Optimize Parameters fails on F-measure

Hi,

I try to optimize parameters towards F-measure. There may be cases where the F-measure is undefined (if there are no true positives), but I know that some configurations exist where F-measure is at least defined (i.e., at least one true positive).

The optimize (grid) operator, however, always returns a configuration where F-measure is undefined.

Is there any way to circumvent that behavior?

Best,
Heiko

Find more posts tagged with

AI Studio

Accepted answers

All comments

fras

Are you really optimizing your model with respect to F-measure ? Please put your process here to check:

XML

HeikoPaulheim

There it is. Yields an F-measure of 0. If I change the main measure to AUC, it yields an F-measure of ~37%, so it's technically possible to get a higher value here.


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<process version="5.3.015">
  <context>
    <input/>
    <output/>
    <macros/>
  </context>
  <operator activated="true" class="process" compatibility="5.3.015" expanded="true" name="Process">
    <process expanded="true">
      <operator activated="true" class="read_csv" compatibility="5.3.015" expanded="true" height="60" name="Read CSV" width="90" x="45" y="30">
        <parameter key="csv_file" value="C:\Users\Heiko\Documents\Forschung\DBpediaDebugging\redirects\training_features.csv"/>
        <parameter key="column_separators" value="&#9;"/>
        <parameter key="first_row_as_names" value="false"/>
        <list key="annotations">
          <parameter key="0" value="Name"/>
        </list>
        <parameter key="encoding" value="windows-1252"/>
        <list key="data_set_meta_data_information">
          <parameter key="0" value="Original.true.polynominal.id"/>
          <parameter key="1" value="Replaced.true.polynominal.batch"/>
          <parameter key="2" value="Correct.true.binominal.label"/>
          <parameter key="3" value="Plausible.true.integer.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="4" value="Distribution.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="5" value="Levenstein.true.integer.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="6" value="Levenstein (relative).true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="7" value="Jaccard.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="8" value="Jaro.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="9" value="JaroWinkler.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="10" value="Prefix.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="11" value="Prefix2.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="12" value="Substring1.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="13" value="Substring2.true.real.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="14" value="Redirects.true.integer.attribute"/>
          <parameter key="15" value="Disambiguations.true.integer.attribute"/>
        </list>
      </operator>
      <operator activated="true" class="optimize_parameters_grid" compatibility="5.3.015" expanded="true" height="94" name="Optimize Parameters (2)" width="90" x="246" y="30">
        <list key="parameters">
          <parameter key="SVM (4).gamma" value="[0.0000001;1000000;13;logarithmic]"/>
          <parameter key="SVM (4).C" value="[0.0000001;1000000;13;logarithmic]"/>
        </list>
        <process expanded="true">
          <operator activated="true" class="x_validation" compatibility="5.1.002" expanded="true" height="112" name="Validation (3)" width="90" x="246" y="30">
            <description>A cross-validation evaluating a decision tree model.</description>
            <process expanded="true">
              <operator activated="true" class="support_vector_machine_libsvm" compatibility="5.3.015" expanded="true" height="76" name="SVM (4)" width="90" x="90" y="30">
                <parameter key="gamma" value="1.0000000000000003E-4"/>
                <parameter key="C" value="1000000.0"/>
                <list key="class_weights">
                  <parameter key="0" value="20.0"/>
                  <parameter key="1" value="1.0"/>
                </list>
              </operator>
              <connect from_port="training" to_op="SVM (4)" to_port="training set"/>
              <connect from_op="SVM (4)" from_port="model" to_port="model"/>
              <portSpacing port="source_training" spacing="0"/>
              <portSpacing port="sink_model" spacing="0"/>
              <portSpacing port="sink_through 1" spacing="0"/>
            </process>
            <process expanded="true">
              <operator activated="true" class="apply_model" compatibility="5.3.015" expanded="true" height="76" name="Apply Model (5)" width="90" x="45" y="30">
                <list key="application_parameters"/>
              </operator>
              <operator activated="true" class="performance_binominal_classification" compatibility="5.3.015" expanded="true" height="76" name="Performance (5)" width="90" x="179" y="30">
                <parameter key="f_measure" value="true"/>
              </operator>
              <connect from_port="model" to_op="Apply Model (5)" to_port="model"/>
              <connect from_port="test set" to_op="Apply Model (5)" to_port="unlabelled data"/>
              <connect from_op="Apply Model (5)" from_port="labelled data" to_op="Performance (5)" to_port="labelled data"/>
              <connect from_op="Performance (5)" from_port="performance" to_port="averagable 1"/>
              <portSpacing port="source_model" spacing="0"/>
              <portSpacing port="source_test set" spacing="0"/>
              <portSpacing port="source_through 1" spacing="0"/>
              <portSpacing port="sink_averagable 1" spacing="0"/>
              <portSpacing port="sink_averagable 2" spacing="0"/>
            </process>
          </operator>
          <connect from_port="input 1" to_op="Validation (3)" to_port="training"/>
          <connect from_op="Validation (3)" from_port="averagable 1" to_port="performance"/>
          <portSpacing port="source_input 1" spacing="0"/>
          <portSpacing port="source_input 2" spacing="0"/>
          <portSpacing port="sink_performance" spacing="0"/>
          <portSpacing port="sink_result 1" spacing="0"/>
        </process>
      </operator>
      <connect from_op="Read CSV" from_port="output" to_op="Optimize Parameters (2)" to_port="input 1"/>
      <connect from_op="Optimize Parameters (2)" from_port="parameter" to_port="result 1"/>
      <portSpacing port="source_input 1" spacing="0"/>
      <portSpacing port="sink_result 1" spacing="0"/>
      <portSpacing port="sink_result 2" spacing="0"/>
    </process>
  </operator>
</process>

HeikoPaulheim

If I may make a guess for the cause here: I think RM internally computes the F-measure without checking for tp=0. If you divide by 0 in Java, the result becomes larger than any other double:


double d1 = 1.0;
double d2 = 1.0/0.0;
System.out.println(d1>d2);
System.out.println(d2>d1);

Thus, if not handled separately, a configuration which produces zero true positives (i.e., both recall and precision are 0) will always be favored over any other configuration, since the F-measure is a term with 0 as its denominator. Usually, F1 is defined as 0 if tp=0, although the term itself is undefined for that case.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Discussions
Activity
Unanswered
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어(Korean)