Next: Size of the Cache
Up: Experimental Results
Previous: Small Datasets
Table 4:
Experiments on large training sets. See
TABLE 3 for the description of the fields.
Dataset |
Model |
Time |
|
Objective |
Model |
Median |
|
|
NSP |
SP |
# SV |
Function |
Train |
Test |
Train |
Test |
|
SVMTorch |
11 |
- |
1140 |
-212439.78 |
0.30 |
0.31 |
|
|
Kin |
SVMTorchU |
32 |
- |
1140 |
-212439.78 |
0.30 |
0.31 |
0.37 |
0.38 |
|
SVMTorchN |
86 |
- |
1140 |
-212439.78 |
0.30 |
0.31 |
|
|
|
Nodelib |
273 |
- |
1138 |
-212478.38 |
0.30 |
0.31 |
|
|
|
SVMTorch |
235 |
- |
706 |
-39569.14 |
0.21 |
0.34 |
|
|
Artificial |
SVMTorchU |
4394 |
- |
817 |
-40025.98 |
0.20 |
0.33 |
27.29 |
14.25 |
|
SVMTorchN |
9182 |
- |
824 |
-40016.55 |
0.20 |
0.34 |
|
|
|
Nodelib |
2653 |
- |
764 |
-40043.94 |
0.20 |
0.33 |
|
|
|
SVMTorch |
4573 |
4392 |
3019 |
-56266.94 |
1.63 |
1.82 |
|
|
Forest |
SVMTorchU |
40669 |
37769 |
4080 |
-78297.27 |
0.40 |
0.93 |
0.81 |
1.59 |
|
SVMTorchN |
79237 |
73045 |
4233 |
-78294.56 |
0.39 |
0.93 |
|
|
|
Nodelib |
87133 |
- |
4088 |
-78384.15 |
0.39 |
0.93 |
|
|
|
SVMTorch |
67 |
- |
1771 |
-11215476.03 |
8.97 |
12.72 |
|
|
Sunspots |
SVMTorchU |
1290 |
- |
1822 |
-11229107.83 |
8.96 |
12.59 |
33.02 |
52.57 |
|
SVMTorchN |
2606 |
- |
1820 |
-11229098.49 |
8.96 |
12.59 |
|
|
|
Nodelib |
24022 |
- |
1818 |
-11229124.45 |
8.96 |
12.59 |
|
|
|
SVMTorch |
9874 |
6460 |
8532 |
-1289.54 |
0.25 |
0.27 |
|
|
MNIST |
SVMTorchU |
33644 |
21482 |
8642 |
-1290.66 |
0.25 |
0.27 |
0.98 |
0.97 |
|
SVMTorchN |
32095 |
20951 |
8634 |
-1290.57 |
0.25 |
0.27 |
|
|
|
Nodelib |
> 106 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
Let us now turn to experiments using large datasets.
TABLE 4 shows the results using the whole training
sets for all datasets, again using a cache size of 300Mb.
Since the problems are now too big to be kept in memory, the implementation
of the cache becomes very important and comparisons of the algorithms
used in SVMTorch and Nodelib become more difficult.
Nevertheless, it is clear that SVMTorch is always faster, except
again for Artificial in the cases with no shrinking or with
unshrinking, but the
performance on the test sets is similar.
However, note that shrinking sometimes leads to very poor results in terms
of test set performance, as is the case on Forest. It is
thus clear that shrinking should be used with care, particularly
for large datasets, and the parameter that decides when to eliminate
a variable should be tuned carefully before running a series of
experiments on the same dataset.
Note also that Nodelib was not able to solve MNIST after
11 days.
Next: Size of the Cache
Up: Experimental Results
Previous: Small Datasets
Journal of Machine Learning Research