Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai    |    Awaiting the gospel from Sarah Connor    |    1,954 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 778 of 1,954    |
|    Ted Dunning to All    |
|    Re: Detecting Anomalies of events    |
|    22 Sep 05 08:53:03    |
      XPost: comp.ai.neural-nets, comp.databases, comp.ai.fuzzy       XPost: sci.math       From: ted.dunning@gmail.com              The essence of the problem is that you have a classification problem       with training examples for all but the class of interest.              Viewed this way, the problem reduces to building probability models for       known cases and the unknown case. Since you have little or no data for       the unknown (anomalous) case, you have to make some strong assumptions.        Ultimately, you may be able to collect putative data from the       anomalous case, but you really can't depend on that being possible. At       most, you only get enough data to slightly constrain the posterior       distribution of the anomalous case.              Take for example the ultimately simple case of normally distributed       events with normally distributed anomalies. You know (in this example)       that the probability of an anomalous event is less than 1%.              Let us assume that from domain knowledge, you know that the mean of the       distributions is probably less than 10 and the standard deviation is       less than about 10. It is pretty easy to come up with conjugate prior       distributions that encode this knowledge.              If you take some number of training examples, then you can get a pretty       good posterior distribution for the non-anomalous case since you know       that at most about 1% of the training examples will be anomalies. In       fact, you can train a mixed Gaussian model on your data to get an even       better model. The model for the anomalous case will be largely       undetermined by the data and thus will be dominated by the prior       distribution.              In this framework, it is pretty easy to get a posterior probability       that each new data point is an anomaly or not (especially given that       each point must be one of the two) by integrating over all possible       parameter values. Obviously, these posterior estimates depend pretty       critically on the prior distribution of the anomalies. The wider you       choose the prior to be, the more extraordinary a point must be before       considering it to be an anomaly. The good news is that with a       Gaussian, your tails drop so sharply, you will do pretty well once you       have seen a few anomalies.              A previous poster claimed to use SOM's for this sort of problem. SOM's       may be a mildly interesting way to estimate complex probability       estimates, but I have found that actually analyzing your problem more       carefully generally leads to better solutions.              I would be very interested to hear of specific examples of production       systems that actually use SOM's for fraud detection. None of the       systems that I have designed for that task, nor any of the ones that I       am familiar with actually use SOM's for fraud detection. Anomaly       detection is an important step in these systems because fraud is so       commonly under-reported in the real world, but I haven't seen any SOM's       used in anger in these systems.              I would love to hear otherwise.              [ comp.ai is moderated. To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]       [ that fails mail your article to |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca