Abstract
Concept formation, an artificial intelligence classification technique, has been used successfully by many researchers in predicting outcomes of new objects based on a decision tree built from previously seen objects. All systems based on concept formation are capable of providing outcome predictions. INC2.5, a concept formation system, goes further by (a) implementing an algorithm that identifies relevant attributes and (b) administering a test that measures system's predictive ability based on the reduced attribute set. These capabilities are important to users attempting to prove a specific feature's contribution to an outcome. This paper focuses on the algorithm for analyzing attribute relevance as opposed to the classification and prediction techniques that have been explained in previous publications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bohren, B.F. and Hadzikadic, M. (1994), Turning Medical Data into Decision-Support Knowledge. Proceedings of the 18th SCAMC, 735–739.
Fisher, D. H. Knowledge Acquisition Via Incremental Conceptual Clustering. In Machine Learning, 2, 2 (1987) 139–172.
Hadzikadic, M., Automated Design of Diagnostic Systems. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Journal, 4 (1992a) 329–342.
Hadzikadic, M. Prediction Performance as a Function of the Representation Language in Concept Formation Systems. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 850–854, Bloomington, Indiana, July 29–August 1, 1992b.
Hadzikadic, M., Bohren, B.F., “Learning to Predict: INC2.5,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 9, 1 (1997) 168–173.
Hadzikadic, M., Bohren, B., Hakenewerth, A., Norton, J., Mehta, B., Andrews, C. “Concept Formation vs. Logistic Regression: Predicting Death in Trauma Patients.” Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Journal 8 (1996) 493–504.
Hanson, S. J. and Bauer, M. Conceptual Clustering, Categorization, and Polymorphy. In Machine Learning, 3, 4 (1989) 343–372.
Kolodner, J. L. Retrieval and Organizational Strategies in Conceptual Memory: A Computer Model, Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, Publishers, London, 1984.
Lebowitz, M. Experiments with Incremental Concept Formation: UNIMEM. In Machine Learning, 2, 2 (1987) 103–138.
Michalski, R.S., and Stepp, R.E. Learning From Observation: Conceptual Clustering. In Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T. M. Mitchell (eds.), Morgan Kaufinann Publishers, Inc., Lao Altos, CA, 1983.
Tversky, A. Features of Similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (1977) 327–352.
Mitchell, T. M. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Quinlan, J.R. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kauffmann, 1993.
Mingers, J. An Empirical Comparison of Selection Measures for Decision-tree induction. Machine Learning, 3 (4) 319–342, 1989.
Buntine, W. and Niblett, T. A Further Comparison of Splitting Rules for Decisiontree Induction. Machine Learning, 8, 75–86, 1992.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hadzikadic, M., Bohren, B.F. (1997). Determining attribute relevance in decision trees. In: Raś, Z.W., Skowron, A. (eds) Foundations of Intelligent Systems. ISMIS 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1325. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63614-5_50
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63614-5_50
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63614-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69612-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive