Sorry if this has been asked before, I have tried looking online but maybe I don't know the proper terminology because I mostly find results that try to address overfitting by splitting the data set.
So when my my models gets stuck at like 30% accuracy on the validation data and refuses to improve, my strategies tend to be trying to change the number of nodes per layer, batch size, or number of epochs. Sometimes this is helpful, but other times it doesn't seem to do much at all.
What do people usually do in this situation?
I'd like to help with your question. You probably are working on a classification task. Could you please specify the following properties of your dataset: number of samples, number of features, types of features (numerical, categorical, etc).
Related
Is it necessary to repeat similar template data... Like the meaning and context is the same, but the smaller details vary. If I remove these redundancies, the dataset is very small (size in hundreds) but if the data like these are included, it easily crosses thousands. Which is the right approach?
SAMPLE DATA
This is acutally not a question suited for stack overflow but I'll answer anyways:
You have to think about how the emails (or what ever your data this is) will look in real-life usage: Do you want to detect any kind of spam or just similiar to what your sample data shows? If the first is the case, your dataset is just not suited for this problem since there are not enough various data samples. When you think about it, every of the senteces are exactly the same because the company name isn't really valueable information and will probably not be learned as a feature by your RNN. So the information is almost the same. And since every input sample will run through the network multiple times (once each epoch) it doesnt really help having almost the same sample multiple times.
So you shouldnt have one kind of almost identical data samples dominating your dataset.
But as I said: When you primarily want to filter out "Dear customer, we wish you a ..." you can try it with this dataset but you wouldnt really need an RNN to detect that. If you want to detect all kind of spam, you should search for a new dataset since ~100 unique samples are not enough. I hope that was helpful!
I used machine learning to train depression related sentences. And it was LinearSVC that performed best. In addition to LinearSVC, I experimented with MultinomialNB and LogisticRegression, and I chose the model with the highest accuracy among the three. By the way, what I want to do is to be able to think in advance which model will fit, like ml_map provided by Scikit-learn. Where can I get this information? I searched a few papers, but couldn't find anything that contained more detailed information other than that SVM was suitable for text classification. How do I study to get prior knowledge like this ml_map?
How do I study to get prior knowledge like this ml_map?
Try to work with different example datasets on different data types by using different algorithms. There are hundreds to be explored. Once you get the good grasp of how they work, it will become more clear. And do not forget to try googling something like advantages of algorithm X, it helps a lot.
And here are my thoughts, I think I used to ask such questions before and I hope it can help if you are struggling: The more you work on different Machine Learning models for a specific problem, you will soon realize that data and feature engineering play the more important parts than the algorithms themselves. The road map provided by scikit-learn gives you a good view of what group of algorithms to use to deal with certain types of data and that is a good start. The boundaries between them, however, are rather subtle. In other words, one problem can be solved by different approaches depending on how you organize and engineer your data.
To sum it up, in order to achieve a good out-of-sample (i.e., good generalization) performance while solving a problem, it is mandatory to look at the training/testing process with different setting combinations and be mindful with your data (for example, answer this question: does it cover most samples in terms of distribution in the wild or just a portion of it?)
I was asked in an interview to solve a use case with the help of machine learning. I have to use a Machine Learning algorithm to identify fraud from transactions. My training dataset has lets say 100,200 transactions, out of which 100,000 are legal transactions and 200 are fraud.
I cannot use the dataset as a whole to make the model because it would be a biased dataset and the model would be a very bad one.
Lets say for example I take a sample of 200 good transactions which represent the dataset well(good transactions), and the 200 fraud ones and make the model using this as the training data.
The question I was asked was that how would I scale up the 200 good transactions to the whole data set of 100,000 good records so that my result can be mapped to all types of transactions. I have never solved this kind of a scenario so I did not know how to approach it.
Any kind of guidance as to how I can go about it would be helpful.
This is a general question thrown in an interview. Information about the problem is succinct and vague (we don't know for example the number of features!). First thing you need to ask yourself is What do the interviewer wants me to respond? So, based on this context the answer has to be formulated in a similar general way. This means that we don't have to find 'the solution' but instead give arguments that show that we actually know how to approach the problem instead of solving it.
The problem we have presented with is that the minority class (fraud) is only a ~0.2% of the total. This is obviously a huge imbalance. A predictor that only predicted all cases as 'non fraud' would get a classification accuracy of 99.8%! Therefore, definitely something has to be done.
We will define our main task as a binary classification problem where we want to predict whether a transaction is labelled as positive (fraud) or negative (not fraud).
The first step would be considering what techniques we do have available to reduce imbalance. This can be done either by reducing the majority class (undersampling) or increasing the number of minority samples (oversampling). Both have drawbacks though. The first implies a severe loss of potential useful information from the dataset, while the second can present problems of overfitting. Some techniques to improve overfitting are SMOTE and ADASYN, which use strategies to improve variety in the generation of new synthetic samples.
Of course, cross-validation in this case becomes paramount. Additionally, in case we are finally doing oversampling, this has to be 'coordinated' with the cross-validation approach to ensure we are making the most of these two ideas. Check http://www.marcoaltini.com/blog/dealing-with-imbalanced-data-undersampling-oversampling-and-proper-cross-validation for more details.
Apart from these sampling ideas, when selecting our learner, many ML methods can be trained/optimised for specific metrics. In our case, we do not want to optimise accuracy definitely. Instead, we want to train the model to optimise either ROC-AUC or specifically looking for a high recall even at a loss of precission, as we want to predict all the positive 'frauds' or at least raise an alarm even though some will prove false alarms. Models can adapt internal parameters (thresholds) to find the optimal balance between these two metrics. Have a look at this nice blog for more info about metrics: https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/02/7-important-model-evaluation-error-metrics/
Finally, is only a matter of evaluate the model empirically to check what options and parameters are the most suitable given the dataset. Following these ideas does not guarantee 100% that we are going to be able to tackle the problem at hand. But it ensures we are in a much better position to try to learn from data and being able to get rid of those evil fraudsters out there, while perhaps getting a nice job along the way ;)
In this problem you want to classify transactions as good or fraud. However your data is really imbalance. In that you will probably be interested by Anomaly detection. I will let you read all the article for more details but I will quote a few parts in my answer.
I think this will convince you that this is what you are looking for to solve this problem:
Is it not just Classification?
The answer is yes if the following three conditions are met.
You have labeled training data Anomalous and normal classes are
balanced ( say at least 1:5) Data is not autocorrelated. ( That one
data point does not depend on earlier data points. This often breaks
in time series data). If all of above is true, we do not need an
anomaly detection techniques and we can use an algorithm like Random
Forests or Support Vector Machines (SVM).
However, often it is very hard to find training data, and even when
you can find them, most anomalies are 1:1000 to 1:10^6 events where
classes are not balanced.
Now to answer your question:
Generally, the class imbalance is solved using an ensemble built by
resampling data many times. The idea is to first create new datasets
by taking all anomalous data points and adding a subset of normal data
points (e.g. as 4 times as anomalous data points). Then a classifier
is built for each data set using SVM or Random Forest, and those
classifiers are combined using ensemble learning. This approach has
worked well and produced very good results.
If the data points are autocorrelated with each other, then simple
classifiers would not work well. We handle those use cases using time
series classification techniques or Recurrent Neural networks.
I would also suggest another approach of the problem. In this article the author said:
If you do not have training data, still it is possible to do anomaly
detection using unsupervised learning and semi-supervised learning.
However, after building the model, you will have no idea how well it
is doing as you have nothing to test it against. Hence, the results of
those methods need to be tested in the field before placing them in
the critical path.
However you do have a few fraud data to test if your unsupervised algorithm is doing well or not, and if it is doing a good enough job, it can be a first solution that will help gathering more data to train a supervised classifier later.
Note that I am not an expert and this is just what I've come up with after mixing my knowledge and some articles I read recently on the subject.
For more question about machine learning I suggest you to use this stackexchange community
I hope it will help you :)
I have a school project to make a program that uses the Weka tools to make predictions on football (soccer) games.
Since the algorithms are already there (the J48 algorithm), I need just the data. I found a website that offers football game data for free and I tried it in Weka but the predictions were pretty bad so I assume my data is not structured properly.
I need to extract the data from my source and format it another way in order to make new attributes and classes for my model. Does anyone know of a course/tutorial/guide on how to properly create your attributes and classes for machine learning predictions? Is there a standard that describes the best way of choosing the attributes of a data set for training a machine learning algorithm? What's the approach on this?
here's an example of the data that I have at the moment: http://www.football-data.co.uk/mmz4281/1516/E0.csv
and here is what the columns mean: http://www.football-data.co.uk/notes.txt
The problem may be that the data set you have is too small. Suppose you have ten variables and each variable has a range of 10 values. There are 10^10 possible configurations of these variables. It is unlikely your data set will be this large let alone cover all of the possible configurations. The trick is to narrow down the variables to the most relevant to avoid this large potential search space.
A second problem is that certain combinations of variables may be more significant than others.
The J48 algorithm attempts to to find the most relevant variable using entropy at each level in the tree. each path through the tree can be thought of as an AND condition: V1==a & V2==b ...
This covers the significance due to joint interactions. But what if the outcome is a result of A&B&C OR W&X&Y? The J48 algorithm will find only one and it will be the one where the the first variable selected will have the most overall significance when considered alone.
So, to answer your question, you need to not only find a training set which will cover the most common variable configurations in the "general" population but find an algorithm which will faithfully represent these training cases. Faithful meaning it will generally apply to unseen cases.
It's not an easy task. Many people and much money are involved in sports betting. If it were as easy as selecting the proper training set, you can be sure it would have been found by now.
EDIT:
It was asked in the comments how to you find the proper algorithm. The answer is the same way you find a needle in a haystack. There is no set rule. You may be lucky and stumble across it but in a large search space you won't ever know if you have. This is the same problem as finding the optimum point in a very convoluted search space.
A short-term answer is to
Think about what the algorithm can really accomplish. The J48 (and similar) algorithms are best suited for classification where the influence of the variables on the result are well known and follow a hierarchy. Flower classification is one example where it will likely excel.
Check the model against the training set. If it does poorly with the training set then it will likely have poor performance with unseen data. In general, you should expect the model to performance against the training to exceed the performance against unseen data.
The algorithm needs to be tested with data it has never seen. Testing against the training set, while a quick elimination test, will likely lead to overconfidence.
Reserve some of your data for testing. Weka provides a way to do this. The best case scenario would be to build the model on all cases except one (Leave On Out Approach) then see how the model performs on the average with these.
But this assumes the data at hand are not in some way biased.
A second pitfall is to let the test results bias the way you build the model.For example, trying different models parameters until you get an acceptable test response. With J48 it's not easy to allow this bias to creep in but if it did then you have just used your test set as an auxiliary training set.
Continue collecting more data; testing as long as possible. Even after all of the above, you still won't know how useful the algorithm is unless you can observe its performance against future cases. When what appears to be a good model starts behaving poorly then it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Surprisingly, there are a large number of fields (mostly in the soft sciences) which fail to see the need to verify the model with future data. But this is a matter better discussed elsewhere.
This may not be the answer you are looking for but it is the way things are.
In summary,
The training data set should cover the 'significant' variable configurations
You should verify the model against unseen data
Identifying (1) and doing (2) are the tricky bits. There is no cut-and-dried recipe to follow.
Deep learning has been a revolution recently and its success is related with the huge amount of data that we can currently manage and the generalization of the GPUs.
So here is the problem I'm facing. I know that deep neural nets have the best performance, there is no doubt about it. However, they have a good performance when the number of training examples is huge. If the number of training examples is low it is better to use a SVM or decision trees.
But what is huge? what is low? In this paper of face recognition (FaceNet by Google) they show the performance vs the flops (which can be related with the number of training examples)
They used between 100M and 200M training examples, which is huge.
My question is:
Is there any method to predict in advance the number of training examples I need to have a good performance in deep learning??? The reason I ask this is because it is a waste of time to manually classify a dataset if the performance is not going to be good.
My question is: Is there any method to predict in advance the number of training examples I need to have a good performance in deep learning??? The reason I ask this is because it is a waste of time to manually classify a dataset if the performance is not going to be good.
The short answer is no. You do not have this kind of knowledge, furthermore you will never have. These kind of problems are impossible to solve, ever.
What you can have are just some general heuristics/empirical knowledge, which will say if it is probable that DL will not work well (as it is possible to predict fail of the method, while nearly impossible to predict the success), nothing more. In current research, DL rarely works well for datasets smaller than hundreads thousands/milions of samples (I do not count MNIST because everything works well on MNIST). Furthermore, DL is heavily studied actually in just two types of problems - NLP and image processing, thus you cannot really extraplate it to any other kind of problems (no free lunch theorem).
Update
Just to make it a bit more clear. What you are asking about is to predit whether given estimator (or set of estimators) will yield a good results given a particular training set. In fact you even restrict just to the size.
The simpliest proof (based on your simplification) is as follows: for any N (sample size) I can construct N-mode (or N^2 to make it even more obvious) distribution which no estimator can reasonably estimate (including deep neural network) and I can construct trivial data with just one label (thus perfect model requires just one sample). End of proof (there are two different answers for the same N).
Now let us assume that we do have access to the training samples (without labels for now) and not just sample size. Now we are given X (training samples) of size N. Again I can construct N-mode labeling yielding impossible to estimate distribution (by anything) and trivial labeling (just a single label!). Again - two different answers for the exact same input.
Ok, so maybe given training samples and labels we can predict what will behave well? Now we cannot manipulate samples nor labels to show that there are no such function. So we have to get back to statistics and what we are trying to answer. We are asking about expected value of loss function over whole probability distribution which generated our training samples. So now again, the whole "clue" is to see, that I can manipulate the underlying distributions (construct many different ones, many of which impossible to model well by deep neural network) and still expect that my training samples come from them. This is what statisticians call the problem of having non-representible sample from a pdf. In particular, in ML, we often relate to this problem with curse of dimensionality. In simple words - in order to estimate the probability well we need enormous number of samples. Silverman shown that even if you know that your data is just a normal distribution and you ask "what is value in 0?" You need exponentialy many samples (as compared to space dimensionality). In practise our distributions are multi-modal, complex and unknown thus this amount is even higher. We are quite safe to say that given number of samples we could ever gather we cannot ever estimate reasonably well distributions with more than 10 dimensions. Consequently - whatever we do to minimize the expected error we are just using heuristics, which connect the empirical error (fitting to the data) with some kind of regularization (removing overfitting, usually by putting some prior assumptions on distributions families). To sum up we cannot construct a method able to distinguish if our model will behave good, because this would require deciding which "complexity" distribution generated our samples. There will be some simple cases when we can do it - and probably they will say something like "oh! this data is so simple even knn will work well!". You cannot have generic tool, for DNN or any other (complex) model though (to be strict - we can have such predictor for very simple models, because they simply are so limited that we can easily check if your data follows this extreme simplicity or not).
Consequently, this boils down nearly to the same question - to actually building a model... thus you will need to try and validate your approach (thus - train DNN to answer if DNN works well). You can use cross validation, bootstraping or anything else here, but all essentialy do the same - build multiple models of your desired type and validate it.
To sum up
I do not claim we will not have a good heuristics, heuristic drive many parts of ML quite well. I only answer if there is a method able to answer your question - and there is no such thing and cannot exist. There can be many rules of thumb, which for some problems (classes of problems) will work well. And we already do have such:
for NLP/2d images you should have ~100,000 samples at least to work with DNN
having lots of unlabeled instances can partially substitute the above number (thus you can have like 30,000 labeled ones + 70,000 unlabeled) with pretty reasonable results
Furthermore this does not mean that given this size of data DNN will be better than kernelized SVM or even linear model. This is exactly what I was refering to earlier - you can easily construct counterexamples of distributions where SVM will work the same or even better despite number of samples. The same applies for any other technique.
Yet still, even if you are just interested if DNN will work well (and not better than others) these are just empirical, trivial heuristics, which are based on at most 10 (!) types of problems. This could be very harmfull to treat these as rules or methods. This are just rough, first intuitions gained through extremely unstructured, random research that happened in last decade.
Ok, so I am lost now... when should I use DL? And the answer is exteremly simple:
Use deep learning only if:
You already tested "shallow" techniques and they do not work well
You have large amounts of data
You have huge computational resources
You have experience with neural networks (this are very tricky and ungreatful models, really)
You have great amount of time to spare, even if you will just get a few % better results as an effect.