Would it be accurate to include an expert system in an image classifying application? (I am working with Matlab, have some experience with image processing and no experience with expert systems.)
What I'm planning on doing is adding an extra feature vector that is actually an answer to a question. Is this fine?
For example: Assume I have two questions that I want the answers to : Question 1 and Question 2. Knowing the answers to these 2 questions should help classify the test image more accurately. I understand expert systems are coded differently from an image classifier but my question is would it be wrong to include the answers to these 2 questions, in a numerical form (1 can be yes, and 0 can be no) and pass this information along with the other feature vectors into a classifier.
If it matters, my current classifier is an SVM.
Regarding training images: yes, they too will be trained with the 2 extra feature vectors.
Converting a set of comments to an answer:
A similar question in cross-validated already explains that it can be done as long as data is properly preprocessed.
In short: you can combine them as long as training (and testing) data is properly preprocessed (e.g. standardized). Standardization improves the performance of most linear classifiers because it scales the variables so they have the similar weight in the learning process and improves the numerical stability (and performance) when variables are sampled from gaussian-like distributions (which is achieved by standarization).
With that, if continuous variables are standardized and categorical variables are encoded as (-1, +1) the SVM should work well. Whether it will improve or not the performance of the classifier depends on the quality of those cathegorical variables.
Answering the other question in the comment.. while using kernel SVM with for example a chi square kernel, the rows of the training data are suppose to behave like histograms (all positive and usually l1-normalized) and therefore introducing a (-1, +1) feature breaks the kernel. Using a RBF kernel the rows of the data are suppose to be L2 normalized, and again, introducing (-1, +1) features might introduce unexpected behaviour (I'm not very sure what exactly the effect would be..).
I worked on similar problem. if multiple features can be extracted from your images then you can train different classifier by using different features. You can think about these classifiers as experts in answering questions based on the features they used in training. Instead of using labels as outputs, it is better to use confidence values. uncertainty can be very important in this manner. you can use these experts to generate values. these values can be combined and used to train another classifier.
Related
I'm approaching a 4 class classification problem, it's not particularly unbalanced, no missing features a lot of observation.. It seems everything good but when I approach the classification with fitcecoc it classifies everything as part of the first class. I try. to use fitclinear and fitcsvm on one vs all decomposed data but gaining the same results. Do you have any clue about the reason of that problem ?
Here are a few recommendations:
Have you normalized your data? SVM is sensitive to the features being
from different scales.
Save the mean and std you obtain during the training and use
those values during the prediction phase for normalizing the test
samples.
Change the C value and see if that changes the results.
I hope these help.
this question is about LibSVM or SVMs in general.
I wonder if it is possible to categorize Feature-Vectors of different length with the same SVM Model.
Let's say we train the SVM with about 1000 Instances of the following Feature Vector:
[feature1 feature2 feature3 feature4 feature5]
Now I want to predict a test-vector which has the same length of 5.
If the probability I receive is to poor, I now want to check the first subset of my test-vector containing the columns 2-5. So I want to dismiss the 1 feature.
My question now is: Is it possible to tell the SVM only to check the features 2-5 for prediction (e.g. with weights), or do I have to train different SVM Models. One for 5 features, another for 4 features and so on...?
Thanks in advance...
marcus
You can always remove features from your test points by fiddling with the file, but I highly recommend not using such an approach. An SVM model is valid when all features are present. If you are using the linear kernel, simply setting a given feature to 0 will implicitly cause it to be ignored (though you should not do this). When using other kernels, this is very much a no no.
Using a different set of features for predictions than the set you used for training is not a good approach.
I strongly suggest to train a new model for the subset of features you wish to use in prediction.
I am trying to differentiate two populations. Each population is an NxM matrix in which N is fixed between the two and M is variable in length (N=column specific attributes of each run, M=run number). I have looked at PCA and K-means for differentiating the two, but I was curious of the best practice.
To my knowledge, in K-means, there is no initial 'calibration' in which the clusters are chosen such that known bimodal populations can be differentiated. It simply minimizes the distance and assigns the data to an arbitrary number of populations. I would like to tell the clustering algorithm that I want the best fit in which the two populations are separated. I can then use the fit I get from the initial clustering on future datasets. Any help, example code, or reading material would be appreciated.
-R
K-means and PCA are typically used in unsupervised learning problems, i.e. problems where you have a single batch of data and want to find some easier way to describe it. In principle, you could run K-means (with K=2) on your data, and then evaluate the degree to which your two classes of data match up with the data clusters found by this algorithm (note: you may want multiple starts).
It sounds to like you have a supervised learning problem: you have a training data set which has already been partitioned into two classes. In this case k-nearest neighbors (as mentioned by #amas) is probably the approach most like k-means; however Support Vector Machines can also be an attractive approach.
I frequently refer to The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Second Edition (Springer Series in Statistics) by Trevor Hastie (Author), Robert Tibshirani (Author), Jerome Friedman (Author).
It really depends on the data. But just to let you know K-means does get stuck at local minima so if you wanna use it try running it from different random starting points. PCA's might also be useful how ever like any other spectral clustering method you have much less control over the clustering procedure. I recommend that you cluster the data using k-means with multiple random starting points and c how it works then you can predict and learn for each the new samples with K-NN (I don't know if it is useful for your case).
Check Lazy learners and K-NN for prediction.
I am studying Support Vector Machines (SVM) by reading a lot of material. However, it seems that most of it focuses on how to classify the input 2D data by mapping it using several kernels such as linear, polynomial, RBF / Gaussian, etc.
My first question is, can SVM handle high-dimensional (n-D) input data?
According to what I found, the answer is YES!
If my understanding is correct, n-D input data will be
constructed in Hilbert hyperspace, then those data will be
simplified by using some approaches (such as PCA ?) to combine it together / project it back to 2D plane, so that
the kernel methods can map it into an appropriate shape such a line or curve can separate it into distinguish groups.
It means most of the guides / tutorials focus on step (3). But some toolboxes I've checked cannot plot if the input data greater than 2D. How can the data after be projected to 2D?
If there is no projection of data, how can they classify it?
My second question is: is my understanding correct?
My first question is, does SVM can handle high-dimensional (n-D) input data?
Yes. I have dealt with data where n > 2500 when using LIBSVM software: http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/. I used linear and RBF kernels.
My second question is, does it correct my understanding?
I'm not entirely sure on what you mean here, so I'll try to comment on what you said most recently. I believe your intuition is generally correct. Data is "constructed" in some n-dimensional space, and a hyperplane of dimension n-1 is used to classify the data into two groups. However, by using kernel methods, it's possible to generate this information using linear methods and not consume all the memory of your computer.
I'm not sure if you've seen this already, but if you haven't, you may be interested in some of the information in this paper: http://pyml.sourceforge.net/doc/howto.pdf. I've copied and pasted a part of the text that may appeal to your thoughts:
A kernel method is an algorithm that depends on the data only through dot-products. When this is the case, the dot product can be replaced by a kernel function which computes a dot product in some possibly high dimensional feature space. This has two advantages: First, the ability to generate non-linear decision boundaries using methods designed for linear classifiers. Second, the use of kernel functions allows the user to apply a classifier to data that have no obvious fixed-dimensional vector space representation. The prime example of such data in bioinformatics are sequence, either DNA or protein, and protein structure.
It would also help if you could explain what "guides" you are referring to. I don't think I've ever had to project data on a 2-D plane before, and it doesn't make sense to do so anyway for data with a ridiculous amount of dimensions (or "features" as it is called in LIBSVM). Using selected kernel methods should be enough to classify such data.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I find this question a little tricky. Maybe someone knows an approach to answer this question. Imagine that you have a dataset(training data) which you don't know what it is about. Which features of training data would you look at in order to infer classification algorithm to classify this data? Can we say anything whether we should use a non-linear or linear classification algorithm?
By the way, I am using WEKA to analyze the data.
Any suggestions?
Thank you.
This is in fact two questions in one ;-)
Feature selection
Linear or not
add "algorithm selection", and you probably have three most fundamental questions of classifier design.
As an aside note, it's a good thing that you do not have any domain expertise which would have allowed you to guide the selection of features and/or to assert the linearity of the feature space. That's the fun of data mining : to infer such info without a priori expertise. (BTW, and while domain expertise is good to double-check the outcome of the classifier, too much a priori insight may make you miss good mining opportunities). Without any such a priori knowledge you are forced to establish sound methodologies and apply careful scrutiny to the results.
It's hard to provide specific guidance, in part because many details are left out in the question, and also because I'm somewhat BS-ing my way through this ;-). Never the less I hope the following generic advice will be helpful
For each algorithm you try (or more precisely for each set of parameters for a given algorithm), you will need to run many tests. Theory can be very helpful, but there will remain a lot of "trial and error". You'll find Cross-Validation a valuable technique.
In a nutshell, [and depending on the size of the available training data], you randomly split the training data in several parts and train the classifier on one [or several] of these parts, and then evaluate the classifier on its performance on another [or several] parts. For each such run you measure various indicators of performance such as Mis-Classification Error (MCE) and aside from telling you how the classifier performs, these metrics, or rather their variability will provide hints as to the relevance of the features selected and/or their lack of scale or linearity.
Independently of the linearity assumption, it is useful to normalize the values of numeric features. This helps with features which have an odd range etc.
Within each dimension, establish the range within, say, 2.5 standard deviations on either side of the median, and convert the feature values to a percentage on the basis of this range.
Convert nominal attributes to binary ones, creating as many dimensions are there are distinct values of the nominal attribute. (I think many algorithm optimizers will do this for you)
Once you have identified one or a few classifiers with a relatively decent performance (say 33% MCE), perform the same test series, with such a classifier by modifying only one parameter at a time. For example remove some features, and see if the resulting, lower dimensionality classifier improves or degrades.
The loss factor is a very sensitive parameter. Try and stick with one "reasonnable" but possibly suboptimal value for the bulk of the tests, fine tune the loss at the end.
Learn to exploit the "dump" info provided by the SVM optimizers. These results provide very valuable info as to what the optimizer "thinks"
Remember that what worked very well wih a given dataset in a given domain may perform very poorly with data from another domain...
coffee's good, not too much. When all fails, make it Irish ;-)
Wow, so you have some training data and you don't know whether you are looking at features representing words in a document, or genese in a cell and need to tune a classifier. Well, since you don't have any semantic information, you are going to have to do this soley by looking at statistical properties of the data sets.
First, to formulate the problem, this is more than just linear vs non-linear. If you are really looking to classify this data, what you really need to do is to select a kernel function for the classifier which may be linear, or non-linear (gaussian, polynomial, hyperbolic, etc. In addition each kernel function may take one or more parameters that would need to be set. Determining an optimal kernel function and parameter set for a given classification problem is not really a solved problem, there are only useful heuristics and if you google 'selecting a kernel function' or 'choose kernel function', you will be treated to many research papers proposing and testing various approaches. While there are many approaches, one of the most basic and well travelled is to do a gradient descent on the parameters-- basically you try a kernel method and a parameter set , train on half your data points and see how you do. Then you try a different set of parameters and see how you do. You move the parameters in the direction of best improvement in accuracy until you get satisfactory results.
If you don't need to go through all this complexity to find a good kernel function, and simply want an answer to linear or non-linear. then the question mainly comes down to two things: Non linear classifiers will have a higher risk of overfitting (undergeneralizing) since they have more dimensions of freedom. They can suffer from the classifier merely memorizing sets of good data points, rather than coming up with a good generalization. On the other hand a linear classifier has less freedom to fit, and in the case of data that is not linearly seperable, will fail to find a good decision function and suffer from high error rates.
Unfortunately, I don't know a better mathematical solution to answer the question "is this data linearly seperable" other than to just try the classifier itself and see how it performs. For that you are going to need a smarter answer than mine.
Edit: This research paper describes an algorithm which looks like it should be able to determine how close a given data set comes to being linearly seperable.
http://www2.ift.ulaval.ca/~mmarchand/publications/wcnn93aa.pdf