Comparing Fuzzy Naive Bayes and Gaussian Naive Bayes for Decision Making in RoboCup 3D
Learning and making decisions in a complex uncertain multiagent environment like RoboCup Soccer Simulation 3D is a non-trivial task. In this paper, a probabilistic approach to handle such uncertainty in RoboCup 3D is proposed, specifically a Naive Bayes classifier. Although its conditional independence assumption is not always accomplished, it has proved to be successful in a whole range of applications. Typically, the Naive Bayes model assumes discrete attributes, but in RoboCup 3D the attributes are continuous. In literature, Naive Bayes has been adapted to handle continuous attributes mainly using Gaussian distributions or discretizing the domain, both of which present certain disadvantages. In the former, the probability density of attributes is not always well-fitted by a normal distribution. In the latter, there can be loss of information. Instead of discretizing, the use of a Fuzzy Naive Bayes classifier is proposed in which attributes do not take a single value, but a set of values with a certain membership degree. Gaussian and Fuzzy Naive Bayes classifiers are implemented for the pass evaluation skill of 3D agents. The classifiers are trained with different number of training examples and different number of attributes. Each generated classifier is tested in a scenario with three teammates and four opponents. Additionally, Gaussian and Fuzzy approaches are compared versus a random pass selector. Finally, it is shown that the Fuzzy Naive Bayes approach offers very promising results in the RoboCup 3D domain.
KeywordsMembership Degree Continuous Attribute Conditional Independence Assumption Alignment Angle Passe Agent
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Langley, P., Iba, W., Thompson, K.: An Analysis of Bayesian Classifiers. In: Proc. 10th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 223–228. AAAI Press and MIT Press, USA (1992)Google Scholar
- 2.Lewis, D.: Naive Bayes at forty: The independence assumption in information retrieval. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 4–15 (1998)Google Scholar
- 3.Rish, I.: An empirical study of the naive bayes classifier. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2001 workshop on Empirical Methods in AI, pp. 41–46 (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Friedman, N., Goldszmidt, M.: Discretization of continuous attributes while learning Bayesian networks. In: Saitta, L. (ed.) Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 157–165 (1996)Google Scholar
- 5.Störr, H.-P.: A compact fuzzy extension of the Naive Bayesian classification algorithm. In: Proceedings InTech/VJFuzzy, pp. 172–177 (2002)Google Scholar
- 6.Zadrozny, B., Elkan, E.: Obtaining calibrated probability estimates from decision trees and naive Bayesian classifiers. In: Proceedings of 18th International Conf. on Machine Learning, pp. 609–616 (2001)Google Scholar
- 9.Bustamante, C., Garrido, L., Soto, R.: Fuzzy Naive Bayesian Classification in RoboSoccer 3D: A hybrid approach to decision making. In: Proceedings of RoboCup International Symposium (2006)Google Scholar
- 10.Buck, S., Riedmiller, M.: Learning Situation Dependent Success Rates Of Actions. In: A RoboCup Scenario. Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p. 809 (2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Stone, P.: Layered Learning in Multiagent Systems: A Winning Approach to Robotic Soccer. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar