Results 1  10
of
3,324
Induction of Decision Trees
 MACH. LEARN
, 1986
"... The technology for building knowledgebased systems by inductive inference from examples has been demonstrated successfully in several practical applications. This paper summarizes an approach to synthesizing decision trees that has been used in a variety of systems, and it describes one such syste ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4035 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The technology for building knowledgebased systems by inductive inference from examples has been demonstrated successfully in several practical applications. This paper summarizes an approach to synthesizing decision trees that has been used in a variety of systems, and it describes one such system, ID3, in detail. Results from recent studies show ways in which the methodology can be modified to deal with information that is noisy and/or incomplete. A reported shortcoming of the basic algorithm is discussed and two means of overcoming it are compared. The paper concludes with illustrations of current research directions.
Random forests
 Machine Learning
, 2001
"... Abstract. Random forests are a combination of tree predictors such that each tree depends on the values of a random vector sampled independently and with the same distribution for all trees in the forest. The generalization error for forests converges a.s. to a limit as the number of trees in the fo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2628 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Random forests are a combination of tree predictors such that each tree depends on the values of a random vector sampled independently and with the same distribution for all trees in the forest. The generalization error for forests converges a.s. to a limit as the number of trees in the forest becomes large. The generalization error of a forest of tree classifiers depends on the strength of the individual trees in the forest and the correlation between them. Using a random selection of features to split each node yields error rates that compare favorably to Adaboost (Y. Freund & R. Schapire, Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International conference, ∗∗∗, 148–156), but are more robust with respect to noise. Internal estimates monitor error, strength, and correlation and these are used to show the response to increasing the number of features used in the splitting. Internal estimates are also used to measure variable importance. These ideas are also applicable to regression.
Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm
, 1996
"... In an earlier paper, we introduced a new “boosting” algorithm called AdaBoost which, theoretically, can be used to significantly reduce the error of any learning algorithm that consistently generates classifiers whose performance is a little better than random guessing. We also introduced the relate ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2022 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In an earlier paper, we introduced a new “boosting” algorithm called AdaBoost which, theoretically, can be used to significantly reduce the error of any learning algorithm that consistently generates classifiers whose performance is a little better than random guessing. We also introduced the related notion of a “pseudoloss ” which is a method for forcing a learning algorithm of multilabel conceptsto concentrate on the labels that are hardest to discriminate. In this paper, we describe experiments we carried out to assess how well AdaBoost with and without pseudoloss, performs on real learning problems. We performed two sets of experiments. The first set compared boosting to Breiman’s “bagging ” method when used to aggregate various classifiers (including decision trees and single attributevalue tests). We compared the performance of the two methods on a collection of machinelearning benchmarks. In the second set of experiments, we studied in more detail the performance of boosting using a nearestneighbor classifier on an OCR problem.
Additive Logistic Regression: a Statistical View of Boosting
 Annals of Statistics
, 1998
"... Boosting (Freund & Schapire 1996, Schapire & Singer 1998) is one of the most important recent developments in classification methodology. The performance of many classification algorithms can often be dramatically improved by sequentially applying them to reweighted versions of the input dat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1544 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Boosting (Freund & Schapire 1996, Schapire & Singer 1998) is one of the most important recent developments in classification methodology. The performance of many classification algorithms can often be dramatically improved by sequentially applying them to reweighted versions of the input data, and taking a weighted majority vote of the sequence of classifiers thereby produced. We show that this seemingly mysterious phenomenon can be understood in terms of well known statistical principles, namely additive modeling and maximum likelihood. For the twoclass problem, boosting can be viewed as an approximation to additive modeling on the logistic scale using maximum Bernoulli likelihood as a criterion. We develop more direct approximations and show that they exhibit nearly identical results to boosting. Direct multiclass generalizations based on multinomial likelihood are derived that exhibit performance comparable to other recently proposed multiclass generalizations of boosting in most...
Wrappers for Feature Subset Selection
 AIJ SPECIAL ISSUE ON RELEVANCE
, 1997
"... In the feature subset selection problem, a learning algorithm is faced with the problem of selecting a relevant subset of features upon which to focus its attention, while ignoring the rest. To achieve the best possible performance with a particular learning algorithm on a particular training set, a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1354 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In the feature subset selection problem, a learning algorithm is faced with the problem of selecting a relevant subset of features upon which to focus its attention, while ignoring the rest. To achieve the best possible performance with a particular learning algorithm on a particular training set, a feature subset selection method should consider how the algorithm and the training set interact. We explore the relation between optimal feature subset selection and relevance. Our wrapper method searches for an optimal feature subset tailored to a particular algorithm and a domain. We study the strengths and weaknesses of the wrapper approach andshow a series of improved designs. We compare the wrapper approach to induction without feature subset selection and to Relief, a filter approach to feature subset selection. Significant improvement in accuracy is achieved for some datasets for the two families of induction algorithms used: decision trees and NaiveBayes.
On combining classifiers
 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
, 1998
"... We develop a common theoretical framework for combining classifiers which use distinct pattern representations and show that many existing schemes can be considered as special cases of compound classification where all the pattern representations are used jointly to make a decision. An experimental ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1308 (32 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We develop a common theoretical framework for combining classifiers which use distinct pattern representations and show that many existing schemes can be considered as special cases of compound classification where all the pattern representations are used jointly to make a decision. An experimental comparison of various classifier combination schemes demonstrates that the combination rule developed under the most restrictive assumptions—the sum rule—outperforms other classifier combinations schemes. A sensitivity analysis of the various schemes to estimation errors is carried out to show that this finding can be justified theoretically.
Boosting the margin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods
 IN PROCEEDINGS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MACHINE LEARNING
, 1997
"... One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this ..."
Abstract

Cited by 849 (53 self)
 Add to MetaCart
One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this phenomenon is related to the distribution of margins of the training examples with respect to the generated voting classification rule, where the margin of an example is simply the difference between the number of correct votes and the maximum number of votes received by any incorrect label. We show that techniques used in the analysis of Vapnik’s support vector classifiers and of neural networks with small weights can be applied to voting methods to relate the margin distribution to the test error. We also show theoretically and experimentally that boosting is especially effective at increasing the margins of the training examples. Finally, we compare our explanation to those based on the biasvariance decomposition.
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 666 (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 paireddifferences t test based on taking several random traintest splits. A third test, a paireddifferences t test based on 10fold crossvalidation, 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 crossvalidation. 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 crossvalidated 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, McNemar’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 Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining Preferences
, 1999
"... The problem of combining preferences arises in several applications, such as combining the results of different search engines. This work describes an efficient algorithm for combining multiple preferences. We first give a formal framework for the problem. We then describe and analyze a new boosting ..."
Abstract

Cited by 658 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The problem of combining preferences arises in several applications, such as combining the results of different search engines. This work describes an efficient algorithm for combining multiple preferences. We first give a formal framework for the problem. We then describe and analyze a new boosting algorithm for combining preferences called RankBoost. We also describe an efficient implementation of the algorithm for certain natural cases. We discuss two experiments we carried out to assess the performance of RankBoost. In the first experiment, we used the algorithm to combine different WWW search strategies, each of which is a query expansion for a given domain. For this task, we compare the performance of RankBoost to the individual search strategies. The second experiment is a collaborativefiltering task for making movie recommendations. Here, we present results comparing RankBoost to nearestneighbor and regression algorithms.
Comparison of discrimination methods for the classification of tumors using gene expression data
 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
, 2002
"... A reliable and precise classification of tumors is essential for successful diagnosis and treatment of cancer. cDNA microarrays and highdensity oligonucleotide chips are novel biotechnologies increasingly used in cancer research. By allowing the monitoring of expression levels in cells for thousand ..."
Abstract

Cited by 648 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A reliable and precise classification of tumors is essential for successful diagnosis and treatment of cancer. cDNA microarrays and highdensity oligonucleotide chips are novel biotechnologies increasingly used in cancer research. By allowing the monitoring of expression levels in cells for thousands of genes simultaneously, microarray experiments may lead to a more complete understanding of the molecular variations among tumors and hence to a finer and more informative classification. The ability to successfully distinguish between tumor classes (already known or yet to be discovered) using gene expression data is an important aspect of this novel approach to cancer classification. This article compares the performance of different discrimination methods for the classification of tumors based on gene expression data. The methods include nearestneighbor classifiers, linear discriminant analysis, and classification trees. Recent machine learning approaches, such as bagging and boosting, are also considered. The discrimination methods are applied to datasets from three recently published cancer gene expression studies.