Supervised Versus Unsupervised Binary-Learning by Feedforward Neural Networks

Binary classification is typically achieved by supervised learning methods. Nevertheless, it is also possible using unsupervised schemes. This paper describes a connectionist unsupervised approach to binary classification and compares its performance to that of its supervised counterpart. The approach consists of training an autoassociator to reconstruct the positive class of a domain at the output layer. After training, the autoassociator is used for classification, relying on the idea that if the network generalizes to a novel instance, then this instance must be positive, but that if generalization fails, then the instance must be negative. When tested on three real-world domains, the autoassociator proved more accurate at classification than its supervised counterpart, MLP, on two of these domains and as accurate on the third (Japkowicz, Myers, & Gluck, 1995). The paper seeks to generalize these results and concludes that, in addition to learning aconcept in the absence of negative examples, 1) autoassociation is more efficient than MLP in multi-modal domains, and 2) it is more accurate than MLP in multi-modal domains for which the negative class creates a particularly strong need for specialization or the positive class creates a particularly weak need for specialization. In multi-modal domains for which the positive class creates a particularly strong need for specialization, on the other hand, MLP is more accurate than autoassociation.

[1]  D Zipser,et al.  Learning the hidden structure of speech. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Nathalie Japkowicz,et al.  The Class Imbalance Problem: Significance and Strategies , 2000 .

[3]  Stan Matwin,et al.  Machine Learning for the Detection of Oil Spills in Satellite Radar Images , 1998, Machine Learning.

[4]  Nathalie Japkowicz,et al.  A Novelty Detection Approach to Classification , 1995, IJCAI.

[5]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning internal representations by error propagation , 1986 .

[6]  Nathalie Japkowicz,et al.  Are we better off without Counter-Examples? , 1999 .

[7]  Stephen Jose Hanson,et al.  A Neural Network Autoassociator for Induction Motor Failure Prediction , 1995, NIPS.

[8]  Nathalie Japkowicz,et al.  Adaptability of the backpropagation procedure , 1999, IJCNN'99. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36339).

[9]  Steven W. Norton,et al.  Learning to Recognize Promoter Sequences in E. coli by Modeling Uncertainty in the Training Data , 1994, AAAI.

[10]  Nathalie Japkowicz,et al.  Concept learning in the absence of counterexamples: an autoassociation-based approach to classification , 1999 .

[11]  Sholom M. Weiss,et al.  Computer Systems That Learn , 1990 .

[12]  Keinosuke Fukunaga,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition , 1972 .

[13]  Alfred Inselberg,et al.  Parallel coordinates: a tool for visualizing multi-dimensional geometry , 1990, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Visualization: Visualization `90.

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

[15]  Alfred Inselberg,et al.  Parallel coordinates for visualizing multi-dimensional geometry , 1987 .

[16]  Maurice Milgram,et al.  Transformation Invariant Autoassociation with Application to Handwritten Character Recognition , 1994, NIPS.

[17]  Keinosuke Fukunaga,et al.  Introduction to statistical pattern recognition (2nd ed.) , 1990 .

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

[19]  Nathalie Japkowicz,et al.  Nonlinear Autoassociation Is Not Equivalent to PCA , 2000, Neural Computation.