Conference
Discovery Science
About: Discovery Science is an academic conference. The conference publishes majorly in the area(s): Computer science & Knowledge extraction. Over the lifetime, 1253 publications have been published by the conference receiving 16180 citations.
Topics: Computer science, Knowledge extraction, Cluster analysis, Association rule learning, Decision tree
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
14 Dec 1998
TL;DR: A unified framework to approach the problem of computing various types of expressive tests for decision tress and regression trees is presented, and the design of efficient algorithms for computing important special cases is revisited.
Abstract: We address the problem of computing various types of expressive tests for decision tress and regression trees. Using expressive tests is promising, because it may improve the prediction accuracy of trees. The drawback is that computing an optimal test could be costly. We present a unified framework to approach this problem, and we revisit the design of efficient algorithms for computing important special cases. We also prove that it is intractable to compute an optimal conjunction or disjunction.
1,132 citations
1 Oct 2007
TL;DR: This work has developed a detection method that uses a statistical test of equal proportions to detect concept drift in five synthetic datasets that contained various types of concept drift.
Abstract: Detecting concept drift is important for dealing with realworld online learning problems. To detect concept drift in a small number of examples, methods that have an online classifier and monitor its prediction errors during the learning have been developed. We have developed such a detection method that uses a statistical test of equal proportions. Experimental results showed that our method performed well in detecting the concept drift in five synthetic datasets that contained various types of concept drift.
296 citations
Utrecht University1, Centre for Life2, European Bioinformatics Institute3, Barcelona Supercomputing Center4, Institut Français5, CERN6, Technical University of Denmark7, Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies8, University of Barcelona9, University of Edinburgh10, University of Manchester11
TL;DR: This position paper summarised and developed a basis for community discussion about what makes software different from data concerning the application of the FAIR principles, and which desired characteristics of research software go beyond FAIR.
Abstract: The FAIR Guiding Principles, published in 2016, aim to improve the findability, accessibility,
interoperability and reusability of digital research objects for both humans and machines.
The FAIR principles are also directly relevant to research software. In this position paper
“Towards FAIR principles for research software”, we summarised and developed a basis for
community discussion. At the start, we discussed what makes software different from data
concerning the application of the FAIR principles, and which desired characteristics of
research software go beyond FAIR. Then, we presented an analysis of where the existing
principles can directly apply to software, and where they need to be adapted or
reinterpreted. Our next step after the position paper is to prompt for community-agreed
identifiers for FAIR research software.Acknowledgments
To all the authors of Towards FAIR principles for research software
https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-190026, and the numerous people who contributed to the
discussions around FAIR research software at different occasions preceding the work on this
paper. References
Lamprecht, Anna-Lena, et al. (2019) Towards FAIR principles for research software. Data
Science. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-190026 ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) Dr Paula Andrea Martinez is leading the National Training Program for the Characterisation
Community in Australia since 2019. She works for the National Image Facility (NIF). Last year
she worked at ELIXIR Europe coordinating the Bioinformatics and Data Science training
program in Belgium and collaborated with multiple ELIXIR nodes in the development of
Software best practices. Her career, spanning Sweden, Australia and Belgium nurtured her
experience in Bioinformatics and Research Software development for complex and dataintensive science. She started a career in Computer Science, later on, interested in research
methods development and now outreach and advocacy in data and software best practices
288 citations
16 Nov 1992
TL;DR: This paper first defines the concept of semantic proximity and provides a semantic taxonomy, and enumerate and classify the schematic and data conflicts.
Abstract: In a multidatabase system, schematic conflicts between two objects are usually of interest only when the objects have some semantic affinity. In this paper we try to reconcile the two perspectives. We first define the concept of semantic proximity and provide a semantic taxonomy. We then enumerate and classify the schematic and data conflicts. We discuss possible semantic similarities between two objects that have various types of schematic and data conflicts. Issues of uncertain information and inconsistent information are also addressed.
278 citations
19 Oct 2016
TL;DR: A new decompositional algorithm – DeepRED – is introduced that is able to extract rules from deep neural networks that are easy to understand and understandable.
Abstract: Neural network classifiers are known to be able to learn very accurate models. In the recent past, researchers have even been able to train neural networks with multiple hidden layers (deep neural networks) more effectively and efficiently. However, the major downside of neural networks is that it is not trivial to understand the way how they derive their classification decisions. To solve this problem, there has been research on extracting better understandable rules from neural networks. However, most authors focus on nets with only one single hidden layer. The present paper introduces a new decompositional algorithm – DeepRED – that is able to extract rules from deep neural networks.
266 citations
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 45 |
| 2020 | 65 |
| 2019 | 62 |
| 2018 | 49 |
| 2017 | 57 |
| 2016 | 34 |