I have a dataset that I need to sort by participant (RECORDING_SESSION_LABEL) and by trial_number. However, when I sort the data using R none of the sort functions I have tried put the variables in the correct numeric order that I want. The participant variable comes out ok but the trial ID variable comes out in the wrong order for what I need.
using:
fix_rep[order(as.numeric(RECORDING_SESSION_LABEL), as.numeric(trial_number)),]
Participant ID comes out as:
118 118 118 etc. 211 211 211 etc. 306 306 306 etc.(which is fine)
trial_number comes out as:
1 1 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 2 2 20 20 .... (which is not what I want - it seems to be sorting lexically rather than numerically)
What I would like is trial_number to be order like this within each participant number:
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 ....
I have checked that these variables are not factors and are numeric and also tried without the 'as.numeric', but with no joy. Looking around I saw suggestions that sort() and mixedsort() might do the trick in place of 'order', both come up with errors. I am slowly pulling my hair out over what I think should be a simple thing. Can anybody help shed some light on how to do this to get what I need?
Even though you claim it is not a factor, it does behave exactly as if it were a factor. Testing if something is a factor can be tricky since a factor is just an integer vector with a levels attribute and a class label. If it is a factor, your code needs to have a call to as.character() nested inside the as.numeric():
fix_rep[order(as.numeric(RECORDING_SESSION_LABEL), as.numeric(as.character(trial_number))),]
To be really sure if it's a factor, I recommend the str() function:
str(trial_number)
I think it may be worthwhile for you to design your own function in this case. It wouldn't be too hard, basically you could just design a bubble-sort algorithm with a few alterations. These alterations could change each number to a string, and begin by sorting those with different numbers of digits into different bins (easily done by finding which numbers, which are now strings, have the greatest numbers of indices). Then, in a similar fashion, the numbers in these bins could be sorted by converting the least significant digit to a numeric type and checking to see which are the largest/smallest. If you're interested, I could come up with some code for this, however, it looks like the two above me have beat me to the punch with some of the built-in functions. I've never used those functions, so I'm not sure if they'll work as you intend, but there's no use in reinventing the wheel.
Related
How do I index rows I need by with specifications?
id<-c(65,65,65,65,65,900,900,900,900,900,900,211,211,211,211,211,211,211,45,45,45,45,45,45,45)
age<-c(19,22,23,24,25,21,26,31,32,37,38,22,23,25,28,29,31,32,30,31,36,39,42,44,48)
stat<-c('intern','reg','manage1','left','reg','manage1','manage2','left','reg',
'reg','left','intern','left','intern','reg','left','reg','manage1','reg','left','intern','manage1','left','reg','manage2')
mydf<-data.frame(id,age,stat)
I need to create 5 variables:
m01time & m12time: measure the amount of years elapsed before becoming a level1 manager (manage1), and then since manage1 to manage2 regardless of whether or not it's at the same job. (numeric in years)
change: capture whether or not they experienced a job change between manage1 and manage2 (if 'left' happens somewhere in between manage1 and manage2), (0 or 1)
& 4: m1p & m2p: capture the position before becoming manager1 and manager2 (intern, reg, or manage1).
There's a lot of information I don't need here that I am not sure how to ignore (all the jobs 211 went through before going to one where they become a manager).
The end result should look something like this:
id m01time m02time change m1p m2p
1 65 4 NA NA reg <NA>
2 900 NA 5 0 <NA> manage1
3 211 1 NA NA reg <NA>
4 45 3 9 1 intern reg
I tried to use ifelse with lag() and lead() to capture some conditions, but there are more for loop type of jobs (such as how to capture a "left" somewhere in between) that I am not sure what to do with.
I'd calculate the variables the first three variables differently than m1p and m2p. Maybe there's an elegant unified approach that I don't see at the moment.
So for the last position before manager you could do:
mydt <- data.table(mydf)
mydt[,.(m1p=stat[.I[stat=="manage1"]-1],
m2p=stat[.I[stat=="manage2"]-1]),by=id]
The other variables are more conveniently calculated in a wide data.format:
dt <- dcast(unique(mydt,by=c("id","stat")),
formula=id~stat,value.var="age")
dt[,.(m01time = manage1-intern,
m12time = manage2-manage1,
change = manage1<left & left<manage2)]
Two caveats:
reshaping might be quite costly larger data sets
I (over-)simplified your dummy data by ignoring duplicates of id and stat
New to the R/ggplot.
I have a data set like this. Each mol-code is made of 3 components and copies represent how many times each mol-code appears. There are 8 unique components available and it is represented as smile files.
full.mol.code2 Copies Pair1.Acids Pair2.Acids Pair3.Acids
1 1.301241e+23 18 OC(C1=COC(CCl)=N1)=O OC(C1=CC=C(CCl)C=C1)=O O=C(O)C1=C(C)OC=C1
2 1.303241e+23 18 OC(C1=CSC(CCl)=N1)=O OC(C1=CSC(CCl)=N1)=O OC([C#H](C)Br)=O.[R]
3 1.301241e+23 17 OC(C1=COC(CCl)=N1)=O OC(C1=COC(CCl)=N1)=O O=C(O)C1=C(C)OC=C1
4 1.304241e+23 12 ClC/C(C)=C/[C##H](C)C(O)=O OC(C1=COC(CCl)=N1)=O OC([C#H](C)Cl)=O.[S]
5 1.309240e+23 12 OC(C1=CSC(CCl)=N1)=O OC(C1=CC=C(CCl)C=C1)=O O=C(O)C1=C(C)OC=C1
6 1.301241e+23 11 OC(C1=COC(CCl)=N1)=O OC(C1=CC=C(CCl)C=C1)=O OC([C#H](C)Cl)=O.[S]
Edit: thanks Allan for formatting this properly.
'full.mol.code2' is a number like this (130124051501260617102804), it will not be considered as value.
I want to represent this data in a barplot where x-axis will be mol-code and y-axis represents copies and each bar represent the combination of three components in different color.
I hope that made sense and appreciate any help.
Thanks.
Using the following dataset:
ID=c(1:24)
COST=c(85,109,90,104,107,87,99,95,82,112,105,89,101,93,111,83,113,81,97,97,91,103,86,108)
POINTS=c(113,96,111,85,94,105,105,95,107,88,113,100,96,89,89,93,100,92,109,90,101,114,112,109)
mydata=data.frame(ID,COST,POINTS)
I need a R function that will consider all combinations of rows where the sum of 'COST' is less than a fixed value - in this case, $500 - and make the optimal selection based on the summed 'POINTS'.
Your help is appreciated.
So since this post is still open I thought I would give my solution. These kinds of problems are always fun. So, you can try to brute force the solution by checking all possible combinations (some 2^24, or over 16 million) one by one. This could be done by considering that for each combination, a value is either in it or not. Thinking in binary you could use the follow function code which was inspired by this post:
#DO NOT RUN THIS CODE
for(i in 1:2^24)
sum_points[i]<-ifelse(sum(as.numeric((intToBits(i)))[1:24] * mydata$COST) < 500,
sum(as.numeric((intToBits(i)))[1:24] * mydata$POINTS),
0)
I estimate this would take many hours to run. Improvements could be made with parallelization, etc, but still this is a rather intense calculation. This method will also not scale very well, as an increase by 1 (to 25 different IDs now) will double the computation time. Another option would be to cheat a little. For example, we know that we have to stay under $500. If we added up the n cheapest items, at would n would we definitely be over $500?
which(cumsum(sort(mydata$COST))>500)
[1] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
So any more than 5 IDs chosen and we are definitely over $500. What else.
Well we can run a little code and take the max for that portion and see what that tells us.
sum_points<-1:10000
for(i in 1:10000)
sum_points[i]<-ifelse(sum(as.numeric((intToBits(i)))[1:24]) <6,
ifelse(sum(as.numeric((intToBits(i)))[1:24] * mydata$COST) < 500,
sum(as.numeric((intToBits(i)))[1:24] * mydata$POINTS),
0),
0)
sum_points[which.max(sum_points)]
[1] 549
So we have to try to get over 549 points with the remaining 2^24 - 10000 choices. But:
which(cumsum(rev(sort(mydata$POINTS)))<549)
[1] 1 2 3 4
Even if we sum the 4 highest point values, we still dont beat 549, so there is no reason to even search those. Further, the number of choices to consider must be greater than 4, but less than 6. My gut feeling tells me 5 would be a good number to try. Instead of looking at all 16 millions choices, we can just look at all of the ways to make 5 out of 24, which happens to be 24 choose 5:
num<-1:choose(24,5)
combs<-combn(24,5)
sum_points<-1:length(num)
for(i in num)
sum_points[i]<-ifelse(sum(mydata[combs[,i],]$COST) < 500,
sum(mydata[combs[,i],]$POINTS),
0)
which.max(sum_points)
[1] 2582
sum_points[2582]
[1] 563
We have a new max on the 2582nd iteration. To retrieve the IDs:
mydata[combs[,2582],]$ID
[1] 1 3 11 22 23
And to verify that nothing went wrong:
sum(mydata[combs[,2582],]$COST)
[1] 469 #less than 500
sum(mydata[combs[,2582],]$POINTS)
[1] 563 #what we expected.
I have the following situation where Im pretty desperate.
paste("crossdata","$geno$'",1:4,"'$data",sep="")
generates 4 strings which look like that:
"crossdata$geno$'1'$data" "crossdata$geno$'2'$data" "crossdata$geno$'3'$data" "crossdata$geno$'4'$data"
I want to retrieve the corresponding data.frames of these 4 strings via evaluation of one of these strings and the combine them via cbind. However when Im doing something like this:
cbind(sapply(parse(text=paste("crossdata","$geno$'",i,"'$data",sep="")),eval))
that does not work. Can anybody help me out?
Thanks
datlist <- list(adat=data.frame(u=1:5,v=6:10),bdat=data.frame(x=11:15,y=16:20))
extdat <- c("datlist$adat","datlist$bdat")
do.call('cbind',lapply(extdat,function(i) eval(parse(text=i))))
u v x y
1 1 6 11 16
2 2 7 12 17
3 3 8 13 18
4 4 9 14 19
5 5 10 15 20
Of course this uses eval + parse, which usually means you are on the wrong track.
Using the combination of parse and eval is like saying that you know how to get from New York City to Boston and therefore making all your travel plans by going from your origin to New York, then to Boston, then to your desitination. In some cases this may not be to bad, but it is a bit of a long detour if you are traveling from London to Paris.
You should first learn the relationship and difference between subsetting lists using $ and [[ (see ?'[[' for the documentation) and when it is, and more importantly, is not appropriate to use $. Once you understand that you should be able to find solutions that do not require parse and eval.
Your problem may be as simple as (untested since your example is not reproducible):
do.call( cbind, lapply( 1:4, function(x) crossdata[['geno']][[x]][['data']] ) )
or possibly
do.call(cbind, lapply(as.character(1:4), function(x) crossdata$geno[[x]]$data ) )
I'm looking for a mathmatical ranking formula.
Sample is
2008 2009 2010
A 5 6 4
B 6 7 5
C 7 8 2
I want to add a rank column for each period code field
rank
2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010
B 6 7 5 2 1 1
A 5 6 4 3 2 2
C 7 2 2 1 3 3
please do not reply with methods that loop thru the rows and columns, incrementing the rank value as it goes, that's easy. I'm looking for a formula much like finding the percent total (item / total). I know i've seen this before but an havning a tough time locating it.
Thanks in advance!
sort ((letters_col, number_col) descending by number_col)
As efficient as your sort alg.
Then number the rows, of course
Edit
I really got upset by your comment "please don't up vote this answer, sorting and loop is not what I'm asking for. i specifically stated this in my original question. " , and the negative votes, because, as you may have noted by the various answers received, it's basically correct.
However, I remained pondering where and how you may "have seen this before".
Well, I think I got the answer: You saw this in Excel.
Look at this:
This is the result after entering the formulas and sorting by column H.
It's exactly what you want ...
What are you using? If you're using Excel, you're looking for RANK(num, ref).
=RANK(B2,B$2:B$9)
I don't know of any programming language that has that built in, it would always require a loop of some form.
If you want the rank of a single element, you can do it in O(n) by looping through the elements, counting how many have value above the given element, and adding 1.
If you want the rank of all the elements, the best (and really only) way is to sort the elements. Anything else you do will be equivalent to sorting (there is no "formula")
Are you using T-SQL? T-SQL RANK() may pull what you want.