I am using ArangoDB and I am trying to build a graph-based recommender system with it.
The data model just contains users, items and ratings (edges).
Therefore want to calculate the affinity of a user to a movie with the katz measure.
Eventually I want to do this:
Get all (or a certain number of) paths between a user and a item
For all of these paths do the following:
Multiply each edge's rating with a damping factor (e.g. 0.7)
Sum up all calculated values within a path
Calculate the average of all calculated path values
The result is some kind of affinity between a user and an item, weighted with the intermediary ratings and damped by a defined factor.
I was trying to realize something like that in AQL but it was either wrong or much too slow. How could a algorithm like this look in AQL?
From a performance point of view there might be better choices for graph based recommender systems. If someone has a suggestion (e.g. Item Rank or other algorithms), it would also be nice to get some ideas here.
I love this topic but sometimes I get to my borders.
In the following, #start and #end are parameters representing the two endpoints; for simplicity, I've assumed that:
the maximum admissible path length is 10000
"rates" is the name of the "edges" collection
"rating" is the name of the property giving a weight to an edge
the "damping" factor is as per the requirements
FOR v,e,p IN 0..10000 OUTBOUND #start rates
OPTIONS {uniqueVertices: "path"}
FILTER v._id==#end
LET r = AVERAGE(p.edges[*].rating) * 0.7
COLLECT AGGREGATE avg = AVERAGE(r)
RETURN avg
I wonder if there is any MCMC sampling method which uses the definition of the multivariate target CDF instead of the target PDF; however, I may use a proposal PDF.
I would like to use Metropolis-Hastings but it is not possible because the calculation of the acceptance ratio is defined in terms of the target PDF.
I say this because it is impossible for me to obtain the PDF associated to certain CDF without doing some kind of numerical approximation which may bias my simulation; also, my CDF might be not continuous, and therefore I cannot differenciate it to obtain the PDF
Regards!
I have a dataset that I know for sure that has some sort of skewness (and potentially excess kurtosis). I would like to fit this dataset to some sort of distribution, and I thought the most simplistic is to have a skewed student's t-distribution or skewed normal distribution. What sort of distribution in Matlab can I fit the data to?
Thanks!
L.
There may be no pearspdf function in Matlab, because the seven distribution types of the Pearson distribution mostly correspond to or are based on extant functions for other distributions:
Type 0: Normal distribution, normpdf
Type I: Beta distribution, betapdf
Type II: Student's t-distribution, tpdf
Type III: Gamma distribution, gampdf
Type IV: Not related to any standard distribution
Type V: Inverse gamma distribution, Calculated via gampdf
Type VI: F-distribution, fpdf
Type VII: Student's t-distribution/t location scale distribution, tpdf/prob.tLocationScaleDistribution
The summary above simplifies a lot of course and it would be useful to have one function that calculates your PDF according to the system, like pearsrnd does for random variate generation. Luckily someone has already done that and posted it on the MathWorks File Exchange: pearspdf.
You can also use the second argument of the pearsrnd function, which returns the type of the distribution in the Pearson system (see this page for examples). If, for example, it suggests that your data is Type III, you could attempt to fit it directly using gamfit to estimate the parameter values. gamfit, and other similarly-names functions, are based on robust maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE).
Why would one use kmedoids algoirthm rather then kmeans? Is it only the fact that
the number of metrics that can be used in kmeans is very limited or is there something more?
Is there an example of data, for which it makes much more sense to choose the best representatives
of cluster from the data rather then from R^n?
The problem with k-means is that it is not interpretable. By interpretability i mean the model should also be able to output the reason that why it has resulted a certain output.
lets take an example.
Suppose there is food review dataset which has two posibility that there is a +ve review or a -ve review so we can say we will have k= 2 where k is the number of clusters. Now if you go with k-means where in the algorithm the third step is updation step where you update your k-centroids based on the mean distance of the points that lie in a particular cluster. The example that we have chosen is text problem, so you would also apply some kind of text-featured vector schemes like BagOfWords(BOW), word2vec. now for every review you would get the corresponding vector. Now the generated centroid c_i that you will get after running the k-means would be the mean of the vectors present in that cluster. Now with that centroid you cannot interpret much or rather i should say nothing.
But for same problem you apply k-medoids wherein you choose your k-centroids/medoids from your dataset itself. lets say you choose x_5 point from your dataset as first medoid. From this your interpretability will increase beacuse now you have the review itself which is termed as medoid/centroid. So in k-medoids you choose the centroids from your dataset itself.
This is the foremost motivation of introducing k-mediods
Coming to the metrics part you can apply all the metrics that you apply for k-means
Hope this helps.
Why would we use k-medoids instead of k-means in case of (squared) Euclidean distance?
1. Technical justification
In case of relatively small data sets (as k-medoids complexity is greater) - to obtain a clustering more robust to noise and outliers.
Example 2D data showing that:
The graph on the left shows clusters obtained with K-medoids (sklearn_extra.cluster.KMedoids method in Python with default options) and the one on the right with K-means for K=2. Blue crosses are cluster centers.
The Python code used to generate green points:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=32)
a = rng.random((6,2))*2.35 - 3*np.ones((6,2))
b = rng.random((50,2))*0.25 - 2*np.ones((50,2))
c = rng.random((100,2))*0.5 - 1.5*np.ones((100,2))
d = rng.random((7,2))*0.55
points = np.concatenate((a, b, c, d))
plt.plot(points[:,0],points[:,1],"g.", markersize=8, alpha=0.3) # green points
2. Business case justification
Here are some example business cases showing why we would prefer k-medoids. They mostly come down to the interpretability of the results and the fact that in k-medoids the resulting cluster centers are members of the original dataset.
2.1 We have a recommender engine based only on user-item preference data and want to recommend to the user those items (e.g. movies) that other similar people enjoyed. So we assign the user to his/her closest cluster and recommend top movies that the cluster representant (actual person) watched. If the cluster representant wasn't an actual person we wouldn't possess the history of actually watched movies to recommend. Each time we'd have to search additionally e.g. for the closest person from the cluster. Example data: classic MovieLens 1M Dataset
2.2 We have a database of patients and want to pick a small representative group of size K to test a new drug with them. After clustering the patients with K-medoids, cluster representants are invited to the drug trial.
Difference between is that in k-means centroids(cluster centrum) are calculated as average of vectors containing in the cluster, and in k-medoids the medoid (cluster centrum) is record from dataset closest to centroid, so if you need to represent cluster centrum by record of your data you use k-medoids, otherwise i should use k-means (but concept of these algorithms are same)
The K-Means algorithm uses a Distance Function such as Euclidean Distance or Manhattan Distance, which are computed over vector-based instances. The K-Medoid algorithm instead uses a more general (and less constrained) distance function: aka pair-wise distance function.
This distinction works well in contexts like Complex Data Types or relational rows, where the instances have a high number of dimensions.
High dimensionality problem
In standard clustering libraries and the k-means algorithms, the distance computation phase can spend a lot of time scanning the entire vector of attributes that belongs to an instance; for instance, in the context of documents clustering, using the standard TF-IDF representation. During the computation of the cosine similarity, the distance function scans all the possible words that appear in the whole collection of documents. Which in many cases can be composed by millions of entries. This is why, in this domain, some authors [1] suggests to restrict the words considered to a subset of N most frequent word of that language.
Using K-Kedoids there is no need to represent and store the documents as vectors of word frequencies.
As an alternative representation for the documents is possible to use the set of words appearing at least twice in the document; and as a distance measure, there can be used Jaccard Distance.
In this case, vector representation is long as the number of words in your dictionary.
Heterogeneousity and Complex Data Types.
There are many domains where is considerably better to abstract the implementation of an instance:
Graph's nodes clustering;
Car driving behaviour, represented as GPS routes;
Complex data type allows the design of ad-hoc distance measures which can fit better with the proper data domain.
[1] Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
Source: https://github.com/eracle/Gap
I've read about neural network a little while ago and I understand how an ANN (especially a multilayer perceptron that learns via backpropagation) can learn to classify an event as true or false.
I think there are two ways :
1) You get one output neuron. It it's value is > 0.5 the events is likely true, if it's value is <=0.5 the event is likely to be false.
2) You get two output neurons, if the value of the first is > than the value of the second the event is likely true and vice versa.
In these case, the ANN tells you if an event is likely true or likely false. It does not tell how likely it is.
Is there a way to convert this value to some odds or to directly get odds out of the ANN. I'd like to get an output like "The event has a 84% probability to be true"
Once a NN has been trained, for eg. using backprogation as mentioned in the question (whereby the backprogation logic has "nudged" the weights in ways that minimize the error function) the weights associated with all individual inputs ("outside" inputs or intra-NN inputs) are fixed. The NN can then be used for classifying purposes.
Whereby the math (and the "options") during the learning phase can get a bit thick, it is relatively simple and straightfoward when operating as a classifier. The main algorithm is to compute an activation value for each neuron, as the sum of the input x weight for that neuron. This value is then fed to an activation function which purpose's is to normalize it and convert it to a boolean (in typical cases, as some networks do not have an all-or-nothing rule for some of their layers). The activation function can be more complex than you indicated, in particular it needn't be linear, but whatever its shape, typically sigmoid, it operate in the same fashion: figuring out where the activation fits on the curve, and if applicable, above or below a threshold. The basic algorithm then processes all neurons at a given layer before proceeding to the next.
With this in mind, the question of using the perceptron's ability to qualify its guess (or indeed guesses - plural) with a percentage value, finds an easy answer: you bet it can, its output(s) is real-valued (if anything in need of normalizing) before we convert it to a discrete value (a boolean or a category ID in the case of several categories), using the activation functions and the threshold/comparison methods described in the question.
So... How and Where do I get "my percentages"?... All depends on the NN implementation, and more importantly, the implementation dictates the type of normalization functions that can be used to bring activation values in the 0-1 range and in a fashion that the sum of all percentages "add up" to 1. In its simplest form, the activation function can be used to normalize the value and the weights of the input to the output layer can be used as factors to ensure the "add up" to 1 question (provided that these weights are indeed so normalized themselves).
Et voilà!
Claritication: (following Mathieu's note)
One doesn't need to change anything in the way the Neural Network itself works; the only thing needed is to somehow "hook into" the logic of output neurons to access the [real-valued] activation value they computed, or, possibly better, to access the real-valued output of the activation function, prior its boolean conversion (which is typically based on a threshold value or on some stochastic function).
In other words, the NN works as previously, neither its training nor recognition logic are altered, the inputs to the NN stay the same, as do the connections between various layers etc. We only get a copy of the real-valued activation of the neurons in the output layer, and we use this to compute a percentage. The actual formula for the percentage calculation depends on the nature of the activation value and its associated function (its scale, its range relative to other neurons' output etc.).
Here are a few simple cases (taken from the question's suggested output rules)
1) If there is a single output neuron: the ratio of the value provided by the activation function relative to the range of that function should do.
2) If there are two (or more output neurons), as with classifiers for example: If all output neurons have the same activation function, the percentage for a given neuron is that of its activation function value divided by the sum of all activation function values. If the activation functions vary, it becomes a case by case situation because the distinct activation functions may be indicative of a purposeful desire to give more weight to some of the neurons, and the percentage should respect this.
What you can do is to use a sigmoid transfer function on the output layer nodes (that accepts data ranges (-inf,inf) and outputs a value in [-1,1]).
Then by using the 1-of-n output encoding (one node for each class), you can map the range [-1,1] to [0,1] and use it as probability for each class value (note that this works naturally for more than just two classes).
The activation value of a single output neuron is a linearly weighted sum, and may be directly interpreted as an approximate probability if the network is trained to give outputs a range from 0 to 1. This would tend to be the case if the transfer function (or output function) in both the preceding stage and providing the final output is in the 0 to 1 range too (typically the sigmoidal logistic function). However, there is no guarantee that it will but repairs are possible. Moreover unless the sigmoids are logistic and the weights are constrained to be positive and sum to 1, it is unlikely. Generally a neural network will train in a more balanced way using the tanh sigmoid and weights and activations that range positive and negative (due to the symmetry of this model). Another factor is the prevalence of the class - if it is 50% then a 0.5 threshold is likely to be effective for logistic and a 0.0 threshold for tanh. The sigmoid is designed to push things towards the centre of the range (on backpropogation) and constrain it from going out of the range (in feedforward). The significance of the performance (with respect to the Bernoulli distribution) can also be interpreted as a probability that the neuron is making real predictions rather than guessing. Ideally the bias of the predictor to positives should match the prevalence of positives in the real world (which may vary at different times and places, e.g. bull vs bear markets, e.g. credit worthiness of people applying for loans vs people who fail to make loan payments) - calibrating to probabilities has the advantage that any desired bias can be set easily.
If you have two neurons for two classes, each can be interpreted independently as above, and the halved difference between them can also be. It is like flipping the negative class neuron and averaging. The differences can also give rise to a probability of significance estimate (using the T-test).
The Brier score and its Murphy decomposition give a more direct estimate of the probability that an average answer is correct, while Informedness gives the probability the classifier is making an informed decision rather than a guess, ROC AUC gives the probability a positive class will be ranked higher than a negative class (by a positive predictor), and Kappa will give a similar number that matches Informedness when prevalence = bias.
What you normally want is both a significance probability for the overall classifier (to ensure that you are playing on a real field, and not in an imaginary framework of guestimates) and a probability estimate for a specific example. There are various ways to calibrate, including doing a regression (linear or nonlinear) versus probability and using its inverse function to remap to a more accurate probability estimate. This can be seen by the Brier score improving, with the calibration component reducing towards 0, but the discrimination component remaining the same, as should ROC AUC and Informedness (Kappa is subject to bias and may worsen).
A simple non-linear way to calibrate to probabilities is to use the ROC curve - as the threshold changes for the output of a single neuron or the difference between two competing neurons, we plot the results true and false positive rates on a ROC curve (the false and true negative rates are naturally the complements, as what isn't really a positive is a negative). Then you scan the ROC curve (polyline) point by point (each time the gradient changes) sample by sample and the proportion of positive samples gives you a probability estimate for positives corresponding to the neural threshold that produced that point. Values between points on the curve can be linearly interpolated between those that are represented in the calibration set - and in fact any bad points in the ROC curve, represented by deconvexities (dents) can be smoothed over by the convex hull - probabilistically interpolating between the endpoints of the hull segment. Flach and Wu propose a technique that actually flips the segment, but this depends on information being used the wrong way round and although it could be used repeatedly for arbitrary improvement on the calibration set, it will be increasingly unlikely to generalize to a test situation.
(I came here looking for papers I'd seen ages ago on these ROC-based approaches - so this is from memory and without these lost references.)
I will be very prudent in interpreting the outputs of a neural networks (in fact any machine learning classifier) as a probability. The machine is trained to discriminate between classes, not to estimate the probability density. In fact, we don't have this information in the data, we have to infer it. For my experience I din't advice anyone to interpret directly the outputs as probabilities.
did you try prof. Hinton's suggestion of training the network with softmax activation function and cross entropy error?
as an example create a three layer network with the following:
linear neurons [ number of features ]
sigmoid neurons [ 3 x number of features ]
linear neurons [ number of classes ]
then train them with cross entropy error softmax transfer with your favourite optimizer stochastic descent/iprop plus/ grad descent. After training the output neurons should be normalized to sum of 1.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softmax_activation_function for details. Shark Machine Learning framework does provide Softmax feature through combining two models. And prof. Hinton an excellent online course # http://coursera.com regarding the details.
I can remember I saw an example of Neural network trained with back propagation to approximate the probability of an outcome in the book Introduction to the theory of neural computation (hertz krogh palmer). I think the key to the example was a special learning rule so that you didn't have to convert the output of a unit to probability, but instead you got automatically the probability as output.
If you have the opportunity, try to check that book.
(by the way, "boltzman machines", although less famous, are neural networks designed specifically to learn probability distributions, you may want to check them as well)
When using ANN for 2-class classification and logistic sigmoid activation function is used in the output layer, the output values could be interpreted as probabilities.
So if you choosing between 2 classes, you train using 1-of-C encoding, where 2 ANN outputs will have training values (1,0) and (0,1) for each of classes respectively.
To get probability of first class in percent, just multiply first ANN output to 100. To get probability of other class use the second output.
This could be generalized for multi-class classification using softmax activation function.
You can read more, including proofs of probabilistic interpretation here:
[1] Bishop, Christopher M. Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford university press, 1995.