Source:- https://machinelearningmastery.com/k-nearest-neighbors-for-machine-learning/
This page has a section quoting the following passage:-
Best Prepare Data for KNN
Rescale Data: KNN performs much better if all of the data has the same scale. Normalizing your data to the range [0, 1] is a good idea. It may also be a good idea to standardize your data if it has a Gaussian
distribution.
Address Missing Data: Missing data will mean that the distance between samples cannot be calculated. These samples could be excluded or the missing values could be imputed.
Lower Dimensionality: KNN is suited for lower dimensional data. You can try it on high dimensional data (hundreds or thousands of input variables) but be aware that it may not perform as well as other techniques. KNN can benefit from feature selection that reduces the dimensionality of the input feature space.
Please, can someone explain the Second point, i.e. Address Missing Data, in detail?
Missing data in this context means that some samples do not have all the existing features.
For example:
Suppose you have a database with age and height for a group of individuals.
This would mean that for some persons either the height or the age is missing.
Now, why this affects KNN?
Given a test sample
KNN finds the samples that are closer to it (Aka: the students with similar age and height).
KNN does this to make some inference about the test sample based on its nearest neighbors.
If you want to find these neighbors you must be able to compute the distance between samples. To compute the distance between 2 samples you must have all the features for these 2 samples.
If some of them are missing you won't be able to compute distance.
So implicitly you would be lossing the samples with missing data
I've implemented a fuzzy search algorithm based on a N closest neighbors query for given search terms. Each query returns a pre-set number of raw results, in my case a max. of 200 hits / query, sorted descending by score, highest score first.
The raw search already produces good results, but in some rather rare cases not good enough so I've added another post-processing layer or better said another metric to the raw search results based on Levenshtein-Damerau algorithm that measures the word / phrase distance between query term(s) and raw results. The lower the resulting score the better, 0.0 would be an exact match.
Using the Levenshtein-Damerau post-processing algorithm I sort the results ascending, from the lowest to the highest.
The quality of matches is amazingly good and all relevant hits are ranked to the top. Still I have the bulk of 200 hits from the core search and I am looking for a smart way to limit the final result set down to a maximum of 10-20 hits. I could just add a static limit as it is basically done. But I wonder if there is a better way to do this based on the individual metrics I get with each search result set.
I have the following result metrics:
The result score of the fuzzy core search search, a value of type float/double. The higher the better
The Levenshtein-Damerau post processing weight, another value of type float/double. The lower the better
And finally each result set knows its minimum and maximum score limits. Using the Levenshtein-Damerau post processing algorithm on the raw results I take the min/max values from there.
The only ideas I have is to take a sub-range out of the result set, something like the top 20% results which is simple to achieve. More interesting would be to analyse the top result scores/metrics and find some indication where it gets too fuzzy. I could use the metrics I gather inside my Levenshtein-Damerau algorithm layer, respectively the word- and phrase-distance parameters - these values along with 2 other parameters make up the final distance score. For example if the word- and/or phrase distance exceed a certain threshold, then skip the result. This way is a bit more complicated but possible.
Well, I wonder if there are more opportunities I could use and just not obviously see. Once again, I would like to omit a static limit and make it more flexible on each individual result set.
Any hints or further ideas are greatly appreciated.
Im using Mahout's Naive Bayes algorithm to classify Amazon reviews into positive or negative review.
The data set isn't equally distributed. There are far more positive then negative reviews. A randomly picked test and training set with the mahout split using randomly picked tuples leads to good positive classification results but the false positive rate is also very high. Negative reviews are rarely classified as negative.
I guess an equally distributed training set with equal numbers of positive and negative tupels might solve the problem.
I've tried using mahout split with these options and then just switch training and test but this seems to only produce tupels for one class.
--testSplitSize (-ss) testSplitSize The number of documents
held back as test data for
each category
--testSplitPct (-sp) testSplitPct The % of documents held
back as test data for each
category
--splitLocation (-sl) splitLocation Location for start of test
data expressed as a
percentage of the input
file size (0=start,
50=middle, 100=end
Is there a way with mahout split or another to get proper training set?
I would say the training and test sets should reflex the under population. I would not create a test set with equal positive and negative reviews.
A better solution might be to create multiple sets via bootstrapping. Let a committee vote improve your results.
I'm trying to devise a method that will be able to classify a given number of english words into 2 sets - "rare" and "common" - the reference being to how much they are used in the language.
The number of words I would like to classify is bounded - currently at around 10,000, and include everything from articles, to proper nouns that could be borrowed from other languages (and would thus be classified as "rare"). I've done some frequency analysis from within the corpus, and I have a distribution of these words (ranging from 1 use, to tops about 100).
My intuition for such a system was to use word lists (such as the BNC word frequency corpus, wordnet, internal corpus frequency), and assign weights to its occurrence in one of them.
For instance, a word that has a mid level frequency in the corpus, (say 50), but appears in a word list W - can be regarded as common since its one of the most frequent in the entire language. My question was - whats the best way to create a weighted score for something like this? Should I go discrete or continuous? In either case, what kind of a classification system would work best for this?
Or do you recommend an alternative method?
Thanks!
EDIT:
To answer Vinko's question on the intended use of the classification -
These words are tokenized from a phrase (eg: book title) - and the intent is to figure out a strategy to generate a search query string for the phrase, searching a text corpus. The query string can support multiple parameters such as proximity, etc - so if a word is common, these params can be tweaked.
To answer Igor's question -
(1) how big is your corpus?
Currently, the list is limited to 10k tokens, but this is just a training set. It could go up to a few 100k once I start testing it on the test set.
2) do you have some kind of expected proportion of common/rare words in the corpus?
Hmm, I do not.
Assuming you have a way to evaluate the classification, you can use the "boosting" approach to machine learning. Boosting classifiers use a set of weak classifiers combined to a strong classifier.
Say, you have your corpus and K external wordlists you can use.
Pick N frequency thresholds. For example, you may have 10 thresholds: 0.1%, 0.2%, ..., 1.0%.
For your corpus and each of the external word lists, create N "experts", one expert per threshold per wordlist/corpus, total of N*(K+1) experts. Each expert is a weak classifier, with a very simple rule: if the frequency of the word is higher than its threshold, they consider the word to be "common". Each expert has a weight.
The learning process is as follows: assign the weight 1 to each expert. For each word in your corpus, make the experts vote. Sum their votes: 1 * weight(i) for "common" votes and (-1) * weight(i) for "rare" votes. If the result is positive, mark the word as common.
Now, the overall idea is to evaluate the classification and increase the weight of experts that were right and decrease the weight of the experts that were wrong. Then repeat the process again and again, until your evaluation is good enough.
The specifics of the weight adjustment depends on the way how you evaluate the classification. For example, if you don't have per-word evaluation, you may still evaluate the classification as "too many common" or "too many rare" words. In the first case, promote all the pro-"rare" experts and demote all pro-"common" experts, or vice-versa.
Your distribution is most likely a Pareto distribution (a superset of Zipf's law as mentioned above). I am shocked that the most common word is used only 100 times - this is including "a" and "the" and words like that? You must have a small corpus if that is the same.
Anyways, you will have to choose a cutoff for "rare" and "common". One potential choice is the mean expected number of appearances (see the linked wiki article above to calculate the mean). Because of the "fat tail" of the distribution, a fairly small number of words will have appearances above the mean -- these are the "common". The rest are "rare". This will have the effect that many more words are rare than common. Not sure if that is what you are going for but you can just move the cutoff up and down to get your desired distribution (say, all words with > 50% of expected value are "common").
While this is not an answer to your question, you should know that you are inventing a wheel here.
Information Retrieval experts have devised ways to weight search words according to their frequency. A very popular weight is TF-IDF, which uses a word's frequency in a document and its frequency in a corpus. TF-IDF is also explained here.
An alternative score is the Okapi BM25, which uses similar factors.
See also the Lucene Similarity documentation for how TF-IDF is implemented in a popular search library.
What is an algorithm to compare multiple sets of numbers against a target set to determine which ones are the most "similar"?
One use of this algorithm would be to compare today's hourly weather forecast against historical weather recordings to find a day that had similar weather.
The similarity of two sets is a bit subjective, so the algorithm really just needs to diferentiate between good matches and bad matches. We have a lot of historical data, so I would like to try to narrow down the amount of days the users need to look through by automatically throwing out sets that aren't close and trying to put the "best" matches at the top of the list.
Edit:
Ideally the result of the algorithm would be comparable to results using different data sets. For example using the mean square error as suggested by Niles produces pretty good results, but the numbers generated when comparing the temperature can not be compared to numbers generated with other data such as Wind Speed or Precipitation because the scale of the data is different. Some of the non-weather data being is very large, so the mean square error algorithm generates numbers in the hundreds of thousands compared to the tens or hundreds that is generated by using temperature.
I think the mean square error metric might work for applications such as weather compares. It's easy to calculate and gives numbers that do make sense.
Since your want to compare measurements over time you can just leave out missing values from the calculation.
For values that are not time-bound or even unsorted, multi-dimensional scatter data it's a bit more difficult. Choosing a good distance metric becomes part of the art of analysing such data.
Use the pearson correlation coefficient. I figured out how to calculate it in an SQL query which can be found here: http://vanheusden.com/misc/pearson.php
In finance they use Beta to measure the correlation of 2 series of numbers. EG, Beta could answer the question "Over the last year, how much would the price of IBM go up on a day that the price of the S&P 500 index went up 5%?" It deals with the percentage of the move, so the 2 series can have different scales.
In my example, the Beta is Covariance(IBM, S&P 500) / Variance(S&P 500).
Wikipedia has pages explaining Covariance, Variance, and Beta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance)
Look at statistical sites. I think you are looking for correlation.
As an example, I'll assume you're measuring temp, wind, and precip. We'll call these items "features". So valid values might be:
Temp: -50 to 100F (I'm in Minnesota, USA)
Wind: 0 to 120 Miles/hr (not sure if this is realistic but bear with me)
Precip: 0 to 100
Start by normalizing your data. Temp has a range of 150 units, Wind 120 units, and Precip 100 units. Multiply your wind units by 1.25 and Precip by 1.5 to make them roughly the same "scale" as your temp. You can get fancy here and make rules that weigh one feature as more valuable than others. In this example, wind might have a huge range but usually stays in a smaller range so you want to weigh it less to prevent it from skewing your results.
Now, imagine each measurement as a point in multi-dimensional space. This example measures 3d space (temp, wind, precip). The nice thing is, if we add more features, we simply increase the dimensionality of our space but the math stays the same. Anyway, we want to find the historical points that are closest to our current point. The easiest way to do that is Euclidean distance. So measure the distance from our current point to each historical point and keep the closest matches:
for each historicalpoint
distance = sqrt(
pow(currentpoint.temp - historicalpoint.temp, 2) +
pow(currentpoint.wind - historicalpoint.wind, 2) +
pow(currentpoint.precip - historicalpoint.precip, 2))
if distance is smaller than the largest distance in our match collection
add historicalpoint to our match collection
remove the match with the largest distance from our match collection
next
This is a brute-force approach. If you have the time, you could get a lot fancier. Multi-dimensional data can be represented as trees like kd-trees or r-trees. If you have a lot of data, comparing your current observation with every historical observation would be too slow. Trees speed up your search. You might want to take a look at Data Clustering and Nearest Neighbor Search.
Cheers.
Talk to a statistician.
Seriously.
They do this type of thing for a living.
You write that the "similarity of two sets is a bit subjective", but it's not subjective at all-- it's a matter of determining the appropriate criteria for similarity for your problem domain.
This is one of those situation where you are much better off speaking to a professional than asking a bunch of programmers.
First of all, ask yourself if these are sets, or ordered collections.
I assume that these are ordered collections with duplicates. The most obvious algorithm is to select a tolerance within which numbers are considered the same, and count the number of slots where the numbers are the same under that measure.
I do have a solution implemented for this in my application, but I'm looking to see if there is something that is better or more "correct". For each historical day I do the following:
function calculate_score(historical_set, forecast_set)
{
double c = correlation(historical_set, forecast_set);
double avg_history = average(historical_set);
double avg_forecast = average(forecast_set);
double penalty = abs(avg_history - avg_forecast) / avg_forecast
return c - penalty;
}
I then sort all the results from high to low.
Since the correlation is a value from -1 to 1 that says whether the numbers fall or rise together, I then "penalize" that with the percentage difference the averages of the two sets of numbers.
A couple of times, you've mentioned that you don't know the distribution of the data, which is of course true. I mean, tomorrow there could be a day that is 150 degree F, with 2000km/hr winds, but it seems pretty unlikely.
I would argue that you have a very good idea of the distribution, since you have a long historical record. Given that, you can put everything in terms of quantiles of the historical distribution, and do something with absolute or squared difference of the quantiles on all measures. This is another normalization method, but one that accounts for the non-linearities in the data.
Normalization in any style should make all variables comparable.
As example, let's say that a day it's a windy, hot day: that might have a temp quantile of .75, and a wind quantile of .75. The .76 quantile for heat might be 1 degree away, and the one for wind might be 3kmh away.
This focus on the empirical distribution is easy to understand as well, and could be more robust than normal estimation (like Mean-square-error).
Are the two data sets ordered, or not?
If ordered, are the indices the same? equally spaced?
If the indices are common (temperatures measured on the same days (but different locations), for example, you can regress the first data set against the second,
and then test that the slope is equal to 1, and that the intercept is 0.
http://stattrek.com/AP-Statistics-4/Test-Slope.aspx?Tutorial=AP
Otherwise, you can do two regressions, of the y=values against their indices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation. You'd still want to compare slopes and intercepts.
====
If unordered, I think you want to look at the cumulative distribution functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_distribution_function
One relevant test is Kolmogorov-Smirnov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov-Smirnov_test
You could also look at
Student's t-test,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test
or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcoxon_signed-rank_test
to test equality of means between the two samples.
And you could test for equality of variances with a Levene test http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35a.htm
Note: it is possible for dissimilar sets of data to have the same mean and variance -- depending on how rigorous you want to be (and how much data you have), you could consider testing for equality of higher moments, as well.
Maybe you can see your set of numbers as a vector (each number of the set being a componant of the vector).
Then you can simply use dot product to compute the similarity of 2 given vectors (i.e. set of numbers).
You might need to normalize your vectors.
More : Cosine similarity