Develop Reference

How to use KMeans clustering to improve the accuracy of a logistic regression model?

I am a beginner in machine learning in python, and I am working on a binary classification problem. I have implemented a logistic regression model with an average accuracy of around 75%. I have tried numerous ways to improve the accuracy of the model, such as one-hot encoding of categorical variables, scaling of the continuous variables, and I did a grid search to find the best parameters. They all failed to improve the accuracy. So, I looked into unsupervised learning methods in order to improve it.
I tried using KMeans clustering, and I set the n_clusters into 2. I trained the logistic regression model using the X_train and y_train values. After that, I tried testing the model on the training data using cross-validation but I set the cross-validation to be against the labels predicted by the KMeans:
kmeans = KMeans(n_clusters = 2)
kmeans.fit(X_train)
logreg = LogisticRegression().fit(X_train, y_train)
cross_val_score(logreg, X_train, kmeans.labels_, cv = 5)
When using the cross_val_score, the accuracy is averaging over 95%. However, when I use the .score() method:
logreg.score(X_train, kmeans.labels_)
, the score is in the 60s. My questions are:
What does the significance (or meaning) of the score that is produced when testing the model against the labels predicted by k-means?
How can I use k-means clustering to improve the accuracy of the model? I tried adding a 'cluster' column that contains the clustering labels to the training data and fit the logistic regression, but it also didn't improve the score.
Why is there a huge discrepancy between the score when evaluated via cross_val_predict and the .score() method?

I'm having a hard time understanding the context of your problem based on the snippet you provided. Strong work for providing minimal code, but in this case I feel it may have been a bit too minimal. Regardless, I'm going to read between the lines and state some relevent ideas. I'll then attempt to answer your questions more directly.
I am working on a binary classification problem. I have implemented a logistic regression model with an average accuracy of around 75%
This only tells a small amount of the story. knowing what data your classifying and it's general form is pretty vital, and accuracy doesn't tell us a lot about how innaccuracy is distributed through the problem.
Some natural questions:
Is one class 50% accurate and another class is 100% accurate? are the classes both 75% accurate?
what is the class balance? (is there more of one class than the other)?
how much overlap do these classes have?
I recommend profiling your training and testing set, and maybe running your data through TSNE to get an idea of class overlap in your vector space.
these plots will give you an idea of how much overlap your two classes have. In essence, TSNE maps a high dimensional X to a 2d X while attempting to preserve proximity. You can then plot your flagged Y values as color and the 2d X values as points on a grid to get an idea of how tightly packed your classes are in high dimensional space. In the image above, this is a very easy classification problem as each class exists in it's own island. The more these islands mix together, the harder classification will be.
did a grid search to find the best parameters
hot take, but don't use grid search, random search is better. (source Artificial Intelligence by Jones and Barlett). Grid search repeats too much information, wasting time re-exploring similar parameters.
I tried using KMeans clustering, and I set the n_clusters into 2. I trained the logistic regression model using the X_train and y_train values. After that, I tried testing the model on the training data using cross-validation but I set the cross-validation to be against the labels predicted by the KMeans:
So, to rephrase, you trained your model to predict an output given some input, then tested how it performed predicting the same data and got 75%. This is called training accuracy (as opposed to validation or test accuracy). A low training accuracy is indicative of one of two things:
there's a lot of overlap between your classes. If this is the case, I would look into feature engineering. Find a vector space which better segregates the two classes.
there's not a lot of overlap, but the front between the two classes is complex. You need a model with more parameters to segregate your two classes.
model complexity isn't free though. See the curse of dimensionality and overfitting.
ok, answering more directly
these accuracy scores mean your model isn't complex enough to learn the problem, or there's too much overlap between the two classes to see a better accuracy.
I wouldn't use k-means clustering to try to improve this. k-means attempts to find cluster information based on location in a vector space, but you already have flagged data y_train so you already know which clusters data should belong in. Try modifying X_train in some way to get better segregation, or try a more complex model. you can use things like k-means or TSNE to check your transformed X_train for better segregation, but I wouldn't use them directly. Obligatory reminder that you need to test and validate with holdout data. see another answer I provided for more info.
I'd need more code to figure that one out.
p.s. welcome to stack overflow! Keep at it.

Getting confidence intervals from an Xgboost fitted model

I am trying to get the confidence intervals from an XGBoost saved model in a .tar.gz file that is created using python XGBoost library.
The problem is that the model has already been fitted, and I dont have training data any more, I just have inference or serving data to predict. All the examples that I found entail using a training and test data to create either quantile regression models, or bagged models, but I dont think I have the chance to do that.

Why your desired approach will not work
I assume we are talking about regression here. Given a regression model that you cannot modify, I think you will not be able to achieve your desired result using only the given model. The model was trained to calculate a continuous value that appoximates some objective value (i.e., its true value) based on some given input. Nothing more.
Possible solution
The only workaround I can think of would be to train two more models. These model's training goal would be to predict the quality of the output of your given model. One would calculate the upper bound of a given (i.e., predefined by you at training time) confidence interval and the other one the lower bound. This would probably include a lot of feature engineering. One would probably like to find features that correlate with the prediction quality of the original model.

Imbalanced Dataset - Binary Classification Python

I am trying to create a binary classification model for imbalance dataset using Random Forest - 0- 84K, 1- 16K. I have tried using class_weights = 'balanced', class_weights = {0:1, 1:5}, downsampling and oversampling but none of these seem to work. My metrics are usually in the below range:
Accuracy = 66%
Precision = 23%
Recall = 44%
I would really appreciate any help on this! Thanks

there are lots of ways to improve classifier behavior. If you think your data are balanced (or rather, your weight method balances them enough), then consider expanding your forest, either with deeper trees or more numerous trees.
Try other methods like SVM, or ANN, and see how they compare.

Try Stratified sampling for the dataset so that you can get the constant ration being taken in account for both the test and the training dataset. And then use the class weight balanced which you have already used. If you want the accuraccy improved there are tons other ways.
1) First be sure that the dataset being provided is accurate or verified.
2) You can increase the accuracy by playing with threshold of the probability (if in binary classification if its >0.7 confident then do a prediction else wise don't , the draw back in this approach would be NULL values or mostly being not predicting as algorithm is not confident enough, but for a business model its a good approach because people prefer less False Negatives in their model.
3) Use Stratified Sampling to equally divide the training and the testing dataset, so that constant ration is being divided. rather than train_test_splitting : stratified sampling will return you the indexes for training and testing . You can play with the (cross_validation : different iteration)
4) For the confusion matrix, have a look at the precision score per class and see which class is showing more( I believe if you apply threshold limitation it would solve the problem for this.
5) Try other classifiers , Logistic, SVM(linear or with other kernel) : LinearSVC or SVC , NaiveBayes. As per seen in most cases of Binary classification Logistc and SVC seems to be performing ahead of other algorithms. Although try these approach first.
6) Make sure to check the best parameters for the fitting such as choice of Hyper Parameters (using Gridsearch with couple of learning rates or different kernels or class weights or other parameters). If its textual classification are you applying CountVectorizer with TFIDF (and have you played with max_df and stop_words removal) ?
If you have tried these, then possibly be sure about the algorithm first.

how to predict binary outcome with categorical and continuous features using scikit-learn?

I need advice choosing a model and machine learning algorithm for a classification problem.
I'm trying to predict a binary outcome for a subject. I have 500,000 records in my data set and 20 continuous and categorical features. Each subject has 10--20 records. The data is labeled with its outcome.
So far I'm thinking logistic regression model and kernel approximation, based on the cheat-sheet here.
I am unsure where to start when implementing this in either R or Python.
Thanks!

Choosing an algorithm and optimizing the parameter is a difficult task in any data mining project. Because it must customized for your data and problem. Try different algorithm like SVM,Random Forest, Logistic Regression, KNN and... and test Cross Validation for each of them and then compare them.
You can use GridSearch in sickit learn to try different parameters and optimize the parameters for each algorithm. also try this project
witch test a range of parameters with genetic algorithm

Features
If your categorical features don't have too many possible different values, you might want to have a look at sklearn.preprocessing.OneHotEncoder.
Model choice
The choice of "the best" model depends mainly on the amount of available training data and the simplicity of the decision boundary you expect to get.
You can try dimensionality reduction to 2 or 3 dimensions. Then you can visualize your data and see if there is a nice decision boundary.
With 500,000 training examples you can think about using a neural network. I can recommend Keras for beginners and TensorFlow for people who know how neural networks work.
You should also know that there are Ensemble methods.
A nice cheat sheet what to use is on in the sklearn tutorial you already found:
(source: scikit-learn.org)
Just try it, compare different results. Without more information it is not possible to give you better advice.

Incremental SVM With Probability Estimates

Is there any implementation of incremental svm which also has the feature of returning the probability of a given feature vector belonging to the various classes? Preferably usable with python code
I have heard about LaSVM. Does LaSVM has a feature of returning probability estimates? Also does it have features for handling imbalance training datasets?

You can have a look in Scikit Learn, a very flexible and efficient library written in Python
In every model, there are stored the internal calculated values. If clf is your SVM classifier, you can access clf.decision_function to see some explanation of the predictions.
It also provides a good set of tools for preprocessing data among other things you can find interesting.
cheers,

For getting probability estimate you can use scikit-learn library. There are 2 alternatives you can use. One gives probabilities. Here is an example: How to know what classes are represented in return array from predict_proba in Scikit-learn
And the other gives signed values for ranking (not probability but generally gives better result): Scikit-learn predict_proba gives wrong answers you should look at the answer.