ABSTRACT
Finding effective methods for developing an ensemble of models has been an active research area of large-scale data mining in recent years. Models learned from data are often subject to some degree of uncertainty, for a variety of resoans. In classification, ensembles of models provide a useful means of averaging out error introduced by individual classifiers, hence reducing the generalization error of prediction.The plurality voting method is often chosen for bagging, because of its simplicity of implementation. However, the plurality approach to model reconciliation is ad-hoc. There are many other voting methods to choose from, including the anti-plurality method, the plurality method with elimination, the Borda count method, and Condorcet's method of pairwise comparisons. Any of these could lead to a better method for reconciliation.In this paper, we analyze the use of these voting methods in model reconciliation. We present empirical results comparing performance of these voting methods when applied in bagging. These results include some surprises, and among other things suggest that (1) plurality is not always the best voting method; (2) the number of classes can affect the performance of voting methods; and (3) the degree of dataset noise can affect the performance of voting methods. While it is premature to make final judgments about specific voting methods, the results of this work raise interesting questions, and they open the door to the application of voting theory in classification theory.
- K. Arrow. Social Choice and individual values (2nd Edition). Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
- C. Blake and C. Merz. UCI repository of machine learning databases, 1998.Google Scholar
- L. Breiman, J. H. Friedan, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone. Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth, 1984.Google Scholar
- L. Brieman. Bagging predictors. Technical Report 421, Department of Statistics, University of California at Berkeley, CA 94720, Department of Statistics, University of California at Berkeley, CA 94720, 1994.Google Scholar
- M.-J. Condorcet. Éssai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendus à la pluralité des voix. Paris, 1785.Google Scholar
- J. de Boroda. Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin, historie de l'académie royale des sciences. Paris. 1781.Google Scholar
- P. C. Fishburn. Discrete mathematics in voting and group choice. SIAM J. ALG. DISC. METH., 5(2):pp. 263--275, June 1984.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire. A short introduction to boosting. Journal of Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 14(5):pp. 771--780, September 1999.Google Scholar
- R. Gentleman. R project for statistical computing, 1997.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Empirical comparisons of various voting methods in bagging
Recommendations
An Experiment in Approval Voting
The first major experimental comparison of approval voting with regular plurality voting occurred in the 1985 annual election of The Institute of Management Sciences TIMS. In approval voting a person votes for approves of as many candidates as desired, ...
Control complexity in fallback voting
CATS '10: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Symposium on Computing: the Australasian Theory - Volume 109We study the control complexity of fallback voting. Like manipulation and bribery, electoral control describes ways of changing the outcome of an election; unlike manipulation or bribery attempts, control actions---such as adding/deleting/partitioning ...
Comments