I'm using weka, I have a training set, and the classify of the examples in the training set is boolean.
After I have the training set, I want to predict the percentage of new input to be true or false. I want to get a number between 0-1, and not only o or 1.
How can I do that, I have seen that in the prediection there are only the possibels classifes.
Thanks in advance.
You can only make the same kind of prediction with the learned classifier -- it learns to make the predictions you train it to make. The kind of prediction you want sounds more like regression. That is, you're don't want a strict classification, but a continuous value designating the membership probability.
The easiest way to achieve what you want is to replace the Booleans in your training set with 0/1 values and learn a regression model. This will give you numbers, although not necessarily only between 0 and 1.
To get real probabilities, you would need to use a classifier that calculates probabilities (such as Naive Bayes) and write some custom code (using the Weka library) to retrieve them. See the javadoc of the method that gives you access to the class probabilities.
Related
I am completely new to Machine Learning algorithms and I have a quick question with respect to Classification of a dataset.
Currently there is a training data that consists of two columns Message and Identifier.
Message - Typical message extracted from Log containing timestamp and some text
Identifier - Should classify the category based on the message content.
The training data was prepared by extracting a particular category from the tool and labelling it accordingly.
Now the test data contains just the message and I am trying to obtain the Category accordingly.
Which approach is most helpful in this scenario ? Is it the Supervised or Unsupervised Learning ?
I have a trained dataset and I am trying to predict the Category for the Test Data.
Thanks in advance,
Adam
If your labels are exact then you can classify using ANN, SVM etc. But labels are not exact you have to cluster data with respect to the features you have in data. K-means or nearest neighbour can be the starting point for clustering.
It is supervised learning, and a classification problem.
However, obviously you do not have the label column (the to-be-predicted value) for your testset. Thus, you cannot calculate error measures (such as False Positive Rate, Accuracy etc) for that test set.
You could, however, split the set of labeled training data that you do have into a smaller training set and a validation set. Split it 70%/30%, perhaps. Then build a prediction model from your smaller 70% training dataset. Then tune it on your 30% validation set. When accuracy is good enough, then apply it on your testset to obtain/predict the missing values.
Which techniques / algorithms to use is a different question. You do not give enough information to answer that. And even if you did you still need to tune the model yourself.
You have labels to predict, and training data.
So by definition it is a supervised problem.
Try any classifier for text, such as NB, kNN, SVM, ANN, RF, ...
It's hard to predict which will work best on your data. You willhave to try and evaluate several.
I am trying to train a classifier based on a given training set (say a 2-class problem with 100 samples per class). How can I train my classifier in a way that some of the samples in the training set (say the first 20 samples from each class) are more valuable than the rest of the samples? (for some reasons, these samples are more similar to the test set, so they should be considered more important in training the classifier)
Is it ok if I just replicate those samples a couple of times?
I don't know if it matters or not, but my classifier consists of a feature selection step (a filter based method called fast correlation based filter) and a classification step (linear SVM). Also, my test set is a totally different set and I cannot use at all for any step of the training.
Is it ok if I just replicate those samples a couple of times?
It depends on the methods you are using. For some - it is fine, like SVM you are refering to - it has additive loss function over samples and does not care about duplicates. However this is not how you should approach the problem with SVM, since it directly supports weighting of samples, and this is what you should do - attach weight to samples. Depending on the library / language used it might be available or not, but this is the correct way. In libsvm for example you would simply pass sample_weight to your fit call, like here.
I am interested in any tips on how to train a set with a very limited positive set and a large negative set.
I have about 40 positive examples (quite lengthy articles about a particular topic), and about 19,000 negative samples (most drawn from the sci-kit learn newsgroups dataset). I also have about 1,000,000 tweets that I could work with.. negative about the topic I am trying to train on. Is the size of the negative set versus the positive going to negatively influence training a classifier?
I would like to use cross-validation in sci-kit learn. Do I need to break this into train / test-dev / test sets? Is know there are some pre-built libraries in sci-kit. Any implementation examples that you recommend or have used previously would be helpful.
Thanks!
The answer to your first question is yes, the amount by which it will affect your results depends on the algorithm. My advive would be to keep an eye on the class-based statistics such as recall and precision (found in classification_report).
For RandomForest() you can look at this thread which discusses
the sample weight parameter. In general sample_weight is what
you're looking for in scikit-learn.
For SVM's have a look at either this example or this
example.
For NB classifiers, this should be handled implicitly by Bayes
rule, however in practice you may see some poor performances.
For you second question it's up for discussion, personally I break my data into a training and test split, perform cross validation on the training set for parameter estimation, retrain on all the training data and then test on my test set. However the amount of data you have may influence the way you split your data (more data means more options).
You could probably use Random Forest for your classification problem. There are basically 3 parameters to deal with data imbalance. Class Weight, Samplesize and Cutoff.
Class Weight-The higher the weight a class is given, the more its error rate is decreased.
Samplesize- Oversample the minority class to improve class imbalance while sampling the defects for each tree[not sure if Sci-kit supports this, used to be param in R)
Cutoff- If >x% trees vote for the minority class, classify it as minority class. By default x is 1/2 in Random forest for 2-class problem. You can set it to a lower value for the minority class.
Check out balancing predict error at https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm
For the 2nd question if you are using Random Forest, you do not need to keep separate train/validation/test set. Random Forest does not choose any parameters based on a validation set, so validation set is un-necessary.
Also during the training of Random Forest, the data for training each individual tree is obtained by sampling by replacement from the training data, thus each training sample is not used for roughly 1/3 of the trees. We can use the votes of these 1/3 trees to predict the out of box probability of the Random forest classification. Thus with OOB accuracy you just need a training set, and not validation or test data to predict performance on unseen data. Check Out of Bag error at https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm for further study.
I'm trying to solve a text classification problem for academic purpose. I need to classify the tweets into labels like "cloud" ,"cold", "dry", "hot", "humid", "hurricane", "ice", "rain", "snow", "storms", "wind" and "other". Each tweet in training data has probabilities against all the label. Say the message "Can already tell it's going to be a tough scoring day. It's as windy right now as it was yesterday afternoon." has 21% chance for being hot and 79% chance for wind. I have worked on the classification problems which predicts whether its wind or hot or others. But in this problem, each training data has probabilities against all the labels. I have previously used mahout naive bayes classifier which take a specific label for a given text to build model. How to convert these input probabilities for various labels as input to any classifier?
In a probabilistic setting, these probabilities reflect uncertainty about the class label of your training instance. This affects parameter learning in your classifier.
There's a natural way to incorporate this: in Naive Bayes, for instance, when estimating parameters in your models, instead of each word getting a count of one for the class to which the document belongs, it gets a count of probability. Thus documents with high probability of belonging to a class contribute more to that class's parameters. The situation is exactly equivalent to when learning a mixture of multinomials model using EM, where the probabilities you have are identical to the membership/indicator variables for your instances.
Alternatively, if your classifier were a neural net with softmax output, instead of the target output being a vector with a single [1] and lots of zeros, the target output becomes the probability vector you're supplied with.
I don't, unfortunately, know of any standard implementations that would allow you to incorporate these ideas.
If you want an off the shelf solution, you could use a learner the supports multiclass classification and instance weights. Let's say you have k classes with probabilities p_1, ..., p_k. For each input instance, create k new training instances with identical features, and with label 1, ..., k, and assign weights p_1, ..., p_k respectively.
Vowpal Wabbit is one such learner that supports multiclass classification with instance weights.
I've learned the Logistic Regression for some days, and i think the logistic regression's dataset's labels needs to be 1 or 0, is it right ?
But when i lookup the libSVM library's regression dataset, i see the label values are continues number(e.g. 1.0086,1.0089 ...), did i miss something ?
Note that the libSVM library could be used for regression problem.
Thanks so much !
Contrary to its name, logistic regression is a classification algorithm and it outputs class probability conditioned on the data point. Therefore the training set labels need to be either 0 or 1. For the dataset you mentioned, logistic regression is not a suitable algorithm.
SVM is a classification algorithm and it uses the input labels -1 or 1. It is not a probabilistic algorithm and it doesn't output class probabilities. It also can be adapted to regression.
Are you using a 3rd party library or programming this yourself? Generally the labels are used as ground truth so you can see how effective your approach was.
For example if your algo is trying to predict what a particular instance is it might output -1, the ground truth label will be +1 which means you did not successfully classify that particular instance.
Note that "regression" is a general term. To say someone will perform regression analysis doesn't necessarily tell you what algorithm they will be using, nor all of the nature of the data sets. All it really tells you is that you have a set of samples with features which you want to use to predict a single outcome value (a model for conditional probability).
One major difference between logistic regression and linear regression is that the former is usually trained on categorical, binary-labeled sample sets; while the latter is trained on real-labeled (ℝ) sample sets.
Any time your labels are real valued, it means you're probably going to use linear regression or similar, or else convert those real valued labels to categorical labels (e.g. via thresholds or bins) if you want to in fact use logistic regression. There is potentially a big difference in the quality and interpretation of your results though, if you try to convert from one such problem setup to another.
See also Regression Analysis.