An Empirical Study of MetaCost Using Boosting Algorithms

Authors:
Kai Ming Ting
Affiliations:
-
Venue:
ECML '00 Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Machine Learning
Year:
2000

Citing 7
Cited 2

C4.5: programs for machine learning

C4.5: programs for machine learning
Machine learning, neural and statistical classification

Machine learning, neural and statistical classification
MetaCost: a general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive

KDD '99 Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants

Machine Learning
Boosting the margin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods

ICML '97 Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning
Boosting Cost-Sensitive Trees

DS '98 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Discovery Science
Bagging, boosting, and C4.S

AAAI'96 Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1

Gradient Descent Style Leveraging of Decision Trees and Stumps for Misclassification Cost Performance

AI '01 Proceedings of the 14th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Advances in Artificial Intelligence
A survey of cost-sensitive decision tree induction algorithms

ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

MetaCost is a recently proposed procedure that converts an error-based learning algorithm into a cost-sensitive algorithm. This paper investigates two important issues centered on the procedure which were ignored in the paper proposing MetaCost. First, no comparison was made between MetaCost's final model and the internal cost-sensitive classifier on which MetaCost depends. It is credible that the internal cost-sensitive classifier may outperform the final model without the additional computation required to derive the final model. Second, MetaCost assumes its internal cost-sensitive classifier is obtained by applying a minimum expected cost criterion. It is unclear whether violation of the assumption has an impact on MetaCost's performance. We study these issues using two boosting procedures, and compare with the performance of the original form of MetaCost which employs bagging.