I am currently working on a research in which I try to predict people's IQ.
This is how the research goes, on day 1 participants take IQ test. At regular intervals of 2 weeks they continue to take the test (with different questions maybe) for 6 months.
Given this information (or dataset) how does one go about designing a recommendation system.
I imagine it something like this
IQvalue --input--> [ Recommendation Engine ] --spits out--> probable IQ value (after 6 months)
My actual research is not on IQ at all. I just made this example up.
Kindly suggest if I am going in the right direction at all? Are there any algorithms that do something similar?
Appreciate any help.
For case 1, you only have the time-related IQ values, I suggest you consider the time series analysis methods. Your target is to predict how the IQ change with time. My suggestion for this solution is the statsmodels library. Its github address is as follows:
https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels .
This tool is written in python and easy to use. It contains many generally used tsa models, such as ARIMA.
For case 2, if you also have the features of people, for instance, the answers in the QA test, ages, gender, education, etc., I suggest you consider use a machine learning methods to predict the IQs. You may consider the random forest or gradient boost to solve this problem. I suggest you use the tools such as Scikit-learn or xgboost.
For case 3, you can model it as a recommender system problem. Suppose user-test people, item-IQ, rating-IQ value, you can construct a user-item matrix. After that, you can use RS methods, such as matrix factorization or memory-based methods to predict the IQ values.
In my opinion, the first two means may be better for your case.
Related
I have estimated a complex hierarchical model with many random effects, but don't really know what the best approach is to checking for convergend. I have complex longitudinal data from a few hundred individuals and estimate quite a few parameters for every individual. Because of that, I have way to many traceplots to inspect visually. Or should I really spend a day going through all the traceplots? What would be a better way to check for convergence? Do I have to calculate Gelman and Rubin's Rhat for every parameter on the person level? And when can I conclude that the model converged? When absolutely all of the thousends of parameters reached convergence? Is it even sensible to expect that? Or is there something like "overall convergence"? And what does it mean when some person-level parameters did not converge? Does it make sense to use autorun.jags from the R2jags package with such a model or will it just run for ever? I know, these are a lot of question, but I just don't know how to approach that.
The measure I am using for convergence is a potential scale reduction factor (psrf)* using the gelman.diag function from the R package coda.
But nevertheless, I am also quickly visually inspecting all the traceplots, even though I also have tens/hundreds of them. It can be really fast if you put them in PNG files and then quickly go through them using e.g. IrfanView (let me know if you need me to expand on this).
The reason you should inspect the traceplots is pretty well described by an example from Marc Kery (author of great Bayesian books): see "Never blindly trust Rhat for convergence in a Bayesian analysis", here I include a self explanatory image from this email:
This is related to Rhat statistics while I use psrf, but it's pretty likely that psrf suffers from this too... and better to check the chains.
*) Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992).
I have run across issues in developing models where the translation time (simulates quickly but takes far too long to translate) has become a serious issue and could use some insight so I can look into resolving this.
So the question is:
What are some of the primary factors that impact the translation time of a model and ideas to address the issue?
For example, things that may have an impact:
for loops vs a vectorized method - a basic model testing this didn't seem to impact anything
using input variables vs parameters
impact of annotations (e.g., Evaluate=true)
or tough luck, this is tool dependent (Dymola, OMEdit, etc.) :(
use of many connect() - this seems to be a factor (perhaps primary) as it forces translater to do all the heavy lifting
Any insight is greatly appreciated.
Clearly the answer to this question if naturally open ended. There are many things to consider when computation times may be a factor.
For distributed models (e.g., finite difference) the use of simple models and then using connect equations to link them in the appropriate order is not the best way to produce the models. Experience has shown that this method significantly increases the translation time to unbearable lengths. It is better to create distributed models in the same approach that is used the MSL Dynamic pipe (not exactly like it but similar).
Changing the approach as described is significantly faster in translational time (orders of magnitude for larger models, >~100,000 equations) than using connect statements as the number of distributed elements increases to larger numbers. This was tested using Dymola 2017 and 2017FD01.
Some related materials pointed out by others that may be useful for more information have been included below:
https://modelica.org/events/modelica2011/Proceedings/pages/papers/07_1_ID_183_a_fv.pdf
Scalable Test Suite : https://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp15118459
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 have a database with many CVs, including structured data of the gender, age, address, number of years of education, and many other parameters of each person.
For about 10% of the sample, I also have additional data about a certain action they've made at some point in time. For instance, that Jane took a home loan in July 1998 or that John started pilot training in Jan. 2007 and got his license in Dec. 2007.
I need an algorithm that will give, for each of the actions, the probability that it will happen for each person in future time increments. For instance, that the chance of Bill taking a home loan is 2% in 2011, 3.5% in 2012, etc.
How should I approach this? Regression analysis? SVM? Neural net? Something else?
Is there perhaps even some standard tool/library that I can use with just the obvious customizations?
The probability that X happens given that Y happened is right out of Bayesian inference, I think.
Lou is right, this is the case for 'Bayesian Inference'.
The best tool/library to solve this is the R statistic programming language (r-project.org).
Take a look at the Bayesian Inference Libraries in R:
http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Bayesian.html
How many people are in the "10% of the sample"? If it's below 100 people or so, I would fear that the results of the analysis could not be significant. If it's 1000 or more people, the results will be quite good (rule of thumb).
I would fist export the data to R (r-project) and do some data cleaning necessary. Then find a person familiar with R and advanced statistics, he will be able to solve this very quickly. Or try yourself, but R takes some time in the beginning.
Concerning the tool/library choice, I suggest you give Weka a try. It's an open source tool for experimenting with data mining and machine learning. Weka has several tools for reading, processing and filtering your data, as well as prediction and classification tools.
However, you must have a strong foundation in the above mentioned fields in order to strive for a useful result.
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 was trying to find something original and fun to do with artificial neural networks (ANNs) as a personal/learning project and I though it would be cool if I could predict the results of sports games (especially NHL games).
I'm pretty sure it would be easy to evolve an ANN that can predict which team is most likely to win (usually the team with the better record). However, what I would like to do is create an ANN that would tell how likely the outcome is, similar to bookmaker odds.
Is this something an ANN can do? In the affirmative, what kind of success can I expect? I know I can't beat the bookmaker (at least not with a software solution). I want do this as a recreational project/challenge to myself. I don't expect to bet money on sports games with this project.
Way back in the days of the IBM XT I played with a shareware ANN program to try and improve my chances on the British football (soccer) pools. This is a form of betting where you try and predict which football matches will result in draws. I assigned each team a number then looked back thorough past results and from them generated a single digit for the result. From memory it was 0 from a home win , 1 for an away win and 2 for a draw. Each result went on a single line in a training file. I would then run the training file through the program and generate the ANN settings. I would then look up the following Saturdays matches and feed them into the ANN then look for matches predicted as draws.
As the weeks went on my predictions of draws did definetly become more and more accurate. However ...
1) The XT was so slow that by Christmas it was taking 24 hours to generate the ANN settings from the training data. I really had better things to do with my precious (and expensive) PC.
2) Although it was better at predicting draws it wasn't predicting enough to actually win any money. Looking back I suppose the program had just worked out that Manchester United would always beat Sheffield United. This was more football knowledge than I had but not enough to win any money.
3) Entering the results into the training data and then generating the forthcoming matches data was taking me ages and to be honest sport bores me rigid.
So I gave up and didn't become a millionaire.
These days however PC's are much faster and much of the training data could be scraped from the web. But I still doubt it is a route to a fortune but its certainly an interesting project.
Ian
A reply above stated:
I know that if the bookmakers odds could be beaten by an ANN,
bookmakers would already be using one to fix their odds.
Bookmakers don't set the line based on their analysis of the teams - they set it based on their analysis of the betting public's opinion of the teams. An ideal line for the bookie is where he has exactly the same amount bet on each side of the line - then he is guaranteed a profit = the 'juice' on the losers' bets. They move the line as game approaches to try to keep that 50/50 split. Bookie may think Home team -5 is accurate line based on game analysis, but if he expects that will draw 2x $$ on the Home team he will not set the line at -5 - he will set at -7 or -8 - to where he expects to draw equal $$ for both -5 and +5 bets.
ANNs are really good at pattern matching and prediction, so yes, odds are you could build an ANN that does what you want.
You'll need more than just team win/loss ratio to make it really effective however. Feed it stats for the players, too. For real effectiveness, try to include game-flow information... like which players are on the line for each play (for football, for example).
Ultimately, the biggest problem you'll run into (aside from the whole "writing the ANN" issue) is getting the data you need to feed it.
I've done some stock market predictions with an AI and my conclusion is that it is not very hard to make an AI that gets good results with the historical data.
Making winning transactions in the future is a different ballgame.
I have just worked on this very problem (predicting English Premier League games) for the past 10 days, and ended up with very similar results using 3 different methods: SVM, Logistic Regression, and NN.
LR and NN will give probabilities. SVM outputs 0/1 (but it can be tweaked for probas too (I haven't tried yet).
I needed a "massive" (by my standards at least) feature set though (almost 300) and a good chunk of data (13 years worth).
Re. data, I got it from the web, simply.
Conclusion: I can just about match the bookies in terms of accuracy (predicting victories in my case). If I add the pre-match odds to the feature set, I get the exact same accuracy as the bookies (as expected), but no better (surely meaning my feature set is summarized in the bookies odds, and they have a little extra knowledge on top).
I'm sure there is a way to get better accuracy, either by improving the algos, or more likely by having extremely granular data (as in which players play which games, for how many minutes, and a lot of player-level historical stats, so as to build bottom-up models of team performance).
But bottom line is I can testify NNs work quite well for that purpose. SVM is slightly better though, in my limited experience.
I think it's indeed all about data, but there's no end to what you could feed it with in order to be more accurate : winning/loosing streaks, players biorhythms, player's girlfriends mood before the game, minor/major injuries they suffered in the recent past, extra-sportive events that are bothering the players, etc, etc, etc.
But I don't think you can accurately predict which team is more likely to win, it would be just a more-or-less educated guess.
In my opinion and experience, because of the excessively large number of factors in play, designing and training the ANN will be unreasonably complex and time-consuming. ANNs are good at pattern matching, and game prediction takes much deductive reasoning rather than mere pattern matching.
But if you want to enjoy learning neural networks, it will be a good adventure. If you are successful, you might want to host your code somewhere for others to see and learn!
For game prediction, it would be much easier and faster with decision trees or a rules engine and so on. This will be no easy task either, but it will be another interesting activity.
My belief is that the unpredictability of an event is due to lack of information and understanding...If you have all the knowledge, then yes it could be done. Or, the more knowledge you have, the better it can be done.
So in theory, the answer is yes.
However, in practice, you can get a PhD and have a whole career working on this question and you still may not succeed.