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 am confused about how linear regression works in supervised learning. Now I want to generate a evaluation function for a board game using linear regression, so I need both the input data and output data. Input data is my board condition, and I need the corresponding value for this condition, right? But how can I get this expected value? Do I need to write an evaluation function first by myself? But I thought I need to generate an evluation function by using linear regression, so I'm a little confused about this.
It's supervised-learning after all, meaning: you will need input and output.
Now the question is: how to obtain these? And this is not trivial!
Candidates are:
historical-data (e.g. online-play history)
some form or self-play / reinforcement-learning (more complex)
But then a new problem arises: which output is available and what kind of input will you use.
If there would be some a-priori implemented AI, you could just take the scores of this one. But with historical-data for example you only got -1,0,1 (A wins, draw, B wins) which makes learning harder (and this touches the Credit Assignment problem: there might be one play which made someone lose; it's hard to understand which of 30 moves lead to the result of 1). This is also related to the input. Take chess for example and take a random position from some online game: there is the possibility that this position is unique over 10 million games (or at least not happening often) which conflicts with the expected performance of your approach. I assumed here, that the input is the full board-position. This changes for other inputs, e.g. chess-material, where the input is just a histogram of pieces (3 of these, 2 of these). Now there are much less unique inputs and learning will be easier.
Long story short: it's a complex task with a lot of different approaches and most of this is somewhat bound by your exact task! A linear evaluation-function is not super-uncommon in reinforcement-learning approaches. You might want to read some literature on these (this function is a core-component: e.g. table-lookup vs. linear-regression vs. neural-network to approximate the value- or policy-function).
I might add, that your task indicates the self-learning approach to AI, which is very hard and it's a topic which somewhat gained additional (there was success before: see Backgammon AI) popularity in the last years. But all of these approaches are highly complex and a good understanding of RL and the mathematical-basics like Markov-Decision-Processes are important then.
For more classic hand-made evaluation-function based AIs, a lot of people used an additional regressor for tuning / weighting already implemented components. Some overview at chessprogramming wiki. (the chess-material example from above might be a good one: assumption is: more pieces better than less; but it's hard to give them values)
I found several examples of two types.
Single feature
Given a data with only two items classes. For example only blue and yellow balls. I.e. we have only one feature in this case is color. This is clear example to show "divide and conquer" rule applicable to entropy. But this is senselessly for any prediction or classification problems because if we have an object with only one feature and the value is known we don't need a tree to decide that "this ball is yellow".
Multiple features
Given a data with multiple features and a feature to predict (known for training data). We can calculate a predicate based on minimum average entropy for each feature. Closer to life, isn't it? It was clear to me until I haven't tried to implement the algorithm.
And now I have a collision in my mind.
If we calculate entropy relatively to a known features (one per node) we will have meaningful results at classification with a tree only if unknown feature is strictly dependent from every known feature. Otherwise a single unbound known feature could break all prediction driving a decision in a wrong way. But if we calculate entropy relatively to a values of the feature which we want to predict at classification we are returned to the first senseless example. In this way there is no difference which of a known feature to use for a node...
And a question about a tree building process.
Should I calculate entropy only for known features and just believe that all the known features are bound to an unknown? Or maybe I should calculate entropy for unknown feature (known for training data) TOO to determine which feature more affects result?
I had the same problem (in maybe a similar programing task) some years ago: Do I calculate the entropy against the complete set of features, the relevant features for a branch or the relevant features for a level?
Turned out like this: In a decision tree it comes down to comparing entropies between different branches to determine the optimal branch. Comparison requires equal base sets, i.e. whenever you want to compare two entropie values, they must be based on the same feature set.
For your problem you can go with the features relevant to the set of branches you want to compare, as long as you are aware that with this solution you cannot compare entropies between different branch sets.
Otherwise go with the whole feature set.
(Disclaimer: Above solution is a mind protocol from a problem that lead to about an hour of thinking some years ago. Hopefully I got everything right.)
PS: Beware of the car dataset! ;)
How can I test/check whether a given kernel (example: RBF/ polynomial) does really separate my data?
I would like to know if there is a method (not plotting the data of course) which can allow me to check if a given data set (labeled with two classes) can be separated in high dimensional space?
In short - no, there is no general way. However, for some kernels you can easily say that... everything is separable. This property, proved in many forms (among other by Schoenberg) says for example that if your kernel is of form K(x,y) = f(||x-y||^2) and f is:
ifinitely differentible
completely monotonic (which more or less means that if you take derivatives, then the first one is negative, next positive, next negative, ... )
positive
then it will always be able to separate every binary labeled, consistent dataset (there are no two points of the exact same label). Actually it says even more - that you can exactly interpolate, meaning, that even if it is a regression problem - you will get zero error. So in particular multi-class, multi-label problems also will be linearly solvable (there exists linear/multi-linear model which gives you a correct interpolation).
However, if the above properties do not hold, it does not mean that your data cannot be perfectly separated. This is only "one way" proof.
In particular, this class of kernels include RBF kernel, thus it will always be able to separate any training set (this is why it overfits so easily!)
So what about in the other way? Here you have to first fix hyperparameters of the kernel and then you can also answer it through optimization - solve hard-margin SVM problem (C=inf) and it will find a solution iff data is separable.
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.