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.
Related
I'm working with sentiment analysis using NB classifier. I've found some information (blogs, tutorials etc) that training corpus should be balanced:
33.3% Positive;
33.3% Neutral
33.3% Negative
My question is:
Why corspus should be balanced? The Bayes theorem is based on propability of reason/case. So for training purpose isn't it important that in real world for example negative tweets are only 10% not 33.3%?
You are correct, balancing data is important for many discriminative models, but not really for NB.
However, it might be still more beneficial to bias P(y) estimators to get better predictive performance (since due to various simplifications models use, probability assigned to minority class can be heaviy underfitted). For NB it is not about balancing data, but literally modifying the estimated P(y) so that on the validation set accuracy is maximised.
In my opinion the best dataset for training purposes if a sample of the real world data that your classifier will be used with.
This is true for all classifiers (but some of them are indeed not suitable to unbalanced training sets in which cases you don't really have a choice to skew the distribution), but particularly for probabilistic classifiers such as Naive Bayes. So the best sample should reflect the natural class distribution.
Note that this is important not only for the class priors estimates. Naive Bayes will calculate for each feature the likelihood of predicting the class given the feature. If your bayesian classifier is built specifically to classify texts, it will use global document frequency measures (the number of times a given word occurs in the dataset, across all categories). If the number of documents per category in the training set doesn't reflect their natural distribution, the global term frequency of terms usually seen in unfrequent categories will be overestimated, and that of frequent categories underestimated. Thus not only the prior class probability will be incorrect, but also all the P(category=c|term=t) estimates.
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.
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
The Situation:
I am wondering how to use TensorFlow optimally when my training data is imbalanced in label distribution between 2 labels. For instance, suppose the MNIST tutorial is simplified to only distinguish between 1's and 0's, where all images available to us are either 1's or 0's. This is straightforward to train using the provided TensorFlow tutorials when we have roughly 50% of each type of image to train and test on. But what about the case where 90% of the images available in our data are 0's and only 10% are 1's? I observe that in this case, TensorFlow routinely predicts my entire test set to be 0's, achieving an accuracy of a meaningless 90%.
One strategy I have used to some success is to pick random batches for training that do have an even distribution of 0's and 1's. This approach ensures that I can still use all of my training data and produced decent results, with less than 90% accuracy, but a much more useful classifier. Since accuracy is somewhat useless to me in this case, my metric of choice is typically area under the ROC curve (AUROC), and this produces a result respectably higher than .50.
Questions:
(1) Is the strategy I have described an accepted or optimal way of training on imbalanced data, or is there one that might work better?
(2) Since the accuracy metric is not as useful in the case of imbalanced data, is there another metric that can be maximized by altering the cost function? I can certainly calculate AUROC post-training, but can I train in such a way as to maximize AUROC?
(3) Is there some other alteration I can make to my cost function to improve my results for imbalanced data? Currently, I am using a default suggestion given in TensorFlow tutorials:
cost = tf.reduce_mean(tf.nn.softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(pred, y))
optimizer = tf.train.AdamOptimizer(learning_rate=learning_rate).minimize(cost)
I have heard this may be possible by up-weighting the cost of miscategorizing the smaller label class, but I am unsure of how to do this.
(1)It's ok to use your strategy. I'm working with imbalanced data as well, which I try to use down-sampling and up-sampling methods first to make the training set even distributed. Or using ensemble method to train each classifier with an even distributed subset.
(2)I haven't seen any method to maximise the AUROC. My thought is that AUROC is based on true positive and false positive rate, which doesn't tell how well it works on each instance. Thus, it may not necessarily maximise the capability to separate the classes.
(3)Regarding weighting the cost by the ratio of class instances, it similar to Loss function for class imbalanced binary classifier in Tensor flow
and the answer.
Regarding imbalanced datasets, the first two methods that come to mind are (upweighting positive samples, sampling to achieve balanced batch distributions).
Upweighting positive samples
This refers to increasing the losses of misclassified positive samples when training on datasets that have much fewer positive samples. This incentivizes the ML algorithm to learn parameters that are better for positive samples. For binary classification, there is a simple API in tensorflow that achieves this. See (weighted_cross_entropy) referenced below
https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/nn/weighted_cross_entropy_with_logits
Batch Sampling
This involves sampling the dataset so that each batch of training data has an even distribution positive samples to negative samples. This can be done using the rejections sampling API provided from tensorflow.
https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/contrib/training/rejection_sample
I'm one who struggling with imbalanced data. What my strategy to counter imbalanced data are as below.
1) Use cost function calculating 0 and 1 labels at the same time like below.
cost = tf.reduce_mean(-tf.reduce_sum(y*tf.log(_pred) + (1-y)*tf.log(1-_pred), reduction_indices=1))
2) Use SMOTE, oversampling method making number of 0 and 1 labels similar. Refer to here, http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.scikit-learn/5278
Both strategy worked when I tried to make credit rating model.
Logistic regression is typical method to handle imbalanced data and binary classification such as predicting default rate. AUROC is one of the best metric to counter imbalanced data.
1) Yes. This is well received strategy to counter imbalanced data. But this strategy is good in Neural Nets only if you using SGD.
Another easy way to balance the training data is using weighted examples. Just amplify the per-instance loss by a larger weight/smaller when seeing imbalanced examples. If you use online gradient descent, it can be as simple as using a larger/smaller learning rate when seeing imbalanced examples.
Not sure about 2.
I am new to Text Mining. I am working on Spam filter. I did text cleaning, removed stop words. n-grams are my features. So I build a frequency matrix and build model using Naive Bayes. I have very limited set of training data, so I am facing the following problem.
When a sentence comes to me for classification and if none of its features match with the existing features in training then my frequency vector has only zeros.
When I send this vector for classification, I obviously get a useless result.
What can be ideal size of training data to expect better results?
Generally, the more data you have, the better. You will get diminishing returns at some point. It is often a good idea to see if your training set size is a problem by plotting the cross validation performance while varying the size of the training set. In scikit-learn has an example of this type of "learning curve."
Scikit-learn Learning Curve Example
You may consider bringing in outside sample posts to increase the size of your training set.
As you grow your training set, you may want to try reducing the bias of your classifier. This could be done by adding n-gram features, or switching to a logistic regression or SVM model.
When a sentence comes to me for classification and if none of its features match with the existing features in training then my frequency vector has only zeros.
You should normalize your input so that it forms some kind of rough distribution around 0. A common method is to do this tranformation:
input_signal = (feature - feature_mean) / feature_stddev
Then all zeroes would only happen if all features were exactly at the mean.