Inverse isometric log ratio simplex method

[spinkney]

I can't find where @bob-carpenter mentioned that he was still trying to understand this transform but it piqued my curiosity because I hadn't heard of it.

After grokking the idea I was able to put together an R script that generates a simplex using it. The idea connects unit vector and simplex stuff together. The following is the reverse of the ILR so it's a bit weird. Needing to invert the Helmert matrix - which enforces the the sum-to-zero constraint in the forward mapping.

make_V <- function(D) {
  apply(t(contr.helmert(D)), 1, function(x) x /norm(x))
}

clr_trans <- function(x) {
  D <- length(x)
  log(x) - sum(log(x)) / D
}

random_simplex <- function(D) {

  x_test_ilr <- runif(D - 1, -5, 5)
  # To reverse transform 
  # append a row with all 0s except the last as 1 to make V matrix invertible
  V <- make_V(D)
  V_fullrank <- rbind(t(V), c(rep(0, D - 1), 1))
  V_inv_fullrank <- solve(V_fullrank)

  # append 0 on the ILR values
  x_test_ilr_zero <- c(x_test_ilr, 0)

  exp_s <- exp(V_inv_fullrank %*% x_test_ilr_zero)
  exp_s

  alpha <- sum(exp_s[1:D-1])
  Z <- -log1p(alpha)

  # values match x_test
  return(exp_s * exp(Z))

}
random_simplex(5)
         [,1]
1 0.020302134
2 0.039406348
3 0.704896030
4 0.005134803
5 0.230260686

I've written a Stan program without the log-det-jac adjustment because I'm tired and I think @sethaxen may be able to whip it up much quicker than me. I put a normal prior just to get sampling going.

data {
 int<lower=0> N;
 matrix[N - 1 , N - 1] Vinv;
}
parameters {
 vector[N - 1] y;
}
transformed parameters {
  simplex[N] z;
  {
    vector[N - 1] s = Vinv * y;
    real alpha = log_sum_exp(append_row(s, 0));
    z = append_row(exp(s - alpha), 1 / exp(alpha));
  }

}
model {
 y ~ normal(0, 10);
}
generated quantities {
  real z_sum = sum(z);
}

To run this you need

make_V <- function(D) {
  apply(t(contr.helmert(D)), 1, function(x) x /norm(x))
}

V <- make_V(N)
V_fullrank <- rbind(t(V), c(rep(0, N - 1), 1))
V_inv_fullrank <- solve(V_fullrank)

mod_out <- mod$sample(
  data = list(N = N,
              Vinv = matrix(V_inv_fullrank[1:(N-1), 1:(N-1)], N-1, N-1)),
  parallel_chains = 4,
  iter_sampling = 2000
)
mod_out$summary("z")

and example output of

 mod_out$summary("z")
# A tibble: 5 × 10
  variable  mean    median    sd       mad       q5   q95  rhat ess_bulk ess_tail
  <chr>    <dbl>     <dbl> <dbl>     <dbl>    <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>    <dbl>    <dbl>
1 z[1]     0.201 0.0000368 0.371 0.0000546 6.36e-14  1.00  1.00    8449.    6023.
2 z[2]     0.206 0.0000382 0.374 0.0000567 3.85e-14  1.00  1.00    9083.    6334.
3 z[3]     0.199 0.0000351 0.369 0.0000521 4.16e-14  1.00  1.00    8053.    6443.
4 z[4]     0.194 0.0000241 0.365 0.0000357 4.58e-14  1.00  1.00    7887.    6253.
5 z[5]     0.201 0.0000500 0.371 0.0000742 3.62e-14  1.00  1.00    7808.    6525.

[spinkney]

Now that I look at it again, it looks like the softmax formulation but using s instead of y. So just

data {
 int<lower=0> N;
 matrix[N - 1 , N - 1] Vinv;
}
parameters {
 vector[N - 1] y;
}
transformed parameters {
  simplex[N] z;
  vector[N - 1] s = Vinv * y;

  {
    real alpha = log_sum_exp(append_row(s, 0));
    z = append_row(exp(s - alpha), 1 / exp(alpha));
  }
}
model {
 target += -N * log1p_exp(log_sum_exp(s)) + sum(s);
}
generated quantities {
  real z_sum = sum(z);
}

[sethaxen]

Is there an explanation of the reasoning behind this transformation somewhere?

I've written a Stan program without the log-det-jac adjustment because I'm tired and I think @sethaxen may be able to whip it up much quicker than me.

Happy to! :slightly_smiling_face:

[spinkney]

I was following this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266864217_AN_ALGEBRAIC_METHOD_TO_COMPUTE_ISOMETRIC_LOGRATIO_TRANSFORMATION_AND_BACK_TRANSFORMATION_OF_COMPOSITIONAL_DATA.

It isn't a great paper but the calculations were confirmed in the compositions R package.

Here's my noob julia code to get the Jacobian. It is not equal to what I have in the Stan program above.

using Test, LinearAlgebra, ForwardDiff, StatsFuns, StatsModels

D = 5
helmert_mat = transpose(StatsModels.ContrastsMatrix(HelmertCoding(), 1:D).matrix)

V_raw = eachrow(helmert_mat) ./ norm.(eachrow(helmert_mat))
V_raw = transpose(reduce(hcat, V_raw))

V_fullrank = vcat(V_raw, vcat(fill(0, D - 1), 1)')
V_inv_fullrank = inv(V_fullrank)

y = rand(Uniform(-10, 10), D - 1)

function euclid_to_simplex!(y, Vinv) 
    s = Vinv * y
    alpha = log(sum(exp.(vcat(s,0 ))))
    return vcat(exp.(s .- alpha), 1/exp(alpha))
end

J = ForwardDiff.jacobian(y -> euclid_to_simplex!(y, V_inv_fullrank[1:D-1,1:D-1]), y)
logabsdet(J'J)[1]/2

# does not equal this
s_test = V_inv_fullrank[1:D-1,1:D-1]  * y
-D * log1pexp(logsumexp(s_test)) + sum(s_test)

[spinkney]

I did get the Jacobian by plugging exp(V*y - vector(log(sum(exp(V*y))))) into matrixcalc.

There's gotta be a simpler formula though

data {
 int<lower=0> N;
 matrix[N - 1 , N - 1] Vinv;
 matrix[N, N] Vinv_full;
}
parameters {
 vector[N - 1] y;
}
transformed parameters {
  simplex[N] z;
  vector[N - 1] s = Vinv * y;
  real logabsdet = 0;

  {
    real alpha = log_sum_exp(append_row(s, 0));
    z = append_row(exp(s - alpha), 1 / exp(alpha));

    vector[N] t0 = exp(Vinv_full * append_row(y, 0));
    real t1 = sum(t0);
    vector[N] t2 = t0 / t1;

  //  matrix[N, N] J = diag_pre_multiply(t2, Vinv_full) - (1/t1) * t2 * (t0' * Vinv_full);
 // a bit faster
   matrix[N, N - 1] J = add_diag( -(1/t1) * t2 * t0', t2) * Vinv_full[:, 1:N - 1];
    logabsdet += log_determinant_spd(crossprod(J[,1:N-1])) * 0.5;
  }

}
model {
 target += logabsdet;
}
generated quantities {
  real z_sum = sum(z);
}

Test of jacobian in Julia

```julia using Test, LinearAlgebra, ForwardDiff, StatsFuns, StatsModels D = 5 helmert_mat = transpose(StatsModels.ContrastsMatrix(HelmertCoding(), 1:D).matrix) V_raw = eachrow(helmert_mat) ./ norm.(eachrow(helmert_mat)) V_raw = transpose(reduce(hcat, V_raw)) V_fullrank = vcat(V_raw, vcat(fill(0, D - 1), 1)') V_inv_fullrank = inv(V_fullrank) y = rand(Uniform(-10, 10), D - 1) s = V_inv_fullrank[1:D-1,1:D-1] * y z = vcat(exp.(s .- alpha), 1/exp(alpha)) function euclide_to_simplex!(y, Vinv) s = Vinv * y alpha = log(sum(exp.(vcat(s,0 )))) return vcat(exp.(s .- alpha), 1/exp(alpha)) end J = ForwardDiff.jacobian(y -> euclide_to_simplex!(y, V_inv_fullrank[1:D-1,1:D-1]), y) t0 = V_inv_fullrank * vcat(y, 0) t1 = exp.(t0) t2 = sum(t1) t3 = exp.(t0 .- log(t2) ) J_test = diagm(t3) * V_inv_fullrank - (1/t2) * t3 * (transpose(t1) * V_inv_fullrank) @test logabsdet(J_test[:, 1:D-1]'J_test[:, 1:D-1])[1] * 0.5 ≈ logabsdet(J'J)[1]/2 Test Passed Expression: (logabsdet((J_test[:, 1:D - 1])' * J_test[:, 1:D - 1]))[1] * 0.5 ≈ (logabsdet(J' * J))[1] / 2 Evaluated: -24.100049227510453 ≈ -24.100049227559065 ```

[bob-carpenter]

Two things should help.

$$ \det(A \ B) = (\det A \ \det B) \qquad \det(A^{\top}) = \det(A) $$

That means

$$ \log \det J J^{\top} = \log \det J + \log \det J^{\top} = 2 \log \det J $$

so we can avoid the cross-product. And then $J$ itself is a product that can be decomposed the same way with a component that can be precomputed as transformed data (Vinv_full), so we are left with needing a determinant for

$$ \textrm{diag}(t_2) + \frac{-t_2}{t_1} \ t_0^{\top} $$

Now we can apply the matrix determinant lemma

$$ \det (A + uv^{\top}) = (1 + v^{\top} A^{-1} u) \ \det(A) $$

with $A = \textrm{diag}(t_2)$, $u = \frac{-t_2}{t_1}$, and $v = t_0$.

I just learned this matrix determinant lemma last week and it's cropping up everywhere! Of course, I could've botched the linear algebra, so please double check!

[spinkney]

I got it!!

By chance I happened to find a ILR cheatsheet. Wow! So easy to take the derivative. I confirmed with the Julia code.

$$ \log |J| = \log\text{softmax}(Vy)+ \log(D) $$

data {
 int<lower=0> N;
 matrix[N - 1 , N - 1] Vinv;
 matrix[N, N] Vinv_full;
}
parameters {
 vector[N - 1] y;
}
transformed parameters {
  simplex[N] z;
  vector[N - 1] s = Vinv * y;
  real logabsdet = sum(log_softmax( Vinv_full[:, 1:N-1] * y)) + log(N);

  {
    real alpha = log_sum_exp(append_row(s, 0));
    z = append_row(exp(s - alpha), 1 / exp(alpha));
  }

}
model {
 target += logabsdet;
}
generated quantities {
  real z_sum = sum(z);
}

[spinkney]

The code can be simplified quite a bit. Where I've updated Vinv to be N x N -1. The adjustment is just the sum of the log simplex and the log of the dimension of the simplex.

data {
 int<lower=0> N;
 matrix[N, N - 1] Vinv;
}
transformed data {
  real logN = log(N);
}
parameters {
 vector[N - 1] y;
}
transformed parameters {
  vector[N] s = Vinv * y;
  real alpha = log_sum_exp(s);
  simplex[N] z = exp(s - alpha);
}
model {
target += sum(s - alpha) + logN;
}
generated quantities {
  real z_sum = sum(z);
}

[mjhajharia]

yes that cheatsheet was super useful i came across it last week only!!!!

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 3:16 PM Sean Pinkney @.***> wrote:

I got it!!

By chance I happened to find a ILR cheatsheet http://www.sediment.uni-goettingen.de/staff/tolosana/extra/CoDaNutshell.pdf. Wow! So easy to take the derivative. I confirmed with the Julia code.

$$ \log |J| = \log\text{softmax}(V^\top y)+ \log(D) $$

data { int N; matrix[N - 1 , N - 1] Vinv; //matrix[N, N] Vinv_full; }parameters { vector[N - 1] y; }transformed parameters { simplex[N] z; vector[N - 1] s = Vinv y; real logabsdet = sum(log_softmax( Vinv_full[:, 1:N-1] y)) + log(N);

{ real alpha = log_sum_exp(append_row(s, 0)); z = append_row(exp(s - alpha), 1 / exp(alpha)); }

}model { target += logabsdet; }generated quantities { real z_sum = sum(z); }

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mjhajharia/transforms/issues/39#issuecomment-1192865709, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANEZILHDJK3PCYIJUI533O3VVLXPPANCNFSM54JQKIWQ . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[spinkney]

@sethaxen I'm seeing discrepancies from ForwardDiff and this log-abs-det that I'm not sure are due to numerical computation errors or I'm missing something on this transform. If I make the dimension size 10000 the difference is about 2 which seems much too high. Is this a typical observation or does it indicate I'm still missing something. The differences are very small for low dimension sizes.

[spinkney]

Ok, it's floating point errors. If I restrict the domain of y to 0,1 or -1, 1 or something the differences disappear. I'm guessing it's the final exp.

[spinkney]

I haven't had this much fun doing math in a long time. What I have is correct and it follows from the matrix determinant lemma that @bob-carpenter gave (thanks a ton for that hint)! It's quite elegant that the log-determinant of the matrix calculus formula boils down to this simple update. I'll update the paper with the math and make a pull request for the stan code over the next few days.

[bob-carpenter]

I haven't had this much fun doing math in a long time.

Algebra is a lot of fun when a big pile of math like a log Jacobian determinant works out to something simple. I'm hoping we can convey that to the reader while making all this understandable.

[spinkney]

After going through all the math this is just the softmax transform with a linear scaling applied.

[spinkney]

I'm opening this back up because - although I don't understand why - the ESS is 10x higher for the last parameter in this transform vs the softmax.

[bob-carpenter]

the ESS is 10x higher for the last parameter in this transform vs the softmax.

Is that softmax with the last element pinned to zero?

[spinkney]

Yes, softmax with the last value pinned to zero

[bob-carpenter]

Perhaps that's not surprising when you look at the Jacobian, which is all about how much probability is left over for the last element and then raised to dimensionality power.