I have a fast set of multi dimensional timebased data which i suspect contain patterns. I simplified the dataset to create a custom visualization.
Humans see patterns in the visualization but the result of the pattern cannot be explained by the visualization. This is because of the simplification step, it hides data which is important.
I cannot put all my data in my visualization cause than humans cannot see the possible patterns anymore because too much data and dimensions are visualized.
Is there a technique that can detect hidden unknown patterns in a data set? (without using visualization, and without me learning the technique patterns) .
One optional extra would be that the technique should somehow be able to "explain the patterns" to me so that i can check if they make sense.
[edit] i can give the technique a collection of small sized datasets (extracted from the big dataset; still very multi dimensional) that i know that contain patterns (by using my visualization). The technique then needs to analyze under what conditions a pattern produces result a or result b.
First of, how did you "simplify" the data? If you did it without any heuristics, you might go ahead and perform PCA. The very idea of PCA is to solve your problem: Not losing "important" data while having a dimensional reduction. You can visualize your principal components so that patterns can be detected by the human eye as well as algorithms.
To your 2nd question: Yes, there are techniques that can detect hidden unknown patterns in data. However, this is a huge field (Machine Learning) and what algorithm you'd use, would depend on your problem structure, so it's impossible to give a specific model name at this point. From what you specified, neural networks in general seem fit to do the job. After you trained a network, you can visualize the activations or weights (Hinton Diagram) to perform an analysis on which input data is treated "similarly".
Related
I dont mean that a neural network can complete the work of traditional image processing algorithm.What i want to say is if it exists a kind of neural network can use the parameters of the traditional method as input and outputs more universal parameters that dont require manual adjustment.Intuitively, my ideas are less efficient than using neural networks directly，but I don't know much about the mathematics of neural networks.
If I understood correctly, what you mean is for a traditional method (let's say thresholding), you want to find the best parameters using ann. It is possible but you have to supply so many training data which needs to be created, processed and evaluated that it will take a lot of time. AFAIK many mobile phones that have AI assisted camera use this method to find the best aperture, exposure..etc.
First of all, thank you very much. I still have two things to figure out. If I wanted to get a (or a set of) relatively optimal parameters, what data set would I need to build (such as some kind of error between input and output and threshold) ? Second, as you give an example, is it more efficient or better than traversal or Otsu to select the optimal threshold through neural networks in practice?To be honest, I wonder if this is really more efficient than training input and output directly using neural networks
For your second question, Otsu only works on cases where the histogram has two distinct peaks. Thresholding is a simple function but the cut-off value is based on your objective; there is no single "best" value valid for every case. So if you want to train a model for thresholding, I think you have to come up with separate models for each case (like a model for thresholding bright objects, another for darker ones...etc.) Maybe an additional output parameter for determining the aim works but I am not sure. Will it be more efficient and better? Depends on the case (and your definition of better). Otsu, traversal or adaptive thresholding does not work all the time (actually Otsu has very specific use cases). If they work for your case, excellent. If not, then things get messy. So to answer your question, it depends on your problem at hand.
For the first question, TBF, it is quite difficult to work with images in traditional ANNs. Images have a lot of pixels, so standard ANNs struggle with inputs. Moreover, when the location/scale of an object in the image changes, the whole pixel data changes even though the content is the same (These are the reasons why CNN's are superior to ANN's for images). For these reasons it is better to use processed metrics which contain condensed and location-invariant information. E.g. for thresholding, you can give the histogram and it returns a thresholding value. Therefore you need an ann with 256 input neurons (for an intensity histogram of 8bit grayscale image), 1 output neuron, and 1-2 middle layers with some deeply connected neurons (128 maybe?). Your training data will be a bunch of histograms as input and corresponding best threshold value for each histogram. Then once training is finished, you can give the ANN a histogram it has never seen before and it will tell you the optimal thresholding value based on its training.
what I want to do is a model that can output different parameters (parameter sets) based on different input images, so I think if you choose a good enough data set it should be somewhat universal.
Most likely, but your data set should be quite inclusive of expected images (in terms of metrics and features), which means it has to be large.
Also, I don't know much about modeling -- can I use a function about the output/parameters (which might be a function about the result of the traditional method) as an error in the back-propagation by create a custom loss function?
I think so, but training the model will be more involved than using predefined loss functions because, well, you have to write them. Also you have to test they work as expected.
I have a dataset that overlaps a lot. So far my results with SVM are not good. Do you have any recomendations for a model that may be able to differ between these 2 datasets?
Scatter plot from both classes
It is easy to fit the dataset by interpolation of one of the classes and predicting the other one otherwise. The problem with this approach is though, that it will not generalize well. The question you have to ask yourself is, if you can predict the class of a point given its attributes. If not then every ML algorithm will also fail to do so.
Then the only reasonable thing you can do is to collect more data and more attributes for every point. Maybe by adding a third dimension you can seperate the data more easily.
If the data is overlapping so much, both should be of the same class, but we know they are not. So, there is/are some feature(s) or variable(s) that is/are separating these data points into two classes. Try to add more features for data.
And sometimes, just transforming the data into a different scale can help.
Both the classes need not be equally distributed, as skewed data distribution can be handled separately.
First of all, what is your criterion for "good results"? What style of SVM did you use? Simple linear will certainly fail for most concepts of "good", but a seriously convoluted Gaussian kernel might dredge something out of the handfuls of contiguous points in the upper regions of the plot.
I suggest that you run some basic statistics on the data you've presented, to see whether they're actually as separable as you'd want. I suggest a T-test for starters.
If you have other dimensions, I strongly recommend that you use them. Start with the greatest amount of input you can handle, and reduce from there (principal component analysis). Until we know the full shape and distribution of the data, there's not much hope of identifying a useful algorithm.
That said, I'll make a pre-emptive suggestion that you look into spectral clustering algorithms when you add the other dimensions. Some are good with density, some with connectivity, while others key on gaps.
I have visualized a dataset in 2D after employing PCA. 1 dimension is time and the Y dimension is First PCA component. As figure shows, there is relatively good separation between points (A, B). But unfortunately clustering methods (DBSCAN, SMO, KMEANS, Hierarchical) are not able to cluster these points in 2 clusters. As you see in section A there is a relative continuity and this continuous process is finished and Section B starts and there is rather big gap in comparison to past data between A and B.
I will be so grateful if you can introduce me any method and algorithm (or devising any metric from data considering its distribution) to be able to do separation between A and B without visualization. Thank you so much.
This is plot of 2 PCA components for the above plot(the first one). The other one is also the plot of components of other dataset which I get bad result,too.
This is a time series, and apparently you are looking for change points or want to segment this time series.
Do not treat this data set as a two dimensional x-y data set, and don't use clustering here; rather choose an algorithm that is actually designed for time series.
As a starter, plot series[x] - series[x-1], i.e. the first derivative. You may need to remove seasonality to improve results. No clustering algorithm will do this, they do not have a notion of seasonality or time.
If PCA gives you a good separation, you can just try to cluster after projecting your data through your PCA eigenvectors. If you don't want to use PCA, then you will need anyway an alternative data projection method, because failing clustering methods imply that your data is not separable in the original dimensions. You can take a look at non linear clustering methods such as the kernel based ones or spectral clustering for example. Or to define your own non-euclidian metric, which is in fact just another data projection method.
But using PCA clearly seems to be the best fit in your case (Occam razor : use the simplest model that fits your data).
I don't know that you'll have an easy time devising an algorithm to handle this case, which is dangerously (by present capabilities) close to "read my mind" clustering. You have a significant alley where you've marked the division. You have one nearly as good around (1700, +1/3), and an isolate near (1850, 0.45). These will make it hard to convince a general-use algorithm to make exactly one division at the spot you want, although that one is (I think) still the most computationally obvious.
Spectral clustering works well at finding gaps; I'd try that first. You might have to ask it for 3 or 4 clusters to separate the one you want in general. You could also try playing with SVM (good at finding alleys in data), but doing that in an unsupervised context is the tricky part.
No, KMeans is not going to work; it isn't sensitive to density or connectivity.
I need to perform the text classification on set of emails. But all the words in my text are thinly sparse i.e frequency of each word with respect to all the documents are very less. words are not that much frequently repeating. Since to train the classifiers I think document term matrix with frequency as weightage is not suitable. Can you please suggest me what kind of other methods I need to use .
Thanks
The real problem will be, that if your words are that sparse a learned classifier will not generalise to the real world data. However, there are several solutions to it
1.) Use more data. This is kind-of a no-brainer. However, you can not only add labeled data you can also use unlabelled data in a semi-supervised learning
2.) Use more data (part b). You can look into the transfer learning setting. There you build a classifier on a large data set with similar characteristics. This might be twitter streams and then adapt this classifier to your domain
3.) Get your processing pipeline right. Your problem might origin from a suboptimal processing pipeline. Are you doing stemming? In the email the word steming should be mapped onto stem. This can be pushed even further by using synonym matching with a dictionary.
How should I approach a situtation when I try to apply some ML algorithm (classification, to be more specific, SVM in particular) over some high dimensional input, and the results I get are not quite satisfactory?
1, 2 or 3 dimensional data can be visualized, along with the algorithm's results, so you can get the hang of what's going on, and have some idea how to aproach the problem. Once the data is over 3 dimensions, other than intuitively playing around with the parameters I am not really sure how to attack it?
What do you do to the data? My answer: nothing. SVMs are designed to handle high-dimensional data. I'm working on a research problem right now that involves supervised classification using SVMs. Along with finding sources on the Internet, I did my own experiments on the impact of dimensionality reduction prior to classification. Preprocessing the features using PCA/LDA did not significantly increase classification accuracy of the SVM.
To me, this totally makes sense from the way SVMs work. Let x be an m-dimensional feature vector. Let y = Ax where y is in R^n and x is in R^m for n < m, i.e., y is x projected onto a space of lower dimension. If the classes Y1 and Y2 are linearly separable in R^n, then the corresponding classes X1 and X2 are linearly separable in R^m. Therefore, the original subspaces should be "at least" as separable as their projections onto lower dimensions, i.e., PCA should not help, in theory.
Here is one discussion that debates the use of PCA before SVM: link
What you can do is change your SVM parameters. For example, with libsvm link, the parameters C and gamma are crucially important to classification success. The libsvm faq, particularly this entry link, contains more helpful tips. Among them:
Scale your features before classification.
Try to obtain balanced classes. If impossible, then penalize one class more than the other. See more references on SVM imbalance.
Check the SVM parameters. Try many combinations to arrive at the best one.
Use the RBF kernel first. It almost always works best (computationally speaking).
Almost forgot... before testing, cross validate!
EDIT: Let me just add this "data point." I recently did another large-scale experiment using the SVM with PCA preprocessing on four exclusive data sets. PCA did not improve the classification results for any choice of reduced dimensionality. The original data with simple diagonal scaling (for each feature, subtract mean and divide by standard deviation) performed better. I'm not making any broad conclusion -- just sharing this one experiment. Maybe on different data, PCA can help.
Some suggestions:
Project data (just for visualization) to a lower-dimensional space (using PCA or MDS or whatever makes sense for your data)
Try to understand why learning fails. Do you think it overfits? Do you think you have enough data? Is it possible there isn't enough information in your features to solve the task you are trying to solve? There are ways to answer each of these questions without visualizing the data.
Also, if you tell us what the task is and what your SVM output is, there may be more specific suggestions people could make.
You can try reducing the dimensionality of the problem by PCA or the similar technique. Beware that PCA has two important points. (1) It assumes that the data it is applied to is normally distributed and (2) the resulting data looses its natural meaning (resulting in a blackbox). If you can live with that, try it.
Another option is to try several parameter selection algorithms. Since SVM's were already mentioned here, you might try the approach of Chang and Li (Feature Ranking Using Linear SVM) in which they used linear SVM to pre-select "interesting features" and then used RBF - based SVM on the selected features. If you are familiar with Orange, a python data mining library, you will be able to code this method in less than an hour. Note that this is a greedy approach which, due to its "greediness" might fail in cases where the input variables are highly correlated. In that case, and if you cannot solve this problem with PCA (see above), you might want to go to heuristic methods, which try to select best possible combinations of predictors. The main pitfall of this kind of approaches is the high potential of overfitting. Make sure you have a bunch "virgin" data that was not seen during the entire process of model building. Test your model on that data only once, after you are sure that the model is ready. If you fail, don't use this data once more to validate another model, you will have to find a new data set. Otherwise you won't be sure that you didn't overfit once more.
List of selected papers on parameter selection:
Feature selection for high-dimensional genomic microarray data
Oh, and one more thing about SVM. SVM is a black box. You better figure out what is the mechanism that generate the data and model the mechanism and not the data. On the other hand, if this would be possible, most probably you wouldn't be here asking this question (and I wouldn't be so bitter about overfitting).
List of selected papers on parameter selection
Feature selection for high-dimensional genomic microarray data
Wrappers for feature subset selection
Parameter selection in particle swarm optimization
I worked in the laboratory that developed this Stochastic method to determine, in silico, the drug like character of molecules
I would approach the problem as follows:
What do you mean by "the results I get are not quite satisfactory"?
If the classification rate on the training data is unsatisfactory, it implies that either
You have outliers in your training data (data that is misclassified). In this case you can try algorithms such as RANSAC to deal with it.
Your model(SVM in this case) is not well suited for this problem. This can be diagnozed by trying other models (adaboost etc.) or adding more parameters to your current model.
The representation of the data is not well suited for your classification task. In this case preprocessing the data with feature selection or dimensionality reduction techniques would help
If the classification rate on the test data is unsatisfactory, it implies that your model overfits the data:
Either your model is too complex(too many parameters) and it needs to be constrained further,
Or you trained it on a training set which is too small and you need more data
Of course it may be a mixture of the above elements. These are all "blind" methods to attack the problem. In order to gain more insight into the problem you may use visualization methods by projecting the data into lower dimensions or look for models which are suited better to the problem domain as you understand it (for example if you know the data is normally distributed you can use GMMs to model the data ...)
If I'm not wrong, you are trying to see which parameters to the SVM gives you the best result. Your problem is model/curve fitting.
I worked on a similar problem couple of years ago. There are tons of libraries and algos to do the same. I used Newton-Raphson's algorithm and a variation of genetic algorithm to fit the curve.
Generate/guess/get the result you are hoping for, through real world experiment (or if you are doing simple classification, just do it yourself). Compare this with the output of your SVM. The algos I mentioned earlier reiterates this process till the result of your model(SVM in this case) somewhat matches the expected values (note that this process would take some time based your problem/data size.. it took about 2 months for me on a 140 node beowulf cluster).
If you choose to go with Newton-Raphson's, this might be a good place to start.