I'd like to build a GP with marginalized hyperparameters.
I have seen that this is possible with the HMC sampler provided in gpflow from this notebook
However, when I tried to run the following code as a first step of this (NOTE this is on gpflow 0.5, an older version), the returned samples are negative, even though the lengthscale and variance need to be positive (negative values would be meaningless).
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import gpflow
from gpflow import hmc
X = np.linspace(-3, 3, 20)
Y = np.random.exponential(np.sin(X) ** 2)
Y = (Y - np.mean(Y)) / np.std(Y)
k = gpflow.kernels.Matern32(1, lengthscales=.2, ARD=False)
m = gpflow.gpr.GPR(X[:, None], Y[:, None], k)
m.kern.lengthscales.prior = gpflow.priors.Gamma(1., 1.)
m.kern.variance.prior = gpflow.priors.Gamma(1., 1.)
# dont want likelihood be a hyperparam now so fixed
m.likelihood.variance = 1e-6
m.likelihood.variance.fixed = True
m.optimize(maxiter=1000)
samples = m.sample(500)
print(samples)
Output:
[[-0.43764571 -0.22753325]
[-0.50418501 -0.11070128]
[-0.5932655 0.00821438]
[-0.70217714 0.05077999]
[-0.77745654 0.09362291]
[-0.79404456 0.13649446]
[-0.83989415 0.27118385]
[-0.90355789 0.29589641]
...
I don't know too much in detail about HMC sampling but I would expect that the sampled posterior hyperparameters are positive, I've checked the code and it seems maybe related to the Log1pe transform, though I failed to figure it out myself.
Any hint on this?
It would be helpful if you specified which GPflow version you are using - especially given that from the output you posted it looks like you are using a really old version of GPflow (pre-1.0), and this is actually something that got improved since. What is happening here (in old GPflow) is that the sample() method returns a single array S x P, where S is the number of samples, and P is the number of free parameters [e.g. for a M x M matrix parameter with lower-triangular transform (such as the Cholesky of the covariance of the approximate posterior, q_sqrt), only M * (M - 1)/2 parameters are actually stored and optimised!]. These are the values in the unconstrained space, i.e. they can take any value whatsoever. Transforms (see gpflow.transforms module) provide the mapping between this value (between plus/minus infinity) and the constrained value (e.g. gpflow.transforms.positive for lengthscales and variances). In old GPflow, the model provides a get_samples_df() method that takes the S x P array returned by sample() and returns a pandas DataFrame with columns for all the trainable parameters which would be what you want. Or, ideally, you would just use a recent version of GPflow, in which the HMC sampler directly returns the DataFrame!
Related
I'm trying to fit sine function on my data. No errors are shown but it doesn't seem to work.
python
def sin_fun(x,a,b):
return (a*np.sin(b*x))
p_opt,p_cov=cf(sin_fun,xdata,ydata)
print(p_opt)
plt.plot(xdata,sin_fun(xdata,*p_opt))
plt.scatter(xdata,ydata)
plt.show()
This is the output I am getting:
I have simulated your data. There are 2 problems with your code as to why it isn't doing what you want. First is that your sin_fun needs a y-offset parameter, otherwise the function will always be symmetrical about y = 0. Secondly, the fit works better if you can provide curve_fit with a reasonable guess. This is done using the p0 argument. Have a look here:
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit as cf
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
# simulate your data
xdata = np.linspace(0, 25000, 256)
ydata = 15000 * np.sin(xdata/2000) + 22000
# add some noise
ydata += np.random.rand(xdata.size) * 2000
# sin function needs a y-offset -> c
def sin_fun(x,a,b,c):
return a*np.sin(b*x)+c
# need a reasonable guess -> note that the guess is not quite right but curve_fit still works
p_opt,p_cov=cf(sin_fun,xdata,ydata, p0=(10000, 1/2500, 15000))
print(p_opt)
plt.plot(xdata,sin_fun(xdata,*p_opt))
plt.plot(xdata,ydata, 'r.', ms=1)
plt.show()
With these fixes you can get a good fit. You could also add a phase parameter to your function to help fit other sinusoids.
I am trying to produce a random distribution where I control the mean, SD, skewness and kurtosis.
I can solve the mean and SD with some simple maths after the distribution is produced.
Kurtosis I am leaving on the shelf for the moment because it just seems too hard.
Skewness is today's problem.
import scipy.stats
def convert_to_alpha(s):
d=(np.pi/2*((abs(s)**(2/3))/(abs(s)**(2/3)+((4-np.pi)/2)**(2/3))))**0.5
a=((d)/((1-d**2)**.5))
return(a)
for skewness_expected in (.5, .9, 1.3):
alpha = convert_to_alpha(skewness_expected)
r = stats.skewnorm.rvs(alpha,size=10000)
print('Skewness expected:',skewness_expected)
print('Skewness obtained:',stats.skew(r))
print()
Skewness expected: 0.5
Skewness obtained: 0.47851348006629035
Skewness expected: 0.9
Skewness obtained: 0.8917020428586827
Skewness expected: 1.3
Skewness obtained: (1.2794406116842627+0.01780402125888404j)
I understand that the calculated skewness will generally not match the desired skewness - this is a random distribution, after all. But I am confused as to how I can get a distribution with a skewness > 1 without falling into complex number territory. The rvs method appears incapable of handling it, since the parameter alpha is an imaginary number whenever skewness > 1.
How can I fix it so that I can generate distributions with skewness > 1, but not have complex numbers creeping in?
[With credit to Warren Weckesser for pointing me at Wikipedia in order to write the convert_to_alpha function.]
Understand this thread is a year and a half old now, but I've run into this problem recently as well and it never seemed to get answered here. The further problem with converting between alpha from stats.skewnorm and the skewness statistic (excellent function to do that by the way) is that doing so will also alter the measures of central tendency for the distribution, which was problematic for my needs.
I've developed this based on the F-distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-distribution). The end result of a lot of work is this function for which you specify the mean, SD and skewness required, and desired sample size. I can share the work behind it if anyone wishes. The output SD and skew become a little rough at extreme settings. Presumably because the F-distribution naturally sits around 1. It is also very problematic for skew values close to zero, in which case there would be no need for this function anyway.
from scipy import stats
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
def createSkewDist(mean, sd, skew, size):
# calculate the degrees of freedom 1 required to obtain the specific skewness statistic, derived from simulations
loglog_slope=-2.211897875506251
loglog_intercept=1.002555437670879
df2=500
df1 = 10**(loglog_slope*np.log10(abs(skew)) + loglog_intercept)
# sample from F distribution
fsample = np.sort(stats.f(df1, df2).rvs(size=size))
# adjust the variance by scaling the distance from each point to the distribution mean by a constant, derived from simulations
k1_slope = 0.5670830069364579
k1_intercept = -0.09239985798819927
k2_slope = 0.5823114978219056
k2_intercept = -0.11748300123471256
scaling_slope = abs(skew)*k1_slope + k1_intercept
scaling_intercept = abs(skew)*k2_slope + k2_intercept
scale_factor = (sd - scaling_intercept)/scaling_slope
new_dist = (fsample - np.mean(fsample))*scale_factor + fsample
# flip the distribution if specified skew is negative
if skew < 0:
new_dist = np.mean(new_dist) - new_dist
# adjust the distribution mean to the specified value
final_dist = new_dist + (mean - np.mean(new_dist))
return final_dist
'''EXAMPLE'''
desired_mean = 497.68
desired_skew = -1.75
desired_sd = 77.24
final_dist = createSkewDist(mean=desired_mean, sd=desired_sd, skew=desired_skew, size=1000000)
# inspect the plots & moments, try random sample
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(12,7))
sns.distplot(final_dist, hist=True, ax=ax, color='green', label='generated distribution')
sns.distplot(np.random.choice(final_dist, size=100), hist=True, ax=ax, color='red', hist_kws={'alpha':.2}, label='sample n=100')
ax.legend()
print('Input mean: ', desired_mean)
print('Result mean: ', np.mean(final_dist),'\n')
print('Input SD: ', desired_sd)
print('Result SD: ', np.std(final_dist),'\n')
print('Input skew: ', desired_skew)
print('Result skew: ', stats.skew(final_dist))
Input mean: 497.68
Result mean: 497.6799999999999
Input SD: 77.24
Result SD: 71.69030764848961
Input skew: -1.75
Result skew: -1.6724486459469905
The shape parameter of the skew-normal distribution is not the skewness of the distribution. Check out the wikipedia page for the skew normal distribution. The formulas in the table on the right give the expressions for the mean, variance, skewness, etc., in terms of the parameters. You can get these values from the skewnorm object with the stats() method.
For example, here's the skewness of the distribution with shape parameter 2:
In [46]: from scipy.stats import skewnorm, skew
In [47]: skewnorm.stats(2, moments='s')
Out[47]: array(0.45382556395938217)
Generate a couple samples and find the sample skewness:
In [48]: r = skewnorm.rvs(2, size=10000000)
In [49]: skew(r)
Out[49]: 0.4533209955299838
In [50]: r = skewnorm.rvs(2, size=10000000)
In [51]: skew(r)
Out[51]: 0.4536583726840712
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 new to Apache Spark and trying to use the machine learning library to predict some data. My dataset right now is only about 350 points. Here are 7 of those points:
"365","4",41401.387,5330569
"364","3",51517.886,5946290
"363","2",55059.838,6097388
"362","1",43780.977,5304694
"361","7",46447.196,5471836
"360","6",50656.121,5849862
"359","5",44494.476,5460289
Here's my code:
def parsePoint(line):
split = map(sanitize, line.split(','))
rev = split.pop(-2)
return LabeledPoint(rev, split)
def sanitize(value):
return float(value.strip('"'))
parsedData = textFile.map(parsePoint)
model = LinearRegressionWithSGD.train(parsedData, iterations=10)
print model.predict(parsedData.first().features)
The prediction is something totally crazy, like -6.92840330273e+136. If I don't set iterations in train(), then I get nan as a result. What am I doing wrong? Is it my data set (the size of it, maybe?) or my configuration?
The problem is that LinearRegressionWithSGD uses stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to optimize the weight vector of your linear model. SGD is really sensitive to the provided stepSize which is used to update the intermediate solution.
What SGD does is to calculate the gradient g of the cost function given a sample of the input points and the current weights w. In order to update the weights w you go for a certain distance in the opposite direction of g. The distance is your step size s.
w(i+1) = w(i) - s * g
Since you're not providing an explicit step size value, MLlib assumes stepSize = 1. This seems to not work for your use case. I'd recommend you to try different step sizes, usually lower values, to see how LinearRegressionWithSGD behaves:
LinearRegressionWithSGD.train(parsedData, numIterartions = 10, stepSize = 0.001)