I currently am working on a time series witch 430 attributes and approx. 80k instances. Now I would like to binary classify each instance (not the whole ts). Everything I found about classifying TS talked about labeling the whole thing.
Is it possible to classify each instance with something like a SVM completely disregarding the sequential nature of the data or would that only result in a really bad classifier?
Which other options are there which classify each instance but still look at the data as a time series?
If the data is labeled, you may have luck by concatenating attributes together, so each instance becomes a single long time series, and by applying the so-called Shapelet Transform. This would result in a vector of values for each of time series which can be fed into SVM, Random Forest, or any other classifier. It could be that picking a right shapelets will allow you to focus on a single attribute when classifying instances.
If it is not labeled, you may try the unsupervised shapelets application first to explore your data and proceed with aforementioned shapelet transform after.
It certainly depends on the data within the 430 attributes,
data types, and especially the problem you want to solve.
In time series analysis, you usually want to exploit the dependencies between the neighboring points, i.e., how they change in time. The examples you may find in books usually talk about a single function f(t): Time -> Real. If I understand it correctly, you want to focus just on the dependencies among the 430 attributes (vertical dependencies) and disregard the horizontal dependencies.
If I were you, I would first try to train multiple classifiers (SVM, Maximum entropy model, Multi-layer perceptron, Random forest, Probabilistic Neural Network, ...) and compare their prediction performance in the frame of your problem.
For training, you can start by feeding all 430 attributes as features to Maxent classifier (can easily handle millions of features).
You also need to perform some N-fold cross-validation to see whether the classifiers are not overfitted. Then pick the best that solves your problem "good enough".
Other ideas if this approach does not perform well:
include features from t-1, t-2...
perform feature selection by trying different subsets of features
derive new time series such as moving averages, wavelet spectrum ... and use them as new features
A nice implementation of Maxent classifier can be found in openNLP.
Related
I am working on Word2Vec model. Is there any way to get the ideal value for one of its parameter i.e iter. Like the way we used do in K-Means (Elbo curve plot) to get the K value.Or is there any other way for parameter tuning on this model.
There's no one ideal set of parameters for a word2vec session – it depends on your intended usage of the word-vectors.
For example, some research has suggested that using a larger window tends to position the final vectors in a way that's more sensitive to topical/domain similarity, while a smaller window value shifts the word-neighborhoods to be more syntactic/functional drop-in replacements for each other. So depending on your particular project goals, you'd want a different value here.
(Similarly, because the original word2vec paper evaluated models, & tuned model meta-parameters, based on the usefulness of the word-vectors to solve a set of English-language analogy problems, many have often tuned their models to do well on the same analogy task. But I've seen cases where the model that scores best on those analogies does worse when contributing to downstream classification tasks.)
So what you really want is a project-specific way to score a set of word-vectors, well-matched to your goals. Then, you run many alternate word2vec training sessions, and pick the parameters that do best on your score.
The case of iter/epochs is special, in that by the logic of the underlying stochastic-gradient-descent optimization method, you'd ideally want to use as many training-epochs as necessary for the per-epoch running 'loss' to stop improving. At that point, the model is plausibly as good as it can be – 'converged' – given its inherent number of free-parameters and structure. (Any further internal adjustments that improve it for some examples worsen it for others, and vice-versa.)
So potentially, you'd watch this 'loss', and choose a number of training-iterations that's just enough to show the 'loss' stagnating (jittering up-and-down in a tight window) for a few passes. However, the loss-reporting in gensim isn't yet quite optimal – see project bug #2617 – and many word2vec implementations, including gensim and going back to the original word2vec.c code released by Google researchers, just let you set a fixed count of training iterations, rather than implement any loss-sensitive stopping rules.
This is my first brush with machine learning, so I'm trying to figure out how this all works. I have a dataset where I've compiled all the statistics of each player to play with my high school baseball team. I also have a list of all the players that have ever made it to the MLB from my high school. What I'd like to do is split the data into a training set and a test set, and then feed it to some algorithm in the scikit-learn package and predict the probability of making the MLB.
So I looked through a number of sources and found this cheat sheet that suggests I start with linear SVC.
So, then as I understand it I need to break my data into training samples where each row is a player and each column is a piece of data about the player (batting average, on base percentage, yada, yada), X_train; and a corresponding truth matrix of a single row per player that is simply 1 (played in MLB) or 0 (did not play in MLB), Y_train. From there, I just do Fit(X,Y) and then I can use predict(X_test) to see if it gets the right values for Y_test.
Does this seem a logical choice of algorithm, method, and application?
EDIT to provide more information:
The data is made of 20 features such as number of games played, number of hits, number of Home Runs, number of Strike Outs, etc. Most are basic counting statistics about the players career; a few are rates such as batting average.
I have about 10k total rows to work with, so I can split the data based on that; but I have no idea how to optimally split the data, given that <1% have made the MLB.
Alright, here are a few steps that might want to make:
Prepare your data set. In practice, you might want to scale the features, but we'll leave it out to make the first working model as simple as possible. So will just need to split the dataset into test/train set. You could shuffle the records manually and take the first X% of the examples as the train set, but there's already a function for it in scikit-learn library: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.model_selection.train_test_split.html. You might want to make sure that both: positive and negative examples are present in the train and test set. To do so, you can separate them before the test/train split to make sure that, say 70% of negative examples and 70% of positive examples go the training set.
Let's pick a simple classifier. I'll use logistic regression here: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.linear_model.LogisticRegression.html, but other classifiers have a similar API.
Creating the classifier and training it is easy:
clf = LogisticRegression()
clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
Now it's time to make our first predictions:
y_pred = clf.predict(X_test)
A very important part of the model is its evaluation. Using accuracy is not a good idea here: the number of positive examples is very small, so the model that unconditionally returns 0 can get a very high score. We can use the f1 score instead: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.metrics.f1_score.html.
If you want to predict probabilities instead of labels, you can just use the predict_proba method of the classifier.
That's it. We have a working model! Of course, there are a lot thing you may try to improve, such as scaling the features, trying different classifiers, tuning their hyperparameters, but this should be enough to get started.
If you don't have a lot of experience in ML, in scikit learn you have classification algorithms (if the target of your dataset is a boolean or a categorical variable) or regression algorithms (if the target is a continuous variable).
If you have a classification problem, and your variables are in a very different scale a good starting point is a decision tree:
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.tree.DecisionTreeClassifier.html
The classifier is a Tree and you can see the decisions that are taking in the nodes.
After that you can use random forest, that is a group of decision trees that average results:
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.ensemble.RandomForestClassifier.html
After that you can put the same scale in every feature:
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.preprocessing.StandardScaler.html
And you can use other algorithms like SVMs.
For every algorithm you need a technique to select its parameters, for example cross validation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics)
But a good course is the best option to learn. In coursera you can find several good courses like this:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning
I am using the Caffe framework for CNN training. My aim is to perform simple object recognition for a few basic object categories. Since pretrained networks are not an alternative for my proposed usage I prepared an own training- and testset with about 1000 images for each of 2 classes (say chairs and cars).
The results are quite good. If I present an yet unseen image of a chair it is likely classified as such, same for a car image. My problem is that the results on miscellaneous images that do not show any of these classes often shows a very high confidence (=1) for one random class (which is not surprising regarding the onesided training data but a problem for my application). I thought about different solutions:
1) Adding a third class with also about 1000 negative examples that shows any objects except a chair and a car.
2) Adding more object categories in general, just to let the network classify other objects as such and not any more as a chair or car (of course this would require much effort). Maybe also the broader prediction results would show a more uniform distribution at negative images, allowing to evaluate the target objects presence based on a threshold?
Because it was not much time-consuming to grab random images as negative examples from the internet, I already tested my first solution with about 1200 negative examples. It helped, but the problem remains, perhaps because it were just too few? My concern is that if I increment the number of negative examples, the imbalance of the number of examples for each class leads to less accurate detection of the original classes.
After some research I found one person with a similar problem, but there was no solution:
Convolutional Neural Networks with Caffe and NEGATIVE IMAGES
My question is: Has anyone had the same problem and knows how to deal with it? What way would you recommend, adding more negative examples or more object categories or do you have any other recommendation?
The problem is not unique to Caffe or ConvNets. Any Machine Learning technique runs this risk. In the end, all classifiers take a vector in some input space (usually very high-dimensional), which means they partition that input space. You've given examples of two partitions, which helps to estimate the boundary between the two, but only that boundary. Both partitions have very, very large boundaries, precisely because the input space is so high-dimensional.
ConvNets do try to tackle the high-dimensionality of image data by having fairly small convolution kernels. Realistic negative data helps in training those, and the label wouldn't really matter. You could even use the input image as goal (i.e. train it as an autoencoder) when training the convolution kernels.
One general reason why you don't want to lump all counterexamples is because they may be too varied. If you have a class A with some feature value from the range [-1,+1] on some scale, with counterexamples B [-2,-1] and C [+1,+2], lumping B and C together creates a range [-2,+2] for counterexamples which overlaps the real real range. Given enough data and powerful enough classifiers, this is not fatal, but for instance an SVM can fail badly on this.
Are there any internal validity indices/methods to evaluate the quality of my algorithm, which don't mostly depend on the proximity measure (e.g., distance matrix)?
All the conventional measures (such as: silhouette, Dunn index, N-cut, DB index, etc.) depends on how well you defined a proximity over the data and on the final partition, rather the data itself.
There is no such thing as "depending on the data itself", data is an abstract term which can describe set of elephants or rings isomorphisms. In order to define any index you need to use one of two things:
In supervised scenario (when you know some class of objects, not neceserly use it for trianing, but you have to know them) you can use these labels to calculate impurity, or any other classification derived score
in unsupervised scenario you have to use some similarity measure, which can be very arbitrary, it might be an inverse of some metric, but it might be completely abstract measure derived from asking some people "are these element similar?", it might consists elements that are not comparable ("nans" in the matrix), it might be not symmetric, but some similarity measure is crucial, there is no "magical", "deep" meaning "in the data". You may extract similarity measure from some different models (like generative models, autoencoders etc.) but it is still the same conceptually, simply instead of giving the rules by hand, you give an algorithm by hand which extracts the rules.
To sum up. You cannot evaluate a clustering as such, you can only evaluate how well it works for a particular task, and this task can be:
some bigger problem, where clustering is just one of the steps and you plug your clustering and observe change in the whole system's quality
optimization of some class-based criterion (supervised)
optimization of some similarity/distance based criterion (unsupervised)
There are no more options. Unsupervised learning is not a real, well posed problem, this is only a tool to simplify some real problems. As a result you won't ever be able to say "this clustering is good", you might only say that "this clustering is good in task A,B,C under assumption of pipelines X,Y,Z"
Background
Here is the problem:
A black box outputs a new number each day.
Those numbers have been recorded for a period of time.
Detect when a new number from the black box falls outside the pattern of numbers established over the time period.
The numbers are integers, and the time period is a year.
Question
What algorithm will identify a pattern in the numbers?
The pattern might be simple, like always ascending or always descending, or the numbers might fall within a narrow range, and so forth.
Ideas
I have some ideas, but am uncertain as to the best approach, or what solutions already exist:
Machine learning algorithms?
Neural network?
Classify normal and abnormal numbers?
Statistical analysis?
Cluster your data.
If you don't know how many modes your data will have, use something like a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) along with a scoring function (e.g., Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC)) so you can automatically detect the likely number of clusters in your data. I recommend this instead of k-means if you have no idea what value k is likely to be. Once you've constructed a GMM for you data for the past year, given a new datapoint x, you can calculate the probability that it was generated by any one of the clusters (modeled by a Gaussian in the GMM). If your new data point has low probability of being generated by any one of your clusters, it is very likely a true outlier.
If this sounds a little too involved, you will be happy to know that the entire GMM + BIC procedure for automatic cluster identification has been implemented for you in the excellent MCLUST package for R. I have used it several times to great success for such problems.
Not only will it allow you to identify outliers, you will have the ability to put a p-value on a point being an outlier if you need this capability (or want it) at some point.
You could try line fitting prediction using linear regression and see how it goes, it would be fairly easy to implement in your language of choice.
After you fitted a line to your data, you could calculate the mean standard deviation along the line.
If the novel point is on the trend line +- the standard deviation, it should not be regarded as an abnormality.
PCA is an other technique that comes to mind, when dealing with this type of data.
You could also look in to unsuperviced learning. This is a machine learning technique that can be used to detect differences in larger data sets.
Sounds like a fun problem! Good luck
There is little magic in all the techniques you mention. I believe you should first try to narrow the typical abnormalities you may encounter, it helps keeping things simple.
Then, you may want to compute derived quantities relevant to those features. For instance: "I want to detect numbers changing abruptly direction" => compute u_{n+1} - u_n, and expect it to have constant sign, or fall in some range. You may want to keep this flexible, and allow your code design to be extensible (Strategy pattern may be worth looking at if you do OOP)
Then, when you have some derived quantities of interest, you do statistical analysis on them. For instance, for a derived quantity A, you assume it should have some distribution P(a, b) (uniform([a, b]), or Beta(a, b), possibly more complex), you put a priori laws on a, b and you ajust them based on successive information. Then, the posterior likelihood of the info provided by the last point added should give you some insight about it being normal or not. Relative entropy between posterior and prior law at each step is a good thing to monitor too. Consult a book on Bayesian methods for more info.
I see little point in complex traditional machine learning stuff (perceptron layers or SVM to cite only them) if you want to detect outliers. These methods work great when classifying data which is known to be reasonably clean.