I have training data that falls into two classes, let's say Yes and No. The data represents three tasks, easy, medium and difficult. A person performs these tasks and is classified into one of the two classes as a result. Each task is classified independently and then the results are combined. I am using 3 independently trained SVM classifiers and then voting on the final result.
I am looking to provide a measure of confidence or probability associated with each classification. LIBSVM can provide a probability estimate along with the classification for each task (easy, medium and difficult, say Pe, Pm and Pd) but I am unsure of how best to combine these into an overall estimate for the final classification of the person (let's call it Pp).
My attempts so far have been along the lines of a simple average:
Pp = (Pe + Pm + Pd) / 3
An Inverse-variance weighted average (since each task is repeated a few times and sample variance (VARe, VARm and VARd) can be calculated - in which case Pe would be a simple average of all the easy samples):
Pp = (Pe/VARe + Pm/VARm + Pd/VARd) / (( 1/VARe ) + ( 1/VARm ) + ( 1/VARd ))
Or a multiplication (under the assumption that these events are independent, which I am unsure of since the underlying tasks are related):
Pp = Pe * Pm * Pd
The multiplication would provide a very low number, so it's unclear how to interpret that as an overall probability when the results of the voting are very clear.
Would any of these three options be the best or is there some other method / detail I'm overlooking?
Based on your comment, I will make the following suggestion. If you need to do this as an SVM (and because, as you say, you get better performance when you do it this way), take the output from your intermediate classifiers and feed them as features to your final classifier. Even better, switch to a multi-layer Neural Net where your inputs represent inputs to the intermediates, the (first) hidden layer represents outputs to the intermediate problem, and subsequent layer(s) represent the final decision you want. This way you get the benefit of an intermediate layer, but its output is optimised to help with the final prediction rather than for accuracy in its own right (which I assume you don't really care about).
The correct generative model for these tests likely looks something like the following:
Generate an intelligence/competence score i
For each test t: generate pass/fail according to p_t(pass | i)
This is simplified, but I think it should illustrate tht you have a latent variable i on which these tests depend (and there's also structure between them, since presumably p_easy(pass|i) > p_medium(pass|i) > p_hard(pass|i); you could potentially model this as a logistic regression with a continuous 'hardness' feature). I suspect what you're asking about is a way to do inference on some thresholding function of i, but you want to do it in a classification way rather than as a probabilistic model. That's fine, but without explicitly encoding the latent variable and the structure between the tests it's going to be hard (and no average of the probabilities will account for the missing structure).
I hope that helps---if I've made assumptions that aren't justified, please feel free to correct.
Related
I need to model a multi-variate time-series data to predict a binary-target which is rarely 1 (imbalanced data).
This means that we want to model based on one feature is binary (outbreak), rarely 1?
All of the features are binary and rarely 1.
What is the suggested solution?
This features has an effect on cost function based on the following cost function. We want to know prepared or not prepared if the cost is the same as following.
Problem Definition:
Model based on outbreak which is rarely 1.
Prepared or not prepared to avoid the outbreak of a disease and the cost of outbreak is 20 times of preparation
cost of each day(next day):
cost=20*outbreak*!prepared+prepared
Model:prepare(prepare for next day)for outbreak for which days?
Questions:
Build a model to predict outbreaks?
Report the cost estimation for every year
csv file is uploaded and data is for end of the day
The csv file contains rows which each row is a day with its different features some of them are binary and last feature is outbreak which is rarely 1 and a main features considering in the cost.
You are describing class imbalance.
Typical approach is to generate balanced training data
by repeatedly running through examples containing
your (rare) positive class,
and each time choosing a new random sample
from the negative class.
Also, pay attention to your cost function.
You wouldn't want to reward a simple model
for always choosing the majority class.
My suggestions:
Supervised Approach
SMOTE for upsampling
Xgboost by tuning scale_pos_weight
replicate minority class eg:10 times
Try to use ensemble tree algorithms, trying to generate a linear surface is risky for your case.
Since your data is time series you can generate days with minority class just before real disease happened. For example you have minority class at 2010-07-20. Last observations before that time is 2010-06-27. You can generate observations by slightly changing variance as 2010-07-15, 2010-07-18 etc.
Unsupervised Approach
Try Anomaly Detection algorithms. Such as IsolationForest (try extended version of it also).
Cluster your observations check minority class becomes a cluster itself or not. If its successful you can label your data with cluster names (cluster1, cluster2, cluster3 etc) then train a decision tree to see split patterns. (Kmeans + DecisionTreeClassifier)
Model Evaluation
Set up a cost matrix. Do not use confusion matrix precision etc directly. You can find further information about cost matrix in here: http://mlwiki.org/index.php/Cost_Matrix
Note:
According to OP's question in comments groupby year could be done like this:
df["date"] = pd.to_datetime(df["date"])
df.groupby(df["date"].dt.year).mean()
You can use other aggregators also (mean, sum, count, etc)
I have a multi-class text classification/categorization problem. I have a set of ground truth data with K different mutually exclusive classes. This is an unbalanced problem in two respects. First, some classes are a lot more frequent than others. Second, some classes are of more interest to us than others (those generally positively correlate with their relative frequency, although there are some classes of interest that are fairly rare).
My goal is to develop a single classifier or a collection of them to be able to classify the k << K classes of interest with high precision (at least 80%) while maintaining reasonable recall (what's "reasonable" is a bit vague).
Features that I use are mostly typical unigram-/bigram-based ones plus some binary features coming from metadata of the incoming documents that are being classified (e.g. whether them were submitted via email or though a webform).
Because of the unbalanced data, I am leaning toward developing binary classifiers for each of the important classes, instead of a single one like a multi-class SVM.
What ML learning algorithms (binary or not) implemented in scikit-learn allow for training tuned to precision (versus for example recall or F1) and what options do I need to set for that?
What data analysis tools in scikit-learn can be used for feature selection to narrow down the features that might be the most relevant to the precision-oriented classification of a particular class?
This is not really a "big data" problem: K is about 100, k is about 15, the total number of samples available to me for training and testing is about 100,000.
Thx
Given that k is small, I would just do this manually. For each desired class, train your individual (one vs the rest) classifier, take look at the precision-recall curve, and then choose the threshold that gives the desired precision.
I am currently modeling some data using a binary logistic regression. The dependent variable has a good number of positive cases and negative cases - it is not sparse. I also have a large training set (> 100,000) and the number of main effects I'm interested in is about 15 so I'm not worried about a p>n issue.
What I'm concerned about is that many of my predictor variables, if continuous, are zero most of the time, and if nominal, are null most of the time. When these sparse predictor variables take a value > 0 (or not null), I know because of familiarity with the data that they should be of importance in predicting my positive cases. I have been trying to look for information on how the sparseness of these predictors could be affecting my model.
In particular, I would not want the effect of a sparse but important variable to be not included in my model if there is another predictor variable that is not sparse and is correlated but actually doesn't do as good a job of predicting the positive cases. To illustrate an example, if I were trying to model whether or not someone ended up being accepted at a particular ivy league university and my three predictors were SAT score, GPA, and "donation > $1M" as a binary, I have reason to believe that "donation >$1M", when true, is going to be very predictive of acceptance - more so than a high GPA or SAT - but it is also very sparse. How, if at all, is this going to effect my logistic model and do I need to make adjustments for this? Also, would another type of model (say decision tree, random forest, etc) handle this better?
Thanks,
Christie
I am trying to predict test reuslts based on known previous scores. The test is made up of three subjects, each contributing to the final exam score. For all students I have their previous scores for mini-tests in each of the three subjects, and I know which teacher they had. For half of the students (the training set) I have their final score, for the other half I don't (the test set). I want predict their final score.
So the test set looks like this:
student teacher subject1score subject2score subject3score finalscore
while the test set is the same but without the final score
student teacher subject1score subject2score subject3score
So I want to predict the final score of the test set students. Any ideas for a simple learning algorithm or statistical technique to use?
The simplest and most reasonable method to try is a linear regression, with the teacher and the three scores used as predictors. (This is based on the assumption that the teacher and the three test scores will each have some predictive ability towards the final exam, but they could contribute differently- for example, the third test might matter the most).
You don't mention a specific language, but let's say you loaded it into R as two data frames called 'training.scoresandtest.scores`. Fitting the model would be as simple as using lm:
lm.fit = lm(finalscore ~ teacher + subject1score + subject2score + subject3score, training.scores)
And then the prediction would be done as:
predicted.scores = predict(lm.fit, test.scores)
Googling for "R linear regression", "R linear models", or similar searches will find many resources that can help. You can also learn about slightly more sophisticated methods such as generalized linear models or generalized additive models, which are almost as easy to perform as the above.
ETA: There have been books written about the topic of interpreting linear regression- an example simple guide is here. In general, you'll be printing summary(lm.fit) to print a bunch of information about the fit. You'll see a table of coefficients in the output that will look something like:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -14.4511 7.0938 -2.037 0.057516 .
setting 0.2706 0.1079 2.507 0.022629 *
effort 0.9677 0.2250 4.301 0.000484 ***
The Estimate will give you an idea how strong the effect of that variable was, while the p-values (Pr(>|T|)) give you an idea whether each variable actually helped or was due to random noise. There's a lot more to it, but I invite you to read the excellent resources available online.
Also plot(lm.fit) will graphs of the residuals (residuals mean the amount each prediction is off by in your testing set), which tells you can use to determine whether the assumptions of the model are fair.
I am hand tagging twitter messages as Positive, Negative, Neutral. I am try to appreciate is there some logic one can use to identify of the training set what proportion of message should be positive / negative and neutral ?
So for e.g. if I am training a Naive Bayes classifier with 1000 twitter messages should the proportion of pos : neg : neutral be 33 % : 33% : 33% or should it be 25 % : 25 % : 50 %
Logically in my head it seems that I i train (i.e. give more samples for neutral) that the system would be better at identifying neutral sentences then whether they are positive or negative - is that true ? or I am missing some theory here ?
Thanks
Rahul
The problem you're referring to is known as the imbalance problem. Many machine learning algorithms perform badly when confronted with imbalanced training data, i.e. when the instances of one class heavily outnumber those of the other class. Read this article to get a good overview of the problem and how to approach it. For techniques like naive bayes or decision trees it is always a good idea to balance your data somehow, e.g. by random oversampling (explained in the references paper). I disagree with mjv's suggestion to have a training set match the proportions in the real world. This may be appropriate in some cases but I'm quite confident it's not in your setting. For a classification problem like the one you describe, the more the sizes of the class sets differ, the more most ML algorithms will have problems discriminating the classes properly. However, you can always use the information about which class is the largest in reality by taking it as a fallback such that when the classifier's confidence for a particular instance is low or this instance couldn't be classified at all, you would assign it the largest class.
One further remark: finding the positivity/negativity/neutrality in Twitter messages seems to me to be a question of degree. As such, it may be viewes as a regression rather than a classification problem, i.e. instead of a three class scheme you perhaps may want calculate a score which tells you how positive/negative the message is.
There are many other factors... but an important one (in determining a suitable ratio and volume of training data) is the expected distribution of each message category (Positive, Neutral, Negative) in the real world. Effectively, a good baseline for the training set (and the control set) is
[qualitatively] as representative as possible of the whole "population"
[quantitatively] big enough that measurements made from such sets is statistically significant.
The effect of the [relative] abundance of a certain category of messages in the training set is hard to determine; it is in any case a lesser factor -or rather one that is highly sensitive to- other factors. Improvements in the accuracy of the classifier, as a whole, or with regards to a particular category, is typically tied more to the specific implementation of the classifier (eg. is it Bayesian, what are the tokens, are noise token eliminated, is proximity a factor, are we using bi-grams etc...) than to purely quantitative characteristics of the training set.
While the above is generally factual but moderately helpful for the selection of the training set's size and composition, there are ways of determining, post facto, when an adequate size and composition of training data has been supplied.
One way to achieve this is to introduce a control set, i.e. one manually labeled but that is not part of the training set and to measure for different test runs with various subsets of the training set, the recall and precision obtained for each category (or some similar accuracy measurements), for this the classification of the control set. When these measurements do not improve or degrade, beyond what's statistically representative, the size and composition of the training [sub-]set is probably the right one (unless it is an over-fitting set :-(, but that's another issue altogether... )
This approach, implies that one uses a training set that could be 3 to 5 times the size of the training subset effectively needed, so that one can build, randomly (within each category), many different subsets for the various tests.