Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Evolutionary parallel and gradually distributed lateral tuning of fuzzy rule-based systems

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The tuning of Fuzzy Rule-Based Systems is often applied to improve their performance as a post-processing stage once an initial set of fuzzy rules has been extracted. This optimization problem can become a hard one when the size of the considered system in terms of the number of variables, rules and, particularly, data samples is big. Distributed Genetic Algorithms are excellent optimization algorithms which exploit the nowadays available parallel hardware (multicore microprocessors and clusters) and could help to alleviate this growth in complexity. In this work, we present a study on the use of the Distributed Genetic Algorithms for the tuning of Fuzzy Rule-Based Systems. To this end, we analyze the application of a specific Gradual Distributed Real-Coded Genetic Algorithm which employs eight subpopulations in a hypercube topology and local parallelization at each subpopulation. We tested our approach on nine real-world datasets of different sizes and with different numbers of variables. The empirical performance in solution quality and computing time is assessed by comparing its results with those from a highly effective sequential tuning algorithm. The results show that the distributed approach achieves better results in terms of quality and execution time as the complexity of the problem grows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Driankow D, Hellendoorn H, Reinfrank M (1993) An introduction to fuzzy control. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ishibuchi H, Nakashima T, Nii M (2004) Classification and modeling with linguistic information granules: advances approaches to linguistic data mining. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  3. Palm R, Driankov D, Hellendoorn (1997) Model based fuzzy control. Springer, Berlin

  4. Pedrycz W (1996) Fuzzy modelling: paradigms and practice. Kluwer, Norwell

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8: 338–353

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Zadeh LA (1973) Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3: 28–44

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems (The University of Michigan Press 1975). MIT, London

  9. Cordón O, Gomide F, Herrera F, Hoffmann F, Magdalena L (2004) Ten years of genetic fuzzy systems: current work and new trends. Fuzzy Sets Syst 141(1): 5–31

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Cordón O, Herrera F, Hoffmann F, Magdalena L (2001) Genetic fuzzy systems: evolutionary tuning and learning of fuzzy knowledge bases. World Scientific, Singapore

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Herrera F (2008) Genetic fuzzy systems: taxonomy, current research trends and prospects. Evol Intell 1: 27–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eiben AE, Smith JE (2003) Introduction to evolutionary computation. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning, parts i, ii and iii. Inf Sci 8(8 and 9):199–249, 301–357, 43–80

    Google Scholar 

  14. Alcalá R, Alcalá-Fdez J, Casillas J, Cordón O, Herrera F (2006) Hybrid learning models to get the interpretability-accuracy trade-off in fuzzy modeling. Soft Comput 10(9):717–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alcalá R, Alcalá-Fdez J, Herrera F (2007) A proposal for the genetic lateral tuning of linguistic fuzzy systems and its interaction with rule selection. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(4):616–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Casillas J, Cordón O, del Jesus MJ, Herrera F (2003) Accuracy improvements in linguistic fuzzy modeling. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Casillas J, Cordón O, del Jesus MJ, Herrera F (2005) Genetic tuning of fuzzy rule deep structures preserving interpretability and its interaction with fuzzy rule set reduction. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 13(1):13–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Herrera F, Lozano M, Verdegay JL (1995) Tuning fuzzy logic controllers by genetic algorithms. Int J Approx Reason 12:299–315

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Karr C (1991) Genetic algorithms for fuzzy controllers. AI Expert 6(2):26–33

    Google Scholar 

  20. Alba E (2005) Parallel metaheuristics: a new class of algorithms. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Cantu-Paz E (2000) Efficient and accurate parallel genetic algorithms. Kluwer, Norwell

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. de Vega FF, Cantu-Paz E (2008) Special issue on distributed bioinspired algorithms. Soft Comput 12(12):1143–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dowd K, Severance C (1998) High performance computing. O’Reilly, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  24. Spector DHM (2000) Building Linux clusters. O’Reilly, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sterling T, Becker DJ, Savarese DF (1999) How to build a beowulf: a guide to the implementation and application of PC clusters. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. Robles I, Alcalá R, Benítez JM, Herrera F (2009) Distributed genetic tuning of fuzzy rule-based systems. In: Proceedings of the international fuzzy systems association—European society for fuzzy logic and technology (IFSA-EUSFLAT) congress (in press)

  27. Herrera F, Lozano M (2000) Gradual distributed real-coded genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 4(1): 43–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Herrera F, Martínez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(6): 746–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Demšar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. García S, Fernández A, Luengo J, Herrera F (2009) A study of statistical techniques and performance measures for genetics-based machine learning: accuracy and interpretability. Soft Comput 13(10):959–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. García S, Herrera F (2008) An extension on “statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets” for all pairwise comparisons. J Mach Learn Res 9: 2579–2596

    Google Scholar 

  32. García S, Molina D, Lozano M, Herrera F (2009) A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms’ behaviour: a case study on the CEC’2005 special session on real parameter optimization. J Heuristics (in press). doi:10.1007/s10732-008-9080-4

  33. Bäck T, Beielstein T (1995) User’s group meeting. In: Proceedings of the EuroPVM95: second European PVM, pp 277–282

  34. Punch W, Goodman E, Pei M, Chai-shun L, Hovland P, Enbody R (1993) Further research on feature selection and classification using genetic algorithms. In: Forrest S (ed) Proceedings of the fifth international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 557–564

  35. Alba E, Dorronsoro B (2008) Cellular genetic algorithms. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Alba E, Luna F, Nebro A, Troya JM (2004) Parallel heterogeneous genetic algorithms for continuous optimization. Parallel Comput 30(5): 699–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lin SC, III, WFP, Goodman ED (1994) Coarse-grain parallel genetic algorithms: categorization and new approach. In: Proceedings of the sixth IEEE parallel and distributed processing, pp 28–37

  38. Mülhlenbein H, Schomisch M, Born J (1991) The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer. Parallel Comput 17(6): 619–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schlierkamp-Voosen D, Mülhlenbein H (1994) Strategy adaptation by competing subpopulations. In: Parallel solving from nature (PPSN III). Springer, Berlin, pp 199–208

  40. Schnecke V, Vornberger O (1996) An adaptative parallel algorithm for vlsi-layout optimization. In: Parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN IV), pp 22–27

  41. Tanase R (1989) Distributed genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 434–439

  42. Cohoon JP, Hedge S, Martin W (1987) Punctuated equilibria: a parallel genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on genetic algorithms and their applications, pp 148–154

  43. Tanase R (1987) Parallel genetic algorithm for a hypercube. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on genetic algorithms and their applications, pp 177–183

  44. Ryan C (1995) Niche and species formation in genetic algorithms. In: Chambers L (ed) Practical handbook of genetic algorithms: applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 57–74

  45. Gürocak HB (1999) A genetic-algorithm-based method for tuning fuzzy logic controllers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 108(1): 39–47

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Mamdani EH, Assilian S (1975) An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int J Man Mach Stud 7: 1–13

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Eshelman LJ (1991) The CHC adaptive search algorithm: how to have safe search when engaging in nontraditional genetic recombination. In: Rawlin G (ed) Foundations of genetic algorithms, vol 1. Morgan Kaufman, pp 265–283

  48. Eshelman L, Schaffer J (1993) Real-coded genetic algorithms and interval-schemata. Found Genet algorithm 2:187–202

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kröger B, Schwenderling P, Vornberger O (1993) Parallel genetic packing on transputers. Parallel genetic algorithms: theory and applications, pp 151–186

  50. Alcalá-Fdez J, Sánchez L, García S, del Jesus M, Ventura S, Garrell J, Otero J, Romero C, Bacardit J, Rivas V, Fernández J, Herrera F (2009) KEEL: a software tool to assess evolutionary algorithms to data mining problems. Soft Comput 13(3): 307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang LX, Mendel JM (1992) Generating fuzzy rules by learning from examples. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 22(6): 1414–1427

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. Sheskin D (2003) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1:80–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zar J (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under grant TIN2005-08386-C05-01. Authors would like the thank the UGRGrid team from the University of Granada for their continuous support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Computer Sciences and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain

    I. Robles, R. Alcalá, J. M. Benítez & F. Herrera

Authors
  1. I. Robles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Alcalá
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. M. Benítez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Robles.

Appendix: Wilcoxon’s Signed-Rank Test

Appendix: Wilcoxon’s Signed-Rank Test

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a pair-wise test that aims to detect significant differences between two sample means: it is the analogous to the paired t-test in non-parametric statistical procedures. If these means refer to the outputs of two algorithms, then the test practically assesses the reciprocal behavior of the two algorithms [52, 53]. Let d i be the difference between the performance scores of the two algorithms on the i-th out of N ds datasets. The differences are ranked according to their absolute values; average ranks are assigned in case of ties. Let R + be the sum of ranks for the datasets on which the first algorithm outperformed the second, and R − the sum of ranks for the contrary outcome. Ranks of d i  = 0 are split evenly among the sums; if there is an odd number of them, one is ignored:

$$ \begin{aligned} R^+ & = \sum_{d_i > 0} {\hbox{rank}(d_i)} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{d_i = 0} {\hbox{rank}(d_i)},\\ R^-& = \sum_{d_i < 0} {\hbox{rank}(d_i)} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{d_i = 0} {\hbox{rank}(d_i)}. \end{aligned} $$

Let T be the smaller of the sums, T = min(R +, R −). If T is less than, or equal to, the value of the distribution of Wilcoxon for N ds degrees of freedom (Table B.12 in [54]), the null hypothesis of equality of means is rejected.

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is more sensible than the t-test. It assumes commensurability of differences, but only qualitatively: greater differences still count for more, which is probably desired, but the absolute magnitudes are ignored. From the statistical point of view, the test is safer since it does not assume normal distributions. Also, the outliers (exceptionally good/bad performances on a few datasets) have less effect on the Wilcoxon test than on the t-test. The Wilcoxon test assumes continuous differences d i , therefore they should not be rounded to one or two decimals, since this would decrease the test power due to a high number of ties.

When the assumptions of the paired t-test are met, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test is less powerful than the paired t-test. On the other hand, when the assumptions are violated, the Wilcoxon test can be even more powerful than the t-test. This allows us to apply it to the means obtained by the algorithms in each dataset, without any assumption about the distribution of the obtained results.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robles, I., Alcalá, R., Benítez, J.M. et al. Evolutionary parallel and gradually distributed lateral tuning of fuzzy rule-based systems. Evol. Intel. 2, 5 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-009-0025-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-009-0025-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation