Most classification algorithms are developed to improve the training speed. However, is there any classifier or algorithm focusing on the decision making speed(low computation complexity and simple realizable structure)? I can get enough training dataļ¼and endure the long training time.
There are many methods which classify fast, you could more or less sort models by classification speed in a following way (first ones - the fastest, last- slowest)
Decision Tree (especially with limited depth)
Linear models (linear regression, logistic regression, linear svm, lda, ...) and Naive Bayes
Non-linear models based on explicit data transformation (Nystroem kernel approximation, RVFL, RBFNN, EEM), Kernel methods (such as kernel SVM) and shallow neural networks
Random Forest and other committees
Big Neural Networks (ie. CNN)
KNN with arbitrary distance
Obviously this list is not exhaustive, it just shows some general ideas.
One way of obtaining such model is to build a complex, slow model, then use it as a black box label generator to train a simplier model (but on potentialy infinite training set) - thus getting a fast classifier at the cost of very expensive training. There are many works showing that one can do that for example by training a shallow neural network on outputs of deep nn.
In general classification speed should not be a problem. Some exceptions are algorithms which have a time complexity depending on the number of samples you have for training. One example is k-Nearest-Neighbors which has no training time, but for classification it needs to check all points (if implemented in a naive way). Other examples are all classifiers which work with kernels since they compute the kernel between the current sample and all training samples.
Many classifiers work with a scalar product of the features and a learned coefficient vector. These should be fast enough in almost all cases. Examples are: Logistic regression, linear SVM, perceptrons and many more. See #lejlot's answer for a nice list.
If these are still too slow you might try to reduce the dimension of your feature space first and then try again (this also speeds up training time).
Btw, this question might not be suited for StackOverflow as it is quite broad and recommendation instead of problem oriented. Maybe try https://stats.stackexchange.com/ next time.
I have a decision tree which is represented in the compressed form and which is at least 4 times faster than the actual tree in classifying an unseen instance.
Related
I have a medical image dataset of ~10K 256x256 images with which I am training a deep neural classifier for disease classification. I have been working with popular CNNs like InceptionV3 and ResNets.
These models have achieved validation set accuracies in the 50-60% range and I noticed that they were overfitting. So to improve the performance, I then tried common strategies like a dropout in the dense layers, smaller learning rates, and L2 regularization. After these modifications showed no reduction in overfitting, I next moved to smaller and simpler architectures with just 2-3 convolution layers + 1 FC classification layer which I thought would mitigate the issue. However, with the simpler models, the learning curves still showed signs of overfitting. Particularly, when training for 100 epochs, the models would have similar train and validation losses for the first 20-30 epochs, but then diverge after that.
I'm not sure what other strategies I can experiment with at this point and I'm worried that trying more experiments aimlessly is inefficient. Should I just accept that the models cannot generalize to this task well?
Additionally, FYI, the dataset is imbalanced, but I have dealt with this using data augmentation and a weighted cross-entropy loss as well but no real difference.
Try to use modern classification approaches like transformers or efficientnets - their accuracy is higher. To compare different modern architectures please use paperswithcode.
Augmentations, regularizations are must-have in training process, doesn't matter if balanced or imbalanced data you have.
You can try to make over- or undersampling of your data to get better results
Try to use warmup and learning rate schedules, this improves the convergence of the model
I am trying to use machine learning to predict a dataset. It is a regression problem with 180 input features and 1 continuously-valued output. I try to compare deep neural networks, random forest regression, and linear regression.
As I expect, 3-hidden-layer deep neural networks outperform other two approaches with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.1. However, I unexpected to see that random forest even performs worse than linear regression (RMSE 0.29 vs. 0.27). In my expectation, the random forest can discover more complex dependencies between features to decrease error. I have tried to tune the parameters of random forest (number of trees, maximum features, max_depth, etc.). I also tried different K-cross validation, but the performance is still less than linear regression.
I searched online, and one answer says linear regression may perform better if features have a smooth, nearly linear dependence on the covariates. I do not fully get the point because if that is the case, should not deep neural networks give much performance gain?
I am struggling to give an explanation. Under what situation, random forest is worse than linear regression, but deep neural networks can perform much better?
If your features explain linear relation to the target variable then a Linear Model usually performs well than a Random Forest Model. It totally depends on the linear relations between your features.
That said, Linear models are not superior or the Random Forest is any inferior one.
Try scaling and transforming the data using MinMaxScaler() from scikit-learn to see if the linear model improves further
Pro Tips
If linear model is working like a charm you need to ask your self Why? and How? And get into the basics of both the models to understand why it worked on your data. These questions will lead you to feature engineer better. And as a matter of fact, Kaggle Grand Masters do use Linear Models in stacking to get that top 1% score by capturing the linear relations in the dataset.
So at the end of the day, linear models could wonders too.
If a dataset contains multi categories, e.g. 0-class, 1-class and 2-class. Now the goal is to divide new samples into 0-class or non-0-class.
One can
combine 1,2-class into a unified non-0-class and train a binary classifier,
or train a multi-class classifier to do binary classification.
How is the performance of these two approaches?
I think more categories will bring about a more accurate discriminant surface, however the weights of 1- and 2- classes are both lower than non-0-class, resulting in less samples be judged as non-0-class.
Short answer: You would have to try both and see.
Why?: It would really depend on your data and the algorithm you use (just like for many other machine learning questions..)
For many classification algorithms (e.g. SVM, Logistic Regression), even if you want to do a multi-class classification, you would have to perform a one-vs-all classification, which means you would have to treat class 1 and class 2 as the same class. Therefore, there is no point running a multi-class scenario if you just need to separate out the 0.
For algorithms such as Neural Networks, where having multiple output classes is more natural, I think training a multi-class classifier might be more beneficial if your classes 0, 1 and 2 are very distinct. However, this means you would have to choose a more complex algorithm to fit all three. But the fit would possibly be nicer. Therefore, as already mentioned, you would really have to try both approaches and use a good metric to evaluate the performance (e.g. confusion matrices, F-score, etc..)
I hope this is somewhat helpful.
We all know that the objective function of SVM is iteratively trained. In order to continue training, at least we can store all the variables used in the iterations if we want to continue on the same training dataset.
While, if we want to train on a slightly different dataset, what should we do to make full use of the previously trained model? Or does this kind of thought make sense? I think it is quite reasonable if we train a K-means model. But I am not sure if it still makes sense for the SVM problem.
There are some literature on this topic:
alpha-seeding, in which the training data is divided into chunks. After you train a SVM on the ith chunk, you take those and use them to train your SVM with the (i+1)th chunk.
Incremental SVM serves as an online learning in which you update a classifier with new examples rather than retrain the entire data set.
SVM heavy package with online SVM training as well.
What you are describing is what an online learning algorithm does and unfortunately the classic definition for SVM is done in a batch fashion.
However, there are several solvers for SVM that produces quasy optimal hypothesis to the underneath optimization problem in an online learning way. In particular my favourite is Pegasos-SVM which can find a good near optimal solution in linear time:
http://ttic.uchicago.edu/~nati/Publications/PegasosMPB.pdf
In general this doesn't make sense. SVM training is an optimization process with regard to every training set vector. Each training vector has an associated coefficient, which as a result is either 0 (irrelevant) or > 0 (support vector). Adding another training vector imposes another, different, optimization problem.
The only way to reuse information from previous training I can think of is to choose support vectors from the previous training and add them to the new training set. I'm not sure, but this probably will negatively affect generalization - VC dimension of an SVM is related to the number of support vectors, so adding previous support vectors to the new dataset is likely to increase the support vector count.
Apparently, there are more possibilities, as noted in lennon310's answer.
I should decide between SVM and neural networks for some image processing application. The classifier must be fast enough for near-real-time application and accuracy is important too. Since this is a medical application, it is important that the classifier has the low failure rate.
which one is better choice?
A couple of provisos:
performance of a ML classifier can refer to either (i) performance of the classifier itself; or (ii) performance of the predicate step: execution speed of the model-building algorithm. Particularly in this case, the answer is quite different depending on which of the two is intended in the OP, so i'll answer each separately.
second, by Neural Network, i'll assume you're referring to the most common implementation--i.e., a feed-forward, back-propagating single-hidden-layer perceptron.
Training Time (execution speed of the model builder)
For SVM compared to NN: SVMs are much slower. There is a straightforward reason for this: SVM training requires solving the associated Lagrangian dual (rather than primal) problem. This is a quadratic optimization problem in which the number of variables is very large--i.e., equal to the number of training instances (the 'length' of your data matrix).
In practice, two factors, if present in your scenario, could nullify this advantage:
NN training is trivial to parallelize (via map reduce); parallelizing SVM training is not trivial, but it's also not impossible--within the past eight or so years, several implementations have been published and proven to work (https://bibliographie.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/49015/pdf/tech_21.pdf)
mult-class classification problem SVMs are two-class classifiers.They can be adapted for multi-class problems, but this is never straightforward because SVMs use direct decision functions. (An excellent source for modifying SVMs to multi-class problems is S. Abe, Support Vector Machines for Pattern Classification, Springer, 2005). This modification could wipe out any performance advantage SVMs have over NNs: So for instance, if your data has
more than two classes and you chose to configure the SVM using
successive classificstaion (aka one-against-many classification) in
which data is fed to a first SVM classifier which classifiers the
data point either class I or other; if the class is other then
the data point is fed to a second classifier which classifies it
class II or other, etc.
Prediction Performance (execution speed of the model)
Performance of an SVM is substantially higher compared to NN. For a three-layer (one hidden-layer) NN, prediction requires successive multiplication of an input vector by two 2D matrices (the weight matrices). For SVM, classification involves determining on which side of the decision boundary a given point lies, in other words a cosine product.
Prediction Accuracy
By "failure rate" i assume you mean error rate rather than failure of the classifier in production use. If the latter, then there is very little if any difference between SVM and NN--both models are generally numerically stable.
Comparing prediction accuracy of the two models, and assuming both are competently configured and trained, the SVM will outperform the NN.
The superior resolution of SVM versus NN is well documented in the scientific literature. It is true that such a comparison depends on the data, the configuration, and parameter choice of the two models. In fact, this comparison has been so widely studied--over perhaps all conceivable parameter space--and the results so consistent, that even the existence of a few exceptions (though i'm not aware of any) under impractical circumstances shouldn't interfere with the conclusion that SVMs outperform NNs.
Why does SVM outperform NN?
These two models are based on fundamentally different learing strategies.
In NN, network weights (the NN's fitting parameters, adjusted during training) are adjusted such that the sum-of-square error between the network output and the actual value (target) is minimized.
Training an SVM, by contrast, means an explicit determination of the decision boundaries directly from the training data. This is of course required as the predicate step to the optimization problem required to build an SVM model: minimizing the aggregate distance between the maximum-margin hyperplane and the support vectors.
In practice though it is harder to configure the algorithm to train an SVM. The reason is due to the large (compared to NN) number of parameters required for configuration:
choice of kernel
selection of kernel parameters
selection of the value of the margin parameter