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.
Related
I was reading through all (or most) previously asked questions, but couldn't find an answer to my problem...
I have 13 variables measured on an ordinal scale (thy represent knowledge transfer channels), which I want to cluster (HCA) for a following binary logistic regression analysis (including all 13 variables is not possible due to sample size of N=208). A Factor Analysis seems inappropriate due to the scale level. I am using SPSS (but tried R as well).
Questions:
1: Am I right in using the Chi-Squared measure for count data instead of the (squared) euclidian distance?
2. How can I justify a choice of method? I tried single, complete, Ward and average, but all give different results and I can't find a source to base my decision on.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Answer 1: Since the variables are on ordinal scale, the chi-square test is an appropriate measurement test. Because, "A Chi-square test is designed to analyze categorical data. That means that the data has been counted and divided into categories. It will not work with parametric or continuous data (such as height in inches)." Reference.
Again, ordinal scaled data is essentially count or frequency data you can use regular parametric statistics: mean, standard deviation, etc Or non-parametric tests like ANOVA or Mann-Whitney U test to compare 2 groups or Kruskal–Wallis H test to compare three or more groups.
Answer 2: In a clustering problem, the choice of distance method solely depends upon the type of variables. I recommend you to read these detailed posts 1, 2,3
I have used the ELKI implementation of DBSCAN to identify fire hot spot clusters from a fire data set and the results look quite good. The data set is spatial and the clusters are based on latitude, longitude. Basically, the DBSCAN parameters identify hot spot regions where there is a high concentration of fire points (defined by density). These are the fire hot spot regions.
My question is, after experimenting with several different parameters and finding a pair that gives a reasonable clustering result, how does one validate the clusters?
Is there a suitable formal validation method for my use case? Or is this subjective depending on the application domain?
ELKI contains a number of evaluation functions for clusterings.
Use the -evaluator parameter to enable them, from the evaluation.clustering.internal package.
Some of them will not automatically run because they have quadratic runtime cost - probably more than your clustering algorithm.
I do not trust these measures. They are designed for particular clustering algorithms; and are mostly useful for deciding the k parameter of k-means; not much more than that. If you blindly go by these measures, you end up with useless results most of the time. Also, these measures do not work with noise, with either of the strategies we tried.
The cheapest are the label-based evaluators. These will automatically run, but apparently your data does not have labels (or they are numeric, in which case you need to set the -parser.labelindex parameter accordingly). Personally, I prefer the Adjusted Rand Index to compare the similarity of two clusterings. All of these indexes are sensitive to noise so they don't work too well with DBSCAN, unless your reference has the same concept of noise as DBSCAN.
If you can afford it, a "subjective" evaluation is always best.
You want to solve a problem, not a number. That is the whole point of "data science", being problem oriented and solving the problem, not obsessed with minimizing some random quality number. If the results don't work in reality, you failed.
There are different methods to validate a DBSCAN clustering output. Generally we can distinguish between internal and external indices, depending if you have labeled data available or not. For DBSCAN there is a great internal validation indice called DBCV.
External Indices:
If you have some labeled data, external indices are great and can demonstrate how well the cluster did vs. the labeled data. One example indice is the RAND indice.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_index
Internal Indices:
If you don't have labeled data, then internal indices can be used to give the clustering result a score. In general the indices calculate the distance of points within the cluster and to other clusters and try to give you a score based on the compactness (how close are the points to each other in a cluster?) and
separability (how much distance is between the clusters?).
For DBSCAN, there is one great internal validation indice called DBCV by Moulavi et al. Paper is available here: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611973440.96
Python package: https://github.com/christopherjenness/DBCV
This is a Homework question. I have a huge document full of words. My challenge is to classify these words into different groups/clusters that adequately represent the words. My strategy to deal with it is using the K-Means algorithm, which as you know takes the following steps.
Generate k random means for the entire group
Create K clusters by associating each word with the nearest mean
Compute centroid of each cluster, which becomes the new mean
Repeat Step 2 and Step 3 until a certain benchmark/convergence has been reached.
Theoretically, I kind of get it, but not quite. I think at each step, I have questions that correspond to it, these are:
How do I decide on k random means, technically I could say 5, but that may not necessarily be a good random number. So is this k purely a random number or is it actually driven by heuristics such as size of the dataset, number of words involved etc
How do you associate each word with the nearest mean? Theoretically I can conclude that each word is associated by its distance to the nearest mean, hence if there are 3 means, any word that belongs to a specific cluster is dependent on which mean it has the shortest distance to. However, how is this actually computed? Between two words "group", "textword" and assume a mean word "pencil", how do I create a similarity matrix.
How do you calculate the centroid?
When you repeat step 2 and step 3, you are assuming each previous cluster as a new data set?
Lots of questions, and I am obviously not clear. If there are any resources that I can read from, it would be great. Wikipedia did not suffice :(
As you don't know exact number of clusters - I'd suggest you to use a kind of hierarchical clustering:
Imagine that all your words just a points in non-euclidean space. Use Levenshtein distance to calculate distance between words (it works great, in case, if you want to detect clusters of lexicographically similar words)
Build minimum spanning tree which contains all of your words
Remove links, which have length greater than some threshold
Linked groups of words are clusters of similar words
Here is small illustration:
P.S. you can find many papers in web, where described clustering based on building of minimal spanning tree
P.P.S. If you want to detect clusters of semantically similar words, you need some algorithms of automatic thesaurus construction
That you have to choose "k" for k-means is one of the biggest drawbacks of k-means.
However, if you use the search function here, you will find a number of questions that deal with the known heuristical approaches to choosing k. Mostly by comparing the results of running the algorithm multiple times.
As for "nearest". K-means acutally does not use distances. Some people believe it uses euclidean, other say it is squared euclidean. Technically, what k-means is interested in, is the variance. It minimizes the overall variance, by assigning each object to the cluster such that the variance is minimized. Coincidentially, the sum of squared deviations - one objects contribution to the total variance - over all dimensions is exactly the definition of squared euclidean distance. And since the square root is monotone, you can also use euclidean distance instead.
Anyway, if you want to use k-means with words, you first need to represent the words as vectors where the squared euclidean distance is meaningful. I don't think this will be easy or maybe not even possible.
About the distance: In fact, Levenshtein (or edit) distance satisfies triangle inequality. It also satisfies the rest of the necessary properties to become a metric (not all distance functions are metric functions). Therefore you can implement a clustering algorithm using this metric function, and this is the function you could use to compute your similarity matrix S:
-> S_{i,j} = d(x_i, x_j) = S_{j,i} = d(x_j, x_i)
It's worth to mention that the Damerau-Levenshtein distance doesn't satisfy the triangle inequality, so be careful with this.
About the k-means algorithm: Yes, in the basic version you must define by hand the K parameter. And the rest of the algorithm is the same for a given metric.
I have a set of weighted features for machine learning. I'd like to reduce the feature set and just use those with a very large or very small weight.
So given below image of sorted weights, I'd only like to use the features that have weights above the higher or below the lower yellow line.
What I'm looking for is some kind of slope change detection so I can discard all the features until the first/last slope coefficient increase/decrease.
While I (think I) know how to code this myself (with first and second numerical derivatives), I'm interested in any established methods. Perhaps there's some statistic or index that computes something like that, or anything I can use from SciPy?
Edit:
At the moment, I'm using 1.8*positive.std() as positive and 1.8*negative.std() as negative threshold (fast and simple), but I'm not mathematician enough to determine how robust this is. I don't think it is, though. ⍨
If the data are (approximately) Gaussian distributed, then just using a multiple
of the standard deviation is sensible.
If you are worried about heavier tails, then you may want to base your analysis on order
statistics.
Since you've plotted it, I'll assume you're willing to sort all of the
data.
Let N be the number of data points in your sample.
Let x[i] be the i'th value in the sorted list of values.
Then 0.5( x[int( 0.8413*N)]-x[int(0.1587*N)]) is an estimate of the standard deviation
which is more robust against outliers. This estimate of the std can be used as you
indicated above. (The magic numbers above are the fraction of data that are
less than [mean+1sigma] and [mean-1sigma] respectively).
There are also conditions where just keeping the highest 10% and lowest 10% would be
sensible as well; and these cutoffs are easily computed if you have the sorted data
on hand.
These are somewhat ad hoc approaches based on the content of your question.
The general sense of what you're trying to do is (a form of) anomaly detection,
and you can probably do a better job of it if you're careful in defining/estimating
what the shape of the distribution is near the middle, so that you can tell when
the features are getting anomalous.
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.