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.
Related
I have a sentiment analysis dataset that is labeled in three categories: positive, negative, and neutral. I also have a list of words (mostly nouns), for which I want to calculate the sentiment value, to understand "how" (positively or negatively) these entities were talked about in the dataset. I have read some online resources like blogs and thought about a couple of approaches for calculating the sentiment score for a particular word X.
Calculate how many data instances (sentences) which have the word X in those, have "positive" labels, have "negative" labels, and "neutral" labels. Then, calculate the weighted average sentiment for that word.
Take a generic untrained BERT architecture, and then train it using the dataset. Then, pass each word from the list to that trained model to get the sentiment scores for the word.
Does any of these approaches make sense? If so, can you suggest some related works that I can look at?
If these approaches don't make sense, could you please advise how I can calculate the sentiment score for a word, in a given dataset?
The first method will suffer from the same drawbacks as other bag-of-words models do. Consider that you have a dataset of movie reviews with their sentiment scores, and you want to find the sentiment for a particular actor called X. A label for a sample like "X's acting was the only good thing in an otherwise bad movie" will be negative, but the sentiment towards X is positive. A simple approach like the first one can't handle such cases.
The second approach also does not make much sense, as the BERT models may not perform well without context. You can try using weakly supervised learning which can help in creating token-level labels. Read section 3.3 for this paper to get an idea about this. Disclaimer: I'm one of the authors of this paper.
I’m trying to check the performance of my LDA model using a confusion matrix but I have no clue what to do. I’m hoping someone can maybe just point my in the right direction.
So I ran an LDA model on a corpus filled with short documents. I then calculated the average vector of each document and then proceeded with calculating cosine similarities.
How would I now get a confusion matrix? Please note that I am very new to the world of NLP. If there is some other/better way of checking the performance of this model please let me know.
What is your model supposed to be doing? And how is it testable?
In your question you haven't described your testable assessment of the model the results of which would be represented in a confusion matrix.
A confusion matrix helps you represent and explore the different types of "accuracy" of a predictive system such as a classifier. It requires your system to make a choice (e.g. yes/no, or multi-label classifier) and you must use known test data to be able to score it against how the system should have chosen. Then you count these results in the matrix as one of the combination of possibilities, e.g. for binary choices there's two wrong and two correct.
For example, if your cosine similarities are trying to predict if a document is in the same "category" as another, and you do know the real answers, then you can score them all as to whether they were predicted correctly or wrongly.
The four possibilities for a binary choice are:
Positive prediction vs. positive actual = True Positive (correct)
Negative prediction vs. negative actual = True Negative (correct)
Positive prediction vs. negative actual = False Positive (wrong)
Negative prediction vs. positive actual = False Negative (wrong)
It's more complicated in a multi-label system as there are more combinations, but the correct/wrong outcome is similar.
About "accuracy".
There are many kinds of ways to measure how well the system performs, so it's worth reading up on this before choosing the way to score the system. The term "accuracy" means something specific in this field, and is sometimes confused with the general usage of the word.
How you would use a confusion matrix.
The confusion matrix sums (of total TP, FP, TN, FN) can fed into some simple equations which give you, these performance ratings (which are referred to by different names in different fields):
sensitivity, d' (dee-prime), recall, hit rate, or true positive rate (TPR)
specificity, selectivity or true negative rate (TNR)
precision or positive predictive value (PPV)
negative predictive value (NPV)
miss rate or false negative rate (FNR)
fall-out or false positive rate (FPR)
false discovery rate (FDR)
false omission rate (FOR)
Accuracy
F Score
So you can see that Accuracy is a specific thing, but it may not be what you think of when you say "accuracy"! The last two are more complex combinations of measure. The F Score is perhaps the most robust of these, as it's tuneable to represent your requirements by combining a mix of other metrics.
I found this wikipedia article most useful and helped understand why sometimes is best to choose one metric over the other for your application (e.g. whether missing trues is worse than missing falses). There are a group of linked articles on the same topic, from different perspectives e.g. this one about search.
This is a simpler reference I found myself returning to: http://www2.cs.uregina.ca/~dbd/cs831/notes/confusion_matrix/confusion_matrix.html
This is about sensitivity, more from a science statistical view with links to ROC charts which are related to confusion matrices, and also useful for visualising and assessing performance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_index
This article is more specific to using these in machine learning, and goes into more detail: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs578/2003fa/performance_measures.pdf
So in summary confusion matrices are one of many tools to assess the performance of a system, but you need to define the right measure first.
Real world example
I worked through this process recently in a project I worked on where the point was to find all of few relevant documents from a large set (using cosine distances like yours). This was like a recommendation engine driven by manual labelling rather than an initial search query.
I drew up a list of goals with a stakeholder in their own terms from the project domain perspective, then tried to translate or map these goals into performance metrics and statistical terms. You can see it's not just a simple choice! The hugely imbalanced nature of our data set skewed the choice of metric as some assume balanced data or else they will give you misleading results.
Hopefully this example will help you move forward.
When conducting Latent Class Analysis sometimes the information criterion (i.e., AIC, BIC, aBIC) don't select the same model. Such is the case in a study of substance use patterns that I am conducting among 774 men who have sex with men. Figure 1 shows the fit criterion plotted for each number of latent classes. BIC and CAIC select the three class model (See Figure 2). However, the aBIC selects a five class model (See Figure 2).
How do you select a model solution under these circumstances? Is there a way to select variables or collapse variables down in order to optimize results?
It is never easy to select the number of classes for LCA, but there are some rules of thumb that I follow:
Based on Nylund, Asparouhov & Muthén (2007) you want to follow BIC and bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT). Even then, they seldom agree – BLRT will tell you to pick a model with more classes, BIC will be more conservative and suggest fewer classes. But this is as close as you can get by using statistical tests.
Rely on the available theory underlying your model. Look for potential discrepancies with your theoretical knowledge and try to deduce from the theory how many classes are to be expected. There is no golden rule, LCA is a good method, but without theory it is quite meaningless. If you have little theory, what you can do to double check your findings is to relate your latent variable to a distal outcome (covariate) about which you might have some theory and see if it works out. For example, you suspect that one of your latent classes will be dominated by one gender: associate your latent variable with gender and see.
Parsimony rule: simple models are preferred to complex ones (Collins & Lanza, 2010). If a simpler model does all the work, why choose a complex one?
In your case, I would start with a 3 class model, since it is suggested by BIC and parsimony. After finishing the analysis and interpreting the findings, I would re-run the model with 4/5 classes and see if I would reach substantially different findings - something that is worth reporting on, any important or contradicting findings to what I have found with a 3 class model. If it just adds complexity, but does not contradict or improve what I have already known, I'd stick to a 3 class model.
Looking at the results, I think that the 5 class model does not provide anything beyond the 3 classes. In the 3 class model, you have one class of extensive drug users (16%), moderate drug users dominated by cannabis, popper, hallucinogens and cocaine (40%), and finally a class of light users dominated by alcohol and cannabis (44%). The 5 class model split the first two groups into specific smaller sub-groups, but you have to decide whether these splits are important for your research - whether they make sense for your research question.
I would also recommend checking bivariate residuals. It is possible that the model misfit that is suggesting more classes is generated by a residual association between your indicators. If you can justify it theoretically (for example by finding some similarity between the indicators beyond the latent class), you can add the residual association and obtain a similarly good fit with the 3 class model.
One last point, avoid using AIC for LCA altogether - it is a very poorly performing index! Use cAIC, BIC and aBIC instead. AIC does not correct for the sample size, which can be quite problematic with larger samples.
Sources:
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Wiley.
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.
I'm doing some semantic-web/nlp research, and I have a set of sparse records, containing a mix of numeric and non-numeric data, representing entities labeled with various features extracted from simple English sentences.
e.g.
uid|features
87w39423|speaker=432, session=43242, sentence=34, obj_called=bob,favorite_color_is=blue
4535k3l535|speaker=512, session=2384, sentence=7, obj_called=tree,isa=plant,located_on=wilson_street
23432424|speaker=997, session=8945305, sentence=32, obj_called=salty,isa=cat,eats=mice
09834502|speaker=876, session=43242, sentence=56, obj_called=the monkey,ate=the banana
928374923|speaker=876, session=43242, sentence=57, obj_called=it,was=delicious
294234234|speaker=876, session=43243, sentence=58, obj_called=the monkey,ate=the banana
sd09f8098|speaker=876, session=43243, sentence=59, obj_called=it,was=hungry
...
A single entity may appear more than once (but with a different UID each time), and may have overlapping features with its other occurrences. A second data set represents which of the above UIDs are definitely the same.
e.g.
uid|sameas
87w39423|234k2j,234l24jlsd,dsdf9887s
4535k3l535|09d8fgdg0d9,l2jk34kl,sd9f08sf
23432424|io43po5,2l3jk42,sdf90s8df
09834502|294234234,sd09f8098
...
What algorithm(s) would I use to incrementally train a classifier that could take a set of features, and instantly recommend the N most similar UIDs and probability of whether or not those UIDs actually represent the same entity? Optionally, I'd also like to get a recommendation of missing features to populate and then re-classify to get a more certain matches.
I researched traditional approximate nearest neighbor algorithms. such as FLANN and ANN, and I don't think these would be appropriate since they're not trainable (in a supervised learning sense) nor are they typically designed for sparse non-numeric input.
As a very naive first-attempt, I was thinking about using a naive bayesian classifier, by converting each SameAs relation into a set of training samples. So, for each entity A with B sameas relations, I would iterate over each and train the classifier like:
classifier = Classifier()
for entity,sameas_entities in sameas_dataset:
entity_features = get_features(entity)
for other_entity in sameas_entities:
other_entity_features = get_features(other_entity)
classifier.train(cls=entity, ['left_'+f for f in entity_features] + ['right_'+f for f in other_entity_features])
classifier.train(cls=other_entity, ['left_'+f for f in other_entity_features] + ['right_'+f for f in entity_features])
And then use it like:
>>> print classifier.findSameAs(dict(speaker=997, session=8945305, sentence=32, obj_called='salty',isa='cat',eats='mice'), n=7)
[(1.0, '23432424'),(0.999, 'io43po5', (1.0, '2l3jk42'), (1.0, 'sdf90s8df'), (0.76, 'jerwljk'), (0.34, 'rlekwj32424'), (0.08, '09843jlk')]
>>> print classifier.findSameAs(dict(isa='cat',eats='mice'), n=7)
[(0.09, '23432424'), (0.06, 'jerwljk'), (0.03, 'rlekwj32424'), (0.001, '09843jlk')]
>>> print classifier.findMissingFeatures(dict(isa='cat',eats='mice'), n=4)
['obj_called','has_fur','has_claws','lives_at_zoo']
How viable is this approach? The initial batch training would be horribly slow, at least O(N^2), but incremental training support would allow updates to happen more quickly.
What are better approaches?
I think this is more of a clustering than a classification problem. Your entities are data points and the sameas data is a mapping of entities to clusters. In this case, clusters are the distinct 'things' your entities refer to.
You might want to take a look at semi-supervised clustering. A brief google search turned up the paper Active Semi-Supervision for Pairwise Constrained Clustering which gives pseudocode for an algorithm that is incremental/active and uses supervision in the sense that it takes training data indicating which entities are or are not in the same cluster. You could derive this easily from your sameas data, assuming that - for example - uids 87w39423 and 4535k3l535 are definitely distinct things.
However, to get this to work you need to come up with a distance metric based on the features in the data. You have a lot of options here, for example you could use a simple Hamming distance on the features, but the choice of metric function here is a little bit arbitrary. I'm not aware of any good ways of choosing the metric, but perhaps you have already looked into this when you were considering nearest neighbour algorithms.
You can come up with confidence scores using the distance metric from the centres of the clusters. If you want an actual probability of membership then you would want to use a probabilistic clustering model, like a Gaussian mixture model. There's quite a lot of software to do Gaussian mixture modelling, I don't know of any that is semi-supervised or incremental.
There may be other suitable approaches if the question you wanted to answer was something like "given an entity, which other entities are likely to refer to the same thing?", but I don't think that is what you are after.
You may want to take a look at this method:
"Large Scale Online Learning of Image Similarity Through Ranking" Gal Chechik, Varun Sharma, Uri Shalit and Samy Bengio, Journal of Machine Learning Research (2010).
[PDF] [Project homepage]
More thoughts:
What do you mean by 'entity'? Is entity the thing that is referred by 'obj_called'? Do you use the content of 'obj_called' to match different entities, e.g. 'John' is similar to 'John Doe'? Do you use proximity between sentences to indicate similar entities? What is the greater goal (task) of the mapping?