专栏首页机器学习炼丹术工程能力UP!| LightGBM的调参与并行

工程能力UP!| LightGBM的调参与并行

本文强烈建议收藏!

这是个人在竞赛中对LGB模型进行调参的详细过程记录,主要包含下面六个步骤:

  1. 大学习率,确定估计器参数n_estimators/num_iterations/num_round/num_boost_round
  2. 确定num_leavesmax_depth
  3. 确定min_data_in_leaf
  4. 确定bagging_fraction+bagging_freqfeature_fraction
  5. 确定L1L2正则reg_alphareg_lambda
  6. 降低学习率

【这里必须说一下,lightbg的参数的同义词实在太多了,很多不同的参数表示的是同一个意思,不过本文中使用“/”分开】

0 并行优化

主要有两种feature parallel特征并行和data parallel数据并行。具体的过程我不也不了解,因为我没有多个CPU给我耍(穷)。

  • feature parallel:每个worker有全部的训练数据,但是他们只用部分特征进行训练,然后不同worker之间交流他们的局部最优特征和分裂点,比较出来哪一个是全局最优的。
  • data parallel: 每一个worker有部分的样本,然后绘制局部特征直方图。彼此交流之后,得到全局直方图进行训练。

【虽然具体的机制不太了解,但是最重要的是:小数据用feature parallel,大数据用data parallel

1. 估计器数量

不管怎么样,我们先把学习率先定一个较高的值,这里取 learning_rate = 0.1,其次确定估计器boosting/boost/boosting_type的类型,不过默认都会选gbdt

这里可以体现,虽然LGB和XGB经常拿来和GBDT比较,但是其本质都还是GBDT的boost思想

为了确定估计器的数目,也就是boosting迭代的次数,也可以说是残差树的数目,参数名为n_estimators/num_iterations/num_round/num_boost_round。我们可以先将该参数设成一个较大的数,然后在cv结果中查看最优的迭代次数,具体如代码。

在这之前,我们必须给其他重要的参数一个初始值。初始值的意义不大,只是为了方便确定其他参数。下面先给定一下初始值:

以下参数根据具体项目要求定:

'boosting_type'/'boosting': 'gbdt'
'objective': 'regression'
'metric': 'rmse'

以下参数我选择的初始值,你可以根据自己的情况来选择:

'max_depth': 6     ###   根据问题来定咯,由于我的数据集不是很大,所以选择了一个适中的值,其实4-10都无所谓。
'num_leaves': 50  ###   由于lightGBM是leaves_wise生长,官方说法是要小于2^max_depth
'subsample'/'bagging_fraction':0.8           ###  数据采样
'colsample_bytree'/'feature_fraction': 0.8  ###  特征采样

下面我是用LightGBM的cv函数进行演示:

params = {
    'boosting_type': 'gbdt', 
    'objective': 'regression', 

    'learning_rate': 0.1, 
    'num_leaves': 50, 
    'max_depth': 6,

    'subsample': 0.8, 
    'colsample_bytree': 0.8, 
    }
data_train = lgb.Dataset(df_train, y_train, silent=True)
cv_results = lgb.cv(
    params, data_train, num_boost_round=1000, nfold=5, stratified=False, shuffle=True, metrics='rmse',
    early_stopping_rounds=50, verbose_eval=50, show_stdv=True, seed=0)

print('best n_estimators:', len(cv_results['rmse-mean']))
print('best cv score:', cv_results['rmse-mean'][-1])

运行结果是:

[50] cv_agg's rmse: 1.38497 + 0.0202823
best n_estimators: 43
best cv score: 1.3838664241

所以我们得到了结果,在学习率0.1的时候,有43个估计器的时候效果最好。所以现在我们已经调整好了一个参数了:n_estimators/num_iterations/num_round/num_boost_round=43

【在硬件设备允许的条件下,学习率还是越小越好】

2. 提高拟合程度

这是提高精确度的最重要的参数。

  • max_depth:设置树深度,深度越大可能过拟合
  • num_leaves:因为 LightGBM 使用的是 leaf-wise 的算法,因此在调节树的复杂程度时,使用的是 num_leaves 而不是 max_depth。大致换算关系:num_leaves = 2^(max_depth),但是它的值的设置应该小于 2^(max_depth),否则可能会导致过拟合。

【这里虽然说了num_leaves与max_depth之间的关系,但是并不是严格的,大概在这个左右就好了。】

接下来同时对这两个参数调优,引入sklearn中的GridSearchCV()函数进行网格搜索,当然也可以使用贝叶斯搜索,贝叶斯这个之前在个人博客讲过,之后我有空了再搬运到公众号好了。

不过这个搜索过程,非常耗时间,非常消耗精力。对于大数据集的话,建议贝叶斯,或者就简单调整下就行了。一般这种参数优化的空间非常有限。

from sklearn.model_selection import GridSearchCV
### 我们可以创建lgb的sklearn模型,使用上面选择的(学习率,评估器数目)
model_lgb = lgb.LGBMRegressor(objective='regression',num_leaves=50,
                              learning_rate=0.1, n_estimators=43, max_depth=6,
                              metric='rmse', bagging_fraction = 0.8,feature_fraction = 0.8)

params_test1={
    'max_depth': range(3,8,2),
    'num_leaves':range(50, 170, 30)
}
gsearch1 = GridSearchCV(estimator=model_lgb, param_grid=params_test1, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=5, verbose=1, n_jobs=4)
gsearch1.fit(df_train, y_train)
gsearch1.grid_scores_, gsearch1.best_params_, gsearch1.best_score_

来看下运行的结果:

Fitting 5 folds for each of 12 candidates, totalling 60 fits


[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  42 tasks      | elapsed:  2.0min
[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  60 out of  60 | elapsed:  3.1min finished


([mean: -1.88629, std: 0.13750, params: {'max_depth': 3, 'num_leaves': 50},
  mean: -1.88629, std: 0.13750, params: {'max_depth': 3, 'num_leaves': 80},
  mean: -1.88629, std: 0.13750, params: {'max_depth': 3, 'num_leaves': 110},
  mean: -1.88629, std: 0.13750, params: {'max_depth': 3, 'num_leaves': 140},
  mean: -1.86917, std: 0.12590, params: {'max_depth': 5, 'num_leaves': 50},
  mean: -1.86917, std: 0.12590, params: {'max_depth': 5, 'num_leaves': 80},
  mean: -1.86917, std: 0.12590, params: {'max_depth': 5, 'num_leaves': 110},
  mean: -1.86917, std: 0.12590, params: {'max_depth': 5, 'num_leaves': 140},
  mean: -1.89254, std: 0.10904, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 50},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 80},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 110},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 140}],
 {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 80},
 -1.8602436718814157)

这里运行了12个参数组合,得到的最优解是在max_depth为7,num_leaves为80的情况下,分数为-1.860。

这里必须说一下,sklearn模型评估里的scoring参数都是采用的higher return values are better than lower return values(较高的返回值优于较低的返回值)。

但是,我采用的metric策略采用的是均方误差(rmse),越低越好,所以sklearn就提供了neg_mean_squared_error参数,也就是返回metric的负数,所以就均方差来说,也就变成负数越大越好了。

所以,可以看到,最优解的分数为-1.860,转化为均方差为np.sqrt(-(-1.860)) = 1.3639,明显比step1的分数要好很多。(之前用的是rmse均方根误差,要开方)

至此,我们将我们这步得到的最优解代入第三步。其实,我这里只进行了粗调,如果要得到更好的效果,可以将max_depth在7附近多取几个值,num_leaves在80附近多取几个值。千万不要怕麻烦,虽然这确实很麻烦。

params_test2={
    'max_depth': [6,7,8],
    'num_leaves':[68,74,80,86,92]
}

gsearch2 = GridSearchCV(estimator=model_lgb, param_grid=params_test2, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=5, verbose=1, n_jobs=4)
gsearch2.fit(df_train, y_train)
gsearch2.grid_scores_, gsearch2.best_params_, gsearch2.best_score_
Fitting 5 folds for each of 15 candidates, totalling 75 fits


[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  42 tasks      | elapsed:  2.8min
[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  75 out of  75 | elapsed:  5.1min finished


([mean: -1.87506, std: 0.11369, params: {'max_depth': 6, 'num_leaves': 68},
  mean: -1.87506, std: 0.11369, params: {'max_depth': 6, 'num_leaves': 74},
  mean: -1.87506, std: 0.11369, params: {'max_depth': 6, 'num_leaves': 80},
  mean: -1.87506, std: 0.11369, params: {'max_depth': 6, 'num_leaves': 86},
  mean: -1.87506, std: 0.11369, params: {'max_depth': 6, 'num_leaves': 92},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 68},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 74},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 80},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 86},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 92},
  mean: -1.88197, std: 0.11295, params: {'max_depth': 8, 'num_leaves': 68},
  mean: -1.89117, std: 0.12686, params: {'max_depth': 8, 'num_leaves': 74},
  mean: -1.86390, std: 0.12259, params: {'max_depth': 8, 'num_leaves': 80},
  mean: -1.86733, std: 0.12159, params: {'max_depth': 8, 'num_leaves': 86},
  mean: -1.86665, std: 0.12174, params: {'max_depth': 8, 'num_leaves': 92}],
 {'max_depth': 7, 'num_leaves': 68},
 -1.8602436718814157)

可见最大深度7是没问题的,但是看细节的话,发现在最大深度为7的情况下,叶结点的数量对分数并没有影响。

3. 降低过拟合

说到这里,就该降低过拟合了。

  • min_data_in_leaf 是一个很重要的参数, 也叫min_child_samples,它的值取决于训练数据的样本个树和num_leaves. 将其设置的较大可以避免生成一个过深的树, 但有可能导致欠拟合。
  • min_sum_hessian_in_leaf:也叫min_child_weight,使一个结点分裂的最小海森值之和,真拗口(Minimum sum of hessians in one leaf to allow a split. Higher values potentially decrease overfitting)

关于第二个参数,其实我不是非常的明白,因为不太了解hessian值和hessian矩阵?之后有空抽个时间好好学习一下,我学习的过程就是这样查漏补缺2333。请大家关注公众号,这样不会错过每一个干货

我们采用跟上面相同的方法进行:

params_test3={
    'min_child_samples': [18, 19, 20, 21, 22],
    'min_child_weight':[0.001, 0.002]
}
model_lgb = lgb.LGBMRegressor(objective='regression',num_leaves=80,
                              learning_rate=0.1, n_estimators=43, max_depth=7, 
                              metric='rmse', bagging_fraction = 0.8, feature_fraction = 0.8)
gsearch3 = GridSearchCV(estimator=model_lgb, param_grid=params_test3, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=5, verbose=1, n_jobs=4)
gsearch3.fit(df_train, y_train)
gsearch3.grid_scores_, gsearch3.best_params_, gsearch3.best_score_

结果是:

Fitting 5 folds for each of 10 candidates, totalling 50 fits


[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  42 tasks      | elapsed:  2.9min
[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  50 out of  50 | elapsed:  3.3min finished


([mean: -1.88057, std: 0.13948, params: {'min_child_samples': 18, 'min_child_weight': 0.001},
  mean: -1.88057, std: 0.13948, params: {'min_child_samples': 18, 'min_child_weight': 0.002},
  mean: -1.88365, std: 0.13650, params: {'min_child_samples': 19, 'min_child_weight': 0.001},
  mean: -1.88365, std: 0.13650, params: {'min_child_samples': 19, 'min_child_weight': 0.002},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'min_child_samples': 20, 'min_child_weight': 0.001},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'min_child_samples': 20, 'min_child_weight': 0.002},
  mean: -1.86980, std: 0.14251, params: {'min_child_samples': 21, 'min_child_weight': 0.001},
  mean: -1.86980, std: 0.14251, params: {'min_child_samples': 21, 'min_child_weight': 0.002},
  mean: -1.86750, std: 0.13898, params: {'min_child_samples': 22, 'min_child_weight': 0.001},
  mean: -1.86750, std: 0.13898, params: {'min_child_samples': 22, 'min_child_weight': 0.002}],
 {'min_child_samples': 20, 'min_child_weight': 0.001},
 -1.8602436718814157)

这是我经过粗调后细调的结果,可以看到,min_data_in_leaf的最优值为20,而min_sum_hessian_in_leaf对最后的值几乎没有影响。且这里调参之后,最优的结果还是-1.86024,没有提升。

4. 采样降低过拟合

这两个参数都是为了降低过拟合的。

feature_fraction参数来进行特征的子抽样。这个参数可以用来防止过拟合及提高训练速度。

bagging_fraction+bagging_freq参数必须同时设置,bagging_fraction相当于subsample样本采样,可以使bagging更快的运行,同时也可以降拟合。bagging_freq默认0,表示bagging的频率,0意味着没有使用bagging,k意味着每k轮迭代进行一次bagging。

不同的参数,同样的方法:

params_test4={
    'feature_fraction': [0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9],
    'bagging_fraction': [0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0]
}
model_lgb = lgb.LGBMRegressor(objective='regression',num_leaves=80,
                              learning_rate=0.1, n_estimators=43, max_depth=7, 
                              metric='rmse', bagging_freq = 5,  min_child_samples=20)
gsearch4 = GridSearchCV(estimator=model_lgb, param_grid=params_test4, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=5, verbose=1, n_jobs=4)
gsearch4.fit(df_train, y_train)
gsearch4.grid_scores_, gsearch4.best_params_, gsearch4.best_score_
Fitting 5 folds for each of 25 candidates, totalling 125 fits


[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  42 tasks      | elapsed:  2.6min
[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done 125 out of 125 | elapsed:  7.1min finished


([mean: -1.90447, std: 0.15841, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.6, 'feature_fraction': 0.5},
  mean: -1.90846, std: 0.13925, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.6, 'feature_fraction': 0.6},
  mean: -1.91695, std: 0.14121, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.6, 'feature_fraction': 0.7},
  mean: -1.90115, std: 0.12625, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.6, 'feature_fraction': 0.8},
  mean: -1.92586, std: 0.15220, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.6, 'feature_fraction': 0.9},
  mean: -1.88031, std: 0.17157, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.7, 'feature_fraction': 0.5},
  mean: -1.89513, std: 0.13718, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.7, 'feature_fraction': 0.6},
  mean: -1.88845, std: 0.13864, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.7, 'feature_fraction': 0.7},
  mean: -1.89297, std: 0.12374, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.7, 'feature_fraction': 0.8},
  mean: -1.89432, std: 0.14353, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.7, 'feature_fraction': 0.9},
  mean: -1.88088, std: 0.14247, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.8, 'feature_fraction': 0.5},
  mean: -1.90080, std: 0.13174, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.8, 'feature_fraction': 0.6},
  mean: -1.88364, std: 0.14732, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.8, 'feature_fraction': 0.7},
  mean: -1.88987, std: 0.13344, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.8, 'feature_fraction': 0.8},
  mean: -1.87752, std: 0.14802, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.8, 'feature_fraction': 0.9},
  mean: -1.88348, std: 0.13925, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.9, 'feature_fraction': 0.5},
  mean: -1.87472, std: 0.13301, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.9, 'feature_fraction': 0.6},
  mean: -1.88656, std: 0.12241, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.9, 'feature_fraction': 0.7},
  mean: -1.89029, std: 0.10776, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.9, 'feature_fraction': 0.8},
  mean: -1.88719, std: 0.11915, params: {'bagging_fraction': 0.9, 'feature_fraction': 0.9},
  mean: -1.86170, std: 0.12544, params: {'bagging_fraction': 1.0, 'feature_fraction': 0.5},
  mean: -1.87334, std: 0.13099, params: {'bagging_fraction': 1.0, 'feature_fraction': 0.6},
  mean: -1.85412, std: 0.12698, params: {'bagging_fraction': 1.0, 'feature_fraction': 0.7},
  mean: -1.86024, std: 0.11364, params: {'bagging_fraction': 1.0, 'feature_fraction': 0.8},
  mean: -1.87266, std: 0.12271, params: {'bagging_fraction': 1.0, 'feature_fraction': 0.9}],
 {'bagging_fraction': 1.0, 'feature_fraction': 0.7},
 -1.8541224387666373)

从这里可以看出来,bagging_feactionfeature_fraction的理想值分别是1.0和0.7,一个很重要原因就是,我的样本数量比较小(4000+),但是特征数量很多(1000+)。所以,这里我们取更小的步长,对feature_fraction进行更细致的取值。

下面微调一下:

params_test5={
    'feature_fraction': [0.62, 0.65, 0.68, 0.7, 0.72, 0.75, 0.78 ]
}
model_lgb = lgb.LGBMRegressor(objective='regression',num_leaves=80,
                              learning_rate=0.1, n_estimators=43, max_depth=7, 
                              metric='rmse',  min_child_samples=20)
gsearch5 = GridSearchCV(estimator=model_lgb, param_grid=params_test5, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=5, verbose=1, n_jobs=4)
gsearch5.fit(df_train, y_train)
gsearch5.grid_scores_, gsearch5.best_params_, gsearch5.best_score_
Fitting 5 folds for each of 7 candidates, totalling 35 fits


[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  35 out of  35 | elapsed:  2.3min finished


([mean: -1.86696, std: 0.12658, params: {'feature_fraction': 0.62},
  mean: -1.88337, std: 0.13215, params: {'feature_fraction': 0.65},
  mean: -1.87282, std: 0.13193, params: {'feature_fraction': 0.68},
  mean: -1.85412, std: 0.12698, params: {'feature_fraction': 0.7},
  mean: -1.88235, std: 0.12682, params: {'feature_fraction': 0.72},
  mean: -1.86329, std: 0.12757, params: {'feature_fraction': 0.75},
  mean: -1.87943, std: 0.12107, params: {'feature_fraction': 0.78}],
 {'feature_fraction': 0.7},
 -1.8541224387666373)

好吧,feature_fraction就是0.7了

5. L1与L2

正则化参数lambda_l1(reg_alpha), lambda_l2(reg_lambda),毫无疑问,是降低过拟合的,两者分别对应l1正则化和l2正则化。我们也来尝试一下使用这两个参数。

params_test6={
    'reg_alpha': [0, 0.001, 0.01, 0.03, 0.08, 0.3, 0.5],
    'reg_lambda': [0, 0.001, 0.01, 0.03, 0.08, 0.3, 0.5]
}
model_lgb = lgb.LGBMRegressor(objective='regression',num_leaves=80,
                              learning_rate=0.b1, n_estimators=43, max_depth=7, 
                              metric='rmse',  min_child_samples=20, feature_fraction=0.7)
gsearch6 = GridSearchCV(estimator=model_lgb, param_grid=params_test6, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error', cv=5, verbose=1, n_jobs=4)
gsearch6.fit(df_train, y_train)
gsearch6.grid_scores_, gsearch6.best_params_, gsearch6.best_score_
Fitting 5 folds for each of 49 candidates, totalling 245 fits


[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done  42 tasks      | elapsed:  2.8min
[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done 192 tasks      | elapsed: 10.6min
[Parallel(n_jobs=4)]: Done 245 out of 245 | elapsed: 13.3min finished


([mean: -1.85412, std: 0.12698, params: {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0},
  mean: -1.85990, std: 0.13296, params: {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0.001},
  mean: -1.86367, std: 0.13634, params: {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0.01},
  mean: -1.86787, std: 0.13881, params: {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0.03},
  mean: -1.87099, std: 0.12476, params: {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0.08},
  mean: -1.87670, std: 0.11849, params: {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0.3},
  mean: -1.88278, std: 0.13064, params: {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0.5},
  mean: -1.86190, std: 0.13613, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.001, 'reg_lambda': 0},
  mean: -1.86190, std: 0.13613, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.001, 'reg_lambda': 0.001},
  mean: -1.86515, std: 0.14116, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.001, 'reg_lambda': 0.01},
  mean: -1.86908, std: 0.13668, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.001, 'reg_lambda': 0.03},
  mean: -1.86852, std: 0.12289, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.001, 'reg_lambda': 0.08},
  mean: -1.88076, std: 0.11710, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.001, 'reg_lambda': 0.3},
  mean: -1.88278, std: 0.13064, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.001, 'reg_lambda': 0.5},
  mean: -1.87480, std: 0.13889, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.01, 'reg_lambda': 0},
  mean: -1.87284, std: 0.14138, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.01, 'reg_lambda': 0.001},
  mean: -1.86030, std: 0.13332, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.01, 'reg_lambda': 0.01},
  mean: -1.86695, std: 0.12587, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.01, 'reg_lambda': 0.03},
  mean: -1.87415, std: 0.13100, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.01, 'reg_lambda': 0.08},
  mean: -1.88543, std: 0.13195, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.01, 'reg_lambda': 0.3},
  mean: -1.88076, std: 0.13502, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.01, 'reg_lambda': 0.5},
  mean: -1.87729, std: 0.12533, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.03, 'reg_lambda': 0},
  mean: -1.87435, std: 0.12034, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.03, 'reg_lambda': 0.001},
  mean: -1.87513, std: 0.12579, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.03, 'reg_lambda': 0.01},
  mean: -1.88116, std: 0.12218, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.03, 'reg_lambda': 0.03},
  mean: -1.88052, std: 0.13585, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.03, 'reg_lambda': 0.08},
  mean: -1.87565, std: 0.12200, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.03, 'reg_lambda': 0.3},
  mean: -1.87935, std: 0.13817, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.03, 'reg_lambda': 0.5},
  mean: -1.87774, std: 0.12477, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.08, 'reg_lambda': 0},
  mean: -1.87774, std: 0.12477, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.08, 'reg_lambda': 0.001},
  mean: -1.87911, std: 0.12027, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.08, 'reg_lambda': 0.01},
  mean: -1.86978, std: 0.12478, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.08, 'reg_lambda': 0.03},
  mean: -1.87217, std: 0.12159, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.08, 'reg_lambda': 0.08},
  mean: -1.87573, std: 0.14137, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.08, 'reg_lambda': 0.3},
  mean: -1.85969, std: 0.13109, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.08, 'reg_lambda': 0.5},
  mean: -1.87632, std: 0.12398, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.3, 'reg_lambda': 0},
  mean: -1.86995, std: 0.12651, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.3, 'reg_lambda': 0.001},
  mean: -1.86380, std: 0.12793, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.3, 'reg_lambda': 0.01},
  mean: -1.87577, std: 0.13002, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.3, 'reg_lambda': 0.03},
  mean: -1.87402, std: 0.13496, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.3, 'reg_lambda': 0.08},
  mean: -1.87032, std: 0.12504, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.3, 'reg_lambda': 0.3},
  mean: -1.88329, std: 0.13237, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.3, 'reg_lambda': 0.5},
  mean: -1.87196, std: 0.13099, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.5, 'reg_lambda': 0},
  mean: -1.87196, std: 0.13099, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.5, 'reg_lambda': 0.001},
  mean: -1.88222, std: 0.14735, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.5, 'reg_lambda': 0.01},
  mean: -1.86618, std: 0.14006, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.5, 'reg_lambda': 0.03},
  mean: -1.88579, std: 0.12398, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.5, 'reg_lambda': 0.08},
  mean: -1.88297, std: 0.12307, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.5, 'reg_lambda': 0.3},
  mean: -1.88148, std: 0.12622, params: {'reg_alpha': 0.5, 'reg_lambda': 0.5}],
 {'reg_alpha': 0, 'reg_lambda': 0},
 -1.8541224387666373)

哈哈,看来我多此一举了。

6. 降低learning_rate

回到第一步,不过我们使用的是已经优化好的参数值:

params = {
    'boosting_type': 'gbdt', 
    'objective': 'regression', 

    'learning_rate': 0.005, 
    'num_leaves': 80, 
    'max_depth': 7,
    'min_data_in_leaf': 20,

    'subsample': 1, 
    'colsample_bytree': 0.7, 
    }

data_train = lgb.Dataset(df_train, y_train, silent=True)
cv_results = lgb.cv(
    params, data_train, num_boost_round=10000, nfold=5, stratified=False, shuffle=True, metrics='rmse',
    early_stopping_rounds=50, verbose_eval=100, show_stdv=True)

print('best n_estimators:', len(cv_results['rmse-mean']))
print('best cv score:', cv_results['rmse-mean'][-1])
[100] cv_agg's rmse: 1.52939 + 0.0261756
[200] cv_agg's rmse: 1.43535 + 0.0187243
[300] cv_agg's rmse: 1.39584 + 0.0157521
[400] cv_agg's rmse: 1.37935 + 0.0157429
[500] cv_agg's rmse: 1.37313 + 0.0164503
[600] cv_agg's rmse: 1.37081 + 0.0172752
[700] cv_agg's rmse: 1.36942 + 0.0177888
[800] cv_agg's rmse: 1.36854 + 0.0180575
[900] cv_agg's rmse: 1.36817 + 0.0188776
[1000] cv_agg's rmse: 1.36796 + 0.0190279
[1100] cv_agg's rmse: 1.36783 + 0.0195969
best n_estimators: 1079
best cv score: 1.36772351783

参考链接:

  1. https://www.2cto.com/kf/201607/528771.html
  2. https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/30627440
  3. https://www.jianshu.com/p/b4ac0596e5ef
  4. https://www.cnblogs.com/bjwu/p/9307344.html

更多干货知识点,喜欢点个关注吧~

本文分享自微信公众号 - 机器学习炼丹术(liandanshu),作者:机器学习炼丹术

原文出处及转载信息见文内详细说明,如有侵权,请联系 yunjia_community@tencent.com 删除。

原始发表时间:2020-07-22

本文参与腾讯云自媒体分享计划,欢迎正在阅读的你也加入,一起分享。

我来说两句

0 条评论
登录 后参与评论

相关文章

  • AI面试题之线性回归与逻辑回归(似然参数估计)

    线性回归(Linear Regression)是什么想必不用多说了。格式是这个样子的:

    机器学习炼丹术
  • 凉经算法题反思 | 单调栈与DP二分法

    这个过程引用到了单调栈的思想。就是一个栈,里面所有元素是非严格单调递增或者单调递减的。比较好思考,就是每一个数组都要越来越小,如果不满足递减的数字,说明要从栈中...

    机器学习炼丹术
  • 通俗易懂 | SVM之拉格朗日乘子法

    在SVM中,将约束问题转化成非约束问题采用到了拉格朗日乘子法。这个文章就讲一下拉格朗日乘子法与KKT约束是怎么回事。本人不是数学科班出身,但是也只能硬着头皮讲一...

    机器学习炼丹术
  • Hive应用:选取分隔符 原

    在使用hive的时候,分隔符是必不可少的,当学习的时候使用的都是常规分隔符,比如:逗号“,”、竖线“|”等,这些键盘上都可以直接输入的字符,但是这些字符只要是键...

    云飞扬
  • XGboost数据比赛实战之调参篇(完整流程)

    这一篇博客的内容是在上一篇博客Scikit中的特征选择,XGboost进行回归预测,模型优化的实战的基础上进行调参优化的,所以在阅读本篇博客之前,请先移步看一下...

    大黄大黄大黄
  • C++11特性

    VS2010版本的C++新增了C++11特性,对原有的C++标准库扩展,融合BOOST库等三方库

    sofu456
  • 【AI 引擎】席宁:机器人进军新药领域 | AI将设计制作第一辆车 | AI在星际争霸中与一流人类选手比赛|最大的年度机器人大赛

    1.悉尼机器人杯将会成为最大的年度机器人大赛 ? 2019年6月,来自50个国家2000位研究人员和工作者将会聚集在悉尼,竞争澳大利亚世界级年度机器人大赛——R...

    新智元
  • 细述hbase协处理器

    HBase作为列族数据库最经常被人诟病的特性包括:无法轻易建立“二级索引”,难以执行求和、计数、排序等操作。比如,在旧版本的(<0.92)Hbase中,统计数据...

    Spark学习技巧
  • 用Pythn进行简单的Bland-Altman分析

    在医学中,经常会遇到评价两种或多种检测、测量方法结果一致性(agreement)的问题。一般情况下,其中一种方法是目前广泛应用的被称为“金标准”的方法,而另一种...

    数据医生
  • ACL 2020:微软摘得最佳论文,Bengio论文获时间检验奖,大陆论文量第二

    ACL 是自然语言处理领域的顶级会议,根据刚刚发布的最新版 Google Scholar Metrics,ACL 继续领跑计算语言学领域,h5 指数达到 135...

    机器之心

扫码关注云+社区

领取腾讯云代金券