I am working with data which contains marks and other features of students and trying to predict whether they will get a high salary or not using scikit-learn in python. I ran into a problem,
since a student does not take all the subject his/her score in a subject is -1 if he has not taken the subject (a student can take multiple subjects).
Below a snapshot taken from the data file:
Snapshot
I am trying to find a way to interpret the -1 in a way that doesn't alter the data much.
My Approach:
Take the percentile marks for each student and then take the average of all percentiles for each student giving a single number for each student which a lot easier to work with but this method may lose some information about the distribution of marks.
Fill the -1 value with the average of marks for all the students in that subject, but this will not work if the data is biased towards one subject
Is there any better way the deal with this kind of data?
Your "-1"'s amount to missing data, so you are asking how to approach a classification task with missing data. See here and here and here, among many others, for discussions on this topic.
A couple important considerations that come to mind:
One option is to "impute" the missing values, which is what you're describing with using "average marks." This approach often requires the assumption that the data is "missing at random" which in your case is unlikely to be true: for example, a bad student is more likely to not take a difficult subject, so missing values tell you something.
Using regression models (like logistic regression) are in general going to require some type of imputation. But there are other models, like decision trees or Random forests, that can handle missing data without imputation.
Related
I'm working on a simple project in which I'm trying to describe the relationship between two positively correlated variables and determine if that relationship is changing over time, and if so, to what degree. I feel like this is something people probably do pretty often, but maybe I'm just not using the correct terminology because google isn't helping me very much.
I've plotted the variables on a scatter plot and know how to determine the correlation coefficient and plot a linear regression. I thought this may be a good first step because the linear regression tells me what I can expect y to be for a given x value. This means I can quantify how "far away" each data point is from the regression line (I think this is called the squared error?). Now I'd like to see what the error looks like for each data point over time. For example, if I have 100 data points and the most recent 20 are much farther away from where the regression line/function says it should be, maybe I could say that the relationship between the variables is showing signs of changing? Does that make any sense at all or am I way off base?
I have a suspicion that there is a much simpler way to do this and/or that I'm going about it in the wrong way. I'd appreciate any guidance you can offer!
I can suggest two strands of literature that study changing relationships over time. Typing these names into google should provide you with a large number of references so I'll stick to more concise descriptions.
(1) Structural break modelling. As the name suggest, this assumes that there has been a sudden change in parameters (e.g. a correlation coefficient). This is applicable if there has been a policy change, change in measurement device, etc. The estimation approach is indeed very close to the procedure you suggest. Namely, you would estimate the squared error (or some other measure of fit) on the full sample and the two sub-samples (before and after break). If the gains in fit are large when dividing the sample, then you would favour the model with the break and use different coefficients before and after the structural change.
(2) Time-varying coefficient models. This approach is more subtle as coefficients will now evolve more slowly over time. These changes can originate from the time evolution of some observed variables or they can be modeled through some unobserved latent process. In the latter case the estimation typically involves the use of state-space models (and thus the Kalman filter or some more advanced filtering techniques).
I hope this helps!
Suppose you have a set of transcribed customer service calls between customers and human agents, where on average each call's length is 7 minutes. Customers will mostly call because of issues they have with the product. Let's assume that a human can assign one label per axis per call:
Axis 1: What was the problem from the customer's perspective?
Axis 2: What was the problem from the agent's perspective?
Axis 3: Could the agent resolve the customer's issue?
Based on the manually labeled texts you want to train a text classifier that shall predict a label for each call for each of the three axes. But the labeling of recordings takes time and costs money. On the other hand you need a certain amount of training data to get good prediction results.
Given the above assumptions, how many manually labeled training texts would you start with? And how do you know that you need more labeled training texts?
Maybe you've worked on a similar task before and can give some advice.
UPDATE (2018-01-19): There's no right or wrong answer to my question. Ok, ideally, somebody worked on exactly the same task, but that's very unlikely. I'll leave the question open for one more week and then accept the best answer.
This would be tricky to answer but I will try my best based on my experience.
In the past, I have performed text classification on 3 datasets; the number in the bracket indicates how big my dataset was: restaurant reviews (50K sentences), reddit comments (250k sentences) and developer comments from issue tracking systems (10k sentences). Each of them had multiple labels as well.
In each of the three cases, including the one with 10k sentences, I achieved an F1 score of more than 80%. I am stressing on this dataset specifically because I was told by some that the size is less for this dataset.
So, in your case, assuming you have atleast 1000 instances (calls that include conversation between customer and agent) of average 7 minute calls, this should be a decent start. If the results are not satisfying, you have the following options:
1) Use different models (MNB, Random Forest, Decision Tree, and so on in addition to whatever you are using)
2) If point 1 gives more or less similar results, check the ratio of instances of all the classes you have (the 3 axis you are talking about here). If they do not share a good ratio, get more data or try out the different balancing techniques if you cannot get more data.
3) Another way would be to classify them at a sentence level than message or conversation level to generate more data and individual labels for sentences rather than message or the conversation itself.
I seek the most effective and simple way to classify 800k+ scholarly articles as either relevant (1) or irrelevant (0) in relation to a defined conceptual space (here: learning as it relates to work).
Data is: title & abstract (mean=1300 characters)
Any approaches may be used or even combined, including supervised machine learning and/or by establishing features that give rise to some threshold values for inclusion, among other.
Approaches could draw on the key terms that describe the conceptual space, though simple frequency count alone is too unreliable. Potential avenues might involve latent semantic analysis, n-grams, ..
Generating training data may be realistic for up to 1% of the corpus, though this already means manually coding 8,000 articles (1=relevant, 0=irrelevant), would that be enough?
Specific ideas and some brief reasoning are much appreciated so I can make an informed decision on how to proceed. Many thanks!
Several Ideas:
Run LDA and get document-topic and topic-word distributions say (20 topics depending on your dataset coverage of different topics). Assign the top r% of the documents with highest relevant topic as relevant and low nr% as non-relevant. Then train a classifier over those labelled documents.
Just use bag of words and retrieve top r nearest negihbours to your query (your conceptual space) as relevant and borrom nr percent as not relevant and train a classifier over them.
If you had the citations you could run label propagation over the network graph by labelling very few papers.
Don't forget to make the title words different from your abstract words by changing the title words to title_word1 so that any classifier can put more weights on them.
Cluster the articles into say 100 clusters and then choose then manually label those clusters. Choose 100 based on the coverage of different topics in your corpus. You can also use hierarchical clustering for this.
If it is the case that the number of relevant documents is way less than non-relevant ones, then the best way to go is to find the nearest neighbours to your conceptual space (e.g. using information retrieval implemented in Lucene). Then you can manually go down in your ranked results until you feel the documents are not relevant anymore.
Most of these methods are Bootstrapping or Weakly Supervised approaches for text classification, about which you can more literature.
I want to use machine learning to identify the signature of a user who converts to a subscriber of a website given their behavior over time.
Let's say my website has 6 different features which can be used before subscribing and users can convert to a subscriber at any time.
For a given user I have stats which represent the intensity on a continuous range of that user's interaction with features 1-6 on a daily basis so:
D1: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
D2: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
D3: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
D4: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
Let's say on day 5, the user converts.
What machine using algorithms would help me identify which are the most common patterns in feature usage which lead to a conversion?
(I know this is a super basic classification question, but I couldn't find a good example using longitudinal data, where input vectors are ordered by time like I have)
To develop the problem further, let's assume that each feature has 3 intensities at which the user can interact (H, M, L).
We can then represent each user as a string of states of interaction intensity. So, for a user:
LLLLMM LLMMHH LLHHHH
Would mean on day one they only interacted significantly with features 5 and 6, but by the third day they were interacting highly with features 3 through 6.
N-gram Style
I could make these states words and the lifetime of a user a sentence. (Would probably need to add a "conversion" word to the vocabulary as well)
If I ran these "sentences" through an n-gram model, I could get the likely future state of a user given his/her past few state which is somewhat interesting. But, what I really want to know the most common sets of n-grams that lead to the conversion word. Rather than feeding in an n-gram and getting the next predicted word, I want to give the predicted word and get back the 10 most common n-grams (from my data) which would be likely to lead to the word.
Amaç Herdağdelen suggests identifying n-grams to practical n and then counting how many n-gram states each user has. Then correlating with conversion data (I guess no conversion word in this example). My concern is that there would be too many n-grams to make this method practical. (if each state has 729 possibilities, and we're using trigrams, thats a lot of possible trigrams!)
Alternatively, could I just go thru the data logging the n-grams which led to the conversion word and then run some type of clustering on them to see what the common paths are to a conversion?
Survival Style
Suggested by Iterator, I understand the analogy to a survival problem, but the literature here seems to focus on predicting time to death as opposed to the common sequence of events which leads to death. Further, when looking up the Cox Proportional Hazard model, I found that it does not event accommodate variables which change over time (its good for differentiating between static attributes like gender and ethnicity)- so it seems very much geared toward a different question than mine.
Decision Tree Style
This seems promising though I can't completely wrap my mind around how to structure the data. Since the data is not flat, is the tree modeling the chance of moving from one state to another down the line and when it leads to conversion or not? This is very different than the decision tree data literature I've been able to find.
Also, need clarity on how to identify patterns which lead to conversion instead a models predicts likely hood of conversion after a given sequence.
Theoretically, hidden markov models may be a suitable solution to your problem. The features on your site would constitute the alphabet, and you can use the sequence of interactions as positive or negative instances depending on whether a user finally subscribed or not. I don't have a guess about what the number of hidden states should be, but finding a suitable value for that parameter is part of the problem, after all.
As a side note, positive instances are trivial to identify, but the fact that a user has not subscribed so far doesn't necessarily mean s/he won't. You might consider to limit your data to sufficiently old users.
I would also consider converting the data to fixed-length vectors and apply conceptually simpler models that could give you some intuition about what's going on. You could use n-grams (consecutive interaction sequences of length n).
As an example, assuming that the interaction sequence of a given user ise "f1,f3,f5", "f1,f3,f5" would constitute a 3-gram (trigram). Similarly, for the same user and the same interaction sequence you would have "f1,f3" and "f3,f5" as the 2-grams (bigrams). In order to represent each user as a vector, you would identify all n-grams up to a practical n, and count how many times the user employed a given n-gram. Each column in the vector would represent the number of times a given n-gram is observed for a given user.
Then -- probably with the help of some suitable normalization techniques such as pointwise mutual information or tf-idf -- you could look at the correlation between the n-grams and the final outcome to get a sense of what's going on, carry out feature selection to find the most prominent sequences that users are involved in, or apply classification methods such as nearest neighbor, support machine or naive Bayes to build a predictive model.
This is rather like a survival analysis problem: over time the user will convert or will may drop out of the population, or will continue to appear in the data and not (yet) fall into neither camp. For that, you may find the Cox proportional hazards model useful.
If you wish to pursue things from a different angle, namely one more from the graphical models perspective, then a Kalman Filter may be more appealing. It is a generalization of HMMs, suggested by #AmaçHerdağdelen, which work for continuous spaces.
For ease of implementation, I'd recommend the survival approach. It is the easiest to analyze, describe, and improve. After you have a firm handle on the data, feel free to drop in other methods.
Other than Markov chains, I would suggest decision trees or Bayesian networks. Both of these would give you a likely hood of a user converting after a sequence.
I forgot to mention this earlier. You may also want to take a look at the Google PageRank algorithm. It would help you account for the user completely disappearing [not subscribing]. The results of that would help you to encourage certain features to be used. [Because they're more likely to give you a sale]
I think Ngramm is most promising approach, because all sequnce in data mining are treated as elements depndent on few basic steps(HMM, CRF, ACRF, Markov Fields) So I will try to use classifier based on 1-grams and 2 -grams.
I'd like to know what method is best suited for predicting event occurrences.
For example, given a set of data from 5 years of malaria infection occurrences and several other factors that affect the occurrences, I'd like to predict the next five years for malaria infection occurrences.
What I thought of doing was to derive a kind of occurrence factor using fuzzy logic rules, and then average the occurrences with the occurrence factor to get the first predicted occurrence, and then average all again with the predicted occurrence and keep on iterating for all five years, but I decided to seek for help online.
There are many ways to do forecasting, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The science of determining the accuracy of a forecast often consists of trying to minimize error. All forecasting comes down to using the past as a predictor of the future, adjusting it by some amount. E.g. tomorrow the temperature will be the same as today, plus or minus some amount. How you decide the +/- is what varies.
Here are a range of techniques you might want to review:
Moving Averages (simple, single, double)
Exponential Smoothing
Decomposition(Trend + Seasonality + Cyclicals + Irregualrities)
Linear Regression
Multiple Regression
Box-Jenkis (a.k.a. ARIMA,
Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving
Average)
Sorry, for the vague answer but forecasting is complex stuff.
What you describe about feeding your predictions back into the model to produce future predictions is standard stuff. I don't know if "fuzzy logic" gets you anything in particular. As any forecasting instructor will tell you, sometimes you just squint and look at the data. Context is everything.
I would use a logit or probit model to predict occurrence given a set of exogenous circumstances. Not sure why you want to iterate. That would basically be equivalent to including a lag in the regression formula. You could do it, and as long as the coefficient was <1, you wouldn't have the explosion problem.
If you want to introduce an element of endogeneity to the independent variables, you could use a VAR.
I think with your idea as stated, you'll have asymptotic behavior as time goes by. Either your data will converge to 0, or it will explode. That said, you'd probably have to give some data and/or describe its properties before anyone can help you. This is basically a simulation, and the factors are everything when it comes to extrapolation.