#@title Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
# You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
# https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
# limitations under the License.

"""
Explanation: Copyright 2019 The TensorFlow Authors.
End of explanation
"""


import tensorflow as tf
from tensorflow import keras

import os
import tempfile

import matplotlib as mpl
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import seaborn as sns

import sklearn
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler

mpl.rcParams['figure.figsize'] = (12, 10)
colors = plt.rcParams['axes.prop_cycle'].by_key()['color']

"""
Explanation: Classification on imbalanced data
<table class="tfo-notebook-buttons" align="left">
  <td>
    <a target="_blank" href="https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/structured_data/imbalanced_data"><img src="https://www.tensorflow.org/images/tf_logo_32px.png" />View on TensorFlow.org</a>
  </td>
  <td>
    <a target="_blank" href="https://colab.research.google.com/github/tensorflow/docs/blob/master/site/en/tutorials/structured_data/imbalanced_data.ipynb"><img src="https://www.tensorflow.org/images/colab_logo_32px.png" />Run in Google Colab</a>
  </td>
  <td>
    <a target="_blank" href="https://github.com/tensorflow/docs/blob/master/site/en/tutorials/structured_data/imbalanced_data.ipynb"><img src="https://www.tensorflow.org/images/GitHub-Mark-32px.png" />View source on GitHub</a>
  </td>
  <td>
    <a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/tensorflow_docs/docs/site/en/tutorials/structured_data/imbalanced_data.ipynb"><img src="https://www.tensorflow.org/images/download_logo_32px.png" />Download notebook</a>
  </td>
</table>

This tutorial demonstrates how to classify a highly imbalanced dataset in which the number of examples in one class greatly outnumbers the examples in another. You will work with the Credit Card Fraud Detection dataset hosted on Kaggle. The aim is to detect a mere 492 fraudulent transactions from 284,807 transactions in total. You will use Keras to define the model and class weights to help the model learn from the imbalanced data. .
This tutorial contains complete code to:

Load a CSV file using Pandas.
Create train, validation, and test sets.
Define and train a model using Keras (including setting class weights).
Evaluate the model using various metrics (including precision and recall).
Try common techniques for dealing with imbalanced data like:
Class weighting 
Oversampling



Setup
End of explanation
"""


file = tf.keras.utils
raw_df = pd.read_csv('https://storage.googleapis.com/download.tensorflow.org/data/creditcard.csv')
raw_df.head()

raw_df[['Time', 'V1', 'V2', 'V3', 'V4', 'V5', 'V26', 'V27', 'V28', 'Amount', 'Class']].describe()

"""
Explanation: Data processing and exploration
Download the Kaggle Credit Card Fraud data set
Pandas is a Python library with many helpful utilities for loading and working with structured data. It can be used to download CSVs into a Pandas DataFrame.
Note: This dataset has been collected and analysed during a research collaboration of Worldline and the Machine Learning Group of ULB (Université Libre de Bruxelles) on big data mining and fraud detection. More details on current and past projects on related topics are available here and the page of the DefeatFraud project
End of explanation
"""


neg, pos = np.bincount(raw_df['Class'])
total = neg + pos
print('Examples:\n    Total: {}\n    Positive: {} ({:.2f}% of total)\n'.format(
    total, pos, 100 * pos / total))

"""
Explanation: Examine the class label imbalance
Let's look at the dataset imbalance:
End of explanation
"""


cleaned_df = raw_df.copy()

# You don't want the `Time` column.
cleaned_df.pop('Time')

# The `Amount` column covers a huge range. Convert to log-space.
eps = 0.001 # 0 => 0.1¢
cleaned_df['Log Amount'] = np.log(cleaned_df.pop('Amount')+eps)

"""
Explanation: This shows the small fraction of positive samples.
Clean, split and normalize the data
The raw data has a few issues. First the Time and Amount columns are too variable to use directly. Drop the Time column (since it's not clear what it means) and take the log of the Amount column to reduce its range.
End of explanation
"""


# Use a utility from sklearn to split and shuffle your dataset.
train_df, test_df = train_test_split(cleaned_df, test_size=0.2)
train_df, val_df = train_test_split(train_df, test_size=0.2)

# Form np arrays of labels and features.
train_labels = np.array(train_df.pop('Class'))
bool_train_labels = train_labels != 0
val_labels = np.array(val_df.pop('Class'))
test_labels = np.array(test_df.pop('Class'))

train_features = np.array(train_df)
val_features = np.array(val_df)
test_features = np.array(test_df)

"""
Explanation: Split the dataset into train, validation, and test sets. The validation set is used during the model fitting to evaluate the loss and any metrics, however the model is not fit with this data. The test set is completely unused during the training phase and is only used at the end to evaluate how well the model generalizes to new data. This is especially important with imbalanced datasets where overfitting is a significant concern from the lack of training data.
End of explanation
"""


scaler = StandardScaler()
train_features = scaler.fit_transform(train_features)

val_features = scaler.transform(val_features)
test_features = scaler.transform(test_features)

train_features = np.clip(train_features, -5, 5)
val_features = np.clip(val_features, -5, 5)
test_features = np.clip(test_features, -5, 5)


print('Training labels shape:', train_labels.shape)
print('Validation labels shape:', val_labels.shape)
print('Test labels shape:', test_labels.shape)

print('Training features shape:', train_features.shape)
print('Validation features shape:', val_features.shape)
print('Test features shape:', test_features.shape)


"""
Explanation: Normalize the input features using the sklearn StandardScaler.
This will set the mean to 0 and standard deviation to 1.
Note: The StandardScaler is only fit using the train_features to be sure the model is not peeking at the validation or test sets.
End of explanation
"""


pos_df = pd.DataFrame(train_features[ bool_train_labels], columns=train_df.columns)
neg_df = pd.DataFrame(train_features[~bool_train_labels], columns=train_df.columns)

sns.jointplot(x=pos_df['V5'], y=pos_df['V6'],
              kind='hex', xlim=(-5,5), ylim=(-5,5))
plt.suptitle("Positive distribution")

sns.jointplot(x=neg_df['V5'], y=neg_df['V6'],
              kind='hex', xlim=(-5,5), ylim=(-5,5))
_ = plt.suptitle("Negative distribution")

"""
Explanation: Caution: If you want to deploy a model, it's critical that you preserve the preprocessing calculations. The easiest way to implement them as layers, and attach them to your model before export.
Look at the data distribution
Next compare the distributions of the positive and negative examples over a few features. Good questions to ask yourself at this point are:

Do these distributions make sense? 
Yes. You've normalized the input and these are mostly concentrated in the +/- 2 range.


Can you see the difference between the distributions?
Yes the positive examples contain a much higher rate of extreme values.
End of explanation
"""


METRICS = [
      keras.metrics.TruePositives(name='tp'),
      keras.metrics.FalsePositives(name='fp'),
      keras.metrics.TrueNegatives(name='tn'),
      keras.metrics.FalseNegatives(name='fn'), 
      keras.metrics.BinaryAccuracy(name='accuracy'),
      keras.metrics.Precision(name='precision'),
      keras.metrics.Recall(name='recall'),
      keras.metrics.AUC(name='auc'),
      keras.metrics.AUC(name='prc', curve='PR'), # precision-recall curve
]

def make_model(metrics=METRICS, output_bias=None):
  if output_bias is not None:
    output_bias = tf.keras.initializers.Constant(output_bias)
  model = keras.Sequential([
      keras.layers.Dense(
          16, activation='relu',
          input_shape=(train_features.shape[-1],)),
      keras.layers.Dropout(0.5),
      keras.layers.Dense(1, activation='sigmoid',
                         bias_initializer=output_bias),
  ])

  model.compile(
      optimizer=keras.optimizers.Adam(learning_rate=1e-3),
      loss=keras.losses.BinaryCrossentropy(),
      metrics=metrics)

  return model

"""
Explanation: Define the model and metrics
Define a function that creates a simple neural network with a densly connected hidden layer, a dropout layer to reduce overfitting, and an output sigmoid layer that returns the probability of a transaction being fraudulent:
End of explanation
"""


EPOCHS = 100
BATCH_SIZE = 2048

early_stopping = tf.keras.callbacks.EarlyStopping(
    monitor='val_prc', 
    verbose=1,
    patience=10,
    mode='max',
    restore_best_weights=True)

model = make_model()
model.summary()

"""
Explanation: Understanding useful metrics
Notice that there are a few metrics defined above that can be computed by the model that will be helpful when evaluating the performance.

False negatives and false positives are samples that were incorrectly classified
True negatives and true positives are samples that were correctly classified
Accuracy is the percentage of examples correctly classified
$\frac{\text{true samples}}{\text{total samples}}$


Precision is the percentage of predicted positives that were correctly classified
$\frac{\text{true positives}}{\text{true positives + false positives}}$


Recall is the percentage of actual positives that were correctly classified
$\frac{\text{true positives}}{\text{true positives + false negatives}}$


AUC refers to the Area Under the Curve of a Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC-AUC). This metric is equal to the probability that a classifier will rank a random positive sample higher than a random negative sample.
AUPRC refers to Area Under the Curve of the Precision-Recall Curve. This metric computes precision-recall pairs for different probability thresholds. 

Note: Accuracy is not a helpful metric for this task. You can have 99.8%+ accuracy on this task by predicting False all the time.  
Read more:
*  True vs. False and Positive vs. Negative
*  Accuracy
*   Precision and Recall
*   ROC-AUC
*   Relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC Curves
Baseline model
Build the model
Now create and train your model using the function that was defined earlier. Notice that the model is fit using a larger than default batch size of 2048, this is important to ensure that each batch has a decent chance of containing a few positive samples. If the batch size was too small, they would likely have no fraudulent transactions to learn from.
Note: this model will not handle the class imbalance well. You will improve it later in this tutorial.
End of explanation
"""


model.predict(train_features[:10])

"""
Explanation: Test run the model:
End of explanation
"""


results = model.evaluate(train_features, train_labels, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE, verbose=0)
print("Loss: {:0.4f}".format(results[0]))

"""
Explanation: Optional: Set the correct initial bias.
These initial guesses are not great. You know the dataset is imbalanced. Set the output layer's bias to reflect that (See: A Recipe for Training Neural Networks: "init well"). This can help with initial convergence.
With the default bias initialization the loss should be about math.log(2) = 0.69314
End of explanation
"""


initial_bias = np.log([pos/neg])
initial_bias

"""
Explanation: The correct bias to set can be derived from:
$$ p_0 = pos/(pos + neg) = 1/(1+e^{-b_0}) $$
$$ b_0 = -log_e(1/p_0 - 1) $$
$$ b_0 = log_e(pos/neg)$$
End of explanation
"""


model = make_model(output_bias=initial_bias)
model.predict(train_features[:10])

"""
Explanation: Set that as the initial bias, and the model will give much more reasonable initial guesses. 
It should be near: pos/total = 0.0018
End of explanation
"""


results = model.evaluate(train_features, train_labels, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE, verbose=0)
print("Loss: {:0.4f}".format(results[0]))

"""
Explanation: With this initialization the initial loss should be approximately:
$$-p_0log(p_0)-(1-p_0)log(1-p_0) = 0.01317$$
End of explanation
"""


initial_weights = os.path.join(tempfile.mkdtemp(), 'initial_weights')
model.save_weights(initial_weights)

"""
Explanation: This initial loss is about 50 times less than if would have been with naive initialization.
This way the model doesn't need to spend the first few epochs just learning that positive examples are unlikely. This also makes it easier to read plots of the loss during training.
Checkpoint the initial weights
To make the various training runs more comparable, keep this initial model's weights in a checkpoint file, and load them into each model before training:
End of explanation
"""


model = make_model()
model.load_weights(initial_weights)
model.layers[-1].bias.assign([0.0])
zero_bias_history = model.fit(
    train_features,
    train_labels,
    batch_size=BATCH_SIZE,
    epochs=20,
    validation_data=(val_features, val_labels), 
    verbose=0)

model = make_model()
model.load_weights(initial_weights)
careful_bias_history = model.fit(
    train_features,
    train_labels,
    batch_size=BATCH_SIZE,
    epochs=20,
    validation_data=(val_features, val_labels), 
    verbose=0)

def plot_loss(history, label, n):
  # Use a log scale on y-axis to show the wide range of values.
  plt.semilogy(history.epoch, history.history['loss'],
               color=colors[n], label='Train ' + label)
  plt.semilogy(history.epoch, history.history['val_loss'],
               color=colors[n], label='Val ' + label,
               linestyle="--")
  plt.xlabel('Epoch')
  plt.ylabel('Loss')

plot_loss(zero_bias_history, "Zero Bias", 0)
plot_loss(careful_bias_history, "Careful Bias", 1)

"""
Explanation: Confirm that the bias fix helps
Before moving on, confirm quick that the careful bias initialization actually helped.
Train the model for 20 epochs, with and without this careful initialization, and compare the losses:
End of explanation
"""


model = make_model()
model.load_weights(initial_weights)
baseline_history = model.fit(
    train_features,
    train_labels,
    batch_size=BATCH_SIZE,
    epochs=EPOCHS,
    callbacks=[early_stopping],
    validation_data=(val_features, val_labels))

"""
Explanation: The above figure makes it clear: In terms of validation loss, on this problem, this careful initialization gives a clear advantage. 
Train the model
End of explanation
"""


def plot_metrics(history):
  metrics = ['loss', 'prc', 'precision', 'recall']
  for n, metric in enumerate(metrics):
    name = metric.replace("_"," ").capitalize()
    plt.subplot(2,2,n+1)
    plt.plot(history.epoch, history.history[metric], color=colors[0], label='Train')
    plt.plot(history.epoch, history.history['val_'+metric],
             color=colors[0], linestyle="--", label='Val')
    plt.xlabel('Epoch')
    plt.ylabel(name)
    if metric == 'loss':
      plt.ylim([0, plt.ylim()[1]])
    elif metric == 'auc':
      plt.ylim([0.8,1])
    else:
      plt.ylim([0,1])

    plt.legend();

plot_metrics(baseline_history)

"""
Explanation: Check training history
In this section, you will produce plots of your model's accuracy and loss on the training and validation set. These are useful to check for overfitting, which you can learn more about in the Overfit and underfit tutorial.
Additionally, you can produce these plots for any of the metrics you created above. False negatives are included as an example.
End of explanation
"""


train_predictions_baseline = model.predict(train_features, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE)
test_predictions_baseline = model.predict(test_features, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE)

def plot_cm(labels, predictions, p=0.5):
  cm = confusion_matrix(labels, predictions > p)
  plt.figure(figsize=(5,5))
  sns.heatmap(cm, annot=True, fmt="d")
  plt.title('Confusion matrix @{:.2f}'.format(p))
  plt.ylabel('Actual label')
  plt.xlabel('Predicted label')

  print('Legitimate Transactions Detected (True Negatives): ', cm[0][0])
  print('Legitimate Transactions Incorrectly Detected (False Positives): ', cm[0][1])
  print('Fraudulent Transactions Missed (False Negatives): ', cm[1][0])
  print('Fraudulent Transactions Detected (True Positives): ', cm[1][1])
  print('Total Fraudulent Transactions: ', np.sum(cm[1]))

"""
Explanation: Note: That the validation curve generally performs better than the training curve. This is mainly caused by the fact that the dropout layer is not active when evaluating the model.
Evaluate metrics
You can use a confusion matrix to summarize the actual vs. predicted labels, where the X axis is the predicted label and the Y axis is the actual label:
End of explanation
"""


baseline_results = model.evaluate(test_features, test_labels,
                                  batch_size=BATCH_SIZE, verbose=0)
for name, value in zip(model.metrics_names, baseline_results):
  print(name, ': ', value)
print()

plot_cm(test_labels, test_predictions_baseline)

"""
Explanation: Evaluate your model on the test dataset and display the results for the metrics you created above:
End of explanation
"""


def plot_roc(name, labels, predictions, **kwargs):
  fp, tp, _ = sklearn.metrics.roc_curve(labels, predictions)

  plt.plot(100*fp, 100*tp, label=name, linewidth=2, **kwargs)
  plt.xlabel('False positives [%]')
  plt.ylabel('True positives [%]')
  plt.xlim([-0.5,20])
  plt.ylim([80,100.5])
  plt.grid(True)
  ax = plt.gca()
  ax.set_aspect('equal')

plot_roc("Train Baseline", train_labels, train_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0])
plot_roc("Test Baseline", test_labels, test_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0], linestyle='--')
plt.legend(loc='lower right');

"""
Explanation: If the model had predicted everything perfectly, this would be a diagonal matrix where values off the main diagonal, indicating incorrect predictions, would be zero. In this case the matrix shows that you have relatively few false positives, meaning that there were relatively few legitimate transactions that were incorrectly flagged. However, you would likely want to have even fewer false negatives despite the cost of increasing the number of false positives. This trade off may be preferable because false negatives would allow fraudulent transactions to go through, whereas false positives may cause an email to be sent to a customer to ask them to verify their card activity.
Plot the ROC
Now plot the ROC. This plot is useful because it shows, at a glance, the range of performance the model can reach just by tuning the output threshold.
End of explanation
"""


def plot_prc(name, labels, predictions, **kwargs):
    precision, recall, _ = sklearn.metrics.precision_recall_curve(labels, predictions)

    plt.plot(precision, recall, label=name, linewidth=2, **kwargs)
    plt.xlabel('Precision')
    plt.ylabel('Recall')
    plt.grid(True)
    ax = plt.gca()
    ax.set_aspect('equal')

plot_prc("Train Baseline", train_labels, train_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0])
plot_prc("Test Baseline", test_labels, test_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0], linestyle='--')
plt.legend(loc='lower right');

"""
Explanation: Plot the AUPRC
Now plot the AUPRC. Area under the interpolated precision-recall curve, obtained by plotting (recall, precision) points for different values of the classification threshold. Depending on how it's calculated, PR AUC may be equivalent to the average precision of the model.
End of explanation
"""


# Scaling by total/2 helps keep the loss to a similar magnitude.
# The sum of the weights of all examples stays the same.
weight_for_0 = (1 / neg) * (total / 2.0)
weight_for_1 = (1 / pos) * (total / 2.0)

class_weight = {0: weight_for_0, 1: weight_for_1}

print('Weight for class 0: {:.2f}'.format(weight_for_0))
print('Weight for class 1: {:.2f}'.format(weight_for_1))

"""
Explanation: It looks like the precision is relatively high, but the recall and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) aren't as high as you might like. Classifiers often face challenges when trying to maximize both precision and recall, which is especially true when working with imbalanced datasets. It is important to consider the costs of different types of errors in the context of the problem you care about. In this example, a false negative (a fraudulent transaction is missed) may have a financial cost, while a false positive (a transaction is incorrectly flagged as fraudulent) may decrease user happiness.
Class weights
Calculate class weights
The goal is to identify fraudulent transactions, but you don't have very many of those positive samples to work with, so you would want to have the classifier heavily weight the few examples that are available. You can do this by passing Keras weights for each class through a parameter. These will cause the model to "pay more attention" to examples from an under-represented class.
End of explanation
"""


weighted_model = make_model()
weighted_model.load_weights(initial_weights)

weighted_history = weighted_model.fit(
    train_features,
    train_labels,
    batch_size=BATCH_SIZE,
    epochs=EPOCHS,
    callbacks=[early_stopping],
    validation_data=(val_features, val_labels),
    # The class weights go here
    class_weight=class_weight) 

"""
Explanation: Train a model with class weights
Now try re-training and evaluating the model with class weights to see how that affects the predictions.
Note: Using class_weights changes the range of the loss. This may affect the stability of the training depending on the optimizer. Optimizers whose step size is dependent on the magnitude of the gradient, like tf.keras.optimizers.SGD, may fail. The optimizer used here, tf.keras.optimizers.Adam, is unaffected by the scaling change. Also note that because of the weighting, the total losses are not comparable between the two models.
End of explanation
"""


plot_metrics(weighted_history)

"""
Explanation: Check training history
End of explanation
"""


train_predictions_weighted = weighted_model.predict(train_features, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE)
test_predictions_weighted = weighted_model.predict(test_features, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE)

weighted_results = weighted_model.evaluate(test_features, test_labels,
                                           batch_size=BATCH_SIZE, verbose=0)
for name, value in zip(weighted_model.metrics_names, weighted_results):
  print(name, ': ', value)
print()

plot_cm(test_labels, test_predictions_weighted)

"""
Explanation: Evaluate metrics
End of explanation
"""


plot_roc("Train Baseline", train_labels, train_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0])
plot_roc("Test Baseline", test_labels, test_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0], linestyle='--')

plot_roc("Train Weighted", train_labels, train_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1])
plot_roc("Test Weighted", test_labels, test_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1], linestyle='--')


plt.legend(loc='lower right');

"""
Explanation: Here you can see that with class weights the accuracy and precision are lower because there are more false positives, but conversely the recall and AUC are higher because the model also found more true positives. Despite having lower accuracy, this model has higher recall (and identifies more fraudulent transactions). Of course, there is a cost to both types of error (you wouldn't want to bug users by flagging too many legitimate transactions as fraudulent, either). Carefully consider the trade-offs between these different types of errors for your application.
Plot the ROC
End of explanation
"""


plot_prc("Train Baseline", train_labels, train_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0])
plot_prc("Test Baseline", test_labels, test_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0], linestyle='--')

plot_prc("Train Weighted", train_labels, train_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1])
plot_prc("Test Weighted", test_labels, test_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1], linestyle='--')


plt.legend(loc='lower right');

"""
Explanation: Plot the AUPRC
End of explanation
"""


pos_features = train_features[bool_train_labels]
neg_features = train_features[~bool_train_labels]

pos_labels = train_labels[bool_train_labels]
neg_labels = train_labels[~bool_train_labels]

"""
Explanation: Oversampling
Oversample the minority class
A related approach would be to resample the dataset by oversampling the minority class.
End of explanation
"""


ids = np.arange(len(pos_features))
choices = np.random.choice(ids, len(neg_features))

res_pos_features = pos_features[choices]
res_pos_labels = pos_labels[choices]

res_pos_features.shape

resampled_features = np.concatenate([res_pos_features, neg_features], axis=0)
resampled_labels = np.concatenate([res_pos_labels, neg_labels], axis=0)

order = np.arange(len(resampled_labels))
np.random.shuffle(order)
resampled_features = resampled_features[order]
resampled_labels = resampled_labels[order]

resampled_features.shape

"""
Explanation: Using NumPy
You can balance the dataset manually by choosing the right number of random 
indices from the positive examples:
End of explanation
"""


BUFFER_SIZE = 100000

def make_ds(features, labels):
  ds = tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices((features, labels))#.cache()
  ds = ds.shuffle(BUFFER_SIZE).repeat()
  return ds

pos_ds = make_ds(pos_features, pos_labels)
neg_ds = make_ds(neg_features, neg_labels)

"""
Explanation: Using tf.data
If you're using tf.data the easiest way to produce balanced examples is to start with a positive and a negative dataset, and merge them. See the tf.data guide for more examples.
End of explanation
"""


for features, label in pos_ds.take(1):
  print("Features:\n", features.numpy())
  print()
  print("Label: ", label.numpy())

"""
Explanation: Each dataset provides (feature, label) pairs:
End of explanation
"""


resampled_ds = tf.data.Dataset.sample_from_datasets([pos_ds, neg_ds], weights=[0.5, 0.5])
resampled_ds = resampled_ds.batch(BATCH_SIZE).prefetch(2)

for features, label in resampled_ds.take(1):
  print(label.numpy().mean())

"""
Explanation: Merge the two together using tf.data.Dataset.sample_from_datasets:
End of explanation
"""


resampled_steps_per_epoch = np.ceil(2.0*neg/BATCH_SIZE)
resampled_steps_per_epoch

"""
Explanation: To use this dataset, you'll need the number of steps per epoch.
The definition of "epoch" in this case is less clear. Say it's the number of batches required to see each negative example once:
End of explanation
"""


resampled_model = make_model()
resampled_model.load_weights(initial_weights)

# Reset the bias to zero, since this dataset is balanced.
output_layer = resampled_model.layers[-1] 
output_layer.bias.assign([0])

val_ds = tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices((val_features, val_labels)).cache()
val_ds = val_ds.batch(BATCH_SIZE).prefetch(2) 

resampled_history = resampled_model.fit(
    resampled_ds,
    epochs=EPOCHS,
    steps_per_epoch=resampled_steps_per_epoch,
    callbacks=[early_stopping],
    validation_data=val_ds)

"""
Explanation: Train on the oversampled data
Now try training the model with the resampled data set instead of using class weights to see how these methods compare.
Note: Because the data was balanced by replicating the positive examples, the total dataset size is larger, and each epoch runs for more training steps.
End of explanation
"""


plot_metrics(resampled_history)

"""
Explanation: If the training process were considering the whole dataset on each gradient update, this oversampling would be basically identical to the class weighting.
But when training the model batch-wise, as you did here, the oversampled data provides a smoother gradient signal: Instead of each positive example being shown in one batch with a large weight, they're shown in many different batches each time with a small weight. 
This smoother gradient signal makes it easier to train the model.
Check training history
Note that the distributions of metrics will be different here, because the training data has a totally different distribution from the validation and test data.
End of explanation
"""


resampled_model = make_model()
resampled_model.load_weights(initial_weights)

# Reset the bias to zero, since this dataset is balanced.
output_layer = resampled_model.layers[-1] 
output_layer.bias.assign([0])

resampled_history = resampled_model.fit(
    resampled_ds,
    # These are not real epochs
    steps_per_epoch=20,
    epochs=10*EPOCHS,
    callbacks=[early_stopping],
    validation_data=(val_ds))

"""
Explanation: Re-train
Because training is easier on the balanced data, the above training procedure may overfit quickly. 
So break up the epochs to give the tf.keras.callbacks.EarlyStopping finer control over when to stop training.
End of explanation
"""


plot_metrics(resampled_history)

"""
Explanation: Re-check training history
End of explanation
"""


train_predictions_resampled = resampled_model.predict(train_features, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE)
test_predictions_resampled = resampled_model.predict(test_features, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE)

resampled_results = resampled_model.evaluate(test_features, test_labels,
                                             batch_size=BATCH_SIZE, verbose=0)
for name, value in zip(resampled_model.metrics_names, resampled_results):
  print(name, ': ', value)
print()

plot_cm(test_labels, test_predictions_resampled)

"""
Explanation: Evaluate metrics
End of explanation
"""


plot_roc("Train Baseline", train_labels, train_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0])
plot_roc("Test Baseline", test_labels, test_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0], linestyle='--')

plot_roc("Train Weighted", train_labels, train_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1])
plot_roc("Test Weighted", test_labels, test_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1], linestyle='--')

plot_roc("Train Resampled", train_labels, train_predictions_resampled, color=colors[2])
plot_roc("Test Resampled", test_labels, test_predictions_resampled, color=colors[2], linestyle='--')
plt.legend(loc='lower right');

"""
Explanation: Plot the ROC
End of explanation
"""


plot_prc("Train Baseline", train_labels, train_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0])
plot_prc("Test Baseline", test_labels, test_predictions_baseline, color=colors[0], linestyle='--')

plot_prc("Train Weighted", train_labels, train_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1])
plot_prc("Test Weighted", test_labels, test_predictions_weighted, color=colors[1], linestyle='--')

plot_prc("Train Resampled", train_labels, train_predictions_resampled, color=colors[2])
plot_prc("Test Resampled", test_labels, test_predictions_resampled, color=colors[2], linestyle='--')
plt.legend(loc='lower right');

"""
Explanation: Plot the AUPRC
End of explanation
"""


