In weka I have seen the F-measure of the 'yes' class and 'no' class seperately. But what is the advantage of using the weighted average F-measure to compare the performance of the models. Please help me to find the answer :)
Let's start with a smart example, classifying protein interactions in text using machine learning, where our classifier has attempted to classify sentences into two classes: (1) positive class (2) negative class. Positive class contains sentences that describe protein interactions and negative class comprises sentences that do not describe protein interactions. As a researcher, my focus will be the F-score of my classifiers for positive class. Why? Because I am interested to see my classifier's performance on classifying sentences that contain protein interactions and I do not care about its ability to classify negative sentences. Therefore, I will consider only the F-score of the positive class.
However, for another classical problem like spam classification, where our classifier classifies emails into two classes: (1) hams and (2) spams, the scenario is a bit different. As a researcher, I would like to know my classifier's ability to classify hams as well as spams. At that point, I can either check the F-scores of each class independently or in an aggregated fashion. The weighted average of F-scores of ham and spam class is a means to check the performance of our classifier for both (in this case both, for multi-class problems read all) classes. Because the weighted F-measure is just the sum of all F-measures, each weighted according to the number of instances with that particular class label and for two classes, it is calculated as follows:
Weighted F-Measure=((F-Measure for n class X number of instances from n class)+(F-Measure for y class X number of instances from y class))/total instances in dataset.
So, the bottom line is- if the classification is sensitive for all the classes, use the weighted average of F-scores of all classes.
As far as I remember, It can better handle "extreme" precision or recall (P, R) numbers, when one or both are close to either 0 or 1. (They are generally negatively correlated).
This might happen when you want to apply different algorithms on a dataset and you end up with some precision/recall numbers that you need to compare.
Turns out that the simple average (P+R)/2 is too simplistic.
If you have a dataset where either precision or recall are close to 1 or zero, F-measure still takes the other one into account, somewhat arbitrarily.
(The name itself does not mean anything).
Andrew Ng explains it well in his machine-learning course, week 6 "Handling skewed data"
Related
Consider a search system where the user submits a query ‘query’ and retrieves products based on some ranking algorithm. Assume that these products are ordered according to their quality such that p_0, p_1, …, p_10 and so on.
I would like to generate vector embeddings that mimic this ranking algorithm. The closest product vector to a query vector should ideally be p_0, the next one should be p_1 and so on.
I have tried to building word2vec embeddings for products by feeding products that have appeared in the same search session as sentences. Then, I have calculated the weighted average of product vectors to find query vectors to make the query vector closer to the top result. Although the closest result is usually the best result for a given query, the subsequent results include some results that would never appear as a top result.
Is there a trick that the word2vec can learn the ranking algorithm or any other techniques that I can try? I have looked into multi-dimensional vector scaling with non-metric distances but it did not seem scalable to me for more than 100Ks of products.
There's no one trick – just iteratively improving your representations, & training set, & ranking methods to better meet your goals.
Word2vec-based representations can often help, but are still fairly simple & centered on individual words – whose senses may vary based on context & position in ways that a simple weighted-average-of-tokens fails to capture.
You may want to represent 'products' by more than just a string-of-word-tokens – to include other properties, as well. These could be scalar values like prices or various other kinds of ratings/properties, or extra synthetic labels, such as the result of other salient groupings (whether hand-edited or learned).
And even if just working with natural-language product descriptions – like product names, or descriptions, or reviews – there are other more-sophisticated text-representations that can be trained or used – such as sentence/document embeddings using deeper-networks than plain word2vec.
Most generically, if you have a bunch of quantitative representations of candidate results, and a query, and want to use some initial examples of "good" results to bootstrap more generalizable rules for scoring top results, you are attempting a "learning-to-rank" process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_to_rank
To suggest more specific steps would require a more specific description of inputs/outputs/goals, & what's been tried, and how what's been tried has failed.
For example, are your queries always just textual product names? In such a case, maybe plain keyword search is the central technology required – with things like word-vector-modelling just a tweak for handling some tough cases, like expanding the results, or adding more contrast to the rankings, when results are too few or to many.
Or, can you detect key gaps in the modeling related to exactly those cases where "results include some results that would [ideally] never appear as a top result"? If certain things like rare (poorly-modeled) words, or important qualities not yet captured in the model, seem to be to blame for such cases, that will guide the potential set of corrective changes.
The goal is to create a computer-generated news site that aggregates headlines from different news sources around the world:
Taking a look at the centroid table results I want to Understand the following:
https://ibb.co/n1mvnbk
I used K=5
and I am using TF-IDF
Explain what those numbers mean?
When an attribute is zero in multiple clusters, what does it mean?
When I sort the centroid table by each cluster at a descending order, I find some words or attributes that have a higher value with this cluster while zero values in other clusters. Does this mean that these words occur more or less frequently in this cluster?
How can I discuss the clustering model
Do all the clusters make sense and why?
Do you think k=5 is a good choice for this dataset? or I need to choose 3? How can I classify that?
I believe K=5 denotes number of cluster you are looking into current Dataset. On the basis 5 centroid will be placed in data will be around them.
Do you think k=5 is a good choice for this dataset? Its hard to predict this way. It is all done by mathematical combination and permutation.
You might use Elbow Method to identify correct number of cluster needed for any given dataset. This methodology is based on WCSS(Within Cluster Sums of Squares) which find distance between points and provide centroid points.
Those numbers are the average tf-idf of the cluster. So a 0 means that the word is not in the cluster, and the highest valued words are most characteristic words for the cluster.
Note that for text you'll want to use spherical k-means rather than regular k-means.
Choosing k is a big problem. Forget the elbow method, it never works except for you examples. Experiment with different k and choose the one that is most convincing or most useful. None of the usual heuristics for choosing the k in k-means will work here I fear (VRC is IMHO the best). The main reason is that the data cannot be well partitioned into k clusters. There is no reason to assume there are exactly k topics in the world, nor that every document only contains one topic. Instead, topics will be a complex structure itself. For example there is Trump, but there also is the Trump Erdogan meeting, and there is the impeachment. These are not disjoint. But you will also have articles that don't fit into any of these topics. This leads to the effect that the true best k would likely be very very large, as large as the number of articles (and hence not useful).
I'm new to data mining and Weka. I built a classifier with J48 in Weka using the GUI, with J48 (training set) for an attribute of interest in five levels. I have to evaluate the precision of the model, but I don't know very well how to do it! Some information may be of interest:
== Detailed Accuracy By Class ===
Precision
0.80
?
0.67
0.56
?
?
First, I would like to know the meaning of the "?" in the precision column. When probing with an attribute of interest in two levels I got no "?". The tree is bigger now than when dividing into two levels. I am questioning if this means that taking an attribute of interest in five levels could generate a less efficient tree in terms of classification and computation time. This seems quite obvious as the number of Correctly Classified Instances when the attribute had 2 levels were up to 72%.
Thank you in advance, all interesting answers will be rewarded!
"I would like to know the meaning of the "?" in the precision column"
Note that for these same classes the TP and FP rates are 0. It appears that J48 has not assigned any of your observations to these classes.
Are these classes relatively small? If so, you might want to consider using the ClassBalancer filter. This will use weights to make all classes look the same size.
Of course, after you get the model you need to "convert back" to the real situation. This is similar for correcting for physically oversampling or undersampling. See my answer here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/211174/how-to-exact-prediction-from-over-sampled-dataundoing-oversampling/257507#257507
I am using H2O machine learning package to do natural language predictions, including the functions h2o.word2vec and h2o.transform. I need sentence level aggregation, which is provided by the AVERAGE parameter value:
h2o.transform(word2vec, words, aggregate_method = c("NONE", "AVERAGE"))
However, in my case I strongly wish to avoid equal weighting of "the" and "platypus" for example.
Here's a scheme I concocted to achieve custom word-weightings. If H2O's word2vec "AVERAGE" option uses all the words including duplicates that might appear, then I could effect a custom word weighting when calling h2o.transform by adding additional duplicates of certain words to my sentences, when I want to weight them more heavily than other words.
Can any H2O experts confirm that that the word2vec AVERAGE parameter is using all the words rather than just the unique words when computing AVERAGE of the words in sentence?
Alternatively, is there a better way? I tried but I find myself unable to imagine any correct math to multiply the sentence average by some factor, after it was already computed.
Yes, h2o.transform will consider each occurrence of a word for the averaging, not just the unique words. Your trick will therefore work.
There is currently no direct way to provide user defined weights. You could probably do an ugly hack and weight directly the word embeddings but that won't be a straightforward solution I could recommend.
We can add this feature to H2O. I would love to hear what API would work for you (how would you like to provide the weights).
I'm using Weka and would like to perform regression with random forests. Specifically, I have a dataset:
Feature1,Feature2,...,FeatureN,Class
1.0,X,...,1.4,Good
1.2,Y,...,1.5,Good
1.2,F,...,1.6,Bad
1.1,R,...,1.5,Great
0.9,J,...,1.1,Horrible
0.5,K,...,1.5,Terrific
.
.
.
Rather than learning to predict the most likely class, I want to learn the probability distribution over the classes for a given feature vector. My intuition is that using just the RandomForest model in Weka would not be appropriate, since it would be attempting to minimize its absolute error (maximum likelihood) rather than its squared error (conditional probability distribution). Is that intuition right? Is there a better model to be using if I want to perform regression rather than classification?
Edit: I'm actually thinking now that in fact it may not be a problem. Presumably, classifiers are learning the conditional probability P(Class | Feature1,...,FeatureN) and the resulting classification is just finding the c in Class that maximizes that probability distribution. Therefore, a RandomForest classifier should be able to give me the conditional probability distribution. I just had to think about it some more. If that's wrong, please correct me.
If you want to predict the probabilities for each class explicitly, you need different input data. That is, you would need to replace the value to predict. Instead of one data set with the class label, you would need n data sets (for n different labels) with aggregated data for each unique feature vector. Your data would look something like
Feature1,...,Good
1.0,...,0.5
0.3,...,1.0
and
Feature1,...,Bad
1.0,...,0.8
0.3,...,0.1
and so on. You would need to learn one model for each class and run them separately on any data to be classified. That is, for each label you learn a model to predict a number that is the probability of being in that class, given a feature vector.
If you don't need the probabilities to be predicted explicitly, have a look at the Bayesian classifiers in Weka, which make use of probabilities in the models that they learn.