Abstract:Methods for voting classification algorithms, such as Bagging and AdaBoost, have been shown to be very successful in improving the accuracy of certain classifiers for artificial and real-world datasets. We review these algorithms and describe a large empirical study comparing several variants in conjunction with a decision tree inducer (three variants) and a Naive-Bayes inducer. The purpose of the study is to improve our understanding of why and when these algorithms, which use perturbation, reweighting, and combination techniques, affect classification error. We provide a bias and variance decomposition of the error to show how different methods and variants influence these two terms. This allowed us to determine that Bagging reduced variance of unstable methods, while boosting methods (AdaBoost and Arc-x4) reduced both the bias and variance of unstable methods but increased the variance for Naive-Bayes, which was very stable. We observed that Arc-x4 behaves differently than AdaBoost if reweighting is used instead of resampling, indicating a fundamental difference. Voting variants, some of which are introduced in this paper, include: pruning versus no pruning, use of probabilistic estimates, weight perturbations (Wagging), and backfitting of data. We found that Bagging improves when probabilistic estimates in conjunction with no-pruning are used, as well as when the data was backfit. We measure tree sizes and show an interesting positive correlation between the increase in the average tree size in AdaBoost trials and its success in reducing the error. We compare the mean-squared error of voting methods to non-voting methods and show that the voting methods lead to large and significant reductions in the mean-squared errors. Practical problems that arise in implementing boosting algorithms are explored, including numerical instabilities and underflows. We use scatterplots that graphically show how AdaBoost reweights instances, emphasizing not only “hard” areas but also outliers and noise.

Classifier comparison using precision

Bayesian Performance Comparison of Text Classifiers

Performance Analysis and Comparison of Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines Classifier

Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers by Generalized Stochastic Dominance

A comparative study of breast cancer tumor classification by classical machine learning methods and deep learning method

Experimental Comparisons of Multi-class Classifiers.

A New Kind of Nonparametric Test for Statistical Comparison of Multiple Classifiers over Multiple Datasets

Precision at the indistinguishability threshold: a method for evaluating classification algorithms

Multi-Level Comparison of Machine Learning Classifiers and Their Performance Metrics

Analysis and Comparison of Classification Metrics

Precision-Recall versus Accuracy and the Role of Large Data Sets

Evaluating Binary Outcome Classifiers Estimated from Survey Data

An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants

Empirical analysis of performance assessment for imbalanced classification

Machine learning classification model comparison

Leveraging Uncertainty Estimates To Improve Classifier Performance

Fairer and more accurate, but for whom?

Statistical Multicriteria Benchmarking via the GSD-Front

A Bayesian Hierarchical Model for Comparing Average F1 Scores

Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview

CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR CLASSIFIER