I'm doing feature selection to train my Machine Learning (ML) models using correlation. I trained the each model(SVM, NN,RF) with all features and did a 10-fold cross validation to obtain mean accuracy score value.
Then I removed features which has a zero correlation coefficient (which implies there is no relationship between feature and class) and trained the each model(SVM, NN,RF) with all features and did a 10-fold cross validation to obtain mean accuracy score value.
Basically my objective is to do feature selection based on accuracy scores I get in above two scenarios. But I'm not sure whether this is a good approach for feature selection.
Also I want to do a grid search to identify best model parameters. but I'm getting confused with GridSearchCV in Scikit learn API. Since it also do a cross validation (default 3 folds) can I use best_score_ value obtained doing a grid search in above two scenarios to determine what are the good features for model training?
Please advice me on this confusion, or please suggest me with a good reference to read.
Thanks in advance
As a page 51 of this thesis says,
In other words, a feature is useful if it is correlated with or
predictive of the class; otherwise it is irrelevant.
The report goes on to say that not only should you remove the features that are not correlated with the targets, you should also watch out for features that correlate heavily with each other. Also see this.
In other words, it seems to be a good thing to look at correlation of features with the classes (targets) and remove the features that have little to no correlation.
Basically my objective is to do feature selection based on accuracy
scores I get in above two scenarios. But I'm not sure whether this is
a good approach for feature selection.
Yes, you can totally run experiments with different feature sets and look at the test accuracy to select the features that perform the best. It's really important that you only look at the test accuracy i.e. performance of the model on unseen data.
Also I want to do a grid search to identify best model parameters.
Grid search is performed for finding the best hyper-parameters. Model parameters are learned during training.
Since it also do a cross validation (default 3 folds) can I use
best_score_ value obtained doing a grid search in above two scenarios
to determine what are the good features for model training?
If the set of hyper-parameters is fixed, the best score value will be affected only by the feature set, and thus can be used to compare effectiveness of the features.
Related
I am hoping to have some low code model using Azure AutoML, which is really just going to the AutoML tab, running a classification experiment with my dataset, after it's done, I deploy the best selected model.
The model kinda works (meaning, I publish the endpoint and then I do some manual validation, seems accurate), however, I am not confident enough, because when I am looking at the explanation, I can see something like this:
4 top features are not really closely important. The most "important" one is really not the one I prefer it to use. I am hoping it will use the Title feature more.
Is there such a thing I can adjust the importance of individual features, like ranking all features before it starts the experiment?
I would love to do more reading, but I only found this:
Increase feature importance
The only answer seems to be about how to measure if a feature is important.
Hence, does it mean, if I want to customize the experiment, such as selecting which features to "focus", I should learn how to use the "designer" part in Azure ML? Or is it something I can't do, even with the designer. I guess my confusion is, with ML being such a big topic, I am looking for a direction of learning, in this case of what I am having, so I can improve my current model.
Here is link to the document for feature customization.
Using the SDK you can specify "feauturization": 'auto' / 'off' / 'FeaturizationConfig' in your AutoMLConfig object. Learn more about enabling featurization.
Automated ML tries out different ML models that have different settings which control for overfitting. Automated ML will pick which overfitting parameter configuration is best based on the best score (e.g. accuracy) it gets from hold-out data. The kind of overfitting settings these models has includes:
Explicitly penalizing overly-complex models in the loss function that the ML model is optimizing
Limiting model complexity before training, for example by limiting the size of trees in an ensemble tree learning model (e.g. gradient boosting trees or random forest)
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/machine-learning/concept-manage-ml-pitfalls
I have a dataset that contains around 30 features and I want to find out which features contribute the most to the outcome. I have 5 algorithms:
Neural Networks
Logistics
Naive
Random Forest
Adaboost
I read a lot about Information Gain technique and it seems it is independent of the machine learning algorithm used. It is like a preprocess technique.
My question follows, is it best practice to perform feature importance for each algorithm dependently or just use Information Gain. If yes what are the technique used for each ?
First of all, it's worth stressing that you have to perform the feature selection based on the training data only, even if it is a separate algorithm. During testing, you then select the same features from the test dataset.
Some approaches that spring to mind:
Mutual information based feature selection (eg here), independent of the classifier.
Backward or forward selection (see stackexchange question), applicable to any classifier but potentially costly since you need to train/test many models.
Regularisation techniques that are part of the classifier optimisation, eg Lasso or elastic net. The latter can be better in datasets with high collinearity.
Principal components analysis or any other dimensionality reduction technique that groups your features (example).
Some models compute latent variables which you can use for interpretation instead of the original features (e.g. Partial Least Squares or Canonical Correlation Analysis).
Specific classifiers can aid interpretability by providing extra information about the features/predictors, off the top of my head:
Logistic regression: you can obtain a p-value for every feature. In your interpretation you can focus on those that are 'significant' (eg p-value <0.05). (same for two-classes Linear Discriminant Analysis)
Random Forest: can return a variable importance index that ranks the variables from most to least important.
I have a dataset that contains around 30 features and I want to find out which features contribute the most to the outcome.
This will depend on the algorithm. If you have 5 algorithms, you will likely get 5 slightly different answers, unless you perform the feature selection prior to classification (eg using mutual information). One reason is that Random Forests and neural networks would pick up nonlinear relationships while logistic regression wouldn't. Furthermore, Naive Bayes is blind to interactions.
So unless your research is explicitly about these 5 models, I would rather select one model and proceed with it.
Since your purpose is to get some intuition on what's going on, here is what you can do:
Let's start with Random Forest for simplicity, but you can do this with other algorithms too. First, you need to build a good model. Good in the sense that you need to be satisfied with its performance and it should be Robust, meaning that you should use a validation and/or a test set. These points are very important because we will analyse how the model takes its decisions, so if the model is bad you will get bad intuitions.
After having built the model, you can analyse it at two level : For the whole dataset (understanding your process), or for a given prediction. For this task I suggest you to look at the SHAP library which computes features contributions (i.e how much does a feature influences the prediction of my classifier) that can be used for both puproses.
For detailled instructions about this process and more tools, you can look fast.ai excellent courses on the machine learning serie, where lessons 2/3/4/5 are about this subject.
Hope it helps!
How we can calculate the importance of features in data set using machine learning ? which algorithm will be better and why ?
There are several methods that fit a model to the data and based on the fit classify the features from most relevant to less relevant. If you want to know more just google feature selection.
I don't know which language you're using but here's a link to a python page about it:
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/feature_selection.html
You can use this function:
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_selection.RFE.html#sklearn.feature_selection.RFE
This will eliminate the less meaningful features from you dataset based on a fit from a classifier, you can choose for instance logistic regression or the SVM and select how many features you want left.
I think the choice of the best method depends on the data, so more information is necessary.
Essentially I have a data set, that has a feature vector, and label indicating whether it is spam or non-spam.
To get the labels for this data, 2 distinct types of expert were used each using different approaches to evaluate the item, the type of expert used then also became a feature in the vector.
Training and then testing on a separate portion of the data has achieved a high degree accuracy using a Random Forest algorithm.
However, it is clear now that, the feature describing the expert who made the label will not be available in a live environment. So I have tried a number of approaches to reflect this:
Remove the feature from the set and retrain and test
Split the data into 2 distinct sets based on the feature, and then train and test 2 separate classifiers
For the test data, set the feature in question all to the same value
With all 3 approaches, the classifiers have dropped from being highly accurate, to being virtually useless.
So I am looking for any advice or intuitions as to why this has occurred and how I might approach resolving it so as to regain some of the accuracy I was previously seeing?
To be clear I have no background in machine learning or statistics and am simply using a third party c# code library as a black box to achieve these results.
Sounds like you've completely overfit to the "who labeled what" feature (and combinations of this feature with other features). You can find out for sure by inspecting the random forest's feature importances and checking whether the annotator feature ranks high. Another way to find out is to let the annotators check each other's annotations and compute an agreement score such as Cohen's kappa. A low value, say less than .5, indicates disagreement among the annotators, which makes machine learning very hard.
Since the feature will not be available at test time, there's no easy way to get the performance back.
I am trying to solve some classification problem. It seems many classical approaches follow a similar paradigm. That is, train a model with some training set and than use it to predict the class labels for new instances.
I am wondering if it is possible to introduce some feedback mechanism into the paradigm. In control theory, introducing a feedback loop is an effective way to improve system performance.
Currently a straight forward approach on my mind is, first we start with a initial set of instances and train a model with them. Then each time the model makes a wrong prediction, we add the wrong instance into the training set. This is different from blindly enlarge the training set because it is more targeting. This can be seen as some kind of negative feedback in the language of control theory.
Is there any research going on with the feedback approach? Could anyone shed some light?
There are two areas of research that spring to mind.
The first is Reinforcement Learning. This is an online learning paradigm that allows you to get feedback and update your policy (in this instance, your classifier) as you observe the results.
The second is active learning, where the classifier gets to select examples from a pool of unclassified examples to get labelled. The key is to have the classifier choose the examples for labelling which best improve its accuracy by choosing difficult examples under the current classifier hypothesis.
I have used such feedback for every machine-learning project I worked on. It allows to train on less data (thus training is faster) than by selecting data randomly. The model accuracy is also improved faster than by using randomly selected training data. I'm working on image processing (computer vision) data so one other type of selection I'm doing is to add clustered false (wrong) data instead of adding every single false data. This is because I assume I will always have some fails, so my definition for positive data is when it is clustered in the same area of the image.
I saw this paper some time ago, which seems to be what you are looking for.
They are basically modeling classification problems as Markov decision processes and solving using the ACLA algorithm. The paper is much more detailed than what I could write here, but ultimately they are getting results that outperform the multilayer perceptron, so this looks like a pretty efficient method.