I am trying to estimate a multinomial logit model for predicting systemic banking crisis with panel data. Below is my code. I have ran this code before and it has worked fine. However, I tried to change the names of the independent variables and used the new data to run the model again. But ever since then R is estimating multiple iterations of x1 variable. But when I am dropping x1 the model estimation turns out to be just fine again. I have attached a screenshots of the results. Faulty_result1, Faulty_result_2 and Result_with_x1_dropped. I can't seem to figure out what the issue is. Any help will be much appreciated.
#Remove all items from memory (if any)
rm(list=ls(all=TRUE))
#Set working directory to load files
setwd("D:/PhD/Codes")
#Load necessary libraries
library(readr)
library(nnet)
library(plm)
#Load data
my_data <- read_csv("D:/PhD/Data/xx_Final Data_4.csv",
col_types = cols(`Time Period` = col_date(format = "%d/%m/%Y"),
y = col_factor(levels = c("0", "1",
"2")), x2 = col_double(), x5 = col_double(),
x9 = col_double(), x11 = col_double(),
x13 = col_double(), x24 = col_double()),
na = "NA")
#Change levels from numeric to character
levels(my_data$y) <- c("Tranquil", "Pre-crisis", "Crisis")
str(my_data$y)
#Create Panel Data
p_data=pdata.frame(my_data)
#Export dataset
write_csv(p_data,"D:/PhD/Data/Clean_Final Data_4.csv")
#Drop unnecessary columns
p <- subset(p_data, select = c(3:27))
#Set reference level
p$y <- relevel(p$y, ref="Tranquil")
#Create Model
model <- multinom(y~ ., data = p)
summary(model)
stargazer::stargazer(model, type = "text")
Related
I am getting error mentioned in the title and didn't find yet a solution.
X = train[feats].values
y = train['Target'].values
cv = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=3, random_state=2021, shuffle=True)
model = LogisticRegression(solver='liblinear')
scores = []
for train_idx, test_idx in cv.split(X, y):
model.fit(X[train_idx], y[train_idx])
y_pred = model.predict(X[test_idx])
score = mean_absolute_error(y[test_idx], y_pred )
scores.append(score)
print(np.mean(scores), np.std(scores))
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(15,6));
ax1 = fig.add_subplot(121)
ax2 = fig.add_subplot(122)
skplt.metrics.plot_confusion_matrix(y, y_pred, ax = ax1) #error line
skplt.metrics.plot_roc(y, y_pred, ax = ax2)
ValueError: Found input variables with inconsistent numbers of samples: [32561, 10853]
I checked the code, read many threads on this error. Somebody suggested me as a solution to put the cross-validation in a loop, but I don't know how to manage this with code (and also which part of operation to put in a loop, and how to write a condition that should be ending this loop). Please, help me with a specific answer that will help me to easily fix problem with my current level of advancement.
I have a strange Error and actually don't know how to solve it, even after checking other posts. Everything runs until the Kriging and then I receive the error: Error in (function (classes, fdef, mtable) unable to find an inherited method for function ‘krige’ for signature ‘"formula", "tbl_df"’
The strange thing is that everything worked a few days ago, I did not change anything in the code and now it doesn't run anymore. Some other posts related the problem with the Raster, but I could not find any discrepances. Is there something because of recent updates? I use for example the sp package.
Unfortunately I cannot provide the data I use, hopefully it can be solved without.
How can I solve the issue? Thank you in advance for the help.
homeDir = "D:/Folder/DataXYyear/"
y = 1992
Source = paste("Year", y, ".csv")
File = file.path(homeDir,Source)
GWMeas <- read_csv(File)
GWMeasX <- na.omit(GWMeas)
ggplot(
data = GWMeasX,
mapping = aes(x = X, y = Y, color = level)
) +
geom_point(size = 3) +
scale_color_viridis(option = "B") +
theme_classic()
GWMX_sf <- st_as_sf(GWMeasX, coords = c("X", "Y"), crs = 25832) %>%
cbind(st_coordinates(.))
v_emp_OK <- gstat::variogram(
level~1,
as(GWMX_sf, "Spatial") # switch from {sf} to {sp}
)
v_mod_OK <- automap::autofitVariogram(level~1, as(GWMX_sf, "Spatial"), model = "Sph")$var_model
GWMeasX %>% as.data.frame %>% glimpse
GW.vgm <- variogram(level~1, locations = ~X+Y, data = GWMeasX) # calculates sample variogram values
GW.fit <- fit.variogram(GW.vgm, model=vgm(model = "Gau")) # fit model
sf_GWlevel <- st_as_sf(GWMeasX, coords = c("X", "Y"), crs = 25833)
grd_sf <- sf_GWlevel %>%
st_bbox() %>%
st_as_sfc() %>%
st_make_grid(
cellsize = c(5000, 5000), # 5000m pixel size
what = "centers"
) %>%
st_as_sf() %>%
cbind(., st_coordinates(.))
grid <- as(grd_sf, "Spatial")
gridded(grid) <- TRUE
grid <- as(grid, "SpatialPixels")
createGrid <- function(XY.Spacing)
crs(grid) <- crs(GWMX_sf)
OK3 <- krige(formula = level~1, # variable to interpolate
data = GWMX_sf, # gauge data
newdata = grid, # grid to interpolate on
model = v_mod_OK, # variogram model to use
nmin = 4, # minimum number of points to use for the interpolation
nmax = 20, # maximum number of points to use for the interpolation
maxdist = 120e3 # maximum distance of points to use for the interpolation
)
I am training a VAE (using federated learning, but that is not so important) and wanted to keep the loss and train functions simple to exchange. The initial approach was to have a tf.function as loss function and a tf.function as train function as follows:
#tf.function
def kl_reconstruction_loss(model, model_input, beta):
x, y = model_input
mean, logvar = model.encode(x, y)
z = model.reparameterize(mean, logvar)
x_logit = model.decode(z, y)
cross_ent = tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(logits=x_logit, labels=x)
reconstruction_loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.reduce_sum(cross_ent, axis=[1, 2, 3]), axis=0)
kl_loss = tf.reduce_mean(0.5 * tf.reduce_sum(tf.exp(logvar) + tf.square(mean) - 1. - logvar, axis=-1), axis=0)
loss = reconstruction_loss + beta * kl_loss
return loss, kl_loss, reconstruction_loss
#tf.function
def train_fn(model: tf.keras.Model, batch, optimizer, kl_beta):
"""Trains the model on a single batch.
Args:
model: The VAE model.
batch: A batch of inputs [images, labels] for the vae.
optimizer: The optimizer to train the model.
beta: Weighting of KL loss
Returns:
The loss.
"""
def vae_loss():
"""Does the forward pass and computes losses for the generator."""
# N.B. The complete pass must be inside loss() for gradient tracing.
return kl_reconstruction_loss(model, batch, kl_beta)
with tf.GradientTape() as tape:
loss, kl_loss, rc_loss = vae_loss()
grads = tape.gradient(loss, model.trainable_variables)
grads_and_vars = zip(grads, model.trainable_variables)
optimizer.apply_gradients(grads_and_vars)
return loss
For my dataset this results in an epoch duration of approx. 25 seconds. However, since I have to call those functions directly in my code, I would have to enter different ones if I would want to try out different loss/train functions.
So, alternatively, I followed https://github.com/google-research/federated/tree/master/gans and wrapped the loss function in a class and the train function in another function. Now I have:
class VaeKlReconstructionLossFns(AbstractVaeLossFns):
#tf.function
def vae_loss(self, model, model_input, labels, global_round):
# KL Reconstruction loss
mean, logvar = model.encode(model_input, labels)
z = model.reparameterize(mean, logvar)
x_logit = model.decode(z, labels)
cross_ent = tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(logits=x_logit, labels=model_input)
reconstruction_loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.reduce_sum(cross_ent, axis=[1, 2, 3]), axis=0)
kl_loss = tf.reduce_mean(0.5 * tf.reduce_sum(tf.exp(logvar) + tf.square(mean) - 1. - logvar, axis=-1), axis=0)
loss = reconstruction_loss + self._get_beta(global_round) * kl_loss
if model.losses:
loss += tf.add_n(model.losses)
return loss, kl_loss, reconstruction_loss
def create_train_vae_fn(
vae_loss_fns: vae_losses.AbstractVaeLossFns,
vae_optimizer: tf.keras.optimizers.Optimizer):
"""Create a function that trains VAE, binding loss and optimizer.
Args:
vae_loss_fns: Instance of gan_losses.AbstractVAELossFns interface,
specifying the VAE training loss.
vae_optimizer: Optimizer for training the VAE.
Returns:
Function that executes one step of VAE training.
"""
# We check that the optimizer has not been used previously, which ensures
# that when it is bound the train fn isn't holding onto a different copy of
# the optimizer variables then the copy that is being exchanged b/w server and
# clients.
if vae_optimizer.variables():
raise ValueError(
'Expected vae_optimizer to not have been used previously, but '
'variables were already initialized.')
#tf.function
def train_vae_fn(model: tf.keras.Model,
model_inputs,
labels,
global_round,
new_optimizer_state=None):
"""Trains the model on a single batch.
Args:
model: The VAE model.
model_inputs: A batch of inputs (usually images) for the VAE.
labels: A batch of labels corresponding to the inputs.
global_round: The current glob al FL round for beta calculation
new_optimizer_state: A possible optimizer state to overwrite the current one with.
Returns:
The number of examples trained on.
The loss.
The updated optimizer state.
"""
def vae_loss():
"""Does the forward pass and computes losses for the generator."""
# N.B. The complete pass must be inside loss() for gradient tracing.
return vae_loss_fns.vae_loss(model, model_inputs, labels, global_round)
# Set optimizer vars
optimizer_state = get_optimizer_state(vae_optimizer)
if new_optimizer_state is not None:
# if optimizer is uninitialised, initialise vars
try:
tf.nest.assert_same_structure(optimizer_state, new_optimizer_state)
except ValueError:
initialize_optimizer_vars(vae_optimizer, model)
optimizer_state = get_optimizer_state(vae_optimizer)
tf.nest.assert_same_structure(optimizer_state, new_optimizer_state)
tf.nest.map_structure(lambda a, b: a.assign(b), optimizer_state, new_optimizer_state)
with tf.GradientTape() as tape:
loss, kl_loss, rc_loss = vae_loss()
grads = tape.gradient(loss, model.trainable_variables)
grads_and_vars = zip(grads, model.trainable_variables)
vae_optimizer.apply_gradients(grads_and_vars)
return tf.shape(model_inputs)[0], loss, optimizer_state
return train_vae_fn
This new formulation takes about 86 seconds per epoch.
I am struggling to understand why the second version performs so much worse than the first one. Does anyone have a good explanation for this?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: My Tensorflow version is 2.5.0
I put all the functions are placed in a class, including the creation of the process of the function and the implementation of the function, in another file to call the function of this class
from multiprocessing import Pool
def initData(self, type):
# create six process to deal with the data
if type == 'train':
data = pd.read_csv('./data/train_merged_8.csv')
elif type == 'test':
data = pd.read_csv('./data/test_merged_2.csv')
modelvec = allWord2Vec('no').getModel()
modelvec_all = allWord2Vec('all').getModel()
modelvec_stop = allWord2Vec('stop').getModel()
p = Pool(6)
count = 0
for i in data.index:
count += 1
p.apply_async(self.valueCal, args=(i, data, modelvec, modelvec_all, modelvec_stop))
if count % 1000 == 0:
print(str(count // 100) + 'h rows of data has been dealed')
p.close()
p.join
def valueCal(self, i, data, modelvec, modelvec_all, modelvec_stop):
# the function run in process
list_con = []
q1 = str(data.get_value(i, 'question1')).split()
q2 = str(data.get_value(i, 'question2')).split()
f1 = self.getF1_union(q1, q2)
f2 = self.getF2_inter(q1, q2)
f3 = self.getF3_sum(q1, q2)
f4_q1 = len(q1)
f4_q2 = len(q2)
f4_rate = f4_q1/f4_q2
q1 = [','.join(str(ve)) for ve in q1]
q2 = [','.join(str(ve)) for ve in q2]
list_con.append('|'.join(q1))
list_con.append('|'.join(q2))
list_con.append(f1)
list_con.append(f2)
list_con.append(f3)
list_con.append(f4_q1)
list_con.append(f4_q2)
list_con.append(f4_rate)
f = open('./data/test.txt', 'a')
f.write('\t'.join(list_con) + '\n')
f.close()
The result appears very soon like this, but I have not even seen the file being created.But when I check the task manager, there are indeed six processes are created and consumed a lot of resources I cpu. And when the program is finished, the file is still not created.
How can i solve this problem?
10h rows of data have been dealed
20h rows of data have been dealed
30h rows of data have been dealed
40h rows of data have been dealed
I'm working with a large data frame called exp (file here) in R. In the interests of performance, it was suggested that I check out the idata.frame() function from plyr. But I think I'm using it wrong.
My original call, slow but it works:
df.median<-ddply(exp,
.(groupname,starttime,fPhase,fCycle),
numcolwise(median),
na.rm=TRUE)
With idata.frame, Error: is.data.frame(df) is not TRUE
library(plyr)
df.median<-ddply(idata.frame(exp),
.(groupname,starttime,fPhase,fCycle),
numcolwise(median),
na.rm=TRUE)
So, I thought, perhaps it is my data. So I tried the baseball dataset. The idata.frame example works fine: dlply(idata.frame(baseball), "id", nrow) But if I try something similar to my desired call using baseball, it doesn't work:
bb.median<-ddply(idata.frame(baseball),
.(id,year,team),
numcolwise(median),
na.rm=TRUE)
>Error: is.data.frame(df) is not TRUE
Perhaps my error is in how I'm specifying the groupings? Anyone know how to make my example work?
ETA:
I also tried:
groupVars <- c("groupname","starttime","fPhase","fCycle")
voi<-c('inadist','smldist','lardist')
i<-idata.frame(exp)
ag.median <- aggregate(i[,voi], i[,groupVars], median)
Error in i[, voi] : object of type 'environment' is not subsettable
which uses a faster way of getting the medians, but gives a different error. I don't think I understand how to use idata.frame at all.
Given you are working with 'big' data and looking for perfomance, this seems a perfect fit for data.table.
Specifically the lapply(.SD,FUN) and .SDcols arguments with by
Setup the data.table
library(data.table)
DT <- as.data.table(exp)
iexp <- idata.frame(exp)
Which columns are numeric
numeric_columns <- names(which(unlist(lapply(DT, is.numeric))))
dt.median <- DT[, lapply(.SD, median), by = list(groupname, starttime, fPhase,
fCycle), .SDcols = numeric_columns]
some benchmarking
library(rbenchmark)
benchmark(data.table = DT[, lapply(.SD, median), by = list(groupname, starttime,
fPhase, fCycle), .SDcols = numeric_columns],
plyr = ddply(exp, .(groupname, starttime, fPhase, fCycle), numcolwise(median), na.rm = TRUE),
idataframe = ddply(exp, .(groupname, starttime, fPhase, fCycle), function(x) data.frame(inadist = median(x$inadist),
smldist = median(x$smldist), lardist = median(x$lardist), inadur = median(x$inadur),
smldur = median(x$smldur), lardur = median(x$lardur), emptyct = median(x$emptyct),
entct = median(x$entct), inact = median(x$inact), smlct = median(x$smlct),
larct = median(x$larct), na.rm = TRUE)),
aggregate = aggregate(exp[, numeric_columns],
exp[, c("groupname", "starttime", "fPhase", "fCycle")],
median),
replications = 5)
## test replications elapsed relative user.self
## 4 aggregate 5 5.42 1.789 5.30
## 1 data.table 5 3.03 1.000 3.03
## 3 idataframe 5 11.81 3.898 11.77
## 2 plyr 5 9.47 3.125 9.45
Strange behaviour, but even in the docs it says that idata.frame is experimental. You probably found a bug. Perhaps you could rewrite the check at the top of ddply that tests is.data.frame().
In any case, this cuts about 20% off the time (on my system):
system.time(df.median<-ddply(exp, .(groupname,starttime,fPhase,fCycle), function(x) data.frame(
inadist=median(x$inadist),
smldist=median(x$smldist),
lardist=median(x$lardist),
inadur=median(x$inadur),
smldur=median(x$smldur),
lardur=median(x$lardur),
emptyct=median(x$emptyct),
entct=median(x$entct),
inact=median(x$inact),
smlct=median(x$smlct),
larct=median(x$larct),
na.rm=TRUE))
)
Shane asked you in another post if you could cache the results of your script. I don't really have an idea of your workflow, but it may be best to setup a chron to run this and store the results, daily/hourly whatever.