.. DO NOT EDIT. .. THIS FILE WAS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BY SPHINX-GALLERY. .. TO MAKE CHANGES, EDIT THE SOURCE PYTHON FILE: .. "auto_examples/applications/plot_model_complexity_influence.py" .. LINE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN BELOW. .. only:: html .. note:: :class: sphx-glr-download-link-note :ref:`Go to the end ` to download the full example code or to run this example in your browser via JupyterLite or Binder .. rst-class:: sphx-glr-example-title .. _sphx_glr_auto_examples_applications_plot_model_complexity_influence.py: ========================== Model Complexity Influence ========================== Demonstrate how model complexity influences both prediction accuracy and computational performance. We will be using two datasets: - :ref:`diabetes_dataset` for regression. This dataset consists of 10 measurements taken from diabetes patients. The task is to predict disease progression; - :ref:`20newsgroups_dataset` for classification. This dataset consists of newsgroup posts. The task is to predict on which topic (out of 20 topics) the post is written about. We will model the complexity influence on three different estimators: - :class:`~sklearn.linear_model.SGDClassifier` (for classification data) which implements stochastic gradient descent learning; - :class:`~sklearn.svm.NuSVR` (for regression data) which implements Nu support vector regression; - :class:`~sklearn.ensemble.GradientBoostingRegressor` builds an additive model in a forward stage-wise fashion. Notice that :class:`~sklearn.ensemble.HistGradientBoostingRegressor` is much faster than :class:`~sklearn.ensemble.GradientBoostingRegressor` starting with intermediate datasets (`n_samples >= 10_000`), which is not the case for this example. We make the model complexity vary through the choice of relevant model parameters in each of our selected models. Next, we will measure the influence on both computational performance (latency) and predictive power (MSE or Hamming Loss). .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 38-59 .. code-block:: Python # Authors: Eustache Diemert # Maria Telenczuk # Guillaume Lemaitre # License: BSD 3 clause import time import matplotlib.pyplot as plt import numpy as np from sklearn import datasets from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingRegressor from sklearn.linear_model import SGDClassifier from sklearn.metrics import hamming_loss, mean_squared_error from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.svm import NuSVR # Initialize random generator np.random.seed(0) .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 60-72 Load the data ------------- First we load both datasets. .. note:: We are using :func:`~sklearn.datasets.fetch_20newsgroups_vectorized` to download 20 newsgroups dataset. It returns ready-to-use features. .. note:: ``X`` of the 20 newsgroups dataset is a sparse matrix while ``X`` of diabetes dataset is a numpy array. .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 72-95 .. code-block:: Python def generate_data(case): """Generate regression/classification data.""" if case == "regression": X, y = datasets.load_diabetes(return_X_y=True) train_size = 0.8 elif case == "classification": X, y = datasets.fetch_20newsgroups_vectorized(subset="all", return_X_y=True) train_size = 0.4 # to make the example run faster X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split( X, y, train_size=train_size, random_state=0 ) data = {"X_train": X_train, "X_test": X_test, "y_train": y_train, "y_test": y_test} return data regression_data = generate_data("regression") classification_data = generate_data("classification") .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 96-105 Benchmark influence ------------------- Next, we can calculate the influence of the parameters on the given estimator. In each round, we will set the estimator with the new value of ``changing_param`` and we will be collecting the prediction times, prediction performance and complexities to see how those changes affect the estimator. We will calculate the complexity using ``complexity_computer`` passed as a parameter. .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 105-144 .. code-block:: Python def benchmark_influence(conf): """ Benchmark influence of `changing_param` on both MSE and latency. """ prediction_times = [] prediction_powers = [] complexities = [] for param_value in conf["changing_param_values"]: conf["tuned_params"][conf["changing_param"]] = param_value estimator = conf["estimator"](**conf["tuned_params"]) print("Benchmarking %s" % estimator) estimator.fit(conf["data"]["X_train"], conf["data"]["y_train"]) conf["postfit_hook"](estimator) complexity = conf["complexity_computer"](estimator) complexities.append(complexity) start_time = time.time() for _ in range(conf["n_samples"]): y_pred = estimator.predict(conf["data"]["X_test"]) elapsed_time = (time.time() - start_time) / float(conf["n_samples"]) prediction_times.append(elapsed_time) pred_score = conf["prediction_performance_computer"]( conf["data"]["y_test"], y_pred ) prediction_powers.append(pred_score) print( "Complexity: %d | %s: %.4f | Pred. Time: %fs\n" % ( complexity, conf["prediction_performance_label"], pred_score, elapsed_time, ) ) return prediction_powers, prediction_times, complexities .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 145-157 Choose parameters ----------------- We choose the parameters for each of our estimators by making a dictionary with all the necessary values. ``changing_param`` is the name of the parameter which will vary in each estimator. Complexity will be defined by the ``complexity_label`` and calculated using `complexity_computer`. Also note that depending on the estimator type we are passing different data. .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 157-218 .. code-block:: Python def _count_nonzero_coefficients(estimator): a = estimator.coef_.toarray() return np.count_nonzero(a) configurations = [ { "estimator": SGDClassifier, "tuned_params": { "penalty": "elasticnet", "alpha": 0.001, "loss": "modified_huber", "fit_intercept": True, "tol": 1e-1, "n_iter_no_change": 2, }, "changing_param": "l1_ratio", "changing_param_values": [0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9], "complexity_label": "non_zero coefficients", "complexity_computer": _count_nonzero_coefficients, "prediction_performance_computer": hamming_loss, "prediction_performance_label": "Hamming Loss (Misclassification Ratio)", "postfit_hook": lambda x: x.sparsify(), "data": classification_data, "n_samples": 5, }, { "estimator": NuSVR, "tuned_params": {"C": 1e3, "gamma": 2**-15}, "changing_param": "nu", "changing_param_values": [0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.35, 0.5], "complexity_label": "n_support_vectors", "complexity_computer": lambda x: len(x.support_vectors_), "data": regression_data, "postfit_hook": lambda x: x, "prediction_performance_computer": mean_squared_error, "prediction_performance_label": "MSE", "n_samples": 15, }, { "estimator": GradientBoostingRegressor, "tuned_params": { "loss": "squared_error", "learning_rate": 0.05, "max_depth": 2, }, "changing_param": "n_estimators", "changing_param_values": [10, 25, 50, 75, 100], "complexity_label": "n_trees", "complexity_computer": lambda x: x.n_estimators, "data": regression_data, "postfit_hook": lambda x: x, "prediction_performance_computer": mean_squared_error, "prediction_performance_label": "MSE", "n_samples": 15, }, ] .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 219-236 Run the code and plot the results --------------------------------- We defined all the functions required to run our benchmark. Now, we will loop over the different configurations that we defined previously. Subsequently, we can analyze the plots obtained from the benchmark: Relaxing the `L1` penalty in the SGD classifier reduces the prediction error but leads to an increase in the training time. We can draw a similar analysis regarding the training time which increases with the number of support vectors with a Nu-SVR. However, we observed that there is an optimal number of support vectors which reduces the prediction error. Indeed, too few support vectors lead to an under-fitted model while too many support vectors lead to an over-fitted model. The exact same conclusion can be drawn for the gradient-boosting model. The only the difference with the Nu-SVR is that having too many trees in the ensemble is not as detrimental. .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 236-283 .. code-block:: Python def plot_influence(conf, mse_values, prediction_times, complexities): """ Plot influence of model complexity on both accuracy and latency. """ fig = plt.figure() fig.subplots_adjust(right=0.75) # first axes (prediction error) ax1 = fig.add_subplot(111) line1 = ax1.plot(complexities, mse_values, c="tab:blue", ls="-")[0] ax1.set_xlabel("Model Complexity (%s)" % conf["complexity_label"]) y1_label = conf["prediction_performance_label"] ax1.set_ylabel(y1_label) ax1.spines["left"].set_color(line1.get_color()) ax1.yaxis.label.set_color(line1.get_color()) ax1.tick_params(axis="y", colors=line1.get_color()) # second axes (latency) ax2 = fig.add_subplot(111, sharex=ax1, frameon=False) line2 = ax2.plot(complexities, prediction_times, c="tab:orange", ls="-")[0] ax2.yaxis.tick_right() ax2.yaxis.set_label_position("right") y2_label = "Time (s)" ax2.set_ylabel(y2_label) ax1.spines["right"].set_color(line2.get_color()) ax2.yaxis.label.set_color(line2.get_color()) ax2.tick_params(axis="y", colors=line2.get_color()) plt.legend( (line1, line2), ("prediction error", "prediction latency"), loc="upper center" ) plt.title( "Influence of varying '%s' on %s" % (conf["changing_param"], conf["estimator"].__name__) ) for conf in configurations: prediction_performances, prediction_times, complexities = benchmark_influence(conf) plot_influence(conf, prediction_performances, prediction_times, complexities) plt.show() .. rst-class:: sphx-glr-horizontal * .. image-sg:: /auto_examples/applications/images/sphx_glr_plot_model_complexity_influence_001.png :alt: Influence of varying 'l1_ratio' on SGDClassifier :srcset: /auto_examples/applications/images/sphx_glr_plot_model_complexity_influence_001.png :class: sphx-glr-multi-img * .. image-sg:: /auto_examples/applications/images/sphx_glr_plot_model_complexity_influence_002.png :alt: Influence of varying 'nu' on NuSVR :srcset: /auto_examples/applications/images/sphx_glr_plot_model_complexity_influence_002.png :class: sphx-glr-multi-img * .. image-sg:: /auto_examples/applications/images/sphx_glr_plot_model_complexity_influence_003.png :alt: Influence of varying 'n_estimators' on GradientBoostingRegressor :srcset: /auto_examples/applications/images/sphx_glr_plot_model_complexity_influence_003.png :class: sphx-glr-multi-img .. rst-class:: sphx-glr-script-out .. code-block:: none Benchmarking SGDClassifier(alpha=0.001, l1_ratio=0.25, loss='modified_huber', n_iter_no_change=2, penalty='elasticnet', tol=0.1) Complexity: 4948 | Hamming Loss (Misclassification Ratio): 0.2675 | Pred. Time: 0.059067s Benchmarking SGDClassifier(alpha=0.001, l1_ratio=0.5, loss='modified_huber', n_iter_no_change=2, penalty='elasticnet', tol=0.1) Complexity: 1847 | Hamming Loss (Misclassification Ratio): 0.3264 | Pred. Time: 0.045507s Benchmarking SGDClassifier(alpha=0.001, l1_ratio=0.75, loss='modified_huber', n_iter_no_change=2, penalty='elasticnet', tol=0.1) Complexity: 997 | Hamming Loss (Misclassification Ratio): 0.3383 | Pred. Time: 0.037324s Benchmarking SGDClassifier(alpha=0.001, l1_ratio=0.9, loss='modified_huber', n_iter_no_change=2, penalty='elasticnet', tol=0.1) Complexity: 802 | Hamming Loss (Misclassification Ratio): 0.3582 | Pred. Time: 0.034850s Benchmarking NuSVR(C=1000.0, gamma=3.0517578125e-05, nu=0.05) Complexity: 18 | MSE: 5558.7313 | Pred. Time: 0.000190s Benchmarking NuSVR(C=1000.0, gamma=3.0517578125e-05, nu=0.1) Complexity: 36 | MSE: 5289.8022 | Pred. Time: 0.000337s Benchmarking NuSVR(C=1000.0, gamma=3.0517578125e-05, nu=0.2) Complexity: 72 | MSE: 5193.8353 | Pred. Time: 0.000457s Benchmarking NuSVR(C=1000.0, gamma=3.0517578125e-05, nu=0.35) Complexity: 124 | MSE: 5131.3279 | Pred. Time: 0.000657s Benchmarking NuSVR(C=1000.0, gamma=3.0517578125e-05) Complexity: 178 | MSE: 5149.0779 | Pred. Time: 0.000899s Benchmarking GradientBoostingRegressor(learning_rate=0.05, max_depth=2, n_estimators=10) Complexity: 10 | MSE: 4066.4812 | Pred. Time: 0.000175s Benchmarking GradientBoostingRegressor(learning_rate=0.05, max_depth=2, n_estimators=25) Complexity: 25 | MSE: 3551.1723 | Pred. Time: 0.000197s Benchmarking GradientBoostingRegressor(learning_rate=0.05, max_depth=2, n_estimators=50) Complexity: 50 | MSE: 3445.2171 | Pred. Time: 0.000234s Benchmarking GradientBoostingRegressor(learning_rate=0.05, max_depth=2, n_estimators=75) Complexity: 75 | MSE: 3433.0358 | Pred. Time: 0.000272s Benchmarking GradientBoostingRegressor(learning_rate=0.05, max_depth=2) Complexity: 100 | MSE: 3456.0602 | Pred. Time: 0.000306s .. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 284-295 Conclusion ---------- As a conclusion, we can deduce the following insights: * a model which is more complex (or expressive) will require a larger training time; * a more complex model does not guarantee to reduce the prediction error. These aspects are related to model generalization and avoiding model under-fitting or over-fitting. .. rst-class:: sphx-glr-timing **Total running time of the script:** (0 minutes 17.914 seconds) .. _sphx_glr_download_auto_examples_applications_plot_model_complexity_influence.py: .. only:: html .. container:: sphx-glr-footer sphx-glr-footer-example .. container:: binder-badge .. image:: images/binder_badge_logo.svg :target: https://mybinder.org/v2/gh/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/1.4.X?urlpath=lab/tree/notebooks/auto_examples/applications/plot_model_complexity_influence.ipynb :alt: Launch binder :width: 150 px .. container:: lite-badge .. image:: images/jupyterlite_badge_logo.svg :target: ../../lite/lab/?path=auto_examples/applications/plot_model_complexity_influence.ipynb :alt: Launch JupyterLite :width: 150 px .. container:: sphx-glr-download sphx-glr-download-jupyter :download:`Download Jupyter notebook: plot_model_complexity_influence.ipynb ` .. container:: sphx-glr-download sphx-glr-download-python :download:`Download Python source code: plot_model_complexity_influence.py ` .. include:: plot_model_complexity_influence.recommendations .. only:: html .. rst-class:: sphx-glr-signature `Gallery generated by Sphinx-Gallery `_