The Math Behind Bayesian Classifiers Clearly Explained!

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 29 янв 2025

Комментарии • 95

  • @hayleyH997
    @hayleyH997 9 месяцев назад +10

    How he manage to explain something that a 1-hr lecture couldn't! Thanks mate

    • @alen2773
      @alen2773 Месяц назад

      literally better than my data science professor at a london masters uni.... Sometimes i wonder what I pay for apart from the certificate ahah

  • @pradyumnabada5118
    @pradyumnabada5118 2 года назад +11

    Dude.. I lost count of the videos I watched to understand this but lastly, after seeing your video the struggle ended. Thank you so much!

  • @BrianAmedee
    @BrianAmedee 4 года назад +58

    'Clearly Explained' - and it actually was. Thanks man

  • @bluestar2253
    @bluestar2253 3 года назад +21

    One of the best explanations I've ever seen!

  • @jaster_mereel7657
    @jaster_mereel7657 3 года назад +30

    This was a very clear explanation indeed. Thank you!

  • @sye9522
    @sye9522 9 месяцев назад

    HUGE thanks for perfectly delivering the whole concept in one video bro!!

  • @uncaged3076
    @uncaged3076 3 месяца назад

    Been struggling to grasp this topic but i finally hit that Eureka moment with this video,.Thank you so much

  • @hussamcheema
    @hussamcheema 3 месяца назад

    one of the best explanation of this topic. Thanks man

  • @radoyapanic998
    @radoyapanic998 2 года назад +1

    In the last part of the video you said we can fit a known distribution to a continuous set of data. However, you continued to then write that the probabilities can be calculated by taking the product of the pdf evaluated at different values of the feature and label. The pdf does not provide probabilities however, as it needs to be integrated to inform one of the probabilities of an event. This part of the video seems imprecise.
    However, the video in general was great. Thanks.

  • @jefersondavidgalloaristiza3410

    Very nice explanation and perfect illustrations!!

  • @noname-anonymous-v7c
    @noname-anonymous-v7c Год назад +1

    9:37 you made conclusion based on P(X=[0,2] | Y), I think the correct way is to calculate P(Y|X=[0,2]). In case P(Y=1) is very small, the answer can be Y=0.

  • @guangruli4486
    @guangruli4486 3 года назад +4

    Very clearly explained, thank you!

  • @RayRay-yt5pe
    @RayRay-yt5pe 5 месяцев назад

    You did good my friend. I'm glad I came across this video

  • @lakshuperiakaruppan6777
    @lakshuperiakaruppan6777 5 месяцев назад

    Good work with the visuals!!

  • @Nazmul-4u
    @Nazmul-4u 3 года назад +2

    LOVED IT!!!
    Awesome Explanation! Can't thank you enough...

  • @aakashjuseja
    @aakashjuseja 4 месяца назад

    I just love this explanation

  • @sayonsom
    @sayonsom Год назад +1

    Great explanation :)

  • @miusukamadoto6805
    @miusukamadoto6805 2 года назад

    Thank you very much for the video. Clearly explained indeed, the only part I couldn't get completely was the discretization.

  • @sopegue
    @sopegue 2 года назад

    It was clearly explained as mentionned in the title. Thanks a bunch !!!

  • @pariesque
    @pariesque 3 года назад

    That was great! I'm really glad that I found your channel. Thanks a lot 👍👍

  • @daniilsukhovv
    @daniilsukhovv 4 года назад

    bro, best explanation I could find

  • @adityaprasad3356
    @adityaprasad3356 2 года назад +1

    very helpful🥺🥺

  • @dpaul3447
    @dpaul3447 Год назад +1

    Thank you so much man!!

  • @abduljeleelajibona2401
    @abduljeleelajibona2401 4 месяца назад

    Nice video! Thank you.

  • @dannysammy8972
    @dannysammy8972 2 года назад +2

    Yes, this was actually well explained. Thank you :)

  • @hasben0
    @hasben0 Год назад

    Well done👊👊

  • @iantassin7611
    @iantassin7611 Месяц назад

    Good video but there seems to be a small error. In particular, you say we are assuming X1 and X2 are independent, but we do not actually make that assumption for Naive Bayes, we assume only conditional independence (conditioned on the class label) which does not imply general independence.

  • @sobana653
    @sobana653 2 года назад

    Nicely explained!

  • @PritishMishra
    @PritishMishra 3 года назад +1

    If I search for any ML Algorithm I just first check your channel If you have created the video on the same... You are my first preference for ML/DL Algo Explanation. Just a request please make a video on Deep Learning Algorithm too like CNN, RNN & LSTM "from scratch". It will really help people who want to become practitioners in AI like me.

    • @NormalizedNerd
      @NormalizedNerd  3 года назад +1

      Thank you so much ❤
      Writing CNNs and RNNs from scratch are pretty hectic...maybe some day I'll try.

    • @PritishMishra
      @PritishMishra 3 года назад

      @@NormalizedNerd Waiting... you are our only hope who can teach us Mathematics of ML with cool animation, That's why requested you! Thanks.

  • @imadeit6587
    @imadeit6587 3 года назад +1

    I am appreciate your work

  • @arielalvarez88
    @arielalvarez88 4 года назад +1

    Really good work, congrats

  • @SihatAfnan-y6o
    @SihatAfnan-y6o 3 месяца назад

    Best Explanation

  • @DANstudiosable
    @DANstudiosable 4 года назад +1

    Well explained, a quick revision for Naive bayes. I forgot why it was called Naive until i watched this video 😂😂

  • @fmt2586
    @fmt2586 2 года назад

    hey, thanks man, very clear explanation.😀😀

  • @leolei9352
    @leolei9352 2 года назад

    Very clear explanation!

  • @vojinivkovic9533
    @vojinivkovic9533 2 года назад

    great explanation

  • @high_fly_bird
    @high_fly_bird Год назад

    The explanation is so cool! But it would be even cooler if you added some examples with continious features and fitting a distribution, this part wasn't so clear...

  • @swethanandyala
    @swethanandyala 3 года назад

    very nice explanation thank you so much

  • @AnasHawasli
    @AnasHawasli 11 месяцев назад

    Great video man great
    herre is a sub

  • @user-wr4yl7tx3w
    @user-wr4yl7tx3w 2 года назад

    This is really well explained.

  • @aurorasart9458
    @aurorasart9458 3 года назад +1

    Thank you very much for your work! Nice explanation!

  • @telusukondifirstuu9221
    @telusukondifirstuu9221 3 года назад

    I love this Exolaination 😍🥰😘
    Thanks a lot ❤

  • @prar_shah
    @prar_shah 6 месяцев назад

    Love this

  • @nikolai228
    @nikolai228 11 месяцев назад

    Amazing video. thanks.

  • @user-or7ji5hv8y
    @user-or7ji5hv8y 4 года назад

    Great explanation.

  • @lucasqwert1
    @lucasqwert1 Год назад

    in the last part at minute 11: What is the function f to fit a known distribution? Thank you for answering!

  • @mehditavakoli2492
    @mehditavakoli2492 Год назад

    Thank you!

  • @dzmitryk9658
    @dzmitryk9658 3 года назад

    Awesome! Thank you.

  • @SarahGhiyasi
    @SarahGhiyasi 2 года назад

    Thank u it was great.

  • @sumedha1051
    @sumedha1051 2 года назад

    love this!

  • @muhammadzubairbaloch3224
    @muhammadzubairbaloch3224 4 года назад +3

    sir please more lectures.
    I am seeing after too days later your lectures
    made some advance NLP and CV lectures or AI lectures thanks

    • @NormalizedNerd
      @NormalizedNerd  4 года назад +1

      I will try my best to upload more frequently.

  • @joaomatheusnascimentogonca7633
    @joaomatheusnascimentogonca7633 6 месяцев назад

    10:51 How does this work? wouldn't the probability that Xi = xi be zero, given we're using a continuous distribution? Because of the "=" sign

  • @aymericalixe1310
    @aymericalixe1310 4 года назад +3

    Maybe i'm wrong but I think the hypothesis is not that X1 and X2 are independant but that X1 and X2 are conditionnaly independant. It was very clear otherwise thank you !

    • @NormalizedNerd
      @NormalizedNerd  4 года назад

      In naive Bayes every feature is treated as an independent feature that's why it's called naive.

    • @chitranghosal879
      @chitranghosal879 Год назад +1

      I think the hypothesis is that you assume each feature to be (w.r.t other features)
      1) globally independent (in the global sample space)
      2)conditionally independent w.r.t the occurence of each class label (under the subset sample space where the particular class event has occured)
      If these assumptions are not met, then it does not seem possible to build the mathematics, because as far as I see,
      if events A and B are independent, that does not naturally imply conditional independence between events (A|C) and (B|C)

  • @MrDaniel560
    @MrDaniel560 Год назад

    HELPFUL!!!!

  • @aditya.singh9
    @aditya.singh9 4 года назад

    truly amazing

  • @sayantansadhu6380
    @sayantansadhu6380 4 года назад +1

    It was like a revision for class 12 probability 😁😁

  • @nickgannon7466
    @nickgannon7466 2 года назад

    well done

  • @signature445
    @signature445 3 года назад +1

    Sir is this like
    Bayesian classifier deals with conditional probability ?
    Naïve bays classifier deals with joint probability ?
    Thanks in advance.....

  • @mahirjain8898
    @mahirjain8898 Год назад +1

    so goood

  • @Fuktron13
    @Fuktron13 3 года назад

    I wish you were my professor

  • @plumSlayer
    @plumSlayer Год назад

    You areee Amazing. I love your Indian Bengali accent ( just a guess hehe make me a voice analyzer if i am right XD
    )

  • @quanghuynh1570
    @quanghuynh1570 Год назад

    you saved me

  • @zouhir2010
    @zouhir2010 3 года назад

    thumbs up
    thanks

  • @kunalsoni7681
    @kunalsoni7681 Год назад

    Nice ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • @Ilham-lj3me
    @Ilham-lj3me 2 года назад

    and how aboit gaussian NB?

  • @kingnetwork-8519
    @kingnetwork-8519 26 дней назад

    bro you are a goat

  • @10xGarden
    @10xGarden 4 года назад +1

    3b1b's bro is here

  • @harshitdtu7479
    @harshitdtu7479 9 месяцев назад

    10:37

  • @abdulkarim.jamal.kanaan
    @abdulkarim.jamal.kanaan 3 года назад

    Hello people from the future! :D

  • @pushandeb187
    @pushandeb187 Год назад

    liked that

  • @davidmurphy563
    @davidmurphy563 Год назад

    Ok, I've given up on the video after 45 secs. You said "stated clearly", if you hadn't I'd have kept watching.
    You point to an array of features called X. What are they? Are they features of the array itself (its size / rank / dimension?), are they features of the thing the array of describing (measurements in a house?), or a list of possible attributes (the ingredients on a pizza?) Then you introduce a label. So what, is this like a python dictionary?
    Plus, I've no idea what sort of issue we're supposed to be tackling? Is it probability? Is it rationality with limited knowledge? I only guess that because I've heard of Bayes before.
    Instead you launch into calculations when I have not the first idea what you're calculating. Why would I listen to that?
    Tell you what, I'll give it another 30 secs. If there's no illustrative example / clear explanation of what the hell you're covering I'm gone.

    • @davidmurphy563
      @davidmurphy563 Год назад

      Nope, 30 secs later and it's absolute horseshit.

  • @anon_148
    @anon_148 3 года назад

    independant moment

  • @mahedihassanrafin7493
    @mahedihassanrafin7493 Год назад

    just quit confusing people

  • @atulyadav9712
    @atulyadav9712 2 года назад

    Great explanation