Mixing Hetero- and Homogeneous Models in Weighted Ensembles

  • James Large
  • Anthony BagnallEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11871)


The effectiveness of ensembling for improving classification performance is well documented. Broadly speaking, ensemble design can be expressed as a spectrum where at one end a set of heterogeneous classifiers model the same data, and at the other homogeneous models derived from the same classification algorithm are diversified through data manipulation. The cross-validation accuracy weighted probabilistic ensemble is a heterogeneous weighted ensemble scheme that needs reliable estimates of error from its base classifiers. It estimates error through a cross-validation process, and raises the estimates to a power to accentuate differences. We study the effects of maintaining all models trained during cross-validation on the final ensemble’s predictive performance, and the base model’s and resulting ensembles’ variance and robustness across datasets and resamples. We find that augmenting the ensemble through the retention of all models trained provides a consistent and significant improvement, despite reductions in the reliability of the base models’ performance estimates.


Classification Ensembles Heterogeneous Homogeneous 



This work is supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [grant number EP/M015807/1] and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Norwich Research Park Biosciences Doctoral Training Partnership [grant number BB/M011216/1]. The experiments were carried out on the High Performance Computing Cluster supported by the Research and Specialist Computing Support service at the University of East Anglia.


  1. 1.
    Benavoli, A., Corani, G., Mangili, F.: Should we really use post-hoc tests based on mean-ranks? J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 1–10 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breiman, L.: Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 24(2), 123–140 (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caruana, R., Niculescu-Mizil, A.: Ensemble selection from libraries of models. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demšar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 1–30 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    García, S., Herrera, F.: An extension on “statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets” for all pairwise comparisons. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9, 2677–2694 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gashler, M., Giraud-Carrier, C., Martinez, T.: Decision tree ensemble: small heterogeneous is better than large homogeneous. In: 2008 Seventh International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, pp. 900–905 (2008).
  8. 8.
    Kohavi, R.: A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1137–1143. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuncheva, L., Rodríguez, J.: A weighted voting framework for classifiers ensembles. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 38(2), 259–275 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Large, J., Lines, J., Bagnall, A.: A probabilistic classifier ensemble weighting scheme based on cross-validated accuracy estimates. Data Mining Knowl. Discov. (2019). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Partalas, I., Tsoumakas, G., Vlahavas, I.: A study on greedy algorithms for ensemble pruning. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Provost, F., Domingos, P.: Tree induction for probability-based ranking. Mach. Learn. 52(3), 199–215 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of East Anglia, Norwich Research ParkNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations