I am completely new to Machine Learning algorithms and I have a quick question with respect to Classification of a dataset.
Currently there is a training data that consists of two columns Message and Identifier.
Message - Typical message extracted from Log containing timestamp and some text
Identifier - Should classify the category based on the message content.
The training data was prepared by extracting a particular category from the tool and labelling it accordingly.
Now the test data contains just the message and I am trying to obtain the Category accordingly.
Which approach is most helpful in this scenario ? Is it the Supervised or Unsupervised Learning ?
I have a trained dataset and I am trying to predict the Category for the Test Data.
Thanks in advance,
Adam
If your labels are exact then you can classify using ANN, SVM etc. But labels are not exact you have to cluster data with respect to the features you have in data. K-means or nearest neighbour can be the starting point for clustering.
It is supervised learning, and a classification problem.
However, obviously you do not have the label column (the to-be-predicted value) for your testset. Thus, you cannot calculate error measures (such as False Positive Rate, Accuracy etc) for that test set.
You could, however, split the set of labeled training data that you do have into a smaller training set and a validation set. Split it 70%/30%, perhaps. Then build a prediction model from your smaller 70% training dataset. Then tune it on your 30% validation set. When accuracy is good enough, then apply it on your testset to obtain/predict the missing values.
Which techniques / algorithms to use is a different question. You do not give enough information to answer that. And even if you did you still need to tune the model yourself.
You have labels to predict, and training data.
So by definition it is a supervised problem.
Try any classifier for text, such as NB, kNN, SVM, ANN, RF, ...
It's hard to predict which will work best on your data. You willhave to try and evaluate several.
Related
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 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.
I am interested in any tips on how to train a set with a very limited positive set and a large negative set.
I have about 40 positive examples (quite lengthy articles about a particular topic), and about 19,000 negative samples (most drawn from the sci-kit learn newsgroups dataset). I also have about 1,000,000 tweets that I could work with.. negative about the topic I am trying to train on. Is the size of the negative set versus the positive going to negatively influence training a classifier?
I would like to use cross-validation in sci-kit learn. Do I need to break this into train / test-dev / test sets? Is know there are some pre-built libraries in sci-kit. Any implementation examples that you recommend or have used previously would be helpful.
Thanks!
The answer to your first question is yes, the amount by which it will affect your results depends on the algorithm. My advive would be to keep an eye on the class-based statistics such as recall and precision (found in classification_report).
For RandomForest() you can look at this thread which discusses
the sample weight parameter. In general sample_weight is what
you're looking for in scikit-learn.
For SVM's have a look at either this example or this
example.
For NB classifiers, this should be handled implicitly by Bayes
rule, however in practice you may see some poor performances.
For you second question it's up for discussion, personally I break my data into a training and test split, perform cross validation on the training set for parameter estimation, retrain on all the training data and then test on my test set. However the amount of data you have may influence the way you split your data (more data means more options).
You could probably use Random Forest for your classification problem. There are basically 3 parameters to deal with data imbalance. Class Weight, Samplesize and Cutoff.
Class Weight-The higher the weight a class is given, the more its error rate is decreased.
Samplesize- Oversample the minority class to improve class imbalance while sampling the defects for each tree[not sure if Sci-kit supports this, used to be param in R)
Cutoff- If >x% trees vote for the minority class, classify it as minority class. By default x is 1/2 in Random forest for 2-class problem. You can set it to a lower value for the minority class.
Check out balancing predict error at https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm
For the 2nd question if you are using Random Forest, you do not need to keep separate train/validation/test set. Random Forest does not choose any parameters based on a validation set, so validation set is un-necessary.
Also during the training of Random Forest, the data for training each individual tree is obtained by sampling by replacement from the training data, thus each training sample is not used for roughly 1/3 of the trees. We can use the votes of these 1/3 trees to predict the out of box probability of the Random forest classification. Thus with OOB accuracy you just need a training set, and not validation or test data to predict performance on unseen data. Check Out of Bag error at https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm for further study.
I am new to Text Mining. I am working on Spam filter. I did text cleaning, removed stop words. n-grams are my features. So I build a frequency matrix and build model using Naive Bayes. I have very limited set of training data, so I am facing the following problem.
When a sentence comes to me for classification and if none of its features match with the existing features in training then my frequency vector has only zeros.
When I send this vector for classification, I obviously get a useless result.
What can be ideal size of training data to expect better results?
Generally, the more data you have, the better. You will get diminishing returns at some point. It is often a good idea to see if your training set size is a problem by plotting the cross validation performance while varying the size of the training set. In scikit-learn has an example of this type of "learning curve."
Scikit-learn Learning Curve Example
You may consider bringing in outside sample posts to increase the size of your training set.
As you grow your training set, you may want to try reducing the bias of your classifier. This could be done by adding n-gram features, or switching to a logistic regression or SVM model.
When a sentence comes to me for classification and if none of its features match with the existing features in training then my frequency vector has only zeros.
You should normalize your input so that it forms some kind of rough distribution around 0. A common method is to do this tranformation:
input_signal = (feature - feature_mean) / feature_stddev
Then all zeroes would only happen if all features were exactly at the mean.
I have very small data that belongs to positive class and a large set of data from negative class. According to prof. Andrew Ng (anomaly detection vs supervised learning), I should use Anomaly detection instead of Supervised learning because of highly skewed data.
Please correct me if I am wrong but both techniques look same to me i.e. in both (supervised) Anomaly detection, and standard Supervised learning, we train data with both normal and anomalous samples and test on unknown data. Is there any difference?
Should I just perform under-sampling of negative class or over-sampling of positive class to get both type data of same size? Does it affect the overall accuracy?
Actually in supervised learning, you have the data set labelled (e.g good, bad) and you pass the labelled values as you train the model so that it learns parameters that will separate the 'good' from 'bad' results.
In anomaly detection, it is unsupervised as you do not pass any labelled values.. What you do is you train using only the 'non-anomalous' data. You then select epsilon values and evaluate with a numerical value (such as F1 score) so that your model will get a good balance of true positives.
Regarding trying to over/under sample so your data is not skewed, there are 2 things.
Prof Ng mentioned something like if your positive class is only 10 out of 10k or 100k then you need to use anomaly detection since your data is highly skewed.
Supervised learning makes sense if you know typically what 'bad' values are. If you only know what is 'normal'/'good' but your 'bad' value can really be very different every time then this is a good case for anomaly detection.
In anomaly detection you would determine model parameters from the portion of the data which is well supported (As Andrew explains). Since your negative class has many instances you would use these data for 'learning'. Kernel density estimation or GMMs are examples of approaches that are typically used. A model of 'normalcy' may thus be learnt and thresholding may be used to detect instances which are considered anomalous with respect to your derived model. The difference between this approach and conventional supervised learning lies in the fact that you are using only a portion of the data (the negative class in your case) for training. You would expect your positive instances to be identified as anomalous after training.
As for your second question, under-sampling the negative class will result in a loss of information whilst over-sampling the positive class doesn't add information. I don't think that following that route is desirable.