Related
I have a LSTM model I am using to predict the unemployment rate from federal reserve filings. It uses glove vectors and vocab2index embedding and the training went as planned. However, upon attempting to feed a word embedding into the model for prediction testing it keeps throwing various errors.
Here is the model:
def load_glove_vectors(glove_file= glove_embedding_vectors_text_file):
"""Load the glove word vectors"""
word_vectors = {}
with open(glove_file) as f:
for line in f:
split = line.split()
word_vectors[split[0]] = np.array([float(x) for x in split[1:]])
return word_vectors
def get_emb_matrix(pretrained, word_counts, emb_size = 300):
""" Creates embedding matrix from word vectors"""
vocab_size = len(word_counts) + 2
vocab_to_idx = {}
vocab = ["", "UNK"]
W = np.zeros((vocab_size, emb_size), dtype="float32")
W[0] = np.zeros(emb_size, dtype='float32') # adding a vector for padding
W[1] = np.random.uniform(-0.25, 0.25, emb_size) # adding a vector for unknown words
vocab_to_idx["UNK"] = 1
i = 2
for word in word_counts:
if word in word_vecs:
W[i] = word_vecs[word]
else:
W[i] = np.random.uniform(-0.25,0.25, emb_size)
vocab_to_idx[word] = i
vocab.append(word)
i += 1
return W, np.array(vocab), vocab_to_idx
word_vecs = load_glove_vectors()
pretrained_weights, vocab, vocab2index = get_emb_matrix(word_vecs, counts)
Unfortunately when I feed this array
[array([ 3, 10, 6287, 6, 113, 271, 3, 6639, 104, 5105, 7525,
104, 7526, 9, 23, 9, 10, 11, 24, 7527, 7528, 104,
11, 24, 7529, 7530, 104, 11, 24, 7531, 7530, 104, 11,
24, 7532, 7530, 104, 11, 24, 7533, 7534, 24, 7535, 7536,
104, 7537, 104, 7538, 7539, 7540, 6643, 7541, 7354, 7542, 7543,
7544, 9, 23, 9, 10, 11, 24, 25, 8, 10, 11,
24, 3, 10, 663, 168, 9, 10, 290, 291, 3, 4909,
198, 10, 1478, 169, 15, 4621, 3, 3244, 3, 59, 1967,
113, 59, 520, 198, 25, 5105, 7545, 7546, 7547, 7546, 7548,
7549, 7550, 1874, 10, 7551, 9, 10, 11, 24, 7552, 6287,
7553, 7554, 7555, 24, 7556, 24, 7557, 7558, 7559, 6, 7560,
323, 169, 10, 7561, 1432, 6, 3134, 3, 7562, 6, 7563,
1862, 7144, 741, 3, 3961, 7564, 7565, 520, 7566, 4833, 7567,
7568, 4901, 7569, 7570, 4901, 7571, 1874, 7572, 12, 13, 7573,
10, 7574, 7575, 59, 7576, 59, 638, 1620, 7577, 271, 6488,
59, 7578, 7579, 7580, 7581, 271, 7582, 7583, 24, 669, 5932,
7584, 9, 113, 271, 3764, 3, 5930, 3, 59, 4901, 7585,
793, 7586, 7587, 6, 1482, 520, 7588, 520, 7589, 3246, 7590,
13, 7591])
into torch.LongTensor() I keep getting the following error:
TypeError: can't convert np.ndarray of type numpy.object_. The only supported types are: float64, float32, float16, complex64, complex128, int64, int32, int16, int8, uint8, and bool.
Any ideas on how to remedy? I am fairly new to AI in general, and I am an economist by trade so I am almost certain I have made a boneheaded error.
I'm trying to compare 2 dataframes and highlight the differences in the second one like this:
I have tried using concat and drop duplicates but I am not sure how to check for the specific cells and also how to highlight them at the end
Possible solution is the following:
import pandas as pd
# set test data
data1 = {"A": [10, 11, 23, 44], "B": [22, 23, 56, 55], "C": [31, 21, 34, 66], "D": [25, 45, 21, 45]}
data2 = {"A": [10, 11, 23, 44, 56, 23], "B": [44, 223, 56, 55, 73, 56], "C": [31, 21, 45, 66, 22, 22], "D": [25, 45, 26, 45, 34, 12]}
# create dataframes
df1 = pd.DataFrame(data1)
df2 = pd.DataFrame(data2)
# define function to highlight differences in dataframes
def highlight_diff(data, other, color='yellow'):
attr = 'background-color: {}'.format(color)
return pd.DataFrame(np.where(data.ne(other), attr, ''),
index=data.index, columns=data.columns)
# apply style using function
df2.style.apply(highlight_diff, axis=None, other=df1)
Returns
In my code, I can filter a column from exact texts, and it works without problems. However, it is necessary to filter another column with the beginning of a sentence.
The phrases in this column are:
A_2020.092222
A_2020.090787
B_2020.983898
B_2020.209308
So, I need to receive everything that starts with A_20 and B_20.
Thanks in advance
My code:
from bs4 import BeautifulSoup
import pandas as pd
import zipfile, urllib.request, shutil, time, csv, datetime, os, sys, os.path
#location
dt = datetime.datetime.now()
file_csv = "/home/Downloads/source.CSV"
file_csv_new = "/var/www/html/Data/Test.csv"
#open CSV
with open(file_csv, 'r', encoding='CP1251') as file:
reader = csv.reader(file, delimiter=';')
data = list(reader)
#list to dataframe
df = pd.DataFrame(data)
#filter UF
df = df.loc[df[9].isin(['PR','SC','RS'])]
#filter key
# A_ & B_
df = df.loc[df[35].isin(['A_20','B_20'])]
#print (df)
#Empty DataFrame
#Columns: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, ...]
#Index: []
#[0 rows x 119 columns]```
Give the following a try:
lst1 = ['A_2020.092222', 'A_2020.090787 ', 'B_2020.983898', 'B_2020.209308', 'C_2020.209308', 'D_2020.209308']
df = pd.DataFrame(lst1, columns =['Name'])
df.loc[df.Name.str.startswith(('A_20','B_20'))]
I have a small matrix A with dimensions MxNxO
I have a large matrix B with dimensions KxMxNxP, with P>O
I have a vector ind of indices of dimension Ox1
I want to do:
B[1,:,:,ind] = A
But, the lefthand of my equation
B[1,:,:,ind].shape
is of dimension Ox1xMxN and therefore I can not broadcast A (MxNxO) into it.
Why does accessing B in this way change the dimensions of the left side?
How can I easily achieve my goal?
Thanks
There's a feature, if not a bug, that when slices are mixed in the middle of advanced indexing, the sliced dimensions are put at the end.
Thus for example:
In [204]: B = np.zeros((2,3,4,5),int)
In [205]: ind=[0,1,2,3,4]
In [206]: B[1,:,:,ind].shape
Out[206]: (5, 3, 4)
The 3,4 dimensions have been placed after the ind, 5.
We can get around that by indexing first with 1, and then the rest:
In [207]: B[1][:,:,ind].shape
Out[207]: (3, 4, 5)
In [208]: B[1][:,:,ind] = np.arange(3*4*5).reshape(3,4,5)
In [209]: B[1]
Out[209]:
array([[[ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4],
[ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9],
[10, 11, 12, 13, 14],
[15, 16, 17, 18, 19]],
[[20, 21, 22, 23, 24],
[25, 26, 27, 28, 29],
[30, 31, 32, 33, 34],
[35, 36, 37, 38, 39]],
[[40, 41, 42, 43, 44],
[45, 46, 47, 48, 49],
[50, 51, 52, 53, 54],
[55, 56, 57, 58, 59]]])
This only works when that first index is a scalar. If it too were a list (or array), we'd get an intermediate copy, and couldn't set the value like this.
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-1.15.0/reference/arrays.indexing.html#combining-advanced-and-basic-indexing
It's come up in other SO questions, though not recently.
weird result when using both slice indexing and boolean indexing on a 3d array
I am trying to model Kruschke's "filtration-condensation experiment" with pymc 2.3.5. (numpy 1.10.1)
Basicaly there are:
4 groups
each group has 40 individuals
each individual has 64 Bernoulli trials (correct/incorrect)
What I am modeling:
each individual's results are Binomial distribution (e.g. 45 correct out of 64).
my belief about each individual's performance is Beta distribution.
this Beta distribution is influenced by group to which individual belongs (through parameters A=mu*kappa and B=(1-mu)*kappa)
my belief about how strong each group's influence is Gamma distribution (kappa variable)
my belief about each group's average is Beta distribution (mu variable)
The problem:
when I do modeling with "size=" parameters, pymc get's lost
when I seperate each distribution manually (no size=) the pymc does good job
I include the code below:
Data
import numpy as np
import seaborn as sns
import pymc as pm
from pymc.Matplot import plot as mcplot
%matplotlib inline
# Data
ncond = 4
nSubj = 40
trials = 64
N = np.repeat([trials], (ncond * nSubj))
z = np.array([45, 63, 58, 64, 58, 63, 51, 60, 59, 47, 63, 61, 60, 51, 59, 45,
61, 59, 60, 58, 63, 56, 63, 64, 64, 60, 64, 62, 49, 64, 64, 58, 64, 52, 64, 64,
64, 62, 64, 61, 59, 59, 55, 62, 51, 58, 55, 54, 59, 57, 58, 60, 54, 42, 59, 57,
59, 53, 53, 42, 59, 57, 29, 36, 51, 64, 60, 54, 54, 38, 61, 60, 61, 60, 62, 55,
38, 43, 58, 60, 44, 44, 32, 56, 43, 36, 38, 48, 32, 40, 40, 34, 45, 42, 41, 32,
48, 36, 29, 37, 53, 55, 50, 47, 46, 44, 50, 56, 58, 42, 58, 54, 57, 54, 51, 49,
52, 51, 49, 51, 46, 46, 42, 49, 46, 56, 42, 53, 55, 51, 55, 49, 53, 55, 40, 46,
56, 47, 54, 54, 42, 34, 35, 41, 48, 46, 39, 55, 30, 49, 27, 51, 41, 36, 45, 41,
53, 32, 43, 33])
condition = np.repeat([0,1,2,3], nSubj)
Does not work
# modeling
mu = pm.Beta('mu', 1, 1, size=ncond)
kappa = pm.Gamma('gamma', 1, 0.1, size=ncond)
# Prior
theta = pm.Beta('theta', mu[condition] * kappa[condition], (1 - mu[condition]) * kappa[condition], size=len(z))
# likelihood
y = pm.Binomial('y', p=theta, n=N, value=z, observed=True)
# model
model = pm.Model([mu, kappa, theta, y])
mcmc = pm.MCMC(model)
#mcmc.use_step_method(pm.Metropolis, mu)
#mcmc.use_step_method(pm.Metropolis, theta)
#mcmc.assign_step_methods()
mcmc.sample(100000, burn=20000, thin=3)
# outputs never converge and does vary in new simulations
mcplot(mcmc.trace('mu'), common_scale=False)
Works
z1 = z[:40]
z2 = z[40:80]
z3 = z[80:120]
z4 = z[120:]
Nv = N[:40]
mu1 = pm.Beta('mu1', 1, 1)
mu2 = pm.Beta('mu2', 1, 1)
mu3 = pm.Beta('mu3', 1, 1)
mu4 = pm.Beta('mu4', 1, 1)
kappa1 = pm.Gamma('gamma1', 1, 0.1)
kappa2 = pm.Gamma('gamma2', 1, 0.1)
kappa3 = pm.Gamma('gamma3', 1, 0.1)
kappa4 = pm.Gamma('gamma4', 1, 0.1)
# Prior
theta1 = pm.Beta('theta1', mu1 * kappa1, (1 - mu1) * kappa1, size=len(Nv))
theta2 = pm.Beta('theta2', mu2 * kappa2, (1 - mu2) * kappa2, size=len(Nv))
theta3 = pm.Beta('theta3', mu3 * kappa3, (1 - mu3) * kappa3, size=len(Nv))
theta4 = pm.Beta('theta4', mu4 * kappa4, (1 - mu4) * kappa4, size=len(Nv))
# likelihood
y1 = pm.Binomial('y1', p=theta1, n=Nv, value=z1, observed=True)
y2 = pm.Binomial('y2', p=theta2, n=Nv, value=z2, observed=True)
y3 = pm.Binomial('y3', p=theta3, n=Nv, value=z3, observed=True)
y4 = pm.Binomial('y4', p=theta4, n=Nv, value=z4, observed=True)
# model
model = pm.Model([mu1, kappa1, theta1, y1, mu2, kappa2, theta2, y2,
mu3, kappa3, theta3, y3, mu4, kappa4, theta4, y4])
mcmc = pm.MCMC(model)
#mcmc.use_step_method(pm.Metropolis, mu)
#mcmc.use_step_method(pm.Metropolis, theta)
#mcmc.assign_step_methods()
mcmc.sample(100000, burn=20000, thin=3)
# outputs converge and are not too much different in every simulation
mcplot(mcmc.trace('mu1'), common_scale=False)
mcplot(mcmc.trace('mu2'), common_scale=False)
mcplot(mcmc.trace('mu3'), common_scale=False)
mcplot(mcmc.trace('mu4'), common_scale=False)
mcmc.summary()
Can someone please explain it to me why mu[condition] and gamma[condition] does not work? :)
I guess that not splitting thetas into different variables is the problem but cannot understand why and maybe there is a way to pass a shape parameter to size= on theta?
First of all, I can confirm that the first version doesn't lead to stable results. What I can't confirm is that the second one is much better; I have seen very different results also with the second code, with values for the first mu parameter varying between 0.17 and 0.9 for different runs.
The convergence problems can be cured by using good starting values for the Markov chain. This can be done by first doing a maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimate, and then starting the Markov chain from there. The MAP step is computationally inexpensive and leads to a converging Markov chain with reproducible results for both variants of your code. For reference and comparison: The values I see for the four mu parameters are around 0.94 / 0.86 / 0.72 and 0.71.
You can do the MAP estimation by inserting the following two lines of code right after the line in which you define your model with "model=pm.Model(...":
map_ = pm.MAP(model)
map_.fit()
This technique is covered in more detail in Cameron Davidson-Pilon's Bayesian Methods for Hackers, together with other helpful topics around PyMC.