I created a linear regression algorithm following a tutorial and applied it to the data-set provided and it works fine. However the same algorithm does not work on another similar data-set. Can somebody tell me why this happens?
def computeCost(X, y, theta):
inner = np.power(((X * theta.T) - y), 2)
return np.sum(inner) / (2 * len(X))
def gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters):
temp = np.matrix(np.zeros(theta.shape))
params = int(theta.ravel().shape[1])
cost = np.zeros(iters)
for i in range(iters):
err = (X * theta.T) - y
for j in range(params):
term = np.multiply(err, X[:,j])
temp[0, j] = theta[0, j] - ((alpha / len(X)) * np.sum(term))
theta = temp
cost[i] = computeCost(X, y, theta)
return theta, cost
alpha = 0.01
iters = 1000
g, cost = gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters)
print(g)
On running the algo through this dataset I get the output as matrix([[ nan, nan]]) and the following errors:
C:\Anaconda3\lib\site-packages\ipykernel\__main__.py:2: RuntimeWarning: overflow encountered in power
from ipykernel import kernelapp as app
C:\Anaconda3\lib\site-packages\ipykernel\__main__.py:11: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in double_scalars
However this data set works just fine and outputs matrix([[-3.24140214, 1.1272942 ]])
Both the datasets are similar, I have been over it many times but can't seem to figure out why it works on one dataset but not on other. Any help is welcome.
Edit: Thanks Mark_M for editing tips :-)
[Much better question, btw]
It's hard to know exactly what's going on here, but basically your cost is going the wrong direction and spiraling out of control, which results in an overflow when you try to square the value.
I think in your case it boils down to your step size (alpha) being too big which can cause gradient descent to go the wrong way. You need to watch the cost in gradient descent and makes sure it's always going down, if it's not either something is broken or alpha is to large.
Personally, I would reevaluate the code and try to get rid of the loops. It's a matter of preference, but I find it easier to work with X and Y as column vectors. Here is a minimal example:
from numpy import genfromtxt
# this is your 'bad' data set from github
my_data = genfromtxt('testdata.csv', delimiter=',')
def computeCost(X, y, theta):
inner = np.power(((X # theta.T) - y), 2)
return np.sum(inner) / (2 * len(X))
def gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters):
for i in range(iters):
# you don't need the extra loop - this can be vectorize
# making it much faster and simpler
theta = theta - (alpha/len(X)) * np.sum((X # theta.T - y) * X, axis=0)
cost = computeCost(X, y, theta)
if i % 10 == 0: # just look at cost every ten loops for debugging
print(cost)
return (theta, cost)
# notice small alpha value
alpha = 0.0001
iters = 100
# here x is columns
X = my_data[:, 0].reshape(-1,1)
ones = np.ones([X.shape[0], 1])
X = np.hstack([ones, X])
# theta is a row vector
theta = np.array([[1.0, 1.0]])
# y is a columns vector
y = my_data[:, 1].reshape(-1,1)
g, cost = gradientDescent(X, y, theta, alpha, iters)
print(g, cost)
Another useful technique is to normalize your data before doing regression. This is especially useful when you have more than one feature you're trying to minimize.
As a side note - if you're step size is right you shouldn't get overflows no matter how many iterations you do because the cost will will decrease with every iteration and the rate of decrease will slow.
After 1000 iterations I arrived at a theta and cost of:
[[ 1.03533399 1.45914293]] 56.041973778
after 100:
[[ 1.01166889 1.45960806]] 56.0481988054
You can use this to look at the fit in an iPython notebook:
%matplotlib inline
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.scatter(my_data[:, 0].reshape(-1,1), y)
axes = plt.gca()
x_vals = np.array(axes.get_xlim())
y_vals = g[0][0] + g[0][1]* x_vals
plt.plot(x_vals, y_vals, '--')
Related
I learnt logistic regression recently, and I wanted to practice it. I am currently using this dataset from kaggle. I tried to define a cost function in this manner (I made all necessary imports):
# Defining the hypothesis
sigmoid = lambda x: 1 / (1 + np.exp(-x))
predict = lambda trainset, parameters: sigmoid(trainset # parameters)
# Defining the cost
def cost(theta):
#print(X.shape, y.shape, theta.shape)
preds = predict(X, theta.T)
errors = (-y * np.log(preds)) - ((1-y)*np.log(1-preds))
return np.mean(errors)
theta = []
for i in range(13):
theta.append(1)
theta = np.array([theta])
cost(theta)
and when I run this cell I get:
/opt/venv/lib/python3.7/site-packages/ipykernel_launcher.py:9: RuntimeWarning: divide by zero encountered in log
if __name__ == '__main__':
/opt/venv/lib/python3.7/site-packages/ipykernel_launcher.py:9: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in multiply
if __name__ == '__main__':
nan
When I searched online, I got the advice to normalise the data and then try it. So this is how I did it:
df = pd.read_csv("/home/jovyan/work/heart.csv")
df.head()
# The dataset is 303x14 in size (using df.shape)
length = df.shape[0]
# Output vector
y = df['target'].values
y = np.array([y]).T
# We name trainingset as X for convenience
trainingset = df.drop(['target'], axis = 1)
#trainingset = df.insert(0, 'bias', 1)
minmax_normal_trainset = (trainingset - trainingset.min())/(trainingset.max() - trainingset.min())
X = trainingset.values
I really don't know where the division by zero error is occurring and how to fix it. If I made any mistakes in this implementation please correct me. I am sorry if this has been asked before, but all I could find was the tip to normalise the data. Thanks in advance!
np.log(0) raises a divide by zero error. So it's this part that's causing the problems:
errors = (-y * np.log(preds)) - ((1 - y) * np.log(1 - preds))
############## #################
preds can be 0 or 1 when the absolute value of x is greater than 709 (because of floating point math, at least on my machine), which is why normalizing x to be between 0 and 1 solves the problem.
EDIT:
You may want to normalize to a larger range than (0, 1) - your sigmoid function as currently set is pretty much linear in that range. Maybe use:
minmax_normal_trainset = c * (trainingset - trainingset.mean())/(trainingset.stdev())
And tune c for better convergence.
I have posted this question on Data Science StackExchange site since StackOverflow does not support LaTeX. Linking it here because this site is probably more appropriate.
The question with correctly rendered LaTeX is here: https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/48062/pytorch-does-not-seem-to-be-optimizing-correctly
The idea is that I am considering sums of sine waves with different phases. The waves are sampled with some sample rate s in the interval [0, 2pi]. I need to select phases in such a way, that the sum of the waves at any sample point is minimized.
Below is the Python code. Optimization does not seem to be computed correctly.
import numpy as np
import torch
def phaseOptimize(n, s = 48000, nsteps = 1000):
learning_rate = 1e-3
theta = torch.zeros([n, 1], requires_grad=True)
l = torch.linspace(0, 2 * np.pi, s)
t = torch.stack([l] * n)
T = t + theta
for jj in range(nsteps):
loss = T.sin().sum(0).pow(2).sum() / s
loss.backward()
theta.data -= learning_rate * theta.grad.data
print('Optimal theta: \n\n', theta.data)
print('\n\nMaximum value:', T.sin().sum(0).abs().max().item())
Below is a sample output.
phaseOptimize(5, nsteps=100)
Optimal theta:
tensor([[1.2812e-07],
[1.2812e-07],
[1.2812e-07],
[1.2812e-07],
[1.2812e-07]], requires_grad=True)
Maximum value: 5.0
I am assuming this has something to do with broadcasting in
T = t + theta
and/or the way I am computing the loss function.
One way to verify that optimization is incorrect, is to simply evaluate the loss function at random values for the array $\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n$, say uniformly distributed in $[0, 2\pi]$. The maximum value in this case is almost always much lower than the maximum value reported by phaseOptimize(). Much easier in fact is to consider the case with $n = 2$, and simply evaluate at $\theta_1 = 0$ and $\theta_2 = \pi$. In that case we get:
phaseOptimize(2, nsteps=100)
Optimal theta:
tensor([[2.8599e-08],
[2.8599e-08]])
Maximum value: 2.0
On the other hand,
theta = torch.FloatTensor([[0], [np.pi]])
l = torch.linspace(0, 2 * np.pi, 48000)
t = torch.stack([l] * 2)
T = t + theta
T.sin().sum(0).abs().max().item()
produces
3.2782554626464844e-07
You have to move computing T inside the loop, or it will always have the same constant value, thus constant loss.
Another thing is to initialize theta to different values at indices, otherwise because of the symmetric nature of the problem the gradient is the same for every index.
Another thing is that you need to zero gradient, because backward just accumulates them.
This seems to work:
def phaseOptimize(n, s = 48000, nsteps = 1000):
learning_rate = 1e-1
theta = torch.zeros([n, 1], requires_grad=True)
theta.data[0][0] = 1
l = torch.linspace(0, 2 * np.pi, s)
t = torch.stack([l] * n)
for jj in range(nsteps):
T = t + theta
loss = T.sin().sum(0).pow(2).sum() / s
loss.backward()
theta.data -= learning_rate * theta.grad.data
theta.grad.zero_()
You're being bitten by both PyTorch and math. Firstly, you need to
Zero out the gradient by setting theta.grad = None before each backward step. Otherwise the gradients accumulate instead of overwriting the previous ones
You need to recalculate T at each step. PyTorch is not symbolic, unlike TensorFlow and T = t + theta means "T equals the sum of current t and current theta" and not "T equals the sum of t and theta, whatever their values may be at any time in the future".
With those fixes you get the following code:
def phaseOptimize(n, s = 48000, nsteps = 1000):
learning_rate = 1e-3
theta = torch.zeros(n, 1, requires_grad=True)
l = torch.linspace(0, 2 * np.pi, s)
t = torch.stack([l] * n)
T = t + theta
for jj in range(nsteps):
T = t + theta
loss = T.sin().sum(0).pow(2).sum() / s
theta.grad = None
loss.backward()
theta.data -= learning_rate * theta.grad.data
T = t + theta
print('Optimal theta: \n\n', theta.data)
print('\n\nMaximum value:', T.sin().sum(0).abs().max().item())
which will still not work as you expect because of math.
One can easily see that the minimum to your loss function is when theta are also uniformly spaced over [0, 2pi). The problem is that you are initializing your parameters as torch.zeros, which leads to all those values being equal (this is the polar opposite of equispaced!). Since your loss function is symmetrical with respect to permutations of theta, the computed gradients are equal and the gradient descent algorithm can never "differentiate them". In more mathematical terms, you're unlucky enough to initialize your algorithm exactly on a saddle point, so it cannot continue. If you add any noise, it will converge. For instance with
theta = torch.zeros(n, 1) + 0.001 * torch.randn(n, 1)
theta.requires_grad_(True)
EDIT: I already made significant progress. My current question is written after my last edit below and can be answered without the context.
I currently follow Andrew Ng's Machine Learning Course on Coursera and tried to implement logistic regression today.
Notation:
X is a (m x n)-matrix with vectors of input variables as rows (m training samples of n-1 variables, the entries of the first column are equal to 1 everywhere to represent a constant).
y is the corresponding vector of expected output samples (column vector with m entries equal to 0 or 1)
theta is the vector of model coefficients (row vector with n entries)
For an input row vector x the model will predict the probability sigmoid(x * theta.T) for a positive outcome.
This is my Python3/numpy implementation:
import numpy as np
def sigmoid(x):
return 1 / (1 + np.exp(-x))
vec_sigmoid = np.vectorize(sigmoid)
def logistic_cost(X, y, theta):
summands = np.multiply(y, np.log(vec_sigmoid(X*theta.T))) + np.multiply(1 - y, np.log(1 - vec_sigmoid(X*theta.T)))
return - np.sum(summands) / len(y)
def gradient_descent(X, y, learning_rate, num_iterations):
num_parameters = X.shape[1] # dim theta
theta = np.matrix([0.0 for i in range(num_parameters)]) # init theta
cost = [0.0 for i in range(num_iterations)]
for it in range(num_iterations):
error = np.repeat(vec_sigmoid(X * theta.T) - y, num_parameters, axis=1)
error_derivative = np.sum(np.multiply(error, X), axis=0)
theta = theta - (learning_rate / len(y)) * error_derivative
cost[it] = logistic_cost(X, y, theta)
return theta, cost
This implementation seems to work fine, but I encountered a problem when calculating the logistic-cost. At some point the gradient descent algorithm converges to a pretty good fitting theta and the following happens:
For some input row X_i with expected outcome 1 X * theta.T will become positive with a good margin (for example 23.207). This will lead to sigmoid(X_i * theta) to become exactly 1.0000 (this is because of lost precision I think). This is a good prediction (since the expected outcome is equal to 1), but this breaks the calculation of the logistic cost, since np.log(1 - vec_sigmoid(X*theta.T)) will evaluate to NaN. This shouldn't be a problem, since the term is multiplied with 1 - y = 0, but once a value of NaN occurs, the whole calculation is broken (0 * NaN = NaN).
How should I handle this in the vectorized implementation, since np.multiply(1 - y, np.log(1 - vec_sigmoid(X*theta.T))) is calculated in every row of X (not only where y = 0)?
Example input:
X = np.matrix([[1. , 0. , 0. ],
[1. , 1. , 0. ],
[1. , 0. , 1. ],
[1. , 0.5, 0.3],
[1. , 1. , 0.2]])
y = np.matrix([[0],
[1],
[1],
[0],
[1]])
Then theta, _ = gradient_descent(X, y, 10000, 10000) (yes, in this case we can set the learning rate this large) will set theta as:
theta = np.matrix([[-3000.04008972, 3499.97995514, 4099.98797308]])
This will lead to vec_sigmoid(X * theta.T) to be the really good prediction of:
np.matrix([[0.00000000e+00], # 0
[1.00000000e+00], # 1
[1.00000000e+00], # 1
[1.95334953e-09], # nearly zero
[1.00000000e+00]]) # 1
but logistic_cost(X, y, theta) evaluates to NaN.
EDIT:
I came up with the following solution. I just replaced the logistic_cost function with:
def new_logistic_cost(X, y, theta):
term1 = vec_sigmoid(X*theta.T)
term1[y == 0] = 1
term2 = 1 - vec_sigmoid(X*theta.T)
term2[y == 1] = 1
summands = np.multiply(y, np.log(term1)) + np.multiply(1 - y, np.log(term2))
return - np.sum(summands) / len(y)
By using the mask I just calculate log(1) at the places at which the result will be multiplied with zero anyway. Now log(0) will only happen in wrong implementations of gradient descent.
Open questions: How can I make this solution more clean? Is it possible to achieve a similar effect in a cleaner way?
If you don't mind using SciPy, you could import expit and xlog1py from scipy.special:
from scipy.special import expit, xlog1py
and replace the expression
np.multiply(1 - y, np.log(1 - vec_sigmoid(X*theta.T)))
with
xlog1py(1 - y, -expit(X*theta.T))
I know it is an old question but I ran into the same problem, and maybe it can help others in the future, I actually solved it by implementing normalization on the data before appending X0.
def normalize_data(X):
mean = np.mean(X, axis=0)
std = np.std(X, axis=0)
return (X-mean) / std
After this all worked well!
I'm trying to implement vectorized logistic regression on the Iris dataset. This is the implementation from Andrew Ng's youtube series on deep learning. My best predictions using this method have been 81% accuracy while sklearn's implementation achieves 100% with completely different values for coefficients and bias. Also, I cant seem to get get proper outputs from my cost function. I suspect it is an issue with computing the gradients of the weights and bias with respect to the cost function though in the course he provides all of the necessary equations ( unless there is something in the actual exercise which I don't have access to being left out.) My code is as follows.
n = 4
m = 150
y = y.reshape(1, 150)
X = X.reshape(4, 150)
W = np.zeros((4, 1))
b = np.zeros((1,1))
for epoch in range(1000):
Z = np.dot(W.T, X) + b
A = sigmoid(Z) # 1/(1 + e **(-Z))
J = -1/m * np.sum(y * np.log(A) + (1-y) * (1 - np.log(A))) #cost function
dz = A - y
dw = 1/m * np.dot(X, dz.T)
db = np.sum(dz)
W = W - 0.01 * dw
b = b - 0.01 * db
if epoch % 100 == 0:
print(J)
My output looks something like this.
-1.6126604413879289
-1.6185960074767125
-1.6242504226045396
-1.6296400635926438
-1.6347800862216104
-1.6396845400653066
-1.6443664703028427
-1.648838008214648
-1.653110451818512
-1.6571943378913891
W and b values are:
array([[-0.68262679, -1.56816916, 0.12043066, 1.13296948]])
array([[0.53087131]])
Where as sklearn outputs:
(array([[ 0.41498833, 1.46129739, -2.26214118, -1.0290951 ]]),
array([0.26560617]))
I understand sklearn uses L2 regularization but even when turned off it's still far from the correct values. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
You are likely getting strange results because you are trying to use logistic regression where y is not a binary choice. Categorizing the iris data is a multiclass problem, y can be one of three values:
> np.unique(iris.target)
> array([0, 1, 2])
The cross entropy cost function expects y to either be one or zero. One way to handle this is the one vs all method.
You can check each class by making y a boolean of whether the iris in in one class or not. For example here you can make y a data set of either class 1 or not:
y = (iris.target == 1).astype(int)
With that your cost function and gradient descent should work, but you'll need to run it multiple times and pick the best score for each example. Andrew Ng's class talks about this method.
EDIT:
It's not clear what you are starting with for data. When I do this, don't reshape the inputs. So you should double check that all your multiplication is delivering the shapes you want. On thing I notice that's a little odd, is the last term in your cost function. I generally do this:
cost = -1/m * np.sum(Y*np.log(A) + (1-Y) * np.log(1-A))
not:
-1/m * np.sum(y * np.log(A) + (1-y) * (1 - np.log(A)))
Here's code that converges for me using the dataset from sklearn:
from sklearn import datasets
iris = datasets.load_iris()
X = iris.data
# Iris is a multiclass problem. Here, just calculate the probabily that
# the class is `iris_class`
iris_class = 0
Y = np.expand_dims((iris.target == iris_class).astype(int), axis=1)
# Y is now a data set of booleans indicating whether the sample is or isn't a member of iris_class
# initialize w and b
W = np.random.randn(4, 1)
b = np.random.randn(1, 1)
a = 0.1 # learning rate
m = Y.shape[0] # number of samples
def sigmoid(Z):
return 1/(1 + np.exp(-Z))
for i in range(1000):
Z = np.dot(X ,W) + b
A = sigmoid(Z)
dz = A - Y
dw = 1/m * np.dot(X.T, dz)
db = np.mean(dz)
W -= a * dw
b -= a * db
cost = -1/m * np.sum(Y*np.log(A) + (1-Y) * np.log(1-A))
if i%100 == 0:
print(cost)
I have a problem fitting with LinearRegressionWithSGD in Spark's MLlib. I used their example for fitting from here https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/mllib-linear-methods.html (using Python interface).
In their example all features are almost scaled with mean around 0 and standard deviation around 1. Now if I un-scale one of them by a factor of 10, the regression breaks (gives nans or very large coefficients):
from pyspark.mllib.regression import LabeledPoint, LinearRegressionWithSGD
from numpy import array
# Load and parse the data
def parsePoint(line):
values = [float(x) for x in line.replace(',', ' ').split(' ')]
# UN-SCALE one of the features by a factor of 10
values[3] *= 10
return LabeledPoint(values[0], values[1:])
data = sc.textFile(spark_home+"data/mllib/ridge-data/lpsa.data")
parsedData = data.map(parsePoint)
# Build the model
model = LinearRegressionWithSGD.train(parsedData)
# Evaluate the model on training data
valuesAndPreds = parsedData.map(lambda p: (p.label, model.predict(p.features)))
MSE = valuesAndPreds.map(lambda (v, p): (v - p)**2).reduce(lambda x, y: x + y) / valuesAndPreds.count()
print("Mean Squared Error = " + str(MSE))
print "Model coefficients:", str(model)
So, I guess I need to do the feature scaling. If I do pre-scaling it works (because I'm back at scaled features). However now I don't know how to get coefficients in the original space.
from pyspark.mllib.regression import LabeledPoint, LinearRegressionWithSGD
from numpy import array
from pyspark.mllib.feature import StandardScaler
from pyspark.mllib.feature import StandardScalerModel
# Load and parse the data
def parseToDenseVector(line):
values = [float(x) for x in line.replace(',', ' ').split(' ')]
# UN-SCALE one of the features by a factor of 10
values[3] *= 10
return Vectors.dense(values[0:])
# Load and parse the data
def parseToLabel(values):
return LabeledPoint(values[0], values[1:])
data = sc.textFile(spark_home+"data/mllib/ridge-data/lpsa.data")
parsedData = data.map(parseToDenseVector)
scaler = StandardScaler(True, True)
scaler_model = scaler.fit(parsedData)
parsedData_scaled = scaler_model.transform(parsedData)
parsedData_scaled_transformed = parsedData_scaled.map(parseToLabel)
# Build the model
model = LinearRegressionWithSGD.train(parsedData_scaled_transformed)
# Evaluate the model on training data
valuesAndPreds = parsedData_scaled_transformed.map(lambda p: (p.label, model.predict(p.features)))
MSE = valuesAndPreds.map(lambda (v, p): (v - p)**2).reduce(lambda x, y: x + y) / valuesAndPreds.count()
print("Mean Squared Error = " + str(MSE))
print "Model coefficients:", str(model)
So, here I have all the coefficients in the transformed space. Now how do I get to the original space? I also have scaler_model which is StandardScalerModel object. But I can't get neither means or variances out of it. The only public method that this class has is transform which can transform points from original space to transform. But I can't get it reverse.
I just ran into this problem. The models cannot even learn f(x) = x if x is high (>3) in the training data. So terrible.
I think rather than scaling the data another option is to change the step size. This is discussed in SPARK-1859. To paraphrase from there:
The step size should be smaller than 1 over the Lipschitz constant L.
For quadratic loss and GD, the best convergence happens at stepSize = 1/(2L). Spark has a (1/n) multiplier on the loss function.
Let's say you have n = 5 data points and the largest feature value is 1500. So L = 1500 * 1500 / 5. The best convergence happens at stepSize = 1/(2L) = 10 / (1500 ^ 2).
The last equality doesn't even make sense (how did we get a 2 in the numerator?) but I've never heard of a Lipschitz constant before, so I am not qualified to fix it. Anyway I think we can just try different step sizes until it starts to work.
To rephrase your question, you want to find the intercept I and coefficients C_1 and C_2 that solve the equation: Y = I + C_1 * x_1 + C_2 * x_2 (where x_1 and x_2 are unscaled).
Let i be the intercept that mllib returns. Likewise let c_1 and c_2 be the coefficients (or weights) that mllib returns.
Let m_1 be the unscaled mean of x_1 and m_2 be the unscaled mean of x_2.
Let s_1 be the unscaled standard deviation of x_1 and s_2 be the unscaled standard deviation of x_2.
Then C_1 = (c_1 / s_1), C_2 = (c_2 / s_2), and
I = i - c_1 * m_1 / s_1 - c_2 * m_2 / s_2
This can easily be extended to 3 input variables:
C_3 = (c_3 / s_3) and I = i - c_1 * m_1 / s_1 - c_2 * m_2 / s_2 - c_3 * m_3 / s_3
As you pointed out StandardScalerModel object in pyspark doesn't expose std and mean attributes. There is an issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-6523
You can easily calculate them yourself
import numpy as np
from pyspark.mllib.stat import Statistics
summary = Statistics.colStats(features)
mean = summary.mean()
std = np.sqrt(features.variance())
These are the same mean and std that your Scaler uses. You can verify this using python magic dict
print scaler_model.__dict__.get('_java_model').std()
print scaler_model.__dict__.get('_java_model').mean()