I am trying to fit a linear model and my dataset is normalized where each feature is divided by the maximum possible value. So the values ranges from 0-1. Now i came to know from my previous post Linear Regression vs Closed form Ordinary least squares in Python linear regression in scikit learn produces same result as Closed form OLS when fit_intercept parameter is set to false. I am not quite getting how fit_intercept works.
For any linear problem, if y is the predicted value.
y(w, x) = w_0 + w_1 x_1 + ... + w_p x_p
Across the module, the vector w = (w_1, ..., w_p) is denoted as coef_ and w_0 as intercept_
In closed form OLS we also have a bias value for w_0 and we introduce vector X_0=[1...1] before computing the dot product and solves using matrix multiplication and inverse.
w = np.dot(X.T, X)
w1 = np.dot(np.linalg.pinv(w), np.dot(X.T, Y))
When fit_intercept is True, scikit-learn linear regression solves the problem if y is the predicted value.
y(w, x) = w_0 + w_1 x_1 + ... + w_p x_p + b where b is the intercept item.
How does it differ to use fit_intercept in a model and when should one set it to True/False. I was trying to look at the source code and it seems like the coefficients are normalized by some scale.
if self.fit_intercept:
self.coef_ = self.coef_ / X_scale
self.intercept_ = y_offset - np.dot(X_offset, self.coef_.T)
else:
self.intercept_ = 0
What does this scaling do exactly. I want to interpret the coefficients in both approach (Linear Regression, Closed form OLS) but since just setting fit_intercept True/False gives different result for Linear Regression i can't quite decide on the intuition behind them. Which one is better and why?
Let's take a step back and consider the following sentence you said:
since just setting fit_intercept True/False gives different result for Linear Regression
That is not entirely true. It may or may not be different, and it depends entirely on your data. It would help to understand what goes into the calculation of regression weights. I mean this somewhat literally: what does your input (x) data look like?
Understanding your input data, and understanding why it matters, will help you realize why you sometimes get different results, and why at other times the results are the same
Data setup
Lets set up some test data:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
np.random.seed(1243)
x = np.random.randint(0,100,size=10)
y = np.random.randint(0,100,size=10)
Our x and y variables look like this:
X Y
51 29
3 73
7 77
98 29
29 80
90 37
49 9
42 53
8 17
65 35
No-intercept model
Recall that the calculation of regression weights has a closed form solution, which we can obtain using normal equations:
Using this method, we get a single regression coefficient because we only have 1 predictor variable:
x = x.reshape(-1,1)
w = np.dot(x.T, x)
w1 = np.dot(np.linalg.pinv(w), np.dot(x.T, y))
print(w1)
[ 0.53297593]
Now, let's look at scikit-learn when we set fit_intercept = False:
clf = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=False)
print(clf.fit(x, y).coef_)
[ 0.53297593]
What happens when we set fit_intercept = True instead?
clf = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=True)
print(clf.fit(x, y).coef_)
[-0.35535884]
It would seem that setting fit_intercept to True and False gives different answers, and that the "correct" answer occurs only when we set it to False, but this is not entirely correct...
Intercept model
At this point we have to consider what our input data actually is. In the models above, our data matrix (also called a feature matrix, or design matrix in statistics) is just a single vector containing our x values. The y variable is not included in the design matrix. If we want to add an intercept to our model, one common approach is to add a column of 1's to the design matrix, so x becomes:
x_vals = x.flatten()
x = np.zeros((10, 2))
x[:,0] = 1
x[:,1] = x_vals
intercept x
0 1.0 51.0
1 1.0 3.0
2 1.0 7.0
3 1.0 98.0
4 1.0 29.0
5 1.0 90.0
6 1.0 49.0
7 1.0 42.0
8 1.0 8.0
9 1.0 65.0
Now, when we use this as our design matrix, we can try the closed form solution again:
w = np.dot(x.T, x)
w1 = np.dot(np.linalg.pinv(w), np.dot(x.T, y))
print(w1)
[ 59.60686058 -0.35535884]
Notice 2 things:
We now have 2 coefficients. The first is our intercept and the second is the regression coefficient for the x predictor variable
The coefficient for x matches the coefficient from the scikit-learn output above when we set fit_intercept = True
So in the scikit-learn models above, why was there a difference between True and False? Because in one case no intercept was modeled. In the other case the underlying model included an intercept, which is confirmed when you manually add an intercept term/column when solving the normal equations
If you were to use this new design matrix in scikit-learn, it doesn't matter whether you set True or False for fit_intercept, the coefficient for the predictor variable will not change (the intercept value will be different due to centering, but thats irrelevant for this discussion):
clf = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=False)
print(clf.fit(x, y).coef_)
[ 59.60686058 -0.35535884]
clf = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=True)
print(clf.fit(x, y).coef_)
[ 0. -0.35535884]
Summing up
The output (i.e. coefficient values) you get will be entirely dependent on the matrix that you input into these calculations (whether its normal equations, scikit-learn, or any other)
How does it differ to use fit_intercept in a model and when should one set it to True/False
If your design matrix does not contain a 1's column, then normal equations and scikit-learn (fit_intercept = False) will give you the same answer (as you noted). However, if you set the parameter to True, the answer you get will actually be the same as normal equations if you calculated that with a 1's column.
When should you set True/False? As the name suggests, you set False when you don't want to include an intercept in your model. You set True when you do want an intercept, with the understanding that the coefficient values will change, but will match the normal equations approach when your data includes a 1's column
So True/False doesn't actually give you different results (compared to normal equations) when considering the same underlying model. The difference you observe is because you're looking at two different statistical models (one with an intercept term, and one without). The reason the fit_intercept parameter exists is so you can create an intercept model without the hassle of manually adding that 1's column. It effectively allows you to toggle between the two underlying statistical models.
Without going into the details of mathematical formulation, when the fit intercept is set to false, the estimator deliberately sets the intercept to zero and this in turn affects the other regressors as the 'responsibility' of the error reduction falls onto these factors. As a result, the result could be very different in either cases if it is sensitive to the presence of an intercept term. The scaling shifts the origin thereby allowing the same closed loop solutions to both intercept and intercept-free models.
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'm plotting this dataset and making a logarithmic fit, but, for some reason, the fit seems to be strongly wrong, at some point I got a good enough fit, but then I re ploted and there were that bad fit. At the very beginning there were a 0.0 0.0076 but I changed that to 0.001 0.0076 to avoid the asymptote.
I'm using (not exactly this one for the image above but now I'm testing with this one and there is that bad fit as well) this for the fit
f(x) = a*log(k*x + b)
fit = fit f(x) 'R_B/R_B.txt' via a, k, b
And the output is this
Also, sometimes it says 7 iterations were as is the case shown in the screenshot above, others only 1, and when it did the "correct" fit, it did like 35 iterations or something and got a = 32 if I remember correctly
Edit: here is again the good one, the plot I got is this one. And again, I re ploted and get that weird fit. It's curious that if there is the 0.0 0.0076 when the good fit it's about to be shown, gnuplot says "Undefined value during function evaluation", but that message is not shown when I'm getting the bad one.
Do you know why do I keep getting this inconsistence? Thanks for your help
As I already mentioned in comments the method of fitting antiderivatives is much better than fitting derivatives because the numerical calculus of derivatives is strongly scattered when the data is slightly scatered.
The principle of the method of fitting an integral equation (obtained from the original equation to be fitted) is explained in https://fr.scribd.com/doc/14674814/Regressions-et-equations-integrales . The application to the case of y=a.ln(c.x+b) is shown below.
Numerical calculus :
In order to get even better result (according to some specified criteria of fitting) one can use the above values of the parameters as initial values for iterarive method of nonlinear regression implemented in some convenient software.
NOTE : The integral equation used in the present case is :
NOTE : On the above figure one can compare the result with the method of fitting an integral equation to the result with the method of fitting with derivatives.
Acknowledgements : Alex Sveshnikov did a very good work in applying the method of regression with derivatives. This allows an interesting and enlightening comparison. If the goal is only to compute approximative values of parameters to be used in nonlinear regression software both methods are quite equivalent. Nevertheless the method with integral equation appears preferable in case of scattered data.
UPDATE (After Alex Sveshnikov updated his answer)
The figure below was drawn in using the Alex Sveshnikov's result with further iterative method of fitting.
The two curves are almost indistinguishable. This shows that (in the present case) the method of fitting the integral equation is almost sufficient without further treatment.
Of course this not always so satisfying. This is due to the low scatter of the data.
In ADDITION , answer to a question raised in comments by CosmeticMichu :
The problem here is that the fit algorithm starts with "wrong" approximations for parameters a, k, and b, so during the minimalization it finds a local minimum, not the global one. You can improve the result if you provide the algorithm with starting values, which are close to the optimal ones. For example, let's start with the following parameters:
gnuplot> a=47.5087
gnuplot> k=0.226
gnuplot> b=1.0016
gnuplot> f(x)=a*log(k*x+b)
gnuplot> fit f(x) 'R_B.txt' via a,k,b
....
....
....
After 40 iterations the fit converged.
final sum of squares of residuals : 16.2185
rel. change during last iteration : -7.6943e-06
degrees of freedom (FIT_NDF) : 18
rms of residuals (FIT_STDFIT) = sqrt(WSSR/ndf) : 0.949225
variance of residuals (reduced chisquare) = WSSR/ndf : 0.901027
Final set of parameters Asymptotic Standard Error
======================= ==========================
a = 35.0415 +/- 2.302 (6.57%)
k = 0.372381 +/- 0.0461 (12.38%)
b = 1.07012 +/- 0.02016 (1.884%)
correlation matrix of the fit parameters:
a k b
a 1.000
k -0.994 1.000
b 0.467 -0.531 1.000
The resulting plot is
Now the question is how you can find "good" initial approximations for your parameters? Well, you start with
If you differentiate this equation you get
or
The left-hand side of this equation is some constant 'C', so the expression in the right-hand side should be equal to this constant as well:
In other words, the reciprocal of the derivative of your data should be approximated by a linear function. So, from your data x[i], y[i] you can construct the reciprocal derivatives x[i], (x[i+1]-x[i])/(y[i+1]-y[i]) and the linear fit of these data:
The fit gives the following values:
C*k = 0.0236179
C*b = 0.106268
Now, we need to find the values for a, and C. Let's say, that we want the resulting graph to pass close to the starting and the ending point of our dataset. That means, that we want
a*log(k*x1 + b) = y1
a*log(k*xn + b) = yn
Thus,
a*log((C*k*x1 + C*b)/C) = a*log(C*k*x1 + C*b) - a*log(C) = y1
a*log((C*k*xn + C*b)/C) = a*log(C*k*xn + C*b) - a*log(C) = yn
By subtracting the equations we get the value for a:
a = (yn-y1)/log((C*k*xn + C*b)/(C*k*x1 + C*b)) = 47.51
Then,
log(k*x1+b) = y1/a
k*x1+b = exp(y1/a)
C*k*x1+C*b = C*exp(y1/a)
From this we can calculate C:
C = (C*k*x1+C*b)/exp(y1/a)
and finally find the k and b:
k=0.226
b=1.0016
These are the values used above for finding the better fit.
UPDATE
You can automate the process described above with the following script:
# Name of the file with the data
data='R_B.txt'
# The coordinates of the last data point
xn=NaN
yn=NaN
# The temporary coordinates of a data point used to calculate a derivative
x0=NaN
y0=NaN
linearFit(x)=Ck*x+Cb
fit linearFit(x) data using (xn=$1,dx=$1-x0,x0=$1,$1):(yn=$2,dy=$2-y0,y0=$2,dx/dy) via Ck, Cb
# The coordinates of the first data point
x1=NaN
y1=NaN
plot data using (x1=$1):(y1=$2) every ::0::0
a=(yn-y1)/log((Ck*xn+Cb)/(Ck*x1+Cb))
C=(Ck*x1+Cb)/exp(y1/a)
k=Ck/C
b=Cb/C
f(x)=a*log(k*x+b)
fit f(x) data via a,k,b
plot data, f(x)
pause -1
I trained a simple quadratic SVM using sklearn.svm.SVC on 3 features. In other words, X is nx3, Y is length n and I simply ran the following code with no problem:
svc = SVC(kernel='poly', degree = 2)
svc.fit(X,Y)
As my goal is to plot this boundary in 3D, I am trying to figure out which features each of the resulting coefficients correspond to. Naturally, a quadratic function with 3 features will result in an intercept term and 10 coefficients where each coefficient corresponds to:
x1^2, x2^2, x3^2, x1x2, x1x3, x2x3, x1x2x3, x1, x2, x3
However, svc.dual_coef returns an array of the 10 coefficients but I do not know which of them correspond to which of the 10 features, is there a way to figure this out?
Thanks!
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
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.