We Keep Coding

Multivariate quantile regression with splines in python

I wanted to use multivariate quantile regression with spline to analyze the data. The data contains three independent variables and one dependent variable. I divided the data into training set and validation set, and fitted the model on the training set and the validation set to verify the model. I used quantreg()from statsmodels.formula.api and thebs() from the patsy to achieve this. But quickly an error occurred using predict().
1.I don't know if this is the right way to implement my idea.
2.How to use predict in the above situation.
import pandas as pd
import statsmodels.formula.api as smf
import patsy
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
train_x, valid_x, train_y, valid_y = train_test_split(data.iloc[:,:3],
data.total, test_size=0.1, random_state = 1)
train=train_x.join(train_y)
vel = train['vel']
salmean = train['salmean']
em = train['em']
total = train['total']
model = smf.quantreg('total ~ bs(vel, df=3, degree=3) + bs(salmean, df=3,
degree=3) + bs(em, df=3, degree=3) ', train).fit(0.9)
y_pre =model.predict(valid_x)
The information of the error:
PatsyError: predict requires that you use a DataFrame when predicting from a model that was created using the formula api.
The original error message returned by patsy is:
Error evaluating factor: NotImplementedError: some data points fall outside the outermost knots, and I'm not sure how to handle them. (Patches accepted!)
total ~ bs(vel, df=3, degree=3) + bs(salmean, df=3, degree=3) + bs(em, df=3, degree=3)

Why do I get two different values in heatmap and feature_importances?

I'm running a feature selection using sns.heatmap and one using sklearn feature_importances.
When using the same data I get two difference values.
Here is the heatmap
and heatmap code
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import seaborn as sns
training_data = pd.read_csv(
"/Users/aus10/NFL/Data/Betting_Data/CBB/Training_Data_Betting_CBB.csv")
df_model = training_data.copy()
df_model = df_model.dropna()
df_model = df_model.drop(['Money_Line', 'Money_Line_Percentage', 'Money_Line_Money', 'Money_Line_Move', 'Money_Line_Direction', "Spread", 'Spread_Percentage', 'Spread_Money', 'Spread_Move', 'Spread_Direction',
"Win", "Money_Line_Percentage", 'Cover'], axis=1)
X = df_model.loc[:, ['Total', 'Total_Move', 'Over_Percentage', 'Over_Money',
'Under_Percentage', 'Under_Money']] # independent columns
y = df_model['Over_Under'] # target column
# get correlations of each features in dataset
corrmat = df_model.corr()
top_corr_features = corrmat.index
plt.figure(figsize=(20, 20))
# plot heat map
g = sns.heatmap(
df_model[top_corr_features].corr(), annot=True, cmap='hot')
plt.xticks(rotation=90)
plt.yticks(rotation=45)
plt.show()
Here is the feature_importances bar graph
and the code
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import StratifiedKFold
from sklearn.inspection import permutation_importance
training_data = pd.read_csv(
"/Users/aus10/NFL/Data/Betting_Data/CBB/Training_Data_Betting_CBB.csv", index_col=False)
df_model = training_data.copy()
df_model = df_model.dropna()
X = df_model.loc[:, ['Total', 'Total_Move', 'Over_Percentage', 'Over_Money',
'Under_Percentage', 'Under_Money']] # independent columns
y = df_model['Over_Under'] # target column
model = RandomForestClassifier(
random_state=1, n_estimators=100, min_samples_split=100, max_depth=5, min_samples_leaf=2)
skf = StratifiedKFold(n_splits=2)
skf.get_n_splits(X, y)
StratifiedKFold(n_splits=2, random_state=None, shuffle=False)
for train_index, test_index in skf.split(X, y):
X_train, X_test = X.iloc[train_index], X.iloc[test_index]
y_train, y_test = y.iloc[train_index], y.iloc[test_index]
model.fit(X_train, y_train)
# use inbuilt class feature_importances of tree based classifiers
print(model.feature_importances_)
# plot graph of feature importances for better visualization
feat_importances = pd.Series(model.feature_importances_, index=X.columns)
perm_importance = permutation_importance(model, X_test, y_test)
feat_importances.nlargest(5).plot(kind='barh')
print(perm_importance)
plt.show()
I'm not sure which one is more accurate or if I'm using them in the correct way? Should I being using the heatmap to eliminate collinearity and the feature importances to actually selection my group of features?

You are comparing two different things, why would you expect them to be the same? And what would it even mean in this case?
Feature importances in tree based models are computed based on how many times given feature was used for splitting. Feature that is used more often for a split is more important (for a particular model fitted with particular dataset) than a feature that is used less often.
Correlation on the other hand is a measure of linear relationship between 2 features.
I'm not sure which one is more accurate
What do you mean by accuracy? Both of these are accurate in what they are measuring. It is just that none of these directly tells you which feature/s to throw away.
Note that just because 2 features are correlated, it doesn't mean that you can automatically throw one of them away. Collinearity can cause issues with interpretability of the model. If you have highly correlated features, then you can't say which one is more important based on the weights associated with these features. Collinearity should not affect the prediction power of the model. More often, you will find that by throwing away one of the correlated features, your model's prediction power decreases.
Collinearity in a dataset can therefore make feature importances of your random forrest model less interpretable in a sense that you can't rely on their strict ordering. But again, it should not affect the predictive power of the model (except that the model is more prone to overfitting due to having more degrees of freedom).
Should I being using the heatmap to eliminate collinearity and the feature importances to actually selection my group of features?
Feature engineering/selection is more of an art than science (outside of end-to-end deep learning). There is no correct answer here and you will need to develop your own heuristics and try different things to see which one works better in which scenario.
Example of a simple heuristic based on feature importances and correlation can be (assuming that you have large number of features):
fit the random forrest model and measure the feature importances
throw away those that seem to have no impact on the model (close to 0 importance)
refit the model with the new subset of your original data and see whether the metric of your interest (accuracy, MSE, ...) stays approximately the same as in the step 1.
if you still have a lot of features, you can repeat the step 1-3, increasing the throw-away threshold until your metric of interest starts worsening
measure the correlation of the features that you are left with and select the most correlated pairs (based on some threshold, e.g. (|c| > 0.8))
pick one pair; drop a feature from this pair; measure model performance; return the dropped feature; repeat for each each pair
drop the feature that seems to have the least negative effect on the model's performance based on the results from step 6.
repeat steps 6-7 until the model's performance starts dropping

Why results are inaccurate when I am using different dataset for testing a model in Machine Learning?

I am trying to do forecasting based on time series. I am doing temperature forecasting by using the past three years of hourly data.
Instead of using X_test from train_test_split method, I am using my own test dataset because I need seven-day ahead forecasting.
Problem: When I am using dummy Test data set for forecasting it’s giving incorrect values. But when I using Test data set from train_test_split method, then it’s giving accurate values. I don’t understand why this is happening.
What I tried to fix this problem: First, I thought this is happening because I am not applying feature scaling but after implementing feature scaling the results are same. Then I thought, when train_test_split split the data it also gives some randomness to data so I applied randomness on my dummy Test data but still, results are the same.
My question: How can I apply different dataframe for testing a model? And how did I get accurate results?
Program:
df = pd.read_csv("Timeseries_47.999_7.850_SA_0deg_0deg_2013_2016.csv", sep=",")
time_mod = []
for i in range(0,len(df['time'])):
ss=pd.to_datetime(df['time'][i], format= "%Y%m%d:%H%M")
time_mod.append(ss)
df['datetime'] = time_mod
df["Hour"] = pd.to_datetime(df["datetime"]).dt.hour
df["Month"] = pd.to_datetime(df["datetime"]).dt.month
df["Day_of_year"] = pd.to_datetime(df["datetime"]).dt.dayofyear
df["Day_of_month"] = pd.to_datetime(df["datetime"]).dt.day
df["week_of_year"] = pd.to_datetime(df["datetime"]).dt.week
X = df[{"Hour", "Day_of_year", "Day_of_month", 'week_of_year', 'Month'}].values
y = df[{"T2m"}].values
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size = 0.2, random_state=0)
## Creating dummy datetime for Test data
df.set_index('datetime',inplace=True)
future_dates = [df.index[-1]+DateOffset(hours=x) for x in range(0,168)]
future_dates_df = pd.DataFrame({'Data':future_dates})
future_dates_df["Hour"] = pd.to_datetime(future_dates_df["Data"]).dt.hour
future_dates_df["Month"] = pd.to_datetime(future_dates_df["Data"]).dt.month
future_dates_df["Day_of_year"] = future_dates_df["Data"].dt.dayofyear
future_dates_df["Day_of_month"] = pd.to_datetime(future_dates_df["Data"]).dt.day
future_dates_df["Date"] = pd.to_datetime(future_dates_df["Data"]).dt.date
future_dates_df["week_of_year"] = future_dates_df["Data"].dt.week
X_test_dum = future_dates_df[["Hour",'Month','Day_of_year','week_of_year','Day_of_month']].values
#Model
regressor = LinearRegression()
regressor.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred = regressor.predict(X_test_dum)
plt.plot(y_test, color="r", label="actual")
plt.plot(y_pred, label="forecasted")
sns.set(rc={'figure.figsize':(20,10)})
plt.legend()
plt.show()

The reason behind getting inaccurate could be:
The dummies dataset variables are not arranged in the same way as actual dataset.
X = df[{"Hour", "Day_of_year", "Day_of_month", 'week_of_year', 'Month'}].values
X_test_dum = future_dates_df[["Hour",'Month','Day_of_year','week_of_year','Day_of_month']].values
I also notice that you are applying Linear Regression but data does not look like linear. Try Polynomial Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest or the model which is good with non-linear data.
I think eliminating some non-essential independent variables can also improve your results.
Only consider: Hour and Day_of_year
Last, try to create dummies dataset directly in csv file and then separate train and test dataset in python.

Why is Multi Class Machine Learning Model Giving Bad Results?

I have the following code so far:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
import pandas as pd
from sklearn import preprocessing
from sklearn.naive_bayes import GaussianNB
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score
df_train = pd.read_csv('uc_data_train.csv')
del df_train['Unnamed: 0']
temp = df_train['size_womenswear']
del df_train['size_womenswear']
df_train['size_womenswear'] = temp
df_train['count'] = 1
print(df_train.head())
print(df_train.dtypes)
print(df_train[['size_womenswear', 'count']].groupby('size_womenswear').count()) # Determine number of unique catagories, and number of cases for each catagory
del df_train['count']
df_test = pd.read_csv('uc_data_test.csv')
del df_test['Unnamed: 0']
print(df_test.head())
print(df_test.dtypes)
df_train.drop(['customer_id','socioeconomic_status','brand','socioeconomic_desc','order_method',
'first_order_channel','days_since_first_order','total_number_of_orders', 'return_rate'], axis=1, inplace=True)
LE = preprocessing.LabelEncoder() # Create label encoder
df_train['size_womenswear'] = LE.fit_transform(np.ravel(df_train[['size_womenswear']]))
print(df_train.head())
print(df_train.dtypes)
x = df_train.iloc[:,np.arange(len(df_train.columns)-1)].values # Assign independent values
y = df_train.iloc[:,-1].values # and dependent values
xTrain, xTest, yTrain, yTest = train_test_split(x, y, test_size = 0.25, random_state = 0) # Testing on 75% of the data
model = GaussianNB()
model.fit(xTrain, yTrain)
yPredicted = model.predict(xTest)
#print(yPrediction)
print('Accuracy: ', accuracy_score(yTest, yPredicted))
I am not sure how to include the data that I am using but I am trying to predict the 'size_womenswear'. There are 8 different sizes that I have encoded to predict and I have moved this column to the end of the dataframe. so y is the dependent and x are the independent (all the other columns)
I am using a Gaussian Naive Bayes classifier to try and classify the 8 different sizes and then test on 25% of the data. The results are not very good.
I don't know why I am only getting an accuracy of 61% when I am working with 80,000 rows. I am very new to Machine Learning and would appreciate any assistance. Is there a better method that I could use in this case than Gaussian Naive Bayes?

can't comment, just throwing out some ideas;
Maybe you need to deal with class imbalance, and try other model that will fit the data better? try the xgboost or lightgbm package given good data they usually perform pretty good in general, but it really depends on the data.
Also the way you split train and test, does the resulting train and test data set has similar distribution for your Y? that's very important.
Last thing, for classification models the performance measurement can be a bit tricky, try some other measurement methods. F1 scores or try to draw a confusion matrix and see what your predictions vs Y looks like. perhaps your model is predicting everything to one
or just a few classes.

Different results when using train_test_split vs manually splitting the data

I have a pandas dataframe that I want to make predictions on and get the root mean squared error for each feature. I'm following an online guide that splits the dataset manually, but I thought it would be more convenient to use train_test_split from sklearn.model_selection. Unfortunately, I'm getting different results when looking at the rmse values after splitting the data manually vs using train_test_split.
A (hopefully) reproducible example:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsRegressor
from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(0,100,size=(100, 4)), columns=['feature_1','feature_2','feature_3','feature_4'])
df['target'] = np.random.randint(2,size=100)
df2 = df.copy()
Here is a function, knn_train_test, that splits the data manually, fits the model, makes predictions, etc:
def knn_train_test(train_col, target_col, df):
knn = KNeighborsRegressor()
np.random.seed(0)
# Randomize order of rows in data frame.
shuffled_index = np.random.permutation(df.index)
rand_df = df.reindex(shuffled_index)
# Divide number of rows in half and round.
last_train_row = int(len(rand_df) / 2)
# Select the first half and set as training set.
# Select the second half and set as test set.
train_df = rand_df.iloc[0:last_train_row]
test_df = rand_df.iloc[last_train_row:]
# Fit a KNN model using default k value.
knn.fit(train_df[[train_col]], train_df[target_col])
# Make predictions using model.
predicted_labels = knn.predict(test_df[[train_col]])
# Calculate and return RMSE.
mse = mean_squared_error(test_df[target_col], predicted_labels)
rmse = np.sqrt(mse)
return rmse
rmse_results = {}
train_cols = df.columns.drop('target')
# For each column (minus `target`), train a model, return RMSE value
# and add to the dictionary `rmse_results`.
for col in train_cols:
rmse_val = knn_train_test(col, 'target', df)
rmse_results[col] = rmse_val
# Create a Series object from the dictionary so
# we can easily view the results, sort, etc
rmse_results_series = pd.Series(rmse_results)
rmse_results_series.sort_values()
#Output
feature_3 0.541110
feature_2 0.548452
feature_4 0.559285
feature_1 0.569912
dtype: float64
Now, here is a function, knn_train_test2, that splits the data using train_test_split:
def knn_train_test2(train_col, target_col, df2):
knn = KNeighborsRegressor()
np.random.seed(0)
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(df2[[train_col]],df2[[target_col]], test_size=0.5)
knn.fit(X_train,y_train)
predictions = knn.predict(X_test)
mse = mean_squared_error(y_test,predictions)
rmse = np.sqrt(mse)
return rmse
rmse_results = {}
train_cols = df2.columns.drop('target')
for col in train_cols:
rmse_val = knn_train_test2(col, 'target', df2)
rmse_results[col] = rmse_val
rmse_results_series = pd.Series(rmse_results)
rmse_results_series.sort_values()
# Output
feature_4 0.522303
feature_3 0.556417
feature_1 0.569210
feature_2 0.572713
dtype: float64
Why am I getting different results? I think I'm misunderstanding the split > train > test process in general, or maybe misunderstanding/mis-specifying train_test_split. Thank you in advance

Your custom train_test_split implementation differs from scikit-learn's implementation, that's why you get different results for the same seed.
Here you can find the official implementation. The first thing which is notable is, that scikit-learn is doing by default 10 iterations of re-shuffeling & splitting. (check the n_splits parameter)
Only if your approach is doing exactly the same as the scitkit-learn approach, then you can expect to have the same result for the same seed.

This is basic machine learning nature. When you manually split the data, you have a different version of training and testing set. When you use the sklearn function, you get different training and testing set. Your model will make prediction based on what training data it recieves and thus your final results are different for both.
If you want to reproduce result, then use the train_test_split to create multiple training set by setting a seed value. A seed value is used to reproduce the same result in the train_test_split function. Then when running your ml function, set a seed in there too as even ML functions start training with random weights. Try your model on these datasets with same seed and you will get the results.

Splitting data manually is just slicing but train_test_split will also randomize the sliced data. Try fix the random number seed and see if you can get same results each time when using train_test_split.