Performance evaluation of evolutionary algorithms in classification of biomedical datasets
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2009, Vol: 2009-January, Page: 2617-2624
2009
- 12Citations
- 14Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
Biomedical datasets pose a unique challenge for machine learning and data mining techniques to extract accurate, comprehensible and hidden knowledge from them. In this paper, we comprehensively investigate the role of a biomedical dataset on the classification accuracy of an algorithm. To this end, we quantify the complexity of a biomedical dataset in terms of its missing values, imbalance ratio, noise and information gain. We have performed our experiments using six well-known evolutionary rule learning algorithms: XCS, UCS, GAssist, cAnt-Miner, SLAVE and Ishibuchi, on 31 publicly available biomedical datasets. The results of our experiments show that GAssist gives better classification accuracy among the compared schemes. However, the nature of a biomedical dataset - not the selection of evolutionary algorithm - plays a major role in determining the classification accuracy of a dataset. We further show that noise is a dominating factor in determining the complexity of a dataset and it is inversely proportional to the classification accuracy of all the algorithms. The complexity of biomedical dataset will prove useful to researchers in evaluating the classification potential of their dataset for automatic knowledge extraction.
Bibliographic Details
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know