Results 1 - 10
of
86
Approximate Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms
, 1998
"... This article reviews five approximate statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task. These tests are compared experimentally to determine their probability of incorrectly detecting a difference when no difference exists (type I err ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 417 (8 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This article reviews five approximate statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task. These tests are compared experimentally to determine their probability of incorrectly detecting a difference when no difference exists (type I error). Two widely used statistical tests are shown to have high probability of type I error in certain situations and should never be used: a test for the difference of two proportions and a paired-differences t test based on taking several random train-test splits. A third test, a paired-differences t test based on 10-fold cross-validation, exhibits somewhat elevated probability of type I error. A fourth test, McNemar’s test, is shown to have low type I error. The fifth test is a new test, 5 × 2 cv, based on five iterations of twofold cross-validation. Experiments show that this test also has acceptable type I error. The article also measures the power (ability to detect algorithm differences when they do exist) of these tests. The cross-validated t test is the most powerful. The 5×2 cv test is shown to be slightly more powerful than McNemar’s test. The choice of the best test is determined by the computational cost of running the learning algorithm. For algorithms that can be executed only once, Mc-Nemar’s test is the only test with acceptable type I error. For algorithms that can be executed 10 times, the 5×2 cv test is recommended, because it is slightly more powerful and because it directly measures variation due to the choice of training set.
An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees
- Bagging, boosting, and randomization. Machine Learning
, 2000
"... Abstract. Bagging and boosting are methods that generate a diverse ensemble of classifiers by manipulating the training data given to a “base ” learning algorithm. Breiman has pointed out that they rely for their effectiveness on the instability of the base learning algorithm. An alternative approac ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 364 (5 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Bagging and boosting are methods that generate a diverse ensemble of classifiers by manipulating the training data given to a “base ” learning algorithm. Breiman has pointed out that they rely for their effectiveness on the instability of the base learning algorithm. An alternative approach to generating an ensemble is to randomize the internal decisions made by the base algorithm. This general approach has been studied previously by Ali and Pazzani and by Dietterich and Kong. This paper compares the effectiveness of randomization, bagging, and boosting for improving the performance of the decision-tree algorithm C4.5. The experiments show that in situations with little or no classification noise, randomization is competitive with (and perhaps slightly superior to) bagging but not as accurate as boosting. In situations with substantial classification noise, bagging is much better than boosting, and sometimes better than randomization.
Variable Selection via Nonconcave Penalized Likelihood and its Oracle Properties
, 2001
"... Variable selection is fundamental to high-dimensional statistical modeling, including nonparametric regression. Many approaches in use are stepwise selection procedures, which can be computationally expensive and ignore stochastic errors in the variable selection process. In this article, penalized ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 173 (12 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Variable selection is fundamental to high-dimensional statistical modeling, including nonparametric regression. Many approaches in use are stepwise selection procedures, which can be computationally expensive and ignore stochastic errors in the variable selection process. In this article, penalized likelihood approaches are proposed to handle these kinds of problems. The proposed methods select variables and estimate coefficients simultaneously. Hence they enable us to construct confidence intervals for estimated parameters. The proposed approaches are distinguished from others in that the penalty functions are symmetric, nonconcave on (0, ∞), and have singularities at the origin to produce sparse solutions. Furthermore, the penalty functions should be bounded by a constant to reduce bias and satisfy certain conditions to yield continuous solutions. A new algorithm is proposed for optimizing penalized likelihood functions. The proposed ideas are widely applicable. They are readily applied to a variety of parametric models such as generalized linear models and robust regression models. They can also be applied easily to nonparametric modeling by using wavelets and splines. Rates of convergence of the proposed penalized likelihood estimators are established. Furthermore, with proper choice of regularization parameters, we show that the proposed estimators perform as well as the oracle procedure in variable selection; namely, they work as well as if the correct submodel were known. Our simulation shows that the newly proposed methods compare favorably with other variable selection techniques. Furthermore, the standard error formulas are tested to be accurate enough for practical applications.
Stability and Generalization
, 2001
"... We define notions of stability for learning algorithms and show how to use these notions to derive generalization error bounds based on the empirical error and the leave-one-out error. The methods we use can be applied in the regression framework as well as in the classification one when the classif ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 124 (6 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We define notions of stability for learning algorithms and show how to use these notions to derive generalization error bounds based on the empirical error and the leave-one-out error. The methods we use can be applied in the regression framework as well as in the classification one when the classifier is obtained by thresholding a real-valued function. We study the stability properties of large classes of learning algorithms such as regularization based algorithms. In particular we focus on Hilbert space regularization and Kullback-Leibler regularization. We demonstrate how to apply the results to SVM for regression and classification.
Inference for the generalization error
- Machine Learning
, 2003
"... CIRANO Le CIRANO est un organisme sans but lucratif constitué en vertu de la Loi des compagnies du Québec. Le financement de son infrastructure et de ses activités de recherche provient des cotisations de ses organisationsmembres, d�une subvention d�infrastructure du ministère de l�Industrie, du Com ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 115 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
CIRANO Le CIRANO est un organisme sans but lucratif constitué en vertu de la Loi des compagnies du Québec. Le financement de son infrastructure et de ses activités de recherche provient des cotisations de ses organisationsmembres, d�une subvention d�infrastructure du ministère de l�Industrie, du Commerce, de la Science et de la Technologie, de même que des subventions et mandats obtenus par ses équipes de recherche. CIRANO is a private non-profit organization incorporated under the Québec Companies Act. Its infrastructure and research activities are funded through fees paid by member organizations, an infrastructure grant from the Ministère de l�Industrie, du Commerce, de la Science et de la Technologie, and grants and research mandates obtained by its research teams.
Model selection and estimation in the Gaussian graphical model
- BIOMETRIKA (2007), PP. 1–17
, 2007
"... ..."
Adaptive Scaling for Feature Selection in SVMs
, 2002
"... This paper introduces an algorithm for the automatic relevance determination of input variables in kernelized Support Vector Machines. Relevance is measured by scale factors defining the input space metric, and feature selection is performed by assigning zero weights to irrelevant variables. The met ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 34 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper introduces an algorithm for the automatic relevance determination of input variables in kernelized Support Vector Machines. Relevance is measured by scale factors defining the input space metric, and feature selection is performed by assigning zero weights to irrelevant variables. The metric is automatically tuned by the minimization of the standard SVM empirical risk, where scale factors are added to the usual set of parameters defining the classifier. Feature selection is achieved by constraints encouraging the sparsity of scale factors. The resulting algorithm compares favorably to state-of-the-art feature selection procedures and demonstrates its effectiveness on a demanding facial expression recognition problem.
Almost-Everywhere Algorithmic Stability and Generalization Error
- In UAI-2002: Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence
, 2002
"... We introduce a new notion of algorithmic stability, which we call training stability. ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 34 (6 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We introduce a new notion of algorithmic stability, which we call training stability.
Sure independence screening for ultra-high dimensional feature space
, 2006
"... Variable selection plays an important role in high dimensional statistical modeling which nowa-days appears in many areas and is key to various scientific discoveries. For problems of large scale or dimensionality p, estimation accuracy and computational cost are two top concerns. In a recent paper, ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 32 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Variable selection plays an important role in high dimensional statistical modeling which nowa-days appears in many areas and is key to various scientific discoveries. For problems of large scale or dimensionality p, estimation accuracy and computational cost are two top concerns. In a recent paper, Candes and Tao (2007) propose the Dantzig selector using L1 regularization and show that it achieves the ideal risk up to a logarithmic factor log p. Their innovative procedure and remarkable result are challenged when the dimensionality is ultra high as the factor log p can be large and their uniform uncertainty principle can fail. Motivated by these concerns, we introduce the concept of sure screening and propose a sure screening method based on a correlation learning, called the Sure Independence Screening (SIS), to reduce dimensionality from high to a moderate scale that is below sample size. In a fairly general asymptotic framework, the SIS is shown to have the sure screening property for even exponentially growing dimensionality. As a methodological extension, an iterative SIS (ISIS) is also proposed to enhance its finite sample performance. With dimension reduced accurately from high to below sample size, variable selection can be improved on both speed and accuracy, and can then be ac-
Nearest neighbor classification from multiple feature subsets
- Intelligent Data Analysis
, 1999
"... Combining multiple classifiers is an effective technique for improving accuracy. There are many general combining algorithms, such as Bagging, Boosting, or Error Correcting Output Coding, that significantly improve classifiers like decision trees, rule learners, or neural networks. Unfortunately, th ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 29 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Combining multiple classifiers is an effective technique for improving accuracy. There are many general combining algorithms, such as Bagging, Boosting, or Error Correcting Output Coding, that significantly improve classifiers like decision trees, rule learners, or neural networks. Unfortunately, these combining methods do not improve the nearest neighbor classifier. In this paper, we present MFS, a combining algorithm designed to improve the accuracy of the nearest neighbor (NN) classifier. MFS combines multiple NN classifiers each using only a random subset of features. The experimental results are encouraging: On 25 datasets from the UCI Repository, MFS signi cantly outperformed several standard NN variants and was competitive with boosted decision trees. In additional experiments, we show that MFS is robust to irrelevant features, and is able to reduce both bias and variance components of error.

