Skip to main content

Impact of Classifiers to Drift Detection Method: A Comparison

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 22nd Engineering Applications of Neural Networks Conference (EANN 2021)

Abstract

Drift Detection Method (DDM) emerges as a critical problem faced in the Industry 4.0 era, especially for the identification of concept drift in continuously-gathered data streams. In this study, a small-scale comparison with regard to the impact of different classifiers in DDM is presented. Six well-established classifiers are introduced in order to compare their performance and evaluate their impact on DDM, namely Naïve Bayes (NB), Hoeffding Tree (HT), k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Passive Aggressive (PAC), Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) and Very Fast Decision Rules (VFDRC) classifiers. Streaming Ensemble Algorithm (SEA dataset) was selected to validate our simulations due to its suitability regarding concept drift detection and handling, incorporating abrupt concept changes. Confusion matrices were used to effectively juxtapose the performance of the considered algorithms in the SEA dataset. The findings suggest that KNN exhibits the best overall accuracy (87%) and seems to be the most stable algorithm compared to NB (86%), HT (86%) and VFDRC (84%) classifiers. Overall, these algorithms show increased performance, while the presence of noise in the data has a significant impact on the model accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Trakadas, P., et al.: An artificial intelligence-based collaboration approach in industrial IoT manufacturing: key concepts, architectural extensions and potential applications. Sensors 20, 5480 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Angelopoulos, A., et al.: Tackling faults in the industry 4.0 era—a survey of machine-learning solutions and key aspects. Sensors 20, 109 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jie, L., Liu, A., Dong, F., Feng, G., Gama, J., Zhang, G.: Learning under concept drift: a review. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 31(12), 2346–2363 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2018.2876857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wares, S., Isaacs, J., Elyan, E.: Data stream mining: methods and challenges for handling concept drift. SN Appl. Sci. 1(11), 1–19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1433-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Iwashita, A., Papa, J.: An overview on concept drift learning. IEEE Access 7, 1532–1547 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2886026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gonçalves, P.M., Jr., de Carvalho Santos, S.G., Barros, R.S., Vieira, D.C.: A comparative study on concept drift detectors. Expert Syst. Appl. 41(18), 8144–8156 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liao, J., Zhang, J., Ng, W.W.Y.: Effects of different base classifiers to Learn++ family algorithms for concept drifting and imbalanced pattern classification problems. In: 2016 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (ICMLC), Jeju, pp. 99–104 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2016.7860884.

  8. Barros, R., Silas, G., Santos, C.: A large-scale comparison of concept drift detectors. Inf. Sci. 451–452, 348–370 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.04.014

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Maior, R., de Barros, S., de Carvalho, G., Santos, : An overview and comprehensive comparison of ensembles for concept drift. Inf. Fus. 52, 213–244 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pedregosa, F., et al.: Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. JMLR 12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Montiel, J., Read, J., Bifet, A., Abdessalem, T.: Scikit-multiflow: a multi-output streaming framework. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 19(72), 1–5 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nick Street, W., Kim, Y.S.: A streaming ensemble algorithm (SEA) for large-scale classification. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD ‘01), pp. 377–382. ACM, New York (2001). https://doi.org/10.1145/502512.502568

  13. Gama, J., Medas, P., Castillo, G., Rodrigues, P.P.: Learning with drift detection. SBIA, 286–295 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dawid, A.P.: Present position and potential developments: some personal views: statistical theory: the prequential approach. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Gen.) 147(2), 278–292 (1984). https://doi.org/10.2307/2981683

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelos Angelopoulos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Angelopoulos, A. et al. (2021). Impact of Classifiers to Drift Detection Method: A Comparison. In: Iliadis, L., Macintyre, J., Jayne, C., Pimenidis, E. (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd Engineering Applications of Neural Networks Conference. EANN 2021. Proceedings of the International Neural Networks Society, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80568-5_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics