Preprocessing Tools for Nonlinear Datasets



Two new preprocessing systems developed on the basis of the evolutionary methodology are proposed and used in artificial neural networks (ANN). These systems show a high ability for empowerment of standard ANN model performance when used for prediction/classification problems with complex datasets characterized by nonlinear relations between the variables. Training and testing systems are robust data resampling techniques that are able to arrange the source sample into subsamples that all possess a similar probability density function. In this way, the data is split into two or more subsamples in order to train, test, and validate the ANN models more effectively. The IS system is an evolutionary wrapper system able to reduce the amount of data while conserving the largest amount of information available in the dataset. The performances of such systems were tested in a classification task carried out on two different well-known datasets. The classification accuracy reached by a standard back-propagation ANN model trained first on a random subset and then on subsamples selected by T&T systems, while simultaneously using IS to select the variables, is compared. The results show a significant enhancement of the standard ANN classification ability when the proposed preprocessing systems are applied.


  1. Bennett, K. P., & Mangasarian, O. L. (1992). Robust linear programming discrimination of two linearly inseparable sets. Optimization Methods and Software, 1, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buscema, M. (2004). Genetic Doping Algorithm (GenD): Theory and applications. Expert Systems, 21(2), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. John, G., Kohavi, R., & Pfleger, K. (1994). Irrelevant features and the subset selection problems. In 11th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 121–129.Google Scholar
  4. Kolen, J. F., & Pollack, J. B. (1990). Back-propagation is sensitive to initial conditions. Complex Systems, 4(3), 269–280.Google Scholar
  5. Kudo, M., & Sklansky, J. (2000). Comparison of algorithms that select features for pattern classifiers. Pattern Recognition, 33(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mangasarian, O. L., & Wolberg, W. H. (1990). Cancer diagnosis via linear programming. SIAM News, 23(5), 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Mangasarian, O. L., Setiono, R., & Wolberg, W. H. (1990). Pattern recognition via linear programming: Theory and application to medical diagnosis. In T. F. Coleman & Y. Li (Eds.), Large-scale numerical optimization (pp. 22–30). Philadelphia: Siam Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Merz, C. J., & Murphy, P. M. (1998). UCI repository of machine learning databases. Irvine: University of California, Department of Information and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  9. Quinlan, J. R. (1987). Generating production rules from decision tree. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 304–307). Milan.Google Scholar
  10. Quinlan, J. R. (1993). C 4.5: Programs for machine learning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  11. Siedlecki, W., & Slansky, J. (1989). A note on genetic algorithms for large scale on feature selection. Pattern Recognition Letters, 10, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Wolberg, W. H., & Mangasarian, O. L. (1990). Multisurface method of pattern separation for medical diagnosis applied to breast cytology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87, 9193–9196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo Buscema
    • 1
  • Alessandra Mancini
    • 1
  • Marco Breda
    • 1
  1. 1.Semeion Research Center of Sciences of CommuicationRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations