Sklearn 'Seed' Not Working Properly In a Section of Code [on hold]Posterior covariance of Normal-Inverse-Wishart not converging properlyLogistic Regression not quite workingWhy is Python's scikit-learn LDA not working correctly and how does it compute LDA via SVD?K-Means Clustering Not Working As ExpcectedEmploying cross_validation to to develop a reasonable linear regression model using scikit learnWhy does sklearn Ridge not accept warm start?Working between sklearn and scipy for convex optimizationPCA principal components in sklearn not matching eigen-vectors of covariance calculated by numpySklearn BaggingRegressor does not work with LightGBMRegressor & MAE objective
Has Darkwing Duck ever met Scrooge McDuck?
Will adding a BY-SA image to a blog post make the entire post BY-SA?
Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?
If a character with the Alert feat rolls a crit fail on their Perception check, are they surprised?
How can "mimic phobia" be cured or prevented?
Should I install hardwood flooring or cabinets first?
How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character
Longest common substring in linear time
How do ground effect vehicles perform turns?
Drawing ramified coverings with tikz
Confusion on Parallelogram
How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux?
What is the grammatical term for “‑ed” words like these?
My friend sent me a screenshot of a transaction hash, but when I search for it I find divergent data. What happened?
Flux received by a negative charge
Is there a conventional notation or name for the slip angle?
Is it possible to use .desktop files to open local pdf files on specific pages with a browser?
How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?
Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?
Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?
How do I extrude a face to a single vertex
Find last 3 digits of this monster number
Varistor? Purpose and principle
Is camera lens focus an exact point or a range?
Sklearn 'Seed' Not Working Properly In a Section of Code [on hold]
Posterior covariance of Normal-Inverse-Wishart not converging properlyLogistic Regression not quite workingWhy is Python's scikit-learn LDA not working correctly and how does it compute LDA via SVD?K-Means Clustering Not Working As ExpcectedEmploying cross_validation to to develop a reasonable linear regression model using scikit learnWhy does sklearn Ridge not accept warm start?Working between sklearn and scipy for convex optimizationPCA principal components in sklearn not matching eigen-vectors of covariance calculated by numpySklearn BaggingRegressor does not work with LightGBMRegressor & MAE objective
$begingroup$
I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier
.
I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.
Here is the code:
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression()
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print(results)
The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:
1:
[0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]
2:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
3:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
4:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]
So it appears my random_state=seed
isn't holding.
What is incorrect?
Thanks in advance.
python scikit-learn ensemble
$endgroup$
put on hold as off-topic by jbowman, Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey 18 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain." – Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier
.
I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.
Here is the code:
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression()
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print(results)
The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:
1:
[0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]
2:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
3:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
4:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]
So it appears my random_state=seed
isn't holding.
What is incorrect?
Thanks in advance.
python scikit-learn ensemble
$endgroup$
put on hold as off-topic by jbowman, Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey 18 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain." – Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier
.
I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.
Here is the code:
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression()
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print(results)
The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:
1:
[0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]
2:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
3:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
4:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]
So it appears my random_state=seed
isn't holding.
What is incorrect?
Thanks in advance.
python scikit-learn ensemble
$endgroup$
I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier
.
I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.
Here is the code:
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression()
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print(results)
The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:
1:
[0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]
2:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
3:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]
4:
[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]
So it appears my random_state=seed
isn't holding.
What is incorrect?
Thanks in advance.
python scikit-learn ensemble
python scikit-learn ensemble
asked yesterday
Windstorm1981Windstorm1981
1415
1415
put on hold as off-topic by jbowman, Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey 18 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain." – Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey
put on hold as off-topic by jbowman, Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey 18 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain." – Sycorax, Robert Long, Michael Chernick, mdewey
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:
import sklearn
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
import numpy as np
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
# Data
np.random.seed(seed)
feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
print(results)
Output:
sklearn version 0.19.1
[0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely.random_state=seed
fixes my cross validation. I note your linenp.random.seed(seed)
. Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 Exactly!
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:
import sklearn
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
import numpy as np
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
# Data
np.random.seed(seed)
feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
print(results)
Output:
sklearn version 0.19.1
[0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely.random_state=seed
fixes my cross validation. I note your linenp.random.seed(seed)
. Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 Exactly!
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:
import sklearn
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
import numpy as np
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
# Data
np.random.seed(seed)
feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
print(results)
Output:
sklearn version 0.19.1
[0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely.random_state=seed
fixes my cross validation. I note your linenp.random.seed(seed)
. Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 Exactly!
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:
import sklearn
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
import numpy as np
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
# Data
np.random.seed(seed)
feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
print(results)
Output:
sklearn version 0.19.1
[0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]
$endgroup$
Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:
import sklearn
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
import numpy as np
#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
# Data
np.random.seed(seed)
feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
print(results)
Output:
sklearn version 0.19.1
[0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
EsmailianEsmailian
35115
35115
$begingroup$
Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely.random_state=seed
fixes my cross validation. I note your linenp.random.seed(seed)
. Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 Exactly!
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely.random_state=seed
fixes my cross validation. I note your linenp.random.seed(seed)
. Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 Exactly!
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely.
random_state=seed
fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed)
. Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely.
random_state=seed
fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed)
. Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
$begingroup$
ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
$endgroup$
– Windstorm1981
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 Exactly!
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Windstorm1981 Exactly!
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
yesterday
add a comment |