在numpy数组中查找最接近的值

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

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.

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()]

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.

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])

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]

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])

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

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:

1. The function below works whether or not the input array is sorted.

2. 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

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)

I think the most pythonic way would be:

 num = 65 # Input number
 array = n.random.random((10))*100 # Given array 
 nearest_idx = n.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.

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

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))

Maybe helpful for ndarrays:

def find_nearest(X, value):
    return X[np.unravel_index(np.argmin(np.abs(X - value)), X.shape)]