Newbie here typesetting my question, so excuse me if this don't work.
I am trying to give a bayesian classifier for a multivariate classification problem where input is assumed to have multivariate normal distribution. I choose to use a discriminant function defined as log(likelihood * prior).
However, from the distribution,
$${f(x \mid\mu,\Sigma) = (2\pi)^{-Nd/2}\det(\Sigma)^{-N/2}exp[(-1/2)(x-\mu)'\Sigma^{-1}(x-\mu)]}$$
i encounter a term -log(det($S_i$)), where $S_i$ is my sample covariance matrix for a specific class i. Since my input actually represents a square image data, my $S_i$ discovers quite some correlation and resulting in det(S_i) being zero. Then my discriminant function all turn Inf, which is disastrous for me.
I know there must be a lot of things go wrong here, anyone willling to help me out?
UPDATE: Anyone can help how to get the formula working?
I do not analyze the concept, as it is not very clear to me what you are trying to accomplish here, and do not know the dataset, but regarding the problem with the covariance matrix:
The most obvious solution for data, where you need a covariance matrix and its determinant, and from numerical reasons it is not feasible is to use some kind of dimensionality reduction technique in order to capture the most informative dimensions and simply discard the rest. One such method is Principal Component Analysis (PCA), which applied to your data and truncated after for example 5-20 dimensions would yield the reduced covariance matrix with non-zero determinant.
PS. It may be a good idea to post this question on Cross Validated
Probably you do not have enough data to infer parameters in a space of dimension d. Typically, the way you would get around this is to take an MAP estimate as opposed to an ML.
For the multivariate normal, this is a normal-inverse-wishart distribution. The MAP estimate adds the matrix parameter of inverse Wishart distribution to the ML covariance matrix estimate and, if chosen correctly, will get rid of the singularity problem.
If you are actually trying to create a classifier for normally distributed data, and not just doing an experiment, then a better way to do this would be with a discriminative method. The decision boundary for a multivariate normal is quadratic, so just use a quadratic kernel in conjunction with an SVM.
Related
Purpose:
I am trying to build a model to classify multiple inputs to a single output class, which is something like this:
{x_i1, x_i2, x_i3, ..., x_i16} (features) to y_i (class)
I am using a SVM to make the classification, but the 0/1-loss was bad (half of the data a misclassified), which leads me to the conclusion that the data might be non-linear. This is why I played around with polynomial basis function. I transformed each coefficient such that I get any combinations of polynomials up to degree 4, in the hope that my features are linear in the transformed space. my new transformed input looks like this:
{x_i1, ..., x_i16, x_i1^2, ..., x_i16^2, ... x_i1^4, ..., x_i16^4, x_i1^3, ..., x_i16^3, x_i1*x_i2, ...}
The loss was minimized but still not quite where I want to go. Since with the number of polynomial degree the chance of overfitting rises, i added regularization in order to counter balance that. I also added a forward greedy algorithm in order to pick up the coefficients which leads to minimal cross-validation error, but with no great improvement.
Question:
Is there a systematic way to figure out which transform leads to linear feature behaviour in the transformed space? Seems little odd to me that I have to try out every polynomial until it "fits". Are there perhaps better basis functions except polynomials? I understand that in low dimensional feature space, one can simply plot the data out and estimate the transform visually, but how can I do it in high dimensional space?
Maybe a little off topic but I also informed myself about PCA in order to throw away the components which doesnt provide much informations in the first place. Is this worth a try?
Thank you for your help.
Did you try other kernel functions such as RBF other than linear and polynomial? Since different dataset may have different characteristics, some kernel functions may work better than others do, especially in non-linear cases.
I don't know which tools you are using, but the following one also provides a guide for beginners on how to build SVM models:
https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/
It is always a good idea to have a feature selection step first, especially for high-dimensional data. Those noisy or irrelevant features should be taken away, leading to a better performance and higher efficiency.
So after you have a machine learning algorithm trained, with your layers, nodes, and weights, how exactly does it go about getting a prediction for an input vector? I am using MultiLayer Perceptron (neural networks).
From what I currently understand, you start with your input vector to be predicted. Then you send it to your hidden layer(s) where it adds your bias term to each data point, then adds the sum of the product of each data point and the weight for each node (found in training), then runs that through the same activation function used in training. Repeat for each hidden layer, then does the same for your output layer. Then each node in the output layer is your prediction(s).
Is this correct?
I got confused when using opencv to do this, because in the guide it says when you use the function predict:
If you are using the default cvANN_MLP::SIGMOID_SYM activation
function with the default parameter values fparam1=0 and fparam2=0
then the function used is y = 1.7159*tanh(2/3 * x), so the output
will range from [-1.7159, 1.7159], instead of [0,1].
However, when training it is also stated in the documentation that SIGMOID_SYM uses the activation function:
f(x)= beta*(1-e^{-alpha x})/(1+e^{-alpha x} )
Where alpha and beta are user defined variables.
So, I'm not quite sure what this means. Where does the tanh function come into play? Can anyone clear this up please? Thanks for the time!
The documentation where this is found is here:
reference to the tanh is under function descriptions predict.
reference to activation function is by the S looking graph in the top part of the page.
Since this is a general question, and not code specific, I did not post any code with it.
I would suggest that you read about appropriate algorithm that your are using or plan to use. To be honest there is no one definite algorithm to solve a problem but you can explore what features you got and what you need.
Regarding how an algorithm performs prediction is totally depended on the choice of algorithm. Support Vector Machine (SVM) performs prediction by fitting hyperplanes on the feature space and using some metric such as distance for learning and than the learnt model is used for prediction. KNN on the other than uses simple nearest neighbor measurement for prediction.
Please do more work on what exactly you need and read through the research papers to get proper understanding. There is not magic involved in prediction but rather mathematical formulations.
I have been working through the concepts of principal component analysis in R.
I am comfortable with applying PCA to a (say, labeled) dataset and ultimately extracting out the most interesting first few principal components as numeric variables from my matrix.
The ultimate question is, in a sense, now what? Most of the reading I've come across on PCA immediately halts after the computations are done, especially with regards to machine learning. Pardon my hyperbole, but I feel as if everyone agrees that the technique is useful, but nobody wants to actually use it after they do it.
More specifically, here's my real question:
I respect that principle components are linear combinations of the variables you started with. So, how does this transformed data play a role in supervised machine learning? How could someone ever use PCA as a way to reduce dimensionality of a dataset, and THEN, use these components with a supervised learner, say, SVM?
I'm absolutely confused about what happens to our labels. Once we are in eigenspace, great. But I don't see any way to continue to move forward with machine learning if this transformation blows apart our concept of classification (unless there's some linear combination of "Yes" or "No" I haven't come across!)
Please step in and set me straight if you have the time and wherewithal. Thanks in advance.
Old question, but I don't think it's been satisfactorily answered (and I just landed here myself through Google). I found myself in your same shoes and had to hunt down the answer myself.
The goal of PCA is to represent your data X in an orthonormal basis W; the coordinates of your data in this new basis is Z, as expressed below:
Because of orthonormality, we can invert W simply by transposing it and write:
Now to reduce dimensionality, let's pick some number of components k < p. Assuming our basis vectors in W are ordered from largest to smallest (i.e., eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue is first, etc.), this amounts to simply keeping the first k columns of W.
Now we have a k dimensional representation of our training data X. Now you run some supervised classifier using the new features in Z.
The key is to realize that W is in some sense a canonical transformation from our space of p features down to a space of k features (or at least the best transformation we could find using our training data). Thus, we can hit our test data with the same W transformation, resulting in a k-dimensional set of test features:
We can now use the same classifier trained on the k-dimensional representation of our training data to make predictions on the k-dimensional representation of our test data:
The point of going through this whole procedure is because you may have thousands of features, but (1) not all of them are going to have a meaningful signal and (2) your supervised learning method may be far too complex to train on the full feature set (either it would take too long or your computer wouldn't have a enough memory to process the calculations). PCA allows you to dramatically reduce the number of features it takes to represent your data without eliminating features of your data that truly add value.
After you have used PCA on a portion of your data to compute the transformation matrix, you apply that matrix to each of your data points before submitting them to your classifier.
This is useful when the intrinsic dimensionality of your data is much smaller than the number of components and the gain in performance you get during classification is worth the loss in accuracy and the cost of PCA. Also, keep in mind the limitations of PCA:
In performing a linear transformation, you implicitly assume that all components are expressed in equivalent units.
Beyond variance, PCA is blind to the structure of your data. It may very well happen that the data splits along low-variance dimensions. In that case, the classifier won't learn from transformed data.
I got Memory Error when I was running dbscan algorithm of scikit.
My data is about 20000*10000, it's a binary matrix.
(Maybe it's not suitable to use DBSCAN with such a matrix. I'm a beginner of machine learning. I just want to find a cluster method which don't need an initial cluster number)
Anyway I found sparse matrix and feature extraction of scikit.
http://scikit-learn.org/dev/modules/feature_extraction.html
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/sparse.html
But I still have no idea how to use it. In DBSCAN's specification, there is no indication about using sparse matrix. Is it not allowed?
If anyone knows how to use sparse matrix in DBSCAN, please tell me.
Or you can tell me a more suitable cluster method.
The scikit implementation of DBSCAN is, unfortunately, very naive. It needs to be rewritten to take indexing (ball trees etc.) into account.
As of now, it will apparently insist of computing a complete distance matrix, which wastes a lot of memory.
May I suggest that you just reimplement DBSCAN yourself. It's fairly easy, there exists good pseudocode e.g. on Wikipedia and in the original publication. It should be just a few lines, and you can then easily take benefit of your data representation. E.g. if you already have a similarity graph in a sparse representation, it's usually fairly trivial to do a "range query" (i.e. use only the edges that satisfy your distance threshold)
Here is a issue in scikit-learn github where they talk about improving the implementation. A user reports his version using the ball-tree is 50x faster (which doesn't surprise me, I've seen similar speedups with indexes before - it will likely become more pronounced when further increasing the data set size).
Update: the DBSCAN version in scikit-learn has received substantial improvements since this answer was written.
You can pass a distance matrix to DBSCAN, so assuming X is your sample matrix, the following should work:
from sklearn.metrics.pairwise import euclidean_distances
D = euclidean_distances(X, X)
db = DBSCAN(metric="precomputed").fit(D)
However, the matrix D will be even larger than X: n_samples² entries. With sparse matrices, k-means is probably the best option.
(DBSCAN may seem attractive because it doesn't need a pre-determined number of clusters, but it trades that for two parameters that you have to tune. It's mostly applicable in settings where the samples are points in space and you know how close you want those points to be to be in the same cluster, or when you have a black box distance metric that scikit-learn doesn't support.)
Yes, since version 0.16.1.
Here's a commit for a test:
https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/commit/494b8e574337e510bcb6fd0c941e390371ef1879
Sklearn's DBSCAN algorithm doesn't take sparse arrays. However, KMeans and Spectral clustering do, you can try these. More on sklearns clustering methods: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/clustering.html
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.