limits your overall efficiency by a lot. When you make a choice you generally take a long time before discovering a contradiction.
Instead of representing, "Here are the values that I have figured out", try to represent, "Here are the values that I have left to try in each spot." And now your fundamental operation is, "Eliminate this value from this spot." (Remember, getting it down to 1 propagates to eliminating the value from all of its peers, potentially recursively.)
Assignment is now "Eliminate all values but this one from this spot."
And now your fundamental search operation is, "Find the square with the least number of remaining possibilities > 1. Try each possibility in turn."
This may feel heavyweight. But the immediate propagation of constraints results in very quickly discovering constraints on the rest of the solution, which is far faster than having to do exponential amounts of reasoning before finding the logical contradiction in your partial solution so far.
I recommend doing this yourself. But https://norvig.com/sudoku.html has full working code that you can look at at need.
I am implementing the Skipgram model, both in Pytorch and Tensorflow2. I am having doubts about the implementation of subsampling of frequent words. Verbatim from the paper, the probability of subsampling word wi is computed as
where t is a custom threshold (usually, a small value such as 0.0001) and f is the frequency of the word in the document. Although the authors implemented it in a different, but almost equivalent way, let's stick with this definition.
When computing the P(wi), we can end up with negative values. For example, assume we have 100 words, and one of them appears extremely more often than others (as it is the case for my dataset).
import numpy as np
import seaborn as sns
np.random.seed(12345)
# generate counts in [1, 20]
counts = np.random.randint(low=1, high=20, size=99)
# add an extremely bigger count
counts = np.insert(counts, 0, 100000)
# compute frequencies
f = counts/counts.sum()
# define threshold as in paper
t = 0.0001
# compute probabilities as in paper
probs = 1 - np.sqrt(t/f)
sns.distplot(probs);
Q: What is the correct way to implement subsampling using this "probability"?
As an additional info, I have seen that in keras the function keras.preprocessing.sequence.make_sampling_table takes a different approach:
def make_sampling_table(size, sampling_factor=1e-5):
"""Generates a word rank-based probabilistic sampling table.
Used for generating the `sampling_table` argument for `skipgrams`.
`sampling_table[i]` is the probability of sampling
the i-th most common word in a dataset
(more common words should be sampled less frequently, for balance).
The sampling probabilities are generated according
to the sampling distribution used in word2vec:
```
p(word) = (min(1, sqrt(word_frequency / sampling_factor) /
(word_frequency / sampling_factor)))
```
We assume that the word frequencies follow Zipf's law (s=1) to derive
a numerical approximation of frequency(rank):
`frequency(rank) ~ 1/(rank * (log(rank) + gamma) + 1/2 - 1/(12*rank))`
where `gamma` is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
# Arguments
size: Int, number of possible words to sample.
sampling_factor: The sampling factor in the word2vec formula.
# Returns
A 1D Numpy array of length `size` where the ith entry
is the probability that a word of rank i should be sampled.
"""
gamma = 0.577
rank = np.arange(size)
rank[0] = 1
inv_fq = rank * (np.log(rank) + gamma) + 0.5 - 1. / (12. * rank)
f = sampling_factor * inv_fq
return np.minimum(1., f / np.sqrt(f))
I tend to trust deployed code more than paper write-ups, especially in a case like word2vec, where the original authors' word2vec.c code released by the paper's authors has been widely used & served as the template for other implementations. If we look at its subsampling mechanism...
if (sample > 0) {
real ran = (sqrt(vocab[word].cn / (sample * train_words)) + 1) * (sample * train_words) / vocab[word].cn;
next_random = next_random * (unsigned long long)25214903917 + 11;
if (ran < (next_random & 0xFFFF) / (real)65536) continue;
}
...we see that those words with tiny counts (.cn) that could give negative values in the original formula instead here give values greater-than 1.0, and thus can never be less than the long-random-masked-and-scaled to never be more than 1.0 ((next_random & 0xFFFF) / (real)65536). So, it seems the authors' intent was for all negative-values of the original formula to mean "never discard".
As per the keras make_sampling_table() comment & implementation, they're not consulting the actual word-frequencies at all. Instead, they're assuming a Zipf-like distribution based on word-rank order to synthesize a simulated word-frequency.
If their assumptions were to hold – the related words are from a natural-language corpus with a Zipf-like frequency-distribution – then I'd expect their sampling probabilities to be close to down-sampling probabilities that would have been calculated from true frequency information. And that's probably "close enough" for most purposes.
I'm not sure why they chose this approximation. Perhaps other aspects of their usual processes have not maintained true frequencies through to this step, and they're expecting to always be working with natural-language texts, where the assumed frequencies will be generally true.
(As luck would have it, and because people often want to impute frequencies to public sets of word-vectors which have dropped the true counts but are still sorted from most- to least-frequent, just a few days ago I wrote an answer about simulating a fake-but-plausible distribution using Zipf's law – similar to what this keras code is doing.)
But, if you're working with data that doesn't match their assumptions (as with your synthetic or described datasets), their sampling-probabilities will be quite different than what you would calculate yourself, with any form of the original formula that uses true word frequencies.
In particular, imagine a distribution with one token a million times, then a hundred tokens all appearing just 10 times each. Those hundred tokens' order in the "rank" list is arbitrary – truly, they're all tied in frequency. But the simulation-based approach, by fitting a Zipfian distribution on that ordering, will in fact be sampling each of them very differently. The one 10-occurrence word lucky enough to be in the 2nd rank position will be far more downsampled, as if it were far more frequent. And the 1st-rank "tall head" value, by having its true frequency *under-*approximated, will be less down-sampled than otherwise. Neither of those effects seem beneficial, or in the spirit of the frequent-word-downsampling option - which should only "thin out" very-frequent words, and in all cases leave words of the same frequency as each other in the original corpus roughly equivalently present to each other in the down-sampled corpus.
So for your case, I would go with the original formula (probability-of-discarding-that-requires-special-handling-of-negative-values), or the word2vec.c practical/inverted implementation (probability-of-keeping-that-saturates-at-1.0), rather than the keras-style approximation.
(As a totally-separate note that nonetheless may be relevant for your dataset/purposes, if you're using negative-sampling: there's another parameter controlling the relative sampling of negative examples, often fixed at 0.75 in early implementations, that one paper has suggested can usefully vary for non-natural-language token distributions & recommendation-related end-uses. This parameter is named ns_exponent in the Python gensim implementation, but simply a fixed power value internal to a sampling-table pre-calculation in the original word2vec.c code.)
I have read an article on data leakage. In a hackathon there are two sets of data, train data on which participants train their algorithm and test set on which performance is measured.
Data leakage helps in getting a perfect score in test data, with out viewing train data by exploiting the leak.
I have read the article, but I am missing the crux how the leakage is exploited.
Steps as shown in article are following:
Let's load the test data.
Note, that we don't have any training data here, just test data. Moreover, we will not even use any features of test objects. All we need to solve this task is the file with the indices for the pairs, that we need to compare.
Let's load the data with test indices.
test = pd.read_csv('../test_pairs.csv')
test.head(10)
pairId FirstId SecondId
0 0 1427 8053
1 1 17044 7681
2 2 19237 20966
3 3 8005 20765
4 4 16837 599
5 5 3657 12504
6 6 2836 7582
7 7 6136 6111
8 8 23295 9817
9 9 6621 7672
test.shape[0]
368550
For example, we can think that there is a test dataset of images, and each image is assigned a unique Id from 0 to N−1 (N -- is the number of images). In the dataframe from above FirstId and SecondId point to these Id's and define pairs, that we should compare: e.g. do both images in the pair belong to the same class or not. So, for example for the first row: if images with Id=1427 and Id=8053 belong to the same class, we should predict 1, and 0 otherwise.
But in our case we don't really care about the images, and how exactly we compare the images (as long as comparator is binary).
print(test['FirstId'].nunique())
print(test['SecondId'].nunique())
26325
26310
So the number of pairs we are given to classify is very very small compared to the total number of pairs.
To exploit the leak we need to assume (or prove), that the total number of positive pairs is small, compared to the total number of pairs. For example: think about an image dataset with 1000 classes, N images per class. Then if the task was to tell whether a pair of images belongs to the same class or not, we would have 1000*N*(N−1)/2 positive pairs, while total number of pairs was 1000*N(1000N−1)/2.
Another example: in Quora competitition the task was to classify whether a pair of qustions are duplicates of each other or not. Of course, total number of question pairs is very huge, while number of duplicates (positive pairs) is much much smaller.
Finally, let's get a fraction of pairs of class 1. We just need to submit a constant prediction "all ones" and check the returned accuracy. Create a dataframe with columns pairId and Prediction, fill it and export it to .csv file. Then submit
test['Prediction'] = np.ones(test.shape[0])
sub=pd.DataFrame(test[['pairId','Prediction']])
sub.to_csv('sub.csv',index=False)
All ones have accuracy score is 0.500000.
So, we assumed the total number of pairs is much higher than the number of positive pairs, but it is not the case for the test set. It means that the test set is constructed not by sampling random pairs, but with a specific sampling algorithm. Pairs of class 1 are oversampled.
Now think, how we can exploit this fact? What is the leak here? If you get it now, you may try to get to the final answer yourself, othewise you can follow the instructions below.
Building a magic feature
In this section we will build a magic feature, that will solve the problem almost perfectly. The instructions will lead you to the correct solution, but please, try to explain the purpose of the steps we do to yourself -- it is very important.
Incidence matrix
First, we need to build an incidence matrix. You can think of pairs (FirstId, SecondId) as of edges in an undirected graph.
The incidence matrix is a matrix of size (maxId + 1, maxId + 1), where each row (column) i corresponds i-th Id. In this matrix we put the value 1to the position [i, j], if and only if a pair (i, j) or (j, i) is present in a given set of pais (FirstId, SecondId). All the other elements in the incidence matrix are zeros.
Important! The incidence matrices are typically very very sparse (small number of non-zero values). At the same time incidence matrices are usually huge in terms of total number of elements, and it is impossible to store them in memory in dense format. But due to their sparsity incidence matrices can be easily represented as sparse matrices. If you are not familiar with sparse matrices, please see wiki and scipy.sparse reference. Please, use any of scipy.sparseconstructors to build incidence matrix.
For example, you can use this constructor: scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((data, (i, j))). We highly recommend to learn to use different scipy.sparseconstuctors, and matrices types, but if you feel you don't want to use them, you can always build this matrix with a simple for loop. You will need first to create a matrix using scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((M, N), [dtype]) with an appropriate shape (M, N) and then iterate through (FirstId, SecondId) pairs and fill corresponding elements in matrix with ones.
Note, that the matrix should be symmetric and consist only of zeros and ones. It is a way to check yourself.
import networkx as nx
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import scipy.sparse
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
test = pd.read_csv('../test_pairs.csv')
x = test[['FirstId','SecondId']].rename(columns={'FirstId':'col1', 'SecondId':'col2'})
y = test[['SecondId','FirstId']].rename(columns={'SecondId':'col1', 'FirstId':'col2'})
comb = pd.concat([x,y],ignore_index=True).drop_duplicates(keep='first')
comb.head()
col1 col2
0 1427 8053
1 17044 7681
2 19237 20966
3 8005 20765
4 16837 599
data = np.ones(comb.col1.shape, dtype=int)
inc_mat = scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((data,(comb.col1,comb.col2)), shape=(comb.col1.max() + 1, comb.col1.max() + 1))
rows_FirstId = inc_mat[test.FirstId.values,:]
rows_SecondId = inc_mat[test.SecondId.values,:]
f = rows_FirstId.multiply(rows_SecondId)
f = np.asarray(f.sum(axis=1))
f.shape
(368550, 1)
f = f.sum(axis=1)
f = np.squeeze(np.asarray(f))
print (f.shape)
Now build the magic feature
Why did we build the incidence matrix? We can think of the rows in this matix as of representations for the objects. i-th row is a representation for an object with Id = i. Then, to measure similarity between two objects we can measure similarity between their representations. And we will see, that such representations are very good.
Now select the rows from the incidence matrix, that correspond to test.FirstId's, and test.SecondId's.
So do not forget to convert pd.series to np.array
These lines should normally run very quickly
rows_FirstId = inc_mat[test.FirstId.values,:]
rows_SecondId = inc_mat[test.SecondId.values,:]
Our magic feature will be the dot product between representations of a pair of objects. Dot product can be regarded as similarity measure -- for our non-negative representations the dot product is close to 0 when the representations are different, and is huge, when representations are similar.
Now compute dot product between corresponding rows in rows_FirstId and rows_SecondId matrices.
From magic feature to binary predictions
But how do we convert this feature into binary predictions? We do not have a train set to learn a model, but we have a piece of information about test set: the baseline accuracy score that you got, when submitting constant. And we also have a very strong considerations about the data generative process, so probably we will be fine even without a training set.
We may try to choose a thresold, and set the predictions to 1, if the feature value f is higer than the threshold, and 0 otherwise. What threshold would you choose?
How do we find a right threshold? Let's first examine this feature: print frequencies (or counts) of each value in the feature f.
For example use np.unique function, check for flags
Function to count frequency of each element
from scipy.stats import itemfreq
itemfreq(f)
array([[ 14, 183279],
[ 15, 852],
[ 19, 546],
[ 20, 183799],
[ 21, 6],
[ 28, 54],
[ 35, 14]])
Do you see how this feature clusters the pairs? Maybe you can guess a good threshold by looking at the values?
In fact, in other situations it can be not that obvious, but in general to pick a threshold you only need to remember the score of your baseline submission and use this information.
Choose a threshold below:
pred = f > 14 # SET THRESHOLD HERE
pred
array([ True, False, True, ..., False, False, False], dtype=bool)
submission = test.loc[:,['pairId']]
submission['Prediction'] = pred.astype(int)
submission.to_csv('submission.csv', index=False)
I want to understand the idea behind this. How we are exploiting the leak from the test data only.
There's a hint in the article. The number of positive pairs should be 1000*N*(N−1)/2, while the number of all pairs is 1000*N(1000N−1)/2. Of course, the number of all pairs is much, much larger if the test set was sampled at random.
As the author mentions, after you evaluate your constant prediction of 1s on the test set, you can tell that the sampling was not done at random. The accuracy you obtain is 50%. Had the sampling been done correctly, this value should've been much lower.
Thus, they construct the incidence matrix and calculate the dot product (the measure of similarity) between the representations of our ID features. They then reuse the information about the accuracy obtained with constant predictions (at 50%) to obtain the corresponding threshold (f > 14). It's set to be greater than 14 because that constitutes roughly half of our test set, which in turn maps back to the 50% accuracy.
The "magic" value didn't have to be greater than 14. It could have been equal to 14. You could have adjusted this value after some leader board probing (as long as you're capturing half of the test set).
It was observed that the test data was not sampled properly; same-class pairs were oversampled. Thus there is a much higher probability of each pair in the training set to have target=1 than any random pair. This led to the belief that one could construct a similarity measure based only on the pairs that are present in the test, i.e., whether a pair made it to the test is itself a strong indicator of similarity.
Using this insight one can calculate an incidence matrix and represent each id j as a binary array (the i-th element representing the presence of i-j pair in test, and thus representing the strong probability of similarity between them). This is a pretty accurate measure, allowing one to find the "similarity" between two rows just by taking their dot product.
The cutoff arrived at is purely by the knowledge of target-distribution found by leaderboard probing.
Given 1 Billion records containing following information:
ID x1 x2 x3 ... x100
1 0.1 0.12 1.3 ... -2.00
2 -1 1.2 2 ... 3
...
For each ID above, I want to find the top 10 closest IDs, based on Euclidean distance of their vectors (x1, x2, ..., x100).
What's the best way to compute this?
As it happens, I have a solution to this, involving combining sklearn with Spark: https://adventuresindatascience.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/integrating-spark-with-scikit-learn-visualizing-eigenvectors-and-fun/
The gist of it is:
Use sklearn’s k-NN fit() method centrally
But then use sklearn’s k-NN kneighbors() method distributedly
Performing a brute-force comparison of all records against all records is a losing battle. My suggestion would be to go for a ready-made implementation of k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm such as the one provided by scikit-learn then broadcast the resulting arrays of indices and distances and go further.
Steps in this case would be:
1- vectorize the features as Bryce suggested and let your vectorizing method return a list (or numpy array) of floats with as many elements as your features
2- fit your scikit-learn nn to your data:
nbrs = NearestNeighbors(n_neighbors=10, algorithm='auto').fit(vectorized_data)
3- run the trained algorithm on your vectorized data (training and query data are the same in your case)
distances, indices = nbrs.kneighbors(qpa)
Steps 2 and 3 will run on your pyspark node and are not parallelizable in this case. You will need to have enough memory on this node. In my case with 1.5 Million records and 4 features, it took a second or two.
Until we get a good implementation of NN for spark I guess we would have to stick to these workarounds. If you'd rather like to try something new, then go for http://spark-packages.org/package/saurfang/spark-knn
You haven't provided a lot of detail, but the general approach I would take to this problem would be to:
Convert the records to a data structure like like a LabeledPoint with (ID, x1..x100) as label and features
Map over each record and compare that record to all the other records (lots of room for optimization here)
Create some cutoff logic so that once you start comparing ID = 5 with ID = 1 you interrupt the computation because you have already compared ID = 1 with ID = 5
Some reduce step to get a data structure like {id_pair: [1,5], distance: 123}
Another map step to find the 10 closest neighbors of each record
You've identified pyspark and I generally do this type of work using scala, but some pseudo code for each step might look like:
# 1. vectorize the features
def vectorize_raw_data(record)
arr_of_features = record[1..99]
LabeledPoint( record[0] , arr_of_features)
# 2,3 + 4 map over each record for comparison
broadcast_var = []
def calc_distance(record, comparison)
# here you want to keep a broadcast variable with a list or dictionary of
# already compared IDs and break if the key pair already exists
# then, calc the euclidean distance by mapping over the features of
# the record and subtracting the values then squaring the result, keeping
# a running sum of those squares and square rooting that sum
return {"id_pair" : [1,5], "distance" : 123}
for record in allRecords:
for comparison in allRecords:
broadcast_var.append( calc_distance(record, comparison) )
# 5. map for 10 closest neighbors
def closest_neighbors(record, n=10)
broadcast_var.filter(x => x.id_pair.include?(record.id) ).takeOrdered(n, distance)
The psuedocode is terrible, but I think it communicates the intent. There will be a lot of shuffling and sorting here as you are comparing all records with all other records. IMHO, you want to store the keypair/distance in a central place (like a broadcast variable that gets updated though this is dangerous) to reduce the total euclidean distance calculations you perform.