A majority rules approach to data mining

Knowledge discovery in databases (KDD) offers a methodology for developing tools to extract meaningful knowledge from large volumes of data. We propose a generalized KDD model for supervised training. A main step in this process, data mining, involves the creation of a classification structure that is representative of the concept classes identified in the data set. Data mining incorporates learning which may be supervised or unsupervised and often uses statistical as well as heuristic (machine learning) techniques. Previous research has shown that different supervised models perform better under certain conditions. We tested the extent of overlap of instance classifications between five supervised models in two real world domains. Experimental results showed that in one domain all five models classified 75.8% of the instances identically, correct or incorrect. In the second domain, the corresponding figure was 63.3%. The amount of agreement between models can be used to help determine the nature of the domain and the applicability of a supervised learning approach. We extend the above experimental result and propose a multi model majority rules (MR) data mining technique to learn about the nature of a given domain. We conclude with directions for future work.

[1]  Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro,et al.  The KDD process for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data , 1996, CACM.

[2]  Aiko M. Hormann,et al.  Programs for Machine Learning. Part I , 1962, Inf. Control..

[3]  E. Mine Cinar,et al.  Neural Networks: A New Tool for Predicting Thrift Failures , 1992 .

[4]  Ryszard S. Michalski,et al.  Learning strategies and automated knowledge acquisition: an overview , 1987 .

[5]  Michael J. Shaw,et al.  Inductive Learning Methods for Knowledge-Based Decision Support: A Comparative Analysis , 1990 .

[6]  Robert J. Marks,et al.  Performance Comparisons Between Backpropagation Networks and Classification Trees on Three Real-World Applications , 1989, NIPS.

[7]  A. Raftery Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[8]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[9]  E L Kinney,et al.  Comparison of the ID3 algorithm versus discriminant analysis for performing feature selection. , 1987, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[10]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Artificial Neural Networks: A Tutorial , 1996, Computer.

[11]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Applications of machine learning and rule induction , 1995, CACM.

[12]  Russell Greiner,et al.  Computational learning theory and natural learning systems , 1997 .

[13]  Richard J. Roiger,et al.  Using non-statistical induction based techniques for financial forecasting , 2002, Proceedings Mexico-USA Collaboration in Intelligent Systems Technologies..

[14]  Pat Langley,et al.  Models of Incremental Concept Formation , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Jeffrey H. Dorfman,et al.  Predicting Turning Points through the Integration of Multiple Models , 1996 .

[16]  J. R. Quinlan,et al.  Comparing connectionist and symbolic learning methods , 1994, COLT 1994.

[17]  Michael J. Shaw,et al.  Inductive learning for risk classification , 1990, IEEE Expert.

[18]  Melody Y. Kiang,et al.  Managerial Applications of Neural Networks: The Case of Bank Failure Predictions , 1992 .

[19]  Richard J. Roiger,et al.  Selecting training instances for supervised classification , 2002, Proceedings Mexico-USA Collaboration in Intelligent Systems Technologies..