I am working with a data-set of patient information and trying to calculate the Propensity Score from the data using MATLAB. After removing features with many missing values, I am still left with several missing (NaN) values.
I get errors due to these missing values, as the values of my cost-function and gradient vector become NaN, when I try to perform logistic regression using the following Matlab code (from Andrew Ng's Coursera Machine Learning class) :
[m, n] = size(X);
X = [ones(m, 1) X];
initial_theta = ones(n+1, 1);
[cost, grad] = costFunction(initial_theta, X, y);
options = optimset('GradObj', 'on', 'MaxIter', 400);
[theta, cost] = ...
fminunc(#(t)(costFunction(t, X, y)), initial_theta, options);
Note: sigmoid and costfunction are working functions I created for overall ease of use.
The calculations can be performed smoothly if I replace all NaN values with 1 or 0. However I am not sure if that is the best way to deal with this issue, and I was also wondering what replacement value I should pick (in general) to get the best results for performing logistic regression with missing data. Are there any benefits/drawbacks to using a particular number (0 or 1 or something else) for replacing the said missing values in my data?
Note: I have also normalized all feature values to be in the range of 0-1.
Any insight on this issue will be highly appreciated. Thank you
As pointed out earlier, this is a generic problem people deal with regardless of the programming platform. It is called "missing data imputation".
Enforcing all missing values to a particular number certainly has drawbacks. Depending on the distribution of your data it can be drastic, for example, setting all missing values to 1 in a binary sparse data having more zeroes than ones.
Fortunately, MATLAB has a function called knnimpute that estimates a missing data point by its closest neighbor.
From my experience, I often found knnimpute useful. However, it may fall short when there are too many missing sites as in your data; the neighbors of a missing site may be incomplete as well, thereby leading to inaccurate estimation. Below, I figured out a walk-around solution to that; it begins with imputing the least incomplete columns, (optionally) imposing a safe predefined distance for the neighbors. I hope this helps.
function data = dnnimpute(data,distCutoff,option,distMetric)
% data = dnnimpute(data,distCutoff,option,distMetric)
%
% Distance-based nearest neighbor imputation that impose a distance
% cutoff to determine nearest neighbors, i.e., avoids those samples
% that are more distant than the distCutoff argument.
%
% Imputes missing data coded by "NaN" starting from the covarites
% (columns) with the least number of missing data. Then it continues by
% including more (complete) covariates in the calculation of pair-wise
% distances.
%
% option,
% 'median' - Median of the nearest neighboring values
% 'weighted' - Weighted average of the nearest neighboring values
% 'default' - Unweighted average of the nearest neighboring values
%
% distMetric,
% 'euclidean' - Euclidean distance (default)
% 'seuclidean' - Standardized Euclidean distance. Each coordinate
% difference between rows in X is scaled by dividing
% by the corresponding element of the standard
% deviation S=NANSTD(X). To specify another value for
% S, use D=pdist(X,'seuclidean',S).
% 'cityblock' - City Block distance
% 'minkowski' - Minkowski distance. The default exponent is 2. To
% specify a different exponent, use
% D = pdist(X,'minkowski',P), where the exponent P is
% a scalar positive value.
% 'chebychev' - Chebychev distance (maximum coordinate difference)
% 'mahalanobis' - Mahalanobis distance, using the sample covariance
% of X as computed by NANCOV. To compute the distance
% with a different covariance, use
% D = pdist(X,'mahalanobis',C), where the matrix C
% is symmetric and positive definite.
% 'cosine' - One minus the cosine of the included angle
% between observations (treated as vectors)
% 'correlation' - One minus the sample linear correlation between
% observations (treated as sequences of values).
% 'spearman' - One minus the sample Spearman's rank correlation
% between observations (treated as sequences of values).
% 'hamming' - Hamming distance, percentage of coordinates
% that differ
% 'jaccard' - One minus the Jaccard coefficient, the
% percentage of nonzero coordinates that differ
% function - A distance function specified using #, for
% example #DISTFUN.
%
if nargin < 3
option = 'mean';
end
if nargin < 4
distMetric = 'euclidean';
end
nanVals = isnan(data);
nanValsPerCov = sum(nanVals,1);
noNansCov = nanValsPerCov == 0;
if isempty(find(noNansCov, 1))
[~,leastNans] = min(nanValsPerCov);
noNansCov(leastNans) = true;
first = data(nanVals(:,noNansCov),:);
nanRows = find(nanVals(:,noNansCov)==true); i = 1;
for row = first'
data(nanRows(i),noNansCov) = mean(row(~isnan(row)));
i = i+1;
end
end
nSamples = size(data,1);
if nargin < 2
dataNoNans = data(:,noNansCov);
distances = pdist(dataNoNans);
distCutoff = min(distances);
end
[stdCovMissDat,idxCovMissDat] = sort(nanValsPerCov,'ascend');
imputeCols = idxCovMissDat(stdCovMissDat>0);
% Impute starting from the cols (covariates) with the least number of
% missing data.
for c = reshape(imputeCols,1,length(imputeCols))
imputeRows = 1:nSamples;
imputeRows = imputeRows(nanVals(:,c));
for r = reshape(imputeRows,1,length(imputeRows))
% Calculate distances
distR = inf(nSamples,1);
%
noNansCov_r = find(isnan(data(r,:))==0);
noNansCov_r = noNansCov_r(sum(isnan(data(nanVals(:,c)'==false,~isnan(data(r,:)))),1)==0);
%
for i = find(nanVals(:,c)'==false)
distR(i) = pdist([data(r,noNansCov_r); data(i,noNansCov_r)],distMetric);
end
tmp = min(distR(distR>0));
% Impute the missing data at sample r of covariate c
switch option
case 'weighted'
data(r,c) = (1./distR(distR<=max(distCutoff,tmp)))' * data(distR<=max(distCutoff,tmp),c) / sum(1./distR(distR<=max(distCutoff,tmp)));
case 'median'
data(r,c) = median(data(distR<=max(distCutoff,tmp),c),1);
case 'mean'
data(r,c) = mean(data(distR<=max(distCutoff,tmp),c),1);
end
% The missing data in sample r is imputed. Update the sample
% indices of c which are imputed.
nanVals(r,c) = false;
end
fprintf('%u/%u of the covariates are imputed.\n',find(c==imputeCols),length(imputeCols));
end
To deal with missing data you can use one of the following three options:
If there are not many instances with missing values, you can just delete the ones with missing values.
If you have many features and it is affordable to lose some information, delete the entire feature with missing values.
The best method is to fill some value (mean, median) in place of missing value. You can calculate the mean of the rest of the training examples for that feature and fill all the missing values with the mean. This works out pretty well as the mean value stays in the distribution of your data.
Note: When you replace the missing values with the mean, calculate the mean only using training set. Also, store that value and use it to change the missing values in the test set also.
If you use 0 or 1 to replace all the missing values then the data may get skewed so it is better to replace the missing values by an average of all the other values.
Related
I do data normalization as:
X = ( X - X.mean(axis=0) ) / X.std(axis=0)
But some features of X have 0 variance. It gives me Runtime error for ZeroDivision.
I know we can normalize using "StandardScalar" class from sklearn. But how can I normalize data by myself from scratch if std=0 ?
To quote sklearn documentation for StandardScaler:
Per feature relative scaling of the data to achieve zero mean and unit variance. Generally this is calculated using np.sqrt(var_). If a variance is zero, we can’t achieve unit variance, and the data is left as-is, giving a scaling factor of 1.
Therefore, like what the other answer said, you can omit the standard deviation term and just do X - X.mean(axis=0) when standard deviation is 0. However this only works if the whole of X has 0 standard deviation.
To make this work where you have a mix of values with some std dev and values that don't, use this instead:
std = X.std(axis=0)
std = np.where(std == 0, 1, std)
X = ( X - X.mean(axis=0) ) / std
This code checks if standard deviation is zero for each row of values in axis 0, and replaces them with 1 if true.
If standard deviation is 0 for a particular feature, than all of its values are identical. In this case X = X - X.mean(axis=0) should suffice. This would give you 0 mean and 0 standardeviation.
I've been implementing VAE and IWAE models on the caltech silhouettes dataset and am having an issue where the VAE outperforms IWAE by a modest margin (test LL ~120 for VAE, ~133 for IWAE!). I don't believe this should be the case, according to both theory and experiments produced here.
I'm hoping someone can find some issue in how I'm implementing that's causing this to be the case.
The network I'm using to approximate q and p is the same as that detailed in the appendix of the paper above. The calculation part of the model is below:
data_k_vec = data.repeat_interleave(K,0) # Generate K samples (in my case K=50 is producing this behavior)
mu, log_std = model.encode(data_k_vec)
z = model.reparameterize(mu, log_std) # z = mu + torch.exp(log_std)*epsilon (epsilon ~ N(0,1))
decoded = model.decode(z) # this is the sigmoid output of the model
log_prior_z = torch.sum(-0.5 * z ** 2, 1)-.5*z.shape[1]*T.log(torch.tensor(2*np.pi))
log_q_z = compute_log_probability_gaussian(z, mu, log_std) # Definitions below
log_p_x = compute_log_probability_bernoulli(decoded,data_k_vec)
if model_type == 'iwae':
log_w_matrix = (log_prior_z + log_p_x - log_q_z).view(-1, K)
elif model_type =='vae':
log_w_matrix = (log_prior_z + log_p_x - log_q_z).view(-1, 1)*1/K
log_w_minus_max = log_w_matrix - torch.max(log_w_matrix, 1, keepdim=True)[0]
ws_matrix = torch.exp(log_w_minus_max)
ws_norm = ws_matrix / torch.sum(ws_matrix, 1, keepdim=True)
ws_sum_per_datapoint = torch.sum(log_w_matrix * ws_norm, 1)
loss = -torch.sum(ws_sum_per_datapoint) # value of loss that gets returned to training function. loss.backward() will get called on this value
Here are the likelihood functions. I had to fuss with the bernoulli LL in order to not get nan during training
def compute_log_probability_gaussian(obs, mu, logstd, axis=1):
return torch.sum(-0.5 * ((obs-mu) / torch.exp(logstd)) ** 2 - logstd, axis)-.5*obs.shape[1]*T.log(torch.tensor(2*np.pi))
def compute_log_probability_bernoulli(theta, obs, axis=1): # Add 1e-18 to avoid nan appearances in training
return torch.sum(obs*torch.log(theta+1e-18) + (1-obs)*torch.log(1-theta+1e-18), axis)
In this code there's a "shortcut" being used in that the row-wise importance weights are being calculated in the model_type=='iwae' case for the K=50 samples in each row, while in the model_type=='vae' case the importance weights are being calculated for the single value left in each row, so that it just ends up calculating a weight of 1. Maybe this is the issue?
Any and all help is huge - I thought that addressing the nan issue would permanently get me out of the weeds but now I have this new problem.
EDIT:
Should add that the training scheme is the same as that in the paper linked above. That is, for each of i=0....7 rounds train for 2**i epochs with a learning rate of 1e-4 * 10**(-i/7)
The K-sample importance weighted ELBO is
$$ \textrm{IW-ELBO}(x,K) = \log \sum_{k=1}^K \frac{p(x \vert z_k) p(z_k)}{q(z_k;x)}$$
For the IWAE there are K samples originating from each datapoint x, so you want to have the same latent statistics mu_z, Sigma_z obtained through the amortized inference network, but sample multiple z K times for each x.
So its computationally wasteful to compute the forward pass for data_k_vec = data.repeat_interleave(K,0), you should compute the forward pass once for each original datapoint, then repeat the statistics output by the inference network for sampling:
mu = torch.repeat_interleave(mu,K,0)
log_std = torch.repeat_interleave(log_std,K,0)
Then sample z_k. And now repeat your datapoints data_k_vec = data.repeat_interleave(K,0), and use the resulting tensor to efficiently evaluate the conditional p(x |z_k) for each importance sample z_k.
Note you may also want to use the logsumexp operation when calculating the IW-ELBO for numerical stability. I can't quite figure out what's going on with the log_w_matrix calculation in your post, but this is what I would do:
log_pz = ...
log_qzCx = ....
log_pxCz = ...
log_iw = log_pxCz + log_pz - log_qzCx
log_iw = log_iw.reshape(-1, K)
iwelbo = torch.logsumexp(log_iw, dim=1) - np.log(K)
EDIT: Actually after thinking about it a bit and using the score function identity, you can interpret the IWAE gradient as an importance weighted estimate of the standard single-sample gradient, so the method in the OP for calculation of the importance weights is equivalent (if a bit wasteful), provided you place a stop_gradient operator around the normalized importance weights, which you call w_norm. So I the main problem is the absence of this stop_gradient operator.
I have implemented a very simple linear regression with gradient descent algorithm in JavaScript, but after consulting multiple sources and trying several things, I cannot get it to converge.
The data is absolutely linear, it's just the numbers 0 to 30 as inputs with x*3 as their correct outputs to learn.
This is the logic behind the gradient descent:
train(input, output) {
const predictedOutput = this.predict(input);
const delta = output - predictedOutput;
this.m += this.learningRate * delta * input;
this.b += this.learningRate * delta;
}
predict(x) {
return x * this.m + this.b;
}
I took the formulas from different places, including:
Exercises from Udacity's Deep Learning Foundations Nanodegree
Andrew Ng's course on Gradient Descent for Linear Regression (also here)
Stanford's CS229 Lecture Notes
this other PDF slides I found from Carnegie Mellon
I have already tried:
normalizing input and output values to the [-1, 1] range
normalizing input and output values to the [0, 1] range
normalizing input and output values to have mean = 0 and stddev = 1
reducing the learning rate (1e-7 is as low as I went)
having a linear data set with no bias at all (y = x * 3)
having a linear data set with non-zero bias (y = x * 3 + 2)
initializing the weights with random non-zero values between -1 and 1
Still, the weights (this.b and this.m) do not approach any of the data values, and they diverge into infinity.
I'm obviously doing something wrong, but I cannot figure out what it is.
Update: Here's a little bit more context that may help figure out what my problem is exactly:
I'm trying to model a simple approximation to a linear function, with online learning by a linear regression pseudo-neuron. With that, my parameters are:
weights: [this.m, this.b]
inputs: [x, 1]
activation function: identity function z(x) = x
As such, my net will be expressed by y = this.m * x + this.b * 1, simulating the data-driven function that I want to approximate (y = 3 * x).
What I want is for my network to "learn" the parameters this.m = 3 and this.b = 0, but it seems I get stuck at a local minima.
My error function is the mean-squared error:
error(allInputs, allOutputs) {
let error = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < allInputs.length; i++) {
const x = allInputs[i];
const y = allOutputs[i];
const predictedOutput = this.predict(x);
const delta = y - predictedOutput;
error += delta * delta;
}
return error / allInputs.length;
}
My logic for updating my weights will be (according to the sources I've checked so far) wi -= alpha * dError/dwi
For the sake of simplicity, I'll call my weights this.m and this.b, so we can relate it back to my JavaScript code. I'll also call y^ the predicted value.
From here:
error = y - y^
= y - this.m * x + this.b
dError/dm = -x
dError/db = 1
And so, applying that to the weight correction logic:
this.m += alpha * x
this.b -= alpha * 1
But this doesn't seem correct at all.
I finally found what's wrong, and I'm answering my own question in hopes it will help beginners in this area too.
First, as Sascha said, I had some theoretical misunderstandings. It may be correct that your adjustment includes the input value verbatim, but as he said, it should already be part of the gradient. This all depends on your choice of the error function.
Your error function will be the measure of what you use to measure how off you were from the real value, and that measurement needs to be consistent. I was using mean-squared-error as a measurement tool (as you can see in my error method), but I was using a pure-absolute error (y^ - y) inside of the training method to measure the error. Your gradient will depend on the choice of this error function. So choose only one and stick with it.
Second, simplify your assumptions in order to test what's wrong. In this case, I had a very good idea what the function to approximate was (y = x * 3) so I manually set the weights (this.b and this.m) to the right values and I still saw the error diverge. This means that weight initialization was not the problem in this case.
After searching some more, my error was somewhere else: the function that was feeding data into the network was mistakenly passing a 3 hardcoded value into the predicted output (it was using a wrong index in an array), so the oscillation I saw was because of the network trying to approximate to y = 0 * x + 3 (this.b = 3 and this.m = 0), but because of the small learning rate and the error in the error function derivative, this.b wasn't going to get near to the right value, making this.m making wild jumps to adjust to it.
Finally, keep track of the error measurement as your network trains, so you can have some insight into what's going on. This helps a lot to identify a difference between simple overfitting, big learning rates and plain simple mistakes.
I am working with opencv and I need to understand how does the function fitEllipse exactly works. I looked at the code at (https://github.com/Itseez/opencv/blob/master/modules/imgproc/src/shapedescr.cpp) and I know it uses least-squares to determine the likely ellipses. I also looked at the paper given in the documentation(Andrew W. Fitzgibbon, R.B.Fisher. A Buyer’s Guide to Conic Fitting. Proc.5th British Machine Vision Conference, Birmingham, pp. 513-522, 1995.)
But I cannot understand exactly the algorithm. For example, why does it need to solve 3 times the least square problem? why bd is initialized to 10000 before the first svd(I guess it is juste a random value for the initialization but why this value can be random?)? why does the values in Ad needs to be negative before the first svd?
Thank you!
Here is Matlab code.. it might help
function [Q,a]=fit_ellipse_fitzgibbon(data)
% function [Q,a]=fit_ellipse_fitzgibbon(data)
%
% Ellipse specific fit, according to:
%
% Direct Least Square Fitting of Ellipses,
% A. Fitzgibbon, M. Pilu and R. Fisher. PAMI 1996
%
%
% See Also:
% FIT_ELLIPSE_LS
% FIT_ELLIPSE_HALIR
[m,n] = size(data);
assert((m==2||m==3)&&n>5);
x = data(1,:)';
y = data(2,:)';
D = [x.^2 x.*y y.^2 x y ones(size(x))]; % design matrix
S = D'*D; % scatter matrix
C(6,6)=0; C(1,3)=-2; C(2,2)=1; C(3,1)=-2; % constraints matrix
% solve the generalized eigensystem
[V,D] = eig(S, C);
% find the only negative eigenvalue
[n_r, n_c] = find(D<0 & ~isinf(D));
if isempty(n_c),
warning('Error getting the ellipse parameters, will do LS');
[Q,a] = fit_ellipse_ls(data); %
return;
end
% the parameters
a = V(:, n_c);
[A B C D E F] = deal(a(1),a(2),a(3),a(4),a(5),a(6)); % deal is slow!
Q = [A B/2 D/2; B/2 C E/2; D/2 E/2 F];
end % fit_ellipse_fitzgibbon
Fitzibbon solution has some numerical stability though. See the work of Halir for a solution to this.
It is essentially least squares solution, but specifically designed so that it will produce a valid ellipse, not just any conic.
I'm trying to develop an application using SOM in analyzing data. However, after finishing training, I cannot find a way to visualize the result. I know that U-Matrix is one of the method but I cannot understand it properly. Hence, I'm asking for a specific and detail example how to construct U-Matrix.
I also read an answer at U-matrix and self organizing maps but it only refers to 1 row map, how about 3x3 map? I know that for 3x3 map:
m(1) m(2) m(3)
m(4) m(5) m(6)
m(7) m(8) m(9)
a 5x5 matrix must me created:
u(1) u(1,2) u(2) u(2,3) u(3)
u(1,4) u(1,2,4,5) u(2,5) u(2,3,5,6) u(3,6)
u(4) u(4,5) u(5) u(5,6) u(6)
u(4,7) u(4,5,7,8) u(5,8) u(5,6,8,9) u(6,9)
u(7) u(7,8) u(8) u(8,9) u(9)
but I don't know how to calculate u-weight u(1,2,4,5), u(2,3,5,6), u(4,5,7,8) and u(5,6,8,9).
Finally, after constructing U-Matrix, is there any way to visualize it using color, e.g. heat map?
Thank you very much for your time.
Cheers
I don't know if you are still interested in this but I found this link
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb12/datenbionik/pdf/pubs/1990/UltschSiemon90
which explains very speciffically how to calculate the U-matrix.
Hope it helps.
By the way, the site were I found the link has several resources referring to SOMs I leave it here in case anyone is interested:
http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/dm/somtoolbox/visualisations.html
The essential idea of a Kohonen map is that the data points are mapped to a
lattice, which is often a 2D rectangular grid.
In the simplest implementations, the lattice is initialized by creating a 3D
array with these dimensions:
width * height * number_features
This is the U-matrix.
Width and height are chosen by the user; number_features is just the number
of features (columns or fields) in your data.
Intuitively this is just creating a 2D grid of dimensions w * h
(e.g., if w = 10 and h = 10 then your lattice has 100 cells), then
into each cell, placing a random 1D array (sometimes called "reference tuples")
whose size and values are constrained by your data.
The reference tuples are also referred to as weights.
How is the U-matrix rendered?
In my example below, the data is comprised of rgb tuples, so the reference tuples
have length of three and each of the three values must lie between 0 and 255).
It's with this 3D array ("lattice") that you begin the main iterative loop
The algorithm iteratively positions each data point so that it is closest to others similar to it.
If you plot it over time (iteration number) then you can visualize cluster
formation.
The plotting tool i use for this is the brilliant Python library, Matplotlib,
which plots the lattice directly, just by passing it into the imshow function.
Below are eight snapshots of the progress of a SOM algorithm, from initialization to 700 iterations. The newly initialized (iteration_count = 0) lattice is rendered in the top left panel; the result from the final iteration, in the bottom right panel.
Alternatively, you can use a lower-level imaging library (in Python, e.g., PIL) and transfer the reference tuples onto the 2D grid, one at a time:
for y in range(h):
for x in range(w):
img.putpixel( (x, y), (
SOM.Umatrix[y, x, 0],
SOM.Umatrix[y, x, 1],
SOM.Umatrix[y, x, 2])
)
Here img is an instance of PIL's Image class. Here the image is created by iterating over the grid one pixel at a time; for each pixel, putpixel is called on img three times, the three calls of course corresponding to the three values in an rgb tuple.
From the matrix that you create:
u(1) u(1,2) u(2) u(2,3) u(3)
u(1,4) u(1,2,4,5) u(2,5) u(2,3,5,6) u(3,6)
u(4) u(4,5) u(5) u(5,6) u(6)
u(4,7) u(4,5,7,8) u(5,8) u(5,6,8,9) u(6,9)
u(7) u(7,8) u(8) u(8,9) u(9)
The elements with single numbers like u(1), u(2), ..., u(9) as just the elements with more than two numbers like u(1,2,4,5), u(2,3,5,6), ... , u(5,6,8,9) are calculated using something like the mean, median, min or max of the values in the neighborhood.
It's a nice idea calculate the elements with two numbers first, one possible code for that is:
for i in range(self.h_u_matrix):
for j in range(self.w_u_matrix):
nb = (0,0)
if not (i % 2) and (j % 2):
nb = (0,1)
elif (i % 2) and not (j % 2):
nb = (1,0)
self.u_matrix[(i,j)] = np.linalg.norm(
self.weights[i //2, j //2] - self.weights[i //2 +nb[0], j // 2 + nb[1]],
axis = 0
)
In the code above the self.h_u_matrix = self.weights.shape[0]*2 - 1 and self.w_u_matrix = self.weights.shape[1]*2 - 1 are the dimensions of the U-Matrix. With that said, for calculate the others elements it's necessary obtain a list with they neighboors and apply a mean for example. The following code implements that's idea:
for i in range(self.h_u_matrix):
for j in range(self.w_u_matrix):
if not (i % 2) and not (j % 2):
nodelist = []
if i > 0:
nodelist.append((i-1,j))
if i < 4:
nodelist.append((i+1, j))
if j > 0:
nodelist.append((i,j -1))
if j < 4:
nodelist.append((i,j+1))
meanlist = [self.u_matrix[u_node] for u_node in nodelist]
self.u_matrix[(i,j)] = np.mean(meanlist)
elif (i % 2) and (j % 2):
meanlist = [
(i - 1, j),
(i + 1, j),
(i, j - 1),
(i, j + 1)]
self.u_matrix[(i,j)] = np.mean(meanlist)