dcmeet third.pptx

8/10/2019 dcmeet third.pptx

1/72

Presented By

K.Indira

Under the Guidance ofDr. S. Kanmani,

Professor,Department of Information Technology,Pondicherry Engineering College.

1

Empirical Study on Mining

Association Rules Using Population

Based Stochastic Search Algorithms


2/72

2

Objective

Introduction

References

Contents

Why Association Rule Mining

Existing Methods and its Limitations

Evolutionary Algorithms in AR miningGA and PSOAn Introduction

Empirical study

Conclusion

Publications


3/72

3

To propose an efficient methodology for mining

Association rules both effectively and efficiently using

population based search methods namely Genetic

Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization

Objective


4/72


5/72

Extraction of interesting information or patterns

from data in large databases is known as data

mining.

Data Mining

5

Association rule mining finds interesting associations

and/or correlation relationships among large set of

data items.

Association Rule Mining


6/72

6

Tid Items bought

10 Milk, Nuts, Sugar

20 Milk, Coffee, Sugar

30 Milk, Sugar, Eggs

40 Nuts, Eggs, Bread

50 Nuts, Coffee, Sugar , Eggs,

Bread

Association Rules

Rules are of formX Y with

minimum support and confidence Support, s, probability that a

transaction contains X Y

Confidence, c,conditional

probability that a transactionhaving X also contains YLet minsup = 50%, minconf = 50%

Freq. Pat.: Milk:3, Nuts:3, Sugar:4, Eggs:3, {Milk,Sugar}:3

Association rules: Milk Sugar (60%, 100%) Sugar Milk (60%, 75%)

Customer

buys sugar

Customer

buys both

Customer

buys milk


7/72

7

Apriori, FP Growth Tree, clat are some of the popular

algorithms for mining ARs.

Traverse the database many times.

I/O overhead, and computational complexity is more Cannot meet the requirements of large-scale database

mining.

Does not fit in memory and is expensive to build

Time is wasted (especially if support threshold is high),

as the only pruning that can be done is on single items

Limitations of Existing System


8/72

Applicable in problems where no (good) method is available:

Discontinuities, non-linear constraints, multi-modalities.

Discrete variable space.

Implicitly defined models (if-then-else constructs).

Noisy problems.

Most suitable in problems where multiple solutions are required: Multi-modal optimization problems.

Multi-objective optimization problems.

Parallel implementation is easier.

Evolutionary algorithms provide robust and efficient approach in exploring

large search space.

Uniqueness of Evolutionary Algorithm

8


9/72

GA and PSOAn Introduction

Genetic algorithm (GA) and Particle swarm

optimization (PSO) are both population based

search methods and move from set of points(population) to another set of points in a single

iteration with likely improvement using set of

control operators.

9


10/72

Genetic Algorithm

A Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a procedure used to

find approximate solutions to search problemsthrough the application of the principles of

evolutionary biology.

Particle Swarm Optimization

PSOs mechanism is inspired by the social and

cooperative behavior displayed by various

species like birds, fish etc including human

beings.10

l k f h d l


11/72

Association Rule(AR) Mining

Population Based

Evolutionary Methods

Genetic Algorithm(GA)

Particle SwarmOptimization (PSO)

Mining AssociationRules using GA

Analyzing the roleofControl parameters in

GA for mining ARs

Mining ARs using

Self Adaptive GA

Elitist GA for

AssociationRuleMining

Mining Associationrules with PSO

Mining AssociationRules with chaotic

PSO

Mining Associationrules with Dynamic

NeighborhoodSelection in PSO

Mining Association

rules with SelfAdaptive PSO

Hybrid GA/PSO(GPSO) for AR

Mining

Block Diagram of Research Modules


12/72

Datasets Used

Lenses

Haberman

Car Evaluation


13/72

Lenses

Age of thepatient

1: Young 2: Pre-Presbyopic

3:Presbyopic

SpectaclePrescription

1: Myopic 2:Hypermetropic

Astigmatic 1: No 2: Yes

Tear ProductionRate

1: Reduced 2: Normal

Result 1: HardContactlenses

2: Soft ContactLenses

3: No lenses


14/72

Haberman

14

Age of the patient 30-83Numeric

Patient's year ofoperation

NumericEg. 67

Number of positiveaxillary nodes

detected

0-46Numeric

Result 1= the patient

survived 5 yearsor longer s

2 = the patient died

within 5 year


15/72

Car Evaluation

Buying price Very high High Medium Low

MaintenancePrice

Very high High Medium Low

Doors 2 3 4 5

Persons 2 4 More

Luggage boot Small Big Medium

Safety Low Medium High

Result Unacceptable

Acceptable

Good Verygood


16/72

16

Mining ARs using GA

Methodology

Selection : Tournament

Crossover Probability : Fixed ( Tested with 3 values)

Mutation Probability : No Mutation

Fitness Function :

Dataset : Lenses, Iris, Haberman from

UCI Irvine repository.

Population : Fixed ( Tested with 3 values)


17/72

17

Flow chart of the GA


18/72

Results Analysis

No. of Instances No. of Instances * 1.25 No. of Instances *1.5

Accuracy

%

No. of

GenerationsAccuracy

%

No. of

GenerationsAccuracy

%

No. of

Generations

Lenses 75 7 82 12 95 17

Haberman 71 114 68 88 64 70

Iris 77 88 87 53 82 45

Comparison based on variation in population Size.

Minimum Support & Minimum Confidence

Sup = 0.4 & con =0.4 Sup =0.9 & con =0.9 Sup = 0.9 & con = 0.2 Sup = 0.2 & con = 0.9

Accuracy%

No. of

Gen

Accuracy

%

No. of

Gen.

Accuracy

%No. of

Gen.

Accuracy

%

No. of

Gen

Lenses 22 20 49 11 70 21 95 18Haberman 45 68 58 83 71 90 62 75

Iris 40 28 59 37 78 48 87 55

Comparison based on variation in Minimum Support and Confidence


19/72

19

Cross Over

Pc = .25 Pc = .5 Pc = .75

Accurac

y %

No. ofGenerations

Accuracy % No. ofGenerations

Accuracy

%

No. ofGenerations

Lenses 95 8 95 16 95 13

Haberman 69 77 71 83 70 80

Iris 84 45 86 51 87 55

Dataset No. of

Instances

No. of

attributes

Population

Size

Minimum

Support

Minimum

confidence

Crossover

rate

Accuracy

in %

Lenses 24 4 36 0.2 0.9 0.25 95

Haberman 306 3 306 0.9 0.2 0.5 71

Iris 150 5 225 0.2 0.9 0.75 87

Comparison of the optimum value of Parameters formaximum Accuracy achieved

Comparison based on variation in Crossover Probability


20/72

20

Population Size Vs Accuracy

Minimum Support and Confidence Vs Accuracy


21/72

21

Values of minimum support, minimum confidence and mutation

rate decides upon the accuracy of the system than other GA

parameters

Crossover rate affects the convergence rate rather than the

accuracy of the system

The optimum value of the GA parameters varies from data to

data and the fitness function plays a major role in optimizing the

results

Inferences


22/72

22

Mining ARs using Self Adaptive GA in Java.

MethodologySelection : Roulette Wheel

Crossover Probability : Fixed ( Tested with 3 values)

Mutation Probability : Self Adaptive

Fitness Function :

Dataset : Lenses, Iris, Car fromUCI Irvine repository.

Population : Fixed ( Tested with 3 values)

P d SAGA


23/72

23

Procedure SAGA

Begin

Initialize population p(k);

Define the crossover and mutation rate;Do

{

Do

{

Calculate support of all k rules;

Calculate confidence of all k rules;

Obtain fitness;

Select individuals for crossover / mutation;

Calculate the average fitness of the n and (n-1) the generation;

Calculate the maximum fitness of the n and (n-1) the generation;

Based on the fitness of the selected item, calculate the new crossoverand mutation rate;

Choose the operation to be performed;

} k times;

}


24/72

Self Adaptive GA

SELF ADAPTIVE

R lt A l i


25/72

25

Dataset Traditional GA Self Adaptive GAAccuracy No. of Generations Accuracy No. of Generations

Lenses 75 38 87.5 35

Haberman 52 36 68 28

Car Evaluation 85 29 96 21

Dataset Traditional GA Self Adaptive GA

Accuracy No. ofGenerations

Accuracy No. of Generations

Lenses 50 35 87.5 35Haberman 36 38 68 28Car

Evaluation

74 36 96 21

ACCURACY COMPARISON BETWEEN GA AND SAGA WHEN PARAMETERS ARE

SET TO TERMINATION OF SAGA

ACCURACY COMPARISON BETWEEN GA AND SAGA WHEN PARAMETERS ARE IDEAL

FOR TRADITIONAL GA

Results Analysis

ACCURACY COMPARISON BETWEEN GA AND SAGA WHEN


26/72

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lenses Haberman Car Evaluation

PredictiveAccura

cy(%)

Dataset

Traditional GA Accuracy

Self Adaptive GA Accuracy

ACCURACY COMPARISON BETWEEN GA AND SAGA WHEN

PARAMETERS ARE IDEAL FOR TRADITIONAL GA


27/72

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lenses Haberman Car Evaluation

PredictiveAccuracy(%)

Dataset

Traditional GA

Self Adaptive GA

ACCURACY COMPARISON BETWEEN GA AND SAGA

WHEN PARAMETERS ARE ACCORDING TO

TERMINTAION OF SAGA


28/72

Inferences

Self Adaptive GA gives better accuracy than Traditional GA.

28


29/72

GA with Elitism for Mining ARsMethodology

Selection : Elitism with roulette wheel

Crossover Probability : Fixed to Pc

Mutation Probability : Self Adaptive

Fitness Function : Fitness(x) = con(x)*(log(sup(x) *length(x) + 1)

Dataset : Lenses, Iris, Car from UCI Irvinerepository.

Population : Fixed29


30/72

No. Of

Iterations

Lenses Car Evaluation Haberman

4 90 94.4 706 87.5 91.6 758 91.6 92.8 91.6

10 90 87.5 7515 87.5 90 83.320 91.6 87.5 91.625 87.5 87.5 92.530 83.3 93.75 83.350 90 75 75

Predictive Accuracy for Mining AR based on GA with Elitism

Results Analysis

30


31/72

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6 8 10 15 20 25 30 50


No. of Iterations

Lenses

Car Evaluation

Haberman

Predictive Accuracy for Mining AR based on GAwith Elitism


32/72

32

No of matches vs. No of iterations


33/72

No. Of

Iterations

Lenses (ms) Car Evaluation

(ms)

Haberman

(ms)

4 15 547 1256 16 721 1568 31 927 187

10 31 1104 20315 32 1525 28120 47 1967 35925 63 2504 421

30 78 2935 53050 94 4753 998

Execution Time for Mining AR based on GA with Elitism

33


34/72

34

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 50

Executiontime(ms)

No. of Iterations

Haberman (ms)

Car Evaluation (ms)

Lenses (ms)


35/72

Inferences

Marginally better accuracy arrived

Computational Efficiency found to be optimum

Elitism when introduced helps in retaining

chromosomes with good fitness values for next

generation

35


36/72

36

Mining ARs using PSO

Methodology

Each data itemset are represented as particles

The particles moves based on velocity

The particles position are updated based on


37/72

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

Flow chart depicting the General PSO Algorithm:

Start

Initialize particles with random position

and velocity vectors.

For each particles position (p)

evaluate fitness

If fitness(p) better than

fitness(pbest) then pbest= pLoopuntilall

particlesexhaus

t

Set best of pBests as gBest

Update particles velocity (eq. 1) and

position (eq. 3)

Loopun

tilmaxiter

Stop:giving gBest, optimal solution.

Results Analysis


38/72

Dataset NameTraditional

GA

Self

AdaptiveGA

PSO

Lenses 87.5 91.6 92.8

Haberman 75.5 92.5 91.6

Car evaluation 85 94.4 95

Results Analysis

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 50

Execution

Timemsec

No. of iterations

Haberman

PSO

SAGA0

20

40

60

80

100

4 6 8 101520253050

Executio

nTimemsec

No. of iterations

Lenses

PSO

SAGA

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 50

Execution

Timemsec

No. of Iterations

Car Evaluation

PSO

SAGA

Predictive Accuracy

Execution Time38

I f


39/72

Inferences

PSO produce results as effective as self adaptive GA

Computational effectiveness of PSO marginally fast whencompared to SAGA.

In PSO only the best particle passes information to others andhence the computational capability of PSO is marginally betterthan SAGA.

39BACK

i i A i Ch i SO


40/72

40

Mining ARs using Chaotic PSO

The new chaotic map model is formulated as

Methodology

Initial point u0and V0to 0.1The velocity of each particle is updated by

Mining ARs using


41/72

Compute xi(k+1)Compute (f(xi(k+1))

Reorder the particlesGenerate neighborhoods I =1

k K

i = i +1

K = k+1

Start

K =1Initialize xi(k), vi(k)

Compute f(xi(k))

Determine best particles in theneighborhood of i

Update previous best if necessary

I N

Stop

no

no

yes

yes

Mining ARs usingChaotic PSO

41

CC C CO SO


42/72

42

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

Haberman lens car evaluation


SAGA

PSO

CPSO

ACCURACY COMPARISON


43/72

43

75

80

85

90

95

100

SAGA pso cpso

4

6

8

10

15

20

25

30

50

Convergence Rate Comparison for Lenses

Convergence Rate Comparison for Car


44/72

44

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SAGA pso cpso

4

6

8

10

15

20

25

30

50

Convergence Rate Comparison for CarEvaluation


45/72

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SAGA pso cpso

4

6

8

10

15

20

25

30

50

Convergence Rate Comparison for Habermans

Survival

Inferences


46/72

Inferences

Better accuracy than PSO

The Chaotic Operators could be changed by altering the initial

values in chaotic operator function

The balance between exploration and exploitation is

maintained

46

Mining ARs using Neighborhood Selection


47/72

47

Mining ARs using Neighborhood Selectionin PSOMethodology

The concept of local best particle (lbest) replacing the particle

best (pbest) is introduced

The neighborhood best (lbest) selection is as follows;

Calculate the distance of the current particle from other

particles

Find the nearest m particles as the neighbor of the current

particle based on distance calculated

Choose the local optimum lbest among the neighborhood

in terms of fitness values


48/72

48

Interestingness Measure

The interestingness measure for a rule is taken from relativeconfidence and is as follows:

Where k is the rule, x the antecedent part of the rule and ythe consequent part of the rule k.

Predictive Accuracy Comparison for Dynamic


49/72

49

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

Haberman lens car evaluation

PredictiveAcuracy(%)

saga

pso

Npso

y p yNeighborhood selection in PSO


50/72

50

Dataset Interestingness Value

Lens 0.82

Car Evaluation 0.73

HabermansSurvival 0.8

Measure of Interestingness

Execution Time Comparison for Dynamic


51/72

51

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 50

Lenses PSO

Lenses NPSO

Haberman's Survival PSO

Haberman's Survival NPSO

Car Evaluation PSO

Car Evaluation NPSO

p y

Neighborhood selection in PSO

Predictive Accuracy over Generation for a) Car


52/72

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PSO NPSO


4

6

8

10

15

20

25

30

50

y )

Evaluation b) Lenses c) Habermans Survival datasets

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PSO NPSO


4

6

8

10

15

20

25

30

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PSO NPSO

PredictiveAccu

racy(%)

4

6

8

10

15

20

25

30

50

Inferences


53/72

53

The avoidance of premature convergence at local optimalpoints tend to enhance the results

The selection of local best particles based on neighbors

(lbest) rather than particles own best (pbest) enhances

the accuracy of the rules mined

Inferences

Mining ARs using Self Adaptive


54/72

54

g s us g Se dapt eChaotic PSO

A slight variant of the PSO is called inertia-weight PSO, in which aweight parameter Is added to the velocity equation adopted

where, w is the inertia weight. The variable w plays the role of

balancing the global search and local search.A method of adaptive mutation rate is used = m x

m x

min

) g/G

where, g is the generation index representing thecurrent number of evolutionary generations, and G is a

redefined maximum number of generations. Here, the

maximal and minimal weights max and min are usually

set to 0.9 and 0.4, respectively.


55/72

Effect of changing w

Dataset

Highest PA achieved within 50 runs of iterations

No weight

(Normal PSO) w = 0.5 w = 0.7

Lenses 87.5 88.09 84.75

Haberman 87.5 96.07 99.80

Car 96.4 99.88 99.84

POP Care 91.6 98.64 97.91

Zoo 83.3 96.88 98.97


56/72

Lenses

0

1020

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5 10 15 25 50

PredictiveAccu

racy

No of generations

Predictive Accuracy CPSO

Predictive Accuracy

Weighted CPSO

Predictive Accuracy Self

Adaptive CPSO


57/72

Habermans Survival

75

80

85

90

95

100

5 10 15 25 50

PredictiveAccu

racy

No of generations

Predictive AccuracyCPSO

Predictive AccuracyWeighted CPSO


Adaptive CPSO


58/72

Post operative Patient Care

0

1020

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5 10 15 25 50

PredictiveAccuracy

No. of Generations




Adaptive CPSO


59/72

Zoo

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

5 10 15 25 50

PredictiveAccu

racy

No. of Generations




Adaptive CPSO


60/72

Car Evaluation

98.2

98.4

98.6

98.8

99

99.299.4

99.6

99.8

100

5 10 15 25 50

PredictiveAccuracy

No of generations

Predictive Accuracy CPSO



Adaptive CPSO

I f


61/72

61

In term of computational efficiency SACPSO is

faster than GA

Setting of appropriate values for the control

parameters involved in these heuristics methods

is the key point to success in these methods

Inferences

Mining AR using Hybrid GA/PSO


62/72

62

x


63/72

63

When Genetic algorithm used for mining association

rules Improvement in predictive accuracy achieved Particle swarm optimization when adopted for mining

association rules produces results closer to GA but with

minimum execution time

The premature convergence being the major drawback

of PSO was handled by introducing inertia weights,chaotic maps, neighborhood selection adaptive inertia

weight

Papers Published


64/72

p

64

K.Indira, Dr.S.Kanmani, Framework for Comparison of Association Rule

Mining Using Genetic Algorithm, In : International Conference OnComputers, Communication & Intelligence , 2010.

K.Indira, Dr.S.Kanmani, MiningAssociation Rules Using Genetic Algorithm:The role of Estimation Parameters , In : International conference onadvances in computing and communications, Communication in Computer

and Information Science, Springer LNCS,Volume 190, Part 8, 639-648, 2011

K.Indira, Dr. S. Kanmani , Gaurav Sethia.D, Kumaran.S, Prabhakar.J , RuleAcquisition in Data Mining Using a Self Adaptive Genetic Algorithm, In :First International conference on Computer Science and Information

Technology, Communication in Computer and Information Science, SpringerLNCS Volume 204, Part 1, 171-178, 2011.

K.Indira, Dr. S.Kanmani, Prasanth, Harish, Jeeva, PopulationBased SearchMethods in Mining Association Rules , In : Third International Conferenceon Advances in Communication, Network, and Computing CNC 2012,

LNICST pp. 255261, 2012.

Conferences


65/72

65

Journal

K.Indira, Dr. S.Kanmani, Performance Analysis of Genetic Algorithm for

Mining Association Rules, IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science

Issues, Vol. 9, Issue 2, No 1, 368-376, March 2012

K.Indira, Dr. S.Kanmani, Rule Acquisition using Genetic Algorithm,

accepted for publication in Journal of Computing

K.Indira, Dr. S.Kanmani, Enhancing Particle Swarm optimization using

chaotic operators for Association Rule Mining, communicated to

International Journal of Computer Science and Techniques

K.Indira, Dr. S.Kanmani, AssociationRule Mining by Dynamic Neighborhood

Selection in Particle Swarm Optimization, communicated to world science

Publications

References


66/72

Jing Li, Han Rui-feng, ASelf-Adaptive Genetic Algorithm Based On Real-Coded, International Conference on Biomedical Engineering andcomputer Science , Page(s): 1 - 4 , 2010

Chuan-Kang Ting, Wei-Ming Zeng, Tzu- Chieh Lin, LinkageDiscovery throughData Mining, IEEE Magazine on Computational Intelligence, Volume 5,February 2010.

Caises, Y., Leyva, E., Gonzalez, A., Perez, R., An extension of the GeneticIterative Approach for Learning Rule Subsets ,4th International Workshopon Genetic and Evolutionary Fuzzy Systems, Page(s): 63 - 67 , 2010

Shangping Dai, Li Gao, Qiang Zhu, Changwu Zhu, A Novel Genetic AlgorithmBased on Image Databases for Mining Association Rules, 6th IEEE/ACIS

International Conference on Computer and Information Science, Page(s):977980, 2007

Peregrin, A., Rodriguez, M.A., Efficient Distributed Genetic Algorithm forRule Extraction,. Eighth International Conference on Hybrid Intelligent

Systems, HIS '08. Page(s): 531536, 2008 66

References Contd..


67/72

67

Mansoori, E.G., Zolghadri, M.J., Katebi, S.D., SGERD: A Steady-StateGenetic Algorithm for Extracting Fuzzy Classification Rules From Data,IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, Volume: 16 , Issue: 4 , Page(s): 10611071, 2008..

Xiaoyuan Zhu, Yongquan Yu, Xueyan Guo, Genetic Algorithm Based onEvolution Strategy and the Application in Data Mining,First InternationalWorkshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, ETCS '09,

Volume: 1 , Page(s): 848852, 2009

Hong Guo, Ya Zhou, An Algorithm for Mining Association Rules Based onImproved Genetic Algorithm and its Application, 3rd InternationalConference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing, WGEC '09, Page(s):

117120, 2009

Genxiang Zhang, Haishan Chen, Immune Optimization Based GeneticAlgorithm for Incremental Association Rules Mining, InternationalConference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, AICI

'09, Volume: 4, Page(s): 341345, 2009

References Contd..

References Contd..


68/72

68

Maria J. Del Jesus, Jose A. Gamez, Pedro Gonzalez, Jose M. Puerta, On theDiscovery of Association Rules by means of Evolutionary Algorithms, from

Advanced Review of John Wiley & Sons , Inc. 2011

Junli Lu, Fan Yang, Momo Li, Lizhen Wang, Multi-objective Rule DiscoveryUsing the Improved Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm, Third InternationalConference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, 2011.

Hamid Reza Qodmanan, Mahdi Nasiri, Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli, MultiObjective Association Rule Mining with Genetic Algorithm without specifyingMinimum Support and Minimum Confidence, Expert Systems withApplications 38 (2011) 288298.

Miguel Rodriguez, Diego M. Escalante, Antonio Peregrin, Efficient Distributed

Genetic Algorithm for Rule Extraction, Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 733743.

J.H. Ang, K.C. Tan , A.A. Mamun, An Evolutionary Memetic Algorithm for RuleExtraction, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 13021315.

References Contd..

References Contd..


69/72

R.J. Kuo, C.M. Chao, Y.T. Chiu, Application of particle swarm optimization toassociation rule mining, Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 326336.

Bilal Alatas , Erhan Akin, Multi-objective rule mining using a chaotic particle

swarm optimization algorithm, Knowledge-Based Systems 22 (2009) 455460.

Mourad Ykhlef, A Quantum Swarm Evolutionary Algorithm for miningassociation rules in large databases, Journal of King Saud University Computer and Information Sciences (2011) 23, 16.

Haijun Su, Yupu Yang, Liang Zhao, Classification rule discovery with DE/QDEalgorithm, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 12161222.

Jing Li, Han Rui-feng, A Self-Adaptive Genetic Algorithm Based On Real-Coded, International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and

computer Science , Page(s): 1 - 4 , 2010

Chuan-Kang Ting, Wei-Ming Zeng, Tzu- Chieh Lin, Linkage Discoverythrough Data Mining, IEEE Magazine on Computational Intelligence,Volume 5, February 2010.

69

References Contd..


70/72

70

Caises, Y., Leyva, E., Gonzalez, A., Perez, R., An extension of the GeneticIterative Approach for Learning Rule Subsets ,4th International Workshopon Genetic and Evolutionary Fuzzy Systems, Page(s): 63 - 67 , 2010

Xiaoyuan Zhu, Yongquan Yu, Xueyan Guo, Genetic Algorithm Based onEvolution Strategy and the Application in Data Mining, First InternationalWorkshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, ETCS '09,Volume: 1 , Page(s): 848852, 2009

Miguel Rodriguez, Diego M. Escalante, Antonio Peregrin, EfficientDistributed Genetic Algorithm for Rule extraction, Applied Soft Computing11 (2011) 733743.

Hamid Reza Qodmanan , Mahdi Nasiri, Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli, Multi

objective association rule mining with genetic algorithm without specifyingminimum support and minimum confidence, Expert Systems withApplications 38 (2011) 288298.

Yamina Mohamed Ben Ali, Soft Adaptive Particle Swarm Algorithm for Large

Scale Optimization, IEEE 2010.

References Contd..


71/72

71

Junli Lu, Fan Yang, Momo Li1, Lizhen Wang, Multi-objective Rule DiscoveryUsing the Improved Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm, 2011 Third InternationalConference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation.

Yan Chen, Shingo Mabu, Kotaro Hirasawa, Genetic relation algorithm withguided mutation for the large-scale portfolio optimization, Expert Systemswith Applications 38 (2011), 33533363.

R.J. Kuo, C.M. Chao, Y.T. Chiu, Application of particle swarm optimization toassociation rule mining, Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011), 326336

Feng Lu, Yanfeng Ge, LiQun Gao, Self-adaptive Particle Swarm OptimizationAlgorithm for Global Optimization, 2010 Sixth International Conference onNatural Computation (ICNC 2010)

Fevrier Valdez, Patricia Melin, Oscar Castillo, An improved evolutionarymethod with fuzzy logic for combining Particle Swarm Optimization andGenetic Algorithms, Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) ,26252632


72/72

hank You

Documents

dcmeet third.pptx