XPost: comp.ai.neural-nets, sci.math.num-analysis, sci.math
From: heath@alumni.brown.edu
Ted Dunning wrote:
> It doesn't really solve the problem,
I assume you are referring to *Linear* PCA and PLS. In
general, they are definitely not the silver bullet.
However, they are quick, easy to implement, and
relatively easy to understand.
I always try easy methods (e.g.,linear/logistic,...)
first.
Recently I successfully used Linear PCA in the input
(not even combined input-output space!) space for a
561-input, 158-output classification problem. The result
was a 8-14-158 MLP which fit the bill. I may have done
better with combined space PCA, PLS, or nonlinear
techniques. However, the current result was sufficient
for my purposes.
When time permits, I plan to go back and see what
additional insights the more sophisticated methods
will reveal.
Hope this helps.
Greg
> but support vector methods can
> handle thousands of inputs with a feasible number of training examples.
>
> Note, however, that this is dependent on the problem actually being a
> low dimensional one that just happens to be phrased in high dimensional
> terms. In addition, the low dimensional nature of the problem has to
> fit the assumptions of the method.
>
> Bayesian methods can be essentially equivalent to SVM and thus can pull
> the same sorts of tricks.
>
> Essentially all of these combine a presumption about the simplicity of
> the desired model with a measure of error. The presumption of
> simplicity is converted into a penalty for complex models and this is
> used as a regularizer. Bayesians think of this penalty as a prior
> expectation, SVMers think of it as a performance bound on unseen data.
> It works either way.
>
[ comp.ai is moderated. To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]
[ that fails mail your article to , and ]
[ ask your news administrator to fix the problems with your system. ]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
