Does Scikit-learn support transfer learning? Please check the following code.
model clf is gotten by fit(X,y)
Can model clf2 learn on the base of clf and transfer learn by fit(X2,y2) ?
>>> from sklearn import svm
>>> from sklearn import datasets
>>> clf = svm.SVC()
>>> X, y= ....
>>> clf.fit(X, y)
SVC()
>>> import pickle
>>> s = pickle.dumps(clf)
>>> clf2 = pickle.loads(s)
>>> clf2.fit(X2,y2)
>>> clf2.predict(X[0:1])
In the context of scikit-learn there's no transfer learning as such, there is incremental learning or continuous learning or online learning.
By looking at your code, whatever you're intending to do won't work the way you're thinking here. From this scikit-learn documentation:
Calling fit() more than once will overwrite what was learned by any
previous fit()
Which means using fit() more than once on the same model will simply overwrite all the previously fitted coefficients, weights, intercept (bias), etc.
However if you want to fit a portion of your data set and then improve your model by fitting a new data, what you can do is look for estimators that include partial_fit API implementation.
If we call partial_fit() multiple times, framework will update the
existing weights instead of re-initialising them.
Another way to do incremental learning with scikit-learn is to look for algorithms that support the warm_start parameter.
From this doc:
warm_start: bool, default=False
When set to True, reuse the solution of
the previous call to fit() as initialization, otherwise, just erase the
previous solution. Useless for liblinear solver.
Another example is Random forrest regressor.
[Disclaimer] This is my first excursion into machine learning.
I have a list of 1-d numpy real vectors that represent experimental conditions known to be associated to two mutually exclusive classes. To each vector a 1 or 0 can be assigned as the class label.
What is the best way to construct a classifier/predictor using these classes in Python such that the differences between the two classes are maximized?
Let's say you have 1000 vectors with 10 values. Your x data has shape (1000,10), y data (1000,1) (it's either 0 or 1, according to class). You want to predict y from x.
The simplest model could look like (using Keras):
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers import Dense
from keras.optimizers import Adam
mdl = Sequential() // create model
mdl.add(Dense(8, input_shape=(10,), activation='sigmoid'))
mdl.add(Dense(1, activation='sigmoid')
mdl.compile(optimizer = 'adam', loss='binary_crossentropy')
mdl.fit(x, y, epochs = 30)
Note that I can use sigmoid in the last layer of classification problem only if there are 2 classes. With more classes you should use softmax.
I recommend you check this page: https://keras.io/
Also, I think keras is better to begin with than tensorflow.
I'm implementing a Multilayer Perceptron in Keras and using scikit-learn to perform cross-validation. For this, I was inspired by the code found in the issue Cross Validation in Keras
from sklearn.cross_validation import StratifiedKFold
def load_data():
# load your data using this function
def create model():
# create your model using this function
def train_and_evaluate__model(model, data[train], labels[train], data[test], labels[test)):
# fit and evaluate here.
if __name__ == "__main__":
X, Y = load_model()
kFold = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=10)
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
In my studies on neural networks, I learned that the knowledge representation of the neural network is in the synaptic weights and during the network tracing process, the weights that are updated to thereby reduce the network error rate and improve its performance. (In my case, I'm using Supervised Learning)
For better training and assessment of neural network performance, a common method of being used is cross-validation that returns partitions of the data set for training and evaluation of the model.
My doubt is...
In this code snippet:
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
We define, train and evaluate a new neural net for each of the generated partitions?
If my goal is to fine-tune the network for the entire dataset, why is it not correct to define a single neural network and train it with the generated partitions?
That is, why is this piece of code like this?
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = None
model = create_model()
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
and not so?
model = None
model = create_model()
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
Is my understanding of how the code works wrong? Or my theory?
If my goal is to fine-tune the network for the entire dataset
It is not clear what you mean by "fine-tune", or even what exactly is your purpose for performing cross-validation (CV); in general, CV serves one of the following purposes:
Model selection (choose the values of hyperparameters)
Model assessment
Since you don't define any search grid for hyperparameter selection in your code, it would seem that you are using CV in order to get the expected performance of your model (error, accuracy etc).
Anyway, for whatever reason you are using CV, the first snippet is the correct one; your second snippet
model = None
model = create_model()
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
will train your model sequentially over the different partitions (i.e. train on partition #1, then continue training on partition #2 etc), which essentially is just training on your whole data set, and it is certainly not cross-validation...
That said, a final step after the CV which is often only implied (and frequently missed by beginners) is that, after you are satisfied with your chosen hyperparameters and/or model performance as given by your CV procedure, you go back and train again your model, this time with the entire available data.
You can use wrappers of the Scikit-Learn API with Keras models.
Given inputs x and y, here's an example of repeated 5-fold cross-validation:
from sklearn.model_selection import RepeatedKFold, cross_val_score
from tensorflow.keras.models import *
from tensorflow.keras.layers import *
from tensorflow.keras.wrappers.scikit_learn import KerasRegressor
def buildmodel():
model= Sequential([
Dense(10, activation="relu"),
Dense(5, activation="relu"),
Dense(1)
])
model.compile(optimizer='adam', loss='mse', metrics=['mse'])
return(model)
estimator= KerasRegressor(build_fn=buildmodel, epochs=100, batch_size=10, verbose=0)
kfold= RepeatedKFold(n_splits=5, n_repeats=100)
results= cross_val_score(estimator, x, y, cv=kfold, n_jobs=2) # 2 cpus
results.mean() # Mean MSE
I think many of your questions will be answered if you read about nested cross-validation. This is a good way to "fine tune" the hyper parameters of your model. There's a thread here:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/65128/nested-cross-validation-for-model-selection
The biggest issue to be aware of is "peeking" or circular logic. Essentially - you want to make sure that none of data used to assess model accuracy is seen during training.
One example where this might be problematic is if you are running something like PCA or ICA for feature extraction. If doing something like this, you must be sure to run PCA on your training set, and then apply the transformation matrix from the training set to the test set.
The main idea of testing your model performance is to perform the following steps:
Train a model on a training set.
Evaluate your model on a data not used during training process in order to simulate a new data arrival.
So basically - the data you should finally test your model should mimic the first data portion you'll get from your client/application to apply your model on.
So that's why cross-validation is so powerful - it makes every data point in your whole dataset to be used as a simulation of new data.
And now - to answer your question - every cross-validation should follow the following pattern:
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y
model = training_procedure(train, ...)
score = evaluation_procedure(model, test, ...)
because after all, you'll first train your model and then use it on a new data. In your second approach - you cannot treat it as a mimicry of a training process because e.g. in second fold your model would have information kept from the first fold - which is not equivalent to your training procedure.
Of course - you could apply a training procedure which uses 10 folds of consecutive training in order to finetune network. But this is not cross-validation then - you'll need to evaluate this procedure using some kind of schema above.
The commented out functions make this a little less obvious, but the idea is to keep track of your model performance as you iterate through your folds and at the end provide either those lower level performance metrics or an averaged global performance. For example:
The train_evaluate function ideally would output some accuracy score for each split, which could be combined at the end.
def train_evaluate(model, x_train, y_train, x_test, y_test):
model.fit(x_train, y_train)
return model.score(x_test, y_test)
X, Y = load_model()
kFold = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=10)
scores = np.zeros(10)
idx = 0
for train, test in kFold.split(X, Y):
model = create_model()
scores[idx] = train_evaluate(model, X[train], Y[train], X[test], Y[test])
idx += 1
print(scores)
print(scores.mean())
So yes you do want to create a new model for each fold as the purpose of this exercise is to determine how your model as it is designed performs on all segments of the data, not just one particular segment that may or may not allow the model to perform well.
This type of approach becomes particularly powerful when applied along with a grid search over hyperparameters. In this approach you train a model with varying hyperparameters using the cross validation splits and keep track of the performance on splits and overall. In the end you will be able to get a much better idea of which hyperparameters allow the model to perform best. For a much more in depth explanation see sklearn Model Selection and pay particular attention to the sections of Cross Validation and Grid Search.
I'm looking to do some image classification on PDF documents that I convert to images. I'm using tensorflow inception v3 pre trained model and trying to retrain the last layer with my own categories following the tensorflow tuto. I have ~1000 training images per category and only 4 categories. With 200k iterations I can reach up to 90% of successful classifications, which is not bad but still need some work:
The issue here is this pre-trained model takes only 300*300p images for input. Obviously it messes up a lot with the characters involved in the features I try to recognize in the documents.
Would it be possible to alter the model input layer so I can give him images with better resolution ?
Would I get better results with a home made and way simpler model ?
If so, where should I start to build a model for such image classification ?
If you want to use a different image resolution than the pre-trained model uses , you should use only the convolution blocks and have a set of fully connected blocks with respect to the new size. Using a higher level library like Keras will make it a lot easier. Below is an example on how to do that in Keras.
import keras
from keras.layers import Flatten,Dense,GlobalAveragePooling2D
from keras.models import Model
from keras.applications.inception_v3 import InceptionV3
base_model = InceptionV3(include_top=False,input_shape=(600,600,3),weights='imagenet')
x = base_model.output
x = GlobalAveragePooling2D()(x)
x = Dense(1024,activation='relu')(x)
#Add as many dense layers / Fully Connected layers required
pred = Dense(10,activation='softmax')(x)
model = Model(base_model.input,pred)
for l in model.layers[:-3]:
l.trainable=False
The input_top = False will give you only the convolution blocks. You can use the input_shape=(600,600,3) to set the required shape you want. And you can add a couple of dense blocks/Fully connected blocks/layers to the model.The last layer should contain the required number of categories .10 represent the number of classes.By this approach you use all the weights associated with the convolution layers of the pre trained model and train only the last dense layers.
I trained a logistic regression classifier in sklearn. My base feature-file has 65 features, now I extrapolated them to a 1000 by considering quadratic combinations also (using PolynomialFeatures()). And then I reduced them back to 100 by Select-K-Best() method.
However, once I have my model trained and I get a new test_file, it would only have the 65 base features but my model expects 100 of them.
So, how can I apply the Select-K-Best() method on my test-set when I do not know the labels which is required in Select-K-Best.fit() function
You shouldn't fit SelectKBest again on test data - use the same (already fit) SelectKBest instance as in training instead. I.e. you should only use .transform method on test data, not .fit method.
scikit-learn provides an utility which makes managing multiple steps like that easier; it is called Pipeline. It should be something like that in your case (via make_pipeline helper):
pipe = make_pipeline(
PolynomialFeatures(2),
SelectKBest(100),
LogisticRegression()
)
pipe.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred = pipe.predict(X_test)