Results 1  10
of
45
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 92 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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.
The role of Occam’s Razor in knowledge discovery
 Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
, 1999
"... Abstract. Many KDD systems incorporate an implicit or explicit preference for simpler models, but this use of “Occam’s razor ” has been strongly criticized by several authors (e.g., Schaffer, 1993; Webb, 1996). This controversy arises partly because Occam’s razor has been interpreted in two quite di ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Many KDD systems incorporate an implicit or explicit preference for simpler models, but this use of “Occam’s razor ” has been strongly criticized by several authors (e.g., Schaffer, 1993; Webb, 1996). This controversy arises partly because Occam’s razor has been interpreted in two quite different ways. The first interpretation (simplicity is a goal in itself) is essentially correct, but is at heart a preference for more comprehensible models. The second interpretation (simplicity leads to greater accuracy) is much more problematic. A critical review of the theoretical arguments for and against it shows that it is unfounded as a universal principle, and demonstrably false. A review of empirical evidence shows that it also fails as a practical heuristic. This article argues that its continued use in KDD risks causing significant opportunities to be missed, and should therefore be restricted to the comparatively few applications where it is appropriate. The article proposes and reviews the use of domain constraints as an alternative for avoiding overfitting, and examines possible methods for handling the accuracy–comprehensibility tradeoff.
ROC 'n' Rule Learning  Towards a Better Understanding of Covering Algorithms
 Machine Learning
, 2005
"... This paper provides an analysis of the behavior of separateandconquer or covering rule learning algorithms by visualizing their evaluation metrics and their dynamics in PNspace, a variant of ROCspace. Our results show that most commonly used search heuristics, including accuracy, weighted relativ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 48 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper provides an analysis of the behavior of separateandconquer or covering rule learning algorithms by visualizing their evaluation metrics and their dynamics in PNspace, a variant of ROCspace. Our results show that most commonly used search heuristics, including accuracy, weighted relative accuracy, entropy, and Gini index, are equivalent to one of two fundamental prototypes: precision, which tries to optimize the area under the ROC curve for unknown costs, and a costweighted difference between covered positive and negative examples, which tries to find the optimal point under known or assumed costs. We also show that a straightforward generalization of the mestimate trades off these two prototypes. Furthermore, our results show that stopping and filtering criteria like CN2's significance test focus on identifying significant deviations from random classification, which does not necessarily avoid overfitting. We also identify a problem with Foil's MDLbased encoding length restriction, which proves to be largely equivalent to a variable threshold on the recall of the rule. In general, we interpret these results as evidence that, contrary to common conception, prepruning heuristics are not very well understood and deserve more investigation.
WellTrained PETs: Improving Probability Estimation Trees
, 2000
"... Decision trees are one of the most effective and widely used classification methods. However, many applications require class probability estimates, and probability estimation trees (PETs) have the same attractive features as classification trees (e.g., comprehensibility, accuracy and efficiency in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 37 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Decision trees are one of the most effective and widely used classification methods. However, many applications require class probability estimates, and probability estimation trees (PETs) have the same attractive features as classification trees (e.g., comprehensibility, accuracy and efficiency in high dimensions and on large data sets). Unfortunately, decision trees have been found to provide poor probability estimates. Several techniques have been proposed to build more accurate PETs, but, to our knowledge, there has not been a systematic experimental analysis of which techniques actually improve the probability estimates, and by how much. In this paper we first discuss why the decisiontree representation is not intrinsically inadequate for probability estimation. Inaccurate probabilities are partially the result of decisiontree induction algorithms that focus on maximizing classification accuracy and minimizing tree size (for example via reducederror pruning). Larger tree...
Tractable learning of large bayes net structures from sparse data
, 2004
"... statistics for creating the global Bayes Net. This paper addresses three questions. Is it useful to attempt to learn a Bayesian network structure with hundreds of thousands of nodes? How should such structure search proceed practically? The third question arises out of our approach to the second: ho ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
statistics for creating the global Bayes Net. This paper addresses three questions. Is it useful to attempt to learn a Bayesian network structure with hundreds of thousands of nodes? How should such structure search proceed practically? The third question arises out of our approach to the second: how can Frequent Sets (Agrawal et al., 1993), which are extremely popular in the area of descriptive data mining, be turned into a probabilistic model? Large sparse datasets with hundreds of thousands of records and attributes appear in social networks, warehousing, supermarket transactions and web logs. The complexity of structural search made learning of factored probabilistic models on such datasets unfeasible. We propose to use Frequent Sets to significantly speed up the structural search. Unlike previous approaches, we not only cache nway sufficient statistics, but also exploit their local structure. We also present an empirical evaluation of our algorithm applied to several massive datasets.
Computational Intelligence Methods for RuleBased Data Understanding
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
, 2004
"... ... This paper is focused on the extraction and use of logical rules for data understanding. All aspects of rule generation, optimization, and application are described, including the problem of finding good symbolic descriptors for continuous data, tradeoffs between accuracy and simplicity at the r ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
... This paper is focused on the extraction and use of logical rules for data understanding. All aspects of rule generation, optimization, and application are described, including the problem of finding good symbolic descriptors for continuous data, tradeoffs between accuracy and simplicity at the ruleextraction stage, and tradeoffs between rejection and error level at the rule optimization stage. Stability of rulebased description, calculation of probabilities from rules, and other related issues are also discussed. Major approaches to extraction of logical rules based on neural networks, decision trees, machine learning, and statistical methods are introduced. Optimization and application issues for sets of logical rules are described. Applications of such methods to benchmark and reallife problems are reported and illustrated with simple logical rules for many datasets. Challenges and new directions for research are outlined.
Understanding the crucial differences between classification and discovery of association rules – a position paper
 ACM SIGKDD Explorations
, 2000
"... The goal of this position paper is to contribute to a clear understanding of the profound differences between the associationrule discovery and the classification tasks. We argue that the classification task can be considered an illdefined, nondeterministic task, which is unavoidable given the fac ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The goal of this position paper is to contribute to a clear understanding of the profound differences between the associationrule discovery and the classification tasks. We argue that the classification task can be considered an illdefined, nondeterministic task, which is unavoidable given the fact that it involves prediction; while the standard association task can be considered a welldefined, deterministic, relatively simple task, which does not involve prediction in the same sense as the classification task does.
Distributed Learning with BaggingLike Performance
 PATTERN RECOGNITION LETTERS
, 2003
"... Bagging forms a committee of classifiers by bootstrap aggregation of training sets from a pool of training data. A simple alternative to bagging is to partition the data into disjoint subsets. Experiments with decision tree and neural network classifiers on various datasets show that, given the same ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Bagging forms a committee of classifiers by bootstrap aggregation of training sets from a pool of training data. A simple alternative to bagging is to partition the data into disjoint subsets. Experiments with decision tree and neural network classifiers on various datasets show that, given the same size partitions and bags, disjoint partitions result in performance equivalent to, or better than, bootstrap aggregates (bags). Many applications (e.g., protein structure prediction) involve use of datasets that are too large to handle in the memory of the typical computer. Hence, bagging with samples the size of the data is impractical. Our results indicate that, in such applications, the simple approach of creating a committee of n classifiers from disjoint partitions each of size 1/n (which will be memory resident during learning) in a distributed way results in a classifier which has a bagginglike performance gain. The use of distributed disjoint partitions in learning is significantly less complex and faster than bagging.