This is a Cython implemention of Michael Vose's Alias method. It can be used to perform weighted sampling with replacement of integers in O(1)
time. It requires a construction phase that runs in O(n)
time, with n
being the number of integers with associated weights. As far as I know, it's faster than any other method available in Python. But I would love to be proven wrong!
I wrote this because I had a specific usecase where I needed to repeatidly sample integers with a weight associated to each integer. I stumbled on Keith Schwarz's Darts, Dice, and Coins: Sampling from a Discrete Distribution, which is very well written, and decided to use the Alias method. Alas, numpy
doesn't seem to have it available, and neither does the random
module from Python's standard library. There is, however, the vose_sampler
package, but it is written in pure Python and isn't fast enough for my purposes. I therefore decided to write it in Cython and shamelessly adapted Keith Schmarz's Java implementation.
pip install vose
You first have to initialize a sampler with an array of weights. These weights are not required to sum up to 1.
>>> import numpy as np
>>> import vose
>>> weights = np.array([.1, .3, .4, .2])
>>> sampler = vose.Sampler(weights, seed=42)
You can then call the .sample()
method to sample a random integer in range [0, n - 1]
, where n
is the number of weights that were passed.
>>> sampler.sample()
2
You can set the k
parameter in order to produce multiple samples.
>>> sampler.sample(k=10)
array([1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 3, 3])
By default, a copy of the weights is made. You can disable this behavior in order to save a few microseconds, but this will modify the provided array.
>>> sampler = vose.Sampler(weights, seed=42, copy=False)
Note that vose.Sampler
expects to be provided with a memoryview. In order to pass a list, you have to convert it yourself to a numpy array.
>>> weights = [.2, .3, .5]
>>> sampler = vose.Sampler(np.array(weights))
You can also use vose.Sampler
from within your own Cython .pyx
file:
import numpy as np
cimport vose
cimport numpy as np
cdef np.float [:] weights = np.array([.2, .3, .5], dtype=float)
cdef vose.Sampler sampler
sampler = vose.Sampler(weights)
cdef int sample = sampler.sample_1()
cdef np.int [:] samples = sampler.sample_k(10)
Note that the latter requires having to include the numpy
headers in the extension definition of your setup.py
:
from setuptools import Extension
from setuptools import setup
from Cython.Build import cythonize
import numpy as np
extension = Extension(
'*', ['your_file.pyx'],
include_dirs=[np.get_include()],
define_macros=[('NPY_NO_DEPRECATED_API', 'NPY_1_7_API_VERSION')]
)
setup(ext_modules=cythonize([extension]))
It seems to be working correctly; at least according to the following chi-squared tests:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> from scipy import stats
>>> rng = np.random.RandomState(42)
>>> k = 1000
>>> for n in range(3, 20):
... weights = rng.dirichlet(np.arange(1, n))
... sampler = vose.Sampler(weights, seed=42)
... samples = sampler.sample(k)
... chi2 = stats.chisquare(f_obs=np.bincount(samples), f_exp=weights * k)
... assert chi2.pvalue > .05
Hell yeah. The following graph shows the average time taken to sample one integer for different amounts of weights:
As you can see, vose.Sampler
takes less than a nanosecond to produce a random integer. Here is the construction time:
vose.Sampler
is also fast enough to compete with numpy
and random
, even when including the construction time. The following table summarizes a comparison I made on my laptop, with n
being the number of weights and k
the number of integers to sample:
n | k | np.random.choice | random.choices | vose.Sampler | vose_sampler.VoseAlias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 1 | 26ns | 2ns | 4ns | 11ns |
3 | 2 | 26ns | 3ns | 7ns | 13ns |
3 | 3 | 26ns | 3ns | 7ns | 14ns |
3 | 10 | 26ns | 6ns | 7ns | 27ns |
3 | 100 | 28ns | 47ns | 8ns | 198ns |
3 | 1000 | 46ns | 461ns | 19ns | 1μs, 887ns |
30 | 1 | 27ns | 6ns | 4ns | 69ns |
30 | 2 | 26ns | 7ns | 7ns | 73ns |
30 | 3 | 27ns | 7ns | 8ns | 72ns |
30 | 10 | 27ns | 14ns | 7ns | 88ns |
30 | 100 | 31ns | 63ns | 8ns | 256ns |
30 | 1000 | 67ns | 580ns | 19ns | 1μs, 935ns |
300 | 1 | 29ns | 47ns | 6ns | 661ns |
300 | 2 | 29ns | 47ns | 9ns | 659ns |
300 | 3 | 29ns | 49ns | 9ns | 685ns |
300 | 10 | 29ns | 54ns | 9ns | 685ns |
300 | 100 | 36ns | 112ns | 10ns | 877ns |
300 | 1000 | 96ns | 717ns | 20ns | 2μs, 599ns |
3000 | 1 | 52ns | 416ns | 18ns | 6μs, 988ns |
3000 | 2 | 50ns | 420ns | 21ns | 7μs, 39ns |
3000 | 3 | 51ns | 439ns | 21ns | 7μs, 102ns |
3000 | 10 | 51ns | 420ns | 21ns | 7μs, 332ns |
3000 | 100 | 59ns | 496ns | 23ns | 7μs, 349ns |
3000 | 1000 | 137ns | 1μs, 213ns | 35ns | 10μs, 190ns |
In summary, you probably don't need to be using vose.Sampler
if you only need to sample once, regardless of the number of integers you wish to sample. You want to use vose.Sampler
when you need to sample in a sequential manner, because at that point the construction time will be amortized. Indeed, this will bring you two orders of magnitude improved speed, when compared to calling np.random.choice
or random.choices
multiple times.
git clone https://github.com/MaxHalford/vose
cd vose
python setup.py build_ext --inplace
pytest
O(log(n))
time, but means sampling also happens in O(log(n))
time. More information here.vose.Sampler
from another Cython .pyx
file seems to require some Python interaction; there's probably a way to avoid this.