Accuracy Measures for the Comparison of Classifiers

The selection of the best classification algorithm for a given dataset is a very widespread problem. It is also a complex one, in the sense it requires to make several important methodological choices. Among them, in this work we focus on the measure used to assess the classification performance and rank the algorithms. We present the most popular measures and discuss their properties. Despite the numerous measures proposed over the years, many of them turn out to be equivalent in this specific case, to have interpretation problems, or to be unsuitable for our purpose. Consequently, classic overall success rate or marginal rates should be preferred for this specific task.Comment: The 5th International Conference on Information Technology, amman : Jordanie (2011

Evaluation of the Performance of the Markov Blanket Bayesian Classifier Algorithm

The Markov Blanket Bayesian Classifier is a recently-proposed algorithm for construction of probabilistic classifiers. This paper presents an empirical comparison of the MBBC algorithm with three other Bayesian classifiers: Naive Bayes, Tree-Augmented Naive Bayes and a general Bayesian network. All of these are implemented using the K2 framework of Cooper and Herskovits. The classifiers are compared in terms of their performance (using simple accuracy measures and ROC curves) and speed, on a range of standard benchmark data sets. It is concluded that MBBC is competitive in terms of speed and accuracy with the other algorithms considered.Comment: 9 pages: Technical Report No. NUIG-IT-011002, Department of Information Technology, National University of Ireland, Galway (2002

Time series classification with ensembles of elastic distance measures

Several alternative distance measures for comparing time series have recently been proposed and evaluated on time series classification (TSC) problems. These include variants of dynamic time warping (DTW), such as weighted and derivative DTW, and edit distance-based measures, including longest common subsequence, edit distance with real penalty, time warp with edit, and move–split–merge. These measures have the common characteristic that they operate in the time domain and compensate for potential localised misalignment through some elastic adjustment. Our aim is to experimentally test two hypotheses related to these distance measures. Firstly, we test whether there is any significant difference in accuracy for TSC problems between nearest neighbour classifiers using these distance measures. Secondly, we test whether combining these elastic distance measures through simple ensemble schemes gives significantly better accuracy. We test these hypotheses by carrying out one of the largest experimental studies ever conducted into time series classification. Our first key finding is that there is no significant difference between the elastic distance measures in terms of classification accuracy on our data sets. Our second finding, and the major contribution of this work, is to define an ensemble classifier that significantly outperforms the individual classifiers. We also demonstrate that the ensemble is more accurate than approaches not based in the time domain. Nearly all TSC papers in the data mining literature cite DTW (with warping window set through cross validation) as the benchmark for comparison. We believe that our ensemble is the first ever classifier to significantly outperform DTW and as such raises the bar for future work in this area

Multiple Imputation Ensembles (MIE) for dealing with missing data

Missing data is a significant issue in many real-world datasets, yet there are no robust methods for dealing with it appropriately. In this paper, we propose a robust approach to dealing with missing data in classification problems: Multiple Imputation Ensembles (MIE). Our method integrates two approaches: multiple imputation and ensemble methods and compares two types of ensembles: bagging and stacking. We also propose a robust experimental set-up using 20 benchmark datasets from the UCI machine learning repository. For each dataset, we introduce increasing amounts of data Missing Completely at Random. Firstly, we use a number of single/multiple imputation methods to recover the missing values and then ensemble a number of different classifiers built on the imputed data. We assess the quality of the imputation by using dissimilarity measures. We also evaluate the MIE performance by comparing classification accuracy on the complete and imputed data. Furthermore, we use the accuracy of simple imputation as a benchmark for comparison. We find that our proposed approach combining multiple imputation with ensemble techniques outperform others, particularly as missing data increases

Examining the Capability of Supervised Machine Learning Classifiers in Extracting Flooded Areas from Landsat TM Imagery: A Case Study from a Mediterranean Flood

This study explored the capability of Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and regularised kernel Fisher’s discriminant analysis (rkFDA) machine learning supervised classifiers in extracting flooded area from optical Landsat TM imagery. The ability of both techniques was evaluated using a case study of a riverine flood event in 2010 in a heterogeneous Mediterranean region, for which TM imagery acquired shortly after the flood event was available. For the two classifiers, both linear and non-linear (kernel) versions were utilised in their implementation. The ability of the different classifiers to map the flooded area extent was assessed on the basis of classification accuracy assessment metrics. Results showed that rkFDA outperformed SVMs in terms of accurate flooded pixels detection, also producing fewer missed detections of the flooded area. Yet, SVMs showed less false flooded area detections. Overall, the non-linear rkFDA classification method was the more accurate of the two techniques (OA = 96.23%, K = 0.877). Both methods outperformed the standard Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) thresholding (OA = 94.63, K = 0.818) by roughly 0.06 K points. Although overall accuracy results for the rkFDA and SVMs classifications only showed a somewhat minor improvement on the overall accuracy exhibited by the NDWI thresholding, notably both classifiers considerably outperformed the thresholding algorithm in other specific accuracy measures (e.g. producer accuracy for the “not flooded” class was ~10.5% less accurate for the NDWI thresholding algorithm in comparison to the classifiers, and average per-class accuracy was ~5% less accurate than the machine learning models). This study provides evidence of the successful application of supervised machine learning for classifying flooded areas in Landsat imagery, where few studies so far exist in this direction. Considering that Landsat data is open access and has global coverage, the results of this study offers important information towards exploring the possibilities of the use of such data to map other significant flood events from space in an economically viable way

Bayesian performance comparison of text classifiers

How can we know whether one classifier is really better than the other? In the area of text classification, since the publication of Yang and Liu's seminal SIGIR-1999 paper, it has become a standard practice for researchers to apply null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) on their experimental results in order to establish the superiority of a classifier. However, such a frequentist approach has a number of inherent deficiencies and limitations, e.g., the inability to accept the null hypothesis (that the two classifiers perform equally well), the difficulty to compare commonly-used multivariate performance measures like F1 scores instead of accuracy, and so on. In this paper, we propose a novel Bayesian approach to the performance comparison of text classifiers, and argue its advantages over the traditional frequentist approach based on t-test etc. In contrast to the existing probabilistic model for F1 scores which is unpaired, our proposed model takes the correlation between classifiers into account and thus achieves greater statistical power. Using several typical text classification algorithms and a benchmark dataset, we demonstrate that the our approach provides rich information about the difference between two classifiers' performances

Determining appropriate approaches for using data in feature selection

Feature selection is increasingly important in data analysis and machine learning in big data era. However, how to use the data in feature selection, i.e. using either ALL or PART of a dataset, has become a serious and tricky issue. Whilst the conventional practice of using all the data in feature selection may lead to selection bias, using part of the data may, on the other hand, lead to underestimating the relevant features under some conditions. This paper investigates these two strategies systematically in terms of reliability and effectiveness, and then determines their suitability for datasets with different characteristics. The reliability is measured by the Average Tanimoto Index and the Inter-method Average Tanimoto Index, and the effectiveness is measured by the mean generalisation accuracy of classification. The computational experiments are carried out on ten real-world benchmark datasets and fourteen synthetic datasets. The synthetic datasets are generated with a pre-set number of relevant features and varied numbers of irrelevant features and instances, and added with different levels of noise. The results indicate that the PART approach is more effective in reducing the bias when the size of a dataset is small but starts to lose its advantage as the dataset size increases

Evaluation of Performance Measures for Classifiers Comparison

The selection of the best classification algorithm for a given dataset is a very widespread problem, occuring each time one has to choose a classifier to solve a real-world problem. It is also a complex task with many important methodological decisions to make. Among those, one of the most crucial is the choice of an appropriate measure in order to properly assess the classification performance and rank the algorithms. In this article, we focus on this specific task. We present the most popular measures and compare their behavior through discrimination plots. We then discuss their properties from a more theoretical perspective. It turns out several of them are equivalent for classifiers comparison purposes. Futhermore. they can also lead to interpretation problems. Among the numerous measures proposed over the years, it appears that the classical overall success rate and marginal rates are the more suitable for classifier comparison task