Why Is Rule Learning Optimistic and How to Correct It

Abstract

In their search through a huge space of possible hypotheses, rule induction algorithms compare estimations of qualities of a large number of rules to find the one that appears to be best. This mechanism can easily find random patterns in the data which will – even though the estimating method itself may be unbiased (such as relative frequency) – have optimistically high quality estimates. It is generally believed that the problem, which eventually leads to overfitting, can be alleviated by using m-estimate of probability. We show that this can only partially mend the problem, and propose a novel solution to making the common rule evaluation functions account for multiple comparisons in the search. Experiments on artificial data sets and data sets from the UCI repository show a large improvement in accuracy of probability predictions and also a decent gain in AUC of the constructed models.