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?
Related
In deep learning, I saw many papers apply the pre-processing step as normalization step. It normalizes the input as zero mean and unit variance before feeding to the convolutional network (has BatchNorm). Why not use original intensity? What is the benefit of the normalization step? If I used histogram matching among images, should I still use the normalization step? Thanks
Normalization is important to bring features onto the same scale for the network to behave much better. Let's assume there are two features where one is measured on a scale of 1 to 10 and the second on a scale from 1 to 10,000. In terms of squared error function the network will be busy optimizing the weights according to the larger error on the second feature.
Therefore it is better to normalize.
The answer to this can be found in Andrew Ng's tutorial: https://youtu.be/UIp2CMI0748?t=133.
TLDR: If you do not normalize input features, some features can have a very different scale and will slow down Gradient Descent.
Long explanation: Let us consider a model that uses two features Feature1 and Feature2 with the following ranges:
Feature1: [10,10000]
Feature2: [0.00001, 0.001]
The Contour plot of these will look something like this (scaled for easier visibility).
Contour plot of Feature1 and Feature2
When you perform Gradient Descent, you will calculate d(Feature1) and d(Feature2) where "d" denotes differential in order to move the model weights closer to minimizing the loss. As evident from the contour plot above, d(Feature1) is going to be significantly smaller compared to d(Feature2), so even if you choose a reasonably medium value of learning rate, then you will be zig-zagging around because of relatively large values of d(Feature2) and may even miss the global minima.
Medium value of learning rate
In order to avoid this, if you choose a very small value of learning rate, Gradient Descent will take a very long time to converge and you may stop training even before reaching the global minima.
Very small Gradient Descent
So as you can see from the above examples, not scaling your features lead to an inefficient Gradient Descent which results in not finding the most optimal model
I am currently using sklearn's Logistic Regression function to work on a synthetic 2d problem. The dataset is shown as below:
I'm basic plugging the data into sklearn's model, and this is what I'm getting (the light green; disregard the dark green):
The code for this is only two lines; model = LogisticRegression(); model.fit(tr_data,tr_labels). I've checked the plotting function; that's fine as well. I'm using no regularizer (should that affect it?)
It seems really strange to me that the boundaries behave in this way. Intuitively I feel they should be more diagonal, as the data is (mostly) located top-right and bottom-left, and from testing some things out it seems a few stray datapoints are what's causing the boundaries to behave in this manner.
For example here's another dataset and its boundaries
Would anyone know what might be causing this? From my understanding Logistic Regression shouldn't be this sensitive to outliers.
Your model is overfitting the data (The decision regions it found perform indeed better on the training set than the diagonal line you would expect).
The loss is optimal when all the data is classified correctly with probability 1. The distances to the decision boundary enter in the probability computation. The unregularized algorithm can use large weights to make the decision region very sharp, so in your example it finds an optimal solution, where (some of) the outliers are classified correctly.
By a stronger regularization you prevent that and the distances play a bigger role. Try different values for the inverse regularization strength C, e.g.
model = LogisticRegression(C=0.1)
model.fit(tr_data,tr_labels)
Note: the default value C=1.0 corresponds already to a regularized version of logistic regression.
Let us further qualify why logistic regression overfits here: After all, there's just a few outliers, but hundreds of other data points. To see why it helps to note that
logistic loss is kind of a smoothed version of hinge loss (used in SVM).
SVM does not 'care' about samples on the correct side of the margin at all - as long as they do not cross the margin they inflict zero cost. Since logistic regression is a smoothed version of SVM, the far-away samples do inflict a cost but it is negligible compared to the cost inflicted by samples near the decision boundary.
So, unlike e.g. Linear Discriminant Analysis, samples close to the decision boundary have disproportionately more impact on the solution than far-away samples.
I have features with 18 dimensions after doing feature selection and will be used to train classifier, RNN, HMM, etc.
The features contain stddev, mean and derivative of accelerometer and gyroscope.
These features have different units and normalization/standardization will lose the true meaning of features.
For example, the unit of one feature vector is rotational velocity (degree/sec), the value in that feature is between -120 and 120.
Another is stddev of acceleration of x-axis, the value is mainly between 0 and 2.
If I want to do standardization, all the feature vectors will be centered near 0, with negative/positive values spread around zero. --> Even the stddev will have negative values! It totally loses actual meaning?
Am I on the wrong track? Any information is appreciated! Thanks!
It is always strongly recomendated to perform feature scaling and normalization as preprocessing step, and it will even benefit gradient descent(the most common learning algorithm),even in your case it would be useful but if you are in doubt you can perform cross validation. For example when using images and neural networks, sometimes after normalization the features(pixels) get negative values, that doesnt make the training data to lose meaning.
I am using Linear regression to predict data. But, I am getting totally contrasting results when I Normalize (Vs) Standardize variables.
Normalization = x -xmin/ xmax – xmin
Zero Score Standardization = x - xmean/ xstd
a) Also, when to Normalize (Vs) Standardize ?
b) How Normalization affects Linear Regression?
c) Is it okay if I don't normalize all the attributes/lables in the linear regression?
Thanks,
Santosh
Note that the results might not necessarily be so different. You might simply need different hyperparameters for the two options to give similar results.
The ideal thing is to test what works best for your problem. If you can't afford this for some reason, most algorithms will probably benefit from standardization more so than from normalization.
See here for some examples of when one should be preferred over the other:
For example, in clustering analyses, standardization may be especially crucial in order to compare similarities between features based on certain distance measures. Another prominent example is the Principal Component Analysis, where we usually prefer standardization over Min-Max scaling, since we are interested in the components that maximize the variance (depending on the question and if the PCA computes the components via the correlation matrix instead of the covariance matrix; but more about PCA in my previous article).
However, this doesn’t mean that Min-Max scaling is not useful at all! A popular application is image processing, where pixel intensities have to be normalized to fit within a certain range (i.e., 0 to 255 for the RGB color range). Also, typical neural network algorithm require data that on a 0-1 scale.
One disadvantage of normalization over standardization is that it loses some information in the data, especially about outliers.
Also on the linked page, there is this picture:
As you can see, scaling clusters all the data very close together, which may not be what you want. It might cause algorithms such as gradient descent to take longer to converge to the same solution they would on a standardized data set, or it might even make it impossible.
"Normalizing variables" doesn't really make sense. The correct terminology is "normalizing / scaling the features". If you're going to normalize or scale one feature, you should do the same for the rest.
That makes sense because normalization and standardization do different things.
Normalization transforms your data into a range between 0 and 1
Standardization transforms your data such that the resulting distribution has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1
Normalization/standardization are designed to achieve a similar goal, which is to create features that have similar ranges to each other. We want that so we can be sure we are capturing the true information in a feature, and that we dont over weigh a particular feature just because its values are much larger than other features.
If all of your features are within a similar range of each other then theres no real need to standardize/normalize. If, however, some features naturally take on values that are much larger/smaller than others then normalization/standardization is called for
If you're going to be normalizing at least one variable/feature, I would do the same thing to all of the others as well
First question is why we need Normalisation/Standardisation?
=> We take a example of dataset where we have salary variable and age variable.
Age can take range from 0 to 90 where salary can be from 25thousand to 2.5lakh.
We compare difference for 2 person then age difference will be in range of below 100 where salary difference will in range of thousands.
So if we don't want one variable to dominate other then we use either Normalisation or Standardization. Now both age and salary will be in same scale
but when we use standardiztion or normalisation, we lose original values and it is transformed to some values. So loss of interpretation but extremely important when we want to draw inference from our data.
Normalization rescales the values into a range of [0,1]. also called min-max scaled.
Standardization rescales data to have a mean (μ) of 0 and standard deviation (σ) of 1.So it gives a normal graph.
Example below:
Another example:
In above image, you can see that our actual data(in green) is spread b/w 1 to 6, standardised data(in red) is spread around -1 to 3 whereas normalised data(in blue) is spread around 0 to 1.
Normally many algorithm required you to first standardise/normalise data before passing as parameter. Like in PCA, where we do dimension reduction by plotting our 3D data into 1D(say).Here we required standardisation.
But in Image processing, it is required to normalise pixels before processing.
But during normalisation, we lose outliers(extreme datapoints-either too low or too high) which is slight disadvantage.
So it depends on our preference what we chose but standardisation is most recommended as it gives a normal curve.
None of the mentioned transformations shall matter for linear regression as these are all affine transformations.
Found coefficients would change but explained variance will ultimately remain the same. So, from linear regression perspective, Outliers remain as outliers (leverage points).
And these transformations also will not change the distribution. Shape of the distribution remains the same.
lot of people use Normalisation and Standardisation interchangeably. The purpose remains the same is to bring features into the same scale. The approach is to subtract each value from min value or mean and divide by max value minus min value or SD respectively. The difference you can observe that when using min value u will get all value + ve and mean value u will get bot + ve and -ve values. This is also one of the factors to decide which approach to use.
If we have K classes, do I have to plot K learning curves?
Because it seems impossible to me to calculate the train/validation error against all K theta vectors at once.
To clarify, the learning curve is a plot of the training & cross validation/test set error/cost vs training set size. This plot should allow you to see if increasing the training set size improves performance. More generally, the learning curve allows you to identify whether your algorithm suffers from a bias (under fitting) or variance (over fitting) problem.
It depends. Learning curves do not concern themselves with the number of classes. Like you said, it is a plot of training set and test set error, where that error is a numerical value. This is all learning curves are.
That error can be anything you want: accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score etc. (even MAE, MSE and others for regression).
However, the error you choose to use is the one that does or does not apply to your specific problem, which in turn indirectly affects how you should use learning curves.
Accuracy is well defined for any number of classes, so if you use this, a single plot should suffice.
Precision and recall, however, are defined only for binary problems. You can somewhat generalize them (see here for example) by considering the binary problem with classes x and not x for each class x. In that case, you will probably want to plot learning curves for each class. This will also help you identify problems relating to certain classes better.
If you want to read more about performance metrics, I like this paper a lot.