0
$\begingroup$

I'm imputing a table around 150K by 60 floats and has about 45% missing values, I'm using ExtraTreeRegressor with IterativeImputer

IterativeImputer(max_iter=<num_iter>,
                 initial_strategy = 'most_frequent',
                 verbose=True,
                 estimator=ExtraTreesRegressor(n_estimators=100,
                                               min_samples_leaf=1,
                                               min_samples_split=4,
                                               random_state=0,
                                               n_jobs=-1))
imp.fit(X_missing)
imputed = imp.transform(X_missing)  

running on an 8 core (16 thread) 32G, the run completed with 1 iteration but crashed due to low memory with 2 iterations

running on a cloud machine with 16 cores 128G, when running with 4 iterations it uses up 115G of ram, anything higher than that crashes with not enough memory

Does anyone know how to reduce the memory footprint of imputer?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

TL;DR - use the max_depth and max_samples arguments to ExtraTreesRegressor to reduce the maximum tree size. The sizes you pick might depend on the distribution of your data. As a starting point, you could start with max_depth=5 and max_samples=0.1*data.shape[0] (10%), and compare results to what you have already. Tweak as you see fit.


Apart from the fairly large input space, the data structure built by the ExtraTreeRegressor is the main issue. It will continue to expand the tree size until each leaf reaches your criteria, namely min_samples_leaf=1. This means every single data point of your input dataset must end up in its own leaf. Apart from probably overfitting, this is going to lead to high memory consumption.

See the Note: in the relevant documentation:

The default values for the parameters controlling the size of the trees (e.g. max_depth, min_samples_leaf, etc.) lead to fully grown and unpruned trees which can potentially be very large on some data sets. To reduce memory consumption, the complexity and size of the trees should be controlled by setting those parameter values.

Each ExtraTreesRegressor that you create looks like it might make a full copy of your dataset, according to the documentation for max_samples`:

    max_samples : int or float, default=None
        If bootstrap is True, the number of samples to draw from X
        to train each base estimator.
        - If None (default), then draw `X.shape[0]` samples.

To gain a deeper understanding of how you might tune your memory usage, you could take a look at the source code of the ExtraTreesRegressor.

$\endgroup$
0
+50
$\begingroup$

Unless you have a very good reason to use an ensemble inside the iterative imputer I would highly recommend to change the base estimator.

As mentioned on the previous answer, you can limit the tree's depth or change the max_features parameter to sqrt (both improve the execution time in ~20%) at the cost of prediction quality, but again the same question lies, is it necessary to use an ensemble inside the imputer or can a simpler model give good results with much lower cost?

So we can mention 2 options (no the only ones):

  1. change the base estimator
  2. Keep the same imputer (regularizing via the max_depth and max_features) and training it in a sample of your data for then make the imputation on all your data

I replicated this example from scikit-learn documentation and the time of ExtraTreeRegressor was ~16x greater as compared with the default BayessianRidgeRegressor even when using only 10 estimators (when trying with 100 it did not even finish)

I also tried using other kind of ensembles and the time is also reduced significantly as compered with ExtraTreeRegressor

I recommend you to make a similar analysis using you data and see the real impact on model's performance (try using a sample of your data) for each alternative.

In conclusion I would go for another less expensive base estimator from a cost-benefit perspective.

%%time

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd

import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings("ignore")

# To use this experimental feature, we need to explicitly ask for it:
from sklearn.experimental import enable_iterative_imputer  # noqa
from sklearn.datasets import fetch_california_housing
from sklearn.impute import SimpleImputer
from sklearn.impute import IterativeImputer
from sklearn.linear_model import BayesianRidge
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeRegressor
from sklearn.ensemble import ExtraTreesRegressor
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsRegressor
from sklearn.pipeline import make_pipeline
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score

from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingRegressor
from lightgbm import LGBMRegressor

from time import time

N_SPLITS = 5

rng = np.random.RandomState(0)

X_full, y_full = fetch_california_housing(return_X_y=True)
# ~2k samples is enough for the purpose of the example.
# Remove the following two lines for a slower run with different error bars.
X_full = X_full[::10]
y_full = y_full[::10]
n_samples, n_features = X_full.shape

# Estimate the score on the entire dataset, with no missing values
br_estimator = BayesianRidge()
score_full_data = pd.DataFrame(
    cross_val_score(
        br_estimator, X_full, y_full, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error',
        cv=N_SPLITS
    ),
    columns=['Full Data']
)

# Add a single missing value to each row
X_missing = X_full.copy()
y_missing = y_full
missing_samples = np.arange(n_samples)
missing_features = rng.choice(n_features, n_samples, replace=True)
X_missing[missing_samples, missing_features] = np.nan

# Estimate the score after imputation (mean and median strategies)
score_simple_imputer = pd.DataFrame()
for strategy in ('mean', 'median'):
    estimator = make_pipeline(
        SimpleImputer(missing_values=np.nan, strategy=strategy),
        br_estimator
    )
    score_simple_imputer[strategy] = cross_val_score(
        estimator, X_missing, y_missing, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error',
        cv=N_SPLITS
    )

# Estimate the score after iterative imputation of the missing values
# with different estimators
estimators = [
    BayesianRidge(),
    DecisionTreeRegressor(max_features='sqrt', random_state=0),
    ExtraTreesRegressor(n_estimators=10, random_state=0),
    KNeighborsRegressor(n_neighbors=15),
    GradientBoostingRegressor(n_estimators= 10, random_state= 0),
    LGBMRegressor(n_estimators=10,random_state=0)
]
score_iterative_imputer = pd.DataFrame()
for impute_estimator in estimators:
    t0 = time()
    estimator = make_pipeline(
        IterativeImputer(random_state=0, estimator=impute_estimator),
        br_estimator
    )
    score_iterative_imputer[impute_estimator.__class__.__name__] = \
        cross_val_score(
            estimator, X_missing, y_missing, scoring='neg_mean_squared_error',
            cv=N_SPLITS
        )
    print(f"Time for estimator: {impute_estimator.__class__.__name__} is {round(time() - t0,3)} seconds")

scores = pd.concat(
    [score_full_data, score_simple_imputer, score_iterative_imputer],
    keys=['Original', 'SimpleImputer', 'IterativeImputer'], axis=1
)

# plot california housing results
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(13, 6))
means = -scores.mean()
errors = scores.std()
means.plot.barh(xerr=errors, ax=ax)
ax.set_title('California Housing Regression with Different Imputation Methods')
ax.set_xlabel('MSE (smaller is better)')
ax.set_yticks(np.arange(means.shape[0]))
ax.set_yticklabels([" w/ ".join(label) for label in means.index.tolist()])
plt.tight_layout(pad=1)
plt.show()

enter image description here

Time for estimator: BayesianRidge is 1.149 seconds
Time for estimator: DecisionTreeRegressor is 2.629 seconds
Time for estimator: ExtraTreesRegressor is 17.02 seconds
Time for estimator: KNeighborsRegressor is 1.73 seconds
Time for estimator: GradientBoostingRegressor is 11.442 seconds
Time for estimator: LGBMRegressor is 7.169 seconds
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I have three good reasons why not to use the BayessianRidgeRegressor: 1. It requires my data to be normally distributed, which is not. While this can be handled by a transformation, I prefer not to do it. 2. I already compared results between all regressors available and ET gave the best results (with transformation and without for the BayessianRidge) 3. The missing percentage is very high and requires a complex model for the imputation. $\endgroup$
    – pseudoDust
    May 11, 2021 at 8:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.