I am trying to create a minimum spanning tree (MST) from geographical coordinates using scipy, but for the life of me I cannot understand how to extract information to it . The scipy documentation is not very clear and multiple searches have not provided results.
For context in total I have around 200k datapoints per set and they look like this
My final objective is to create a line vector that connects these points through the MST, more or less as they appear in the image above. But for that I need an ordered list of point indices (or coordinates) I can work with.
Most of all I would need help understanding how to use the output of minimum_spanning_tree but it might be that I am making mistakes along the path
Overall steps
The steps I take are:
Create the sparse matrix with coordinate info
provide the matrix to scipy.sparse.csgraph.minimum_spanning_tree
Do some magic to extract column values
This is the small sample test data:
test_data = {
"index": [0,1,2,3,4],
"X": [35,36,37,38,38],
"Y": [2113,2113,2112,2101,2102]
}
df= pd.DataFrame(test_data)
Step 1, create the sparse matrix
xs = df[["X"]].values.squeeze().astype(int)
ys = df[["Y"]].values.squeeze().astype(int)
data= np.array(df.index).squeeze().astype(int)
max_dim =max(np.max(xs), np.max(ys)) +1
max_dim
dist_matr=csr_matrix((data, (xs,ys)),shape=(max_dim, max_dim))
Q1:I couldn't understand what data is in this context as scipy docs do not explain that in detail. should {data} be the labels of the points or are they the edge weights?
Step2: calculate the minimum spanning tree
mst = minimum_spanning_tree(dist_matr)
Step3: get an ordered list of indices (or coordinates)
As I understand it the output of MST is a sparse graph that should look something like this (source)
Q2: However, my matrix is not 5X5, but max_value*max_value (2113 in this case). And it seems like the content of the matrix is not the edge weight. Am I getting this wrong?
I have tried to extract the connected components, but the labels don't make sense to me
# Label connected components.
num_graphs, labels = connected_components(mst, directed=False)
# This is a snippet I found somewhere but I have difficulties following the logic of it
results = [[] for i in range(max(labels) + 1)]
for idx, label in enumerate(labels):
results[label].append(idx)
portion of the results:
As you can see point coordinates are grouped in an odd way, without a relationship between x and y. I have also tried 'depth_first_order' but aside for asking a starting point (that I wouldn't know how to choose) it provides me with equally confusing outputs
Q4: How do I "read" the MST matrix and extract the minimum spanning tree for all points?
I am happy to explore other solutions as long as they provide a similar result and are scalable, however I have seen concerns about NetworkX for lots of data and MisTree doesn't install on my setup
I have carried out some clustering analysis on some data X and have arrived at both the labels y and the centroids c. Now, I'm trying to calculate the distance between X and their assigned cluster's centroid c. This is easy when we have a small number of points:
import numpy as np
# 10 random points in 3D space
X = np.random.rand(10,3)
# define the number of clusters, say 3
clusters = 3
# give each point a random label
# (in the real code this is found using KMeans, for example)
y = np.asarray([np.random.randint(0,clusters) for i in range(10)]).reshape(-1,1)
# randomly assign location of centroids
# (in the real code this is found using KMeans, for example)
c = np.random.rand(clusters,3)
# calculate distances
distances = []
for i in range(len(X)):
distances.append(np.linalg.norm(X[i]-c[y[i][0]]))
Unfortunately, the actual data has many more rows. Is there a way to vectorise this somehow (instead of using a for loop)? I can't seem to get my head around the mapping.
Thanks to numpy's array indexing, you can actually turn your for loop into a one-liner and avoid explicit looping altogether:
distances = np.linalg.norm(X- np.einsum('ijk->ik', c[y]), axis=1)
will do the same thing as your original for loop.
EDIT: Thanks #Kris, I forgot the axis keyword, and since I didn't specify it, numpy automatically computed the norm of the entire flattened matrix, not just along the rows (axis 1). I've updated it now, and it should return an array of distances for each point. Also, einsum was suggested by #Kris for their specific application.
We have boring CSV with 10000 rows of ages (float), titles (enum/int), scores (float), ....
We have N columns each with int/float values in a table.
You can imagine this as points in ND space
We want to pick K points that would have maximised distance between each other.
So if we have 100 points in a tightly packed cluster and one point in the distance we would get something like this for three points:
or this
For 4 points it will become more interesting and pick some point in the middle.
So how to select K most distant rows (points) from N (with any complexity)? It looks like an ND point cloud "triangulation" with a given resolution yet not for 3d points.
I search for a reasonably fast approach (approximate - no precise solution needed) for K=200 and N=100000 and ND=6 (probably multigrid or ANN on KDTree based, SOM or triangulation based..).. Does anyone know one?
From past experience with a pretty similar problem, a simple solution of computing the mean Euclidean distance of all pairs within each group of K points and then taking the largest mean, works very well. As someone noted above, it's probably hard to avoid a loop on all combinations (not on all pairs). So a possible implementation of all this can be as follows:
import itertools
import numpy as np
from scipy.spatial.distance import pdist
Npoints = 3 # or 4 or 5...
# making up some data:
data = np.matrix([[3,2,4,3,4],[23,25,30,21,27],[6,7,8,7,9],[5,5,6,6,7],[0,1,2,0,2],[3,9,1,6,5],[0,0,12,2,7]])
# finding row indices of all combinations:
c = [list(x) for x in itertools.combinations(range(len(data)), Npoints )]
distances = []
for i in c:
distances.append(np.mean(pdist(data[i,:]))) # pdist: a method of computing all pairwise Euclidean distances in a condensed way.
ind = distances.index(max(distances)) # finding the index of the max mean distance
rows = c[ind] # these are the points in question
I propose an approximate solution. The idea is to start from a set of K points chosen in a way I'll explain below, and repeatedly loop through these points replacing the current one with the point, among the N-K+1 points not belonging to the set but including the current one, that maximizes the sum of the distances from the points of the set. This procedure leads to a set of K points where the replacement of any single point would cause the sum of the distances among the points of the set to decrease.
To start the process we take the K points that are closest to the mean of all points. This way we have good chances that on the first loop the set of K points will be spread out close to its optimum. Subsequent iterations will make adjustments to the set of K points towards a maximum of the sum of distances, which for the current values of N, K and ND appears to be reachable in just a few seconds. In order to prevent excessive looping in edge cases, we limit the number of loops nonetheless.
We stop iterating when an iteration does not improve the total distance among the K points. Of course, this is a local maximum. Other local maxima will be reached for different initial conditions, or by allowing more than one replacement at a time, but I don't think it would be worthwhile.
The data must be adjusted in order for unit displacements in each dimension to have the same significance, i.e., in order for Euclidean distances to be meaningful. E.g., if your dimensions are salary and number of children, unadjusted, the algorithm will probably yield results concentrated in the extreme salary regions, ignoring that person with 10 kids. To get a more realistic output you could divide salary and number of children by their standard deviation, or by some other estimate that makes differences in salary comparable to differences in number of children.
To be able to plot the output for a random Gaussian distribution, I have set ND = 2 in the code, but setting ND = 6, as per your request, is no problem (except you cannot plot it).
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import scipy.spatial as spatial
N, K, ND = 100000, 200, 2
MAX_LOOPS = 20
SIGMA, SEED = 40, 1234
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=SEED)
means, variances = [0] * ND, [SIGMA**2] * ND
data = rng.multivariate_normal(means, np.diag(variances), N)
def distances(ndarray_0, ndarray_1):
if (ndarray_0.ndim, ndarray_1.ndim) not in ((1, 2), (2, 1)):
raise ValueError("bad ndarray dimensions combination")
return np.linalg.norm(ndarray_0 - ndarray_1, axis=1)
# start with the K points closest to the mean
# (the copy() is only to avoid a view into an otherwise unused array)
indices = np.argsort(distances(data, data.mean(0)))[:K].copy()
# distsums is, for all N points, the sum of the distances from the K points
distsums = spatial.distance.cdist(data, data[indices]).sum(1)
# but the K points themselves should not be considered
# (the trick is that -np.inf ± a finite quantity always yields -np.inf)
distsums[indices] = -np.inf
prev_sum = 0.0
for loop in range(MAX_LOOPS):
for i in range(K):
# remove this point from the K points
old_index = indices[i]
# calculate its sum of distances from the K points
distsums[old_index] = distances(data[indices], data[old_index]).sum()
# update the sums of distances of all points from the K-1 points
distsums -= distances(data, data[old_index])
# choose the point with the greatest sum of distances from the K-1 points
new_index = np.argmax(distsums)
# add it to the K points replacing the old_index
indices[i] = new_index
# don't consider it any more in distsums
distsums[new_index] = -np.inf
# update the sums of distances of all points from the K points
distsums += distances(data, data[new_index])
# sum all mutual distances of the K points
curr_sum = spatial.distance.pdist(data[indices]).sum()
# break if the sum hasn't changed
if curr_sum == prev_sum:
break
prev_sum = curr_sum
if ND == 2:
X, Y = data.T
marker_size = 4
plt.scatter(X, Y, s=marker_size)
plt.scatter(X[indices], Y[indices], s=marker_size)
plt.grid(True)
plt.gca().set_aspect('equal', adjustable='box')
plt.show()
Output:
Splitting the data into 3 equidistant Gaussian distributions the output is this:
Assuming that if you read your csv file with N (10000) rows and D dimension (or features) into a N*D martix X. You can calculate the distance between each point and store it in a distance matrix as follows:
import numpy as np
X = np.asarray(X) ### convert to numpy array
distance_matrix = np.zeros((X.shape[0],X.shape[0]))
for i in range(X.shape[0]):
for j in range(i+1,X.shape[0]):
## We compute triangle matrix and copy the rest. Distance from point A to point B and distance from point B to point A are the same.
distance_matrix[i][j]= np.linalg.norm(X[i]-X[j]) ## Here I am calculating Eucledian distance. Other distance measures can also be used.
#distance_matrix = distance_matrix + distance_matrix.T - np.diag(np.diag(distance_matrix)) ## This syntax can be used to get the lower triangle of distance matrix, which is not really required in your case.
K = 5 ## Number of points that you want to pick
indexes = np.unravel_index(np.argsort(distance_matrix.ravel())[-1*K:], distance_matrix.shape)
print(indexes)
Bottom Line Up Front: Dealing with multiple equally distant points and the Curse of Dimensionality are going to be larger problems than just finding the points. Spoiler alert: There's a surprise ending.
I think this an interesting question but I'm bewildered by some of the answers. I think this is, in part, due to the sketches provided. You've no doubt noticed the answers look similar -- 2d, with clusters -- even though you indicated a wider scope was needed. Because others will eventually see this, I'm going to step through my thinking a bit slowly so bear with me for the early part.
It makes sense to start with a simplified example to see if we can generalize a solution with data that's easy to grasp and a linear 2D model is easiest of the easy.
We don't need to calculate all the distances though. We just need the ones at the extremes. So we can then take the top and bottom few values:
right = lin_2_D.nlargest(8, ['x'])
left = lin_2_D.nsmallest(8, ['x'])
graph = sns.scatterplot(x="x", y="y", data=lin_2_D, color = 'gray', marker = '+', alpha = .4)
sns.scatterplot(x = right['x'], y = right['y'], color = 'red')
sns.scatterplot(x = left['x'], y = left['y'], color = 'green')
fig = graph.figure
fig.set_size_inches(8,3)
What we have so far: Of 100 points, we've eliminated the need to calculate the distance between 84 of them. Of what's left we can further drop this by ordering the results on one side and checking the distance against the others.
You can imagine a case where you have a couple of data points way off the trend line that could be captured by taking the greatest or least y values, and all that starts to look like Walter Tross's top diagram. Add in a couple of extra clusters and you get what looks his bottom diagram and it appears that we're sort of making the same point.
The problem with stopping here is the requirement you mentioned is that you need a solution that works for any number of dimensions.
The unfortunate part is that we run into four challenges:
Challenge 1: As you increase the dimensions you can run into a large number of cases where you have multiple solutions when seeking midpoints. So you're looking for k furthest points but have a large number of equally valid possible solutions and no way prioritizing them. Here are two super easy examples illustrate this:
A) Here we have just four points and in only two dimensions. You really can't get any easier than this, right? The distance from red to green is trivial. But try to find the next furthest point and you'll see both of the black points are equidistant from both the red and green points. Imagine you wanted the furthest six points using the first graphs, you might have 20 or more points that are all equidistant.
edit: I just noticed the red and green dots are at the edges of their circles rather than at the center, I'll update later but the point is the same.
B) This is super easy to imagine: Think of a D&D 4 sided die. Four points of data in a three-dimensional space, all equidistant so it's known as a triangle-based pyramid. If you're looking for the closest two points, which two? You have 4 choose 2 (aka, 6) combinations possible. Getting rid of valid solutions can be a bit of a problem because invariably you face questions such as "why did we get rid of these and not this one?"
Challenge 2: The Curse of Dimensionality. Nuff Said.
Challenge 3 Revenge of The Curse of Dimensionality Because you're looking for the most distant points, you have to x,y,z ... n coordinates for each point or you have to impute them. Now, your data set is much larger and slower.
Challenge 4 Because you're looking for the most distant points, dimension reduction techniques such as ridge and lasso are not going to be useful.
So, what to do about this?
Nothing.
Wait. What?!?
Not truly, exactly, and literally nothing. But nothing crazy. Instead, rely on a simple heuristic that is understandable and computationally easy. Paul C. Kainen puts it well:
Intuitively, when a situation is sufficiently complex or uncertain,
only the simplest methods are valid. Surprisingly, however,
common-sense heuristics based on these robustly applicable techniques
can yield results which are almost surely optimal.
In this case, you have not the Curse of Dimensionality but rather the Blessing of Dimensionality. It's true you have a lot of points and they'll scale linearly as you seek other equidistant points (k) but the total dimensional volume of space will increase to power of the dimensions. The k number of furthest points you're is insignificant to the total number of points. Hell, even k^2 becomes insignificant as the number of dimensions increase.
Now, if you had a low dimensionality, I would go with them as a solution (except the ones that are use nested for loops ... in NumPy or Pandas).
If I was in your position, I'd be thinking how I've got code in these other answers that I could use as a basis and maybe wonder why should I should trust this other than it lays out a framework on how to think through the topic. Certainly, there should be some math and maybe somebody important saying the same thing.
Let me reference to chapter 18 of Computer Intensive Methods in Control and Signal Processing and an expanded argument by analogy with some heavy(-ish) math. You can see from the above (the graph with the colored dots at the edges) that the center is removed, particularly if you followed the idea of removing the extreme y values. It's a though you put a balloon in a box. You could do this a sphere in a cube too. Raise that into multiple dimensions and you have a hypersphere in a hypercube. You can read more about that relationship here.
Finally, let's get to a heuristic:
Select the points that have the most max or min values per dimension. When/if you run out of them pick ones that are close to those values if there isn't one at the min/max. Essentially, you're choosing the corners of a box For a 2D graph you have four points, for a 3D you have the 8 corners of the box (2^3).
More accurately this would be a 4d or 5d (depending on how you might assign the marker shape and color) projected down to 3d. But you can easily see how this data cloud gives you the full range of dimensions.
Here is a quick check on learning; for purposes of ease, ignore the color/shape aspect: It's easy to graphically intuit that you have no problem with up to k points short of deciding what might be slightly closer. And you can see how you might need to randomize your selection if you have a k < 2D. And if you added another point you can see it (k +1) would be in a centroid. So here is the check: If you had more points, where would they be? I guess I have to put this at the bottom -- limitation of markdown.
So for a 6D data cloud, the values of k less than 64 (really 65 as we'll see in just a moment) points are pretty easy. But...
If you don't have a data cloud but instead have data that has a linear relationship, you'll 2^(D-1) points. So, for that linear 2D space, you have a line, for linear 3D space, you'd have a plane. Then a rhomboid, etc. This is true even if your shape is curved. Rather than do this graph myself, I'm using the one from an excellent post on by Inversion Labs on Best-fit Surfaces for 3D Data
If the number of points, k, is less than 2^D you need a process to decide what you don't use. Linear discriminant analysis should be on your shortlist. That said, you can probably satisfice the solution by randomly picking one.
For a single additional point (k = 1 + 2^D), you're looking for one that is as close to the center of the bounding space.
When k > 2^D, the possible solutions will scale not geometrically but factorially. That may not seem intuitive so let's go back to the two circles. For 2D you have just two points that could be a candidate for being equidistant. But if that were 3D space and rotate the points about the line, any point in what is now a ring would suffice as a solution for k. For a 3D example, they would be a sphere. Hyperspheres (n-spheres) from thereon. Again, 2^D scaling.
One last thing: You should seriously look at xarray if you're not already familiar with it.
Hope all this helps and I also hope you'll read through the links. It'll be worth the time.
*It would be the same shape, centrally located, with the vertices at the 1/3 mark. So like having 27 six-sided dice shaped like a giant cube. Each vertice (or point nearest it) would fix the solution. Your original k+1 would have to be relocated too. So you would select 2 of the 8 vertices. Final question: would it be worth calculating the distances of those points against each other (remember the diagonal is slightly longer than the edge) and then comparing them to the original 2^D points? Bluntly, no. Satifice the solution.
If you're interested in getting the most distant points you can take advantage of all of the methods that were developed for nearest neighbors, you just have to give a different "metric".
For example, using scikit-learn's nearest neighbors and distance metrics tools you can do something like this
import numpy as np
from sklearn.neighbors import BallTree
from sklearn.neighbors.dist_metrics import PyFuncDistance
from sklearn.datasets import make_blobs
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
def inverted_euclidean(x1, x2):
# You can speed this up using cython like scikit-learn does or numba
dist = np.sum((x1 - x2) ** 2)
# We invert the euclidean distance and set nearby points to the biggest possible
# positive float that isn't inf
inverted_dist = np.where(dist == 0, np.nextafter(np.inf, 0), 1 / dist)
return inverted_dist
# Make up some fake data
n_samples = 100000
n_features = 200
X, _ = make_blobs(n_samples=n_samples, centers=3, n_features=n_features, random_state=0)
# We exploit the BallTree algorithm to get the most distant points
ball_tree = BallTree(X, leaf_size=50, metric=PyFuncDistance(inverted_euclidean))
# Some made up query, you can also provide a stack of points to query against
test_point = np.zeros((1, n_features))
distance, distant_points_inds = ball_tree.query(X=test_point, k=10, return_distance=True)
distant_points = X[distant_points_inds[0]]
# We can try to visualize the query results
plt.plot(X[:, 0], X[:, 1], ".b", alpha=0.1)
plt.plot(test_point[:, 0], test_point[:, 1], "*r", markersize=9)
plt.plot(distant_points[:, 0], distant_points[:, 1], "sg", markersize=5, alpha=0.8)
plt.show()
Which will plot something like:
There are many points that you can improve on:
I implemented the inverted_euclidean distance function with numpy, but you can try to do what the folks of scikit-learn do with their distance functions and implement them in cython. You could also try to jit compile them with numba.
Maybe the euclidean distance isn't the metric you would like to use to find the furthest points, so you're free to implement your own or simply roll with what scikit-learn provides.
The nice thing about using the Ball Tree algorithm (or the KdTree algorithm) is that for each queried point you have to do log(N) comparisons to find the furthest point in the training set. Building the Ball Tree itself, I think also requires log(N) comparison, so in the end if you want to find the k furthest points for every point in the ball tree training set (X), it will have almost O(D N log(N)) complexity (where D is the number of features), which will increase up to O(D N^2) with the increasing k.
I'm working on two functions. I have two data sets, eg [[x(1), y(1)], ..., [x(n), y(n)]], dataSet and testData.
createMatrix(D, S) which returns a data matrix, where D is the degree and S is a vector of real numbers [s(1), s(2), ..., s(n)].
I know numpy has a function called polyfit. But polyfit takes in three variables, any advice on how I'd create the matrix?
polyFit(D), which takes in the polynomial of degree D and fits it to the data sets using linear least squares. I'm trying to return the weight vector and errors. I also know that there is lstsq in numpy.linag that I found in this question: Fitting polynomials to data
Is it possible to use that question to recreate what I'm trying?
This is what I have so far, but it isn't working.
def createMatrix(D, S):
x = []
y = []
for i in dataSet:
x.append(i[0])
y.append(i[1])
polyfit(x, y, D)
What I don't get here is what does S, the vector of real numbers, have to do with this?
def polyFit(D)
I'm basing a lot of this on the question posted above. I'm unsure about how to get just w though, the weight vector. I'll be coding the errors, so that's fine I was just wondering if you have any advice on getting the weight vectors themselves.
It looks like all createMatrix is doing is creating the two vectors required by polyfit. What you have will work, but, the more pythonic way to do it is
def createMatrix(dataSet, D):
D = 3 # set this to whatever degree you're trying
x, y = zip(*dataSet)
return polyfit(x, y, D)
(This S/O link provides a detailed explanation of the zip(*dataSet) idiom.)
This will return a vector of coefficients that you can then pass to something like poly1d to generate results. (Further explanation of both polyfit and poly1d can be found here.)
Obviously, you'll need to decide what value you want for D. The simple answer to that is 1, 2, or 3. Polynomials of higher order than cubic tend to be rather unstable and the intrinsic errors make their output rather meaningless.
It sounds like you might be trying to do some sort of correlation analysis (i.e., does y vary with x and, if so, to what extent?) You'll almost certainly want to just use linear (D = 1) regression for this type of analysis. You can try to do a least squares quadratic fit (D = 2) but, again, the error bounds are probably wider than your assumptions (e.g. normality of distribution) will tolerate.
I want to compute the distance from a set of N 3D-points to a set of M 3D-centers and store the results in a NxM matrix (where column i is the distance from all points to center i)
Example:
data = np.random.rand(100,3) # 100 toy 3D points
centers = np.random.rand(20,3) # 20 toy 3D points
For computing the distance between all points and a single center we can use "broadcasting" so we avoid looping though all points:
i = 0 # first center
np.sqrt(np.sum(np.power(data - centers[i,:], 2),1)) # Euclidean distance
Now we can put this code in a loop that iterates over all centers:
distances = np.zeros(data.shape[0], centers.shape[0])
for i in range(centers.shape[0]):
distances[:,i] = np.sqrt(np.sum(np.power(data - centers[i,:], 2),1))
However this is clearly an operation that could be parallelized and improved.
I'm wondering if there is a better way of doing this (maybe some multi-dimensional broadcasting or some library).
This is a very common problem for clustering and classification, where you want to get distances from your data to a set of classes, so I think it should be some efficient implementation to to this.
What's the best way of doing this?
Broadcast all the way:
import numpy as np
data = np.random.rand(100,3)
centers = np.random.rand(20,3)
distances = np.sqrt(np.sum(np.power(data[:,None,:] - centers[None,:,:], 2), axis=-1))
print distances.shape
# 100, 20
If you just want the nearest center, and you have a lot of data points (a lot being more than a several 100 000 samples), you probably should store your data in a KD tree and query that with the centers (scipy.spatial.KDTree).