Bayesian and decision tree classifiers are among the most popular classifiers used in the data mining community and recently numerous researchers have examined their sufficiency in ensembles. Although, many methods of ensemble creation have been proposed, there is as yet no clear picture of which method is best. In this work, we propose Bagged Voting using different subsets of the same training dataset with the concurrent usage of a voting methodology that combines a Bayesian and a decision tree algorithm. In our algorithm, voters express the degree of their preference using as confidence score the probabilities of classifiers’ prediction. Next all confidence values are added for each candidate and the candidate with the highest sum wins the election. We performed a comparison of the presented ensemble with other ensembles that use either the Bayesian or the decision tree classifier as base learner and we took better accuracy in most cases.


Base Classifier Ensemble Method High Error Rate Data Mining Algorithm Decision Tree Algorithm 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bauer, E., Kohavi, R.: An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants. Machine Learning 36, 105–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blake, C.L., Merz, C.J.: UCI Repository of machine learning databases. Irvine, CA: University of California, Department of Information and Computer Science (1998),
  3. 3.
    Van den Bosch, A., Daelemans, W.: Memory-based morphological analysis. In: Proc. of the 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL, University of Maryland, pp. 285–292 (1999),
  4. 4.
    Breiman, L.: Bagging Predictors. Machine Learning 24(3), 123–140 (1996)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dietterich, T.G.: Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: Kittler, J., Roli, F. (eds.) MCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1857, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Domingos, P., Pazzani, M.: On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning 29, 103–130 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freund, Y., Schapire, R.E.: Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm. In: Proceedings: ICML 1996, pp. 148–156 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall, L.O., Bowyer, K.W., Kegelmeyer, W.P., Moore, T.E., Chao, C.: Distributed learning on very large datasets. In: ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Distributed and Parallel Knowledge Discovery (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chuanyi, J., Sheng, M.: Combinations of weak classifiers. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 8(1), 32–42 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kotsiantis, S., Pintelas, P.: On combining classifiers. In: Proceedings of HERCMA 2003 on computer mathematics and its applications, Athens (September 25-27, 2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kotsiantis, S., Pierrakeas, C., Pintelas, P.: Preventing student dropout in distance learning systems using machine learning techniques. In: Palade, V., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L. (eds.) KES 2003. LNCS, vol. 2774, pp. 267–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krogh, A., Vedelsby, J.: Neural network ensembles, cross validation and active learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, p. 7 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McQueen, R.J., Garner, S.R., Nevill-Manning, C.G., Witten, I.H.: Applying machine learning to agricultural data. Journal of Computing and Electronics in Agriculture (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Opitz, D., Maclin, R.: Popular Ensemble Methods: An Empirical Study. Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 169–198 (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quinlan, J.R.: C4.5: Programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinlan, J.R.: Bagging, boosting, and C4.5. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 725–730. AAAI/MIT Press (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salzberg, S.: On Comparing Classifiers: Pitfalls to Avoid and a Recommended Approach. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 1, 317–328 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schapire, R.E., Freund, Y., Bartlett, P., Lee, W.S.: Boosting the margin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods. The Annals of Statistics 26, 1651–1686 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seewald, A.K., Furnkranz, J.: An evaluation of grading classifiers. In: Hoffmann, F., Adams, N., Fisher, D., Guimarães, G., Hand, D.J. (eds.) IDA 2001. LNCS, vol. 2189, pp. 221–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ting, K., Witten, I.: Issues in Stacked Generalization. Artificial Intelligence Research 10, 271–289 (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Webb, G.I.: MultiBoosting: A Technique for Combining Boosting and Wagging. Machine Learning 40, 159–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Witten, I., Frank, E.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. B. Kotsiantis
    • 1
  • P. E. Pintelas
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational Software Development Laboratory, Department of MathematicsUniversity of PatrasHellas

Personalised recommendations