Weighted Proportional k-Interval Discretization for Naive-Bayes Classifiers

  • Ying Yang
  • Geofrey I. Webb
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2637)

Abstract

The use of different discretization techniques can be expected to affect the classification bias and variance of naive-Bayes classifiers. We call such an effect discretization bias and variance. Proportional k-interval discretization (PKID) tunes discretization bias and variance by adjusting discretized interval size and number proportional to the number of training instances. Theoretical analysis suggests that this is desirable for naive-Bayes classifiers. However PKID is sub-optimal when learning from training data of small size. We argue that this is because PKID equally weighs bias reduction and variance reduction. But for small data, variance reduction can contribute more to lower learning error and thus should be given greater weight than bias reduction. Accordingly we propose weighted proportional k-interval discretization (WPKID), which establishes a more suitable bias and variance trade-off for small data while allowing additional training data to be used to reduce both bias and variance. Our experiments demonstrate that for naive-Bayes classifiers, WPKID improves upon PKID for smaller datasets with significant frequency; and WPKID delivers lower classification error significantly more often than not in comparison to three other leading alternative discretization techniques studied.

Keywords

Training Data Variance Reduction Numeric Attribute Categorical Attribute Training Instance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bay, S. D. The UCI KDD archive [http://kdd.ics.uci.edu], 1999. Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blake, C. L., and Merz, C. J. UCI repository of machine learning databases [http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/mlrepository.html], 1998. Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cestnik, B. Estimating probabilities: A crucial task in machine learning. In Proc. of the European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1990), pp. 147–149.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Domingos, P., and Pazzani, M. On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning 29 (1997), 103–130.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dougherty, J., Kohavi, R., and Sahami, M. Supervised and unsupervised discretization of continuous features. In Proc. of the Twelfth International Conf. on Machine Learning (1995), pp. 194–202.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fayyad, U. M., and Irani, K. B. Multi-interval discretization of continuous-valued attributes for classification learning. In Proc. of the Thirteenth International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1993), pp. 1022–1027.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman, J. H. On bias, variance, 0/1-loss, and the curse-of-dimensionality. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 1,1 (1997), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gama, J., Torgo, L., and Soares, C. Dynamic discretization of continuous attributes. In Proc. of the Sixth Ibero-American Conf. on AI (1998), pp. 160–169.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hsu, C. N., Huang, H. J., and Wong, T. T. Why discretization works for naive Bayesian classifiers. In Proc. of the Seventeenth International Conf. on Machine Learning (2000), pp. 309–406.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hussain, F., Liu, H., Tan, C. L., and Dash, M. Discretization: An enabling technique, 1999. Technical Report, TRC6/99, School of Computing, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, R., and Bhattacharyya, G.Statistics: Principles and Methods. John Wiley & Sons Publisher, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kohavi, R., and Wolpert, D. Bias plus variance decomposition for zero-one loss functions. In Proc. of the Thirteenth International Conf. on Machine Learning (1996), pp. 275–283.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kong, E. B., and Dietterich, T. G. Error-correcting output coding corrects bias and variance. In Proc. of the Twelfth International Conf. on Machine Learning (1995), pp. 313–321.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kononenko, I. Naive Bayesian classifier and continuous attributes. Informatica 16,1 (1992), 1–8.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kononenko, I. Inductive and Bayesian learning in medical diagnosis. Applied Artificial Intelligence 7 (1993), 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mora, L., Fortes, I., Morales, R., and Triguero, F. Dynamic discretization of continuous values from time series. In Proc. of the Eleventh European Conf. on Machine Learning (2000), pp. 280–291.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pazzani, M. J. An iterative improvement approach for the discretization of numeric attributes in Bayesian classifiers. In Proc. of the First International Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (1995).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quinlan, J. R.C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scheaffer, R. L., and McClave, J. T.Probability and Statistics for Engineers, fourth ed. Duxbury Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silverman, B.Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall Ltd., 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Torgo, L., and Gama, J. Search-based class discretization. In Proc. of the Ninth European Conf. on Machine Learning (1997), pp. 266–273.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Webb, G. I. Multiboosting: A technique for combining boosting and wagging. Machine Learning 40,2 (2000), 159–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weiss, N. A.Introductory Statistics, vol. Sixth Edition. Greg Tobin, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang, Y., and Webb, G. I. Proportional k-interval discretization for naive-Bayes classifiers. In Proc. of the Twelfth European Conf. on Machine Learning (2001), pp. 564–575.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ying Yang
    • 1
  • Geofrey I. Webb
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Software EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations