I have an old blogpost where I am training a PyMC3 model. You can find the blogpost here but the gist of the model is shown below.
with pm.Model() as model:
mu_intercept = pm.Normal('mu_intercept', mu=40, sd=5)
mu_slope = pm.HalfNormal('mu_slope', 10, shape=(n_diets,))
mu = mu_intercept + mu_slope[df.diet-1] * df.time
sigma_intercept = pm.HalfNormal('sigma_intercept', sd=2)
sigma_slope = pm.HalfNormal('sigma_slope', sd=2, shape=n_diets)
sigma = sigma_intercept + sigma_slope[df.diet-1] * df.time
weight = pm.Normal('weight', mu=mu, sd=sigma, observed=df.weight)
approx = pm.fit(20000, random_seed=42, method="fullrank_advi")
In this dataset I'm estimating the effect of Diet on the weight of chickens. This is what the traceplot looks like.
Look at how pretty it is! Each diet has its own line! Beautiful!
Arviz Changes
This traceplot was made using the older PyMC3 API. Nowadays this functionality has moved to arviz. So tried redo-ing this work but ... the plot looks very different.
The code that I'm using here is slightly different. I'm using pm.Data now but I doubt that's supposed to cause this difference.
with pm.Model() as mod:
time_in = pm.Data("time_in", df['time'].astype(float))
diet_in = pm.Data("diet_in", dummies)
intercept = pm.Normal("intercept", 0, 2)
time_effect = pm.Normal("time_weight_effect", 0, 2, shape=(4,))
diet = pm.Categorical("diet", p=[0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25], shape=(4,), observed=diet_in)
sigma = pm.HalfNormal("sigma", 2)
sigma_time_effect = pm.HalfNormal("time_sigma_effect", 2, shape=(4,))
weight = pm.Normal("weight",
mu=intercept + time_effect.dot(diet_in.T)*time_in,
sd=sigma + sigma_time_effect.dot(diet_in.T)*time_in,
observed=df.weight)
trace = pm.sample(5000, return_inferencedata=True)
What do I need to do to get the different colors per DIET back in?
There's a parameter for it in the new plot_trace function. This does the trick;
az.plot_trace(trace, compact=True)
Edit:
Modeling and fitting with this approach work fine, the data in here is not good.-------------------
I want to do a curve-fitting on a complex dataset. After thorough reading and searching, I found that i can use a couple of methods (e.g. lmfit optimize, scipy leastsq).
But none gives me a good fit at all.
here is the fit equation:
here is the data to be fitted (list of y values):
[(0.00011342104914066835+8.448890220616275e-07j),
(0.00011340386404065371+7.379293582429708e-07j),
(0.0001133540327309949+6.389834505824625e-07j),
(0.00011332170913939336+5.244566142401774e-07j),
(0.00011331311156154074+4.3841061618015007e-07j),
(0.00011329383047059048+3.6163513508002877e-07j),
(0.00011328700094846502+3.0542249453666894e-07j),
(0.00011327650033983806+2.548725558622188e-07j),
(0.00011327702539337786+2.2508174567697671e-07j),
(0.00011327342238146558+1.9607648998100523e-07j),
(0.0001132710747364799+1.721721661949941e-07j),
(0.00011326933241850936+1.5246061350710235e-07j),
(0.00011326798040984542+1.3614817802178457e-07j),
(0.00011326752037650585+1.233483784504962e-07j),
(0.00011326758290166552+1.1258801448459512e-07j),
(0.00011326813100914905+1.0284749122099354e-07j),
(0.0001132684076390416+9.45791423595816e-08j),
(0.00011326982474882009+8.733105218572698e-08j),
(0.00011327158639135678+8.212191452217794e-08j),
(0.00011327366823516856+7.747920115589205e-08j),
(0.00011327694366034208+7.227069986108343e-08j),
(0.00011327915327873038+6.819405851172907e-08j),
(0.00011328181165961218+6.468392148750885e-08j),
(0.00011328531688122571+6.151393311227958e-08j),
(0.00011328857849500441+5.811704586613896e-08j),
(0.00011329241716561626+5.596645863242474e-08j),
(0.0001132970129528527+5.4722461511610696e-08j),
(0.0001133002881788021+5.064523218904898e-08j),
(0.00011330507671740223+5.0307457368330284e-08j),
(0.00011331106068787993+4.7703959367963307e-08j),
(0.00011331577350707601+4.634615394867111e-08j),
(0.00011332064001939156+4.6914747648361504e-08j),
(0.00011333034985824086+4.4992151257444304e-08j),
(0.00011334188526870483+4.363662798446445e-08j),
(0.00011335491299924776+4.364164366097129e-08j),
(0.00011337451201475147+4.262881852644385e-08j),
(0.00011339778209066752+4.275096587356569e-08j),
(0.00011342832992628646+4.4463907608604945e-08j),
(0.00011346526768580432+4.35706649329342e-08j),
(0.00011351108008292451+4.4155812379491554e-08j),
(0.00011356967192325835+4.327004709646922e-08j),
(0.00011364164970635006+4.420660396556604e-08j),
(0.00011373150199883139+4.3672898914161596e-08j),
(0.00011384660942003356+4.326171366194325e-08j),
(0.00011399193321804955+4.1493065523925126e-08j),
(0.00011418043916260295+4.0762418512759096e-08j),
(0.00011443271767970721+3.91359909722939e-08j),
(0.00011479600563688605+3.845666332695652e-08j),
(0.0001153652105925112+3.6224677316584614e-08j),
(0.00011638635682516399+3.386843079212692e-08j),
(0.00011836223959714231+3.6692295450490655e-08j)]
here is the list of x values:
[999.9999960000001,
794.328231,
630.957342,
501.18723099999994,
398.107168,
316.22776400000004,
251.188642,
199.52623,
158.489318,
125.89254,
99.999999,
79.432823,
63.095734,
50.118722999999996,
39.810717,
31.622776,
25.118864000000002,
19.952623000000003,
15.848932000000001,
12.589253999999999,
10.0,
7.943282000000001,
6.309573,
5.011872,
3.981072,
3.1622779999999997,
2.511886,
1.9952619999999999,
1.584893,
1.258925,
1.0,
0.7943279999999999,
0.630957,
0.5011869999999999,
0.398107,
0.316228,
0.251189,
0.199526,
0.15848900000000002,
0.125893,
0.1,
0.079433,
0.063096,
0.050119,
0.039811,
0.031623000000000005,
0.025119,
0.019953,
0.015849000000000002,
0.012589,
0.01]
and here is the code which works but not the way I want:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from lmfit import minimize, Parameters
#%% the equation
def ColeCole(params, fr): #fr is x values array and params are the fitting parameters
sig0 = params['sig0']
m = params['m']
tau = params['tau']
c = params['c']
w = fr*2*np.pi
num = 1
denom = 1+(1j*w*tau)**c
sigComplex = sig0*(1.0+(m/(1-m))*(1-num/denom))
return sigComplex
def res(params, fr, data): #calculating reseduals of fit
resedual = ColeCole(params, fr) - data
return resedual.view(np.float)
#%% Adding model parameters and fitting
params = Parameters()
params.add('sig0', value=0.00166)
params.add('m', value=0.19,)
params.add('tau', value=0.05386)
params.add('c', value=0.80)
params['tau'].min = 0 # these conditions must be met but even if I remove them the fit is ugly!!
params['m'].min = 0
out= minimize(res, params , args= (np.array(fr2), np.array(data)))
#%%plotting Imaginary part
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
plotX = fr2
plotY = data.imag
fitplot = ColeCole(out.params, fr2)
ax.semilogx(plotX,plotY,'o',label='imc')
ax.semilogx(plotX,fitplot.imag,label='fit')
#%%plotting real part
fig2, ax2 = plt.subplots()
plotX2 = fr2
plotY2 = data.real
fitplot2 = ColeCole(out.params, fr2)
ax2.semilogx(plotX2,plotY2,'o',label='imc')
ax2.semilogx(plotX2,fitplot2.real,label='fit')
I might be doing it completely wrong, please help me if you know the proper solution to do a curve fitting on complex data.
I would suggest first converting the complex data to numpy arrays and get real, imag pairs separately and then using lmfit Model to model that same sort of data. Perhaps something like this:
cdata = np.array((0.00011342104914066835+8.448890220616275e-07j,
0.00011340386404065371+7.379293582429708e-07j,
0.0001133540327309949+6.389834505824625e-07j,
0.00011332170913939336+5.244566142401774e-07j,
0.00011331311156154074+4.3841061618015007e-07j,
0.00011329383047059048+3.6163513508002877e-07j,
0.00011328700094846502+3.0542249453666894e-07j,
0.00011327650033983806+2.548725558622188e-07j,
0.00011327702539337786+2.2508174567697671e-07j,
0.00011327342238146558+1.9607648998100523e-07j,
0.0001132710747364799+1.721721661949941e-07j,
0.00011326933241850936+1.5246061350710235e-07j,
0.00011326798040984542+1.3614817802178457e-07j,
0.00011326752037650585+1.233483784504962e-07j,
0.00011326758290166552+1.1258801448459512e-07j,
0.00011326813100914905+1.0284749122099354e-07j,
0.0001132684076390416+9.45791423595816e-08j,
0.00011326982474882009+8.733105218572698e-08j,
0.00011327158639135678+8.212191452217794e-08j,
0.00011327366823516856+7.747920115589205e-08j,
0.00011327694366034208+7.227069986108343e-08j,
0.00011327915327873038+6.819405851172907e-08j,
0.00011328181165961218+6.468392148750885e-08j,
0.00011328531688122571+6.151393311227958e-08j,
0.00011328857849500441+5.811704586613896e-08j,
0.00011329241716561626+5.596645863242474e-08j,
0.0001132970129528527+5.4722461511610696e-08j,
0.0001133002881788021+5.064523218904898e-08j,
0.00011330507671740223+5.0307457368330284e-08j,
0.00011331106068787993+4.7703959367963307e-08j,
0.00011331577350707601+4.634615394867111e-08j,
0.00011332064001939156+4.6914747648361504e-08j,
0.00011333034985824086+4.4992151257444304e-08j,
0.00011334188526870483+4.363662798446445e-08j,
0.00011335491299924776+4.364164366097129e-08j,
0.00011337451201475147+4.262881852644385e-08j,
0.00011339778209066752+4.275096587356569e-08j,
0.00011342832992628646+4.4463907608604945e-08j,
0.00011346526768580432+4.35706649329342e-08j,
0.00011351108008292451+4.4155812379491554e-08j,
0.00011356967192325835+4.327004709646922e-08j,
0.00011364164970635006+4.420660396556604e-08j,
0.00011373150199883139+4.3672898914161596e-08j,
0.00011384660942003356+4.326171366194325e-08j,
0.00011399193321804955+4.1493065523925126e-08j,
0.00011418043916260295+4.0762418512759096e-08j,
0.00011443271767970721+3.91359909722939e-08j,
0.00011479600563688605+3.845666332695652e-08j,
0.0001153652105925112+3.6224677316584614e-08j,
0.00011638635682516399+3.386843079212692e-08j,
0.00011836223959714231+3.6692295450490655e-08j))
fr = np.array((999.9999960000001, 794.328231, 630.957342,
501.18723099999994, 398.107168, 316.22776400000004,
251.188642, 199.52623, 158.489318, 125.89254, 99.999999,
79.432823, 63.095734, 50.118722999999996, 39.810717,
31.622776, 25.118864000000002, 19.952623000000003,
15.848932000000001, 12.589253999999999, 10.0,
7.943282000000001, 6.309573, 5.011872, 3.981072,
3.1622779999999997, 2.511886, 1.9952619999999999, 1.584893,
1.258925, 1.0, 0.7943279999999999, 0.630957,
0.5011869999999999, 0.398107, 0.316228, 0.251189, 0.199526,
0.15848900000000002, 0.125893, 0.1, 0.079433, 0.063096,
0.050119, 0.039811, 0.031623000000000005, 0.025119, 0.019953,
0.015849000000000002, 0.012589, 0.01))
data = np.concatenate((cdata.real, cdata.imag))
# model function for lmfit
def colecole_function(x, sig0, m, tau, c):
w = x*2*np.pi
denom = 1+(1j*w*tau)**c
sig = sig0*(1.0+(m/(1.0-m))*(1-1.0/denom))
return np.concatenate((sig.real, sig.imag))
mod = Model(colecole_function)
params = mod.make_params(sig0=0.002, m=-0.19, tau=0.05, c=0.8)
params['tau'].min = 0
result = mod.fit(data, params, x=fr)
print(result.fit_report())
You would then want to plot the results like
nf = len(fr)
plt.plot(fr, data[:nf], label='data(real)')
plt.plot(fr, result.best_fit[:nf], label='fit(real)')
and similarly
plt.plot(fr, data[nf:], label='data(imag)')
plt.plot(fr, result.best_fit[nf:], label='fit(imag)')
Note that I think you're going to want to allow m to be negative (or maybe I misuderstand your model). I did not work carefully on getting a great fit, but I think this should get you started.
I am trying to set up a hierarchical linear regression model using PYMC3. In my particular case, I want to see whether postal codes provide a meaningful structure for other features. Suppose I use the following mock data:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import pymc3 as pm
data = pd.DataFrame({"postalcode": np.floor(np.random.uniform(low=10, high=99, size=1000)),
"x": np.random.normal(size=1000),
"y": np.random.normal(size=1000)})
data["postalcode"] = data["postalcode"].astype(int)
I generate postal codes from 10 to 99, as well as a normally distributed feature x and a target value y. Now I set up my indices for postal code level 1 and level 2:
def create_pc_index(level):
pc = data["postalcode"].astype(str).str[0:level]
unique_pc = pc.unique()
pc_dict = dict(zip(unique_pc, range(0, len(unique_pc))))
return pc_dict, pc.apply(lambda x: pc_dict[x]).values
pc1_dict, pc1_index = create_pc_index(1)
pc2_dict, pc2_index = create_pc_index(2)
Using the first digit of the postal code as hierarchical attribute works fine:
number_of_samples = 1000
x = data["x"]
y = data["y"]
with pm.Model() as model:
sigma = pm.HalfCauchy('sigma', beta=10, testval=0.5, shape=1)
mu_i = pm.Normal("mu_i", 5, sd=25, shape=1)
intercept = pm.Normal('Intercept', mu_i, sd=1, shape=len(pc1_dict))
mu_s = pm.Normal("mu_x", 0, sd=3, shape=1)
x_coeffs = pm.Normal("x", mu_s, 1, shape=len(pc1_dict))
mean = intercept[pc1_index] + x_coeffs[pc1_index] * x
likelihood_mean = pm.Deterministic("mean", mean)
likelihood = pm.Normal('y', mu=likelihood_mean, sd=sigma, observed=y)
trace = pm.sample(number_of_samples)
burned_trace = trace[number_of_samples/2:]
However, if I want to add a second level to my hierarchy (in this case only on the intercept, ignoring x for the moment), I run into shape problems
with pm.Model() as model:
sigma = pm.HalfCauchy('sigma', beta=10, testval=0.5, shape=1)
mu_i_level_1 = pm.Normal("mu_i", 0, sd=25, shape=1)
mu_i_level_2 = pm.Normal("mu_i_level_2", mu_i_level_1, sd=1, shape=len(pc1_dict))
intercept = pm.Normal('Intercept', mu_i_level_2[pc1_index], sd=1, shape=len(pc2_dict))
mu_s = pm.Normal("mu_x", 0, sd=3, shape=1)
x_coeffs = pm.Normal("x", mu_s, 1, shape=len(pc1_dict))
mean = intercept[pc2_index] + x_coeffs[pc1_index] * x
likelihood_mean = pm.Deterministic("mean", mean)
likelihood = pm.Normal('y', mu=likelihood_mean, sd=sigma, observed=y)
trace = pm.sample(number_of_samples)
burned_trace = trace[number_of_samples/2:]
The error message is:
operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (89,) (1000,)
How do I model multiple levels in my regression correctly? Is this just an issue with the correct shape size or is there a more fundamental error on my part?
Thanks in advance!
I don't think intercept can have a shape of len(pc2_dict) but a mu of len(pc1_dict). The contradiction is here:
intercept = pm.Normal('Intercept', mu_i_level_2[pc1_index], sd=1, shape=len(pc2_dict))