Here's the dataset which consists of X = 45 columns collected the data from bioclimate database.
The multicollinearity test model -
from statsmodels.stats.outliers_influence import variance_inflation_factor
vif_data = pd.DataFrame()
vif_data["feature"] = X.columns
x columns
#Calculating VIF for each feature
vif_data["VIF"] = [variance_inflation_factor(X.values, i)
for i in range (0, len(X.columns))]
-------------------------------------------------------------
/usr/local/lib/python3.7/dist-packages/statsmodels/stats/outliers_influence.py:193:
RuntimeWarning: divide by zero encountered in double_scalars
vif = 1. / (1. - r_squared_i)
vif_data
Trial :
I've converted all variables into float and int vice-versa but still getting infinite values for all variables after performing multicollinearity test.
I didn't find any reference material to tackle this problem specially in python.
Please help me out, I am using it for species distribution modelling.
I want to implement the following equation given in a paper “A Three-Layered Mutually Reinforced Model for
Personalized Citation Recommendation” (Page 4). According to the description in the paper, B should be a square matrix, whereas I am getting a vector.
I have tried the following code:
querySplit = query.split(',')
queryText = querySplit[0]
qt_tag = word_tokenize(queryText.rstrip().lower().translate(translator))
qt_vector = model.infer_vector(qt_tag)
def eq_b(query):
vecs = np.asarray(
[spatial.distance.cosine(spatial.distance.cosine(query, model.docvecs[i]), model.docvecs[i]) for i in
range(Docs_len)])
return vecs / vecs.sum()
b = eq_b(qt_vector)
print("B", b)
The formula you wrote for B is not correct. From the paper, B*Rt_p is equal to what you have, but not B itself. This means that the actual formula for the matrix is:
B=np.matmul(eq_b(qt_vector),transpose(Rt_p))/norm(Rt_p)^2
You basically add that extra stuff so that when you do the multiplication with Rt_p, all the terms involving Rt_p are cancelled and you are left with eq_b(qt_vector). The cancellation is due to the fact that
transpose(Rt_p)*Rt_p ==norm(Rt_p)^2
I must solve the Euler Bernoulli differential beam equation which is:
w’’’’(x) = q(x)
and boundary conditions:
w(0) = w(l) = 0
and
w′′(0) = w′′(l) = 0
The beam is as shown on the picture below:
beam
The continious force q is 2N/mm.
I have to use shooting method and scipy.integrate.odeint() func.
I can't even manage to start as i do not understand how to write the differential equation as a system of equation
Can someone who understands solving of differential equations with boundary conditions in python please help!
Thanks :)
The shooting method
To solve the fourth order ODE BVP with scipy.integrate.odeint() using the shooting method you need to:
1.) Separate the 4th order ODE into 4 first order ODEs by substituting:
u = w
u1 = u' = w' # 1
u2 = u1' = w'' # 2
u3 = u2' = w''' # 3
u4 = u3' = w'''' = q # 4
2.) Create a function to carry out the derivation logic and connect that function to the integrate.odeint() like this:
function calc(u, x , q)
{
return [u[1], u[2], u[3] , q]
}
w = integrate.odeint(calc, [w(0), guess, w''(0), guess], xList, args=(q,))
Explanation:
We are sending the boundary value conditions to odeint() for x=0 ([w(0), w'(0) ,w''(0), w'''(0)]) which calls the function calc which returns the derivatives to be added to the current state of w. Note that we are guessing the initial boundary conditions for w'(0) and w'''(0) while entering the known w(0)=0 and w''(0)=0.
Addition of derivatives to the current state of w occurs like this:
# the current w(x) value is the previous value plus the current change of w in dx.
w(x) = w(x-dx) + dw/dx
# others are calculated the same
dw(x)/dx = dw(x-dx)/dx + d^2w(x)/dx^2
# etc.
This is why we are returning values [u[1], u[2], u[3] , q] instead of [u[0], u[1], u[2] , u[3]] from the calc function, because u[1] is the first derivative so we add it to w, etc.
3.) Now we are able to set up our shooting method. We will be sending different initial boundary values for w'(0) and w'''(0) to odeint() and then check the end result of the returned w(x) profile to determine how close w(L) and w''(L) got to 0 (the known boundary conditions).
The program for the shooting method:
# a function to return the derivatives of w
def returnDerivatives(u, x, q):
return [u[1], u[2], u[3], q]
# a shooting funtion which takes in two variables and returns a w(x) profile for x=[0,L]
def shoot(u2, u4):
# the number of x points to calculate integration -> determines the size of dx
# bigger number means more x's -> better precision -> longer execution time
xSteps = 1001
# length of the beam
L= 1.0 # 1m
xSpace = np.linspace(0, L, xSteps)
q = 0.02 # constant [N/m]
# integrate and return the profile of w(x) and it's derivatives, from x=0 to x=L
return odeint(returnDerivatives, [ 0, u2, 0, u4] , xSpace, args=(q,))
# the tolerance for our results.
tolerance = 0.01
# how many numbers to consider for u2 and u4 (the guess boundary conditions)
u2_u4_maxNumbers = 1327 # bigger number, better precision, slower program
# you can also divide into separate variables like u2_maxNum and u4_maxNum
# these are already tested numbers (the best results are somewhere in here)
u2Numbers = np.linspace(-0.1, 0.1, u2_u4_maxNumbers)
# the same as above
u4Numbers = np.linspace(-0.5, 0.5, u2_u4_maxNumbers)
# result list for extracted values of each w(x) profile => [u2Best, u4Best, w(L), w''(L)]
# which will help us determine if the w(x) profile is inside tolerance
resultList = []
# result list for each U (or w(x) profile) => [w(x), w'(x), w''(x), w'''(x)]
resultW = []
# start generating numbers for u2 and u4 and send them to odeint()
for u2 in u2Numbers:
for u4 in u4Numbers:
U = []
U = shoot(u2,u4)
# get only the last row of the profile to determine if it passes tolerance check
result = U[len(U)-1]
# only check w(L) == 0 and w''(L) == 0, as those are the known boundary cond.
if (abs(result[0]) < tolerance) and (abs(result[2]) < tolerance):
# if the result passed the tolerance check, extract some values from the
# last row of the w(x) profile which we will need later for comaprisons
resultList.append([u2, u4, result[0], result[2]])
# add the w(x) profile to the list of profiles that passed the tolerance
# Note: the order of resultList is the same as the order of resultW
resultW.append(U)
# go through the resultList (list of extracted values from last row of each w(x) profile)
for i in range(len(resultList)):
x = resultList[i]
# both boundary conditions are 0 for both w(L) and w''(L) so we will simply add
# the two absolute values to determine how much the sum differs from 0
y = abs(x[2]) + abs(x[3])
# if we've just started set the least difference to the current
if i == 0:
minNum = y # remember the smallest difference to 0
index = 0 # remember index of best profile
elif y < minNum:
# current sum of absolute values is smaller
minNum = y
index = i
# print out the integral for w(x) over the beam
sum = 0
for i in resultW[index]:
sum = sum + i[0]
print("The integral of w(x) over the beam is:")
print(sum/1001) # sum/xSteps
This outputs:
The integral of w(x) over the beam is:
0.000135085272117
To print out the best profile for w(x) that we found:
print(resultW[index])
which outputs something like:
# w(x) w'(x) w''(x) w'''(x)
[[ 0.00000000e+00 7.54147813e-04 0.00000000e+00 -9.80392157e-03]
[ 7.54144825e-07 7.54142917e-04 -9.79392157e-06 -9.78392157e-03]
[ 1.50828005e-06 7.54128237e-04 -1.95678431e-05 -9.76392157e-03]
...,
[ -4.48774290e-05 -8.14851572e-04 1.75726275e-04 1.01560784e-02]
[ -4.56921910e-05 -8.14670764e-04 1.85892353e-04 1.01760784e-02]
[ -4.65067671e-05 -8.14479780e-04 1.96078431e-04 1.01960784e-02]]
To double check the results from above we will also solve the ODE using the numerical method.
The numerical method
To solve the problem using the numerical method we first need to solve the differential equations. We will get four constants which we need to find with the help of the boundary conditions. The boundary conditions will be used to form a system of equations to help find the necessary constants.
For example:
w’’’’(x) = q(x);
means that we have this:
d^4(w(x))/dx^4 = q(x)
Since q(x) is constant after integrating we have:
d^3(w(x))/dx^3 = q(x)*x + C
After integrating again:
d^2(w(x))/dx^2 = q(x)*0.5*x^2 + C*x + D
After another integration:
dw(x)/dx = q(x)/6*x^3 + C*0.5*x^2 + D*x + E
And finally the last integration yields:
w(x) = q(x)/24*x^4 + C/6*x^3 + D*0.5*x^2 + E*x + F
Then we take a look at the boundary conditions (now we have expressions from above for w''(x) and w(x)) with which we make a system of equations to solve the constants.
w''(0) => 0 = q(x)*0.5*0^2 + C*0 + D
w''(L) => 0 = q(x)*0.5*L^2 + C*L + D
This gives us the constants:
D = 0 # from the first equation
C = - 0.01 * L # from the second (after inserting D=0)
After repeating the same for w(0)=0 and w(L)=0 we obtain:
F = 0 # from first
E = 0.01/12.0 * L^3 # from second
Now, after we have solved the equation and found all of the integration constants we can make the program for the numerical method.
The program for the numerical method
We will make a FOR loop to go through the entire beam for every dx at a time and sum up (integrate) w(x).
L = 1.0 # in meters
step = 1001.0 # how many steps to take (dx)
q = 0.02 # constant [N/m]
integralOfW = 0.0; # instead of w(0) enter the boundary condition value for w(0)
result = []
for i in range(int(L*step)):
x= i/step
w = (q/24.0*pow(x,4) - 0.02/12.0*pow(x,3) + 0.01/12*pow(L,3)*x)/step # current w fragment
# add up fragments of w for integral calculation
integralOfW += w
# add current value of w(x) to result list for plotting
result.append(w*step);
print("The integral of w(x) over the beam is:")
print(integralOfW)
which outputs:
The integral of w(x) over the beam is:
0.00016666652805511192
Now to compare the two methods
Result comparison between the shooting method and the numerical method
The integral of w(x) over the beam:
Shooting method -> 0.000135085272117
Numerical method -> 0.00016666652805511192
That's a pretty good match, now lets see check the plots:
From the plots it's even more obvious that we have a good match and that the results of the shooting method are correct.
To get even better results for the shooting method increase xSteps and u2_u4_maxNumbers to bigger numbers and you can also narrow down the u2Numbers and u4Numbers to the same set size but a smaller interval (around the best results from previous program runs). Keep in mind that setting xSteps and u2_u4_maxNumbers too high will cause your program to run for a very long time.
You need to transform the ODE into a first order system, setting u0=w one possible and usually used system is
u0'=u1,
u1'=u2,
u2'=u3,
u3'=q(x)
This can be implemented as
def ODEfunc(u,x): return [ u[1], u[2], u[3], q(x) ]
Then make a function that shoots with experimental initial conditions and returns the components of the second boundary condition
def shoot(u01, u03): return odeint(ODEfunc, [0, u01, 0, u03], [0, l])[-1,[0,2]]
Now you have a function of two variables with two components and you need to solve this 2x2 system with the usual methods. As the system is linear, the shooting function is linear as well and you only need to find the coefficients and solve the resulting linear system.
I am reading text from spatstat textbook, and trying to learn model fit using ppm.
I created a model with carteisan coordinates as the covariates. And then I wanted to see the effect of only one covariate on the model,
model1 = ppm(chicago_ppp ~ x+y)
plot(effectfun(model1, covname = "x"))
but I get the error
Error in effectfun(model1, covname = "x") : A value for the covariate “y” must be provided (as an argument to effect fun)
The same happens if I use covname "y" it asks for "x"
Can someone please show me what is my mistake. Thank you.
UPDATE: When I use only one covariate, and I use effectfun with that one covariate, there is no error. When I use two covariates and I want to check effectfun of one covariate, I get this error in the question.
To be able to calculate the estimated intensity for different values of
x you need to fix a value for y like this:
library(spatstat)
model <- ppm(cells ~ x + y)
plot(effectfun(model, covname = "x", y = 0.1))
plot(effectfun(model, covname = "x", y = 0.9))
I want to make use of Theano's logistic regression classifier, but I would like to make an apples-to-apples comparison with previous studies I've done to see how deep learning stacks up. I recognize this is probably a fairly simple task if I was more proficient in Theano, but this is what I have so far. From the tutorials on the website, I have the following code:
def errors(self, y):
# check if y has same dimension of y_pred
if y.ndim != self.y_pred.ndim:
raise TypeError(
'y should have the same shape as self.y_pred',
('y', y.type, 'y_pred', self.y_pred.type)
)
# check if y is of the correct datatype
if y.dtype.startswith('int'):
# the T.neq operator returns a vector of 0s and 1s, where 1
# represents a mistake in prediction
return T.mean(T.neq(self.y_pred, y))
I'm pretty sure this is where I need to add the functionality, but I'm not certain how to go about it. What I need is either access to y_pred and y for each and every run (to update my confusion matrix in python) or to have the C++ code handle the confusion matrix and return it at some point along the way. I don't think I can do the former, and I'm unsure how to do the latter. I've done some messing around with an update function along the lines of:
def confuMat(self, y):
x=T.vector('x')
classes = T.scalar('n_classes')
onehot = T.eq(x.dimshuffle(0,'x'),T.arange(classes).dimshuffle('x',0))
oneHot = theano.function([x,classes],onehot)
yMat = T.matrix('y')
yPredMat = T.matrix('y_pred')
confMat = T.dot(yMat.T,yPredMat)
confusionMatrix = theano.function(inputs=[yMat,yPredMat],outputs=confMat)
def confusion_matrix(x,y,n_class):
return confusionMatrix(oneHot(x,n_class),oneHot(y,n_class))
t = np.asarray(confusion_matrix(y,self.y_pred,self.n_out))
print (t)
But I'm not completely clear on how to get this to interface with the function in question and give me a numpy array I can work with.
I'm quite new to Theano, so hopefully this is an easy fix for one of you. I'd like to use this classifer as my output layer in a number of configurations, so I could use the confusion matrix with other architectures.
I suggest using a brute force sort of a way. You need an output for a prediction first. Create a function for it.
prediction = theano.function(
inputs = [index],
outputs = MLPlayers.predicts,
givens={
x: test_set_x[index * batch_size: (index + 1) * batch_size]})
In your test loop, gather the predictions...
labels = labels + test_set_y.eval().tolist()
for mini_batch in xrange(n_test_batches):
wrong = wrong + int(test_model(mini_batch))
predictions = predictions + prediction(mini_batch).tolist()
Now create confusion matrix this way:
correct = 0
confusion = numpy.zeros((outs,outs), dtype = int)
for index in xrange(len(predictions)):
if labels[index] is predictions[index]:
correct = correct + 1
confusion[int(predictions[index]),int(labels[index])] = confusion[int(predictions[index]),int(labels[index])] + 1
You can find this kind of an implementation in this repository.