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

          Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

          Partai Komunis Tiongkok Daftar isi Kepemimpinan | Pranala luar | Referensi | Menu navigasidiperiksa1 perubahan tertundacpc.people.com.cnSitus resmiSurat kabar resmi"Why the Communist Party is alive, well and flourishing in China"0307-1235"Full text of Constitution of Communist Party of China"smengembangkannyas

          ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result