教育领域集成方法的比较研究:Bagging和Boosting算法

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Hikmet ŞEVGİN
{"title":"教育领域集成方法的比较研究:Bagging和Boosting算法","authors":"Hikmet ŞEVGİN","doi":"10.21449/ijate.1167705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to conduct a comparative study of Bagging and Boosting algorithms among ensemble methods and to compare the classification performance of TreeNet and Random Forest methods using these algorithms on the data extracted from ABİDE application in education. The main factor in choosing them for analyses is that they are Ensemble methods combining decision trees via Bagging and Boosting algorithms and creating a single outcome by combining the outputs obtained from each of them. The data set consists of mathematics scores of ABİDE (Academic Skills Monitoring and Evaluation) 2016 implementation and various demographic variables regarding students. The study group involves 5000 students randomly recruited. On the deletion of loss data and assignment procedures, this number decreased to 4568. The analyses showed that the TreeNet method performed more successfully in terms of classification accuracy, sensitivity, F1-score and AUC value based on sample size, and the Random Forest method on specificity and accuracy. It can be alleged that the TreeNet method is more successful in all numerical estimation error rates for each sample size by producing lower values compared to the Random Forest method. When comparing both analysis methods based on ABİDE data, considering all the conditions, including sample size, cross validity and performance criteria following the analyses, TreeNet can be said to exhibit higher classification performance than Random Forest. Unlike a single classifier or predictive method, the classification or prediction of multiple methods by using Boosting and Bagging algorithms is considered important for the results obtained in education.","PeriodicalId":42417,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of ensemble methods in the field of education: Bagging and Boosting algorithms\",\"authors\":\"Hikmet ŞEVGİN\",\"doi\":\"10.21449/ijate.1167705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to conduct a comparative study of Bagging and Boosting algorithms among ensemble methods and to compare the classification performance of TreeNet and Random Forest methods using these algorithms on the data extracted from ABİDE application in education. The main factor in choosing them for analyses is that they are Ensemble methods combining decision trees via Bagging and Boosting algorithms and creating a single outcome by combining the outputs obtained from each of them. The data set consists of mathematics scores of ABİDE (Academic Skills Monitoring and Evaluation) 2016 implementation and various demographic variables regarding students. The study group involves 5000 students randomly recruited. On the deletion of loss data and assignment procedures, this number decreased to 4568. The analyses showed that the TreeNet method performed more successfully in terms of classification accuracy, sensitivity, F1-score and AUC value based on sample size, and the Random Forest method on specificity and accuracy. It can be alleged that the TreeNet method is more successful in all numerical estimation error rates for each sample size by producing lower values compared to the Random Forest method. When comparing both analysis methods based on ABİDE data, considering all the conditions, including sample size, cross validity and performance criteria following the analyses, TreeNet can be said to exhibit higher classification performance than Random Forest. Unlike a single classifier or predictive method, the classification or prediction of multiple methods by using Boosting and Bagging algorithms is considered important for the results obtained in education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1167705\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1167705","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在对Bagging和Boosting算法在集成方法中进行比较研究,并比较使用这些算法的TreeNet和Random Forest方法在ABİDE教育应用中提取的数据上的分类性能。选择它们进行分析的主要因素是,它们是通过Bagging和Boosting算法组合决策树的集成方法,并通过组合从每个算法获得的输出来创建单个结果。数据集由ABİDE(学术技能监测和评估)2016年实施的数学成绩和有关学生的各种人口统计变量组成。这个学习小组包括随机招募的5000名学生。在删除损失数据和转让程序后,这一数字减少到4568。分析表明,TreeNet方法在分类精度、灵敏度、f1评分和基于样本量的AUC值方面优于Random Forest方法,而Random Forest方法在特异性和准确性方面优于TreeNet方法。可以断言,与随机森林方法相比,TreeNet方法在每个样本量的所有数值估计错误率上都更成功,因为它产生的值更低。当基于ABİDE数据对两种分析方法进行比较时,考虑到所有条件,包括样本量、交叉效度和分析后的性能标准,TreeNet可以说比Random Forest表现出更高的分类性能。与单一分类器或预测方法不同,使用Boosting和Bagging算法对多种方法进行分类或预测对于在教育中获得的结果很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative study of ensemble methods in the field of education: Bagging and Boosting algorithms
This study aims to conduct a comparative study of Bagging and Boosting algorithms among ensemble methods and to compare the classification performance of TreeNet and Random Forest methods using these algorithms on the data extracted from ABİDE application in education. The main factor in choosing them for analyses is that they are Ensemble methods combining decision trees via Bagging and Boosting algorithms and creating a single outcome by combining the outputs obtained from each of them. The data set consists of mathematics scores of ABİDE (Academic Skills Monitoring and Evaluation) 2016 implementation and various demographic variables regarding students. The study group involves 5000 students randomly recruited. On the deletion of loss data and assignment procedures, this number decreased to 4568. The analyses showed that the TreeNet method performed more successfully in terms of classification accuracy, sensitivity, F1-score and AUC value based on sample size, and the Random Forest method on specificity and accuracy. It can be alleged that the TreeNet method is more successful in all numerical estimation error rates for each sample size by producing lower values compared to the Random Forest method. When comparing both analysis methods based on ABİDE data, considering all the conditions, including sample size, cross validity and performance criteria following the analyses, TreeNet can be said to exhibit higher classification performance than Random Forest. Unlike a single classifier or predictive method, the classification or prediction of multiple methods by using Boosting and Bagging algorithms is considered important for the results obtained in education.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
11.10%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信