Aggregating predictions of multi-models for the small dataset learning tasks in the TFT-LCD process

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Compressing new product development schedules has become an important strategy for firms to earn more market share in recent years, because of the globalizing competition. Nevertheless, engineers often have to face the issue of small data learning in this context, since only few pilot runs are allowed to avoid lowering the yield rates of mass production. Bagging has shown to be an effective approach to deal with small data. However, when adopting multiple models in bagging to learn numeric forecasting tasks without the prior weights, bagging often takes the averages of the predictions of the models as the compromised ones, which are very probably affected by extreme values and thus become less precise. Accordingly, this study develops a systematic procedure to generate weights for prediction aggregation by employing box-and-whisker plots to build the possible distributions of the predictive errors of the algorithms with membership functions. In the experiment, a real case taken from a thin film transistor liquid crystal display maker is studied with four distinct algorithms and bagging; and the results show the errors of the predictions aggregated by the proposed weights are significantly lower than those of the four algorithms and the averaging method in bagging in general.

Keywords

Prediction aggregation Small data Multiple models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Drucker H, Burges CJ, Kaufman L, Smola A, Vapnik V (1997) Support vector regression machines. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst 9:155–161Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang Y, Witten IH (1996) Induction of model trees for predicting continuous classes. http://hdl.handle.net/10289/1183
  3. 3.
    Lan J, Lin B, Huang T, Xiao JL, Zhang XF, Fei JX (2016) Path planning for support heads in mirror-milling machining system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 91:617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li N, Chen Y, Kong D, Tan S (2016) Force-based tool condition monitoring for turning process using v-support vector regression. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 91:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maudes J, Bustillo A, Guerra AJ, Ciurana J (2016) Random Forest ensemble prediction of stent dimensions in microfabrication processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 91:879–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fayyad U, Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Smyth P (1996) From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Mag 17(3):37Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24(2):123–140MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tukey JW (1977) Exploratory data analysisGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc: B Stat Methodol 58(1):267–288MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaker M, Erdogmus D, Dy J, Bouix S (2017) Subject-specific abnormal region detection in traumatic brain injury using sparse model selection on high dimensional diffusion data. Med Image Anal 37:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koh SL, Gunasekaran A (2006) A knowledge management approach for managing uncertainty in manufacturing. Ind Manag Data Syst 106(4):439–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietterich TG (2000) Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: International workshop on multiple classifier systems. Springer, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Todorovski L, Džeroski S (2000) Combining multiple models with meta decision trees. In: European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Springer, pp 54–64Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu X-Y, Wu J, Zhou Z-H (2009) Exploratory undersampling for class-imbalance learning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 39(2):539–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bryll R, Gutierrez-Osuna R, Quek F (2003) Attribute bagging: improving accuracy of classifier ensembles by using random feature subsets. Pattern Recogn 36(6):1291–1302CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quinlan JR (1992) Learning with continuous classes. In: 5th Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence. Singapore, pp 343–348Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geatz MW, Roiger R (2003) Data mining: a tutorial based primer. Addison Wesley, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cherkassky V, Ma Y (2003) Comparison of model selection for regression. Neural Comput 15(7):1691–1714CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reformat M, Yager RR (2008) Building ensemble classifiers using belief functions and OWA operators. Soft Comput 12(6):543–558CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Byon E, Shrivastava AK, Ding Y (2010) A classification procedure for highly imbalanced class sizes. IIE Trans 42(4):288–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahmad A, Brown G (2015) Random ordinality ensembles: ensemble methods for multi-valued categorical data. Inf Sci 296:75–94MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Information ManagementNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations