Any help appreciated. Been at this for weeks. :(
install.packages("klaR", dependencies=TRUE)
library(klaR)
install.packages("caret", dependencies=TRUE)
library(caret)
install.packages("e1071", dependencies=TRUE)
library(e1071)
install.packages("gmodels", dependencies=TRUE)
library(gmodels)
install.packages("gbm", dependencies=TRUE)
library(gbm)
install.packages("foreach", dependencies=TRUE)
library(foreach)
Load Grading Data
grading <- read.csv("~/PA_DataFinal/GradingData160315.csv")
create stratified sample # 1%
dfstrat <- stratified(grading, "FailPass", .01)
save(dfstrat, file = "c:/Users/gillisn/Documents/PA_DataFinal/RResults/GradingRResults/iteration 1/dfstrat.rda")
split data into train and test #75:25. FailPass is the responseVble
set.seed(1)
inTrainingSet <- createDataPartition(dfstrat$FailPass, p = .75, list = FALSE)
trainSet <- dfstrat[inTrainingSet,]
testSet <- dfstrat[-inTrainingSet, ]
set predictors and labels
There are 48 labels and its the last one that want to train on.
Take all the predictors 1-47
x,y is training data
x <- trainSet[,-48]
y <- as.factor(trainSet$FailPass)
i,j is test data
i <- testSet[,-48,]
j <- as.factor(testSet$FailPass)
Set Training control parameters
Bootstrapping itself around in 25 times.
bootControl <- trainControl(number = 25)
The grid is for the decision tree
gbmGrid <- expand.grid(.interaction.depth = (1:5) * 2, .n.trees = (1:10)*25, .shrinkage = .1)
nbGrid <- expand.grid(.fL=0, .usekernel=FALSE)
svmGrid >- expandGrid(.sigma=, .c=)
set.seed(2)
Train the models
naive bayes
nbFit <- train(x,y,method='nb',tuneGrid="nbGrid")
svm
svmFit <- train(x, y,method = "svmRadial", tuneLength = 10,trControl = bootControl, scaled = FALSE)
gbm
gbmFit <- train(x, y,method = "gbm", trControl = bootControl, verbose = FALSE, bag.fraction = 0.5, tuneGrid = gbmGrid)
predict the models on training data
models <- list(svm = svmFit, nb = nbFit, gbm = gbmFit)
predict(models)
Related
I have data where IDs are contained within clusters.
I would like to perform recursive feature elimination using Caret's rfe function which performs the following procedure:
Clustered resampling for the outer layer (line 2.1) is straightforward, using the index parameter.
However, within each outer resample, I would like to tune tuning parameters using cluster-based cross-validation (inner resampling) (line 2.9). Model tuning in the inner layer is possible by specifying a tuneGrid in rfe and having an appropriate trControl. It is this trControl that I would like to change to allow clustered resampling.
The outer resampling is specified in the rfeControl parameter of rfe.
The inner resampling is specified by trControl of rfe which is passed to train.
The trouble I am having is that I can't seem to specify any inner indices, because after the outer resampling, those indices are no longer valid or no longer present in the outer-resampled data.
I am looking for a way to tell train to take an outer resample (which will be missing a cluster against which to validate), and to tune the model using inner resampling by based on folds of the remaining clusters.
The MWE is as minimal as possible:
library(caret)
library(tidyverse)
library(parallel)
library(doParallel)
range01 <- function(x){(x-min(x))/(max(x)-min(x))}
### Create some random data, 10 features, with some influence over a binomial outcome
set.seed(42)
id <- 1:1000
cluster <- rep(1:10, each = 100)
dat <- data.frame(id, cluster, replicate(10,rnorm(n = 1000, mean = runif(1, 0,100)+cluster, sd = runif(1, 0,20))))
dat <- dat %>% mutate(temp = rowSums(across(X1:X10)), prob = range01(temp), outcome = rbinom(n = nrow(dat), size = 1, prob = prob))
dat$outcome <- as.factor(dat$outcome)
levels(dat$outcome) <- c("control", "case")
dat$outcome <- factor(dat$outcome, levels=rev(levels(dat$outcome)))
### Manual outer folds-based cluster ###
for(i in 1:10) {
assign(paste0("index", i), which(dat$cluster!=i))
}
unit_indices <- list(index1, index2, index3, index4, index5, index6, index7, index8, index9, index10)
### Inner resampling method (THIS IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO CHANGE) ###
cv5 <- trainControl(classProbs = TRUE, method = "cv", number = 5, allowParallel = F) ## Is there a way to have inner cluster-based resampling WITHIN the outer cluster-based resampling?
caret_rfe_functions <- list(summary = twoClassSummary,
fit = function (x, y, first, last, ...) {
train(x, y, ...)
},
pred = caretFuncs$pred,
rank = function(object, x, y) {
vimp <- varImp(object)$importance
vimp <- vimp[order(vimp$Overall,decreasing = TRUE),,drop = FALSE]
vimp$var <- rownames(vimp)
vimp
},
selectSize = function (x, metric = "ROC", tol = 1, maximize = TRUE)
{
if (!maximize) {
best <- min(x[, metric])
perf <- (x[, metric] - best)/best * 100
flag <- perf <= tol
}
else {
best <- max(x[, metric])
perf <- (best - x[, metric])/best * 100
flag <- perf <= tol
}
min(x[flag, "Variables"])
},
selectVar = caretFuncs$selectVar)
caret_rfe_ctrl <- rfeControl(
functions = caret_rfe_functions,
saveDetails = TRUE,
index = unit_indices,
indexOut = NULL,
returnResamp = "all",
allowParallel = T, ### change this if you don't want to / can't go parallel
verbose = TRUE
)
#### Feature selection ####
set.seed(42)
cl <- makePSOCKcluster(10) ### for parallel processing if available
registerDoParallel(cl)
rfe_profile_nnet <- rfe(
form = outcome ~
X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X7 + X8 + X9 + X10,
data = dat,
sizes = seq(2,10,1),
rfeControl = caret_rfe_ctrl,
## pass options to train()
method = "nnet",
preProc = c("center", "scale"),
metric = "ROC",
tuneGrid = expand.grid(size = c(1:5), decay = 5),
trControl = cv5) ### I would like to change this to allow inner cluster-based resampling
stopCluster(cl)
rfe_profile_nnet
plot(rfe_profile_nnet)
Presumably the inner cluster-based resampling would be achieved by specifying a new trainControl containing some dynamic inner index based on the outer resample that is selected at the time:
inner_cluster_tune <- trainControl(classProbs = TRUE,
index = {insert magic here}, ### This is the important bit
returnResamp = "all",
summaryFunction = twoClassSummary,
allowParallel = F) ### especially if the outer resample is parallelised
If you try with the original cluster indices e.g.
inner_cluster_tune <- trainControl(classProbs = TRUE,
index = unit_indices,
returnResamp = "all",
summaryFunction = twoClassSummary,
allowParallel = F)
There are various warnings about missing data in the resamples, and things like 24: In [<-.data.frame(*tmp*, , object$method$center, value = structure(list( ... : provided 81 variables to replace 9 variables.
All help greatly appreciated.
As a postscript question , you can see which parameters were used within your rfe like so:
> rfe_profile_nnet$fit
Neural Network
1000 samples
8 predictor
2 classes: 'case', 'control'
Pre-processing: centered (8), scaled (8)
Resampling: Cross-Validated (5 fold)
Summary of sample sizes: 800, 800, 800, 800, 800
Resampling results across tuning parameters:
size Accuracy Kappa
1 0.616 0.1605071
2 0.616 0.1686937
3 0.620 0.1820503
4 0.618 0.1788491
5 0.618 0.1788063
Tuning parameter 'decay' was held constant at a value of 5
Accuracy was used to select the optimal model using the largest value.
The final values used for the model were size = 3 and decay = 5.
But does anyone know if this refers to one, or all of the outer resamples? Presumably the same tuning parameters won't necessarily be chosen across all outer resamples
Ive been trying to implement a basic multilayered LSTM regression network to find correlations between cryptocurrency prices.
After running into unusable training results, i've decided to play around with some sandbox code, to make sure i've got the idea right before trying again on my full dataset.
The problem is I can't get Keras to generalize my data.
ts = 3
in_dim = 1
data = [i*100 for i in range(10)]
# tried this, didn't accomplish anything
# data = [(d - np.mean(data))/np.std(data) for d in data]
x = data[:len(data) - 4]
y = data[3:len(data) - 1]
assert(len(x) == len(y))
x = [[_x] for _x in x]
y = [[_y] for _y in y]
x = [x[idx:idx + ts] for idx in range(0, len(x), ts)]
y = [y[idx:idx + ts] for idx in range(0, len(y), ts)]
x = np.asarray(x)
y = np.asarray(y)
x looks like this:
[[[ 0]
[100]
[200]]
[[300]
[400]
[500]]]
and y:
[[[300]
[400]
[500]]
[[600]
[700]
[800]]]
and this works well when I predict using a very similar dataset, but doesn't generalize when I try a similar sequence with scaled values
model = Sequential()
model.add(BatchNormalization(
axis = 1,
input_shape = (ts, in_dim)))
model.add(LSTM(
100,
input_shape = (ts, in_dim),
return_sequences = True))
model.add(TimeDistributed(Dense(in_dim)))
model.add(Activation('linear'))
model.compile(loss = 'mse', optimizer = 'rmsprop')
model.fit(x, y, epochs = 2000, verbose = 0)
p = np.asarray([[[10],[20],[30]]])
prediction = model.predict(p)
print(prediction)
prints
[[[ 165.78544617]
[ 209.34489441]
[ 216.02174377]]]
I want
[[[ 40.0000]
[ 50.0000]
[ 60.0000]]]
how can I format this so that when i plug in a sequence with values that are of a completely different scale, the network will still output its predicted value? I've tried normalizing my training data, but the results are still entirely unusable.
What have I done wrong here?
How about transform your input data before sending into your LSTM, use something like sklearn.preprocessing.StandardScaler? after prediction you can call scaler.inverse_transform(prediction)
I have a data set which contains a list of stock prices. I need to use the tensorflow and python to predict the close price.
Q1: I have the following code which takes the first 2000 records as training and 2001 to 20000 records as test but I don't know how to change the code to do the prediction of the close price of today and 1 day later??? Please advise!
#!/usr/bin/env python2
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import tensorflow as tf
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def feature_scaling(input_pd, scaling_meathod):
if scaling_meathod == 'z-score':
scaled_pd = (input_pd - input_pd.mean()) / input_pd.std()
elif scaling_meathod == 'min-max':
scaled_pd = (input_pd - input_pd.min()) / (input_pd.max() -
input_pd.min())
return scaled_pd
def input_reshape(input_pd, start, end, batch_size, batch_shift, n_features):
temp_pd = input_pd[start-1: end+batch_size-1]
output_pd = map(lambda y : temp_pd[y:y+batch_size], xrange(0, end-start+1, batch_shift))
output_temp = map(lambda x : np.array(output_pd[x]).reshape([-1]), xrange(len(output_pd)))
output = np.reshape(output_temp, [-1, batch_size, n_features])
return output
def target_reshape(input_pd, start, end, batch_size, batch_shift, n_step_ahead, m_steps_pred):
temp_pd = input_pd[start+batch_size+n_step_ahead-2: end+batch_size+n_step_ahead+m_steps_pred-2]
print temp_pd
output_pd = map(lambda y : temp_pd[y:y+m_steps_pred], xrange(0, end-start+1, batch_shift))
output_temp = map(lambda x : np.array(output_pd[x]).reshape([-1]), xrange(len(output_pd)))
output = np.reshape(output_temp, [-1,1])
return output
def lstm(input, n_inputs, n_steps, n_of_layers, scope_name):
num_layers = n_of_layers
input = tf.transpose(input,[1, 0, 2])
input = tf.reshape(input,[-1, n_inputs])
input = tf.split(0, n_steps, input)
with tf.variable_scope(scope_name):
cell = tf.nn.rnn_cell.BasicLSTMCell(num_units=n_inputs)
cell = tf.nn.rnn_cell.MultiRNNCell([cell]*num_layers)
output, state = tf.nn.rnn(cell, input, dtype=tf.float32) yi1
output = output[-1]
return output
feature_to_input = ['open price', 'highest price', 'lowest price', 'close price','turnover', 'volume','mean price']
feature_to_predict = ['close price']
feature_to_scale = ['volume']
sacling_meathod = 'min-max'
train_start = 1
train_end = 1000
test_start = 1001
test_end = 20000
batch_size = 100
batch_shift = 1
n_step_ahead = 1
m_steps_pred = 1
n_features = len(feature_to_input)
lstm_scope_name = 'lstm_prediction'
n_lstm_layers = 1
n_pred_class = 1
learning_rate = 0.1
EPOCHS = 1000
PRINT_STEP = 100
read_data_pd = pd.read_csv('./stock_price.csv')
temp_pd = feature_scaling(input_pd[feature_to_scale],sacling_meathod)
input_pd[feature_to_scale] = temp_pd
train_input_temp_pd = input_pd[feature_to_input]
train_input_nparr = input_reshape(train_input_temp_pd,
train_start, train_end, batch_size, batch_shift, n_features)
train_target_temp_pd = input_pd[feature_to_predict]
train_target_nparr = target_reshape(train_target_temp_pd, train_start, train_end, batch_size, batch_shift, n_step_ahead, m_steps_pred)
test_input_temp_pd = input_pd[feature_to_input]
test_input_nparr = input_reshape(test_input_temp_pd, test_start, test_end, batch_size, batch_shift, n_features)
test_target_temp_pd = input_pd[feature_to_predict]
test_target_nparr = target_reshape(test_target_temp_pd, test_start, test_end, batch_size, batch_shift, n_step_ahead, m_steps_pred)
tf.reset_default_graph()
x_ = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [None, batch_size, n_features])
y_ = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [None, 1])
lstm_output = lstm(x_, n_features, batch_size, n_lstm_layers, lstm_scope_name)
W = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([n_features, n_pred_class]))
b = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([n_pred_class]))
y = tf.matmul(lstm_output, W) + b
cost_func = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(y - y_))
train_op = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(learning_rate).minimize(cost_func)
optimizer = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(learning_rate).minimize(loss, global_step=global_step)
init = tf.initialize_all_variables()
with tf.Session() as sess:
sess.run(init)
for ii in range(EPOCHS):
sess.run(train_op, feed_dict={x_:train_input_nparr, y_:train_target_nparr})
if ii % PRINT_STEP == 0:
cost = sess.run(cost_func, feed_dict={x_:train_input_nparr, y_:train_target_nparr})
print 'iteration =', ii, 'training cost:', cost
Very simply, prediction (a.k.a. scoring or inference) comes from running the input through only the forward pass, and collecting the score for each input vector. It's the same process flow as testing. The difference is the four stages of model use:
Train: learn from the training data set; adjust weights as needed.
Test: evaluate the model's performance; if accuracy has converged, stop training.
Validate: evaluate the accuracy of the trained model. If it doesn't meet acceptance criteria, change something and start over with the training.
Predict: you've passed validation -- release the model for use by the intended application.
All four steps follow the same forward logic flow; training includes back-propagation; the others do not. Simply follow the forward-only process, and you'll get the result form you need.
I worry about your data partition: only 10% for training, 90% for testing, and none for validation. A more typical split is 50-30-20, or something in that general area.
Q-1 : You should change your LSTM parameter to return a sequence of size two which will be prediction for that day and the day after.
Q-2 it's clearly that your model is underfitting the data, which is so obvious with your 10% train 90% test data ! You should more equilibrated ratio as suggested in the previous answer.
I was trying to see how accurate a neural network can approximate simple functions, like a scalar-valued polynomial in several variables. So I had these ideas:
Fix a polynomial of several variables, say, f(x_1,..,x_n).
Generate 50000 vectors of length n using numpy.random which will serve as training data.
Evaluate the f(x) at these points, the value will be used as label.
Make test data and label in the same way
Write a neural network and see how accuracy it can approximate f(x) on test set.
Here is my sample neural network implemented in tensorflow
import tensorflow as tf
import numpy as np
input_vector_length = int(10)
output_vector_length = int(1)
train_data_size = int(50000)
test_data_size = int(10000)
train_input_domain = [-10, 10] #Each component in an input vector is between -10 and 10
test_input_domain = [-10, 10]
iterations = 20000
batch_size = 200
regularizer = 0.01
sess = tf.Session()
x = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape=[None, input_vector_length], name="x")
y = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape =[None, output_vector_length], name="y")
function = tf.reduce_sum(x, 1) + 0.25*tf.pow(tf.reduce_sum(x,1), 2) + 0.025*tf.pow(tf.reduce_sum(x,1), 3)
#make train data input
train_input = (train_input_domain[1]-train_input_domain[0])*np.random.rand(train_data_size, input_vector_length) + train_input_domain[0]
#make train data label
train_label = sess.run(function, feed_dict = {x : train_input})
train_label = train_label.reshape(train_data_size, output_vector_length)
#make test data input
test_input = (test_input_domain[1]-test_input_domain[0])*np.random.rand(test_data_size, input_vector_length) + test_input_domain[0]
#make test data label
test_label = sess.run(function, feed_dict = {x : test_input})
test_label = test_label.reshape(test_data_size, output_vector_length)
def weight_variables(shape, name):
initial = 10*tf.truncated_normal(shape, stddev=0.1)
return tf.Variable(initial)
def bias_variables(shape, name):
initial = 10*tf.truncated_normal(shape, stddev=0.1)
return tf.Variable(initial)
def take_this_batch(data, batch_index=[]):
A = []
for i in range(len(batch_index)):
A.append(data[i])
return A
W_0 = weight_variables(shape=[input_vector_length, 10], name="W_0")
B_0 = bias_variables(shape=[10], name="W_0")
y_1 = tf.sigmoid(tf.matmul(x, W_0) + B_0)
W_1 = weight_variables(shape=[10, 20], name="W_1")
B_1 = bias_variables(shape=[20], name="B_1")
y_2 = tf.sigmoid(tf.matmul(y_1, W_1) + B_1)
W_2 = weight_variables(shape=[20,40], name="W_2")
B_2 = bias_variables(shape=[40], name="B_2")
y_3 = tf.sigmoid(tf.matmul(y_2, W_2) + B_2)
keep_prob = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, name="keep_prob")
y_drop = tf.nn.dropout(y_3, keep_prob)
W_output = weight_variables(shape=[40, output_vector_length], name="W_output")
B_output = bias_variables(shape=[output_vector_length], name="B_output")
y_output = tf.matmul(y_drop, W_output) + B_output
weight_sum = tf.reduce_sum(tf.square(W_0)) + tf.reduce_sum(tf.square(W_1)) + tf.reduce_sum(tf.square(W_2)) + tf.reduce_sum(tf.square(W_3))
cost = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(y - y_output)) + regularizer*(weight_sum)
train_step = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(0.01).minimize(cost)
error = cost
sess.run(tf.initialize_all_variables())
with sess.as_default():
for step in range(iterations):
batch_index = np.random.randint(low=0, high=train_data_size, size=batch_size)
batch_input = take_this_batch(train_input, batch_index)
batch_label = take_this_batch(train_label, batch_index)
train_step.run(feed_dict = {x : batch_input, y:batch_label, keep_prob:0.5})
if step % 1000 == 0:
current_error = error.eval(feed_dict = {x:batch_input, y:batch_label, keep_prob:1.0})
print("step %d, Current error is %f" % (step,current_error))
print(error.eval(feed_dict={x:test_input, y:test_label, keep_prob:1.0}))
Simply speaking, the performance of this neural network is horrifying! My neural network has three hidden layers of size 10, 20 and 40. The input layer is of size 10, and the output layer has size 1. I used a simple L^2 cost function, and I regularized it with the square of weights and regularizer 0.01.
During training stage, I noticed that the error seems to get stuck and refuses to go down. I am wondering what could go wrong? Thanks a lot for reading this long question. Any suggestion is appreciated.
Since you are using sigmoid as the activation function in the hidden layers, the value at these neurons is reduced to the range of (0,1). Hence, it is a good idea to normalize the input data for this network.
The way to create stratified folds for cv in caret is like this
library(caret)
library(data.table)
train_dat <- data.table(group = c(rep("group1",10), rep("group2",5)), x1 = rnorm(15), x2 = rnorm(15), label = factor(c(rep("treatment",15), rep("control",15))))
folds <- createFolds(train_dat[, group], k = 5)
fitCtrl <- trainControl(method = "cv", index = folds, classProbs = T, summaryFunction = twoClassSummary)
train(label~., data = train_dat[, !c("group"), with = F], trControl = fitCtrl, method = "xgbTree", metric = "ROC")
To balance group1 and group2, the creation of fold indexes is based on "group" variable.
However, is there any way to createFolds for repeatedcv in caret? So, I can have a balanced split for repeatedcv. Should I combined several createFolds and run trainControl?
trControl = trainControl(method = "cv", index = many_repeated_folds)
Thanks!
createMultiFolds is probably what you are interested in.