LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Ruta, Dymitr; Gabrys, Bogdan (2001)
Publisher: ICSC-NAISO Academic Press
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: aintel, csi
Combining classifiers by majority voting (MV) has\ud recently emerged as an effective way of improving\ud performance of individual classifiers. However, the\ud usefulness of applying MV is not always observed and\ud is subject to distribution of classification outputs in a\ud multiple classifier system (MCS). Evaluation of MV\ud errors (MVE) for all combinations of classifiers in MCS\ud is a complex process of exponential complexity.\ud Reduction of this complexity can be achieved provided\ud the explicit relationship between MVE and any other\ud less complex function operating on classifier outputs is\ud found. Diversity measures operating on binary\ud classification outputs (correct/incorrect) are studied in\ud this paper as potential candidates for such functions.\ud Their correlation with MVE, interpreted as the quality\ud of a measure, is thoroughly investigated using artificial\ud and real-world datasets. Moreover, we propose new\ud diversity measure efficiently exploiting information\ud coming from the whole MCS, rather than its part, for\ud which it is applied.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Sharkey AJC. Combining artificial neural nets: ensemble and modular multi-net systems. Springer-Vorlag, Berlin, 1999.
    • [2] Bezdek JC. Fuzzy models and algorithms for pattern recognition and image processing. Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1999.
    • [3] Zhilkin PA, Somorjai RL. Application of several methods of classification fusion to magnetic resonance spectra. Connection Science 1996; 8(3,4): 427-442.
    • Xu L, Krzyzak A. Methods of combining multiple classifiers and their applications to handwriting recognition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1992; 23(8): 418-434.
    • Optimal combinations of pattern classifiers. Pattern Recognition Letters 1995; 16: 945-954.
    • [6] Rogova G. Combining the results of several neural network classifiers. Neural Networks 1994; 7(5): 777-781.
    • Granger CWJ. Combining forecasts - twenty years later. Journal of Forecasting 1989; 8(3): 167-173.
    • [8] Lam L, Suen CY. A theoretical analysis of the application of majority voting to pattern recognition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Jerusalem 1994, pp 418-420.
    • [9] Lam L, Suen CY. Application of majority voting to pattern recognition: an analysis of its behaviour and performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1997; 27(5): 553-568.
    • [10] Battiti R, Colla AM. Democracy in neural nets: voting schemes for classification. Neural Networks 1994; 7(4): 691-707.
    • [11] Kuncheva LI, Whitaker CJ, Shipp CA, Duin RPW. Limits on the majority vote accuracy in classifier fusion. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. (submitted)
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article