Is there a SciPy function or NumPy function or module for Python that calculates the running mean of a 1D array given a specific window?

For a short, fast solution that does the whole thing in one loop, without dependencies, the code below works great.

mylist = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
N = 3
cumsum, moving_aves = [0], []

for i, x in enumerate(mylist, 1):
    cumsum.append(cumsum[i-1] + x)
    if i>=N:
        moving_ave = (cumsum[i] - cumsum[i-N])/N
        #can do stuff with moving_ave here
        moving_aves.append(moving_ave)

UPD: more efficient solutions have been proposed by Alleo and jasaarim.

You can use np.convolve for that:

np.convolve(x, np.ones((N,))/N, mode='valid')

Explanation

The running mean is a case of the mathematical operation of convolution. For the running mean, you slide a window along the input and compute the mean of the window’s contents. For discrete 1D signals, convolution is the same thing, except instead of the mean you compute an arbitrary linear combination, i.e. multiply each element by a corresponding coefficient and add up the results. Those coefficients, one for each position in the window, are sometimes called the convolution kernel. Now, the arithmetic mean of N values is (x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_N) / N, so the corresponding kernel is (1/N, 1/N, ..., 1/N), and that’s exactly what we get by using np.ones((N,))/N.

Edges

The mode argument of np.convolve specifies how to handle the edges. I chose the valid mode here because I think that’s how most people expect the running mean to work, but you may have other priorities. Here is a plot that illustrates the difference between the modes:

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
modes = ['full', 'same', 'valid']
for m in modes:
    plt.plot(np.convolve(np.ones((200,)), np.ones((50,))/50, mode=m));
plt.axis([-10, 251, -.1, 1.1]);
plt.legend(modes, loc='lower center');
plt.show()

Efficient solution

Convolution is much better than straightforward approach, but (I guess) it uses FFT and thus quite slow. However specially for computing the running mean the following approach works fine

def running_mean(x, N):
    cumsum = numpy.cumsum(numpy.insert(x, 0, 0)) 
    return (cumsum[N:] - cumsum[:-N]) / float(N)

The code to check

In[3]: x = numpy.random.random(100000)
In[4]: N = 1000
In[5]: %timeit result1 = numpy.convolve(x, numpy.ones((N,))/N, mode='valid')
10 loops, best of 3: 41.4 ms per loop
In[6]: %timeit result2 = running_mean(x, N)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.04 ms per loop

Note that numpy.allclose(result1, result2) is True, two methods are equivalent. The greater N, the greater difference in time.

warning: although cumsum is faster there will be increased floating point error that may cause your results to be invalid/incorrect/unacceptable

the comments pointed out this floating point error issue here but i am making it more obvious here in the answer..

# demonstrate loss of precision with only 100,000 points
np.random.seed(42)
x = np.random.randn(100000)+1e6
y1 = running_mean_convolve(x, 10)
y2 = running_mean_cumsum(x, 10)
assert np.allclose(y1, y2, rtol=1e-12, atol=0)

• the more points you accumulate over the greater the floating point error (so 1e5 points is noticable, 1e6 points is more significant, more than 1e6 and you may want to resetting the accumulators)
• you can cheat by using np.longdouble but your floating point error still will get significant for relatively large number of points (around >1e5 but depends on your data)
• you can plot the error and see it increasing relatively fast
• the convolve solution is slower but does not have this floating point loss of precision
• the uniform_filter1d solution is faster than this cumsum solution AND does not have this floating point loss of precision

Update: The example below shows the old pandas.rolling_mean function which has been removed in recent versions of pandas. A modern equivalent of the function call below would be

In [8]: pd.Series(x).rolling(window=N).mean().iloc[N-1:].values
Out[8]: 
array([ 0.49815397,  0.49844183,  0.49840518, ...,  0.49488191,
        0.49456679,  0.49427121])

pandas is more suitable for this than NumPy or SciPy. Its function rolling_mean does the job conveniently. It also returns a NumPy array when the input is an array.

It is difficult to beat rolling_mean in performance with any custom pure Python implementation. Here is an example performance against two of the proposed solutions:

In [1]: import numpy as np

In [2]: import pandas as pd

In [3]: def running_mean(x, N):
   ...:     cumsum = np.cumsum(np.insert(x, 0, 0)) 
   ...:     return (cumsum[N:] - cumsum[:-N]) / N
   ...:

In [4]: x = np.random.random(100000)

In [5]: N = 1000

In [6]: %timeit np.convolve(x, np.ones((N,))/N, mode='valid')
10 loops, best of 3: 172 ms per loop

In [7]: %timeit running_mean(x, N)
100 loops, best of 3: 6.72 ms per loop

In [8]: %timeit pd.rolling_mean(x, N)[N-1:]
100 loops, best of 3: 4.74 ms per loop

In [9]: np.allclose(pd.rolling_mean(x, N)[N-1:], running_mean(x, N))
Out[9]: True

There are also nice options as to how to deal with the edge values.

You can calculate a running mean with:

import numpy as np

def runningMean(x, N):
    y = np.zeros((len(x),))
    for ctr in range(len(x)):
         y[ctr] = np.sum(x[ctr:(ctr+N)])
    return y/N

But it’s slow.

Fortunately, numpy includes a convolve function which we can use to speed things up. The running mean is equivalent to convolving x with a vector that is N long, with all members equal to 1/N. The numpy implementation of convolve includes the starting transient, so you have to remove the first N-1 points:

def runningMeanFast(x, N):
    return np.convolve(x, np.ones((N,))/N)[(N-1):]

On my machine, the fast version is 20-30 times faster, depending on the length of the input vector and size of the averaging window.

Note that convolve does include a 'same' mode which seems like it should address the starting transient issue, but it splits it between the beginning and end.

or module for python that calculates

in my tests at Tradewave.net TA-lib always wins:

import talib as ta
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import scipy
from scipy import signal
import time as t

PAIR = info.primary_pair
PERIOD = 30

def initialize():
    storage.reset()
    storage.elapsed = storage.get('elapsed', [0,0,0,0,0,0])

def cumsum_sma(array, period):
    ret = np.cumsum(array, dtype=float)
    ret[period:] = ret[period:] - ret[:-period]
    return ret[period - 1:] / period

def pandas_sma(array, period):
    return pd.rolling_mean(array, period)

def api_sma(array, period):
    # this method is native to Tradewave and does NOT return an array
    return (data[PAIR].ma(PERIOD))

def talib_sma(array, period):
    return ta.MA(array, period)

def convolve_sma(array, period):
    return np.convolve(array, np.ones((period,))/period, mode='valid')

def fftconvolve_sma(array, period):    
    return scipy.signal.fftconvolve(
        array, np.ones((period,))/period, mode='valid')    

def tick():

    close = data[PAIR].warmup_period('close')

    t1 = t.time()
    sma_api = api_sma(close, PERIOD)
    t2 = t.time()
    sma_cumsum = cumsum_sma(close, PERIOD)
    t3 = t.time()
    sma_pandas = pandas_sma(close, PERIOD)
    t4 = t.time()
    sma_talib = talib_sma(close, PERIOD)
    t5 = t.time()
    sma_convolve = convolve_sma(close, PERIOD)
    t6 = t.time()
    sma_fftconvolve = fftconvolve_sma(close, PERIOD)
    t7 = t.time()

    storage.elapsed[-1] = storage.elapsed[-1] + t2-t1
    storage.elapsed[-2] = storage.elapsed[-2] + t3-t2
    storage.elapsed[-3] = storage.elapsed[-3] + t4-t3
    storage.elapsed[-4] = storage.elapsed[-4] + t5-t4
    storage.elapsed[-5] = storage.elapsed[-5] + t6-t5    
    storage.elapsed[-6] = storage.elapsed[-6] + t7-t6        

    plot('sma_api', sma_api)  
    plot('sma_cumsum', sma_cumsum[-5])
    plot('sma_pandas', sma_pandas[-10])
    plot('sma_talib', sma_talib[-15])
    plot('sma_convolve', sma_convolve[-20])    
    plot('sma_fftconvolve', sma_fftconvolve[-25])

def stop():

    log('ticks....: %s' % info.max_ticks)

    log('api......: %.5f' % storage.elapsed[-1])
    log('cumsum...: %.5f' % storage.elapsed[-2])
    log('pandas...: %.5f' % storage.elapsed[-3])
    log('talib....: %.5f' % storage.elapsed[-4])
    log('convolve.: %.5f' % storage.elapsed[-5])    
    log('fft......: %.5f' % storage.elapsed[-6])

results:

[2015-01-31 23:00:00] ticks....: 744
[2015-01-31 23:00:00] api......: 0.16445
[2015-01-31 23:00:00] cumsum...: 0.03189
[2015-01-31 23:00:00] pandas...: 0.03677
[2015-01-31 23:00:00] talib....: 0.00700  # <<< Winner!
[2015-01-31 23:00:00] convolve.: 0.04871
[2015-01-31 23:00:00] fft......: 0.22306

For a ready-to-use solution, see https://scipy-cookbook.readthedocs.io/items/SignalSmooth.html. It provides running average with the flat window type. Note that this is a bit more sophisticated than the simple do-it-yourself convolve-method, since it tries to handle the problems at the beginning and the end of the data by reflecting it (which may or may not work in your case…).

To start with, you could try:

a = np.random.random(100)
plt.plot(a)
b = smooth(a, window='flat')
plt.plot(b)

You can use scipy.ndimage.filters.uniform_filter1d:

import numpy as np
from scipy.ndimage.filters import uniform_filter1d
N = 1000
x = np.random.random(100000)
y = uniform_filter1d(x, size=N)

uniform_filter1d:

• gives the output with the same numpy shape (i.e. number of points)
• allows multiple ways to handle the border where 'reflect' is the default, but in my case, I rather wanted 'nearest'

It is also rather quick (nearly 50 times faster than np.convolve and 2-5 times faster than the cumsum approach given above):

%timeit y1 = np.convolve(x, np.ones((N,))/N, mode='same')
100 loops, best of 3: 9.28 ms per loop

%timeit y2 = uniform_filter1d(x, size=N)
10000 loops, best of 3: 191 µs per loop

here’s 3 functions that let you compare error/speed of different implementations:

from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
import scipy.ndimage.filters as ndif
def running_mean_convolve(x, N):
    return np.convolve(x, np.ones(N) / float(N), 'valid')
def running_mean_cumsum(x, N):
    cumsum = np.cumsum(np.insert(x, 0, 0))
    return (cumsum[N:] - cumsum[:-N]) / float(N)
def running_mean_uniform_filter1d(x, N):
    return ndif.uniform_filter1d(x, N, mode='constant', origin=-(N//2))[:-(N-1)]

I know this is an old question, but here is a solution that doesn’t use any extra data structures or libraries. It is linear in the number of elements of the input list and I cannot think of any other way to make it more efficient (actually if anyone knows of a better way to allocate the result, please let me know).

NOTE: this would be much faster using a numpy array instead of a list, but I wanted to eliminate all dependencies. It would also be possible to improve performance by multi-threaded execution

The function assumes that the input list is one dimensional, so be careful.

### Running mean/Moving average
def running_mean(l, N):
    sum = 0
    result = list( 0 for x in l)

    for i in range( 0, N ):
        sum = sum + l[i]
        result[i] = sum / (i+1)

    for i in range( N, len(l) ):
        sum = sum - l[i-N] + l[i]
        result[i] = sum / N

    return result

Example

Assume that we have a list data = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ] on which we want to compute a rolling mean with period of 3, and that you also want a output list that is the same size of the input one (that’s most often the case).

The first element has index 0, so the rolling mean should be computed on elements of index -2, -1 and 0. Obviously we don’t have data[-2] and data[-1] (unless you want to use special boundary conditions), so we assume that those elements are 0. This is equivalent to zero-padding the list, except we don’t actually pad it, just keep track of the indices that require padding (from 0 to N-1).

So, for the first N elements we just keep adding up the elements in an accumulator.

result[0] = (0 + 0 + 1) / 3  = 0.333    ==   (sum + 1) / 3
result[1] = (0 + 1 + 2) / 3  = 1        ==   (sum + 2) / 3
result[2] = (1 + 2 + 3) / 3  = 2        ==   (sum + 3) / 3

From elements N+1 forwards simple accumulation doesn’t work. we expect result[3] = (2 + 3 + 4)/3 = 3 but this is different from (sum + 4)/3 = 3.333.

The way to compute the correct value is to subtract data[0] = 1 from sum+4, thus giving sum + 4 - 1 = 9.

This happens because currently sum = data[0] + data[1] + data[2], but it is also true for every i >= N because, before the subtraction, sum is data[i-N] + ... + data[i-2] + data[i-1].

I feel this can be elegantly solved using bottleneck

See basic sample below:

import numpy as np
import bottleneck as bn

a = np.random.randint(4, 1000, size=100)
mm = bn.move_mean(a, window=5, min_count=1)

• “mm” is the moving mean for “a”.

• “window” is the max number of entries to consider for moving mean.

• “min_count” is min number of entries to consider for moving mean (e.g. for first few elements or if the array has nan values).

The good part is Bottleneck helps to deal with nan values and it’s also very efficient.

I haven’t yet checked how fast this is, but you could try:

from collections import deque

cache = deque() # keep track of seen values
n = 10          # window size
A = xrange(100) # some dummy iterable
cum_sum = 0     # initialize cumulative sum

for t, val in enumerate(A, 1):
    cache.append(val)
    cum_sum += val
    if t < n:
        avg = cum_sum / float(t)
    else:                           # if window is saturated,
        cum_sum -= cache.popleft()  # subtract oldest value
        avg = cum_sum / float(n)

This answer contains solutions using the Python standard library for three different scenarios.

Running average with itertools.accumulate

This is a memory efficient Python 3.2+ solution computing the running average over an iterable of values by leveraging itertools.accumulate.

>>> from itertools import accumulate
>>> values = range(100)

Note that values can be any iterable, including generators or any other object that produces values on the fly.

First, lazily construct the cumulative sum of the values.

>>> cumu_sum = accumulate(value_stream)

Next, enumerate the cumulative sum (starting at 1) and construct a generator that yields the fraction of accumulated values and the current enumeration index.

>>> rolling_avg = (accu/i for i, accu in enumerate(cumu_sum, 1))

You can issue means = list(rolling_avg) if you need all the values in memory at once or call next incrementally.
(Of course, you can also iterate over rolling_avg with a for loop, which will call next implicitly.)

>>> next(rolling_avg) # 0/1
>>> 0.0
>>> next(rolling_avg) # (0 + 1)/2
>>> 0.5
>>> next(rolling_avg) # (0 + 1 + 2)/3
>>> 1.0

This solution can be written as a function as follows.

from itertools import accumulate

def rolling_avg(iterable):
    cumu_sum = accumulate(iterable)
    yield from (accu/i for i, accu in enumerate(cumu_sum, 1))
    

A coroutine to which you can send values at any time

This coroutine consumes values you send it and keeps a running average of the values seen so far.

It is useful when you don’t have an iterable of values but aquire the values to be averaged one by one at different times throughout your program’s life.

def rolling_avg_coro():
    i = 0
    total = 0.0
    avg = None

    while True:
        next_value = yield avg
        i += 1
        total += next_value
        avg = total/i
        

The coroutine works like this:

>>> averager = rolling_avg_coro() # instantiate coroutine
>>> next(averager) # get coroutine going (this is called priming)
>>>
>>> averager.send(5) # 5/1
>>> 5.0
>>> averager.send(3) # (5 + 3)/2
>>> 4.0
>>> print('doing something else...')
doing something else...
>>> averager.send(13) # (5 + 3 + 13)/3
>>> 7.0

Computing the average over a sliding window of size N

This generator-function takes an iterable and a window size N and yields the average over the current values inside the window. It uses a deque, which is a datastructure similar to a list, but optimized for fast modifications (pop, append) at both endpoints.

from collections import deque
from itertools import islice

def sliding_avg(iterable, N):        
    it = iter(iterable)
    window = deque(islice(it, N))        
    num_vals = len(window)

    if num_vals < N:
        msg = 'window size {} exceeds total number of values {}'
        raise ValueError(msg.format(N, num_vals))

    N = float(N) # force floating point division if using Python 2
    s = sum(window)
    
    while True:
        yield s/N
        try:
            nxt = next(it)
        except StopIteration:
            break
        s = s - window.popleft() + nxt
        window.append(nxt)
        

Here is the function in action:

>>> values = range(100)
>>> N = 5
>>> window_avg = sliding_avg(values, N)
>>> 
>>> next(window_avg) # (0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4)/5
>>> 2.0
>>> next(window_avg) # (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)/5
>>> 3.0
>>> next(window_avg) # (2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6)/5
>>> 4.0

A bit late to the party, but I’ve made my own little function that does NOT wrap around the ends or pads with zeroes that are then used to find the average as well. As a further treat is, that it also re-samples the signal at linearly spaced points. Customize the code at will to get other features.

The method is a simple matrix multiplication with a normalized Gaussian kernel.

def running_mean(y_in, x_in, N_out=101, sigma=1):
    '''
    Returns running mean as a Bell-curve weighted average at evenly spaced
    points. Does NOT wrap signal around, or pad with zeros.

    Arguments:
    y_in -- y values, the values to be smoothed and re-sampled
    x_in -- x values for array

    Keyword arguments:
    N_out -- NoOf elements in resampled array.
    sigma -- 'Width' of Bell-curve in units of param x .
    '''
    N_in = size(y_in)

    # Gaussian kernel
    x_out = np.linspace(np.min(x_in), np.max(x_in), N_out)
    x_in_mesh, x_out_mesh = np.meshgrid(x_in, x_out)
    gauss_kernel = np.exp(-np.square(x_in_mesh - x_out_mesh) / (2 * sigma**2))
    # Normalize kernel, such that the sum is one along axis 1
    normalization = np.tile(np.reshape(sum(gauss_kernel, axis=1), (N_out, 1)), (1, N_in))
    gauss_kernel_normalized = gauss_kernel / normalization
    # Perform running average as a linear operation
    y_out = gauss_kernel_normalized @ y_in

    return y_out, x_out

A simple usage on a sinusoidal signal with added normal distributed noise:

Instead of numpy or scipy, I would recommend pandas to do this more swiftly:

df['data'].rolling(3).mean()

This takes the moving average (MA) of 3 periods of the column “data”. You can also calculate the shifted versions, for example the one that excludes the current cell (shifted one back) can be calculated easily as:

df['data'].shift(periods=1).rolling(3).mean()

There is a comment by mab buried in one of the answers above which has this method. bottleneck has move_mean which is a simple moving average:

import numpy as np
import bottleneck as bn

a = np.arange(10) + np.random.random(10)

mva = bn.move_mean(a, window=2, min_count=1)

min_count is a handy parameter that will basically take the moving average up to that point in your array. If you don’t set min_count, it will equal window, and everything up to window points will be nan.

Another approach to find moving average without using numpy, panda

import itertools
sample = [2, 6, 10, 8, 11, 10]
list(itertools.starmap(lambda a,b: b/a, 
               enumerate(itertools.accumulate(sample), 1)))

will print [2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 6.5, 7.4, 7.833333333333333]

This question is now even older than when NeXuS wrote about it last month, BUT I like how his code deals with edge cases. However, because it is a “simple moving average,” its results lag behind the data they apply to. I thought that dealing with edge cases in a more satisfying way than NumPy’s modes valid, same, and full could be achieved by applying a similar approach to a convolution() based method.

My contribution uses a central running average to align its results with their data. When there are too few points available for the full-sized window to be used, running averages are computed from successively smaller windows at the edges of the array. [Actually, from successively larger windows, but that’s an implementation detail.]

import numpy as np

def running_mean(l, N):
    # Also works for the(strictly invalid) cases when N is even.
    if (N//2)*2 == N:
        N = N - 1
    front = np.zeros(N//2)
    back = np.zeros(N//2)

    for i in range(1, (N//2)*2, 2):
        front[i//2] = np.convolve(l[:i], np.ones((i,))/i, mode = 'valid')
    for i in range(1, (N//2)*2, 2):
        back[i//2] = np.convolve(l[-i:], np.ones((i,))/i, mode = 'valid')
    return np.concatenate([front, np.convolve(l, np.ones((N,))/N, mode = 'valid'), back[::-1]])

It’s relatively slow because it uses convolve(), and could likely be spruced up quite a lot by a true Pythonista, however, I believe that the idea stands.