I'm using MEKA for multi-label classification, and it only shows accuracy and F-measure.
Is there any way I can get recall and precision?
Increase the Verbosity in the Options dialog (pops up when clicking on the ... button) to at least 4.
Related
I am working on an ad's clicked or not on a website classification dataset(a pretty much balanced one). I need to know the correct probability threshold for classifying whether website visitors will click ad or not.
Objective:- Since ads are expensive on the website, we want to make sure ads are displayed only to those who have good chance of converting and unnecessary clicks will only add heavily to our cost.
So now I have to select threshold value in such a way that we have good number of conversions and have low ad clicks which don't convert.
I ran logistic regression (1=ad clicked 0=not clicked) and attached image has data on accuracy, recall, precision, auc score, f1_score at threshold values 0.4,0.45, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6.
As per my knowledge that threshold value should be selected where f1_score is maximum. However, since we want to minimize ad clicks which don't convert we want to have high precision i.e. as low false positives as possible.
For this dataset the f1 score is max at threshold=0.45, however precision is higher at threshold=0.55 & 0.6. What threshold value should I select given our mentioned objective?
Tried looking for answers on determining correct threshold value but found none very satisfying. searched stackoverflow and web.
THRESHOLD=0.4 #0.4 to 0.6 incremented by 0.5
predictions=np.where(classifier.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1] > THRESHOLD,1,0)
pd.DataFrame(data=[accuracy_score(Y_test, predictions), recall_score(Y_test, predictions),
precision_score(Y_test, predictions), roc_auc_score(Y_test, predictions), f1_score(Y_test,predictions)],
index=["accuracy", "recall", "precision", "roc_auc_score",'f1_score'])
Correct threshold value
I am training a Naive Bayes classifier on a balanced dataset with equal number of positive and negative examples. At test time I am computing the accuracy in turn for the examples in the positive class, negative class, and the subsets which make up the negative class. However, for some subsets of the negative class I get accuracy values lower than 50%, i.e. random guessing. I am wondering, should I worry about these results being much lower than 50%? Thank you!
It's impossible to fully answer this question without specific details, so here instead are guidelines:
If you have a dataset with equal amounts of classes, then random guessing would give you 50% accuracy on average.
To be clear, are you certain your model has learned something on your training dataset? Is the training dataset accuracy higher than 50%? If yes, continue reading.
Assuming that your validation set is large enough to rule out statistical fluctuations, then lower than 50% accuracy suggests that something is indeed wrong with your model.
For example, are your classes accidentally switched somehow in the validation dataset? Because notice that if you instead use 1 - model.predict(x), your accuracy would be above 50%.
I am trying to implement a binary classifier using logistic regression for data drawn from 2 point sets (classes y (-1, 1)). As seen below, we can use the parameter a to prevent overfitting.
Now I am not sure, how to choose the "good" value for a.
Another thing I am not sure about is how to choose a "good" convergence criterion for this sort of problem.
Value of 'a'
Choosing "good" things is a sort of meta-regression: pick any value for a that seems reasonable. Run the regression. Try again with a values larger and smaller by a factor of 3. If either works better than the original, try another factor of 3 in that direction -- but round it from 9x to 10x for readability.
You get the idea ... play with it until you get in the right range. Unless you're really trying to optimize the result, you probably won't need to narrow it down much closer than that factor of 3.
Data Set Partition
ML folks have spent a lot of words analysing the best split. The optimal split depends very much on your data space. As a global heuristic, use half or a bit more for training; of the rest, no more than half should be used for testing, the rest for validation. For instance, 50:20:30 is a viable approximation for train:test:validate.
Again, you get to play with this somewhat ... except that any true test of the error rate would be entirely new data.
Convergence
This depends very much on the characteristics of your empirical error space near the best solution, as well as near local regions of low gradient.
The first consideration is to choose an error function that is likely to be convex and have no flattish regions. The second is to get some feeling for the magnitude of the gradient in the region of a desired solution (normalizing your data will help with this); use this to help choose the convergence radius; you might want to play with that 3x scaling here, too. The final one is to play with the learning rate, so that it's scaled to the normalized data.
Does any of this help?
I saw in some papers that the accuracy of the classifier is a mean accuracy plus and minus some deviation. I was wondering how these deviations come from? For both training set and testing set, everything is deterministic. I do not see where the random part comes from.
Recently I was told that the labels of regression data should also be normalized for better result but I am pretty doubtful of that. I have never tried normalizing labels in both regression and classification that's why I don't know if that state is true or not. Can you please give me a clear explanation (mathematically or in experience) about this problem?
Thank you so much.
Any help would be appreciated.
When you say "normalize" labels, it is not clear what you mean (i.e. whether you mean this in a statistical sense or something else). Can you please provide an example?
On Making labels uniform in data analysis
If you are trying to neaten labels for use with the text() function, you could try the abbreviate() function to shorten them, or the format() function to align them better.
The pretty() function works well for rounding labels on plot axes. For instance, the base function hist() for drawing histograms calls on Sturges or other algorithms and then uses pretty() to choose nice bin sizes.
The scale() function will standardize values by subtracting their mean and dividing by the standard deviation, which in some circles is referred to as normalization.
On the reasons for scaling in regression (in response to comment by questor). Suppose you regress Y on covariates X1, X2, ... The reasons for scaling covariates Xk depend on the context. It can enable comparison of the coefficients (effect sizes) of each covariate. It can help ensure numerical accuracy (these days not usually an issue unless covariates on hugely different scales and/or data is big). For a readable intro see Psychosomatic medicine editors' guide. For a mathematically intense discussion see Sylvain Sardy's guide.
In particular, in Bayesian regression, rescaling is advisable to ensure convergence of MCMC estimation; e.g. see this discussion.
You mean features not labels.
It is not necessary to normalize your features for regression or classification, even though in some cases, it is a trick that can help converging faster. You might want to check this post.
To my experience, when using a simple model like a linear regression with only a few variables, keeping the features as they are (without normalization) is preferable since the model is more interpretable.
It may be that what you mean is that you should scale your labels. The reason is so convergence is faster, and you don't get numeric instability.
For example, if your labels are in the range (1000, 1000000) and the weights are initialized close to zero, a mse loss would be so large, you'd likely get NaN errors.
See https://datascience.stackexchange.com/q/22776/38707 for a similar discussion.
for a regression problem with algorithms including decision tree or logistic regression and linear regression I tested in two modes: 1- with label scaling using MinMaxScaler 2- without label scaling the result that i got was : r2 score is the same in 2 mode mse and mae scales
for diabetes dataset using linear regression the result before and after is
without scaling:
Mean Squared Error: 3424.3166
Mean Absolute Error: 46.1742
R2_score : 0.33
after scaling labels:
Mean Squared Error: 0.0332
Mean Absolute Error: 0.1438
R2_score : 0.33
also below link can be useful which says scaling can be helpful in fast convergence enter scale or not scale labels in deep leaning?