20,226 research outputs found

    Learning Opposites with Evolving Rules

    Full text link
    The idea of opposition-based learning was introduced 10 years ago. Since then a noteworthy group of researchers has used some notions of oppositeness to improve existing optimization and learning algorithms. Among others, evolutionary algorithms, reinforcement agents, and neural networks have been reportedly extended into their opposition-based version to become faster and/or more accurate. However, most works still use a simple notion of opposites, namely linear (or type- I) opposition, that for each x[a,b]x\in[a,b] assigns its opposite as x˘I=a+bx\breve{x}_I=a+b-x. This, of course, is a very naive estimate of the actual or true (non-linear) opposite x˘II\breve{x}_{II}, which has been called type-II opposite in literature. In absence of any knowledge about a function y=f(x)y=f(\mathbf{x}) that we need to approximate, there seems to be no alternative to the naivety of type-I opposition if one intents to utilize oppositional concepts. But the question is if we can receive some level of accuracy increase and time savings by using the naive opposite estimate x˘I\breve{x}_I according to all reports in literature, what would we be able to gain, in terms of even higher accuracies and more reduction in computational complexity, if we would generate and employ true opposites? This work introduces an approach to approximate type-II opposites using evolving fuzzy rules when we first perform opposition mining. We show with multiple examples that learning true opposites is possible when we mine the opposites from the training data to subsequently approximate x˘II=f(x,y)\breve{x}_{II}=f(\mathbf{x},y).Comment: Accepted for publication in The 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2015), August 2-5, 2015, Istanbul, Turke

    Learning Opposites Using Neural Networks

    Full text link
    Many research works have successfully extended algorithms such as evolutionary algorithms, reinforcement agents and neural networks using "opposition-based learning" (OBL). Two types of the "opposites" have been defined in the literature, namely \textit{type-I} and \textit{type-II}. The former are linear in nature and applicable to the variable space, hence easy to calculate. On the other hand, type-II opposites capture the "oppositeness" in the output space. In fact, type-I opposites are considered a special case of type-II opposites where inputs and outputs have a linear relationship. However, in many real-world problems, inputs and outputs do in fact exhibit a nonlinear relationship. Therefore, type-II opposites are expected to be better in capturing the sense of "opposition" in terms of the input-output relation. In the absence of any knowledge about the problem at hand, there seems to be no intuitive way to calculate the type-II opposites. In this paper, we introduce an approach to learn type-II opposites from the given inputs and their outputs using the artificial neural networks (ANNs). We first perform \emph{opposition mining} on the sample data, and then use the mined data to learn the relationship between input xx and its opposite x˘\breve{x}. We have validated our algorithm using various benchmark functions to compare it against an evolving fuzzy inference approach that has been recently introduced. The results show the better performance of a neural approach to learn the opposites. This will create new possibilities for integrating oppositional schemes within existing algorithms promising a potential increase in convergence speed and/or accuracy.Comment: To appear in proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2016), Cancun, Mexico, December 201

    COMPLEXITY * SIMPLICITY * SIMPLEXITY

    Get PDF
    “In the midst of order, there is chaos; but in the midst of chaos, there is order”, John Gribbin wrote in his book Deep Simplicity (p.76). In this dialectical spirit, we discuss the generative tension between complexity and simplicity in the theory and practice of management and organization. Complexity theory suggests that the relationship between complex environments and complex organizations advanced by the well-known Ashby’s law, may be reconsidered: only simple organization provides enough space for individual agency to match environmental turbulence in the form of complex organizational responses. We suggest that complex organizing may be paradoxically facilitated by a simple infrastructure, and that the theory of organizations may be viewed as resulting from the interplay between simplicity and complexity. JEL codes:

    Philosophical foundations of the Death and Anti-Death discussion

    Get PDF
    Perhaps there has been no greater opportunity than in this “VOLUME FIFTEEN of our Death And Anti-Death set of anthologies” to write about how might think about life and how to avoid death. There are two reasons to discuss “life”, the first being enhancing our understanding of who we are and why we may be here in the Universe. The second is more practical: how humans meet the physical challenges brought about by the way they have interacted with their environment. Many persons discussing “life” beg the question about what “life” is. Surely, when one discusses how to overcome its opposite, death, they are not referring to another “living” thing such as a plant. There seems to be a commonality, though, and it is this commonality is one needing elaboration. It ostensibly seems to be the boundary condition separating what is completely passive (inert) from what attempts to maintain its integrity, as well as fulfilling other conditions we think “life” has. In our present discussion, there will be a reminder that it by no means has been unequivocally established what life really is by placing quotes around the word, namely, “life”. Consider it a tag representing a bundle of philosophical ideas that will be unpacked in this paper

    Some resonances between Eastern thought and Integral Biomathics in the framework of the WLIMES formalism for modelling living systems

    Get PDF
    Forty-two years ago, Capra published “The Tao of Physics” (Capra, 1975). In this book (page 17) he writes: “The exploration of the atomic and subatomic world in the twentieth century has …. necessitated a radical revision of many of our basic concepts” and that, unlike ‘classical’ physics, the sub-atomic and quantum “modern physics” shows resonances with Eastern thoughts and “leads us to a view of the world which is very similar to the views held by mystics of all ages and traditions.“ This article stresses an analogous situation in biology with respect to a new theoretical approach for studying living systems, Integral Biomathics (IB), which also exhibits some resonances with Eastern thought. Stepping on earlier research in cybernetics1 and theoretical biology,2 IB has been developed since 2011 by over 100 scientists from a number of disciplines who have been exploring a substantial set of theoretical frameworks. From that effort, the need for a robust core model utilizing advanced mathematics and computation adequate for understanding the behavior of organisms as dynamic wholes was identified. At this end, the authors of this article have proposed WLIMES (Ehresmann and Simeonov, 2012), a formal theory for modeling living systems integrating both the Memory Evolutive Systems (Ehresmann and Vanbremeersch, 2007) and the Wandering Logic Intelligence (Simeonov, 2002b). Its principles will be recalled here with respect to their resonances to Eastern thought
    corecore