I have given a time-series in various channels. There are two major oscillations "hidden" in the time-series and distributed over all channels. I want to extract these oscillations using multivariate Singular Spectrum (mSSA) Analysis.
I am new to SSA and it seems to me that SSA is not really a dimensionality reduction method but more a "denoising" method. I.e. is it true that I cannot really extract the major oscillations, as after grouping, backprojection and diagonal averaging, I get signal in all channels, but not really a single signal which is the major oscillation (as PCA would provide)?
On the other hand, the eigenvectors (altough shrinked in time due to hankelization) seem to be exactly the oscillations that I am looking for. Can I use SSA for dimensionality reduction by simply treating the eigenvectors as the major oscillations?
I would suggest you read this post on kaggle as a primer.
As I understand it, SSA effectively seeks to find periodicities in the autocorrelation of a function. The single time-series is broken down into three types of signal: trend, periodic, and noise. This allows, e.g. examination of the underlying oscillatory modes which make up the original signal. In this sense, it is broadly comparable with Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), although the latter emphasises oscillations as opposed to periodicity. SSA has been found to be superior in certain applications to EMD.
I found an article dealing with exactly the problem i was facing:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.09057.pdf
It introduces a technique called "Singular Spectrum Analysis for advanced reduction of dimensionality" (SSA-FARI).
Related
I have a number of time series data sets, which I want to transform to dft signals in order to reduce dimensionality. After transforming to dft, I want to cluster the resulting dft data sets using k-means algorithm.
Since dft signals contain an imaginary number how can one cluster them?
You could simply treat the imaginary part as another component in your vectors. In other applications, you will want to ignore it!
But you'll be facing other, more severe challenges.
Data mining, and clustering in particular, rarely is as easy as appliyng function a (dft) and function b (k-means) and then you have the result, hooray. Sorry - that is not how exploratory data mining works.
First of all, for many time series, DFT will not be helpful at all. On others, you will first have to do appropriate resampling, or segmentation, or get rid of uninteresting effects such as seasonality. Even if DFT works, it may emphasize artifacts such as the sampling frequency or some interferences.
And then you'll run into one major problem: k-means is based on the assumption that all attributes have the same importance. And DFT is based on the very opposite idea: the first components capture most of the signal, the later ones only minor deviations from it (and that is the very motivation for using this as dimensionality reduction).
So based on this intuition, you maybe never should apply k-means on DFT coefficients at all. At the same time, data-mining repeatedly has shown that appfoaches that are "statistical nonsense" can nevertheless provide useful results... so you can try, but verify your resultd with care, and avoid being too enthusiastic or optimistic.
With the help of FFT, it converts dataset into dft signals. It helps to calculates DFT for each small data set.
If the data to cluster are literally points (either 2D (x, y) or 3D (x, y,z)), it would be quite intuitive to choose a clustering method. Because we can draw them and visualize them, we somewhat know better which clustering method is more suitable.
e.g.1 If my 2D data set is of the formation shown in the right top corner, I would know that K-means may not be a wise choice here, whereas DBSCAN seems like a better idea.
However, just as the scikit-learn website states:
While these examples give some intuition about the algorithms, this
intuition might not apply to very high dimensional data.
AFAIK, in most of the piratical problems we don't have such simple data. Most probably, we have high-dimensional tuples, which cannot be visualized like such, as data.
e.g.2 I wish to cluster a data set where each data is represented as a 4-D tuple <characteristic1, characteristic2, characteristic3, characteristic4>. I CANNOT visualize it in a coordinate system and observes its distribution like before. So I will NOT be able to say DBSCAN is superior to K-means in this case.
So my question:
How does one choose the suitable clustering method for such an "invisualizable" high-dimensional case?
"High-dimensional" in clustering probably starts at some 10-20 dimensions in dense data, and 1000+ dimensions in sparse data (e.g. text).
4 dimensions are not much of a problem, and can still be visualized; for example by using multiple 2d projections (or even 3d, using rotation); or using parallel coordinates. Here's a visualization of the 4-dimensional "iris" data set using a scatter plot matrix.
However, the first thing you still should do is spend a lot of time on preprocessing, and finding an appropriate distance function.
If you really need methods for high-dimensional data, have a look at subspace clustering and correlation clustering, e.g.
Kriegel, Hans-Peter, Peer Kröger, and Arthur Zimek. Clustering high-dimensional data: A survey on subspace clustering, pattern-based clustering, and correlation clustering. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 3.1 (2009): 1.
The authors of that survey also publish a software framework which has a lot of these advanced clustering methods (not just k-means, but e.h. CASH, FourC, ERiC): ELKI
There are at least two common, generic approaches:
One can use some dimensionality reduction technique in order to actually visualize the high dimensional data, there are dozens of popular solutions including (but not limited to):
PCA - principal component analysis
SOM - self-organizing maps
Sammon's mapping
Autoencoder Neural Networks
KPCA - kernel principal component analysis
Isomap
After this one goes back to the original space and use some techniques that seems resonable based on observations in the reduced space, or performs clustering in the reduced space itself.First approach uses all avaliable information, but can be invalid due to differences induced by the reduction process. While the second one ensures that your observations and choice is valid (as you reduce your problem to the nice, 2d/3d one) but it loses lots of information due to transformation used.
One tries many different algorithms and choose the one with the best metrics (there have been many clustering evaluation metrics proposed). This is computationally expensive approach, but has a lower bias (as reducting the dimensionality introduces the information change following from the used transformation)
It is true that high dimensional data cannot be easily visualized in an euclidean high dimensional data but it is not true that there are no visualization techniques for them.
In addition to this claim I will add that with just 4 features (your dimensions) you can easily try the parallel coordinates visualization method. Or simply try a multivariate data analysis taking two features at a time (so 6 times in total) to try to figure out which relations intercour between the two (correlation and dependency generally). Or you can even use a 3d space for three at a time.
Then, how to get some info from these visualizations? Well, it is not as easy as in an euclidean space but the point is to spot visually if the data clusters in some groups (eg near some values on an axis for a parallel coordinate diagram) and think if the data is somehow separable (eg if it forms regions like circles or line separable in the scatter plots).
A little digression: the diagram you posted is not indicative of the power or capabilities of each algorithm given some particular data distributions, it simply highlights the nature of some algorithms: for instance k-means is able to separate only convex and ellipsoidail areas (and keep in mind that convexity and ellipsoids exist even in N-th dimensions). What I mean is that there is not a rule that says: given the distributiuons depicted in this diagram, you have to choose the correct clustering algorithm consequently.
I suggest to use a data mining toolbox that lets you explore and visualize the data (and easily transform them since you can change their topology with transformations, projections and reductions, check the other answer by lejlot for that) like Weka (plus you do not have to implement all the algorithms by yourself.
In the end I will point you to this resource for different cluster goodness and fitness measures so you can compare the results rfom different algorithms.
I would also suggest soft subspace clustering, a pretty common approach nowadays, where feature weights are added to find the most relevant features. You can use these weights to increase performance and improve the BMU calculation with euclidean distance, for example.
I'm developing an algorithm to classify different types of dogs based off of image data. The steps of the algorithm are:
Go through all training images, detect image features (ie SURF), and extract descriptors. Collect all descriptors for all images.
Cluster within the collected image descriptors and find k "words" or centroids within the collection.
Reiterate through all images, extract SURF descriptors, and match the extracted descriptor with the closest "word" found via clustering.
Represent each image as a histogram of the words found in clustering.
Feed these image representations (feature vectors) to a classifier and train...
Now, I have run into a bit of a problem. Finding the "words" within the collection of image descriptors is a very important step. Due to the random nature of clustering, different clusters are found each time I run my program. The unfortunate result is that sometimes the accuracy of my classifier will be very good, and other times, very bad. I have chalked this up to the clustering algorithm finding "good" words sometimes, and "bad" words other times.
Does anyone know how I can hedge against the clustering algorithm from finding "bad" words? Currently I just cluster several times and take the mean accuracy of my classifier, but there must be a better way.
Thanks for taking time to read through this, and thank you for your help!
EDIT:
I am not using KMeans for classification; I am using a Support Vector Machine for classification. I am using KMeans for finding image descriptor "words", and then using these words to create histograms which describe each image. These histograms serve as feature vectors that are fed to the Support Vector Machine for classification.
There are many possible ways of making clustering repeatable:
The most basic method of dealing with k-means randomness is simply running it multiple times and selecting the best one (the one that minimizes the inner cluster distances/maximizes the between clusters distance).
One can use some fixed initialization for your data instead of randomization. There are many heuristics for starting the k-means. Or at least minimize the variance by using algorithms like k-means++.
Use modification of k-means which guarantees global minimum of regularized function, ie. convex k-means
Use different clustering method, which is deterministic, ie. Data Nets
I would offer two possible suggestions, in addition to those provided.
K-means optimises an objective related to the distance between cluster points and their centroids. You care about classification accuracy. Depending on the computational cost, a simple brute-force approach is to induce multiple clusterings on a subset of your training data, and evaluate the performance of each on some held-out development set for the task you care about. Then use the highest performing variant as the final model. I don't like the use of non-random initialisation because this is only a solution to avoid the randomness, not find the true global minimum of the objective, and your chosen initialisation may be useless and just produce consistently bad classifiers.
The other approach, which is much harder, is to view the k-means step as a dimensionality reduction to enable classification, and incorporate this into the classifier directly. If you use a deep neural net, the layer(s) closest to the input are essentially dimensionality reducers in the same way as the k-means clustering you induce: the difference is their weights are set wrt the error of the net on the classification problem, rather than some unrelated intermediate step. The downside is that this is much closer to a current research problem: training deep nets is hard. You could start with a standard one-hidden-layer architecture (with binary activations on the hidden layer, and using cross-entropy loss on the output layer with outputs coded as one-of-n categories), and attempt to add layers incrementally, but as far as I'm aware standard training algorithms start to behave poorly beyond the single hidden layer, so you'd need to investigate layer-wise training to initialise, or some of the Hessian-Free stuff coming out of Geoff Hinton's group in Toronto.
That is actually an important problem with the BofW approach, and you should share this prominently. SIFT data may actually not have k-means clusters at all. However, due to the nature of the algorithm, k-means will always produce k clusters. One of the things to test with k-means is to validate that the results are stable. If you get a completely different result each time, they are not much better than random.
Nevertheless, if you just want to get some working results, you can just fix the dictionary once and choose one that is working well.
Or you might look into more advanced clustering (in particular one that is more robust wrt. noise!)
I am wondering how can I claim that I correctly catch the "noise" in my data ?
To be more specific, take Principle Component Analysis as example, we know that in PCA, after doing SVD, we can zeros out the small singular values and reconstruct the original matrix using low-rank approximation.
Then can I claim what's been ignored is indeed noise in the data ?
Is there any evaluation metric for this ?
The only method I can come up with is simply subtract the original data from the reconstructed data.
Then, try to fit a Gaussian over it, seeing if the fitness is good.
Is that conventional method in field like DSP ??
BTW, I think in typical machine learning tasks, the measurement would be the follow up classification performance, but since I am doing purely generative model, there are no labels attached.
The way I see it, the definition of noise would depend on the domain of the problem. Therefore the strategy for reducing it would be different on each domain.
For instance, having a noisy signal in problems like seismic formation classification or a noisy image on a face classification problem would be drastically different to the noise produced by improperly tagged data in a medical diagnostic problem or the noise because similar words with different meaning in a language classification problem for documents.
When the noise is because of a given (or a set of) data point, then the solution is as simple as ignore those data points (although identify those data points most of the time is the challenging part)
From your example I guess you are more concerning about the case when the noise is embedded into the features (like in the seismic example). Sometimes people tend to pre-process the data with a noise reduction filter like the median filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_filter). In contrast, some other people tend to reduce the dimension of the data to reduce noise, and PCA is used in this scenario.
Both strategies are valid, and normally people try both and cross-validate them to see which one gave better results.
What you did is a good metric to check gaussian noise. However, for non-gaussian noise your metric can give you false negatives (bad fitness but still good noise reduction)
Personally, if you want to prove the efficacy of the noise reduction, I'd use a task-based evaluation. I assume you're doing this for some purpose, to solve some problem? If so, solve the task with the original noisy matrix and the new clean one. If the latter works better, what was discarded was noise, for the purposes of the task you're interested in. I think some objective measure of noise is pretty hard to define.
I have found this. it is very resoureful, needs good time to understand.
https://sci2s.ugr.es/noisydata#Introduction%20to%20Noise%20in%20Data%20Mining
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.