I'm working on an algorithm that makes a guess at K for kmeans clustering. I guess I'm looking for a data set that I could use as a comparison, or maybe a few data sets where the number of clusters is "known" so I could see how my algorithm is doing at guessing K.
I would first check the UCI repository for data sets:
http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets.html?format=&task=clu&att=&area=&numAtt=&numIns=&type=&sort=nameUp&view=table
I believe there are some in there with the labels.
There are text clustering data sets that are frequently used in papers as baselines, such as 20newsgroups:
http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/
Another great method (one that my thesis chair always advocated) is to construct your own small example data set. The best way to go about this is to start small, try something with only two or three variables that you can represent graphically, and then label the clusters yourself.
The added benefit of a small, homebrew data set is that you know the answers and it is great for debugging.
Since you are focused on k-means, have you considered using the various measures (Silhouette, Davies–Bouldin etc.) to find the optimal k?
In reality, the "optimal" k may not be a good choice. Most often, one does want to choose a much larger k, then analyze the resulting clusters / prototypes in more detail to build clusters out of multiple k-means partitions.
The iris flower dataset is a good one to start with, that clustering works nicely on.
Download here
Related
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 some point of view to know if what I am doing is good or wrong or if there is better way to do it.
I have 10 000 elements. For each of them I have like 500 features.
I am looking to measure the separability between 2 sets of those elements. (I already know those 2 groups I don't try to find them)
For now I am using svm. I train the svm on 2000 of those elements, then I look at how good the score is when I test on the 8000 other elements.
Now I would like to now which features maximize this separation.
My first approach was to test each combination of feature with the svm and follow the score given by the svm. If the score is good those features are relevant to separate those 2 sets of data.
But this takes too much time. 500! possibility.
The second approach was to remove one feature and see how much the score is impacted. If the score changes a lot that feature is relevant. This is faster, but I am not sure if it is right. When there is 500 feature removing just one feature don't change a lot the final score.
Is this a correct way to do it?
Have you tried any other method ? Maybe you can try decision tree or random forest, it would give out your best features based on entropy gain. Can i assume all the features are independent of each other. if not please remove those as well.
Also for Support vectors , you can try to check out this paper:
http://axon.cs.byu.edu/Dan/778/papers/Feature%20Selection/guyon2.pdf
But it's based more on linear SVM.
You can do statistical analysis on the features to get indications of which terms best separate the data. I like Information Gain, but there are others.
I found this paper (Fabrizio Sebastiani, Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 34, No.1, pp.1-47, 2002) to be a good theoretical treatment of text classification, including feature reduction by a variety of methods from the simple (Term Frequency) to the complex (Information-Theoretic).
These functions try to capture the intuition that the best terms for ci are the
ones distributed most differently in the sets of positive and negative examples of
ci. However, interpretations of this principle vary across different functions. For instance, in the experimental sciences χ2 is used to measure how the results of an observation differ (i.e., are independent) from the results expected according to an initial hypothesis (lower values indicate lower dependence). In DR we measure how independent tk and ci are. The terms tk with the lowest value for χ2(tk, ci) are thus the most independent from ci; since we are interested in the terms which are not, we select the terms for which χ2(tk, ci) is highest.
These techniques help you choose terms that are most useful in separating the training documents into the given classes; the terms with the highest predictive value for your problem. The features with the highest Information Gain are likely to best separate your data.
I've been successful using Information Gain for feature reduction and found this paper (Entropy based feature selection for text categorization Largeron, Christine and Moulin, Christophe and Géry, Mathias - SAC - Pages 924-928 2011) to be a very good practical guide.
Here the authors present a simple formulation of entropy-based feature selection that's useful for implementation in code:
Given a term tj and a category ck, ECCD(tj , ck) can be
computed from a contingency table. Let A be the number
of documents in the category containing tj ; B, the number
of documents in the other categories containing tj ; C, the
number of documents of ck which do not contain tj and D,
the number of documents in the other categories which do
not contain tj (with N = A + B + C + D):
Using this contingency table, Information Gain can be estimated by:
This approach is easy to implement and provides very good Information-Theoretic feature reduction.
You needn't use a single technique either; you can combine them. Term-Frequency is simple, but can also be effective. I've combined the Information Gain approach with Term Frequency to do feature selection successfully. You should experiment with your data to see which technique or techniques work most effectively.
If you want a single feature to discriminate your data, use a decision tree, and look at the root node.
SVM by design looks at combinations of all features.
Have you thought about Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)?
LDA aims at discovering a linear combination of features that maximizes the separability. The algorithm works by projecting your data in a space where the variance within classes is minimum and the one between classes is maximum.
You can use it reduce the number of dimensions required to classify, and also use it as a linear classifier.
However with this technique you would lose the original features with their meaning, and you may want to avoid that.
If you want more details I found this article to be a good introduction.
I've got a problem where I've potentially got a huge number of features. Essentially a mountain of data points (for discussion let's say it's in the millions of features). I don't know what data points are useful and what are irrelevant to a given outcome (I guess 1% are relevant and 99% are irrelevant).
I do have the data points and the final outcome (a binary result). I'm interested in reducing the feature set so that I can identify the most useful set of data points to collect to train future classification algorithms.
My current data set is huge, and I can't generate as many training examples with the mountain of data as I could if I were to identify the relevant features, cut down how many data points I collect, and increase the number of training examples. I expect that I would get better classifiers with more training examples given fewer feature data points (while maintaining the relevant ones).
What machine learning algorithms should I focus on to, first,
identify the features that are relevant to the outcome?
From some reading I've done it seems like SVM provides weighting per feature that I can use to identify the most highly scored features. Can anyone confirm this? Expand on the explanation? Or should I be thinking along another line?
Feature weights in a linear model (logistic regression, naive Bayes, etc) can be thought of as measures of importance, provided your features are all on the same scale.
Your model can be combined with a regularizer for learning that penalises certain kinds of feature vectors (essentially folding feature selection into the classification problem). L1 regularized logistic regression sounds like it would be perfect for what you want.
Maybe you can use PCA or Maximum entropy algorithm in order to reduce the data set...
You can go for Chi-Square tests or Entropy depending on your data type. Supervized discretization highly reduces the size of your data in a smart way (take a look into Recursive Minimal Entropy Partitioning algorithm proposed by Fayyad & Irani).
If you work in R, the SIS package has a function that will do this for you.
If you want to do things the hard way, what you want to do is feature screening, a massive preliminary dimension reduction before you do feature selection and model selection from a sane-sized set of features. Figuring out what is the sane-size can be tricky, and I don't have a magic answer for that, but you can prioritize what order you'd want to include the features by
1) for each feature, split the data in two groups by the binary response
2) find the Komogorov-Smirnov statistic comparing the two sets
The features with the highest KS statistic are most useful in modeling.
There's a paper "out there" titled "A selctive overview of feature screening for ultrahigh-dimensional data" by Liu, Zhong, and Li, I'm sure a free copy is floating around the web somewhere.
4 years later I'm now halfway through a PhD in this field and I want to add that the definition of a feature is not always simple. In the case that your features are a single column in your dataset, the answers here apply quite well.
However, take the case of an image being processed by a convolutional neural network, for example, a feature is not one pixel of the input, rather it's much more conceptual than that. Here's a nice discussion for the case of images:
https://medium.com/#ageitgey/machine-learning-is-fun-part-3-deep-learning-and-convolutional-neural-networks-f40359318721
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.