I was asked in an interview to solve a use case with the help of machine learning. I have to use a Machine Learning algorithm to identify fraud from transactions. My training dataset has lets say 100,200 transactions, out of which 100,000 are legal transactions and 200 are fraud.
I cannot use the dataset as a whole to make the model because it would be a biased dataset and the model would be a very bad one.
Lets say for example I take a sample of 200 good transactions which represent the dataset well(good transactions), and the 200 fraud ones and make the model using this as the training data.
The question I was asked was that how would I scale up the 200 good transactions to the whole data set of 100,000 good records so that my result can be mapped to all types of transactions. I have never solved this kind of a scenario so I did not know how to approach it.
Any kind of guidance as to how I can go about it would be helpful.
This is a general question thrown in an interview. Information about the problem is succinct and vague (we don't know for example the number of features!). First thing you need to ask yourself is What do the interviewer wants me to respond? So, based on this context the answer has to be formulated in a similar general way. This means that we don't have to find 'the solution' but instead give arguments that show that we actually know how to approach the problem instead of solving it.
The problem we have presented with is that the minority class (fraud) is only a ~0.2% of the total. This is obviously a huge imbalance. A predictor that only predicted all cases as 'non fraud' would get a classification accuracy of 99.8%! Therefore, definitely something has to be done.
We will define our main task as a binary classification problem where we want to predict whether a transaction is labelled as positive (fraud) or negative (not fraud).
The first step would be considering what techniques we do have available to reduce imbalance. This can be done either by reducing the majority class (undersampling) or increasing the number of minority samples (oversampling). Both have drawbacks though. The first implies a severe loss of potential useful information from the dataset, while the second can present problems of overfitting. Some techniques to improve overfitting are SMOTE and ADASYN, which use strategies to improve variety in the generation of new synthetic samples.
Of course, cross-validation in this case becomes paramount. Additionally, in case we are finally doing oversampling, this has to be 'coordinated' with the cross-validation approach to ensure we are making the most of these two ideas. Check http://www.marcoaltini.com/blog/dealing-with-imbalanced-data-undersampling-oversampling-and-proper-cross-validation for more details.
Apart from these sampling ideas, when selecting our learner, many ML methods can be trained/optimised for specific metrics. In our case, we do not want to optimise accuracy definitely. Instead, we want to train the model to optimise either ROC-AUC or specifically looking for a high recall even at a loss of precission, as we want to predict all the positive 'frauds' or at least raise an alarm even though some will prove false alarms. Models can adapt internal parameters (thresholds) to find the optimal balance between these two metrics. Have a look at this nice blog for more info about metrics: https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/02/7-important-model-evaluation-error-metrics/
Finally, is only a matter of evaluate the model empirically to check what options and parameters are the most suitable given the dataset. Following these ideas does not guarantee 100% that we are going to be able to tackle the problem at hand. But it ensures we are in a much better position to try to learn from data and being able to get rid of those evil fraudsters out there, while perhaps getting a nice job along the way ;)
In this problem you want to classify transactions as good or fraud. However your data is really imbalance. In that you will probably be interested by Anomaly detection. I will let you read all the article for more details but I will quote a few parts in my answer.
I think this will convince you that this is what you are looking for to solve this problem:
Is it not just Classification?
The answer is yes if the following three conditions are met.
You have labeled training data Anomalous and normal classes are
balanced ( say at least 1:5) Data is not autocorrelated. ( That one
data point does not depend on earlier data points. This often breaks
in time series data). If all of above is true, we do not need an
anomaly detection techniques and we can use an algorithm like Random
Forests or Support Vector Machines (SVM).
However, often it is very hard to find training data, and even when
you can find them, most anomalies are 1:1000 to 1:10^6 events where
classes are not balanced.
Now to answer your question:
Generally, the class imbalance is solved using an ensemble built by
resampling data many times. The idea is to first create new datasets
by taking all anomalous data points and adding a subset of normal data
points (e.g. as 4 times as anomalous data points). Then a classifier
is built for each data set using SVM or Random Forest, and those
classifiers are combined using ensemble learning. This approach has
worked well and produced very good results.
If the data points are autocorrelated with each other, then simple
classifiers would not work well. We handle those use cases using time
series classification techniques or Recurrent Neural networks.
I would also suggest another approach of the problem. In this article the author said:
If you do not have training data, still it is possible to do anomaly
detection using unsupervised learning and semi-supervised learning.
However, after building the model, you will have no idea how well it
is doing as you have nothing to test it against. Hence, the results of
those methods need to be tested in the field before placing them in
the critical path.
However you do have a few fraud data to test if your unsupervised algorithm is doing well or not, and if it is doing a good enough job, it can be a first solution that will help gathering more data to train a supervised classifier later.
Note that I am not an expert and this is just what I've come up with after mixing my knowledge and some articles I read recently on the subject.
For more question about machine learning I suggest you to use this stackexchange community
I hope it will help you :)
Related
I have used the extreme learning machine for classification purpose and found that my classification accuracy is only at 70+% which leads me to use the ensemble method by creating more classification model and testing data will be classified based on the majority of the models' classification. However, this method only increase classification accuracy by a small margin. Can I asked what are the other methods which can be used to improve classification accuracy of the 2 dimension linearly inseparable dataset ?
Your question is very broad ... There's no way to help you properly without knowing the real problem you are treating. But, some methods to enhance a classification accuracy, talking generally, are:
1 - Cross Validation : Separe your train dataset in groups, always separe a group for prediction and change the groups in each execution. Then you will know what data is better to train a more accurate model.
2 - Cross Dataset : The same as cross validation, but using different datasets.
3 - Tuning your model : Its basically change the parameters you're using to train your classification model (IDK which classification algorithm you're using so its hard to help more).
4 - Improve, or use (if you're not using) the normalization process : Discover which techniques (change the geometry, colors etc) will provide a more concise data to you to use on the training.
5 - Understand more the problem you're treating... Try to implement other methods to solve the same problem. Always there's at least more than one way to solve the same problem. You maybe not using the best approach.
Enhancing a model performance can be challenging at times. I’m sure, a lot of you would agree with me if you’ve found yourself stuck in a similar situation. You try all the strategies and algorithms that you’ve learnt. Yet, you fail at improving the accuracy of your model. You feel helpless and stuck. And, this is where 90% of the data scientists give up. Let’s dig deeper now. Now we’ll check out the proven way to improve the accuracy of a model:
Add more data
Treat missing and Outlier values
Feature Engineering
Feature Selection
Multiple algorithms
Algorithm Tuning
Ensemble methods
Cross Validation
if you feel the information is lacking then this link should you learn, hopefully can help : https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2015/12/improve-machine-learning-results/
sorry if the information I give is less satisfactory
Deep learning has been a revolution recently and its success is related with the huge amount of data that we can currently manage and the generalization of the GPUs.
So here is the problem I'm facing. I know that deep neural nets have the best performance, there is no doubt about it. However, they have a good performance when the number of training examples is huge. If the number of training examples is low it is better to use a SVM or decision trees.
But what is huge? what is low? In this paper of face recognition (FaceNet by Google) they show the performance vs the flops (which can be related with the number of training examples)
They used between 100M and 200M training examples, which is huge.
My question is:
Is there any method to predict in advance the number of training examples I need to have a good performance in deep learning??? The reason I ask this is because it is a waste of time to manually classify a dataset if the performance is not going to be good.
My question is: Is there any method to predict in advance the number of training examples I need to have a good performance in deep learning??? The reason I ask this is because it is a waste of time to manually classify a dataset if the performance is not going to be good.
The short answer is no. You do not have this kind of knowledge, furthermore you will never have. These kind of problems are impossible to solve, ever.
What you can have are just some general heuristics/empirical knowledge, which will say if it is probable that DL will not work well (as it is possible to predict fail of the method, while nearly impossible to predict the success), nothing more. In current research, DL rarely works well for datasets smaller than hundreads thousands/milions of samples (I do not count MNIST because everything works well on MNIST). Furthermore, DL is heavily studied actually in just two types of problems - NLP and image processing, thus you cannot really extraplate it to any other kind of problems (no free lunch theorem).
Update
Just to make it a bit more clear. What you are asking about is to predit whether given estimator (or set of estimators) will yield a good results given a particular training set. In fact you even restrict just to the size.
The simpliest proof (based on your simplification) is as follows: for any N (sample size) I can construct N-mode (or N^2 to make it even more obvious) distribution which no estimator can reasonably estimate (including deep neural network) and I can construct trivial data with just one label (thus perfect model requires just one sample). End of proof (there are two different answers for the same N).
Now let us assume that we do have access to the training samples (without labels for now) and not just sample size. Now we are given X (training samples) of size N. Again I can construct N-mode labeling yielding impossible to estimate distribution (by anything) and trivial labeling (just a single label!). Again - two different answers for the exact same input.
Ok, so maybe given training samples and labels we can predict what will behave well? Now we cannot manipulate samples nor labels to show that there are no such function. So we have to get back to statistics and what we are trying to answer. We are asking about expected value of loss function over whole probability distribution which generated our training samples. So now again, the whole "clue" is to see, that I can manipulate the underlying distributions (construct many different ones, many of which impossible to model well by deep neural network) and still expect that my training samples come from them. This is what statisticians call the problem of having non-representible sample from a pdf. In particular, in ML, we often relate to this problem with curse of dimensionality. In simple words - in order to estimate the probability well we need enormous number of samples. Silverman shown that even if you know that your data is just a normal distribution and you ask "what is value in 0?" You need exponentialy many samples (as compared to space dimensionality). In practise our distributions are multi-modal, complex and unknown thus this amount is even higher. We are quite safe to say that given number of samples we could ever gather we cannot ever estimate reasonably well distributions with more than 10 dimensions. Consequently - whatever we do to minimize the expected error we are just using heuristics, which connect the empirical error (fitting to the data) with some kind of regularization (removing overfitting, usually by putting some prior assumptions on distributions families). To sum up we cannot construct a method able to distinguish if our model will behave good, because this would require deciding which "complexity" distribution generated our samples. There will be some simple cases when we can do it - and probably they will say something like "oh! this data is so simple even knn will work well!". You cannot have generic tool, for DNN or any other (complex) model though (to be strict - we can have such predictor for very simple models, because they simply are so limited that we can easily check if your data follows this extreme simplicity or not).
Consequently, this boils down nearly to the same question - to actually building a model... thus you will need to try and validate your approach (thus - train DNN to answer if DNN works well). You can use cross validation, bootstraping or anything else here, but all essentialy do the same - build multiple models of your desired type and validate it.
To sum up
I do not claim we will not have a good heuristics, heuristic drive many parts of ML quite well. I only answer if there is a method able to answer your question - and there is no such thing and cannot exist. There can be many rules of thumb, which for some problems (classes of problems) will work well. And we already do have such:
for NLP/2d images you should have ~100,000 samples at least to work with DNN
having lots of unlabeled instances can partially substitute the above number (thus you can have like 30,000 labeled ones + 70,000 unlabeled) with pretty reasonable results
Furthermore this does not mean that given this size of data DNN will be better than kernelized SVM or even linear model. This is exactly what I was refering to earlier - you can easily construct counterexamples of distributions where SVM will work the same or even better despite number of samples. The same applies for any other technique.
Yet still, even if you are just interested if DNN will work well (and not better than others) these are just empirical, trivial heuristics, which are based on at most 10 (!) types of problems. This could be very harmfull to treat these as rules or methods. This are just rough, first intuitions gained through extremely unstructured, random research that happened in last decade.
Ok, so I am lost now... when should I use DL? And the answer is exteremly simple:
Use deep learning only if:
You already tested "shallow" techniques and they do not work well
You have large amounts of data
You have huge computational resources
You have experience with neural networks (this are very tricky and ungreatful models, really)
You have great amount of time to spare, even if you will just get a few % better results as an effect.
This is my problem description:
"According to the Survey on Household Income and Wealth, we need to find out the top 10% households with the most income and expenditures. However, we know that these collected data is not reliable due to many misstatements. Despite these misstatements, we have some features in the dataset which are certainly reliable. But these certain features are just a little part of information for each household wealth."
Unreliable data means that households tell lies to government. These households misstate their income and wealth in order to unfairly get more governmental services. Therefore, these fraudulent statements in original data will lead to incorrect results and patterns.
Now, I have below questions:
How should we deal with unreliable data in data science?
Is there any way to figure out these misstatements and then report the top 10% rich people with better accuracy using Machine Learning algorithms?
-How can we evaluate our errors in this study? Since we have unlabeled dataset, should I look for labeling techniques? Or, should I use unsupervised methods? Or, should I work with semi-supervised learning methods?
Is there any idea or application in Machine Learning which tries to improve the quality of collected data?
Please introduce me any ideas or references which can help me in this issue.
Thanks in advance.
Q: How should we deal with unreliable data in data science
A: Use feature engineering to fix unreliable data (make some transformations on unreliable data to make it reliable) or drop them out completely - bad features could significantly decrease the quality of the model
Q: Is there any way to figure out these misstatements and then report the top 10% rich people with better accuracy using Machine Learning algorithms?
A: ML algorithms are not magic sticks, they can't figure out anything unless you tell them what you are looking for. Can you describe what means 'unreliable'? If yes, you can, as I mentioned, use feature engineering or write a code which will fix the data. Otherwise no ML algorithm will be able to help you, without the description of what exactly you want to achieve
Q: Is there any idea or application in Machine Learning which tries to improve the quality of collected data?
A: I don't think so just because the question itself is too open-ended. What means 'the quality of the data'?
Generally, here are couple of things for you to consider:
1) Spend some time on googling feature engineering guides. They cover how to prepare your data for you ML algorithms, refine it, fix it. Good data with good features dramatically increase the results.
2) You don't need to use all of features from original data. Some of features of original dataset are meaningless and you don't need to use them. Try to run gradient boosting machine or random forest classifier from scikit-learn on your dataset to perform classification (or regression, if you do regression). These algorithms also evaluate importance of each feature of original dataset. Part of your features will have extremely low importance for classification, so you may wish to drop them out completely or try to combine unimportant features together somehow to produce something more important.
We have a dataset with 10,000 manually labeled instances, and a classifier that was trained on all of this data.
The classifier was then evaluated on ALL of this data to obtain a 95% success rate.
What exactly is wrong with this approach? Is it just that the statistic 95% is not very informative in this setup? Can there still be some value in this 95% number? While I understand that, theoretically, it is not a good idea, I don't have enough experience in this area to be sure by myself. Also note that I have neither built nor evaluated the classifier in question.
Common sense aside, could someone give me a very solid, authoritative reference, saying that this setup is somehow wrong?
For example, this page does say
Evaluating model performance with the data used for training is not acceptable in data mining because it can easily generate overoptimistic and overfitted models.
However, this is hardly an authoritative reference. In fact, this quote is plainly wrong, as the evaluation has nothing to do with generating overfitted models. It could generate overoptimistic data scientists who would choose the wrong model, but a particular evaluation strategy does not have anything to do with overfitting models per se.
The problem is the possibility of overfitting. That does not mean that there is no value in the accuracy you reported for that entire data set, as it can be considered an estimate of the upper bound for the performance of the classifier on new data.
It is subjective to say who constitutes a "very solid, authoritative reference"; however Machine Learning by Tom Mitchell (ISBN 978-0070428072) is a widely read and oft-cited text that discusses the problem of overfitting in general and specifically with regard to decision trees and artificial neural networks. In addition to discussion of overfitting, the text also discusses various approaches to the training and validation set approach (e.g., cross-validation).
I am trying to solve some classification problem. It seems many classical approaches follow a similar paradigm. That is, train a model with some training set and than use it to predict the class labels for new instances.
I am wondering if it is possible to introduce some feedback mechanism into the paradigm. In control theory, introducing a feedback loop is an effective way to improve system performance.
Currently a straight forward approach on my mind is, first we start with a initial set of instances and train a model with them. Then each time the model makes a wrong prediction, we add the wrong instance into the training set. This is different from blindly enlarge the training set because it is more targeting. This can be seen as some kind of negative feedback in the language of control theory.
Is there any research going on with the feedback approach? Could anyone shed some light?
There are two areas of research that spring to mind.
The first is Reinforcement Learning. This is an online learning paradigm that allows you to get feedback and update your policy (in this instance, your classifier) as you observe the results.
The second is active learning, where the classifier gets to select examples from a pool of unclassified examples to get labelled. The key is to have the classifier choose the examples for labelling which best improve its accuracy by choosing difficult examples under the current classifier hypothesis.
I have used such feedback for every machine-learning project I worked on. It allows to train on less data (thus training is faster) than by selecting data randomly. The model accuracy is also improved faster than by using randomly selected training data. I'm working on image processing (computer vision) data so one other type of selection I'm doing is to add clustered false (wrong) data instead of adding every single false data. This is because I assume I will always have some fails, so my definition for positive data is when it is clustered in the same area of the image.
I saw this paper some time ago, which seems to be what you are looking for.
They are basically modeling classification problems as Markov decision processes and solving using the ACLA algorithm. The paper is much more detailed than what I could write here, but ultimately they are getting results that outperform the multilayer perceptron, so this looks like a pretty efficient method.