Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Performance Comparison of Classification Algorithms
Performance Comparison of Classification Algorithms
I. INTRODUCTION
Data mining is the technique of automated data analysis to
reveal previously undetected dependence among data .Three
of the major data mining techniques are classification,
regression and clustering. In this research paper we are
working with the classification because it is most important
process, if we have a very huge database. Weka tool is used
for classification. Classification [1] is one of the most
important techniques in data mining to build classification
models from an input data set.
They found that C4.5 gives the best performance and accuracy
and lowest absolute errors, then PART, Random Forest,
These build models are used to predict future data trends [2, 3]. Multilayer Perceptron, and Nave Bayes, respectively.Table-1
Our knowledge about data becomes greater and easier once shows an outline for a few recent works associated with
the classification is complete. We can deduct logic from the classification algorithms performance and sort of the
classified data. Most of all it makes the data retrieval faster applications space for the experimental datasets used.
with better results and new data to be sorted easily.
It illustrates many data mining algorithms that may be applied
There are many data mining tools available [4, 5]. In this into completely different application space.
paper we will be using Weka data mining tool, which is an
open source tool developed using JAVA [6]. It contains tools
for data preprocessing, clustering, classification, visualization,
association rule, regression. It not only supports data
algorithms, but also Meta learners like bagging, boosting and
data preparation. Weka toolkit has achieved the highest
applicability among Orange, Tanagra, and KNIME,
respectively [4]. While using Weka for classification,
193
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) / # 194 / Volume 4 Issue 4
TABLE I
A SUMMARY OF RELATED DATA MINING ALGORITHMS
AND THE APPLICATION DATA SETS USED.
Year
Authors
2010
Nesreen
Ahmed,Amir
Atiya,Neamat
Gayar,Hisham
Shishiny[12]
K.
F.
El
El-
Data mining
Algorithms
Data set
MLP,BNN ,RBF
,K
Nearest
Neighbor
Regression
M3
competition
data
2011
S. Aruna, Dr S.P.
Rajagopalan
and
L.V. Nandakishore
[13]
RBF
networks,Nave
Bayes,J48,CAR
T,SVM-RBF
kernel
WBC,
WDBC, Pima
Indians
Diabetes
database
2011
R. Kishore Kumar,
G. Poonkuzhali, P.
Sudhakar [14]
Spam
Data
2012
Abdullah
H.
Wahbeh,
Mohammed Al-Kabi
[15]
C4.5,SVM,
Nave Bayes
Arabic Text
2012
Rohit
Suman[16]
Arora,
C4.5, MLP
Diabetes and
Glass
2013
S. Vijayarani, M.
Muthulakshmi[17]
Attribute
Selected
Classifier,
Filtered
Classifier,
LogitBoost
Classifying
computer files
2013
Classifying
computer files
2014
Devendra
Tiwary[19]
Decision
Tree(DT), Nave
Bayes
(NB),
Artificial Neural
Networks
(ANN), Support
Vector Machine
(SVM).
Credit Card
Kumar
III. METHODOLOGY
We used Intel core i3 Processor platform which consist of 4
GB memory, Windows 7 ultimate operating system, a 500GB
secondary memory .In all the experiments, we used Weka
194
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) / # 195 / Volume 4 Issue 4
C. Classification algorithms
The following classifier algorithms are taken for the
performance comparison on the NSL-KDD data set.
(a) OneR
OneR [21], short for "One Rule", accurate and simple
classification algorithm that generates one rule for every
predictor within the data, then selects the rule with the tiniest
total error as its "one rule". To make a rule for a predictor, we
construct a frequency table for every predictor against the
target. It's been shown that OneR produces rules only slightly
less accurate than progressive classification algorithms
whereas producing rules that are easy for humans to interpret.
(b) Hoeffding Tree
A Hoeffding tree [22] is a progressive, anytime decision tree
induction algorithm that's capable of learning from data
streams, accepting that the distribution generating examples
doesn't change over the long run. Hoeffding trees exploit the
actual fact that a small sample will usually be enough to
decide on the optimal splitting attribute. This is determined
mathematically by the Hoeffding bound that quantifies the
amount of observations required to estimate some statistics
within a prescribed preciseness. One of the features of
Hoeffding Trees not shared by other incremental decision tree
learners is that its sound guarantees of performance.
(c) Decision Stump
A decision stump [23] is a machine learning model consisting
of one-level decision tree. That is, it's a decision tree with one
internal node that is instantly connected to its leaves. The
predictions made by decision stump are based on just one
input feature. They're also known as 1-rules.Decision stumps
are usually used as base learners in machine learning
ensemble techniques like boosting and bagging. For example,
the ViolaJones face detection algorithm employs AdaBoost
with decision stumps as weak learners.
(d) Alternating Decision Tree
An alternating decision tree (ADTree) [24], combines the
simplicity of distinct decision tree with the effectiveness of
boosting. The information illustration combines tree stumps, a
standard prototype deployed in boosting, into a decision tree
kind structure. The various branches aren't any longer
mutually exclusive. The root node could be a prediction node,
and has simply a numeric score. Consecutive layer of nodes
are decision nodes, and are basically a group of decision tree
stumps. Subsequent layer then consists of prediction nodes,
and so on, alternating between prediction nodes and call nodes.
A model is deployed by identifying the possibly multiple
ways from the root node to the leaves through the alternating
decision tree that correspond to the values for the variables of
an observation to be classified. The observation's
195
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) / # 196 / Volume 4 Issue 4
Accuracy
Detection rate
oneR
0.94615
0.94954
0.06714
Decision
Stump
0.81733
0.94964
0.05025
Hoeffding
Tree
0.95120
0.95515
0.05952
ADTree
0.95094
0.94592
0.07321
The Fig. 4 shows the False Alarm Rate of classifiers on NSLKDD data set. The result of the experiment shows that,
Decision Stump is the best classifier, followed by Hoeffding
Tree, oneR and ADTree.
The Fig. 3 shows the Detection Rate of classifiers on NSLKDD data set. The experimental result shows that, Hoeffding
Tree is the best classifier, followed by Decision Stump, oneR
and ADTree.
VI. CONCLUSION
Four classification algorithms are investigated in this paper
with NSL-KDD as data set. They included Hoeffding Tree,
ADTree, oneR and Decision Stump. Comparative study and
analysis related to classification measures included Accuracy,
Detection Rate and False Alarm Rate have been computed by
simulation using Weka Toolkit. Experimental Results show
that Hoeffding Tree gives the best performance in terms of
Accuracy and Detection Rate .But when we consider False
Alarm Rate; Decision Stump is the best performer.
196
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) / # 197 / Volume 4 Issue 4
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
G. Hulten, S. Laurie, and D. Pedro, Mining timechanging data streams, Proceedings of the seventh ACM
SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery
and data mining. 2001.
[23]
[24]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
197