In WinBUGS, I am specifying a model with a multinomial likelihood function, and I need to make sure that the multinomial probabilities are all between 0 and 1 and sum to 1.
Here is the part of the code specifying the likelihood:
e[k,i,1:9] ~ dmulti(P[k,i,1:9],n[i,k])
Here, the array P[] specifies the probabilities for the multinomial distribution.
These probabilities are to be estimated from my data (the matrix e[]) using multiple linear regressions on a series of fixed and random effects. For instance, here is the multiple linear regression used to predict one of the elements of P[]:
P[k,1,2] <- intercept[1,2] + Slope1[1,2]*Covariate1[k] +
Slope2[1,2]*Covariate2[k] + Slope3[1,2]*Covariate3[k]
+ Slope4[1,2]*Covariate4[k] + RandomEffect1[group[k]] +
RandomEffect2[k]
At compiling, the model produces an error:
elements of proportion vector of multinomial e[1,1,1] must be between zero and one
If I understand this correctly, this means that the elements of the vector P[k,i,1:9] (the probability vector in the multinomial likelihood function above) may be very large (or small) numbers. In reality, they all need to be between 0 and 1, and sum to 1.
I am new to WinBUGS, but from reading around it seems that somehow using a beta regression rather than multiple linear regressions might be the way forward. However, although this would allow each element to be between 0 and 1, it doesn't seem to get to the heart of the problem, which is that all the elements of P[k,i,1:9] must be positive and sum to 1.
It may be that the response variable can very simply be transformed to be a proportion. I have tried this by trying to divide each element by the sum of P[k,i,1:9], but so far no success.
Any tips would be very gratefully appreciated!
(I have supplied the problematic sections of the model; the whole thing is fairly long.)
The usual way to do this would be to use the multinomial equivalent of a logit link to constrain the transformed probabilities to the interval (0,1). For example (for a single predictor but it is the same principle for as many predictors as you need):
Response[i, 1:Categories] ~ dmulti(prob[i, 1:Categories], Trials[i])
phi[i,1] <- 1
prob[i,1] <- 1 / sum(phi[i, 1:Categories])
for(c in 2:Categories){
log(phi[i,c]) <- intercept[c] + slope1[c] * Covariate1[i]
prob[i,c] <- phi[i,c] / sum(phi[i, 1:Categories])
}
For identifibility the value of phi[1] is set to 1, but the other values of intercept and slope1 are estimated independently. When the number of Categories is equal to 2, this collapses to the usual logistic regression but coded for a multinomial response:
log(phi[i,2]) <- intercept[2] + slope1[2] * Covariate1[i]
prob[i,2] <- phi[i, 2] / (1 + phi[i, 2])
prob[i,1] <- 1 / (1 + phi[i, 2])
ie:
logit(prob[i,2]) <- intercept[2] + slope1[2] * Covariate1[i]
prob[i,1] <- 1 - prob[i,2]
In this model I have indexed slope1 by the category, meaning that each level of the outcome has an independent relationship with the predictor. If you have an ordinal response and want to assume that the odds ratio associated with the covariate is consistent between successive levels of the response, then you can drop the index on slope1 (and reformulate the code slightly so that phi is cumulative) to get a proportional odds logistic regression (POLR).
Edit
Here is a link to some example code covering logistic regression, multinomial regression and POLR from a course I teach:
http://runjags.sourceforge.net/examples/squirrels.R
Note that it uses JAGS (rather than WinBUGS) but as far as I know there are no differences in model syntax for these types of models. If you want to quickly get started with runjags & JAGS from a WinBUGS background then you could follow this vignette:
http://runjags.sourceforge.net/quickjags.html
Related
I've been trying to understand how does a model trained with support vector machines for regression predict values. I have trained a model with the sklearn.svm.SVR, and now I'm wondering how to "manually" predict the outcome of an input.
Some background - the model is trained with kernel SVR, with RBF function and uses the dual formulation. So now I have arrays of the dual coefficients, the indexes of the support vectors, and the support vectors themselves.
I found the function which is used to fit the hyperplane but I've been unsuccessful in applying that to "manually" predict outcomes without the function .predict.
The few things I tried all include the dot products of the input (features) array, and all the support vectors.
If anyone ever needs this, I've managed to understand the equation and code it in python.
The following is the used equation for the dual formulation:
where N is the number of observations, and αi multiplied by yi are the dual coefficients found from the model's attributed model.dual_coef_. The xiT are some of the observations used for training (support vectors) accessed by the attribute model.support_vectors_ (transposed to allow multiplication of the two matrices), x is the input vector containing a value for each feature (its the one observation for which we want to get prediction), and b is the intercept accessed by model.intercept_.
The xiT and x, however, are the observations transformed in a higher-dimensional space, as explained by mery in this post.
The calculation of the transformation by RBF can be either applied manually step by stem or by using the sklearn.metrics.pairwise.rbf_kernel.
With the latter, the code would look like this (my case shows I have 589 support vectors, and 40 features).
First we access the coefficients and vectors:
support_vectors = model.support_vectors_
dual_coefs = model.dual_coef_[0]
Then:
pred = (np.matmul(dual_coefs.reshape(1,589),
rbf_kernel(support_vectors.reshape(589,40),
Y=input_array.reshape(1,40),
gamma=model.get_params()['gamma']
)
)
+ model.intercept_
)
If the RBF funcion needs to be applied manually, step by step, then:
vrbf = support_vectors.reshape(589,40) - input_array.reshape(1,40)
pred = (np.matmul(dual_coefs.reshape(1,589),
np.diag(np.exp(-model.get_params()['gamma'] *
np.matmul(vrbf, vrbf.T)
)
).reshape(589,1)
)
+ model.intercept_
)
I placed the .reshape() function even where it is not necessary, just to emphasize the shapes for the matrix operations.
These both give the same results as model.predict(input_array)
I am doing a project on multiclass semantic segmentation. I have formulated a model that outputs pretty descent segmented images by decreasing the loss value. However, I cannot evaluate the model performance in metrics, such as meanIoU or Dice coefficient.
In case of binary semantic segmentation it was easy just to set the threshold of 0.5, to classify the outputs as an object or background, but it does not work in the case of multiclass semantic segmentation. Could you please tell me how to obtain model performance on the aforementioned metrics? Any help will be highly appreciated!
By the way, I am using PyTorch framework and CamVid dataset.
If anyone is interested in this answer, please also look at this issue. The author of the issue points out that mIoU can be computed in a different way (and that method is more accepted in literature). So, consider that before using the implementation for any formal publication.
Basically, the other method suggested by the issue-poster is to separately accumulate the intersections and unions over the entire dataset and divide them at the final step. The method in the below original answer computes intersection and union for a batch of images, then divides them to get IoU for the current batch, and then takes a mean of the IoUs over the entire dataset.
However, this below given original method is problematic because the final mean IoU would vary with the batch-size. On the other hand, the mIoU would not vary with the batch size for the method mentioned in the issue as the separate accumulation would ensure that batch size is irrelevant (though higher batch size can definitely help speed up the evaluation).
Original answer:
Given below is an implementation of mean IoU (Intersection over Union) in PyTorch.
def mIOU(label, pred, num_classes=19):
pred = F.softmax(pred, dim=1)
pred = torch.argmax(pred, dim=1).squeeze(1)
iou_list = list()
present_iou_list = list()
pred = pred.view(-1)
label = label.view(-1)
# Note: Following for loop goes from 0 to (num_classes-1)
# and ignore_index is num_classes, thus ignore_index is
# not considered in computation of IoU.
for sem_class in range(num_classes):
pred_inds = (pred == sem_class)
target_inds = (label == sem_class)
if target_inds.long().sum().item() == 0:
iou_now = float('nan')
else:
intersection_now = (pred_inds[target_inds]).long().sum().item()
union_now = pred_inds.long().sum().item() + target_inds.long().sum().item() - intersection_now
iou_now = float(intersection_now) / float(union_now)
present_iou_list.append(iou_now)
iou_list.append(iou_now)
return np.mean(present_iou_list)
Prediction of your model will be in one-hot form, so first take softmax (if your model doesn't already) followed by argmax to get the index with the highest probability at each pixel. Then, we calculate IoU for each class (and take the mean over it at the end).
We can reshape both the prediction and the label as 1-D vectors (I read that it makes the computation faster). For each class, we first identify the indices of that class using pred_inds = (pred == sem_class) and target_inds = (label == sem_class). The resulting pred_inds and target_inds will have 1 at pixels labelled as that particular class while 0 for any other class.
Then, there is a possibility that the target does not contain that particular class at all. This will make that class's IoU calculation invalid as it is not present in the target. So, you assign such classes a NaN IoU (so you can identify them later) and not involve them in the calculation of the mean.
If the particular class is present in the target, then pred_inds[target_inds] will give a vector of 1s and 0s where indices with 1 are those where prediction and target are equal and zero otherwise. Taking the sum of all elements of this will give us the intersection.
If we add all the elements of pred_inds and target_inds, we'll get the union + intersection of pixels of that particular class. So, we subtract the already calculated intersection to get the union. Then, we can divide the intersection and union to get the IoU of that particular class and add it to a list of valid IoUs.
At the end, you take the mean of the entire list to get the mIoU. If you want the Dice Coefficient, you can calculate it in a similar fashion.
I am implementing the Skipgram model, both in Pytorch and Tensorflow2. I am having doubts about the implementation of subsampling of frequent words. Verbatim from the paper, the probability of subsampling word wi is computed as
where t is a custom threshold (usually, a small value such as 0.0001) and f is the frequency of the word in the document. Although the authors implemented it in a different, but almost equivalent way, let's stick with this definition.
When computing the P(wi), we can end up with negative values. For example, assume we have 100 words, and one of them appears extremely more often than others (as it is the case for my dataset).
import numpy as np
import seaborn as sns
np.random.seed(12345)
# generate counts in [1, 20]
counts = np.random.randint(low=1, high=20, size=99)
# add an extremely bigger count
counts = np.insert(counts, 0, 100000)
# compute frequencies
f = counts/counts.sum()
# define threshold as in paper
t = 0.0001
# compute probabilities as in paper
probs = 1 - np.sqrt(t/f)
sns.distplot(probs);
Q: What is the correct way to implement subsampling using this "probability"?
As an additional info, I have seen that in keras the function keras.preprocessing.sequence.make_sampling_table takes a different approach:
def make_sampling_table(size, sampling_factor=1e-5):
"""Generates a word rank-based probabilistic sampling table.
Used for generating the `sampling_table` argument for `skipgrams`.
`sampling_table[i]` is the probability of sampling
the i-th most common word in a dataset
(more common words should be sampled less frequently, for balance).
The sampling probabilities are generated according
to the sampling distribution used in word2vec:
```
p(word) = (min(1, sqrt(word_frequency / sampling_factor) /
(word_frequency / sampling_factor)))
```
We assume that the word frequencies follow Zipf's law (s=1) to derive
a numerical approximation of frequency(rank):
`frequency(rank) ~ 1/(rank * (log(rank) + gamma) + 1/2 - 1/(12*rank))`
where `gamma` is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
# Arguments
size: Int, number of possible words to sample.
sampling_factor: The sampling factor in the word2vec formula.
# Returns
A 1D Numpy array of length `size` where the ith entry
is the probability that a word of rank i should be sampled.
"""
gamma = 0.577
rank = np.arange(size)
rank[0] = 1
inv_fq = rank * (np.log(rank) + gamma) + 0.5 - 1. / (12. * rank)
f = sampling_factor * inv_fq
return np.minimum(1., f / np.sqrt(f))
I tend to trust deployed code more than paper write-ups, especially in a case like word2vec, where the original authors' word2vec.c code released by the paper's authors has been widely used & served as the template for other implementations. If we look at its subsampling mechanism...
if (sample > 0) {
real ran = (sqrt(vocab[word].cn / (sample * train_words)) + 1) * (sample * train_words) / vocab[word].cn;
next_random = next_random * (unsigned long long)25214903917 + 11;
if (ran < (next_random & 0xFFFF) / (real)65536) continue;
}
...we see that those words with tiny counts (.cn) that could give negative values in the original formula instead here give values greater-than 1.0, and thus can never be less than the long-random-masked-and-scaled to never be more than 1.0 ((next_random & 0xFFFF) / (real)65536). So, it seems the authors' intent was for all negative-values of the original formula to mean "never discard".
As per the keras make_sampling_table() comment & implementation, they're not consulting the actual word-frequencies at all. Instead, they're assuming a Zipf-like distribution based on word-rank order to synthesize a simulated word-frequency.
If their assumptions were to hold – the related words are from a natural-language corpus with a Zipf-like frequency-distribution – then I'd expect their sampling probabilities to be close to down-sampling probabilities that would have been calculated from true frequency information. And that's probably "close enough" for most purposes.
I'm not sure why they chose this approximation. Perhaps other aspects of their usual processes have not maintained true frequencies through to this step, and they're expecting to always be working with natural-language texts, where the assumed frequencies will be generally true.
(As luck would have it, and because people often want to impute frequencies to public sets of word-vectors which have dropped the true counts but are still sorted from most- to least-frequent, just a few days ago I wrote an answer about simulating a fake-but-plausible distribution using Zipf's law – similar to what this keras code is doing.)
But, if you're working with data that doesn't match their assumptions (as with your synthetic or described datasets), their sampling-probabilities will be quite different than what you would calculate yourself, with any form of the original formula that uses true word frequencies.
In particular, imagine a distribution with one token a million times, then a hundred tokens all appearing just 10 times each. Those hundred tokens' order in the "rank" list is arbitrary – truly, they're all tied in frequency. But the simulation-based approach, by fitting a Zipfian distribution on that ordering, will in fact be sampling each of them very differently. The one 10-occurrence word lucky enough to be in the 2nd rank position will be far more downsampled, as if it were far more frequent. And the 1st-rank "tall head" value, by having its true frequency *under-*approximated, will be less down-sampled than otherwise. Neither of those effects seem beneficial, or in the spirit of the frequent-word-downsampling option - which should only "thin out" very-frequent words, and in all cases leave words of the same frequency as each other in the original corpus roughly equivalently present to each other in the down-sampled corpus.
So for your case, I would go with the original formula (probability-of-discarding-that-requires-special-handling-of-negative-values), or the word2vec.c practical/inverted implementation (probability-of-keeping-that-saturates-at-1.0), rather than the keras-style approximation.
(As a totally-separate note that nonetheless may be relevant for your dataset/purposes, if you're using negative-sampling: there's another parameter controlling the relative sampling of negative examples, often fixed at 0.75 in early implementations, that one paper has suggested can usefully vary for non-natural-language token distributions & recommendation-related end-uses. This parameter is named ns_exponent in the Python gensim implementation, but simply a fixed power value internal to a sampling-table pre-calculation in the original word2vec.c code.)
I've fit a SARIMAX model using statsmodels as follows
mod = sm.tsa.statespace.SARIMAX(ratingCountsRSint,order=(2,0,0),seasonal_order=(1,0,0,52),enforce_stationarity=False,enforce_invertibility=False, freq='W')
results = mod.fit()
print(results.summary().tables[1])
In the results table I have a coefficient ar.S.L52 that shows as 0.0163. When I try to retrieve the coefficient using
seasonalAR=results.polynomial_seasonal_ar[52]
I get -0.0163. I'm wondering why the sign has turned around. The same thing happens with polynomial_ar. In the documentation it says that polynomial_seasonal_ar gives the "array containing seasonal autoregressive lag polynomial coefficients". I would have guessed that I should get exactly the same as in the summary table. Could someone clarify how that comes about and whether the actual coefficient of the lag is positive or negative?
I'll use an AR(1) model as an example, but the same principle applies to a seasonal model.
We typically write the AR(1) model as:
y_t = \phi_1 y_{t-1} + \varespilon_t
The parameter estimated by Statsmodels is \phi_1, and that is what is presented in the summary table.
When writing the AR(1) model in lag-polynomial form, we usually write it like:
\phi(L) y_t = \varepsilon_t
where \phi(L) = 1 - \phi L, and L is the lag operator. The coefficients of this lag polynomial are (1, -\phi). These coefficients are what are presented in the polynomial attributes in the results object.
I am trying to implement Expectation Maximization algorithm(Gaussian Mixture Model) on a data set data=[[x,y],...]. I am using mv_norm.pdf(data, mean,cov) function to calculate cluster responsibilities. But after calculating new values of covariance (cov matrix) after 6-7 iterations, cov matrix is becoming singular i.e determinant of cov is 0 (very small value) and hence it is giving errors
ValueError: the input matrix must be positive semidefinite
and
raise np.linalg.LinAlgError('singular matrix')
Can someone suggest any solution for this?
#E-step: Compute cluster responsibilities, given cluster parameters
def calculate_cluster_responsibility(data,centroids,cov_m):
pdfmain=[[] for i in range(0,len(data))]
for i in range(0,len(data)):
sum1=0
pdfeach=[[] for m in range(0,len(centroids))]
pdfeach[0]=1/3.*mv_norm.pdf(data[i], mean=centroids[0],cov=[[cov_m[0][0][0],cov_m[0][0][1]],[cov_m[0][1][0],cov_m[0][1][1]]])
pdfeach[1]=1/3.*mv_norm.pdf(data[i], mean=centroids[1],cov=[[cov_m[1][0][0],cov_m[1][0][1]],[cov_m[1][1][0],cov_m[0][1][1]]])
pdfeach[2]=1/3.*mv_norm.pdf(data[i], mean=centroids[2],cov=[[cov_m[2][0][0],cov_m[2][0][1]],[cov_m[2][1][0],cov_m[2][1][1]]])
sum1+=pdfeach[0]+pdfeach[1]+pdfeach[2]
pdfeach[:] = [x / sum1 for x in pdfeach]
pdfmain[i]=pdfeach
global old_pdfmain
if old_pdfmain==pdfmain:
return
old_pdfmain=copy.deepcopy(pdfmain)
softcounts=[sum(i) for i in zip(*pdfmain)]
calculate_cluster_weights(data,centroids,pdfmain,soft counts)
Initially, I've passed [[3,0],[0,3]] for each cluster covariance since expected number of clusters is 3.
Can someone suggest any solution for this?
The problem is your data lies in some manifold of dimension strictly smaller than the input data. In other words for example your data lies on a circle, while you have 3 dimensional data. As a consequence when your method tries to estimate 3 dimensional ellipsoid (covariance matrix) that fits your data - it fails since the optimal one is a 2 dimensional ellipse (third dimension is 0).
How to fix it? You will need some regularization of your covariance estimator. There are many possible solutions, all in M step, not E step, the problem is with computing covariance:
Simple solution, instead of doing something like cov = np.cov(X) add some regularizing term, like cov = np.cov(X) + eps * np.identity(X.shape[1]) with small eps
Use nicer estimator like LedoitWolf estimator from scikit-learn.
Initially, I've passed [[3,0],[0,3]] for each cluster covariance since expected number of clusters is 3.
This makes no sense, covariance matrix values has nothing to do with amount of clusters. You can initialize it with anything more or less resonable.