Finding singulars/sets of local maxima/minima in a 1D-NumPy array (once again)
I would like to have a function that can detect where the local maxima/minima are in an array (even if there is a set of local maxima/minima). Example:
Given the array
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
I would like to have an output like:
set of 2 local minima => array[0]:array[1]
set of 3 local minima => array[3]:array[5]
local minima, i = 9
set of 2 local minima => array[11]:array[12]
set of 2 local minima => array[15]:array[16]
As you can see from the example, not only are the singular values detected but, also, sets of local maxima/minima.
I know in this question there are a lot of good answers and ideas, but none of them do the job described: some of them simply ignore the extreme points of the array and all ignore the sets of local minima/maxima.
Before asking the question, I wrote a function by myself that does exactly what I described above (the function is at the end of this question: local_min(a)
. With the test I did, it works properly).
Question: However, I am also sure that is NOT the best way to work with Python. Are there builtin functions, APIs, libraries, etc. that I can use? Any other function suggestion? A one-line instruction? A full vectored solution?
def local_min(a):
candidate_min=0
for i in range(len(a)):
# Controlling the first left element
if i==0 and len(a)>=1:
# If the first element is a singular local minima
if a[0]<a[1]:
print("local minima, i = 0")
# If the element is a candidate to be part of a set of local minima
elif a[0]==a[1]:
candidate_min=1
# Controlling the last right element
if i == (len(a)-1) and len(a)>=1:
if candidate_min > 0:
if a[len(a)-1]==a[len(a)-2]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
if a[len(a)-1]<a[len(a)-2]:
print("local minima, i = " + str(len(a)-1))
# Controlling the other values in the middle of the array
if i>0 and i<len(a)-1 and len(a)>2:
# If a singular local minima
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]<a[i+1]):
print("local minima, i = " + str(i))
# print(str(a[i-1])+" > " + str(a[i]) + " < "+str(a[i+1])) #debug
# If it was found a set of candidate local minima
if candidate_min >0:
# The candidate set IS a set of local minima
if a[i] < a[i+1]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
candidate_min = 0
# The candidate set IS NOT a set of local minima
elif a[i] > a[i+1]:
candidate_min = 0
# The set of local minima is growing
elif a[i] == a[i+1]:
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
# It never should arrive in the last else
else:
print("Something strange happen")
return -1
# If there is a set of candidate local minima (first value found)
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]==a[i+1]):
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
Note: I tried to enrich the code with some comment to understand what I would like to do. I know that the function that I propose is
not clean and just prints the results that can be stored and returned
at the end. It was written to give an example. The algorithm I propose should be O(n).
UPDATE:
Somebody was suggesting to import from scipy.signal import argrelextrema
and use the function like:
def local_min_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.less_equal)[0]
return minima
def local_max_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.greater_equal)[0]
return minima
To have something like that is what I am really looking for. However, it doesn't work properly when the sets of local minima/maxima have more than two values. For example:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
print(local_max_scipy(test03))
The output is:
[ 0 2 4 8 10 13 14 16]
Of course in test03[4]
I have a minimum and not a maximum. How do I fix this behavior? (I don't know if this is another question or if this is the right place where to ask it.)
python arrays python-3.x algorithm numpy
add a comment |
I would like to have a function that can detect where the local maxima/minima are in an array (even if there is a set of local maxima/minima). Example:
Given the array
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
I would like to have an output like:
set of 2 local minima => array[0]:array[1]
set of 3 local minima => array[3]:array[5]
local minima, i = 9
set of 2 local minima => array[11]:array[12]
set of 2 local minima => array[15]:array[16]
As you can see from the example, not only are the singular values detected but, also, sets of local maxima/minima.
I know in this question there are a lot of good answers and ideas, but none of them do the job described: some of them simply ignore the extreme points of the array and all ignore the sets of local minima/maxima.
Before asking the question, I wrote a function by myself that does exactly what I described above (the function is at the end of this question: local_min(a)
. With the test I did, it works properly).
Question: However, I am also sure that is NOT the best way to work with Python. Are there builtin functions, APIs, libraries, etc. that I can use? Any other function suggestion? A one-line instruction? A full vectored solution?
def local_min(a):
candidate_min=0
for i in range(len(a)):
# Controlling the first left element
if i==0 and len(a)>=1:
# If the first element is a singular local minima
if a[0]<a[1]:
print("local minima, i = 0")
# If the element is a candidate to be part of a set of local minima
elif a[0]==a[1]:
candidate_min=1
# Controlling the last right element
if i == (len(a)-1) and len(a)>=1:
if candidate_min > 0:
if a[len(a)-1]==a[len(a)-2]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
if a[len(a)-1]<a[len(a)-2]:
print("local minima, i = " + str(len(a)-1))
# Controlling the other values in the middle of the array
if i>0 and i<len(a)-1 and len(a)>2:
# If a singular local minima
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]<a[i+1]):
print("local minima, i = " + str(i))
# print(str(a[i-1])+" > " + str(a[i]) + " < "+str(a[i+1])) #debug
# If it was found a set of candidate local minima
if candidate_min >0:
# The candidate set IS a set of local minima
if a[i] < a[i+1]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
candidate_min = 0
# The candidate set IS NOT a set of local minima
elif a[i] > a[i+1]:
candidate_min = 0
# The set of local minima is growing
elif a[i] == a[i+1]:
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
# It never should arrive in the last else
else:
print("Something strange happen")
return -1
# If there is a set of candidate local minima (first value found)
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]==a[i+1]):
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
Note: I tried to enrich the code with some comment to understand what I would like to do. I know that the function that I propose is
not clean and just prints the results that can be stored and returned
at the end. It was written to give an example. The algorithm I propose should be O(n).
UPDATE:
Somebody was suggesting to import from scipy.signal import argrelextrema
and use the function like:
def local_min_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.less_equal)[0]
return minima
def local_max_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.greater_equal)[0]
return minima
To have something like that is what I am really looking for. However, it doesn't work properly when the sets of local minima/maxima have more than two values. For example:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
print(local_max_scipy(test03))
The output is:
[ 0 2 4 8 10 13 14 16]
Of course in test03[4]
I have a minimum and not a maximum. How do I fix this behavior? (I don't know if this is another question or if this is the right place where to ask it.)
python arrays python-3.x algorithm numpy
1
Interesting Question, a quick search seems to indicate there are no pre built solutions. However, it should be simple enough to devise a minimalistic solution for this. I can think of two approaches. Let me try to implement one and see if it turns out as clean as i think it should.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 10:36
add a comment |
I would like to have a function that can detect where the local maxima/minima are in an array (even if there is a set of local maxima/minima). Example:
Given the array
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
I would like to have an output like:
set of 2 local minima => array[0]:array[1]
set of 3 local minima => array[3]:array[5]
local minima, i = 9
set of 2 local minima => array[11]:array[12]
set of 2 local minima => array[15]:array[16]
As you can see from the example, not only are the singular values detected but, also, sets of local maxima/minima.
I know in this question there are a lot of good answers and ideas, but none of them do the job described: some of them simply ignore the extreme points of the array and all ignore the sets of local minima/maxima.
Before asking the question, I wrote a function by myself that does exactly what I described above (the function is at the end of this question: local_min(a)
. With the test I did, it works properly).
Question: However, I am also sure that is NOT the best way to work with Python. Are there builtin functions, APIs, libraries, etc. that I can use? Any other function suggestion? A one-line instruction? A full vectored solution?
def local_min(a):
candidate_min=0
for i in range(len(a)):
# Controlling the first left element
if i==0 and len(a)>=1:
# If the first element is a singular local minima
if a[0]<a[1]:
print("local minima, i = 0")
# If the element is a candidate to be part of a set of local minima
elif a[0]==a[1]:
candidate_min=1
# Controlling the last right element
if i == (len(a)-1) and len(a)>=1:
if candidate_min > 0:
if a[len(a)-1]==a[len(a)-2]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
if a[len(a)-1]<a[len(a)-2]:
print("local minima, i = " + str(len(a)-1))
# Controlling the other values in the middle of the array
if i>0 and i<len(a)-1 and len(a)>2:
# If a singular local minima
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]<a[i+1]):
print("local minima, i = " + str(i))
# print(str(a[i-1])+" > " + str(a[i]) + " < "+str(a[i+1])) #debug
# If it was found a set of candidate local minima
if candidate_min >0:
# The candidate set IS a set of local minima
if a[i] < a[i+1]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
candidate_min = 0
# The candidate set IS NOT a set of local minima
elif a[i] > a[i+1]:
candidate_min = 0
# The set of local minima is growing
elif a[i] == a[i+1]:
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
# It never should arrive in the last else
else:
print("Something strange happen")
return -1
# If there is a set of candidate local minima (first value found)
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]==a[i+1]):
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
Note: I tried to enrich the code with some comment to understand what I would like to do. I know that the function that I propose is
not clean and just prints the results that can be stored and returned
at the end. It was written to give an example. The algorithm I propose should be O(n).
UPDATE:
Somebody was suggesting to import from scipy.signal import argrelextrema
and use the function like:
def local_min_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.less_equal)[0]
return minima
def local_max_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.greater_equal)[0]
return minima
To have something like that is what I am really looking for. However, it doesn't work properly when the sets of local minima/maxima have more than two values. For example:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
print(local_max_scipy(test03))
The output is:
[ 0 2 4 8 10 13 14 16]
Of course in test03[4]
I have a minimum and not a maximum. How do I fix this behavior? (I don't know if this is another question or if this is the right place where to ask it.)
python arrays python-3.x algorithm numpy
I would like to have a function that can detect where the local maxima/minima are in an array (even if there is a set of local maxima/minima). Example:
Given the array
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
I would like to have an output like:
set of 2 local minima => array[0]:array[1]
set of 3 local minima => array[3]:array[5]
local minima, i = 9
set of 2 local minima => array[11]:array[12]
set of 2 local minima => array[15]:array[16]
As you can see from the example, not only are the singular values detected but, also, sets of local maxima/minima.
I know in this question there are a lot of good answers and ideas, but none of them do the job described: some of them simply ignore the extreme points of the array and all ignore the sets of local minima/maxima.
Before asking the question, I wrote a function by myself that does exactly what I described above (the function is at the end of this question: local_min(a)
. With the test I did, it works properly).
Question: However, I am also sure that is NOT the best way to work with Python. Are there builtin functions, APIs, libraries, etc. that I can use? Any other function suggestion? A one-line instruction? A full vectored solution?
def local_min(a):
candidate_min=0
for i in range(len(a)):
# Controlling the first left element
if i==0 and len(a)>=1:
# If the first element is a singular local minima
if a[0]<a[1]:
print("local minima, i = 0")
# If the element is a candidate to be part of a set of local minima
elif a[0]==a[1]:
candidate_min=1
# Controlling the last right element
if i == (len(a)-1) and len(a)>=1:
if candidate_min > 0:
if a[len(a)-1]==a[len(a)-2]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
if a[len(a)-1]<a[len(a)-2]:
print("local minima, i = " + str(len(a)-1))
# Controlling the other values in the middle of the array
if i>0 and i<len(a)-1 and len(a)>2:
# If a singular local minima
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]<a[i+1]):
print("local minima, i = " + str(i))
# print(str(a[i-1])+" > " + str(a[i]) + " < "+str(a[i+1])) #debug
# If it was found a set of candidate local minima
if candidate_min >0:
# The candidate set IS a set of local minima
if a[i] < a[i+1]:
print("set of " + str(candidate_min+1)+ " local minima => array["+str(i-candidate_min)+"]:array["+str(i)+"]")
candidate_min = 0
# The candidate set IS NOT a set of local minima
elif a[i] > a[i+1]:
candidate_min = 0
# The set of local minima is growing
elif a[i] == a[i+1]:
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
# It never should arrive in the last else
else:
print("Something strange happen")
return -1
# If there is a set of candidate local minima (first value found)
if (a[i]<a[i-1] and a[i]==a[i+1]):
candidate_min = candidate_min + 1
Note: I tried to enrich the code with some comment to understand what I would like to do. I know that the function that I propose is
not clean and just prints the results that can be stored and returned
at the end. It was written to give an example. The algorithm I propose should be O(n).
UPDATE:
Somebody was suggesting to import from scipy.signal import argrelextrema
and use the function like:
def local_min_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.less_equal)[0]
return minima
def local_max_scipy(a):
minima = argrelextrema(a, np.greater_equal)[0]
return minima
To have something like that is what I am really looking for. However, it doesn't work properly when the sets of local minima/maxima have more than two values. For example:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
print(local_max_scipy(test03))
The output is:
[ 0 2 4 8 10 13 14 16]
Of course in test03[4]
I have a minimum and not a maximum. How do I fix this behavior? (I don't know if this is another question or if this is the right place where to ask it.)
python arrays python-3.x algorithm numpy
python arrays python-3.x algorithm numpy
edited Nov 30 '18 at 9:38
Leos313
asked Nov 25 '18 at 10:15
Leos313Leos313
1,61711435
1,61711435
1
Interesting Question, a quick search seems to indicate there are no pre built solutions. However, it should be simple enough to devise a minimalistic solution for this. I can think of two approaches. Let me try to implement one and see if it turns out as clean as i think it should.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 10:36
add a comment |
1
Interesting Question, a quick search seems to indicate there are no pre built solutions. However, it should be simple enough to devise a minimalistic solution for this. I can think of two approaches. Let me try to implement one and see if it turns out as clean as i think it should.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 10:36
1
1
Interesting Question, a quick search seems to indicate there are no pre built solutions. However, it should be simple enough to devise a minimalistic solution for this. I can think of two approaches. Let me try to implement one and see if it turns out as clean as i think it should.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 10:36
Interesting Question, a quick search seems to indicate there are no pre built solutions. However, it should be simple enough to devise a minimalistic solution for this. I can think of two approaches. Let me try to implement one and see if it turns out as clean as i think it should.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 10:36
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
A full vectored solution:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1]) # Size 17
extended = np.empty(len(test03)+2) # Rooms to manage edges, size 19
extended[1:-1] = test03
extended[0] = extended[-1] = np.inf
flag_left = extended[:-1] <= extended[1:] # Less than successor, size 18
flag_right = extended[1:] <= extended[:-1] # Less than predecessor, size 18
flagmini = flag_left[1:] & flag_right[:-1] # Local minimum, size 17
mini = np.where(flagmini)[0] # Indices of minimums
spl = np.where(np.diff(mini)>1)[0]+1 # Places to split
result = np.split(mini, spl)
result
:
[0, 1] [3, 4, 5] [9] [11, 12] [15, 16]
EDIT
Unfortunately, This detects also maxima as soon as they are at least 3 items large, since they are seen as flat local minima. A numpy patch will be ugly this way.
To solve this problem I propose 2 other solutions, with numpy, then with numba.
Whith numpy using np.diff
:
import numpy as np
test03=np.array([12,13,12,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,17,17])
extended=np.full(len(test03)+2,np.inf)
extended[1:-1]=test03
slope = np.sign(np.diff(extended)) # 1 if ascending,0 if flat, -1 if descending
not_flat,= slope.nonzero() # Indices where data is not flat.
local_min_inds, = np.where(np.diff(slope[not_flat])==2)
#local_min_inds contains indices in not_flat of beginning of local mins.
#Indices of End of local mins are shift by +1:
start = not_flat[local_min_inds]
stop = not_flat[local_min_inds+1]-1
print(*zip(start,stop))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
A direct solution compatible with numba acceleration :
#@numba.njit
def localmins(a):
begin= np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
end = np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
i=k=0
begin[k]=0
search_end=True
while i<a.size-1:
if a[i]>a[i+1]:
begin[k]=i+1
search_end=True
if search_end and a[i]<a[i+1]:
end[k]=i
k+=1
search_end=False
i+=1
if search_end and i>0 : # Final plate if exists
end[k]=i
k+=1
return begin[:k],end[:k]
print(*zip(*localmins(test03)))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
1
This is beautiful. Thanks for adding the comments, it's a bit tough to follow otherwise. Could you elaborate the 2nd last line that creates places to split?
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 11:37
+1 this is what I was looking for. I am going to use it extensively and, just in case, to give you feedback
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:52
2
The last linelist(zip(begin[:k],end[:k]))
takes about 80-90% of the total runtime of your Numba solution. Returning a simple numpy array will be much faster eg.out=np.empty((k,2),dtype=a.dtype)
for i in range(k):
out[i,0]=begin[i]
out[i,1]=end[i]
return out
– max9111
Nov 25 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
There can be multiple ways to solve this. One approach listed here.
You can create a custom function, and use the maximums to handle edge cases while finding mimima.
import numpy as np
a = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
def local_min(a):
temp_list = list(a)
maxval = max(a) #use max while finding minima
temp_list = temp_list + [maxval] #handles last value edge case.
prev = maxval #prev stores last value seen
loc = 0 #used to store starting index of minima
count = 0 #use to count repeated values
#match_start = False
matches =
for i in range(0, len(temp_list)): #need to check all values including the padded value
if prev == temp_list[i]:
if count > 0: #only increment for minima candidates
count += 1
elif prev > temp_list[i]:
count = 1
loc = i
# match_start = True
else: #prev < temp_list[i]
if count > 0:
matches.append((loc, count))
count = 0
loc = i
prev = temp_list[i]
return matches
result = local_min(a)
for match in result:
print ("{} minima found starting at location {} and ending at location {}".format(
match[1],
match[0],
match[0] + match[1] -1))
Let me know if this does the trick for you. The idea is simple, you want to iterate through the list once and keep storing minima as you see them. Handle the edges by padding with maximum values on either end. (or by padding the last end, and using the max value for initial comparison)
tested withtest03
(you can find it in the question) and there is something strange. For example line 3 of your output is0 minima found starting at location 6 and ending at location 5
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:15
+1 it works properly, and, for sure, it is a better solution than the one I proposed. It still works with afor
and Python can work (like Matlab for instance) with array and Matrix. However, a nice idea to work with lists!
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:48
1
I detect a bug when edges are not minimum. give me some time to correct.
– B. M.
Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
1
Oof, good catch. it was the same thing, Need to ensure only counts greater than 0 are added, for both matches and for the "increment". @B.M.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 12:25
add a comment |
Here's an answer based on restriding the array into an iterable of windows:
import numpy as np
from numpy.lib.stride_tricks import as_strided
def windowstride(a, window):
return as_strided(a, shape=(a.size - window + 1, window), strides=2*a.strides)
def local_min(a, maxwindow=None, doends=True):
if doends: a = np.pad(a.astype(float), 1, 'constant', constant_values=np.inf)
if maxwindow is None: maxwindow = a.size - 1
mins =
for i in range(3, maxwindow + 1):
for j,w in enumerate(windowstride(a, i)):
if (w[0] > w[1]) and (w[-2] < w[-1]):
if (w[1:-1]==w[1]).all():
mins.append((j, j + i - 2))
mins.sort()
return mins
Testing it out:
test03=np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
local_min(test03)
Output:
[(0, 2), (3, 6), (9, 10), (11, 13), (15, 17)]
Not the most efficient algorithm, but at least it's short. I'm pretty sure it's O(n^2)
, since there's roughly 1/2*(n^2 + n)
windows to iterate over. This is only partially vectorized, so there may be a way to improve it.
Edit
To clarify, the output is the indices of the slices that contain the runs of local minimum values. The fact that they go one past the end of the run is intentional (someone just tried to "fix" that in an edit). You can use the output to iterate over the slices of minimum values in your input array like this:
for s in local_mins(test03):
print(test03[slice(*s)])
Output:
[2 2]
[4 4 4]
[2]
[5 5]
[1 1]
+1 it works properly but it increases the complexity exponentially. However the trick of using windows it something that I didn't know, that's why +1!! I can still the idea to be used in other context
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 12:51
1
@Leos313 Yeah, strides can be used for vectorizing a wide variety of iterations. I actually just learned how to use them yesterday. Restriding turned out not to be the best fit for this problem, but "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is doubly true when the hammer is shiny and new.
– tel
Nov 25 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53466504%2ffinding-singulars-sets-of-local-maxima-minima-in-a-1d-numpy-array-once-again%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A full vectored solution:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1]) # Size 17
extended = np.empty(len(test03)+2) # Rooms to manage edges, size 19
extended[1:-1] = test03
extended[0] = extended[-1] = np.inf
flag_left = extended[:-1] <= extended[1:] # Less than successor, size 18
flag_right = extended[1:] <= extended[:-1] # Less than predecessor, size 18
flagmini = flag_left[1:] & flag_right[:-1] # Local minimum, size 17
mini = np.where(flagmini)[0] # Indices of minimums
spl = np.where(np.diff(mini)>1)[0]+1 # Places to split
result = np.split(mini, spl)
result
:
[0, 1] [3, 4, 5] [9] [11, 12] [15, 16]
EDIT
Unfortunately, This detects also maxima as soon as they are at least 3 items large, since they are seen as flat local minima. A numpy patch will be ugly this way.
To solve this problem I propose 2 other solutions, with numpy, then with numba.
Whith numpy using np.diff
:
import numpy as np
test03=np.array([12,13,12,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,17,17])
extended=np.full(len(test03)+2,np.inf)
extended[1:-1]=test03
slope = np.sign(np.diff(extended)) # 1 if ascending,0 if flat, -1 if descending
not_flat,= slope.nonzero() # Indices where data is not flat.
local_min_inds, = np.where(np.diff(slope[not_flat])==2)
#local_min_inds contains indices in not_flat of beginning of local mins.
#Indices of End of local mins are shift by +1:
start = not_flat[local_min_inds]
stop = not_flat[local_min_inds+1]-1
print(*zip(start,stop))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
A direct solution compatible with numba acceleration :
#@numba.njit
def localmins(a):
begin= np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
end = np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
i=k=0
begin[k]=0
search_end=True
while i<a.size-1:
if a[i]>a[i+1]:
begin[k]=i+1
search_end=True
if search_end and a[i]<a[i+1]:
end[k]=i
k+=1
search_end=False
i+=1
if search_end and i>0 : # Final plate if exists
end[k]=i
k+=1
return begin[:k],end[:k]
print(*zip(*localmins(test03)))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
1
This is beautiful. Thanks for adding the comments, it's a bit tough to follow otherwise. Could you elaborate the 2nd last line that creates places to split?
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 11:37
+1 this is what I was looking for. I am going to use it extensively and, just in case, to give you feedback
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:52
2
The last linelist(zip(begin[:k],end[:k]))
takes about 80-90% of the total runtime of your Numba solution. Returning a simple numpy array will be much faster eg.out=np.empty((k,2),dtype=a.dtype)
for i in range(k):
out[i,0]=begin[i]
out[i,1]=end[i]
return out
– max9111
Nov 25 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
A full vectored solution:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1]) # Size 17
extended = np.empty(len(test03)+2) # Rooms to manage edges, size 19
extended[1:-1] = test03
extended[0] = extended[-1] = np.inf
flag_left = extended[:-1] <= extended[1:] # Less than successor, size 18
flag_right = extended[1:] <= extended[:-1] # Less than predecessor, size 18
flagmini = flag_left[1:] & flag_right[:-1] # Local minimum, size 17
mini = np.where(flagmini)[0] # Indices of minimums
spl = np.where(np.diff(mini)>1)[0]+1 # Places to split
result = np.split(mini, spl)
result
:
[0, 1] [3, 4, 5] [9] [11, 12] [15, 16]
EDIT
Unfortunately, This detects also maxima as soon as they are at least 3 items large, since they are seen as flat local minima. A numpy patch will be ugly this way.
To solve this problem I propose 2 other solutions, with numpy, then with numba.
Whith numpy using np.diff
:
import numpy as np
test03=np.array([12,13,12,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,17,17])
extended=np.full(len(test03)+2,np.inf)
extended[1:-1]=test03
slope = np.sign(np.diff(extended)) # 1 if ascending,0 if flat, -1 if descending
not_flat,= slope.nonzero() # Indices where data is not flat.
local_min_inds, = np.where(np.diff(slope[not_flat])==2)
#local_min_inds contains indices in not_flat of beginning of local mins.
#Indices of End of local mins are shift by +1:
start = not_flat[local_min_inds]
stop = not_flat[local_min_inds+1]-1
print(*zip(start,stop))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
A direct solution compatible with numba acceleration :
#@numba.njit
def localmins(a):
begin= np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
end = np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
i=k=0
begin[k]=0
search_end=True
while i<a.size-1:
if a[i]>a[i+1]:
begin[k]=i+1
search_end=True
if search_end and a[i]<a[i+1]:
end[k]=i
k+=1
search_end=False
i+=1
if search_end and i>0 : # Final plate if exists
end[k]=i
k+=1
return begin[:k],end[:k]
print(*zip(*localmins(test03)))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
1
This is beautiful. Thanks for adding the comments, it's a bit tough to follow otherwise. Could you elaborate the 2nd last line that creates places to split?
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 11:37
+1 this is what I was looking for. I am going to use it extensively and, just in case, to give you feedback
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:52
2
The last linelist(zip(begin[:k],end[:k]))
takes about 80-90% of the total runtime of your Numba solution. Returning a simple numpy array will be much faster eg.out=np.empty((k,2),dtype=a.dtype)
for i in range(k):
out[i,0]=begin[i]
out[i,1]=end[i]
return out
– max9111
Nov 25 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
A full vectored solution:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1]) # Size 17
extended = np.empty(len(test03)+2) # Rooms to manage edges, size 19
extended[1:-1] = test03
extended[0] = extended[-1] = np.inf
flag_left = extended[:-1] <= extended[1:] # Less than successor, size 18
flag_right = extended[1:] <= extended[:-1] # Less than predecessor, size 18
flagmini = flag_left[1:] & flag_right[:-1] # Local minimum, size 17
mini = np.where(flagmini)[0] # Indices of minimums
spl = np.where(np.diff(mini)>1)[0]+1 # Places to split
result = np.split(mini, spl)
result
:
[0, 1] [3, 4, 5] [9] [11, 12] [15, 16]
EDIT
Unfortunately, This detects also maxima as soon as they are at least 3 items large, since they are seen as flat local minima. A numpy patch will be ugly this way.
To solve this problem I propose 2 other solutions, with numpy, then with numba.
Whith numpy using np.diff
:
import numpy as np
test03=np.array([12,13,12,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,17,17])
extended=np.full(len(test03)+2,np.inf)
extended[1:-1]=test03
slope = np.sign(np.diff(extended)) # 1 if ascending,0 if flat, -1 if descending
not_flat,= slope.nonzero() # Indices where data is not flat.
local_min_inds, = np.where(np.diff(slope[not_flat])==2)
#local_min_inds contains indices in not_flat of beginning of local mins.
#Indices of End of local mins are shift by +1:
start = not_flat[local_min_inds]
stop = not_flat[local_min_inds+1]-1
print(*zip(start,stop))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
A direct solution compatible with numba acceleration :
#@numba.njit
def localmins(a):
begin= np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
end = np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
i=k=0
begin[k]=0
search_end=True
while i<a.size-1:
if a[i]>a[i+1]:
begin[k]=i+1
search_end=True
if search_end and a[i]<a[i+1]:
end[k]=i
k+=1
search_end=False
i+=1
if search_end and i>0 : # Final plate if exists
end[k]=i
k+=1
return begin[:k],end[:k]
print(*zip(*localmins(test03)))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
A full vectored solution:
test03 = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1]) # Size 17
extended = np.empty(len(test03)+2) # Rooms to manage edges, size 19
extended[1:-1] = test03
extended[0] = extended[-1] = np.inf
flag_left = extended[:-1] <= extended[1:] # Less than successor, size 18
flag_right = extended[1:] <= extended[:-1] # Less than predecessor, size 18
flagmini = flag_left[1:] & flag_right[:-1] # Local minimum, size 17
mini = np.where(flagmini)[0] # Indices of minimums
spl = np.where(np.diff(mini)>1)[0]+1 # Places to split
result = np.split(mini, spl)
result
:
[0, 1] [3, 4, 5] [9] [11, 12] [15, 16]
EDIT
Unfortunately, This detects also maxima as soon as they are at least 3 items large, since they are seen as flat local minima. A numpy patch will be ugly this way.
To solve this problem I propose 2 other solutions, with numpy, then with numba.
Whith numpy using np.diff
:
import numpy as np
test03=np.array([12,13,12,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,17,17])
extended=np.full(len(test03)+2,np.inf)
extended[1:-1]=test03
slope = np.sign(np.diff(extended)) # 1 if ascending,0 if flat, -1 if descending
not_flat,= slope.nonzero() # Indices where data is not flat.
local_min_inds, = np.where(np.diff(slope[not_flat])==2)
#local_min_inds contains indices in not_flat of beginning of local mins.
#Indices of End of local mins are shift by +1:
start = not_flat[local_min_inds]
stop = not_flat[local_min_inds+1]-1
print(*zip(start,stop))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
A direct solution compatible with numba acceleration :
#@numba.njit
def localmins(a):
begin= np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
end = np.empty(a.size//2+1,np.int32)
i=k=0
begin[k]=0
search_end=True
while i<a.size-1:
if a[i]>a[i+1]:
begin[k]=i+1
search_end=True
if search_end and a[i]<a[i+1]:
end[k]=i
k+=1
search_end=False
i+=1
if search_end and i>0 : # Final plate if exists
end[k]=i
k+=1
return begin[:k],end[:k]
print(*zip(*localmins(test03)))
#(0, 1) (3, 5) (9, 9) (11, 12) (15, 16)
edited Nov 25 '18 at 20:23
answered Nov 25 '18 at 11:17
B. M.B. M.
13.4k12037
13.4k12037
1
This is beautiful. Thanks for adding the comments, it's a bit tough to follow otherwise. Could you elaborate the 2nd last line that creates places to split?
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 11:37
+1 this is what I was looking for. I am going to use it extensively and, just in case, to give you feedback
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:52
2
The last linelist(zip(begin[:k],end[:k]))
takes about 80-90% of the total runtime of your Numba solution. Returning a simple numpy array will be much faster eg.out=np.empty((k,2),dtype=a.dtype)
for i in range(k):
out[i,0]=begin[i]
out[i,1]=end[i]
return out
– max9111
Nov 25 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
1
This is beautiful. Thanks for adding the comments, it's a bit tough to follow otherwise. Could you elaborate the 2nd last line that creates places to split?
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 11:37
+1 this is what I was looking for. I am going to use it extensively and, just in case, to give you feedback
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:52
2
The last linelist(zip(begin[:k],end[:k]))
takes about 80-90% of the total runtime of your Numba solution. Returning a simple numpy array will be much faster eg.out=np.empty((k,2),dtype=a.dtype)
for i in range(k):
out[i,0]=begin[i]
out[i,1]=end[i]
return out
– max9111
Nov 25 '18 at 19:47
1
1
This is beautiful. Thanks for adding the comments, it's a bit tough to follow otherwise. Could you elaborate the 2nd last line that creates places to split?
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 11:37
This is beautiful. Thanks for adding the comments, it's a bit tough to follow otherwise. Could you elaborate the 2nd last line that creates places to split?
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 11:37
+1 this is what I was looking for. I am going to use it extensively and, just in case, to give you feedback
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:52
+1 this is what I was looking for. I am going to use it extensively and, just in case, to give you feedback
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:52
2
2
The last line
list(zip(begin[:k],end[:k]))
takes about 80-90% of the total runtime of your Numba solution. Returning a simple numpy array will be much faster eg. out=np.empty((k,2),dtype=a.dtype)
for i in range(k):
out[i,0]=begin[i]
out[i,1]=end[i]
return out
– max9111
Nov 25 '18 at 19:47
The last line
list(zip(begin[:k],end[:k]))
takes about 80-90% of the total runtime of your Numba solution. Returning a simple numpy array will be much faster eg. out=np.empty((k,2),dtype=a.dtype)
for i in range(k):
out[i,0]=begin[i]
out[i,1]=end[i]
return out
– max9111
Nov 25 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
There can be multiple ways to solve this. One approach listed here.
You can create a custom function, and use the maximums to handle edge cases while finding mimima.
import numpy as np
a = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
def local_min(a):
temp_list = list(a)
maxval = max(a) #use max while finding minima
temp_list = temp_list + [maxval] #handles last value edge case.
prev = maxval #prev stores last value seen
loc = 0 #used to store starting index of minima
count = 0 #use to count repeated values
#match_start = False
matches =
for i in range(0, len(temp_list)): #need to check all values including the padded value
if prev == temp_list[i]:
if count > 0: #only increment for minima candidates
count += 1
elif prev > temp_list[i]:
count = 1
loc = i
# match_start = True
else: #prev < temp_list[i]
if count > 0:
matches.append((loc, count))
count = 0
loc = i
prev = temp_list[i]
return matches
result = local_min(a)
for match in result:
print ("{} minima found starting at location {} and ending at location {}".format(
match[1],
match[0],
match[0] + match[1] -1))
Let me know if this does the trick for you. The idea is simple, you want to iterate through the list once and keep storing minima as you see them. Handle the edges by padding with maximum values on either end. (or by padding the last end, and using the max value for initial comparison)
tested withtest03
(you can find it in the question) and there is something strange. For example line 3 of your output is0 minima found starting at location 6 and ending at location 5
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:15
+1 it works properly, and, for sure, it is a better solution than the one I proposed. It still works with afor
and Python can work (like Matlab for instance) with array and Matrix. However, a nice idea to work with lists!
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:48
1
I detect a bug when edges are not minimum. give me some time to correct.
– B. M.
Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
1
Oof, good catch. it was the same thing, Need to ensure only counts greater than 0 are added, for both matches and for the "increment". @B.M.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 12:25
add a comment |
There can be multiple ways to solve this. One approach listed here.
You can create a custom function, and use the maximums to handle edge cases while finding mimima.
import numpy as np
a = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
def local_min(a):
temp_list = list(a)
maxval = max(a) #use max while finding minima
temp_list = temp_list + [maxval] #handles last value edge case.
prev = maxval #prev stores last value seen
loc = 0 #used to store starting index of minima
count = 0 #use to count repeated values
#match_start = False
matches =
for i in range(0, len(temp_list)): #need to check all values including the padded value
if prev == temp_list[i]:
if count > 0: #only increment for minima candidates
count += 1
elif prev > temp_list[i]:
count = 1
loc = i
# match_start = True
else: #prev < temp_list[i]
if count > 0:
matches.append((loc, count))
count = 0
loc = i
prev = temp_list[i]
return matches
result = local_min(a)
for match in result:
print ("{} minima found starting at location {} and ending at location {}".format(
match[1],
match[0],
match[0] + match[1] -1))
Let me know if this does the trick for you. The idea is simple, you want to iterate through the list once and keep storing minima as you see them. Handle the edges by padding with maximum values on either end. (or by padding the last end, and using the max value for initial comparison)
tested withtest03
(you can find it in the question) and there is something strange. For example line 3 of your output is0 minima found starting at location 6 and ending at location 5
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:15
+1 it works properly, and, for sure, it is a better solution than the one I proposed. It still works with afor
and Python can work (like Matlab for instance) with array and Matrix. However, a nice idea to work with lists!
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:48
1
I detect a bug when edges are not minimum. give me some time to correct.
– B. M.
Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
1
Oof, good catch. it was the same thing, Need to ensure only counts greater than 0 are added, for both matches and for the "increment". @B.M.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 12:25
add a comment |
There can be multiple ways to solve this. One approach listed here.
You can create a custom function, and use the maximums to handle edge cases while finding mimima.
import numpy as np
a = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
def local_min(a):
temp_list = list(a)
maxval = max(a) #use max while finding minima
temp_list = temp_list + [maxval] #handles last value edge case.
prev = maxval #prev stores last value seen
loc = 0 #used to store starting index of minima
count = 0 #use to count repeated values
#match_start = False
matches =
for i in range(0, len(temp_list)): #need to check all values including the padded value
if prev == temp_list[i]:
if count > 0: #only increment for minima candidates
count += 1
elif prev > temp_list[i]:
count = 1
loc = i
# match_start = True
else: #prev < temp_list[i]
if count > 0:
matches.append((loc, count))
count = 0
loc = i
prev = temp_list[i]
return matches
result = local_min(a)
for match in result:
print ("{} minima found starting at location {} and ending at location {}".format(
match[1],
match[0],
match[0] + match[1] -1))
Let me know if this does the trick for you. The idea is simple, you want to iterate through the list once and keep storing minima as you see them. Handle the edges by padding with maximum values on either end. (or by padding the last end, and using the max value for initial comparison)
There can be multiple ways to solve this. One approach listed here.
You can create a custom function, and use the maximums to handle edge cases while finding mimima.
import numpy as np
a = np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
def local_min(a):
temp_list = list(a)
maxval = max(a) #use max while finding minima
temp_list = temp_list + [maxval] #handles last value edge case.
prev = maxval #prev stores last value seen
loc = 0 #used to store starting index of minima
count = 0 #use to count repeated values
#match_start = False
matches =
for i in range(0, len(temp_list)): #need to check all values including the padded value
if prev == temp_list[i]:
if count > 0: #only increment for minima candidates
count += 1
elif prev > temp_list[i]:
count = 1
loc = i
# match_start = True
else: #prev < temp_list[i]
if count > 0:
matches.append((loc, count))
count = 0
loc = i
prev = temp_list[i]
return matches
result = local_min(a)
for match in result:
print ("{} minima found starting at location {} and ending at location {}".format(
match[1],
match[0],
match[0] + match[1] -1))
Let me know if this does the trick for you. The idea is simple, you want to iterate through the list once and keep storing minima as you see them. Handle the edges by padding with maximum values on either end. (or by padding the last end, and using the max value for initial comparison)
edited Nov 25 '18 at 12:24
answered Nov 25 '18 at 11:04
Paritosh SinghParitosh Singh
2,1451321
2,1451321
tested withtest03
(you can find it in the question) and there is something strange. For example line 3 of your output is0 minima found starting at location 6 and ending at location 5
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:15
+1 it works properly, and, for sure, it is a better solution than the one I proposed. It still works with afor
and Python can work (like Matlab for instance) with array and Matrix. However, a nice idea to work with lists!
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:48
1
I detect a bug when edges are not minimum. give me some time to correct.
– B. M.
Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
1
Oof, good catch. it was the same thing, Need to ensure only counts greater than 0 are added, for both matches and for the "increment". @B.M.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 12:25
add a comment |
tested withtest03
(you can find it in the question) and there is something strange. For example line 3 of your output is0 minima found starting at location 6 and ending at location 5
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:15
+1 it works properly, and, for sure, it is a better solution than the one I proposed. It still works with afor
and Python can work (like Matlab for instance) with array and Matrix. However, a nice idea to work with lists!
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:48
1
I detect a bug when edges are not minimum. give me some time to correct.
– B. M.
Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
1
Oof, good catch. it was the same thing, Need to ensure only counts greater than 0 are added, for both matches and for the "increment". @B.M.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 12:25
tested with
test03
(you can find it in the question) and there is something strange. For example line 3 of your output is 0 minima found starting at location 6 and ending at location 5
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:15
tested with
test03
(you can find it in the question) and there is something strange. For example line 3 of your output is 0 minima found starting at location 6 and ending at location 5
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:15
+1 it works properly, and, for sure, it is a better solution than the one I proposed. It still works with a
for
and Python can work (like Matlab for instance) with array and Matrix. However, a nice idea to work with lists!– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:48
+1 it works properly, and, for sure, it is a better solution than the one I proposed. It still works with a
for
and Python can work (like Matlab for instance) with array and Matrix. However, a nice idea to work with lists!– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 11:48
1
1
I detect a bug when edges are not minimum. give me some time to correct.
– B. M.
Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
I detect a bug when edges are not minimum. give me some time to correct.
– B. M.
Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
1
1
Oof, good catch. it was the same thing, Need to ensure only counts greater than 0 are added, for both matches and for the "increment". @B.M.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 12:25
Oof, good catch. it was the same thing, Need to ensure only counts greater than 0 are added, for both matches and for the "increment". @B.M.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 12:25
add a comment |
Here's an answer based on restriding the array into an iterable of windows:
import numpy as np
from numpy.lib.stride_tricks import as_strided
def windowstride(a, window):
return as_strided(a, shape=(a.size - window + 1, window), strides=2*a.strides)
def local_min(a, maxwindow=None, doends=True):
if doends: a = np.pad(a.astype(float), 1, 'constant', constant_values=np.inf)
if maxwindow is None: maxwindow = a.size - 1
mins =
for i in range(3, maxwindow + 1):
for j,w in enumerate(windowstride(a, i)):
if (w[0] > w[1]) and (w[-2] < w[-1]):
if (w[1:-1]==w[1]).all():
mins.append((j, j + i - 2))
mins.sort()
return mins
Testing it out:
test03=np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
local_min(test03)
Output:
[(0, 2), (3, 6), (9, 10), (11, 13), (15, 17)]
Not the most efficient algorithm, but at least it's short. I'm pretty sure it's O(n^2)
, since there's roughly 1/2*(n^2 + n)
windows to iterate over. This is only partially vectorized, so there may be a way to improve it.
Edit
To clarify, the output is the indices of the slices that contain the runs of local minimum values. The fact that they go one past the end of the run is intentional (someone just tried to "fix" that in an edit). You can use the output to iterate over the slices of minimum values in your input array like this:
for s in local_mins(test03):
print(test03[slice(*s)])
Output:
[2 2]
[4 4 4]
[2]
[5 5]
[1 1]
+1 it works properly but it increases the complexity exponentially. However the trick of using windows it something that I didn't know, that's why +1!! I can still the idea to be used in other context
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 12:51
1
@Leos313 Yeah, strides can be used for vectorizing a wide variety of iterations. I actually just learned how to use them yesterday. Restriding turned out not to be the best fit for this problem, but "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is doubly true when the hammer is shiny and new.
– tel
Nov 25 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
Here's an answer based on restriding the array into an iterable of windows:
import numpy as np
from numpy.lib.stride_tricks import as_strided
def windowstride(a, window):
return as_strided(a, shape=(a.size - window + 1, window), strides=2*a.strides)
def local_min(a, maxwindow=None, doends=True):
if doends: a = np.pad(a.astype(float), 1, 'constant', constant_values=np.inf)
if maxwindow is None: maxwindow = a.size - 1
mins =
for i in range(3, maxwindow + 1):
for j,w in enumerate(windowstride(a, i)):
if (w[0] > w[1]) and (w[-2] < w[-1]):
if (w[1:-1]==w[1]).all():
mins.append((j, j + i - 2))
mins.sort()
return mins
Testing it out:
test03=np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
local_min(test03)
Output:
[(0, 2), (3, 6), (9, 10), (11, 13), (15, 17)]
Not the most efficient algorithm, but at least it's short. I'm pretty sure it's O(n^2)
, since there's roughly 1/2*(n^2 + n)
windows to iterate over. This is only partially vectorized, so there may be a way to improve it.
Edit
To clarify, the output is the indices of the slices that contain the runs of local minimum values. The fact that they go one past the end of the run is intentional (someone just tried to "fix" that in an edit). You can use the output to iterate over the slices of minimum values in your input array like this:
for s in local_mins(test03):
print(test03[slice(*s)])
Output:
[2 2]
[4 4 4]
[2]
[5 5]
[1 1]
+1 it works properly but it increases the complexity exponentially. However the trick of using windows it something that I didn't know, that's why +1!! I can still the idea to be used in other context
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 12:51
1
@Leos313 Yeah, strides can be used for vectorizing a wide variety of iterations. I actually just learned how to use them yesterday. Restriding turned out not to be the best fit for this problem, but "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is doubly true when the hammer is shiny and new.
– tel
Nov 25 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
Here's an answer based on restriding the array into an iterable of windows:
import numpy as np
from numpy.lib.stride_tricks import as_strided
def windowstride(a, window):
return as_strided(a, shape=(a.size - window + 1, window), strides=2*a.strides)
def local_min(a, maxwindow=None, doends=True):
if doends: a = np.pad(a.astype(float), 1, 'constant', constant_values=np.inf)
if maxwindow is None: maxwindow = a.size - 1
mins =
for i in range(3, maxwindow + 1):
for j,w in enumerate(windowstride(a, i)):
if (w[0] > w[1]) and (w[-2] < w[-1]):
if (w[1:-1]==w[1]).all():
mins.append((j, j + i - 2))
mins.sort()
return mins
Testing it out:
test03=np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
local_min(test03)
Output:
[(0, 2), (3, 6), (9, 10), (11, 13), (15, 17)]
Not the most efficient algorithm, but at least it's short. I'm pretty sure it's O(n^2)
, since there's roughly 1/2*(n^2 + n)
windows to iterate over. This is only partially vectorized, so there may be a way to improve it.
Edit
To clarify, the output is the indices of the slices that contain the runs of local minimum values. The fact that they go one past the end of the run is intentional (someone just tried to "fix" that in an edit). You can use the output to iterate over the slices of minimum values in your input array like this:
for s in local_mins(test03):
print(test03[slice(*s)])
Output:
[2 2]
[4 4 4]
[2]
[5 5]
[1 1]
Here's an answer based on restriding the array into an iterable of windows:
import numpy as np
from numpy.lib.stride_tricks import as_strided
def windowstride(a, window):
return as_strided(a, shape=(a.size - window + 1, window), strides=2*a.strides)
def local_min(a, maxwindow=None, doends=True):
if doends: a = np.pad(a.astype(float), 1, 'constant', constant_values=np.inf)
if maxwindow is None: maxwindow = a.size - 1
mins =
for i in range(3, maxwindow + 1):
for j,w in enumerate(windowstride(a, i)):
if (w[0] > w[1]) and (w[-2] < w[-1]):
if (w[1:-1]==w[1]).all():
mins.append((j, j + i - 2))
mins.sort()
return mins
Testing it out:
test03=np.array([2,2,10,4,4,4,5,6,7,2,6,5,5,7,7,1,1])
local_min(test03)
Output:
[(0, 2), (3, 6), (9, 10), (11, 13), (15, 17)]
Not the most efficient algorithm, but at least it's short. I'm pretty sure it's O(n^2)
, since there's roughly 1/2*(n^2 + n)
windows to iterate over. This is only partially vectorized, so there may be a way to improve it.
Edit
To clarify, the output is the indices of the slices that contain the runs of local minimum values. The fact that they go one past the end of the run is intentional (someone just tried to "fix" that in an edit). You can use the output to iterate over the slices of minimum values in your input array like this:
for s in local_mins(test03):
print(test03[slice(*s)])
Output:
[2 2]
[4 4 4]
[2]
[5 5]
[1 1]
edited Nov 25 '18 at 17:42
answered Nov 25 '18 at 12:16
teltel
7,41621431
7,41621431
+1 it works properly but it increases the complexity exponentially. However the trick of using windows it something that I didn't know, that's why +1!! I can still the idea to be used in other context
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 12:51
1
@Leos313 Yeah, strides can be used for vectorizing a wide variety of iterations. I actually just learned how to use them yesterday. Restriding turned out not to be the best fit for this problem, but "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is doubly true when the hammer is shiny and new.
– tel
Nov 25 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
+1 it works properly but it increases the complexity exponentially. However the trick of using windows it something that I didn't know, that's why +1!! I can still the idea to be used in other context
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 12:51
1
@Leos313 Yeah, strides can be used for vectorizing a wide variety of iterations. I actually just learned how to use them yesterday. Restriding turned out not to be the best fit for this problem, but "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is doubly true when the hammer is shiny and new.
– tel
Nov 25 '18 at 13:00
+1 it works properly but it increases the complexity exponentially. However the trick of using windows it something that I didn't know, that's why +1!! I can still the idea to be used in other context
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 12:51
+1 it works properly but it increases the complexity exponentially. However the trick of using windows it something that I didn't know, that's why +1!! I can still the idea to be used in other context
– Leos313
Nov 25 '18 at 12:51
1
1
@Leos313 Yeah, strides can be used for vectorizing a wide variety of iterations. I actually just learned how to use them yesterday. Restriding turned out not to be the best fit for this problem, but "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is doubly true when the hammer is shiny and new.
– tel
Nov 25 '18 at 13:00
@Leos313 Yeah, strides can be used for vectorizing a wide variety of iterations. I actually just learned how to use them yesterday. Restriding turned out not to be the best fit for this problem, but "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is doubly true when the hammer is shiny and new.
– tel
Nov 25 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53466504%2ffinding-singulars-sets-of-local-maxima-minima-in-a-1d-numpy-array-once-again%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Interesting Question, a quick search seems to indicate there are no pre built solutions. However, it should be simple enough to devise a minimalistic solution for this. I can think of two approaches. Let me try to implement one and see if it turns out as clean as i think it should.
– Paritosh Singh
Nov 25 '18 at 10:36