Results 1 -
3 of
3
Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the EM algorithm
- Neural Computation
, 1994
"... We present a tree-structured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hi-erarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM’s). Learning is treated as a max-imum likelihood ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 635 (20 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We present a tree-structured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hi-erarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM’s). Learning is treated as a max-imum likelihood problem; in particular, we present an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm for adjusting the parame-ters of the architecture. We also develop an on-line learning algorithm in which the pa-rameters are updated incrementally. Com-parative simulation results are presented in the robot dynamics domain. 1
Bagging, Boosting, and C4.5
- In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, 1996
"... Breiman's bagging and Freund and Schapire's boosting are recent methods for improving the predictive power of classifier learning systems. Both form a set of classifiers that are combined by voting, bagging by generating replicated bootstrap samples of the data, and boosting by adjusting the weight ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 251 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Breiman's bagging and Freund and Schapire's boosting are recent methods for improving the predictive power of classifier learning systems. Both form a set of classifiers that are combined by voting, bagging by generating replicated bootstrap samples of the data, and boosting by adjusting the weights of training instances. This paper reports results of applying both techniques to a system that learns decision trees and testing on a representative collection of datasets. While both approaches substantially improve predictive accuracy, boosting shows the greater benefit. On the other hand, boosting also produces severe degradation on some datasets. A small change to the way that boosting combines the votes of learned classifiers reduces this downside and also leads to slightly better results on most of the datasets considered. Introduction Designers of empirical machine learning systems are concerned with such issues as the computational cost of the learning method and the accuracy and ...
A System for Induction of Oblique Decision Trees
- Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
, 1994
"... This article describes a new system for induction of oblique decision trees. This system, OC1, combines deterministic hill-climbing with two forms of randomization to find a good oblique split (in the form of a hyperplane) at each node of a decision tree. Oblique decision tree methods are tuned espe ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 222 (11 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This article describes a new system for induction of oblique decision trees. This system, OC1, combines deterministic hill-climbing with two forms of randomization to find a good oblique split (in the form of a hyperplane) at each node of a decision tree. Oblique decision tree methods are tuned especially for domains in which the attributes are numeric, although they can be adapted to symbolic or mixed symbolic/numeric attributes. We present extensive empirical studies, using both real and artificial data, that analyze OC1's ability to construct oblique trees that are smaller and more accurate than their axis-parallel counterparts. We also examine the benefits of randomization for the construction of oblique decision trees. 1. Introduction Current data collection technology provides a unique challenge and opportunity for automated machine learning techniques. The advent of major scientific projects such as the Human Genome Project, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the human brain mappi...

