I have a training dataset which gives me the ranking of various cricket players(2008) on the basis of their performance in the past years(2005-2007).
I've to develop a model using this data and then apply it on another dataset to predict the ranking of players(2012) using the data already given to me(2009-2011).
Which predictive modelling will be best for this? What are the pros and cons of using the different forms of regression or neural networks?
The type of model to use depends on different factors:
Amount of data: if you have very little data, you better opt for a simple prediction model like linear regression. If you use a prediction model which is too powerful you run into the risk of over-fitting your model with the effect that it generalizes bad on new data. Now you might ask, what is little data? That depends on the number of input dimensions and on the underlying distributions of your data.
Your experience with the model. Neural networks can be quite tricky to handle if you have little experience with them. There are quite a few parameters to be optimized, like the network layer structure, the number of iterations, the learning rate, the momentum term, just to mention a few. Linear prediction is a lot easier to handle with respect to this "meta-optimization"
A pragmatic approach for you, if you still cannot opt for one of the methods, would be to evaluate a couple of different prediction methods. You take some of your data where you already have target values (the 2008 data), split it into training and test data (take some 10% as test data, e.g.), train and test using cross-validation and compute the error rate by comparing the predicted values with the target values you already have.
One great book, which is also on the web, is Pattern recognition and machine learning by C. Bishop. It has a great introductory section on prediction models.
Which predictive modelling will be best for this? 2. What are the pros
and cons of using the different forms of regression or neural
networks?
"What is best" depends on the resources you have. Full Bayesian Networks (or k-Dependency Bayesian Networks) with information theoretically learned graphs, are the ultimate 'assumptionless' models, and often perform extremely well. Sophisticated Neural Networks can perform impressively well too. The problem with such models is that they can be very computationally expensive, so models that employ methods of approximation may be more appropriate. There are mathematical similarities connecting regression, neural networks and bayesian networks.
Regression is actually a simple form of Neural Networks with some additional assumptions about the data. Neural Networks can be constructed to make less assumptions about the data, but as Thomas789 points out at the cost of being considerably more difficult to understand (sometimes monumentally difficult to debug).
As a rule of thumb - the more assumptions and approximations in a model the easier it is to A: understand and B: find the computational power necessary, but potentially at the cost of performance or "overfitting" (this is when a model suits the training data well, but doesn't extrapolate to the general case).
Free online books:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/
http://ciml.info/dl/v0_8/ciml-v0_8-all.pdf
Related
I'm searching for existing work on Neural Net architectures that grow based on need or complexity/variability of training data. Some architectures that I've found include self-organizing maps, and growing Neural gas. Are these the only one's out there?
What I'm searching for is best illustrated by a simple scenario;
if the training data only has a few patterns, then the neural net would be 2-3 layers deep with a small set of nodes in each layer. If the training data was more convoluted, then we would see deeper networks.
Such work seems rare or absent in the AI literature. Is it because the performance is comparatively weak ? I'd appreciate any guidance.
An example of this is called neuro-evolution. What you could do is combine backprop with evolution to find the optimal structure for your dataset. Neataptic is one of the NN libraries which offers neuro-evolution. With some simple coding you could turn this into backprop + evolution.
The disadvantage of this is that it will require much more computation power as it requires a genetic algorithm to run an entire population. So using neuro-evolution does make the performance comparibly weak.
However, I think there are more techniques out there that disable certain nodes, and if there is no negative effect on the output, they will be removed. I'm not sure though.
I'm in the overtures of designing a prose imitation system. It will read a bunch of prose, then mimic it. It's mostly for fun so the mimicking prose doesn't need to make too much sense, but I'd like to make it as good as I can, with a minimal amount of effort.
My first idea is to use my example prose to train a classifying feed-forward neural network, which classifies its input as either part of the training data or not part. Then I'd like to somehow invert the neural network, finding new random inputs that also get classified by the trained network as being part of the training data. The obvious and stupid way of doing this is to randomly generate word lists and only output the ones that get classified above a certain threshold, but I think there is a better way, using the network itself to limit the search to certain regions of the input space. For example, maybe you could start with a random vector and do gradient descent optimisation to find a local maximum around the random starting point. Is there a word for this kind of imitation process? What are some of the known methods?
How about Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN, Goodfellow 2014) and their more advanced siblings like Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Networks? There are plenty of proper research articles out there, and also more gentle introductions like this one on DCGAN and this on GAN. To quote the latter:
GANs are an interesting idea that were first introduced in 2014 by a
group of researchers at the University of Montreal lead by Ian
Goodfellow (now at OpenAI). The main idea behind a GAN is to have two
competing neural network models. One takes noise as input and
generates samples (and so is called the generator). The other model
(called the discriminator) receives samples from both the generator
and the training data, and has to be able to distinguish between the
two sources. These two networks play a continuous game, where the
generator is learning to produce more and more realistic samples, and
the discriminator is learning to get better and better at
distinguishing generated data from real data. These two networks are
trained simultaneously, and the hope is that the competition will
drive the generated samples to be indistinguishable from real data.
(DC)GAN should fit your task quite well.
I have used the neural network software for predicting the continous data. Obviously the prediction was better than the results obtained through regression analysis. Now i would like to derive a model expression from the trained weights obtained from the training of the continous data through the software, as suggested by many researchers on how to interpret the trained weights and biases for deriving the model equation i tried to derive one from the similar lines.
After deriving the equation i found that the equation was not able to replicate the same results as given by the neural network software. so i am exploring the new methods to derive the equation. I want to know where i am going wrong and if any one can provide me steps for deriving one it will be helpful.
I have read sometime ago about what you're talking about, but with some diferences. It would probably be useful to you. It's called 'knowledge distilling', if I remember well, and it is a way of extracting the knowledge inside the blackbox that a neural network is. It consists, roughly speaking, in training a simpler model that is easier to interpret, but preserving al the predictive power of the original neural network. I'm speaking from memory, so I'm sorry about the lack of detail. A search on Google will provide the exact references for it.
Hope to have helped.
I have to write classifier for corpus of texts, which should separate all my texts into 2 classes.
The corpus is very large (near 4 millions for test, and 50000 for study).
But, what algorithm should I choose?
Naive Bayesian
Neural networks
SVM
Random forest
kNN (why not?)
I heard that Random forests and SVM is state-of-the-art methods, but, maybe someone
has a deal with listed above algorithms, and knows, which is fastest and which more accurate?
As a 2-classes text classifier, I don't think you need:
(1) KNN: it is a clustering method rather than classification, and it is slow;
(2) Random forest: the decision trees may not be a good option in high sparse dimensions;
You can try:
(1) naive bayesian: most straightforward and easiest to code. Proved to work well in text classification problems;
(2) logistic regression: works well if your training sample number is much larger than the feature number;
(3) SVM: again, for training sample much more than features, SVM with linear kernel works as well as logistic regression. And it is also one of the top algorithms in text classification;
(4) Neural network: seems like a panacea in machine learning. In theory it can learn any models that SVM/logistic regression could. The problem is there are not so many packages on NN as there are in SVM. As a result, the optimization process for neural network is time-consuming.
Yet it is hard to say which algorithm is best suit for your case. If you are using python, scikit-learn includes almost all these algorithms for you to test. Besides, weka, which integrates many machine learning algorithms in a user friendly graphic interface, is also a good candidate for you to better know the performance of each algorithm.
I'm trying to build an app to detect images which are advertisements from the webpages. Once I detect those I`ll not be allowing those to be displayed on the client side.
Basically I'm using Back-propagation algorithm to train the neural network using the dataset given here: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Internet+Advertisements.
But in that dataset no. of attributes are very high. In fact one of the mentors of the project told me that If you train the Neural Network with that many attributes, it'll take lots of time to get trained. So is there a way to optimize the input dataset? Or I just have to use that many attributes?
1558 is actually a modest number of features/attributes. The # of instances(3279) is also small. The problem is not on the dataset side, but on the training algorithm side.
ANN is slow in training, I'd suggest you to use a logistic regression or svm. Both of them are very fast to train. Especially, svm has a lot of fast algorithms.
In this dataset, you are actually analyzing text, but not image. I think a linear family classifier, i.e. logistic regression or svm, is better for your job.
If you are using for production and you cannot use open source code. Logistic regression is very easy to implement compared to a good ANN and SVM.
If you decide to use logistic regression or SVM, I can future recommend some articles or source code for you to refer.
If you're actually using a backpropagation network with 1558 input nodes and only 3279 samples, then the training time is the least of your problems: Even if you have a very small network with only one hidden layer containing 10 neurons, you have 1558*10 weights between the input layer and the hidden layer. How can you expect to get a good estimate for 15580 degrees of freedom from only 3279 samples? (And that simple calculation doesn't even take the "curse of dimensionality" into account)
You have to analyze your data to find out how to optimize it. Try to understand your input data: Which (tuples of) features are (jointly) statistically significant? (use standard statistical methods for this) Are some features redundant? (Principal component analysis is a good stating point for this.) Don't expect the artificial neural network to do that work for you.
Also: remeber Duda&Hart's famous "no-free-lunch-theorem": No classification algorithm works for every problem. And for any classification algorithm X, there is a problem where flipping a coin leads to better results than X. If you take this into account, deciding what algorithm to use before analyzing your data might not be a smart idea. You might well have picked the algorithm that actually performs worse than blind guessing on your specific problem! (By the way: Duda&Hart&Storks's book about pattern classification is a great starting point to learn about this, if you haven't read it yet.)
aplly a seperate ANN for each category of features
for example
457 inputs 1 output for url terms ( ANN1 )
495 inputs 1 output for origurl ( ANN2 )
...
then train all of them
use another main ANN to join results