I am using Weka to classify a dataset. Each data point is in one of five topics that I am trying to generalize across.
I would like to make each topic a test set so that I can train on topics 1-4 and test on topic 5, then train on topics 1, 3, 4 and 5, and test on 2, and so on.
Is there a way to direct Weka to preform this automatically one time with one dataset? That is, can I direct Weka to cross-validate by topic?
I apologize for redundancy if this question has already been asked. If it indeed has, any help in directing me towards the answer would be most appreciated.
Thanks!
There are a few ways that I can think of that may assist in getting the results that you desire:
As you have outlined in your question, you could generate 5 different training sets with the remaining topic as the testing set. Each model would need to be trained individually if you were going to use the Weka interface (Supply the training data, the build a classifier and supply a testing set, repeat). This would likely be quickest if it's a once off.
You may be able to use the FilteredClassifier with the filter of RemoveWithValues. This may be able to remove the training cases of a particular topic if the topic number is an available attribute (I am guessing that this data is not part of the model's data though, so attribute filtering may also be required if using this approach).
If you are willing to use Java to program a solution, you would be able to manipulate the data and build each of the five classifiers in one go. I am thinking that the algorithm for such a model would be as outlined below. If you plan to undertake this process a lot, it may be the better solution.
Algorithm:
for each topic t
training_data = all cases not containing topic t
testing_data = training_set cases containing topic t
build classifier using training_data, testing_data
save classifier
end for
Related
Looking for advice on how to determine wether my model output data distribution is similar (and if so, then how similar) to the observed datasets distribution.
Basically I have a GBM model with mean reversion that provides seemingly good results, when I compare its distribution to observed data. You can see their PDFs side-by-side in the attached picture.
PDF of observed and model data
Both datasets are huge (~6 million datapoint), and I start to suspect that this is part of the problem...
I am looking for a way to verify that the datasets distributions are similar. I tried the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, two-sample t-test, but for some reason both of them rejected the Null hypothesis (always, even with different Alphas). In some threads I've read that these tests are unreliable, when applied to huge datasets, but there wasn't a consensus about this.
I am using Matlab currently, but I am open to others if necessary.
Any help would be appreciated! I primarily looking for a hypothesis test for verification, but if you have a different idea don't hold it back!
How does word2vec create vectors for words? I trained two word2vec models using two different files (from commoncrawl website) but I am getting same word vectors for a given word from both models.
Actually, I have created multiple word2vec models using different text files from the commoncrawl website. Now I want to check which model is better among all. How can select the best model out of all these models and why I am getting same word vectors for different models?
Sorry, If the question is not clear.
If you are getting identical word-vectors from models that you've prepared from different text corpuses, something is likely wrong in your process. You may not be performing any training at all, perhaps because of a problem in how the text iterable is provided to the Word2Vec class. (In that case, word-vectors would remain at their initial, randomly-initialized values.)
You should enable logging, and review the logs carefully to see that sensible counts of words, examples, progress, and incremental-progress are displayed during the process. You should also check that results for some superficial, ad-hoc checks look sensible after training. For example, does model.most_similar('hot') return other words/concepts somewhat like 'hot'?
Once you're sure models are being trained on varied corpuses – in which case their word-vectors should be very different from each other – deciding which model is 'best' depends on your specific goals with word-vectors.
You should devise a repeatable, quantitative way to evaluate a model against your intended end-uses. This might start crudely with a few of your own manual reviews of results, like looking over most_similar() results for important words for better/worse results – but should become more extensive. rigorous, and automated as your project progresses.
An example of such an automated scoring is the accuracy() method on gensim's word-vectors object. See:
https://github.com/RaRe-Technologies/gensim/blob/6d6f5dcfa3af4bc61c47dfdf5cdbd8e1364d0c3a/gensim/models/keyedvectors.py#L652
If supplied with a specifically-formatted file of word-analogies, it will check how well the word-vectors solve those analogies. For example, the questions-words.txt of Google's original word2vec code release includes the analogies they used to report vector quality. Note, though, that the word-vectors that are best for some purposes, like understanding text topics or sentiment, might not also be the best at solving this style of analogy, and vice-versa. If training your own word-vectors, it's best to choose your training corpus/parameters based on your own goal-specific criteria for what 'good' vectors will be.
I was wondering if there is a source, where given some train data and test data, the test statistics of evaluation of Recommender Systems are also provided. For example, given two files train.dat and test.dat, where the data have already been split into a training and a test set which contain user_id, item_id and ratings (just like in grouplens dataset) and in the end some answer for precision or recall or map#k test is provided for the performance of a nonpersonalized recommender system (like the top rated items-most viewed) or any other recommender system.
Thank you in advance,
Regards,
Marios
The fastest way to find out how known recommenders performance on the new dataset is to grab existing implementation and run it. If You have prepared split - it's OK, but make sure that splitting strategy is adequate what You are trying to measure.
Helpful project for evaluation:
- librec
- project Rival
- MediaLens
And make sure, the right measure is used for the right purpose. In the question the rating prediction example is given and then the ranking evaluation measures are listed.
I have been working on "Script identification from bilingual documents".
I want to classify the pages/blocks as either Eng(class 1), Hindi (class 2) or Mixed using libsvm in matlab. but the problem is that the training data i have consists of samples corresponding to Hindi and english pages/blocks only but no mixed pages.
The test data i want to give may consists of Mixed pages/blocks also, in that case i want it to be classified as "Mixed". I am planning to do it using confidence score or probability values. like if the prob value of class 1 is greater than a threshold (say 0.8) and prob value of class 2 is less than a threshold say(0.05) then it will be classified as class 1, and class 2 vice-versa. but if aforementioned two conditions dont satisfy then i want to classify it as "Mixed".
The third return value from the "libsvmpredict" is prob_values and i was planning to go ahead with this prob_values to decide whether the testdata is Hindi, English or Mixed. but at few places i learnt that "libsvmpredict" does not produce the actual prob_values.
Is there any way which can help me to classify the test data into 3 classes( Hindi, English, Mixed) using training data consisting of only 2 classes in SVM.
This is not the modus operandi for SVMs.
In no way SVMs can predict a given class without knowing it, without knowing how to separate such class from all other classes.
The function svmpredict() in LibSVM actually shows the probability estimates and the greater this value is, the more confident you can be regarding your prediction. But you cannot rely on such values if you have just two classes in order to predict a third class: indeed svmpredict() will return as many decision values as there are classes.
You can go on with your thresholding system (which, again, is not SVM-based) but it most likely fail or give bad performances. Think about that: you have to set up two thresholds and use them in a logic AND manner. The chance of correctly classified non-Mixed documents will indeed drastically decrease.
My suggestion is: instead of wasting time setting up thresholds, with a high chance of bad performances, join some of these texts together or create some new files with some Hindi and some English lines in order to add to your training data some proper Mixed documents and perform a standard 3-classes SVM system.
In order to create such files you can as well use Matlab, which has a pretty decent file I/O functions such as fread(), fwrite(), fprintf(), fscanf(), importdata() and so on...
I'm having problems in understanding how K-NN classification works in MATLAB.´
Here's the problem, I have a large dataset (65 features for over 1500 subjects) and its respective classes' label (0 or 1).
According to what's been explained to me, I have to divide the data into training, test and validation subsets to perform supervised training on the data, and classify it via K-NN.
First of all, what's the best ratio to divide the 3 subgroups (1/3 of the size of the dataset each?).
I've looked into ClassificationKNN/fitcknn functions, as well as the crossval function (idealy to divide data), but I'm really not sure how to use them.
To sum up, I wanted to
- divide data into 3 groups
- "train" the KNN (I know it's not a method that requires training, but the equivalent to training) with the training subset
- classify the test subset and get it's classification error/performance
- what's the point of having a validation test?
I hope you can help me, thank you in advance
EDIT: I think I was able to do it, but, if that's not asking too much, could you see if I missed something? This is my code, for a random case:
nfeats=60;ninds=1000;
trainRatio=0.8;valRatio=.1;testRatio=.1;
kmax=100; %for instance...
data=randi(100,nfeats,ninds);
class=randi(2,1,ninds);
[trainInd,valInd,testInd] = dividerand(1000,trainRatio,valRatio,testRatio);
train=data(:,trainInd);
test=data(:,testInd);
val=data(:,valInd);
train_class=class(:,trainInd);
test_class=class(:,testInd);
val_class=class(:,valInd);
precisionmax=0;
koptimal=0;
for know=1:kmax
%is it the same thing use knnclassify or fitcknn+predict??
predicted_class = knnclassify(val', train', train_class',know);
mdl = fitcknn(train',train_class','NumNeighbors',know) ;
label = predict(mdl,val');
consistency=sum(label==val_class')/length(val_class);
if consistency>precisionmax
precisionmax=consistency;
koptimal=know;
end
end
mdl_final = fitcknn(train',train_class','NumNeighbors',know) ;
label_final = predict(mdl,test');
consistency_final=sum(label==test_class')/length(test_class);
Thank you very much for all your help
For your 1st question "what's the best ratio to divide the 3 subgroups" there are only rules of thumb:
The amount of training data is most important. The more the better.
Thus, make it as big as possible and definitely bigger than the test or validation data.
Test and validation data have a similar function, so it is convenient to assign them the same amount
of data. But it is important to have enough data to be able to recognize over-adaptation. So, they
should be picked from the data basis fully randomly.
Consequently, a 50/25/25 or 60/20/20 partitioning is quite common. But if your total amount of data is small in relation to the total number of weights of your chosen topology (e.g. 10 weights in your net and only 200 cases in the data), then 70/15/15 or even 80/10/10 might be better choices.
Concerning your 2nd question "what's the point of having a validation test?":
Typically, you train the chosen model on your training data and then estimate the "success" by applying the trained model to unseen data - the validation set.
If you now would completely stop your efforts to improve accuracy, you indeed don't need three partitions of your data. But typically, you feel that you can improve the success of your model by e.g. changing the number of weights or hidden layers or ... and now a big loops starts to run with many iterations:
1) change weights and topology, 2) train, 3) validate, not satisfied, goto 1)
The long-term effect of this loop is, that you increasingly adapt your model to the validation data, so the results get better not because you so intelligently improve your topology but because you unconsciously learn the properties of the validation set and how to cope with them.
Now, the final and only valid accuracy of your neural net is estimated on really unseen data: the test set. This is done only once and is also useful to reveal over-adaption. You are not allowed to start a second even bigger loop now to prohibit any adaption to the test set!