Say there are 10 classes. If I use 1vs1, then there are 45 comparisons (SVMs) in training. If I use 1vsAll, then there are 10 (1vs-1)SVMs. However, the computation burden for the latter case is actually much higher, because the kernel matrix in each SVM is much larger.
My question is: in my implementation of SVM for multiclass classification, the accuracy using 1vsall is no better than that of 1vs1. There is also some online source shows same observation. Then, in which conditions or aspects does 1vsAll have an advantage? (certainly not time I think, as mentioned above.)
1 vs all always shows one winner. using 1 vs 1 you may run into rock-scissors-paper problems. as probability predictions are definitely not perfect in svm. you have to evaluate which approach is appropriate for your problem. check if the actual classification runtime is a problem in your case.
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 using K-means for topic modelling using Word2Vec and would like to understand the implications of vectorizing up to, let's say, 10 dimensions, against embedding it with 200 dimensions and then using PCA to get down to 10. Does the second approach make sense at all?
Which one worked better for your specific purposes, & your specific data, after trying both & comparing the end-results against each other, either in some ad-hoc ("eyeballing") or rigorous way?
There's no reason to prematurely reject any approach, given how many details about your data & ultimate end-goals are unstated.
It would be atypical to train a word2vec model to have only 10 dimensions. Published work most often shows the use of 100 to 1000 dimensions, often 300 or 400, assuming you've got enough bulk training data to make the algorithm worthwhile.
(Word2vec needs a lot of varied training text, with many contrasting usage examples for every word of interest, to generate good results. You may occasionally see toy-sized demos, on smaller amounts of data, just to quickly show steps, or some major qualities of the results. But good results, in the aspects for which word2vec is most appreciated, depend on plentiful training data.)
Also, whether or not your aims would be helped by the extra step of PCA to reduce the dimensionality of a larger word2vec model seems another separable question, to be determined experimentally by comparing results with and without that step, on your actual data/problem, rather than guessed at from intuitions from other projects that might not be comparable.
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.
I have data which has an associated binary outcome variable. Naturally I ran a logistic regression in order to see parameter estimates and odds ratios. I was curious though, to change this data from a binary outcome to count data. Then I ran a poisson regression (and negative binomial regression) on the count data.
I have no idea of how to compare these different models though, all comparisons I see seem to only be concerned with nested models.
How would you go about deciding on the best model to use in this situation?
Essentially both models will be roughly equal. What really matters is what is your objective- what you really want to predict. If you want to determine how many of cases are good or bad (1 or 0), then you go for logistic regression. If you are really interested on how much the cases are going to do (counts) then do poisson.
In other words, the only difference between these two models is the logistic transformation and the fact that logistic regression tries to minimize the misclassification error (-2 log likelihood) .To put it simply, even if you run a linear regression (OLS) on the binary outcome, you should not see big differences from your logistic model apart from the fact that the results may not be between 0 and 1 (e.g. the Area under the RoC curve will be similar to the logistic model) .
To sum up, don't worry about which of these two models is better, they should be roughly the same in the way the capture your features' information. Just think what makes more sense to optimize, counts or probabilties. The answer might have been different if you were considering non-linear models (e.g random forests or neural networks etc), but the two you are considering are both (almost) linear- so don't worry about it.
One thing to consider is the sample design. If you are using a case-control study, then logistic regression is the way to go because of its logit link function, rather than log of ratios as in Poisson regression. This is because, where there is an oversampling of cases such as in case-control study, odds ratio is unbiased.