I am trying to code up logistic regression in Python using the SciPy fmin_bfgs
function, but am running into some issues. I wrote functions for the logistic (sigmoid) transformation function, and the cost function, and those work fine (I have used the optimized values of the parameter vector found via canned software to test the functions, and those match up). I am not that sure of my implementation of the gradient function, but it looks reasonable.
Here is the code:
# purpose: logistic regression
import numpy as np
import scipy.optimize
# prepare the data
data = np.loadtxt('data.csv', delimiter=',', skiprows=1)
vY = data[:, 0]
mX = data[:, 1:]
intercept = np.ones(mX.shape[0]).reshape(mX.shape[0], 1)
mX = np.concatenate((intercept, mX), axis = 1)
iK = mX.shape[1]
iN = mX.shape[0]
# logistic transformation
def logit(mX, vBeta):
return((1/(1.0 + np.exp(-np.dot(mX, vBeta)))))
# test function call
vBeta0 = np.array([-.10296645, -.0332327, -.01209484, .44626211, .92554137, .53973828,
1.7993371, .7148045 ])
logit(mX, vBeta0)
# cost function
def logLikelihoodLogit(vBeta, mX, vY):
return(-(np.sum(vY*np.log(logit(mX, vBeta)) + (1-vY)*(np.log(1-logit(mX, vBeta))))))
logLikelihoodLogit(vBeta0, mX, vY) # test function call
# gradient function
def likelihoodScore(vBeta, mX, vY):
return(np.dot(mX.T,
((np.dot(mX, vBeta) - vY)/
np.dot(mX, vBeta)).reshape(iN, 1)).reshape(iK, 1))
likelihoodScore(vBeta0, mX, vY).shape # test function call
# optimize the function (without gradient)
optimLogit = scipy.optimize.fmin_bfgs(logLikelihoodLogit,
x0 = np.array([-.1, -.03, -.01, .44, .92, .53,
1.8, .71]),
args = (mX, vY), gtol = 1e-3)
# optimize the function (with gradient)
optimLogit = scipy.optimize.fmin_bfgs(logLikelihoodLogit,
x0 = np.array([-.1, -.03, -.01, .44, .92, .53,
1.8, .71]), fprime = likelihoodScore,
args = (mX, vY), gtol = 1e-3)
The first optimization (without gradient) ends with a whole lot of stuff about division by zero.
The second optimization (with gradient) ends with a matrices not aligned error, which probably means I have got the way the gradient is to be returned wrong.
Any help with this is appreciated. If anyone wants to try this, the data is included below.
low,age,lwt,race,smoke,ptl,ht,ui
0,19,182,2,0,0,0,1
0,33,155,3,0,0,0,0
0,20,105,1,1,0,0,0
0,21,108,1,1,0,0,1
0,18,107,1,1,0,0,1
0,21,124,3,0,0,0,0
0,22,118,1,0,0,0,0
0,17,103,3,0,0,0,0
0,29,123,1,1,0,0,0
0,26,113,1,1,0,0,0
0,19,95,3,0,0,0,0
0,19,150,3,0,0,0,0
0,22,95,3,0,0,1,0
0,30,107,3,0,1,0,1
0,18,100,1,1,0,0,0
0,18,100,1,1,0,0,0
0,15,98,2,0,0,0,0
0,25,118,1,1,0,0,0
0,20,120,3,0,0,0,1
0,28,120,1,1,0,0,0
0,32,121,3,0,0,0,0
0,31,100,1,0,0,0,1
0,36,202,1,0,0,0,0
0,28,120,3,0,0,0,0
0,25,120,3,0,0,0,1
0,28,167,1,0,0,0,0
0,17,122,1,1,0,0,0
0,29,150,1,0,0,0,0
0,26,168,2,1,0,0,0
0,17,113,2,0,0,0,0
0,17,113,2,0,0,0,0
0,24,90,1,1,1,0,0
0,35,121,2,1,1,0,0
0,25,155,1,0,0,0,0
0,25,125,2,0,0,0,0
0,29,140,1,1,0,0,0
0,19,138,1,1,0,0,0
0,27,124,1,1,0,0,0
0,31,215,1,1,0,0,0
0,33,109,1,1,0,0,0
0,21,185,2,1,0,0,0
0,19,189,1,0,0,0,0
0,23,130,2,0,0,0,0
0,21,160,1,0,0,0,0
0,18,90,1,1,0,0,1
0,18,90,1,1,0,0,1
0,32,132,1,0,0,0,0
0,19,132,3,0,0,0,0
0,24,115,1,0,0,0,0
0,22,85,3,1,0,0,0
0,22,120,1,0,0,1,0
0,23,128,3,0,0,0,0
0,22,130,1,1,0,0,0
0,30,95,1,1,0,0,0
0,19,115,3,0,0,0,0
0,16,110,3,0,0,0,0
0,21,110,3,1,0,0,1
0,30,153,3,0,0,0,0
0,20,103,3,0,0,0,0
0,17,119,3,0,0,0,0
0,17,119,3,0,0,0,0
0,23,119,3,0,0,0,0
0,24,110,3,0,0,0,0
0,28,140,1,0,0,0,0
0,26,133,3,1,2,0,0
0,20,169,3,0,1,0,1
0,24,115,3,0,0,0,0
0,28,250,3,1,0,0,0
0,20,141,1,0,2,0,1
0,22,158,2,0,1,0,0
0,22,112,1,1,2,0,0
0,31,150,3,1,0,0,0
0,23,115,3,1,0,0,0
0,16,112,2,0,0,0,0
0,16,135,1,1,0,0,0
0,18,229,2,0,0,0,0
0,25,140,1,0,0,0,0
0,32,134,1,1,1,0,0
0,20,121,2,1,0,0,0
0,23,190,1,0,0,0,0
0,22,131,1,0,0,0,0
0,32,170,1,0,0,0,0
0,30,110,3,0,0,0,0
0,20,127,3,0,0,0,0
0,23,123,3,0,0,0,0
0,17,120,3,1,0,0,0
0,19,105,3,0,0,0,0
0,23,130,1,0,0,0,0
0,36,175,1,0,0,0,0
0,22,125,1,0,0,0,0
0,24,133,1,0,0,0,0
0,21,134,3,0,0,0,0
0,19,235,1,1,0,1,0
0,25,95,1,1,3,0,1
0,16,135,1,1,0,0,0
0,29,135,1,0,0,0,0
0,29,154,1,0,0,0,0
0,19,147,1,1,0,0,0
0,19,147,1,1,0,0,0
0,30,137,1,0,0,0,0
0,24,110,1,0,0,0,0
0,19,184,1,1,0,1,0
0,24,110,3,0,1,0,0
0,23,110,1,0,0,0,0
0,20,120,3,0,0,0,0
0,25,241,2,0,0,1,0
0,30,112,1,0,0,0,0
0,22,169,1,0,0,0,0
0,18,120,1,1,0,0,0
0,16,170,2,0,0,0,0
0,32,186,1,0,0,0,0
0,18,120,3,0,0,0,0
0,29,130,1,1,0,0,0
0,33,117,1,0,0,0,1
0,20,170,1,1,0,0,0
0,28,134,3,0,0,0,0
0,14,135,1,0,0,0,0
0,28,130,3,0,0,0,0
0,25,120,1,0,0,0,0
0,16,95,3,0,0,0,0
0,20,158,1,0,0,0,0
0,26,160,3,0,0,0,0
0,21,115,1,0,0,0,0
0,22,129,1,0,0,0,0
0,25,130,1,0,0,0,0
0,31,120,1,0,0,0,0
0,35,170,1,0,1,0,0
0,19,120,1,1,0,0,0
0,24,116,1,0,0,0,0
0,45,123,1,0,0,0,0
1,28,120,3,1,1,0,1
1,29,130,1,0,0,0,1
1,34,187,2,1,0,1,0
1,25,105,3,0,1,1,0
1,25,85,3,0,0,0,1
1,27,150,3,0,0,0,0
1,23,97,3,0,0,0,1
1,24,128,2,0,1,0,0
1,24,132,3,0,0,1,0
1,21,165,1,1,0,1,0
1,32,105,1,1,0,0,0
1,19,91,1,1,2,0,1
1,25,115,3,0,0,0,0
1,16,130,3,0,0,0,0
1,25,92,1,1,0,0,0
1,20,150,1,1,0,0,0
1,21,200,2,0,0,0,1
1,24,155,1,1,1,0,0
1,21,103,3,0,0,0,0
1,20,125,3,0,0,0,1
1,25,89,3,0,2,0,0
1,19,102,1,0,0,0,0
1,19,112,1,1,0,0,1
1,26,117,1,1,1,0,0
1,24,138,1,0,0,0,0
1,17,130,3,1,1,0,1
1,20,120,2,1,0,0,0
1,22,130,1,1,1,0,1
1,27,130,2,0,0,0,1
1,20,80,3,1,0,0,1
1,17,110,1,1,0,0,0
1,25,105,3,0,1,0,0
1,20,109,3,0,0,0,0
1,18,148,3,0,0,0,0
1,18,110,2,1,1,0,0
1,20,121,1,1,1,0,1
1,21,100,3,0,1,0,0
1,26,96,3,0,0,0,0
1,31,102,1,1,1,0,0
1,15,110,1,0,0,0,0
1,23,187,2,1,0,0,0
1,20,122,2,1,0,0,0
1,24,105,2,1,0,0,0
1,15,115,3,0,0,0,1
1,23,120,3,0,0,0,0
1,30,142,1,1,1,0,0
1,22,130,1,1,0,0,0
1,17,120,1,1,0,0,0
1,23,110,1,1,1,0,0
1,17,120,2,0,0,0,0
1,26,154,3,0,1,1,0
1,20,106,3,0,0,0,0
1,26,190,1,1,0,0,0
1,14,101,3,1,1,0,0
1,28,95,1,1,0,0,0
1,14,100,3,0,0,0,0
1,23,94,3,1,0,0,0
1,17,142,2,0,0,1,0
1,21,130,1,1,0,1,0
Your problem is that the function you are trying to minimise, logLikelihoodLogit
, will return NaN
with values very close to your initial estimate. And it will also try to evaluate negative logarithms and encounter other problems. fmin_bfgs
doesn't know about this, will try to evaluate the function for such values and run into trouble.
I suggest using a bounded optimisation instead. You can use scipy's optimize.fmin_l_bfgs_b
for this. It uses a similar algorithm to fmin_bfgs
, but it supports bounds in the parameter space. You call it similarly, just add a bounds keyword. Here's a simple example on how you'd call fmin_l_bfgs_b
:
from scipy.optimize import fmin_bfgs, fmin_l_bfgs_b
# list of bounds: each item is a tuple with the (lower, upper) bounds
bd = [(0, 1.), ...]
test = fmin_l_bfgs_b(logLikelihoodLogit, x0=x0, args=(mX, vY), bounds=bd,
approx_grad=True)
Here I'm using an approximate gradient (seemed to work fine with your data), but you can pass fprime
as in your example (I don't have time to check its correctness). You'll know your parameter space better than me, just make sure to build the bounds array for all the meaningful values that your parameters can take.
Here is the answer I sent back to the SciPy list where this question was cross-posted. Thanks to @tiago for his answer. Basically, I reparametrized the likelihood function. Also, added a call to the check_grad function.
#=====================================================
# purpose: logistic regression
import numpy as np
import scipy as sp
import scipy.optimize
import matplotlib as mpl
import os
# prepare the data
data = np.loadtxt('data.csv', delimiter=',', skiprows=1)
vY = data[:, 0]
mX = data[:, 1:]
# mX = (mX - np.mean(mX))/np.std(mX) # standardize the data; if required
intercept = np.ones(mX.shape[0]).reshape(mX.shape[0], 1)
mX = np.concatenate((intercept, mX), axis = 1)
iK = mX.shape[1]
iN = mX.shape[0]
# logistic transformation
def logit(mX, vBeta):
return((np.exp(np.dot(mX, vBeta))/(1.0 + np.exp(np.dot(mX, vBeta)))))
# test function call
vBeta0 = np.array([-.10296645, -.0332327, -.01209484, .44626211, .92554137, .53973828,
1.7993371, .7148045 ])
logit(mX, vBeta0)
# cost function
def logLikelihoodLogit(vBeta, mX, vY):
return(-(np.sum(vY*np.log(logit(mX, vBeta)) + (1-vY)*(np.log(1-logit(mX, vBeta))))))
logLikelihoodLogit(vBeta0, mX, vY) # test function call
# different parametrization of the cost function
def logLikelihoodLogitVerbose(vBeta, mX, vY):
return(-(np.sum(vY*(np.dot(mX, vBeta) - np.log((1.0 + np.exp(np.dot(mX, vBeta))))) +
(1-vY)*(-np.log((1.0 + np.exp(np.dot(mX, vBeta))))))))
logLikelihoodLogitVerbose(vBeta0, mX, vY) # test function call
# gradient function
def likelihoodScore(vBeta, mX, vY):
return(np.dot(mX.T,
(logit(mX, vBeta) - vY)))
likelihoodScore(vBeta0, mX, vY).shape # test function call
sp.optimize.check_grad(logLikelihoodLogitVerbose, likelihoodScore,
vBeta0, mX, vY) # check that the analytical gradient is close to
# numerical gradient
# optimize the function (without gradient)
optimLogit = scipy.optimize.fmin_bfgs(logLikelihoodLogitVerbose,
x0 = np.array([-.1, -.03, -.01, .44, .92, .53,
1.8, .71]),
args = (mX, vY), gtol = 1e-3)
# optimize the function (with gradient)
optimLogit = scipy.optimize.fmin_bfgs(logLikelihoodLogitVerbose,
x0 = np.array([-.1, -.03, -.01, .44, .92, .53,
1.8, .71]), fprime = likelihoodScore,
args = (mX, vY), gtol = 1e-3)
#=====================================================
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With