Skip to main content
Log in

Learning decision trees from decision rules: A method and initial results from a comparative study

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A standard approach to determining decision trees is to learn them from examples. A disadvantage of this approach is that once a decision tree is learned, it is difficult to modify it to suit different decision making situations. Such problems arise, for example, when an attribute assigned to some node cannot be measured, or there is a significant change in the costs of measuring attributes or in the frequency distribution of events from different decision classes. An attractive approach to resolving this problem is to learn and store knowledge in the form of decision rules, and to generate from them, whenever needed, a decision tree that is most suitable in a given situation. An additional advantage of such an approach is that it facilitates buildingcompact decision trees, which can be much simpler than the logically equivalent conventional decision trees (by compact trees are meant decision trees that may contain branches assigned aset of values, and nodes assignedderived attributes, i.e., attributes that are logical or mathematical functions of the original ones). The paper describes an efficient method, AQDT-1, that takes decision rules generated by an AQ-type learning system (AQ15 or AQ17), and builds from them a decision tree optimizing a given optimality criterion. The method can work in two modes: thestandard mode, which produces conventional decision trees, andcompact mode, which produces compact decision trees. The preliminary experiments with AQDT-1 have shown that the decision trees generated by it from decision rules (conventional and compact) have outperformed those generated from examples by the well-known C4.5 program both in terms of their simplicity and their predictive accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arciszewski, T., Dybala, T. & Wnek, J. (1992). Method for Evaluation of Learning Systems,Heuristics,The Journal of Knowledge Engineering, Special Issue on Knowledge Acquisition and Machine Learning, 5.

  • Bergadano, F., Giordana, A., Saitta, L., DeMarchi, D. & Brancadori, F. (1990). Integrated Learning in Real Domain,Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Machine Learning, (pp. 322–329), Austin, TX.

  • Bloedorn, E. Michalski, R.S. (1991a). Data Driven Constructive Induction in AQ17-PRE: A Method and Experiments,Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Tools for AI, (pp. 9–14) San Jose, CA.

  • Bloedorn, E. & Michalski, R.S. (1991b). Constructive Induction from Data in AQ17-DCI: Further Experiments,Reports of the Machine Learning and Inference Laboratory, MLI 91-12, Center for Artificial Intelligence, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratko, I. & Lavrac, N. (Eds.), (1987).Progress in Machine Learning, Sigma Press: Wilmslow, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratko, I. & Kononenko, I. (1986). Learning Diagnostic Rules from Incomplete and Noisy Data. In B. Phelps (Ed.),Interactions in AI and Statistical Method, Gower Technical Press.

  • Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A. & Stone, C.J. (1984).Classification and Regression Trees, Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P. & Niblett, T. (1987). Induction in Noisy Domains. In I. Bratko and N. Lavrac, (Eds.),Progress in Machine Learning, Sigma Press: Wilmslow, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cestnik, B. & Bratko, I. (1991). On Estimating Probabilities in Tree Pruning,Proceeding of EWSL 91, (pp. 138–150) Porto, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cestnik, B. & Karalic, A. (1991). The Estimation of Probabilities in Attribute Selection Measures for Decision Tree Induction,Proceeding of the European Summer School on Machine Learning, Priory Corsendonk, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, E., Marin, J. & Stone, P. (1966).Experiments in Induction, Academic Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, R.S. (1973). AQVAL/1-Computer Implementation of a Variable-Valued Logic System VL1 and Examples of its Application to Pattern Recognition,Proceeding of the First International Joint Conference on Pattern Recognition, (pp. 3–17), Washington, DC.

  • Michalski, R.S. (1978). Designing Extended Entry Decision Tables and Optimal Decision Trees Using Decision Diagrams,Technical Report No. 898. Urbana: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, R.S. (1983). “A Theory and Methodology of Inductive Learning,Artificial Intelligence, 20, 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, R.S., Mozetic, I, Hong, J. & Lavrac, N. (1986). The Multi-Purpose Incremental Learning System AQ15 and Its Testing Application to Three Medical Domains,Proceedings of AAAI-86, (pp. 1041–1045), Philadelphia, PA.

  • Michalski, R.S. (1990). Learning Flexible Concepts: Fundamental Ideas and a Method Based on Two-tiered Representation. In Y. Kodratoff and R.S. Michalski (Eds.),Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. III, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, pp. 63–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (1989a). An Empirical Comparison of selection Measures for Decision-Tree Induction,Machine Learning, 3, 319–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (1989b). An Empirical Comparison of Pruning Methods for Decision-Tree Induction,Machine Learning, 3, 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niblett, T. & Bratko, I. (1986). Learning Decision Rules in Noisy Domains,Proceeding Expert Systems 86, Cambridge University Press: Brighton, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J.R. (1979). Discovering Rules by Induction from Large Collections of Examples. In D. Michie (Ed.),Expert Systems in the Microelectronic Age, Edinburgh University Press.

  • Quinlan, J.R. (1983). Learning Efficient Classification Procedures and Their Application to Chess End Games. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell and T.M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Morgan Kaufmann: Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J.R. (1986). Induction of Decision Trees,Machine Learning 1, 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J.R. (1987). Simplifying Decision Trees,International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 221–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J.R. (1989). Documentation and User's Guide for C4.5, unpublished.

  • Quinlan, J.R. (1990). Probabilistic Decision Trees. In Y. Kodratoff and R.S. Michalski (Eds.),Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. III, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, pp. 63–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, P., Goodman, R.M. & Higgins, C. (1990). A Hybrid Rule-Based/Bayesian Classifier,Proceedings of ECAI 90, Stockholm.

  • Thrun, S.B., Mitchell, T. & Cheng, J. (Eds.) (1991). The MONK's Problems: A Performance Comparison of Different Learning Algorithms,Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Imam, I.F., Michalski, R.S. Learning decision trees from decision rules: A method and initial results from a comparative study. J Intell Inf Syst 2, 279–304 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00962072

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00962072

Keywords

Navigation