We Keep Coding

XGBoost can't predict a simple sinusoidal function

I created a very simple function to test XGBoost.
X is an array containing 1000 rows of "7*np.pi" for each row.
Y is simply "1 + 0.5*np.sin(x)"
I split the dataset in 800 training and 200 testing rows. Shuffle MUST be False to simulate future occurrences, making sure the last 200 rows are reserved to testing.
import numpy as np
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error as MSE
from xgboost import XGBRegressor
N = 1000 # 1000 rows
x = np.linspace(0, 7*np.pi, N) # Simple function
y = 1 + 0.5*np.sin(x) # Generate simple function sin(x) as y
# Train-test split, intentionally use shuffle=False to simulate time series
X = x.reshape(-1,1)
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.20, shuffle=False)
### Interestingly, model generalizes well if shuffle=False
#X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.20, shuffle=False)
XGB_reg = XGBRegressor(random_state=42)
XGB_reg.fit(X_train,y_train)
# EVALUATE ON TRAIN DATA
yXGBPredicted = XGB_reg.predict(X_train)
rmse = np.sqrt(MSE(y_train, yXGBPredicted))
print("RMSE TRAIN XGB: % f" %(rmse))
# EVALUATE ON TEST DATA
yXGBPredicted = XGB_reg.predict(X_test)
# METRICAS XGB
rmse = np.sqrt(MSE(y_test, yXGBPredicted))
print("RMSE TEST XGB: % f" %(rmse))
# Predict full dataset
yXGB = XGB_reg.predict(X)
# Plot and compare
plt.style.use('fivethirtyeight')
plt.rcParams.update({'font.size': 16})
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10,5))
plt.plot(x, y)
plt.plot(x, yXGB)
plt.ylim(0,2)
plt.xlabel("x")
plt.ylabel("y")
plt.show()
I trained the model on the first 800 rows and then predicted the next 200 rows.
I was expecting testing data to have a great RMSE, but it did not happen.
I was surprised to see that XGBoost simple repeated the last value of the training set on all rows of the predictions (see chart).
Any ideas why this doesn't work?

You're asking your model to "extrapolate" - making predictions for x values that are greater than x values in the training dataset. Extrapolation works with some model types (such as linear models), but it typically does not work with decision tree models and their ensembles (such as XGBoost).
If you switch from XGBoost to LightGBM, then you can train extrapolation-capable decision tree ensembles using the "linear tree" approach:
Any ideas why this doesn't work?
Your XGBRegressor is probably over-fitted (has n_estimators = 100 and max_depth = 6). If you decrease those parameter values, then the red line will appear more jagged, and it will be easier for you to see it "working".
Right now, if you ask your over-fitted XGBRegressor to extrapolate, then it basically functions as a giant look-up table. When extrapolating towards +Inf, then the "closest match" is at x = 17.5; when extrapolating towards -Inf, then the "closest match" is at x = 0.0.

Pairwise comparisons for model training/testing - how to parameter tune?

For some reasons, I have base dataframes of the following structure
print(df1.shape)
display(df1.head())
print(df2.shape)
display(df2.head())
Where the top dataframe is my features set and my bottom is the output set. To turn this into a problem that is amenable to data modeling I first do:
x_train, x_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(df1, df2, train_size = 0.8)
I then have a split for 80% training and 20% testing.
Since the output set (df2; y_test/y_train) is individual measurements with no inherent meaning on their own, I calculate pairwise distances between the labels to generate a single output value denoting the pairwise distances between observations using (the distances are computed after z-scoring; the z-scoring code isn't described here but it is done):
y_train = pdist(y_train, 'euclidean')
y_test = pdist(y_test, 'euclidean')
Similarly I then apply this strategy to the features set to generate pairwise distances between individual observations of each of the instances of each feature.
def feature_distances(input_vector):
modified_vector = np.array(input_vector).reshape(-1,1)
vector_distances = pdist(modified_vector, 'euclidean')
vector_distances = pd.Series(vector_distances)
return vector_distances
x_train = x_train.apply(feature_distances, axis = 0)
x_test = x_test.apply(feature_distances, axis = 0)
I then proceed to train & test all of my models.
For now I am trying linear regression , random forest, xgboost.
Is there any easy way to implement a cross validation scheme in my dataset?
Since my problem requires calculating pairwise distances between observations, I am struggling to identify an easy way to do cross validation schemes to optimize parameter tuning.
GridsearchCV doesn't quite work here since in each instance of the test/train split, distances have to be recomputed to avoid contamination of test with train.
Hope it's clear!

First, what I understood from the shape of your data frames that you have 42 samples and 1643 features in the input, and each output vector consists of 392 values.
Huge Input: In case, you are sure that your problem has 1643 features, you might need to use PCA to reduce the dimensionality instead of pairwise distance. You should collect more samples instead of 42 samples to avoid overfitting because it is not enough data to train and test your model.
Huge Output: you could use sampled_softmax_loss to speed up the training process as mentioned in TensorFlow documentation . You could also read this here. In case, you do not want to follow this approach, you can continue training with this output but it takes some time.

x_train, x_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.8, random_state=n)
here X is independent feature, y is dependent feature means what you actually want to predict - it could be label or continuous value. We used train_test_split on train dataset and we are using (x_train, y_train) to train model and (x_test, y_test) to test model to ensure performance of model on unknown data(x_test, y_test). In your case you have given y as df2 which is wrong just figure out your target feature and give it as y and there is no need to split test data.

Non linear regression using Xgboost

I have a dataframe with 36540 rows. the objective is to predict y HITS_DAY.
#data
https://github.com/soufMiashs/Predict_Hits
I am trying to train a non-linear regression model but model doesn't seem to learn much.
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(x, y, test_size=0.20, random_state=42)
data_dmatrix = xgb.DMatrix(data=x,label=y)
xg_reg = xgb.XGBRegressor(learning_rate = 0.1, objectif='reg:linear', max_depth=5,
n_estimators = 1000)
xg_reg.fit(X_train,y_train)
preds = xg_reg.predict(X_test)
df=pd.DataFrame({'ACTUAL':y_test, 'PREDICTED':preds})
what am I doing wrong?

You're not doing anything wrong in particular (except maybe the objectif parameter for xgboost which doesn't exist), however, you have to consider how xgboost works. It will try to create "trees". Trees have splits based on the values of the features. From the plot you show here, it looks like there are very few samples that go above 0. So making a test train split random will likely result in a test set with virtually no samples with a value above 0 (so a horizontal line).
Other than that, it seems you want to fit a linear model on non-linear data. Selecting a different objective function is likely to help with this.
Finally, how do you know that your model is not learning anything? I don't see any evaluation metrics to confirm this. Try to think of meaningful evaluation metrics for your model and show them. This will help you determine if your model is "good enough".
To summarize:
Fix the imbalance in your dataset (or at least take it into consideration)
Select an appropriate objective function
Check evaluation metrics that make sense for your model
From this example it looks like your model is indeed learning something, even without parameter tuning (which you should do!).
import pandas
import xgboost
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error, r2_score
# Read the data
df = pandas.read_excel("./data.xlsx")
# Split in X and y
X = df.drop(columns=["HITS_DAY"])
y = df["HITS_DAY"]
# Show the values of the full dataset in a plot
y.sort_values().reset_index()["HITS_DAY"].plot()
# Split in test and train, use stratification to make sure the 2 groups look similar
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(
X, y, test_size=0.20, random_state=42, stratify=[element > 1 for element in y.values]
)
# Show the plots of the test and train set (make sure they look similar!)
y_train.sort_values().reset_index()["HITS_DAY"].plot()
y_test.sort_values().reset_index()["HITS_DAY"].plot()
# Create the regressor
estimator = xgboost.XGBRegressor(objective="reg:squaredlogerror")
# Fit the regressor
estimator.fit(X_train, y_train)
# Predict on the test set
predictions = estimator.predict(X_test)
df = pandas.DataFrame({"ACTUAL": y_test, "PREDICTED": predictions})
# Show the actual vs predicted
df.sort_values("ACTUAL").reset_index()[["ACTUAL", "PREDICTED"]].plot()
# Show some evaluation metrics
print(f"Mean squared error: {mean_squared_error(y_test.values, predictions)}")
print(f"R2 score: {r2_score(y_test.values, predictions)}")
Output:
Mean squared error: 0.01525351142868279
R2 score: 0.07857787102063485

Sklearn DecisionTreeClassifier F-Score Different Results with Each run

I'm trying to train a decision tree classifier using Python. I'm using MinMaxScaler() to scale the data, and f1_score for my evaluation metric. The strange thing is that I'm noticing my model giving me different results in a pattern at each run.
data in my code is a (2000, 7) pandas.DataFrame, with 6 feature columns and the last column being the target value. Columns 1, 3, and 5 are categorical data.
The following code is what I did to preprocess and format my data:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeClassifier
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.preprocessing import LabelEncoder
from sklearn.preprocessing import OneHotEncoder
from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler
from sklearn.metrics import f1_score
# Data Preprocessing Step
# =============================================================================
data = pd.read_csv("./data/train.csv")
X = data.iloc[:, :-1]
y = data.iloc[:, 6]
# Choose which columns are categorical data, and convert them to numeric data.
labelenc = LabelEncoder()
categorical_data = list(data.select_dtypes(include='object').columns)
for i in range(len(categorical_data)):
X[categorical_data[i]] = labelenc.fit_transform(X[categorical_data[i]])
# Convert categorical numeric data to one-of-K data, and change y from Series to ndarray.
onehotenc = OneHotEncoder()
X = onehotenc.fit_transform(X).toarray()
y = y.values
X_train, X_val, y_train, y_val = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
min_max_scaler = MinMaxScaler()
X_train_scaled = min_max_scaler.fit_transform(X_train)
X_val_scaled = min_max_scaler.fit_transform(X_val)
The next code is for the actual decision tree model training:
dectree = DecisionTreeClassifier(class_weight='balanced')
dectree = dectree.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train)
predictions = dectree.predict(X_val_scaled)
score = f1_score(y_val, predictions, average='macro')
print("Score is = {}".format(score))
The output that I get (i.e. the score) varies, but in a pattern. For example, it would circulate among data within the range of 0.39 and 0.42.
On some iterations, I even get the UndefinedMetricWarning, that claims "F-score is ill-defined and being set to 0.0 in labels with no predicted samples."
I'm familiar with what the UndefinedMetricWarning means, after doing some searching on this community and Google. I guess the two questions I have may be organized to:
Why does my output vary for each iteration? Is there something in the preprocessing stage that happens which I'm not aware of?
I've also tried to use the F-score with other data splits, but I always get the warning. Is this unpreventable?
Thank you.

You are splitting the dataset into train and test which randomly divides sets for both train and test. Due to this, when you train your model with different training data everytime, and testing it with different test data, you will get a range of F score depending on how well the model is trained.
In order to replicate the result each time you run, use random_state parameter. It will maintain a random number state which will give you the same random number each time you run. This shows that the random numbers are generated in the same order. This can be any number.
#train test split
X_train, X_val, y_train, y_val = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=13)
#Decision tree model
dectree = DecisionTreeClassifier(class_weight='balanced', random_state=2018)

scikit-learn: how to scale back the 'y' predicted result

I'm trying to learn scikit-learn and Machine Learning by using the Boston Housing Data Set.
# I splitted the initial dataset ('housing_X' and 'housing_y')
from sklearn.cross_validation import train_test_split
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(housing_X, housing_y, test_size=0.25, random_state=33)
# I scaled those two datasets
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scalerX = StandardScaler().fit(X_train)
scalery = StandardScaler().fit(y_train)
X_train = scalerX.transform(X_train)
y_train = scalery.transform(y_train)
X_test = scalerX.transform(X_test)
y_test = scalery.transform(y_test)
# I created the model
from sklearn import linear_model
clf_sgd = linear_model.SGDRegressor(loss='squared_loss', penalty=None, random_state=42)
train_and_evaluate(clf_sgd,X_train,y_train)
Based on this new model clf_sgd, I am trying to predict the y based on the first instance of X_train.
X_new_scaled = X_train[0]
print (X_new_scaled)
y_new = clf_sgd.predict(X_new_scaled)
print (y_new)
However, the result is quite odd for me (1.34032174, instead of 20-30, the range of the price of the houses)
[-0.32076092 0.35553428 -1.00966618 -0.28784917 0.87716097 1.28834383
0.4759489 -0.83034371 -0.47659648 -0.81061061 -2.49222645 0.35062335
-0.39859013]
[ 1.34032174]
I guess that this 1.34032174 value should be scaled back, but I am trying to figure out how to do it with no success. Any tip is welcome. Thank you very much.

You can use inverse_transform using your scalery object:
y_new_inverse = scalery.inverse_transform(y_new)

Bit late to the game:
Just don't scale your y. With scaling y you actually loose your units. The regression or loss optimization is actually determined by the relative differences between the features. BTW for house prices (or any other monetary value) it is common practice to take the logarithm. Then you obviously need to do an numpy.exp() to get back to the actual dollars/euros/yens...