I am trying to classify water end-use events expressed as a time-series sequences into appropriate categories (e.g. toilet, tap, shower, etc). My first attempt using HMM shows a quite promising result with an average accuracy of 80%. I just wonder if there is any other techniques that allow the training input as time-series sequences of different length like HMM does rather than the extracted feature vector of each sequence. I have tried Conditional Random Field (CRF) and SVM ;however, as far as I know, these two techniques require input as a pre-computed feature vector and the length of all input vectors must be the same for training purpose. I am not sure if I am right or wrong at this point. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, Will
Related
I am working on a Information Retrieval model called DPR which is a basically a neural network (2 BERTs) that ranks document, given a query. Currently, This model is trained in binary manners (documents are whether related or not related) and uses Negative Log Likelihood (NLL) loss. I want to change this binary behavior and create a model that can handle graded relevance (like 3 grades: relevant, somehow relevant, not relevant). I have to change the loss function because currently, I can only assign 1 positive target for each query (DPR uses pytorch NLLLoss) and this is not what I need.
I was wondering if I could use a evaluation metric like NDCG (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain) to calculate the loss. I mean, the whole point of a loss function is to tell how off our prediction is and NDCG is doing the same.
So, can I use such metrics in place of loss function with some modifications? In case of NDCG, I think something like subtracting the result from 1 (1 - NDCG_score) might be a good loss function. Is that true?
With best regards, Ali.
Yes, this is possible. You would want to apply a listwise learning to rank approach instead of the more standard pairwise loss function.
In pairwise loss, the network is provided with example pairs (rel, non-rel) and the ground-truth label is a binary one (say 1 if the first among the pair is relevant, and 0 otherwise).
In the listwise learning approach, however, during training you would provide a list instead of a pair and the ground-truth value (still a binary) would indicate if this permutation is indeed the optimal one, e.g. the one which maximizes nDCG. In a listwise approach, the ranking objective is thus transformed into a classification of the permutations.
For more details, refer to this paper.
Obviously, the network instead of taking features as input may take BERT vectors of queries and the documents within a list, similar to ColBERT. Unlike ColBERT, where you feed in vectors from 2 docs (pairwise training), for listwise training u need to feed in vectors from say 5 documents.
I am trying to extract common patterns that always appear whenever a certain event occurs.
For example, patient A, B, and C all had a heart attack. Using the readings from there pulse, I want to find the common patterns before the heart attack stroke.
In the next stage I want to do this using multiple dimensions. For example, using the readings from the patients pulse, temperature, and blood pressure, what are the common patterns that occurred in the three dimensions taking into consideration the time and order between each dimension.
What is the best way to solve this problem using Neural Networks and which type of network is best?
(Just need some pointing in the right direction)
and thank you all for reading
Described problem looks like a time series prediction problem. That means a basic prediction problem for a continuous or discrete phenomena generated by some existing process. As a raw data for this problem we will have a sequence of samples x(t), x(t+1), x(t+2), ..., where x() means an output of considered process and t means some arbitrary timepoint.
For artificial neural networks solution we will consider a time series prediction, where we will organize our raw data to a new sequences. As you should know, we consider X as a matrix of input vectors that will be used in ANN learning. For time series prediction we will construct a new collection on following schema.
In the most basic form your input vector x will be a sequence of samples (x(t-k), x(t-k+1), ..., x(t-1), x(t)) taken at some arbitrary timepoint t, appended to it predecessor samples from timepoints t-k, t-k+1, ..., t-1. You should generate every example for every possible timepoint t like this.
But the key is to preprocess data so that we get the best prediction results.
Assuming your data (phenomena) is continuous, you should consider to apply some sampling technique. You could start with an experiment for some naive sampling period Δt, but there are stronger methods. See for example Nyquist–Shannon Sampling Theorem, where the key idea is to allow to recover continuous x(t) from discrete x(Δt) samples. This is reasonable when we consider that we probably expect our ANNs to do this.
Assuming your data is discrete... you still should need to try sampling, as this will speed up your computations and might possibly provide better generalization. But the key advice is: do experiments! as the best architecture depends on data and also will require to preprocess them correctly.
The next thing is network output layer. From your question, it appears that this will be a binary class prediction. But maybe a wider prediction vector is worth considering? How about to predict the future of considered samples, that is x(t+1), x(t+2) and experiment with different horizons (length of the future)?
Further reading:
Somebody mentioned Python here. Here is some good tutorial on timeseries prediction with Keras: Victor Schmidt, Keras recurrent tutorial, Deep Learning Tutorials
This paper is good if you need some real example: Fessant, Francoise, Samy Bengio, and Daniel Collobert. "On the prediction of solar activity using different neural network models." Annales Geophysicae. Vol. 14. No. 1. 1996.
My task is to classify time-series data with use of MATLAB and any neural-network framework.
Describing task more specifically:
Is is a problem from computer-vision field. Is is a scene boundary detection task.
Source data are 4 arrays of neighbouring frame histogram correlations from the videoflow.
Based on this data, we have to classify this timeseries with 2 classes:
"scene break"
"no scene break"
So network input is 4 double values for each source data entry, and output is one binary value. I am going to show example of src data below:
0.997894,0.999413,0.982098,0.992164
0.998964,0.999986,0.999127,0.982068
0.993807,0.998823,0.994008,0.994299
0.225917,0.000000,0.407494,0.400424
0.881150,0.999427,0.949031,0.994918
Problem is that pattern-recogition tools from Matlab Neural Toolbox (like patternnet) threat source data like independant entrues. But I have strong belief that results will be precise only if net take decision based on the history of previous correlations.
But I also did not manage to get valid response from reccurent nets which serve time series analysis (like delaynet and narxnet).
narxnet and delaynet return lousy result and it looks like these types of networks not supposed to solve classification tasks. I am not insert any code here while it is allmost totally autogenerated with use of Matlab Neural Toolbox GUI.
I would apprecite any help. Especially, some advice which tool fits better for accomplishing my task.
I am not sure how difficult to classify this problem.
Given your sample, 4 input and 1 output feed-forward neural network is sufficient.
If you insist on using historical inputs, you simply pre-process your input d, such that
Your new input D(t) (a vector at time t) is composed of d(t) is a 1x4 vector at time t; d(t-1) is 1x4 vector at time t-1;... and d(t-k) is a 1x4 vector at time t-k.
If t-k <0, just treat it as '0'.
So you have a 1x(4(k+1)) vector as input, and 1 output.
Similar as Dan mentioned, you need to find a good k.
Speaking of the weights, I think additional pre-processing like windowing method on the input is not necessary, since neural network would be trained to assign weights to each input dimension.
It sounds a bit messy, since the neural network would consider each input dimension independently. That means you lose the information as four neighboring correlations.
One possible solution is the pre-processing extracts the neighborhood features, e.g. using mean and std as two features representative for the originals.
I'm busy working on a project involving k-nearest neighbor (KNN) classification. I have mixed numerical and categorical fields. The categorical values are ordinal (e.g. bank name, account type). Numerical types are, for e.g. salary and age. There are also some binary types (e.g., male, female).
How do I go about incorporating categorical values into the KNN analysis?
As far as I'm aware, one cannot simply map each categorical field to number keys (e.g. bank 1 = 1; bank 2 = 2, etc.), so I need a better approach for using the categorical fields. I have heard that one can use binary numbers. Is this a feasible method?
You need to find a distance function that works for your data. The use of binary indicator variables solves this problem implicitly. This has the benefit of allowing you to continue your probably matrix based implementation with this kind of data, but a much simpler way - and appropriate for most distance based methods - is to just use a modified distance function.
There is an infinite number of such combinations. You need to experiment which works best for you. Essentially, you might want to use some classic metric on the numeric values (usually with normalization applied; but it may make sense to also move this normalization into the distance function), plus a distance on the other attributes, scaled appropriately.
In most real application domains of distance based algorithms, this is the most difficult part, optimizing your domain specific distance function. You can see this as part of preprocessing: defining similarity.
There is much more than just Euclidean distance. There are various set theoretic measures which may be much more appropriate in your case. For example, Tanimoto coefficient, Jaccard similarity, Dice's coefficient and so on. Cosine might be an option, too.
There are whole conferences dedicated to the topics of similarity search - nobody claimed this is trivial in anything but Euclidean vector spaces (and actually, not even there): http://www.sisap.org/2012
The most straight forward way to convert categorical data into numeric is by using indicator vectors. See the reference I posted at my previous comment.
Can we use Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) + edit distance and assume that every bin represents a different category? I understand that categorical data does not show any order and the bins in LSH are arranged according to a hash function. Finding the hash function that gives a meaningful number of bins sounds to me like learning a metric space.
I have a dataset of n data, where each data is represented by a set of extracted features. Generally, the clustering algorithms need that all input data have the same dimensions (the same number of features), that is, the input data X is a n*d matrix of n data points each of which has d features.
In my case, I've previously extracted some features from my data but the number of extracted features for each data is most likely to be different (I mean, I have a dataset X where data points have not the same number of features).
Is there any way to adapt them, in order to cluster them using some common clustering algorithms requiring data to be of the same dimensions.
Thanks
Sounds like the problem you have is that it's a 'sparse' data set. There are generally two options.
Reduce the dimensionality of the input data set using multi-dimensional scaling techniques. For example Sparse SVD (e.g. Lanczos algorithm) or sparse PCA. Then apply traditional clustering on the dense lower dimensional outputs.
Directly apply a sparse clustering algorithm, such as sparse k-mean. Note you can probably find a PDF of this paper if you look hard enough online (try scholar.google.com).
[Updated after problem clarification]
In the problem, a handwritten word is analyzed visually for connected components (lines). For each component, a fixed number of multi-dimensional features is extracted. We need to cluster the words, each of which may have one or more connected components.
Suggested solution:
Classify the connected components first, into 1000(*) unique component classifications. Then classify the words against the classified components they contain (a sparse problem described above).
*Note, the exact number of component classifications you choose doesn't really matter as long as it's high enough as the MDS analysis will reduce them to the essential 'orthogonal' classifications.
There are also clustering algorithms such as DBSCAN that in fact do not care about your data. All this algorithm needs is a distance function. So if you can specify a distance function for your features, then you can use DBSCAN (or OPTICS, which is an extension of DBSCAN, that doesn't need the epsilon parameter).
So the key question here is how you want to compare your features. This doesn't have much to do with clustering, and is highly domain dependant. If your features are e.g. word occurrences, Cosine distance is a good choice (using 0s for non-present features). But if you e.g. have a set of SIFT keypoints extracted from a picture, there is no obvious way to relate the different features with each other efficiently, as there is no order to the features (so one could compare the first keypoint with the first keypoint etc.) A possible approach here is to derive another - uniform - set of features. Typically, bag of words features are used for such a situation. For images, this is also known as visual words. Essentially, you first cluster the sub-features to obtain a limited vocabulary. Then you can assign each of the original objects a "text" composed of these "words" and use a distance function such as cosine distance on them.
I see two options here:
Restrict yourself to those features for which all your data-points have a value.
See if you can generate sensible default values for missing features.
However, if possible, you should probably resample all your data-points, so that they all have values for all features.