normalization/denormalization for linear regression problem The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InMultiple linear regression, fMRIInterpreting Multiple Linear RegressionUnderstanding Locally Weighted Linear RegressionDe-normalization in Linear RegressionAssumptions of linear regressionAlternatives to linear activation function in regression tasks to limit the outputLinear Model for Linear RegressionLinear Regression Coefficient CalculationLinear Regression ErrorProblem with Linear Regression and Gradient Descent

What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?

How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?

Is this app Icon Browser Safe/Legit?

For what reasons would an animal species NOT cross a *horizontal* land bridge?

What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?

Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed

Return to UK after having been refused entry years ago

If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long?

How come people say “Would of”?

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Loose spokes after only a few rides

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

Have you ever entered Singapore using a different passport or name?

Protecting Dualbooting Windows from dangerous code (like rm -rf)

Why can Shazam fly?

Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?

Geography at the pixel level

How are circuits which use complex ICs normally simulated?

Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?

What is the accessibility of a package's `Private` context variables?

FPGA - DIY Programming



normalization/denormalization for linear regression problem



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InMultiple linear regression, fMRIInterpreting Multiple Linear RegressionUnderstanding Locally Weighted Linear RegressionDe-normalization in Linear RegressionAssumptions of linear regressionAlternatives to linear activation function in regression tasks to limit the outputLinear Model for Linear RegressionLinear Regression Coefficient CalculationLinear Regression ErrorProblem with Linear Regression and Gradient Descent










2












$begingroup$


My question is simple actually, I have two features that have big difference in scale. So I used a simple normalization by dividing the scale=np.max(array) for both data and lables. Then after prediction, I mulitiplied this scale value back.



But since I used a DNN, wouldn't the nonlinear change the scale so make the multiply not valid? e.g.



given input data: X, label: y;
y' = y/scale
X' = X/scale
predicted = f(X')
predicted_update = predicted * scale


Anyone could provide some advice on whether I could do this or it's actually not correct? How do we handle this kind of problem?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




bumped to the homepage by Community 3 hours ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.



















    2












    $begingroup$


    My question is simple actually, I have two features that have big difference in scale. So I used a simple normalization by dividing the scale=np.max(array) for both data and lables. Then after prediction, I mulitiplied this scale value back.



    But since I used a DNN, wouldn't the nonlinear change the scale so make the multiply not valid? e.g.



    given input data: X, label: y;
    y' = y/scale
    X' = X/scale
    predicted = f(X')
    predicted_update = predicted * scale


    Anyone could provide some advice on whether I could do this or it's actually not correct? How do we handle this kind of problem?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$




    bumped to the homepage by Community 3 hours ago


    This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      My question is simple actually, I have two features that have big difference in scale. So I used a simple normalization by dividing the scale=np.max(array) for both data and lables. Then after prediction, I mulitiplied this scale value back.



      But since I used a DNN, wouldn't the nonlinear change the scale so make the multiply not valid? e.g.



      given input data: X, label: y;
      y' = y/scale
      X' = X/scale
      predicted = f(X')
      predicted_update = predicted * scale


      Anyone could provide some advice on whether I could do this or it's actually not correct? How do we handle this kind of problem?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      My question is simple actually, I have two features that have big difference in scale. So I used a simple normalization by dividing the scale=np.max(array) for both data and lables. Then after prediction, I mulitiplied this scale value back.



      But since I used a DNN, wouldn't the nonlinear change the scale so make the multiply not valid? e.g.



      given input data: X, label: y;
      y' = y/scale
      X' = X/scale
      predicted = f(X')
      predicted_update = predicted * scale


      Anyone could provide some advice on whether I could do this or it's actually not correct? How do we handle this kind of problem?







      machine-learning linear-regression preprocessing






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited May 15 '18 at 8:26









      Toros91

      2,0042829




      2,0042829










      asked May 15 '18 at 8:22









      user2189731user2189731

      213




      213





      bumped to the homepage by Community 3 hours ago


      This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







      bumped to the homepage by Community 3 hours ago


      This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          I think it is ok, as long as your training and test data have the same maximum values for every feature, approximately. The idea is that the scaling has to be done with the training set (remember that using the test set for anything that is not testing is illegal, not even for scaling).



          So, you actually fit $y'$ as a function of $X'$, and you have a model that maps properly $y' = f(X')$. When you get your test data, you just obtain the predictions by doing $f(X_test')$. As the paragraph before states, if you have that $scale approx scale_test$, then you can just recover $y_test$ by doing $y_test = scale cdot f(X_test')$.



          Edit: Don't worry about nonlinearities



          Even if the function $f$ is highly nonlinear, it is a function capable of mapping $X'$ to $y'$. If you trust this function and trust the fact that $y = y' cdot scale$, then there is no need to worry about the way $f$ acts, as function composition makes sense for all kind of functions, both linear and nonlinear.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the comment. For training/test set, I'm splitting the whole data set. And both are scaled before training/testing. And the np.max() is a simplied notation. I use separate scale for different features though I could use one. The question is actually about the bold line you mentioned. Why should i not worry about nonlinearities? I'm doubting the validity of y=y' * scale
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 16 '18 at 7:11











          • $begingroup$
            If $scale approx scale_test$, then $y_test = scale cdot y_test'$. It is completely valid, scaling and getting back to usual scale are inverse transformations.
            $endgroup$
            – David Masip
            May 16 '18 at 7:29










          • $begingroup$
            Suppose I use a universal scale for all X, and y, regardless of training/test data. Then y=f(X) is my original problem and what I wanted to learn is f. After scaling, I actually is training with y'_train = g(X'_train) and then I get my $y'_test = g(X'_test)$. To make sure y'_test == y_test, we have to make sure g=~f. Am I right?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:09











          • $begingroup$
            Correction to last sentence: since $ y_test = f(X_test) $ and $ y'_test = g(X'_test) $, to make sure $y_test == scale * y'_test$, I have to make sure $f(X_test) = scale * g(X'_test) $ . Which equals to: $f(X_test) = scale * g(X_test/scale) $ and this is not gauranteed?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:21












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "557"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31671%2fnormalization-denormalization-for-linear-regression-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          I think it is ok, as long as your training and test data have the same maximum values for every feature, approximately. The idea is that the scaling has to be done with the training set (remember that using the test set for anything that is not testing is illegal, not even for scaling).



          So, you actually fit $y'$ as a function of $X'$, and you have a model that maps properly $y' = f(X')$. When you get your test data, you just obtain the predictions by doing $f(X_test')$. As the paragraph before states, if you have that $scale approx scale_test$, then you can just recover $y_test$ by doing $y_test = scale cdot f(X_test')$.



          Edit: Don't worry about nonlinearities



          Even if the function $f$ is highly nonlinear, it is a function capable of mapping $X'$ to $y'$. If you trust this function and trust the fact that $y = y' cdot scale$, then there is no need to worry about the way $f$ acts, as function composition makes sense for all kind of functions, both linear and nonlinear.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the comment. For training/test set, I'm splitting the whole data set. And both are scaled before training/testing. And the np.max() is a simplied notation. I use separate scale for different features though I could use one. The question is actually about the bold line you mentioned. Why should i not worry about nonlinearities? I'm doubting the validity of y=y' * scale
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 16 '18 at 7:11











          • $begingroup$
            If $scale approx scale_test$, then $y_test = scale cdot y_test'$. It is completely valid, scaling and getting back to usual scale are inverse transformations.
            $endgroup$
            – David Masip
            May 16 '18 at 7:29










          • $begingroup$
            Suppose I use a universal scale for all X, and y, regardless of training/test data. Then y=f(X) is my original problem and what I wanted to learn is f. After scaling, I actually is training with y'_train = g(X'_train) and then I get my $y'_test = g(X'_test)$. To make sure y'_test == y_test, we have to make sure g=~f. Am I right?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:09











          • $begingroup$
            Correction to last sentence: since $ y_test = f(X_test) $ and $ y'_test = g(X'_test) $, to make sure $y_test == scale * y'_test$, I have to make sure $f(X_test) = scale * g(X'_test) $ . Which equals to: $f(X_test) = scale * g(X_test/scale) $ and this is not gauranteed?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:21
















          0












          $begingroup$

          I think it is ok, as long as your training and test data have the same maximum values for every feature, approximately. The idea is that the scaling has to be done with the training set (remember that using the test set for anything that is not testing is illegal, not even for scaling).



          So, you actually fit $y'$ as a function of $X'$, and you have a model that maps properly $y' = f(X')$. When you get your test data, you just obtain the predictions by doing $f(X_test')$. As the paragraph before states, if you have that $scale approx scale_test$, then you can just recover $y_test$ by doing $y_test = scale cdot f(X_test')$.



          Edit: Don't worry about nonlinearities



          Even if the function $f$ is highly nonlinear, it is a function capable of mapping $X'$ to $y'$. If you trust this function and trust the fact that $y = y' cdot scale$, then there is no need to worry about the way $f$ acts, as function composition makes sense for all kind of functions, both linear and nonlinear.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the comment. For training/test set, I'm splitting the whole data set. And both are scaled before training/testing. And the np.max() is a simplied notation. I use separate scale for different features though I could use one. The question is actually about the bold line you mentioned. Why should i not worry about nonlinearities? I'm doubting the validity of y=y' * scale
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 16 '18 at 7:11











          • $begingroup$
            If $scale approx scale_test$, then $y_test = scale cdot y_test'$. It is completely valid, scaling and getting back to usual scale are inverse transformations.
            $endgroup$
            – David Masip
            May 16 '18 at 7:29










          • $begingroup$
            Suppose I use a universal scale for all X, and y, regardless of training/test data. Then y=f(X) is my original problem and what I wanted to learn is f. After scaling, I actually is training with y'_train = g(X'_train) and then I get my $y'_test = g(X'_test)$. To make sure y'_test == y_test, we have to make sure g=~f. Am I right?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:09











          • $begingroup$
            Correction to last sentence: since $ y_test = f(X_test) $ and $ y'_test = g(X'_test) $, to make sure $y_test == scale * y'_test$, I have to make sure $f(X_test) = scale * g(X'_test) $ . Which equals to: $f(X_test) = scale * g(X_test/scale) $ and this is not gauranteed?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:21














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          I think it is ok, as long as your training and test data have the same maximum values for every feature, approximately. The idea is that the scaling has to be done with the training set (remember that using the test set for anything that is not testing is illegal, not even for scaling).



          So, you actually fit $y'$ as a function of $X'$, and you have a model that maps properly $y' = f(X')$. When you get your test data, you just obtain the predictions by doing $f(X_test')$. As the paragraph before states, if you have that $scale approx scale_test$, then you can just recover $y_test$ by doing $y_test = scale cdot f(X_test')$.



          Edit: Don't worry about nonlinearities



          Even if the function $f$ is highly nonlinear, it is a function capable of mapping $X'$ to $y'$. If you trust this function and trust the fact that $y = y' cdot scale$, then there is no need to worry about the way $f$ acts, as function composition makes sense for all kind of functions, both linear and nonlinear.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          I think it is ok, as long as your training and test data have the same maximum values for every feature, approximately. The idea is that the scaling has to be done with the training set (remember that using the test set for anything that is not testing is illegal, not even for scaling).



          So, you actually fit $y'$ as a function of $X'$, and you have a model that maps properly $y' = f(X')$. When you get your test data, you just obtain the predictions by doing $f(X_test')$. As the paragraph before states, if you have that $scale approx scale_test$, then you can just recover $y_test$ by doing $y_test = scale cdot f(X_test')$.



          Edit: Don't worry about nonlinearities



          Even if the function $f$ is highly nonlinear, it is a function capable of mapping $X'$ to $y'$. If you trust this function and trust the fact that $y = y' cdot scale$, then there is no need to worry about the way $f$ acts, as function composition makes sense for all kind of functions, both linear and nonlinear.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 15 '18 at 10:58

























          answered May 15 '18 at 8:59









          David MasipDavid Masip

          2,5711428




          2,5711428











          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the comment. For training/test set, I'm splitting the whole data set. And both are scaled before training/testing. And the np.max() is a simplied notation. I use separate scale for different features though I could use one. The question is actually about the bold line you mentioned. Why should i not worry about nonlinearities? I'm doubting the validity of y=y' * scale
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 16 '18 at 7:11











          • $begingroup$
            If $scale approx scale_test$, then $y_test = scale cdot y_test'$. It is completely valid, scaling and getting back to usual scale are inverse transformations.
            $endgroup$
            – David Masip
            May 16 '18 at 7:29










          • $begingroup$
            Suppose I use a universal scale for all X, and y, regardless of training/test data. Then y=f(X) is my original problem and what I wanted to learn is f. After scaling, I actually is training with y'_train = g(X'_train) and then I get my $y'_test = g(X'_test)$. To make sure y'_test == y_test, we have to make sure g=~f. Am I right?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:09











          • $begingroup$
            Correction to last sentence: since $ y_test = f(X_test) $ and $ y'_test = g(X'_test) $, to make sure $y_test == scale * y'_test$, I have to make sure $f(X_test) = scale * g(X'_test) $ . Which equals to: $f(X_test) = scale * g(X_test/scale) $ and this is not gauranteed?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:21

















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the comment. For training/test set, I'm splitting the whole data set. And both are scaled before training/testing. And the np.max() is a simplied notation. I use separate scale for different features though I could use one. The question is actually about the bold line you mentioned. Why should i not worry about nonlinearities? I'm doubting the validity of y=y' * scale
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 16 '18 at 7:11











          • $begingroup$
            If $scale approx scale_test$, then $y_test = scale cdot y_test'$. It is completely valid, scaling and getting back to usual scale are inverse transformations.
            $endgroup$
            – David Masip
            May 16 '18 at 7:29










          • $begingroup$
            Suppose I use a universal scale for all X, and y, regardless of training/test data. Then y=f(X) is my original problem and what I wanted to learn is f. After scaling, I actually is training with y'_train = g(X'_train) and then I get my $y'_test = g(X'_test)$. To make sure y'_test == y_test, we have to make sure g=~f. Am I right?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:09











          • $begingroup$
            Correction to last sentence: since $ y_test = f(X_test) $ and $ y'_test = g(X'_test) $, to make sure $y_test == scale * y'_test$, I have to make sure $f(X_test) = scale * g(X'_test) $ . Which equals to: $f(X_test) = scale * g(X_test/scale) $ and this is not gauranteed?
            $endgroup$
            – user2189731
            May 18 '18 at 3:21
















          $begingroup$
          Thanks for the comment. For training/test set, I'm splitting the whole data set. And both are scaled before training/testing. And the np.max() is a simplied notation. I use separate scale for different features though I could use one. The question is actually about the bold line you mentioned. Why should i not worry about nonlinearities? I'm doubting the validity of y=y' * scale
          $endgroup$
          – user2189731
          May 16 '18 at 7:11





          $begingroup$
          Thanks for the comment. For training/test set, I'm splitting the whole data set. And both are scaled before training/testing. And the np.max() is a simplied notation. I use separate scale for different features though I could use one. The question is actually about the bold line you mentioned. Why should i not worry about nonlinearities? I'm doubting the validity of y=y' * scale
          $endgroup$
          – user2189731
          May 16 '18 at 7:11













          $begingroup$
          If $scale approx scale_test$, then $y_test = scale cdot y_test'$. It is completely valid, scaling and getting back to usual scale are inverse transformations.
          $endgroup$
          – David Masip
          May 16 '18 at 7:29




          $begingroup$
          If $scale approx scale_test$, then $y_test = scale cdot y_test'$. It is completely valid, scaling and getting back to usual scale are inverse transformations.
          $endgroup$
          – David Masip
          May 16 '18 at 7:29












          $begingroup$
          Suppose I use a universal scale for all X, and y, regardless of training/test data. Then y=f(X) is my original problem and what I wanted to learn is f. After scaling, I actually is training with y'_train = g(X'_train) and then I get my $y'_test = g(X'_test)$. To make sure y'_test == y_test, we have to make sure g=~f. Am I right?
          $endgroup$
          – user2189731
          May 18 '18 at 3:09





          $begingroup$
          Suppose I use a universal scale for all X, and y, regardless of training/test data. Then y=f(X) is my original problem and what I wanted to learn is f. After scaling, I actually is training with y'_train = g(X'_train) and then I get my $y'_test = g(X'_test)$. To make sure y'_test == y_test, we have to make sure g=~f. Am I right?
          $endgroup$
          – user2189731
          May 18 '18 at 3:09













          $begingroup$
          Correction to last sentence: since $ y_test = f(X_test) $ and $ y'_test = g(X'_test) $, to make sure $y_test == scale * y'_test$, I have to make sure $f(X_test) = scale * g(X'_test) $ . Which equals to: $f(X_test) = scale * g(X_test/scale) $ and this is not gauranteed?
          $endgroup$
          – user2189731
          May 18 '18 at 3:21





          $begingroup$
          Correction to last sentence: since $ y_test = f(X_test) $ and $ y'_test = g(X'_test) $, to make sure $y_test == scale * y'_test$, I have to make sure $f(X_test) = scale * g(X'_test) $ . Which equals to: $f(X_test) = scale * g(X_test/scale) $ and this is not gauranteed?
          $endgroup$
          – user2189731
          May 18 '18 at 3:21


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Data Science Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31671%2fnormalization-denormalization-for-linear-regression-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_13_input to have shape (3, 150, 150) but got array with shape (150, 150, 3)2019 Community Moderator ElectionError when checking : expected dense_1_input to have shape (None, 5) but got array with shape (200, 1)Error 'Expected 2D array, got 1D array instead:'ValueError: Error when checking input: expected lstm_41_input to have 3 dimensions, but got array with shape (40000,100)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_2 to have shape (1,) but got array with shape (0,)Keras exception: ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_1_input to have shape (150, 150, 3) but got array with shape (256, 256, 3)Steps taking too long to completewhen checking input: expected dense_1_input to have shape (13328,) but got array with shape (317,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_3 to have shape (None, 1) but got array with shape (7715, 40000)Keras exception: Error when checking input: expected dense_input to have shape (2,) but got array with shape (1,)

          Ружовы пелікан Змест Знешні выгляд | Пашырэнне | Асаблівасці біялогіі | Літаратура | НавігацыяДагледжаная версіяправерана1 зменаДагледжаная версіяправерана1 змена/ 22697590 Сістэматыкана ВіківідахВыявына Вікісховішчы174693363011049382

          Illegal assignment from SObject to ContactFetching String, Id from Map - Illegal Assignment Id to Field / ObjectError: Compile Error: Illegal assignment from String to BooleanError: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectError on Test Class - System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectRemote action problemDML requires SObject or SObject list type error“Illegal assignment from List to List”Test Class Fail: Batch Class: System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectMapping to a user'List has no rows for assignment to SObject' Mystery