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

Article English OPEN
Vadera, S

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.\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud The performance of the algorithm is evaluated by applying it to seventeen data sets and the results are \ud 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.\ud 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. \ud The use of bagging with CSNL further enhances its performance showing the significant benefits of using non-linear decision nodes.
  • References (59)
    59 references, page 1 of 6

    Abe, N., Zadrozny, B., and Langford, J. 2004. An iterative method for multi-class costsensitive learning. In Proc. of KDD, Seattle, Washington. 3-11.

    Allwein, E. L., Schapire, R. E., and Singer, Y. 2000. Reducing multiclass to binary: A unifying approach for margin classifiers. In Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 9-16.

    Althoff, K., Auriol, E., Barletta, R., and Manago, M. 1995. A review of industrial casebased reasoning tools. Oxford: AI Intelligence.

    Bauer, E. and Kohavi, R. 1999. An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants. Machine Learning 36, 1-2, 105-139.

    Bennett, K. P. 1999. On mathmatical programming methods and support vector machines. In Advances in Kernel Methods - Support Vector Machines, A. Schoelkopf, C. Burges, and A. Smola, Eds. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, Chapter 19, 307-326.

    Berry, M. and Linoff, G. 2004. Data Mining Techniques, 2nd ed. New York : Wiley.

    Blake, C. and Merz, C. 1998. UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases. Irvine, CA: University of California, Department of Information and Computer Science, USA, available at //www.ics.uci.edu/ mlearn/ MLRepository.html.

    Bradford, J., Kunz, C., Kohavi, R., Brunk, C., and Brodley, C. 1998. Pruning decision trees with misclassification costs. In Proc. of the 10th European Conf. on Machine Learning, Chemnitz, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, No 1398. Heidelberg:Springer Verlag, 131-136.

    Breiman, L. 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 24, 2, 123-140.

    Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olsen, R. A., and Stone, C. J. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont: Wadsworth.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    80
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    University of Salford Institutional Repository - IRUS-UK 0 80
Share - Bookmark