I am novice in DS/ML stuff. I am trying to solve Titanic case study in Kaggle, however my approach is not systematic till now. I have used correlation to find relationship between variables and have used KNN and Random Forest Classification, however my models performance has not improved. I have selected features based on the result of correlation between variables.
Please guide me if there are certain sk-learn methods which can be used to identify features which can contribute significantly in forecasting.
Through Various Boosting Techniques You can Improve accuracy approx 99% I suggest you to use Gradient Boosting.
Related
I have a multilabel classification problem, which I am trying to solve with CNNs in Pytorch. I have 80,000 training examples and 7900 classes; every example can belong to multiple classes at the same time, mean number of classes per example is 130.
The problem is that my dataset is very imbalance. For some classes, I have only ~900 examples, which is around 1%. For “overrepresented” classes I have ~12000 examples (15%). When I train the model I use BCEWithLogitsLoss from pytorch with a positive weights parameter. I calculate the weights the same way as described in the documentation: the number of negative examples divided by the number of positives.
As a result, my model overestimates almost every class… Mor minor and major classes I get almost twice as many predictions as true labels. And my AUPRC is just 0.18. Even though it’s much better than no weighting at all, since in this case the model predicts everything as zero.
So my question is, how do I improve the performance? Is there anything else I can do? I tried different batch sampling techniques (to oversample minority class), but they don’t seem to work.
I would suggest either one of these strategies
Focal Loss
A very interesting approach for dealing with un-balanced training data through tweaking of the loss function was introduced in
Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He and Piotr Dollar Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection (ICCV 2017).
They propose to modify the binary cross entropy loss in a way that decrease the loss and gradient of easily classified examples while "focusing the effort" on examples where the model makes gross errors.
Hard Negative Mining
Another popular approach is to do "hard negative mining"; that is, propagate gradients only for part of the training examples - the "hard" ones.
see, e.g.:
Abhinav Shrivastava, Abhinav Gupta and Ross Girshick Training Region-based Object Detectors with Online Hard Example Mining (CVPR 2016)
#Shai has provided two strategies developed in the deep learning era. I would like to provide you some additional traditional machine learning options: over-sampling and under-sampling.
The main idea of them is to produce a more balanced dataset by sampling before starting your training. Note that you probably will face some problems such as losing the data diversity (under-sampling) and overfitting the training data (over-sampling), but it might be a good start point.
See the wiki link for more information.
I am trying a multi-task regression model. However, the ground-truth labels of different tasks are on different scales. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to normalize the targets. Otherwise, the MSE of some large-scale tasks will be extremely bigger. The figure below is part of my overall targets. You can certainly find that columns like ASA_m2_c have much higher values than some others.
First, I have already tried some weighted loss techniques to balance the concentration of my model when it does gradient backpropagation. The result shows it didn't perform well.
Secondly, I have seen tremendous discussions regarding normalizing the input data, but hardly discovered any particular talking about normalizing the labels. It's partly because most of the people's problems are classification type and a single task. I do know pytorch provides a convenient approach to normalize the vision dataset by transform.normalize, which is still operated on the input rather than the labels.
Similar questions: https://forums.fast.ai/t/normalizing-your-dataset/49799
https://discuss.pytorch.org/t/ground-truth-label-normalization/26981/19
PyTorch - How should you normalize individual instances
Moreover, I think it might be helpful to provide some details of my model architecture. The input is first fed into a feature extractor and then several generators use the shared output representation from that extractor to predict different targets.
I've been working on a Multi-Task Learning problem where one head has an output of ~500 and another between 0 and 1.
I've tried Uncertainty Weighting but in vain. So I'd be grateful if you could give me a little clue about your studies.(If there is any progress)
Thanks.
I have a multilabel classification problem, which I am trying to solve with CNNs in Pytorch. I have 80,000 training examples and 7900 classes; every example can belong to multiple classes at the same time, mean number of classes per example is 130.
The problem is that my dataset is very imbalance. For some classes, I have only ~900 examples, which is around 1%. For “overrepresented” classes I have ~12000 examples (15%). When I train the model I use BCEWithLogitsLoss from pytorch with a positive weights parameter. I calculate the weights the same way as described in the documentation: the number of negative examples divided by the number of positives.
As a result, my model overestimates almost every class… Mor minor and major classes I get almost twice as many predictions as true labels. And my AUPRC is just 0.18. Even though it’s much better than no weighting at all, since in this case the model predicts everything as zero.
So my question is, how do I improve the performance? Is there anything else I can do? I tried different batch sampling techniques (to oversample minority class), but they don’t seem to work.
I would suggest either one of these strategies
Focal Loss
A very interesting approach for dealing with un-balanced training data through tweaking of the loss function was introduced in
Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He and Piotr Dollar Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection (ICCV 2017).
They propose to modify the binary cross entropy loss in a way that decrease the loss and gradient of easily classified examples while "focusing the effort" on examples where the model makes gross errors.
Hard Negative Mining
Another popular approach is to do "hard negative mining"; that is, propagate gradients only for part of the training examples - the "hard" ones.
see, e.g.:
Abhinav Shrivastava, Abhinav Gupta and Ross Girshick Training Region-based Object Detectors with Online Hard Example Mining (CVPR 2016)
#Shai has provided two strategies developed in the deep learning era. I would like to provide you some additional traditional machine learning options: over-sampling and under-sampling.
The main idea of them is to produce a more balanced dataset by sampling before starting your training. Note that you probably will face some problems such as losing the data diversity (under-sampling) and overfitting the training data (over-sampling), but it might be a good start point.
See the wiki link for more information.
A wanna-be data-scientist here and am trying to understand as a data scientist, when and why would you use a Probability Density Function (PDF)?
Sharing a scenario and a few pointers to learn about this and other such functions like CDF and PMF would be really helpful. Know of any book that talks about these functions from practice stand-point?
Why?
Probability theory is very important for modern data-science and machine-learning applications, because (in a lot of cases) it allows one to "open up a black box" and shed some light into the model's inner workings, and with luck find necessary ingredients to transform a poor model into a great model. Without it, a data scientist's work is very much restricted in what they are able to do.
A PDF is a fundamental building block of the probability theory, absolutely necessary to do any sort of probability reasoning, along with expectation, variance, prior and posterior, and so on.
Some examples here on StackOverflow, from my own experience, where a practical issue boils down to understanding data distribution:
Which loss-function is better than MSE in temperature prediction?
Binary Image Classification with CNN - best practices for choosing “negative” dataset?
How do neural networks account for outliers?
When?
The questions above provide some examples, here're a few more if you're interested, and the list is by no means complete:
What is the 'fundamental' idea of machine learning for estimating parameters?
Role of Bias in Neural Networks
How to find probability distribution and parameters for real data? (Python 3)
I personally try to find probabilistic interpretation whenever possible (choice of loss function, parameters, regularization, architecture, etc), because this way I can move from blind guessing to making reasonable decisions.
Reading
This is very opinion-based, but at least few books are really worth mentioning: The Elements of Statistical Learning, An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R or Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (if your primary interest is machine learning). That's just a start, there are dozens of books on more specific topics, like computer vision, natural language processing and reinforcement learning.
I am using Random forests in scikit-learn. I used feature_importances_ to see how much each feature is important in prediction goal. But I don't understand what is this score. Googling feature_importances_ says it is the mean decrease impurity. But I'm still confused whether this is the same as mean decrease gigi impurity. If so, how it is calculated for trees and random forests? Beside the math I want to really understand what does it mean.
feature_importances_ function will tell you how much each feature is contributing towards prediction (Information gain)
Random forest classify the independent variables or features based on Gini, Information Gain, Chi-square or entropy. Those features will get high score which contribute maximum to the information gain.