We Keep Coding

How to get the K most distant points, given their coordinates?

We have boring CSV with 10000 rows of ages (float), titles (enum/int), scores (float), ....
We have N columns each with int/float values in a table.
You can imagine this as points in ND space
We want to pick K points that would have maximised distance between each other.
So if we have 100 points in a tightly packed cluster and one point in the distance we would get something like this for three points:
or this
For 4 points it will become more interesting and pick some point in the middle.
So how to select K most distant rows (points) from N (with any complexity)? It looks like an ND point cloud "triangulation" with a given resolution yet not for 3d points.
I search for a reasonably fast approach (approximate - no precise solution needed) for K=200 and N=100000 and ND=6 (probably multigrid or ANN on KDTree based, SOM or triangulation based..).. Does anyone know one?

From past experience with a pretty similar problem, a simple solution of computing the mean Euclidean distance of all pairs within each group of K points and then taking the largest mean, works very well. As someone noted above, it's probably hard to avoid a loop on all combinations (not on all pairs). So a possible implementation of all this can be as follows:
import itertools
import numpy as np
from scipy.spatial.distance import pdist
Npoints = 3 # or 4 or 5...
# making up some data:
data = np.matrix([[3,2,4,3,4],[23,25,30,21,27],[6,7,8,7,9],[5,5,6,6,7],[0,1,2,0,2],[3,9,1,6,5],[0,0,12,2,7]])
# finding row indices of all combinations:
c = [list(x) for x in itertools.combinations(range(len(data)), Npoints )]
distances = []
for i in c:
distances.append(np.mean(pdist(data[i,:]))) # pdist: a method of computing all pairwise Euclidean distances in a condensed way.
ind = distances.index(max(distances)) # finding the index of the max mean distance
rows = c[ind] # these are the points in question

I propose an approximate solution. The idea is to start from a set of K points chosen in a way I'll explain below, and repeatedly loop through these points replacing the current one with the point, among the N-K+1 points not belonging to the set but including the current one, that maximizes the sum of the distances from the points of the set. This procedure leads to a set of K points where the replacement of any single point would cause the sum of the distances among the points of the set to decrease.
To start the process we take the K points that are closest to the mean of all points. This way we have good chances that on the first loop the set of K points will be spread out close to its optimum. Subsequent iterations will make adjustments to the set of K points towards a maximum of the sum of distances, which for the current values of N, K and ND appears to be reachable in just a few seconds. In order to prevent excessive looping in edge cases, we limit the number of loops nonetheless.
We stop iterating when an iteration does not improve the total distance among the K points. Of course, this is a local maximum. Other local maxima will be reached for different initial conditions, or by allowing more than one replacement at a time, but I don't think it would be worthwhile.
The data must be adjusted in order for unit displacements in each dimension to have the same significance, i.e., in order for Euclidean distances to be meaningful. E.g., if your dimensions are salary and number of children, unadjusted, the algorithm will probably yield results concentrated in the extreme salary regions, ignoring that person with 10 kids. To get a more realistic output you could divide salary and number of children by their standard deviation, or by some other estimate that makes differences in salary comparable to differences in number of children.
To be able to plot the output for a random Gaussian distribution, I have set ND = 2 in the code, but setting ND = 6, as per your request, is no problem (except you cannot plot it).
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import scipy.spatial as spatial
N, K, ND = 100000, 200, 2
MAX_LOOPS = 20
SIGMA, SEED = 40, 1234
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=SEED)
means, variances = [0] * ND, [SIGMA**2] * ND
data = rng.multivariate_normal(means, np.diag(variances), N)
def distances(ndarray_0, ndarray_1):
if (ndarray_0.ndim, ndarray_1.ndim) not in ((1, 2), (2, 1)):
raise ValueError("bad ndarray dimensions combination")
return np.linalg.norm(ndarray_0 - ndarray_1, axis=1)
# start with the K points closest to the mean
# (the copy() is only to avoid a view into an otherwise unused array)
indices = np.argsort(distances(data, data.mean(0)))[:K].copy()
# distsums is, for all N points, the sum of the distances from the K points
distsums = spatial.distance.cdist(data, data[indices]).sum(1)
# but the K points themselves should not be considered
# (the trick is that -np.inf ± a finite quantity always yields -np.inf)
distsums[indices] = -np.inf
prev_sum = 0.0
for loop in range(MAX_LOOPS):
for i in range(K):
# remove this point from the K points
old_index = indices[i]
# calculate its sum of distances from the K points
distsums[old_index] = distances(data[indices], data[old_index]).sum()
# update the sums of distances of all points from the K-1 points
distsums -= distances(data, data[old_index])
# choose the point with the greatest sum of distances from the K-1 points
new_index = np.argmax(distsums)
# add it to the K points replacing the old_index
indices[i] = new_index
# don't consider it any more in distsums
distsums[new_index] = -np.inf
# update the sums of distances of all points from the K points
distsums += distances(data, data[new_index])
# sum all mutual distances of the K points
curr_sum = spatial.distance.pdist(data[indices]).sum()
# break if the sum hasn't changed
if curr_sum == prev_sum:
break
prev_sum = curr_sum
if ND == 2:
X, Y = data.T
marker_size = 4
plt.scatter(X, Y, s=marker_size)
plt.scatter(X[indices], Y[indices], s=marker_size)
plt.grid(True)
plt.gca().set_aspect('equal', adjustable='box')
plt.show()
Output:
Splitting the data into 3 equidistant Gaussian distributions the output is this:

Assuming that if you read your csv file with N (10000) rows and D dimension (or features) into a N*D martix X. You can calculate the distance between each point and store it in a distance matrix as follows:
import numpy as np
X = np.asarray(X) ### convert to numpy array
distance_matrix = np.zeros((X.shape[0],X.shape[0]))
for i in range(X.shape[0]):
for j in range(i+1,X.shape[0]):
## We compute triangle matrix and copy the rest. Distance from point A to point B and distance from point B to point A are the same.
distance_matrix[i][j]= np.linalg.norm(X[i]-X[j]) ## Here I am calculating Eucledian distance. Other distance measures can also be used.
#distance_matrix = distance_matrix + distance_matrix.T - np.diag(np.diag(distance_matrix)) ## This syntax can be used to get the lower triangle of distance matrix, which is not really required in your case.
K = 5 ## Number of points that you want to pick
indexes = np.unravel_index(np.argsort(distance_matrix.ravel())[-1*K:], distance_matrix.shape)
print(indexes)

Bottom Line Up Front: Dealing with multiple equally distant points and the Curse of Dimensionality are going to be larger problems than just finding the points. Spoiler alert: There's a surprise ending.
I think this an interesting question but I'm bewildered by some of the answers. I think this is, in part, due to the sketches provided. You've no doubt noticed the answers look similar -- 2d, with clusters -- even though you indicated a wider scope was needed. Because others will eventually see this, I'm going to step through my thinking a bit slowly so bear with me for the early part.
It makes sense to start with a simplified example to see if we can generalize a solution with data that's easy to grasp and a linear 2D model is easiest of the easy.
We don't need to calculate all the distances though. We just need the ones at the extremes. So we can then take the top and bottom few values:
right = lin_2_D.nlargest(8, ['x'])
left = lin_2_D.nsmallest(8, ['x'])
graph = sns.scatterplot(x="x", y="y", data=lin_2_D, color = 'gray', marker = '+', alpha = .4)
sns.scatterplot(x = right['x'], y = right['y'], color = 'red')
sns.scatterplot(x = left['x'], y = left['y'], color = 'green')
fig = graph.figure
fig.set_size_inches(8,3)
What we have so far: Of 100 points, we've eliminated the need to calculate the distance between 84 of them. Of what's left we can further drop this by ordering the results on one side and checking the distance against the others.
You can imagine a case where you have a couple of data points way off the trend line that could be captured by taking the greatest or least y values, and all that starts to look like Walter Tross's top diagram. Add in a couple of extra clusters and you get what looks his bottom diagram and it appears that we're sort of making the same point.
The problem with stopping here is the requirement you mentioned is that you need a solution that works for any number of dimensions.
The unfortunate part is that we run into four challenges:
Challenge 1: As you increase the dimensions you can run into a large number of cases where you have multiple solutions when seeking midpoints. So you're looking for k furthest points but have a large number of equally valid possible solutions and no way prioritizing them. Here are two super easy examples illustrate this:
A) Here we have just four points and in only two dimensions. You really can't get any easier than this, right? The distance from red to green is trivial. But try to find the next furthest point and you'll see both of the black points are equidistant from both the red and green points. Imagine you wanted the furthest six points using the first graphs, you might have 20 or more points that are all equidistant.
edit: I just noticed the red and green dots are at the edges of their circles rather than at the center, I'll update later but the point is the same.
B) This is super easy to imagine: Think of a D&D 4 sided die. Four points of data in a three-dimensional space, all equidistant so it's known as a triangle-based pyramid. If you're looking for the closest two points, which two? You have 4 choose 2 (aka, 6) combinations possible. Getting rid of valid solutions can be a bit of a problem because invariably you face questions such as "why did we get rid of these and not this one?"
Challenge 2: The Curse of Dimensionality. Nuff Said.
Challenge 3 Revenge of The Curse of Dimensionality Because you're looking for the most distant points, you have to x,y,z ... n coordinates for each point or you have to impute them. Now, your data set is much larger and slower.
Challenge 4 Because you're looking for the most distant points, dimension reduction techniques such as ridge and lasso are not going to be useful.
So, what to do about this?
Nothing.
Wait. What?!?
Not truly, exactly, and literally nothing. But nothing crazy. Instead, rely on a simple heuristic that is understandable and computationally easy. Paul C. Kainen puts it well:
Intuitively, when a situation is sufficiently complex or uncertain,
only the simplest methods are valid. Surprisingly, however,
common-sense heuristics based on these robustly applicable techniques
can yield results which are almost surely optimal.
In this case, you have not the Curse of Dimensionality but rather the Blessing of Dimensionality. It's true you have a lot of points and they'll scale linearly as you seek other equidistant points (k) but the total dimensional volume of space will increase to power of the dimensions. The k number of furthest points you're is insignificant to the total number of points. Hell, even k^2 becomes insignificant as the number of dimensions increase.
Now, if you had a low dimensionality, I would go with them as a solution (except the ones that are use nested for loops ... in NumPy or Pandas).
If I was in your position, I'd be thinking how I've got code in these other answers that I could use as a basis and maybe wonder why should I should trust this other than it lays out a framework on how to think through the topic. Certainly, there should be some math and maybe somebody important saying the same thing.
Let me reference to chapter 18 of Computer Intensive Methods in Control and Signal Processing and an expanded argument by analogy with some heavy(-ish) math. You can see from the above (the graph with the colored dots at the edges) that the center is removed, particularly if you followed the idea of removing the extreme y values. It's a though you put a balloon in a box. You could do this a sphere in a cube too. Raise that into multiple dimensions and you have a hypersphere in a hypercube. You can read more about that relationship here.
Finally, let's get to a heuristic:
Select the points that have the most max or min values per dimension. When/if you run out of them pick ones that are close to those values if there isn't one at the min/max. Essentially, you're choosing the corners of a box For a 2D graph you have four points, for a 3D you have the 8 corners of the box (2^3).
More accurately this would be a 4d or 5d (depending on how you might assign the marker shape and color) projected down to 3d. But you can easily see how this data cloud gives you the full range of dimensions.
Here is a quick check on learning; for purposes of ease, ignore the color/shape aspect: It's easy to graphically intuit that you have no problem with up to k points short of deciding what might be slightly closer. And you can see how you might need to randomize your selection if you have a k < 2D. And if you added another point you can see it (k +1) would be in a centroid. So here is the check: If you had more points, where would they be? I guess I have to put this at the bottom -- limitation of markdown.
So for a 6D data cloud, the values of k less than 64 (really 65 as we'll see in just a moment) points are pretty easy. But...
If you don't have a data cloud but instead have data that has a linear relationship, you'll 2^(D-1) points. So, for that linear 2D space, you have a line, for linear 3D space, you'd have a plane. Then a rhomboid, etc. This is true even if your shape is curved. Rather than do this graph myself, I'm using the one from an excellent post on by Inversion Labs on Best-fit Surfaces for 3D Data
If the number of points, k, is less than 2^D you need a process to decide what you don't use. Linear discriminant analysis should be on your shortlist. That said, you can probably satisfice the solution by randomly picking one.
For a single additional point (k = 1 + 2^D), you're looking for one that is as close to the center of the bounding space.
When k > 2^D, the possible solutions will scale not geometrically but factorially. That may not seem intuitive so let's go back to the two circles. For 2D you have just two points that could be a candidate for being equidistant. But if that were 3D space and rotate the points about the line, any point in what is now a ring would suffice as a solution for k. For a 3D example, they would be a sphere. Hyperspheres (n-spheres) from thereon. Again, 2^D scaling.
One last thing: You should seriously look at xarray if you're not already familiar with it.
Hope all this helps and I also hope you'll read through the links. It'll be worth the time.
*It would be the same shape, centrally located, with the vertices at the 1/3 mark. So like having 27 six-sided dice shaped like a giant cube. Each vertice (or point nearest it) would fix the solution. Your original k+1 would have to be relocated too. So you would select 2 of the 8 vertices. Final question: would it be worth calculating the distances of those points against each other (remember the diagonal is slightly longer than the edge) and then comparing them to the original 2^D points? Bluntly, no. Satifice the solution.

If you're interested in getting the most distant points you can take advantage of all of the methods that were developed for nearest neighbors, you just have to give a different "metric".
For example, using scikit-learn's nearest neighbors and distance metrics tools you can do something like this
import numpy as np
from sklearn.neighbors import BallTree
from sklearn.neighbors.dist_metrics import PyFuncDistance
from sklearn.datasets import make_blobs
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
def inverted_euclidean(x1, x2):
# You can speed this up using cython like scikit-learn does or numba
dist = np.sum((x1 - x2) ** 2)
# We invert the euclidean distance and set nearby points to the biggest possible
# positive float that isn't inf
inverted_dist = np.where(dist == 0, np.nextafter(np.inf, 0), 1 / dist)
return inverted_dist
# Make up some fake data
n_samples = 100000
n_features = 200
X, _ = make_blobs(n_samples=n_samples, centers=3, n_features=n_features, random_state=0)
# We exploit the BallTree algorithm to get the most distant points
ball_tree = BallTree(X, leaf_size=50, metric=PyFuncDistance(inverted_euclidean))
# Some made up query, you can also provide a stack of points to query against
test_point = np.zeros((1, n_features))
distance, distant_points_inds = ball_tree.query(X=test_point, k=10, return_distance=True)
distant_points = X[distant_points_inds[0]]
# We can try to visualize the query results
plt.plot(X[:, 0], X[:, 1], ".b", alpha=0.1)
plt.plot(test_point[:, 0], test_point[:, 1], "*r", markersize=9)
plt.plot(distant_points[:, 0], distant_points[:, 1], "sg", markersize=5, alpha=0.8)
plt.show()
Which will plot something like:
There are many points that you can improve on:
I implemented the inverted_euclidean distance function with numpy, but you can try to do what the folks of scikit-learn do with their distance functions and implement them in cython. You could also try to jit compile them with numba.
Maybe the euclidean distance isn't the metric you would like to use to find the furthest points, so you're free to implement your own or simply roll with what scikit-learn provides.
The nice thing about using the Ball Tree algorithm (or the KdTree algorithm) is that for each queried point you have to do log(N) comparisons to find the furthest point in the training set. Building the Ball Tree itself, I think also requires log(N) comparison, so in the end if you want to find the k furthest points for every point in the ball tree training set (X), it will have almost O(D N log(N)) complexity (where D is the number of features), which will increase up to O(D N^2) with the increasing k.

Using a genetic algorithm to guess an image

I am trying to write a genetic algorithm which will take in a given image and then produce that image. I have already achieved this for 28x28 white and black images, but I am struggling to work out how to do it for larger RGB images.
I thought I would start by generating the individuals in the population, so I randomly generated a list of size x*y where x and y are the dimensions of the input image, and each item within the list is in the format (r, g, b). Like this
random_numbers = np.random.randint(low=0, high=256, size=(pixel_amount, 3))
generated_colours = [tuple(colour) for colour in random_numbers.tolist()]
In order to evaluate fitness, I went through each pixel in the image I want to produce, and the individual in the population and then I checked to see how many of the pixels were the correct colour in the correct place. However, this is clearly not a good approach as there are 256^3 combinations for each colour. As such, I thought it might be a better idea to evaluate it based on how many of the individual r, g and b values are correct. Therefore, an image of 28x28 pixels would have a maximum fitness of 28*28*3 = 2352 (in this case this is good, whereas a low fitness is usually ideal so you can invert it). Although, I thought perhaps it could be a better idea to instead look at exactly how far away the individual r, g and b values in each individual in the population are from the r, g and b values in the image we want, in a similar fashion to a cost function of a neural network. However, I'm not sure exactly how I would implement this. Perhaps
fitness = 0
for i in range(pixel_amount):
given_image_rgb = given_image_pixels[i]
individual_rgb = individual_pixels[i]
for j in range(3):
fitness += (individual_rgb[j] - given_image_rgb[j])**2
So if the fitness remains at zero, it is because the image is exactly correct. Whereas, if it is higher than it is further from what we want. Although, I think this would give very large numbers as for only a 28x28 image the worst possible fitness is 28*28*3*255^3 = 152938800.
So, assuming I can get the fittest individuals in the population, I was going to remove the worst half of the individuals. Then, I would breed the fittest individuals to create the next generation. I was thinking of doing this by randomly selecting two individuals from the remaining half. Then, I randomly pick half the pixel coordinates and I take those pixels from parent1, and the other half of the pixels from parent2 to make child1. Then, I take the inverse in order to form child2. This would continue until the initial population size has been restored. However, I think that this crossover needs to not just combine pixels, but also combine (r, g, b) values of the pixels. Perhaps calculate an average across the two and always round down? Here is the current approach:
first_child = [None for _ in range(pixel_amount)]
second_child = [None for _ in range(pixel_amount)]
first_parent = first_parent[1]
second_parent = second_parent[1]
for i in range(pixel_amount):
if i in random_pixels:
first_child[i] = first_parent[i]
second_child[i] = second_parent[i]
else:
first_child[i] = second_parent[i]
second_child[i] = first_parent[i]
return first_child, second_child
After that, I would mutate the individuals which would involve randomly changing a certain % of the pixels in each individual. Say 0.25% of each image would get set to a random (r, g, b) value.
for individual in population:
mutated_pixels = random.sample(range(pixel_amount - 1), int(pixel_amount * mutation_rate))
for pixel in mutated_pixels:
individual[pixel] = tuple(np.random.randint(low=0, high=256, size=3))
In terms of a stopping condition, I was going to calculate what percentage of the pixels, or what percentage of the rgb values are correct, and then have it stop once it has reached a certain % correct - say 70%.
I'm sorry for a rather long post, but I would really appreciate some advice on how I can get this working for larger colour images. I understand that it may be practically impossible using this approach, and so I have begun to look into using a set of translucent polygons instead.

Why don't you try to use Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) in your search space? Select a random sampling with a given restriction to decrease the search space. You keep crossover at around 60% and mutation at 1% and select random images with a given restriction, let's say average of pixels inside a given threshold related to the image you want to reconstruct. Although the selection process is sub-optimal, you can use the roulette wheel based on Expectation Maximization algorithm as a way to overcome this heuristic approach, as well as the threshold in the choice of fittest individuals.

Measuring shift between two images along one direction only

I have to measure shifts between two monochromatic images.
These images are actually spectra before calibration, which are very noisy and full of unwanted features, but they basically look like following
I know that between different images, they have shifts along x-direction, but not along y-direction. And I want to know the amount of the shift along x-direction between them.
Luckily I found a function in skimage, register_translation, which can be used for arbitrary subpixel precision. But the problem is, I want to know shift along x-direction only, and I want resulting y-direction shift to be 0, but the program finds the shift to x and y at the same time, presumably along the direction perpendicular to the features. (marked as blue arrow in the figure)
So, I am wondering :
is there any function or package in python that measures the shift between two images along one direction only, or even with any prior knowledge?
what is a correct way of finding shifts between two noisy images? Would finding maximum cross-correlation value in FFT space would do the job?

Some simple maths should do in this situation if register_translation gives you the xy shift, be it in vector or component form. You can calculate the movement in x that would be required if the y shift was non-existent, which is what you want. I am travelling so unfortunately can't give you the graph right now, would recommend drawing the triangles out.
The extra x shift required (x_extra) is defined by:
x_extra = y * tan[arctan(y_shift/x_shift)]
Which is simplified to:
x_extra = y_shift^2 / x_shift
Therefore, the total shift in x is:
x_shift_total = x_shift + x_extra
Where the x_shift is given to you by register_translation.
If you then move imageA by x_shift_total, it should be aligned with imageB, assuming the x_shift given by register_translation is correct.
#jni I would be keen to implement this as an option in register_translation!

I'm not positive it will work, but: one of the benefits of open source is that you can look at the implementation details of register_translation, then try to adapt it to your case. In your case, I would replace the fftn with fftn(..., axis=1), so that you only compute the fft along the columns axis. Then, multiply the two FFT signals together (this is equivalent to the convolution of each line, as suggested by #CypherX). Finally, you have to find a way to "coalesce" the shifts found along each line into a single measurement. One idea would be to take each shift (the maximum along that line) and plot a histogram. One would hope that you get a sharp peak around the true x shift.
If it works, it would be a pretty great contribution to scikit-image to add an "axis" keyword argument to register_translation. You can read the how to contribute guide and propose a change accordingly!

Another, much faster and simpler, approach would be to calculate the horizontal profile at the same location in both images. That would give you a 1D profile for each image horizontally. Simple peak finding will then give you the location of the lines, and the difference between the peak indexes will tell you the shift solely in the x-axis.
I use this approach routinely to do shift detection similar to your problem, and it is very very fast, very simple, and very robust.
# pick a row to use
row = 10
x_profile1 = np.mean(image1[row, :], axis=0)
x_profiel2 = np.mean(image2[row, :], axis=0)
# 'get_peaks' is a function to return indices of found peaks - several
# around
peaks1 = get_peaks(x_profile1)
peaks2 = get_peaks(x_profile2)
x_shift = peaks1[0] - peaks2[0]

Method-1
You could use convolution between the two images to find where you get a maximum. You could envision this as sliding the non-shifted images over the shifted image from left to right, and the convolution will produce maxima corresponding to the scenario when the identical sections of each image lies on top of one-another. Take a look at scipy.ndimage.convolution and scipy.signal.convolve and see which one suits your needs better.
Method-2
On the other hand, you could take a horizontal slice from each image and find the position of the peaks (assuming black strips are 1's and white regions are 0's).
Calculate the centroids of these peaks in each image. Find the difference between the positions of these centroids and that is the shift your are looking for.
For robustness, you could then apply this to various rows of the image-pairs and the average of all the such differences would be a more statistically viable result for a measure of horizontal shift.

Merging image regions (bboxes) in linear time

I have a set of regions (bounding boxes) for some image, example python code:
im = Image.open("single.png")
pix = np.array(im)
gray = rgb2grey(pix)
thresh = threshold_otsu(gray)
bw = closing(gray > thresh, square(1))
cleared = bw.copy()
clear_border(cleared)
borders = np.logical_xor(bw, cleared)
label_image = label(borders)
for region in regionprops(label_image, ['Area', 'BoundingBox']):
#now i have bounding boxes in hand
What I would like to do is to merge regions which overlap or the distance between bbox edges is less than X. Naive approach would be checking distances between all regions, which has O(n2) complexity. I can write something smarter but I have impression that this kind of algorithm already exists and I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Any help is appreciated.

Is this your question "There is n boxes (not necessarily // to x-y axis), and you want to find all overlapping boxes and merge them if they exist?"
I cannot think of a linear algorithm yet but I have a rough idea faster than O(n^2), maybe O(n lg n) describes as follow:
Give each box an id, also for each edge, mark it's belonging box
Use sweeping line algorithm to find all intersections
In the sweeping line algorithm, once an intersection is reported, you know which 2 boxes are overlapping, use something like disjoint-set to group them.
Lastly linearly scan the disjoint-set, for each set, keep updating the leftmost, rightmost, topmost, bottommost point for making a larger box to bound them all
(merging done here, note that if a box has no overlapping with others, the set will only contain itself)
I hope this method will work and it should be faster than O(n^2), but even if it does works, it still have some problems at step 4, where the larger merged box must be // to x-y axis, which is not a must.
Edit: Sorry I just go through OP again, and understand the above solution does not solve the "merge boxes with distance < x", it even only solves partly of the overlapping boxes problem.
Moreover, the merging box procedure is not a 1-pass job, it is kind of recursive, for example a box A and box B merged become box C, then box C may overlap / distance < x with box D..and so on.
To solve this task in linear time is quite impossible for me, as pre-computing the distance between all pair-wise box is already hardly be done in O(n)...

These spectrum bands used to be judged by eye, how to do it programmatically?

Operators used to examine the spectrum, knowing the location and width of each peak and judge the piece the spectrum belongs to. In the new way, the image is captured by a camera to a screen. And the width of each band must be computed programatically.
Old system: spectroscope -> human eye
New system: spectroscope -> camera -> program
What is a good method to compute the width of each band, given their approximate X-axis positions; given that this task used to be performed perfectly by eye, and must now be performed by program?
Sorry if I am short of details, but they are scarce.
Program listing that generated the previous graph; I hope it is relevant:
import Image
from scipy import *
from scipy.optimize import leastsq
# Load the picture with PIL, process if needed
pic = asarray(Image.open("spectrum.jpg"))
# Average the pixel values along vertical axis
pic_avg = pic.mean(axis=2)
projection = pic_avg.sum(axis=0)
# Set the min value to zero for a nice fit
projection /= projection.mean()
projection -= projection.min()
#print projection
# Fit function, two gaussians, adjust as needed
def fitfunc(p,x):
return p[0]*exp(-(x-p[1])**2/(2.0*p[2]**2)) + \
p[3]*exp(-(x-p[4])**2/(2.0*p[5]**2))
errfunc = lambda p, x, y: fitfunc(p,x)-y
# Use scipy to fit, p0 is inital guess
p0 = array([0,20,1,0,75,10])
X = xrange(len(projection))
p1, success = leastsq(errfunc, p0, args=(X,projection))
Y = fitfunc(p1,X)
# Output the result
print "Mean values at: ", p1[1], p1[4]
# Plot the result
from pylab import *
#subplot(211)
#imshow(pic)
#subplot(223)
#plot(projection)
#subplot(224)
#plot(X,Y,'r',lw=5)
#show()
subplot(311)
imshow(pic)
subplot(312)
plot(projection)
subplot(313)
plot(X,Y,'r',lw=5)
show()

Given an approximate starting point, you could use a simple algorithm that finds a local maxima closest to this point. Your fitting code may be doing that already (I wasn't sure whether you were using it successfully or not).
Here's some code that demonstrates simple peak finding from a user-given starting point:
#!/usr/bin/env python
from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
# Sample data with two peaks: small one at t=0.4, large one at t=0.8
ts = np.arange(0, 1, 0.01)
xs = np.exp(-((ts-0.4)/0.1)**2) + 2*np.exp(-((ts-0.8)/0.1)**2)
# Say we have an approximate starting point of 0.35
start_point = 0.35
# Nearest index in "ts" to this starting point is...
start_index = np.argmin(np.abs(ts - start_point))
# Find the local maxima in our data by looking for a sign change in
# the first difference
# From http://stackoverflow.com/a/9667121/188535
maxes = (np.diff(np.sign(np.diff(xs))) < 0).nonzero()[0] + 1
# Find which of these peaks is closest to our starting point
index_of_peak = maxes[np.argmin(np.abs(maxes - start_index))]
print "Peak centre at: %.3f" % ts[index_of_peak]
# Quick plot showing the results: blue line is data, green dot is
# starting point, red dot is peak location
plt.plot(ts, xs, '-b')
plt.plot(ts[start_index], xs[start_index], 'og')
plt.plot(ts[index_of_peak], xs[index_of_peak], 'or')
plt.show()
This method will only work if the ascent up the peak is perfectly smooth from your starting point. If this needs to be more resilient to noise, I have not used it, but PyDSTool seems like it might help. This SciPy post details how to use it for detecting 1D peaks in a noisy data set.
So assume at this point you've found the centre of the peak. Now for the width: there are several methods you could use, but the easiest is probably the "full width at half maximum" (FWHM). Again, this is simple and therefore fragile. It will break for close double-peaks, or for noisy data.
The FWHM is exactly what its name suggests: you find the width of the peak were it's halfway to the maximum. Here's some code that does that (it just continues on from above):
# FWHM...
half_max = xs[index_of_peak]/2
# This finds where in the data we cross over the halfway point to our peak. Note
# that this is global, so we need an extra step to refine these results to find
# the closest crossovers to our peak.
# Same sign-change-in-first-diff technique as above
hm_left_indices = (np.diff(np.sign(np.diff(np.abs(xs[:index_of_peak] - half_max)))) > 0).nonzero()[0] + 1
# Add "index_of_peak" to result because we cut off the left side of the data!
hm_right_indices = (np.diff(np.sign(np.diff(np.abs(xs[index_of_peak:] - half_max)))) > 0).nonzero()[0] + 1 + index_of_peak
# Find closest half-max index to peak
hm_left_index = hm_left_indices[np.argmin(np.abs(hm_left_indices - index_of_peak))]
hm_right_index = hm_right_indices[np.argmin(np.abs(hm_right_indices - index_of_peak))]
# And the width is...
fwhm = ts[hm_right_index] - ts[hm_left_index]
print "Width: %.3f" % fwhm
# Plot to illustrate FWHM: blue line is data, red circle is peak, red line
# shows FWHM
plt.plot(ts, xs, '-b')
plt.plot(ts[index_of_peak], xs[index_of_peak], 'or')
plt.plot(
[ts[hm_left_index], ts[hm_right_index]],
[xs[hm_left_index], xs[hm_right_index]], '-r')
plt.show()
It doesn't have to be the full width at half maximum — as one commenter points out, you can try to figure out where your operators' normal threshold for peak detection is, and turn that into an algorithm for this step of the process.
A more robust way might be to fit a Gaussian curve (or your own model) to a subset of the data centred around the peak — say, from a local minima on one side to a local minima on the other — and use one of the parameters of that curve (eg. sigma) to calculate the width.
I realise this is a lot of code, but I've deliberately avoided factoring out the index-finding functions to "show my working" a bit more, and of course the plotting functions are there just to demonstrate.
Hopefully this gives you at least a good starting point to come up with something more suitable to your particular set.

Late to the party, but for anyone coming across this question in the future...
Eye movement data looks very similar to this; I'd base an approach off that used by Nystrom + Holmqvist, 2010. Smooth the data using a Savitsky-Golay filter (scipy.signal.savgol_filter in scipy v0.14+) to get rid of some of the low-level noise while keeping the large peaks intact - the authors recommend using an order of 2 and a window size of about twice the width of the smallest peak you want to be able to detect. You can find where the bands are by arbitrarily removing all values above a certain y value (set them to numpy.nan). Then take the (nan)mean and (nan)standard deviation of the remainder, and remove all values greater than the mean + [parameter]*std (I think they use 6 in the paper). Iterate until you're not removing any data points - but depending on your data, certain values of [parameter] may not stabilise. Then use numpy.isnan() to find events vs non-events, and numpy.diff() to find the start and end of each event (values of -1 and 1 respectively). To get even more accurate start and end points, you can scan along the data backward from each start and forward from each end to find the nearest local minimum which has value smaller than mean + [another parameter]*std (I think they use 3 in the paper). Then you just need to count the data points between each start and end.
This won't work for that double peak; you'd have to do some extrapolation for that.

The best method might be to statistically compare a bunch of methods with human results.
You would take a large variety data and a large variety of measurement estimates (widths at various thresholds, area above various thresholds, different threshold selection methods, 2nd moments, polynomial curve fits of various degrees, pattern matching, and etc.) and compare these estimates to human measurements of the same data set. Pick the estimate method that correlates best with expert human results. Or maybe pick several methods, the best one for each of various heights, for various separations from other peaks, and etc.