{"title":"排名决策树的Boosting和Bagging比较","authors":"Plaia, Antonella, Buscemi, Simona, Fürnkranz, Johannes, Mencía, Eneldo Loza","doi":"10.1007/s00357-021-09397-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Decision tree learning is among the most popular and most traditional families of machine learning algorithms. While these techniques excel in being quite intuitive and interpretable, they also suffer from instability: small perturbations in the training data may result in big changes in the predictions. The so-called ensemble methods combine the output of multiple trees, which makes the decision more reliable and stable. They have been primarily applied to numeric prediction problems and to classification tasks. In the last years, some attempts to extend the ensemble methods to ordinal data can be found in the literature, but no concrete methodology has been provided for preference data. In this paper, we extend decision trees, and in the following also ensemble methods to ranking data. In particular, we propose a theoretical and computational definition of bagging and boosting, two of the best known ensemble methods. In an experimental study using simulated data and real-world datasets, our results confirm that known results from classification, such as that boosting outperforms bagging, could be successfully carried over to the ranking case.</p>","PeriodicalId":50241,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classification","volume":"135 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Boosting and Bagging for Decision Trees of Rankings\",\"authors\":\"Plaia, Antonella, Buscemi, Simona, Fürnkranz, Johannes, Mencía, Eneldo Loza\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00357-021-09397-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Decision tree learning is among the most popular and most traditional families of machine learning algorithms. While these techniques excel in being quite intuitive and interpretable, they also suffer from instability: small perturbations in the training data may result in big changes in the predictions. The so-called ensemble methods combine the output of multiple trees, which makes the decision more reliable and stable. They have been primarily applied to numeric prediction problems and to classification tasks. In the last years, some attempts to extend the ensemble methods to ordinal data can be found in the literature, but no concrete methodology has been provided for preference data. In this paper, we extend decision trees, and in the following also ensemble methods to ranking data. In particular, we propose a theoretical and computational definition of bagging and boosting, two of the best known ensemble methods. In an experimental study using simulated data and real-world datasets, our results confirm that known results from classification, such as that boosting outperforms bagging, could be successfully carried over to the ranking case.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Classification\",\"volume\":\"135 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Classification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-021-09397-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Classification","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-021-09397-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing Boosting and Bagging for Decision Trees of Rankings
Decision tree learning is among the most popular and most traditional families of machine learning algorithms. While these techniques excel in being quite intuitive and interpretable, they also suffer from instability: small perturbations in the training data may result in big changes in the predictions. The so-called ensemble methods combine the output of multiple trees, which makes the decision more reliable and stable. They have been primarily applied to numeric prediction problems and to classification tasks. In the last years, some attempts to extend the ensemble methods to ordinal data can be found in the literature, but no concrete methodology has been provided for preference data. In this paper, we extend decision trees, and in the following also ensemble methods to ranking data. In particular, we propose a theoretical and computational definition of bagging and boosting, two of the best known ensemble methods. In an experimental study using simulated data and real-world datasets, our results confirm that known results from classification, such as that boosting outperforms bagging, could be successfully carried over to the ranking case.
期刊介绍:
To publish original and valuable papers in the field of classification, numerical taxonomy, multidimensional scaling and other ordination techniques, clustering, tree structures and other network models (with somewhat less emphasis on principal components analysis, factor analysis, and discriminant analysis), as well as associated models and algorithms for fitting them. Articles will support advances in methodology while demonstrating compelling substantive applications. Comprehensive review articles are also acceptable. Contributions will represent disciplines such as statistics, psychology, biology, information retrieval, anthropology, archeology, astronomy, business, chemistry, computer science, economics, engineering, geography, geology, linguistics, marketing, mathematics, medicine, political science, psychiatry, sociology, and soil science.