I'm confused about the difference between the following parameters in HDBSCAN
min_cluster_size
min_samples
cluster_selection_epsilon
Correct me if I'm wrong.
For min_samples, if it is set to 7, then clusters formed need to have 7 or more points.
For cluster_selection_epsilon if it is set to 0.5 meters, than any clusters that are more than 0.5 meters apart will not be merged into one. Meaning that each cluster will only include points that are 0.5 meters apart or less.
How is that different from min_cluster_size?
They technically do two different things.
min_samples = the minimum number of neighbours to a core point. The higher this is, the more points are going to be discarded as noise/outliers. This is from DBScan part of HDBScan.
min_cluster_size = the minimum size a final cluster can be. The higher this is, the bigger your clusters will be. This is from the H part of HDBScan.
Increasing min_samples will increase the size of the clusters, but it does so by discarding data as outliers using DBSCAN.
Increasing min_cluster_size while keeping min_samples small, by comparison, keeps those outliers but instead merges any smaller clusters with their most similar neighbour until all clusters are above min_cluster_size.
So:
If you want many highly specific clusters, use a small min_samples and a small min_cluster_size.
If you want more generalized clusters but still want to keep most detail, use a small min_samples and a large min_cluster_size
If you want very very general clusters and to discard a lot of noise in the clusters, use a large min_samples and a large min_cluster_size.
(It's not possible to use min_samples larger than min_cluster_size, afaik)
Related
I am very much new to Machine Learning.
And I am trying to apply ML on data containing nearly 50 features. Some features have range from 0 to 1000000 and some have range from 0 to 100 or even less than that. Now when I use feature scaling by using MinMaxScaler for range (0,1) I think features having large range scales down to very small values and this might affect me to give good predictions.
I would like to know if there is some efficient way to do scaling so that all the features are scaled appropriately.
I also tried standared scaler but accuracy did not improve.
Also Can I use different scaling function for some features and another for remaining features.
Thanks in advance!
Feature scaling, or data normalization, is an important part of training a machine learning model. It is generally recommended that the same scaling approach is used for all features. If the scales for different features are wildly different, this can have a knock-on effect on your ability to learn (depending on what methods you're using to do it). By ensuring standardized feature values, all features are implicitly weighted equally in their representation.
Two common methods of normalization are:
Rescaling (also known as min-max normalization):
where x is an original value, and x' is the normalized value. For example, suppose that we have the students' weight data, and the students' weights span [160 pounds, 200 pounds]. To rescale this data, we first subtract 160 from each student's weight and divide the result by 40 (the difference between the maximum and minimum weights).
Mean normalization
where x is an original value, and x' is the normalized value.
Is there a pixel-based region growing algorithm that can be employed for the extraction of features (segmentation) on an image, by adding pixels to the seed based on the minimization of a certain metric. Potentially, a pixel can be removed if the metric is not optimized when this pixel is added (i.e. possibility to backtrack and go back to the seed obtained in the previous iterations).
I'll try to explain further my objectives:
This algorithm starts from a central pixel selected as an initial seed on the image.
Afterwards, each of the 4 neighbors is explored (right, left, bottom and top neighbors) separately, to see if the metric is optimized by growing the seed in the selected direction.
A neighboring pixel might not optimize the metric immediately, even if the seed created by adding this pixel will be optimal in future iterations.
There is a possibility that a neighboring pixel is added to the seed but is removed later, if the obtained seed is not optimal.
Can anyone suggest to me an Artificial Intelligence technique (or a greedy approach) that is adequate to solve this kind of problems? Also, what would be a good criteria to judge that the addition of a pixel will optimize the metric even though this will probably happen in future iterations.
P.S: I started implementing what's explained above in Python but was stuck in the issue of determining if a path (neighboring pixel) is worth exploring or not. Right now, I try to add a neighboring pixel only if the seed produced improve (i.e. minimize) the error relatively to the metric. However, even though by adding the right or left neighbors the metric isn't optimized, one of these two paths might lead to the optimal solution in the future (as explained in the third objective).
You've basically outlined the most successful algorithm you could get with this approach. It's success will depend heavily on the metric you use to add/remove pixels, but there are a few things you can do to emulate the behavior you want.
Definitions
We'll call the metric we're optimizing M where M(R) is the metric's value for a region R and a region R is some collections of pixels. I will assume that optimizing the metric will result in the largest possible value of M, but this approach can work if the goal is to minimize M as well.
Methodology
This approach is going to be slightly backwards to your original outline, but it should satisfy both requirements of adding pixels that lie in non-optimal paths from the seed and removing pixels that do not contribute significantly to the optimization.
We will begin at a seed s, but instead of evaluating paths as we go we will add all pixels in the image (or maximum feature size) iteratively to our region. At each step we will determine a value of the pixel based on how much it improves the metric for the current region, M(p). This is not the same as the value of the region containing the pixel (M(R) where p is in R). Rather it would be the difference of the value of the region containing the pixel and the value of the region before the pixel was added (M(p) = M(R) - M(R') where R = R' + p). If you have the capacity to evaluate a single pixel you could simply use that instead.
The next change is to include an regularization parameter in M(R) that penalizes the score based on the number of pixels included: N(R) = M(R) - a * |R| where a is some arbitrary positive constant and |R| represents the cardinality (number of pixels) in our region. Note: if the goal is to minimize M then a should be negative. This will have the effect of penalizing the score of the region if it includes too many pixels.
Finally, after all pixels have been added to the region and N(p) has been evaluated for each pixel we iterate over the region again. This time we begin at the last pixel added and iterate backwards over our set of pixels, ending at the seed s. At each iteration determine the score of the region N(R). If the score N(R) has decreased since the last iteration then we remove the pixel p with the lowest score N(p). This should have the effect of the smallest number of pixels in the region that contribute the most to the score.
Additional Considerations
If the remaining pixels lie on non-contiguous paths after pruning you could run a secondary algorithm to add in adjoining pixels. You'll need to do testing to determine an optimal value of a such that enough pixels are kept to reconstruct the building, but it doesn't include every pixel from the image.
My Opinion (that you didn't ask for)
In general I think you would have more luck with more robust algorithms such as Convolutional Neural Networks for feature classification. They'll likely be faster and definitely more accurate than the algorithm described above.
Davies-bouldin index validation is basically the ratio within cluster scatter and between cluster distances. We iterate that for all clusters and finally take the maximum. My question here is why maximum not minimum?
Thank you.
Consider the following scenario:
Three clusters. One is well separated from the others, two are conflated.
Let S_i be 0.5 for all of them.
For the conflated ones, M_ij is close to zero. For the well separated ones, the distance of the means is much larger. The resulting R_i is large for the conflated ones, and small for the separated clusters.
If you take the maximum, the index says "two clusters are mixed up, the result is thus bad - not all clusters are well separated". If you used the minimum, it would ignore this problem and say "well, at least it separated them from one of the other clusters".
I'm trying to read through PCA and saw that the objective was to maximize the variance. I don't quite understand why. Any explanation of other related topics would be helpful
Variance is a measure of the "variability" of the data you have. Potentially the number of components is infinite (actually, after numerization it is at most equal to the rank of the matrix, as #jazibjamil pointed out), so you want to "squeeze" the most information in each component of the finite set you build.
If, to exaggerate, you were to select a single principal component, you would want it to account for the most variability possible: hence the search for maximum variance, so that the one component collects the most "uniqueness" from the data set.
Note that PCA does not actually increase the variance of your data. Rather, it rotates the data set in such a way as to align the directions in which it is spread out the most with the principal axes. This enables you to remove those dimensions along which the data is almost flat. This decreases the dimensionality of the data while keeping the variance (or spread) among the points as close to the original as possible.
Maximizing the component vector variances is the same as maximizing the 'uniqueness' of those vectors. Thus you're vectors are as distant from each other as possible. That way if you only use the first N component vectors you're going to capture more space with highly varying vectors than with like vectors. Think about what Principal Component actually means.
Take for example a situation where you have 2 lines that are orthogonal in a 3D space. You can capture the environment much more completely with those orthogonal lines than 2 lines that are parallel (or nearly parallel). When applied to very high dimensional states using very few vectors, this becomes a much more important relationship among the vectors to maintain. In a linear algebra sense you want independent rows to be produced by PCA, otherwise some of those rows will be redundant.
See this PDF from Princeton's CS Department for a basic explanation.
max variance is basically setting these axis that occupy the maximum spread of the datapoints, why? because the direction of this axis is what really matters as it kinda explains correlations and later on we will compress/project the points along those axis to get rid of some dimensions
I have implemented k-means clustering for determining the clusters in 300 objects. Each of my object
has about 30 dimensions. The distance is calculated using the Euclidean metric.
I need to know
How would I determine if my algorithms works correctly? I can't have a graph which will
give some idea about the correctness of my algorithm.
Is Euclidean distance the correct method for calculating distances? What if I have 100 dimensions
instead of 30 ?
The two questions in the OP are separate topics (i.e., no overlap in the answers), so I'll try to answer them one at a time staring with item 1 on the list.
How would I determine if my [clustering] algorithms works correctly?
k-means, like other unsupervised ML techniques, lacks a good selection of diagnostic tests to answer questions like "are the cluster assignments returned by k-means more meaningful for k=3 or k=5?"
Still, there is one widely accepted test that yields intuitive results and that is straightforward to apply. This diagnostic metric is just this ratio:
inter-centroidal separation / intra-cluster variance
As the value of this ratio increase, the quality of your clustering result increases.
This is intuitive. The first of these metrics is just how far apart is each cluster from the others (measured according to the cluster centers)?
But inter-centroidal separation alone doesn't tell the whole story, because two clustering algorithms could return results having the same inter-centroidal separation though one is clearly better, because the clusters are "tighter" (i.e., smaller radii); in other words, the cluster edges have more separation. The second metric--intra-cluster variance--accounts for this. This is just the mean variance, calculated per cluster.
In sum, the ratio of inter-centroidal separation to intra-cluster variance is a quick, consistent, and reliable technique for comparing results from different clustering algorithms, or to compare the results from the same algorithm run under different variable parameters--e.g., number of iterations, choice of distance metric, number of centroids (value of k).
The desired result is tight (small) clusters, each one far away from the others.
The calculation is simple:
For inter-centroidal separation:
calculate the pair-wise distance between cluster centers; then
calculate the median of those distances.
For intra-cluster variance:
for each cluster, calculate the distance of every data point in a given cluster from
its cluster center; next
(for each cluster) calculate the variance of the sequence of distances from the step above; then
average these variance values.
That's my answer to the first question. Here's the second question:
Is Euclidean distance the correct method for calculating distances? What if I have 100 dimensions instead of 30 ?
First, the easy question--is Euclidean distance a valid metric as dimensions/features increase?
Euclidean distance is perfectly scalable--works for two dimensions or two thousand. For any pair of data points:
subtract their feature vectors element-wise,
square each item in that result vector,
sum that result,
take the square root of that scalar.
Nowhere in this sequence of calculations is scale implicated.
But whether Euclidean distance is the appropriate similarity metric for your problem, depends on your data. For instance, is it purely numeric (continuous)? Or does it have discrete (categorical) variables as well (e.g., gender? M/F) If one of your dimensions is "current location" and of the 200 users, 100 have the value "San Francisco" and the other 100 have "Boston", you can't really say that, on average, your users are from somewhere in Kansas, but that's sort of what Euclidean distance would do.
In any event, since we don't know anything about it, i'll just give you a simple flow diagram so that you can apply it to your data and identify an appropriate similarity metric.
To identify an appropriate similarity metric given your data:
Euclidean distance is good when dimensions are comparable and on the same scale. If one dimension represents length and another - weight of item - euclidean should be replaced with weighted.
Make it in 2d and show the picture - this is good option to see visually if it works.
Or you may use some sanity check - like to find cluster centers and see that all items in the cluster aren't too away of it.
Can't you just try sum |xi - yi| instead if (xi - yi)^2
in your code, and see if it makes much difference ?
I can't have a graph which will give some idea about the correctness of my algorithm.
A couple of possibilities:
look at some points midway between 2 clusters in detail
vary k a bit, see what happens (what is your k ?)
use
PCA
to map 30d down to 2d; see the plots under
calculating-the-percentage-of-variance-measure-for-k-means,
also SO questions/tagged/pca
By the way, scipy.spatial.cKDTree
can easily give you say 3 nearest neighbors of each point,
in p=2 (Euclidean) or p=1 (Manhattan, L1), to look at.
It's fast up to ~ 20d, and with early cutoff works even in 128d.
Added: I like Cosine distance in high dimensions; see euclidean-distance-is-usually-not-good-for-sparse-data for why.
Euclidean distance is the intuitive and "normal" distance between continuous variable. It can be inappropriate if too noisy or if data has a non-gaussian distribution.
You might want to try the Manhattan distance (or cityblock) which is robust to that (bear in mind that robustness always comes at a cost : a bit of the information is lost, in this case).
There are many further distance metrics for specific problems (for example Bray-Curtis distance for count data). You might want to try some of the distances implemented in pdist from python module scipy.spatial.distance.