I made a model, and I wanted to get AUC with independent test set.
So I got AUC which is 0.3.
In many writings, high AUC(1-0.3) can appear if i change 'direction'argument of roc function.
(i understand this comment BUT)
I'm thinking about this ;
AUC=0.3 means that
model which was made by training set could't predict test set .
Changing direction simply give high AUC, but isn't right principally.
Can I change dirrection of roc ? I
Related
I am working on a time-series prediction problem using GradientBoostingRegressor, and I think I'm seeing significant overfitting, as evidenced by a significantly better RMSE for training than for prediction. In order to examine this, I'm trying to use sklearn.model_selection.cross_validate, but I'm having problems understanding the result.
First: I was calculating RMSE by fitting to all my training data, then "predicting" the training data outputs using the fitted model and comparing those with the training outputs (the same ones I used for fitting). The RMSE that I observe is the same order of magnitude the predicted values and, more important, it's in the same ballpark as the RMSE I get when I submit my predicted results to Kaggle (although the latter is lower, reflecting overfitting).
Second, I use the same training data, but apply sklearn.model_selection.cross_validate as follows:
cross_validate( predictor, features, targets, cv = 5, scoring = "neg_mean_squared_error" )
I figure the neg_mean_squared_error should be the square of my RMSE. Accounting for that, I still find that the error reported by cross_validate is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the RMSE I was calculating as described above.
In addition, when I modify my GradientBoostingRegressor max_depth from 3 to 2, which I would expect reduces overfitting and thus should improve the CV error, I find that the opposite is the case.
I'm keenly interested to use Cross Validation so I don't have to validate my hyperparameter choices by using up Kaggle submissions, but given what I've observed, I'm not clear that the results will be understandable or useful.
Can someone explain how I should be using Cross Validation to get meaningful results?
I think there is a conceptual problem here.
If you want to compute the error of a prediction you should not use the training data. As the name says theese type of data are used only in training, for evaluating accuracy scores you ahve to use data that the model has never seen.
About cross-validation I can tell that it's an approach to find the best training/testing set. The process is as follows: you divide your data into n groups and you do various iterating changing the testing group you pick. If you have n groups you will do n iteration and each time the training and testing set will be different. It's more understamdable in the image below.
Basically what you should do it's kile this:
Train the model using months from 0 to 30 (for example)
See the predictions made with months from 31 to 35 as input.
If the input has to be the same lenght divide feature in half (should be 17 months).
I hope I understood correctly, othewise comment.
I have a created a binary classifier in Tensorflow that will output a generator object containing predictions. I extract the predictions (e.g [0.98, 0.02]) from the object into a list, later converting this into a numpy array. I have the corresponding array of labels for these predictions. Using these two arrays I believe I should be able to plot a roc curve via:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.metrics import roc_curve
fpr, tpr, thr = roc_curve(labels, predictions[:,1])
plt.plot(fpr, tpr)
plt.show()
print(fpr)
print(tpr)
print(thr)
Where predictions[:,1] gives the positive prediction score. However, running this code leads to only a flat line and only three values for each fpr, tpr and thr:
Flat line roc plot and limited function outputs.
The only theory I have as to why this is happening is because my classifier is too sure of it's predictions. Many, if not all, of the positive prediction scores are 1.0, or incredibly close to zero:
[[9.9999976e-01 2.8635742e-07]
[3.3693312e-11 1.0000000e+00]
[1.0000000e+00 9.8642090e-09]
...
[1.0106111e-15 1.0000000e+00]
[1.0000000e+00 1.0030269e-09]
[8.6156778e-15 1.0000000e+00]]
According to a few sources including this stackoverflow thread and this stackoverflow thread, the very polar values of my predictions could be creating an issue for roc_curve().
Is my intuition correct? If so is there anything I can do about it to plot my roc_curve?
I've tried to include all the information I think would be relevant to this issue but if you would like any more information about my program please ask.
ROC is generated by changing the threshold on your predictions and finding the sensitivity and specificity for each threshold. This generally means that as you increase the threshold, your sensitivity decreases but your specificity increases and it draws a picture of the overall quality of your predicted probabilities. In your case, since everything is either 0 or 1 (or very close to it) there are no meaningful thresholds to use. That's why the thr value is basically [ 1, 1, 1 ].
You can try to arbitrarily pull the values closer to 0.5 or alternatively implement your own ROC curve calculation with more tolerance for small differences.
On the other hand you might want to review your network because such result values often mean there is a problem there, maybe the labels leaked into the network somehow and therefore it produces perfect results.
I have a particular classification problem that I was able to improve using Python's abs() function. I am still somewhat new when it comes to machine learning, and I wanted to know if what I am doing is actually "allowed," so to speak, for improving a regression problem. The following line describes my method:
lr = linear_model.LinearRegression()
predicted = abs(cross_val_predict(lr, features, labels_postop_IS, cv=10))
I attempted this solution because linear regression can sometimes produce negative predictions values, even though my particular case, these predictions should never be negative, as they are a physical quantity.
Using the abs() function, my predictions produce a better fit for the data.
Is this allowed?
Why would it not be "allowed". I mean if you want to make certain statistical statements (like a 95% CI e.g.) you need to be careful. However, most ML practitioners do not care too much about underlying statistical assumptions and just want a blackbox model that can be evaluated based on accuracy or some other performance metric. So basically everything is allowed in ML, you just have to be careful not to overfit. Maybe a more sensible solution to your problem would be to use a function that truncates at 0 like f(x) = x if x > 0 else 0. This way larger negative values don't suddenly become large positive ones.
On a side note, you should probably try some other models as well with more parameters like a SVR with a non-linear kernel. The thing is obviously that a LR fits a line, and if this line is not parallel to your x-axis (thinking in the single variable case) it will inevitably lead to negative values at some point on the line. That's one reason for why it is often advised not to use LRs for predictions outside the "fitted" data.
A straight line y=a+bx will predict negative y for some x unless a>0 and b=0. Using logarithmic scale seems natural solution to fix this.
In the case of linear regression, there is no restriction on your outputs.
If your data is non-negative (as in your case the values are physical quantities and cannot be negative), you could model using a generalized linear model (GLM) with a log link function. This is known as Poisson regression and is helpful for modeling discrete non-negative counts such as the problem you described. The Poisson distribution is parameterized by a single value λ, which describes both the expected value and the variance of the distribution.
I cannot say your approach is wrong but a better way is to go towards the above method.
This results in an approach that you are attempting to fit a linear model to the log of your observations.
I've set up my first scikit-learn example to play with and I'm trying to gauge accuracy on my predictions. I've got training and test lists set up fine, but I'm getting ~0.95 accuracy even if I give it random values.
This looks to be because I'm checking for 0/1 labels, and 95% of the labels are zero's, so it's guessing on 0's and getting 0.95 accuracy (I think?). Obviously this isn't what I want.
How do I go about deciding if my classifiers are working, and how do I get meaningful accuracy values?
You have a clear class imbalance issue. Your classifier is predicting 0 all the time knowing it will be right 95% of the time. You can inspect this by calling predict(X_test) on your fitted classifier. If all the values are 0 you know this is the case.
To get a better idea on how the model performs you can upsample the data labelled with 1 or down sample the data labelled with 0. You can use this package which builds off scikit-learn and implements a number of resampling methods. Alternatively, you can use scikit learns resampling method. Which will bootstrap new data points for you.
One option of the SVM classifier (SVC) is probability which is false by default. The documentation does not say what it does. Looking at libsvm source code, it seems to do some sort of cross-validation.
This option does not exist for LinearSVC nor OneSVM.
I need to calculate AUC scores for several SVM models, including these last two. Should I calculate the AUC score using decision_function(X) as the thresholds?
Answering my own question.
Firstly, it is a common "myth" that you need probabilities to draw the ROC curve. No, you need some kind of threshold in your model that you can change. The ROC curve is then drawn by changing this threshold. The point of the ROC curve being, of course, to see how well your model is reproducing the hypothesis by seeing how well it is ordering the observations.
In the case of SVM, there are two ways I see people drawing ROC curves for them:
using distance to the decision bondary, as I mentioned in my own question
using the bias term as your threshold in the SVM: http://researchgate.net/post/How_can_I_plot_determine_ROC_AUC_for_SVM. In fact, if you use SVC(probabilities=True) then probabilities will be calculated for you in this manner, by using CV, which you can then use to draw the ROC curve. But as mentioned in the link I provide, it is much faster if you draw the ROC curve directly by varying the bias.
I think #2 is the same as #1 if we are using a linear kernel, as in my own case, because varying the bias is varying the distance in this particular case.
In order to calculate AUC, using sklearn, you need a predict_proba method on your classifier; this is what the probability parameter on SVC does (you are correct that it's calculated using cross-validation). From the docs:
probability : boolean, optional (default=False)
Whether to enable probability estimates. This must be enabled prior to calling fit, and will slow down that method.
You can't use the decision function directly to compute AUC, since it's not a probability. I suppose you could scale the decision function to take values in the range [0,1], and compute AUC, however I'm not sure what statistical properties this will have; you certainly won't be able to use it to compare with ROC calculated using probabilities.