We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods crossvalidation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical re cults in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), ten-fold cross-validation may be better than the more expensive leaveone-out cross-validation. We report on a largescale experiment--over half a million runs of C4.5 and a Naive-Bayes algorithm--to estimate the effects of different parameters on these algrithms on real-world datasets. For crossvalidation we vary the number of folds and whether the folds are stratified or not, for bootstrap, we vary the number of bootstrap samples. Our results indicate that for real-word datasets similar to ours, The best method to use for model selection is ten fold stratified cross validation even if computation power allows using more folds.

/pdf/a-study-of-cross-validation-and-bootstrap-for-accuracy-4fl8p3uk3k.pdf

A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection

Recent work in supervised learning has shown that a surprisingly simple Bayesian classifier with strong assumptions of independence among features, called naive Bayes, is competitive with state-of-the-art classifiers such as C4.5. This fact raises the question of whether a classifier with less restrictive assumptions can perform even better. In this paper we evaluate approaches for inducing classifiers from data, based on the theory of learning Bayesian networks. These networks are factored representations of probability distributions that generalize the naive Bayesian classifier and explicitly represent statements about independence. Among these approaches we single out a method we call Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), which outperforms naive Bayes, yet at the same time maintains the computational simplicity (no search involved) and robustness that characterize naive Bayes. We experimentally tested these approaches, using problems from the University of California at Irvine repository, and compared them to C4.5, naive Bayes, and wrapper methods for feature selection.

/pdf/bayesian-network-classifiers-53nqdvd1wp.pdf

Bayesian Network Classifiers

A central problem in machine learning is identifying a representative set of features from which to construct a classification model for a particular task. This thesis addresses the problem of feature selection for machine learning through a correlation based approach. The central hypothesis is that good feature sets contain features that are highly correlated with the class, yet uncorrelated with each other. A feature evaluation formula, based on ideas from test theory, provides an operational definition of this hypothesis. CFS (Correlation based Feature Selection) is an algorithm that couples this evaluation formula with an appropriate correlation measure and a heuristic search strategy. CFS was evaluated by experiments on artificial and natural datasets. Three machine learning algorithms were used: C4.5 (a decision tree learner), IB1 (an instance based learner), and naive Bayes. Experiments on artificial datasets showed that CFS quickly identifies and screens irrelevant, redundant, and noisy features, and identifies relevant features as long as their relevance does not strongly depend on other features. On natural domains, CFS typically eliminated well over half the features. In most cases, classification accuracy using the reduced feature set equaled or bettered accuracy using the complete feature set. Feature selection degraded machine learning performance in cases where some features were eliminated which were highly predictive of very small areas of the instance space. Further experiments compared CFS with a wrapper—a well known approach to feature selection that employs the target learning algorithm to evaluate feature sets. In many cases CFS gave comparable results to the wrapper, and in general, outperformed the wrapper on small datasets. CFS executes many times faster than the wrapper, which allows it to scale to larger datasets. Two methods of extending CFS to handle feature interaction are presented and experimentally evaluated. The first considers pairs of features and the second incorporates iii feature weights calculated by the RELIEF algorithm. Experiments on artificial domains showed that both methods were able to identify interacting features. On natural domains, the pairwise method gave more reliable results than using weights provided by RELIEF.

/pdf/correlation-based-feature-selection-for-machine-learning-578rirmvg5.pdf

Correlation-based Feature Selection for Machine Learning

Bayesian network classifiers are used extensively both in academia and in a wide range of industrial applications and domains. This article first reviews the main concepts behind statistical pattern classifiers and Bayesian networks, including the main methods for the automated induction of these models. It then continues with a description of the application of Bayesian networks as statistical pattern classifiers. It discusses the advantages of Bayesian network classifiers over other types of classifiers, and provides up-to-date references covering the material and examples of applications. Readers with basic knowledge of statistics will acquire the necessary background to explore more technical papers and decide on whether Bayesian network classifiers are the right technology for their particular problem and domain.


Keywords:

pattern recognition;
pattern classification;
statistics;
machine learning;
Bayesian networks;
graphical models;
model fitting;
maximum likelihood;
Bayesian methods

Classification rule mining aims to discover a small set of rules in the database that forms an accurate classifier. Association rule mining finds all the rules existing in the database that satisfy some minimum support and minimum confidence constraints. For association rule mining, the target of discovery is not pre-determined, while for classification rule mining there is one and only one predetermined target. In this paper, we propose to integrate these two mining techniques. The integration is done by focusing on mining a special subset of association rules, called class association rules (CARs). An efficient algorithm is also given for building a classifier based on the set of discovered CARs. Experimental results show that the classifier built this way is, in general, more accurate than that produced by the state-of-the-art classification system C4.5. In addition, this integration helps to solve a number of problems that exist in the current classification systems.

/pdf/integrating-classification-and-association-rule-mining-3a3nqwb1hd.pdf

Integrating classification and association rule mining

We present MLC++, a library of C++ classes and tools for supervised machine learning. While MLC++ provides general learning algorithms that can be used by end users, the main objective is to provide researchers and experts with a wide variety of tools that can accelerate algorithm development, increase software reliability, provide comparison tools, and display information visually. More than just a collection of existing algorithms, MLC++ is can attempt to extract commonalities of algorithms and decompose them for a unified view that is simple, coherent, and extensible. In this paper we discuss the problems MLC++ aims to solve, the design of MLC++, and the current functionality. >

MLC++: a machine learning library in C++

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

R. Long

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

MLC++: a machine learning library in C++