Distance-based decision tree algorithms for label ranking

The problem of Label Ranking is receiving increasing attention from several research communities. The algorithms that have developed/adapted to treat rankings as the target object follow two different approaches: distribution-based (e.g., using Mallows model) or correlation-based (e.g., using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient). Decision trees have been adapted for label ranking following both approaches. In this paper we evaluate an existing correlation-based approach and propose a new one, Entropy-based Ranking trees. We then compare and discuss the results with a distribution-based approach. The results clearly indicate that both approaches are competitive

Pairwise meta-rules for better meta-learning-based algorithm ranking

In this paper, we present a novel meta-feature generation method in the context of meta-learning, which is based on rules that compare the performance of individual base learners in a one-against-one manner. In addition to these new meta-features, we also introduce a new meta-learner called Approximate Ranking Tree Forests (ART Forests) that performs very competitively when compared with several state-of-the-art meta-learners. Our experimental results are based on a large collection of datasets and show that the proposed new techniques can improve the overall performance of meta-learning for algorithm ranking significantly. A key point in our approach is that each performance figure of any base learner for any specific dataset is generated by optimising the parameters of the base learner separately for each dataset

Autoencoders for strategic decision support

In the majority of executive domains, a notion of normality is involved in most strategic decisions. However, few data-driven tools that support strategic decision-making are available. We introduce and extend the use of autoencoders to provide strategically relevant granular feedback. A first experiment indicates that experts are inconsistent in their decision making, highlighting the need for strategic decision support. Furthermore, using two large industry-provided human resources datasets, the proposed solution is evaluated in terms of ranking accuracy, synergy with human experts, and dimension-level feedback. This three-point scheme is validated using (a) synthetic data, (b) the perspective of data quality, (c) blind expert validation, and (d) transparent expert evaluation. Our study confirms several principal weaknesses of human decision-making and stresses the importance of synergy between a model and humans. Moreover, unsupervised learning and in particular the autoencoder are shown to be valuable tools for strategic decision-making

Separation of pulsar signals from noise with supervised machine learning algorithms

We evaluate the performance of four different machine learning (ML) algorithms: an Artificial Neural Network Multi-Layer Perceptron (ANN MLP ), Adaboost, Gradient Boosting Classifier (GBC), XGBoost, for the separation of pulsars from radio frequency interference (RFI) and other sources of noise, using a dataset obtained from the post-processing of a pulsar search pi peline. This dataset was previously used for cross-validation of the SPINN-based machine learning engine, used for the reprocessing of HTRU-S survey data arXiv:1406.3627. We have used Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) to deal with high class imbalance in the dataset. We report a variety of quality scores from all four of these algorithms on both the non-SMOTE and SMOTE datasets. For all the above ML methods, we report high accuracy and G-mean in both the non-SMOTE and SMOTE cases. We study the feature importances using Adaboost, GBC, and XGBoost and also from the minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance approach to report algorithm-agnostic feature ranking. From these methods, we find that the signal to noise of the folded profile to be the best feature. We find that all the ML algorithms report FPRs about an order of magnitude lower than the corresponding FPRs obtained in arXiv:1406.3627, for the same recall value.Comment: 14 pages, 2 figures. Accepted for publication in Astronomy and Computin