I am currently fitting a neural network to predict a continuous target from 1 to 10. However, the samples are not evenly distributed over the entire data set: samples with target ranging from 1-3 are quite underrepresented (only account for around 5% of the data). However, they are of big interest, since the low range of the target is kind of the critical range.
Is there any way to know how my model predicts these low range samples in particular? I know that when doing multiclass classification I can examine the recall to get a taste of how well the model performs on a certain class. For classification use cases I can also set the class weight parameter in Keras to account for class imbalances, but this is obviously not possible for regression.
Until now, I use typical metrics like MAE, MSE, RMSE and get satisfying results. I would however like to know how the model performs on the "critical" samples.
From my point of view, I would compare the test measurements (classification performance, MSE, RMSE) for the whole test step that corresponds to the whole range of values (1-10). Then, of course, I would do it separately to the specific range that you are considering critical (let's say between 1-3) and compare the divergence of the two populations. You can even perform some statistics about the significance of the difference between the two populations (Wilcoxon tests etc.).
Maybe this link could be useful for your comparisons. Since you can regression you can even compare for MSE and RMSE.
What you need to do is find identifiers for these critical samples. Often times row indices are used for this. Once you have predicted all of your samples, use those stored indices to find the critical samples in your predictions and run whatever automatic metric over those filtered samples. I hope this answers your question.
Related
I'd like to use GridSearchCV, but with the condition that the lowest index of the data in the validation set be greater than the largest in the training set. The reason being that the data is in time, and future data gives unfair insight that would inflate the score. There's some discussion on this:
If the data ordering is not arbitrary (e.g. samples with the same class label are contiguous), shuffling it first may be essential to get a meaningful cross- validation result. However, the opposite may be true if the samples are not independently and identically distributed. For example, if samples correspond to news articles, and are ordered by their time of publication, then shuffling the data will likely lead to a model that is overfit and an inflated validation score: it will be tested on samples that are artificially similar (close in time) to training samples.
but it's not clear to me whether any of the splitting methods listed can accomplish what i'm looking for. It seems to be the case that I can define an itterable of indices and pass that into cv, but in that case it's not clear how many I should define (does it always use all of them? do different tests get different indices?)
I need to model a multi-variate time-series data to predict a binary-target which is rarely 1 (imbalanced data).
This means that we want to model based on one feature is binary (outbreak), rarely 1?
All of the features are binary and rarely 1.
What is the suggested solution?
This features has an effect on cost function based on the following cost function. We want to know prepared or not prepared if the cost is the same as following.
Problem Definition:
Model based on outbreak which is rarely 1.
Prepared or not prepared to avoid the outbreak of a disease and the cost of outbreak is 20 times of preparation
cost of each day(next day):
cost=20*outbreak*!prepared+prepared
Model:prepare(prepare for next day)for outbreak for which days?
Questions:
Build a model to predict outbreaks?
Report the cost estimation for every year
csv file is uploaded and data is for end of the day
The csv file contains rows which each row is a day with its different features some of them are binary and last feature is outbreak which is rarely 1 and a main features considering in the cost.
You are describing class imbalance.
Typical approach is to generate balanced training data
by repeatedly running through examples containing
your (rare) positive class,
and each time choosing a new random sample
from the negative class.
Also, pay attention to your cost function.
You wouldn't want to reward a simple model
for always choosing the majority class.
My suggestions:
Supervised Approach
SMOTE for upsampling
Xgboost by tuning scale_pos_weight
replicate minority class eg:10 times
Try to use ensemble tree algorithms, trying to generate a linear surface is risky for your case.
Since your data is time series you can generate days with minority class just before real disease happened. For example you have minority class at 2010-07-20. Last observations before that time is 2010-06-27. You can generate observations by slightly changing variance as 2010-07-15, 2010-07-18 etc.
Unsupervised Approach
Try Anomaly Detection algorithms. Such as IsolationForest (try extended version of it also).
Cluster your observations check minority class becomes a cluster itself or not. If its successful you can label your data with cluster names (cluster1, cluster2, cluster3 etc) then train a decision tree to see split patterns. (Kmeans + DecisionTreeClassifier)
Model Evaluation
Set up a cost matrix. Do not use confusion matrix precision etc directly. You can find further information about cost matrix in here: http://mlwiki.org/index.php/Cost_Matrix
Note:
According to OP's question in comments groupby year could be done like this:
df["date"] = pd.to_datetime(df["date"])
df.groupby(df["date"].dt.year).mean()
You can use other aggregators also (mean, sum, count, etc)
I am trying to build a model on a class imbalanced dataset (binary - 1's:25% and 0's 75%). Tried with Classification algorithms and ensemble techniques. I am bit confused on below two concepts as i am more interested in predicting more 1's.
1. Should i give preference to Sensitivity or Positive Predicted Value.
Some ensemble techniques give maximum 45% of sensitivity and low Positive Predicted Value.
And some give 62% of Positive Predicted Value and low Sensitivity.
2. My dataset has around 450K observations and 250 features.
After power test i took 10K observations by Simple random sampling. While selecting
variable importance using ensemble technique's the features
are different compared to the features when i tried with 150K observations.
Now with my intuition and domain knowledge i felt features that came up as important in
150K observation sample are more relevant. what is the best practice?
3. Last, can i use the variable importance generated by RF in other ensemple
techniques to predict the accuracy?
Can you please help me out as am bit confused on which w
The preference between Sensitivity and Positive Predictive value depends on your ultimate goal of the analysis. The difference between these two values is nicely explained here: https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat507/node/71/
Altogether, these are two measures that look at the results from two different perspectives. Sensitivity gives you a probability that a test will find a "condition" among those you have it. Positive Predictive value looks at the prevalence of the "condition" among those who is being tested.
Accuracy is depends on the outcome of your classification: it is defined as (true positive + true negative)/(total), not variable importance's generated by RF.
Also, it is possible to compensate for the imbalances in the dataset, see https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/264798/random-forest-unbalanced-dataset-for-training-test
If you had a training set containing instances for various classes and it was highly imbalanced. What strategy would you use to balance it?
Information about real-world population: 7 classes whereof the smallest accounts for 5%.
Information about training set: frequencies differ largely from the populations frequencies.
Here are two options:
Bias it to the populations class frequencies.
Bias it to a uniform distribution.
With biasing i intend something like SMOTE or Cost-Sensitive Classification.
I am insecure which strategy to follow. I am also open for other suggestions. How would you evaluate the success of the strategy?
As you mentioned, for training you have two options. Either to balance your data set (works if you have very large amount of data and/or small number of features, so that throwing away some samples won't affect learning), or use different weights for different classes, according to their frequencies. The latter is typically straightforward to do, but depends on the method and library you choose.
Once you have your classifier trained (with some prior on your training set), you can easily update the prediction probabilities if your priors change (different frequencies in training and population). There is an excellent overview how to replace the prior information, that explains it better than I could in a short post. Take a look at Combining probabilities, Section 3 (Replacing prior information).
There's something I don't understand about neural networks. I've tried to use them with financial data analysis and audio pitch classification. In both cases, I need a classifier that can detect the significant item from among the many. My audio application literally has one positive hit for every thousand negative hits. I run the network trainer, and it learns that it's a pretty darn fine guess to just go with the negative. Is there some other algorithm for detecting the rare gem? Is there some form of neural network training that is especially suited for this type of problem? I can change the range on my positive data to be equivalent to the sum of the negative values, but I don't understand how that fits in with the preferred range of zero to one on the typical neural network.
Here are two possible suggestions:
Balance your training set
Even if the real-world data contains 1000x as many negatives as positives, your training data does not have to. You can modify your training data set to increase the proportion of positives in your training set. That will improve the recall (more true positives), but also worsen the precision (also more false positives). So, you'd have to experiment with the ideal proportion of positives to negatives in the training set.
This paper discusses this approach in more detail: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2243711/pdf/procamiasymp00003-0260.pdf
Anomaly detection
... on the other hand, if you have too few positive examples to train the neural network with a more balanced training set, then perhaps you could try anomaly detection. With anomaly detection, you train your algorithm (e.g., a neural network) to recognize what negative data points look like. Then, any data point that looks different than normal gets flagged as positive.