We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods: cross-validation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical results in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), ten-fold cross-validation may be better than the more expensive leaveone-out cross-validation. We report on a largescale experiment -- over half a million runs of C4.5 and a Naive-Bayes algorithm -- to estimate the effects of different parameters on these algorithms on real-world datasets. For cross-validation, we vary the number of folds and whether the folds are stratified or not; for bootstrap, we vary the number of bootstrap samples. Our results indicate that for real-word datasets similar to ours, the best method to use for model selection is ten-fold stratified cross validation, even if computation power allows using more folds.

Learning of continuous valued functions using neural network ensembles (committees) can give improved accuracy, reliable estimation of the generalization error, and active learning. The ambiguity is defined as the variation of the output of ensemble members averaged over unlabeled data, so it quantifies the disagreement among the networks. It is discussed how to use the ambiguity in combination with cross-validation to give a reliable estimate of the ensemble generalization error, and how this type of ensemble cross-validation can sometimes improve performance. It is shown how to estimate the optimal weights of the ensemble members using unlabeled data. By a generalization of query by committee, it is finally shown how the ambiguity can be used to select new training data to be labeled in an active learning scheme. 1 INTRODUCTION It is well known that a combination of many different predictors can improve predictions. In the neural networks community "ensembles" of neural networks h...

This paper presents a general theoretical framework for ensemble methods of constructing significantly improved regression estimates. Given a population of regression estimators, we construct a hybrid estimator which is as good or better in the MSE sense than any estimator in the population. We argue that the ensemble method presented has several properties: 1) It efficiently uses all the networks of a population - none of the networks need be discarded. 2) It efficiently uses all the available data for training without over-fitting. 3) It inherently performs regularization by smoothing in functional space which helps to avoid over-fitting. 4) It utilizes local minima to construct improved estimates whereas other neural network algorithms are hindered by local minima. 5) It is ideally suited for parallel computation. 6) It leads to a very useful and natural measure of the number of distinct estimators in a population. 7) The optimal parameters of the ensemble estimator are given in clo...

Abstract not found

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.

We present a bias-variance decomposition of expected misclassi cation rate, the most commonly used loss function in supervised classi cation learning. The bias-variance decomposition for quadratic loss functions is well known and serves as an important tool for analyzing learning algorithms, yet no decomposition was o ered for the more commonly used zero-one (misclassi cation) loss functions until the recent work of Kong & Dietterich (1995) and Breiman (1996). Their decomposition su ers from some major shortcomings though (e.g., potentially negative variance), which our decomposition avoids. We show that, in practice, the naive frequency-based estimation of the decomposition terms is by itself biased and show how to correct for this bias. We illustrate the decomposition on various algorithms and datasets from the UCI repository. 1

We describe semi-Markov conditional random fields (semi-CRFs), a conditionally trained version of semi-Markov chains. Intuitively, a semi-CRF on an input sequence x outputs a “segmentation ” of x, in which labels are assigned to segments (i.e., subsequences) of x rather than to individual elements xi of x. Importantly, features for semi-CRFs can measure properties of segments, and transitions within a segment can be non-Markovian. In spite of this additional power, exact learning and inference algorithms for semi-CRFs are polynomial-time—often only a small constant factor slower than conventional CRFs. In experiments on five named entity recognition problems, semi-CRFs generally outperform conventional CRFs. 1

Machine Learning research has been making great progress in many directions. This article summarizes four of these directions and discusses some current open problems. The four directions are (a) improving classification accuracy by learning ensembles of classifiers, (b) methods for scaling up supervised learning algorithms, (c) reinforcement learning, and (d) learning complex stochastic models.

Much of the research in inductive learning concentrates on problems with relatively small amounts of data. With the coming age of very large network computing, it is likely that orders of magnitude more data in databases will be available for various learning problems of real world importance. Some learning algorithms assume that the entire data set fits into main memory, which is not feasible for massive amounts of data. One approach to handling a large data set is to partition the data set into subsets, run the learning algorithm on each of the subsets, and combine the results. In this paper we evaluate different techniques for learning from partitioned data. Our meta-learning approach is empirically compared with techniques in the literature that aim to combine multiple evidence to arrive at one prediction. 1 Introduction Much of the research in inductive learning concentrates on problems with relatively small amounts of data. With the coming age of very large network computing, i...

Much of the research in inductive learning concentrates on problems with relatively small amounts of data. With the coming age of very large network computing, it is likely that orders of magnitude more data in databases will be available for various learning problems of real world importance. Learning techniques are central to knowledge discovery and the approach proposed in this paper may substantially increase the amount of data a knowledge discovery system can handle effectively. Metalearning is proposed as a general technique to integrating a number of distinct learning processes. This paper details several meta-learning strategies for integrating independently learned classifiers by the same learner in a parallel and distributed computing environment. Our strategies are particularly suited for massive amounts of data that main-memorybased learning algorithms cannot efficiently handle. The strategies are also independent of the particular learning algorithm used and the underlyin...