I have a problem that a binary Logistic regression (using scikit-learn python=2.7) classification that is predicting the wrong/opposite class with a high accuracy. That is, after fitting the model the predicted score and predicted probabilities for each class are very consistent but always of the wrong class. I cannot share the data, but some pseudo-code of my approach is:
X = np.vstack((cond_1, cond_2)) # shape of X = 200*51102
y = np.concatenate([np.zeros(len(cond_1)), np.ones(len(cond_2)])
scls = []
clfs = []
scores = []
for train, test in cv.split(X, y):
clf = LogisticRegression(C=1)
scl = StandardScaler()
scl.fit(X[train])
X_train = scl.transform(X[train])
scls.append(scl)
X_test = scl.transform(X[test])
clf.fit(X_train, y[train])
y_pred = clf.predict(X_test)
scores.append(roc_auc_score(y[test], y_pred))
The roc_auc scores have a mean of 0.065% and a standard deviation of 0.05% so there seems to be going something, but what? I have plotted the features and they seem to be okay normally distributed. I also look that at the probabilities from predict_proba and they are mostly above 80% for the wrong class/label.
Any ideas what is going on and/or how to proper diagnose the problem?
I apologise for not being able to ask a more precise question but I'm lacking the vocabulary.
Related
Hoping I'm overlooking something stupid here or maybe I don't understand how this is working...
I have an nlp pipeline that does basically the following:
rf_pipeline = Pipeline([
('vect', TfidfVectorizer(tokenizer = spacy_tokenizer)),
('fit', RandomForestClassifier())
])
I run it:
clf = rf_pipeline.fit(X_train, y_train)
preds = clf.predict(X_test)
When I optimize I get accuracy in the high 90's with the following:
confusion_matrix(y_test, preds)
accuracy_score(y_test, preds)
precision_score(y_test, preds)
the TfidfVectorizer is the bottleneck in my computations, so I wanted to break out the pipeline. run the vectorizer, and then do a grid search on the classifier rather than running it on the whole pipeline. Here's how I broke it out:
# initialize
tfidf = TfidfVectorizer(tokenizer = spacy_tokenizer)
# transform and fit
vect = tfidf.fit_transform(X_train)
clf = rf_class.fit(vect, y_train)
# predict
clf.predict(tfidf.fit_transform(X_test))
When I took a look at the accuracy before I ran a full grid search it had plummeted to just over 50%. When I tried increasing the number of trees the score dropped almost 10%.
Any ideas?
For test set, you can't call fit_transform(), but just transform(), otherwise elements of a tfidf vectors has different meaning.
Try this
# predict
clf.predict(tfidf.transform(X_test))
I have a 1000 classes in the network and they have multi-label outputs. For each training example, the number of positive output is same(i.e 10) but they can be assigned to any of the 1000 classes. So 10 classes have output 1 and rest 990 have output 0.
For the multi-label classification, I am using 'binary-cross entropy' as cost function and 'sigmoid' as the activation function. When I tried this rule of 0.5 as the cut-off for 1 or 0. All of them were 0. I understand this is a class imbalance problem. From this link, I understand that, I might have to create extra output labels.Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out how to incorporate that into a simple neural network in keras.
nclasses = 1000
# if we wanted to maximize an imbalance problem!
#class_weight = {k: len(Y_train)/(nclasses*(Y_train==k).sum()) for k in range(nclasses)}
inp = Input(shape=[X_train.shape[1]])
x = Dense(5000, activation='relu')(inp)
x = Dense(4000, activation='relu')(x)
x = Dense(3000, activation='relu')(x)
x = Dense(2000, activation='relu')(x)
x = Dense(nclasses, activation='sigmoid')(x)
model = Model(inputs=[inp], outputs=[x])
adam=keras.optimizers.adam(lr=0.00001)
model.compile('adam', 'binary_crossentropy')
history = model.fit(
X_train, Y_train, batch_size=32, epochs=50,verbose=0,shuffle=False)
Could anyone help me with the code here and I would also highly appreciate if you could suggest a good 'accuracy' metric for this problem?
Thanks a lot :) :)
I have a similar problem and unfortunately have no answer for most of the questions. Especially the class imbalance problem.
In terms of metric there are several possibilities: In my case I use the top 1/2/3/4/5 results and check if one of them is right. Because in your case you always have the same amount of labels=1 you could take your top 10 results and see how many percent of them are right and average this result over your batch size. I didn't find a possibility to include this algorithm as a keras metric. Instead, I wrote a callback, which calculates the metric on epoch end on my validation data set.
Also, if you predict the top n results on a test dataset, see how many times each class is predicted. The Counter Class is really convenient for this purpose.
Edit: If found a method to include class weights without splitting the output.
You need a numpy 2d array containing weights with shape [number classes to predict, 2 (background and signal)].
Such an array could be calculated with this function:
def calculating_class_weights(y_true):
from sklearn.utils.class_weight import compute_class_weight
number_dim = np.shape(y_true)[1]
weights = np.empty([number_dim, 2])
for i in range(number_dim):
weights[i] = compute_class_weight('balanced', [0.,1.], y_true[:, i])
return weights
The solution is now to build your own binary crossentropy loss function in which you multiply your weights yourself:
def get_weighted_loss(weights):
def weighted_loss(y_true, y_pred):
return K.mean((weights[:,0]**(1-y_true))*(weights[:,1]**(y_true))*K.binary_crossentropy(y_true, y_pred), axis=-1)
return weighted_loss
weights[:,0] is an array with all the background weights and weights[:,1] contains all the signal weights.
All that is left is to include this loss into the compile function:
model.compile(optimizer=Adam(), loss=get_weighted_loss(class_weights))
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!
I have a linear regression model that seems to work. I first load the data into X and the target column into Y, after that I implement the following...
X_train, X_test, Y_train, Y_test = train_test_split(
X_data,
Y_data,
test_size=0.2
)
rng = np.random
n_rows = X_train.shape[0]
X = tf.placeholder("float")
Y = tf.placeholder("float")
W = tf.Variable(rng.randn(), name="weight")
b = tf.Variable(rng.randn(), name="bias")
pred = tf.add(tf.multiply(X, W), b)
cost = tf.reduce_sum(tf.pow(pred-Y, 2)/(2*n_rows))
optimizer = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(FLAGS.learning_rate).minimize(cost)
init = tf.global_variables_initializer()
init_local = tf.local_variables_initializer()
with tf.Session() as sess:
sess.run([init, init_local])
for epoch in range(FLAGS.training_epochs):
avg_cost = 0
for (x, y) in zip(X_train, Y_train):
sess.run(optimizer, feed_dict={X:x, Y:y})
# display logs per epoch step
if (epoch + 1) % FLAGS.display_step == 0:
c = sess.run(
cost,
feed_dict={X:X_train, Y:Y_train}
)
print("Epoch:", '%04d' % (epoch + 1), "cost=", "{:.9f}".format(c))
print("Optimization Finished!")
accuracy, accuracy_op = tf.metrics.accuracy(labels=tf.argmax(Y_test, 0), predictions=tf.argmax(pred, 0))
print(sess.run(accuracy))
I cannot figure out how to print out the model's accuracy. For example, in sklearn, it is simple, if you have a model you just print model.score(X_test, Y_test). But I do not know how to do this in tensorflow or if it is even possible.
I think I'd be able to calculate the Mean Squared Error. Does this help in any way?
EDIT
I tried implementing tf.metrics.accuracy as suggested in the comments but I'm having an issue implementing it. The documentation says it takes 2 arguments, labels and predictions, so I tried the following...
accuracy, accuracy_op = tf.metrics.accuracy(labels=tf.argmax(Y_test, 0), predictions=tf.argmax(pred, 0))
print(sess.run(accuracy))
But this gives me an error...
FailedPreconditionError (see above for traceback): Attempting to use uninitialized value accuracy/count
[[Node: accuracy/count/read = IdentityT=DT_FLOAT, _class=["loc:#accuracy/count"], _device="/job:localhost/replica:0/task:0/device:CPU:0"]]
How exactly does one implement this?
Turns out, since this is a multi-class Linear Regression problem, and not a classification problem, that tf.metrics.accuracy is not the right approach.
Instead of displaying the accuracy of my model in terms of percentage, I instead focused on reducing the Mean Square Error (MSE) instead.
From looking at other examples, tf.metrics.accuracy is never used for Linear Regression, and only classification. Normally tf.metric.mean_squared_error is the right approach.
I implemented two ways of calculating the total MSE of my predictions to my testing data...
pred = tf.add(tf.matmul(X, W), b)
...
...
Y_pred = sess.run(pred, feed_dict={X:X_test})
mse = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(Y_pred - Y_test))
OR
mse = tf.metrics.mean_squared_error(labels=Y_test, predictions=Y_pred)
They both do the same but obviously the second approach is more concise.
There's a good explanation of how to measure the accuracy of a Linear Regression model here.
I didn't think this was clear at all from the Tensorflow documentation, but you have to declare the accuracy operation, and then initialize all global and local variables, before you run the accuracy calculation:
accuracy, accuracy_op = tf.metrics.accuracy(labels=tf.argmax(Y_test, 0), predictions=tf.argmax(pred, 0))
# ...
init_global = tf.global_variables_initializer
init_local = tf.local_variables_initializer
sess.run([init_global, init_local])
# ...
# run accuracy calculation
I read something on Stack Overflow about the accuracy calculation using local variables, which is why the local variable initializer is necessary.
After reading the complete code you posted, I noticed a couple other things:
In your calculation of pred, you use
pred = tf.add(tf.multiply(X, W), b). tf.multiply performs element-wise multiplication, and will not give you the fully connected layers you need for a neural network (which I am assuming is what you are ultimately working toward, since you're using TensorFlow). To implement fully connected layers, where each layer i (including input and output layers) has ni nodes, you need separate weight and bias matrices for each pair of successive layers. The dimensions of the i-th weight matrix (the weights between the i-th layer and the i+1-th layer) should be (ni, ni + 1), and the i-th bias matrix should have dimensions (ni + 1, 1). Then, going back to the multiplication operation - replace tf.multiply with tf.matmul, and you're good to go. I assume that what you have is probably fine for a single-class linear regression problem, but this is definitely the way you want to go if you plan to solve a multiclass regression problem or implement a deeper network.
Your weight and bias tensors have a shape of (1, 1). You give the variables the initial value of np.random.randn(), which according to the documentation, generates a single floating point number when no arguments are given. The dimensions of your weight and bias tensors need to be supplied as arguments to np.random.randn(). Better yet, you can actually initialize these to random values in Tensorflow: W = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([dim0, dim1], seed = seed) (I always initialize random variables with a seed value for reproducibility)
Just a note in case you don't know this already, but non-linear activation functions are required for neural networks to be effective. If all your activations are linear, then no matter how many layers you have, it will reduce to a simple linear regression in the end. Many people use relu activation for hidden layers. For the output layer, use softmax activation for multiclass classification problems where the output classes are exclusive (i.e., where only one class can be correct for any given input), and sigmoid activation for multiclass classification problems where the output classes are not exlclusive.
I’m having an issue using the prediction probabilities for sparse SVM, where many of the predictions come out the same for my test instances. These probabilities are produced during cross validation, and when I plot an ROC curve for the folds, the results look very strange, as there are a handful of clustered points on the graph. Here is my cross validation code, I based it off of the samples on the scikit website:
skf = StratifiedKFold(y, n_folds=numfolds)
for train_index, test_index in skf:
#split the training and testing sets
X_train, X_test = X_scaled[train_index], X_scaled[test_index]
y_train, y_test = y[train_index], y[test_index]
#train on the subset for this fold
print 'Training on fold ' + str(fold)
classifier = svm.SVC(C=C_val, kernel='rbf', gamma=gamma_val, probability=True)
probas_ = classifier.fit(X_train, y_train).predict_proba(X_test)
#Compute ROC curve and area the curve
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, probas_[:, 1])
mean_tpr += interp(mean_fpr, fpr, tpr)
mean_tpr[0] = 0.0
roc_auc = auc(fpr, tpr)
I’m just trying to figure out if there’s something I’m obviously missing here, since I used this same training set and SVM parameters with libsvm and got much better results. When I used libsvm and printed out the distances from the hyperplane for the CV test instances and then plotted the ROC, it came out much more like I expected, and a much better AUC.