Quantification (machine learning)

From HandWiki
Revision as of 21:23, 8 February 2024 by John Stpola (talk | contribs) (simplify)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Short description: Machine learning practice of supervised learning

In machine learning and data mining, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items.[1][2] For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these 100,000 tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'.[3]

Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels.

It has been shown in multiple research works[4][5][6][7][8] that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states:

If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem.[9]

In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification.

Quantification tasks

The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are:

  • Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only [math]\displaystyle{ n=2 }[/math] classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them;
  • Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case with [math]\displaystyle{ n\gt 2 }[/math] classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them;[10]
  • Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes.

Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the ordinal case.

Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method,[4] the HDy method,[11] SVM(KLD),[7] and SVM(Q).[6]

Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC),[5] adjusted classify and count (ACC),[4] probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC),[5] and the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD).[12]

Methods for the ordinal case include Ordinal Quantification Tree (OQT),[13] and ordinal version of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods.[14]

Evaluation measures for quantification

Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification and single-label multiclass quantification are[15]

  • Absolute Error
  • Squared Error
  • Relative Absolute Error
  • Kullback-Leibler divergence
  • Pearson Divergence

Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are

  • Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance)
  • Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance

Applications

Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences,[16] epidemiology,[17] market research, and ecological modelling,[18] since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data; however, quantification is also useful in applications outside these fields, such as in measuring classifier bias[19] and enforcing classifier fairness,[20] performing word sense disambiguation,[21] allocating resources,[4] and improving the accuracy of classifiers.[12]

Resources

  • LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify[22]
  • LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify[23]
  • LeQua 2022: A machine learning competition on Learning to Quantify [24]
  • QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification[25]

References

  1. ↑ Pablo González; Alberto Castaño; Nitesh Chawla; Juan José del Coz (2017). "A review on quantification learning". ACM Computing Surveys 50 (5): 74:1–74:40. doi:10.1145/3117807. 
  2. ↑ Andrea Esuli; Alessandro Fabris; Alejandro Moreo; Fabrizio Sebastiani (2023). Learning to Quantify. The Information Retrieval Series. 47. Cham, CH: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-20467-8. ISBN 978-3-031-20466-1. 
  3. ↑ Hopkins, Daniel J.; King, Gary (2010). "A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science". American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 229–247. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x. ISSN 0092-5853. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20647981. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 George Forman (2008). "Quantifying counts and costs via classification". Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 17 (2): 164–206. doi:10.1007/s10618-008-0097-y. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Antonio Bella; Cèsar Ferri; José Hernández-Orallo; María José Ramírez-Quintana (2010). "Quantification via Probability Estimators". 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. pp. 737–742. doi:10.1109/icdm.2010.75. ISBN 978-1-4244-9131-5. 
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 José Barranquero; Jorge Díez; Juan José del Coz (2015). "Quantification-oriented learning based on reliable classifiers". Pattern Recognition 48 (2): 591–604. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2014.07.032. Bibcode: 2015PatRe..48..591B. 
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Andrea Esuli; Fabrizio Sebastiani (2015). "Optimizing text quantifiers for multivariate loss functions". ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 9 (4): Article 27. doi:10.1145/2700406. 
  8. ↑ Wei Gao; Fabrizio Sebastiani (2016). "From classification to quantification in tweet sentiment analysis". Social Network Analysis and Mining 6 (19): 1–22. doi:10.1007/s13278-016-0327-z. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/4547. 
  9. ↑ Vladimir Vapnik (1998). Statistical learning theory. New York, US: Wiley. 
  10. ↑ Jerzak, Connor T.; King, Gary; Strezhnev, Anton (2022). "An Improved Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science" (in en). Political Analysis 31 (1): 42–58. doi:10.1017/pan.2021.36. ISSN 1047-1987. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S104719872100036X/type/journal_article. 
  11. ↑ Víctor González-Castro; Rocío Alaiz-Rodríguez; Enrique Alegre (2013). "Class distribution estimation based on the {H}ellinger distance". Information Sciences 218: 146–164. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.05.028. 
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Marco Saerens; Patrice Latinne; Christine Decaestecker (2002). "Adjusting the outputs of a classifier to new a priori probabilities: A simple procedure". Neural Computation 14 (1): 21–41. doi:10.1162/089976602753284446. PMID 11747533. https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/68391/1/Decaestecker_NeuralComp02.pdf. 
  13. ↑ Giovanni Da San Martino; Wei Gao; Fabrizio Sebastiani (2016). "Ordinal Text Quantification". Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. pp. 937–940. doi:10.1145/2911451.2914749. ISBN 9781450340694. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/4569. 
  14. ↑ Mirko Bunse; Alejandro Moreo; Fabrizio Sebastiani; Marin Senz (2022). "Ordinal quantification through regularization". Proceedings of the 33rd European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML / PKDD 2022), Grenoble, FR. 
  15. ↑ Fabrizio Sebastiani (2020). "Evaluation measures for quantification: An axiomatic approach". Information Retrieval Journal 23 (3): 255–288. doi:10.1007/s10791-019-09363-y. 
  16. ↑ Daniel J. Hopkins; Gary King (2010). "A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science". American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 229–247. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x. 
  17. ↑ Gary King; Ying Lu (2008). "Verbal autopsy methods with multiple causes of death". Statistical Science 23 (1): 78–91. doi:10.1214/07-sts247. 
  18. ↑ Pablo González; Eva Álvarez; Jorge Díez; Ángel López-Urrutia; Juan J. del Coz (2017). "Validation methods for plankton image classification systems". Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 15 (3): 221–237. doi:10.1002/lom3.10151. https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47173/1/Gonzalez_et_al_2017_LandOMeths.pdf. 
  19. ↑ Alessandro Fabris; Andrea Esuli; Alejandro Moreo; Fabrizio Sebastiani (2023). "Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach". Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 76: 1117–1180. doi:10.1613/jair.1.14033. 
  20. ↑ Geoff Pleiss; Manish Raghavan; Felix Wu; Jon Kleinberg; Kilian Q. Weinberger (2017). "On Fairness and Calibration". 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017) (Long Beach, CA, USA): 183–183. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/b8b9c74ac526fffbeb2d39ab038d1cd7-Paper.pdf. 
  21. ↑ Yee Seng Chan; Hwee Tou Ng (2005). "Word sense disambiguation with distribution estimation". Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005) (Edinburgh, UK): 1010–1015. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1642293.1642455. 
  22. ↑ "LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify". https://cikmlq2021.github.io/. 
  23. ↑ "LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify". https://lq-2022.github.io/. 
  24. ↑ "LeQua 2022: A machine learning competition on Learning to Quantify". https://lequa2022.github.io/. 
  25. ↑ "QuaPy: A Python-Based Framework for Quantification". 23 November 2021. https://github.com/HLT-ISTI/QuaPy. 



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Quantification_(machine_learning)&oldid=3432830"