I'm seeing Spam Prediction classifying messages as Spam and Ham made by other person.
[source code]
https://github.com/nfmcclure/tensorflow_cookbook/blob/master/09_Recurrent_Neural_Networks/02_Implementing_RNN_for_Spam_Prediction/02_implementing_rnn.py
The program produces the following values. (loss, accuracy)
Veiw Result Screenshot
In this code, the result is only loss, accuracy,
I think Accuracy has no meaning.
I need Precision, Recall value (for F1 measure)
However, since the my code analysis is not working properly,
I know Precision and Recall.
But I do not know how to calculate(code embedding) Precision and Recall in this code.
I succeeded it myself, hurray !!
here is the code:
actuals = tf.cast(y_output, tf.int64)
predictions = tf.argmax(logits_out, 1)
ones_like_actuals = tf.ones_like(actuals)
zeros_like_actuals = tf.zeros_like(actuals)
ones_like_predictions = tf.ones_like(predictions)
zeros_like_predictions = tf.zeros_like(predictions)
tp_op = tf.reduce_sum(
tf.cast(
tf.logical_and(
tf.equal(actuals, ones_like_actuals),
tf.equal(predictions, ones_like_predictions)
),
"float"
)
)
tn_op = tf.reduce_sum(
tf.cast(
tf.logical_and(
tf.equal(actuals, zeros_like_actuals),
tf.equal(predictions, zeros_like_predictions)
),
"float"
)
)
fp_op = tf.reduce_sum(
tf.cast(
tf.logical_and(
tf.equal(actuals, zeros_like_actuals),
tf.equal(predictions, ones_like_predictions)
),
"float"
)
)
fn_op = tf.reduce_sum(
tf.cast(
tf.logical_and(
tf.equal(actuals, ones_like_actuals),
tf.equal(predictions, zeros_like_predictions)
),
"float"
)
)
I saw confusion matrix open source in github thank you #Mistobaan !!
https://gist.github.com/Mistobaan/337222ac3acbfc00bdac
Related
I would like to use dask.array.map_overlap to deal with the scipy interpolation function. However, I keep meeting errors that I cannot understand and hoping someone can answer this to me.
Here is the error message I have received if I want to run .compute().
ValueError: could not broadcast input array from shape (1070,0) into shape (1045,0)
To resolve the issue, I started to use .to_delayed() to check each partition outputs, and this is what I found.
Following is my python code.
Step 1. Load netCDF file through Xarray, and then output to dask.array with chunk size (400,400)
df = xr.open_dataset('./Brazil Sentinal2 Tile/' + data_file +'.nc')
lon, lat = df['lon'].data, df['lat'].data
slon = da.from_array(df['lon'], chunks=(400,400))
slat = da.from_array(df['lat'], chunks=(400,400))
data = da.from_array(df.isel(band=0).__xarray_dataarray_variable__.data, chunks=(400,400))
Step 2. declare a function for da.map_overlap use
def sumsum2(lon,lat,data, hex_res=10):
hex_col = 'hex' + str(hex_res)
lon_max, lon_min = lon.max(), lon.min()
lat_max, lat_min = lat.max(), lat.min()
b = box(lon_min, lat_min, lon_max, lat_max, ccw=True)
b = transform(lambda x, y: (y, x), b)
b = mapping(b)
target_df = pd.DataFrame(h3.polyfill( b, hex_res), columns=[hex_col])
target_df['lat'] = target_df[hex_col].apply(lambda x: h3.h3_to_geo(x)[0])
target_df['lon'] = target_df[hex_col].apply(lambda x: h3.h3_to_geo(x)[1])
tlon, tlat = target_df[['lon','lat']].values.T
abc = lNDI(points=(lon.ravel(), lat.ravel()),
values= data.ravel())(tlon,tlat)
target_df['out'] = abc
print(np.stack([tlon, tlat, abc],axis=1).shape)
return np.stack([tlon, tlat, abc],axis=1)
Step 3. Apply the da.map_overlap
b = da.map_overlap(sumsum2, slon[:1200,:1200], slat[:1200,:1200], data[:1200,:1200], depth=10, trim=True, boundary=None, align_arrays=False, dtype='float64',
)
Step 4. Using to_delayed() to test output shape
print(b.to_delayed().flatten()[0].compute().shape, )
print(b.to_delayed().flatten()[1].compute().shape)
(1065, 3)
(1045, 0)
(1090, 3)
(1070, 0)
which is saying that the output from da.map_overlap is only outputting 1-D dimension ( which is (1045,0) and (1070,0) ), while in the da.map_overlap, the output I am preparing is 2-D dimension ( which is (1065,3) and (1090,3) ).
In addition, if I turn off the trim argument, which is
c = da.map_overlap(sumsum2,
slon[:1200,:1200],
slat[:1200,:1200],
data[:1200,:1200],
depth=10,
trim=False,
boundary=None,
align_arrays=False,
dtype='float64',
)
print(c.to_delayed().flatten()[0].compute().shape, )
print(c.to_delayed().flatten()[1].compute().shape)
The output becomes
(1065, 3)
(1065, 3)
(1090, 3)
(1090, 3)
This is saying that when trim=True, I cut out everything?
because...
#-- print out the values
b.to_delayed().flatten()[0].compute()[:10,:]
(1065, 3)
array([], shape=(1045, 0), dtype=float64)
while...
#-- print out the values
c.to_delayed().flatten()[0].compute()[:10,:]
array([[ -47.83683837, -18.98359832, 1395.01848583],
[ -47.8482856 , -18.99038681, 2663.68391094],
[ -47.82800624, -18.99207069, 1465.56517187],
[ -47.81897323, -18.97919009, 2769.91556363],
[ -47.82066663, -19.00712956, 1607.85927095],
[ -47.82696896, -18.97167714, 2110.7516765 ],
[ -47.81562653, -18.98302933, 2662.72112163],
[ -47.82176881, -18.98594465, 2201.83205114],
[ -47.84567 , -18.97512514, 1283.20631652],
[ -47.84343568, -18.97270783, 1282.92117225]])
Any thoughts for this?
Thank You.
I guess I got the answer. Please let me if I am wrong.
I am not allowing to use trim=True is because I change the shape of output array (after surfing the internet, I notice that the shape of output array should be the same with the shape of input array). Since I change the shape, the dask has no idea how to deal with it so it returns the empty array to me (weird).
Instead of using trim=False, since I didn't ask cutting-out the buffer zone, it is now okay to output the return values. (although I still don't know why the dask cannot concat the chunked array, but believe is also related to shape)
The solution is using delayed function on da.concatenate, which is
delayed(da.concatenate)([e.to_delayed().flatten()[idx] for idx in range(len(e.to_delayed().flatten()))])
In this case, we are not relying on the concat function in map_overlap but use our own concat to combine the outputs we want.
I want to extract the p value of the coefficients of my garch model.
Here is an replicable exemple:
library(rugarch)
y<-rnorm(1:100)
spec <- ugarchspec(variance.model = list(model = "sGARCH", garchOrder = c(1, 1),
submodel = NULL, external.regressors = NULL, variance.targeting = FALSE),
mean.model = list(armaOrder = c(1, 0), external.regressors = NULL, include.mean=T), distribution.model ="norm")
garch <- ugarchfit(spec=spec, data = y , solver = 'hybrid')
Results gave me:
Optimal Parameters
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
mu 0.091862 0.083258 1.10334 0.269880
ar1 -0.165456 0.098624 -1.67764 0.093418
omega 0.033234 0.050870 0.65332 0.513550
alpha1 0.041305 0.051530 0.80158 0.422793
beta1 0.920773 0.079976 11.51312 0.000000
I can extract the coef by using:
coef(garch)
But does anyone know how can I extract the pvalue?
Thanks!
you can extract the a matrix of coefficients with:
garch#fit$robust.matcoef (or garch#fit$matcoef but generally speaking robust errors preferred)
Then normal matrix indexing will allow you to retrieve values of interest, such that for retrieving p-values, you will want the retrieve the fourth column as follows:
garch#fit$robust.matcoef[,4]
Hope this helps.
I am developing a model that uses DecisionTreeRegressor. I have built and fit the tree using training data, and predicted the results from more recent data to confirm the model's accuracy.
To build and fit the tree:
X = np.matrix ( pre_x )
y = np.matrix( pre_y )
regr_b = DecisionTreeRegressor(max_depth = 4 )
regr_b.fit(X, y)
To predict new data:
X = np.matrix ( pre_test_x )
trial_pred = regr_b.predict(X, check_input=True)
trial_pred is an array of the predicted values. I need to join it back to pre_test_x so I can see how well the prediction matches what actually happened.
I have tried merges:
all_pred = pre_pre_test_x.merge(predictions, left_index = True, right_index = True)
and
all_pred = pd.merge (pre_pre_test_x, predictions, how='left', left_index=True, right_index=True )
and either get no results or a second copy of the columns appended to the bottom of the DataFrame with NaN in all the existing columns.
Turns out it was simple. Leave the predict output as an array, then run:
w_pred = pre_pre_test_x.copy(deep=True)
w_pred['pred_val']=trial_pred
I am using a kNN to do some classification of labeled images. After my classification is done, I am outputting a confusion matrix. I noticed that one label, bottle was being applied incorrectly more often.
I removed the label and tested again, but then noticed that another label, shoe was being applied incorrectly, but was fine last time.
There should be no normalization, so I'm unsure what is causing this behavior. Testing showed it continued no matter how many labels I removed.
Not totally sure how much code to post, so I'll put some things that should be relevant and pastebin the rest.
def confusionMatrix(classifier, train_DS_X, train_DS_y, test_DS_X, test_DS_y):
# Will output a confusion matrix graph for the predicion
y_pred = classifier.fit(train_DS_X, train_DS_y).predict(test_DS_X)
labels = set(set(train_DS_y) | set(test_DS_y))
def plot_confusion_matrix(cm, title='Confusion matrix', cmap=plt.cm.Blues):
plt.imshow(cm, interpolation='nearest', cmap=cmap)
plt.title(title)
plt.colorbar()
tick_marks = np.arange(len(labels))
plt.xticks(tick_marks, labels, rotation=45)
plt.yticks(tick_marks, labels)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.ylabel('True label')
plt.xlabel('Predicted label')
# Compute confusion matrix
cm = confusion_matrix(test_DS_y , y_pred)
np.set_printoptions(precision=2)
print('Confusion matrix, without normalization')
#print(cm)
plt.figure()
plot_confusion_matrix(cm)
# Normalize the confusion matrix by row (i.e by the number of samples
# in each class)
cm_normalized = cm.astype('float') / cm.sum(axis=1)[:, np.newaxis]
print('Normalized confusion matrix')
#print(cm_normalized)
plt.figure()
plot_confusion_matrix(cm_normalized, title='Normalized confusion matrix')
plt.show()
Relevant Code from Main Function:
# Select training and test data
PCA = decomposition.PCA(n_components=.95)
zscorer = ZScoreMapper(param_est=('targets', ['rest']), auto_train=False)
DS = getVoxels (1, .5)
train_DS = DS[0]
test_DS = DS[1]
# Apply PCA and ZScoring
train_DS = processVoxels(train_DS, True, zscorer, PCA)
test_DS = processVoxels(test_DS, False, zscorer, PCA)
print 3*"\n"
# Select the desired features
# If selecting samples or PCA, that must be the only feature
featuresOfInterest = ['pca']
trainDSFeat = selectFeatures(train_DS, featuresOfInterest)
testDSFeat = selectFeatures(test_DS, featuresOfInterest)
train_DS_X = trainDSFeat[0]
train_DS_y = trainDSFeat[1]
test_DS_X = testDSFeat[0]
test_DS_y = testDSFeat[1]
# Optimization of neighbors
# Naively searches for local max starting at numNeighbors
lastScore = 0
lastNeightbors = 1
score = .0000001
numNeighbors = 5
while score > lastScore:
lastScore = score
lastNeighbors = numNeighbors
numNeighbors += 1
#Classification
neigh = neighbors.KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=numNeighbors, weights='distance')
neigh.fit(train_DS_X, train_DS_y)
#Testing
score = neigh.score(test_DS_X,test_DS_y )
# Confusion Matrix Output
neigh = neighbors.KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=lastNeighbors, weights='distance')
confusionMatrix(neigh, train_DS_X, train_DS_y, test_DS_X, test_DS_y)
Pastebin: http://pastebin.com/U7yTs3vs
The issue was in part the result of my axis being mislabeled, when I thought I was removing the faulty label I was in actuality just removing a random label, meaning the faulty data was still being analyzed. Fixing the axis and removing the faulty label which was actually rest yielded:
The code I changed is:
cm = confusion_matrix(test_DS_y , y_pred, labels)
Basically I manually set the ordering based on my list of ordered labels.
I'm doing a project comparing the effectiveness of various classification algorithms, but I'm stuck on a frustrating point. The data may be found here: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Adult The classification problem is whether or not a person makes over 50k a year based on their census data.
Two example entries are as follows:
45, Private, 98092, HS-grad, 9, Married-civ-spouse, Sales, Husband, White, Male, 0, 0, 60, United-States, <=50K
50, Self-emp-not-inc, 386397, Bachelors, 13, Married-civ-spouse, Sales, Husband, White, Male, 0, 0, 60, United-States, <=50K
I'm familiar with using Euclidean distance to calculate the difference between vectors, but I'm not sure how to work with a mix of continuous and discrete attributes. Are there any effective methods for representing the difference between two vectors in a meaningful way? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how large values like the third attribute (a weight calculated by the people who extracted the data set based on factors, so that similar weights should have similar attributes) and differences between it can preserve meaning from discrete features like male or female, which is only a Euclidean distance of 1 if I understand the method correctly. I'm sure some categories could be removed, but I don't want to remove something that factors into classification significantly. I'm tackling k-NN first once I get this figured out, then a Bayesian classifier, and finally a decision tree model like C4.5 or ID3 if I have the time.
Sure, you can extend Euclidean distance in any number of ways. The simplest extension would be the following rule:
distance = 0 in that coordinate if there's a match, 1 otherwise
The challenge will be making the concept of distance "relevant" for the k-NN follow up. In some cases (e.g. education), I think it will be best to map education (discrete variable) into a continuous variable, such as years of education. So you'll need to write a function which maps e.g. "HS-grad" to 12, "Bachelors" to 16, something like that.
Beyond that, using k-NN directly isn't going to work because the idea of "distance" among multiple dis-similar dimensions isn't well defined. I think you'll be better off throwing some of these dimensions away or weighting them differently. I don't know what the third number in your dataset (e.g. 98092) means, but if you use naive Euclidean distance this would be extremely overweighted compared to other dimensions such as age.
I'm not a machine learning expert, but I would personally be tempted to start k-NN on a reduced dimensionality dataset where you just pick some broad demographics (e.g. age, education, marital status) and ignore the trickier/"noisier" categories.
You need to code your categorical variables as 1-of-n binary variables (n choices for the variable, and of those variables one and only one is active). Then standardise your features---for each feature, subtract its mean and divide by standard deviation. Or normalise into the range 0-1. It's not perfect, but this will at least make dimensions comparable.
Create individual Maps for each data points and use the map to convert to a double value.
def createMap(data: RDD[String]) : Map[String,Double] = {
var mapData:Map[String,Double] = Map()
var counter = 0.0
data.collect().foreach{ item =>
counter = counter +1
mapData += (item -> counter)
}
mapData
}
def getLablelValue(input: String): Int = input match {
case "<=50K" => 0
case ">50K" => 1
}
val census = sc.textFile("/user/cloudera/census_data.txt")
val orgTypeRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(1)).distinct
val gradeTypeRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(3)).distinct
val marStatusRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(5)).distinct
val jobTypeRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(6)).distinct
val familyStatusRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(7)).distinct
val raceTypeRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(8)).distinct
val genderTypeRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(9)).distinct
val countryRdd = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(13)).distinct
val salaryRange = census.map(line => line.split(", ")(14)).distinct
val orgTypeMap = createMap(orgTypeRdd)
val gradeTypeMap = createMap(gradeTypeRdd)
val marStatusMap = createMap(marStatusRdd)
val jobTypeMap = createMap(jobTypeRdd)
val familyStatusMap = createMap(familyStatusRdd)
val raceTypeMap = createMap(raceTypeRdd)
val genderTypeMap = createMap(genderTypeRdd)
val countryMap = createMap(countryRdd)
val salaryRangeMap = createMap(salaryRange)
val featureVector = census.map{line =>
val fields = line.split(", ")
LabeledPoint(getLablelValue(fields(14).toString) , Vectors.dense(fields(0).toDouble, orgTypeMap(fields(1).toString) , fields(2).toDouble , gradeTypeMap(fields(3).toString) , fields(4).toDouble , marStatusMap(fields(5).toString), jobTypeMap(fields(6).toString), familyStatusMap(fields(7).toString),raceTypeMap(fields(8).toString),genderTypeMap (fields(9).toString), fields(10).toDouble , fields(11).toDouble , fields(12).toDouble,countryMap(fields(13).toString) , salaryRangeMap(fields(14).toString)))
}