How to increase Naive Bayes accuracy? Total size of dataset was 81. Ok so I ran the program against test data and it gave me accuracy of 21% only. Can anyone tell me why is like that? Where am I going wrong?

I am learning NB algorithm and implementing on a real dataset that contains only 80 records. Now I want to prepare training data. I want to know whether training data is made from the actual data or the actual pattern given in real data? Also, does training data means covering all cases given in real data or what?

Non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks are introduced. They allow the parents set of each node to change over continuous time. Three settings are developed for learning non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks from data: known transition times, known number of epochs and unknown number of epochs. A score function for each setting is derived and the corresponding learning algorithm is developed. A set of numerical experiments on synthetic data is used to compare the effectiveness of non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks to that of non-stationary dynamic Bayesian networks. Furthermore, the performance achieved by non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks is compared to that achieved by state-of-the-art algorithms on four real-world datasets, namely drosophila, saccharomyces cerevisiae, songbird and macroeconomics.

Sparse versions of principal component analysis (PCA) have imposed themselves as simple, yet powerful ways of selecting relevant features of high-dimensional data in an unsupervised manner. However, when several sparse principal components are computed, the interpretation of the selected variables is difficult since each axis has its own sparsity pattern and has to be interpreted separately. To overcome this drawback, we propose a Bayesian procedure called globally sparse probabilistic PCA (GSPPCA) that allows to obtain several sparse components with the same sparsity pattern. This allows the practitioner to identify the original variables which are relevant to describe the data. To this end, using Roweis' probabilistic interpretation of PCA and a Gaussian prior on the loading matrix, we provide the first exact computation of the marginal likelihood of a Bayesian PCA model. To avoid the drawbacks of discrete model selection, a simple relaxation of this framework is presented. It allows to find a path of models using a variational expectation-maximization algorithm. The exact marginal likelihood is then maximized over this path. This approach is illustrated on real and synthetic data sets. In particular, using unlabeled microarray data, GSPPCA infers much more relevant gene subsets than traditional sparse PCA algorithms.

Bayes's Theorem fundamentally is based on the concept of "validity of Beliefs". Reverend Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minster and a Mathematician who pondered much about developing the proof of existence of God. He came up with the Theorem in 18th century (which was later refined by Pierre-Simmon Laplace) to fix or establish the validity of'existing' or'previous' Beliefs in the face of best available'new' evidence. Think of it as a equation to correct prior beliefs based on new evidence. One of the popular example used to explain Bayes's Theorem is to detect if a patient has a certain disease or not.

As the term "machine learning" has heated up, interest in "robotics" (as expressed in Google Trends) has not altered much over the last three years. So how much of a place is there for machine learning in robotics? While only a portion of recent developments in robotics can be credited to developments and uses of machine learning, I've aimed to collect some of the more prominent applications together in this article, along with links and references. Before I delve into machine learning in robotics, go ahead and define "robot". Though at first this might seem simple, it's no easy task to come to an agreement on just what a robot is and what it is not, even amongst roboticists.

This document is an invited chapter covering the specificities of ABC model choice, intended for the incoming Handbook of ABC by Sisson, Fan, and Beaumont (2017). Beyond exposing the potential pitfalls of ABC based posterior probabilities, the review emphasizes mostly the solution proposed by Pudlo et al. (2016) on the use of random forests for aggregating summary statistics and and for estimating the posterior probability of the most likely model via a secondary random fores.

The two most extended density-based approaches to clustering are surely mixture model clustering and modal clustering. In the mixture model approach, the density is represented as a mixture and clusters are associated to the different mixture components. In modal clustering, clusters are understood as regions of high density separated from each other by zones of lower density, so that they are closely related to certain regions around the density modes. If the true density is indeed in the assumed class of mixture densities, then mixture model clustering allows to scrutinize more subtle situations than modal clustering. However, when mixture modeling is used in a nonparametric way, taking advantage of the denseness of the sieve of mixture densities to approximate any density, then the correspondence between clusters and mixture components may become questionable. In this paper we introduce two methods to adopt a modal clustering point of view after a mixture model fit. Numerous examples are provided to illustrate that mixture modeling can also be used for clustering in a nonparametric sense, as long as clusters are understood as the domains of attraction of the density modes.

We consider the estimation and inference of sparse graphical models that characterize the dependency structure of high-dimensional tensor-valued data. To facilitate the estimation of the precision matrix corresponding to each way of the tensor, we assume the data follow a tensor normal distribution whose covariance has a Kronecker product structure. A critical challenge in the estimation and inference of this model is the fact that its penalized maximum likelihood estimation involves minimizing a non-convex objective function. To address it, this paper makes two contributions: (i) In spite of the non-convexity of this estimation problem, we prove that an alternating minimization algorithm, which iteratively estimates each sparse precision matrix while fixing the others, attains an estimator with the optimal statistical rate of convergence. Notably, such an estimator achieves estimation consistency with only one tensor sample, which was not observed in the previous work. (ii) We propose a de-biased statistical inference procedure for testing hypotheses on the true support of the sparse precision matrices, and employ it for testing a growing number of hypothesis with false discovery rate (FDR) control. The asymptotic normality of our test statistic and the consistency of FDR control procedure are established. Our theoretical results are further backed up by thorough numerical studies. We implement the methods into a publicly available R package Tlasso.

Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms are ubiquitous in Bayesian computations. However, they need to access the full data set in order to evaluate the posterior density at every step of the algorithm. This results in a great computational burden in big data applications. In contrast to MCMC methods, Stochastic Gradient MCMC (SGMCMC) algorithms such as the Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics (SGLD) only require access to a batch of the data set at every step. This drastically improves the computational performance and scales well to large data sets. However, the difficulty with SGMCMC algorithms comes from the sensitivity to its parameters which are notoriously difficult to tune. Moreover, the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) scales as $\mathcal{O}(c^{-\frac{1}{3}})$ as opposed to standard MCMC $\mathcal{O}(c^{-\frac{1}{2}})$ where $c$ is the computational cost. We introduce a new class of Multilevel Stochastic Gradient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms that are able to mitigate the problem of tuning the step size and more importantly of recovering the $\mathcal{O}(c^{-\frac{1}{2}})$ convergence of standard Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods without the need to introduce Metropolis-Hasting steps. A further advantage of this new class of algorithms is that it can easily be parallelised over a heterogeneous computer architecture. We illustrate our methodology using Bayesian logistic regression and provide numerical evidence that for a prescribed relative RMSE the computational cost is sublinear in the number of data items.