Results 11  20
of
3,142
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 562 (19 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.
The Infinite Hidden Markov Model
 Machine Learning
, 2002
"... We show that it is possible to extend hidden Markov models to have a countably infinite number of hidden states. By using the theory of Dirichlet processes we can implicitly integrate out the infinitely many transition parameters, leaving only three hyperparameters which can be learned from data. Th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 515 (36 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that it is possible to extend hidden Markov models to have a countably infinite number of hidden states. By using the theory of Dirichlet processes we can implicitly integrate out the infinitely many transition parameters, leaving only three hyperparameters which can be learned from data. These three hyperparameters define a hierarchical Dirichlet process capable of capturing a rich set of transition dynamics. The three hyperparameters control the time scale of the dynamics, the sparsity of the underlying statetransition matrix, and the expected number of distinct hidden states in a finite sequence. In this framework it is also natural to allow the alphabet of emitted symbols to be infiniteconsider, for example, symbols being possible words appearing in English text.
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 472 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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 decisiontree 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.
Integrating classification and association rule mining
 In Proc of KDD
, 1998
"... Classification rule mining aims to discover a small set of rules in the database that forms an accurate classifier. Association rule mining finds all the rules existing in the database that satisfy some minimum support and minimum confidence constraints. For association rule mining, the target of di ..."
Abstract

Cited by 464 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Classification rule mining aims to discover a small set of rules in the database that forms an accurate classifier. Association rule mining finds all the rules existing in the database that satisfy some minimum support and minimum confidence constraints. For association rule mining, the target of discovery is not predetermined, while for classification rule mining there is one and only one predetermined target. In this paper, we propose to integrate these two mining techniques. The integration is done by focusing on mining a special subset of association rules, called class association rules (CARs). An efficient algorithm is also given for building a classifier based on the set of discovered CARs. Experimental results show that the classifier built this way is, in general, more accurate than that produced by the stateoftheart classification system C4.5. In addition, this integration helps to solve a number of problems that exist in the current classification systems.
Reducing Multiclass to Binary: A Unifying Approach for Margin Classifiers
 Journal of Machine Learning Research
, 2000
"... We present a unifying framework for studying the solution of multiclass categorization problems by reducing them to multiple binary problems that are then solved using a marginbased binary learning algorithm. The proposed framework unifies some of the most popular approaches in which each class ..."
Abstract

Cited by 447 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present a unifying framework for studying the solution of multiclass categorization problems by reducing them to multiple binary problems that are then solved using a marginbased binary learning algorithm. The proposed framework unifies some of the most popular approaches in which each class is compared against all others, or in which all pairs of classes are compared to each other, or in which output codes with errorcorrecting properties are used. We propose a general method for combining the classifiers generated on the binary problems, and we prove a general empirical multiclass loss bound given the empirical loss of the individual binary learning algorithms. The scheme and the corresponding bounds apply to many popular classification learning algorithms including supportvector machines, AdaBoost, regression, logistic regression and decisiontree algorithms. We also give a multiclass generalization error analysis for general output codes with AdaBoost as the binary learner. Experimental results with SVM and AdaBoost show that our scheme provides a viable alternative to the most commonly used multiclass algorithms.
SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique
 Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
, 2002
"... An approach to the construction of classifiers from imbalanced datasets is described. A dataset is imbalanced if the classification categories are not approximately equally represented. Often realworld data sets are predominately composed of ``normal'' examples with only a small percentag ..."
Abstract

Cited by 354 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
An approach to the construction of classifiers from imbalanced datasets is described. A dataset is imbalanced if the classification categories are not approximately equally represented. Often realworld data sets are predominately composed of ``normal'' examples with only a small percentage of ``abnormal'' or ``interesting'' examples. It is also the case that the cost of misclassifying an abnormal (interesting) example as a normal example is often much higher than the cost of the reverse error. Undersampling of the majority (normal) class has been proposed as a good means of increasing the sensitivity of a classifier to the minority class. This paper shows that a combination of our method of oversampling the minority (abnormal) class and undersampling the majority (normal) class can achieve better classifier performance (in ROC space) than only undersampling the majority class. This paper also shows that a combination of our method of oversampling the minority class and undersampling the majority class can achieve better classifier performance (in ROC space) than varying the loss ratios in Ripper or class priors in Naive Bayes. Our method of oversampling the minority class involves creating synthetic minority class examples. Experiments are performed using C4.5, Ripper and a Naive Bayes classifier. The method is evaluated using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) and the ROC convex hull strategy.
The Case Against Accuracy Estimation for Comparing Induction Algorithms
 In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning
, 1997
"... We analyze critically the use of classification accuracy to compare classifiers on natural data sets, providing a thorough investigation using ROC analysis, standard machine learning algorithms, and standard benchmark data sets. The results raise serious concerns about the use of accuracy for compar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 352 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We analyze critically the use of classification accuracy to compare classifiers on natural data sets, providing a thorough investigation using ROC analysis, standard machine learning algorithms, and standard benchmark data sets. The results raise serious concerns about the use of accuracy for comparing classifiers and drawinto question the conclusions that can be drawn from such studies. In the course of the presentation, we describe and demonstrate what we believe to be the proper use of ROC analysis for comparative studies in machine learning research. We argue that this methodology is preferable both for making practical choices and for drawing scientific conclusions.
MetaCost: A General Method for Making Classifiers CostSensitive
 In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
, 1999
"... Research in machine learning, statistics and related fields has produced a wide variety of algorithms for classification. However, most of these algorithms assume that all errors have the same cost, which is seldom the case in KDD prob lems. Individually making each classification learner costsensi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 329 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Research in machine learning, statistics and related fields has produced a wide variety of algorithms for classification. However, most of these algorithms assume that all errors have the same cost, which is seldom the case in KDD prob lems. Individually making each classification learner costsensitive is laborious, and often nontrivial. In this paper we propose a principled method for making an arbitrary classifier costsensitive by wrapping a costminimizing procedure around it. This procedure, called MetaCost, treats the underlying classifier as a black box, requiring no knowledge of its functioning or change to it. Unlike stratification, MetaCost is applicable to any number of classes and to arbitrary cost matrices. Empirical trials on a large suite of benchmark databases show that MetaCost almost always produces large cost reductions compared to the costblind classifier used (C4.5RULES) and to two forms of stratification. Further tests identify the key components of MetaCost and those that can be varied without substantial loss. Experiments on a larger database indicate that MetaCost scales well.
Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets
, 2006
"... While methods for comparing two learning algorithms on a single data set have been scrutinized for quite some time already, the issue of statistical tests for comparisons of more algorithms on multiple data sets, which is even more essential to typical machine learning studies, has been all but igno ..."
Abstract

Cited by 328 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
While methods for comparing two learning algorithms on a single data set have been scrutinized for quite some time already, the issue of statistical tests for comparisons of more algorithms on multiple data sets, which is even more essential to typical machine learning studies, has been all but ignored. This article reviews the current practice and then theoretically and empirically examines several suitable tests. Based on that, we recommend a set of simple, yet safe and robust nonparametric tests for statistical comparisons of classifiers: the Wilcoxon signed ranks test for comparison of two classifiers and the Friedman test with the corresponding posthoc tests for comparison of more classifiers over multiple data sets. Results of the latter can also be neatly presented with the newly introduced CD (critical difference) diagrams.
Large margin dags for multiclass classification
 Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12
, 2000
"... We present a new learning architecture: the Decision Directed Acyclic Graph (DDAG), which is used to combine many twoclass classifiers into a multiclass classifier. For anclass problem, the DDAG contains � classifiers, one for each pair of classes. We present a VC analysis of the case when the nod ..."
Abstract

Cited by 286 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present a new learning architecture: the Decision Directed Acyclic Graph (DDAG), which is used to combine many twoclass classifiers into a multiclass classifier. For anclass problem, the DDAG contains � classifiers, one for each pair of classes. We present a VC analysis of the case when the node classifiers are hyperplanes; the resulting bound on the test error depends on and on the margin achieved at the nodes, but not on the dimension of the space. This motivates an algorithm, DAGSVM, which operates in a kernelinduced feature space and uses twoclass maximal margin hyperplanes at each decisionnode of the DDAG. The DAGSVM is substantially faster to train and evaluate than either the standard algorithm or Max Wins, while maintaining comparable accuracy to both of these algorithms. 1