zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Geometry Search for the term Geometry in any field. Queries are case-independent.
Funct* Wildcard queries are specified by * (e.g. functions, functorial, etc.). Otherwise the search is exact.
"Topological group" Phrases (multi-words) should be set in "straight quotation marks".
au: Bourbaki & ti: Algebra Search for author and title. The and-operator & is default and can be omitted.
Chebyshev | Tschebyscheff The or-operator | allows to search for Chebyshev or Tschebyscheff.
"Quasi* map*" py: 1989 The resulting documents have publication year 1989.
so: Eur* J* Mat* Soc* cc: 14 Search for publications in a particular source with a Mathematics Subject Classification code (cc) in 14.
"Partial diff* eq*" ! elliptic The not-operator ! eliminates all results containing the word elliptic.
dt: b & au: Hilbert The document type is set to books; alternatively: j for journal articles, a for book articles.
py: 2000-2015 cc: (94A | 11T) Number ranges are accepted. Terms can be grouped within (parentheses).
la: chinese Find documents in a given language. ISO 639-1 language codes can also be used.

a & b logic and
a | b logic or
!ab logic not
abc* right wildcard
"ab c" phrase
(ab c) parentheses
any anywhere an internal document identifier
au author, editor ai internal author identifier
ti title la language
so source ab review, abstract
py publication year rv reviewer
cc MSC code ut uncontrolled term
dt document type (j: journal article; b: book; a: book article)
Tree induction vs. logistic regression: a learning-curve analysis. (English) Zbl 1093.68088
Summary: Tree induction and logistic regression are two standard, off-the-shelf methods for building models for classification. We present a large-scale experimental comparison of logistic regression and tree induction, assessing classification accuracy and the quality of rankings based on class-membership probabilities. We use a learning-curve analysis to examine the relationship of these measures to the size of the training set. The results of the study show several things. (1) Contrary to some prior observations, logistic regression does not generally outperform tree induction. (2) More specifically, and not surprisingly, logistic regression is better for smaller training sets and tree induction for larger data sets. Importantly, this often holds for training sets drawn from the same domain (that is, the learning curves cross), so conclusions about induction-algorithm superiority on a given domain must be based on an analysis of the learning curves. (3) Contrary to conventional wisdom, tree induction is effective at producing probability-based rankings, although apparently comparatively less so for a given training-set size than at making classifications. Finally, (4) the domains on which tree induction and logistic regression are ultimately preferable can be characterized surprisingly well by a simple measure of the separability of signal from noise.
68T05Learning and adaptive systems
R; UCI-ml