I have a data frame containing ~900 rows; I'm trying to plot KDEplots for some of the columns. In some columns, a majority of the values are the same, minimum value. When I include too many of the minimum values, the KDEPlot abruptly stops showing the minimums. For example, the following includes 600 values, of which 450 are the minimum, and the plot looks fine:
y = df.sort_values(by='col1', ascending=False)['col1'].values[:600]
sb.kdeplot(y)
But including 451 of the minimum values gives a very different output:
y = df.sort_values(by='col1', ascending=False)['col1'].values[:601]
sb.kdeplot(y)
Eventually I would like to plot bivariate KDEPlots of different columns against each other, but I'd like to understand this first.
The problem is the default algorithm that is chosen for the "bandwidth" of the kde. The default method is 'scott', which isn't very helpful when there are many equal values.
The bandwidth is the width of the gaussians that are positioned at every sample point and summed up. Lower bandwidths are closer to the data, higher bandwidths smooth everything out. The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. In this case bw=0.3 could be a good option. In order to compare different kde's it is recommended to each time choose exactly the same bandwidth.
Here is some sample code to show the difference between bw='scott' and bw=0.3. The example data are 150 values from a standard normal distribution together with either 400, 450 or 500 fixed values.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import seaborn as sns; sns.set()
fig, axs = plt.subplots(nrows=2, ncols=3, figsize=(10,5), gridspec_kw={'hspace':0.3})
for i, bw in enumerate(['scott', 0.3]):
for j, num_same in enumerate([400, 450, 500]):
y = np.concatenate([np.random.normal(0, 1, 150), np.repeat(-3, num_same)])
sns.kdeplot(y, bw=bw, ax=axs[i, j])
axs[i, j].set_title(f'bw:{bw}; fixed values:{num_same}')
plt.show()
The third plot gives a warning that the kde can not be drawn using Scott's suggested bandwidth.
PS: As mentioned by #mwascom in the comments, in this case scipy.statsmodels.nonparametric.kde is used (not scipy.stats.gaussian_kde). There the default is "scott" - 1.059 * A * nobs ** (-1/5.), where A is min(std(X),IQR/1.34). The min() clarifies the abrupt change in behavior. IQR is the "interquartile range", the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles.
Edit: Since Seaborn 0.11, the statsmodel backend has been dropped, so kde's are only calculated via scipy.stats.gaussian_kde.
If the sample has repeated values, this implies that the underlying distribution is not continuous. In the data that you show to illustrate the issue, we can see a Dirac distribution on the left. The kernel smoothing might be applied for such data, but with care. Indeed, to approximate such data, we might use a kernel smoothing where the bandwidth associated to the Dirac is zero. However, in most KDE methods, there is only one single bandwidth for all kernel atoms. Moreover, the various rules used to compute the bandwidth are based on some estimation of the rugosity of the second derivative of the PDF of the distribution. This cannot be applied to a discontinuous distribution.
We can, however, try to separate the sample into two sub-samples:
the sub-sample(s) with replications,
the sub-sample with unique realizations.
(This idea has already been mentionned by johanc).
Below is an attempt to perform this classification. The np.unique method is used to count the occurences of the replicated realizations. The replicated values are associated with Diracs and the weight in the mixture is estimated from the fraction of these replicated values in the sample. The remaining realizations, uniques, are then used to estimate the continuous distribution with KDE.
The following function will be useful in order to overcome a limitation with the current implementation of the draw method of Mixtures with OpenTURNS.
def DrawMixtureWithDiracs(distribution):
"""Draw a distributions which has Diracs.
https://github.com/openturns/openturns/issues/1489"""
graph = distribution.drawPDF()
graph.setLegends(["Mixture"])
for atom in distribution.getDistributionCollection():
if atom.getName() == "Dirac":
curve = atom.drawPDF()
curve.setLegends(["Dirac"])
graph.add(curve)
return graph
The following script creates a use-case with a Mixture containing a Dirac and a gaussian distributions.
import openturns as ot
import numpy as np
distribution = ot.Mixture([ot.Dirac(-3.0),
ot.Normal()], [0.5, 0.5])
DrawMixtureWithDiracs(distribution)
This is the result.
Then we create a sample.
sample = distribution.getSample(100)
This is where your problem begins. We count the number of occurences of each realizations.
array = np.array(sample)
unique, index, count = np.unique(array, axis=0, return_index=True,
return_counts=True)
For all realizations, replicated values are associated with Diracs and unique values are put in a separate list.
sampleSize = sample.getSize()
listOfDiracs = []
listOfWeights = []
uniqueValues = []
for i in range(len(unique)):
if count[i] == 1:
uniqueValues.append(unique[i][0])
else:
atom = ot.Dirac(unique[i])
listOfDiracs.append(atom)
w = count[i] / sampleSize
print("New Dirac =", unique[i], " with weight =", w)
listOfWeights.append(w)
The weight of the continuous atom is the complementary of the sum of the weights of the Diracs. This way, the sum of the weights will be equal to 1.
complementaryWeight = 1.0 - sum(listOfWeights)
weights = list(listOfWeights)
weights.append(complementaryWeight)
The easy part comes: the unique realizations can be used to fit a kernel smoothing. The KDE is then added to the list of atoms.
sampleUniques = ot.Sample(uniqueValues, 1)
factory = ot.KernelSmoothing()
kde = factory.build(sampleUniques)
atoms = list(listOfDiracs)
atoms.append(kde)
Et voilà: the Mixture is ready.
mixture_estimated = ot.Mixture(atoms, weights)
The following script compares the initial Mixture and the estimated one.
graph = DrawMixtureWithDiracs(distribution)
graph.setColors(["dodgerblue3", "dodgerblue3"])
curve = DrawMixtureWithDiracs(mixture_estimated)
curve.setColors(["darkorange1", "darkorange1"])
curve.setLegends(["Est. Mixture", "Est. Dirac"])
graph.add(curve)
graph
The figure seems satisfactory, since the continuous distribution is estimated from a sub-sample which size is only equal to 50, i.e. one half of the full sample.
Related
I have a dataframe where each column represents a geographic point, and each row represents a minute in a day. The value of each cell is the flow of water at that point in CFS. Below is a graph of one of these time-flow series.
Basically, I need to calculate the absolute value of the max flow at each of these locations during the day, which in this case would be that hump of 187 cfs. However, there are instabilities, so DF.abs().max() returns 1197 cfs. I need to somehow remove the outliers in the calculation. As you can see, there is no pattern to the outliers, but if you look at the graph, no 2 consecutive points in time should have more than an x% change in flow. I should mention that there are 15K of these points, so the fastest solution is the best.
Anyone know how can I accomplish this in python, or at least know the statistical word for what I want to do? Thanks!
In my opinion, the statistical word your are looking for is smoothing or denoising data.
Here is my try:
# Importing packages
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.signal import savgol_filter
# Creating a curve with a local maximum to simulate "ideal data"
x = np.arange(start=-1, stop=1, step=0.001)
y_ideal = 10**-(x**2)
# Adding some randomly distributed outliers to simulate "real data"
y_real = y_ideal.copy()
np.random.seed(0)
for i in range(50):
x_index = np.random.choice(len(x))
y_real[x_index] = np.random.randint(-3, 5)
# Denoising with Savitzky-Golay (window size = 501, polynomial order = 3)
y_denoised = savgol_filter(y_real, window_length=501, polyorder=3)
# You should optimize these values to fit your needs
# Getting the index of the maximum value from the "denoised data"
max_index = np.where(y_denoised == np.amax(y_denoised))[0]
# Recovering the maximum value and reporting
max_value = y_real[max_index][0]
print(f'The maximum value is around {max_value:.5f}')
Please, keep in mind that:
This solution is approximate.
You should find the optimum parameters of the window_length and polyorder parameters plugged to the savgol_filter() function.
If the region where your maximum is located is noisy, you can use max_value = y_denoised [max_index][0] instead of max_value = y_real[max_index][0].
Note: This solution is based in this other Stack Overflow answer
I'm looking for a function which calculates the n-th central moment
(same as the one out of scipy.stats.moment)
for my binned data (Out of the numpy.histogram function).
# Generate normal distributed data
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
data = np.random.normal(size=500,loc=1,scale=2)
H = np.histogram(data,bins=50)
plt.scatter(H[1][:-1],H[0])
plt.show()
for my above code example the results should be (0,4,0,48) for the first four moments as there sigma = 2 (for the central moment).
Working with binned data is essentially the same as working with weighted data. One uses the midpoint of each bin as a data point, and the count of that bin as its weight. If scipy.stats.moment supported weights, we could do this computation directly. As is, use the method numpy.average which supports weights.
midpoints = 0.5 * (H[1][1:] + H[1][:-1])
ev = np.average(midpoints, weights = H[0])
print(ev)
for k in range(2, 5):
print(np.average((midpoints - ev)**k, weights = H[0]))
Output (obviously random):
1.08242834443
4.21602099286
0.713129264647
51.6257736139
I didn't print the centered 1st moment (which is 0 by construction), printing the expected value instead. Theoretically*, these are 1, 4, 0, 48 but for any given sample, there is going to be some deviation from the parameters of the distribution.
(*) Not exactly. In the formula for variance I didn't include the correction factor n/(n-1) (where n is the total size of data set, i.e., the sum of weights). This factor adjusts the sample variance so it becomes an unbiased estimator of the population variance. You can include it if you like. Similar adjustments are probably needed for higher-order moments (if the goal is to have unbiased estimators), but I'd have to look this up, and in any case this is not a statistics site.
Not sure if this belongs in statistics, but I am trying to use Python to achieve this. I essentially just have a list of integers:
data = [300,244,543,1011,300,125,300 ... ]
And I would like to know the probability of a value occurring given this data.
I graphed histograms of the data using matplotlib and obtained these:
In the first graph, the numbers represent the amount of characters in a sequence. In the second graph, it's a measured amount of time in milliseconds. The minimum is greater than zero, but there isn't necessarily a maximum. The graphs were created using millions of examples, but I'm not sure I can make any other assumptions about the distribution. I want to know the probability of a new value given that I have a few million examples of values. In the first graph, I have a few million sequences of different lengths. Would like to know probability of a 200 length, for example.
I know that for a continuous distribution the probability of any exact point is supposed to be zero, but given a stream of new values, I need be able to say how likely each value is. I've looked through some of the numpy/scipy probability density functions, but I'm not sure which to choose from or how to query for new values once I run something like scipy.stats.norm.pdf(data). It seems like different probability density functions will fit the data differently. Given the shape of the histograms I'm not sure how to decide which to use.
Since you don't seem to have a specific distribution in mind, but you might have a lot of data samples, I suggest using a non-parametric density estimation method. One of the data types you describe (time in ms) is clearly continuous, and one method for non-parametric estimation of a probability density function (PDF) for continuous random variables is the histogram that you already mentioned. However, as you will see below, Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) can be better. The second type of data you describe (number of characters in a sequence) is of the discrete kind. Here, kernel density estimation can also be useful and can be seen as a smoothing technique for the situations where you don't have a sufficient amount of samples for all values of the discrete variable.
Estimating Density
The example below shows how to first generate data samples from a mixture of 2 Gaussian distributions and then apply kernel density estimation to find the probability density function:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import matplotlib.mlab as mlab
from sklearn.neighbors import KernelDensity
# Generate random samples from a mixture of 2 Gaussians
# with modes at 5 and 10
data = np.concatenate((5 + np.random.randn(10, 1),
10 + np.random.randn(30, 1)))
# Plot the true distribution
x = np.linspace(0, 16, 1000)[:, np.newaxis]
norm_vals = mlab.normpdf(x, 5, 1) * 0.25 + mlab.normpdf(x, 10, 1) * 0.75
plt.plot(x, norm_vals)
# Plot the data using a normalized histogram
plt.hist(data, 50, normed=True)
# Do kernel density estimation
kd = KernelDensity(kernel='gaussian', bandwidth=0.75).fit(data)
# Plot the estimated densty
kd_vals = np.exp(kd.score_samples(x))
plt.plot(x, kd_vals)
# Show the plots
plt.show()
This will produce the following plot, where the true distribution is shown in blue, the histogram is shown in green, and the PDF estimated using KDE is shown in red:
As you can see, in this situation, the PDF approximated by the histogram is not very useful, while KDE provides a much better estimate. However, with a larger number of data samples and a proper choice of bin size, histogram might produce a good estimate as well.
The parameters you can tune in case of KDE are the kernel and the bandwidth. You can think about the kernel as the building block for the estimated PDF, and several kernel functions are available in Scikit Learn: gaussian, tophat, epanechnikov, exponential, linear, cosine. Changing the bandwidth allows you to adjust the bias-variance trade-off. Larger bandwidth will result in increased bias, which is good if you have less data samples. Smaller bandwidth will increase variance (fewer samples are included into the estimation), but will give a better estimate when more samples are available.
Calculating Probability
For a PDF, probability is obtained by calculating the integral over a range of values. As you noticed, that will lead to the probability 0 for a specific value.
Scikit Learn does not seem to have a builtin function for calculating probability. However, it is easy to estimate the integral of the PDF over a range. We can do it by evaluating the PDF multiple times within the range and summing the obtained values multiplied by the step size between each evaluation point. In the example below, N samples are obtained with step step.
# Get probability for range of values
start = 5 # Start of the range
end = 6 # End of the range
N = 100 # Number of evaluation points
step = (end - start) / (N - 1) # Step size
x = np.linspace(start, end, N)[:, np.newaxis] # Generate values in the range
kd_vals = np.exp(kd.score_samples(x)) # Get PDF values for each x
probability = np.sum(kd_vals * step) # Approximate the integral of the PDF
print(probability)
Please note that kd.score_samples generates log-likelihood of the data samples. Therefore, np.exp is needed to obtain likelihood.
The same computation can be performed using builtin SciPy integration methods, which will give a bit more accurate result:
from scipy.integrate import quad
probability = quad(lambda x: np.exp(kd.score_samples(x)), start, end)[0]
For instance, for one run, the first method calculated the probability as 0.0859024655305, while the second method produced 0.0850974209996139.
OK I offer this as a starting point, but estimating densities is a very broad topic. For your case involving the amount of characters in a sequence, we can model this from a straight-forward frequentist perspective using empirical probability. Here, probability is essentially a generalization of the concept of percentage. In our model, the sample space is discrete and is all positive integers. Well, then you simply count the occurrences and divide by the total number of events to get your estimate for the probabilities. Anywhere we have zero observations, our estimate for the probability is zero.
>>> samples = [1,1,2,3,2,2,7,8,3,4,1,1,2,6,5,4,8,9,4,3]
>>> from collections import Counter
>>> counts = Counter(samples)
>>> counts
Counter({1: 4, 2: 4, 3: 3, 4: 3, 8: 2, 5: 1, 6: 1, 7: 1, 9: 1})
>>> total = sum(counts.values())
>>> total
20
>>> probability_mass = {k:v/total for k,v in counts.items()}
>>> probability_mass
{1: 0.2, 2: 0.2, 3: 0.15, 4: 0.15, 5: 0.05, 6: 0.05, 7: 0.05, 8: 0.1, 9: 0.05}
>>> probability_mass.get(2,0)
0.2
>>> probability_mass.get(12,0)
0
Now, for your timing data, it is more natural to model this as a continuous distribution. Instead of using a parametric approach where you assume that your data has some distribution and then fit that distribution to your data, you should take a non-parametric approach. One straightforward way is to use a kernel density estimate. You can simply think of this as a way of smoothing a histogram to give you a continuous probability density function. There are several libraries available. Perhaps the most straightforward for univariate data is scipy's:
>>> import scipy.stats
>>> kde = scipy.stats.gaussian_kde(samples)
>>> kde.pdf(2)
array([ 0.15086911])
To get the probability of an observation in some interval:
>>> kde.integrate_box_1d(1,2)
0.13855869478828692
Here is one possible solution. You count the number of occurrences of each value in the original list. The future probability for a given value is its past rate of occurrence, which is simply the # of past occurrences divided by the length of the original list. In Python it's very simple:
x is the given list of values
from collections import Counter
c = Counter(x)
def probability(a):
# returns the probability of a given number a
return float(c[a]) / len(x)
Given some list of numbers following some arbitrary distribution, how can I define bin positions for matplotlib.pyplot.hist() so that the area in each bin is equal to (or close to) some constant area, A? The area should be calculated by multiplying the number of items in the bin by the width of the bin and its value should be no greater than A.
Here is a MWE to display a histogram with normally distributed sample data:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
x = np.random.randn(100)
plt.hist(x, bin_pos)
plt.show()
Here bin_pos is a list representing the positions of the boundaries of the bins (see related question here.
I found this question intriguing. The solution depends on whether you want to plot a density function, or a true histogram. The latter case turns out to be quite a bit more challenging. Here is more info on the difference between a histogram and a density function.
Density Functions
This will do what you want for a density function:
def histedges_equalN(x, nbin):
npt = len(x)
return np.interp(np.linspace(0, npt, nbin + 1),
np.arange(npt),
np.sort(x))
x = np.random.randn(1000)
n, bins, patches = plt.hist(x, histedges_equalN(x, 10), normed=True)
Note the use of normed=True, which specifies that we're calculating and plotting a density function. In this case the areas are identically equal (you can check by looking at n * np.diff(bins)). Also note that this solution involves finding bins that have the same number of points.
Histograms
Here is a solution that gives approximately equal area boxes for a histogram:
def histedges_equalA(x, nbin):
pow = 0.5
dx = np.diff(np.sort(x))
tmp = np.cumsum(dx ** pow)
tmp = np.pad(tmp, (1, 0), 'constant')
return np.interp(np.linspace(0, tmp.max(), nbin + 1),
tmp,
np.sort(x))
n, bins, patches = plt.hist(x, histedges_equalA(x, nbin), normed=False)
These boxes, however, are not all equal area. The first and last, in particular, tend to be about 30% larger than the others. This is an artifact of the sparse distribution of the data at the tails of the normal distribution and I believe it will persist anytime their is a sparsely populated region in a data set.
Side note: I played with the value pow a bit, and found that a value of about 0.56 had a lower RMS error for the normal distribution. I stuck with the square-root because it performs best when the data is tightly-spaced (relative to the bin-width), and I'm pretty sure there is a theoretical basis for it that I haven't bothered to dig into (anyone?).
The issue with equal-area histograms
As far as I can tell it is not possible to obtain an exact solution to this problem. This is because it is sensitive to the discretization of the data. For example, suppose the first point in your dataset is an outlier at -13 and the next value is at -3, as depicted by the red dots in this image:
Now suppose the total "area" of your histogram is 150 and you want 10 bins. In that case the area of each histogram bar should be about 15, but you can't get there because as soon as your bar includes the second point, its area jumps from 10 to 20. That is, the data does not allow this bar to have an area between 10 and 20. One solution for this might be to adjust the lower-bound of the box to increase its area, but this starts to become arbitrary and does not work if this 'gap' is in the middle of the data set.
I have a question concerning fitting and getting random numbers.
Situation is as such:
Firstly I have a histogram from data points.
import numpy as np
"""create random data points """
mu = 10
sigma = 5
n = 1000
datapoints = np.random.normal(mu,sigma,n)
""" create normalized histrogram of the data """
bins = np.linspace(0,20,21)
H, bins = np.histogram(data,bins,density=True)
I would like to interpret this histogram as probability density function (with e.g. 2 free parameters) so that I can use it to produce random numbers AND also I would like to use that function to fit another histogram.
Thanks for your help
You can use a cumulative density function to generate random numbers from an arbitrary distribution, as described here.
Using a histogram to produce a smooth cumulative density function is not entirely trivial; you can use interpolation for example scipy.interpolate.interp1d() for values in between the centers of your bins and that will work fine for a histogram with a reasonably large number of bins and items. However you have to decide on the form of the tails of the probability function, ie for values less than the smallest bin or greater than the largest bin. You could give your distribution gaussian tails based on for example fitting a gaussian to your histogram), or any other form of tail appropriate to your problem, or simply truncate the distribution.
Example:
import numpy
import scipy.interpolate
import random
import matplotlib.pyplot as pyplot
# create some normally distributed values and make a histogram
a = numpy.random.normal(size=10000)
counts, bins = numpy.histogram(a, bins=100, density=True)
cum_counts = numpy.cumsum(counts)
bin_widths = (bins[1:] - bins[:-1])
# generate more values with same distribution
x = cum_counts*bin_widths
y = bins[1:]
inverse_density_function = scipy.interpolate.interp1d(x, y)
b = numpy.zeros(10000)
for i in range(len( b )):
u = random.uniform( x[0], x[-1] )
b[i] = inverse_density_function( u )
# plot both
pyplot.hist(a, 100)
pyplot.hist(b, 100)
pyplot.show()
This doesn't handle tails, and it could handle bin edges better, but it would get you started on using a histogram to generate more values with the same distribution.
P.S. You could also try to fit a specific known distribution described by a few values (which I think is what you had mentioned in the question) but the above non-parametric approach is more general-purpose.