I am trying to compute the similarity between n entities that are being described by entity_id, type_of_order, total_value.
An example of the data might look like:
NR entity_id type_of_order total_value
1 1 A 10
2 1 B 90
3 1 C 70
4 2 B 20
5 2 C 40
6 3 A 10
7 3 B 50
8 3 C 20
9 4 B 50
10 4 C 80
My question would be what is a god way of measuring the similarity between entity_id 1 and 2 for example with regards to the type_of_order and the total_value for that type of order.
Would a simple KNN give satisfactory results or should I consider other algorithms?
Any suggestion would be much appreciated.
The similarity metric is a heuristic to capture a relationship between two data rows, with respect to the data semantics and the purpose of the training. We don't know your data; we don't know your usage. It would be irresponsible to suggest metrics to solve a problem when we have no idea what problem we're solving.
You have to address this question to the person you find in the mirror. You've given us three features with no idea of what they mean or how they relate. You need to quantify ...
relative distances within features: under type_of_order, what is the relationship (distance) between any two measurements? If we arbitrarily assign d(A, B) = 1, then what is d(B, C)? We have no information to help you construct this. Further, if we give that some value c, then what is d(A, C)? In various popular metrics, it could be 1+c, |1-c|, all distances could be 1, or perhaps it's something else -- even more than 1+c in some applications.
Even in the last column, we cannot assume that d(10, 20) = d(40, 50); the actual difference could be a ratio, difference of squares, etc. Again, this depends on the semantics behind these labels.
relative weights between features: How do the differences in the various columns combine to provide a similarity? For instance, how does d([A, 10], [B, 20]) compare to d([A, 10], [C, 30])? That's two letters in the left column, two steps of 10 in the right column. How about d([A, 10], [A, 20]) vs d([A, 10], [B, 10])? Are the distances linear, or do the relationships change as we slide up the alphabet or to higher numbers?
Related
I am trying to conduct a repeated-measures mixed-effects test with lmer and lmerTest, but I am not sure if I am doing it appropriately.
I have 6 sites with 3 plots per site that have been sampled once per year for 24 consecutive years. I have several environmental and species variables, but for simplicity, let's say I have two environmental variables (depth and temperature) and two species (species 1 and species 2). I am not interested in the time variable, changes with time, or the interactions, as this system has strong wet/dry seasonality where the effects of the dry season outweigh carry over effects of species from the prior year. I do not necessarily have data for all variables and plots every year, with some plots not sampled at times.
The question is whether species2 (a predator) has any effect on populations of species1, relative to the environmental variables.
Is it appropriate to include year as its own random effect in the model, along with plot within site?
model1 <- lmer(species1 ~ depth + temperature + species2 + (1|year) + (1|site/plot), data=data)
For this particular analysis, there were 435 total observations (plot/year), but I worry that it is not appropriately conducting repeated-measures.
anova(model1)
Type III Analysis of Variance Table with Satterthwaite's method
Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
depth 0.0221 0.0221 1 145.75 0.0908 0.7635
temperature 9.0213 9.0213 1 422.19 37.0429 2.596e-09 ***
species2 0.0597 0.0597 1 418.95 0.2450 0.6208
This does not seem right. Is the a better way to incorporate year, or should I include year at all?
If I exclude year, why does the DenDF for depth change so drastically?
model1 <- lmer(species1 ~ depth + temperature + species2 + (1|year) + (1|site/plot), data=data)
Type III Analysis of Variance Table with Satterthwaite's method
Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
depth 2.599 2.599 1 431.77 7.1096 0.007955 **
temperature 58.788 58.788 1 432.10 160.7955 < 2.2e-16 ***
species2 0.853 0.853 1 429.62 2.3336 0.127343
summary(M1)
Linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood . t-tests use Satterthwaite's method ['lmerModLmerTest']
Formula: species1 ~ depth + temperature + species2 + (1 | site/plot)
Data: data
AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid
833.4 861.9 -409.7 819.4 428
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-2.20675 -0.66119 -0.07051 0.52722 2.99942
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
plot:site (Intercept) 0.0003221 0.01795
site (Intercept) 0.2051143 0.45290
Residual 0.3656072 0.60465
Number of obs: 435, groups: plot:site, 24; site, 6
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -0.538258 0.325072 50.071940 -1.656 0.10401
depth 0.006338 0.002377 431.768539 2.666 0.00796 **
temperature 0.391023 0.030837 432.101095 12.681 < 2e-16 ***
species2 -0.353264 0.231252 429.615226 -1.528 0.12734
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) depth temp
depth -0.316
temperature -0.467 -0.204
specie2 -0.544 0.040 0.007
I may have asked more questions than I answered, but I hope some of this is helpful.
"The question is whether species2 (a predator) has any effect on populations of species1, relative to the environmental variables."
I think when you word it this way, it is not entirely clear. Are you interested in the effect that species2 has on species1 - depending on what the environmental variables are (in other words the effect of species2 on species1 can change depending on depth or temperature? Or do you mean you would like to compare the effects of species2 on species1 to the effects of depth or temperature on species1? Or what do you mean, exactly, by "relative to the environmental variables"?
Yes, (1|year) + (1|site/plot) is a random intercept for both year and for plot within site. If you wanted a variable to be able to vary over each group (i.e. have a random slope) you would do something like (Temperature|year) + (1|site/plot) if you thought the effect of temperature on species1 might be different in different years.
Exactly how you specify the model is going to be based on your knowledge of the biological system and your knowledge of statistics. Based on the information in your question, this random effects formulation that you have suggested appears completely reasonable to me. Yes, this is allowing you to account for grouped data (grouped by each year and by each plot within site). It is possible that with only 435 observations you may have convergence issues with an overly complex model, which you may or may not have - just something to look out for.
I am not sure what you mean by "this does not seem right" - what are you expecting to see? What is missing?
I am seeing the same model twice (below), with different values as the output, is there a copy and pasting error here, or am I missing something? The values shouldn't be off with the same model structure.
model1 <- lmer(species1 ~ depth + temperature + species2 + (1|year) + (1|site/plot), data=data)
You haven't removed year in the above line, but have below this in the summary(M1) call.
My simple answer about the year question would be yes, I would include year. Every year is so different in any biological dataset I have seen that it is worth including as a random intercept at least - exactly as you have done. If the variance of the random effect mean is estimated to be zero, then this term is as if you didn't have it there in the first place. At that point you can choose to fit that random effect as a fixed effect instead if you still would like to account for the grouped nature of the data.
Also, there are lots of resources on this. Some examples:
Bolker, Benjamin M., Mollie E. Brooks, Connie J. Clark, Shane W. Geange, John R. Poulsen, M. Henry H. Stevens, and Jada-Simone S. White. "Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution." Trends in ecology & evolution 24, no. 3 (2009): 127-135.
Harrison, Xavier A., Lynda Donaldson, Maria Eugenia Correa-Cano, Julian Evans, David N. Fisher, Cecily ED Goodwin, Beth S. Robinson, David J. Hodgson, and Richard Inger. "A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology." PeerJ 6 (2018): e4794.
https://peerj.com/articles/4794/
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 will like to use a clustering algorithm to find a clustering for a big Digraph, and I will like remove noise from this graph too. So, I was thinking to use the DBSCAN approach, because I saw that we can give to the algorithm a distance function for determining the distance/similarity between two different nodes.
My question is, how can I define a distance function which increases the similarity between two nodes closes in terms of hops and decrease when a node is isolated.
I don't have coordinates or node attributes, so I can not use those. I only have the topology of the graph.
The expected output will be something like this:
I'm really concern about the complexity of the solution. How can approximate a clustering with a linear complexity ...
What is wrong with the obvious?
Distance(a,b) = length of shortest path, or infinity if there is none.
You probably should take directions into account, so a0 to a3 ist 1.
The distance metric suggested by #Anony-Mousse is a good
and natural one, but I question the use of dbscan. Using
the proposed
distance = length of shortest path, or infinity if there is none
Any two nodes that are directly linked would be at distance 1.
If you used dbscan with epsilon < 1, all points would be noise
points. So you will want epsilon > 1. From your example, it looks
like if there is even one point at distance 1, you want them in
the same component so
it looks like you want minNumPts = 2. This will give the
result that it two points are connected by a path of any length
they would be in the same cluster. It looks to me like what
you are after has nothing to do with density and clustering,
rather, I think that what you want is connected components.
If two nodes are connected by a path of any length, they are
in the same component. Finding this via dbscan or some other clustering
method may be possible, but that is probably the
wrong way to think about this. You have a graph and a graph
theoretic problem. You should probably use methods from graph
theory.
I will illustrate using R and igraph. There are other tools
if you don't care for these.
Most of the work is simply setting up your problem.
library(igraph)
to = c("a1", "a2", "a3", "a0", "b1", "b2", "b3", "b0")
from = c("a0", "a1", "a2", "a3", "b0", "b1", "b2", "b3")
EL = data.frame(from, to)
Vert = c("a0", "a1", "a2", "a3", "b0", "b1", "b2", "b3", "c0", "d0")
Vdf = data.frame(Vert)
g = graph_from_data_frame(d = EL, vertices=Vdf)
LO = matrix(c(1.2,1,1,1.2, 2.2,2,2,2.2, 0, 3, 4,3,2,1,4,3,2,1,4,4),
ncol=2)
plot(g, layout=LO)
Now we can use a one-liner to get everything that we need
about the components.
Comp = components(g, mode="weak")
Comp
$membership
a0 a1 a2 a3 b0 b1 b2 b3 c0 d0
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4
$csize
[1] 4 4 1 1
$no
[1] 4
This is telling us component membership of the nodes,
the number of nodes per component and the number of
components. Since you wanted to call the single node
components "noise" in the style of dbscan, you can
see that components 3 and 4 have one node each.
They are the noise. The others are "real" components.
To show how to use this and to come to closure with a
pretty picture, I will plot the graph coloring the
components and use light gray for the "noise".
ColorMap = rainbow(Comp$no)
ColorMap[Comp$csize == 1] = "lightgray"
plot(g, layout=LO, vertex.color=ColorMap[Comp$membership])
I encourage you to think about your graph problem as a graph.
I made a survey where users could vote on a subject. They were allowed to either yay it (+1) , nay it (–1) or don't care (0).
I only have the aggregate results in Google Sheets like
yay nay dontcare
Option A: 32 14 23
Option B: 12 37 20
Option C: 40 17 12
Option D: 64 3 2
The number of votes are always the same on every option.
Now I need to find out how controversial the answers are. I thought about STDEVP, but I do not have a list of cells, just the aggregates.
How do I find the standard deviation here with Google Sheets?
Assuming you ignore don't care's you can just take the prevalence of yay's and use sd=sqrt(p(1-p))
so if yay's are in column B, nays in C you use
=SQRT(B2/SUM(B2:C2) * (C2/SUM(B2:C2)))
Note that this is the standard deviation for a population.
If you want to include them you can use calculate the mean in E2 with
=SUMPRODUCT(B2:D2, {1, -1, 0}) / SUM(B2:D2)
Then you can calculate variance like this in F2
=SUMPRODUCT(ArrayFormula({1, -1, 0}-E2)^2, B2:D2) / (SUM(B2:D2)-1)
which is just taking every 1, -1, or 0 reduces by the mean, squares this deviation it and takes the average -1 degree of freedom (for the sample, leave the -1 out if you assume you have the population).
The Standard deviation is
=SQRT(F2)
I am thinking if I can predict if a user will like an item or not, given the similarities between items and the user's rating on items.
I know the equation in collaborative filtering item-based recommendation, the predicted rating is decided by the overall rating and similarities between items.
The equation is:
http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?r_{u%2Ci}%20%3D%20\bar{r_{i}}%20+%20\frac{\sum%20S_{i%2Cj}%28r_{u%2Cj}-\bar{r_{j}}%29}{\sum%20S_{i%2Cj}}
My question is,
If I got the similarities using other approaches (e.g. content-based approach), can I still use this equation?
Besides, for each user, I only have a list of the user's favourite items, not the actual value of ratings.
In this case, the rating of user u to item j and average rating of item j is missing. Is there any better ways or equations to solve this problem?
Another problem is, I wrote a python code to test the above equation, the code is
mat = numpy.array([[0, 5, 5, 5, 0], [5, 0, 5, 0, 5], [5, 0, 5, 5, 0], [5, 5, 0, 5, 0]])
print mat
def prediction(u, i):
target = mat[u,i]
r = numpy.mean(mat[:,i])
a = 0.0
b = 0.0
for j in range(5):
if j != i:
simi = 1 - spatial.distance.cosine(mat[:,i], mat[:,j])
dert = mat[u,j] - numpy.mean(mat[:,j])
a += simi * dert
b += simi
return r + a / b
for u in range(4):
lst = []
for i in range(5):
lst.append(str(round(prediction(u, i), 2)))
print " ".join(lst)
The result is:
[[0 5 5 5 0]
[5 0 5 0 5]
[5 0 5 5 0]
[5 5 0 5 0]]
4.6 2.5 3.16 3.92 0.0
3.52 1.25 3.52 3.58 2.5
3.72 3.75 3.72 3.58 2.5
3.16 2.5 4.6 3.92 0.0
The first matrix is the input and the second one is the predicted values, they looks not close, anything wrong here?
Yes, you can use different similarity functions. For instance, cosine similarity over ratings is common but not the only option. In particular, similarity using content-based filtering can help with a sparse rating dataset (if you have relatively dense content metadata for items) because you're mapping users' preferences to the smaller content space rather than the larger individual item space.
If you only have a list of items that users have consumed (but not the magnitude of their preferences for each item), another algorithm is probably better. Try market basket analysis, such as association rule mining.
What you are referring to is a typical situation of implicit ratings (i.e. users do not give explicit ratings to items, let's say you just have likes and dislikes).
As for the approches you can use Neighbourhood models or latent factor models.
I will suggest you to read this paper that proposes a well known machine-learning based solution to the problem.