rapport : updating and adding Rnw
This commit is contained in:
parent
43485078a7
commit
e412e00151
4 changed files with 271 additions and 6 deletions
264
Rcodes/simulation/inference_analyze.Rnw
Normal file
264
Rcodes/simulation/inference_analyze.Rnw
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,264 @@
|
|||
<<libraries, echo = FALSE, include = FALSE>>=
|
||||
require("ggplot2")
|
||||
require("ggokabeito")
|
||||
require("tidyr")
|
||||
require("dplyr")
|
||||
require("stringr")
|
||||
require("knitr")
|
||||
require("pander")
|
||||
require("patchwork")
|
||||
require("latex2exp")
|
||||
@
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<<setup, echo = FALSE>>=
|
||||
options(dplyr.summarise.inform = FALSE)
|
||||
knitr::opts_knit$set(kable.force.latex = TRUE)
|
||||
|
||||
meanse <- function(x, ...) {
|
||||
mean1 <- signif(round(mean(x, na.rm = T), 2), 5) # calculate mean and round
|
||||
se1 <- signif(round(sd(x, na.rm = T) / sqrt(sum(!is.na(x))), 2), 2) # std error - round adding zeros
|
||||
out <- paste(mean1, "$\\pm$", se1) # paste together mean plus/minus and standard error
|
||||
if (str_detect(out, "NA")) {
|
||||
out <- "NA"
|
||||
} # if missing do not add plusminus
|
||||
if (se1 == 0) {
|
||||
out <- paste(mean1)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return(out)
|
||||
}
|
||||
@
|
||||
|
||||
<<import-data, echo = FALSE>>=
|
||||
filenames <- list.files(
|
||||
path = "./data/",
|
||||
pattern = "inference_testing_2023-07-*",
|
||||
full.names = TRUE
|
||||
)
|
||||
data_list <- lapply(filenames, readRDS)
|
||||
col_id_BICLS <- c(11, 16, 23, 30, 37)
|
||||
result_data_frame <- dplyr::bind_rows(data_list)
|
||||
|
||||
# Compute the preferred model
|
||||
result_data_frame <- cbind(result_data_frame, preferred_model = sapply(seq_len(nrow(result_data_frame)), function(n) sub("_BICL", "", names(which.max(result_data_frame[n, col_id_BICLS])))))
|
||||
result_data_frame$preferred_model <- factor(result_data_frame$preferred_model, levels = c(
|
||||
"sep", "iid", "pi",
|
||||
"rho", "pirho"
|
||||
))
|
||||
@
|
||||
|
||||
# Efficiency of the inference
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Simulation settings} For this simulation the data is simulated with
|
||||
$M = 2, n_{1}^{m} = 120, n_{2}^{m} = 120, Q_1 = Q_2 = 4$, $\bm{\alpha}, \bm{\pi}$
|
||||
and $\bm{\rho}$ are set as follows:
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
&&\bm{\alpha} = .25 +
|
||||
\begin{pmatrix}
|
||||
3 \eps[\alpha] & 2 \eps[\alpha] & \eps[\alpha] & - \eps[\alpha]\\
|
||||
2 \eps[\alpha] & 2 \eps[\alpha] & - \eps[\alpha] & \eps[\alpha]\\
|
||||
\eps[\alpha] & - \eps[\alpha] & \eps[\alpha] & 2 \eps[\alpha]\\
|
||||
- \eps[\alpha] & \eps[\alpha] & 2 \eps[\alpha] & 0
|
||||
\end{pmatrix}, \\ \bm{\pi}^1 = \sigma_1
|
||||
\begin{pmatrix}
|
||||
0.2 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0
|
||||
\end{pmatrix},
|
||||
&& \bm{\pi}^2 =
|
||||
\begin{pmatrix}
|
||||
0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25
|
||||
\end{pmatrix}, \\
|
||||
\bm{\rho}^1 =
|
||||
\begin{pmatrix}
|
||||
0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25
|
||||
\end{pmatrix}, &&
|
||||
\bm{\rho}^2 = \sigma_2
|
||||
\begin{pmatrix}
|
||||
0 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33
|
||||
\end{pmatrix}, &&
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
with $\eps[\alpha]$ taking nine equally spaced values ranging from 0 to 0.24.
|
||||
For each value of $\eps[\alpha]$, 108 datasets ($X_1, X_2$) are simulated,
|
||||
resulting in $9 \times 108 = 972$ datasets. More precisely, for each dataset,
|
||||
we pick uniformly at random two permutations of $\{ 1, \dots , 4 \}$
|
||||
($\sigma_1, \sigma_2$) with the constraint that $\sigma_1(4) \neq \sigma_2(1)$.
|
||||
This ensures that each of the two networks have a non-empty block that is empty
|
||||
in the other one. Then the networks are simulated with
|
||||
$\mathcal{B}$ern-$BiSBM_{120}(4, \bm{\alpha}, \bm{\pi}^m, \bm{\rho}^m)$
|
||||
with the previous parameters. Each network has 2 blocks in common and their
|
||||
connectivity structures encompass a mix of core-periphery, assortative
|
||||
community and disassortative community structures, depending on which 3 of the 4
|
||||
blocks are selected for each network. $\eps[\alpha]$ represents the strength of
|
||||
these structures, the larger, the easier it is to tell apart one block from
|
||||
another.
|
||||
The true model of all the simulation is a $\pi\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Inference} We want to measure the quality of the
|
||||
inference procedure, for this we use the inference described in the section
|
||||
\ref{sec:variational-estimation-of-the-parameters}.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Quality indicators} To assess the quality of the inference, we will
|
||||
use the following indicators:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item First, for each dataset, we put in competition $\pi\text{-}colBiSBM$ with
|
||||
$sep\text{-}BiSBM$, $iid\text{-}colBiSBM$, $\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$,
|
||||
$\pi\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$
|
||||
respectively. To do so, for each dataset, we compute the
|
||||
BIC-L of each model $\pi\text{-}colBiSBM$ is preferred to $sep\text{-}BiSBM$
|
||||
(resp. $iid\text{-}colBiSBM$, $\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$,
|
||||
$\pi\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$) if
|
||||
its BIC-L is greater.
|
||||
\item When considering $\pi\text{-}colBiSBM$, $\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$,
|
||||
$\pi\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$ we compare $\widehat{Q_1}$, $\widehat{Q_2}$ to
|
||||
their true values. ($Q_1 = 4$ and $Q_2 = 4$)
|
||||
\item Finally, we assess the quality of the node grouping by computing the
|
||||
Adjusted Rand Index \parencite[][, ARI = 0 for a random grouping, ARI = 1 for a perfect recovery]{hubertComparingPartitions1985}. For each network, for the
|
||||
$\pi\text{-}colBiSBM$, $\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$,
|
||||
$\pi\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$ we compare the inferred block memberships to the
|
||||
real ones by computing the mean of the ARI per axis over the two networks
|
||||
\begin{equation*}
|
||||
\overline{\text{ARI}}_d = \frac{1}{2} \text{ARI}\big( \text{ARI}(\widehat{\bm{Z}^1_d},\bm{Z}^1_d) + \text{ARI}(\widehat{\bm{Z}^2_d},\bm{Z}^2_d) \big)
|
||||
\end{equation*}
|
||||
where $d$ is the dimension or axis (i.e., rows, $d=1$, or columns, $d=2$) of
|
||||
the block memberships.
|
||||
And we compute the ARI of the whole set of nodes to account for block
|
||||
pairing between networks
|
||||
\begin{equation*}
|
||||
\text{ARI}_d = \text{ARI}\big((\widehat{\bm{Z}^1_d},\widehat{\bm{Z}^2_d}),(\bm{Z}^1_d,\bm{Z}^2_d) \big)
|
||||
\end{equation*}
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
All these quality indicators are averaged over the 108 datasets. The results are
|
||||
provided in the tables \ref{tab:per_model_sep} to \ref{tab:per_model_pirho}. Each line corresponds to the
|
||||
108 datasets for a given value of value of $\eps[\alpha]$.
|
||||
|
||||
<<inference_table, echo = FALSE>>=
|
||||
averaged_data <- result_data_frame %>%
|
||||
group_by(epsilon_alpha) %>%
|
||||
summarise(across(-preferred_model, list("avrg" = meanse))) %>%
|
||||
select(-c(2:10))
|
||||
averaged_data <- averaged_data %>%
|
||||
select(which(!grepl("*_BICL_*", colnames(averaged_data)),
|
||||
arr.ind = TRUE))
|
||||
@
|
||||
|
||||
<<function_per_model, echo = FALSE>>=
|
||||
dataframe_per_model <- function(model) {
|
||||
averaged_data %>%
|
||||
select(epsilon_alpha, starts_with(paste0(model, "_")))
|
||||
}
|
||||
@
|
||||
|
||||
\tiny
|
||||
<<per_model_table, echo = FALSE, results='asis', message=FALSE, warning = FALSE>>=
|
||||
for (model in c("sep", "iid", "pi", "rho", "pirho")) {
|
||||
kable_colnames <- c(
|
||||
"$\\eps[\\alpha]$", #"BIC-L",
|
||||
"$\\overline{\\text{ARI}}_{1}$",
|
||||
"$\\overline{\\text{ARI}}_{2}$", "$\\text{ARI}_{1}$", "$\\text{ARI}_{2}$"
|
||||
)
|
||||
model_name <- model
|
||||
if (model != "sep") {
|
||||
kable_colnames <- c(
|
||||
kable_colnames, "Recovered $Q_1$",
|
||||
"Recovered $Q_2$"
|
||||
)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (model == "pirho") {
|
||||
model_name <- "$\\pi\\rho$"
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
if (model != "iid" && model != "sep") {
|
||||
model_name <- paste0("$\\", model, "$")
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
model_name <- paste0("$", model, "$")
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
print(kable(dataframe_per_model(model),
|
||||
escape = FALSE,
|
||||
booktabs = TRUE,
|
||||
digits = 2,
|
||||
position = "!h",
|
||||
caption = paste0(
|
||||
"\\label{tab:per_model_", model,
|
||||
"}Quality metrics for ",
|
||||
ifelse(model != "sep", paste0(model_name, "$\\text{-}colBiSBM$"),"$sep\\text{-}BiSBM$")
|
||||
),
|
||||
col.names = kable_colnames
|
||||
))
|
||||
}
|
||||
@
|
||||
\normalsize
|
||||
|
||||
<<proportion-preferred_model, echo = FALSE>>=
|
||||
proportion_preferred_data <- result_data_frame %>%
|
||||
group_by(epsilon_alpha, preferred_model) %>%
|
||||
summarise(n = n()) %>%
|
||||
mutate(prop_model = n / sum(n)) %>%
|
||||
ungroup() %>%
|
||||
select(-n)
|
||||
|
||||
proportion_preferred_table <- proportion_preferred_data %>%
|
||||
pivot_wider(
|
||||
names_from = preferred_model,
|
||||
values_from = prop_model, values_fill = 0
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
kable(proportion_preferred_table,
|
||||
escape = FALSE,
|
||||
booktabs = TRUE,
|
||||
digits = 2,
|
||||
position = "!h",
|
||||
caption = "\\label{tab:proportion-preferred-table}Proportions of models selected per \\eps[\\alpha] (data for Figure \\ref{fig:inference-proportion-preferred})",
|
||||
col.names = c(
|
||||
"\\eps[\\alpha]",
|
||||
"$sep\\text{-}BiSBM$",
|
||||
"$iid\\text{-}colBiSBM$",
|
||||
"$\\pi\\text{-}colBiSBM$",
|
||||
"$\\rho\\text{-}colBiSBM$",
|
||||
"$\\pi\\rho\\text{-}colBiSBM$"
|
||||
),
|
||||
align = "rccccc",
|
||||
format = "latex"
|
||||
)
|
||||
@
|
||||
|
||||
<<proportion_preferred_figure, echo = FALSE>>=
|
||||
#| fig.cap="\\label{fig:inference-proportion-preferred}Plot of the proportions of different preferred models in function of \\eps[\\alpha]",
|
||||
#| fig.asp = 0.5,
|
||||
#| fig.pos = "H",
|
||||
#| fig.width = 7,
|
||||
#| fig.height = 4,
|
||||
#| dpi=300
|
||||
|
||||
plot <- proportion_preferred_data %>% ggplot() +
|
||||
aes(
|
||||
x = epsilon_alpha, y = prop_model, color = preferred_model,
|
||||
fill = preferred_model
|
||||
) +
|
||||
guides(
|
||||
fill = guide_legend(title = "Preferred Model"),
|
||||
color = guide_legend(title = "Preferred Model")
|
||||
) +
|
||||
scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(from = 0.0, to = 0.24, by = 0.03)) +
|
||||
scale_color_okabe_ito() +
|
||||
scale_fill_okabe_ito() +
|
||||
xlab(TeX("$\\epsilon_{\\alpha}$")) +
|
||||
ylab("Model proportions") +
|
||||
geom_col(position = "stack")
|
||||
print(plot)
|
||||
@
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Results} For the model comparison, when $\eps[\alpha]$ is small
|
||||
($\eps[\alpha]\in[0, .04]$), the simulation model is close to the
|
||||
Erd\H{o}s-Reńyi network and it is very hard to find any structure beyond the one
|
||||
of a single block on each dimension.
|
||||
|
||||
On the figure \ref{fig:inference-proportion-preferred} and table
|
||||
\ref{tab:proportion-preferred-table} we can see that from
|
||||
$\eps[\alpha] = 0.12$ around $70\%$ of the time the $\pi\rho\text{-}colBiSBM$
|
||||
model (i.e., the correct one) is selected.
|
||||
|
||||
An interesting result we can read in the tables is that our models outperform
|
||||
the $sep\text{-}BiSBM$ when considering the ARI on the whole set of nodes
|
||||
($\text{ARI}_d$). This means that our models are able to recover the block
|
||||
pairing \emph{between the networks} in addition to recovering the blocks and
|
||||
their parameters.
|
||||
|
|
@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ network $m$ is assumed to follow a $BiSBM$ with its own parameters ($\bm{\pi}^m,
|
|||
% Here are some common notations and conventions that we will use in the following
|
||||
% sections.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{A collection of i.i.d bipartite SBM}\label{ssec:a-collection-of-i-i-d-bipartite-sbm}
|
||||
\subsection{A collection of iid bipartite SBM}\label{ssec:a-collection-of-i-i-d-bipartite-sbm}
|
||||
As for \emph{colSBM} this first model is the most constrained. It assumes that
|
||||
all the networks are the independent realizations of the same $Q_1$-$Q_2$-BiSBM
|
||||
with identical parameters. The \emph{iid-colBiSBM} is defined as follows:
|
||||
|
|
@ -653,9 +653,12 @@ The process of clustering a collection of networks involves discovering a
|
|||
partition $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{M}_g)_{g=1,\dots,G}$ of $\{1,\dots, M\}$.
|
||||
Given $\mathcal{G}$ we set the following model on $\bm{X}$:
|
||||
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\forall g \in \{1,\dots, G\}, \forall m \in \mathcal{M}_g, X^m \sim \mathcal{F}\text{-}BiSBM(Q_1^g, Q_2^g, \bm{\pi^m, \rho^m,} \bm{\alpha}^g)
|
||||
\]
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\forall g \in \{1,\dots, G\},
|
||||
~\forall m \in \mathcal{M}_g,
|
||||
~X^m \sim
|
||||
\mathcal{F}\text{-}BiSBM(Q_1^g, Q_2^g, \bm{\pi^m, \rho^m,} \bm{\alpha}^g)
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
|
||||
And we defined the score of a given partition $\mathcal{G}$:
|
||||
\[
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Binary file not shown.
|
|
@ -221,8 +221,6 @@ automata,positioning}
|
|||
\addtocounter{maincontentend}{1}
|
||||
\addtocounter{customchapter}{1}
|
||||
\printbibliography
|
||||
\end{selectlanguage}
|
||||
\begin{selectlanguage}{french}
|
||||
\listoffigures
|
||||
\listoftables
|
||||
\end{selectlanguage}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue