Consider The Task Of Building A Classifier From

Consider The Task Of Building A Classifier From

Consider the task of building a classifier from random data, where the attribute values are generated randomly irrespective of the class labels. Assume the data set contains records from two classes, "+" and "−." Half of the data set is used for training while the remaining half is used for testing. (a) Suppose there are an equal number of positive and negative records in the data and the decision tree classifier predicts every test record to be positive. What is the expected error rate of the classifier on the test data? (b) Repeat the previous analysis assuming that the classifier predicts each test record to be positive class with probability 0.8 and negative class with probability 0.2. (c) Suppose two-thirds of the data belong to the positive class and the remaining one-third belong to the negative class. What is the expected error of a classifier that predicts every test record to be positive? (d) Repeat the previous analysis assuming that the classifier predicts each test record to be positive class with probability 2/3 and negative class with probability 1/3.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Building effective classifiers from data is a fundamental task in machine learning. Often, understanding the baseline performances, especially under random conditions, helps in evaluating the significance of learned models. This paper explores the expected error rates of classifiers under various random prediction strategies using theoretical probability analysis, particularly in the context of imbalanced data distributions.

Analyzing a Classifier that Always Predicts Positive with Equal Class Distribution

In the first scenario, the dataset contains an equal number of positive ("+") and negative ("−") records, with half allocated for training and the rest for testing. A simplistic classifier predicts every test record as positive. Given the balanced class distribution, the expected performance can be analyzed by calculating the error rate, which is the proportion of negative instances misclassified as positive.

Since half of the test data consists of negative records, and the classifier predicts all as positive, all negative records are misclassified, whereas all positive records are correctly classified. Therefore, the expected error rate becomes the proportion of negative records:

\[

\text{Error Rate} = \frac{\text{Number of negative test records}}{\text{Total test records}} = 0.5.

\]

Thus, the classifier incurs an expected error rate of 50%. This baseline indicates the triviality of such prediction strategies in balanced datasets, emphasizing the importance of more nuanced models.

Randomized Classifiers and Expected Error

The second scenario considers a classifier that predicts the positive class with probability 0.8 and the negative class with probability 0.2, independently for each test record. To analyze the expected error, it is necessary to consider the class distribution and the probability of misclassification under this randomized scheme.

When the data is balanced, the probability that a test record belonging to the positive class is misclassified (predicted as negative) is 0.2, and similarly, a negative class record is misclassified as positive with probability 0.8. The expected error rate \(E\) can be computed as:

\[

E = P(+)\times P(\text{predict negative}| +) + P(-)\times P(\text{predict positive}| -) = 0.5 \times 0.2 + 0.5 \times 0.8 = 0.1 + 0.4 = 0.5.

\]

Therefore, even with probabilistic predictions favoring the positive class, the expected error remains 50% in balanced populations. This demonstrates that bias in predictions can be compensated by class distribution, but randomness often does not improve classification performance without proper feature-guided models.

Impact of Class Imbalance on Error Rates

In the third scenario, two-thirds of the data belong to the positive class, and one-third to the negative. A classifier that predicts all records as positive will now misclassify only the negative instances, which constitute one-third of the test data. The expected error rate, in this case, simplifies to the probability of negative instances being misclassified, which is:

\[

\text{Error Rate} = \frac{1}{3} \approx 33.33\%.

\]

This outcome illustrates that predicting the majority class when data is skewed towards one class reduces the error rate compared to the balanced or random deterministic cases. Such a naive classifier benefits from data imbalance but does not account for the nuances of individual instances.

Probabilistic Prediction with Class Imbalance

Finally, when the classifier predicts the positive class with probability 2/3 and the negative class with probability 1/3, the expected error rate can be derived considering the class distribution:

\[

E = P(+)\times P(\text{predict negative}|+) + P(-)\times P(\text{predict positive}|-) = \frac{2}{3} \times 0.333 + \frac{1}{3} \times \frac{1}{3} = \frac{2}{3} \times \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \times \frac{2}{3} = \frac{2}{9} + \frac{2}{9} = \frac{4}{9} \approx 44.44\%.

\]

This indicates a higher error rate compared to always predicting the positive class, but less than purely random guessing with equal probabilities. It underscores the relevance of aligning prediction biases with class distributions to reduce errors.

Conclusion

This analysis elucidates the importance of class distribution and prediction strategies in classification error rates. Naive approaches such as always predicting the same class or using fixed probabilities without feature insights often yield error rates comparable to random guessing. Effective classifiers should leverage features, class priors, and probabilistic models to minimize misclassification errors. Moreover, understanding baseline errors helps in benchmarking more sophisticated models and prevents overestimating their efficacy.

References

  • Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.
  • Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer.
  • Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, pp. 50–53.
  • Chandola, V., Banerjee, A., & Kumar, V. (2009). Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(3), 15.
  • Kohavi, R. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. IJCAI, 14(2), 1137–1145.
  • Witten, I. H., Frank, E., & Hall, M. A. (2011). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer.
  • Domingos, P. (2012). A few useful things to know about machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 55(10), 78–87.
  • Liao, S. H. (2005). Clustering of Nonspherical Distributions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27(3), 1–12.
  • Barber, D. (2012). Bayesian Reasoning and Machine Learning. Cambridge University Press.

Related Assignments