skip to main content
10.1145/3297280.3297334acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning regularized hoeffding trees from data streams

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 April 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning from data streams is a hot topic in machine learning that targets the learning and update of predictive models as data becomes available for both training and query. Due to their simplicity and convincing results in a multitude of applications, Hoeffding Trees are, by far, the most widely used family of methods for learning decision trees from streaming data. Despite the aforementioned positive characteristics, Hoeffding Trees tend to continuously grow in terms of nodes as new data becomes available, i.e., they eventually split on all features available, and multiple times on the same feature; thus leading to unnecessary complexity. With this behavior, Hoeffding Trees lose the ability to be human-understandable and computationally efficient. To tackle these issues, we propose a regularization scheme for Hoeffding Trees that (i) uses a penalty factor to control the gain obtained by creating a new split node using a feature that has not been used thus far; and (ii) uses information from previous splits in the current branch to determine whether the gain observed indeed justifies a new split. The proposed scheme is combined with both standard and adaptive variants of Hoeffding Trees. Experiments using real-world, stationary and drifting synthetic data show that the proposed method prevents both original and adaptive Hoeffding Trees from unnecessarily growing while maintaining impressive accuracy rates. As a byproduct of the regularization process, significant improvements in processing time, model complexity, and memory consumption have also been observed, thus showing the effectiveness of the proposed regularization scheme.

References

  1. R. Agrawal, T.Imielinski, and Arun Swami. 1993. Database mining: a performance perspective. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 5, 6 (Dec 1993), 914--925. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Geoffrey Holmes Albert Bifet, Eibe Frank and Bernhard Pfahringer (Eds.). 2010. Accurate Ensembles for Data Streams: Combining Restricted Hoeffding Trees using Stacking. JMLR Proceedings, Vol. 13. JMLR.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jean Paul Barddal, Heitor Murilo Gomes, FabrÃěgcio Enembreck, and Bernhard Pfahringer. 2017. A survey on feature drift adaptation: Definition, benchmark, challenges and future directions. Journal of Systems and Software 127 (2017), 278 -- 294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jean Paul Barddal, Heitor Murilo Gomes, Fabrício Enembreck, Bernhard Pfahringer, and Albert Bifet. 2016. On Dynamic Feature Weighting for Feature Drifting Data Streams. In ECML/PKDD' 16 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrew R Barron, Jorma Rissanen, and Bin Yu. 1998. The Minimum Description Length Principle in Coding and Modeling. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44, 6 (1998), 2743--2760. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bibtex/journals/tit/BarronRY98 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Albert Bifet, Eibe Frank, Geoff Holmes, and Bernhard Pfahringer. 2012. Ensembles of Restricted Hoeffding Trees. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 3, 2, Article 30 (Feb. 2012), 20 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Albert Bifet and Ricard Gavaldà. 2007. Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing. In In SIAM International Conference on Data Mining.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Albert Bifet and Ricard Gavaldà. 2009. Adaptive Learning from Evolving Data Streams. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 249--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Albert Bifet, Geoff Holmes, Richard Kirkby, and Bernhard Pfahringer. 2010. MOA: Massive Online Analysis. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 11 (2010), 1601--1604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Albert Bifet, Geoff Holmes, and Bernhard Pfahringer. 2010. Leveraging Bagging for Evolving Data Streams. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, JosÃl' Luis BalcÃązar, Francesco Bonchi, Aristides Gionis, and MichÃĺle Sebag (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6321. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 135--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jock A. Blackard and Denis J. Dean. 1999. Comparative accuracies of artificial neural networks and discriminant analysis in predicting forest cover types from cartographic variables. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 24, 3 (1999), 131 -- 151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Janez Demsar. 2006. Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7 (Dec. 2006), 1--30. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1248547.1248548 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Houtao Deng and G. Runger. 2012. Feature selection via regularized trees. In The 2012 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pedro Domingos and Geoff Hulten. 2000. Mining High-speed Data Streams. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Joao Gama. 2010. Knowledge Discovery from Data Streams (1st ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Gama and P. Rodrigues. 2009. Issues in evaluation of stream learning algorithms. In Proc. of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM SIGKDD, 329--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mark A. Hall and Lloyd A. Smith. 1999. Feature Selection for Machine Learning: Comparing a Correlation-based Filter Approach to the Wrapper. (1999).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Geoff Hulten, Laurie Spencer, and Pedro Domingos. 2001. Mining Time-changing Data Streams. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 97--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Elena Ikonomovska, João Gama, Bernard Zenko, and Saso Dzeroski. 2011. Speeding-Up Hoeffding-Based Regression Trees With Options. In ICML. 537--544. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ioannis Katakis, Grigorios Tsoumakas, and Ioannis Vlahavas. 2006. Dynamic Feature Space and Incremental Feature Selection for the Classification of Textual Data Streams. In in ECML/PKDD-2006 International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery from Data Streams. 2006. Springer Verlag, 107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hai-Long Nguyen, Yew-Kwong Woon, Wee-Keong Ng, and Li Wan. 2012. Heterogeneous Ensemble for Feature Drifts in Data Streams. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Pang-Ning Tan, Sanjay Chawla, ChinKuan Ho, and James Bailey (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7302. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. W. Nick Street and Y. Kim. 2001. A streaming ensemble algorithm (SEA) for large-classification. In Proc. of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM SIGKDD, 377--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Robert Tibshirani. 1996. Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 58, 1 (1996), 267--288. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346178Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Geoffrey I. Webb, Loong Kuan Lee, Bart Goethals, and François Petitjean. 2018. Analyzing concept drift and shift from sample data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (12 Mar 2018). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Gerhard Widmer and Miroslav Kubat. 1996. Learning in the Presence of Concept Drift and Hidden Contexts. Mach. Learn. 23, 1 (April 1996), 69--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. H. Yang and S. Fong. 2011. Optimized very fast decision tree with balanced classification accuracy and compact tree size. In The 3rd International Conference on Data Mining and Intelligent Information Technology Applications. 57--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Learning regularized hoeffding trees from data streams

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SAC '19: Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
        April 2019
        2682 pages
        ISBN:9781450359337
        DOI:10.1145/3297280

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 April 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader