## Abstract

Tree induction is one of the most effective and widely used methods for building classification models. However, many applications require cases to be ranked by the probability of class membership. Probability estimation trees (PETs) have the same attractive features as classification trees (e.g., comprehensibility, accuracy and efficiency in high dimensions and on large data sets). Unfortunately, decision trees have been found to provide poor probability estimates. Several techniques have been proposed to build more accurate PETs, but, to our knowledge, there has not been a systematic experimental analysis of which techniques actually improve the probability-based rankings, and by how much. In this paper we first discuss why the decision-tree representation is not intrinsically inadequate for probability estimation. Inaccurate probabilities are partially the result of decision-tree induction algorithms that focus on maximizing classification accuracy and minimizing tree size (for example via reduced-error pruning). Larger trees can be better for probability estimation, even if the extra size is superfluous for accuracy maximization. We then present the results of a comprehensive set of experiments, testing some straightforward methods for improving probability-based rankings. We show that using a simple, common smoothing method—the Laplace correction—uniformly improves probability-based rankings. In addition, bagging substantially improves the rankings, and is even more effective for this purpose than for improving accuracy. We conclude that PETs, with these simple modifications, should be considered when rankings based on class-membership probability are required.

## Article PDF

### Similar content being viewed by others

### Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

## References

Apte, C., Grossman, E., Pednault, E., Rosen, B., Tipu, F., & White, B. (1999). Probabilistic estimation-based data mining for discovering insurance risks.

*IEEE Intelligent Systems*,*14*, 49–58.Bahl, L. R., Brown, P. F., de Souza, P. V., & Mercer, R. L. (1989). A tree-based statistical language model for natural language speech recognition.

*IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing*, 37:7, 1001–1008.Bauer, E., & Kohavi, R. (1999). An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting and variants.

*Machine Learning*,*36*, 105–142.Bennett, P. (2002). Using a symmetric distributions to improve classifier probabilities: A comparison of new and standard parametric methods. Technical report CMU-CS-02-126, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.

Blake, C., & Merz, C. J. (2000). UCI repository of machine learning databases. Machine-readable data repository, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA. Available at http://www.ics.uci.edu/?mlearn/MLRepository.html.

Bradford, J. P., Kunz, C., Kohavi, R., Brunk, C., & Brodley, C. E. (1998). Pruning decision trees with misclassification costs.

*Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 131–136). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Bradley, A. P. (1997). The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms.

*Pattern Recognition*,*30:7*, 1145–1159.Breiman, L. (1996). Bagging predictors.

*Machine Learning*,*24*, 123–140.Breiman, L. (1998). Out-of-bag estimation. Unpublished manuscript.

Breiman, L. (2000). Private communication.

Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A.,& Stone, C. J. (1984).

*Classification and Regression Trees*. Wadsworth International Group.Buntine,W. (1991).

*A theory of learning classification rules*. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.Cestnik, B. (1990). Estimating probabilities:Acrucial task in machine learning.

*Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence*(pp. 147–149). Pitman.Clark, P., & Boswell, R. (1991). Rule induction with CN2: Some recent improvements.

*Proceedings of the Sixth European Working Session on Learning*(pp. 151–163). Berlin: Springer.Danyluk, A., & Provost, F. (2002). Telecommunications network diagnosis. In W. Kloesgen, & J. Zytkow (Eds.),

*Handbook of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining*, 897–902.Domingos, P. (1997). Why does bagging work? A Bayesian account and its implications.

*Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining*(pp. 155–158). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Domingos, P. (1999). MetaCost: A general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive.

*Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining*(pp. 155–164). New York: ACM Press.Domingos, P. (1997).Knowledge acquisition from examples via multiple models. In D. H. Fisher (Ed.),

*Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-97)*(pp. 98–106). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Drummond, C., & Holte, R. (2000). Exploiting the cost (in)sensitivity of decision tree splitting criteria.

*Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 239–246). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Dzeroski, S., Cestnik, B., & Petrovski, I. (1993). Using the

*m*-estimate in rule induction.*Journal of Computing and Information Technology*,*1*, 37–46.Friedman, N., & Goldszmidt, M. (1996). Learning Bayesian networks with local structure.

*Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence*(pp. 252–262). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Good, I. J. (1965).

*The Estimation of Probabilities: An Essay on Modern Bayesian Methods*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Gordon, L., & Olshen, R. A. (1984). Almost sure consistent nonparametric regression from recursive partitioning schemes.

*Journal of Multivariate Analysis*,*15*, 147–163.Hand, D. J. (1997).

*Construction and Assessment of Classification Rules*. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Hand, D. J., & Till, R. J. (2001). A simple generalization of the area under the ROC curve for multiple class classification problems.

*Machine Learning*,*45:2*, 171–186.Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

*Radiology*,*143*, 29–36.Hastie, T. J., & Pregibon, D. (1990). Shrinking trees. Technical report, AT&T Laboratories.

Heckerman, D., Chickering, M., Meek, C., Rounthwaite, R., & Kadie, C. (2000). Dependency networks for density estimation, collaborative filtering, and data visualization.

*Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence*. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Holte, R., Acker, L., & Porter, B. (1989). Concept learning and the problem of small disjuncts.

*Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*(pp. 813–818). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Jelinek, F. (1997).

*Statistical Methods for Speech Recognition*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kohavi, R., Becker, B., & Sommerfield, D. (1997). Improving simple Bayes.

*The Ninth European Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 78–87).Lim, T.-J., Loh, W.-Y., & Shih, Y.-S. (2000). A comparison of prediction accuracy, complexity, and training time of thirty-three old and new classification algorithms.

*Machine Learning*,*40:3*, 203–228.Margineantu, D. D., & Dietterich, T. G. (2001). Improved class probability estimates from decision tree models. In C. Holmes (Ed.),

*Nonlinear Estimation and Classification*. The Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, University of California, Berkeley.McCallum, A., Rosenfeld, R., Mitchell, T., & Ng, A. Y. (1998). Improving text classification by shrinkage in a hierarchy of classes.

*Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 359–367). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Niblett, T. (1987). Constructing decision trees in noisy domains.

*Proceedings of the Second European Working Session on Learning*(pp. 67–78). Wilmslow, England: Sigma Press.Pazzani, M., Merz, C., Murphy, P., Ali, K., Hume, T., & Brunk, C. (1994). Reducing misclassification costs.

*Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 217–225). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Perlich, C., Provost, F., & Simonoff, J. S. (2003). Tree induction versus logistic regression: A learning-curve analysis.

*Journal of Machine Learning Research*. (In press).Provost, F., & Domingos, P. (2000). Well-trained PETs: Improving probability estimation trees. CeDER Working Paper #IS-00-04, Stern School of Business, New York University, NY 10012.

Provost, F., & Fawcett,T. (1997). Analysis and visualization of classifier performance: Comparison under imprecise class and cost distributions.

*Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-97)*(pp. 43–48). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2001). Robust classification for imprecise environments.

*Machine Learning*,*42*, 203–231.Provost, F., Fawcett, T., & Kohavi, R. (1998). The case against accuracy estimation for comparing induction algorithms.

*Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 445–453). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Provost, F., & Kolluri, V. (1999). A survey of methods for scaling up inductive algorithms.

*Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery*,*3:2*, 131–169.Quinlan, J. R. (1993).

*C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning*. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Simonoff, J. S. (1995). Smoothing categorical data.

*Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference*,*47*, 41–69.Smyth, P., Gray, A., & Fayyad, U. (1995). Retrofitting decision tree classifiers using kernel density estimation.

*Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 506–514). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Sobehart, J. R., Stein, R. M., Mikityanskaya, V., & Li, L. (2000). Moody's public firm risk model: A hybrid approach to modeling short term default risk. Tech rep., Moody's Investors Service, Global Credit Research. Available: http://www.moodysqra.com/research/crm/53853.asp.

Swets, J. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.

*Science*,*240*, 1285–1293.Zadrozny, B., & Elkan, C. (2001). Obtaining calibrated probability estimates from decision trees and naive Bayesian classifiers. In C. Brodley, & A. Danyluk (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning*(pp. 609–616). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Provost, F., Domingos, P. Tree Induction for Probability-Based Ranking.
*Machine Learning* **52**, 199–215 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024099825458

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024099825458