I am working on optimizing a manufacturing based dataset which consists of a huge number of controllable parameters. The goal is to attain the best run settings of these parameters.
I familiarized myself with several predictive algorithms while doing my research and if I say, use Random Forest to predict my dependent variable to understand how important each independent variable is, is there a way to extract the final equation/relationship the algorithm uses?
I'm not sure if my question was clear enough, please let me know if there's anything else I can add here.
There is no general way to get an interpretable equation from a random forest, explaining how your covariates affect the dependent variable. For that you can use a different model more suitable, e.g., linear regression (perhaps with kernel functions), or a decision tree. Note that you can use one model for prediction, and one model for descriptive analysis - there's no inherent reason to stick with a single model.
use Random Forest to predict my dependent variable to understand how important each independent variable is
Understanding how important each dependent variable, does not necessarily mean you need the question in the title of your question, namely getting the actual relationship. Most random forest packages have a method quantifying how much each covariate affected the model over the train set.
There is a number of methods to estimate feature importance based on trained model. For Random Forest, most famous methods are MDI (Mean Decrease of Impurity) and MDA (Mean Decrease of Accuracy). Many popular ML libraries support feature importance estimation out of the box for Random Forest.
Related
I have a dataset which has 5 variables and 1 response. The variables are discrete. I want to find the key variable and its value which leads to a significant increase or decrease to the response.
You will need to perform some statistical tests in order to find which variables are the most significant.
If you are familiar with python you could use SelectKBest from scikit-learn. It will give you a score, the highest the score, the stronger the link between the feature and the output.
Additionally you can train an explainable ML model, strong enough to converge, and find the pattern within the data, from that you could compute the feature importance.
For example you could use DecisionTreeClasifier from scikit-learn. It has a decision_path class function that will plot the decision path taken by the tree, decision_path has a property called feature_importances_ that uses Gini coefficient to compute the importance of the features.
Last but not the least, you can use feature reduction techniques, such as PCA, it's used to find the variance between variables, from the PCA you will compute new Principal Components that are linked to the features, from the most explenatory ones you can find the features importance. Check this stack overflow answer that explains everything you should know for that.
If I have a non-numeric variable in my data set that contains many of one class but few of another does this cause the same issues as when the target classes are unbalanced?
For example if one of my variables was title and the aim was to identify whether a person is obese. The data obese class is split 50:50 but there is only one row with the title 'Duke' and this row is in the obese class. Does this mean that an algorithm like logistic regression (after numeric encoding) would start predicting that all Dukes are obese (or have a disproportionate weighting for the title 'Duke')? If so, are some algorithms better/worse at handling this case? Is there a way to prevent this issue?
Yes, any vanilla machine learning algorithm will treat categorical data the same way as numerical data in terms of information entropy from a specific feature.
Consider this, before applying any machine learning algorithm you should analyze your input features and identify the explained variance each cause on the target. In your case if the label Duke always gets identified as obese, then given that specific dataset that is an extremely high information feature and should be weighted as such.
I would mitigate this issue by adding a weight to that feature, thus minimizing the impact it will have on the target. However, this would be a shame if this is an otherwise very informative feature for other instances.
An algorithm which could easily circumvent this problem is random forest (decision trees). You can eliminate any rule that is based on this feature being Duke.
Be very careful in mapping this feature to numbers as this will have an impact on the importance attributed to this feature with most algorithms.
I would like to know what are the various techniques and metrics used to evaluate how accurate/good an algorithm is and how to use a given metric to derive a conclusion about a ML model.
one way to do this is to use precision and recall, as defined here in wikipedia.
Another way is to use the accuracy metric as explained here. So, what I would like to know is whether there are other metrics for evaluating an ML model?
I've compiled, a while ago, a list of metrics used to evaluate classification and regression algorithms, under the form of a cheatsheet. Some metrics for classification: precision, recall, sensitivity, specificity, F-measure, Matthews correlation, etc. They are all based on the confusion matrix. Others exist for regression (continuous output variable).
The technique is mostly to run an algorithm on some data to get a model, and then apply that model on new, previously unseen data, and evaluate the metric on that data set, and repeat.
Some techniques (actually resampling techniques from statistics):
Jacknife
Crossvalidation
K-fold validation
bootstrap.
Talking about ML in general is a quite vast field, but I'll try to answer any way. The Wikipedia definition of ML is the following
Machine learning, a branch of artificial intelligence, concerns the construction and study of systems that can learn from data.
In this context learning can be defined parameterization of an algorithm. The parameters of the algorithm are derived using input data with a known output. When the algorithm has "learned" the association between input and output, it can be tested with further input data for which the output is well known.
Let's suppose your problem is to obtain words from speech. Here the input is some kind of audio file containing one word (not necessarily, but I supposed this case to keep it quite simple). You'd record X words N times and then use (for example) N/2 of the repetitions to parameterize your algorithm, disregarding - at the moment - how your algorithm would look like.
Now on the one hand - depending on the algorithm - if you feed your algorithm with one of the remaining repetitions, it may give you some certainty estimate which may be used to characterize the recognition of just one of the repetitions. On the other hand you may use all of the remaining repetitions to test the learned algorithm. For each of the repetitions you pass it to the algorithm and compare the expected output with the actual output. After all you'll have an accuracy value for the learned algorithm calculated as the quotient of correct and total classifications.
Anyway, the actual accuracy will depend on the quality of your learning and test data.
A good start to read on would be Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning by Christopher M Bishop
There are various metrics for evaluating the performance of ML model and there is no rule that there are 20 or 30 metrics only. You can create your own metrics depending on your problem. There are various cases wherein when you are solving real - world problem where you would need to create your own custom metrics.
Coming to the existing ones, it is already listed in the first answer, I would just highlight each metrics merits and demerits to better have an understanding.
Accuracy is the simplest of the metric and it is commonly used. It is the number of points to class 1/ total number of points in your dataset. This is for 2 class problem where some points belong to class 1 and some to belong to class 2. It is not preferred when the dataset is imbalanced because it is biased to balanced one and it is not that much interpretable.
Log loss is a metric that helps to achieve probability scores that gives you better understanding why a specific point is belonging to class 1. The best part of this metric is that it is inbuild in logistic regression which is famous ML technique.
Confusion metric is best used for 2-class classification problem which gives four numbers and the diagonal numbers helps to get an idea of how good is your model.Through this metric there are others such as precision, recall and f1-score which are interpretable.
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 have 20 attributes and one target feature. All the attributes are binary(present or not present) and the target feature is multinomial(5 classes).
But for each instance, apart from the presence of some attributes, I also have the information that how much effect(scale 1-5) did each present attribute have on the target feature.
How do I make use of this extra information that I have, and build a classification model that helps in better prediction for the test classes.
Why not just use the weights as the features, instead of binary presence indicator? You can code the lack of presence as a 0 on the continuous scale.
EDIT:
The classifier you choose to use will learn optimal weights on the features in training to separate the classes... thus I don't believe there's any better you can do if you do not have access to test weights. Essentially a linear classifier is learning a rule of the form:
c_i = sgn(w . x_i)
You're saying you have access to weights, but without an example of what the data look like, and an explanation of where the weights come from, I'd have to say I don't see how you'd use them (or even why you'd want to---is standard classification with binary features not working well enough?)
This clearly depends on the actual algorithms that you are using.
For decision trees, the information is useless. They are meant to learn which attributes have how much effect.
Similarly, support vector machines will learn the best linear split, so any kind of weight will disappear since the SVM already learns this automatically.
However, if you are doing NN classification, just scale the attributes as desired, to emphasize differences in the influential attributes.
Sorry, you need to look at other algorithms yourself. There are just too many.
Use the knowledge as prior over the weight of features. You can actually compute the posterior estimation out of the data and then have the final model