Related
Should i split my data in to two parts similar in size to use each half for eaxh tasks or i should do grid search on my whole data and then just do cross validation again on my whole data to check my accuracy ?
You need to split the data into test and train (20:80) (eg. test_train_split in sklearn), then run the model with the train data and check the accuracy. If its not what you expect, then you can try applying Hyper parameter Tuning.
You can do this by GridSearchCV, where you need to fit the desired estimator (depending on the type of problem ) and the parameter values.
Attached a sample code :
from sklearn.model_selection import GridSearchCV
# Create the parameter grid based on the results of random search
param_grid = {
'bootstrap': [True],
'max_depth': [50, 55, 60, 65],
'max_features': ["auto","sqrt", 2, 3],
'min_samples_leaf': [1, 2, 3],
'min_samples_split': [2, 3, 4],
'n_estimators': [60, 65, 70, 75]
}
grid_search = GridSearchCV(estimator = rfcv, param_grid = param_grid, cv = 3, n_jobs = -1, verbose = 2)
grid_search.fit(X_train, Y_train)
grid_search.best_params_
Based the best parameter results, you can fine tune the grid search.
Eg, if best parameter value is near 60 for n_estimators then you need to change the values as surrounding to 60 like [50,55,60,60]. To figure out the exact value.
Then build the machine learning model based on the best parameters value. Evaluate the train data accuracy and then predict the result using test data values.
rf = rgf(n_estimators = 70, random_state=0, min_samples_split = 2, min_samples_leaf=1, max_features = 'sqrt',bootstrap='True', max_depth=65)
regressor = rf.fit(X_train,Y_train)
pred_tuned = regressor.predict(X_test)
You can find an improvement in your accuracy !!
I am a newbie in machine learning and learning the basic concepts in regression. The confusion I have can be well explained by placing an example of input samples with the target values. So, For example (please notice that the example I am putting is the general case, I observed the performance and predicted values on a large custom dataset of images. Also, notice that the target values are not in floats.), I have:
xtrain = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
ytrain = [10, 10, 10, 20, 20, 20, 30, 30, 30, 40, 40, 40]
and
xtest = [13, 14, 15, 16]
ytest = [25, 25, 35, 35]
As you can notice that the ever three (two in the test set) samples have similar target values. Suppose I have a multi-layer perceptron network with one Flatten() and two Dense() layers. The network, after training, predicts the target values all same for test samples:
yPredicted = [40, 40, 40, 40]
Because the predicted values are all same, the correlations between ytest and yPredicted return null and give an error.
But when I have:
xtrain = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
ytrain = [332, 433, 456, 675, 234, 879, 242, 634, 789, 432, 897, 982]
And:
xtest = [13, 14, 15, 16]
ytest = [985, 341, 354, 326]
The predicted values are:
yPredicted = [987, 345, 435, 232]
which gives very good correlations.
My question is, what it the thing or process in a machine learning algorithm that makes the learning better when having different target values for each input? Why the network does not work when having repeated values for a large number of inputs?
Why the network does not work when having repeated values for a large number of inputs?
Most certainly, this is not the reason why your network does not perform well in the first dataset shown.
(You have not provided any code, so inevitably this will be a qualitative answer)
Looking closely at your first dataset:
xtrain = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
ytrain = [10, 10, 10, 20, 20, 20, 30, 30, 30, 40, 40, 40]
it's not difficult to conclude that we have a monotonic (increasing) function y(x) (it is not strictly monotonic, but it is monotonic nevertheless over the whole x range provided).
Given that, your model has absolutely no way of "knowing" that, for x > 12, the qualitative nature of the function changes significantly (and rather abruptly), as apparent from your test set:
xtest = [13, 14, 15, 16]
ytest = [25, 25, 35, 35]
and you should not expect it to know or "guess" it in any way (despite what many people may seem to believe, NN are not magic).
Looking closely to your second dataset, you will realize that this is not the case with it, hence the network is unsurprisingly able to perform better here; when doing such experiments, it is very important to be sure that we are comparing apples to apples, and not apples to oranges.
Another general issue with your attempts here and your question is the following: neural nets are not good at extrapolation, i.e. predicting such numerical functions outside the numeric domain on which they have been trained. For details, please see own answer at Is deep learning bad at fitting simple non linear functions outside training scope?
A last unusual thing here is your use of correlation; not sure why you choose to do this, but you may be interested to know that, in practice, we never assess model performance using a correlation measure between predicted outcomes and ground truth - we use measures such as the mean squared error (MSE) instead (for regression problems, such as yours here).
When I study Deep MNIST for Experts tutorial, I have many difficulties.
I'd to know why they used Convolution and Pooling in a Multilayer Convolutional Network.
And I don't understand the following two functions.
def conv2d(x, W):
return tf.nn.conv2d(x, W, strides=[1, 1, 1, 1], padding='SAME')
def max_pool_2x2(x):
return tf.nn.max_pool(x, ksize=[1, 2, 2, 1],
strides=[1, 2, 2, 1], padding='SAME')
I'd to know the meaning of strides=[1,1,1,1] in conv2d function.
Should we always use ksize=[1, 2, 2, 1] and strides=[1, 2, 2, 1] in max_pool_2x2 function.
What is the difference between padding='SAME' and padding='VALID'
I would say check the following answer. It has a wonderful explanation for the whole convolution operation. This should cover your query for conv2d .
for max pooling,
ksize: is basically the kernal size. Its the size of the window for each dimension of the input tensor. you can change it according to your need. Like in the paper AlexNet they have used ksize=[1, 3, 3, 1] and
stride: The filter is applied to image patches of the same size as the filter and strided according to the strides argument. strides = [1, 2, 2, 1] applies the filter to every other image patch in each dimension, etc.
The difference of padding is explained well in this post.
I'm trying to tune my voting classifier. I wanted to use randomized search in Sklearn. However how could you set parameter lists for my voting classifier since I currently use two algorithms (different tree algorithms)?
Do I have to separately run randomized search and combine them together in voting classifier later?
Could someone help? Code examples would be highly appreciated :)
Thanks!
You can perfectly combine both, the VotingClassifier with RandomizedSearchCV. No need to run them separately. See the documentation: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/ensemble.html#using-the-votingclassifier-with-gridsearch
The trick is to prefix your params list with your estimator name. For example, if you have created a RandomForest estimator and you created it as ('rf',clf2) then you can set up its parameters in the form <name__param>. Specific example: rf__n_estimators: [20,200], so you refer to a specific estimator and set values to test for a specific param.
Ready to test executable code example ;)
import numpy as np
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import VotingClassifier
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeClassifier
from sklearn.grid_search import RandomizedSearchCV
X = np.array([[-1, -1], [-2, -1], [-3, -2], [1, 1], [2, 1], [3, 2]])
y = np.array([1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2])
clf1 = DecisionTreeClassifier()
clf2 = RandomForestClassifier(random_state=1)
params = {'dt__max_depth': [5, 10], 'rf__n_estimators': [20, 200],}
eclf = VotingClassifier(estimators=[('dt', clf1), ('rf', clf2)], voting='hard')
random_search = RandomizedSearchCV(eclf, param_distributions=params,n_iter=4)
random_search.fit(X, y)
print(random_search.grid_scores_)
I know that a Gaussian Process model is best suited for regression rather than classification. However, I would still like to apply a Gaussian Process to a classification task but I am not sure what is the best way to bin the predictions generated by the model. I have reviewed the Gaussian Process classification example that is available on the scikit-learn website at:
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/auto_examples/gaussian_process/plot_gp_probabilistic_classification_after_regression.html
But I found this example confusing (I have listed the things I found confusing about this example at the end of the question). To try and get a better understanding I have created a very basic python code example using scikit-learn that generates classifications by applying a decision boundary to the predictions made by a gaussian process:
#A minimum example illustrating how to use a
#Gaussian Processes for binary classification
import numpy as np
from sklearn import metrics
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix
from sklearn.gaussian_process import GaussianProcess
if __name__ == "__main__":
#defines some basic training and test data
#If the descriptive features have large values
#(i.e., 8s and 9s) the target is 1
#If the descriptive features have small values
#(i.e., 2s and 3s) the target is 0
TRAININPUTS = np.array([[8, 9, 9, 9, 9],
[9, 8, 9, 9, 9],
[9, 9, 8, 9, 9],
[9, 9, 9, 8, 9],
[9, 9, 9, 9, 8],
[2, 3, 3, 3, 3],
[3, 2, 3, 3, 3],
[3, 3, 2, 3, 3],
[3, 3, 3, 2, 3],
[3, 3, 3, 3, 2]])
TRAINTARGETS = np.array([1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0])
TESTINPUTS = np.array([[8, 8, 9, 9, 9],
[9, 9, 8, 8, 9],
[3, 3, 3, 3, 3],
[3, 2, 3, 2, 3],
[3, 2, 2, 3, 2],
[2, 2, 2, 2, 2]])
TESTTARGETS = np.array([1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0])
DECISIONBOUNDARY = 0.5
#Fit a gaussian process model to the data
gp = GaussianProcess(theta0=10e-1, random_start=100)
gp.fit(TRAININPUTS, TRAINTARGETS)
#Generate a set of predictions for the test data
y_pred = gp.predict(TESTINPUTS)
print "Predicted Values:"
print y_pred
print "----------------"
#Convert the continuous predictions into the classes
#by splitting on a decision boundary of 0.5
predictions = []
for y in y_pred:
if y > DECISIONBOUNDARY:
predictions.append(1)
else:
predictions.append(0)
print "Binned Predictions (decision boundary = 0.5):"
print predictions
print "----------------"
#print out the confusion matrix specifiy 1 as the positive class
cm = confusion_matrix(TESTTARGETS, predictions, [1, 0])
print "Confusion Matrix (1 as positive class):"
print cm
print "----------------"
print "Classification Report:"
print metrics.classification_report(TESTTARGETS, predictions)
When I run this code I get the following output:
Predicted Values:
[ 0.96914832 0.96914832 -0.03172673 0.03085167 0.06066993 0.11677634]
----------------
Binned Predictions (decision boundary = 0.5):
[1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]
----------------
Confusion Matrix (1 as positive class):
[[2 0]
[0 4]]
----------------
Classification Report:
precision recall f1-score support
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 4
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 2
avg / total 1.00 1.00 1.00 6
The approach used in this basic example seems to work fine with this simple dataset. But this approach is very different from the classification example given on the scikit-lean website that I mentioned above (url repeated here):
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/auto_examples/gaussian_process/plot_gp_probabilistic_classification_after_regression.html
So I'm wondering if I am missing something here. So, I would appreciate if anyone could:
With respect to the classification example given on the scikit-learn website:
1.1 explain what the probabilities being generated in this example are probabilities of? Are they the probability of the query instance belonging to the class >0?
1.2 why the example uses a cumulative density function instead of a probability density function?
1.3 why the example divides the predictions made by the model by the square root of the mean square error before they are input into the cumulative density function?
With respect to the basic code example I have listed here, clarify whether or not applying a simple decision boundary to the predictions generated by a gaussian process model is an appropriate way to do binary classification?
Sorry for such a long question and thanks for any help.
In the GP classifier, a standard GP distribution over functions is "squashed," usually using the standard normal CDF (also called the probit function), to map it to a distribution over binary categories.
Another interpretation of this process is through a hierarchical model (this paper has the derivation), with a hidden variable drawn from a Gaussian Process.
In sklearn's gp library, it looks like the output from y_pred, MSE=gp.predict(xx, eval_MSE=True) are the (approximate) posterior means (y_pred) and posterior variances (MSE) evaluated at points in xx before any squashing occurs.
To obtain the probability that a point from the test set belongs to the positive class, you can convert the normal distribution over y_pred to a binary distribution by applying the Normal CDF (see [this paper again] for details).
The hierarchical model of the probit squashing function is defined by a 0 decision boundary (the standard normal distribution is symmetric around 0, meaning PHI(0)=.5). So you should set DECISIONBOUNDARY=0.