YOLOv6 does not provide support for mAP, Precision, recall, confusion matrix like YOLOv5. For where can I get the graph for the following
Related
I am solving a regression problem, and I've set aside a cv data set on which I evaluate my models.
I can easily evaluate my NN network as TensorFlow evaluate() method gives me the sum of all squared errors.
However, xgb provides me with a function - score() that returns me a number - 0.7
Firstly, how should I interpret this number?
Secondly, how can I make xgb return a measure of the model that I can interpret?
Firstly, how should I interpret this number?
From the official doc, this number represents the coefficient of determination. It is the proportion of variance of your dependent variable (y) explained by the independent variable (x). Thus, the closer it is to 1, the better your regression line fits the data and the better your model is.
Secondly, how can I make xgb return a measure of the model that I can interpret?
You can use the predict method from the model and then calculate any measure you want. For example, if you want the sum of squared errors as Tensorflow does :
import xgboost as xgb
model = xgb.XGBRegressor()
model.fit(x_train, y_train)
predictions = model.predict(x_test)
ssr = ((predictions - y_test)**2).sum()
Is there a scikit learn function which can perform cross validation on my dataset and output not just the overall, precision, recall and f-score but all the precision, recall and f-score for each class label.
These two links may something you are looking for.
Confusion matrix & f1_score
I have some questions about metrics if I do some training or evaluation on my own dataset. I am still new to this topic and just experimented with tensorflow and googles object detection api and tensorboard...
So I did all this stuff to get things up and running with the object detection api and trained on some images and did some eval on other images.
So I decided to use the weighted PASCAL metrics set for evaluation:
And in tensorboard I get some IoU for every class and also mAP and thats fine to see and now comes the questions.
The IoU gives me the value of how well the overlapping of ground-truth and predictes boxes is and measures the accuracy of my object detector.
First Question: Is there a influencing to IoU if a object with ground-truth is not detected?
Second Question: Is there a influencing of IoU if a ground-truth object is predicted false negativ?
Third Question: What about False Positves where are no ground-truth objects?
Coding Questions:
Fourth Question: Has anyone modified the evaluation workflow from the object detection API to bring in more metrics like accuracy or TP/FP/TN/FN? And if so can provide me some code with explanation or a tutorial you used - that would be awesome!
Fifth Question: If I will monitor some overfitting and take 30% of my 70% traindata and do some evaluation, which parameter shows me that there is some overfitting on my dataset?
Maybe those question are newbie questions or I just have to read and understand more - I dont know - so your help to understand more is appreciated!!
Thanks
Let's start with defining precision with respect to a particular object class: its a proportion of good predictions to all predictions of that class, i.e., its TP / (TP + FP). E.g., if you have dog, cat and bird detector, the dog-precision would be number of correctly marked dogs over all predictions marked as dog (i.e., including false detections).
To calculate the precision, you need to decide if each detected box is TP or FP. To do this you may use IuO measure, i.e., if there is significant (e.g., 50% *) overlap of the detected box with some ground truth box, its TP if both boxes are of the same class, otherwise its FP (if the detection is not matched to any box its also FP).
* thats where the #0.5IUO shortcut comes from, you may have spotted it in the Tensorboard in titles of the graphs with PASCAL metrics.
If the estimator outputs some quality measure (or even probability), you may decide to drop all detections with quality below some threshold. Usually, the estimators are trained to output value between 0 and 1. By changing the threshold you may tune the recall metric of your estimator (the proportion of correctly discovered objects). Lowering the threshold increases the recall (but decreases precision) and vice versa. The average precision (AP) is the average of class predictions calculated over different thresholds, in PASCAL metrics the thresholds are from range [0, 0.1, ... , 1], i.e., its average of precision values for different recall levels. Its an attempt to capture characteristics of the detector in a single number.
The mean average precision is mean of average previsions over all classes. E.g., for our dog, cat, bird detector it would be (dog_AP + cat_AP + bird_AP)/3.
More rigorous definitions could be found in the PASCAL challenge paper, section 4.2.
Regarding your question about overfitting, there could be several indicators of it, one could be, that AP/mAP metrics calculated on the independent test/validation set begin to drop while the loss still decreases.
I have an external function which takes y and y_prediction (in matrix format), and computes a metric which depicts how good or bad the prediction actually is.
Unfortunately the metric is no simple y - ypred or confusion matrix, but still very useful and important. How can I use this number computed for the loss or as an argument for optimizer.minimize?
If i understood correctly i think there is two way to do this:
Either the loss you want to compute can be writen as tensorflow ops which gradient is defined (for exemple SVD has no gradient defined in tensorflow library saddly) then the optimisation is direct.
Or you can always write your loss function with numpy operators and use tf.py_func() https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/py_func and then you have to explicit the gradient by hand as said in here : How to make a custom activation function with only Python in Tensorflow?
But you have to know an explicit formula of your gradient ...
I have a slightly imbalanced dataset for a binary classification problem, with a positive to negative ratio of 0.6.
I recently learned about the auc metric from this answer: https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/132832/128229, and decided to use it.
But I came across another link http://fastml.com/what-you-wanted-to-know-about-auc/ which claims that, the AUC-ROC is insensitive to class imbalance, and we should use AUC for a precision-recall curve.
The xgboost docs are not clear on which AUC they use, do they use AUC-ROC?
Also the link mentions that AUC should only be used if you do not care about the probability and only care about the ranking.
However since i am using a binary:logistic objective i think i should care about probabilities since i have to set a threshold for my predictions.
The xgboost parameter tuning guide https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost/blob/master/doc/how_to/param_tuning.md
also suggests an alternate method to handle class imbalance, by not balancing positive and negative samples and using max_delta_step = 1.
So can someone explain, when is the AUC preffered over the other method for xgboost to handle class imbalance. And if i am using AUC , what is the threshold i need to set for prediction or more generally how exactly should i use AUC for handling imbalanced binary classification problem in xgboost?
EDIT:
I also need to eliminate false positives more than false negatives, how can i achieve that, apart from simply varying the threshold, with binary:logistic objective?
According the xgboost parameters section in here there is auc and aucprwhere prstands for precision recall.
I would say you could build some intuition by running both approaches and see how the metrics behave. You can include multiple metric and even optimize with respect to whichever you prefer.
You can also monitor the false positive (rate) in each boosting round by creating custom metric.
XGboost chose to write AUC (Area under the ROC Curve), but some prefer to be more explicit and say AUC-ROC / ROC-AUC.
https://xgboost.readthedocs.io/en/latest/parameter.html