Random Forest (RF) is an ensemble classication technique that was developed by Breiman over a decade ago. Compared with other ensemble techniques, it has proved its accuracy and superiority. Many researchers, however, believe that there is still room for enhancing and improving its performance in terms of predictive accuracy. This explains why, over the past decade, there have been many extensions of RF where each extension employed a variety of techniques and strategies to improve certain aspect(s) of RF. Since it has been proven empirically that ensembles tend to yield better results when there is a signicant diversity among the constituent models, the objective of this paper is twofolds. First, it investigates how an unsupervised learning technique, namely, Local Outlier Factor (LOF) can be used to identify diverse trees in the RF. Second, trees with the highest LOF scores are then used to produce an extension of RF termed LOFB-DRF that is much smaller in size than RF, and yet performs at least as good as RF, but mostly exhibits higher performance in terms of accuracy. The latter refers to a known technique called ensemble pruning. Experimental results on 10 real datasets prove the superiority of our proposed extension over the traditional RF. Unprecedented pruning levels reaching as high as 99 have been achieved at the time of boosting the predictive accuracy of the ensemble. The notably high pruning level makes the technique a good candidate for real-time applications.
Regardless of the diversity creation technique used, diversity measures were developed to measure the diversity of a certain technique or perhaps to compare the diversity of two techniques. @cite_35 presented a theoretical analysis on six existing diversity measures: disagreement measure @cite_21 , double fault measure @cite_30 , KW variance @cite_6 , inter-rater agreement @cite_5 , generalized diversity @cite_9 , and measure of difficulty @cite_5 . The goal was not only to show the underlying relationships between them, but also to relate them to the concept of margin, which is one of the contributing factors to the success of ensemble learning algorithms.
@cite_30 @cite_35 @cite_9 @cite_21 @cite_6 @cite_5
2115629999 2122892819 2119254562 2167055186
Diversity among the members of a team of classifiers is deemed to be a key issue in classifier combination. However, measuring diversity is not straightforward because there is no generally accepted formal definition. We have found and studied ten statistics which can measure diversity among binary classifier outputs (correct or incorrect vote for the class label): four averaged pairwise measures (the Q statistic, the correlation, the disagreement and the double fault) and six non-pairwise measures (the entropy of the votes, the difficulty index, the Kohavi-Wolpert variance, the interrater agreement, the generalized diversity, and the coincident failure diversity). Four experiments have been designed to examine the relationship between the accuracy of the team and the measures of diversity, and among the measures themselves. Although there are proven connections between diversity and accuracy in some special cases, our results raise some doubts about the usefulness of diversity measures in building classifier ensembles in real-life pattern recognition problems. 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. When mining a large database, the number of patterns discovered can easily exceed the capabilities of a human user to identify interesting results. To address this problem, various techniques have been suggested to reduce and or order the patterns prior to presenting them to the user. In this paper, our focus is on ranking summaries generated from a single dataset, where attributes can be generalized in many different ways and to many levels of granularity according to taxonomic hierarchies. We theoretically and empirically evaluate thirteen diversity measures used as heuristic measures of interestingness for ranking summaries generated from databases. The thirteen diversity measures have previously been utilized in various disciplines, such as information theory, statistics, ecology, and economics. We describe five principles that any measure must satisfy to be considered useful for ranking summaries. Theoretical results show that only four of the thirteen diversity measures satisfy all of the principles. We then analyze the distribution of the index values generated by each of the thirteen diversity measures. Empirical results, obtained using synthetic data, show that the distribution of index values generated tend to be highly skewed about the mean, median, and middle index values. The objective of this work is to gain some insight into the behaviour that can be expected from each of the measures in practice. Ensemble approaches to classication and regression have attracted a great deal of interest in recent years. These methods can be shown both theoretically and empirically to outperform single predictors on a wide range of tasks. One of the elements required for accurate prediction when using an ensemble is recognised to be error ". However, the exact meaning of this concept is not clear from the literature, particularly for classication tasks. In this paper we rst review the varied attempts to provide a formal explanation of error diversity, including several heuristic and qualitative explanations in the literature. For completeness of discussion we include not only the classication literature but also some excerpts of the rather more mature regression literature, which we believe can still provide some insights. We proceed to survey the various techniques used for creating diverse ensembles, and categorise them, forming a preliminary taxonomy of diversity creation methods. As part of this taxonomy we introduce the idea of implicit and explicit diversity creation methods, and three dimensions along which these may be applied. Finally we propose some new directions that may prove fruitful in understanding classication error diversity.