from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
sc = StandardScaler()
X_train = sc.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test = sc.transform(X_test)
What I know is fit() method calculates mean and standard deviation of the feature and then transform() method uses them to transform the feature into a new scaled feature. fit_transform() is nothing but calling fit() & transform() method in a single line.
But here why are we only calling fit() for training data and not for testing data??
Does that means we are using mean & standard deviation of training data to transform our testing data ??
fit computes the mean and stdev to be used for later scaling, note it's just a computation with no scaling done.
transform uses the previously computed mean and stdev to scale the data (subtract mean from all values and then divide it by stdev).
fit_transform does both at the same time. So you can do it with just 1 line of code.
For X_train dataset, we do fit_transform because we need to compute mean and stdev, and then use it to scale the X_train dataset. For X_test dataset, since we already have the mean and stdev, we only do the transformation part.
Edit: X_test data should be totally unseen and unknown (ie, no info is extracted from them), so we can only derive info from X_train. The reason why we apply the derived mean and stdev (from X_train) to transform X_test as well, is to have the same "apple-to-apple" comparison for y_test and y_pred.
By the way, if the train/test data is split properly without bias, and that the data is sufficiently large, both datasets would have the same approximation to the population mean and stdev.
Related
Assume that I have 3 dataset in a ML problem.
train dataset: used to estimate ML model parameters (training)
test dataset: used to evaulate trained model, calculate accuracy of trained model
prediction dataset: used only for prediction after model deployment
I don't have evaluation dataset, and I use Grid Search with k-fold cross validation to find the best model.
Also, I have two python scripts as follows:
train.py: used to train and test ML model, load train and test dataset, save the trained model, best model is found by Grid Search.
predict.py: used to load pre-trained model & load prediction dataset, predict model output and calculate accuracy.
Before starting training process in train.py, I use MinMaxScaler as follows:
from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler
scaler = MinMaxScaler()
scaler.fit(x_train) # fit only on train dataset
x_train_norm = scaler.transform(x_train)
x_test_norm = scaler.transform(x_test)
In predict.py, after loding prediction dataset, I need to use the same data pre-processing as below:
from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler
scaler = MinMaxScaler()
scaler.fit(x_predict)
x_predict_norm = scaler.transform(x_predict)
As you can see above, both fit and transform are done on prediction dataset. However, in train.py, fit is done on train dataset, and the same MinMaxScaler is applied to transform test dataset.
My understanding is that test dataset is a simulation of real data that model is supposed to predict after deployment. Therefore, data pre-processing of test and prediction dataset should be the same.
I think separate MinMaxScaler should be used in train.py for train and test dataset as follows:
from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler
scaler_train = MinMaxScaler()
scaler_test = MinMaxScaler()
scaler_train.fit(x_train) # fit only on train dataset
x_train_norm = scaler_train.transform(x_train)
scaler_test.fit(x_test) # fit only on test dataset
x_test_norm = scaler_test.transform(x_test)
What is the difference?
Value of x_test_norm will be different if I use separate MinMaxScaler as explained above. In this case, value of x_test_norm is in the range of [-1, 1]. However, If I transform test dataset by a MinMaxScaler which was fit by train dataset, value of x_test_norm can be outside the range of [-1, 1].
Please let me know your idea about it.
When you run .transform() MinMax scaling does something like: (value - min) / (Max - min) The value of min and Max are defined when you run .fit(). So the answer - yes, you should fit MinMaxScaller on the training dataset and then use it on the test dataset.
Just imagine the situation when in the training dataset you have some feature with Max=100 and min=10, while in the test dataset Max=10 and min=1. If you will train separate MinMaxScaller for test subset, yes, it will scale the feature in the range [-1, 1], but in comparison to the training dataset, the called values should be lower.
Also, regarding Grid Search with k-fold cross-validation, you should use the Pipeline. In this case, Grid Search will automatically fit MinMaxScaller on the k-1 folds. Here is a good example of how to organize pipeline with Mixed Types.
Data pre-processers such as StandardScaler should be used to fit_transform the train set and only transform (not fit) the test set. I expect the same fit/transform process applies to cross-validation for tuning the model. However, I found cross_val_score and GridSearchCV fit_transform the entire train set with the preprocessor (rather than fit_transform the inner_train set, and transform the inner_validation set). I believe this artificially removes the variance from the inner_validation set which makes the cv score (the metric used to select the best model by GridSearch) biased. Is this a concern or did I actually miss anything?
To demonstrate the above issue, I tried the following three simple test cases with the Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic) Data Set from Kaggle.
I intentionally fit and transform the entire X with StandardScaler()
X_sc = StandardScaler().fit_transform(X)
lr = LogisticRegression(penalty='l2', random_state=42)
cross_val_score(lr, X_sc, y, cv=5)
I include SC and LR in the Pipeline and run cross_val_score
pipe = Pipeline([
('sc', StandardScaler()),
('lr', LogisticRegression(penalty='l2', random_state=42))
])
cross_val_score(pipe, X, y, cv=5)
Same as 2 but with GridSearchCV
pipe = Pipeline([
('sc', StandardScaler()),
('lr', LogisticRegression(random_state=42))
])
params = {
'lr__penalty': ['l2']
}
gs=GridSearchCV(pipe,
param_grid=params, cv=5).fit(X, y)
gs.cv_results_
They all produce the same validation scores.
[0.9826087 , 0.97391304, 0.97345133, 0.97345133, 0.99115044]
No, sklearn doesn't do fit_transform with entire dataset.
To check this, I subclassed StandardScaler to print the size of the dataset sent to it.
class StScaler(StandardScaler):
def fit_transform(self,X,y=None):
print(len(X))
return super().fit_transform(X,y)
If you now replace StandardScaler in your code, you'll see dataset size passed in first case is actually bigger.
But why does the accuracy remain exactly same? I think this is because LogisticRegression is not very sensitive to feature scale. If we instead use a classifier that is very sensitive to scale, like KNeighborsClassifier for example, you'll find accuracy between two cases start to vary.
X,y = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y=True)
X_sc = StScaler().fit_transform(X)
lr = KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=1)
cross_val_score(lr, X_sc,y, cv=5)
Outputs:
569
[0.94782609 0.96521739 0.97345133 0.92920354 0.9380531 ]
And the 2nd case,
pipe = Pipeline([
('sc', StScaler()),
('lr', KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=1))
])
print(cross_val_score(pipe, X, y, cv=5))
Outputs:
454
454
456
456
456
[0.95652174 0.97391304 0.97345133 0.92920354 0.9380531 ]
Not big change accuracy-wise, but change nonetheless.
Learning the parameters of a prediction function and testing it on the same data is a methodological mistake: a model that would just repeat the labels of the samples that it has just seen would have a perfect score but would fail to predict anything useful on yet-unseen data. This situation is called overfitting. To avoid it, it is common practice when performing a (supervised) machine learning experiment to hold out part of the available data as a test set X_test, y_test
A solution to this problem is a procedure called cross-validation (CV for short). A test set should still be held out for final evaluation, but the validation set is no longer needed when doing CV. In the basic approach, called k-fold CV, the training set is split into k smaller sets (other approaches are described below, but generally follow the same principles). The following procedure is followed for each of the k “folds”:
A model is trained using of the folds as training data;
the resulting model is validated on the remaining part of the data (i.e., it is used as a test set to compute a performance measure such as accuracy).
The performance measure reported by k-fold cross-validation is then the average of the values computed in the loop. This approach can be computationally expensive, but does not waste too much data (as is the case when fixing an arbitrary validation set), which is a major advantage in problems such as inverse inference where the number of samples is very small.
More over if your model is already biased from starting we have to make it balance by SMOTE /Oversampling of Less Target Variable/Under-sampling of High target variable.
I have multi class labels and want to compute the accuracy of my model.
I am kind of confused on which sklearn function I need to use.
As far as I understood the below code is only used for the binary classification.
# dividing X, y into train and test data
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.25,random_state = 0)
# training a linear SVM classifier
from sklearn.svm import SVC
svm_model_linear = SVC(kernel = 'linear', C = 1).fit(X_train, y_train)
svm_predictions = svm_model_linear.predict(X_test)
# model accuracy for X_test
accuracy = svm_model_linear.score(X_test, y_test)
print accuracy
and as I understood from the link:
Which decision_function_shape for sklearn.svm.SVC when using OneVsRestClassifier?
for multiclass classification I should use OneVsRestClassifier with decision_function_shape (with ovr or ovo and check which one works better)
svm_model_linear = OneVsRestClassifier(SVC(kernel = 'linear',C = 1, decision_function_shape = 'ovr')).fit(X_train, y_train)
The main problem is that the time of predicting the labels does matter to me but it takes about 1 minute to run the classifier and predict the data (also this time is added to the feature reduction such as PCA which also takes sometime)? any suggestions to reduce the time for svm multiclassifer?
There are multiple things to consider here:
1) You see, OneVsRestClassifier will separate out all labels and train multiple svm objects (one for each label) on the given data. So each time, only binary data will be supplied to single svm object.
2) SVC internally uses libsvm and liblinear, which have a 'OvO' strategy for multi-class or multi-label output. But this point will be of no use because of point 1. libsvm will only get binary data.
Even if it did, it doesnt take into account the 'decision_function_shape'. So it does not matter if you provide decision_function_shape = 'ovr' or decision_function_shape = 'ovr'.
So it seems that you are looking at the problem wrong. decision_function_shape should not affect the speed. Try standardizing your data before fitting. SVMs work well with standardized data.
When wrapping models with the ovr or ovc classifiers, you could set the n_jobs parameters to make them run faster, e.g. sklearn.multiclass.OneVsOneClassifier(estimator, n_jobs=-1) or sklearn.multiclass.OneVsRestClassifier(estimator, n_jobs=-1).
Although each single SVM classifier in sklearn could only use one CPU core at a time, the ensemble multi class classifier could fit multiple models at the same time by setting n_jobs.
I was testing some network architectures in Keras for classifying the MNIST dataset. I have implemented one that is similar to the LeNet.
I have seen that in the examples that I have found on the internet, there is a step of data normalization. For example:
X_train /= 255
I have performed a test without this normalization and I have seen that the performance (accuracy) of the network has decreased (keeping the same number of epochs). Why has this happened?
If I increase the number of epochs, the accuracy can reach the same level reached by the model trained with normalization?
So, the normalization affects the accuracy, or only the training speed?
The complete source code of my training script is below:
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers.convolutional import Conv2D
from keras.layers.convolutional import MaxPooling2D
from keras.layers.core import Activation
from keras.layers.core import Flatten
from keras.layers.core import Dense
from keras.datasets import mnist
from keras.utils import np_utils
from keras.optimizers import SGD, RMSprop, Adam
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from keras import backend as k
def build(input_shape, classes):
model = Sequential()
model.add(Conv2D(20, kernel_size=5, padding="same",activation='relu',input_shape=input_shape))
model.add(MaxPooling2D(pool_size=(2, 2), strides=(2, 2)))
model.add(Conv2D(50, kernel_size=5, padding="same", activation='relu'))
model.add(MaxPooling2D(pool_size=(2, 2), strides=(2, 2)))
model.add(Flatten())
model.add(Dense(500))
model.add(Activation("relu"))
model.add(Dense(classes))
model.add(Activation("softmax"))
return model
NB_EPOCH = 4 # number of epochs
BATCH_SIZE = 128 # size of the batch
VERBOSE = 1 # set the training phase as verbose
OPTIMIZER = Adam() # optimizer
VALIDATION_SPLIT=0.2 # percentage of the training data used for
evaluating the loss function
IMG_ROWS, IMG_COLS = 28, 28 # input image dimensions
NB_CLASSES = 10 # number of outputs = number of digits
INPUT_SHAPE = (1, IMG_ROWS, IMG_COLS) # shape of the input
(X_train, y_train), (X_test, y_test) = mnist.load_data()
k.set_image_dim_ordering("th")
X_train = X_train.astype('float32')
X_test = X_test.astype('float32')
X_train /= 255
X_test /= 255
X_train = X_train[:, np.newaxis, :, :]
X_test = X_test[:, np.newaxis, :, :]
print(X_train.shape[0], 'train samples')
print(X_test.shape[0], 'test samples')
y_train = np_utils.to_categorical(y_train, NB_CLASSES)
y_test = np_utils.to_categorical(y_test, NB_CLASSES)
model = build(input_shape=INPUT_SHAPE, classes=NB_CLASSES)
model.compile(loss="categorical_crossentropy",
optimizer=OPTIMIZER,metrics=["accuracy"])
history = model.fit(X_train, y_train, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE, epochs=NB_EPOCH, verbose=VERBOSE, validation_split=VALIDATION_SPLIT)
model.save("model2")
score = model.evaluate(X_test, y_test, verbose=VERBOSE)
print('Test accuracy:', score[1])
Normalization is a generic concept not limited only to deep learning or to Keras.
Why to normalize?
Let me take a simple logistic regression example which will be easy to understand and to explain normalization.
Assume we are trying to predict if a customer should be given loan or not. Among many available independent variables lets just consider Age and Income.
Let the equation be of the form:
Y = weight_1 * (Age) + weight_2 * (Income) + some_constant
Just for sake of explanation let Age be usually in range of [0,120] and let us assume Income in range of [10000, 100000]. The scale of Age and Income are very different. If you consider them as is then weights weight_1 and weight_2 may be assigned biased weights. weight_2 might bring more importance to Income as a feature than to what weight_1 brings importance to Age. To scale them to a common level, we can normalize them. For example, we can bring all the ages in range of [0,1] and all incomes in range of [0,1]. Now we can say that Age and Income are given equal importance as a feature.
Does Normalization always increase the accuracy?
Apparently, No. It is not necessary that normalization always increases accuracy. It may or might not, you never really know until you implement. Again it depends on at which stage in you training you apply normalization, on whether you apply normalization after every activation, etc.
As the range of the values of the features gets narrowed down to a particular range because of normalization, its easy to perform computations over a smaller range of values. So, usually the model gets trained a bit faster.
Regarding the number of epochs, accuracy usually increases with number of epochs provided that your model doesn't start over-fitting.
A very good explanation for Normalization/Standardization and related terms is here.
In a nutshell, normalization reduces the complexity of the problem your network is trying to solve. This can potentially increase the accuracy of your model and speed up the training. You bring the data on the same scale and reduce variance. None of the weights in the network are wasted on doing a normalization for you, meaning that they can be used more efficiently to solve the actual task at hand.
As #Shridhar R Kulkarni says, normalization is a general concept and doesn’t only apply to keras.
It’s often applied as part of data preparation for ML learning models to change numeric values in the dataset to fit a standard scale without distorting the differences in their ranges. As such, normalization enhances the cohesion of entity types within a model by reducing the probability of inconsistent data.
However, not every other dataset and use case requires normalization, it’s primarily necessary when features have different ranges. You may use when;
You want to improve your model’s convergence efficiency and make
optimization feasible
When you want to make training less sensitive to scale features, you can better
solve coefficients.
Want to improve analysis from multiple models.
Normalization is not recommended when;
-Using decision tree models or ensembles based on them
-Your data is not normally distributed- you may have to use other data pre-
processing techniques
-If your dataset comprises already scaled variables
In some cases, normalization can improve performance. However, it is not always necessary.
The critical thing is to understand your dataset and scenario first, then you’ll know whether you need it or not. Sometimes, you can experiment to see if it gives you good performance or not.
Check out deepchecks and see how to deal with important data-related checks you come across in ML.
For example, to check duplicated data in your set, you can use the following code detailed code
from deepchecks.checks.integrity.data_duplicates import DataDuplicates
from deepchecks.base import Dataset, Suite
from datetime import datetime
import pandas as pd
I think there are some issue with the convergence of the optimizer function too. Here i show a simple linear regression. Three examples:
First with an array with small values and it works as expected.
Second an array with bigger values and the loss function explodes toward infinity, suggesting the need to normalize. And at the end in model 3 the same array as case two but it has been normalized and we get convergence.
github colab enabled ipython notebook
I've use the MSE optimizer function i don't know if other optimizers suffer the same issues.
I have 2000 labelled data (7 different labels) and about 100K unlabeled data and I am trying to use sklearn.semi_supervised.LabelPropagation. The data has 1024 dimensions. My problem is that the classifier is labeling everything as 1. My code looks like this:
X_unlabeled = X_unlabeled[:10000, :]
X_both = np.vstack((X_train, X_unlabeled))
y_both = np.append(y_train, -np.ones((X_unlabeled.shape[0],)))
clf = LabelPropagation(max_iter=100).fit(X_both, y_both)
y_pred = clf.predict(X_test)
y_pred is all ones. Also, X_train is 2000x1024 and X_unlabeled is a subset of the unlabeled data which is 10000x1024.
I also get this error upon calling fit on the classifier:
/usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sklearn/semi_supervised/label_propagation.py:255: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in divide
self.label_distributions_ /= normalizer
Have you tried different values for the gamma parameter ? As the graph is constructed by computing an rbf kernel, the computation includes an exponential and the python exponential functions return 0 if the value is a too big negative number (see http://computer-programming-forum.com/56-python/ef71e144330ffbc2.htm). And if the graph is filled with 0, the label_distributions_ is filled with "nan" (because of normalization) and a warning appears. (be careful, the gamma value in scikit implementation is multiplied to the euclidean distance, it's not the same thing as in the Zhu paper.)
The LabelPropagation will finally be fixed in version 0.19