I was trying to find the best features that dominate for the output of my regression model, Following is my code.
seed = 7
np.random.seed(seed)
estimators = []
estimators.append(('mlp', KerasRegressor(build_fn=baseline_model, epochs=3,
batch_size=20)))
pipeline = Pipeline(estimators)
rfe = RFE(estimator= pipeline, n_features_to_select=5)
fit = rfe.fit(X_set, Y_set)
But I get the following runtime error when running.
RuntimeError: The classifier does not expose "coef_" or "feature_importances_" attributes
How to overcome this issue and select best features for my model? If not, Can I use algorithms like LogisticRegression() provided and supported by RFE in Scikit to achieve the task of finding best features for my dataset?
I assume your Keras model is some kind of a neural network. And with NN in general it is kind of hard to see which input features are relevant and which are not. The reason for this is that each input feature has multiple coefficients that are linked to it - each corresponding to one node of the first hidden layer. Adding additional hidden layers makes it even more complicated to determine how big of an impact the input feature has on the final prediction.
On the other hand, for linear models it is very straightforward since each feature x_i has a corresponding weight/coefficient w_i and its magnitude directly determines how big of an impact it has in prediction (assuming that features are scaled of course).
The RFE estimator (Recursive feature elimination) assumes that your prediction model has an attribute coef_ (linear models) or feature_importances_(tree models) that has the length of input features and that it represents their relevance (in absolute terms).
My suggestion:
Feature selection: (Option a) Run the RFE on any linear / tree model to reduce the number of features to some desired number n_features_to_select. (Option b) Use regularized linear models like lasso / elastic net that enforce sparsity. The problem here is that you cannot directly set the actual number of selected features. (Option c) Use any other feature selection technique from here.
Neural Network: Use only features from (1) for your neural network.
Suggestion:
Perform the RFE algorithm on a sklearn-based algorithm to observe feature importance. Finally, you use the most importantly observed features to train your algorithm based on Keras.
To your question: Standardization is not required for logistic regression
Related
I am trying to classify around 400K data with 13 attributes. I have used python sklearn's SVM package, but it didn't work, and then I learned that SVM's are not suitable for large dataset classification. Then I used the (sklearn) ANN using the following MLPClassifier:
MLPClassifier(solver='adam', alpha=1e-5, random_state=1,activation='relu', max_iter=500)
and trained the system using 200K samples, and tested the model on the remaining ones. The classification worked well. However, my concern is that the system is over trained or overfit. Can you please guide me on the number of hidden layers and node sizes to make sure that there is no overfit? (I have learned that the default implementation has 100 hidden neurons. Is it ok to use the default implementation as is?)
To know if your are overfitting you have to compute:
Training set accuracy
Test set accuracy
Once you have calculated this scores, compare it. If training set score is much better than your test set score, then you are overfitting. This means that your model is "memorizing" your data, instead of learning from it to make future predictions.
If you are overfitting with Neuronal Networks you probably have to reduce the number of layers and reduce the number of neurons per layer. There isn't any strict rule that says the number of layer or neurons you need depending on you dataset size. Every dataset can behaves completely different with the same dataset size.
So, to conclude, if you are overfitting, you would have to evaluate your model accuracy using different parameters of layers and number of neurons, and, then, observe with which values you obtain the best results. There are some methods you can use to find the best parameters, is like gridsearchCV.
I have a business problem, I have run the regression model in python to predict my target value. When validating it with my test set I came to know that my predicted variable is very far from my actual value. Now the thing I want to extract from this model is that, which feature played the role to deviate my predicted value from actual value (let say difference is in some threshold value)?
I want to rank the features impact wise so that I could address to my client.
Thanks
It depends on the estimator you chose, linear models often have a coef_ method you can call to get the coef used for each feature, given they are normalized this tells you what you want to know.
As told above for tree model you have the feature importance. You can also use libraries like treeinterpreter described here:
Interpreting Random Forest
examples
You can have a look at this -
Feature selection
Check the Random Forest Regressor - for performing Regression.
# Example
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestRegressor
from sklearn.datasets import make_regression
X, y = make_regression(n_features=4, n_informative=2,
random_state=0, shuffle=False)
regr = RandomForestRegressor(max_depth=2, random_state=0,
n_estimators=100)
regr.fit(X, y)
print(regr.feature_importances_)
print(regr.predict([[0, 0, 0, 0]]))
Check regr.feature_importances_ for getting the higher, more important features. Further information on FeatureImportance
Edit-1:
As pointed out in user (#blacksite) comment, only feature_importance does not provide complete interpretation of Random forest. For further analysis of results and responsible Features. Please refer to following blogs
https://medium.com/usf-msds/intuitive-interpretation-of-random-forest-2238687cae45 (preferred as it provides multiple techniques )
https://blog.datadive.net/interpreting-random-forests/ (focuses on 1 technique but also provides python library - treeinterpreter)
More on feature_importance:
If you simply use the feature_importances_ attribute to select the
features with the highest importance score. Feature selection using
feature
importances
Feature importance also depends on the criteria used for splitting
and calculating importance Interpreting Decision Tree in context of
feature
importances
I have a set of sentences and their scores, I would like to train a marking system that could predict the score for a given sentence, such one example is like this:
(X =Tomorrow is a good day, Y = 0.9)
I would like to use LSTM to build such a marking system, and also consider the sequential relationship between each word in the sentence, so the training example shown above is transformed as following:
(x1=Tomorrow, y1=is) (x2=is, y2=a) (x3=a, y3=good) (x4=day, y4=0.9)
When training this LSTM, I would like the first three time steps using a softmax classifier, and the final step using a MSE. It is obvious that the loss function used in this LSTM is composed of two different loss functions. In this case, it seems the Keras does not provide the way to address my problem directly. In addition, I am not sure whether my method to build the marking system is correct or not.
Keras support multiple loss functions as well:
model = Model(inputs=inputs,
outputs=[lang_model, sent_model])
model.compile(optimizer='sgd',
loss=['categorical_crossentropy', 'mse'],
metrics=['accuracy'], loss_weights=[1., 1.])
Based on your explanation, I think you need a model that first, predict a token based on previous tokens, in NLP domain it usually called Language model, and then compute a score which I assume it is a sentiment (it is applicable to other domain).
To do so, you can train your language model with LSTM and pick the last output of LSTM for your ranking task. To this end, you need to define two loss function: categorical_crossentropy for the language model and MSE for the ranking task.
This tutorial would be helpful: https://www.pyimagesearch.com/2018/06/04/keras-multiple-outputs-and-multiple-losses/
scikit-learn has two logistic regression functions:
sklearn.linear_model.LogisticRegression
sklearn.linear_model.LogisticRegressionCV
I'm just curious what the CV stands for in the second one. The only acronym I know in ML that matches "CV" is cross-validation, but I'm guessing that's not it, since that would be achieved in scikit-learn with a wrapper function, not as part of the logistic regression function itself (I think).
You are right in guessing that the latter allows the user to perform cross validation. The user can pass the number of folds as an argument cv of the function to perform k-fold cross-validation (default is 10 folds with StratifiedKFold).
I would recommend reading the documentation for the functions LogisticRegression and LogisticRegressionCV
Yes, it's cross-validation. Excerpt from the docs:
For the grid of Cs values (that are set by default to be ten values in a logarithmic scale between 1e-4 and 1e4), the best hyperparameter is selected by the cross-validator StratifiedKFold, but it can be changed using the cv parameter.
The point here is the following:
yes: sklearn has general model-selection wrappers providing CV-functionality for all those classifiers/regressors
but: when the classifier/regressor is known/fixed a-priori (to some extent) or sometimes even some CV-model, one can gain advantages using these facts with specialized code bound to one classifier/regressor resulting in improved performance!
Typically:
CV already embedded in optimization-algorithm
Efficient warm-starting (instead of full re-optimization after just the change of one parameter like alpha)
It seems, at least the latter idea is used in sklearn's LogisticRegressionCV, as seen in this excerpt:
In the case of newton-cg and lbfgs solvers, we warm start along the path i.e guess the initial coefficients of the present fit to be the coefficients got after convergence in the previous fit, so it is supposed to be faster for high-dimensional dense data.
May I also refer you to this section in scikit-learn documentation which I beleive explains it well:
Some models can fit data for a range of values of some parameter
almost as efficiently as fitting the estimator for a single value of
the parameter. This feature can be leveraged to perform a more
efficient cross-validation used for model selection of this parameter.
The most common parameter amenable to this strategy is the parameter
encoding the strength of the regularizer. In this case we say that we
compute the regularization path of the estimator.
And logistic regression is one such model. That's why scikit-learn has the dedicated LogisticRegressionCV class that does this.
There are some things left out on other answers, e.g. about gridsearch functionality. See the docs:
cross-validation estimator
An estimator that has built-in cross-validation capabilities to automatically select the best hyper-parameters (see the User Guide). Some example of cross-validation estimators are ElasticNetCV and LogisticRegressionCV. Cross-validation estimators are named EstimatorCV and tend to be roughly equivalent to GridSearchCV(Estimator(), ...). The advantage of using a cross-validation estimator over the canonical estimator class along with grid search is that they can take advantage of warm-starting by reusing precomputed results in the previous steps of the cross-validation process. This generally leads to speed improvements. An exception is the RidgeCV class, which can instead perform efficient Leave-One-Out CV.
https://scikit-learn.org/stable/glossary.html#term-cross-validation-estimator
https://github.com/amueller/talks_odt/blob/master/2015/nyc-open-data-2015-andvanced-sklearn.pdf
I'm using GradientBoostingClassifier for my unbalanced labeled datasets. It seems like class weight doesn't exist as a parameter for this classifier in Sklearn. I see I can use sample_weight when fit but I cannot use it when I deal with VotingClassifier or GridSearch. Could someone help?
Currently there isn't a way to use class_weights for GB in sklearn.
Don't confuse this with sample_weight
Sample Weights change the loss function and your score that you're trying to optimize. This is often used in case of survey data where sampling approaches have gaps.
Class Weights are used to correct class imbalances as a proxy for over \ undersampling. There is no direct way to do that for GB in sklearn (you can do that in Random Forests though)
Very late, but I hope it can be useful for other members.
In the article of Zichen Wang in towardsdatascience.com, the point 5 Gradient Boosting it is told:
For instance, Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM) deals with class imbalance by constructing successive training sets based on incorrectly classified examples. It usually outperforms Random Forest on imbalanced dataset For instance, Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM) deals with class imbalance by constructing successive training sets based on incorrectly classified examples. It usually outperforms Random Forest on imbalanced dataset.
And a chart shows that the half of the grandient boosting model have an AUROC over 80%. So considering GB models performances and the way they are done, it seems not to be necessary to introduce a kind of class_weight parameter as it is the case for RandomForestClassifier in sklearn package.
In the book Introduction To Machine Learning with Pyhton written by Andreas C. Müller and Sarah Guido, edition 2017, page 89, Chapter 2 *Supervised Learning, section Ensembles of Decision Trees, sub-section Gradient boosted regression trees (gradient boosting machines):
They are generally a bit more sensitive to
parameter settings than random forests, but can provide better accuracy if the parameters are set correctly.
Now if you still have scoring problems due to imbalance proportions of categories in the target variable, it is possible you should see if your data should be splited to apply different models on it, because they are not as homogeneous as it seems to be. I mean it may have a variable you have not in your dataset train (an hidden variable clearly) that influences a lot the model results, then it is difficult even for the greater GB to give correct scoring because it misses a huge information that you cannot make appear in the matrix to compute sometimes for many reasons.
Some updates:
I found, by random, there are libraries that implement it as parameters of their gradient boosting instance objects. It is the case of H2O where for the parameter balance_classes it is told:
Balance training data class counts via over/under-sampling (for
imbalanced data).
Type: bool (default: False).
If you want to keep with sklearn you should do as HakunaMaData told: over/under-sampling because that's what other libraries finally do when the parameter exist.