Nowadays, much of modern personal computers (PC) have multicore processors. The computer operates as if it had multiple processors. Software and data mining algorithms must be modified in order to benefit of this new feature.

Currently, few free tools exploit this opportunity because it is impossible to define a generic approach that would be valid regardless of the learning method used. We must modify each existing learning algorithm. For a given technique, decomposing an algorithm into elementary tasks that can execute in parallel is a research field in itself. In a second step, we must adopt a programming technology which is easy to implement.

In this tutorial, I propose a technology based on threads for the induction of decision trees. It is well suited in our context for various reasons. (1) It is easy to program with the modern programming languages. (2) Threads can share information; they can also modify common objects. Efficient synchronization tools enable to avoid data corruption. (3) We can launch multiple threads on a mono-core and mono-processor system. It is not really advantageous, but at least the system does not crash. (4) On a multiprocessor or multi-core system, the threads will actually run at the same time, with each processor or core running a particular thread. But, because of the necessity of synchronization between threads, the computation time is not divided by the number of cores in this case.

First, we briefly present the modification of the decision tree learning algorithm in order to benefit of the multithreading technology. Then, we show how to implement the approach with SIPINA (version 3.5 and later). We show also that the multithreaded decision tree learners are available in various tools such as Knime 2.2.2 or RapidMiner 5.0.011. Last, we study the behavior of the multithreaded algorithms according to the dataset characteristics.

Keywords: multithreading, thread, threads, decision tree, chaid, sipina 3.5, knime 2.2.2, rapidminer 5.0.011

Tutorial: en_sipina_multithreading.pdf

Dataset: covtype.arff.zip

References :

Wikipedia, "Decision tree learning"

Wikipedia, "Thread (Computer science)"

Aldinucci, Ruggieri, Torquati, " Porting Decision Tree Algorithms to Multicore using FastFlow ", Pkdd-2010.

## Wednesday, November 24, 2010

## Thursday, November 11, 2010

### Naive bayes classifier for continuous predictors

The naive bayes classifier is a very popular approach even if it is (apparently) based on an unrealistic assumption: the distributions of the predictors are mutually independent conditionally to the values of the target attribute. The main reason of this popularity is that the method proved to be as accurate as the other well-known approaches such as linear discriminant analysis or logistic regression on the majority of the real dataset.

But an obstacle to the utilization of the naive bayes classifier remains when we deal with a real problem. It seems that we cannot provide an explicit model for its deployment. The proposed representation by the PMML standard for instance is particularly unattractive. The interpretation of the model, especially the detection of the influence of each descriptor on the prediction of the classes is impossible.

This assertion is not entirely true. We have showed in a previous tutorial that we can extract an explicit model from the naive bayes classifier in the case of discrete predictors (see references). We obtain a linear combination of the binarized predictors. In this document, we show that the same mechanism can be implemented for the continuous descriptors. We use the standard Gaussian assumption for the conditional distribution of the descriptors. According to the heteroscedastic assumption or the homoscedastic assumption, we can provide a quadratic model or a linear model. This last one is especially interesting because we obtain a model that we can directly compare to the other linear classifiers (the sign and the values of the coefficients of the linear combination).

This tutorial is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe the approach. In the section 3, we show how to implement the method with Tanagra 1.4.37 (and later). We compare the results to those of the other linear methods. In the section 4, we compare the results provided by various data mining tools. We note that none of them proposes an explicit model that could be easy to deploy. They give only the estimated parameters of the conditional Gaussian distribution (mean and standard deviation). Last, in the section 5, we show the interest of the naive bayes classifier over the other linear methods when we handle a large dataset (the "mutant" dataset - 16,592 instances and 5,408 predictors). The computation time and the memory occupancy are clearly advantageous.

Keywords: naive bayes classifier, rapidminer 5.0.10, weka 3.7.2, knime 2.2.2, R software, package e1071, linear discriminant analysis, pls discriminant analysis, linear svm, logistic regression

Components : NAIVE BAYES CONTINUOUS, BINARY LOGISTIC REGRESSION, SVM, C-PLS, LINEAR DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Tutorial: en_Tanagra_Naive_Bayes_Continuous_Predictors.pdf

Dataset: breast ; low birth weight

References :

Wikipedia, "Naive bayes classifier"

Tanagra, "Naive bayes classifier for discrete predictors"

But an obstacle to the utilization of the naive bayes classifier remains when we deal with a real problem. It seems that we cannot provide an explicit model for its deployment. The proposed representation by the PMML standard for instance is particularly unattractive. The interpretation of the model, especially the detection of the influence of each descriptor on the prediction of the classes is impossible.

This assertion is not entirely true. We have showed in a previous tutorial that we can extract an explicit model from the naive bayes classifier in the case of discrete predictors (see references). We obtain a linear combination of the binarized predictors. In this document, we show that the same mechanism can be implemented for the continuous descriptors. We use the standard Gaussian assumption for the conditional distribution of the descriptors. According to the heteroscedastic assumption or the homoscedastic assumption, we can provide a quadratic model or a linear model. This last one is especially interesting because we obtain a model that we can directly compare to the other linear classifiers (the sign and the values of the coefficients of the linear combination).

This tutorial is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe the approach. In the section 3, we show how to implement the method with Tanagra 1.4.37 (and later). We compare the results to those of the other linear methods. In the section 4, we compare the results provided by various data mining tools. We note that none of them proposes an explicit model that could be easy to deploy. They give only the estimated parameters of the conditional Gaussian distribution (mean and standard deviation). Last, in the section 5, we show the interest of the naive bayes classifier over the other linear methods when we handle a large dataset (the "mutant" dataset - 16,592 instances and 5,408 predictors). The computation time and the memory occupancy are clearly advantageous.

Keywords: naive bayes classifier, rapidminer 5.0.10, weka 3.7.2, knime 2.2.2, R software, package e1071, linear discriminant analysis, pls discriminant analysis, linear svm, logistic regression

Components : NAIVE BAYES CONTINUOUS, BINARY LOGISTIC REGRESSION, SVM, C-PLS, LINEAR DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Tutorial: en_Tanagra_Naive_Bayes_Continuous_Predictors.pdf

Dataset: breast ; low birth weight

References :

Wikipedia, "Naive bayes classifier"

Tanagra, "Naive bayes classifier for discrete predictors"

Libellés :
Software Comparison,
Supervised Learning

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)