I am using scikit-learn's LogisticRegression object for regularized binary classification. I've read the documentation on intercept_scaling but I don't understand how to choose this value intelligently.
The datasets look like this:
10-20 features, 300-500 replicates
Highly non-Gaussian, in fact most observations are zeros
The output classes are not necessarily equally likely. In some cases they are almost 50/50, in other cases they are more like 90/10.
Typically C=0.001 gives good cross-validated results.
The documentation contains warnings that the intercept itself is subject to regularization, like every other feature, and that intercept_scaling can be used to address this. But how should I choose this value? One simple answer is to explore many possible combinations of C and intercept_scaling and choose the parameters that give the best performance. But this parameter search will take quite a while and I'd like to avoid that if possible.
Ideally, I would like to use the intercept to control the distribution of output predictions. That is, I would like to ensure that the probability that the classifier predicts "class 1" on the training set is equal to the proportion of "class 1" data in the training set. I know that this is the case under certain circumstances, but this is not the case in my data. I don't know if it's due to the regularization or to the non-Gaussian nature of the input data.
Thanks for any suggestions!
While you tried oversampling the positive class by setting class_weight="auto"? That effectively oversamples the underrepresented classes and undersamples the majority class.
(The current stable docs are a bit confusing since they seem to have been copy-pasted from SVC and not edited for LR; that's just changed in the bleeding edge version.)
Related
I have a 6-dimensional training dataset where there is a perfect numeric attribute which separates all the training examples this way: if TIME<200 then the example belongs to class1, if TIME>=200 then example belongs to class2. J48 creates a tree with only 1 level and this attribute as the only node.
However, the test dataset does not follow this hypothesis and all the examples are missclassified. I'm having trouble figuring out whether this case is considered overfitting or not. I would say it is not as the dataset is that simple, but as far as I understood the definition of overfit, it implies a high fitting to the training data, and this I what I have. Any help?
However, the test dataset does not follow this hypothesis and all the examples are missclassified. I'm having trouble figuring out whether this case is considered overfitting or not. I would say it is not as the dataset is that simple, but as far as I understood the definition of overfit, it implies a high fitting to the training data, and this I what I have. Any help?
Usually great training score and bad testing means overfitting. But this assumes IID of the data, and you are clearly violating this assumption - your training data is completely different from the testing one (there is a clear rule for the training data which has no meaning for testing one). In other words - your train/test split is incorrect, or your whole problem does not follow basic assumptions of where to use statistical ml. Of course we often fit models without valid assumptions about the data, in your case - the most natural approach is to drop a feature which violates the assumption the most - the one used to construct the node. This kind of "expert decisions" should be done prior to building any classifier, you have to think about "what is different in test scenario as compared to training one" and remove things that show this difference - otherwise you have heavy skew in your data collection, thus statistical methods will fail.
Yes, it is an overfit. The first rule in creating a training set is to make it look as much like any other set as possible. Your training set is clearly different than any other. It has the answer embedded within it while your test set doesn't. Any learning algorithm will likely find the correlation to the answer and use it and, just like the J48 algorithm, will regard the other variables as noise. The software equivalent of Clever Hans.
You can overcome this by either removing the variable or by training on a set drawn randomly from the entire available set. However, since you know that there is a subset with an embedded major hint, you should remove the hint.
You're lucky. At times these hints can be quite subtle which you won't discover until you start applying the model to future data.
I am doing a logistic regression to predict the outcome of a binary variable, say whether a journal paper gets accepted or not. The dependent variable or predictors are all the phrases used in these papers - (unigrams, bigrams, trigrams). One of these phrases has a skewed presence in the 'accepted' class. Including this phrase gives me a classifier with a very high accuracy (more than 90%), while removing this phrase results in accuracy dropping to about 70%.
My more general (naive) machine learning question is:
Is it advisable to remove such skewed features when doing classification?
Is there a method to check skewed presence for every feature and then decide whether to keep it in the model or not?
If I understand correctly you ask whether some feature should be removed because it is a good predictor (it makes your classifier works better). So the answer is short and simple - do not remove it in fact, the whole concept is to find exactly such features.
The only reason to remove such feature would be that this phenomena only occurs in the training set, and not in real data. But in such case you have wrong data - which does not represnt the underlying data density and you should gather better data or "clean" the current one so it has analogous characteristics as the "real ones".
Based on your comments, it sounds like the feature in your documents that's highly predictive of the class is a near-tautology: "paper accepted on" correlates with accepted papers because at least some of the papers in your database were scraped from already-accepted papers and have been annotated by the authors as such.
To me, this sounds like a useless feature for trying to predict whether a paper will be accepted, because (I'd imagine) you're trying to predict paper acceptance before the actual acceptance has been issued ! In such a case, none of the papers you'd like to test your algorithm with will be annotated with "paper accepted on." So, I'd remove it.
You also asked about how to determine whether a feature correlates strongly with one class. There are three things that come to mind for this problem.
First, you could just compute a basic frequency count for each feature in your dataset and compare those values across classes. This is probably not super informative, but it's easy.
Second, since you're using a log-linear model, you can train your model on your training dataset, and then rank each feature in your model by its weight in the logistic regression parameter vector. Features with high positive weight are indicative of one class, while features with large negative weight are strongly indicative of the other.
Finally, just for the sake of completeness, I'll point out that you might also want to look into feature selection. There are many ways of selecting relevant features for a machine learning algorithm, but I think one of the most intuitive from your perspective might be greedy feature elimination. In such an approach, you train a classifier using all N features in your model, and measure the accuracy on some held-out validation set. Then, train N new models, each with N-1 features, such that each model eliminates one of the N features, and measure the resulting drop in accuracy. The feature with the biggest drop was probably strongly predictive of the class, while features that have no measurable difference can probably be omitted from your final model. As larsmans points out correctly in the comments below, this doesn't scale well at all, but it can be a useful method sometimes.
I am doing the text categorization machine learning problem using Naive Bayes. I have each word as a feature. I have been able to implement it and I am getting good accuracy.
Is it possible for me to use tuples of words as features?
For example, if there are two classes, Politics and sports. The word called government might appear in both of them. However, in politics I can have a tuple (government, democracy) whereas in the class sports I can have a tuple (government, sportsman). So, if a new text article comes in which is politics, the probability of the tuple (government, democracy) has more probability than the tuple (government, sportsman).
I am asking this is because by doing this am I violating the independence assumption of the Naive Bayes problem, because I am considering single words as features too.
Also, I am thinking of adding weights to features. For example, a 3-tuple feature will have less weight than a 4-tuple feature.
Theoretically, are these two approaches not changing the independence assumptions on the Naive Bayes classifier? Also, I have not started with the approach I mentioned yet but will this improve the accuracy? I think the accuracy might not improve but the amount of training data required to get the same accuracy would be less.
Even without adding bigrams, real documents already violate the independence assumption. Conditioned on having Obama in a document, President is much more likely to appear. Nonetheless, naive bayes still does a decent job at classification, even if the probability estimates it gives are hopelessly off. So I recommend that you go on and add more complex features to your classifier and see if they improve accuracy.
If you get the same accuracy with less data, that is basically equivalent to getting better accuracy with the same amount of data.
On the other hand, using simpler, more common features works better as you decrease the amount of data. If you try to fit too many parameters to too little data, you tend to overfit badly.
But the bottom line is to try it and see.
No, from a theoretical viewpoint, you are not changing the independence assumption. You are simply creating a modified (or new) sample space. In general, once you start using higher n-grams as events in your sample space, data sparsity becomes a problem. I think using tuples will lead to the same issue. You will probably need more training data, not less. You will probably also have to give a little more thought to the type of smoothing you use. Simple Laplace smoothing may not be ideal.
Most important point, I think, is this: whatever classifier you are using, the features are highly dependent on the domain (and sometimes even the dataset). For example, if you are classifying sentiment of texts based on movie reviews, using only unigrams may seem to be counterintuitive, but they perform better than using only adjectives. On the other hand, for twitter datasets, a combination of unigrams and bigrams were found to be good, but higher n-grams were not useful. Based on such reports (ref. Pang and Lee, Opinion mining and Sentiment Analysis), I think using longer tuples will show similar results, since, after all, tuples of words are simply points in a higher-dimensional space. The basic algorithm behaves the same way.
I'm implementing an one-versus-rest classifier to discriminate between neural data corresponding (1) to moving a computer cursor up and (2) to moving it in any of the other seven cardinal directions or no movement. I'm using an SVM classifier with an RBF kernel (created by LIBSVM), and I did a grid search to find the best possible gamma and cost parameters for my classifier. I have tried using training data with 338 elements from each of the two classes (undersampling my large "rest" class) and have used 338 elements from my first class and 7218 from my second one with a weighted SVM.
I have also used feature selection to bring the number of features I'm using down from 130 to 10. I tried using the ten "best" features and the ten "worst" features when training my classifier. I have also used the entire feature set.
Unfortunately, my results are not very good, and moreover, I cannot find an explanation why. I tested with 37759 data points, where 1687 of them came from the "one" (i.e. "up") class and the remaining 36072 came from the "rest" class. In all cases, my classifier is 95% accurate BUT the values that are predicted correctly all fall into the "rest" class (i.e. all my data points are predicted as "rest" and all the values that are incorrectly predicted fall in the "one"/"up" class). When I tried testing with 338 data points from each class (the same ones I used for training), I found that the number of support vectors was 666, which is ten less than the number of data points. In this case, the percent accuracy is only 71%, which is unusual since my training and testing data are the exact same.
Do you have any idea what could be going wrong? If you have any suggestions, please let me know.
Thanks!
Test dataset being same as training data implies your training accuracy was 71%. There is nothing wrong about it as the data was possibly not well separable by the kernel you used.
However, one point of concern is the number of support vectors being high suggests probable overfitting .
Not sure if this amounts to an answer - it would probably be hard to give one without actually seeing the data - but here are some ideas regarding the issue you describe:
In general, SVM tries to find a hyperplane that would best separate your classes. However, since you have opted for 1vs1 classification, you have no choice but to mix all negative cases together (your 'rest' class). This might make the 'best' separation much less fit to solve your problem. I'm guessing that this might be a major issue here.
To verify if that's the case, I suggest trying to use only one other cardinal direction as the negative set, and see if that improves results. In case it does, you can train 7 classifiers, one for each direction. Another option might be to use the multiclass option of libSVM, or a tool like SVMLight, which is able to classify one against many.
One caveat of most SVM implementations is their inability to support big differences between the positive and negative sets, even with weighting. From my experience, weighting factors of over 4-5 are problematic in many cases. On the other hand, since your variety in the negative side is large, taking equal sizes might also be less than optimal. Thus, I'd suggest using something like 338 positive examples, and around 1000-1200 random negative examples, with weighting.
A little off your question, I would have considered also other types of classification. To start with, I'd suggest thinking about knn.
Hope it helps :)
In a particular application I was in need of machine learning (I know the things I studied in my undergraduate course). I used Support Vector Machines and got the problem solved. Its working fine.
Now I need to improve the system. Problems here are
I get additional training examples every week. Right now the system starts training freshly with updated examples (old examples + new examples). I want to make it incremental learning. Using previous knowledge (instead of previous examples) with new examples to get new model (knowledge)
Right my training examples has 3 classes. So, every training example is fitted into one of these 3 classes. I want functionality of "Unknown" class. Anything that doesn't fit these 3 classes must be marked as "unknown". But I can't treat "Unknown" as a new class and provide examples for this too.
Assuming, the "unknown" class is implemented. When class is "unknown" the user of the application inputs the what he thinks the class might be. Now, I need to incorporate the user input into the learning. I've no idea about how to do this too. Would it make any difference if the user inputs a new class (i.e.. a class that is not already in the training set)?
Do I need to choose a new algorithm or Support Vector Machines can do this?
PS: I'm using libsvm implementation for SVM.
I just wrote my Answer using the same organization as your Question (1., 2., 3).
Can SVMs do this--i.e., incremental learning? Multi-Layer Perceptrons of course can--because the subsequent training instances don't affect the basic network architecture, they'll just cause adjustment in the values of the weight matrices. But SVMs? It seems to me that (in theory) one additional training instance could change the selection of the support vectors. But again, i don't know.
I think you can solve this problem quite easily by configuring LIBSVM in one-against-many--i.e., as a one-class classifier. SVMs are one-class classifiers; application of an SVM for multi-class means that it has been coded to perform multiple, step-wise one-against-many classifications, but again the algorithm is trained (and tested) one class at a time. If you do this, then what's left after step-wise execution against the test set, is "unknown"--in other words, whatever data is not classified after performing multiple, sequential one-class classifications, is by definition in that 'unknown' class.
Why not make the user's guess a feature (i.e., just another dependent variable)? The only other option is to make it the class label itself, and you don't want that. So you would, for instance, add a column to your data matrix "user class guess", and just populate it with some value most likely to have no effect for those data points not in the 'unknown' category and therefore for which the user will not offer a guess--this value could be '0' or '1', but really it depends on how you have your data scaled and normalized).
Your first item will likely be the most difficult, since there are essentially no good incremental SVM implementations in existence.
A few months ago, I also researched online or incremental SVM algorithms. Unfortunately, the current state of implementations is quite sparse. All I found was a Matlab example, OnlineSVR (a thesis project only implementing regression support), and SVMHeavy (only binary class support).
I haven't used any of them personally. They all appear to be at the "research toy" stage. I couldn't even get SVMHeavy to compile.
For now, you can probably get away with doing periodic batch training to incorporate updates. I also use LibSVM, and it's quite fast, so it sould be a good substitute until a proper incremental version is implemented.
I also don't think SVM's can model the concept of an "unknown" sample by default. They typically work as a series of boolean classifiers, so a sample ends up as positively being classified as something, even if that sample is drastically different from anything seen previously. A possible workaround would be to model the ranges of your features, and randomly generate samples that exist outside of these ranges, and then add these to your training set.
For example, if you have an attribute called "color", which has a minimum value of 4 and a maximum value of 123, then you could add these to your training set
[({'color':3},'unknown'),({'color':125},'unknown')]
to give your SVM an idea of what an "unknown" color means.
There are algorithms to train an SVM incrementally, but I don't think libSVM implements this. I think you should consider whether you really need this feature. I see no problem with your current approach, unless the training process is really too slow. If it is, could you retrain in batches (i.e. after every 100 new examples)?
You can get libSVM to produce probabilities of class membership. I think this can be done for multiclass classification, but I'm not entirely sure about that. You will need to decide some threshold at which the classification is not certain enough and then output 'Unknown'. I suppose something like setting a threshold on the difference between the most likely and second most likely class would achieve this.
I think libSVM scales to any number of new classes. The accuracy of your model may well suffer by adding new classes, however.
Even though this question is probably out of date, I feel obliged to give some additional thoughts.
Since your first question has been answered by others (there is no production-ready SVM which implements incremental learning, even though it is possible), I will skip it. ;)
Adding 'Unknown' as a class is not a good idea. Depending on it's use, the reasons are different.
If you are using the 'Unknown' class as a tag for "this instance has not been classified, but belongs to one of the known classes", then your SVM is in deep trouble. The reason is, that libsvm builds several binary classifiers and combines them. So if you have three classes - let's say A, B and C - the SVM builds the first binary classifier by splitting the training examples into "classified as A" and "any other class". The latter will obviously contain all examples from the 'Unknown' class. When trying to build a hyperplane, examples in 'Unknown' (which really belong to the class 'A') will probably cause the SVM to build a hyperplane with a very small margin and will poorly recognizes future instances of A, i.e. it's generalization performance will diminish. That's due to the fact, that the SVM will try to build a hyperplane which separates most instances of A (those officially labeled as 'A') onto one side of the hyperplane and some instances (those officially labeled as 'Unknown') on the other side .
Another problem occurs if you are using the 'Unknown' class to store all examples, whose class is not yet known to the SVM. For example, the SVM knows the classes A, B and C, but you recently got example data for two new classes D and E. Since these examples are not classified and the new classes not known to the SVM, you may want to temporarily store them in 'Unknown'. In that case the 'Unknown' class may cause trouble, since it possibly contains examples with enormous variation in the values of it's features. That will make it very hard to create good separating hyperplanes and therefore the resulting classifier will poorly recognize new instances of D or E as 'Unknown'. Probably the classification of new instances belonging to A, B or C will be hindered as well.
To sum up: Introducing an 'Unknown' class which contains examples of known classes or examples of several new classes will result in a poor classifier. I think it's best to ignore all unclassified instances when training the classifier.
I would recommend, that you solve this issue outside the classification algorithm. I was asked for this feature myself and implemented a single webpage, which shows an image of the object in question and a button for each known class. If the object in question belongs to a class which is not known yet, the user can fill out another form to add a new class. If he goes back to the classification page, another button for that class will magically appear. After the instances have been classified, they can be used for training the classifier. (I used a database to store the known classes and reference which example belongs to which class. I implemented an export function to make the data SVM-ready.)