I have about 44 Million training examples across about 6200 categories.
After training, the model comes out to be ~ 450MB
And while testing, with 5 parallel mappers (each given enough RAM), the classification proceeds at a rate of ~ 4 items a second which is WAY too slow.
How can speed things up?
One way i can think of is to reduce the word corpus, but i fear losing accuracy. I had maxDFPercent set to 80.
Another way i thought of was to run the items through a clustering algorithm and empirically maximize the number of clusters while keeping the items within each category restricted to a single cluster. This would allow me to build separate models for each cluster and thereby (possibly) decrease training and testing time.
Any other thoughts?
Edit :
After some of the answers given below, i started contemplating doing some form of down-sampling by running a clustering algorithm, identifying groups of items that are "highly" close to one another and then taking a union of a few samples from those "highly" close groups and other samples that are not that tightly close to one another.
I also started thinking about using some form of data normalization techniques that involve incorporating edit distances while using n-grams (http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_1_0/suggest/org/apache/lucene/search/spell/NGramDistance.html)
I'm also considering using the hadoop streaming api to leverage some of the ML libraries available in Python from listed here http://pydata.org/downloads/ , and here http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/svm.html#svm (These I think use liblinear mentioned in one of the answers below)
Prune stopwords and otherwise useless words (too low support etc.) as early as possible.
Depending on how you use clustering, it may actually make in particular the test phase even more expensive.
Try other tools than Mahout. I found Mahout to be really slow in comparison. It seems that it somewhere comes at a really high overhead.
Using less training exampes would be an option. You will see that after a specific amount of training examples you classification accuracy on unseen examples won't increase. I would recommend to try to train with 100, 500, 1000, 5000, ... examples per category and using 20% for cross validating the accuracy. When it doesn't increase anymore, you have found the amount of data you need which may be a lot less then you use now.
Another approach would be to use another library. For document-classification i find liblinear very very very fast. It's may be more low-level then mahout.
"but i fear losing accuracy" Have you actually tried using less features or less documents? You may not lose as much accuracy as you fear. There may be a few things at play here:
Such a high number of documents are not likely to be from the same time period. Over time, the content of a stream will inevitably drift and words indicative of one class may become indicative of another. In a way, adding data from this year to a classifier trained on last year's data is just confusing it. You may get much better performance if you train on less data.
The majority of features are not helpful, as #Anony-Mousse said already. You might want to perform some form of feature selection before you train your classifier. This will also speed up training. I've had good results in the past with mutual information.
I've previously trained classifiers for a data set of similar scale and found the system worked best with only 200k features, and using any more than 10% of the data for training did not improve accuracy at all.
PS Could you tell us a bit more about your problem and data set?
Edit after question was updated:
Clustering is a good way of selecting representative documents, but it will take a long time. You will also have to re-run it periodically as new data come in.
I don't think edit distance is the way to go. Typical algorithms are quadratic in the length of the input strings, and you might have to run for each pair of words in the corpus. That's a long time!
I would again suggest that you give random sampling a shot. You say you are concerned about accuracy, but are using Naive Bayes. If you wanted the best model money can buy, you would go for a non-linear SVM, and you probably wouldn't live to see it finish training. People resort to classifiers with known issues (there's a reason Naive Bayes is called Naive) because they are much faster than the alternative but performance will often be just a tiny bit worse. Let me give you an example from my experience:
RBF SVM- 85% F1 score - training time ~ month
Linear SVM- 83% F1 score - training time ~ day
Naive Bayes- 82% F1 score - training time ~ day
You find the same thing in the literature: paper . Out of curiosity, what kind of accuracy are you getting?
Related
The problem is as follows:
I want to use a forecasting algorithm to predict heat demand of a not further specified household during the next 24 hours with a time resolution of only a few minutes within the next three or four hours and lower resolution within the following hours.
The algorithm should be adaptive and learn over time. I do not have much historic data since in the beginning I want the algorithm to be able to be used in different occasions. I only have very basic input like the assumed yearly heat demand and current outside temperature and time to begin with. So, it will be quite general and unprecise at the beginning but learn from its Errors over time.
The algorithm is asked to be implemented in Matlab if possible.
Does anyone know an apporach or an algortihm designed to predict sensible values after a short time by learning and adapting to current incoming data?
Well, this question is quite broad as essentially any algorithm for forcasting or data assimilation could do this task in principle.
The classic approach I would look into first would be Kalman filtering, which is a quite general approach at least once its generalizations to ensemble Filters etc. are taken into account (This is also implementable in MATLAB easily).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
However the more important part than the actual inference algorithm is typically the design of the model you fit to your data. For your scenario you could start with a simple prediction from past values and add daily rhythms, influences of outside temperature etc. The more (correct) information you put into your model a priori the better your model should be at prediction.
For the full mathematical analysis of this type of problem I can recommend this book: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107706804
In order to turn this into a calibration problem, we need:
a model that predicts the heat demand depending on inputs and parameters,
observations of the heat demand.
Calibrating this model means tuning the parameters so that the model best predicts the heat demand.
If you go for Python, I suggest to use OpenTURNS, which provides several data assimilation methods, e.g. Kalman filtering (also called BLUE):
https://openturns.github.io/openturns/latest/user_manual/calibration.html
This is a semi-broad question, but it's one that I feel on some level is answerable or at least approachable.
I've spent the last month or so making a fairly extensive simulation. In order to protect the interests of my employer, I won't state specifically what it does... but an analogy of what it does may be explained by... a high school dance.
A girl or boy enters the dance floor, and based on the selection of free dance partners, an optimal choice is made. After a period of time, two dancers finish dancing and are now free for a new partnership.
I've been making partner selection algorithms designed to maximize average match outcome while not sacrificing wait time for a partner too much.
I want a way to gauge / compare versions of my algorithms in order to make a selection of the optimal algorithm for any situation. This is difficult however since the inputs of my simulation are extremely large matrices of input parameters (2-5 per dancer), and the simulation takes several minutes to run (a fact that makes it difficult to test a large number of simulation inputs). I have a few output metrics, but linking them to the large number of inputs is extremely hard. I'm also interested in finding which algorithms completely fail under certain input conditions...
Any pro tips / online resources which might help me in defining input constraints / output variables which might give clarity on an optimal algorithm?
I might not understand what you exactly want. But here is my suggestion. Let me know if my solution is inaccurate/irrelevant and I will edit/delete accordingly.
Assume you have a certain metric (say compatibility of the pairs or waiting time). If you just have the average or total number for this metric over all the users, it is kind of useless. Instead you might want to find the distribution of of this metric over all users. If nothing, you should always keep track of the variance. Once you have the distribution, you can calculate a probability that particular algorithm A is better than B for a certain metric.
If you do not have the distribution of the metric within an experiment, you can always run multiple experiments, and the number of experiments you need to run depends on the variance of the metric and difference between two algorithms.
I'm building a single-layer perceptron that has a reasonably long feature vector (30-200k), all normalised.
Let's say I have 30k features which are somewhat useful at predicting a class but then add 100 more features which are excellent predictors. The accuracy of the predictions only goes up a negligible amount. However, if I manually increase the weights on the 100 excellent features (say by 5x), the accuracy goes up several percent.
It was my impression that the nature of the training process should give better features a higher weight naturally. However, it seems like the best features are being 'drowned out' by the worse ones.
I tried running it with a larger number of iterations, but that didn't help.
How can I adapt the algorithm to better weight features in a reasonably simple way? Also, a reasonably fast way; if I had fewer features it'd be easy to just run the algorithm leaving one out at a time but it's not really feasible with 30k.
My experience with implementing perceptron based network is that it takes a lot of iterations to learn something. I believe I used each sample about 1k times to learn the xor function(when having only 4 inputs). So if you have 200k inputs it will take a lot of samples and a lot of time to train your network.
I have a few suggestions for you:
try to reduce the size of the input(try to aggregate several inputs into a single one or try to remove redundant once).
try to use each sample more times. As I said it may take a lot of iterations to learn even a simple function
Hope this helps.
Here's my scenario. Consider a set of events that happen at various places and times - as an example, consider someone high above recording the lightning strikes in a city during a storm. For my purpose, lightnings are instantaneous and can only hit certain locations (such as high buildings). Also imagine each lightning strike has a unique id so one can reference the strike later. There are about 100,000 such locations in this city (as you guess, this is an analogy as my current employer is sensitive about the actual problem).
For phase 1, my input is the set of (strike id, strike time, strike location) tuples. The desired output is the set of the clusters of more than 1 event that hit the same location within a short time. The number of clusters is not known in advance (so k-means is not that useful here). What is being considered as 'short' could be predefined for a given clustering attempt. That is, I can set it to, say, 3 minutes, than run the algorithm; later try with 4 minutes or 10 minutes. Perhaps a nice touch would be for the algorithm to determine a 'strength' of clustering and recommend that for a given input, the most compact clustering is achieved by using a particular value for 'short', but this is not required initially.
For phase 2, I'd like to take into consideration the amplitude of the strike (i.e., a real number) and look for clusters that are both within a short time and with similar amplitudes.
I googled and checked the answers here about data clustering. The information is a bit bewildering (below is the list of links I found useful). AFAIK, k-means and related algorithms would not be useful because they require the number of clusters to be specified apriori. I'm not asking for someone to solve my problem (I like solving it), but some orientation in the large world of data clustering algorithms would be useful in order to save some time. Specifically, what clustering algorithms are appropriate for when the number of clusters is unknown.
Edit: I realized the location is irrelevant, in the sense that although events happen all the time, I only need to cluster them per location. So each location has its own time-series of events that can thus be analyzed independently.
Some technical details:
- as the dataset is not that large, it can fit all in memory.
- parallel processing is a nice to have, but not essential. I only have a 4-core machine and MapReduce and Hadoop would be too much.
- the language I'm mostly familiar with is Java. I haven't yet used R and the learning curve for it would probably be too much for what time I was given. I'll have a look at it anyway in my spare time.
- for the time being, using tools to run the analysis is ok, I don't have to produce just code. I'm mentioning this because probably Weka will be suggested.
- visualization would be useful. As the dataset is large enough so it doesn't fit in memory, the visualization should at least support zooming and panning. And to clarify: I don't need to build a visualization GUI, it's just a nice capability to use for checking the results produced with a tool.
Thank you. Questions that I found useful are: How to find center of clusters of numbers? statistics problem?, Clustering Algorithm for Paper Boys, Java Clustering Library, How to cluster objects (without coordinates), Algorithm for detecting "clusters" of dots
I would suggest you to look into Mean Shift Clustering. The basic idea behind mean shift clustering is to take the data and perform a kernel density estimation, then find the modes in the density estimate, the regions of convergence of data points towards modes defines the clusters.
The nice thing about mean shift clustering is that the number of clusters do not have to be specified ahead of time.
I have not used Weka, so I am not sure if it has mean shift clustering. However if you are using MATLAB, here is a toolbox (KDE toolbox) to do it. Hope that helps.
Couldn't you just use hierarchical clustering with the difference in times of strikes as part of the distance metric?
It is too late, but still I would add it:
In R, there is a package fpc and it has a method pamk() which provides you the clusters. Using pamk(), you do not need to mention the number of clusters intially. It calculates itself the number of clusters in the input data.
I want to obtain maximum performance out of a process with many variables, many of which cannot be controlled.
I cannot run thousands of experiments, so it'd be nice if I could run hundreds of experiments and
vary many controllable parameters
collect data on many parameters indicating performance
'correct,' as much as possible, for those parameters I couldn't control
Tease out the 'best' values for those things I can control, and start all over again
It feels like this would be called data mining, where you're going through tons of data which doesn't immediately appear to relate, but does show correlation after some effort.
So... Where do I start looking at algorithms, concepts, theory of this sort of thing? Even related terms for purposes of search would be useful.
Background: I like to do ultra-marathon cycling, and keep logs of each ride. I'd like to keep more data, and after hundreds of rides be able to pull out information about how I perform.
However, everything varies - routes, environment (temp, pres., hum., sun load, wind, precip., etc), fuel, attitude, weight, water load, etc, etc, etc. I can control a few things, but running the same route 20 times to test out a new fuel regime would just be depressing, and take years to perform all the experiments that I'd like to do. I can, however, record all these things and more(telemetry on bicycle FTW).
It sounds like you want to do some regression analysis. You certainly have plenty of data!
Regression analysis is an extremely common modeling technique in statistics and science. (It could be argued that statistics is the art and science of regression analysis.) There are many statistics packages out there to do the computation you'll need. (I'd recommend one, but I'm years out of date.)
Data mining has gotten a bad name because far too often people assume correlation equals causation. I found that a good technique is to start with variables you know have an influence and build a statistical model around them first. So you know that wind, weight and climb have an influence on how fast you can travel and statistical software can take your dataset and calculate what the correlation between those factors are. That will give you a statistical model or linear equation:
speed = x*weight + y*wind + z*climb + constant
When you explore new variables, you will be able to see if the model is improved or not by comparing a goodness of fit metric like R-squared. So you might check if temperature or time of day adds anything to the model.
You may want to apply a transformation to you data. For instance, you might find that you perform better on colder days. But really cold days and really hot days might hurt performance. In that case, you could assign temperatures to bins or segments: < 0°C; 0°C to 40°C; > 40°C, or some such. The key is to transform the data in a way that matches a rational model of what is going on in the real world, not just the data itself.
In case someone thinks this is not a programming related topic, notice that you can use these same techniques to analyze system performance.
With that many variables you have too many dimensions and you may want to look at Principal Component Analysis. It takes some of the "art" out of regression analysis and lets the data speak for itself. Some software to do that sort of analysis is shown at the bottom of the link.
I have used the Perl module Statistics::Regression for somewhat similar problems in the past. Be warned, however, that regression analysis is definitely an art. As the warning in the Perl module says, it won't make sense to you if you haven't learned the appropriate math.