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 and show 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

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.

An ensemble consists of a set of individually trained classifiers (such as neural networks or decision trees) whose predictions are combined when classifying novel instances. Previous research has shown that an ensemble is often more accurate than any of the single classifiers in the ensemble. Bagging (Breiman, 1996c) and Boosting (Freund & Schapire, 1996; Schapire, 1990) are two relatively new but popular methods for producing ensembles. In this paper we evaluate these methods on 23 data sets using both neural networks and decision trees as our classification algorithm. Our results clearly indicate a number of conclusions. First, while Bagging is almost always more accurate than a single classifier, it is sometimes much less accurate than Boosting. On the other hand, Boosting can create ensembles that are less accurate than a single classifier – especially when using neural networks. Analysis indicates that the performance of the Boosting methods is dependent on the characteristics of the data set being examined. In fact, further results show that Boosting ensembles may overfit noisy data sets, thus decreasing its performance. Finally, consistent with previous studies, our work suggests that most of the gain in an ensemble’s performance comes in the first few classifiers combined; however, relatively large gains can be seen up to 25 classifiers when Boosting decision trees. 1.

Using an ensemble of classifiers, instead of a single classifier, can lead to improved generalization. The gains obtained by combining however, are often affected more by the selection of what is presented to the combiner, than by the actual combining method that is chosen. In this paper we focus on data selection and classifier training methods, in order to "prepare" classifiers for combining. We review a combining framework for classification problems that quantifies the need for reducing the correlation among individual classifiers. Then, we discuss several methods that make the classifiers in an ensemble more complementary. Experimental results are provided to illustrate the benefits and pitfalls of reducing the correlation among classifiers, especially when the training data is in limited supply. 2 1 Introduction A classifier's ability to meaningfully respond to novel patterns, or generalize, is perhaps its most important property (Levin et al., 1990; Wolpert, 1990). In...

Neural-network ensembles have been shown to be very accurate classification techniques. Previous work has shown that an effective ensemble should consist of networks that are not only highly correct, but ones that make their errors on different parts of the input space as well. Most existing techniques, however, only indirectly address the problem of creating such a set of networks. In this paper we present a technique called Addemup that uses genetic algorithms to directly search for an accurate and diverse set of trained networks. Addemup works by first creating an initial population, then uses genetic operators to continually create new networks, keeping the set of networks that are as accurate as possible while disagreeing with each other as much as possible. Experiments on three DNA problems show that Addemup is able to generate a set of trained networks that is more accurate than several existing approaches. Experiments also show that Addemup is able to effectively incorporate p...

In this doctoral dissertation, we study three basic problems in machine learning and two new hypothesis spaces with corresponding learning algorithms. The problems we investigate are: accuracy estimation, feature subset selection, and parameter tuning. The latter two problems are related and are studied under the wrapper approach. The hypothesis spaces we investigate are: decision tables with a default majority rule (DTMs) and oblivious read-once decision graphs (OODGs).

Motivation: Predicting the secondary structure of a protein (alpha-helix, beta-sheet, coil) is an important step towards elucidating its three dimensional structure, as well as its function. Presently, the best predictors are based on machine learning approaches, in particular neural network architectures with a fixed, and relatively short, input window of amino acids, centered at the prediction site. Although a fixed small window avoids overfitting problems, it does not permit to capture variable long-ranged information. Results: We introduce a family of novel architectures which can learn to make predictions based on variable ranges of dependencies. These architectures extend recurrent neural networks, introducing non-causal bidirectional dynamics to capture both upstream and downstream information. The prediction algorithm is completed by the use of mixtures of estimators that leverage evolutionary information, expressed in terms of multiple alignments, both at the input and output levels. While our system currently achieves an overall performance close to 76% correct prediction---at least comparable to the best existing systems---the main emphasis here is on the development of new algorithmic ideas. Availability: The executable program for predicting protein secondary structure is available from the authors free of charge. Contact: pfbaldi@ics.uci.edu, gpollast@ics.uci.edu, brunak@cbs.dtu.dk, paolo@dsi.unifi.it. 1

Diversity among the members of a team of classifiers is deemed to be a key issue in classifier combination. However, measuring diversity is not straightforward because there is no generally accepted formal definition. We have found and studied ten statistics which can measure diversity among binary classifier outputs (correct or incorrect vote for the class label): four averaged pairwise measures (the Q statistic, the correlation, the disagreement and the double fault) and six non-pairwise measures (the entropy of the votes, the difficulty index, the Kohavi-Wolpert variance, the interrater agreement, the generalized diversity, and the coincident failure diversity). Four experiments have been designed to examine the relationship between the accuracy of the team and the measures of diversity, and among the measures themselves. Although there are proven connections between diversity and accuracy in some special cases, our results raise some doubts about the usefulness of diversity measures in building classifier ensembles in real-life pattern recognition problems.

An ensemble consists of a set of independently trained classi ers (such as neural networks or decision trees) whose predictions are combined when classifying novel instances. Previous research has shown that an ensemble as a whole is often more accurate than any of the single classiers in the ensemble. Bagging (Breiman 1996a) and Boosting (Freund & Schapire 1996) are two relatively new but popular methods for producing ensembles. In this paper we evaluate these methods using both neural networks and decision trees as our classi cation algorithms. Our results clearly showtwo important facts. The rst is that even though Bagging almost always produces a better classi er than any of its individual component classi ers and is relatively impervious to over tting, it does not generalize any better than a baseline neural-network ensemble method. The second is that Boosting is apowerful technique that can usually produce better ensembles than Bagging � however, it is more susceptible to noise and can quickly over t a data set.

Inductive concept learning is the task of learning to assign cases to a discrete set of classes. In real-world applications of concept learning, there are many different types of cost involved. The majority of the machine learning literature ignores all types of cost (unless accuracy is interpreted as a type of cost measure). A few papers have investigated the cost of misclassification errors. Very few papers have examined the many other types of cost. In this paper, we attempt to create a taxonomy of the different types of cost that are involved in inductive concept learning. This taxonomy may help to organize the literature on cost-sensitive learning. We hope that it will inspire researchers to investigate all types of cost in inductive concept learning in more depth. 1.