I am using sklearn's DictVectorizer to construct a large, sparse feature matrix, which is fed to an ElasticNet model. Elastic net (and similar linear models) work best when predictors (columns in the feature matrix) are centered and scaled. The recommended approach is to build a Pipeline that uses a StandardScaler prior to the regressor, however that doesn't work with sparse features, as stated in the docs.
I thought to use the normalize=True flag in ElasticNet which seems to support sparse data, however it's not clear whether the normalization is applied during prediction to the test data as well. Does anyone know if normalize=True applies for prediction as well? If not, is there a way to use the same standardization on the training and test set when dealing with sparse features?
Digging through the sklearn code, it looks like when fit_intercept=True and normalize=True, the coefficients estimated on the normalized data are projected back to the original scale of the data. This is similar to the way glmnet in R handles standardization. The relevant code snippet is the method _set_intercept of LinearModel, see https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/blob/master/sklearn/linear_model/base.py#L158. So predictions on unseen data use coefficients in the original scale, i.e., normalize=True is safe to use.
Related
I am using sklearn's random forests module to predict values based on 50 different dimensions. When I increase the number of dimensions to 150, the accuracy of the model decreases dramatically. I would expect more data to only make the model more accurate, but more features tend to make the model less accurate.
I suspect that splitting might only be done across one dimension which means that features which are actually more important get less attention when building trees. Could this be the reason?
Yes, the additional features you have added might not have good predictive power and as random forest takes random subset of features to build individual trees, the original 50 features might have got missed out. To test this hypothesis, you can plot variable importance using sklearn.
Your model is overfitting the data.
From Wikipedia:
An overfitted model is a statistical model that contains more parameters than can be justified by the data.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-412c8556aacf7e25b86bba63e9e67ac6-c
There are plenty of illustrations of overfitting, but for instance, this 2d plot represents the different functions that would have been learned for a binary classification task. Because the function on the right has too many parameters, it learns wrongs data patterns that don't generalize properly.
I have 3 predictive models and I am evaluating there performance with a confusion matrix.
I am getting the same results for the confusion matrix for each of the 3 models.
I expect that the different models would perform differently and produce different confusion matrices. I am new to predictive modelling, so I suspect I am making a "Rooky mistake" . The full script I am using is sitting in a Jupyter notebook on GiThub here
A screenshot of the code for the 3 models is below
Can some one point out what is going wrong?
Cheers
Mike
As mentioned: make predictions on the test data. But keep in mind that your targets are skewed! So use StratifiedKFolds or something like this.
Also I guess that your data is a bit corrupted. While all models show the same result it may be a big mistake underneath.
Few questions/advises:
1. Did you scale your data?
2. Did you use one-hot-encoding?
2. Use don't Decision Trees but Forests/XGBoost. Easy to overfit with DT.
3. Don't use >2 hidden layers in NN because it's easy to overfit too. Use 2 firstly. And your architecture (30, 30, 30) with 2 target classes seems weird.
4. And if you wish to use >2 hidden layers - go to Keras or TF. You'll find there many features that can help you to not overfit.
That is simply because you are using the same Training data to make predictions. Since your models are already trained on the same data that you are making the predictions on, they will return the same results (and ultimately the same confusion matrix). You need to split your dataset into training and test sets. Then train your classifier on training set and make predictions on test set.
You can use train_test_split in Sklearn to split your dataset into training or test set.
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 have a data set containing 1000 points each with 2 inputs and 1 output. It has been split into 80% for training and 20% for testing purpose. I am training it using sklearn support vector regressor. I have got 100% accuracy with training set but results obtained with test set are not good. I think it may be because of overfitting. Please can you suggest me something to solve the problem.
You may be right: if your model scores very high on the training data, but it does poorly on the test data, it is usually a symptom of overfitting. You need to retrain your model under a different situation. I assume you are using train_test_split provided in sklearn, or a similar mechanism which guarantees that your split is fair and random. So, you will need to tweak the hyperparameters of SVR and create several models and see which one does best on your test data.
If you look at the SVR documentation, you will see that it can be initiated using several input parameters, each of which could be set to a number of different values. For the simplicity, let's assume you are only dealing with two parameters that you want to tweak: 'kernel' and 'C', while keeping the third parameter 'degree' set to 4. You are considering 'rbf' and 'linear' for kernel, and 0.1, 1, 10 for C. A simple solution is this:
for kernel in ('rbf', 'linear'):
for c in (0.1, 1, 10):
svr = SVR(kernel=kernel, C=c, degree=4)
svr.fit(train_features, train_target)
score = svr.score(test_features, test_target)
print kernel, c, score
This way, you can generate 6 models and see which parameters lead to the best score, which will be the best model to choose, given these parameters.
A simpler way is to let sklearn to do most of this work for you, using GridSearchCV (or RandomizedSearchCV):
parameters = {'kernel':('linear', 'rbf'), 'C':(0.1, 1, 10)}
clf = GridSearchCV(SVC(degree=4), parameters)
clf.fit(train_features, train_target)
print clf.best_score_
print clf.best_params_
model = clf.best_estimator_ # This is your model
I am working on a little tool to simplify using sklearn for small projects, and make it a matter of configuring a yaml file, and letting the tool do all the work for you. It is available on my github account. You might want to take a look and see if it helps.
Finally, your data may not be linear. In that case you may want to try using something like PolynomialFeatures to generate new nonlinear features based on the existing ones and see if it improves your model quality.
Try fitting your data using training data split Sklearn K-Fold cross-validation, this provides you a fair split of data and better model , though at a cost of performance , which should really matter for small dataset and where the priority is accuracy.
A few hints:
Since you have only two inputs, it would be great if you plot your data. Try either a scatter with alpha = 0.3 or a heatmap.
Try GridSearchCV, as mentioned by #shahins.
Especially, try different values for the C parameter. As mentioned in the docs, if you have a lot of noisy observations you should decrease it. It corresponds to regularize more the estimation.
If it's taking too long, you can also try RandomizedSearchCV
As a side note from #shahins answer (I am not allowed to add comments), both implementations are not equivalent. GridSearchCV is better since it performs cross-validation in the training set for tuning the hyperparameters. Do not use the test set for tuning hyperparameters!
Don't forget to scale your data
I am working with sklearn's implementation of KNN. While my input data has about 20 features, I believe some of the features are more important than others. Is there a way to:
set the feature weights for each feature when "training" the KNN learner.
learn what the optimal weight values are with or without pre-processing the data.
On a related note, I understand generally KNN does not require training but since sklearn implements it using KDTrees, the tree must be generated from the training data. However, this sounds like its turning KNN into a binary tree problem. Is that the case?
Thanks.
kNN is simply based on a distance function. When you say "feature two is more important than others" it usually means difference in feature two is worth, say, 10x difference in other coords. Simple way to achive this is by multiplying coord #2 by its weight. So you put into the tree not the original coords but coords multiplied by their respective weights.
In case your features are combinations of the coords, you might need to apply appropriate matrix transform on your coords before applying weights, see PCA (principal component analysis). PCA is likely to help you with question 2.
The answer to question to is called "metric learning" and currently not implemented in Scikit-learn. Using the popular Mahalanobis distance amounts to rescaling the data using StandardScaler. Ideally you would want your metric to take into account the labels.