I have a dataset of 10 million english shows, which has been cleaned and lemmatized, and their classification into different category types such as comedy, documentary, action, ... etc
I also have a feature called duration, which is the length of the tv show.
Data can be found here
I perform tfidf vectorization on the titles, which returns a sparse matrix and normalization on the duration column.
Then I want to feed the data to a logistic regression classifier.
side question: I want to know if theres a better way to handle combining a sparse matrix and a numerical column
when I try to do it using todense() or toarray(), It works
When i pass it to the logistic regression function, the notebook crashes. But if i dont have the duration col, which means i dont have to apply the toarray() or todense() function, it works perfectly. Is this a memory issue?
This is my code:
import os
import pandas as pd
from sklearn import metrics
from sklearn.utils import shuffle
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import TfidfVectorizer
from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
def normalize(df, col = ''):
mms = MinMaxScaler()
mms_col = mms.fit_transform(df[[col]])
return mms_col
def tfidf(X, col = ''):
tfidf_vectorizer = TfidfVectorizer(max_df = 0.8, max_features = 10000)
return tfidf_vectorizer.fit_transform(X[col])
def get_training_data(df):
df = shuffle(pd.read_csv(df).dropna())
data = df[['name_title', 'Duration']]
X_duration = normalize(data, col = 'Duration')
X_sparse = tfidf(data, col = 'name_title')
X = pd.DataFrame(X_sparse.toarray())
X['Duration'] = X_duration
y = df['target']
return X, y
def logistic_regression(X, y):
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y)
lr = LogisticRegression(C = 100.0, random_state = 1, solver = 'lbfgs', multi_class = 'ovr')
lr.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_predict = lr.predict(X_test)
print(y_predict)
print("Logistic Regression Accuracy %.3f" %metrics.accuracy_score(y_test, y_predict))
data_path = '../data/'
X, y = get_training_data(os.path.join(data_path, 'podcasts_en_processed.csv'))
print(X.shape) # this prints (971426, 10001)
logistic_regression(X, y)
Related
i want to use principal component analysis-mutual information (PCA-MI) to have data representation from source which has source relevance of (value from smartinsole) and ouput variable (value from force plate). PCA was used to determine the principal component of Ni provided that the cumulative variance is greater than 98% of the source information measured from 89 insole sensors. MI is generally used in the selection of input variables for predictive models because it is a good indicator of the relationship between input variables and output variables. here I want to get results like a flowchart as below
then I try to make code like below. but I can't generate like what's in the flowchart
from pandas import read_csv
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.feature_selection import SelectKBest
from sklearn.feature_selection import mutual_info_classif
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score
# load the dataset
def load_dataset(filename):
# load the dataset as a pandas DataFrame
data = read_csv(filename, header=None)
# retrieve numpy array
dataset = data.values
y = dataset
return y
def load_dataset2(filename):
# load the dataset as a pandas DataFrame
data2 = read_csv(filename, header=None)
# retrieve numpy array
dataset2 = data2.values
X = dataset2
return X
# feature selection
def select_features(X_train, y_train, X_test):
# configure to select a subset of features
fs = SelectKBest(score_func=mutual_info_classif, k=4)
# learn relationship from training data
fs.fit(X_train, y_train)
# transform train input data
X_train_fs = fs.transform(X_train)
# transform test input data
X_test_fs = fs.transform(X_test)
return X_train_fs, X_test_fs, fs
# load the dataset
Insole = pd.read_csv('1119_Rwalk40s1_list.txt', header=None, low_memory=False)
SIData = np.asarray(Insole)
df = pd.read_csv('1119_Rwalk40s1.csv', low_memory=False)
columns = ['Fx','Fy','Fz','Mx','My','Mz']
selected_df = df[columns]
FCDatas = selected_df
SmartInsole = np.array(SIData)
FCData = np.array(FCDatas)
scaler_x = MinMaxScaler(feature_range=(0, 1))
scaler_x.fit(SmartInsole)
xscale = scaler_x.transform(SmartInsole)
scaler_y = MinMaxScaler(feature_range=(0, 1))
scaler_y.fit(FCData)
yscale = scaler_y.transform(FCData)
SIDataPCA = xscale
pca = PCA(n_components=89)
pca.fit(SIDataPCA)
SIdata_pca = pca.transform(SIDataPCA)
X = SIdata_pca
y = yscale
X = SIdata_pca
y = yscale
# split into train and test sets
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.33, random_state=1)
# feature selection
X_train_fs, X_test_fs, fs = select_features(X_train, y_train, X_test)
# fit the model
model = LogisticRegression(solver='liblinear')
model.fit(X_train_fs, y_train)
# evaluate the model
yhat = model.predict(X_test_fs)
# evaluate predictions
accuracy = accuracy_score(y_test, yhat)
print('Accuracy: %.2f' % (accuracy*100))
how can I get the correct PCA-MI result data?
I need to plot how each feature impacts the predicted probability for each sample from my LightGBM binary classifier. So I need to output Shap values in probability, instead of normal Shap values. It does not appear to have any options to output in term of probability.
The example code below is what I use to generate dataframe of Shap values and do a force_plot for the first data sample. Does anyone know how I should modify the code to change the output?
I'm new to Shap value and the Shap package. Thanks a lot in advance.
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import shap
import lightgbm as lgbm
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
data = load_breast_cancer()
X = pd.DataFrame(data.data, columns=data.feature_names)
y = data.target
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
model = lgbm.LGBMClassifier()
model.fit(X_train, y_train)
explainer = shap.TreeExplainer(model)
shap_values = explainer(X_train)
# force plot of first row for class 1
class_idx = 1
row_idx = 0
expected_value = explainer.expected_value[class_idx]
shap_value = shap_values[:,:,class_idx].values[row_idx]
shap.force_plot (base_value = expected_value, shap_values = shap_value, features = X_train.iloc[row_idx, :], matplotlib=True)
# dataframe of shap values for class 1
shap_df = pd.DataFrame(shap_values[:,:, 1 ].values, columns = shap_values.feature_names)
TL;DR:
You can achieve plotting results in probability space with link="logit" in the force_plot method:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import shap
import lightgbm as lgbm
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from scipy.special import expit
shap.initjs()
data = load_breast_cancer()
X = pd.DataFrame(data.data, columns=data.feature_names)
y = data.target
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(
X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42
)
model = lgbm.LGBMClassifier()
model.fit(X_train, y_train)
explainer_raw = shap.TreeExplainer(model)
shap_values = explainer_raw(X_train)
# force plot of first row for class 1
class_idx = 1
row_idx = 0
expected_value = explainer_raw.expected_value[class_idx]
shap_value = shap_values[:, :, class_idx].values[row_idx]
shap.force_plot(
base_value=expected_value,
shap_values=shap_value,
features=X_train.iloc[row_idx, :],
link="logit",
)
Expected output:
Alternatively, you may achieve the same with the following, explicitly specifying model_output="probability" you're interested in to explain:
explainer = shap.TreeExplainer(
model,
data=X_train,
feature_perturbation="interventional",
model_output="probability",
)
shap_values = explainer(X_train)
# force plot of first row for class 1
class_idx = 1
row_idx = 0
shap_value = shap_values.values[row_idx]
shap.force_plot(
base_value=expected_value,
shap_values=shap_value,
features=X_train.iloc[row_idx, :]
)
Expected output:
However, it might be more interesting for understanding what's happening here to find out where these figures come from:
Our target proba for the point of interest:
model_proba= model.predict_proba(X_train.iloc[[row_idx]])
model_proba
# array([[0.00275887, 0.99724113]])
Base case raw from model given X_train as background (note, LightGBM outputs raw for class 1):
model.predict(X_train, raw_score=True).mean()
# 2.4839751932445577
Base case raw from SHAP (note, they are symmetric):
bv = explainer_raw(X_train).base_values[0]
bv
# array([-2.48397519, 2.48397519])
Raw SHAP values for the point of interest:
sv_0 = explainer_raw(X_train).values[row_idx].sum(0)
sv_0
# array([-3.40619584, 3.40619584])
Proba inferred from SHAP values (via sigmoid):
shap_proba = expit(bv + sv_0)
shap_proba
# array([0.00275887, 0.99724113])
Check:
assert np.allclose(model_proba, shap_proba)
Please ask questions if something is not clear.
Side notes
Proba might be misleading if you're analyzing raw size effect of different features because sigmoid is non-linear and saturates after reaching certain threshold.
Some people expect to see SHAP values in probability space as well, but this is not feasible because:
SHAP values are additive by construction (to be precise SHapley Additive exPlanations are average marginal contributions over all possible feature coalitions)
exp(a + b) != exp(a) + exp(b)
You may find useful:
Feature importance in a binary classification and extracting SHAP values for one of the classes only answer
How to interpret base_value of GBT classifier when using SHAP? answer
You can consider running your output values through a softmax() function. For reference, it is defined as :
def get_softmax_probabilities(x):
return np.exp(x) / np.sum(np.exp(x)).reshape(-1, 1)
and there is a scipy implementation as well:
from scipy.special import softmax
The output from softmax() will be probabilities proportional to the (relative) values in vector x, which are your shop values.
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import shap
import lightgbm as lgbm
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
data = load_breast_cancer()
X = pd.DataFrame(data.data, columns=data.feature_names)
y = data.target
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
print('X_train: ',X_train.shape)
print('X_test: ',X_test.shape)
model = lgbm.LGBMClassifier()
model.fit(X_train, y_train)
explainer = shap.TreeExplainer(model)
shap_values = explainer.shap_values(X_train)
# plot
# shap.summary_plot(shap_values[class_idx], X_train, plot_type='bar')
# shap.summary_plot(shap_values[class_idx], X_train)
# shap_value = shap_values[:,:,class_idx].values[row_idx]
# shap.force_plot (base_value = expected_value, shap_values = shap_value, features = X_train.iloc[row_idx, :], matplotlib=True)
# # dataframe of shap values for class 1
# shap_df = pd.DataFrame(shap_values[:,:, 1 ].values, columns = shap_values.feature_names)
# verification
def verification(index_number,class_idx):
print('-----------------------------------')
print('index_number: ', index_number)
print('class_idx: ', class_idx)
print('')
y_base = explainer.expected_value[class_idx]
print('y_base: ', y_base)
player_explainer = pd.DataFrame()
player_explainer['feature_value'] = X_train.iloc[j].values
player_explainer['shap_value'] = shap_values[class_idx][j]
print('verification: ')
print('y_base + sum_of_shap_values: %.2f'%(y_base + player_explainer['shap_value'].sum()))
print('y_pred: %.2f'%(y_train[j]))
j = 10 # index
verification(j,0)
verification(j,1)
# show:
# X_train: (455, 30)
# X_test: (114, 30)
# -----------------------------------
# index_number: 10
# class_idx: 0
# y_base: -2.391423081639827
# verification:
# y_base + sum_of_shap_values: -9.40
# y_pred: 1.00
# -----------------------------------
# index_number: 10
# class_idx: 1
# y_base: 2.391423081639827
# verification:
# y_base + sum_of_shap_values: 9.40
# y_pred: 1.00
# -9.40,9.40 takes the maximum value（class_idx:1 = y_pred）, and the result is obviously correct.
I helped you achieve it and verified the reliability of the results.
I am a total beginner and I am trying to compare different methods of handling missing data. In order to evaluate the effect of each method (drop raws with missing values, drop columns with missigness over 40%, impute with the mean, impute with the KNN), I compare the results of the LDA accuracy and LogReg accuracy on the training set between a dataset with 10% missing values, 20% missing values against the results of the original complete dataset. Unfortunately, I get pretty much the same results even between the complete dataset and the dataset with 20% missing-ness. I don't know what I am doing wrong.
from numpy import nan
from numpy import isnan
from pandas import read_csv
from sklearn.impute import SimpleImputer
from sklearn.discriminant_analysis import LinearDiscriminantAnalysis
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score
#dataset = read_csv('telecom_churn_rev10.csv')
dataset = read_csv('telecom_churn_rev20.csv')
dataset = dataset.replace(nan, 0)
values = dataset.values
X = values[:,1:11]
y = values[:,0]
dataset.fillna(dataset.mean(), inplace=True)
#dataset.fillna(dataset.mode(), inplace=True)
print(dataset.isnull().sum())
imputer = SimpleImputer(missing_values = nan, strategy = 'mean')
transformed_values = imputer.fit_transform(X)
print('Missing: %d' % isnan(transformed_values).sum())
model = LinearDiscriminantAnalysis()
cv = KFold(n_splits = 3, shuffle = True, random_state = 1)
result = cross_val_score(model, X, y, cv = cv, scoring = 'accuracy')
print('Accuracy: %.3f' % result.mean())
#print('Accuracy: %.3f' % result.mode())
print(dataset.describe())
print(dataset.head(20))
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size = 0.2, random_state = 0)
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
sc = StandardScaler()
X_train = sc.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test = sc.transform(X_test)
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
classifier = LogisticRegression(random_state = 0)
classifier.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred = classifier.predict(X_test)
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix, accuracy_score
cm = confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred)
print(cm)
accuracy_score(y_test,y_pred)
from sklearn import metrics
# make predictions on X
expected = y
predicted = classifier.predict(X)
# summarize the fit of the model
print(metrics.classification_report(expected, predicted))
print(metrics.confusion_matrix(expected, predicted))
# make predictions on X test
expected = y_test
predicted = classifier.predict(X_test)
# summarize the fit of the model
print(metrics.confusion_matrix(expected, predicted))
print(metrics.classification_report(expected, predicted))
You replace all your missing values with 0 at that line : dataset = dataset.replace(nan, 0). After this line, you have a full dataset without missing values. So, the .fillna() and the SimpleImputer() are useless after that line.
I am using a Semi-Supervised approach for Support Vector Machine in Python for the image classification from PASCAL VOC 2007 data.
I have tried with the default parameters from the libraries and also tuned them but it get extremely bad accuracy of about only ~ 2%.
Below is my code:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from sklearn import decomposition
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from numpy import concatenate
import numpy as np
from sklearn import datasets
from sklearn import metrics
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn import svm
from sklearn import decomposition
import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings("ignore")
color_layout_features = pd.read_pickle("color_layout_descriptor.pkl")
bow_surf = pd.read_pickle("bow_surf.pkl")
color_hist_features = pd.read_pickle("hist.pkl")
labels = pd.read_pickle("labels.pkl")
# Feat. Scaling
def scale(X, x_min, x_max):
nom = (X-X.min(axis=0))*(x_max-x_min)
denom = X.max(axis=0) - X.min(axis=0)
denom[denom==0] = 1
return x_min + nom/denom
# normalization
def normalize(x):
return (x - np.min(x))/(np.max(x) - np.min(x))
color_layout_features_scaled = scale(color_layout_features, 0, 1)
color_hist_features_scaled = scale(color_hist_features, 0, 1)
bow_surf_scaled = scale(bow_surf, 0, 1)
features = np.hstack([color_layout_features_scaled, color_hist_features_scaled, bow_surf_scaled])
# define dataset
X, Y = features, labels
X = normalize(X)
pca = decomposition.PCA(n_components=100)
pca.fit(X)
X = pca.transform(X)
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, Y, test_size=0.30, random_state=1, stratify=Y)
# split train into labeled and unlabeled
X_train_lab, X_test_unlab, y_train_lab, y_test_unlab = train_test_split(X_train, y_train, test_size=0.30, random_state=1, stratify=y_train)
# create the training dataset input
X_train_mixed = concatenate((X_train_lab, X_test_unlab))
# create "no label" for unlabeled data
nolabel = [-1 for _ in range(len(y_test_unlab))]
# recombine training dataset labels
y_train_mixed = concatenate((y_train_lab, nolabel))
from semisupervised import S3VM
model = S3VM(kernel="Linear", C = 1e-2, gamma = 0.5, lamU = 1.0, probability=True)
#model.fit(X_train_mixed, _train_mixed)
model.fit(np.vstack((X_train_lab, X_test_unlab)), np.append(y_train_lab, nolabel))
#model.fit(np.vstack((label_X_train, unlabel_X_train)), np.append(label_y_train, unlabel_y))
# predict
predict = model.predict(X_test)
acc = metrics.accuracy_score(y_test, predict)
# metric
print("accuracy", acc*100)
accuracy 2.6692291266282298
I am using a Transductive version of SVM (TSVM) from the semisupervised library. But not sure what am I doing wrong so that even after tweaking the parameters I still get the same result. Any inputs would be helpful.
I refer https://github.com/rosefun/SemiSupervised/blob/master/semisupervised/TSVM.py to make the implementation. Any inputs would be helpful.
Please consider that according to link Documentation "The unlabeled samples should be labeled as -1".
This is the code I built to apply a multiple linear regression. I added standard scaler to fix the Y intercept p-value which was not significant but the problem that the results of CV RMSE in the end changed and have nosense anymore and received an error in the code for plotting the correlation Matrix saying : AttributeError: 'numpy.ndarray' object has no attribute 'corr'
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import statsmodels.api as sm
from scipy import stats
from scipy.stats.stats import pearsonr
# Import Excel File
data = pd.read_excel("C:\\Users\\AchourAh\\Desktop\\Multiple_Linear_Regression\\SP Level Reasons Excels\\SP000273701_PL14_IPC_03_09_2018_Reasons.xlsx",'Sheet1') #Import Excel file
# Replace null values of the whole dataset with 0
data1 = data.fillna(0)
print(data1)
# Extraction of the independent and dependent variables
X = data1.iloc[0:len(data1),[1,2,3,4,5,6,7]] #Extract the column of the COPCOR SP we are going to check its impact
Y = data1.iloc[0:len(data1),9] #Extract the column of the PAUS SP
# Data Splitting to train and test set
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
X_train, X_test, Y_train, Y_test = train_test_split(X, Y, test_size =0.25,random_state=1)
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
ss = StandardScaler()
X_train = ss.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test = ss.transform(X_test)
# Statistical Analysis of the training set with Statsmodels
X = sm.add_constant(X_train) # add a constant to the model
est = sm.OLS(Y_train, X).fit()
print(est.summary()) # print the results
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error
import math
lm = LinearRegression() # create an lm object of LinearRegression Class
lm.fit(X_train,Y_train) # train our LinearRegression model using the training set of data - dependent and independent variables as parameters. Teaching lm that Y_train values are all corresponding to X_train.
print(lm.intercept_)
print(lm.coef_)
mse_test = mean_squared_error(Y_test, lm.predict(X_test))
print(math.sqrt(mse_test))
# Data Splitting to train and test set of the reduced data
X_1 = data1.iloc[0:len(data1),[1,2]] #Extract the column of the COPCOR SP we are going to check its impact
X_train2, X_test2, Y_train2, Y_test2 = train_test_split(X_1, Y, test_size =0.25,random_state=1)
X_train2 = ss.fit_transform(X_train2)
X_test2 = ss.transform(X_test2)
# Statistical Analysis of the reduced model with Statsmodels
X_reduced = sm.add_constant(X_train2) # add a constant to the model
est_reduced = sm.OLS(Y_train2, X_reduced).fit()
print(est_reduced.summary()) # print the results
# Fitting a Linear Model for the reduced model with Scikit-Learn
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error
import math
lm1 = LinearRegression() #create an lm object of LinearRegression Class
lm1.fit(X_train2, Y_train2)
print(lm1.intercept_)
print(lm1.coef_)
mse_test1 = mean_squared_error(Y_test2, lm1.predict(X_test2))
print(math.sqrt(mse_test1))
#Cross Validation and Training again the model
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold
from sklearn import model_selection
kf = KFold(n_splits=6, random_state=1)
for train_index, test_index in kf.split(X_train2):
print("Train:", train_index, "Validation:",test_index)
X_train1, X_test1 = X[train_index], X[test_index]
Y_train1, Y_test1 = Y[train_index], Y[test_index]
results = -1 * model_selection.cross_val_score(lm1, X_train1, Y_train1,scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=kf)
print(np.sqrt(results))
#RMSE values interpretation
print(math.sqrt(mse_test1))
print(math.sqrt(results.mean()))
#Good model built no overfitting or underfitting (Barely Same for test and training :Goal of Cross validation but low prediction accuracy = Value is big
import seaborn
Corr=X_train2.corr(method='pearson')
mask=np.zeros_like(Corr)
mask[np.triu_indices_from(mask)]=True
seaborn.heatmap(Corr,cmap='RdYlGn_r',vmax=1.0,vmin=-1.0,mask=mask, linewidths=2.5)
plt.yticks(rotation=0)
plt.xticks(rotation=90)
plt.show()
enter code here
Do you have an idea how to fix the issue ?
I'm guessing the problem lies with:
Corr=X_train2.corr(method='pearson')
.corr is a pandas dataframe method but X_train2 is a numpy array at that stage. If a dataframe/series is passed into StandardScaler, a numpy array is returned. Try replacing the above with:
Corr=pd.DataFrame(X_train2).corr(method='pearson')
or make use of numpy.corrcoef or numpy.correlate in their respective forms.