I'm working on a problem that involves classifying a large database of texts. The texts are very short (think 3-8 words each) and there are 10-12 categories into which I wish to sort them. For the features, I'm simply using the tf–idf frequency of each word. Thus, the number of features is roughly equal to the number of words that appear overall in the texts (I'm removing stop words and some others).
In trying to come up with a model to use, I've had the following two ideas:
Naive Bayes (likely the sklearn multinomial Naive Bayes implementation)
Support vector machine (with stochastic gradient descent used in training, also an sklearn implementation)
I have built both models, and am currently comparing the results.
What are the theoretical pros and cons to each model? Why might one of these be better for this type of problem? I'm new to machine learning, so what I'd like to understand is why one might do better.
Many thanks!
The biggest difference between the models you're building from a "features" point of view is that Naive Bayes treats them as independent, whereas SVM looks at the interactions between them to a certain degree, as long as you're using a non-linear kernel (Gaussian, rbf, poly etc.). So if you have interactions, and, given your problem, you most likely do, an SVM will be better at capturing those, hence better at the classification task you want.
The consensus for ML researchers and practitioners is that in almost all cases, the SVM is better than the Naive Bayes.
From a theoretical point of view, it is a little bit hard to compare the two methods. One is probabilistic in nature, while the second one is geometric. However, it's quite easy to come up with a function where one has dependencies between variables which are not captured by Naive Bayes (y(a,b) = ab), so we know it isn't an universal approximator. SVMs with the proper choice of Kernel are (as are 2/3 layer neural networks) though, so from that point of view, the theory matches the practice.
But in the end it comes down to performance on your problem - you basically want to choose the simplest method which will give good enough results for your problem and have a good enough performance. Spam detection has been famously solvable by just Naive Bayes, for example. Face recognition in images by a similar method enhanced with boosting etc.
Support Vector Machine (SVM) is better at full-length content.
Multinomial Naive Bayes (MNB) is better at snippets.
MNB is stronger for snippets than for longer documents. While (Ng and Jordan,
2002) showed that NB is better than SVM/logistic
regression (LR) with few training cases, MNB is also better with short documents. SVM usually beats NB when it has more than 30–50 training cases, we show that MNB is still better on snippets even with relatively large training sets (9k cases).
Inshort, NBSVM seems to be an appropriate and very strong baseline for sophisticated classification text data.
Source Code: https://github.com/prakhar-agarwal/Naive-Bayes-SVM
Reference: http://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/sidaw12_simple_sentiment.pdf
Cite: Wang, Sida, and Christopher D. Manning. "Baselines and bigrams:
Simple, good sentiment and topic classification." Proceedings of the
50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics:
Short Papers-Volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics,
2012.
Related
I am new in machine learning. My problem is to make a machine to select a university for the student according to his location and area of interest. i.e it should select the university in the same city as in the address of the student. I am confused in selection of the algorithm can I use Perceptron algorithm for this task.
There are no hard rules as to which machine learning algorithm is the best for which task. Your best bet is to try several and see which one achieves the best results. You can use the Weka toolkit, which implements a lot of different machine learning algorithms. And yes, you can use the perceptron algorithm for your problem -- but that is not to say that you would achieve good results with it.
From your description it sounds like the problem you're trying to solve doesn't really require machine learning. If all you want to do is match a student with the closest university that offers a course in the student's area of interest, you can do this without any learning.
I second the first remark that you probably don't need machine learning if the student has to live in the same area as the university. If you want to use an ML algorithm, maybe it would best to think about what data you would have to start with. The thing that comes to mind is a vector for a university that has certain subjects/areas for each feature. Then compute a distance from a vector which is like an ideal feature vector for the student. Minimize this distance.
The first and formost thing you need is a labeled dataset.
It sounds like the problem could be decomposed into a ML problem however you first need a set of positive and negative examples to train from.
How big is your dataset? What features do you have available? Once you answer these questions you can select an algorithm that bests fits the features of your data.
I would suggest using decision trees for this problem which resembles a set of if else rules. You can just take the location and area of interest of the student as conditions of if and else if statements and then suggest a university for him. Since its a direct mapping of inputs to outputs, rule based solution would work and there is no learning required here.
Maybe you can use a "recommender system"or a clustering approach , you can investigate more deeply the techniques like "collaborative filtering"(recommender system) or k-means(clustering) but again, as some people said, first you need data to learn from, and maybe your problem can be solved without ML.
Well, there is no straightforward and sure-shot answer to this question. The answer depends on many factors like the problem statement and the kind of output you want, type and size of the data, the available computational time, number of features, and observations in the data, to name a few.
Size of the training data
Accuracy and/or Interpretability of the output
Accuracy of a model means that the function predicts a response value for a given observation, which is close to the true response value for that observation. A highly interpretable algorithm (restrictive models like Linear Regression) means that one can easily understand how any individual predictor is associated with the response while the flexible models give higher accuracy at the cost of low interpretability.
Speed or Training time
Higher accuracy typically means higher training time. Also, algorithms require more time to train on large training data. In real-world applications, the choice of algorithm is driven by these two factors predominantly.
Algorithms like Naïve Bayes and Linear and Logistic regression are easy to implement and quick to run. Algorithms like SVM, which involve tuning of parameters, Neural networks with high convergence time, and random forests, need a lot of time to train the data.
Linearity
Many algorithms work on the assumption that classes can be separated by a straight line (or its higher-dimensional analog). Examples include logistic regression and support vector machines. Linear regression algorithms assume that data trends follow a straight line. If the data is linear, then these algorithms perform quite good.
Number of features
The dataset may have a large number of features that may not all be relevant and significant. For a certain type of data, such as genetics or textual, the number of features can be very large compared to the number of data points.
I am doing the text categorization machine learning problem using Naive Bayes. I have each word as a feature. I have been able to implement it and I am getting good accuracy.
Is it possible for me to use tuples of words as features?
For example, if there are two classes, Politics and sports. The word called government might appear in both of them. However, in politics I can have a tuple (government, democracy) whereas in the class sports I can have a tuple (government, sportsman). So, if a new text article comes in which is politics, the probability of the tuple (government, democracy) has more probability than the tuple (government, sportsman).
I am asking this is because by doing this am I violating the independence assumption of the Naive Bayes problem, because I am considering single words as features too.
Also, I am thinking of adding weights to features. For example, a 3-tuple feature will have less weight than a 4-tuple feature.
Theoretically, are these two approaches not changing the independence assumptions on the Naive Bayes classifier? Also, I have not started with the approach I mentioned yet but will this improve the accuracy? I think the accuracy might not improve but the amount of training data required to get the same accuracy would be less.
Even without adding bigrams, real documents already violate the independence assumption. Conditioned on having Obama in a document, President is much more likely to appear. Nonetheless, naive bayes still does a decent job at classification, even if the probability estimates it gives are hopelessly off. So I recommend that you go on and add more complex features to your classifier and see if they improve accuracy.
If you get the same accuracy with less data, that is basically equivalent to getting better accuracy with the same amount of data.
On the other hand, using simpler, more common features works better as you decrease the amount of data. If you try to fit too many parameters to too little data, you tend to overfit badly.
But the bottom line is to try it and see.
No, from a theoretical viewpoint, you are not changing the independence assumption. You are simply creating a modified (or new) sample space. In general, once you start using higher n-grams as events in your sample space, data sparsity becomes a problem. I think using tuples will lead to the same issue. You will probably need more training data, not less. You will probably also have to give a little more thought to the type of smoothing you use. Simple Laplace smoothing may not be ideal.
Most important point, I think, is this: whatever classifier you are using, the features are highly dependent on the domain (and sometimes even the dataset). For example, if you are classifying sentiment of texts based on movie reviews, using only unigrams may seem to be counterintuitive, but they perform better than using only adjectives. On the other hand, for twitter datasets, a combination of unigrams and bigrams were found to be good, but higher n-grams were not useful. Based on such reports (ref. Pang and Lee, Opinion mining and Sentiment Analysis), I think using longer tuples will show similar results, since, after all, tuples of words are simply points in a higher-dimensional space. The basic algorithm behaves the same way.
I know SVMs are supposedly 'ANN killers' in that they automatically select representation complexity and find a global optimum (see here for some SVM praising quotes).
But here is where I'm unclear -- do all of these claims of superiority hold for just the case of a 2 class decision problem or do they go further? (I assume they hold for non-linearly separable classes or else no-one would care)
So a sample of some of the cases I'd like to be cleared up:
Are SVMs better than ANNs with many classes?
in an online setting?
What about in a semi-supervised case like reinforcement learning?
Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs?
I don't expect someone to answer all of these lil' subquestions, but rather to give some general bounds for when SVMs are better than the common ANN equivalents (e.g. FFBP, recurrent BP, Boltzmann machines, SOMs, etc.) in practice, and preferably, in theory as well.
Are SVMs better than ANN with many classes? You are probably referring to the fact that SVMs are in essence, either either one-class or two-class classifiers. Indeed they are and there's no way to modify a SVM algorithm to classify more than two classes.
The fundamental feature of a SVM is the separating maximum-margin hyperplane whose position is determined by maximizing its distance from the support vectors. And yet SVMs are routinely used for multi-class classification, which is accomplished with a processing wrapper around multiple SVM classifiers that work in a "one against many" pattern--i.e., the training data is shown to the first SVM which classifies those instances as "Class I" or "not Class I". The data in the second class, is then shown to a second SVM which classifies this data as "Class II" or "not Class II", and so on. In practice, this works quite well. So as you would expect, the superior resolution of SVMs compared to other classifiers is not limited to two-class data.
As far as i can tell, the studies reported in the literature confirm this, e.g., In the provocatively titled paper Sex with Support Vector Machines substantially better resolution for sex identification (Male/Female) in 12-square pixel images, was reported for SVM compared with that of a group of traditional linear classifiers; SVM also outperformed RBF NN, as well as large ensemble RBF NN). But there seem to be plenty of similar evidence for the superior performance of SVM in multi-class problems: e.g., SVM outperformed NN in protein-fold recognition, and in time-series forecasting.
My impression from reading this literature over the past decade or so, is that the majority of the carefully designed studies--by persons skilled at configuring and using both techniques, and using data sufficiently resistant to classification to provoke some meaningful difference in resolution--report the superior performance of SVM relative to NN. But as your Question suggests, that performance delta seems to be, to a degree, domain specific.
For instance, NN outperformed SVM in a comparative study of author identification from texts in Arabic script; In a study comparing credit rating prediction, there was no discernible difference in resolution by the two classifiers; a similar result was reported in a study of high-energy particle classification.
I have read, from more than one source in the academic literature, that SVM outperforms NN as the size of the training data decreases.
Finally, the extent to which one can generalize from the results of these comparative studies is probably quite limited. For instance, in one study comparing the accuracy of SVM and NN in time series forecasting, the investigators reported that SVM did indeed outperform a conventional (back-propagating over layered nodes) NN but performance of the SVM was about the same as that of an RBF (radial basis function) NN.
[Are SVMs better than ANN] In an Online setting? SVMs are not used in an online setting (i.e., incremental training). The essence of SVMs is the separating hyperplane whose position is determined by a small number of support vectors. So even a single additional data point could in principle significantly influence the position of this hyperplane.
What about in a semi-supervised case like reinforcement learning? Until the OP's comment to this answer, i was not aware of either Neural Networks or SVMs used in this way--but they are.
The most widely used- semi-supervised variant of SVM is named Transductive SVM (TSVM), first mentioned by Vladimir Vapnick (the same guy who discovered/invented conventional SVM). I know almost nothing about this technique other than what's it is called and that is follows the principles of transduction (roughly lateral reasoning--i.e., reasoning from training data to test data). Apparently TSV is a preferred technique in the field of text classification.
Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs? I don't believe SVMs are suitable for unsupervised learning. Separation is based on the position of the maximum-margin hyperplane determined by support vectors. This could easily be my own limited understanding, but i don't see how that would happen if those support vectors were unlabeled (i.e., if you didn't know before-hand what you were trying to separate). One crucial use case of unsupervised algorithms is when you don't have labeled data or you do and it's badly unbalanced. E.g., online fraud; here you might have in your training data, only a few data points labeled as "fraudulent accounts" (and usually with questionable accuracy) versus the remaining >99% labeled "not fraud." In this scenario, a one-class classifier, a typical configuration for SVMs, is the a good option. In particular, the training data consists of instances labeled "not fraud" and "unk" (or some other label to indicate they are not in the class)--in other words, "inside the decision boundary" and "outside the decision boundary."
I wanted to conclude by mentioning that, 20 years after their "discovery", the SVM is a firmly entrenched member in the ML library. And indeed, the consistently superior resolution compared with other state-of-the-art classifiers is well documented.
Their pedigree is both a function of their superior performance documented in numerous rigorously controlled studies as well as their conceptual elegance. W/r/t the latter point, consider that multi-layer perceptrons (MLP), though they are often excellent classifiers, are driven by a numerical optimization routine, which in practice rarely finds the global minimum; moreover, that solution has no conceptual significance. On the other hand, the numerical optimization at the heart of building an SVM classifier does in fact find the global minimum. What's more that solution is the actual decision boundary.
Still, i think SVM reputation has declined a little during the past few years.
The primary reason i suspect is the NetFlix competition. NetFlix emphasized the resolving power of fundamental techniques of matrix decomposition and even more significantly t*he power of combining classifiers. People combined classifiers long before NetFlix, but more as a contingent technique than as an attribute of classifier design. Moreover, many of the techniques for combining classifiers are extraordinarily simple to understand and also to implement. By contrast, SVMs are not only very difficult to code (in my opinion, by far the most difficult ML algorithm to implement in code) but also difficult to configure and implement as a pre-compiled library--e.g., a kernel must be selected, the results are very sensitive to how the data is re-scaled/normalized, etc.
I loved Doug's answer. I would like to add two comments.
1) Vladimir Vapnick also co-invented the VC dimension which is important in learning theory.
2) I think that SVMs were the best overall classifiers from 2000 to 2009, but after 2009, I am not sure. I think that neural nets have improved very significantly recently due to the work in Deep Learning and Sparse Denoising Auto-Encoders. I thought I saw a number of benchmarks where they outperformed SVMs. See, for example, slide 31 of
http://deeplearningworkshopnips2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/nips10-workshop-tutorial-final.pdf
A few of my friends have been using the sparse auto encoder technique. The neural nets build with that technique significantly outperformed the older back propagation neural networks. I will try to post some experimental results at artent.net if I get some time.
I'd expect SVM's to be better when you have good features to start with. IE, your features succinctly capture all the necessary information. You can see if your features are good if instances of the same class "clump together" in the feature space. Then SVM with Euclidian kernel should do the trick. Essentially you can view SVM as a supercharged nearest neighbor classifier, so whenever NN does well, SVM should do even better, by adding automatic quality control over the examples in your set. On the converse -- if it's a dataset where nearest neighbor (in feature space) is expected to do badly, SVM will do badly as well.
- Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs?
Just answering only this question here. Unsupervised learning can be done by so-called one-class support vector machines. Again, similar to normal SVMs, there is an element that promotes sparsity. In normal SVMs only a few points are considered important, the support vectors. In one-class SVMs again only a few points can be used to either:
"separate" a dataset as far from the origin as possible, or
define a radius as small as possible.
The advantages of normal SVMs carry over to this case. Compared to density estimation only a few points need to be considered. The disadvantages carry over as well.
Are SVMs better than ANNs with many classes?
SVMs have been designated for discrete classification. Before moving to ANNs, try ensemble methods like Random Forest , Gradient Boosting, Gaussian Probability Classification etc
What about in a semi-supervised case like reinforcement learning?
Deep Q learning provides better alternatives.
Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs?
SVM is not suited for unsupervised learning. You have other alternatives for unsupervised learning : K-Means, Hierarchical clustering, TSNE clustering etc
From ANN perspective, you can try Autoencoder, General adversarial network
Few more useful links:
towardsdatascience
wikipedia
I am using a Naive Bayes Classifier to categorize several thousand documents into 30 different categories. I have implemented a Naive Bayes Classifier, and with some feature selection (mostly filtering useless words), I've gotten about a 30% test accuracy, with 45% training accuracy. This is significantly better than random, but I want it to be better.
I've tried implementing AdaBoost with NB, but it does not appear to give appreciably better results (the literature seems split on this, some papers say AdaBoost with NB doesn't give better results, others do). Do you know of any other extensions to NB that may possibly give better accuracy?
In my experience, properly trained Naive Bayes classifiers are usually astonishingly accurate (and very fast to train--noticeably faster than any classifier-builder i have everused).
so when you want to improve classifier prediction, you can look in several places:
tune your classifier (adjusting the classifier's tunable paramaters);
apply some sort of classifier combination technique (eg,
ensembling, boosting, bagging); or you can
look at the data fed to the classifier--either add more data,
improve your basic parsing, or refine the features you select from
the data.
w/r/t naive Bayesian classifiers, parameter tuning is limited; i recommend to focus on your data--ie, the quality of your pre-processing and the feature selection.
I. Data Parsing (pre-processing)
i assume your raw data is something like a string of raw text for each data point, which by a series of processing steps you transform each string into a structured vector (1D array) for each data point such that each offset corresponds to one feature (usually a word) and the value in that offset corresponds to frequency.
stemming: either manually or by using a stemming library? the popular open-source ones are Porter, Lancaster, and Snowball. So for
instance, if you have the terms programmer, program, progamming,
programmed in a given data point, a stemmer will reduce them to a
single stem (probably program) so your term vector for that data
point will have a value of 4 for the feature program, which is
probably what you want.
synonym finding: same idea as stemming--fold related words into a single word; so a synonym finder can identify developer, programmer,
coder, and software engineer and roll them into a single term
neutral words: words with similar frequencies across classes make poor features
II. Feature Selection
consider a prototypical use case for NBCs: filtering spam; you can quickly see how it fails and just as quickly you can see how to improve it. For instance, above-average spam filters have nuanced features like: frequency of words in all caps, frequency of words in title, and the occurrence of exclamation point in the title. In addition, the best features are often not single words but e.g., pairs of words, or larger word groups.
III. Specific Classifier Optimizations
Instead of 30 classes use a 'one-against-many' scheme--in other words, you begin with a two-class classifier (Class A and 'all else') then the results in the 'all else' class are returned to the algorithm for classification into Class B and 'all else', etc.
The Fisher Method (probably the most common way to optimize a Naive Bayes classifier.) To me,
i think of Fisher as normalizing (more correctly, standardizing) the input probabilities An NBC uses the feature probabilities to construct a 'whole-document' probability. The Fisher Method calculates the probability of a category for each feature of the document then combines these feature probabilities and compares that combined probability with the probability of a random set of features.
I would suggest using a SGDClassifier as in this and tune it in terms of regularization strength.
Also try to tune the formula in TFIDF you're using by tuning the parameters of TFIFVectorizer.
I usually see that for text classification problems SVM or Logistic Regressioin when trained one-versus-all outperforms NB. As you can see in this nice article by Stanford people for longer documents SVM outperforms NB. The code for the paper which uses a combination of SVM and NB (NBSVM) is here.
Second, tune your TFIDF formula (e.g. sublinear tf, smooth_idf).
Normalize your samples with l2 or l1 normalization (default in Tfidfvectorization) because it compensates for different document lengths.
Multilayer Perceptron, usually gets better results than NB or SVM because of the non-linearity introduced which is inherent to many text classification problems. I have implemented a highly parallel one using Theano/Lasagne which is easy to use and downloadable here.
Try to tune your l1/l2/elasticnet regularization. It makes a huge difference in SGDClassifier/SVM/Logistic Regression.
Try to use n-grams which is configurable in tfidfvectorizer.
If your documents have structure (e.g. have titles) consider using different features for different parts. For example add title_word1 to your document if word1 happens in the title of the document.
Consider using the length of the document as a feature (e.g. number of words or characters).
Consider using meta information about the document (e.g. time of creation, author name, url of the document, etc.).
Recently Facebook published their FastText classification code which performs very well across many tasks, be sure to try it.
Using Laplacian Correction along with AdaBoost.
In AdaBoost, first a weight is assigned to each data tuple in the training dataset. The intial weights are set using the init_weights method, which initializes each weight to be 1/d, where d is the size of the training data set.
Then, a generate_classifiers method is called, which runs k times, creating k instances of the Naïve Bayes classifier. These classifiers are then weighted, and the test data is run on each classifier. The sum of the weighted "votes" of the classifiers constitutes the final classification.
Improves Naive Bayes classifier for general cases
Take the logarithm of your probabilities as input features
We change the probability space to log probability space since we calculate the probability by multiplying probabilities and the result will be very small. when we change to log probability features, we can tackle the under-runs problem.
Remove correlated features.
Naive Byes works based on the assumption of independence when we have a correlation between features which means one feature depends on others then our assumption will fail.
More about correlation can be found here
Work with enough data not the huge data
naive Bayes require less data than logistic regression since it only needs data to understand the probabilistic relationship of each attribute in isolation with the output variable, not the interactions.
Check zero frequency error
If the test data set has zero frequency issue, apply smoothing techniques “Laplace Correction” to predict the class of test data set.
More than this is well described in the following posts
Please refer below posts.
machinelearningmastery site post
Analyticvidhya site post
keeping the n size small also make NB to give high accuracy result. and at the core, as the n size increase its accuracy degrade,
Select features which have less correlation between them. And try using different combination of features at a time.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Suppose I'm working on some classification problem. (Fraud detection and comment spam are two problems I'm working on right now, but I'm curious about any classification task in general.)
How do I know which classifier I should use?
Decision tree
SVM
Bayesian
Neural network
K-nearest neighbors
Q-learning
Genetic algorithm
Markov decision processes
Convolutional neural networks
Linear regression or logistic regression
Boosting, bagging, ensambling
Random hill climbing or simulated annealing
...
In which cases is one of these the "natural" first choice, and what are the principles for choosing that one?
Examples of the type of answers I'm looking for (from Manning et al.'s Introduction to Information Retrieval book):
a. If your data is labeled, but you only have a limited amount, you should use a classifier with high bias (for example, Naive Bayes).
I'm guessing this is because a higher-bias classifier will have lower variance, which is good because of the small amount of data.
b. If you have a ton of data, then the classifier doesn't really matter so much, so you should probably just choose a classifier with good scalability.
What are other guidelines? Even answers like "if you'll have to explain your model to some upper management person, then maybe you should use a decision tree, since the decision rules are fairly transparent" are good. I care less about implementation/library issues, though.
Also, for a somewhat separate question, besides standard Bayesian classifiers, are there 'standard state-of-the-art' methods for comment spam detection (as opposed to email spam)?
First of all, you need to identify your problem. It depends upon what kind of data you have and what your desired task is.
If you are Predicting Category :
You have Labeled Data
You need to follow Classification Approach and its algorithms
You don't have Labeled Data
You need to go for Clustering Approach
If you are Predicting Quantity :
You need to go for Regression Approach
Otherwise
You can go for Dimensionality Reduction Approach
There are different algorithms within each approach mentioned above. The choice of a particular algorithm depends upon the size of the dataset.
Source: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/tutorial/machine_learning_map/
Model selection using cross validation may be what you need.
Cross validation
What you do is simply to split your dataset into k non-overlapping subsets (folds), train a model using k-1 folds and predict its performance using the fold you left out. This you do for each possible combination of folds (first leave 1st fold out, then 2nd, ... , then kth, and train with the remaining folds). After finishing, you estimate the mean performance of all folds (maybe also the variance/standard deviation of the performance).
How to choose the parameter k depends on the time you have. Usual values for k are 3, 5, 10 or even N, where N is the size of your data (that's the same as leave-one-out cross validation). I prefer 5 or 10.
Model selection
Let's say you have 5 methods (ANN, SVM, KNN, etc) and 10 parameter combinations for each method (depending on the method). You simply have to run cross validation for each method and parameter combination (5 * 10 = 50) and select the best model, method and parameters. Then you re-train with the best method and parameters on all your data and you have your final model.
There are some more things to say. If, for example, you use a lot of methods and parameter combinations for each, it's very likely you will overfit. In cases like these, you have to use nested cross validation.
Nested cross validation
In nested cross validation, you perform cross validation on the model selection algorithm.
Again, you first split your data into k folds. After each step, you choose k-1 as your training data and the remaining one as your test data. Then you run model selection (the procedure I explained above) for each possible combination of those k folds. After finishing this, you will have k models, one for each combination of folds. After that, you test each model with the remaining test data and choose the best one. Again, after having the last model you train a new one with the same method and parameters on all the data you have. That's your final model.
Of course, there are many variations of these methods and other things I didn't mention. If you need more information about these look for some publications about these topics.
The book "OpenCV" has a great two pages on this on pages 462-463. Searching the Amazon preview for the word "discriminative" (probably google books also) will let you see the pages in question. These two pages are the greatest gem I have found in this book.
In short:
Boosting - often effective when a large amount of training data is available.
Random trees - often very effective and can also perform regression.
K-nearest neighbors - simplest thing you can do, often effective but slow and requires lots of memory.
Neural networks - Slow to train but very fast to run, still optimal performer for letter recognition.
SVM - Among the best with limited data, but losing against boosting or random trees only when large data sets are available.
Things you might consider in choosing which algorithm to use would include:
Do you need to train incrementally (as opposed to batched)?
If you need to update your classifier with new data frequently (or you have tons of data), you'll probably want to use Bayesian. Neural nets and SVM need to work on the training data in one go.
Is your data composed of categorical only, or numeric only, or both?
I think Bayesian works best with categorical/binomial data. Decision trees can't predict numerical values.
Does you or your audience need to understand how the classifier works?
Use Bayesian or decision trees, since these can be easily explained to most people. Neural networks and SVM are "black boxes" in the sense that you can't really see how they are classifying data.
How much classification speed do you need?
SVM's are fast when it comes to classifying since they only need to determine which side of the "line" your data is on. Decision trees can be slow especially when they're complex (e.g. lots of branches).
Complexity.
Neural nets and SVMs can handle complex non-linear classification.
As Prof Andrew Ng often states: always begin by implementing a rough, dirty algorithm, and then iteratively refine it.
For classification, Naive Bayes is a good starter, as it has good performances, is highly scalable and can adapt to almost any kind of classification task. Also 1NN (K-Nearest Neighbours with only 1 neighbour) is a no-hassle best fit algorithm (because the data will be the model, and thus you don't have to care about the dimensionality fit of your decision boundary), the only issue is the computation cost (quadratic because you need to compute the distance matrix, so it may not be a good fit for high dimensional data).
Another good starter algorithm is the Random Forests (composed of decision trees), this is highly scalable to any number of dimensions and has generally quite acceptable performances. Then finally, there are genetic algorithms, which scale admirably well to any dimension and any data with minimal knowledge of the data itself, with the most minimal and simplest implementation being the microbial genetic algorithm (only one line of C code! by Inman Harvey in 1996), and one of the most complex being CMA-ES and MOGA/e-MOEA.
And remember that, often, you can't really know what will work best on your data before you try the algorithms for real.
As a side-note, if you want a theoretical framework to test your hypothesis and algorithms theoretical performances for a given problem, you can use the PAC (Probably approximately correct) learning framework (beware: it's very abstract and complex!), but to summary, the gist of PAC learning says that you should use the less complex, but complex enough (complexity being the maximum dimensionality that the algo can fit) algorithm that can fit your data. In other words, use the Occam's razor.
Sam Roweis used to say that you should try naive Bayes, logistic regression, k-nearest neighbour and Fisher's linear discriminant before anything else.
My take on it is that you always run the basic classifiers first to get some sense of your data. More often than not (in my experience at least) they've been good enough.
So, if you have supervised data, train a Naive Bayes classifier. If you have unsupervised data, you can try k-means clustering.
Another resource is one of the lecture videos of the series of videos Stanford Machine Learning, which I watched a while back. In video 4 or 5, I think, the lecturer discusses some generally accepted conventions when training classifiers, advantages/tradeoffs, etc.
You should always keep into account the inference vs prediction trade-off.
If you want to understand the complex relationship that is occurring in your data then you should go with a rich inference algorithm (e.g. linear regression or lasso). On the other hand, if you are only interested in the result you can go with high dimensional and more complex (but less interpretable) algorithms, like neural networks.
Selection of Algorithm is depending upon the scenario and the type and size of data set.
There are many other factors.
This is a brief cheat sheet for basic machine learning.