That seems to be assuming that the "urge to click", is somehow related to the 
pattern associated with the occurrence of words on a page? This could be true 
and it would be interesting to find a correlation. 

You could maybe come up with a general theory for "click attraction" and 
patterns associated with word occurrence and web browsing in general.... 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 8, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Ryan Belcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I'm looking at the Criteo Kaggle competition.  Each row is a data related to 
> the a single display of an advertisement.  You're trying to predict whether 
> the ad will be clicked or not. 
>  
> Am I trying to categorize?  Yes and no.  I'm trying to predict whether the ad 
> will be clicked, but the way I'm trying to do that is by categorizing the 
> rows into buckets and calculating probability based on the category.
>  
> I'm not sure how else you'd go about it.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Jim Bridgewater <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Ryan,
>> 
>> For classification problems it sounds like you are headed in the right
>> direction, but I'm unclear about what your objective is.  Are you just
>> trying to categorize each row in the data set?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Ryan Belcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I've been playing around with NuPIC for a while and am still trying to wrap
>> > my head around how to use it.  Right now I'm playing with some prediction
>> > scenarios where you have a number of input fields and you're trying to
>> > predict one output.
>> >
>> > My understaning is that if the inputs aren't related temporally, then it's 
>> > a
>> > Spatial Pooling problem.  If there are common patterns in the data, then it
>> > may be helpful to create hierarchies of SPs.
>> >
>> > The data I'm looking at right now probably doesn't have common patterns.
>> > It's basically a bunch of categorical data from which you're trying to
>> > predict a boolean outcome.  There are about 15M rows in the training set.
>> >
>> > So my thinking is to create 1 SP where the inputDimensions is wide enough 
>> > to
>> > accomodate all of the fields and columnDimensions sized so that rows get
>> > grouped together.  (If there were 100k columns, then on average 150 rows
>> > would be pooled together.)
>> >
>> > In theory I could run all of the training data through the SP, then run it
>> > through again (without learning) and calculate an outcome probability for
>> > each column.  Then I could run the test data through and it's probability
>> > would be the probability of the column it matches.
>> >
>> > Is that a reasonable approach or am I way out in left field?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Ryan
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nupic mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> James Bridgewater, PhD
>> Arizona State University
>> 480-227-9592
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nupic mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nupic mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
_______________________________________________
nupic mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org

Reply via email to