In many training datasets, the class distribution is skewed, I.e. one class is very frequent (e.g. 95%), while another is rare (e.g. 5%). In such applications, the Naive classifier that assigns all test cases to the majority class achieves very high accuracy. However, the Naive classifier does not predict any cases of the minority class, although it is often more important than the majority class.
So are there any ways to improve the accuracy on the minority class just by modifying the training dataset? or Do we have to modify the classification algorithm as well?
This is the issue of the Imbalanced classification. Below are the methods used to treat the Imbalanced Datasets.
1.Undersampling
2.Oversampling
3.Synthetic Data Generation
4.Cost-Sensitive Learning
1.Undersampling
This method works with the majority class. It reduces the number of observations from the majority class to make the data set balanced. This method is best to use when the data set is huge and reducing the number of training samples helps to improve run time and storage troubles.
Undersampling methods are of 2 types: Random and Informative.
Oversampling
This method works with minority class. It replicates the observations from minority class to balance the data. It is also known as upsampling. Similar to undersampling, this method also can be divided into two types: Random Oversampling and Informative Oversampling.
Synthetic Data Generation
In simple words, instead of replicating and adding observations from the minority class, it overcomes imbalances by generates artificial data. It is also a type of oversampling technique.
In regards to synthetic data generation, synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) is a powerful and widely used method. SMOTE algorithm creates artificial data based on feature space (rather than data space) similarities from minority samples. We can also say, it generates a random set of minority class observations to shift the classifier learning bias towards minority class.
Cost-Sensitive Learning (CSL)
It is another commonly used method to handle classification problems with imbalanced data. It’s an interesting method. In simple words, this method evaluates the cost associated with misclassifying observations.
It does not create a balanced data distribution. Instead, it highlights the imbalanced learning problem by using cost matrices which describe the cost for misclassification in a particular scenario. Recent researches have shown that cost-sensitive learning has many times outperformed sampling methods. Therefore, this method provides a likely alternative to sampling methods.
To build these in R refer the link https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/03/practical-guide-deal-imbalanced-classification-problems/
There are many ways. You can upsample miority class, downsample majority, do some weighting based on loss, or some other measures. As you've tagged your post to be related to TF I suggest you look at Importance Sampling for Keras, http://idiap.ch/~katharas/importance-sampling/ it has some ready to use wrappers that you put around your model.
Related
I have a use case where in text needs to be classified into one of the three categories. I started with Naive Bayes [Apache OpenNLP, Java] but i was informed that the algorithm is biased, meaning if my training data has 60% of data as classA and 30% as classB and 10% as classC then the algorithm tends to biased towards ClassA and thus predicting the other class texts to be of classA.
If this is true is there a way to overcome this issue?
There are other algorithm that i came across like SVM Classifier or logistic regression (maximum entropy model), however I am not sure which will be more suitable for my use case. Please advise.
there a way to overcome this issue?
Yes, there is. But first you need to understand why it happens?
Basically your dataset is imbalanced.
An imbalanced dataset means instances of one of the two classes is higher than the other, in another way, the number of observations is not the same for all the classes in a classification dataset.
In this scenario, your model becomes bias towards the class with majority of samples as you have more training data for that class.
Solutions
Under sampling:
Randomly removing samples from majority class to make dataset balance.
Over sampling:
Adding more samples of minority classes to makes dataset balance.
Change Performance Metrics
Use F1-score, 'recallorprecision` to measure the performance of your model.
There are few more solutions, if you want to know more refer this blog
There are other algorithm that i came across like SVM Classifier or logistic regression (maximum entropy model), however I am not sure
which will be more suitable for my usecase
You will never know unless you try, I would suggest you try 3-4 different algorithms on your data.
I have data set for classification problem. I have in total 50 classes.
Class1: 10,000 examples
Class2: 10 examples
Class3: 5 examples
Class4: 35 examples
.
.
.
and so on.
I tried to train my classifier using SVM ( both linear and Gaussian kernel). My accurate is very bad on test data 65 and 72% respectively. Now I am thinking to go for a neural network. Do you have any suggestion for any machine learning model and algorithm for large imbalanced data? It would be extremely helpful to me
You should provide more information about the data set features and the class distribution, this would help others to advice you.
In any case, I don't think a neural network fits here as this data set is too small for it.
Assuming 50% or more of the samples are of class 1 then I would first start by looking for a classifier that differentiates between class 1 and non-class 1 samples (binary classification). This classifier should outperform a naive classifier (benchmark) which randomly chooses a classification with a prior corresponding to the training set class distribution.
For example, assuming there are 1,000 samples, out of which 700 are of class 1, then the benchmark classifier would classify a new sample as class 1 in a probability of 700/1,000=0.7 (like an unfair coin toss).
Once you found a classifier with good accuracy, the next phase can be classifying the non-class 1 classified samples as one of the other 49 classes, assuming these classes are more balanced then I would start with RF, NB and KNN.
There are multiple ways to handle with imbalanced datasets, you can try
Up sampling
Down Sampling
Class Weights
I would suggest either Up sampling or providing class weights to balance it
https://towardsdatascience.com/5-techniques-to-work-with-imbalanced-data-in-machine-learning-80836d45d30c
You should think about your performance metric, don't use Accuracy score as your performance metric , You can use Log loss or any other suitable metric
https://machinelearningmastery.com/failure-of-accuracy-for-imbalanced-class-distributions/
From my experience the most successful ways to deal with unbalanced classes are :
Changing distribiution of inputs: 20000 samples (the approximate number of examples which you have) is not a big number so you could change your dataset distribiution simply by using every sample from less frequent classes multiple times. Depending on a number of classes you could set the number of examples from them to e.g. 6000 or 8000 each in your training set. In this case remember to not change distribiution on test and validation set.
Increase the time of training: in case of neural networks, when changing distribiution of your input is impossible I strongly advise you trying to learn network for quite a long time (e.g. 1000 epochs). In this case you have to remember about regularisation. I usually use dropout and l2 weight regulariser with their parameters learnt by random search algorithm.
Reduce the batch size: In neural networks case reducing a batch size might lead to improving performance on less frequent classes.
Change your loss function: using MAPE insted of Crossentropy may also improve accuracy on less frequent classes.
Feel invited to test different combinations of approaches shown by e.g. random search algorithm.
Data-level methods:
Undersampling runs the risk of losing important data from removing data. Oversampling runs the risk of overfitting on training data, especially if the added copies of the minority class are replicas of existing data. Many sophisticated sampling techniques have been developed to mitigate these risks.
One such technique is two-phase learning. You first train your model on the resampled data. This resampled data can be achieved by randomly undersampling large classes until each class has only N instances. You then fine-tune your model on the original data.
Another technique is dynamic sampling: oversample the low-performing classes and undersample the high-performing classes during the training process. Introduced by Pouyanfar et al., the method aims to show the model less of what it has already learned and more of what it has not.
Algorithm-level methods
Cost-sensitive learning
Class-balanced loss
Focal loss
References:
esigning Machine Learning Systems
Survey on deep learning with class imbalance
I am interested in any tips on how to train a set with a very limited positive set and a large negative set.
I have about 40 positive examples (quite lengthy articles about a particular topic), and about 19,000 negative samples (most drawn from the sci-kit learn newsgroups dataset). I also have about 1,000,000 tweets that I could work with.. negative about the topic I am trying to train on. Is the size of the negative set versus the positive going to negatively influence training a classifier?
I would like to use cross-validation in sci-kit learn. Do I need to break this into train / test-dev / test sets? Is know there are some pre-built libraries in sci-kit. Any implementation examples that you recommend or have used previously would be helpful.
Thanks!
The answer to your first question is yes, the amount by which it will affect your results depends on the algorithm. My advive would be to keep an eye on the class-based statistics such as recall and precision (found in classification_report).
For RandomForest() you can look at this thread which discusses
the sample weight parameter. In general sample_weight is what
you're looking for in scikit-learn.
For SVM's have a look at either this example or this
example.
For NB classifiers, this should be handled implicitly by Bayes
rule, however in practice you may see some poor performances.
For you second question it's up for discussion, personally I break my data into a training and test split, perform cross validation on the training set for parameter estimation, retrain on all the training data and then test on my test set. However the amount of data you have may influence the way you split your data (more data means more options).
You could probably use Random Forest for your classification problem. There are basically 3 parameters to deal with data imbalance. Class Weight, Samplesize and Cutoff.
Class Weight-The higher the weight a class is given, the more its error rate is decreased.
Samplesize- Oversample the minority class to improve class imbalance while sampling the defects for each tree[not sure if Sci-kit supports this, used to be param in R)
Cutoff- If >x% trees vote for the minority class, classify it as minority class. By default x is 1/2 in Random forest for 2-class problem. You can set it to a lower value for the minority class.
Check out balancing predict error at https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm
For the 2nd question if you are using Random Forest, you do not need to keep separate train/validation/test set. Random Forest does not choose any parameters based on a validation set, so validation set is un-necessary.
Also during the training of Random Forest, the data for training each individual tree is obtained by sampling by replacement from the training data, thus each training sample is not used for roughly 1/3 of the trees. We can use the votes of these 1/3 trees to predict the out of box probability of the Random forest classification. Thus with OOB accuracy you just need a training set, and not validation or test data to predict performance on unseen data. Check Out of Bag error at https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm for further study.
My training data set contains 46071 examples from one class and 33606 examples from another class. Does this result in a skewed classifier?
I am using SVM but don't want to use SVM's options to deal with skewed data.
A dataset is skewed if the classification categories are not approximately equally represented (I don‘t think there is a precise value).
Yours isn‘t a highly unbalanced dataset. Anyway it could introduce bias toward majority (potentially uninteresting) class, especially using accuracy for evaluating classifiers.
Skewed training sets can be managed in various ways. Two frequently used approach are:
At the data level a form of re-sampling such as
random oversampling with replacement,
random undersampling,
directed oversampling (no new examples are created, the choice of samples to replace is informed rather than random),
directed undersampling,
oversampling with informed generation of new samples,
combinations of the above techniques.
At the algorithmic level, adjusting the costs of the various classes so as to counter the class imbalance.
Even if you don't like this approach, with SVM you can change the class weighting scheme (e.g.
How should I teach machine learning algorithm using data with big disproportion of classes? (SVM)). You could prefer this to sub-sampling as it means there is no variability in the results due to the particular sub-sample used.
It's worth noting that (from Issue on Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets):
in certain domains (e.g. fraud detection) the class imbalance is
intrinsic to the problem: there are typically very few cases of fraud
as compared to the large number of honest use of the facilities.
However, class imbalances sometimes occur in domains that do not have
an intrinsic imbalance.
This will happen when the data collection process is limited (e.g. due
to economic or privacy reasons), thus creating articial imbalances.
Conversely, in certain cases, the data abounds and it is for the
scientist to decide which examples to select and in what quantity.
In addition, there can also be an imbalance in costs of making
different errors, which could vary per case.
So it all depends on your data, really!
Further details:
Extreme rebalancing for SVMs: A case study - Bhavani Raskutt, Adam Kowalczyk
Learning from umbalanced data - Haibo He, Edwardo Garcia - IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
How should I set my gamma and Cost parameters in libSVM when I am using an imbalanced dataset that consists of 75% 'true' labels and 25% 'false' labels? I'm getting a constant error of having all the predicted labels set on 'True' due to the data imbalance.
If the issue isn't with libSVM, but with my dataset, how should I handle this imbalance from a Theoretical Machine Learning standpoint? *The number of features I'm using is between 4-10 and I have a small set of 250 data points.
Classes imbalance has nothing to do with selection of C and gamma, to deal with this issue you should use the class weighting scheme which is avaliable in for example scikit-learn package (built on libsvm)
Selection of best C and gamma is performed using grid search with cross validation. You should try vast range of values here, for C it is reasonable to choose values between 1 and 10^15 while a simple and good heuristic of gamma range values is to compute pairwise distances between all your data points and select gamma according to the percentiles of this distribution - think about putting in each point a gaussian distribution with variance equal to 1/gamma - if you select such gamma that this distribution overlaps will many points you will get very "smooth" model, while using small variance leads to the overfitting.
Imbalanced data sets can be tackled in various ways. Class balance has no effect on kernel parameters such as gamma for the RBF kernel.
The two most popular approaches are:
Use different misclassification penalties per class, this basically means changing C. Typically the smallest class gets weighed higher, a common approach is npos * wpos = nneg * wneg. LIBSVM allows you to do this using its -wX flags.
Subsample the overrepresented class to obtain an equal amount of positives and negatives and proceed with training as you traditionally would for a balanced set. Take note that you basically ignore a large chunk of data this way, which is intuitively a bad idea.
I know this has been asked some time ago, but I would like to answer it since you might find my answer useful.
As others have mentioned, you might want to consider using different weights for the minority classes or using different misclassification penalties. However, there is a more clever way of dealing with the imbalanced datasets.
You can use the SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique) algorithm to generate synthesized data for the minority class. It is a simple algorithm that can deal with some imbalance datasets pretty well.
In each iteration of the algorithm, SMOTE considers two random instances of the minority class and add an artificial example of the same class somewhere in between. The algorithm keeps injecting the dataset with the samples until the two classes become balanced or some other criteria(e.g. add certain number of examples). Below you can find a picture describing what the algorithm does for a simple dataset in 2D feature space.
Associating weight with the minority class is a special case of this algorithm. When you associate weight $w_i$ with instance i, you are basically adding the extra $w_i - 1$ instances on top of the instance i!
What you need to do is to augment your initial dataset with the samples created by this algorithm, and train the SVM with this new dataset. You can also find many implementation online in different languages like Python and Matlab.
There have been other extensions of this algorithm, I can point you to more materials if you want.
To test the classifier you need to split the dataset into test and train, add synthetic instances to the train set (DO NOT ADD ANY TO THE TEST SET), train the model on the train set, and finally test it on the test set. If you consider the generated instances when you are testing you will end up with a biased(and ridiculously higher) accuracy and recall.