I have data set n x m where there are n observations and each observation consists of m values for m attributes. Each observation has also observed result assigned to it. m is big, too big for my task. I am trying to find a best and smallest subset of m attributes that still represents the whole dataset quite well, so that I could use only these attributes for teaching a neural network.
I want to use genetic algorithm for this. The problem is the fittness function. It should tell how well the generated model (subset of attributes) still reflects the original data. And I don't know how to evaluate certain subset of attributes against the whole set.
Of course I could use the neural network(that will later use this selected data anyway) for checking how good the subset is - the smaller the error, the better the subset. BUT, this takes a looot of time in my case and I do not want to use this solution. I am looking for some other way that would preferably operate only on the data set.
What I thought about was: having subset S (found by genetic algorithm), trim data set so that it contains values only for subset S and check how many observations in this data ser are no longer distinguishable (have same values for same attributes) while having different result values. The bigger the number is, the worse subset it is. But this seems to me like a bit too computationally exhausting.
Are there any other ways to evaluate how well a subset of attributes still represents the whole data set?
This cost function should do what you want: sum the factor loadings that correspond to the features comprising each subset.
The higher that sum, the greater the share of variability in the response variable that is explained with just those features. If i understand the OP, this cost function is a faithful translation of "represents the whole set quite well" from the OP.
Reducing to code is straightforward:
Calculate the covariance matrix of your dataset (first remove the
column that holds the response variable, i.e., probably the last
one). If your dataset is m x n (columns x rows), then this
covariance matrix will be n x n, with "1"s down the main diagonal.
Next, perform an eigenvalue decomposition on this covariance
matrix; this will give you the proportion of the total variability
in the response variable, contributed by that eigenvalue (each
eigenvalue corresponds to a feature, or column). [Note,
singular-value decomposition (SVD) is often used for this step, but
it's unnecessary--an eigenvalue decomposition is much simpler, and
always does the job as long as your matrix is square, which
covariance matrices always are].
Your genetic algorithm will, at each iteration, return a set of
candidate solutions (features subsets, in your case). The next task
in GA, or any combinatorial optimization, is to rank those candiate
solutions by their cost function score. In your case, the cost
function is a simple summation of the eigenvalue proportion for each
feature in that subset. (I guess you would want to scale/normalize
that calculation so that the higher numbers are the least fit
though.)
A sample calculation (using python + NumPy):
>>> # there are many ways to do an eigenvalue decomp, this is just one way
>>> import numpy as NP
>>> import numpy.linalg as LA
>>> # calculate covariance matrix of the data set (leaving out response variable column)
>>> C = NP.corrcoef(d3, rowvar=0)
>>> C.shape
(4, 4)
>>> C
array([[ 1. , -0.11, 0.87, 0.82],
[-0.11, 1. , -0.42, -0.36],
[ 0.87, -0.42, 1. , 0.96],
[ 0.82, -0.36, 0.96, 1. ]])
>>> # now calculate eigenvalues & eivenvectors of the covariance matrix:
>>> eva, evc = LA.eig(C)
>>> # now just get value proprtions of each eigenvalue:
>>> # first, sort the eigenvalues, highest to lowest:
>>> eva1 = NP.sort(eva)[::-1]
>>> # get value proportion of each eigenvalue:
>>> eva2 = NP.cumsum(eva1/NP.sum(eva1)) # "cumsum" is just cumulative sum
>>> title1 = "ev value proportion"
>>> print( "{0}".format("-"*len(title1)) )
-------------------
>>> for row in q :
print("{0:1d} {1:3f} {2:3f}".format(int(row[0]), row[1], row[2]))
ev value proportion
1 2.91 0.727
2 0.92 0.953
3 0.14 0.995
4 0.02 1.000
so it's the third column of values just above (one for each feature) that are summed (selectively, depending on which features are present in a given subset you are evaluating with the cost function).
Related
I have a large dataset (~20,000 samples x 2,000 features-- each sample w/ a corresponding y-value) that I'm constructing a regression ML model for.
The input vectors are bitvectors with either 1s or 0s at each position.
Interestingly, I have noticed that when I 'randomly' select N samples such that their y-values are between two arbitrary values A and B (such that B-A is much smaller than the total range of values in y), the subsequent model is much better at predicting other values with the A-->B range not used in the training of the model.
However, the overall similarity of the input X vectors for these values are in no way more similar than any random selection of X values across the whole dataset.
Is there an available method to transform the input X-vectors such that those with more similar y-values are "closer" (I'm not particular the methodology, but it could be something like cosine similarity), and those with not similar y-values are separated?
After more thought, I believe this question can be re-framed as a supervised clustering problem. What might be able to accomplish this might be as simple as:
import umap
print(df.shape)
>> (23,312, 2149)
print(len(target))
>> 23,312
embedding = umap.UMAP().fit_transform(df, y=target)
The ROUGE metrics were introduced to "automatically determine the quality of a summary by comparing it to other (ideal) summaries created by humans" [1].
When calculating any ROUGE metric you get an AggregateScore object with 3 parameters: low, mid, high.
How are these aggregate values calculated?
For example, from the huggingface implementation [2]:
>>> rouge = evaluate.load('rouge')
>>> predictions = ["hello there", "general kenobi"]
>>> references = ["hello there", "general kenobi"]
>>> results = rouge.compute(predictions=predictions,
... references=references)
>>> print(list(results.keys()))
['rouge1', 'rouge2', 'rougeL', 'rougeLsum']
>>> print(results["rouge1"])
AggregateScore(low=Score(precision=1.0, recall=1.0, fmeasure=1.0), mid=Score(precision=1.0, recall=1.0, fmeasure=1.0), high=Score(precision=1.0, recall=1.0, fmeasure=1.0))
>>> print(results["rouge1"].mid.fmeasure)
1.0
Edit: On July 7th, the huggingface implementation was simplified to return a cleaner and easier to understand dict: https://github.com/huggingface/evaluate/issues/148
Given a list of (summary, gold_summary) pairs, any ROUGE metric is calculated per each item in the list. In huggingface, you can opt-out of the aggregation part by adding use_aggregator=False and get these values returned.
For the aggregation, a bootstrap resampling is used [1, 2]. Bootstrap resampling is a technique used to extract confidence intervals [3, 4]. The idea is that for n samples, you draw x times a sample with replacement of size n, and then calculate some statistic for each resample. Now you get a new distribution called the empirical bootstrap distribution, which can be used to extract confidence intervals.
In the ROUGE implementation by google [4], they used:
n for the number of resamples to run
mean for the resample statistic
2.5th, 50th and 97.5th percentiles to calculate the values for low, mid and high, respectively (can be controlled with the confidence_interval param)
I have a few distance functions which return distance between two images , I want to combine these distance into a single distance, using weighted scoring e.g. ax1+bx2+cx3+dx4 etc i want to learn these weights automatically such that my test error is minimised.
For this purpose i have a labeled dataset which has various triplets of images such that (a,b,c) , a has less distance to b than it has to c.
i.e. d(a,b)<d(a,c)
I want to learn such weights so that this ordering of triplets can be as accurate as possible.(i.e. the weighted linear score given is less for a&b and more for a&c).
What sort of machine learning algorithm can be used for the task,and how the desired task can be achieved?
Hopefully I understand your question correctly, but it seems that this could be solved more easily with constrained optimization directly, rather than classical machine learning (the algorithms of which are often implemented via constrained optimization, see e.g. SVMs).
As an example, a possible objective function could be:
argmin_{w} || e ||_2 + lambda || w ||_2
where w is your weight vector (Oh god why is there no latex here), e is the vector of errors (one component per training triplet), lambda is some tunable regularizer constant (could be zero), and your constraints could be:
max{d(I_p,I_r)-d(I_p,I_q),0} <= e_j for jth (p,q,r) in T s.t. d(I_p,I_r) <= d(I_p,I_q)
for the jth constraint, where I_i is image i, T is the training set, and
d(u,v) = sum_{w_i in w} w_i * d_i(u,v)
with d_i being your ith distance function.
Notice that e is measuring how far your chosen weights are from satisfying all the chosen triplets in the training set. If the weights preserve ordering of label j, then d(I_p,I_r)-d(I_p,I_q) < 0 and so e_j = 0. If they don't, then e_j will measure the amount of violation of training label j. Solving the optimization problem would give the best w; i.e. the one with the lowest error.
If you're not familiar with linear/quadratic programming, convex optimization, etc... then start googling :) Many libraries exist for this type of thing.
On the other hand, if you would prefer a machine learning approach, you may be able to adapt some metric learning approaches to your problem.
I am newbie in convolutional neural networks and just have idea about feature maps and how convolution is done on images to extract features. I would be glad to know some details on applying batch normalisation in CNN.
I read this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03167v3.pdf and could understand the BN algorithm applied on a data but in the end they mentioned that a slight modification is required when applied to CNN:
For convolutional layers, we additionally want the normalization to obey the convolutional property – so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way. To achieve this, we jointly normalize all the activations in a mini- batch, over all locations. In Alg. 1, we let B be the set of all values in a feature map across both the elements of a mini-batch and spatial locations – so for a mini-batch of size m and feature maps of size p × q, we use the effec- tive mini-batch of size m′ = |B| = m · pq. We learn a pair of parameters γ(k) and β(k) per feature map, rather than per activation. Alg. 2 is modified similarly, so that during inference the BN transform applies the same linear transformation to each activation in a given feature map.
I am total confused when they say
"so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way"
I know what feature maps mean and different elements are the weights in every feature map. But I could not understand what location or spatial location means.
I could not understand the below sentence at all
"In Alg. 1, we let B be the set of all values in a feature map across both the elements of a mini-batch and spatial locations"
I would be glad if someone cold elaborate and explain me in much simpler terms
Let's start with the terms. Remember that the output of the convolutional layer is a 4-rank tensor [B, H, W, C], where B is the batch size, (H, W) is the feature map size, C is the number of channels. An index (x, y) where 0 <= x < H and 0 <= y < W is a spatial location.
Usual batchnorm
Now, here's how the batchnorm is applied in a usual way (in pseudo-code):
# t is the incoming tensor of shape [B, H, W, C]
# mean and stddev are computed along 0 axis and have shape [H, W, C]
mean = mean(t, axis=0)
stddev = stddev(t, axis=0)
for i in 0..B-1:
out[i,:,:,:] = norm(t[i,:,:,:], mean, stddev)
Basically, it computes H*W*C means and H*W*C standard deviations across B elements. You may notice that different elements at different spatial locations have their own mean and variance and gather only B values.
Batchnorm in conv layer
This way is totally possible. But the convolutional layer has a special property: filter weights are shared across the input image (you can read it in detail in this post). That's why it's reasonable to normalize the output in the same way, so that each output value takes the mean and variance of B*H*W values, at different locations.
Here's how the code looks like in this case (again pseudo-code):
# t is still the incoming tensor of shape [B, H, W, C]
# but mean and stddev are computed along (0, 1, 2) axes and have just [C] shape
mean = mean(t, axis=(0, 1, 2))
stddev = stddev(t, axis=(0, 1, 2))
for i in 0..B-1, x in 0..H-1, y in 0..W-1:
out[i,x,y,:] = norm(t[i,x,y,:], mean, stddev)
In total, there are only C means and standard deviations and each one of them is computed over B*H*W values. That's what they mean when they say "effective mini-batch": the difference between the two is only in axis selection (or equivalently "mini-batch selection").
Some clarification on Maxim's answer.
I was puzzled by seeing in Keras that the axis you specify is the channels axis, as it doesn't make sense to normalize over the channels - as every channel in a conv-net is considered a different "feature". I.e. normalizing over all channels is equivalent to normalizing number of bedrooms with size in square feet (multivariate regression example from Andrew's ML course). This is usually not what you want - what you do is normalize every feature by itself. I.e. you normalize the number of bedrooms across all examples to be with mu=0 and std=1, and you normalize the the square feet across all examples to be with mu=0 and std=1.
This is why you want C means and stds, because you want a mean and std per channel/feature.
After checking and testing it myself I realized the issue: there's a bit of a confusion/misconception here. The axis you specify in Keras is actually the axis which is not in the calculations. i.e. you get average over every axis except the one specified by this argument. This is confusing, as it is exactly the opposite behavior of how NumPy works, where the specified axis is the one you do the operation on (e.g. np.mean, np.std, etc.).
I actually built a toy model with only BN, and then calculated the BN manually - took the mean, std across all the 3 first dimensions [m, n_W, n_H] and got n_C results, calculated (X-mu)/std (using broadcasting) and got identical results to the Keras results.
Hope this helps anyone who was confused as I was.
I'm only 70% sure of what I say, so if it does not make sense, please edit or mention it before downvoting.
About location or spatial location: they mean the position of pixels in an image or feature map. A feature map is comparable to a sparse modified version of image where concepts are represented.
About so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way:
some normalisation algorithms are local, so they are dependent of their close surrounding (location) and not the things far apart in the image. They probably mean that every pixel, regardless of their location, is treated just like the element of a set, independently of it's direct special surrounding.
About In Alg. 1, we let B be the set of all values in a feature map across both the elements of a mini-batch and spatial locations: They get a flat list of every values of every training example in the minibatch, and this list combines things whatever their location is on the feature map.
Firstly we need to make it clear that the depth of a kernel is determined by previous feature map's channel num, and the number of kernel in this layer determins the channel num of next feature map (the next layer).
then we should make it clear that each kernel(three dimentional usually) will generate just one channel of feature map in the next layer.
thirdly we should try to accept the idea of each points in the generated feature map (regardless of their position) are generated by the same kernel, by sliding on previous layer. So they could be seen as a distribution generated by this kernel, and they could be seen as samples of a stochastic variable. Then they should be averaged to obtain the mean and then the variance. (it not rigid, only helps to understand)
This is what they say "so that different elements of the same feature map, at different locations, are normalized in the same way"
I've been playing with some SVM implementations and I am wondering - what is the best way to normalize feature values to fit into one range? (from 0 to 1)
Let's suppose I have 3 features with values in ranges of:
3 - 5.
0.02 - 0.05
10-15.
How do I convert all of those values into range of [0,1]?
What If, during training, the highest value of feature number 1 that I will encounter is 5 and after I begin to use my model on much bigger datasets, I will stumble upon values as high as 7? Then in the converted range, it would exceed 1...
How do I normalize values during training to account for the possibility of "values in the wild" exceeding the highest(or lowest) values the model "seen" during training? How will the model react to that and how I make it work properly when that happens?
Besides scaling to unit length method provided by Tim, standardization is most often used in machine learning field. Please note that when your test data comes, it makes more sense to use the mean value and standard deviation from your training samples to do this scaling. If you have a very large amount of training data, it is safe to assume they obey the normal distribution, so the possibility that new test data is out-of-range won't be that high. Refer to this post for more details.
You normalise a vector by converting it to a unit vector. This trains the SVM on the relative values of the features, not the magnitudes. The normalisation algorithm will work on vectors with any values.
To convert to a unit vector, divide each value by the length of the vector. For example, a vector of [4 0.02 12] has a length of 12.6491. The normalised vector is then [4/12.6491 0.02/12.6491 12/12.6491] = [0.316 0.0016 0.949].
If "in the wild" we encounter a vector of [400 2 1200] it will normalise to the same unit vector as above. The magnitudes of the features is "cancelled out" by the normalisation and we are left with relative values between 0 and 1.