Do you know if there is some way to put sample weights on DecisionTreeClassifier algorithm in pySpark (2.0+)?
Thanks in advance!
There's no hyperparameter currently in the pyspark DecisionTree or DecisionTreeClassifier class to specify weights to classes (usually required in an biased dataset or where importance of true prediction of one class is more important)
In near update it might be added and you can track the progress in the jira here
There has been a git branch which has already implemented this, though not available officially but you can use this pull request for now:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16722
You have not specified the current scenario and why you want to use weights, but suggested work around now are
1. Undersampling the dataset
If your data set has a very high Bias, you can perform a random undersample of the dataset which has a very high frequency
2. Force Fitting the weights
Not a nice approach, but works. You can repeat the the rows for each class as per the weight.
Eg, for binary classification if you need a weight of 1:2 for (0/1) classification, you can repeat all the rows with the label 1 twice.
Related
i'm working on my thesis and i used a Catboost classifier to perform a binary analysis on a very unbalanced dataset:
class0 = x number of samples
class1 = 10*x number of samples
In order to optimize the performance of the model i changed the weights of the classes, giving an higher weight to the minority class, and then i performed a grid search cross validation in which it is searched the set of hyperparameters that reduces the crossentropy loss associated to the catboost model.
At this point i also changed the classificaiton threshold by maximizing the G-mean metric (sqruare root of sensitivity multiplied by specificity).
In you opinion, if you are experts or informed about ensemble methods of type boosting, is it right to procede in this way to increase the performance of the model when the dataset is unbalanced? Maybe it would be enough just to change the weights and use the grid search instead of changing also the classification threshold?
Thank you in advance!
Let's say I have 2 images of a car, but one is generated from the camera and the other is a depth image generated from Lidar pointcloud transformation.
I used the same CNN model on both image to predict the class (output is a softmax, as there is other classes in my dataset : pedestrian, van, truck, cyclist, etc.
How can I combine the two probabilities vector in order to predict the class by taking into account both predictions?
I used method like average, maximum, minimum, naive product apply to each score for each class, but don't know if it work.
Thanks you in advance
EDIT :
Following this article : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327744903_Multimodal_CNN_Pedestrian_Classification_a_Study_on_Combining_LIDAR_and_Camera_Data
We can see that they use maximum or minimum rule to combine the outpout of classifiers. So dit it work for multiclass problem?
As per MSalter's comment, the softmax output isn't a true probability vector. But if we choose to regard it as such, we can simply take the average of each prediction. This is equivalent to having two persons each classify a random sample of objects from a big pool of objects and assuming they both counted an equal amount, estimate the distribution of objects in the big pool by combining their observations. The sum of the 'probabilities' of the classes will still equal 1.
Following this article : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327744903_Multimodal_CNN_Pedestrian_Classification_a_Study_on_Combining_LIDAR_and_Camera_Data
We can see that they use maximum or minimum rule to combine the outpout of classifiers. So dit it work for multiclass problem?
I am working on a Classification problem with 2 labels : 0 and 1. My training dataset is a very imbalanced dataset (and so will be the test set considering my problem).
The proportion of the imbalanced dataset is 1000:4 , with label '0' appearing 250 times more than label '1'. However, I have a lot of training samples : around 23 millions. So I should get around 100 000 samples for the label '1'.
Considering the big number of training samples I have, I didn't consider SVM. I also read about SMOTE for Random Forests. However, I was wondering whether NN could be efficient to handle this kind of imbalanced dataset with a large dataset ?
Also, as I am using Tensorflow to design the model, which characteristics should/could I tune to be able to handle this imbalanced situation ?
Thanks for your help !
Paul
Update :
Considering the number of answers, and that they are quite similar, I will answer all of them here, as a common answer.
1) I tried during this weekend the 1st option, increasing the cost for the positive label. Actually, with less unbalanced proportion (like 1/10, on another dataset), this seems to help a bit to get a better result, or at least to 'bias' the precision/recall scores proportion.
However, for my situation,
It seems to be very sensitive to the alpha number. With alpha = 250, which is the proportion of the unbalanced dataset, I have a precision of 0.006 and a recall score of 0.83, but the model is predicting way too many 1 that it should be - around 0.50 of label '1' ...
With alpha = 100, the model predicts only '0'. I guess I'll have to do some 'tuning' for this alpha parameter :/
I'll take a look at this function from TF too as I did it manually for now : tf.nn.weighted_cross_entropy_with_logitsthat
2) I will try to de-unbalance the dataset but I am afraid that I will lose a lot of info doing that, as I have millions of samples but only ~ 100k positive samples.
3) Using a smaller batch size seems indeed a good idea. I'll try it !
There are usually two common ways for imbanlanced dataset:
Online sampling as mentioned above. In each iteration you sample a class-balanced batch from the training set.
Re-weight the cost of two classes respectively. You'd want to give the loss on the dominant class a smaller weight. For example this is used in the paper Holistically-Nested Edge Detection
I will expand a bit on chasep's answer.
If you are using a neural network followed by softmax+cross-entropy or Hinge Loss you can as #chasep255 mentionned make it more costly for the network to misclassify the example that appear the less.
To do that simply split the cost into two parts and put more weights on the class that have fewer examples.
For simplicity if you say that the dominant class is labelled negative (neg) for softmax and the other the positive (pos) (for Hinge you could exactly the same):
L=L_{neg}+L_{pos} =>L=L_{neg}+\alpha*L_{pos}
With \alpha greater than 1.
Which would translate in tensorflow for the case of cross-entropy where the positives are labelled [1, 0] and the negatives [0,1] to something like :
cross_entropy_mean=-tf.reduce_mean(targets*tf.log(y_out)*tf.constant([alpha, 1.]))
Whatismore by digging a bit into Tensorflow API you seem to have a tensorflow function tf.nn.weighted_cross_entropy_with_logitsthat implements it did not read the details but look fairly straightforward.
Another way if you train your algorithm with mini-batch SGD would be make batches with a fixed proportion of positives.
I would go with the first option as it is slightly easier to do with TF.
One thing I might try is weighting the samples differently when calculating the cost. For instance maybe divide the cost by 250 if the expected result is a 0 and leave it alone if the expected result is a one. This way the more rare samples have more of an impact. You could also simply try training it without any changes and see if the nnet just happens to work. I would make sure to use a large batch size though so you always get at least one of the rare samples in each batch.
Yes - neural network could help in your case. There are at least two approaches to such problem:
Leave your set not changed but decrease the size of batch and number of epochs. Apparently this might help better than keeping the batch size big. From my experience - in the beginning network is adjusting its weights to assign the most probable class to every example but after many epochs it will start to adjust itself to increase performance on all dataset. Using cross-entropy will give you additional information about probability of assigning 1 to a given example (assuming your network has sufficient capacity).
Balance your dataset and adjust your score during evaluation phase using Bayes rule:score_of_class_k ~ score_from_model_for_class_k / original_percentage_of_class_k.
You may reweight your classes in the cost function (as mentioned in one of the answers). Important thing then is to also reweight your scores in your final answer.
I'd suggest a slightly different approach. When it comes to image data, the deep learning community has already come up with a few ways to augment data. Similar to image augmentation, you could try to generate fake data to "balance" your dataset. The approach I tried was to use a Variational Autoencoder and then sample from the underlying distribution to generate fake data for the class you want. I tried it and the results are looking pretty cool: https://lschmiddey.github.io/fastpages_/2021/03/17/data-augmentation-tabular-data.html
Is it possible to train classifiers in sklearn with a cost matrix with different costs for different mistakes? For example in a 2 class problem, the cost matrix would be a 2 by 2 square matrix. For example A_ij = cost of classifying i as j.
The main classifier I am using is a Random Forest.
Thanks.
The cost-sensitive framework you describe is not supported in scikit-learn, in any of the classifiers we have.
You could use a custom scoring function that accepts a matrix of per-class or per-instance costs. Here's an example of a scorer that calculates per-instance misclassification cost:
def financial_loss_scorer(y, y_pred, **kwargs):
import pandas as pd
totals = kwargs['totals']
# Create an indicator - 0 if correct, 1 otherwise
errors = pd.DataFrame((~(y == y_pred)).astype(int).rename('Result'))
# Use the product totals dataset to create results
results = errors.merge(totals, left_index=True, right_index=True, how='inner')
# Calculate per-prediction loss
loss = results.Result * results.SumNetAmount
return loss.sum()
The scorer becomes:
make_scorer(financial_loss_scorer, totals=totals_data, greater_is_better=False)
Where totals_data is a pandas.DataFrame with indexes that match the training set indexes.
You could always just look at your ROC curve. Each point on the ROC curve corresponds to a separate confusion matrix. So by specifying the confusion matrix you want, via choosing your classifier threshold implies some sort of cost weighting scheme. Then you just have to choose the confusion matrix that would imply the cost matrix you are looking for.
On the other hand if you really had your heart set on it, and really want to "train" an algorithm using a cost matrix, you could "sort of" do it in sklearn.
Although it is impossible to directly train an algorithm to be cost sensitive in sklearn you could use a cost matrix sort of setup to tune your hyper-parameters. I've done something similar to this using a genetic algorithm. It really doesn't do a great job, but it should give a modest boost to performance.
One way to circumvent this limitation is to use under or oversampling. E.g., if you are doing binary classification with an imbalanced dataset, and want to make errors on the minority class more costly, you could oversample it. You may want to have a look at imbalanced-learn which is a package from scikit-learn-contrib.
May not be direct to your question (since you are asking about Random Forest).
But for SVM (in Sklearn), you can utilize the class_weight parameter to specify the weights of different classes. Essentially, you will pass in a dictionary.
You might want to refer to this page to see an example of using class_weight.
I'm relatively new to Matlab ANN Toolbox. I am training the NN with pattern recognition and target matrix of 3x8670 containing 1s and 0s, using one hidden layer, 40 neurons and the rest with default settings. When I get the simulated output for new set of inputs, then the values are around 0 and 1. I then arrange them in descending order and choose a fixed number(which is known to me) out of 8670 observations to be 1 and rest to be zero.
Every time I run the program, the first row of the simulated output always has close to 100% accuracy and the following rows dont exhibit the same kind of accuracy.
Is there a logical explanation in general? I understand that answering this query conclusively might require the understanding of program and problem, but its made of of several functions to clearly explain. Can I make some changes in the training to get consistence output?
If you have any suggestions please share it with me.
Thanks,
Nishant
Your problem statement is not clear for me. For example, what you mean by: "I then arrange them in descending order and choose a fixed number ..."
As I understand, you did not get appropriate output from your NN as compared to the real target. I mean, your output from NN is difference than target. If so, there are different possibilities which should be considered:
How do you divide training/test/validation sets for training phase? The most division should be assigned to training (around 75%) and rest for test/validation.
How is your training data set? Can it support most scenarios as you expected? If your trained data set is not somewhat similar to your test data sets (e.g., you have some new records/samples in the test data set which had not (near) appear in the training phase, it explains as 'outlier' and NN cannot work efficiently with these types of samples, so you need clustering approach not NN classification approach), your results from NN is out-of-range and NN cannot provide ideal accuracy as you need. NN is good for those data set training, where there is no very difference between training and test data sets. Otherwise, NN is not appropriate.
Sometimes you have an appropriate training data set, but the problem is training itself. In this condition, you need other types of NN, because feed-forward NNs such as MLP cannot work with compacted and not well-separated regions of data very well. You need strong function approximation such as RBF and SVM.