Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Yung-Seop Lee

dblp:51/2723 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data mining · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › ensemble learning › tree ensembles › random forest
random forest classifiers
0.112008
Enriched random forests · Bioinform. 2008
Data mining › predictive modeling
classification
0.012001
Data mining criteria for tree-based regression and classification · KDD 2001
Data mining › predictive modeling › classification
decision tree learning
0.012001
Data mining criteria for tree-based regression and classification · KDD 2001
Data mining › predictive modeling
regression
0.012001
Data mining criteria for tree-based regression and classification · KDD 2001
Data mining › predictive modeling › regression
regression tree
0.012001
Data mining criteria for tree-based regression and classification · KDD 2001
Data mining › predictive modeling › classification › decision tree learning
splitting criterion
0.012001
Data mining criteria for tree-based regression and classification · KDD 2001
Bioinformatics and computational biology
feature selection
0.012008
Enriched random forests · Bioinform. 2008
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
microarray data analysis
0.012008
Enriched random forests · Bioinform. 2008

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

weighted random sampling · 0.2random forest · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Flower classification with modified multimodal convolutional neural networks
Kang Il Bae, Jongga Lee, Yung-Seop Lee, Changwon Lim
Expert Syst. Appl.4
2020 Double random forest
Sunwoo Han, Hyunjoong Kim, Yung-Seop Lee
Mach. Learn.3
2019 Partially collapsed Gibbs sampling for latent Dirichlet allocation
Hongju Park, Taeyoung Park, Yung-Seop Lee
Expert Syst. Appl.3
2008 Enriched random forests
abstract
Although the random forest classification procedure works well in datasets with many features, when the number of features is huge and the percentage of truly informative features is small, such as with DNA microarray data, its performance tends to decline significantly. In such instances, the procedure can be improved by reducing the contribution of trees whose nodes are populated by non-informative features. To some extent, this can be achieved by prefiltering, but we propose a novel, yet simple, adjustment that has demonstrably superior performance: choose the eligible subsets at each node by weighted random sampling instead of simple random sampling, with the weights tilted in favor of the informative features. This results in an 'enriched random forest'. We illustrate the superior performance of this procedure in several actual microarray datasets.
Dhammika Amaratunga, Javier Cabrera, Yung-Seop Lee
Bioinform.3
2001 Data mining criteria for tree-based regression and classification
abstract
This paper is concerned with the construction of regression and classification trees that are more adapted to data mining applications than conventional trees. To this end, we propose new splitting criteria for growing trees. Conventional splitting criteria attempt to perform well on both sides of a split by attempting a compromise in the quality of fit between the left and the right side. By contrast, we adopt a data mining point of view by proposing criteria that search for interesting subsets of the data, as opposed to modeling all of the data equally well. The new criteria do not split based on a compromise between the left and the right bucket; they effectively pick the more interesting bucket and ignore the other.As expected, the result is often a simpler characterization of interesting subsets of the data. Less expected is that the new criteria often yield whole trees that provide more interpretable data descriptions. Surprisingly, it is a "flaw" that works to their advantage: The new criteria have an increased tendency to accept splits near the boundaries of the predictor ranges. This so-called "end-cut problem" leads to the repeated peeling of small layers of data and results in very unbalanced but highly expressive and interpretable trees.
Andreas Buja, Yung-Seop Lee
KDD2