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
Related
I've read something about Fisher Vector and I'm still in the learning process. It's a better representation than the classic BoF representation, exploiting GMM (or k-means, even if that's usually referred as VLAD).
However, I've seen that usually they are used for classification problem, for example with SVM.
But what about Image Retrieval? I've seen that they have been used for image retrieval too (here), but I don't understand one point: given two FV representing 2 images, how do we compute their distances and so "how similar the two images are?"
Is it reasonable to use them in such a context?
As seen in the two papers below, Euclidean distance seems to be the popular choice. There are also references to using dot-product as a similarity measure; cosine similarity (closely related) is a generally popular metric for ML similarity.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11263-013-0636-x
http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/publications/2013/Simonyan13/simonyan13.pdf
Is this enough to let you choose something that meets your needs?
PREMISE:
I'm really new to Computer Vision/Image Processing and Machine Learning (luckily, I'm more expert on Information retrieval), so please be kind with this filthy peasant! :D
MY APPLICATION:
We have a mobile application where the user takes a photo (the query) and the system returns the most similar picture thas was previously taken by some other user (the dataset element). Time performances are crucial, followed by precision and finally by memory usage.
MY APPROACH:
First of all, it's quite obvious that this is a 1-Nearest Neighbor problem (1-NN). LSH is a popular, fast and relatively precise solution for this problem. In particular, my LSH impelementation is about using Kernalized Locality Sensitive Hashing to achieve a good precision to translate a d-dimension vector to a s-dimension binary vector (where s<<d) and then use Fast Exact Search in Hamming Space
with Multi-Index Hashing to quickly find the exact nearest neighbor between all the vectors in the dataset (transposed to hamming space).
In addition, I'm going to use SIFT since I want to use a robust keypoint detector&descriptor for my application.
WHAT DOES IT MISS IN THIS PROCESS?
Well, it seems that I already decided everything, right? Actually NO: in my linked question I face the problem about how to represent the set descriptor vectors of a single image into a vector. Why do I need it? Because a query/dataset element in LSH is vector, not a matrix (while SIFT keypoint descriptor set is a matrix). As someone suggested in the comments, the commonest (and most efficient) solution is using the Bag of Features (BoF) model, which I'm still not confident with yet.
So, I read this article, but I have still some questions (see QUESTIONS below)!
QUESTIONS:
First and most important question: do you think that this is a reasonable approach?
Is k-means used in the BoF algorithm the best choice for such an application? What are alternative clustering algorithms?
The dimension of the codeword vector obtained by the BoF is equal to the number of clusters (so k parameter in the k-means approach)?
If 2. is correct, bigger is k then more precise is the BoF vector obtained?
There is any "dynamic" k-means? Since the query image must added to the dataset after the computation is done (remember: the dataset is formed by the images of all submitted queries) the cluster can change in time.
Given a query image, is the process to obtain the codebook vector the same as the one for a dataset image, e.g. we assign each descriptor to a cluster and the i-th dimension of the resulting vector is equal to the number of descriptors assigned to the i-th cluster?
It looks like you are building codebook from a set of keypoint features generated by SIFT.
You can try "mixture of gaussians" model. K-means assumes that each dimension of a keypoint is independent while "mixture of gaussians" can model the correlation between each dimension of the keypoint feature.
I can't answer this question. But I remember that the SIFT keypoint, by default, has 128 dimensions. You probably want a smaller number of clusters like 50 clusters.
N/A
You can try Infinite Gaussian Mixture Model or look at this paper: "Revisiting k-means: New Algorithms via Bayesian Nonparametrics" by Brian Kulis and Michael Jordan!
Not sure if I understand this question.
Hope this help!
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.
If the data to cluster are literally points (either 2D (x, y) or 3D (x, y,z)), it would be quite intuitive to choose a clustering method. Because we can draw them and visualize them, we somewhat know better which clustering method is more suitable.
e.g.1 If my 2D data set is of the formation shown in the right top corner, I would know that K-means may not be a wise choice here, whereas DBSCAN seems like a better idea.
However, just as the scikit-learn website states:
While these examples give some intuition about the algorithms, this
intuition might not apply to very high dimensional data.
AFAIK, in most of the piratical problems we don't have such simple data. Most probably, we have high-dimensional tuples, which cannot be visualized like such, as data.
e.g.2 I wish to cluster a data set where each data is represented as a 4-D tuple <characteristic1, characteristic2, characteristic3, characteristic4>. I CANNOT visualize it in a coordinate system and observes its distribution like before. So I will NOT be able to say DBSCAN is superior to K-means in this case.
So my question:
How does one choose the suitable clustering method for such an "invisualizable" high-dimensional case?
"High-dimensional" in clustering probably starts at some 10-20 dimensions in dense data, and 1000+ dimensions in sparse data (e.g. text).
4 dimensions are not much of a problem, and can still be visualized; for example by using multiple 2d projections (or even 3d, using rotation); or using parallel coordinates. Here's a visualization of the 4-dimensional "iris" data set using a scatter plot matrix.
However, the first thing you still should do is spend a lot of time on preprocessing, and finding an appropriate distance function.
If you really need methods for high-dimensional data, have a look at subspace clustering and correlation clustering, e.g.
Kriegel, Hans-Peter, Peer Kröger, and Arthur Zimek. Clustering high-dimensional data: A survey on subspace clustering, pattern-based clustering, and correlation clustering. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 3.1 (2009): 1.
The authors of that survey also publish a software framework which has a lot of these advanced clustering methods (not just k-means, but e.h. CASH, FourC, ERiC): ELKI
There are at least two common, generic approaches:
One can use some dimensionality reduction technique in order to actually visualize the high dimensional data, there are dozens of popular solutions including (but not limited to):
PCA - principal component analysis
SOM - self-organizing maps
Sammon's mapping
Autoencoder Neural Networks
KPCA - kernel principal component analysis
Isomap
After this one goes back to the original space and use some techniques that seems resonable based on observations in the reduced space, or performs clustering in the reduced space itself.First approach uses all avaliable information, but can be invalid due to differences induced by the reduction process. While the second one ensures that your observations and choice is valid (as you reduce your problem to the nice, 2d/3d one) but it loses lots of information due to transformation used.
One tries many different algorithms and choose the one with the best metrics (there have been many clustering evaluation metrics proposed). This is computationally expensive approach, but has a lower bias (as reducting the dimensionality introduces the information change following from the used transformation)
It is true that high dimensional data cannot be easily visualized in an euclidean high dimensional data but it is not true that there are no visualization techniques for them.
In addition to this claim I will add that with just 4 features (your dimensions) you can easily try the parallel coordinates visualization method. Or simply try a multivariate data analysis taking two features at a time (so 6 times in total) to try to figure out which relations intercour between the two (correlation and dependency generally). Or you can even use a 3d space for three at a time.
Then, how to get some info from these visualizations? Well, it is not as easy as in an euclidean space but the point is to spot visually if the data clusters in some groups (eg near some values on an axis for a parallel coordinate diagram) and think if the data is somehow separable (eg if it forms regions like circles or line separable in the scatter plots).
A little digression: the diagram you posted is not indicative of the power or capabilities of each algorithm given some particular data distributions, it simply highlights the nature of some algorithms: for instance k-means is able to separate only convex and ellipsoidail areas (and keep in mind that convexity and ellipsoids exist even in N-th dimensions). What I mean is that there is not a rule that says: given the distributiuons depicted in this diagram, you have to choose the correct clustering algorithm consequently.
I suggest to use a data mining toolbox that lets you explore and visualize the data (and easily transform them since you can change their topology with transformations, projections and reductions, check the other answer by lejlot for that) like Weka (plus you do not have to implement all the algorithms by yourself.
In the end I will point you to this resource for different cluster goodness and fitness measures so you can compare the results rfom different algorithms.
I would also suggest soft subspace clustering, a pretty common approach nowadays, where feature weights are added to find the most relevant features. You can use these weights to increase performance and improve the BMU calculation with euclidean distance, for example.
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.