I've read some papers of Matrix Factorization(Latent Factor Model) in Recommendation System,and I can implement the algorithm.I can get the similar RMSE result like the paper said on the MovieLens dataset.
However I find out that,if I try to generate a top-K(e.g K=10) recommended movies list for every user by rank the predicted rating,it seems that the movies that are thought to be rated high point of all users are the same.
Is that just what it works or I've got something wrong?
This is a known problem in recommendation.
It is sometimes called "Harry Potter" effect - (almost) everybody likes Harry Potter.
So most automated procedures will find out which items are generally popular, and recommend those to the users.
You can either filter out very popular items, or multiply the predicted rating by a factor that is lower the more globally popular an item is.
Related
I have a last.fm dataset composed of songs and their tags given by the users. I want to apply a clusterization on the dataset in order to find clusters of songs based on tags.
The dataset has 200k songs and 119k different tags. I was previously thinking on making a matrix NxM, where N is the number of songs and M is the number of attributes, and each position is 0 or 1 indicating the presence or not presence of a tag in the song. However, the huge dimension of the matrix has stopped me for doing so. I have some ideas on applying a SVD for reducing dimensionality before applying the clustering, but I don't know exactly if it is the best approach.
Therefore, does anybody know some work in the literature which attempts to perform such kind of clustering? Or any other idea in my problem?
Thank you very much in advance
Clustering probably is the wrong tool for your problem.
Are you sure you want to split your data into (usually) non-overlapping chunks? What if there is some overlap needed? Say, there are songs that are both "hip hop" and "driving beats" but these tags are not synonys?
Frequent itemset mining (Market basket analysis)
is much more applicable, isn't it?
Consider every song to be a "market basket", every tag to be an "item" in these transactions. The FIM will identify frequent tag combinations, and derive patterns from that.
I know there are ways to find synonyms either by using NLTK/pywordnet or Pattern package in python but it isn't solving my problem.
If there are words like
bad,worst,poor
bag,baggage
lost,lose,misplace
I am not able to capture them. Can anyone suggest me a possible way?
There have been numerous research in this area in past 20 years. Yes computers don't understand language but we can train them to find similarity or difference in two words with the help of some manual effort.
Approaches may be:
Based on manually curated datasets that contain how words in a language are related to each other.
Based on statistical or probabilistic measures of words appearing in a corpus.
Method 1:
Try Wordnet. It is a human-curated network of words which preserves the relationship between words according to human understanding. In short, it is a graph with nodes as something called 'synsets' and edges as relations between them. So any two words which are very close to each other are close in meaning. Words that fall within the same synset might mean exactly the same. Bag and Baggage are close - which you can find either by iteratively exploring node-to-node in a breadth first style - like starting with 'baggage', exploring its neighbors in an attempt to find 'baggage'. You'll have to limit this search upto a small number of iterations for any practical application. Another style is starting a random walk from a node and trying to reach the other node within a number of tries and distance. It you reach baggage from bag say, 500 times out of 1000 within 10 moves, you can be pretty sure that they are very similar to each other. Random walk is more helpful in much larger and complex graphs.
There are many other similar resources online.
Method 2:
Word2Vec. Hard to explain it here but it works by creating a vector of a user's suggested number of dimensions based on its context in the text. There has been an idea for two decades that words in similar context mean the same. e.g. I'm gonna check out my bags and I'm gonna check out my baggage both might appear in text. You can read the paper for explanation (link in the end).
So you can train a Word2Vec model over a large amount of corpus. In the end, you will be able to get 'vector' for each word. You do not need to understand the significance of this vector. You can this vector representation to find similarity or difference between words, or generate synonyms of any word. The idea is that words which are similar to each other have vectors close to each other.
Word2vec came up two years ago and immediately became the 'thing-to-use' in most of NLP applications. The quality of this approach depends on amount and quality of your data. Generally Wikipedia dump is considered good training data for training as it contains articles about almost everything that makes sense. You can easily find ready-to-use models trained on Wikipedia online.
A tiny example from Radim's website:
>>> model.most_similar(positive=['woman', 'king'], negative=['man'], topn=1)
[('queen', 0.50882536)]
>>> model.doesnt_match("breakfast cereal dinner lunch".split())
'cereal'
>>> model.similarity('woman', 'man')
0.73723527
First example tells you the closest word (topn=1) to words woman and king but meanwhile also most away from the word man. The answer is queen.. Second example is odd one out. Third one tells you how similar the two words are, in your corpus.
Easy to use tool for Word2vec :
https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/models/word2vec.html
http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5021-distributed-representations-of-words-and-phrases-and-their-compositionality.pdf (Warning : Lots of Maths Ahead)
Just starting to play around with Neural Networks for fun after playing with some basic linear regression. I am an English teacher so don't have a math background and trying to read a book on this stuff is way over my head. I thought this would be a better avenue to get some basic questions answered (even though I suspect there is no easy answer). Just looking for some general guidance put in layman's terms. I am using a trial version of an Excel Add-In called NEURO XL. I apologize if these questions are too "elementary."
My first project is related to predicting a student's Verbal score on the SAT based on a number of test scores, GPA, practice exam scores, etc. as well as some qualitative data (gender: M=1, F=0; took SAT prep class: Y=1, N=0; plays varsity sports: Y=1, N=0).
In total, I have 21 variables that I would like to feed into the network, with the output being the actual score (200-800).
I have 9000 records of data spanning many years/students. Here are my questions:
How many records of the 9000 should I use to train the network?
1a. Should I completely randomize the selection of this training data or be more involved and make sure I include a variety of output scores and a wide range of each of the input variables?
If I split the data into an even number, say 9x1000 (or however many) and created a network for each one, then tested the results of each of these 9 on the other 8 sets to see which had the lowest MSE across the samples, would this be a valid way to "choose" the best network if I wanted to predict the scores for my incoming students (not included in this data at all)?
Since the scores on the tests that I am using as inputs vary in scale (some are on 1-100, and others 1-20 for example), should I normalize all of the inputs to their respective z-scores? When is this recommended vs not recommended?
I am predicting the actual score, but in reality, I'm NOT that concerned about the exact score but more of a range. Would my network be more accurate if I grouped the output scores into buckets and then tried to predict this number instead of the actual score?
E.g.
750-800 = 10
700-740 = 9
etc.
Is there any benefit to doing this or should I just go ahead and try to predict the exact score?
What if ALL I cared about was whether or not the score was above or below 600. Would I then just make the output 0(below 600) or 1(above 600)?
5a. I read somewhere that it's not good to use 0 and 1, but instead 0.1 and 0.9 - why is that?
5b. What about -1(below 600), 0(exactly 600), 1(above 600), would this work?
5c. Would the network always output -1, 0, 1 - or would it output fractions that I would then have to roundup or rounddown to finalize the prediction?
Once I have found the "best" network from Question #3, would I then play around with the different parameters (number of epochs, number of neurons in hidden layer, momentum, learning rate, etc.) to optimize this further?
6a. What about the Activation Function? Will Log-sigmoid do the trick or should I try the other options my software has as well (threshold, hyperbolic tangent, zero-based log-sigmoid).
6b. What is the difference between log-sigmoid and zero-based log-sigmoid?
Thanks!
First a little bit of meta content about the question itself (and not about the answers to your questions).
I have to laugh a little that you say 'I apologize if these questions are too "elementary."' and then proceed to ask the single most thorough and well thought out question I've seen as someone's first post on SO.
I wouldn't be too worried that you'll have people looking down their noses at you for asking this stuff.
This is a pretty big question in terms of the depth and range of knowledge required, especially the statistical knowledge needed and familiarity with Neural Networks.
You may want to try breaking this up into several questions distributed across the different StackExchange sites.
Off the top of my head, some of it definitely belongs on the statistics StackExchange, Cross Validated: https://stats.stackexchange.com/
You might also want to try out https://datascience.stackexchange.com/ , a beta site specifically targeting machine learning and related areas.
That said, there is some of this that I think I can help to answer.
Anything I haven't answered is something I don't feel qualified to help you with.
Question 1
How many records of the 9000 should I use to train the network? 1a. Should I completely randomize the selection of this training data or be more involved and make sure I include a variety of output scores and a wide range of each of the input variables?
Randomizing the selection of training data is probably not a good idea.
Keep in mind that truly random data includes clusters.
A random selection of students could happen to consist solely of those who scored above a 30 on the ACT exams, which could potentially result in a bias in your result.
Likewise, if you only select students whose SAT scores were below 700, the classifier you build won't have any capacity to distinguish between a student expected to score 720 and a student expected to score 780 -- they'll look the same to the classifier because it was trained without the relevant information.
You want to ensure a representative sample of your different inputs and your different outputs.
Because you're dealing with input variables that may be correlated, you shouldn't try to do anything too complex in selecting this data, or you could mistakenly introduce another bias in your inputs.
Namely, you don't want to select a training data set that consists largely of outliers.
I would recommend trying to ensure that your inputs cover all possible values for all of the variables you are observing, and all possible results for the output (the SAT scores), without constraining how these requirements are satisfied.
I'm sure there are algorithms out there designed to do exactly this, but I don't know them myself -- possibly a good question in and of itself for Cross Validated.
Question 3
Since the scores on the tests that I am using as inputs vary in scale (some are on 1-100, and others 1-20 for example), should I normalize all of the inputs to their respective z-scores? When is this recommended vs not recommended?
My understanding is that this is not recommended as the input to a Nerual Network, but I may be wrong.
The convergence of the network should handle this for you.
Every node in the network will assign a weight to its inputs, multiply them by their weights, and sum those products as a core part of its computation.
That means that every node in the network is searching for some coefficients for each of their inputs.
To do this, all inputs will be converted to numeric values -- so conditions like gender will be translated into "0=MALE,1=FEMALE" or something similar.
For example, a node's metric might look like this at a given point in time:
2*ACT_SCORE + 0*GENDER + (-5)*VARISTY_SPORTS ...
The coefficients for each values are exactly what the network is searching for as it converges.
If you change the scale of a value, like ACT_SCORE, you just change the scale of the coefficient that will be found by the reciporical of that scaling factor.
The result should still be the same.
There are other concerns in terms of accuracy (computers have limited capacity to represent small fractions) and speed that may enter this, but not being familiar with NEURO XL, I can't say whether or not they apply for this technology.
Question 4
I am predicting the actual score, but in reality, I'm NOT that concerned about the exact score but more of a range. Would my network be more accurate if I grouped the output scores into buckets and then tried to predict this number instead of the actual score?
This will reduce accuracy, although you should converge to a solution much faster with fewer possible outputs (scores).
Neural Networks actually describe very high-dimensional functions in their input variables.
If you reduce the granularity of that function's output space, you essentially state that you don't care about local minima and maxima in that function, especially around the borders between your output scores.
As a result, you are sacrificing information that may be an essential component of the "true" function that you are searching for.
I hope this has been helpful, but you really should break this question down into its many components and ask them separately on different sites -- potentially some of them do belong here on StackOverflow as well.
I'm fairly new to clustering and related topics so please forgive my questions.
I'm trying to get introduced into this area by doing some tests, and as a first experiment I'd like to create clusters on tweets based on content similarity. The basic idea for the experiment would be storing tweets on a database and periodically calculate the clustering (ie. using a cron job). Please note that the database would obtain new tweets from time to time.
Being ignorant in this field, my idea (probably naive) would be to do something like this:
1. For each new tweet in the db, extract N-grams (N=3 for example) into a set
2. Perform Jaccard similarity and compare with each of the existing clusters. If result > threshold then it would be assigned to that cluster
3. Once finished I'd get M clusters containing similar tweets
Now I see some problems with this basic approach. Let's put aside computational cost, how would the comparison between a tweet and a cluster be done? Assuming I have a tweet Tn and a cluster C1 containing T1, T4, T10 which one should I compare it to? Given that we're talking about similarity, it could well happen that sim(Tn,T1) > threshold but sim(Tn,T4) < threshold. My gut feeling tells me that something like an average should be used for the cluster, in order to avoid this problem.
Also, it could happen that sim(Tn, C1) and sim(Tn, C2) are both > threshold but similarity with C1 would be higher. In that case Tn should go to C1. This could be done brute force as well to assign the tweet to the cluster with maximum similarity.
And last of all, it's the computational issue. I've been reading a bit about minhash and it seems to be the answer to this problem, although I need to do some more research on it.
Anyway, my main question would be: could someone with experience in the area recommend me which approach should I aim to? I read some mentions about LSA and other methods, but trying to cope with everything is getting a bit overwhelming, so I'd appreciate some guiding.
From what I'm reading a tool for this would be hierarchical clustering, as it would allow regrouping of clusters whenever new data enters. Is this correct?
Please note that I'm not looking for any complicated case. My use case idea would be being able to cluster similar tweets into groups without any previous information. For example, tweets from Foursquare ("I'm checking in ..." which are similar to each other would be one case, or "My klout score is ..."). Also note that I'd like this to be language independent, so I'm not interested in having to deal with specific language issues.
It looks like to me that you are trying to address two different problems in one, i.e. "syntactic" and "semantic" clustering. They are quite different problems, expecially if you are in the realm of short-text analysis (and Twitter is the king of short-text analysis, of course).
"Syntactic" clustering means aggregating tweets that come, most likely, from the same source. Your example of Foursquare fits perfectly, but it is also common for retweets, people sharing online newspaper articles or blog posts, and many other cases. For this type of problem, using a N-gram model is almost mandatory, as you said (my experience suggests that N=2 is good for tweets, since you can find significant tweets that have as low as 3-4 features). Normalization is also an important factor here, removing RT tag, mentions, hashtags might help.
"Semantic" clustering means aggregating tweets that share the same topic. This is a much more difficult problem, and it won't likely work if you try to aggregate random sample of tweets, due to the fact that they, usually, carry too little information. These techniques might work, though, if you restrict your domain to a specific subset of tweets (i.e. the one matching a keyword, or an hashtag). LSA could be useful here, while it is useless for syntactic clusters.
Based on your observation, I think what you want is syntactic clustering. Your biggest issue, though, is the fact that you need online clustering, and not static clustering. The classical clustering algorithms that would work well in the static case (like hierarchical clustering, or union find) aren't really suited for online clustering , unless you redo the clustering from scratch every time a new tweet gets added to your database. "Averaging" the clusters to add new elements isn't a great solution according to my experience, because you need to retain all the information of every cluster member to update the "average" every time new data gets in. Also, algorithms like hierarchical clustering and union find work well because they can join pre-existant clusters if a link of similarity is found between them, and they don't simply assign a new element to the "closest" cluster, which is what you suggested to do in your post.
Algorithms like MinHash (or SimHash) are indeed more suited to online clustering, because they support the idea of "querying" for similar documents. MinHash is essentially a way to obtain pairs of documents that exceed a certain threshold of similarity (in particular, MinHash can be considered an estimator of Jaccard similarity) without having to rely on a quadratic algorithm like pairwise comparison (it is, in fact, O(nlog(n)) in time). It is, though, quadratic in space, therefore a memory-only implementation of MinHash is useful for small collections only (say 10000 tweets). In your case, though, it can be useful to save "sketches" (i.e., the set of hashes you obtain by min-hashing a tweet) of your tweets in a database to form an "index", and query the new ones against that index. You can then form a similarity graph, by adding edges between vertices (tweets) that matched the similarity query. The connected components of your graph will be your clusters.
This sounds a lot like canopy pre-clustering to me.
Essentially, each cluster is represented by the first object that started the cluster.
Objects within the outer radius join the cluster. Objects that are not within the inner radius of at least one cluster start a new cluster. This way, you get an overlapping (non-disjoint!) quantization of your dataset. Since this can drastically reduce the data size, it can be used to speed up various algorithms.
However don't expect useful results from clustering tweets. Tweet data is just to much noise. Most tweets have just a few words, too little to define a good similarity. On the other hand, you have the various retweets that are near duplicates - but trivial to detect.
So what would be a good cluster of tweets? Can this n-gram similarity actually capture this?
I am stuck between a decision to apply classification or clustering on the data set I got. The more I think about it, the more I get confused. Heres what I am confronted with.
I have got news documents (around 3000 and continuously increasing) containing news about companies, investment, stocks, economy, quartly income etc. My goal is to have the news sorted in such a way that I know which news correspond to which company. e.g for the news item "Apple launches new iphone", I need to associate the company Apple with it. A particular news item/document only contains 'title' and 'description' so I have to analyze the text in order to find out which company the news referes to. It could be multiple companies too.
To solve this, I turned to Mahout.
I started with clustering. I was hoping to get 'Apple', 'Google', 'Intel' etc as top terms in my clusters and from there I would know the news in a cluster corresponds to its cluster label, but things were a bit different. I got 'investment', 'stocks', 'correspondence', 'green energy', 'terminal', 'shares', 'street', 'olympics' and lots of other terms as the top ones (which makes sense as clustering algos' look for common terms). Although there were some 'Apple' clusters but the news items associated with it were very few.I thought may be clustering is not for this kind of problem as many of the company news goes into more general clusters(investment, profit) instead of the specific company cluster(Apple).
I started reading about classification which requires training data, The name was convincing too as I actually want to 'classify' my news items into 'company names'. As I read on, I got an impression that the name classification is a bit deceiving and the technique is used more for prediction purposes as compared to classification. The other confusions that I got was how can I prepare training data for news documents? lets assume I have a list of companies that I am interested in. I write a program to produce training data for the classifier. the program will see if the news title or description contains the company name 'Apple' then its a news story about apple. Is this how I can prepare training data?(off course I read that training data is actually a set of predictors and target variables). If so, then why should I use mahout classification in the first place? I should ditch mahout and instead use this little program that I wrote for training data(which actually does the classification)
You can see how confused I am about how to address this issue. Another thing that concerns me is that if its possible to make a system this intelligent, that if the news says 'iphone sales at a record high' without using the word 'Apple', the system can classify it as a news related to apple?
Thank you in advance for pointing me in the right direction.
Copying my reply from the mailing list:
Classifiers are supervised learning algorithms, so you need to provide
a bunch of examples of positive and negative classes. In your example,
it would be fine to label a bunch of articles as "about Apple" or not,
then use feature vectors derived from TF-IDF as input, with these
labels, to train a classifier that can tell when an article is "about
Apple".
I don't think it will quite work to automatically generate the
training set by labeling according to the simple rule, that it is
about Apple if 'Apple' is in the title. Well, if you do that, then
there is no point in training a classifier. You can make a trivial
classifier that achieves 100% accuracy on your test set by just
checking if 'Apple' is in the title! Yes, you are right, this gains
you nothing.
Clearly you want to learn something subtler from the classifier, so
that an article titled "Apple juice shown to reduce risk of dementia"
isn't classified as about the company. You'd really need to feed it
hand-classified documents.
That's the bad news, but, sure you can certainly train N classifiers
for N topics this way.
Classifiers put items into a class or not. They are not the same as
regression techniques which predict a continuous value for an input.
They're related but distinct.
Clustering has the advantage of being unsupervised. You don't need
labels. However the resulting clusters are not guaranteed to match up
to your notion of article topics. You may see a cluster that has a lot
of Apple articles, some about the iPod, but also some about Samsung
and laptops in general. I don't think this is the best tool for your
problem.
First of all, you don't need Mahout. 3000 documents is close to nothing. Revisit Mahout when you hit a million. I've been processing 100.000 images on a single computer, so you really can skip the overhead of Mahout for now.
What you are trying to do sounds like classification to me. Because you have predefined classes.
A clustering algorithm is unsupervised. It will (unless you overfit the parameters) likely break Apple into "iPad/iPhone" and "Macbook". Or on the other hand, it may merge Apple and Google, as they are closely related (much more than, say, Apple and Ford).
Yes, you need training data, that reflects the structure that you want to measure. There is other structure (e.g. iPhones being not the same as Macbooks, and Google, Facebook and Apple being more similar companies than Kellogs, Ford and Apple). If you want a company level of structure, you need training data at this level of detail.