4.7 Article

A multi-objective artificial butterfly optimization approach for feature selection

Journal

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
Volume 94, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106442

Keywords

Meta-heuristic algorithms; Machine learning; Pattern recognition; Many-objective optimization

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  2. FAPESP [2014/12236-1, 2014/16250-9, 2016/19403-6, 2017/02286-0]
  3. CNPq [304315/2017-6, 430274/2018-1, 306166/2014-3, 427968/2018-6]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Feature selection plays an essential role in machine learning since high dimensional real-world datasets are becoming more popular nowadays. The very basic idea consists in selecting a compact but representative set of features that reduce the computational cost and minimize the classification error. In this paper, the authors propose single, multi- and many-objective binary versions of the Artificial Butterfly Optimization (ABO) in the context of feature selection. The authors also propose two different approaches: (i) the first one (MO-I) aims at optimizing the classification accuracy of each class individually, while (ii) the second one (MO-II) considers the feature set minimization in the process either. The experiments were conducted over eight public datasets, and the proposed approaches are compared against the well-known Particle Swarm Optimization, Firefly Algorithm, Flower Pollination Algorithm, Brainstorm Optimization, and the Black Hole Algorithm. The results showed that the binary single-objective ABO performed better than the other meta-heuristic techniques, selecting fewer features and also figuring a lower computational burden. Concerning multi- and many-objective feature selection, both MO-I and MO-II approaches performed better than their single-objective meta-heuristic counterparts. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available