Iam writting my thesis and using software called Wingen3 and I am facing problem in determing How many replication should I put when using the program to generate Data?
Some says 5, some says 10,000 but is there a rule or a formula to determine how many replication?
Nobody can give you more than a hand-waving guess without knowing more about your specific case. Note: I know absolutely nothing about "Wingen3", but sample size questions are (or at least ought to be) a function of the statistical properties of your estimators, not of the software.
In general you replicate simulations when they are stochastic to estimate the distributional behavior of the output measures. How many replications depends entirely on what type of measure you're trying to determine and what margin of error you're willing to tolerate in the estimates. One fairly common technique is to make a small initial run and estimate the sample variability of your performance measure. Then project how large a sample will get you down to the desired margin of error. This works fairly well if you're estimating means, medians, or quartiles, but not at all well for estimating quantiles in the tail of your distribution. For instance, if you want to determine the 99.9%-ile, you're seeking extremes that happen one time in a thousand on average and you may need tens or even hundreds of thousands of replications to accurately assess such rare events.
Related
If I am using, say guided local search for a VRP, I keep getting slightly different results even when I set a seed to generate my data. Is this normal because it is a heuristic and not an algorithm or is there something else I am missing?
That is normal, and yes it is because it uses heuristics, not a "real" optimization since VRP is an NP-hard problem. Even if you run it on a different system that has different hardware configurations, especially the CPU, there is a possibility that it will produce different results. Everything depends on how complex is the VRP problem, the more complex the problem the probability of producing different results will increase.
I've seen some comments in online articles/tutorials or Stack Overflow questions which suggest that increasing number of epochs can result in overfitting. But my intuition tells me that there should be no direct relationship at all between number of epochs and overfitting. So I'm looking for answer which explains if I'm right or wrong (or whatever's in between).
Here's my reasoning though. To overfit, you need to have enough free parameters (I think this is called "capacity" in neural networks) in your model to generate a function which can replicate the sample data points. If you don't have enough free parameters, you'll never overfit. You might just underfit.
So really, if you don't have too many free parameters, you could run infinite epochs and never overfit. If you have too many free parameters, then yes, the more epochs you have the more likely it is that you get to a place where you're overfitting. But that's just because running more epochs revealed the root cause: too many free parameters. The real loss function doesn't care about how many epochs you run. It existed the moment you defined your model structure, before you ever even tried to do gradient descent on it.
In fact, I'd venture as far as to say: assuming you have the computational resources and time, you should always aim to run as many epochs as possible, because that will tell you whether your model is prone to overfitting. Your best model will be the one that provides great training and validation accuracy, no matter how many epochs you run it for.
EDIT
While reading more into this, I realise I forgot to take into account that you can arbitrarily vary the sample size as well. Given a fixed model, a smaller sample size is more prone to being overfit. And then that kind of makes me doubt my intuition above. Still happy to get an answer though!
Your intuition to me seems completely correct.
But here is the caveat. The whole purpose of deep models is that they are "deep" (duh!!). So what happens is that your feature space gets exponentially larger as you grow your network.
Here is an example to compare a deep model with a simpler mode:
Assume you have a 10-variable data set. With a crazy amount of feature engineering, you might be able to extract 50 features out of it. Then if you run a traditional model (let's say a logistic regression), you will have 50 parameters (capacity in your word, or degree of freedom) to train.
But, if you use a very simple deep model with Layer 1: 10 unit, layer2: 10 units, layer3: 5 units, layer4: 2 units, you will end up with (10*10 + 10*10 + 5*2 = 210) parameters to train.
Therefore, usually when we train a neural net for a long time, we end of with a memorized version of our data set(this gets worse if our data set is small and easy to be memorized).
But as you also mentioned, there is no intrinsic reason why higher number of epochs result in overfitting. Early stopping is usually a very good way for avoiding this. Just set patience equal to 5-10 epochs.
If the amount of trainable parameters is small with respect to the size of your training set (and your training set is reasonably diverse) then running over the same data multiple times will not be that significant, since you will be learning some features about your problem, rather than just memorizing the training data set. The problem arises when the amount of parameters is comparable to your training data set size (or bigger), it is basically the same problem as with any machine learning technique that uses too many features. This is quite common if you use large layers with dense connections. To combat this overfitting problem there are lots of regularization techniques (dropout, L1 regularizer, constraining certain connections to be 0 or equal such as in CNN).
The problem is that might still be left with too many trainable parameters. A simple way to regularize even further is to have a small learning rate (i.e. don't learn too much from this particular example lest you memorize it) combined with monitoring the epochs (if there is a large gap increase between validation/training accuracy, you are starting to overfit your model). You can then use the gap info to stop your training. This is a version of what is known as early stopping (stop before you reach the minimum in your loss function).
The problem is simple: I need to find the optimal strategy to implement accurate HyperLogLog unions based on Redis' representation thereof--this includes handling their sparse/dense representations if the data structure is exported for use elsewhere.
Two Strategies
There are two strategies, one of which seems vastly simpler. I've looked at the actual Redis source and I'm having a bit of trouble (not big in C, myself) figuring out whether it's better from a precision and efficiency perspective to use their built-in structures/routines or develop my own. For what it's worth, I'm willing to sacrifice space and to some degree errors (stdev +-2%) in the pursuit of efficiency with extremely large sets.
1. Inclusion Principle
By far the simplest of the two--essentially I would just use the lossless union (PFMERGE) in combination with this principle to calculate an estimate of the overlap. Tests seem to show this running reliably in many cases, although I'm having trouble getting an accurate handle on in-the-wild efficiency and accuracy (some cases can produce errors of 20-40% which is unacceptable in this use case).
Basically:
aCardinality + bCardinality - intersectionCardinality
or, in the case of multiple sets...
aCardinality + (bCardinality x cCardinality) - intersectionCardinality
seems to work in many cases with good accuracy, but I don't know if I trust it. While Redis has many built-in low-cardinality modifiers designed to circumvent known HLL issues, I don't know if the issue of wild inaccuracy (using inclusion/exclusion) is still present with sets of high disparity in size...
2. Jaccard Index Intersection/MinHash
This way seems more interesting, but a part of me feels like it may computationally overlap with some of Redis' existing optimizations (ie, I'm not implementing my own HLL algorithm from scratch).
With this approach I'd use a random sampling of bins with a MinHash algorithm (I don't think an LSH implementation is worth the trouble). This would be a separate structure, but by using minhash to get the Jaccard index of the sets, you can then effectively multiply the union cardinality by that index for a more accurate count.
Problem is, I'm not very well versed in HLL's and while I'd love to dig into the Google paper I need a viable implementation in short order. Chances are I'm overlooking some basic considerations either of Redis' existing optimizations, or else in the algorithm itself that allows for computationally-cheap intersection estimates with pretty lax confidence bounds.
thus, my question:
How do I most effectively get a computationally-cheap intersection estimate of N huge (billions) sets, using redis, if I'm willing to sacrifice space (and to a small degree, accuracy)?
Read this paper some time back. Will probably answer most of your questions. Inclusion Principle inevitably compounds error margins a large number of sets. Min-Hash approach would be the way to go.
http://tech.adroll.com/media/hllminhash.pdf
There is a third strategy to estimate the intersection size of any two sets given as HyperLogLog sketches: Maximum likelihood estimation.
For more details see the paper available at
http://oertl.github.io/hyperloglog-sketch-estimation-paper/.
What kind of knowledge/ inference can be made from k means clustering analysis of KDDcup99 dataset?
We ploted some graphs using matlab they looks like this:::
Experiment 1: Plot of dst_host_count vs serror_rate
Experiment 2: Plot of srv_count vs srv_serror_rate
Experiment 3: Plot of count vs serror_rate
I just extracted saome features from kddcup data set and ploted them.....
The main problem am facing is due to lack of domain knowledge I cant determine what inference can be drawn form this graphs another one is if I have chosen wrong axis then what should be the correct chosen feature?
I got very less time to complete this thing so I don't understand the backgrounds very well
Any help telling the interpretation of these graphs would be helpful
What kind of unsupervised learning can be made using this data and plots?
Just to give you some domain knowledge: the KDD cup data set contains information about different aspects of network connections. Each sample contains 'connection duration', 'protocol used', 'source/destination byte size' and many other features that describes one connection connection. Now, some of these connections are malicious. The malicious samples have their unique 'fingerprint' (unique combination of different feature values) that separates them from good ones.
What kind of knowledge/ inference can be made from k means clustering analysis of KDDcup99 dataset?
You can try k-means clustering to initially cluster the normal and bad connections. Also, the bad connections falls into 4 main categories themselves. So, you can try k = 5, where one cluster will capture the good ones and other 4 the 4 malicious ones. Look at the first section of the tasks page for details.
You can also check if some dimensions in your data set have high correlation. If so, then you can use something like PCA to reduce some dimensions. Look at the full list of features. After PCA, your data will have a simpler representation (with less number of dimensions) and might give better performance.
What should be the correct chosen feature?
This is hard to tell. Currently data is very high dimensional, so I don't think trying to visualize 2/3 of the dimensions in a graph will give you a good heuristics on what dimensions to choose. I would suggest
Use all the dimensions for for training and testing the model. This will give you a measure of the best performance.
Then try removing one dimension at a time to see how much the performance is affected. For example, you remove the dimension 'srv_serror_rate' from your data and the model performance comes out to be almost the same. Then you know this dimension is not giving you any important info about the problem at hand.
Repeat step two until you can't find any dimension that can be removed without hurting performance.
My research question is about elderly people and I have to find out underlying groups. The data comes from a questionnaire. I have thought about cluster analysis, but the thing is that I would like to search perceived health and which things affect on the perceived health, e.g. what kind of groups of elderly rank their health as bad.
I have some 30 questions I would like to check with the analysis, to see if for example widows have better or worse health than the average. I also have weights in my data so I need to use complex samples.
How can I use an already existing function, or what analysis should I use?
The key challenge you have to solve first is to specify a similarity measure. Once you can measure similarity, various clustering algorithms become available.
But questionnaire data doesn't make a very good vector space, so you can't just use Euclidean distance.
If you want to generate clusters using SPSS, standard options include: k-means, hierarhical cluster analysis, or 2-step. I have some general notes on cluster analysis in SPSS here. See from slide 34.
If you want to see if widows differ in their health, then you need to form a measure of health and compare means on that measure between widows and non-widows (presumably using a between groups t-test). If you have 30 questions related to health, then you may want to do a factor analysis to see how the items group together.
If you are trying to develop a general model of whats predicts perceived health then there are a wide range of modelling options available. Multiple regression would be an obvious starting point. If you have many potential predictors then you have a lot of choices regarding whether you are going to be testing particular models or doing a more data driven model building approach.
More generally, it sounds like you need to clarify the aims of your analyses and the particular hypotheses that you want to test.