Rule quality for multiple-rule classifier: Empirical expertise and theoretical methodology

Intelligent Data Analysis

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 99-124

  Bruha, Ivan ^a   Tkadlec, Josef ^b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

classifier; combination of rule qualities; completeness; consistency; contingency table; decision rules; learner; matching; rule quality

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFIERS; EXPERT SYSTEMS; STATISTICAL MECHANICS;

COMBINATION OF RULE QUALITIES; COMPLETENESS; CONSISTENCY; CONTINGENCY TABLE; DECISION RULES; LEARNER; MATCHING;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 84866706589     PISSN: 1088467X     EISSN: 15714128     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/ida-2003-7203     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. A. An and N. Cercone, Rule quality measures for rule induction systems: description and evaluation, Computational Intelligence J. (2001).
2. F. Bergadano et al., Measuring quality of concept descriptions, EWSL-88, Glasgow, 1988.
3. F. Bergadano et al., Learning two-tiered descriptions of flexible concepts: The Poseidon system, Machine Learning 8 (1992), 5-43.
4. Y.M.M. Bishop, S.E. Fienberg and P.W. Holland, Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice, The MIT Press, 1991.
5. I. Bruha and F. Franek, Comparison of various routines for unknown attribute value processing: covering paradigm, International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 10(8) (1996), 939-955.
6. I. Bruha, S. Ko?ckov́a, A support for decision making: Cost-sensitive learning system, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 1993.
7. I. Bruha, Quality of decision rules: Definitions and classification schemes for multiple rules, in: Machine Learning and Statistics: The Interface, G. Nakhaeizadeh, C.C. Taylor, eds, John Wiley, New York, 1997, pp. 107-131.
8. I. Bruha, Formulas for rule quality: Empirical comparison above 15 datasets, Techn. Rept, McMaster University, Canada, 2001.
9. P. Brazdil and L. Torgo, Knowledge acquisition via knowledge integration, in: Current Trends in Knowledge Acquisition, IOS Press, 1990.
10. P. Clark and R. Boswell, Rule Induction with CN2: Some Recent Improvements, EWSL-91, Porto, 1991.
11. P. Clark and T. Niblett, The CN2 induction algorithm, Machine Learning 3 (1989), 261-283.
12. J. Cohen, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educational and Psych. Meas. 20 (1960), 37-46.
13. R. Duda, J. Gaschnig and P. Hart, Model design in the Prospector consultant system for mineral exploration, in: Expert Systems in the Micro-electronic Age, D. Michie, eds, Edinburgh University Press, 1979.
14. D.W. Fan, P.K. Chan and S.J. Stolfo, A comparative evaluation of combiner and stacked generalization, AAAI,Workshop Integrating Multiple Learning Models, Portland, 1996.
15. F. Hayes-Roth, D.A. Waterman and D.B. Lenat, Building Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., London, 1983.
16. R.J. Henery et al., Statlog: comparative testing of statistical and machine learning algorithm, Techn. Rept, Strathclyde Univ, Glasgow, 1991.
17. I. Kononenko and I. Bratko, Information-based evaluation criterion for classifier's performance, Machine Learning 6 (1991), 67-80.
18. I. Kononenko, Combining decisions of multiple rules, in: Artificial Intelligence V: Methodology, Systems, Applications, B. du Boulay, V. Sgurev, eds, Elsevier Science Publ, 1992, pp. 87-96.
19. R. Kohavi, A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection, IJCAI-95, Montreal, (1995), 1137-1143.
20. P.M. Murphy and D.W. Aha, UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases, Irvine, University of California, Dept. of Information and Computer Science.
21. J. Mingers, An empirical comparison of selection measures for decision-tree induction, Machine Learning 3 (1989), 319-342.
22. J. Pearl, On the connection between the complexity and the credibility of inferred models, International J. of General Systems 4 (1978), 255-264.
23. L. Pitt and L.G. Valiant, Computational limitations of learning from examples, J. Association for Computing Machinery 15(4) (1988), 965-984.
24. J.R. Quinlan, Induction of decision trees, Machine Learning 1 (1986), 81-106.
25. J.R. Quinlan, Generating production rules from decision trees, Techn. Rept 87.7, Sydney Univ, 1987.
26. J.R. Quinlan, C4.5: Programs for machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann Publ., 1994.
27. L. de Raedt, Interactive concept-Learning, PhD. Thesis, Katholieke Univ. Leuven., 1991.
28. P. Smyth and R.M. Goodman, Rule induction using information theory, in: Knowledge Discovery in Databases, G. Piarersky and W. Frawley, eds, MIT Press, 1990.
29. L. Torgo, Controlled redundancy in incremental rule learning, ECML-93, Vienna, 1993, pp. 185-195.
30. L.G. Valiant, A theory of the learnable, Communications of the ACM 27 (1984), 1134-1142.
31. S.M.Weiss, R.S. Galen and P.V. Tadepalli, Optimizing the predictive value of diagnostic decision rules, Proc. 6th National Conference Artificial Intelligence AAAI-87, Seattle, 1987, pp. 521-526.