I have calculated the kernel density of a 3-column matrix in R using the following code:
ss<-read.table("data.csv",header=TRUE,sep=",")
x<-ss[,1]
y<-ss[,2]
z<-ss[,3]
ssdata<-c(x,y,z)
ssmat<-matrix(ssdata,,3)
rp<-kde(ssmat)
plot(rp)
What I need now are the (x,y,z) coordinates of the point of maximum kernel density. Based on the answer provided at on the R-help list, I understand that the kde() function plots the joint density of the three variables in a fourth dimension which is represented in the 3d plot by shading to indicate areas of greater point density. So in effect I am trying to locate the maximum value of this "fourth" dimension. I suspect that this is a relatively simple problem but I haven't been able to find the answer. Any ideas?
You can extract the max value from the info returned from kde. To see all the stuff returned, use str(rp).
## Get the indices
inds <- which(abs(rp$estimate - max(rp$estimate)) < 1e-10, arr.ind=T)
xyz <- mapply(function(a, b) a[b], rp$eval.points, inds)
## Add it to plot
plot(rp)
points3d(x=xyz[1], y=xyz[2], z=xyz[3], size=20, col="blue")
Related
I'm still trying to find the best way to classify bivariate point patterns:
Point pattern classification with spatstat: what am I doing wrong?
I now analysed 110 samples of my dataset using #Adrian's suggestion with sigma=bw.diggle (as I wanted an automatic bandwidth selection). f is a "resource selection function" (RSF) which describes the relationship between the intensity of the Cancer point process and the covariate (here kernel density of Immune):
Cancer <- split(cells)[["tumor"]]
Immune <- split(cells)[["bcell"]]
Dimmune <- density(Immune,sigma=bw.diggle)
f <- rhohat(Cancer, Dimmune)
I am in doubt about some results I've got. A dozen of rho-functions looked weird (disrupted, single peak). After changing to default sigma=NULL or sigma=bw.scott (which are smoother) the functions became "better" (see examples below). I also experimented with the following manipulations:
cells # bivariate point pattern with marks "tumor" and "bcell"
o.marks<-cells$marks # original marks
#A) randomly re-assign original marks
a.marks <- sample(cells$marks)
#B) replace marks randomly with a 50/50 proportion
b.marks<-as.factor(sample(c("tumor","bcell"), replace=TRUE, size=length(o.marks)))
#C) random (homogenious?) pattern with the original number of points
randt<-runifpoint(npoints(subset(cells,marks=="tumor")),win=cells$window)
randb<-runifpoint(npoints(subset(cells,marks=="bcell")),win=cells$window)
cells<-superimpose(tumor=randt,bcell=randb)
#D) tumor points are associated with bcell points (is "clustered" a right term?)
Cancer<-rpoint(npoints(subset(cells,marks=="tumor")),Dimmune,win=cells$window)
#E) tumor points are segregated from bcell points
reversedD<-Dimmune
density.scale.v<-sort(unique((as.vector(Dimmune$v)[!is.na(as.vector(Dimmune$v))]))) # density scale
density.scale.v.rev<-rev(density.scale.v)# reversed density scale
new.image.v<-Dimmune$v
# Loop over matrix
for(row in 1:nrow(Dimmune$v)) {
for(col in 1:ncol(Dimmune$v)) {
if (is.na(Dimmune$v[row, col])==TRUE){next}
number<-which(density.scale.v==Dimmune$v[row, col])
new.image.v[row, col]<-density.scale.v.rev[number]}
}
reversedD$v<-new.image.v # reversed density
Cancer<-rpoint(npoints(subset(cells,marks=="tumor")),reversedD,win=cells$window)
A better way to generate inverse density heatmaps is given by #Adrian in his post below.
I could not generate rpoint patterns for the bw.diggle density as it produced negative numbers.Thus I replaced the negatives Dimmune$v[which(Dimmune$v<0)]<-0 and could run rpoint then. As #Adrian explained in the post below, this is normal and can be solved easier by using a density.ppp option positive=TRUE.
I first used bw.diggle, because hopskel.test indicarted "clustering" for all my patterns. Now I'm going to use bw.scott for my analysis but can this decision be somehow justified? Is there a better method besides "RSF-function is looking weird"?
some examples:
sample10:
sample20:
sample110:
That is a lot of questions!
Please try to ask only one question per post.
But here are some answers to your technical questions about spatstat.
Negative values:
The help for density.ppp explains that small negative values can occur because of numerical effects. To force the density values to be non-negative, use the argument positive=TRUE in the call to density.ppp. For example density(Immune, bw.diggle, positive=TRUE).
Reversed image: to reverse the ordering of values in an image Z you can use the following code:
V <- Z
A <- order(Z[])
V[][A] <- Z[][rev(A)]
Then V is the order-reversed image.
Tips for your code:
to generate a random point pattern with the same number of points and in the same window as an existing point pattern X, use Y <- runifpoint(ex=X).
To extract the marks of a point pattern X, use a <- marks(X). To assign new marks to a point pattern X, use marks(X) <- b.
to randomly permute the marks attached to the points in a point pattern X, use Y <- rlabel(X).
to assign new marks to a point pattern X where the new marks are drawn randomly-with-replacement from a given vector of values m, use Y <- rlabel(X, m, permute=FALSE).
I have a problem I wish to solve in R with example data below. I know this must have been solved many times but I have not been able to find a solution that works for me in R.
The core of what I want to do is to find how to translate a set of 2D coordinates to best fit into an other, larger, set of 2D coordinates. Imagine for example having a Polaroid photo of a small piece of the starry sky with you out at night, and you want to hold it up in a position so they match the stars' current positions.
Here is how to generate data similar to my real problem:
# create reference points (the "starry sky")
set.seed(99)
ref_coords = data.frame(x = runif(50,0,100), y = runif(50,0,100))
# generate points take subset of coordinates to serve as points we
# are looking for ("the Polaroid")
my_coords_final = ref_coords[c(5,12,15,24,31,34,48,49),]
# add a little bit of variation as compared to reference points
# (data should very similar, but have a little bit of noise)
set.seed(100)
my_coords_final$x = my_coords_final$x+rnorm(8,0,.1)
set.seed(101)
my_coords_final$y = my_coords_final$y+rnorm(8,0,.1)
# create "start values" by, e.g., translating the points we are
# looking for to start at (0,0)
my_coords_start =apply(my_coords_final,2,function(x) x-min(x))
# Plot of example data, goal is to find the dotted vector that
# corresponds to the translation needed
plot(ref_coords, cex = 1.2) # "Starry sky"
points(my_coords_start,pch=20, col = "red") # start position of "Polaroid"
points(my_coords_final,pch=20, col = "blue") # corrected position of "Polaroid"
segments(my_coords_start[1,1],my_coords_start[1,2],
my_coords_final[1,1],my_coords_final[1,2],lty="dotted")
Plotting the data as above should yield:
The result I want is basically what the dotted line in the plot above represents, i.e. a delta in x and y that I could apply to the start coordinates to move them to their correct position in the reference grid.
Details about the real data
There should be close to no rotational or scaling difference between my points and the reference points.
My real data is around 1000 reference points and up to a few hundred points to search (could use less if more efficient)
I expect to have to search about 10 to 20 sets of reference points to find my match, as many of the reference sets will not contain my points.
Thank you for your time, I'd really appreciate any input!
EDIT: To clarify, the right plot represent the reference data. The left plot represents the points that I want to translate across the reference data in order to find a position where they best match the reference. That position, in this case, is represented by the blue dots in the previous figure.
Finally, any working strategy must not use the data in my_coords_final, but rather reproduce that set of coordinates starting from my_coords_start using ref_coords.
So, the previous approach I posted (see edit history) using optim() to minimize the sum of distances between points will only work in the limited circumstance where the point distribution used as reference data is in the middle of the point field. The solution that satisfies the question and seems to still be workable for a few thousand points, would be a brute-force delta and comparison algorithm that calculates the differences between each point in the field against a single point of the reference data and then determines how many of the rest of the reference data are within a minimum threshold (which is needed to account for the noise in the data):
## A brute-force approach where min_dist can be used to
## ameliorate some random noise:
min_dist <- 5
win_thresh <- 0
win_thresh_old <- 0
for(i in 1:nrow(ref_coords)) {
x2 <- my_coords_start[,1]
y2 <- my_coords_start[,2]
x1 <- ref_coords[,1] + (x2[1] - ref_coords[i,1])
y1 <- ref_coords[,2] + (y2[1] - ref_coords[i,2])
## Calculate all pairwise distances between reference and field data:
dists <- dist( cbind( c(x1, x2), c(y1, y2) ), "euclidean")
## Only take distances for the sampled data:
dists <- as.matrix(dists)[-1*1:length(x1),]
## Calculate the number of distances within the minimum
## distance threshold minus the diagonal portion:
win_thresh <- sum(rowSums(dists < min_dist) > 1)
## If we have more "matches" than our best then calculate a new
## dx and dy:
if (win_thresh > win_thresh_old) {
win_thresh_old <- win_thresh
dx <- (x2[1] - ref_coords[i,1])
dy <- (y2[1] - ref_coords[i,2])
}
}
## Plot estimated correction (your delta x and delta y) calculated
## from the brute force calculation of shifts:
points(
x=ref_coords[,1] + dx,
y=ref_coords[,2] + dy,
cex=1.5, col = "red"
)
I'm very interested to know if there's anyone that solves this in a more efficient manner for the number of points in the test data, possibly using a statistical or optimization algorithm.
I'm trying to estimate the area of the 95% contour of a kde object from the ks package in R.
If I use the example data set from the ks package, I would create the kernel object as follow:
library(ks)
data(unicef)
H.scv <- Hscv(x=unicef)
fhat <- kde(x=unicef, H=H.scv)
I can easily plot the 25, 50, 75% contour using the plot function:
plot(fhat)
But I want to estimate the area within the contour.
I saw a similar question here, but the answer proposed does not solve the problem.
In my real application, my dataset is a time series of coordinates of an animal and I want to measure the home range size of this animal using a bivariate normal kernel. I'm using ks package because it allows to estimate the bandwith of a kernel distribution with methods such as plug-in and smoothed cross-validation.
Any help would be really appreciated!
Here are two ways to do it. They are both fairly complex conceptually, but actually very simple in code.
fhat <- kde(x=unicef, H=H.scv,compute.cont=TRUE)
contour.95 <- with(fhat,contourLines(x=eval.points[[1]],y=eval.points[[2]],
z=estimate,levels=cont["95%"])[[1]])
library(pracma)
with(contour.95,polyarea(x,y))
# [1] -113.677
library(sp)
library(rgeos)
poly <- with(contour.95,data.frame(x,y))
poly <- rbind(poly,poly[1,]) # polygon needs to be closed...
spPoly <- SpatialPolygons(list(Polygons(list(Polygon(poly)),ID=1)))
gArea(spPoly)
# [1] 113.677
Explanation
First, the kde(...) function returns a kde object, which is a list with 9 elements. You can read about this in the documentation, or you can type str(fhat) at the command line, or, if you're using RStudio (highly recommended), you can see this by expanding the fhat object in the Environment tab.
One of the elements is $eval.points, the points at which the kernel density estimates are evaluated. The default is to evaluate at 151 equally spaced points. $eval.points is itself a list of, in your case 2 vectors. So, fhat$eval.points[[1]] represents the points along "Under-5" and fhat$eval.points[[2]] represents the points along "Ave life exp".
Another element is $estimate, which has the z-values for the kernel density, evaluated at every combination of x and y. So $estimate is a 151 X 151 matrix.
If you call kde(...) with compute.cont=TRUE, you get an additional element in the result: $cont, which contains the z-value in $estimate corresponding to every percentile from 1% to 99%.
So, you need to extract the x- and y-values corresponding to the 95% contour, and use that to calculate the area. You would do that as follows:
fhat <- kde(x=unicef, H=H.scv,compute.cont=TRUE)
contour.95 <- with(fhat,contourLines(x=eval.points[[1]],y=eval.points[[2]],
z=estimate,levels=cont["95%"])[[1]])
Now, contour.95 has the x- and y-values corresponding to the 95% contour of fhat. There are (at least) two ways to get the area. One uses the pracma package and calculates
it directly.
library(pracma)
with(contour.95,polyarea(x,y))
# [1] -113.677
The reason for the negative value has to do with the ordering of x and y: polyarea(...) is interpreting the polygon as a "hole", so it has negative area.
An alternative uses the area calculation routines in rgeos (a GIS package). Unfortunately, this requires you to first turn your coordinates into a "SpatialPolygon" object, which is a bit of a bear. Nevertheless, it is also straightforward.
library(sp)
library(rgeos)
poly <- with(contour.95,data.frame(x,y))
poly <- rbind(poly,poly[1,]) # polygon needs to be closed...
spPoly <- SpatialPolygons(list(Polygons(list(Polygon(poly)),ID=1)))
gArea(spPoly)
# [1] 113.677
Another method would be to use the contourSizes() function within the kde package. I've also been interested in using this package to compare both 2D and 3D space use in ecology, but I wasn't sure how to extract the 2D density estimates. I tested this method by estimating the area of an "animal" which was limited to the area of a circle with a known radius. Below is the code:
set.seed(123)
require(GEOmap)
require(kde)
# need this library for the inpoly function
# Create a data frame centered at coordinates 0,0
data = data.frame(x=0,y=0)
# Create a vector of radians from 0 to 2*pi for making a circle to
# test the area
circle = seq(0,2*pi,length=100)
# Select a radius for your circle
radius = 10
# Create a buffer for when you simulate points (this will be more clear below)
buffer = radius+2
# Simulate x and y coordinates from uniform distribution and combine
# values into a dataframe
createPointsX = runif(1000,min = data$x-buffer, max = data$x+buffer)
createPointsY = runif(1000,min = data$y-buffer, max = data$y+buffer)
data1 = data.frame(x=createPointsX,y=createPointsY)
# Plot the raw data
plot(data1$x,data1$y)
# Calculate the coordinates used to create a cirle with center 0,0 and
# with radius specified above
coords = as.data.frame(t(rbind(data$x+sin(circle)*radius,
data$y+cos(circle)*radius)))
names(coords) = c("x","y")
# Add circle to plot with red line
lines(coords$x,coords$y,col=2,lwd=2)
# Use the inpoly function to calculate whether points lie within
# the circle or not.
inp = inpoly(data1$x, data1$y, coords)
data1 = data1[inp == 1,]
# Finally add points that lie with the circle as blue filled dots
points(data1$x,data1$y,pch=19,col="blue")
# Radius of the circle (known area)
pi * radius^2
#[1] 314.1593
# Sub in your own data here to calculate 95% homerange or 50% core area usage
H.pi = Hpi(data1,binned=T)
fhat = kde(data1,H=H.pi)
ct1 = contourSizes(fhat, cont = 95, approx=TRUE)
# Compare the known area of the circle to the 95% contour size
ct1
# 5%
# 291.466
I've also tried creating 2 un-connected circles and testing the contourSizes() function and it seems to work really well on disjointed distributions.
I am using the ks package from R to estimate 2d space utilization using distance and depth information. What I would like to do is to use the 95% contour output to get the maximum vertical and horizontal distance. So essentially, I want to be able to get the dimensions or measurements of the resulting 95% contour.
Here is a piece of code with as an example,
require(ks)
dist<-c(1650,1300,3713,3718)
depth<-c(22,19.5,20.5,8.60)
dd<-data.frame(cbind(dist,depth))
## auto bandwidth selection
H.pi2<-Hpi(dd,binned=TRUE)*1
ddhat<-kde(dd,H=H.pi2)
plot(ddhat,cont=c(95),lwd=1.5,display="filled.contour2",col=c(NA,"palegreen"),
xlab="",ylab="",las=1,ann=F,bty="l",xaxs="i",yaxs="i",
xlim=c(0,max(dd[,1]+dd[,1]*0.4)),ylim=c(60,-3))
Any information about how to do this will be very helpful. Thanks in advance,
To create a 95% contour polygon from your 'kde' object:
library(raster)
im.kde <- image2Grid (list(x = ddhat$eval.points[[1]], y = ddhat$eval.points[[2]], z = ddhat$estimate))
kr <- raster(im.kde)
It is likely that one will want to resample this raster to a higher resolution before constructing polygons, and include the following two lines, before creation of the polygon object:
new.rast <- raster(extent(im.kde),res = c(50,50))
kr <- resample(kr, new.rast)
bin.kr <- kr
bin.kr[bin.kr < contourLevels(k, prob = 0.05)]<-NA
bin.kr[bin.kr > 0]<-1
k.poly<-rasterToPolygons(bin.kr,dissolve=T)
Note that the results are similar, but not identical, to Hawthorne Beier's GME function 'kde'. He does use the kde function from ks, but must do something slightly different for the output polygon.
At the moment I'm going for the "any information" prize rather than attempting a final answer. The ks:::plot.kde function dispatches to ks:::plotkde.2d in this case. It works its magic through side effects and I cannot get these functions to return values that can be inspected in code. You would need to hack the plotkde.2d function to return the values used to plot the contour lines. You can visualize what is in ddhat$estimate with:
persp(ddhat$estimate)
It appears that contourLevels examines the estimate-matrix and finds the value at which greater than the specified % of the total density will reside.
> contourLevels(ddhat, 0.95)
95%
1.891981e-05
And then draws the contout based on which values exceed that level. (I just haven't found the code that does that yet.)
I have a centroid, e.g., A. and I have other 100 points. All of these points are of high-dimensions, e.g, 1000 dimensions. Is there a way to visualize these points in a two-dimensional space in-terms of their distance with A.
A common (though simple) way to visualize high-dimensional points in low dimensional space is to use some form of multi-dimensional scaling:
dat <- matrix(runif(1000*99),99,1000)
#Combine with "special" point
dat <- rbind(rep(0.1,1000),dat)
out <- cmdscale(dist(dat),k = 2)
#Plot everything, highlighting our "special" point
plot(out)
points(out[1,1],out[1,2],col = "red")
You can also check out isoMDS or sammon in the MASS package for other implementations in R.
The distance (by which I assume you mean the norm of the difference vector) is only 1 value, so you can calculate these norms and show them on a 1D plot, but for 2D you'll need a second parameter.