Results 1  10
of
16,514
REFERENCES [1] C. Blake and C. Merz, UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases
, 2008
"... V. CONCLUSION A novel subspace analysis method is reported in this correspondence for feature extraction and dimensionality reduction based on FL distance. The algorithm brings better generalization ability. Moreover, it iteratively updates the basis of the subspace—which makes it suitable for deali ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
V. CONCLUSION A novel subspace analysis method is reported in this correspondence for feature extraction and dimensionality reduction based on FL distance. The algorithm brings better generalization ability. Moreover, it iteratively updates the basis of the subspace—which makes it suitable for dealing with sequentially coming data and online learning. We assume that: there are at least three training points per class. Two training points determine a feature line onto which the third points can be projected. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank the associate editor and all anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the first two versions of this paper.
Bayesian Network Classifiers
, 1997
"... Recent work in supervised learning has shown that a surprisingly simple Bayesian classifier with strong assumptions of independence among features, called naive Bayes, is competitive with stateoftheart classifiers such as C4.5. This fact raises the question of whether a classifier with less restr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 788 (23 self)
 Add to MetaCart
tested these approaches, using problems from the University of California at Irvine repository, and compared them to C4.5, naive Bayes, and wrapper methods for feature selection.
Bagging Predictors
 Machine Learning
, 1996
"... Bagging predictors is a method for generating multiple versions of a predictor and using these to get an aggregated predictor. The aggregation averages over the versions when predicting a numerical outcome and does a plurality vote when predicting a class. The multiple versions are formed by making ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3574 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Bagging predictors is a method for generating multiple versions of a predictor and using these to get an aggregated predictor. The aggregation averages over the versions when predicting a numerical outcome and does a plurality vote when predicting a class. The multiple versions are formed by making bootstrap replicates of the learning set and using these as new learning sets. Tests on real and simulated data sets using classification and regression trees and subset selection in linear regression show that bagging can give substantial gains in accuracy. The vital element is the instability of the prediction method. If perturbing the learning set can cause significant changes in the predictor constructed, then bagging can improve accuracy. 1. Introduction A learning set of L consists of data f(y n ; x n ), n = 1; : : : ; Ng where the y's are either class labels or a numerical response. We have a procedure for using this learning set to form a predictor '(x; L)  if the input is x we ...
ModelBased Clustering, Discriminant Analysis, and Density Estimation
 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
, 2000
"... Cluster analysis is the automated search for groups of related observations in a data set. Most clustering done in practice is based largely on heuristic but intuitively reasonable procedures and most clustering methods available in commercial software are also of this type. However, there is little ..."
Abstract

Cited by 557 (28 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Cluster analysis is the automated search for groups of related observations in a data set. Most clustering done in practice is based largely on heuristic but intuitively reasonable procedures and most clustering methods available in commercial software are also of this type. However, there is little systematic guidance associated with these methods for solving important practical questions that arise in cluster analysis, such as \How many clusters are there?", "Which clustering method should be used?" and \How should outliers be handled?". We outline a general methodology for modelbased clustering that provides a principled statistical approach to these issues. We also show that this can be useful for other problems in multivariate analysis, such as discriminant analysis and multivariate density estimation. We give examples from medical diagnosis, mineeld detection, cluster recovery from noisy data, and spatial density estimation. Finally, we mention limitations of the methodology, a...
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 560 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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.
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 2176 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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.
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 614 (28 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.
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 707 (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.
Learning the Kernel Matrix with SemiDefinite Programming
, 2002
"... Kernelbased learning algorithms work by embedding the data into a Euclidean space, and then searching for linear relations among the embedded data points. The embedding is performed implicitly, by specifying the inner products between each pair of points in the embedding space. This information ..."
Abstract

Cited by 780 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Kernelbased learning algorithms work by embedding the data into a Euclidean space, and then searching for linear relations among the embedded data points. The embedding is performed implicitly, by specifying the inner products between each pair of points in the embedding space. This information is contained in the socalled kernel matrix, a symmetric and positive definite matrix that encodes the relative positions of all points. Specifying this matrix amounts to specifying the geometry of the embedding space and inducing a notion of similarity in the input spaceclassical model selection problems in machine learning. In this paper we show how the kernel matrix can be learned from data via semidefinite programming (SDP) techniques. When applied
On Discriminative vs. Generative classifiers: A comparison of logistic regression and naive Bayes
, 2001
"... We compare discriminative and generative learning as typified by logistic regression and naive Bayes. We show, contrary to a widely held belief that discriminative classifiers are almost always to be preferred, that there can often be two distinct regimes of performance as the training set size is i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 513 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We compare discriminative and generative learning as typified by logistic regression and naive Bayes. We show, contrary to a widely held belief that discriminative classifiers are almost always to be preferred, that there can often be two distinct regimes of performance as the training set size is increased, one in which each algorithm does better. This stems from the observation  which is borne out in repeated experiments  that while discriminative learning has lower asymptotic error, a generative classifier may also approach its (higher) asymptotic error much faster.
Results 1  10
of
16,514