Balancing Exploration and Exploitation: A New Algorithm for Active Machine Learning

Active machine learning algorithms are used when large numbers of unlabeled examples are available and getting labels for them is costly (e.g. requiring consulting a human expert). Many conventional active learning algorithms focus on refining the decision boundary, at the expense of exploring new regions that the current hypothesis misclassifies. We propose a new active learning algorithm that balances such exploration with refining of the decision boundary by dynamically adjusting the probability to explore at each step. Our experimental results demonstrate improved performance on data sets that require extensive exploration while remaining competitive on data sets that do not. Our algorithm also shows significant tolerance of noise.

Managing Large Data Sets Using Support Vector Machines

Hundreds of Terabytes of CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) data are being accumulated for storage day by day at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, which is one of the eight US CMS Tier-2 sites. Managing this data includes retaining useful CMS data sets and clearing storage space for newly arriving data by deleting less useful data sets. This is an important task that is currently being done manually and it requires a large amount of time. The overall objective of this study was to develop a methodology to help identify the data sets to be deleted when there is a requirement for storage space. CMS data is stored using HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System). HDFS logs give information regarding file access operations. Hadoop MapReduce was used to feed information in these logs to Support Vector Machines (SVMs), a machine learning algorithm applicable to classification and regression which is used in this Thesis to develop a classifier. Time elapsed in data set classification by this method is dependent on the size of the input HDFS log file since the algorithmic complexities of Hadoop MapReduce algorithms here are O(n). The SVM methodology produces a list of data sets for deletion along with their respective sizes. This methodology was also compared with a heuristic called Retention Cost which was calculated using size of the data set and the time since its last access to help decide how useful a data set is. Accuracies of both were compared by calculating the percentage of data sets predicted for deletion which were accessed at a later instance of time. Our methodology using SVMs proved to be more accurate than using the Retention Cost heuristic. This methodology could be used to solve similar problems involving other large data sets.

Bandit-Based Algorithms for Budgeted Learning

We explore the problem of budgeted machine learning, in which the learning algorithm has free access to the training examples’ labels but has to pay for each attribute that is specified. This learning model is appropriate in many areas, including medical applications. We present new algorithms for choosing which attributes to purchase of which examples in the budgeted learning model based on algorithms for the multi-armed bandit problem. All of our approaches outperformed the current state of the art. Furthermore, we present a new means for selecting an example to purchase after the attribute is selected, instead of selecting an example uniformly at random, which is typically done. Our new example selection method improved performance of all the algorithms we tested, both ours and those in the literature.

Active Learning to Maximize Area Under the ROC Curve

In active learning, a machine learning algorithmis given an unlabeled set of examples U, and is allowed to request labels for a relatively small subset of U to use for training. The goal is then to judiciously choose which examples in U to have labeled in order to optimize some performance criterion, e.g. classification accuracy. We study how active learning affects AUC. We examine two existing algorithms from the literature and present our own active learning algorithms designed to maximize the AUC of the hypothesis. One of our algorithms was consistently the top performer, and Closest Sampling from the literature often came in second behind it. When good posterior probability estimates were available, our heuristics were by far the best.