4.7 Article

Cost-sensitive feature selection using two-archive multi-objective artificial bee colony algorithm

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 46-58

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.06.044

关键词

Cost-sensitive feature selection; Artificial bee colony algorithm; Multi-objective optimization; Particle swarm optimization; Differential evolution

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61876185, 61806119, 61773119, 61703256, 61771297, 61761136008]
  2. Six Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province [DZXX-053]
  3. Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China [2019JM-320]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since different features may require different costs, the cost-sensitive feature selection problem become more and more important in real-world applications. Generally, it includes two main conflicting objectives, i.e., maximizing the classification performance and minimizing the feature cost. However, most existing approaches treat this task as a single-objective optimization problem. To satisfy various requirements of decision-makers, this paper studies a multi-objective feature selection approach, called two-archive multi-objective artificial bee colony algorithm (TMABC-FS). Two new operators, i.e., convergence-guiding search for employed bees and diversity-guiding search for onlooker bees, are proposed for obtaining a group of non-dominated feature subsets with good distribution and convergence. And two archives, i.e., the leader archive and the external archive are employed to enhance the search capability of different kinds of bees. The proposed TMABC-FS is validated on several datasets from UCI, and is compared with two traditional algorithms and three multi-objective methods. Results have shown that TMABC-FS is an efficient and robust optimization method for solving cost-sensitive feature selection problems. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据