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.

Setting exact number of iterations for Logistic regression in python

I'm creating a model to perform Logistic regression on a dataset using Python. This is my code:
from sklearn import linear_model
my_classifier2=linear_model.LogisticRegression(solver='lbfgs',max_iter=10000)
Now, according to Sklearn doc page, max_iter is maximum number of iterations taken for the solvers to converge. How do I specifically state that I need 'N' number of iterations ?
Any kind of help would be really appreciated.

I’m not sure, but, Do you want to know the optimal number of iterations for your model? If so, you are better off utilizing GridSearchCV that scan tune hyper parameter like max_iter.
Briefly,
Split your data into two groups: train/test data with train_test_split or KFold that can be imported from sklean
Set your parameter, for instance para=[{‘max_iter’:[1,10,100,100]}]
Instance, for example clf=GridSearchCV(LogisticRegression, param_grid=para, cv=5, scoring=‘r2’)
Implement with using train data like this: clf.fit(x_train, y_train)
You can also fetch the best number of iterations with RandomizedSearchCV or BayesianOptimization.

About the GridSearchCV of the max_iter parameter, the fitted LogisticRegression models have and attribute n_iter_ so you can discover the exact max_iter needed for a given sample size and regarding features:
n_iter_: ndarray of shape (n_classes,) or (1, )
Actual number of iterations for all classes. If binary or multinomial, it
returns only 1 element. For liblinear solver, only the maximum number of
iteration across all classes is given.
Scanning very short intervals, like 1 by 1, is a waste of resources that could be used for more important LogisticRegression fit parameters such as the combination of solver itself, its regularization penalty and the inverse of the regularization strength C which contributes for a faster convergence within a given max_iter.
Setting a very high max_iter could be also a waste of resources if you haven't previously did a minimal feature preprocessing, at least, feature scaling or maybe imputation, outlier clipping and a dimensionality reduction (e.g. PCA).
Things can become worse: a tunned max_iter could be ok for a given sample size but not for a bigger sample size, for instance, if you are developing a cross-validated learning curve, which by the way is imperative for optimal machine learning.
It becomes even worse if you increase a sample size in a pipeline that generates feature vectors such as n-grams (NLP): more rows will generate more (sparse) features for the LogisticRegression classification.
I think it's important to observe if different solvers converges or not on given sample size, generated features and max_iter.
Methods that help a faster convergence which eventually won't demand increasing max_iter are:
Feature scaling
Dimensionality Reduction (e.g. PCA) of scaled features
There's a nice sklearn example demonstrating the importance of feature scaling

Finding label-specific top features for non-linear classifier

Is there any function that gives the top features of each label in a Random Forest/ XG Boost classifier? The classifier.feature_importances_ only gives top features for the classifier as a whole.
Looking for something similar to the classifier.coef_ that gives label-specific top features for SVM and Naive Bayes classifiers in sklearn.

import pandas as pd
feature_importances = pd.DataFrame(rf.feature_importances_,
index = X_train.columns,
columns=['importance']).sort_values('importance',ascending=False)
Try with this!
Or 1 vs Rest is also an good option but take lot of time.

Firstly, Random Forest / Xgboost or even a simple DecisionTree/ any Tree ensemble is a inherent multi-class classification model. Hence it will predict the multi-class output without using any wrapper ( 1 vs 1 / 1 vs Rest) on top of binary classifier (which is what the logistic regression/SVM/SGDClassifier would do).
Hence, you can get the feature importance for the overall multi-class classification alone and not for individual labels.
If you really want to know the feature importance for individual labels, then use onevsRest wrapper with decisionTree/ RandomForest/ Xgboost as the estimator.
This is not the recommended approach because the results could be suboptimal when compared with single decision Tree.
Some examples here.

sklearn: Naive Bayes classifier gives low accuracy

I have a dataset which includes 200000 labelled training examples.
For each training example I have 10 features, including both continuous and discrete.
I'm trying to use sklearn package of python in order to train the model and make predictions but I have some troubles (and some questions too).
First let me write the code which I have written so far:
from sklearn.naive_bayes import GaussianNB
# data contains the 200 000 examples
# targets contain the corresponding labels for each training example
gnb = GaussianNB()
gnb.fit(data, targets)
predicted = gnb.predict(data)
The problem is that I get really low accuracy (too many misclassified labels) - around 20%.
However I am not quite sure whether there is a problem with the data (e.g. more data is needed or something else) or with the code.
Is this the proper way to implement a Naive Bayes classifier given a dataset with both discrete and continuous features?
Furthermore, in Machine Learning we know that the dataset should be split into training and validation/testing sets. Is this automatically performed by sklearn or should I fit the model using the training dataset and then call predict using the validation set?
Any thoughts or suggestions will be much appreciated.

The problem is that I get really low accuracy (too many misclassified labels) - around 20%. However I am not quite sure whether there is a problem with the data (e.g. more data is needed or something else) or with the code.
This is not big error for Naive Bayes, this is extremely simple classifier and you should not expect it to be strong, more data probably won't help. Your gaussian estimators are probably already very good, simply Naive assumptions are the problem. Use stronger model. You can start with Random Forest since it is very easy to use even by non-experts in the field.
Is this the proper way to implement a Naive Bayes classifier given a dataset with both discrete and continuous features?
No, it is not, you should use different distributions in discrete features, however scikit-learn does not support that, you would have to do this manually. As said before - change your model.
Furthermore, in Machine Learning we know that the dataset should be split into training and validation/testing sets. Is this automatically performed by sklearn or should I fit the model using the training dataset and then call predict using the validation set?
Nothing is done automatically in this manner, you need to do this on your own (scikit learn has lots of tools for that - see the cross validation pacakges).

Converting LinearSVC's decision function to probabilities (Scikit learn python )

I use linear SVM from scikit learn (LinearSVC) for binary classification problem. I understand that LinearSVC can give me the predicted labels, and the decision scores but I wanted probability estimates (confidence in the label). I want to continue using LinearSVC because of speed (as compared to sklearn.svm.SVC with linear kernel) Is it reasonable to use a logistic function to convert the decision scores to probabilities?
import sklearn.svm as suppmach
# Fit model:
svmmodel=suppmach.LinearSVC(penalty='l1',C=1)
predicted_test= svmmodel.predict(x_test)
predicted_test_scores= svmmodel.decision_function(x_test)
I want to check if it makes sense to obtain Probability estimates simply as [1 / (1 + exp(-x)) ] where x is the decision score.
Alternately, are there other options wrt classifiers that I can use to do this efficiently?
Thanks.

scikit-learn provides CalibratedClassifierCV which can be used to solve this problem: it allows to add probability output to LinearSVC or any other classifier which implements decision_function method:
svm = LinearSVC()
clf = CalibratedClassifierCV(svm)
clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_proba = clf.predict_proba(X_test)
User guide has a nice section on that. By default CalibratedClassifierCV+LinearSVC will get you Platt scaling, but it also provides other options (isotonic regression method), and it is not limited to SVM classifiers.

I took a look at the apis in sklearn.svm.* family. All below models, e.g.,
sklearn.svm.SVC
sklearn.svm.NuSVC
sklearn.svm.SVR
sklearn.svm.NuSVR
have a common interface that supplies a
probability: boolean, optional (default=False)
parameter to the model. If this parameter is set to True, libsvm will train a probability transformation model on top of the SVM's outputs based on idea of Platt Scaling. The form of transformation is similar to a logistic function as you pointed out, however two specific constants A and B are learned in a post-processing step. Also see this stackoverflow post for more details.
I actually don't know why this post-processing is not available for LinearSVC. Otherwise, you would just call predict_proba(X) to get the probability estimate.
Of course, if you just apply a naive logistic transform, it will not perform as well as a calibrated approach like Platt Scaling. If you can understand the underline algorithm of platt scaling, probably you can write your own or contribute to the scikit-learn svm family. :) Also feel free to use the above four SVM variations that support predict_proba.

If you want speed, then just replace the SVM with sklearn.linear_model.LogisticRegression. That uses the exact same training algorithm as LinearSVC, but with log-loss instead of hinge loss.
Using [1 / (1 + exp(-x))] will produce probabilities, in a formal sense (numbers between zero and one), but they won't adhere to any justifiable probability model.

If what your really want is a measure of confidence rather than actual probabilities, you can use the method LinearSVC.decision_function(). See the documentation.

Just as an extension for binary classification with SVMs: You could also take a look at SGDClassifier which performs a gradient Descent with a SVM by default. For estimation of the binary-probabilities it uses the modified huber loss by
(clip(decision_function(X), -1, 1) + 1) / 2)
An example would look like:
from sklearn.linear_model import SGDClassifier
svm = SGDClassifier(loss="modified_huber")
svm.fit(X_train, y_train)
proba = svm.predict_proba(X_test)