1 / 36

# Topic 10 - Ensemble Methods - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Topic 10 - Ensemble Methods. Ensemble Models - Motivation. Remember this picture? Always looking for balance between low complexity (‘good on average’ but bad for prediction) and high complexity (‘good for specific cases’ but might overfit)

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Topic 10 - Ensemble Methods' - chailyn

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### Topic 10 - Ensemble Methods

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Remember this picture?

• Always looking for balance between low complexity (‘good on average’ but bad for prediction) and high complexity (‘good for specific cases’ but might overfit)

• By combining many different models, ensembles make it easier to hit the ‘sweet spot’ of modelling.

• Best for models to draw from diverse, independent opinions

• Wisdom Of Crowds

Stest(q)

Strain(q)

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Models are just models.

• Usually not true!

• The truth is often much more complex than any single model can capture.

• Combinations of simple models can be arbitrarily complex. (e.g. spam/robots models, neural nets, splines)

• Notion: An average of several measurements is often more accurate and stable than a single measurement

Accuracy: how well the model does for estimation and prediction

Stability: small changes in inputs have little effect on outputs

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• The ensemble predicts a target value as an average or a vote of the predictions (of several individual models)...

• Each model is fit independently of the others

• Final prediction is a combination of the independent predictions of all models

• For an continuous target, an ensemble averages predictions

• Usually weighted

• For a categorical target (classification), an ensemble may average the probabilities of the target values…or may use ‘voting’.

• Voting classifies a case into the class that was selected most by individual models

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Voting example

• 5 independent classifiers

• 70% accuracy for each

• Use voting…

• What is the probability that the ensemble model is correct?

• Lets simulate it

• (not a realistic example, why?)

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• The beauty is that you can average together models of any kind!!!

• Don’t need fancy schemes – just average!

• But there are fancy schemes: each one has various ways of fitting many models to the same data, and use voting or averaging

• Stacking (Wolpert 92): fit many leave-1-out models

• Bagging (Breiman 96) build models on many permutations of original data

• Boosting (Freund & Shapire 96): iteratively re-model, using re-weighted data based on errors from previous models…

• Arcing (Breiman 98), Bumping (Tibshirani 97), Crumpling (Anderson & Elder 98) , Born-Again (Breiman 98):

• Bayesian Model Averaging - near to my heart…

• We’ll explore BMA, bagging and boosting…

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Idea: account for inherent variance of the model selection process

• Posterior Variance = Within-Model Variance + Between-Model Variance

• Data-driven model selection is risky: “Part of the evidence is spent specify the model” (Leamer, 1978)

• Model-based inferences can be over-precise

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• For some quantity of interest D: avg over all Models M, given the data D:

To calculate the first term properly, you need to integrate out model parameters q,

Where q is the MLE.

For the second term, note that

^

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• The approximations on the previous page allow you to calculate many posterior model probabilities quickly, and gives you the weights to use for averaging.

• But, how do you know which models to average over?

• Example, regression with p parameters

• Each subset of p is a ‘model’

• 2p possible models!

• Idea:

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• But how to find the best models without fitting all models?

• Solution: Leaps and Bounds algorithm can find the best model without fitting all models

• Goal: find the single best model for each model size

Don’t need to traverse this part of the tree since there is no way it can beat AB

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

PMP = Posterior Model Probability

Best Models

Score on holdout data: BMA wins

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Different approach to model ensembles – mostly for classification

• Observed: when model predictions are not highly correlated, combining does well

• Big idea: can we fit models specifically to the “difficult” parts of the data?

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Boosting— Algorithm

From HTF p. 339

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Courtesy M. Littman

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Courtesy M. Littman

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Courtesy M. Littman

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Flexible – can work with any classification algorithm

• Individual models don’t have to be good

• In fact, the method works best with bad models!

• (bad = slightly better than random guessing)

• Most common model – “boosted stumps”

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Bagging = Boostrap aggregating

• Big Idea:

• To avoid overfitting of specific dataset, fit model to “bootstrapped” random sets of the data

• Bootstrap

• Random sample, with replacement, from the data set

• Size of sample = size of data

• X= (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)

• B1=(1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6,7,8)

• B2=(1,1,1,1,2,2,2,5,6,8)

• Bootstrap sample have the same statistical properties as original data

• By creating similar datasets you can see how much stability there is in your data. If there is a lack of stability, averaging helps.

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Training data sets of size N

• Generate B “bootstrap” sampled data sets of size N

• Build B models (e.g., trees), one for each bootstrap sample

• Intuition is that the bootstrapping “perturbs” the data enough to make the models more resistant to true variability

• Note: only ~62% of data included in any bootstrap sample

• Can use the rest as an out-of-sample estimate!

• For prediction, combine the predictions from the B models

• Voting or averaging based on“out-of-bag” sample

• Plus: generally improves accuracy on models such as trees

• Negative: lose interpretability

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

• Trees are great, but

• As we’ve seen, they are “unstable”

• Also, trees are sensitive to the primary split, which can lead the tree in inappropriate directions

• one way to see this: fit a tree on a random sample, or a bootstrapped sample of the data -

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

from G. Ridgeway, 2003

• Solution:

• random forests: an ensemble of decision trees

• Similar to bagging: inject randomness to overcome instability

• each tree is built on a random subset of the training data

• Boostrapped version of data

• at each split point, only a random subset of predictors are considered

• Use “out-of-bag” hold out sample to estimate size of each tree

• prediction is simply majority vote of the trees ( or mean prediction of the trees).

• Randomizing the variables used is the key

• Reduces correlation between models!

• Has the advantage of trees, with more robustness, and a smoother decision rule.

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Random Forests – How Big A Tree (1), 5-32

• Breiman’s original algorithm said: “to keep bias low, trees are to be grown to maximum depth”

• However, empirical evidence typically shows that “stumps” do best

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Ensembles – Main Points (1), 5-32

• Averaging models together has been shown to be effective for prediction

• Many weird names:

• See papers by Leo Breiman (e.g. “Bagging Predictors”, Arcing the Edge”, and “Random Forests” for more detail

• Key points

• Models average well if they are uncorrelated

• Can inject randomness to insure uncorrelated models

• Averaging small models better than large ones

• Also, can give more insight into variables than simple tree

• Variables that show up again and again must be good

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

Visualizing Forests (1), 5-32

• Data: Wisconsin Breast Cancer

• Courtesy S. Urbanek

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University

References (1), 5-32

• Random Forests from Leo Breiman himself

• Breiman, Leo (2001). "Random Forests". Machine Learning 45 (1), 5-32

• Hastie, Tibshirani, Friedman (HTF)

• Chapters 8,10,15,16

Data Mining - Volinsky - 2011 - Columbia University