1. The document describes a proposed fuzzy rule-based classifier system called Fuzzy-UCS that is derived from the Michigan-style learning classifier system UCS.
2. Fuzzy-UCS uses fuzzy rule representations with linguistic terms and membership functions instead of interval-based rules. This aims to improve interpretability over UCS while maintaining similar performance.
3. An experimental methodology is outlined to evaluate Fuzzy-UCS's performance compared to UCS, other machine learning techniques, and other fuzzy learners on classification tasks.
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
JAEM'2007: Aprendizaje Supervisado de Reglas Difusas mediante un Sistema Clasificador Evolutivo Estilo Michigan
1. Aprendizaje Supervisado de Reglas
Difusas mediante un Sistema
Clasificador Evolutivo Estilo Michigan
Albert Orriols-Puig1,2
Orriols Puig
Jorge Casillas2
Ester Bernadó-Mansilla1
1Grup de Recerca en Sistemes Intel·ligents
Enginyeria i Arquitectura La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull
2Dept. de Ciencias de la Computación e IA
Universidad de Granada
2. Motivation
Michigan-style LCSs for supervised learning. Eg. UCS
– Evolve online highly accurate models
– Competitive to the most-used machine learning techniques
• (Bernadó et al, 03; Wilson, 02; Bacardit & Butz, 04; Butz, 06; Orriols & Bernadó, 07)
Main weakness: Intepretability of the rule sets
– Continuous attributes represented with intervals: [ i, ui] . Semantic-
p [l
free variables
– Number of rules or classifiers
• Reduction schemes
(Wilson, 02; Fu & Davis, 02; Dixon et al., 03, Orriols & Bernadó, 2005)
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 2
GRSI
3. Motivation
Jorge’s Proposal:
– Let’s “fuzzify” UCS
fuzzify”
• Change the rule representation to fuzzy rules
Framework on Michigan-style Learning Fuzzy-Classifier
Systems (LFCS)
– (Valenzuela-Radón, 91 & 98)
– (Parodi & Bonelli, 93)
– (Furuhashi, Nakaoka & Uchikawa, 94)
– (Velasco, 98)
– (Ishibuchi, Nakashima & Murata, 99 & 05): First LFCS for pattern classification
– (Casillas, Carse & Bull, 07) Fuzzy-XCS
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 3
GRSI
4. Aim
Propose Fuzzy-UCS
– Accuracy based Michigan-style LFCS
Accuracy-based Michigan style
– Supervised learning scheme
– Derived from UCS (Bernadó & Garrell, 2003)
• Introduction of a linguistic fuzzy representation
• Modification of all operators that deal with rules
– We expect:
• Achieve similar performance than UCS
• Higher interpretability
– Plus new opportunities:
• Mine in uncertain environments
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 4
GRSI
5. Outline
1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
1D ii fF UCS
2.
2 Experimental Methodology
3. Results
4. Conclusions
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 5
GRSI
6. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of UCS
p 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Michigan-style LCS’s (Holland, 1975):
– Derived from XCS (Wilson 1995) a reinforcement learning
(Wilson, 1995),
method.
– Designed specifically for supervised learning
Rule representation:
– C ti
Continuous variables represented as i t
intervals: [li, ui]
i bl td l
– Eg:
IF x1 Є [l1, u1] ^ x2 Є [l2, u2] … ^ xn Є[ln, nn] THEN class1
– Matching instance e: for all ei: li ≤ ei ≤ ui
– Set of parameters: Accuracy, Fitness, Numerosity, Experience, Correct set
size
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 6
GRSI
7. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of UCS
p 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Stream of
Environment examples
Match Set
M t h S t [M]
Problem instance
P bl it
+
output class acc F num cs ts exp
1C A
acc F num cs ts exp
3C A
Population [P] acc F num cs ts exp
5C A
acc F num cs ts exp
6C A
…
acc F num cs ts exp
1C A
acc F num cs ts exp
2C A
acc F num cs ts exp
3C A
correct set
acc F num cs ts exp
4C A Classifier
generation
acc F num cs ts exp
5C A
Parameters
Match set
acc F num cs ts exp
6C A
Update
generation
…
Correct Set [C]
3 C A acc F num cs ts exp
Deletion # Correct
Selection, Reproduction,
acc =
6 C A acc F num cs ts exp
mutation
Experience
p
…
If there are no classfiers in
Genetic Algorithm Fitness = accν
[C], covering is triggered
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 7
GRSI
8. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y
Describe the different components
1. Rule representation and matching
2. Learning interaction
3. Discovery component
3 Di t
4. Fuzzy-UCS in test mode
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 8
GRSI
9. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4C li
4. Conclusions
Rule representation
– Linguistic fuzzy rules
– E.g.: IF x1 is A1 and x2 is A2 … and xn is An THEN class1
Disjunction of linguistic
fuzzy terms
– All variables share th same semantics
i bl h the ti
– Example: Ai = {small, medium, large}
IF x1 is small and x2 is medium or large THEN class1
– Codification:
IF [100 | 011] THEN class1
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 9
GRSI
10. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4C li
4. Conclusions
How do we know if a given input is small, medium or large?
g p , g
– Each linguistic term defined by a membership function
Belongs to medium with a degree of 0 8
0.8
Belongs to small with a degree of 0 2
0.2
ei
Attribute value Triangular-shaped
membership functions
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 10
GRSI
11. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4C li
4. Conclusions
Matching degree uAk(e)
gg () [,]
[0,1]
k: IF x1 is small and x2 is medium or large THEN class1
Example: (e1, e2)
0.8
08
0.2 0.2
e1 e2
T-conorm: bounded sum
max ( 1, 0.8 + 0.2) = 1
T-norm: product
uAk(e) = 1 * 0.2 = 0.2
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 11
GRSI
12. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
The role of matching changes:
• UCS: A rule matches or not an example (binary function)
• Fuzzy-UCS: A rule matches an example with a certain degree
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 12
GRSI
13. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Each classifier has the following parameters:
1.
1 Weight per class wj:
• Soundness with which the rule predicts the class j.
• The class value is dynamic and corresponds to the class j with higher wj
2. Fitness:
• Quality of the rule
3. Other parameters directly inherited from UCS:
• numerosity
• Experience
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 13
GRSI
14. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y
Describe the different components
1. Rule representation and matching
2. Learning interaction
3. Discovery component
3 Di t
4. Fuzzy-UCS in test mode
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 14
GRSI
15. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4C li
4. Conclusions
Learning interaction:
– The environment provides an example e and its class c
– Match set creation: all classifiers that match with uAk(x) > 0
– Correct set creation: all classifiers that advocate c
– Covering: if there is not a classifier that maximally matches e
• Create the classifier that match the input example with maximum
degree.
• Generalize the condition with probability P#
For each variable:
A1 A2 A3
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 15
GRSI
16. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Parameters’ Update
– Experience:
– Sum of correct matching per class j cmj:
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 16
GRSI
17. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Parameters’ Update
– Use cm to update of the weights per each class:
• Rule that only matches instances of class c:
• wc = 1
• For all the other classes j: wj = 0
• Rule that matches instances o a c asses
u e t at atc es sta ces of all classes:
• All weights wi ranging [0, 1]
– Calculate the fitness
Pressuring toward rules that
correctly match instances of
only one class
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 17
GRSI
18. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y
Describe the different components
1. Rule representation and matching
2. Learning interaction
3. Discovery component
3 Di t
4. Fuzzy-UCS in test mode
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 18
GRSI
19. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Discovery component
– Steady state niched GA
Steady-state
– Roulette wheel selection
Instances that have a higher
g
matching degree have more
opportunities of being selected
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 19
GRSI
20. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Discovery component
– Crossover and mutation applied on the antecedent
• 2 point crossover
IF [100 | 011] THEN class1
IF [101 | 100] THEN class1
• Mutation:
– Expansion
p IF [101 | 011] THEN class1
[ ]
IF [100 | 011] THEN class1
[ ]
– Contraction IF [100 | 001] THEN class1
IF [100 | 011] THEN class1
– Shift IF [010 | 011] THEN class1
IF [100 | 011] THEN class1
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 20
GRSI
21. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y
Describe the different components
1. Rule representation and matching
2. Learning interaction
3. Discovery component
3 Di t
4. Fuzzy-UCS in test mode
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 21
GRSI
22. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Description of Fuzzy-UCS
p y 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Class inference of a test example e
– Combining the information of all rules yields better results than
taking a single rule for reasoning (Cordon et al. 1998)
• Inference:
– All experienced rules vote for the class they predict as: uAk(e) · Fk
– The most voted class is returned.
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 22
GRSI
23. Outline
1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
1D ii fF UCS
2.
2 Experimental Methodology
3. Results
4. Conclusions
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 23
GRSI
24. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Experimental Methodology
p gy 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Evaluating Fuzzy-UCS’ performance
– Compare Fuzzy-UCS accuracy to:
Fuzzy-UCS’
• Three non-fuzzy learners: UCS, SMO, and C4.5
• Two fuzzy learners: Fuzzy LogitBoost and Fuzzy GP
– Default configuration for all methods
–F
Fuzzy-UCS configuration:
UCS fi ti
iter = 100,000, N = 6400, F0 = 0.99, v=10, {θGA, θdel, θsub} = 50,
x =0.8, u 0.04, P#=0.6
0.8, u=0.04, 0.6
– Fuzzy learners: 5 linguistic labels per variable
– 10 fold cross-validation
10-fold cross validation
– Averages over 10 runs
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 24
GRSI
26. Outline
1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
1D ii fF UCS
2.
2 Experimental Methodology
3. Results
4. Conclusions
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 26
GRSI
27. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Results 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
• 1st objective: Competitive in terms of performance
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 27
GRSI
28. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Results 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
• 2nd objective: Improve the interpretability
Example of rules evolved by UCS for iris
Example of rules evolved by Fuzzy-UCS for iris
– Linguistic terms: {XS, S, M, L, XL}
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 28
GRSI
29. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Further work 3. Results
4C li
4. Conclusions
Still large rule-sets!
Fuzzy-UCS
Fuzzy UCS UCS
2769 4494
annealing
1212 2177
balance
bl
1440 2961
bupa
2799 3359
glass
3574 2977
heart-c
2415 3735
heart-s
480 1039
iris
3130 2334
wbcd
3686 3685
wine
773 1291
zoo
Solution: New inference schemes
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 29
GRSI
30. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Further work 3. Results
4C li
4. Conclusions
Still large rule-sets!
Fuzzy-UCS
y
Fuzzy-UCS
Fuzzy UCS UCS
best rule
36 2769 4494
annealing
75 1212 2177
balance
bl
39 1440 2961
bupa
36 2799 3359
glass
46 3574 2977
heart-c
62 2415 3735
heart-s
7 480 1039
iris
28 3130 2334
wbcd
26 3686 3685
wine
10 773 1291
zoo
Solution: New inference schemes
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 30
GRSI
31. Outline
1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
1D ii fF UCS
2.
2 Experimental Methodology
3. Results
4. Conclusions
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 31
GRSI
32. 1. Description of Fuzzy-UCS
2. Experimental Methodology
Conclusions and Further Work 3. Results
4. Conclusions
4C li
Conclusions
– We proposed a Michigan-style LFCS for supervised learning
– Competitive with respect to:
• Some of the most-used machine learners: UCS, SMO, and C4.5
• Recent proposals of Fuzzy-learners: Fuzzy LogitBoost and Fuzzy GP
– Improvement in terms of interpretability with respect to UCS
Further work
– Evolve more reduced populations
– Enhance the comparison with new real-world problems
– Compare to other LFCS
– Exploit the incremental learning approach to dig large datasets
Enginyeria i Arquitectura la Salle Slide 32
GRSI
33. Aprendizaje Supervisado de Reglas
Difusas mediante un Sistema
Clasificador Evolutivo Estilo Michigan
Albert Orriols-Puig1,2
Orriols Puig
Jorge Casillas2
Ester Bernadó-Mansilla1
1Grup de Recerca en Sistemes Intel·ligents
Enginyeria i Arquitectura La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull
2Dept. de Ciencias de la Computación e IA
Universidad of Granada