We Keep Coding

Auto broadcasting in Scipy

I have two np.ndarrays, data with shape (8000, 500) and sample with shape (1, 500).
What I am trying to achieve is measure various types of metrics between every row in data to sample.
When using from sklearn.metrics.pairwise.cosine_distances I was able to take advantage of numpy's broadcasting executing the following line
x = cosine_distances(data, sample)
But when I tried to use the same procedure with scipy.spatial.distance.cosine I got the error
ValueError: Input vector should be 1-D.
I guess this is a broadcasting issue and I'm trying to find a way to get around it.
My ultimate goal is to iterate over all of the distances available in scipy.spatial.distance that can accept two vectors and apply them to the data and the sample.
How can I replicate the broadcasting that automatically happens in sklearn's in my scipy version of the code?

OK, looking at the docs, http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.metrics.pairwise.cosine_distances.html
With (800,500) and (1,500) inputs ((samples, features)), you should get back a (800,1) result ((samples1, samples2)).
I wouldn't describe that as broadcasting. It's more like dot product, that performs some sort calculation (norm) over features (the 500 shape), reducing that down to one value. It's more like np.dot(data, sample.T) in its handling of dimensions.
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.spatial.distance.cosine.html is Computes the Cosine distance between 1-D arrays, more like
for row in data:
for s in sample:
d = cosine(row, s)
or since sample has only one row
distances = np.array([cosine(row, sample[0]) for row in data])
In other words, the sklearn version does the pairwise iteration (maybe in compiled code), while the spartial just evaluates the distance for one pair.
pairwise.cosine_similarity does
# K(X, Y) = <X, Y> / (||X||*||Y||)
K = safe_sparse_dot(X_normalized, Y_normalized.T, dense_output=dense_output)
That's the dot like behavior that I mentioned earlier, but with the normalization added.

Python error in array manipulation

I have 2 arrays (for the sake of the example, let's name them A and B) and i perform the following manipulations at them, but i get an error at the assignment of "d2" in my code.
n = len(tracks) #tracks is a list containing different-length 3d arrays
n=30; #test with a few tracks
length = len(tracks) #list containing the total number of "samples"
perm_index = np.random.permutation(length) #uniform sampling without replacement
subset_len = 5 # choose the size of subset of tracks A
subset_A = [tracks[x:x+1] for x in xrange(0, subset_len, 1)]
subset_B = [tracks[x:x+1] for x in xrange(subset_len, n, 1)]
tempA = distance_calc.dist_calcsub(len(subset_A), subset_A) # distance matrix calculation
tempA = mcp.sym_mcp(len(subset_A), tempA) # symmetrize mcp ???
tempB = distance_calc.dist_calcsubs(subset_A, subset_B) # distance matrix calculation
#symmetrize mcp ? ? its not diagonal, symmetric . . .
A = affinity.aff_conv(60, tempA) # conversion to affinity
B = affinity.aff_conv(60, tempB) # conversion to affinity
#((row,col)) = np.shape(A)
#A = normalization_affinity.norm_aff(row, col, A) # normalization of affinity matrix
# Normalize A and B for Laplacian using row sums of W, where W = [A B; B' B'*A^-1*B].
# Let d1 = [A B]*1, d2 = [B' B'*A^-1*B]*1, dhat = sqrt(1./[d1; d2]).
d1 = np.sum( np.vstack((A, np.transpose(B))) )
d2 = np.sum(B,0) + np.dot(np.sum(np.transpose(B),0), np.dot(np.linalg.pinv(A), B ))
dhat = np.transpose(np.sqrt( 1/ np.hstack((d1, d2)) ))
A = A* np.dot( dhat[0:subset_len], np.transpose(dhat[0:subset_len]) )
B = B* np.dot( dhat[0:subset_len], np.transpose(dhat[subset_len:n]) )
The error again is "ValueError: matrices are not aligned." because the np.dot vectors are 1d vectors of different size; I know the reason why this is happening but I am following exactly the equations to perform the Nystrom method.
P.S: I am following the method described in p.90-92 in this thesis: thesis link

Looking at the paper, you've got two problems here.
Let's start with the information you left out of your question. You're trying to do this operation:
bc + B.T * A^−1 * br
where ar and br are column vectors containing the row sums of A and B and bc is
the column sum of B.
In particular, you're mapping that A^-1 * br to np.dot( np.linalg.pinv(A), np.sum(B, 0)).
The first problem is that np.linalg.pinv is the pseudo-inverse, A+, not the multiplicative inverse, A^-1. Using a completely different operation just because it doesn't give you an error doesn't solve the problem.
So, how do you calculate the multiplicative inverse? Well, you can't. In general, the multiplicative inverse doesn't exist for non-square matrices, so given a 5x10 A, you're stuck right at the beginning.
Anyway, the second problem comes from the fact that your br isn't a column vector. If you want to think in matrix terms, as the paper does, it's a row vector, 10x1 instead of 1x10. If you want to think in numpy ndarray terms, it's a 1D (10,) array instead of a 2D (1, 10) array. If you think of the operation in matrix multiplication terms, you can't multiply a 10x5 matrix with a 10x1 matrix; if you think of it in NumPy terms as the multidimensional dot product, you can't multiply a (10, 5) array with a (10,) array.
It's true that you can extend the dot product to specifically the domain of MxN matrices vs. M vectors, and under that definition your multiplication would make sense. But that's not the definition used by either the paper's standard matrix multiplication notation or NumPy's dot function. So, what can you do? Well, note that the operation you're trying to do is commutative, so swapping the order of operands is perfectly legal—and if you do that, then it does happen to correspond to the general dot product. So, you could write this as np.dot(np.sum(B, 0), np.linalg.pinv(A)) and get the result you want. And there are a number of other ways you could transform the arrays that are idempotent in your matrix-vs.-vector multiplication domain but meaningful for np.dot, and they will all get you the same result. For example, np.dot(np.linalg.pinv(A).T, np.sum(B, 0)) will also work.
I'm also not sure why you're using dot product in the first place. I don't see anything in the notation to imply that
But all of this is a sideshow; if you inverted A properly, you would have something with the same dimensions as A, and multiply a 5x10 matrix with a 10x1 vector, or a (5, 10) array with a (10,) array, is already perfectly well defined. The only problem is that, again, you can't generally invert non-square matrices, so there's no way you can actually get to this place.
So, the real solution is to go back to wherever you decided on those shapes for A and B and try again.
In particular, it's pretty clear from the illustration in the paper showing the derivation of A and B from the larger matrix that the height of A is the height of B, and the width of A is the width of B.T, which is of course the height of B again.
Also, if the larger matrix is supposed to symmetric, and A is the upper left corner of a symmetric matrix, A has to be symmetric.
I also think you've mixed up row-column order and x-y order a few times, and bc is supposed to the column sums of B, not the column sums of B.T (which would just be the row sums of B, flipped into a row vector instead of a column vector).
While we're at it, let's use methods and operators where possible instead of writing everything in the longest possible way.
So, I think what you wanted is something like this:
A = np.random.random_sample((4, 4)) # square
A = (A + A.T) / 2 # and symmetric
B = np.random.random_sample((4, 10))
ar = A.sum(1)
br = B.sum(1)
bc = B.sum(0) # not B.T.sum(0), that's just br again!
d1 = ar + br
d2 = bc + np.dot(B.T, np.dot(np.linalg.inv(A), br))
Without actually reading the paper I can't be sure this is what you actually want, but this looks like it fits with a quick skim of those two pages, and it runs without any errors, so hopefully you can at least look at the results and see if they are what you want.

You are summing over the first dimension of B, so the shape is 10, the size of the second dimension of B.
You can calculate
np.dot( np.sum(B, 0), np.linalg.pinv(A))
but this gives you a vector with 5 elements, but B_T has only a size of 4. So something doesn't fit in your sample data.

Does Numpy dot and outer function consistent with Linear Algebra?

I was confused with matrix operation on Python Numpy.
It seems that dot and outer operations don't behave like what I have learn in Linear Algebra class.
import numpy
n = numpy.arange(-5, 6)
w = numpy.arange(-20, 21)
n.shape
w.shape
outer = numpy.outer(w, n)
outer.shape
dot = numpy.dot(n, outer.transpose())
dot.shape
Here n is (11, 1) matrix, w is (41, 1) matrix. I think the size of w and n doesn't match.((41, 1) outer(11, 1))
Again, I think the dot is strange. n is (11, 1) matrix, outer.transpose() is (11, 41) matrix. I think the size is also not matched.

According to the documentation http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.outer.html , the outer function of two row vectors A(1xn) and B(1xm) is a matrix M(nxm) - and the transpose will be of dimension mxn. This is exactly what you are seeing.
Thus, the dot product of a vector and a matrix is again described in the documentation: http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.dot.html#numpy.dot - where it is essentially described as the matrix multiplication of the row vector (first argument) with the transpose of the second argument (matrix).
When I print out the shapes of the various objects your code creates, I get:
n.shape: (11,)
w.shape: (41,)
outer.shape: (41, 11)h
dot.shape: (41,)
Which is entirely consistent with the above. What is your confusion? What result is not what you were expecting?

Sparse-Dense multiplication in Python

I am using Python 3.23 and I am want to multiply a sparse VECTOR with a dense MATRIX. The idea of first unfolding the sparse vector into a dense one and then multiplying is of course silly from any standpoint except for mem management until the actual unfolding. It will be more expensive with zeros in there...
Also, does any one know of a good way for SciPy to keep one dimensional matrices in sparse mode? The only one (admittedly) i have used is the classical notation of three vectors (x,y,value), so i have had to use np.ones(len(...)) to get it to work.
Well.. comments welcome!

Store the vector using the Scipy sparse matrix classes:
x = csr_matrix(np.random.rand(1000) > 0.99).T
print x.shape # (1000, 1)

What's wrong with my PCA?

My code:
from numpy import *
def pca(orig_data):
data = array(orig_data)
data = (data - data.mean(axis=0)) / data.std(axis=0)
u, s, v = linalg.svd(data)
print s #should be s**2 instead!
print v
def load_iris(path):
lines = []
with open(path) as input_file:
lines = input_file.readlines()
data = []
for line in lines:
cur_line = line.rstrip().split(',')
cur_line = cur_line[:-1]
cur_line = [float(elem) for elem in cur_line]
data.append(array(cur_line))
return array(data)
if __name__ == '__main__':
data = load_iris('iris.data')
pca(data)
The iris dataset: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/machine-learning-databases/iris/iris.data
Output:
[ 20.89551896 11.75513248 4.7013819 1.75816839]
[[ 0.52237162 -0.26335492 0.58125401 0.56561105]
[-0.37231836 -0.92555649 -0.02109478 -0.06541577]
[ 0.72101681 -0.24203288 -0.14089226 -0.6338014 ]
[ 0.26199559 -0.12413481 -0.80115427 0.52354627]]
Desired Output:
Eigenvalues - [2.9108 0.9212 0.1474 0.0206]
Principal Components - Same as I got but transposed so okay I guess
Also, what's with the output of the linalg.eig function? According to the PCA description on wikipedia, I'm supposed to this:
cov_mat = cov(orig_data)
val, vec = linalg.eig(cov_mat)
print val
But it doesn't really match the output in the tutorials I found online. Plus, if I have 4 dimensions, I thought I should have 4 eigenvalues and not 150 like the eig gives me. Am I doing something wrong?
edit: I've noticed that the values differ by 150, which is the number of elements in the dataset. Also, the eigenvalues are supposed to add to be equal to the number of dimensions, in this case, 4. What I don't understand is why this difference is happening. If I simply divided the eigenvalues by len(data) I could get the result I want, but I don't understand why. Either way the proportion of the eigenvalues isn't altered, but they are important to me so I'd like to understand what's going on.

You decomposed the wrong matrix.
Principal Component Analysis requires manipulating the eigenvectors/eigenvalues
of the covariance matrix, not the data itself. The covariance matrix, created from an m x n data matrix, will be an m x m matrix with ones along the main diagonal.
You can indeed use the cov function, but you need further manipulation of your data. It's probably a little easier to use a similar function, corrcoef:
import numpy as NP
import numpy.linalg as LA
# a simulated data set with 8 data points, each point having five features
data = NP.random.randint(0, 10, 40).reshape(8, 5)
# usually a good idea to mean center your data first:
data -= NP.mean(data, axis=0)
# calculate the covariance matrix
C = NP.corrcoef(data, rowvar=0)
# returns an m x m matrix, or here a 5 x 5 matrix)
# now get the eigenvalues/eigenvectors of C:
eval, evec = LA.eig(C)
To get the eigenvectors/eigenvalues, I did not decompose the covariance matrix using SVD,
though, you certainly can. My preference is to calculate them using eig in NumPy's (or SciPy's)
LA module--it is a little easier to work with than svd, the return values are the eigenvectors
and eigenvalues themselves, and nothing else. By contrast, as you know, svd doesn't return these these directly.
Granted the SVD function will decompose any matrix, not just square ones (to which the eig function is limited); however when doing PCA, you'll always have a square matrix to decompose,
regardless of the form that your data is in. This is obvious because the matrix you
are decomposing in PCA is a covariance matrix, which by definition is always square
(i.e., the columns are the individual data points of the original matrix, likewise
for the rows, and each cell is the covariance of those two points, as evidenced
by the ones down the main diagonal--a given data point has perfect covariance with itself).

The left singular values returned by SVD(A) are the eigenvectors of AA^T.
The covariance matrix of a dataset A is : 1/(N-1) * AA^T
Now, when you do PCA by using the SVD, you have to divide each entry in your A matrix by (N-1) so you get the eigenvalues of the covariance with the correct scale.
In your case, N=150 and you haven't done this division, hence the discrepancy.
This is explained in detail here

(Can you ask one question, please? Or at least list your questions separately. Your post reads like a stream of consciousness because you are not asking one single question.)
You probably used cov incorrectly by not transposing the matrix first. If cov_mat is 4-by-4, then eig will produce four eigenvalues and four eigenvectors.
Note how SVD and PCA, while related, are not exactly the same. Let X be a 4-by-150 matrix of observations where each 4-element column is a single observation. Then, the following are equivalent:
a. the left singular vectors of X,
b. the principal components of X,
c. the eigenvectors of X X^T.
Also, the eigenvalues of X X^T are equal to the square of the singular values of X. To see all this, let X have the SVD X = QSV^T, where S is a diagonal matrix of singular values. Then consider the eigendecomposition D = Q^T X X^T Q, where D is a diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. Replace X with its SVD, and see what happens.

Question already adressed: Principal component analysis in Python