So say for each of my ‘things’ to classify I have:
{house, flat, bungalow, electricityHeated, gasHeated, ... }
Which would be made into a feature vector:
{1,0,0,1,0,...} which would mean a house that is heated by electricity.
For my training data I would have all this data- but for the actual thing I want to classify I might only have what kind of house it is, and a couple other things- not all the data ie.
{1,0,0,?,?,...}
So how would I represent this?
I would want to find the probability that a new item would be gasHeated.
I would be using a SVM linear classifier- I don’t have any core to show because this is purely theoretical at the moment. Any help would be appreciated :)
When I read this question, it seems that you may have confused with feature and label.
You said that you want to predict whether a new item is "gasHeated", then "gasHeated" should be a label rather than a feature.
btw, one of the most-common ways to deal with missing value is to set it as "zero" (or some unused value, say -1). But normally, you should have missing value in both training data and testing data to make this trick be effective. If this only happened in your testing data but not in your training data, it means that your training data and testing data are not from the same distribution, which basically violated the basic assumption of machine learning.
Let's say you have a trained model and a testing sample {?,0,0,0}. Then you can create two new testing samples, {1,0,0,0}, {0,0,0,0}, and you will have two predictions.
I personally don't think SVM is a good approach if you have missing values in your testing dataset. Just like I have mentioned above, although you can get two new predictions, but what if each one has different predictions? It is difficult to assign a probability to results of SVM in my opinion unless you use logistic regression or Naive Bayes. I would prefer Random Forest in this situation.
Related
I have trained a multi-class Random Forest model and So now if the model predicts something wrong we manually correct it, SO the thing is What can we do to with that corrected label and make the predictions better.
Thoughts:
Can't retrain the model again and again.(Trained on 0.7 million rows so it might treat the new data as noise)
Can not train small models of RF as they will also create a mess
Random FOrest works better then NN, So not thinking to go that way.
What do you mean by "manually correct" - i.e. there may be various different points in the decision trees that were executed leading to a wrong prediction, not to mention the numerous decision trees used to get your final prediction.
I think there is some misunderstanding in your first point. Unless the distribution is non-stationary (in which case your trained model is of diminished value to begin with), the new data is treated is treated as "noise" in the sense that including it in the final model is unlikely to change future predictions all that much. As far as I can tell this is how it should be, without specifying other factors like a changing distribution, etc. That is, if future data you want to predict will look a lot more like the data you failed to predict correctly, then you would indeed want to upweight the importance of classifying this sample in your new model.
Anyway, it sounds like you're describing an online learning problem(you want a model that updates itself in response to streaming data). You can find some general ideas just searching for online random forests, for example:
[Online random forests] (http://www.ymer.org/amir/research/online-random-forests/) and [online multiclass lpboost] (https://github.com/amirsaffari/online-multiclass-lpboost) describe a general framework akin to what you may have in mind: the input to the model is a stream of new observations; the forest learns on this new data by dropping those trees which perform poorly and eventually growing new trees that include the new data.
The general idea described here is used in a number of boosting algorithms (for example, AdaBoost aggregates an ensemble of "weak learners", for example individual decision trees grown on different + incomplete subsets of data, into a better whole by training subsequent weak learners specifically on formerly misclassified instances. The idea here is that those instances where your current model is wrong are the most informative for future performance improvements.
I don't know the specific details of how the linked implementations accomplish this, though the idea is inline with what you might expect.
You might try these, or other such algorithms you find from searching around.
That all said, I suspect something like the online random forest algorithm is relatively good when old data becomes obsolete over time. If it doesn't -- i.e. if your future data and early data are pulled from the same distribution -- it's not obvious to me that successively retraining your model (by which I mean the random forest itself and any cross validation / model selection procedures you might have to transform forest predictions into a final assignment) data on the whole batch of examples you have is a bad idea, modulo data in a very high dimensional feature space, or really quickly incoming data.
I have a 6-dimensional training dataset where there is a perfect numeric attribute which separates all the training examples this way: if TIME<200 then the example belongs to class1, if TIME>=200 then example belongs to class2. J48 creates a tree with only 1 level and this attribute as the only node.
However, the test dataset does not follow this hypothesis and all the examples are missclassified. I'm having trouble figuring out whether this case is considered overfitting or not. I would say it is not as the dataset is that simple, but as far as I understood the definition of overfit, it implies a high fitting to the training data, and this I what I have. Any help?
However, the test dataset does not follow this hypothesis and all the examples are missclassified. I'm having trouble figuring out whether this case is considered overfitting or not. I would say it is not as the dataset is that simple, but as far as I understood the definition of overfit, it implies a high fitting to the training data, and this I what I have. Any help?
Usually great training score and bad testing means overfitting. But this assumes IID of the data, and you are clearly violating this assumption - your training data is completely different from the testing one (there is a clear rule for the training data which has no meaning for testing one). In other words - your train/test split is incorrect, or your whole problem does not follow basic assumptions of where to use statistical ml. Of course we often fit models without valid assumptions about the data, in your case - the most natural approach is to drop a feature which violates the assumption the most - the one used to construct the node. This kind of "expert decisions" should be done prior to building any classifier, you have to think about "what is different in test scenario as compared to training one" and remove things that show this difference - otherwise you have heavy skew in your data collection, thus statistical methods will fail.
Yes, it is an overfit. The first rule in creating a training set is to make it look as much like any other set as possible. Your training set is clearly different than any other. It has the answer embedded within it while your test set doesn't. Any learning algorithm will likely find the correlation to the answer and use it and, just like the J48 algorithm, will regard the other variables as noise. The software equivalent of Clever Hans.
You can overcome this by either removing the variable or by training on a set drawn randomly from the entire available set. However, since you know that there is a subset with an embedded major hint, you should remove the hint.
You're lucky. At times these hints can be quite subtle which you won't discover until you start applying the model to future data.
I am doing a logistic regression to predict the outcome of a binary variable, say whether a journal paper gets accepted or not. The dependent variable or predictors are all the phrases used in these papers - (unigrams, bigrams, trigrams). One of these phrases has a skewed presence in the 'accepted' class. Including this phrase gives me a classifier with a very high accuracy (more than 90%), while removing this phrase results in accuracy dropping to about 70%.
My more general (naive) machine learning question is:
Is it advisable to remove such skewed features when doing classification?
Is there a method to check skewed presence for every feature and then decide whether to keep it in the model or not?
If I understand correctly you ask whether some feature should be removed because it is a good predictor (it makes your classifier works better). So the answer is short and simple - do not remove it in fact, the whole concept is to find exactly such features.
The only reason to remove such feature would be that this phenomena only occurs in the training set, and not in real data. But in such case you have wrong data - which does not represnt the underlying data density and you should gather better data or "clean" the current one so it has analogous characteristics as the "real ones".
Based on your comments, it sounds like the feature in your documents that's highly predictive of the class is a near-tautology: "paper accepted on" correlates with accepted papers because at least some of the papers in your database were scraped from already-accepted papers and have been annotated by the authors as such.
To me, this sounds like a useless feature for trying to predict whether a paper will be accepted, because (I'd imagine) you're trying to predict paper acceptance before the actual acceptance has been issued ! In such a case, none of the papers you'd like to test your algorithm with will be annotated with "paper accepted on." So, I'd remove it.
You also asked about how to determine whether a feature correlates strongly with one class. There are three things that come to mind for this problem.
First, you could just compute a basic frequency count for each feature in your dataset and compare those values across classes. This is probably not super informative, but it's easy.
Second, since you're using a log-linear model, you can train your model on your training dataset, and then rank each feature in your model by its weight in the logistic regression parameter vector. Features with high positive weight are indicative of one class, while features with large negative weight are strongly indicative of the other.
Finally, just for the sake of completeness, I'll point out that you might also want to look into feature selection. There are many ways of selecting relevant features for a machine learning algorithm, but I think one of the most intuitive from your perspective might be greedy feature elimination. In such an approach, you train a classifier using all N features in your model, and measure the accuracy on some held-out validation set. Then, train N new models, each with N-1 features, such that each model eliminates one of the N features, and measure the resulting drop in accuracy. The feature with the biggest drop was probably strongly predictive of the class, while features that have no measurable difference can probably be omitted from your final model. As larsmans points out correctly in the comments below, this doesn't scale well at all, but it can be a useful method sometimes.
I am new in machine learning. My problem is to make a machine to select a university for the student according to his location and area of interest. i.e it should select the university in the same city as in the address of the student. I am confused in selection of the algorithm can I use Perceptron algorithm for this task.
There are no hard rules as to which machine learning algorithm is the best for which task. Your best bet is to try several and see which one achieves the best results. You can use the Weka toolkit, which implements a lot of different machine learning algorithms. And yes, you can use the perceptron algorithm for your problem -- but that is not to say that you would achieve good results with it.
From your description it sounds like the problem you're trying to solve doesn't really require machine learning. If all you want to do is match a student with the closest university that offers a course in the student's area of interest, you can do this without any learning.
I second the first remark that you probably don't need machine learning if the student has to live in the same area as the university. If you want to use an ML algorithm, maybe it would best to think about what data you would have to start with. The thing that comes to mind is a vector for a university that has certain subjects/areas for each feature. Then compute a distance from a vector which is like an ideal feature vector for the student. Minimize this distance.
The first and formost thing you need is a labeled dataset.
It sounds like the problem could be decomposed into a ML problem however you first need a set of positive and negative examples to train from.
How big is your dataset? What features do you have available? Once you answer these questions you can select an algorithm that bests fits the features of your data.
I would suggest using decision trees for this problem which resembles a set of if else rules. You can just take the location and area of interest of the student as conditions of if and else if statements and then suggest a university for him. Since its a direct mapping of inputs to outputs, rule based solution would work and there is no learning required here.
Maybe you can use a "recommender system"or a clustering approach , you can investigate more deeply the techniques like "collaborative filtering"(recommender system) or k-means(clustering) but again, as some people said, first you need data to learn from, and maybe your problem can be solved without ML.
Well, there is no straightforward and sure-shot answer to this question. The answer depends on many factors like the problem statement and the kind of output you want, type and size of the data, the available computational time, number of features, and observations in the data, to name a few.
Size of the training data
Accuracy and/or Interpretability of the output
Accuracy of a model means that the function predicts a response value for a given observation, which is close to the true response value for that observation. A highly interpretable algorithm (restrictive models like Linear Regression) means that one can easily understand how any individual predictor is associated with the response while the flexible models give higher accuracy at the cost of low interpretability.
Speed or Training time
Higher accuracy typically means higher training time. Also, algorithms require more time to train on large training data. In real-world applications, the choice of algorithm is driven by these two factors predominantly.
Algorithms like Naïve Bayes and Linear and Logistic regression are easy to implement and quick to run. Algorithms like SVM, which involve tuning of parameters, Neural networks with high convergence time, and random forests, need a lot of time to train the data.
Linearity
Many algorithms work on the assumption that classes can be separated by a straight line (or its higher-dimensional analog). Examples include logistic regression and support vector machines. Linear regression algorithms assume that data trends follow a straight line. If the data is linear, then these algorithms perform quite good.
Number of features
The dataset may have a large number of features that may not all be relevant and significant. For a certain type of data, such as genetics or textual, the number of features can be very large compared to the number of data points.
How should I approach a situtation when I try to apply some ML algorithm (classification, to be more specific, SVM in particular) over some high dimensional input, and the results I get are not quite satisfactory?
1, 2 or 3 dimensional data can be visualized, along with the algorithm's results, so you can get the hang of what's going on, and have some idea how to aproach the problem. Once the data is over 3 dimensions, other than intuitively playing around with the parameters I am not really sure how to attack it?
What do you do to the data? My answer: nothing. SVMs are designed to handle high-dimensional data. I'm working on a research problem right now that involves supervised classification using SVMs. Along with finding sources on the Internet, I did my own experiments on the impact of dimensionality reduction prior to classification. Preprocessing the features using PCA/LDA did not significantly increase classification accuracy of the SVM.
To me, this totally makes sense from the way SVMs work. Let x be an m-dimensional feature vector. Let y = Ax where y is in R^n and x is in R^m for n < m, i.e., y is x projected onto a space of lower dimension. If the classes Y1 and Y2 are linearly separable in R^n, then the corresponding classes X1 and X2 are linearly separable in R^m. Therefore, the original subspaces should be "at least" as separable as their projections onto lower dimensions, i.e., PCA should not help, in theory.
Here is one discussion that debates the use of PCA before SVM: link
What you can do is change your SVM parameters. For example, with libsvm link, the parameters C and gamma are crucially important to classification success. The libsvm faq, particularly this entry link, contains more helpful tips. Among them:
Scale your features before classification.
Try to obtain balanced classes. If impossible, then penalize one class more than the other. See more references on SVM imbalance.
Check the SVM parameters. Try many combinations to arrive at the best one.
Use the RBF kernel first. It almost always works best (computationally speaking).
Almost forgot... before testing, cross validate!
EDIT: Let me just add this "data point." I recently did another large-scale experiment using the SVM with PCA preprocessing on four exclusive data sets. PCA did not improve the classification results for any choice of reduced dimensionality. The original data with simple diagonal scaling (for each feature, subtract mean and divide by standard deviation) performed better. I'm not making any broad conclusion -- just sharing this one experiment. Maybe on different data, PCA can help.
Some suggestions:
Project data (just for visualization) to a lower-dimensional space (using PCA or MDS or whatever makes sense for your data)
Try to understand why learning fails. Do you think it overfits? Do you think you have enough data? Is it possible there isn't enough information in your features to solve the task you are trying to solve? There are ways to answer each of these questions without visualizing the data.
Also, if you tell us what the task is and what your SVM output is, there may be more specific suggestions people could make.
You can try reducing the dimensionality of the problem by PCA or the similar technique. Beware that PCA has two important points. (1) It assumes that the data it is applied to is normally distributed and (2) the resulting data looses its natural meaning (resulting in a blackbox). If you can live with that, try it.
Another option is to try several parameter selection algorithms. Since SVM's were already mentioned here, you might try the approach of Chang and Li (Feature Ranking Using Linear SVM) in which they used linear SVM to pre-select "interesting features" and then used RBF - based SVM on the selected features. If you are familiar with Orange, a python data mining library, you will be able to code this method in less than an hour. Note that this is a greedy approach which, due to its "greediness" might fail in cases where the input variables are highly correlated. In that case, and if you cannot solve this problem with PCA (see above), you might want to go to heuristic methods, which try to select best possible combinations of predictors. The main pitfall of this kind of approaches is the high potential of overfitting. Make sure you have a bunch "virgin" data that was not seen during the entire process of model building. Test your model on that data only once, after you are sure that the model is ready. If you fail, don't use this data once more to validate another model, you will have to find a new data set. Otherwise you won't be sure that you didn't overfit once more.
List of selected papers on parameter selection:
Feature selection for high-dimensional genomic microarray data
Oh, and one more thing about SVM. SVM is a black box. You better figure out what is the mechanism that generate the data and model the mechanism and not the data. On the other hand, if this would be possible, most probably you wouldn't be here asking this question (and I wouldn't be so bitter about overfitting).
List of selected papers on parameter selection
Feature selection for high-dimensional genomic microarray data
Wrappers for feature subset selection
Parameter selection in particle swarm optimization
I worked in the laboratory that developed this Stochastic method to determine, in silico, the drug like character of molecules
I would approach the problem as follows:
What do you mean by "the results I get are not quite satisfactory"?
If the classification rate on the training data is unsatisfactory, it implies that either
You have outliers in your training data (data that is misclassified). In this case you can try algorithms such as RANSAC to deal with it.
Your model(SVM in this case) is not well suited for this problem. This can be diagnozed by trying other models (adaboost etc.) or adding more parameters to your current model.
The representation of the data is not well suited for your classification task. In this case preprocessing the data with feature selection or dimensionality reduction techniques would help
If the classification rate on the test data is unsatisfactory, it implies that your model overfits the data:
Either your model is too complex(too many parameters) and it needs to be constrained further,
Or you trained it on a training set which is too small and you need more data
Of course it may be a mixture of the above elements. These are all "blind" methods to attack the problem. In order to gain more insight into the problem you may use visualization methods by projecting the data into lower dimensions or look for models which are suited better to the problem domain as you understand it (for example if you know the data is normally distributed you can use GMMs to model the data ...)
If I'm not wrong, you are trying to see which parameters to the SVM gives you the best result. Your problem is model/curve fitting.
I worked on a similar problem couple of years ago. There are tons of libraries and algos to do the same. I used Newton-Raphson's algorithm and a variation of genetic algorithm to fit the curve.
Generate/guess/get the result you are hoping for, through real world experiment (or if you are doing simple classification, just do it yourself). Compare this with the output of your SVM. The algos I mentioned earlier reiterates this process till the result of your model(SVM in this case) somewhat matches the expected values (note that this process would take some time based your problem/data size.. it took about 2 months for me on a 140 node beowulf cluster).
If you choose to go with Newton-Raphson's, this might be a good place to start.