ok

some more suggestions:

- do you observe the same behavior with SVC which uses a different
multiclass strategy?
- what do you see when you inspect results obtained with binary
predictions (keeping 2 classes at a time)?

Alex

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Michael Waskom <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> No, each subject has four runs so I'm doing leave-one-run-out cross
> validation in the original case. I'm estimating separate models within
> each subject (as is common in fmri) so all my example code here would
> be from within a for subject in subjects: loop, but this pattern of
> weirdness is happening in every subject I've looked at so far.
>
> Michael
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Alexandre Gramfort
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> just a thought. You seem to be doing inter-subject prediction. In this case
>> a 5 fold mixes subjects. A hint is that you may have a subject effect that
>> acts as a confound.
>>
>> again just a thought ready the email quickly
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Michael Waskom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Yarick, thanks for chiming in! I thought about spamming the pymvpa
>>> list, but figured one at a time :)
>>>
>>> The scikit-learn LogisticRegression class uses one-vs-all in a
>>> multiclass setting, although I also tried it with their one-vs-one
>>> metaclassifier with similar "weird" results.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, though, I think the multiclass setting is a red
>>> herring.  For this dataset we also have a two-class condition (you can
>>> think of the paradigm as a 3x2 design, although we're analyzing them
>>> separately), which has the same thing happening:
>>>
>>> cv = LeaveOneLabelOut(labels)
>>> print cross_val_score(pipe, X, y, cv=cv).mean()
>>> for train, test in cv:
>>>   pipe = Pipeline([("scale", Scaler()), ("classify", LogisticRegression())])
>>>   print histogram(pipe.fit(X[train], y[train]).predict(X[test]), 2)[0]
>>>
>>> 0.496377606851
>>> [ 0 68]
>>> [ 0 70]
>>> [ 0 67]
>>> [ 0 69]
>>>
>>> cv = LeaveOneLabelOut(np.random.permutation(labels))
>>> pipe = Pipeline([("scale", Scaler()), ("classify", LogisticRegression())])
>>> print cross_val_score(pipe, X, y, cv=cv).mean()
>>> for train, test in cv:
>>>   print histogram(pipe.fit(X[train], y[train]).predict(X[test]), 2)[0]
>>>
>>> 0.532455733754
>>> [40 28]
>>> [36 34]
>>> [33 34]
>>> [31 38]
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> just to educate myself -- how sklearn does multiclass decisions in this
>>>> case?  if it is all pairs classification + voting, then the answer is
>>>> simple -- ties, and the "first one in order" would take all those.
>>>>
>>>> but if there is no ties involved then, theoretically (since not sure if it 
>>>> is
>>>> applicable to your data) it is easy to come up with non-linear scenarios 
>>>> for
>>>> binary classification where 1 class would be better classified than the 
>>>> other
>>>> one with a linear classifier...  e.g. here is an example (sorry -- pymvpa) 
>>>> with
>>>> an embedded normal (i.e. both classes mean at the same spot but have
>>>> significantly different variances)
>>>>
>>>>    from mvpa2.suite import *
>>>>    ns, nf = 100, 10
>>>>    ds = dataset_wizard(
>>>>        np.vstack((
>>>>            np.random.normal(size=(ns, nf)),
>>>>            10*np.random.normal(size=(ns, nf)))),
>>>>        targets=['narrow']*ns + ['wide']*ns,
>>>>        chunks=[0,1]*ns)
>>>>    cv = CrossValidation(LinearCSVMC(), NFoldPartitioner(),
>>>>                         enable_ca=['stats'])
>>>>    cv(ds).samples
>>>>    print cv.ca.stats
>>>>
>>>> yields
>>>>
>>>>    ----------.
>>>>    predictions\targets  narrow   wide
>>>>                `------  ------  ------  P'  N' FP FN  PPV  NPV  TPR  SPC  
>>>> FDR  MCC  AUC
>>>>           narrow         100      74   174  26 74  0 0.57   1    1  0.26 
>>>> 0.43 0.39 0.41
>>>>            wide           0       26    26 174  0 74   1  0.57 0.26   1    
>>>> 0  0.39 0.41
>>>>    Per target:          ------  ------
>>>>             P            100     100
>>>>             N            100     100
>>>>             TP           100      26
>>>>             TN            26     100
>>>>    Summary \ Means:     ------  ------ 100 100 37 37 0.79 0.79 0.63 0.63 
>>>> 0.21 0.39 0.41
>>>>           CHI^2         123.04 p=1.7e-26
>>>>            ACC           0.63
>>>>            ACC%           63
>>>>         # of sets         2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I bet with a bit of creativity, classifier-dependent cases of similar
>>>> cases could be found for linear underlying models.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Michael Waskom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>
>>>>> I hope you don't mind a question that's a mix of general machine
>>>>> learning and scikit-learn. I'm happy to kick it over to metaoptimize,
>>>>> but I'm not 100% sure I'm doing everything "right" from a scikit-learn
>>>>> perspective so I thought it best to ask here first.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm doing classification of fMRI data using logistic regression.  I've
>>>>> been playing around with things for the past couple days and was
>>>>> getting accuracies right around or slightly above chance, which was
>>>>> disappointing.
>>>>> Initially, my code looked a bit like this:
>>>>
>>>>> pipeline = Pipeline([("scale", Scaler()), ("classify", 
>>>>> LogisticRegression())])
>>>>> cv = LeaveOneLabelOut(labels)
>>>>> acc = cross_val_score(pipeline, X, y, cv=cv).mean()
>>>>> print acc
>>>>
>>>>> 0.358599857854
>>>>
>>>>> Labels are an int in [1, 4] specifying which fmri run each sample came
>>>>> from, and y has three classes.
>>>>
>>>>> When I went to inspect the predictions being made, though, I realized
>>>>> in each split one class was almost completely dominating:
>>>>
>>>>> cv = LeaveOneLabelOut(labels)
>>>>> for train, test in cv:
>>>>>     pipe = Pipeline([("scale", Scaler()), ("classify", 
>>>>> LogisticRegression())])
>>>>>     print histogram(pipe.fit(X[train], y[train]).predict(X[test]), 3)[0]
>>>>
>>>>> [58  0 11]
>>>>> [67  0  3]
>>>>> [ 0 70  0]
>>>>> [ 0 67  0]
>>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't seem right at all.  I realized that if I disregard the
>>>>> labels and just run 5-fold cross validation, though, the balance of
>>>>> predictions looks much more like what I would expect:
>>>>
>>>>> cv = KFold(len(y), 5)
>>>>> for train, test in cv:
>>>>>     pipe = Pipeline([("scale", Scaler()), ("classify", 
>>>>> LogisticRegression())])
>>>>>     print histogram(pipe.fit(X[train], y[train]).predict(X[test]), 3)[0]
>>>>
>>>>> [22 16 17]
>>>>> [25 14 16]
>>>>> [17 25 13]
>>>>> [36  6 13]
>>>>> [37  9 10]
>>>>
>>>>> (Although note the still relative dominance of the first class).  When
>>>>> I go back and run the full analysis this way, I get accuracies more in
>>>>> line with what I would have expected from previous fMRI studies in
>>>>> this domain.
>>>>
>>>>> My design is slow event-related, so my samples should be independent
>>>>> at least as far as HRF-blurring is considered.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not considering error trials so the number of samples for each
>>>>> class is not perfectly balanced, but participants are near ceiling and
>>>>> thus they are very close:
>>>>
>>>>> cv = LeaveOneLabelOut(labels)
>>>>> for train, test in cv:
>>>>>     print histogram(y[train], 3)[0]
>>>>
>>>>> [71 67 69]
>>>>> [71 68 67]
>>>>> [70 69 67]
>>>>> [70 69 70]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Apologies for the long explanation.  Two questions, really:
>>>>
>>>>> 1) Does it look like I'm doing anything obviously wrong?
>>>>
>>>>> 2) If not, can you help me build some intuition about why this is
>>>>> happening and what it means? Or suggest things I could look  at in my
>>>>> data/code to identify the source of the problem?
>>>>
>>>>> I really appreciate it!  Aside from this befuddling issue, I've found
>>>>> scikit-learn an absolute delight to use!
>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Michael
>>>> --
>>>> =------------------------------------------------------------------=
>>>> Keep in touch                                     www.onerussian.com
>>>> Yaroslav Halchenko                 www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
>>>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>>>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
>>>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Scikit-learn-general mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
>>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
>>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scikit-learn-general mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scikit-learn-general mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
> _______________________________________________
> Scikit-learn-general mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
Scikit-learn-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general

Reply via email to