In a particular application I was in need of machine learning (I know the things I studied in my undergraduate course). I used Support Vector Machines and got the problem solved. Its working fine.
Now I need to improve the system. Problems here are
I get additional training examples every week. Right now the system starts training freshly with updated examples (old examples + new examples). I want to make it incremental learning. Using previous knowledge (instead of previous examples) with new examples to get new model (knowledge)
Right my training examples has 3 classes. So, every training example is fitted into one of these 3 classes. I want functionality of "Unknown" class. Anything that doesn't fit these 3 classes must be marked as "unknown". But I can't treat "Unknown" as a new class and provide examples for this too.
Assuming, the "unknown" class is implemented. When class is "unknown" the user of the application inputs the what he thinks the class might be. Now, I need to incorporate the user input into the learning. I've no idea about how to do this too. Would it make any difference if the user inputs a new class (i.e.. a class that is not already in the training set)?
Do I need to choose a new algorithm or Support Vector Machines can do this?
PS: I'm using libsvm implementation for SVM.
I just wrote my Answer using the same organization as your Question (1., 2., 3).
Can SVMs do this--i.e., incremental learning? Multi-Layer Perceptrons of course can--because the subsequent training instances don't affect the basic network architecture, they'll just cause adjustment in the values of the weight matrices. But SVMs? It seems to me that (in theory) one additional training instance could change the selection of the support vectors. But again, i don't know.
I think you can solve this problem quite easily by configuring LIBSVM in one-against-many--i.e., as a one-class classifier. SVMs are one-class classifiers; application of an SVM for multi-class means that it has been coded to perform multiple, step-wise one-against-many classifications, but again the algorithm is trained (and tested) one class at a time. If you do this, then what's left after step-wise execution against the test set, is "unknown"--in other words, whatever data is not classified after performing multiple, sequential one-class classifications, is by definition in that 'unknown' class.
Why not make the user's guess a feature (i.e., just another dependent variable)? The only other option is to make it the class label itself, and you don't want that. So you would, for instance, add a column to your data matrix "user class guess", and just populate it with some value most likely to have no effect for those data points not in the 'unknown' category and therefore for which the user will not offer a guess--this value could be '0' or '1', but really it depends on how you have your data scaled and normalized).
Your first item will likely be the most difficult, since there are essentially no good incremental SVM implementations in existence.
A few months ago, I also researched online or incremental SVM algorithms. Unfortunately, the current state of implementations is quite sparse. All I found was a Matlab example, OnlineSVR (a thesis project only implementing regression support), and SVMHeavy (only binary class support).
I haven't used any of them personally. They all appear to be at the "research toy" stage. I couldn't even get SVMHeavy to compile.
For now, you can probably get away with doing periodic batch training to incorporate updates. I also use LibSVM, and it's quite fast, so it sould be a good substitute until a proper incremental version is implemented.
I also don't think SVM's can model the concept of an "unknown" sample by default. They typically work as a series of boolean classifiers, so a sample ends up as positively being classified as something, even if that sample is drastically different from anything seen previously. A possible workaround would be to model the ranges of your features, and randomly generate samples that exist outside of these ranges, and then add these to your training set.
For example, if you have an attribute called "color", which has a minimum value of 4 and a maximum value of 123, then you could add these to your training set
[({'color':3},'unknown'),({'color':125},'unknown')]
to give your SVM an idea of what an "unknown" color means.
There are algorithms to train an SVM incrementally, but I don't think libSVM implements this. I think you should consider whether you really need this feature. I see no problem with your current approach, unless the training process is really too slow. If it is, could you retrain in batches (i.e. after every 100 new examples)?
You can get libSVM to produce probabilities of class membership. I think this can be done for multiclass classification, but I'm not entirely sure about that. You will need to decide some threshold at which the classification is not certain enough and then output 'Unknown'. I suppose something like setting a threshold on the difference between the most likely and second most likely class would achieve this.
I think libSVM scales to any number of new classes. The accuracy of your model may well suffer by adding new classes, however.
Even though this question is probably out of date, I feel obliged to give some additional thoughts.
Since your first question has been answered by others (there is no production-ready SVM which implements incremental learning, even though it is possible), I will skip it. ;)
Adding 'Unknown' as a class is not a good idea. Depending on it's use, the reasons are different.
If you are using the 'Unknown' class as a tag for "this instance has not been classified, but belongs to one of the known classes", then your SVM is in deep trouble. The reason is, that libsvm builds several binary classifiers and combines them. So if you have three classes - let's say A, B and C - the SVM builds the first binary classifier by splitting the training examples into "classified as A" and "any other class". The latter will obviously contain all examples from the 'Unknown' class. When trying to build a hyperplane, examples in 'Unknown' (which really belong to the class 'A') will probably cause the SVM to build a hyperplane with a very small margin and will poorly recognizes future instances of A, i.e. it's generalization performance will diminish. That's due to the fact, that the SVM will try to build a hyperplane which separates most instances of A (those officially labeled as 'A') onto one side of the hyperplane and some instances (those officially labeled as 'Unknown') on the other side .
Another problem occurs if you are using the 'Unknown' class to store all examples, whose class is not yet known to the SVM. For example, the SVM knows the classes A, B and C, but you recently got example data for two new classes D and E. Since these examples are not classified and the new classes not known to the SVM, you may want to temporarily store them in 'Unknown'. In that case the 'Unknown' class may cause trouble, since it possibly contains examples with enormous variation in the values of it's features. That will make it very hard to create good separating hyperplanes and therefore the resulting classifier will poorly recognize new instances of D or E as 'Unknown'. Probably the classification of new instances belonging to A, B or C will be hindered as well.
To sum up: Introducing an 'Unknown' class which contains examples of known classes or examples of several new classes will result in a poor classifier. I think it's best to ignore all unclassified instances when training the classifier.
I would recommend, that you solve this issue outside the classification algorithm. I was asked for this feature myself and implemented a single webpage, which shows an image of the object in question and a button for each known class. If the object in question belongs to a class which is not known yet, the user can fill out another form to add a new class. If he goes back to the classification page, another button for that class will magically appear. After the instances have been classified, they can be used for training the classifier. (I used a database to store the known classes and reference which example belongs to which class. I implemented an export function to make the data SVM-ready.)
Related
I am setting up a Naive Bayes Classifier to try to determine sameness between two records of five string properties. I am only comparing each pair of properties exactly (i.e., with a java .equals() method). I have some training data, both TRUE and FALSE cases, but let's just focus on the TRUE cases for now.
Let's say there are some TRUE training cases where all five properties are different. That means every comparator fails, but the records are actually determined to be the 'same' after some human assessment.
Should this training case be fed to the Naive Bayes Classifier? On the one hand, considering the fact that NBC treats each variable separately these cases shouldn't totally break it. However, it certainly seems true that feeding in enough of these cases wouldn't be beneficial to the classifier's performance. I understand that seeing a lot of these cases would mean better comparators are required, but I'm wondering what to do in the time being. Another consideration is that the flip-side is impossible; that is, there's no way all five properties could be the same between two records and still have them be 'different' records.
Is this a preferential issue, or is there a definitive accepted practice for handling this?
Usually you will want to have a training data set that is as feasibly representative as possible of the domain from which you hope to classify observations (often difficult though). An unrepresentative set may lead to a poorly functioning classifier, particularly in a production environment where various data are received. That being said, preprocessing may be used to limit the exposure of a classifier trained on a particular subset of data, so it is quite dependent on the purpose of the classifier.
I'm not sure why you wish to exclude some elements though. Parameter estimation/learning should account for the fact that two different inputs may map to the same output --- that is why you would use machine learning instead of simply using a hashmap. Considering that you usually don't have 'all data' to build your model, you have to rely on this type of inference.
Have you had a look at the NLTK; it is in python but it seems that OpenNLP may be a suitable substitute in Java? You can employ better feature extraction techniques that lead to a model that accounts for minor variations in input strings (see here).
Lastly, it seems to me that you want to learn a mapping from input strings to the classes 'same' and 'not same' --- you seem to want to infer a distance measure (just checking). It would make more sense to invest effort in directly finding a better measure (e.g. for character transposition issues you could use edit distances). I'm not sure that NB is well-suited to your problem as it is attempting to determine a class given an observation(s) (or its features). This class will have to be discernible over various different strings (I'm assuming you are going to concatenate string1 & string2, and offer them to the classifier). Will there be enough structure present to derive such a widely applicable property? This classifier is basically going to need to be able to deal with all pair-wise 'comparisons' ,unless you build NBs for each one-vs-many pairing. This does not seem like a simple approach.
I'm using a multiclass classifier (a Support Vector Machine, via One-Vs-All) to classify data samples. Let's say I currently have n distinct classes.
However, in the scenario I'm facing, it is possible that a new data sample may belong to a new class n+1 that hasn't been seen before.
So I guess you can say that I need a form of Online Learning, as there is no distinct training set in the beginning that suits all data appearing later. Instead I need the SVM to adapt dynamically to new classes that may appear in the future.
So I'm wondering about if and how I can...
identify that a new data sample does not quite fit into the existing classes but instead should result in creating a new class.
integrate that new class into the existing classifier.
I can vaguely think of a few ideas that might be approaches to solve this problem:
If none of the binary SVM classifiers (as I have one for each class in the OVA case) predicts a fairly high probability (e.g. > 0.5) for the new data sample, I could assume that this new data sample may represent a new class.
I could train a new binary classifier for that new class and add it to the multiclass SVM.
However, these are just my naive thoughts. I'm wondering if there is some "proper" approach for this instead, e.g. using a Clustering algorithms to find all classes.
Or maybe my approach of trying to use an SVM for this is not even appropriate for this kind of problem?
Help on this is greatly appreciated.
As in any other machine learning problem, if you do not have a quality criterion, you suck.
When people say "classification", they have supervised learning in mind: there is some ground truth against which you can train and check your algorithms. If new classes can appear, this ground truth is ambiguous. Imagine one class is "horse", and you see many horses: black horses, brown horses, even white ones. And suddenly you see a zebra. Whoa! Is it a new class or just an unusual horse? The answer will depend on how you are going to use your class labels. The SVM itself cannot decide, because SVM does not use these labels, it only produces them. The decision is up to a human (or to some decision-making algorithm which knows what is "good" and "bad", that is, has its own "loss function" or "utility function").
So you need a supervisor. But how can you assist this supervisor? Two options come to mind:
Anomaly detection. This can help you with early occurences of new classes. After the very first zebra your algorithm sees it can raise an alarm: "There is something unusual!". For example, in sklearn various algorithms from random forest to one-class SVM can be used to detect unusial observations. Then your supervisor can look at them and decide whether they deserve to form an entirely new class.
Clustering. It can help you to make decision about splitting your classes. For example, after the first zebra, you decided it is not worth making a new class. But over time, your algorithm has accumulated dozens of their images. So if you run a clustering algorithm on all the observations labeled as "horses", you might end up with two well-separated clusters. And it will be again up to the supervisor to decide, whether the striped horses should be detached from the plain ones into a new class.
If you want this decision to be purely authomatic, you can split classes if the ratio of within-cluster mean distance to between-cluster distance is low enough. But it will work well only if you have a good distance metric in the first place. And what is "good" is again defined by how you use your algorithms and what your ultimate goal is.
I'm building a recognizer of antibodies in blod-cells images. It is based on libsvm. The prototype works well when it comes to recognize an instance which belongs to one of trained classes.
But when I give any image even not containing blod-cells (e.g. Microscope had bad offset/focus), it still suggests one of the classes known by model.
I first considered to implement class "Unknown" but I'm affraid training it with all the noise images would make the model performance worse.
So my idea is to check, if one/several feature(s) of an instance to be recognized is out of value-range and discard it.
Is it a good method?
If yes, how should the cut-off be selected (e.g. in terms of standard deviations)?
Thank you very much!
In problems with "possible non class samples" the most obvious solution seems to be create a one-class SVM (outlier detection algorithm) in one of two ways:
Train two one-class SVMs (oner per class) and discard samples marked by both models as "outliers"
Train one one-class SVM on the whole dataset (instances of both classes) and discard data marked as outlier
Suggested approach with "out of range check" is good as long as there is an obvios threshold value - as you are asking here what would be the best choice - it means that it is not a good way. If you cannot (as an expert) figure out it by yourself, it seems much better and safer option to train outlier detection method as suggested before, which will actualy do the same thing, but in the automatic fashion (as it will find rules for discarding "bad data" without training on any "bad images").
Currently I get a classification problem with two classes. what I want to do is that given a bunch of candidates, find out who will more likely to be the class 1. The problem is that class 1 is very rare (around 1%), which I guess makes my prediction quite inaccurate.
For training the dataset, can I sample half class 1 and half class 0? This will change the prior distribution, but I don't know whether the prior distribution affects the classification results?
Indeed, a very imbalanced dataset can cause problems in classification. Because by defaulting to the majority class 0, you can get your error rate already very low.
There are some workarounds that may or may not work for your particular problem, such as giving equal weight to the two classes (thus weighting instances from the rare class stronger), oversampling the rare class (i.e. learning each instance multiple times), producing slight variations of the rare objects to restore balance etc. SMOTE and so on.
You really should to grab some classification or machine learning book, and check the index for "imbalanced classification" or "unbalanced classification". If the book is any good, it will discuss this problem. (I just assume you did not know the term that they use.)
If you're forced to pick exactly one from a group, then the prior distribution over classes won't matter because it will be constant for all members of that group. If you must look at each in turn and make an independent decision as to whether they're class one or class two, the prior will potentially change the decision, depending on which method you choose to do the classification. I would suggest you get hold of as many examples of the rare class as possible, but beware that feeding a 50-50 split to a classifier as training blindly may make it implicitly fit a model that assumes this is the distribution at test time.
Sampling your two classes evenly doesn't change assumed priors unless your classification algorithm computes (and uses) priors based on the training data. You stated that your problem is "given a bunch of candidates, find out who will more likely to be the class 1". I read this to mean that you want to determine which observation is most likely to belong to class 1. To do this, you want to pick the observation $x_i$ that maximizes $p(c_1|x_i)$. Using Bayes' theorem, this becomes:
$$
p(c_1|x_i)=\frac{p(x_i|c_1)p(c_1)}{p(x_i)}
$$
You can ignore $p(c_1)$ in the equation above since it is a constant. However, computing the denominator will still involve using prior probabilities. Since your problem is really more of a target detection problem than a classification problem, an alternate approach for detecting low probability targets is to take the likelihood ratio of the two classes:
$$
\Lambda=\frac{p(x_i|c_1)}{p(x_i|c_0)}
$$
To pick which of your candidates is most likely to belong to class 1, pick the one with the highest value of $\Lambda$. If your two classes are described by multivariate Gaussian distributions, you can replace $\Lambda$ with its natural logarithm, resulting in a simpler quadratic detector. If you further assume that the target and background have the same covariance matrices, this results in a linear discriminant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_discriminant_analysis).
You may want to consider Bayesian utility theory to re-weight the costs of different kinds of error to get away from the problem of the priors dominating the decision.
Let A be the 99% prior probability class, B be the 1% class.
If we just say that all errors incur the same cost (negative utility), then
it's possible that the optimal decision approach is to always declare "A". Many
classification algorithms (implicitly) assume this.
If instead, we declare that the cost of declaring "B" when, in fact, the instance
was "A" is much bigger than the cost of the opposite error, then the decision logic
becomes, in a sense, more sensitive to slighter differences in the features.
This kind of situation frequently comes up in fault detection -- faults in the monitored
system will be rare, but you want to be sure that if we see any data that points to
an error condition, action needs to be taken (even if it is just reviewing the data).
I have a dataset of a particular domain (say sports - 1 class). What I want to do is when I fed a web page to the classifier/clusterer I want to get a result whether that instance (web page) is related to sports or not.
Most of the classifiers in weka are not capable of dealing with unary class datasets except the LibSVM (wrapper). I did some tests with the LibSVM, but the problem is during tests on a unrelated dataset, I get all of them correctly classified, even if the instances are empty! Any suggestions?
What if I use the cosine similarity measure here?
Have you seen this thread unary class text classification in weka? and this post https://list.scms.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/htdig/wekalist/2007-October/011631.html ?
I'm assuming you meant that when you run the classifier against another dataset that is not "sports" it gets the results incorrectly classified (i.e. false positives) e.g. "this is sports".
Are you certain your dataset only contains one class? Did you make sure the dataset does not contain any empty instances? (don't mock, this has happened to me before).
In the comments of the previously mentioned thread there is a linked to a PDF on tuning SVM: http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/papers/guide/guide.pdf - I would say SVMs are a bit harder than other common classifiers.
As an alternative, can't you switch the problem to binary classification? It's much easier to get good results and for most problems there are plenty of examples of things that are not in that class e.g. sports websites vs funny image web sites, programming websites, etc ...
PS: you can use other algorithms for outlier detection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier_detection