On the use of adversarial validation for quantifying dissimilarity in geospatial machine learning prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12575v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 01:48:21 GMT
• Title: On the use of adversarial validation for quantifying dissimilarity in geospatial machine learning prediction
• Authors: Yanwen Wang, Mahdi Khodadadzadeh, Raul Zurita-Milla,
• Abstract summary: Cross-validation results are affected by the dissimilarity between the sample data and the prediction locations. We propose a method to quantify such a dissimilarity in the interval 0 to 100%, and from the perspective of the data feature space. Results show that the proposed method can successfully quantify dissimilarity across the entire range of values.
• Score: 1.1470070927586018
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent geospatial machine learning studies have shown that the results of model evaluation via cross-validation (CV) are strongly affected by the dissimilarity between the sample data and the prediction locations. In this paper, we propose a method to quantify such a dissimilarity in the interval 0 to 100%, and from the perspective of the data feature space. The proposed method is based on adversarial validation, which is an approach that can check whether sample data and prediction locations can be separated with a binary classifier. To study the effectiveness and generality of our method, we tested it on a series of experiments based on both synthetic and real datasets and with gradually increasing dissimilarities. Results show that the proposed method can successfully quantify dissimilarity across the entire range of values. Next to this, we studied how dissimilarity affects CV evaluations by comparing the results of random CV and of two spatial CV methods, namely block and spatial+ CV. Our results showed that CV evaluations follow similar patterns in all datasets and predictions: when dissimilarity is low (usually lower than 30%), random CV provides the most accurate evaluation results. As dissimilarity increases, spatial CV methods, especially spatial+ CV, become more and more accurate and even outperforming random CV. When dissimilarity is high (>=90%), no CV method provides accurate evaluations. These results show the importance of considering feature space dissimilarity when working with geospatial machine learning predictions, and can help researchers and practitioners to select more suitable CV methods for evaluating their predictions.

Related papers

• Is K-fold cross validation the best model selection method for Machine Learning? [0.0]
  K-fold cross-validation is the most common approach to ascertaining the likelihood that a machine learning outcome is generated by chance. A novel test based on K-fold CV and the Upper Bound of the actual error (K-fold CUBV) is composed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T18:46:53Z)
• A Novel Dataset for Evaluating and Alleviating Domain Shift for Human Detection in Agricultural Fields [59.035813796601055]
  We evaluate the impact of domain shift on human detection models trained on well known object detection datasets when deployed on data outside the distribution of the training set. We introduce the OpenDR Humans in Field dataset, collected in the context of agricultural robotics applications, using the Robotti platform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-27T07:04:28Z)
• Random projections and Kernelised Leave One Cluster Out Cross-Validation: Universal baselines and evaluation tools for supervised machine learning for materials properties [10.962094053749093]
  leave one cluster out cross validation (LOCO-CV) has been introduced as a way of measuring the performance of an algorithm in predicting previously unseen groups of materials. We present a thorough comparison between composition-based representations, and investigate how kernel approximation functions can be used to enhance LOCO-CV applications. We find that domain knowledge does not improve machine learning performance in most tasks tested, with band gap prediction being the notable exception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T15:39:39Z)
• Combining Observational and Randomized Data for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects [82.20189909620899]
  Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects is an important problem across many domains. Currently, most existing works rely exclusively on observational data. We propose to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects by combining large amounts of observational data and small amounts of randomized data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T18:59:54Z)
• Confidence intervals for the Cox model test error from cross-validation [91.3755431537592]
  Cross-validation (CV) is one of the most widely used techniques in statistical learning for estimating the test error of a model. Standard confidence intervals for test error using estimates from CV may have coverage below nominal levels. One way to this issue is by estimating the mean squared error of the prediction error instead using nested CV.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T06:40:43Z)
• Leveraging Unlabeled Data to Predict Out-of-Distribution Performance [63.740181251997306]
  Real-world machine learning deployments are characterized by mismatches between the source (training) and target (test) distributions. In this work, we investigate methods for predicting the target domain accuracy using only labeled source data and unlabeled target data. We propose Average Thresholded Confidence (ATC), a practical method that learns a threshold on the model's confidence, predicting accuracy as the fraction of unlabeled examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-11T23:01:12Z)
• Targeted Cross-Validation [23.689101487016266]
  We propose a targeted cross-validation (TCV) to select models or procedures based on a general weighted $L$ loss. We show that the TCV is consistent in selecting the best performing candidate under the $L$ loss. In this work, we broaden the concept of the selection consistency by allowing the best candidate to switch as the sample size varies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-14T19:53:18Z)
• Bootstrapping Your Own Positive Sample: Contrastive Learning With Electronic Health Record Data [62.29031007761901]
  This paper proposes a novel contrastive regularized clinical classification model. We introduce two unique positive sampling strategies specifically tailored for EHR data. Our framework yields highly competitive experimental results in predicting the mortality risk on real-world COVID-19 EHR data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-07T06:02:04Z)
• Semi-Automatic Data Annotation guided by Feature Space Projection [117.9296191012968]
  We present a semi-automatic data annotation approach based on suitable feature space projection and semi-supervised label estimation. We validate our method on the popular MNIST dataset and on images of human intestinal parasites with and without fecal impurities. Our results demonstrate the added-value of visual analytics tools that combine complementary abilities of humans and machines for more effective machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-27T17:03:50Z)
• Approximate Cross-Validation for Structured Models [20.79997929155929]
  Gold standard evaluation technique is structured cross-validation (CV) But CV here can be prohibitively slow due to the need to re-run already-expensive learning algorithms many times. Previous work has shown approximate cross-validation (ACV) methods provide a fast and provably accurate alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T00:06:03Z)
• Estimating the Prediction Performance of Spatial Models via Spatial k-Fold Cross Validation [1.7205106391379026]
  In machine learning one often assumes the data are independent when evaluating model performance. spatial autocorrelation (SAC) causes the standard cross validation (CV) methods to produce optimistically biased prediction performance estimates. We propose a modified version of the CV method called spatial k-fold cross validation (SKCV) which provides a useful estimate for model prediction performance without optimistic bias due to SAC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-28T19:55:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.