# ---
# jupyter:
#   kernelspec:
#     display_name: Python 3
#     name: python3
# ---

# %% [markdown]
# # Non i.i.d. data
#
# In machine learning, it is quite common to assume that the data are i.i.d,
# meaning that the generative process does not have any memory of past samples
# to generate new samples.
#
# ```{note}
# i.i.d is the acronym of "independent and identically distributed"
# (as in "independent and identically distributed random variables").
# ```
#
# This assumption is usually violated when dealing with time series. A sample
# depends on past information.
#
# We will take an example to highlight such issues with non-i.i.d. data in the
# previous cross-validation strategies presented. We are going to load financial
# quotations from some energy companies.

# %%
import pandas as pd

symbols = {"TOT": "Total", "XOM": "Exxon", "CVX": "Chevron",
           "COP": "ConocoPhillips", "VLO": "Valero Energy"}
template_name = ("../datasets/financial-data/{}.csv")

quotes = {}
for symbol in symbols:
    data = pd.read_csv(
        template_name.format(symbol), index_col=0, parse_dates=True
    )
    quotes[symbols[symbol]] = data["open"]
quotes = pd.DataFrame(quotes)

# %% [markdown]
# We can start by plotting the different financial quotations.

# %%
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

quotes.plot()
plt.ylabel("Quote value")
plt.legend(bbox_to_anchor=(1.05, 0.8), loc="upper left")
_ = plt.title("Stock values over time")

# %% [markdown]
# Here, we want to predict the quotation of Chevron using all other energy
# companies' quotes. To make explanatory plots, we first use a train-test split
# and then we evaluate other cross-validation methods.

# %%
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split

data, target = quotes.drop(columns=["Chevron"]), quotes["Chevron"]
data_train, data_test, target_train, target_test = train_test_split(
    data, target, shuffle=True, random_state=0)

# %% [markdown]
# We will use a decision tree regressor that we expect to overfit and thus not
# generalize to unseen data. We will use a `ShuffleSplit` cross-validation to
# check the generalization performance of our model.
#
# Let's first define our model

# %%
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeRegressor

regressor = DecisionTreeRegressor()

# %% [markdown]
# And now the cross-validation strategy.

# %%
from sklearn.model_selection import ShuffleSplit

cv = ShuffleSplit(random_state=0)

# %% [markdown]
# Finally, we perform the evaluation.

# %%
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score

test_score = cross_val_score(regressor, data_train, target_train, cv=cv,
                             n_jobs=2)
print(f"The mean R2 is: "
      f"{test_score.mean():.2f} +/- {test_score.std():.2f}")

# %% [markdown]
# Surprisingly, we get outstanding generalization performance. We will
# investigate and find the reason for such good results with a model that is
# expected to fail. We previously mentioned that `ShuffleSplit` is an iterative
# cross-validation scheme that shuffles data and split. We will simplify this
# procedure with a single split and plot the prediction. We can use
# `train_test_split` for this purpose.

# %%
regressor.fit(data_train, target_train)
target_predicted = regressor.predict(data_test)
# Affect the index of `target_predicted` to ease the plotting
target_predicted = pd.Series(target_predicted, index=target_test.index)

# %% [markdown]
# Let's check the generalization performance of our model on this split.

# %%
from sklearn.metrics import r2_score

test_score = r2_score(target_test, target_predicted)
print(f"The R2 on this single split is: {test_score:.2f}")

# %% [markdown]
# Similarly, we obtain good results in terms of $R^2$.
# We will plot the training, testing and prediction samples.

# %%
target_train.plot(label="Training")
target_test.plot(label="Testing")
target_predicted.plot(label="Prediction")

plt.ylabel("Quote value")
plt.legend(bbox_to_anchor=(1.05, 0.8), loc="upper left")
_ = plt.title("Model predictions using a ShuffleSplit strategy")

# %% [markdown]
# So in this context, it seems that the model predictions are following the
# testing. But we can also see that the testing samples are next to some
# training sample. And with these time-series, we see a relationship between a
# sample at the time `t` and a sample at `t+1`. In this case, we are violating
# the i.i.d. assumption. The insight to get is the following: a model can output
# of its training set at the time `t` for a testing sample at the time `t+1`.
# This prediction would be close to the true value even if our model did not
# learn anything, but just memorized the training dataset.
#
# An easy way to verify this hypothesis is to not shuffle the data when doing
# the split. In this case, we will use the first 75% of the data to train and
# the remaining data to test.

# %%
data_train, data_test, target_train, target_test = train_test_split(
    data, target, shuffle=False, random_state=0,
)
regressor.fit(data_train, target_train)
target_predicted = regressor.predict(data_test)
target_predicted = pd.Series(target_predicted, index=target_test.index)

# %%
test_score = r2_score(target_test, target_predicted)
print(f"The R2 on this single split is: {test_score:.2f}")

# %% [markdown]
# In this case, we see that our model is not magical anymore. Indeed, it
# performs worse than just predicting the mean of the target. We can visually
# check what we are predicting.

# %%
target_train.plot(label="Training")
target_test.plot(label="Testing")
target_predicted.plot(label="Prediction")

plt.ylabel("Quote value")
plt.legend(bbox_to_anchor=(1.05, 0.8), loc="upper left")
_ = plt.title("Model predictions using a split without shuffling")

# %% [markdown]
# We see that our model cannot predict anything because it doesn't have samples
# around the testing sample. Let's check how we could have made a proper
# cross-validation scheme to get a reasonable generalization performance
# estimate.
#
# One solution would be to group the samples into time blocks, e.g. by quarter,
# and predict each group's information by using information from the other
# groups. We can use the `LeaveOneGroupOut` cross-validation for this purpose.

# %%
from sklearn.model_selection import LeaveOneGroupOut

groups = quotes.index.to_period("Q")
cv = LeaveOneGroupOut()
test_score = cross_val_score(regressor, data, target,
                             cv=cv, groups=groups, n_jobs=2)
print(f"The mean R2 is: "
      f"{test_score.mean():.2f} +/- {test_score.std():.2f}")

# %% [markdown]
# In this case, we see that we cannot make good predictions, which is less
# surprising than our original results.
#
# Another thing to consider is the actual application of our solution. If our
# model is aimed at forecasting (i.e., predicting future data from past data),
# we should not use training data that are ulterior to the testing data. In this
# case, we can use the `TimeSeriesSplit` cross-validation to enforce this
# behaviour.

# %%
from sklearn.model_selection import TimeSeriesSplit

cv = TimeSeriesSplit(n_splits=groups.nunique())
test_score = cross_val_score(regressor, data, target,
                             cv=cv, groups=groups, n_jobs=2)
print(f"The mean R2 is: "
      f"{test_score.mean():.2f} +/- {test_score.std():.2f}")

# %% [markdown]
# In conclusion, it is really important to not use an out of the shelves
# cross-validation strategy which do not respect some assumptions such as having
# i.i.d data. It might lead to absurd results which could make think that a
# predictive model might work.