Machine Learning Proceedings 1995 1995
DOI: 10.1016/b978-1-55860-377-6.50011-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Handling Tree-Structured Attributes in Decision Tree Learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second part of the questionnaire, containing four questions (plus fields for free-text comments, as discussed later), was only filled in by students who indicated that they participated in the data mining task. 5 There were 33 Group S members and 41 Group W members (i.e. 74 out of 89) who filled in the second part.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The second part of the questionnaire, containing four questions (plus fields for free-text comments, as discussed later), was only filled in by students who indicated that they participated in the data mining task. 5 There were 33 Group S members and 41 Group W members (i.e. 74 out of 89) who filled in the second part.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While large-scale industrial projects merely focused on methodologies of leveraging the human expertise in different phases of the KDD cycle [27], academic research has, as early as at the beginning of 90s, occasionally attempted to formalise and subsequently automatically exploit such knowledge. First attempts to exploit prior conceptual 7 knowledge in propositional 8 machine learning (as research field predating present-day mainstream KDD) were often restricted to intra-attribute value (typically, taxonomical) structuring [5,8,31,43]. More sophisticated and abstract knowledge models were however sometimes also used to constrain the search and structure the learning workflow; examples are qualitative models by Clark & Matwin [14] or problem-solving methods [17,46].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Supporting hierarchical attributes is important in practice (see bullet point 1 above). A few algorithms have been designed to support hierarchical attributes directly (Almuallim, Akiba, & Kaneda, 1995;Aronis & Provost, 1997;Zhang, Silvescu, & Honavar, 2002), but they do not scale to large hierarchies. The process of automating the (now manual) process of utilizing hierarchies effectively still remains challenging.…”
Section: Support Hierarchical Attributesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, Thomas et al [21] and van Dompseler & van Someren [22] used problem-solving method descriptions (a kind of 'method ontologies') for the same purpose. There have also been several efforts to employ taxonomies over domains of individual attributes [3,4,13,19] to guide inductive learning. A recent contribution that goes in similar direction with our work but is more restricted in scope is that of ???…”
Section: Envisaged Tool Supportmentioning
confidence: 99%