2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0114(98)00364-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of partition evaluation measures in an adaptive partitioning algorithm for global optimization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The FT proposed here is related to the fuzzy adaptive partitioning algorithm (FAPA) developed for global optimization [8], [9] and it differs from FAPA in two major aspects. These are 1) FT has to work with a limited number of data collected prior to its implementation, whereas FAPA goes on taking samples under the guidance of the partitioning/assessment process; and 2) FT uses an overlapping partitioning scheme rather than the nonoverlapping approach found in FAPA, and it analyzes the data multiple times with a systematically changing overlap rate to achieve the following three goals: a) To utilize the information extracted from the set of given data more efficiently, because data found in intersection areas of partitions contribute to more than one data sets simultaneously; b) to form and assess different data clusters resulting from applying varying overlap rates between neighboring partitions so that different classification topologies might be obtained for the site and unified; and c) to increase classification reliability by imposing multiple control before including a given block in the set of noncontaminated blocks.…”
Section: Ft Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The FT proposed here is related to the fuzzy adaptive partitioning algorithm (FAPA) developed for global optimization [8], [9] and it differs from FAPA in two major aspects. These are 1) FT has to work with a limited number of data collected prior to its implementation, whereas FAPA goes on taking samples under the guidance of the partitioning/assessment process; and 2) FT uses an overlapping partitioning scheme rather than the nonoverlapping approach found in FAPA, and it analyzes the data multiple times with a systematically changing overlap rate to achieve the following three goals: a) To utilize the information extracted from the set of given data more efficiently, because data found in intersection areas of partitions contribute to more than one data sets simultaneously; b) to form and assess different data clusters resulting from applying varying overlap rates between neighboring partitions so that different classification topologies might be obtained for the site and unified; and c) to increase classification reliability by imposing multiple control before including a given block in the set of noncontaminated blocks.…”
Section: Ft Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hansen and Jaumard, 1995; or in a heuristic manner (stochastic approaches, e.g. Ozdamar and Demirhan, 2000;Ozdamar and Demirhan, 2001). Deterministic partitioning algorithms can be classified under two major categories: algorithms based on interval methods (e.g., Moore and Ratschek, 1988) and algorithms based on certain a priori assumptions on functions, such as Lipschitz methods (e.g., Gourdin et al, 1994;Hansen and Jaumard, 1995;Pinter, 1988).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reviews and numerical comparisons of different adaptive partitioning methods can be found in Pintér (1992), and Pintér (1996) among many others and more recently inÖzdamar and Demirhan (2001).…”
Section: Adaptive Partitioning Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A large class of global optimization algorithms have adopted Divide and Conquer (Partitioning) approaches. Partitioning approaches divide given domains into smaller sub-spaces whose potential of holding the global optimum is determined either reliably (deterministic approaches), such as Hansen and Jaumard (1995) and Pintér (1996); or in a heuristic manner (stochastic approaches), such asÖzdamar and Demirhan (2000Demirhan ( , 2001).…”
Section: Partitioning Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%