5,148 research outputs found
A Comparative Analysis of Ensemble Classifiers: Case Studies in Genomics
The combination of multiple classifiers using ensemble methods is
increasingly important for making progress in a variety of difficult prediction
problems. We present a comparative analysis of several ensemble methods through
two case studies in genomics, namely the prediction of genetic interactions and
protein functions, to demonstrate their efficacy on real-world datasets and
draw useful conclusions about their behavior. These methods include simple
aggregation, meta-learning, cluster-based meta-learning, and ensemble selection
using heterogeneous classifiers trained on resampled data to improve the
diversity of their predictions. We present a detailed analysis of these methods
across 4 genomics datasets and find the best of these methods offer
statistically significant improvements over the state of the art in their
respective domains. In addition, we establish a novel connection between
ensemble selection and meta-learning, demonstrating how both of these disparate
methods establish a balance between ensemble diversity and performance.Comment: 10 pages, 3 figures, 8 tables, to appear in Proceedings of the 2013
International Conference on Data Minin
Software defect prediction: do different classifiers find the same defects?
Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.During the last 10 years, hundreds of different defect prediction models have been published. The performance of the classifiers used in these models is reported to be similar with models rarely performing above the predictive performance ceiling of about 80% recall. We investigate the individual defects that four classifiers predict and analyse the level of prediction uncertainty produced by these classifiers. We perform a sensitivity analysis to compare the performance of Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, RPart and SVM classifiers when predicting defects in NASA, open source and commercial datasets. The defect predictions that each classifier makes is captured in a confusion matrix and the prediction uncertainty of each classifier is compared. Despite similar predictive performance values for these four classifiers, each detects different sets of defects. Some classifiers are more consistent in predicting defects than others. Our results confirm that a unique subset of defects can be detected by specific classifiers. However, while some classifiers are consistent in the predictions they make, other classifiers vary in their predictions. Given our results, we conclude that classifier ensembles with decision-making strategies not based on majority voting are likely to perform best in defect prediction.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio
- …