Created by W.Langdon from gp-bibliography.bib Revision:1.2031
@InProceedings{iba:1999:BBBGP,
author = "Hitoshi Iba",
title = "Bagging, Boosting, and Bloating in Genetic
Programming",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference",
year = "1999",
editor = "Wolfgang Banzhaf and Jason Daida and
Agoston E. Eiben and Max H. Garzon and Vasant Honavar and
Mark Jakiela and Robert E. Smith",
volume = "2",
pages = "1053--1060",
address = "Orlando, Florida, USA",
publisher_address = "San Francisco, CA 94104, USA",
month = "13-17 " # jul,
publisher = "Morgan Kaufmann",
keywords = "genetic algorithms, genetic programming, classifier
ensembles",
ISBN = "1-55860-611-4",
URL = "
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~wbl/biblio/gecco1999/GP-407.pdf",
URL = "
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~wbl/biblio/gecco1999/GP-407.ps",
abstract = "subpopulations",
notes = "GECCO-99 A joint meeting of the eighth international
conference on genetic algorithms (ICGA-99) and the
fourth annual genetic programming conference (GP-99)
10 Subpopulations each has its own training data
(produced using the boosting or bagging methods. Best
of each subpopulation has vote in final result. Do we
actually need subpopulations, could not the whole
algorithm be split into T entirely separate GP runs?
SGPC1.1
p1054 {"}controlling the bloating effect is closely
related to the performance improvement...{"}
noisy cos(2x)=1-sin(x)**2, Mackey-Glass chaotic time
series, 6MUX, symbolic regression, nikkei225
Description of boosting weight adjustment algorithm
(p1054) seems to be wrong?
p1056 BagGP, BoostGP > GP, BagGP=BoostGP But only in
the case of noisy cos(2x) does difference (table 2)
seem big. Mention of DSS and PADO.
p1059 Says Bagging and Boosting yield lower bloat.
(does not explain why) Little supporting data (Fig 5).
Boosting v co-evolution",
}
Genetic Programming entries for Hitoshi Iba