I have a dataset of about 3 million samples (each with just 3 features). I'm using scikit's sklearn.neighbors module - specifically radius_neighbor_graph - to find which samples fall within a small radius of a specific sample.
This works fine, but unsurprisingly it's really, really slow to compute this graph.
It's also very wasteful, because I only ever need to know the neighbors for a small subset of my samples (~ 100,000 of them) - and I know this subset in advance.
So... is there any way of being more efficient by calculating the neighbours within a given radius for just this subset of samples? It seems like it should be simple, but I can't think of an easy way of doing it.
First of all, the task of creating a radius-neighborhood-graph involves reading the N by N distance-matrix associated to your dataset. Since distance matrices have nice properties you can save some time, but still complexity lies somewhere in O(N^2). Here N is the number of data points in your data set X.
So one could say, that only a small number of n < N points are of interest as the center of a neighborhood, but the majority of points are just interesting as neighbors. This would result in an n by N distance matrix, where row i contains the distances of data point i to each other data point j, 1 <= i <= n, 1 <= j <= N. But this "distance matrix" has none of the desirable properties of a normal distance matrix (it is not even a square matrix), that you could use to speed up the process of creating an epsilon-neighborhood-graph.
Therefore I don't think that you find a predefined function for your case. If you want to build one your own, the steps should be as follows: Let X be your data set and i be the data point of interest.
Create the distance matrix D associated to your data set, use scipy.spatial.distance_matrix and take as x the small subset of your data set and as y the whole data set.
Create a list, neighbors = []
Loop over the i'th row of the distance matrix. If D(i,j) < epsilon, then save j in neighbors. It is the index of a data point in the epsilon neighborhood of i.
Return neighbors
Of course the computation of the distance matrix should happen once at the beginning (maybe in init() if you wrap everything up in a class), and the function/method that returns all epsilon neighbors of a data point should only depend on the index of the data point in question.
Hope this helps!
Related
I've implemented a k-means algorithm and performance is highly dependent on how centroids were initialized. I'm finding random uniform initialization to give a good k-means about 5% of the time, whereas with k-means++, it's closer to 50%. Why is the yield for good k-means so low? I should disclaim I've only used a handful of data sets and my good/bad rates are indicative of only those, not broadly.
Here's an example using k-means++ where the end result was not great. The Dunn Index of this clustering is 0.16.
And an example where it worked perfectly with a Dunn Index of 0.67.
I was maybe under the naive impression k-means++ produced a good k-means every time. Is there perhaps something wrong with my code?
def initialize_centroids(points, k):
"""
Parameters:
points : a list of Points.
k : how many centroids to place.
Returns:
A list of centroids.
"""
clusters = []
clusters.append(choice(points)) # first centroid is random point
for _ in range(k - 1): # for other centroids
distances = []
for p in points:
d = inf
for c in clusters: # find the minimal distance between p and c
d = min(d, distance(p, c))
distances.append(d)
# find maximum distance index from minimal distances
clusters.append(points[distances.index(max(distances))])
return clusters
This is adapted from the algorithm as found on Wikipedia:
Choose one center uniformly at random from among the data points.
For each data point x, compute D(x), the distance between x and the nearest center that has already been chosen.
Choose one new data point at random as a new center, using a weighted probability distribution where a point x is chosen with probability proportional to D(x)2.
Repeat Steps 2 and 3 until k centers have been chosen.
Now that the initial centers have been chosen, proceed using standard k-means clustering.
The difference is the centroids are chosen such that it is the furthest distance, not a probability to choose between furthest distances.
My intention is to compare the Dunn Index over different values of k, and empirically the Dunn Index being higher means better clustering. I can't collect (good) data if half of the time it doesn't work, so my results are skewed due to the faultiness of k-means++ or my implementation thereof.
What other initialization strategies can be employed to get a more consistent result?
I'm trying to optimize my nearest neighbor distance code that I need to calculate for many iterations of the same dataset
I am calculating the nearest neighbor distance for the points in dataset A, to the points in dataset B. Both datasets contain ~ (1000-2000) 2-dimensional points. While the points in dataset A stay the same, I have lots of different iterations for dataset B (~100000), B0,B1, ...B100000.I wonder if I can somehow speed this up given that A stays the same.
To calculate the nearest neighbor distances I use
for i in range(100000):
tree = spatial.cKDTree(B[i])
mindist1, minid = tree.query(A)
score[i] = np.mean(mindist1**4))**0.25
# And some other calculations
...
I wonder if there is a way to speed this up given A stays the same throughout the entire loop. It seems to me like there should be a smarter way to do this given that A is the same.
I am trying to calculate with Pyspark the mutual information of a continuous variable and a categorical one, without having to bin the continuous variable (cf. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articleid=10.1371/journal.pone.0087357).
The formula from the article above requires that I calculate, on each point of my categorical variable, the K nearest neighbours in terms of a distance defined on the continuous variable, only accounting the data points from the same categorical class as the current point. A good value of K is usually 3.
For example on this dataset: ( please note there is no redundancy, I only showed 2 features here).
Dataset sorted by metric
If k = 3 and I am on the point A = (0.023, Orange), I find the 3 nearest neighbours in terms of metric with categories = Orange, so it will be:
(0, Orange), (0, Orange), (0.11, Orange).
Once I have found these neighbours, I need to find the distance of the furthest one and define it as my diameter around A (here 0.11 - 0.023), and then find the number of neighbours in the whole dataset, which I will call m.
Once we have the diameter and m for each point, we use them to calculate a number Ni for each point, and we do the mean over the whole dataset.
I am having trouble to achieve the code that loops over the points in my pyspark dataset ( .rdd.map) and does the whole operation of finding the diameter and the number of neighbours m. I tried using window functions but it was hard to define the range since the range is not constant.
Thank you.
I have a MxN array, where M is the number of observations and N is the dimensionality of each vector. From this array of vectors, I need to calculate the mean and minimum euclidean distance between the vectors.
In my mind, this requires me to calculate MC2 distances, which is an O(nmin(k, n-k)) algorithm. My M is ~10,000 and my N is ~1,000, and this computation takes ~45 seconds.
Is there a more efficient way to compute the mean and min distances? Perhaps a probabilistic method? I don't need it to be exact, just close.
You didn't describe where your vectors come from, nor what use you will put mean and median to. Here are some observations about the general case. Limited ranges, error tolerance, and discrete values may admit of a more efficient approach.
The mean distance between M points sounds quadratic, O(M^2). But M / N is 10, fairly small, and N is huge, so the data probably resembles a hairy sphere in 1e3-space. Computing centroid of M points, and then computing M distances to centroid, might turn out to be useful in your problem domain, hard to tell.
The minimum distance among M points is more interesting. Choose a small number of pairs at random, say 100, compute their distance, and take half the minimum as an estimate of the global minimum distance. (Validate by comparing to the next few smallest distances, if desired.) Now use spatial UB-tree to model each point as a positive integer. This involves finding N minima for M x N values, adding constants so min becomes zero, scaling so estimated global min distance corresponds to at least 1.0, and then truncating to integer.
With these transformed vectors in hand, we're ready to turn them into a UB-tree representation that we can sort, and then do nearest neighbor spatial queries on the sorted values. For each point compute an integer. Shift the low-order bit of each dimension's value into the result, then iterate. Continue iterating over all dimensions until non-zero bits have all been consumed and appear in the result, and proceed to the next point. Numerically sort the integer result values, yielding a data structure similar to a PostGIS index.
Now you have a discretized representation that supports reasonably efficient queries for nearest neighbors (though admittedly N=1e3 is inconveniently large). After finding two or more coarse-grained nearby neighbors, you can query the original vector representation to obtain high-resolution distances between them, for finer discrimination. If your data distribution turns out to have a large fraction of points that discretize to being off by single bit from nearest neighbor, e.g. location of oxygen atoms where each has a buddy, then increase the global min distance estimate so the low order bits offer adequate discrimination.
A similar discretization approach would be appropriately scaling e.g. 2-dimensional inputs and marking an initially empty grid, then scanning immediate neighborhoods. This relies on global min being within a "small" neighborhood, due to appropriate scaling. In your case you would be marking an N-dimensional grid.
You may be able to speed things up with some sort of Space Partitioning.
For the minimum distance calculation, you would only need to consider pairs of points in the same or neigbouring partitions. For an approximate mean, you might be able to come up with some sort of weighted average based on the distances between partitions and the number of points within them.
I had the same issue before, and it worked for me once I normalized the values. So try to normalize the data before calculating the distance.
I am trying to cluster the following data from a CSV file with K means clustering.
Sample1,Sample2,45
Sample1,Sample3,69
Sample1,Sample4,12
Sample2,Sample2,46
Sample2,Sample1,78
It is basically a graph where Samples are nodes and the numbers are the edges (weights).
I read the file as following:
fileopening = fopen('data.csv', 'rU')
reading = csv.reader(fileopening, delimiter=',')
L = list(reading)
I used this code: https://gist.github.com/betzerra/8744068
Here clusters are built based on the following:
num_points, dim, k, cutoff, lower, upper = 10, 2, 3, 0.5, 0, 200
points = map( lambda i: makeRandomPoint(dim, lower, upper), range(num_points) )
clusters = kmeans(points, k, cutoff)
for i,c in enumerate(clusters):
for p in c.points:
print " Cluster: ",i,"\t Point :", p
I replaced points with list L. But I got lots of errors: AttributeError, 'int' object has no attribute 'n', etc.
I need to perform K means clustering based on the third number column (edges) of my CSV file. This tutorial uses randomly creating points. But I am not sure, how to use this CSV data as an input to this k means function. How to perform k means (k=2) for my data? How can I send the CSV file data as input to this k means function?
In short "you can't".
Long answer:
K-means is defined for euclidean spaces only and it requires a valid points positions, while you only have distances between them, probably not in a strict mathematical sense but rather some kind of "similarity". K-means is not designed to work with similarity matrices.
What you can do?
You can use some other method to embeed your points in euclidean space in such a way, that they closely reasamble your distances, one of such tools is Multidimensional scaling (MDS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_scaling
Once point 1 is done you can run k-means
Alternatively you can also construct a kernel (valid in a Mercer's sense) by performing some kernel learning techniques to reasamble your data and then run kernel k-means on the resulting Gram matrix.
As lejlot said, only distances between points are not enough to run k-means in the classic sense. It's easy to understand if you understand the nature of k-means. On a high level, k-means works as follows:
1) Randomly assign points to cluster.
(Technically, there are more sophisticated ways of initial partitioning,
but that's not essential right now).
2) Compute centroids of the cluster.
(This is where you need the actual coordinates of the points.)
3) Reassign each point to a cluster with the closest centroid.
4) Repeat steps 2)-3) until stop condition is met.
So, as you can see, in the classic interpretation, k-means will not work, because it is unclear how to compute centroids. However, I have several suggestions of what you could do.
Suggestion 1.
Embed your points in N-dimensional space, where N is the number of points, so that the coordinates of each point are the distances to all the other points.
For example the data you showed:
Sample1,Sample2,45
Sample1,Sample3,69
Sample1,Sample4,12
Sample2,Sample2,46
Sample2,Sample1,78
becomes:
Sample1: (0,45,69,12,...)
Sample2: (78,46,0,0,...)
Then you can legitimately use Euclidean distance. Note, that the actual distances between points will not be preserved, but this could be a simple and reasonable approximation to preserve relative distances between the points. Another disadvantage is that if you have a lot of points, than your memory (and running time) requirements will be order of N^2.
Suggestion 2.
Instead of k-means, try k-medoids. For this one, you do not need the actual coordinates of the points, because instead of centroid, you need to compute medoids. Medoid of a cluster is a points from this cluster, whish has the smallest average distance to all other points in this cluster. You could look for the implementations online. Or it's actually pretty easy to implement. The running time will be proportional to N^2 as well.
Final remark.
Why do you wan to use k-means at all? Seems like you have a weighted directed graph. There are clustering algorithms specially intended for graphs. This is beyond the scope of your question, but maybe this is something that could be worth considering?