Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Computer Technology and Management (ICACTM)

In Association with Novateur Publications IJRPET-ISSN No: 2454-7875

ISBN No. 978-81-921768-9- 5
February, 23rd and 24th, 2018
METHODS, THEORY OF BOOSTING ALGORITHM: A REVIEW
DR. S.S.LOMTE
Principal, VDF College of Engg. Latur, India
drsantoshlomte@gmail.com

MR. SANKET G.TORAMBEKAR

Shri.Yogeshwari Polytechnic, Ambajogai, India 9405797108
sankettorambekar@gmail.com

MR.ASARAM P.JANWALE
Dept.Computer Sci. Balbhim College,Beed
Janwale26@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Classification is a standout amongst the most key
errands in the machine learning and data mining
information communities. A most common amongst
the most widely recognized difficulties confronted
when attempting to perform classification is the class
imbalance issue. A dataset is viewed as imbalanced if
the class of interest (positive or minority class) is
generally uncommon when contrasted with alternate
classes (negative or majority classes). Accordingly, the
classifier can be intensely one-sided toward the
majority class. Breimans bagged and Freund and
Schapires boosting are recent strategies for enhancing
the prescient power of classifier learning frameworks.
Both frame an arrangement of classifiers that are
joined by voting bagging by creating recreated boot
strap samples of the information and boosting by
altering the weights of preparing instances. Strategies
for voting classification algorithm, for example,
Bagging and AdaBoost, have been appeared to be
exceptionally fruitful in enhancing the precision of
specific classifiers for artificial and real-world
datasets. We reviewed these techniques and depict a
huge observational examination contrasting a few
variations in conjunction and a decision tree inducer.
The motivation behind the examination is to enhance
our comprehension of why and when these algorithms,
which perturbation, reweighting, and combination
techniques, affect classification error. We give an
inclination and fluctuation disintegration of the
mistake to indicate how unique strategies and
variations impact these two terms. Breiman has called
attention to that they depend for their viability on the
instability of the base learning calculation. An optional
way to deal with producing an outfit is to randomize
the inner choices made by the base algorithm.
KEYWORDS- Boosting, Bagging, Voting, Classifier,
Adaboost, Neural network, learner, prediction, bias,
machine learning, recognition, programming.
I. INTRODUCTION
Boosting techniques speak to a standout amongst the most
encouraging methodological techniques for information
analysis developed over the most recent two decades. The
first technique [1] rose up out of the field of machine
learning, where it increased much intrigue and was soon
considered as an effective instrument to foresee binary
outputs. The essential thought is to iteratively apply
straightforward classifiers and to consolidate their
answers for get a superior prediction result. The idea of
boosting was later adjusted to the field of statistical
techniques, where it can be utilized to choose and appraise
the impact of predictors on a univariate reaction variable
in various sorts of regression settings [2, 3].
Originators of exact machine learning frameworks are
worried about such issues as the computational cost of the
learning strategy and the precision and comprehensibility
of the hypotheses that it develops. A significant part of the
examination in learning has tended to concentrate on
enhanced prescient precision with the goal that the
execution of new frameworks is frequently announced
from this point of view. It is straightforward why accuracy
is an essential worry in all utilizations of learning and is
effortlessly measured instead of coherence which is more
subjective while the quick increment in PCs execution cost
proportion has deemphasized computational issues in
many applications.
Boosting is a class of machine learning techniques in
view of a mix of simple classifiers (acquired by a weak
learner) can perform superior to any of the basic classifiers
alone. A weak learner (WL) is a learning technique
equipped for creating classifiers with likelihood of errors
entirely (yet just marginally) not as much as that of
random guessing (0.5, in the binary case). Then again, a
strong learner (SL) is capable (sufficiently given training
information) to yield classifiers with discretionarily little
errors.
An ensemble (or advisory group) of classifiers is a
classifier expand upon some blend of weak learners. The
methodology of boosting, and ensembles of classifiers, is to
39 | P a g e
 Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Computer Technology and Management (ICACTM)
In Association with Novateur Publications IJRPET-ISSN No: 2454-7875
learn numerous weak classifiers and join them somehow,
rather than attempting to take in a single strong classifier.
This thought of building groups of classifiers has picked up
enthusiasm for the most recent decade [4]; the reason is
that it might be less demanding to prepare a few basic
classifiers and join them into a more intricate classifier
than to take in a complex classifier. For example, rather
than preparing an extensive neural system (NN), we may
prepare a few more straightforward NNs and join their
individual outcomes to create the last outcome.
H1
x H2 H(x)
Hm
Learner Combination of learner
Figure 1: Graphical idea of the adaptive boosting
algorithm.
Among the wide range of criteria’s in which ensembles
of classifiers can be learned and joined, boosting
procedures display, notwithstanding great practical
performance, a few hypothetical and algorithmic highlights
that makes them especially alluring [5]. Basically, boosting
comprises in over and again utilizing the weak learning
algorithms, on distinctively weighted forms of the training
information, yielding a grouping of weak classifiers that
are joined. The weighting of each event in the prepared
information, at each round of the calculation, relies upon
the precision of the past classifiers, in this manner
enabling the algorithm to concentrate its consideration on
those specimens that are still mistakenly classified. The
few variations of boosting calculations vary in their
decision of base learners and foundation for refreshing the
weights of the training tests. AdaBoost (which remains for
versatile boosting) is ostensibly the best-known boosting
technique, and was in charge of starting the blast of
enthusiasm for this class of techniques that occurred after
the distribution of the fundamental works of Freund and
Schapire [6].
The purposes behind the achievement of measurable
boosting techniques are (I) their capacity to consolidate
automatic variable choice and model decision in the
current procedure, (ii) their exibility in regards to the kind
of indicator impacts that can be incorporated into the last
model and (iii) their steadiness on account of high-
dimensional information with potentially much more
hopeful factors than perceptions {a setting where most
ISBN No. 978-81-921768-9- 5
February, 23rd and 24th, 2018
ordinary estimation calculations for relapse settings fall}.
The utilization of boosting techniques therefore offers an
appealing alternative for biomedical specialists: numerous
advanced biomedical settings like genome-wide
association studies and research utilizing other 'omics'
advances are particularly testing with respect to every one
of the three factors specified above [7].
II. THE CONCEPT OF BOOSTING
The example of overcoming adversity of boosting started
with an question, not with a technique. The hypothetical
discourse was if any weak learning instrument for
grouping could be changed to end up additionally a strong
learner. In binary order, a weak learner is characterized to
yield a right arrangement rate at any rate marginally
superior to anything by random guessing (> half). A strong
learner, then again, ought to have the capacity to be
prepared to an almost idealize classification (e.g., 99%
precision). This hypothetical inquiry is of high useful
importance as it is ordinarily simple to develop a weak
learner, however hard to get a strong one. The appropriate
response, which laid the ground for the idea of boosting, is
that any weak base-learner can be conceivably iteratively
enhanced (boosted) to wind up likewise a strong learner.
To give proof to this idea, Schapire [8] and Freund [9] built
up the main boosting technique.
Schapire and Freund later contrasted the general idea
of boosting and \garnering knowledge from a gathering of
fools". The \fools" for this situation are the outcome of the
basic base learner: It groups just marginally superior to the
ip of a coin. A basic base-learner is in no way, shape or
form a down to earth classification rule, yet even the basic
base-learner must contain some substantial data about the
hidden structure of the issue. The assignment of a boosting
technique is consequently to gain from the iterative use of
a weak learner and to utilize this data to join it to a precise
classification [10].
Be that as it may, simply calling the frail learner
various circumstances on a similar training test would not
transform anything in its execution. The idea of boosting
isn't generally to control the base-learner itself to enhance
its execution yet to control the fundamental training
information by iteratively re-weighting the perceptions.
Therefore, the base- learner in each cycle m will locate
another arrangement ^h[m](_) from the information. By
means of rehashed use of the weak base learner with
respect to perceptions that are weighted in light of the
weak learner's achievement in the past rounds, the
technique is compelled to focus on objects that are difficult
to characterize {as perceptions that were misclassified
before get higher weights. Boosting the precision is
accomplished by expanding the significance of \difficult"
perceptions.
40 | P a g e
 Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Computer Technology and Management (ICACTM)
In Association with Novateur Publications IJRPET-ISSN No: 2454-7875
In every emphasis m = 1; :::;m stop, the weight vector
w[m] = (w[m] 1 ; :::;w[m] n ) contains the individual
weights of all perceptions relying upon the
accomplishment of their classification in past cycles. Amid
the emphasis cycle, the concentration is moved towards
perceptions that were misclassified up to the present
iteration m.
III. RELATED WORK
AdaBoost [1], AdaBoost was the primary versatile
boosting technique as it naturally changes its parameters
to the information in view of the genuine execution in the
present iteration: both the weights wi for re-weighting the
information and in addition the weights fm for the last
accumulation are re-figured iteratively.
The presentation of AdaBoost increased much
consideration in the machine learning group. Practically
speaking, it is regularly utilized with basic classification
trees or stumps as base-learner and commonly brings
about a drastically enhanced execution contrasted with the
classification by one tree or some other single base-
learner. For instance, Bauer and Kohavi [11] report a
normal 27% relative change in the misclassification
mistake for AdaBoost contrasted and a single decision tree.
The authors moreover contrasted the exactness of
AdaBoost and the one of Bagging in different settings.
Bagging, rather than boosting, utilizes bootstrap created
tests to alter the prepared information and thus does not
depend on the misclassification rate of prior iteration.
After their extensive scale correlation, Bauer and Kohavi
reasoned that boosting technique, rather than Bagging, can
decrease not just the variety in the base- learner's
expectation mistake coming about because of the
utilization of various preparing informational indexes
(change), yet in addition the normal contrast amongst
anticipated and genuine classes (inclination). This view is
additionally basically upheld by an investigation of
Breiman [12]. The achievement of AdaBoost supposedly
drove Breiman, who was a pioneer and driving master in
machine learning, to the announcement: Boosting is the
best of-the-shelf classifier on the planet.
The most critical elucidation of boosting in this setting
is the statistical perspective of boosting by Friedman et al.
[2]. It gave the premise to understanding the boosting idea
all in all and the accomplishment of AdaBoost specifically
from a statistical perspective by demonstrating that
AdaBoost in reality it's an added substance display. Most
arrangements of machine-learning techniques, including
AdaBoost, must be viewed as black- box prediction
schemes. They may yield extremely exact forecasts for
future or surreptitiously information, yet the way those
outcomes are created and which part single indicators play
are not really interpretable. A statistical model,
ISBN No. 978-81-921768-9- 5
February, 23rd and 24th, 2018
interestingly, goes for evaluating the connection between
at least one watched predicator factors x and the desire of
the reaction E(Y) by means of an interpretable capacity E(Y
jX = x) = f(x). In instances of more than one predicator, the
diverse impacts of the single predicators are commonly
included, shaping an added substance display.
Likelihood-based boosting, presented by Tutz and
Binder [13]. At the point when the impacts of the
predicators x1; : ; xp can be determined by a joint
parameter vector _, the assignment is to amplify the
general log-probability l(β). Given a beginning worth or
gauge from a past boosting step β, probability based
boosting approaches utilize base-learner for evaluating
parameters in a log-probability l(γ) that contains the
impact of β^ as a settled balance. For getting little updates,
like gradient boosting, a penalty term is joined to l(γ). The
appraisals ^ are in this manner used to refresh the general
gauge γ^. For persistent reaction regression models,
including a balance is the same as fitting a model to the
residuals from the past boosting step, and augmentation of
l(γ) by a base-learner winds up noticeably standard
minimum squares estimation concerning these residuals.
In this unique case, probability based boosting along these
lines harmonizes with inclination boosting for L2
misfortune.
Component-wise likelihood-based boosting
performs variable determination in each progression, i.e.
there is a different base-learner for fitting a hopeful model
for every predicator xj by expanding a log-probability l(j).
The general parameter gauge β^ then just is refreshed for
that predicator xj_ which brings about the competitor
show with the biggest log-probability l(^j). In straight
models, j is a scalar esteem, and the punished log-
probability takes the shape l(j)_2 j, where _ is a penalty
parameter that decides the span of the updates. Segment
shrewd probability based boosting at that point sums up
arrange astute regression [14].
The Gentle AdaBoost [15] calculation enhances over Real
AdaBoost by utilizing Newton steps, giving a more
dependable and stable outfit, since it puts less
accentuation on exceptions. Rather than fitting a class
probability evaluation, Gentle AdaBoost utilizes weighted
least-squares regression at every iteration. The
fundamental contrast amongst Gentle and Real AdaBoost is
on the utilization of the evaluations of the weighted class
probabilities keeping in mind the end goal to play out the
update. The technique is delicate on the grounds that it is
thought to be both preservationist and more steady when
contrasted with Real AdaBoost. Gentle AdaBoost does not
require the calculation of log-proportions which can be
numerically precarious (since they include remainders,
41 | P a g e
 Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Computer Technology and Management (ICACTM)
In Association with Novateur Publications IJRPET-ISSN No: 2454-7875
perhaps with the denominator moving toward zero).
Experimental outcomes on benchmark information
demonstrate that the moderate Gentle AdaBoost has
comparable execution to Real AdaBoost and Logit Boost,
and much of the time beats these other two variations.
The KLBoost [16] variation utilizes Kullback-Leibler (KL)
uniqueness and works as takes after. In the first place,
classification depends on the entirety of histogram
divergences along relating worldwide and separating
direct highlights. At that point, these straight KL highlights,
are iteratively learned by augmenting the anticipated KL
disparity in a boosting way. At long last, the coefficients to
join the histogram divergences are found out by limiting
the acknowledgment error, once another component is
added to the classifier. This diverges from conventional
AdaBoost, in which the coefficients are experimentally set.
In view of these properties, KLBoosting classifier sums up
exceptionally well and has been connected to high-
dimensional spaces of picture information. One of the
exploratory disadvantages of AdaBoost is that it can't
enhance the execution of naive Bayes (NB) classifier not
surprisingly. Dynamic Boost [17] beats this trouble by
utilizing active learning, out how to relieve the negative
impact of boisterous information and bring unsteadiness
into the boosting methodology. Exact examinations on an
arrangement of characteristic spaces demonstrate that
ActiveBoost bas clear focal points as for the expanding of
the classification exactness of Naive Bayes when analyzed
against Adaboost.
The linear programming boosting (LPBoost) [18]
calculation augments the edge between preparing tests of
various classes; along these lines, it has a place with the
class of edge expanding administered classification
techniques. The boosting assignment comprises of building
a learning capacity in the name space that limits
misclassification blunder and augments the delicate edge,
detailed as a direct program which can be effectively
fathomed utilizing section age procedures, created for vast
scale enhancement issues. Not at all like slope boosting
calculations, which may meet in the cutoff just, LPBoost
merges in a limited number of cycles to a worldwide
arrangement, being computationally aggressive with
AdaBoost. The ideal arrangements of LPBoost are
exceptionally scanty conversely with angle based
techniques. Experimental discoveries demonstrate that
LPBoost unites immediately, regularly speedier than
different definitions. LPBoost performs well on common
information, however there are situations where the
quantity of cycles is direct in the quantity of preparing
tests rather than logarithmic. By just adding a relative
entropy regularization to the direct target of LPBoost, we
get entropy regularized LPBoost ERLPBoost [19], for
which there is a logarithmic emphasis bound. When
ISBN No. 978-81-921768-9- 5
February, 23rd and 24th, 2018
contrasted with a past calculation, named SoftBoost, it has
a similar cycle bound and better speculation mistake.
ERLPBoost does not experience the ill effects of this issue
and has a less difficult inspiration.
The MarginBoost algorithm [20] is a variation of the
more broad calculation AnyBoost. MarginBoost is
additionally a general technique. It picks a mix of
classifiers to improve the example normal of any cost
capacity of the edge. MarginBoost performs angle drop in
work space, at every cycle picking a base classifier to
incorporate into the blend in order to maximally decrease
the cost work. As in AdaBoost, the decision of the base
classifier compares to a minimization issue including
weighted order problem. That is, for a specific weighting of
the preparation information, the base classifier learning
technique endeavors to restore a classifier that limits the
heaviness of misclassified preparing cases. The general
class of techniques named AnyBoost comprises of
inclination drop technique for picking direct problems of
components of an internal item space in order to limit
some practical cost. Every segment of the direct mix is
expanded a specific internal item. In MarginBoost, this
inward item compares to the weighted preparing mistake
of the base classifier.
Arc-x4[21], the term Arcing (Adaptively resample and
combine) was begat by Breiman (1996a) to portray the
group of techniques that adaptively resample and
consolidate; AdaBoost, which he calls circular segment fs,
is the essential case of an arcing technique. Breiman stands
out arcing from the P&C family (Perturb and Combine), of
which Bagging is the essential illustration. Breiman
(1996a) composed: After testing circular segment fs I
presumed that its prosperity lay not in its shape but rather
in its versatile resampling property, where expanding
weight was put on those cases even more every now and
again misclassified. The Arc-x4 calculation, appeared in
Figure 3, was portrayed by Breiman as \ad hoc
development" whose \accuracy is tantamount to circular
segment fs [AdaBoost]" without the weighting plan utilized
as a part of the building last AdaBoosted classifier. The
principle point is to demonstrate that AdaBoosting's
quality is gotten from the versatile reweighting of
occasions and not from the last blend. Like AdaBoost, the
technique consecutively prompts classifiers C1; C2; : :; CT
for various trials T, however examples are weighted
utilizing a basic plan: the heaviness of a case is relative to
the quantity of missteps past classifiers made to the fourth
power, in addition to one. A last classifier C_ is constructed
that profits the class anticipated by the most classifiers
(ties are broken subjectively). Dissimilar to AdaBoost, the
classifiers are voted similarly.
Top-Down Decision Tree (TDDT) induction algorithm
executed in MLC++ (Kohavi, Sommerfield and Dougherty
42 | P a g e
 Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Computer Technology and Management (ICACTM)
In Association with Novateur Publications IJRPET-ISSN No: 2454-7875
1997) [22]. The technique is like C4.5 (Quinlan 1993) with
the exemption that questions are viewed as a different
esteem. The technique develops the choice tree following
the standard technique of picking the best ascribe as
indicated by the assessment paradigm (pick up
proportion). After the tree is grown, a pruning stage
replaces sub trees with leaves utilizing a similar pruning
calculation that C4.5 employments.
The principle purpose behind picking this technique
over C4.5 is our commonality with it, our capacity to adjust
it for examinations, and its tight coordination with
different model instruments inside MLC++. MC4 is
accessible of the web in source shape as a component of
MLC++ (Kohavi, Sommer_eld and Dougherty 1997).
Alongside the first technique, two variations of MC4 were
investigated: MC4(1) andMC4(1)- plate. MC4(1) limits the
tree to a solitary root split; such a shallow tree is now and
then called a choice stump (Iba and Langley 1992). In the
event that the root property is ostensible, a multi-way split
is made with one branch for questions. On the off chance
that the root quality is persistent, a three-way split is
made: not as much as a limit, more noteworthy than an
edge, and obscure. MC4(1)- circle initially discretizes every
one of the properties utilizing entropy discretization
(Kohavi and Sahami 1996, Fayyad and Irani 1993), along
these lines adequately permitting a root split with
numerous limits. MC4(1)- circle is fundamentally the same
as the 1R classifier of Holte (1993), aside from that the
discretization step depends on entropy, which contrasted
positively and his 1R discretization in our past work
(Kohavi and Sahami 1996).
IV. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES[20]
1. Time and computation expensive.
2. Hard to implement in real time platform.
3. Complexity of the classification increases.
4. Problem of object categorization.
5. Boosting for binary categorization.
6. Boosting for multi-class categorization.
V. CONCLUSION
The structure of the hidden information is viewed as
insignificant and the way unique predicators add to the
last arrangement stays obscure. Statistical boosting
techniques, conversely, are normally connected with basic
regression sort works as base-learners and thusly yield
classical statistical models, mirroring the commitment of
various predicators on a result variable of intrigue. Thus,
their answer offers an indistinguishable elucidation from
some other model in classical regression investigation
{only that it was inferred by applying a standout amongst
the most capable expectation systems accessible in the tool
stash of a cutting-edge analyst. It is in no way, shape or
ISBN No. 978-81-921768-9- 5
February, 23rd and 24th, 2018
form a distortion to figure that the use of measurable
boosting techniques in biomedical research will increment
in the years to come. One of the primary purposes behind
this advancement is that the quantity of competitor factors
and predicators for current biomedical research has
persistently been expanding as of late. In this kind of
settings, measurable boosting techniques can exhibit their
full qualities by means of automated variable
determination and model decision while as yet giving a
similar interpretability most biomedical research depends
on.
REFERENCES
[1] Freund Y, Schapire R. Experiments With a New
Boosting Algorithm. In: Proceedings of the
Thirteenth International Conference on Machine
Learning Theory. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.; 1996. p. 148-
156.
[2] Friedman JH, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Additive
Logistic Regression: A Statistical View of Boosting
(with Discussion). The Annals of Statistics. 2000, 28,
337-407.
[3] Friedman JH. Greedy Function Approximation: A
Gradient Boosting Machine. The Annals of Statistics.
2001, 29, 1189-1232.
[4] H. Kong and E. Teoh., “Coupling adaboost and
random subspace for diversified fisher linear
Discriminant”, In ICARCV06, pages 1–5, 2006.
[5] T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman, “The
Elements of Statistical Learning”, Springer, 2nd
edition, 2001.
[6] Y. Freund and R. Schapire, “A decision-theoretic
generalization of on-line learning and application to
boosting”, In European Conference on
Computational Learning Theory – Euro- COLT.
Springer, 1994.
[7] Li H, Luan Y., “Boosting Proportional Hazards
Models Using Smoothing Splines, with Applications
to High-Dimensional Microarray Data.
Bioinformatics”, 2005, 21(10), 2403-2409.
[8] Schapire RE. “The Strength of Weak Learnability.
Machine Learning. 1990”, 5(2), 197-227.
[9] Freund Y., “Boosting a Weak Learning Algorithm by
Majority”, In: Fulk MA, Case J, editors. Proceedings
of the Third Annual Workshop on Computational
Learning Theory, COLT 1990, University of
Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA, August 6-8, 1990,
1990, p. 202-216.
[10] Schapire RE, Freund Y., “Boosting: Foundations and
Algorithms”, MIT Press, 2012.
[11] Bauer E, Kohavi R., “An Empirical Comparison of
Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting,
43 | P a g e
 Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Computer Technology and Management (ICACTM)
In Association with Novateur Publications IJRPET-ISSN No: 2454-7875
and Variants”, Journal of Machine Learning. 1999,
36, 105-139.
[12] Breiman L., “Arcing Classifiers (with Discussion)”,
The Annals of Statistics, 1998, 26, pp. 801-849.
[13] Tutz G, Binder H., “Generalized Additive Modeling
with Implicit Variable Selection by Likelihood-based
Boosting. Biometrics”, 2006, 62, 961-971.
[14] Efron B, Hastie T, Johnstone L, Tibshirani R., “Least
Angle Regression”, Annals of Statistics. 2004, 32, pp.
407-499.
[15] J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, “Additive
logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting”,
The Annals of Statistics, 28(2), pp. 337–374, 2000.
[16] C. Liu and H. Shum., “Kullback-Leibler boosting”, In
International Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR), volume 1, pp. 587–594,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 2003.
[17] L. Wang, S. Yuan, L. Li, and H. Li., “Boosting naive
Bayes by active learning”, In Third International
Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics,
volume 1, pp. 41–48, Shanghai, China, 2004.
[18] A. Demiriz, K. P. Bennett, and J. S. Taylor, “Linear
Programming Boosting via Column Generation”,
Machine Learning, 46(1-3), pp. 225–254, 2002.
[19] M. Warmuth, K. Glocer, and S. Vishwanathan, “
ISBN No. 978-81-921768-9- 5
February, 23rd and 24th, 2018
Entropy regularized lpboost”, In Proceedings of the
19th international conference on Algorithmic
Learning Theory, ALT ’08, pp. 256–271, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2008. Springer-Verlag.
[20] L. Mason, J. Baxter, P. Bartlett, and M. Frean.,
“Functional gradient techniques for combining
hypotheses. Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, 1,
pp. 109–120, 2000.
[21] E. Bauer, R. Kohanvi, “An Empirical Comparison of
Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting,
and Variants”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Manufactured in The Netherlands., Machine
Learning, pp. 1-38 (1998).
[22] Kohavi, R., Sommerfield, D. & Dougherty, J. (1997),
“Data mining using MLC++: A machine learning
library in C++”, International Journal on Artificial
Intelligence Tools 6(4), pp. 537-566.
44 | P a g e