Results 1 
2 of
2
Efficient Progressive Sampling
, 1999
"... Having access to massiveamounts of data does not necessarily imply that induction algorithms must use them all. Samples often provide the same accuracy with far less computational cost. However, the correct sample size is rarely obvious. We analyze methods for progressive samplingstarting with ..."
Abstract

Cited by 106 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Having access to massiveamounts of data does not necessarily imply that induction algorithms must use them all. Samples often provide the same accuracy with far less computational cost. However, the correct sample size is rarely obvious. We analyze methods for progressive samplingstarting with small samples and progressively increasing them as long as model accuracy improves. We show that a simple, geometric sampling schedule is efficient in an asymptotic sense. We then explore the notion of optimal efficiency: what is the absolute best sampling schedule? We describe the issues involved in instantiating an "optimally efficient" progressive sampler. Finally,we provide empirical results comparing a variety of progressive sampling methods. We conclude that progressive sampling often is preferable to analyzing all data instances.
Tree induction vs. logistic regression: A learningcurve analysis
 CEDER WORKING PAPER #IS0102, STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
, 2001
"... Tree induction and logistic regression are two standard, offtheshelf methods for building models for classi cation. We present a largescale experimental comparison of logistic regression and tree induction, assessing classification accuracy and the quality of rankings based on classmembership pr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 78 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Tree induction and logistic regression are two standard, offtheshelf methods for building models for classi cation. We present a largescale experimental comparison of logistic regression and tree induction, assessing classification accuracy and the quality of rankings based on classmembership probabilities. We use a learningcurve analysis to examine the relationship of these measures to the size of the training set. The results of the study show several remarkable things. (1) Contrary to prior observations, logistic regression does not generally outperform tree induction. (2) More specifically, and not surprisingly, logistic regression is better for smaller training sets and tree induction for larger data sets. Importantly, this often holds for training sets drawn from the same domain (i.e., the learning curves cross), so conclusions about inductionalgorithm superiority on a given domain must be based on an analysis of the learning curves. (3) Contrary to conventional wisdom, tree induction is effective atproducing probabilitybased rankings, although apparently comparatively less so foragiven training{set size than at making classifications. Finally, (4) the domains on which tree induction and logistic regression are ultimately preferable canbecharacterized surprisingly well by a simple measure of signaltonoise ratio.