Advertisement

A Comparison of Genetic Programming Variants for Data Classification

  • Jeroen Eggermont
  • Agoston E. Eiben
  • Jano I. van Hemert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1642)

Abstract

In this paper we report the results of a comparative study on different variations of genetic programming applied on binary data classiffication problems. The ffirst genetic programming variant is weighting data records for calculating the classiffication error and modifying the weights during the run. Hereby the algorithm is deffining its own ffitness function in an on-line fashion giving higher weights to ‘hard’ records. Another novel feature we study is the atomic representation, where ‘Booleanization’ of data is not performed at the root, but at the leafs of the trees and only Boolean functions are used in the trees’ body. As a third aspect we look at generational and steady-state models in combination of both features.

Keywords

Genetic Program Boolean Function Constraint Satisfaction Problem Atomic Representation Pima Indian Diabetes 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Wolfgang Banzhaf, Peter Nordin, Robert E. Keller, and Frank D. Francone. Genetic Programming-An Introduction; On the Automatic Evolution of Computer Programs and its Applications. Morgan Kaufmann, dpunkt.verlag, January 1998.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Eggermont, A. E. Eiben, and J. I. van Hemert. Adapting the fitness function in GP for data mining. In P. Nordin and R. Poli,editors, Proceedings of Second European Workshop on Genetic Programming, LNCS. Springer, Berlin, 1999. in press.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. E. Eiben, J. K. van der Hauw, and J. I. van Hemert. Graph coloring with adaptive evolutionary algorithms. Journal of Heuristics, 4(1):25–46, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. E. Eiben, J. I. van Hemert, E. Marchiori, and A. G. Steenbeek. Solving binary constraint satisfaction problems using evolutionary algorithms with an adaptive fitness function. In A. E. Eiben, Th. Bäck, M. Schoenauer, and H.-P. Schwefel,editors, Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, number 1498 in LNCS, pages 196–205, Berlin, 1998. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. I. van Hemert. Applying adaptive evolutionary algorithms to hard problems. Master’s thesis, Leiden University, 1998. Also available as http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~jvhemert/publications/IR-98-19.ps.gz.
  7. [7]
    J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. B. Langdon. Genetic Programming + Data Structures = Automatic Programming! Kluwer, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Michie, D. J. Spiegelhalter, and C. C. Taylor,editors. Machine Learning, Neural and Statistical Classification. Ellis Horwood, February 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Whitley. The GENITOR algorithm and selection pressure: Why rank-based allocation of reproductive trials is best. In J. David Schaffer,editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (ICGA’89), pages 116–123, San Mateo, California, 1989. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen Eggermont
    • 1
  • Agoston E. Eiben
    • 1
  • Jano I. van Hemert
    • 1
  1. 1.Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations