I have recently started experimenting with OneClassSVM ( using Sklearn ) for unsupervised learning and I followed
this example .
I apologize for the silly questions But I’m a bit confused about two things :
Should I train my svm on both regular example case as well as the outliers , or the training is on regular examples only ?
Which of labels predicted by the OSVM and represent outliers is it 1 or -1
Once again i apologize for those questions but for some reason i cannot find this documented anyware
As this example you reference is about novelty-detection, the docs say:
novelty detection:
The training data is not polluted by outliers, and we are interested in detecting anomalies in new observations.
Meaning: you should train on regular examples only.
The approach is based on:
Schölkopf, Bernhard, et al. "Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribution." Neural computation 13.7 (2001): 1443-1471.
Extract:
Suppose you are given some data set drawn from an underlying probability distribution P and you want to estimate a “simple” subset S of input space such that the probability that a test point drawn from P lies outside of S equals some a priori specied value between 0 and 1.
We propose a method to approach this problem by trying to estimate a function f that is positive on S and negative on the complement.
The above docs also say:
Inliers are labeled 1, while outliers are labeled -1.
This can also be seen in your example code, extracted:
# Generate some regular novel observations
X = 0.3 * np.random.randn(20, 2)
X_test = np.r_[X + 2, X - 2]
...
# all regular = inliers (defined above)
y_pred_test = clf.predict(X_test)
...
# -1 = outlier <-> error as assumed to be inlier
n_error_test = y_pred_test[y_pred_test == -1].size
Related
If I had 2 features x1 and x2 where I know that the pattern is:
if x1 < x2 then
class1
else
class2
Can any machine learning algorithm find such a pattern? What algorithm would that be?
I know that I could create a third feature x3 = x1-x2. Then feature x3 can easily be used by some machine learning algorithms. For example a decision tree can solve the problem 100% using x3 and just 3 nodes (1 decision and 2 leaf nodes).
But, is it possible to solve this without creating new features? This seems like a problem that should be easily solved 100% if a machine learning algorithm could only find such a pattern.
I tried MLP and SVM with different kernels, including svg kernel and the results are not great. As an example of what I tried, here is the scikit-learn code where the SVM could only get a score of 0.992:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.svm import SVC
# Generate 1000 samples with 2 features with random values
X_train = np.random.rand(1000,2)
# Label each sample. If feature "x1" is less than feature "x2" then label as 1, otherwise label is 0.
y_train = X_train[:,0] < X_train[:,1]
y_train = y_train.astype(int) # convert boolean to 0 and 1
svc = SVC(kernel = "rbf", C = 0.9) # tried all kernels and C values from 0.1 to 1.0
svc.fit(X_train, y_train)
print("SVC score: %f" % svc.score(X_train, y_train))
Output running the code:
SVC score: 0.992000
This is an oversimplification of my problem. The real problem may have hundreds of features and different patterns, not just x1 < x2. However, to start with it would help a lot to know how to solve for this simple pattern.
To understand this, you must go into the settings of all the parameters provided by sklearn, and C in particular. It also helps to understand how the value of C influences the classifier's training procedure.
If you look at the equation in the User Guide for SVC, there are two main parts to the equation - the first part tries to find a small set of weights that solves the problem, and the second part tries to minimize the classification errors.
C is the penalty multiplier associated with misclassifications. If you decrease C, then you reduce the penalty (lower training accuracy but better generalization to test) and vice versa.
Try setting C to 1e+6. You will see that you almost always get 100% accuracy. The classifier has learnt the pattern x1 < x2. But it figures that a 99.2% accuracy is enough when you look at another parameter called tol. This controls how much error is negligible for you and by default it is set to 1e-3. If you reduce the tolerance, you can also expect to get similar results.
In general, I would suggest you to use something like GridSearchCV (link) to find the optimal values of hyper parameters like C as this internally splits the dataset into train and validation. This helps you to ensure that you are not just tweaking the hyperparameters to get a good training accuracy but you are also making sure that the classifier will do well in practice.
I have two data sets that looks like this:
DATASET 1
Training (Class 0: 8982, Class 1: 380)
Testing (Class 0: 574, Class 1: 12)
DATASET 2
Training (Class 0: 8982, Class 1: 380)
Testing (Class 0: 574, Class 1: 8)
I am trying to build a deep feedforward neural net in Tensorflow. I get accuracies in the 90s and AUC scores in the 80s. Of course, the data set is heavily imbalanced so those metrics are useless. My emphasis is on getting a good recall value and I do not want to oversample the Class 1. I have toyed with the complexity of the model to no avail, the best model predicted only 25% of the positive class correctly.
My question is, considering the distribution of these data sets, is it a futile move to build models without getting more data(I can't get more data) or there's a way around getting to work with data that is this much imbalanced.
Thanks!
Question
Can I use tensorflow to learn imbalance classification with a ratio of about 30:1
Answer
Yes, and I have. Specifically Tensorflow provides the ability to feed in a weight matrix. Look at tf.losses.sigmoid_cross_entropy, there is a weights parameter. You can feed in a matrix that matches Y in shape and for each value of Y provide the relative weight that training example should have.
One way to find the correct weights is to start different balances and run your training and then look at your confusion matrix and a run down of precision vs accuracy for each class. Once you get both classes to have about the same precision to accuracy ratio then they are balanced.
Example Implementation
Here is an example implementation that converts a Y into a weight matrix that has performed very well for me
def weightMatrix( matrix , most=0.9 ) :
b = np.maximum( np.minimum( most , matrix.mean(0) ) , 1. - most )
a = 1./( b * 2. )
weights = a * ( matrix + ( 1 - matrix ) * b / ( 1 - b ) )
return weights
The most parameter represents the largest fractional difference to consider. 0.9 equates to .1:.9 = 1:9 , where as .5 equates to 1:1. Values below .5 don't work.
You might be interested to have a look at this question and its answer. Its scope is a priori more restricted than yours, as it addresses specifically weights for classification, but it seems very relevant to your case.
Also, AUC is definitely not irrelevant: it is actually independent of your data imbalance.
I have a few distance functions which return distance between two images , I want to combine these distance into a single distance, using weighted scoring e.g. ax1+bx2+cx3+dx4 etc i want to learn these weights automatically such that my test error is minimised.
For this purpose i have a labeled dataset which has various triplets of images such that (a,b,c) , a has less distance to b than it has to c.
i.e. d(a,b)<d(a,c)
I want to learn such weights so that this ordering of triplets can be as accurate as possible.(i.e. the weighted linear score given is less for a&b and more for a&c).
What sort of machine learning algorithm can be used for the task,and how the desired task can be achieved?
Hopefully I understand your question correctly, but it seems that this could be solved more easily with constrained optimization directly, rather than classical machine learning (the algorithms of which are often implemented via constrained optimization, see e.g. SVMs).
As an example, a possible objective function could be:
argmin_{w} || e ||_2 + lambda || w ||_2
where w is your weight vector (Oh god why is there no latex here), e is the vector of errors (one component per training triplet), lambda is some tunable regularizer constant (could be zero), and your constraints could be:
max{d(I_p,I_r)-d(I_p,I_q),0} <= e_j for jth (p,q,r) in T s.t. d(I_p,I_r) <= d(I_p,I_q)
for the jth constraint, where I_i is image i, T is the training set, and
d(u,v) = sum_{w_i in w} w_i * d_i(u,v)
with d_i being your ith distance function.
Notice that e is measuring how far your chosen weights are from satisfying all the chosen triplets in the training set. If the weights preserve ordering of label j, then d(I_p,I_r)-d(I_p,I_q) < 0 and so e_j = 0. If they don't, then e_j will measure the amount of violation of training label j. Solving the optimization problem would give the best w; i.e. the one with the lowest error.
If you're not familiar with linear/quadratic programming, convex optimization, etc... then start googling :) Many libraries exist for this type of thing.
On the other hand, if you would prefer a machine learning approach, you may be able to adapt some metric learning approaches to your problem.
Is it a good practice to use sigmoid or tanh output layers in Neural networks directly to estimate probabilities?
i.e the probability of given input to occur is the output of sigmoid function in the NN
EDIT
I wanted to use neural network to learn and predict the probability of a given input to occur..
You may consider the input as State1-Action-State2 tuple.
Hence the output of NN is the probability that State2 happens when applying Action on State1..
I Hope that does clear things..
EDIT
When training NN, I do random Action on State1 and observe resultant State2; then teach NN that input State1-Action-State2 should result in output 1.0
First, just a couple of small points on the conventional MLP lexicon (might help for internet searches, etc.): 'sigmoid' and 'tanh' are not 'output layers' but functions, usually referred to as "activation functions". The return value of the activation function is indeed the output from each layer, but they are not the output layer themselves (nor do they calculate probabilities).
Additionally, your question recites a choice between two "alternatives" ("sigmoid and tanh"), but they are not actually alternatives, rather the term 'sigmoidal function' is a generic/informal term for a class of functions, which includes the hyperbolic tangent ('tanh') that you refer to.
The term 'sigmoidal' is probably due to the characteristic shape of the function--the return (y) values are constrained between two asymptotic values regardless of the x value. The function output is usually normalized so that these two values are -1 and 1 (or 0 and 1). (This output behavior, by the way, is obviously inspired by the biological neuron which either fires (+1) or it doesn't (-1)). A look at the key properties of sigmoidal functions and you can see why they are ideally suited as activation functions in feed-forward, backpropagating neural networks: (i) real-valued and differentiable, (ii) having exactly one inflection point, and (iii) having a pair of horizontal asymptotes.
In turn, the sigmoidal function is one category of functions used as the activation function (aka "squashing function") in FF neural networks solved using backprop. During training or prediction, the weighted sum of the inputs (for a given layer, one layer at a time) is passed in as an argument to the activation function which returns the output for that layer. Another group of functions apparently used as the activation function is piecewise linear function. The step function is the binary variant of a PLF:
def step_fn(x) :
if x <= 0 :
y = 0
if x > 0 :
y = 1
(On practical grounds, I doubt the step function is a plausible choice for the activation function, but perhaps it helps understand the purpose of the activation function in NN operation.)
I suppose there an unlimited number of possible activation functions, but in practice, you only see a handful; in fact just two account for the overwhelming majority of cases (both are sigmoidal). Here they are (in python) so you can experiment for yourself, given that the primary selection criterion is a practical one:
# logistic function
def sigmoid2(x) :
return 1 / (1 + e**(-x))
# hyperbolic tangent
def sigmoid1(x) :
return math.tanh(x)
what are the factors to consider in selecting an activation function?
First the function has to give the desired behavior (arising from or as evidenced by sigmoidal shape). Second, the function must be differentiable. This is a requirement for backpropagation, which is the optimization technique used during training to 'fill in' the values of the hidden layers.
For instance, the derivative of the hyperbolic tangent is (in terms of the output, which is how it is usually written) :
def dsigmoid(y) :
return 1.0 - y**2
Beyond those two requriements, what makes one function between than another is how efficiently it trains the network--i.e., which one causes convergence (reaching the local minimum error) in the fewest epochs?
#-------- Edit (see OP's comment below) ---------#
I am not quite sure i understood--sometimes it's difficult to communicate details of a NN, without the code, so i should probably just say that it's fine subject to this proviso: What you want the NN to predict must be the same as the dependent variable used during training. So for instance, if you train your NN using two states (e.g., 0, 1) as the single dependent variable (which is obviously missing from your testing/production data) then that's what your NN will return when run in "prediction mode" (post training, or with a competent weight matrix).
You should choose the right loss function to minimize.
The squared error does not lead to the maximum likelihood hypothesis here.
The squared error is derived from a model with Gaussian noise:
P(y|x,h) = k1 * e**-(k2 * (y - h(x))**2)
You estimate the probabilities directly. Your model is:
P(Y=1|x,h) = h(x)
P(Y=0|x,h) = 1 - h(x)
P(Y=1|x,h) is the probability that event Y=1 will happen after seeing x.
The maximum likelihood hypothesis for your model is:
h_max_likelihood = argmax_h product(
h(x)**y * (1-h(x))**(1-y) for x, y in examples)
This leads to the "cross entropy" loss function.
See chapter 6 in Mitchell's Machine Learning
for the loss function and its derivation.
There is one problem with this approach: if you have vectors from R^n and your network maps those vectors into the interval [0, 1], it will not be guaranteed that the network represents a valid probability density function, since the integral of the network is not guaranteed to equal 1.
E.g., a neural network could map any input form R^n to 1.0. But that is clearly not possible.
So the answer to your question is: no, you can't.
However, you can just say that your network never sees "unrealistic" code samples and thus ignore this fact. For a discussion of this (and also some more cool information on how to model PDFs with neural networks) see contrastive backprop.
I have a scenario where I have several thousand instances of data. The data itself is represented as a single integer value. I want to be able to detect when an instance is an extreme outlier.
For example, with the following example data:
a = 10
b = 14
c = 25
d = 467
e = 12
d is clearly an anomaly, and I would want to perform a specific action based on this.
I was tempted to just try an use my knowledge of the particular domain to detect anomalies. For instance, figure out a distance from the mean value that is useful, and check for that, based on heuristics. However, I think it's probably better if I investigate more general, robust anomaly detection techniques, which have some theory behind them.
Since my working knowledge of mathematics is limited, I'm hoping to find a technique which is simple, such as using standard deviation. Hopefully the single-dimensioned nature of the data will make this quite a common problem, but if more information for the scenario is required please leave a comment and I will give more info.
Edit: thought I'd add more information about the data and what I've tried in case it makes one answer more correct than another.
The values are all positive and non-zero. I expect that the values will form a normal distribution. This expectation is based on an intuition of the domain rather than through analysis, if this is not a bad thing to assume, please let me know. In terms of clustering, unless there's also standard algorithms to choose a k-value, I would find it hard to provide this value to a k-Means algorithm.
The action I want to take for an outlier/anomaly is to present it to the user, and recommend that the data point is basically removed from the data set (I won't get in to how they would do that, but it makes sense for my domain), thus it will not be used as input to another function.
So far I have tried three-sigma, and the IQR outlier test on my limited data set. IQR flags values which are not extreme enough, three-sigma points out instances which better fit with my intuition of the domain.
Information on algorithms, techniques or links to resources to learn about this specific scenario are valid and welcome answers.
What is a recommended anomaly detection technique for simple, one-dimensional data?
Check out the three-sigma rule:
mu = mean of the data
std = standard deviation of the data
IF abs(x-mu) > 3*std THEN x is outlier
An alternative method is the IQR outlier test:
Q25 = 25th_percentile
Q75 = 75th_percentile
IQR = Q75 - Q25 // inter-quartile range
IF (x < Q25 - 1.5*IQR) OR (Q75 + 1.5*IQR < x) THEN x is a mild outlier
IF (x < Q25 - 3.0*IQR) OR (Q75 + 3.0*IQR < x) THEN x is an extreme outlier
this test is usually employed by Box plots (indicated by the whiskers):
EDIT:
For your case (simple 1D univariate data), I think my first answer is well suited.
That however isn't applicable to multivariate data.
#smaclell suggested using K-means to find the outliers. Beside the fact that it is mainly a clustering algorithm (not really an outlier detection technique), the problem with k-means is that it requires knowing in advance a good value for the number of clusters K.
A better suited technique is the DBSCAN: a density-based clustering algorithm. Basically it grows regions with sufficiently high density into clusters which will be maximal set of density-connected points.
DBSCAN requires two parameters: epsilon and minPoints. It starts with an arbitrary point that has not been visited. It then finds all the neighbor points within distance epsilon of the starting point.
If the number of neighbors is greater than or equal to minPoints, a cluster is formed. The starting point and its neighbors are added to this cluster and the starting point is marked as visited. The algorithm then repeats the evaluation process for all the neighbors recursively.
If the number of neighbors is less than minPoints, the point is marked as noise.
If a cluster is fully expanded (all points within reach are visited) then the algorithm proceeds to iterate through the remaining unvisited points until they are depleted.
Finally the set of all points marked as noise are considered outliers.
There are a variety of clustering techniques you could use to try to identify central tendencies within your data. One such algorithm we used heavily in my pattern recognition course was K-Means. This would allow you to identify whether there are more than one related sets of data, such as a bimodal distribution. This does require you having some knowledge of how many clusters to expect but is fairly efficient and easy to implement.
After you have the means you could then try to find out if any point is far from any of the means. You can define 'far' however you want but I would recommend the suggestions by #Amro as a good starting point.
For a more in-depth discussion of clustering algorithms refer to the wikipedia entry on clustering.
This is an old topic but still it lacks some information.
Evidently, this can be seen as a case of univariate outlier detection. The approaches presented above have several pros and cons. Here are some weak spots:
Detection of outliers with the mean and sigma has the obvious disadvantage of dependence of mean and sigma on the outliers themselves.
The case of the small sample limit (see question for example) is not adequately covered by, 3 sigma, K-Means, IQR etc.
And I could go on... However the statistical literature offers a simple metric: the median absolute deviation. (Medians are insensitive to outliers)
Details can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128047330/introduction-to-robust-estimation-and-hypothesis-testing
I think this problem can be solved in a few lines of python code like this:
import numpy as np
import scipy.stats as sts
x = np.array([10, 14, 25, 467, 12]) # your values
np.abs(x - np.median(x))/(sts.median_abs_deviation(x)/0.6745) #MAD criterion
Subsequently you reject values above a certain threshold (97.5 percentile of the distribution of data), in case of an assumed normal distribution the threshold is 2.24. Here it translates to:
array([ 0.6745 , 0. , 1.854875, 76.387125, 0.33725 ])
or the 467 entry being rejected.
Of course, one could argue, that the MAD (as presented) also assumes a normal dist. Therefore, why is it that argument 2 above (small sample) does not apply here? The answer is that MAD has a very high breakdown point. It is easy to choose different threshold points from different distributions and come to the same conclusion: 467 is the outlier.
Both three-sigma rule and IQR test are often used, and there are a couple of simple algorithms to detect anomalies.
The three-sigma rule is correct
mu = mean of the data
std = standard deviation of the data
IF abs(x-mu) > 3*std THEN x is outlier
The IQR test should be:
Q25 = 25th_percentile
Q75 = 75th_percentile
IQR = Q75 - Q25 // inter-quartile range
If x > Q75 + 1.5 * IQR or x < Q25 - 1.5 * IQR THEN x is a mild outlier
If x > Q75 + 3.0 * IQR or x < Q25 – 3.0 * IQR THEN x is a extreme outlier