A comparison of ensemble and case-base maintenance techniques for handling concept drift in spam filtering

FLAIRS 2006 - Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference

Volumn 2006, Issue , 2006, Pages 340-345

  Delany, Sarah Jane ^a   Cunningham, Pádraig ^b   Tsymbal, Alexey ^b  

^a DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Ireland)

^b TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE-BASE MAINTENANCE PROTOCOL; CONCEPT DRIFT; FALSE POSITIVES (FP); SPAM FILTERING;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA HANDLING; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 33746060148     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Breiman, L. 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 24(2): 123-140.
2. Breiman, L. 1999. Pasting small votes for classification in large databases and online. Machine Learning 36(1-2):85-103.
3. Delany, S. J., and Cunningham, P. 2004. An analysis of case-based editing in a spam filtering system. In 7th Eur. Conf. on Case-Based Reasoning, volume 3155 of LNAI, 128-141. Springer.
4. Delany, S. J.; Cunningham, P.; Tsymbal, A.; and Coyle, L. 2005. A case-based technique for tracking concept drift in spam filtering. Knowledge-Based Systems 18(4-5): 187-195.
5. Dietterich, D. T. 1998. Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computing 10:1895-1923.
6. Freund, Y., and Schapire, R. 1999. A short introduction to boosting. Journal Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence 14(5):771-780.
7. Kelly, M.; Hand, D.; and Adams, N. 1999. The impact of changing populations on classifier performance. In KDD-99, 367-371. ACM Press.
8. Klinkenberg, R. 2004. Learning drifting concepts: Example selection vs. example weighting. Intelligent Data Analysis 8(3).
9. Kolter, J., and Maloof, M. 2003. Dynamic weighted majority: a new ensemble method for tracking concept drift. In 3rd IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining, 123-130.
10. Kubat, M., and Widmer, G. 1995. Adapting to drift in continuous domains. In 8th Eur Conf on Machine Learning, volume 912 of LNCS, 307-310. Springer.
11. Kuncheva, L. I. 2004. Classifier ensembles for changing environments. In 5th International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems (MCS 2004), 1-15. Springer.
12. Littlestone, N., and Warmuth, M. 1994. The weighted majority algorithm. Information and Computation 108(2):212-261.
13. Mitchetl.T. 1997. Machine Learning. McGraw Hill.
14. Salganicoff, M. 1997. Tolerating concept and sampling shift in lazy learning using prediction error context switching. Al Review 11(1-5):133-155.
15. Stanley, K. 2003. Learning concept drift with a committee of decision trees. Tech Rpt UT-Al-TR-03-302, Dept of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin.
16. Street, W., and Kim, Y. 2001. A streaming ensemble algorithm (sea) for large-scale classification. In KDD-01, 377-382. ACM Press.
17. Tsymbal, A., and Puuronen, S. 2000. Bagging and boosting with dynamic integration of classifiers. In Proc of PKDD 2000, 116-125. Springer.
18. Vapnik, V. 1999. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, 2nd. Ed. Statistics for Engineering and Information Science. New York: Springer.
19. Wang, H.; Fan, W.; Yu, P.; and Han, J. 2003. Mining concept-drifting datastreams using ensemble classifiers. In KDD-03, 226-235. ACM Press.
20. Weiss, G., and Provost, F. 2003. Learning when training data are costly: The effect of class distribution on tree induction. Journal of Al Research 19:315-354.
21. Widmer, G., and Kubat, M. 1996. Learning in the presence of concept drift and hidden contexts. Machine Learning 23(1):69-101.