From ensemble methods to comprehensible models

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2534, Issue , 2002, Pages 165-177

  Ferri, C ^a   Hernandez Orallo J ^a   Ramirez Quintana M J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Classifier similarity; Comprehensibility in machine learning; Decision trees; Ensemble methods; Randomisation

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER SCIENCE; COMPUTERS;

CLASSIFIER SIMILARITIES; COMBINED SOLUTION; ENSEMBLE METHODS; EXPONENTIAL NUMBERS; MULTIPLE HYPOTHESIS; RANDOMISATION;

DECISION TREES;

EID: 84949787320     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-36182-0_16     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Leo Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24(2):123–140, 1996.
2. J.G. Cleary and L.E. Trigg. Experiences withob1, an optimal bayes decision tree learner. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Univ. of Waikato, New Zealand, 1998.
3. J. Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Meas., 20:37–46, 1960.
4. T. G Dietterich. Ensemble methods in machine learning. In First International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems, pages 1–15, 2000.
5. Thomas G. Dietterich. An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization. Machine Learning, 40(2):139–157, 2000.
6. C. Ferri, J. Hernández, and M.J. Ramírez. Induction of Decision Multi-trees using Levin Search. In Int. Conf. on Computational Science,ICCS’02, LNCS, 2002.
7. C. Ferri, J. Hernández, and M.J. Ramírez. Learning multiple and different hypotheses. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia, 2002.
8. C. Ferri, J. Hernández, and M.J. Ramírez. SMILES system, a multi-purpose learning system. http://www.dsic.upv.es/˜flip/smiles/, 2002.
9. Y. Freund and R.E. Schapire. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In the 13th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML’1996), pages 148–156, 1996.
10. Tim Kam Ho. C4.5 decision forests. In Proc. of 14th Intl. Conf. on Pattern Recognition, Brisbane, Australia, pages 545–549, 1998.
11. Ludmila I. Kuncheva. A Theoretical Study on Six Classifier Fusion Strategies. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 24(2):281–286, 2002.
12. Ludmila I. Kuncheva and Christopher J. Whitaker. Measures of diversity in classifier ensembles and their relationship with the ensemble accuracy. Submitted to Machine Learning, 2002.
13. Dragos D. Margineantu and Thomas G. Dietterich. Pruning adaptive boosting. In 14th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 211–218. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.
14. N.J. Nilsson. Artificial Intelligence: a new synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.
15. University of California. UCI Machine Learning Repository Content Summary. http://www.ics.uci.edu/˜mlearn/MLSummary.html.
16. J. Quinlan. Miniboosting decision trees. Submitted to JAIR, 1998.
17. J. R. Quinlan. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
18. J. R. Quinlan. Bagging, Boosting, and C4.5. In Proc. of the 13th Nat. Conf. on A.I. and the 8th Innovative Applications of A.I. Conf., pages 725–730. AAAI/MIT Press, 1996.
19. Ross Quinlan. Relational learning and boosting. In Saso Dzeroski and Nada Lavrac, editors, Relational Data Mining, pages 292–306. Springer-Verlag, September 2001.
20. P. Volf and F. Willems. Context maximizing: Finding mdl decision trees. In Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux, Vol.15, pages 192–200, 1994.
21. Geoffrey I. Webb. Further experimental evidence against the utility of Occam’s razor. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:397–417, 1996.
22. David H. Wolpert. Stacked generalization. Neural Networks, 5(2):241–259, 1992.