Randomized Reference Classifier with Gaussian Distribution and Soft Confusion Matrix Applied to the Improving Weak Classifiers

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 977)


In this paper, an issue of building the RRC model using probability distributions other than beta distribution is addressed. More precisely, in this paper, we propose to build the RRR model using the truncated normal distribution. Heuristic procedures for expected value and the variance of the truncated-normal distribution are also proposed. The proposed approach is tested using SCM-based model for testing the consequences of applying the truncated normal distribution in the RRC model. The experimental evaluation is performed using four different base classifiers and seven quality measures. The results showed that the proposed approach is comparable to the RRC model built using beta distribution. What is more, for some base classifiers, the truncated-normal-based SCM algorithm turned out to be better at discovering objects coming from minority classes.


Classification Randomized reference classifier Gaussian distribution Multiclassifier systems 



This work was supported by the statutory funds of the Department of Systems and Computer Networks, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.


  1. 1.
    Berger JO (1985) Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis. Springer, New York. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergmann B, Hommel G (1988) Improvements of general multiple test procedures for redundant systems of hypotheses. In: Multiple hypothesenprüfung/multiple hypotheses testing. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24(2):123–140. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cover T, Hart P (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 13(1):21–27. Scholar
  5. 5.
    David HA, Nagaraja HN (2003) Order Statistics. Wiley, Hoboken. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demšar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freund Y, Schapire RE (1997) A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J Comput Syst Sci 55(1):119–139. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman M (1940) A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of \(m\) rankings. Ann Math Stat 11(1):86–92. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia S, Herrera F (2008) An extension on “statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets” for all pairwise comparisons. J Mach Learn Res 9:2677–2694zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The WEKA data mining software. SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11(1):10. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall, M.A.: Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Waikato (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hand DJ, Yu K (2001) Idiot’s bayes: not so stupid after all? Int Stat Rev/Revue Internationale de Statistique 69(3):385. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson N (1994) Continuous Univariate Distributions. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuncheva L, Bezdek J (1998) Nearest prototype classification: clustering, genetic algorithms, or random search? IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Appl Rev) 28(1):160–164. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurzynski M, Majak M (2016) Meta-bayes classifier with Markov model applied to the control of bioprosthetic hand. In: Intelligent decision technologies 2016: proceedings of the 8th KES international conference on intelligent decision technologies (KES-IDT 2016) – part II. Springer, Cham, pp 107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurzynski M, Majak M, Zolnierek A (2016) Multiclassifier systems applied to the computer-aided sequential medical diagnosis. J Biocybern Biomed Eng 36:619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lysiak R, Kurzynski M, Woloszynski T (2014) Optimal selection of ensemble classifiers using measures of competence and diversity of base classifiers. Neurocomputing 126:29–35. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Majak M, Kurzynski M (2018) On a new method for improving weak classifiers using bayes metaclassifier. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on computer recognition systems, CORES 2017. Springer, Cham, pp 258–267.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Provost F, Domingos P (2003) Tree induction for probability-based ranking. Mach Learn 52(3):199–215. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sokolova M, Lapalme G (2009) A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Inf Process Manag 45(4). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trajdos P, Kurzynski M (2016) A dynamic model of classifier competence based on the local fuzzy confusion matrix and the random reference classifier. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 26(1). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bull 1(6):80. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woloszynski T, Kurzynski M (2009) On a new measure of classifier competence applied to the design of multiclassifier systems. In: International conference on image analysis and processing. Springer, pp 995–1004Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Woloszynski T, Kurzynski M (2011) A probabilistic model of classifier competence for dynamic ensemble selection. Pattern Recogn 44(10–11):2656–2668. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yekutieli D, Benjamini Y (2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat 29(4):1165–1188. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations