i have about 20,000 rows of data like this,,
Id | value
1 30
2 3
3 22
..
n 27
I did statistics to my data,, the average value 33.85, median 30.99, min 2.8, max 206, 95% confidence interval 0.21.. So most values around 33, and there are some outliers (a little).. So it seems like a distribution with long tail.
I am new to both distribution and python,, i tried class fitter https://pypi.org/project/fitter/ to try many distribution from Scipy package,, and loglaplace distribution showed the lowest error (although not quiet understand it).
I read almost all questions in this thread and i concluded two approaches (1) fitting a distribution model and then in my simulation i draw random values (2) compute the frequency of different groups of values,, but this solution will not have a value more than 206 for example.
Having my data which is values (number), what is the best approach to fit a distribution to my data in python as in my simulation i need to draw numbers. The random numbers must have same pattern as my data. Also i need to validate the model is well presenting my data by drawing my data and the model curve.
One way is to select the best model according to the Bayesian information criterion (called BIC).
OpenTURNS implements an automatic method of selection (see doc here).
Suppose you have an array x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], here a quick example:
import openturns as ot
# Define x as a Sample object. It is a sample of size 11 and dimension 1
sample = ot.Sample([[xi] for xi in x])
# define distributions you want to test on the sample
tested_distributions = [ot.WeibullMaxFactory(), ot.NormalFactory(), ot.UniformFactory()]
# find the best distribution according to BIC and print its parameters
best_model, best_bic = ot.FittingTest.BestModelBIC(sample, tested_distributions)
print(best_model)
>>> Uniform(a = -0.769231, b = 10.7692)
Related
I have read an article on data leakage. In a hackathon there are two sets of data, train data on which participants train their algorithm and test set on which performance is measured.
Data leakage helps in getting a perfect score in test data, with out viewing train data by exploiting the leak.
I have read the article, but I am missing the crux how the leakage is exploited.
Steps as shown in article are following:
Let's load the test data.
Note, that we don't have any training data here, just test data. Moreover, we will not even use any features of test objects. All we need to solve this task is the file with the indices for the pairs, that we need to compare.
Let's load the data with test indices.
test = pd.read_csv('../test_pairs.csv')
test.head(10)
pairId FirstId SecondId
0 0 1427 8053
1 1 17044 7681
2 2 19237 20966
3 3 8005 20765
4 4 16837 599
5 5 3657 12504
6 6 2836 7582
7 7 6136 6111
8 8 23295 9817
9 9 6621 7672
test.shape[0]
368550
For example, we can think that there is a test dataset of images, and each image is assigned a unique Id from 0 to N−1 (N -- is the number of images). In the dataframe from above FirstId and SecondId point to these Id's and define pairs, that we should compare: e.g. do both images in the pair belong to the same class or not. So, for example for the first row: if images with Id=1427 and Id=8053 belong to the same class, we should predict 1, and 0 otherwise.
But in our case we don't really care about the images, and how exactly we compare the images (as long as comparator is binary).
print(test['FirstId'].nunique())
print(test['SecondId'].nunique())
26325
26310
So the number of pairs we are given to classify is very very small compared to the total number of pairs.
To exploit the leak we need to assume (or prove), that the total number of positive pairs is small, compared to the total number of pairs. For example: think about an image dataset with 1000 classes, N images per class. Then if the task was to tell whether a pair of images belongs to the same class or not, we would have 1000*N*(N−1)/2 positive pairs, while total number of pairs was 1000*N(1000N−1)/2.
Another example: in Quora competitition the task was to classify whether a pair of qustions are duplicates of each other or not. Of course, total number of question pairs is very huge, while number of duplicates (positive pairs) is much much smaller.
Finally, let's get a fraction of pairs of class 1. We just need to submit a constant prediction "all ones" and check the returned accuracy. Create a dataframe with columns pairId and Prediction, fill it and export it to .csv file. Then submit
test['Prediction'] = np.ones(test.shape[0])
sub=pd.DataFrame(test[['pairId','Prediction']])
sub.to_csv('sub.csv',index=False)
All ones have accuracy score is 0.500000.
So, we assumed the total number of pairs is much higher than the number of positive pairs, but it is not the case for the test set. It means that the test set is constructed not by sampling random pairs, but with a specific sampling algorithm. Pairs of class 1 are oversampled.
Now think, how we can exploit this fact? What is the leak here? If you get it now, you may try to get to the final answer yourself, othewise you can follow the instructions below.
Building a magic feature
In this section we will build a magic feature, that will solve the problem almost perfectly. The instructions will lead you to the correct solution, but please, try to explain the purpose of the steps we do to yourself -- it is very important.
Incidence matrix
First, we need to build an incidence matrix. You can think of pairs (FirstId, SecondId) as of edges in an undirected graph.
The incidence matrix is a matrix of size (maxId + 1, maxId + 1), where each row (column) i corresponds i-th Id. In this matrix we put the value 1to the position [i, j], if and only if a pair (i, j) or (j, i) is present in a given set of pais (FirstId, SecondId). All the other elements in the incidence matrix are zeros.
Important! The incidence matrices are typically very very sparse (small number of non-zero values). At the same time incidence matrices are usually huge in terms of total number of elements, and it is impossible to store them in memory in dense format. But due to their sparsity incidence matrices can be easily represented as sparse matrices. If you are not familiar with sparse matrices, please see wiki and scipy.sparse reference. Please, use any of scipy.sparseconstructors to build incidence matrix.
For example, you can use this constructor: scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((data, (i, j))). We highly recommend to learn to use different scipy.sparseconstuctors, and matrices types, but if you feel you don't want to use them, you can always build this matrix with a simple for loop. You will need first to create a matrix using scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((M, N), [dtype]) with an appropriate shape (M, N) and then iterate through (FirstId, SecondId) pairs and fill corresponding elements in matrix with ones.
Note, that the matrix should be symmetric and consist only of zeros and ones. It is a way to check yourself.
import networkx as nx
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import scipy.sparse
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
test = pd.read_csv('../test_pairs.csv')
x = test[['FirstId','SecondId']].rename(columns={'FirstId':'col1', 'SecondId':'col2'})
y = test[['SecondId','FirstId']].rename(columns={'SecondId':'col1', 'FirstId':'col2'})
comb = pd.concat([x,y],ignore_index=True).drop_duplicates(keep='first')
comb.head()
col1 col2
0 1427 8053
1 17044 7681
2 19237 20966
3 8005 20765
4 16837 599
data = np.ones(comb.col1.shape, dtype=int)
inc_mat = scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((data,(comb.col1,comb.col2)), shape=(comb.col1.max() + 1, comb.col1.max() + 1))
rows_FirstId = inc_mat[test.FirstId.values,:]
rows_SecondId = inc_mat[test.SecondId.values,:]
f = rows_FirstId.multiply(rows_SecondId)
f = np.asarray(f.sum(axis=1))
f.shape
(368550, 1)
f = f.sum(axis=1)
f = np.squeeze(np.asarray(f))
print (f.shape)
Now build the magic feature
Why did we build the incidence matrix? We can think of the rows in this matix as of representations for the objects. i-th row is a representation for an object with Id = i. Then, to measure similarity between two objects we can measure similarity between their representations. And we will see, that such representations are very good.
Now select the rows from the incidence matrix, that correspond to test.FirstId's, and test.SecondId's.
So do not forget to convert pd.series to np.array
These lines should normally run very quickly
rows_FirstId = inc_mat[test.FirstId.values,:]
rows_SecondId = inc_mat[test.SecondId.values,:]
Our magic feature will be the dot product between representations of a pair of objects. Dot product can be regarded as similarity measure -- for our non-negative representations the dot product is close to 0 when the representations are different, and is huge, when representations are similar.
Now compute dot product between corresponding rows in rows_FirstId and rows_SecondId matrices.
From magic feature to binary predictions
But how do we convert this feature into binary predictions? We do not have a train set to learn a model, but we have a piece of information about test set: the baseline accuracy score that you got, when submitting constant. And we also have a very strong considerations about the data generative process, so probably we will be fine even without a training set.
We may try to choose a thresold, and set the predictions to 1, if the feature value f is higer than the threshold, and 0 otherwise. What threshold would you choose?
How do we find a right threshold? Let's first examine this feature: print frequencies (or counts) of each value in the feature f.
For example use np.unique function, check for flags
Function to count frequency of each element
from scipy.stats import itemfreq
itemfreq(f)
array([[ 14, 183279],
[ 15, 852],
[ 19, 546],
[ 20, 183799],
[ 21, 6],
[ 28, 54],
[ 35, 14]])
Do you see how this feature clusters the pairs? Maybe you can guess a good threshold by looking at the values?
In fact, in other situations it can be not that obvious, but in general to pick a threshold you only need to remember the score of your baseline submission and use this information.
Choose a threshold below:
pred = f > 14 # SET THRESHOLD HERE
pred
array([ True, False, True, ..., False, False, False], dtype=bool)
submission = test.loc[:,['pairId']]
submission['Prediction'] = pred.astype(int)
submission.to_csv('submission.csv', index=False)
I want to understand the idea behind this. How we are exploiting the leak from the test data only.
There's a hint in the article. The number of positive pairs should be 1000*N*(N−1)/2, while the number of all pairs is 1000*N(1000N−1)/2. Of course, the number of all pairs is much, much larger if the test set was sampled at random.
As the author mentions, after you evaluate your constant prediction of 1s on the test set, you can tell that the sampling was not done at random. The accuracy you obtain is 50%. Had the sampling been done correctly, this value should've been much lower.
Thus, they construct the incidence matrix and calculate the dot product (the measure of similarity) between the representations of our ID features. They then reuse the information about the accuracy obtained with constant predictions (at 50%) to obtain the corresponding threshold (f > 14). It's set to be greater than 14 because that constitutes roughly half of our test set, which in turn maps back to the 50% accuracy.
The "magic" value didn't have to be greater than 14. It could have been equal to 14. You could have adjusted this value after some leader board probing (as long as you're capturing half of the test set).
It was observed that the test data was not sampled properly; same-class pairs were oversampled. Thus there is a much higher probability of each pair in the training set to have target=1 than any random pair. This led to the belief that one could construct a similarity measure based only on the pairs that are present in the test, i.e., whether a pair made it to the test is itself a strong indicator of similarity.
Using this insight one can calculate an incidence matrix and represent each id j as a binary array (the i-th element representing the presence of i-j pair in test, and thus representing the strong probability of similarity between them). This is a pretty accurate measure, allowing one to find the "similarity" between two rows just by taking their dot product.
The cutoff arrived at is purely by the knowledge of target-distribution found by leaderboard probing.
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 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.
Given 1 Billion records containing following information:
ID x1 x2 x3 ... x100
1 0.1 0.12 1.3 ... -2.00
2 -1 1.2 2 ... 3
...
For each ID above, I want to find the top 10 closest IDs, based on Euclidean distance of their vectors (x1, x2, ..., x100).
What's the best way to compute this?
As it happens, I have a solution to this, involving combining sklearn with Spark: https://adventuresindatascience.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/integrating-spark-with-scikit-learn-visualizing-eigenvectors-and-fun/
The gist of it is:
Use sklearn’s k-NN fit() method centrally
But then use sklearn’s k-NN kneighbors() method distributedly
Performing a brute-force comparison of all records against all records is a losing battle. My suggestion would be to go for a ready-made implementation of k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm such as the one provided by scikit-learn then broadcast the resulting arrays of indices and distances and go further.
Steps in this case would be:
1- vectorize the features as Bryce suggested and let your vectorizing method return a list (or numpy array) of floats with as many elements as your features
2- fit your scikit-learn nn to your data:
nbrs = NearestNeighbors(n_neighbors=10, algorithm='auto').fit(vectorized_data)
3- run the trained algorithm on your vectorized data (training and query data are the same in your case)
distances, indices = nbrs.kneighbors(qpa)
Steps 2 and 3 will run on your pyspark node and are not parallelizable in this case. You will need to have enough memory on this node. In my case with 1.5 Million records and 4 features, it took a second or two.
Until we get a good implementation of NN for spark I guess we would have to stick to these workarounds. If you'd rather like to try something new, then go for http://spark-packages.org/package/saurfang/spark-knn
You haven't provided a lot of detail, but the general approach I would take to this problem would be to:
Convert the records to a data structure like like a LabeledPoint with (ID, x1..x100) as label and features
Map over each record and compare that record to all the other records (lots of room for optimization here)
Create some cutoff logic so that once you start comparing ID = 5 with ID = 1 you interrupt the computation because you have already compared ID = 1 with ID = 5
Some reduce step to get a data structure like {id_pair: [1,5], distance: 123}
Another map step to find the 10 closest neighbors of each record
You've identified pyspark and I generally do this type of work using scala, but some pseudo code for each step might look like:
# 1. vectorize the features
def vectorize_raw_data(record)
arr_of_features = record[1..99]
LabeledPoint( record[0] , arr_of_features)
# 2,3 + 4 map over each record for comparison
broadcast_var = []
def calc_distance(record, comparison)
# here you want to keep a broadcast variable with a list or dictionary of
# already compared IDs and break if the key pair already exists
# then, calc the euclidean distance by mapping over the features of
# the record and subtracting the values then squaring the result, keeping
# a running sum of those squares and square rooting that sum
return {"id_pair" : [1,5], "distance" : 123}
for record in allRecords:
for comparison in allRecords:
broadcast_var.append( calc_distance(record, comparison) )
# 5. map for 10 closest neighbors
def closest_neighbors(record, n=10)
broadcast_var.filter(x => x.id_pair.include?(record.id) ).takeOrdered(n, distance)
The psuedocode is terrible, but I think it communicates the intent. There will be a lot of shuffling and sorting here as you are comparing all records with all other records. IMHO, you want to store the keypair/distance in a central place (like a broadcast variable that gets updated though this is dangerous) to reduce the total euclidean distance calculations you perform.
Random Forest accepts numerical data. Usually features with text data is converted to numerical categories and continuous numerical data is fed as it is without discretization. How the RF treat the continuous data for creating nodes? Will it bin the continuous numerical data internally? or treat each data as discrete level.
for example:
I want to feed a data set(ofcourse after categorizing the text features) to RF. How the continuous data is handled by the RF?
Is it advisable to discretize the continuous data(longitudes and latitudes, in this case) before feeding? Or doing so information is lost?
As far as I understand, you are asking how the threshold is chosen for continuous features. The binning occurs at values, where your class is changed. For example, consider the following 1D dataset with x as feature and y as class variable
x = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
y = [ 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1]
The two possible candidate cuts will be considered: (i) between 2 and 3 (will practically look like as x<2.5) and (ii) between 7 and 8 (as x<7.5).
Among these two candidates the second one will be chosen since it provides a better separation. Them the algorithm goes to the next step.
Therefore it is not advisable to discretize the data yourself. Think about this with the data above. If, for example, you discretize the data in 5 bins [1, 2 | 3, 4 | 5, 6 | 7, 8 | 9, 10], you miss the best split (since 7 and 8 will be in one bin).
You are asking about DecisionTrees. Because RandomForest is ensemble model, and by itself it don't know anything about data, it fully relies on decisons from base estimators (In this case DecisionTrees), and aggregates them.
So, how DecisionTree is treating continious features: Look at this official documentation page. DecisionTreeClassifier was fitted on continuous dataset (Fisher irises), if you will look at the picture of tree - it has threshold value in each node over some chosen feature at this node.