Analysis of Multiple Classifiers Performance for Discretized Data in Authorship Attribution

  • Grzegorz BaronEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 73)


In authorship attribution domain single classifiers are often employed in research as elements of decision system. On the other hand, there is intuitive prediction that the use of multiple classifier with fusion of their outcomes may improve the quality of the investigated system. Additionally, discretization can be applied for input data which can be beneficial for the classification accuracy. The paper presents performance analysis of some multiple classifiers basing on the majority voting rule. Ensembles were composed from eight single well known classifiers. Influence of different discretization methods on the quality of the analyzed systems was also investigated.


Multiple classifier Ensemble classifier Majority voting Discretization Authorship attribution 



The research described was performed at the Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland, in the framework of the project BK/RAu2/2017. All experiments were performed using WEKA workbench [9].


  1. 1.
    Baron, G.: Influence of data discretization on efficiency of Bayesian classifier for authorship attribution. Procedia Comput. Sci. 35, 1112–1121 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baron, G.: Comparison of cross-validation and test sets approaches to evaluation of classifiers in authorship attribution domain. In: Czachórski, T., Gelenbe, E., Grochla, K., Lent, R. (eds.) Computer and Information Sciences: 31st International Symposium, ISCIS 2016, Kraków, Poland, October 27–28, 2016, Proceedings, pp. 81–89. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baron, G.: On influence of representations of discretized data on performance of a decision system. Procedia Comput. Sci. 96(c), 1418–1427 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baron, G., Haężlak, K.: On approaches to discretization of datasets used for evaluation of decision systems. In: Czarnowski, I., Caballero, M.A., Howlett, J.R., Jain, C.L. (eds.) Intelligent Decision Technologies 2016: Proceedings of the 8th KES International Conference on Intelligent Decision Technologies (KES-IDT 2016) - Part II, pp. 149–159. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crippa, P., Curzi, A., Falaschetti, L., Turchetti, C.: Multi-class ECG beat classification based on a gaussian mixture model of Karhunen-Loéve transform. Int. J. Simul. Syst. Sci. Technol. 16(1), 2.1–2.10 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietterich, T.G.: Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems, MCS 2000, pp. 1–15. Springer-Verlag, London (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fayyad, U.M., Irani, K.B.: Multi-interval discretization of continuousvalued attributes for classification learning. In: 13th International Joint Conference on Articial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 1022–1027. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gianfelici, F., Turchetti, C., Crippa, P.: A non-probabilistic recognizer of stochastic signals based on KLT. Sig. Process. 89(4), 422–437 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The weka data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. 11(1), 10–18 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansen, L.K., Salamon, P.: Neural network ensembles. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 12(10), 993–1001 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ho, T.K.: Multiple classifier combination: lessons and next steps. In: Kandel, A., Bunke, H. (eds.) Hybrid Methods in Pattern Recognition, pp. 171–198. World Scientific, Singapore (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jamak, A., Savatić, A., Can, M.: Principal component analysis for authorship attribution. Bus. Syst. Res. 3, 49–56 (2012). Proceedings of 11th International Conference Symposium on Operational Research in SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kononenko, I.: On biases in estimating multi-valued attributes. In: 14th International Joint Conference on Articial Intelligence, pp. 1034–1040 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuncheva, L.I.: Combining Pattern Classifiers: Methods and Algorithms. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stamatatos, E.: A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(3), 538–556 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stańczyk, U.: Feature evaluation by filter, wrapper, and embedded approaches. In: Stańczyk, U., Jain, L.C. (eds.) Feature Selection for Data and Pattern Recognition, pp. 29–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stańczyk, U.: Ranking of characteristic features in combined wrapper approaches to selection. Neural Comput. Appl. 26(2), 329–344 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stefanowski, J.: Multiple classifiers (2009). Accessed 27 Jan 2017
  19. 19.
    Turchetti, C., Biagetti, G., Gianfelici, F., Crippa, P.: Nonlinear system identification: an effective framework based on the Karhunen-Loéve transform. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 57(2), 536–550 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu, L., Krzyzak, A., Suen, C.Y.: Methods of combining multiple classifiers and their applications to handwriting recognition. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber. 22(3), 418–435 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silesian University of TechnologyGliwicePoland

Personalised recommendations