gbt dtrees always use float instead of the real data type cause unexpected predict result.

[cmsxbc]

Describe the bug I'm working on convert lightGBM model to daal gbt model. And the converted model predict different result which is much different to that lightGBM predict.

And I have found that the gbt_dtrees model always use float as the code shows.

https://github.com/oneapi-src/oneDAL/blob/c6c5219c85e5bceb0392e54e653e00e8cc45e21f/cpp/daal/src/algorithms/dtrees/gbt/gbt_predict_dense_default_impl.i#L44

If i changed the typedef to typedef double ModelFPType, the result would be just as expected.

To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. use example model from lightgbm lightgbm simple_example, and apply this change for generate a 200 iterations model to make error more easy to be observed.

index 9af83008..debb339c 100644
--- a/examples/python-guide/simple_example.py                                                                          
+++ b/examples/python-guide/simple_example.py
@@ -35,9 +35,10 @@ print('Starting training...')
 # train                                                   
 gbm = lgb.train(params,                                   
                 lgb_train,                                
-                num_boost_round=20,
+                num_boost_round=340,
                 valid_sets=lgb_eval,
-                early_stopping_rounds=5)
+                verbose_eval=False,
+                early_stopping_rounds=100)

2. convert the model and predict

d4p_model = daal4py.get_gbt_model_from_lightgbm(gbm)
d4p_y_pred = daal4py.gbt_regression_prediction().compute(X_test, d4p_model).prediction.reshape(-1)
print("The rmse of daal4py's prediction is:", mean_squared_error(y_test, d4p_y_pred))

print('are preds of daal4py and lightGBM equal:', (d4p_y_pred == y_pred).all())
print('The rmse of daal4py vs lightGBM is:', mean_squared_error(d4p_y_pred, y_pred) ** 0.5)

3. the release package will see two pred result is not equal.

4. apply the patch

index 6b4ffc3af..16aac9b18 100644
--- a/cpp/daal/src/algorithms/dtrees/gbt/gbt_predict_dense_default_impl.i
+++ b/cpp/daal/src/algorithms/dtrees/gbt/gbt_predict_dense_default_impl.i
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ namespace prediction
 {
 namespace internal
 {
-typedef float ModelFPType;
+typedef double ModelFPType;
 typedef uint32_t FeatureIndexType;
 const FeatureIndexType VECTOR_BLOCK_SIZE = 64;

5. all works well.

Expected behavior Use real data type, or the reason why the float is the one~

Output/Screenshots Up one is the unexpected result, and bottom is what I recompiled with typedef double ModelFPType.

My patch:

Environment:

• OS: ArchLInux
• Compiler: gcc 11.1.0
• Version: 2021.2.2

[ShvetsKS]

@cmsxbc thanks for reporting this bug! Sorry for long response! could you share the actual mean_squared_error difference for float vs double usage? currently we are working on performance affection check.

[cmsxbc]

@ShvetsKS Sorry for my poor English.... I'm not sure what's real meaning for "actual mean_squared_error difference for float vs double usage"

For the model , which is from lightGBM example, I mentioned before, the mean_squared_error(daal4py_prediction_float, lightGBM_prediction) is 3.367366706112064e-06 using float. And when change to double, mean_squared_error(daal4py_prediction_double, lightGBM_prediction) is just 0.

And mean_squared_error(daal4py_prediction_float, daal4py_prediction_double) is also 3.367366706112064e-06 which is the result of mean_squared_error(daal4py_prediction_float, lightGBM_prediction)

Actually, I found this error from a model built with thousands of features and thousands of iterations. But I'm afraid I can't provide actual value because of "Security policy for data" of my company.

What I can provide is that sqrt(mean_squared_error(d4p_prediction_float, lightGBM_prediction)) / lightGBM_prediction is approximately equal to 0.2 , and d4p_prediction_double is absolutely equal to lightGBM_prediction. And we can tolerate sqrt(mean_squared_error(d4p_prediction, lightGBM_prediction)) / lightGBM_prediction < 1e-9

[cmsxbc]

@ShvetsKS Sorry for bothering, is there any progress? T_T

[ShvetsKS]

@cmsxbc currently we are working on appropriate solution to save support of "old" trained models with float fields. Sorry for slow fix delivery.

[cmsxbc]

@ShvetsKS Sorry again, but it have took almost another season.... T_T