[MRG] Add Yeo-Johnson transform to PowerTransformer#11520
[MRG] Add Yeo-Johnson transform to PowerTransformer#11520ogrisel merged 44 commits intoscikit-learn:masterfrom
Conversation
The issue was from an error in the log likelihood function
|
Lambda param estimation should be fixed now, thanks @amueller. Replication of this example with Yeo-Johnson instead of Box-Cox: |
Need to write inverse_transform to continue
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| # get rid of them to compute them. | ||
| _, lmbda = stats.boxcox(col[~np.isnan(col)], lmbda=None) | ||
| col_trans = boxcox(col, lmbda) | ||
| else: # neo-johnson |
amueller
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We think it's working now, right? So we need a test for the optimization, and then documentation and adding it to an example?
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| # when x >= 0 | ||
| if lmbda < 1e-19: | ||
| out[pos] = np.log(x[pos] + 1) | ||
| else: #lmbda != 0 |
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| n = x.shape[0] | ||
|
|
||
| # Estimated mean and variance of the normal distribution | ||
| mu = psi.sum() / n |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need from __future__ import division?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks, was hard to see from the diff and I was lazy ;)
|
|
||
| assert_raise_message(ValueError, not_positive_message, | ||
| power_transform, X_with_negatives) | ||
| power_transform, X_with_negatives, 'box-cox') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is this needed? The default value shouldn't change, right? Or do we want to start a cycle to change the default to yeo-johnson?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find it clearer and explicit?
I don't know if we'll change the default but it should still be fine as PowerTransform hasn't been released yet AFAIK
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point. We should discuss before the release. I think yeo-johnson would make more sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The fact that Yeo-Johnson accepts negative values while Box-Cox does not makes me feel like we should use it by default. From a usability point of view, it's nicer to our users.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have the same feeling. Plus, it is designed to be a generalization of Box-Cox, even though that's not strictly the case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shall I change the default then?
Also added related test
| pt = PowerTransformer(method=method, standardize=False) | ||
| pt.lambdas_ = [lmbda] | ||
| X_inv = pt.inverse_transform(X) | ||
| pt.lambdas_ = [9999] # just to make sure |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively, create a new pt object from scratch to make the motivation of the test easier to read:
ground_truth_transform = PowerTransformer(method=method, standardize=False)
ground_truth_transform.lambdas_ = [lmbda]
X_inv = pt.inverse_transform(X)
estimated_transform = PowerTransformer(method=method, standardize=False)
X_inv_trans = estimated_transform.fit_transform(X_inv) | X_inv_trans = pt.fit_transform(X_inv) | ||
|
|
||
| assert_almost_equal(0, np.linalg.norm(X - X_inv_trans) / n_samples, | ||
| decimal=2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please also add an assertion that checks that X_inv_trans.mean(axis=0) is close to [0.] and X_inv_trans.std(axis=0) is close to [1.].
|
|
||
| rng = np.random.RandomState(0) | ||
| n_samples = 1000 | ||
| X = rng.normal(size=(n_samples, 1)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
to make the test more explicit you can write: X = rng.normal(loc=0., scale=1., size=(n_samples, 1))
|
If we want this to be the default then this is a blocker, right? |
| lmbda_no_nans = pt.lambdas_[0] | ||
|
|
||
| # concat nans at the end and check lambda stays the same | ||
| X = np.concatenate([X, np.full_like(X, np.nan)]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To make sure that the location of the NaNs does not impact the estimation:
from sklearn.utils import shuffle
...
X = np.concatenate([X, np.full_like(X, np.nan)])
X = shuffle(X, random_state=0)|
|
||
|
|
||
| @pytest.mark.parametrize("method, lmbda", [('box-cox', .5), | ||
| ('yeo-johnson', .1)]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you add more values for lmbda for each method? E.g.:
[
('box-cox', .1),
('box-cox', .5),
('yeo-johnson', .1),
('yeo-johnson', .5),
('yeo-johnson', 1.),
]| applied to six different probability distributions: Lognormal, Chi-squared, | ||
| Weibull, Gaussian, Uniform, and Bimodal. | ||
| The power transform is useful as a transformation in modeling problems where | ||
| homoscedasticity and normality are desired. Below are examples of Box-Cox and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand what "modeling problems where homoscedasticity is desired" mean in this context: to me heteroscedasticity is a property of the noise of the output variable that is not the same for different regions of the input space a conditional model.
It does not seem trivial how power transform can improve homoscedasticity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, this statement seems to be correct:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ajms.20180801.02.html
It might be interesting to try to come up with a good example to show this corrective effect in a (maybe synthetic) linear regression problem. However, this is probably outside of the scope of the current PR.
|
tagged for 0.20 and added blocker label. I don't like that we keep adding stuff but if we want to make it default we should do it now. |
glemaitre
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Couple of opened comments.
If I am not wrong we should have something in the common estimator_checks which force the input to be positive to work with box-cox. We probably want to change this behavior with we change the default.
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| The power transform method. Currently, 'box-cox' (Box-Cox transform) | ||
| is the only option available. | ||
| method : str, (default='yeo-johnson') | ||
| The power transform method. Available methods are 'box-cox' and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can maybe have a bullet point list for each method referring to the reference section.
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| self.lambdas_ = [] | ||
| transformed = [] | ||
|
|
||
| opt_fun = {'box-cox': self._box_cox_optimize, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have expect func instead of fun :)
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| opt_fun = {'box-cox': self._box_cox_optimize, | ||
| 'yeo-johnson': self._yeo_johnson_optimize | ||
| }[self.method] | ||
| trans_fun = {'box-cox': boxcox, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably transform_function is not so long to be called
|
|
||
| return x_inv | ||
|
|
||
| def _yeo_johnson_transform(self, x, lmbda): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we cannot just define the forward transform and take 1 / _yeo_johnson_transform for the inverse?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The inverse here means f^{-1}, not 1 / f
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| """Return the negative log likelihood of the observed data x as a | ||
| function of lambda.""" | ||
| psi = self._yeo_johnson_transform(x, lmbda) | ||
| n = x.shape[0] |
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| """Return the negative log likelihood of the observed data x as a | ||
| function of lambda.""" | ||
| psi = self._yeo_johnson_transform(x, lmbda) | ||
| n = x.shape[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I see, can we pass x as an argument as well as in the optimize function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes this is a nested function so x is implicitely passed anyway
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| # Estimated mean and variance of the normal distribution | ||
| mu = psi.sum() / n | ||
| sig_sq = np.power(psi - mu, 2).sum() / n |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Stupid question: is sig_sq the variance? If this is the case, you might want to call it var
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was following the paper's notation. Should I use mean (or mean_) also then?
|
I made a quick example to illustrate the use of Yeo-Johnson vs. Box-Cox + offset. As Box-Cox only accepts positive data, one solution is to shift the data by a fixed offset value (typically min(data) + eps): One thing we see is that the "after offset and Box-Cox" isn't as symmetric as the eo-Johnson and most importantly the values are much higher. Is it worth adding this as an example @amueller? TBH I wouldn't be able to mathematically or intuitively explain those results. |
|
+1 on comments by @glemaitre . Also, the tests are failing. |
TomDLT
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the added tests.
We might want to add them as common tests at some point, but it might be for another pull-request.
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| self._scaler = StandardScaler() | ||
| if force_compute_transform: | ||
| transformed = self._scaler.fit_transform(transformed) | ||
| self._scaler = StandardScaler(copy=self.copy) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually you should be able to use copy=False here, since a copy has already been done just before.
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| """Return inverse-transformed input x following Yeo-Johnson inverse | ||
| transform with parameter lambda. | ||
|
|
||
| Note |
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| """Return transformed input x following Yeo-Johnson transform with | ||
| parameter lambda. | ||
|
|
||
| Note |
sklearn/preprocessing/data.py
Outdated
| check_positive : bool | ||
| If True, check that all data is positive and non-zero. | ||
| If True, check that all data is positive and non-zero (only if | ||
| self.method is box-cox). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
only if self.method=='box-cox'
|
I am waiting to check the example in the documentation |
…into yeojohnson
|
@glemaitre @ogrisel, I think the plot looks pretty OK now. |
|
I'm finding the plots in Also, having the transformations go from left to right and the datasets from top to bottom doesn't look like it would be infeasible, and would be more familiar from plot_cluster_comparison etc. |
jnothman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can I clarify why plot_all_scaling still only shows box-cox?
Personally I find it easier to compare the transformations when they're stacked on each other, especially since the axes limits are uniform across the plots. I don't have anything against having the transformation names on the left. It would also make sense to me to have one dataset per column (limiting the plot to 4 rows instead of 8), but that would make the plot wider which can be annoying on mobile. Thanks for mentioning |
…into yeojohnson
|
Looks like 14e7c32 broke Should I open an issue for this? I'm not sure if this comes from my env (I created a new one from scratch, still same). Doesn't the CI check that all the examples are passing? |
|
@NicolasHug it's now "fixed" but you need to remove your |
|
Thanks, just updated |
|
The matplotlib rendering of the 2 examples is good enough for now: https://29575-843222-gh.circle-artifacts.com/0/doc/auto_examples/index.html#preprocessing Merging. Thanks @NicolasHug for this nice contribution! |
|
yay! |
|
I agree with @jnothman (#11520 (comment)) that using a layout similar to the cluster comparison plot would improve the readability even further but I don't want to delay the release for this. |
|
Yey!!
|


Reference Issues/PRs
Closes #10261
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
This PR implements the Yeo-Johnson transform as part of the PowerTransformer class.
PowerTransformer currently only support Box-Cox which only works for positive values, Yeo-Johnson works for the whole real line.
Original paper : link.
TODO:
Any other comments?
The lambda parameter estimation is a bit tricky
and currently does not work.(should be OK now, see below). Unlike for Box-Cox there's no scipy built-in that we can rely on. I'm having a hard time finding decent guidelines, tried to implement likelihood maximization with the brent optimizer (just like for Box-Cox) but run into overflow issues.The transform code seems to work though:
which is a reproduction of
From Quantile regression via vector generalized additive models by Thomas W. Yee.
Code for figure (hacky):
Details