An analysis of diversity measures

被引:325
作者
Tang, E. K.
Suganthan, P. N. [1 ]
Yao, X.
机构
[1] Nanyang Technol Univ, Sch Elect & Elect Engn, Singapore 639798, Singapore
[2] Univ Birmingham, Sch Comp Sci, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
关键词
classifier ensemble; diversity measures; margin distribution; majority vote; disagreement measure; double fault measure; KW variance; interrater agreement; generalized diversity; measure of difficulty; entropy measure; coincident failure diversity;
D O I
10.1007/s10994-006-9449-2
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Diversity among the base classifiers is deemed to be important when constructing a classifier ensemble. Numerous algorithms have been proposed to construct a good classifier ensemble by seeking both the accuracy of the base classifiers and the diversity among them. However, there is no generally accepted definition of diversity, and measuring the diversity explicitly is very difficult. Although researchers have designed several experimental studies to compare different diversity measures, usually confusing results were observed. In this paper, we present a theoretical analysis on six existing diversity measures (namely disagreement measure, double fault measure, KW variance, inter-rater agreement, generalized diversity and measure of difficulty), show underlying relationships between them, and relate them to the concept of margin, which is more explicitly related to the success of ensemble learning algorithms. We illustrate why confusing experimental results were observed and show that the discussed diversity measures are naturally ineffective. Our analysis provides a deeper understanding of the concept of diversity, and hence can help design better ensemble learning algorithms.
引用
收藏
页码:247 / 271
页数:25
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, P 13 AM ASS ART INT
[2]   Boosting the HONG network [J].
Atukorale, AS ;
Downs, T ;
Suganthan, PN .
NEUROCOMPUTING, 2003, 51 :75-86
[3]   An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants [J].
Bauer, E ;
Kohavi, R .
MACHINE LEARNING, 1999, 36 (1-2) :105-139
[4]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[5]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[6]  
BROWN G, 2004, INFORM FUSION, V6, P5
[7]   A tutorial on Support Vector Machines for pattern recognition [J].
Burges, CJC .
DATA MINING AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY, 1998, 2 (02) :121-167
[8]  
Cherkassky V, 1997, IEEE Trans Neural Netw, V8, P1564, DOI 10.1109/TNN.1997.641482
[9]   An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: Bagging, boosting, and randomization [J].
Dietterich, TG .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2000, 40 (02) :139-157
[10]   EQUIVALENCE OF WEIGHTED KAPPA AND INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AS MEASURES OF RELIABILITY [J].
FLEISS, JL ;
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1973, 33 (03) :613-619