Skip Navigation

The Computer Journal 2002 45(5):511-524; doi:10.1093/comjnl/45.5.511
© 2002 by British Computer Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Uren, V. S.
Right arrow Articles by Addis, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

How Weak Categorizers Based Upon Different Principles Strengthen Performance

Victoria S. Uren1,3 and Thomas R. Addis2

1 Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 7AA, UK Email: v.s.uren@open.ac.uk 2 Division of Computer Science and Mathematics, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2EG, UK 3 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed

Combining the results of classifiers has shown much promise in machine learning generally. However, published work on combining text categorizers suggests that, for this particular application, improvements in performance are hard to attain. Explorative research using a simple voting system is presented and discussed in the light of a probabilistic model that was originally developed for safety critical software. It was found that typical categorization approaches produce predictions which are too similar for combining them to be effective since they tend to fail on the same records. Further experiments using two less orthodox categorizers are also presented which suggest that combining text categorizers can be successful, provided the essential element of ‘difference’ is considered.


Received 6 July, 2001. Revised 26 February, 2002.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.