Popular Ensemble Methods: An Empirical Study

An ensemble consists of a set of individually trained classifiers (such as neural networks or decision trees) whose predictions are combined when classifying novel instances. Previous research has shown that an ensemble is often more accurate than any of the single classifiers in the ensemble. Bagging (Breiman, 1996c) and Boosting (Freund and Shapire, 1996; Shapire, 1990) are two relatively new but popular methods for producing ensembles. In this paper we evaluate these methods on 23 data sets using both neural networks and decision trees as our classification algorithm. Our results clearly indicate a number of conclusions. First, while Bagging is almost always more accurate than a single classifier, it is sometimes much less accurate than Boosting. On the other hand, Boosting can create ensembles that are less accurate than a single classifier -- especially when using neural networks. Analysis indicates that the performance of the Boosting methods is dependent on the characteristics of the data set being examined. In fact, further results show that Boosting ensembles may overfit noisy data sets, thus decreasing its performance. Finally, consistent with previous studies, our work suggests that most of the gain in an ensemble's performance comes in the first few classifiers combined; however, relatively large gains can be seen up to 25 classifiers when Boosting decision trees

Vote-boosting ensembles

Vote-boosting is a sequential ensemble learning method in which the individual classifiers are built on different weighted versions of the training data. To build a new classifier, the weight of each training instance is determined in terms of the degree of disagreement among the current ensemble predictions for that instance. For low class-label noise levels, especially when simple base learners are used, emphasis should be made on instances for which the disagreement rate is high. When more flexible classifiers are used and as the noise level increases, the emphasis on these uncertain instances should be reduced. In fact, at sufficiently high levels of class-label noise, the focus should be on instances on which the ensemble classifiers agree. The optimal type of emphasis can be automatically determined using cross-validation. An extensive empirical analysis using the beta distribution as emphasis function illustrates that vote-boosting is an effective method to generate ensembles that are both accurate and robust

CSNL: A cost-sensitive non-linear decision tree algorithm

This article presents a new decision tree learning algorithm called CSNL that induces Cost-Sensitive Non-Linear decision trees. The algorithm is based on the hypothesis that nonlinear decision nodes provide a better basis than axis-parallel decision nodes and utilizes discriminant analysis to construct nonlinear decision trees that take account of costs of misclassification. The performance of the algorithm is evaluated by applying it to seventeen datasets and the results are compared with those obtained by two well known cost-sensitive algorithms, ICET and MetaCost, which generate multiple trees to obtain some of the best results to date. The results show that CSNL performs at least as well, if not better than these algorithms, in more than twelve of the datasets and is considerably faster. The use of bagging with CSNL further enhances its performance showing the significant benefits of using nonlinear decision nodes. The performance of the algorithm is evaluated by applying it to seventeen data sets and the results are compared with those obtained by two well known cost-sensitive algorithms, ICET and MetaCost, which generate multiple trees to obtain some of the best results to date. The results show that CSNL performs at least as well, if not better than these algorithms, in more than twelve of the data sets and is considerably faster. The use of bagging with CSNL further enhances its performance showing the significant benefits of using non-linear decision nodes

Efficient Diverse Ensemble for Discriminative Co-Tracking

Ensemble discriminative tracking utilizes a committee of classifiers, to label data samples, which are in turn, used for retraining the tracker to localize the target using the collective knowledge of the committee. Committee members could vary in their features, memory update schemes, or training data, however, it is inevitable to have committee members that excessively agree because of large overlaps in their version space. To remove this redundancy and have an effective ensemble learning, it is critical for the committee to include consistent hypotheses that differ from one-another, covering the version space with minimum overlaps. In this study, we propose an online ensemble tracker that directly generates a diverse committee by generating an efficient set of artificial training. The artificial data is sampled from the empirical distribution of the samples taken from both target and background, whereas the process is governed by query-by-committee to shrink the overlap between classifiers. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed scheme outperforms conventional ensemble trackers on public benchmarks.Comment: CVPR 2018 Submissio

Making Risk Minimization Tolerant to Label Noise

In many applications, the training data, from which one needs to learn a classifier, is corrupted with label noise. Many standard algorithms such as SVM perform poorly in presence of label noise. In this paper we investigate the robustness of risk minimization to label noise. We prove a sufficient condition on a loss function for the risk minimization under that loss to be tolerant to uniform label noise. We show that the $0-1$ loss, sigmoid loss, ramp loss and probit loss satisfy this condition though none of the standard convex loss functions satisfy it. We also prove that, by choosing a sufficiently large value of a parameter in the loss function, the sigmoid loss, ramp loss and probit loss can be made tolerant to non-uniform label noise also if we can assume the classes to be separable under noise-free data distribution. Through extensive empirical studies, we show that risk minimization under the $0-1$ loss, the sigmoid loss and the ramp loss has much better robustness to label noise when compared to the SVM algorithm

An empirical evaluation of imbalanced data strategies from a practitioner's point of view

This research tested the following well known strategies to deal with binary imbalanced data on 82 different real life data sets (sampled to imbalance rates of 5%, 3%, 1%, and 0.1%): class weight, SMOTE, Underbagging, and a baseline (just the base classifier). As base classifiers we used SVM with RBF kernel, random forests, and gradient boosting machines and we measured the quality of the resulting classifier using 6 different metrics (Area under the curve, Accuracy, F-measure, G-mean, Matthew's correlation coefficient and Balanced accuracy). The best strategy strongly depends on the metric used to measure the quality of the classifier. For AUC and accuracy class weight and the baseline perform better; for F-measure and MCC, SMOTE performs better; and for G-mean and balanced accuracy, underbagging

A survey of cost-sensitive decision tree induction algorithms

The past decade has seen a significant interest on the problem of inducing decision trees that take account of costs of misclassification and costs of acquiring the features used for decision making. This survey identifies over 50 algorithms including approaches that are direct adaptations of accuracy based methods, use genetic algorithms, use anytime methods and utilize boosting and bagging. The survey brings together these different studies and novel approaches to cost-sensitive decision tree learning, provides a useful taxonomy, a historical timeline of how the field has developed and should provide a useful reference point for future research in this field