-
A Support Vector Machine (SVM) is a very powerful and versatile -Machine Learning method, capable of performing linear or nonlinear -classification, regression, and even outlier detection. It is one of -the most popular models in Machine Learning, and anyone interested in -Machine Learning should have it in their toolbox. SVMs are -particularly well suited for classification of complex but small-sized or -medium-sized datasets. -
- -The case with two well-separated classes only can be understood in an -intuitive way in terms of lines in a two-dimensional space separating -the two classes (see figure below). -
- -The basic mathematics behind the SVM is however less familiar to most of us. -It relies on the definition of hyperplanes and the -definition of a margin which separates classes (in case of -classification problems) of variables. It is also used for regression -problems. -
- -With SVMs we distinguish between hard margin and soft margins. The -latter introduces a so-called softening parameter to be discussed -below. We distinguish also between linear and non-linear -approaches. The latter are the most frequent ones since it is rather -unlikely that we can separate classes easily by say straight lines. -
+We will use the second part of the lecture for further discussions of projects 2 and 3 and a summary on boosting methods from last week. Feel free to bring your laptops.
@@ -217,7 +202,7 @@ unlikely that we can separate classes easily by say straight lines.
-
The theory behind support vector machines (SVM hereafter) is based on -the mathematical description of so-called hyperplanes. Let us start -with a two-dimensional case. This will also allow us to introduce our -first SVM examples. These will be tailored to the case of two specific -classes, as displayed in the figure here based on the usage of the petal data. +
A Support Vector Machine (SVM) is a very powerful and versatile +Machine Learning method, capable of performing linear or nonlinear +classification, regression, and even outlier detection. It is one of +the most popular models in Machine Learning, and anyone interested in +Machine Learning should have it in their toolbox. SVMs are +particularly well suited for classification of complex but small-sized or +medium-sized datasets.
-We assume here that our data set can be well separated into two -domains, where a straight line does the job in the separating the two -classes. Here the two classes are represented by either squares or -circles. +
The case with two well-separated classes only can be understood in an +intuitive way in terms of lines in a two-dimensional space separating +the two classes (see figure below).
- -from sklearn import datasets
-from sklearn.svm import SVC, LinearSVC
-from sklearn.linear_model import SGDClassifier
-from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
-import matplotlib
-import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
-plt.rcParams['axes.labelsize'] = 14
-plt.rcParams['xtick.labelsize'] = 12
-plt.rcParams['ytick.labelsize'] = 12
-
-
-iris = datasets.load_iris()
-X = iris["data"][:, (2, 3)] # petal length, petal width
-y = iris["target"]
-
-setosa_or_versicolor = (y == 0) | (y == 1)
-X = X[setosa_or_versicolor]
-y = y[setosa_or_versicolor]
-
-
-
-C = 5
-alpha = 1 / (C * len(X))
-
-lin_clf = LinearSVC(loss="hinge", C=C, random_state=42)
-svm_clf = SVC(kernel="linear", C=C)
-sgd_clf = SGDClassifier(loss="hinge", learning_rate="constant", eta0=0.001, alpha=alpha,
- max_iter=100000, random_state=42)
-
-scaler = StandardScaler()
-X_scaled = scaler.fit_transform(X)
-
-lin_clf.fit(X_scaled, y)
-svm_clf.fit(X_scaled, y)
-sgd_clf.fit(X_scaled, y)
-
-print("LinearSVC: ", lin_clf.intercept_, lin_clf.coef_)
-print("SVC: ", svm_clf.intercept_, svm_clf.coef_)
-print("SGDClassifier(alpha={:.5f}):".format(sgd_clf.alpha), sgd_clf.intercept_, sgd_clf.coef_)
-
-# Compute the slope and bias of each decision boundary
-w1 = -lin_clf.coef_[0, 0]/lin_clf.coef_[0, 1]
-b1 = -lin_clf.intercept_[0]/lin_clf.coef_[0, 1]
-w2 = -svm_clf.coef_[0, 0]/svm_clf.coef_[0, 1]
-b2 = -svm_clf.intercept_[0]/svm_clf.coef_[0, 1]
-w3 = -sgd_clf.coef_[0, 0]/sgd_clf.coef_[0, 1]
-b3 = -sgd_clf.intercept_[0]/sgd_clf.coef_[0, 1]
-
-# Transform the decision boundary lines back to the original scale
-line1 = scaler.inverse_transform([[-10, -10 * w1 + b1], [10, 10 * w1 + b1]])
-line2 = scaler.inverse_transform([[-10, -10 * w2 + b2], [10, 10 * w2 + b2]])
-line3 = scaler.inverse_transform([[-10, -10 * w3 + b3], [10, 10 * w3 + b3]])
-
-# Plot all three decision boundaries
-plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
-plt.plot(line1[:, 0], line1[:, 1], "k:", label="LinearSVC")
-plt.plot(line2[:, 0], line2[:, 1], "b--", linewidth=2, label="SVC")
-plt.plot(line3[:, 0], line3[:, 1], "r-", label="SGDClassifier")
-plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==1], X[:, 1][y==1], "bs") # label="Iris-Versicolor"
-plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==0], X[:, 1][y==0], "yo") # label="Iris-Setosa"
-plt.xlabel("Petal length", fontsize=14)
-plt.ylabel("Petal width", fontsize=14)
-plt.legend(loc="upper center", fontsize=14)
-plt.axis([0, 5.5, 0, 2])
-
-plt.show()
-
-The basic mathematics behind the SVM is however less familiar to most of us. +It relies on the definition of hyperplanes and the +definition of a margin which separates classes (in case of +classification problems) of variables. It is also used for regression +problems. +
+With SVMs we distinguish between hard margin and soft margins. The +latter introduces a so-called softening parameter to be discussed +below. We distinguish also between linear and non-linear +approaches. The latter are the most frequent ones since it is rather +unlikely that we can separate classes easily by say straight lines. +
@@ -291,7 +223,7 @@ plt.show()
-
The aim of the SVM algorithm is to find a hyperplane in a -\( p \)-dimensional space, where \( p \) is the number of features that -distinctly classifies the data points. +
The theory behind support vector machines (SVM hereafter) is based on +the mathematical description of so-called hyperplanes. Let us start +with a two-dimensional case. This will also allow us to introduce our +first SVM examples. These will be tailored to the case of two specific +classes, as displayed in the figure here based on the usage of the petal data.
-In a \( p \)-dimensional space, a hyperplane is what we call an affine subspace of dimension of \( p-1 \). -As an example, in two dimension, a hyperplane is simply as straight line while in three dimensions it is -a two-dimensional subspace, or stated simply, a plane. +
We assume here that our data set can be well separated into two +domains, where a straight line does the job in the separating the two +classes. Here the two classes are represented by either squares or +circles.
-In two dimensions, with the variables \( x_1 \) and \( x_2 \), the hyperplane is defined as
-$$ -b+w_1x_1+w_2x_2=0, -$$ + +from sklearn import datasets
+from sklearn.svm import SVC, LinearSVC
+from sklearn.linear_model import SGDClassifier
+from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
+import matplotlib
+import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
+plt.rcParams['axes.labelsize'] = 14
+plt.rcParams['xtick.labelsize'] = 12
+plt.rcParams['ytick.labelsize'] = 12
-where \( b \) is the intercept and \( w_1 \) and \( w_2 \) define the elements of a vector orthogonal to the line
-\( b+w_1x_1+w_2x_2=0 \).
-In two dimensions we define the vectors \( \boldsymbol{x} =[x1,x2] \) and \( \boldsymbol{w}=[w1,w2] \).
-We can then rewrite the above equation as
-
-$$
-\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{w}+b=0.
-$$
+iris = datasets.load_iris()
+X = iris["data"][:, (2, 3)] # petal length, petal width
+y = iris["target"]
+
+setosa_or_versicolor = (y == 0) | (y == 1)
+X = X[setosa_or_versicolor]
+y = y[setosa_or_versicolor]
+
+
+
+C = 5
+alpha = 1 / (C * len(X))
+
+lin_clf = LinearSVC(loss="hinge", C=C, random_state=42)
+svm_clf = SVC(kernel="linear", C=C)
+sgd_clf = SGDClassifier(loss="hinge", learning_rate="constant", eta0=0.001, alpha=alpha,
+ max_iter=100000, random_state=42)
+
+scaler = StandardScaler()
+X_scaled = scaler.fit_transform(X)
+
+lin_clf.fit(X_scaled, y)
+svm_clf.fit(X_scaled, y)
+sgd_clf.fit(X_scaled, y)
+
+print("LinearSVC: ", lin_clf.intercept_, lin_clf.coef_)
+print("SVC: ", svm_clf.intercept_, svm_clf.coef_)
+print("SGDClassifier(alpha={:.5f}):".format(sgd_clf.alpha), sgd_clf.intercept_, sgd_clf.coef_)
+
+# Compute the slope and bias of each decision boundary
+w1 = -lin_clf.coef_[0, 0]/lin_clf.coef_[0, 1]
+b1 = -lin_clf.intercept_[0]/lin_clf.coef_[0, 1]
+w2 = -svm_clf.coef_[0, 0]/svm_clf.coef_[0, 1]
+b2 = -svm_clf.intercept_[0]/svm_clf.coef_[0, 1]
+w3 = -sgd_clf.coef_[0, 0]/sgd_clf.coef_[0, 1]
+b3 = -sgd_clf.intercept_[0]/sgd_clf.coef_[0, 1]
+
+# Transform the decision boundary lines back to the original scale
+line1 = scaler.inverse_transform([[-10, -10 * w1 + b1], [10, 10 * w1 + b1]])
+line2 = scaler.inverse_transform([[-10, -10 * w2 + b2], [10, 10 * w2 + b2]])
+line3 = scaler.inverse_transform([[-10, -10 * w3 + b3], [10, 10 * w3 + b3]])
+
+# Plot all three decision boundaries
+plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
+plt.plot(line1[:, 0], line1[:, 1], "k:", label="LinearSVC")
+plt.plot(line2[:, 0], line2[:, 1], "b--", linewidth=2, label="SVC")
+plt.plot(line3[:, 0], line3[:, 1], "r-", label="SGDClassifier")
+plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==1], X[:, 1][y==1], "bs") # label="Iris-Versicolor"
+plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==0], X[:, 1][y==0], "yo") # label="Iris-Setosa"
+plt.xlabel("Petal length", fontsize=14)
+plt.ylabel("Petal width", fontsize=14)
+plt.legend(loc="upper center", fontsize=14)
+plt.axis([0, 5.5, 0, 2])
+
+plt.show()
+
+@@ -217,7 +297,7 @@ $$
-
We limit ourselves to two classes of outputs \( y_i \) and assign these classes the values \( y_i = \pm 1 \). -In a \( p \)-dimensional space of say \( p \) features we have a hyperplane defines as -
-$$ -b+wx_1+w_2x_2+\dots +w_px_p=0. -$$ - -If we define a -matrix \( \boldsymbol{X}=\left[\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_2,\dots, \boldsymbol{x}_p\right] \) -of dimension \( n\times p \), where \( n \) represents the observations for each feature and each vector \( x_i \) is a column vector of the matrix \( \boldsymbol{X} \), -
-$$ -\boldsymbol{x}_i = \begin{bmatrix} x_{i1} \\ x_{i2} \\ \dots \\ \dots \\ x_{ip} \end{bmatrix}. -$$ - -If the above condition is not met for a given vector \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) we have
-$$ -b+w_1x_{i1}+w_2x_{i2}+\dots +w_px_{ip} >0, -$$ - -if our output \( y_i=1 \). -In this case we say that \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) lies on one of the sides of the hyperplane and if -
-$$ -b+w_1x_{i1}+w_2x_{i2}+\dots +w_px_{ip} < 0, -$$ - -for the class of observations \( y_i=-1 \), -then \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) lies on the other side. +
The aim of the SVM algorithm is to find a hyperplane in a +\( p \)-dimensional space, where \( p \) is the number of features that +distinctly classifies the data points.
-Equivalently, for the two classes of observations we have
+In a \( p \)-dimensional space, a hyperplane is what we call an affine subspace of dimension of \( p-1 \). +As an example, in two dimension, a hyperplane is simply as straight line while in three dimensions it is +a two-dimensional subspace, or stated simply, a plane. +
+ +In two dimensions, with the variables \( x_1 \) and \( x_2 \), the hyperplane is defined as
$$ -y_i\left(b+w_1x_{i1}+w_2x_{i2}+\dots +w_px_{ip}\right) > 0. +b+w_1x_1+w_2x_2=0, +$$ + +where \( b \) is the intercept and \( w_1 \) and \( w_2 \) define the elements of a vector orthogonal to the line +\( b+w_1x_1+w_2x_2=0 \). +In two dimensions we define the vectors \( \boldsymbol{x} =[x1,x2] \) and \( \boldsymbol{w}=[w1,w2] \). +We can then rewrite the above equation as +
+ +$$ +\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{w}+b=0. $$ -When we try to separate hyperplanes, if it exists, we can use it to construct a natural classifier: a test observation is assigned a given class depending on which side of the hyperplane it is located.
@@ -230,7 +223,7 @@ $$
- -
Let us try to develop our intuition about SVMs by limiting ourselves to a two-dimensional -plane. To separate the two classes of data points, there are many -possible lines (hyperplanes if you prefer a more strict naming) -that could be chosen. Our objective is to find a -plane that has the maximum margin, i.e the maximum distance between -data points of both classes. Maximizing the margin distance provides -some reinforcement so that future data points can be classified with -more confidence. +
We limit ourselves to two classes of outputs \( y_i \) and assign these classes the values \( y_i = \pm 1 \). +In a \( p \)-dimensional space of say \( p \) features we have a hyperplane defines as +
+$$ +b+wx_1+w_2x_2+\dots +w_px_p=0. +$$ + +If we define a +matrix \( \boldsymbol{X}=\left[\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_2,\dots, \boldsymbol{x}_p\right] \) +of dimension \( n\times p \), where \( n \) represents the observations for each feature and each vector \( x_i \) is a column vector of the matrix \( \boldsymbol{X} \), +
+$$ +\boldsymbol{x}_i = \begin{bmatrix} x_{i1} \\ x_{i2} \\ \dots \\ \dots \\ x_{ip} \end{bmatrix}. +$$ + +If the above condition is not met for a given vector \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) we have
+$$ +b+w_1x_{i1}+w_2x_{i2}+\dots +w_px_{ip} >0, +$$ + +if our output \( y_i=1 \). +In this case we say that \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) lies on one of the sides of the hyperplane and if +
+$$ +b+w_1x_{i1}+w_2x_{i2}+\dots +w_px_{ip} < 0, +$$ + +for the class of observations \( y_i=-1 \), +then \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) lies on the other side.
-What a linear classifier attempts to accomplish is to split the -feature space into two half spaces by placing a hyperplane between the -data points. This hyperplane will be our decision boundary. All -points on one side of the plane will belong to class one and all points -on the other side of the plane will belong to the second class two. -
+Equivalently, for the two classes of observations we have
+$$ +y_i\left(b+w_1x_{i1}+w_2x_{i2}+\dots +w_px_{ip}\right) > 0. +$$ -Unfortunately there are many ways in which we can place a hyperplane -to divide the data. Below is an example of two candidate hyperplanes -for our data sample. -
+When we try to separate hyperplanes, if it exists, we can use it to construct a natural classifier: a test observation is assigned a given class depending on which side of the hyperplane it is located.
@@ -215,7 +236,7 @@ for our data sample.
- -
Let us define the function
-$$ -f(x) = \boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}+b = 0, -$$ +Let us try to develop our intuition about SVMs by limiting ourselves to a two-dimensional +plane. To separate the two classes of data points, there are many +possible lines (hyperplanes if you prefer a more strict naming) +that could be chosen. Our objective is to find a +plane that has the maximum margin, i.e the maximum distance between +data points of both classes. Maximizing the margin distance provides +some reinforcement so that future data points can be classified with +more confidence. +
-as the function that determines the line \( L \) that separates two classes (our two features), see the figure here.
- -Any point defined by \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) and \( \boldsymbol{x}_2 \) on the line \( L \) will satisfy \( \boldsymbol{w}^T(\boldsymbol{x}_1-\boldsymbol{x}_2)=0 \).
- -The signed distance \( \delta \) from any point defined by a vector \( \boldsymbol{x} \) and a point \( \boldsymbol{x}_0 \) on the line \( L \) is then
-$$ -\delta = \frac{1}{\vert\vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert}(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}+b). -$$ +What a linear classifier attempts to accomplish is to split the +feature space into two half spaces by placing a hyperplane between the +data points. This hyperplane will be our decision boundary. All +points on one side of the plane will belong to class one and all points +on the other side of the plane will belong to the second class two. +
+Unfortunately there are many ways in which we can place a hyperplane +to divide the data. Below is an example of two candidate hyperplanes +for our data sample. +
@@ -209,7 +221,7 @@ $$
-
How do we find the parameter \( b \) and the vector \( \boldsymbol{w} \)? What we could -do is to define a cost function which now contains the set of all -misclassified points \( M \) and attempt to minimize this function -
+Let us define the function
$$ -C(\boldsymbol{w},b) = -\sum_{i\in M} y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b). +f(x) = \boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}+b = 0, $$ -We could now for example define all values \( y_i =1 \) as misclassified in case we have \( \boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b < 0 \) and the opposite if we have \( y_i=-1 \). Taking the derivatives gives us
-$$ -\frac{\partial C}{\partial b} = -\sum_{i\in M} y_i, -$$ +as the function that determines the line \( L \) that separates two classes (our two features), see the figure here.
-and
+Any point defined by \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) and \( \boldsymbol{x}_2 \) on the line \( L \) will satisfy \( \boldsymbol{w}^T(\boldsymbol{x}_1-\boldsymbol{x}_2)=0 \).
+ +The signed distance \( \delta \) from any point defined by a vector \( \boldsymbol{x} \) and a point \( \boldsymbol{x}_0 \) on the line \( L \) is then
$$ -\frac{\partial C}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}} = -\sum_{i\in M} y_ix_i. +\delta = \frac{1}{\vert\vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert}(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}+b). $$ @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ $$
-
How do we find the parameter \( b \) and the vector \( \boldsymbol{w} \)? What we could +do is to define a cost function which now contains the set of all +misclassified points \( M \) and attempt to minimize this function +
-We can now use the Newton-Raphson method or different variants of the gradient descent family (from plain gradient descent to various stochastic gradient descent approaches) to solve the equations
$$ -b \leftarrow b +\eta \frac{\partial C}{\partial b}, +C(\boldsymbol{w},b) = -\sum_{i\in M} y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b). $$ -and
+We could now for example define all values \( y_i =1 \) as misclassified in case we have \( \boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b < 0 \) and the opposite if we have \( y_i=-1 \). Taking the derivatives gives us
$$ -\boldsymbol{w} \leftarrow \boldsymbol{w} +\eta \frac{\partial C}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}}, +\frac{\partial C}{\partial b} = -\sum_{i\in M} y_i, +$$ + +and
+$$ +\frac{\partial C}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}} = -\sum_{i\in M} y_ix_i. $$ -where \( \eta \) is our by now well-known learning rate.
@@ -208,7 +221,7 @@ $$
-
The equations we discussed above can be coded rather easily (the -framework is similar to what we developed for logistic -regression). We are going to set up a simple case with two classes only and we want to find a line which separates them the best possible way. -
+We can now use the Newton-Raphson method or different variants of the gradient descent family (from plain gradient descent to various stochastic gradient descent approaches) to solve the equations
+$$ +b \leftarrow b +\eta \frac{\partial C}{\partial b}, +$$ - -
-
-and
+$$ +\boldsymbol{w} \leftarrow \boldsymbol{w} +\eta \frac{\partial C}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}}, +$$ +where \( \eta \) is our by now well-known learning rate.
@@ -224,7 +213,7 @@ regression). We are going to set up a simple case with two classes only and we w
-
There are however problems with this approach, although it looks -pretty straightforward to implement. When running the above code, we see that we can easily end up with many diffeent lines which separate the two classes. +
The equations we discussed above can be coded rather easily (the +framework is similar to what we developed for logistic +regression). We are going to set up a simple case with two classes only and we want to find a line which separates them the best possible way.
-For small -gaps between the entries, we may also end up needing many iterations -before the solutions converge and if the data cannot be separated -properly into two distinct classes, we may not experience a converge -at all. -
+ +
+
+@@ -207,7 +229,7 @@ at all.
-
A better approach is rather to try to define a large margin between -the two classes (if they are well separated from the beginning). +
There are however problems with this approach, although it looks +pretty straightforward to implement. When running the above code, we see that we can easily end up with many diffeent lines which separate the two classes.
-Thus, we wish to find a margin \( M \) with \( \boldsymbol{w} \) normalized to -\( \vert\vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert =1 \) subject to the condition -
- -$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq M \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i=1,2,\dots, p. -$$ - -All points are thus at a signed distance from the decision boundary defined by the line \( L \). The parameters \( b \) and \( w_1 \) and \( w_2 \) define this line.
- -We seek thus the largest value \( M \) defined by
-$$ -\frac{1}{\vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert}y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq M \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i=1,2,\dots, n, -$$ - -or just
-$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq M\vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. -$$ - -If we scale the equation so that \( \vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert = 1/M \), we have to find the minimum of -\( \boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{w}=\vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert \) (the norm) subject to the condition -
-$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq 1 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. -$$ - -We have thus defined our margin as the invers of the norm of -\( \boldsymbol{w} \). We want to minimize the norm in order to have a as large as -possible margin \( M \). Before we proceed, we need to remind ourselves -about Lagrangian multipliers. +
For small +gaps between the entries, we may also end up needing many iterations +before the solutions converge and if the data cannot be separated +properly into two distinct classes, we may not experience a converge +at all.
@@ -233,7 +212,7 @@ about Lagrangian multipliers.
-
Consider a function of three independent variables \( f(x,y,z) \) . For the function \( f \) to be an -extreme we have -
-$$ -df=0. -$$ - -A necessary and sufficient condition is
-$$ -\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} =\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}=0, -$$ - -due to
-$$ -df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}dz. -$$ - -In many problems the variables \( x,y,z \) are often subject to constraints (such as those above for the margin) -so that they are no longer all independent. It is possible at least in principle to use each -constraint to eliminate one variable -and to proceed with a new and smaller set of independent varables. +
A better approach is rather to try to define a large margin between +the two classes (if they are well separated from the beginning).
-The use of so-called Lagrangian multipliers is an alternative technique when the elimination -of variables is incovenient or undesirable. Assume that we have an equation of constraint on -the variables \( x,y,z \) +
Thus, we wish to find a margin \( M \) with \( \boldsymbol{w} \) normalized to +\( \vert\vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert =1 \) subject to the condition +
+ +$$ +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq M \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i=1,2,\dots, p. +$$ + +All points are thus at a signed distance from the decision boundary defined by the line \( L \). The parameters \( b \) and \( w_1 \) and \( w_2 \) define this line.
+ +We seek thus the largest value \( M \) defined by
+$$ +\frac{1}{\vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert}y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq M \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i=1,2,\dots, n, +$$ + +or just
+$$ +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq M\vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. +$$ + +If we scale the equation so that \( \vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert = 1/M \), we have to find the minimum of +\( \boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{w}=\vert \vert \boldsymbol{w}\vert\vert \) (the norm) subject to the condition
$$ -\phi(x,y,z) = 0, +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) \geq 1 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. $$ -resulting in
-$$ -d\phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}dz =0. -$$ - -Now we cannot set anymore
-$$ -\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} =\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}=0, -$$ - -if \( df=0 \) is wanted -because there are now only two independent variables! Assume \( x \) and \( y \) are the independent -variables. -Then \( dz \) is no longer arbitrary. +
We have thus defined our margin as the invers of the norm of +\( \boldsymbol{w} \). We want to minimize the norm in order to have a as large as +possible margin \( M \). Before we proceed, we need to remind ourselves +about Lagrangian multipliers.
@@ -243,7 +238,7 @@ Then \( dz \) is no longer arbitrary.
-
However, we can add to
-$$ -df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}dz, -$$ - -a multiplum of \( d\phi \), viz. \( \lambda d\phi \), resulting in
-$$ -df+\lambda d\phi = (\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}+\lambda -\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x})dx+(\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y})dy+ -(\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z})dz =0. -$$ - -Our multiplier is chosen so that
-$$ -\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z} =0. -$$ - -We need to remember that we took \( dx \) and \( dy \) to be arbitrary and thus we must have
-$$ -\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} =0, -$$ - -and
-$$ -\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} =0. -$$ - -When all these equations are satisfied, \( df=0 \). We have four unknowns, \( x,y,z \) and -\( \lambda \). Actually we want only \( x,y,z \), \( \lambda \) needs not to be determined, -it is therefore often called -Lagrange's undetermined multiplier. -If we have a set of constraints \( \phi_k \) we have the equations +
Consider a function of three independent variables \( f(x,y,z) \) . For the function \( f \) to be an +extreme we have
$$ -\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}+\sum_k\lambda_k\frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial x_i} =0. +df=0. $$ +A necessary and sufficient condition is
+$$ +\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} =\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}=0, +$$ + +due to
+$$ +df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}dz. +$$ + +In many problems the variables \( x,y,z \) are often subject to constraints (such as those above for the margin) +so that they are no longer all independent. It is possible at least in principle to use each +constraint to eliminate one variable +and to proceed with a new and smaller set of independent varables. +
+ +The use of so-called Lagrangian multipliers is an alternative technique when the elimination +of variables is incovenient or undesirable. Assume that we have an equation of constraint on +the variables \( x,y,z \) +
+$$ +\phi(x,y,z) = 0, +$$ + +resulting in
+$$ +d\phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}dz =0. +$$ + +Now we cannot set anymore
+$$ +\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} =\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}=0, +$$ + +if \( df=0 \) is wanted +because there are now only two independent variables! Assume \( x \) and \( y \) are the independent +variables. +Then \( dz \) is no longer arbitrary. +
@@ -234,7 +248,7 @@ $$
-
In order to solve the above problem, we define the following Lagrangian function to be minimized
+However, we can add to
$$ -{\cal L}(\lambda,b,\boldsymbol{w})=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)-1\right], +df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}dz, $$ -where \( \lambda_i \) is a so-called Lagrange multiplier subject to the condition \( \lambda_i \geq 0 \).
- -Taking the derivatives with respect to \( b \) and \( \boldsymbol{w} \) we obtain
+a multiplum of \( d\phi \), viz. \( \lambda d\phi \), resulting in
$$ -\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial b} = -\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i=0, +df+\lambda d\phi = (\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}+\lambda +\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x})dx+(\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y})dy+ +(\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z})dz =0. $$ -and
+Our multiplier is chosen so that
$$ -\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}} = 0 = \boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i. +\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z} =0. $$ -Inserting these constraints into the equation for \( {\cal L} \) we obtain
+We need to remember that we took \( dx \) and \( dy \) to be arbitrary and thus we must have
$$ -{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j, +\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} =0, $$ -subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \) and \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \). -We must in addition satisfy the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) condition +
and
+$$ +\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}+\lambda\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} =0. +$$ + +When all these equations are satisfied, \( df=0 \). We have four unknowns, \( x,y,z \) and +\( \lambda \). Actually we want only \( x,y,z \), \( \lambda \) needs not to be determined, +it is therefore often called +Lagrange's undetermined multiplier. +If we have a set of constraints \( \phi_k \) we have the equations
$$ -\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) -1\right] \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. +\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}+\sum_k\lambda_k\frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial x_i} =0. $$ -When \( \lambda_i > 0 \), the vectors \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) are called support vectors. They are the vectors closest to the line (or hyperplane) and define the margin \( M \).
@@ -230,7 +239,7 @@ $$
-
In order to solve the above problem, we define the following Lagrangian function to be minimized
+$$ +{\cal L}(\lambda,b,\boldsymbol{w})=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)-1\right], +$$ -We can rewrite
+where \( \lambda_i \) is a so-called Lagrange multiplier subject to the condition \( \lambda_i \geq 0 \).
+ +Taking the derivatives with respect to \( b \) and \( \boldsymbol{w} \) we obtain
+$$ +\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial b} = -\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i=0, +$$ + +and
+$$ +\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}} = 0 = \boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i. +$$ + +Inserting these constraints into the equation for \( {\cal L} \) we obtain
$$ {\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j, $$ -and its constraints in terms of a matrix-vector problem where we minimize w.r.t. \( \lambda \) the following problem
+subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \) and \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \). +We must in addition satisfy the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) condition +
$$ -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\begin{bmatrix} y_1y_1\boldsymbol{x}_1^T\boldsymbol{x}_1 & y_1y_2\boldsymbol{x}_1^T\boldsymbol{x}_2 & \dots & \dots & y_1y_n\boldsymbol{x}_1^T\boldsymbol{x}_n \\ -y_2y_1\boldsymbol{x}_2^T\boldsymbol{x}_1 & y_2y_2\boldsymbol{x}_2^T\boldsymbol{x}_2 & \dots & \dots & y_1y_n\boldsymbol{x}_2^T\boldsymbol{x}_n \\ -\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ -\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ -y_ny_1\boldsymbol{x}_n^T\boldsymbol{x}_1 & y_ny_2\boldsymbol{x}_n^T\boldsymbol{x}_2 & \dots & \dots & y_ny_n\boldsymbol{x}_n^T\boldsymbol{x}_n \\ -\end{bmatrix}\boldsymbol{\lambda}-\mathbb{1}\boldsymbol{\lambda}, +\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) -1\right] \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. $$ -subject to \( \boldsymbol{y}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda}=0 \). Here we defined the vectors \( \boldsymbol{\lambda} =[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_n] \) and -\( \boldsymbol{y}=[y_1,y_2,\dots,y_n] \). -
+When \( \lambda_i > 0 \), the vectors \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) are called support vectors. They are the vectors closest to the line (or hyperplane) and define the margin \( M \).
@@ -215,7 +235,7 @@ $$
-
Solving the above problem, yields the values of \( \lambda_i \). -To find the coefficients of your hyperplane we need simply to compute +
We can rewrite
+$$ +{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j, +$$ + +and its constraints in terms of a matrix-vector problem where we minimize w.r.t. \( \lambda \) the following problem
+$$ +\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\begin{bmatrix} y_1y_1\boldsymbol{x}_1^T\boldsymbol{x}_1 & y_1y_2\boldsymbol{x}_1^T\boldsymbol{x}_2 & \dots & \dots & y_1y_n\boldsymbol{x}_1^T\boldsymbol{x}_n \\ +y_2y_1\boldsymbol{x}_2^T\boldsymbol{x}_1 & y_2y_2\boldsymbol{x}_2^T\boldsymbol{x}_2 & \dots & \dots & y_1y_n\boldsymbol{x}_2^T\boldsymbol{x}_n \\ +\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ +\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ +y_ny_1\boldsymbol{x}_n^T\boldsymbol{x}_1 & y_ny_2\boldsymbol{x}_n^T\boldsymbol{x}_2 & \dots & \dots & y_ny_n\boldsymbol{x}_n^T\boldsymbol{x}_n \\ +\end{bmatrix}\boldsymbol{\lambda}-\mathbb{1}\boldsymbol{\lambda}, +$$ + +subject to \( \boldsymbol{y}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda}=0 \). Here we defined the vectors \( \boldsymbol{\lambda} =[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_n] \) and +\( \boldsymbol{y}=[y_1,y_2,\dots,y_n] \).
-$$ -\boldsymbol{w}=\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i. -$$ - -With our vector \( \boldsymbol{w} \) we can in turn find the value of the intercept \( b \) (here in two dimensions) via
-$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1, -$$ - -resulting in
-$$ -b = \frac{1}{y_i}-\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i, -$$ - -or if we write it out in terms of the support vectors only, with \( N_s \) being their number, we have
-$$ -b = \frac{1}{N_s}\sum_{j\in N_s}\left(y_j-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j\right). -$$ - -With our hyperplane coefficients we can use our classifier to assign any observation by simply using
-$$ -y_i = \mathrm{sign}(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b). -$$ - -Below we discuss how to find the optimal values of \( \lambda_i \). Before we proceed however, we discuss now the so-called soft classifier.
@@ -225,7 +220,7 @@ $$
-
Till now, the margin is strictly defined by the support vectors. This defines what is called a hard classifier, that is the margins are well defined.
- -Suppose now that classes overlap in feature space, as shown in the -figure here. One way to deal with this problem before we define the -so-called kernel approach, is to allow a kind of slack in the sense -that we allow some points to be on the wrong side of the margin. +
Solving the above problem, yields the values of \( \lambda_i \). +To find the coefficients of your hyperplane we need simply to compute
+$$ +\boldsymbol{w}=\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i. +$$ -We introduce thus the so-called slack variables \( \boldsymbol{\xi} =[\xi_1,x_2,\dots,x_n] \) and -modify our previous equation -
+With our vector \( \boldsymbol{w} \) we can in turn find the value of the intercept \( b \) (here in two dimensions) via
$$ y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1, $$ -to
+resulting in
$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1-\xi_i, +b = \frac{1}{y_i}-\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i, $$ -with the requirement \( \xi_i\geq 0 \). The total violation is now \( \sum_i\xi \). -The value \( \xi_i \) in the constraint the last constraint corresponds to the amount by which the prediction -\( y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1 \) is on the wrong side of its margin. Hence by bounding the sum \( \sum_i \xi_i \), -we bound the total amount by which predictions fall on the wrong side of their margins. -
+or if we write it out in terms of the support vectors only, with \( N_s \) being their number, we have
+$$ +b = \frac{1}{N_s}\sum_{j\in N_s}\left(y_j-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j\right). +$$ -Misclassifications occur when \( \xi_i > 1 \). Thus bounding the total sum by some value \( C \) bounds in turn the total number of -misclassifications. -
+With our hyperplane coefficients we can use our classifier to assign any observation by simply using
+$$ +y_i = \mathrm{sign}(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b). +$$ + +Below we discuss how to find the optimal values of \( \lambda_i \). Before we proceed however, we discuss now the so-called soft classifier.
@@ -226,7 +230,7 @@ misclassifications.
-
This has in turn the consequences that we change our optmization problem to finding the minimum of
-$$ -{\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)-(1-\xi_)\right]+C\sum_{i=1}^n\xi_i-\sum_{i=1}^n\gamma_i\xi_i, -$$ +Till now, the margin is strictly defined by the support vectors. This defines what is called a hard classifier, that is the margins are well defined.
-subject to
-$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1-\xi_i \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i, -$$ +Suppose now that classes overlap in feature space, as shown in the +figure here. One way to deal with this problem before we define the +so-called kernel approach, is to allow a kind of slack in the sense +that we allow some points to be on the wrong side of the margin. +
-with the requirement \( \xi_i\geq 0 \).
- -Taking the derivatives with respect to \( b \) and \( \boldsymbol{w} \) we obtain
-$$ -\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial b} = -\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i=0, -$$ - -and
-$$ -\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}} = 0 = \boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i, -$$ - -and
-$$ -\lambda_i = C-\gamma_i \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. -$$ - -Inserting these constraints into the equation for \( {\cal L} \) we obtain the same equation as before
-$$ -{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j, -$$ - -but now subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \), \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \) and \( 0\leq\lambda_i \leq C \). -We must in addition satisfy the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker condition which now reads +
We introduce thus the so-called slack variables \( \boldsymbol{\xi} =[\xi_1,x_2,\dots,x_n] \) and +modify our previous equation
$$ -\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) -(1-\xi_)\right]=0 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i, +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1, $$ +to
$$ -\gamma_i\xi_i = 0, +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1-\xi_i, $$ -and
-$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) -(1-\xi_) \geq 0 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. -$$ +with the requirement \( \xi_i\geq 0 \). The total violation is now \( \sum_i\xi \). +The value \( \xi_i \) in the constraint the last constraint corresponds to the amount by which the prediction +\( y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1 \) is on the wrong side of its margin. Hence by bounding the sum \( \sum_i \xi_i \), +we bound the total amount by which predictions fall on the wrong side of their margins. +
+Misclassifications occur when \( \xi_i > 1 \). Thus bounding the total sum by some value \( C \) bounds in turn the total number of +misclassifications. +
@@ -244,6 +230,8 @@ $$
-
The cases we have studied till now, were all characterized by two classes -with a close to linear separability. The classifiers we have described -so far find linear boundaries in our input feature space. It is -possible to make our procedure more flexible by exploring the feature -space using other basis expansions such as higher-order polynomials, -wavelets, splines etc. +
This has in turn the consequences that we change our optmization problem to finding the minimum of
+$$ +{\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)-(1-\xi_)\right]+C\sum_{i=1}^n\xi_i-\sum_{i=1}^n\gamma_i\xi_i, +$$ + +subject to
+$$ +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b)=1-\xi_i \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i, +$$ + +with the requirement \( \xi_i\geq 0 \).
+ +Taking the derivatives with respect to \( b \) and \( \boldsymbol{w} \) we obtain
+$$ +\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial b} = -\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i=0, +$$ + +and
+$$ +\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \boldsymbol{w}} = 0 = \boldsymbol{w}-\sum_{i} \lambda_iy_i\boldsymbol{x}_i, +$$ + +and
+$$ +\lambda_i = C-\gamma_i \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. +$$ + +Inserting these constraints into the equation for \( {\cal L} \) we obtain the same equation as before
+$$ +{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j, +$$ + +but now subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \), \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \) and \( 0\leq\lambda_i \leq C \). +We must in addition satisfy the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker condition which now reads
+$$ +\lambda_i\left[y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) -(1-\xi_)\right]=0 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i, +$$ -If our feature space is not easy to separate, as shown in the figure -here, we can achieve a better separation by introducing more complex -basis functions. The ideal would be, as shown in the next figure, to, via a specific transformation to -obtain a separation between the classes which is almost linear. -
+$$ +\gamma_i\xi_i = 0, +$$ -The change of basis, from \( x\rightarrow z=\phi(x) \) leads to the same type of equations to be solved, except that -we need to introduce for example a polynomial transformation to a two-dimensional training set. -
- - - -import numpy as np
-import os
-
-np.random.seed(42)
-
-# To plot pretty figures
-import matplotlib
-import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
-plt.rcParams['axes.labelsize'] = 14
-plt.rcParams['xtick.labelsize'] = 12
-plt.rcParams['ytick.labelsize'] = 12
-
-
-from sklearn.svm import SVC
-from sklearn import datasets
-
-
-
-X1D = np.linspace(-4, 4, 9).reshape(-1, 1)
-X2D = np.c_[X1D, X1D**2]
-y = np.array([0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0])
-
-plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
-
-plt.subplot(121)
-plt.grid(True, which='both')
-plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
-plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][y==0], np.zeros(4), "bs")
-plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][y==1], np.zeros(5), "g^")
-plt.gca().get_yaxis().set_ticks([])
-plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
-plt.axis([-4.5, 4.5, -0.2, 0.2])
-
-plt.subplot(122)
-plt.grid(True, which='both')
-plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
-plt.axvline(x=0, color='k')
-plt.plot(X2D[:, 0][y==0], X2D[:, 1][y==0], "bs")
-plt.plot(X2D[:, 0][y==1], X2D[:, 1][y==1], "g^")
-plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
-plt.ylabel(r"$x_2$", fontsize=20, rotation=0)
-plt.gca().get_yaxis().set_ticks([0, 4, 8, 12, 16])
-plt.plot([-4.5, 4.5], [6.5, 6.5], "r--", linewidth=3)
-plt.axis([-4.5, 4.5, -1, 17])
-plt.subplots_adjust(right=1)
-plt.show()
-
-and
+$$ +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{x}_i+b) -(1-\xi_) \geq 0 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i. +$$@@ -281,6 +248,7 @@ plt.show()
-
Suppose we define a polynomial transformation of degree two only (we continue to live in a plane with \( x_i \) and \( y_i \) as variables)
-$$ -z = \phi(x_i) =\left(x_i^2, y_i^2, \sqrt{2}x_iy_i\right). -$$ - -With our new basis, the equations we solved earlier are basically the same, that is we have now (without the slack option for simplicity)
-$$ -{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j, -$$ - -subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \), \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \), and for the support vectors
-$$ -y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{z}_i+b)= 1 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i, -$$ - -from which we also find \( b \). -To compute \( \boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j \) we define the kernel \( K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j) \) as -
-$$ -K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j)=\boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j= \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_i)^T\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_j). -$$ - -For the above example, the kernel reads
-$$ -K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j)=[x_i^2, y_i^2, \sqrt{2}x_iy_i]^T\begin{bmatrix} x_j^2 \\ y_j^2 \\ \sqrt{2}x_jy_j \end{bmatrix}=x_i^2x_j^2+2x_ix_jy_iy_j+y_i^2y_j^2. -$$ - -We note that this is nothing but the dot product of the two original -vectors \( (\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j)^2 \). Instead of thus computing the -product in the Lagrangian of \( \boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j \) we simply compute -the dot product \( (\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j)^2 \). +
The cases we have studied till now, were all characterized by two classes +with a close to linear separability. The classifiers we have described +so far find linear boundaries in our input feature space. It is +possible to make our procedure more flexible by exploring the feature +space using other basis expansions such as higher-order polynomials, +wavelets, splines etc.
-This leads to the so-called -kernel trick and the result leads to the same as if we went through -the trouble of performing the transformation -\( \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_i)^T\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_j) \) during the SVM calculations. +
If our feature space is not easy to separate, as shown in the figure +here, we can achieve a better separation by introducing more complex +basis functions. The ideal would be, as shown in the next figure, to, via a specific transformation to +obtain a separation between the classes which is almost linear.
+The change of basis, from \( x\rightarrow z=\phi(x) \) leads to the same type of equations to be solved, except that +we need to introduce for example a polynomial transformation to a two-dimensional training set. +
+ + + +import numpy as np
+import os
+
+np.random.seed(42)
+
+# To plot pretty figures
+import matplotlib
+import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
+plt.rcParams['axes.labelsize'] = 14
+plt.rcParams['xtick.labelsize'] = 12
+plt.rcParams['ytick.labelsize'] = 12
+
+
+from sklearn.svm import SVC
+from sklearn import datasets
+
+
+
+X1D = np.linspace(-4, 4, 9).reshape(-1, 1)
+X2D = np.c_[X1D, X1D**2]
+y = np.array([0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0])
+
+plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
+
+plt.subplot(121)
+plt.grid(True, which='both')
+plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
+plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][y==0], np.zeros(4), "bs")
+plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][y==1], np.zeros(5), "g^")
+plt.gca().get_yaxis().set_ticks([])
+plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
+plt.axis([-4.5, 4.5, -0.2, 0.2])
+
+plt.subplot(122)
+plt.grid(True, which='both')
+plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
+plt.axvline(x=0, color='k')
+plt.plot(X2D[:, 0][y==0], X2D[:, 1][y==0], "bs")
+plt.plot(X2D[:, 0][y==1], X2D[:, 1][y==1], "g^")
+plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
+plt.ylabel(r"$x_2$", fontsize=20, rotation=0)
+plt.gca().get_yaxis().set_ticks([0, 4, 8, 12, 16])
+plt.plot([-4.5, 4.5], [6.5, 6.5], "r--", linewidth=3)
+plt.axis([-4.5, 4.5, -1, 17])
+plt.subplots_adjust(right=1)
+plt.show()
+
+diff --git a/doc/pub/week46/html/._week46-bs023.html b/doc/pub/week46/html/._week46-bs023.html index 3a9551131..3a9334e73 100644 --- a/doc/pub/week46/html/._week46-bs023.html +++ b/doc/pub/week46/html/._week46-bs023.html @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ doconce format html week46.do.txt --html_style=bootstrap --pygments_html_style=d {'highest level': 2, 'sections': [('Overview of week 46', 2, None, 'overview-of-week-46'), ('Friday', 2, None, 'friday'), + ('Workshop plan Friday November 19 and the rest of the lecture', + 2, + None, + 'workshop-plan-friday-november-19-and-the-rest-of-the-lecture'), ('Support Vector Machines, overarching aims', 2, None, @@ -131,33 +135,34 @@ MathJax.Hub.Config({ @@ -169,38 +174,45 @@ MathJax.Hub.Config({
-
Using our definition of the kernel We can rewrite again the Lagrangian
+Suppose we define a polynomial transformation of degree two only (we continue to live in a plane with \( x_i \) and \( y_i \) as variables)
$$ -{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j, +z = \phi(x_i) =\left(x_i^2, y_i^2, \sqrt{2}x_iy_i\right). $$ -subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \), \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \) in terms of a convex optimization problem
+With our new basis, the equations we solved earlier are basically the same, that is we have now (without the slack option for simplicity)
$$ -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\begin{bmatrix} y_1y_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_1y_2K(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_1y_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ -y_2y_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_2y_2(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_1y_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ -\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ -\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ -y_ny_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_n,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_ny_2K(\boldsymbol{x}_n\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_ny_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_n,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ -\end{bmatrix}\boldsymbol{\lambda}-\mathbb{1}\boldsymbol{\lambda}, +{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j, $$ -subject to \( \boldsymbol{y}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda}=0 \). Here we defined the vectors \( \boldsymbol{\lambda} =[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_n] \) and -\( \boldsymbol{y}=[y_1,y_2,\dots,y_n] \). -If we add the slack constants this leads to the additional constraint \( 0\leq \lambda_i \leq C \). +
subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \), \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \), and for the support vectors
+$$ +y_i(\boldsymbol{w}^T\boldsymbol{z}_i+b)= 1 \hspace{0.1cm}\forall i, +$$ + +from which we also find \( b \). +To compute \( \boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j \) we define the kernel \( K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j) \) as +
+$$ +K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j)=\boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j= \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_i)^T\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_j). +$$ + +For the above example, the kernel reads
+$$ +K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j)=[x_i^2, y_i^2, \sqrt{2}x_iy_i]^T\begin{bmatrix} x_j^2 \\ y_j^2 \\ \sqrt{2}x_jy_j \end{bmatrix}=x_i^2x_j^2+2x_ix_jy_iy_j+y_i^2y_j^2. +$$ + +We note that this is nothing but the dot product of the two original +vectors \( (\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j)^2 \). Instead of thus computing the +product in the Lagrangian of \( \boldsymbol{z}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j \) we simply compute +the dot product \( (\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{x}_j)^2 \).
-We can rewrite this (see the solutions below) in terms of a convex optimization problem of the type
-$$ -\begin{align*} - &\mathrm{min}_{\lambda}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\boldsymbol{P}\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{q}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda},\\ \nonumber - &\mathrm{subject\hspace{0.1cm}to} \hspace{0.2cm} \boldsymbol{G}\boldsymbol{\lambda} \preceq \boldsymbol{h} \hspace{0.2cm} \wedge \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{\lambda}=f. -\end{align*} -$$ - -Below we discuss how to solve these equations. Here we note that the matrix \( \boldsymbol{P} \) has matrix elements \( p_{ij}=y_iy_jK(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j) \). -Given a kernel \( K \) and the targets \( y_i \) this matrix is easy to set up. The constraint \( \boldsymbol{y}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda}=0 \) leads to \( f=0 \) and \( \boldsymbol{A}=\boldsymbol{y} \). How to set up the matrix \( \boldsymbol{G} \) is discussed later. Here note that the inequalities \( 0\leq \lambda_i \leq C \) can be split up into -\( 0\leq \lambda_i \) and \( \lambda_i \leq C \). These two inequalities define then the matrix \( \boldsymbol{G} \) and the vector \( \boldsymbol{h} \). +
This leads to the so-called +kernel trick and the result leads to the same as if we went through +the trouble of performing the transformation +\( \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_i)^T\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_j) \) during the SVM calculations.
@@ -224,6 +236,7 @@ Given a kernel \( K \) and the targets \( y_i \) this matrix is easy to set up.
-
There are several popular kernels being used. These are
-and many other ones.
- -An important theorem for us is Mercer's -theorem. The -theorem states that if a kernel function \( K \) is symmetric, continuous -and leads to a positive semi-definite matrix \( \boldsymbol{P} \) then there -exists a function \( \phi \) that maps \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) and \( \boldsymbol{x}_j \) into -another space (possibly with much higher dimensions) such that -
- +Using our definition of the kernel We can rewrite again the Lagrangian
$$ -K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j)=\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_i)^T\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_j). +{\cal L}=\sum_i\lambda_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}^n\lambda_i\lambda_jy_iy_j\boldsymbol{x}_i^T\boldsymbol{z}_j, $$ -So you can use \( K \) as a kernel since you know \( \phi \) exists, even if -you don’t know what \( \phi \) is. +
subject to the constraints \( \lambda_i\geq 0 \), \( \sum_i\lambda_iy_i=0 \) in terms of a convex optimization problem
+$$ +\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\begin{bmatrix} y_1y_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_1y_2K(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_1y_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ +y_2y_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_2y_2(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_1y_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ +\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ +\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ +y_ny_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_n,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_ny_2K(\boldsymbol{x}_n\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_ny_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_n,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ +\end{bmatrix}\boldsymbol{\lambda}-\mathbb{1}\boldsymbol{\lambda}, +$$ + +subject to \( \boldsymbol{y}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda}=0 \). Here we defined the vectors \( \boldsymbol{\lambda} =[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_n] \) and +\( \boldsymbol{y}=[y_1,y_2,\dots,y_n] \). +If we add the slack constants this leads to the additional constraint \( 0\leq \lambda_i \leq C \).
-Note that some frequently used kernels (such as the Sigmoid kernel) -don’t respect all of Mercer’s conditions, yet they generally work well -in practice. +
We can rewrite this (see the solutions below) in terms of a convex optimization problem of the type
+$$ +\begin{align*} + &\mathrm{min}_{\lambda}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\boldsymbol{P}\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{q}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda},\\ \nonumber + &\mathrm{subject\hspace{0.1cm}to} \hspace{0.2cm} \boldsymbol{G}\boldsymbol{\lambda} \preceq \boldsymbol{h} \hspace{0.2cm} \wedge \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{\lambda}=f. +\end{align*} +$$ + +Below we discuss how to solve these equations. Here we note that the matrix \( \boldsymbol{P} \) has matrix elements \( p_{ij}=y_iy_jK(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j) \). +Given a kernel \( K \) and the targets \( y_i \) this matrix is easy to set up. The constraint \( \boldsymbol{y}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda}=0 \) leads to \( f=0 \) and \( \boldsymbol{A}=\boldsymbol{y} \). How to set up the matrix \( \boldsymbol{G} \) is discussed later. Here note that the inequalities \( 0\leq \lambda_i \leq C \) can be split up into +\( 0\leq \lambda_i \) and \( \lambda_i \leq C \). These two inequalities define then the matrix \( \boldsymbol{G} \) and the vector \( \boldsymbol{h} \).
@@ -221,6 +228,7 @@ in practice.
-
from __future__ import division, print_function, unicode_literals
+There are several popular kernels being used. These are
+
+- Linear: \( K(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y})=\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{y} \),
+- Polynomial: \( K(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y})=(\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{y}+\gamma)^d \),
+- Gaussian Radial Basis Function: \( K(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y})=\exp{\left(-\gamma\vert\vert\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}\vert\vert^2\right)} \),
+- Tanh: \( K(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y})=\tanh{(\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{y}+\gamma)} \),
+
+and many other ones.
-import numpy as np
-np.random.seed(42)
+An important theorem for us is Mercer's
+theorem. The
+theorem states that if a kernel function \( K \) is symmetric, continuous
+and leads to a positive semi-definite matrix \( \boldsymbol{P} \) then there
+exists a function \( \phi \) that maps \( \boldsymbol{x}_i \) and \( \boldsymbol{x}_j \) into
+another space (possibly with much higher dimensions) such that
+
-import matplotlib
-import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
-plt.rcParams['axes.labelsize'] = 14
-plt.rcParams['xtick.labelsize'] = 12
-plt.rcParams['ytick.labelsize'] = 12
+$$
+K(\boldsymbol{x}_i,\boldsymbol{x}_j)=\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_i)^T\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_j).
+$$
+So you can use \( K \) as a kernel since you know \( \phi \) exists, even if
+you don’t know what \( \phi \) is.
+
-from sklearn.svm import SVC
-from sklearn import datasets
-
-
-
-from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
-from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
-from sklearn.svm import LinearSVC
-
-
-from sklearn.datasets import make_moons
-X, y = make_moons(n_samples=100, noise=0.15, random_state=42)
-
-def plot_dataset(X, y, axes):
- plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==0], X[:, 1][y==0], "bs")
- plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==1], X[:, 1][y==1], "g^")
- plt.axis(axes)
- plt.grid(True, which='both')
- plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
- plt.ylabel(r"$x_2$", fontsize=20, rotation=0)
-
-plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
-plt.show()
-
-from sklearn.datasets import make_moons
-from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
-from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures
-
-polynomial_svm_clf = Pipeline([
- ("poly_features", PolynomialFeatures(degree=3)),
- ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
- ("svm_clf", LinearSVC(C=10, loss="hinge", random_state=42))
- ])
-
-polynomial_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
-
-def plot_predictions(clf, axes):
- x0s = np.linspace(axes[0], axes[1], 100)
- x1s = np.linspace(axes[2], axes[3], 100)
- x0, x1 = np.meshgrid(x0s, x1s)
- X = np.c_[x0.ravel(), x1.ravel()]
- y_pred = clf.predict(X).reshape(x0.shape)
- y_decision = clf.decision_function(X).reshape(x0.shape)
- plt.contourf(x0, x1, y_pred, cmap=plt.cm.brg, alpha=0.2)
- plt.contourf(x0, x1, y_decision, cmap=plt.cm.brg, alpha=0.1)
-
-plot_predictions(polynomial_svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
-plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
-
-plt.show()
-
-
-from sklearn.svm import SVC
-
-poly_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
- ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
- ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="poly", degree=3, coef0=1, C=5))
- ])
-poly_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
-
-poly100_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
- ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
- ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="poly", degree=10, coef0=100, C=5))
- ])
-poly100_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
-
-plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
-
-plt.subplot(121)
-plot_predictions(poly_kernel_svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
-plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
-plt.title(r"$d=3, r=1, C=5$", fontsize=18)
-
-plt.subplot(122)
-plot_predictions(poly100_kernel_svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
-plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
-plt.title(r"$d=10, r=100, C=5$", fontsize=18)
-
-plt.show()
-
-def gaussian_rbf(x, landmark, gamma):
- return np.exp(-gamma * np.linalg.norm(x - landmark, axis=1)**2)
-
-gamma = 0.3
-
-x1s = np.linspace(-4.5, 4.5, 200).reshape(-1, 1)
-x2s = gaussian_rbf(x1s, -2, gamma)
-x3s = gaussian_rbf(x1s, 1, gamma)
-
-XK = np.c_[gaussian_rbf(X1D, -2, gamma), gaussian_rbf(X1D, 1, gamma)]
-yk = np.array([0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0])
-
-plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
-
-plt.subplot(121)
-plt.grid(True, which='both')
-plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
-plt.scatter(x=[-2, 1], y=[0, 0], s=150, alpha=0.5, c="red")
-plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][yk==0], np.zeros(4), "bs")
-plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][yk==1], np.zeros(5), "g^")
-plt.plot(x1s, x2s, "g--")
-plt.plot(x1s, x3s, "b:")
-plt.gca().get_yaxis().set_ticks([0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1])
-plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
-plt.ylabel(r"Similarity", fontsize=14)
-plt.annotate(r'$\mathbf{x}$',
- xy=(X1D[3, 0], 0),
- xytext=(-0.5, 0.20),
- ha="center",
- arrowprops=dict(facecolor='black', shrink=0.1),
- fontsize=18,
- )
-plt.text(-2, 0.9, "$x_2$", ha="center", fontsize=20)
-plt.text(1, 0.9, "$x_3$", ha="center", fontsize=20)
-plt.axis([-4.5, 4.5, -0.1, 1.1])
-
-plt.subplot(122)
-plt.grid(True, which='both')
-plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
-plt.axvline(x=0, color='k')
-plt.plot(XK[:, 0][yk==0], XK[:, 1][yk==0], "bs")
-plt.plot(XK[:, 0][yk==1], XK[:, 1][yk==1], "g^")
-plt.xlabel(r"$x_2$", fontsize=20)
-plt.ylabel(r"$x_3$ ", fontsize=20, rotation=0)
-plt.annotate(r'$\phi\left(\mathbf{x}\right)$',
- xy=(XK[3, 0], XK[3, 1]),
- xytext=(0.65, 0.50),
- ha="center",
- arrowprops=dict(facecolor='black', shrink=0.1),
- fontsize=18,
- )
-plt.plot([-0.1, 1.1], [0.57, -0.1], "r--", linewidth=3)
-plt.axis([-0.1, 1.1, -0.1, 1.1])
-
-plt.subplots_adjust(right=1)
-
-plt.show()
-
-
-x1_example = X1D[3, 0]
-for landmark in (-2, 1):
- k = gaussian_rbf(np.array([[x1_example]]), np.array([[landmark]]), gamma)
- print("Phi({}, {}) = {}".format(x1_example, landmark, k))
-
-rbf_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
- ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
- ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="rbf", gamma=5, C=0.001))
- ])
-rbf_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
-
-
-from sklearn.svm import SVC
-
-gamma1, gamma2 = 0.1, 5
-C1, C2 = 0.001, 1000
-hyperparams = (gamma1, C1), (gamma1, C2), (gamma2, C1), (gamma2, C2)
-
-svm_clfs = []
-for gamma, C in hyperparams:
- rbf_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
- ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
- ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="rbf", gamma=gamma, C=C))
- ])
- rbf_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
- svm_clfs.append(rbf_kernel_svm_clf)
-
-plt.figure(figsize=(11, 7))
-
-for i, svm_clf in enumerate(svm_clfs):
- plt.subplot(221 + i)
- plot_predictions(svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
- plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
- gamma, C = hyperparams[i]
- plt.title(r"$\gamma = {}, C = {}$".format(gamma, C), fontsize=16)
-
-plt.show()
-
-Note that some frequently used kernels (such as the Sigmoid kernel) +don’t respect all of Mercer’s conditions, yet they generally work well +in practice. +
@@ -400,6 +225,7 @@ plt.show()
-
A mathematical (quadratic) optimization problem, or just optimization problem, has the form
-$$ -\begin{align*} - &\mathrm{min}_{\lambda}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\boldsymbol{P}\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{q}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda},\\ \nonumber - &\mathrm{subject\hspace{0.1cm}to} \hspace{0.2cm} \boldsymbol{G}\boldsymbol{\lambda} \preceq \boldsymbol{h} \wedge \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{\lambda}=f. -\end{align*} -$$ + +from __future__ import division, print_function, unicode_literals
-subject to some constraints for say a selected set \( i=1,2,\dots, n \).
-In our case we are optimizing with respect to the Lagrangian multipliers \( \lambda_i \), and the
-vector \( \boldsymbol{\lambda}=[\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots, \lambda_n] \) is the optimization variable we are dealing with.
-
+import numpy as np
+np.random.seed(42)
-In our case we are particularly interested in a class of optimization problems called convex optmization problems.
-In our discussion on gradient descent methods we discussed at length the definition of a convex function.
-
+import matplotlib
+import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
+plt.rcParams['axes.labelsize'] = 14
+plt.rcParams['xtick.labelsize'] = 12
+plt.rcParams['ytick.labelsize'] = 12
+
+
+from sklearn.svm import SVC
+from sklearn import datasets
+
+
+
+from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
+from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
+from sklearn.svm import LinearSVC
+
+
+from sklearn.datasets import make_moons
+X, y = make_moons(n_samples=100, noise=0.15, random_state=42)
+
+def plot_dataset(X, y, axes):
+ plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==0], X[:, 1][y==0], "bs")
+ plt.plot(X[:, 0][y==1], X[:, 1][y==1], "g^")
+ plt.axis(axes)
+ plt.grid(True, which='both')
+ plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
+ plt.ylabel(r"$x_2$", fontsize=20, rotation=0)
+
+plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+plt.show()
+
+from sklearn.datasets import make_moons
+from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
+from sklearn.preprocessing import PolynomialFeatures
+
+polynomial_svm_clf = Pipeline([
+ ("poly_features", PolynomialFeatures(degree=3)),
+ ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
+ ("svm_clf", LinearSVC(C=10, loss="hinge", random_state=42))
+ ])
+
+polynomial_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
+
+def plot_predictions(clf, axes):
+ x0s = np.linspace(axes[0], axes[1], 100)
+ x1s = np.linspace(axes[2], axes[3], 100)
+ x0, x1 = np.meshgrid(x0s, x1s)
+ X = np.c_[x0.ravel(), x1.ravel()]
+ y_pred = clf.predict(X).reshape(x0.shape)
+ y_decision = clf.decision_function(X).reshape(x0.shape)
+ plt.contourf(x0, x1, y_pred, cmap=plt.cm.brg, alpha=0.2)
+ plt.contourf(x0, x1, y_decision, cmap=plt.cm.brg, alpha=0.1)
+
+plot_predictions(polynomial_svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+
+plt.show()
+
+
+from sklearn.svm import SVC
+
+poly_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
+ ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
+ ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="poly", degree=3, coef0=1, C=5))
+ ])
+poly_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
+
+poly100_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
+ ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
+ ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="poly", degree=10, coef0=100, C=5))
+ ])
+poly100_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
+
+plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
+
+plt.subplot(121)
+plot_predictions(poly_kernel_svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+plt.title(r"$d=3, r=1, C=5$", fontsize=18)
+
+plt.subplot(122)
+plot_predictions(poly100_kernel_svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+plt.title(r"$d=10, r=100, C=5$", fontsize=18)
+
+plt.show()
+
+def gaussian_rbf(x, landmark, gamma):
+ return np.exp(-gamma * np.linalg.norm(x - landmark, axis=1)**2)
+
+gamma = 0.3
+
+x1s = np.linspace(-4.5, 4.5, 200).reshape(-1, 1)
+x2s = gaussian_rbf(x1s, -2, gamma)
+x3s = gaussian_rbf(x1s, 1, gamma)
+
+XK = np.c_[gaussian_rbf(X1D, -2, gamma), gaussian_rbf(X1D, 1, gamma)]
+yk = np.array([0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0])
+
+plt.figure(figsize=(11, 4))
+
+plt.subplot(121)
+plt.grid(True, which='both')
+plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
+plt.scatter(x=[-2, 1], y=[0, 0], s=150, alpha=0.5, c="red")
+plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][yk==0], np.zeros(4), "bs")
+plt.plot(X1D[:, 0][yk==1], np.zeros(5), "g^")
+plt.plot(x1s, x2s, "g--")
+plt.plot(x1s, x3s, "b:")
+plt.gca().get_yaxis().set_ticks([0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1])
+plt.xlabel(r"$x_1$", fontsize=20)
+plt.ylabel(r"Similarity", fontsize=14)
+plt.annotate(r'$\mathbf{x}$',
+ xy=(X1D[3, 0], 0),
+ xytext=(-0.5, 0.20),
+ ha="center",
+ arrowprops=dict(facecolor='black', shrink=0.1),
+ fontsize=18,
+ )
+plt.text(-2, 0.9, "$x_2$", ha="center", fontsize=20)
+plt.text(1, 0.9, "$x_3$", ha="center", fontsize=20)
+plt.axis([-4.5, 4.5, -0.1, 1.1])
+
+plt.subplot(122)
+plt.grid(True, which='both')
+plt.axhline(y=0, color='k')
+plt.axvline(x=0, color='k')
+plt.plot(XK[:, 0][yk==0], XK[:, 1][yk==0], "bs")
+plt.plot(XK[:, 0][yk==1], XK[:, 1][yk==1], "g^")
+plt.xlabel(r"$x_2$", fontsize=20)
+plt.ylabel(r"$x_3$ ", fontsize=20, rotation=0)
+plt.annotate(r'$\phi\left(\mathbf{x}\right)$',
+ xy=(XK[3, 0], XK[3, 1]),
+ xytext=(0.65, 0.50),
+ ha="center",
+ arrowprops=dict(facecolor='black', shrink=0.1),
+ fontsize=18,
+ )
+plt.plot([-0.1, 1.1], [0.57, -0.1], "r--", linewidth=3)
+plt.axis([-0.1, 1.1, -0.1, 1.1])
+
+plt.subplots_adjust(right=1)
+
+plt.show()
+
+
+x1_example = X1D[3, 0]
+for landmark in (-2, 1):
+ k = gaussian_rbf(np.array([[x1_example]]), np.array([[landmark]]), gamma)
+ print("Phi({}, {}) = {}".format(x1_example, landmark, k))
+
+rbf_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
+ ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
+ ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="rbf", gamma=5, C=0.001))
+ ])
+rbf_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
+
+
+from sklearn.svm import SVC
+
+gamma1, gamma2 = 0.1, 5
+C1, C2 = 0.001, 1000
+hyperparams = (gamma1, C1), (gamma1, C2), (gamma2, C1), (gamma2, C2)
+
+svm_clfs = []
+for gamma, C in hyperparams:
+ rbf_kernel_svm_clf = Pipeline([
+ ("scaler", StandardScaler()),
+ ("svm_clf", SVC(kernel="rbf", gamma=gamma, C=C))
+ ])
+ rbf_kernel_svm_clf.fit(X, y)
+ svm_clfs.append(rbf_kernel_svm_clf)
+
+plt.figure(figsize=(11, 7))
+
+for i, svm_clf in enumerate(svm_clfs):
+ plt.subplot(221 + i)
+ plot_predictions(svm_clf, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+ plot_dataset(X, y, [-1.5, 2.5, -1, 1.5])
+ gamma, C = hyperparams[i]
+ plt.title(r"$\gamma = {}, C = {}$".format(gamma, C), fontsize=16)
+
+plt.show()
+
+Convex optimization problems play a central role in applied mathematics and we recommend strongly Boyd and Vandenberghe's text on the topics.
@@ -208,6 +404,7 @@ In our discussion on gradient descent methods we discussed at length the definit
-
If we use Python as programming language and wish to venture beyond -scikit-learn, tensorflow and similar software which makes our -lives so much easier, we need to dive into the wonderful world of -quadratic programming. We can, if we wish, solve the minimization -problem using say standard gradient methods or conjugate gradient -methods. However, these methods tend to exhibit a rather slow -converge. So, welcome to the promised land of quadratic programming. +
A mathematical (quadratic) optimization problem, or just optimization problem, has the form
+$$ +\begin{align*} + &\mathrm{min}_{\lambda}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\boldsymbol{P}\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{q}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda},\\ \nonumber + &\mathrm{subject\hspace{0.1cm}to} \hspace{0.2cm} \boldsymbol{G}\boldsymbol{\lambda} \preceq \boldsymbol{h} \wedge \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{\lambda}=f. +\end{align*} +$$ + +subject to some constraints for say a selected set \( i=1,2,\dots, n \). +In our case we are optimizing with respect to the Lagrangian multipliers \( \lambda_i \), and the +vector \( \boldsymbol{\lambda}=[\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots, \lambda_n] \) is the optimization variable we are dealing with.
-The functions we need are contained in the quadratic programming package CVXOPT and we need to import it together with numpy as
+In our case we are particularly interested in a class of optimization problems called convex optmization problems. +In our discussion on gradient descent methods we discussed at length the definition of a convex function. +
- - -import numpy
-import cvxopt
-
-This will make our life much easier. You don't need t write your own optimizer.
+Convex optimization problems play a central role in applied mathematics and we recommend strongly Boyd and Vandenberghe's text on the topics.
@@ -225,6 +212,7 @@ converge. So, welcome to the promised land of quadratic programming.
-
We remind ourselves about the general problem we want to solve
-$$ -\begin{align*} - &\mathrm{min}_{x}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{P}\boldsymbol{x}+\boldsymbol{q}^T\boldsymbol{x},\\ \nonumber - &\mathrm{subject\hspace{0.1cm} to} \hspace{0.2cm} \boldsymbol{G}\boldsymbol{x} \preceq \boldsymbol{h} \wedge \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x}=f. -\end{align*} -$$ - -Let us show how to perform the optmization using a simple case. Assume we want to optimize the following problem
-$$ -\begin{align*} - &\mathrm{min}_{x}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}x^2+5x+3y \\ \nonumber - &\mathrm{subject to} \\ \nonumber - &x, y \geq 0 \\ \nonumber - &x+3y \geq 15 \\ \nonumber - &2x+5y \leq 100 \\ \nonumber - &3x+4y \leq 80. \\ \nonumber -\end{align*} -$$ - -The minimization problem can be rewritten in terms of vectors and matrices as (with \( x \) and \( y \) being the unknowns)
-$$ -\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix} x\\ y \end{bmatrix}^T \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x \\ y \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}3\\ 4 \end{bmatrix}^T \begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \end{bmatrix}. -$$ - -Similarly, we can now set up the inequalities (we need to change \( \geq \) to \( \leq \) by multiplying with \( -1 \) on bot sides) as the following matrix-vector equation
-$$ -\begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \\ -1 & -3 \\ 2 & 5 \\ 3 & 4\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} x \\ y\end{bmatrix} \preceq \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ -15 \\ 100 \\ 80\end{bmatrix}. -$$ - -We have collapsed all the inequalities into a single matrix \( \boldsymbol{G} \). We see also that our matrix
-$$ -\boldsymbol{P} =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} -$$ - -is clearly positive semi-definite (all eigenvalues larger or equal zero). -Finally, the vector \( \boldsymbol{h} \) is defined as +
If we use Python as programming language and wish to venture beyond +scikit-learn, tensorflow and similar software which makes our +lives so much easier, we need to dive into the wonderful world of +quadratic programming. We can, if we wish, solve the minimization +problem using say standard gradient methods or conjugate gradient +methods. However, these methods tend to exhibit a rather slow +converge. So, welcome to the promised land of quadratic programming.
-$$ -\boldsymbol{h} = \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ -15 \\ 100 \\ 80\end{bmatrix}. -$$ -Since we don't have any equalities the matrix \( \boldsymbol{A} \) is set to zero -The following code solves the equations for us -
+The functions we need are contained in the quadratic programming package CVXOPT and we need to import it together with numpy as
+# Import the necessary packages
-import numpy
-from cvxopt import matrix
-from cvxopt import solvers
-P = matrix(numpy.diag([1,0]), tc=’d’)
-q = matrix(numpy.array([3,4]), tc=’d’)
-G = matrix(numpy.array([[-1,0],[0,-1],[-1,-3],[2,5],[3,4]]), tc=’d’)
-h = matrix(numpy.array([0,0,-15,100,80]), tc=’d’)
-# Construct the QP, invoke solver
-sol = solvers.qp(P,q,G,h)
-# Extract optimal value and solution
-sol[’x’]
-sol[’primal objective’]
+ import numpy
+import cvxopt
This will make our life much easier. You don't need t write your own optimizer.
@@ -268,6 +229,7 @@ sol[’primal objective’]
-
We are now ready to return to our setup of the optmization problem for a more realistic case. Introducing the slack parameter \( C \) we have
+We remind ourselves about the general problem we want to solve
$$ -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^T\begin{bmatrix} y_1y_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_1y_2K(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_1y_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ -y_2y_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_2y_2K(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_1y_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_2,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ -\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ -\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ -y_ny_1K(\boldsymbol{x}_n,\boldsymbol{x}_1) & y_ny_2K(\boldsymbol{x}_n\boldsymbol{x}_2) & \dots & \dots & y_ny_nK(\boldsymbol{x}_n,\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\ -\end{bmatrix}\boldsymbol{\lambda}-\mathbb{I}\boldsymbol{\lambda}, +\begin{align*} + &\mathrm{min}_{x}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{P}\boldsymbol{x}+\boldsymbol{q}^T\boldsymbol{x},\\ \nonumber + &\mathrm{subject\hspace{0.1cm} to} \hspace{0.2cm} \boldsymbol{G}\boldsymbol{x} \preceq \boldsymbol{h} \wedge \boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x}=f. +\end{align*} $$ -subject to \( \boldsymbol{y}^T\boldsymbol{\lambda}=0 \). Here we defined the vectors \( \boldsymbol{\lambda} =[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_n] \) and -\( \boldsymbol{y}=[y_1,y_2,\dots,y_n] \). -With the slack constants this leads to the additional constraint \( 0\leq \lambda_i \leq C \). +
Let us show how to perform the optmization using a simple case. Assume we want to optimize the following problem
+$$ +\begin{align*} + &\mathrm{min}_{x}\hspace{0.2cm} \frac{1}{2}x^2+5x+3y \\ \nonumber + &\mathrm{subject to} \\ \nonumber + &x, y \geq 0 \\ \nonumber + &x+3y \geq 15 \\ \nonumber + &2x+5y \leq 100 \\ \nonumber + &3x+4y \leq 80. \\ \nonumber +\end{align*} +$$ + +The minimization problem can be rewritten in terms of vectors and matrices as (with \( x \) and \( y \) being the unknowns)
+$$ +\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix} x\\ y \end{bmatrix}^T \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x \\ y \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}3\\ 4 \end{bmatrix}^T \begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \end{bmatrix}. +$$ + +Similarly, we can now set up the inequalities (we need to change \( \geq \) to \( \leq \) by multiplying with \( -1 \) on bot sides) as the following matrix-vector equation
+$$ +\begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \\ -1 & -3 \\ 2 & 5 \\ 3 & 4\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} x \\ y\end{bmatrix} \preceq \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ -15 \\ 100 \\ 80\end{bmatrix}. +$$ + +We have collapsed all the inequalities into a single matrix \( \boldsymbol{G} \). We see also that our matrix
+$$ +\boldsymbol{P} =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} +$$ + +is clearly positive semi-definite (all eigenvalues larger or equal zero). +Finally, the vector \( \boldsymbol{h} \) is defined as +
+$$ +\boldsymbol{h} = \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ -15 \\ 100 \\ 80\end{bmatrix}. +$$ + +Since we don't have any equalities the matrix \( \boldsymbol{A} \) is set to zero +The following code solves the equations for us
-code will be added + +# Import the necessary packages
+import numpy
+from cvxopt import matrix
+from cvxopt import solvers
+P = matrix(numpy.diag([1,0]), tc=’d’)
+q = matrix(numpy.array([3,4]), tc=’d’)
+G = matrix(numpy.array([[-1,0],[0,-1],[-1,-3],[2,5],[3,4]]), tc=’d’)
+h = matrix(numpy.array([0,0,-15,100,80]), tc=’d’)
+# Construct the QP, invoke solver
+sol = solvers.qp(P,q,G,h)
+# Extract optimal value and solution
+sol[’x’]
+sol[’primal objective’]
+
+@@ -203,6 +272,8 @@ With the slack constants this leads to the additional constraint \( 0\leq \lamb
The program will be available asap. It depends on input from you!
++
We will use the second part of the lecture for further discussions of projects 2 and 3 and a summary on boosting methods from last week. Feel free to bring your laptops.
+The program will be available asap. It depends on input from you!
+We will use the second part of the lecture for further discussions of projects 2 and 3 and a summary on boosting methods from last week. Feel free to bring your laptops.
+The program will be available asap. It depends on input from you!
+We will use the second part of the lecture for further discussions of projects 2 and 3 and a summary on boosting methods from last week. Feel free to bring your laptops.
+