Lab 5 2014

From 6.034 Wiki

Contents 1 Boosting 1.1 A (clever|cheap) trick 1.2 Completing the code 1.3 Questions 2 Orange you glad someone else implemented these? 2.1 Getting familiar with Orange 2.2 Using Orange from Python 2.3 Boosting with Orange 2.4 Bonus! 3 Errata

This is the last problem set in 6.034! It's due Friday, December 4th at 11:59 PM.

To work on this problem set, you will need to get the code:

• You can view it at: http://web.mit.edu/6.034/www/labs/lab5/
• Download it as a ZIP file: http://web.mit.edu/6.034/www/labs/lab5/lab5.zip
• Or, on Athena, add 6.034 and copy it from /mit/6.034/www/labs/lab5/.
• You will need to download and install an additional software package called Orange. Do this first so that you get the problems worked out early. If you have downloaded and installed it, you should be able to run lab5.py with no changes, and see the output of several classifiers on the vampire dataset. If you get errors, email us.
• Note: Orange is available for Linux (Ubuntu), Windows, and OS X (and we have successfully tested this lab on these platforms).
• To check that your Orange is properly installed, run: python orange_for_6034.py and you should get a version string and no errors.

To work on this lab on Athena you'll need to:

• If you use bash: Setup your environment to pickup the class installation of Orange by adding the following:

  export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/6/6.034/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/orange:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH

  to your .bashrc.mine file
• If you are using tcsh or csh run:

setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH /afs/athena.mit.edu/course/6/6.034/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/orange:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH

instead.

• If you don't know what shell you are running, type "echo $SHELL".
• The above settings tell python where to look for shared libraries required for running Orange.
• Log into linux.mit.edu: ssh -X <user>@linux.mit.edu
• For your convenience, we've provided a script, run-orange-gui.sh that will run the Orange GUI on linux.mit.edu.
• Note that some Orange Widgets (like ROC charting) may not appear in GUI in the Athena version. Don't worry, you will not need the GUI to answer the questions for this lab.

Your answers for the problem set belong in the main file lab5.py, as well as boost.py.

Boosting

You're still trying to use AI to predict the votes of politicians. ID-Trees were great, but you've heard about these other magnificent learning algorithms like SVMs and Boosting. Boosting sounds easier to implement and had a pretty good reputation, so you decide to start with that.

To make sure that you interpret the results without letting your political preconceptions get in the way, you dig up some old data to work with: in particular, the data from the 4th House of Representatives, which met from 1796 to 1797. (According to the records on voteview.com, this is when the two-party system first emerged, with the two parties being designated "Federalists" and "Republicans".)

You experiment with that data before going on to the 2007-2008 data, finding that Congressmen in 1796 were much more clear about what they were voting on than in 2008.

The framework for a boosting classifier can be found in boost.py. You need to finish coding it, and then use it to learn some classifiers and answer a few questions.

The following resources will be helpful:

• The documentation for the boosting code, which you can find embedded in boost.py in the documentation strings.
• The Shapire paper on boosting, or the notes that summarizes it.
• The Lab 4 writeup, if you need to refer to how data_reader.py represents legislators and votes.

A (clever|cheap) trick

The boosting code uses a trick that means it only has to try half the number of base classifiers.

It turns out that AdaBoost does not really care which side of its base classifier is +1 and which side is -1. If you choose a classifier that is the opposite of the best classifier -- it returns -1 for most points that should be +1, and returns +1 for most points that should be -1, and therefore has a high error rate -- it works the same as if you had chosen the negation of that classifier, which is the best classifier.

If the data reweighting step is implemented correctly, it will produce the same weights given a classifier or its opposite. Also, a classifier with a high error rate will end up with a negative alpha value, so that in the final "vote" of classifiers it will act like its opposite. So the important thing about a classifier isn't that its error rate is low -- it's that the error rate is far from 1/2.

In the boosting code, we take advantage of this. We include only classifiers that output +1 for voting YES on a particular motion, or +1 for voting NO on a particular motion, and as the "best classifier" we choose the classifier whose error rate is farthest from 1/2. If the error rate is high, then the result will act like a classifier that outputs +1 for "voting NO or abstaining", or +1 for "voting YES or abstaining", respectively. This means we don't have to include these classifiers in the base classifier list, speeding up the algorithm by a factor of 2.

Completing the code

Here are the parts that you need to complete:

• In the BoostClassifier class in boost.py, the update_weights method is undefined. You need to define this method so that it changes the data weights in the way prescribed by the AdaBoost algorithm. There are two ways of implementing this update which happen to be mathematically equivalent.
• In the BoostClassifier class, the classify method is also undefined. Define it so that you can use a trained BoostClassifier as a classifier, outputting +1 or -1 based on the weighted results of its base classifiers. Complete the very similar orange_classify method as well.
• In lab5.py, the most_misclassified function is undefined. You will need to define it to answer the questions.

Questions

Answer the two questions republican_newspaper_vote and republican_sunset_vote in lab5.py.

When you are asked how a particular political party would vote on a particular motion, disregard the possibility of abstaining. If your classifier results indicate that the party wouldn't vote NO, consider that an indication that the party would vote YES.

Orange you glad someone else implemented these?

First things first: Have you installed Orange yet?

Now that you've installed Orange, when you run lab5.py, does it complain about Orange, or does it show you the outputs of some classifiers on vampire data?

Getting familiar with Orange

This part is optional: it's about using the Orange GUI to do a little machine learning without doing any programming. We've given you some data files (vampires.tab, H004.tab, adult.tab, titanic.tab, breast-cancer.tab, etc.) that you can play with. Try making something like this screenshot, and look at the performance, and look at the actual predictions.

Using Orange from Python

We have given you a function called describe_and_classify that trains a bunch of classifiers that Orange provides. Some of them will be more familiar than others.

First it trains each classifier on the data, shows its output on each data point from the training data, and shows the accuracy on the training data. You know from class that the accuracy on the training data should be 1 for these classifiers. It is less than one because each classifier comes with built-in regularization to help prevent overtraining. That's what the pruning is for the decision tree, for example. We didn't specify regularization parameters to most of the learners because they have fine defaults. You can read more about them in the Orange documentation.

You'll notice that we do one extra thing with the decision tree. We print it out. For most classifiers, their internal representations are hard for humans to read, but the decision tree's internal representation can be very useful in getting to know your data.

Then describe_and_classify passes the untrained learners, without having seen the data, to cross-validation. Cross-validation hides part of the training data, trains the learner on the rest, and then tests it on the hidden part. To avoid accidentally picking just one terrible subset of the data to hide (an irreproducible subset), it divides the data evenly into some number of folds, successively tests by hiding each fold in turn, and averages over the results. You will find with cross-validation that the classifiers do much better on identifying political parties than they do on vampires. That's because the vampire dataset has so few examples, with so little redundancy, that if you take away one example, it is very likely to remove the information you actually need in order to classify that example.

To ensure that you've gotten the right idea from each part of describe_and_classify, there are six questions just below the function.

Boosting with Orange

You may be able to do better by using AdaBoost over your Orange classifiers than you could do with any of those Orange classifiers by themselves. Then again, you may do worse. That AdaBoost "doesn't tend to overfit" is a somewhat conditional statement that depends a lot on the particular classifiers that boosting gets its pick of. If some of the underlying classifiers tend to overfit, then boosting will greedily choose them first, and it will be stuck with those choices for testing.

We have set up a learner that uses the BoostClassifier from the first part, but its underlying classifiers are the Orange classifiers we were just looking at. When you combine classifiers in this way, you create what's called an "ensemble classifier". You will notice, as you run this new classifier on the various data sets we've provided, that the ensemble frequently performs worse in cross-validation than some (or most) of its underlying classifiers.

Your job is to find a set of classifiers for the ensemble that get at least 74% accuracy on the breast-cancer dataset. You may use any subset of the classifiers we've provided, and you may use the same classifier more than once. Put the short names of your classifiers into the list classifiers_for_best_ensemble. There will be honorable mention in class for the best ensemble. If you are proud of the way that you went about choosing the best ensemble, let us know to look at your code carefully, and there may be another honorable mention for that.

Bonus!

We think there may be a problem with the code somewhere, but we don't know quite where. If you run the ensemble boosting with the original set of learners (one of each) then you get terrible results for the H109 data set. Can you figure out why?

Errata

We expect a few: check back.