This is a general question without codes.
My dataframe consists of a binary response variable and ordinal predictor variables (likert-type scale). I want to do partial least squares by retrieving the most relevant components from the predictor variables (1st stage) and using those as my new predictors for a logit model - 2nd stage (since my response is binary).
So far, the package plsRglm seem the most applicable since it allows a logit in the second stage. The challenge is that it seems plsRglm does not have provision for ordinal factor variables. If you know about the plsRglm package, could you please suggest how to handle ordinal factor variables?
Or could you suggest another package that solves this problem?
Thanks
Related
My SQL server contains 2 tables containing a similar set of fields for a mailing (physical) address. NB these tables are populated before the data gets to my database (can't change that). The set of fields in the tables are similar though not identical - most exist in both tables, some only in one, some the other. The goal is to determine with "high confidence" whether or not two mailing addresses match.
Example fields:
Street Number
Predirection
Street Name
Street Suffix
Postdirection (one table and not the other)
Unit name (one table) v Address 2 (other table) --adds complexity
Zip code (length varies in each table 5 v 5+ digits)
Legal description
Ideally I'd like to a simple way to call a "function" which returns either a boolean or a confidence level of match (0.0 - 1.0). This call can be made in SQL or Python within my solution; free/open source highly preferred by client.
Among options such as SOUNDEX, DIFFERENCE, Levenshtein distance (all SQL) and usaddress, dedupe (Python) none stand out as a good-fit solution.
Ideally I'd like to a simple way to call a "function" which returns
either a boolean or a confidence level of match (0.0 - 1.0).
A similarity metric is what you're looking for. You can use Distance Metrics to calculate similarity. The Levenshtein Distance, Damerau-Levenshtein Distance and Hamming Distance are examples of Distance Metrics.
Given the shortest of the two: M the shorter of the two, N the longest, and your distance metric (D) you can measure string Similarity using (M-D)/N. You can also use the Longest Common subsequence or Longest Common Substring (LCS) to measure similarity by dividing LCS/N.
If you can use CLRs I HIGHLY recommend mdq.similarity which you can get from here. It will give a similarity metric using these algorithms:
The Damarau-Levenshtein distance (the documentation only says, "Levenshtein" but they are mistaken)
The Jaccard Similarity coefficient algorithm.
a form of the Jaro-Winkler distance algorithm.
4 a longest common subsequence algorithm (which grows by one when transpositions are involved)
If performance is important (these metrics can be quite slow depending on what you're feeding them) then I would get familiar with my Bernie function. It's designed to help measure similarity using any of the aforementioned algorithms much, much faster. Bernie is 100% open source and can be easily re-created in any language (Python, C#, etc.) Ditto my N-Grams function.
You can easily create your own metric using NGrams8K.
For pure T-SQL versions of Levenshtein or the Longest Common Subsequence you can check Phil Factor's blog. (Note these cannot compete with the CLR I mentioned).
I'll stop for now. The best advice can be given after we better understand what is making the strings different (note my question under your comment).
Good morning, I'm trying to perform a 2D FFT as 2 1-Dimensional FFT.
The problem setup is the following:
There's a matrix of complex numbers generated by an inverse FFT on an array of real numbers, lets call it arr[-nx..+nx][-nz..+nz].
Now, since the original array was made up of real numbers, I exploit the symmetry and reduce my array to be arr[0..nx][-nz..+nz].
My problem starts here, with arr[0..nx][-nz..nz] provided.
Now I should come back in the domain of real numbers.
The question is what kind of transformation I should use in the 2 directions?
In x I use the fftw_plan_r2r_1d( .., .., .., FFTW_HC2R, ..), called Half complex to Real transformation because in that direction I've exploited the symmetry, and that's ok I think.
But in z direction I can't figure out if I should use the same transformation or, the Complex to complex (C2C) transformation?
What is the correct once and why?
In case of needing here, at page 11, the HC2R transformation is briefly described
Thank you
"To easily retrieve a result comparable to that of fftw_plan_dft_r2c_2d(), you can chain a call to fftw_plan_dft_r2c_1d() and a call to the complex-to-complex dft fftw_plan_many_dft(). The arguments howmany and istride can easily be tuned to match the pattern of the output of fftw_plan_dft_r2c_1d(). Contrary to fftw_plan_dft_r2c_1d(), the r2r_1d(...FFTW_HR2C...) separates the real and complex component of each frequency. A second FFTW_HR2C can be applied and would be comparable to fftw_plan_dft_r2c_2d() but not exactly similar.
As quoted on the page 11 of the documentation that you judiciously linked,
'Half of these column transforms, however, are of imaginary parts, and should therefore be multiplied by I and combined with the r2hc transforms of the real columns to produce the 2d DFT amplitudes; ... Thus, ... we recommend using the ordinary r2c/c2r interface.'
Since you have an array of complex numbers, you can either use c2r transforms or unfold real/imaginary parts and try to use HC2R transforms. The former option seems the most practical.Which one might solve your issue?"
-#Francis
I tried the kdist plot as introduced in one paper I read and used the knee distance to set the epsilon. However,the results were not satisfying.
I use the WEKA to implement DBSCAN, but it always returns only one cluster.
Can anyone please give me some advice?
This can happen if the k-dist plot has more than 1 knee (this can happen when the dataset contains clusters having different density, and the outcome you have obtained arise when the high density clusters are nested inside the low density ones).
The solution is to search the next knee and re-apply the algorithm on the core points you already have found.
I have read the paper about Viola-Jones method for object detection and am confused by a few things.
1 - For Adaboost does each round mean that we calculate all the 160k features across all images then find the one with the least error (which as i understand is a 'weak classifier? please correct me if I am wrong). If yes then won't this take extremely long to train on a large set of images which can take months ? And also how many rounds will you run it for if this is correct.
2- If the above point is wrong then does it mean that for each feature, we evaluate all the non-face and face images with one feature and compare it to a certain acceptable threshold of error, and if it lies below this acceptable threshold then we take this feature as a weak classifier and then update the weights before using the next feature from the 160k features.
I have tried understanding the MATLAB code in this link http://www.ece301.com/ml-doc/54-face-detect-matlab-1.html but not sure if the way he implemented adaboost was correct.
It would also be a great help if there was a link that would explain adaboost used by Viola-Jones in a simple and clear way.
AdaBoost tries out multiple weak classifier over several rounds , Selecting the best weak classifier in each round and combining the best classifier to create a strong classifier.
Example for adaboost :
Data point Classifier 1 Classifier 2 Classifier 3
x1 Fail pass fail
x2 Pass fail pass
x3 fail pass pass
x4 pass fail pass
AdaBoost can use classifier that are consistently wrong by reversing their decision .
1) Yes. If your parameters are, say, 5000 positive windows and 5000 negative ones (extracted from the set of negative background images you provided initially), then at each stage every feature is evaluated in turn for all 10000 windows and the best one is added to the feature set.
And yes in the original paper of Viola-Jones each feature is a weak classifier.
The process of checking all features will take a long time, but not weeks. As a matter of fact the bottle neck is the gathering of negative widows over the last stages than could require days or also weeks The number of rounds depends on the reaching of the given conditions. Each stage requires a number of round (usually more in final stages). So for example: stage 1 requires 3 features (3 rounds), stage 2 requires 5 features (5 rounds), stage 3 requires 6 features (6 rounds), etc.
2) The above point is true so it doesn’t apply.
Nominally a good problem to have, but I'm pretty sure it is because something funny is going on...
As context, I'm working on a problem in the facial expression/recognition space, so getting 100% accuracy seems incredibly implausible (not that it would be plausible in most applications...). I'm guessing there is either some consistent bias in the data set that it making it overly easy for an SVM to pull out the answer, =or=, more likely, I've done something wrong on the SVM side.
I'm looking for suggestions to help understand what is going on--is it me (=my usage of LibSVM)? Or is it the data?
The details:
About ~2500 labeled data vectors/instances (transformed video frames of individuals--<20 individual persons total), binary classification problem. ~900 features/instance. Unbalanced data set at about a 1:4 ratio.
Ran subset.py to separate the data into test (500 instances) and train (remaining).
Ran "svm-train -t 0 ". (Note: apparently no need for '-w1 1 -w-1 4'...)
Ran svm-predict on the test file. Accuracy=100%!
Things tried:
Checked about 10 times over that I'm not training & testing on the same data files, through some inadvertent command-line argument error
re-ran subset.py (even with -s 1) multiple times and did train/test only multiple different data sets (in case I randomly upon the most magical train/test pa
ran a simple diff-like check to confirm that the test file is not a subset of the training data
svm-scale on the data has no effect on accuracy (accuracy=100%). (Although the number of support vectors does drop from nSV=127, bSV=64 to nBSV=72, bSV=0.)
((weird)) using the default RBF kernel (vice linear -- i.e., removing '-t 0') results in accuracy going to garbage(?!)
(sanity check) running svm-predict using a model trained on a scaled data set against an unscaled data set results in accuracy = 80% (i.e., it always guesses the dominant class). This is strictly a sanity check to make sure that somehow svm-predict is nominally acting right on my machine.
Tentative conclusion?:
Something with the data is wacked--somehow, within the data set, there is a subtle, experimenter-driven effect that the SVM is picking up on.
(This doesn't, on first pass, explain why the RBF kernel gives garbage results, however.)
Would greatly appreciate any suggestions on a) how to fix my usage of LibSVM (if that is actually the problem) or b) determine what subtle experimenter-bias in the data LibSVM is picking up on.
Two other ideas:
Make sure you're not training and testing on the same data. This sounds kind of dumb, but in computer vision applications you should take care that: make sure you're not repeating data (say two frames of the same video fall on different folds), you're not training and testing on the same individual, etc. It is more subtle than it sounds.
Make sure you search for gamma and C parameters for the RBF kernel. There are good theoretical (asymptotic) results that justify that a linear classifier is just a degenerate RBF classifier. So you should just look for a good (C, gamma) pair.
Notwithstanding that the devil is in the details, here are three simple tests you could try:
Quickie (~2 minutes): Run the data through a decision tree algorithm. This is available in Matlab via classregtree, or you can load into R and use rpart. This could tell you if one or just a few features happen to give a perfect separation.
Not-so-quickie (~10-60 minutes, depending on your infrastructure): Iteratively split the features (i.e. from 900 to 2 sets of 450), train, and test. If one of the subsets gives you perfect classification, split it again. It would take fewer than 10 such splits to find out where the problem variables are. If it happens to "break" with many variables remaining (or even in the first split), select a different random subset of features, shave off fewer variables at a time, etc. It can't possibly need all 900 to split the data.
Deeper analysis (minutes to several hours): try permutations of labels. If you can permute all of them and still get perfect separation, you have some problem in your train/test setup. If you select increasingly larger subsets to permute (or, if going in the other direction, to leave static), you can see where you begin to lose separability. Alternatively, consider decreasing your training set size and if you get separability even with a very small training set, then something is weird.
Method #1 is fast & should be insightful. There are some other methods I could recommend, but #1 and #2 are easy and it would be odd if they don't give any insights.