4.7 Article

Dynamic classifier selection for One-vs-One strategy: Avoiding non-competent classifiers

期刊

PATTERN RECOGNITION
卷 46, 期 12, 页码 3412-3424

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.patcog.2013.04.018

关键词

Multi-classification; Pairwise learning; One-vs-One; Decomposition strategies; Ensembles; Classifier selection

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [TIN2010-15055, TIN2011-28488]
  2. Andalusian Research Plan [P10-TIC-6858]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The One-vs-One strategy is one of the most commonly used decomposition technique to overcome multi-class classification problems; this way, multi-class problems are divided into easier-to-solve binary classification problems considering pairs of classes from the original problem, which are then learned by independent base classifiers. The way of performing the division produces the so-called non-competence. This problem occurs whenever an instance is classified, since it is submitted to all the base classifiers although the outputs of some of them are not meaningful (they were not trained using the instances from the class of the instance to be classified). This issue may lead to erroneous classifications, because in spite of their incompetence, all classifiers' decisions are usually considered in the aggregation phase. In this paper, we propose a dynamic classifier selection strategy for One-vs-One scheme that tries to avoid the non-competent classifiers when their output is probably not of interest. We consider the neighborhood of each instance to decide whether a classifier may be competent or not. In order to verify the validity of the proposed method, we will carry out a thorough experimental study considering different base classifiers and comparing our proposal with the best performer state-of-the-art aggregation within each base classifier from the five Machine Learning paradigms selected. The findings drawn from the empirical analysis are supported by the appropriate statistical analysis. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据