Homepage

Description

Car Evaluation Database was derived from a simple hierarchical decision model originally developed for the demonstration of DEX, M. Bohanec, V. Rajkovic: Expert system for decision making. Sistemica 1(1), pp. 145-157, 1990.). The model evaluates cars according to the following concept structure: CAR car acceptability . PRICE overall price . . buying buying price . . maint price of the maintenance . TECH technical characteristics . . COMFORT comfort . . . doors number of doors . . . persons capacity in terms of persons to carry . . . lug_boot the size of luggage boot . . safety estimated safety of the car Input attributes are printed in lowercase. Besides the target concept (CAR), the model includes three intermediate concepts: PRICE, TECH, COMFORT. Every concept is in the original model related to its lower level descendants by a set of examples (for these examples sets see [Web Link]). The Car Evaluation Database contains examples with the structural information removed, i.e., directly relates CAR to the six input attributes: buying, maint, doors, persons, lug_boot, safety. Because of known underlying concept structure, this database may be particularly useful for testing constructive induction and structure discovery methods.

Related Papers

• Daniel J. Lizotte. Library Release Form Name of Author. Budgeted Learning of Naive Bayes Classifiers. [link]
• Zhiqiang Yang and Sheng Zhong and Rebecca N. Wright. Privacy-Preserving Classification of Customer Data without Loss of Accuracy. Computer Science Department, Stevens Institute of Technology. [link]
• Huan Liu. A Family of Efficient Rule Generators. Department of Information Systems and Computer Science National University of Singapore. [link]
• Marc Sebban and Richard Nock and Jean-Hugues Chauchat and Ricco Rakotomalala. Impact of learning set quality and size on decision tree performances. Int. J. Comput. Syst. Signal, 1. 2000. [link]
• Hyunwoo Kim and Wei-Yin Loh. Classification Trees with Bivariate Linear Discriminant Node Models. Department of Statistics Department of Statistics University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin. [link]
• Jie Cheng and Russell Greiner. Comparing Bayesian Network Classifiers. UAI. 1999. [link]
• Qingping Tao Ph. D. MAKING EFFICIENT LEARNING ALGORITHMS WITH EXPONENTIALLY MANY FEATURES. Qingping Tao A DISSERTATION Faculty of The Graduate College University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements. 2004. [link]
• Daniel J. Lizotte and Omid Madani and Russell Greiner. Budgeted Learning of Naive-Bayes Classifiers. UAI. 2003. [link]
• Nikunj C. Oza and Stuart J. Russell. Experimental comparisons of online and batch versions of bagging and boosting. KDD. 2001. [link]
• Nikunj C. Oza and Stuart J. Russell. Online Bagging and Boosting. Computer Science Division University of California. [link]
• Iztok Savnik and Peter A. Flach. Discovery of multivalued dependencies from relations. Intell. Data Anal, 4. 2000. [link]
• Jianbin Tan and David L. Dowe. MML Inference of Decision Graphs with Multi-way Joins and Dynamic Attributes. Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2003. [link]
• Daniel J. Lizotte and Omid Madani and Russell Greiner. Budgeted Learning, Part II: The Na#ve-Bayes Case. Department of Computing Science University of Alberta. [link]
• Jos'e L. Balc'azar. Rules with Bounded Negations and the Coverage Inference Scheme. Dept. LSI, UPC. [link]
• Marc Sebban and Richard Nock and Stphane Lallich. Stopping Criterion for Boosting-Based Data Reduction Techniques: from Binary to Multiclass Problem. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3. 2002. [link]
• Shi Zhong and Weiyu Tang and Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar. Boosted Noise Filters for Identifying Mislabeled Data. Department of Computer Science and Engineering Florida Atlantic University. [link]
• [link]
• [link]