다중혈관 관상동맥 환자에서 y-문합을 이용하여 양쪽 내흉동맥만을 사용한 우회술의 조기 성적

More than twelve years have elapsed since the first public release of WEKA. In that time, the software has been rewritten entirely from scratch, evolved substantially and now accompanies a text on data mining [35]. These days, WEKA enjoys widespread acceptance in both academia and business, has an active community, and has been downloaded more than 1.4 million times since being placed on Source-Forge in April 2000. This paper provides an introduction to the WEKA workbench, reviews the history of the project, and, in light of the recent 3.6 stable release, briefly discusses what has been added since the last stable version (Weka 3.4) released in 2003.

/pdf/the-weka-data-mining-software-an-update-3zs9onav7o.pdf

The WEKA data mining software: an update

A major assumption in many machine learning and data mining algorithms is that the training and future data must be in the same feature space and have the same distribution. However, in many real-world applications, this assumption may not hold. For example, we sometimes have a classification task in one domain of interest, but we only have sufficient training data in another domain of interest, where the latter data may be in a different feature space or follow a different data distribution. In such cases, knowledge transfer, if done successfully, would greatly improve the performance of learning by avoiding much expensive data-labeling efforts. In recent years, transfer learning has emerged as a new learning framework to address this problem. This survey focuses on categorizing and reviewing the current progress on transfer learning for classification, regression, and clustering problems. In this survey, we discuss the relationship between transfer learning and other related machine learning techniques such as domain adaptation, multitask learning and sample selection bias, as well as covariate shift. We also explore some potential future issues in transfer learning research.

/pdf/a-survey-on-transfer-learning-1hjmu3otql.pdf

A Survey on Transfer Learning

Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

Probability Distributions.- Linear Models for Regression.- Linear Models for Classification.- Neural Networks.- Kernel Methods.- Sparse Kernel Machines.- Graphical Models.- Mixture Models and EM.- Approximate Inference.- Sampling Methods.- Continuous Latent Variables.- Sequential Data.- Combining Models.

Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning

Thank you for downloading combining pattern classifiers methods and algorithms. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have look hundreds times for their chosen novels like this combining pattern classifiers methods and algorithms, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some harmful virus inside their computer.

Combining Pattern Classifiers

Diversity among the members of a team of classifiers is deemed to be a key issue in classifier combination. However, measuring diversity is not straightforward because there is no generally accepted formal definition. We have found and studied ten statistics which can measure diversity among binary classifier outputs (correct or incorrect vote for the class label): four averaged pairwise measures (the Q statistic, the correlation, the disagreement and the double fault) and six non-pairwise measures (the entropy of the votes, the difficulty index, the Kohavi-Wolpert variance, the interrater agreement, the generalized diversity, and the coincident failure diversity). Four experiments have been designed to examine the relationship between the accuracy of the team and the measures of diversity, and among the measures themselves. Although there are proven connections between diversity and accuracy in some special cases, our results raise some doubts about the usefulness of diversity measures in building classifier ensembles in real-life pattern recognition problems.

/pdf/measures-of-diversity-in-classifier-ensembles-and-their-4w7qhad8i3.pdf

Measures of Diversity in Classifier Ensembles and Their Relationship with the Ensemble Accuracy

We propose a method for generating classifier ensembles based on feature extraction. To create the training data for a base classifier, the feature set is randomly split into K subsets (K is a parameter of the algorithm) and principal component analysis (PCA) is applied to each subset. All principal components are retained in order to preserve the variability information in the data. Thus, K axis rotations take place to form the new features for a base classifier. The idea of the rotation approach is to encourage simultaneously individual accuracy and diversity within the ensemble. Diversity is promoted through the feature extraction for each base classifier. Decision trees were chosen here because they are sensitive to rotation of the feature axes, hence the name "forest". Accuracy is sought by keeping all principal components and also using the whole data set to train each base classifier. Using WEKA, we examined the rotation forest ensemble on a random selection of 33 benchmark data sets from the UCI repository and compared it with bagging, AdaBoost, and random forest. The results were favorable to rotation forest and prompted an investigation into diversity-accuracy landscape of the ensemble models. Diversity-error diagrams revealed that rotation forest ensembles construct individual classifiers which are more accurate than these in AdaBoost and random forest, and more diverse than these in bagging, sometimes more accurate as well

/pdf/rotation-forest-a-new-classifier-ensemble-method-4jodwvlhbi.pdf

Rotation Forest: A New Classifier Ensemble Method

Multiple classi"er fusion may generate more accurate classi"cation than each of the constituent classi"ers. Fusion is often based on "xed combination rules like the product and average. Only under strict probabilistic conditions can these rules be justi"ed. We present here a simple rule for adapting the class combiner to the application. c decision templates (one per class) are estimated with the same training set that is used for the set of classi"ers. These templates are then matched to the decision pro"le of new incoming objects by some similarity measure. We compare 11 versions of our model with 14 other techniques for classi"er fusion on the Satimage and Phoneme datasets from the database ELENA. Our results show that decision templates based on integral type measures of similarity are superior to the other schemes on both data sets. ( 2000 Pattern Recognition Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

/pdf/decision-templates-for-multiple-classi-er-fusion-an-2b9moix29m.pdf

Ludmila I. Kuncheva

Papers

Combining Pattern Classifiers

Measures of Diversity in Classifier Ensembles and Their Relationship with the Ensemble Accuracy

Rotation Forest: A New Classifier Ensemble Method

Decision templates for multiple classi"er fusion: an experimental comparison

Decision templates for multiple classifier fusion: an experimental comparison.