I am facing the problem of having several integers, and I have to generate one using them. For example.
Int 1: 14
Int 2: 4
Int 3: 8
Int 4: 4
Hash Sum: 43
I have some restriction in the values, the maximum value that and attribute can have is 30, the addition of all of them is always 30. And the attributes are always positive.
The key is that I want to generate the same hash sum for similar integers, for example if I have the integers, 14, 4, 10, 2 then I want to generate the same hash sum, in the case above 43. But of course if the integers are very different (4, 4, 2, 20) then I should have a different hash sum. Also it needs to be fast.
Ideally I would like that the output of the hash sum is between 0 and 512, and it should evenly distributed. With my restrictions I can have around 5K different possibilities, so what I would like to have is around 10 per bucket.
I am sure there are many algorithms that do this, but I could not find a way of googling this thing. Can anyone please post an algorithm to do this?.
Some more information
The whole thing with this is that those integers are attributes for a function. I want to store the values of the function in a table, but I do not have enough memory to store all the different options. That is why I want to generalize between similar attributes.
The reason why 10, 5, 15 are totally different from 5, 10, 15, it is because if you imagine this in 3d then both points are a totally different point
Some more information 2
Some answers try to solve the problem using hashing. But I do not think this is so complex. Thanks to one of the comments I have realized that this is a clustering algorithm problem. If we have only 3 attributes and we imagine the problem in 3d, what I just need is divide the space in blocks.
In fact this can be solved with rules of this type
if (att[0] < 5 && att[1] < 5 && att[2] < 5 && att[3] < 5)
Block = 21
if ( (5 < att[0] < 10) && (5 < att[1] < 10) && (5 < att[2] < 10) && (5 < att[3] < 10))
Block = 45
The problem is that I need a fast and a general way to generate those ifs I cannot write all the possibilities.
The simple solution:
Convert the integers to strings separated by commas, and hash the resulting string using a common hashing algorithm (md5, sha, etc).
If you really want to roll-your-own, I would do something like:
Generate large prime P
Generate random numbers 0 < a[i] < P (for each dimension you have)
To generate hash, calculate: sum(a[i] * x[i]) mod P
Given the inputs a, b, c, and d, each ranging in value from 0 to 30 (5 bits), the following will produce an number in the range of 0 to 255 (8 bits).
bucket = ((a & 0x18) << 3) | ((b & 0x18) << 1) | ((c & 0x18) >> 1) | ((d & 0x18) >> 3)
Whether the general approach is appropriate depends on how the question is interpreted. The 3 least significant bits are dropped, grouping 0-7 in the same set, 8-15 in the next, and so forth.
0-7,0-7,0-7,0-7 -> bucket 0
0-7,0-7,0-7,8-15 -> bucket 1
0-7,0-7,0-7,16-23 -> bucket 2
...
24-30,24-30,24-30,24-30 -> bucket 255
Trivially tested with:
for (int a = 0; a <= 30; a++)
for (int b = 0; b <= 30; b++)
for (int c = 0; c <= 30; c++)
for (int d = 0; d <= 30; d++) {
int bucket = ((a & 0x18) << 3) |
((b & 0x18) << 1) |
((c & 0x18) >> 1) |
((d & 0x18) >> 3);
printf("%d, %d, %d, %d -> %d\n",
a, b, c, d, bucket);
}
You want a hash function that depends on the order of inputs and where similar sets of numbers will generate the same hash? That is, you want 50 5 5 10 and 5 5 10 50 to generate different values, but you want 52 7 4 12 to generate the same hash as 50 5 5 10? A simple way to do something like this is:
long hash = 13;
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
hash = hash * 37 + array[i] / 5;
}
This is imperfect, but should give you an idea of one way to implement what you want. It will treat the values 50 - 54 as the same value, but it will treat 49 and 50 as different values.
If you want the hash to be independent of the order of the inputs (so the hash of 5 10 20 and 20 10 5 are the same) then one way to do this is to sort the array of integers into ascending order before applying the hash. Another way would be to replace
hash = hash * 37 + array[i] / 5;
with
hash += array[i] / 5;
EDIT: Taking into account your comments in response to this answer, it sounds like my attempt above may serve your needs well enough. It won't be ideal, nor perfect. If you need high performance you have some research and experimentation to do.
To summarize, order is important, so 5 10 20 differs from 20 10 5. Also, you would ideally store each "vector" separately in your hash table, but to handle space limitations you want to store some groups of values in one table entry.
An ideal hash function would return a number evenly spread across the possible values based on your table size. Doing this right depends on the expected size of your table and on the number of and expected maximum value of the input vector values. If you can have negative values as "coordinate" values then this may affect how you compute your hash. If, given your range of input values and the hash function chosen, your maximum hash value is less than your hash table size, then you need to change the hash function to generate a larger hash value.
You might want to try using vectors to describe each number set as the hash value.
EDIT:
Since you're not describing why you want to not run the function itself, I'm guessing it's long running. Since you haven't described the breadth of the argument set.
If every value is expected then a full lookup table in a database might be faster.
If you're expecting repeated calls with the same arguments and little overall variation, then you could look at memoizing so only the first run for a argument set is expensive, and each additional request is fast, with less memory usage.
You would need to define what you mean by "similar". Hashes are generally designed to create unique results from unique input.
One approach would be to normalize your input and then generate a hash from the results.
Generating the same hash sum is called a collision, and is a bad thing for a hash to have. It makes it less useful.
If you want similar values to give the same output, you can divide the input by however close you want them to count. If the order makes a difference, use a different divisor for each number. The following function does what you describe:
int SqueezedSum( int a, int b, int c, int d )
{
return (a/11) + (b/7) + (c/5) + (d/3);
}
This is not a hash, but does what you describe.
You want to look into geometric hashing. In "standard" hashing you want
a short key
inverse resistance
collision resistance
With geometric hashing you susbtitute number 3 with something whihch is almost opposite; namely close initial values give close hash values.
Another way to view my problem is using the multidimesional scaling (MS). In MS we start with a matrix of items and what we want is assign a location of each item to an N dimensional space. Reducing in this way the number of dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_scaling
Related
I need to determine whether the following Hash Functions Set is universal or not:
Let U be the set of the keys - {000, 001, 002, 003, ... ,999} - all the numbers between 0 and 999 padded with 0 in the beginning where needed. Let n = 10 and 1 < a < 9 ,an integer between 1 and 9. We denote by ha(x) the rightmost digit of the number a*x.
For example, h2(123) = 6, because, 2 * 123 = 246.
We also denote H = {h1, h2, h3, ... ,h9} as our set of hash functions.
Is H is universal? prove.
I know I need to calculate the probability for collision of 2 different keys and check if it's smaller or equal to 1/n (which is 1/10), so I tried to separate into cases - if a is odd or even, because when a is even the last digit of a*x will be 0/2/4/6/8, else it could be anything. But it didn't help me so much as I'm stuck on it.
Would be very glad for some help here.
rand(n) returns a number between 0 and n. Will rand work as expected, with regard to "randomness", for all arguments up to the integer limit on my platform?
This is going to depend on your randbits value:
rand calls your system's random number generator (or whichever one was
compiled into your copy of Perl). For this discussion, I'll call that
generator RAND to distinguish it from rand, Perl's function. RAND produces
an integer from 0 to 2**randbits - 1, inclusive, where randbits is a small
integer. To see what it is in your perl, use the command 'perl
-V:randbits'. Common values are 15, 16, or 31.
When you call rand with an argument arg, perl takes that value as an
integer and calculates this value.
arg * RAND
rand(arg) = ---------------
2**randbits
This value will always fall in the range required.
0 <= rand(arg) < arg
But as arg becomes large in comparison to 2**randbits, things become
problematic. Let's imagine a machine where randbits = 15, so RAND ranges
from 0..32767. That is, whenever we call RAND, we get one of 32768
possible values. Therefore, when we call rand(arg), we get one of 32768
possible values.
It depends on the number of bits used by your system's (pseudo)random number generator. You can find this value via
perl -V:randbits
or within a program via
use Config;
my $randbits = $Config{randbits};
rand can generate 2^randbits distinct random numbers. While you can generate numbers larger than 2^randbits, you can't generate all of the integer values in the range [0, N) when N > 2^randbits.
Values of N which aren't a power of two can also be problematic, as the distribution of (integer truncated) random values won't quite be flat. Some values will be slightly over-represented, others slightly under-represented.
It's worth noting that randbits is a paltry 15 on Windows. This means you can only get 32768 (2**15) distinct values. You can improve the situation by making multiple calls to rand and combining the values:
use Config;
use constant RANDBITS => $Config{randbits};
use constant RAND_MAX => 2**RANDBITS;
sub double_rand {
my $max = shift || 1;
my $iv =
int rand(RAND_MAX) << RANDBITS
| int rand(RAND_MAX);
return $max * ($iv / 2**(2*RANDBITS));
}
Assuming randbits = 15, double_rand mimics randbits = 30, providing 1073741824 (2**30) possible distinct values. This alleviates (but can never eliminate) both of the problems mentioned above.
We are talking about big random integers and whether it is possible to get them. It should be noted that the concatenation of two random integers is also a random integer. So if your system, for any reason, cannot go beyond 999999999999, then just write
$bigrand = int(rand(999999999999)).int(rand(999999999999));
and you'll get a random integer of (maximally) twice the length.
(Actually this is not a numeric answer to the question “how big a rand number can be” but rather the answer “you can get as big as you want, just concatenate small numbers”.)
I want to convert the decimal number 27 into binary such a way that , first the digit 2 is converted and its binary value is placed in an array and then the digit 7 is converted and its binary number is placed in that array. what should I do?
thanks in advance
That's called binary-coded decimal. It's easiest to work right-to-left. Take the value modulo 10 (% operator in C/C++/ObjC) and put it in the array. Then integer-divide the value by 10 (/ operator in C/C++/ObjC). Continue until your value is zero. Then reverse the array if you need most-significant digit first.
If I understand your question correctly, you want to go from 27 to an array that looks like {0010, 0111}.
If you understand how base systems work (specifically the decimal system), this should be simple.
First, you find the remainder of your number when divided by 10. Your number 27 in this case would result with 7.
Then you integer divide your number by 10 and store it back in that variable. Your number 27 would result in 2.
How many times do you do this?
You do this until you have no more digits.
How many digits can you have?
Well, if you think about the number 100, it has 3 digits because the number needs to remember that one 10^2 exists in the number. On the other hand, 99 does not.
The answer to the previous question is 1 + floor of Log base 10 of the input number.
Log of 100 is 2, plus 1 is 3, which equals number of digits.
Log of 99 is a little less than 2, but flooring it is 1, plus 1 is 2.
In java it is like this:
int input = 27;
int number = 0;
int numDigits = Math.floor(Log(10, input)) + 1;
int[] digitArray = new int [numDigits];
for (int i = 0; i < numDigits; i++) {
number = input % 10;
digitArray[numDigits - i - 1] = number;
input = input / 10;
}
return digitArray;
Java doesn't have a Log function that is portable for any base (it has it for base e), but it is trivial to make a function for it.
double Log( double base, double value ) {
return Math.log(value)/Math.log(base);
}
Good luck.
the thing is that, the 1st number is already ORACLE LONG,
second one a Date (SQL DATE, no timestamp info extra), the last one being a Short value in the range 1000-100'000.
how can I create sort of hash value that will be unique for each combination optimally?
string concatenation and converting to long later:
I don't want this, for example.
Day Month
12 1 --> 121
1 12 --> 121
When you have a few numeric values and need to have a single "unique" (that is, statistically improbable duplicate) value out of them you can usually use a formula like:
h = (a*P1 + b)*P2 + c
where P1 and P2 are either well-chosen numbers (e.g. if you know 'a' is always in the 1-31 range, you can use P1=32) or, when you know nothing particular about the allowable ranges of a,b,c best approach is to have P1 and P2 as big prime numbers (they have the least chance to generate values that collide).
For an optimal solution the math is a bit more complex than that, but using prime numbers you can usually have a decent solution.
For example, Java implementation for .hashCode() for an array (or a String) is something like:
h = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; ++i)
h = h * 31 + a[i];
Even though personally, I would have chosen a prime bigger than 31 as values inside a String can easily collide, since a delta of 31 places can be quite common, e.g.:
"BB".hashCode() == "Aa".hashCode() == 2122
Your
12 1 --> 121
1 12 --> 121
problem is easily fixed by zero-padding your input numbers to the maximum width expected for each input field.
For example, if the first field can range from 0 to 10000 and the second field can range from 0 to 100, your example becomes:
00012 001 --> 00012001
00001 012 --> 00001012
In python, you can use this:
#pip install pairing
import pairing as pf
n = [12,6,20,19]
print(n)
key = pf.pair(pf.pair(n[0],n[1]),
pf.pair(n[2], n[3]))
print(key)
m = [pf.depair(pf.depair(key)[0]),
pf.depair(pf.depair(key)[1])]
print(m)
Output is:
[12, 6, 20, 19]
477575
[(12, 6), (20, 19)]
The problem in general:
I have a big 2d point space, sparsely populated with dots.
Think of it as a big white canvas sprinkled with black dots.
I have to iterate over and search through these dots a lot.
The Canvas (point space) can be huge, bordering on the limits
of int and its size is unknown before setting points in there.
That brought me to the idea of hashing:
Ideal:
I need a hash function taking a 2D point, returning a unique uint32.
So that no collisions can occur. You can assume that the number of
dots on the Canvas is easily countable by uint32.
IMPORTANT: It is impossible to know the size of the canvas beforehand
(it may even change),
so things like
canvaswidth * y + x
are sadly out of the question.
I also tried a very naive
abs(x) + abs(y)
but that produces too many collisions.
Compromise:
A hash function that provides keys with a very low probability of collision.
Cantor's enumeration of pairs
n = ((x + y)*(x + y + 1)/2) + y
might be interesting, as it's closest to your original canvaswidth * y + x but will work for any x or y. But for a real world int32 hash, rather than a mapping of pairs of integers to integers, you're probably better off with a bit manipulation such as Bob Jenkin's mix and calling that with x,y and a salt.
a hash function that is GUARANTEED collision-free is not a hash function :)
Instead of using a hash function, you could consider using binary space partition trees (BSPs) or XY-trees (closely related).
If you want to hash two uint32's into one uint32, do not use things like Y & 0xFFFF because that discards half of the bits. Do something like
(x * 0x1f1f1f1f) ^ y
(you need to transform one of the variables first to make sure the hash function is not commutative)
Like Emil, but handles 16-bit overflows in x in a way that produces fewer collisions, and takes fewer instructions to compute:
hash = ( y << 16 ) ^ x;
You can recursively divide your XY plane into cells, then divide these cells into sub-cells, etc.
Gustavo Niemeyer invented in 2008 his Geohash geocoding system.
Amazon's open source Geo Library computes the hash for any longitude-latitude coordinate. The resulting Geohash value is a 63 bit number. The probability of collision depends of the hash's resolution: if two objects are closer than the intrinsic resolution, the calculated hash will be identical.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geohash
https://aws.amazon.com/fr/blogs/mobile/geo-library-for-amazon-dynamodb-part-1-table-structure/
https://github.com/awslabs/dynamodb-geo
Your "ideal" is impossible.
You want a mapping (x, y) -> i where x, y, and i are all 32-bit quantities, which is guaranteed not to generate duplicate values of i.
Here's why: suppose there is a function hash() so that hash(x, y) gives different integer values. There are 2^32 (about 4 billion) values for x, and 2^32 values of y. So hash(x, y) has 2^64 (about 16 million trillion) possible results. But there are only 2^32 possible values in a 32-bit int, so the result of hash() won't fit in a 32-bit int.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_argument
Generally, you should always design your data structures to deal with collisions. (Unless your hashes are very long (at least 128 bit), very good (use cryptographic hash functions), and you're feeling lucky).
Perhaps?
hash = ((y & 0xFFFF) << 16) | (x & 0xFFFF);
Works as long as x and y can be stored as 16 bit integers. No idea about how many collisions this causes for larger integers, though. One idea might be to still use this scheme but combine it with a compression scheme, such as taking the modulus of 2^16.
If you can do a = ((y & 0xffff) << 16) | (x & 0xffff) then you could afterward apply a reversible 32-bit mix to a, such as Thomas Wang's
uint32_t hash( uint32_t a)
a = (a ^ 61) ^ (a >> 16);
a = a + (a << 3);
a = a ^ (a >> 4);
a = a * 0x27d4eb2d;
a = a ^ (a >> 15);
return a;
}
That way you get a random-looking result rather than high bits from one dimension and low bits from the other.
You can do
a >= b ? a * a + a + b : a + b * b
taken from here.
That works for points in positive plane. If your coordinates can be in negative axis too, then you will have to do:
A = a >= 0 ? 2 * a : -2 * a - 1;
B = b >= 0 ? 2 * b : -2 * b - 1;
A >= B ? A * A + A + B : A + B * B;
But to restrict the output to uint you will have to keep an upper bound for your inputs. and if so, then it turns out that you know the bounds. In other words in programming its impractical to write a function without having an idea on the integer type your inputs and output can be and if so there definitely will be a lower bound and upper bound for every integer type.
public uint GetHashCode(whatever a, whatever b)
{
if (a > ushort.MaxValue || b > ushort.MaxValue ||
a < ushort.MinValue || b < ushort.MinValue)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
return (uint)(a * short.MaxValue + b); //very good space/speed efficiency
//or whatever your function is.
}
If you want output to be strictly uint for unknown range of inputs, then there will be reasonable amount of collisions depending upon that range. What I would suggest is to have a function that can overflow but unchecked. Emil's solution is great, in C#:
return unchecked((uint)((a & 0xffff) << 16 | (b & 0xffff)));
See Mapping two integers to one, in a unique and deterministic way for a plethora of options..
According to your use case, it might be possible to use a Quadtree and replace points with the string of branch names. It is actually a sparse representation for points and will need a custom Quadtree structure that extends the canvas by adding branches when you add points off the canvas but it avoids collisions and you'll have benefits like quick nearest neighbor searches.
If you're already using languages or platforms that all objects (even primitive ones like integers) has built-in hash functions implemented (Java platform Languages like Java, .NET platform languages like C#. And others like Python, Ruby, etc ).
You may use built-in hashing values as a building block and add your "hashing flavor" in to the mix. Like:
// C# code snippet
public class SomeVerySimplePoint {
public int X;
public int Y;
public override int GetHashCode() {
return ( Y.GetHashCode() << 16 ) ^ X.GetHashCode();
}
}
And also having test cases like "predefined million point set" running against each possible hash generating algorithm comparison for different aspects like, computation time, memory required, key collision count, and edge cases (too big or too small values) may be handy.
the Fibonacci hash works very well for integer pairs
multiplier 0x9E3779B9
other word sizes 1/phi = (sqrt(5)-1)/2 * 2^w round to odd
a1 + a2*multiplier
this will give very different values for close together pairs
I do not know about the result with all pairs