Lecture 10: Regression metrics

Lecture 10: Regression metrics#

UBC, 2023-24

Instructor: Varada Kolhatkar and Andrew Roth

Imports#

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.compose import (
    ColumnTransformer,
    TransformedTargetRegressor,
    make_column_transformer,
)
from sklearn.dummy import DummyRegressor
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestRegressor
from sklearn.impute import SimpleImputer
from sklearn.linear_model import Ridge, RidgeCV
from sklearn.metrics import make_scorer, mean_squared_error, r2_score
from sklearn.model_selection import (
    GridSearchCV,
    cross_val_score,
    cross_validate,
    train_test_split,
)
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline, make_pipeline
from sklearn.preprocessing import OneHotEncoder, OrdinalEncoder, StandardScaler
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeRegressor

%matplotlib inline

import warnings

warnings.simplefilter(action="ignore", category=FutureWarning)

Announcements#

HW4 is due tonight.
HW5 will be posted today. It is a project-type homework assignment and will be due after the midterm.
Midterm: Thursday, October 26th, 2023 at 6:00pm (~75 mins long)
- Checkout the midterm information announcement on Piazza (@407)

Learning outcomes#

From this lecture, students are expected to be able to:

Carry out feature transformations on somewhat complicated dataset.
Visualize transformed features as a dataframe.
Use Ridge and RidgeCV.
Explain how alpha hyperparameter of Ridge relates to the fundamental tradeoff.
Explain the effect of alpha on the magnitude of the learned coefficients.
Examine coefficients of transformed features.
Appropriately select a scoring metric given a regression problem.
Interpret and communicate the meanings of different scoring metrics on regression problems.
- MSE, RMSE, $R^2$, MAPE
Apply log-transform on the target values in a regression problem with TransformedTargetRegressor.

After carrying out preprocessing, why it’s useful to get feature names for transformed features?

More comments on tackling class imbalance#

In lecture 9 we talked about a few rather simple approaches to deal with class imbalance.
If you have a problem such as fraud detection problem where you want to spot rare events, you can also think of this problem as anomaly detection problem and use different kinds of algorithms such as isolation forests.
If you are interested in this area, it might be worth checking out this book on this topic. Imbalanced Learning: Foundations, Algorithms, and Applications

Note

When you calculate precision, recall, f1 score, by default only the positive label is evaluated, assuming by default that the positive class is labeled 1. This is configurable through the pos_label parameter.

Dataset [video]#

In this lecture, we’ll be using Kaggle House Prices dataset. As usual, to run this notebook you’ll need to download the data. For this dataset, train and test have already been separated. We’ll be working with the train portion in this lecture.

df = pd.read_csv("data/housing-kaggle/train.csv")
train_df, test_df = train_test_split(df, test_size=0.10, random_state=123)
train_df.head()

	Id	MSSubClass	MSZoning	LotFrontage	LotArea	Street	Alley	LotShape	LandContour	Utilities	...	PoolQC	Fence	MiscFeature	MiscVal	MoSold	YrSold	SaleType	SaleCondition	SalePrice
302	303	20	RL	118.0	13704	Pave	NaN	IR1	Lvl	AllPub	...	NaN	NaN	NaN	0	1	2006	WD	Normal	205000
767	768	50	RL	75.0	12508	Pave	NaN	IR1	Lvl	AllPub	...	NaN	NaN	Shed	1300	7	2008	WD	Normal	160000
429	430	20	RL	130.0	11457	Pave	NaN	IR1	Lvl	AllPub	...	NaN	NaN	NaN	0	3	2009	WD	Normal	175000
1139	1140	30	RL	98.0	8731	Pave	NaN	IR1	Lvl	AllPub	...	NaN	NaN	NaN	0	5	2007	WD	Normal	144000
558	559	60	RL	57.0	21872	Pave	NaN	IR2	HLS	AllPub	...	NaN	NaN	NaN	0	8	2008	WD	Normal	175000

5 rows × 81 columns

The supervised machine learning problem is predicting housing price given features associated with properties.
Here, the target is SalePrice, which is continuous. So it’s a regression problem (as opposed to classification).

train_df.shape

(1314, 81)

Let’s separate `X` and `y`#

X_train = train_df.drop(columns=["SalePrice"])
y_train = train_df["SalePrice"]

X_test = test_df.drop(columns=["SalePrice"])
y_test = test_df["SalePrice"]

EDA#

train_df.describe()

	Id	MSSubClass	LotFrontage	LotArea	OverallQual	OverallCond	YearBuilt	YearRemodAdd	MasVnrArea	BsmtFinSF1	...	WoodDeckSF	OpenPorchSF	EnclosedPorch	3SsnPorch	ScreenPorch	PoolArea	MiscVal	MoSold	YrSold	SalePrice
count	1314.000000	1314.000000	1089.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1307.000000	1314.000000	...	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000	1314.000000
mean	734.182648	56.472603	69.641873	10273.261035	6.076104	5.570015	1970.995434	1984.659056	102.514155	441.425419	...	94.281583	45.765601	21.726788	3.624049	13.987062	3.065449	46.951294	6.302131	2007.840183	179802.147641
std	422.224662	42.036646	23.031794	8997.895541	1.392612	1.112848	30.198127	20.639754	178.301563	459.276687	...	125.436492	65.757545	60.766423	30.320430	53.854129	42.341109	522.283421	2.698206	1.332824	79041.260572
min	1.000000	20.000000	21.000000	1300.000000	1.000000	1.000000	1872.000000	1950.000000	0.000000	0.000000	...	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	1.000000	2006.000000	34900.000000
25%	369.250000	20.000000	59.000000	7500.000000	5.000000	5.000000	1953.000000	1966.250000	0.000000	0.000000	...	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	5.000000	2007.000000	129600.000000
50%	735.500000	50.000000	69.000000	9391.000000	6.000000	5.000000	1972.000000	1993.000000	0.000000	376.000000	...	0.000000	24.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	6.000000	2008.000000	162000.000000
75%	1099.750000	70.000000	80.000000	11509.000000	7.000000	6.000000	2000.000000	2004.000000	165.500000	704.750000	...	168.000000	66.750000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	8.000000	2009.000000	212975.000000
max	1460.000000	190.000000	313.000000	215245.000000	10.000000	9.000000	2010.000000	2010.000000	1378.000000	5644.000000	...	857.000000	547.000000	552.000000	508.000000	480.000000	738.000000	15500.000000	12.000000	2010.000000	755000.000000

8 rows × 38 columns

train_df.info()

<class 'pandas.core.frame.DataFrame'>
Index: 1314 entries, 302 to 1389
Data columns (total 81 columns):
 #   Column         Non-Null Count  Dtype  
---  ------         --------------  -----  
 Id             1314 non-null   int64  
 MSSubClass     1314 non-null   int64  
 MSZoning       1314 non-null   object 
 LotFrontage    1089 non-null   float64
 LotArea        1314 non-null   int64  
 Street         1314 non-null   object 
 Alley          81 non-null     object 
 LotShape       1314 non-null   object 
 LandContour    1314 non-null   object 
 Utilities      1314 non-null   object 
LotConfig      1314 non-null   object 
LandSlope      1314 non-null   object 
Neighborhood   1314 non-null   object 
Condition1     1314 non-null   object 
Condition2     1314 non-null   object 
BldgType       1314 non-null   object 
HouseStyle     1314 non-null   object 
OverallQual    1314 non-null   int64  
OverallCond    1314 non-null   int64  
YearBuilt      1314 non-null   int64  
YearRemodAdd   1314 non-null   int64  
RoofStyle      1314 non-null   object 
RoofMatl       1314 non-null   object 
Exterior1st    1314 non-null   object 
Exterior2nd    1314 non-null   object 
MasVnrType     528 non-null    object 
MasVnrArea     1307 non-null   float64
ExterQual      1314 non-null   object 
ExterCond      1314 non-null   object 
Foundation     1314 non-null   object 
BsmtQual       1280 non-null   object 
BsmtCond       1280 non-null   object 
BsmtExposure   1279 non-null   object 
BsmtFinType1   1280 non-null   object 
BsmtFinSF1     1314 non-null   int64  
BsmtFinType2   1280 non-null   object 
BsmtFinSF2     1314 non-null   int64  
BsmtUnfSF      1314 non-null   int64  
TotalBsmtSF    1314 non-null   int64  
Heating        1314 non-null   object 
HeatingQC      1314 non-null   object 
CentralAir     1314 non-null   object 
Electrical     1313 non-null   object 
1stFlrSF       1314 non-null   int64  
2ndFlrSF       1314 non-null   int64  
LowQualFinSF   1314 non-null   int64  
GrLivArea      1314 non-null   int64  
BsmtFullBath   1314 non-null   int64  
BsmtHalfBath   1314 non-null   int64  
FullBath       1314 non-null   int64  
HalfBath       1314 non-null   int64  
BedroomAbvGr   1314 non-null   int64  
KitchenAbvGr   1314 non-null   int64  
KitchenQual    1314 non-null   object 
TotRmsAbvGrd   1314 non-null   int64  
Functional     1314 non-null   object 
Fireplaces     1314 non-null   int64  
FireplaceQu    687 non-null    object 
GarageType     1241 non-null   object 
GarageYrBlt    1241 non-null   float64
GarageFinish   1241 non-null   object 
GarageCars     1314 non-null   int64  
GarageArea     1314 non-null   int64  
GarageQual     1241 non-null   object 
GarageCond     1241 non-null   object 
PavedDrive     1314 non-null   object 
WoodDeckSF     1314 non-null   int64  
OpenPorchSF    1314 non-null   int64  
EnclosedPorch  1314 non-null   int64  
3SsnPorch      1314 non-null   int64  
ScreenPorch    1314 non-null   int64  
PoolArea       1314 non-null   int64  
PoolQC         7 non-null      object 
Fence          259 non-null    object 
MiscFeature    50 non-null     object 
MiscVal        1314 non-null   int64  
MoSold         1314 non-null   int64  
YrSold         1314 non-null   int64  
SaleType       1314 non-null   object 
SaleCondition  1314 non-null   object 
SalePrice      1314 non-null   int64  
dtypes: float64(3), int64(35), object(43)
memory usage: 841.8+ KB

`pandas_profiler`#

We do not have pandas_profiling in our course environment. You will have to install it in the environment on your own if you want to run the code below.

conda install -c conda-forge pandas-profiling

# from pandas_profiling import ProfileReport

# profile = ProfileReport(train_df, title="Pandas Profiling Report")  # , minimal=True)
# profile.to_notebook_iframe()

Feature types#

Do not blindly trust all the info given to you by automated tools.
How does pandas profiling figure out the data type?
- You can look at the Python data type and say floats are numeric, strings are categorical.
- However, in doing so you would miss out on various subtleties such as some of the string features being ordinal rather than truly categorical.
- Also, it will think free text is categorical.

In addition to tools such as above, it’s important to go through data description to understand the data.
The data description for our dataset is available here.

Feature types#

We have mixed feature types and a bunch of missing values.
Now, let’s identify feature types and transformations.

Let’s get the numeric-looking columns.

numeric_looking_columns = X_train.select_dtypes(include=np.number).columns.tolist()
print(numeric_looking_columns)

['Id', 'MSSubClass', 'LotFrontage', 'LotArea', 'OverallQual', 'OverallCond', 'YearBuilt', 'YearRemodAdd', 'MasVnrArea', 'BsmtFinSF1', 'BsmtFinSF2', 'BsmtUnfSF', 'TotalBsmtSF', '1stFlrSF', '2ndFlrSF', 'LowQualFinSF', 'GrLivArea', 'BsmtFullBath', 'BsmtHalfBath', 'FullBath', 'HalfBath', 'BedroomAbvGr', 'KitchenAbvGr', 'TotRmsAbvGrd', 'Fireplaces', 'GarageYrBlt', 'GarageCars', 'GarageArea', 'WoodDeckSF', 'OpenPorchSF', 'EnclosedPorch', '3SsnPorch', 'ScreenPorch', 'PoolArea', 'MiscVal', 'MoSold', 'YrSold']

Not all numeric looking columns are necessarily numeric.

train_df["MSSubClass"].unique()

array([ 20,  50,  30,  60, 160,  85,  90, 120, 180,  80,  70,  75, 190,
        45,  40])

MSSubClass: Identifies the type of dwelling involved in the sale.

1-STORY 1946 & NEWER ALL STYLES
1-STORY 1945 & OLDER
1-STORY W/FINISHED ATTIC ALL AGES
1-1/2 STORY - UNFINISHED ALL AGES
1-1/2 STORY FINISHED ALL AGES
2-STORY 1946 & NEWER
2-STORY 1945 & OLDER
2-1/2 STORY ALL AGES
SPLIT OR MULTI-LEVEL
SPLIT FOYER
DUPLEX - ALL STYLES AND AGES
1-STORY PUD (Planned Unit Development) - 1946 & NEWER
1-1/2 STORY PUD - ALL AGES
2-STORY PUD - 1946 & NEWER
PUD - MULTILEVEL - INCL SPLIT LEV/FOYER
2 FAMILY CONVERSION - ALL STYLES AND AGES

Also, month sold is more of a categorical feature than a numeric feature.

train_df["MoSold"].unique()  # Month Sold

array([ 1,  7,  3,  5,  8, 10,  6,  9, 12,  2,  4, 11])

drop_features = ["Id"]
numeric_features = [
    "BedroomAbvGr",
    "KitchenAbvGr",
    "LotFrontage",
    "LotArea",
    "OverallQual",
    "OverallCond",
    "YearBuilt",
    "YearRemodAdd",
    "MasVnrArea",
    "BsmtFinSF1",
    "BsmtFinSF2",
    "BsmtUnfSF",
    "TotalBsmtSF",
    "1stFlrSF",
    "2ndFlrSF",
    "LowQualFinSF",
    "GrLivArea",
    "BsmtFullBath",
    "BsmtHalfBath",
    "FullBath",
    "HalfBath",
    "TotRmsAbvGrd",
    "Fireplaces",
    "GarageYrBlt",
    "GarageCars",
    "GarageArea",
    "WoodDeckSF",
    "OpenPorchSF",
    "EnclosedPorch",
    "3SsnPorch",
    "ScreenPorch",
    "PoolArea",
    "MiscVal",
    "YrSold",
]

Note

I’ve not looked at all the features carefully. It might be appropriate to apply some other encoding on some of the numeric features above.

set(numeric_looking_columns) - set(numeric_features) - set(drop_features)

{'MSSubClass', 'MoSold'}

We’ll treat the above numeric-looking features as categorical features.

There are a bunch of ordinal features in this dataset.
Ordinal features with the same scale
- Poor (Po), Fair (Fa), Typical (TA), Good (Gd), Excellent (Ex)
- These we’ll be calling ordinal_features_reg.
Ordinal features with different scales
- These we’ll be calling ordinal_features_oth.

ordinal_features_reg = [
    "ExterQual",
    "ExterCond",
    "BsmtQual",
    "BsmtCond",
    "HeatingQC",
    "KitchenQual",
    "FireplaceQu",
    "GarageQual",
    "GarageCond",
    "PoolQC",
]
ordering = [
    "Po",
    "Fa",
    "TA",
    "Gd",
    "Ex",
]  # if N/A it will just impute something, per below
ordering_ordinal_reg = [ordering] * len(ordinal_features_reg)
ordering_ordinal_reg

[['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
 ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex']]

We’ll pass the above as categories in our OrdinalEncoder.

There are a bunch more ordinal features using different scales.
- These we’ll be calling ordinal_features_oth.
- We are encoding them separately.

ordinal_features_oth = [
    "BsmtExposure",
    "BsmtFinType1",
    "BsmtFinType2",
    "Functional",
    "Fence",
]
ordering_ordinal_oth = [
    ["NA", "No", "Mn", "Av", "Gd"],
    ["NA", "Unf", "LwQ", "Rec", "BLQ", "ALQ", "GLQ"],
    ["NA", "Unf", "LwQ", "Rec", "BLQ", "ALQ", "GLQ"],
    ["Sal", "Sev", "Maj2", "Maj1", "Mod", "Min2", "Min1", "Typ"],
    ["NA", "MnWw", "GdWo", "MnPrv", "GdPrv"],
]

The remaining features are categorical features.

categorical_features = list(
    set(X_train.columns)
    - set(numeric_features)
    - set(ordinal_features_reg)
    - set(ordinal_features_oth)
    - set(drop_features)
)
categorical_features

['GarageFinish',
 'LandContour',
 'LotShape',
 'Condition1',
 'Condition2',
 'SaleType',
 'Exterior2nd',
 'CentralAir',
 'PavedDrive',
 'RoofMatl',
 'Street',
 'BldgType',
 'GarageType',
 'HouseStyle',
 'Heating',
 'LandSlope',
 'Utilities',
 'Electrical',
 'RoofStyle',
 'MiscFeature',
 'MoSold',
 'Exterior1st',
 'Alley',
 'SaleCondition',
 'Neighborhood',
 'Foundation',
 'MSZoning',
 'LotConfig',
 'MasVnrType',
 'MSSubClass']

We are not doing it here but we can engineer our own features too.
Would price per square foot be a good feature to add in here?

Applying feature transformations#

Since we have mixed feature types, let’s use ColumnTransformer to apply different transformations on different features types.

from sklearn.compose import make_column_transformer

numeric_transformer = make_pipeline(SimpleImputer(strategy="median"), StandardScaler())
ordinal_transformer_reg = make_pipeline(
    SimpleImputer(strategy="most_frequent"),
    OrdinalEncoder(categories=ordering_ordinal_reg),
)

ordinal_transformer_oth = make_pipeline(
    SimpleImputer(strategy="most_frequent"),
    OrdinalEncoder(categories=ordering_ordinal_oth),
)

categorical_transformer = make_pipeline(
    SimpleImputer(strategy="constant", fill_value="missing"),
    OneHotEncoder(handle_unknown="ignore", sparse_output=False),
)

preprocessor = make_column_transformer(
    ("drop", drop_features),
    (numeric_transformer, numeric_features),
    (ordinal_transformer_reg, ordinal_features_reg),
    (ordinal_transformer_oth, ordinal_features_oth),
    (categorical_transformer, categorical_features),
)

Examining the preprocessed data#

preprocessor.fit(X_train)  # Calling fit to examine all the transformers.
preprocessor.named_transformers_

{'drop': 'drop',
 'pipeline-1': Pipeline(steps=[('simpleimputer', SimpleImputer(strategy='median')),
                 ('standardscaler', StandardScaler())]),
 'pipeline-2': Pipeline(steps=[('simpleimputer', SimpleImputer(strategy='most_frequent')),
                 ('ordinalencoder',
                  OrdinalEncoder(categories=[['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex'],
                                             ['Po', 'Fa', 'TA', 'Gd', 'Ex']]))]),
 'pipeline-3': Pipeline(steps=[('simpleimputer', SimpleImputer(strategy='most_frequent')),
                 ('ordinalencoder',
                  OrdinalEncoder(categories=[['NA', 'No', 'Mn', 'Av', 'Gd'],
                                             ['NA', 'Unf', 'LwQ', 'Rec', 'BLQ',
                                              'ALQ', 'GLQ'],
                                             ['NA', 'Unf', 'LwQ', 'Rec', 'BLQ',
                                              'ALQ', 'GLQ'],
                                             ['Sal', 'Sev', 'Maj2', 'Maj1',
                                              'Mod', 'Min2', 'Min1', 'Typ'],
                                             ['NA', 'MnWw', 'GdWo', 'MnPrv',
                                              'GdPrv']]))]),
 'pipeline-4': Pipeline(steps=[('simpleimputer',
                  SimpleImputer(fill_value='missing', strategy='constant')),
                 ('onehotencoder',
                  OneHotEncoder(handle_unknown='ignore', sparse_output=False))])}

ohe_columns = list(
    preprocessor.named_transformers_["pipeline-4"]
    .named_steps["onehotencoder"]
    .get_feature_names_out(categorical_features)
)
new_columns = (
    numeric_features + ordinal_features_reg + ordinal_features_oth + ohe_columns
)

X_train_enc = pd.DataFrame(
    preprocessor.transform(X_train), index=X_train.index, columns=new_columns
)
X_train_enc.head()

	BedroomAbvGr	KitchenAbvGr	LotFrontage	LotArea	OverallQual	OverallCond	YearBuilt	YearRemodAdd	MasVnrArea	BsmtFinSF1	...	MSSubClass_60
302	0.154795	-0.222647	2.312501	0.381428	0.663680	-0.512408	0.993969	0.840492	0.269972	-0.961498	...	0.0
767	1.372763	-0.222647	0.260890	0.248457	-0.054669	1.285467	-1.026793	0.016525	-0.573129	0.476092	...	0.0
429	0.154795	-0.222647	2.885044	0.131607	-0.054669	-0.512408	0.563314	0.161931	-0.573129	1.227559	...	0.0
1139	0.154795	-0.222647	1.358264	-0.171468	-0.773017	-0.512408	-1.689338	-1.679877	-0.573129	0.443419	...	0.0
558	0.154795	-0.222647	-0.597924	1.289541	0.663680	-0.512408	0.828332	0.598149	-0.573129	0.354114	...	1.0

5 rows × 262 columns

X_train.shape

(1314, 80)

X_train_enc.shape

(1314, 262)

We went from 80 features to 263 features!!

Other possible preprocessing?#

There is a lot of room for improvement …
We’re just using SimpleImputer.
- In reality we’d want to go through this more carefully.
- We may also want to drop some columns that are almost entirely missing.
We could also check for outliers, and do other exploratory data analysis (EDA).
But for now this is good enough …

Model building#

`DummyRegressor`#

dummy = DummyRegressor()
pd.DataFrame(cross_validate(dummy, X_train, y_train, cv=10, return_train_score=True))

	fit_time	score_time	test_score
0	0.001193	0.000272	-0.003547
1	0.000686	0.000215	-0.001266
2	0.000658	0.000285	-0.011767
3	0.000648	0.000203	-0.006744
4	0.000656	0.000203	-0.076533
5	0.000657	0.000198	-0.003133
6	0.000643	0.000202	-0.000397
7	0.000644	0.000200	-0.003785
8	0.000649	0.000196	-0.001740
9	0.000641	0.000195	-0.000117

Let’s try a linear model: `Ridge`#

Recall that we are going to use Ridge() instead of LinearRegression() in this course.
Similar to linear regression, ridge regression is also a linear model for regression.
So the formula it uses to make predictions is the same one used for ordinary least squares.
But it has a hyperparameter alpha which controls the fundamental tradeoff.

lr = make_pipeline(preprocessor, Ridge())
lr.fit(X_train, y_train);

lr_preds = lr.predict(X_test)
lr_preds[:10]

array([224865.34161762,  65243.29045704, 133337.46729488, 250900.65424895,
       128984.32127053, 205597.8361313 , 334576.71199006, 158982.7234503 ,
       148343.09009799, 129257.94933723])

lr_preds.max(), lr_preds.min()

(411412.67186503054, 38853.27502379051)

print("Smallest coefficient: ", lr.named_steps["ridge"].coef_.min())
print("Largest coefficient:", lr.named_steps["ridge"].coef_.max())

Smallest coefficient:  -191169.0717446894
Largest coefficient: 83603.01311996114

Let’s carry out cross-validation with Ridge.

lr_pipe = make_pipeline(preprocessor, Ridge())
pd.DataFrame(cross_validate(lr_pipe, X_train, y_train, cv=10, return_train_score=True))

	fit_time	score_time	test_score	train_score
0	0.029629	0.006503	0.862432	0.911846
1	0.027004	0.005838	0.812363	0.913849
2	0.026634	0.005720	0.775270	0.915952
3	0.026571	0.005746	0.874532	0.910843
4	0.027291	0.005778	0.852104	0.911615
5	0.025728	0.005622	0.826142	0.910174
6	0.027968	0.005613	0.825697	0.913767
7	0.026016	0.006049	0.873704	0.910018
8	0.025648	0.005649	0.196599	0.921438
9	0.025573	0.005642	0.890457	0.908215

Quite a bit of variation in the test scores.
Performing poorly in fold 8. Not sure why.
- Probably it contains the outliers in the data which we kind of ignored.

Tuning `alpha` hyperparameter of `Ridge`#

Recall that Ridge has a hyperparameter alpha that controls the fundamental tradeoff.
This is like C in LogisticRegression but, annoyingly, alpha is the inverse of C.
That is, large C is like small alpha and vice versa.
Smaller alpha: lower training error (overfitting)

param_grid = {"ridge__alpha": 10.0 ** np.arange(-5, 5, 1)}

pipe_ridge = make_pipeline(preprocessor, Ridge())

search = GridSearchCV(pipe_ridge, param_grid, return_train_score=True, n_jobs=-1)
search.fit(X_train, y_train)
train_scores = search.cv_results_["mean_train_score"]
cv_scores = search.cv_results_["mean_test_score"]

plt.semilogx(param_grid["ridge__alpha"], train_scores.tolist(), label="train")
plt.semilogx(param_grid["ridge__alpha"], cv_scores.tolist(), label="cv")
plt.legend()
plt.xlabel("alpha")
plt.ylabel("score");

../_images/7c69bc50126ef185c1f2aa1f41344875af570cb0504669425f02d2de39a1f799.png

best_alpha = search.best_params_
best_alpha

{'ridge__alpha': 100.0}

search.best_score_

0.7951559890417758

It seems alpha=100 is the best choice here.

General intuition: larger alpha leads to smaller coefficients.
Smaller coefficients mean the predictions are less sensitive to changes in the data. Hence less chance of overfitting.

pipe_bigalpha = make_pipeline(preprocessor, Ridge(alpha=1000))
pipe_bigalpha.fit(X_train, y_train)
bigalpha_coeffs = pipe_bigalpha.named_steps["ridge"].coef_
pd.DataFrame(
    data=bigalpha_coeffs, index=new_columns, columns=["Coefficients"]
).sort_values(by="Coefficients", ascending=False)

	Coefficients
OverallQual	9691.378159
GrLivArea	7816.490033
1stFlrSF	5931.401623
TotRmsAbvGrd	5209.377032
GarageCars	5057.215412
...	...
SaleType_WD	-1214.532034
GarageFinish_Unf	-1281.596864
Foundation_CBlock	-1766.048889
RoofStyle_Gable	-1985.253914
KitchenAbvGr	-2623.509001

262 rows × 1 columns

Smaller alpha leads to bigger coefficients.

pipe_smallalpha = make_pipeline(preprocessor, Ridge(alpha=0.01))
pipe_smallalpha.fit(X_train, y_train)
smallalpha_coeffs = pipe_smallalpha.named_steps["ridge"].coef_
pd.DataFrame(
    data=smallalpha_coeffs, index=new_columns, columns=["Coefficients"]
).sort_values(by="Coefficients", ascending=False)

	Coefficients
RoofMatl_WdShngl	128384.117412
RoofMatl_Membran	127326.497787
RoofMatl_Metal	106023.481515
Condition2_PosA	83437.787574
RoofMatl_CompShg	70568.838951
...	...
Exterior1st_ImStucc	-34441.626206
Heating_OthW	-34806.290424
Condition2_RRAe	-63362.335309
Condition2_PosN	-194985.470060
RoofMatl_ClyTile	-582469.424221

262 rows × 1 columns

With the best alpha found by the grid search, the coefficients are somewhere in between.

pipe_bestalpha = make_pipeline(
    preprocessor, Ridge(alpha=search.best_params_["ridge__alpha"])
)
pipe_bestalpha.fit(X_train, y_train)
bestalpha_coeffs = pipe_bestalpha.named_steps["ridge"].coef_
pd.DataFrame(
    data=bestalpha_coeffs, index=new_columns, columns=["Coefficients"]
).sort_values(by="Coefficients", ascending=False)

	Coefficients
OverallQual	14485.526602
GrLivArea	11693.792577
Neighborhood_NridgHt	9661.926657
Neighborhood_NoRidge	9492.921850
BsmtQual	8076.988901
...	...
RoofMatl_ClyTile	-3991.413796
LandContour_Bnk	-5002.470666
Neighborhood_Gilbert	-5212.984664
Neighborhood_CollgCr	-5461.450739
Neighborhood_Edwards	-5789.889086

262 rows × 1 columns

To summarize:

Higher values of alpha means a more restricted model.
The values of coefficients are likely to be smaller for higher values of alpha compared to lower values of alpha.

`RidgeCV`#

Because it’s so common to want to tune alpha with Ridge, sklearn provides a class called RidgeCV, which automatically tunes alpha based on cross-validation.

alphas = 10.0 ** np.arange(-6, 6, 1)
ridgecv_pipe = make_pipeline(preprocessor, RidgeCV(alphas=alphas, cv=10))
ridgecv_pipe.fit(X_train, y_train);

best_alpha = ridgecv_pipe.named_steps["ridgecv"].alpha_

best_alpha

100.0

Let’s examine the tuned model.

ridge_tuned = make_pipeline(preprocessor, Ridge(alpha=best_alpha))
ridge_tuned.fit(X_train, y_train)
ridge_preds = ridge_tuned.predict(X_test)
ridge_preds[:10]

array([228603.06797961, 104643.99931883, 155624.61029914, 246332.07245741,
       127614.33726089, 243243.60429913, 304784.87844893, 145425.67512181,
       157008.6526853 , 128528.91515735])

df = pd.DataFrame(
    data={"coefficients": ridge_tuned.named_steps["ridge"].coef_}, index=new_columns
)

df.sort_values("coefficients", ascending=False)

	coefficients
OverallQual	14485.526602
GrLivArea	11693.792577
Neighborhood_NridgHt	9661.926657
Neighborhood_NoRidge	9492.921850
BsmtQual	8076.988901
...	...
RoofMatl_ClyTile	-3991.413796
LandContour_Bnk	-5002.470666
Neighborhood_Gilbert	-5212.984664
Neighborhood_CollgCr	-5461.450739
Neighborhood_Edwards	-5789.889086

262 rows × 1 columns

So according to this model:

As OverallQual feature gets bigger the housing price will get bigger.
Neighborhood_Edwards is associated with reducing the housing price.
- We’ll talk more about interpretation of different kinds of features next week.

ridge_preds.max(), ridge_preds.min()

(390725.7472092076, 30815.281220255274)

❓❓ Questions for you#

iClicker Exercise 10.1#

iClicker cloud join link: https://join.iclicker.com/SNBF

Select all of the following statements which are TRUE.

(A) Price per square foot would be a good feature to add in our X.
(B) The alpha hyperparameter of Ridge has similar interpretation of C hyperparameter of LogisticRegression; higher alpha means more complex model.
(C) In Ridge, smaller alpha means bigger coefficients whereas bigger alpha means smaller coefficients.

Can we use the metrics we looked at in the previous lecture for this problem? Why or why not?

Regression scoring functions#

We aren’t doing classification anymore, so we can’t just check for equality:

ridge_tuned.predict(X_train) == y_train

   False
   False
   False
  False
   False
        ...  
  False
  False
  False
  False
  False
Name: SalePrice, Length: 1314, dtype: bool

y_train.values

array([205000, 160000, 175000, ..., 262500, 133000, 131000])

ridge_tuned.predict(X_train)

array([212870.41150573, 178494.22221894, 189981.34426571, ...,
       245329.56804591, 129904.71327467, 135422.67672595])

We need a score that reflects how right/wrong each prediction is.

There are a number of popular scoring functions for regression. We are going to look at some common metrics:

mean squared error (MSE)
$R^2$
root mean squared error (RMSE)
MAPE

See sklearn documentation for more details.

Mean squared error (MSE)#

A common metric is mean squared error:

preds = ridge_tuned.predict(X_train)

np.mean((y_train - preds) ** 2)

872961060.7986538

Perfect predictions would have MSE=0.

np.mean((y_train - y_train) ** 2)

0.0

This is also implemented in sklearn:

from sklearn.metrics import mean_squared_error

mean_squared_error(y_train, preds)

872961060.7986538

MSE looks huge and unreasonable. There is an error of ~$1 Billion!
Is this score good or bad?

Unlike classification, with regression our target has units.
The target is in dollars, the mean squared error is in $dollars^2$
The score also depends on the scale of the targets.
If we were working in cents instead of dollars, our MSE would be $10,000 \times (100^2$) higher!

np.mean((y_train * 100 - preds * 100) ** 2)

8729610607986.539

Root mean squared error or RMSE#

The MSE above is in $dollars^2$.
A more relatable metric would be the root mean squared error, or RMSE

np.sqrt(mean_squared_error(y_train, ridge_tuned.predict(X_train)))

29545.914451894256

Error of $30,000 makes more sense.
Let’s dig deeper.

plt.scatter(y_train, ridge_tuned.predict(X_train), alpha=0.3)
grid = np.linspace(y_train.min(), y_train.max(), 1000)
plt.plot(grid, grid, "--k")
plt.xlabel("true price")
plt.ylabel("predicted price");

../_images/f8f19da056bf99ad4acb051b80ac65acb807c7101bea25020985d1ea153032e7.png

Here we can see a few cases where our prediction is way off.
Is there something weird about those houses, perhaps? Outliers?
Under the line means we’re under-predicting, over the line means we’re over-predicting.

$R^2$ (not in detail)#

A common score is the $R^2$

This is the score that sklearn uses by default when you call score()
You can read about it if interested.
$R^2$ measures the proportion of variability in $y$ that can be explained using $X$.
Independent of the scale of $y$. So the max is 1.

\[R^2(y, \hat{y}) = 1 - \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - \hat{y_i})^2}{\sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - \bar{y})^2}\]

The denominator measures the total variance in $y$.
The amount of variability that is left unexplained after performing regression.

Key points:

The maximum is 1 for perfect predictions
Negative values are very bad: “worse than DummyRegressor” (very bad)

(Optional) Warning: MSE is “reversible” but $R^2$ is not:

mean_squared_error(y_train, preds)

872961060.7986538

mean_squared_error(preds, y_train)

872961060.7986538

r2_score(y_train, preds)

0.8601643854446083

r2_score(preds, y_train)

0.8280229354283184

When you call fit it minimizes MSE / maximizes $R^2$ (or something like that) by default.
Just like in classification, this isn’t always what you want!!

MAPE#

We got an RMSE of ~$30,000 before.

Question: Is an error of $30,000 acceptable?

np.sqrt(mean_squared_error(y_train, ridge_tuned.predict(X_train)))

29545.914451894256

For a house worth $600k, it seems reasonable! That’s 5% error.
For a house worth $60k, that is terrible. It’s 50% error.

We have both of these cases in our dataset.

plt.hist(y_train, bins=100);

../_images/4f366c4c986ed913492b3de1b294a0262320f7f21b4cb38759225b87d310cdff.png

How about looking at percent error?

pred_train = ridge_tuned.predict(X_train)
percent_errors = (pred_train - y_train) / y_train * 100.0
percent_errors

    3.839225
   11.558889
    8.560768
 -16.405650
   17.194710
          ...    
  -0.496213
 -28.624615
  -6.541117
  -2.327283
   3.376089
Name: SalePrice, Length: 1314, dtype: float64

These are both positive (predict too high) and negative (predict too low).

We can look at the absolute percent error:

np.abs(percent_errors)

    3.839225
   11.558889
    8.560768
  16.405650
   17.194710
          ...    
   0.496213
  28.624615
   6.541117
   2.327283
   3.376089
Name: SalePrice, Length: 1314, dtype: float64

And, like MSE, we can take the average over examples. This is called mean absolute percent error (MAPE).

def my_mape(true, pred):
    return np.mean(np.abs((pred - true) / true))

my_mape(y_train, pred_train)

0.10092665203438773

Let’s use sklearn to calculate MAPE.

from sklearn.metrics import mean_absolute_percentage_error

mean_absolute_percentage_error(y_train, pred_train)

0.10092665203438773

Ok, this is quite interpretable.
On average, we have around 10% error.

Different scoring functions with `cross_validate`#

Let’s try using MSE instead of the default $R^2$ score.

pd.DataFrame(
    cross_validate(
        ridge_tuned,
        X_train,
        y_train,
        return_train_score=True,
        scoring="neg_mean_squared_error",
    )
)

	fit_time	score_time	test_score	train_score
0	0.025777	0.006925	-7.055915e+08	-9.379875e+08
1	0.024397	0.006842	-1.239944e+09	-8.264283e+08
2	0.024002	0.006774	-1.125440e+09	-8.758062e+08
3	0.024273	0.006692	-9.801219e+08	-8.849438e+08
4	0.024040	0.006704	-2.267612e+09	-7.395282e+08

# make a scorer function that we can pass into cross-validation
mape_scorer = make_scorer(my_mape, greater_is_better=False)

pd.DataFrame(
    cross_validate(
        ridge_tuned, X_train, y_train, return_train_score=True, scoring=mape_scorer
    )
)

	fit_time	score_time	test_score	train_score
0	0.024928	0.006840	-0.096960	-0.104070
1	0.024294	0.007623	-0.107985	-0.099685
2	0.024001	0.006786	-0.118347	-0.101796
3	0.024005	0.006607	-0.107947	-0.102435
4	0.025644	0.006638	-0.121985	-0.098307

If you are finding greater_is_better=False argument confusing, here is the documentation:

greater_is_better(bool), default=True Whether score_func is a score function (default), meaning high is good, or a loss function, meaning low is good. In the latter case, the scorer object will sign-flip the outcome of the score_func.

Since our custom scorer mape gives an error and not a score, I’m passing False to it and it’ll sign flip so that we can interpret bigger numbers as better performance.

# ?make_scorer

scoring = {
    "r2": "r2",
    "mape_scorer": mape_scorer, # just for demonstration for a custom scorer
    "sklearn MAPE": "neg_mean_absolute_percentage_error",
    "neg_root_mean_square_error": "neg_root_mean_squared_error",
    "neg_mean_squared_error": "neg_mean_squared_error",
}

pd.DataFrame(
    cross_validate(
        ridge_tuned, X_train, y_train, return_train_score=True, scoring=scoring
    )
).T

	0	1	2	3	4
fit_time	2.595615e-02	2.484584e-02	2.470708e-02	2.400208e-02	2.449203e-02
score_time	8.028984e-03	8.161068e-03	8.410931e-03	7.450104e-03	7.692099e-03
test_r2	8.669805e-01	8.200326e-01	8.262156e-01	8.514598e-01	6.110915e-01
train_r2	8.551862e-01	8.636849e-01	8.580539e-01	8.561645e-01	8.834356e-01
test_mape_scorer	-9.696034e-02	-1.079852e-01	-1.183471e-01	-1.079471e-01	-1.219845e-01
train_mape_scorer	-1.040698e-01	-9.968514e-02	-1.017959e-01	-1.024351e-01	-9.830712e-02
test_sklearn MAPE	-9.696034e-02	-1.079852e-01	-1.183471e-01	-1.079471e-01	-1.219845e-01
train_sklearn MAPE	-1.040698e-01	-9.968514e-02	-1.017959e-01	-1.024351e-01	-9.830712e-02
test_neg_root_mean_square_error	-2.656297e+04	-3.521284e+04	-3.354759e+04	-3.130690e+04	-4.761945e+04
train_neg_root_mean_square_error	-3.062658e+04	-2.874767e+04	-2.959402e+04	-2.974801e+04	-2.719427e+04
test_neg_mean_squared_error	-7.055915e+08	-1.239944e+09	-1.125440e+09	-9.801219e+08	-2.267612e+09
train_neg_mean_squared_error	-9.379875e+08	-8.264283e+08	-8.758062e+08	-8.849438e+08	-7.395282e+08

Are we getting the same alpha with mape?

param_grid = {"ridge__alpha": 10.0 ** np.arange(-6, 6, 1)}

pipe_ridge = make_pipeline(preprocessor, Ridge())

search = GridSearchCV(
    pipe_ridge, param_grid, return_train_score=True, n_jobs=-1, scoring=mape_scorer
)
search.fit(X_train, y_train);

print("Best hyperparameter values: ", search.best_params_)
print("Best score: %0.3f" % (search.best_score_))
pd.DataFrame(search.cv_results_)[
    [
        "mean_train_score",
        "mean_test_score",
        "param_ridge__alpha",
        "mean_fit_time",
        "rank_test_score",
    ]
].set_index("rank_test_score").sort_index().T

Best hyperparameter values:  {'ridge__alpha': 100.0}
Best score: -0.111

rank_test_score	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
mean_train_score	-0.101259	-0.111543	-0.096462	-0.090785	-0.085698	-0.085508	-0.085546	-0.08555	-0.085551	-0.085551	-0.203421	-0.33213
mean_test_score	-0.110645	-0.115401	-0.116497	-0.122331	-0.125644	-0.127242	-0.127418	-0.127439	-0.127441	-0.127441	-0.204692	-0.33271
param_ridge__alpha	100.0	1000.0	10.0	1.0	0.1	0.01	0.001	0.0001	0.00001	0.000001	10000.0	100000.0
mean_fit_time	0.035483	0.038616	0.040649	0.045599	0.040408	0.041231	0.039581	0.04547	0.038408	0.032273	0.041343	0.037057

Using multiple metrics in `GridSearchCV` or `RandomizedSearchCV`#

We could use multiple metrics with GridSearchCV or RandomizedSearchCV.
But if you do so, you need to set refit to the metric (string) for which the best_params_ will be found and used to build the best_estimator_ on the whole dataset.

search_multi = GridSearchCV(
    pipe_ridge,
    param_grid,
    return_train_score=True,
    n_jobs=-1,
    scoring=scoring,
    refit="sklearn MAPE",
)
search_multi.fit(X_train, y_train);

print("Best hyperparameter values: ", search_multi.best_params_)
print("Best score: %0.3f" % (search_multi.best_score_))
pd.DataFrame(search_multi.cv_results_).set_index("rank_test_mape_scorer").sort_index()

Best hyperparameter values:  {'ridge__alpha': 100.0}
Best score: -0.111

	mean_fit_time	std_fit_time	mean_score_time	std_score_time	param_ridge__alpha	params	split0_test_r2	split1_test_r2	split2_test_r2	split3_test_r2	...	mean_test_neg_mean_squared_error	std_test_neg_mean_squared_error	rank_test_neg_mean_squared_error	split0_train_neg_mean_squared_error	split1_train_neg_mean_squared_error	split2_train_neg_mean_squared_error	split3_train_neg_mean_squared_error	split4_train_neg_mean_squared_error	mean_train_neg_mean_squared_error	std_train_neg_mean_squared_error
rank_test_mape_scorer
1	0.041573	0.004271	0.013070	0.002356	100.0	{'ridge__alpha': 100.0}	0.866980	0.820033	0.826216	0.851460	...	-1.263742e+09	5.328077e+08	1	-9.379875e+08	-8.264283e+08	-8.758062e+08	-8.849438e+08	-7.395282e+08	-8.529388e+08	6.685103e+07
2	0.039553	0.003296	0.011070	0.003513	1000.0	{'ridge__alpha': 1000.0}	0.827261	0.786555	0.802902	0.812272	...	-1.362185e+09	3.262269e+08	3	-1.282021e+09	-1.156311e+09	-1.207814e+09	-1.225301e+09	-1.029950e+09	-1.180279e+09	8.521743e+07
3	0.037233	0.003226	0.014097	0.002145	10.0	{'ridge__alpha': 10.0}	0.859318	0.820564	0.832866	0.846650	...	-1.283119e+09	5.511620e+08	2	-7.034979e+08	-6.276943e+08	-6.910456e+08	-6.701186e+08	-5.915714e+08	-6.567856e+08	4.155178e+07
4	0.042143	0.003760	0.011983	0.003802	1.0	{'ridge__alpha': 1.0}	0.835749	0.810073	0.831611	0.843992	...	-1.386071e+09	6.378971e+08	4	-5.394113e+08	-4.898703e+08	-5.405227e+08	-5.290961e+08	-5.046193e+08	-5.207039e+08	2.011269e+07
5	0.041837	0.002342	0.012658	0.003056	0.1	{'ridge__alpha': 0.1}	0.821807	0.792828	0.805198	0.863941	...	-1.465279e+09	6.931439e+08	5	-4.579559e+08	-4.009514e+08	-4.345386e+08	-4.515351e+08	-4.846260e+08	-4.459214e+08	2.766317e+07
6	0.036263	0.003491	0.017713	0.002790	0.01	{'ridge__alpha': 0.01}	0.824884	0.782183	0.787933	0.868003	...	-1.501304e+09	7.090376e+08	6	-4.522563e+08	-3.926733e+08	-4.251158e+08	-4.446284e+08	-4.837022e+08	-4.396752e+08	3.014081e+07
7	0.038944	0.004208	0.012339	0.002726	0.001	{'ridge__alpha': 0.001}	0.826553	0.780497	0.785399	0.868281	...	-1.505592e+09	7.117899e+08	7	-4.521578e+08	-3.925288e+08	-4.249618e+08	-4.445124e+08	-4.836880e+08	-4.395697e+08	3.018459e+07
8	0.036164	0.004368	0.013690	0.001376	0.0001	{'ridge__alpha': 0.0001}	0.826739	0.780316	0.785134	0.868305	...	-1.506035e+09	7.120769e+08	8	-4.521567e+08	-3.925272e+08	-4.249601e+08	-4.445111e+08	-4.836878e+08	-4.395686e+08	3.018507e+07
9	0.038126	0.004525	0.012731	0.003667	0.00001	{'ridge__alpha': 1e-05}	0.826758	0.780298	0.785108	0.868308	...	-1.506079e+09	7.121056e+08	9	-4.521567e+08	-3.925272e+08	-4.249601e+08	-4.445111e+08	-4.836878e+08	-4.395686e+08	3.018507e+07
10	0.031822	0.003929	0.012328	0.003792	0.000001	{'ridge__alpha': 1e-06}	0.826760	0.780296	0.785105	0.868308	...	-1.506084e+09	7.121084e+08	10	-4.521567e+08	-3.925272e+08	-4.249601e+08	-4.445111e+08	-4.836878e+08	-4.395686e+08	3.018507e+07
11	0.040749	0.002128	0.011912	0.003928	10000.0	{'ridge__alpha': 10000.0}	0.593370	0.551975	0.568663	0.557739	...	-2.686348e+09	3.316395e+08	11	-2.762093e+09	-2.571901e+09	-2.662541e+09	-2.624450e+09	-2.595569e+09	-2.643311e+09	6.665351e+07
12	0.037351	0.002842	0.009640	0.003145	100000.0	{'ridge__alpha': 100000.0}	0.135384	0.113837	0.118874	0.123367	...	-5.442377e+09	5.531116e+08	12	-5.629792e+09	-5.271738e+09	-5.379416e+09	-5.342605e+09	-5.498133e+09	-5.424337e+09	1.262079e+08

12 rows × 80 columns

What’s the test score?

search_multi.score(X_test, y_test)

-0.09503409246217502

my_mape(y_test, ridge_tuned.predict(X_test))

0.09503409246217502

Using regression metrics with `scikit-learn`#

In sklearn, you will notice that it has negative version of the metrics above (e.g., neg_mean_squared_error, neg_root_mean_squared_error).
The reason for this is that scores return a value to maximize, the higher the better.

❓❓ Questions for you#

iClicker Exercise 10.2#

iClicker cloud join link: https://join.iclicker.com/SNBF

Select all of the following statements which are TRUE.

(A) We can use still use precision and recall for regression problems but now we have other metrics we can use as well.
(B) In sklearn for regression problems, using r2_score() and .score() (with default values) will produce the same results.
(C) RMSE is always going to be non-negative.
(D) MSE does not directly provide the information about whether the model is underpredicting or overpredicting.
(E) We can pass multiple scoring metrics to GridSearchCV or RandomizedSearchCV for regression as well as classification problems.

What did we learn today?#

House prices dataset target is price, which is numeric -> regression rather than classification
There are corresponding versions of all the tools we used:
- DummyClassifier -> DummyRegressor
- LogisticRegression -> Ridge
Ridge hyperparameter alpha is like LogisticRegression hyperparameter C, but opposite meaning
We’ll avoid LinearRegression in this course.

Scoring metrics
$R^2$ is the default .score(), it is unitless, 0 is bad, 1 is best
MSE (mean squared error) is in units of target squared, hard to interpret; 0 is best
RMSE (root mean squared error) is in the same units as the target; 0 is best
MAPE (mean absolute percent error) is unitless; 0 is best, 1 is bad

Lecture 10: Regression metrics

Contents

Lecture 10: Regression metrics#

Imports#

Announcements#

Learning outcomes#

More comments on tackling class imbalance#

Dataset [video]#

Let’s separate `X` and `y`#

EDA#

`pandas_profiler`#

Feature types#

Feature types#

Applying feature transformations#

Examining the preprocessed data#

Other possible preprocessing?#

Model building#

`DummyRegressor`#

Let’s try a linear model: `Ridge`#

Feature names of transformed data#

Tuning `alpha` hyperparameter of `Ridge`#

`RidgeCV`#

❓❓ Questions for you#

iClicker Exercise 10.1#

Regression scoring functions#

Mean squared error (MSE)#

Root mean squared error or RMSE#

\(R^2\) (not in detail)#

MAPE#

Transforming the targets#

Different scoring functions with `cross_validate`#

Using multiple metrics in `GridSearchCV` or `RandomizedSearchCV`#

Using regression metrics with `scikit-learn`#

❓❓ Questions for you#

iClicker Exercise 10.2#

What did we learn today?#

Lecture 10: Regression metrics

Contents

Lecture 10: Regression metrics#

Imports#

Announcements#

Learning outcomes#

More comments on tackling class imbalance#

Dataset [video]#

Let’s separate X and y#

EDA#

pandas_profiler#

Feature types#

Feature types#

Applying feature transformations#

Examining the preprocessed data#

Other possible preprocessing?#

Model building#

DummyRegressor#

Let’s try a linear model: Ridge#

Feature names of transformed data#

Tuning alpha hyperparameter of Ridge#

RidgeCV#

❓❓ Questions for you#

iClicker Exercise 10.1#

Regression scoring functions#

Mean squared error (MSE)#

Root mean squared error or RMSE#

\(R^2\) (not in detail)#

MAPE#

Transforming the targets#

Different scoring functions with cross_validate#

Using multiple metrics in GridSearchCV or RandomizedSearchCV#

Using regression metrics with scikit-learn#

❓❓ Questions for you#

iClicker Exercise 10.2#

What did we learn today?#

Let’s separate `X` and `y`#

`pandas_profiler`#

`DummyRegressor`#

Let’s try a linear model: `Ridge`#

Tuning `alpha` hyperparameter of `Ridge`#

`RidgeCV`#

Different scoring functions with `cross_validate`#

Using multiple metrics in `GridSearchCV` or `RandomizedSearchCV`#

Using regression metrics with `scikit-learn`#