So I read a paper that said that processing your dataset correctly can increase LibSVM classification accuracy dramatically...I'm using the Weka implementation and would like some help making sure my dataset is optimal.
Here are my (example) attributes:
Power Numeric (real numbers, range is from 0 to 1.5132, 9000+ unique values)
Voltage Numeric (similar to Power)
Light Numeric (0 and 1 are the only 2 possible values)
Day Numeric (1 through 20 are the possible values, equal number of each value)
Range Nominal {1,2,3,4,5} <----these are the classes
My question is: which Weka pre-processing filters should I apply to make this dataset more effective for LibSVM?
Should I normalize and/or standardize the Power and Voltage data values?
Should I use a Discretization filter on anything?
Should I be binning the Power/Voltage values into a lot smaller number of bins?
Should I make the Light value Binary instead of numeric?
Should I normalize the Day values? Does it even make sense to do that?
Should I be using the Nominal to Binary or Nominal to some thing else filter for the classes "Range"?
Please advice on these questions and anything else you think I might have missed...
Thanks in advance!!
Normalization is very important, as it influences the concept of distance which is used by SVM. The two main approaches to normalization are:
Scale each input dimension to the same interval, for example [0, 1]. This is the most common approach by far. It is necessary to prevent some input dimensions to completely dominate others. Recommended by the LIBSVM authors in their beginner's guide (Appendix B for examples).
Scale each instance to a given length. This is common in text mining / computer vision.
As to handling types of inputs:
Continuous: no work needed, SVM works on these implicitly.
Ordinal: treat as continuous variables. For example cold, lukewarm, hot could be modeled as 1, 2, 3 without implicitly defining an unnatural structure.
Nominal: perform one-hot encoding, e.g. for an input with N levels, generate N new binary input dimensions. This is necessary because you must avoid implicitly defining a varying distance between nominal levels. For example, modelling cat, dog, bird as 1, 2 and 3 implies that a dog and bird are more similar than a cat and bird which is nonsense.
Normalization must be done after substituting inputs where necessary.
To answer your questions:
Should I normalize and/or standardize the Power and Voltage data
values?
Yes, standardize all (final) input dimensions to the same interval (including dummies!).
Should I use a Discretization filter on anything?
No.
Should I be binning the Power/Voltage values into a lot smaller number of
bins?
No. Treat them as continuous variables (e.g. one input each).
Should I make the Light value Binary instead of numeric?
No, SVM has no concept of binary variables and treats everything as numeric. So converting it will just lead to an extra type-cast internally.
Should I normalize the Day values? Does it even make sense to do
that?
If you want to use 1 input dimension, you must normalize it just like all others.
Should I be using the Nominal to Binary or Nominal to some thing else filter for the classes "Range"?
Nominal to binary, using one-hot encoding.
Related
I'm working on a regression algorithm, in this case k-NearestNeighbors to predict a certain price of a product.
So I have a Training set which has only one categorical feature with 4 possible values. I've dealt with it using a one-to-k categorical encoding scheme which means now I have 3 more columns in my Pandas DataFrame with a 0/1 depending the value present.
The other features in the DataFrame are mostly distances like latitud - longitude for locations and prices, all numerical.
Should I standardize (Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance) and normalize before or after the categorical encoding?
I'm thinking it might be benefitial to normalize after encoding so that every feature is to the estimator as important as every other when measuring distances between neighbors but I'm not really sure.
Seems like an open problem, thus I'd like to answer even though it's late. I am also unsure how much the similarity between the vectors would be affected, but in my practical experience you should first encode your features and then scale them. I have tried the opposite with scikit learn preprocessing.StandardScaler() and it doesn't work if your feature vectors do not have the same length: scaler.fit(X_train) yields ValueError: setting an array element with a sequence. I can see from your description that your data have a fixed number of features, but I think for generalization purposes (maybe you have new features in the future?), it's good to assume that each data instance has a unique feature vector length. For instance, I transform my text documents into word indices with Keras text_to_word_sequence (this gives me the different vector length), then I convert them to one-hot vectors and then I standardize them. I have actually not seen a big improvement with the standardization. I think you should also reconsider which of your features to standardize, as dummies might not need to be standardized. Here it doesn't seem like categorical attributes need any standardization or normalization. K-nearest neighbors is distance-based, thus it can be affected by these preprocessing techniques. I would suggest trying either standardization or normalization and check how different models react with your dataset and task.
After. Just imagine that you have not numerical variables in your column but strings. You can't standardize strings - right? :)
But given what you wrote about categories. If they are represented with values, I suppose there is some kind of ranking inside. Probably, you can use raw column rather than one-hot-encoded. Just thoughts.
You generally want to standardize all your features so it would be done after the encoding (that is assuming that you want to standardize to begin with, considering that there are some machine learning algorithms that do not need features to be standardized to work well).
So there is 50/50 voting on whether to standardize data or not.
I would suggest, given the positive effects in terms of improvement gains no matter how small and no adverse effects, one should do standardization before splitting and training estimator
I would like to conduct some feature extraction(or clustering) for dataset containing sub-features.
For example, dataset is like below. The goal is to classify the type of robot using the data.
Samples : 100 robot samples [Robot 1, Robot 2, ..., Robot 100]
Classes : 2 types [Type A, Type B]
Variables : 6 parts, and 3 sub-features for each parts (total 18 variables)
[Part1_weight, Part1_size, Part1_strength, ..., Part6_size, Part6_strength, Part6_weight]
I want to conduct feature extraction with [weight, size, strength], and use extracted feature as a representative value for the part.
In short, my aim is to reduce the feature to 6 - [Part1_total, Part2_total, ..., Part6_total] - and then, classify the type of robot with those 6 features. So, make combined feature with 'weight', 'size', and 'strength' is the problem to solve.
First I thought of applying PCA (Principal Component Analysis), because it is one of the most popular feature extraction algorithm. But it considers all 18 features separately, so 'Part1_weight' can be considered as more important than 'Part2_weight'. But what I have to know is the importance of 'weights', 'sizes', and 'strengths' among samples, so PCA seems to be not applicable.
Is there any supposed way to solve this problem?
If you want to have exactly one feature per part I see no other way than performing the feature reduction part-wise. However, there might be better choices than simple PCA. For example, if the parts are mostly solid, their weight is likely to correlate with the third power of the size, so you could take the cubic root of the weight or the cube of the size before performing the PCA. Alternatively, you can take a logarithm of both values, which again results in a linear dependency.
Of course, there are many more fancy transformations you could use. In statistics, the Box-Cox Transformation is used to achieve a normal-looking distribution of the data.
You should also consider normalising the transformed data before performing the PCA, i.e. subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviations of each variable. It will remove the influence of units of measurement. I.e. it won't matter whether you measure weight in kg, atomic units, or Sun masses.
If the Part's number makes them different from one another (e.g Part1 is different from Part2, doesn't matter if their size, weight, strength parameters are identical), you can do PCA once for each Part. Using only the current Part's size, weight and strength as parameters in the current PCA.
Alternatively, if the Parts array order doesn't matter, you can do only one PCA using all (size, weight, strength) parameter triples, not differing them by their part number.
i am working on kmeans clustering .
i have 3d dataset as no.days,frequency,food
->day is normalized by means & std deviation(SD) or better to say Standardization. which gives me range of [-2 to 14]
->for frequency and food which are NOMINAL data in my data sets are normalized by DIVIDE BY MAX ( x/max(x) ) which gives me range [0 to 1]
the problem is that the kmeans only considers the day-axis for grouping since there is obvious gap b/w points in this axis and almost ignores the other two of frequency and food (i think because of negligible gaps in frequency and food dims ).
if i apply the kmeans only on day-axis alone (1D) i get the exact similar result as i applied on 3D(days,frequency,food).
"before, i did x/max(x) as well for days but not acceptable"
so i want to know is there any way to normalize the other two nominal data of frequency and food and we get fair scaling based on DAY-axis.
food => 1,2,3
frequency => 1-36
The point of normalization is not just to get the values small.
The purpose is to have comparable value ranges - something which is really hard for attributes of different units, and may well be impossible for nominal data.
For your kind of data, k-means is probably the worst choice, because k-means relies on continuous values to work. If you have nominal values, it usually gets stuck easily. So my main recommendation is to not use k-means.
For k-means to wprk on your data, a difference of 1 must be the same in every attribute. So 1 day difference = difference between food q and food 2. And because k-means is based on squared errors the difference of food 1 to food 3 is 4x as much as food to food 2.
Unless you have above property, don't use k-means.
You can try to use the Value Difference Metric, VDM (or any variant) to convert pretty much every nominal attribute you encounter to a valid numeric representation. An after that you can just apply standardisation to the whole dataset as usual.
The original definition is here:
http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~randy/jair/wilson1.html
Although it should be easy to find implementations for every common language elsewhere.
N.B. for ordered nominal attributes such as your 'frequency' most of the time it is enough to just represent them as integers.
I want to find the opinion of a sentence either positive or negative. For example talk about only one sentence.
The play was awesome
If change it to vector form
[0,0,0,0]
After searching through the Bag of words
bad
naughty
awesome
The vector form becomes
[0,0,0,1]
Same for other sentences. Now I want to pass it to the machine learning algorithm for training it. How can I train the network using these multiple vectors? (for finding the opinion of unseen sentences) Obviously not! Because the input is fix in neural network. Is there any way? The above procedure is just my thinking. Kindly correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance.
Since your intuitive input format is "Sentence". Which is, indeed, a string of tokens with arbitrary length. Abstracting sentences as token series is not a good choice for many existing algorithms only works on determined format of inputs.
Hence, I suggest try using tokenizer on your entire training set. This will give you vectors of length of the dictionary, which is fixed for given training set.
Because when the length of sentences vary drastically, then size of the dictionary always keeps stable.
Then you can apply Neural Networks(or other algorithms) to the tokenized vectors.
However, vectors generated by tokenizer is extremely sparse because you only work on sentences rather than articles.
You can try LDA (supervised, not PCA), to reduce the dimension as well as amplify the difference.
That will keep the essential information of your training data as well as express your data at fixed size, while this "size" is not too large.
By the way, you may not have to label each word by its attitude since the opinion of a sentence also depends on other kind of words.
Simple arithmetics on number of opinion-expressing words many leave your model highly biased. Better label the sentences and leave the rest job to classifiers.
For the confusions
PCA and LDA are Dimensional Reduction techniques.
difference
Let's assume each tuple of sample is denoted as x (1-by-p vector).
p is too large, we don't like that.
Let's find a matrix A(p-by-k) in which k is pretty small.
So we get reduced_x = x*A, and most importantly, reduced_x must
be able to represent x's characters.
Given labeled data, LDA can provide proper A that can maximize
distance between reduced_x of different classes, and also minimize
the distance within identical classes.
In simple words: compress data, keep information.
When you've got
reduced_x, you can define training data: (reduced_x|y) where y is
0 or 1.
I am new to machine learning and AI and started with NN recently.
Already got some information here on stackoverflow, but I don't understand the logic from the whole gathered information at the moment.
Let's take 4 nominal (but not ordinal) values [A, B, C, D] and 2 numericals already normalized [0.35, 0.55] - so 2 input neurons, one for nominal one for numerical.
I mostly see in NN literature you have to use 4 input neurons for encoding. But I don't need it to predict those nominal ones. I have only one output neuron that represents at most a relationship in the way if I would use it with expert systems and rules.
If I would normalize them to [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8] for example, isn't the NN able to distinguish between them? For the NN it's only a number, isn't it?
Naive approach and thinking:
A with 0.35 numerical leads to ideal 1.
B with 0.55 numerical leads to ideal 0.
C with 0.35 numerical leads to ideal 0.
D with 0.55 numerical leads to ideal 1.
Is there a mistake in my way of thinking about this approach?
Additional info (edit):
Those nominal values are included in decision making (significance if measured with statistics tools by combining with the numerical values), depends if they are true or not. I know they can be encoded binary, but the list of nominal values is a litte bit larger.
Other example:
Symptom A with blood test 1 leads to diagnosis X (the ideal)
Symptom B with blood test 1 leads to diagnosys Y (the ideal)
Actually expert systems are used. Symptoms are nominal values, but in combination with the blood test value you get the diagnosis. The main question finally: Do I have to encode symptoms in binary way or can I replace symptoms with numbers? If I can't replace it with numbers, why binary representation is the only way in usage of a NN?
INPUTS
Theoretically it doesn't really matter how do you encode your inputs. As long as different samples will be represented by different points in the input space it is possible to separate them with a line - and that what's the input layer (if it's linear) is doing - it combines the inputs linearly. However, the way the data is laid out in the input space can have huge impact on convergence time during learning. A simple way to see this is this: imagine a set of lines crossing the origin in the 2D space. If your data is scattered around the origin, then it is likely that some of these lines will separate data into parts, and few "moves" will be required, especially if the data is linearly separable. On the other hand, if your input data is dense and far from the origin, then most of initial input discrimination lines won't even "hit" the data. So it will require a large number of weight updates to reach the data, and the large amount of precise steps to "cut" it into initial categories.
OUTPUTS
If you have categories then encoding them as binary is quite important. Imagine that you have three categories: A, B and C. If you encode them with two three neurons as 1;0;0, 0;1;0 and 0;0;1 then during learning and later with noisy data a point about which network is "not sure" can end up as 0.5;0.0;0.5 on the output layer. That makes sense, if it is really something conceptually between A and C, but surely not B. If you'd choose one output neuron end encode A, B and C as 1, 2 and 3, then for the same situation the network would give an input of average between 1 and 3 which gives you 2! So the answer would be "definitely B" - clearly wrong!
Reference:
ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/FAQ.html