I am trying to use SMOTE in python to handle highly imbalanced data set. After splitting the data set into train and test I generate synthetic samples using SMOTE. Then I use xgboost algorithm on the SMOTE generated data. My model output is to predict the probability for the original dataset. But after implementing SMOTE the number of samples have been increased and how do I get back the original data set to predict the probabilities? Code as below:
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X_final, Y_final, test_size=0.1, random_state = 27)
sm = SMOTE(random_state=27, ratio=1.0)
X_final_sm, Y_final_sm = sm.fit_sample(X_train, y_train)
smote_xgb = XGBClassifier().fit(X_final_sm, Y_final_sm)
smote_pred = smote_xgb.predict(X_final_sm)
smote_pred_prob = smote_xgb.predict_proba(X_final_sm)
Related
I have some label data and I am using the classification ML model (SVM, kNN) to train and test the dataset.
My input features look like:
(442, 443, 0.608923884514436), (444, 443, 0.6418604651162789)
The label looks like:
0, 1
Then I used sklearn to train and test (after splitting the dataset 80% for train and 20% for the test). Code sample is given below:
classifiers = [
SVC(),
KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=5)]
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)
trainingData = X_train
trainingScores = y_train
for item in classifiers:
print(item)
clf = item
clf.fit(trainingData, trainingScores)
y_pred = clf.predict(X_test)
print("Accuracy Scor:")
print(accuracy_score(y_pred, y_test))
print("Confusion Matrix:")
print(confusion_matrix(y_pred, y_test))
print("Classification Report:")
print(classification_report(y_pred, y_test))
The SVC Accuracy Scor: 0.6639580602883355
The kNN Accuracy Scor: 0.7171690694626475
I can guess that the model is predicting some data correctly. My questions are
How can I save the prediction data including the label given by the model in a CSV file.
Is it possible to use the cross-validation concept here? For example, if I want to apply 5 cross-validations. Then, how can I do that?
import pandas as pd
labels_df = pd.DataFrame(y_pred ,columns=["predicted_label"])
labels_df.to_csv(r'Path where you want to store the exported CSV file\File Name.csv',index = False)
for second question check this
I have a very imbalanced dataset. I used sklearn.train_test_split function to extract the train dataset. Now I want to oversample the train dataset, so I used to count number of type1(my data set has 2 categories and types(type1 and tupe2) but approximately all of my train data are type1. So I cant oversample.
Previously I used to split train test datasets with my written code. In that code 0.8 of all type1 data and 0.8 of all type2 data were in the train dataset.
How I can use this method with train_test_split function or other spliting methods in sklearn?
*I should just use sklearn or my own written methods.
You're looking for stratification. Why?
There's a parameter stratify in method train_test_split to which you can give the labels list e.g. :
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y,
stratify=y,
test_size=0.2)
There's also StratifiedShuffleSplit.
It seems like we both had similar issues here. Unfortunately, imbalanced-learn isn't always what you need and scikit does not offer the functionality you want. You will want to implement your own code.
This is what I came up for my application. Note that I have not had extensive time to debug it but I believe it works from the testing I have done. Hope it helps:
def equal_sampler(classes, data, target, test_frac):
# Find the least frequent class and its fraction of the total
_, count = np.unique(target, return_counts=True)
fraction_of_total = min(count) / len(target)
# split further into train and test
train_frac = (1-test_frac)*fraction_of_total
test_frac = test_frac*fraction_of_total
# initialize index arrays and find length of train and test
train=[]
train_len = int(train_frac * data.shape[0])
test=[]
test_len = int(test_frac* data.shape[0])
# add values to train, drop them from the index and proceed to add to test
for i in classes:
indeces = list(target[target ==i].index.copy())
train_temp = np.random.choice(indeces, train_len, replace=False)
for val in train_temp:
train.append(val)
indeces.remove(val)
test_temp = np.random.choice(indeces, test_len, replace=False)
for val in test_temp:
test.append(val)
# X_train, y_train, X_test, y_test
return data.loc[train], target[train], data.loc[test], target[test]
For the input, classes expects a list of possible values, data expects the dataframe columns used for prediction, target expects the target column.
Take care that the algorithm may not be extremely efficient, due to the triple for-loop(list.remove takes linear time). Despite that, it should be reasonably fast.
You may also look into stratified shuffle split as follows:
# We use a utility to generate artificial classification data.
from sklearn.datasets import make_classification
from sklearn.model_selection import StratifiedShuffleSplit
from sklearn.svm import SVC
from sklearn.pipeline import make_pipeline
X, y = make_classification(n_samples=100, n_informative=10, n_classes=2)
sss = StratifiedShuffleSplit(n_splits=5, test_size=0.5, random_state=0)
for train_index, test_index in sss.split(X, y):
print("TRAIN:", train_index, "TEST:", test_index)
X_train, X_test = X[train_index], X[test_index]
y_train, y_test = y[train_index], y[test_index]
clf = make_pipeline(StandardScaler(), SVC(gamma='auto'))
clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred = clf.predict(X_test)
What im trying to do;
Get the K-fold cross validated scores of an SVM. The data has all numerical independent variables, and a categorical dependent variable. Im using python3, sklearn and feature engine.
My understanding on the matter;
The independent variable has NA values, all of them are below 5% of the total data points, so i imputed them using the median values from the train set, as the variables are not normally distributed. I also scaled the values of the train and test set using the values from the test set. My train-test split is 80-20.
I understand that it is a good practice to scaled and impute data using only the train set. As this helps avoid over-fit and data leak.
When it comes to Kfold cross validation, the train and test set change.
Question;
Is there a way to ensure that i can re-impute and re-scale the train and test set based on the train set of each fold ?
Any help is appreciated, thank you !
Train-test split using a random seed. Same random seed is used in the K-Fold cross validation.
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size = 0.2, random_state = 3)
NA value imputation;
from feature_engine import missing_data_imputers as mdi
imputer = mdi.MeanMedianImputer(imputation_method = 'median')
imputer.fit(X_train)
X_train = imputer.transform(X_train)
Variable transformation;
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scaler = StandardScaler()
scaler.fit(X_train)
X_train_trans = scaler.transform(X_train)
X_test_trans = scaler.transform(X_test)
Below is the SVM;
def svm1(gam, C):
clf1 = svm.SVC(gamma=gam, C=C)
clf1.fit(X_train_trans, y_train)
print('The Trainset Score is {}.'.format(clf1.score(X_train_trans , y_train)))
print('The Testset Score is {}.'.format(clf1.score(X_test_trans , y_test)))
print('')
y_pred1 = clf1.predict(X_test_trans)
print('The confusin matrix is; \n{}'.format(metrics.confusion_matrix(y_test , y_pred1)))
interactive(svm1, gam = G1, C = cc1)
I then merge the train and test set, to get back a transformed dataset;
frames3 = [X_test_trans, X_train_trans ]
X_Final = pd.concat(frames3)
Now i fit the X_Final, which is concated train and test set, to get K-fold cross validated score.
kfold = KFold(n_splits = 10, random_state = 3)
model = svm.SVC(gamma=0.23, C=3.20)
results = cross_val_score(model, PCA_X_Final,y_Final, cv = kfold)
print(results)
print('Accuracy = {}%, Standard Deviation = {}%'.format(round(results.mean(), 4), round(results.std(), 2)))
I would like to know how i can re-scale and re-impute each fold, so that the variables are re-scaled, and NA values re-imputed in each fold using the train set to avoid overfit / dataleak
To impute and scale the data with the parameters derived from each fold in the CV, you first need to establish the engineering steps in a pipeline, and then do CV over the entire pipeline. For example something like this:
set up engineering pipeline:
my_pipe = Pipeline([
# missing data imputation
('imputer_num',
mdi.MeanMedianImputer(imputation_method='mean', variables=['varA', 'varB'])),
# scaler
('scaler', StandardScaler()),
# Gradient Boosted machine (or your SVM instead)
('gbm', GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=0))
])
then the CV:
param_grid = {
# try different gradient boosted tree model parameters
'gbm__max_depth': [None, 1, 3],
}
# now we set up the grid search with cross-validation
grid_search = GridSearchCV(my_pipe, param_grid,
cv=5, n_jobs=-1, scoring='roc_auc')
More details in this notebook.
I am trying to apply machine learning on stock prediction, and I run into problem regarding scaling on future unseen (much higher) stock close value.
Lets say I use random forrest regression on predicting stock price. I break the data into train set and test set.
For the train set, I use standardscaler, and do fit and transform
And then I use regressor to fit
For the test set, I use standardscaler, and do transform
And then I use regressor to predict, and compare to test label
If I plot predict and test label on a graph, predict seems to max out or ceiling. The problem is that standardscaler fit on train set, test set (later in the timeline) have much higher value, the algorithm does not know what to do with these extreme data
def test(X, y):
# split the data
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size = 0.2, shuffle=False)
# preprocess the data
pipeline = Pipeline([
('std_scaler', StandardScaler()),
])
# model = LinearRegression()
model = RandomForestRegressor(n_estimators=20, random_state=0)
# preprocessing fit transform on train data
X_train = pipeline.fit_transform(X_train)
# fit model on train data with train label
model.fit(X_train, y_train)
# transform on test data
X_test = pipeline.transform(X_test)
# predict on test data
y_pred = model.predict(X_test)
# print(np.sqrt(mean_squared_error(y_test, y_pred)))
d = {'actual': y_test, 'predict': y_pred}
plot_data = pd.DataFrame.from_dict(d)
sns.lineplot(data=plot_data)
plt.show()
What should be done with the scaling?
This is what I got for plotting prediction, actual close price vs time
The problem mainly comes from the model you are using. RandomForest regressor is created upon Decision Trees. It is learning to map an input to an output for every examples in the training set. Consequently RandomForest regressor will work for middle values but for extreme values that it hasn't seen during training it will of course perform has your picture is showing.
What you want, is to learn a function directly using linear/polynomial regression or more advanced algorithms like ARIMA.
I'm do some text classification tasks. What I have observed is that if fed tfidf matrix(from sklearn's TfidfVectorizer), Logistic Regression model is always outperforming MultinomialNB model. Below is my code for training both:
X = df_new['text_content']
y = df_new['label']
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y)
vectorizer = TfidfVectorizer(stop_words='english')
X_train_dtm = vectorizer.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test_dtm = vectorizer.transform(X_test)
clf_lr = LogisticRegression()
clf_lr.fit(X_train_dtm, y_train)
y_pred = clf_lr.predict(X_test_dtm)
lr_score = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred) # perfectly balanced binary classes
clf_mnb = MultinomialNB()
clf_mnb.fit(X_train_dtm, y_train)
y_pred = clf_mnb.predict(X_test_dtm)
mnb_score = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred) # perfectly balanced binary classes
Currently lr_score > mnb_score always. I'm wondering how exactly MultinomialNB is using the tfidf matrix since the term frequency in tfidf is calculated based on no class information. Any chance that I should not feed tfidf matrix to MultinomialNB the same way I did to LogisticRegression?
Update: I understand the difference between results of TfidfVectorizer and CountVectorizer. And I also just checked the sources code of sklearn's MultinomialNB.fit() function, looks like it does expect a count as oppose to frequency. This will also explain the performance boost mentioned in my comment below. However, I'm still wondering if under any circumstances pass tfidf into MultinomialNB makes sense. The sklearn documentation briefly mentioned the possibility, but not much details.
Any advice would be much appreciated!