Skip to main content

Simplifying Classification Trees Through Consensus Methods

  • Conference paper
New Developments in Classification and Data Analysis

Abstract

Methods for comparing and combining classification trees based on proximity measures have been proposed in the last few years. These methods could be used to analyse a set of trees obtained from independent data sets or from resampling methods like bootstrap or cross validation applied to the same training sample. In this paper we consider, as an alternative to the pruning techniques, a modified version of a consensus algorithm we have previously proposed that combines trees obtained by bootstrap samples. This consensus algorithm is based on a dissimilarity measure recently proposed. Experimental results are provided to illustrate, in two real data sets, the performances of the proposed consensus method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • BREIMAN L.(1996): Bagging predictors. Machine learning, 24, 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • BREIMAN L., FRIEDMAN J.H., OLSHEN R.A. and STONE C.J. (1984): Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, Belmont, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • CHIPMAN H. A., GEORGE E. I. and McCULLOCH R. E. (2001): Managing multiple models. In: T. Jaakola and T. Richardson (Eds.): Artificial Intelligence and Statistics 2001. ProBook, Denver, 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • FREUND Y. and SHAPIRE R. (1996): Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In: Saitta L. (Ed.): Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference. San Francisco, 148–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • FREUND Y. and SHAPIRE R. (1999): A short introduction to boosting. Journal of Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 14, 771–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • MANGASARIAN O. L. and WOLBERG W. H. (1990): Cancer diagnosis via linear programming. SIAM News, 23, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • MIGLIO R. (1996): Metodi di partizione ricorsiva nell'analisi discriminante. PhD Thesis, Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Bologna.

    Google Scholar 

  • MIGLIO R. and SOFFRITTI G. (2003): Methods to combine classification trees. In: M. Shader, W. Gaul and M. Vichi (Eds.): Between data science and applied data analysis. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • MIGLIO R. and SOFFRITTI G. (2004): The comparison between classification trees through proximity measures. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 45, 577–593.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • SHANNON W. D. and BANKS D. (1999): Combining classification trees using MLE. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 727–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SIGILLITO V. G., WING S. P., HUTTON L. V., and BAKER K. B. (1989): Classification of radar returns from the ionosphere using neural networks. Johns Hopkins APT Technical Digest, 18, 262–266.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Miglio, R., Soffritti, G. (2005). Simplifying Classification Trees Through Consensus Methods. In: Bock, HH., et al. New Developments in Classification and Data Analysis. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27373-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics