I'm trying to implement the naive Bayes classifier for sentiment analysis. I plan to use the TF-IDF weighting measure. I'm just a little stuck now. NB generally uses the word(feature) frequency to find the maximum likelihood. So how do I introduce the TF-IDF weighting measure in naive Bayes?
You use the TF-IDF weights as features/predictors in your statistical model. I suggest to use either gensim [1]or scikit-learn [2] to compute the weights, which you then pass to your Naive Bayes fitting procedure.
The scikit-learn 'working with text' tutorial [3] might also be of interest.
[1] http://scikit-learn.org/dev/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_extraction.text.TfidfTransformer.html
[2] http://radimrehurek.com/gensim/models/tfidfmodel.html
[3] http://scikit-learn.github.io/scikit-learn-tutorial/working_with_text_data.html
Related
For multiclass classification problems, Keras and tf.keras have metrics like SparseTopKCategoricalAccuracy and TopKCategoricalAccuracy. However, if one uses loss functions like SparseCategoricalCrossentropy or CategoricalCrossentropy, they cannot achieve the max values for these two metrics.
What is a good loss function to use when one wants to maximize SparseTopKCategoricalAccuracy or TopKCategoricalAccuracy?
I understand that SparseTopKCategoricalAccuracy is not differentiable, just like Accuracy. I am trying to find a function that can approximate the smooth loss function and yield a higher number for SparseTopKCategoricalAccuracy.
CrossEntropy is not the best loss function when you deal with Top-k accuracy because cross-entropy may be prone to overfitting on small datasets or noisy labels.
As you have already pointed out, "smooth loss" functions are developed for top-k classification with SVM. To my knowledge, there is no a "off-the-shelf" loss function in Keras/TF that is best suited for top-k. However, I suggest you to try Smooth Surrogate Loss (SSL) presented in the article and implemented in Pytorch to use with deep neural networks (see Github). It derives from multi-class SVMs as SSL creates a margin between the correct top-k predictions and the incorrect ones. The training time of SSL is comparatevely the same as in the case of cross-entropy thanking to a divide-and-conquer approach and the use of polynomials (see implementation).
I have been trying to conduct a few experiments using TensorFlow Probability (TFP), and I got a few questions.
What is the proper value of the coefficient of the KL loss?
In the paper by Blundell (2015), the coefficient is set to 1/M (where M is the number of mini-batches). In the example given by TFP, the coefficient is given as 1/mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
As I go from 2d input to 3d images volumes, the KL loss is still significantly larger (~1k) than the cross-entropy (~1), even after dividing by mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
What is the guideline for getting a proper value for this coefficient? Maybe like the two-loss terms should be the same order of magnitude?
The current coefficient only takes care of the number of training samples, but not the network complexity or number of parameters in the network, which I assume the KL loss increase with the complexity of the model.
I am trying to implement a neural network with the KL loss, without using keras.model.losses, as some software production and hardware support limitation. I am trying to train my model with TF 1.10 and TFP 0.3.0., the issue is that for tf<=1.14, tf.keras.model does not support tf.layers inside the Keras model, so I can't use my original model straight away. Is there a way to get the KL loss, not from model.losses, but from layers or weights of the network in a TF construct?
Is batch normalization or group normalization still helpful in Bayesian deep learning?
In the paper by Blundell (2015), the coefficient is set to 1/M (where M is the number of mini-batches). In the example given by TFP, the coefficient is given as 1/mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
In the BBB paper eq. 8, they refer to M being the number of mini-batches. To be consistent with the non-stochastic gradient learning, it should be scaled by the number of mini-batches which is what is done by Graves. Another alternative is that done in eq. 9, where they scale it by \pi_i, where the sum of all the values in the set {\pi} sum to one.
In the TFP example, it does look like the num_examples is the total number of independent samples within the training set, which is much larger than the number of batches. This is goes by a few names, such as Safe Bayes or Tempering. Have a look at sec. 8 of this paper for some more discussion about the use of tempering within Bayesian inference and it's suitability.
As I go from 2d input to 3d images volumes, the KL loss is still significantly larger (~1k) than the cross-entropy (~1), even after dividing by mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
The ELBO will always be larger than just your cross-entropy (which defines your likelihood). Have a look at how the KL divergence term in the ELBO is found. (and a full mean-field approach where each weight/parameter is assumed to be independent).
Since the assumed posterior is factorised (assume each parameter is independent), can write the joint distribution as a product. This means when you take the log when you are computing the KL between the approx. posterior and the prior, you can write it as a sum of the KL terms between each parameter. Since the KL is >= 0, for each parameter you add to your model you will be adding another positive term to your ELBO. This is likely why your loss is so much more for your 3D model, likely because there is more parameters.
Another reason this could occur is if you have less data (your M is smaller, than the KL term is weighted less).
What is the guideline for getting a proper value for this coefficient? Maybe like the two-loss terms should be the same order of magnitude?
I am unsure of any specific guideline, for training you are interested primarily in the gradients. A large loss does not mean a large gradient. Have a look at the gradients contributed by the negative log likelihood and the KL term in your ELBO. If the KL term is too large, you probably need a more informative prior or more data (you could simply scale the KL term but this feels a bit yucky for the Bayesian in me).
The current coefficient only takes care of the number of training samples, but not the network complexity or the number of parameters in the network, which I assume the KL loss increase with the complexity of the model.
Yes, as stated before, in general, more parameters == greater ELBO (for a mean-field approach as used in Bayes by Backprop).
I am trying to implement a neural network with the KL loss, without using keras.model.losses, as some software production and hardware support limitation. I am trying to train my model with TF 1.10 and TFP 0.3.0., the issue is that for tf<=1.14, tf.keras.model does not support tf.layers inside the Keras model, so I can't use my original model straight away. Is there a way to get the KL loss, not from model.losses, but from layers or weights of the network in a TF construct?
I am unsure about the best way to tackle this part of it. I would be cautious about going to older versions where it isn't explicitly supported. They put those warnings/exceptions in for a reason.
Is batch normalization or group normalization still helpful in Bayesian deep learning?
For variational inference (as done in Bayes by Backprop) Batchnorm is fine. For sampling methods such as MCMC, Batch normalization is no longer suitable. Have a look at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.03491v1.pdf for info on suitability for batch norm with sampling methods for approx. Bayesian inference.
I am working on text autoencoder so want to use negative sampling for training our model. I want to know the difference between negative sampling and sampled softmax.
Thanks in advance
https://www.tensorflow.org/extras/candidate_sampling.pdf
Accoring to tensorflow negative sampling relates to logistic loss while sampled softmax relates to softmax.
Both of them, at the core, pick a sample of negative examples to compute the loss on and update gradients.
For your model, use it if your output is very large (many classes) AND the regular loss is too slow to compute. If the output has few classes there's not much gain. If the training is fast anyway, why bother with approximations.
I am trying to cluster some sentences using similarity (maybe cosine) and then maybe use a classifier to put text in predefined classes.
My idea is to use tensorflow to generate the word embedding then average them for each sentence. Next use a clustering/classification algorithm.
Does tensorflow provide ready to use word2vec generation algorithm?
Would a bag of words model generate a good output?
No, tensorflow does not provide a ready-to-use word2vec but it does have a tutorial on word2vec.
Yes, a bag of words can generate surprisingly good output (but not state-of-the-art), and has the benefit of being amazingly faster. I have a small amount of data (tens of thousands of sentences) and have achieved F1 scores of >0.90 for classification.
I have a slightly imbalanced dataset for a binary classification problem, with a positive to negative ratio of 0.6.
I recently learned about the auc metric from this answer: https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/132832/128229, and decided to use it.
But I came across another link http://fastml.com/what-you-wanted-to-know-about-auc/ which claims that, the AUC-ROC is insensitive to class imbalance, and we should use AUC for a precision-recall curve.
The xgboost docs are not clear on which AUC they use, do they use AUC-ROC?
Also the link mentions that AUC should only be used if you do not care about the probability and only care about the ranking.
However since i am using a binary:logistic objective i think i should care about probabilities since i have to set a threshold for my predictions.
The xgboost parameter tuning guide https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost/blob/master/doc/how_to/param_tuning.md
also suggests an alternate method to handle class imbalance, by not balancing positive and negative samples and using max_delta_step = 1.
So can someone explain, when is the AUC preffered over the other method for xgboost to handle class imbalance. And if i am using AUC , what is the threshold i need to set for prediction or more generally how exactly should i use AUC for handling imbalanced binary classification problem in xgboost?
EDIT:
I also need to eliminate false positives more than false negatives, how can i achieve that, apart from simply varying the threshold, with binary:logistic objective?
According the xgboost parameters section in here there is auc and aucprwhere prstands for precision recall.
I would say you could build some intuition by running both approaches and see how the metrics behave. You can include multiple metric and even optimize with respect to whichever you prefer.
You can also monitor the false positive (rate) in each boosting round by creating custom metric.
XGboost chose to write AUC (Area under the ROC Curve), but some prefer to be more explicit and say AUC-ROC / ROC-AUC.
https://xgboost.readthedocs.io/en/latest/parameter.html