Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Natural Computing Series ((NCS))

  • 343 Accesses

Abstract

One well-known disadvantage of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) for rule discovery is that in general they are slow, by comparison with rule discovery algorithms based on the rule induction paradigm. After all, rule induction algorithms usually perform a kind of local search in the rule space, whereas EAs are population-based algorithms that perform a more global search of the rule space.

“In a world where serial algorithms are usually made parallel through countless tricks and contortions, it is no small irony that genetic algorithms (highly parallel algorithms) are made serial through equally unnatural tricks and turns.”

[Goldberg 1989, p. 208]

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. G.S. Almasi and A. Gottlieb. Highly Parallel Computing, 2nd edn. The Benjamim Cummings, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. Anglano, A. Giordana, G. Lo Bello and L. Saitta. A network genetic algorithm for concept learning. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference Genetic Algorithms, 434–441. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Anglano, A. Giordana, G. Lo Bello and L. Saitta. An experimental evaluation of coevolutive concept learning. Machine Learning: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference (ICML ‘88), 19–27. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D.L.A. Araujo, H.S. Lopes and A.A. Freitas. A parallel genetic algorithm for rule discovery in large databases. Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Conference, v. III, 940–945. Tokyo, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D.L.A. Araujo, H.S. Lopes and A.A. Freitas. Rule discovery with a parallel genetic algorithm. In: A. Wu (Ed.) Proceedings of the 2000 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO ‘2000) Workshop Program — Workshop on Data Mining with Evolutionary Algorithms, 89–92. Las Vegas, NV, USA. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Bhattacharrya. Direct marketing response models using genetic algorithms. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ‘88), 144–148. AAAI Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. Cantu-Paz. Efficient and Accurate Parallel Genetic Algorithms. Kluwer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M.J. Cavaretta and K. Challapilla. Data mining using genetic programming: the implications of parsimony on generalization error. Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC ‘89), 1330–1337. IEEE, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. I.W. Flockhart and N.J. Radcliffe. GA-MINER: parallel data mining with hierarchical genetic algorithms - final report. EPCCAIKMS-GA-MINER-Report 1.0. University of Edinburgh, UK, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A.A. Freitas. A genetic programming framework for two data mining tasks: classification and generalized rule induction. Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference (GP ‘87), 96–101. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A.A. Freitas. A survey of parallel data mining. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Practical Applications of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PADD ‘88), 287–300. The Practical Application Company, London, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A.A. Freitas and S.H. Lavington. Mining Very Large Databases with Parallel Processing. Kluwer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. Gathercole and P. Ross. Dynamic training subset selection for supervised learning in genetic programming. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN-III), 312–321. Springer, 1994.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. C. Gathercole and P. Ross. Tackling the boolean even N parity problem with genetic programming and limited-error fitness. Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference (GP ‘87), 119–127. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Gathercole and P. Ross. Small populations over many generations can beat large populations over few generations in genetic programming. Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference (GP ‘87), 111–118. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Giordana and F. Neri. Search-intensive concept induction. Evolutionary Computation 3(4): 375–416, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. D.E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. W.D. Hillis and L. Steele Jr. Data parallel algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 29 (12), 1170–1183, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  19. C.-H. Lee, S.-H. Park and J.-H. Kim. Topology and migration policy of fine-grained parallel evolutionary algorithms for numerical optimi-zation. Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC ‘2000). IEEE, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T.G. Lewis. Data parallel computing: an alternative for the 1990s. IEEE Computer, 24 (9), 110–111, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  21. X. Llora and J.M. Garrell. Knowledge-independent data mining with fine-grained parallel evolutionary algorithms. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO ‘2001), 461–468. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Llora and Garrel 2001b] Inducing partially-defined instances with evolutionary algorithms. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ‘2001), 337–344. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  23. F. Neri and A. Giordana. A parallel genetic algorithm for concept learning. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference Genetic Algorithms, 436–443. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  24. F. Neri and L. Saitta. Exploring the power of genetic search in learning symbolic classifiers. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 18 (11), 1135–1141, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. A. Papagelis and D. Kalles. Breeding decision trees using evolutionary techniques. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ‘2001), 393–400. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  26. P.K. Sharpe and R.P. Glover. Efficient GA based techniques for classification. Applied Intelligence 11, 277–284, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. A. Teller and D. Andre. Automatically choosing the number of fitness cases: the rational allocation of trials. Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference (GP ‘87), 321–328. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Freitas, A.A. (2002). Scaling up Evolutionary Algorithms for Large Data Sets. In: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery with Evolutionary Algorithms. Natural Computing Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04923-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04923-5_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-07763-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-04923-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics