-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Numerical stability warning #522
Comments
Some predicted values are indeed equal to 1 and some very close to zero. But that doesn't always indicate a problem. R prints a warning even though the model can sometimes be interpreted just fine, while in GLM.jl we tend to avoid printing warnings. Instead, if there's a problem you should be able to spot them due to very large standard errors on problematic variables I think. You can find more details by searching for the R error message in a search engine. |
Thank you for your reply, I think I've made the situation a bit more clear now. Unless I'm missing something, I think the following code illustrates how the logloss reached by a GLM (in this specific example) is way worse than that of a constant classifier. This is using MLJ for convenience as I wasn't sure how to extract the pdf from a glm model. using CSV
using DataFrames
using MLJBase
using MLJModels
using MLJGLMInterface
data = CSV.read("glm_pb_dataset.csv", DataFrame)
X = data[!, [:covariate, :offset]]
y = categorical(data.y)
# Dummy mean classifier logloss
mach_const = machine(
ConstantClassifier(),
X,
y
)
fit!(mach_const)
ll_const = mean(log_loss(MLJBase.predict(mach_const), y))
# Fit using MLJGLMInterface
mach_glm = machine(
LinearBinaryClassifier(fit_intercept=false, offsetcol=:offset),
X,
y
)
fit!(mach_glm)
ll_glm = mean(log_loss(MLJBase.predict(mach_glm), y))
# What would be the logloss if the coefficient is set to 0?
mach_glm.fitresult[1].coefs[1] = 0.0
ll_glm_0 = mean(log_loss(MLJBase.predict(mach_glm), y))
println(ll_const)
println(ll_glm)
println(ll_glm_0) Output:
I also join the dataset: |
log_loss_pb_dataset.csv
Hi,
This may be a bit of a long shot. I've noticed that on a specific dataset (attached) if I run a GLM with both GLM.jl and the R glm library, R will complain about: "glm.fit: fitted probabilities numerically 0 or 1 occurred", but GLM.jl will not. Is there anything particular which is done here to solve that issue, or is it just ignored?
Julia code:
R code:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: