ch5 PDF

Data Mining
Classification: Rule-Based Classifiers,

Bayesian Classifiers, and SVM
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 1
Rule-Based Classifier
  Classifyrecords by using a collection of “if…

then…” rules
  Rule: (Condition) → y
–  where y is the class label
–  LHS: rule antecedent or condition
–  RHS: rule consequent
–  Examples of classification rules:
u  (Blood Type=Warm) ∧ (Lay Eggs=Yes) → Birds
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

Rule-based Classifier (Example)
Name Blood Type Give Birth Can Fly Live in Water Class
human warm yes no no mammals
python cold no no no reptiles
salmon cold no no yes fishes
whale warm yes no yes mammals
frog cold no no sometimes amphibians
komodo cold no no no reptiles
bat warm yes yes no mammals
pigeon warm no yes no birds
cat warm yes no no mammals
leopard shark cold yes no yes fishes
turtle cold no no sometimes reptiles
penguin warm no no sometimes birds
porcupine warm yes no no mammals
eel cold no no yes fishes
salamander cold no no sometimes amphibians
gila monster cold no no no reptiles
platypus warm no no no mammals
owl warm no yes no birds
dolphin warm yes no yes mammals
eagle warm no yes no birds
R1: (Give Birth = no) ∧ (Can Fly = yes) → Birds

R2: (Give Birth = no) ∧ (Live in Water = yes) → Fishes
R3: (Give Birth = yes) ∧ (Blood Type = warm) → Mammals
R4: (Give Birth = no) ∧ (Can Fly = no) → Reptiles
R5: (Live in Water = sometimes) → Amphibians
Application of Rule-Based Classifier
  A rule r covers an instance x if the attributes of

the instance satisfy the condition of the rule
hawk warm no yes no ?
grizzly bear warm yes no no ?
The rule R1 covers a hawk => hawk is Bird

The rule R3 covers a bear => bear is Mammal

Rule Coverage and Accuracy
Tid Refund Marital Taxable
  Coverage of a rule: Status Income Class
–  Fraction of records 1 Yes Single 125K No
that satisfy the 2 No Married 100K No

3 No Single 70K No
antecedent of a rule 4 Yes Married 120K No
  Accuracy of a rule: 5 No Divorced 95K Yes

6 No Married 60K No
–  Fraction of records 7 Yes Divorced 220K No
that satisfy both the 8 No Single 85K Yes
antecedent and 9 No Married 75K No
consequent of a 10 No Single
10
90K Yes
rule (Status=Single) → No
Coverage = 40%, Accuracy = 50%
How does Rule-based Classifier Work?

lemur warm yes no no ?
turtle cold no no sometimes ?
dogfish shark cold yes no yes ?
A lemur triggers rule R3, so it is classified as a mammal

A turtle triggers both R4 and R5
A dogfish shark triggers none of the rules

Characteristics of Rule-Based Classifier
  Mutually exclusive rules

–  Classifier contains mutually exclusive rules if
the rules are independent of each other
–  Every record is covered by at most one rule
  Exhaustive rules
–  Classifier has exhaustive coverage if it
accounts for every possible combination of
attribute values
–  Each record is covered by at least one rule
Effect of Rule Simplification
  Rules are no longer mutually exclusive

–  A record may trigger more than one rule
–  Solution?
u  Ordered rule set
u  Unordered rule set – use voting schemes
  Rules are no longer exhaustive

–  A record may not trigger any rules
–  Solution?
u  Use a default class
Ordered Rule Set
  Rules are rank ordered according to their priority

–  An ordered rule set is known as a decision list
  When a test record is presented to the classifier
–  It is assigned to the class label of the highest ranked rule it has
triggered
–  If none of the rules fired, it is assigned to the default class

turtle cold no no sometimes ?
Rule Ordering Schemes
  Rule-based ordering
–  Individual rules are ranked based on their quality
  Class-based ordering
–  Rules that belong to the same class appear together
Rule-based Ordering Class-based Ordering

(Refund=Yes) ==> No (Refund=Yes) ==> No
(Refund=No, Marital Status={Single,Divorced}, (Refund=No, Marital Status={Single,Divorced},

Taxable Income<80K) ==> No Taxable Income<80K) ==> No
(Refund=No, Marital Status={Single,Divorced}, (Refund=No, Marital Status={Married}) ==> No

Taxable Income>80K) ==> Yes
(Refund=No, Marital Status={Single,Divorced},
(Refund=No, Marital Status={Married}) ==> No Taxable Income>80K) ==> Yes

Building Classification Rules
  Direct Method:
u  Extract rules directly from data
u  e.g. RIPPER
  Indirect Method:
u  Extract rules from other classification models (e.g.
decision trees, neural networks, etc.)
u  e.g. C4.5rules
Direct Method: Sequential Covering
1.  Start from an empty rule

2.  Grow a rule using the Learn-One-Rule function
3.  Remove training records covered by the rule
4.  Repeat Step (2) and (3) until stopping criterion
is met

Example of Sequential Covering
(i) Original Data (ii) Step 1
Example of Sequential Covering…
R1 R1
R2
(iii) Step 2 (iv) Step 3

Aspects of Sequential Covering
  Rule Growing
  Instance Elimination
  Rule Evaluation
  Stopping Criterion
  Rule Pruning
Rule Growing
  Two common strategies
Yes: 3
{} No: 4
Refund=No, Refund=No,
Status=Single, Status=Single,
Income=85K Income=90K
(Class=Yes) (Class=Yes)
Refund=
No
Status =
Single
Status =
Divorced
Status =
Married
... Income
> 80K
Refund=No,
Status = Single
Yes: 3 Yes: 2 Yes: 1 Yes: 0 Yes: 3 (Class = Yes)
No: 4 No: 1 No: 0 No: 3 No: 1
(a) General-to-specific (b) Specific-to-general

Rule Growing (Examples)
  RIPPER Algorithm:
–  Start from an empty rule: {} => class
–  Add conjuncts that maximizes FOIL’s information gain measure:
u  R0: {} => class (initial rule)
u  R1: {A} => class (rule after adding conjunct)
u  Gain(R0, R1) = p1 [ log (p1/(p1+n1)) – log (p0/(p0 + n0)) ]
u  where p0: number of positive instances covered by R0
n0: number of negative instances covered by R0

p1: number of positive instances covered by R1
n1: number of negative instances covered by R1
Instance Elimination
  Why do we need to
eliminate instances?
R3 R2
–  Otherwise, the next rule is
R1
identical to previous rule + + + + +
+ ++ +
–  Remove positive instances class = +
+ + + +
+++ + +
to ensure that the next rule + + + +
+ +
is different + + + + +
- - -
–  Remove negative - - -
-
- -
-
instances to prevent - -
class = - -
underestimating accuracy - -
-
of rule - -
- -
-

Rule Evaluation
  Metrics:
f+ n : Number of instances
–  Accuracy = covered by rule
n f+ : Number of positive
f+ +1 instances covered by rule
–  Laplace = k : Number of classes
n+k p+ : Prior probability for
f + + kp+ positive class
–  M-estimate =
n+k
–  FOIL’s information gain p1 : Number of positive
instances covered by new rule
p1 p0
= p1(log 2 − log 2 ) n1 : Number of negative
p1 + n1 p 0 + n 0 instances covered by new rule
Rule Evaluation Example
  Consider a training set that contains 60 positive examples

and 100 negative examples.
Rule r1 covers 50 positive examples and 5 negative
examples
Rule r2 covers 2 positive examples and no negative
examples
Accuracy of r1=50/55=90.9%, accuracy of r2=2/2=100%
Laplace measure for r1=(50+1)/(55+2)=89.47%,
r2=(2+1)/(2+2)=75%
Foil’s information gain for r1=63.87, r2=2.83 (textbook’s
numbers are wrong)

Stopping Criterion and Rule Pruning
  Stopping criterion
–  Compute the gain
–  If gain is not significant, discard the new rule
  Rule Pruning
–  Similar to post-pruning of decision trees
–  Reduced Error Pruning:
u  Remove one of the conjuncts in the rule
u  Compare error rate on validation set before and
after pruning
u  If error improves, prune the conjunct
Indirect Methods
P
No Yes
Q R Rule Set
No Yes No Yes r1: (P=No,Q=No) ==> -

r2: (P=No,Q=Yes) ==> +
- + + Q r3: (P=Yes,R=No) ==> +
r4: (P=Yes,R=Yes,Q=No) ==> -
No Yes
r5: (P=Yes,R=Yes,Q=Yes) ==> +
- +

Indirect Method: C4.5rules
  Extract rules from an unpruned decision tree

  For each rule, r: A → y,
–  consider an alternative rule r’: A’ → y where
A’ is obtained by removing one of the
conjuncts in A
–  Compare the pessimistic error rate for r
against all r’s
–  Prune if one of the r’s has lower pessimistic
error rate
–  Repeat until we can no longer improve
generalization error
Indirect Method: C4.5rules
  Instead of ordering the rules, order subsets of

rules (class ordering)
–  Each subset is a collection of rules with the
same rule consequent (class)
–  Compute description length of each subset
u  Description length = L(error) + g L(model)
u  g is a parameter that takes into account the
presence of redundant attributes in a rule set
(default value = 0.5)

Advantages of Rule-Based Classifiers
  As highly expressive as decision trees

  Easy to interpret
  Easy to generate
  Can classify new instances rapidly
  Performance comparable to decision trees
Bayes Classifier
  A probabilistic framework for solving classification

problems
  Conditional Probability: P( A, C )
P(C | A) =
P( A)
P( A, C )
P( A | C ) =
P(C )
  Bayes theorem:
P( A | C ) P(C )
P(C | A) =
P( A)

Example of Bayes Theorem
  Given:
–  A doctor knows that heart disease causes stiff neck 50% of
the time
–  Prior probability of any patient having heart disease is
1/50,000
–  Prior probability of any patient having stiff neck is 1/20
  If a patient has stiff neck, what’s the probability

he/she has heart disease?
P( S | H ) P( H ) 0.5 × (1 / 50000)
P( H | S ) = = = 0.0002
P( S ) 1 / 20
Bayesian Classifiers
  Consider each attribute and class label as random

variables
  Given a record with attributes (A1, A2,…,An)

–  Goal is to predict class C
–  Specifically, we want to find the value of C that
maximizes P(C| A1, A2,…,An )

Bayesian Classifiers
  Approach:
–  compute the posterior probability P(C | A1, A2, …, An) for
all values of C using the Bayes theorem
P( A A … A | C ) P(C )
P(C | A A … A ) = 1 2 n
P( A A … A )
1 2 n
1 2 n
–  Choose value of C that maximizes

P(C | A1, A2, …, An)
–  Equivalent to choosing value of C that maximizes

P(A1, A2, …, An|C) P(C)
Naïve Bayes Classifier
  Assume independence among attributes Ai when class is

given:
–  P(A1, A2, …, An |C) = P(A1| Cj) P(A2| Cj)… P(An| Cj)
–  Can estimate P(Ai| Cj) for all Ai and Cj from training

data
–  New data point is classified to Cj if P(Cj) Π P(Ai| Cj) is

maximal

How to Estimate
l l
Probabilities from Data?
a a s
r ic r ic
u ou
go go tin s
te te n a s   Class: P(C) = Nc/N
ca ca co cl
Tid Refund
Home Marital Taxable Defaulted –  e.g., P(No) = 7/10,
Status Evade
Income Borrower
Owner P(Yes) = 3/10
1 Yes Single 125K No
2 No Married 100K No
  Fordiscrete attributes:
3 No Single 70K No
4 Yes Married 120K No P(Ai | Ck) = |Aik|/ Nc k
5 No Divorced 95K Yes
–  where |Aik| is number of
6 No Married 60K No
instances having attribute
7 Yes Divorced 220K No
Ai and belongs to class Ck
8 No Single 85K Yes
9 No Married 75K No
–  Examples:
10 No Single 90K Yes P(Status=Married|No) = 4/7
P(HomeOwner=Yes|Yes)=0
10
How to Estimate Probabilities from Data?
  For continuous attributes:

–  Discretize the range into bins
u  one ordinal attribute per bin
u  violates independence assumption
–  Two-way split: (A < v) or (A > v)

u  choose only one of the two splits as new attribute
–  Probability density estimation:
u  Assume attribute follows a normal distribution
u  Use data to estimate parameters of distribution
(e.g., mean and standard deviation)
u  Once probability distribution is known, can use it to
estimate the conditional probability P(Ai|C)
How to Estimate Probabilities from Data?
  Normal distribution:
( Ai − µij ) 2
1 −
2σ ij2
P( Ai | c j ) = e
2πσ ij2
–  One for each (Ai,ci) pair
e.g. for (Income, Class=No)

u  sample mean µ = 110
u  sample variance σ2 = 2975
1 −
( 120 −110 ) 2
P( Income = 120 | No) = e 2 ( 2975 )

= 0.0072
2π (54.54)
Example of Naïve Bayes Classifier

Given a Test Record:
X = (HomeOwner = No, Married, Income = 120K)

  P(X|Class=No) = P(HomeOwner=No|Class=No)
× P(Married| Class=No)
× P(Income=120K| Class=No)
= 4/7 × 4/7 × 0.0072 = 0.0024
  P(X|Class=Yes) = P(HomeOwner=No| Class=Yes)

× P(Married| Class=Yes)
× P(Income=120K| Class=Yes)
= 1 × 0 × 1.2 × 10-9 = 0
Since P(X|No)P(No) > P(X|Yes)P(Yes)

Therefore P(No|X) > P(Yes|X)
=> Class = No

Naïve Bayes Classifier
  Ifone of the conditional probability is zero, then

the entire expression becomes zero
  Probability estimation:
N ic
Original : P ( Ai | C ) =
Nc
c: number of classes
N +1
Laplace : P ( Ai | C ) = ic p: prior probability
Nc + c
m: parameter
N + mp
m - estimate : P ( Ai | C ) = ic
Nc + m
Example of Naïve Bayes Classifier
Name Give Birth Can Fly Live in Water Have Legs Class
human yes no no yes mammals A: attributes
python no no no no non-mammals M: mammals
salmon no no yes no non-mammals
whale yes no yes no mammals N: non-mammals
frog no no sometimes yes non-mammals
komodo no no no yes non-mammals
6 6 2 2
bat yes yes no yes mammals P ( A | M ) = × × × = 0.06
pigeon
cat
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
non-mammals
mammals
7 7 7 7
leopard shark yes no yes no non-mammals 1 10 3 4
turtle no no sometimes yes non-mammals P ( A | N ) = × × × = 0.0042
penguin no no sometimes yes non-mammals 13 13 13 13
porcupine yes no no yes mammals
eel no no yes no non-mammals 7
salamander no no sometimes yes non-mammals P ( A | M ) P ( M ) = 0.06 × = 0.021
gila monster no no no yes non-mammals 20
platypus no no no yes mammals
owl no yes no yes non-mammals 13
dolphin yes no yes no mammals P ( A | N ) P ( N ) = 0.004 × = 0.0027
eagle no yes no yes non-mammals 20
Give Birth Can Fly Live in Water Have Legs Class P(A|M)P(M) > P(A|N)P(N)
yes no yes no ? => Mammals

Support Vector Machines
  Find a linear hyperplane (decision boundary) that will separate the data
B1
B2
  Which one is better? B1 or B2?

  How do you define better?
B1
B2
b21
b22
margin
b11
b12
  Find hyperplane maximizes the margin => B1 is better than B2

B1
 
w• x + b = 0
 
  w • x + b = +1
w • x + b = −1
b11
  b12
 ⎧ 1 if w • x + b ≥ 1 2
f ( x ) = ⎨   Margin =  2
⎩− 1 if w • x + b ≤ −1 || w ||
2
  We want to maximize: Margin =  2
|| w ||

|| w ||2
–  Which is equivalent to minimizing: L( w) =
2
–  But subjected to the following constraints:

 
 ⎧ 1 if w • x i + b ≥ 1
f ( xi ) = ⎨  
⎩− 1 if w • x i + b ≤ −1
u  This is a constrained optimization problem

–  Numerical approaches to solve it (e.g., quadratic programming)
  What if the problem is not linearly separable?

  Introduce slack variables ξ

–  Need to minimize:

|| w || 2 ⎛ N ⎞
L( w) = + C ⎜ ∑ ξ ik ⎟
2 ⎝ i =1 ⎠
–  Subject to:
 
 ⎧ 1 if w • x i + b ≥ 1 - ξi
f ( xi ) = ⎨  
⎩− 1 if w • x i + b ≤ −1 + ξi
Nonlinear Support Vector Machines
  What if decision boundary is not linear?

Nonlinear Support Vector Machines
  Transform data into higher dimensional space
Ensemble Methods
  Construct a set of classifiers from the training

data set
  Predict class label of previously unseen records

by aggregating predictions made by multiple
classifiers

General Idea
Original
D Training data
Step 1:
Create Multiple D1 D2 .... Dt-1 Dt
Data Sets
Step 2:
Build Multiple C1 C2 Ct -1 Ct
Classifiers
Step 3:
Combine C*
Classifiers
Why does it work?
  Suppose there are 25 base classifiers

–  Each classifier has error rate, ε = 0.35
–  Assume classifiers are independent
–  Probability that the ensemble classifier makes
a wrong prediction:
25
⎛ 25 ⎞ i 25−i
∑ ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟ε (1 − ε ) = 0.06
i =13 ⎝ ⎠

Examples of Ensemble Methods
  How to generate an ensemble of classifiers?

–  Bagging
–  Boosting
Bagging
  Sampling with replacement

Original Data 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bagging (Round 1) 7 8 10 8 2 5 10 10 5 9
Bagging (Round 2) 1 4 9 1 2 3 2 7 3 2
Bagging (Round 3) 1 8 5 10 5 5 9 6 3 7
  Build classifier on each bootstrap sample set
  Each sample data point has probability (1 – 1/n)n

of being selected

Boosting
  An iterative procedure to adaptively change

distribution of training data by focusing more on
previously misclassified records
–  Initially, all N records are assigned equal
weights
–  Unlike bagging, weights may change at the
end of boosting round
Boosting
  Records that are wrongly classified will have their

weights increased
  Records that are classified correctly will have
their weights decreased
Original Data 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Boosting (Round 1) 7 3 2 8 7 9 4 10 6 3
Boosting (Round 2) 5 4 9 4 2 5 1 7 4 2
Boosting (Round 3) 4 4 8 10 4 5 4 6 3 4
•  Example 4 is hard to classify

•  Its weight is increased, therefore it is more
likely to be chosen again in subsequent rounds

Example: AdaBoost
  Base classifiers: C1, C2, …,

CT
  Error rate:
1 N
εi = ∑ w j I (Ci ( x j ) ≠ y j )
N j =1
I(p)=1 if the predicate p is true;
0 otherwise
  Importance of a classifier:
1 ⎛ 1 − ε i ⎞
αi = ln⎜⎜ ⎟
2 ⎝ ε i ⎟⎠
Example: AdaBoost
  Weight update:
( j +1)
⎧⎪exp−α j if C j ( xi ) = yi
wi( j )
wi =⎨ α
Zj
⎪⎩ exp j if C j ( xi ) ≠ yi
where Z j is the normalization factor
  Ifany intermediate rounds produce error rate
higher than 50%, the weights are reverted back to
1/n and the resampling procedure is repeated
  Classification: T
C * ( x) = arg max ∑α jδ (C j ( x) = y )
y j =1
Illustrating AdaBoost
Initial weights for each data point Data points

for training
0.1 0.1 0.1

Original
Data +++ - - - - - ++
B1
0.0094 0.0094 0.4623
Boosting
Round 1 +++ - - - - - - - a= 1.9459
Illustrating AdaBoost
B1
0.0094 0.0094 0.4623
Boosting
Round 1 +++ - - - - - - - a= 1.9459
B2
0.3037 0.0009 0.0422
Boosting
Round 2 - - - - - - - - ++ a= 2.9323
B3
0.0276 0.1819 0.0038
Boosting
Round 3 +++ ++ ++ + ++ a= 3.8744
Overall +++ - - - - - ++

ch5 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ch5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data Mining

Classification: Rule-Based Classifiers,

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 1

 Classifyrecords by using a collection of “if…

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

R1: (Give Birth = no) ∧ (Can Fly = yes) → Birds

Application of Rule-Based Classifier

 A rule r covers an instance x if the attributes of

The rule R1 covers a hawk => hawk is Bird

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

– Fraction of records 1 Yes Single 125K No

that satisfy the 2 No Married 100K No

 Accuracy of a rule: 5 No Divorced 95K Yes

antecedent and 9 No Married 75K No

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

How does Rule-based Classifier Work?

R1: (Give Birth = no) ∧ (Can Fly = yes) → Birds

A lemur triggers rule R3, so it is classified as a mammal

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

 Mutually exclusive rules

Effect of Rule Simplification

 Rules are no longer mutually exclusive

 Rules are no longer exhaustive

 Rules are rank ordered according to their priority

R1: (Give Birth = no) ∧ (Can Fly = yes) → Birds

Rule Ordering Schemes

Rule-based Ordering Class-based Ordering

(Refund=No, Marital Status={Single,Divorced}, (Refund=No, Marital Status={Single,Divorced},

(Refund=No, Marital Status={Single,Divorced}, (Refund=No, Marital Status={Married}) ==> No

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

Direct Method: Sequential Covering

1. Start from an empty rule

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

(i) Original Data (ii) Step 1

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

Example of Sequential Covering…

(iii) Step 2 (iv) Step 3

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

 Two common strategies

(a) General-to-specific (b) Specific-to-general

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

n0: number of negative instances covered by R0

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

Rule Evaluation Example

 Consider a training set that contains 60 positive examples

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

No Yes No Yes r1: (P=No,Q=No) ==> -

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

 Extract rules from an unpruned decision tree

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

Indirect Method: C4.5rules

 Instead of ordering the rules, order subsets of

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

 As highly expressive as decision trees

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

 A probabilistic framework for solving classification

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

 If a patient has stiff neck, what’s the probability

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 ‹#›

  Classifyrecords by using a collection of “if…

  A rule r covers an instance x if the attributes of

–  Fraction of records 1 Yes Single 125K No

  Accuracy of a rule: 5 No Divorced 95K Yes

  Mutually exclusive rules

  Rules are no longer mutually exclusive

  Rules are no longer exhaustive

  Rules are rank ordered according to their priority

1.  Start from an empty rule

  Two common strategies

  Consider a training set that contains 60 positive examples

  Extract rules from an unpruned decision tree

  Instead of ordering the rules, order subsets of

  As highly expressive as decision trees

  A probabilistic framework for solving classification

  If a patient has stiff neck, what’s the probability

  Consider each attribute and class label as random

  Given a record with attributes (A1, A2,…,An)

–  Choose value of C that maximizes

–  Equivalent to choosing value of C that maximizes

  Assume independence among attributes Ai when class is

–  Can estimate P(Ai| Cj) for all Ai and Cj from training

–  New data point is classified to Cj if P(Cj) Π P(Ai| Cj) is

  For continuous attributes:

–  Two-way split: (A < v) or (A > v)

–  One for each (Ai,ci) pair

u  sample variance σ2 = 2975

  P(X|Class=Yes) = P(HomeOwner=No| Class=Yes)

  Ifone of the conditional probability is zero, then

  Which one is better? B1 or B2?

  Find hyperplane maximizes the margin => B1 is better than B2

–  But subjected to the following constraints:

u  This is a constrained optimization problem

  What if the problem is not linearly separable?

  Introduce slack variables ξ

  What if decision boundary is not linear?

  Transform data into higher dimensional space

  Construct a set of classifiers from the training

  Predict class label of previously unseen records

  Suppose there are 25 base classifiers

  How to generate an ensemble of classifiers?

  Sampling with replacement

  Build classifier on each bootstrap sample set

  Each sample data point has probability (1 – 1/n)n

  An iterative procedure to adaptively change

  Records that are wrongly classified will have their

•  Example 4 is hard to classify

  Base classifiers: C1, C2, …,