Abstract
In this chapter, we present several empirical analyses that assess the performance of HEAD-DT in different scenarios. We divide these analyses into two sets of experiments, according to the meta-training strategy employed for automatically designing the decision-tree algorithms. As mentioned in Chap. 4, HEAD-DT can operate in two distinct frameworks: (i) evolving a decision-tree induction algorithm tailored to one specific data set (specific framework); or (ii) evolving a decision-tree induction algorithm from multiple data sets (general framework). The specific framework provides data from a single data set to HEAD-DT for both algorithm design (evolution) and performance assessment. The experiments conducted for this scenario (see Sect. 5.1) make use of public data sets that do not share a common application domain. In the general framework, distinct data sets are used for algorithm design and performance assessment. In this scenario (see Sect. 5.2), we conduct two types of experiments, namely the homogeneous approach and the heterogeneous approach. In the homogeneous approach, we analyse whether automatically designing a decision-tree algorithm for a particular domain provides good results. More specifically, the data sets that feed HEAD-DT during evolution, and also those employed for performance assessment, share a common application domain. In the heterogeneous approach, we investigate whether HEAD-DT is capable of generating an algorithm that performs well across a variety of different data sets, regardless of their particular characteristics or application domain. We also discuss about the theoretic and empirical time complexity of HEAD-DT in Sect. 5.3, and we make a brief discussion on the cost-effectiveness of automated algorithm design in Sect. 5.4. We present examples of algorithms which were automatically designed by HEAD-DT in Sect. 5.5. We conclude the experimental analysis by empirically verifying in Sect. 5.6 whether the genetic search is worthwhile.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The values of \(l\) and \(c\) for each data set can be found at http://algorithmics.molgen.mpg.de/Static/Supplements/CompCancer/datasets.htm.
- 3.
- 4.
The term overfitting is not used because it refers to a model that overfits the data, whereas we are talking about the case of an algorithm that “overfits” the data, in the sense that it is excellent when dealing with those data sets it was designed to, but it underperforms in previously unseen data sets.
References
R.C. Barros et al., Automatic design of decision-tree induction algorithms tailored to flexible-receptor docking data, in BMC Bioinformatics 13 (2012)
R.C. Barros et al., Towards the automatic design of decision tree induction algorithms, in 13th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO 2011). pp. 567–574 (2011)
M.P. Basgalupp et al., Software effort prediction: a hyper-heuristic decision-tree based approach, in 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. pp. 1109–1116 (2013)
L. Breiman et al., Classification and Regression Trees (Wadsworth, Belmont, 1984)
B. Chandra, R. Kothari, P. Paul, A new node splitting measure for decision tree construction. Pattern Recognit. 43(8), 2725–2731 (2010)
B. Chandra, P.P. Varghese, Moving towards efficient decision tree construction. Inf. Sci. 179(8), 1059–1069 (2009)
J. Demšar, Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 1–30 (2006). ISSN: 1532–4435
A. Frank, A. Asuncion, UCI Machine Learning Repository (2010)
R. Iman, J. Davenport, Approximations of the critical region of the Friedman statistic, in Communications in Statistics, pp. 571–595 (1980)
S. Monti et al., Consensus clustering: a resampling-based method for class discovery and visualization of gene expression microarray data. Mach. Learn. 52(1–2), 91–118 (2003)
J.R. Quinlan, C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1993). ISBN: 1-55860-238-0
M. Souto et al., Clustering cancer gene expression data: a comparative study. BMC Bioinform. 9(1), 497 (2008)
F. Wilcoxon, Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1, 80–83 (1945)
I.H. Witten, E. Frank, Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1999). ISBN: 1558605525
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barros, R.C., de Carvalho, A.C.P.L.F., Freitas, A.A. (2015). HEAD-DT: Experimental Analysis. In: Automatic Design of Decision-Tree Induction Algorithms. SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14231-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14231-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14230-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14231-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)