I should decide between SVM and neural networks for some image processing application. The classifier must be fast enough for near-real-time application and accuracy is important too. Since this is a medical application, it is important that the classifier has the low failure rate.
which one is better choice?
A couple of provisos:
performance of a ML classifier can refer to either (i) performance of the classifier itself; or (ii) performance of the predicate step: execution speed of the model-building algorithm. Particularly in this case, the answer is quite different depending on which of the two is intended in the OP, so i'll answer each separately.
second, by Neural Network, i'll assume you're referring to the most common implementation--i.e., a feed-forward, back-propagating single-hidden-layer perceptron.
Training Time (execution speed of the model builder)
For SVM compared to NN: SVMs are much slower. There is a straightforward reason for this: SVM training requires solving the associated Lagrangian dual (rather than primal) problem. This is a quadratic optimization problem in which the number of variables is very large--i.e., equal to the number of training instances (the 'length' of your data matrix).
In practice, two factors, if present in your scenario, could nullify this advantage:
NN training is trivial to parallelize (via map reduce); parallelizing SVM training is not trivial, but it's also not impossible--within the past eight or so years, several implementations have been published and proven to work (https://bibliographie.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/49015/pdf/tech_21.pdf)
mult-class classification problem SVMs are two-class classifiers.They can be adapted for multi-class problems, but this is never straightforward because SVMs use direct decision functions. (An excellent source for modifying SVMs to multi-class problems is S. Abe, Support Vector Machines for Pattern Classification, Springer, 2005). This modification could wipe out any performance advantage SVMs have over NNs: So for instance, if your data has
more than two classes and you chose to configure the SVM using
successive classificstaion (aka one-against-many classification) in
which data is fed to a first SVM classifier which classifiers the
data point either class I or other; if the class is other then
the data point is fed to a second classifier which classifies it
class II or other, etc.
Prediction Performance (execution speed of the model)
Performance of an SVM is substantially higher compared to NN. For a three-layer (one hidden-layer) NN, prediction requires successive multiplication of an input vector by two 2D matrices (the weight matrices). For SVM, classification involves determining on which side of the decision boundary a given point lies, in other words a cosine product.
Prediction Accuracy
By "failure rate" i assume you mean error rate rather than failure of the classifier in production use. If the latter, then there is very little if any difference between SVM and NN--both models are generally numerically stable.
Comparing prediction accuracy of the two models, and assuming both are competently configured and trained, the SVM will outperform the NN.
The superior resolution of SVM versus NN is well documented in the scientific literature. It is true that such a comparison depends on the data, the configuration, and parameter choice of the two models. In fact, this comparison has been so widely studied--over perhaps all conceivable parameter space--and the results so consistent, that even the existence of a few exceptions (though i'm not aware of any) under impractical circumstances shouldn't interfere with the conclusion that SVMs outperform NNs.
Why does SVM outperform NN?
These two models are based on fundamentally different learing strategies.
In NN, network weights (the NN's fitting parameters, adjusted during training) are adjusted such that the sum-of-square error between the network output and the actual value (target) is minimized.
Training an SVM, by contrast, means an explicit determination of the decision boundaries directly from the training data. This is of course required as the predicate step to the optimization problem required to build an SVM model: minimizing the aggregate distance between the maximum-margin hyperplane and the support vectors.
In practice though it is harder to configure the algorithm to train an SVM. The reason is due to the large (compared to NN) number of parameters required for configuration:
choice of kernel
selection of kernel parameters
selection of the value of the margin parameter
Related
If a dataset contains multi categories, e.g. 0-class, 1-class and 2-class. Now the goal is to divide new samples into 0-class or non-0-class.
One can
combine 1,2-class into a unified non-0-class and train a binary classifier,
or train a multi-class classifier to do binary classification.
How is the performance of these two approaches?
I think more categories will bring about a more accurate discriminant surface, however the weights of 1- and 2- classes are both lower than non-0-class, resulting in less samples be judged as non-0-class.
Short answer: You would have to try both and see.
Why?: It would really depend on your data and the algorithm you use (just like for many other machine learning questions..)
For many classification algorithms (e.g. SVM, Logistic Regression), even if you want to do a multi-class classification, you would have to perform a one-vs-all classification, which means you would have to treat class 1 and class 2 as the same class. Therefore, there is no point running a multi-class scenario if you just need to separate out the 0.
For algorithms such as Neural Networks, where having multiple output classes is more natural, I think training a multi-class classifier might be more beneficial if your classes 0, 1 and 2 are very distinct. However, this means you would have to choose a more complex algorithm to fit all three. But the fit would possibly be nicer. Therefore, as already mentioned, you would really have to try both approaches and use a good metric to evaluate the performance (e.g. confusion matrices, F-score, etc..)
I hope this is somewhat helpful.
My colleague and I are trying to wrap our heads around the difference between logistic regression and an SVM. Clearly they are optimizing different objective functions. Is an SVM as simple as saying it's a discriminative classifier that simply optimizes the hinge loss? Or is it more complex than that? How do the support vectors come into play? What about the slack variables? Why can't you have deep SVM's the way you can't you have a deep neural network with sigmoid activation functions?
I will answer one thing at at time
Is an SVM as simple as saying it's a discriminative classifier that simply optimizes the hinge loss?
SVM is simply a linear classifier, optimizing hinge loss with L2 regularization.
Or is it more complex than that?
No, it is "just" that, however there are different ways of looking at this model leading to complex, interesting conclusions. In particular, this specific choice of loss function leads to extremely efficient kernelization, which is not true for log loss (logistic regression) nor mse (linear regression). Furthermore you can show very important theoretical properties, such as those related to Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension reduction leading to smaller chance of overfitting.
Intuitively look at these three common losses:
hinge: max(0, 1-py)
log: y log p
mse: (p-y)^2
Only the first one has the property that once something is classified correctly - it has 0 penalty. All the remaining ones still penalize your linear model even if it classifies samples correctly. Why? Because they are more related to regression than classification they want a perfect prediction, not just correct.
How do the support vectors come into play?
Support vectors are simply samples placed near the decision boundary (losely speaking). For linear case it does not change much, but as most of the power of SVM lies in its kernelization - there SVs are extremely important. Once you introduce kernel, due to hinge loss, SVM solution can be obtained efficiently, and support vectors are the only samples remembered from the training set, thus building a non-linear decision boundary with the subset of the training data.
What about the slack variables?
This is just another definition of the hinge loss, more usefull when you want to kernelize the solution and show the convexivity.
Why can't you have deep SVM's the way you can't you have a deep neural network with sigmoid activation functions?
You can, however as SVM is not a probabilistic model, its training might be a bit tricky. Furthermore whole strength of SVM comes from efficiency and global solution, both would be lost once you create a deep network. However there are such models, in particular SVM (with squared hinge loss) is nowadays often choice for the topmost layer of deep networks - thus the whole optimization is actually a deep SVM. Adding more layers in between has nothing to do with SVM or other cost - they are defined completely by their activations, and you can for example use RBF activation function, simply it has been shown numerous times that it leads to weak models (to local features are detected).
To sum up:
there are deep SVMs, simply this is a typical deep neural network with SVM layer on top.
there is no such thing as putting SVM layer "in the middle", as the training criterion is actually only applied to the output of the network.
using of "typical" SVM kernels as activation functions is not popular in deep networks due to their locality (as opposed to very global relu or sigmoid)
Most classification algorithms are developed to improve the training speed. However, is there any classifier or algorithm focusing on the decision making speed(low computation complexity and simple realizable structure)? I can get enough training dataļ¼and endure the long training time.
There are many methods which classify fast, you could more or less sort models by classification speed in a following way (first ones - the fastest, last- slowest)
Decision Tree (especially with limited depth)
Linear models (linear regression, logistic regression, linear svm, lda, ...) and Naive Bayes
Non-linear models based on explicit data transformation (Nystroem kernel approximation, RVFL, RBFNN, EEM), Kernel methods (such as kernel SVM) and shallow neural networks
Random Forest and other committees
Big Neural Networks (ie. CNN)
KNN with arbitrary distance
Obviously this list is not exhaustive, it just shows some general ideas.
One way of obtaining such model is to build a complex, slow model, then use it as a black box label generator to train a simplier model (but on potentialy infinite training set) - thus getting a fast classifier at the cost of very expensive training. There are many works showing that one can do that for example by training a shallow neural network on outputs of deep nn.
In general classification speed should not be a problem. Some exceptions are algorithms which have a time complexity depending on the number of samples you have for training. One example is k-Nearest-Neighbors which has no training time, but for classification it needs to check all points (if implemented in a naive way). Other examples are all classifiers which work with kernels since they compute the kernel between the current sample and all training samples.
Many classifiers work with a scalar product of the features and a learned coefficient vector. These should be fast enough in almost all cases. Examples are: Logistic regression, linear SVM, perceptrons and many more. See #lejlot's answer for a nice list.
If these are still too slow you might try to reduce the dimension of your feature space first and then try again (this also speeds up training time).
Btw, this question might not be suited for StackOverflow as it is quite broad and recommendation instead of problem oriented. Maybe try https://stats.stackexchange.com/ next time.
I have a decision tree which is represented in the compressed form and which is at least 4 times faster than the actual tree in classifying an unseen instance.
Can anyone recommend a strategy for making predictions using a gradient boosting model in the <10-15ms range (the faster the better)?
I have been using R's gbm package, but the first prediction takes ~50ms (subsequent vectorized predictions average to 1ms, so there appears to be overhead, perhaps in the call to the C++ library). As a guideline, there will be ~10-50 inputs and ~50-500 trees. The task is classification and I need access to predicted probabilities.
I know there are a lot of libraries out there, but I've had little luck finding information even on rough prediction times for them. The training will happen offline, so only predictions need to be fast -- also, predictions may come from a piece of code / library that is completely separate from whatever does the training (as long as there is a common format for representing the trees).
I'm the author of the scikit-learn gradient boosting module, a Gradient Boosted Regression Trees implementation in Python. I put some effort in optimizing prediction time since the method was targeted at low-latency environments (in particular ranking problems); the prediction routine is written in C, still there is some overhead due to Python function calls. Having said that: prediction time for single data points with ~50 features and about 250 trees should be << 1ms.
In my use-cases prediction time is often governed by the cost of feature extraction. I strongly recommend profiling to pin-point the source of the overhead (if you use Python, I can recommend line_profiler).
If the source of the overhead is prediction rather than feature extraction you might check whether its possible to do batch predictions instead of predicting single data points thus limiting the overhead due to the Python function call (e.g. in ranking you often need to score the top-K documents, so you can do the feature extraction first and then run predict on the K x n_features matrix.
If this doesn't help either you should try the limit the number of trees because the runtime cost for prediction is basically linear in the number of trees.
There are a number of ways to limit the number of trees without affecting the model accuracy:
Proper tuning of the learning rate; the smaller the learning rate, the more trees are needed and thus the slower is prediction.
Post-process GBM with L1 regularization (Lasso); See Elements of Statistical Learning Section 16.3.1 - use predictions of each tree as new features and run the representation through a L1 regularized linear model - remove those trees that don't get any weight.
Fully-corrective weight updates; instead of doing the line-search/weight update just for the most recent tree, update all trees (see [Warmuth2006] and [Johnson2012]). Better convergence - fewer trees.
If none of the above does the trick you could investigate cascades or early-exit strategies (see [Chen2012])
References:
[Warmuth2006] M. Warmuth, J. Liao, and G. Ratsch. Totally corrective boosting algorithms that maximize the margin. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, 2006.
[Johnson2012] Rie Johnson, Tong Zhang, Learning Nonlinear Functions Using Regularized Greedy Forest, arxiv, 2012.
[Chen2012] Minmin Chen, Zhixiang Xu, Kilian Weinberger, Olivier Chapelle, Dor Kedem, Classifier Cascade for Minimizing Feature Evaluation Cost, JMLR W&CP 22: 218-226, 2012.
I know SVMs are supposedly 'ANN killers' in that they automatically select representation complexity and find a global optimum (see here for some SVM praising quotes).
But here is where I'm unclear -- do all of these claims of superiority hold for just the case of a 2 class decision problem or do they go further? (I assume they hold for non-linearly separable classes or else no-one would care)
So a sample of some of the cases I'd like to be cleared up:
Are SVMs better than ANNs with many classes?
in an online setting?
What about in a semi-supervised case like reinforcement learning?
Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs?
I don't expect someone to answer all of these lil' subquestions, but rather to give some general bounds for when SVMs are better than the common ANN equivalents (e.g. FFBP, recurrent BP, Boltzmann machines, SOMs, etc.) in practice, and preferably, in theory as well.
Are SVMs better than ANN with many classes? You are probably referring to the fact that SVMs are in essence, either either one-class or two-class classifiers. Indeed they are and there's no way to modify a SVM algorithm to classify more than two classes.
The fundamental feature of a SVM is the separating maximum-margin hyperplane whose position is determined by maximizing its distance from the support vectors. And yet SVMs are routinely used for multi-class classification, which is accomplished with a processing wrapper around multiple SVM classifiers that work in a "one against many" pattern--i.e., the training data is shown to the first SVM which classifies those instances as "Class I" or "not Class I". The data in the second class, is then shown to a second SVM which classifies this data as "Class II" or "not Class II", and so on. In practice, this works quite well. So as you would expect, the superior resolution of SVMs compared to other classifiers is not limited to two-class data.
As far as i can tell, the studies reported in the literature confirm this, e.g., In the provocatively titled paper Sex with Support Vector Machines substantially better resolution for sex identification (Male/Female) in 12-square pixel images, was reported for SVM compared with that of a group of traditional linear classifiers; SVM also outperformed RBF NN, as well as large ensemble RBF NN). But there seem to be plenty of similar evidence for the superior performance of SVM in multi-class problems: e.g., SVM outperformed NN in protein-fold recognition, and in time-series forecasting.
My impression from reading this literature over the past decade or so, is that the majority of the carefully designed studies--by persons skilled at configuring and using both techniques, and using data sufficiently resistant to classification to provoke some meaningful difference in resolution--report the superior performance of SVM relative to NN. But as your Question suggests, that performance delta seems to be, to a degree, domain specific.
For instance, NN outperformed SVM in a comparative study of author identification from texts in Arabic script; In a study comparing credit rating prediction, there was no discernible difference in resolution by the two classifiers; a similar result was reported in a study of high-energy particle classification.
I have read, from more than one source in the academic literature, that SVM outperforms NN as the size of the training data decreases.
Finally, the extent to which one can generalize from the results of these comparative studies is probably quite limited. For instance, in one study comparing the accuracy of SVM and NN in time series forecasting, the investigators reported that SVM did indeed outperform a conventional (back-propagating over layered nodes) NN but performance of the SVM was about the same as that of an RBF (radial basis function) NN.
[Are SVMs better than ANN] In an Online setting? SVMs are not used in an online setting (i.e., incremental training). The essence of SVMs is the separating hyperplane whose position is determined by a small number of support vectors. So even a single additional data point could in principle significantly influence the position of this hyperplane.
What about in a semi-supervised case like reinforcement learning? Until the OP's comment to this answer, i was not aware of either Neural Networks or SVMs used in this way--but they are.
The most widely used- semi-supervised variant of SVM is named Transductive SVM (TSVM), first mentioned by Vladimir Vapnick (the same guy who discovered/invented conventional SVM). I know almost nothing about this technique other than what's it is called and that is follows the principles of transduction (roughly lateral reasoning--i.e., reasoning from training data to test data). Apparently TSV is a preferred technique in the field of text classification.
Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs? I don't believe SVMs are suitable for unsupervised learning. Separation is based on the position of the maximum-margin hyperplane determined by support vectors. This could easily be my own limited understanding, but i don't see how that would happen if those support vectors were unlabeled (i.e., if you didn't know before-hand what you were trying to separate). One crucial use case of unsupervised algorithms is when you don't have labeled data or you do and it's badly unbalanced. E.g., online fraud; here you might have in your training data, only a few data points labeled as "fraudulent accounts" (and usually with questionable accuracy) versus the remaining >99% labeled "not fraud." In this scenario, a one-class classifier, a typical configuration for SVMs, is the a good option. In particular, the training data consists of instances labeled "not fraud" and "unk" (or some other label to indicate they are not in the class)--in other words, "inside the decision boundary" and "outside the decision boundary."
I wanted to conclude by mentioning that, 20 years after their "discovery", the SVM is a firmly entrenched member in the ML library. And indeed, the consistently superior resolution compared with other state-of-the-art classifiers is well documented.
Their pedigree is both a function of their superior performance documented in numerous rigorously controlled studies as well as their conceptual elegance. W/r/t the latter point, consider that multi-layer perceptrons (MLP), though they are often excellent classifiers, are driven by a numerical optimization routine, which in practice rarely finds the global minimum; moreover, that solution has no conceptual significance. On the other hand, the numerical optimization at the heart of building an SVM classifier does in fact find the global minimum. What's more that solution is the actual decision boundary.
Still, i think SVM reputation has declined a little during the past few years.
The primary reason i suspect is the NetFlix competition. NetFlix emphasized the resolving power of fundamental techniques of matrix decomposition and even more significantly t*he power of combining classifiers. People combined classifiers long before NetFlix, but more as a contingent technique than as an attribute of classifier design. Moreover, many of the techniques for combining classifiers are extraordinarily simple to understand and also to implement. By contrast, SVMs are not only very difficult to code (in my opinion, by far the most difficult ML algorithm to implement in code) but also difficult to configure and implement as a pre-compiled library--e.g., a kernel must be selected, the results are very sensitive to how the data is re-scaled/normalized, etc.
I loved Doug's answer. I would like to add two comments.
1) Vladimir Vapnick also co-invented the VC dimension which is important in learning theory.
2) I think that SVMs were the best overall classifiers from 2000 to 2009, but after 2009, I am not sure. I think that neural nets have improved very significantly recently due to the work in Deep Learning and Sparse Denoising Auto-Encoders. I thought I saw a number of benchmarks where they outperformed SVMs. See, for example, slide 31 of
http://deeplearningworkshopnips2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/nips10-workshop-tutorial-final.pdf
A few of my friends have been using the sparse auto encoder technique. The neural nets build with that technique significantly outperformed the older back propagation neural networks. I will try to post some experimental results at artent.net if I get some time.
I'd expect SVM's to be better when you have good features to start with. IE, your features succinctly capture all the necessary information. You can see if your features are good if instances of the same class "clump together" in the feature space. Then SVM with Euclidian kernel should do the trick. Essentially you can view SVM as a supercharged nearest neighbor classifier, so whenever NN does well, SVM should do even better, by adding automatic quality control over the examples in your set. On the converse -- if it's a dataset where nearest neighbor (in feature space) is expected to do badly, SVM will do badly as well.
- Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs?
Just answering only this question here. Unsupervised learning can be done by so-called one-class support vector machines. Again, similar to normal SVMs, there is an element that promotes sparsity. In normal SVMs only a few points are considered important, the support vectors. In one-class SVMs again only a few points can be used to either:
"separate" a dataset as far from the origin as possible, or
define a radius as small as possible.
The advantages of normal SVMs carry over to this case. Compared to density estimation only a few points need to be considered. The disadvantages carry over as well.
Are SVMs better than ANNs with many classes?
SVMs have been designated for discrete classification. Before moving to ANNs, try ensemble methods like Random Forest , Gradient Boosting, Gaussian Probability Classification etc
What about in a semi-supervised case like reinforcement learning?
Deep Q learning provides better alternatives.
Is there a better unsupervised version of SVMs?
SVM is not suited for unsupervised learning. You have other alternatives for unsupervised learning : K-Means, Hierarchical clustering, TSNE clustering etc
From ANN perspective, you can try Autoencoder, General adversarial network
Few more useful links:
towardsdatascience
wikipedia