1 / 22

For Friday

For Friday. Finish chapter 19 Homework: Chapter 18, exercises 3-4. Program 4. Hypothesis Space in Decision Tree Induction. Conducts a search of the space of decision trees which can represent all possible discrete functions.

ilana
Download Presentation

For Friday

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. For Friday • Finish chapter 19 • Homework: • Chapter 18, exercises 3-4

  2. Program 4

  3. Hypothesis Space in Decision Tree Induction • Conducts a search of the space of decision trees which can represent all possible discrete functions. • Creates a single discrete hypothesis consistent with the data, so there is no way to provide confidences or create useful queries.

  4. Algorithm Characteristics • Performs hill­climbing search so may find a locally optimal solution. Guaranteed to find a tree that fits any noise­free training set, but it may not be the smallest. • Performs batch learning. Bases each decision on a batch of examples and can terminate early to avoid fitting noisy data.

  5. Bias • Bias is for trees of minimal depth; however, greedy search introduces a complication that it may not find the minimal tree and positions features with high information gain high in the tree. • Implements a preference bias (search bias) as opposed to a restriction bias (language bias) like candidate­elimination.

  6. Simplicity • Occam's razor can be defended on the basis that there are relatively few simple hypotheses compared to complex ones, therefore, a simple hypothesis that is consistent with the data is less likely to be a statistical coincidence than finding a complex, consistent hypothesis. • However, • Simplicity is relative to the hypothesis language used. • This is an argument for any small hypothesis space and holds equally well for a small space of arcane complex hypotheses, e.g. decision trees with exactly 133 nodes where attributes along every branch are ordered alphabetically from root to leaf.

  7. Overfitting • Learning a tree that classifies the training data perfectly may not lead to the tree with the best generalization performance since • There may be noise in the training data that the tree is fitting. • The algorithm might be making some decisions toward the leaves of the tree that are based on very little data and may not reflect reliable trends in the data. • A hypothesis, h, is said to overfit the training data if there exists another hypothesis, h’, such that h has smaller error than h’ on the training data but h’ has smaller error on the test data than h.

  8. Overfitting and Noise • Category or attribute noise can cause overfitting. • Add noisy instance: • <<medium, green, circle>, +> (really ­) • Noise can also cause directly conflicting examples with same description and different class. Impossible to fit this data and must label leaf with majority category. • <<big, red, circle>, ­> (really +) • Conflicting examples can also arise if attributes are incomplete and inadequate to discriminate the categories.

  9. Avoiding Overfitting • Two basic approaches • Prepruning: Stop growing the tree at some point during construction when it is determined that there is not enough data to make reliable choices. • Postpruning: Grow the full tree and then remove nodes that seem to not have sufficient evidence.

  10. Evaluating Subtrees to Prune • Cross­validation: • Reserve some of the training data as a hold­out set (validation set, tuning set) to evaluate utility of subtrees. • Statistical testing: • Perform some statistical test on the training data to determine if any observed regularity can be dismissed as likely to to random chance. • Minimum Description Length (MDL): • Determine if the additional complexity of the hypothesis is less complex than just explicitly remembering any exceptions.

  11. Beyond a Single Learner • Ensembles of learners work better than individual learning algorithms • Several possible ensemble approaches: • Ensembles created by using different learning methods and voting • Bagging • Boosting

  12. Bagging • Random selections of examples to learn the various members of the ensemble. • Seems to work fairly well, but no real guarantees.

  13. Boosting • Most used ensemble method • Based on the concept of a weighted training set. • Works especially well with weak learners. • Start with all weights at 1. • Learn a hypothesis from the weights. • Increase the weights of all misclassified examples and decrease the weights of all correctly classified examples. • Learn a new hypothesis. • Repeat

  14. Approaches to Learning • Maintaining a single current best hypothesis • Least commitment (version space) learning

  15. Different Ways of Incorporating Knowledge in Learning • Explanation Based Learning (EBL) • Theory Revision (or Theory Refinement) • Knowledge Based Inductive Learning (in first-order logic - Inductive Logic Programming (ILP)

  16. Explanation Based Learning • Requires two inputs • Labeled examples (maybe very few) • Domain theory • Goal • Two produce operational rules that are consistent with both examples and theory • Classical EBL requires that the theory entail the resulting rules

  17. Why Do EBL? • Often utilitarian or speed-up learning • Example: DOLPHIN • Uses EBL to improve planning • Both speed-up learning and improving plan quality

  18. Theory Refinement • Inputs the same as EBL • Theory • Examples • Goal • Fix the theory so that it agrees with the examples • Theory may be incomplete or wrong

  19. Why Do Theory Refinement? • Potentially more accurate than induction alone • Able to learn from fewer examples • May influence the structure of the theory to make it more comprehensible to experts

  20. How Is Theory Refinement Done? • Initial State: Initial Theory • Goal State: Theory that fits training data. • Operators: Atomic changes to the syntax of a theory: • Delete rule or antecedent, add rule or antecedent • Increase parameter, Decrease parameter • Delete node or link, add node or link • Path cost: Number of changes made, or total cost of changes made.

  21. Theory Refinement As Heuristic Search • Finding the “closest” theory that is consistent with the data is generally intractable (NP­hard). • Complete consistency with training data is not always desirable, particularly if the data is noisy. • Therefore, most methods employ some form of greedy or hill­climibing search. • Also, usually employ some form of over­fitting avoidance method to avoid learning an overly complex revision.

  22. Theory Refinement As Bias • Bias is to learn a theory which is syntactically similar to the initial theory. • Distance can be measured in terms of the number of edit operations needed to revise the theory (edit distance). • Assumes the syntax of the initial theory is “approximately correct.” • A bias for minimal semantic revision would simply involve memorizing the exceptions to the theory, which is undesirable with respect to generalizing to novel data.

More Related