Advertisement

Three Data Partitioning Strategies for Building Local Classifiers

  • Indrė Žliobaitė
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 373)

Abstract

Divide-and-conquer approach has been recognized in multiple classifier systems aiming to utilize local expertise of individual classifiers. In this study we experimentally investigate three strategies for building local classifiers that are based on different routines of sampling data for training. The first two strategies are based on clustering the training data and building an individual classifier for each cluster or a combination. The third strategy divides the training set based on a selected feature and trains a separate classifier for each subset. Experiments are carried out on simulated and real datasets. We report improvement in the final classification accuracy as a result of combining the three strategies.

Keywords

Real Dataset Class Membership Testing Error Random Oracle Research Proposal 
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.
    Breiman, L.: Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 24(1996), 123–140 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, G., Wyatt, J., Harris, R., Yao, X.: Diversity creation methods: a survey and categorization. Inf. Fusion 6, 5–20 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frosyniotis, D., Stafylopatis, A., Likas, A.: A divide-and-conquer method for multi-net classifiers. Pattern Analysis and Appl. 6, 32–40 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harries, M.: Splice-2 comparative evaluation: Electricity pricing. Technical Report UNSW-CSE -TR-9905, Artif. Intell. Group, School of Computer Science and Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sidney (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.: The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobs, R., Jordan, M., Nowlan, S., Hinton, G.: Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation 3, 79–87 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katakis, I., Tsoumakas, G., Vlahavas, I.: Tracking recurring contexts using ensemble classifiers: an application to email filtering. Knowledge and Inf. Syst. 22, 371–391 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    King, G., Zeng, L.: Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9(2001), 137–163 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuncheva, L.: Clustering-and-selection model for classifier combination. In: Proc. the 4th Int. Conf. Knowledge-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. and Allied Technologies, Brighton, UK, pp. 185–188 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuncheva, L.I., Rodriguez, J.J.: Classifier ensembles with a random linear oracle. IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng. 19, 500–508 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lim, M., Sohn, S.: Cluster-based dynamic scoring model. Expert Systems with Appl. 32, 427–431 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, R., Yuan, B.: Multiple classifiers combination by clustering and selection. Inf. Fusion 2, 163–168 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newman, D.J., Asuncion, A.: UCI machine learning repository, http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Indrė Žliobaitė
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoventhe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations