I understand that np.nanargmin
finds the smallest number in a list that is not a NaN. However if called upon the array [np.nan, np.inf]
it yields 0
which is a NaN. I find this behavior rather odd and am just wondering what the logic in defining np.argmin
this way.
If you look at the documentation for np.nanargmin
it says:
Warning: the results cannot be trusted if a slice contains only NaNs and Infs.
If you view the source code it has the following line:
a, mask = _replace_nan(a, np.inf)
So it is replacing all nan
occurrences with inf
, and so then it is finding the min (still a bit questionable), which will be argmin([inf, inf])
.
If you look in the source you see:
a, mask = _replace_nan(a, np.inf)
res = np.argmin(a, axis=axis)
meaning that it's replacing np.nan
with np.inf
. Since np.argmin
for repeated values returns the first instance of that value, np.argmin([np.inf, np.inf])
returns 0
The technical post webpages of this site follow the CC BY-SA 4.0 protocol. If you need to reprint, please indicate the site URL or the original address.Any question please contact:yoyou2525@163.com.