I have a data set that is 31000 rows with 13 attributes. But because most are categorical I had to use NominalToBinary for those attributes so the attributes grew to 61.
I have sampled the data to 18000 rows and applied the PCA with ranker in Weka. centerData is false so it should normalise it for me.
This is my result:
0.945 1 -0.367Marial_Status= Married-civ-spouse-0.365Relationship= Husband+0.298Marial_Status= Never-married+0.244Age=0_23+0.232Gender= Female...
I understand that the ranking is the variance. So rank 1 is 94.5%? Now the issue I have with feature selecting is how do i know which ones to keep? Most of these attributes are categorical and changed to numeric for the PCA. So with the original data-set with both categorical and numeric, with respects to this output what is it saying about feature selecting?
PCA assumes numerical data. If you binary encode you categorical variables you basically take a hammer and make you data fit your models assumption.
Another way to deal with categorical features are non-linear feature transformations which will find a way to represent distances between categories in a suitable way. A quick google search provided Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CTPCA) for me. Maybe have a look at this.
Related
I'm working on a regression algorithm, in this case k-NearestNeighbors to predict a certain price of a product.
So I have a Training set which has only one categorical feature with 4 possible values. I've dealt with it using a one-to-k categorical encoding scheme which means now I have 3 more columns in my Pandas DataFrame with a 0/1 depending the value present.
The other features in the DataFrame are mostly distances like latitud - longitude for locations and prices, all numerical.
Should I standardize (Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance) and normalize before or after the categorical encoding?
I'm thinking it might be benefitial to normalize after encoding so that every feature is to the estimator as important as every other when measuring distances between neighbors but I'm not really sure.
Seems like an open problem, thus I'd like to answer even though it's late. I am also unsure how much the similarity between the vectors would be affected, but in my practical experience you should first encode your features and then scale them. I have tried the opposite with scikit learn preprocessing.StandardScaler() and it doesn't work if your feature vectors do not have the same length: scaler.fit(X_train) yields ValueError: setting an array element with a sequence. I can see from your description that your data have a fixed number of features, but I think for generalization purposes (maybe you have new features in the future?), it's good to assume that each data instance has a unique feature vector length. For instance, I transform my text documents into word indices with Keras text_to_word_sequence (this gives me the different vector length), then I convert them to one-hot vectors and then I standardize them. I have actually not seen a big improvement with the standardization. I think you should also reconsider which of your features to standardize, as dummies might not need to be standardized. Here it doesn't seem like categorical attributes need any standardization or normalization. K-nearest neighbors is distance-based, thus it can be affected by these preprocessing techniques. I would suggest trying either standardization or normalization and check how different models react with your dataset and task.
After. Just imagine that you have not numerical variables in your column but strings. You can't standardize strings - right? :)
But given what you wrote about categories. If they are represented with values, I suppose there is some kind of ranking inside. Probably, you can use raw column rather than one-hot-encoded. Just thoughts.
You generally want to standardize all your features so it would be done after the encoding (that is assuming that you want to standardize to begin with, considering that there are some machine learning algorithms that do not need features to be standardized to work well).
So there is 50/50 voting on whether to standardize data or not.
I would suggest, given the positive effects in terms of improvement gains no matter how small and no adverse effects, one should do standardization before splitting and training estimator
I have a question regarding random forests. Imagine that I have data on users interacting with items. The number of items is large, around 10 000. My output of the random forest should be the items that the user is likely to interact with (like a recommender system). For any user, I want to use a feature that describes the items that the user has interacted with in the past. However, mapping the categorical product feature as a one-hot encoding seems very memory inefficient as a user interacts with no more than a couple of hundred of the items at most, and sometimes as little as 5.
How would you go about constructing a random forest when one of the input features is a categorical variable with ~10 000 possible values and the output is a categorical variable with ~10 000 possible values? Should I use CatBoost with the features as categorical? Or should I use one-hot encoding, and if so, do you think XGBoost or CatBoost does better?
You could also try entity embeddings to reduce hundreds of boolean features into vectors of small dimension.
It is similar to word embedings for categorical features. In practical terms you define an embedding of your discrete space of features into a vector space of low dimension. It can enhance your results and save on memory. The downside is that you do need to train a neural network model to define the embedding before hand.
Check this article for more information.
XGBoost doesn't support categorical features directly, you need to do the preprocessing to use it with catfeatures. For example, you could do one-hot encoding. One-hot encoding usually works well if there are some frequent values of your cat feature.
CatBoost does have categorical features support - both, one-hot encoding and calculation of different statistics on categorical features. To use one-hot encoding you need to enable it with one_hot_max_size parameter, by default statistics are calculated. Statistics usually work better for categorical features with many values.
Assuming you have enough domain expertise, you could create a new categorical column from existing column.
ex:-
if you column has below values
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H
if you are aware that A,B,C are similar D,E,F are similar and G,H are similar
your new column would be
Z,Z,Z,Y,Y,Y,X,X.
In your random forest model you should removing previous column and only include this new column. By transforming your features like this you would loose explainability of your mode.
I was trying to fit a random forest model using the random forest classifier package from sklearn. However, my data set consists of columns with string values ('country'). The random forest classifier here does not take string values. It needs numerical values for all the features. I thought of getting some dummy variables in place of such columns. But, I am confused as to how will the feature importance plot now look like. There will be variables like country_India, country_usa etc. How can get the consolidated importance of the country variable as I would get if I had done my analysis using R.
You will have to do it by hand. There is no support in sklearn for mapping classifier specific methods through inverse transform of feature mappings. R is calculating importances based on multi-valued splits (as #Soren explained) - when using scikit-learn you are limtied to binary splits and you have to approximate actual importance. One of the simpliest solutions (although biased) is to store which features are actually binary encodings of your categorical variable and sum these resulting elements from feature importance vector. This will not be fully justified from mathematical perspective, but the simpliest thing to do to get some rough estimate. To do it correctly you should reimplement feature importance from scratch, and simply during calculation "for how many samples the feature is active during classification", you would have to use your mapping to correctly asses each sample only once to the actual feature (as adding dummy importances will count each dummy variable on the classification path, and you want to do min(1, #dummy on path) instead).
A random enumeration(assigning some integer to each category) of the countries will work quite well sometimes. Especially if categories are few and training set size is large. Sometimes better than one-hot encoding.
Some threads discussing the two options with sklearn:
https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/5442
How to use dummy variable to represent categorical data in python scikit-learn random forest
You can also choose to use an RF algorithm that truly supports categorical data such as Arborist(python and R front end), extraTrees(R, Java, RF'isch) or randomForest(R). Why sklearn chose not to support categorical splits, I don't know. Perhaps convenience of implementation.
The number of possible categorical splits to try blows up after 10 categories and the search becomes slow and the splits may become greedy. Arborist and extraTrees will only try a limited selection of splits in each node.
There are two data sets - the training one and a data set of features, labels for which are yet to be predicted (the new one).
I built a Random Forest classifier. Along the way I had to do two things:
Normalize continuous numeric features.
Perform a one-hot-encoding on the categorical ones.
Now I have two questions. When i am predicting labels for the new data:
Do I need to normalize the incoming features? (common sense tells me that yes :) ) If so, should I take the mean, max, min values for a specific feature from the training data set or should I somehow take into account the new values of the features?
How do I hot-one-encode the new values of the features? Do I expand the dictionary of the possible categories for a specific category taking into account the possibly new values of the features?
In my case I possess both data sets, so I could calculate all this stuff in advance, but what if I only had a classifier and a new data set?
I only have a basic knowledge of the type of classifiers and normalization techniques you're using, but the general rule, that I think applies to what you're doing as well, is to do the following.
Your classifier is not a Random Forest Classifier. That is only one step of the pipeline that acts as your actual classifier. This pipeline / actual classifier is what you describe:
Normalize continuous numeric features.
Perform a one-hot-encoding on the categorical ones.
Use a Random Forest Classifier on what you get from the first 2 steps.
This pipeline, that encompasses 3 things, is what you're actually using as your classifier.
Now, how does a classifier work?
You build some state based on the training data.
You use that state to make predictions on the test data.
So:
Do I need to normalize the incoming features? (common sense tells me that yes :) ) If so, should I take the mean, max, min values for a specific feature from the training data set or should I somehow take into account the new values of the features?
Your classifier normalizes the incoming features for the training data, so it will normalize those for unseen instances too. To do this, it must use the state it has built during training.
For example, if you were doing min-max scaling on your features, your state would store a min(f) and max(f) for each feature f. Then, during testing / prediction, you would do min-max scaling for each feature f using the stored min(f) and max(f) values.
I'm not sure what you mean by "normalize continuous numeric features". Do you mean discretization? If you build some state for this discretization during training, then you need to find a way to factor that in.
How do I hot-one-encode the new values of the features? Do I expand the dictionary of the possible categories for a specific category taking into account the possibly new values of the features?
Don't you know how many values each category can have beforehand? Usually you do (since categoricals are things like nationality, continent etc. - things you know in advance). If you can get a value for a categorical feature that you haven't seen during training, it begs the question if you should even care about it. What good is a categorical value you've never trained on?
Maybe add an "unknown" category. I think expanding for a single one should be fine, what good are more going to do if you've never trained on them?
What kind of categoricals do you have?
I could be wrong, but do you really need one-hot encoding? AFAIK, tree-based classifiers don't seem to benefit that much from it.
I have a data file which has features of different mobile devices. One column with categorical data type has 1421 distinct types of values. I am trying to train a logistic regression model along with other data that I have.
My question is: Will the high cardinality column described above affect the model I am training? If yes, how do I go about preprocessing this column so that it has lower number of distinct values?
You can calculate weight of evidence(WOE) to transform your numeric or categorical variable. Refer to this link http://www.kdnuggets.com/2016/08/include-high-cardinality-attributes-predictive-model.html for understanding WOE.
The best you could do here is that to group the features using what domain knowledge you have. For example phones by brand. If you do not have that information what you could do is that you could group the features by frequency. For example any feature that is not represented more than 5% of the data, you could group as others. You could use both of these methods together as well. For more information please refer this article.
Since logistic regression is distance based model (mostly least squares method) it suffers from the curse of dimensionality.
Hope this helps though quite late.
thanks
Michael
Typically, dimensionality reduction tasks (such as PCA and FA) are performed in order to decide which features are the most significant.
For example, in the case of PCA which is the most popular and easily employed dimensionality reduction task, significance is defined by largest variation of values.
By performing PCA, you "wash" out variables that are insignificant yet can cause overfitting. I suggestyou familiarize yourself with topics such as PCA, FA and SVD.