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]]
Related
I'm attempting to perform linear regression on two complex arrays. That is, I'd like to find the line of best fit, w=mz+b, where m and b are both permitted to be complex and where the R^2-value, R^2=1-RSS/TSS is minimized. (Here RSS and TSS are the sum of squared residuals and the total of sum of squares.)
I know this can be done by creating a design matrix, computing m and b, etc., but out of curiosity, I tried using linregress from scipy.stats, which did return values:
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
rng = np.random.default_rng()
x = rng.random(10)+1j*rng.random(10)
y = 1.6*x + rng.random(10)+1j*rng.random(10)
res = stats.linregress(x, y)
print(res)
LinregressResult(slope=(1.5814820568268182-0.004143389169974774j), intercept=.
(0.37141513243354485+0.4522070413718836j), rvalue=(0.8607413430092087-
0.002255091256570885j), pvalue=0.00138658952096427, stderr=.
(0.3306870298601568+0.0024769249452937106j), intercept_stderr=.
(0.16366363994151886+0.12045799398296754j))
What meaning does a non-real, complex-valued rvalue have? Is the modulus of this value the coefficient of determination?
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!
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 was training to do some PCA reconstroctions of MNIST on python and compare them to my (old) reconstruction in maltab and I happened to discover that my reconstruction don't agree. After some debugging I decided to print a unique characteristic of the principal components of each one to reveal if they were the same and I discovered to my surprised that they were not the same. I printing the sum of all components and I got different numbers. I did the following in matlab:
[coeff, ~, ~, ~, ~, mu] = pca(X_train);
U = coeff(:,1:K)
U_fingerprint = sum(U(:))
%print 31.0244
and in python/scipy:
pca = pca.fit(X_train)
U = pca.components_
print 'U_fingerprint', np.sum(U)
# prints 12.814
why are the twi PCA's not computing the same value?
All my attempts and solving this issue:
The way I discovered this was because when I was reconstructing my MNIST images, the python reconstructions where much much closer to their original images by a lot. I got error of 0.0221556788645 in python while in MATLAB I got errors of size 29.07578. To figure out where the difference was coming from I decided to finger print the data sets (maybe they were normalized differently). So I got two independent copies the MNIST data set (that were normalized by dividing my 255) and got the finger prints (summing all numbers in data set):
print np.sum(x_train) # from keras
print np.sum(X_train)+np.sum(X_cv) # from TensorFlow
6.14628e+06
6146269.1585420668
which are (essentially) same (one copy from tensorflow MNIST and the other from Keras MNIST, note MNIST train data set has about 1000 less training set so you need to append the missing ones). To my surprise, my MATLAB data had the same finger print:
data_fingerprint = sum(X_train(:))
% prints data_fingerprint = 6.1463e+06
meaning the data sets are exactly the same. Good, so the normalization data is not the issue.
In my MATLAB script I am actually computing the reconstruction manually as follow:
U = coeff(:,1:K)
X_tilde_train = (U * U' * X_train);
train_error_PCA = (1/N_train)*norm( X_tilde_train - X_train ,'fro')^2
%train_error_PCA = 29.0759
so I thought that might be the problem because I was using the interface python gave for computing the reconstructions as in:
pca = PCA(n_components=k)
pca = pca.fit(X_train)
X_pca = pca.transform(X_train) # M_train x K
#print 'X_pca' , X_pca.shape
X_reconstruct = pca.inverse_transform(X_pca)
print 'tensorflow error: ',(1.0/X_train.shape[0])*LA.norm(X_reconstruct_tf - X_train)
print 'keras error: ',(1.0/x_train.shape[0])*LA.norm(X_reconstruct_keras - x_train)
#tensorflow error: 0.0221556788645
#keras error: 0.0212030354818
which results in different error values 0.022 vs 29.07, shocking difference!
Thus, I decided to code that exact reconstruction formula in my python script:
pca = PCA(n_components=k)
pca = pca.fit(X_train)
U = pca.components_
print 'U_fingerprint', np.sum(U)
X_my_reconstruct = np.dot( U.T , np.dot(U, X_train.T) )
print 'U error: ',(1.0/X_train.shape[0])*LA.norm(X_reconstruct_tf - X_train)
# U error: 0.0221556788645
to my surprise, it has the same error as my MNIST error computing by using the interface. Thus, concluding that I don't have the misconception of PCA that I thought I had.
All that lead to me to check what the principal components actually where and to my surprise scipy and MATLAB have different fingerprint for their PCA values.
Does anyone know why or whats going on?
As warren suggested, the pca components (eigenvectors) might have different sign. After doing a finger print by adding all components in magnitude only I discovered they have the same finger print:
[coeff, ~, ~, ~, ~, mu] = pca(X_train);
K=12;
U = coeff(:,1:K)
U_fingerprint = sumabs(U(:))
% U_fingerprint = 190.8430
and for python:
k=12
pca = PCA(n_components=k)
pca = pca.fit(X_train)
print 'U_fingerprint', np.sum(np.absolute(U))
# U_fingerprint 190.843
which means the difference must be because of the different sign of the (pca) U vector. Which I find very surprising, I thought that should make a big difference, I didn't even consider it making a big difference. I guess I was wrong?
I don't know if this is the problem, but it certainly could be. Principal component vectors are like eigenvectors: if you multiply the vector by -1, it is still a valid PCA vector. Some of the vectors computed by matlab might have a different sign than those computed in python. That will result in very different sums.
For example, the matlab documentation has this example:
coeff = pca(ingredients)
coeff =
-0.0678 -0.6460 0.5673 0.5062
-0.6785 -0.0200 -0.5440 0.4933
0.0290 0.7553 0.4036 0.5156
0.7309 -0.1085 -0.4684 0.4844
I have my own python PCA code, and with the same input as in matlab, it produces this coefficient array:
[[ 0.0678 0.646 -0.5673 0.5062]
[ 0.6785 0.02 0.544 0.4933]
[-0.029 -0.7553 -0.4036 0.5156]
[-0.7309 0.1085 0.4684 0.4844]]
So, instead of simply summing the coefficient array, try summing the absolute values of the coefficients. Alternatively, ensure that all the vectors have the same sign convention before summing. You could do that by, say, multiplying each column by the sign of the first element in that column (assuming none of them are zero).