I am doing a classification and I have this question about using LDA just for dimension reduction:
Shall the LDA be applied on whole feature matrix including train and test data and then (after reducing the dimension of data) do the partitioning of feature matrix to provide train and test sets for classification? Is it true?
Then, suppose we need to partition the data before applying the LDA. How is it possible to do the classification on the test data using the Matlab's internal classifiers like kNN and SVM?
You should generate the LDA on the train and afterwards apply it on the test set as well.
The reason is that you wan't to check how your entire processing chain performs on unseen data. If you generate the LDA model on train/test it might be that otherwise less important information might disappear.
Actually if you determine the number of dimensions you should go for a train/test/validation split. Where you determine the optimal number of dimension on train/test. Then build LDA+Model on train and test merged and evaluate on validation.
Related
When do data pre-processing, it is suggested to do either scaling or normalization. It is easy to do it when you have data on your hand. You have all the data and can do it right away. But after the model built and run, does the first data that comes in need to be scaled or normalized? If it needed, it only one single row how to scale or normalize it? How do we know what is the min/max/mean/stdev from each feature? And how is the incoming data is the min/max/mean each feature?
Please advise
First of all you should know when to use scaling and normalization.
Scaling - scaling is nothing but to transform your features to comparable magnitudes.Let say if you have features like person's income and you noticed that some have value of order 10^3 and some have 10^6.Now if you model your problem with this features then algorithms like KNN, Ridge Regression will give higher weight to higher magnitude of such attributes.To prevent this you need to first scale your features.Min-Max scaler is one of the most used scaling.
Mean Normalisation -
If after examining the distribution of the feature and you found that feature is not centered around zero then for the algorithm like svm where objective function already assumes zero mean and same order variance, we could have problem in modeling.So here you should do Mean Normalisation.
Standardization - For the algorithm like svm, neural network, logistic regression it is necessary to have a variance of the feature in the same order.So why don't we make it to one.So in standardization, we make the distribution of features to zero mean and unit variance.
Now let's try to answer your question in terms of training and testing set.
So let's say you are training your model on 50k dataset and testing on 10k dataset.
For the above three transformations, the standard approach says that you should fit any normalizer or scaler to only training dataset and use only transform for the testing dataset.
In our case, if we want to use standardization then we will first fit our standardizer on 50k training dataset and then used to transform it 50k training dataset and also testing dataset.
Note - We shouldn't fit our standardizer to test dataset, in place of we will use already fitted standardizer to transform testing dataset.
Yes, you need to apply normalization to the input data, else the model will predict nonsense.
You also have to save the normalization coefficients that were used during training, or from training data. Then you have to apply the same coefficients to incoming data.
For example if you use min-max normalization:
f_n = (f - min(f)) / (max(f) - min_(f))
Then you need to save the min(f) and max(f) in order to perform normalization for new data.
I'd like to use the probability output from a model as features to another model.
For instance, I want to determine what kind of bird is on a picture, I want to use a CNN, train it and then use the probability result with other data, like size and weight from the bird, and feed it to a svm.
Do I need to use training and testing set for extracting these probabilities using the CNN? Should I devide my dataset into folds and then extract the probabilities for each different testing fold or can I just train and test on all my data and save the probabilities?
A test set is intended to validate your classifier reaches its goals, or alternatively to set hyper-parameters. In this case, you're not interested in the output of the CNN, as it's just an intermediate layer in the bigger picture.
Having said that, you're apparently not back-propagating SVM errors through its inputs. That's the consequence of a two-stage model. If you did, you'd be optimizing the CNN for use as input to that particular SVM.
Before applying SVM on my data I want to reduce its dimension by PCA. Should I separate the Train data and Test data then apply PCA on each of them separately or apply PCA on both sets combined then separate them?
Actually both provided answers are only partially right. The crucial part here is what is the exact problem you are trying to solve. There are two basic possible settings which can be considered, and both are valid under some assumptions.
Case 1
You have some data (which you splitted to train and test) and in the future you will get more data coming from the same distribution.
If this is the case, you should fit PCA on train data, then SVM on its projection, and for testing you just apply already fitted PCA followed by already fitted SVM, and you do exactly the same for new data that will come. This way your test error (under some "size assumptions" should approximate your expected error).
Case 2
You have some data (which you splitted train and test) and in the future you will obtain a big chunk of unlabeled data and you will be able to fit your model then.
In such a case, you fit PCA on whole data provided, learn SVM on labeled part (train set) and evaluate on test set. This way, once new data arrives you can fit PCA using both your data and new ones, and then - train SVM on your old data (as this is the only one having labels). Under the assumption that again - data comes from the same distributions, everything is correct here. You use more data to fit PCA only to have a better estimator (maybe your data is really high dimensional and PCA fails with small sample?).
You should do them separately. If you run pca on both sets combined then you are going to introduce a bias in your svn. The goal of the test set is to see how your algorithm will perform without prior knowledge of the data.
Learn the Projection Matrix of PCA on the train set and use this to reduce the dimensions of the test data.
One benifit is this way you don't have to rely on collecting sufficient data in the test set if you are applying your classifier for actual run time where test data comes one sample at a time.
Also I think separate train and test PCA will fail.Why?
Think of PCA as giving you features, and then you learn a classifier over these features. If over time your data shifts, then the test features you get using PCA would be different, and you don't have a classifier trained on these features. Even if the set of directions/features of the PCA remain same but their order varies your classifier still fails.
I'm trying to perform sentiment analysis on a dataset.But there is no existing corpus that my classifier can be trained on that is similar to the dataset that I want to analyze. My question is as follows: Can I use a randomly sampled subset of this data for training/validation phases and then use the trained classifier for performing analysis on the larger dataset? I plan to introduce some variability by adding data points to the training set that are similar to the application dataset but not from that set. Is this is a valid approach?
What you are looking for is the standard procedure of cross-validation. During cross-validation you split your data on (let's assume) 80%-20% training testing data and make 5-10 (depending on the size of data you have) different splits. So I would suggest that you keep a subset of the data and then perform cross-validation on this subset. This is the optimal way to train your model.
I have a question about some basic concepts of machine learning. The examples, I observed, were giving a brief overview .For training the system, feature vector is given as input. In case of supervised learning, the dataset is labelled. I have confusion about labelling. For example if I have to distinguish between two types of pictures, I will provide a feature vector and on output side for testing, I'll provide 1 for type A and 2 for type B. But if I want to extract a region of interest from a dataset of images. How will I label my data to extract ROI using SVM. I hope I am able to convey my confusion. Thanks in anticipation.
In supervised learning, such as SVMs, the dataset should be composed as follows:
<i-th feature vector><i-th label>
where i goes from 1 to the number of patterns (also examples or observations) in your training set so this represents a single record in your training set which can be used to train the SVM classifier.
So you basically have a set composed by such tuples and if you do have just 2 labels (binary classification problem) you can easily use a SVM. Indeed the SVM model will be trained thanks to the training set and the training labels and once the training phase has finished you can use another set (called Validation Set or Test Set), which is structured in the same way as the training set, to test the accuracy of your SVMs.
In other words the SVM workflow should be structured as follows:
train the SVM using the training set and the training labels
predict the labels for the validation set using the model trained in the previous step
if you know what the actual validation labels are, you can match the predicted labels with the actual labels and check how many labels have been correctly predicted. The ratio between the number of correctly predicted labels and the total number of labels in the validation set returns a scalar between [0;1] and it's called the accuracy of your SVM model.
if you're interested in the ROI, you might want to check the trained SVM parameters (mainly the weights and bias) to reconstruct the separation hyperplane
It is also important to know that the training set records should be correctly, a priori labelled: if the training labels are not correct, the SVM will never be able to correctly predict the output for previously unseen patterns. You do not have to label your data according to the ROI you want to extract, the data must be correctly labelled a priori: the SVM will have the entire set of type A pictures and the set of type B pictures and will learn the decision boundary to separate pictures of type A and pictures of type B. You do not have to trick the labels: if you do, you're not doing classification and/or machine learning and/or pattern recognition. You're basically tricking the results.