I am assessing the performance of a logistic regression model in a test dataset with incomplete data. I have imputed values for both the predictors and outcome using MICE.
I am now trying to figure out what the best way is to pool classification measures (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) across the imputed datasets. There are many posts on this website asking about how to pool AUC values across the different datasets, but I could not find any guidance on here on how to pool classification measures.
One approach would be to calculate the classification measures for all relevant cut-off points in each m separately and to then simply average the estimates for the different cut-off points. Would this approach be okay?
Related
In Python I am working on a binary classification problem of Fraud detection on travel insurance. Here is the characteristic about my dataset:
Contains 40,000 samples with 20 features. After one hot encoding, the number of features is 50(4 numeric, 46 categorical).
Majority unlabeled: out of 40,000 samples, 33,000 samples are unlabeled.
Highly imbalanced: out of 7,000 labeled samples, only 800 samples(11%) are positive(Fraud).
Metrics is precision, recall and F2 score. We focus more on avoiding false positive, therefore high recall is appreciated. As preprocessing I oversampled positive cases using SMOTE-NC, which takes into account categorical variables as well.
After trying several approaches including Semi-Supervised Learning with Self Training and Label Propagation/Label Spreading etc, I achieved high recall score(80% on training, 65-70% on test). However, my precision score shows some trace of overfitting(60-70% on training, 10% on testing). I understand that precision is good on training because it's resampled, and low on test data because it directly reflects the imbalance of the classes in test data. But this precision score is unacceptably low so I want to solve it.
So to simplify the model I am thinking about applying dimensionality reduction. I found a package called prince which comes with FAMD(Factor Analysis for Mixture Data).
Question 1: How I should do normalization, FAMD, k-fold Cross Validation and resampling? Is my approach below correct?
Question 2: The package prince does not have methods such as fit or transform like in Sklearn, so I cannot do the 3rd step described below. Any other good packages to do fitand transform for FAMD? And is there any other good way to reduce dimensionality on this kind of dataset?
My approach:
Make k folds and isolate one of them for validation, use the rest for training
Normalize training data and transform validation data
Fit FAMD on training data, and transform training and test data
Resample only training data using SMOTE-NC
Train whatever model it is, evaluate on validation data
Repeat 2-5 k times and take the average of precision, recall F2 score
*I would also appreciate for any kinds of advices on my overall approach to this problem
Thanks!
Consider the training process of deep FF neural network using mini-batch gradient descent. As far as I understand, at each epoch of the training we have different random set of mini-batches. Then iterating over all mini batches and computing the gradients of the NN parameters we will get random gradients at each iteration and, therefore, random directions for the model parameters to minimize the cost function. Let's imagine we fixed the hyperparameters of the training algorithm and started the training process again and again, then we would end up with models, which completely differs from each other, because in those trainings the changes of model parameters were different.
1) Is it always the case when we use such random based training algorithms?
2) If it is so, where is the guaranty that training the NN one more time with the best hyperparameters found during the previous trainings and validations will yield us the best model again?
3) Is it possible to find such hyperparameters, which will always yield the best models?
Neural Network are solving a optimization problem, As long as it is computing a gradient in right direction but can be random, it doesn't hurt its objective to generalize over data. It can stuck in some local optima. But there are many good methods like Adam, RMSProp, momentum based etc, by which it can accomplish its objective.
Another reason, when you say mini-batch, there is at least some sample by which it can generalize over those sample, there can be fluctuation in the error rate, and but at least it can give us a local solution.
Even, at each random sampling, these mini-batch have different-2 sample, which helps in generalize well over the complete distribution.
For hyperparameter selection, you need to do tuning and validate result on unseen data, there is no straight forward method to choose these.
I have a question regarding cross validation in Linear regression model.
From my understanding, in cross validation, we split the data into (say) 10 folds and train the data from 9 folds and the remaining folds we use for testing. We repeat this process until we test all of the folds, so that every folds are tested exactly once.
When we are training the model from 9 folds, should we not get a different model (may be slightly different from the model that we have created when using the whole dataset)? I know that we take an average of all the "n" performances.
But, what about the model? Shouldn't the resulting model also be taken as the average of all the "n" models? I see that the resulting model is same as the model which we created using whole of the dataset before cross-validation. If we are considering the overall model even after cross-validation (and not taking avg of all the models), then what's the point of calculating average performance from n different models (because they are trained from different folds of data and are supposed to be different, right?)
I apologize if my question is not clear or too funny.
Thanks for reading, though!
I think that there is some confusion in some of the answers proposed because of the use of the word "model" in the question asked. If I am guessing correctly, you are referring to the fact that in K-fold cross-validation we learn K-different predictors (or decision functions), which you call "model" (this is a bad idea because in machine learning we also do model selection which is choosing between families of predictors and this is something which can be done using cross-validation). Cross-validation is typically used for hyperparameter selection or to choose between different algorithms or different families of predictors. Once these chosen, the most common approach is to relearn a predictor with the selected hyperparameter and algorithm from all the data.
However, if the loss function which is optimized is convex with respect to the predictor, than it is possible to simply average the different predictors obtained from each fold.
This is because for a convex risk, the risk of the average of the predictor is always smaller than the average of the individual risks.
The PROs and CONs of averaging (vs retraining) are as follows
PROs: (1) In each fold, the evaluation that you made on the held out set gives you an unbiased estimate of the risk for those very predictors that you have obtained, and for these estimates the only source of uncertainty is due to the estimate of the empirical risk (the average of the loss function) on the held out data.
This should be contrasted with the logic which is used when you are retraining and which is that the cross-validation risk is an estimate of the "expected value of the risk of a given learning algorithm" (and not of a given predictor) so that if you relearn from data from the same distribution, you should have in average the same level of performance. But note that this is in average and when retraining from the whole data this could go up or down. In other words, there is an additional source of uncertainty due to the fact that you will retrain.
(2) The hyperparameters have been selected exactly for the number of datapoints that you used in each fold to learn. If you relearn from the whole dataset, the optimal value of the hyperparameter is in theory and in practice not the same anymore, and so in the idea of retraining, you really cross your fingers and hope that the hyperparameters that you have chosen are still fine for your larger dataset.
If you used leave-one-out, there is obviously no concern there, and if the number of data point is large with 10 fold-CV you should be fine. But if you are learning from 25 data points with 5 fold CV, the hyperparameters for 20 points are not really the same as for 25 points...
CONs: Well, intuitively you don't benefit from training with all the data at once
There are unfortunately very little thorough theory on this but the following two papers especially the second paper consider precisely the averaging or aggregation of the predictors from K-fold CV.
Jung, Y. (2016). Efficient Tuning Parameter Selection by Cross-Validated Score in High Dimensional Models. International Journal of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, 10(1), 19-25.
Maillard, G., Arlot, S., & Lerasle, M. (2019). Aggregated Hold-Out. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.04890.
The answer is simple: you use the process of (repeated) cross validation (CV) to obtain a relatively stable performance estimate for a model instead of improving it.
Think of trying out different model types and parametrizations which are differently well suited for your problem. Using CV you obtain many different estimates on how each model type and parametrization would perform on unseen data. From those results you usually choose one well suited model type + parametrization which you will use, then train it again on all (training) data. The reason for doing this many times (different partitions with repeats, each using different partition splits) is to get a stable estimation of the performance - which will enable you to e.g. look at the mean/median performance and its spread (would give you information about how well the model usually performs and how likely it is to be lucky/unlucky and get better/worse results instead).
Two more things:
Usually, using CV will improve your results in the end - simply because you take a model that is better suited for the job.
You mentioned taking the "average" model. This actually exists as "model averaging", where you average the results of multiple, possibly differently trained models to obtain a single result. Its one way to use an ensemble of models instead of a single one. But also for those you want to use CV in the end for choosing reasonable model.
I like your thinking. I think you have just accidentally discovered Random Forest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_forest
Without repeated cv your seemingly best model is likely to be only a mediocre model when you score it on new data...
I am solving a classification problem. I train my unsupervised neural network for a set of entities (using skip-gram architecture).
The way I evaluate is to search k nearest neighbours for each point in validation data, from training data. I take weighted sum (weights based on distance) of labels of nearest neighbours and use that score of each point of validation data.
Observation - As I increase the number of epochs (model1 - 600 epochs, model 2- 1400 epochs and model 3 - 2000 epochs), my AUC improves at smaller values of k but saturates at the similar values.
What could be a possible explanation of this behaviour?
[Reposted from CrossValidated]
To cross check if imbalanced classes are an issue, try fitting a SVM model. If that gives a better classification(possible if your ANN is not very deep) it may be concluded that classes should be balanced first.
Also, try some kernel functions to check if this transformation makes data linearly separable?
I am using knn to do classification for a telecom problem. I splitted my data into 70% training and 30% validation. While the knn classifier is able to catch over 80% in 2 deciles in training, its performance in validation sample is as good as random 45 degree line. I am surprised how does KNN work that the model performance in training and validation are so different.
Any pointers ?
Reasonable pointers are hardly possible without more details. The behavior of your KNN depends on several aspects:
The parameter K defining the neighbors. If it is set to K=1, for example, you will get no training error at all, this showing that the consideration of training-to-validation-error may not be justified.
The parameter K is often found using cross validation. I would suggest you to do this as well.
The distance metric. Which function are you using, are there different units, length scales, etc.?
The noise of your data, the size of your data ... -- there simply exist data sets which are hard to describe.
By the way: can you tell what kind of data you want to describe, and, if possible, also provide some examples or show some scatter plot (data and your result)?