RFC: add `quantile`?
mdhaber opened this issue · 7 comments
I'm working on adding array API support in scipy.stats
(scipy/scipy#20544) and one of the the things I'll need is a quantile
function. If there is some support for this idea, I'll convert this issue into a proper proposal.
Looks like there is already wide support:
numpy.quantile
torch.quantile
cupy.quantile
jax.numpy.quantile
dask.dataframe.DataFrame.quantile
tfp.stats.quantiles
xarray.DataArray.quantile
Previous discussions (not much):
There are many conventions for calculating quantiles. Only a few methods would be required by the standard, and if choice of a default is too contentious, perhaps the array-API can consider method
to be a required keyword argument, and libraries would be welcome to keep their own default.
Thanks for the proposal @mdhaber. I don't quite have an opinion yet - I think it in part depends on the situation with methods (see below).
Also - how much do you actually need this? I only count two instances of it being used in SciPy, one of which is a test case. I just did a grep, so I may be missing some dynamic usage perhaps. The one instance is pretty simple, no keyword usage:
Only a few methods would be required by the standard,
Which ones? Could we get away with only a default method, and hence no method
keyword?
and if choice of a default is too contentious, perhaps the array-API can consider
method
to be a required keyword argument, and libraries would be welcome to keep their own default.
Related is our previous discussion on median
, which we left out due to implementation difficulty in distributed contexts. That stated, Dask does implement median
, so may be time to revisit this.
Also - how much do you actually need this?
Personally, I don't need it very badly. You're right that quantile
/percentile
only appear in a few stats
functions (stats.bootstrap
, stats.iqr
, and some distribution fitting code), and it is easy to compute quantiles
using existing array-API functions namely (sort
). However, when only a few percentiles
are needed, it is more efficient to use a partition approach. One could propose adding partition
, since it is more general, but I would only use it for quantile
.
Which ones? Could we get away with only a default method, and hence no method keyword?
The standard reference is Sample Quantiles in Statistical Packages.
The current variation in sample quantile definitions causes confusion, and so there is a need to standardize the definition of sample quantile across packages and within packages... and we propose that
$Q_8$ is the best choice
median_unbiased
. However, linear
) is the default in most libraries. It would be unfortunate to have to choose between the two. hazen
) also satisfies many desirable properties. So I suppose I would suggest having these three in that order of priority.
One wrench I'd like to throw into my own proposal:
The current behavior of np.quantile(a, q, axis)
(and other implementations that follow NumPy) is for the quantiles specified by q
, a 1D array-like, to be computed for all axis
-slices of the data a
. This makes it impossible to efficiently compute a different quantile for each axis-slice of a
(which is needed, for example, in a vectorized implementation of the BCA-bootstrap).
I would propose following normal broadcasting rules between a
and q
(possibly with the constraint that q
must be 0D or have length 1
along axis
), which would meet both needs. A hybrid possibility, which would just be an extension of the existing behavior, would be to allow q
to be an N-D array that is broadcastable with a
except along axis
. In this case, for each pair of corresponding axis-slices a_i
and q_i
, it would compute all quantiles of a_i
specified by q_i
.
I did a bit of digging, with the disclaimer that my digging is incomplete, but I'll try to summarize my initial findings below.
Overview
I took a peak at which APIs were implemented across array libraries, spot-checked whether/how they were implemented, and did a search for which APIs were used in SciPy and sklearn.
median
Usage
Implementations
- NumPy implements in terms of
partition
- CuPy implements as an element-wise kernel
- PyTorch returns the lower of two medians for an even number of elements, rather than the average (NumPy returns the avg to avoid breaking astropy); to return an average, must call
quantile
. - Dask supports
median
- TensorFlow does not appear to have a dedicated
median
API, instead deferring topercentile
quantile
Usage
Implementations
- NumPy implements in terms of
partition
- CuPy relies on
sort
- only supports a subset of methods:
lower
,higher
,midpoint
,nearest
, andlinear
- only supports a subset of methods:
- PyTorch supports the same methods as CuPy
- Dask supports in DataFrames, but not arrays
- TensorFlow implements in terms of
percentile
- supports the same methods as CuPy
- API differs in that you specify the number of quantiles you want
percentile
Usage
Implementations
- NumPy implements in terms of
quantile
- PyTorch does not support
- CuPy implements in terms of
quantile
- supports only
linear
,lower
,higher
,nearest
, andmidpoint
methods
- supports only
- Dask supports "approximate" percentiles
- supports same methods as CuPy
- TensorFlow implements in terms of
sort
- supports same methods as CuPy
partition
Implementations
- NumPy: https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/generated/numpy.partition.html
- CuPy supports: https://docs.cupy.dev/en/stable/reference/generated/cupy.partition.html
- PyTorch does not support
- Dask does not support
- TensorFlow does not support
I reviewed scipy.stats
more thoroughly for uses of median
, quantile
, and/or percentile
. The first three functions would benefit from having quantile
in the array API; for the rest, median
would suffice.
scipy.stats.bootstrap
usespercentile
here, but I would be happy to change it to usequantile
. It would benefit from aquantile
function with improved vectorization as described above.scipy.stats.iqr
usespercentile
here, but I'd be happy to change it to usequantile
.scipy.stats.epps_singleton_2samp
usesiqr
here.scipy.stats.siegelslopes
is currently implemented using Pythran, but I think it can be reasonably fast without Pythran if we wanted to use other backends. (Could Pythran dispatch to other backends in the future?) It usesmedian
here and again outside the loop.scipy.stats.theilslopes
usesmedian
here.scipy.stats.median_test
, as one might imagine, usesmedian
here.scipy.stats.levene
usesmedian
here.scipy.stats.fligner
usesmedian
here.scipy.stats.mstats.sen_seasonal_slopes
usesnp.ma.median
here, but one could argue that this should be implemented instats
with regularnp.median
.
There are also uses of partition
in stats.trim
functions (trim_mean
, trimboth
, trim1
).
Most of these functions have something else that would make array API conversion challenging at the moment, but I don't think any have non-starters for array API support. I've omitted uses I don't think will get array API support any time soon (e.g. levy_stable
). There are also uses in other sub-packages (e.g. scipy.ndimage.median_filter), but I'm less familiar with their prospects for array API support.
Ideally it would be nice to have support for weights and filtering missing values automatically.
NumPy 2 recently added support for weighted percentiles/quantiles via the weights
kwarg:
Adding support for nan value filtering is being discussed in #621.
However, this is not necessarily easy to handle both weights and missing values (EDIT: actually it mostly means forcing the weight of nan entries to zero before computing the cumsum of weights of the sorted observations). There is a related pull request in NumPy here:
In scikit-learn we maintain our own _weighted_percentile
helper to deal with this and it's used in several places of our code base.
In my experience, quantiles are very important in practice and occur all over the places.
Which ones? Could we get away with only a default method, and hence no method keyword?
The standard reference is Sample Quantiles in Statistical Packages.The current variation in sample quantile definitions causes confusion, and so there is a need to standardize the definition of sample quantile across packages and within packages... and we propose that Q8 is the best choice
Q8 corresponds with NumPy's
median_unbiased
. However, Q7 (linear
) is the default in most libraries. It would be unfortunate to have to choose between the two. Q5 (hazen
) also satisfies many desirable properties. So I suppose I would suggest having these three in that order of priority.
I could imagine to let the default method vary (for easier consensus), but each one must have a linear
option (most have it already).
For weighted quantiles in particular, method inverted_cdf
would be mandatory.