Comparison of values in dictionaryPerforming calculations with a catalog of starsUnique dictionary values - print keysCopying a Dictionary and Replace its ValuesProduct of dictionary valuesSearch dictionary for matching valuesReverse dictionary where values are listsFinding dictionary keys whose values are duplicates

being overqualified as a barrier for getting a job

Has any person or company ever become a sovereign state?

How do I escape from a hanging Ubuntu OS?

Is verificationism dead?

Broken 26'' wheel

Can salted butter be used to make lemon curd?

How do I self-answer "What does this say?"

Is the weight of the aircraft flying in the sky transferred to the ground?

Vulcan Anatomy (Heart)

Examples of Lewis base nature of sulfur dioxide

How does the bypass air provide thrust?

Why are the 4th and 7th scale degrees removed from the major scale to make the Pentatonic scale?

Reconstructing the results of a 6-team soccer tournament

Where should I place my fictional continent in the South Pacific?

Select specific rows of a dataset

Why doesn't Stockfish (DroidFish) try to flag me?

Behaviour of verb that looks pronomial but doesn't have a "se" entry in the dictionary?

Aligning under and overbraces

Is it appropriate to rewrite and republish another author's useful but very badly written paper?

How to explain to people that I don't know very well about my complicated family background?

Why is wired Ethernet losing its speed advantage over wireless?

Could a German insult Hitler without being arrested?

Sometimes the updated rows are not locked within instead of update trigger

What is the PDF for the minimum difference between a random number and a set of random numbers



Comparison of values in dictionary


Performing calculations with a catalog of starsUnique dictionary values - print keysCopying a Dictionary and Replace its ValuesProduct of dictionary valuesSearch dictionary for matching valuesReverse dictionary where values are listsFinding dictionary keys whose values are duplicates






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









5















$begingroup$


I have the following dictionary:



results_dict = 'Current model': 'Recall': 0.77,
'Precision': 0.1,
'F1_score': 0.18,
'Frauds': 94,
'New model': 'Recall': 0.96,
'Precision': 0.17,
'F1_score': 0.29,
'Frauds': 149


What I want is to make a comparison for each metric between the two models, and in case the one belonging to the new model is better, adding +1 to a variable i. So far, I have made this:



recall_new = results_dict['New model']['Recall']
recall_current = results_dict['Current model']['Recall']
precision_new = results_dict['New model']['Precision']
precision_current = results_dict['Current model']['Precision']
F1_new = results_dict['New model']['F1_score']
F1_current = results_dict['Current model']['F1_score']
frauds_new = results_dict['New model']['Frauds']
frauds_current = results_dict['Current model']['Frauds']

i = 0

if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if precision_new > precision_current or precision_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if F1_new > F1_current or F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if frauds_new > frauds_current or frauds_new > int(round(frauds_current*1.2,0)):
i+=1


The code makes what is intended to do but it is very verbose and repetitive and I was wondering whether it could be simplified or not. Thank you!










share|improve this question











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    At your fourth comparison, you're using a variable "frauds" that isn't defined. I assume that should be frauds_current?
    $endgroup$
    – Gloweye
    Oct 1 at 13:25










  • $begingroup$
    Correct. I have edited the question
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 13:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why do you compare F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)). Shouldn't it be F1_new > (F1_current-(0.1))?
    $endgroup$
    – Graipher
    Oct 1 at 13:56










  • $begingroup$
    Another mistake
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 15:20

















5















$begingroup$


I have the following dictionary:



results_dict = 'Current model': 'Recall': 0.77,
'Precision': 0.1,
'F1_score': 0.18,
'Frauds': 94,
'New model': 'Recall': 0.96,
'Precision': 0.17,
'F1_score': 0.29,
'Frauds': 149


What I want is to make a comparison for each metric between the two models, and in case the one belonging to the new model is better, adding +1 to a variable i. So far, I have made this:



recall_new = results_dict['New model']['Recall']
recall_current = results_dict['Current model']['Recall']
precision_new = results_dict['New model']['Precision']
precision_current = results_dict['Current model']['Precision']
F1_new = results_dict['New model']['F1_score']
F1_current = results_dict['Current model']['F1_score']
frauds_new = results_dict['New model']['Frauds']
frauds_current = results_dict['Current model']['Frauds']

i = 0

if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if precision_new > precision_current or precision_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if F1_new > F1_current or F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if frauds_new > frauds_current or frauds_new > int(round(frauds_current*1.2,0)):
i+=1


The code makes what is intended to do but it is very verbose and repetitive and I was wondering whether it could be simplified or not. Thank you!










share|improve this question











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    At your fourth comparison, you're using a variable "frauds" that isn't defined. I assume that should be frauds_current?
    $endgroup$
    – Gloweye
    Oct 1 at 13:25










  • $begingroup$
    Correct. I have edited the question
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 13:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why do you compare F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)). Shouldn't it be F1_new > (F1_current-(0.1))?
    $endgroup$
    – Graipher
    Oct 1 at 13:56










  • $begingroup$
    Another mistake
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 15:20













5













5









5





$begingroup$


I have the following dictionary:



results_dict = 'Current model': 'Recall': 0.77,
'Precision': 0.1,
'F1_score': 0.18,
'Frauds': 94,
'New model': 'Recall': 0.96,
'Precision': 0.17,
'F1_score': 0.29,
'Frauds': 149


What I want is to make a comparison for each metric between the two models, and in case the one belonging to the new model is better, adding +1 to a variable i. So far, I have made this:



recall_new = results_dict['New model']['Recall']
recall_current = results_dict['Current model']['Recall']
precision_new = results_dict['New model']['Precision']
precision_current = results_dict['Current model']['Precision']
F1_new = results_dict['New model']['F1_score']
F1_current = results_dict['Current model']['F1_score']
frauds_new = results_dict['New model']['Frauds']
frauds_current = results_dict['Current model']['Frauds']

i = 0

if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if precision_new > precision_current or precision_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if F1_new > F1_current or F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if frauds_new > frauds_current or frauds_new > int(round(frauds_current*1.2,0)):
i+=1


The code makes what is intended to do but it is very verbose and repetitive and I was wondering whether it could be simplified or not. Thank you!










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have the following dictionary:



results_dict = 'Current model': 'Recall': 0.77,
'Precision': 0.1,
'F1_score': 0.18,
'Frauds': 94,
'New model': 'Recall': 0.96,
'Precision': 0.17,
'F1_score': 0.29,
'Frauds': 149


What I want is to make a comparison for each metric between the two models, and in case the one belonging to the new model is better, adding +1 to a variable i. So far, I have made this:



recall_new = results_dict['New model']['Recall']
recall_current = results_dict['Current model']['Recall']
precision_new = results_dict['New model']['Precision']
precision_current = results_dict['Current model']['Precision']
F1_new = results_dict['New model']['F1_score']
F1_current = results_dict['Current model']['F1_score']
frauds_new = results_dict['New model']['Frauds']
frauds_current = results_dict['Current model']['Frauds']

i = 0

if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if precision_new > precision_current or precision_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if F1_new > F1_current or F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)):
i+=1
if frauds_new > frauds_current or frauds_new > int(round(frauds_current*1.2,0)):
i+=1


The code makes what is intended to do but it is very verbose and repetitive and I was wondering whether it could be simplified or not. Thank you!







python dictionary






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 2 at 11:05









Eric Duminil

3,4811 gold badge10 silver badges19 bronze badges




3,4811 gold badge10 silver badges19 bronze badges










asked Oct 1 at 13:05









Javier López TomásJavier López Tomás

1415 bronze badges




1415 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    At your fourth comparison, you're using a variable "frauds" that isn't defined. I assume that should be frauds_current?
    $endgroup$
    – Gloweye
    Oct 1 at 13:25










  • $begingroup$
    Correct. I have edited the question
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 13:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why do you compare F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)). Shouldn't it be F1_new > (F1_current-(0.1))?
    $endgroup$
    – Graipher
    Oct 1 at 13:56










  • $begingroup$
    Another mistake
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 15:20
















  • $begingroup$
    At your fourth comparison, you're using a variable "frauds" that isn't defined. I assume that should be frauds_current?
    $endgroup$
    – Gloweye
    Oct 1 at 13:25










  • $begingroup$
    Correct. I have edited the question
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 13:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why do you compare F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)). Shouldn't it be F1_new > (F1_current-(0.1))?
    $endgroup$
    – Graipher
    Oct 1 at 13:56










  • $begingroup$
    Another mistake
    $endgroup$
    – Javier López Tomás
    Oct 1 at 15:20















$begingroup$
At your fourth comparison, you're using a variable "frauds" that isn't defined. I assume that should be frauds_current?
$endgroup$
– Gloweye
Oct 1 at 13:25




$begingroup$
At your fourth comparison, you're using a variable "frauds" that isn't defined. I assume that should be frauds_current?
$endgroup$
– Gloweye
Oct 1 at 13:25












$begingroup$
Correct. I have edited the question
$endgroup$
– Javier López Tomás
Oct 1 at 13:26




$begingroup$
Correct. I have edited the question
$endgroup$
– Javier López Tomás
Oct 1 at 13:26




2




2




$begingroup$
Why do you compare F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)). Shouldn't it be F1_new > (F1_current-(0.1))?
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Oct 1 at 13:56




$begingroup$
Why do you compare F1_new > (precision_current-(0.1)). Shouldn't it be F1_new > (F1_current-(0.1))?
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Oct 1 at 13:56












$begingroup$
Another mistake
$endgroup$
– Javier López Tomás
Oct 1 at 15:20




$begingroup$
Another mistake
$endgroup$
– Javier López Tomás
Oct 1 at 15:20










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6

















$begingroup$

Index less



Also, you're indexing a lot. Perhaps it's better to seperate the two dicts:



old, new = results_dict["Current model"], results_dict["New model"]


(And what's up with having an underscore in Current_model and a space in New model? That's asking for typos. You're not even consistent with it - in your first code they're both spaces, but in the assignment you use 3 underscores and a space for Current...)



Also, with how you make the checks, one of your conditions always implies the other. You should remove the redundant comparisons. Change:



if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
# Into:
if recall_new > recall_current - 0.1:


The additional braces don't do anything, and if recall_new is bigger than current-0.1, then it is also bigger than current.



Loop



If you look closely, you'll see you're doing the same thing multiple times. So just make it a loop.



Arguably you should make an outside variable for the keys to iterate over, or iterate over the keys of either new or old dict. But if hard-coding is appropriate, it could look a lot like:



new_better = 0 # i is a bad variable name. Names should have meaning.
for key in ("Recall", "Precision", "F1_score"):
if new[key] > old[key]-0.1:
new_better += 1
if new["Frauds"] > old["Frauds"]*1.2:
new_better += 1


Note that I removed your rounding. Python has no issues transforming a float to the closest integer by means of int(), but neither does it have a problem with comparing ints to floats. I did notice that your adjustments make it easier to score an increment for the first three variables, but harder for the fourth. Is this intentional?






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$





















    4

















    $begingroup$

    I'm not convinced your code is too long, but it is verbose in the sense that it's a bit hard to read. To make sense of it one must read many lines in detail and identify the repeated pattern between them. Wrapping things in functions can improve clarity just as much as using a more concise syntax or pattern



    Gloweye's concern about your choices of dictionary keys is sound. I'd go further and suggest that this is a good time to write a small class.



    There are different ways to think about classes and objects. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the thing they offer us here is the ability to express the structure of a "dictionary" variable in our code.



    from typing import Dict, Union

    class MyModel:
    def __init__(self, recall: float, precision: float, f1: float, frauds: int):
    self.recall = recall
    self.precision = precision
    self.f1 = f1
    self.frauds = frauds

    def from_dict(data: Dict[str, Union[int, float]]) -> 'MyModel':
    return MyModel(data['Recall'], data['Precision'], data['F1_score'], data['Frauds'])

    def recall_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
    return new > self.recall - 0.1

    def precision_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
    return new > self.precision - 0.1

    def f1_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
    return new > self.f1 - 0.1

    def frauds_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
    return new > self.frauds

    def get_improvement_score(self, new: 'MyModel') -> int:
    return (
    int(self.recall_surpassed(new.recall))
    + int(self.precision_surpassed(new.precision))
    + int(self.f1_surpassed(new.f1))
    + int(self.frauds_surpassed(new.frauds))
    )


    This isn't any more concise than what you'd written, but here the verbosity serves a purpose: it's easier to make sense of the behavior and to find any particular detail because the pieces are split up and labeled. For example, did I get the frauds check right, and if I didn't then how would you fix it?



    To use this with your existing nested dicts would be easy enough, because I included from_dict as a helper method:



    i = MyModel.from_dict(
    results_dict['Current model']
    ).get_improvement_score(
    MyModel.from_dict(results_dict['New model'])
    )
    print(i)





    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I agree that a class might be a good solution, but be on guard for premature optimization. Still +1.
      $endgroup$
      – Gloweye
      Oct 1 at 17:58


















    4

















    $begingroup$

    As others have pointed out, your comparison operations are skewed between the Frauds fields and all other fields. Given that the data type appears to be different, I'm going to assume that you're doing the comparison correctly, and it's working as intended.



    That said, the numbers you are using to subtract (0.1) appear surprisingly large in relation to the values you are comparing them with. In one case, your initial value is 0.1, so subtracting 0.1 would result in comparing the new value > 0, which might not be what you intended.



    Iterating the keys



    You can use the dict.keys() iterable to get all the keys for one of the dictionaries, and you can use Python's conditional expressions to evaluate your score.



    Combine those together and you get:



    def score_results(old, new):
    """ Return a score based on the number of
    'improved' fields of the new results over
    the old.
    """
    score = 0

    for k in new.keys():
    if k == 'Frauds':
    score += 1 if new[k] > int(old[k] * 1.2) else 0

    else:
    score += 1 if new[k] > old[k] - 0.1 else 0
    # NOTE: did you mean > old[k] * 0.9 ???

    return score


    Lambdas and defaults and iterables, oh my!



    You can shorten this by putting your brain in Python-mode and treating code as data using Python's first-class functions. In this case, we'll make use of the lambda expression syntax, since the things we're doing are so short:



    def score_results(old, new):
    """ Idem. """

    minor_change = lambda o: o - 0.1 # could be o * 0.9??
    change_funcs = 'Frauds': lambda o: int(o * 1.2)

    return sum((1 if new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k]) else 0)
    for k in new.keys())


    In this version, I used the conditional-expression syntax from above to evaluate either 0 or 1 for each key k. I used the sum() built-in to add up the scores. This replaces the for k in new.keys() loop with an iterable. The iterable I chose was the generator expression that looped over the k in new.keys().



    I could have used an if clause in the generator expression to skip over the Frauds key. But we don't want to skip it, we want to compute it differently. So instead I built a dictionary where I could look up the keys. Every key would have a default behavior, except for special keys, by using the dict.get(key, default) method. The special keys in this case are Frauds:



    change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)


    Once I had the special function (for Frauds) or the default function (minor_change for everything except Frauds) I could call it:



    change_funcs.get(...)(old[k])


    And then put it into the comparison with the new key as part of the conditional-expression.



    int(bool) -> 0, 1



    Another "shortening" that could be made is to note that Python converts Boolean values to integers by mapping False to 0 and True to 1. So instead of the conditional expression:



    1 if cond else 0


    we could simply use:



    int(cond)


    This converts our sum expression to:



     return sum(int(new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k])) for k in new.keys())





    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can even do without the int and just add booleans directly. bool is a subclass of int.
      $endgroup$
      – Alex Hall
      Oct 2 at 7:45












    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "196"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f229972%2fcomparison-of-values-in-dictionary%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown


























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6

















    $begingroup$

    Index less



    Also, you're indexing a lot. Perhaps it's better to seperate the two dicts:



    old, new = results_dict["Current model"], results_dict["New model"]


    (And what's up with having an underscore in Current_model and a space in New model? That's asking for typos. You're not even consistent with it - in your first code they're both spaces, but in the assignment you use 3 underscores and a space for Current...)



    Also, with how you make the checks, one of your conditions always implies the other. You should remove the redundant comparisons. Change:



    if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
    # Into:
    if recall_new > recall_current - 0.1:


    The additional braces don't do anything, and if recall_new is bigger than current-0.1, then it is also bigger than current.



    Loop



    If you look closely, you'll see you're doing the same thing multiple times. So just make it a loop.



    Arguably you should make an outside variable for the keys to iterate over, or iterate over the keys of either new or old dict. But if hard-coding is appropriate, it could look a lot like:



    new_better = 0 # i is a bad variable name. Names should have meaning.
    for key in ("Recall", "Precision", "F1_score"):
    if new[key] > old[key]-0.1:
    new_better += 1
    if new["Frauds"] > old["Frauds"]*1.2:
    new_better += 1


    Note that I removed your rounding. Python has no issues transforming a float to the closest integer by means of int(), but neither does it have a problem with comparing ints to floats. I did notice that your adjustments make it easier to score an increment for the first three variables, but harder for the fourth. Is this intentional?






    share|improve this answer












    $endgroup$


















      6

















      $begingroup$

      Index less



      Also, you're indexing a lot. Perhaps it's better to seperate the two dicts:



      old, new = results_dict["Current model"], results_dict["New model"]


      (And what's up with having an underscore in Current_model and a space in New model? That's asking for typos. You're not even consistent with it - in your first code they're both spaces, but in the assignment you use 3 underscores and a space for Current...)



      Also, with how you make the checks, one of your conditions always implies the other. You should remove the redundant comparisons. Change:



      if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
      # Into:
      if recall_new > recall_current - 0.1:


      The additional braces don't do anything, and if recall_new is bigger than current-0.1, then it is also bigger than current.



      Loop



      If you look closely, you'll see you're doing the same thing multiple times. So just make it a loop.



      Arguably you should make an outside variable for the keys to iterate over, or iterate over the keys of either new or old dict. But if hard-coding is appropriate, it could look a lot like:



      new_better = 0 # i is a bad variable name. Names should have meaning.
      for key in ("Recall", "Precision", "F1_score"):
      if new[key] > old[key]-0.1:
      new_better += 1
      if new["Frauds"] > old["Frauds"]*1.2:
      new_better += 1


      Note that I removed your rounding. Python has no issues transforming a float to the closest integer by means of int(), but neither does it have a problem with comparing ints to floats. I did notice that your adjustments make it easier to score an increment for the first three variables, but harder for the fourth. Is this intentional?






      share|improve this answer












      $endgroup$
















        6















        6











        6







        $begingroup$

        Index less



        Also, you're indexing a lot. Perhaps it's better to seperate the two dicts:



        old, new = results_dict["Current model"], results_dict["New model"]


        (And what's up with having an underscore in Current_model and a space in New model? That's asking for typos. You're not even consistent with it - in your first code they're both spaces, but in the assignment you use 3 underscores and a space for Current...)



        Also, with how you make the checks, one of your conditions always implies the other. You should remove the redundant comparisons. Change:



        if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
        # Into:
        if recall_new > recall_current - 0.1:


        The additional braces don't do anything, and if recall_new is bigger than current-0.1, then it is also bigger than current.



        Loop



        If you look closely, you'll see you're doing the same thing multiple times. So just make it a loop.



        Arguably you should make an outside variable for the keys to iterate over, or iterate over the keys of either new or old dict. But if hard-coding is appropriate, it could look a lot like:



        new_better = 0 # i is a bad variable name. Names should have meaning.
        for key in ("Recall", "Precision", "F1_score"):
        if new[key] > old[key]-0.1:
        new_better += 1
        if new["Frauds"] > old["Frauds"]*1.2:
        new_better += 1


        Note that I removed your rounding. Python has no issues transforming a float to the closest integer by means of int(), but neither does it have a problem with comparing ints to floats. I did notice that your adjustments make it easier to score an increment for the first three variables, but harder for the fourth. Is this intentional?






        share|improve this answer












        $endgroup$



        Index less



        Also, you're indexing a lot. Perhaps it's better to seperate the two dicts:



        old, new = results_dict["Current model"], results_dict["New model"]


        (And what's up with having an underscore in Current_model and a space in New model? That's asking for typos. You're not even consistent with it - in your first code they're both spaces, but in the assignment you use 3 underscores and a space for Current...)



        Also, with how you make the checks, one of your conditions always implies the other. You should remove the redundant comparisons. Change:



        if recall_new > recall_current or recall_new > (recall_current-(0.1)):
        # Into:
        if recall_new > recall_current - 0.1:


        The additional braces don't do anything, and if recall_new is bigger than current-0.1, then it is also bigger than current.



        Loop



        If you look closely, you'll see you're doing the same thing multiple times. So just make it a loop.



        Arguably you should make an outside variable for the keys to iterate over, or iterate over the keys of either new or old dict. But if hard-coding is appropriate, it could look a lot like:



        new_better = 0 # i is a bad variable name. Names should have meaning.
        for key in ("Recall", "Precision", "F1_score"):
        if new[key] > old[key]-0.1:
        new_better += 1
        if new["Frauds"] > old["Frauds"]*1.2:
        new_better += 1


        Note that I removed your rounding. Python has no issues transforming a float to the closest integer by means of int(), but neither does it have a problem with comparing ints to floats. I did notice that your adjustments make it easier to score an increment for the first three variables, but harder for the fourth. Is this intentional?







        share|improve this answer















        share|improve this answer




        share|improve this answer








        edited Oct 1 at 14:07









        Toby Speight

        35.2k8 gold badges46 silver badges146 bronze badges




        35.2k8 gold badges46 silver badges146 bronze badges










        answered Oct 1 at 13:24









        GloweyeGloweye

        1,7265 silver badges19 bronze badges




        1,7265 silver badges19 bronze badges


























            4

















            $begingroup$

            I'm not convinced your code is too long, but it is verbose in the sense that it's a bit hard to read. To make sense of it one must read many lines in detail and identify the repeated pattern between them. Wrapping things in functions can improve clarity just as much as using a more concise syntax or pattern



            Gloweye's concern about your choices of dictionary keys is sound. I'd go further and suggest that this is a good time to write a small class.



            There are different ways to think about classes and objects. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the thing they offer us here is the ability to express the structure of a "dictionary" variable in our code.



            from typing import Dict, Union

            class MyModel:
            def __init__(self, recall: float, precision: float, f1: float, frauds: int):
            self.recall = recall
            self.precision = precision
            self.f1 = f1
            self.frauds = frauds

            def from_dict(data: Dict[str, Union[int, float]]) -> 'MyModel':
            return MyModel(data['Recall'], data['Precision'], data['F1_score'], data['Frauds'])

            def recall_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.recall - 0.1

            def precision_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.precision - 0.1

            def f1_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.f1 - 0.1

            def frauds_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.frauds

            def get_improvement_score(self, new: 'MyModel') -> int:
            return (
            int(self.recall_surpassed(new.recall))
            + int(self.precision_surpassed(new.precision))
            + int(self.f1_surpassed(new.f1))
            + int(self.frauds_surpassed(new.frauds))
            )


            This isn't any more concise than what you'd written, but here the verbosity serves a purpose: it's easier to make sense of the behavior and to find any particular detail because the pieces are split up and labeled. For example, did I get the frauds check right, and if I didn't then how would you fix it?



            To use this with your existing nested dicts would be easy enough, because I included from_dict as a helper method:



            i = MyModel.from_dict(
            results_dict['Current model']
            ).get_improvement_score(
            MyModel.from_dict(results_dict['New model'])
            )
            print(i)





            share|improve this answer










            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I agree that a class might be a good solution, but be on guard for premature optimization. Still +1.
              $endgroup$
              – Gloweye
              Oct 1 at 17:58















            4

















            $begingroup$

            I'm not convinced your code is too long, but it is verbose in the sense that it's a bit hard to read. To make sense of it one must read many lines in detail and identify the repeated pattern between them. Wrapping things in functions can improve clarity just as much as using a more concise syntax or pattern



            Gloweye's concern about your choices of dictionary keys is sound. I'd go further and suggest that this is a good time to write a small class.



            There are different ways to think about classes and objects. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the thing they offer us here is the ability to express the structure of a "dictionary" variable in our code.



            from typing import Dict, Union

            class MyModel:
            def __init__(self, recall: float, precision: float, f1: float, frauds: int):
            self.recall = recall
            self.precision = precision
            self.f1 = f1
            self.frauds = frauds

            def from_dict(data: Dict[str, Union[int, float]]) -> 'MyModel':
            return MyModel(data['Recall'], data['Precision'], data['F1_score'], data['Frauds'])

            def recall_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.recall - 0.1

            def precision_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.precision - 0.1

            def f1_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.f1 - 0.1

            def frauds_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.frauds

            def get_improvement_score(self, new: 'MyModel') -> int:
            return (
            int(self.recall_surpassed(new.recall))
            + int(self.precision_surpassed(new.precision))
            + int(self.f1_surpassed(new.f1))
            + int(self.frauds_surpassed(new.frauds))
            )


            This isn't any more concise than what you'd written, but here the verbosity serves a purpose: it's easier to make sense of the behavior and to find any particular detail because the pieces are split up and labeled. For example, did I get the frauds check right, and if I didn't then how would you fix it?



            To use this with your existing nested dicts would be easy enough, because I included from_dict as a helper method:



            i = MyModel.from_dict(
            results_dict['Current model']
            ).get_improvement_score(
            MyModel.from_dict(results_dict['New model'])
            )
            print(i)





            share|improve this answer










            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I agree that a class might be a good solution, but be on guard for premature optimization. Still +1.
              $endgroup$
              – Gloweye
              Oct 1 at 17:58













            4















            4











            4







            $begingroup$

            I'm not convinced your code is too long, but it is verbose in the sense that it's a bit hard to read. To make sense of it one must read many lines in detail and identify the repeated pattern between them. Wrapping things in functions can improve clarity just as much as using a more concise syntax or pattern



            Gloweye's concern about your choices of dictionary keys is sound. I'd go further and suggest that this is a good time to write a small class.



            There are different ways to think about classes and objects. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the thing they offer us here is the ability to express the structure of a "dictionary" variable in our code.



            from typing import Dict, Union

            class MyModel:
            def __init__(self, recall: float, precision: float, f1: float, frauds: int):
            self.recall = recall
            self.precision = precision
            self.f1 = f1
            self.frauds = frauds

            def from_dict(data: Dict[str, Union[int, float]]) -> 'MyModel':
            return MyModel(data['Recall'], data['Precision'], data['F1_score'], data['Frauds'])

            def recall_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.recall - 0.1

            def precision_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.precision - 0.1

            def f1_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.f1 - 0.1

            def frauds_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.frauds

            def get_improvement_score(self, new: 'MyModel') -> int:
            return (
            int(self.recall_surpassed(new.recall))
            + int(self.precision_surpassed(new.precision))
            + int(self.f1_surpassed(new.f1))
            + int(self.frauds_surpassed(new.frauds))
            )


            This isn't any more concise than what you'd written, but here the verbosity serves a purpose: it's easier to make sense of the behavior and to find any particular detail because the pieces are split up and labeled. For example, did I get the frauds check right, and if I didn't then how would you fix it?



            To use this with your existing nested dicts would be easy enough, because I included from_dict as a helper method:



            i = MyModel.from_dict(
            results_dict['Current model']
            ).get_improvement_score(
            MyModel.from_dict(results_dict['New model'])
            )
            print(i)





            share|improve this answer










            $endgroup$



            I'm not convinced your code is too long, but it is verbose in the sense that it's a bit hard to read. To make sense of it one must read many lines in detail and identify the repeated pattern between them. Wrapping things in functions can improve clarity just as much as using a more concise syntax or pattern



            Gloweye's concern about your choices of dictionary keys is sound. I'd go further and suggest that this is a good time to write a small class.



            There are different ways to think about classes and objects. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the thing they offer us here is the ability to express the structure of a "dictionary" variable in our code.



            from typing import Dict, Union

            class MyModel:
            def __init__(self, recall: float, precision: float, f1: float, frauds: int):
            self.recall = recall
            self.precision = precision
            self.f1 = f1
            self.frauds = frauds

            def from_dict(data: Dict[str, Union[int, float]]) -> 'MyModel':
            return MyModel(data['Recall'], data['Precision'], data['F1_score'], data['Frauds'])

            def recall_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.recall - 0.1

            def precision_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.precision - 0.1

            def f1_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.f1 - 0.1

            def frauds_surpassed(self, new: float) -> bool:
            return new > self.frauds

            def get_improvement_score(self, new: 'MyModel') -> int:
            return (
            int(self.recall_surpassed(new.recall))
            + int(self.precision_surpassed(new.precision))
            + int(self.f1_surpassed(new.f1))
            + int(self.frauds_surpassed(new.frauds))
            )


            This isn't any more concise than what you'd written, but here the verbosity serves a purpose: it's easier to make sense of the behavior and to find any particular detail because the pieces are split up and labeled. For example, did I get the frauds check right, and if I didn't then how would you fix it?



            To use this with your existing nested dicts would be easy enough, because I included from_dict as a helper method:



            i = MyModel.from_dict(
            results_dict['Current model']
            ).get_improvement_score(
            MyModel.from_dict(results_dict['New model'])
            )
            print(i)






            share|improve this answer













            share|improve this answer




            share|improve this answer










            answered Oct 1 at 15:24









            ShapeOfMatterShapeOfMatter

            1,0101 silver badge13 bronze badges




            1,0101 silver badge13 bronze badges










            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I agree that a class might be a good solution, but be on guard for premature optimization. Still +1.
              $endgroup$
              – Gloweye
              Oct 1 at 17:58












            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I agree that a class might be a good solution, but be on guard for premature optimization. Still +1.
              $endgroup$
              – Gloweye
              Oct 1 at 17:58







            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            I agree that a class might be a good solution, but be on guard for premature optimization. Still +1.
            $endgroup$
            – Gloweye
            Oct 1 at 17:58




            $begingroup$
            I agree that a class might be a good solution, but be on guard for premature optimization. Still +1.
            $endgroup$
            – Gloweye
            Oct 1 at 17:58











            4

















            $begingroup$

            As others have pointed out, your comparison operations are skewed between the Frauds fields and all other fields. Given that the data type appears to be different, I'm going to assume that you're doing the comparison correctly, and it's working as intended.



            That said, the numbers you are using to subtract (0.1) appear surprisingly large in relation to the values you are comparing them with. In one case, your initial value is 0.1, so subtracting 0.1 would result in comparing the new value > 0, which might not be what you intended.



            Iterating the keys



            You can use the dict.keys() iterable to get all the keys for one of the dictionaries, and you can use Python's conditional expressions to evaluate your score.



            Combine those together and you get:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Return a score based on the number of
            'improved' fields of the new results over
            the old.
            """
            score = 0

            for k in new.keys():
            if k == 'Frauds':
            score += 1 if new[k] > int(old[k] * 1.2) else 0

            else:
            score += 1 if new[k] > old[k] - 0.1 else 0
            # NOTE: did you mean > old[k] * 0.9 ???

            return score


            Lambdas and defaults and iterables, oh my!



            You can shorten this by putting your brain in Python-mode and treating code as data using Python's first-class functions. In this case, we'll make use of the lambda expression syntax, since the things we're doing are so short:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Idem. """

            minor_change = lambda o: o - 0.1 # could be o * 0.9??
            change_funcs = 'Frauds': lambda o: int(o * 1.2)

            return sum((1 if new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k]) else 0)
            for k in new.keys())


            In this version, I used the conditional-expression syntax from above to evaluate either 0 or 1 for each key k. I used the sum() built-in to add up the scores. This replaces the for k in new.keys() loop with an iterable. The iterable I chose was the generator expression that looped over the k in new.keys().



            I could have used an if clause in the generator expression to skip over the Frauds key. But we don't want to skip it, we want to compute it differently. So instead I built a dictionary where I could look up the keys. Every key would have a default behavior, except for special keys, by using the dict.get(key, default) method. The special keys in this case are Frauds:



            change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)


            Once I had the special function (for Frauds) or the default function (minor_change for everything except Frauds) I could call it:



            change_funcs.get(...)(old[k])


            And then put it into the comparison with the new key as part of the conditional-expression.



            int(bool) -> 0, 1



            Another "shortening" that could be made is to note that Python converts Boolean values to integers by mapping False to 0 and True to 1. So instead of the conditional expression:



            1 if cond else 0


            we could simply use:



            int(cond)


            This converts our sum expression to:



             return sum(int(new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k])) for k in new.keys())





            share|improve this answer










            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You can even do without the int and just add booleans directly. bool is a subclass of int.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex Hall
              Oct 2 at 7:45















            4

















            $begingroup$

            As others have pointed out, your comparison operations are skewed between the Frauds fields and all other fields. Given that the data type appears to be different, I'm going to assume that you're doing the comparison correctly, and it's working as intended.



            That said, the numbers you are using to subtract (0.1) appear surprisingly large in relation to the values you are comparing them with. In one case, your initial value is 0.1, so subtracting 0.1 would result in comparing the new value > 0, which might not be what you intended.



            Iterating the keys



            You can use the dict.keys() iterable to get all the keys for one of the dictionaries, and you can use Python's conditional expressions to evaluate your score.



            Combine those together and you get:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Return a score based on the number of
            'improved' fields of the new results over
            the old.
            """
            score = 0

            for k in new.keys():
            if k == 'Frauds':
            score += 1 if new[k] > int(old[k] * 1.2) else 0

            else:
            score += 1 if new[k] > old[k] - 0.1 else 0
            # NOTE: did you mean > old[k] * 0.9 ???

            return score


            Lambdas and defaults and iterables, oh my!



            You can shorten this by putting your brain in Python-mode and treating code as data using Python's first-class functions. In this case, we'll make use of the lambda expression syntax, since the things we're doing are so short:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Idem. """

            minor_change = lambda o: o - 0.1 # could be o * 0.9??
            change_funcs = 'Frauds': lambda o: int(o * 1.2)

            return sum((1 if new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k]) else 0)
            for k in new.keys())


            In this version, I used the conditional-expression syntax from above to evaluate either 0 or 1 for each key k. I used the sum() built-in to add up the scores. This replaces the for k in new.keys() loop with an iterable. The iterable I chose was the generator expression that looped over the k in new.keys().



            I could have used an if clause in the generator expression to skip over the Frauds key. But we don't want to skip it, we want to compute it differently. So instead I built a dictionary where I could look up the keys. Every key would have a default behavior, except for special keys, by using the dict.get(key, default) method. The special keys in this case are Frauds:



            change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)


            Once I had the special function (for Frauds) or the default function (minor_change for everything except Frauds) I could call it:



            change_funcs.get(...)(old[k])


            And then put it into the comparison with the new key as part of the conditional-expression.



            int(bool) -> 0, 1



            Another "shortening" that could be made is to note that Python converts Boolean values to integers by mapping False to 0 and True to 1. So instead of the conditional expression:



            1 if cond else 0


            we could simply use:



            int(cond)


            This converts our sum expression to:



             return sum(int(new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k])) for k in new.keys())





            share|improve this answer










            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You can even do without the int and just add booleans directly. bool is a subclass of int.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex Hall
              Oct 2 at 7:45













            4















            4











            4







            $begingroup$

            As others have pointed out, your comparison operations are skewed between the Frauds fields and all other fields. Given that the data type appears to be different, I'm going to assume that you're doing the comparison correctly, and it's working as intended.



            That said, the numbers you are using to subtract (0.1) appear surprisingly large in relation to the values you are comparing them with. In one case, your initial value is 0.1, so subtracting 0.1 would result in comparing the new value > 0, which might not be what you intended.



            Iterating the keys



            You can use the dict.keys() iterable to get all the keys for one of the dictionaries, and you can use Python's conditional expressions to evaluate your score.



            Combine those together and you get:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Return a score based on the number of
            'improved' fields of the new results over
            the old.
            """
            score = 0

            for k in new.keys():
            if k == 'Frauds':
            score += 1 if new[k] > int(old[k] * 1.2) else 0

            else:
            score += 1 if new[k] > old[k] - 0.1 else 0
            # NOTE: did you mean > old[k] * 0.9 ???

            return score


            Lambdas and defaults and iterables, oh my!



            You can shorten this by putting your brain in Python-mode and treating code as data using Python's first-class functions. In this case, we'll make use of the lambda expression syntax, since the things we're doing are so short:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Idem. """

            minor_change = lambda o: o - 0.1 # could be o * 0.9??
            change_funcs = 'Frauds': lambda o: int(o * 1.2)

            return sum((1 if new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k]) else 0)
            for k in new.keys())


            In this version, I used the conditional-expression syntax from above to evaluate either 0 or 1 for each key k. I used the sum() built-in to add up the scores. This replaces the for k in new.keys() loop with an iterable. The iterable I chose was the generator expression that looped over the k in new.keys().



            I could have used an if clause in the generator expression to skip over the Frauds key. But we don't want to skip it, we want to compute it differently. So instead I built a dictionary where I could look up the keys. Every key would have a default behavior, except for special keys, by using the dict.get(key, default) method. The special keys in this case are Frauds:



            change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)


            Once I had the special function (for Frauds) or the default function (minor_change for everything except Frauds) I could call it:



            change_funcs.get(...)(old[k])


            And then put it into the comparison with the new key as part of the conditional-expression.



            int(bool) -> 0, 1



            Another "shortening" that could be made is to note that Python converts Boolean values to integers by mapping False to 0 and True to 1. So instead of the conditional expression:



            1 if cond else 0


            we could simply use:



            int(cond)


            This converts our sum expression to:



             return sum(int(new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k])) for k in new.keys())





            share|improve this answer










            $endgroup$



            As others have pointed out, your comparison operations are skewed between the Frauds fields and all other fields. Given that the data type appears to be different, I'm going to assume that you're doing the comparison correctly, and it's working as intended.



            That said, the numbers you are using to subtract (0.1) appear surprisingly large in relation to the values you are comparing them with. In one case, your initial value is 0.1, so subtracting 0.1 would result in comparing the new value > 0, which might not be what you intended.



            Iterating the keys



            You can use the dict.keys() iterable to get all the keys for one of the dictionaries, and you can use Python's conditional expressions to evaluate your score.



            Combine those together and you get:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Return a score based on the number of
            'improved' fields of the new results over
            the old.
            """
            score = 0

            for k in new.keys():
            if k == 'Frauds':
            score += 1 if new[k] > int(old[k] * 1.2) else 0

            else:
            score += 1 if new[k] > old[k] - 0.1 else 0
            # NOTE: did you mean > old[k] * 0.9 ???

            return score


            Lambdas and defaults and iterables, oh my!



            You can shorten this by putting your brain in Python-mode and treating code as data using Python's first-class functions. In this case, we'll make use of the lambda expression syntax, since the things we're doing are so short:



            def score_results(old, new):
            """ Idem. """

            minor_change = lambda o: o - 0.1 # could be o * 0.9??
            change_funcs = 'Frauds': lambda o: int(o * 1.2)

            return sum((1 if new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k]) else 0)
            for k in new.keys())


            In this version, I used the conditional-expression syntax from above to evaluate either 0 or 1 for each key k. I used the sum() built-in to add up the scores. This replaces the for k in new.keys() loop with an iterable. The iterable I chose was the generator expression that looped over the k in new.keys().



            I could have used an if clause in the generator expression to skip over the Frauds key. But we don't want to skip it, we want to compute it differently. So instead I built a dictionary where I could look up the keys. Every key would have a default behavior, except for special keys, by using the dict.get(key, default) method. The special keys in this case are Frauds:



            change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)


            Once I had the special function (for Frauds) or the default function (minor_change for everything except Frauds) I could call it:



            change_funcs.get(...)(old[k])


            And then put it into the comparison with the new key as part of the conditional-expression.



            int(bool) -> 0, 1



            Another "shortening" that could be made is to note that Python converts Boolean values to integers by mapping False to 0 and True to 1. So instead of the conditional expression:



            1 if cond else 0


            we could simply use:



            int(cond)


            This converts our sum expression to:



             return sum(int(new[k] > change_funcs.get(k, minor_change)(old[k])) for k in new.keys())






            share|improve this answer













            share|improve this answer




            share|improve this answer










            answered Oct 1 at 18:34









            Austin HastingsAustin Hastings

            10k15 silver badges40 bronze badges




            10k15 silver badges40 bronze badges










            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You can even do without the int and just add booleans directly. bool is a subclass of int.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex Hall
              Oct 2 at 7:45












            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You can even do without the int and just add booleans directly. bool is a subclass of int.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex Hall
              Oct 2 at 7:45







            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            You can even do without the int and just add booleans directly. bool is a subclass of int.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Hall
            Oct 2 at 7:45




            $begingroup$
            You can even do without the int and just add booleans directly. bool is a subclass of int.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Hall
            Oct 2 at 7:45


















            draft saved

            draft discarded















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f229972%2fcomparison-of-values-in-dictionary%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown









            Popular posts from this blog

            Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

            Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

            Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?