9
$\begingroup$

I know that Polynomial Logistic Regression can easily learn a typical data like the following image:
first image
I was wondering whether the following two data also can be learned using Polynomial Logistic Regression or not.


enter image description here
enter image description here

I guess I have to add more explanation. Assume the first shape. If we add extra polynomial features for this 2-D input (like x1^2 ...) we can make a decision boundary which can separate the data. Suppose I choose X1^2 + X2^2 = b. This can separate the data. If I add extra features I will get a wavy shape (maybe a wavy circle or wavy ellipsis) but it still can not separate the data of the second graph, can it?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe it's a slip, but you're implicitly asking about classification, not regression... $\endgroup$ – Emre Aug 2 '17 at 15:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Emre actually I'm asking about polynomial logistic regression, you are right :) $\endgroup$ – Media Aug 2 '17 at 15:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Where did you read about that? Did you mean multinomial logistic regression? $\endgroup$ – Emre Aug 3 '17 at 3:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know about statics, but I've never heard of polynomial logistic regression in statistics. I think you should look into kernel logistic regression if you are interested in nonlinear class boundaries. $\endgroup$ – Emre Aug 3 '17 at 4:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is no reference to polynomial logistic regression there. Or any other kind of logistic regression. $\endgroup$ – Emre Aug 3 '17 at 6:44
7
+50
$\begingroup$

Yes in theory the polynomial extension to logistic regression can approximate any arbitrary classification boundary. That is because a polynomial can approximate any function (at least of the types useful to classification problems), and this is proven by the Stone-Weierstrass theorem.

Whether this approximation is practical for all boundary shapes is another matter. You may be better looking for other basis functions (e.g. Fourier series, or radial distance from example points), or other approaches entirely (e.g. SVM) when you suspect a complex boundary shape in feature space. The problem with using high order polynomials is that the number of polynomial features you need to use grows exponentially with degree of the polynomial and number of original features.

You could make a polynomial to classify XOR. $5 - 10 xy$ might be a start if you use $-1$ and $1$ as the binary inputs, this maps input $(x,y)$ to output as follows:

$$(-1,-1): -5 \qquad (-1,1): 5 \qquad (1,-1): 5 \qquad(1, 1): -5$$

Passing that into the logistic function should give you values close enough to 0 and 1.

Similar to your two circular areas is a simple figure-of-eight curve:

$$a(x^2 - y^2 - bx^4 + c)$$

where $a, b$ and $c$ are constants. You can get two disjoint closed areas defined in your classifier - on opposite sides of the $y$ axis, by choosing $a, b$ and $c$ appropriately. For example try $a=1,b=0.05,c=-1$ to get a function that clearly separates into two peaks around $x=-3$ and $x=3$:

two separate classes

The plot shown is from an online tool at academo.org, and is for $x^2 - y^2 - 0.05x^4 -1>0$ - the positive class shown as value 1 in the plot above, and is typically where $\frac{1}{1+e^{-z}} > 0.5$ in logistic regression or just $z>0$

An optimiser will find best values, you would just need to use $1, x^2, y^2, x^4$ as your expansion terms (although note these specific terms are limited to matching the same basic shape reflected around the $y$ axis - in practice you would want to have multiple terms up to fourth degree polynomial to find more arbitrary disjoint groups in a classifier).

In fact any problem you can solve with a deep neural network - of any depth - you can solve with a flat structure using linear regression (for regression problems) or logistic regression (for classification problems). It is "just" a matter of finding the right feature expansion. The difference is that neural networks will attempt to discover a working feature expansion directly, whilst feature engineering using polynomials or any other scheme is hard work and not always obvious how to even start: Consider for example how you might create polynomial approximations to what convolutional neural networks do for images? It seems impossible. It is likely to be extremely impractical, too. But it does exist.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ are you sure about the first paragraph? non-convex shapes can really be learned using polynomials? $\endgroup$ – Media Aug 8 '17 at 20:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NeilSlater I solved the circle one above. XOR is easy too: just add a term for "xy". $\endgroup$ – Emre Aug 8 '17 at 20:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Emre: Thanks. I think to be purist though, |x| is not allowed, since it is a different non-linearity. $\endgroup$ – Neil Slater Aug 8 '17 at 21:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why stop at polynomials? It's not as if we take the derivatives of the inputs, so use any function you want. $\endgroup$ – Emre Aug 8 '17 at 21:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Emre Yes, I already suggest in the question that other functions could be useful. However, I think the point of the OP using the term "Polynomial Logistic Regression" is that it is intended to just use polynomials. I think there are some libraries that will do automatic polynomial expansion of features for use with otherwise linear optimisers. $\endgroup$ – Neil Slater Aug 8 '17 at 21:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.