mirror of
https://github.com/Andreaierardi/Master-DataScience-Notes.git
synced 2025-01-09 11:06:24 +01:00
273 lines
9.5 KiB
TeX
273 lines
9.5 KiB
TeX
\title{Statistical Methods for Machine Learning}
|
||
\author{
|
||
Andrea Ierardi \\
|
||
Data Science and Economcis\\
|
||
Università degli Studi di Milano\\
|
||
|
||
}
|
||
\date{\today}
|
||
|
||
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
|
||
\usepackage{amsmath}
|
||
\usepackage{systeme}
|
||
\usepackage{amssymb}
|
||
\newcommand\barra[1]{\mathbb{#1}}
|
||
|
||
\begin{document}
|
||
\maketitle
|
||
|
||
|
||
\begin{abstract}
|
||
This is the paper's abstract \ldots
|
||
\end{abstract}
|
||
|
||
\section{Lecture 1 - 09-03-2020}
|
||
|
||
\subsection{Introduction}
|
||
This is time for all good men to come to the aid of their party!
|
||
|
||
MACHINE LEARNING
|
||
In this course we look at the principle behind design of Machine learning.
|
||
Not just coding but have an idea of algorithm that can work with the data.
|
||
We have to fix a mathematical framework: some statistic and mathematics.
|
||
Work on ML on a higher level
|
||
ML is data inference: make prediction about the future using data about the
|
||
past
|
||
Clustering —> grouping according to similarity
|
||
Planning —> (robot to learn to interact in a certain environment)
|
||
Classification —> (assign meaning to data) example: Spam filtering
|
||
I want to predict the outcome of this individual or i want to predict whether a
|
||
person click or not in a certain advertisement.
|
||
Examples
|
||
Classify data into categories:
|
||
Medical diagnosis: data are medical records and • categories are diseases
|
||
• Document analysis: data are texts and categories are topics
|
||
• Image analysts: data are digital images and for categories name of objects
|
||
in the image (but could be different).
|
||
• Spam filtering: data are emails, categories are spam vs non spam.
|
||
• Advertising prediction: data are features of web site visitors and categories
|
||
could be click/non click on banners.
|
||
Classification : Different from clustering since we do not have semantically
|
||
classification (spam or not spam) —> like meaning of the image.
|
||
I have a semantic label.
|
||
Clustering: i want to group data with similarity function.
|
||
Planning: Learning what to do next
|
||
Clustering: Learn similarity function
|
||
Classification: Learn semantic labels meaning of data
|
||
Planning: Learn actions given state
|
||
In classification is an easier than planning task since I’m able to make
|
||
prediction telling what is the semantic label that goes with data points.
|
||
If i can do classification i can clustering.
|
||
If you do planning you probably classify (since you understanding meaning in
|
||
your position) and then you can also do clustering probably.
|
||
We will focus on classification because many tasks are about classification.
|
||
Classify data in categories we can image a set of categories.
|
||
For instance the tasks:
|
||
‘predict income of a person’
|
||
‘Predict tomorrow price for a stock’
|
||
The label is a number and not an abstract thing.
|
||
We can distinguish two cases:
|
||
The label set —> set of possible categories for each data • point. For each of
|
||
this could be finite set of abstract symbols (case of document classification,
|
||
medical diagnosis). So the task is classification.
|
||
• Real number (no bound on how many of them). My prediction will be a real
|
||
number and is not a category. In this case we talk about a task of
|
||
regression.
|
||
Classification: task we want to give a label predefined point in abstract
|
||
categories (like YES or NO)
|
||
Regression: task we want to give label to data points but this label are
|
||
numbers.
|
||
When we say prediction task: used both for classification and regression
|
||
tasks.
|
||
Supervised learning: Label attached to data (classification, regression)
|
||
Unsupervised learning: No labels attached to data (clustering)
|
||
In unsupervised the mathematical modelling and way algorithm are score and
|
||
can learn from mistakes is a little bit harder. Problem of clustering is harder to
|
||
model mathematically.
|
||
You can cast planning as supervised learning: i can show the robot which is
|
||
the right action to do in that state. But that depends on planning task is
|
||
formalised.
|
||
Planning is higher level of learning since include task of supervised and
|
||
unsupervised learning.
|
||
Why is this important ?
|
||
Algorithm has to know how to given the label.
|
||
In ML we want to teach the algorithm to perform prediction correctly. Initially
|
||
algorithm will make mistakes in classifying data. We want to tell algorithm that
|
||
classification was wrong and just want to perform a score. Like giving a grade
|
||
to the algorithm to understand if it did bad or really bad.
|
||
So we have mistakes!
|
||
Algorithm predicts and something makes a mistake —> we can correct it.
|
||
Then algorithm can be more precisely.
|
||
We have to define this mistake.
|
||
Mistakes in case of classification:
|
||
If category is the wrong one (in the simple case). We • have a binary signal
|
||
where we know that category is wrong.
|
||
How to communicate it?
|
||
We can use the loss function: we can tell the algorithm whether is wrong or
|
||
not.
|
||
Loss function: measure discrepancy between ‘true’ label and predicted
|
||
label.
|
||
So we may assume that every datapoint has a true label.
|
||
If we have a set of topic this is the true topic that document is talking about.
|
||
It is typical in supervised learning.
|
||
\\\\
|
||
How good the algorithm did?
|
||
\\
|
||
|
||
\[l(y,\hat{y})\leq0 \]
|
||
|
||
were $y $ is true label and $\hat{y}$ is predicted label
|
||
\\\\
|
||
We want to build a spam filter were $0$ is not spam and $1$ is spam and that
|
||
Classification task:
|
||
\\\\
|
||
$f(n) = \begin{cases} 0, & \mbox{if } \hat{y} = y
|
||
\\ 1, &
|
||
\mbox{if }\hat{y} \neq y
|
||
\end{cases}
|
||
$
|
||
\\\\
|
||
The loss function is the “interface” between algorithm and data.
|
||
So algorithm know about the data through the loss function.
|
||
If we give a useless loss function the algorithm will not perform good: is
|
||
important to have a good loss function.
|
||
Spam filtering
|
||
We have two main mistakes:
|
||
It is the same mistake? No if i have important email and you classify as spam
|
||
that’s bad and if you show me a spam than it’s ok.
|
||
So we have to assign a different weight.
|
||
Even in binary classification, mistakes are not equal.
|
||
e Iotf.TFprIuos.uos
|
||
True came
|
||
razee
|
||
Cussler aircN TASK spam ACG FIRM
|
||
ftp.y GO
|
||
IF F Y n is soon
|
||
IF FEY 0 Nor spam
|
||
ZERO CNE Cass
|
||
n n
|
||
Span No Seamy Binary Classification
|
||
I 2
|
||
FALSE PEENE Mistake Y NON SPAM J Spam
|
||
FN Mistake i f SPAM y NO spam
|
||
2 IF Fp Meter Airenita
|
||
f Y F on positive
|
||
y ye en MISTAKE
|
||
0 otherwise
|
||
|
||
|
||
\paragraph{Outline}
|
||
The remainder of this article is organized as follows.
|
||
Section~\ref{previous work} gives account of previous work.
|
||
Our new and exciting results are described in Section~\ref{results}.
|
||
Finally, Section~\ref{conclusions} gives the conclusions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
\section{Lecture 10 - 07-04-2020}
|
||
|
||
\subsection{TO BE DEFINE}
|
||
|
||
$|E[z] = |E[|E[z|x]]$
|
||
\\\\
|
||
$|E[X] = \sum_{t = 1}^{m} |E[x \Pi(A\begin{small}
|
||
t \end{small} ) ]$
|
||
\\\\
|
||
$x \in \mathbb{R}^d
|
||
$
|
||
\\
|
||
$\mathbb{P}(Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = 1) = \\\\ \mathbb{E}[\Pi { Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = 1 } ] = \\\\
|
||
= \sum_{t = 1}^{m} \mathbb{E}[\Pi\{Y_t = 1\} \cdot \Pi { Pi(s,x) = t}] = \\\\
|
||
= \sum_{t = 1}^{m} \mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}[\Pi\{Y_t = 1\} \cdot \Pi\{\Pi(s,x) = t\} | X_t]] = \\\\
|
||
given the fact that Y_t \sim \eta(X_t) \Rightarrow give me probability \\
|
||
Y_t = 1 and \Pi(s,x) = t are independent given X_Y (e. g. \mathbb{E}[Zx] = \mathbb{E}[x] \ast \cdot \mathbb{E}[z]\\\\
|
||
= \sum_{t = 1}^{m} \barra{E}[\barra{E}[\Pi\{Y_t = 1\}|X_t] \cdot \barra{E} [ \Pi(s,x) = t | Xt]] = \\\\
|
||
= \sum_{t = 1}^{m} \barra{E}[\eta(X_t) \cdot \Pi \cdot \{\Pi (s,x) = t \}] = \\\\
|
||
= \barra{E} [ \eta(X_{\Pi(s,x)}]
|
||
$
|
||
|
||
\[ \barra{P} (Y_{\Pi(s,x)}| X=x = \barra{E}[\eta(X_\Pi (s,x))] \]
|
||
\\\\
|
||
|
||
$
|
||
\barra{P} (Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = 1, y = -1 ) = \\\\
|
||
= \barra{E}[\Pi\{Y_{\Pi(s,x) }= 1\} \dot \Pi\{Y= -1|X\} ]] = \\\\
|
||
= \barra{E}[\Pi \{ Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = 1\} \cdot \Pi \{ y = -1 \} ] = \\\\
|
||
= \barra{E}[\barra{E}[\Pi \{ Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = 1\} \cdot \Pi \{ y = -1 | X \} ]] = \\\\
|
||
$
|
||
|
||
\[ Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = 1 \quad \quad y = -1 (1- \eta(x)) \quad when \quad X = x\]
|
||
|
||
$
|
||
\\\\ = \barra{E}[\barra{E}[\Pi \{Y_\Pi(s,x)\} = 1 | X] \cdot \barra{E}[\Pi \{y = -1\} |X ]] = \\\\
|
||
= \barra {E}[\eta_{\Pi(s,x)} \cdot (1-\eta(x))] = \\\\
|
||
similarly: \quad \barra{P}(Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = -1 , y = 1) = \\
|
||
\barra{E} [(1- \eta_{\Pi(s,x)}) \cdot \eta(x)]
|
||
\\\\
|
||
\barra{E} [ \ell_D (\hat{h}_s)] = \barra{P}(Y_{\Pi(s,x)} \neq y ) =
|
||
\\\\
|
||
= \barra{P}(Y_{\Pi(s,x)} = 1, y = -1) + \barra{P}(Y_{Pi(s,x)} = -1, y = 1) =
|
||
\\\\
|
||
= \barra{E} [\eta_{\Pi(s,x)} \cdot (1-eta(x))] + \barra{E}[( 1- \eta_{\Pi(s,x)})\cdot \eta(x)]$
|
||
\\\\
|
||
Make assumptions on $D_x \quad and \quad \eta$: \\
|
||
|
||
|
||
MANCAAAAAAA ROBAAA
|
||
\\\\
|
||
|
||
$
|
||
\eta(x') <= \eta(x) + c || X-x'|| --> euclidean distance
|
||
\\\\
|
||
1-\eta(x') <= 1- \eta(x) + c||X-x'||
|
||
\\\\
|
||
$
|
||
|
||
|
||
$
|
||
X' = X_{Pi(s,x)}
|
||
\\\\
|
||
\eta(X) \cdot (1-\eta(x')) + (1-\eta(x))\cdot \eta(x') <=
|
||
\\\\
|
||
<= \eta(x) \cdot((1-\eta(x))+\eta(x)\cdot c||X-x'|| + (1-\eta(x))\cdot c||X-x'|| =
|
||
\\\\
|
||
= 2 \cdot \eta(x) \cdot (1- \eta(x)) + c||X-x'|| \\\\
|
||
\barra{E}[\ell_d \cdot (\hat{h}_s)] <= 2 \cdot \barra{E} [\eta(x) - (1-\eta(x))] + c \cdot \barra(E)[||X-x_{\Pi(s,x)}||]
|
||
$
|
||
\\ where $<=$ mean at most
|
||
\\\\
|
||
Compare risk for zero-one loss
|
||
\\
|
||
$
|
||
\barra{E}[min\{\eta(x),1-\eta(x)\}] = \ell_D (f*)
|
||
\\\\
|
||
\eta(x) \cdot( 1- \eta(X)) <= min\{\eta(x), 1-eta(x) \} \quad \forall x
|
||
\\\\
|
||
\barra{E}[\eta(x)\cdot(1-\eta(x)] <= \ell_D(f*)
|
||
\\\\
|
||
\barra{E}[\ell_d(\hat{l}_s)] <= 2 \cdot \ell_D(f*) + c \cdot \barra{E}[||X-X_{\Pi(s,x)}||]
|
||
\\\\
|
||
\eta(x) \in \{0,1\}
|
||
$
|
||
\\\\
|
||
Depends on dimension: curse of dimensionality
|
||
\\\\--DISEGNO--
|
||
\\\\
|
||
$
|
||
\ell_d(f*) = 0 \iff min\{ \eta(x), 1-\eta(x)\} =0 \quad$ with probability = 1
|
||
\\
|
||
to be true $\eta(x) \in \{0,1\}$
|
||
|
||
\section{Previous work}\label{previous work}
|
||
A much longer \LaTeXe{} example was written by Gil~\cite{Gil:02}.
|
||
|
||
\section{Results}\label{results}
|
||
In this section we describe the results.
|
||
|
||
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
|
||
We worked hard, and achieved very little.
|
||
|
||
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
||
\bibliography{main}
|
||
|
||
\end{document}
|
||
This is never printed |