I'm using the captum library to calculate LayerGradCam.
layer_gc = LayerGradCam(model, model.layer4)
attr = layer_gc.attribute(x, class_idx, relu_attributions=True)
Some values in attr have values greater than 1. Is this supposed to be the case?
If it is, then is it valid to minmax normalize the attributions in a batch?
I'm using these attributions to calculate Dice loss using pixel maps where the max value is 1. So when the attributions are greater than 1, Dice loss becomes negative, which is not valid.
So,
Question 1: Are the attributions supposed to be going over 1 or am I doing something wrong?
Question 2: If they're supposed to go over 1, is it valid to normalize the them per batch?
Related
I'm trying to make a ROC curve for my model while using a Naive Bayes Classifier. To do this, I need to change the value of the threshold for my classifier. The way I interpreted it, a list must be passed with the value for the threshold of each category. So if i had two categories, and t is the threshold I want to set (0 <= t <= 1), then I would have to pass a list like this: [1-t, t].
Anyways, when i tried doing the ROC curve, I got this:
Given the result, my idea was that the idea I had for the theshold might have been wrong, so I went to check the documentation for the Naive Bayes Classifier. But when I finally found an example i dont get what the criteria is for the parameter:
nb = nb.setThresholds([0.01, 10.00])
Does anyone know what must be passed to the threshold? Supose I want the theshold to be set at 0.7 (if the probability is over 0.7 i want the prediction to be 1), what should i pass to the threshold parameter?
As it says in pyspark.ml's documentation for NaiveBayes under the thresholds parameter:
The class with largest value p/t is predicted, where p is the original
probability of that class and t is the class's threshold.
Therefore, thresholds can be thought of as handicaps on the probabilities. To keep it simple, in the case of binary classification, you can set the thresholds as a value in the range [0, 1], such that they sum to 1. This will get you the desired rule of "Classify as True if the probability is over threshold T, otherwise classify as False".
For your specific ask of a 0.7 probability threshold, this would look like:
nb = nb.setThresholds([0.3, 0.7])
assuming that the first entry is the threshold for False and the second value is the thresold for True. Using these thresholds, the model would classify a class with False and True probabilities p_false and p_true by taking the greater value out of [p_false/0.3, p_true/0.7].
You can technically set the thresholds to any value. Just remember that the probability for class X will be divided by its respective threshold and compared against the other adjusted probabilities for the other classes.
I want my sigmoid to never print a solid 1 or 0, but to actually print the exact value
i tried using
torch.set_printoptions(precision=20)
but it didn't work. here's a sample output of the sigmoid function :
before sigmoid : tensor([[21.2955703735]])
after sigmoid : tensor([[1.]])
but i don't want it to print 1, i want it to print the exact number, how can i force this?
The difference between 1 and the exact value of sigmoid(21.2955703735) is on the order of 5e-10, which is significantly less than machine epsilon for float32 (which is about 1.19e-7). Therefore 1.0 is the best approximation that can be achieved with the default precision. You can cast your tensor to a float64 (AKA double precision) tensor to get a more precise estimate.
torch.set_printoptions(precision=20)
x = torch.tensor([21.2955703735])
result = torch.sigmoid(x.to(dtype=torch.float64))
print(result)
which results in
tensor([0.99999999943577644324], dtype=torch.float64)
Keep in mind that even with 64-bit floating point computation this is only accurate to about 6 digits past the last 9 (and will be even less precise for larger sigmoid inputs). A better way to represent numbers very close to one is to directly compute the difference between 1 and the value. In this case 1 - sigmoid(x) which is equivalent to 1 / (1 + exp(x)) or sigmoid(-x). For example,
x = torch.tensor([21.2955703735])
delta = torch.sigmoid(-x.to(dtype=torch.float64))
print(f'sigmoid({x.item()}) = 1 - {delta.item()}')
results in
sigmoid(21.295570373535156) = 1 - 5.642236648842976e-10
and is a more accurate representation of your desired result (though still not exact).
I was using KNN from sklearn and predicted the labels using predict_proba. I was expecting the values in the range of 0 to 1 since it tells the probability for a particular class. But I am only getting 0 & 1.
I have put large k values also but to no gain. Though I have only 1000 samples with features around 200 and the matrix is largely sparse.
Can anybody tell me what could be the solution here?
sklearn.neighbors.KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=**k**)
The reason why you're getting only 0 & 1 is because of the n_neighbors = k parameter. If k value is set to 1, then you will get 0 or 1. If it's set to 2, you will get 0, 0.5 or 1. And if it's set to 3, then the probability outputs will be 0, 0.333, 0.666, or 1.
Also note that probability values are essentially meaningless in KNN. The algorithm is based on similarity and distance.
The reason might be lack of variety of data in training and test sets.
If the features of a sample may only exist in a particular class and its features don't exist in any sample of other classes in training set, then that sample will be predicted to belong that class with probability of 100% (1) and 0% (0) for other classes.
Otherwise; let say you have 2 classes and test a sample like knn.predict_proba(sample) and expect some result like [[0.47, 0.53]] The result will yield 1 in total in either way.
If thats the case, try generating your own test sample that has features from more than one classes objects in training set.
I'm aware of:
id,value = max(enumerate(trans_p), key=operator.itemgetter(1))
I'm trying to find something equivalent for matrices, where I'm looking for the value and row index of the max for each column of the matrix
so the function could take in any matrix, such as:
np.array([[0,0,1],[2,0,0],[5,0,0]])
and return two vectors: a vector of row numbers where the max is found, and the max values themselves - for each column. I'm trying to avoid a for-loop! Ideally the function returns two values, like that:
rowIdVect, maxVect = ...........
where the values for the example matrix above would be:
[2,0,0] #rowIdVect
[5,0,1] #maxVect
I can do this in two steps:
idVect = np.argmax( myMat , axis=0)
maxVect = np.max( trans_probs_mat, axis=0)
But is there a syntax that would perform both at the same time? Note: I'm trying to improve run times.
You can use the index to find the corresponding values:
In [201]: arr=np.array([[0,0,1],[2,0,0],[5,0,0]])
In [202]: idx=np.argmax(arr, axis=0)
In [203]: np.max(arr, axis=0)
Out[203]: array([5, 0, 1])
In [204]: arr[idx,np.arange(3)]
Out[204]: array([5, 0, 1])
Is this worth it? I doubt if the use of argmax and/or max is a bottleneck in your calculations. But feel free to time test with realistic data.
I am using NB for document classification and trying to understand threshold parameter to see how it can help to optimize algorithm.
Spark ML 2.0 thresholds doc says:
Param for Thresholds in multi-class classification to adjust the probability of predicting each class. Array must have length equal to the number of classes, with values >= 0. The class with largest value p/t is predicted, where p is the original probability of that class and t is the class' threshold.
0) Can someone explain this better? What goal it can achieve? My general idea is if you have threshold 0.7 then at least one class prediction probability should be more then 0.7 if not then prediction should return empty. Means classify it as 'uncertain' or just leave empty for prediction column. How can p/t function going to achieve that when you still pick the category with max probability?
1) What probability it adjust? default column 'probability' is actually conditional probability and 'rawPrediction' is
confidence according to document. I believe threshold will adjust 'rawPrediction' not 'probability' column. Am I right?
2) Here's how some of my probability and rawPrediction vector look like. How do I set threshold values based on this so I can remove certain uncertain classification? probability is between 0 and 1 but rawPrediction seems to be on log scale here.
Probability:
[2.233368649314982E-15,1.6429456680945863E-9,1.4377313514127723E-15,7.858651849363202E-15]
rawPrediction:
[-496.9606736723107,-483.452183395287,-497.40111830218746]
Basically I want classifier to leave Prediction column empty if it doesn't have any probability that is more then 0.7 percent.
Also, how to classify something as uncertain when more then one category has very close scores e.g. 0.812, 0.800, 0.799 . Picking max is something I may not want here but instead classify as "uncertain" or leave empty and I can do further analysis and treatment for those documents or train another model for those docs.
I haven't played with it, but the intent is to supply different threshold values for each class. I've extracted this example from the docstring:
model = nb.fit(df)
>>> result.prediction
1.0
>>> result.probability
DenseVector([0.42..., 0.57...])
>>> result.rawPrediction
DenseVector([-1.60..., -1.32...])
>>> nb = nb.setThresholds([0.01, 10.00])
>>> model3 = nb.fit(df)
>>> result = model3.transform(test0).head()
>>> result.prediction
0.0
If I understand correctly, the effect was to transform [0.42, 0.58] into [.42/.01, .58/10] = [42, 5.8], switching the prediction ("largest p/t") from column 1 (third row above) to column 0 (last row above). However, I couldn't find the logic in the source. Anyone?
Stepping back: I do not see a built-in way to do what you want: be agnostic if no class dominates. You will have to add that with something like:
def weak(probs, threshold=.7, epsilon=.01):
return np.all(probs < threshold) or np.max(np.diff(probs)) < epsilon
>>> cases = [[.5,.5],[.5,.7],[.7,.705],[.6,.1]]
>>> for case in cases:
... print '{:15s} - {}'.format(case, weak(case))
[0.5, 0.5] - True
[0.5, 0.7] - False
[0.7, 0.705] - True
[0.6, 0.1] - True
(Notice I haven't checked whether probs is a legal probability distribution.)
Alternatively, if you are not actually making a hard decision, use the predicted probabilities and a metric like Brier score, log loss, or info gain that accounts for the calibration as well as the accuracy.