Related
I am working on arima modeling. The data has hourly granularity - taken from 1st May 2022 till 8th June 2022. I am trying to do forecasting for next 30 days i.e 720 hours. I am facing trouble & getting confused with the below doubts. If anybody could provide pointers then it will be great.
Tried plotting the raw data & found no trend, and seasonality
a) Checked with seasonal_decomposition() with a few period values with period=1 (correct with my understanding that season should be 0)
b) period = 12 (just random - but why it is showing some seasons?. Even if I pot without period for which default value is 7, it still shows season - why?)
Plotted this graph with seasonality value False as in the raw plot I do not see any seasons/trend & getting the below plot. How & what should be concluded???
Then I thought of capturing this season thing through resampling by plotting daily graph and getting further confused.
a) period - 7 (default for seasonal_decomposition), again I can see seasonality of 4 days when the raw plot do not show seasons.
The forecasting for this resampled (daily) data is below
I am extremely clueless now as to what to see. The more I am reading the more I am getting confused.
Below is the code that I am using.
df=pd.read_csv('~/Desktop/gru-scl/gru-scl-filtered.csv', index_col="time")
del df["Index"]
df.index=pd.to_datetime(df.index)
model = pm.auto_arima(df.bps, start_p=0, start_q=0,
test='adf', # use adftest to find optimal 'd'
max_p=3, max_q=3, # maximum p and q
m=24, # frequency of series
d=None, # let model determine 'd'
seasonal=False, # No Seasonality
start_P=0,
D=0,
trace=True,
error_action='ignore',
suppress_warnings=True,
stepwise=True)
f_steps=720
fc, confint = model.predict(n_periods=f_steps, return_conf_int=True)
fc_index = np.arange(len(df.bps), len(df.bps)+f_steps)
val=0
for f in fc:
val = val+f
mean = val/f_steps
print(mean)
# make series for plotting purpose
fc_series = pd.Series(fc, index=fc_index)
lower_series = pd.Series(confint[:, 0], index=fc_index)
upper_series = pd.Series(confint[:, 1], index=fc_index)
# Plot
plt.plot(df.bps, label="Actual values")
plt.plot(fc, color='darkgreen', label="Predicted values")
plt.fill_between(fc_index,
lower_series,
upper_series,
color='k', alpha=.15)
plt.legend(loc='upper left', fontsize=8)
plt.title('Forecast vs Actuals')
plt.xlabel("Hours since 1st May 2022")
plt.ylabel("Bps")
plt.show()
I'm trying to learn more about pyhf and my understanding of what the goals are might be limited. I would love to fit my HEP data outside of ROOT, but I could be imposing expectations on pyhf which are not what the authors intended for it's use.
I'd like to write myself a hello-world example, but I might just not know what I'm doing. My misunderstanding could also be gaps in my statistical knowledge.
With that preface, let me explain what I'm trying to explore.
I have some observed set of events for which I calculate some observable and make a binned histogram of that data. I hypothesize that there are two contributing physics processes, which I call signal and background. I generate some Monte Carlo samples for these processes and the theorized total number of events is close to, but not exactly what I observe.
I would like to:
Fit the data to this two process hypothesis
Get from the fit the optimal values for the number of events for each process
Get the uncertainties on these fitted values
If appropriate, calculate an upper limit on the number of signal events.
My starter code is below, where all I'm doing is an ML fit but I'm not sure where to go. I know it's not set up to do what I want, but I'm getting lost in the examples I find on RTD. I'm sure it's me, this is not a criticism of the documentation.
import pyhf
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
nbins = 15
# Generate a background and signal MC sample`
MC_signal_events = np.random.normal(5,1.0,200)
MC_background_events = 10*np.random.random(1000)
signal_data = np.histogram(MC_signal_events,bins=nbins)[0]
bkg_data = np.histogram(MC_background_events,bins=nbins)[0]
# Generate an observed dataset with a slightly different
# number of events
signal_events = np.random.normal(5,1.0,180)
background_events = 10*np.random.random(1050)
observed_events = np.array(signal_events.tolist() + background_events.tolist())
observed_sample = np.histogram(observed_events,bins=nbins)[0]
# Plot these samples, if you like
plt.figure(figsize=(12,4))
plt.subplot(1,3,1)
plt.hist(observed_events,bins=nbins,label='Observations')
plt.legend()
plt.subplot(1,3,2)
plt.hist(MC_signal_events,bins=nbins,label='MC signal')
plt.legend()
plt.subplot(1,3,3)
plt.hist(MC_background_events,bins=nbins,label='MC background')
plt.legend()
# Use a very naive estimate of the background
# uncertainties
bkg_uncerts = np.sqrt(bkg_data)
print("Defining the PDF.......")
pdf = pyhf.simplemodels.hepdata_like(signal_data=signal_data.tolist(), \
bkg_data=bkg_data.tolist(), \
bkg_uncerts=bkg_uncerts.tolist())
print("Fit.......")
data = pyhf.tensorlib.astensor(observed_sample.tolist() + pdf.config.auxdata)
bestfit_pars, twice_nll = pyhf.infer.mle.fit(data, pdf, return_fitted_val=True)
print(bestfit_pars)
print(twice_nll)
plt.show()
Note: this answer is based on pyhf v0.5.2.
Alright, so it looks like you've managed to figure most of the big pieces for sure. However, there's two different ways to do this depending on how you prefer to set things up. In both cases, I assume you want an unconstrained fit and you want to...
fit your signal+background model to observed data
fit your background model to observed data
First, let's discuss uncertainties briefly. At the moment, we default to numpy for the tensor background and scipy for the optimizer. See documentation:
numpy backend
scipy optimizer
However, one unfortunate drawback right now with the scipy optimizer is that it cannot return the uncertainties. What you need to do anywhere in your code before the fit (although we generally recommend as early as possible) is to use the minuit optimizer instead:
pyhf.set_backend('numpy', 'minuit')
This will get you the nice features of being able to get the correlation matrix, the uncertainties on the fitted parameters, and the hessian -- amongst other things. We're working to make this consistent for scipy as well, but this is not ready right now.
All optimizations go through our optimizer API which you can currently view through the mixin here in our documentation. Specifically, the signature is
minimize(
objective,
data,
pdf,
init_pars,
par_bounds,
fixed_vals=None,
return_fitted_val=False,
return_result_obj=False,
do_grad=None,
do_stitch=False,
**kwargs)
There are a lot of options here. Let's just focus on the fact that one of the keyword arguments we can pass through is return_uncertainties which will change the bestfit parameters by adding a column for the fitted parameter uncertainty which you want.
1. Signal+Background
In this case, we want to just use the default model
result, twice_nll = pyhf.infer.mle.fit(
data,
pdf,
return_uncertainties=True,
return_fitted_val=True
)
bestfit_pars, errors = result.T
2. Background-Only
In this case, we need to turn off the signal. The way we do this is by setting the parameter of interest (POI) fixed to 0.0. Then we can get the fitted parameters for the background-only model in a similar way, but using fixed_poi_fit instead of an unconstrained fit:
result, twice_nll = pyhf.infer.mle.fixed_poi_fit(
0.0,
data,
pdf,
return_uncertainties=True,
return_fitted_val=True
)
bestfit_pars, errors = result.T
Note that this is quite simply a quick way of doing the following unconstrained fit
bkg_params = pdf.config.suggested_init()
fixed_params = pdf.config.suggested_fixed()
bkg_params[pdf.config.poi_index] = 0.0
fixed_params[pdf.config.poi_index] = True
result, twice_nll = pyhf.infer.mle.fit(
data,
pdf,
init_pars=bkg_params,
fixed_params=fixed_params,
return_uncertainties=True,
return_fitted_val=True
)
bestfit_pars, errors = result.T
Hopefully that clarifies things up more!
Giordon's solution should answer all of your question, but I thought I'd also write out the code to basically address everything we can.
I also take the liberty of changing some of your values a bit so that the signal isn't so strong that the observed CLs value isn't far off to the right of the Brazil band (the results aren't wrong obviously, but it probably makes more sense to be talking about using the discovery test statistic at that point then setting limits. :))
Environment
For this example I'm going to setup a clean Python 3 virtual environment and then install the dependencies (here we're going to be using pyhf v0.5.2)
$ python3 -m venv "${HOME}/.venvs/question"
$ . "${HOME}/.venvs/question/bin/activate"
(question) $ cat requirements.txt
pyhf[minuit,contrib]~=0.5.2
black
(question) $ python -m pip install -r requirements.txt
Code
While we can't easily get the best fit value for both the number of signal events as well as the background events we definitely can do inference to get the best fit value for the signal strength.
The following chunk of code (which is long only because of the visualization) should address all of the points of your question.
# answer.py
import numpy as np
import pyhf
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pyhf.contrib.viz.brazil
# Goals:
# - Fit the model to the observed data
# - Infer the best fit signal strength given the model
# - Get the uncertainties on the best fit signal strength
# - Calculate an 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength
def plot_hist(ax, bins, data, bottom=0, color=None, label=None):
bin_width = bins[1] - bins[0]
bin_leftedges = bins[:-1]
bin_centers = [edge + bin_width / 2.0 for edge in bin_leftedges]
ax.bar(
bin_centers, data, bin_width, bottom=bottom, alpha=0.5, color=color, label=label
)
def plot_data(ax, bins, data, label="Data"):
bin_width = bins[1] - bins[0]
bin_leftedges = bins[:-1]
bin_centers = [edge + bin_width / 2.0 for edge in bin_leftedges]
ax.scatter(bin_centers, data, color="black", label=label)
def invert_interval(test_mus, hypo_tests, test_size=0.05):
# This will be taken care of in v0.5.3
cls_obs = np.array([test[0] for test in hypo_tests]).flatten()
cls_exp = [
np.array([test[1][idx] for test in hypo_tests]).flatten() for idx in range(5)
]
crossing_test_stats = {"exp": [], "obs": None}
for cls_exp_sigma in cls_exp:
crossing_test_stats["exp"].append(
np.interp(
test_size, list(reversed(cls_exp_sigma)), list(reversed(test_mus))
)
)
crossing_test_stats["obs"] = np.interp(
test_size, list(reversed(cls_obs)), list(reversed(test_mus))
)
return crossing_test_stats
def main():
np.random.seed(0)
pyhf.set_backend("numpy", "minuit")
observable_range = [0.0, 10.0]
bin_width = 0.5
_bins = np.arange(observable_range[0], observable_range[1] + bin_width, bin_width)
n_bkg = 2000
n_signal = int(np.sqrt(n_bkg))
# Generate simulation
bkg_simulation = 10 * np.random.random(n_bkg)
signal_simulation = np.random.normal(5, 1.0, n_signal)
bkg_sample, _ = np.histogram(bkg_simulation, bins=_bins)
signal_sample, _ = np.histogram(signal_simulation, bins=_bins)
# Generate observations
signal_events = np.random.normal(5, 1.0, int(n_signal * 0.8))
bkg_events = 10 * np.random.random(int(n_bkg + np.sqrt(n_bkg)))
observed_events = np.array(signal_events.tolist() + bkg_events.tolist())
observed_sample, _ = np.histogram(observed_events, bins=_bins)
# Visualize the simulation and observations
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
fig.set_size_inches(7, 5)
plot_hist(ax, _bins, bkg_sample, label="Background")
plot_hist(ax, _bins, signal_sample, bottom=bkg_sample, label="Signal")
plot_data(ax, _bins, observed_sample)
ax.legend(loc="best")
ax.set_ylim(top=np.max(observed_sample) * 1.4)
ax.set_xlabel("Observable")
ax.set_ylabel("Count")
fig.savefig("components.png")
# Build the model
bkg_uncerts = np.sqrt(bkg_sample)
model = pyhf.simplemodels.hepdata_like(
signal_data=signal_sample.tolist(),
bkg_data=bkg_sample.tolist(),
bkg_uncerts=bkg_uncerts.tolist(),
)
data = pyhf.tensorlib.astensor(observed_sample.tolist() + model.config.auxdata)
# Perform inference
fit_result = pyhf.infer.mle.fit(data, model, return_uncertainties=True)
bestfit_pars, par_uncerts = fit_result.T
print(
f"best fit parameters:\
\n * signal strength: {bestfit_pars[0]} +/- {par_uncerts[0]}\
\n * nuisance parameters: {bestfit_pars[1:]}\
\n * nuisance parameter uncertainties: {par_uncerts[1:]}"
)
# Perform hypothesis test scan
_start = 0.0
_stop = 5
_step = 0.1
poi_tests = np.arange(_start, _stop + _step, _step)
print("\nPerforming hypothesis tests\n")
hypo_tests = [
pyhf.infer.hypotest(
mu_test,
data,
model,
return_expected_set=True,
return_test_statistics=True,
qtilde=True,
)
for mu_test in poi_tests
]
# Upper limits on signal strength
results = invert_interval(poi_tests, hypo_tests)
print(f"Observed Limit on µ: {results['obs']:.2f}")
print("-----")
for idx, n_sigma in enumerate(np.arange(-2, 3)):
print(
"Expected {}Limit on µ: {:.3f}".format(
" " if n_sigma == 0 else "({} σ) ".format(n_sigma),
results["exp"][idx],
)
)
# Visualize the "Brazil band"
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
fig.set_size_inches(7, 5)
ax.set_title("Hypothesis Tests")
ax.set_ylabel(r"$\mathrm{CL}_{s}$")
ax.set_xlabel(r"$\mu$")
pyhf.contrib.viz.brazil.plot_results(ax, poi_tests, hypo_tests)
fig.savefig("brazil_band.png")
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
which when run gives
(question) $ python answer.py
best fit parameters:
* signal strength: 1.5884737977889158 +/- 0.7803435235862329
* nuisance parameters: [0.99020988 1.06040191 0.90488207 1.03531383 1.09093327 1.00942088
1.07789316 1.01125627 1.06202964 0.95780043 0.94990993 1.04893286
1.0560711 0.9758487 0.93692481 1.04683181 1.05785515 0.92381263
0.93812855 0.96751869]
* nuisance parameter uncertainties: [0.06966439 0.07632218 0.0611428 0.07230328 0.07872258 0.06899675
0.07472849 0.07403246 0.07613661 0.08606657 0.08002775 0.08655314
0.07564512 0.07308117 0.06743479 0.07383134 0.07460864 0.06632003
0.06683251 0.06270965]
Performing hypothesis tests
/home/stackoverflow/.venvs/question/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyhf/infer/calculators.py:229: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in double_scalars
teststat = (qmu - qmu_A) / (2 * self.sqrtqmuA_v)
Observed Limit on µ: 2.89
-----
Expected (-2 σ) Limit on µ: 0.829
Expected (-1 σ) Limit on µ: 1.110
Expected Limit on µ: 1.542
Expected (1 σ) Limit on µ: 2.147
Expected (2 σ) Limit on µ: 2.882
Let us know if you have any further questions!
I built a GLM model using H2O (ver 3.14) in R. Please note that the training data contains integers, and also many NA, which I use MeanImputation to handle them.
glm <- h2o.glm(
training_frame = train.truth,
x=getColNames(train.truth),
y="isFemale",
family = "binomial",
missing_values_handling = "MeanImputation",
seed = 1000000)
I then use a validation data set to look at the perf, and the Precision looks good to me:
h2o.performance(glm, newdata=valid.truth)%>% h2o.confusionMatrix()
Confusion Matrix (vertical: actual; across: predicted) for max f1 # threshold = 0.529384526696015:
0 1 Error Rate
0 41962 300 0.007099 =300/42262
1 863 13460 0.060253 =863/14323
Totals 42825 13760 0.020553 =1163/56585
I then saved the model as a MOJO:
h2o.download_mojo(glm, path="models/mojo", get_genmodel_jar=TRUE)
I exported the validation DF to a CSV file:
dt.valid <- data.table(as.data.frame(valid.truth))
write.table(dt.valid, row.names = F, na="", file="models/test.csv")
I tried to use the saved mojo to do the same prediction by running this on my Linux shell:
java -cp h2o-genmodel.jar hex.genmodel.tools.PredictCsv \
--mojo GLM_model_R_1511161743608_15 \
--decimal --mojo GLM_model_R_1511161743608_15.zip \
--input ../test.csv --output output.csv
However, the result is terrible. All the records were predicted as 0, which is very different from what I got when I ran the model in R.
I have been stuck in this for a day but I couldn't figure out what went wrong. Anyone can shed some light on this?
After some research, I was able to predict the future value using the LSTM code below. I have also attached the Dmd1ahr.csv file in the github link that I am using.
https://github.com/ukeshchawal/hello-world/blob/master/Dmd1ahr.csv
As you all can see below, 90 data points are training sets and 91st to 100th are future value prediction.
However some of the questions that I still have are:
In order to predict these values I had to originally take more than hundred data sets (here, I have taken 500 data sets) which is not exactly what my primary goal is. Is there a way that given 500 data sets, it will predict the rest 10 or 20 out of sample data points? If yes, will you please write me a sample code where you can just take 500 data points from Dmd1ahr.csv file attached below and it will predict some future values (say 501 to 520) based on those 500 points?
The prediction are way off compared to the one who have in your blogs (definitely indicates for parameter tuning - I tried changing epochs, LSTM layers, Activation, optimizer). What other parameter tuning I can do to make it more robust?
Thank you'll in advance.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas
# By twaking the architecture it could be made more robust
np.random.seed(7)
numOfSamples = 500
lengthTrain = 90
lengthValidation = 100
look_back = 1 # Can be set higher, in my experiments it made performance worse though
transientTime = 90 # Time to "burn in" time series
series = pandas.read_csv('Dmd1ahr.csv')
def generateTrainData(series, i, look_back):
return series[i:look_back+i+1]
trainX = np.stack([generateTrainData(series, i, look_back) for i in range(lengthTrain)])
testX = np.stack([generateTrainData(series, lengthTrain + i, look_back) for i in range(lengthValidation)])
trainX = trainX.reshape((lengthTrain,look_back+1,1))
testX = testX.reshape((lengthValidation, look_back + 1, 1))
trainY = trainX[:,1:,:]
trainX = trainX[:,:-1,:]
testY = testX[:,1:,:]
testX = testX[:,:-1,:]
############### Build Model ###############
import keras
from keras.models import Model
from keras import layers
from keras import regularizers
inputs = layers.Input(batch_shape=(1,look_back,1), name="main_input")
inputsAux = layers.Input(batch_shape=(1,look_back,1), name="aux_input")
# this layer makes the actual prediction, i.e. decides if and how much it goes up or down
x = layers.recurrent.LSTM(300,return_sequences=True, stateful=True)(inputs)
x = layers.recurrent.LSTM(200,return_sequences=True, stateful=True)(inputs)
x = layers.recurrent.LSTM(100,return_sequences=True, stateful=True)(inputs)
x = layers.recurrent.LSTM(50,return_sequences=True, stateful=True)(inputs)
x = layers.wrappers.TimeDistributed(layers.Dense(1, activation="linear",
kernel_regularizer=regularizers.l2(0.005),
activity_regularizer=regularizers.l1(0.005)))(x)
# auxillary input, the current input will be feed directly to the output
# this way the prediction from the step before will be used as a "base", and the Network just have to
# learn if it goes a little up or down
auxX = layers.wrappers.TimeDistributed(layers.Dense(1,
kernel_initializer=keras.initializers.Constant(value=1),
bias_initializer='zeros',
input_shape=(1,1), activation="linear", trainable=False
))(inputsAux)
outputs = layers.add([x, auxX], name="main_output")
model = Model(inputs=[inputs, inputsAux], outputs=outputs)
model.compile(optimizer='adam',
loss='mean_squared_error',
metrics=['mean_squared_error'])
#model.summary()
#model.fit({"main_input": trainX, "aux_input": trainX[look_back-1,look_back,:]},{"main_output": trainY}, epochs=4, batch_size=1, shuffle=False)
model.fit({"main_input": trainX, "aux_input": trainX[:,look_back-1,:].reshape(lengthTrain,1,1)},{"main_output": trainY}, epochs=100, batch_size=1, shuffle=False)
############### make predictions ###############
burnedInPredictions = np.zeros(transientTime)
testPredictions = np.zeros(len(testX))
# burn series in, here use first transitionTime number of samples from test data
for i in range(transientTime):
prediction = model.predict([np.array(testX[i, :, 0].reshape(1, look_back, 1)), np.array(testX[i, look_back - 1, 0].reshape(1, 1, 1))])
testPredictions[i] = prediction[0,0,0]
burnedInPredictions[:] = testPredictions[:transientTime]
# prediction, now dont use any previous data whatsoever anymore, network just has to run on its own output
for i in range(transientTime, len(testX)):
prediction = model.predict([prediction, prediction])
testPredictions[i] = prediction[0,0,0]
# for plotting reasons
testPredictions[:np.size(burnedInPredictions)-1] = np.nan
############### plot results ###############
#import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.plot(testX[:, 0, 0])
plt.show()
plt.plot(burnedInPredictions, label = "training")
plt.plot(testPredictions, label = "prediction")
plt.legend()
plt.show()
I am currently runnuing training in matlab on a matrix of logspecrum samples I am constantly dealing with underflow problems.I understood that I need to work with log's in order to deal with underflowing.
I am still strugling with uderflow though , when i calculate the mean (mue) bucause it is negetive i cant work with logs so i need the real values that underflow.
These are equasions i am working with:
In MATLAB code i calulate log_tau in oreder avoid underflow but when calulating mue i need exp(log(tau)) which goes to zero.
I am attaching relevent MATLAB code
**in the code i called the variable alpha is tau ...
for i = 1 : 50
log_c = Logsum(log_alpha,1) - log(N);
c = exp(log_c);
mue = DataMat*alpha./(repmat(exp(Logsum(log_alpha,1)),FrameSize,1));
log_abs_mue = log(abs(mue));
log_SigmaSqr = log((DataMat.^2)*alpha) - repmat(Logsum(log_alpha,1),FrameSize,1) - 2*log_abs_mue;
SigmaSqr = exp(log_SigmaSqr);
for j=1:N
rep_DataMat(:,:,j) = repmat(DataMat(:,j),1,M);
log_gamma(j,:) = log_c - 0.5*(FrameSize*log(2*pi)+sum(log_SigmaSqr)) + sum((rep_DataMat(:,:,j) - mue).^2./(2*SigmaSqr));
end
log_alpha = log_gamma - repmat(Logsum(log_gamma,2),1,M);
alpha = exp(log_alpha);
end
c = exp(log_c);
SigmaSqr = exp(log_SigmaSqr);
does any one see how i can avoid this? or what needs to be fixed in code?
What i did was add this line to the MATLAB code:
mue(isnan(mue))=0; %fix 0/0 problem
and this one:
SigmaSqr(SigmaSqr==0)=1;%fix if mue_k = x_k
not sure if this is the best solution but is seems to work...
any have a better idea?