Data Analysis and Machine Learning: Logistic Regression

Plans for week 38

• Thursday: Summary of regression methods and discussion of project 1. Start Logistic Regression
• Friday: Logistic Regression and Optimization methods

Thursday September 23

Ridge and LASSO Regression, reminder

The expression for the standard Mean Squared Error (MSE) which we used to define our cost function and the equations for the ordinary least squares (OLS) method, that is our optimization problem is $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\left\{\left(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\right)^T\left(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\right)\right\}. $$ or we can state it as $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\left(y_i-\tilde{y}_i\right)^2=\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2, $$ where we have used the definition of a norm-2 vector, that is $$ \vert\vert \boldsymbol{x}\vert\vert_2 = \sqrt{\sum_i x_i^2}. $$

By minimizing the above equation with respect to the parameters \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) we could then obtain an analytical expression for the parameters \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \). We can add a regularization parameter \( \lambda \) by defining a new cost function to be optimized, that is $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2+\lambda\vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2 $$

which leads to the Ridge regression minimization problem where we require that \( \vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2\le t \), where \( t \) is a finite number larger than zero. By defining $$ C(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2+\lambda\vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_1, $$

we have a new optimization equation $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2+\lambda\vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_1 $$ which leads to Lasso regression. Lasso stands for least absolute shrinkage and selection operator.

Here we have defined the norm-1 as $$ \vert\vert \boldsymbol{x}\vert\vert_1 = \sum_i \vert x_i\vert. $$

Various steps in cross-validation

When the repetitive splitting of the data set is done randomly, samples may accidently end up in a fast majority of the splits in either training or test set. Such samples may have an unbalanced influence on either model building or prediction evaluation. To avoid this \( k \)-fold cross-validation structures the data splitting. The samples are divided into \( k \) more or less equally sized exhaustive and mutually exclusive subsets. In turn (at each split) one of these subsets plays the role of the test set while the union of the remaining subsets constitutes the training set. Such a splitting warrants a balanced representation of each sample in both training and test set over the splits. Still the division into the \( k \) subsets involves a degree of randomness. This may be fully excluded when choosing \( k=n \). This particular case is referred to as leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV).

How to set up the cross-validation for Ridge and/or Lasso

• Define a range of interest for the penalty parameter.
• Divide the data set into training and test set comprising samples \( \{1, \ldots, n\} \setminus i \) and \( \{ i \} \), respectively.
• Fit the linear regression model by means of ridge estimation for each \( \lambda \) in the grid using the training set, and the corresponding estimate of the error variance \( \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{-i}^2(\lambda) \), as

• Evaluate the prediction performance of these models on the test set by \( \log\{L[y_i, \boldsymbol{X}_{i, \ast}; \boldsymbol{\beta}_{-i}(\lambda), \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{-i}^2(\lambda)]\} \). Or, by the prediction error \( |y_i - \boldsymbol{X}_{i, \ast} \boldsymbol{\beta}_{-i}(\lambda)| \), the relative error, the error squared or the R2 score function.
• Repeat the first three steps such that each sample plays the role of the test set once.
• Average the prediction performances of the test sets at each grid point of the penalty bias/parameter. It is an estimate of the prediction performance of the model corresponding to this value of the penalty parameter on novel data. It is defined as

Cross-validation in brief

For the various values of \( k \)

1. shuffle the dataset randomly.
2. Split the dataset into \( k \) groups.
3. For each unique group:
   1. Decide which group to use as set for test data
   2. Take the remaining groups as a training data set
   3. Fit a model on the training set and evaluate it on the test set
   4. Retain the evaluation score and discard the model
4. Summarize the model using the sample of model evaluation scores

Code Example for Cross-validation and \( k \)-fold Cross-validation

The code here uses Ridge regression with cross-validation (CV) resampling and \( k \)-fold CV in order to fit a specific polynomial.

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold
from sklearn.linear_model import Ridge
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score
from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures

# A seed just to ensure that the random numbers are the same for every run.
# Useful for eventual debugging.
np.random.seed(3155)

# Generate the data.
nsamples = 100
x = np.random.randn(nsamples)
y = 3*x**2 + np.random.randn(nsamples)

## Cross-validation on Ridge regression using KFold only

# Decide degree on polynomial to fit
poly = PolynomialFeatures(degree = 6)

# Decide which values of lambda to use
nlambdas = 500
lambdas = np.logspace(-3, 5, nlambdas)

# Initialize a KFold instance
k = 5
kfold = KFold(n_splits = k)

# Perform the cross-validation to estimate MSE
scores_KFold = np.zeros((nlambdas, k))

i = 0
for lmb in lambdas:
    ridge = Ridge(alpha = lmb)
    j = 0
    for train_inds, test_inds in kfold.split(x):
        xtrain = x[train_inds]
        ytrain = y[train_inds]

        xtest = x[test_inds]
        ytest = y[test_inds]

        Xtrain = poly.fit_transform(xtrain[:, np.newaxis])
        ridge.fit(Xtrain, ytrain[:, np.newaxis])

        Xtest = poly.fit_transform(xtest[:, np.newaxis])
        ypred = ridge.predict(Xtest)

        scores_KFold[i,j] = np.sum((ypred - ytest[:, np.newaxis])**2)/np.size(ypred)

        j += 1
    i += 1


estimated_mse_KFold = np.mean(scores_KFold, axis = 1)

## Cross-validation using cross_val_score from sklearn along with KFold

# kfold is an instance initialized above as:
# kfold = KFold(n_splits = k)

estimated_mse_sklearn = np.zeros(nlambdas)
i = 0
for lmb in lambdas:
    ridge = Ridge(alpha = lmb)

    X = poly.fit_transform(x[:, np.newaxis])
    estimated_mse_folds = cross_val_score(ridge, X, y[:, np.newaxis], scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=kfold)

    # cross_val_score return an array containing the estimated negative mse for every fold.
    # we have to the the mean of every array in order to get an estimate of the mse of the model
    estimated_mse_sklearn[i] = np.mean(-estimated_mse_folds)

    i += 1

## Plot and compare the slightly different ways to perform cross-validation

plt.figure()

plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), estimated_mse_sklearn, label = 'cross_val_score')
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), estimated_mse_KFold, 'r--', label = 'KFold')

plt.xlabel('log10(lambda)')
plt.ylabel('mse')

plt.legend()

plt.show()

To think about, first part

When you are comparing your own code with for example Scikit-Learn's library, there are some technicalities to keep in mind. The examples here demonstrate some of these aspects with potential pitfalls.

The discussion here focuses on the role of the intercept, how we can set up the design matrix, what scaling we should use and other topics which tend confuse us.

The intercept can be interpreted as the expected value of our target/output variables when all other predictors are set to zero. Thus, if we cannot assume that the expected outputs/targets are zero when all predictors are zero (the columns in the design matrix), it may be a bad idea to implement a model which penalizes the intercept. Furthermore, in for example Ridge and Lasso regression, the default solutions from the library Scikit-Learn (when not shrinking \( \beta_0 \)) for the unknown parameters \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \), are derived under the assumption that both \( \boldsymbol{y} \) and \( \boldsymbol{X} \) are zero centered, that is we subtract the mean values.

More thinking

If our predictors represent different scales, then it is important to standardize the design matrix \( \boldsymbol{X} \) by subtracting the mean of each column from the corresponding column and dividing the column with its standard deviation. Most machine learning libraries do this as a default. This means that if you compare your code with the results from a given library, the results may differ.

The Standadscaler function in Scikit-Learn does this for us. For the data sets we have been studying in our various examples, the data are in many cases already scaled and there is no need to scale them. You as a user of different machine learning algorithms, should always perform a survey of your data, with a critical assessment of them in case you need to scale the data.

If you need to scale the data, not doing so will give an unfair penalization of the parameters since their magnitude depends on the scale of their corresponding predictor.

Suppose as an example that you you have an input variable given by the heights of different persons. Human height might be measured in inches or meters or kilometers. If measured in kilometers, a standard linear regression model with this predictor would probably give a much bigger coefficient term, than if measured in millimeters. This can clearly lead to problems in evaluating the cost/loss functions.

Still thinking

Keep in mind that when you transform your data set before training a model, the same transformation needs to be done on your eventual new data set before making a prediction. If we translate this into a Python code, it would could be implemented as follows

#Model training, we compute the mean value of y and X
y_train_mean = np.mean(y_train)
X_train_mean = np.mean(X_train,axis=0)
X_train = X_train - X_train_mean
y_train = y_train - y_train_mean

# The we fit our model with the training data
trained_model = some_model.fit(X_train,y_train)


#Model prediction, we need also to transform our data set used for the prediction.
X_test = X_test - X_train_mean #Use mean from training data
y_pred = trained_model(X_test)
y_pred = y_pred + y_train_mean

What does centering (subtracting the mean values) mean mathematically?

Let us try to understand what this may imply mathematically when we subtract the mean values, also known as zero centering. For simplicity, we will focus on ordinary regression, as done in the above example.

The cost/loss function for regression is $$ C(\beta_0, \beta_1, ... , \beta_{p-1}) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n} \left(y_i - \beta_0 - \sum_{j=1}^{p-1} X_{ij}\beta_j\right)^2,. $$ Recall also that we use the squared value since this leads to an increase of the penalty for higher differences between predicted and output/target values.

What we have done is to single out the \( \beta_0 \) term in the definition of the mean squared error (MSE). The design matrix \( X \) does in this case not contain any intercept column. When we take the derivative with respect to \( \beta_0 \), we want the derivative to obey $$ \frac{\partial C}{\partial \beta_j} = 0, $$

for all \( j \). For \( \beta_0 \) we have $$ \frac{\partial C}{\partial \beta_0} = -\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(y_i - \beta_0 - \sum_{j=1}^{p-1} X_{ij} \beta_j\right). $$ Multiplying away the constant \( 2/n \), we obtain $$ \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \beta_0 = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_i - \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \sum_{j=1}^{p-1} X_{ij} \beta_j. $$

Further Manipulations

We assume that every column of \( \boldsymbol{X} \) is centered, which we can do by subtracting the mean,

X = X - np.mean(X,axis=0)

This means that we need to rewrite \( X_{ij} \) as \( \tilde{X}_{ij}=X_{ij}-\mu_j \), where $$ \mu_j = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}X_{ij}. $$

Let us special first to the case where we have only two parameters \( \beta_0 \) and \( \beta_1 \). Our result for \( \beta_0 \) simplifies then to $$ n\beta_0 = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_i - \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} X_{i1} \beta_1. $$ Assuming that the matrix elements \( X_{i1} \) are centered, what we have is $$ \beta_0 = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_i - \beta_1\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(X_{i1}-\mu_{1}\right), $$ where $$ \mu_1=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (X_{i1}, $$ and if we define the mean value of the outputs as $$ \mu_y=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_i, $$ we have $$ \beta_0 = \mu_y - \beta_1\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (X_{i1}-\mu_{1}), $$ and it is easy to see that the last sum equals zero! This means that we have $$ \beta_0 = \mu_y, $$ if the columns of the design matrix are centered. It is straight forward to generalize this results to more values of \( \beta \). We have thus $$ \beta_0 = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} y_i = \overline{\boldsymbol{y}}, $$ the average value of \( \boldsymbol{y} \).

Replacing \( y_i \) with \( y_i - \beta_0 = y_i - \overline{\boldsymbol{y}} \) and centering also our design matrix results in a cost function (in vector-matrix disguise) $$ C(\boldsymbol{\beta}) = (\boldsymbol{\tilde{y}} - \tilde{X}\boldsymbol{\beta})^T(\boldsymbol{\tilde{y}} - \tilde{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}). $$

Wrapping it up

If we minimize with respect to \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) we have then $$ \hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}} = (\tilde{X}^T\tilde{X})^{-1}\tilde{X}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{y}}, $$

where \( \boldsymbol{\tilde{y}} = \boldsymbol{y} - \overline{\boldsymbol{y}} \) and \( \tilde{X}_{ij} = X_{ij} - \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}X_{kj} \).

For Ridge regression we need to add \( \lambda \boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{\beta} \) to the cost function and get then $$ \hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}} = (\tilde{X}^T\tilde{X} + \lambda I)^{-1}\tilde{X}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{y}}. $$

What does this mean? And why do we insist on all this? Let us look at some examples.

Linear Regression code, Intercept handling first

This code shows a simple first-order fit to a data set using the above transformed data, where we consider the role of the intercept first, by either excluding it or including it (code example thanks to Øyvind Sigmundson Schøyen). Here our scaling of the data is done by subtracting the mean values only. Note also that we do not split the data into training and test.

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression


np.random.seed(2021)

def MSE(y_data,y_model):
    n = np.size(y_model)
    return np.sum((y_data-y_model)**2)/n


def fit_beta(X, y):
    return np.linalg.pinv(X.T @ X) @ X.T @ y


true_beta = [2, 0.5, 3.7]

x = np.linspace(0, 1, 11)
y = np.sum(
    np.asarray([x ** p * b for p, b in enumerate(true_beta)]), axis=0
) + 0.1 * np.random.normal(size=len(x))

degree = 3
X = np.zeros((len(x), degree))

# Include the intercept in the design matrix
for p in range(degree):
    X[:, p] = x ** p

beta = fit_beta(X, y)

# Intercept is included in the design matrix
skl = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=False).fit(X, y)

print(f"True beta: {true_beta}")
print(f"Fitted beta: {beta}")
print(f"Sklearn fitted beta: {skl.coef_}")
ypredictOwn = X @ beta
ypredictSKL = skl.predict(X)
print(f"MSE with intercept column")
print(MSE(y,ypredictOwn))
print(f"MSE with intercept column from SKL")
print(MSE(y,ypredictSKL))


plt.figure()
plt.scatter(x, y, label="Data")
plt.plot(x, X @ beta, label="Fit")
plt.plot(x, skl.predict(X), label="Sklearn (fit_intercept=False)")


# Do not include the intercept in the design matrix
X = np.zeros((len(x), degree - 1))

for p in range(degree - 1):
    X[:, p] = x ** (p + 1)

# Intercept is not included in the design matrix
skl = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=True).fit(X, y)

# Use centered values for X and y when computing coefficients
y_offset = np.average(y, axis=0)
X_offset = np.average(X, axis=0)

beta = fit_beta(X - X_offset, y - y_offset)
intercept = np.mean(y_offset - X_offset @ beta)

print(f"Manual intercept: {intercept}")
print(f"Fitted beta (wiothout intercept): {beta}")
print(f"Sklearn intercept: {skl.intercept_}")
print(f"Sklearn fitted beta (without intercept): {skl.coef_}")
ypredictOwn = X @ beta
ypredictSKL = skl.predict(X)
print(f"MSE with Manual intercept")
print(MSE(y,ypredictOwn))
print(f"MSE with Sklearn intercept")
print(MSE(y,ypredictSKL))

plt.plot(x, X @ beta + intercept, "--", label="Fit (manual intercept)")
plt.plot(x, skl.predict(X), "--", label="Sklearn (fit_intercept=True)")
plt.grid()
plt.legend()

plt.show()

The intercept is the value of our output/target variable when all our features are zero and our function crosses the \( y \)-axis (for a one-dimensional case).

Printing the MSE, we see first that both methods give the same MSE, as they should. However, when we move to for example Ridge regression, the way we treat the intercept may give a larger or smaller MSE, meaning that the MSE can be penalized by the value of the intercept. Not including the intercept in the fit, means that the regularization term does not include \( \beta_0 \). For different values of \( \lambda \), this may lead to differeing MSE values.

Code Examples

Armed with this wisdom, we attempt first simply set the intercept equal to False in our implementation of Ridge regression for yet another vanilla data set.

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn import linear_model

def MSE(y_data,y_model):
    n = np.size(y_model)
    return np.sum((y_data-y_model)**2)/n


# A seed just to ensure that the random numbers are the same for every run.
# Useful for eventual debugging.
np.random.seed(3155)

n = 100
x = np.random.rand(n)
y = np.exp(-x**2) + 1.5 * np.exp(-(x-2)**2)

Maxpolydegree = 20
X = np.zeros((n,Maxpolydegree))
#We include explicitely the intercept column
for degree in range(Maxpolydegree):
    X[:,degree] = x**degree
# We split the data in test and training data
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)

p = Maxpolydegree
I = np.eye(p,p)
# Decide which values of lambda to use
nlambdas = 4
MSEOwnRidgePredict = np.zeros(nlambdas)
MSERidgePredict = np.zeros(nlambdas)
lambdas = np.logspace(-4, 4, nlambdas)
for i in range(nlambdas):
    lmb = lambdas[i]
    OwnRidgeBeta = np.linalg.pinv(X_train.T @ X_train+lmb*I) @ X_train.T @ y_train
    # Note: we include the intercept column and no scaling
    RegRidge = linear_model.Ridge(lmb,fit_intercept=False)
    RegRidge.fit(X_train,y_train)
    # and then make the prediction
    ytildeOwnRidge = X_train @ OwnRidgeBeta
    ypredictOwnRidge = X_test @ OwnRidgeBeta
    ytildeRidge = RegRidge.predict(X_train)
    ypredictRidge = RegRidge.predict(X_test)
    MSEOwnRidgePredict[i] = MSE(y_test,ypredictOwnRidge)
    MSERidgePredict[i] = MSE(y_test,ypredictRidge)
    print("Beta values for own Ridge implementation")
    print(OwnRidgeBeta)
    print("Beta values for Scikit-Learn Ridge implementation")
    print(RegRidge.coef_)
    print("MSE values for own Ridge implementation")
    print(MSEOwnRidgePredict[i])
    print("MSE values for Scikit-Learn Ridge implementation")
    print(MSERidgePredict[i])

# Now plot the results
plt.figure()
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), MSEOwnRidgePredict, 'r', label = 'MSE own Ridge Test')
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), MSERidgePredict, 'g', label = 'MSE Ridge Test')

plt.xlabel('log10(lambda)')
plt.ylabel('MSE')
plt.legend()
plt.show()

The results here agree when we force Scikit-Learn's Ridge function to include the first column in our design matrix. We see that the results agree very well. What happens if we do not include the intercept in our fit? Let us see how we can change this code by zero centering.

Taking out the mean

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn import linear_model
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler

def MSE(y_data,y_model):
    n = np.size(y_model)
    return np.sum((y_data-y_model)**2)/n
# A seed just to ensure that the random numbers are the same for every run.
# Useful for eventual debugging.
np.random.seed(315)

n = 100
x = np.random.rand(n)
y = np.exp(-x**2) + 1.5 * np.exp(-(x-2)**2)

Maxpolydegree = 20
X = np.zeros((n,Maxpolydegree-1))

for degree in range(1,Maxpolydegree): #No intercept column
    X[:,degree-1] = x**(degree)

# We split the data in test and training data
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)





#For our own implementation, we will need to deal with the intercept by centering the design matrix and the target variable
X_train_mean = np.mean(X_train,axis=0)
#Center by removing mean from each feature
X_train_scaled = X_train - X_train_mean 
X_test_scaled = X_test - X_train_mean
#The model intercept (called y_scaler) is given by the mean of target variable (IF X is centered)
#Remove the intercept from the training data.
y_scaler = np.mean(y_train)           
y_train_scaled = y_train - y_scaler   


p = Maxpolydegree-1
I = np.eye(p,p)
# Decide which values of lambda to use
nlambdas = 4
MSEOwnRidgePredict = np.zeros(nlambdas)
MSERidgePredict = np.zeros(nlambdas)

lambdas = np.logspace(-4, 1, nlambdas)
for i in range(nlambdas):
    lmb = lambdas[i]
    OwnRidgeBeta = np.linalg.pinv(X_train_scaled.T @ X_train_scaled+lmb*I) @ X_train_scaled.T @ (y_train_scaled)
    intercept_ = y_scaler - X_train_mean@OwnRidgeBeta #The intercept can be shifted so the model can predict on uncentered data
    #Add intercept to prediction
    ypredictOwnRidge = X_test @ OwnRidgeBeta + intercept_ 
    #Add intercept to prediction
    ypredictOwnRidge = X_test_scaled @ OwnRidgeBeta + y_scaler 
    RegRidge = linear_model.Ridge(lmb)
    RegRidge.fit(X_train,y_train)
    ypredictRidge = RegRidge.predict(X_test)
    MSEOwnRidgePredict[i] = MSE(y_test,ypredictOwnRidge)
    MSERidgePredict[i] = MSE(y_test,ypredictRidge)
    print("Beta values for own Ridge implementation")
    print(OwnRidgeBeta) #Intercept is given by mean of target variable
    print("Beta values for Scikit-Learn Ridge implementation")
    print(RegRidge.coef_)
    print('Intercept from own implementation:')
    print(intercept_)
    print('Intercept from Scikit-Learn Ridge implementation')
    print(RegRidge.intercept_)
    print("MSE values for own Ridge implementation")
    print(MSEOwnRidgePredict[i])
    print("MSE values for Scikit-Learn Ridge implementation")
    print(MSERidgePredict[i])


# Now plot the results
plt.figure()
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), MSEOwnRidgePredict, 'b--', label = 'MSE own Ridge Test')
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), MSERidgePredict, 'g--', label = 'MSE SL Ridge Test')
plt.xlabel('log10(lambda)')
plt.ylabel('MSE')
plt.legend()
plt.show()

More complicated Example: The Ising model

The one-dimensional Ising model with nearest neighbor interaction, no external field and a constant coupling constant \( J \) is given by $$ \begin{align} H = -J \sum_{k}^L s_k s_{k + 1}, \label{_auto1} \end{align} $$

where \( s_i \in \{-1, 1\} \) and \( s_{N + 1} = s_1 \). The number of spins in the system is determined by \( L \). For the one-dimensional system there is no phase transition.

We will look at a system of \( L = 40 \) spins with a coupling constant of \( J = 1 \). To get enough training data we will generate 10000 states with their respective energies.

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.axes_grid1 import make_axes_locatable
import seaborn as sns
import scipy.linalg as scl
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
import tqdm
sns.set(color_codes=True)
cmap_args=dict(vmin=-1., vmax=1., cmap='seismic')

L = 40
n = int(1e4)

spins = np.random.choice([-1, 1], size=(n, L))
J = 1.0

energies = np.zeros(n)

for i in range(n):
    energies[i] = - J * np.dot(spins[i], np.roll(spins[i], 1))

Here we use ordinary least squares regression to predict the energy for the nearest neighbor one-dimensional Ising model on a ring, i.e., the endpoints wrap around. We will use linear regression to fit a value for the coupling constant to achieve this.

Reformulating the problem to suit regression

A more general form for the one-dimensional Ising model is $$ \begin{align} H = - \sum_j^L \sum_k^L s_j s_k J_{jk}. \label{_auto2} \end{align} $$

Here we allow for interactions beyond the nearest neighbors and a state dependent coupling constant. This latter expression can be formulated as a matrix-product $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{H} = \boldsymbol{X} J, \label{_auto3} \end{align} $$

where \( X_{jk} = s_j s_k \) and \( J \) is a matrix which consists of the elements \( -J_{jk} \). This form of writing the energy fits perfectly with the form utilized in linear regression, that is $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{y} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}, \label{_auto4} \end{align} $$

We split the data in training and test data as discussed in the previous example

X = np.zeros((n, L ** 2))
for i in range(n):
    X[i] = np.outer(spins[i], spins[i]).ravel()
y = energies
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)

Linear regression

In the ordinary least squares method we choose the cost function $$ \begin{align} C(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\beta})= \frac{1}{n}\left\{(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})^T(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})\right\}. \label{_auto5} \end{align} $$

We then find the extremal point of \( C \) by taking the derivative with respect to \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) as discussed above. This yields the expression for \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) to be $$ \boldsymbol{\beta} = \frac{\boldsymbol{X}^T \boldsymbol{y}}{\boldsymbol{X}^T \boldsymbol{X}}, $$

which immediately imposes some requirements on \( \boldsymbol{X} \) as there must exist an inverse of \( \boldsymbol{X}^T \boldsymbol{X} \). If the expression we are modeling contains an intercept, i.e., a constant term, we must make sure that the first column of \( \boldsymbol{X} \) consists of \( 1 \). We do this here

X_train_own = np.concatenate(
    (np.ones(len(X_train))[:, np.newaxis], X_train),
    axis=1
)
X_test_own = np.concatenate(
    (np.ones(len(X_test))[:, np.newaxis], X_test),
    axis=1
)

def ols_inv(x: np.ndarray, y: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
    return scl.inv(x.T @ x) @ (x.T @ y)
beta = ols_inv(X_train_own, y_train)

Singular Value decomposition

Doing the inversion directly turns out to be a bad idea since the matrix \( \boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{X} \) is singular. An alternative approach is to use the singular value decomposition. Using the definition of the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse we can write the equation for \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) as $$ \boldsymbol{\beta} = \boldsymbol{X}^{+}\boldsymbol{y}, $$

where the pseudoinverse of \( \boldsymbol{X} \) is given by $$ \boldsymbol{X}^{+} = \frac{\boldsymbol{X}^T}{\boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{X}}. $$

Using singular value decomposition we can decompose the matrix \( \boldsymbol{X} = \boldsymbol{U}\boldsymbol{\Sigma} \boldsymbol{V}^T \), where \( \boldsymbol{U} \) and \( \boldsymbol{V} \) are orthogonal(unitary) matrices and \( \boldsymbol{\Sigma} \) contains the singular values (more details below). where \( X^{+} = V\Sigma^{+} U^T \). This reduces the equation for \( \omega \) to $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{\beta} = \boldsymbol{V}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{+} \boldsymbol{U}^T \boldsymbol{y}. \label{_auto6} \end{align} $$

Note that solving this equation by actually doing the pseudoinverse (which is what we will do) is not a good idea as this operation scales as \( \mathcal{O}(n^3) \), where \( n \) is the number of elements in a general matrix. Instead, doing \( QR \)-factorization and solving the linear system as an equation would reduce this down to \( \mathcal{O}(n^2) \) operations.

def ols_svd(x: np.ndarray, y: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
    u, s, v = scl.svd(x)
    return v.T @ scl.pinv(scl.diagsvd(s, u.shape[0], v.shape[0])) @ u.T @ y

beta = ols_svd(X_train_own,y_train)

When extracting the \( J \)-matrix we need to make sure that we remove the intercept, as is done here

J = beta[1:].reshape(L, L)

A way of looking at the coefficients in \( J \) is to plot the matrices as images.

fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J, **cmap_args)
plt.title("OLS", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)
plt.show()

It is interesting to note that OLS considers both \( J_{j, j + 1} = -0.5 \) and \( J_{j, j - 1} = -0.5 \) as valid matrix elements for \( J \). In our discussion below on hyperparameters and Ridge and Lasso regression we will see that this problem can be removed, partly and only with Lasso regression.

In this case our matrix inversion was actually possible. The obvious question now is what is the mathematics behind the SVD?

The one-dimensional Ising model

Let us bring back the Ising model again, but now with an additional focus on Ridge and Lasso regression as well. We repeat some of the basic parts of the Ising model and the setup of the training and test data. The one-dimensional Ising model with nearest neighbor interaction, no external field and a constant coupling constant \( J \) is given by $$ \begin{align} H = -J \sum_{k}^L s_k s_{k + 1}, \label{_auto7} \end{align} $$ where \( s_i \in \{-1, 1\} \) and \( s_{N + 1} = s_1 \). The number of spins in the system is determined by \( L \). For the one-dimensional system there is no phase transition.

We will look at a system of \( L = 40 \) spins with a coupling constant of \( J = 1 \). To get enough training data we will generate 10000 states with their respective energies.

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.axes_grid1 import make_axes_locatable
import seaborn as sns
import scipy.linalg as scl
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
import sklearn.linear_model as skl
import tqdm
sns.set(color_codes=True)
cmap_args=dict(vmin=-1., vmax=1., cmap='seismic')

L = 40
n = int(1e4)

spins = np.random.choice([-1, 1], size=(n, L))
J = 1.0

energies = np.zeros(n)

for i in range(n):
    energies[i] = - J * np.dot(spins[i], np.roll(spins[i], 1))

A more general form for the one-dimensional Ising model is $$ \begin{align} H = - \sum_j^L \sum_k^L s_j s_k J_{jk}. \label{_auto8} \end{align} $$

Here we allow for interactions beyond the nearest neighbors and a more adaptive coupling matrix. This latter expression can be formulated as a matrix-product on the form $$ \begin{align} H = X J, \label{_auto9} \end{align} $$

where \( X_{jk} = s_j s_k \) and \( J \) is the matrix consisting of the elements \( -J_{jk} \). This form of writing the energy fits perfectly with the form utilized in linear regression, viz. $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{y} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}. \label{_auto10} \end{align} $$ We organize the data as we did above

X = np.zeros((n, L ** 2))
for i in range(n):
    X[i] = np.outer(spins[i], spins[i]).ravel()
y = energies
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.96)

X_train_own = np.concatenate(
    (np.ones(len(X_train))[:, np.newaxis], X_train),
    axis=1
)

X_test_own = np.concatenate(
    (np.ones(len(X_test))[:, np.newaxis], X_test),
    axis=1
)

We will do all fitting with Scikit-Learn,

clf = skl.LinearRegression().fit(X_train, y_train)

When extracting the \( J \)-matrix we make sure to remove the intercept

J_sk = clf.coef_.reshape(L, L)

And then we plot the results

fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J_sk, **cmap_args)
plt.title("LinearRegression from Scikit-learn", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)
plt.show()

The results perfectly with our previous discussion where we used our own code.

Ridge regression

Having explored the ordinary least squares we move on to ridge regression. In ridge regression we include a regularizer. This involves a new cost function which leads to a new estimate for the weights \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \). This results in a penalized regression problem. The cost function is given by $$ \begin{align} C(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\beta}; \lambda) = (\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})^T(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y}) + \lambda \boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{\beta}. \label{_auto11} \end{align} $$

_lambda = 0.1
clf_ridge = skl.Ridge(alpha=_lambda).fit(X_train, y_train)
J_ridge_sk = clf_ridge.coef_.reshape(L, L)
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J_ridge_sk, **cmap_args)
plt.title("Ridge from Scikit-learn", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)

plt.show()

LASSO regression

In the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)-method we get a third cost function. $$ \begin{align} C(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\beta}; \lambda) = (\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})^T(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y}) + \lambda \sqrt{\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{\beta}}. \label{_auto12} \end{align} $$

Finding the extremal point of this cost function is not so straight-forward as in least squares and ridge. We will therefore rely solely on the function ``Lasso`` from Scikit-Learn.

clf_lasso = skl.Lasso(alpha=_lambda).fit(X_train, y_train)
J_lasso_sk = clf_lasso.coef_.reshape(L, L)
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J_lasso_sk, **cmap_args)
plt.title("Lasso from Scikit-learn", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)

plt.show()

It is quite striking how LASSO breaks the symmetry of the coupling constant as opposed to ridge and OLS. We get a sparse solution with \( J_{j, j + 1} = -1 \).

Performance as function of the regularization parameter

We see how the different models perform for a different set of values for \( \lambda \).

lambdas = np.logspace(-4, 5, 10)

train_errors = {
    "ols_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
    "ridge_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
    "lasso_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size)
}

test_errors = {
    "ols_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
    "ridge_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
    "lasso_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size)
}

plot_counter = 1

fig = plt.figure(figsize=(32, 54))

for i, _lambda in enumerate(tqdm.tqdm(lambdas)):
    for key, method in zip(
        ["ols_sk", "ridge_sk", "lasso_sk"],
        [skl.LinearRegression(), skl.Ridge(alpha=_lambda), skl.Lasso(alpha=_lambda)]
    ):
        method = method.fit(X_train, y_train)

        train_errors[key][i] = method.score(X_train, y_train)
        test_errors[key][i] = method.score(X_test, y_test)

        omega = method.coef_.reshape(L, L)

        plt.subplot(10, 5, plot_counter)
        plt.imshow(omega, **cmap_args)
        plt.title(r"%s, $\lambda = %.4f$" % (key, _lambda))
        plot_counter += 1

plt.show()

We see that LASSO reaches a good solution for low values of \( \lambda \), but will "wither" when we increase \( \lambda \) too much. Ridge is more stable over a larger range of values for \( \lambda \), but eventually also fades away.

Finding the optimal value of \( \lambda \)

To determine which value of \( \lambda \) is best we plot the accuracy of the models when predicting the training and the testing set. We expect the accuracy of the training set to be quite good, but if the accuracy of the testing set is much lower this tells us that we might be subject to an overfit model. The ideal scenario is an accuracy on the testing set that is close to the accuracy of the training set.

fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))

colors = {
    "ols_sk": "r",
    "ridge_sk": "y",
    "lasso_sk": "c"
}

for key in train_errors:
    plt.semilogx(
        lambdas,
        train_errors[key],
        colors[key],
        label="Train {0}".format(key),
        linewidth=4.0
    )

for key in test_errors:
    plt.semilogx(
        lambdas,
        test_errors[key],
        colors[key] + "--",
        label="Test {0}".format(key),
        linewidth=4.0
    )
plt.legend(loc="best", fontsize=18)
plt.xlabel(r"$\lambda$", fontsize=18)
plt.ylabel(r"$R^2$", fontsize=18)
plt.tick_params(labelsize=18)
plt.show()

From the above figure we can see that LASSO with \( \lambda = 10^{-2} \) achieves a very good accuracy on the test set. This by far surpasses the other models for all values of \( \lambda \).

Logistic Regression

In linear regression our main interest was centered on learning the coefficients of a functional fit (say a polynomial) in order to be able to predict the response of a continuous variable on some unseen data. The fit to the continuous variable \( y_i \) is based on some independent variables \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \). Linear regression resulted in analytical expressions for standard ordinary Least Squares or Ridge regression (in terms of matrices to invert) for several quantities, ranging from the variance and thereby the confidence intervals of the parameters \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) to the mean squared error. If we can invert the product of the design matrices, linear regression gives then a simple recipe for fitting our data.

Classification problems

Classification problems, however, are concerned with outcomes taking the form of discrete variables (i.e. categories). We may for example, on the basis of DNA sequencing for a number of patients, like to find out which mutations are important for a certain disease; or based on scans of various patients' brains, figure out if there is a tumor or not; or given a specific physical system, we'd like to identify its state, say whether it is an ordered or disordered system (typical situation in solid state physics); or classify the status of a patient, whether she/he has a stroke or not and many other similar situations.

The most common situation we encounter when we apply logistic regression is that of two possible outcomes, normally denoted as a binary outcome, true or false, positive or negative, success or failure etc.

Optimization and Deep learning

Logistic regression will also serve as our stepping stone towards neural network algorithms and supervised deep learning. For logistic learning, the minimization of the cost function leads to a non-linear equation in the parameters \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \). The optimization of the problem calls therefore for minimization algorithms. This forms the bottle neck of all machine learning algorithms, namely how to find reliable minima of a multi-variable function. This leads us to the family of gradient descent methods. The latter are the working horses of basically all modern machine learning algorithms.

We note also that many of the topics discussed here on logistic regression are also commonly used in modern supervised Deep Learning models, as we will see later.

Basics

We consider the case where the dependent variables, also called the responses or the outcomes, \( y_i \) are discrete and only take values from \( k=0,\dots,K-1 \) (i.e. \( K \) classes).

The goal is to predict the output classes from the design matrix \( \boldsymbol{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times p} \) made of \( n \) samples, each of which carries \( p \) features or predictors. The primary goal is to identify the classes to which new unseen samples belong.

Let us specialize to the case of two classes only, with outputs \( y_i=0 \) and \( y_i=1 \). Our outcomes could represent the status of a credit card user that could default or not on her/his credit card debt. That is $$ y_i = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & \mathrm{no}\\ 1 & \mathrm{yes} \end{bmatrix}. $$

Linear classifier

Before moving to the logistic model, let us try to use our linear regression model to classify these two outcomes. We could for example fit a linear model to the default case if \( y_i > 0.5 \) and the no default case \( y_i \leq 0.5 \).

We would then have our weighted linear combination, namely $$ \begin{equation} \boldsymbol{y} = \boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{\beta} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}, \label{_auto13} \end{equation} $$ where \( \boldsymbol{y} \) is a vector representing the possible outcomes, \( \boldsymbol{X} \) is our \( n\times p \) design matrix and \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) represents our estimators/predictors.

Some selected properties

The main problem with our function is that it takes values on the entire real axis. In the case of logistic regression, however, the labels \( y_i \) are discrete variables. A typical example is the credit card data discussed below here, where we can set the state of defaulting the debt to \( y_i=1 \) and not to \( y_i=0 \) for one the persons in the data set (see the full example below).

One simple way to get a discrete output is to have sign functions that map the output of a linear regressor to values \( \{0,1\} \), \( f(s_i)=sign(s_i)=1 \) if \( s_i\ge 0 \) and 0 if otherwise. We will encounter this model in our first demonstration of neural networks. Historically it is called the ``perceptron" model in the machine learning literature. This model is extremely simple. However, in many cases it is more favorable to use a ``soft" classifier that outputs the probability of a given category. This leads us to the logistic function.

Simple example

The following example on data for coronary heart disease (CHD) as function of age may serve as an illustration. In the code here we read and plot whether a person has had CHD (output = 1) or not (output = 0). This ouput is plotted the person's against age. Clearly, the figure shows that attempting to make a standard linear regression fit may not be very meaningful.

# Common imports
import os
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression, Ridge, Lasso
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.utils import resample
from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error
from IPython.display import display
from pylab import plt, mpl
plt.style.use('seaborn')
mpl.rcParams['font.family'] = 'serif'

# Where to save the figures and data files
PROJECT_ROOT_DIR = "Results"
FIGURE_ID = "Results/FigureFiles"
DATA_ID = "DataFiles/"

if not os.path.exists(PROJECT_ROOT_DIR):
    os.mkdir(PROJECT_ROOT_DIR)

if not os.path.exists(FIGURE_ID):
    os.makedirs(FIGURE_ID)

if not os.path.exists(DATA_ID):
    os.makedirs(DATA_ID)

def image_path(fig_id):
    return os.path.join(FIGURE_ID, fig_id)

def data_path(dat_id):
    return os.path.join(DATA_ID, dat_id)

def save_fig(fig_id):
    plt.savefig(image_path(fig_id) + ".png", format='png')

infile = open(data_path("chddata.csv"),'r')

# Read the chd data as  csv file and organize the data into arrays with age group, age, and chd
chd = pd.read_csv(infile, names=('ID', 'Age', 'Agegroup', 'CHD'))
chd.columns = ['ID', 'Age', 'Agegroup', 'CHD']
output = chd['CHD']
age = chd['Age']
agegroup = chd['Agegroup']
numberID  = chd['ID'] 
display(chd)

plt.scatter(age, output, marker='o')
plt.axis([18,70.0,-0.1, 1.2])
plt.xlabel(r'Age')
plt.ylabel(r'CHD')
plt.title(r'Age distribution and Coronary heart disease')
plt.show()

Plotting the mean value for each group

What we could attempt however is to plot the mean value for each group.

agegroupmean = np.array([0.1, 0.133, 0.250, 0.333, 0.462, 0.625, 0.765, 0.800])
group = np.array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8])
plt.plot(group, agegroupmean, "r-")
plt.axis([0,9,0, 1.0])
plt.xlabel(r'Age group')
plt.ylabel(r'CHD mean values')
plt.title(r'Mean values for each age group')
plt.show()

We are now trying to find a function \( f(y\vert x) \), that is a function which gives us an expected value for the output \( y \) with a given input \( x \). In standard linear regression with a linear dependence on \( x \), we would write this in terms of our model $$ f(y_i\vert x_i)=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_i. $$

This expression implies however that \( f(y_i\vert x_i) \) could take any value from minus infinity to plus infinity. If we however let \( f(y\vert y) \) be represented by the mean value, the above example shows us that we can constrain the function to take values between zero and one, that is we have \( 0 \le f(y_i\vert x_i) \le 1 \). Looking at our last curve we see also that it has an S-shaped form. This leads us to a very popular model for the function \( f \), namely the so-called Sigmoid function or logistic model. We will consider this function as representing the probability for finding a value of \( y_i \) with a given \( x_i \).

The logistic function

Another widely studied model, is the so-called perceptron model, which is an example of a "hard classification" model. We will encounter this model when we discuss neural networks as well. Each datapoint is deterministically assigned to a category (i.e \( y_i=0 \) or \( y_i=1 \)). In many cases, and the coronary heart disease data forms one of many such examples, it is favorable to have a "soft" classifier that outputs the probability of a given category rather than a single value. For example, given \( x_i \), the classifier outputs the probability of being in a category \( k \). Logistic regression is the most common example of a so-called soft classifier. In logistic regression, the probability that a data point \( x_i \) belongs to a category \( y_i=\{0,1\} \) is given by the so-called logit function (or Sigmoid) which is meant to represent the likelihood for a given event, $$ p(t) = \frac{1}{1+\mathrm \exp{-t}}=\frac{\exp{t}}{1+\mathrm \exp{t}}. $$ Note that \( 1-p(t)= p(-t) \).

Examples of likelihood functions used in logistic regression and nueral networks

The following code plots the logistic function, the step function and other functions we will encounter from here and on.

"""The sigmoid function (or the logistic curve) is a
function that takes any real number, z, and outputs a number (0,1).
It is useful in neural networks for assigning weights on a relative scale.
The value z is the weighted sum of parameters involved in the learning algorithm."""

import numpy
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math as mt

z = numpy.arange(-5, 5, .1)
sigma_fn = numpy.vectorize(lambda z: 1/(1+numpy.exp(-z)))
sigma = sigma_fn(z)

fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
ax.plot(z, sigma)
ax.set_ylim([-0.1, 1.1])
ax.set_xlim([-5,5])
ax.grid(True)
ax.set_xlabel('z')
ax.set_title('sigmoid function')

plt.show()

"""Step Function"""
z = numpy.arange(-5, 5, .02)
step_fn = numpy.vectorize(lambda z: 1.0 if z >= 0.0 else 0.0)
step = step_fn(z)

fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
ax.plot(z, step)
ax.set_ylim([-0.5, 1.5])
ax.set_xlim([-5,5])
ax.grid(True)
ax.set_xlabel('z')
ax.set_title('step function')

plt.show()

"""tanh Function"""
z = numpy.arange(-2*mt.pi, 2*mt.pi, 0.1)
t = numpy.tanh(z)

fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
ax.plot(z, t)
ax.set_ylim([-1.0, 1.0])
ax.set_xlim([-2*mt.pi,2*mt.pi])
ax.grid(True)
ax.set_xlabel('z')
ax.set_title('tanh function')

plt.show()

Two parameters

We assume now that we have two classes with \( y_i \) either \( 0 \) or \( 1 \). Furthermore we assume also that we have only two parameters \( \beta \) in our fitting of the Sigmoid function, that is we define probabilities $$ \begin{align*} p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) &= \frac{\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}},\nonumber\\ p(y_i=0|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) &= 1 - p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}), \end{align*} $$ where \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) are the weights we wish to extract from data, in our case \( \beta_0 \) and \( \beta_1 \).

Note that we used $$ p(y_i=0\vert x_i, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = 1-p(y_i=1\vert x_i, \boldsymbol{\beta}). $$

Maximum likelihood

In order to define the total likelihood for all possible outcomes from a dataset \( \mathcal{D}=\{(y_i,x_i)\} \), with the binary labels \( y_i\in\{0,1\} \) and where the data points are drawn independently, we use the so-called Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) principle. We aim thus at maximizing the probability of seeing the observed data. We can then approximate the likelihood in terms of the product of the individual probabilities of a specific outcome \( y_i \), that is $$ \begin{align*} P(\mathcal{D}|\boldsymbol{\beta})& = \prod_{i=1}^n \left[p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})\right]^{y_i}\left[1-p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}))\right]^{1-y_i}\nonumber \\ \end{align*} $$ from which we obtain the log-likelihood and our cost/loss function $$ \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \left( y_i\log{p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})} + (1-y_i)\log\left[1-p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}))\right]\right). $$

The cost function rewritten

Reordering the logarithms, we can rewrite the cost/loss function as $$ \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i) -\log{(1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)})}\right). $$

The maximum likelihood estimator is defined as the set of parameters that maximize the log-likelihood where we maximize with respect to \( \beta \). Since the cost (error) function is just the negative log-likelihood, for logistic regression we have that $$ \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})=-\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i) -\log{(1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)})}\right). $$ This equation is known in statistics as the cross entropy. Finally, we note that just as in linear regression, in practice we often supplement the cross-entropy with additional regularization terms, usually \( L_1 \) and \( L_2 \) regularization as we did for Ridge and Lasso regression.

Minimizing the cross entropy

The cross entropy is a convex function of the weights \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) and, therefore, any local minimizer is a global minimizer.

Minimizing this cost function with respect to the two parameters \( \beta_0 \) and \( \beta_1 \) we obtain $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \beta_0} = -\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i -\frac{\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}\right), $$ and $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \beta_1} = -\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_ix_i -x_i\frac{\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}\right). $$

A more compact expression

Let us now define a vector \( \boldsymbol{y} \) with \( n \) elements \( y_i \), an \( n\times p \) matrix \( \boldsymbol{X} \) which contains the \( x_i \) values and a vector \( \boldsymbol{p} \) of fitted probabilities \( p(y_i\vert x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) \). We can rewrite in a more compact form the first derivative of cost function as $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}} = -\boldsymbol{X}^T\left(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{p}\right). $$

If we in addition define a diagonal matrix \( \boldsymbol{W} \) with elements \( p(y_i\vert x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})(1-p(y_i\vert x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) \), we can obtain a compact expression of the second derivative as $$ \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}^T} = \boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{W}\boldsymbol{X}. $$

Extending to more predictors

Within a binary classification problem, we can easily expand our model to include multiple predictors. Our ratio between likelihoods is then with \( p \) predictors $$ \log{ \frac{p(\boldsymbol{\beta}\boldsymbol{x})}{1-p(\boldsymbol{\beta}\boldsymbol{x})}} = \beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\beta_2x_2+\dots+\beta_px_p. $$ Here we defined \( \boldsymbol{x}=[1,x_1,x_2,\dots,x_p] \) and \( \boldsymbol{\beta}=[\beta_0, \beta_1, \dots, \beta_p] \) leading to $$ p(\boldsymbol{\beta}\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{ \exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\beta_2x_2+\dots+\beta_px_p)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\beta_2x_2+\dots+\beta_px_p)}}. $$

Including more classes

Till now we have mainly focused on two classes, the so-called binary system. Suppose we wish to extend to \( K \) classes. Let us for the sake of simplicity assume we have only two predictors. We have then following model $$ \log{\frac{p(C=1\vert x)}{p(K\vert x)}} = \beta_{10}+\beta_{11}x_1, $$ and $$ \log{\frac{p(C=2\vert x)}{p(K\vert x)}} = \beta_{20}+\beta_{21}x_1, $$ and so on till the class \( C=K-1 \) class $$ \log{\frac{p(C=K-1\vert x)}{p(K\vert x)}} = \beta_{(K-1)0}+\beta_{(K-1)1}x_1, $$

and the model is specified in term of \( K-1 \) so-called log-odds or logit transformations.

More classes

In our discussion of neural networks we will encounter the above again in terms of a slightly modified function, the so-called Softmax function.

The softmax function is used in various multiclass classification methods, such as multinomial logistic regression (also known as softmax regression), multiclass linear discriminant analysis, naive Bayes classifiers, and artificial neural networks. Specifically, in multinomial logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis, the input to the function is the result of \( K \) distinct linear functions, and the predicted probability for the \( k \)-th class given a sample vector \( \boldsymbol{x} \) and a weighting vector \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) is (with two predictors): $$ p(C=k\vert \mathbf {x} )=\frac{\exp{(\beta_{k0}+\beta_{k1}x_1)}}{1+\sum_{l=1}^{K-1}\exp{(\beta_{l0}+\beta_{l1}x_1)}}. $$ It is easy to extend to more predictors. The final class is $$ p(C=K\vert \mathbf {x} )=\frac{1}{1+\sum_{l=1}^{K-1}\exp{(\beta_{l0}+\beta_{l1}x_1)}}, $$

and they sum to one. Our earlier discussions were all specialized to the case with two classes only. It is easy to see from the above that what we derived earlier is compatible with these equations.

To find the optimal parameters we would typically use a gradient descent method. Newton's method and gradient descent methods are discussed in the material on optimization methods.

Friday September 24

Wisconsin Cancer Data

We show here how we can use a simple regression case on the breast cancer data using Logistic regression as our algorithm for classification.

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from sklearn.model_selection import  train_test_split 
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression

# Load the data
cancer = load_breast_cancer()

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(cancer.data,cancer.target,random_state=0)
print(X_train.shape)
print(X_test.shape)
# Logistic Regression
logreg = LogisticRegression(solver='lbfgs')
logreg.fit(X_train, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy with Logistic Regression: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test,y_test)))
#now scale the data
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scaler = StandardScaler()
scaler.fit(X_train)
X_train_scaled = scaler.transform(X_train)
X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test)
# Logistic Regression
logreg.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy Logistic Regression with scaled data: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test_scaled,y_test)))

Using the correlation matrix

In addition to the above scores, we could also study the covariance (and the correlation matrix). We use Pandas to compute the correlation matrix.

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from sklearn.model_selection import  train_test_split 
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
cancer = load_breast_cancer()
import pandas as pd
# Making a data frame
cancerpd = pd.DataFrame(cancer.data, columns=cancer.feature_names)

fig, axes = plt.subplots(15,2,figsize=(10,20))
malignant = cancer.data[cancer.target == 0]
benign = cancer.data[cancer.target == 1]
ax = axes.ravel()

for i in range(30):
    _, bins = np.histogram(cancer.data[:,i], bins =50)
    ax[i].hist(malignant[:,i], bins = bins, alpha = 0.5)
    ax[i].hist(benign[:,i], bins = bins, alpha = 0.5)
    ax[i].set_title(cancer.feature_names[i])
    ax[i].set_yticks(())
ax[0].set_xlabel("Feature magnitude")
ax[0].set_ylabel("Frequency")
ax[0].legend(["Malignant", "Benign"], loc ="best")
fig.tight_layout()
plt.show()

import seaborn as sns
correlation_matrix = cancerpd.corr().round(1)
# use the heatmap function from seaborn to plot the correlation matrix
# annot = True to print the values inside the square
plt.figure(figsize=(15,8))
sns.heatmap(data=correlation_matrix, annot=True)
plt.show()

Discussing the correlation data

In the above example we note two things. In the first plot we display the overlap of benign and malignant tumors as functions of the various features in the Wisconsing breast cancer data set. We see that for some of the features we can distinguish clearly the benign and malignant cases while for other features we cannot. This can point to us which features may be of greater interest when we wish to classify a benign or not benign tumour.

In the second figure we have computed the so-called correlation matrix, which in our case with thirty features becomes a \( 30\times 30 \) matrix.

We constructed this matrix using pandas via the statements

cancerpd = pd.DataFrame(cancer.data, columns=cancer.feature_names)

and then

correlation_matrix = cancerpd.corr().round(1)

Diagonalizing this matrix we can in turn say something about which features are of relevance and which are not. This leads us to the classical Principal Component Analysis (PCA) theorem with applications. This will be discussed later this semester (week 43).

Other measures in classification studies: Cancer Data again

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from sklearn.model_selection import  train_test_split 
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression

# Load the data
cancer = load_breast_cancer()

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(cancer.data,cancer.target,random_state=0)
print(X_train.shape)
print(X_test.shape)
# Logistic Regression
logreg = LogisticRegression(solver='lbfgs')
logreg.fit(X_train, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy with Logistic Regression: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test,y_test)))
#now scale the data
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scaler = StandardScaler()
scaler.fit(X_train)
X_train_scaled = scaler.transform(X_train)
X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test)
# Logistic Regression
logreg.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy Logistic Regression with scaled data: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test_scaled,y_test)))


from sklearn.preprocessing import LabelEncoder
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_validate
#Cross validation
accuracy = cross_validate(logreg,X_test_scaled,y_test,cv=10)['test_score']
print(accuracy)
print("Test set accuracy with Logistic Regression  and scaled data: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test_scaled,y_test)))


import scikitplot as skplt
y_pred = logreg.predict(X_test_scaled)
skplt.metrics.plot_confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred, normalize=True)
plt.show()
y_probas = logreg.predict_proba(X_test_scaled)
skplt.metrics.plot_roc(y_test, y_probas)
plt.show()
skplt.metrics.plot_cumulative_gain(y_test, y_probas)
plt.show()

Optimization, the central part of any Machine Learning algortithm

Overview Video, why do we care about gradient methods?

Almost every problem in machine learning and data science starts with a dataset \( X \), a model \( g(\beta) \), which is a function of the parameters \( \beta \) and a cost function \( C(X, g(\beta)) \) that allows us to judge how well the model \( g(\beta) \) explains the observations \( X \). The model is fit by finding the values of \( \beta \) that minimize the cost function. Ideally we would be able to solve for \( \beta \) analytically, however this is not possible in general and we must use some approximative/numerical method to compute the minimum.

Revisiting our Logistic Regression case

In our discussion on Logistic Regression we studied the case of two classes, with \( y_i \) either \( 0 \) or \( 1 \). Furthermore we assumed also that we have only two parameters \( \beta \) in our fitting, that is we defined probabilities $$ \begin{align*} p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) &= \frac{\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}},\nonumber\\ p(y_i=0|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) &= 1 - p(y_i=1|x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}), \end{align*} $$ where \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) are the weights we wish to extract from data, in our case \( \beta_0 \) and \( \beta_1 \).

The equations to solve

Our compact equations used a definition of a vector \( \boldsymbol{y} \) with \( n \) elements \( y_i \), an \( n\times p \) matrix \( \boldsymbol{X} \) which contains the \( x_i \) values and a vector \( \boldsymbol{p} \) of fitted probabilities \( p(y_i\vert x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) \). We rewrote in a more compact form the first derivative of the cost function as $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}} = -\boldsymbol{X}^T\left(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{p}\right). $$

If we in addition define a diagonal matrix \( \boldsymbol{W} \) with elements \( p(y_i\vert x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta})(1-p(y_i\vert x_i,\boldsymbol{\beta}) \), we can obtain a compact expression of the second derivative as $$ \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}^T} = \boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{W}\boldsymbol{X}. $$ This defines what is called the Hessian matrix.

Solving using Newton-Raphson's method

If we can set up these equations, Newton-Raphson's iterative method is normally the method of choice. It requires however that we can compute in an efficient way the matrices that define the first and second derivatives.

Our iterative scheme is then given by $$ \boldsymbol{\beta}^{\mathrm{new}} = \boldsymbol{\beta}^{\mathrm{old}}-\left(\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}^T}\right)^{-1}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}^{\mathrm{old}}}\times \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\boldsymbol{\beta})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}}\right)_{\boldsymbol{\beta}^{\mathrm{old}}}, $$ or in matrix form as $$ \boldsymbol{\beta}^{\mathrm{new}} = \boldsymbol{\beta}^{\mathrm{old}}-\left(\boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{W}\boldsymbol{X} \right)^{-1}\times \left(-\boldsymbol{X}^T(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{p}) \right)_{\boldsymbol{\beta}^{\mathrm{old}}}. $$ The right-hand side is computed with the old values of \( \beta \).

If we can compute these matrices, in particular the Hessian, the above is often the easiest method to implement.

Brief reminder on Newton-Raphson's method

Let us quickly remind ourselves how we derive the above method.

Perhaps the most celebrated of all one-dimensional root-finding routines is Newton's method, also called the Newton-Raphson method. This method requires the evaluation of both the function \( f \) and its derivative \( f' \) at arbitrary points. If you can only calculate the derivative numerically and/or your function is not of the smooth type, we normally discourage the use of this method.

The equations

The Newton-Raphson formula consists geometrically of extending the tangent line at a current point until it crosses zero, then setting the next guess to the abscissa of that zero-crossing. The mathematics behind this method is rather simple. Employing a Taylor expansion for \( x \) sufficiently close to the solution \( s \), we have $$ f(s)=0=f(x)+(s-x)f'(x)+\frac{(s-x)^2}{2}f''(x) +\dots. \label{eq:taylornr} $$

For small enough values of the function and for well-behaved functions, the terms beyond linear are unimportant, hence we obtain $$ f(x)+(s-x)f'(x)\approx 0, $$ yielding $$ s\approx x-\frac{f(x)}{f'(x)}. $$

Having in mind an iterative procedure, it is natural to start iterating with $$ x_{n+1}=x_n-\frac{f(x_n)}{f'(x_n)}. $$

Simple geometric interpretation

The above is Newton-Raphson's method. It has a simple geometric interpretation, namely \( x_{n+1} \) is the point where the tangent from \( (x_n,f(x_n)) \) crosses the \( x \)-axis. Close to the solution, Newton-Raphson converges fast to the desired result. However, if we are far from a root, where the higher-order terms in the series are important, the Newton-Raphson formula can give grossly inaccurate results. For instance, the initial guess for the root might be so far from the true root as to let the search interval include a local maximum or minimum of the function. If an iteration places a trial guess near such a local extremum, so that the first derivative nearly vanishes, then Newton-Raphson may fail totally

Extending to more than one variable

Newton's method can be generalized to systems of several non-linear equations and variables. Consider the case with two equations $$ \begin{array}{cc} f_1(x_1,x_2) &=0\\ f_2(x_1,x_2) &=0,\end{array} $$ which we Taylor expand to obtain $$ \begin{array}{cc} 0=f_1(x_1+h_1,x_2+h_2)=&f_1(x_1,x_2)+h_1 \partial f_1/\partial x_1+h_2 \partial f_1/\partial x_2+\dots\\ 0=f_2(x_1+h_1,x_2+h_2)=&f_2(x_1,x_2)+h_1 \partial f_2/\partial x_1+h_2 \partial f_2/\partial x_2+\dots \end{array}. $$ Defining the Jacobian matrix \( {\bf \boldsymbol{J}} \) we have $$ {\bf \boldsymbol{J}}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \partial f_1/\partial x_1 & \partial f_1/\partial x_2 \\ \partial f_2/\partial x_1 &\partial f_2/\partial x_2 \end{array} \right), $$ we can rephrase Newton's method as $$ \left(\begin{array}{c} x_1^{n+1} \\ x_2^{n+1} \end{array} \right)= \left(\begin{array}{c} x_1^{n} \\ x_2^{n} \end{array} \right)+ \left(\begin{array}{c} h_1^{n} \\ h_2^{n} \end{array} \right), $$ where we have defined $$ \left(\begin{array}{c} h_1^{n} \\ h_2^{n} \end{array} \right)= -{\bf \boldsymbol{J}}^{-1} \left(\begin{array}{c} f_1(x_1^{n},x_2^{n}) \\ f_2(x_1^{n},x_2^{n}) \end{array} \right). $$ We need thus to compute the inverse of the Jacobian matrix and it is to understand that difficulties may arise in case \( {\bf \boldsymbol{J}} \) is nearly singular.

It is rather straightforward to extend the above scheme to systems of more than two non-linear equations. In our case, the Jacobian matrix is given by the Hessian that represents the second derivative of cost function.

Steepest descent

The basic idea of gradient descent is that a function \( F(\mathbf{x}) \), \( \mathbf{x} \equiv (x_1,\cdots,x_n) \), decreases fastest if one goes from \( \bf {x} \) in the direction of the negative gradient \( -\nabla F(\mathbf{x}) \).

It can be shown that if $$ \mathbf{x}_{k+1} = \mathbf{x}_k - \gamma_k \nabla F(\mathbf{x}_k), $$ with \( \gamma_k > 0 \).

For \( \gamma_k \) small enough, then \( F(\mathbf{x}_{k+1}) \leq F(\mathbf{x}_k) \). This means that for a sufficiently small \( \gamma_k \) we are always moving towards smaller function values, i.e a minimum.

More on Steepest descent

The previous observation is the basis of the method of steepest descent, which is also referred to as just gradient descent (GD). One starts with an initial guess \( \mathbf{x}_0 \) for a minimum of \( F \) and computes new approximations according to $$ \mathbf{x}_{k+1} = \mathbf{x}_k - \gamma_k \nabla F(\mathbf{x}_k), \ \ k \geq 0. $$

The parameter \( \gamma_k \) is often referred to as the step length or the learning rate within the context of Machine Learning.

The ideal

Ideally the sequence \( \{\mathbf{x}_k \}_{k=0} \) converges to a global minimum of the function \( F \). In general we do not know if we are in a global or local minimum. In the special case when \( F \) is a convex function, all local minima are also global minima, so in this case gradient descent can converge to the global solution. The advantage of this scheme is that it is conceptually simple and straightforward to implement. However the method in this form has some severe limitations:

In machine learing we are often faced with non-convex high dimensional cost functions with many local minima. Since GD is deterministic we will get stuck in a local minimum, if the method converges, unless we have a very good intial guess. This also implies that the scheme is sensitive to the chosen initial condition.

Note that the gradient is a function of \( \mathbf{x} = (x_1,\cdots,x_n) \) which makes it expensive to compute numerically.

The sensitiveness of the gradient descent

The gradient descent method is sensitive to the choice of learning rate \( \gamma_k \). This is due to the fact that we are only guaranteed that \( F(\mathbf{x}_{k+1}) \leq F(\mathbf{x}_k) \) for sufficiently small \( \gamma_k \). The problem is to determine an optimal learning rate. If the learning rate is chosen too small the method will take a long time to converge and if it is too large we can experience erratic behavior.

Many of these shortcomings can be alleviated by introducing randomness. One such method is that of Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), see below.

Convex functions

Ideally we want our cost/loss function to be convex(concave).

First we give the definition of a convex set: A set \( C \) in \( \mathbb{R}^n \) is said to be convex if, for all \( x \) and \( y \) in \( C \) and all \( t \in (0,1) \) , the point \( (1 − t)x + ty \) also belongs to C. Geometrically this means that every point on the line segment connecting \( x \) and \( y \) is in \( C \) as discussed below.

The convex subsets of \( \mathbb{R} \) are the intervals of \( \mathbb{R} \). Examples of convex sets of \( \mathbb{R}^2 \) are the regular polygons (triangles, rectangles, pentagons, etc...).

Convex function

Convex function: Let \( X \subset \mathbb{R}^n \) be a convex set. Assume that the function \( f: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \) is continuous, then \( f \) is said to be convex if $$f(tx_1 + (1-t)x_2) \leq tf(x_1) + (1-t)f(x_2) $$ for all \( x_1, x_2 \in X \) and for all \( t \in [0,1] \). If \( \leq \) is replaced with a strict inequaltiy in the definition, we demand \( x_1 \neq x_2 \) and \( t\in(0,1) \) then \( f \) is said to be strictly convex. For a single variable function, convexity means that if you draw a straight line connecting \( f(x_1) \) and \( f(x_2) \), the value of the function on the interval \( [x_1,x_2] \) is always below the line as illustrated below.

Conditions on convex functions

In the following we state first and second-order conditions which ensures convexity of a function \( f \). We write \( D_f \) to denote the domain of \( f \), i.e the subset of \( R^n \) where \( f \) is defined. For more details and proofs we refer to: S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press.

This condition is particularly useful since it gives us an procedure for determining if the function under consideration is convex, apart from using the definition.

More on convex functions

The next result is of great importance to us and the reason why we are going on about convex functions. In machine learning we frequently have to minimize a loss/cost function in order to find the best parameters for the model we are considering.

Ideally we want the global minimum (for high-dimensional models it is hard to know if we have local or global minimum). However, if the cost/loss function is convex the following result provides invaluable information:

This result means that if we know that the cost/loss function is convex and we are able to find a minimum, we are guaranteed that it is a global minimum.

Some simple problems

1. Show that \( f(x)=x^2 \) is convex for \( x \in \mathbb{R} \) using the definition of convexity. Hint: If you re-write the definition, \( f \) is convex if the following holds for all \( x,y \in D_f \) and any \( \lambda \in [0,1] \) $\lambda f(x)+(1-\lambda)f(y)-f(\lambda x + (1-\lambda) y ) \geq 0$.
2. Using the second order condition show that the following functions are convex on the specified domain.
• \( f(x) = e^x \) is convex for \( x \in \mathbb{R} \).
• \( g(x) = -\ln(x) \) is convex for \( x \in (0,\infty) \).
3. Let \( f(x) = x^2 \) and \( g(x) = e^x \). Show that \( f(g(x)) \) and \( g(f(x)) \) is convex for \( x \in \mathbb{R} \). Also show that if \( f(x) \) is any convex function than \( h(x) = e^{f(x)} \) is convex.
4. A norm is any function that satisfy the following properties
• \( f(\alpha x) = |\alpha| f(x) \) for all \( \alpha \in \mathbb{R} \).
• \( f(x+y) \leq f(x) + f(y) \)
• \( f(x) \leq 0 \) for all \( x \in \mathbb{R}^n \) with equality if and only if \( x = 0 \)

Friday September 25

Video of Lecture and link to handwritten notes.

Standard steepest descent

Before we proceed, we would like to discuss the approach called the standard Steepest descent (different from the above steepest descent discussion), which again leads to us having to be able to compute a matrix. It belongs to the class of Conjugate Gradient methods (CG).

The success of the CG method for finding solutions of non-linear problems is based on the theory of conjugate gradients for linear systems of equations. It belongs to the class of iterative methods for solving problems from linear algebra of the type $$ \begin{equation*} \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x} = \boldsymbol{b}. \end{equation*} $$

In the iterative process we end up with a problem like $$ \begin{equation*} \boldsymbol{r}= \boldsymbol{b}-\boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x}, \end{equation*} $$ where \( \boldsymbol{r} \) is the so-called residual or error in the iterative process.

When we have found the exact solution, \( \boldsymbol{r}=0 \).

Gradient method

The residual is zero when we reach the minimum of the quadratic equation $$ \begin{equation*} P(\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{b}, \end{equation*} $$

with the constraint that the matrix \( \boldsymbol{A} \) is positive definite and symmetric. This defines also the Hessian and we want it to be positive definite.

Steepest descent method

We denote the initial guess for \( \boldsymbol{x} \) as \( \boldsymbol{x}_0 \). We can assume without loss of generality that $$ \begin{equation*} \boldsymbol{x}_0=0, \end{equation*} $$ or consider the system $$ \begin{equation*} \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{z} = \boldsymbol{b}-\boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x}_0, \end{equation*} $$ instead.

Steepest descent method

Final expressions

Steepest descent example

import numpy as np
import numpy.linalg as la

import scipy.optimize as sopt

import matplotlib.pyplot as pt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import axes3d

def f(x):
    return 0.5*x[0]**2 + 2.5*x[1]**2

def df(x):
    return np.array([x[0], 5*x[1]])

fig = pt.figure()
ax = fig.gca(projection="3d")

xmesh, ymesh = np.mgrid[-2:2:50j,-2:2:50j]
fmesh = f(np.array([xmesh, ymesh]))
ax.plot_surface(xmesh, ymesh, fmesh)

And then as countor plot

pt.axis("equal")
pt.contour(xmesh, ymesh, fmesh)
guesses = [np.array([2, 2./5])]

Find guesses

x = guesses[-1]
s = -df(x)

Run it!

def f1d(alpha):
    return f(x + alpha*s)

alpha_opt = sopt.golden(f1d)
next_guess = x + alpha_opt * s
guesses.append(next_guess)
print(next_guess)

What happened?

pt.axis("equal")
pt.contour(xmesh, ymesh, fmesh, 50)
it_array = np.array(guesses)
pt.plot(it_array.T[0], it_array.T[1], "x-")

Conjugate gradient method

Conjugate gradient method

Conjugate gradient method

Conjugate gradient method

Conjugate gradient method and iterations

Conjugate gradient method

Conjugate gradient method

Conjugate gradient method

Revisiting some of our first Linear Regression Encounters

We will use linear regression as a case study for the gradient descent methods. Linear regression is a great test case for the gradient descent methods discussed in the lectures since it has several desirable properties such as:

1. An analytical solution (recall homework set 1).
2. The gradient can be computed analytically.
3. The cost function is convex which guarantees that gradient descent converges for small enough learning rates

x = 2*np.random.rand(m,1)
y = 4+3*x+np.random.randn(m,1)

with \( x_i \in [0,1] \) is chosen randomly using a uniform distribution. Additionally we have a stochastic noise chosen according to a normal distribution \( \cal {N}(0,1) \). The linear regression model is given by $$ h_\beta(x) = \boldsymbol{y} = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x, $$ such that $$ \boldsymbol{y}_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_i. $$

Gradient descent example

Let \( \mathbf{y} = (y_1,\cdots,y_n)^T \), \( \mathbf{\boldsymbol{y}} = (\boldsymbol{y}_1,\cdots,\boldsymbol{y}_n)^T \) and \( \beta = (\beta_0, \beta_1)^T \)

It is convenient to write \( \mathbf{\boldsymbol{y}} = X\beta \) where \( X \in \mathbb{R}^{100 \times 2} \) is the design matrix given by (we keep the intercept here) $$ X \equiv \begin{bmatrix} 1 & x_1 \\ \vdots & \vdots \\ 1 & x_{100} & \\ \end{bmatrix}. $$ The cost/loss/risk function is given by ( $$ C(\beta) = \frac{1}{n}||X\beta-\mathbf{y}||_{2}^{2} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{100}\left[ (\beta_0 + \beta_1 x_i)^2 - 2 y_i (\beta_0 + \beta_1 x_i) + y_i^2\right] $$ and we want to find \( \beta \) such that \( C(\beta) \) is minimized.

The derivative of the cost/loss function

Computing \( \partial C(\beta) / \partial \beta_0 \) and \( \partial C(\beta) / \partial \beta_1 \) we can show that the gradient can be written as $$ \nabla_{\beta} C(\beta) = \frac{2}{n}\begin{bmatrix} \sum_{i=1}^{100} \left(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i-y_i\right) \\ \sum_{i=1}^{100}\left( x_i (\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)-y_ix_i\right) \\ \end{bmatrix} = \frac{2}{n}X^T(X\beta - \mathbf{y}), $$ where \( X \) is the design matrix defined above.

The Hessian matrix

Simple program

We can now write a program that minimizes \( C(\beta) \) using the gradient descent method with a constant learning rate \( \gamma \) according to $$ \beta_{k+1} = \beta_k - \gamma \nabla_\beta C(\beta_k), \ k=0,1,\cdots $$

We can use the expression we computed for the gradient and let use a \( \beta_0 \) be chosen randomly and let \( \gamma = 0.001 \). Stop iterating when \( ||\nabla_\beta C(\beta_k) || \leq \epsilon = 10^{-8} \). Note that the code below does not include the latter stop criterion.

And finally we can compare our solution for \( \beta \) with the analytic result given by \( \beta= (X^TX)^{-1} X^T \mathbf{y} \).

Gradient Descent Example

Here our simple example

# Importing various packages
from random import random, seed
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
from matplotlib import cm
from matplotlib.ticker import LinearLocator, FormatStrFormatter
import sys

# the number of datapoints
n = 100
x = 2*np.random.rand(n,1)
y = 4+3*x+np.random.randn(n,1)

X = np.c_[np.ones((n,1)), x]
# Hessian matrix
H = (2.0/n)* X.T @ X
# Get the eigenvalues
EigValues, EigVectors = np.linalg.eig(H)
print(EigValues)

beta_linreg = np.linalg.inv(X.T @ X) @ X.T @ y
print(beta_linreg)
beta = np.random.randn(2,1)

eta = 1.0/np.max(EigValues)
Niterations = 1000

for iter in range(Niterations):
    gradient = (2.0/n)*X.T @ (X @ beta-y)
    beta -= eta*gradient

print(beta)
xnew = np.array([[0],[2]])
xbnew = np.c_[np.ones((2,1)), xnew]
ypredict = xbnew.dot(beta)
ypredict2 = xbnew.dot(beta_linreg)
plt.plot(xnew, ypredict, "r-")
plt.plot(xnew, ypredict2, "b-")
plt.plot(x, y ,'ro')
plt.axis([0,2.0,0, 15.0])
plt.xlabel(r'$x$')
plt.ylabel(r'$y$')
plt.title(r'Gradient descent example')
plt.show()

And a corresponding example using scikit-learn

# Importing various packages
from random import random, seed
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.linear_model import SGDRegressor

n = 100
x = 2*np.random.rand(n,1)
y = 4+3*x+np.random.randn(n,1)

X = np.c_[np.ones((n,1)), x]
beta_linreg = np.linalg.inv(X.T @ X) @ (X.T @ y)
print(beta_linreg)
sgdreg = SGDRegressor(max_iter = 50, penalty=None, eta0=0.1)
sgdreg.fit(x,y.ravel())
print(sgdreg.intercept_, sgdreg.coef_)

Gradient descent and Ridge

We have also discussed Ridge regression where the loss function contains a regularized term given by the \( L_2 \) norm of \( \beta \), $$ C_{\text{ridge}}(\beta) = \frac{1}{n}||X\beta -\mathbf{y}||^2 + \lambda ||\beta||^2, \ \lambda \geq 0. $$

In order to minimize \( C_{\text{ridge}}(\beta) \) using GD we only have adjust the gradient as follows $$ \nabla_\beta C_{\text{ridge}}(\beta) = \frac{2}{n}\begin{bmatrix} \sum_{i=1}^{100} \left(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i-y_i\right) \\ \sum_{i=1}^{100}\left( x_i (\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)-y_ix_i\right) \\ \end{bmatrix} + 2\lambda\begin{bmatrix} \beta_0 \\ \beta_1\end{bmatrix} = 2 (X^T(X\beta - \mathbf{y})+\lambda \beta). $$

We can easily extend our program to minimize \( C_{\text{ridge}}(\beta) \) using gradient descent and compare with the analytical solution given by $$ \beta_{\text{ridge}} = \left(X^T X + \lambda I_{2 \times 2} \right)^{-1} X^T \mathbf{y}. $$

Program example for gradient descent with Ridge Regression

from random import random, seed
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
from matplotlib import cm
from matplotlib.ticker import LinearLocator, FormatStrFormatter
import sys

# the number of datapoints
n = 100
x = 2*np.random.rand(n,1)
y = 4+3*x+np.random.randn(n,1)

X = np.c_[np.ones((n,1)), x]
XT_X = X.T @ X

#Ridge parameter lambda
lmbda  = 0.001
Id = lmbda* np.eye(XT_X.shape[0])

beta_linreg = np.linalg.inv(XT_X+Id) @ X.T @ y
print(beta_linreg)
# Start plain gradient descent
beta = np.random.randn(2,1)

eta = 0.1
Niterations = 100

for iter in range(Niterations):
    gradients = 2.0/n*X.T @ (X @ (beta)-y)+2*lmbda*beta
    beta -= eta*gradients

print(beta)
ypredict = X @ beta
ypredict2 = X @ beta_linreg
plt.plot(x, ypredict, "r-")
plt.plot(x, ypredict2, "b-")
plt.plot(x, y ,'ro')
plt.axis([0,2.0,0, 15.0])
plt.xlabel(r'$x$')
plt.ylabel(r'$y$')
plt.title(r'Gradient descent example for Ridge')
plt.show()

Using gradient descent methods, limitations

• Gradient descent (GD) finds local minima of our function. Since the GD algorithm is deterministic, if it converges, it will converge to a local minimum of our cost/loss/risk function. Because in ML we are often dealing with extremely rugged landscapes with many local minima, this can lead to poor performance.
• GD is sensitive to initial conditions. One consequence of the local nature of GD is that initial conditions matter. Depending on where one starts, one will end up at a different local minima. Therefore, it is very important to think about how one initializes the training process. This is true for GD as well as more complicated variants of GD.
• Gradients are computationally expensive to calculate for large datasets. In many cases in statistics and ML, the cost/loss/risk function is a sum of terms, with one term for each data point. For example, in linear regression, \( E \propto \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - \mathbf{w}^T\cdot\mathbf{x}_i)^2 \); for logistic regression, the square error is replaced by the cross entropy. To calculate the gradient we have to sum over all \( n \) data points. Doing this at every GD step becomes extremely computationally expensive. An ingenious solution to this, is to calculate the gradients using small subsets of the data called "mini batches". This has the added benefit of introducing stochasticity into our algorithm.
• GD is very sensitive to choices of learning rates. GD is extremely sensitive to the choice of learning rates. If the learning rate is very small, the training process take an extremely long time. For larger learning rates, GD can diverge and give poor results. Furthermore, depending on what the local landscape looks like, we have to modify the learning rates to ensure convergence. Ideally, we would adaptively choose the learning rates to match the landscape.
• GD treats all directions in parameter space uniformly. Another major drawback of GD is that unlike Newton's method, the learning rate for GD is the same in all directions in parameter space. For this reason, the maximum learning rate is set by the behavior of the steepest direction and this can significantly slow down training. Ideally, we would like to take large steps in flat directions and small steps in steep directions. Since we are exploring rugged landscapes where curvatures change, this requires us to keep track of not only the gradient but second derivatives. The ideal scenario would be to calculate the Hessian but this proves to be too computationally expensive.
• GD can take exponential time to escape saddle points, even with random initialization. As we mentioned, GD is extremely sensitive to initial condition since it determines the particular local minimum GD would eventually reach. However, even with a good initialization scheme, through the introduction of randomness, GD can still take exponential time to escape saddle points. This leads us to our next topic, Stochastic Gradient Methods.