Explanation
Instead use the run_log function to log the contents in label_vals:
for label_val in label_vals:
run.log('Label Values', label_val)
Reference:
https://www.element61.be/en/resource/azure-machine-learning-services-complete-toolbox-ai

Explanation:
Box 1: 300
You type 300 (%), the module triples the percentage of minority cases (3000) compared to the original dataset (1000).
Box 2: 5
We should use 5 data rows.
Use the Number of nearest neighbors option to determine the size of the feature space that the SMOTE algorithm uses when in building new cases. A nearest neighbor is a row of data (a case) that is very similar to some target case. The distance between any two cases is measured by combining the weighted vectors of all features.
By increasing the number of nearest neighbors, you get features from more cases.
By keeping the number of nearest neighbors low, you use features that are more like those in the original sample.
References:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/machine-learning/studio-module-reference/smote

Explanation:
Box 1: import mlflow
Import the mlflow and Workspace classes to access MLflow's tracking URI and configure your workspace.
Box 2: mlflow.start_run()
Set the MLflow experiment name with set_experiment() and start your training run with start_run().
Box 3: mlflow.log_metric(' ..')
Use log_metric() to activate the MLflow logging API and begin logging your training run metrics.
Box 4: mlflow.end_run()
Close the run:
run.endRun()
Reference:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/machine-learning/how-to-use-mlflow

Leave One Out (LOO) cross-validation
Setting K = n (the number of observations) yields n-fold and is called leave-one out cross-validation (LOO), a special case of the K-fold approach.
LOO CV is sometimes useful but typically doesn't shake up the data enough. The estimates from each fold are highly correlated and hence their average can have high variance.
This is why the usual choice is K=5 or 10. It provides a good compromise for the bias-variance tradeoff.
Perform Feature Engineering
Testlet 1
Case study
Overview
You are a data scientist in a company that provides data science for professional sporting events. Models will use global and local market data to meet the following business goals:
* Understand sentiment of mobile device users at sporting events based on audio from crowd reactions.
* Assess a user's tendency to respond to an advertisement.
* Customize styles of ads served on mobile devices.
* Use video to detect penalty events
Current environment
* Media used for penalty event detection will be provided by consumer devices. Media may include images and videos captured during the sporting event and shared using social media. The images and videos will have varying sizes and formats.
* The data available for model building comprises of seven years of sporting event media. The sporting event media includes; recorded video transcripts or radio commentary, and logs from related social media feeds captured during the sporting events.
* Crowd sentiment will include audio recordings submitted by event attendees in both mono and stereo formats.
Penalty detection and sentiment
* Data scientists must build an intelligent solution by using multiple machine learning models for penalty event detection.
* Data scientists must build notebooks in a local environment using automatic feature engineering and model building in machine learning pipelines.
* Notebooks must be deployed to retrain by using Spark instances with dynamic worker allocation.
* Notebooks must execute with the same code on new Spark instances to recode only the source of the data.
* Global penalty detection models must be trained by using dynamic runtime graph computation during training.
* Local penalty detection models must be written by using BrainScript.
* Experiments for local crowd sentiment models must combine local penalty detection data.
* Crowd sentiment models must identify known sounds such as cheers and known catch phrases. Individual crowd sentiment models will detect similar sounds.
* All shared features for local models are continuous variables.
* Shared features must use double precision. Subsequent layers must have aggregate running mean and standard deviation metrics available.
Advertisements
During the initial weeks in production, the following was observed:
* Ad response rated declined.
* Drops were not consistent across ad styles.
* The distribution of features across training and production data are not consistent Analysis shows that, of the 100 numeric features on user location and behavior, the 47 features that come from location sources are being used as raw features. A suggested experiment to remedy the bias and variance issue is to engineer 10 linearly uncorrelated features.
* Initial data discovery shows a wide range of densities of target states in training data used for crowd sentiment models.
* All penalty detection models show inference phases using a Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) are running too slow.
* Audio samples show that the length of a catch phrase varies between 25%-47% depending on region
* The performance of the global penalty detection models shows lower variance but higher bias when comparing training and validation sets. Before implementing any feature changes, you must confirm the bias and variance using all training and validation cases.
* Ad response models must be trained at the beginning of each event and applied during the sporting event.
* Market segmentation models must optimize for similar ad response history.
* Sampling must guarantee mutual and collective exclusively between local and global segmentation models that share the same features.
* Local market segmentation models will be applied before determining a user's propensity to respond to an advertisement.
* Ad response models must support non-linear boundaries of features.
* The ad propensity model uses a cut threshold is 0.45 and retrains occur if weighted Kappa deviated from
0.1 +/- 5%.
* The ad propensity model uses cost factors shown in the following diagram:

* The ad propensity model uses proposed cost factors shown in the following diagram:

* Performance curves of current and proposed cost factor scenarios are shown in the following diagram: