用R中的位图包,给出一棵树,我想计算平均值,和,方差……树中每个节点的每个直接子节点的值。
我的直觉是使用map_bfs_back_dbl或关联,并尝试修改帮助示例,但被困住了。
library(tidygraph)
# Collect values from children
create_tree(40, children = 3, directed = TRUE) %>%
mutate(value = round(runif(40)*100)) %>%
mutate(child_acc = map_bfs_back_dbl(node_is_root(), .f = function(node, path, ...) {
if (nrow(path) == 0) .N()$value[node]
else {
sum(unlist(path$result[path$parent == node]))
}
}))对于上述情况,我想要树中每个父母的所有直接的、第一级的孩子的平均value。
更新::我尝试过这种方法(计算子属性的方差):
library(tidygraph)
create_tree(40, children = 3, directed = TRUE) %>%
mutate(parent = bfs_parent(),
value = round(runif(40)*100)) %>%
group_by(parent) %>%
mutate(var = var(value))这是非常接近的:
# Node Data: 40 x 3 (active)
# Groups: parent [14]
parent value var
* <int> <dbl> <dbl>
1 NA 2.00 NA
2 1 13.0 1393
3 1 63.0 1393
4 1 86.0 1393
5 2 27.0 890
6 2 76.0 890
# ... with 34 more rows我想看到的是:
# Node Data: 40 x 3 (active)
# Groups: parent [14]
parent value var child_var
* <int> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
1 NA 2.00 NA 1393
2 1 13.0 1393 890
3 1 63.0 1393 (etc)
4 1 86.0 1393
5 2 27.0 890
6 2 76.0 890
# ... with 34 more rows它将(第一个) "var“值移动到由”父“值标识的节点。帮助?有什么建议吗?
编辑:这就是我最后要做的事情:
tree <- create_tree(40, children = 3, directed = TRUE) %>%
mutate(parent = bfs_parent(),
value = round(runif(40) * 100),
name = row_number()) %>%
activate(nodes) %>%
left_join(
tree %>%
group_by(parent) %>%
mutate(var = var(value)) %>% activate(nodes) %>% as_tibble() %>%
group_by(parent) %>% summarize(child_stat = first(var)),
by=c("name" = "parent")
)感觉不太好,但似乎很管用。对优化开放。
发布于 2018-06-15 16:25:55
我在这里尝试了一种“摄影”的方法。主要功能是计算value列的方差:
calc_child_stats <- function(neighborhood, ...){
## By default the neighborhood includes the parent and all of it's children
## First remove the parent, then run analysis
neighborhood %>% activate(nodes) %>%
slice(-1) %>%
select(value) %>%
pull %>%
var
}有了这个函数之后,就可以简单地调用map_local而不是map_bfs了,因为您正在尝试:
tree <- create_tree(40, children = 3, directed = TRUE) %>%
mutate(value = round(runif(40)*100))
tree %>% mutate(var = map_local_dbl(order = 1, mode="out", .f = calc_child_stats))
#> # A tbl_graph: 40 nodes and 39 edges
#> #
#> # A rooted tree
#> #
#> # Node Data: 40 x 2 (active)
#> value var
#> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 29 34.3
#> 2 45 433
#> 3 56 225.
#> 4 47 868
#> 5 78 604.
#> 6 43 283
#> # ... with 34 more rows
#> #
#> # Edge Data: 39 x 2
#> from to
#> <int> <int>
#> 1 1 2
#> 2 1 3
#> 3 1 4
#> # ... with 36 more rows虽然我的贴图版本更多的是“图表”,但它看起来并不快,所以我在这两种方法之间创建了一个快速的微基准测试:
library(microbenchmark)
microbenchmark(tree %>% mutate(var = map_local_dbl(order = 1, mode="out", .f = calc_child_stats)))
#> Unit: milliseconds
#> expr
#> tree %>% mutate(var = map_local_dbl(order = 1, mode = "out", .f = calc_child_stats))
#> min lq mean median uq max neval
#> 115.3325 123.0303 127.7889 126.6683 130.057 191.6065 100
microbenchmark(calc_child_stats_dplyr(tree))
#> Unit: milliseconds
#> expr min lq mean median uq
#> calc_child_stats_dplyr(tree) 4.915917 5.213939 6.292579 5.573978 6.717745
#> max neval
#> 16.72846 100由reprex封装创建于2018-06-15 (v0.2.0)。
当然,dplyr的方式要快得多,所以我现在就坚持这样做。他们在我的测试中都给出了相同的值。
为了完整起见,我使用的是复制op方法的fxn:
calc_child_stats_dplyr <- function(tree){
tree <- tree %>%
mutate(parent = bfs_parent(),
name = row_number())
tree %>% activate(nodes) %>%
left_join(
tree %>%
group_by(parent) %>%
mutate(var = var(value)) %>%
activate(nodes) %>%
as_tibble() %>%
group_by(parent) %>%
summarize(child_stat = first(var)),
by=c("name" = "parent")
)
}https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50840808
复制相似问题