Related
I'm fairly new to python so bare with me. I have plotted a histogram using some generated data. This data has many many points. I have defined it with the variable vals. I have then plotted a histogram with these values, though I have limited it so that only values between 104 and 155 are taken into account. This has been done as follows:
bin_heights, bin_edges = np.histogram(vals, range=[104, 155], bins=30)
bin_centres = (bin_edges[:-1] + bin_edges[1:])/2.
plt.errorbar(bin_centres, bin_heights, np.sqrt(bin_heights), fmt=',', capsize=2)
plt.xlabel("$m_{\gamma\gamma} (GeV)$")
plt.ylabel("Number of entries")
plt.show()
Giving the above plot:
My next step is to take into account values from vals which are less than 120. I have done this as follows:
background_data=[j for j in vals if j <= 120] #to avoid taking the signal bump, upper limit of 120 MeV set
I need to plot a curve on the same plot as the histogram, which follows the form B(x) = Ae^(-x/λ)
I then estimated a value of λ using the maximum likelihood estimator formula:
background_data=[j for j in vals if j <= 120] #to avoid taking the signal bump, upper limit of 120 MeV set
#print(background_data)
N_background=len(background_data)
print(N_background)
sigma_background_data=sum(background_data)
print(sigma_background_data)
lamb = (sigma_background_data)/(N_background) #maximum likelihood estimator for lambda
print('lambda estimate is', lamb)
where lamb = λ. I got a value of roughly lamb = 27.75, which I know is correct. I now need to get an estimate for A.
I have been advised to do this as follows:
Given a value of λ, find A by scaling the PDF to the data such that the area beneath
the scaled PDF has equal area to the data
I'm not quite sure what this means, or how I'd go about trying to do this. PDF means probability density function. I assume an integration will have to take place, so to get the area under the data (vals), I have done this:
data_area= integrate.cumtrapz(background_data, x=None, dx=1.0)
print(data_area)
plt.plot(background_data, data_area)
However, this gives me an error
ValueError: x and y must have same first dimension, but have shapes (981555,) and (981554,)
I'm not sure how to fix it. The end result should be something like:
See the cumtrapz docs:
Returns: ... If initial is None, the shape is such that the axis of integration has one less value than y. If initial is given, the shape is equal to that of y.
So you are either to pass an initial value like
data_area = integrate.cumtrapz(background_data, x=None, dx=1.0, initial = 0.0)
or discard the first value of the background_data:
plt.plot(background_data[1:], data_area)
I'm working on a simple classification problem. I proceeded through the example and created a model.
I arranged the tag column as given below.
label 0 1 1 0 0 1
As a result, I wanted to test the system with samples. But it does value as a percentage.
I expect it to give 2 correct values, either 0 or 1.
example codes;
input_dict = {name: tf.convert_to_tensor([value]) for name, value in sample.items()}
predictions = reloaded_model.predict(input_dict)
prob = tf.nn.sigmoid(predictions[0])
print(
"This particular pet had a %.1f percent probability "
"of getting adopted." % (100 * prob)
)
What code will result in 0 and 1?
thank you.
What to do depends on how you model was constructed. With only two labels you are doing binary classification. If in your model the last dense layer has 1 neuron then it is set up for binary classification. In that case your loss function in model.compile should be
loss=BinaryCrossentropy
Model.predict in that case will produce a single value probability output. You can just use an if statement to determine the class. If the probability is less than.5 it is one class, if greator or equal to .5 it is the other class. Now you may have constructed your model where the last dense layer has 2 neurons. In that case you should be using either sparse_categorical_crossentropy if the labels were integers or categorical_crossentropy if the labels were one hot encoded as your loss function. Model.predict in this case will produce two probabilities as the output. You want to select the index of with the highest probability as the class.
You can do that with class=np.argmax(predictions)
In order to make the case simple and intuitive, I will using binary (0 and 1) classification for illustration.
Loss function
loss = np.multiply(np.log(predY), Y) + np.multiply((1 - Y), np.log(1 - predY)) #cross entropy
cost = -np.sum(loss)/m #num of examples in batch is m
Probability of Y
predY is computed using sigmoid and logits can be thought as the outcome of from a neural network before reaching the classification step
predY = sigmoid(logits) #binary case
def sigmoid(X):
return 1/(1 + np.exp(-X))
Problem
Suppose we are running a feed-forward net.
Inputs: [3, 5]: 3 is number of examples and 5 is feature size (fabricated data)
Num of hidden units: 100 (only 1 hidden layer)
Iterations: 10000
Such arrangement is set to overfit. When it's overfitting, we can perfectly predict the probability for the training examples; in other words, sigmoid outputs either 1 or 0, exact number because the exponential gets exploded. If this is the case, we would have np.log(0) undefined. How do you usually handle this issue?
If you don't mind the dependency on scipy, you can use scipy.special.xlogy. You would replace the expression
np.multiply(np.log(predY), Y) + np.multiply((1 - Y), np.log(1 - predY))
with
xlogy(Y, predY) + xlogy(1 - Y, 1 - predY)
If you expect predY to contain very small values, you might get better numerical results using scipy.special.xlog1py in the second term:
xlogy(Y, predY) + xlog1py(1 - Y, -predY)
Alternatively, knowing that the values in Y are either 0 or 1, you can compute the cost in an entirely different way:
Yis1 = Y == 1
cost = -(np.log(predY[Yis1]).sum() + np.log(1 - predY[~Yis1]).sum())/m
How do you usually handle this issue?
Add small number (something like 1e-15) to predY - this number doesn't make predictions much off, and it solves log(0) issue.
BTW if your algorithm outputs zeros and ones it might be useful to check the histogram of returned probabilities - when algorithm is so sure that something's happening it can be a sign of overfitting.
One common way to deal with log(x) and y / x where x is always non-negative but can become 0 is to add a small constant (as written by Jakub).
You can also clip the value (e.g. tf.clip_by_value or np.clip).
I am looking at the below image.
Can someone explain how they are calculated?
I though it was -1 for an N and +1 for a yes but then I can't figure out how the little girl has .1. But that doesn't work for tree 2 either.
I agree with #user1808924. I think it's still worth to explain how XGBoost works under the hood though.
What is the meaning of leaves' scores ?
First, the score you see in the leaves are not probability. They are the regression values.
In Gradient Boosting Tree, there's only regression tree. To predict if a person like computer games or not, the model (XGboost) will treat it as a regression problem. The labels here become 1.0 for Yes and 0.0 for No. Then, XGboost puts regression trees in for training. The trees of course will return something like +2, +0.1, -1, which we get at the leaves.
We sum up all the "raw scores" and then convert them to probabilities by applying sigmoid function.
How to calculate the score in leaves ?
The leaf score (w) are calculated by this formula:
w = - (sum(gi) / (sum(hi) + lambda))
where g and h are the first derivative (gradient) and the second derivative (hessian).
For the sake of demonstration, let's pick the leaf which has -1 value of the first tree. Suppose our objective function is mean squared error (mse) and we choose the lambda = 0.
With mse, we have g = (y_pred - y_true) and h=1. I just get rid of the constant 2, in fact, you can keep it and the result should stay the same. Another note: at t_th iteration, y_pred is the prediction we have after (t-1)th iteration (the best we've got until that time).
Some assumptions:
The girl, grandpa, and grandma do NOT like computer games (y_true = 0 for each person).
The initial prediction is 1 for all the 3 people (i.e., we guess all people love games. Note that, I choose 1 on purpose to get the same result with the first tree. In fact, the initial prediction can be the mean (default for mean squared error), median (default for mean absolute error),... of all the observations' labels in the leaf).
We calculate g and h for each individual:
g_girl = y_pred - y_true = 1 - 0 = 1. Similarly, we have g_grandpa = g_grandma = 1.
h_girl = h_grandpa = h_grandma = 1
Putting the g, h values into the formula above, we have:
w = -( (g_girl + g_grandpa + g_grandma) / (h_girl + h_grandpa + h_grandma) ) = -1
Last note: In practice, the score in leaf which we see when plotting the tree is a bit different. It will be multiplied by the learning rate, i.e., w * learning_rate.
The values of leaf elements (aka "scores") - +2, +0.1, -1, +0.9 and -0.9 - were devised by the XGBoost algorithm during training. In this case, the XGBoost model was trained using a dataset where little boys (+2) appear somehow "greater" than little girls (+0.1). If you knew what the response variable was, then you could probably interpret/rationalize those contributions further. Otherwise, just accept those values as they are.
As for scoring samples, then the first addend is produced by tree1, and the second addend is produced by tree2. For little boys (age < 15, is male == Y, and use computer daily == Y), tree1 yields 2 and tree2 yields 0.9.
Read this
https://towardsdatascience.com/xgboost-mathematics-explained-58262530904a
and then this
https://medium.com/#gabrieltseng/gradient-boosting-and-xgboost-c306c1bcfaf5
and the appendix
https://gabrieltseng.github.io/appendix/2018-02-25-XGB.html
I've created a codebook using k-means of size 4000x300 (4000 centroids, each with 300 features). Using the codebook, I then want to label an input vector (for purposes of binning later on). The input vector is of size Nx300, where N is the total number of input instances I receive.
To compute the labels, I calculate the closest centroid for each of the input vectors. To do so, I compare each input vector against all centroids and pick the centroid with the minimum distance. The label is then just the index of that centroid.
My current Matlab code looks like:
function labels = assign_labels(centroids, X)
labels = zeros(size(X, 1), 1);
% for each X, calculate the distance from each centroid
for i = 1:size(X, 1)
% distance of X_i from all j centroids is: sum((X_i - centroid_j)^2)
% note: we leave off the sqrt as an optimization
distances = sum(bsxfun(#minus, centroids, X(i, :)) .^ 2, 2);
[value, label] = min(distances);
labels(i) = label;
end
However, this code is still fairly slow (for my purposes), and I was hoping there might be a way to optimize the code further.
One obvious issue is that there is a for-loop, which is the bane of good performance on Matlab. I've been trying to come up with a way to get rid of it, but with no luck (I looked into using arrayfun in conjunction with bsxfun, but haven't gotten that to work). Alternatively, if someone know of any other way to speed this up, I would be greatly appreciate it.
Update
After doing some searching, I couldn't find a great solution using Matlab, so I decided to look at what is used in Python's scikits.learn package for 'euclidean_distance' (shortened):
XX = sum(X * X, axis=1)[:, newaxis]
YY = Y.copy()
YY **= 2
YY = sum(YY, axis=1)[newaxis, :]
distances = XX + YY
distances -= 2 * dot(X, Y.T)
distances = maximum(distances, 0)
which uses the binomial form of the euclidean distance ((x-y)^2 -> x^2 + y^2 - 2xy), which from what I've read usually runs faster. My completely untested Matlab translation is:
XX = sum(data .* data, 2);
YY = sum(center .^ 2, 2);
[val, ~] = max(XX + YY - 2*data*center');
Use the following function to calculate your distances. You should see an order of magnitude speed up
The two matrices A and B have the columns as the dimenions and the rows as each point.
A is your matrix of centroids. B is your matrix of datapoints.
function D=getSim(A,B)
Qa=repmat(dot(A,A,2),1,size(B,1));
Qb=repmat(dot(B,B,2),1,size(A,1));
D=Qa+Qb'-2*A*B';
You can vectorize it by converting to cells and using cellfun:
[nRows,nCols]=size(X);
XCell=num2cell(X,2);
dist=reshape(cell2mat(cellfun(#(x)(sum(bsxfun(#minus,centroids,x).^2,2)),XCell,'UniformOutput',false)),nRows,nRows);
[~,labels]=min(dist);
Explanation:
We assign each row of X to its own cell in the second line
This piece #(x)(sum(bsxfun(#minus,centroids,x).^2,2)) is an anonymous function which is the same as your distances=... line, and using cell2mat, we apply it to each row of X.
The labels are then the indices of the minimum row along each column.
For a true matrix implementation, you may consider trying something along the lines of:
P2 = kron(centroids, ones(size(X,1),1));
Q2 = kron(ones(size(centroids,1),1), X);
distances = reshape(sum((Q2-P2).^2,2), size(X,1), size(centroids,1));
Note
This assumes the data is organized as [x1 y1 ...; x2 y2 ...;...]
You can use a more efficient algorithm for nearest neighbor search than brute force.
The most popular approach are Kd-Tree. O(log(n)) average query time instead of the O(n) brute force complexity.
Regarding a Maltab implementation of Kd-Trees, you can have a look here