Multiclass Classification Through Multidimensional Clustering 233
Ta b l e 3
Comparison between M2GP, M3GP and eM3GPHRT
IM-3
WAV
SEG
IM-10
YST
VOW
M-L
Training fitnessM2GP
89.4
98.2
87.4
96.8
91.4
62.6
95.9
100
M3GP
94.7
99.6
90.7
98.1
93.0
68.5
100
100
eM3GP
86.7
98.2
81.8
96.1
92.0
61.0
87.8
100
Test fitnessM2GP
80.2
93.8
84.9
95.6
90.2
53.8
85.9
63.0
M3GP
79.0
95.4
84.3
95.6
91.0
56.2
93.8
57.1
eM3GP
80.8
93.2
81.2
94.7
90.3
56.1
78.6
65.1
# NodesM2GP
37
24
126
43
117
146
49
33
M3GP
110
66
71
111
239
274
53
13
eM3GP
4
8
3
8
58
14
10
4
# DimensionsM2GP
3
(1–8)
2
(1–4)
5
(2–10)
4
(3–8)
7
(4–10)
6
(1–13)
9
(4–18)
10
(7–12)
M3GP
12
(1–17)
5
(2–8)
31
(29–37)
11
(5–21)
12
(11–16)
13
(11–18)
20
(16–20)
12
(10-13)
eM3GP
1
(1–4)
1
(1–5)
1
(1–10)
6
(2–10)
7
(3–12)
10
(1–16)
4
(1–14)
2
(1–11)
The values refer the medians of 30 runs. The best values are in bold (if more than one, it means there is nostatistically significant difference between the medians)Whenever a result is said to be significantly different (better or worse) from another, it means the difference isstatistically significant according to the Friedman test with Bonferroni-Holm correction using the 0.05 significancelevel