I am attempting to cluster a group of customers based on spend, order frequency, order breadth and what % of purchases they make in each category (there are around 20).
It will probably be a simple answer but I cannot figure out whether I should standardize (subtract mean and divide by sd) the % category buy columns or not. When I dont standardize I can get around 90% of the variance explained in 4-5 principal components (using SVD), but when I standardize each column I only get around 40% for the same number of principal components. My worry is that because each column is related, I am removing the relationship by standardizing. At the same time I am worried that not standardizing will cause issues with the other variables in the data that I have standardized.
I would assume if others tried clustering in this way they would face a similar issue but I cant seem to find one so it might be that I just dont understand the situation. Thanks for any clarification in advance!
Chris,
Percentage scale has a well defined range and nice properties.
By heuristically scaling these features you usually make things worse.
Related
At the moment, my problem has four metrics. Each of these measures something entirely different (each has different units, a different range, etc.) and each is weighted externally. I am using Drools for scoring.
I only have only one score level (SimpleLongScore) and I have to find a way to appropriately combine the individual scores of these metrics onto one long value
The most significant problem at the moment is that the range of values for the metrics can be wildly different.
So if, for example, after a move the score of a metric with a small possible range improves by, say, 10%, that could be completely dwarfed by an alternate move which improves the metric with a larger range's score by only 1% because OptaPlanner only considers the actual score value rather than the possible range of values and how changes affect them proportionally (to my knowledge).
So, is there a way to handle this cleanly which is already part of OptaPlanner that I cannot find?
Is the only feasible solution to implement Pareto scoring? Because that seems like a hack-y nightmare.
So far I have code/math to compute the best-possible and worst-possible scores for a metric that I access from within the Drools and then I can compute where in that range a move puts us, but this also feel quite hack-y and will cause issues with incremental scoring if we want to scale non-linearly within that range.
I keep coming back to thinking I should just just bite the bullet and implement Pareto scoring.
Thanks!
Take a look at #ConstraintConfiguration and #ConstraintWeight in the docs.
Also take a look at the chapter "explaning the score", which can exactly tell you which constraint had which score impact on the best solution found.
If, however, you need pareto optimization, so you need multiple best solutions that don't dominate each other, then know that OptaPlanner doesn't support that yet, but I know of 2 cases that implemented it in OptaPlanner by hacking BestSolutionRecaller.
That being said, 99% of the cases that think of pareto optimization, are 100% happy with #ConstraintWeight instead, because users don't want multiple best solutions (except during simulations), they just want one in production.
I have a Hospital ratings data-set and need to find best hospital when I just broke my leg. So what is the best data mining model that I can use and how to
find which model is better?
https://www.kaggle.com/center-for-medicare-and-medicaid/hospital-ratings#=
This is really up to you to design. You need to attach a weight to each of the variables you have, which is how you attach importance to that variable.
Is the hospital location a limiting factor? Maybe you can only hobble 5 miles on your broken leg, or maybe you're a baller and can book your private jet to Hollywood.
If you don't have a way to connect with an API to determine distance based on your location and the hospital address, then you'll just have to throw out location altogether.
If you just broke your leg, timeliness of care is probably pretty important. But if you want to get a boob job, then you probably don't mind waiting a month or two as long as it's done really well.
In this case, effectiveness of care is probably the most valuable variable. I would start with just that, then work on adding in more variables and refining your answer. What happens if two hospitals have equally good effectiveness? Then patient satisfaction might be the next most important, etc.
I am working on a data analysis project over the summer. The main goal is to use some access logging data in the hospital about user accessing patient information and try to detect abnormal accessing behaviors. Several attributes have been chosen to characterize a user (e.g. employee role, department, zip-code) and a patient (e.g. age, sex, zip-code). There are about 13 - 15 variables under consideration.
I was using R before and now I am using Python. I am able to use either depending on any suitable tools/libraries you guys suggest.
Before I ask any question, I do want to mention that a lot of the data fields have undergone an anonymization process when handed to me, as required in the healthcare industry for the protection of personal information. Specifically, a lot of VARCHAR values are turned into random integer values, only maintaining referential integrity across the dataset.
Questions:
An exact definition of an outlier was not given (it's defined based on the behavior of most of the data, if there's a general behavior) and there's no labeled training set telling me which rows of the dataset are considered abnormal. I believe the project belongs to the area of unsupervised learning so I was looking into clustering.
Since the data is mixed (numeric and categorical), I am not sure how would clustering work with this type of data.
I've read that one could expand the categorical data and let each category in a variable to be either 0 or 1 in order to do the clustering, but then how would R/Python handle such high dimensional data for me? (simply expanding employer role would bring in ~100 more variables)
How would the result of clustering be interpreted?
Using clustering algorithm, wouldn't the potential "outliers" be grouped into clusters as well? And how am I suppose to detect them?
Also, with categorical data involved, I am not sure how "distance between points" is defined any more and does the proximity of data points indicate similar behaviors? Does expanding each category into a dummy column with true/false values help? What's the distance then?
Faced with the challenges of cluster analysis, I also started to try slicing the data up and just look at two variables at a time. For example, I would look at the age range of patients accessed by a certain employee role, and I use the quartiles and inter-quartile range to define outliers. For categorical variables, for instance, employee role and types of events being triggered, I would just look at the frequency of each event being triggered.
Can someone explain to me the problem of using quartiles with data that's not normally distributed? And what would be the remedy of this?
And in the end, which of the two approaches (or some other approaches) would you suggest? And what's the best way to use such an approach?
Thanks a lot.
You can decide upon a similarity measure for mixed data (e.g. Gower distance).
Then you can use any of the distance-based outlier detection methods.
You can use k-prototypes algorithm for mixed numeric and categorical attributes.
Here you can find a python implementation.
Just starting to play around with Neural Networks for fun after playing with some basic linear regression. I am an English teacher so don't have a math background and trying to read a book on this stuff is way over my head. I thought this would be a better avenue to get some basic questions answered (even though I suspect there is no easy answer). Just looking for some general guidance put in layman's terms. I am using a trial version of an Excel Add-In called NEURO XL. I apologize if these questions are too "elementary."
My first project is related to predicting a student's Verbal score on the SAT based on a number of test scores, GPA, practice exam scores, etc. as well as some qualitative data (gender: M=1, F=0; took SAT prep class: Y=1, N=0; plays varsity sports: Y=1, N=0).
In total, I have 21 variables that I would like to feed into the network, with the output being the actual score (200-800).
I have 9000 records of data spanning many years/students. Here are my questions:
How many records of the 9000 should I use to train the network?
1a. Should I completely randomize the selection of this training data or be more involved and make sure I include a variety of output scores and a wide range of each of the input variables?
If I split the data into an even number, say 9x1000 (or however many) and created a network for each one, then tested the results of each of these 9 on the other 8 sets to see which had the lowest MSE across the samples, would this be a valid way to "choose" the best network if I wanted to predict the scores for my incoming students (not included in this data at all)?
Since the scores on the tests that I am using as inputs vary in scale (some are on 1-100, and others 1-20 for example), should I normalize all of the inputs to their respective z-scores? When is this recommended vs not recommended?
I am predicting the actual score, but in reality, I'm NOT that concerned about the exact score but more of a range. Would my network be more accurate if I grouped the output scores into buckets and then tried to predict this number instead of the actual score?
E.g.
750-800 = 10
700-740 = 9
etc.
Is there any benefit to doing this or should I just go ahead and try to predict the exact score?
What if ALL I cared about was whether or not the score was above or below 600. Would I then just make the output 0(below 600) or 1(above 600)?
5a. I read somewhere that it's not good to use 0 and 1, but instead 0.1 and 0.9 - why is that?
5b. What about -1(below 600), 0(exactly 600), 1(above 600), would this work?
5c. Would the network always output -1, 0, 1 - or would it output fractions that I would then have to roundup or rounddown to finalize the prediction?
Once I have found the "best" network from Question #3, would I then play around with the different parameters (number of epochs, number of neurons in hidden layer, momentum, learning rate, etc.) to optimize this further?
6a. What about the Activation Function? Will Log-sigmoid do the trick or should I try the other options my software has as well (threshold, hyperbolic tangent, zero-based log-sigmoid).
6b. What is the difference between log-sigmoid and zero-based log-sigmoid?
Thanks!
First a little bit of meta content about the question itself (and not about the answers to your questions).
I have to laugh a little that you say 'I apologize if these questions are too "elementary."' and then proceed to ask the single most thorough and well thought out question I've seen as someone's first post on SO.
I wouldn't be too worried that you'll have people looking down their noses at you for asking this stuff.
This is a pretty big question in terms of the depth and range of knowledge required, especially the statistical knowledge needed and familiarity with Neural Networks.
You may want to try breaking this up into several questions distributed across the different StackExchange sites.
Off the top of my head, some of it definitely belongs on the statistics StackExchange, Cross Validated: https://stats.stackexchange.com/
You might also want to try out https://datascience.stackexchange.com/ , a beta site specifically targeting machine learning and related areas.
That said, there is some of this that I think I can help to answer.
Anything I haven't answered is something I don't feel qualified to help you with.
Question 1
How many records of the 9000 should I use to train the network? 1a. Should I completely randomize the selection of this training data or be more involved and make sure I include a variety of output scores and a wide range of each of the input variables?
Randomizing the selection of training data is probably not a good idea.
Keep in mind that truly random data includes clusters.
A random selection of students could happen to consist solely of those who scored above a 30 on the ACT exams, which could potentially result in a bias in your result.
Likewise, if you only select students whose SAT scores were below 700, the classifier you build won't have any capacity to distinguish between a student expected to score 720 and a student expected to score 780 -- they'll look the same to the classifier because it was trained without the relevant information.
You want to ensure a representative sample of your different inputs and your different outputs.
Because you're dealing with input variables that may be correlated, you shouldn't try to do anything too complex in selecting this data, or you could mistakenly introduce another bias in your inputs.
Namely, you don't want to select a training data set that consists largely of outliers.
I would recommend trying to ensure that your inputs cover all possible values for all of the variables you are observing, and all possible results for the output (the SAT scores), without constraining how these requirements are satisfied.
I'm sure there are algorithms out there designed to do exactly this, but I don't know them myself -- possibly a good question in and of itself for Cross Validated.
Question 3
Since the scores on the tests that I am using as inputs vary in scale (some are on 1-100, and others 1-20 for example), should I normalize all of the inputs to their respective z-scores? When is this recommended vs not recommended?
My understanding is that this is not recommended as the input to a Nerual Network, but I may be wrong.
The convergence of the network should handle this for you.
Every node in the network will assign a weight to its inputs, multiply them by their weights, and sum those products as a core part of its computation.
That means that every node in the network is searching for some coefficients for each of their inputs.
To do this, all inputs will be converted to numeric values -- so conditions like gender will be translated into "0=MALE,1=FEMALE" or something similar.
For example, a node's metric might look like this at a given point in time:
2*ACT_SCORE + 0*GENDER + (-5)*VARISTY_SPORTS ...
The coefficients for each values are exactly what the network is searching for as it converges.
If you change the scale of a value, like ACT_SCORE, you just change the scale of the coefficient that will be found by the reciporical of that scaling factor.
The result should still be the same.
There are other concerns in terms of accuracy (computers have limited capacity to represent small fractions) and speed that may enter this, but not being familiar with NEURO XL, I can't say whether or not they apply for this technology.
Question 4
I am predicting the actual score, but in reality, I'm NOT that concerned about the exact score but more of a range. Would my network be more accurate if I grouped the output scores into buckets and then tried to predict this number instead of the actual score?
This will reduce accuracy, although you should converge to a solution much faster with fewer possible outputs (scores).
Neural Networks actually describe very high-dimensional functions in their input variables.
If you reduce the granularity of that function's output space, you essentially state that you don't care about local minima and maxima in that function, especially around the borders between your output scores.
As a result, you are sacrificing information that may be an essential component of the "true" function that you are searching for.
I hope this has been helpful, but you really should break this question down into its many components and ask them separately on different sites -- potentially some of them do belong here on StackOverflow as well.
I'm fairly new to clustering and related topics so please forgive my questions.
I'm trying to get introduced into this area by doing some tests, and as a first experiment I'd like to create clusters on tweets based on content similarity. The basic idea for the experiment would be storing tweets on a database and periodically calculate the clustering (ie. using a cron job). Please note that the database would obtain new tweets from time to time.
Being ignorant in this field, my idea (probably naive) would be to do something like this:
1. For each new tweet in the db, extract N-grams (N=3 for example) into a set
2. Perform Jaccard similarity and compare with each of the existing clusters. If result > threshold then it would be assigned to that cluster
3. Once finished I'd get M clusters containing similar tweets
Now I see some problems with this basic approach. Let's put aside computational cost, how would the comparison between a tweet and a cluster be done? Assuming I have a tweet Tn and a cluster C1 containing T1, T4, T10 which one should I compare it to? Given that we're talking about similarity, it could well happen that sim(Tn,T1) > threshold but sim(Tn,T4) < threshold. My gut feeling tells me that something like an average should be used for the cluster, in order to avoid this problem.
Also, it could happen that sim(Tn, C1) and sim(Tn, C2) are both > threshold but similarity with C1 would be higher. In that case Tn should go to C1. This could be done brute force as well to assign the tweet to the cluster with maximum similarity.
And last of all, it's the computational issue. I've been reading a bit about minhash and it seems to be the answer to this problem, although I need to do some more research on it.
Anyway, my main question would be: could someone with experience in the area recommend me which approach should I aim to? I read some mentions about LSA and other methods, but trying to cope with everything is getting a bit overwhelming, so I'd appreciate some guiding.
From what I'm reading a tool for this would be hierarchical clustering, as it would allow regrouping of clusters whenever new data enters. Is this correct?
Please note that I'm not looking for any complicated case. My use case idea would be being able to cluster similar tweets into groups without any previous information. For example, tweets from Foursquare ("I'm checking in ..." which are similar to each other would be one case, or "My klout score is ..."). Also note that I'd like this to be language independent, so I'm not interested in having to deal with specific language issues.
It looks like to me that you are trying to address two different problems in one, i.e. "syntactic" and "semantic" clustering. They are quite different problems, expecially if you are in the realm of short-text analysis (and Twitter is the king of short-text analysis, of course).
"Syntactic" clustering means aggregating tweets that come, most likely, from the same source. Your example of Foursquare fits perfectly, but it is also common for retweets, people sharing online newspaper articles or blog posts, and many other cases. For this type of problem, using a N-gram model is almost mandatory, as you said (my experience suggests that N=2 is good for tweets, since you can find significant tweets that have as low as 3-4 features). Normalization is also an important factor here, removing RT tag, mentions, hashtags might help.
"Semantic" clustering means aggregating tweets that share the same topic. This is a much more difficult problem, and it won't likely work if you try to aggregate random sample of tweets, due to the fact that they, usually, carry too little information. These techniques might work, though, if you restrict your domain to a specific subset of tweets (i.e. the one matching a keyword, or an hashtag). LSA could be useful here, while it is useless for syntactic clusters.
Based on your observation, I think what you want is syntactic clustering. Your biggest issue, though, is the fact that you need online clustering, and not static clustering. The classical clustering algorithms that would work well in the static case (like hierarchical clustering, or union find) aren't really suited for online clustering , unless you redo the clustering from scratch every time a new tweet gets added to your database. "Averaging" the clusters to add new elements isn't a great solution according to my experience, because you need to retain all the information of every cluster member to update the "average" every time new data gets in. Also, algorithms like hierarchical clustering and union find work well because they can join pre-existant clusters if a link of similarity is found between them, and they don't simply assign a new element to the "closest" cluster, which is what you suggested to do in your post.
Algorithms like MinHash (or SimHash) are indeed more suited to online clustering, because they support the idea of "querying" for similar documents. MinHash is essentially a way to obtain pairs of documents that exceed a certain threshold of similarity (in particular, MinHash can be considered an estimator of Jaccard similarity) without having to rely on a quadratic algorithm like pairwise comparison (it is, in fact, O(nlog(n)) in time). It is, though, quadratic in space, therefore a memory-only implementation of MinHash is useful for small collections only (say 10000 tweets). In your case, though, it can be useful to save "sketches" (i.e., the set of hashes you obtain by min-hashing a tweet) of your tweets in a database to form an "index", and query the new ones against that index. You can then form a similarity graph, by adding edges between vertices (tweets) that matched the similarity query. The connected components of your graph will be your clusters.
This sounds a lot like canopy pre-clustering to me.
Essentially, each cluster is represented by the first object that started the cluster.
Objects within the outer radius join the cluster. Objects that are not within the inner radius of at least one cluster start a new cluster. This way, you get an overlapping (non-disjoint!) quantization of your dataset. Since this can drastically reduce the data size, it can be used to speed up various algorithms.
However don't expect useful results from clustering tweets. Tweet data is just to much noise. Most tweets have just a few words, too little to define a good similarity. On the other hand, you have the various retweets that are near duplicates - but trivial to detect.
So what would be a good cluster of tweets? Can this n-gram similarity actually capture this?