dimensionality reduction

high-dimensional data for image classification. we try a few classification models and dimensionality reduction techniques and see what works. the goal is a solid binary classifier that also does well on new data. the dataset is 28x28 grayscale images from the Fashion MNIST dataset.

approach

the plan, more or less:

import pickle
from itertools import chain
from pathlib import Path

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.base import BaseEstimator
from sklearn.base import ClassifierMixin
from sklearn.decomposition import PCA
from sklearn.discriminant_analysis import LinearDiscriminantAnalysis
from sklearn.manifold import LocallyLinearEmbedding
from sklearn.metrics import ConfusionMatrixDisplay
from sklearn.metrics import PrecisionRecallDisplay
from sklearn.metrics import RocCurveDisplay
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score
from sklearn.metrics import classification_report
from sklearn.model_selection import ParameterGrid
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.naive_bayes import GaussianNB
from sklearn.preprocessing import FunctionTransformer
from sklearn.preprocessing import Normalizer
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
from sklearn.svm import SVC
from sklearn.svm import LinearSVC
from sklearn.utils.multiclass import unique_labels
from sklearn.utils.validation import check_array
from sklearn.utils.validation import check_is_fitted
from sklearn.utils.validation import check_X_y

RANDOM_STATE = 42
np.random.seed(RANDOM_STATE)
pd.set_option("display.precision", 4)
pd.set_option("display.max_columns", 10)
pd.set_option("display.max_rows", 100)
plt.style.use("default")
plt.rcParams["image.cmap"] = "Blues"
models = Path("models")

data

train_file = "train.csv"
eval_file = "evaluate.csv"
res_file = "results.csv"

TROUSER = "trouser"
SHIRT = "tshirt-top"
LABEL = "label"

TROUSER_CAT = 0
SHIRT_CAT = 1
DI_TO_CAT = {TROUSER: TROUSER_CAT, SHIRT: SHIRT_CAT}
CAT_TO_DI = {SHIRT_CAT: SHIRT, TROUSER_CAT: TROUSER}

df = pd.read_csv(train_file)
df[LABEL] = pd.Categorical(df[LABEL].map(CAT_TO_DI))
display(df.head(10))

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, 5, figsize=(10, 6))
for j in range(3):
    for i in range(5):
        ax[j, i].imshow(df.drop(LABEL, axis=1).iloc[5 * j + i].to_numpy().reshape(28, 28))
        ax[j, i].set_axis_off()
plt.show()

labelpixel1pixel2pixel3pixel4...pixel780pixel781pixel782pixel783pixel784
0tshirt-top0000...00000
1trouser0000...00000
2tshirt-top0000...00000
3trouser0000...00000
4tshirt-top0000...00000
5tshirt-top0000...00000
6trouser0000...00000
7tshirt-top0000...00000
8trouser0000...00000
9trouser0000...00000

10 rows × 785 columns

png

train-validation-test split

X_all = df.drop(LABEL, axis=1)
y_all = df.loc[:, LABEL]

X_train_val, X_test, y_train_val, y_test = train_test_split(
    X_all, y_all, test_size=0.2, random_state=RANDOM_STATE
)
X_train, X_val, y_train, y_val = train_test_split(
    X_train_val, y_train_val, test_size=0.25, random_state=RANDOM_STATE
)

d = pd.DataFrame(
    [
        ["train", X_train.shape[0], X_train.shape[0] / X_all.shape[0]],
        ["validation", X_val.shape[0], X_val.shape[0] / X_all.shape[0]],
        ["test", X_test.shape[0], X_test.shape[0] / X_all.shape[0]],
    ],
    columns=["dataset", "count", "relative count"],
)
display(d)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(4, 4))
ax.pie(d["count"], labels=d["dataset"], autopct="%1.f%%")
ax.set_title("Train-test split")
plt.show()

datasetcountrelative count
0train14400.6
1validation4800.2
2test4800.2

png

the dataset splits into 1440 training, 480 validation, and 480 test points.


exploratory data analysis

features (pixels)

d = pd.DataFrame(
    [
        ["count", X_train.shape[0]],
        ["size", X_train.shape[1]],
        ["min", X_train.stack().min()],
        ["mean", X_train.stack().mean().astype(int)],
        ["max", X_train.stack().max()],
    ],
    columns=["stat", "value"],
)
display(d)

d = X_train.to_numpy().flatten()
d2 = pd.DataFrame(
    [
        ["black pixel", d[d == 0].shape[0]],
        ["non-black pixel", d[d != 0].shape[0]],
    ],
    columns=["color", "count"],
)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(6, 3))
ax.bar(d2["color"], d2["count"])
ax.set_title("Pixel count: black v. non-black")
ax.set_ylabel("count")
plt.show()

d = X_train.to_numpy().flatten()

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(6, 4))
ax.hist(d[d > 1], bins=20)
ax.set_title("Histogram of gray level distribution (non-black pixels)")
ax.set_xlabel("grey level")
ax.set_ylabel("frequency")
plt.show()

statvalue
0count1440
1size784
2min0
3mean60
4max255

png

png

the data is 28x28 pixel images (784 features) in grayscale (values 0 to 255). a lot of the image is black pixels (value 0).

target variable

X_shirts = X_train[y_train == SHIRT]
y_shirts = y_train[y_train == SHIRT]

X_trousers = X_train[y_train == TROUSER]
y_trousers = y_train[y_train == TROUSER]

d = pd.DataFrame(
    [["tshirt-top", y_shirts.shape[0]], ["trouser", y_trousers.shape[0]]],
    columns=["label", "count"],
)
display(d)

d = y_train.value_counts().to_frame()
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(4, 4))
ax.pie(d["count"], labels=d.index, autopct="%1.2f%%")
plt.show()

fig, ax = plt.subplots(2, 5, figsize=(10, 4))
fig.suptitle("T-shirts / Tops")
for j in range(2):
    for i in range(5):
        ax[j, i].imshow(X_shirts.iloc[5 * j + i].to_numpy().reshape(28, 28))
        ax[j, i].set_axis_off()
plt.show()

fig, ax = plt.subplots(2, 5, figsize=(10, 4))
fig.suptitle("Trousers")
for j in range(2):
    for i in range(5):
        ax[j, i].imshow(X_trousers.iloc[5 * j + i].to_numpy().reshape(28, 28))
        ax[j, i].set_axis_off()
plt.show()

labelcount
0tshirt-top687
1trouser753

png

png

png

the task is binary classification between T-shirts/tops and trousers. the classes are roughly balanced.


model development

Support Vector Machine (SVM)

SVM fits this data well.

param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {
        "kernel": ["linear", "poly", "rbf"],
        "C": list(chain(range(1, 15), range(15, 61, 5))),
        "preprocessing": [
            ("none", FunctionTransformer(lambda x: x)),
            ("normalized", Normalizer().fit(X_train)),
            ("standardized", StandardScaler().fit(X_train)),
        ],
    }
)

path = models / "svm.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["preprocessing", "kernel", "C", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        k = params["kernel"]
        c = params["C"]
        p_name, p = params["preprocessing"]

        clf = SVC(kernel=k, C=c, cache_size=1000, random_state=RANDOM_STATE)
        clf.fit(p.transform(X_train), y_train)

        d.loc[i] = [p_name, k, c, clf.score(p.transform(X_val), y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("C")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 6))
for p, ls in zip(["none", "normalized", "standardized"], ["solid", "dotted", "dashed"]):
    for k in ["linear", "poly", "rbf"]:
        d1 = d.loc[(d["preprocessing"] == p) & (d["kernel"] == k)]
        ax.plot(d1["C"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=f"{p}, {k}", linestyle=ls)
ax.legend(loc="lower right", title="preprocessing, kernel", ncol=3)
ax.set_xlabel("parameter C")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("SVM learning curve")
plt.show()

preprocessingkernelCval_accuracy
0nonerbf250.9875
1nonerbf90.9875
2nonerbf550.9875
3nonerbf120.9875
4nonerbf350.9875

png

the SVM hits 98.75% accuracy. normalization and standardization help the linear and polynomial kernels a lot. for the Gaussian (RBF) kernel, preprocessing doesn’t really help, and the best result comes without it. the linear kernel is the weakest of the bunch.

Naive Bayes

Naive Bayes is a good fit here too.

param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {
        "var_smoothing": np.linspace(1e-20, 3, num=100),
        "preprocessing": [
            ("none", FunctionTransformer(lambda x: x)),
            ("normalized", Normalizer().fit(X_train)),
            ("standardized", StandardScaler().fit(X_train)),
        ],
    }
)

path = models / "nb.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["preprocessing", "var_smoothing", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        v = params["var_smoothing"]
        p_name, p = params["preprocessing"]

        clf = GaussianNB(var_smoothing=v)
        clf.fit(p.transform(X_train), y_train)

        d.loc[i] = [p_name, v, clf.score(p.transform(X_val), y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("var_smoothing")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 6))
for p, ls in zip(["none", "normalized", "standardized"], ["solid", "dashed", "dotted"]):
    d1 = d.loc[d["preprocessing"] == p]
    ax.plot(d1["var_smoothing"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=p, linestyle=ls)
ax.legend(loc="center right", title="preprocessing")
ax.set_xlabel("parameter var_smoothing")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("Naive Bayes learning curve")
plt.show()

preprocessingvar_smoothingval_accuracy
0normalized0.18180.9521
1normalized0.15150.9521
2normalized0.24240.9500
3normalized0.30300.9500
4normalized0.27270.9500

png

Naive Bayes gets 95.21% accuracy. tuning var_smoothing helps avoid zero-probability issues. normalizing features improved things here. still weaker than the SVM.

Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)

LDA is a reasonable pick here.

param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {
        "preprocessing": [
            ("none", FunctionTransformer(lambda x: x)),
            ("normalized", Normalizer().fit(X_train)),
            ("standardized", StandardScaler().fit(X_train)),
        ]
    }
)

path = models / "lda.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["preprocessing", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        p_name, p = params["preprocessing"]

        clf = LinearDiscriminantAnalysis()
        clf.fit(p.transform(X_train), y_train)

        d.loc[i] = [p_name, clf.score(p.transform(X_val), y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(6, 3))
for p in ["none", "normalized", "standardized"]:
    d1 = d.loc[d["preprocessing"] == p]
    ax.bar(p, d1["val_accuracy"], alpha=0.75)
ax.set_xlabel("preprocessing")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("Linear Discriminant Analysis")
plt.show()

preprocessingval_accuracy
0none0.9125
1normalized0.9125
2standardized0.9125

png

lda = LinearDiscriminantAnalysis()
X_lda = lda.fit_transform(Normalizer().fit_transform(X_train), y_train)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8, 2))
for y in [TROUSER, SHIRT]:
    x = X_lda[y_train == y]
    plt.scatter(x, np.zeros(x.shape[0]), label=y, alpha=0.4, marker="|", s=90)
ax.legend(loc="upper center", ncols=2)
ax.set_yticks([])
ax.set_xlabel("LDA component 1")
ax.set_title("Dimensionality reduction using LDA")
plt.show()

png

LDA gets 91.25% accuracy. neither normalization nor standardization changes anything for it. training is simple, no hyperparameters to tune. of the models tried, LDA is the weakest on accuracy.


modeling with PCA dimensionality reduction

pca_max = PCA()
scaler = Normalizer()
scaler.fit(X_train)
pca_max.fit(scaler.transform(X_train))

pcas = [PCA(n_components=i, random_state=RANDOM_STATE) for i in range(1, X_train.shape[1] + 1)]
for i, pca in enumerate(pcas):
    pca.components_ = pca_max.components_[: i + 1]
    pca.singular_values_ = pca_max.singular_values_[: i + 1]
    pca.mean_ = pca_max.mean_
    pca.n_components_ = i + 1

linear projection to 2D/3D space

sample = np.random.choice(X_train.shape[0], 600, replace=False)
d = pcas[2].transform(scaler.transform(X_train.iloc[sample]))
d_trousers = d[y_train.iloc[sample] == TROUSER]
d_shirts = d[y_train.iloc[sample] == SHIRT]

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(14, 8))
ax.scatter(d_trousers[:, 0], d_trousers[:, 1], label="trouser")
ax.scatter(d_shirts[:, 0], d_shirts[:, 1], label="tshirt / top")
ax.legend(loc="upper right")
ax.set_xlabel("1. principal component")
ax.set_ylabel("2. principal component")
ax.set_xticklabels([])
ax.set_yticklabels([])
ax.set_title("2D projection of a random sample")
plt.show()

fig = plt.figure(figsize=(14, 18))
axes = []
for i in range(3):
    for j in range(2):
        ax = fig.add_subplot(3, 2, i * 2 + j + 1, projection="3d")
        ax.scatter(
            d_trousers[:, 0],
            d_trousers[:, 1],
            d_trousers[:, 2],
            label="trouser",
        )
        ax.scatter(d_shirts[:, 0], d_shirts[:, 1], d_shirts[:, 2], label="tshirt / top")
        # ax.legend(loc='upper right')
        ax.set_xlabel("1. component")
        ax.set_ylabel("2. component")
        ax.set_zlabel("3. component")
        ax.set_xticklabels([])
        ax.set_yticklabels([])
        ax.set_zticklabels([])
        axes.append(ax)
axes[0].view_init(20, 0)
axes[1].view_init(20, 30)
axes[2].view_init(20, 80)
axes[3].view_init(40, 80)
axes[4].view_init(60, 80)
axes[5].view_init(80, 80)
axes[0].legend(loc="upper left")
fig.suptitle("3D projection of a random sample", y=0.9)
plt.show()

png

png

the points are reasonably well-separated even with just 2 or 3 principal components.

SVM with PCA

param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {
        "kernel": ["linear", "poly", "rbf"],
        "C": [9],
        "pca": list(
            chain(
                range(10),
                range(10, 100, 10),
                range(100, 200, 30),
                range(200, 501, 100),
            )
        ),
    }
)

path = models / "svm-pca.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["kernel", "C", "PCA components", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        k = params["kernel"]
        c = params["C"]
        n = params["pca"]
        p = pcas[n]

        if k == "linear":
            clf = LinearSVC(C=c, dual="auto", random_state=RANDOM_STATE)
        else:
            clf = SVC(kernel=k, C=c, cache_size=1000, random_state=RANDOM_STATE)
        xin = p.transform(X_train.values)
        clf.fit(xin, y_train)

        d.loc[i] = [k, c, n, clf.score(p.transform(X_val.values), y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("PCA components")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 5))
for k, ls in zip(["linear", "poly", "rbf"], ["solid", "dotted", "dashed"]):
    d1 = d.loc[d["kernel"] == k]
    ax.plot(d1["PCA components"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=k, linestyle=ls)
ax.legend(loc="lower right", title="kernel")
ax.set_xlabel("number of principal components")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("SVM learning curve (with PCA dimensionality reduction)")
plt.show()

kernelCPCA componentsval_accuracy
0rbf91400.9875
1rbf9400.9854
2rbf95000.9833
3rbf9500.9833
4rbf94000.9833

png

SVM with PCA reduction does about as well as the original SVM. the data sits in a lower-dimensional subspace, the best model used 140 principal components, and the runner-up, only marginally worse, used 40. that’s a big drop from the original 784 features.

Naive Bayes with PCA

ll = np.linspace(1e-2, 10, num=10)
param_grid = ParameterGrid({"var_smoothing": ll, "pca": list(chain(range(10), range(10, 100, 10)))})


path = models / "nb-pca.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["var_smoothing", "PCA components", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        v = params["var_smoothing"]
        n = params["pca"]
        p = pcas[n]

        clf = GaussianNB(var_smoothing=v)
        clf.fit(p.transform(X_train.values), y_train)

        d.loc[i] = [v, n, clf.score(p.transform(X_val.values), y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("PCA components")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 6))
for v in ll:
    d1 = d.loc[d["var_smoothing"] == v]
    ax.plot(d1["PCA components"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=f"{v:.2f}")
ax.legend(loc="upper right", title="var smoothing", ncols=2)
ax.set_xlabel("number of principal components")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("Naive Bayes learning curve (with PCA dimensionality reduction)")
plt.show()

var_smoothingPCA componentsval_accuracy
01.126.00.9458
11.1210.00.9458
21.129.00.9458
30.011.00.9437
42.234.00.9437

png

PCA reduction improved Naive Bayes. it does best with 6 components, though the peak is still lower than the SVM.

LDA with PCA

param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {
        "preprocessing": [
            ("none", FunctionTransformer(lambda x: x)),
            ("normalized", Normalizer().fit(X_train)),
        ],
        "pca": list(chain(range(1, 10), range(10, 101, 10))),
    }
)

path = models / "lda-pca.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["preprocessing", "PCA components", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        n = params["pca"]
        pn, p = params["preprocessing"]

        clf = LinearDiscriminantAnalysis()
        x = p.transform(X_train)
        x = PCA(n, random_state=RANDOM_STATE).fit_transform(x)
        clf.fit(x, y_train)

        x = p.transform(X_val)
        x = PCA(n, random_state=RANDOM_STATE).fit_transform(x)
        d.loc[i] = [pn, n, clf.score(x, y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("PCA components")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 4))
for p, ls in zip(["none", "normalized"], ["solid", "dashed"]):
    d1 = d.loc[d["preprocessing"] == p]
    ax.plot(d1["PCA components"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=p, linestyle=ls)
ax.legend(loc="lower right", title="preprocessing")
ax.set_xlabel("number of principal components")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("LDA learning curve (with PCA dimensionality reduction)")
plt.show()

preprocessingPCA componentsval_accuracy
0normalized100.9500
1normalized50.9500
2normalized90.9500
3normalized300.9500
4normalized200.9479

png

PCA reduction helped LDA a lot, lifting accuracy from 91% to 95% with only 5 principal components. it drops slightly with more components.


modeling with LLE dimensionality reduction

non-linear projection to 2D/3D space

lle = LocallyLinearEmbedding(n_neighbors=5, n_components=3)
lle.fit(X_train)

np.random.seed(RANDOM_STATE)
sample = np.random.choice(X_train.shape[0], 600, replace=False)
xs, ys = X_train.iloc[sample], y_train.iloc[sample]
d = lle.transform(xs)
d_trousers = d[ys == TROUSER]
d_shirts = d[ys == SHIRT]

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 8))
ax.scatter(d_trousers[:, 0], d_trousers[:, 1], label="trouser")
ax.scatter(d_shirts[:, 0], d_shirts[:, 1], label="tshirt / top")
ax.legend(loc="upper right")
ax.set_xlabel("1. LLE component")
ax.set_ylabel("2. LLE component")
ax.set_xticklabels([])
ax.set_yticklabels([])
ax.set_title("2D projection of a random sample")
plt.show()

fig = plt.figure(figsize=(14, 12))
axes = []
for i in range(2):
    for j in range(2):
        ax = fig.add_subplot(2, 2, i * 2 + j + 1, projection="3d")
        ax.scatter(
            d_trousers[:, 0],
            d_trousers[:, 1],
            d_trousers[:, 2],
            label="trouser",
        )
        ax.scatter(d_shirts[:, 0], d_shirts[:, 1], d_shirts[:, 2], label="tshirt / top")
        # ax.legend(loc='upper right')
        ax.set_xlabel("1. component")
        ax.set_ylabel("2. component")
        ax.set_zlabel("3. component")
        ax.set_xticklabels([])
        ax.set_yticklabels([])
        ax.set_zticklabels([])
        axes.append(ax)
axes[0].view_init(20, 60)
axes[1].view_init(60, 20)
axes[2].view_init(70, -40)
axes[3].view_init(90, -90)
axes[0].legend(loc="upper left")
fig.suptitle("3D projection of a random sample", y=0.9)
plt.show()

png

png

like with PCA, the points are well-separated even with just 2 LLE components.

SVM with LLE

param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {
        "kernel": ["linear", "poly", "rbf"],
        "C": [10],
        "lle": list(chain(range(1, 10), range(10, 30, 5), range(30, 100, 20))),
    }
)

path = models / "svm-lle.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["kernel", "C", "LLE components", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        k = params["kernel"]
        c = params["C"]
        n = params["lle"]
        p = LocallyLinearEmbedding(n_neighbors=10, n_components=n)
        p.fit(X_train.values)

        if k == "linear":
            clf = LinearSVC(C=c, dual="auto", random_state=RANDOM_STATE)
        else:
            clf = SVC(kernel=k, C=c, cache_size=1000, random_state=RANDOM_STATE)
        xin = p.transform(X_train.values)
        clf.fit(xin, y_train)

        d.loc[i] = [k, c, n, clf.score(p.transform(X_val.values), y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("LLE components")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 5))
for k, ls in zip(["linear", "poly", "rbf"], ["solid", "dotted", "dashed"]):
    d1 = d.loc[d["kernel"] == k]
    ax.plot(d1["LLE components"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=k, linestyle=ls)
ax.legend(loc="lower left", title="kernel")
ax.set_xlabel("number of components")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("SVM learning curve (with LLE dimensionality reduction)")
plt.show()

kernelCLLE componentsval_accuracy
0rbf10700.9729
1rbf10250.9708
2rbf10900.9688
3rbf10500.9688
4rbf10300.9688

png

LLE reduction doesn’t improve the SVM. for a high number of components, like with the polynomial kernel, accuracy actually drops.

Naive Bayes with LLE

ll = np.linspace(1e-1, 2, num=5)
param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {"var_smoothing": ll, "lle": list(chain(range(1, 10), range(10, 100, 10)))}
)

path = models / "nb-lle.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["var_smoothing", "LLE components", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        v = params["var_smoothing"]
        n = params["lle"]
        p = LocallyLinearEmbedding(n_neighbors=10, n_components=n)
        p.fit(X_train.values)

        clf = GaussianNB(var_smoothing=v)
        clf.fit(p.transform(X_train.values), y_train)

        d.loc[i] = [v, n, clf.score(p.transform(X_val.values), y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("LLE components")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 6))
for v in ll:
    d1 = d.loc[d["var_smoothing"] == v]
    ax.plot(d1["LLE components"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=f"{v:.2f}")
ax.legend(loc="lower left", title="var smoothing")
ax.set_xlabel("number of principal components")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("Naive Bayes learning curve (with LLE dimensionality reduction)")
plt.show()

var_smoothingLLE componentsval_accuracy
00.10010.00.9604
10.1009.00.9604
20.1008.00.9604
30.57510.00.9583
40.5759.00.9583

png

LLE gives Naive Bayes a small boost. this is the best Naive Bayes model so far.

LDA with LLE

param_grid = ParameterGrid(
    {
        "preprocessing": [
            ("none", FunctionTransformer(lambda x: x)),
            ("normalized", Normalizer().fit(X_train.values)),
        ],
        "lle": list(chain(range(1, 100, 20), range(100, 700, 100))),
    }
)

path = models / "lda-lle.pickle"
if path.is_file():
    d = pickle.load(open(path, "rb"))
else:
    d = pd.DataFrame(columns=["preprocessing", "LLE components", "val_accuracy"])
    for i, params in enumerate(param_grid):
        n = params["lle"]
        pn, p = params["preprocessing"]
        p2 = LocallyLinearEmbedding(n_neighbors=25, n_components=n)
        p2.fit(p.transform(X_train.values))

        clf = LinearDiscriminantAnalysis()
        x = p.transform(X_train.values)
        x = p2.transform(x)
        clf.fit(x, y_train)

        x = p.transform(X_val.values)
        x = p2.transform(x)
        d.loc[i] = [pn, n, clf.score(x, y_val)]
    pickle.dump(d, open(path, "wb"))

d.sort_values("val_accuracy", ascending=False, ignore_index=True, inplace=True)
display(d.head(5))

d = d.sort_values("LLE components")
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 4))
for p, ls in zip(["none", "normalized"], ["solid", "dashed"]):
    d1 = d.loc[d["preprocessing"] == p]
    ax.plot(d1["LLE components"], d1["val_accuracy"], label=p, linestyle=ls)
ax.legend(loc="lower right", title="preprocessing")
ax.set_xlabel("number of principal components")
ax.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax.set_title("LDA learning curve (with LLE dimensionality reduction)")
plt.show()

preprocessingLLE componentsval_accuracy
0normalized4000.9854
1normalized6000.9833
2normalized5000.9833
3none6000.9812
4none5000.9812

png

d = pd.DataFrame(
    [["none", 0.9125], ["PCA", 0.95], ["LLE", 0.9878]],
    columns=["dim. reduction", "val_accuracy"],
)
ticks = [d.iloc[0, 1], d.iloc[1, 1], d.iloc[2, 1]]

display(d)

fig, (ax1, ax2) = plt.subplots(2, 1, figsize=(6, 4))
fig.subplots_adjust(hspace=0.05)
for p in ["none", "PCA", "LLE"]:
    d1 = d.loc[d["dim. reduction"] == p]
    ax1.bar(p, d1["val_accuracy"], alpha=0.75)
    ax2.bar(p, d1["val_accuracy"], alpha=0.75)
ax1.set_ylim(0.85, 1)
ax2.set_ylim(0, 0.15)
ax1.spines.bottom.set_visible(False)
ax2.spines.top.set_visible(False)
ax1.set_xticks([])
ax1.set_yticks(ticks)
ax2.set_yticks([0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12])
ax1.xaxis.tick_top()

for y in ticks:
    ax1.axhline(y, alpha=0.4, c="black", linestyle="--", linewidth=0.51)

d = 0.5
kwargs = dict(
    marker=[(-1, -d), (1, d)],
    markersize=12,
    linestyle="none",
    color="k",
    mec="k",
    mew=1,
    clip_on=False,
)
ax1.plot([0, 1], [0, 0], transform=ax1.transAxes, **kwargs)
ax2.plot([0, 1], [1, 1], transform=ax2.transAxes, **kwargs)

ax2.set_xlabel("dimentionality reduction")
ax2.set_ylabel("validation accuracy")
ax1.set_title("Linear Discriminant Analysis (dim. reduction)")
plt.show()

dim. reductionval_accuracy
0none0.9125
1PCA0.9500
2LLE0.9878

png

LLE reduction helps LDA a lot. LDA with LLE now matches the best SVM from earlier, probably because LLE is non-linear and lets LDA work around its linear decision boundary.


final model

best performing model

the best model on accuracy is LDA with LLE dimensionality reduction after normalization. we’ll retrain it on the full training data and evaluate on the test set.

final evaluation

class Model(BaseEstimator, ClassifierMixin):
    def __init__(self):
        self.normalizer = Normalizer()
        self.lle = LocallyLinearEmbedding(n_neighbors=25, n_components=400)
        self.clf = LinearDiscriminantAnalysis(store_covariance=True)

    def fit(self, X, y):
        X, y = check_X_y(X, y)
        self.classes_ = unique_labels(y)
        self.X_ = X
        self.y_ = y

        X1 = self.normalizer.fit_transform(X)
        X2 = self.lle.fit_transform(X1)
        return self.clf.fit(X2, y)

    def transform_x_(self, X):
        X1 = self.normalizer.transform(X)
        X2 = self.lle.transform(X1)
        return X2

    def predict(self, X):
        check_is_fitted(self)
        X = check_array(X)
        X = self.transform_x_(X)
        return self.clf.predict(X)

    def predict_proba(self, X):
        check_is_fitted(self)
        X = check_array(X)
        X = self.transform_x_(X)
        return self.clf.predict_proba(X)


pathm = models / "final-m.pickle"
pathd = models / "final-d.pickle"
if pathm.is_file() and pathd.is_file():
    m = pickle.load(open(pathm, "rb"))
    d = pickle.load(open(pathd, "rb"))
else:
    m = Model()
    m.fit(X_train_val, y_train_val)

    d = classification_report(y_test, m.predict(X_test), output_dict=True)
    d = pd.DataFrame(d).drop(["weighted avg", "macro avg"], axis=1)

    pickle.dump(m, open(pathm, "wb"))
    pickle.dump(d, open(pathd, "wb"))

pd.set_option("display.precision", 2)
display(d)

fig, axes = plt.subplots(2, 2, figsize=(10, 9))
fig.suptitle("Evaluation of LDA with normalization and LLE (test data)", size=16)
fig.subplots_adjust(hspace=0.3)

ax = axes[0][0]
ConfusionMatrixDisplay.from_estimator(m, X_test, y_test, ax=ax, cmap="Blues", colorbar=False)
ax.set_title("Confusion matrix of LDA")

ax = axes[0][1]
ConfusionMatrixDisplay.from_estimator(
    m, X_test, y_test, ax=ax, cmap="Blues", normalize="all", colorbar=False
)
ax.set_title("Confusion matrix of LDA (normalized)")
ax.set_ylabel("")
ax.set_yticklabels([])

ax = axes[1][0]
RocCurveDisplay.from_estimator(m, X_test, y_test, name="LDA", ax=ax, plot_chance_level=True)
ax.set_title("ROC curve")

ax = axes[1][1]
PrecisionRecallDisplay.from_estimator(m, X_test, y_test, name="LDA", ax=ax)
ax.set_title("Precision-Recall curve")

plt.show()

trousertshirt-topaccuracy
precision1.000.960.98
recall0.961.000.98
f1-score0.980.980.98
support245.00235.000.98

png

model performance estimate

we expect about 98% accuracy on new, unseen data.

evaluation

edf = pd.read_csv("evaluate.csv")
id = edf.loc[:, "ID"]
X_eval = edf.drop("ID", axis=1)

m.fit(X_all, y_all)
y_eval_hat = m.predict(X_eval)

d = pd.DataFrame()
d["ID"] = id
d["label"] = np.vectorize(DI_TO_CAT.get)(y_eval_hat)
d.to_csv(res_file, index=False)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, 5, figsize=(10, 6))
fig.suptitle("Prediction of evaluation.csv", size=18)
for j in range(3):
    for i in range(5):
        pos = 5 * j + i
        ax[j, i].imshow(edf.drop("ID", axis=1).iloc[pos].to_numpy().reshape(28, 28))
        ax[j, i].set_axis_off()
        ax[j, i].set_title(f"({pos}) {y_eval_hat[pos]}")
plt.show()

png