A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data

There are several aspects that might influence the performance achieved by existing learning systems. It has been reported that one of these aspects is related to class imbalance in which examples in training data belonging to one class heavily outnumber the examples in the other class. In this situation, which is found in real world data describing an infrequent but important event, the learning system may have difficulties to learn the concept related to the minority class. In this work we perform a broad experimental evaluation involving ten methods, three of them proposed by the authors, to deal with the class imbalance problem in thirteen UCI data sets. Our experiments provide evidence that class imbalance does not systematically hinder the performance of learning systems. In fact, the problem seems to be related to learning with too few minority class examples in the presence of other complicating factors, such as class overlapping. Two of our proposed methods deal with these conditions directly, allying a known over-sampling method with data cleaning methods in order to produce better-defined class clusters. Our comparative experiments show that, in general, over-sampling methods provide more accurate results than under-sampling methods considering the area under the ROC curve (AUC). This result seems to contradict results previously published in the literature. Two of our proposed methods, Smote + Tomek and Smote + ENN, presented very good results for data sets with a small number of positive examples. Moreover, Random over-sampling, a very simple over-sampling method, is very competitive to more complex over-sampling methods. Since the over-sampling methods provided very good performance results, we also measured the syntactic complexity of the decision trees induced from over-sampled data. Our results show that these trees are usually more complex then the ones induced from original data. Random over-sampling usually produced the smallest increase in the mean number of induced rules and Smote + ENN the smallest increase in the mean number of conditions per rule, when compared among the investigated over-sampling methods.

[1]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[2]  Mark R. Wade,et al.  Construction and Assessment of Classification Rules , 1999, Technometrics.

[3]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  Analysis and Visualization of Classifier Performance: Comparison under Imprecise Class and Cost Distributions , 1997, KDD.

[4]  Ana L. C. Bazzan,et al.  Balancing Training Data for Automated Annotation of Keywords: a Case Study , 2003, WOB.

[5]  Tony R. Martinez,et al.  Reduction Techniques for Instance-Based Learning Algorithms , 2000, Machine Learning.

[6]  David L. Waltz,et al.  Toward memory-based reasoning , 1986, CACM.

[7]  Dennis L. Wilson,et al.  Asymptotic Properties of Nearest Neighbor Rules Using Edited Data , 1972, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[8]  Bianca Zadrozny,et al.  Learning and making decisions when costs and probabilities are both unknown , 2001, KDD '01.

[9]  Chris. Drummond,et al.  C 4 . 5 , Class Imbalance , and Cost Sensitivity : Why Under-Sampling beats OverSampling , 2003 .

[10]  Pavel Zezula,et al.  M-tree: An Efficient Access Method for Similarity Search in Metric Spaces , 1997, VLDB.

[11]  C. G. Hilborn,et al.  The Condensed Nearest Neighbor Rule , 1967 .

[12]  Eric Bauer,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants , 1999, Machine Learning.

[13]  David W. Aha,et al.  Instance-Based Learning Algorithms , 1991, Machine Learning.

[14]  Catherine Blake,et al.  UCI Repository of machine learning databases , 1998 .

[15]  I. Tomek,et al.  Two Modifications of CNN , 1976 .

[16]  Pedro M. Domingos MetaCost: a general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive , 1999, KDD '99.

[17]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  Learning Decision Trees Using the Area Under the ROC Curve , 2002, ICML.

[18]  Jorma Laurikkala,et al.  Improving Identification of Difficult Small Classes by Balancing Class Distribution , 2001, AIME.

[19]  D. Kibler,et al.  Instance-based learning algorithms , 2004, Machine Learning.

[20]  Ralph Martinez,et al.  Reduction Techniques for Exemplar-Based Learning Algorithms , 1998 .

[21]  Foster J. Provost,et al.  Learning When Training Data are Costly: The Effect of Class Distribution on Tree Induction , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[22]  Stan Matwin,et al.  Addressing the Curse of Imbalanced Training Sets: One-Sided Selection , 1997, ICML.

[23]  Peter E. Hart,et al.  The condensed nearest neighbor rule (Corresp.) , 1968, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[24]  Alberto Maria Segre,et al.  Programs for Machine Learning , 1994 .

[25]  Charles X. Ling,et al.  Data Mining for Direct Marketing: Problems and Solutions , 1998, KDD.

[26]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  C4.5 and Imbalanced Data sets: Investigating the eect of sampling method, probabilistic estimate, and decision tree structure , 2003 .

[27]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[28]  Gustavo E. A. P. A. Batista,et al.  Class Imbalances versus Class Overlapping: An Analysis of a Learning System Behavior , 2004, MICAI.

[29]  Nathalie Japkowicz,et al.  The class imbalance problem: A systematic study , 2002, Intell. Data Anal..

[30]  Robert C. Holte,et al.  C4.5, Class Imbalance, and Cost Sensitivity: Why Under-Sampling beats Over-Sampling , 2003 .