I am trying to fit my Poission time series model into garmaFit (package gamlss) but my parameters are not working.
model6.0 <-garmaFit(aces ~ time+ smokban + offset(log(stdpop)), data=data, order=c(0,0),phi.start =11 ,theta.start = 11, family=PO)
This runs the model but does not adjust it from the coefficients I can generate from
model1 <- glm(aces ~ offset(log(stdpop)) + smokban + time, family=poisson, data)
I even tried using a known method to control for autocorrelation in a ols model (from a different dataset) and it did not adjust the coefficients from the original mode.
Cannot find elsewhere how to adjust p/q values in the phi.start and theta.start parameters
Any help would be appreciated
Related
I'm trying to create a new dataset of hidden state probabilities using a hidden Markov model. Everything works fine unless each time the output dataset comes up with different values (sometimes the same values) for hidden_states_train and hidden_states_test hence resulting a different column sizes in the columns stack/ a feature mismatch. e.g New dataset size (15261, 197) (5087, 194), New dataset size (15261, 197) (5087, 197) etc.
I can't figure out why this is happening each time I run the code. I tried to give same number of samples for both X_train_st and X_test_st but this keeps happening. If I set n_comp in range a smaller range e.g for n_comp in range(1,6) then often it results the same shapes.
Can someone shed some light to what's going on and a possible fix, please?
newX = X_train_st
newXtest = X_test_st
for n_comp in range(1,16):
print("fitting to HMM and decoding %d ..." % n_comp , end="")
modelHMM = GaussianHMM(n_components=n_comp, covariance_type="diag").fit(X_train_st)
hidden_states_train = to_categorical(modelHMM.predict(X_train_st))
hidden_states_test = to_categorical(modelHMM.predict(X_test_st))
print("done")
newX = np.column_stack((newX,hidden_states_train))
newXtest = np.column_stack((newXtest,hidden_states_test))
print('New dataset size',newX.shape,newXtest.shape)
I am working with a subset of the 'Ames Housing' dataset and have originally 17 features. Using the 'recipes' package, I have engineered the original set of features and created dummy variables for nominal predictors with the following code. That has resulted in 35 features in the 'baked_train' dataset below.
blueprint <- recipe(Sale_Price ~ ., data = _train) %>%
step_nzv(Street, Utilities, Pool_Area, Screen_Porch, Misc_Val) %>%
step_impute_knn(Gr_Liv_Area) %>%
step_integer(Overall_Qual) %>%
step_normalize(all_numeric_predictors()) %>%
step_other(Neighborhood, threshold = 0.01, other = "other") %>%
step_dummy(all_nominal_predictors(), one_hot = FALSE)
prepare <- prep(blueprint, data = ames_train)
baked_train <- bake(prepare, new_data = ames_train)
baked_test <- bake(prepare, new_data = ames_test)
Now, I am trying to train random forests with the 'ranger' package using the following code.
cv_specs <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv", number = 5, repeats = 5)
param_grid_rf <- expand.grid(mtry = seq(1, 35, 1),
splitrule = "variance",
min.node.size = 2)
rf_cv <- train(blueprint,
data = ames_train,
method = "ranger",
trControl = cv_specs,
tuneGrid = param_grid_rf,
metric = "RMSE")
I have set the grid of 'mtry' values based on the number of features in the 'baked_train' data. It is my understanding that 'caret' will apply the blueprint within each resample of 'ames_train' creating a baked version at each CV step.
The text Hands-On Machine Learning with R by Boehmke & Greenwell says on section 3.8.3,
Consequently, the goal is to develop our blueprint, then within each resample iteration we want to apply prep() and bake() to our resample training and validation data. Luckily, the caret package simplifies this process. We only need to specify the blueprint and caret will automatically prepare and bake within each resample.
However, when I run the code above I get an error,
mtry can not be larger than number of variables in data. Ranger will EXIT now.
I get the same error when I specify 'tuneLength = 20' instead of the 'tuneGrid'. Although the code works fine when the grid of 'mtry' values is specified to be from 1 to 17 (the number of features in the original training data 'ames_train').
When I specify a grid of 'mtry' values from 1 to 17, info about the final model after CV is shown below. Notice that it mentions Number of independent variables: 35 which corresponds to the 'baked_train' data, although specifying a grid from 1 to 35 throws an error.
Type: Regression
Number of trees: 500
Sample size: 618
Number of independent variables: 35
Mtry: 15
Target node size: 2
Variable importance mode: impurity
Splitrule: variance
OOB prediction error (MSE): 995351989
R squared (OOB): 0.8412147
What am I missing here? Specifically, why do I have to specify the number of features in 'ames_train' instead of 'baked_train' when essentially 'caret' is supposed to create a baked version before fitting and evaluating the model for each resample?
Thanks.
I am trying to determine lagged predictors to include in my time series model. So I fitted a TSLM with up to lag 3 of the independent variable
lag_models <- data_train %>% model(
ts_lag_0 = TSLM(Y ~ X)
, ts_lag_1 = TSLM(Y ~ X + lag_X_01)
, ts_lag_2 = TSLM(Y ~ X + lag_X_01 + lag_X_02)
, ts_lag_3 = TSLM(Y ~ X + lag_X_01 + lag_X_02 + lag_X_03)
)
data_train contains cross-validation data.
lag_models %>% glance()
Running the code above, I get AIC, AICc, BIC, etc. by lagged predictor model by .id. I am wondering if it's possible to pull out these metrics by model by only the model without using group_by() and summarize().
Thanks very much.
When using cross validation, you are estimating a model on every fold/slice of the data.
As a result, you will receive set of summary statistics (AIC, AICc, BIC, etc.) for every estimated model. If you were to combine them using group_by() and summarise(), you would be combining summary information from models with different response data - this isn't recommended as information criterion are not comparable when the response data varies.
If you wanted to compare the performance of each of the models using cross-validation, you can use out-of-sample accuracy measures using accuracy(). Examples of using fable for cross-validated accuracy evaluation can be found at https://otexts.com/fpp3/tscv.html
Given input signal x (e.g. a voltage, sampled thousand times per second couple of minutes long), I'd like to calculate e.g.
/ this is not q
y[3] = -3*x[0] - x[1] + x[2] + 3*x[3]
y[4] = -3*x[1] - x[2] + x[3] + 3*x[4]
. . .
I'm aiming for variable window length and weight coefficients. How can I do it in q? I'm aware of mavg and signal processing in q and moving sum qidiom
In the DSP world it's called applying filter kernel by doing convolution. Weight coefficients define the kernel, which makes a high- or low-pass filter. The example above calculates the slope from last four points, placing the straight line via least squares method.
Something like this would work for parameterisable coefficients:
q)x:10+sums -1+1000?2f
q)f:{sum x*til[count x]xprev\:y}
q)f[3 1 -1 -3] x
0n 0n 0n -2.385585 1.423811 2.771659 2.065391 -0.951051 -1.323334 -0.8614857 ..
Specific cases can be made a bit faster (running 0 xprev is not the best thing)
q)g:{prev[deltas x]+3*x-3 xprev x}
q)g[x]~f[3 1 -1 -3]x
1b
q)\t:100000 f[3 1 1 -3] x
4612
q)\t:100000 g x
1791
There's a kx white paper of signal processing in q if this area interests you: https://code.kx.com/q/wp/signal-processing/
This may be a bit old but I thought I'd weigh in. There is a paper I wrote last year on signal processing that may be of some value. Working purely within KDB, dependent on the signal sizes you are using, you will see much better performance with a FFT based convolution between the kernel/window and the signal.
However, I've only written up a simple radix-2 FFT, although in my github repo I do have the untested work for a more flexible Bluestein algorithm which will allow for more variable signal length. https://github.com/callumjbiggs/q-signals/blob/master/signal.q
If you wish to go down the path of performing a full manual convolution by a moving sum, then the best method would be to break it up into blocks equal to the kernel/window size (which was based on some work Arthur W did many years ago)
q)vec:10000?100.0
q)weights:30?1.0
q)wsize:count weights
q)(weights$(((wsize-1)#0.0),vec)til[wsize]+) each til count v
32.5931 75.54583 100.4159 124.0514 105.3138 117.532 179.2236 200.5387 232.168.
If your input list not big then you could use the technique mentioned here:
https://code.kx.com/q/cookbook/programming-idioms/#how-do-i-apply-a-function-to-a-sequence-sliding-window
That uses 'scan' adverb. As that process creates multiple lists which might be inefficient for big lists.
Other solution using scan is:
q)f:{sum y*next\[z;x]} / x-input list, y-weights, z-window size-1
q)f[x;-3 -1 1 3;3]
This function also creates multiple lists so again might not be very efficient for big lists.
Other option is to use indices to fetch target items from the input list and perform the calculation. This will operate only on input list.
q) f:{[l;w;i]sum w*l i+til 4} / w- weight, l- input list, i-current index
q) f[x;-3 -1 1 3]#'til count x
This is a very basic function. You can add more variables to it as per your requirements.
I have a convolutional neural network whose output is a 4-channel 2D image. I want to apply sigmoid activation function to the first two channels and then use BCECriterion to computer the loss of the produced images with the ground truth ones. I want to apply squared loss function to the last two channels and finally computer the gradients and do backprop. I would also like to multiply the cost of the squared loss for each of the two last channels by a desired scalar.
So the cost has the following form:
cost = crossEntropyCh[{1, 2}] + l1 * squaredLossCh_3 + l2 * squaredLossCh_4
The way I'm thinking about doing this is as follow:
criterion1 = nn.BCECriterion()
criterion2 = nn.MSECriterion()
error = criterion1:forward(model.output[{{}, {1, 2}}], groundTruth1) + l1 * criterion2:forward(model.output[{{}, {3}}], groundTruth2) + l2 * criterion2:forward(model.output[{{}, {4}}], groundTruth3)
However, I don't think this is the correct way of doing it since I will have to do 3 separate backprop steps, one for each of the cost terms. So I wonder, can anyone give me a better solution to do this in Torch?
SplitTable and ParallelCriterion might be helpful for your problem.
Your current output layer is followed by nn.SplitTable that splits your output channels and converts your output tensor into a table. You can also combine different functions by using ParallelCriterion so that each criterion is applied on the corresponding entry of output table.
For details, I suggest you read documentation of Torch about tables.
After comments, I added the following code segment solving the original question.
M = 100
C = 4
H = 64
W = 64
dataIn = torch.rand(M, C, H, W)
layerOfTables = nn.Sequential()
-- Because SplitTable discards the dimension it is applied on, we insert
-- an additional dimension.
layerOfTables:add(nn.Reshape(M,C,1,H,W))
-- We want to split over the second dimension (i.e. channels).
layerOfTables:add(nn.SplitTable(2, 5))
-- We use ConcatTable in order to create paths accessing to the data for
-- numereous number of criterions. Each branch from the ConcatTable will
-- have access to the data (i.e. the output table).
criterionPath = nn.ConcatTable()
-- Starting from offset 1, NarrowTable will select 2 elements. Since you
-- want to use this portion as a 2 dimensional channel, we need to combine
-- then by using JoinTable. Without JoinTable, the output will be again a
-- table with 2 elements.
criterionPath:add(nn.Sequential():add(nn.NarrowTable(1, 2)):add(nn.JoinTable(2)))
-- SelectTable is simplified version of NarrowTable, and it fetches the desired element.
criterionPath:add(nn.SelectTable(3))
criterionPath:add(nn.SelectTable(4))
layerOfTables:add(criterionPath)
-- Here goes the criterion container. You can use this as if it is a regular
-- criterion function (Please see the examples on documentation page).
criterionContainer = nn.ParallelCriterion()
criterionContainer:add(nn.BCECriterion())
criterionContainer:add(nn.MSECriterion())
criterionContainer:add(nn.MSECriterion())
Since I used almost every possible table operation, it looks a little bit nasty. However, this is the only way I could solve this problem. I hope that it helps you and others suffering from the same problem. This is how the result looks like:
dataOut = layerOfTables:forward(dataIn)
print(dataOut)
{
1 : DoubleTensor - size: 100x2x64x64
2 : DoubleTensor - size: 100x1x64x64
3 : DoubleTensor - size: 100x1x64x64
}