We Keep Coding

How can I maintain probability across multiple executions in Java

Firstly I am not the greatest with Math, so please excuse any ignorance relating to that. I am trying to maintain probability based randomness across multiple executions but I am failing. I have this input in a JSONObject
{
"option1": 25,
"option2":25,
"option3" :10,
"option4" :40
}
This is my function that selects a value from the above JSONObject based on the probability assigned:
public static String selectRandomoptions(JSONObject options) {
String selectedOption = null;
if (options != null) {
int maxChance = 0;
for (String option : options.keySet()) {
maxChance += options.getInt(option);
}
if (maxChance < 100) {
maxChance = 100;
}
Random r = new Random();
Integer randomValue = r.nextInt(maxChance);
int chance = 0;
for (String option : options.keySet()) {
chance += options.getInt(option);
if (chance >= randomValue) {
selectedOption = options.toLowerCase();
break;
}
}
}
}
the function behaves within a reasonable error margin if I call it x amount of times in a single execution ( tested 100+ calls), the problem is that I am running this every hour to generates some sample data in an event-driven app to verify our analytics process/data but we need it to be somewhat predictable, at least within a reasonable margin?
Has anyone any idea how I might approach this? I would rather not have to persist anything but I am not opposed to it if it makes sense or reduces complexity/time.

The values returned by Random.nextInt() are uniformly distributed, so that shouldn't be a problem.
I you would like to make random results repeatable, then you may want to use Random with seed.

Rather than create a new Random() object each time you want a new random number, just create the Random object once per run, and use the Random.nextInt() object once per run.
Looking at the documentation of Random() constructor,
This constructor sets the seed of the random number generator to a
value very likely to be distinct from any other invocation of this
constructor.it only guarantees it to be different
that's a bit of a weaker contract than the number you get from nextInt().
If you want to get the same sequence of numbers on each run, use the Random(long seed) or the setSeed(long seed) method of the random object. Both these methods set the seed of the generator. If you used the same seed for each invocation it's guaranteed that you will get the same sequence of numbers from the generator.
Random.setSeed(long).

How to make my room sorter more random?

So I'm working on a program which is supposed to randomly put people in 6 rooms (final input is the list of rooms with who is in each room). So I figured out how to do all that.
//this is the main sorting sequence:
for (int srtM = 0; srtM < Guys.length; srtM++) {
done = false;
People newMove = Guys[srtM]; //Guys is an array of People
while (!done) {
newMove.rndRoom(); //sets random number from 4 to 6
if (newMove.getRoom() == 4 && !room4.isFull()) {
room4.add(newMove); //adds person into the room4 object rList
done = true;
} else if (newMove.getRoom() == 5 && !room5.isFull()) {
room5.add(newMove);
done = true;
} else if (newMove.getRoom() == 6 && !room6.isFull()) {
room6.add(newMove);
done = true;
}
}
The problem now is that the code for reasons I don't completely understand (something with the way I wrote it here) is hardly random. It seems the same people are put into the same rooms almost every time I run the program. For example me, I'm almost always put by this program into room 6 together with another one friend (interestingly, we're both at the end of the Guys array). So how can I make it "truly" random? Or a lot more random than it is now?
Thanks in advance!
Forgot to mention that "rndRoom()" does indeed use the standard Random method (for 4-6) in the background:
public int rndRoom() {
if (this.gender == 'M') {
this.room = (rnd.nextInt((6 - 4) + 1)) + 4;
}
if (this.gender == 'F') {
this.room = (rnd.nextInt(((3 - 1) + 1))) + 1;
}
return this.room;
}

if you want it to be more random try doing something with the Random method, do something like this:
Random random = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++)
{
int roomChoice = random.nextInt(5) + 1;
roomChoice += 1;
}
of course this is not exactly the code you will want to use, this is just an example of how to use the Random method, change it to how you want to use it.
Also, the reason I did random.nextInt(5) + 1; is because if random.nextInt(5) + 1; gets you a random number from 0 to 5, so if you want a number from 1 to 6 you have to add 1, pretty self explanatory.
On another note, to get "truly" random is not as easy as it seems, when you generate a "random" number it will use something called Pseudo random number generation, this, is basically these programs produce endless strings of single-digit numbers, usually in base 10, known as the decimal system. When large samples of pseudo-random numbers are taken, each of the 10 digits in the set {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} occurs with equal frequency, even though they are not evenly distributed in the sequence.

There might be something wrong with code you didn't post.
I've build a working example with what your classes might be, and it is distributing pretty randomly:
http://pastebin.com/u8sZRxi6

OK so I figured out why the results don't seem very random. So the room sorter works based on an alphabetical people list of 18 guys. There are only 3 guy rooms (rooms 4, 5 and 6) So each guy has a 1 in 3 chance to be put in say, room 6. But each person could only possibly be in 2 of the 6 spots in each room (depending on where they are in the list).
The first two people for example, could each only be in either the first or second spot of each room. By "spot" I mean their place in the room list which is printed in the end. Me on the other hand am second last on the list, so at that point I could only be in either the last or second last spot of each room.
Sorry if it's confusing but I figured out this is the reason the generated room lists don't appear very random - it's because only the same few people could be put in each room spot every time. The lists are random though, it's just the order in which people appear in each list which is not random.
So in order to make the lists look more random I had to make people's positions in the room random too. So the way I solved this is by adding a shuffler action which mixes the Person arrays:
public static void shuffle(Person[] arr) {
Random rgen = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
int randPos = rgen.nextInt(arr.length);
Person tmp = arr[i];
arr[i] = arr[randPos];
arr[randPos] = tmp;
}
}
TL;DR the generated room lists were random - but since the order of the people that got put into the rooms wasn't random the results didn't look very random. In order to solve this I shuffled the Person arrays.

Round robin java implementation

I was asked to do a multithreaded simulator of a specific algorithm.
One of the tasks was to compare the regular scheduling results with round robin results.
When I was looking for information about the round robin scheduling method I found vary general explanations and some code examples that I couldn’t find any relation between them and scheduling the threads.
For example this code (found here on stack overflow):
public static void RR3(int numProcess, int[] cpuBurst, int[] arrivalTime){
int quantum = 3,time = 0, temp;
int completionTime = 0;
LinkedList <Integer>process = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < numProcess; i++) {
process.add(i, cpuBurst[i]);
}
while (process.isEmpty() != true){
for (int j = 0; j < quantum; j++) {
System.out.println(process.getFirst());
if(process.peek() == 0 ){
completionTime = completionTime + time;
process.remove();
}
else{
temp = process.pop();
process.push(temp - 1);
time++;
}
}
process.addLast(process.getFirst());
process.removeFirst();
}
double act = (double) completionTime/numProcess;
System.out.println("-----------------RR3-----------------");
System.out.println(" Act = " + act + "ms");
}
I don't see anything but integers that represent the amount of process, time for each etc., but how do I actually manage their behavior? I dont see any call for a process to run or stop.

You already noticed that this is an abstraction. Namely that there is no real work performed. Instead, the work is just "imitated" by a set of Integers that represent the amount of work.
The question about how to run or stop the processes is somewhat hidden in the algorithm itself: The LinkedList stores the "active" processes. They are all started at the beginning. In each turn, they receive a short time slot in which they can do some of their work. When all their work is done, they are removed from the list.
In the simplest form, when the Integer values are replaced by real tasks, you could replace the line
if(process.peek() == 0 ){ ... }
with something like
Task task = process.peek();
if (task.isFinished()) { ... }
Otherwise (in the else case), when there is work to be done, you could replace the lines
temp = process.pop();
process.push(temp - 1);
with something like
Task task = process.peek();
task.doALittleBitOfWork();
The code that you posted was originally part of a question, so one has to assume that there's still something wrong with it, but maybe it is sufficient to get the basic idea.

How to get unique random int?

static int n = -1;
private static int repeatBuffer[] = new int[10];
static {
repeatBuffer[0] = 0;
//and more
repeatBuffer[9] = 9;
}
static public void randomize() {
do {
Random r = new Random();
randomNumber = r.nextInt(20);
} while (!uniqueInt(randomNumber));
Log.e(TAG, "" + randomNumber); //here I need have a unique int
}
private static Boolean uniqueInt(int random) {
for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
if (random == repeatBuffer[i]) {
return false;
}
}
if (++n > 9)
n = 0;
repeatBuffer[n] = random;
return true;
}
Sometimes I'm getting same int twice, I'm wondering where is the problem? And is it even work? I spend quite a lot of time on this, and I give up. I think I need some minor tweaks in code :)

An easier way to get a random int is to create a List of integers List<Integer>, adding it with numbers that you would like to have. Then shuffling the List using Collections.shuffle(list);. Now start reading from the beginning of the list and you will get a unique random int each time.
Just make sure that each time you "read" a number from the list, either remove it from the list or increase the index for where you read.

That's the normal behavior of a random number generator, it's correct to generate repeated numbers as long as the number distribution remains uniform.
If you need a set of unique random numbers, you can generate them inside a loop and ask at every iteration if the newly generated number is present in the set of generated numbers. If not, add it, if yes, keep iterating - until the set has the desired size.

Er, a unique random between 1 and 20? What happens when it runs the 21st time?
Try making a List of the Integers between 1 and 20. Use Collections.shuffle() to shuffle the list. Then pop the first item off the front of the list and use that.

Problem with recursive backtracking

Hey guys, recently posted up about a problem with my algorithm.
Finding the numbers from a set which give the minimum amount of waste
Ive amended the code slightly, so it now backtracks to an extent, however the output is still flawed. Ive debugged this considerablychecking all the variable values and cant seem to find out the issue.
Again advice as opposed to an outright solution would be of great help. I think there is only a couple of problems with my code, but i cant work out where.
//from previous post:
Basically a set is passed to this method below, and a length of a bar is also passed in. The solution should output the numbers from the set which give the minimum amount of waste if certain numbers from the set were removed from the bar length. So, bar length 10, set includes 6,1,4, so the solution is 6 and 4, and the wastage is 0. Im having some trouble with the conditions to backtrack though the set. Ive also tried to use a wastage "global" variable to help with the backtracking aspect but to no avail.
SetInt is a manually made set implementation, which can add, remove, check if the set is empty and return the minimum value from the set.
/*
* To change this template, choose Tools | Templates
* and open the template in the editor.
*/
package recursivebacktracking;
/**
*
* #author User
*/
public class RecBack {
int WASTAGE = 10;
int BESTWASTAGE;
int BARLENGTH = 10;
public void work()
{
int[] nums = {6,1,2,5};
//Order Numbers
SetInt ORDERS = new SetInt(nums.length);
SetInt BESTSET = new SetInt(nums.length);
SetInt SOLUTION = new SetInt(nums.length);
//Set Declarration
for (int item : nums)ORDERS.add(item);
//Populate Set
SetInt result = tryCutting(ORDERS, SOLUTION, BARLENGTH, WASTAGE);
result.printNumbers();
}
public SetInt tryCutting(SetInt possibleOrders, SetInt solution, int lengthleft, int waste)
{
for (int i = 0; i < possibleOrders.numberInSet(); i++) // the repeat
{
int a = possibleOrders.min(); //select next candidate
System.out.println(a);
if (a <= lengthleft) //if accecptable
{
solution.add(a); //record candidate
lengthleft -= a;
WASTAGE = lengthleft;
possibleOrders.remove(a); //remove from original set
if (!possibleOrders.isEmpty()) //solution not complete
{
System.out.println("this time");
tryCutting(possibleOrders, solution, lengthleft, waste);//try recursive call
BESTWASTAGE = WASTAGE;
if ( BESTWASTAGE <= WASTAGE )//if not successfull
{
lengthleft += a;
solution.remove(a);
System.out.println("never happens");
}
} //solution not complete
}
} //for loop
return solution;
}
}

Instead of using backtracking, have you considered using a bitmask algorithm instead? I think it would make your algorithm much simpler.
Here's an outline of how you would do this:
Let N be number of elements in your set. So if the set is {6,1,2,5} then N would be 4. Let max_waste be the maximum waste we can eliminate (10 in your example).
int best = 0; // the best result so far
for (int mask = 1; mask <= (1<<N)-1; ++mask) {
// loop over each bit in the mask to see if it's set and add to the sum
int sm = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < N; ++j) {
if ( ((1<<j)&mask) != 0) {
// the bit is set, add this amount to the total
sm += your_set[j];
// possible optimization: if sm is greater than max waste, then break
// out of loop since there's no need to continue
}
}
// if sm <= max_waste, then see if this result produces a better one
// that our current best, and store accordingly
if (sm <= max_waste) {
best = max(max_waste - sm);
}
}
This algorithm is very similar to backtracking and has similar complexity, it just doesn't use recursion.
The bitmask basically is a binary representation where 1 indicates that we use the item in the set, and 0 means we don't. Since we are looping from 1 to (1<<N)-1, we are considering all possible subsets of the given items.
Note that running time of this algorithm increases very quickly as N gets larger, but with N <= around 20 it should be ok. The same limitation applies with backtracking, by the way. If you need faster performance, you'd need to consider another technique like dynamic programming.
For the backtracking, you just need to keep track of which element in the set you are on, and you either try to use the element or not use it. If you use it, you add it to your total, and if not, you proceeed to the next recursive call without increasing your total. Then, you decrement the total (if you incremented it), which is where the backtracking comes in.
It's very similar to the bitmask approach above, and I provided the bitmask solution to help give you a better understanding of how the backtracking algorithm would work.
EDIT
OK, I didn't realize you were required to use recursion.
Hint1
First, I think you can simplify your code considerably by just using a single recursive function and putting the logic in that function. There's no need to build all the sets ahead of time then process them (I'm not totally sure that's what you're doing but it seems that way from your code). You can just build the sets and then keep track of where you are in the set. When you get to the end of the set, see if your result is better.
Hint2
If you still need more hints, try to think of what your backtracking function should be doing. What are the terminating conditions? When we reach the terminating condition, what do we need to record (e.g. did we get a new best result, etc.)?
Hint3
Spoiler Alert
Below is a C++ implementation to give you some ideas, so stop reading here if you want to work on it some more by yourself.
int bestDiff = 999999999;
int N;
vector< int > cur_items;
int cur_tot = 0;
int items[] = {6,1,2,5};
vector< int > best_items;
int max_waste;
void go(int at) {
if (cur_tot > max_waste)
// we've exceeded max_waste, so no need to continue
return;
if (at == N) {
// we're at the end of the input, see if we got a better result and
// if so, record it
if (max_waste - cur_tot < bestDiff) {
bestDiff = max_waste - cur_tot;
best_items = cur_items;
}
return;
}
// use this item
cur_items.push_back(items[at]);
cur_tot += items[at];
go(at+1);
// here's the backtracking part
cur_tot -= items[at];
cur_items.pop_back();
// don't use this item
go(at+1);
}
int main() {
// 4 items in the set, so N is 4
N=4;
// maximum waste we can eliminiate is 10
max_waste = 10;
// call the backtracking algo
go(0);
// output the results
cout<<"bestDiff = "<<bestDiff<<endl;
cout<<"The items are:"<<endl;
for (int i = 0; i < best_items.size(); ++i) {
cout<<best_items[i]<<" ";
}
return 0;
}