General terms that I used to search on google such as Localised Accuracy, custom accuracy, biased cost functions all seem wrong, and maybe I am not even asking the right questions.
Imagine I have some data, may it be the:
The famous Iris Classification Problem
Pictures of felines
The Following Dataset that I made up on predicting house prices:
In all these scenario, I am really interested in the accuracy of one set/one regression range of data.
For irises, I really need Iris "setosa" to be classified correctly, really don't care if Iris virginica and Iris versicolor are all wrong.
for Felines, I really need the model to tell me if you spotted a tiger (for obvious reason), whether it is a Persian or ragdoll or not I dont really care.
For the house prices one, i want the accuracy of higher-end houses error to be minimised. Because error in those is costly.
How do I do this? If I want Setosa to be classified correctly, removing virginica or versicolour both seem wrong. Trying different algorithm like Linear/SVM etc are all well and good, but it only improves the OVERALL accuracy. But I really need, for example, "Tigers" to be predicted correctly, even at the expense of the "overall" accuracy of the model.
Is there a way to have a custom cost-function to allow me to have a high accuracy in a localise region in a regression problem, or a specific category in a classification problem?
If this cannot be answered, if you could just point me to some terms that i can search/research that would still be greatly appreciated.
You can use weights to achieve that. If you're using the SVC class of scikit-learn, you can pass class_weight in the constructor. You could also pass sample_weight in the fit-method.
For example:
from sklearn import svm
from sklearn import datasets
iris = datasets.load_iris()
X = iris.data
y = iris.target
clf = svm.SVC(class_weight={0: 3, 1: 1, 2: 1})
clf.fit(X, y)
This way setosa is more important than the other classes.
Example for regression
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
X = ... # features
y = ... # house prices
weights = []
for house_price in y:
if house_price > threshold:
weights.append(3)
else:
weights.append(1)
clf = LinearRegression()
clf.fit(X, y, sample_weight=weights)
Related
I am trying to do sentiment classification and I used sklearn SVM model. I used the labeled data to train the model and got 89% accuracy. Now I want to use the model to predict the sentiment of unlabeled data. How can I do that? and after classification of unlabeled data, how to see whether it is classified as positive or negative?
I used python 3.7. Below is the code.
import random
import pandas as pd
data = pd.read_csv("label data for testing .csv", header=0)
sentiment_data = list(zip(data['Articles'], data['Sentiment']))
random.shuffle(sentiment_data)
train_x, train_y = zip(*sentiment_data[:350])
test_x, test_y = zip(*sentiment_data[350:])
from nltk import word_tokenize
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import CountVectorizer
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from sklearn.svm import LinearSVC
from sklearn import metrics
clf = Pipeline([
('vectorizer', CountVectorizer(analyzer="word",
tokenizer=word_tokenize,
preprocessor=lambda text: text.replace("<br />", " "),
max_features=None)),
('classifier', LinearSVC())
])
clf.fit(train_x, train_y)
pred_y = clf.predict(test_x)
print("Accuracy : ", metrics.accuracy_score(test_y, pred_y))
print("Precision : ", metrics.precision_score(test_y, pred_y))
print("Recall : ", metrics.recall_score(test_y, pred_y))
When I run this code, I get the output:
ConvergenceWarning: Liblinear failed to converge, increase the number of iterations. "the number of iterations.", ConvergenceWarning)
Accuracy : 0.8977272727272727
Precision : 0.8604651162790697
Recall : 0.925
What is the meaning of ConvergenceWarning?
Thanks in Advance!
What is the meaning of ConvergenceWarning?
As Pavel already mention, ConvergenceWArning means that the max_iteris hitted, you can supress the warning here: How to disable ConvergenceWarning using sklearn?
Now I want to use the model to predict the sentiment of unlabeled
data. How can I do that?
You will do it with the command: pred_y = clf.predict(test_x), the only thing you will adjust is :pred_y (this is your free choice), and test_x, this should be your new unseen data, it has to have the same number of features as your data test_x and train_x.
In your case as you are doing:
sentiment_data = list(zip(data['Articles'], data['Sentiment']))
You are forming a tuple: Check this out
then you are shuffling it and unzip the first 350 rows:
train_x, train_y = zip(*sentiment_data[:350])
Here you train_x is the column: data['Articles'], so all you have to do if you have new data:
new_ data = pd.read_csv("new_data.csv", header=0)
new_y = clf.predict(new_data['Articles'])
how to see whether it is classified as positive or negative?
You can run then: pred_yand there will be either a 1 or a 0 in your outcome. Normally 0 should be negativ, but it depends on your dataset-up
Check out this site about model's persistence. Then you just load it and call predict method. Model will return predicted label. If you used any encoder (LabelEncoder, OneHotEncoder), you need to dump and load it separately.
If I were you, I'd rather do full data-driven approach and use some pretrained embedder. It'll also work for dozens of languages out-of-the-box with is quite neat.
There's LASER from facebook. There's also pypi package, though unofficial. It works just fine.
Nowadays there's a lot of pretrained models, so it shouldn't be that hard to reach near-seminal scores.
Now I want to use the model to predict the sentiment of unlabeled data. How can I do that? and after classification of unlabeled data, how to see whether it is classified as positive or negative?
Basically, you aggregate unlabeled data in same way as train_x or test_x is generated. Probably, it's 2D matrix of shape n_samples x 1, which you would then use in clf.predict to obtain predictions. clf.predict outputs most probable class. In your case 0 is negative and 1 is positive, but it's hard to tell without the dataset.
What is the meaning of ConvergenceWarning?
LinearSVC model is optimized using iterative algorithm. There is an argument max_iter (1000 by default) that controls maximum amount of iterations. If stopping criteria wasn't met during this process, you will get ConvergenceWarning. It shouldn't bother you much, as long as you have acceptable performance in terms of accuracy, or other metrics.
I have a classification problem with 10 features and I have to predict 1 or 0. When I train the SVC model, with the train test split, all the predicted values for the test portion of the data comes out to be 0. The data has the following 0-1 count:
0: 1875
1: 1463
The code to train the model is given below:
from sklearn.svm import SVC
model = SVC()
model.fit(X_train, y_train)
pred= model.predict(X_test)
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score
accuracy_score(y_test, pred)`
Why does it predict 0 for all the cases?
The model predicts the more frequent class, even though the dataset is nor much imbalanced. It is very likely that the class cannot be predicted from the features as they are right now.
You may try normalizing the features.
Another thing you might want to try is to have a look at how correlated the features are with each other. Having highly correlated features might also prevent the model from converging.
Also, you might have chosen the wrong features.
For a classification problem, it is always good to run a dummy classifiar as a starting point. This will give you an idea how good your model can be.
You can use this as a code:
from sklearn.dummy import DummyClassifier
dummy_classifier = DummyClassifier(strategy="most_frequent")
dummy_classifier.fit(X_train,y_train)
pred_dum= dummy_classifier.predict(X_test)
accuracy_score(y_test, pred_dum)
this will give you an accuracy, if you predict always the most frequent class. If this is for example: 100% , this would mean that you only have one class in your dataset. 80% means, that 80% of your data belongs to one class.
In a first step you can adjust your SVC:
model = SVC(C=1.0, kernel=’rbf’, random_state=42)
C : float, optional (default=1.0)Penalty parameter C of the error
term.
kernel : Specifies the kernel type to be used in the algorithm. It
must be one of ‘linear’, ‘poly’, ‘rbf’
This can give you a starting point.
On top you should run also a prediction for your training data, to see the comparison if you are over- or underfitting.
trainpred= model.predict(X_train)
accuracy_score(y_test, trainpred)
Hi I was following the Machine Learning course by Andrew Ng.
I found that in regression problems, specially logistic regression they have used integer values for the features which could be plotted in a graph. But there are so many use cases where the feature values may not be integer.
Let's consider the follow example :
I want to build a model to predict if any particular person will take a leave today or not. From my historical data I may find the following features helpful to build the training set.
Name of the person, Day of the week, Number of Leaves left for him till now (which maybe a continuous decreasing variable), etc.
So here are the following questions based on above
How do I go about designing the training set for my logistic regression model.
In my training set, I find some variables are continuously decreasing (ex no of leaves left). Would that create any problem, because I know continuously increasing or decreasing variables are used in linear regression. Is that true ?
Any help is really appreciated. Thanks !
Well, there are a lot of missing information in your question, for example, it'll be very much clearer if you have provided all the features you have, but let me dare to throw some assumptions!
ML Modeling in classification always requires dealing with numerical inputs, and you can easily infer each of the unique input as an integer, especially the classes!
Now let me try to answer your questions:
How do I go about designing the training set for my logistic regression model.
How I see it, you have two options (not necessary both are practical, it's you who should decide according to the dataset you have and the problem), either you predict the probability of all employees in the company who will be off in a certain day according to the historical data you have (i.e. previous observations), in this case, each employee will represent a class (integer from 0 to the number of employees you want to include). Or you create a model for each employee, in this case the classes will be either off (i.e. Leave) or on (i.e. Present).
Example 1
I created a dataset example of 70 cases and 4 employees which looks like this:
Here each name is associated with the day and month they took as off with respect to how many Annual Leaves left for them!
The implementation (using Scikit-Learn) would be something like this (N.B date contains only day and month):
Now we can do something like this:
import math
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.model_selection import GridSearchCV, RepeatedStratifiedKFold
# read dataset example
df = pd.read_csv('leaves_dataset.csv')
# assign unique integer to every employee (i.e. a class label)
mapping = {'Jack': 0, 'Oliver': 1, 'Ruby': 2, 'Emily': 3}
df.replace(mapping, inplace=True)
y = np.array(df[['Name']]).reshape(-1)
X = np.array(df[['Leaves Left', 'Day', 'Month']])
# create the model
parameters = {'penalty': ['l1', 'l2'], 'C': [0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 10, 100, 1000]}
lr = LogisticRegression(random_state=0)
cv = RepeatedStratifiedKFold(n_splits=10, n_repeats=2, random_state=0)
clf = GridSearchCV(lr, parameters, cv=cv)
clf.fit(X, y)
#print(clf.best_estimator_)
#print(clf.best_score_)
# Example: probability of all employees who have 10 days left today
# warning: date must be same format
prob = clf.best_estimator_.predict_proba([[10, 9, 11]])
print({'Jack': prob[0,0], 'Oliver': prob[0,1], 'Ruby': prob[0,2], 'Emily': prob[0,3]})
Result
{'Ruby': 0.27545, 'Oliver': 0.15032,
'Emily': 0.28201, 'Jack': 0.29219}
N.B
To make this relatively work you need a real big dataset!
Also this can be better than the second one if there are other informative features in the dataset (e.g. the health status of the employee at that day..etc).
The second option is to create a model for each employee, here the result would be more accurate and more reliable, however, it's almost a nightmare if you have too many employees!
For each employee, you collect all their leaves in the past years and concatenate them into one file, in this case you have to complete all days in the year, in other words: for every day that employee has never got it off, that day should be labeled as on (or numerically speaking 1) and for the days off they should be labeled as off (or numerically speaking 0).
Obviously, in this case, the classes will be 0 and 1 (i.e. on and off) for each employee's model!
For example, consider this dataset example for the particular employee Jack:
Example 2
Then you can do for example:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.model_selection import GridSearchCV, RepeatedStratifiedKFold
# read dataset example
df = pd.read_csv('leaves_dataset2.csv')
# assign unique integer to every on and off (i.e. a class label)
mapping = {'off': 0, 'on': 1}
df.replace(mapping, inplace=True)
y = np.array(df[['Type']]).reshape(-1)
X = np.array(df[['Leaves Left', 'Day', 'Month']])
# create the model
parameters = {'penalty': ['l1', 'l2'], 'C': [0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 10, 100, 1000]}
lr = LogisticRegression(random_state=0)
cv = RepeatedStratifiedKFold(n_splits=10, n_repeats=2, random_state=0)
clf = GridSearchCV(lr, parameters, cv=cv)
clf.fit(X, y)
#print(clf.best_estimator_)
#print(clf.best_score_)
# Example: probability of the employee "Jack" who has 10 days left today
prob = clf.best_estimator_.predict_proba([[10, 9, 11]])
print({'Off': prob[0,0], 'On': prob[0,1]})
Result
{'On': 0.33348, 'Off': 0.66651}
N.B in this case you have to create a dataset for each employee + training especial model + filling all the days the never taken in the past years as off!
In my training set, I find some variables are continuously decreasing (ex no of leaves left). Would that create any problem,
because I know continuously increasing or decreasing variables are
used in linear regression. Is that true ?
Well, there is nothing preventing you from using contentious values as features (e.g. number of leaves) in Logistic Regression; actually it doesn't make any difference if it's used in Linear or Logistic Regression but I believe you got confused between the features and the response:
The thing is, discrete values should be used in the response of Logistic Regression and Continuous values should be used in the response of the Linear Regression (a.k.a dependent variable or y).
If I had 2 features x1 and x2 where I know that the pattern is:
if x1 < x2 then
class1
else
class2
Can any machine learning algorithm find such a pattern? What algorithm would that be?
I know that I could create a third feature x3 = x1-x2. Then feature x3 can easily be used by some machine learning algorithms. For example a decision tree can solve the problem 100% using x3 and just 3 nodes (1 decision and 2 leaf nodes).
But, is it possible to solve this without creating new features? This seems like a problem that should be easily solved 100% if a machine learning algorithm could only find such a pattern.
I tried MLP and SVM with different kernels, including svg kernel and the results are not great. As an example of what I tried, here is the scikit-learn code where the SVM could only get a score of 0.992:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.svm import SVC
# Generate 1000 samples with 2 features with random values
X_train = np.random.rand(1000,2)
# Label each sample. If feature "x1" is less than feature "x2" then label as 1, otherwise label is 0.
y_train = X_train[:,0] < X_train[:,1]
y_train = y_train.astype(int) # convert boolean to 0 and 1
svc = SVC(kernel = "rbf", C = 0.9) # tried all kernels and C values from 0.1 to 1.0
svc.fit(X_train, y_train)
print("SVC score: %f" % svc.score(X_train, y_train))
Output running the code:
SVC score: 0.992000
This is an oversimplification of my problem. The real problem may have hundreds of features and different patterns, not just x1 < x2. However, to start with it would help a lot to know how to solve for this simple pattern.
To understand this, you must go into the settings of all the parameters provided by sklearn, and C in particular. It also helps to understand how the value of C influences the classifier's training procedure.
If you look at the equation in the User Guide for SVC, there are two main parts to the equation - the first part tries to find a small set of weights that solves the problem, and the second part tries to minimize the classification errors.
C is the penalty multiplier associated with misclassifications. If you decrease C, then you reduce the penalty (lower training accuracy but better generalization to test) and vice versa.
Try setting C to 1e+6. You will see that you almost always get 100% accuracy. The classifier has learnt the pattern x1 < x2. But it figures that a 99.2% accuracy is enough when you look at another parameter called tol. This controls how much error is negligible for you and by default it is set to 1e-3. If you reduce the tolerance, you can also expect to get similar results.
In general, I would suggest you to use something like GridSearchCV (link) to find the optimal values of hyper parameters like C as this internally splits the dataset into train and validation. This helps you to ensure that you are not just tweaking the hyperparameters to get a good training accuracy but you are also making sure that the classifier will do well in practice.
I am still very new to machine learning and trying to figure things out myself. I am using SciKit learn and have a data set of tweets with around 20,000 features (n_features=20,000). So far I achieved a precision, recall and f1 score of around 79%. I would like to use RFECV for feature selection and improve the performance of my model. I have read the SciKit learn documentation but am still a bit confused on how to use RFECV.
This is the code I have so far:
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import CountVectorizer
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import TfidfTransformer
from sklearn.naive_bayes import MultinomialNB
from sklearn.cross_validation import StratifiedShuffleSplit
from sklearn.cross_validation import cross_val_score
from sklearn.feature_selection import RFECV
from sklearn import metrics
# cross validation
sss = StratifiedShuffleSplit(y, 5, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)
for train_index, test_index in sss:
docs_train, docs_test = X[train_index], X[test_index]
y_train, y_test = y[train_index], y[test_index]
# feature extraction
count_vect = CountVectorizer(stop_words='English', min_df=3, max_df=0.90, ngram_range=(1,3))
X_CV = count_vect.fit_transform(docs_train)
tfidf_transformer = TfidfTransformer()
X_tfidf = tfidf_transformer.fit_transform(X_CV)
# Create the RFECV object
nb = MultinomialNB(alpha=0.5)
# The "accuracy" scoring is proportional to the number of correct classifications
rfecv = RFECV(estimator=nb, step=1, cv=2, scoring='accuracy')
rfecv.fit(X_tfidf, y_train)
X_rfecv=rfecv.transform(X_tfidf)
print("Optimal number of features : %d" % rfecv.n_features_)
# train classifier
clf = MultinomialNB(alpha=0.5).fit(X_rfecv, y_train)
# test clf on test data
X_test_CV = count_vect.transform(docs_test)
X_test_tfidf = tfidf_transformer.transform(X_test_CV)
X_test_rfecv = rfecv.transform(X_test_tfidf)
y_predicted = clf.predict(X_test_rfecv)
#print the mean accuracy on the given test data and labels
print ("Classifier score is: %s " % rfecv.score(X_test_rfecv,y_test))
Three questions:
1) Is this the correct way to use cross validation and RFECV? I am especially interested to know if I am running any risk of overfitting.
2) The accuracy of my model before and after I implemented RFECV with the above code are almost the same (around 78-79%), which puzzles me. I would expect performance to improve by using RFECV. Anything I might have missed here or could do differently to improve the performance of my model?
3) What other feature selection methods could you recommend me to try? I have tried RFE and SelectKBest so far, but they both haven't given me any improvement in terms of model accuracy.
To answer your questions:
There is a cross-validation built in the RFECV feature selection (hence the name), so you don't really need to have additional cross-validation for this single step. However since I understand you are running several tests, it's good to have an overall cross-validation to ensure you're not overfitting to a specific train-test split. I'd like to mention 2 points here:
I doubt the code behaves exactly like you think it does ;).
# cross validation
sss = StratifiedShuffleSplit(y, 5, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)
for train_index, test_index in sss:
docs_train, docs_test = X[train_index], X[test_index]
y_train, y_test = y[train_index], y[test_index]
# feature extraction
count_vect = CountVectorizer(stop_words='English', min_df=3, max_df=0.90, ngram_range=(1,3))
X_CV = count_vect.fit_transform(docs_train)
Here we first go through the loop, that has 5 iterations (n_iter parameter in StratifiedShuffleSplit). Then we go out of the loop and we just run all your code with the last values of train_index, test_index. So this is equivalent to a single train-test split where you probably meant to have 5. You should move your code back into the loop if you want it to run like a 'proper' cross validation.
You are worried about overfitting: indeed when 'looking for the best method' the risk exists that we're going to pick the method that works best... only on the small sample we're testing the method on.
Here the best practice is to have a first train-test split, then to perform cross-validation only using the train set. The test set can be used 'sparingly' when you think you found something, to make sure the scores you get are consistent and you're not overfitting.
It may look like you're throwing away 30% of your data (your test set), but it's absolutely worth it.
It can be puzzling to see feature selection does not have that big an impact. To introspect a bit more you could look into the evolution of the score with the number of selected features (see the example from the docs).
That being said, I don't think this is the right use case for RFE. Basically with your code you are eliminating features one by one, which probably takes a long time to run and does not make so much sense when you have 20000 features.
Other feature selection methods: here you mention SelectKBest but you don't tell us which method you use to score your features! SelectKBest will pick the K best features according to a score function. I'm guessing you were using the default which is ok, but it's better to have an idea of what the default does ;).
I would try SelectPercentile with chi2 as a score function. SelectPercentile is probably a bit more convenient than SelectKBest because if your dataset grows a percentage probably makes more sense than a hardcoded number of features.
Another example from the docs that does just that (and more).
Additional remarks:
You could use a TfidfVectorizer instead of a CountVectorizer followed by a TfidfTransformer. This is strictly equivalent.
You could use a pipeline object to pack the different steps of your classifier into a single object you can run cross validation on (I encourage you to read the docs, it's pretty useful).
from sklearn.feature_selection import chi2_sparse
from sklearn.feature_selection import SelectPercentile
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import TfidfVectorizer
pipeline = Pipeline(steps=[
("vectorizer", TfidfVectorizer(stop_words='English', min_df=3, max_df=0.90, ngram_range=(1,3))),
("selector", SelectPercentile(score_func=chi2, percentile=70)),
('NB', MultinomialNB(alpha=0.5))
])
Then you'd be able to run cross validation on the pipeline object to find the best combination of alpha and percentile, which is much harder to do with separate estimators.
Hope this helps, happy learning ;).