I am currently working on a problem in which I have survey response basis a survey conducted by a market research agency. The survey measured perception of coverage about the services of the product. Scale of survey: 0-100. Sample size 4K.
The task at hand is to find correlation between the respondents survey response and their spending with the company, i.e. to say that is the spend of high perception customers high and vice-versa.
My approach:
As the scale was large, firstly I scaled it down to 1-10, i.e 0-10% in 1, 11-20% in 2... and so forth. Then I used uni-variate linear regression on the new scale and spend.
I treated the survey scale as continuous after scaling.
Questions:
1) Is the assumption to treat the scale (after scaling to 1 -10) continuous right or wrong?
2) Is there a need to normalize? When I normalize the data the coefficients cannot be interpreted as dollar values which makes more sense to business people. What would be the impact if I run the analysis without normalizing?
3) Also, will normalization be correct here given one is survey response and other is spend?
Questions:
1)
Wrong
Usually when a continuous variable is recoded it's to make it discrete. Then the linear regression does not fit amymore for your case.
2) The normalization is done to reduce the impact of your outliers in your dataset. By performing your analyse without normalizing the data you are taking your extremes values as an information for your model.
3) It Depends of what you want to do afterwards.... I would say it's always better to keep Every Thing Also Equal when doing data analysis.
Related
I have hourly data of no. of minutes spent online by people for 2 years. Hence the values are distributed between 0 and 60 and also most data is either 0 or 60. My goal is to predict the number of minutes the person will spend online in the future (next day/hour/month etc.). What kind of approach or machine learning model can I use to predict this data? Can this be modelled into a regression/forecasting problem in spite of the skewness?hourly data
In the case of time series data and its prediction, it’s better to use a regression model rather than a classification or clustering model. Because it’s related to calculating specific figures.
It can be modeled into a regression problem to some extent, but more skewness means getting far from the normal probability distribution which might influence the expression into the model, lower prediction accuracy, and so forth. Anyway, any data with significant skewness cannot be regarded as well-refined data. So you might need to rearrange the samples of the data so that the skewness of the data can decrease.
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'm trying to build a classifier to predict stock prices. I generated extra features using some of the well-known technical indicators and feed these values, as well as values at past points to the machine learning algorithm. I have about 45k samples, each representing an hour of ohlcv data.
The problem is actually a 3-class classification problem: with buy, sell and hold signals. I've built these 3 classes as my targets based on the (%) change at each time point. That is: I've classified only the largest positive (%) changes as buy signals, the opposite for sell signals and the rest as hold signals.
However, presenting this 3-class target to the algorithm has resulted in poor accuracy for the buy & sell classifiers. To improve this, I chose to manually assign classes based on the probabilities of each sample. That is, I set the targets as 1 or 0 based on whether there was a price increase or decrease.
The algorithm then returns a probability between 0 and 1(usually between 0.45 and 0.55) for its confidence on which class each sample belongs to. I then select some probability bound for each class within those probabilities. For example: I select p > 0.53 to be classified as a buy signal, p < 0.48 to be classified as a sell signal and anything in between as a hold signal.
This method has drastically improved the classification accuracy, at some points to above 65%. However, I'm failing to come up with a method to select these probability bounds without a large validation set. I've tried finding the best probability values within a validation set of 3000 and this has improved the classification accuracy, yet the larger the validation set becomes, it is clear that the prediction accuracy in the test set is decreasing.
So, what I'm looking for is any method by which I could discern what the specific decision probabilities for each training set should be, without large validation sets. I would also welcome any other ideas as to how to improve this process. Thanks for the help!
What you are experiencing is called non-stationary process. The market movement depends on time of the event.
One way I used to deal with it is to build your model with data in different time chunks.
For example, use data from day 1 to day 10 for training, and day 11 for testing/validation, then move up one day, day 2 to day 11 for training, and day 12 for testing/validation.
you can save all your testing results together to compute an overall score for your model. this way you have lots of test data and a model that will adapt to time.
and you get 3 more parameters to tune, #1 how much data to use for train, #2 how much data for test, # per how many days/hours/data points you retrain your data.
i was reading about Classification Algorithm KNN and came across with one term Distance Sensitive Data. I was not able to Found what exactly is Distance Sensitive Data wha are it's classifications, How to say if our Data is Distance-Sensitive or Not?
Suppose that xi and xj are vectors of observed features in cases i and j. Then, as you probably know, kNN is based on distances ||xi-xj||, such as the Euclidean one.
Now if xi and xj contain just a single feature, individual's height in meters, we are fine, as there are no other "competing" features. Suppose that next we add annual salary in thousands. Consequently, we look at distances between vectors like (1.7, 50000) and (1.8, 100000).
Then, in the case of the Euclidean distance, clearly salary feature dominates height and it's almost like we are using the salary feature alone. That is,
||xi-xj||2 ≈ |50000-100000|.
However, if the two features actually have similar importance, then we are doing a poor job. It is even worse if salary is actually irrelevant and we should be using height alone. Interestingly, under weak conditions, our classifier still has nice properties such as universal consistency even in such bad situations. The problem is that in finite samples the performance is our classifier is very bad so that the convergence is very slow.
So, as to deal with that, one may want to consider different distances, such that do something about the scale. Commonly people standardize (set the mean to zero and variance to 1) each feature, but that's not a complete solution either. There are various proposals what could be done (see, e.g., here).
On the other hand, algorithms based on decision trees do not suffer from this. In those cases we just look for a point where to split the variable. For instance, if salary takes values in [0,100000] and the split is at 40000, then Salary/10 would be slit at 4000 so that the results would not change.
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
Is there a rule-of-thumb for how to best divide data into training and validation sets? Is an even 50/50 split advisable? Or are there clear advantages of having more training data relative to validation data (or vice versa)? Or is this choice pretty much application dependent?
I have been mostly using an 80% / 20% of training and validation data, respectively, but I chose this division without any principled reason. Can someone who is more experienced in machine learning advise me?
There are two competing concerns: with less training data, your parameter estimates have greater variance. With less testing data, your performance statistic will have greater variance. Broadly speaking you should be concerned with dividing data such that neither variance is too high, which is more to do with the absolute number of instances in each category rather than the percentage.
If you have a total of 100 instances, you're probably stuck with cross validation as no single split is going to give you satisfactory variance in your estimates. If you have 100,000 instances, it doesn't really matter whether you choose an 80:20 split or a 90:10 split (indeed you may choose to use less training data if your method is particularly computationally intensive).
Assuming you have enough data to do proper held-out test data (rather than cross-validation), the following is an instructive way to get a handle on variances:
Split your data into training and testing (80/20 is indeed a good starting point)
Split the training data into training and validation (again, 80/20 is a fair split).
Subsample random selections of your training data, train the classifier with this, and record the performance on the validation set
Try a series of runs with different amounts of training data: randomly sample 20% of it, say, 10 times and observe performance on the validation data, then do the same with 40%, 60%, 80%. You should see both greater performance with more data, but also lower variance across the different random samples
To get a handle on variance due to the size of test data, perform the same procedure in reverse. Train on all of your training data, then randomly sample a percentage of your validation data a number of times, and observe performance. You should now find that the mean performance on small samples of your validation data is roughly the same as the performance on all the validation data, but the variance is much higher with smaller numbers of test samples
You'd be surprised to find out that 80/20 is quite a commonly occurring ratio, often referred to as the Pareto principle. It's usually a safe bet if you use that ratio.
However, depending on the training/validation methodology you employ, the ratio may change. For example: if you use 10-fold cross validation, then you would end up with a validation set of 10% at each fold.
There has been some research into what is the proper ratio between the training set and the validation set:
The fraction of patterns reserved for the validation set should be
inversely proportional to the square root of the number of free
adjustable parameters.
In their conclusion they specify a formula:
Validation set (v) to training set (t) size ratio, v/t, scales like
ln(N/h-max), where N is the number of families of recognizers and
h-max is the largest complexity of those families.
What they mean by complexity is:
Each family of recognizer is characterized by its complexity, which
may or may not be related to the VC-dimension, the description
length, the number of adjustable parameters, or other measures of
complexity.
Taking the first rule of thumb (i.e.validation set should be inversely proportional to the square root of the number of free adjustable parameters), you can conclude that if you have 32 adjustable parameters, the square root of 32 is ~5.65, the fraction should be 1/5.65 or 0.177 (v/t). Roughly 17.7% should be reserved for validation and 82.3% for training.
Last year, I took Prof: Andrew Ng’s online machine learning course. His recommendation was:
Training: 60%
Cross-validation: 20%
Testing: 20%
Well, you should think about one more thing.
If you have a really big dataset, like 1,000,000 examples, split 80/10/10 may be unnecessary, because 10% = 100,000 examples may be just too much for just saying that model works fine.
Maybe 99/0.5/0.5 is enough because 5,000 examples can represent most of the variance in your data and you can easily tell that model works good based on these 5,000 examples in test and dev.
Don't use 80/20 just because you've heard it's ok. Think about the purpose of the test set.
Perhaps a 63.2% / 36.8% is a reasonable choice. The reason would be that if you had a total sample size n and wanted to randomly sample with replacement (a.k.a. re-sample, as in the statistical bootstrap) n cases out of the initial n, the probability of an individual case being selected in the re-sample would be approximately 0.632, provided that n is not too small, as explained here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/88993/16263
For a sample of n=250, the probability of an individual case being selected for a re-sample to 4 digits is 0.6329.
For a sample of n=20000, the probability is 0.6321.
It all depends on the data at hand. If you have considerable amount of data then 80/20 is a good choice as mentioned above. But if you do not Cross-Validation with a 50/50 split might help you a lot more and prevent you from creating a model over-fitting your training data.
Suppose you have less data, I suggest to try 70%, 80% and 90% and test which is giving better result. In case of 90% there are chances that for 10% test you get poor accuracy.