Is it possible to fit a scikit-learn model in parallel? Something along the lines of
model.fit(X, y, n_jobs=20)
It really depends on the model you are trying to fit. Usually it will have an n_jobs parameter when you initialize the model. See glossary on n_jobs. For example random forest:
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
clf = RandomForestClassifier(n_jobs=10)
If it is an ensemble method, it makes sense to parallelize because you can fit models separately (see help page for ensemble methods). LogisticRegression() also has an n_job option but I honestly don't know how much this speeds up the fitting process, if that's your bottle neck. See also this post
Other methods like elastic net, linear regression or SVM, i don't think there's a parallelization option.
Related
I have question about this tutorial.
The author is doing hyper parameter tuning. The first window shows different values of hyperparameters
Then he initializes gridsearchcv and mentions cv=3 and scoring='roc_auc'
then he fits gridsearchcv and uses eval_set and eval_metric='auc'
what is the purpose using cv and eval_set both? shouldn't we use just one of them? how they are used along with scoring='roc_auc' and eval_metric='auc'
is there a better way to do hyper parameter tuning using gridsearchcv? please suggest or provide a link
GridSearchCV performs cv for hyperparameter tuning using only training data. Since refit=True by default, the best fit is then validated on the eval set provided (a true test score).
You can use any metric to perform cv and testing. However, it would be odd to use a different metric for cv hyperparameter optimization and testing phases. So, the same metric is used. If you are wondering about the slightly different metric naming, I think it's just because xgboost is a sklearn-interface-compliant package, but it's not being developed by the same guys from sklearn. They should do both the same thing (area under the curve of receiving operator for predictions). Take a look at the sklearn docs: auc and roc_auc.
I don't think there is a better way.
I do a machine learning model training with pipelines, K-fold cross validation with Python and sklearn on a subset of my all historical data (omitting a test set), along the following:
pipeline = Pipeline([("combiner", PolynomialFeatures()),
("dimred", PCA()),
("classifier", RandomForestClassifier())])
parameters = [...]
CV = GridSearchCV(pipeline, parameters, cv=5, scoring="f1_weighted", refit=True, n_jobs=-1)
CV.fit(train_X, train_y)
So far, so good. However, at the end, I want to retrain the winning pipeline hyperparameter combination on my full X and y, without any cross validation. How could I have this? Simply applying CV.fit(X, y) again would re-doing the whole alternating process with CV, which is obviously unnecessary. I could also parse CV.get_params() for the best combination hyperparameters and build up the pipeline again accordingly, but this somehow seems clumsy and unprofessional...
The answer to your question is in the GridSearchCV documentation. See the Attributes section: best_estimator_ is where the best model is stored, so you can access it from there after you are done with fitting. You can use it by directly calling `CV.best_estimatory_', you can make a new reference to it or pickle it for later using joblib, ie.:
import joblib
joblib.dump(CV.best_estimator_, 'my_pipeline.pkl')
Later you can load your model for further work:
import joblib
my_pipeline = joblib.load('my_pipeline.pkl')
If you do not need the model, but only its hyperparameters you can access those from the best_params_ attribute, ie.:
CV.best_params_
which is a dictionary the best settings that you can use to construct a new pipeline.
Do you know if models from scikit-learn use automatically multithreading or just sequential instructions?
Thanks
No. All scikit-learn estimators will by default work on a single thread only.
But then again, it all depends on the algorithm and the problem. If the algorithm is such that which want sequential data, we cannot do anything. If the dataset is multi-class or multi-label and algorithm works on a one-vs-rest basis, then yes it can use multi-threading.
Look for a param n_jobs in the utilities or algorithm you want to use, and set it to -1 for using the multi-threading.
For eg.
LogisticRegression if working in a binary problem will only train a single model, which will require data sequentially, so here using n_jobs have no effect. But it handles multi-class problems as OvR, so it will have to train those many estimators using the same data. In this case you can use the n_jobs=-1.
DecisionTreeClassifier is inherently multi-class enabled and dont need to train multiple models. So we dont have that param there.
Ensemble methods like RandomForestClassifier will train multiple estimators (irrespective of problem type) which individually work on some part of data, so here again we can make use of n_jobs.
Cross-validation utilities like cross_val_score or GridSearchCV will again work on some part of data or some individual parameters, which is independent of other folds, so here also we can use multi-threading capabilities.
So, I need to use some of the estimators in scikit-learn, namely LogisticRegression and SVM, but I have a problem, I have an extremely unbalanced dataset and need to run Kfold cross validation. The thing is sometimes the fold I am fitting can have only one target class of the available ones. I wanted to know if there's any way with these estimators to predefine the number of classes, maybe something like passing them a one-hot encoding representations of the target where it doesn't matter if all the examples are from one class, the shape of the target matrix will define the number of classes already.
Is there any way to do this with scikit-learn? Maybe with another library? I know those two algorithms use liblinear, maybe there's some interface I can use in that case.
Any way, thank you for your time.
EDIT: StratifiedFold cross validation is not useful for me because sometimes I have less amount of occurrences than the number of folds. E.g. it can happen that I have a dataset with 50 instances and 3 classes, but 46 can be of one class, 2 of a second class and 2 of a third class and though I can go for 3 fold cross validation I would generally need results of more folds than that, plus even with 3 folds still leaves open the case where one class is the only available for one fold.
The comment that said you need to gather more data may be right. However if you believe you have enough data for your model to learn something useful, you can over sample your minority classes (or possibly under sample the majority classes, but this sounds like a problem for over sampling). Having only one class in the data set makes it pretty much impossible for your model to learn anything about that class.
Here are some links to over sampling and under sampling libraries in python. The famous imbalanced-learn library is great.
https://imbalanced-learn.org/en/stable/generated/imblearn.under_sampling.RandomUnderSampler.html
https://imbalanced-learn.org/en/stable/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.RandomOverSampler.html
https://imbalanced-learn.readthedocs.io/en/stable/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTE.html
https://imbalanced-learn.readthedocs.io/en/stable/auto_examples/over-sampling/plot_comparison_over_sampling.html#sphx-glr-auto-examples-over-sampling-plot-comparison-over-sampling-py
https://imbalanced-learn.org/en/stable/combine.html
Your case sounds like a good candidate for SMOTE. You also mentioned you wanted to change the ratio. There is a parameter in imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTE called ratio, where you would pass a dictionary. You can also do it with percentages (see the documentation).
SMOTE uses the K-Nearest-Neighbors algorithm to make "similar" data points to those under sampled ones. This is a more powerful algorithm than traditional over-sampling because then when your model gets the training data it helps avoid the issue where your model is memorizing key points of specific examples. Instead, smote creates a "similar" data point (likely in a multi-dimensional space) so your model can learn to generalize better.
NOTE: It is vital that you do not use SMOTE on the full data set. You MUST use SMOTE on the training set only (i.e. after you split), and then validate on the validation set and test sets to see if your SMOTE model out performed your other model(s). If you do not do this, there will be data leakage and you will get a model that doesn't even closely resemble what you want.
from collections import Counter
from imblearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from imblearn.over_sampling import SMOTE
import numpy as np
from xgboost import XGBClassifier
import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings(action='ignore', category=DeprecationWarning)
sm = SMOTE(random_state=0, n_jobs=8, ratio={'class1':100, 'class2':100, 'class3':80, 'class4':60, 'class5':90})
X_resampled, y_resampled = sm.fit_sample(X_normalized, y)
print('Original dataset shape:', Counter(y))
print('Resampled dataset shape:', Counter(y_resampled))
X_train_smote, X_test_smote, y_train_smote, y_test_smote = train_test_split(X_resampled, y_resampled)
X_train_smote.shape, X_test_smote.shape, y_train_smote.shape, y_test_smote.shape, X_resampled.shape, y_resampled.shape
smote_xgbc = XGBClassifier(n_jobs=8).fit(X_train_smote, y_train_smote)
print('TRAIN')
print(accuracy_score(smote_xgbc.predict(np.array(X_train_normalized)), y_train))
print(f1_score(smote_xgbc.predict(np.array(X_train_normalized)), y_train))
print('TEST')
print(accuracy_score(smote_xgbc.predict(np.array(X_test_normalized)), y_test))
print(f1_score(smote_xgbc.predict(np.array(X_test_normalized)), y_test))
I'm using scikit-learn in my Python program in order to perform some machine-learning operations. The problem is that my data-set has severe imbalance issues.
Is anyone familiar with a solution for imbalance in scikit-learn or in python in general? In Java there's the SMOTE mechanizm. Is there something parallel in python?
There is a new one here
https://github.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn
It contains many algorithms in the following categories, including SMOTE
Under-sampling the majority class(es).
Over-sampling the minority class.
Combining over- and under-sampling.
Create ensemble balanced sets.
In Scikit learn there are some imbalance correction techniques, which vary according with which learning algorithm are you using.
Some one of them, like Svm or logistic regression, have the class_weight parameter. If you instantiate an SVC with this parameter set on 'balanced', it will weight each class example proportionally to the inverse of its frequency.
Unfortunately, there isn't a preprocessor tool with this purpose.
I found one other library here which implements undersampling and also multiple oversampling techniques including multiple SMOTE implementations and another which uses SVM:
A Python Package to Tackle the Curse of Imbalanced Datasets in Machine Learning
Since others have listed links to the very popular imbalanced-learn library I'll give an overview about how to properly use it along with some links.
https://imbalanced-learn.org/en/stable/generated/imblearn.under_sampling.RandomUnderSampler.html
https://imbalanced-learn.org/en/stable/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.RandomOverSampler.html
https://imbalanced-learn.readthedocs.io/en/stable/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTE.html
https://imbalanced-learn.readthedocs.io/en/stable/auto_examples/over-sampling/plot_comparison_over_sampling.html#sphx-glr-auto-examples-over-sampling-plot-comparison-over-sampling-py
https://imbalanced-learn.org/en/stable/combine.html
Some common over-sampling and under-sampling techniques in imbalanced-learn are imblearn.over_sampling.RandomOverSampler, imblearn.under_sampling.RandomUnderSampler, and imblearn.SMOTE. For these libraries there is a nice parameter that allows the user to change the sampling ratio.
For example, in SMOTE, to change the ratio you would input a dictionary, and all values must be greater than or equal to the largest class (since SMOTE is an over-sampling technique). The reason I have found SMOTE to be a better fit for model performance is probably because with RandomOverSampler you are duplicating rows, which means the model can start to memorize the data rather than generalize to new data. SMOTE uses the K-Nearest-Neighbors algorithm to make "similar" data points to those under sampled ones.
It is not good practice to blindly use SMOTE, setting the ratio to it's default (even class balance) because the model may overfit one or more of the minority classes (even though SMOTE is using nearest neighbors to make "similar" observations). In a similar way that you tune hyperparameters of a ML model you will tune the hyperparameters of the SMOTE algorithm, such as the ratio and/or knn. Below is a working example of how to properly use SMOTE.
NOTE: It is vital that you do not use SMOTE on the full data set. You MUST use SMOTE on the training set only (after you split). Then validate on your val/test sets and see if your SMOTE model out performed your other model(s). If you do not do this there will be data leakage and your model is essentially cheating.
from collections import Counter
from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler
from imblearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from imblearn.over_sampling import SMOTE
import numpy as np
from xgboost import XGBClassifier
import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings(action='ignore', category=DeprecationWarning)
sm = SMOTE(random_state=0, n_jobs=8, ratio={'class1':100, 'class2':100, 'class3':80, 'class4':60, 'class5':90})
### Train test split
X_train, X_val, y_train, y_val = train_test_split(X, y)
### Scale the data before applying SMOTE
scaler = MinMaxScaler().fit(X_train)
X_train_scaled = scaler.transform(X_train)
X_val_scaled = scaler.transform(X_val)
### Resample X_train_scaled
X_train_resampled, y_train_resampled = sm.fit_sample(X_train_scaled, y_train)
print('Original dataset shape:', Counter(y_train))
print('Resampled dataset shape:', Counter(y_train_resampled))
### Train a model
xgbc_smote = XGBClassifier(n_jobs=8).fit(X_train_smote, y_train_smote,
eval_set = [(X_val_scaled, y_val)],
early_stopping_rounds=10)
### Evaluate the model
print('\ntrain\n')
print(accuracy_score(xgbc_smote.predict(np.array(X_train_scaled)), y_train))
print(f1_score(xgbc_smote.predict(np.array(X_train_scaled)), y_train))
print('\nval\n')
print(accuracy_score(xgbc_smote.predict(np.array(X_val_scaled)), y_val))
print(f1_score(xgbc_smote.predict(np.array(X_val_scaled)), y_val))
SMOTE is not a builtin in scikit-learn, but there are implementations available online nevertheless.
Edit: The discussion with a SMOTE implementation on GMane that I originally
linked to, appears to be no longer available. The code is preserved here.
The newer answer below, by #nos, is also quite good.