Vardeman, S. B.和Morris, M. D.(2013),“独立分类器的多数投票会增加错误率”,《美国统计学家》,67,94-96:Baker, Xu, Hu, and Huang的评论和回复。

IF 1.8 4区 数学 Q1 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
Stuart G Baker, Jian-Lun Xu, Ping Hu, Peng Huang
{"title":"Vardeman, S. B.和Morris, M. D.(2013),“独立分类器的多数投票会增加错误率”,《美国统计学家》,67,94-96:Baker, Xu, Hu, and Huang的评论和回复。","authors":"Stuart G Baker,&nbsp;Jian-Lun Xu,&nbsp;Ping Hu,&nbsp;Peng Huang","doi":"10.1080/00031305.2014.882867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vardeman and Morris (VM) found a counterexample to the assertion that a majority voting classifier always performs better than its independent component classifiers. VM's counterexample applies to independent classifiers, but biostatisticians are often more interested in conditionally independent classifiers. In biomedical studies, where class is disease status, classifiers are inherently dependent simply because positivity of any reasonable classifier depends on the presence or absence of disease. Conditional independence of classifiers, given disease status, could arise if the classifiers are detecting different biological phenomenon, such as tissue abnormalities versus protein markers. \n \nTo explore how majority voting affects classification performance with conditionally independent classifiers, we investigated many examples (Figure 1). Much as we expected, we found that it generally works quite well. However, we also found that conditional independence is not a sufficient condition to ensure that majority voting always leads to better classification performance than the individual classifiers. \n \n \n \nFigure 1 \n \nComparison of ROC curves for majority voting classifier and conditionally independent component classifiers. The 45-degree line is included for reference. \n \n \n \nAs with VM, we considered two classes and component classifiers with identical classification performances. To measure classification performance we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. ROC curves play a central role in the evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests (Baker 2003; Pepe 2003). In accordance with a decision theory view of ROC curves (Baker, Van Calster, and Steyerberg 2012), we restricted our investigation to ROC curves that are concave, namely with monotonically decreasing slopes from left to right. For a given cutpoint x of a score, let fpr(x) and tpr(x) denote the false positive and true positive rates of the component classifier. The ROC curve for the component classifier plots tpr(x) versus fpr(x). At a given cutpoint, the true positive rate for the majority voting classifier is the probability of three or exactly two true positives among the component classifiers, namely tprM(x) = tpr(x)3 + 3 tpr(x)2 {1−tpr(x)}. Similarly the false positive rate for the majority voting classifier is fprM(x) = fpr(x)3 + 3 fpr(x)2 {1−fpr(x)}. The ROC curve for the majority voting classifier plots tprM(x) versus fprM(x). We considered the following six cases.","PeriodicalId":50801,"journal":{"name":"American Statistician","volume":"68 2","pages":"125-126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00031305.2014.882867","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vardeman, S. B. and Morris, M. D. (2013), \\\"Majority Voting by Independent Classifiers can Increase Error Rates,\\\" <i>The American Statistician</i>, 67, 94-96: Comment by Baker, Xu, Hu, and Huang and Reply.\",\"authors\":\"Stuart G Baker,&nbsp;Jian-Lun Xu,&nbsp;Ping Hu,&nbsp;Peng Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00031305.2014.882867\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Vardeman and Morris (VM) found a counterexample to the assertion that a majority voting classifier always performs better than its independent component classifiers. VM's counterexample applies to independent classifiers, but biostatisticians are often more interested in conditionally independent classifiers. In biomedical studies, where class is disease status, classifiers are inherently dependent simply because positivity of any reasonable classifier depends on the presence or absence of disease. Conditional independence of classifiers, given disease status, could arise if the classifiers are detecting different biological phenomenon, such as tissue abnormalities versus protein markers. \\n \\nTo explore how majority voting affects classification performance with conditionally independent classifiers, we investigated many examples (Figure 1). Much as we expected, we found that it generally works quite well. However, we also found that conditional independence is not a sufficient condition to ensure that majority voting always leads to better classification performance than the individual classifiers. \\n \\n \\n \\nFigure 1 \\n \\nComparison of ROC curves for majority voting classifier and conditionally independent component classifiers. The 45-degree line is included for reference. \\n \\n \\n \\nAs with VM, we considered two classes and component classifiers with identical classification performances. To measure classification performance we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. ROC curves play a central role in the evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests (Baker 2003; Pepe 2003). In accordance with a decision theory view of ROC curves (Baker, Van Calster, and Steyerberg 2012), we restricted our investigation to ROC curves that are concave, namely with monotonically decreasing slopes from left to right. For a given cutpoint x of a score, let fpr(x) and tpr(x) denote the false positive and true positive rates of the component classifier. The ROC curve for the component classifier plots tpr(x) versus fpr(x). At a given cutpoint, the true positive rate for the majority voting classifier is the probability of three or exactly two true positives among the component classifiers, namely tprM(x) = tpr(x)3 + 3 tpr(x)2 {1−tpr(x)}. Similarly the false positive rate for the majority voting classifier is fprM(x) = fpr(x)3 + 3 fpr(x)2 {1−fpr(x)}. The ROC curve for the majority voting classifier plots tprM(x) versus fprM(x). We considered the following six cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50801,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Statistician\",\"volume\":\"68 2\",\"pages\":\"125-126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00031305.2014.882867\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Statistician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2014.882867\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Statistician","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2014.882867","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Vardeman, S. B. and Morris, M. D. (2013), "Majority Voting by Independent Classifiers can Increase Error Rates," <i>The American Statistician</i>, 67, 94-96: Comment by Baker, Xu, Hu, and Huang and Reply.

Vardeman, S. B. and Morris, M. D. (2013), "Majority Voting by Independent Classifiers can Increase Error Rates," The American Statistician, 67, 94-96: Comment by Baker, Xu, Hu, and Huang and Reply.
Vardeman and Morris (VM) found a counterexample to the assertion that a majority voting classifier always performs better than its independent component classifiers. VM's counterexample applies to independent classifiers, but biostatisticians are often more interested in conditionally independent classifiers. In biomedical studies, where class is disease status, classifiers are inherently dependent simply because positivity of any reasonable classifier depends on the presence or absence of disease. Conditional independence of classifiers, given disease status, could arise if the classifiers are detecting different biological phenomenon, such as tissue abnormalities versus protein markers. To explore how majority voting affects classification performance with conditionally independent classifiers, we investigated many examples (Figure 1). Much as we expected, we found that it generally works quite well. However, we also found that conditional independence is not a sufficient condition to ensure that majority voting always leads to better classification performance than the individual classifiers. Figure 1 Comparison of ROC curves for majority voting classifier and conditionally independent component classifiers. The 45-degree line is included for reference. As with VM, we considered two classes and component classifiers with identical classification performances. To measure classification performance we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. ROC curves play a central role in the evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests (Baker 2003; Pepe 2003). In accordance with a decision theory view of ROC curves (Baker, Van Calster, and Steyerberg 2012), we restricted our investigation to ROC curves that are concave, namely with monotonically decreasing slopes from left to right. For a given cutpoint x of a score, let fpr(x) and tpr(x) denote the false positive and true positive rates of the component classifier. The ROC curve for the component classifier plots tpr(x) versus fpr(x). At a given cutpoint, the true positive rate for the majority voting classifier is the probability of three or exactly two true positives among the component classifiers, namely tprM(x) = tpr(x)3 + 3 tpr(x)2 {1−tpr(x)}. Similarly the false positive rate for the majority voting classifier is fprM(x) = fpr(x)3 + 3 fpr(x)2 {1−fpr(x)}. The ROC curve for the majority voting classifier plots tprM(x) versus fprM(x). We considered the following six cases.
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
American Statistician
American Statistician 数学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
64
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Are you looking for general-interest articles about current national and international statistical problems and programs; interesting and fun articles of a general nature about statistics and its applications; or the teaching of statistics? Then you are looking for The American Statistician (TAS), published quarterly by the American Statistical Association. TAS contains timely articles organized into the following sections: Statistical Practice, General, Teacher''s Corner, History Corner, Interdisciplinary, Statistical Computing and Graphics, Reviews of Books and Teaching Materials, and Letters to the Editor.
×
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