View
27
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Robust Feature Selection by Mutual Information Distributions. Marco Zaffalon & Marcus Hutter IDSIA Galleria 2, 6928 Manno (Lugano), Switzerland www.idsia.ch/~{zaffalon,marcus} {zaffalon,marcus}@idsia.ch. Mutual Information (MI). Consider two discrete random variables ( , ) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Robust Feature Selection Robust Feature Selection by Mutual Information Distributionsby Mutual Information Distributions
Marco ZaffalonMarco Zaffalon & Marcus Hutter & Marcus Hutter
IDSIAIDSIAGalleria 2, 6928 Manno (Lugano), SwitzerlandGalleria 2, 6928 Manno (Lugano), Switzerland
www.idsia.ch/~{zaffalon,marcus}www.idsia.ch/~{zaffalon,marcus}{zaffalon,marcus}@idsia.ch{zaffalon,marcus}@idsia.ch
Mutual Information (MI)Mutual Information (MI)
Consider two discrete random variables (Consider two discrete random variables (,,))
(In)Dependence often measured by MI(In)Dependence often measured by MI
– Also known as Also known as cross-entropycross-entropy or or information gaininformation gain– ExamplesExamples
Inference of Bayesian nets, classification treesInference of Bayesian nets, classification trees Selection of relevant variables for the task at handSelection of relevant variables for the task at hand
,, of chancejoint jiij sjri ,,1 and ,,1
iiji of chance marginal j
jijj of chance marginal
i
ij
ji
ijijI
log0 π
MI-Based Feature-Selection Filter (F)MI-Based Feature-Selection Filter (F)Lewis, 1992Lewis, 1992
ClassificationClassification– Predicting the Predicting the classclass value given values of value given values of featuresfeatures– Features (or attributes) and class = random variablesFeatures (or attributes) and class = random variables– Learning the rule ‘features Learning the rule ‘features class’ from data class’ from data
Filters goal: removing irrelevant featuresFilters goal: removing irrelevant features– More accurate predictions, easier modelsMore accurate predictions, easier models
MI-based approachMI-based approach– Remove feature Remove feature if class if class does not depend on it: does not depend on it:– Or: remove Or: remove if if
is an arbitrary threshold of relevanceis an arbitrary threshold of relevance
0πI
πI
Empirical Mutual InformationEmpirical Mutual Informationa common way to use MI in practicea common way to use MI in practice
Data ( ) Data ( ) contingency table contingency table
– Empirical (sample) probability:Empirical (sample) probability:– Empirical mutual information: Empirical mutual information:
Problems of the empirical approachProblems of the empirical approach– due to random fluctuations? (finite sample)due to random fluctuations? (finite sample)– How to know if it is reliable, e.g. by How to know if it is reliable, e.g. by
jj\\ii 11 22 …… rr
11 nn1111 nn1212 …… nn1r1r
22 nn2121 nn2222 …… nn2r2r
ss nns1s1 nns2s2 …… nnsrsr
occurred times of# i,jnij
occurred times of# i nnj iji
occurred times of# j nni ijj
sizedataset ij ijnn
nnijij ̂ π̂I
0ˆ πI
?nIP
n
We Need the Distribution of MIWe Need the Distribution of MI
Bayesian approachBayesian approach– Prior distribution for the unknown chances Prior distribution for the unknown chances
(e.g., Dirichlet) (e.g., Dirichlet) – Posterior: Posterior:
Posterior probability density of MI:Posterior probability density of MI:
How to compute it?How to compute it?– Fitting a curve by the exact mean, approximate varianceFitting a curve by the exact mean, approximate variance
πp
ij
nij
ijpp ππn
πππ dpIIIp nn
Mean and Variance of MIMean and Variance of MIHutter, 2001; Wolpert & Wolf, 1995Hutter, 2001; Wolpert & Wolf, 1995
Exact meanExact mean
Leading and next to leading order term (NLO) for Leading and next to leading order term (NLO) for the variancethe variance
Computational complexity Computational complexity OO((rsrs))– As fast as empirical MIAs fast as empirical MI
1
1
1 ,1111
1 n
kijjiijij k
nnnnnnn
IE
ij ij ji
ijij
ji
ijij nOnn
nn
n
n
nnn
nn
n
n
nIVAR 3
22
NLOlog1
log1
MI Density Example GraphsMI Density Example Graphs
Distribution of Mutual Information for Dirichlet Priors
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
I
p(I|n
)
Exact n=[(40,10),(20,80)]
Gauss n=[(40,10),(20,80)]
Gamma n=[(40,10),(20,80)]
Beta n=[(40,10),(20,80)]
Exact n=[(8,2),(4,16)]
Gauss n=[(8,2),(4,16)]
Gamma n=[(8,2),(4,16)]
Beta n=[(8,2),(4,16)]
Exact n=[(20,5),(10,40)]
Gauss n=[(20,5),(10,40)]
Gamma n=[(20,5),(10,40)]
Beta n=[(20,5),(10,40)]
Robust Feature SelectionRobust Feature Selection
Filters: two new proposalsFilters: two new proposals– FF: include feature FF: include feature iff iff
(include iff “proven” relevant)(include iff “proven” relevant)
– BF: exclude feature BF: exclude feature iff iff (exclude iff “proven” irrelevant) (exclude iff “proven” irrelevant)
ExamplesExamples
95.0 nIP
95.0 nIP
FF includesBF includes
FF excludesBF includes
FF excludesBF excludes
I
Comparing the FiltersComparing the Filters
Experimental set-upExperimental set-up– Filter (F,FF,BF) + Naive Bayes classifierFilter (F,FF,BF) + Naive Bayes classifier– Sequential learning and testingSequential learning and testing
Collected measures for each filterCollected measures for each filter– Average # of correct predictions (prediction accuracy)Average # of correct predictions (prediction accuracy)– Average # of features usedAverage # of features used
Naive Bayes
Classification
Test
in
stance
Filter
Inst
ance
k
Inst
ance
k+
1
Inst
ance
N
Learningdata
Store after
classi
ficatio
n
Results on 10 Complete DatasetsResults on 10 Complete Datasets
# of used features# of used features
Accuracies NOT significantly differentAccuracies NOT significantly different– Except Chess & Spam with FFExcept Chess & Spam with FF
# Instances # Features Dataset FF F BF690 36 Australian 32.6 34.3 35.9
3196 36 Chess 12.6 18.1 26.1653 15 Crx 11.9 13.2 15.0
1000 17 German-org 5.1 8.8 15.22238 23 Hypothyroid 4.8 8.4 17.13200 24 Led24 13.6 14.0 24.0148 18 Lymphography 18.0 18.0 18.0
5800 8 Shuttle-small 7.1 7.7 8.01101 21611 Spam 123.1 822.0 13127.4435 16 Vote 14.0 15.2 16.0
Results on 10 Complete Datasets - Results on 10 Complete Datasets - ctdctd
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Aust
ralia
n
Ches
s
Crx
Ger
man
-org
Hyp
oth
yroid
Led24
Lym
phogra
phy
Shutt
le-s
mal
l
Spam
Vote
FFF
BF
Percentages of used features
FF: Significantly Better AccuraciesFF: Significantly Better Accuracies
ChessChess
SpamSpam
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
30
0
60
0
90
0
12
00
15
00
18
00
21
00
24
00
27
00
30
00
Instance number
Pre
dic
tio
n a
cc
ura
cy
(C
he
ss
) FF
F
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
10
00
11
00
Instance number
Pre
dic
tio
n a
cc
ura
cy
(S
pa
m)
F
FF
BF
0
11000
22000
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
10
00
11
00
Instance number
Av
er.
nu
mb
er
of
ex
clu
de
d f
ea
ture
s (
Sp
am
)
F
FF
BF
Extension to Incomplete SamplesExtension to Incomplete Samples
MAR assumptionMAR assumption– General case: missing features and classGeneral case: missing features and class
EM + closed-form expressionsEM + closed-form expressions
– Missing features onlyMissing features only Closed-form approximate expressions for Mean and VarianceClosed-form approximate expressions for Mean and Variance Complexity still Complexity still OO((rsrs))
New experimentsNew experiments– 5 data sets5 data sets– Similar behaviorSimilar behavior
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
0
30
0
60
0
90
0
12
00
15
00
18
00
21
00
24
00
27
00
30
00
Instance number
Pre
dic
tio
n a
cc
ura
cy
(H
yp
oth
yro
idlo
ss
)
F
FF
ConclusionsConclusions
Expressions for several moments of MI distribution Expressions for several moments of MI distribution are availableare available– The distribution can be approximated wellThe distribution can be approximated well– Safer inferences, same computational complexity of Safer inferences, same computational complexity of
empirical MIempirical MI– Why not to use it?Why not to use it?
Robust feature selection shows power of MI Robust feature selection shows power of MI distributiondistribution– FF outperforms traditional filter FFF outperforms traditional filter F
Many useful applications possibleMany useful applications possible– Inference of Bayesian netsInference of Bayesian nets– Inference of classification treesInference of classification trees– ……
Recommended