An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the effectiveness of randomization, bagging, and boosting for improving the performance of the decision-tree algorithm C4.5 and found that in situations with little or no classification noise, randomization is competitive with bagging but not as accurate as boosting.
Abstract: Bagging and boosting are methods that generate a diverse ensemble of classifiers by manipulating the training data given to a “base” learning algorithm. Breiman has pointed out that they rely for their effectiveness on the instability of the base learning algorithm. An alternative approach to generating an ensemble is to randomize the internal decisions made by the base algorithm. This general approach has been studied previously by Ali and Pazzani and by Dietterich and Kong. This paper compares the effectiveness of randomization, bagging, and boosting for improving the performance of the decision-tree algorithm C4.5. The experiments show that in situations with little or no classification noise, randomization is competitive with (and perhaps slightly superior to) bagging but not as accurate as boosting. In situations with substantial classification noise, bagging is much better than boosting, and sometimes better than randomization.
Citations
More filters
[...]
TL;DR: Internal estimates monitor error, strength, and correlation and these are used to show the response to increasing the number of features used in the forest, and are also applicable to regression.
Abstract: Random forests are a combination of tree predictors such that each tree depends on the values of a random vector sampled independently and with the same distribution for all trees in the forest. The generalization error for forests converges a.s. to a limit as the number of trees in the forest becomes large. The generalization error of a forest of tree classifiers depends on the strength of the individual trees in the forest and the correlation between them. Using a random selection of features to split each node yields error rates that compare favorably to Adaboost (Y. Freund & R. Schapire, Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International conference, aaa, 148–156), but are more robust with respect to noise. Internal estimates monitor error, strength, and correlation and these are used to show the response to increasing the number of features used in the splitting. Internal estimates are also used to measure variable importance. These ideas are also applicable to regression.
79,257 citations
Book•
25 Oct 1999
TL;DR: This highly anticipated third edition of the most acclaimed work on data mining and machine learning will teach you everything you need to know about preparing inputs, interpreting outputs, evaluating results, and the algorithmic methods at the heart of successful data mining.
Abstract: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques offers a thorough grounding in machine learning concepts as well as practical advice on applying machine learning tools and techniques in real-world data mining situations. This highly anticipated third edition of the most acclaimed work on data mining and machine learning will teach you everything you need to know about preparing inputs, interpreting outputs, evaluating results, and the algorithmic methods at the heart of successful data mining. Thorough updates reflect the technical changes and modernizations that have taken place in the field since the last edition, including new material on Data Transformations, Ensemble Learning, Massive Data Sets, Multi-instance Learning, plus a new version of the popular Weka machine learning software developed by the authors. Witten, Frank, and Hall include both tried-and-true techniques of today as well as methods at the leading edge of contemporary research. *Provides a thorough grounding in machine learning concepts as well as practical advice on applying the tools and techniques to your data mining projects *Offers concrete tips and techniques for performance improvement that work by transforming the input or output in machine learning methods *Includes downloadable Weka software toolkit, a collection of machine learning algorithms for data mining tasks-in an updated, interactive interface. Algorithms in toolkit cover: data pre-processing, classification, regression, clustering, association rules, visualization
20,196 citations
21 Jun 2000
TL;DR: Some previous studies comparing ensemble methods are reviewed, and some new experiments are presented to uncover the reasons that Adaboost does not overfit rapidly.
Abstract: Ensemble methods are learning algorithms that construct a set of classifiers and then classify new data points by taking a (weighted) vote of their predictions. The original ensemble method is Bayesian averaging, but more recent algorithms include error-correcting output coding, Bagging, and boosting. This paper reviews these methods and explains why ensembles can often perform better than any single classifier. Some previous studies comparing ensemble methods are reviewed, and some new experiments are presented to uncover the reasons that Adaboost does not overfit rapidly.
5,679 citations
TL;DR: A new tree-based ensemble method for supervised classification and regression problems that consists of randomizing strongly both attribute and cut-point choice while splitting a tree node and builds totally randomized trees whose structures are independent of the output values of the learning sample.
Abstract: This paper proposes a new tree-based ensemble method for supervised classification and regression problems. It essentially consists of randomizing strongly both attribute and cut-point choice while splitting a tree node. In the extreme case, it builds totally randomized trees whose structures are independent of the output values of the learning sample. The strength of the randomization can be tuned to problem specifics by the appropriate choice of a parameter. We evaluate the robustness of the default choice of this parameter, and we also provide insight on how to adjust it in particular situations. Besides accuracy, the main strength of the resulting algorithm is computational efficiency. A bias/variance analysis of the Extra-Trees algorithm is also provided as well as a geometrical and a kernel characterization of the models induced.
5,246 citations
Book•
17 May 2013
TL;DR: This research presents a novel and scalable approach called “Smartfitting” that automates the very labor-intensive and therefore time-heavy and therefore expensive and expensive process of designing and implementing statistical models for regression models.
Abstract: General Strategies.- Regression Models.- Classification Models.- Other Considerations.- Appendix.- References.- Indices.
3,672 citations
References
More filters
[...]
01 Aug 1996
TL;DR: Tests on real and simulated data sets using classification and regression trees and subset selection in linear regression show that bagging can give substantial gains in accuracy.
Abstract: Bagging predictors is a method for generating multiple versions of a predictor and using these to get an aggregated predictor. The aggregation averages over the versions when predicting a numerical outcome and does a plurality vote when predicting a class. The multiple versions are formed by making bootstrap replicates of the learning set and using these as new learning sets. Tests on real and simulated data sets using classification and regression trees and subset selection in linear regression show that bagging can give substantial gains in accuracy. The vital element is the instability of the prediction method. If perturbing the learning set can cause significant changes in the predictor constructed, then bagging can improve accuracy.
16,118 citations
Proceedings Article•
AT&T1
TL;DR: This paper describes experiments carried out to assess how well AdaBoost with and without pseudo-loss, performs on real learning problems and compared boosting to Breiman's "bagging" method when used to aggregate various classifiers.
Abstract: In an earlier paper, we introduced a new "boosting" algorithm called AdaBoost which, theoretically, can be used to significantly reduce the error of any learning algorithm that con- sistently generates classifiers whose performance is a little better than random guessing. We also introduced the related notion of a "pseudo-loss" which is a method for forcing a learning algorithm of multi-label concepts to concentrate on the labels that are hardest to discriminate. In this paper, we describe experiments we carried out to assess how well AdaBoost with and without pseudo-loss, performs on real learning problems. We performed two sets of experiments. The first set compared boosting to Breiman's "bagging" method when used to aggregate various classifiers (including decision trees and single attribute- value tests). We compared the performance of the two methods on a collection of machine-learning benchmarks. In the second set of experiments, we studied in more detail the performance of boosting using a nearest-neighbor classifier on an OCR problem.
7,601 citations
TL;DR: This article reviews five approximate statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task and measures the power (ability to detect algorithm differences when they do exist) of these tests.
Abstract: This article reviews five approximate statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task. These test sare compared experimentally to determine their probability of incorrectly detecting a difference when no difference exists (type I error). Two widely used statistical tests are shown to have high probability of type I error in certain situations and should never be used: a test for the difference of two proportions and a paired-differences t test based on taking several random train-test splits. A third test, a paired-differences t test based on 10-fold cross-validation, exhibits somewhat elevated probability of type I error. A fourth test, McNemar's test, is shown to have low type I error. The fifth test is a new test, 5 × 2 cv, based on five iterations of twofold cross-validation. Experiments show that this test also has acceptable type I error. The article also measures the power (ability to detect algorithm differences when they do exist)...
3,356 citations