Imagine we have a classification problem on a dataset where the examples are only positive (equivalently negative). For instance, on a problem where the the winning class is specified by position (e.g. think of a tennis dataset problem where the first player is always the winner). How can we create negative examples in order to train a supervised learning algorithm on this dataset? One idea could be to generate negative examples, by exchanging the positions of the features that are tied to each of the classes. Do you think this will give an unbiased dataset? Could we create negative duplicates of our original dataset and train a supervised learning algorithm on this double dataset?
Related
I have a dataset with thousand of sentences belonging to a subject. I would like to know what would be best to create a classifier that will predict a text as "True" or "False" depending on whether they talk about that subject or not.
I've been using solutions with Weka (basic classifiers) and Tensorflow (neural network approaches).
I use string to word vector to preprocess the data.
Since there are no negative samples, I deal with a single class. I've tried one-class classifier (libSVM in Weka) but the number of false positives is so high I cannot use it.
I also tried adding negative samples but when the text to predict does not fall in the negative space, the classifiers I've tried (NB, CNN,...) tend to predict it as a false positive. I guess it's because of the sheer amount of positive samples
I'm open to discard ML as the tool to predict the new incoming data if necessary
Thanks for any help
I have eventually added data for the negative class and build a Multilineal Naive Bayes classifier which is doing the job as expected.
(the size of the data added is around one million samples :) )
My answer is based on the assumption that that adding of at least 100 negative samples for author’s dataset with 1000 positive samples is acceptable for the author of the question, since I have no answer for my question about it to the author yet
Since this case with detecting of specific topic is looks like particular case of topics classification I would recommend using classification approach with the two simple classes 1 class – your topic and another – all other topics for beginning
I succeeded with the same approach for face recognition task – at the beginning I built model with one output neuron with high level of output for face detection and low if no face detected
Nevertheless such approach gave me too low accuracy – less than 80%
But when I tried using 2 output neurons – 1 class for face presence on image and another if no face detected on the image, then it gave me more than 90% accuracy for MLP, even without using of CNN
The key point here is using of SoftMax function for the output layer. It gives significant increase of accuracy. From my experience, it increased accuracy of the MNIST dataset even for MLP from 92% up to 97% for the same model
About dataset. Majority of classification algorithms with a trainer, at least from my experience are more efficient with equal quantity of samples for each class in a training data set. In fact, if I have for 1 class less than 10% of average quantity for other classes it makes model almost useless for the detection of this class. So if you have 1000 samples for your topic, then I suggest creating 1000 samples with as many different topics as possible
Alternatively, if you don’t want to create a such big set of negative samples for your dataset, you can create a smaller set of negative samples for your dataset and use batch training with a size of batch = 2x your negative sample quantity. In order to do so, split your positive samples in n chunks with the size of each chunk ~ negative samples quantity and when train your NN by N batches for each iteration of training process with chunk[i] of positive samples and all your negative samples for each batch. Just be aware, that lower accuracy will be the price for this trade-off
Also, you could consider creation of more generic detector of topics – figure out all possible topics which can present in texts which your model should analyze, for example – 10 topics and create a training dataset with 1000 samples per each topic. It also can give higher accuracy
One more point about the dataset. The best practice is to train your model only with part of a dataset, for example – 80% and use the rest 20% for cross-validation. This cross-validation of unknown previously data for model will give you a good estimation of your model accuracy in real life, not for the training data set and allows to avoid overfitting issues
About building of model. I like doing it by "from simple to complex" approach. So I would suggest starting from simple MLP with SoftMax output and dataset with 1000 positive and 1000 negative samples. After reaching 80%-90% accuracy you can consider using CNN for your model, and also I would suggest increasing training dataset quantity, because deep learning algorithms are more efficient with bigger dataset
For text data you can use Spy EM.
The basic idea is to combine your positive set with a whole bunch of random samples, some of which you hold out. You initially treat all the random documents as the negative class, and train a classifier with your positive samples and these negative samples.
Now some of those random samples will actually be positive, and you can conservatively relabel any documents that are scored higher than the lowest scoring held out true positive samples.
Then you iterate this process until it stablizes.
==> to see learning curves
I am trying a random forest regressor for a machine learning problem (price estimation of spatial points). I have a sample of spatial points in a city. The sample is not randomly drawn since there are very few observations downtown. And I want to estimate prices for all addresses in the city.
I have a good cross validation score (absolute mean squared error) an also a good test score after splitting the training set. But predictions are very bad.
What could explain this results ?
I plotted the learning curve (link above) : cross validation score increases with number of instances (that sounds logical), training score remains high (should it decrease ?) ... What do these learning curves show ? And in general how do we "read" learning curves ?
Moreover, I suppose that the sample is not representative. I tried to make the dataset for which I want predictions spatially similar to the training set by drawing whitout replacement according to proportions of observations in each district for the training set. But this didn't change the result. How can I handle this non representativity ?
Thanks in advance for any help
There are a few common cases that pop up when looking at training and cross-validation scores:
Overfitting: When your model has a very high training score but a poor cross-validation score. Generally this occurs when your model is too complex, allowing it to fit the training data exceedingly well but giving it poor generalization to the validation dataset.
Underfitting: When neither the training nor the cross-validation scores are high. This occurs when your model is not complex enough.
Ideal fit: When both the training and cross-validation scores are fairly high. You model not only learns to represent the training data, but it generalizes well to new data.
Here's a nice graphic from this Quora post showing how model complexity and error relate to the type a fit a model exhibits.
In the plot above, the errors for a given complexity are the errors found at equilibrium. In contrast, learning curves show how the score progresses throughout the entire training process. Generally you never want to see the score decreasing during training, as this usually means your model is diverging. But the difference between the training and validation scores as they move forward in time (towards equilibrium) indicates how well your model is fitting.
Notice that even when you have an ideal fit (middle of complexity axis) it is common to see a training score that's higher than the cross-validation score, since the model's parameters are updated using the training data. But since you're getting poor predictions, and since validation score is ~10% lower than training score (assuming the score is out of 1), I would guess that your model is overfitting and could benefit from less complexity.
To answer your second point, models will generalize better if the training data is a better representation of validation data. So when splitting the data into training and validation sets, I recommend finding a way to randomly segregate the data. For example, you could generate a list of all the points in the city, iterate of the list, and for each point draw from a uniform distribution to decide which dataset that point belongs to.
My crime classification dataset has indicator features, such as has_rifle.
The job is to train and predict whether data points are criminals or not. The metric is weighted mean absolute error, where if the person is criminal, and the model predicts him/her as not, then the weight is large as 5. If person is not criminal and the model predicts as he/she is, then weight is 1. Otherwise the model predicts correctly, with weight 0.
I've used classif:multinom method in mlr in R, and tuned the threshold to 1/6. The result is not that good. Adaboost is slightly better. Though neither is perfect.
I'm wondering which method is typically used in this kind of binary classification problem with a sparse {0,1} matrix? And how to improve the performance measured by the weighted mean absolute error metric?
Dealing with sparse data is not a trivial task. Lack of information makes difficult to capture features such as variance. I would suggest you to search for subspace clustering methods or to be more specific, soft subspace clustering. The last one usually identifies relevant/irrelevant data dimensions. It is a good approach when you want to improve classification accuracy.
I have a question about some basic concepts of machine learning. The examples, I observed, were giving a brief overview .For training the system, feature vector is given as input. In case of supervised learning, the dataset is labelled. I have confusion about labelling. For example if I have to distinguish between two types of pictures, I will provide a feature vector and on output side for testing, I'll provide 1 for type A and 2 for type B. But if I want to extract a region of interest from a dataset of images. How will I label my data to extract ROI using SVM. I hope I am able to convey my confusion. Thanks in anticipation.
In supervised learning, such as SVMs, the dataset should be composed as follows:
<i-th feature vector><i-th label>
where i goes from 1 to the number of patterns (also examples or observations) in your training set so this represents a single record in your training set which can be used to train the SVM classifier.
So you basically have a set composed by such tuples and if you do have just 2 labels (binary classification problem) you can easily use a SVM. Indeed the SVM model will be trained thanks to the training set and the training labels and once the training phase has finished you can use another set (called Validation Set or Test Set), which is structured in the same way as the training set, to test the accuracy of your SVMs.
In other words the SVM workflow should be structured as follows:
train the SVM using the training set and the training labels
predict the labels for the validation set using the model trained in the previous step
if you know what the actual validation labels are, you can match the predicted labels with the actual labels and check how many labels have been correctly predicted. The ratio between the number of correctly predicted labels and the total number of labels in the validation set returns a scalar between [0;1] and it's called the accuracy of your SVM model.
if you're interested in the ROI, you might want to check the trained SVM parameters (mainly the weights and bias) to reconstruct the separation hyperplane
It is also important to know that the training set records should be correctly, a priori labelled: if the training labels are not correct, the SVM will never be able to correctly predict the output for previously unseen patterns. You do not have to label your data according to the ROI you want to extract, the data must be correctly labelled a priori: the SVM will have the entire set of type A pictures and the set of type B pictures and will learn the decision boundary to separate pictures of type A and pictures of type B. You do not have to trick the labels: if you do, you're not doing classification and/or machine learning and/or pattern recognition. You're basically tricking the results.
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.