I was doing some reading on the Wagner Fischer algorithm algorithm for computing the edit distance on strings. None of the examples in the literature I have read showed how to recover the edit sequences from the final populated matrix. The examples only showed total number of edits.
The logic I am using is simply calling min() on the 4 x 4 submatrix of matrix L that ends L[m][n] until I reach L[0][0]. It seems like the logic should be to compare the value returned by min() and compare it to the current L[i][j] to recover the edit at that position. Then we simply append this to an array that represents the total edit operations and finally reverse the list.
I have tested this code and compared it against the Python Levenshtein module on pypi.org and it looks to be OK. However, I wanted to get some feedback on this methodology of how to output the actual edit sequence. Is there some boundary case I might be missing?
def edit_distance(x, y):
m = len(x)
n = len(y)
L = [ [0] * (n+1) for i in xrange(m+1) ]
for i in range(0, m+1):
L[i][0] = i
for j in range(0, n+1):
L[0][j] = j
for i in range (1, m+1):
for j in range(1, n+1):
if x[i-1] == y[j-1]:
L[i][j] = L[i-1][j-1]
else:
L[i][j] = min(L[i][j-1], L[i-1][j], L[i-1][j-1]) + 1
edits = []
i = m
j = n
while i > 0 and j > 0:
back = min(L[i][j-1], L[i-1][j], L[i-1][j-1])
if back == L[i-1][j-1]:
if back == L[i][j]:
edits.append('NOOP')
elif back == L[i][j] - 1:
edits.append('SUBST')
i -= 1
j -= 1
elif back == L[i][j-1]:
edits.append('INSERT')
j -= 1
elif back == L[i-1][j]:
edits.append('DELETE')
i -= 1
print x
print edits[::-1]
print y
1 Answer 1
I've written this in python2 because the question is posed in python2. It is advised that users switch over to python3, as it is reaching end-of-life at the end of 2019.
The algorithm
I don't see anything really glaring as far as the algorithm is concerned. The major edge case I can see is with lists/strings of length 1, but you handle that case fine
Pre-allocating your matrix
Without trying to use something like numpy, your pre-allocation step can be simplified a bit. You iterate twice over the whole list, once to fill it with zeros, and once over your respective ranges n and m. The n loop can be done with a simple slice assignment:
# use xrange for initialization here
# that way you aren't allocating a list into memory
L = [[0] * (n + 1) for i in xrange(m + 1)]
# Use a slice to assign the first row
# with a range, since that assigns a list to slice
L[0][:] = range(n + 1)
# then you only have one other for loop to do
# again, just use xrange here
for i in xrange(m + 1):
L[i][0] = i
i and j
I'm not sure the following step really does anything and is necessary:
i = m
j = n
Furthermore, the while loop is more pythonic if you rely on the truthiness of nonzero integers:
while m and n:
# do things
while loop
There are continuous index lookups. While lookups by index are fast, doing them over and over impairs readability, even if the penalty incurred is minor
while m and n:
current, back_y, back_x, back_both = L[m][n], L[m][n-1], L[m-1][n], L[m-1][n-1]
back = min(back_y, back_x, back_both)
# rest of loop
Now you can use these as your placeholders for your if logic
while m and n:
current, back_y, back_x, back_both = L[m][n], L[m][n-1], L[m-1][n], L[m-1][n-1]
back = min(back_y, back_x, back_both)
if back == back_both:
if back == current:
edits.append('NOOP')
elif back == current - 1:
edits.append('SUBST')
m -= 1
n -= 1
elif back == back_y:
edits.append('INSERT')
n -= 1
elif back == back_x:
edits.append('DELETE')
m -= 1
Timing
Looking at the timing differences between the two:
original
python -m timeit -s 'from otherfile import edit_distance, revised_edit; x = range(4); y = range(3,7)' 'edit_distance(x, y)'
10000 loops, best of 3: 29.3 usec per loop
revised
python -m timeit -s 'from otherfile import edit_distance, revised_edit; x = range(4); y = range(3,7)' 'revised_edit(x, y)'
100000 loops, best of 3: 10.1 usec per loop
A 65% speedup for small lists. Let's see about (relatively) larger ones
original
python -m timeit -s 'from otherfile import edit_distance, revised_edit; x = range(400); y = range(300,700)' 'edit_distance(x, y)'
10 loops, best of 3: 152 msec per loop
revised
python -m timeit -s 'from otherfile import edit_distance, revised_edit; x = range(400); y = range(300,700)' 'revised_edit(x, y)'
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.31 msec per loop
The difference is starting to diverge, two entire orders of magnitude here. Whether or not you would use this on large lists is I suppose an implementation detail, but worth a look. Not to imply that a 400 element list is big, but it's an improvement for sure.
The timing does not include the time required to reverse edits using a edits[::-1] because that is going to be a constant, and looking at slicing a 400 element list in this way, the time is insignificant compared to the rest of the algorithm (1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.967 usec per loop for range(400), if you were curious).
return edit
You never return edits! print does not return. It's also advisable to change print val to print(val), as the latter is portable across python 2 and 3, and it's recommended you be on python3 already anyways. So at the end of your function, be sure to include:
return edits[::-1]