Skip to main content
Log in

Tolerating Concept and Sampling Shift in Lazy Learning Using Prediction Error Context Switching

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In their unmodified form, lazy-learning algorithms may have difficulty learning and tracking time-varying input/output function maps such as those that occur in concept shift. Extensions of these algorithms, such as Time-Windowed forgetting (TWF), can permit learning of time-varying mappings by deleting older exemplars, but have decreased classification accuracy when the input-space sampling distribution of the learning set is time-varying. Additionally, TWF suffers from lower asymptotic classification accuracy than equivalent non-forgetting algorithms when the input sampling distributions are stationary. Other shift-sensitive algorithms, such as Locally-Weighted forgetting (LWF) avoid the negative effects of time-varying sampling distributions, but still have lower asymptotic classification in non-varying cases. We introduce Prediction Error Context Switching (PECS) which allows lazy-learning algorithms to have good classification accuracy in conditions having a time-varying function mapping and input sampling distributions, while still maintaining their asymptotic classification accuracy in static tasks. PECS works by selecting and re-activating previously stored instances based on their most recent consistency record. The classification accuracy and active learning set sizes for the above algorithms are compared in a set of learning tasks that illustrate the differing time-varying conditions described above. The results show that the PECS algorithm has the best overall classification accuracy over these differing time-varying conditions, while still having asymptotic classification accuracy competitive with unmodified lazy-learners intended for static environments.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aha, D. W., Kibler, D. & Albert, M. K. (1991). Instance-Based Learning Algorithms. Machine Learning 6: 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkeson, C. G. (1991). Using Locally Weighted Regression for Robot Learning. In IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, 958–963. IEEE Press.

  • Blum, A. (1995). Empirical Support for Winnow and Weighted Majority Based Algorithms: Results on a Calendar Scheduling Domain. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning, 64–72. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Duda P. O. & Hart P. E. (1973). Pattern Classification and Scence Analysis. Wiley and Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J. H., Bentley, J. L. & Finkel, R. A. (1977). An Algorithm for Finding Best Matches in Logarithmic Expected Time. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 3: 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hembold, D. & Long, P. (1991). Tracking Drifting Concepts Using Random Samples. In Fourth Workship on Computational Learning Theory, 12–23.

  • Kalman, R. E. (1960). A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems. Transactions ASME, Journal of Basic Engineering: 35–45.

  • Kuh, A., Petsche, T. & Rivest, R. L. (1991). Learning Time-Varying Concepts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3, 183–189. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Larson, R. & Marx, M. (1986). An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes, P. & Brooks, R. A. (1990). Learning to Coordinate Behaviors. In AAAI-90, 796–802.

  • McCloskey, M. & Cohen, N. J. (1989). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, chapter Catastrophic Interference in Connectionist Networks: The Sequential Learning Problem. Academic Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. W. (1990). Acquisition of Dynamic Control Knowledge for a Robotic Manipulator. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Machine Learning, 244–252. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Moore, A. W. (1991). Fast, Robust Adaptive Control by Learning Only Forward Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Morgan Kaufman.

  • Ratcliff, R. (1990). Connectionist Models of Recognition Memory: Constraints Imposed by Learning and Forgetting Functions. Psychological Reviews 97: 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salganicoff, M. (1992). Learning and Forgetting for Perception-Action: A Projection-Pursuit and Density-Adaptive Approach. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Dept. of Computer and Information Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salganicoff, M. (1993). Density-Adaptive Learning and Forgetting. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlimmer, J. C. & Granger, R. H. (1986). Incremental Learning from Noisy Data. Machine Learning 1: 317–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valiant, L. G. (1984). A Theory of the Learnable. Communications of the ACM 27(11): 1134–1142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, G. & Kubat, M. (1992). Learning Flexible Concepts from Streams of Examples: FLORA2. Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 463–467. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Widmer, G. & Kubat, M. (1992). Effective Learning in Dynamic Environments by Explicit Context Tracking (Technical Report 93–35). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Institute for Artifical Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salganicoff, M. Tolerating Concept and Sampling Shift in Lazy Learning Using Prediction Error Context Switching. Artificial Intelligence Review 11, 133–155 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006515405170

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006515405170

Navigation