I am running simulations and fitting linear models with .lm.fit(). Although extremely fast, this function does not provide the predictors' p-values. Is there a fast way to compute them (maybe from the values returned by .lm.fit())? I am aware of this method to calculate approximate p-values, but I need the exact ones.
Update:
Dirk Eddelbuettel provided the fastest way to fit the lm and Ben Bolker a method to compute the p-values, by combining both answers we get:
set.seed(101)
X <- cbind(1,matrix(1:10))
y <- rnorm(10)
mdl <- RcppArmadillo::fastLmPure(X, y)
pval <- 2*pt(abs(mdl$coefficients/mdl$stderr), mdl$df.residual, lower.tail=FALSE)
Dirk's answer will be faster, but in case it's convenient here's the implementation in pure R (extracting the bits you need from summary.lm, and assuming there are no issues with non-full-rank model matrices etc.)
Example:
set.seed(101)
X <- cbind(1,matrix(1:10))
y <- rnorm(10)
m <- .lm.fit(X,y)
p-value calcs:
rss <- sum(m$residuals^2)
rdf <- length(y) - ncol(X)
resvar <- rss/rdf
R <- chol2inv(m$qr)
se <- sqrt(diag(R) * resvar)
2*pt(abs(m$coef/se),rdf,lower.tail=FALSE)
Compare with:
coef(summary(lm(y~X-1)))[,"Pr(>|t|)"]
For this issue (of getting standard errors and hence p-values) I wrote three different versions of a function fastLm() in package RcppArmadillo, RcppEigen and RcppGSL. Part of it is of course also just for exposition. But you could start there. Make sure you use the fastLmPure() variants taking a vector and matrix and not the formula interface -- all the time is spent deparsing the formula.
Here, just for kicks, is the RcppArmadillo variant:
#include <RcppArmadillo.h>
using namespace Rcpp;
// [[Rcpp::export]]
List fastLm_impl(const arma::mat& X, const arma::colvec& y) {
int n = X.n_rows, k = X.n_cols;
arma::colvec coef = arma::solve(X, y); // fit model y ~ X
arma::colvec res = y - X*coef; // residuals
// std.errors of coefficients
double s2 = std::inner_product(res.begin(), res.end(),
res.begin(), 0.0)/(n - k);
arma::colvec std_err =
arma::sqrt(s2 *
arma::diagvec(arma::pinv(arma::trans(X)*X)));
return List::create(Named("coefficients") = coef,
Named("stderr") = std_err,
Named("df.residual") = n - k);
}
Related
My goal is to basically migrate this code to R.
All the preprocessing wrt datasets has been already done, now however I am stuck in writing the "model" file. As a first attempt, and for the sake of clarity, I wrote the code which is shown below in R language.
What I want to do is to run an MCMC to have an estimate of the parameter R_t, given the daily reported data for Italian Country.
The main steps that have been pursued are:
Sample an array parameter, namely the log(R_t), from a Gaussian RW distribution
Gauss_RandomWalk <- function(N, x0, mu, variance) {
z <- cumsum(rnorm(n=N, mean=mu, sd=sqrt(variance)))
t <- 1:N
x <- (x0 + t*mu + z)
return(x)
}
log_R_t <- Gauss_RandomWalk(tot_dates, 0., 0., 0.035**2)
R_t_candidate <- exp(log_R_t)
Compute some quantities, that are function of this sampled parameters, namely the number of infections. This dependence is quite simple, since it is linear algebra:
infections <- rep(0. , tot_dates)
infections[1] <- exp(seed)
for (t in 2:tot_dates){
infections[t] <- sum(R_t_candidate * infections * gt_to_convolution[t-1,])
}
Convolve the array I have just computed with a delay distribution (onset+reporting delay), finally rescaling it by the exposure variable:
test_adjusted_positive <- convolve(infections, delay_distribution_df$density, type = "open")
test_adjusted_positive <- test_adjusted_positive[1:tot_dates]
positive <- round(test_adjusted_positive*exposure)
Compute the Likelihood, which is proportional to the probability that a certain set of data was observed (i.e. daily confirmed cases), by sampling the aforementioned log(R_t) parameter from which the variable positive is computed.
likelihood <- dnbinom(round(Italian_data$daily_confirmed), mu = positive, size = 1/6)
Finally, here we come to my BUGS model file:
model {
#priors as a Gaussian RW
log_rt[1] ~ dnorm(0, 0.035)
log_rt[2] ~ dnorm(0, 0.035)
for (t in 3:tot_dates) {
log_rt[t] ~ dnorm(log_rt[t-1] + log_rt[t-2], 0.035)
R_t_candidate[t] <- exp(log_rt[t])
}
# data likelihood
for (t in 2:tot_dates) {
infections[t] <- sum(R_t_candidate * infections * gt_to_convolution[t-1,])
}
test_adjusted_positive <- convolve(infections, delay_distribution)
test_adjusted_positive <- test_adjusted_positive[1:tot_dates]
positive <- test_adjusted_positive*exposure
for (t in 2:tot_dates) {
confirmed[t] ~ dnbinom( obs[t], positive[t], 1/6)
}
}
where gt_to_convolution is a constant matrix, tot_dates is a constant value and exposure is a constant array.
When trying to compile it through:
data <- NULL
data$obs <- round(Italian_data$daily_confirmed)
data$tot_dates <- n_days
data$delay_distribution <- delay_distribution_df$density
data$exposure <- exposure
data$gt_to_convolution <- gt_to_convolution
inits <- NULL
inits$log_rt <- rep(0, tot_dates)
library (rjags)
library (coda)
set.seed(1995)
model <- "MyModel.bug"
jm <- jags.model(model , data, inits)
It raises the following raising error:
Compiling model graph
Resolving undeclared variables
Allocating nodes
Deleting model
Error in jags.model(model, data, inits) : RUNTIME ERROR:
Compilation error on line 19.
Possible directed cycle involving test_adjusted_positive
Hence I am not even able to debug it a little, even though I'm pretty sure there is something wrong more in general but I cannot figure out what and why.
At this point, I think the best choice would be to implement a Metropolis Algorithm myself according to the likelihood above, but obviously, I would way much more prefer to use an already tested framework that is BUGS/JAGS, this is the reason why I am asking for help.
I have a problem regarding the following model,
where I want to make inference on μ and tau, u is a known vector and x is the data vector. The log-likelihood is
I have a problem writing a log-likelihood in R.
x <- c(3.3569,1.9247,3.6156,1.8446,2.2196,6.8194,2.0820,4.1293,0.3609,2.6197)
mu <- seq(0,10,length=1000)
normal.lik1<-function(theta,x){
u <- c(1,3,0.5,0.2,2,1.7,0.4,1.2,1.1,0.7)
mu<-theta[1]
tau<-theta[2]
n<-length(x)
logl <- sapply(c(mu,tau),function(mu,tau){logl<- -0.5*n*log(2*pi) -0.5*n*log(tau^2+u^2)- (1/(2*tau^2+u^2))*sum((x-mu)^2) } )
return(logl)
}
#test if it works for mu=1, tau=2
head(normal.lik1(c(1,2),x))
#Does not work..
I want to be able to plug in the vector for mu and plot it over mu for a fixed value of tau, say 2. I also want to find out the MLE's of tau and mu using the optim function. I tried:
theta.hat<-optim(c(1,1),loglike2,control=list(fnscale=-1),x=x,,method="BFGS")$par
But it does not work.. Any suggestions to how I can write the likelihood?
First, as has been mentioned in the comments to your question, there is no need to use sapply(). You can simply use sum() – just as in the formula of the logLikelihood.
I changed this part in normal.lik1() and multiplied the expression that is assigned to logl by minus 1 such that the function computes the minus logLikelihood. You want to search for the minimum over theta since the function returns positive values.
x < c(3.3569,1.9247,3.6156,1.8446,2.2196,6.8194,2.0820,4.1293,0.3609,2.6197)
u <- c(1,3,0.5,0.2,2,1.7,0.4,1.2,1.1,0.7)
normal.lik1 <- function(theta,x,u){
mu <- theta[1]
tau <- theta[2]
n <- length(x)
logl <- - n/2 * log(2*pi) - 1/2 * sum(log(tau^2+u^2)) - 1/2 * sum((x-mu)^2/(tau^2+u^2))
return(-logl)
}
This can be done using nlm(), for example
nlm(normal.lik1, c(0,1), hessian=TRUE, x=x,u=u)$estimate
where c(0,1) are the starting values for the algorithm.
To plot the logLikelihood for a range of values of mu and some fixed tau you can adjust the function such that mu and tau are separate numeric arguments.
normal.lik2 <- function(mu,tau,x,u){
n <- length(x)
logl <- - n/2 * log(2*pi) - 1/2 * sum(log(tau^2+u^2)) - 1/2 * sum((x-mu)^2/(tau^2+u^2))
return(logl)
}
Then define some range for mu, compute the loglikelihood and use plot().
range.mu <- seq(-10,20,0.1)
loglik <- sapply(range.mu, function(m) normal.lik2(mu=m,tau=2,x=x,u=u))
plot(range.mu, loglik, type = "l")
I'm sure there are more elegant ways to do this but this does the trick.
I am looking for a fast way to do nonnegative quantile and Huber regression in R (i.e. with the constraint that all coefficients are >0). I tried using the CVXR package for quantile & Huber regression and the quantreg package for quantile regression, but CVXR is very slow and quantreg seems buggy when I use nonnegativity constraints. Does anybody know of a good and fast solution in R, e.g. using the Rcplex package or R gurobi API, thereby using the faster CPLEX or gurobi optimizers?
Note that I need to run a problem size like below 80 000 times, whereby I only need to update the y vector in each iteration, but still use the same predictor matrix X. In that sense, I feel it's inefficient that in CVXR I now have to do obj <- sum(quant_loss(y - X %*% beta, tau=0.01)); prob <- Problem(Minimize(obj), constraints = list(beta >= 0)) within each iteration, when the problem is in fact staying the same and all I want to update is y. Any thoughts to do all this better/faster?
Minimal example:
## Generate problem data
n <- 7 # n predictor vars
m <- 518 # n cases
set.seed(1289)
beta_true <- 5 * matrix(stats::rnorm(n), nrow = n)+20
X <- matrix(stats::rnorm(m * n), nrow = m, ncol = n)
y_true <- X %*% beta_true
eps <- matrix(stats::rnorm(m), nrow = m)
y <- y_true + eps
Nonnegative quantile regression using CVXR :
## Solve nonnegative quantile regression problem using CVX
require(CVXR)
beta <- Variable(n)
quant_loss <- function(u, tau) { 0.5*abs(u) + (tau - 0.5)*u }
obj <- sum(quant_loss(y - X %*% beta, tau=0.01))
prob <- Problem(Minimize(obj), constraints = list(beta >= 0))
system.time(beta_cvx <- pmax(solve(prob, solver="SCS")$getValue(beta), 0)) # estimated coefficients, note that they ocasionally can go - though and I had to clip at 0
# 0.47s
cor(beta_true,beta_cvx) # correlation=0.99985, OK but very slow
Syntax for nonnegative Huber regression is the same but would use
M <- 1 ## Huber threshold
obj <- sum(CVXR::huber(y - X %*% beta, M))
Nonnegative quantile regression using quantreg package :
### Solve nonnegative quantile regression problem using quantreg package with method="fnc"
require(quantreg)
R <- rbind(diag(n),-diag(n))
r <- c(rep(0,n),-rep(1E10,n)) # specify bounds of coefficients, I want them to be nonnegative, and 1E10 should ideally be Inf
system.time(beta_rq <- coef(rq(y~0+X, R=R, r=r, tau=0.5, method="fnc"))) # estimated coefficients
# 0.12s
cor(beta_true,beta_rq) # correlation=-0.477, no good, and even worse with tau=0.01...
To speed up CVXR, you can get the problem data once in the beginning, then modify it within a loop and pass it directly to the solver's R interface. The code for this is
prob_data <- get_problem_data(prob, solver = "SCS")
Then, parse out the arguments and pass them to scs from the scs library. (See Solver.solve in solver.R). You'll have to dig into the details of the canonicalization, but I expect if you're just changing y at each iteration, it should be a straightforward modification.
I try to use the function lm.fit.recursive in R's quantreg package to construct recursive residuals for a simple regression without constant.
Here is a minimal example of an approach that does not work:
# some data
n <- 20
z <- rnorm(n)
x <- rnorm(n)
x.mat <- matrix(rnorm(2*n),ncol=2)
lm.fit.recursive(x, z, int=T) # works WITH intercept with one regressor
lm.fit.recursive(x.mat, z, int=F) # works WITHOUT intercept with two regressors
lm.fit.recursive(x, z, int=F) # what I actually want but which returns Error in 1:p : argument of length 0
My hunch is that the error is related to the regressor matrix in this case not being a matrix but a vector, which leads R to treat this variable differently.
Is that correct, or am I using the function incorrectly?
Indeed,
> lm.fit.recursive
function (X, y, int = TRUE)
{
if (int)
X <- cbind(1, X)
p <- ncol(X)
n <- nrow(X)
D <- qr(X[1:p, ])
...
}
so that ncol(x)=0 for a vector. Hence,
lm.fit.recursive(as.matrix(x,ncol=1), z, int=F)
provides a workaround.
I have the following latent variable model: Person j has two latent variables, Xj1 and Xj2. The only thing we get to observe is their maximum, Yj = max(Xj1, Xj2). The latent variables are bivariate normal; they each have mean mu, variance sigma2, and their correlation is rho. I want to estimate the three parameters (mu, sigma2, rho) using only Yj, with data from n patients, j = 1,...,n.
I've tried to fit this model in JAGS (so I'm putting priors on the parameters), but I can't get the code to compile. Here's the R code I'm using to call JAGS. First I generate the data (both latent and observed variables), given some true values of the parameters:
# true parameter values
mu <- 3
sigma2 <- 2
rho <- 0.7
# generate data
n <- 100
Sigma <- sigma2 * matrix(c(1, rho, rho, 1), ncol=2)
X <- MASS::mvrnorm(n, c(mu,mu), Sigma) # n-by-2 matrix
Y <- apply(X, 1, max)
Then I define the JAGS model, and write a little function to run the JAGS sampler and return the samples:
# JAGS model code
model.text <- '
model {
for (i in 1:n) {
Y[i] <- max(X[i,1], X[i,2]) # Ack!
X[i,1:2] ~ dmnorm(X_mean, X_prec)
}
# mean vector and precision matrix for X[i,1:2]
X_mean <- c(mu, mu)
X_prec[1,1] <- 1 / (sigma2*(1-rho^2))
X_prec[2,1] <- -rho / (sigma2*(1-rho^2))
X_prec[1,2] <- X_prec[2,1]
X_prec[2,2] <- X_prec[1,1]
mu ~ dnorm(0, 1)
sigma2 <- 1 / tau
tau ~ dgamma(2, 1)
rho ~ dbeta(2, 2)
}
'
# run JAGS code. If latent=FALSE, remove the line defining Y[i] from the JAGS model
fit.jags <- function(latent=TRUE, data, n.adapt=1000, n.burnin, n.samp) {
require(rjags)
if (!latent)
model.text <- sub('\n *Y.*?\n', '\n', model.text)
textCon <- textConnection(model.text)
fit <- jags.model(textCon, data, n.adapt=n.adapt)
close(textCon)
update(fit, n.iter=n.burnin)
coda.samples(fit, variable.names=c("mu","sigma2","rho"), n.iter=n.samp)[[1]]
}
Finally, I call JAGS, feeding it only the observed data:
samp1 <- fit.jags(latent=TRUE, data=list(n=n, Y=Y), n.burnin=1000, n.samp=2000)
Sadly this results in an error message: "Y[1] is a logical node and cannot be observed". JAGS does not like me using "<-" to assign a value to Y[i] (I denote the offending line with an "Ack!"). I understand the complaint, but I'm not sure how to rewrite the model code to fix this.
Also, to demonstrate that everything else (besides the "Ack!" line) is fine, I run the model again, but this time I feed it the X data, pretending that it's actually observed. This runs perfectly and I get good estimates of the parameters:
samp2 <- fit.jags(latent=FALSE, data=list(n=n, X=X), n.burnin=1000, n.samp=2000)
colMeans(samp2)
If you can find a way to program this model in STAN instead of JAGS, that would be fine with me.
Theoretically you can implement a model like this in JAGS using the dsum distribution (which in this case uses a bit of a hack as you are modelling the maximum and not the sum of the two variables). But the following code does compile and run (although it does not 'work' in any real sense - see later):
set.seed(2017-02-08)
# true parameter values
mu <- 3
sigma2 <- 2
rho <- 0.7
# generate data
n <- 100
Sigma <- sigma2 * matrix(c(1, rho, rho, 1), ncol=2)
X <- MASS::mvrnorm(n, c(mu,mu), Sigma) # n-by-2 matrix
Y <- apply(X, 1, max)
model.text <- '
model {
for (i in 1:n) {
Y[i] ~ dsum(max_X[i])
max_X[i] <- max(X[i,1], X[i,2])
X[i,1:2] ~ dmnorm(X_mean, X_prec)
ranks[i,1:2] <- rank(X[i,1:2])
chosen[i] <- ranks[i,2]
}
# mean vector and precision matrix for X[i,1:2]
X_mean <- c(mu, mu)
X_prec[1,1] <- 1 / (sigma2*(1-rho^2))
X_prec[2,1] <- -rho / (sigma2*(1-rho^2))
X_prec[1,2] <- X_prec[2,1]
X_prec[2,2] <- X_prec[1,1]
mu ~ dnorm(0, 1)
sigma2 <- 1 / tau
tau ~ dgamma(2, 1)
rho ~ dbeta(2, 2)
#data# n, Y
#monitor# mu, sigma2, rho, tau, chosen[1:10]
#inits# X
}
'
library('runjags')
results <- run.jags(model.text)
results
plot(results)
Two things to note:
JAGS isn't smart enough to initialise the matrix of X while satisfying the dsum(max(X[i,])) constraint on its own - so we have to initialise X for JAGS using sensible values. In this case I'm using the simulated values which is cheating - the answer you get is highly dependent on the choice of initial values for X, and in the real world you won't have the simulated values to fall back on.
The max() constraint causes problems to which I can't think of a solution within a general framework: unlike the usual dsum constraint that allows one parameter to decrease while the other increases and therefore both parameters are used at all times, the min() value of X[i,] is ignored and the sampler is therefore free to do as it pleases. This will very very rarely (i.e. never) lead to values of min(X[i,]) that happen to be identical to Y[i], which is the condition required for the sampler to 'switch' between the two X[i,]. So switching never happens, and the X[] that were chosen at initialisation to be the maxima stay as the maxima - I have added a trace parameter 'chosen' which illustrates this.
As far as I can see the other potential solutions to the 'how do I code this' question will fall into essentially the same non-mixing trap which I think is a fundamental problem here (although I might be wrong and would very much welcome working BUGS/JAGS/Stan code that illustrates otherwise).
Solutions to the failure to mix are harder, although something akin to the Carlin & Chibb method for model selection may work (force a min(pseudo_X) parameter to be equal to Y to encourage switching). This is likely to be tricky to get working, but if you can get help from someone with a reasonable amount of experience with BUGS/JAGS you could try it - see:
Carlin, B.P., Chib, S., 1995. Bayesian model choice via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 473–484.
Alternatively, you could try thinking about the problem slightly differently and model X directly as a matrix with the first column all missing and the second column all equal to Y. You could then use dinterval() to set a constraint on the missing values that they must be lower than the corresponding maximum. I'm not sure how well this would work in terms of estimating mu/sigma2/rho but it might be worth a try.
By the way, I realise that this doesn't necessarily answer your question but I think it is a useful example of the difference between 'is it codeable' and 'is it workable'.
Matt
ps. A much smarter solution would be to consider the distribution of the maximum of two normal variates directly - I am not sure if such a distribution exists, but it it does and you can get a PDF for it then the distribution could be coded directly using the zeros/ones trick without having to consider the value of the minimum at all.
I believe you can model this in the Stan language treating the likelihood as a two component mixture with equal weights. The Stan code could look like
data {
int<lower=1> N;
vector[N] Y;
}
parameters {
vector<upper=0>[2] diff[N];
real mu;
real<lower=0> sigma;
real<lower=-1,upper=1> rho;
}
model {
vector[2] case_1[N];
vector[2] case_2[N];
vector[2] mu_vec;
matrix[2,2] Sigma;
for (n in 1:N) {
case_1[n][1] = Y[n]; case_1[n][2] = Y[n] + diff[n][1];
case_2[n][2] = Y[n]; case_2[n][1] = Y[n] + diff[n][2];
}
mu_vec[1] = mu; mu_vec[2] = mu;
Sigma[1,1] = square(sigma);
Sigma[2,2] = Sigma[1,1];
Sigma[1,2] = Sigma[1,1] * rho;
Sigma[2,1] = Sigma[1,2];
// log-likelihood
target += log_mix(0.5, multi_normal_lpdf(case_1 | mu_vec, Sigma),
multi_normal_lpdf(case_2 | mu_vec, Sigma));
// insert priors on mu, sigma, and rho
}