sklearn provides two SVM based regression, SVR and NuSVR. The latter claims to be using libsvm. However, other than that I don't see any description of when to use what.
Does anyone have an idea?
I am trying to do regression on 3m X 21 matrix using 5 fold cross validation using SVR, but it is taking forever to finish. I've aborted the job and I'm now considering using NuSVR. But I'm not sure what advantage it provides.
NuSVR - http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.svm.NuSVR.html#sklearn.svm.NuSVR
SVR - http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.svm.SVR.html#sklearn.svm.SVR
They are equivalent but slightly different parametrizations of the same implementation.
Most people use SVR.
You can not use that many samples with a kernel SVR. You could try SVR(kernel="Linear") but that would probably also be infeasible. I recommend using SGDRegressor. You might need to adjust the learning rate and number of epochs, though.
You can also try RandomForestRegressor which should work just fine.
Check out the github code for nuSVR. It says that it is based on libSVM as well. NuSVR allows you to limit the number of support vectors used.
Related
I have a use case in ML where I have 2 classes, 0 and 1 for a given text.
Class-0: Can afford some misclassifications
Class-1: Very Important, can't afford any misclassifications
There's a huge imbalance in samples for both classes,
about 30000 for class-0, and only 1000 for class-1
While doing the train-test split, I'm stratifying the split based on the labels, such that, the ratio of 70% train and 30% test is maintained for each label class.
I want to tune parameters in such a way that Precision or Recall for class-1 is improved. I tried using 'f1_macro', 'precision', 'recall' as individual metrics and all combined as well to tune using GridSearchCV, but it's less helpful due to majority samples being Class-0.
I'm exploring the safer ways to reduce class 0 data, although, there's only small degree we can reduce, anyways even without tuning, or with any parameters, class-0 always have above 98% f1-score.
So all I care about tuning is for class-1.
Can you please suggest, perhaps a customized callable metric such that it only focuses on Class-1's Precision, Recall or F1-Score?
I'm using scikit-learn latest stable version.
Similar Problem here, the author is trying to Tune Class-1's F1 Score using Neural Networks (MLP) in Keras
Its been suggested to try customizing metric, just didn't mention how.
The one who can answer here for Scikit-Learn, can also answer below link for Keras.
Hyperparameter tuning in Keras (MLP) via RandomizedSearchCV
Using class_weight='balanced' is helping here.
I referred these articles in Scikit-Learn's official documentation pages.
Understanding how parameter class_weights works:
https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/svm.html#unbalanced-problems
https://stackoverflow.com/a/30982811/3149277
Understanding what parameters to use for class_weights:
https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/svm.html#tips-on-practical-use
How does the class_weight parameter in scikit-learn work?
Although, due to time limits, I didn't bother defining the custom function as this seemed working close to my expectations.
I have a binary classification problem where I have around 15 features. I have chosen these features using some other model. Now I want to perform Bayesian Logistic on these features. My target classes are highly imbalance(minority class is 0.001%) and I have around 6 million records. I want to build a model which can be trained nighty or weekend using Bayesian logistic.
Currently, I have divided the data into 15 parts and then I train my model on the first part and test on the last part then I am updating my priors using Interpolated method of pymc3 and rerun the model using the 2nd set of data. I am checking the accuracy and other metrics(ROC, f1-score) after each run.
Problems:
My score is not improving.
Am I using the right approch?
This process is taking too much time.
If someone can guide me with the right approach and code snippets it will be very helpful for me.
You can use variational inference. It is faster than sampling and produces almost similar results. pymc3 itself provides methods for VI, you can explore that.
I only know this part of question. If you can elaborate your problem a bit further, maybe.. I can help you.
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'm attempting to make a classifier that chooses a rating (1-5) for a item i. For each item i, I have a vector x containing about 40 different quantities pertaining to i. I also have a gold standard rating for each item. Based on some function of x, I want to train a classifier to give me a rating 1-5 that closely matches the gold standard.
Most of the information I've seen on classifiers deal with just binary decisions, while I have a rating decision. Are there common techniques or code libraries out there to deal with this sort of problem?
I agree with you that ML problems in which the response variable is on an ordinal scale
require special handling--'machine-mode' (i.e., returning a class label) seems insufficient
because the class labels ignore the relationship among the labels ("1st, 2nd, 3rd");
likewise, 'regression-mode' (i.e., treating the ordinal labels as floats, {1, 2, 3}) because
it ignores the metric distance between the response variables (e.g., 3 - 2 != 1).
R has (at least) several packages directed to ordinal regression. One of these is actually called Ordinal, but i haven't used it. I have used the Design Package in R for ordinal regression and i can certainly recommend it. Design contains a complete set of functions for solution, diagnostics, testing, and results presentation of ordinal regression problems via the Ordinal Logistic Model. Both Packages are available from CRAN) A step-by-step solution of an ordinal regression problem using the Design Package is presented on the UCLA Stats Site.
Also, i recently looked at a paper by a group at Yahoo working on ordinal classification using Support Vector Machines. I have not attempted to apply their technique.
Have you tried using Weka? It supports binary, numerical, and nominal attributes out of the box, the latter two of which might work well enough for your purposes.
Furthermore, it looks like one of the classifiers that's available is a meta-classifier called OrdinalClassClassifier.java, which is the result of this research:
Eibe Frank and Mark Hall, A simple approach to ordinal classification. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Machine Learning, 2001, pp. 145-156.
If you don't need a pre-made approach, then these references (in addition to doug's note about the Yahoo SVM paper) might be useful:
W Chu and Z Ghahramani, Gaussian processes for ordinal regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2006.
Wei Chu and S. Sathiya Keerthi, New approaches to support vector ordinal regression. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine Learning, 2005, 145-152.
The problems that dough has raised are all valid. Let me add another one. You didn't say how you would like to measure the agreement between the classification and the "gold standard". You have to formulate the answer to that question as soon as possible, as this will have a huge impact on your next step. In my experience, the most problematic part of any (ok, not any, most) optimization task is the score function. Try asking yourself whether all errors equal? Does miss-classifying the "3" as being "4" has the same impact as classifying "4" as "3"? What about "1" vs "5". Can mistakenly missing one case have disastrous consequences (miss HIV diagnosis, activate pilot ejection in a plane)
The simplest way to measure the agreement between categorical classifiers is Cohen's Kappa. More complicated methods are described in the following links here, here, here, and here
Having said that, sometimes picking a solution that "just works", instead of "the right one" is faster and easier. If I were you I would pick a machine learning library (R, Weka, I personally love Orange) and see what I get. Only if you don't have reasonably good results with that, look for more complex solutions
If not interested in fancy statistics a one hidden layer back propagation neural network with 3 or 5 output nodes will probably do the trick if the training data is sufficiently large. Most NN classifiers try to minimize the mean squared error which is not always desired. Support Vector Machines mentioned earlier is a good alternative.
FANN is a good library for back propagation NNs, it also has some tools to assist in training of the network.
There are two packages in R that might help taming ordinal data
ordinalForest on CRAN
rpartScore on CRAN
I'm working on an OrdinalClassifier that is based on the sklearn framework (specifically the OVR multiclass classifier) and which works well with sklearn workflow such as pipelines, cross validation, and scoring.
Through testing, I'm finding that it performs very well vs. standard non-ordinal multiclass classification using SVC. And it gives much greater control over optimizing for precision and recall on the positive class (in my testing, I used sklearn's diabetes dataset and transformed the disease progression target(y) into a low, medium, high class label. Testing via cross validation is on my repo along with attribution. Scoring is based on weighted f1.
https://github.com/leeprevost/OrdinalClassifier
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.