Clustering Based One-Class Classification for Compliance Verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Monitoring the levels of radioxenon isotopes in the atmosphere has been proposed as a means of verifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). This translates into a classification problem, whereby the measured concentrations either belong to an explosion class or a background class. Instances drawn from the explosions class are extremely rare, if not non-existent. Therefore, the resulting dataset is extremely imbalanced, and inherently suited for one-class classification. Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that the background distribution can be extremely complex, and thus, modelling it using one-class learning is difficult. In order to improve upon the previous classification results, we investigate the augmentation of one-class learning methods with clustering. The purpose of clustering is to convert a complex distribution into simpler distributions, the clusters, over which more effective models can be built. The resulting model, built from one-class learners trained over the clusters, performs more effectively than a model that is built over the original distribution. This thesis is empirically tested on three different data domains; in particular, a number of artificial datasets, datasets from the UCI repository, and data modelled after the extremely challenging CTBT. The results offer credence to the fact that there is an improvement in performance when clustering is used with one-class classification on complex distributions.
KeywordsTarget Class Original Distribution Complex Distribution Multimodal Distribution Imbalance Ratio
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Arya, S.P.: Air Pollution Meteorology and Dispersion. Oxford University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
- 2.Bellinger, C., Oommen, B.J.: On simulating episodic events against a background of noise-like non-episodic events. In: Proceedings of 42nd Summer Computer Simulation Conference, SCSC 2010, Ottawa, Canada, July 11-14 (2010)Google Scholar
- 3.Bellinger, C., Oommen, B.J.: On the pattern recognition and classification of stochastically episodic events. Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence (2011) (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
- 4.Demsar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7 (2006)Google Scholar
- 8.Japkowicz, N., Shah, M.: Evaluating Learning Algorithms: A Classification Perspective. Cambridge University Press (2011)Google Scholar
- 10.Kubat, M., Holte, R.C., Matwin, S.: Machine learning for the detection of oil spills in satellite radar images. In: Machine Learning, pp. 195–215 (1998)Google Scholar
- 11.Kubat, M., Matwin, S.: Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: One-sided selection. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 179–186. Morgan Kaufmann (1997)Google Scholar
- 14.Simmonds, J.R., Lawson, G., Mayall, A.: A Methodology for Assessing the Radiological Consequences of RoutineReleases of Radionuclides to the Environment. EUR, 1018-5593; 15760. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection (1995)Google Scholar
- 15.Stocki, T.J., Japkowicz, N., Ungar, I.K., Hoffman, J., Yi, J.: Summary of the data mining contest for the IEEE international conference on data mining. In: Proceedings of the ICDM 2008 Data Mining Contest (2008), http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/ADA/icdm08cup/booklet.pdf