In a previous post , I detailed a double-buffering
implementation written in C. The idea behind double buffering is to draw graphics off-screen, then quickly swap
(or “flip”) this off-screen buffer with the visible screen. This technique reduces flickering and provides smoother
rendering. While the C implementation was relatively straightforward using GDI functions, I decided to challenge myself
by recreating it in assembly language using MASM32.
There are some slight differences that I’ll go through.
First up, this module defines some macros that are just helpful blocks of reusable code.
szText defines a string inline
m2m performs value assignment from a memory location, to another
return is a simple analog for the return keyword in c
rgb encodes 8 bit RGB components into the eax register
Setup
The setup is very much like its C counterpart with a registration of a class first, and then the creation of the window.
The szClassName gives us a reference to the name of the class to use.
Message pump
We continue to render out to the window in a loop:
Using InvalidateRect tells the window that there is an update to draw. This is then propagated through the WM_PAINT
message.
Window proc
Each of the window messages is handled in a switch/case like arrangement with a series of cmp and je instructions.
In higher level MASM this can be handled using the .IF syntax.
We use the WM_CREATE, WM_SIZE, and WM_DESTROY messages to control when we create and destroy our back buffer.
WM_PAINT only needs to worry about drawing the backbuffer to the window.
Handling the buffer
The routine that handles the back buffer construction is called RecreateBackBuffer. It’s a routine that will clean
up before it trys to create the back buffer saving the program from memory leaks:
DestroyBackBuffer being the first thing called here; it’s just a basic clean up:
Flipping
When we want to draw that back buffer to the window, we just use BitBlt from the GDI:
Conclusion
This is just a different take on the same application written in C. Some of the control structures in assembly language
can seem a little hard to follow, but there is something elegant about their simplicity.
In this post, we’ll walk through fundamental data structures and sorting algorithms, using Python to demonstrate key
concepts and code implementations. We’ll also discuss the algorithmic complexity of various operations like searching,
inserting, and deleting, as well as the best, average, and worst-case complexities of popular sorting algorithms.
Algorithmic Complexity
When working with data structures and algorithms, it’s crucial to consider how efficiently they perform under different
conditions. This is where algorithmic complexity comes into play. It helps us measure how the time or space an
algorithm uses grows as the input size increases.
Time Complexity
Time complexity refers to the amount of time an algorithm takes to complete, usually expressed as a function of the
size of the input, \(n\). We typically use Big-O notation to describe the worst-case scenario. The goal is to
approximate how the time increases as the input size grows.
Common Time Complexities:
\(O(1)\) (Constant Time): The runtime does not depend on the size of the input. For example, accessing an element in an array by index takes the same amount of time regardless of the array’s size.
\(O(n)\) (Linear Time): The runtime grows proportionally with the size of the input. For example, searching for an element in an unsorted list takes \(O(n)\) time because, in the worst case, you have to check each element.
\(O(n^2)\) (Quadratic Time): The runtime grows quadratically with the input size. Sorting algorithms like Bubble Sort and Selection Sort exhibit \(O(n^2)\) time complexity because they involve nested loops.
\(O(\log n)\) (Logarithmic Time): The runtime grows logarithmically as the input size increases, often seen in algorithms that reduce the problem size with each step, like binary search.
\(O(n \log n)\): This complexity appears in efficient sorting algorithms like Merge Sort and Quick Sort, combining the linear and logarithmic growth patterns.
Space Complexity
Space complexity refers to the amount of memory an algorithm uses relative to the size of the input. This is also
expressed in Big-O notation. For instance, sorting an array in-place (i.e., modifying the input array) requires
\(O(1)\) auxiliary space, whereas Merge Sort requires \(O(n)\) additional space to store the temporary arrays
created during the merge process.
Why Algorithmic Complexity Matters
Understanding the time and space complexity of algorithms is crucial because it helps you:
Predict Performance: You can estimate how an algorithm will perform on large inputs, avoiding slowdowns that may arise with inefficient algorithms.
Choose the Right Tool: For example, you might choose a hash table (with \(O(1)\) lookup) over a binary search tree (with \(O(\log n)\) lookup) when you need fast access times.
Optimize Code: Knowing the time complexity helps identify bottlenecks and guides you in writing more efficient code.
Data Structures
Lists
Python lists are dynamic arrays that support random access. They are versatile and frequently used due to their built-in
functionality.
Complexity
Access: \(O(1)\)
Search: \(O(n)\)
Insertion (at end): \(O(1)\)
Deletion (at end): \(O(1)\)
Arrays
Arrays are fixed-size collections that store elements of the same data type. While Python lists are dynamic, we can use
the array module to simulate arrays.
Complexity
Access: \(O(1)\)
Search: \(O(n)\)
Insertion/Deletion: \(O(n)\)
Stacks
A Stack is a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) structure. Python lists can be used to simulate stack operations with append()
and pop().
Complexity
Push/Pop: \(O(1)\)
Peek: \(O(1)\)
Search: \(O(n)\)
Queues
A Queue is a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) structure. Python’s collections.deque is efficient for this purpose.
Complexity
Enqueue/Dequeue: \(O(1)\)
Search: \(O(n)\)
Sets
Sets are unordered collections with no duplicates. Python’s set is implemented as a hash table.
Complexity
Add: \(O(1)\)
Remove: \(O(1)\)
Search: \(O(1)\)
Maps (Dictionaries)
Dictionaries store key-value pairs and are implemented as hash tables in Python.
Complexity
Insertion/Lookup/Deletion: \(O(1)\)
Trees
Trees are hierarchical data structures that allow efficient searching and sorting. A Binary Search Tree (BST) is one
common example.
Complexity
Insertion/Search/Deletion: \(O(\log n)\) for balanced trees, \(O(n)\) for unbalanced trees.
Heaps
Heaps are specialized tree-based structures where the parent node is always greater (max-heap) or smaller (min-heap)
than its children.
Complexity
Insertion/Deletion: \(O(\log n)\)
Peek: \(O(1)\)
Sorting Algorithms
Now we’ll talk about some very common sorting algorithms and understand their complexity to better equip ourselves to
make choices about what types of searches we need to do and when.
Bubble Sort
Repeatedly swap adjacent elements if they are in the wrong order.
Complexity
Best: \(O(n)\)
Average/Worst: \(O(n^2)\)
Space: \(O(1)\)
Selection Sort
Select the smallest element and swap it with the current element.
Complexity
Best/Average/Worst: \(O(n^2)\)
Space: \(O(1)\)
Insertion Sort
Insert each element into its correct position in the sorted portion of the array.
Complexity
Best: \(O(n)\)
Average/Worst: \(O(n^2)\)
Space: \(O(1)\)
Merge Sort
Divide and conquer algorithm that splits the array and merges them back in sorted order.
Complexity
Best/Average/Worst: \(O(n \log n)\)
Space: \(O(n)\)
Quick Sort
Picks a pivot and partitions the array around the pivot.
Complexity
Best/Average: \(O(n \log n)\)
Worst: \(O(n^2)\)
Space: \(O(\log n)\)
Heap Sort
Uses a heap data structure to find the maximum or minimum element.
Complexity
Best/Average/Worst: \(O(n \log n)\)
Space: \(O(1)\)
Bucket Sort
Distributes elements into buckets and sorts them individually.
Complexity
Best: \(O(n+k)\)
Average/Worst: \(O(n^2)\)
Space: \(O(n+k)\)
Radix Sort
Sorts numbers digit by digit starting from the least significant digit.
Complexity
Best/Average/Worst: \(O(nk)\)
Space: \(O(n+k)\)
Conclusion
We’ve explored a wide range of data structures and sorting algorithms, discussing their Python implementations, and
breaking down their time and space complexities. These foundational concepts are essential for any software developer to
understand, and mastering them will improve your ability to choose the right tools and algorithms for a given problem.
Below is a table outlining these complexities about the data structures:
Data Structure
Access Time
Search Time
Insertion Time
Deletion Time
Space Complexity
List (Array)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n)\)
Stack
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(n)\)
Queue
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(n)\)
Set
N/A
\(O(1)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(n)\)
Dictionary
N/A
\(O(1)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(1)\)
\(O(n)\)
Binary Tree (BST)
\(O(\log n)\)
\(O(\log n)\)
\(O(\log n)\)
\(O(\log n)\)
\(O(n)\)
Heap (Binary)
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n)\)
\(O(\log n)\)
\(O(\log n)\)
\(O(n)\)
Below is a quick summary of the time complexities of the sorting algorithms we covered:
Algorithm
Best Time Complexity
Average Time Complexity
Worst Time Complexity
Auxiliary Space
Bubble Sort
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(1)\)
Selection Sort
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(1)\)
Insertion Sort
\(O(n)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(1)\)
Merge Sort
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(n)\)
Quick Sort
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(\log n)\)
Heap Sort
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(n \log n)\)
\(O(1)\)
Bucket Sort
\(O(n + k)\)
\(O(n + k)\)
\(O(n^2)\)
\(O(n + k)\)
Radix Sort
\(O(nk)\)
\(O(nk)\)
\(O(nk)\)
\(O(n + k)\)
Keep this table handy as a reference for making decisions on the appropriate sorting algorithm based on time and space
constraints.
In our previous post, we introduced One-Hot Encoding and
the Bag-of-Words (BoW) model, which are simple methods of representing text as numerical vectors. While these
techniques are foundational, they come with certain limitations. One major drawback of Bag-of-Words is that it treats
all words equally—common words like “the” or “is” are given the same importance as more meaningful words like
“science” or “NLP.”
TF-IDF (Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency) is an extension of BoW that aims to address this problem. By
weighting words based on their frequency in individual documents versus the entire corpus, TF-IDF highlights more
important words and reduces the impact of common, less meaningful ones.
TF-IDF
TF-IDF stands for Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency. It’s a numerical statistic used to reflect the
importance of a word in a document relative to a collection of documents (a corpus). The formula is:
\(\text{TF}(t, d)\): Term Frequency of term \(t\) in document \(d\), which is the number of times \(t\) appears in \(d\).
\(\text{IDF}(t)\): Inverse Document Frequency, which measures how important \(t\) is across the entire corpus.
Term Frequency (TF)
Term Frequency (TF) is simply a count of how frequently a term appears in a document. The higher the frequency, the
more relevant the word is assumed to be for that specific document.
\[\text{TF}(t, d) = \frac{\text{Number of occurrences of } t \text{ in } d}{\text{Total number of terms in } d}\]
For example, if the word “NLP” appears 3 times in a document of 100 words, the term frequency for “NLP” is:
\[\text{TF}(NLP, d) = \frac{3}{100} = 0.03\]
Inverse Document Frequency (IDF)
Inverse Document Frequency (IDF) downweights common words that appear in many documents and upweights rare words
that are more meaningful in specific contexts. The formula is:
\(N\) is the total number of documents in the corpus.
\(\text{DF}(t)\) is the number of documents that contain the term \(t\).
The “+1” in the denominator is there to avoid division by zero. Words that appear in many documents (e.g., “is”, “the”)
will have a lower IDF score, while rare terms will have higher IDF scores.
Example
Let’s take an example with two documents:
Document 1: “I love NLP and NLP loves me”
Document 2: “NLP is great and I enjoy learning NLP”
The combined vocabulary is:
For simplicity, let’s calculate the TF and IDF for the term “NLP”.
TF for “NLP” in Document 1: The term “NLP” appears twice in Document 1, which has 7 words total, so:
The negative value here shows that “NLP” is a very common term in this corpus, and its weight will be downscaled.
Code Example: TF-IDF with TfidfVectorizer
Now let’s use TfidfVectorizer from sklearn to automatically calculate TF-IDF scores for our documents.
The output of this is:
Each row in the output corresponds to a document, and each column corresponds to a term in the vocabulary. The values
represent the TF-IDF score of each term for each document.
Advantages of TF-IDF
Balances Frequency: TF-IDF considers both how frequently a word appears in a document (term frequency) and how unique or common it is across all documents (inverse document frequency). This helps prioritize meaningful words.
Reduces Impact of Stop Words: By downweighting terms that appear in many documents, TF-IDF naturally handles common stop words without needing to remove them manually.
Efficient for Large Corpora: TF-IDF is computationally efficient and scales well to large datasets.
Limitations of TF-IDF
While TF-IDF is a significant improvement over simple Bag-of-Words, it still has some limitations:
No Semantic Meaning: Like Bag-of-Words, TF-IDF treats words as independent features and doesn’t capture the relationships or meaning between them.
Sparse Representations: Even with the IDF weighting, TF-IDF still generates high-dimensional and sparse vectors, especially for large vocabularies.
Ignores Word Order: TF-IDF doesn’t account for word order, so sentences with the same words in different arrangements will have the same representation.
Conclusion
TF-IDF is a powerful and widely-used method for text representation, especially in tasks like document retrieval and
search engines, where distinguishing between important and common words is crucial. However, as we’ve seen, TF-IDF
doesn’t capture the meaning or relationships between words, which is where word embeddings come into play.
In our previous post, we covered the preprocessing steps
necessary to convert text into a machine-readable format, like tokenization and stop word removal. But once the text is
preprocessed, how do we represent it for use in machine learning models?
Before the rise of word embeddings, simpler techniques were commonly used to represent text as vectors. Today, we’ll
explore two foundational techniques: One-Hot Encoding and Bag-of-Words (BoW). These methods don’t capture the
semantic meaning of words as well as modern embeddings do, but they’re essential for understanding the evolution of
Natural Language Processing (NLP).
One-Hot Encoding
One of the simplest ways to represent text is through One-Hot Encoding. In this approach, each word in a vocabulary
is represented as a vector where all the elements are zero, except for a single element that corresponds to the word’s
index.
Let’s take a small vocabulary:
The vocabulary size is 3, and each word will be represented by a 3-dimensional vector:
Each word is “hot” (1) in one specific position, while “cold” (0) everywhere else.
Example
Let’s generate one-hot encoded vectors using Python:
The output shows the three indexed words:
Each word has a unique binary vector representing its position in the vocabulary.
Drawbacks of One-Hot Encoding
One-Hot Encoding is simple but comes with some limitations:
High Dimensionality: For large vocabularies, the vectors become huge, leading to a “curse of dimensionality”.
Lack of Semantic Information: One-Hot vectors don’t capture any relationships between words. “love” and “like” would have completely different vectors, even though they are semantically similar.
Bag-of-Words (BoW)
One-Hot Encoding represents individual words, but what about whole documents or sentences? That’s where the Bag-of-Words
(BoW) model comes in. In BoW, the text is represented as a vector of word frequencies.
BoW counts how often each word from a given vocabulary appears in the document, without considering the order of words
(hence, a “bag” of words).
Let’s take two example sentences:
“I love NLP”
“NLP is amazing”
The combined vocabulary for these two sentences is:
Now, using BoW, we represent each sentence as a vector of word counts:
“I love NLP” -> [1, 1, 1, 0, 0] (since “I”, “love”, and “NLP” appear once, and “is” and “amazing” don’t appear)
“NLP is amazing” -> [0, 0, 1, 1, 1] (since “NLP”, “is”, and “amazing” appear once, and “I” and “love” don’t appear)
Example
We can use CountVectorizer from the sklearn library to easily apply Bag-of-Words to a corpus of text:
The output of which looks like this:
Limitations of Bag-of-Words
While BoW is a simple and powerful method, it too has its drawbacks:
Sparsity: Like One-Hot Encoding, BoW produces high-dimensional and sparse vectors, especially for large vocabularies.
No Word Order: BoW ignores word order. The sentence “I love NLP” is treated the same as “NLP love I”, which may not always make sense.
No Semantic Relationships: Just like One-Hot Encoding, BoW doesn’t capture the meaning or relationships between words. All words are treated as independent features.
Conclusion
Both One-Hot Encoding and Bag-of-Words are simple and effective ways to represent text as numbers, but they have significant
limitations, particularly in capturing semantic relationships and dealing with large vocabularies.
These methods laid the groundwork for more sophisticated representations like TF-IDF (which we’ll cover next) and
eventually led to word embeddings, which capture the meaning and context of words more effectively.
When working with Natural Language Processing (NLP), one of the first challenges you encounter is how to convert
human-readable text into a format that machines can understand. Computers don’t natively understand words or sentences;
they operate in numbers.
So, how do we get from words to something a machine can process?
This is where text preprocessing comes in.
Text preprocessing involves several steps to prepare raw text for analysis. In this post, we’ll walk through the
foundational techniques in preprocessing: tokenization, lowercasing, removing stop words, and
stemming/lemmatization. These steps ensure that our text is in a clean, structured format for further processing
like word embeddings or more complex NLP models.
Tokenization: Breaking Down the Text
What is Tokenization?
Tokenization is the process of breaking a string of text into smaller pieces, usually words or subwords. In essence,
it’s the process of splitting sentences into tokens, which are the basic units for further NLP tasks.
For example, consider the sentence:
Tokenization would break this into:
This is a simple example where each token corresponds to a word or punctuation. However, tokenization can get more
complex depending on the language and the task. For instance, some tokenizers split contractions like “can’t” into
["can", "'t"], while others might treat it as one token. Tokenization also becomes more challenging in languages that
don’t have spaces between words, like Chinese or Japanese.
Code Example: Tokenization in Python
Let’s look at a basic example of tokenization using Python’s nltk library:
The output you can see is simply:
Code Example: Sentence Tokenization
Tokenization can also occur at the sentence level, which means breaking down a paragraph or a larger body of text into
individual sentences. This is helpful for tasks like summarization or sentiment analysis, where sentence boundaries
matter.
The output is now on the sentence boundary:
Lowercasing: Making Text Uniform
In English, the words “Dog” and “dog” mean the same thing, but to a computer, they are two different tokens.
Lowercasing is a simple yet powerful step in text preprocessing. By converting everything to lowercase, we reduce the
complexity of the text and ensure that words like “NLP” and “nlp” are treated identically.
We can achieve this simple with the .lower() method off of a string.
This step becomes crucial when dealing with large text corpora, as it avoids treating different capitalizations of the
same word as distinct entities.
Removing Stop Words: Filtering Out Common Words
Stop words are commonly used words that don’t carry significant meaning in many tasks, such as “and”, “the”, and “is”.
Removing stop words helps reduce noise in the data and improves the efficiency of downstream models by focusing only on
the meaningful parts of the text.
Many libraries provide lists of stop words, but the ideal list can vary depending on the task.
Only the value words remain, removing the “I”:
Stemming and Lemmatization: Reducing Words to Their Root Forms
Another key step in preprocessing is reducing words to their base or root form. There are two common approaches:
Stemming: This cuts off word endings to get to the base form, which can sometimes be rough. For example, “running”,
“runner”, and “ran” might all be reduced to “run”.
Lemmatization: This is a more refined process that looks at the word’s context and reduces it to its dictionary form.
For instance, “better” would be lemmatized to “good”.
Here’s an example using nltk for both stemming and lemmatization:
The output here:
An example of Lemmatization looks like this:
Conclusion
Text preprocessing is a crucial first step in any NLP project. By breaking down text through tokenization, making it
uniform with lowercasing, and reducing unnecessary noise with stop word removal and stemming/lemmatization, we can
create a clean and structured dataset for further analysis or model training. These steps form the foundation upon which
more advanced techniques, such as word embeddings and machine learning models, are built.