I'm using e1071 svm function to classify my data.
I tried two different ways to LOOCV.
First one is like that,
svm.model <- svm(mem ~ ., data, kernel = "sigmoid", cost = 7, gamma = 0.009, cross = subSize)
svm.pred = data$mem
svm.pred[which(svm.model$accuracies==0 & svm.pred=='good')]=NA
svm.pred[which(svm.model$accuracies==0 & svm.pred=='bad')]='good'
svm.pred[is.na(svm.pred)]='bad'
conMAT <- table(pred = svm.pred, true = data$mem)
summary(svm.model)
I typed cross='subject number' to make LOOCV, but the result of classification is different from my manual version of LOOCV, which is like...
for (i in 1:subSize){
data_Tst <- data[i,1:dSize]
data_Trn <- data[-i,1:dSize]
svm.model1 <- svm(mem ~ ., data = data_Trn, kernel = "linear", cost = 2, gamma = 0.02)
svm.pred1 <- predict(svm.model1, data_Tst[,-dSize])
conMAT <- table(pred = svm.pred1, true = data_Tst[,dSize])
CMAT <- CMAT + conMAT
CORR[i] <- sum(diag(conMAT))
}
In my opinion, through LOOCV, accuracy should not vary across many runs of code because SVM makes model with all the data except one and does it until the end of the loop. However, with the svm function with argument 'cross' input, the accuracy differs across every runs of code.
Which way is more accurate? Thanks for read this post! :-)
You are using different hyper-parameters (cost, gamma) and different kernels (linear, sigmoid). If you want identical results, then these should be the same each run.
Also, it depends how Leave One Out (LOO) is implemented:
Does your LOO method leave one out randomly or as a sliding window over the dataset?
Does your LOO method leave one out from one class at a time or both classes at the same time?
Is the training set always the same, or are you using a randomisation procedure before splitting between a training and testing set (assuming you have a separate independent testing set)? In which case, the examples you are cross-validating would change each run.
Related
I am new to R and Elastic-Net Regression Model. I am running Elastic-Net Regression Model on the default dataset, titanic. I am trying to obtain the Alpha and Lambda values after running the train function. However when I run the train function, the output keeps on lagging and I had to wait for the output but there is no output at all. it is empty.... I am trying Tuning Parameters.
data(Titanic)
example<- as.data.frame(Titanic)
example['Country'] <- NA
countryunique <- array(c("Africa","USA","Japan","Australia","Sweden","UK","France"))
new_country <- c()
#Perform looping through the column, TLD
for(loopitem in example$Country)
{
#Perform random selection of an array, countryunique
loopitem <- sample(countryunique, 1)
#Load the new value to the vector
new_country<- c(new_country,loopitem)
}
#Override the Country column with new data
example$Country<- new_country
example$Class<- as.factor(example$Class)
example$Sex<- as.factor(example$Sex)
example$Age<- as.factor(example$Age)
example$Survived<- as.factor(example$Survived)
example$Country<- as.factor(example$Country)
example$Freq<- as.numeric(example$Freq)
set.seed(12345678)
trainRowNum <- createDataPartition(example$Survived, #The outcome variable
#proportion of example to form the training set
p=0.3,
#Don't store the result in a list
list=FALSE);
# Step 2: Create the training mydataset
trainData <- example[trainRowNum,]
# Step 3: Create the test mydataset
testData <- example[-trainRowNum,]
alphas <- seq(0.1,0.9,by=0.1);
lambdas <- 10^seq(-3,3,length=100)
#Logistic Elastic-Net Regression
en <- train(Survived~. ,
data = trainData,
method = "glmnet",
preProcess = NULL,
trControl = trainControl("repeatedcv",
number = 10,
repeats = 5),
tuneGrid = expand.grid(alpha = alphas,
lambda = lambdas)
)
Could you please kindly advise on what values are recommended to assign to Alpha and lambda?
Thank you
I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Your code runs fine for me. If I look at the en object it says:
Accuracy was used to select the optimal model using the
largest value.
The final values used for the model were alpha = 0.1 and lambda
= 0.1.
It didn't take long to run for me. Do you have a lot stored in your R session memory that could be slowing down your system and causing it to lag? Maybe try re-starting RStudio and running the above code from scratch.
To see the full results table with Accuracy for all combinations of Alpha and Lambda, look at en$results
As a side-note, you can easily carry out cross-validation directly in the glmnet package, using the cv.glmnet function. A helper package called glmnetUtils is also available, that lets you select the optimal Alpha and Lambda values simultaneously using the cva.glmnet function. This allows for parallelisation, so may be quicker than doing the cross-validation via caret.
I am a plant scientist new to machine learning. I have had success writing code and following tutorials of machine learning techniques. My issue is trying to understand how to actually apply these techniques to answer real world questions. I don't really understand how to use the model outputs to answer questions.
I recently followed a tutorial creating an algorithm to detect credit card fraud. All of the models ran nicely and I understand how to build them; but, how in the world do I take this information and translate it into a definitive answer? Following the same example, lets say I wrote this code for my job how would I then take real credit card data and screen it using this algorithm? I really want to establish a link between running these models and generating a useful output from real data.
Thank you all.
In the name of being concise I will highlight some specific examples using the same data set found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CTAlmlREFRaEN3NoHHitewpqAtWS5cVQ/view
# Import
creditcard_data <- read_csv('PATH')
# Restructure
creditcard_data$Amount=scale(creditcard_data$Amount)
NewData=creditcard_data[,-c(1)]
head(NewData)
#Split
library(caTools)
set.seed(123)
data_sample = sample.split(NewData$Class,SplitRatio=0.80)
train_data = subset(NewData,data_sample==TRUE)
test_data = subset(NewData,data_sample==FALSE)
1) Decision Tree
library(rpart)
library(rpart.plot)
decisionTree_model <- rpart(Class ~ . , creditcard_data, method = 'class')
predicted_val <- predict(decisionTree_model, creditcard_data, type = 'class')
probability <- predict(decisionTree_model, creditcard_data, type = 'prob')
rpart.plot(decisionTree_model)
2) Artificial Neural Network
library(neuralnet)
ANN_model =neuralnet (Class~.,train_data,linear.output=FALSE)
plot(ANN_model)
predANN=compute(ANN_model,test_data)
resultANN=predANN$net.result
resultANN=ifelse(resultANN>0.5,1,0)
3) Gradient Boosting
library(gbm, quietly=TRUE)
# train GBM model
system.time(
model_gbm <- gbm(Class ~ .
, distribution = "bernoulli"
, data = rbind(train_data, test_data)
, n.trees = 100
, interaction.depth = 2
, n.minobsinnode = 10
, shrinkage = 0.01
, bag.fraction = 0.5
, train.fraction = nrow(train_data) / (nrow(train_data) + nrow(test_data))
)
)
# best iteration
gbm.iter = gbm.perf(model_gbm, method = "test")
model.influence = relative.influence(model_gbm, n.trees = gbm.iter, sort. = TRUE)
# plot
plot(model_gbm)
# plot
gbm_test = predict(model_gbm, newdata = test_data, n.trees = gbm.iter)
gbm_auc = roc(test_data$Class, gbm_test, plot = TRUE, col = "red")
print(gbm_auc)
You develop your model with, preferably, three data sets.
Training, Testing and Validation. (Sometimes different terminology is used.)
Here, Train and Test sets are used to develop the model.
The model you decide upon must never see any of the Validation set. This set is used to see how good your model is, in effect it would simulate real-world new data that may come to you in the future. Once you decide your model does perform to an acceptable level you can then go back to running all your data to produce the final operational model. Then any new 'live' data of interest is fed to the model and produces an output. In the case of the fraud detection it would output some probability: here you need human input to decide at what level you would flag the event as fraudulent enough to warrant further investigation.
At periodic intervals or as you data arrives or your model performance weakens (fraudsters may become more cunning!) you would repeat the whole process.
I have defined my training and test sets as follows:
colon_samp <-sample(62,40)
colon_train <- colon_data[colon_samp,]
colon_test <- colon_data[-colon_samp,]
And the KNN function:
knn_colon <- knn(train = colon_train[1:12533], test = colon_test[1:12533], cl = colon_train$class, k=2)
Here is my LOOCV loop for KNN:
newColon_train <- data.frame(colon_train, id=1:nrow(colon_train))
id <- unique(newColon_train$id)
loo_colonKNN <- NULL
for(i in id){
knn_colon <- knn(train = newColon_train[newColon_train$id!=i,], test = newColon_train[newColon_train$id==i,],cl = newColon_train[newColon_train$id!=i,]$Y)
loo_colonKNN[[i]] <- knn_colon
}
print(loo_colonKNN)
When I print loo_colonKNNit gives me 40 predictions (i.e. the 40 train set predictions), however, I would like it to give me the 62 predictions (all of my n samples in the original dataset). How might I go about doing this?
Thank you.
You would simply call the knn function again, using a different test parameter:
[...]
knn_colon2 <- knn(train = newColon_train[newColon_train$id!=i,],
test = newColon_test[newColon_test$id==i,],
cl = newColon_train[newColon_train$id!=i,]$Y)
This is caused by KNN being an non-parametric, instance based model: the data itself is the model, hence "training" is just holding the data for "later" prediction and does not require any computationally intensive model fitting procedure. Consequently it is unproblematic to call the training procedure multiple times to apply it to multiple test sets.
But be aware that the idea of CV is to only evaluate on the left partition each time, so looking at all samples is probably not what you want to do. And, instead of coding this yourself, you might be better off using e.g. the knn.cv function or the caret framework instead, which provides APIs for partitioning, resampling, etc. all in one, therefore is pretty convenient in such tasks.
The xgboost package allows to build a random forest (in fact, it chooses a random subset of columns to choose a variable for a split for the whole tree, not for a nod, as it is in a classical version of the algorithm, but it can be tolerated). But it seems that for regression only one tree from the forest (maybe, the last one built) is used.
To ensure that, consider just a standard toy example.
library(xgboost)
library(randomForest)
data(agaricus.train, package = 'xgboost')
dtrain = xgb.DMatrix(agaricus.train$data,
label = agaricus.train$label)
bst = xgb.train(data = dtrain,
nround = 1,
subsample = 0.8,
colsample_bytree = 0.5,
num_parallel_tree = 100,
verbose = 2,
max_depth = 12)
answer1 = predict(bst, dtrain);
(answer1 - agaricus.train$label) %*% (answer1 - agaricus.train$label)
forest = randomForest(x = as.matrix(agaricus.train$data), y = agaricus.train$label, ntree = 50)
answer2 = predict(forest, as.matrix(agaricus.train$data))
(answer2 - agaricus.train$label) %*% (answer2 - agaricus.train$label)
Yes, of course, the default version of the xgboost random forest uses not a Gini score function but just the MSE; it can be changed easily. Also it is not correct to do such a validation and so on, so on. It does not affect a main problem. Regardless of which sets of parameters are being tried results are suprisingly bad compared with the randomForest implementation. This holds for another data sets as well.
Could anybody provide a hint on such strange behaviour? When it comes to the classification task the algorithm does work as expected.
#
Well, all trees are grown and all are used to make a prediction. You may check that using the parameter 'ntreelimit' for the 'predict' function.
The main problem remains: is the specific form of the Random Forest algorithm that is produced by the xgbbost package valid?
Cross-validation, parameter tunning and other crap have nothing to do with that -- every one may add necessary corrections to the code and see what happens.
You may specify the 'objective' option like this:
mse = function(predict, dtrain)
{
real = getinfo(dtrain, 'label')
return(list(grad = 2 * (predict - real),
hess = rep(2, length(real))))
}
This provides that you use the MSE when choosing a variable for the split. Even after that, results are suprisingly bad compared to those of randomForest.
Maybe, the problem is of academical nature and concerns the way how a random subset of features to make a split is chosen. The classical implementation chooses a subset of features (the size is specified with 'mtry' for the randomForest package) for EVERY split separately and the xgboost implementation chooses one subset for a tree (specified with 'colsample_bytree').
So this fine difference appears to be of great importance, at least for some types of datasets. It is interesting, indeed.
xgboost(random forest style) does use more than one tree to predict. But there are many other differences to explore.
I myself am new to xgboost, but curious. So I wrote the code below to visualize the trees. You can run the code yourself to verify or explore other differences.
Your data set of choice is a classification problem as labels are either 0 or 1. I like to switch to a simple regression problem to visualize what xgboost does.
true model: $y = x_1 * x_2$ + noise
If you train a single tree or multiple tree, with the code examples below you observe that the learned model structure does contain more trees. You cannot argue alone from the prediction accuracy how many trees are trained.
Maybe the predictions are different because the implementations are different. None of the ~5 RF implementations I know of are exactly alike, and this xgboost(rf style) is as closest a distant "cousin".
I observe the colsample_bytree is not equal to mtry, as the former uses the same subset of variable/columns for the entire tree. My regression problem is one big interaction only, which cannot be learned if trees only uses either x1 or x2. Thus in this case colsample_bytree must be set to 1 to use both variables in all trees. Regular RF could model this problem with mtry=1, as each node would use either X1 or X2
I see your randomForest predictions are not out-of-bag cross-validated. If drawing any conclusions on predictions you must cross-validate, especially for fully grown trees.
NB You need to fix the function vec.plot as does not support xgboost out of the box, because xgboost out of some other box do not take data.frame as an valid input. The instruction in the code should be clear
library(xgboost)
library(rgl)
library(forestFloor)
Data = data.frame(replicate(2,rnorm(5000)))
Data$y = Data$X1*Data$X2 + rnorm(5000)*.5
gradientByTarget =fcol(Data,3)
plot3d(Data,col=gradientByTarget) #true data structure
fix(vec.plot) #change these two line in the function, as xgboost do not support data.frame
#16# yhat.vec = predict(model, as.matrix(Xtest.vec))
#21# yhat.obs = predict(model, as.matrix(Xtest.obs))
#1 single deep tree
xgb.model = xgboost(data = as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),label=Data$y,
nrounds=1,params = list(max.depth=250))
vec.plot(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),1:2,col=gradientByTarget,grid=200)
plot(Data$y,predict(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2])),col=gradientByTarget)
#clearly just one tree
#100 trees (gbm boosting)
xgb.model = xgboost(data = as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),label=Data$y,
nrounds=100,params = list(max.depth=16,eta=.5,subsample=.6))
vec.plot(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),1:2,col=gradientByTarget)
plot(Data$y,predict(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2])),col=gradientByTarget) ##predictions are not OOB cross-validated!
#20 shallow trees (bagging)
xgb.model = xgboost(data = as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),label=Data$y,
nrounds=1,params = list(max.depth=250,
num_parallel_tree=20,colsample_bytree = .5, subsample = .5))
vec.plot(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),1:2,col=gradientByTarget) #bagged mix of trees
plot(Data$y,predict(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2]))) #terrible fit!!
#problem, colsample_bytree is NOT mtry as columns are only sampled once
# (this could be raised as an issue on their github page, that this does not mimic RF)
#20 deep tree (bagging), no column limitation
xgb.model = xgboost(data = as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),label=Data$y,
nrounds=1,params = list(max.depth=500,
num_parallel_tree=200,colsample_bytree = 1, subsample = .5))
vec.plot(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2]),1:2,col=gradientByTarget) #boosted mix of trees
plot(Data$y,predict(xgb.model,as.matrix(Data[,1:2])))
#voila model can fit data
Here is an example of my problem
library(RWeka)
iris <- read.arff("iris.arff")
Perform nfolds to obtain the proper accuracy of the classifier.
m<-J48(class~., data=iris)
e<-evaluate_Weka_classifier(m,numFolds = 5)
summary(e)
The results provided here are obtained by building the model with a part of the dataset and testing it with another part, therefore provides accurate precision
Now I Perform AdaBoost to optimize the parameters of the classifier
m2 <- AdaBoostM1(class ~. , data = temp ,control = Weka_control(W = list(J48, M = 30)))
summary(m2)
The results provided here are obtained by using the same dataset for building the model and also the same ones used for evaluating it, therefore the accuracy is not representative of real life precision in which we use other instances to be evaluated by the model. Nevertheless this procedure is helpful for optimizing the model that is built.
The main problem is that I can not optimize the model built, and at the same time test it with data that was not used to build the model, or just use a nfold validation method to obtain the proper accuracy.
I guess you misinterprete the function of evaluate_Weka_classifier. In both cases, evaluate_Weka_classifier does only the cross-validation based on the training data. It doesn't change the model itself. Compare the confusion matrices of following code:
m<-J48(Species~., data=iris)
e<-evaluate_Weka_classifier(m,numFolds = 5)
summary(m)
e
m2 <- AdaBoostM1(Species ~. , data = iris ,
control = Weka_control(W = list(J48, M = 30)))
e2 <- evaluate_Weka_classifier(m2,numFolds = 5)
summary(m2)
e2
In both cases, the summary gives you the evaluation based on the training data, while the function evaluate_Weka_classifier() gives you the correct crossvalidation. Neither for J48 nor for AdaBoostM1 the model itself gets updated based on the crossvalidation.
Now regarding the AdaBoost algorithm itself : In fact, it does use some kind of "weighted crossvalidation" to come to the final classifier. Wrongly classified items are given more weight in the next building step, but the evaluation is done using equal weight for all observations. So using crossvalidation to optimize the result doesn't really fit into the general idea behind the adaptive boosting algorithm.
If you want a true crossvalidation using a training set and a evaluation set, you could do the following :
id <- sample(1:length(iris$Species),length(iris$Species)*0.5)
m3 <- AdaBoostM1(Species ~. , data = iris[id,] ,
control = Weka_control(W = list(J48, M=5)))
e3 <- evaluate_Weka_classifier(m3,numFolds = 5)
# true crossvalidation
e4 <- evaluate_Weka_classifier(m3,newdata=iris[-id,])
summary(m3)
e3
e4
If you want a model that gets updated based on a crossvalidation, you'll have to go to a different algorithm, eg randomForest() from the randomForest package. That collects a set of optimal trees based on crossvalidation. It can be used in combination with the RWeka package as well.
edit : corrected code for a true crossvalidation. Using the subset argument has effect in the evaluate_Weka_classifier() as well.