Related
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 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)
Any idea on the recommended parameters for OpenCV RTrees? I have read the documentation and I'm trying to apply it to MNIST dataset, i.e. 60000 training images, with 10000 testing images. I'm trying to optimize MaxDepth, MinSampleCount, setMaxCategories, and setPriors? e.g.
Ptr<RTrees> model = RTrees::create();
/* Depth of the tree.
A low value will likely underfit and conversely
a high value will likely overfit.
The optimal value can be obtained using cross validation
or other suitable methods.
*/
model->setMaxDepth(?); // letter_recog.cpp uses 10
/* minimum samples required at a leaf node for it to be split.
A reasonable value is a small percentage of the total data e.g. 1%.
MNIST 70000 * 0.01 = 700
*/
model->setMinSampleCount(700?); letter_recog.cpp uses 10
/* regression_accuracy – Termination criteria for regression trees.
If all absolute differences between an estimated value in a node and
values of train samples in this node are less than this parameter
then the node will not be split. */
model->setRegressionAccuracy(0); // I think this is already correct
/*
use_surrogates – If true then surrogate splits will be built.
These splits allow to work with missing data and compute variable importance correctly.'
To compute variable importance correctly, the surrogate splits must be enabled in
the training parameters, even if there is no missing data.
*/
model->setUseSurrogates(true); // I think this is already correct
/*
Cluster possible values of a categorical variable into K \leq max_categories clusters
to find a suboptimal split. If a discrete variable, on which the training procedure
tries to make a split, takes more than max_categories values, the precise best subset
estimation may take a very long time because the algorithm is exponential.
Instead, many decision trees engines (including ML) try to find sub-optimal split
in this case by clustering all the samples into max_categories clusters that is
some categories are merged together. The clustering is applied only in n>2-class
classification problems for categorical variables with N > max_categories possible values.
In case of regression and 2-class classification the optimal split can be found
efficiently without employing clustering, thus the parameter is not used in these cases.
*/
model->setMaxCategories(?); letter_recog.cpp uses 15
/*
priors – The array of a priori class probabilities, sorted by the class label value.
The parameter can be used to tune the decision tree preferences toward a certain class.
For example, if you want to detect some rare anomaly occurrence, the training base will
likely contain much more normal cases than anomalies, so a very good classification
performance will be achieved just by considering every case as normal.
To avoid this, the priors can be specified, where the anomaly probability is
artificially increased (up to 0.5 or even greater), so the weight of the misclassified
anomalies becomes much bigger, and the tree is adjusted properly. You can also think about
this parameter as weights of prediction categories which determine relative weights that
you give to misclassification. That is, if the weight of the first category is 1 and
the weight of the second category is 10, then each mistake in predicting the
second category is equivalent to making 10 mistakes in predicting the first category.
*/
model->setPriors(Mat()); // ?
/* If true then variable importance will be calculated and
then it can be retrieved by CvRTrees::get_var_importance().
*/
model->setCalculateVarImportance(true); // I think this is already correct
/*
The size of the randomly selected subset of features at each tree node and
that are used to find the best split(s). If you set it to 0 then the size
will be set to the square root of the total number of features.
*/
model->setActiveVarCount(0); // I think this is already correct
/*
CV_TERMCRIT_ITER Terminate learning by the max_num_of_trees_in_the_forest;
CV_TERMCRIT_EPS Terminate learning by the forest_accuracy;
CV_TERMCRIT_ITER | CV_TERMCRIT_EPS Use both termination criteria.
*/
model->setTermCriteria(TC(100,0.01f)); // I think this is already correct
I made a network that predicts either 1 or 0. I'm now working on the ROC Curve of that network where I have to find the TN, FN, TP, FP. When the output of my network is >= 0.5 with desired output of 1, I classified it under True Positive. And when it's >=0.5 with desired output of 0, I classified it under False Positive. Is that the right thing to do? Just wanna make sure if my understanding is correct.
It all depends on how you are using your network as the True/False Positive/Negative is just a form of analysing results of your classification, not the internals of the network. From what you have written I assume, that you have a network with one output node, which can yield values in the [0,1]. If you use your model in the way, that if this value is bigger then 0.5 then you assume the 1 output and 0 otherwise, then yes, you are correct. In general, you should consider what is the "interpretation" of your output and simply use the definition of TP, FN, etc. which can be summarized as follows:
your network
truth 1 0
1 TP FN
0 FP TN
I refered to "interpretation" as in fact you are always using some function g( output ), which returns the predicted class number. In your case, it is simply g( output ) = 1 iff output >= 0.5. but in multi class problem it would be probably g( output ) = argmax( output ), yet it does not have to, in particular - what about "draws" (when two or more neurons have the same value). For calculating True/False Positives/Negatives you should always only consider the final classification. And as a result, you are measuring the quality of the model, learning process as well as this "interpretation" g.
It should also be noted, that concept of "positive" and "negative" class is often ambiguous. In problems like detection of some object/event it is quite clear, that "occurence" is a positive event and "lack of" is negative, but in many others - like for example gender classification there is no clear interpretation. In such cases one should carefully choose used metrics, as some of them are biased towards positive (or negative) examples (for example precision do not consider neither true nor false negatives).
Is it a good practice to use sigmoid or tanh output layers in Neural networks directly to estimate probabilities?
i.e the probability of given input to occur is the output of sigmoid function in the NN
EDIT
I wanted to use neural network to learn and predict the probability of a given input to occur..
You may consider the input as State1-Action-State2 tuple.
Hence the output of NN is the probability that State2 happens when applying Action on State1..
I Hope that does clear things..
EDIT
When training NN, I do random Action on State1 and observe resultant State2; then teach NN that input State1-Action-State2 should result in output 1.0
First, just a couple of small points on the conventional MLP lexicon (might help for internet searches, etc.): 'sigmoid' and 'tanh' are not 'output layers' but functions, usually referred to as "activation functions". The return value of the activation function is indeed the output from each layer, but they are not the output layer themselves (nor do they calculate probabilities).
Additionally, your question recites a choice between two "alternatives" ("sigmoid and tanh"), but they are not actually alternatives, rather the term 'sigmoidal function' is a generic/informal term for a class of functions, which includes the hyperbolic tangent ('tanh') that you refer to.
The term 'sigmoidal' is probably due to the characteristic shape of the function--the return (y) values are constrained between two asymptotic values regardless of the x value. The function output is usually normalized so that these two values are -1 and 1 (or 0 and 1). (This output behavior, by the way, is obviously inspired by the biological neuron which either fires (+1) or it doesn't (-1)). A look at the key properties of sigmoidal functions and you can see why they are ideally suited as activation functions in feed-forward, backpropagating neural networks: (i) real-valued and differentiable, (ii) having exactly one inflection point, and (iii) having a pair of horizontal asymptotes.
In turn, the sigmoidal function is one category of functions used as the activation function (aka "squashing function") in FF neural networks solved using backprop. During training or prediction, the weighted sum of the inputs (for a given layer, one layer at a time) is passed in as an argument to the activation function which returns the output for that layer. Another group of functions apparently used as the activation function is piecewise linear function. The step function is the binary variant of a PLF:
def step_fn(x) :
if x <= 0 :
y = 0
if x > 0 :
y = 1
(On practical grounds, I doubt the step function is a plausible choice for the activation function, but perhaps it helps understand the purpose of the activation function in NN operation.)
I suppose there an unlimited number of possible activation functions, but in practice, you only see a handful; in fact just two account for the overwhelming majority of cases (both are sigmoidal). Here they are (in python) so you can experiment for yourself, given that the primary selection criterion is a practical one:
# logistic function
def sigmoid2(x) :
return 1 / (1 + e**(-x))
# hyperbolic tangent
def sigmoid1(x) :
return math.tanh(x)
what are the factors to consider in selecting an activation function?
First the function has to give the desired behavior (arising from or as evidenced by sigmoidal shape). Second, the function must be differentiable. This is a requirement for backpropagation, which is the optimization technique used during training to 'fill in' the values of the hidden layers.
For instance, the derivative of the hyperbolic tangent is (in terms of the output, which is how it is usually written) :
def dsigmoid(y) :
return 1.0 - y**2
Beyond those two requriements, what makes one function between than another is how efficiently it trains the network--i.e., which one causes convergence (reaching the local minimum error) in the fewest epochs?
#-------- Edit (see OP's comment below) ---------#
I am not quite sure i understood--sometimes it's difficult to communicate details of a NN, without the code, so i should probably just say that it's fine subject to this proviso: What you want the NN to predict must be the same as the dependent variable used during training. So for instance, if you train your NN using two states (e.g., 0, 1) as the single dependent variable (which is obviously missing from your testing/production data) then that's what your NN will return when run in "prediction mode" (post training, or with a competent weight matrix).
You should choose the right loss function to minimize.
The squared error does not lead to the maximum likelihood hypothesis here.
The squared error is derived from a model with Gaussian noise:
P(y|x,h) = k1 * e**-(k2 * (y - h(x))**2)
You estimate the probabilities directly. Your model is:
P(Y=1|x,h) = h(x)
P(Y=0|x,h) = 1 - h(x)
P(Y=1|x,h) is the probability that event Y=1 will happen after seeing x.
The maximum likelihood hypothesis for your model is:
h_max_likelihood = argmax_h product(
h(x)**y * (1-h(x))**(1-y) for x, y in examples)
This leads to the "cross entropy" loss function.
See chapter 6 in Mitchell's Machine Learning
for the loss function and its derivation.
There is one problem with this approach: if you have vectors from R^n and your network maps those vectors into the interval [0, 1], it will not be guaranteed that the network represents a valid probability density function, since the integral of the network is not guaranteed to equal 1.
E.g., a neural network could map any input form R^n to 1.0. But that is clearly not possible.
So the answer to your question is: no, you can't.
However, you can just say that your network never sees "unrealistic" code samples and thus ignore this fact. For a discussion of this (and also some more cool information on how to model PDFs with neural networks) see contrastive backprop.