I'm trying to train a classifier (specifically, a decision forest) using the Matlab 'TreeBagger' class.
I notice from the online documentation for TreeBagger, that there are a couple of methods/properties that could be used to see how important each data point feature is for distinguishing between classes of data point.
The two I found were the ComputeOOBVarImp property and the ClassificationTree.predictorImportance method. Using the latter on a decision forest/bagged ensemble of trees that I'd built, I found that many data point features had zero importance for the classifier.
Is there anything I can do with the TreeBagger class, or in conjunction with it, so that my trees use weak learners/splitting criteria that aren't just bounds on single input data features, but linear combinations of these features, in order to improve the 'information gain' at each node split.
I suppose this comes down to dimensionality reduction of the data, that I have no experience in dealing with in Matlab.
Thanks.
Related
I am a student and working on my first simple machine learning project. The project is about classifying articles into fake and true. I want to use SVM as classification algorithm and two different types of features:
TF-IDF
Lexical Features like the count of exclamation marks and numbers
I have figured out how to use the lexical features and TF-IDF as a features separately. However, I have not managed to figure out, how to combine them.
Is it possible, to train and test two separate learning algorithms (one with TF-IDF and the other one with lexical features) and later combine the results?
For example, can I calculate Accuracy, Precision and Recall for both separately and then take the average?
One way of combining two models is called model stacking. The idea behind it is, that you take the predictions of both models and feed them into a third model (called meta-model) which is then trained to make predictions given the output of the first two models. There is also another version of model stacking where you aditionally feed the original features into the meta-model.
However, in your case another way to combine both approaches would be to simply feed both the TF-IDF and the lexical features into one model and see how that performs.
For example, can I calculate Accuracy, Precision and Recall for both separately and then take the average?
This would unfortunately not work, because there is no combined model making those predictions for which your calculated metrics would be true.
I am trying to detect the faces using the Matlab built-in viola jones face detection. Is there anyway that I can combine two classification models like "FrontalFaceCART" and "ProfileFace" into one in order to get a better result?
Thank you.
You can't combine models. That's a non-sense in any classification task since every classifier is different (works differently, i.e. different algorithm behind it, and maybe is also trained differently).
According to the classification model(s) help (which can be found here), your two classifiers work as follows:
FrontalFaceCART is a model composed of weak classifiers, based on classification and regression tree analysis
ProfileFace is composed of weak classifiers, based on a decision stump
More infos can be found in the link provided but you can easily see that their inner behaviour is rather different, so you can't mix them or combine them.
It's like (in Machine Learning) mixing a Support Vector Machine with a K-Nearest Neighbour: the first one uses separating hyperplanes whereas the latter is simply based on distance(s).
You can, however, train several models in parallel (e.g. independently) and choose the model that better suits you (e.g. smaller error rate/higher accuracy): so you basically create as many different classifiers as you like, give them the same training set, evaluate each accuracy (and/or other parameters) and choose the best model.
One option is to make a hierarchical classifier. So in a first step you use the frontal face classifier (assuming that most pictures are frontal faces). If the classifier fails, you try with the profile classifier.
I did that with a dataset of faces and it improved my overall classification accuracy. Furthermore, if you have some a priori information, you can use it. In my case the faces were usually in the middle up part of the picture.
To further improve your performance, without using the two classifiers in MATLAB you are using, you would need to change your technique (and probably your programming language). This is the best method so far: Facenet.
Self organizing maps are more suited for clustering(dimension reduction) rather than classification. But SOM's are used in Linear vector quantization for fine tuning. But LVQ is a supervised leaning method. So to use SOM's in LVQ, LVQ should be provided with a labelled training data set. But since SOM's only do clustering and not classification and thus cannot have labelled data how can SOM be used as an input for LVQ?
Does LVQ fine tune the clusters in SOM?
Before using in LVQ should SOM be put through another classification algorithm so that it can classify the inputs so that these labelled inputs maybe used in LVQ?
It must be clear that supervised differs from unsupervised because in the first the target values are known.
Therefore, the output of supervised models is a prediction.
Instead, the output of unsupervised models is a label for which we don't know the meaning yet. For this purpose, after clustering, it is necessary to do the profiling of each one of those new label.
Having said so, you could label the dataset using an unsupervised learning technique such as SOM. Then, you should profile each class in order to be sure to understand the meaning of each class.
At this point, you can pursue two different path depending on what is your final objective:
1. use this new variable as a way for dimensionality reduction
2. use this new dataset featured with the additional variable representing the class as a labelled data that you will try to predict using the LVQ
Hope this can be useful!
I have a dataset with 20 features. 10 for age and 10 for weight. I want to classify the data for both separately then use the results from these 2 classifiers as an input to a third for the final result..
Is this possible with Weka????
Fusion of decisions is possible in WEKA (or with any two models), but not using the approach you describe.
Seeing as your using classifiers, each model will only output a class. You could use the two labels produced as features for a third model, but the lack of diversity in your inputs would most likely prevent the third model from giving you anything interesting.
At the most basic level, you could implement a voting scheme. Give each model a "vote" and then take assume that the correct class is the majority voted class. While this will give a rudimentary form of fusion, if you're familiar with voting theory you know that majority-rules somewhat falls apart when you have more than two classes.
I recommend that you use Combinatorial Fusion to fuse the output of the two classifiers. A good paper regarding the technique is available as a free PDF here. In essence, you use the Classifer::distributionForInstance() method provided by WEKA's classifiers and then use the sum of the distributions (called "scores") to rank the classes, choosing the class with the highest rank. The paper demonstrates that this method is superior to doing just voting alone.
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.