I have a list like this:
A B score
B C score
A C score
......
where the first two columns contain the variable name and third column contains the score between both. Total number of variables is 250,000 (A,B,C....). And the score is a float [0,1]. The file is approximately 50 GB. And the pairs of A,B where scores are 1, have been removed as more than half the entries were 1.
I wanted to perform hierarchical clustering on the data.
Should I convert the linear form to a matrix with 250,000 rows and 250,000 columns? Or should I partition the data and do the clustering?
I'm clueless with this. Please help!
Thanks.
Your input data already is the matrix.
However hierarchical clustering usually scales O(n^3). That won't work with your data sets size. Plus, they usually need more than one copy of the matrix. You may need 1TB of RAM then... 2*8*250000*250000is a lot.
Some special cases can run in O(n^2): SLINK does. If your data is nicely sorted, it should be possible to run single-link in a single pass over your file. But you will have to implement this yourself. Don't even think of using R or something fancy.
Related
I have a r code question that has kept me from completing several tasks for the last year, but I am relatively new to r. I am trying to loop over a list to create two variables with a specified correlation structure. I have been able to "cobble" this together with a "for" loop. To further complicate matters, I need to be able to put the correlation number into a data frame two times.
For my ultimate usage, I am concerned about speed, efficiency, and long-term effectiveness of my code.
library(mvtnorm)
n=100
d = NULL
col = c(0, .3, .5)
for (j in 1:length(col)){
X.corr = matrix(c(1, col[j], col[j], 1), nrow=2, ncol=2)
x=rmvnorm(n, mean=c(0,0), sigma=X.corr)
x1=x[,1]
x2=x[,2]
}
d = rbind(d, c(j))
Let me describe my code, so my logic is clear. This is part of a larger simulation. I am trying to draw 2 correlated variables from the mvtnorm function with 3 different correlation levels per pass using 100 observations [toy data to get the coding correct]. d is a empty data frame. The 3 correlation levels will occur in the following way pass 1 uses correlation 0 then create the variables, and yes other code will occur; pass 2 uses correlation .3 to create 2 new variables, and then other code will occur; pass 3 uses correlation .5 to create 2 new variables, and then other code will occur. Within my larger code, the for-loop gets the job done. The last line puts the number of the correlation into the data frame. I realize as presented here it will only put 1 number into this data frame, but when it is incorporated into my larger code it works as desired by putting 3 different numbers in a single column (1=0, 2=.3, and 3=.5). To reiterate, the for-loop gets the job done, but I believe there is a better way--perhaps something in the apply family. I do not know how to construct this and still access which correlation is being used. Would someone help me develop this little piece of code? Thank you.
I have a list of matrices containing association measurements between GPS tracked animals. One matrix in the list is observed association rates, the others are association rates for randomized versions of the GPS tracking trajectories. For example, I currently have 99 permutations of randomized tracking trajectories resulting in a list of 99 animal association matrices, plus the observed association matrix. I am expecting that for the animals that belong to the same pack, the observed association rates will be higher than the randomized association rates. Accordingly, I would like to determine the rank of the observed rates compared to the randomized rates for each dyad (cell). Essentially, I am doing a rank-permutation test. However, since I am only really concerned with determining if the observed association data is greater than the randomized trajectory association data, any result just giving the rank of the observed cells is sufficient.
ls <- list(matrix(10:18,3,3), matrix(18:10,3,3))
I've seen using sapply can get the ranks of particular cells. Could I do the following for all cells and take the final number in the resulting vector to get the rank of the cell in that position in the list (knowing the position of the observed data in the list of matrices, e.g. last).
rank(sapply(ls, '[',1,1))
The ideal result would be a matrix of the same form as those in the list giving the rank of the observed data, although any similar solutions are welcome. Thanks in advance.
You can proceed that way, but there are cleaner and quicker methods to get what you want.
Here's some code that would take your ls produce a 3x3 matrix with the following properties:
if the entry in ls[[1]] is greater than the corresponding entry of ls[[2]], record a 1
if the entry in ls[[1]] is less than the corresponding entry of ls[[2]], record a 2
if the entries are equal, record a 1.5
result <- 1 * (ls[[1]] > ls[[2]]) + 2 * (ls[[1]] < ls[[2]]) + 1.5 * (ls[[1]] == ls[[2]])
How it works: when we do something like ls[[1]] > ls[[2]], we are ripping out the matrices of interest and directly comparing them. The result of this bit of code is a T/F-populated matrix, which is secretly coded as a 0/1 matrix. We can then multiply it by whatever coefficient we want to represent that situation.
I have a dataset that looks like the one shown in the code.
What I am guaranteed is that the "(var)x" (domain) of the variable is always between 0 and 1. The "(var)y" (co-domain) can vary but is also bounded, but within a larger range.
I am trying to get an average over the "(var)x" but over the different variables.
I would like some kind of selective averaging, not sure how to do this in R.
ax=c(0.11,0.22,0.33,0.44,0.55,0.68,0.89)
ay=c(0.2,0.4,0.5,0.42,0.5,0.43,0.6)
bx=c(0.14,0.23,0.46,0.51,0.78,0.91)
by=c(0.1,0.2,0.52,0.46,0.4,0.41)
qx=c(0.12,0.27,0.36,0.48,0.51,0.76,0.79,0.97)
qy=c(0.03,0.2,0.52,0.4,0.45,0.48,0.61,0.9)
a<-list(ax,ay)
b<-list(bx,by)
q<-list(qx,qy)
What I would like to have something like
avgd_x = c(0.12,0.27,0.36,0.48,0.51,0.76,0.79,0.97)
and
avgd_y would have contents that would
find the value of ay and by at 0.12 and find the mean with ay, by and qy.
Similarly and so forth for all the values in the vector with the largest number of elements.
How can I do this in R ?
P.S: This is a toy dataset, my dataset is spread over files and I am reading them with a custom function, but the raw data is available as shown in the code below.
Edit:
Some clarification:
avgd_y would have the length of the largest vector, for example, in the case above, avgd_y would be (ay'+by'+qy)/3 where ay' and by' would be vectors which have c(ay(qx(i))) and c(by(qx(i))) for i from 1 to length of qx, ay' and by' would have values interpolated at data points of qx
I am working with a large federal dataset with thousands of observations and thousands of variables. Replicate weights are provided. I am using the "survey" package in R to apply these weights:
els.weighted=svrepdesign(data=els, repweights = ~els$F3F1PNLWT,
combined.weights = TRUE).
I am interested in some categorical descriptive characteristics of a subset of the population, such as family living arrangements. I want to get these sorted out into a contingency table that shows frequency. I would like to sort people based on four variables (none of which are binary, but all of which are numeric) This is what I would like to get:
.
The blank boxes are where the cross-tabulation/frequency counts would show. (I only put in 3 columns beneath F1COMP for brevity's sake, but it has 9 outcomes – indexed 1-9)
My current code: svyby(~F1FCOMP, ~F1RTRCC +BYS33C +F1A10 +byurban, els.weighted, svytotal)
This code does sort the data, but it sorts every single combination, by default. I want them pared down to represent only specific subpopulations of each variable. I tried:
svyby(~F1FCOMP, ~F1RTRCC==2 |F1RTRCC==3 +BYS33C==1 +F1A10==2 | F1A10==3 +byurban==3, els.weighted, svytotal)
But got stopped:
Error: unexpected '==' in "svyby(~F1FCOMP, ~F1RTRCC==2 |F1RTRCC==3 +BYS33C=="
Additionally, my current version of the code tells me how many cases occur for each combination, This is a picture of what my current output looks like. There are hundreds more rows, 1 for each combination, when I keep scrolling down.
This is a picture of what my current output looks like. There are hundreds more rows, 1 for each combination, when I keep scrolling down
.
You can see in that picture that I only get one number for F1FCOMP per row – the number of cases who fit the specified combination – a specific subpopulation. I want to know more about that subpopulation. That is, F1COMP has nine different outcomes (indexed 1-9), and I want to see how many of each subpopulation fits into each of the 9 outcomes of F1COMP.
I think I have a rather simple problem but I can't figure out the best approach. I have a vector with 30 different values. Now I need to divide the vector into 10 groups in such a way that the mean within group variance is as small as possible. the size of the groups is not important, it can anything between one and 21.
Example. Let's say I have vector of six values, that I have to split into three groups:
Myvector <- c(0.88,0.79,0.78,0.62,0.60,0.58)
Obviously the solution would be:
Group1 <-c(0.88)
Group2 <-c(0.79,0.78)
Group3 <-c(0.62,0.60,0.58)
Is there a function that gives the same outcome as the example and that I can use for my vector withe 30 values?
Many thanks in advance.
It sounds like you want to do k-means clustering. Something like this would work
kmeans(Myvector,3, algo="Lloyd")
Note that I changed the default algorithm to match your desired output. If you read the ?kmeans help page you will see that there are different algorithms to calculate the different clusters because it's not a trivial computational problem. They might necessarily guarantee optimality.