Downloads provided by UsageCounts
{"references": ["Opitz D. & Maclin R., Popular Ensemble Methods: An Empirical Study,\nArtificial Intelligence Research, Vol. 11, 1999, pp. 169-198.", "Dietterich, T.G., Ensemble methods in machine learning. In Kittler, J.,\nRoli, F., eds.: Multiple Classifier Systems. Lecture Notes Computer\nSciences, Vol. 1857, 2001, pp. 1-15.", "Breiman L., Bagging Predictors. Machine Learning, Vol. 24, No. 3,\n1996, pp. 123-140.", "Freund Y. and Robert E. Schapire. Experiments with a New Boosting\nAlgorithm, Proceedings of ICML-96, pp. 148-156.", "Webb G. I., MultiBoosting: A Technique for Combining Boosting and\nWagging, Machine Learning, Vol. 40, 2000, pp. 159-196.", "Melville P., Mooney R., Constructing Diverse Classifier Ensembles\nusing Artificial Training Examples, Proceedings of IJCAI-2003, pp.505-\n510, Acapulco, Mexico.", "Bauer, E. & Kohavi, R., An empirical comparison of voting\nclassification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants. Machine\nLearning, Vol. 36, 1999, pp. 105-139.", "Blake, C.L. & Merz, C.J., UCI Repository of machine learning\ndatabases. Irvine, CA: University of California, 1998, Department of\nInformation and Computer Science.\n(http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/MLRepository.html)", "Bosch, A. and Daelemans W., Memory-based morphological analysis.\nProceedings of 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL, 1999, University of\nMaryland, pp. 285-292 (http://ilk.kub.nl/~antalb/ltuia/week10.html).\n[10] Kotsiantis, S., Pierrakeas, C. and Pintelas, P., Preventing student dropout\nin distance learning systems using machine learning techniques, Lecture\nNotes in AI, Springer-Verlag Vol 2774, 2003, pp 267-274.\n[11] Salzberg, S., On Comparing Classifiers: Pitfalls to Avoid and a\nRecommended Approach, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol.\n1, 1997, pp. 317-328.\n[12] Quinlan J.R., C4.5: Programs for machine learning. 1993, Morgan\nKaufmann, San Francisco.\n[13] Domingos P. & Pazzani M., On the optimality of the simple Bayesian\nclassifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning, Vol. 29, 1997, pp.\n103-130.\n[14] Holte, R. C., Very simple classification rules perform well on most\ncommonly used datasets, Machine Learning, Vol. 11, 1993, pp. 63-90.\n[15] Iba, W., & Langley, P., Induction of one-level decision trees,\nProceedings of Ninth International Machine Learning Conference,\n1992. Aberdeen, Scotland.\n[16] Schapire, R. E., Freund, Y., Bartlett, P., & Lee, W. S., Boosting the\nmargin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods. The\nAnnals of Statistics, Vol. 26, 1998, pp. 1651-1686.\n[17] Furnkranz, J., Separate-and-Conquer Rule Learning, Artificial\nIntelligence Review, Vol. 13, 1999, pp. 3-54.\n[18] Jensen F., An Introduction to Bayesian Networks. 1996, Springer.\n[19] Murthy, Automatic Construction of Decision Trees from Data: A Multi-\nDisciplinary Survey, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 2,\n1998, pp. 345-389."]}
Bagging and boosting are among the most popular resampling ensemble methods that generate and combine a diversity of classifiers using the same learning algorithm for the base-classifiers. Boosting algorithms are considered stronger than bagging on noisefree data. However, there are strong empirical indications that bagging is much more robust than boosting in noisy settings. For this reason, in this work we built an ensemble using a voting methodology of bagging and boosting ensembles with 10 subclassifiers in each one. We performed a comparison with simple bagging and boosting ensembles with 25 sub-classifiers, as well as other well known combining methods, on standard benchmark datasets and the proposed technique was the most accurate.
machine learning, data mining, pattern recognition.
machine learning, data mining, pattern recognition.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 4 | |
| downloads | 6 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts