| Abstrakt: |
Instance-Based Learning, such as the k Nearest Neighbor (kNN), offers a straightforward and effective solution for text classification. However, as a lazy learner, kNN's performance heavily relies on the quality and quantity of training instances, often leading to time and space inefficiencies. This challenge has spurred the development of instance-reduction techniques aimed at retaining essential instances and discarding redundant ones. While such trimming optimizes computational demands, it might adversely affect classification accuracy. This study introduces the novel Selective Learning Vector Quantization (SLVQ) algorithm, specifically designed to enhance the performance of datasets reduced through such techniques. Unlike traditional LVQ algorithms that employ random vector weights (codebook vectors), SLVQ utilizes instances selected by the reduction algorithm as the initial weight vectors. Importantly, as these instances often contain nominal values, SLVQ modifies the distances between these nominal values, rather than modifying the values themselves, aiming to improve their representation of the training set. This approach is crucial because nominal attributes are common in real-world datasets and require effective distance measures, such as the Value Difference Measure (VDM), to handle them properly. Therefore, SLVQ adjusts the VDM distances between nominal values, instead of altering the attribute values of the codebook vectors. Hence, the innovation of the SLVQ approach lies in its integration of instance reduction techniques for selecting initial codebook vectors and its effective handling of nominal attributes. Our experiments, conducted on 17 text classification datasets with four different instance reduction algorithms, confirm SLVQ's effectiveness. It significantly enhances the kNN's classification accuracy of reduced datasets. In our empirical study, the SLVQ method improved the performance of these datasets, achieving average classification accuracies of 82.55%, 84.07%, 78.54%, and 83.18%, compared to the average accuracies of 76.25%, 79.62%, 66.54%, and 78.19% achieved by non-fine-tuned datasets, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
