File: plot_semi_supervised_newsgroups.py

package info (click to toggle)
scikit-learn 1.8.0%2Bdfsg-3
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: forky, sid
  • size: 26,132 kB
  • sloc: python: 224,867; cpp: 5,790; ansic: 846; makefile: 190; javascript: 179
file content (210 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 6,917 bytes parent folder | download
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
"""
================================================
Semi-supervised Classification on a Text Dataset
================================================

This example demonstrates the effectiveness of semi-supervised learning
for text classification on :class:`TF-IDF
<sklearn.feature_extraction.text.TfidfTransformer>` features when labeled data
is scarce. For such purpose we compare four different approaches:

1. Supervised learning using 100% of labels in the training set (best-case
   scenario)

   - Uses :class:`~sklearn.linear_model.SGDClassifier` with full supervision
   - Represents the best possible performance when labeled data is abundant

2. Supervised learning using 20% of labels in the training set (baseline)

   - Same model as the best-case scenario but trained on a random 20% subset of
     the labeled training data
   - Shows the performance degradation of a fully supervised model due to
     limited labeled data

3. :class:`~sklearn.semi_supervised.SelfTrainingClassifier` (semi-supervised)

   - Uses 20% labeled data + 80% unlabeled data for training
   - Iteratively predicts labels for unlabeled data
   - Demonstrates how self-training can improve performance

4. :class:`~sklearn.semi_supervised.LabelSpreading` (semi-supervised)

   - Uses 20% labeled data + 80% unlabeled data for training
   - Propagates labels through the data manifold
   - Shows how graph-based methods can leverage unlabeled data

The example uses the 20 newsgroups dataset, focusing on five categories.
The results demonstrate how semi-supervised methods can achieve better
performance than supervised learning with limited labeled data by
effectively utilizing unlabeled samples.
"""

# Authors: The scikit-learn developers
# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause

# %%

from sklearn.datasets import fetch_20newsgroups
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import CountVectorizer, TfidfTransformer
from sklearn.linear_model import SGDClassifier
from sklearn.metrics import f1_score
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from sklearn.semi_supervised import LabelSpreading, SelfTrainingClassifier

# Loading dataset containing first five categories
data = fetch_20newsgroups(
    subset="train",
    categories=[
        "alt.atheism",
        "comp.graphics",
        "comp.os.ms-windows.misc",
        "comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware",
        "comp.sys.mac.hardware",
    ],
)

# Parameters
sdg_params = dict(alpha=1e-5, penalty="l2", loss="log_loss")
vectorizer_params = dict(ngram_range=(1, 2), min_df=5, max_df=0.8)

# Supervised Pipeline
pipeline = Pipeline(
    [
        ("vect", CountVectorizer(**vectorizer_params)),
        ("tfidf", TfidfTransformer()),
        ("clf", SGDClassifier(**sdg_params)),
    ]
)
# SelfTraining Pipeline
st_pipeline = Pipeline(
    [
        ("vect", CountVectorizer(**vectorizer_params)),
        ("tfidf", TfidfTransformer()),
        ("clf", SelfTrainingClassifier(SGDClassifier(**sdg_params))),
    ]
)
# LabelSpreading Pipeline
ls_pipeline = Pipeline(
    [
        ("vect", CountVectorizer(**vectorizer_params)),
        ("tfidf", TfidfTransformer()),
        ("clf", LabelSpreading()),
    ]
)


def eval_and_get_f1(clf, X_train, y_train, X_test, y_test):
    """Evaluate model performance and return F1 score"""
    print(f"   Number of training samples: {len(X_train)}")
    print(f"   Unlabeled samples in training set: {sum(1 for x in y_train if x == -1)}")
    clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
    y_pred = clf.predict(X_test)
    f1 = f1_score(y_test, y_pred, average="micro")
    print(f"   Micro-averaged F1 score on test set: {f1:.3f}")
    print("\n")
    return f1


X, y = data.data, data.target
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y)

# %%
# 1. Evaluate a supervised SGDClassifier using 100% of the (labeled) training set.
# This represents the best-case performance when the model has full access to all
# labeled examples.

f1_scores = {}
print("1. Supervised SGDClassifier on 100% of the data:")
f1_scores["Supervised (100%)"] = eval_and_get_f1(
    pipeline, X_train, y_train, X_test, y_test
)

# %%
# 2. Evaluate a supervised SGDClassifier trained on only 20% of the data.
# This serves as a baseline to illustrate the performance drop caused by limiting
# the training samples.

import numpy as np

print("2. Supervised SGDClassifier on 20% of the training data:")
rng = np.random.default_rng(42)
y_mask = rng.random(len(y_train)) < 0.2
# X_20 and y_20 are the subset of the train dataset indicated by the mask
X_20, y_20 = map(list, zip(*((x, y) for x, y, m in zip(X_train, y_train, y_mask) if m)))
f1_scores["Supervised (20%)"] = eval_and_get_f1(pipeline, X_20, y_20, X_test, y_test)

# %%
# 3. Evaluate a semi-supervised SelfTrainingClassifier using 20% labeled and 80%
# unlabeled data.
# The remaining 80% of the training labels are masked as unlabeled (-1),
# allowing the model to iteratively label and learn from them.

print(
    "3. SelfTrainingClassifier (semi-supervised) using 20% labeled "
    "+ 80% unlabeled data):"
)
y_train_semi = y_train.copy()
y_train_semi[~y_mask] = -1
f1_scores["SelfTraining"] = eval_and_get_f1(
    st_pipeline, X_train, y_train_semi, X_test, y_test
)
# %%
# 4. Evaluate a semi-supervised LabelSpreading model using 20% labeled and 80%
# unlabeled data.
# Like SelfTraining, the model infers labels for the unlabeled portion of the data
# to enhance performance.

print("4. LabelSpreading (semi-supervised) using 20% labeled + 80% unlabeled data:")
f1_scores["LabelSpreading"] = eval_and_get_f1(
    ls_pipeline, X_train, y_train_semi, X_test, y_test
)
# %%
# Plot results
# ------------
# Visualize the performance of different classification approaches using a bar chart.
# This helps to compare how each method performs based on the
# micro-averaged :func:`~sklearn.metrics.f1_score`.
# Micro-averaging computes metrics globally across all classes,
# which gives a single overall measure of performance and allows fair comparison
# between the different approaches, even in the presence of class imbalance.


import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))

models = list(f1_scores.keys())
scores = list(f1_scores.values())

colors = ["royalblue", "royalblue", "forestgreen", "royalblue"]
bars = plt.bar(models, scores, color=colors)

plt.title("Comparison of Classification Approaches")
plt.ylabel("Micro-averaged F1 Score on test set")
plt.xticks()

for bar in bars:
    height = bar.get_height()
    plt.text(
        bar.get_x() + bar.get_width() / 2.0,
        height,
        f"{height:.2f}",
        ha="center",
        va="bottom",
    )

plt.figtext(
    0.5,
    0.02,
    "SelfTraining classifier shows improved performance over "
    "supervised learning with limited data",
    ha="center",
    va="bottom",
    fontsize=10,
    style="italic",
)

plt.tight_layout()
plt.subplots_adjust(bottom=0.15)
plt.show()