while reading the paper :" Tactile-based active object discrimination and target object search in an unknown workspace", there is something that I just can not understand:
The paper is about finding object's position and other properties using only tactile information. In the section 4.1.2, the author says that he uses GPR to guide the exploratory process and in section 4.1.4 he describes how he trained his GPR:
Using the example from the section 4.1.2, the input is (x,z) and the ouput y.
Whenever there is a contact, the coresponding y-value is stored.
This procedure is repeated several times.
This trained GPR is used to estimate the next exploring point, which is the point where the variance is maximum at.
In the following link, you also can see the demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiLq3i-BJcA&t=177s . In the first part of video (0:24-0:29), the first initalization takes place where the robot samples 4 times. Then in the next 25 seconds, the robot explores explores from the corresponding direction. I do not understand how this tiny initialization of GPR can guide the exploratory process. Could someone please explain how the input points (x,z) from the first exploring part could be estimated?
Any regression algorithm simply maps the input (x,z) to an output y in some way unique to the specific algorithm. For a new input (x0,z0) the algorithm will likely predict something very close to the true output y0 if many data points similar to this was included in the training. If only training data was available in a vastly different region, the predictions will likely be very bad.
GPR includes a measure of confidence of the predictions, namely the variance. The variance will naturally be very high in regions where no training data has been seen before and low very close to already seen data points. If the 'experiment' takes much longer than evaluating the Gaussian Process, you can use the Gaussian Process fit to make sure you sample regions where you are very uncertain of your answer.
If the goal is to fully explore the entire input space, you could draw a lot of random values of (x,z) and evaluate the variance at these values. Then you could perform the costly experiment at the input point where you are most uncertain in y. Then you can retrain the GPR with all the explored data so far and repeat the process.
For optimization problems (Not the OP's question)
If you wish to find the lowest value of y across the input space, you are not interested in doing the experiment in regions that you know give high values of y, but you are just uncertain of how high these values will be. So instead of choosing the (x,z) points with the highest variance, you might choose the predicted value of y plus one standard deviation. Minimizing values this way is named Bayesian Optimization and this specific scheme is named Upper Confidence Bound (UCB). Expected Improvement (EI) - the probability of improving the previously best score - is also commonly used.
Related
I am dealing with a repeating pattern in time series data. My goal is to classify every pattern as 1, and anything that does not follow the pattern as 0. The pattern repeats itself between every two peaks as shown below in the image.
The patterns are not necessarily fixed in sample size but stay within approximate sample size, let's say 500samples +-10%. The heights of the peaks can change. The random signal (I called it random, but basically it means not following pattern shape) can also change in value.
The data is from a sensor. Patterns are when the device is working smoothly. If the device is malfunctioning, then I will not see the patterns and will get something similar to the class 0 I have shown in the image.
What I have done so far is building a logistic regression model. Here are my steps for data preparation:
Grab data between every two consecutive peaks, resample it to a fixed size of 100 samples, scale data to [0-1]. This is class 1.
Repeated step 1 on data between valley and called it class 0.
I generated some noise, and repeated step 1 on chunk of 500 samples to build extra class 0 data.
Bottom figure shows my predictions on the test dataset. Prediction on the noise chunk is not great. I am worried in the real data I may get even more false positives. Any idea on how I can improve my predictions? Any better approach when there is no class 0 data available?
I have seen similar question here. My understanding of Hidden Markov Model is limited but I believe it's used to predict future data. My goal is to classify a sliding window of 500 sample throughout my data.
I have some proposals, that you could try out.
First, I think in this field often recurrent neural networks are used (e.g. LSTMs). But I also heard that some people also work with tree based method like light gbm (I think Aileen Nielsen uses this approach).
So if you don't want to dive into neural networks, which is probably not necessary, because your signals seem to be distinguishable relative easily, you can give light gbm (or other tree ensamble methods) a chance.
If you know the maximum length of a positive sample, you can define the length of your "sliding sample-window" that becomes your input vector (so each sample in the sliding window becomes one input feature), then I would add an extra attribute with the number of samples when the last peak occured (outside/before the sample window). Then you can check in how many steps you let your window slide over the data. This also depends on the memory you have available for this.
But maybe it would be wise then to skip some of the windows between a change between positive and negative, because the states might not be classifiable unambiguously.
In case memory becomes an issue, neural networks could be the better choice, because for training they do not need all training data available at once, so you can generate your input data in batches. With tree based methods this possible does not exist or only in a very limited way.
I'm not sure of what you are trying to achieve.
If you want to characterize what is a peak or not - which is an after the facts classification - then you can use a simple rule to define peaks such as signal(t) - average(signal, t-N to t) > T, with T a certain threshold and N a number of data points to look backwards to.
This would qualify what is a peak (class 1) and what is not (class 0), hence does a classification of patterns.
If your goal is to predict that a peak is going to happen few time units before the peak (on time t), using say data from t-n1 to t-n2 as features, then logistic regression might not necessarily be the best choice.
To find the right model you have to start with visualizing the features you have from t-n1 to t-n2 for every peak(t) and see if there is any pattern you can find. And it can be anything:
was there a peak in in the n3 days before t ?
is there a trend ?
was there an outlier (transform your data into exponential)
in order to compare these patterns, think of normalizing them so that the n2-n1 data points go from 0 to 1 for example.
If you find a pattern visually then you will know what kind of model is likely to work, on which features.
If you don't then it's likely that the white noise you added will be as good. so you might not find a good prediction model.
However, your bottom graph is not so bad; you have only 2 major false positives out of >15 predictions. This hints at better feature engineering.
I'm interested in a statistical classification problem. Given a feature vector X, I would like to classify X as either "yes" or "no". However, the training data will be fed in real-time based on human input. For instance, if the user sees feature vector X, the user will assign "yes" or "no" based on their expertise.
Rather than doing grid search on parameter space, I would like to more intelligently explore the parameter space based on the previously submitted data. For example, if there is a dense cluster of "no's" in part of the parameter space, it probably doesn't make sense to keep sampling there - it's probably just going to be more "no's".
How can I go about doing this? The C4.5 algorithm seems to be up this alley, but I'm unsure if this is the way to go.
An additional subtlety is that some of the features might be specifying random data. Suppose that the first two attributes in the feature vector specify the mean and variance of a gaussian distribution. The data the user classifies could be significantly different, even if all parameters are held equal.
For example, let's say the algorithm displays a sine wave with gaussian noise added, where the gaussian distribution is specified by the mean and variance in the feature vector. The user is asked "does this graph represent a sine wave?" Two very similar values in mean or variance could still have significantly different graphs.
Is there an algorithm designed to handle such cases?
The setting that you're talking about fits in the broad area of Active Learning. This topic addresses the iterative process of model building, and choosing which training examples to query next in order to optimize model performance. Here, the training cost of each data point is roughly the same, and there are no additional variable rewards in the learning phase.
However, in each iteration, if you have a variable reward which is a function of the data point chosen, you would want to look at Multi-Armed Bandits and Reinforcement Learning.
The other issue that you're talking about is one of finding the right features to represent your data points, and should be handled separately.
Sentiment prediction based on document vectors works pretty well, as examples show:
https://github.com/RaRe-Technologies/gensim/blob/develop/docs/notebooks/doc2vec-IMDB.ipynb
http://linanqiu.github.io/2015/10/07/word2vec-sentiment/
I wonder what pattern is in the vectors making that possible. I thought it should be similarity of vectors making that somehow possible. Gensim similarity measures rely on cosine similarity. Therefore, I tried the following:
Randomly initialised a fix “compare” vector, get cosine similarity of the “compare” vector with all other vectors in training and test set, use the similarities and the labels of the train set to estimate a logistic regression model, evaluate the model with the test set.
Looks like this, where train/test_arrays contain document vectors and train/test_labels labels either 0 or 1. (Notice, document vectors are obtained from genism doc2vec and are well trained, predicting the test set 80% right if directly used as input for the logistic regression):
fix_vec = numpy.random.rand(100,1)
def cos_distance_to_fix(x):
return scipy.spatial.distance.cosine(fix_vec, x)
train_arrays_cos = numpy.reshape(numpy.apply_along_axis(cos_distance_to_fix, axis=1, arr=train_arrays), newshape=(-1,1))
test_arrays_cos = numpy.reshape(numpy.apply_along_axis(cos_distance_to_fix, axis=1, arr=test_arrays), newshape=(-1,1))
classifier = LogisticRegression()
classifier.fit(train_arrays_cos, train_labels)
classifier.score(test_arrays_cos, test_labels)
It turns out, that this approach does not work, predicting the test set only to 50%....
So, my question is, what “information” is in the vectors, making the prediction based on vectors work, if it is not the similarity of vectors? Or is my approach simply not possible to capture similarity of vectors correct?
This is less a question about Doc2Vec than about machine-learning principles with high-dimensional data.
Your approach is collapsing 100-dimensions to a single dimension – the distance to your random point. Then, you're hoping that single dimension can still be predictive.
And roughly all LogisticRegression can do with that single-valued input is try to pick a threshold-number that, when your distance is on one side of that threshold, predicts a class – and on the other side, predicts not-that-class.
Recasting that single-threshold-distance back to the original 100-dimensional space, it's essentially trying to find a hypersphere, around your random point, that does a good job collecting all of a single class either inside or outside its volume.
What are the odds your randomly-placed center-point, plus one adjustable radius, can do that well, in a complex high-dimensional space? My hunch is: not a lot. And your results, no better than random guessing, seems to suggest the same.
The LogisticRegression with access to the full 100-dimensions finds a discriminating-frontier for assigning the class that's described by 100 coefficients and one intercept-value – and all of those 101 values (free parameters) can be adjusted to improve its classification performance.
In comparison, your alternative LogisticRegression with access to only the one 'distance-from-a-random-point' dimension can pick just one coefficient (for the distance) and an intercept/bias. It's got 1/100th as much information to work with, and only 2 free parameters to adjust.
As an analogy, consider a much simpler space: the surface of the Earth. Pick a 'random' point, like say the South Pole. If I then tell you that you are in an unknown place 8900 miles from the South Pole, can you answer whether you are more likely in the USA or China? Hardly – both of those 'classes' of location have lots of instances 8900 miles from the South Pole.
Only in the extremes will the distance tell you for sure which class (country) you're in – because there are parts of the USA's Alaska and Hawaii further north and south than parts of China. But even there, you can't manage well with just a single threshold: you'd need a rule which says, "less than X or greater than Y, in USA; otherwise unknown".
The 100-dimensional space of Doc2Vec vectors (or other rich data sources) will often only be sensibly divided by far more complicated rules. And, our intuitions about distances and volumes based on 2- or 3-dimensional spaces will often lead us astray, in high dimensions.
Still, the Earth analogy does suggest a way forward: there are some reference points on the globe that will work way better, when you know the distance to them, at deciding if you're in the USA or China. In particular, a point at the center of the US, or at the center of China, would work really well.
Similarly, you may get somewhat better classification accuracy if rather than a random fix_vec, you pick either (a) any point for which a class is already known; or (b) some average of all known points of one class. In either case, your fix_vec is then likely to be "in a neighborhood" of similar examples, rather than some random spot (that has no more essential relationship to your classes than the South Pole has to northern-Hemisphere temperate-zone countries).
(Also: alternatively picking N multiple random points, and then feeding the N distances to your regression, will preserve more of the information/shape of the original Doc2Vec data, and thus give the classifier a better chance of finding a useful separating-threshold. Two would likely do better than your one distance, and 100 might approach or surpass the 100 original dimensions.)
Finally, some comment about the Doc2Vec aspect:
Doc2Vec optimizes vectors that are somewhat-good, within their constrained model, at predicting the words of a text. Positive-sentiment words tend to occur together, as do negative-sentiment words, and so the trained doc-vectors tend to arrange themselves in similar positions when they need to predict similar-meaning-words. So there are likely to be 'neighborhoods' of the doc-vector space that correlate well with predominantly positive-sentiment or negative-sentiment words, and thus positive or negative sentiments.
These won't necessarily be two giant neighborhoods, 'positive' and 'negative', separated by a simple boundary –or even a small number of neighborhoods matching our ideas of 3-D solid volumes. And many subtleties of communication – such as sarcasm, referencing a not-held opinion to critique it, spending more time on negative aspects but ultimately concluding positive, etc – mean incursions of alternate-sentiment words into texts. A fully-language-comprehending human agent could understand these to conclude the 'true' sentiment, while these word-occurrence based methods will still be confused.
But with an adequate model, and the right number of free parameters, a classifier might capture some generalizable insight about the high-dimensional space. In that case, you can achieve reasonably-good predictions, using the Doc2Vec dimensions – as you've seen with the ~80%+ results on the full 100-dimensional vectors.
Description of classification problem:
Assume a regular dataset X with n samples and d features.
This classification problem is somewhat hard (many features, few samples, low overall AUC ~70%).
It might be useful to mention that feature selection/extraction, dimension reduction, kernels, many classifiers have been applied. So I am not interested in trying these.
I am not looking forward to see an improvement in overall AUC. The goal is to find relevant features in haystack of features.
Description of my approach:
I select all pairwise combination of d features and create many two dimensional sub-datasets x with n samples.
On each sub-dataset x, I perform a 10-fold cross-validation (using all samples of the main dataset X). A very long process, assume weeks of computation.
I select top k pairs (according to highest AUC for example) and label them as +. All other pairs are labeled as -.
For each pair, I can compute several properties (e.g. relations between each pair using Expert's knowledge). These properties can be calculated without using the labels in main dataset X.
Now I have pairs which are labeled as + or -. In addition, each pair has many properties calculated based on Expert's knowledge (i.e. features). Hence, I have a new classification problem. Lets call this newly generated dataset Y.
I train a classifier on Y while following cross-validation rules. Surprisingly, I can predict the + and - labels with 90% AUC.
As far as I can see, it means that I am able to select relevant features. However, seeing a 90% AUC makes me worried about information leakage somewhere in this long process. Specially in step 3.
I was wondering if anyone can see any leakage in this approach.
Information Leakage:
Incorporation of target labels in the actual features. Your classifier will produce good prediction while did not learn anything.
Showing your test set to you classifier during the training phase. Your classifier will "memorize" the test set and its corresponding labels without "learning" anything.
Update 1:
I want to stress that indeed I am using all data points of X in step 1. However, I am not using them ever again (even for testing). The final 90% AUC is obtained from predicting labels of dataset Y.
On the other hand, it would be useful to note that, even if I randomize the values of my main dataset X, the computed features for dataset Y is going to be the same. However, the sample labels in Y would change because the previous + pairs might not be a good one anymore. Therefore they will be labeled as -.
Update 2:
Although I haven't got any opinion, I am going to state what I have got during 4 days of talking with pattern recognition researchers. Briefly I became confident that there is no information leakage (as long as I wont go back to the first dataset X and using its labels). Later on, in case I wanted to check to see if I could have better performance in X (i.e. predicting sample labels), I need to use only a part of dataset X for pairwise comparison (as training set). Then I can use the rest of samples in X as test set while using positively predicted pairs of Y as features.
I will set this as an answer in case no one could reject this method.
If your processes in step 1 uses all data. then the features you are learning have information from the whole data set. Since you selected based on the whole dataset and THEN validation, you are leaking serious information.
You should probably stick with tools that are well known / already done for you before running out and trying weird strategies like this. Try using a model with L1 regularization to do feature selection for your, or start with some of the simpler searches like Sequential Backward Selection.
If you do cross validation correctly in the end, each training will perform its own independent feature selection. If you do one global feature selection and then do CV, you are going to be doing it wrong and probably leaking information.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Why do we have to normalize the input for a neural network?
I understand that sometimes, when for example the input values are non-numerical a certain transformation must be performed, but when we have a numerical input? Why the numbers must be in a certain interval?
What will happen if the data is not normalized?
It's explained well here.
If the input variables are combined linearly, as in an MLP [multilayer perceptron], then it is
rarely strictly necessary to standardize the inputs, at least in theory. The
reason is that any rescaling of an input vector can be effectively undone by
changing the corresponding weights and biases, leaving you with the exact
same outputs as you had before. However, there are a variety of practical
reasons why standardizing the inputs can make training faster and reduce the
chances of getting stuck in local optima. Also, weight decay and Bayesian
estimation can be done more conveniently with standardized inputs.
In neural networks, it is good idea not just to normalize data but also to scale them. This is intended for faster approaching to global minima at error surface. See the following pictures:
Pictures are taken from the coursera course about neural networks. Author of the course is Geoffrey Hinton.
Some inputs to NN might not have a 'naturally defined' range of values. For example, the average value might be slowly, but continuously increasing over time (for example a number of records in the database).
In such case feeding this raw value into your network will not work very well. You will teach your network on values from lower part of range, while the actual inputs will be from the higher part of this range (and quite possibly above range, that the network has learned to work with).
You should normalize this value. You could for example tell the network by how much the value has changed since the previous input. This increment usually can be defined with high probability in a specific range, which makes it a good input for network.
There are 2 Reasons why we have to Normalize Input Features before Feeding them to Neural Network:
Reason 1: If a Feature in the Dataset is big in scale compared to others then this big scaled feature becomes dominating and as a result of that, Predictions of the Neural Network will not be Accurate.
Example: In case of Employee Data, if we consider Age and Salary, Age will be a Two Digit Number while Salary can be 7 or 8 Digit (1 Million, etc..). In that Case, Salary will Dominate the Prediction of the Neural Network. But if we Normalize those Features, Values of both the Features will lie in the Range from (0 to 1).
Reason 2: Front Propagation of Neural Networks involves the Dot Product of Weights with Input Features. So, if the Values are very high (for Image and Non-Image Data), Calculation of Output takes a lot of Computation Time as well as Memory. Same is the case during Back Propagation. Consequently, Model Converges slowly, if the Inputs are not Normalized.
Example: If we perform Image Classification, Size of Image will be very huge, as the Value of each Pixel ranges from 0 to 255. Normalization in this case is very important.
Mentioned below are the instances where Normalization is very important:
K-Means
K-Nearest-Neighbours
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Gradient Descent
When you use unnormalized input features, the loss function is likely to have very elongated valleys. When optimizing with gradient descent, this becomes an issue because the gradient will be steep with respect some of the parameters. That leads to large oscillations in the search space, as you are bouncing between steep slopes. To compensate, you have to stabilize optimization with small learning rates.
Consider features x1 and x2, where range from 0 to 1 and 0 to 1 million, respectively. It turns out the ratios for the corresponding parameters (say, w1 and w2) will also be large.
Normalizing tends to make the loss function more symmetrical/spherical. These are easier to optimize because the gradients tend to point towards the global minimum and you can take larger steps.
Looking at the neural network from the outside, it is just a function that takes some arguments and produces a result. As with all functions, it has a domain (i.e. a set of legal arguments). You have to normalize the values that you want to pass to the neural net in order to make sure it is in the domain. As with all functions, if the arguments are not in the domain, the result is not guaranteed to be appropriate.
The exact behavior of the neural net on arguments outside of the domain depends on the implementation of the neural net. But overall, the result is useless if the arguments are not within the domain.
I believe the answer is dependent on the scenario.
Consider NN (neural network) as an operator F, so that F(input) = output. In the case where this relation is linear so that F(A * input) = A * output, then you might choose to either leave the input/output unnormalised in their raw forms, or normalise both to eliminate A. Obviously this linearity assumption is violated in classification tasks, or nearly any task that outputs a probability, where F(A * input) = 1 * output
In practice, normalisation allows non-fittable networks to be fittable, which is crucial to experimenters/programmers. Nevertheless, the precise impact of normalisation will depend not only on the network architecture/algorithm, but also on the statistical prior for the input and output.
What's more, NN is often implemented to solve very difficult problems in a black-box fashion, which means the underlying problem may have a very poor statistical formulation, making it hard to evaluate the impact of normalisation, causing the technical advantage (becoming fittable) to dominate over its impact on the statistics.
In statistical sense, normalisation removes variation that is believed to be non-causal in predicting the output, so as to prevent NN from learning this variation as a predictor (NN does not see this variation, hence cannot use it).
The reason normalization is needed is because if you look at how an adaptive step proceeds in one place in the domain of the function, and you just simply transport the problem to the equivalent of the same step translated by some large value in some direction in the domain, then you get different results. It boils down to the question of adapting a linear piece to a data point. How much should the piece move without turning and how much should it turn in response to that one training point? It makes no sense to have a changed adaptation procedure in different parts of the domain! So normalization is required to reduce the difference in the training result. I haven't got this written up, but you can just look at the math for a simple linear function and how it is trained by one training point in two different places. This problem may have been corrected in some places, but I am not familiar with them. In ALNs, the problem has been corrected and I can send you a paper if you write to wwarmstrong AT shaw.ca
On a high level, if you observe as to where normalization/standardization is mostly used, you will notice that, anytime there is a use of magnitude difference in model building process, it becomes necessary to standardize the inputs so as to ensure that important inputs with small magnitude don't loose their significance midway the model building process.
example:
√(3-1)^2+(1000-900)^2 ≈ √(1000-900)^2
Here, (3-1) contributes hardly a thing to the result and hence the input corresponding to these values is considered futile by the model.
Consider the following:
Clustering uses euclidean or, other distance measures.
NNs use optimization algorithm to minimise cost function(ex. - MSE).
Both distance measure(Clustering) and cost function(NNs) use magnitude difference in some way and hence standardization ensures that magnitude difference doesn't command over important input parameters and the algorithm works as expected.
Hidden layers are used in accordance with the complexity of our data. If we have input data which is linearly separable then we need not to use hidden layer e.g. OR gate but if we have a non linearly seperable data then we need to use hidden layer for example ExOR logical gate.
Number of nodes taken at any layer depends upon the degree of cross validation of our output.