Rich
Caruana
Alexandru
Niculescu

Mizil
Presented by
Varun
Sudhakar
Importance:
Empirical comparison of different learning algorithms
provides answers to questions such as
Which is the best learning algorithm?
How well does a particular learning algorithm perform
when compared to another algorithm over the same
data?
The last comprehensive empirical comparison was
STATLOG in 1995
Several new learning algorithms have been developed
after STATLOG (Random forests, Bagging, SVMs)
No extensive evaluation of these new methods.
SVMs
ANN
Logistic Regression
Naïve
Bayes
KNN
Random Forests
Decision Trees(
Bayes
, Cart, Cart0, ID3,c4, MML,SMML)
Bagged Trees
Boosted Trees
Boosted Stumps
Threshold Metrics:
Accuracy

The proportion of correct predictions the
classifier makes relative to the size of the
dataset
F

score

Harmonic mean of the precision and recall
at a given threshold
Lift

%of true positives above the threshold

%of dataset above the threshold
Ordering/Rank Metrics:
ROC curve

Plot of sensitivity vs. (1

specificity)for all possible
thresholds
APR

Average precision
BEP(Break Even Point)

the precision at the point
(threshold value) where
precision and recall are equal.
Probability Metrics:
(Root Mean Square Error)

A measure of total error
defined as the square root of
the sum of the variance and
the square of the bias
MXE (Mean Cross Entropy)

used in the probabilistic
setting
when
interested
in
predicting
the
probability
that an example is positive
MXE =

1/N
Σ
(True©*
ln
(
Pred
(c)) + (1

true(c)*
ln
(1

pred(c))
Lift is appropriate for marketing
Medicine prefers ROC
Precision/Recall is used for information retrieval
…It is also possible for a algorithm to perform well over
one metric and perform poorly over some other metric
Letter
Cover Type
Adult
Protein coding
MEDIS
MG
IndianPine92
California Housing
Bacteria
SLAC(Stanford linear accelerator)
For each data set, 5000 random instances are used for
training and the rest are used as one large test set.
5 fold cross validation is used on the 5000 training
instances
5 fold cross validation is used to select the best
parameters for the learning algorithm.
…The purpose of the 5 fold cross validation is to calibrate
the different algorithms using either Platt scaling or
Isotonic regression
SVM predictions are transformed to posterior
probabilities by passing them through a sigmoid
Platt's method also works well for boosted trees and
boosted stumps
… might not be the correct transformation for all
learning algorithms.
Isotonic regression provides a more general solution
since the only restriction it makes is that the mapping
function should be isotonic (strictly increasing or
strictly decreasing)
SVMs
:
radial width {.001,0.005,0.01,0.05,0.1,0.5,1,2}
The regularization parameter is varied by factors of ten
from 10

7
to 10
3
ANN
hidden units{1,2,4,8,32,128}
momentum {0,0.2,0.5,0.9}
Logistic Regression:
The ridge (regularization) parameter is varied by
factors of 10 from 10

8
to 10
4
KNN:
26 values of K ranging from K = 1 to K = 
trainset

Random Forests:
The size of the feature set considered at each split is
1,2,4,6,8,12,16 or 20.
Boosted Trees:
2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 and 2048 steps of boosting
Boosted Stumps:
single level decision trees generated with 5 different
splitting criteria, each boosted for
2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192 steps
Without calibration, the best algorithms were bagged
trees, random forests, and neural nets.
After calibration, the best algorithms were calibrated
boosted trees, calibrated random forests, bagged trees,
PLT

calibrated SVMs and neural nets
…SVMs and Boosted trees have improved rankings with
calibrations.
Interestingly, calibrating neural nets with PLT or ISO
hurts their calibration.
And some algorithms such as Memory

based methods
(e.g. KNN) are unaffected by calibration
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Algorithm
Letter

Boosted DT(
plt
)
Cover Type

Boosted DT(
plt
)
Adult

Boosted STMP(
plt
)
Protein coding

Boosted DT(
plt
)
MEDIS

Random Forest(
plt
)
MG

Bagged DT
IndianPine92

Boosted DT(
plt
)
California Housing

Boosted DT(
plt
)
Bacteria

Bagged DT
SLAC

Random Forest(ISO)
Neural nets perform well on all metrics on 10 of 11
problems, but perform poorly on COD
If the COD problem had not been included, neural
nets would move up 1

2 places in the rankings
Bootstrap analysis
randomly select a bootstrap sample from the original
11 problems
randomly select a bootstrap sample of 8 metrics from
the original 8 metrics
rank the ten algorithms by mean performance across
the sampled problems and metrics
Repeat bootstrap sampling 1000 times, yielding 1000
potentially different rankings of the learning methods
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
BSTDT
RF
BGDT
Algorithm
Algorithm
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Naïve Bayes
Log reg
DT
Algorithm
Algorithm
Model
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
Bst
DT
.580
.228
.160
.023
.009
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
RF
.390
.525
.084
.001
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Bag DT
.030
.232
.571
.150
.017
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
SVM
.0
.008
.148
.574
.240
.029
.001
.0
.0
.0
ANN
.0
.007
.035
.230
.606
.122
.0
.0
.0
.0
KNN
.0
.0
.0
.009
.114
.592
.245
.038
.002
.0
Bst
stm
.0
.0
.002
.013
.014
.257
.710
.004
.0
.0
DT
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.004
.616
.291
.089
logreg
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.040
.312
.423
.225
NB
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.030
.284
.686
The models that performed poorest were naive
bayes
,
logistic regression,
decisiontrees
, and boosted stumps
bagged trees, random forests, and neural nets give the best
average performance without calibration
After calibration with Platt's Method, boosted trees predict
better probabilities than all other methods
But at the same time boosted stumps and logistic
regression, which perform poorly on average, are the best
models for some metrics
Effectiveness of an algorithm depends on the metric used
and the data set.
The End
Commentaires 0
Connectezvous pour poster un commentaire