Abstract

Decision trees are frequently used to overcome classification problems in the fields of data mining and machine learning, owing to their many perks, including their clear and simple architecture, excellent quality, and resilience. Various decision tree algorithms are developed using a variety of attribute selection criteria, following the top-down partitioning strategy. However, their effectiveness is influenced by the choice of the splitting method. Therefore, in this work, six decision tree algorithms that are based on six different attribute evaluation metrics are gathered in order to compare their performances. The choice of the decision trees that will be compared is done based on four different categories of the splitting criteria that are criteria based on information theory, criteria based on distance, statistical-based criteria, and other splitting criteria. These approaches include iterative dichotomizer 3 (first category), C[Formula: see text] (first category), classification and regression trees (second category), Pearson’s correlation coefficient based decision tree (third category), dispersion ratio (third category), and feature weight based decision tree algorithm (last category). On eleven data sets, the six procedures are assessed in terms of classification accuracy, tree depth, leaf nodes, and tree construction time. Furthermore, the Friedman and post hoc Nemenyi tests are used to examine the results that were obtained. The results of these two tests indicate that the iterative dichotomizer 3 and classification and regression trees decision tree methods perform better than the other decision tree methodologies.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.