Keeping the data lake in form: DS-kNN datasets categorization using proximity mining

With the growth of the number of datasets stored in data repositories, there has been a trend of using Data Lakes (DLs) to store such data. DLs store datasets in their raw formats without any transformations or preprocessing, with accessibility available using schema-on-read. This makes it difficult for analysts to find datasets that can be crossed and that belong to the same topic. To support them in this DL governance challenge, we propose in this paper an algorithm for categorizing datasets in the DL into pre-defined topic-wise categories of interest. We utilise a k-NN approach for this task which uses a proximity score for computing similarities of datasets based on metadata. We test our algorithm on a real-life DL with a known ground-truth categorization. Our approach is successful in detecting the correct categories for datasets and outliers with a precision of more than 90% and recall rates exceeding 75% in specific settings.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

A Taxonomy of Big Data for Optimal Predictive Machine Learning and Data Mining

Big data comes in various ways, types, shapes, forms and sizes. Indeed, almost all areas of science, technology, medicine, public health, economics, business, linguistics and social science are bombarded by ever increasing flows of data begging to analyzed efficiently and effectively. In this paper, we propose a rough idea of a possible taxonomy of big data, along with some of the most commonly used tools for handling each particular category of bigness. The dimensionality p of the input space and the sample size n are usually the main ingredients in the characterization of data bigness. The specific statistical machine learning technique used to handle a particular big data set will depend on which category it falls in within the bigness taxonomy. Large p small n data sets for instance require a different set of tools from the large n small p variety. Among other tools, we discuss Preprocessing, Standardization, Imputation, Projection, Regularization, Penalization, Compression, Reduction, Selection, Kernelization, Hybridization, Parallelization, Aggregation, Randomization, Replication, Sequentialization. Indeed, it is important to emphasize right away that the so-called no free lunch theorem applies here, in the sense that there is no universally superior method that outperforms all other methods on all categories of bigness. It is also important to stress the fact that simplicity in the sense of Ockham's razor non plurality principle of parsimony tends to reign supreme when it comes to massive data. We conclude with a comparison of the predictive performance of some of the most commonly used methods on a few data sets.Comment: 18 pages, 2 figures 3 table

Using online linear classifiers to filter spam Emails

The performance of two online linear classifiers - the Perceptron and Littlestone’s Winnow – is explored for two anti-spam filtering benchmark corpora - PU1 and Ling-Spam. We study the performance for varying numbers of features, along with three different feature selection methods: Information Gain (IG), Document Frequency (DF) and Odds Ratio. The size of the training set and the number of training iterations are also investigated for both classifiers. The experimental results show that both the Perceptron and Winnow perform much better when using IG or DF than using Odds Ratio. It is further demonstrated that when using IG or DF, the classifiers are insensitive to the number of features and the number of training iterations, and not greatly sensitive to the size of training set. Winnow is shown to slightly outperform the Perceptron. It is also demonstrated that both of these online classifiers perform much better than a standard Naïve Bayes method. The theoretical and implementation computational complexity of these two classifiers are very low, and they are very easily adaptively updated. They outperform most of the published results, while being significantly easier to train and adapt. The analysis and promising experimental results indicate that the Perceptron and Winnow are two very competitive classifiers for anti-spam filtering

Multi-Instance Multi-Label Learning

In this paper, we propose the MIML (Multi-Instance Multi-Label learning) framework where an example is described by multiple instances and associated with multiple class labels. Compared to traditional learning frameworks, the MIML framework is more convenient and natural for representing complicated objects which have multiple semantic meanings. To learn from MIML examples, we propose the MimlBoost and MimlSvm algorithms based on a simple degeneration strategy, and experiments show that solving problems involving complicated objects with multiple semantic meanings in the MIML framework can lead to good performance. Considering that the degeneration process may lose information, we propose the D-MimlSvm algorithm which tackles MIML problems directly in a regularization framework. Moreover, we show that even when we do not have access to the real objects and thus cannot capture more information from real objects by using the MIML representation, MIML is still useful. We propose the InsDif and SubCod algorithms. InsDif works by transforming single-instances into the MIML representation for learning, while SubCod works by transforming single-label examples into the MIML representation for learning. Experiments show that in some tasks they are able to achieve better performance than learning the single-instances or single-label examples directly.Comment: 64 pages, 10 figures; Artificial Intelligence, 201