Commit 39f58776 by Tiago Peixoto

### Add 'inference' section to cookbook

parent a0d0dd23
 ... ... @@ -7,4 +7,5 @@ Contents: :maxdepth: 3 :glob: inference/inference animation/animation \ No newline at end of file
 Inferring network structure =========================== graph-tool includes algorithms to identify the large-scale structure of networks in the :mod:~graph_tool.inference submodule. Here we explain the basic functionality with self-contained examples. Background: Nonparametric statistical inference ----------------------------------------------- A common task when analyzing networks is to characterize their structures in simple terms, often by dividing the nodes into modules or "communities". A principled approach to perform this task is to formulate generative models _ that include the idea of "modules" in their descriptions, which then can be detected by inferring _ the model parameters from data. More precisely, given the partition :math:\boldsymbol b = \{b_i\} of the network into :math:B groups, where :math:b_i\in[0,B-1] is the group membership of node :math:i, we define a model that generates a network :math:G with a probability .. math:: :label: model-likelihood P(G|\theta, \boldsymbol b) where :math:\theta are additional model parameters. Therefore, if we observe a network :math:G, the likelihood that it was generated by a given partition :math:\boldsymbol b is obtained via the Bayesian _ posterior .. math:: :label: model-posterior-sum P(\boldsymbol b | G) = \frac{\sum_{\theta}P(G|\theta, \boldsymbol b)P(\theta, \boldsymbol b)}{P(G)} where :math:P(\theta, \boldsymbol b) is the prior likelihood of the model parameters, and .. math:: :label: model-evidence P(G) = \sum_{\theta,\boldsymbol b}P(G|\theta, \boldsymbol b)P(\theta, \boldsymbol b) is called the model evidence. The particular types of model that will be considered here have "hard constraints", such that there is only one choice for the remaining parameters :math:\theta that is compatible with the generated network, such that Eq. :eq:model-posterior-sum simplifies to .. math:: :label: model-posterior P(\boldsymbol b | G) = \frac{P(G|\theta, \boldsymbol b)P(\theta, \boldsymbol b)}{P(G)} with :math:\theta above being the only choice compatible with :math:G and :math:\boldsymbol b. The inference procedures considered here will consist in either finding a network partition that maximizes Eq. :eq:model-posterior, or sampling different partitions according its posterior probability. As we will show below, this approach will also enable the comparison of different models according to statistical evidence (a.k.a. model selection). Minimum description length (MDL) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ We note that Eq. :eq:model-posterior can be written as .. math:: P(\boldsymbol b | G) = \frac{e^{-\Sigma}}{P(G)} where .. math:: :label: model-dl \Sigma = -\ln P(G|\theta, \boldsymbol b) - \ln P(\theta, \boldsymbol b) is called the **description length** of the network :math:G. It measures the amount of information _ required to describe the data, if we encode _ it using the particular parametrization of the generative model given by :math:\theta and :math:\boldsymbol b, as well as the parameters themselves. Therefore, if we choose to maximize the posterior likelihood of Eq. :eq:model-posterior it will be fully equivalent to the so-called minimum description length _ method. This approach corresponds to an implementation of Occam's razor _, where the simplest model is selected, among all possibilities with the same explanatory power. The selection is based on the statistical evidence available, and therefore will not overfit _, i.e. mistake stochastic fluctuations for actual structure. The stochastic block model (SBM) -------------------------------- The stochastic block model _ is arguably the simplest generative process based on the notion of groups of nodes [holland-stochastic-1983]_. The microcanonical _ formulation [peixoto-entropy-2012]_ of the basic or "traditional" version takes as parameters the partition of the nodes into groups :math:\boldsymbol b and a :math:B\times B matrix of edge counts :math:\boldsymbol e, where :math:e_{rs} is the number of edges between groups :math:r and :math:s. Given these constraints, the edges are then placed randomly. Hence, nodes that belong to the same group possess the same probability of being connected with other nodes of the network. An example of a possible parametrization is given in the following figure. .. testcode:: sbm-example :hide: import os try: os.chdir("demos/inference") except FileNotFoundError: pass g = gt.load_graph("blockmodel-example.gt.gz") gt.graph_draw(g, pos=g.vp.pos, vertex_size=10, vertex_fill_color=g.vp.bo, vertex_color="#333333", edge_gradient=g.new_ep("vector", val=[0]), output="sbm-example.svg") ers = g.gp.w from pylab import * figure() matshow(log(ers)) xlabel("Group $r$") ylabel("Group $s$") gca().xaxis.set_label_position("top") savefig("sbm-example-ers.svg") .. table:: :class: figure +----------------------------------+------------------------------+ |.. figure:: sbm-example-ers.svg |.. figure:: sbm-example.svg | | :width: 300px | :width: 300px | | :align: center | :align: center | | | | | Matrix of edge counts | Generated network. | | :math:\boldsymbol e between | | | groups. | | +----------------------------------+------------------------------+ .. note:: We emphasize that no constraints are imposed on what kind of modular structure is allowed. Hence, we can detect the putatively typical pattern of "community structure" _, i.e. when nodes are connected mostly to other nodes of the same group, if it happens to be the most likely network description, but we can also detect a large multiplicity of other patterns, such as bipartiteness _, core-periphery, and many others, all under the same inference framework. Although quite general, the traditional model assumes that the edges are placed randomly inside each group, and as such the nodes that belong to the same group have very similar degrees. As it turns out, this is often a poor model for many networks, which possess highly heterogeneous degree distributions. A better model for such networks is called the degree-corrected stochastic block model [karrer-stochastic-2011]_, and it is defined just like the traditional model, with the addition of the degree sequence :math:\boldsymbol k = \{k_i\} of the graph as an additional set of parameters (assuming again a microcanonical formulation [peixoto-entropy-2012]_). The nested stochastic block model +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The regular SBM has a drawback when applied to very large networks. Namely, it cannot be used to find relatively small groups in very large networks: The maximum number of groups that can be found scales as :math:B_{\text{max}}\sim\sqrt{N}, where :math:N is the number of nodes in the network, if Bayesian inference is performed [peixoto-parsimonious-2013]_. In order to circumvent this, we need to replace the noninformative priors used by a hierarchy of priors and hyperpriors, which amounts to a nested SBM, where the groups themselves are clustered into groups, and the matrix :math:e of edge counts are generated from another SBM, and so on recursively [peixoto-hierarchical-2014]_. .. figure:: nested-diagram.* :width: 400px :align: center Example of a nested SBM with three levels. In addition to being able to find small groups in large networks, this model also provides a multilevel hierarchical description of the network, that describes its structure at multiple scales. Inferring the best partition ---------------------------- The simplest and most efficient approach is to find the best partition of the network by maximizing Eq. :eq:model-posterior according to some version of the model. This is obtained via the functions :func:~graph_tool.inference.minimize_blockmodel_dl or :func:~graph_tool.inference.minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl, which employs an agglomerative multilevel Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) _ algorithm [peixoto-efficient-2014]_. We focus first on the non-nested model, and we illustrate its use with a network of American football teams, which we load from the :mod:~graph_tool.collection module: .. testsetup:: football import os try: os.chdir("demos/inference") except FileNotFoundError: pass .. testcode:: football g = gt.collection.data["football"] print(g) which yields .. testoutput:: football we then fit the traditional model by calling .. testcode:: football state = gt.minimize_blockmodel_dl(g, deg_corr=False) This returns a :class:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState object that includes the inference results. .. note:: The inference algorithm used is stochastic by nature, and may return a slightly different answer each time it is run. This may be due to the fact that there are alternative partitions with similar likelihoods, or that the optimum is difficult to find. Note that the inference problem here is, in general, NP-Hard _, hence there is no efficient algorithm that is guaranteed to always find the best answer. Because of this, typically one would call the algorithm many times, and select the partition with the largest posterior likelihood of Eq. :eq:model-posterior, or equivalently, the minimum description length of Eq. :eq:model-dl. The description length of a fit can be obtained with the :meth:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState.entropy method. See also :ref:sec_model_selection below. We may perform a drawing of the partition obtained via the :mod:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState.draw method, that functions as a convenience wrapper to the :func:~graph_tool.draw.graph_draw function .. testcode:: football state.draw(pos=g.vp.pos, output="football-sbm-fit.svg") which yields the following image. .. figure:: football-sbm-fit.* :align: center :width: 400px Stochastic block model inference of a network of American college football teams. The colors correspond to inferred group membership of the nodes. We can obtain the group memberships as a :class:~graph_tool.PropertyMap on the vertices via the :mod:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState.get_blocks method: .. testcode:: football b = state.get_blocks() r = b[10] # group membership of vertex 10 print(r) which yields: .. testoutput:: football 3 We may also access the matrix of edge counts between groups via :mod:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState.get_matrix .. testcode:: football e = state.get_matrix() matshow(e.todense()) savefig("football-edge-counts.svg") .. figure:: football-edge-counts.* :align: center Matrix of edge counts between groups. We may obtain the same matrix of edge counts as a graph, which has internal edge and vertex property maps with the edge and vertex counts, respectively: .. testcode:: football bg = state.get_bg() ers = bg.ep.count # edge counts nr = bg.vp.count # node counts .. _sec_model_selection: Hierarchical partitions +++++++++++++++++++++++ The inference of the nested family of SBMs is done in a similar manner, but we must use instead the :func:~graph_tool.inference.minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl function. We illustrate its use with the neural network of the C. elegans _ worm: .. testcode:: celegans g = gt.collection.data["celegansneural"] print(g) which has 297 vertices and 2359 edges. .. testoutput:: celegans A hierarchical fit of the degree-corrected model is performed as follows. .. testcode:: celegans state = gt.minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl(g, deg_corr=True) The object returned is an instance of a :class:~graph_tool.inference.NestedBlockState class, which encapsulates the results. We can again draw the resulting hierarchical clustering using the :meth:~graph_tool.inference.NestedBlockState.draw method: .. testcode:: celegans state.draw(output="celegans-hsbm-fit.svg") .. figure:: celegans-hsbm-fit.* :align: center Most likely hierarchical partition of the neural network of the C. elegans worm according to the nested degree-corrected SBM. .. note:: If the output parameter to :meth:~graph_tool.inference.NestedBlockState.draw is omitted, an interactive visualization is performed, where the user can re-order the hierarchy nodes using the mouse and pressing the r key. A summary of the inferred hierarchy can be obtained with the :meth:~graph_tool.inference.NestedBlockState.print_summary method, which shows the number of nodes and groups in all levels: .. testcode:: celegans state.print_summary() .. testoutput:: celegans l: 0, N: 297, B: 23 l: 1, N: 23, B: 6 l: 2, N: 6, B: 2 l: 3, N: 2, B: 1 The hierarchical levels themselves are represented by individual :meth:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState instances via the :meth:~graph_tool.inference.NestedBlockState.get_levels() method: .. testcode:: celegans levels = state.get_levels() for s in levels: print(s) .. testoutput:: celegans , at 0x...> , at 0x...> , at 0x...> , at 0x...> This means that we can inspect the hierarchical partition just as before: .. testcode:: celegans r = levels[0].get_blocks()[42] # group membership of node 42 in level 0 print(r) r = levels[0].get_blocks()[r] # group membership of node 42 in level 1 print(r) r = levels[0].get_blocks()[r] # group membership of node 42 in level 2 print(r) .. testoutput:: celegans 10 6 4 Model selection +++++++++++++++ As mentioned above, one can select the best model according to the choice that yields the smallest description length. For instance, in case of the C. elegans network we have .. testcode:: model-selection g = gt.collection.data["celegansneural"] state_ndc = gt.minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl(g, deg_corr=False) state_dc = gt.minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl(g, deg_corr=True) print("Non-degree-corrected DL:\t", state_ndc.entropy()) print("Degree-corrected DL:\t", state_dc.entropy()) .. testoutput:: model-selection :options: +NORMALIZE_WHITESPACE Non-degree-corrected DL: 8498.72893945 Degree-corrected DL: 8302.44951314 Since it yields the smallest description length, the degree-corrected fit should be preferred. The statistical significance of the choice can be accessed by inspecting the posterior odds ratio (or more precisely, the Bayes factor _) [peixoto-model-2016]_ .. math:: \Lambda &= \frac{P(\boldsymbol b | G, \mathcal{H}_\text{NDC})}{P(\boldsymbol b | G, \mathcal{H}_\text{DC})} \\ &= \exp(-\Delta\Sigma) where :math:\mathcal{H}_\text{NDC} and :math:\mathcal{H}_\text{DC} correspond to the non-degree-corrected and degree-corrected model hypotheses, respectively, and :math:\Delta\Sigma is the difference of the description length of both fits. In our particular case, we have .. testcode:: model-selection print("ln Λ: ", state_dc.entropy() - state_ndc.entropy()) .. testoutput:: model-selection :options: +NORMALIZE_WHITESPACE ln Λ: -196.279426317 The precise threshold that should be used to decide when to reject a hypothesis _ is subjective and context-dependent, but the value above implies that the particular degree-corrected fit is around :math:e^{196} \sim 10^{85} times more likely than the non-degree corrected one, and hence it can be safely concluded that it provides a substantially better fit. Although it is often true that the degree-corrected model provides a better fit for many empirical networks, there are also exceptions. For example, for the American football network above, we have: .. testcode:: model-selection g = gt.collection.data["football"] state_ndc = gt.minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl(g, deg_corr=False) state_dc = gt.minimize_nested_blockmodel_dl(g, deg_corr=True) print("Non-degree-corrected DL:\t", state_ndc.entropy()) print("Degree-corrected DL:\t", state_dc.entropy()) print("ln Λ:\t\t\t", state_ndc.entropy() - state_dc.entropy()) .. testoutput:: model-selection :options: +NORMALIZE_WHITESPACE Non-degree-corrected DL: 1725.78502074 Degree-corrected DL: 1772.83605254 ln Λ: -47.0510317979 Hence, with a posterior odds ratio of :math:\Lambda \sim e^{-47} \sim 10^{-20} in favor of the non-degree-corrected model, it seems like the degree-corrected variant is an unnecessarily complex description for this network. Averaging over models --------------------- When analyzing empirical networks, one should be open to the possibility that there will be more than one fit of the SBM with similar posterior likelihoods. In such situations, one should instead sample partitions from the posterior likelihood, instead of simply finding its maximum. One can then compute quantities that are averaged over the different model fits, weighted according to their posterior likelihoods. Full support for model averaging is implemented in graph-tool via an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) _ algorithm [peixoto-efficient-2014]_. It works by attempting to move nodes into different groups with specific probabilities, and accepting or rejecting _ such moves such that, after a sufficiently long time, the partitions will be observed with the desired posterior probability. The algorithm is so designed, that its run-time is independent on the number of groups being used in the model, and hence is suitable for use on very large networks. In order to perform such moves, one needs again to operate with :class:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState or :class:~graph_tool.inference.NestedBlockState instances, and calling their :meth:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState.mcmc_sweep methods. For example, the following will perform 1000 sweeps of the algorithm with the network of characters in the novel Les Misérables, starting from a random partition into 20 groups .. testsetup:: model-averaging import os try: os.chdir("demos/inference") except FileNotFoundError: pass .. testcode:: model-averaging g = gt.collection.data["lesmis"] state = gt.BlockState(g, B=20) # This automatically initializes the state # with a random partition into B=20 # nonempty groups; The user could # also pass an arbitrary initial # partition using the 'b' parameter. # If we work with the above state object, we will be restricted to # partitions into at most B=20 groups. But since we want to consider # an arbitrary number of groups in the range [1, N], we transform it # into a state with B=N groups (where N-20 will be empty). state = state.copy(B=g.num_vertices()) # Now we run 1,000 sweeps of the MCMC dS, nmoves = state.mcmc_sweep(niter=1000) print("Change in description length:", dS) print("Number of accepted vertex moves:", nmoves) .. testoutput:: model-averaging Change in description length: -374.3292765930462 Number of accepted vertex moves: 4394 .. note:: Starting from a random partition is rarely the best option, since it may take a long time for it to equilibrate; It was done above simply as an illustration on how to initialize :class:~graph_tool.inference.BlockState by hand. Instead, a much better option in practice is to start from the "ground state" obtained with :func:~graph_tool.inference.minimize_blockmodel_dl, e.g. .. testcode:: model-averaging state = gt.minimize_blockmodel_dl(g) state = state.copy(B=g.num_vertices()) dS, nmoves = state.mcmc_sweep(niter=1000) print("Change in description length:", dS) print("Number of accepted vertex moves:", nmoves) .. testoutput:: model-averaging Change in description length: 22.056557648826185 Number of accepted vertex moves: 4490 Although the above is sufficient to implement model averaging, there is a convenience function called :func:~graph_tool.inference.mcmc_equilibrate that is intend to simplify the detection of equilibration, by keeping track of the maximum and minimum values of description length encountered and how many sweeps have been made without a "record breaking" event. For example, .. testcode:: model-averaging # We will accept equilibration if 10 sweeps are completed without a # record breaking event, 2 consecutive times. gt.mcmc_equilibrate(state, wait=10, nbreaks=2, mcmc_args=dict(niter=10), verbose=True)