I am trying to run a Bayesian clustering model where the number of clusters is random with binomial distribution.
This is my Jags model:
model{
for(i in 1:n){
y[ i ,1:M] ~ dmnorm( mu[z[i] , 1:M] , I[1:M, 1:M])
z[i] ~ dcat(omega[1:M])
}
for(j in 1:M){
mu[j,1:M] ~ dmnorm( mu_input[j,1:M] , I[1:M, 1:M] )
}
M ~ dbin(p, Mmax)
omega ~ ddirich(rep(1,Mmax))
}
to run it, we need to define the parameters anche the initial values for the variables, which is done in this R script
Mmax=10
y = matrix(0,100,Mmax)
I = diag(Mmax)
y[1:50,] = mvrnorm(50, rep(0,Mmax), I)
y[51:100,] = mvrnorm(50, rep(5,Mmax), I)
plot(y[,1:2])
z = 1*((1:100)>50) + 1
n = dim(y)[1]
M=2
mu=matrix(rnorm(Mmax^2),nrow=Mmax)
mu_input=matrix(2.5,Mmax,Mmax) ### prior mean
p=0.5
omega=rep(1,Mmax)/Mmax
data = list(y = y, I = I, n = n, mu_input=mu_input, Mmax = Mmax, p = p)
inits = function() {list(mu=mu,
M=M,
omega = omega) }
require(rjags)
modelRegress=jags.model("cluster_variabile.txt",data=data,inits=inits,n.adapt=1000,n.chains=1)
however, running the last command, one gets
Error in jags.model("cluster_variabile.txt", data = data, inits = inits,
: RUNTIME ERROR: Compilation error on line 6.
Unknown variable M Either supply values
for this variable with the data or define it on the left hand side of a relation.
which for me makes no sense, since the error is at line 6 even if M already appears at line 4 of the model! What is the actual problem in running this script?
So JAGS is not like R or other programming procedural languages in that it doesn't actually run line by line, it is a declarative language meaning the order of commands doesn't actually matter at least in terms of how the errors pop up. So just because it didn't throw an error on line 4 doesn't mean something isn't also wrong there. Im not positive, but I believe the error is occuring because JAGS tries to build the array first before inputting values, so M is not actually defined at this stage, but nothing you can do about that on your end.
With that aside, there should be a fairly easy work around for this, it is just less efficient. Instead of looping from 1:M make the loop iterate from 1:MMax that way the dimensions don't actually change, it is always an MMax x MMax. Then line 7 just assigns 1:M of those positions to a value. The downside of this is that it will require you to do some processing after the model is fit. So on each iteration, you will need to pull the sampled M and filter the matrix mu to be M x M, but that shouldn't be too tough. Let me know if you need more help.
So, I think the main problem is that you can't change the dimensionality of the stochastic node you're updating. This seems like a problem for reversible jump MCMC, though I don't think you can do this in JAGS.
Related
I am running a simple generalized linear model, calling JAGS from R. The model is negatively binomially distributed. The model is being fitted to data on counts of fish, with the majority of individual counts ('C' in the data set below) being zeros.
I initially ran the model with one covariate, temperature ('Temp'). About half of the time the model ran and the other half of the time the model gave me the error, 'Error in node C[###] Invalid parent values.' The value for C[###] in the error message changes with each successive attempt to run the model.
Since my success at running the model was inconsistent, I tried adding another covariate, salinity ('Salt'). Then the model would not run at all, with the same error message as above.
Any ideas or suggestions on the source of the error are greatly appreciated.
I am suspecting that the initial values for the dispersion parameter, r, may be the issue. Ideally I add several more covariates into model fitting if this error can be addressed.
The data set and code are immediately below. For sake of getting the data to load properly on this website, I have omitted 662 of the 672 total values; even with the reduced data set (n = 10 instead of n = 672) the problem remains.
Thank you.
setwd("C:/Users/John/Desktop")
library('coda')
library('rjags')
library('R2jags')
set.seed(1000000000)
#data
n=10
C=c(0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1)
Temp=c(0,29.3,25.3,28.7,28.7,24.4,25.1,25.1,24.2,23.3)
Salt=c(6,6,0,6,6,0,12,12,6,12)
sink("My Model.txt")
cat("
model {
r~dunif(0,10)
beta0~dunif (-20,20)
beta1~dunif (-20,20)
beta2~dunif (-20,20)
for (i in 1:n) {
C[i] ~ dnegbin(p[i], r)
p[i] <- r/(r+lambda[i])
log(lambda[i]) <- mu[i]
mu[i] <- beta0 + beta1*Temp[i] + beta2*Salt[i]
}
}
", fill=TRUE)
sink()
n=n
C=C
Temp=Temp
Salt=Salt
#bundle data
bugs.data = list(
"n",
"C",
"Temp",
"Salt")
#parameters to monitor
params<-c(
"r",
"beta0",
"beta1",
"beta2")
#initial values
inits <- function(){list(
r=floor(runif(1,0,5)),
beta0=runif(1,-5,5),
beta1=runif(1,-5,5),
beta2=runif(1,-5,5))}
model.file <- 'My Model.txt'
jagsfit <- jags(data=bugs.data, inits=inits, params, n.iter=1000, n.thin=10, n.burnin=100, model.file)
print(jagsfit, digits=5)
This works fine for me most of the time, but it would fail with the error you describe if the inits function samples a value of r of 0 - which you have made more likely by using floor() in the inits function (not sure why you did that - r is not restricted to integers but is strictly positive). Also, every time you run the model you will get different initial values (unless setting a random seed in R) which is making your life more complicated that it needs to be. I generally recommend picking fixed (and probably over dispersed) initial values, such as r=0.01 and r=10 for the two chains in your example.
However, JAGS picks usable initial values for this model as you can see by not providing your own inits e.g.:
library('runjags')
listdata <- lapply(bugs.data, get)
names(listdata) <- unlist(bugs.data)
run.jags(model.file, params, listdata)
I would also have a think about the prior you are using for r - it could well be that this will have a bigger effect on your posterior than intended. Another (not necessarily better) option is something like a gamma prior.
Matt
I'm new to JAGS and I'm running a model in R via R2jags package.
The model code is based on a code taken from Kéry & Schaub 2012 ('Bayesian Population Analysis using WinBUGS"), pg 399.
Chi-square discrepancy measure is computed
model {
....
for(g in 1:G) {
for (t in 1:T) {
...
E[g,t] <- pow((y[g,t] - eval[g,t]),2) / eval[g,t]
...
}#t
}#g
fit <- sum(E[,])
}#model
where g and t are site and time indices and G and T are then the number of sites and the number of years
I get an error though
Error in jags.model(model.file, data = data, inits = init.values, n.chains = n.chains, :
RUNTIME ERROR:
Compilation error on line 140.
Cannot evaluate subset expression for fit
Is it caused by different syntax used by JAGS relative to WinBUGS? The code is the same used in the book, except for I have 2 dimensions instead of three as in the book example.
To answer the last part of your question, no that error isn't caused by different syntax in JAGS (although the error message might look different in BUGS).
In fact I can't see anything wrong with the code snippet that you have posted, and the following reproducible example shows that it works at least when y and eval are given in data:
m <- 'model {
for(g in 1:G) {
for (t in 1:T) {
E[g,t] <- pow((y[g,t] - eval[g,t]),2) / eval[g,t]
}#t
}#g
fit <- sum(E[,])
#data# G, T, y, eval
#monitor# fit
}#model
'
library('runjags')
G=T <- 10
y <- matrix(rnorm(100), nrow=G, ncol=T)
eval <- matrix(rnorm(100), nrow=G, ncol=T)
results <- run.jags(m)
Have you verified what line 140 refers to? Either line 140 is something that you haven't shown, or maybe you have specified either fit or E somewhere else in the model with a different number of dimensions?
If this isn't the case and you still get an error then please add a minimal reproducible example to your question that shows the problem (preferably underneath an ---EDIT--- line below what you have already written) and we can try to help with that.
Matt
I'm fitting GARCH model to the residuals of and ARIMA, and trying to apply ARCH(p) for p from 1 to 10 to compare the fitness. Here is my code. Errors are returned in the for loop part but I cannot figure out the reason why. Could anyone give some tips?
So for the single value p=1 the codes are as below and it's no problem.
fitone<- garchFit(~garch(1,0),data=logprice)
coef(fitone)
summary(fitone)
And for the for loop my codes go like
for (n in 1:10) {
fit [[n]]<- garchFit(~garch(n,0),data=logprice)
coef(fit[[n]])
summary(fit[[n]])
}
Error in .garchArgsParser(formula = formula, data = data, trace = FALSE) :
Formula and data units do not match.
I never wrote a loop code before. Can someone help me with the codes?
The problem is that generally one tries to evaluate all the variables in a formula in the context of the data= parameter, but your n variable isn't coming from logprice, it's coming from the global environment. You will need to dynamically create the formula. Here's one way to run all the models with lapply rather than a for look would be
library(fGarch)
#sample data
x.vec = as.vector(garchSim(garchSpec(rseed = 1985), n = 200)[,1])
fits <- lapply(1:10, function(n) {
garchFit(bquote(~garch(.(n),0)), data = x.vec, trace = FALSE)
})
and then we can get the coefs with
lapply(fits, coef)
I'm puzzled by a function error & would appreciate some insight.
The function, very briefly, automates the multiple processes involved in Boosted Regression Trees using gbm.step & other gbm's.
"gbm.auto" <- function (grids, samples, 3 parameters) {
starts 2 counters, require(gbm), does various small processing jobs with grids & samples
for parameter 1{
for parameter 2{
for parameter 3{
Runs 2 BRTs per parameter-combination loop, generates & iteratively updates a 'best' BRT for each, adds to counters. Extensive use of samples.
}}}
closes the loops, function continues as the first } is still open.
The next BRT can't find samples, even though it's at the same environment depth (1?) as the pre-loop processing jobs which used it successfully. Furthermore, adding "globalsamples<<-samples" after the }}} loop successfully saves the object, suggesting that samples is still available. Adding env1,2 & 3<<-environment() before the {{{ loop, within it & after it results in Environment for all three. Also suggesting it's all the same function environment & samples should be available.
What am I missing here? Thanks in advance!
Edit: exact message:
Error in eval(expr, envir, enclos) : object 'samples' not found
Function - loads removed & compacted but still gives same error message:
"gbm.auto" <-
function (samples, expvar, resvar, tc, lr, bf)
{ # open function
require(gbm)
require(dismo)
# create binary (0/1) response variable, for bernoulli BRTs
samples$brv <- ifelse(samples[resvar] > 0, 1, 0)
brvcol <- which(colnames(samples)=="brv") # brv column number for BRT
for(j in tc){ # permutations of tree complexity
for(k in lr){ # permutations of learning rate
for(l in bf){ # permutations of bag fraction
Bin_Best_Model<- gbm.step(data=samples,gbm.x = expvar, gbm.y = brvcol, family = "bernoulli", tree.complexity = j, learning.rate = k, bag.fraction = l)
}}} # close loops, producing all BRT/GBM objects & continue through model selection
Bin_Best_Simp_Check <- gbm.simplify(Bin_Best_Model) # simplify model
# if best number of variables to remove isn't 0 (i.e. it's worth simplifying), re-run the best model (Bin_Best_Model, using gbm.call to get its values)
# with just-calculated best number of variables to remove, removed. gbm.x asks which number of drops has the minimum mean (lowest point on the line)
# & that calls up the list of predictor variables with those removed, from $pred.list
if(min(Bin_Best_Simp_Check$deviance.summary$mean) < 0)
assign("Bin_Best_Simp", gbm.step(data = samples,
gbm.x = Bin_Best_Simp_Check$pred.list[[which.min(Bin_Best_Simp_Check$deviance.summary$mean)]],
gbm.y = brvcol, family = "bernoulli", tree.complexity = j, learning.rate = k, bag.fraction = l))
}
Read in data:
mysamples<-data.frame(response=round(sqrt(rnorm(5000, mean= 2.5, sd=1.5)^2)),
depth=sqrt(rnorm(5000, mean= 35, sd=24)^2),
temp=rnorm(5000, mean= 15, sd=1.2),
sal=rnorm(5000, mean= 34, sd=0.34))
Run this: gbm.auto(expvar=c(2,3,4),resvar=1,samples=mysamples,tc=2,lr=0.00000000000000001,bf=0.5)
Problem now: this causes a different error because my fake data are somehow wrong. ARGHG!
Edit: rounded the response data to integers and kept shrinking the learning rate until it runs. If it doesn't work for you, add zeroes until it does.
Edit: so this worked on my computer but reading it back to a clean sheet from online fails on a DIFFERENT count:
Error in var(cv.cor.stats, use = "complete.obs") :
no complete element pairs
In cor(y_i, u_i) : the standard deviation is zero
Is it allowed to attach or link to a csv of a small clip of my data? I'm currently burrowing deeper & deeper into bugfixing problems created by using fake data which I'm only using for this question, & thus getting off topic from the actual problem. Exasperation mode on!
Cheers
Edit2: if this is allowed: 1000row 4column csv link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6LsdZetdypkaC1WYXpKU3ZScjQ
First thing's first; my skills in R are somewhat lacking, so there is a chance I may be using something incorrectly in the following. If I go wrong somewhere, please let me know.
I've been having a problem in Rstudio where I try to create 2 functions for formulae, then use nls() to create a model using those, with which I will make a plot. When I try to run the line for creating it, I get an error message saying an object is missing. It is always the last object in the function of the first "formula", in this case, 'p'.
I'll provide my code here then explain what I am trying to do for a little context;
DATA <- read.csv(file.choose(), as.is=T)
formula <- function(m, h, g, p){(2*m)/(m+(sqrt(m^2+1)))*p*g*(h^2/2)}
formula.2 <- function(P, V, g){P*V*g}
m = 0.85
p = 766.42
g = 9.81
P = 0.962
h = DATA$lithothick
V = DATA$Vol
fit.1 <- nls(formula (P, V, g) ~ formula(m, h, g, p), data = DATA)
If I run it how it is shown, I get the error;
Error in (2 * m)/(m + (sqrt(m^2 + 1))) * p : 'p' is missing
However it will show h if I rearrange the objects in the formula to (m,g,p,h)
Error in h^2 : 'h' is missing
Now, what I'm trying to do is this; I have a .csv file with 3 thicknesses (0.002, 0.004, 0.006 meters) and 3 volumes (10, 25, 50 milliliters). I am trying to see how the rates of strength and buoyancy increase (in relation to each other) as the thickness and volume for each object (respectively) increases. I was hoping to come out with a graph showing the upward trend for each property (strength and buoyancy), as I believe them to be unequal (one exponential the other linear). I hope that isn't more confusing than clarifying, but any pointers would be GREATLY appreciated.
You cannot overload functions this way in R, what you can do is provide optional arguments (which is a kind of overload) with syntax function(mandatory, optionnal="")
For what you are trying to do, you have to use formula.2 if you want to use the 3-arguments formula.
A workaround could be to use one function with one optionnal argument and check if this argument has been used. Something like :
formula = function(m, h, g, p="") {
if (is.numeric(p)) {
(2*m)/(m+(sqrt(m^2+1)))*p*g*(h^2/2)
} else {
m*h*g
}
}
This is ugly and a very bad way to do it (your variables do not really mean the same thing from one call to the other) but it works.