Home| Contact Us| New Journals| Browse Journals| Journal Prices| For Authors|

Print ISSN: 2349-8161
Online ISSN: 2349-817X

  About ISEJ
Aims & Scope
Editorial Board
Current Issue
Next Issue
Previous Issue
Sample Issue
Upcoming Conferences
Self-archiving policy
Alert Services
Be a Reviewer
Paper Submission
Contact us
  How To Order
  Order Online
Price Information
Request for Complimentary
Print Copy
  For Authors
  Guidelines for Contributors
Online Submission
Call for Papers
Author Rights
Journal of Digital Information Management (JDIM)
Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies (JMPT)
International Journal of Web Application (IJWA)


Information Security Education Journal (ISEJ)

Comparing Random Forest and Gaussian Process Modeling in the Gp-demo Algorithm
Miha Mlakar, Tea Tušar, Bogdan Filipic
Department of Intelligent Systems, Jozef Stefan Institute and Jozef Stefan International Postgraduate School & Jamova cesta 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract: In surrogate-model-based optimization, the selection of an appropriate surrogate model is very important. If solution approximations returned by a surrogate model are accurate and with narrow confidence intervals, an algorithm using this surrogate model needs less exact solution evaluations to obtain results comparable to an algorithm without surrogate models. In this paper we compare two well known modeling techniques, random forest (RF) and Gaussian process (GP) modeling. The comparison includes the approximation accuracy and confidence in the approximations (expressed as the confidence interval width). The results show that GP outperforms RF and that it is more suitable for use in a surrogatemodel- based multiobjective evolutionary algorithm.
Keywords: Random Forest Modeling, Gaussian Process Modeling Comparing Random Forest and Gaussian Process Modeling in the Gp-demo Algorithm
Full_Text   PDF 166 KB   Download:   14  times
[1] Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45 (1) 5–32.
[2] Deb, K. (2001). Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, New York.
[3] Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGAII. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6 (2) 182–197.
[4] Mlakar, M., Petelin, D., Tušar, T., Filipic, B. (2014). GPDEMO: Differential evolution for multiobjective optimization based on Gaussian process models. European Journal of Operational Research, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.04.011.
[5] Mlakar, M., Tušar, T., Filipic, B. (2014). Comparing solutions under uncertainty in multiobjective optimization. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, doi: 10.1155/2014/817964.
[6] Poloni, C., Giurgevich, A., Onesti, L., Pediroda, V. (2000). Hybridization of a multi-objective genetic algorithm, a neural network and a classical optimizer for a complex design problem in fluid dynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 186 (2) 403–420.
[7] Rasmussen, C. E., Williams, C. (2006). Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Home | Aim & Scope | Editorial Board | Author Guidelines | Publisher | Subscription | Previous Issue | Contact Us |Upcoming Conferences|Sample Issues|Library Recommendation Form|


Copyright 2013 socio.org.uk