I'm looking for a supervised machine learning algorithm that would produce transparent rules or definitions that can be easily interpreted by a human.
Most algorithms that I work with (SVMs, random forests, PLS-DA) are not very transparent. That is, you can hardly summarize the models in a table in a publication aimed at a non-computer scientist audience. What authors usually do is, for example, publish a list of variables that are important based on some criterion (for example, Gini index or mean decrease of accuracy in the case of RF), and sometimes improve this list by indicating how these variables differ between the classes in question.
What I am looking is a relatively simple output of the style "if (any of the variables V1-V10 > median or any of the variables V11-V20 < 1st quartile) and variable V21-V30 > 3rd quartile, then class A".
Is there any such thing around?
Just to constraint my question a bit: I am working with highly multidimensional data sets (tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of often colinear variables). So for example regression trees would not be a good idea (I think).
You sound like you are describing decision trees. Why would regression trees not be a good choice? Maybe not optimal, but they work, and those are the most directly interpretable models. Anything that works on continuous values works on ordinal values.
There's a tension between wanting an accurate classifier, and wanting a simple and explainable model. You could build a random decision forest model, and constrain it in several ways to make it more interpretable:
Small max depth
High minimum information gain
Prune the tree
Only train on "understandable" features
Quantize/round decision threhsolds
The model won't be as good, necessarily.
You can find interesting research in the understanding AI methods done by Been Kim at Google Brain.
Related
How do you find an optimum learning rule for a given problem, say a multiple category classification?
I was thinking of using Genetic Algorithms, but I know there are issues surrounding performance. I am looking for real world examples where you have not used the textbook learning rules, and how you found those learning rules.
Nice question BTW.
classification algorithms can be classified using many Characteristics like:
What does the algorithm strongly prefer (or what type of data that is most suitable for this algorithm).
training overhead. (does it take a lot of time to be trained)
When is it effective. ( large data - medium data - small amount of data ).
the complexity of analyses it can deliver.
Therefore, for your problem classifying multiple categories I will use Online Logistic Regression (FROM SGD) because it's perfect with small to medium data size (less than tens of millions of training examples) and it's really fast.
Another Example:
let's say that you have to classify a large amount of text data. then Naive Bayes is your baby. because it strongly prefers text analysis. even that SVM and SGD are faster, and as I experienced easier to train. but these rules "SVM and SGD" can be applied when the data size is considered as medium or small and not large.
In general any data mining person will ask him self the four afomentioned points when he wants to start any ML or Simple mining project.
After that you have to measure its AUC, or any relevant, to see what have you done. because you might use more than just one classifier in one project. or sometimes when you think that you have found your perfect classifier, the results appear to be not good using some measurement techniques. so you'll start to check your questions again to find where you went wrong.
Hope that I helped.
When you input a vector x to the net, the net will give an output depend on all the weights (vector w). There would be an error between the output and the true answer. The average error (e) is a function of the w, let's say e = F(w). Suppose you have one-layer-two-dimension network, then the image of F may look like this:
When we talk about training, we are actually talking about finding the w which makes the minimal e. In another word, we are searching the minimum of a function. To train is to search.
So, you question is how to choose the method to search. My suggestion would be: It depends on how the surface of F(w) looks like. The wavier it is, the more randomized method should be used, because the simple method based on gradient descending would have bigger chance to guide you trapped by a local minimum - so you lose the chance to find the global minimum. On the another side, if the suface of F(w) looks like a big pit, then forget the genetic algorithm. A simple back propagation or anything based on gradient descending would be very good in this case.
You may ask that how can I know how the surface look like? That's a skill of experience. Or you might want to randomly sample some w, and calculate F(w) to get an intuitive view of the surface.
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but you guys have been helpful with plenty of my CS homework in the past so I figure I'll give it a shot.
I'm looking for an algorithm to blindly combine several dependent variables into an index that produces the best linear fit with an external variable. Basically, it would combine the dependent variables using different mathematical operators, include or not include each one, etc. until an index is developed that best correlates with my external variable.
Has anyone seen/heard of something like this before? Even if you could point me in the right direction or to the right place to ask, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Sounds like you're trying to do Multivariate Linear Regression or Multiple Regression. The simplest method (Read: less accurate) to do this is to individually compute the linear regression lines of each of the component variables and then do a weighted average of each of the lines. Beyond that I am afraid I will be of little help.
This appears to be simple linear regression using multiple explanatory variables. As the implication here is that you are using a computational approach you could do something as simple apply a linear model to your data using every possible combination of your explanatory variables that you have (whether you want to include interaction effects is your choice), choose a goodness of fit measure (R^2 being just one example) and use that to rank the fit of each model you fit?? The quality of a model is also somewhat subjective in many fields - you could reject a model containing 15 variables if it only moderately improves the fit over a far simpler model just containing 3 variables. If you have not read it already I don't doubt that you will find many useful suggestions in the following text :
Draper, N.R. and Smith, H. (1998).Applied Regression Analysis Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics
You might also try doing a google for the LASSO method of model selection.
The thing you're asking for is essentially the entirety of regression analysis.
this is what linear regression does, and this is a good portion of what "machine learning" does (machine learning is basically just a name for more complicated regression and classification algorithms). There are hundreds or thousands of different approaches with various tradeoffs, but the basic ones frequently work quite well.
If you want to learn more, the coursera course on machine learning is a great place to get a deeper understanding of this.
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.
This is not a directly programming related question, but it's about selecting the right data mining algorithm.
I want to infer the age of people from their first names, from the region they live, and if they have an internet product or not. The idea behind it is that:
there are names that are old-fashioned or popular in a particular decade (celebrities, politicians etc.) (this may not hold in the USA, but in the country of interest that's true),
young people tend to live in highly populated regions whereas old people prefer countrysides, and
Internet is used more by young people than by old people.
I am not sure if those assumptions hold, but I want to test that. So what I have is 100K observations from our customer database with
approx. 500 different names (nominal input variable with too many classes)
20 different regions (nominal input variable)
Internet Yes/No (binary input variable)
91 distinct birthyears (numerical target variable with range: 1910-1992)
Because I have so many nominal inputs, I don't think regression is a good candidate. Because the target is numerical, I don't think decision tree is a good option either. Can anyone suggest me a method that is applicable for such a scenario?
I think you could design discrete variables that reflect the split you are trying to determine. It doesn't seem like you need a regression on their exact age.
One possibility is to cluster the ages, and then treat the clusters as discrete variables. Should this not be appropriate, another possibility is to divide the ages into bins of equal distribution.
One technique that could work very well for your purposes is, instead of clustering or partitioning the ages directly, cluster or partition the average age per name. That is to say, generate a list of all of the average ages, and work with this instead. (There may be some statistical problems in the classifier if you the discrete categories here are too fine-grained, though).
However, the best case is if you have a clear notion of what age range you consider appropriate for 'young' and 'old'. Then, use these directly.
New answer
I would try using regression, but in the manner that I specify. I would try binarizing each variable (if this is the correct term). The Internet variable is binary, but I would make it into two separate binary values. I will illustrate with an example because I feel it will be more illuminating. For my example, I will just use three names (Gertrude, Jennifer, and Mary) and the internet variable.
I have 4 women. Here are their data:
Gertrude, Internet, 57
Jennifer, Internet, 23
Gertrude, No Internet, 60
Mary, No Internet, 35
I would generate a matrix, A, like this (each row represents a respective woman in my list):
[[1,0,0,1,0],
[0,1,0,1,0],
[1,0,0,0,1],
[0,0,1,0,1]]
The first three columns represent the names and the latter two Internet/No Internet. Thus, the columns represent
[Gertrude, Jennifer, Mary, Internet, No Internet]
You can keep doing this with more names (500 columns for the names), and for the regions (20 columns for those). Then you will just be solving the standard linear algebra problem A*x=b where b for the above example is
b=[[57],
[23],
[60],
[35]]
You may be worried that A will now be a huge matrix, but it is a huge, extremely sparse matrix and thus can be stored very efficiently in a sparse matrix form. Each row has 3 1's in it and the rest are 0. You can then just solve this with a sparse matrix solver. You will want to do some sort of correlation test on the resulting predicting ages to see how effective it is.
You might check out the babynamewizard. It shows the changes in name frequency over time and should help convert your names to a numeric input. Also, you should be able to use population density from census.gov data to get a numeric value associated with your regions. I would suggest an additional flag regarding the availability of DSL access - many rural areas don't have DSL coverage. No coverage = less demand for internet services.
My first inclination would be to divide your response into two groups, those very likely to have used computers in school or work and those much less likely. The exposure to computer use at an age early in their career or schooling probably has some effect on their likelihood to use a computer later in their life. Then you might consider regressions on the groups separately. This should eliminate some of the natural correlation of your inputs.
I would use a classification algorithm that accepts nominal attributes and numeric class, like M5 (for trees or rules). Perhaps I would combine it with the bagging meta classifier to reduce variance. The original algorithm M5 was invented by R. Quinlan and Yong Wang made improvements.
The algorithm is implemented in R (library RWeka)
It also can be found in the open source machine learning software Weka
For more information see:
Ross J. Quinlan: Learning with Continuous Classes. In: 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Singapore, 343-348, 1992.
Y. Wang, I. H. Witten: Induction of model trees for predicting continuous classes. In: Poster papers of the 9th European Conference on Machine Learning, 1997.
I think slightly different from you, I believe that trees are excellent algorithms to deal with nominal data because they can help you build a model that you can easily interpret and identify the influence of each one of these nominal variables and it's different values.
You can also use regression with dummy variables in order to represent the nominal attributes, this is also a good solution.
But you can also use other algorithms such as SVM(smo), with the previous transformation of the nominal variables to binary dummy ones, same as in regression.
Is Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) a Statistical Classification algorithm? Why or why not?
Basically, I'm trying to figure out why the Wikipedia page for Statistical Classification does not mention LSI. I'm just getting into this stuff and I'm trying to see how all the different approaches for classifying something relate to one another.
No, they're not quite the same. Statistical classification is intended to separate items into categories as cleanly as possible -- to make a clean decision about whether item X is more like the items in group A or group B, for example.
LSI is intended to show the degree to which items are similar or different and, primarily, find items that show a degree of similarity to an specified item. While this is similar, it's not quite the same.
LSI/LSA is eventually a technique for dimensionality reduction, and usually is coupled with a nearest neighbor algorithm to make it a into classification system. Hence in itself, its only a way of "indexing" the data in lower dimension using SVD.
Have you read about LSI on Wikipedia ? It says it uses matrix factorization (SVD), which in turn is sometimes used in classification.
The primary distinction in machine learning is between "supervised" and "unsupervised" modeling.
Usually the words "statistical classification" refer to supervised models, but not always.
With supervised methods the training set contains a "ground-truth" label that you build a model to predict. When you evaluate the model, the goal is to predict the best guess at (or probability distribution of) the true label, which you will not have at time of evaluation. Often there's a performance metric and it's quite clear what the right vs wrong answer is.
Unsupervised classification methods attempt to cluster a large number of data points which may appear to vary in complicated ways into a smaller number of "similar" categories. Data in each category ought to be similar in some kind of 'interesting' or 'deep' way. Since there is no "ground truth" you can't evaluate 'right or wrong', but 'more' vs 'less' interesting or useful.
Similarly evaluation time you can place new examples into potentially one of the clusters (crisp classification) or give some kind of weighting quantifying how similar or different looks like the "archetype" of the cluster.
So in some ways supervised and unsupervised models can yield something which is a "prediction", prediction of class/cluster label, but they are intrinsically different.
Often the goal of an unsupervised model is to provide more intelligent and powerfully compact inputs for a subsequent supervised model.