I am new to the concept of machine learning and I am trying to figure out this problem. I am using WEKA for this. I have 4 clusters who's means kind of form a square. The training dataset that I provide to Naive Bayes has 2 classes where opposite (across the center of entire plot) clusters are in same class. The accuracy for this model is not even 50 percent but when I change the classes from opposite to the same side, the accuracy becomes 100 percent. Why is this so?
Naive bays can not represent the solution to that problem.
There is more than one form of naive bays, but none can handle that problem. The solutions each one can solve are somewhat different.
Try to ask yourself what properties about the solution change when you "change the classes from opposite to the same side", and what it would take to represent that solution.
Start by loading a snapshot of the data to weka to understand the data. The decide if Naive Bayes is the right algorithm for the solution
Related
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.
Given any image I want my classifier to tell if it is Sunflower or not. How can I go about creating the second class ? Keeping the set of all possible images - {Sunflower} in the second class is an overkill. Is there any research in this direction ? Currently my classifier uses a neural network in the final layer. I have based it upon the following tutorial :
https://github.com/torch/tutorials/tree/master/2_supervised
I am taking images with 254x254 as the input.
Would SVM help in the final layer ? Also I am open to using any other classifier/features that might help me in this.
The standard approach in ML is that:
1) Build model
2) Try to train on some data with positive\negative examples (start with 50\50 of pos\neg in training set)
3) Validate it on test set (again, try 50\50 of pos\neg examples in test set)
If results not fine:
a) Try different model?
b) Get more data
For case #b, when deciding which additional data you need the rule of thumb which works for me nicely would be:
1) If classifier gives lots of false positive (tells that this is a sunflower when it is actually not a sunflower at all) - get more negative examples
2) If classifier gives lots of false negative (tells that this is not a sunflower when it is actually a sunflower) - get more positive examples
Generally, start with some reasonable amount of data, check the results, if results on train set or test set are bad - get more data. Stop getting more data when you get the optimal results.
And another thing you need to consider, is if your results with current data and current classifier are not good you need to understand if the problem is high bias (well, bad results on train set and test set) or if it is a high variance problem (nice results on train set but bad results on test set). If you have high bias problem - more data or more powerful classifier will definitely help. If you have a high variance problem - more powerful classifier is not needed and you need to thing about the generalization - introduce regularization, remove couple of layers from your ANN maybe. Also possible way of fighting high variance is geting much, MUCH more data.
So to sum up, you need to use iterative approach and try to increase the amount of data step by step, until you get good results. There is no magic stick classifier and there is no simple answer on how much data you should use.
It is a good idea to use CNN as the feature extractor, peel off the original fully connected layer that was used for classification and add a new classifier. This is also known as the transfer learning technique that has being widely used in the Deep Learning research community. For your problem, using the one-class SVM as the added classifier is a good choice.
Specifically,
a good CNN feature extractor can be trained on a large dataset, e.g. ImageNet,
the one-class SVM can then be trained using your 'sunflower' dataset.
The essential part of solving your problem is the implementation of the one-class SVM, which is also known as anomaly detection or novelty detection. You may refer http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/outlier_detection.html for some insights about the method.
I have been using some feature selection methods individually, e.g.RFE OR Select K best, for multi-label classification. Is there a technique or method can be used into choosing a feature selection method dynamically? for instance, according to the statistics of test data or some rule-based approach?
This probably isn't the answer you're looking for, but you could try each one and cross validate it against some test data. It should be fairly trivial to script this.
I don't know of any better way of picking a feature selection algorithm than this, but it can bias you towards the test data you've used.
These answers may help.
My assumption about the feature statistics is: maximal distances between means of values between the classes and minimal variance of values for one class classify a good feature.
I start with small learning set, test this assumption and increase the learning set if results look promising.
The final optimization is the histogram of means comparison. Features with similar histograms are removed. Those are redundant features which decrease (at least on SVM) the accuracy considerable (5-10%).
With this approach I gain 95% of accuracy on my data-set of 5 classes, 600 instances. The training takes < 1h. Manual training used to gained 98% with many days of experimenting.
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.
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.