I am using the explorer feature for classification. My .arff data file has 10 features of numeric and binary values; (only the ID of instances is nominal).I have abt 16 instances. The class to predict is Yes/No.i have used Naive bayes but i cantnot interpret the results,,does anyone know how to interpret results from naive Bayes classification?
Naive Bayes doesn't select any important features. As you mentioned, the result of the training of a Naive Bayes classifier is the mean and variance for every feature. The classification of new samples into 'Yes' or 'No' is based on whether the values of features of the sample match best to the mean and variance of the trained features for either 'Yes' or 'No'.
You could use others algorithms to find the most informative attributes. In that case you might want to use a decision tree classifier, e.g. J48 in WEKA (which is the open-source implementation of C4.5 decision tree algorithm). The first node in the resulting decision tree tells you which feature has the most predictive power.
Even better (as stated by Rushdi Shams in the other post); Weka's Explorer offers purpose build options to find the most useful attributes in a dataset. These options can be found under the Select attributes tab.
As Sicco said NB cannot offer you the best features. Decision tree is a good choice because the branching can sometimes tell you the feature that is important- BUT NOT ALWAYS. In order to handle simple to complex featureset, you can use WEKA's SELECT ATTRIBUTE tab. There, you can find search methods and attribute evaluator. Depending on your task, you can choose the one that best suits you. They will provide you a ranking of the features (either from training data or from a k-fold cross validation). Personally, I believe that decision trees perform poor if your dataset is overfitting. In that case, a ranking of features is the standard way to select best features. Most of the times I use infogain and ranker algorithm. When you see your attributes are ranked from 1 to k, it is really nice to figure out the required features and unnecessary ones.
Related
I am new to Machine Learning.I am working on a project where the machine learning concept need to be applied.
Problem Statement:
I have large number(say 3000)key words.These need to be classified into seven fixed categories.Each category is having training data(sample keywords).I need to come with a algorithm, when a new keyword is passed to that,it should predict to which category this key word belongs to.
I am not aware of which text classification technique need to applied for this.do we have any tools that can be used.
Please help.
Thanks in advance.
This comes under linear classification. You can use naive-bayes classifier for this. Most of the ml frameworks will have an implementation for naive-bayes. ex: mahout
Yes, I would also suggest to use Naive Bayes, which is more or less the baseline classification algorithm here. On the other hand, there are obviously many other algorithms. Random forests and Support Vector Machines come to mind. See http://machinelearningmastery.com/use-random-forest-testing-179-classifiers-121-datasets/ If you use a standard toolkit, such as Weka, Rapidminer, etc. these algorithms should be available. There is also OpenNLP for Java, which comes with a maximum entropy classifier.
You could use the Word2Vec Word Cosine distance between descriptions of each your category and keywords in the dataset and then simple match each keyword to a category with the closest distance
Alternatively, you could create a training dataset from already matched to category, keywords and use any ML classifier, for example, based on artificial neural networks by using vectors of keywords Cosine distances to each category as an input to your model. But it could require a big quantity of data for training to reach good accuracy. For example, the MNIST dataset contains 70000 of the samples and it allowed me reach 99,62% model's cross validation accuracy with a simple CNN, for another dataset with only 2000 samples I was able reached only about 90% accuracy
There are many classification algorithms. Your example looks to be a text classification problems - some good classifiers to try out would be SVM and naive bayes. For SVM, liblinear and libshorttext classifiers are good options (and have been used in many industrial applcitions):
liblinear: https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/liblinear/
libshorttext:https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libshorttext/
They are also included with ML tools such as scikit-learna and WEKA.
With classifiers, it is still some operation to build and validate a pratically useful classifier. One of the challenges is to mix
discrete (boolean and enumerable)
and continuous ('numbers')
predictive variables seamlessly. Some algorithmic preprocessing is generally necessary.
Neural networks do offer the possibility of using both types of variables. However, they require skilled data scientists to yield good results. A straight-forward option is to use an online classifier web service like Insight Classifiers to build and validate a classifier in one go. N-fold cross validation is being used there.
You can represent the presence or absence of each word in a separate column. The outcome variable is desired category.
When given the dataset, normally m instances by n features matrix, how to choose the classifier that is most appropriate for the dataset.
This is just like what algorithm to solve a prime Number. Not every algorithm solve any problem means each problem assigned which finite no. of algorithm. In machine learning you can apply different algorithm on a type of problem.
If matrix contain real numbered features then you can use KNN algorithm can be used. Or if matrix have words as feature then you can use naive bayes classifier which is one of best for text classification. And Machine learning have tons of algorithm you can read them apply to your problem which fits best. Hope you understand what I said.
An interesting but much more general map I found:
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/tutorial/machine_learning_map/
If you have weka, you can use experimenter and choose different algorithms on same data set to evaluate different models.
This project compares many different classifiers on different typical datasets.
If you have no idea, you could use this simple tool auto-weka which will test all the different classifiers you selected within different constraints. Before using auto-weka, you may need to convert your data to ARFF using Weka or just manually (many tutorial on youtube).
The best classifier depends on your data (binary/string/real/tags, patterns, distribution...), what kind of output to predict (binary class / multi-class / evolving classes / a value from regression ?) and the expected performance (time, memory, accuracy). It would also depend on whether you want to update your model frequently or not (ie. if it is a stream, better use an online classifier).
Please note that the best classifier may not be one but an ensemble of different classifiers.
I am using Weka and applying J48 to build my classifier. I have 40 features with 2000 instances (700 class a and 1300 class b).
The J48 decision tree is just using 2 features out of 40! Is there anyway to allow J48 to use all features or is there any other algorithm that allows using all features?
Thanks in advance.
Maybe it is because J48 does not need more attributes.
You can check feature's correlation in Select attribute tab, and run the selector with Ranker as search method and Principal Components as evaluator. It will show you the relations between each feature and each class, and it will also tell you which are the features that best describe your classes.
It is not necessary that all the 40 features are needed for the classification. Because some features might be redundant (e.g. correlated) or does not contain discriminatory information.
You can run feature selection before from the Select attributes tab in Weka Explorer and see which features are important.
Also you can test classifiers such as SVM (libSVM or SMO), Neural Network ( MultilayerPerceptron) and/or Random Forest as they tend to give the best classification results in general (problem dependent)
I am using a Naive Bayes Classifier to categorize several thousand documents into 30 different categories. I have implemented a Naive Bayes Classifier, and with some feature selection (mostly filtering useless words), I've gotten about a 30% test accuracy, with 45% training accuracy. This is significantly better than random, but I want it to be better.
I've tried implementing AdaBoost with NB, but it does not appear to give appreciably better results (the literature seems split on this, some papers say AdaBoost with NB doesn't give better results, others do). Do you know of any other extensions to NB that may possibly give better accuracy?
In my experience, properly trained Naive Bayes classifiers are usually astonishingly accurate (and very fast to train--noticeably faster than any classifier-builder i have everused).
so when you want to improve classifier prediction, you can look in several places:
tune your classifier (adjusting the classifier's tunable paramaters);
apply some sort of classifier combination technique (eg,
ensembling, boosting, bagging); or you can
look at the data fed to the classifier--either add more data,
improve your basic parsing, or refine the features you select from
the data.
w/r/t naive Bayesian classifiers, parameter tuning is limited; i recommend to focus on your data--ie, the quality of your pre-processing and the feature selection.
I. Data Parsing (pre-processing)
i assume your raw data is something like a string of raw text for each data point, which by a series of processing steps you transform each string into a structured vector (1D array) for each data point such that each offset corresponds to one feature (usually a word) and the value in that offset corresponds to frequency.
stemming: either manually or by using a stemming library? the popular open-source ones are Porter, Lancaster, and Snowball. So for
instance, if you have the terms programmer, program, progamming,
programmed in a given data point, a stemmer will reduce them to a
single stem (probably program) so your term vector for that data
point will have a value of 4 for the feature program, which is
probably what you want.
synonym finding: same idea as stemming--fold related words into a single word; so a synonym finder can identify developer, programmer,
coder, and software engineer and roll them into a single term
neutral words: words with similar frequencies across classes make poor features
II. Feature Selection
consider a prototypical use case for NBCs: filtering spam; you can quickly see how it fails and just as quickly you can see how to improve it. For instance, above-average spam filters have nuanced features like: frequency of words in all caps, frequency of words in title, and the occurrence of exclamation point in the title. In addition, the best features are often not single words but e.g., pairs of words, or larger word groups.
III. Specific Classifier Optimizations
Instead of 30 classes use a 'one-against-many' scheme--in other words, you begin with a two-class classifier (Class A and 'all else') then the results in the 'all else' class are returned to the algorithm for classification into Class B and 'all else', etc.
The Fisher Method (probably the most common way to optimize a Naive Bayes classifier.) To me,
i think of Fisher as normalizing (more correctly, standardizing) the input probabilities An NBC uses the feature probabilities to construct a 'whole-document' probability. The Fisher Method calculates the probability of a category for each feature of the document then combines these feature probabilities and compares that combined probability with the probability of a random set of features.
I would suggest using a SGDClassifier as in this and tune it in terms of regularization strength.
Also try to tune the formula in TFIDF you're using by tuning the parameters of TFIFVectorizer.
I usually see that for text classification problems SVM or Logistic Regressioin when trained one-versus-all outperforms NB. As you can see in this nice article by Stanford people for longer documents SVM outperforms NB. The code for the paper which uses a combination of SVM and NB (NBSVM) is here.
Second, tune your TFIDF formula (e.g. sublinear tf, smooth_idf).
Normalize your samples with l2 or l1 normalization (default in Tfidfvectorization) because it compensates for different document lengths.
Multilayer Perceptron, usually gets better results than NB or SVM because of the non-linearity introduced which is inherent to many text classification problems. I have implemented a highly parallel one using Theano/Lasagne which is easy to use and downloadable here.
Try to tune your l1/l2/elasticnet regularization. It makes a huge difference in SGDClassifier/SVM/Logistic Regression.
Try to use n-grams which is configurable in tfidfvectorizer.
If your documents have structure (e.g. have titles) consider using different features for different parts. For example add title_word1 to your document if word1 happens in the title of the document.
Consider using the length of the document as a feature (e.g. number of words or characters).
Consider using meta information about the document (e.g. time of creation, author name, url of the document, etc.).
Recently Facebook published their FastText classification code which performs very well across many tasks, be sure to try it.
Using Laplacian Correction along with AdaBoost.
In AdaBoost, first a weight is assigned to each data tuple in the training dataset. The intial weights are set using the init_weights method, which initializes each weight to be 1/d, where d is the size of the training data set.
Then, a generate_classifiers method is called, which runs k times, creating k instances of the Naïve Bayes classifier. These classifiers are then weighted, and the test data is run on each classifier. The sum of the weighted "votes" of the classifiers constitutes the final classification.
Improves Naive Bayes classifier for general cases
Take the logarithm of your probabilities as input features
We change the probability space to log probability space since we calculate the probability by multiplying probabilities and the result will be very small. when we change to log probability features, we can tackle the under-runs problem.
Remove correlated features.
Naive Byes works based on the assumption of independence when we have a correlation between features which means one feature depends on others then our assumption will fail.
More about correlation can be found here
Work with enough data not the huge data
naive Bayes require less data than logistic regression since it only needs data to understand the probabilistic relationship of each attribute in isolation with the output variable, not the interactions.
Check zero frequency error
If the test data set has zero frequency issue, apply smoothing techniques “Laplace Correction” to predict the class of test data set.
More than this is well described in the following posts
Please refer below posts.
machinelearningmastery site post
Analyticvidhya site post
keeping the n size small also make NB to give high accuracy result. and at the core, as the n size increase its accuracy degrade,
Select features which have less correlation between them. And try using different combination of features at a time.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Suppose I'm working on some classification problem. (Fraud detection and comment spam are two problems I'm working on right now, but I'm curious about any classification task in general.)
How do I know which classifier I should use?
Decision tree
SVM
Bayesian
Neural network
K-nearest neighbors
Q-learning
Genetic algorithm
Markov decision processes
Convolutional neural networks
Linear regression or logistic regression
Boosting, bagging, ensambling
Random hill climbing or simulated annealing
...
In which cases is one of these the "natural" first choice, and what are the principles for choosing that one?
Examples of the type of answers I'm looking for (from Manning et al.'s Introduction to Information Retrieval book):
a. If your data is labeled, but you only have a limited amount, you should use a classifier with high bias (for example, Naive Bayes).
I'm guessing this is because a higher-bias classifier will have lower variance, which is good because of the small amount of data.
b. If you have a ton of data, then the classifier doesn't really matter so much, so you should probably just choose a classifier with good scalability.
What are other guidelines? Even answers like "if you'll have to explain your model to some upper management person, then maybe you should use a decision tree, since the decision rules are fairly transparent" are good. I care less about implementation/library issues, though.
Also, for a somewhat separate question, besides standard Bayesian classifiers, are there 'standard state-of-the-art' methods for comment spam detection (as opposed to email spam)?
First of all, you need to identify your problem. It depends upon what kind of data you have and what your desired task is.
If you are Predicting Category :
You have Labeled Data
You need to follow Classification Approach and its algorithms
You don't have Labeled Data
You need to go for Clustering Approach
If you are Predicting Quantity :
You need to go for Regression Approach
Otherwise
You can go for Dimensionality Reduction Approach
There are different algorithms within each approach mentioned above. The choice of a particular algorithm depends upon the size of the dataset.
Source: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/tutorial/machine_learning_map/
Model selection using cross validation may be what you need.
Cross validation
What you do is simply to split your dataset into k non-overlapping subsets (folds), train a model using k-1 folds and predict its performance using the fold you left out. This you do for each possible combination of folds (first leave 1st fold out, then 2nd, ... , then kth, and train with the remaining folds). After finishing, you estimate the mean performance of all folds (maybe also the variance/standard deviation of the performance).
How to choose the parameter k depends on the time you have. Usual values for k are 3, 5, 10 or even N, where N is the size of your data (that's the same as leave-one-out cross validation). I prefer 5 or 10.
Model selection
Let's say you have 5 methods (ANN, SVM, KNN, etc) and 10 parameter combinations for each method (depending on the method). You simply have to run cross validation for each method and parameter combination (5 * 10 = 50) and select the best model, method and parameters. Then you re-train with the best method and parameters on all your data and you have your final model.
There are some more things to say. If, for example, you use a lot of methods and parameter combinations for each, it's very likely you will overfit. In cases like these, you have to use nested cross validation.
Nested cross validation
In nested cross validation, you perform cross validation on the model selection algorithm.
Again, you first split your data into k folds. After each step, you choose k-1 as your training data and the remaining one as your test data. Then you run model selection (the procedure I explained above) for each possible combination of those k folds. After finishing this, you will have k models, one for each combination of folds. After that, you test each model with the remaining test data and choose the best one. Again, after having the last model you train a new one with the same method and parameters on all the data you have. That's your final model.
Of course, there are many variations of these methods and other things I didn't mention. If you need more information about these look for some publications about these topics.
The book "OpenCV" has a great two pages on this on pages 462-463. Searching the Amazon preview for the word "discriminative" (probably google books also) will let you see the pages in question. These two pages are the greatest gem I have found in this book.
In short:
Boosting - often effective when a large amount of training data is available.
Random trees - often very effective and can also perform regression.
K-nearest neighbors - simplest thing you can do, often effective but slow and requires lots of memory.
Neural networks - Slow to train but very fast to run, still optimal performer for letter recognition.
SVM - Among the best with limited data, but losing against boosting or random trees only when large data sets are available.
Things you might consider in choosing which algorithm to use would include:
Do you need to train incrementally (as opposed to batched)?
If you need to update your classifier with new data frequently (or you have tons of data), you'll probably want to use Bayesian. Neural nets and SVM need to work on the training data in one go.
Is your data composed of categorical only, or numeric only, or both?
I think Bayesian works best with categorical/binomial data. Decision trees can't predict numerical values.
Does you or your audience need to understand how the classifier works?
Use Bayesian or decision trees, since these can be easily explained to most people. Neural networks and SVM are "black boxes" in the sense that you can't really see how they are classifying data.
How much classification speed do you need?
SVM's are fast when it comes to classifying since they only need to determine which side of the "line" your data is on. Decision trees can be slow especially when they're complex (e.g. lots of branches).
Complexity.
Neural nets and SVMs can handle complex non-linear classification.
As Prof Andrew Ng often states: always begin by implementing a rough, dirty algorithm, and then iteratively refine it.
For classification, Naive Bayes is a good starter, as it has good performances, is highly scalable and can adapt to almost any kind of classification task. Also 1NN (K-Nearest Neighbours with only 1 neighbour) is a no-hassle best fit algorithm (because the data will be the model, and thus you don't have to care about the dimensionality fit of your decision boundary), the only issue is the computation cost (quadratic because you need to compute the distance matrix, so it may not be a good fit for high dimensional data).
Another good starter algorithm is the Random Forests (composed of decision trees), this is highly scalable to any number of dimensions and has generally quite acceptable performances. Then finally, there are genetic algorithms, which scale admirably well to any dimension and any data with minimal knowledge of the data itself, with the most minimal and simplest implementation being the microbial genetic algorithm (only one line of C code! by Inman Harvey in 1996), and one of the most complex being CMA-ES and MOGA/e-MOEA.
And remember that, often, you can't really know what will work best on your data before you try the algorithms for real.
As a side-note, if you want a theoretical framework to test your hypothesis and algorithms theoretical performances for a given problem, you can use the PAC (Probably approximately correct) learning framework (beware: it's very abstract and complex!), but to summary, the gist of PAC learning says that you should use the less complex, but complex enough (complexity being the maximum dimensionality that the algo can fit) algorithm that can fit your data. In other words, use the Occam's razor.
Sam Roweis used to say that you should try naive Bayes, logistic regression, k-nearest neighbour and Fisher's linear discriminant before anything else.
My take on it is that you always run the basic classifiers first to get some sense of your data. More often than not (in my experience at least) they've been good enough.
So, if you have supervised data, train a Naive Bayes classifier. If you have unsupervised data, you can try k-means clustering.
Another resource is one of the lecture videos of the series of videos Stanford Machine Learning, which I watched a while back. In video 4 or 5, I think, the lecturer discusses some generally accepted conventions when training classifiers, advantages/tradeoffs, etc.
You should always keep into account the inference vs prediction trade-off.
If you want to understand the complex relationship that is occurring in your data then you should go with a rich inference algorithm (e.g. linear regression or lasso). On the other hand, if you are only interested in the result you can go with high dimensional and more complex (but less interpretable) algorithms, like neural networks.
Selection of Algorithm is depending upon the scenario and the type and size of data set.
There are many other factors.
This is a brief cheat sheet for basic machine learning.