I built a pymc3 model using the DensityDist distribution. I have four parameters out of which 3 use Metropolis and one uses NUTS (this is automatically chosen by the pymc3). However, I get two different UserWarnings
1.Chain 0 contains number of diverging samples after tuning. If increasing target_accept does not help try to reparameterize.
MAy I know what does reparameterize here mean?
2. The acceptance probability in chain 0 does not match the target. It is , but should be close to 0.8. Try to increase the number of tuning steps.
Digging through a few examples I used 'random_seed', 'discard_tuned_samples', 'step = pm.NUTS(target_accept=0.95)' and so on and got rid of these user warnings. But I couldn't find details of how these parameter values are being decided. I am sure this might have been discussed in various context but I am unable to find solid documentation for this. I was doing a trial and error method as below.
with patten_study:
#SEED = 61290425 #51290425
step = pm.NUTS(target_accept=0.95)
trace = sample(step = step)#4000,tune = 10000,step =step,discard_tuned_samples=False)#,random_seed=SEED)
I need to run these on different datasets. Hence I am struggling to fix these parameter values for each dataset I am using. Is there any way where I give these values or find the outcome (if there are any user warnings and then try other values) and run it in a loop?
Pardon me if I am asking something stupid!
In this context, re-parametrization basically is finding a different but equivalent model that it is easier to compute. There are many things you can do depending on the details of your model:
Instead of using a Uniform distribution you can use a Normal distribution with a large variance.
Changing from a centered-hierarchical model to a
non-centered
one.
Replacing a Gaussian with a Student-T
Model a discrete variable as a continuous
Marginalize variables like in this example
whether these changes make sense or not is something that you should decide, based on your knowledge of the model and problem.
Related
I run SegNet on my own dataset (by Segnet tutorial). I see great results via test_segmentation.py.
my problem is that I want to see the real net results and not test_segmentation own colorisation (via classes).
for example, if I have trained net with 2 classes, so after the train I will see not only 2 colors (as we see with the classes), but we will see the real net color segmentation ([0.22,0.19,0.3....) lighter and darker as the net see it]
I hope that I explained myself well. thanks for helping.
You could use a python script to achieve what you want. Take a look at this script.
The command out = out['argmax'], extracts the raw output, so you can get a segmentation map with 'lighter and darker' values as you wanted.
When you say the 'real' net color segmentation I will assume that you mean the probability maps. Effectively the last layer will have one map for every class; and if you check the function predict in inference.py, they take the argmax; that is the channel (which represents the class) with the highest probability. If you want to get these maps, you just have to get the data without computing the argmax; something like:
predicted = net.blobs['prob'].data
I solve it. the solution is to range cmin and cmax from 0 to 1 in the scipy saving method. for example: scipy.misc.toimage(output, cmin=0.0, amax=1).save(/path/.../image.png)
I am learning how to do data mining and I am using this data set from UCI's website.
http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Forest+Fires
The problem I am encountering is how to deal with the area class. My understanding from the description is that I need to apply ln(x+1) to area using AddExpression.
Am I going in the correct direction with this? Or are there other filters I should investigate? Thank you.
I try to answer your question based on the little information you provide. And I haven't worked with the forest-fires data set, but by inspection I see that the classifier attribute "area" often has the value 0. Maybe you can't simply filter out these rows with Area = 0. Your dataset might become too small, or whatnot.
I think you are asked to perform regression of some attribute(s) against "log(area)" in order to linearize it. However,when you try to calculate the log of the Area, values such as log(0) are a problem. values between 0 and 1 might also be problematic.
So a common fix is to add 1 to the value of "Area". This introduces a systematic error, but it is small, and it removes all 0-values, and you can still derive useful models from your log(x+1)-transformed dataset.
And yes, in Weka you do this by "Preprocess"/ AddExpression(x+1). This creates a new attribute. Then you might remove the old area attribute.
Of course, in interpreting your model, you should be aware of the transformation. If you just want to find out what the significant independent attributes are in your linear regression model, I'd say the transformation does not matter. The data points are just shifted a little bit.
I am working user behavior project. Based on user interaction I have got some data. There is nice sequence which smoothly increases and decreases over the time. But there are little discrepancies, which are very bad. Please refer to graph below:
You can also find data here:
2.0789 2.09604 2.11472 2.13414 2.15609 2.17776 2.2021 2.22722 2.25019 2.27304 2.29724 2.31991 2.34285 2.36569 2.38682 2.40634 2.42068 2.43947 2.45099 2.46564 2.48385 2.49747 2.49031 2.51458 2.5149 2.52632 2.54689 2.56077 2.57821 2.57877 2.59104 2.57625 2.55987 2.5694 2.56244 2.56599 2.54696 2.52479 2.50345 2.48306 2.50934 2.4512 2.43586 2.40664 2.38721 2.3816 2.36415 2.33408 2.31225 2.28801 2.26583 2.24054 2.2135 2.19678 2.16366 2.13945 2.11102 2.08389 2.05533 2.02899 2.00373 1.9752 1.94862 1.91982 1.89125 1.86307 1.83539 1.80641 1.77946 1.75333 1.72765 1.70417 1.68106 1.65971 1.64032 1.62386 1.6034 1.5829 1.56022 1.54167 1.53141 1.52329 1.51128 1.52125 1.51127 1.50753 1.51494 1.51777 1.55563 1.56948 1.57866 1.60095 1.61939 1.64399 1.67643 1.70784 1.74259 1.7815 1.81939 1.84942 1.87731
1.89895 1.91676 1.92987
I would want to smooth out this sequence. The technique should be able to eliminate numbers with characteristic of X and Y, i.e. error in mono-increasing or mono-decreasing.
If not eliminate, technique should be able to shift them so that series is not affected by errors.
What I have tried and failed:
I tried to test difference between values. In some special cases it works, but for sequence as presented in this the distance between numbers is not such that I can cut out errors
I tried applying a counter, which is some X, then only change is accepted otherwise point is mapped to previous point only. Here I have great trouble deciding on value of X, because this is based on user-interaction, I am not really controller of it. If user interaction is such that its plot would be a zigzag pattern, I am ending up with 'no user movement data detected at all' situation.
Please share the techniques that you are aware of.
PS: Data made available in this example is a particular case. There is no typical pattern in which numbers are going to occure, but we expect some range to be continuous with all the examples. Solution I am seeking is generic.
I do not know how much effort you want to involve in this problem but if you want theoretical guaranties,
topological persistence seems well adapted to your problem imho.
Basically with that method, you can filtrate local maximum/minimum by fixing a scale
and there are theoritical proofs that says that if you sampling is
close from your function, then you extracts correct number of maximums with persistence.
You can see these slides (mainly pages 7-9 to get the idea) to get an idea of the method.
Basically, if you take your points as a landscape and imagine a watershed starting from maximum height and decreasing, you have some picks.
Every pick has a time where it is born which is the time where it becomes emerged and a time where it dies which is when it merges with an higher pick. Now a persistence diagram pictures a point for every pick where its x/y coordinates are its time of birth/death (by assumption the first pick does not die and is not shown).
If a pick is a global maximal, then it will be further from the diagonal in the persistence diagram than a local maximum pick. To remove local maximums you have to remove picks close to the diagonal. There are fours local maximums in your example as you can see with the persistence diagram of your data (thanks for providing the data btw) and two global ones (the first pick is not pictured in a persistence diagram):
If you noise your data like that :
You will still get a very decent persistence diagram that will allow you to filter local maximum as you want :
Please ask if you want more details or references.
Since you can not decide on a cut off frequency, and not even on the filter you want to use, I would implement several, and let the user set the parameters.
The first thing that I thought of is running average, and you can see that there are so many things to set, to get different outputs.
I am new in rapid miner 5, just want to know how to find noise in my data and show them in chart and how to delete them?
A complex problem because it depends what you mean by noise.
If you mean finding individual attributes whose values are plain wrong then you could plot a histogram view and work out some sort of limits on what constitutes a valid value. You could then impose that rule by using Filter Examples to remove them.
If you mean finding attributes that have some sort of random jitter applied to them it would be difficult to detect these. Only by knowing beforehand what the expected shape of the distribution is could you compare with observation and do something about it. However, the action to take is by no means obvious.
If you mean finding examples within an example set that are obviously different from other examples then you could consider using the various outlier functions. The simplest one to get started is Detect Outlier (Distances). This finds a set number of outliers (default 10) based on a distance calculation that uses all the attributes for examples. It creates a new attribute called outlier that is set to true or false. You could then use the Filter Examples operator to remove those that are set to true.
Hope that helps at least as a start.
I am relatively new to the data mining area and have been experimenting with Weka.
I have a dataset which consists of almost 8000 records related to customers and items they have purchased. 58% of this data set has missing values for the "Gender" attribute.
I want to find the missing gender values based on the other data I do have.
I first thought I could do this using a classifier algorithm in Weka using a training set to build a model. Based on examples I saw online, I tried this with pretty much all the available algorithms available in Weka using a training set that consisted of 60-80% of the data which did not have missing values. This gave me a lower accuracy rate than I wanted (80-86% depending on the algorithm used)
Did I go about this correctly? Is there a way to improve this accuracy? I experimented with using different attributes, different pre-processing of the data etc.
I also tried using the ReplaceMissingValues filter on the complete dataset to see how that would handle the missing values. However, it just changed all the missing values to "Female" which obviously cannot be the case. So I'm wondering also wondering if I need to use this filter in my situation or not.
It sounds like you went about it in the correct way. The ReplaceMissingValues filter replaces the missing values with the most frequent of the non-missing values I think, so it is not what you want in this case.
A better way to get an idea of the true accuracy of your gender-predictor would be to use cross-validation instead of the training/test split (Weka has a separate option for that). 80-86% may seem low, but keep in mind that random guessing will only get you about 50%, so it's still a lot better than that. To try to get better performance, pick a classifier that performs well and then play with its parameters until you get better performance. This is likely to be quite labour-intensive (although you could of course use automated methods for tuning, see e.g. Auto-WEKA), but the only way to improve the performance.
You can also combine the algorithm you choose with a separate feature selection step (Weka has a special meta-classifier for this). This may improve performance, but again you'll have to experiment to find the particular configuration that works for you.