This my sound as very naive question. I checked on google and many YouTube videos for beginners and pretty much, all explain data weighting as something the most obvious. I still do not understand why data is being weighted.
Let's assume I have four features:
a b c d
1 2 1 4
If I pass each value to Sigmond function, I'll receive -1 >< 1 value already.
I really don't understand why data needs or it is recommended to be weighted first. If you could explain to me this in very simple manner, I would appreciate it a lot.
I think you are not talking about weighing data but features.
A feature is a column in your table and as data I would understand rows.
The confusion comes now from the fact that weighing rows is also sometimes sensible, e.g., if you want to punish misclassification of positive class more.
Why do we need to weigh features?
I assume you are talking about a modle like
prediction = sigmoid(sum_i weight_i * feature_i) > base
Let's assume you want to predict whether a person is overweight based on Bodyweight, height, and age.
In R we can generate a sample dataset as
height = rnorm(100,1.80,0.1) #normal distributed mean 1.8,variance 0.1
weight = rnorm(100,70,10)
age = runif(100,0,100)
ow = weight / (height**2)>25 #overweight if BMI > 25
data = data.frame(height,weight,age,bc,ow)
if we now plot the data you can see that at least my sample of the data can be separated with a straight line in weight/height. However, age does not provide any value. If we weight it prior to the sum/sigmoid you can put all factors into relation.
Furthermore, as you can see from the following plot the weight/height have a very different domain. Hence, they need to be put into relation, such that the line in the following plot has the right slope, as the value of weight have are one order of magnitude larger
Related
I have a set of 20 small document which talks about a particular kind of issue (training data). Now i want to identify those docs out of 10K documents, which are talking about the same issue.
For the purpose i am using the doc2vec implementation:
from gensim.models.doc2vec import Doc2Vec, TaggedDocument
from nltk.tokenize import word_tokenize
# Tokenize_and_stem is creating the tokens and stemming and returning the list
# documents_prb store the list of 20 docs
tagged_data = [TaggedDocument(words=tokenize_and_stem(_d.lower()), tags=[str(i)]) for i, _d in enumerate(documents_prb)]
max_epochs = 20
vec_size = 20
alpha = 0.025
model = Doc2Vec(size=vec_size,
alpha=alpha,
min_alpha=0.00025,
min_count=1,
dm =1)
model.build_vocab(tagged_data)
for epoch in range(max_epochs):
print('iteration {0}'.format(epoch))
model.train(tagged_data,
total_examples=model.corpus_count,
epochs=model.iter)
# decrease the learning rate
model.alpha -= 0.0002
# fix the learning rate, no decay
model.min_alpha = model.alpha
model.save("d2v.model")
print("Model Saved")
model= Doc2Vec.load("d2v.model")
#to find the vector of a document which is not in training data
def doc2vec_score(s):
s_list = tokenize_and_stem(s)
v1 = model.infer_vector(s_list)
similar_doc = model.docvecs.most_similar([v1])
original_match = (X[int(similar_doc[0][0])])
score = similar_doc[0][1]
match = similar_doc[0][0]
return score,match
final_data = []
# df_ws is the list of 10K docs for which i want to find the similarity with above 20 docs
for index, row in df_ws.iterrows():
print(row['processed_description'])
data = (doc2vec_score(row['processed_description']))
L1=list(data)
L1.append(row['Number'])
final_data.append(L1)
with open('file_cosine_d2v.csv','w',newline='') as out:
csv_out=csv.writer(out)
csv_out.writerow(['score','match','INC_NUMBER'])
for row in final_data:
csv_out.writerow(row)
But, I am facing the strange issue, the results are highly un-reliable (Score is 0.9 even if there is not a slightest match) and score is changing with great margin every time. I am running the doc2vec_score function. Can someone please help me what is wrong here ?
First & foremost, try not using the anti-pattern of calling train multiple times in your own loop.
See this answer for more details: My Doc2Vec code, after many loops of training, isn't giving good results. What might be wrong?
If there's still a problem after that fix, edit your question to show the corrected code, and a more clear example of the output you consider unreliable.
For example, show the actual doc-IDs & scores, and explain why you think the probe document you're testing should be "not a slightest match" for any documents returned.
And note that if a document is truly nothing like the training documents, for example by using words that weren't in the training documents, it's not really possible for a Doc2Vec model to detect that. When it infers vectors for new documents, all unknown words are ignored. So you'll be left with a document using only known words, and it will return the best matches for that subset of your document's words.
More fundamentally, a Doc2Vec model is really only learning ways to contrast the documents that are in the universe demonstrated by the training set, by their words' cooccurrences. If presented with a document with either totally different words, or words whose frequencies/cooccurrences are totally unlike anything seen before, its output will be essentially random, without much meaningful relationship to other more-typical documents. (That'll be maybe-close, maybe-far, because in a way the training on the 'known universe' tends to fill the whole available space.)
So, you wouldn't want to use a Doc2Vec model trained only only positive examples of what you want to recognize, if you also want to recognize negative examples. Rather, include all kinds, then remember the subset that's relevant for certain in/out decisions – and use that subset for downstream comparisons, or multiple subsets to feed a more-formal classification or clustering algorithm.
I implemented a cosine-theta function, which calculates the relation between two articles. If two articles are very similar then the words should contain quite some overlap. However, a cosine theta score of 0.54 does not mean "related" or "not related". I should end up with a definitive answer which is either 0 for 'not related' or 1 for 'related'.
I know that there are sigmoid and softmax functions, yet I should find the optimal parameters to give to such functions and I do not know if these functions are satisfactory solutions. I was thinking that I have the cosine theta score, I can calculate the percentage of overlap between two sentences two (e.g. the amount of overlapping words divided by the amount of words in the article) and maybe some more interesting things. Then with the data, I could maybe write a function (what type of function I do not know and is part of the question!), after which I can minimize the error via the SciPy library. This means that I should do some sort of supervised learning, and I am willing to label article pairs with labels (0/1) in order to train a network. Is this worth the effort?
# Count words of two strings.
v1, v2 = self.word_count(s1), self.word_count(s2)
# Calculate the intersection of the words in both strings.
v3 = set(v1.keys()) & set(v2.keys())
# Calculate some sort of ratio between the overlap and the
# article length (since 1 overlapping word on 2 words is more important
# then 4 overlapping words on articles of 492 words).
p = min(len(v1), len(v2)) / len(v3)
numerator = sum([v1[w] * v2[w] for w in v3])
w1 = sum([v1[w]**2 for w in v1.keys()])
w2 = sum([v2[w]**2 for w in v2.keys()])
denominator = math.sqrt(w1) * math.sqrt(w2)
# Calculate the cosine similarity
if not denominator:
return 0.0
else:
return (float(numerator) / denominator)
As said, I would like to use variables such as p, and the cosine theta score in order to produce an accurate discrete binary label, either 0 or 1.
As said, I would like to use variables such as p, and the cosine theta score in order to produce an accurate discrete binary label, either 0 or 1.
Here it really comes down to what you mean by accuracy. It is up to you to choose how the overlap affects whether or not two strings are "matching" unless you have a labelled data set. If you have a labelled data set (I.e., a set of pairs of strings along with a 0 or 1 label), then you can train a binary classification algorithm and try to optimise based on that. I would recommend something like a neural net or SVM due to the potentially high dimensional, categorical nature of your problem.
Even the optimisation, however, is a subjective measure. For example, in theory let's pretend you have a model which out of 100 samples only predicts 1 answer (Giving 99 unknowns). Technically if that one answer is correct, that is a model with 100% accuracy, but which has a very low recall. Generally in machine learning you will find a trade off between recall and accuracy.
Some people like to go for certain metrics which combine the two (The most famous of which is the F1 score), but honestly it depends on the application. If I have a marketing campaign with a fixed budget, then I care more about accuracy - I would only want to target consumers who are likely to buy my product. If however, we are looking to test for a deadly disease or markers for bank fraud, then it's feasible for that test to be accurate only 10% of the time - if its recall of true positives is somewhere close to 100%.
Finally, if you have no labelled data, then your best bet is just to define some cut off value which you believe indicates a good match. This is would then be more analogous to a binary clustering problem, and you could use some more abstract measure such as distance to a centroid to test which cluster (Either the "related" or "unrelated" cluster) the point belongs to. Note however that here your features feel like they would be incredibly hard to define.
Let's say I want to calculate which courses a final year student will take and which grades they will receive from the said courses. We have data of previous students'courses and grades for each year (not just the final year) to train with. We also have data of the grades and courses of the previous years for students we want to estimate the results for. I want to use a recurrent neural network with long-short term memory to solve this problem. (I know this problem can be solved by regression, but I want the neural network specifically to see if this problem can be properly solved using one)
The way I want to set up the output (label) space is by having a feature for each of the possible courses a student can take, and having a result between 0 and 1 in each of those entries to describe whether if a student will attend the class (if not, the entry for that course would be 0) and if so, what would their mark be (ie if the student attends class A and gets 57%, then the label for class A will have 0.57 in it)
Am I setting the output space properly?
If yes, what optimization and activation functions I should use?
If no, how can I re-shape my output space to get good predictions?
If I understood you correctly, you want that the network is given the history of a student, and then outputs one entry for each course. This entry is supposed to simultaneously signify whether the student will take the course (0 for not taking the course, 1 for taking the course), and also give the expected grade? Then the interpretation of the output for a single course would be like this:
0.0 -> won't take the course
0.1 -> will take the course and get 10% of points
0.5 -> will take the course and get half of points
1.0 -> will take the course and get full points
If this is indeed your plan, I would definitely advise to rethink it.
Some obviously realistic cases do not fit into this pattern. For example, how would you represent an (A+)-student is "unlikely" to take a course? Should the network output 0.9999, because (s)he is very likely to get the maximum amount of points if (s)he takes the course, OR should the network output 0.0001, because the student is very unlikely to take the course?
Instead, you should output two values between [0,1] for each student and each course.
First value in [0, 1] gives the probability that the student will participate in the course
Second value in [0, 1] gives the expected relative number of points.
As loss, I'd propose something like binary cross-entropy on the first value, and simple square error on the second, and then combine all the losses using some L^p metric of your choice (e.g. simply add everything up for p=1, square and add for p=2).
Few examples:
(0.01, 1.0) : very unlikely to participate, would probably get 100%
(0.5, 0.8): 50%-50% whether participates or not, would get 80% of points
(0.999, 0.15): will participate, but probably pretty much fail
The quantity that you wanted to output seemed to be something like the product of these two, which is a bit difficult to interpret.
There is more than one way to solve this problem. Andrey's answer gives a one good approach.
I would like to suggest simplifying the problem by bucketing grades into categories and adding an additional category for "did not take", for both input and output.
This turns the task into a classification problem only, and solves the issue of trying to differentiate between receiving a low grade and not taking the course in your output.
For example your training set might have m students, n possible classes, and six possible results: ['A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'F', 'did_not_take'].
And you might choose the following architecture:
Input -> Dense Layer -> RELU -> Dense Layer -> RELU -> Dense Layer -> Softmax
Your input shape is (m, n, 6) and your output shape could be (m, n*6), where you apply softmax for every group of 6 outputs (corresponding to one class) and sum into a single loss value. This is an example of multiclass, multilabel classification.
I would start by trying 2n neurons in each hidden layer.
If you really want a continuous output for grades, however, then I recommend using separate classification and regression networks. This way you don't have to combine classification and regression loss into one number, which can get messy with scaling issues.
You can keep the grade buckets for input data only, so the two networks take the same input data, but for the grade regression network your last layer can be n sigmoid units with log loss. These will output numbers between 0 and 1, corresponding the predicted grade for each class.
If you want to go even further, consider using an architecture that considers the order in which students took previous classes. For example if a student took French I the previous year, it is more likely he/she will take French II this year than if he/she took French Freshman year and did not continue with French after that.
Data: When I have N rows of data like this: (x,y,z) where logically f(x,y)=z, that is z is dependent on x and y, like in my case (setting1, setting2 ,signal) . Different x's and y's can lead to the same z, but the z's wouldn't mean the same thing.
There are 30 unique setting1, 30 setting2 and 1 signal for each (setting1, setting2)-pairing, hence 900 signal values.
Data set: These [900,3] data points are considered 1 data set. I have many samples of these data sets.
I want to make a classification based on these data sets, but I need to flatten the data (make them all into one row). If I flatten it, I will duplicate all the setting values (setting1 and setting2) 30 times, i.e. I will have a row with 3x900 columns.
Question:
Is it correct to keep all the duplicate setting1,setting2 values in the data set? Or should I remove them and only include the unique values a single time?, i.e. have a row with 30 + 30 + 900 columns. I'm worried, that the logical dependency of the signal to the settings will be lost this way. Is this relevant? Or shouldn't I bother including the settings at all (e.g. due to correlations)?
If I understand correctly, you are training NN on a sample where each observation is [900,3].
You are flatning it and getting an input layer of 3*900.
Some of those values are a result of a function on others.
It is important which function, as if it is a liniar function, NN might not work:
From here:
"If inputs are linearly dependent then you are in effect introducing
the same variable as multiple inputs. By doing so you've introduced a
new problem for the network, finding the dependency so that the
duplicated inputs are treated as a single input and a single new
dimension in the data. For some dependencies, finding appropriate
weights for the duplicate inputs is not possible."
Also, if you add dependent variables you risk the NN being biased towards said variables.
E.g. If you are running LMS on [x1,x2,x3,average(x1,x2)] to predict y, you basically assign a higher weight to the x1 and x2 variables.
Unless you have a reason to believe that those weights should be higher, don't include their function.
I was not able to find any link to support, but my intuition is that you might want to decrease your input layer in addition to omitting the dependent values:
From professor A. Ng's ML Course I remember that the input should be the minimum amount of values that are 'reasonable' to make the prediction.
Reasonable is vague, but I understand it so: If you try to predict the price of a house include footage, area quality, distance from major hub, do not include average sun spot activity during the open home day even though you got that data.
I would remove the duplicates, I would also look for any other data that can be omitted, maybe run PCA over the full set of Nx[3,900].
I am working on Classification using Random Forest algorithm in Spark have a sample dataset that looks like this:
Level1,Male,New York,New York,352.888890
Level1,Male,San Fransisco,California,495.8001345
Level2,Male,New York,New York,-495.8001345
Level1,Male,Columbus,Ohio,165.22352099
Level3,Male,New York,New York,495.8
Level4,Male,Columbus,Ohio,652.8
Level5,Female,Stamford,Connecticut,495.8
Level1,Female,San Fransisco,California,495.8001345
Level3,Male,Stamford,Connecticut,-552.8234
Level6,Female,Columbus,Ohio,7000
Here the last value in each row will serve as a label and rest serve as features. But I want to treat label as a category and not a number. So 165.22352099 will denote a category and so will -552.8234. For this I have encoded my features as well as label into categorical data. Now what I am having difficulty in is deciding what should I pass for numClasses parameter in Random Forest algorithm in Spark MlLib? I mean should it be equal to number of unique values in my label? My label has like 10000 unique values so if I put 10000 as value of numClasses then wouldn't it decrease the performance dramatically?
Here is the typical signature of building a model for Random Forest in MlLib:
model = RandomForest.trainClassifier(trainingData, numClasses=2, categoricalFeaturesInfo={},
numTrees=3, featureSubsetStrategy="auto",
impurity='gini', maxDepth=4, maxBins=32)
The confusion comes from the fact that you are doing something that you should not do. You problem is clearly a regression/ranking, not a classification. Why would you think about it as a classification? Try to answer these two questions:
Do you have at least 100 samples per each value (100,000 * 100 = 1,000,000)?
Is there completely no structure in the classes, so for example - are objects with value "200" not more similar to those with value "100" or "300" than to those with value "-1000" or "+2300"?
If at least one answer is no, then you should not treat this as a classification problem.
If for some weird reason you answered twice yes, then the answer is: "yes, you should encode each distinct value as a different class" thus leading to 10000 unique classes, which leads to:
extremely imbalanced classification (RF, without balancing meta-learner will nearly always fail in such scenario)
extreme number of classes (there are no models able to solve it, for sure RF will not solve it)
extremely small dimension of the problem- looking at as small is your number of features I would be surprised if you could predict from that binary classifiaction. As you can see how irregular are these values, you have 3 points which only diverge in first value and you get completely different results:
Level1,Male,New York,New York,352.888890
Level2,Male,New York,New York,-495.8001345
Level3,Male,New York,New York,495.8
So to sum up, with nearly 100% certainty this is not a classification problem, you should either:
regress on last value (keyword: reggresion)
build a ranking (keyword: learn to rank)
bucket your values to at most 10 different values and then - classify (keywords: imbalanced classification, sparse binary representation)