I came across an SVM example, but I didn't understand. I would appreciate it if somebody could explain how the prediction works. Please see the explanation below:
The dataset has 10,000 observations with 5 attributes (Sepal Width, Sepal Length, Petal Width, Petal Length, Label). The label gets positive if it belongs to the I.setosa class, and negative if belongs to some other class.
There are 6000 observations for which the outcome is known (i.e. they belong to the I.setosa class, so they get positive for the label attribute). The labels for the remaining 4000 are unknown, so the label was assumed to be negative. The 6000 observations and 2500 randomly selected observations from the remaining 4000 form the set for the 10-fold cross validation. SVM (10 fold cross validation) is then used for machine learning on the 8500 observations and the ROC is plotted.
Where are we predicting here? The set has 6000 observations for which the values are already known. How did the remaining 2500 get negative labels? When SVM is used, some observations that are positive get negative prediction. The prediction didn't make any sense to me here. Why are those 1500 observations excluded.
I hope my explanation is clear. Please let me know if I haven't explained anything clearly.
I think that the issue is a semantic one: you refer to the set of 4000 samples as being both "unknown" and "negative" -- which of these apply is the critical difference.
If the labels for the 4000 samples are truly unknown, then I'd do a 1-class SVM using the
6000 labelled samples [c.f. validation below]. And then the predictions would be generated by testing the N=4000 set to assess whether or not they belong to the setosa class.
If instead, we have 6000 setosa, and 4000 (known) non-setosa, we could construct a binary
classifier on the basis of this data [c.f. validation below], and then use it to predict setosa vs. non on
any other available non-labelled data.
Validation: Usually as part of the model construction process you will take only a subset of your labelled
training data and use it to configure the model. For the unused subset, you apply the model to the data (ignoring the labels), and compare what your model predicts against what the true labels are in order to assess error rates. This applies both to the 1-class and
the 2-class situations above.
Summary: if all of your data are labelled, then usually one will still make predictions for a subset of them (ignoring the known labels) as part of the model validation process.
Your SVM classifier is trained to tell if a new (unknown) instance is or not an instance of I. Setosa. In order words, you are predicting if the new, unlabeled instance is I.Setosa or not.
You found the incorrectly classified result, probably, because your training data has many more instances of the positive case than of the negative one. Also, it's common to have some error margin.
Summarizing: your SVM classifier learned how to identify I.Setosa instances, however, it was provided with too little examples of non-I.Setosa instances, which is likely to get you a biased model.
Related
I’m using the Cleveland Heart Disease dataset from UCI for classification but i don’t understand the target attribute.
The dataset description says that the values go from 0 to 4 but the attribute description says:
0: < 50% coronary disease
1: > 50% coronary disease
I’d like to know how to interpret this, is this dataset meant to be a multiclass or a binary classification problem? And must i group values 1-4 to a single class (presence of disease)?
If you are working on imbalanced dataset, you should use re-sampling technique to get better results. In case of imbalanced datasets the classifier always "predicts" the most common class without performing any analysis of the features.
You should try SMOTE, it's synthesizing elements for the minority class, based on those that already exist. It works randomly picking a point from the minority class and computing the k-nearest neighbors for this point.
I also used cross validation K-fold method along with SMOTE, Cross validation assures that model gets the correct patterns from the data.
While measuring the performance of model, accuracy metric mislead, its shows high accuracy even though there are more False Positive. Use metric such as F1-score and MCC.
References :
https://www.kaggle.com/rafjaa/resampling-strategies-for-imbalanced-datasets
It basically means that the presence of different heart diseases have been denoted by 1, 2, 3, 4 while the absence is simply denoted by 0. Now, most of the experiments that have been conducted on this dataset have been based on binary classification, i.e. presence(1, 2, 3, 4) vs absence(0). One reason for such behavior might the class imbalance problem(0 has about 160 sample and the rest 1, 2, 3 and 4 make up the other half) and small number of samples(only around 300 total samples). So, it makes sense to treat this data as binary classification problem instead of multi-class classification, given the constraints that we have.
is this dataset meant to be a multiclass or a binary classification problem?
Without changes, the dataset is ready to be used for a multi-class classification problem.
And must i group values 1-4 to a single class (presence of disease)?
Yes, you must, as long as you are interested in using the dataset for a binary classification problem.
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 was running a random forest classification model and initially divided the data into train (80%) and test (20%). However, the prediction had too many False Positive which I think was because there was too much noise in training data, so I decided to split the data in a different method and here's how I did it.
Since I thought the high False Positive was due to the noise in the train data, I made the train data to have the equal number of target variables. For example, if I have data of 10,000 rows and the target variable is 8,000 (0) and 2,000 (1), I had the training data to be a total of 4,000 rows including 2,000 (0) and 2,000 (1) so that the training data now have more signals.
When I tried this new splitting method, it predicted way better by increasing the Recall Positive from 14 % to 70%.
I would love to hear your feedback if I am doing anything wrong here. I am concerned if I am making my training data biased.
When you have unequal number of data points in each classes in training set, the baseline (random prediction) changes.
By noisy data, I think you want to mean that number of training points for class 1 is more than other. This is not really called noise. It is actually bias.
For ex: You have 10000 data point in training set, 8000 of class 1 and 2000 of class 0. I can predict class 0 all the time and get 80% accuracy already. This induces a bias and baseline for 0-1 classification will not be 50%.
To remove this bias either you can intentionally balance the training set as you did or you can change the error function by giving weight inversely proportional to number of points in training set.
Actually, what you did is right and this process is something similar to "Stratified sampling".
In your first model,where accuracy was very low the model did not get enough correlations between features and target for positive class(1).Also it model might have somewhat over-fitted for negative class.This is called "High bias -High variance" situation.
"Stratified sampling" is nothing but when you are extracting a sample data from a big population,you make sure that all classes will have some what approximately equal proportion to make the model's training assumptions more accurate and reliable.
In the second case model was able to correlate relationships between features and target and positive and negative class characteristics was well distinguishable.
Eliminating noise is a part of data preparation that should be obviously done before putting data into a model.
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.
I have a binary class dataset (0 / 1) with a large skew towards the "0" class (about 30000 vs 1500). There are 7 features for each instance, no missing values.
When I use the J48 or any other tree classifier, I get almost all of the "1" instances misclassified as "0".
Setting the classifier to "unpruned", setting minimum number of instances per leaf to 1, setting confidence factor to 1, adding a dummy attribute with instance ID number - all of this didn't help.
I just can't create a model that overfits my data!
I've also tried almost all of the other classifiers Weka provides, but got similar results.
Using IB1 gets 100% accuracy (trainset on trainset) so it's not a problem of multiple instances with the same feature values and different classes.
How can I create a completely unpruned tree?
Or otherwise force Weka to overfit my data?
Thanks.
Update: Okay, this is absurd. I've used only about 3100 negative and 1200 positive examples, and this is the tree I got (unpruned!):
J48 unpruned tree
------------------
F <= 0.90747: 1 (201.0/54.0)
F > 0.90747: 0 (4153.0/1062.0)
Needless to say, IB1 still gives 100% precision.
Update 2: Don't know how I missed it - unpruned SimpleCart works and gives 100% accuracy train on train; pruned SimpleCart is not as biased as J48 and has a decent false positive and negative ratio.
Weka contains two meta-classifiers of interest:
weka.classifiers.meta.CostSensitiveClassifier
weka.classifiers.meta.MetaCost
They allows you to make any algorithm cost-sensitive (not restricted to SVM) and to specify a cost matrix (penalty of the various errors); you would give a higher penalty for misclassifying 1 instances as 0 than you would give for erroneously classifying 0 as 1.
The result is that the algorithm would then try to:
minimize expected misclassification cost (rather than the most likely class)
The quick and dirty solution is to resample. Throw away all but 1500 of your positive examples and train on a balanced data set. I am pretty sure there is a resample component in Weka to do this.
The other solution is to use a classifier with a variable cost for each class. I'm pretty sure libSVM allows you to do this and I know Weka can wrap libSVM. However I haven't used Weka in a while so I can't be of much practical help here.