SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 27
An Analysis of Instance Selection for
Neural Networks to Improve Training Speed
Xunhu Sun
Department of Computer Sciences
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, FL 32901, USA
sunx2013@my.fit.edu
Philip K. Chan
Department of Computer Sciences
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, FL 32901, USA
pkc@cs.fit.edu
Speaker: Xunhu Sun
Reducing Training Instances
 Instance selection
 Select a subset
 ignore the rest
 Tradeoff
 Amount of data vs. predictive accuracy
 Overall research question
 How to select a subset without sacrificing much accuracy?
How effective can existing instance
selection algorithms for kNN be
applied to ANN?
Research Question 1
Retention Rate and Accuracy
Can we design more effective
instance selection algorithms for
ANN?
Research Question 2
A. Distance from Decision Boundary
Remove Far Instances (RFI)
 For each instance x
 Calculate “enemyDistance” (distance from boundary)
 Distance from the closest instance that is of another class
 Calculate average and standard deviation of
enemyDistance
 Remove instances that are farther than:
 average + standard deviation
RFI: Accuracy and Retention Rate
Algorithm
Accuracy (%)
Bupa
Haber
Man
Heart
Iono
sphere
Iris WDBC Wine Average
FDS 71.5 74.5 83.2 89.7 96.3 97.3 98.0 87.2
Random 68.1 74.2 82.5 85.4 94.1 97.1 97.1 85.5
RFI 71.8* 74.7 81.6 86.1 96.1* 97.2 98.0 86.5
Retention Rate (% of Full data set)
RFI 86.5 87.3 81.7 82.5 76.8 87.3 83.9 83.7
* indicates RFI has significant higher accuracy than Random based on a t-test with
95% confidence.
B. Dense Regions
Remove Dense Instances (RDI)
 k-distance
 distance of an instance from its k-th nearest neighbor of the
same class
 For each class c
 For each instance x in class c, calculate k-distance
 Calculate the average k-distance, which is the dense
threshold for class c
 While the lowest k-distance is less than dense threshold
 Remove the instance (y) with the lowest k-distance
 Update the k-distance of instances that had y as one of its k
nearest neighbors
RDI: Accuracy and Retention Rate
Algorithm
Accuracy (%)
Bupa
Haber
Man
Heart
Iono
sphere
Iris WDBC Wine Average
FDS 71.5 74.5 83.2 89.7 96.3 97.3 98.0 87.2
Random 68.1 74.2 82.5 85.4 94.1 97.1 97.1 85.5
RDI 68.6 74.1 83.4 87.6* 97.8* 96.5 98.0 86.6
Retention Rate (% of Full data set)
RDI 55.7 64.2 65.6 65.4 66.7 58.8 67.8 63.4
* indicates RDI has significant higher accuracy than Random based on a t-test with
95% confidence.
What is the tradeoff between
accuracy and speed?
Research Question 3
Retention Rate vs Training Time
Tradeoff between Accuracy and
Retention Rate (training time)
 Accuracy Instance Reduction (AIR) Ratio =
𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦
𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑚 − 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦(𝐹𝐷𝑆)
1 − 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑚)
AIR Ratio
Algorithm
AIR ratio * 100
Bupa
Haber
Man
Heart
Iono
sphere
Iris WDBC Wine Average
RDI -6.55 -1.12 0.58 -6.07 4.50 -1.94 0.00 -1.51
RanENN -5.80 1.20 -1.60 -12.00 0.80 -1.00 -3.40 -3.11
Random -6.80 -0.60 -1.40 -8.60 -4.40 -0.40 -1.80 -3.43
RFI 2.22 1.57 -8.74 -20.57 -0.86 -0.79 0.00 -3.88
SPOCNN -2.43 -2.32 -3.85 -8.74 -5.64 -1.42 -3.01 -3.91
FCNN -2.51 1.25 -2.50 -19.57 -2.90 -0.92 -4.44 -4.51
RPOCNN -7.20 -2.51 -3.51 -8.25 -3.91 -3.75 -4.13 -4.75
HMNEI -15.50 -0.81 -2.90 -10.22 -5.52 -1.75 -3.32 -5.72
DROP3 -9.70 -2.22 -6.36 -18.34 -2.70 -2.41 -7.98 -7.10
ENN -11.23 -1.97 -4.15 -37.59 -10.00 0.00 -11.90 -10.98
Concluding Remarks
 Applying existing instance selection algorithms to
ANN
 Generally lower accuracy when fewer instances are retained
 Randomly selecting 50% is competitive
 Proposed Algorithms
 RFI – removing instances far from the decision boundary
 RDI– removing instances from dense regions
 Tradeoff between accuracy and training time
 AIR Ratio: RDI is more effective in 5 out of 7 data sets
Thank You
 Questions?
 https://github.com/TigerSun86/MachineLearning
Training ANN
 Iterative update until convergence
 Relatively slow compared to other ML algorithms
 Could take minutes/hours…
 Reducing training time
 More effective update to speed up convergence
 Fewer training instances/data
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)
 A machine learning (ML) algorithm
 Used in many applications
 E.g. credit card fraud detection, autonomous driving
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWNtsS2kZWs
Related Work on Instance Selection
 k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) – studied extensively:
 Garcia et al, 2012; Olvera-Lopez et al, 2010; Wilson and
Martinez, 2000
 Condensation methods
 Retaining boundary points (to help identify boundary)
 Relatively larger data reduction
 Edition methods
 Removing boundary and noisy points to reduce overfitting
 Relatively smaller data reduction
 Hybrid methods
 Artificial Neural Network
 el Hindi and AL-Akhras, 2011
 Smoothing decision boundary to reduce overfitting
Data Sets (UCI ML Repository)
Bupa
Haber
Man
Heart
Iono
sphere
Iris WDBC Wine
#Attributes 6 3 13 34 4 30 13
#Classes 2 2 2 2 3 2 3
#Instances 345 306 270 351 150 569 177
ANN
 Training set: 2/3
 Test set: 1/3
 Parameters
 Number of output units
 1 (two-class problems); n (n-class problems)
 Number of hidden units
 3, 5, and 10
 Number of iterations
 Determined by 3-fold cross validation on the training set
 Learning rate and momentum
 0.1
Evaluation Criteria
 Accuracy of ANN on the test set
 Retention rate (% of instances retained)
 Average of 30 runs (10 runs * 3 hidden-layer
settings)
Research Questions
1. How effective can existing instance selection
algorithms for kNN be applied to ANN?
2. Can we design more effective instance selection
algorithms for ANN?
3. What is the tradeoff between accuracy and speed?
Existing Instance Selection Algorithms
 Criteria to be included in our experiments
 Relatively fast
 Relatively accurate in earlier comparative studies
 FCNN, HMNEI (Gracia et al., 2012)
 SPOCNN, RPOCNN (Olvera-Lopez et al., 2010)
 DROP3 (Wilson and Martinez, 2000)
 ENN (el Hindi and AL-Akhras, 2011)
Distance vs Accuracy
Data set
Accuracy (%)
All
regions
Border Middle Far
Border
+
Middle
Checker board 93.0 93.6 85.1 81.7 92.0
Nested square 83.0 80.5 80.7 72.9 83.0
Accuracy and Retention
Result FDS +dense -dense
Accuracy
(%)
95.6 93.6 97.8
# of
instances
240 160 160

More Related Content

Similar to annInstance28Nov6pm

Deep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpoints
Deep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpointsDeep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpoints
Deep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpointsValery Tkachenko
 
Online Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual Learning
Online Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual LearningOnline Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual Learning
Online Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual LearningMLAI2
 
Learning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry KautzLearning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry Kautzbutest
 
Learning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry KautzLearning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry Kautzbutest
 
NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique
NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique
NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique Sujeet Suryawanshi
 
"An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ...
"An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ..."An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ...
"An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ...butest
 
IGARSS2011-I-Ling.ppt
IGARSS2011-I-Ling.pptIGARSS2011-I-Ling.ppt
IGARSS2011-I-Ling.pptgrssieee
 
Human uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 Review
Human uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 ReviewHuman uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 Review
Human uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 ReviewLEE HOSEONG
 
Probability density estimation using Product of Conditional Experts
Probability density estimation using Product of Conditional ExpertsProbability density estimation using Product of Conditional Experts
Probability density estimation using Product of Conditional ExpertsChirag Gupta
 
Thesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risks
Thesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risksThesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risks
Thesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risksTuanNguyen1697
 
Hairong Qi V Swaminathan
Hairong Qi V SwaminathanHairong Qi V Swaminathan
Hairong Qi V SwaminathanFNian
 
Models Can Lie
Models Can LieModels Can Lie
Models Can LieRaju Rimal
 
캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)
캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)
캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)NAVER Engineering
 
Realtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic Programming
Realtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic ProgrammingRealtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic Programming
Realtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic Programmingadil raja
 
Improving Hardware Efficiency for DNN Applications
Improving Hardware Efficiency for DNN ApplicationsImproving Hardware Efficiency for DNN Applications
Improving Hardware Efficiency for DNN ApplicationsChester Chen
 
Fitness Inheritance in Evolutionary and
Fitness Inheritance in Evolutionary andFitness Inheritance in Evolutionary and
Fitness Inheritance in Evolutionary andPier Luca Lanzi
 
Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...
Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...
Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...Alexander Gorban
 
Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0
Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0
Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0theijes
 

Similar to annInstance28Nov6pm (20)

Deep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpoints
Deep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpointsDeep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpoints
Deep learning methods applied to physicochemical and toxicological endpoints
 
Online Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual Learning
Online Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual LearningOnline Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual Learning
Online Coreset Selection for Rehearsal-based Continual Learning
 
2012 predictive clusters
2012 predictive clusters2012 predictive clusters
2012 predictive clusters
 
Microarray Analysis
Microarray AnalysisMicroarray Analysis
Microarray Analysis
 
Learning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry KautzLearning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry Kautz
 
Learning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry KautzLearning to Search Henry Kautz
Learning to Search Henry Kautz
 
NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique
NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique
NSL KDD Cup 99 dataset Anomaly Detection using Machine Learning Technique
 
"An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ...
"An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ..."An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ...
"An adaptive modular approach to the mining of sensor network ...
 
IGARSS2011-I-Ling.ppt
IGARSS2011-I-Ling.pptIGARSS2011-I-Ling.ppt
IGARSS2011-I-Ling.ppt
 
Human uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 Review
Human uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 ReviewHuman uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 Review
Human uncertainty makes classification more robust, ICCV 2019 Review
 
Probability density estimation using Product of Conditional Experts
Probability density estimation using Product of Conditional ExpertsProbability density estimation using Product of Conditional Experts
Probability density estimation using Product of Conditional Experts
 
Thesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risks
Thesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risksThesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risks
Thesis presentation: Applications of machine learning in predicting supply risks
 
Hairong Qi V Swaminathan
Hairong Qi V SwaminathanHairong Qi V Swaminathan
Hairong Qi V Swaminathan
 
Models Can Lie
Models Can LieModels Can Lie
Models Can Lie
 
캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)
캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)
캡슐 네트워크를 이용한 엔드투엔드 음성 단어 인식, 배재성(KAIST 석사과정)
 
Realtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic Programming
Realtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic ProgrammingRealtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic Programming
Realtime, Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP Using Genetic Programming
 
Improving Hardware Efficiency for DNN Applications
Improving Hardware Efficiency for DNN ApplicationsImproving Hardware Efficiency for DNN Applications
Improving Hardware Efficiency for DNN Applications
 
Fitness Inheritance in Evolutionary and
Fitness Inheritance in Evolutionary andFitness Inheritance in Evolutionary and
Fitness Inheritance in Evolutionary and
 
Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...
Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...
Do Fractional Norms and Quasinorms Help to Overcome the Curse of Dimensiona...
 
Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0
Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0
Anomaly Detection in Temporal data Using Kmeans Clustering with C5.0
 

annInstance28Nov6pm

  • 1. An Analysis of Instance Selection for Neural Networks to Improve Training Speed Xunhu Sun Department of Computer Sciences Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, FL 32901, USA sunx2013@my.fit.edu Philip K. Chan Department of Computer Sciences Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, FL 32901, USA pkc@cs.fit.edu Speaker: Xunhu Sun
  • 2. Reducing Training Instances  Instance selection  Select a subset  ignore the rest  Tradeoff  Amount of data vs. predictive accuracy  Overall research question  How to select a subset without sacrificing much accuracy?
  • 3. How effective can existing instance selection algorithms for kNN be applied to ANN? Research Question 1
  • 5. Can we design more effective instance selection algorithms for ANN? Research Question 2
  • 6. A. Distance from Decision Boundary
  • 7. Remove Far Instances (RFI)  For each instance x  Calculate “enemyDistance” (distance from boundary)  Distance from the closest instance that is of another class  Calculate average and standard deviation of enemyDistance  Remove instances that are farther than:  average + standard deviation
  • 8. RFI: Accuracy and Retention Rate Algorithm Accuracy (%) Bupa Haber Man Heart Iono sphere Iris WDBC Wine Average FDS 71.5 74.5 83.2 89.7 96.3 97.3 98.0 87.2 Random 68.1 74.2 82.5 85.4 94.1 97.1 97.1 85.5 RFI 71.8* 74.7 81.6 86.1 96.1* 97.2 98.0 86.5 Retention Rate (% of Full data set) RFI 86.5 87.3 81.7 82.5 76.8 87.3 83.9 83.7 * indicates RFI has significant higher accuracy than Random based on a t-test with 95% confidence.
  • 10. Remove Dense Instances (RDI)  k-distance  distance of an instance from its k-th nearest neighbor of the same class  For each class c  For each instance x in class c, calculate k-distance  Calculate the average k-distance, which is the dense threshold for class c  While the lowest k-distance is less than dense threshold  Remove the instance (y) with the lowest k-distance  Update the k-distance of instances that had y as one of its k nearest neighbors
  • 11. RDI: Accuracy and Retention Rate Algorithm Accuracy (%) Bupa Haber Man Heart Iono sphere Iris WDBC Wine Average FDS 71.5 74.5 83.2 89.7 96.3 97.3 98.0 87.2 Random 68.1 74.2 82.5 85.4 94.1 97.1 97.1 85.5 RDI 68.6 74.1 83.4 87.6* 97.8* 96.5 98.0 86.6 Retention Rate (% of Full data set) RDI 55.7 64.2 65.6 65.4 66.7 58.8 67.8 63.4 * indicates RDI has significant higher accuracy than Random based on a t-test with 95% confidence.
  • 12. What is the tradeoff between accuracy and speed? Research Question 3
  • 13. Retention Rate vs Training Time
  • 14. Tradeoff between Accuracy and Retention Rate (training time)  Accuracy Instance Reduction (AIR) Ratio = 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑚 − 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦(𝐹𝐷𝑆) 1 − 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑚)
  • 15. AIR Ratio Algorithm AIR ratio * 100 Bupa Haber Man Heart Iono sphere Iris WDBC Wine Average RDI -6.55 -1.12 0.58 -6.07 4.50 -1.94 0.00 -1.51 RanENN -5.80 1.20 -1.60 -12.00 0.80 -1.00 -3.40 -3.11 Random -6.80 -0.60 -1.40 -8.60 -4.40 -0.40 -1.80 -3.43 RFI 2.22 1.57 -8.74 -20.57 -0.86 -0.79 0.00 -3.88 SPOCNN -2.43 -2.32 -3.85 -8.74 -5.64 -1.42 -3.01 -3.91 FCNN -2.51 1.25 -2.50 -19.57 -2.90 -0.92 -4.44 -4.51 RPOCNN -7.20 -2.51 -3.51 -8.25 -3.91 -3.75 -4.13 -4.75 HMNEI -15.50 -0.81 -2.90 -10.22 -5.52 -1.75 -3.32 -5.72 DROP3 -9.70 -2.22 -6.36 -18.34 -2.70 -2.41 -7.98 -7.10 ENN -11.23 -1.97 -4.15 -37.59 -10.00 0.00 -11.90 -10.98
  • 16. Concluding Remarks  Applying existing instance selection algorithms to ANN  Generally lower accuracy when fewer instances are retained  Randomly selecting 50% is competitive  Proposed Algorithms  RFI – removing instances far from the decision boundary  RDI– removing instances from dense regions  Tradeoff between accuracy and training time  AIR Ratio: RDI is more effective in 5 out of 7 data sets
  • 17. Thank You  Questions?  https://github.com/TigerSun86/MachineLearning
  • 18. Training ANN  Iterative update until convergence  Relatively slow compared to other ML algorithms  Could take minutes/hours…  Reducing training time  More effective update to speed up convergence  Fewer training instances/data
  • 19. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)  A machine learning (ML) algorithm  Used in many applications  E.g. credit card fraud detection, autonomous driving  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWNtsS2kZWs
  • 20. Related Work on Instance Selection  k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) – studied extensively:  Garcia et al, 2012; Olvera-Lopez et al, 2010; Wilson and Martinez, 2000  Condensation methods  Retaining boundary points (to help identify boundary)  Relatively larger data reduction  Edition methods  Removing boundary and noisy points to reduce overfitting  Relatively smaller data reduction  Hybrid methods  Artificial Neural Network  el Hindi and AL-Akhras, 2011  Smoothing decision boundary to reduce overfitting
  • 21. Data Sets (UCI ML Repository) Bupa Haber Man Heart Iono sphere Iris WDBC Wine #Attributes 6 3 13 34 4 30 13 #Classes 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 #Instances 345 306 270 351 150 569 177
  • 22. ANN  Training set: 2/3  Test set: 1/3  Parameters  Number of output units  1 (two-class problems); n (n-class problems)  Number of hidden units  3, 5, and 10  Number of iterations  Determined by 3-fold cross validation on the training set  Learning rate and momentum  0.1
  • 23. Evaluation Criteria  Accuracy of ANN on the test set  Retention rate (% of instances retained)  Average of 30 runs (10 runs * 3 hidden-layer settings)
  • 24. Research Questions 1. How effective can existing instance selection algorithms for kNN be applied to ANN? 2. Can we design more effective instance selection algorithms for ANN? 3. What is the tradeoff between accuracy and speed?
  • 25. Existing Instance Selection Algorithms  Criteria to be included in our experiments  Relatively fast  Relatively accurate in earlier comparative studies  FCNN, HMNEI (Gracia et al., 2012)  SPOCNN, RPOCNN (Olvera-Lopez et al., 2010)  DROP3 (Wilson and Martinez, 2000)  ENN (el Hindi and AL-Akhras, 2011)
  • 26. Distance vs Accuracy Data set Accuracy (%) All regions Border Middle Far Border + Middle Checker board 93.0 93.6 85.1 81.7 92.0 Nested square 83.0 80.5 80.7 72.9 83.0
  • 27. Accuracy and Retention Result FDS +dense -dense Accuracy (%) 95.6 93.6 97.8 # of instances 240 160 160

Editor's Notes

  1. 3 thing why the alg, how alg works, result
  2. Speed up nn learning is reduce instance, how does reduce effect accuracy
  3. Mention x-axis, Mention fds and random, bar retention rate descending order, red line accuracy, as retention rate decreases accuracy generally decreases, random doing pretty well 50% retention but similar accuracy with enn, we will use random as reference later on
  4. Instance near boundary is more important to help define the shape of boundary
  5. Remove rfi+enn, Mention column and rows, focus on rfi and random rows, what’s blue, what’s red, 6 out of 7 better than random
  6. Remove rdi+enn, rdi and rfi are more accurate than random but keeping more instance than random they might be by luck because usually keping more instance will have higher accuracy so is that because the alg is good or more instances
  7. For each percent of reduction how does the accuracy change (normalize the reduction), usually negative because reduce instance will reduce accuracy,
  8. Table of air, column, rows, sorted by average air, red number means best alg for each data set, we observed rdi is the best in avg, rdi is the best in 4 out of 7 data set. Do spend time on positve