This issue occurs, if I turn the response variable to a categorical
variable. If I get the variable as a numerical variable, the values are
read correctly.

So I presume there is a fault in categorical conversion of the variable.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Thushan Ganegedara <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I still get the same result
>
> 1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
> 1.0     1.0     1.0     12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0
> 12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0    13.0    13.0    13.0    13.0    13.0    13.0
> 13.0    13.0    13.0    13.0    14.0    14.0    14.0    14.0    14.0
> 14.0    14.0    14.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0
> 15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    16.0    16.0    16.0    16.0
> 16.0    16.0    16.0    16.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0
> 17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0
> 18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    19.0    19.0    19.0
> 19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0
> 19.0    19.0    2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
> 2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0
> 4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0
> 5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0
> 6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0
> 6.0     6.0     6.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0
> 7.0     7.0     7.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Nirmal Fernando <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Can you use following code and try;
>>
>> List<LabeledPoint> points = labeledPoints.collect();
>> for(int i=0;i<points.size();i++){
>>              System.out.print(points.get(i).label() + "\t");
>>             }
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Thushan Ganegedara <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I used the following snippet
>>>
>>> for(int i=0;i<labeledPoints.collect().size();i++){
>>>             System.out.print(labeledPoints.collect().get(i).label() +
>>> "\t");
>>>             }
>>>
>>> in the public MLModel build() throws MLModelBuilderException in
>>> DeeplearningModelBuilder.java
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Nirmal Fernando <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi thushan,
>>>>
>>>> We need more info. What did you exactly print and where?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Thushan Ganegedara <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I found the potential cause of the poor accuracy for the leaf dataset.
>>>>> It seems the data read into ML is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached the data file as a CSV (classes are in the last column)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when I print out the labels of the read data (classes), it
>>>>> looks something like below. Clearly there aren't this many "3.0" classes
>>>>> and there should be classes up to 36.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this caused by a bug?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
>>>>> 1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0
>>>>> 12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0    12.0    13.0    13.0    13.0    13.0
>>>>> 13.0    13.0
>>>>> 13.0    13.0    13.0    13.0    14.0    14.0    14.0    14.0
>>>>> 14.0    14.0    14.0    14.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0
>>>>> 15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    15.0    16.0    16.0
>>>>> 16.0    16.0
>>>>> 16.0    16.0    16.0    16.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0
>>>>> 17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    17.0    18.0    18.0    18.0
>>>>> 18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    18.0    19.0
>>>>> 19.0    19.0
>>>>> 19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0
>>>>> 19.0    19.0    19.0    2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
>>>>> 2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0
>>>>> 4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0     5.0     5.0
>>>>> 5.0     5.0
>>>>> 5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0
>>>>> 5.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0
>>>>> 6.0     6.0     6.0     6.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0
>>>>> 7.0     7.0
>>>>> 7.0     7.0     7.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0
>>>>> 3.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thushan Ganegedara
>>>>> School of IT
>>>>> University of Sydney, Australia
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Thanks & regards,
>>>> Nirmal
>>>>
>>>> Team Lead - WSO2 Machine Learner
>>>> Associate Technical Lead - Data Technologies Team, WSO2 Inc.
>>>> Mobile: +94715779733
>>>> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Thushan Ganegedara
>>> School of IT
>>> University of Sydney, Australia
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks & regards,
>> Nirmal
>>
>> Team Lead - WSO2 Machine Learner
>> Associate Technical Lead - Data Technologies Team, WSO2 Inc.
>> Mobile: +94715779733
>> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Thushan Ganegedara
> School of IT
> University of Sydney, Australia
>



-- 
Regards,

Thushan Ganegedara
School of IT
University of Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to