The Altair Community is migrating to a new platform to provide a better experience for you. In preparation for the migration, the Altair Community is on read-only mode from October 28 - November 6, 2024. Technical support via cases will continue to work as is. For any urgent requests from Students/Faculty members, please submit the form linked here
Unsure-aware Decision Tree
Hi All,
I'm trying to develop a stock recommending system using RapidMiner. I have labeled the output in two possible classes: buy / sell. I'm using a decision tree as learner. I have observed that some of the leaves contain both buy / sell recommendations. However, I will be more happy if the Decision Tree would say 'I do not know' your output for this data instead of giving the majority class for this specific leave.
Propose feature:
- Be able to define a parameter to specify the required purity in a leave node (e.g. purity=0.9 could mean that the leave says 'sell' and out of the total instances that end up in this node, 90% at least are 'sell').
- This definition of purity does not depend in how many classes the problem has; so, in principle, it can be quite generic.
- I find it also interesting to extend this approach to other operators if possible.
Let me know what you think about this feature request and possible work-arounds.
Thank you,
alfileres
I'm trying to develop a stock recommending system using RapidMiner. I have labeled the output in two possible classes: buy / sell. I'm using a decision tree as learner. I have observed that some of the leaves contain both buy / sell recommendations. However, I will be more happy if the Decision Tree would say 'I do not know' your output for this data instead of giving the majority class for this specific leave.
Propose feature:
- Be able to define a parameter to specify the required purity in a leave node (e.g. purity=0.9 could mean that the leave says 'sell' and out of the total instances that end up in this node, 90% at least are 'sell').
- This definition of purity does not depend in how many classes the problem has; so, in principle, it can be quite generic.
- I find it also interesting to extend this approach to other operators if possible.
Let me know what you think about this feature request and possible work-arounds.
Thank you,
alfileres
0
Answers
The following process should explain this: Maybe this is helpful for now. Concerning the decision tree uncertainty I am not sure whether it is of great help to add such an uncertainty indicator in the models itself, as in a descriptive setting this model can easily be interpreted by the user. A purity parameter might potentially be helpful to control fitting of the tree, but at the moment we are really busy and have really few time. But maybe we will discuss that issue in the long term. For now you have to use the other parameter to control how far the tree tries to generalize or to exactly fit the data.
Regards,
Tobias
Thank you for your help. The UncertainPredictionsTransformation operator seems to be a good work-around. However, I'm not sure of it usefulness as I don't know how prediction confidences are computed. Do you know how can I find this information?
Thank you!
for a decision tree the confidences are equal to the fractions of the classes in the leaves. If you have e.g. a leave consisting of 5 examples, one labeled as buy and 4 labeled as sell, then the confidences for an unseen test example which exhibits the attribute value combination that leads to that leave are 0.2 (for class buy) and 0.8 (for class sell), meaning that with a confidence of 0.8 the example is predicted to be of class sell.
Hope that helps,
Tobias
Thank you very much for your quick & informative answers.