I wanted to know whether there are any algorithms using machine learning which can rank a particular set of images given there quality and other features using pairwise comparision like Learning to Rank algorithms (RankNet,LambdaRank and LambdaMART) and can these LTR algos be used for image ranking too and any good sources to find the implementation level explaination.
In the past I have used BRISQUE method to assess image quality. You can combine that with any other desired model of your choice and ensemble the result to form a ranking. Here is a detailed implementation and working of BRISQUE method.
https://towardsdatascience.com/automatic-image-quality-assessment-in-python-391a6be52c11
Related
Random search is one possibility for hyperparameter optimization in machine learning. I have applied random search to search for the best hyperparameters of a SVM classifier with a RBF kernel. Additional to the continuous Cost and gamma parameter, I have one discrete parameter and also an equality constraint over some parameters.
Now, I would like to develop random search further, e.g. through adaptive random search. That means for example adaptation of the search direction or of the search range.
Does somebody have an idea how this can be done or could reference to some existing work on this? Other ideas for improving random search are also welcome.
Why you try to reinvent the wheel? Hyperparameters optimization is well studied topic, with at least few of the state of the art method, which simply solve the problem for SVMs, including:
Bayesian optimization (usually through modeling model quality with Gaussian processes), see for example bayesopt http://rmcantin.bitbucket.org/html/
Tree of parzen estimators (sometimes better for discrete, complex hyperparameters spaces) included (in particular) in hyperopt http://hyperopt.github.io/hyperopt/
To improve the random search procedure, you can refer to Hyperband.
Hyperband is a method proposed by UC Berkeley AMP Lab, aiming to improve the efficiency of tuning method like random search.
I'd like to add that Bayesian optimization is a perfect example of an adaptive random search, so looks like it's exactly what you want to apply.
The idea of Bayesian optimization is to model the target function using Gaussian Processes (GP), select the best next point according to the current model and update the model after seeing the actual outcome. So, effectively, Bayesian optimization starts like a random search, gradually builds a picture of what the function looks like and shifts its focus to the most promising areas (note that "promising" can be defined differently by different particular methods - PI, EI, UCB, etc). There are further techniques to help it to find a right balance between exploration and exploitation, for example portfolio strategy. If that's what you mean by adaptive, then Bayesian optimization is your choice .
If you'd like to extend your code without external libraries, it's totally possible because Bayesian optimization is not that hard to implement. You can take a look at sample code that I used in my research, for example here is the bulk of GP-related code.
I need some point of view to know if what I am doing is good or wrong or if there is better way to do it.
I have 10 000 elements. For each of them I have like 500 features.
I am looking to measure the separability between 2 sets of those elements. (I already know those 2 groups I don't try to find them)
For now I am using svm. I train the svm on 2000 of those elements, then I look at how good the score is when I test on the 8000 other elements.
Now I would like to now which features maximize this separation.
My first approach was to test each combination of feature with the svm and follow the score given by the svm. If the score is good those features are relevant to separate those 2 sets of data.
But this takes too much time. 500! possibility.
The second approach was to remove one feature and see how much the score is impacted. If the score changes a lot that feature is relevant. This is faster, but I am not sure if it is right. When there is 500 feature removing just one feature don't change a lot the final score.
Is this a correct way to do it?
Have you tried any other method ? Maybe you can try decision tree or random forest, it would give out your best features based on entropy gain. Can i assume all the features are independent of each other. if not please remove those as well.
Also for Support vectors , you can try to check out this paper:
http://axon.cs.byu.edu/Dan/778/papers/Feature%20Selection/guyon2.pdf
But it's based more on linear SVM.
You can do statistical analysis on the features to get indications of which terms best separate the data. I like Information Gain, but there are others.
I found this paper (Fabrizio Sebastiani, Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 34, No.1, pp.1-47, 2002) to be a good theoretical treatment of text classification, including feature reduction by a variety of methods from the simple (Term Frequency) to the complex (Information-Theoretic).
These functions try to capture the intuition that the best terms for ci are the
ones distributed most differently in the sets of positive and negative examples of
ci. However, interpretations of this principle vary across different functions. For instance, in the experimental sciences χ2 is used to measure how the results of an observation differ (i.e., are independent) from the results expected according to an initial hypothesis (lower values indicate lower dependence). In DR we measure how independent tk and ci are. The terms tk with the lowest value for χ2(tk, ci) are thus the most independent from ci; since we are interested in the terms which are not, we select the terms for which χ2(tk, ci) is highest.
These techniques help you choose terms that are most useful in separating the training documents into the given classes; the terms with the highest predictive value for your problem. The features with the highest Information Gain are likely to best separate your data.
I've been successful using Information Gain for feature reduction and found this paper (Entropy based feature selection for text categorization Largeron, Christine and Moulin, Christophe and Géry, Mathias - SAC - Pages 924-928 2011) to be a very good practical guide.
Here the authors present a simple formulation of entropy-based feature selection that's useful for implementation in code:
Given a term tj and a category ck, ECCD(tj , ck) can be
computed from a contingency table. Let A be the number
of documents in the category containing tj ; B, the number
of documents in the other categories containing tj ; C, the
number of documents of ck which do not contain tj and D,
the number of documents in the other categories which do
not contain tj (with N = A + B + C + D):
Using this contingency table, Information Gain can be estimated by:
This approach is easy to implement and provides very good Information-Theoretic feature reduction.
You needn't use a single technique either; you can combine them. Term-Frequency is simple, but can also be effective. I've combined the Information Gain approach with Term Frequency to do feature selection successfully. You should experiment with your data to see which technique or techniques work most effectively.
If you want a single feature to discriminate your data, use a decision tree, and look at the root node.
SVM by design looks at combinations of all features.
Have you thought about Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)?
LDA aims at discovering a linear combination of features that maximizes the separability. The algorithm works by projecting your data in a space where the variance within classes is minimum and the one between classes is maximum.
You can use it reduce the number of dimensions required to classify, and also use it as a linear classifier.
However with this technique you would lose the original features with their meaning, and you may want to avoid that.
If you want more details I found this article to be a good introduction.
My scenario is pretty straightforwrd: I have a bunch of news articles (~1k at the moment) for which I know that some cover the same story/topic. I now would like to group these articles based on shared story/topic, i.e., based on their similarity.
What I did so far is to apply basic NLP techniques including stopword removal and stemming. I also calculated the tf-idf vector for each article, and with this can also calculate the, e.g., cosine similarity based on these tf-idf-vectors. But now with the grouping of the articles I struggles a bit. I see two principle ways -- probably related -- to do it:
1) Machine Learning / Clustering: I already played a bit with existing clustering libraries, with more or less success; see here. On the one hand, algorithms such as k-means require the number of clusters as input, which I don't know. Other algorithms require parameters that are also not intuitive to specify (for me that is).
2) Graph algorithms: I can represent my data as a graph with the articles being the nodes and weighted adges representing the pairwise (cosine) similarity between the articles. With that, for example, I can first remove all edges that fall below a certain threshold and then might apply graph algorithms to look for strongly-connected subgraphs.
In short, I'm not sure where best to go from here -- I'm still pretty new in this area. I wonder if there some best practices for that, or some kind of guidelines which methods / algorithms can (not) be applied in certain scenarios.
(EDIT: forgot to link to related question of mine)
Try the class of Hierarchical Agglomerative Clustering HAC algorithms with Single and Complete linkage.
These algorithms do not need the number of clusters as input.
The basic principle is similar to growing a minimal spanning tree across a given set of data points and then stop based on a threshold criteria. A closely related class is the Divisive clustering algorithms which first builds up the minimal spanning tree and then prunes off a branch of the tree based on inter-cluster similarity ratios.
You can also try a canopy variation on k-means to create a relatively quick estimate for the number of clusters (k).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_clustering_algorithm
Will you be recomputing over time or do you only care about a static set of news? I ask because your k may change a bit over time.
Since you can model your dataset as a graph you could apply stochastic clustering based on markov models. Here are link for resources on MCL algorithm:
Official thesis description and code base
Gephi plugin for MCL (to experiment and evaluate the method)
I've got a problem where I've potentially got a huge number of features. Essentially a mountain of data points (for discussion let's say it's in the millions of features). I don't know what data points are useful and what are irrelevant to a given outcome (I guess 1% are relevant and 99% are irrelevant).
I do have the data points and the final outcome (a binary result). I'm interested in reducing the feature set so that I can identify the most useful set of data points to collect to train future classification algorithms.
My current data set is huge, and I can't generate as many training examples with the mountain of data as I could if I were to identify the relevant features, cut down how many data points I collect, and increase the number of training examples. I expect that I would get better classifiers with more training examples given fewer feature data points (while maintaining the relevant ones).
What machine learning algorithms should I focus on to, first,
identify the features that are relevant to the outcome?
From some reading I've done it seems like SVM provides weighting per feature that I can use to identify the most highly scored features. Can anyone confirm this? Expand on the explanation? Or should I be thinking along another line?
Feature weights in a linear model (logistic regression, naive Bayes, etc) can be thought of as measures of importance, provided your features are all on the same scale.
Your model can be combined with a regularizer for learning that penalises certain kinds of feature vectors (essentially folding feature selection into the classification problem). L1 regularized logistic regression sounds like it would be perfect for what you want.
Maybe you can use PCA or Maximum entropy algorithm in order to reduce the data set...
You can go for Chi-Square tests or Entropy depending on your data type. Supervized discretization highly reduces the size of your data in a smart way (take a look into Recursive Minimal Entropy Partitioning algorithm proposed by Fayyad & Irani).
If you work in R, the SIS package has a function that will do this for you.
If you want to do things the hard way, what you want to do is feature screening, a massive preliminary dimension reduction before you do feature selection and model selection from a sane-sized set of features. Figuring out what is the sane-size can be tricky, and I don't have a magic answer for that, but you can prioritize what order you'd want to include the features by
1) for each feature, split the data in two groups by the binary response
2) find the Komogorov-Smirnov statistic comparing the two sets
The features with the highest KS statistic are most useful in modeling.
There's a paper "out there" titled "A selctive overview of feature screening for ultrahigh-dimensional data" by Liu, Zhong, and Li, I'm sure a free copy is floating around the web somewhere.
4 years later I'm now halfway through a PhD in this field and I want to add that the definition of a feature is not always simple. In the case that your features are a single column in your dataset, the answers here apply quite well.
However, take the case of an image being processed by a convolutional neural network, for example, a feature is not one pixel of the input, rather it's much more conceptual than that. Here's a nice discussion for the case of images:
https://medium.com/#ageitgey/machine-learning-is-fun-part-3-deep-learning-and-convolutional-neural-networks-f40359318721
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.