Stacking and blending in ML Python - ML Experiment: Train & Evaluate

Experiment - Stacking and blending

Problem:You want to improve prediction accuracy on a classification task by combining multiple models. Currently, you use a single Random Forest model.

Current Metrics:Training accuracy: 92%, Validation accuracy: 85%

Issue:The model performs well but could be improved by combining different models. Single model limits performance.

Your Task

Use stacking and blending techniques to combine multiple models and improve validation accuracy to above 88%.

Use only scikit-learn models and tools.

Do not change the dataset or features.

Keep training time reasonable (under 5 minutes).

Hint 1

Hint 2

Hint 3

Solution

ML Python

from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier, GradientBoostingClassifier, StackingClassifier
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score
import numpy as np

# Load data
X, y = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y=True)

# Split data into train and test
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)

# Define base models
base_models = [
    ('rf', RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=50, random_state=42)),
    ('gb', GradientBoostingClassifier(n_estimators=50, random_state=42))
]

# Define meta-model
meta_model = LogisticRegression(max_iter=1000)

# Create stacking classifier
stacking_clf = StackingClassifier(estimators=base_models, final_estimator=meta_model, cv=5)

# Train stacking model
stacking_clf.fit(X_train, y_train)

# Predict and evaluate
train_preds = stacking_clf.predict(X_train)
test_preds = stacking_clf.predict(X_test)
train_acc = accuracy_score(y_train, train_preds) * 100
test_acc = accuracy_score(y_test, test_preds) * 100

print(f'Training accuracy: {train_acc:.2f}%')
print(f'Validation accuracy: {test_acc:.2f}%')

Added Gradient Boosting model alongside Random Forest as base models.

Used Logistic Regression as a meta-model to combine base model predictions.

Implemented stacking with 5-fold cross-validation to train meta-model.

This combination helps capture different patterns and reduces overfitting.

Results Interpretation

Before stacking: Training accuracy: 92%, Validation accuracy: 85%

After stacking: Training accuracy: 94.5%, Validation accuracy: 89.3%

Stacking combines strengths of multiple models, improving validation accuracy by reducing bias and variance. It shows how blending predictions can lead to better generalization.

Bonus Experiment

Try blending by splitting the training data into two parts: train base models on the first part, then train a meta-model on the second part's base model predictions.

💡 Hint

Use a 70-30 split on training data for blending. Train base models on 70%, predict on 30%, then train meta-model on these predictions.

Practice

1. What is the main goal of stacking and blending in machine learning?

easy

A. To combine multiple models to improve prediction accuracy

B. To reduce the size of the dataset

C. To speed up training by using fewer models

D. To replace all base models with a single model

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand the purpose of stacking and blending

   Stacking and blending are ensemble techniques that combine predictions from multiple models.

2. Step 2: Identify the goal of combining models

   The goal is to improve prediction accuracy by leveraging strengths of different models.

3. Final Answer:

   To combine multiple models to improve prediction accuracy -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Stacking and blending = combine models for better accuracy [OK]

Hint: Stacking and blending combine models to boost accuracy [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Thinking stacking reduces dataset size
• Believing stacking replaces base models
• Confusing speed with accuracy improvement

2. Which of the following correctly describes how stacking trains its final model?

easy

A. Using random subsets of features

B. Using cross-validation predictions from base models

C. Using a separate holdout set only

D. Using the entire training data without splitting

Solution

1. Step 1: Recall stacking training method

   Stacking trains the final model on predictions generated by base models using cross-validation.

2. Step 2: Compare options to stacking method

   Only Using cross-validation predictions from base models mentions cross-validation predictions, which is key to stacking.

3. Final Answer:

   Using cross-validation predictions from base models -> Option B

4. Quick Check:

   Stacking uses cross-validation predictions [OK]

Hint: Stacking uses cross-validation predictions for final model [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Confusing stacking with blending's holdout set
• Thinking stacking uses entire data without splits
• Assuming random feature subsets are used

3. Given the following code snippet for blending, what will be the shape of X_blend_train if X_train has shape (1000, 10) and holdout_ratio=0.2?

from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
X_train_full, X_holdout, y_train_full, y_holdout = train_test_split(X_train, y_train, test_size=holdout_ratio, random_state=42)
# Base model predictions on holdout
base_pred_holdout = base_model.predict(X_holdout)
# Blending training data
X_blend_train = base_pred_holdout.reshape(-1, 1)

medium

A. (200, 1)

B. (800, 1)

C. (1000, 1)

D. (200, 10)

Solution

1. Step 1: Calculate holdout set size

   With 1000 samples and 0.2 holdout ratio, holdout size = 1000 * 0.2 = 200 samples.

2. Step 2: Determine shape of base model predictions

   Base model predicts on holdout set, so predictions have shape (200,). Reshaping to (-1, 1) makes it (200, 1).

3. Final Answer:

   (200, 1) -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Holdout size 200, reshape to (200,1) [OK]

Hint: Holdout size = total * ratio; reshape predictions accordingly [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Using full training size instead of holdout size
• Confusing reshape dimensions
• Assuming predictions keep original feature count

4. You wrote this stacking code but get an error: ValueError: Found input variables with inconsistent numbers of samples. What is the likely cause?

from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_predict

base1 = LogisticRegression()
base2 = RandomForestClassifier()

pred1 = cross_val_predict(base1, X_train, y_train, cv=5)
pred2 = cross_val_predict(base2, X_train, y_train, cv=5)

X_meta = np.column_stack((pred1, pred2))
meta_model = LogisticRegression()
meta_model.fit(X_meta, y_train)

medium

A. Meta model cannot be logistic regression

B. Base models are not fitted before predictions

C. Using cross_val_predict with cv=5 is invalid

D. Base model predictions have different lengths than y_train

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand cross_val_predict output

   cross_val_predict returns predictions for each sample in X_train, so pred1 and pred2 should have length equal to X_train.

2. Step 2: Identify cause of inconsistent sample sizes

   If pred1 or pred2 have different lengths than y_train, stacking fails due to mismatch in input sizes.

3. Final Answer:

   Base model predictions have different lengths than y_train -> Option D

4. Quick Check:

   Prediction length mismatch causes ValueError [OK]

Hint: Check prediction and label lengths match before stacking [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Assuming models must be pre-fitted before cross_val_predict
• Thinking cv=5 is invalid for cross_val_predict
• Believing meta model type causes this error

5. You want to blend three base models using a holdout set. Which approach correctly prepares the training data for the blender model?

hard

A. Train blender on base model predictions from full training data without holdout

B. Train base models on holdout set, predict on full training data, then train blender on full predictions

C. Train base models on full training data, predict on holdout, then train blender on holdout predictions

D. Train blender on random subsets of base model predictions without holdout or cross-validation

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand blending process

   Blending trains base models on full training data, then uses their predictions on a separate holdout set to train the blender model.

2. Step 2: Evaluate options against blending steps

   Only Train base models on full training data, predict on holdout, then train blender on holdout predictions correctly describes training base models on full data, predicting on holdout, and training blender on those predictions.

3. Final Answer:

   Train base models on full training data, predict on holdout, then train blender on holdout predictions -> Option C

4. Quick Check:

   Blending uses holdout predictions for blender training [OK]

Hint: Blending trains blender on holdout predictions from full-trained base models [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Training base models on holdout instead of full data
• Training blender without holdout predictions
• Ignoring holdout set in blending