Related
I have a Matlab reference routine that I am trying to convert to numpy/scipy. I have encountered a curve fitting problem that does I cannot solve in Python. So here is a simple example which demonstrates the problem. The data is completely synthetic and not part of the problem.
Let's say I'm trying to fit a straight-line model of noisy data -
x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
y = [0.1075, 1.3668, 1.5482, 3.1724, 4.0638, 4.7385, 5.9133, 7.0685, 8.7157, 9.5539]
For the unweighted solution in Matlab, I would code
g = #(m, b, x)(m*x + b)
f = fittype(g)
bestfit = fit(x, y, g)
which produces a solution of bestfit.m = 1.048, bestfit.b = -0.09219
Running this data through scipy.optimize.curve_fit() produces identical results.
If instead the fit uses a decay function to reduce the impact of data points
dw = [0.7290, 0.5120, 0.3430, 0.2160, 0.1250, 0.0640, 0.0270, 0.0080, 0.0010, 0]
weightedfit = fit(x, y, g, 'Weights', dw)
This produces a slope if 0.944 and offset 0.1484.
I have not figured out how to conjure this result from scipy.optimize.curve_fit using the sigma parameter. If I pass the weights as provided to Matlab, the '0' causes a divide by zero exception. Clearly Matlab and scipy are thinking very differently about the meaning of the weights in the underlying optimization routine. Is there a simple way of converting between the two that allows me to provide a weighting function which produces identical results?
Ok, so after further investigation I can offer the answer, at least for this simple example.
import numpy as np
import scipy as sp
import scipy.optimize
def modelFun(x, m, b):
return m * x + b
def testFit():
w = np.diag([1.0, 1/0.7290, 1/0.5120, 1/0.3430, 1/0.2160, 1/0.1250, 1/0.0640, 1/0.0270, 1/0.0080, 1/0.0010])
x = np.array([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9])
y = np.array([0.1075, 1.3668, 1.5482, 3.1724, 4.0638, 4.7385, 5.9133, 7.0685, 8.7157, 9.5539])
popt = sp.optimize.curve_fit(modelFun, x, y, sigma=w)
print(popt[0])
print(popt[1])
Which produces the desired result.
In order to force sp.optimize.curve_fit to minimize the same chisq metric as Matlab using the curve fitting toolbox, you must do two things:
Use the reciprocal of the weight factors
Create a diagonal matrix from the new weight factors. According to the scipy reference:
sigma None or M-length sequence or MxM array, optional
Determines the uncertainty in ydata. If we define residuals as r =
ydata - f(xdata, *popt), then the interpretation of sigma depends on
its number of dimensions:
A 1-d sigma should contain values of standard deviations of errors in
ydata. In this case, the optimized function is chisq = sum((r / sigma)
** 2).
A 2-d sigma should contain the covariance matrix of errors in ydata.
In this case, the optimized function is chisq = r.T # inv(sigma) # r.
New in version 0.19.
None (default) is equivalent of 1-d sigma filled with ones.
I'm trying to convolve two 1D tensors in Keras.
I get two inputs from other models:
x - of length 100
ker - of length 5
I would like to get the 1D convolution of x using the kernel ker.
I wrote a Lambda layer to do it:
import tensorflow as tf
def convolve1d(x):
y = tf.nn.conv1d(value=x[0], filters=x[1], padding='VALID', stride=1)
return y
x = Input(shape=(100,))
ker = Input(shape=(5,))
y = Lambda(convolve1d)([x,ker])
model = Model([x,ker], [y])
I get the following error:
ValueError: Shape must be rank 4 but is rank 3 for 'lambda_67/conv1d/Conv2D' (op: 'Conv2D') with input shapes: [?,1,100], [1,?,5].
Can anyone help me understand how to fix it?
It was much harder than I expected because Keras and Tensorflow don't expect any batch dimension in the convolution kernel so I had to write the loop over the batch dimension myself, which requires to specify batch_shape instead of just shape in the Input layer. Here it is :
import numpy as np
import tensorflow as tf
import keras
from keras import backend as K
from keras import Input, Model
from keras.layers import Lambda
def convolve1d(x):
input, kernel = x
output_list = []
if K.image_data_format() == 'channels_last':
kernel = K.expand_dims(kernel, axis=-2)
else:
kernel = K.expand_dims(kernel, axis=0)
for i in range(batch_size): # Loop over batch dimension
output_temp = tf.nn.conv1d(value=input[i:i+1, :, :],
filters=kernel[i, :, :],
padding='VALID',
stride=1)
output_list.append(output_temp)
print(K.int_shape(output_temp))
return K.concatenate(output_list, axis=0)
batch_input_shape = (1, 100, 1)
batch_kernel_shape = (1, 5, 1)
x = Input(batch_shape=batch_input_shape)
ker = Input(batch_shape=batch_kernel_shape)
y = Lambda(convolve1d)([x,ker])
model = Model([x, ker], [y])
a = np.ones(batch_input_shape)
b = np.ones(batch_kernel_shape)
c = model.predict([a, b])
In the current state :
It doesn't work for inputs (x) with multiple channels.
If you provide several filters, you get as many outputs, each being the convolution of the input with the corresponding kernel.
From given code it is difficult to point out what you mean when you say
is it possible
But if what you mean is to merge two layers and feed merged layer to convulation, yes it is possible.
x = Input(shape=(100,))
ker = Input(shape=(5,))
merged = keras.layers.concatenate([x,ker], axis=-1)
y = K.conv1d(merged, 'same')
model = Model([x,ker], y)
EDIT:
#user2179331 thanks for clarifying your intention. Now you are using Lambda Class incorrectly, that is why the error message is showing.
But what you are trying to do can be achieved using keras.backend layers.
Though be noted that when using lower level layers you will lose some higher level abstraction. E.g when using keras.backend.conv1d you need to have input shape of (BATCH_SIZE,width, channels) and kernel with shape of (kernel_size,input_channels,output_channels). So in your case let as assume the x has channels of 1(input channels ==1) and y also have the same number of channels(output channels == 1).
So your code now can be refactored as follows
from keras import backend as K
def convolve1d(x,kernel):
y = K.conv1d(x,kernel, padding='valid', strides=1,data_format="channels_last")
return y
input_channels = 1
output_channels = 1
kernel_width = 5
input_width = 100
ker = K.variable(K.random_uniform([kernel_width,input_channels,output_channels]),K.floatx())
x = Input(shape=(input_width,input_channels)
y = convolve1d(x,ker)
I guess I have understood what you mean. Given the wrong example code below:
input_signal = Input(shape=(L), name='input_signal')
input_h = Input(shape=(N), name='input_h')
faded= Lambda(lambda x: tf.nn.conv1d(input, x))(input_h)
You want to convolute each signal vector with different fading coefficients vector.
The 'conv' operation in TensorFlow, etc. tf.nn.conv1d, only support a fixed value kernel. Therefore, the code above can not run as you want.
I have no idea, too. The code you given can run normally, however, it is too complex and not efficient. In my idea, another feasible but also inefficient way is to multiply with the Toeplitz matrix whose row vector is the shifted fading coefficients vector. When the signal vector is too long, the matrix will be extremely large.
I was wondering what function in numpy/scipy corresponded to pcacov() in MATLAB. If there isn't a corresponding one, what would be the best way to implement the function?
Thanks!
NumPy and SciPy don't have specific routines for PCA, but they do have the linear algebra primitives required to compute it. Any pca function in any language will basically be just a light wrapper around an eigenvalue or singular value decomposition, with different conventions regarding centering, normalization, meaning of matrix dimensions, and terms (eigenvectors, principal components, principal vectors, latent variables, etc. are all different names for the same thing, sometimes with slight variations).
So, for example, given a matrix X you can compute the PCA using the SVD:
import numpy as np
def pca(X):
X_centered = X - X.mean(0)
u, s, vt = np.linalg.svd(X_centered)
evals = s[::-1] ** 2 / (X.shape[0] - 1)
evecs = vt[::-1].T
return evals, evecs
np.random.seed(0)
X = np.random.rand(100, 3)
evals, evecs = pca(X)
print(evals)
# [ 0.06820946 0.08738236 0.09858988]
print(evecs)
# [[-0.49659797 0.4567562 -0.73808145]
# [ 0.34847559 0.88371847 0.31242029]
# [ 0.79495611 -0.10205609 -0.59802118]]
If you have a covariance matrix, you can compute the PCA using an eigenvalue decomposition:
def pcacov(C):
return np.linalg.eigh(C)
C = np.cov(X.T)
evals, evecs = pcacov(C)
print(evals)
# [ 0.06820946 0.08738236 0.09858988]
print(evecs)
# [[-0.49659797 -0.4567562 -0.73808145]
# [ 0.34847559 -0.88371847 0.31242029]
# [ 0.79495611 0.10205609 -0.59802118]]
The results are the same, up to a sign in the eigenvector columns.
Now, I've used a particular set of conventions here regarding whether datapoints are in rows or columns, how the covariance is normalized, etc. and those details vary from implementation to implementation of PCA. So the Matlab code might give different results because it's using different conventions internally. But under the hood, it's doing something very similar to the computations used above.
I want to run a regression analysis on below data, here x1 and x2 produce y value. But in that case, y value is fixed in all time. So regression will not happen. But why? Need explanation.
Your training set shows that the coefficients are all ~0 and the constant is 5. There's no more information in that dataset, you don't need regression to show that.
You did not specify what kind of regression you are running. Depending on the type of regression you are using, you will need the matrices to be invertible and not be related linearly.
It seems to work using normal equation (with expected results):
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
input = np.array([
[2,3,5],
[1,2,5],
[4,2,5],
[1,7,5],
[1,9,5]
])
m = len(input)
X = np.array([np.ones(m), input[:, 0],input[:, 1]]).T # Add Constant to X
y = np.array(input[:, 2]).reshape(-1, 1) # Get the dependant values
betaHat = np.linalg.solve(X.T.dot(X), X.T.dot(y)) # Calculate coefficients
print(betaHat) # Show Constant and coefficients (in that order)
[[ 5.00000000e+00]
[ 5.29208238e-16]
[ 4.32685981e-17]]
I am fitting data with weights using scipy.odr but I don't know how to obtain a measure of goodness-of-fit or an R squared. Does anyone have suggestions for how to obtain this measure using the output stored by the function?
The res_var attribute of the Output is the so-called reduced Chi-square value for the fit, a popular choice of goodness-of-fit statistic. It is somewhat problematic for non-linear fitting, though. You can look at the residuals directly (out.delta for the X residuals and out.eps for the Y residuals). Implementing a cross-validation or bootstrap method for determining goodness-of-fit, as suggested in the linked paper, is left as an exercise for the reader.
The output of ODR gives both the estimated parameters beta as well as the standard deviation of those parameters sd_beta. Following p. 76 of the ODRPACK documentation, you can convert these values into a t-statistic with (beta - beta_0) / sd_beta, where beta_0 is the number that you're testing significance with respect to (often zero). From there, you can use the t-distribution to get the p-value.
Here's a working example:
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats, odr
def linear_func(B, x):
"""
From https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/odr.html
Linear function y = m*x + b
"""
# B is a vector of the parameters.
# x is an array of the current x values.
# x is in the same format as the x passed to Data or RealData.
#
# Return an array in the same format as y passed to Data or RealData.
return B[0] * x + B[1]
np.random.seed(0)
sigma_x = .1
sigma_y = .15
N = 100
x_star = np.linspace(0, 10, N)
x = np.random.normal(x_star, sigma_x, N)
# the true underlying function is y = 2*x_star + 1
y = np.random.normal(2*x_star + 1, sigma_y, N)
linear = odr.Model(linear_func)
dat = odr.Data(x, y, wd=1./sigma_x**2, we=1./sigma_y**2)
this_odr = odr.ODR(dat, linear, beta0=[1., 0.])
odr_out = this_odr.run()
# degrees of freedom are n_samples - n_parameters
df = N - 2 # equivalently, df = odr_out.iwork[10]
beta_0 = 0 # test if slope is significantly different from zero
t_stat = (odr_out.beta[0] - beta_0) / odr_out.sd_beta[0] # t statistic for the slope parameter
p_val = stats.t.sf(np.abs(t_stat), df) * 2
print('Recovered equation: y={:3.2f}x + {:3.2f}, t={:3.2f}, p={:.2e}'.format(odr_out.beta[0], odr_out.beta[1], t_stat, p_val))
Recovered equation: y=2.00x + 1.01, t=239.63, p=1.76e-137
One note of caution in using this approach on nonlinear problems, from the same ODRPACK docs:
"Note that for nonlinear ordinary least squares, the linearized confidence regions and intervals are asymptotically correct as n → ∞ [Jennrich, 1969]. For the orthogonal distance regression problem, they have been shown to be asymptotically correct as σ∗ → 0 [Fuller, 1987]. The difference between the conditions of asymptotic correctness can be explained by the fact that, as the number of observations increases in the orthogonal distance regression problem one does not obtain additional information for ∆. Note also that Vˆ is dependent upon the weight matrix Ω, which must be assumed to be correct, and cannot be confirmed from the orthogonal distance regression results. Errors in the values of wǫi and wδi that form Ω will have an adverse affect on the accuracy of Vˆ and its component parts. The results of a Monte Carlo experiment examining the accuracy
of the linearized confidence intervals for four different measurement error models is presented in [Boggs and Rogers, 1990b]. Those results indicate that the confidence regions and intervals for ∆ are not as accurate as those for β.
Despite its potential inaccuracy, the covariance matrix is frequently used to construct confidence regions and intervals for both nonlinear ordinary least squares and measurement error models because the resulting regions and intervals are inexpensive to compute, often adequate, and familiar to practitioners. Caution must be exercised when using such regions and intervals, however, since the validity of the approximation will depend on the nonlinearity of the model, the variance and distribution of the errors, and the data itself. When more reliable intervals and regions are required, other more accurate methods should be used. (See, e.g., [Bates and Watts, 1988], [Donaldson and Schnabel, 1987], and [Efron, 1985].)"
As mentioned by R. Ken, chi-square or variance of the residuals is one of the more
commonly used tests of goodness of fit. ODR stores the sum of squared
residuals in out.sum_square and you can verify yourself
that out.res_var = out.sum_square/degrees_freedom corresponds to what is commonly called reduced chi-square: i.e. the chi-square test result divided by its expected value.
As for the other very popular estimator of goodness of fit in linear regression, R squared and its adjusted version, we can define the functions
import numpy as np
def R_squared(observed, predicted, uncertainty=1):
""" Returns R square measure of goodness of fit for predicted model. """
weight = 1./uncertainty
return 1. - (np.var((observed - predicted)*weight) / np.var(observed*weight))
def adjusted_R(x, y, model, popt, unc=1):
"""
Returns adjusted R squared test for optimal parameters popt calculated
according to W-MN formula, other forms have different coefficients:
Wherry/McNemar : (n - 1)/(n - p - 1)
Wherry : (n - 1)/(n - p)
Lord : (n + p - 1)/(n - p - 1)
Stein : (n - 1)/(n - p - 1) * (n - 2)/(n - p - 2) * (n + 1)/n
"""
# Assuming you have a model with ODR argument order f(beta, x)
# otherwise if model is of the form f(x, a, b, c..) you could use
# R = R_squared(y, model(x, *popt), uncertainty=unc)
R = R_squared(y, model(popt, x), uncertainty=unc)
n, p = len(y), len(popt)
coefficient = (n - 1)/(n - p - 1)
adj = 1 - (1 - R) * coefficient
return adj, R
From the output of your ODR run you can find the optimal values for your model's parameters in out.beta and at this point we have everything we need for computing R squared.
from scipy import odr
def lin_model(beta, x):
"""
Linear function y = m*x + q
slope m, constant term/y-intercept q
"""
return beta[0] * x + beta[1]
linear = odr.Model(lin_model)
data = odr.RealData(x, y, sx=sigma_x, sy=sigma_y)
init = odr.ODR(data, linear, beta0=[1, 1])
out = init.run()
adjusted_Rsq, Rsq = adjusted_R(x, y, lin_model, popt=out.beta)