I'm doing the exercises of Introduction to Data Mining, and got stuck on following questions about decision tree:
Training
Testing
Decision tree
The question asks me to calculate generalization error rate by using optimistic and pessimistic approaches, and the answers are 0.3 and 0.5 respectively.
They are totally different from my answers 0.5 and 0.7. From my calculation, instances 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 are misclassifications.
I have searched many documentations on Google, and all of them didn't explain why and just showed that 3 / 10 = 0.3.
Please tell me what's the mistake I made, Thanks!
I think your answers are right, the solution manual's answer is wrong, and you've made an error while reproducing the tree here - in my copy of the book, the leaf node labels read, from left to right, +, -, +, -. Your tree, with leaf nodes +, -, -, +, does lead to 30% and 50% for the optimistic and pessimistic error estimates, respectively.
Using leaf nodes +, -, +, -, the errors are indeed 50% and 70%.
Your answer is right.
It is '+' iff( not A && not B) || (A && not C)
You got this wrong, missclassified are:
in training: 3, 5, 6
in testing: 12, 13, 14, 15
Your decision tree is:
return + iff (not a and not b) or (a and c)
thus for example for 3:
A=0 B=1 C=0 class=+, and your DT returns - as A=0 and B=1
Related
Given input signal x (e.g. a voltage, sampled thousand times per second couple of minutes long), I'd like to calculate e.g.
/ this is not q
y[3] = -3*x[0] - x[1] + x[2] + 3*x[3]
y[4] = -3*x[1] - x[2] + x[3] + 3*x[4]
. . .
I'm aiming for variable window length and weight coefficients. How can I do it in q? I'm aware of mavg and signal processing in q and moving sum qidiom
In the DSP world it's called applying filter kernel by doing convolution. Weight coefficients define the kernel, which makes a high- or low-pass filter. The example above calculates the slope from last four points, placing the straight line via least squares method.
Something like this would work for parameterisable coefficients:
q)x:10+sums -1+1000?2f
q)f:{sum x*til[count x]xprev\:y}
q)f[3 1 -1 -3] x
0n 0n 0n -2.385585 1.423811 2.771659 2.065391 -0.951051 -1.323334 -0.8614857 ..
Specific cases can be made a bit faster (running 0 xprev is not the best thing)
q)g:{prev[deltas x]+3*x-3 xprev x}
q)g[x]~f[3 1 -1 -3]x
1b
q)\t:100000 f[3 1 1 -3] x
4612
q)\t:100000 g x
1791
There's a kx white paper of signal processing in q if this area interests you: https://code.kx.com/q/wp/signal-processing/
This may be a bit old but I thought I'd weigh in. There is a paper I wrote last year on signal processing that may be of some value. Working purely within KDB, dependent on the signal sizes you are using, you will see much better performance with a FFT based convolution between the kernel/window and the signal.
However, I've only written up a simple radix-2 FFT, although in my github repo I do have the untested work for a more flexible Bluestein algorithm which will allow for more variable signal length. https://github.com/callumjbiggs/q-signals/blob/master/signal.q
If you wish to go down the path of performing a full manual convolution by a moving sum, then the best method would be to break it up into blocks equal to the kernel/window size (which was based on some work Arthur W did many years ago)
q)vec:10000?100.0
q)weights:30?1.0
q)wsize:count weights
q)(weights$(((wsize-1)#0.0),vec)til[wsize]+) each til count v
32.5931 75.54583 100.4159 124.0514 105.3138 117.532 179.2236 200.5387 232.168.
If your input list not big then you could use the technique mentioned here:
https://code.kx.com/q/cookbook/programming-idioms/#how-do-i-apply-a-function-to-a-sequence-sliding-window
That uses 'scan' adverb. As that process creates multiple lists which might be inefficient for big lists.
Other solution using scan is:
q)f:{sum y*next\[z;x]} / x-input list, y-weights, z-window size-1
q)f[x;-3 -1 1 3;3]
This function also creates multiple lists so again might not be very efficient for big lists.
Other option is to use indices to fetch target items from the input list and perform the calculation. This will operate only on input list.
q) f:{[l;w;i]sum w*l i+til 4} / w- weight, l- input list, i-current index
q) f[x;-3 -1 1 3]#'til count x
This is a very basic function. You can add more variables to it as per your requirements.
T(n) = 4T(n/4) + n^2 (if n=1, T(1)=c for some positive constant)
I asked MathStackExchange but no one answered.
What I want to ask is the answer to solving by master theorem and recursion tree about the same problem.
The conclusion is below sentences.
Master theorem = theta(n^2)
Recursion tree = theta(n^2 log_4 n)
How to solve and what is the answer?
In the first level we have O(n^2) time-complexity. For the second level we have 4 times O(n/4). For the next level 4*4 times O(n/(4*4)) and so on.
So we have
PS:
The last part is a geometric series with a=1 and q = 1/4 summed upto m which m is equal to log_4(n).
Depth of recursion tree can calculate from n/4^i = c formula. So h = log_4(n).
I am trying to compute the similarity between n entities that are being described by entity_id, type_of_order, total_value.
An example of the data might look like:
NR entity_id type_of_order total_value
1 1 A 10
2 1 B 90
3 1 C 70
4 2 B 20
5 2 C 40
6 3 A 10
7 3 B 50
8 3 C 20
9 4 B 50
10 4 C 80
My question would be what is a god way of measuring the similarity between entity_id 1 and 2 for example with regards to the type_of_order and the total_value for that type of order.
Would a simple KNN give satisfactory results or should I consider other algorithms?
Any suggestion would be much appreciated.
The similarity metric is a heuristic to capture a relationship between two data rows, with respect to the data semantics and the purpose of the training. We don't know your data; we don't know your usage. It would be irresponsible to suggest metrics to solve a problem when we have no idea what problem we're solving.
You have to address this question to the person you find in the mirror. You've given us three features with no idea of what they mean or how they relate. You need to quantify ...
relative distances within features: under type_of_order, what is the relationship (distance) between any two measurements? If we arbitrarily assign d(A, B) = 1, then what is d(B, C)? We have no information to help you construct this. Further, if we give that some value c, then what is d(A, C)? In various popular metrics, it could be 1+c, |1-c|, all distances could be 1, or perhaps it's something else -- even more than 1+c in some applications.
Even in the last column, we cannot assume that d(10, 20) = d(40, 50); the actual difference could be a ratio, difference of squares, etc. Again, this depends on the semantics behind these labels.
relative weights between features: How do the differences in the various columns combine to provide a similarity? For instance, how does d([A, 10], [B, 20]) compare to d([A, 10], [C, 30])? That's two letters in the left column, two steps of 10 in the right column. How about d([A, 10], [A, 20]) vs d([A, 10], [B, 10])? Are the distances linear, or do the relationships change as we slide up the alphabet or to higher numbers?
Chapter 4.5.2 of Elements of Statistical Learning
I don't understand what does it mean：
＂Since for any β and β0 satisfying these inequalities, any positively scaled
multiple satisfies them too, we can arbitrarily set ||β|| = 1/M.＂
Also, how does maximize M becomes minimize 1/2(||β||^2) ?
＂Since for any β and β0 satisfying these inequalities, any positively scaled multiple satisfies them too, we can arbitrarily set ||β|| = 1/M.＂
y_i(x_i' b + b0) >= M ||b||
thus for any c>0
y_i(x_i' [bc] + [b0c]) >= M ||bc||
thus you can always find such c that ||bc|| = 1/M, so we can focus only on b such that they have such norm (we simply limit the space of possible solutions because we know that scaling does not change much)
Also, how does maximize M becomes minimize 1/2(||β||^2) ?
We put ||b|| = 1/M, thus M=1/||b||
max_b M = max_b 1 / ||b||
now maximization of positive f(b) is equivalent of minimization of 1/f(b), so
min ||b||
and since ||b|| is positive, its minimization is equivalent to minimization of the square, as well as multiplied by 1/2 (this does not change the optimal b)
min 1/2 ||b||^2
This has become quite a frustrating question, but I've asked in the Coursera discussions and they won't help. Below is the question:
I've gotten it wrong 6 times now. How do I normalize the feature? Hints are all I'm asking for.
I'm assuming x_2^(2) is the value 5184, unless I am adding the x_0 column of 1's, which they don't mention but he certainly mentions in the lectures when talking about creating the design matrix X. In which case x_2^(2) would be the value 72. Assuming one or the other is right (I'm playing a guessing game), what should I use to normalize it? He talks about 3 different ways to normalize in the lectures: one using the maximum value, another with the range/difference between max and mins, and another the standard deviation -- they want an answer correct to the hundredths. Which one am I to use? This is so confusing.
...use both feature scaling (dividing by the
"max-min", or range, of a feature) and mean normalization.
So for any individual feature f:
f_norm = (f - f_mean) / (f_max - f_min)
e.g. for x2,(midterm exam)^2 = {7921, 5184, 8836, 4761}
> x2 <- c(7921, 5184, 8836, 4761)
> mean(x2)
6676
> max(x2) - min(x2)
4075
> (x2 - mean(x2)) / (max(x2) - min(x2))
0.306 -0.366 0.530 -0.470
Hence norm(5184) = 0.366
(using R language, which is great at vectorizing expressions like this)
I agree it's confusing they used the notation x2 (2) to mean x2 (norm) or x2'
EDIT: in practice everyone calls the builtin scale(...) function, which does the same thing.
It's asking to normalize the second feature under second column using both feature scaling and mean normalization. Therefore,
(5184 - 6675.5) / 4075 = -0.366
Usually we normalize all of them to have zero mean and go between [-1, 1].
You can do that easily by dividing by the maximum of the absolute value and then remove the mean of the samples.
"I'm assuming x_2^(2) is the value 5184" is this because it's the second item in the list and using the subscript _2? x_2 is just a variable identity in maths, it applies to all rows in the list. Note that the highest raw mid-term exam result (i.e. that which is not squared) goes down on the final test and the lowest raw mid-term result increases the most for the final exam result. Theta is a fixed value, a coefficient, so somewhere your normalisation of x_1 and x_2 values must become (EDIT: not negative, less than 1) in order to allow for this behaviour. That should hopefully give you a starting basis, by identifying where the pivot point is.
I had the same problem, in my case the thing was that I was using as average the maximum x2 value (8836) minus minimum x2 value (4761) divided by two, instead of the sum of each x2 value divided by the number of examples.
For the same training set, I got the question as
Q. What is the normalized feature x^(3)_1?
Thus, 3rd training ex and 1st feature makes out to 94 in above table.
Now, normalized form is
x = (x - mean(x's)) / range(x)
Values are :
x = 94
mean(89+72+94+69) / 4 = 81
range = 94 - 69 = 25
Normalized x = (94 - 81) / 25 = 0.52
I'm taking this course at the moment and a really trivial mistake I made first time I answered this question was using comma instead of dot in the answer, since I did by hand and in my country we use comma to denote decimals. Ex:(0,52 instead of 0.52)
So in the second time I tried I used dot and works fine.