Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Evaluation of classifiers: choosing the right model Rajashree Paul Irina Pekerskaya 1. Introduction Different classification algorithms – which one is the best? No free lunch theorem Huge amount of experimental evaluations already conducted Idea – to ask what is important to the user SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 2 1.1. Long-term vision User define quality measures that are important Data characteristics of the given dataset are analyzed Feature selection method is chosen Classification method is chosen The parameters of the classification method are optimized SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 3 1.2. Project goals Analyze possible user-defined criteria Analyze possible data characteristics Analyze the behavior of chosen algorithms Give some suggestions on the algorithm choice with respect to those criteria and characteristics Survey some approaches for automatic selection of the classification method SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 4 Presentation Progress Introduction Classification Algorithms Specifying Classification Problems Combining Algorithms and different measures for a final mapping Meta Learning and automatic selection of the algorithm SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 5 2. Classification Algorithms: Decision Tree (C4.5) Neural Net Naïve Bayes k – Nearest Neighbor Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 6 2.1 Decision Trees (C4.5) Starts with the root as complete dataset Chooses the best split using Information Ratio and partitions the dataset accordingly Recursively does the same thing at each node Stops when no attribute is left or all records of the node are of same class Applies Post pruning to avoid overfitting SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 7 2.2 Neural Net Layered network of Neurons ( Perceptrons) connected via weighted edges In Backpropagation Network 1. Input and the Expected Output are fed forward 2. Actual and Expected Outputs are compared (Error) 3. For each node Error is propagated back through the network to tune the weights and bias of each node SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 8 2.3 Naïve Bayes Assumes that the Input Attributes are independent of each other given a target class Decision Rule of the Naïve Bayes Classifier : argmax P(Cj) P(O | Cj) i cj C where P(Oi | Cj) is the posterior probability of attribute Oi conditioned on class Cj SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 9 2.4 k – Nearest Neighbor Uses a distance function as a measure of similarity/dissimilarity between two objects Classifies objects to the majority class of k nearest objects Value of k may vary SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 10 2.5 Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) Optimal for normally distributed data and classes having equal covariance structure What it does: For each class it generates a linear function For a problem with d features it separates the classes by (d-1) dimensional hyperplanes SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 11 Presentation Progress Introduction Classification Algorithms Specifying Classification Problems Combining Algorithms and different measures for a final mapping Meta Learning and automatic selection of the algorithm SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 12 3. Specifying Classification Problems 3.1 Quality Measures 3.2 Data Characteristics SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 13 3.1 Quality Measures Accuracy Training Time Execution Time Interpretability Scalability Robustness … SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 14 3.2 Data Characteristics Size of Dataset Number of Attributes Amount of Training Data Proportion of Symbolic Attributes Proportion of Missing Values Proportion of Noisy Data Linearity of Data Normality of Data SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 15 Presentation Progress Introduction Classification Algorithms Specifying Classification Problems Combining Algorithms and different measures for a final mapping Meta Learning and automatic selection of the algorithm SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 16 4. Combining Algorithms and Measures 1st step toward our goal Comparing the algorithms with respect to different Data Characteristics SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 17 4.1 Evaluating Algorithms with respect to Data Characteristics Large # large dataset Small Lots of Lots of Lots of noisy Nonattributes amount of symbolic missing data linearity training data attributes values C4.5 No NNet Yes Yes (time No increase) No Yes NB Yes Yes Ok k-NN Ok Yes No LDA Not enough Yes information Ok Yes Contradicti Ok Yes ve No Contradicti Ok Yes ve Preferably Yes Yes Yes no Preferably No Preferably Yes no no No No Not enough No information SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya Nonnormality Yes Yes No Yes No 18 4. Combining Algorithms and Measures …(contd.) 2nd step… Comparing Algorithms in terms of different Quality Measures SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 19 4.2 Evaluating Algorithms with respect to Quality Measures C4.5 NNet NB k-NN LDA Accuracy Training Time Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Execution Time Yes Ok Yes No Yes SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya Interpretab Scalability ility Yes Yes No No Ok Yes No Yes No Yes 20 4. Combining Algorithms and Measures…(Contd.) Finally… Merging the information of two tables into one table : (Data characteristics + Quality Measures) => Algorithms SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 21 4.3 Choice of the algorithm # of attributes Prevalent type of Lots of Lots of Nonattributes missing noisy data linearity Small Large Small large symbolic numeric values Accuracy C4.5, LDA NNet, NB NNet, C4.5 C4.5, NB C4.5 NNet, LDA NB, NNet NNet, NB Nnet LDA Training C4.5, LDA, NB, k-NN C4.5 NB, k-NN C4.5 NB, LDA, NB, C4.5 NB, C4.5 C4.5, NB, time k-NN k-NN k-NN Execution C4.5, LDA time Interpretab C4.5 ility Size of data NB NB C4.5 NB, LDA C4.5 C4.5, NB, C4.5 LDA Nonnormality NNet, C4.5 C4.5, k-NN NB, LDA, NB, C4.5 NB, C4.5 C4.5, NB, C4.5, Nnet NNet Nnet C4.5, NB C4.5, NB C4.5, NB C4.5, NB C4.5, NB C4.5 SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 22 Presentation Progress Introduction Classification Algorithms Specifying Classification Problems Combining Algorithms and different measures for a final mapping Meta Learning and automatic selection of the algorithm SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 23 5. Meta-learning Overview We have some knowledge about the algorithms performance on some datasets Measure similarity between given dataset and previously processed ones and choose those that are similar Measure algorithm performance on chosen datasets Rank the algorithms SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 24 5. Meta-learning Measuring the similarity between datasets Data characteristics: Number of examples Number of attributes Proportion of symbolic attributes Proportion of missing values Proportion of attributes with outliers Entropy of classes SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 25 5. Meta-learning Measuring the similarity between datasets K-Nearest Neighbor Distance function: SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 26 5. Meta-learning Evaluating algorithms Adjusted ratio of ratios(ARR) multicriteria evaluation measure: AccD – the amount of accuracy user can trade for a 10 times speedup or slowdown SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 27 5. Meta-learning Ranking algorithms Calculate ARR for each algorithm Rank them according to this measure SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 28 5. Meta-learning Given a new dataset with data certain characteristics Time and accuracy on training datasets Find k datasets most similar to the new problem dataset using k-NN algorithm Count the ARR measure for all the algorithms for k chosen datasets Rank the algorithms according to ARR SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 29 5. Meta-learning Promising approach, as it allows quantitative measure Needs more investigation, for example incorporating more parameters to the ARR parameter SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 30 6. Conclusion Done: Overall mapping of five classifiers according to some user specified parameters along with some characteristics reflecting the type of datasets. Surveyed systems for automatic selection of the appropriate classifier or rank some different classifiers given a dataset and set of user preferences SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 31 6. Conclusion Future research Performing dedicated experiments Analysis of the choice of feature selection method and optimization of the parameters Working on the intelligent system for choosing classification method SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 32 7. References 1. Brazdil, P., & Soares, C. (2000). A comparison of ranking methods for classification algorithm selection. In R.de M´antaras & E. Plaza (Eds.), Machine Learning: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Machine Learning ECML2000 (pp. 63–74). Berlin: Springer. 2. Brodley, C., Utgoff ,C. (1995). Multivariate Decision Trees, Machine Learning, 19 3. Brown, D., Corruble, V, Pittard, C.L. (1993) A Comparison of Decision Tree Classifiers With Backpropagation Neural Networks For Multimodal Classification Problems, Pattern Recognition, Vol. 26,No. 6 4. Curram, S., Mingers, J (1994) Neural Networks, Decision Tree Induction and Discriminant Analysis : An Empirical Comparison, Operational Research Society, Vol. 45, No. 4 5. Han, J, Kamber, M. (2001) Data Mining:concepts and techniques. San Francisco:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 6. Hilario, M., & Kalousis, A. (1999). Building algorithm profiles for prior model selection in knowledge discovery systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE SMC’99 International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. New York: IEEE Press. 7. Kalousis, A.,&Theoharis, T. (1999).NOEMON:Design, implementation and performance results of an intelligent assistant for classifier selection. Intelligent Data Analysis, 3:5, 319–337. SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 33 7. References 8. Keller, J., Paterson, I., & Berrer, H. (2000). An integrated concept for multi-criteria ranking of data-mining algorithms. In J. Keller & C. Giraud-Carrier (Eds.), Meta-Learning: Building Automatic Advice Strategies for Model Selection and Method Combination. 9. Kiang, M. (2003). A Comparative Assessment of Classification Methods, Decision Support Systems, 35 10. Kononenko,I, Bratko,I. (1991). Information-Based Evaluation Criterion for Classifier’s Performance, Machine Learning ,6 11 Lim, T., Loh, W., Shoh, Y.(2000). A comparison of Prediction Accuracy, Complexity and Training Timeof Thirty-Three Old and New Classification Algorithms, Machine Learning ,6 12. Michie, D., Spiegelhalter, D., & Taylor, C. (1994). Machine Learning, Neural and Statistical Classification. Ellis Horwood. 13. Mitchell, T. (1997). Machine Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. 14. Quinlan, J. (1993) C4.5 : programs for machine learning. San Francisco : Morgan Kaufmann Publishers SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 34 7. References 15. Salzberg, S.(1997) On Comparing Classifiers: Pitfalls to Avoid and Recommended Approach, Data Mining and knowledge Discovery, 1 16. Shalvic, J, Mooney, R., Towell, G. (1991). Symbolic and Neural Learning Algorithms: An Experimental Comparison, Machine Learning ,40 17. Todorovski, L., & Dˇzeroski, S. (2000). Combining multiple models with meta decision trees. In D. Zighed, J. Komorowski, & J. Zytkow (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD00) (pp. 54–64). New York: Springer. 18. Weiss, S., Kulikowski, C. (1991). Computer Systems that learn. San Francisco:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 19. Witten, I., Frank, E. (2000) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations. San Francisco:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 20. Brazdil, P., Soares, C.(2003) Ranking Learning Algorithms: Using IBL and Meta-Learning on Accuracy and Time Results, Machine Learning, 50, 251–277 21. Blake, C., Keogh, E., & Merz, C. (1998). Repository of machine learning databases. Available at http:/www. ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/MLRepository.html SFU, CMPT 740 R. Paul, I. Pekerskaya 35 Thank you Questions?