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.
Related
I have a logistic regression model housed in a scikit-learn pipeline using the following:
pipeline = make_pipeline(
StandardScaler(),
LogisticRegressionCV(
solver='lbfgs',
cv=10,
scoring='roc_auc',
class_weight='balanced'
)
)
pipeline.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred = pipeline.predict(X_test)
I can view the model's coefficients for predictions as a whole with this code ...
# Look at model's coefficients to see what features are most important
plt.rcParams['figure.dpi'] = 50
model = pipeline.named_steps['logisticregressioncv']
coefficients = pd.Series(model.coef_[0], X_train.columns)
plt.figure(figsize=(10,12))
coefficients.sort_values().plot.barh(color='grey');
Which returns a bar plot of the features and their coefficients.
What I'm trying to do is be able to see how different input values for a single observation impact its prediction. The idea is to be able to run predictions on a sample population and examine the group with "low" predictions ... for example if I run predictions for 10 observations, I'd like to see how different input values impacted each of those 10 predictions, individually.
Recalled that I can achieve this via Shap Values using something along the following (but using LinearExplainer instead of TreeExplainer):
# Instantiate model and encoder outside of pipeline for
# use with shap
model = RandomForestClassifier( random_state=25)
# Fit on train, score on val
model.fit(X_train_encoded, y_train2)
y_pred_shap = model.predict(X_val_encoded)
# Get an individual observation to explain.
row = X_test_encoded.iloc[[-3]]
# Why did the model predict this?
# Look at a Shapley Values Force Plot
import shap
explainer = shap.TreeExplainer(model)
shap_values = explainer.shap_values(row)
shap.initjs()
shap.force_plot(
base_value=explainer.expected_value[1],
shap_values=shap_values[1],
features=row
)```
I want to do multioutput prediction of labels and continuous data. My data consists of time series, one 10 time-points series of 30 observables per sample. I want to predict 10 labels that are binary, and 5 that are continuous, based on this data.
For the sake of simplicity I have flattened the time series data - ending up with one row per sample.
Since there are many labels to predict about the same system, and since there exists relationships between these, I want to use MutliOutputPrediction to do so. My idea is to divide the task into two parts; one for MultiOutputClassification, another for MultiOutputRegression.
I generally like XGBoost and wish to use it for this task, but of course I want to prevent overfitting when doing so. So I have a piece of code as follows, and I wish to pass the early_stopping_rounds to the fit method of the XGBClassifier, but don't know how to.
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.33)
pipeline = Pipeline([
('imputer', SimpleImputer()), # XGBoost can deal with NaNs, but MultiOutputClassifier cannot
('classifier', MultiOutputClassifier(XGBClassifier()))
])
param_grid = dict(
classifier__estimator__n_estimators=[100], # this works
# classifier__estimator__early_stopping_rounds=[30], # needs to be passed to .fit
# classifier__estimator__scale_pos_weight=[scale_pos_weight], # XGBoostError: Invalid Parameter format for scale_pos_weight expect float
)
clf = GridSearchCV(estimator=pipeline, param_grid=param_grid, scoring='roc_auc', refit='roc_auc', cv=5, n_jobs=-1)
clf.fit(X_train, y_train[CLASSIFICATION_LABELS])
y_hat_proba = np.array(clf.predict_proba(X_test))
y_hat = pd.DataFrame(np.array([y_hat_proba[:, i, 0] for i in range(y_hat_proba.shape[1])]), columns=CLASSIFICATION_LABELS)
auc_roc_scores = np.array([roc_auc_score(y_test[label], (y_hat[label] > 0.5).astype(int)) for label in y_hat.columns])
print(f'average ROC AUC score: {np.mean(auc_roc_scores).round(3)}+/-{np.std(auc_roc_scores).round(3)}')
>>> average ROC AUC score: 0.499+/-0.002
I tried passing it to fit as follows:
classifier__estimator__early_stopping_rounds=30
classifier__early_stopping_rounds=30
I get AUC ROC scores of 0.5 on the labels, which means this clearly isn't working and hence why I want to pass the early_stopping_rounds parameter and the eval_set. I suppose that being able to pass scale_pos_weight could also be useful, but probably doesn't work for MultiOutput prediction. At the moment I get the feeling that this is not the way to go to solve this, and in case you agree I would appreciate alternative suggestions.
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 wasn't able to find information I am looking for so I will post my question here.
I am just venturing into machine learning. I did my first multiple regression for a time series using scikit learn library. My code is as shown below
X = df[feature_cols]
y = df[['scheduled_amount']]
index= y.reset_index().drop('scheduled_amount', axis=1)
linreg = LinearRegression()
tscv = TimeSeriesSplit(max_train_size=None, n_splits=11)
li=[]
for train_index, test_index in tscv.split(X):
train = index.iloc[train_index]
train_start, train_end = train.iloc[0,0], train.iloc[-1,0]
test = index.iloc[test_index]
test_start, test_end = test.iloc[0,0], test.iloc[-1,0]
X_train, X_test = X[train_start:train_end], X[test_start:test_end]
y_train, y_test = y[train_start:train_end], y[test_start:test_end]
linreg.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_predict = linreg.predict(X_test)
print('RSS:' + str(linreg.score(X_test, y_test)))
y_test['predictec_amount'] = y_predict
y_test.plot()
Not that my data is a time series data and I want to keep the datetime index in my Dataframe when I'm fitting my model.
I am using the TimeSeriesSplit for cross-validation. I still don't really understand the cross validation thing.
First is there a need for a cross-validation in a time series dataset. Second should I use the last linear_coeff_ or should I get the average of all of them to use for my future prediction.
Yes there is a need for cross-validation in a timeseries dataset. Basically you need to ensure your model does not overfit your current test and is able to capture past seasonal changes so you can have some confidence in the model doing the same in the future. This method is also used to choose model hyperparameters (i.e. alpha in a Ridge regression).
In order to make future predictions, you should refit your regressor with the whole data and the best hyperparameters or, as #Marcus V. mentioned in the coments, maybe is best to train it only with the most recent data.
I'm using scikit-learn cross_validation(http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/cross_validation.html) and get for example 0.82 mean score(r2_scorer).
How could I know do I have over-fitting or under-fitting using scikit-learn functions?
Unfortunately I confirm that there is no built-in tool to compare train and test scores in a CV setup. The cross_val_score tool only reports test scores.
You can setup your own loop with the train_test_split function as in Ando's answer but you can also use any other CV scheme.
import numpy as np
from sklearn.cross_validation import KFold
from sklearn.metrics import SCORERS
scorer = SCORERS['r2']
cv = KFold(5)
train_scores, test_scores = [], []
for train, test in cv:
regressor.fit(X[train], y[train])
train_scores.append(scorer(regressor, X[train], y[train]))
test_scores.append(scorer(regressor, X[test], y[test]))
mean_train_score = np.mean(train_scores)
mean_test_score = np.mean(test_scores)
If you compute the mean train and test scores with cross validation you can then find out if you are:
Underfitting: the train score is far from the perfect score (which is 1.0 for r2)
Overfitting: the train and test scores are not close from on another (the mean test score is significantly lower than the mean train score).
Note: you can be both significantly underfitting and overfitting at the same time if your model is inadequate and your data is too noisy.
You should compare your scores when testing on training and testing data. If the scores are close to equal, you are likely underfitting. If they are far apart, you are likely overfitting (unless using a method such as random forest).
To compute the scores for both train and test data, you can use something along the following (assuming your data is in variables X and Y):
from sklearn import cross_validation
#do five iterations
for i in range(5):
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = cross_validation.train_test_split(X, Y, test_size=0.4)
#Your predictor, linear SVM in this example
clf = svm.SVC(kernel='linear', C=1).fit(X_train, y_train)
print "Test score", clf.score(X_test, y_test)
print "Train score", clf.score(X_train, y_train)