Given a list of data, I'm trying to create a new list in which the value at position i
is the length of the longest run starting from position i
in the original list. For instance, given
x_list = [1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3]
Should return:
run_list = [2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1]
My solution:
freq_list = []
current = x_list[0]
count = 0
for num in x_list:
if num == current:
count += 1
else:
freq_list.append((current,count))
current = num
count = 1
freq_list.append((current,count))
run_list = []
for i in freq_list:
z = i[1]
while z > 0:
run_list.append(z)
z -= 1
Firstly I create a list freq_list
of tuples, where every tuple's first element is the element from x_list
, and where the second element is the number of the total run.
In this case:
freq_list = [(1, 2), (2, 1), (3, 3)]
Having this, I create a new list and append appropriate values.
However, I was wondering if there is a shorter way/another way to do this?
Here's a simple solution that iterates over the list backwards and increments a counter each time a number is repeated:
last_num = None
result = []
for num in reversed(x_list):
if num != last_num:
# if the number changed, reset the counter to 1
counter = 1
last_num = num
else:
# if the number is the same, increment the counter
counter += 1
result.append(counter)
# reverse the result
result = list(reversed(result))
Result:
[2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1]
This is possible using itertools
:
from itertools import groupby, chain
x_list = [1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3]
gen = (range(len(list(j)), 0, -1) for _, j in groupby(x_list))
res = list(chain.from_iterable(gen))
Result
[2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1]
Explanation
itertools.groupby
to group identical items in your list.groupby
, create a range
object which counts backwards from the length of the number of consecutive items to 1.itertools.chain
to chain the ranges from the generator.Performance note
Performance will be inferior to @Aran-Fey's solution. Although itertools.groupby
is O(n), it makes heavy use of expensive __next__
calls. These do not scale as well as iteration in simple for
loops. See itertools docs for groupby
pseudo-code.
If performance is your main concern, stick with the for
loop.
You are performing a reverse cumulative count on contiguous groups. We can create a Numpy cumulative count function with
import numpy as np
def cumcount(a):
a = np.asarray(a)
b = np.append(False, a[:-1] != a[1:])
c = b.cumsum()
r = np.arange(len(a))
return r - np.append(0, np.flatnonzero(b))[c] + 1
and then generate our result with
a = np.array(x_list)
cumcount(a[::-1])[::-1]
array([2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1])
I would use a generator for this kind of task because it avoids building the resulting list incrementally and can be used lazily if one wanted:
def gen(iterable): # you have to think about a better name :-)
iterable = iter(iterable)
# Get the first element, in case that fails
# we can stop right now.
try:
last_seen = next(iterable)
except StopIteration:
return
count = 1
# Go through the remaining items
for item in iterable:
if item == last_seen:
count += 1
else:
# The consecutive run finished, return the
# desired values for the run and then reset
# counter and the new item for the next run.
yield from range(count, 0, -1)
count = 1
last_seen = item
# Return the result for the last run
yield from range(count, 0, -1)
This will also work if the input cannot be reversed
(certain generators/iterators cannot be reversed):
>>> x_list = (i for i in range(10)) # it's a generator despite the variable name :-)
>>> ... arans solution ...
TypeError: 'generator' object is not reversible
>>> list(gen((i for i in range(10))))
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
And it works for your input:
>>> x_list = [1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3]
>>> list(gen(x_list))
[2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1]
This can actually be made simpler by using itertools.groupby
:
import itertools
def gen(iterable):
for _, group in itertools.groupby(iterable):
length = sum(1 for _ in group) # or len(list(group))
yield from range(length, 0, -1)
>>> x_list = [1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3]
>>> list(gen(x_list))
[2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1]
I also did some benchmarks and according to these Aran-Feys solution is the fastest except for long lists where piRSquareds solution wins:
This was my benchmarking setup if you want to confirm the results:
from itertools import groupby, chain
import numpy as np
def gen1(iterable):
iterable = iter(iterable)
try:
last_seen = next(iterable)
except StopIteration:
return
count = 1
for item in iterable:
if item == last_seen:
count += 1
else:
yield from range(count, 0, -1)
count = 1
last_seen = item
yield from range(count, 0, -1)
def gen2(iterable):
for _, group in groupby(iterable):
length = sum(1 for _ in group)
yield from range(length, 0, -1)
def mseifert1(iterable):
return list(gen1(iterable))
def mseifert2(iterable):
return list(gen2(iterable))
def aran(x_list):
last_num = None
result = []
for num in reversed(x_list):
if num != last_num:
counter = 1
last_num = num
else:
counter += 1
result.append(counter)
return list(reversed(result))
def jpp(x_list):
gen = (range(len(list(j)), 0, -1) for _, j in groupby(x_list))
res = list(chain.from_iterable(gen))
return res
def cumcount(a):
a = np.asarray(a)
b = np.append(False, a[:-1] != a[1:])
c = b.cumsum()
r = np.arange(len(a))
return r - np.append(0, np.flatnonzero(b))[c] + 1
def pirsquared(x_list):
a = np.array(x_list)
return cumcount(a[::-1])[::-1]
from simple_benchmark import benchmark
import random
funcs = [mseifert1, mseifert2, aran, jpp, pirsquared]
args = {2**i: [random.randint(0, 5) for _ in range(2**i)] for i in range(1, 20)}
bench = benchmark(funcs, args, "list size")
%matplotlib notebook
bench.plot()
Python 3.6.5, NumPy 1.14
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With