{ "id": "1312.4986", "version": "v1", "published": "2013-12-17T22:12:52.000Z", "updated": "2013-12-17T22:12:52.000Z", "title": "A Comparative Evaluation of Curriculum Learning with Filtering and Boosting", "authors": [ "Michael R. Smith", "Tony Martinez" ], "comment": "19 pages, 2 figures, 6 tables", "categories": [ "cs.LG" ], "abstract": "Not all instances in a data set are equally beneficial for inferring a model of the data. Some instances (such as outliers) are detrimental to inferring a model of the data. Several machine learning techniques treat instances in a data set differently during training such as curriculum learning, filtering, and boosting. However, an automated method for determining how beneficial an instance is for inferring a model of the data does not exist. In this paper, we present an automated method that orders the instances in a data set by complexity based on the their likelihood of being misclassified (instance hardness). The underlying assumption of this method is that instances with a high likelihood of being misclassified represent more complex concepts in a data set. Ordering the instances in a data set allows a learning algorithm to focus on the most beneficial instances and ignore the detrimental ones. We compare ordering the instances in a data set in curriculum learning, filtering and boosting. We find that ordering the instances significantly increases classification accuracy and that filtering has the largest impact on classification accuracy. On a set of 52 data sets, ordering the instances increases the average accuracy from 81% to 84%.", "revisions": [ { "version": "v1", "updated": "2013-12-17T22:12:52.000Z" } ], "analyses": { "keywords": [ "data set", "curriculum learning", "comparative evaluation", "machine learning techniques treat instances", "instances significantly increases classification accuracy" ], "note": { "typesetting": "TeX", "pages": 19, "language": "en", "license": "arXiv", "status": "editable", "adsabs": "2013arXiv1312.4986S" } } }