Related
I have 38 variables, like oxygen, temperature, pressure, etc and have a task to determine the total yield produced every day from these variables. When I calculate the regression coefficients and intercept value, they seem to be abnormal and very high (Impractical). For example, if 'temperature' coefficient was found to be +375.456, I could not give a meaning to them saying an increase in one unit in temperature would increase yield by 375.456g. That's impractical in my scenario. However, the prediction accuracy seems right. I would like to know, how to interpret these huge intercept( -5341.27355) and huge beta values shown below. One other important point is that I removed multicolinear columns and also, I am not scaling the variables/normalizing them because I need beta coefficients to have meaning such that I could say, increase in temperature by one unit increases yield by 10g or so. Your inputs are highly appreciated!
modl.intercept_
Out[375]: -5341.27354961415
modl.coef_
Out[376]:
array([ 1.38096017e+00, -7.62388829e+00, 5.64611255e+00, 2.26124164e-01,
4.21908571e-01, 4.50695302e-01, -8.15167717e-01, 1.82390184e+00,
-3.32849969e+02, 3.31942553e+02, 3.58830763e+02, -2.05076898e-01,
-3.06404757e+02, 7.86012402e+00, 3.21339318e+02, -7.00817205e-01,
-1.09676321e+04, 1.91481734e+00, 6.02929848e+01, 8.33731416e+00,
-6.23433431e+01, -1.88442804e+00, 6.86526274e+00, -6.76103795e+01,
-1.11406021e+02, 2.48270706e+02, 2.94836048e+01, 1.00279016e+02,
1.42906659e-02, -2.13019683e-03, -6.71427100e+02, -2.03158515e+02,
9.32094007e-03, 5.56457014e+01, -2.91724945e+00, 4.78691176e-01,
8.78121854e+00, -4.93696073e+00])
It's very unlikely that all of these variables are linearly correlated, so I would suggest that you have a look at simple non-linear regression techniques, such as Decision Trees or Kernel Ridge Regression. These are however more difficult to interpret.
Going back to your issue, these high weights might well be due to there being some high amount of correlation between the variables, or that you simply don't have very much training data.
If you instead of linear regression use Lasso Regression, the solution is biased away from high regression coefficients, and the fit will likely improve as well.
A small example on how to do this in scikit-learn, including cross validation of the regularization hyper-parameter:
from sklearn.linear_model LassoCV
# Make up some data
n_samples = 100
n_features = 5
X = np.random.random((n_samples, n_features))
# Make y linear dependent on the features
y = np.sum(np.random.random((1,n_features)) * X, axis=1)
model = LassoCV(cv=5, n_alphas=100, fit_intercept=True)
model.fit(X,y)
print(model.intercept_)
If you have a linear regression, the formula looks like this (y= target, x= features inputs):
y= x1*b1 +x2*b2 + x3*b3 + x4*b4...+ c
where b1,b2,b3,b4... are your modl.coef_. AS you already realized one of your bigges number is 3.319+02 = 331 and the intercept is also quite big with -5431.
As you already mentioned the coeffiecient variables means how much the target variable changes, if the coeffiecient feature changes with 1 unit and all others features are constant.
so for your interpretation, the higher the absoult coeffienct, the higher the influence of your analysis. But it is important to note that the model is using a lot of high coefficient, that means your model is not depending only of one variable
I implemented a cosine-theta function, which calculates the relation between two articles. If two articles are very similar then the words should contain quite some overlap. However, a cosine theta score of 0.54 does not mean "related" or "not related". I should end up with a definitive answer which is either 0 for 'not related' or 1 for 'related'.
I know that there are sigmoid and softmax functions, yet I should find the optimal parameters to give to such functions and I do not know if these functions are satisfactory solutions. I was thinking that I have the cosine theta score, I can calculate the percentage of overlap between two sentences two (e.g. the amount of overlapping words divided by the amount of words in the article) and maybe some more interesting things. Then with the data, I could maybe write a function (what type of function I do not know and is part of the question!), after which I can minimize the error via the SciPy library. This means that I should do some sort of supervised learning, and I am willing to label article pairs with labels (0/1) in order to train a network. Is this worth the effort?
# Count words of two strings.
v1, v2 = self.word_count(s1), self.word_count(s2)
# Calculate the intersection of the words in both strings.
v3 = set(v1.keys()) & set(v2.keys())
# Calculate some sort of ratio between the overlap and the
# article length (since 1 overlapping word on 2 words is more important
# then 4 overlapping words on articles of 492 words).
p = min(len(v1), len(v2)) / len(v3)
numerator = sum([v1[w] * v2[w] for w in v3])
w1 = sum([v1[w]**2 for w in v1.keys()])
w2 = sum([v2[w]**2 for w in v2.keys()])
denominator = math.sqrt(w1) * math.sqrt(w2)
# Calculate the cosine similarity
if not denominator:
return 0.0
else:
return (float(numerator) / denominator)
As said, I would like to use variables such as p, and the cosine theta score in order to produce an accurate discrete binary label, either 0 or 1.
As said, I would like to use variables such as p, and the cosine theta score in order to produce an accurate discrete binary label, either 0 or 1.
Here it really comes down to what you mean by accuracy. It is up to you to choose how the overlap affects whether or not two strings are "matching" unless you have a labelled data set. If you have a labelled data set (I.e., a set of pairs of strings along with a 0 or 1 label), then you can train a binary classification algorithm and try to optimise based on that. I would recommend something like a neural net or SVM due to the potentially high dimensional, categorical nature of your problem.
Even the optimisation, however, is a subjective measure. For example, in theory let's pretend you have a model which out of 100 samples only predicts 1 answer (Giving 99 unknowns). Technically if that one answer is correct, that is a model with 100% accuracy, but which has a very low recall. Generally in machine learning you will find a trade off between recall and accuracy.
Some people like to go for certain metrics which combine the two (The most famous of which is the F1 score), but honestly it depends on the application. If I have a marketing campaign with a fixed budget, then I care more about accuracy - I would only want to target consumers who are likely to buy my product. If however, we are looking to test for a deadly disease or markers for bank fraud, then it's feasible for that test to be accurate only 10% of the time - if its recall of true positives is somewhere close to 100%.
Finally, if you have no labelled data, then your best bet is just to define some cut off value which you believe indicates a good match. This is would then be more analogous to a binary clustering problem, and you could use some more abstract measure such as distance to a centroid to test which cluster (Either the "related" or "unrelated" cluster) the point belongs to. Note however that here your features feel like they would be incredibly hard to define.
I am newbie in convolutional neural networks and just have idea about feature maps and how convolution is done on images to extract features. I would be glad to know some details on applying batch normalisation in CNN.
I read this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03167v3.pdf and could understand the BN algorithm applied on a data but in the end they mentioned that a slight modification is required when applied to CNN:
For convolutional layers, we additionally want the normalization to obey the convolutional property – so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way. To achieve this, we jointly normalize all the activations in a mini- batch, over all locations. In Alg. 1, we let B be the set of all values in a feature map across both the elements of a mini-batch and spatial locations – so for a mini-batch of size m and feature maps of size p × q, we use the effec- tive mini-batch of size m′ = |B| = m · pq. We learn a pair of parameters γ(k) and β(k) per feature map, rather than per activation. Alg. 2 is modified similarly, so that during inference the BN transform applies the same linear transformation to each activation in a given feature map.
I am total confused when they say
"so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way"
I know what feature maps mean and different elements are the weights in every feature map. But I could not understand what location or spatial location means.
I could not understand the below sentence at all
"In Alg. 1, we let B be the set of all values in a feature map across both the elements of a mini-batch and spatial locations"
I would be glad if someone cold elaborate and explain me in much simpler terms
Let's start with the terms. Remember that the output of the convolutional layer is a 4-rank tensor [B, H, W, C], where B is the batch size, (H, W) is the feature map size, C is the number of channels. An index (x, y) where 0 <= x < H and 0 <= y < W is a spatial location.
Usual batchnorm
Now, here's how the batchnorm is applied in a usual way (in pseudo-code):
# t is the incoming tensor of shape [B, H, W, C]
# mean and stddev are computed along 0 axis and have shape [H, W, C]
mean = mean(t, axis=0)
stddev = stddev(t, axis=0)
for i in 0..B-1:
out[i,:,:,:] = norm(t[i,:,:,:], mean, stddev)
Basically, it computes H*W*C means and H*W*C standard deviations across B elements. You may notice that different elements at different spatial locations have their own mean and variance and gather only B values.
Batchnorm in conv layer
This way is totally possible. But the convolutional layer has a special property: filter weights are shared across the input image (you can read it in detail in this post). That's why it's reasonable to normalize the output in the same way, so that each output value takes the mean and variance of B*H*W values, at different locations.
Here's how the code looks like in this case (again pseudo-code):
# t is still the incoming tensor of shape [B, H, W, C]
# but mean and stddev are computed along (0, 1, 2) axes and have just [C] shape
mean = mean(t, axis=(0, 1, 2))
stddev = stddev(t, axis=(0, 1, 2))
for i in 0..B-1, x in 0..H-1, y in 0..W-1:
out[i,x,y,:] = norm(t[i,x,y,:], mean, stddev)
In total, there are only C means and standard deviations and each one of them is computed over B*H*W values. That's what they mean when they say "effective mini-batch": the difference between the two is only in axis selection (or equivalently "mini-batch selection").
Some clarification on Maxim's answer.
I was puzzled by seeing in Keras that the axis you specify is the channels axis, as it doesn't make sense to normalize over the channels - as every channel in a conv-net is considered a different "feature". I.e. normalizing over all channels is equivalent to normalizing number of bedrooms with size in square feet (multivariate regression example from Andrew's ML course). This is usually not what you want - what you do is normalize every feature by itself. I.e. you normalize the number of bedrooms across all examples to be with mu=0 and std=1, and you normalize the the square feet across all examples to be with mu=0 and std=1.
This is why you want C means and stds, because you want a mean and std per channel/feature.
After checking and testing it myself I realized the issue: there's a bit of a confusion/misconception here. The axis you specify in Keras is actually the axis which is not in the calculations. i.e. you get average over every axis except the one specified by this argument. This is confusing, as it is exactly the opposite behavior of how NumPy works, where the specified axis is the one you do the operation on (e.g. np.mean, np.std, etc.).
I actually built a toy model with only BN, and then calculated the BN manually - took the mean, std across all the 3 first dimensions [m, n_W, n_H] and got n_C results, calculated (X-mu)/std (using broadcasting) and got identical results to the Keras results.
Hope this helps anyone who was confused as I was.
I'm only 70% sure of what I say, so if it does not make sense, please edit or mention it before downvoting.
About location or spatial location: they mean the position of pixels in an image or feature map. A feature map is comparable to a sparse modified version of image where concepts are represented.
About so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way:
some normalisation algorithms are local, so they are dependent of their close surrounding (location) and not the things far apart in the image. They probably mean that every pixel, regardless of their location, is treated just like the element of a set, independently of it's direct special surrounding.
About In Alg. 1, we let B be the set of all values in a feature map across both the elements of a mini-batch and spatial locations: They get a flat list of every values of every training example in the minibatch, and this list combines things whatever their location is on the feature map.
Firstly we need to make it clear that the depth of a kernel is determined by previous feature map's channel num, and the number of kernel in this layer determins the channel num of next feature map (the next layer).
then we should make it clear that each kernel(three dimentional usually) will generate just one channel of feature map in the next layer.
thirdly we should try to accept the idea of each points in the generated feature map (regardless of their position) are generated by the same kernel, by sliding on previous layer. So they could be seen as a distribution generated by this kernel, and they could be seen as samples of a stochastic variable. Then they should be averaged to obtain the mean and then the variance. (it not rigid, only helps to understand)
This is what they say "so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way"
I am working on Classification using Random Forest algorithm in Spark have a sample dataset that looks like this:
Level1,Male,New York,New York,352.888890
Level1,Male,San Fransisco,California,495.8001345
Level2,Male,New York,New York,-495.8001345
Level1,Male,Columbus,Ohio,165.22352099
Level3,Male,New York,New York,495.8
Level4,Male,Columbus,Ohio,652.8
Level5,Female,Stamford,Connecticut,495.8
Level1,Female,San Fransisco,California,495.8001345
Level3,Male,Stamford,Connecticut,-552.8234
Level6,Female,Columbus,Ohio,7000
Here the last value in each row will serve as a label and rest serve as features. But I want to treat label as a category and not a number. So 165.22352099 will denote a category and so will -552.8234. For this I have encoded my features as well as label into categorical data. Now what I am having difficulty in is deciding what should I pass for numClasses parameter in Random Forest algorithm in Spark MlLib? I mean should it be equal to number of unique values in my label? My label has like 10000 unique values so if I put 10000 as value of numClasses then wouldn't it decrease the performance dramatically?
Here is the typical signature of building a model for Random Forest in MlLib:
model = RandomForest.trainClassifier(trainingData, numClasses=2, categoricalFeaturesInfo={},
numTrees=3, featureSubsetStrategy="auto",
impurity='gini', maxDepth=4, maxBins=32)
The confusion comes from the fact that you are doing something that you should not do. You problem is clearly a regression/ranking, not a classification. Why would you think about it as a classification? Try to answer these two questions:
Do you have at least 100 samples per each value (100,000 * 100 = 1,000,000)?
Is there completely no structure in the classes, so for example - are objects with value "200" not more similar to those with value "100" or "300" than to those with value "-1000" or "+2300"?
If at least one answer is no, then you should not treat this as a classification problem.
If for some weird reason you answered twice yes, then the answer is: "yes, you should encode each distinct value as a different class" thus leading to 10000 unique classes, which leads to:
extremely imbalanced classification (RF, without balancing meta-learner will nearly always fail in such scenario)
extreme number of classes (there are no models able to solve it, for sure RF will not solve it)
extremely small dimension of the problem- looking at as small is your number of features I would be surprised if you could predict from that binary classifiaction. As you can see how irregular are these values, you have 3 points which only diverge in first value and you get completely different results:
Level1,Male,New York,New York,352.888890
Level2,Male,New York,New York,-495.8001345
Level3,Male,New York,New York,495.8
So to sum up, with nearly 100% certainty this is not a classification problem, you should either:
regress on last value (keyword: reggresion)
build a ranking (keyword: learn to rank)
bucket your values to at most 10 different values and then - classify (keywords: imbalanced classification, sparse binary representation)
I've been playing with some SVM implementations and I am wondering - what is the best way to normalize feature values to fit into one range? (from 0 to 1)
Let's suppose I have 3 features with values in ranges of:
3 - 5.
0.02 - 0.05
10-15.
How do I convert all of those values into range of [0,1]?
What If, during training, the highest value of feature number 1 that I will encounter is 5 and after I begin to use my model on much bigger datasets, I will stumble upon values as high as 7? Then in the converted range, it would exceed 1...
How do I normalize values during training to account for the possibility of "values in the wild" exceeding the highest(or lowest) values the model "seen" during training? How will the model react to that and how I make it work properly when that happens?
Besides scaling to unit length method provided by Tim, standardization is most often used in machine learning field. Please note that when your test data comes, it makes more sense to use the mean value and standard deviation from your training samples to do this scaling. If you have a very large amount of training data, it is safe to assume they obey the normal distribution, so the possibility that new test data is out-of-range won't be that high. Refer to this post for more details.
You normalise a vector by converting it to a unit vector. This trains the SVM on the relative values of the features, not the magnitudes. The normalisation algorithm will work on vectors with any values.
To convert to a unit vector, divide each value by the length of the vector. For example, a vector of [4 0.02 12] has a length of 12.6491. The normalised vector is then [4/12.6491 0.02/12.6491 12/12.6491] = [0.316 0.0016 0.949].
If "in the wild" we encounter a vector of [400 2 1200] it will normalise to the same unit vector as above. The magnitudes of the features is "cancelled out" by the normalisation and we are left with relative values between 0 and 1.