I am working with a subset of the 'Ames Housing' dataset and have originally 17 features. Using the 'recipes' package, I have engineered the original set of features and created dummy variables for nominal predictors with the following code. That has resulted in 35 features in the 'baked_train' dataset below.
blueprint <- recipe(Sale_Price ~ ., data = _train) %>%
step_nzv(Street, Utilities, Pool_Area, Screen_Porch, Misc_Val) %>%
step_impute_knn(Gr_Liv_Area) %>%
step_integer(Overall_Qual) %>%
step_normalize(all_numeric_predictors()) %>%
step_other(Neighborhood, threshold = 0.01, other = "other") %>%
step_dummy(all_nominal_predictors(), one_hot = FALSE)
prepare <- prep(blueprint, data = ames_train)
baked_train <- bake(prepare, new_data = ames_train)
baked_test <- bake(prepare, new_data = ames_test)
Now, I am trying to train random forests with the 'ranger' package using the following code.
cv_specs <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv", number = 5, repeats = 5)
param_grid_rf <- expand.grid(mtry = seq(1, 35, 1),
splitrule = "variance",
min.node.size = 2)
rf_cv <- train(blueprint,
data = ames_train,
method = "ranger",
trControl = cv_specs,
tuneGrid = param_grid_rf,
metric = "RMSE")
I have set the grid of 'mtry' values based on the number of features in the 'baked_train' data. It is my understanding that 'caret' will apply the blueprint within each resample of 'ames_train' creating a baked version at each CV step.
The text Hands-On Machine Learning with R by Boehmke & Greenwell says on section 3.8.3,
Consequently, the goal is to develop our blueprint, then within each resample iteration we want to apply prep() and bake() to our resample training and validation data. Luckily, the caret package simplifies this process. We only need to specify the blueprint and caret will automatically prepare and bake within each resample.
However, when I run the code above I get an error,
mtry can not be larger than number of variables in data. Ranger will EXIT now.
I get the same error when I specify 'tuneLength = 20' instead of the 'tuneGrid'. Although the code works fine when the grid of 'mtry' values is specified to be from 1 to 17 (the number of features in the original training data 'ames_train').
When I specify a grid of 'mtry' values from 1 to 17, info about the final model after CV is shown below. Notice that it mentions Number of independent variables: 35 which corresponds to the 'baked_train' data, although specifying a grid from 1 to 35 throws an error.
Type: Regression
Number of trees: 500
Sample size: 618
Number of independent variables: 35
Mtry: 15
Target node size: 2
Variable importance mode: impurity
Splitrule: variance
OOB prediction error (MSE): 995351989
R squared (OOB): 0.8412147
What am I missing here? Specifically, why do I have to specify the number of features in 'ames_train' instead of 'baked_train' when essentially 'caret' is supposed to create a baked version before fitting and evaluating the model for each resample?
Thanks.
I am trying to fit my Poission time series model into garmaFit (package gamlss) but my parameters are not working.
model6.0 <-garmaFit(aces ~ time+ smokban + offset(log(stdpop)), data=data, order=c(0,0),phi.start =11 ,theta.start = 11, family=PO)
This runs the model but does not adjust it from the coefficients I can generate from
model1 <- glm(aces ~ offset(log(stdpop)) + smokban + time, family=poisson, data)
I even tried using a known method to control for autocorrelation in a ols model (from a different dataset) and it did not adjust the coefficients from the original mode.
Cannot find elsewhere how to adjust p/q values in the phi.start and theta.start parameters
Any help would be appreciated
I'm confused with the results, probably I'm not getting the concept of cross validation and GridSearch right. I had followed the logic behind this post:
https://randomforests.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/basics-of-k-fold-cross-validation-and-gridsearchcv-in-scikit-learn/
argd = CommandLineParser(argv)
folder,fname=argd['dir'],argd['fname']
df = pd.read_csv('../../'+folder+'/Results/'+fname, sep=";")
explanatory_variable_columns = set(df.columns.values)
response_variable_column = df['A']
explanatory_variable_columns.remove('A')
y = np.array([1 if e else 0 for e in response_variable_column])
X =df[list(explanatory_variable_columns)].as_matrix()
kf_total = KFold(len(X), n_folds=5, indices=True, shuffle=True, random_state=4)
dt=DecisionTreeClassifier(criterion='entropy')
min_samples_split_range=[x for x in range(1,20)]
dtgs=GridSearchCV(estimator=dt, param_grid=dict(min_samples_split=min_samples_split_range), n_jobs=1)
scores=[dtgs.fit(X[train],y[train]).score(X[test],y[test]) for train, test in kf_total]
# SAME AS DOING: cross_validation.cross_val_score(dtgs, X, y, cv=kf_total, n_jobs = 1)
print scores
print np.mean(scores)
print dtgs.best_score_
RESULTS OBTAINED:
# score [0.81818181818181823, 0.78181818181818186, 0.7592592592592593, 0.7592592592592593, 0.72222222222222221]
# mean score 0.768
# .best_score_ 0.683486238532
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
I ran it using another combination of the explanatory variables (using only some of them) and I got the inverse problem. Now the .best_score_ is higher than all the values in the cross validation array.
# score [0.74545454545454548, 0.70909090909090911, 0.79629629629629628, 0.7407407407407407, 0.64814814814814814]
# mean score 0.728
# .best_score_ 0.802752293578
The code is confusing several things.
dtgs.fit(X[train_],y[train_]) does internal 3-fold cross-validation for every parameter combination from param_grid, producing a grid of 20 results, which you can open by calling dtgs.grid_scores_.
[dtgs.fit(X[train_],y[train_]).score(X[test],y[test]) for train_, test in kf_total] Therefore this line fits grid search five times and then takes its score using 5-Fold cross validation. The result is the array of scores of 5-Fold validation.
And when you call dtgs.best_score_ you get the best score in the grid of the results of 3-fold validation of hyperparameters for the last fit (of 5).
My algorithm RBM for collaborative filtering will not converge...
The idea of what I think RBM　for collaborative filtering is
initial w , b , c and random at [0,1]
For By User
clamp data -> visible (softmax)
Hidden = sigmoid(b+W*V)
Run Gibbs on Hidden -> Hidden_gibbs
Positive = Hidden*Visible
Hidden -> reconstruct -> reconstruct_visible
Run Gibbs on reconstruct_visible -> reconstruct_visible_gibbs
negative = Hidden_gibbs*reconstruct_visible_gibbs
End for
Update
w = w + (positive-negative)/Number_User
b = b + (visible - reconstruct_visible_gibbs)/Number_User
c = c + (Hidden - Hidden_gibbs)/Number_User
I have seen lots of paper or lecture, and have no idea where is wrong
This is not an easy problem! Your description of the learning procedure looks fine. But, there's a lot of room for mistakes from the description to the actual code. Also, for CF, "vanilla" RBM won't work.
How did you implemented the visible "softmax" units?
Did you train your RBM with a "single-user" dataset, as recommended in the original work[1]?
There are 2 more details about weight updates and prediction procedure that are slightly different from vanilla's RBM
[1] Salakhutdinov http://www.machinelearning.org/proceedings/icml2007/papers/407.pdf
In every book and example always they show only binary classification (two classes) and new vector can belong to any one class.
Here the problem is I have 4 classes(c1, c2, c3, c4). I've training data for 4 classes.
For new vector the output should be like
C1 80% (the winner)
c2 10%
c3 6%
c4 4%
How to do this? I'm planning to use libsvm (because it most popular). I don't know much about it. If any of you guys used it previously please tell me specific commands I'm supposed to use.
LibSVM uses the one-against-one approach for multi-class learning problems. From the FAQ:
Q: What method does libsvm use for multi-class SVM ? Why don't you use the "1-against-the rest" method ?
It is one-against-one. We chose it after doing the following comparison: C.-W. Hsu and C.-J. Lin. A comparison of methods for multi-class support vector machines, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 13(2002), 415-425.
"1-against-the rest" is a good method whose performance is comparable to "1-against-1." We do the latter simply because its training time is shorter.
Commonly used methods are One vs. Rest and One vs. One.
In the first method you get n classifiers and the resulting class will have the highest score.
In the second method the resulting class is obtained by majority votes of all classifiers.
AFAIR, libsvm supports both strategies of multiclass classification.
You can always reduce a multi-class classification problem to a binary problem by choosing random partititions of the set of classes, recursively. This is not necessarily any less effective or efficient than learning all at once, since the sub-learning problems require less examples since the partitioning problem is smaller. (It may require at most a constant order time more, e.g. twice as long). It may also lead to more accurate learning.
I'm not necessarily recommending this, but it is one answer to your question, and is a general technique that can be applied to any binary learning algorithm.
Use the SVM Multiclass library. Find it at the SVM page by Thorsten Joachims
It does not have a specific switch (command) for multi-class prediction. it automatically handles multi-class prediction if your training dataset contains more than two classes.
Nothing special compared with binary prediction. see the following example for 3-class prediction based on SVM.
install.packages("e1071")
library("e1071")
data(iris)
attach(iris)
## classification mode
# default with factor response:
model <- svm(Species ~ ., data = iris)
# alternatively the traditional interface:
x <- subset(iris, select = -Species)
y <- Species
model <- svm(x, y)
print(model)
summary(model)
# test with train data
pred <- predict(model, x)
# (same as:)
pred <- fitted(model)
# Check accuracy:
table(pred, y)
# compute decision values and probabilities:
pred <- predict(model, x, decision.values = TRUE)
attr(pred, "decision.values")[1:4,]
# visualize (classes by color, SV by crosses):
plot(cmdscale(dist(iris[,-5])),
col = as.integer(iris[,5]),
pch = c("o","+")[1:150 %in% model$index + 1])
data=load('E:\dataset\scene_categories\all_dataset.mat');
meas = data.all_dataset;
species = data.dataset_label;
[g gn] = grp2idx(species); %# nominal class to numeric
%# split training/testing sets
[trainIdx testIdx] = crossvalind('HoldOut', species, 1/10);
%# 1-vs-1 pairwise models
num_labels = length(gn);
clear gn;
num_classifiers = num_labels*(num_labels-1)/2;
pairwise = zeros(num_classifiers ,2);
row_end = 0;
for i=1:num_labels - 1
row_start = row_end + 1;
row_end = row_start + num_labels - i -1;
pairwise(row_start : row_end, 1) = i;
count = 0;
for j = i+1 : num_labels
pairwise( row_start + count , 2) = j;
count = count + 1;
end
end
clear row_start row_end count i j num_labels num_classifiers;
svmModel = cell(size(pairwise,1),1); %# store binary-classifers
predTest = zeros(sum(testIdx),numel(svmModel)); %# store binary predictions
%# classify using one-against-one approach, SVM with 3rd degree poly kernel
for k=1:numel(svmModel)
%# get only training instances belonging to this pair
idx = trainIdx & any( bsxfun(#eq, g, pairwise(k,:)) , 2 );
%# train
svmModel{k} = svmtrain(meas(idx,:), g(idx), ...
'Autoscale',true, 'Showplot',false, 'Method','QP', ...
'BoxConstraint',2e-1, 'Kernel_Function','rbf', 'RBF_Sigma',1);
%# test
predTest(:,k) = svmclassify(svmModel{k}, meas(testIdx,:));
end
pred = mode(predTest,2); %# voting: clasify as the class receiving most votes
%# performance
cmat = confusionmat(g(testIdx),pred);
acc = 100*sum(diag(cmat))./sum(cmat(:));
fprintf('SVM (1-against-1):\naccuracy = %.2f%%\n', acc);
fprintf('Confusion Matrix:\n'), disp(cmat)
For multi class classification using SVM;
It is NOT (one vs one) and NOT (one vs REST).
Instead learn a two-class classifier where the feature vector is (x, y) where x is data and y is the correct label associated with the data.
The training gap is the Difference between the value for the correct class and the value of the nearest other class.
At Inference choose the "y" that has the maximum
value of (x,y).
y = arg_max(y') W.(x,y') [W is the weight vector and (x,y) is the feature Vector]
Please Visit link:
https://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/multiclass-svms-1.html#:~:text=It%20is%20also%20a%20simple,the%20label%20of%20structural%20SVMs%20.