I know Normalization means reducing redundancy in data sets but what is the definition of normalized data?
Can I describe it as the "simplest form" of a data set?
Normalization is not necessarily related to redundancy. It’s related to reduction. For instance, in my daily code, normalizing is more about mapping big intervals into [0;1]. Although data normalization might have a general meaning for database administrators, it doesn’t have one if you look at it without a context.
Related
I am trying to understand why it is that a model overfits when you have little data to run with.
I get the typical artistic idea behind it whereby you would essentially have the model "memorize" whatever little data (or variations to be specific) you've given it.
But is there a more robust reason for this?
Couldn't you for example with a small dataset (or large one) with very little variation, just force it to not overfit by constraining the model or adding some form of regularization?
P.S I have seen an explanation detailing how not introducing the type of variance that exists within the population can definitely lead the model to generalize less and less. But is this just a quick way to rationalize it or is there, again as i mentioned above, a way to eliminate this lack of variance in the data?
yes, you can add regularization, batch normalization or even dropout to reduce overfitting. model overfit when you have to less data as compared to number of parameters in models such as weights in neural network.
Also you can fix error of model in batches rather then individual sample that way your model is less likely overfit the data.
You can also add noise to data to reduce overfitting.
I know you're supposed to separate your training data from your testing data, but when you make predictions with your model is it OK to use the entire data set?
I assume separating your training and testing data is valuable for assessing the accuracy and prediction strength of different models, but once you've chosen a model I can't think of any downsides to using the full data set for predictions.
You can use full data for prediction but better retain indexes of train and test data. Here are pros and cons of it:
Pro:
If you retain index of rows belonging to train and test data then you just need to predict once (and so time saving) to get all results. You can calculate performance indicators (R2/MAE/AUC/F1/precision/recall etc.) for train and test data separately after subsetting actual and predicted value using train and test set indexes.
Cons:
If you calculate performance indicator for entire data set (not clearly differentiating train and test using indexes) then you will have overly optimistic estimates. This happens because (having trained on train data) model gives good results of train data. Which depending of % split of train and test, will gives illusionary good performance indicator values.
Processing large test data at once may create memory bulge which is can result in crash in all-objects-in-memory languages like R.
In general, you're right - when you've finished selecting your model and tuning the parameters, you should use all of your data to actually build the model (exception below).
The reason for dividing data into train and test is that, without out-of-bag samples, high-variance algorithms will do better than low-variance ones, almost by definition. Consequently, it's necessary to split data into train and test parts for questions such as:
deciding whether kernel-SVR is better or worse than linear regression, for your data
tuning the parameters of kernel-SVR
However, once these questions are determined, then, in general, as long as your data is generated by the same process, the better predictions will be, and you should use all of it.
An exception is the case where the data is, say, non-stationary. Suppose you're training for the stock market, and you have data from 10 years ago. It is unclear that the process hasn't changed in the meantime. You might be harming your prediction, by including more data, in this case.
Yes, there are techniques for doing this, e.g. k-fold cross-validation:
One of the main reasons for using cross-validation instead of using the conventional validation (e.g. partitioning the data set into two sets of 70% for training and 30% for test) is that there is not enough data available to partition it into separate training and test sets without losing significant modelling or testing capability. In these cases, a fair way to properly estimate model prediction performance is to use cross-validation as a powerful general technique.
That said, there may not be a good reason for doing so if you have plenty of data, because it means that the model you're using hasn't actually been tested on real data. You're inferring that it probably will perform well, since models trained using the same methods on less data also performed well. That's not always a safe assumption. Machine learning algorithms can be sensitive in ways you wouldn't expect a priori. Unless you're very starved for data, there's really no reason for it.
I am setting up a Naive Bayes Classifier to try to determine sameness between two records of five string properties. I am only comparing each pair of properties exactly (i.e., with a java .equals() method). I have some training data, both TRUE and FALSE cases, but let's just focus on the TRUE cases for now.
Let's say there are some TRUE training cases where all five properties are different. That means every comparator fails, but the records are actually determined to be the 'same' after some human assessment.
Should this training case be fed to the Naive Bayes Classifier? On the one hand, considering the fact that NBC treats each variable separately these cases shouldn't totally break it. However, it certainly seems true that feeding in enough of these cases wouldn't be beneficial to the classifier's performance. I understand that seeing a lot of these cases would mean better comparators are required, but I'm wondering what to do in the time being. Another consideration is that the flip-side is impossible; that is, there's no way all five properties could be the same between two records and still have them be 'different' records.
Is this a preferential issue, or is there a definitive accepted practice for handling this?
Usually you will want to have a training data set that is as feasibly representative as possible of the domain from which you hope to classify observations (often difficult though). An unrepresentative set may lead to a poorly functioning classifier, particularly in a production environment where various data are received. That being said, preprocessing may be used to limit the exposure of a classifier trained on a particular subset of data, so it is quite dependent on the purpose of the classifier.
I'm not sure why you wish to exclude some elements though. Parameter estimation/learning should account for the fact that two different inputs may map to the same output --- that is why you would use machine learning instead of simply using a hashmap. Considering that you usually don't have 'all data' to build your model, you have to rely on this type of inference.
Have you had a look at the NLTK; it is in python but it seems that OpenNLP may be a suitable substitute in Java? You can employ better feature extraction techniques that lead to a model that accounts for minor variations in input strings (see here).
Lastly, it seems to me that you want to learn a mapping from input strings to the classes 'same' and 'not same' --- you seem to want to infer a distance measure (just checking). It would make more sense to invest effort in directly finding a better measure (e.g. for character transposition issues you could use edit distances). I'm not sure that NB is well-suited to your problem as it is attempting to determine a class given an observation(s) (or its features). This class will have to be discernible over various different strings (I'm assuming you are going to concatenate string1 & string2, and offer them to the classifier). Will there be enough structure present to derive such a widely applicable property? This classifier is basically going to need to be able to deal with all pair-wise 'comparisons' ,unless you build NBs for each one-vs-many pairing. This does not seem like a simple approach.
I have a 6-dimensional training dataset where there is a perfect numeric attribute which separates all the training examples this way: if TIME<200 then the example belongs to class1, if TIME>=200 then example belongs to class2. J48 creates a tree with only 1 level and this attribute as the only node.
However, the test dataset does not follow this hypothesis and all the examples are missclassified. I'm having trouble figuring out whether this case is considered overfitting or not. I would say it is not as the dataset is that simple, but as far as I understood the definition of overfit, it implies a high fitting to the training data, and this I what I have. Any help?
However, the test dataset does not follow this hypothesis and all the examples are missclassified. I'm having trouble figuring out whether this case is considered overfitting or not. I would say it is not as the dataset is that simple, but as far as I understood the definition of overfit, it implies a high fitting to the training data, and this I what I have. Any help?
Usually great training score and bad testing means overfitting. But this assumes IID of the data, and you are clearly violating this assumption - your training data is completely different from the testing one (there is a clear rule for the training data which has no meaning for testing one). In other words - your train/test split is incorrect, or your whole problem does not follow basic assumptions of where to use statistical ml. Of course we often fit models without valid assumptions about the data, in your case - the most natural approach is to drop a feature which violates the assumption the most - the one used to construct the node. This kind of "expert decisions" should be done prior to building any classifier, you have to think about "what is different in test scenario as compared to training one" and remove things that show this difference - otherwise you have heavy skew in your data collection, thus statistical methods will fail.
Yes, it is an overfit. The first rule in creating a training set is to make it look as much like any other set as possible. Your training set is clearly different than any other. It has the answer embedded within it while your test set doesn't. Any learning algorithm will likely find the correlation to the answer and use it and, just like the J48 algorithm, will regard the other variables as noise. The software equivalent of Clever Hans.
You can overcome this by either removing the variable or by training on a set drawn randomly from the entire available set. However, since you know that there is a subset with an embedded major hint, you should remove the hint.
You're lucky. At times these hints can be quite subtle which you won't discover until you start applying the model to future data.
I am reading about n-grams and I am wondering whether there is a case in practice when uni-grams would are preferred to be used over bi-grams (or higher N-grams). As I understand, the bigger N, the bigger complexity to calculate the probabilities and establish the vector space. But apart from that, are there other reasons (e.g. related to type of data)?
This boils down to data sparsity: As your n-gram length increases, the amount of times you will see any given n-gram will decrease: In the most extreme example, if you have a corpus where the maximum document length is n tokens and you are looking for an m-gram where m=n+1, you will, of course, have no data points at all because it's simply not possible to have a sequence of that length in your data set. The more sparse your data set, the worse you can model it. For this reason, despite that a higher-order n-gram model, in theory, contains more information about a word's context, it cannot easily generalize to other data sets (known as overfitting) because the number of events (i.e. n-grams) it has seen during training becomes progressively less as n increases. On the other hand, a lower-order model lacks contextual information and so may underfit your data.
For this reason, if you have a very relatively large amount of token types (i.e. the vocabulary of your text is very rich) but each of these types has a very low frequency, you may get better results with a lower-order n-gram model. Similarly, if your training data set is very small, you may do better with a lower-order n-gram model. However, assuming that you have enough data to avoid over-fitting, you then get better separability of your data with a higher-order model.
Usually, n-grams more than 1 is better as it carries more information about the context in general. However, sometimes unigrams are also calculated besides bigram and trigrams and used as fallback for them. This is usefull also, if you want high recall than precision to search unigrams, for instance, you are searching for all possible uses of verb "make".
Lets use Statistical Machine Translation as an Example:
Intuitively, the best scenario is that your model has seen the full sentence (lets say 6-grams) before and knows its translation as a whole. If this is not the case you try to divide it to smaller n-grams, keeping into consideration that the more information you know about the word surroundings, the better the translation. For example, if you want to translate "Tom Green" to German, if you have seen the bi-gram you will know it is a person name and should remain as it is but if your model never saw it, you would fall back to unigrams and translate "Tom" and "Green" separately. Thus "Green" will be translated as a color to "Grün" and so on.
Also, in search knowing more about the surrounding context makes the results more accurate.