Video of Lecture and link to handwritten notes.
The expression for the standard Mean Squared Error (MSE) which we used to define our cost function and the equations for the ordinary least squares (OLS) method, that is our optimization problem is $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\left\{\left(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\right)^T\left(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\right)\right\}. $$ or we can state it as $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\left(y_i-\tilde{y}_i\right)^2=\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2, $$ where we have used the definition of a norm-2 vector, that is $$ \vert\vert \boldsymbol{x}\vert\vert_2 = \sqrt{\sum_i x_i^2}. $$
By minimizing the above equation with respect to the parameters \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) we could then obtain an analytical expression for the parameters \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \). We can add a regularization parameter \( \lambda \) by defining a new cost function to be optimized, that is $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2+\lambda\vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2 $$
which leads to the Ridge regression minimization problem where we require that \( \vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2\le t \), where \( t \) is a finite number larger than zero. By defining $$ C(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{\beta})=\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2+\lambda\vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_1, $$
we have a new optimization equation $$ {\displaystyle \min_{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}}}\frac{1}{n}\vert\vert \boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_2^2+\lambda\vert\vert \boldsymbol{\beta}\vert\vert_1 $$ which leads to Lasso regression. Lasso stands for least absolute shrinkage and selection operator.
Here we have defined the norm-1 as $$ \vert\vert \boldsymbol{x}\vert\vert_1 = \sum_i \vert x_i\vert. $$
When the repetitive splitting of the data set is done randomly, samples may accidently end up in a fast majority of the splits in either training or test set. Such samples may have an unbalanced influence on either model building or prediction evaluation. To avoid this \( k \)-fold cross-validation structures the data splitting. The samples are divided into \( k \) more or less equally sized exhaustive and mutually exclusive subsets. In turn (at each split) one of these subsets plays the role of the test set while the union of the remaining subsets constitutes the training set. Such a splitting warrants a balanced representation of each sample in both training and test set over the splits. Still the division into the \( k \) subsets involves a degree of randomness. This may be fully excluded when choosing \( k=n \). This particular case is referred to as leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV).
For the various values of \( k \)
The code here uses Ridge regression with cross-validation (CV) resampling and \( k \)-fold CV in order to fit a specific polynomial.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold
from sklearn.linear_model import Ridge
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score
from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures
# A seed just to ensure that the random numbers are the same for every run.
# Useful for eventual debugging.
np.random.seed(3155)
# Generate the data.
nsamples = 100
x = np.random.randn(nsamples)
y = 3*x**2 + np.random.randn(nsamples)
## Cross-validation on Ridge regression using KFold only
# Decide degree on polynomial to fit
poly = PolynomialFeatures(degree = 6)
# Decide which values of lambda to use
nlambdas = 500
lambdas = np.logspace(-3, 5, nlambdas)
# Initialize a KFold instance
k = 5
kfold = KFold(n_splits = k)
# Perform the cross-validation to estimate MSE
scores_KFold = np.zeros((nlambdas, k))
i = 0
for lmb in lambdas:
ridge = Ridge(alpha = lmb)
j = 0
for train_inds, test_inds in kfold.split(x):
xtrain = x[train_inds]
ytrain = y[train_inds]
xtest = x[test_inds]
ytest = y[test_inds]
Xtrain = poly.fit_transform(xtrain[:, np.newaxis])
ridge.fit(Xtrain, ytrain[:, np.newaxis])
Xtest = poly.fit_transform(xtest[:, np.newaxis])
ypred = ridge.predict(Xtest)
scores_KFold[i,j] = np.sum((ypred - ytest[:, np.newaxis])**2)/np.size(ypred)
j += 1
i += 1
estimated_mse_KFold = np.mean(scores_KFold, axis = 1)
## Cross-validation using cross_val_score from sklearn along with KFold
# kfold is an instance initialized above as:
# kfold = KFold(n_splits = k)
estimated_mse_sklearn = np.zeros(nlambdas)
i = 0
for lmb in lambdas:
ridge = Ridge(alpha = lmb)
X = poly.fit_transform(x[:, np.newaxis])
estimated_mse_folds = cross_val_score(ridge, X, y[:, np.newaxis], scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=kfold)
# cross_val_score return an array containing the estimated negative mse for every fold.
# we have to the the mean of every array in order to get an estimate of the mse of the model
estimated_mse_sklearn[i] = np.mean(-estimated_mse_folds)
i += 1
## Plot and compare the slightly different ways to perform cross-validation
plt.figure()
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), estimated_mse_sklearn, label = 'cross_val_score')
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), estimated_mse_KFold, 'r--', label = 'KFold')
plt.xlabel('log10(lambda)')
plt.ylabel('mse')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression, Ridge, Lasso
from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.pipeline import make_pipeline
from sklearn.utils import resample
np.random.seed(2018)
n = 40
n_boostraps = 100
maxdegree = 14
# Make data set.
x = np.linspace(-3, 3, n).reshape(-1, 1)
y = np.exp(-x**2) + 1.5 * np.exp(-(x-2)**2)+ np.random.normal(0, 0.1, x.shape)
error = np.zeros(maxdegree)
bias = np.zeros(maxdegree)
variance = np.zeros(maxdegree)
polydegree = np.zeros(maxdegree)
x_train, x_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(x, y, test_size=0.2)
for degree in range(maxdegree):
model = make_pipeline(PolynomialFeatures(degree=degree), LinearRegression(fit_intercept=False))
y_pred = np.empty((y_test.shape[0], n_boostraps))
for i in range(n_boostraps):
x_, y_ = resample(x_train, y_train)
y_pred[:, i] = model.fit(x_, y_).predict(x_test).ravel()
polydegree[degree] = degree
error[degree] = np.mean( np.mean((y_test - y_pred)**2, axis=1, keepdims=True) )
bias[degree] = np.mean( (y_test - np.mean(y_pred, axis=1, keepdims=True))**2 )
variance[degree] = np.mean( np.var(y_pred, axis=1, keepdims=True) )
print('Polynomial degree:', degree)
print('Error:', error[degree])
print('Bias^2:', bias[degree])
print('Var:', variance[degree])
print('{} >= {} + {} = {}'.format(error[degree], bias[degree], variance[degree], bias[degree]+variance[degree]))
plt.plot(polydegree, error, label='Error')
plt.plot(polydegree, bias, label='bias')
plt.plot(polydegree, variance, label='Variance')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
"""
============================
Underfitting vs. Overfitting
============================
This example demonstrates the problems of underfitting and overfitting and
how we can use linear regression with polynomial features to approximate
nonlinear functions. The plot shows the function that we want to approximate,
which is a part of the cosine function. In addition, the samples from the
real function and the approximations of different models are displayed. The
models have polynomial features of different degrees. We can see that a
linear function (polynomial with degree 1) is not sufficient to fit the
training samples. This is called **underfitting**. A polynomial of degree 4
approximates the true function almost perfectly. However, for higher degrees
the model will **overfit** the training data, i.e. it learns the noise of the
training data.
We evaluate quantitatively **overfitting** / **underfitting** by using
cross-validation. We calculate the mean squared error (MSE) on the validation
set, the higher, the less likely the model generalizes correctly from the
training data.
"""
print(__doc__)
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score
def true_fun(X):
return np.cos(1.5 * np.pi * X)
np.random.seed(0)
n_samples = 30
degrees = [1, 4, 15]
X = np.sort(np.random.rand(n_samples))
y = true_fun(X) + np.random.randn(n_samples) * 0.1
plt.figure(figsize=(14, 5))
for i in range(len(degrees)):
ax = plt.subplot(1, len(degrees), i + 1)
plt.setp(ax, xticks=(), yticks=())
polynomial_features = PolynomialFeatures(degree=degrees[i],
include_bias=False)
linear_regression = LinearRegression()
pipeline = Pipeline([("polynomial_features", polynomial_features),
("linear_regression", linear_regression)])
pipeline.fit(X[:, np.newaxis], y)
# Evaluate the models using crossvalidation
scores = cross_val_score(pipeline, X[:, np.newaxis], y,
scoring="neg_mean_squared_error", cv=10)
X_test = np.linspace(0, 1, 100)
plt.plot(X_test, pipeline.predict(X_test[:, np.newaxis]), label="Model")
plt.plot(X_test, true_fun(X_test), label="True function")
plt.scatter(X, y, edgecolor='b', s=20, label="Samples")
plt.xlabel("x")
plt.ylabel("y")
plt.xlim((0, 1))
plt.ylim((-2, 2))
plt.legend(loc="best")
plt.title("Degree {}\nMSE = {:.2e}(+/- {:.2e})".format(
degrees[i], -scores.mean(), scores.std()))
plt.show()
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold
from sklearn.linear_model import Ridge
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score
from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures
# A seed just to ensure that the random numbers are the same for every run.
np.random.seed(3155)
# Generate the data.
n = 100
x = np.linspace(-3, 3, n).reshape(-1, 1)
y = np.exp(-x**2) + 1.5 * np.exp(-(x-2)**2)+ np.random.normal(0, 0.1, x.shape)
# Decide degree on polynomial to fit
poly = PolynomialFeatures(degree = 10)
# Decide which values of lambda to use
nlambdas = 500
lambdas = np.logspace(-3, 5, nlambdas)
# Initialize a KFold instance
k = 5
kfold = KFold(n_splits = k)
estimated_mse_sklearn = np.zeros(nlambdas)
i = 0
for lmb in lambdas:
ridge = Ridge(alpha = lmb)
estimated_mse_folds = cross_val_score(ridge, x, y, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=kfold)
estimated_mse_sklearn[i] = np.mean(-estimated_mse_folds)
i += 1
plt.figure()
plt.plot(np.log10(lambdas), estimated_mse_sklearn, label = 'cross_val_score')
plt.xlabel('log10(lambda)')
plt.ylabel('MSE')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
The one-dimensional Ising model with nearest neighbor interaction, no external field and a constant coupling constant \( J \) is given by $$ \begin{align} H = -J \sum_{k}^L s_k s_{k + 1}, \label{_auto1} \end{align} $$
where \( s_i \in \{-1, 1\} \) and \( s_{N + 1} = s_1 \). The number of spins in the system is determined by \( L \). For the one-dimensional system there is no phase transition.
We will look at a system of \( L = 40 \) spins with a coupling constant of \( J = 1 \). To get enough training data we will generate 10000 states with their respective energies.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.axes_grid1 import make_axes_locatable
import seaborn as sns
import scipy.linalg as scl
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
import tqdm
sns.set(color_codes=True)
cmap_args=dict(vmin=-1., vmax=1., cmap='seismic')
L = 40
n = int(1e4)
spins = np.random.choice([-1, 1], size=(n, L))
J = 1.0
energies = np.zeros(n)
for i in range(n):
energies[i] = - J * np.dot(spins[i], np.roll(spins[i], 1))
Here we use ordinary least squares regression to predict the energy for the nearest neighbor one-dimensional Ising model on a ring, i.e., the endpoints wrap around. We will use linear regression to fit a value for the coupling constant to achieve this.
A more general form for the one-dimensional Ising model is $$ \begin{align} H = - \sum_j^L \sum_k^L s_j s_k J_{jk}. \label{_auto2} \end{align} $$
Here we allow for interactions beyond the nearest neighbors and a state dependent coupling constant. This latter expression can be formulated as a matrix-product $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{H} = \boldsymbol{X} J, \label{_auto3} \end{align} $$
where \( X_{jk} = s_j s_k \) and \( J \) is a matrix which consists of the elements \( -J_{jk} \). This form of writing the energy fits perfectly with the form utilized in linear regression, that is $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{y} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}, \label{_auto4} \end{align} $$
We split the data in training and test data as discussed in the previous example
X = np.zeros((n, L ** 2))
for i in range(n):
X[i] = np.outer(spins[i], spins[i]).ravel()
y = energies
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
In the ordinary least squares method we choose the cost function $$ \begin{align} C(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\beta})= \frac{1}{n}\left\{(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})^T(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})\right\}. \label{_auto5} \end{align} $$
We then find the extremal point of \( C \) by taking the derivative with respect to \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) as discussed above. This yields the expression for \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) to be $$ \boldsymbol{\beta} = \frac{\boldsymbol{X}^T \boldsymbol{y}}{\boldsymbol{X}^T \boldsymbol{X}}, $$
which immediately imposes some requirements on \( \boldsymbol{X} \) as there must exist an inverse of \( \boldsymbol{X}^T \boldsymbol{X} \). If the expression we are modeling contains an intercept, i.e., a constant term, we must make sure that the first column of \( \boldsymbol{X} \) consists of \( 1 \). We do this here
X_train_own = np.concatenate(
(np.ones(len(X_train))[:, np.newaxis], X_train),
axis=1
)
X_test_own = np.concatenate(
(np.ones(len(X_test))[:, np.newaxis], X_test),
axis=1
)
def ols_inv(x: np.ndarray, y: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
return scl.inv(x.T @ x) @ (x.T @ y)
beta = ols_inv(X_train_own, y_train)
Doing the inversion directly turns out to be a bad idea since the matrix \( \boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{X} \) is singular. An alternative approach is to use the singular value decomposition. Using the definition of the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse we can write the equation for \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \) as $$ \boldsymbol{\beta} = \boldsymbol{X}^{+}\boldsymbol{y}, $$
where the pseudoinverse of \( \boldsymbol{X} \) is given by $$ \boldsymbol{X}^{+} = \frac{\boldsymbol{X}^T}{\boldsymbol{X}^T\boldsymbol{X}}. $$
Using singular value decomposition we can decompose the matrix \( \boldsymbol{X} = \boldsymbol{U}\boldsymbol{\Sigma} \boldsymbol{V}^T \), where \( \boldsymbol{U} \) and \( \boldsymbol{V} \) are orthogonal(unitary) matrices and \( \boldsymbol{\Sigma} \) contains the singular values (more details below). where \( X^{+} = V\Sigma^{+} U^T \). This reduces the equation for \( \omega \) to $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{\beta} = \boldsymbol{V}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{+} \boldsymbol{U}^T \boldsymbol{y}. \label{_auto6} \end{align} $$
Note that solving this equation by actually doing the pseudoinverse (which is what we will do) is not a good idea as this operation scales as \( \mathcal{O}(n^3) \), where \( n \) is the number of elements in a general matrix. Instead, doing \( QR \)-factorization and solving the linear system as an equation would reduce this down to \( \mathcal{O}(n^2) \) operations.
def ols_svd(x: np.ndarray, y: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
u, s, v = scl.svd(x)
return v.T @ scl.pinv(scl.diagsvd(s, u.shape[0], v.shape[0])) @ u.T @ y
beta = ols_svd(X_train_own,y_train)
When extracting the \( J \)-matrix we need to make sure that we remove the intercept, as is done here
J = beta[1:].reshape(L, L)
A way of looking at the coefficients in \( J \) is to plot the matrices as images.
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J, **cmap_args)
plt.title("OLS", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)
plt.show()
It is interesting to note that OLS considers both \( J_{j, j + 1} = -0.5 \) and \( J_{j, j - 1} = -0.5 \) as valid matrix elements for \( J \). In our discussion below on hyperparameters and Ridge and Lasso regression we will see that this problem can be removed, partly and only with Lasso regression.
In this case our matrix inversion was actually possible. The obvious question now is what is the mathematics behind the SVD?
Let us bring back the Ising model again, but now with an additional focus on Ridge and Lasso regression as well. We repeat some of the basic parts of the Ising model and the setup of the training and test data. The one-dimensional Ising model with nearest neighbor interaction, no external field and a constant coupling constant \( J \) is given by $$ \begin{align} H = -J \sum_{k}^L s_k s_{k + 1}, \label{_auto7} \end{align} $$ where \( s_i \in \{-1, 1\} \) and \( s_{N + 1} = s_1 \). The number of spins in the system is determined by \( L \). For the one-dimensional system there is no phase transition.
We will look at a system of \( L = 40 \) spins with a coupling constant of \( J = 1 \). To get enough training data we will generate 10000 states with their respective energies.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.axes_grid1 import make_axes_locatable
import seaborn as sns
import scipy.linalg as scl
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
import sklearn.linear_model as skl
import tqdm
sns.set(color_codes=True)
cmap_args=dict(vmin=-1., vmax=1., cmap='seismic')
L = 40
n = int(1e4)
spins = np.random.choice([-1, 1], size=(n, L))
J = 1.0
energies = np.zeros(n)
for i in range(n):
energies[i] = - J * np.dot(spins[i], np.roll(spins[i], 1))
A more general form for the one-dimensional Ising model is $$ \begin{align} H = - \sum_j^L \sum_k^L s_j s_k J_{jk}. \label{_auto8} \end{align} $$
Here we allow for interactions beyond the nearest neighbors and a more adaptive coupling matrix. This latter expression can be formulated as a matrix-product on the form $$ \begin{align} H = X J, \label{_auto9} \end{align} $$
where \( X_{jk} = s_j s_k \) and \( J \) is the matrix consisting of the elements \( -J_{jk} \). This form of writing the energy fits perfectly with the form utilized in linear regression, viz. $$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{y} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}. \label{_auto10} \end{align} $$ We organize the data as we did above
X = np.zeros((n, L ** 2))
for i in range(n):
X[i] = np.outer(spins[i], spins[i]).ravel()
y = energies
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.96)
X_train_own = np.concatenate(
(np.ones(len(X_train))[:, np.newaxis], X_train),
axis=1
)
X_test_own = np.concatenate(
(np.ones(len(X_test))[:, np.newaxis], X_test),
axis=1
)
We will do all fitting with Scikit-Learn,
clf = skl.LinearRegression().fit(X_train, y_train)
When extracting the \( J \)-matrix we make sure to remove the intercept
J_sk = clf.coef_.reshape(L, L)
And then we plot the results
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J_sk, **cmap_args)
plt.title("LinearRegression from Scikit-learn", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)
plt.show()
The results perfectly with our previous discussion where we used our own code.
Having explored the ordinary least squares we move on to ridge regression. In ridge regression we include a regularizer. This involves a new cost function which leads to a new estimate for the weights \( \boldsymbol{\beta} \). This results in a penalized regression problem. The cost function is given by $$ \begin{align} C(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\beta}; \lambda) = (\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})^T(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y}) + \lambda \boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{\beta}. \label{_auto11} \end{align} $$
_lambda = 0.1
clf_ridge = skl.Ridge(alpha=_lambda).fit(X_train, y_train)
J_ridge_sk = clf_ridge.coef_.reshape(L, L)
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J_ridge_sk, **cmap_args)
plt.title("Ridge from Scikit-learn", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)
plt.show()
In the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)-method we get a third cost function. $$ \begin{align} C(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\beta}; \lambda) = (\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y})^T(\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} - \boldsymbol{y}) + \lambda \sqrt{\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{\beta}}. \label{_auto12} \end{align} $$
Finding the extremal point of this cost function is not so straight-forward as in least squares and ridge. We will therefore rely solely on the function ``Lasso`` from Scikit-Learn.
clf_lasso = skl.Lasso(alpha=_lambda).fit(X_train, y_train)
J_lasso_sk = clf_lasso.coef_.reshape(L, L)
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
im = plt.imshow(J_lasso_sk, **cmap_args)
plt.title("Lasso from Scikit-learn", fontsize=18)
plt.xticks(fontsize=18)
plt.yticks(fontsize=18)
cb = fig.colorbar(im)
cb.ax.set_yticklabels(cb.ax.get_yticklabels(), fontsize=18)
plt.show()
It is quite striking how LASSO breaks the symmetry of the coupling constant as opposed to ridge and OLS. We get a sparse solution with \( J_{j, j + 1} = -1 \).
We see how the different models perform for a different set of values for \( \lambda \).
lambdas = np.logspace(-4, 5, 10)
train_errors = {
"ols_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
"ridge_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
"lasso_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size)
}
test_errors = {
"ols_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
"ridge_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size),
"lasso_sk": np.zeros(lambdas.size)
}
plot_counter = 1
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(32, 54))
for i, _lambda in enumerate(tqdm.tqdm(lambdas)):
for key, method in zip(
["ols_sk", "ridge_sk", "lasso_sk"],
[skl.LinearRegression(), skl.Ridge(alpha=_lambda), skl.Lasso(alpha=_lambda)]
):
method = method.fit(X_train, y_train)
train_errors[key][i] = method.score(X_train, y_train)
test_errors[key][i] = method.score(X_test, y_test)
omega = method.coef_.reshape(L, L)
plt.subplot(10, 5, plot_counter)
plt.imshow(omega, **cmap_args)
plt.title(r"%s, $\lambda = %.4f$" % (key, _lambda))
plot_counter += 1
plt.show()
We see that LASSO reaches a good solution for low values of \( \lambda \), but will "wither" when we increase \( \lambda \) too much. Ridge is more stable over a larger range of values for \( \lambda \), but eventually also fades away.
To determine which value of \( \lambda \) is best we plot the accuracy of the models when predicting the training and the testing set. We expect the accuracy of the training set to be quite good, but if the accuracy of the testing set is much lower this tells us that we might be subject to an overfit model. The ideal scenario is an accuracy on the testing set that is close to the accuracy of the training set.
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(20, 14))
colors = {
"ols_sk": "r",
"ridge_sk": "y",
"lasso_sk": "c"
}
for key in train_errors:
plt.semilogx(
lambdas,
train_errors[key],
colors[key],
label="Train {0}".format(key),
linewidth=4.0
)
for key in test_errors:
plt.semilogx(
lambdas,
test_errors[key],
colors[key] + "--",
label="Test {0}".format(key),
linewidth=4.0
)
plt.legend(loc="best", fontsize=18)
plt.xlabel(r"$\lambda$", fontsize=18)
plt.ylabel(r"$R^2$", fontsize=18)
plt.tick_params(labelsize=18)
plt.show()
From the above figure we can see that LASSO with \( \lambda = 10^{-2} \) achieves a very good accuracy on the test set. This by far surpasses the other models for all values of \( \lambda \).
Video of Lecture and link to handwritten notes.
In linear regression our main interest was centered on learning the coefficients of a functional fit (say a polynomial) in order to be able to predict the response of a continuous variable on some unseen data. The fit to the continuous variable \( y_i \) is based on some independent variables \( \hat{x}_i \). Linear regression resulted in analytical expressions for standard ordinary Least Squares or Ridge regression (in terms of matrices to invert) for several quantities, ranging from the variance and thereby the confidence intervals of the parameters \( \hat{\beta} \) to the mean squared error. If we can invert the product of the design matrices, linear regression gives then a simple recipe for fitting our data.
Classification problems, however, are concerned with outcomes taking the form of discrete variables (i.e. categories). We may for example, on the basis of DNA sequencing for a number of patients, like to find out which mutations are important for a certain disease; or based on scans of various patients' brains, figure out if there is a tumor or not; or given a specific physical system, we'd like to identify its state, say whether it is an ordered or disordered system (typical situation in solid state physics); or classify the status of a patient, whether she/he has a stroke or not and many other similar situations.
The most common situation we encounter when we apply logistic regression is that of two possible outcomes, normally denoted as a binary outcome, true or false, positive or negative, success or failure etc.
Logistic regression will also serve as our stepping stone towards neural network algorithms and supervised deep learning. For logistic learning, the minimization of the cost function leads to a non-linear equation in the parameters \( \hat{\beta} \). The optimization of the problem calls therefore for minimization algorithms. This forms the bottle neck of all machine learning algorithms, namely how to find reliable minima of a multi-variable function. This leads us to the family of gradient descent methods. The latter are the working horses of basically all modern machine learning algorithms.
We note also that many of the topics discussed here on logistic regression are also commonly used in modern supervised Deep Learning models, as we will see later.
We consider the case where the dependent variables, also called the responses or the outcomes, \( y_i \) are discrete and only take values from \( k=0,\dots,K-1 \) (i.e. \( K \) classes).
The goal is to predict the output classes from the design matrix \( \hat{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times p} \) made of \( n \) samples, each of which carries \( p \) features or predictors. The primary goal is to identify the classes to which new unseen samples belong.
Let us specialize to the case of two classes only, with outputs \( y_i=0 \) and \( y_i=1 \). Our outcomes could represent the status of a credit card user that could default or not on her/his credit card debt. That is $$ y_i = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & \mathrm{no}\\ 1 & \mathrm{yes} \end{bmatrix}. $$
Before moving to the logistic model, let us try to use our linear regression model to classify these two outcomes. We could for example fit a linear model to the default case if \( y_i > 0.5 \) and the no default case \( y_i \leq 0.5 \).
We would then have our weighted linear combination, namely $$ \begin{equation} \hat{y} = \hat{X}^T\hat{\beta} + \hat{\epsilon}, \label{_auto13} \end{equation} $$ where \( \hat{y} \) is a vector representing the possible outcomes, \( \hat{X} \) is our \( n\times p \) design matrix and \( \hat{\beta} \) represents our estimators/predictors.
The main problem with our function is that it takes values on the entire real axis. In the case of logistic regression, however, the labels \( y_i \) are discrete variables. A typical example is the credit card data discussed below here, where we can set the state of defaulting the debt to \( y_i=1 \) and not to \( y_i=0 \) for one the persons in the data set (see the full example below).
One simple way to get a discrete output is to have sign functions that map the output of a linear regressor to values \( \{0,1\} \), \( f(s_i)=sign(s_i)=1 \) if \( s_i\ge 0 \) and 0 if otherwise. We will encounter this model in our first demonstration of neural networks. Historically it is called the ``perceptron" model in the machine learning literature. This model is extremely simple. However, in many cases it is more favorable to use a ``soft" classifier that outputs the probability of a given category. This leads us to the logistic function.
The following example on data for coronary heart disease (CHD) as function of age may serve as an illustration. In the code here we read and plot whether a person has had CHD (output = 1) or not (output = 0). This ouput is plotted the person's against age. Clearly, the figure shows that attempting to make a standard linear regression fit may not be very meaningful.
# Common imports
import os
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression, Ridge, Lasso
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.utils import resample
from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error
from IPython.display import display
from pylab import plt, mpl
plt.style.use('seaborn')
mpl.rcParams['font.family'] = 'serif'
# Where to save the figures and data files
PROJECT_ROOT_DIR = "Results"
FIGURE_ID = "Results/FigureFiles"
DATA_ID = "DataFiles/"
if not os.path.exists(PROJECT_ROOT_DIR):
os.mkdir(PROJECT_ROOT_DIR)
if not os.path.exists(FIGURE_ID):
os.makedirs(FIGURE_ID)
if not os.path.exists(DATA_ID):
os.makedirs(DATA_ID)
def image_path(fig_id):
return os.path.join(FIGURE_ID, fig_id)
def data_path(dat_id):
return os.path.join(DATA_ID, dat_id)
def save_fig(fig_id):
plt.savefig(image_path(fig_id) + ".png", format='png')
infile = open(data_path("chddata.csv"),'r')
# Read the chd data as csv file and organize the data into arrays with age group, age, and chd
chd = pd.read_csv(infile, names=('ID', 'Age', 'Agegroup', 'CHD'))
chd.columns = ['ID', 'Age', 'Agegroup', 'CHD']
output = chd['CHD']
age = chd['Age']
agegroup = chd['Agegroup']
numberID = chd['ID']
display(chd)
plt.scatter(age, output, marker='o')
plt.axis([18,70.0,-0.1, 1.2])
plt.xlabel(r'Age')
plt.ylabel(r'CHD')
plt.title(r'Age distribution and Coronary heart disease')
plt.show()
What we could attempt however is to plot the mean value for each group.
agegroupmean = np.array([0.1, 0.133, 0.250, 0.333, 0.462, 0.625, 0.765, 0.800])
group = np.array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8])
plt.plot(group, agegroupmean, "r-")
plt.axis([0,9,0, 1.0])
plt.xlabel(r'Age group')
plt.ylabel(r'CHD mean values')
plt.title(r'Mean values for each age group')
plt.show()
We are now trying to find a function \( f(y\vert x) \), that is a function which gives us an expected value for the output \( y \) with a given input \( x \). In standard linear regression with a linear dependence on \( x \), we would write this in terms of our model $$ f(y_i\vert x_i)=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_i. $$
This expression implies however that \( f(y_i\vert x_i) \) could take any value from minus infinity to plus infinity. If we however let \( f(y\vert y) \) be represented by the mean value, the above example shows us that we can constrain the function to take values between zero and one, that is we have \( 0 \le f(y_i\vert x_i) \le 1 \). Looking at our last curve we see also that it has an S-shaped form. This leads us to a very popular model for the function \( f \), namely the so-called Sigmoid function or logistic model. We will consider this function as representing the probability for finding a value of \( y_i \) with a given \( x_i \).
Another widely studied model, is the so-called perceptron model, which is an example of a "hard classification" model. We will encounter this model when we discuss neural networks as well. Each datapoint is deterministically assigned to a category (i.e \( y_i=0 \) or \( y_i=1 \)). In many cases, and the coronary heart disease data forms one of many such examples, it is favorable to have a "soft" classifier that outputs the probability of a given category rather than a single value. For example, given \( x_i \), the classifier outputs the probability of being in a category \( k \). Logistic regression is the most common example of a so-called soft classifier. In logistic regression, the probability that a data point \( x_i \) belongs to a category \( y_i=\{0,1\} \) is given by the so-called logit function (or Sigmoid) which is meant to represent the likelihood for a given event, $$ p(t) = \frac{1}{1+\mathrm \exp{-t}}=\frac{\exp{t}}{1+\mathrm \exp{t}}. $$ Note that \( 1-p(t)= p(-t) \).
The following code plots the logistic function, the step function and other functions we will encounter from here and on.
"""The sigmoid function (or the logistic curve) is a
function that takes any real number, z, and outputs a number (0,1).
It is useful in neural networks for assigning weights on a relative scale.
The value z is the weighted sum of parameters involved in the learning algorithm."""
import numpy
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math as mt
z = numpy.arange(-5, 5, .1)
sigma_fn = numpy.vectorize(lambda z: 1/(1+numpy.exp(-z)))
sigma = sigma_fn(z)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
ax.plot(z, sigma)
ax.set_ylim([-0.1, 1.1])
ax.set_xlim([-5,5])
ax.grid(True)
ax.set_xlabel('z')
ax.set_title('sigmoid function')
plt.show()
"""Step Function"""
z = numpy.arange(-5, 5, .02)
step_fn = numpy.vectorize(lambda z: 1.0 if z >= 0.0 else 0.0)
step = step_fn(z)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
ax.plot(z, step)
ax.set_ylim([-0.5, 1.5])
ax.set_xlim([-5,5])
ax.grid(True)
ax.set_xlabel('z')
ax.set_title('step function')
plt.show()
"""tanh Function"""
z = numpy.arange(-2*mt.pi, 2*mt.pi, 0.1)
t = numpy.tanh(z)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
ax.plot(z, t)
ax.set_ylim([-1.0, 1.0])
ax.set_xlim([-2*mt.pi,2*mt.pi])
ax.grid(True)
ax.set_xlabel('z')
ax.set_title('tanh function')
plt.show()
We assume now that we have two classes with \( y_i \) either \( 0 \) or \( 1 \). Furthermore we assume also that we have only two parameters \( \beta \) in our fitting of the Sigmoid function, that is we define probabilities $$ \begin{align*} p(y_i=1|x_i,\hat{\beta}) &= \frac{\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}},\nonumber\\ p(y_i=0|x_i,\hat{\beta}) &= 1 - p(y_i=1|x_i,\hat{\beta}), \end{align*} $$ where \( \hat{\beta} \) are the weights we wish to extract from data, in our case \( \beta_0 \) and \( \beta_1 \).
Note that we used $$ p(y_i=0\vert x_i, \hat{\beta}) = 1-p(y_i=1\vert x_i, \hat{\beta}). $$
In order to define the total likelihood for all possible outcomes from a dataset \( \mathcal{D}=\{(y_i,x_i)\} \), with the binary labels \( y_i\in\{0,1\} \) and where the data points are drawn independently, we use the so-called Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) principle. We aim thus at maximizing the probability of seeing the observed data. We can then approximate the likelihood in terms of the product of the individual probabilities of a specific outcome \( y_i \), that is $$ \begin{align*} P(\mathcal{D}|\hat{\beta})& = \prod_{i=1}^n \left[p(y_i=1|x_i,\hat{\beta})\right]^{y_i}\left[1-p(y_i=1|x_i,\hat{\beta}))\right]^{1-y_i}\nonumber \\ \end{align*} $$ from which we obtain the log-likelihood and our cost/loss function $$ \mathcal{C}(\hat{\beta}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \left( y_i\log{p(y_i=1|x_i,\hat{\beta})} + (1-y_i)\log\left[1-p(y_i=1|x_i,\hat{\beta}))\right]\right). $$
Reordering the logarithms, we can rewrite the cost/loss function as $$ \mathcal{C}(\hat{\beta}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i) -\log{(1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)})}\right). $$
The maximum likelihood estimator is defined as the set of parameters that maximize the log-likelihood where we maximize with respect to \( \beta \). Since the cost (error) function is just the negative log-likelihood, for logistic regression we have that $$ \mathcal{C}(\hat{\beta})=-\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i) -\log{(1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)})}\right). $$ This equation is known in statistics as the cross entropy. Finally, we note that just as in linear regression, in practice we often supplement the cross-entropy with additional regularization terms, usually \( L_1 \) and \( L_2 \) regularization as we did for Ridge and Lasso regression.
The cross entropy is a convex function of the weights \( \hat{\beta} \) and, therefore, any local minimizer is a global minimizer.
Minimizing this cost function with respect to the two parameters \( \beta_0 \) and \( \beta_1 \) we obtain $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\hat{\beta})}{\partial \beta_0} = -\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_i -\frac{\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}\right), $$ and $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\hat{\beta})}{\partial \beta_1} = -\sum_{i=1}^n \left(y_ix_i -x_i\frac{\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_i)}}\right). $$
Let us now define a vector \( \hat{y} \) with \( n \) elements \( y_i \), an \( n\times p \) matrix \( \hat{X} \) which contains the \( x_i \) values and a vector \( \hat{p} \) of fitted probabilities \( p(y_i\vert x_i,\hat{\beta}) \). We can rewrite in a more compact form the first derivative of cost function as $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{C}(\hat{\beta})}{\partial \hat{\beta}} = -\hat{X}^T\left(\hat{y}-\hat{p}\right). $$
If we in addition define a diagonal matrix \( \hat{W} \) with elements \( p(y_i\vert x_i,\hat{\beta})(1-p(y_i\vert x_i,\hat{\beta}) \), we can obtain a compact expression of the second derivative as $$ \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{C}(\hat{\beta})}{\partial \hat{\beta}\partial \hat{\beta}^T} = \hat{X}^T\hat{W}\hat{X}. $$
Within a binary classification problem, we can easily expand our model to include multiple predictors. Our ratio between likelihoods is then with \( p \) predictors $$ \log{ \frac{p(\hat{\beta}\hat{x})}{1-p(\hat{\beta}\hat{x})}} = \beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\beta_2x_2+\dots+\beta_px_p. $$ Here we defined \( \hat{x}=[1,x_1,x_2,\dots,x_p] \) and \( \hat{\beta}=[\beta_0, \beta_1, \dots, \beta_p] \) leading to $$ p(\hat{\beta}\hat{x})=\frac{ \exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\beta_2x_2+\dots+\beta_px_p)}}{1+\exp{(\beta_0+\beta_1x_1+\beta_2x_2+\dots+\beta_px_p)}}. $$
Till now we have mainly focused on two classes, the so-called binary system. Suppose we wish to extend to \( K \) classes. Let us for the sake of simplicity assume we have only two predictors. We have then following model $$ \log{\frac{p(C=1\vert x)}{p(K\vert x)}} = \beta_{10}+\beta_{11}x_1, $$ and $$ \log{\frac{p(C=2\vert x)}{p(K\vert x)}} = \beta_{20}+\beta_{21}x_1, $$ and so on till the class \( C=K-1 \) class $$ \log{\frac{p(C=K-1\vert x)}{p(K\vert x)}} = \beta_{(K-1)0}+\beta_{(K-1)1}x_1, $$
and the model is specified in term of \( K-1 \) so-called log-odds or logit transformations.
In our discussion of neural networks we will encounter the above again in terms of a slightly modified function, the so-called Softmax function.
The softmax function is used in various multiclass classification methods, such as multinomial logistic regression (also known as softmax regression), multiclass linear discriminant analysis, naive Bayes classifiers, and artificial neural networks. Specifically, in multinomial logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis, the input to the function is the result of \( K \) distinct linear functions, and the predicted probability for the \( k \)-th class given a sample vector \( \hat{x} \) and a weighting vector \( \hat{\beta} \) is (with two predictors): $$ p(C=k\vert \mathbf {x} )=\frac{\exp{(\beta_{k0}+\beta_{k1}x_1)}}{1+\sum_{l=1}^{K-1}\exp{(\beta_{l0}+\beta_{l1}x_1)}}. $$ It is easy to extend to more predictors. The final class is $$ p(C=K\vert \mathbf {x} )=\frac{1}{1+\sum_{l=1}^{K-1}\exp{(\beta_{l0}+\beta_{l1}x_1)}}, $$
and they sum to one. Our earlier discussions were all specialized to the case with two classes only. It is easy to see from the above that what we derived earlier is compatible with these equations.
To find the optimal parameters we would typically use a gradient descent method. Newton's method and gradient descent methods are discussed in the material on optimization methods.
This will be discussed next week. Before we develop our own codes for logistic regression, we end this lecture by studying the functionality that Scikit-learn offers.
We show here how we can use a simple regression case on the breast cancer data using Logistic regression as our algorithm for classification.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
# Load the data
cancer = load_breast_cancer()
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(cancer.data,cancer.target,random_state=0)
print(X_train.shape)
print(X_test.shape)
# Logistic Regression
logreg = LogisticRegression(solver='lbfgs')
logreg.fit(X_train, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy with Logistic Regression: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test,y_test)))
#now scale the data
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scaler = StandardScaler()
scaler.fit(X_train)
X_train_scaled = scaler.transform(X_train)
X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test)
# Logistic Regression
logreg.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy Logistic Regression with scaled data: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test_scaled,y_test)))
In addition to the above scores, we could also study the covariance (and the correlation matrix). We use Pandas to compute the correlation matrix.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
cancer = load_breast_cancer()
import pandas as pd
# Making a data frame
cancerpd = pd.DataFrame(cancer.data, columns=cancer.feature_names)
fig, axes = plt.subplots(15,2,figsize=(10,20))
malignant = cancer.data[cancer.target == 0]
benign = cancer.data[cancer.target == 1]
ax = axes.ravel()
for i in range(30):
_, bins = np.histogram(cancer.data[:,i], bins =50)
ax[i].hist(malignant[:,i], bins = bins, alpha = 0.5)
ax[i].hist(benign[:,i], bins = bins, alpha = 0.5)
ax[i].set_title(cancer.feature_names[i])
ax[i].set_yticks(())
ax[0].set_xlabel("Feature magnitude")
ax[0].set_ylabel("Frequency")
ax[0].legend(["Malignant", "Benign"], loc ="best")
fig.tight_layout()
plt.show()
import seaborn as sns
correlation_matrix = cancerpd.corr().round(1)
# use the heatmap function from seaborn to plot the correlation matrix
# annot = True to print the values inside the square
plt.figure(figsize=(15,8))
sns.heatmap(data=correlation_matrix, annot=True)
plt.show()
In the above example we note two things. In the first plot we display the overlap of benign and malignant tumors as functions of the various features in the Wisconsing breast cancer data set. We see that for some of the features we can distinguish clearly the benign and malignant cases while for other features we cannot. This can point to us which features may be of greater interest when we wish to classify a benign or not benign tumour.
In the second figure we have computed the so-called correlation matrix, which in our case with thirty features becomes a \( 30\times 30 \) matrix.
We constructed this matrix using pandas via the statements
cancerpd = pd.DataFrame(cancer.data, columns=cancer.feature_names)
and then
correlation_matrix = cancerpd.corr().round(1)
Diagonalizing this matrix we can in turn say something about which features are of relevance and which are not. This leads us to the classical Principal Component Analysis (PCA) theorem with applications. This will be discussed later this semester (week 43).
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
# Load the data
cancer = load_breast_cancer()
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(cancer.data,cancer.target,random_state=0)
print(X_train.shape)
print(X_test.shape)
# Logistic Regression
logreg = LogisticRegression(solver='lbfgs')
logreg.fit(X_train, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy with Logistic Regression: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test,y_test)))
#now scale the data
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scaler = StandardScaler()
scaler.fit(X_train)
X_train_scaled = scaler.transform(X_train)
X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test)
# Logistic Regression
logreg.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train)
print("Test set accuracy Logistic Regression with scaled data: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test_scaled,y_test)))
from sklearn.preprocessing import LabelEncoder
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_validate
#Cross validation
accuracy = cross_validate(logreg,X_test_scaled,y_test,cv=10)['test_score']
print(accuracy)
print("Test set accuracy with Logistic Regression and scaled data: {:.2f}".format(logreg.score(X_test_scaled,y_test)))
import scikitplot as skplt
y_pred = logreg.predict(X_test_scaled)
skplt.metrics.plot_confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred, normalize=True)
plt.show()
y_probas = logreg.predict_proba(X_test_scaled)
skplt.metrics.plot_roc(y_test, y_probas)
plt.show()
skplt.metrics.plot_cumulative_gain(y_test, y_probas)
plt.show()