Skip to main content

Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Multiple Classifier Systems (MCS 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1857))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Ensemble methods are learning algorithms that construct a set of classifiers and then classify new data points by taking a (weighted) vote of their predictions. The original ensemble method is Bayesian averaging, but more recent algorithms include error-correcting output coding, Bagging, and boosting. This paper reviews these methods and explains why ensembles can often perform better than any single classifier. Some previous studies comparing ensemble methods are reviewed, and some new experiments are presented to uncover the reasons that Adaboost does not overfit rapidly.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  • Ali, M., & Pazzani, M.J. (1996). Error reduction through learning multiple descriptions. Machine Learning, 24(3), 173–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, E., & Kohavi, R. (1999). An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants. Machine Learning, 36(1/2), 105–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, A., & Rivest, R.L. (1988). Training a 3-node neural network is NP-Complete (Extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 1988 Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 9–18 San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L. (1996). Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24(2), 123–140.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cherkauer, K.J. (1996). Human expert-level performance on a scientific image analysis task by a system using combined artificial neural networks. In Chan, P. (Ed.), Working Notes of the AAAI Workshop on Integrating Multiple Learned Models, pp. 15–21. Available from http://www.cs.fit.edu/imlm/.

  • Dietterich, T.G. (2000). An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: Bagging, boosting, and randomization. Machine Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietterich, T.G., & Bakiri, G. (1995). Solving multiclass learning problems via error-correcting output codes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2 263–286.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1995). A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. Tech. rep., AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freund, Y., & Schapire, R.E. (1996). Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 148–146. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, L., & Salamon, P. (1990). Neural network ensembles. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intell., 12, 993–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1990). Universal approximation of an unknown mapping and its derivatives using multilayer feedforward networks. Neural Networks, 3, 551–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyafil, L., & Rivest, R.L. (1976). Constructing optimal binary decision trees is NP-Complete. Information Processing Letters, 5(1), 15–17.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kolen, J.F., & Pollack, J.B. (1991). Back propagation is sensitive to initial conditions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 860–867 San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwok, S.W., & Carter, C. (1990). Multiple decision trees. In Schachter, R. D., Levitt, T.S., Kannal, L.N., & Lemmer, J.F. (Eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence4, pp. 327–335. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, R. (1993). Probabilistic inference using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Tech. rep. CRG-TR-93-1, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto,CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmanto, B., Munro, P.W., & Doyle, H.R. (1996). Improving committee diagnosis with resampling techniques. In Touretzky, D.S., Mozer, M.C., & Hesselmo, M.E. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 8, pp. 882–888 Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raviv, Y., & Intrator, N. (1996). Bootstrapping with noise: An effective regularization technique. Connection Science, 8(3–4), 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, F., & Aha, D.W. (1997). Extending local learners with error-correcting output codes. Tech. rep., Naval Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schapire, R.E. (1997). Using output codes to boost multiclass learning problems. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 313–321 San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schapire, R.E., Freund, Y., Bartlett, P., & Lee, W.S. (1997). Boosting the margin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods. In Fisher, D. (Ed.), Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schapire, R.E., & Singer, Y. (1998). Improved boosting algorithms using confidence-rated predictions. In Proc. 11th Annu. Conf. on Comput. Learning Theory, pp. 80–91. ACM Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tumer, K., & Ghosh, J. (1996). Error correlation and error reduction in ensemble classifiers. Connection Science, 8(3–4), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dietterich, T.G. (2000). Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning. In: Multiple Classifier Systems. MCS 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1857. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45014-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45014-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67704-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45014-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics