# Player Performance Estimation using AI Collaborative Filtering

## 1. Introduction

Often times before crucial matches, or in general, we would like to know the performance of a batsman against a bowler or vice-versa, but we may not have the data. We generally have data where different batsmen would have faced different sets of bowlers with certain performance data like ballsFaced, totalRuns, fours, sixes, strike rate and timesOut. Similarly different bowlers would have performance figures(deliveries, runsConceded, economyRate and wicketTaken) against different sets of batsmen. We will never have the data for all batsmen against all bowlers. However, it would be good estimate the performance of batsmen against a bowler, even though we do not have the performance data. This could be done using collaborative filtering which identifies and computes based on the similarity between batsmen vs bowlers & bowlers vs batsmen.

This post shows an approach whereby we can estimate a batsman’s performance against bowlers even though the batsman may not have faced those bowlers, based on his/her performance against other bowlers. It also estimates the performance of bowlers against batsmen using the same approach. This is based on the recommender algorithm which is used to recommend products to customers based on their rating on other products.

This idea came to me while generating the performance of batsmen vs bowlers & vice-versa for 2 IPL teams in this IPL 2022 with my Shiny app GooglyPlusPlus in the optimization tab, I found that there were some batsmen for which there was no data against certain bowlers, probably because they are playing for the first time in their team or because they were new (see picture below)

In the picture above there is no data for Dewald Brevis against Jasprit Bumrah and YS Chahal. Wouldn’t be great to estimate the performance of Brevis against Bumrah or vice-versa? Can we estimate this performance?

While pondering on this problem, I realized that this problem formulation is similar to the problem formulation for the famous Netflix movie recommendation problem, in which user’s ratings for certain movies are known and based on these ratings, the recommender engine can generate ratings for movies not yet seen.

This post estimates a player’s (batsman/bowler) using the recommender engine This post is based on R package recommenderlab

“Michael Hahsler (2021). recommenderlab: Lab for Developing and Testing Recommender Algorithms. R package version 0.2-7. https://github.com/mhahsler/recommenderlab

Note 1: Thw data for this analysis is taken from Cricsheet after being processed by my R package yorkr.

You can also read this post in RPubs at Player Performance Estimation using AI Collaborative Filtering

A PDF copy of this post is available at Player Performance Estimation using AI Collaborative Filtering.pdf

You can download this R Markdown file and the associated data and perform the analysis yourself using any other recommender engine from Github at playerPerformanceEstimation

## Problem statement

In the table below we see a set of bowlers vs a set of batsmen and the number of times the bowlers got these batsmen out.
By knowing the performance of the bowlers against some of the batsmen we can use collaborative filter to determine the missing values. This is done using the recommender engine.

The Recommender Engine works as follows. Let us say that there are feature vectors $x^1$, $x^2$ and $x^3$ for the 3 bowlers which identify the characteristics of these bowlers (“fast”, “lateral drift through the air”, “movement off the pitch”). Let each batsman be identified by parameter vectors $\theta^1$, $\theta^2$ and so on

For e.g. consider the following table

Then by assuming an initial estimate for the parameter vector $\theta$ and the feature vector xx we can formulate this as an optimization problem which tries to minimize the error for $\theta^T*x$ This can work very well as the algorithm can determine features which cannot be captured. So for e.g. some particular bowler may have very impressive figures. This could be due to some aspect of the bowling which cannot be captured by the data for e.g. let’s say the bowler uses the ‘scrambled seam’ when he is most effective, with a slightly different arc to the flight. Though the algorithm cannot identify the feature as we know it, but the ML algorithm should pick up intricacies which cannot be captured in data.

Hence the algorithm can be quite effective.

Note: The recommender lab performance is not very good and the Mean Square Error is quite high. Also, the ROC and AUC curves show that not in aLL cases the algorithm is doing a clean job of separating the True positives (TPR) from the False Positives (FPR)

Note: This is similar to the recommendation problem

The collaborative optimization object can be considered as a minimization of both $\theta$ and the features x and can be written as

J($x^{(1)},x^{(2)},..x^{(n_{u})}$, $\theta^{(1)},\theta^{(2)},..,\theta^{(n_{m})}$}= 1/2$\sum(\theta^{j})^{T}x^{i}- y^{(i,j)})^{2} + \lambda\sum\sum (x_{k}^{i})^{2} + \lambda\sum\sum (_\theta{k}^{j})^{2}$

The collaborative filtering algorithm can be summarized as follows

1. Initialize $\theta^1$, $\theta^2$$\theta^{n_{u}}$ and the set of features be $x^1$,$x^2$, … ,$x^{n_{m}}$ to small random values
2. Minimize J($\theta^1$, $\theta^2$$\theta^{n_{u}}$,$x^1$, $x^2$, … ,$x^{n_{m}}$) using gradient descent. For every
j=1,2, …$n_{u}$, i= 1,2,.., $n_{m}$
3. $x_{k}^{i}$ := $x_{k}^{i}$$\alpha$ ( $\sigma$ $(\theta^j)^T$)$x^i$$y^(i,j)\theta_{k}^{j} + \lambda x_{k}^i$

&

$\theta_{k}^{i}$ := $\theta_{k}^{i}$$\alpha$ ( $\sigma$ $(\theta^j)^T)x^i - y^(i,j)\theta_{k}^{j} + \lambda x_{k}^i$
4. Hence for a batsman with parameters $\theta$ and a bowler with (learned) features x, predict the “times out” for the player where the value is not known using $\theta^Tx$

The above derivation for the recommender problem is taken from Machine Learning by Prof Andrew Ng at Coursera from the lecture Collaborative filtering

There are 2 main types of Collaborative Filtering(CF) approaches

1. User based Collaborative Filtering User-based CF is a memory-based algorithm which tries to mimics word-of-mouth by analyzing rating data from many individuals. The assumption is that users with similar preferences will rate items similarly.
2. Item based Collaborative Filtering Item-based CF is a model-based approach which produces recommendations based on the relationship between items inferred from the rating matrix. The assumption behind this approach is that users will prefer items that are similar to other items they like.

## 1a. A note on ROC and Precision-Recall curves

A small note on interpreting ROC & Precision-Recall curves in the post below

ROC Curve: The ROC curve plots the True Positive Rate (TPR) against the False Positive Rate (FPR). Ideally the TPR should increase faster than the FPR and the AUC (area under the curve) should be close to 1

Precision-Recall: The precision-recall curve shows the tradeoff between precision and recall for different threshold. A high area under the curve represents both high recall and high precision, where high precision relates to a low false positive rate, and high recall relates to a low false negative rate

library(reshape2)
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)
library(recommenderlab)
library(tidyr)


## 2. Define recommender lab helper functions

Helper functions for the RMarkdown notebook are created

• eval – Gives details of RMSE, MSE and MAE of ML algorithm
• evalRecomMethods – Evaluates different recommender methods and plot the ROC and Precision-Recall curves
# This function returns the error for the chosen algorithm and also predicts the estimates
# for the given data
eval <- function(data, train1, k1,given1,goodRating1,recomType1="UBCF"){
set.seed(2022)
e<- evaluationScheme(data,
method = "split",
train = train1,
k = k1,
given = given1,
goodRating = goodRating1)

r1 <- Recommender(getData(e, "train"), recomType1)
print(r1)

p1 <- predict(r1, getData(e, "known"), type="ratings")
print(p1)

error = calcPredictionAccuracy(p1, getData(e, "unknown"))

print(error)
p2 <- predict(r1, data, type="ratingMatrix")
p2
}
# This function will evaluate the different recommender algorithms and plot the AUC and ROC curves
evalRecomMethods <- function(data,k1,given1,goodRating1){
set.seed(2022)
e<- evaluationScheme(data,
method = "cross",
k = k1,
given = given1,
goodRating = goodRating1)

models_to_evaluate <- list(
IBCF Cosinus = list(name = "IBCF",
param = list(method = "cosine")),
IBCF Pearson = list(name = "IBCF",
param = list(method = "pearson")),
UBCF Cosinus = list(name = "UBCF",
param = list(method = "cosine")),
UBCF Pearson = list(name = "UBCF",
param = list(method = "pearson")),
Zufälliger Vorschlag = list(name = "RANDOM", param=NULL)
)

n_recommendations <- c(1, 5, seq(10, 100, 10))
list_results <- evaluate(x = e,
method = models_to_evaluate,
n = n_recommendations)
plot(list_results, annotate=c(1,3), legend="bottomright")
plot(list_results, "prec/rec", annotate=3, legend="topleft")
}


## 3. Batsman performance estimation

The section below regenerates the performance for batsmen based on incomplete data for the different fields in the data frame namely balls faced, fours, sixes, strike rate, times out. The recommender lab allows one to test several different algorithms all at once namely

1. User based – Cosine similarity method, Pearson similarity
2. Item based – Cosine similarity method, Pearson similarity
3. Popular
4. Random
5. SVD and a few others

## 3a. Batting dataframe

head(df)

##   batsman1         bowler1 ballsFaced totalRuns fours sixes  SR timesOut
## 1 A Badoni        A Mishra          0         0     0     0 NaN        0
## 2 A Badoni        A Nortje          0         0     0     0 NaN        0
## 3 A Badoni         A Zampa          0         0     0     0 NaN        0
## 4 A Badoni     Abdul Samad          0         0     0     0 NaN        0
## 5 A Badoni Abhishek Sharma          0         0     0     0 NaN        0
## 6 A Badoni      AD Russell          0         0     0     0 NaN        0


## 3b Data set and data preparation

For this analysis the data from Cricsheet has been processed using my R package yorkr to obtain the following 2 data sets – batsmenVsBowler – This dataset will contain the performance of the batsmen against the bowler and will capture a) ballsFaced b) totalRuns c) Fours d) Sixes e) SR f) timesOut – bowlerVsBatsmen – This data set will contain the performance of the bowler against the difference batsmen and will include a) deliveries b) runsConceded c) EconomyRate d) wicketsTaken

Obviously many rows/columns will be empty

This is a large data set and hence I have filtered for the period > Jan 2020 and < Dec 2022 which gives 2 datasets a) batsmanVsBowler20_22.rdata b) bowlerVsBatsman20_22.rdata

I also have 2 other datasets of all batsmen and bowlers in these 2 dataset in the files c) all-batsmen20_22.rds d) all-bowlers20_22.rds

You can download the data and this RMarkdown notebook from Github at PlayerPerformanceEstimation

Feel free to download and analyze the data and use any recommendation engine you choose

## 3c. Exploratory analysis

Initially an exploratory analysis is done on the data

df3 <- select(df, batsman1,bowler1,timesOut)
df6 <- xtabs(timesOut ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
print(df8[1:10,1:10])

##                 A Mishra A Nortje A Zampa Abdul Samad Abhishek Sharma
## A Badoni              NA       NA      NA          NA              NA
## A Manohar             NA       NA      NA          NA              NA
## A Nortje              NA       NA      NA          NA              NA
## AB de Villiers        NA        4       3          NA              NA
## Abdul Samad           NA       NA      NA          NA              NA
## Abhishek Sharma       NA       NA      NA          NA              NA
## AD Russell             1       NA      NA          NA              NA
## AF Milne              NA       NA      NA          NA              NA
## AJ Finch              NA       NA      NA          NA               3
## AJ Tye                NA       NA      NA          NA              NA
##                 AD Russell AF Milne AJ Tye AK Markram Akash Deep
## A Badoni                NA       NA     NA         NA         NA
## A Manohar               NA       NA     NA         NA         NA
## A Nortje                NA       NA     NA         NA         NA
## AB de Villiers           3       NA      3         NA         NA
## Abdul Samad             NA       NA     NA         NA         NA
## Abhishek Sharma         NA       NA     NA         NA         NA
## AD Russell              NA       NA      6         NA         NA
## AF Milne                NA       NA     NA         NA         NA
## AJ Finch                NA       NA     NA         NA         NA
## AJ Tye                  NA       NA     NA         NA         NA


The dots below represent data for which there is no performance data. These cells need to be estimated by the algorithm

set.seed(2022)
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
getRatingMatrix(r)[1:15,1:15]

## 15 x 15 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 15 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## A Badoni         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## A Manohar        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## A Nortje         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## AB de Villiers   . 4 3 . . 3 . 3 . . . 4 3 . .
## Abdul Samad      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## Abhishek Sharma  . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
## AD Russell       1 . . . . . . 6 . . . 3 3 3 .
## AF Milne         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## AJ Finch         . . . . 3 . . . . . . 1 . . .
## AJ Tye           . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
## AK Markram       . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
## AM Rahane        9 . . . . 3 . 3 . . . 3 3 . .
## Anmolpreet Singh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## Anuj Rawat       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## AR Patel         . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . .

r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:15,1:15]

## 15 x 15 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 15 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers  . 4 3 . . 3 . 3 . . . 4 3 . .
## Abdul Samad     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
## Abhishek Sharma . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
## AD Russell      1 . . . . . . 6 . . . 3 3 3 .
## AJ Finch        . . . . 3 . . . . . . 1 . . .
## AM Rahane       9 . . . . 3 . 3 . . . 3 3 . .
## AR Patel        . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . .
## AT Rayudu       2 . . . . . 1 . . . . 3 . . .
## B Kumar         3 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3 .
## BA Stokes       . . . . . . 3 4 . . . 3 . . .
## CA Lynn         . . . . . . . 9 . . . 3 . . .
## CH Gayle        . . . . . 6 . 3 . . . 6 . . .
## CH Morris       . 3 . . . . . . . . . 3 . . .
## D Padikkal      . 4 . . . 3 . . . . . . 3 . .
## DA Miller       . . . . . 3 . . . . . 3 . . .

# Get the summary of the data
summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##   1.000   3.000   3.000   3.463   4.000  21.000

# Normalize the data
r0_m <- normalize(r0)
getRatingMatrix(r0_m)[1:15,1:15]

## 15 x 15 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 15 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers   .         -0.7857143 -1.7857143 .  .       -1.7857143
## Abdul Samad      .          .          .         .  .        .
## Abhishek Sharma  .          .          .         .  .        .
## AD Russell      -2.6562500  .          .         .  .        .
## AJ Finch         .          .          .         . -0.03125  .
## AM Rahane        4.6041667  .          .         .  .       -1.3958333
## AR Patel         .          .          .         .  .        .
## AT Rayudu       -2.1363636  .          .         .  .        .
## B Kumar          0.3636364  .          0.3636364 .  .        .
## BA Stokes        .          .          .         .  .        .
## CA Lynn          .          .          .         .  .        .
## CH Gayle         .          .          .         .  .        1.5476190
## CH Morris        .          0.3500000  .         .  .        .
## D Padikkal       .          0.6250000  .         .  .       -0.3750000
## DA Miller        .          .          .         .  .       -0.7037037
##
## AB de Villiers   .         -1.7857143 . . . -0.7857143 -1.785714  .         .
## Abdul Samad      .          .         . . .  .          .         .         .
## Abhishek Sharma  .          .         . . . -1.6000000  .         .         .
## AD Russell       .          2.3437500 . . . -0.6562500 -0.656250 -0.6562500 .
## AJ Finch         .          .         . . . -2.0312500  .         .         .
## AM Rahane        .         -1.3958333 . . . -1.3958333 -1.395833  .         .
## AR Patel         .         -2.3333333 . . .  .          .         .         .
## AT Rayudu       -3.1363636  .         . . . -1.1363636  .         .         .
## B Kumar          .          .         . . .  .          .         0.3636364 .
## BA Stokes       -0.6086957  0.3913043 . . . -0.6086957  .         .         .
## CA Lynn          .          5.3200000 . . . -0.6800000  .         .         .
## CH Gayle         .         -1.4523810 . . .  1.5476190  .         .         .
## CH Morris        .          .         . . .  0.3500000  .         .         .
## D Padikkal       .          .         . . .  .         -0.375000  .         .
## DA Miller        .          .         . . . -0.7037037  .         .         .


## 4. Create a visual representation of the rating data before and after the normalization

The histograms show the bias in the data is removed after normalization

r0=r[(m=rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:15,1:10]

## 15 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers  . 4 3 . . 3 . 3 . .
## Abdul Samad     . . . . . . . . . .
## Abhishek Sharma . . . . . . . . . .
## AD Russell      1 . . . . . . 6 . .
## AJ Finch        . . . . 3 . . . . .
## AM Rahane       9 . . . . 3 . 3 . .
## AR Patel        . . . . . . . 1 . .
## AT Rayudu       2 . . . . . 1 . . .
## B Kumar         3 . 3 . . . . . . .
## BA Stokes       . . . . . . 3 4 . .
## CA Lynn         . . . . . . . 9 . .
## CH Gayle        . . . . . 6 . 3 . .
## CH Morris       . 3 . . . . . . . .
## D Padikkal      . 4 . . . 3 . . . .
## DA Miller       . . . . . 3 . . . .

#Plot ratings
image(r0, main = "Raw Ratings")

#Plot normalized ratings
r0_m <- normalize(r0)
getRatingMatrix(r0_m)[1:15,1:15]

## 15 x 15 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 15 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers   .         -0.7857143 -1.7857143 .  .       -1.7857143
## Abdul Samad      .          .          .         .  .        .
## Abhishek Sharma  .          .          .         .  .        .
## AD Russell      -2.6562500  .          .         .  .        .
## AJ Finch         .          .          .         . -0.03125  .
## AM Rahane        4.6041667  .          .         .  .       -1.3958333
## AR Patel         .          .          .         .  .        .
## AT Rayudu       -2.1363636  .          .         .  .        .
## B Kumar          0.3636364  .          0.3636364 .  .        .
## BA Stokes        .          .          .         .  .        .
## CA Lynn          .          .          .         .  .        .
## CH Gayle         .          .          .         .  .        1.5476190
## CH Morris        .          0.3500000  .         .  .        .
## D Padikkal       .          0.6250000  .         .  .       -0.3750000
## DA Miller        .          .          .         .  .       -0.7037037
##
## AB de Villiers   .         -1.7857143 . . . -0.7857143 -1.785714  .         .
## Abdul Samad      .          .         . . .  .          .         .         .
## Abhishek Sharma  .          .         . . . -1.6000000  .         .         .
## AD Russell       .          2.3437500 . . . -0.6562500 -0.656250 -0.6562500 .
## AJ Finch         .          .         . . . -2.0312500  .         .         .
## AM Rahane        .         -1.3958333 . . . -1.3958333 -1.395833  .         .
## AR Patel         .         -2.3333333 . . .  .          .         .         .
## AT Rayudu       -3.1363636  .         . . . -1.1363636  .         .         .
## B Kumar          .          .         . . .  .          .         0.3636364 .
## BA Stokes       -0.6086957  0.3913043 . . . -0.6086957  .         .         .
## CA Lynn          .          5.3200000 . . . -0.6800000  .         .         .
## CH Gayle         .         -1.4523810 . . .  1.5476190  .         .         .
## CH Morris        .          .         . . .  0.3500000  .         .         .
## D Padikkal       .          .         . . .  .         -0.375000  .         .
## DA Miller        .          .         . . . -0.7037037  .         .         .

image(r0_m, main = "Normalized Ratings")

set.seed(1234)
hist(getRatings(r0), breaks=25)

hist(getRatings(r0_m), breaks=25)


## 4a. Data for analysis

The data frame of the batsman vs bowlers from the period 2020 -2022 is read as a dataframe. To remove rows with very low number of ratings(timesOut, SR, Fours, Sixes etc), the rows are filtered so that there are at least more 10 values in the row. For the player estimation the dataframe is converted into a wide-format as a matrix (m x n) of batsman x bowler with each of the columns of the dataframe i.e. timesOut, SR, fours or sixes. These different matrices can be considered as a rating matrix for estimation.

A similar approach is taken for estimating bowler performance. Here a wide form matrix (m x n) of bowler x batsman is created for each of the columns of deliveries, runsConceded, ER, wicketsTaken

## 5. Batsman’s times Out

The code below estimates the number of times the batsmen would lose his/her wicket to the bowler. As discussed in the algorithm above, the recommendation engine will make an initial estimate features for the bowler and an initial estimate for the parameter vector for the batsmen. Then using gradient descent the recommender engine will determine the feature and parameter values such that the over Mean Squared Error is minimum

From the plot for the different algorithms it can be seen that UBCF performs the best. However the AUC & ROC curves are not optimal and the AUC> 0.5

df3 <- select(df, batsman1,bowler1,timesOut)
df6 <- xtabs(timesOut ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
# Filter only rows where the row count is > 10
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers  . 4 3 . . 3 . 3 . .
## Abdul Samad     . . . . . . . . . .
## Abhishek Sharma . . . . . . . . . .
## AD Russell      1 . . . . . . 6 . .
## AJ Finch        . . . . 3 . . . . .
## AM Rahane       9 . . . . 3 . 3 . .
## AR Patel        . . . . . . . 1 . .
## AT Rayudu       2 . . . . . 1 . . .
## B Kumar         3 . 3 . . . . . . .
## BA Stokes       . . . . . . 3 4 . .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##   1.000   3.000   3.000   3.463   4.000  21.000

# Evaluate the different plotting methods
evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

#Evaluate the error
a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8,k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 70 users.
## 18 x 145 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 1755 ratings.
##     RMSE      MSE      MAE
## 2.069027 4.280872 1.496388

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
m=as(c,"data.frame")
names(m) =c("batsman","bowler","TimesOut")


## 6. Batsman’s Strike rate

This section deals with the Strike rate of batsmen versus bowlers and estimates the values for those where the data is incomplete using UBCF method.

Even here all the algorithms do not perform too efficiently. I did try out a few variations but could not lower the error (suggestions welcome!!)

df3 <- select(df, batsman1,bowler1,SR)
df6 <- xtabs(SR ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers   96.8254 171.4286  33.33333  . 66.66667 223.07692   .
## Abdul Samad       .      228.0000   .        .  .       100.00000   .
## Abhishek Sharma 150.0000   .        .        .  .        66.66667   .
## AD Russell      111.4286   .        .        .  .         .         .
## AJ Finch        250.0000 116.6667   .        . 50.00000  85.71429 112.5000
## AJ Tye            .        .        .        .  .         .       100.0000
## AK Markram        .        .        .       50  .         .         .
## AM Rahane       121.1111   .        .        .  .       113.82979 117.9487
## AR Patel        183.3333   .      200.00000  .  .       433.33333   .
## AT Rayudu       126.5432 200.0000 122.22222  .  .       105.55556   .
##
## AB de Villiers  109.52381 .   .
## Abdul Samad       .       .   .
## Abhishek Sharma   .       .   .
## AD Russell      195.45455 .   .
## AJ Finch          .       .   .
## AJ Tye            .       .   .
## AK Markram        .       .   .
## AM Rahane        33.33333 . 200
## AR Patel        171.42857 .   .
## AT Rayudu       204.76190 .   .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##   5.882  85.714 116.667 128.529 160.606 600.000

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8, k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 105 users.
## 27 x 145 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 3220 ratings.
##       RMSE        MSE        MAE
##   77.71979 6040.36508   58.58484

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
n=as(c,"data.frame")
names(n) =c("batsman","bowler","SR")


## 7. Batsman’s Sixes

The snippet of code estimes the sixes of the batsman against bowlers. The ROC and AUC curve for UBCF looks a lot better here, as it significantly greater than 0.5

df3 <- select(df, batsman1,bowler1,sixes)
df6 <- xtabs(sixes ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers  3 3 . . . 18 .  3 . .
## AD Russell      3 . . . .  . . 12 . .
## AJ Finch        2 . . . .  . .  . . .
## AM Rahane       7 . . . .  3 1  . . .
## AR Patel        4 . 3 . .  6 .  1 . .
## AT Rayudu       5 2 . . .  . .  1 . .
## BA Stokes       . . . . .  . .  . . .
## CA Lynn         . . . . .  . .  9 . .
## CH Gayle       17 . . . . 17 .  . . .
## CH Morris       . . 3 . .  . .  . . .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##    1.00    3.00    3.00    4.68    6.00   33.00

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

## Timing stopped at: 0.003 0 0.002

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8, k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 52 users.
## 14 x 145 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 1634 ratings.
##      RMSE       MSE       MAE
##  3.529922 12.460350  2.532122

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
o=as(c,"data.frame")
names(o) =c("batsman","bowler","Sixes")


## 8. Batsman’s Fours

The code below estimates 4s for the batsmen

df3 <- select(df, batsman1,bowler1,fours)
df6 <- xtabs(fours ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## AB de Villiers   . 1 . . . 24 . 3 . .
## Abhishek Sharma  . . . . .  . . . . .
## AD Russell       1 . . . .  . . 9 . .
## AJ Finch         . 1 . . .  3 2 . . .
## AK Markram       . . . . .  . . . . .
## AM Rahane       11 . . . .  8 7 . . 3
## AR Patel         . . . . .  . . 3 . .
## AT Rayudu       11 2 3 . .  6 . 6 . .
## BA Stokes        1 . . . .  . . . . .
## CA Lynn          . . . . .  . . 6 . .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##   1.000   3.000   4.000   6.339   9.000  55.000

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

## Timing stopped at: 0.008 0 0.008

## Warning in .local(x, method, ...):
##   Recommender 'UBCF Pearson' has failed and has been removed from the results!

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8, k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 67 users.
## 17 x 145 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 2083 ratings.
##      RMSE       MSE       MAE
##  5.486661 30.103447  4.060990

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
p=as(c,"data.frame")
names(p) =c("batsman","bowler","Fours")


## 9. Batsman’s Total Runs

The code below estimates the total runs that would have scored by the batsman against different bowlers

df3 <- select(df, batsman1,bowler1,totalRuns)
df6 <- xtabs(totalRuns ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## A Badoni         .  . . . .   . .   . . .
## A Manohar        .  . . . .   . .   . . .
## A Nortje         .  . . . .   . .   . . .
## AB de Villiers  61 36 3 . 6 261 .  69 . .
## Abdul Samad      . 57 . . .  12 .   . . .
## Abhishek Sharma  3  . . . .   6 .   . . .
## AD Russell      39  . . . .   . . 129 . .
## AF Milne         .  . . . .   . .   . . .
## AJ Finch        15  7 . . 3  18 9   . . .
## AJ Tye           .  . . . .   . 4   . . .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##    1.00    9.00   24.00   41.36   54.00  452.00

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8, k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 105 users.
## 27 x 145 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 3256 ratings.
##       RMSE        MSE        MAE
##   41.50985 1723.06788   29.52958

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
q=as(c,"data.frame")
names(q) =c("batsman","bowler","TotalRuns")


## 10. Batsman’s Balls Faced

The snippet estimates the balls faced by batsmen versus bowlers

df3 <- select(df, batsman1,bowler1,ballsFaced)
df6 <- xtabs(ballsFaced ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Mishra', 'A Nortje', 'A Zampa' ... ]]

##
## A Badoni         .  . . . .   . .  . . .
## A Manohar        .  . . . .   . .  . . .
## A Nortje         .  . . . .   . .  . . .
## AB de Villiers  63 21 9 . 9 117 . 63 . .
## Abdul Samad      . 25 . . .  12 .  . . .
## Abhishek Sharma  2  . . . .   9 .  . . .
## AD Russell      35  . . . .   . . 66 . .
## AF Milne         .  . . . .   . .  . . .
## AJ Finch         6  6 . . 6  21 8  . . .
## AJ Tye           .  . . . .   9 4  . . .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##    1.00    9.00   18.00   30.21   39.00  384.00

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8, k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 112 users.
## 28 x 145 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 3378 ratings.
##       RMSE        MSE        MAE
##   33.91251 1150.05835   23.39439

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
r=as(c,"data.frame")
names(r) =c("batsman","bowler","BallsFaced")


## 11. Generate the Batsmen Performance Estimate

This code generates the estimated dataframe with known and ‘predicted’ values

a1=merge(m,n,by=c("batsman","bowler"))
a2=merge(a1,o,by=c("batsman","bowler"))
a3=merge(a2,p,by=c("batsman","bowler"))
a4=merge(a3,q,by=c("batsman","bowler"))
a5=merge(a4,r,by=c("batsman","bowler"))
a6= select(a5, batsman,bowler,BallsFaced,TotalRuns,Fours, Sixes, SR,TimesOut)

##          batsman          bowler BallsFaced TotalRuns Fours Sixes  SR TimesOut
## 1 AB de Villiers        A Mishra         94       124     7     5 144        5
## 2 AB de Villiers        A Nortje         26        42     4     3 148        3
## 3 AB de Villiers         A Zampa         28        42     5     7 106        4
## 4 AB de Villiers Abhishek Sharma         22        28     0    10 136        5
## 5 AB de Villiers      AD Russell         70       135    14    12 207        4
## 6 AB de Villiers        AF Milne         31        45     6     6 130        3


## 12. Bowler analysis

Just like the batsman performance estimation we can consider the bowler’s performances also for estimation. Consider the following table

As in the batsman analysis, for every batsman a set of features like (“strong backfoot player”, “360 degree player”,“Power hitter”) can be estimated with a set of initial values. Also every bowler will have an associated parameter vector θθ. Different bowlers will have performance data for different set of batsmen. Based on the initial estimate of the features and the parameters, gradient descent can be used to minimize actual values {for e.g. wicketsTaken(ratings)}.

load("recom_data/bowlerVsBatsman20_22.rdata")


## 12a. Bowler dataframe

Inspecting the bowler dataframe

head(df2)

##    bowler1        batsman1 balls runsConceded       ER wicketTaken
## 1 A Mishra        A Badoni     0            0 0.000000           0
## 2 A Mishra       A Manohar     0            0 0.000000           0
## 3 A Mishra        A Nortje     0            0 0.000000           0
## 4 A Mishra  AB de Villiers    63           61 5.809524           0
## 5 A Mishra     Abdul Samad     0            0 0.000000           0
## 6 A Mishra Abhishek Sharma     2            3 9.000000           0

names(df2)

## [1] "bowler1"      "batsman1"     "balls"        "runsConceded" "ER"
## [6] "wicketTaken"


## 13. Balls bowled by bowler

The below section estimates the balls bowled for each bowler. We can see that UBCF Pearson and UBCF Cosine both perform well

df3 <- select(df2, bowler1,batsman1,balls)
df6 <- xtabs(balls ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Badoni', 'A Manohar', 'A Nortje' ... ]]

##
## A Mishra        . . .  63  .  2 35 .  6 .
## A Nortje        . . .  21 25  .  . .  6 .
## A Zampa         . . .   9  .  .  . .  . .
## Abhishek Sharma . . .   9  .  .  . .  6 .
## AD Russell      . . . 117 12  9  . . 21 9
## AF Milne        . . .   .  .  .  . .  8 4
## AJ Tye          . . .  63  .  . 66 .  . .
## Akash Deep      . . .   .  .  .  . .  . .
## AR Patel        . . . 188  5  1 84 . 29 5
## Arshdeep Singh  . . .   6  6 24 18 . 12 .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##    1.00    9.00   18.00   29.61   36.00  384.00

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8,k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 96 users.
## 24 x 195 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 3954 ratings.
##      RMSE       MSE       MAE
##  30.72284 943.89294  19.89204

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
s=as(c,"data.frame")
names(s) =c("bowler","batsman","BallsBowled")


## 14. Runs conceded by bowler

This section estimates the runs conceded by the bowler. The UBCF Cosinus algorithm performs the best with TPR increasing fastewr than FPR

df3 <- select(df2, bowler1,batsman1,runsConceded)
df6 <- xtabs(runsConceded ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Badoni', 'A Manohar', 'A Nortje' ... ]]

##
## A Mishra        . . .  61  .  3  41 . 15  .
## A Nortje        . . .  36 57  .   . .  8  .
## A Zampa         . . .   3  .  .   . .  .  .
## Abhishek Sharma . . .   6  .  .   . .  3  .
## AD Russell      . . . 276 12  6   . . 21  .
## AF Milne        . . .   .  .  .   . . 10  4
## AJ Tye          . . .  69  .  . 138 .  .  .
## Akash Deep      . . .   .  .  .   . .  .  .
## AR Patel        . . . 205  5  . 165 . 33 13
## Arshdeep Singh  . . .  18  3 51  51 .  6  .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##    1.00    9.00   24.00   41.34   54.00  458.00

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

## Timing stopped at: 0.004 0 0.004

## Warning in .local(x, method, ...):
##   Recommender 'UBCF Pearson' has failed and has been removed from the results!

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8,k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 95 users.
## 24 x 195 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 3820 ratings.
##       RMSE        MSE        MAE
##   43.16674 1863.36749   30.32709

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
t=as(c,"data.frame")
names(t) =c("bowler","batsman","RunsConceded")


## 15. Economy Rate of the bowler

This section computes the economy rate of the bowler. The performance is not all that good

df3 <- select(df2, bowler1,batsman1,ER)
df6 <- xtabs(ER ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Badoni', 'A Manohar', 'A Nortje' ... ]]

##
## A Mishra        . . .  5.809524  .     9.00  7.028571 . 15.000000  .
## A Nortje        . . . 10.285714 13.68  .     .        .  8.000000  .
## A Zampa         . . .  2.000000  .     .     .        .  .         .
## Abhishek Sharma . . .  4.000000  .     .     .        .  3.000000  .
## AD Russell      . . . 14.153846  6.00  4.00  .        .  6.000000  .
## AF Milne        . . .  .         .     .     .        .  7.500000  6.0
## AJ Tye          . . .  6.571429  .     .    12.545455 .  .         .
## Akash Deep      . . .  .         .     .     .        .  .         .
## AR Patel        . . .  6.542553  6.00  .    11.785714 .  6.827586 15.6
## Arshdeep Singh  . . . 18.000000  3.00 12.75 17.000000 .  3.000000  .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##  0.3529  5.2500  7.1126  7.8139  9.8000 36.0000

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

## Timing stopped at: 0.003 0 0.004

## Warning in .local(x, method, ...):
##   Recommender 'UBCF Pearson' has failed and has been removed from the results!

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8,k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 95 users.
## 24 x 195 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 3839 ratings.
##      RMSE       MSE       MAE
##  4.380680 19.190356  3.316556

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
u=as(c,"data.frame")
names(u) =c("bowler","batsman","EconomyRate")


## 16. Wickets Taken by bowler

The code below computes the wickets taken by the bowler versus different batsmen

df3 <- select(df2, bowler1,batsman1,wicketTaken)
df6 <- xtabs(wicketTaken ~ ., df3)
df7 <- as.data.frame.matrix(df6)
df8 <- data.matrix(df7)
df8[df8 == 0] <- NA
r <- as(df8,"realRatingMatrix")
r0=r[(rowCounts(r) > 10),]
getRatingMatrix(r0)[1:10,1:10]

## 10 x 10 sparse Matrix of class "dgCMatrix"

##    [[ suppressing 10 column names 'A Badoni', 'A Manohar', 'A Nortje' ... ]]

##
## A Mishra       . . . . . . 1 . . .
## A Nortje       . . . 4 . . . . . .
## A Zampa        . . . 3 . . . . . .
## AD Russell     . . . 3 . . . . . .
## AJ Tye         . . . 3 . . 6 . . .
## AR Patel       . . . 4 . 1 3 . 1 1
## Arshdeep Singh . . . 3 . . 3 . . .
## AS Rajpoot     . . . . . . 3 . . .
## Avesh Khan     . . . . . . 1 . 3 .
## B Kumar        . . . 9 . . 3 . 1 .

summary(getRatings(r0))

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
##   1.000   3.000   3.000   3.423   3.000  21.000

evalRecomMethods(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],k1=5,given=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)))

## Timing stopped at: 0.003 0 0.003

## Warning in .local(x, method, ...):
##   Recommender 'UBCF Pearson' has failed and has been removed from the results!

a=eval(r0[1:dim(r0)[1]],0.8,k1=5,given1=7,goodRating1=median(getRatings(r0)),"UBCF")

## Recommender of type 'UBCF' for 'realRatingMatrix'
## learned using 64 users.
## 16 x 195 rating matrix of class 'realRatingMatrix' with 1908 ratings.
##     RMSE      MSE      MAE
## 2.672677 7.143203 1.956934

b=round(as(a,"matrix")[1:10,1:10])
c <- as(b,"realRatingMatrix")
v=as(c,"data.frame")
names(v) =c("bowler","batsman","WicketTaken")


## 17. Generate the Bowler Performance estmiate

The entire dataframe is regenerated with known and ‘predicted’ values

r1=merge(s,t,by=c("bowler","batsman"))
r2=merge(r1,u,by=c("bowler","batsman"))
r3=merge(r2,v,by=c("bowler","batsman"))
r4= select(r3,bowler, batsman, BallsBowled,RunsConceded,EconomyRate, WicketTaken)

##     bowler         batsman BallsBowled RunsConceded EconomyRate WicketTaken
## 1 A Mishra  AB de Villiers         102          144           8           4
## 2 A Mishra     Abdul Samad          13           20           7           4
## 3 A Mishra Abhishek Sharma          14           26           8           2
## 4 A Mishra      AD Russell          47           85           9           3
## 5 A Mishra        AJ Finch          45           61          11           4
## 6 A Mishra          AJ Tye          14           20           5           4


## 18. Conclusion

This post showed an approach for performing the Batsmen Performance Estimate & Bowler Performance Estimate. The performance of the recommender engine could have been better. In any case, I think this approach will work for player estimation provided the recommender algorithm is able to achieve a high degree of accuracy. This will be a good way to estimate as the algorithm will be able to determine features and nuances of batsmen and bowlers which cannot be captured by data.

## Also see

To see all posts click Index of posts

# My book ‘Practical Machine Learning with R and Python’ on Amazon

Note: The 3rd edition of this book is now available My book ‘Practical Machine Learning in R and Python: Third edition’ on Amazon

My book ‘Practical Machine Learning with R and Python: Second Edition – Machine Learning in stereo’ is now available in both paperback ($10.99) and kindle ($7.99/Rs449) versions. In this book I implement some of the most common, but important Machine Learning algorithms in R and equivalent Python code. This is almost like listening to parallel channels of music in stereo!
1. Practical machine with R and Python: Third Edition – Machine Learning in Stereo(Paperback-$12.99) 2. Practical machine with R and Python Third Edition – Machine Learning in Stereo(Kindle-$8.99/Rs449)
This book is ideal both for beginners and the experts in R and/or Python. Those starting their journey into datascience and ML will find the first 3 chapters useful, as they touch upon the most important programming constructs in R and Python and also deal with equivalent statements in R and Python. Those who are expert in either of the languages, R or Python, will find the equivalent code ideal for brushing up on the other language. And finally,those who are proficient in both languages, can use the R and Python implementations to internalize the ML algorithms better.

Here is a look at the topics covered

Essential R …………………………………….. 7
Essential Python for Datascience ………………..   54
R vs Python ……………………………………. 77
Regression of a continuous variable ………………. 96
Classification and Cross Validation ……………….113
Regression techniques and regularization …………. 134
SVMs, Decision Trees and Validation curves …………175
Splines, GAMs, Random Forests and Boosting …………202
PCA, K-Means and Hierarchical Clustering …………. 234

Hope you have a great time learning as I did while implementing these algorithms!

# Practical Machine Learning with R and Python – Part 4

This is the 4th installment of my ‘Practical Machine Learning with R and Python’ series. In this part I discuss classification with Support Vector Machines (SVMs), using both a Linear and a Radial basis kernel, and Decision Trees. Further, a closer look is taken at some of the metrics associated with binary classification, namely accuracy vs precision and recall. I also touch upon Validation curves, Precision-Recall, ROC curves and AUC with equivalent code in R and Python

This post is a continuation of my 3 earlier posts on Practical Machine Learning in R and Python
1. Practical Machine Learning with R and Python – Part 1
2. Practical Machine Learning with R and Python – Part 2
3. Practical Machine Learning with R and Python – Part 3

The RMarkdown file with the code and the associated data files can be downloaded from Github at MachineLearning-RandPython-Part4

1. Machine Learning in plain English-Part 1
2. Machine Learning in plain English-Part 2
3. Machine Learning in plain English-Part 3

Check out my compact and minimal book  “Practical Machine Learning with R and Python:Third edition- Machine Learning in stereo”  available in Amazon in paperback($12.99) and kindle($8.99) versions. My book includes implementations of key ML algorithms and associated measures and metrics. The book is ideal for anybody who is familiar with the concepts and would like a quick reference to the different ML algorithms that can be applied to problems and how to select the best model. Pick your copy today!!

Support Vector Machines (SVM) are another useful Machine Learning model that can be used for both regression and classification problems. SVMs used in classification, compute the hyperplane, that separates the 2 classes with the maximum margin. To do this the features may be transformed into a larger multi-dimensional feature space. SVMs can be used with different kernels namely linear, polynomial or radial basis to determine the best fitting model for a given classification problem.

In the 2nd part of this series Practical Machine Learning with R and Python – Part 2, I had mentioned the various metrics that are used in classification ML problems namely Accuracy, Precision, Recall and F1 score. Accuracy gives the fraction of data that were correctly classified as belonging to the +ve or -ve class. However ‘accuracy’ in itself is not a good enough measure because it does not take into account the fraction of the data that were incorrectly classified. This issue becomes even more critical in different domains. For e.g a surgeon who would like to detect cancer, would like to err on the side of caution, and classify even a possibly non-cancerous patient as possibly having cancer, rather than mis-classifying a malignancy as benign. Here we would like to increase recall or sensitivity which is  given by Recall= TP/(TP+FN) or we try reduce mis-classification by either increasing the (true positives) TP or reducing (false negatives) FN

On the other hand, search algorithms would like to increase precision which tries to reduce the number of irrelevant results in the search result. Precision= TP/(TP+FP). In other words we do not want ‘false positives’ or irrelevant results to come in the search results and there is a need to reduce the false positives.

When we try to increase ‘precision’, we do so at the cost of ‘recall’, and vice-versa. I found this diagram and explanation in Wikipedia very useful Source: Wikipedia

“Consider a brain surgeon tasked with removing a cancerous tumor from a patient’s brain. The surgeon needs to remove all of the tumor cells since any remaining cancer cells will regenerate the tumor. Conversely, the surgeon must not remove healthy brain cells since that would leave the patient with impaired brain function. The surgeon may be more liberal in the area of the brain she removes to ensure she has extracted all the cancer cells. This decision increases recall but reduces precision. On the other hand, the surgeon may be more conservative in the brain she removes to ensure she extracts only cancer cells. This decision increases precision but reduces recall. That is to say, greater recall increases the chances of removing healthy cells (negative outcome) and increases the chances of removing all cancer cells (positive outcome). Greater precision decreases the chances of removing healthy cells (positive outcome) but also decreases the chances of removing all cancer cells (negative outcome).”

## 1.1a. Linear SVM – R code

In R code below I use SVM with linear kernel

source('RFunctions-1.R')
library(dplyr)
library(e1071)
library(caret)
library(reshape2)
library(ggplot2)
# Read data. Data from SKLearn
cancer$target <- as.factor(cancer$target)

# Split into training and test sets
train_idx <- trainTestSplit(cancer,trainPercent=75,seed=5)
train <- cancer[train_idx, ]
test <- cancer[-train_idx, ]

# Fit a linear basis kernel. DO not scale the data
svmfit=svm(target~., data=train, kernel="linear",scale=FALSE)
ypred=predict(svmfit,test)
#Print a confusion matrix
confusionMatrix(ypred,test$target) ## Confusion Matrix and Statistics ## ## Reference ## Prediction 0 1 ## 0 54 3 ## 1 3 82 ## ## Accuracy : 0.9577 ## 95% CI : (0.9103, 0.9843) ## No Information Rate : 0.5986 ## P-Value [Acc > NIR] : <2e-16 ## ## Kappa : 0.9121 ## Mcnemar's Test P-Value : 1 ## ## Sensitivity : 0.9474 ## Specificity : 0.9647 ## Pos Pred Value : 0.9474 ## Neg Pred Value : 0.9647 ## Prevalence : 0.4014 ## Detection Rate : 0.3803 ## Detection Prevalence : 0.4014 ## Balanced Accuracy : 0.9560 ## ## 'Positive' Class : 0 ##  ## 1.1b Linear SVM – Python code The code below creates a SVM with linear basis in Python and also dumps the corresponding classification metrics import numpy as np import pandas as pd import os import matplotlib.pyplot as plt from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.svm import LinearSVC from sklearn.datasets import make_classification, make_blobs from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix from matplotlib.colors import ListedColormap from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer # Load the cancer data (X_cancer, y_cancer) = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y = True) X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X_cancer, y_cancer, random_state = 0) clf = LinearSVC().fit(X_train, y_train) print('Breast cancer dataset') print('Accuracy of Linear SVC classifier on training set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_train, y_train))) print('Accuracy of Linear SVC classifier on test set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_test, y_test))) ## Breast cancer dataset ## Accuracy of Linear SVC classifier on training set: 0.92 ## Accuracy of Linear SVC classifier on test set: 0.94 ## 1.2 Dummy classifier Often when we perform classification tasks using any ML model namely logistic regression, SVM, neural networks etc. it is very useful to determine how well the ML model performs agains at dummy classifier. A dummy classifier uses some simple computation like frequency of majority class, instead of fitting and ML model. It is essential that our ML model does much better that the dummy classifier. This problem is even more important in imbalanced classes where we have only about 10% of +ve samples. If any ML model we create has a accuracy of about 0.90 then it is evident that our classifier is not doing any better than a dummy classsfier which can just take a majority count of this imbalanced class and also come up with 0.90. We need to be able to do better than that. In the examples below (1.3a & 1.3b) it can be seen that SVMs with ‘radial basis’ kernel with unnormalized data, for both R and Python, do not perform any better than the dummy classifier. ## 1.2a Dummy classifier – R code R does not seem to have an explicit dummy classifier. I created a simple dummy classifier that predicts the majority class. SKlearn in Python also includes other strategies like uniform, stratified etc. but this should be possible to create in R also. # Create a simple dummy classifier that computes the ratio of the majority class to the totla DummyClassifierAccuracy <- function(train,test,type="majority"){ if(type=="majority"){ count <- sum(train$target==1)/dim(train)[1]
}
count
}

cancer$target <- as.factor(cancer$target)

# Create training and test sets
train_idx <- trainTestSplit(cancer,trainPercent=75,seed=5)
train <- cancer[train_idx, ]
test <- cancer[-train_idx, ]

#Dummy classifier majority class
acc=DummyClassifierAccuracy(train,test)
sprintf("Accuracy is %f",acc)
## [1] "Accuracy is 0.638498"

## 1.2b Dummy classifier – Python code

This dummy classifier uses the majority class.

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import os
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.dummy import DummyClassifier
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix
(X_cancer, y_cancer) = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y = True)
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X_cancer, y_cancer,
random_state = 0)

# Negative class (0) is most frequent
dummy_majority = DummyClassifier(strategy = 'most_frequent').fit(X_train, y_train)
y_dummy_predictions = dummy_majority.predict(X_test)

print('Dummy classifier accuracy on test set: {:.2f}'
.format(dummy_majority.score(X_test, y_test)))

## Dummy classifier accuracy on test set: 0.63

## 1.3a – Radial SVM (un-normalized) – R code

SVMs perform better when the data is normalized or scaled. The 2 examples below show that SVM with radial basis kernel does not perform any better than the dummy classifier

library(dplyr)
library(e1071)
library(caret)
library(reshape2)
library(ggplot2)

train_idx <- trainTestSplit(cancer,trainPercent=75,seed=5)
train <- cancer[train_idx, ]
test <- cancer[-train_idx, ]
# Unnormalized data
ypred=predict(svmfit,test)
confusionMatrix(ypred,test$target) ## Confusion Matrix and Statistics ## ## Reference ## Prediction 0 1 ## 0 0 0 ## 1 57 85 ## ## Accuracy : 0.5986 ## 95% CI : (0.5131, 0.6799) ## No Information Rate : 0.5986 ## P-Value [Acc > NIR] : 0.5363 ## ## Kappa : 0 ## Mcnemar's Test P-Value : 1.195e-13 ## ## Sensitivity : 0.0000 ## Specificity : 1.0000 ## Pos Pred Value : NaN ## Neg Pred Value : 0.5986 ## Prevalence : 0.4014 ## Detection Rate : 0.0000 ## Detection Prevalence : 0.0000 ## Balanced Accuracy : 0.5000 ## ## 'Positive' Class : 0 ##  ## 1.4b – Radial SVM (un-normalized) – Python code import numpy as np import pandas as pd import os import matplotlib.pyplot as plt from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.svm import SVC # Load the cancer data (X_cancer, y_cancer) = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y = True) X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X_cancer, y_cancer, random_state = 0) clf = SVC(C=10).fit(X_train, y_train) print('Breast cancer dataset (unnormalized features)') print('Accuracy of RBF-kernel SVC on training set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_train, y_train))) print('Accuracy of RBF-kernel SVC on test set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_test, y_test))) ## Breast cancer dataset (unnormalized features) ## Accuracy of RBF-kernel SVC on training set: 1.00 ## Accuracy of RBF-kernel SVC on test set: 0.63 ## 1.5a – Radial SVM (Normalized) -R Code The data is scaled (normalized ) before using the SVM model. The SVM model has 2 paramaters a) C – Large C (less regularization), more regularization b) gamma – Small gamma has larger decision boundary with more misclassfication, and larger gamma has tighter decision boundary The R code below computes the accuracy as the regularization paramater is changed trainingAccuracy <- NULL testAccuracy <- NULL C1 <- c(.01,.1, 1, 10, 20) for(i in C1){ svmfit=svm(target~., data=train, kernel="radial",cost=i,scale=TRUE) ypredTrain <-predict(svmfit,train) ypredTest=predict(svmfit,test) a <-confusionMatrix(ypredTrain,train$target)
b <-confusionMatrix(ypredTest,test$target) trainingAccuracy <-c(trainingAccuracy,a$overall[1])
testAccuracy <-c(testAccuracy,b$overall[1]) } print(trainingAccuracy) ## Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy ## 0.6384977 0.9671362 0.9906103 0.9976526 1.0000000 print(testAccuracy) ## Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy ## 0.5985915 0.9507042 0.9647887 0.9507042 0.9507042 a <-rbind(C1,as.numeric(trainingAccuracy),as.numeric(testAccuracy)) b <- data.frame(t(a)) names(b) <- c("C1","trainingAccuracy","testAccuracy") df <- melt(b,id="C1") ggplot(df) + geom_line(aes(x=C1, y=value, colour=variable),size=2) + xlab("C (SVC regularization)value") + ylab("Accuracy") + ggtitle("Training and test accuracy vs C(regularization)") ## 1.5b – Radial SVM (normalized) – Python The Radial basis kernel is used on normalized data for a range of ‘C’ values and the result is plotted. import numpy as np import pandas as pd import os import matplotlib.pyplot as plt from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.svm import SVC from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler scaler = MinMaxScaler() # Load the cancer data (X_cancer, y_cancer) = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y = True) X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X_cancer, y_cancer, random_state = 0) X_train_scaled = scaler.fit_transform(X_train) X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test) print('Breast cancer dataset (normalized with MinMax scaling)') trainingAccuracy=[] testAccuracy=[] for C1 in [.01,.1, 1, 10, 20]: clf = SVC(C=C1).fit(X_train_scaled, y_train) acctrain=clf.score(X_train_scaled, y_train) accTest=clf.score(X_test_scaled, y_test) trainingAccuracy.append(acctrain) testAccuracy.append(accTest) # Create a dataframe C1=[.01,.1, 1, 10, 20] trainingAccuracy=pd.DataFrame(trainingAccuracy,index=C1) testAccuracy=pd.DataFrame(testAccuracy,index=C1) # Plot training and test R squared as a function of alpha df=pd.concat([trainingAccuracy,testAccuracy],axis=1) df.columns=['trainingAccuracy','trainingAccuracy'] fig1=df.plot() fig1=plt.title('Training and test accuracy vs C (SVC)') fig1.figure.savefig('fig1.png', bbox_inches='tight') ## Breast cancer dataset (normalized with MinMax scaling) Output image: ## 1.6a Validation curve – R code Sklearn includes code creating validation curves by varying paramaters and computing and plotting accuracy as gamma or C or changd. I did not find this R but I think this is a useful function and so I have created the R equivalent of this. # The R equivalent of np.logspace seqLogSpace <- function(start,stop,len){ a=seq(log10(10^start),log10(10^stop),length=len) 10^a } # Read the data. This is taken the SKlearn cancer data cancer <- read.csv("cancer.csv") cancer$target <- as.factor(cancer$target) set.seed(6) # Create the range of C1 in log space param_range = seqLogSpace(-3,2,20) # Initialize the overall training and test accuracy to NULL overallTrainAccuracy <- NULL overallTestAccuracy <- NULL # Loop over the parameter range of Gamma for(i in param_range){ # Set no of folds noFolds=5 # Create the rows which fall into different folds from 1..noFolds folds = sample(1:noFolds, nrow(cancer), replace=TRUE) # Initialize the training and test accuracy of folds to 0 trainingAccuracy <- 0 testAccuracy <- 0 # Loop through the folds for(j in 1:noFolds){ # The training is all rows for which the row is != j (k-1 folds -> training) train <- cancer[folds!=j,] # The rows which have j as the index become the test set test <- cancer[folds==j,] # Create a SVM model for this svmfit=svm(target~., data=train, kernel="radial",gamma=i,scale=TRUE) # Add up all the fold accuracy for training and test separately ypredTrain <-predict(svmfit,train) ypredTest=predict(svmfit,test) # Create confusion matrix a <-confusionMatrix(ypredTrain,train$target)
b <-confusionMatrix(ypredTest,test$target) # Get the accuracy trainingAccuracy <-trainingAccuracy + a$overall[1]
testAccuracy <-testAccuracy+b$overall[1] } # Compute the average of accuracy for K folds for number of features 'i' overallTrainAccuracy=c(overallTrainAccuracy,trainingAccuracy/noFolds) overallTestAccuracy=c(overallTestAccuracy,testAccuracy/noFolds) } #Create a dataframe a <- rbind(param_range,as.numeric(overallTrainAccuracy), as.numeric(overallTestAccuracy)) b <- data.frame(t(a)) names(b) <- c("C1","trainingAccuracy","testAccuracy") df <- melt(b,id="C1") #Plot in log axis ggplot(df) + geom_line(aes(x=C1, y=value, colour=variable),size=2) + xlab("C (SVC regularization)value") + ylab("Accuracy") + ggtitle("Training and test accuracy vs C(regularization)") + scale_x_log10() ## 1.6b Validation curve – Python Compute and plot the validation curve as gamma is varied. import numpy as np import pandas as pd import os import matplotlib.pyplot as plt from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler from sklearn.svm import SVC from sklearn.model_selection import validation_curve # Load the cancer data (X_cancer, y_cancer) = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y = True) scaler = MinMaxScaler() X_scaled = scaler.fit_transform(X_cancer) # Create a gamma values from 10^-3 to 10^2 with 20 equally spaced intervals param_range = np.logspace(-3, 2, 20) # Compute the validation curve train_scores, test_scores = validation_curve(SVC(), X_scaled, y_cancer, param_name='gamma', param_range=param_range, cv=10) #Plot the figure fig2=plt.figure() #Compute the mean train_scores_mean = np.mean(train_scores, axis=1) train_scores_std = np.std(train_scores, axis=1) test_scores_mean = np.mean(test_scores, axis=1) test_scores_std = np.std(test_scores, axis=1) fig2=plt.title('Validation Curve with SVM') fig2=plt.xlabel('$\gamma$(gamma)') fig2=plt.ylabel('Score') fig2=plt.ylim(0.0, 1.1) lw = 2 fig2=plt.semilogx(param_range, train_scores_mean, label='Training score', color='darkorange', lw=lw) fig2=plt.fill_between(param_range, train_scores_mean - train_scores_std, train_scores_mean + train_scores_std, alpha=0.2, color='darkorange', lw=lw) fig2=plt.semilogx(param_range, test_scores_mean, label='Cross-validation score', color='navy', lw=lw) fig2=plt.fill_between(param_range, test_scores_mean - test_scores_std, test_scores_mean + test_scores_std, alpha=0.2, color='navy', lw=lw) fig2.figure.savefig('fig2.png', bbox_inches='tight')  Output image: ## 1.7a Validation Curve (Preventing data leakage) – Python code In this course Applied Machine Learning in Python, the Professor states that when we apply the same data transformation to a entire dataset, it will cause a data leakage. “The proper way to do cross-validation when you need to scale the data is not to scale the entire dataset with a single transform, since this will indirectly leak information into the training data about the whole dataset, including the test data (see the lecture on data leakage later in the course). Instead, scaling/normalizing must be computed and applied for each cross-validation fold separately” So I apply separate scaling to the training and testing folds and plot. In the lecture the Prof states that this can be done using pipelines. import numpy as np import pandas as pd import os import matplotlib.pyplot as plt from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer from sklearn.cross_validation import KFold from sklearn.preprocessing import MinMaxScaler from sklearn.svm import SVC # Read the data (X_cancer, y_cancer) = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y = True) # Set the parameter range param_range = np.logspace(-3, 2, 20) # Set number of folds folds=5 #Initialize overallTrainAccuracy=[] overallTestAccuracy=[] # Loop over the paramater range for c in param_range: trainingAccuracy=0 testAccuracy=0 kf = KFold(len(X_cancer),n_folds=folds) # Partition into training and test folds for train_index, test_index in kf: # Partition the data acccording the fold indices generated X_train, X_test = X_cancer[train_index], X_cancer[test_index] y_train, y_test = y_cancer[train_index], y_cancer[test_index] # Scale the X_train and X_test scaler = MinMaxScaler() X_train_scaled = scaler.fit_transform(X_train) X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test) # Fit a SVC model for each C clf = SVC(C=c).fit(X_train_scaled, y_train) #Compute the training and test score acctrain=clf.score(X_train_scaled, y_train) accTest=clf.score(X_test_scaled, y_test) trainingAccuracy += np.sum(acctrain) testAccuracy += np.sum(accTest) # Compute the mean training and testing accuracy overallTrainAccuracy.append(trainingAccuracy/folds) overallTestAccuracy.append(testAccuracy/folds) overallTrainAccuracy=pd.DataFrame(overallTrainAccuracy,index=param_range) overallTestAccuracy=pd.DataFrame(overallTestAccuracy,index=param_range) # Plot training and test R squared as a function of alpha df=pd.concat([overallTrainAccuracy,overallTestAccuracy],axis=1) df.columns=['trainingAccuracy','testAccuracy'] fig3=plt.title('Validation Curve with SVM') fig3=plt.xlabel('$\gamma$(gamma)') fig3=plt.ylabel('Score') fig3=plt.ylim(0.5, 1.1) lw = 2 fig3=plt.semilogx(param_range, overallTrainAccuracy, label='Training score', color='darkorange', lw=lw) fig3=plt.semilogx(param_range, overallTestAccuracy, label='Cross-validation score', color='navy', lw=lw) fig3=plt.legend(loc='best') fig3.figure.savefig('fig3.png', bbox_inches='tight')  Output image: ## 1.8 a Decision trees – R code Decision trees in R can be plotted using RPart package library(rpart) library(rpart.plot) rpart = NULL # Create a decision tree m <-rpart(Species~.,data=iris) #Plot rpart.plot(m,extra=2,main="Decision Tree - IRIS") ## 1.8 b Decision trees – Python code from sklearn.datasets import load_iris from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeClassifier from sklearn import tree from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split import graphviz iris = load_iris() X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(iris.data, iris.target, random_state = 3) clf = DecisionTreeClassifier().fit(X_train, y_train) print('Accuracy of Decision Tree classifier on training set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_train, y_train))) print('Accuracy of Decision Tree classifier on test set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_test, y_test))) dot_data = tree.export_graphviz(clf, out_file=None, feature_names=iris.feature_names, class_names=iris.target_names, filled=True, rounded=True, special_characters=True) graph = graphviz.Source(dot_data) graph ## Accuracy of Decision Tree classifier on training set: 1.00 ## Accuracy of Decision Tree classifier on test set: 0.97 ## 1.9a Feature importance – R code I found the following code which had a snippet for feature importance. Sklean has a nice method for this. For some reason the results in R and Python are different. Any thoughts? set.seed(3) # load the library library(mlbench) library(caret) # load the dataset cancer <- read.csv("cancer.csv") cancer$target <- as.factor(cancer$target) # Split as data data <- cancer[,1:31] target <- cancer[,32] # Train the model model <- train(data, target, method="rf", preProcess="scale", trControl=trainControl(method = "cv")) # Compute variable importance importance <- varImp(model) # summarize importance print(importance) # plot importance plot(importance) ## 1.9b Feature importance – Python code import numpy as np import pandas as pd import os import matplotlib.pyplot as plt from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeClassifier from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer import numpy as np # Read the data cancer= load_breast_cancer() (X_cancer, y_cancer) = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y = True) X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X_cancer, y_cancer, random_state = 0) # Use the DecisionTreClassifier clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth = 4, min_samples_leaf = 8, random_state = 0).fit(X_train, y_train) c_features=len(cancer.feature_names) print('Breast cancer dataset: decision tree') print('Accuracy of DT classifier on training set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_train, y_train))) print('Accuracy of DT classifier on test set: {:.2f}' .format(clf.score(X_test, y_test))) # Plot the feature importances fig4=plt.figure(figsize=(10,6),dpi=80) fig4=plt.barh(range(c_features), clf.feature_importances_) fig4=plt.xlabel("Feature importance") fig4=plt.ylabel("Feature name") fig4=plt.yticks(np.arange(c_features), cancer.feature_names) fig4=plt.tight_layout() plt.savefig('fig4.png', bbox_inches='tight')  ## Breast cancer dataset: decision tree ## Accuracy of DT classifier on training set: 0.96 ## Accuracy of DT classifier on test set: 0.94 Output image: ## 1.10a Precision-Recall, ROC curves & AUC- R code I tried several R packages for plotting the Precision and Recall and AUC curve. PRROC seems to work well. The Precision-Recall curves show the tradeoff between precision and recall. The higher the precision, the lower the recall and vice versa.AUC curves that hug the top left corner indicate a high sensitivity,specificity and an excellent accuracy. source("RFunctions-1.R") library(dplyr) library(caret) library(e1071) library(PRROC) # Read the data (this data is from sklearn!) d <- read.csv("digits.csv") digits <- d[2:66] digits$X64 <- as.factor(digits$X64) # Split as training and test sets train_idx <- trainTestSplit(digits,trainPercent=75,seed=5) train <- digits[train_idx, ] test <- digits[-train_idx, ] # Fit a SVM model with linear basis kernel with probabilities svmfit=svm(X64~., data=train, kernel="linear",scale=FALSE,probability=TRUE) ypred=predict(svmfit,test,probability=TRUE) head(attr(ypred,"probabilities")) ## 0 1 ## 6 7.395947e-01 2.604053e-01 ## 8 9.999998e-01 1.842555e-07 ## 12 1.655178e-05 9.999834e-01 ## 13 9.649997e-01 3.500032e-02 ## 15 9.994849e-01 5.150612e-04 ## 16 9.999987e-01 1.280700e-06 # Store the probability of 0s and 1s m0<-attr(ypred,"probabilities")[,1] m1<-attr(ypred,"probabilities")[,2] # Create a dataframe of scores scores <- data.frame(m1,test$X64)

# Class 0 is data points of +ve class (in this case, digit 1) and -ve class (digit 0)
#Compute Precision Recall
pr <- pr.curve(scores.class0=scores[scores$test.X64=="1",]$m1,
scores.class1=scores[scores$test.X64=="0",]$m1,
curve=T)

# Plot precision-recall curve
plot(pr)

#Plot the ROC curve
roc<-roc.curve(m0, m1,curve=TRUE)
plot(roc)

## 1.10b Precision-Recall, ROC curves & AUC- Python code

For Python Logistic Regression is used to plot Precision Recall, ROC curve and compute AUC

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.metrics import precision_recall_curve
from sklearn.metrics import roc_curve, auc
X, y = dataset.data, dataset.target
#Create 2 classes -i) Digit 1 (from digit 1) ii) Digit 0 (from all other digits)
# Make a copy of the target
z= y.copy()
# Replace all non 1's as 0
z[z != 1] = 0

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, z, random_state=0)
# Fit a LR model
lr = LogisticRegression().fit(X_train, y_train)

#Compute the decision scores
y_scores_lr = lr.fit(X_train, y_train).decision_function(X_test)
y_score_list = list(zip(y_test[0:20], y_scores_lr[0:20]))

#Show the decision_function scores for first 20 instances
y_score_list

precision, recall, thresholds = precision_recall_curve(y_test, y_scores_lr)
closest_zero = np.argmin(np.abs(thresholds))
closest_zero_p = precision[closest_zero]
closest_zero_r = recall[closest_zero]
#Plot
plt.figure()
plt.xlim([0.0, 1.01])
plt.ylim([0.0, 1.01])
plt.plot(precision, recall, label='Precision-Recall Curve')
plt.plot(closest_zero_p, closest_zero_r, 'o', markersize = 12, fillstyle = 'none', c='r', mew=3)
plt.xlabel('Precision', fontsize=16)
plt.ylabel('Recall', fontsize=16)
plt.axes().set_aspect('equal')
plt.savefig('fig5.png', bbox_inches='tight')

#Compute and plot the ROC
y_score_lr = lr.fit(X_train, y_train).decision_function(X_test)
fpr_lr, tpr_lr, _ = roc_curve(y_test, y_score_lr)
roc_auc_lr = auc(fpr_lr, tpr_lr)

plt.figure()
plt.xlim([-0.01, 1.00])
plt.ylim([-0.01, 1.01])
plt.plot(fpr_lr, tpr_lr, lw=3, label='LogRegr ROC curve (area = {:0.2f})'.format(roc_auc_lr))
plt.xlabel('False Positive Rate', fontsize=16)
plt.ylabel('True Positive Rate', fontsize=16)
plt.title('ROC curve (1-of-10 digits classifier)', fontsize=16)
plt.legend(loc='lower right', fontsize=13)
plt.plot([0, 1], [0, 1], color='navy', lw=3, linestyle='--')
plt.axes()
plt.savefig('fig6.png', bbox_inches='tight')


output

## 1.10c Precision-Recall, ROC curves & AUC- Python code

In the code below classification probabilities are used to compute and plot precision-recall, roc and AUC

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.svm import LinearSVC
from sklearn.calibration import CalibratedClassifierCV

X, y = dataset.data, dataset.target
# Make a copy of the target
z= y.copy()
# Replace all non 1's as 0
z[z != 1] = 0

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, z, random_state=0)
svm = LinearSVC()
# Need to use CalibratedClassifierSVC to redict probabilities for lInearSVC
clf = CalibratedClassifierCV(svm)
clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_proba_lr = clf.predict_proba(X_test)
from sklearn.metrics import precision_recall_curve

precision, recall, thresholds = precision_recall_curve(y_test, y_proba_lr[:,1])
closest_zero = np.argmin(np.abs(thresholds))
closest_zero_p = precision[closest_zero]
closest_zero_r = recall[closest_zero]
#plt.figure(figsize=(15,15),dpi=80)
plt.figure()
plt.xlim([0.0, 1.01])
plt.ylim([0.0, 1.01])
plt.plot(precision, recall, label='Precision-Recall Curve')
plt.plot(closest_zero_p, closest_zero_r, 'o', markersize = 12, fillstyle = 'none', c='r', mew=3)
plt.xlabel('Precision', fontsize=16)
plt.ylabel('Recall', fontsize=16)
plt.axes().set_aspect('equal')
plt.savefig('fig7.png', bbox_inches='tight')