Is there a numpy-thonic way, e.g. function, to find the nearest value in an array?
Example:
np.find_nearest( array, value )
import numpy as np
def find_nearest(array, value):
array = np.asarray(array)
idx = (np.abs(array - value)).argmin()
return array[idx]
array = np.random.random(10)
print(array)
# [ 0.21069679 0.61290182 0.63425412 0.84635244 0.91599191 0.00213826
# 0.17104965 0.56874386 0.57319379 0.28719469]
value = 0.5
print(find_nearest(array, value))
# 0.568743859261
return np.abs(array-value).min()
gives the wrong answer. This gives you the min of the absolute value distance, and somehow we need to return the actual array value. We could add value
and come close, but the absolute value throws a wrench into things...
np.argmin()
with np.nanargmin()
and it works.
IF your array is sorted and is very large, this is a much faster solution:
def find_nearest(array,value):
idx = np.searchsorted(array, value, side="left")
if idx > 0 and (idx == len(array) or math.fabs(value - array[idx-1]) < math.fabs(value - array[idx])):
return array[idx-1]
else:
return array[idx]
This scales to very large arrays. You can easily modify the above to sort in the method if you can't assume that the array is already sorted. It’s overkill for small arrays, but once they get large this is much faster.
np.searchsorted
takes about 2 µs for my test set, the whole function about 10 µs. Using np.abs
it's getting even worse. No clue what python is doing there.
math
routines, see this answer.
if/else
needs to be replaced with idx = idx - (np.abs(value - array[idx-1]) < np.abs(value - array[idx])); return array[idx]
Jan 8 '16 at 7:58
value
is bigger than array
's biggest element. I changed the if
statement to if idx == len(array) or math.fabs(value - array[idx - 1]) < math.fabs(value - array[idx])
to make it work for me!
if idx > 0 and (idx == len(array) or math.fabs(value - array[idx-1]) < math.fabs(value - array[idx])):
With slight modification, the answer above works with arrays of arbitrary dimension (1d, 2d, 3d, ...):
def find_nearest(a, a0):
"Element in nd array `a` closest to the scalar value `a0`"
idx = np.abs(a - a0).argmin()
return a.flat[idx]
Or, written as a single line:
a.flat[np.abs(a - a0).argmin()]
a[np.sum(np.square(np.abs(a-a0)),1).argmin()]
.
Dec 11 '13 at 20:52
Summary of answer: If one has a sorted array
then the bisection code (given below) performs the fastest. ~100-1000 times faster for large arrays, and ~2-100 times faster for small arrays. It does not require numpy either.
If you have an unsorted array
then if array
is large, one should consider first using an O(n logn) sort and then bisection, and if array
is small then method 2 seems the fastest.
First you should clarify what you mean by nearest value. Often one wants the interval in an abscissa, e.g. array=[0,0.7,2.1], value=1.95, answer would be idx=1. This is the case that I suspect you need (otherwise the following can be modified very easily with a followup conditional statement once you find the interval). I will note that the optimal way to perform this is with bisection (which I will provide first - note it does not require numpy at all and is faster than using numpy functions because they perform redundant operations). Then I will provide a timing comparison against the others presented here by other users.
Bisection:
def bisection(array,value):
'''Given an ``array`` , and given a ``value`` , returns an index j such that ``value`` is between array[j]
and array[j+1]. ``array`` must be monotonic increasing. j=-1 or j=len(array) is returned
to indicate that ``value`` is out of range below and above respectively.'''
n = len(array)
if (value < array[0]):
return -1
elif (value > array[n-1]):
return n
jl = 0# Initialize lower
ju = n-1# and upper limits.
while (ju-jl > 1):# If we are not yet done,
jm=(ju+jl) >> 1# compute a midpoint with a bitshift
if (value >= array[jm]):
jl=jm# and replace either the lower limit
else:
ju=jm# or the upper limit, as appropriate.
# Repeat until the test condition is satisfied.
if (value == array[0]):# edge cases at bottom
return 0
elif (value == array[n-1]):# and top
return n-1
else:
return jl
Now I'll define the code from the other answers, they each return an index:
import math
import numpy as np
def find_nearest1(array,value):
idx,val = min(enumerate(array), key=lambda x: abs(x[1]-value))
return idx
def find_nearest2(array, values):
indices = np.abs(np.subtract.outer(array, values)).argmin(0)
return indices
def find_nearest3(array, values):
values = np.atleast_1d(values)
indices = np.abs(np.int64(np.subtract.outer(array, values))).argmin(0)
out = array[indices]
return indices
def find_nearest4(array,value):
idx = (np.abs(array-value)).argmin()
return idx
def find_nearest5(array, value):
idx_sorted = np.argsort(array)
sorted_array = np.array(array[idx_sorted])
idx = np.searchsorted(sorted_array, value, side="left")
if idx >= len(array):
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[len(array)-1]
elif idx == 0:
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[0]
else:
if abs(value - sorted_array[idx-1]) < abs(value - sorted_array[idx]):
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[idx-1]
else:
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[idx]
return idx_nearest
def find_nearest6(array,value):
xi = np.argmin(np.abs(np.ceil(array[None].T - value)),axis=0)
return xi
Now I'll time the codes: Note methods 1,2,4,5 don't correctly give the interval. Methods 1,2,4 round to nearest point in array (e.g. >=1.5 -> 2), and method 5 always rounds up (e.g. 1.45 -> 2). Only methods 3, and 6, and of course bisection give the interval properly.
array = np.arange(100000)
val = array[50000]+0.55
print( bisection(array,val))
%timeit bisection(array,val)
print( find_nearest1(array,val))
%timeit find_nearest1(array,val)
print( find_nearest2(array,val))
%timeit find_nearest2(array,val)
print( find_nearest3(array,val))
%timeit find_nearest3(array,val)
print( find_nearest4(array,val))
%timeit find_nearest4(array,val)
print( find_nearest5(array,val))
%timeit find_nearest5(array,val)
print( find_nearest6(array,val))
%timeit find_nearest6(array,val)
(50000, 50000)
100000 loops, best of 3: 4.4 µs per loop
50001
1 loop, best of 3: 180 ms per loop
50001
1000 loops, best of 3: 267 µs per loop
[50000]
1000 loops, best of 3: 390 µs per loop
50001
1000 loops, best of 3: 259 µs per loop
50001
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.21 ms per loop
[50000]
1000 loops, best of 3: 746 µs per loop
For a large array bisection gives 4us compared to next best 180us and longest 1.21ms (~100 - 1000 times faster). For smaller arrays it's ~2-100 times faster.
array
is small then method 2 seems the fastest." how small did you mean @JoshAlbert?
Here's an extension to find the nearest vector in an array of vectors.
import numpy as np
def find_nearest_vector(array, value):
idx = np.array([np.linalg.norm(x+y) for (x,y) in array-value]).argmin()
return array[idx]
A = np.random.random((10,2))*100
""" A = array([[ 34.19762933, 43.14534123],
[ 48.79558706, 47.79243283],
[ 38.42774411, 84.87155478],
[ 63.64371943, 50.7722317 ],
[ 73.56362857, 27.87895698],
[ 96.67790593, 77.76150486],
[ 68.86202147, 21.38735169],
[ 5.21796467, 59.17051276],
[ 82.92389467, 99.90387851],
[ 6.76626539, 30.50661753]])"""
pt = [6, 30]
print find_nearest_vector(A,pt)
# array([ 6.76626539, 30.50661753])
norm(..., axis=-1)
should be faster than extracting the x,y
values through Python iteration. Also, x,y
are scalars here? Then norm(x+y)
is a bug since, e.g., the distance (+1, -1)
will be treated as 0.
idx = np.array([np.linalg.norm(x+y) for (x,y) in abs(array-value)]).argmin()
Here is a fast vectorized version of @Dimitri's solution if you have many values
to search for (values
can be multi-dimensional array):
# `values` should be sorted
def get_closest(array, values):
# make sure array is a numpy array
array = np.array(array)
# get insert positions
idxs = np.searchsorted(array, values, side="left")
# find indexes where previous index is closer
prev_idx_is_less = ((idxs == len(array))|(np.fabs(values - array[np.maximum(idxs-1, 0)]) < np.fabs(values - array[np.minimum(idxs, len(array)-1)])))
idxs[prev_idx_is_less] -= 1
return array[idxs]
Benchmarks
> 100 times faster than using a for
loop with @Demitri's solution`
>>> %timeit ar=get_closest(np.linspace(1, 1000, 100), np.random.randint(0, 1050, (1000, 1000)))
139 ms ± 4.04 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
>>> %timeit ar=[find_nearest(np.linspace(1, 1000, 100), value) for value in np.random.randint(0, 1050, 1000*1000)]
took 21.4 seconds
idx = np.searchsorted(array, values)
then: idx[array[idx] - values>np.diff(array).mean()*0.5]-=1
and finally return array[idx]
Feb 26 '18 at 11:53
get_closest([1,5,10,20], [1,4,16]) -> [1, 5, 20]
, this one should have more upvotes.
Sep 22 at 19:59
If you don't want to use numpy this will do it:
def find_nearest(array, value):
n = [abs(i-value) for i in array]
idx = n.index(min(n))
return array[idx]
Here's a version that will handle a non-scalar "values" array:
import numpy as np
def find_nearest(array, values):
indices = np.abs(np.subtract.outer(array, values)).argmin(0)
return array[indices]
Or a version that returns a numeric type (e.g. int, float) if the input is scalar:
def find_nearest(array, values):
values = np.atleast_1d(values)
indices = np.abs(np.subtract.outer(array, values)).argmin(0)
out = array[indices]
return out if len(out) > 1 else out[0]
outer
method of a ufunc before, I think I'll be using it more in the future. The first function should return array[indices]
, by the way.
np.subtract.outer
will generate the entire outer-product matrix which is really slow and memory intensive if array
and/or values
is very large.
Sep 12 '17 at 19:22
Here is a version with scipy for @Ari Onasafari, answer "to find the nearest vector in an array of vectors"
In [1]: from scipy import spatial
In [2]: import numpy as np
In [3]: A = np.random.random((10,2))*100
In [4]: A
Out[4]:
array([[ 68.83402637, 38.07632221],
[ 76.84704074, 24.9395109 ],
[ 16.26715795, 98.52763827],
[ 70.99411985, 67.31740151],
[ 71.72452181, 24.13516764],
[ 17.22707611, 20.65425362],
[ 43.85122458, 21.50624882],
[ 76.71987125, 44.95031274],
[ 63.77341073, 78.87417774],
[ 8.45828909, 30.18426696]])
In [5]: pt = [6, 30] # <-- the point to find
In [6]: A[spatial.KDTree(A).query(pt)[1]] # <-- the nearest point
Out[6]: array([ 8.45828909, 30.18426696])
#how it works!
In [7]: distance,index = spatial.KDTree(A).query(pt)
In [8]: distance # <-- The distances to the nearest neighbors
Out[8]: 2.4651855048258393
In [9]: index # <-- The locations of the neighbors
Out[9]: 9
#then
In [10]: A[index]
Out[10]: array([ 8.45828909, 30.18426696])
For large arrays, the (excellent) answer given by @Demitri is far faster than the answer currently marked as best. I've adapted his exact algorithm in the following two ways:
The function below works whether or not the input array is sorted.
The function below returns the index of the input array corresponding to the closest value, which is somewhat more general.
Note that the function below also handles a specific edge case that would lead to a bug in the original function written by @Demitri. Otherwise, my algorithm is identical to his.
def find_idx_nearest_val(array, value):
idx_sorted = np.argsort(array)
sorted_array = np.array(array[idx_sorted])
idx = np.searchsorted(sorted_array, value, side="left")
if idx >= len(array):
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[len(array)-1]
elif idx == 0:
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[0]
else:
if abs(value - sorted_array[idx-1]) < abs(value - sorted_array[idx]):
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[idx-1]
else:
idx_nearest = idx_sorted[idx]
return idx_nearest
x = np.array([2038, 1758, 1721, 1637, 2097, 2047, 2205, 1787, 2287, 1940, 2311, 2054, 2406, 1471, 1460])
. With find_nearest(x, 1739.5)
(closest value to the first quantile), I get 1637
(reasonable) and 1
(bug?).
I think the most pythonic way would be:
num = 65 # Input number
array = np.random.random((10))*100 # Given array
nearest_idx = np.where(abs(array-num)==abs(array-num).min())[0] # If you want the index of the element of array (array) nearest to the the given number (num)
nearest_val = array[abs(array-num)==abs(array-num).min()] # If you directly want the element of array (array) nearest to the given number (num)
This is the basic code. You can use it as a function if you want
All the answers are beneficial to gather the information to write efficient code. However, I have written a small Python script to optimize for various cases. It will be the best case if the provided array is sorted. If one searches the index of the nearest point of a specified value, then bisect
module is the most time efficient. When one search the indices correspond to an array, the numpy searchsorted
is most efficient.
import numpy as np
import bisect
xarr = np.random.rand(int(1e7))
srt_ind = xarr.argsort()
xar = xarr.copy()[srt_ind]
xlist = xar.tolist()
bisect.bisect_left(xlist, 0.3)
In [63]: %time bisect.bisect_left(xlist, 0.3) CPU times: user 0 ns, sys: 0 ns, total: 0 ns Wall time: 22.2 µs
np.searchsorted(xar, 0.3, side="left")
In [64]: %time np.searchsorted(xar, 0.3, side="left") CPU times: user 0 ns, sys: 0 ns, total: 0 ns Wall time: 98.9 µs
randpts = np.random.rand(1000)
np.searchsorted(xar, randpts, side="left")
%time np.searchsorted(xar, randpts, side="left") CPU times: user 4 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 4 ms Wall time: 1.2 ms
If we follow the multiplicative rule, then numpy should take ~100 ms which implies ~83X faster.
This is a vectorized version of unutbu's answer:
def find_nearest(array, values):
array = np.asarray(array)
# the last dim must be 1 to broadcast in (array - values) below.
values = np.expand_dims(values, axis=-1)
indices = np.abs(array - values).argmin(axis=-1)
return array[indices]
image = plt.imread('example_3_band_image.jpg')
print(image.shape) # should be (nrows, ncols, 3)
quantiles = np.linspace(0, 255, num=2 ** 2, dtype=np.uint8)
quantiled_image = find_nearest(quantiles, image)
print(quantiled_image.shape) # should be (nrows, ncols, 3)
Maybe helpful for ndarrays
:
def find_nearest(X, value):
return X[np.unravel_index(np.argmin(np.abs(X - value)), X.shape)]
For 2d array, to determine the i, j position of nearest element:
import numpy as np
def find_nearest(a, a0):
idx = (np.abs(a - a0)).argmin()
w = a.shape[1]
i = idx // w
j = idx - i * w
return a[i,j], i, j
Here is a version that works with 2D arrays, using scipy's cdist function if the user has it, and a simpler distance calculation if they don't.
By default, the output is the index that is closest to the value you input, but you can change that with the output
keyword to be one of 'index'
, 'value'
, or 'both'
, where 'value'
outputs array[index]
and 'both'
outputs index, array[index]
.
For very large arrays, you may need to use kind='euclidean'
, as the default scipy cdist function may run out of memory.
This is maybe not the absolute fastest solution, but it is quite close.
def find_nearest_2d(array, value, kind='cdist', output='index'):
# 'array' must be a 2D array
# 'value' must be a 1D array with 2 elements
# 'kind' defines what method to use to calculate the distances. Can choose one
# of 'cdist' (default) or 'euclidean'. Choose 'euclidean' for very large
# arrays. Otherwise, cdist is much faster.
# 'output' defines what the output should be. Can be 'index' (default) to return
# the index of the array that is closest to the value, 'value' to return the
# value that is closest, or 'both' to return index,value
import numpy as np
if kind == 'cdist':
try: from scipy.spatial.distance import cdist
except ImportError:
print("Warning (find_nearest_2d): Could not import cdist. Reverting to simpler distance calculation")
kind = 'euclidean'
index = np.where(array == value)[0] # Make sure the value isn't in the array
if index.size == 0:
if kind == 'cdist': index = np.argmin(cdist([value],array)[0])
elif kind == 'euclidean': index = np.argmin(np.sum((np.array(array)-np.array(value))**2.,axis=1))
else: raise ValueError("Keyword 'kind' must be one of 'cdist' or 'euclidean'")
if output == 'index': return index
elif output == 'value': return array[index]
elif output == 'both': return index,array[index]
else: raise ValueError("Keyword 'output' must be one of 'index', 'value', or 'both'")
import numpy as np
def find_nearest(array, value):
array = np.array(array)
z=np.abs(array-value)
y= np.where(z == z.min())
m=np.array(y)
x=m[0,0]
y=m[1,0]
near_value=array[x,y]
return near_value
array =np.array([[60,200,30],[3,30,50],[20,1,-50],[20,-500,11]])
print(array)
value = 0
print(find_nearest(array, value))
For those searching for multiple nearest, modifying the accepted answer:
import numpy as np
def find_nearest(array, value, k):
array = np.asarray(array)
idx = np.argsort(abs(array - value))[:k]
return array[idx]
This one handles any number of queries, using numpy searchsorted, so after sorting the input arrays, is just as fast. It works on regular grids in 2d, 3d ... too:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# keywords: nearest-neighbor regular-grid python numpy searchsorted Voronoi
import numpy as np
#...............................................................................
class Near_rgrid( object ):
""" nearest neighbors on a Manhattan aka regular grid
1d:
near = Near_rgrid( x: sorted 1d array )
nearix = near.query( q: 1d ) -> indices of the points x_i nearest each q_i
x[nearix[0]] is the nearest to q[0]
x[nearix[1]] is the nearest to q[1] ...
nearpoints = x[nearix] is near q
If A is an array of e.g. colors at x[0] x[1] ...,
A[nearix] are the values near q[0] q[1] ...
Query points < x[0] snap to x[0], similarly > x[-1].
2d: on a Manhattan aka regular grid,
streets running east-west at y_i, avenues north-south at x_j,
near = Near_rgrid( y, x: sorted 1d arrays, e.g. latitide longitude )
I, J = near.query( q: nq × 2 array, columns qy qx )
-> nq × 2 indices of the gridpoints y_i x_j nearest each query point
gridpoints = np.column_stack(( y[I], x[J] )) # e.g. street corners
diff = gridpoints - querypoints
distances = norm( diff, axis=1, ord= )
Values at an array A definded at the gridpoints y_i x_j nearest q: A[I,J]
3d: Near_rgrid( z, y, x: 1d axis arrays ) .query( q: nq × 3 array )
See Howitworks below, and the plot Voronoi-random-regular-grid.
"""
def __init__( self, *axes: "1d arrays" ):
axarrays = []
for ax in axes:
axarray = np.asarray( ax ).squeeze()
assert axarray.ndim == 1, "each axis should be 1d, not %s " % (
str( axarray.shape ))
axarrays += [axarray]
self.midpoints = [_midpoints( ax ) for ax in axarrays]
self.axes = axarrays
self.ndim = len(axes)
def query( self, queries: "nq × dim points" ) -> "nq × dim indices":
""" -> the indices of the nearest points in the grid """
queries = np.asarray( queries ).squeeze() # or list x y z ?
if self.ndim == 1:
assert queries.ndim <= 1, queries.shape
return np.searchsorted( self.midpoints[0], queries ) # scalar, 0d ?
queries = np.atleast_2d( queries )
assert queries.shape[1] == self.ndim, [
queries.shape, self.ndim]
return [np.searchsorted( mid, q ) # parallel: k axes, k processors
for mid, q in zip( self.midpoints, queries.T )]
def snaptogrid( self, queries: "nq × dim points" ):
""" -> the nearest points in the grid, 2d [[y_j x_i] ...] """
ix = self.query( queries )
if self.ndim == 1:
return self.axes[0][ix]
else:
axix = [ax[j] for ax, j in zip( self.axes, ix )]
return np.array( axix )
def _midpoints( points: "array-like 1d, *must be sorted*" ) -> "1d":
points = np.asarray( points ).squeeze()
assert points.ndim == 1, points.shape
diffs = np.diff( points )
assert np.nanmin( diffs ) > 0, "the input array must be sorted, not %s " % (
points.round( 2 ))
return (points[:-1] + points[1:]) / 2 # floats
#...............................................................................
Howitworks = \
"""
How Near_rgrid works in 1d:
Consider the midpoints halfway between fenceposts | | |
The interval [left midpoint .. | .. right midpoint] is what's nearest each post --
| | | | points
| . | . | . | midpoints
^^^^^^ . nearest points[1]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nearest points[2] etc.
2d:
I, J = Near_rgrid( y, x ).query( q )
I = nearest in `x`
J = nearest in `y` independently / in parallel.
The points nearest [yi xj] in a regular grid (its Voronoi cell)
form a rectangle [left mid x .. right mid x] × [left mid y .. right mid y]
(in any norm ?)
See the plot Voronoi-random-regular-grid.
Notes
-----
If a query point is exactly halfway between two data points,
e.g. on a grid of ints, the lines (x + 1/2) U (y + 1/2),
which "nearest" you get is implementation-dependent, unpredictable.
"""
Murky = \
""" NaNs in points, in queries ?
"""
__version__ = "2021-10-25 oct denis-bz-py"