We Keep Coding

Histogram function - Python

Looking for someone who can explain this to me:
phase = mod(phase,Nper*2*pi)
cl_phase = arange(0,Nper*2*pi+step,step)
c,p = histogram(phase,cl_phase)
while 0 in c:
step = step*2
cl_phase = arange(0,Nper*2*pi+step,step)
c,p = histogram(phase,cl_phase)
Where phase is the phase of a wave, Nper is the number of periods I'm analysing.
What I want to know is if some one can give me the name/link to an explanation of the histogram function..! Im not even sure from what package it comes from. Maybe numpy? Or maybe it even is a function that comes with python..! Super lost here..!
Any help here would be greatly appreciated!!

histogram() function is from numpy library. It doesn't come as a default function in Python.
You can use it by:
import numpy as np
np.histogram(phase,cl_phase)
In your code, it looks like you are using it as:
from numpy import histogram
histogram(phase,cl_phase)
c,p = histogram(phase, cl_phase) will give you two values as output. c will be the values of the histogram, and p will return the bin edges. You should take a look at the above docs for more info.

Summarise the posterior of a single parameter from an array with arviz

I am estimating a model using the pyMC3 library in python. In my "real" model, there are four parameter arrays, two of which have over 170,000 parameters in them. Summarising this array of parameters is too computationally intensive on my computer. I have been trying to figure out if the summary function in arviz will allow me to only summarise one (or a small number) of parameters in the array. Below is a reprex where the same problem is present, though the model is a lot simpler. In the linear regression model below, the parameter array b has three parameters in it b[0], b[1], b[2]. I would like to know how to get the summary for just b[0] and b[1] or alternatively for just a single parameter, e.g., b[0].
import pandas as pd
import pymc3 as pm
import arviz as az
d = pd.read_csv("https://quantoid.net/files/mtcars.csv")
mpg = d['mpg'].values
hp = d['hp'].values
weight = d['wt'].values
with pm.Model() as model:
b = pm.Normal("b", mu=0, sigma=10, shape=3)
sig = pm.HalfCauchy("sig", beta=2)
mu = pm.Deterministic('mu', b[0] + b[1]*hp + b[2]*weight)
like = pm.Normal('like', mu=mu, sigma=sig, observed=mpg)
fit = pm.fit(10000, method='advi')
samp = fit.sample(1500)
with model:
smry = az.summary(samp, var_names = ["b"])
It looked like the coords argument to the summary() function would do it, but after googling around and finding a few examples, like the one here with plot_posterior() instead of summary(), I was unable to get something to work. In particular, I tried the following in the hopes that it would return the summary for b[0] and b[1].
with model:
smry = az.summary(samp, var_names = ["b"], coords={"b_dim_0": range(1)})
or this to return the summary of b[0]:
with model:
smry = az.summary(samp, var_names = ["b"], coords={"b_dim_0": [0]})
I suspect I am missing something simple (I'm an R user who dabbles occasionally with Python). Any help is greatly appreciated.
(BTW, I am using Python 3.8.0, pyMC3 3.9.3, arviz 0.10.0)

To use coords for this, you need to update to the development (which will still show 0.11.2 but has the code from github or any >0.11.2 release) version of ArviZ. Until 0.11.2, the coords argument in summary was not used to subset the data (like it did in all plotting functions) but instead it was only taken into account if the input was not already InferenceData in which case it was passed to the converter.
With older versions, you need to use xarray to subset the data before passing it to summary. Therefore you need to explicitly convert the trace to inferencedata beforehand. In the example above it would look like:
with model:
...
samp = fit.sample(1500)
idata = az.from_pymc3(samp)
az.summary(idata.posterior[["b"]].sel({"b_dim_0": [0]}))
Moreover, you may also want to indicate summary to compute only a subset of the stats/diagnostics as shown in the docstring examples.

Can we modify the solution vector between integrations steps with scipy.integrate.ode, using VODE?

I am trying to get a solution for a stiff ODE problem where at each integration step, i have to modify the solution vector before continuing on the integration.
For that, i am using scipy.integrate.ode, with the integrator VODE, in bdf mode.
Here is a simplified version of the code i am using. The function is much more complex than that and involve the use of CANTERA.
from scipy.integrate import ode
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def yprime(t,y):
return y
vode = ode(yprime)
vode.set_integrator('vode', method='bdf', with_jacobian=True)
y0 = np.array([1.0])
vode.set_initial_value(y0, 0.0)
y_list = np.array([])
t_list = np.array([])
while vode.t<5.0 and vode.successful:
vode.integrate(vode.t+1e-3,step=True)
y_list = np.append(y_list,vode.y)
t_list = np.append(t_list,vode.t)
plt.plot(t_list,y_list)
Output:
So far so good.
Now, the problem is that within each step, I would like to modify y after it has been integrated by VODE. Naturally, i want VODE to keep on integrating with the modified solution.
This is what i have tried so far :
while vode.t<5.0 and vode.successful:
vode.integrate(vode.t+1e-3,step=True)
vode.y[0] += 1 # Will change the solution until vode.integrate is called again
vode._y[0] += 1 # Same here.
I also have tried looking at vode._integrator, but it seems that everything is kept inside the fortran instance of the solver.
For quick reference, here is the source code of scipy.integrate.ode, and here is the pyf interface scipy is using for VODE.
Has anyone tried something similar ? I could also change the solver and / or the wrapper i am using, but i would like to keep on using python for that.
Thank you very much !

For those getting the same problem, the issue lies in the Fortran wrapper from Scipy.
My solution was to change the package used, from ode to solve_ivp. The difference is that solve_ivp is entirely made with Python, and you will be able to hack your way through the implementation. Note that the code will run slowly compared to the vode link that the other package used, even though the code is very well written and use numpy (basically, C level of performances whenever possible).
Here are the few steps you will have to follow.
First, to reproduce the already working code :
from scipy.integrate import _ivp # Not supposed to be used directly. Be careful.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def yprime(t,y):
return y
y0 = np.array([1.0])
t0 = 0.0
t1 = 5.0
# WITHOUT IN-BETWEEN MODIFICATION
bdf = _ivp.BDF(yprime,t0,y0,t1)
y_list = np.array([])
t_list = np.array([])
while bdf.t<t1:
bdf.step()
y_list = np.append(y_list,bdf.y)
t_list = np.append(t_list,bdf.t)
plt.plot(t_list,y_list)
Output :
Now, to implement a way to modify the values of y between integration steps.
# WITH IN-BETWEEN MODIFICATION
bdf = _ivp.BDF(yprime,t0,y0,t1)
y_list = np.array([])
t_list = np.array([])
while bdf.t<t1:
bdf.step()
bdf.D[0] -= 0.1 # The first column of the D matrix is the value of your vector y.
# By modifying the first column, you modify the solution at this instant.
y_list = np.append(y_list,bdf.y)
t_list = np.append(t_list,bdf.t)
plt.plot(t_list,y_list)
Gives the plot :
This does not have any physical sense for this problem, unfortunately, but it works for the moment.
Note : It is entirely possible that the solver become unstable. It has to do with the Jacobian not being updated at the right time, and so one would have to recalculate it again, which is performance heavy most of the time. The good solution to that would be to rewrite the class BDF to implement the modification before the Jacobian Matrix is updated.
Source code here.

Statsmodels: vector_ar and IRAnalysis

I'm trying to estimate impulse response functions of a -1 standard-deviation shock to a 3-dimension VAR using statsmodels.tsa, however I'm currently having issues with setting the shock magnitude.
This gives me the IRFs for a 1 s.d. shock, the default:
import numpy as np
import statsmodels.tsa as sm
model = sm.vector_ar.var_model.VAR(endog = data)
fitted = model.fit()
shock= -1*fitted.sigma_u
irf = sm.vector_ar.irf.IRAnalysis(model = fitted)
The function IRAnalysis takes an argument P, an upper diagonal matrix that sets the shocks, I found this looking at the source code. However inputting P as shown below doesn't seem to be doing anything.
irf = statsmodels.tsa.vector_ar.irf.IRAnalysis(model = fitted, P = -np.linalg.cholesky(model.fitted_U))
I would really appreciate some help.
Thanks in advance.

I have had the same question and finally found something that works on my end.
instead of using the IRAnalysis explicitly, I found that transforming the VAR model into it's MA representation was the best way to adjust the size of the shock.
from statsmodels.tsa.vector_ar.irf import IRAnalysis
J = fitted.ma_rep(T)
J = shock*np.array(J)
This will give you the output of the irfs for T periods.
I also wanted the standard error bands on my plots, so I did something similar to that particular function as well.
G, H = fitted.irf_errband_mc(orth=False, repl=1000, steps=T, signif=0.05, seed=None, burn=100, cum=False)
Hope this helps

Why are LASSO in sklearn (python) and matlab statistical package different?

I am using LaasoCV from sklearn to select the best model is selected by cross-validation. I found that the cross validation gives different result if I use sklearn or matlab statistical toolbox.
I used matlab and replicate the example given in
http://www.mathworks.se/help/stats/lasso-and-elastic-net.html
to get a figure like this
Then I saved the matlab data, and tried to replicate the figure with laaso_path from sklearn, I got
Although there are some similarity between these two figures, there are also certain differences. As far as I understand parameter lambda in matlab and alpha in sklearn are same, however in this figure it seems that there are some differences. Can somebody point out which is the correct one or am I missing something? Further the coefficient obtained are also different (which is my main concern).
Matlab Code:
rng(3,'twister') % for reproducibility
X = zeros(200,5);
for ii = 1:5
X(:,ii) = exprnd(ii,200,1);
end
r = [0;2;0;-3;0];
Y = X*r + randn(200,1)*.1;
save randomData.mat % To be used in python code
[b fitinfo] = lasso(X,Y,'cv',10);
lassoPlot(b,fitinfo,'plottype','lambda','xscale','log');
disp('Lambda with min MSE')
fitinfo.LambdaMinMSE
disp('Lambda with 1SE')
fitinfo.Lambda1SE
disp('Quality of Fit')
lambdaindex = fitinfo.Index1SE;
fitinfo.MSE(lambdaindex)
disp('Number of non zero predictos')
fitinfo.DF(lambdaindex)
disp('Coefficient of fit at that lambda')
b(:,lambdaindex)
Python Code:
import scipy.io
import numpy as np
import pylab as pl
from sklearn.linear_model import lasso_path, LassoCV
data=scipy.io.loadmat('randomData.mat')
X=data['X']
Y=data['Y'].flatten()
model = LassoCV(cv=10,max_iter=1000).fit(X, Y)
print 'alpha', model.alpha_
print 'coef', model.coef_
eps = 1e-2 # the smaller it is the longer is the path
models = lasso_path(X, Y, eps=eps)
alphas_lasso = np.array([model.alpha for model in models])
coefs_lasso = np.array([model.coef_ for model in models])
pl.figure(1)
ax = pl.gca()
ax.set_color_cycle(2 * ['b', 'r', 'g', 'c', 'k'])
l1 = pl.semilogx(alphas_lasso,coefs_lasso)
pl.gca().invert_xaxis()
pl.xlabel('alpha')
pl.show()

I do not have matlab but be careful that the value obtained with the cross--validation can be unstable. This is because it influenced by the way you subdivide the samples.
Even if you run 2 times the cross-validation in python you can obtain 2 different results.
consider this example :
kf=sklearn.cross_validation.KFold(len(y),n_folds=10,shuffle=True)
cv=sklearn.linear_model.LassoCV(cv=kf,normalize=True).fit(x,y)
print cv.alpha_
kf=sklearn.cross_validation.KFold(len(y),n_folds=10,shuffle=True)
cv=sklearn.linear_model.LassoCV(cv=kf,normalize=True).fit(x,y)
print cv.alpha_
0.00645093258722
0.00691712356467

it's possible that alpha = lambda / n_samples
where n_samples = X.shape[0] in scikit-learn
another remark is that your path is not very piecewise linear as it could/should be. Consider reducing the tol and increasing max_iter.
hope this helps

I know this is an old thread, but:
I'm actually working on piping over to LassoCV from glmnet (in R), and I found that LassoCV doesn't do too well with normalizing the X matrix first (even if you specify the parameter normalize = True).
Try normalizing the X matrix first when using LassoCV.
If it is a pandas object,
(X - X.mean())/X.std()
It seems you also need to multiple alpha by 2

Though I am unable to figure out what is causing the problem, there is a logical direction in which to continue.
These are the facts:
Mathworks have selected an example and decided to include it in their documentation
Your matlab code produces exactly the result as the example.
The alternative does not match the result, and has provided inaccurate results in the past
This is my assumption:
The chance that mathworks have chosen to put an incorrect example in their documentation is neglectable compared to the chance that a reproduction of this example in an alternate way does not give the correct result.
The logical conclusion: Your matlab implementation of this example is reliable and the other is not.
This might be a problem in the code, or maybe in how you use it, but either way the only logical conclusion would be that you should continue with Matlab to select your model.