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.
Related
I've seen some posts say that the average of the word vectors perform better in some tasks than the doc vectors learned through PV_DBOW. What is the relationship between the document's vector and the average/sum of its words' vectors? Can we say that vector d
is approximately equal to the average or sum of its word vectors?
Thanks!
No. The PV-DBOW vector is calculated by a different process, based on how well the PV-DBOW-vector can be incrementally nudged to predict each word in the text in turn, via a concurrently-trained shallow neural network.
But, a simple average-of-word-vectors often works fairly well as a summary vector for a text.
So, let's assume both the PV-DBOW vector and the simple-average-vector are the same dimensionality. Since they're bootstrapped from exactly the same inputs (the same list of words), and the neural-network isn't significantly more sophisticated (in its internal state) than a good set of word-vectors, the performance of the vectors on downstream evaluations may not be very different.
For example, if the training data for the PV-DBOW model is meager, or meta-parameters not well optimized, but the word-vectors used for the average-vector are very well-fit to your domain, maybe the simple-average-vector would work better for some downstream task. On the other hand, a PV-DBOW model trained on sufficient domain text could provide vectors that outperform a simple-average based on word-vectors from another domain.
Note that FastText's classification mode (and similar modes in Facebook's StarSpace) actually optimizes word-vectors to work as parts of a simple-average-vector used to predict known text-classes. So if your end-goal is to have a text-vector for classification, and you have a good training dataset with known-labels, those techniques are worth considering as well.
I would like to know what are the various techniques and metrics used to evaluate how accurate/good an algorithm is and how to use a given metric to derive a conclusion about a ML model.
one way to do this is to use precision and recall, as defined here in wikipedia.
Another way is to use the accuracy metric as explained here. So, what I would like to know is whether there are other metrics for evaluating an ML model?
I've compiled, a while ago, a list of metrics used to evaluate classification and regression algorithms, under the form of a cheatsheet. Some metrics for classification: precision, recall, sensitivity, specificity, F-measure, Matthews correlation, etc. They are all based on the confusion matrix. Others exist for regression (continuous output variable).
The technique is mostly to run an algorithm on some data to get a model, and then apply that model on new, previously unseen data, and evaluate the metric on that data set, and repeat.
Some techniques (actually resampling techniques from statistics):
Jacknife
Crossvalidation
K-fold validation
bootstrap.
Talking about ML in general is a quite vast field, but I'll try to answer any way. The Wikipedia definition of ML is the following
Machine learning, a branch of artificial intelligence, concerns the construction and study of systems that can learn from data.
In this context learning can be defined parameterization of an algorithm. The parameters of the algorithm are derived using input data with a known output. When the algorithm has "learned" the association between input and output, it can be tested with further input data for which the output is well known.
Let's suppose your problem is to obtain words from speech. Here the input is some kind of audio file containing one word (not necessarily, but I supposed this case to keep it quite simple). You'd record X words N times and then use (for example) N/2 of the repetitions to parameterize your algorithm, disregarding - at the moment - how your algorithm would look like.
Now on the one hand - depending on the algorithm - if you feed your algorithm with one of the remaining repetitions, it may give you some certainty estimate which may be used to characterize the recognition of just one of the repetitions. On the other hand you may use all of the remaining repetitions to test the learned algorithm. For each of the repetitions you pass it to the algorithm and compare the expected output with the actual output. After all you'll have an accuracy value for the learned algorithm calculated as the quotient of correct and total classifications.
Anyway, the actual accuracy will depend on the quality of your learning and test data.
A good start to read on would be Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning by Christopher M Bishop
There are various metrics for evaluating the performance of ML model and there is no rule that there are 20 or 30 metrics only. You can create your own metrics depending on your problem. There are various cases wherein when you are solving real - world problem where you would need to create your own custom metrics.
Coming to the existing ones, it is already listed in the first answer, I would just highlight each metrics merits and demerits to better have an understanding.
Accuracy is the simplest of the metric and it is commonly used. It is the number of points to class 1/ total number of points in your dataset. This is for 2 class problem where some points belong to class 1 and some to belong to class 2. It is not preferred when the dataset is imbalanced because it is biased to balanced one and it is not that much interpretable.
Log loss is a metric that helps to achieve probability scores that gives you better understanding why a specific point is belonging to class 1. The best part of this metric is that it is inbuild in logistic regression which is famous ML technique.
Confusion metric is best used for 2-class classification problem which gives four numbers and the diagonal numbers helps to get an idea of how good is your model.Through this metric there are others such as precision, recall and f1-score which are interpretable.
I am working on a classification problem, which has different sensors. Each sensor collect a sets of numeric values.
I think its a classification problem and want to use weka as a ML tool for this problem. But I am not sure how to use weka to deal with the input values? And which classifier will best fit for this problem( one instance of a feature is a sets of numeric value)?
For example, I have three sensors A ,B, C. Can I define 5 collected data from all sensors,as one instance? Such as, One instance of A is {1,2,3,4,5,6,7}, and one instance of B is{3,434,534,213,55,4,7). C{424,24,24,13,24,5,6}.
Thanks a lot for your time on reviewing my question.
Commonly the first classifier to try is Naive Bayes (you can find it under "Bayes" directory in Weka) because it's fast, parameter less and the classification accuracy is hard to beat whenever the training sample is small.
Random Forest (you can find it under "Tree" directory in Weka) is another pleasant classifier since it process almost any data. Just run it and see whether it gives better results. It can be just necessary to increase the number of trees from the default 10 to some higher value. Since you have 7 attributes 100 trees should be enough.
Then I would try k-NN (you can find it under "Lazy" directory in Weka and it's called "IBk") because it commonly ranks amount the best single classifiers for a wide range of datasets. The only issues with k-nn are that it scales badly for large datasets (> 1GB) and it needs to fine tune k, the number of neighbors. This value is by default set to 1 but with increasing number of training samples it's commonly better to set it up to some higher integer value in range from 2 to 60.
And finally for some datasets where both, Naive Bayes and k-nn performs poorly, it's best to use SVM (under "Functions", it's called "Lib SVM"). However, it can be hassle to set up all the parameters of the SVM to get competitive results. Hence I leave it to the end when I already know what classification accuracies to expect. This classifier may not be the most convenient if you have more than two classes to classify.
This is a question about linear regression with ngrams, using Tf-IDF (term frequency - inverse document frequency). To do this, I am using numpy sparse matrices and sklearn for linear regression.
I have 53 cases and over 6000 features when using unigrams. The predictions are based on cross validation using LeaveOneOut.
When I create a tf-idf sparse matrix of only unigram scores, I get slightly better predictions than when I create a tf-idf sparse matrix of unigram+bigram scores. The more columns I add to the matrix (columns for trigram, quadgram, quintgrams, etc.), the less accurate the regression prediction.
Is this common? How is this possible? I would have thought that the more features, the better.
It's not common for bigrams to perform worse than unigrams, but there are situations where it may happen. In particular, adding extra features may lead to overfitting. Tf-idf is unlikely to alleviate this, as longer n-grams will be rarer, leading to higher idf values.
I'm not sure what kind of variable you're trying to predict, and I've never done regression on text, but here's some comparable results from literature to get you thinking:
In random text generation with small (but non-trivial) training sets, 7-grams tend to reconstruct the input text almost verbatim, i.e. cause complete overfit, while trigrams are more likely to generate "new" but still somewhat grammatical/recognizable text (see Jurafsky & Martin; can't remember which chapter and I don't have my copy handy).
In classification-style NLP tasks performed with kernel machines, quadratic kernels tend to fare better than cubic ones because the latter often overfit on the training set. Note that unigram+bigram features can be thought of as a subset of the quadratic kernel's feature space, and {1,2,3}-grams of that of the cubic kernel.
Exactly what is happening depends on your training set; it might simply be too small.
As larsmans said, adding more variables / features makes it easier for the model to overfit hence lose in test accuracy. In the master branch of scikit-learn there is now a min_df parameter to cut-off any feature with less than that number of occurrences. Hence min_df==2 to min_df==5 might help you get rid of spurious bi-grams.
Alternatively you can use L1 or L1 + L2 penalized linear regression (or classification) using either the following classes:
sklearn.linear_model.Lasso (regression)
sklearn.linear_model.ElasticNet (regression)
sklearn.linear_model.SGDRegressor (regression) with penalty == 'elastic_net' or 'l1'
sklearn.linear_model.SGDClassifier (classification) with penalty == 'elastic_net' or 'l1'
This will make it possible to ignore spurious features and lead to a sparse model with many zero weights for noisy features. Grid Searching the regularization parameters will be very important though.
You can also try univariate feature selection such as done the text classification example of scikit-learn (check the SelectKBest and chi2 utilities.
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.