Dynamic Classification is an information mining (machine learning) strategy used to anticipate bunch participation for information cases. In this paper, we show the essential arrangement systems. A few significant sorts of arrangement technique including induction, Bayesian networks, k-nearest neighbor classifier, case-based reasoning, genetic algorithm and fuzzy logic techniques. The objective of this review is to give a complete audit of distinctive characterization procedures in information mining.

1. IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 2, Issue 07, 2014 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 628
Survey on Various Classification Techniques in Data Mining
Abhinivesh M.1
Mayank2
Jaisankar N.3
1,2,3
Department of Computer Science
1,2,3
School of Computing Science and Engineering, VIT University, Vellore-632014, Tamilnadu, India
Abstract— Dynamic Classification is an information mining
(machine learning) strategy used to anticipate bunch
participation for information cases. In this paper, we show
the essential arrangement systems. A few significant sorts of
arrangement technique including induction, Bayesian
networks, k-nearest neighbor classifier, case-based
reasoning, genetic algorithm and fuzzy logic techniques.
The objective of this review is to give a complete audit of
distinctive characterization procedures in information
mining.
Key words: Bayesian, classification technique, fuzzy logic.
I. INTRODUCTION
Information mining includes the utilization of refined
information examination instruments to find beforehand
obscure, legitimate examples and connections in vast
information set. These apparatuses can incorporate factual
models, scientific calculation and machine learning routines.
Thus, information mining comprises of more than gathering
and overseeing information, it likewise incorporates
investigation and forecast. Grouping procedure is equipped
for transforming a more extensive mixed bag of information
than relapse and is developing in prevalence.
There are a few applications for Machine Learning
(ML), the most noteworthy of which is information mining.
Individuals are frequently inclined to committing errors
amid examines or, conceivably, when attempting to create
connections between numerous peculiarities. This makes it
troublesome for them to discover answers for specific
issues. Machine learning can regularly be effectively
connected to these issues, enhancing the productivity of
frameworks and the plans of machines.
Various ML applications include undertakings that
could be set up as managed. In the present paper, we have
focused on the procedures important to do this. Specifically,
this work is concerned with grouping issues in which the
yield of occurrences concedes just discrete, unordered
qualities.
Our next segment exhibited Decision Tree
Induction. Segment 3 depicted Bayesian Network whereas
k-closest neighbor classifier portrayed in area 4. At last, the
last segment closes this work.
II. DECISION TREE INDUCTION
Decision trees are trees that classify instances by sorting
them based on feature values. Each node in a decision tree
represents a feature in an instance to be classified, and each
branch represents a value that the node can assume.
Instances are classified starting at the root node and sorted
based on their feature values. An example of a decision tree
for the training set of Table 1.
P Q R S class
a1 a2 a3 a4 yes
a1 a2 a3 b4 yes
a1 b2 a3 a4 yes
a1 b2 b3 b4 no
a1 c2 a3 a4 yes
a1 c2 a3 b4 no
b1 b2 b3 b4 no
c1 b2 b3 b4 no
Table 1. Training Set
Utilizing the choice tree as an illustration, the
occurrence At1 = a1, At2 = b2, At3 = a3, At4 = b4∗ would
sort to the hubs: At1, At2, lastly At3, which would order the
example as being sure (spoken to by the qualities "Yes").
The issue of building ideal parallel choice trees is a NP
complete issue and along these lines theoreticians have
looked for proficient heuristics for developing close ideal
choice trees.
The gimmick that best partitions the preparation
information would be the root hub of the tree. There are
various strategies for discovering the peculiarity that best
partitions the preparation information, for example, data
increase (Hunt et al., 1966) and gini record (Breiman et al.,
1984). While nearsighted measures assess each one trait
freely, Relieff calculation (Kononenko, 1994) evaluations
them in the setting of different qualities. In any case, a lion's
share of studies has presumed that there is no single best
technique (Murthy, 1998). Correlation of individual systems
may even now be vital when choosing which metric ought
to be utilized as a part of a specific dataset. The same
methodology is then rehashed on each one segment of the
isolated information, making sub-trees until the preparation
information is partitioned into subsets of the same class.
The fundamental calculation for choice tree
actuation is a ravenous calculation that develops choice
trees in a top-down recursive partition and-prevail over way.
The calculation, condensed as takes after.
 create a node N;
 if samples are all of the same class, C then
 return N as a leaf node labeled with the class C;
 if attribute-list is empty then
 return N as a leaf node labeled with the most
common class in samples;
 select test-attribute, the attribute among attribute-list
with the highest information gain;
 label node N with test-attribute;
 for each known value ai of test-attribute
 grow a branch from node N for the condition test-
attribute= ai;
 let si be the set of samples for which test-attribute= ai;
 if si is empty then
 attach a leaf labeled with the most common class in
samples;
 else attach node returned by Generate_decision
tree(si,attribute-list_test-attribute)
A choice tree, or any scholarly speculation h, is
said to over fit preparing information if an alternate theory
h2 exists that has a bigger slip than h when tried on the
preparation information, however a more modest lapse than
h when tried on the whole dataset. There are two normal
methodologies that choice tree actuation calculations can
use to dodge over fitting preparing information: i) Stop the
preparation calculation before it achieves a time when it

2. Survey on Various Classification Techniques in Data Mining
(IJSRD/Vol. 2/Issue 07/2014/143)
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 629
impeccably fits the preparation information, ii) Prune the
actuated choice tree. On the off chance that the two trees
utilize the same sort of tests and have the same expectation
exactness, the unified with less leaves is generally favored.
Breslow & Aha (1997) overview systems for tree
rearrangements to enhance their fathom ability.
Choice trees are generally unvaried since they
utilize focused around a solitary peculiarity at every inward
hub. Most choice tree calculations can't perform well with
issues that oblige inclining apportioning. The division f the
occurrence space is orthogonal to the hub of one variable
and parallel to all different tomahawks. In this manner, the
ensuing areas in the wake of dividing are all hyper
rectangles. In any case, there are a couple of strategies that
build multivariate trees. One illustration is Zheng's(1998),
who enhanced the arrangement exactness of the choice trees
by developing new double peculiarities with intelligent
administrators, for example, conjunction, refutation, and
disjunction. Moreover, Zheng (2000) made at-minimum M-
of -N characteristics. For a given example, the estimation of
an in any event M-of -N representation is genuine if at any
rate M of its conditions is valid for the occurrence, else it is
false. Gama and Brazdil (1999) consolidated a choice tree
with direct separate for building multivariate choice trees. In
this model, new peculiarities are processed as straight
combos of the past ones.
Choice trees could be fundamentally more intricate
representation for a few ideas because of the replication
issue. An answer is utilizing a calculation to execute
complex gimmicks at hubs keeping in mind the end goal to
evade replication. Markovitch and Rosenstein (2002)
exhibited the FICUS development calculation, which gets
the standard info of directed adapting and additionally a
peculiarity representation detail, and uses them to deliver a
set of created gimmicks. While FICUS is comparable in a
few angles to other peculiarity development calculations, its
principle quality is its all-inclusive statement and
adaptability. FICUS was intended to perform characteristic
era given any peculiarity representation determination
agreeing to its broadly useful linguistic use. The most well-
know calculation in the writing for building choice trees is
the C4.5 (Quinlan, 1993). C4.5is an augmentation of
Quinlan's prior Id3 calculation
(Quinlan, 1979). One of the most recent studies
that analyze choice trees and other learning calculations has
been carried out by (Tjen-Sien Lim et al. 2000). The study
demonstrates that C4.5 has a decent mixture of blunder rate
and velocity. In 2001, Ruggieri introduced an investigative
assessment of the runtime conduct of the C4.5 calculation,
which highlighte productivity changes. In view of this
scientific assessment, he actualized a more effective
rendition of the calculation, called Ec4.5. He contended that
his execution registered the same choice trees asc4.5 with an
execution increase of up to five times.
To whole up, a standout amongst the most valuable
attributes of choice trees is their conceivability. Individuals
can undoubtedly comprehend why a choice tree
characterizes an occurrence as fitting in with a particular
class. Since a choice tree constitutes a chain of command of
tests, an obscure gimmick quality amid arrangement is
generally managed by passing the sample down all
extensions of the hub where the obscure peculiarity worth
was recognized, and each one extension yields a class
circulation. The yield is a mix of the distinctive class
dispersions that total to 1. The suspicion settled on in the
choice trees is that occasions having a place with distinctive
classes have diverse values in no less than one of their
peculiarities. Choice trees have a tendency to perform better
when managing discrete/straight out gimmicks.
III. BAYESIAN NETWORKS
A Bayesian Network (BN) is a graphical model for
likelihood connections among a set of variables gimmicks.
The Bayesian system structure S is a coordinated non-cyclic
chart (DAG) and the hubs in S are in balanced
correspondence with the gimmicks X. The circular segments
speak to easy impacts among the peculiarities while the
absence of conceivable curves in S encodes restrictive
independencies. Additionally, a peculiarity (hub) is
restrictively autonomous from its non-relatives provided for
its guardians (X1 is restrictively free from X2 given X3 if
P(x1|x2,x3)=p(x1|x3) for all conceivable estimations of X1,
X2, X3).
Fig. 1: The structure of Bayes network
Regularly, the undertaking of taking in a Bayesian
system might be separated into two subtasks: at first, the
learning of the DAG structure of the system, and afterward
the determination of its parameters. Probabilistic parameters
are encoded into a situated of tables, one for every variable,
as nearby restrictive appropriations of a variable provided
for its guardians. Given the freedoms encoded into the
system, the joint dispersion could be reproduced by just
reproducing these tables. Inside the general skeleton of
actuating Bayesian systems, there are two situations: known
structure and obscure structure.
In the first situation, the structure of the system is
given (e.g. by a master) and thought to be right. When the
system structure is altered, taking in the parameters in the
Contingent Probability Tables (CPT) is normally
illuminated by assessing a by regional standards exponential
number of parameters from the information gave (Jensen,
1996). Every hub in the system has a related CPT that
depicts the restrictive likelihood dispersion of that hub given
the distinctive estimations of its guardians. Despite the
astounding force of Bayesian Networks, they have an inborn
limit. This is the computational trouble of investigating a
long ago obscure system. Given an issue depicted by n
emphasizes, the quantity of conceivable structure
speculations is more than exponential in n. On the off
chance that the structure is obscure, one methodology is to
present a scoring capacity (or a score) that assesses the
"wellness" of systems concerning the preparation
information, and afterward to hunt down the best system as
per this score. A few analysts have indicated tentatively that
the choice of a solitary decent speculation utilizing eager
inquiry frequently yields faultless expectations (Heckerman
et al. 1999), (Chickering, 2002).
The most fascinating peculiarity of Bns, contrasted
with choice trees or neural systems, is definitely the
likelihood of considering earlier data around a given issue,
as far as structural connections among its peculiarities. This
former mastery, or space information, about the structure of
a Bayesian system can take the accompanying structures:
 Declaring that a node is a root node, i.e., it has no
parents.
 Declaring that a node is a leaf node, i.e., it has no
children.

3. Survey on Various Classification Techniques in Data Mining
(IJSRD/Vol. 2/Issue 07/2014/143)
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 630
 Declaring that a node is a direct cause or direct
effect of another node.
 Declaring that a node is not directly connected to
another node.
 Declaring that two nodes are independent, given a
condition-set.
 Providing partial nodes ordering, that is, declare
that a node appears earlier than another node in the
ordering.
 Providing a complete node ordering.
A problem of BN classifiers is that they are not
suitable for datasets with many features (Cheng et al., 2002).
The reason for this is that trying to construct a very large
network is simply not feasible in terms of time and space. A
final problem is that before the induction, the numerical
features need to be discredited in most cases.
IV. K-NEAREST NEIGHBOR CLASSIFIERS
Specimens are portrayed by n dimensional numeric
characteristics. Each one example speaks to a point in a n-
dimensional space. Along these lines, the majority of the
preparation specimens are put away in a n-dimensional
example space. At the point when given an obscure
example, a k-closest neighbor classifier scans the example
space for the k preparing examples that are closest to the
obscure specimen. "Closeness" is characterized regarding
Euclidean separation, where the Euclidean separation, where
the Euclidean separation between two focuses, X=(x1,x2,…
… ,xn) and Y=(y1,y2,… .,
The obscure specimen is doled out the most widely
recognized class among its k closest neighbors. At the point
when k=1, the obscure specimen is doled out the class of the
preparation test that is closest to it in example space.
Closest neighbor classifiers are occasion based or
sluggish learners in that they store the majority of the
preparation tests and don't construct a classifier until a
new(unlabeled) specimen needs to be arranged. This
diverges from avid learning strategies, such a choice tree
impelling and backpropagation, which develop a
generalization, demonstrate before getting new examples to
order. Lethargic learners can bring about costly
computational expenses when the quantity of potential
neighbors (i.e., stored preparing samples)with which to
analyze a given unlabeled smaple is extraordinary. Along
these lines, they oblige proficient indexing methods. Normal
apathetic learning techniques are quicker ata training than
enthusiastic routines, however slower at order since all
reckoning is postponed to that time. Dissimilar to choice
tree incitement and backpropagation, closest neighbor
classifiers allocate equivalent weight to each one property.
This may cause disarray when there are numerous
unimportant qualities in the information.
Closest neighbor classifiers can additionally be
utilized for forecast, that is, to give back a true esteemed
expectation for a given obscure example. For this situation,
the classifier returns the normal estimation of the true
esteemed connected with the k nearest neighbors of the
obscure specimen.
The k-closest neighbors' calculation is amongst the
most straightforward of all machine learning calculations.
An item is ordered by a lion's share vote of its neighbors,
with the article being allotted to the class most normal
amongst its k closest neighbors. k is a positive whole
number, normally little. On the off chance that k = 1, then
the item is just appointed to the class of its closest neighbor.
In parallel (two class) arrangement issues, it is useful to pick
k to be an odd number as this maintains a strategic distance
from tied votes.
The same system could be utilized for relapse, by
basically allotting the property estimation for the article to
be the normal of the estimations of its k closest neighbors. It
might be helpful to weight the commitments of the
neighbors, so that the closer neighbors help more to the
normal than the more removed ones.
The neighbors are taken from a situated of articles
for which the right arrangement (or, on account of relapse,
the estimation of the property) is known. This might be
considered the preparation set for the calculation; however
no unequivocal preparing step is needed. To distinguish
neighbors, the items are spoken to by position vectors in a
multidimensional peculiarity space. It is typical to utilize the
Euclidian separation; however other separation measures,
for example, the Manhanttan separation could on a
fundamental level be utilized. The k-closest neighbor
calculation is delicate to the neighborhood structure of the
information. 4.1 INSTANCE-BASED LEARNING
An alternate class under the header of measurable
strategies is Instance-based learning. Occasion based
learning calculations are lethargic learning calculations
(Mitchell, 1997), as they postpone the instigation or
generalization process until characterization is performed.
Sluggish learning calculations require less processing time
amid the preparation stage than avid learning calculations,
(for example, choice trees, neural and Bayes nets) yet more
calculation time amid the
The neighbors are taken from a set of objects for
which the correct classification (or, in the case of regression,
the value of the property) is known. This can be thought of
as the training set for the algorithm, though no explicit
training step is required. In order to identify neighbors, the
objects are represented by position vectors in a
multidimensional feature space. It is usual to use the
Euclidian distance, though other distance measures, such as
the Manhanttan distance could in principle be used instead.
The k-nearest neighbor algorithm is sensitive to the local
structure of the data.
A. Instance-Based Learning
Another category under the header of statistical methods is
Instance-based learning. Instance-based learning algorithms
are lazy-learning algorithms (Mitchell, 1997), as they delay
the induction or generalization process until classification is
performed. Lazy-learning algorithms require less
computation time during the training phase than eager-
learning algorithms (such as decision trees, neural and
Bayes nets) but more computation time during the order
process. A standout amongst the most clear occurrence
based learning calculations is the closest neighbor
calculation. Aha (1997) and De Mantaras and Armengol
(1998) displayed a survey of case -based learning classifiers.

4. Survey on Various Classification Techniques in Data Mining
(IJSRD/Vol. 2/Issue 07/2014/143)
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 631
Subsequently, in this study, separated from a short portrayal
of the closest neighbor calculation, we will allude to some
later works. K-Nearest Neighbor (knn) is focused around the
rule that the cases inside a dataset will by and large exist in
close closeness to different occasions that have comparative
properties (Cover and Hart, 1967). On the off chance that
the occurrences are labeled with an arrangement name, then
the estimation of the mark of an unclassified occasion might
be dictated by watching the class of its closest neighbors.
The Knn finds the k closest cases to the question example
and decides its class by distinguishing the absolute most
continuous class name. In Figure 8, a pseudo-code sample
for the occasion base learning routines is shown.
procedure InstanceBaseLearner(Testing
Instances)
for each testing instance
{
find the k most nearest instances of the training
set according to a distance metric
Resulting Class= most frequent class label of
the k nearest instances
}
Pseudo-code for instance-based learners
All in all, occurrences might be considered as
focuses inside a n-dimensional occasion space where each
of the n-measurements relates to one of the n-offers that are
utilized to depict a case. Without a doubt the position of the
occasions inside this space is not as noteworthy as the
relative separation between cases. This relative separation is
controlled by utilizing a separation metric. Preferably, the
separation metric must minimize the separation between
two also ordered occurrences, while expanding the
separation between occasions of distinctive classes.
Numerous distinctive measurements have been displayed.
The hugest ones are introduced in Table II.
For more exact results, a few calculations use
weighting plans that change the separation estimations and
voting impact of each one occurrence. A study of weighting
plans is given by (Wettschereck et al., 1997). The force of
knn has been exhibited in various true spaces, yet there are a
few reservations about the value of knn, for example, i) they
have expansive capacity necessities, ii) they are delicate to
the decision of the closeness work that is utilized to look at
occurrences, iii) they fail to offer a principled approach to
pick k, aside from through cross-acceptance or comparable,
computationally-extravagant procedure (Guo et al. 2003).
The decision of k influences the execution of the Knn
calculation. Consider the accompanying reasons why a k-
nearest neighbor classifier may erroneously characterize a
question occasion:
At the point when clamor is available in the
territory of the inquiry occasion; the loud instance(s) win
the greater part vote, bringing about the mistaken class
being anticipated. A bigger k could take care of this issue.
At the point when the locale characterizing the
class, or section of the class, is small to the point that cases
having a place with the class that encompasses the piece
win the dominant part vote. A more modest k could take
care of this issue.
Approaches to define the distance between instances (x
and y)
Manhattan: D(x,y)= ∑| xi − yi |
Wettschereck et al. (1997) examined the conduct of
the knn in the vicinity of loud occasions. The analyses
demonstrated that the execution of knn was not touchy to
the accurate decision of k when k was expansive. They
found that for little estimations of k, the knn calculation was
heartier than the single closest neighbor calculation (1nn)
for the lion's share of huge datasets tried. Be that as it may,
the execution of the knn was second rate compared to that
attained by the 1nn on little datasets (<100 occurrences).
Okamoto and Yugami (2003) spoke to the normal
arrangement precision of k-NN as a capacity of space
attributes including the quantity of preparing occasions, the
quantity of important and superfluous traits, the likelihood
of each one quality, the commotion rate for each one sort of
clamor, and k. They additionally investigated the behavioral
ramifications of the breaks down by displaying the impacts
of space qualities on the normal exactness of k-NN and on
the ideal estimation of k for manufactured areas.
The time to order the question example is nearly
identified with the quantity of put away occurrences and the
quantity of gimmicks that are utilized to depict each one
occurrence. Hence, with a specific end goal to decrease the
quantity of put away occasions, case sifting calculations
have been proposed (Kubat and Cooperson, 2001). Brighton
& Mellish (2002) found that their ICF calculation and Rt3
calculation (Wilson & Martinez, 2000) attained the most
astounding level of occasion set lessening and the
maintenance of arrangement correctness: they are near
attaining unintrusive stockpiling decrease. The degree to
which these calculations perform is truly noteworthy: a
normal of 80% of cases is uprooted and arrangement
correctness does not drop essentially. One other decision in
outlining preparing set Decision trees and Bayesian Network
(BN) generally have different operational profiles, when one
is very accurate the other is not and vice versa. On the
contrary, decision trees and rule classifiers have a similar
operational profile. The goal of classification result
integration algorithms is to generate more certain, precise
and accurate system results.
As we have effectively said, the significant
hindrance of occasion based classifiers is their huge
computational time for grouping. A key issue in numerous
applications is to figure out which of the accessible data
gimmicks ought to be utilized within displaying through
peculiarity determination (Yu & Liu, 2004), on the grounds
that it could enhance the arrangement exactness and scale
down the obliged order time. Moreover, picking a more
suitable separation metric for the particular dataset can
enhance the precision of occasion based classifiers.
REFERENCES
[1] Baik, S. Bala, J. (2004), A Decision Tree Algorithm
For Distributed Data Mining: Towards Network
Intrusion Detection, Lecture Notes In Computer
Science, Volume 3046, Pages 206 – 212.
[2] Bouckaert, R. (2004), Naive Bayes Classifiers That
Perform Well With Continuous Variables, Lecture
Notes In Computer Science, Volume 3339, Pages
1089 – 1094.
[3] Breslow, L. A. & Aha, D. W. (1997). Simplifying
Decision Trees: A Survey. Knowledge Engineering
Review 12: 1–40.

5. Survey on Various Classification Techniques in Data Mining
(IJSRD/Vol. 2/Issue 07/2014/143)
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 632
[4] Brighton, H. & Mellish, C. (2002), Advances In
Instance Selection For Instance-Based Learning
Algorithms. Data Mining And Knowledge
Discovery 6: 153–172.
[5] Cheng, J. & Greiner, R. (2001). Learning Bayesian
Belief Network Classifiers: Algorithms And
System, In Stroulia, E. And Matwin, S. (Ed.), Ai
2001, 141-151, Lnai 2056,
[5] Cheng, J., Greiner, R., Kelly, J., Bell, D., & Liu, W.
(2002). Learning Bayesian Networks From Data: An
Information-Theory Based Approach. Artificial
Intelligence 137: 43–90.
[6] Clark, P., Niblett, T. (1989), The Cn2 Induction
Algorithm. Machine Learning, 3(4):261-283.
[7] Cover, T., Hart, P. (1967), Nearest Neighbor Pattern
Classification. Ieee Transactions On Information
Theory, 13(1): 21–7.
[8] Cowell, R.G. (2001). Conditions Under Which
Conditional Independence And Scoring Methods
Lead To Identical Selection Of Bayesian Network
Models. Proc. 17th International Conference On
Uncertainty In Artificial Intelligence.
[9] Domingos, P. & Pazzani, M. (1997). On The
Optimality Of The Simple Bayesian Classifier
Under Zero-One Loss. Machine Learning 29: 103-
130.
[10] Elomaa T. (1999). The Biases Of Decision Tree
Pruning Strategies. Lecture Notes In Computer
Science 1642. Springer, Pp. 63-74.
[12] Friedman, N., Geiger, D. & Goldszmidt M. (1997).
Bayesian Network Classifiers. Machine Learning
29: 131-163.
[13] Friedman, N. & Koller, D. (2003). Being Bayesian
About Network Structure: A Bayesian Approach To
Structure Discovery In Bayesian Networks. Machine
Learning 50(1): 95-125.
[14] Jensen, F. (1996). An Introduction To Bayesian
Networks. Springer.
[15] Kubat, Miroslav Cooperson Martin (2001), A
Reduction Technique For Nearest-Neighbor
Classification: Small Groups Of Examples. Intell.
Data Anal. 5(6): 463-476.
[16] Madden, M. (2003), The Performance Of Bayesian
Network Classifiers Constructed Using Different
Techniques, Proceedings Of European Conference
On Machine Learning, Workshop On Probabilistic
Graphical Models For Classification, Pp. 59-70.
[17] Mcsherry, D. (1999). Strategic Induction Of
Decision Trees. Knowledge-Based Systems, 12(5-
6):269-275.
[18] Vivarelli, F. & Williams, C. (2001). Comparing
Bayesian Neural Network Algorithms For
Classifying Segmented Outdoor Images. Neural
Networks 14: 427-437.
[19] Wilson, D. R. & Martinez, T. (2000). Reduction
Techniques For Instance-Based Learning
Algorithms. Machine Learning 38: 257–286.
[20] Witten, I. & Frank, E. (2005), "Data Mining:
Practical Machine Learning Tools And Techniques",
2nd Edition, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco,
2005.
[21] Yang, Y., Webb, G. (2003), On Why Discretization
Works For Naive-Bayes Classifiers, Lecture Notes
In Computer Science, Volume 2903, Pages 440 –
452.
[22] Zhang, G. (2000), Neural Networks For
Classification: A Survey. Ieee Transactions On
Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, Part C 30(4): 451-
462.
[23] Zheng, Z. (2000). Constructing X-Of-N Attributes
For Decision Tree Learning. Machine Learning 40:
35–75.