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.
Related
I have an image dataset that is quite imbalanced, with one class having 2873 images and another having only 115. The rest of the classes have ~250 images each. For reducing the imbalance, I decided to split the dataset into Train-Valid-Test components, with the major class having less proportion of images in the training set compared to the minor classes.
Then I'll be augmenting the data in the training set. I intend to perform an 80-10-10 split on the dataset.
Which outcome shall be considered as an 80-10-10 split?
Splitting the dataset in the proportion 80-10-10, and THEN augmenting the training images (which would eventually result in >80% proportion for the training set after augmentation).
Splitting the dataset in a proportion such that it eventually results in an 80-10-10 split AFTER augmentation.
Also, is it acceptable to have an 85-7.5-7.5 split, provided it reduces imbalance in the dataset?
First, the splitting of the dataset should be stratified which means that each class should exist in the training, test and validation sets with the defined proportions.
The data augmentation should only be applied on the training dataset, no need to apply it on the test data because its main goal is to improve the performance and outcomes of the models by making different examples in the train dataset. So, there is no need to apply data augmentation on the test and validation sets.
For the last question, it is possible whatever proportions you want for test and validation as long as they give you enough data to evaluate the model
I am using Weka software to classify model. I have confusion using training and testing dataset partition. I divide 60% of the whole dataset as training dataset and save it to my hard disk and use 40% of data as test dataset and save this data to another file. The data that I am using is an imbalanced data. So I applied SMOTE in my training dataset. After that, in the classify tab of the Weka I selected Use training set option from Test options and used Random Forest classifier to do the classification on the training dataset. After getting the result I chose Supplied test set option from Test options and load my test dataset from hard disk and again ran the classifier.
I try to find out tutorial on how to load training set and test set in Weka but did not get it. I did the above process depend upon my understanding.
Therefore, I would like to know is that the right way to perform classification on training and test dataset?
Thank you.
There is no need to evaluate your classifier on the training set (this will be overly optimistic, since the classifier has already seen this data). Just use the Supplied test set option, then your classifier will get trained automatically on the currently loaded dataset before being evaluated on the specified test set.
Instead of manually splitting your data, you could also use the Percentage split test option, with 60% to be used for your training data.
When using filters, you should always wrap them (in this case SMOTE) and your classifier (in this case RandomForest) in the FilteredClassifier meta-classifier. That way, you will ensure that the training and test set data will get transformed correctly. This will also avoid the problem of leaking information into the test set when transforming the full dataset with a supervised filter and splitting the dataset into train/test afterwards. Finally, it also documents nicely what preprocessing is being done to your input data, all in a single command-line string.
If you need to apply more than one filter, use the MultiFilter to apply them sequentially.
I have a imbalanced dataset. I am using SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique)to perform oversampling. When performing the binary classification, I use 10-fold cross validation on this oversampled dataset.
However, I recently came accross this paper; Joint use of over- and under-sampling techniques and cross-validation for the development and assessment of prediction models that mentions that it is incorrect to use the oversampled dataset during cross-validation as it leads to overoptimistic performance estimates.
I want to verify the correct approach/procedure of using the over-sampled data in cross validation?
To avoid overoptimistic performance estimates from cross-validation in Weka when using a supervised filter, use FilteredClassifier (in the meta category) and configure it with the filter (e.g. SMOTE) and classifier (e.g. Naive Bayes) that you want to use.
For each cross-validation fold Weka will use only that fold's training data to parameterise the filter.
When you do this with SMOTE you won't see a difference in the number of instances in the Weka results window, but what's happening is that Weka is building the model on the SMOTE-applied dataset, but showing the output of evaluating it on the unfiltered training set - which makes sense in terms of understanding the real performance. Try changing the SMOTE filter settings (e.g. the -P setting, which controls how many additional minority-class instances are generated as a percentage of the number in the dataset) and you should see the performance changing, showing you that the filter is actually doing something.
The use of FilteredClassifier is illustrated in this video and these slides from the More Data Mining with Weka online course. In this example the filtering operation is supervised discretisation, not SMOTE, but the same principle applies to any supervised filter.
If you have further questions about the SMOTE technique I suggest asking them on Cross Validated and/or the Weka mailing list.
The correct approach would be first splitting the data into multiple folds and then applying sampling just to the training data and let the validation data be as is. The image below states the correct approach of how the dataset should be resampled in a K-fold fashion.
If you want to achieve this in python, there is a library for that:
Link to the library: https://pypi.org/project/k-fold-imblearn/
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.
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.