It always amazes me how I can hear a statement uttered in the space of a few seconds about some aspect of machine learning that then takes me countless hours to understand. I first heard about Gaussian Processes on an episode of the Talking Machines podcast and thought it sounded like a really neat idea. I promptly procured myself a copy of the classic text on the subject, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning by Rasmussen and Williams, but my tenuous grasp on the Bayesian approach to machine learning meant I got stumped pretty quickly. That's when I began the journey I described in my last post, From both sides now: the math of linear regression. Gaussian Processes (GPs) are the natural next step in that journey as they provide an alternative approach to regression problems.

To construct flexible nonlinear predictive distributions, the paper introduces a family of softplus function based regression models that convolve, stack, or combine both operations by convolving countably infinite stacked gamma distributions, whose scales depend on the covariates. Generalizing logistic regression that uses a single hyperplane to partition the covariate space into two halves, softplus regressions employ multiple hyperplanes to construct a confined space, related to a single convex polytope defined by the intersection of multiple half-spaces or a union of multiple convex polytopes, to separate one class from the other. The gamma process is introduced to support the convolution of countably infinite (stacked) covariate-dependent gamma distributions. For Bayesian inference, Gibbs sampling derived via novel data augmentation and marginalization techniques is used to deconvolve and/or demix the highly complex nonlinear predictive distribution. Example results demonstrate that softplus regressions provide flexible nonlinear decision boundaries, achieving classification accuracies comparable to that of kernel support vector machine while requiring significant less computation for out-of-sample prediction.

In Part I of this series, we introduced the theory and intuition behind the VAE, an exciting development in machine learning for combined generative modeling and inference--"machines that imagine and reason." To recap: VAEs put a probabilistic spin on the basic autoencoder paradigm--treating their inputs, hidden representations, and reconstructed outputs as probabilistic random variables within a directed graphical model. With this Bayesian perspective, the encoder becomes a variational inference network, mapping observed inputs to (approximate) posterior distributions over latent space, and the decoder becomes a generative network, capable of mapping arbitrary latent coordinates back to distributions over the original data space. The beauty of this setup is that we can take a principled Bayesian approach toward building systems with a rich internal "mental model" of the observed world, all by training a single, cleverly-designed deep neural network. These benefits derive from an enriched understanding of data as merely the tip of the iceberg--the observed result of an underlying causative probabilistic process.

Naive Bayes classifiers, a family of classifiers that are based on the popular Bayes' probability theorem, are known for creating simple yet well performing models, especially in the fields of document classification and disease prediction. In this first part of a series, we will take a look at the theory of naive Bayes classifiers and introduce the basic concepts of text classification. In following articles, we will implement those concepts to train a naive Bayes spam filter and apply naive Bayes to song classification based on lyrics. Starting more than half a century ago, scientists became very serious about addressing the question: "Can we build a model that learns from available data and automatically makes the right decisions and predictions?" Looking back, this sounds almost like a rhetoric question, and the answer can be found in numerous applications that are emerging from the fields of pattern classification, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. Data from various sensoring devices combined with powerful learning algorithms and domain knowledge led to many great inventions that we now take for granted in our everyday life: Internet queries via search engines like Google, text recognition at the post office, barcode scanners at the supermarket, the diagnosis of diseases, speech recognition by Siri or Google Now on our mobile phone, just to name a few.

The result of standardization (or Z-score normalization) is that the features will be rescaled so that they'll have the properties of a standard normal distribution with Standardizing the features so that they are centered around 0 with a standard deviation of 1 is not only important if we are comparing measurements that have different units, but it is also a general requirement for many machine learning algorithms. Intuitively, we can think of gradient descent as a prominent example (an optimization algorithm often used in logistic regression, SVMs, perceptrons, neural networks etc.); with features being on different scales, certain weights may update faster than others since the feature values play a role in the weight updates Other intuitive examples include K-Nearest Neighbor algorithms and clustering algorithms that use, for example, Euclidean distance measures – in fact, tree-based classifier are probably the only classifiers where feature scaling doesn't make a difference. In fact, the only family of algorithms that I could think of being scale-invariant are tree-based methods. Let's take the general CART decision tree algorithm. Without going into much depth regarding information gain and impurity measures, we can think of the decision as "is feature x_i some_val?"

A Support Vector Machine (SVM) is a classification method that samples hyperplanes which separate between two or multiple classes. Eventually, the hyperplane with the highest margin is retained, where "margin" is defined as the minimum distance from sample points to the hyperplane. The sample point(s) that form margin are called support vectors and establish the final SVM model. Bayes classifiers are based on a statistical model (i.e., Bayes theorem: calculating posterior probabilities based on the prior probability and the so-called likelihood). A Naive Bayes classifier assumes that all attributes are conditionally independent, thereby, computing the likelihood is simplified to the product of the conditional probabilities of observing individual attributes given a particular class label. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are graph-like classifiers that mimic the structure of a human or animal "brain" where the interconnected nodes represent the neurons. Decision tree classifiers are tree like graphs, where nodes in the graph test certain conditions on a particular set of features, and branches split the decision towards the leaf nodes. Leaves represent lowest level in the graph and determine the class labels. Optimal tree are trained by minimizing Gini impurity, or maximizing information gain.

If you are interested in using the EnsembleClassifier, please note that it is now also available through scikit learn ( 0.17) as VotingClassifier. Here, I want to present a simple and conservative approach of implementing a weighted majority rule ensemble classifier in scikit-learn that yielded remarkably good results when I tried it in a kaggle competition. For me personally, kaggle competitions are just a nice way to try out and compare different approaches and ideas – basically an opportunity to learn in a controlled environment with nice datasets. Of course, there are other implementations of more sophisticated ensemble methods in scikit-learn, such as bagging classifiers, random forests, or the famous AdaBoost algorithm. However, as far as I am concerned, they all require the usage of a common "base classifier." In contrast, my motivation for the following approach was to combine conceptually different machine learning classifiers and use a majority vote rule.

While the Matrix Generalized Inverse Gaussian ($\mathcal{MGIG}$) distribution arises naturally in some settings as a distribution over symmetric positive semi-definite matrices, certain key properties of the distribution and effective ways of sampling from the distribution have not been carefully studied. In this paper, we show that the $\mathcal{MGIG}$ is unimodal, and the mode can be obtained by solving an Algebraic Riccati Equation (ARE) equation [7]. Based on the property, we propose an importance sampling method for the $\mathcal{MGIG}$ where the mode of the proposal distribution matches that of the target. The proposed sampling method is more efficient than existing approaches [32, 33], which use proposal distributions that may have the mode far from the $\mathcal{MGIG}$'s mode. Further, we illustrate that the the posterior distribution in latent factor models, such as probabilistic matrix factorization (PMF) [25], when marginalized over one latent factor has the $\mathcal{MGIG}$ distribution. The characterization leads to a novel Collapsed Monte Carlo (CMC) inference algorithm for such latent factor models. We illustrate that CMC has a lower log loss or perplexity than MCMC, and needs fewer samples.

In the last few months, I have had several people contact me about their enthusiasm for venturing into the world of data science and using Machine Learning (ML) techniques to probe statistical regularities and build impeccable data-driven products. However, I've observed that some actually lack the necessary mathematical intuition and framework to get useful results. This is the main reason I decided to write this blog post. Recently, there has been an upsurge in the availability of many easy-to-use machine and deep learning packages such as scikit-learn, Weka, Tensorflow etc. Machine Learning theory is a field that intersects statistical, probabilistic, computer science and algorithmic aspects arising from learning iteratively from data and finding hidden insights which can be used to build intelligent applications. Despite the immense possibilities of Machine and Deep Learning, a thorough mathematical understanding of many of these techniques is necessary for a good grasp of the inner workings of the algorithms and getting good results.

In acoustic modelling Artificial Neural Networks can be used as an alternative approach to Hidden Markov Models for phoneme recognition. A pre-processed feature vector is fed into the input layer of a neural network. The goal is to correctly match different phones to phonems, which can then be further processed in the language model. The dynamic nature of speech is an impairing factor when using artificial neural networks for phonem recognition. Traditional neural networks require the phones to be perfectly aligned in time to allow for flawless allocation.