Is it a good idea to perform features scaling and mean normalization on a sparse matrix? I have a matrix that is 70% sparse. Usually, features scaling and mean normalization improve the algorithm performance, but in the case of a sparse matrix, it adds a lot of non zero terms
If it's important that the representation be sparse, in order to fit into memory for example, then you can't mean-normalize in the representation itself, no. It becomes completely dense and defeats the purpose.
Usually you push around the mean normalization math into another part of the formula or computation. Or you can just do the normalization as you access the elements, having previously computed the mean and variance.
Or you can pick an algorithm that doesn't need normalization, if possible.
If using scikit-learn you can just as below:
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scaler = StandardScaler(with_mean=False)
scaler.fit(data)
Where you zero the mean to maintain sparsity as you can see on documentation here.
Related
I have a simple binary classification problem, my current classifier is Logistic Regression and I'm using RobustScaler from sklearn to scale my features before fitting the lr.
Assuming my features are looking like 2 Gaussians:
While the orange histogram is for the positive label and the blue histogram is for the negative.
My question is, does it makes sense to pass only the negative label features into the scaler?
My intuition is from the sense that in our case, the blue ones are the "normal" cases, and the orange ones are "abnormal". So shouldn't it be better to scale by the "normals" and push the "abnormals" further away from the mean (which is 0 after scaling).
Consider how you would use your model for inference. On new data, you will not know the class, so you can only apply the scaler to all of the cases. That will reduce the model's performance.
I am currently using sklearn's Logistic Regression function to work on a synthetic 2d problem. The dataset is shown as below:
I'm basic plugging the data into sklearn's model, and this is what I'm getting (the light green; disregard the dark green):
The code for this is only two lines; model = LogisticRegression(); model.fit(tr_data,tr_labels). I've checked the plotting function; that's fine as well. I'm using no regularizer (should that affect it?)
It seems really strange to me that the boundaries behave in this way. Intuitively I feel they should be more diagonal, as the data is (mostly) located top-right and bottom-left, and from testing some things out it seems a few stray datapoints are what's causing the boundaries to behave in this manner.
For example here's another dataset and its boundaries
Would anyone know what might be causing this? From my understanding Logistic Regression shouldn't be this sensitive to outliers.
Your model is overfitting the data (The decision regions it found perform indeed better on the training set than the diagonal line you would expect).
The loss is optimal when all the data is classified correctly with probability 1. The distances to the decision boundary enter in the probability computation. The unregularized algorithm can use large weights to make the decision region very sharp, so in your example it finds an optimal solution, where (some of) the outliers are classified correctly.
By a stronger regularization you prevent that and the distances play a bigger role. Try different values for the inverse regularization strength C, e.g.
model = LogisticRegression(C=0.1)
model.fit(tr_data,tr_labels)
Note: the default value C=1.0 corresponds already to a regularized version of logistic regression.
Let us further qualify why logistic regression overfits here: After all, there's just a few outliers, but hundreds of other data points. To see why it helps to note that
logistic loss is kind of a smoothed version of hinge loss (used in SVM).
SVM does not 'care' about samples on the correct side of the margin at all - as long as they do not cross the margin they inflict zero cost. Since logistic regression is a smoothed version of SVM, the far-away samples do inflict a cost but it is negligible compared to the cost inflicted by samples near the decision boundary.
So, unlike e.g. Linear Discriminant Analysis, samples close to the decision boundary have disproportionately more impact on the solution than far-away samples.
I know that feature selection helps me remove features that may have low contribution. I know that PCA helps reduce possibly correlated features into one, reducing the dimensions. I know that normalization transforms features to the same scale.
But is there a recommended order to do these three steps? Logically I would think that I should weed out bad features by feature selection first, followed by normalizing them, and finally use PCA to reduce dimensions and make the features as independent from each other as possible.
Is this logic correct?
Bonus question - are there any more things to do (preprocess or transform)
to the features before feeding them into the estimator?
If I were doing a classifier of some sort I would personally use this order
Normalization
PCA
Feature Selection
Normalization: You would do normalization first to get data into reasonable bounds. If you have data (x,y) and the range of x is from -1000 to +1000 and y is from -1 to +1 You can see any distance metric would automatically say a change in y is less significant than a change in X. we don't know that is the case yet. So we want to normalize our data.
PCA: Uses the eigenvalue decomposition of data to find an orthogonal basis set that describes the variance in data points. If you have 4 characteristics, PCA can show you that only 2 characteristics really differentiate data points which brings us to the last step
Feature Selection: once you have a coordinate space that better describes your data you can select which features are salient.Typically you'd use the largest eigenvalues(EVs) and their corresponding eigenvectors from PCA for your representation. Since larger EVs mean there is more variance in that data direction, you can get more granularity in isolating features. This is a good method to reduce number of dimensions of your problem.
of course this could change from problem to problem, but that is simply a generic guide.
Generally speaking, Normalization is needed before PCA.
The key to the problem is the order of feature selection, and it's depends on the method of feature selection.
A simple feature selection is to see whether the variance or standard deviation of the feature is small. If these values are relatively small, this feature may not help the classifier. But if you do normalization before you do this, the standard deviation and variance will become smaller (generally less than 1), which will result in very small differences in std or var between the different features.If you use zero-mean normalization, the mean of all the features will equal 0 and std equals 1.At this point, it might be bad to do normalization before feature selection
Feature selection is flexible, and there are many ways to select features. The order of feature selection should be chosen according to the actual situation
Good answers here. One point needs to be highlighted. PCA is a form of dimensionality reduction. It will find a lower dimensional linear subspace that approximates the data well. When the axes of this subspace align with the features that one started with, it will lead to interpretable feature selection as well. Otherwise, feature selection after PCA, will lead to features that are linear combinations of the original set of features and they are difficult to interpret based on the original set of features.
If we have K classes, do I have to plot K learning curves?
Because it seems impossible to me to calculate the train/validation error against all K theta vectors at once.
To clarify, the learning curve is a plot of the training & cross validation/test set error/cost vs training set size. This plot should allow you to see if increasing the training set size improves performance. More generally, the learning curve allows you to identify whether your algorithm suffers from a bias (under fitting) or variance (over fitting) problem.
It depends. Learning curves do not concern themselves with the number of classes. Like you said, it is a plot of training set and test set error, where that error is a numerical value. This is all learning curves are.
That error can be anything you want: accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score etc. (even MAE, MSE and others for regression).
However, the error you choose to use is the one that does or does not apply to your specific problem, which in turn indirectly affects how you should use learning curves.
Accuracy is well defined for any number of classes, so if you use this, a single plot should suffice.
Precision and recall, however, are defined only for binary problems. You can somewhat generalize them (see here for example) by considering the binary problem with classes x and not x for each class x. In that case, you will probably want to plot learning curves for each class. This will also help you identify problems relating to certain classes better.
If you want to read more about performance metrics, I like this paper a lot.
I am using One-Class SVM for outlier detections. It appears that as the number of training samples increases, the sensitivity TP/(TP+FN) of One-Class SVM detection result drops, and classification rate and specificity both increase.
What's the best way of explaining this relationship in terms of hyperplane and support vectors?
Thanks
The more training examples you have, the less your classifier is able to detect true positive correctly.
It means that the new data does not fit correctly with the model you are training.
Here is a simple example.
Below you have two classes, and we can easily separate them using a linear kernel.
The sensitivity of the blue class is 1.
As I add more yellow training data near the decision boundary, the generated hyperplane can't fit the data as well as before.
As a consequence we now see that there is two misclassified blue data point.
The sensitivity of the blue class is now 0.92
As the number of training data increase, the support vector generate a somewhat less optimal hyperplane. Maybe because of the extra data a linearly separable data set becomes non linearly separable. In such case trying different kernel, such as RBF kernel can help.
EDIT: Add more informations about the RBF Kernel:
In this video you can see what happen with a RBF kernel.
The same logic applies, if the training data is not easily separable in n-dimension you will have worse results.
You should try to select a better C using cross-validation.
In this paper, the figure 3 illustrate that the results can be worse if the C is not properly selected :
More training data could hurt if we did not pick a proper C. We need to
cross-validate on the correct C to produce good results