The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dynamic integration of classifiers for handling concept drift
Open accessAbstract
In the real world concepts are often not stable but change with time. A typical example of this in the biomedical context is antibiotic resistance, where pathogen sensitivity may change over time as new pathogen strains develop resistance to antibiotics that were previously effective. This problem, known as concept drift, complicates the task of learning a model from data and requires special approaches, different from commonly used techniques that treat arriving instances as equally important contributors to the final concept. The underlying data distribution may change as well, making previously built models useless. This is known as virtual concept drift. Both types of concept drifts make regular updates of the model necessary. Among the most popular and effective approaches to handle concept drift is ensemble learning, where a set of models built over different time periods is maintained and the best model is selected or the predictions of models are combined, usually according to their expertise level regarding the current concept. In this paper we propose the use of an ensemble integration technique that would help to better handle concept drift at an instance level. In dynamic integration of classifiers, each base classifier is given a weight proportional to its local accuracy with regard to the instance tested, and the best base classifier is selected, or the classifiers are integrated using weighted voting. Our experiments with synthetic data sets simulating abrupt and gradual concept drifts and with a real-world antibiotic resistance data set demonstrate that dynamic integration of classifiers built over small time intervals or fixed-sized data blocks can be significantly better than majority voting and weighted voting, which are currently the most commonly used integration techniques for handling concept drift with ensembles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Learning under Concept Drift: A Review
Lu, J., Liu, A., Dong, F., Gu, F., Gama, J., & Zhang, G. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2018.2876857 · Cited by 1,603
A survey of multiple classifier systems as hybrid systems
Woźniak, M., Graña, M., & Corchado, E. (2014) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2013.04.006 · Cited by 912
Ensemble approaches for regression: A survey
Mendes-Moreira, J., Soares, C., Jorge, A. M., & Sousa, J. F. D. (2012) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2379776.2379786 · Cited by 667
Incremental Learning of Concept Drift from Streaming Imbalanced Data
Ditzler, G., & Polikar, R. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2012.136 · Cited by 406
Stress detection from speech and Galvanic Skin Response signals
Kurniawan, H., Maslov, A. V., & Pechenizkiy, M. (2013) · Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems · doi:10.1109/cbms.2013.6627790 · Cited by 227
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tsymbal, A., Pechenizkiy, M., Cunningham, P., & Puuronen, S.
- Venue
- Information Fusion
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-68
- ISSN
- 1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148798622
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dynamic integration of classifiers for handling concept drift. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.inffus.2006.11.002
- The paper
- Tsymbal, A., Pechenizkiy, M., Cunningham, P., & Puuronen, S. (2008). Dynamic integration of classifiers for handling concept drift. Information Fusion. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2006.11.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.