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.
Related
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.
I'm trying to use H2O's Random Forest for a multinominal classification into 71 classes with 38,000 training set examples. I have one features that is a string that in many cases are predictive, so I want to use it as a categorical feature.
The hitch is that even after canonicalizing the strings (uppercase, stripping out numbers, punctuation, etc.), I still have 7,000 different strings (some due to spelling or OCR errors, etc.) I have code to remove strings that are relatively rare, but I'm not sure what a reasonable cut off value is. (I can't seem to find any help in the documentation.)
I'm also not sure what to due with nbin_cats hyperparameter. Should I make it equal to the number of different categorical variables I have? [added: default for nbin_cats is 1024 and I'm well below that at around 300 different categorical values, so I guess I don't have to do anything with this parameter]
I'm also thinking perhaps if a categorical value is associated with too many different categories that I'm trying to predict, maybe I should drop it as well.
I'm also guessing I need to increase the tree depth to handle this better.
Also, is there a special value to indicate "don't know" for the strings that I am filtering out? (I'm mapping it to a unique string but I'm wondering if there is a better value that indicates to H2O that the categorical value is unknown.)
Many thanks in advance.
High cardinality categorical predictors can sometimes hurt model performance, and specifically in the case of tree-based models, the tree ensemble (GBM or Random Forest) ends up memorizing the training data. The model has a poor time generalizing on validation data.
A good indication of whether this is happening is if your string/categorical column has very high variable importance. This means that the trees are continuing to split on this column to memorize the training data. Another indication is if you see much smaller error on your training data than on your validation data. This means the trees are overfitting to the training data.
Some methods for handling high cardinality predictors are:
removing the predictor from the model
performing categorical encoding [pdf]
performing grid search on nbins_cats and categorical_encoding
There is a Python example in the H2O tutorials GitHub repo that showcases the effects of removing the predictor from the model and performing grid search here.
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.
Whats the best method to use the words itself as the features in any machine learning algorithm ?
The problem I have to extract word related feature from a particular paragraph. Should I use the index in the dictionary as the numerical feature ? If so, how will I normalize these ?
In general, How are words itself used as features in NLP ?
There are several conventional techniques by which words are mapped to features (columns in a 2D data matrix in which the rows are the individual data vectors) for input to machine learning models.classification:
a Boolean field which encodes the presence or absence of that word in a given document;
a frequency histogram of a
predetermined set of words, often the X most commonly occurring words from among all documents comprising the training data (more about this one in the
last paragraph of this Answer);
the juxtaposition of two or more
words (e.g., 'alternative' and
'lifestyle' in consecutive order have
a meaning not related either
component word); this juxtaposition can either be captured in the data model itself, eg, a boolean feature that represents the presence or absence of two particular words directly adjacent to one another in a document, or this relationship can be exploited in the ML technique, as a naive Bayesian classifier would do in this instanceemphasized text;
words as raw data to extract latent features, eg, LSA or Latent Semantic Analysis (also sometimes called LSI for Latent Semantic Indexing). LSA is a matrix decomposition-based technique which derives latent variables from the text not apparent from the words of the text itself.
A common reference data set in machine learning is comprised of frequencies of 50 or so of the most common words, aka "stop words" (e.g., a, an, of, and, the, there, if) for published works of Shakespeare, London, Austen, and Milton. A basic multi-layer perceptron with a single hidden layer can separate this data set with 100% accuracy. This data set and variations on it are widely available in ML Data Repositories and academic papers presenting classification results are likewise common.
Standard approach is the "bag-of-words" representation where you have one feature per word, giving "1" if the word occurs in the document and "0" if it doesn't occur.
This gives lots of features, but if you have a simple learner like Naive Bayes, that's still OK.
"Index in the dictionary" is a useless feature, I wouldn't use it.
tf-idf is a pretty standard way of turning words into numeric features.
You need to remember to use a learning algorithm that supports numeric featuers, like SVM. Naive Bayes doesn't support numeric features.
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.