Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsampling for Effective Feature Selection
ā¢
1 likeā¢334 views
ICANNGA presentation in 2005
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsampling for Effective Feature Selection
Similar to Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsampling for Effective Feature Selection (20)
More from Gianluca Bontempi
More from Gianluca Bontempi (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsampling for Effective Feature Selection
- 1. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsampling for Effective Feature Selection Gianluca Bontempi, Mauro Birattari, Patrick E. Meyer {gbonte,mbiro,pmeyer}@ulb.ac.be ULB, UniversitĆ© Libre de Bruxelles Boulevard de Triomphe - CP 212 Bruxelles, Belgium http://www.ulb.ac.be/di/mlg Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 1/2
- 2. Outline ā¢ Local vs. global modeling ā¢ Wrapper feature selection and local modeling ā¢ F-Racing and subsampling ā¢ Experimental results Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 2/2
- 3. The global modeling approach x y q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Input-output regression problem. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 3/2
- 4. The global modeling approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x y q 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 Training data set. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 3/2
- 5. The global modeling approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x y q 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 Global model ļ¬tting. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 3/2
- 6. The global modeling approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y q x Prediction by discarding the data and using the ļ¬tted global model. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 3/2
- 7. The global modeling approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x y q Another prediction by using the ļ¬tted global model. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 3/2
- 8. The local modeling approach x y q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Input-output regression problem. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 4/2
- 9. The local modeling approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x y q 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 Training data set. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 4/2
- 10. The local modeling approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x y q 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 101 0 0 1 101 0 0 1 101 0 0 1 101 0 0 0 1 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 Ranking of data according to a metric, selection of neighbours, local ļ¬tting and prediction. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 4/2
- 11. The local modeling approach 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 1 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x y q 01 01 01 01 Another prediction: again ranking of data according to a metric, selection of neighbours, local ļ¬tting and prediction Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 4/2
- 12. Global models: pros and cons ā¢ Examples of global models are linear regression models and neural networks. ā¢ PRO: even for huge datasets, a parametric model can be stored in a small memory. ā¢ CON: ā¢ in the nonlinear case learning procedures are typically slow and analytically intractable. ā¢ validation methods, which address the problem of assessing a global model on the basis of a ļ¬nite amount of noisy samples, are computationally prohibitive. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 5/2
- 13. Local models: pros and cons ā¢ Examples of local models are locally weighted regression and nearest neighbours ā¢ We will consider here a Lazy Learning algorithm [2, 5, 4] published in previous works. ā¢ PRO: fast and easy local linear learning procedures for parametric identiļ¬cation and validation. ā¢ CON: ā¢ the dataset of observed input/output data must always be kept in memory. ā¢ Each prediction requires a repetition of the learning procedure. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 6/2
- 14. Complexity in global and local modeling ā¢ Consider a nonlinear regression problem where we have N training samples, n given features and Q query points (i.e. Q predictions to be performed). ā¢ Let us compare the computational cost of a nonlinear global learner (e.g. a neural network) and a local learner (with k << N neighbors). ā¢ Suppose that the nonlinear global learning procedure relies on a nonlinear parametric identiļ¬cation step (e.g. backpropagation to compute the weights) and a structural identiļ¬cation step (e.g. K-fold cross-validation to deļ¬ne the number of hidden nodes). ā¢ Suppose that the local learning relies on a local leave-one-out linear criterion (PRESS statistic). Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 7/2
- 15. Complexity in global and local modeling GLOBAL LOCAL Parametric identiļ¬cation CNLS O(Nn)+CLS Structural identiļ¬cation by K-fold cross-validation KCNLS small Cost of Q predictions (K + 1)CNLS Q(O(Nn) + CLS) where CNLS and CLS represent the cost of a nonlinear and a linear least squares, respectively. The global modeling approach is computationally advantageous wrt to the local modeling one when the same model is expected to be used for many predictions. Otherwise, a local approach is to be preferred. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 8/2
- 16. Feature selection ā¢ In recent years many applications of data mining (text mining, bioinformatics, sensor networks) deal with a very large number n of features (e.g. tens or hundreds of thousands of variables) and often comparably few samples. ā¢ In these cases, it is common practice to adopt feature selection algorithms [7] to improve the generalization accuracy. ā¢ Several techniques exist for feature selection: we focus here on wrapper search techniques. ā¢ Wrapper methods assess subsets of variables according to their usefulness to a given learning machine. These methods conducts a search for a good subset using the learning algorithm itself as part of the evaluation function. The problem boils down to a problem of stochastic state space search. ā¢ Well-known example of greedy wrapper search is forward selection. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 9/2
- 17. Why being local in feature selection? ā¢ Suppose that we have F feature set candidates, N training samples and that the assessment is perfomed by leave-one-out. ā¢ The conventional approach is to to test all the F leave-one-out models on all the N samples ans choose the best. ā¢ This requires the training of F ā N different models, each one used for a single prediction. ā¢ The use of a global model demands a huge cost of retraining. ā¢ Local approaches appear to be an effective alternative. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 10/2
- 18. Racing and subsampling: an analogy ā¢ You are a national team football trainer who has to select the goalkeeper among a set of four candidates for the next World Cup, starting the next month. ā¢ You have available only twenty days of training session and eight days to let the players play matches. ā¢ Two options: 1. (i) Train all the candidates during the ļ¬rst twenty days, (ii) test all of them with matches the last eight days, and (iii) make a decision. 2. (i) Alternate each week of training with two matches, (ii) after each week, assess the candidates and if there is someone signiļ¬cantly worse than the others discard him (iii) keep selecting the others. ā¢ In our analogy the players are the feature subsets, the training days are the training data, the matches are the test data.Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 11/2
- 19. The racing idea ā¢ Suppose that we have F feature set candidates, N training samples and that the assessment is perfomed by leave-one-out. ā¢ The conventional approach is to to test all the F models on all the N samples and eventually choose the best. ā¢ The racing idea [8] is to test each feature set on one point at the time. ā¢ After only a small number of points, by using statistical tests, we can detect that some feature sets are signiļ¬cantly worse than others. ā¢ We can discard them and keep focusing on the others. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 12/2
- 20. Non racing approach Consider this simple example: we have F = 5 feature subsets and N = 10 samples to select the best feature set by leave-one-out corss validation. Squared error 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 2 0.1 4 3.2 4 1.5ESTIMATED 0.3 0.6 1.7 2.5 2 3.1 4 5.2 4 4 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.2 1 2.7 3.5 5.3 3.9 4 2.7 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.0 3.5 3.4 0.2 1.0 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 2.4 3.0 8.4 4.2 3.9 2.4 WINNER MSE F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 i=6 i=7 i=8 i=9 i=10 After 50 training and test procedures, we have the best candidate. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 13/2
- 21. Racing approach Squared error 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.05 0.2 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 i=1 i=2 OUT After only 33 training and test procedures, we have the best candidate. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 14/2
- 22. Racing approach Squared error 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.2 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 OUT OUT After only 33 training and test procedures, we have the best candidate. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 14/2
- 23. Racing approach Squared error 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.2 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 2.4 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 i=6 OUT OUT OUT After only 33 training and test procedures, we have the best candidate. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 14/2
- 24. Racing approach MSE 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 2 0.1 4 3.2 4 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.2 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.0 3.5 3.4 0.2 1.0 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 2.4 WINNER F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 i=6 i=7 i=8 i=9 i=10 OUT OUT OUT OUT Squared error After only 33 training and test procedures, we have the best candidate. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 14/2
- 25. F-racing for feature selection ā¢ We propose a nonparametric multiple test, the Friedman test [6], to compare different conļ¬gurations of input variables and to select the ones to be eliminated from the race. ā¢ The use of the Friedman test for racing was proposed ļ¬rst by one of the authors in the context of a technique for comparing metaheuristics for combinatorial optimization problems [3]. This is the ļ¬rst time that the technique is used in a feature selection setting. ā¢ The main merit of this nonparametric approach is that it does not require to formulate hypotheses on the distribution of the observations. ā¢ The idea of F-racing techniques consists in using blocking and paired multiple test to compare different models in similar conditions and discard as soon as possible the worst ones. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 15/2
- 26. Sub-sampling and LL ā¢ The goal of feature selection is to ļ¬nd the best subset in a set of alternatives. ā¢ Given a set of alternative subsets, what we expect is a correct ranking of their generalization accuracy (eg F2 > F3 > F5 > F1> F4). ā¢ By subsampling we mean using a random subset of the training set to perform the assessment of the different feature sets. ā¢ The rationale of subsampling is that by reducing the training set size N, we deteriorate the accuracy of each single feature subset without affecting their ranking. ā¢ In LL reducing the training set size N reduces the computational cost. ā¢ This makes more competitive the LL approach Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 16/2
- 27. RACSAM for feature selection We proposed the RACSAM (RACing+SAMpling) algorithm 1. Deļ¬ne an initial group of promising feature subsets. 2. Start with small training and test sets. 3. Discard by racing all the feature subsets that appear as signiļ¬cantly worse than the others. 4. Increase the training and test size until at most W winners models remain. 5. Update the group with new candidates proposed by the search strategy and go back to step 3. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 17/2
- 28. Experimental session ā¢ We compare the performance accuracy of the LL algorithm enhanced by the RACSAM procedure to the the accuracy of two state-of-art algorithms, a SVM for regression and a regression tree (RTREE). ā¢ Two version of the RACSAM algorithm were tested: the ļ¬rst (LL-RAC1) takes as feature set the best one (in terms of estimate Mean absolute Error (MAE)) among the W winning candidates : the second (LL-RAC2) averages the predictions of the best W LL predictors. ā¢ W = 5, and p-value is 0.01. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 18/2
- 29. Experimental results Five-fold cross-validation on six real datasets of high dimensionality: Ailerons (N = 14308, n = 40), Pole (N = 15000, n = 48), Elevators (N = 16599, n = 18), Triazines (N = 186, n = 60), Wisconsin (N = 194, n = 32) and Census (N = 22784, n = 137). Dataset AIL POL ELE TRI WIS CEN LL-RAC1 9.7e-5 3.12 1.6e-3 0.21 27.39 0.17 LL-RAC2 9.0e-5 3.13 1.5e-3 0.12 27.41 0.16 SVM 1.3e-4 26.5 1.9e-3 0.11 29.91 0.21 RTREE 1.8e-4 8.80 3.1e-3 0.11 33.02 0.17 Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 19/2
- 30. Statistical signiļ¬cativity ā¢ LL-RAC1 vs. LL-RAC2: ā¢ LL-RAC2 is signiļ¬cantly better than LL-RAC1 3 times out of 6 ā¢ LL-RAC2 is never signiļ¬cantly worse than LL-RAC1. ā¢ LL-RAC2 vs.state-of-the-art techniques: ā¢ LL-RAC2 approach is never signiļ¬cantly worse than SVM and/or RTREE ā¢ LL-RAC2 5 times out of 6 signiļ¬cantly better than SVM and 6 times out of 6 signiļ¬cantly better than RTREE. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 20/2
- 31. Software ā¢ MATLAB toolbox on Lazy Learning [1]. ā¢ R contributed packages: ā¢ lazy package. ā¢ racing package. ā¢ Web page: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~lazy. ā¢ About 5000 accesses since October 2002. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 21/2
- 32. Conclusions ā¢ Wrapper strategies asks for a huge number of assessments. It is important to make this process faster and less prone to instability. ā¢ Local strategies reduce the computational cost of training models that has to be used for few predictions. ā¢ Ranking speeds up the evaluation by discarding bad candidates as soon as they appear to be statistically signiļ¬cantly worse than others. ā¢ Sub-sampling combined with local learning can speed up the training phase in preliminary phases when it is important to discard the highest number of bad candidates. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 22/2
- 33. ULB Machine Learning Group (MLG) ā¢ 7 researchers (1 prof, 6 PhD students), 4 graduate students). ā¢ Research topics: Local learning, Classiļ¬cation, Computational statistics, Data mining, Regression, Time series prediction, Sensor networks, Bioinformatics. ā¢ Computing facilities: cluster of 16 processors, LEGO Robotics Lab. ā¢ Website: www.ulb.ac.be/di/mlg. ā¢ Scientiļ¬c collaborations in ULB: IRIDIA (Sciences AppliquĆ©es), Physiologie MolĆ©culaire de la Cellule (IBMM), Conformation des MacromolĆ©cules Biologiques et Bioinformatique (IBMM), CENOLI (Sciences), Microarray Unit (Hopital Jules Bordet), Service dāAnesthesie (ERASME). ā¢ Scientiļ¬c collaborations outside ULB: UCL Machine Learning Group (B), Politecnico di Milano (I), UniversitĆ” del Sannio (I), George Mason University (US). ā¢ The MLG is part to the "Groupe de Contact FNRS" on Machine Learning. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 23/2
- 34. ULB-MLG: running projects 1. "Integrating experimental and theoretical approaches to decipher the molecular networks of nitrogen utilisation in yeast": ARC (Action de Recherche ConcertĆ©e) funded by the CommunautĆ© Fran ĖAƧaise de Belgique (2004-2009). Partners: IBMM (Gosselies and La Plaine), CENOLI. 2. "COMP2 SYS" (COMPutational intelligence methods for COMPlex SYStems) MARIE CURIE Early Stage Research Training funded by the European Union (2004-2008). Main contractor: IRIDIA (ULB). 3. "Predictive data mining techniques in anaesthesia": FIRST Europe Objectif 1 funded by the RĆ©gion wallonne and the Fonds Social EuropĆ©en (2004-2009). Partners: Service dāanesthesie (ERASME). 4. "AIDAR - Adressage et Indexation de Documents MultimĆ©dias AssistĆ©s par des techniques de Reconnaissance Vocale": funded by RĆ©gion Bruxelles-Capitale (2004-2006). Partners: Voice Insight, RTBF, Titan. Combining Lazy Learning, Racing and Subsamplingfor Effective Feature Selection ā p. 24/2
- 35. References [1] M. Birattari and G. Bontempi. The lazy learning toolbox, for use with matlab. Technical Report TR/IRIDIA/99-7, IRIDIA- ULB, Brussels, Belgium, 1999. [2] M. Birattari, G. Bontempi, and H. Bersini. Lazy learn- ing meets the recursive least-squares algorithm. In M. S. Kearns, S. A. Solla, and D. A. Cohn, editors, NIPS 11, pages 375ā381, Cambridge, 1999. MIT Press. [3] M. Birattari, T. StĆ¼tzle, L. Paquete, and K. Varrentrapp. A racing algorithm for conļ¬guring metaheuristics. In W. B. Langdon, editor, GECCO 2002, pages 11ā18. Morgan Kaufmann, 2002. [4] G. Bontempi, M. Birattari, and H. Bersini. Lazy learning for modeling and control design. International Journal of Control, 72(7/8):643ā658, 1999. [5] G. Bontempi, M. Birattari, and H. Bersini. A model selection approach for local learning. Artiļ¬cial Intelligence Commu- nications, 121(1), 2000. [6] W. J. Conover. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, third edition, 1999. 24-1
- 36. [7] I. Guyon and A. Elisseeff. An introduction to variable and feature selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:1157ā1182, 2003. [8] O. Maron and A. Moore. The racing algorithm: Model selec- tion for lazy learners. Artiļ¬cial Intelligence Review, 11(1ā 5):193ā225, 1997. 24-2