A Method for Handling Numerical Attributes in GA-Based Inductive Concept Learners

  • Federico Divina
  • Maarten Keijzer
  • Elena Marchiori
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2723)

Abstract

This paper proposes a method for dealing with numerical attributes in inductive concept learning systems based on genetic algorithms. The method uses constraints for restricting the range of values of the attributes and novel stochastic operators for modifying the constraints. These operators exploit information on the distribution of the values of an attribute. The method is embedded into a GA based system for inductive logic programming. Results of experiments on various data sets indicate that the method provides an effective local discretization tool for GA based inductive concept learners.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Bacardit and J. M. Garrel, Evolution of adaptive discretization intervals for a rule-based genetic learning system, in GECCO 2002: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, New York, 9–13 July 2002, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, p. 677.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    —, Evolution of multi-adaptive discretization intervals for a rule-based genetic learning system, in Proceedings of the 7th Iberoamerican Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA2002), 2002, p. to appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Blake and C. Merz, UCI repository of machine learning databases, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Debnath, R. L. de Compadre, G. Debnath, A. Schusterman, and C. Hansch, Structure-Activity Relationship of Mutagenic Aromatic and Heteroaromatic Nitro Compounds. Correlation with molecular orbital energies and hydrophobicity, Journal of Medical Chemistry, 34(2) (1991), pp. 786–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin, Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm, Journal of the the Royal Statistical Society, 39 (1977), pp. 1–38.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Divina, M. Keijzer, and E. Marchiori, Non-universal suffrage selection operators favor population diversity in genetic algorithms, in Benelearn 2002: Proceedings of the 12th Belgian-Dutch Conference on Machine Learning (Technical report UU-CS-2002-046), Utrecht, The Netherlands, 4 December 2002, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Divina and E. Marchiori, Evolutionary concept learning, in GECCO 2002: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, New York, 9–13 July 2002, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 343–350.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Dougherty, R. Kohavi, and M. Sahami, Supervised and unsupervised discretization of continuous features, in International Conference on Machine Learning, 1995, pp. 194–202.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Fayyad and K. Irani, Multi-interval discretization of continuos attributes as pre-processing for classification learning, in Proceedings of the 13th International Join Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1993, pp. 1022–1027.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Giordana and F. Neri, Search-intensive concept induction, Evolutionary Computation, 3 (1996), pp. 375–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Kohavi and M. Sahami, Error-based and entropy-based discretization of continuous features, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1996, pp. 114–119.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Kubat, I. Bratko, and R. Michalski, A review of Machine Learning Methods, in Machine Learning and Data Mining, R. Michalski, I. Bratko, and M. Kubat, eds., John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Kwedlo and M. Kretowski, An evolutionary algorithm using multivariate discretization for decision rule induction, in Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1999, pp. 392–397.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Mitchell, Generalization as search, Artificial Intelligence, 18 (1982), pp. 203–226.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    —, Machine Learning, Series in Computer Science, McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Van Laer, From Propositional to First Order Logic in Machine Learning and Data Mining — Induction of first order rules with ICL, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, June 2002. 239+xviii pages.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. H. Witten and E. Frank, Weka machine learning algorithms in java, in Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000, pp. 265–320.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Divina
    • 1
  • Maarten Keijzer
    • 1
  • Elena Marchiori
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations