Let Y be a binary variable.
If we use logistic regression for modeling, then we can use cv.glm for cross validation and there we can specify the cost function in the cost argument. By specifying the cost function, we can assign different unit costs to different types of errors:predicted Yes|reference is No or predicted No|reference is Yes.
I am wondering if I could achieve the same in SVM. In other words, is there a way for me to specify a cost(loss) function instead of using built-in loss function?
Besides the Answer by Yueguoguo, there is also three more solutions, the standard Wrapper approach, hyperplane tuning and the one in e1017.
The Wrapper approach (available out of the box for example in weka) is applicable to almost all classifiers. The idea is to over- or undersample the data in accordance with the misclassification costs. The learned model if trained to optimise accuracy is optimal under the costs.
The second idea is frequently used in textminining. The classification is svm's are derived from distance to the hyperplane. For linear separable problems this distance is {1,-1} for the support vectors. The classification of a new example is then basically, whether the distance is positive or negative. However, one can also shift this distance and not make the decision and 0 but move it for example towards 0.8. That way the classifications are shifted in one or the other direction, while the general shape of the data is not altered.
Finally, some machine learning toolkits have a build in parameter for class specific costs like class.weights in the e1017 implementation. the name is due to the fact that the term cost is pre-occupied.
The loss function for SVM hyperplane parameters is automatically tuned thanks to the beautiful theoretical foundation of the algorithm. SVM applies cross-validation for tuning hyperparameters. Say, an RBF kernel is used, cross validation is to select the optimal combination of C (cost) and gamma (kernel parameter) for the best performance, measured by certain metrics (e.g., mean squared error). In e1071, the performance can be obtained by using tune method, where the range of hyperparameters as well as attribute of cross-validation (i.e., 5-, 10- or more fold cross validation) can be specified.
To obtain comparative cross-validation results by using Area-Under-Curve type of error measurement, one can train different models with different hyperparameter configurations and then validate the model against sets of pre-labelled data.
Hope the answer helps.
Related
I am training a random forest classifier in R using mlr for binary classification.
My classes are well balanced.
0 1
0.5162791 0.4837209
I've tuned my various model in various ways by
modifying the number of trees and mtry.
But I am having trouble picking the right accuracy metrics and determining what the cutoff should be.
Currently I have
tpr.test.mean fpr.test.mean fnr.test.mean fpr.test.mean acc.test.mean mmce.test.mean
0.7908072 0.2872358 0.2091928 0.2872358 0.7531250 0.2468750
f1.test.mean
0.7736447
How can I determine what the ideal cutoff should be for my classes? So far I found 45/55 to work best but is there a better way of doing this? What accuracy metrics are usually the best for binary classifiers?
F1 is usually a safe bet. It does not allow a classifier to "trick" the measure by having 100% recall or 100% precision; because of the harmonic mean both need to increase side-by-side for a good result.
Of course, there are exceptions, such as valuing recall more than precision (e.g. in cancer diagnosis).
So, the metric should reflect what you are ultimately trying to optimize against.
I'm using this LDA package for R. Specifically I am trying to do supervised latent dirichlet allocation (slda). In the linked package, there's an slda.em function. However what confuses me is that it asks for alpha, eta and variance parameters. As far as I understand, I thought these parameters are unknowns in the model. So my question is, did the author of the package mean to say that these are initial guesses for the parameters? If yes, there doesn't seem to be a way of accessing them from the result of running slda.em.
Aside from coding the extra EM steps in the algorithm, is there a suggested way to guess reasonable values for these parameters?
Since you are trying to generate a supervised model, the typical approach would be to use cross validation to determine the model parameters. So you hold out some of the data as your test set, train the a model on the remaining data, and evaluate the model performance, repeating k times. You then continue to repeat with different model parameters to determine which result in the best model performance.
In the specific case of slda, I would run demo(slda) to see the author's implementation of it. When you run the demo, you'll see that he sets alpha=1.0, eta=0.1, and variance=0.25. I'd suggest using these as your starting point, and then use cross validation to determine better parameters if you need to improve model performance.
I am trying to run a latent class analysis with covariates using polca package. However, every time I run the model, the multinomial logit coefficients result different. I have considered the changes in the order of the classes and I set up a very high number of replications (nrep=1500). However, rerunning the model I obtain different results. For example, I have 3 classes (high, low, medium). No matter the order in which the classes are considered in the estimation, the multinomial model will give me different coefficient for the same combinations after different estimations (such as low vs high and medium vs high). Should I increase further the number of repetitions in order to have stable results? Any idea of why is this happening? I know with the function set.seed() I can replicate the results but I would like to obtain stable estimates to be able to claim the validity of the results. Thank you very much!
From the manual (?poLCA):
As long as probs.start=NULL, each function call will use different
(random) initial starting parameters
you need to use set.seed() or set probs.start in order to get consistent results across function calls.
Actually, if with different starting points you are not converging, you have a data problem.
LCA uses a kind of maximum likelihood estimation. If there is no convergence, you have an under-identification problem: you have too little information to estimate the number of classes that you have. Lower class numbers might run, or you will have to make some a-priori restrictions.
You might wish to read Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis by Collins. It was a great help for me.
I am running into difficulties when using randomForest (in R) for a classification problem. My R code, an image, and data are here:
http://www.psy.plymouth.ac.uk/research/Wsimpson/data.zip
The observer is presented with either a faint image (contrast=con) buried in noise or just noise on each trial. He rates his confidence (rating) that the face is present. I have categorised rating to be a yes/no judgement (y). The face is either inverted (invert=1) or not in each block of 100 trials (one file). I use the contrast (1st column of predictor matrix x) and the pixels (the rest of the columns) to predict y.
It is critical to my application that I have an "importance image" at the end which shows how much each pixel contributes to the decision y. I have 1000 trials (length of y) and 4248 pixels+contrast=4249 predictors (ncols of x). Using glmnet (logistic ridge regression) on this problem works fine
fit<-cv.glmnet(x,y,family="binomial",alpha=0)
However randomForest does not work at all,
fit <- randomForest(x=x, y=y, ntree=100)
and it gets worse as the number of trees increases. For invert=1, the classification error for randomForest is 34.3%, and for glmnet it is 8.9%.
Please let me know what I am doing wrong with randomForest, and how to fix it.
ridge regression's only parameter lambda is chosen via internal cross-validation in cv.glmnet, as pointed out by Hong Ooi. and the error rate you get out of cv.glmnet realtes to that. randomForest gives you OOB error that is akin to an error on a dedicated test set (which is what you are interested in).
randomForest requires you to calibrate it manually (i.e. have a dedicated validation set to see which parameters work best) and there are a few to consider: depth of the trees (via fixing the number of examples in each node or the number of nodes), number of randomly chosen attributes considered at each split and the number of trees. you can use tuneRF to find the optimal number of mtry.
when evaluated on the train set, the more trees you add the better your predictions get. however, you will see predictive ability on a test set starts diminishing after a certain number of trees are grown -- this is due to overfitting. randomForest determines the optimal number of trees via OOB error estimates or, if you provide it, by using the test set. if rf.mod is your fitted RF model then plot(rf.mod) will allow you to see at which point roughly it starts to overfit. when using the predict function on a fitted RF it will use the optimal number of trees.
in short, you are not comparing the two models' performances correctly (as pointed out by Hong Ooi) and also your parameters might be off and/or you might be overfitting (although unlikely with just 100 trees).
I am working on a MARS model using earth package in R. I want to force all the variables in the model. I have 14 predictors but in the result, I am getting only 13 predictors. Below is my code.
mdl <- earth(x,y,nprune=10000, nk=1000, degree=1, thresh=1e-7,
linpreds=c(1:14), penalty = -1, ponly=T, trace = 0)
Here are my questions
Is it possible for me to force variables instead of some variable selection. If yes, how?\
Once I start exploring hinges in the data, is it possible for me to manually fix the knots and then ge tthe estimates on the basis of them.
You cannot force predictors into the earth/MARS model. Fundamental to the MARS algorithm is automatic selection of predictors.
But it is possible to increase the likelihood of all predictors going into the model by subverting the normal algorithm by setting thresh=0 and penalty=-1. See the earth help page, and search for "thresh" and "penalty" in the earth vignette for details and examples.
However, to quote that vignette: "It’s usually best not to subvert the standard MARS algorithm by toying with tuning
parameters such as thresh, penalty, and endspan. Remember that we aren’t seeking
a model that best fits the training data, but rather a model that best fits the underlying
distribution."
You can't manually fix the knots. Once again, automatic selection of knots if inherent in the MARS algorithm. However, the minspan and endspan arguments give you some flexibility in the automatic placement of knots, for example minspan=-3 will allow up to 3 equally spaced knots per predictor.