rainfall_soln


Think Bayes

Copyright 2018 Allen B. Downey

MIT License: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT


In [1]:
# Configure Jupyter so figures appear in the notebook
%matplotlib inline

# Configure Jupyter to display the assigned value after an assignment
%config InteractiveShell.ast_node_interactivity='last_expr_or_assign'

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd

# import classes from thinkbayes2
from thinkbayes2 import Pmf, Cdf, Suite, Joint

from thinkbayes2 import MakePoissonPmf, EvalBinomialPmf, MakeMixture

import thinkplot

The rain in Boston problem

According to hydrologists, the distribution of total daily rainfall (for days with rain) is well modeled by a two-parameter gamma distribution. There are several ways to parameterize the gamma distribution; we'll use the one with a shape parameter, $k$, and a scale parameter, $\theta$, described by this PDF:

$ \mathrm{pdf}(x; k, \theta) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(k)\theta^k} x^{k-1} \exp(-x/\theta) $

where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function.

  1. Evaluate this PDF for $x=2$, $k=3$, and $\theta=2$ using NumPy functions and scipy.special.gamma.

  2. Evaluate this PDF using scipy.stats.gamma, and confirm that you get the same answer.

  3. During the last three days in the Boston area, we have measured the following rainfalls in inches: 0.78, 0.87, 0.64.

Use this data to compute a joint posterior distributions for the parameters of the gamma distribution.

You can use the following priors:

  • For $k$, Half-normal with $\sigma = 0.5$.

  • For $\theta$, Half-normal with $\sigma = 4$.

  1. What are the posterior means for $k$ and $\theta$?

  2. Generate a predictive distribution for the amount of rain we will get tomorrow (assuming that it rains at all). What is the predictive mean?

Solution

First, here's a function to evaluate the gamma PDF.


In [2]:
from scipy.special import gamma

def gamma_pdf(x, k, theta):
    return x**(k-1) * np.exp(-x/theta) / gamma(k) / theta**k

And here's a version using scipy.stats, translating from the $k$, $\theta$ parameterization to SciPy's inhumane parameterization.


In [3]:
from scipy import stats

def gamma_pdf2(x, k, theta):
    return stats.gamma(k, scale=theta).pdf(x)

Evaluting the PDF at a test location...


In [4]:
x = 2
k = 3
theta = 2 

gamma_pdf(x, k, theta)


Out[4]:
0.09196986029286058

And comparing to the results from SciPy


In [5]:
gamma_pdf2(x, k, theta)


Out[5]:
0.09196986029286057

Now here's the Suite we'll use to estimate parameters from data.


In [6]:
class Rainfall(Suite, Joint):
    
    def Likelihood(self, data, hypo):
        """
        
        data: observed rainfall
        hypo: k, theta
        """
        k, theta = hypo
        x = data
        like = gamma_pdf(x, k, theta)
        return like

For the priors, we'll use a HalfNormal for k


In [7]:
from scipy.stats import norm

ks = np.linspace(0.01, 2, 101)
ps = norm(0, 0.5).pdf(ks)
pmf_k = Pmf(dict(zip(ks, ps)));

And a HalfNormal for theta


In [8]:
thetas = np.linspace(0.01, 12, 101)
ps = norm(0, 4).pdf(thetas)
pmf_theta = Pmf(dict(zip(thetas, ps)));

Now we can initialize the suite.


In [9]:
from thinkbayes2 import MakeJoint

suite = Rainfall(MakeJoint(pmf_k, pmf_theta));

And update it.


In [10]:
data = [0.78, 0.87, 0.64]

%time suite.UpdateSet(data)


CPU times: user 128 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 128 ms
Wall time: 127 ms
Out[10]:
0.012888309412424036

To my surprise, the simple implementation of the PDF using NumPy functions is substantially faster than the SciPy implementation, which evaluates the log-PDF and then exponentiates it.

If there's a good reason for that, it's probably because the numerical behavior is better, but the performance hit is big.

Anyway, here's the posterior marginal for k:


In [11]:
post_k = suite.Marginal(0)
print(post_k.Mean())
thinkplot.Pdf(post_k)
thinkplot.decorate(xlabel='k', ylabel='PDF')


0.6478046847097636

And here's the posterior marginal for theta


In [12]:
post_theta = suite.Marginal(1)
print(post_theta.Mean())
thinkplot.Pdf(post_theta)
thinkplot.decorate(xlabel='theta', ylabel='PDF')


2.4775986527658107

To make the predictive distribution, we'll need to make PMF approximations to gamma distributions.


In [13]:
def make_gamma_pmf(xs, k, theta):
    ps = gamma_pdf(xs, k, theta)
    return Pmf(dict(zip(xs, ps)))

Here's a test case.


In [14]:
xs = np.linspace(0, 20)
pmf = make_gamma_pmf(xs, 3, 2)
thinkplot.Pdf(pmf)


Now we can make a mixture of gamma distributions with parameters from the posterior joint distribution.


In [27]:
xs = np.linspace(0.001, 30, 1001)

metapmf = Pmf()
for (k, theta), p in suite.Items():
    pmf = make_gamma_pmf(xs, k, theta)
    metapmf[pmf] = p

Here's the posterior predictive distribution. Since it is so steep near 0, we need a pretty fine grid to get an accurate estimate of the posterior predictive mean (which we'll verify by comparison to the solution from MCMC below).


In [28]:
pred_pmf = MakeMixture(metapmf)
print(pred_pmf.Mean())
thinkplot.Pdf(pred_pmf)


0.7356873128169283

Now with PyMC

Although I generally like to do grid algorithms first and use them to validate the MCMC solution, this example almost works the other way. I found it easier to write a demonstrably-correct solution in PyMC3, and I used it to help choose the grid location and resolution.


In [17]:
from warnings import simplefilter
simplefilter('ignore', FutureWarning)

import pymc3 as pm

Here's the model in three lines. The only trick part is translating to yet another parameterization.


In [18]:
model = pm.Model()

with model:
    k = pm.HalfNormal('k', 0.5)
    theta = pm.HalfNormal('theta', 4)
    rain = pm.Gamma('rain', alpha=k, beta=1/theta, observed=data)

Sampling worked well enough with the default parameters.


In [19]:
with model:
    trace = pm.sample()


Auto-assigning NUTS sampler...
Initializing NUTS using jitter+adapt_diag...
Multiprocess sampling (2 chains in 2 jobs)
NUTS: [theta, k]
Sampling 2 chains: 100%|██████████| 2000/2000 [00:01<00:00, 1496.17draws/s]
There was 1 divergence after tuning. Increase `target_accept` or reparameterize.
There were 3 divergences after tuning. Increase `target_accept` or reparameterize.

Here are the posterior distributions.


In [20]:
pm.traceplot(trace);



In [21]:
pm.plot_posterior(trace);


Here are the posterior means.


In [22]:
trace['k'].mean()


Out[22]:
0.6306456636846653

In [23]:
trace['theta'].mean()


Out[23]:
2.5673350235036154

Predictions

Here's the posterior predictive distribution.


In [24]:
with model:
    pred = pm.sample_ppc(trace)


100%|██████████| 500/500 [00:00<00:00, 2055.85it/s]

And the posterior predictive mean.


In [25]:
pred['rain'].mean()


Out[25]:
1.4396767923293652

Comparing the results from MCMC and the grid algorithm


In [26]:
cdf = Cdf(pred['rain'].flatten())
thinkplot.Cdf(cdf, label='MCMC')
thinkplot.Cdf(pred_pmf.MakeCdf(), label='Grid')
thinkplot.decorate(xlabel='Predicted rainfall',
                   ylabel='CDF')


Looks good. The predictive means are not quite the same; the most likely culprit is the resolution of the grid algorithm.


In [ ]: