I have 2 matrices, one is species x traits and the second one is site x species (presence/absence). I need a third matrix sites x traits and in each column, I will have more than one value (all the values for all species of one site). How can I do this? Extract information of one matrix through another matrix? I am just a beginner in R...
I transposed the site x species and cbind the 2 matrices, but the result was all columns in one matrix...
trait <- read.table("trait_matrix_final.txt", head=T, sep="\t", dec=',', row.names=1)
com <- read.table("community_matrix2.txt", head=T, sep="\t", dec=',', row.names=1)
comt <- t(com)
new <- cbind(trait, comt)
And I tried to multiply both matrices, but it is not possible because I have continuous and categorical data.
EDIT:
Complementary comments: I have continuous (eg. body size) and categoricals variables (a daily activity with the values: nocturnal, diurnal or both). So, if I have 3 species in site 1, I want to obtain mean body size for these 3 species for site 1. For the categorical variable, if the 3 species have these values: species 1= nocturnal, species 2= nocturnal and species 3 =diurnal, the column will be something like that: nocturnal+diurnal or nocturnal.diurnal. My third matrix will have the same numbers of columns that in the 1st matrix (species x traits), but the traits are averaged across all species for the particular site.
It would be very useful to provide a reproducible example so SO community can help you in solving the problem.
AFTER EDIT:
You should store the data in an object of class matrix only if all entries of that matrix are of the same class (e.g. all numeric or all character). Because your first matrix has both numeric and character values it is better to format it as a data.frame. See this post for more info.
I will generate some data assuming you have 5 traits per species, 20 species per site, and 10 sites:
n.traits <- 5
n.species <- 20
n.sites <- 10
traits.names <- paste ("trait", 1:n.traits, sep = "_")
species.names <- paste ("spec", 1:n.species, sep = "_")
sites.names <- paste ("site", 1:n.sites, sep = "_")
# species*traits matrix
set.seed (4)
mat1 <- as.data.frame (matrix (replicate (n = n.traits, rnorm (n = n.species)), nrow = n.species, ncol = n.traits, dimnames = list (species.names, traits.names)))
mat1
set.seed (89)
mat1[, 2] <- sample (x = c ("diurnal", "nocturnal"), size = nrow (mat1), replace = T)
mat1
# site*species matrix
set.seed (6)
mat2 <- matrix (replicate (n = n.species, rbinom (n = n.sites, size = 1, prob = 0.8)), nrow = n.sites, ncol = n.species, dimnames = list (sites.names, species.names))
mat2
Following for loop will average traits across species for each site:
# sites*traits matrix
mat3 <- as.data.frame (matrix (NA, nrow = n.sites, ncol = n.traits, dimnames = list (sites.names, traits.names)))
for (i in 1:n.sites){
spec_per_site_boolean <- mat2[i, ] == 1
mat1_subset <- mat1[spec_per_site_boolean, ]
for (j in 1:n.traits){
if (is.numeric (mat1_subset[,j]))
mat3[i,j] <- mean (mat1_subset[,j])
else
mat3[i,j] <- paste (sort (unique(mat1_subset[,j])), collapse = ".")
}
}
mat3
Note that the third matrix has the same number of columns as the first one (e.g. ncol (mat1) == ncol (mat3)), but it doesn't have the same number of rows (e.g. nrow (mat1) != nrow (mat3)).
Related
I tried to create a matrix from a list which consists of N unequal matrices...
The reason to do this is to make R individual bootstrap samples.
In the example below you can find e.g. 2 companies, where we have 1 with 10 & 1 with just 5 observations.
Data:
set.seed(7)
Time <- c(10,5)
xv <- matrix(c(rnorm(10,5,2), rnorm(5,20,1), rnorm(10,5,2), rnorm(5,20,1)), ncol=2);
y <- matrix( c(rnorm(10,5,2), rnorm(5,20,1)));
z <- matrix(c(rnorm(10,5,2), rnorm(5,20,1), rnorm(10,5,2), rnorm(5,20,1)), ncol=2)
# create data frame of input variables which helps
# to conduct the rowise bootstrapping
data <- data.frame (y = y, xv = xv, z = z);
rows <- dim(data)[1];
cols <- dim(data)[2];
# create the index to sample from the different panels
cumTime <- c(0, cumsum (Time));
index <- findInterval (seq (1:rows), cumTime, left.open = TRUE);
# draw R individual bootstrap samples
bootList <- replicate(R = 5, list(), simplify=F);
bootList <- lapply (bootList, function(x) by (data, INDICES = index, FUN = function(x) dplyr::sample_n (tbl = x, size = dim(x)[1], replace = T)));
---------- UNLISTING ---------
Currently, I try do it incorrectly like this:
Example for just 1 entry of the list:
matrix(unlist(bootList[[1]], recursive = T), ncol = cols)
The desired output is just
bootList[[1]]
as a matrix.
Do you have an idea how to do this & if possible reasonably efficient?
The matrices are then processed in unfortunately slow MLE estimations...
i found a solution for you. From what i gather, you have a Dataframe containing all observations of all companies, which may have different panel lengths. And as a result you would like to have a Bootstap sample for each company of same size as the original panel length.
You mearly have to add a company indicator
data$company = c(rep(1, 10), rep(2, 5)) # this could even be a factor.
L1 = split(data, data$company)
L2 = lapply(L1, FUN = function(s) s[sample(x = 1:nrow(s), size = nrow(s), replace = TRUE),] )
stop here if you would like to have saperate bootstap samples e.g. in case you want to estimate seperately
bootdata = do.call(rbind, L2)
Best wishes,
Tim
I have the following data frame:
library(dplyr)
set.seed(42)
df <- data_frame(x = sample(seq(0, 1, 0.1), 5, replace = T), y = sample(seq(0, 1, 0.1), 5, replace = T), z= sample(seq(0, 1, 0.1), 5, replace = T) )
For each row in df, I would like to find out whether there is a row in df2 which is close to it ("neighbor") in all columns, where "close" means that it is not different by more than 0.1 in each column.
So for instance, a proper neighbor to the row (1, 0.5, 0.5) would be (0.9, 0.6, 0.4).
The second data set is
set.seed(42)
df2 <- data_frame(x = sample(seq(0, 1, 0.1), 10, replace = T), y = sample(seq(0, 1, 0.1), 10, replace = T), z= sample(seq(0, 1, 0.1), 10, replace = T) )
In this case there is no "neighbor", so Im supposed to get "FALSE" for all rows of df.
My actual data frames are much bigger than this (dozens of columns and hundreds of thousands of rows, so the naming has to be very general rather than "x", "y" and "z".
I have a sense that this can be done using mutate and funs, for example I tried this line:
df <- df %>% mutate_all(funs(close = (. <= df2(, .)+0.1) & (. >= df2(, .)-0.1))
But got an error.
Any ideas?
You can use package fuzzyjoin
library(fuzzyjoin)
# adding two rows that match
df2 <- rbind(df2,df[1:2,] +0.01)
df %>%
fuzzy_left_join(df2,match_fun= function(x,y) y<x+0.1 & y> x-0.1 ) %>%
mutate(found=!is.na(x.y)) %>%
select(-4:-6)
# # A tibble: 5 x 4
# x.x y.x z.x found
# <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <lgl>
# 1 1 0.5 0.5 TRUE
# 2 1 0.8 0.7 TRUE
# 3 0.3 0.1 1 FALSE
# 4 0.9 0.7 0.2 FALSE
# 5 0.7 0.7 0.5 FALSE
find more info there: Joining/matching data frames in R
The machine learning approach to finding a close entry in a multi-dimensional dataset is Euclidian distance.
The general approach is to normalize all the attributes. Make the range for each column the same, zero to one or negative one to one. That equalizes the effect of the columns with large and small values. When more advanced approaches are used one would center the adjusted column values on zero. The test criteria is scaled the same.
The next step is to calculate the distance of each observation from its neighbors. If the data set is small or computing time is cheap, calculate the distance from every observation to every other. The Euclidian distance from observation1 (row1) to observation2 (row2) is sqrt((X1 - X2)^2 + sqrt((Y1 - Y2)^2 + ...). Choose your criteria and select.
In your case, the section criterion is simpler. Two observations are close if no attribute is more than 0.1 from the other observation. I assume that df and df2 have the same number of columns in the same order. I make the assumption that close observations are relatively rare. My approach tells me once we discover a pair is distant, discontinue investigation. If you have hundred of thousands of rows, you will likely exhaust memory if you try to calculate all the combinations at the same time.
~~~~~
You have a big problem. If your data sets df and df2 are one hundred thousand rows each, and four dozen columns, the machine needs to do 4.8e+11 comparisons. The scorecard at the end will have 1e+10 results (close or distant). I started with some subsetting to do comparisons with tearful results. R wanted matrices of the same size. The kluge I devised was unsuccessful. Therefore I regressed to the days of FORTRAN and did it with loops. With the loop approach, you could subset the problem and finish without smoking your machine.
From the sample data, I did the comparisons by hand, all 150 of them: nrow(df) * nrow(df2) * ncol(df). There were no close observations in the sample data by the definition you gave.
Here is how I intended to present the results before transferring the results to a new column in df.
dfclose <- matrix(TRUE, nrow = nrow(df), ncol = nrow(df2))
dfclose # Have a look
This matrix describes the distance from observation in df (rows in dfclose) to observation in df2 (colums in dfclose). If close, the entry is TRUE.
Here is the repository of the result of the distance measures:
dfdist <- matrix(0, nrow = nrow(df), ncol = nrow(df2))
dfdist # have a look; it's the same format, but with numbers
We start with the assumption that all observations in df aare close to df2.
The total distance is zero. To that we add the Manhattan Distance. When the total Manhattan distance is greater than .1, they are no longer close. We needn't evaluate any more.
closeCriterion <- function(origin, dest) {
manhattanDistance <- abs(origin-dest)
#print(paste("manhattanDistance =", manhattanDistance))
if (manhattanDistance < .1) ret <- 0 else ret <- 1
}
convertScore <- function(x) if (x>0) FALSE else TRUE
for (j in 1:ncol(df)) {
print(paste("col =",j))
for (i in 1:nrow(df)) {
print(paste("df row =",i))
for (k in 1:nrow(df2)) {
# print(paste("df2 row (and dflist column) =", k))
distantScore <- closeCriterion(df[i,j], df2[k,j])
#print(paste("df and dfdist row =", i, " df2 row (and dflist column) =", k, " distantScore = ", distantScore))
dfdist[i,k] <- dfdist[i,k] + distantScore
}
}
}
dfdist # have a look at the numerical results
dfclose <- matrix(lapply(dfdist, convertScore), ncol = nrow(df2))
I wanted to see what the process would look like at scale.
set.seed(42)
df <- matrix(rnorm(3000), ncol = 30)
set.seed(42)
df2 <-matrix(rnorm(5580), ncol = 30)
dfdist <- matrix(0, nrow = nrow(df), ncol = nrow(df2))
Then I ran the code block to see what would happen.
~ ~ ~
You might consider the problem definition. I ran the model several times, changing the criterion for closeness. If the entry in each of three dozen columns in df2 has a 90% chance of matching its correspondent in df, the row only has a 2.2% chance of matching. The example data is not such a good test case for the algorithm.
Best of luck
Here's one way to calculate that column without fuzzyjoin
library(tidyverse)
found <-
expand.grid(row.df = seq(nrow(df)),
row.df2 = seq(nrow(df2))) %>%
mutate(in.range = pmap_lgl(., ~ all(abs(df[.x,] - df2[.y,]) <= 0.1))) %>%
group_by(row.df) %>%
summarise_at('in.range', any) %>%
select(in.range)
I have the following problem.
I have multiple subarrays (say 2) that I have populated with character labels (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). My algorithm selects labels at random based on occurrence probabilities.
How can I get R to instead select labels 1:3 for subarray 1 and 4:5 for subarray 2, say, without using subsetting (i.e., []). That is, I want a random subset of labels to be selected for each subarray, instead of all labels assigned to each subarray manually using [].
I know sample() should help.
Using subsetting (which I don't want) one would do
x <- 1:5
sample(x[1:3], size, prob = probs[1:3])
but this assigns labels 1:3 to ALL subarrays.
Would
sample(sample(x), size, replace = TRUE, prob = probs)
work?
Any ideas? Please let me know if this is unclear.
Here is a small example, which selects labels from 1:5 for each of 10 subarrays.
set.seed(1)
N <- 10
K <- 2
Hstar <- 5
probs <- rep(1/Hstar, Hstar)
perms <- 5
## Set up container(s) to hold the identity of each individual from each permutation ##
num.specs <- ceiling(N / K)
## Create an ID for each haplotype ##
haps <- 1:Hstar
## Assign individuals (N) to each subpopulation (K) ##
specs <- 1:num.specs
## Generate permutations, assume each permutation has N individuals, and sample those individuals' haplotypes from the probabilities ##
gen.perms <- function() {
sample(haps, size = num.specs, replace = TRUE, prob = probs) # I would like each subarray to contain a random subset of 1:5.
}
pop <- array(dim = c(perms, num.specs, K))
for (i in 1:K) {
pop[,, i] <- replicate(perms, gen.perms())
}
pop
Hopefully this helps.
I think what you actually want is something like that
num.specs <- 3
haps[sample(seq(haps),size = num.specs,replace = F)]
[1] 3 5 4
That is a random subset of your vector haps ?
Not quite what you want (returns list of matrices instead of 3D array) but this might help
lapply(split(1:5, cut(1:5, breaks=c(0, 2, 5))), function(i) matrix(sample(i, 25, replace=TRUE), ncol=5))
Use cut and split to partition your vector of character labels before sampling them. Here I split your character labels at the value 2. Also, rather than sampling 5 numbers 5 times, you can sample 25 numbers once, and convert to matrix.
I have a dataset where a subset of measurements for each entry are randomly missing:
dat <- matrix(runif(100), nrow=10)
rownames(dat) <- letters[1:10]
colnames(dat) <- paste("time", 1:10)
dat[sample(100, 25)] <- NA
I am interested in calculating correlations between each row in this dataset (i.e., a-a, a-b, a-c, a-d, ...). However, I would like to exclude correlations where there are fewer than 5 pairwise non-NA observations by setting their value to NA in the resulting correlation matrix.
Currently I am doing this as follows:
cor <- cor(t(dat), use = 'pairwise.complete.obs')
names <- rownames(dat)
filter <- sapply(names, function(x1) sapply(names, function(x2)
sum(!is.na(dat[x1,]) & !is.na(dat[x2,])) < 5))
cor[filter] <- NA
However, this operation is very slow as the actual dataset contains >1,000 entries.
Is there way to filter cells based on the number of non-NA pairwise observations in a vectorized manner, instead of within nested loops?
You can count the number of non-NA pairwise observations using matrix approach.
Let's use this data generation code. I made data larger and added more NAs.
nr = 1000;
nc = 900;
dat = matrix(runif(nr*nc), nrow=nr)
rownames(dat) = paste(1:nr)
colnames(dat) = paste("time", 1:nc)
dat[sample(nr*nc, nr*nc*0.9)] = NA
Then you filter code is taking 85 seconds
tic = proc.time()
names = rownames(dat)
filter = sapply(names, function(x1) sapply(names, function(x2)
sum(!is.na(dat[x1,]) & !is.na(dat[x2,])) < 5));
toc = proc.time();
show(toc-tic);
# 85.50 seconds
My version creates a matrix with values 1 for non-NAs in the original data. Then using matrix multiplication I calculate number of pairwise non-NAs. It ran in a fraction of a second.
tic = proc.time()
NAmat = matrix(0, nrow = nr, ncol = nc)
NAmat[ !is.na(dat) ] = 1;
filter2 = (tcrossprod(NAmat) < 5)
toc = proc.time();
show(toc-tic);
# 0.09 seconds
Simple check shows the results are the same:
all(filter == filter2)
# TRUE
I am running correlations between variables, some of which have missing data, so the sample size for each correlation are likely different. I tried print and summary, but neither of these shows me how big my n is for each correlation. This is a fairly simple problem that I cannot find the answer to anywhere.
like this..?
x <- c(1:100,NA)
length(x)
length(x[!is.na(x)])
you can also get the degrees of freedom like this...
y <- c(1:100,NA)
x <- c(1:100,NA)
cor.test(x,y)$parameter
But I think it would be best if you show the code for how your are estimating the correlation for exact help.
Here's an example of how to find the pairwise sample sizes among the columns of a matrix. If you want to apply it to (certain) numeric columns of a data frame, combine them accordingly, coerce the resulting object to matrix and apply the function.
# Example matrix:
xx <- rnorm(3000)
# Generate some NAs
vv <- sample(3000, 200)
xx[vv] <- NA
# reshape to a matrix
dd <- matrix(xx, ncol = 3)
# find the number of NAs per column
apply(dd, 2, function(x) sum(is.na(x)))
# tack on some column names
colnames(dd) <- paste0("x", seq(3))
# Function to find the number of pairwise complete observations
# among all pairs of columns in a matrix. It returns a data frame
# whose first two columns comprise all column pairs
pairwiseN <- function(mat)
{
u <- if(is.null(colnames(mat))) paste0("x", seq_len(ncol(mat))) else colnames(mat)
h <- expand.grid(x = u, y = u)
f <- function(x, y)
sum(apply(mat[, c(x, y)], 1, function(z) !any(is.na(z))))
h$n <- mapply(f, h[, 1], h[, 2])
h
}
# Call it
pairwiseN(dd)
The function can easily be improved; for example, you could set h <- expand.grid(x = u[-1], y = u[-length(u)]) to cut down on the number of calculations, you could return an n x n matrix instead of a three-column data frame, etc.
Here is a for-loop implementation of Dennis' function above to output an n x n matrix rather than have to pivot_wide() that result. On my databricks cluster it cut the compute time for 1865 row x 69 column matrix down from 2.5 - 3 minutes to 30-40 seconds.
Thanks for your answer Dennis, this helped me with my work.
pairwise_nxn <- function(mat)
{
cols <- if(is.null(colnames(mat))) paste0("x", seq_len(ncol(mat))) else colnames(mat)
nn <- data.frame(matrix(nrow = length(cols), ncol = length(cols)))
rownames(nn) <- colnames(nn) <- cols
f <- function(x, y)
sum(apply(mat[, c(x, y)], 1, function(z) !any(is.na(z))))
for (i in 1:nrow(nn))
for (j in 1:ncol(nn))
nn[i,j] <- f(rownames(nn)[i], colnames(nn)[j])
nn
}
If your variables are vectors named a and b, would something like sum(is.na(a) | is.na(b)) help you?