in order to improve the accuracy of an adaboost classifier (for image classification), I am using genetic programming to derive new statistical Measures. Every Time when a new feature is generated, i evaluate its fitness by training an adaboost Classifier and by testing its performances. But i want to know if that procedure is correct; I mean the use of a single feature to train a learning model.
You can build a model on one feature. I assume, that by "one feature" you mean simply one number in R (otherwise, it would be completely "traditional" usage). However this means, that you are building a classifier in one-dimensional space, and as such - many classifiers will be redundant (as it is really a simple problem). What is more important - checking whether you can correctly classify objects using one particular dimensions does not mean that it is a good/bad feature once you use combination of them. In particular it may be the case that:
Many features may "discover" the same phenomena in data, and so - each of them separatly can yield good results, but once combined - they won't be any better then each of them (as they simply capture same information)
Features may be useless until used in combination. Some phenomena can be described only in multi-dimensional space, and if you are analyzing only one-dimensional data - you won't ever discover their true value, as a simple example consider four points (0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1) such that (0,0),(1,1) are elements of one class, and rest of another. If you look separatly on each dimension - then the best possible accuracy is 0.5 (as you always have points of two different classes in exactly same points - 0 and 1). Once combined - you can easily separate them, as it is a xor problem.
To sum up - it is ok to build a classifier in one dimensional space, but:
Such problem can be solved without "heavy machinery".
Results should not be used as a base of feature selection (or to be more strict - this can be very deceptive).
Related
I'm working with an extremelly unbalanced and heterogeneous multiclass {K = 16} database for research, with a small N ~= 250. For some labels the database has a sufficient amount of examples for supervised machine learning, but for others I have almost none. I'm also not in a position to expand my database for a number of reasons.
As a first approach I divided my database into training (80%) and test (20%) sets in a stratified way. On top of that, I applied several classification algorithms that provide some results. I applied this procedure over 500 stratified train/test sets (as each stratified sampling takes individuals randomly within each stratum), hoping to select an algorithm (model) that performed acceptably.
Because of my database, depending on the specific examples that are part of the train set, the performance on the test set varies greatly. I'm dealing with runs that have as high (for my application) as 82% accuracy and runs that have as low as 40%. The median over all runs is around 67% accuracy.
When facing this situation, I'm unsure on what is the standard procedure (if there is any) when selecting the best performing model. My rationale is that the 90% model may generalize better because the specific examples selected in the training set are be richer so that the test set is better classified. However, I'm fully aware of the possibility of the test set being composed of "simpler" cases that are easier to classify or the train set comprising all hard-to-classify cases.
Is there any standard procedure to select the best performing model considering that the distribution of examples in my train/test sets cause the results to vary greatly? Am I making a conceptual mistake somewhere? Do practitioners usually select the best performing model without any further exploration?
I don't like the idea of using the mean/median accuracy, as obviously some models generalize better than others, but I'm by no means an expert in the field.
Confusion matrix of the predicted label on the test set of one of the best cases:
Confusion matrix of the predicted label on the test set of one of the worst cases:
They both use the same algorithm and parameters.
Good Accuracy =/= Good Model
I want to firstly point out that a good accuracy on your test set need not equal a good model in general! This has (in your case) mainly to do with your extremely skewed distribution of samples.
Especially when doing a stratified split, and having one class dominatingly represented, you will likely get good results by simply predicting this one class over and over again.
A good way to see if this is happening is to look at a confusion matrix (better picture here) of your predictions.
If there is one class that seems to confuse other classes as well, that is an indicator for a bad model. I would argue that in your case it would be generally very hard to find a good model unless you do actively try to balance your classes more during training.
Use the power of Ensembles
Another idea is indeed to use ensembling over multiple models (in your case resulting from different splits), since it is assumed to generalize better.
Even if you might sacrifice a lot of accuracy on paper, I would bet that a confusion matrix of an ensemble is likely to look much better than the one of a single "high accuracy" model. Especially if you disregard the models that perform extremely poor (make sure that, again, the "poor" performance comes from an actual bad performance, and not just an unlucky split), I can see a very good generalization.
Try k-fold Cross-Validation
Another common technique is k-fold cross-validation. Instead of performing your evaluation on a single 80/20 split, you essentially divide your data in k equally large sets, and then always train on k-1 sets, while evaluating on the other set. You then not only get a feeling whether your split was reasonable (you usually get all the results for different splits in k-fold CV implementations, like the one from sklearn), but you also get an overall score that tells you the average of all folds.
Note that 5-fold CV would equal a split into 5 20% sets, so essentially what you are doing now, plus the "shuffling part".
CV is also a good way to deal with little training data, in settings where you have imbalanced classes, or where you generally want to make sure your model actually performs well.
The whole point of using an SVM is that the algorithm will be able to decide whether an input is true or false etc etc.
I am trying to use an SVM for predictive maintenance to predict how likely a system is to overheat.
For my example, the range is 0-102°C and if the temperature reaches 80°C or above it's classed as a failure.
My inputs are arrays of 30 doubles(the last 30 readings).
I am making some sample inputs to train the SVM and I was wondering if it is good practice to pass in very specific data to train it - eg passing in arrays 80°C, 81°C ... 102°C so that the model will automatically associate these values with failure. You could do an array of 30 x 79°C as well and set that to pass.
This seems like a complete way of doing it, although if you input arrays like that - would it not be the same as hardcoding a switch statement to trigger when the temperature reads 80->102°C.
Would it be a good idea to pass in these "hardcoded" style arrays or should I stick to more random inputs?
If there is a finite set of possibilities I would really recommend using Naïve Bayes, as that method would fit this problem perfectly. However if you are forced to use an SVM, I would say that would be rather difficult. For starters the main idea with an SVM is to use it for classification, and the amount of scenarios does not really matter. The input is however seldom discrete, so I guess there usually are infinite scenarios. However, an SVM implemented normally would only give you a classification, unless you have 100 classes one for 1% another one for 2%, this wouldn't really solve problem.
The conclusion is that this could work, but it would not be considered "best practice". You can imagine your 30 dimensional vector space divided into 100 small sub spaces, and each datapoint, a 30x1 vector is a point in that vectorspace so that the probability is decided by which of the 100 subsets its in. However, having a 100 classes and not very clean or insufficient data, will lead to very bad, hard performing models.
Cheers :)
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.
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.