Learning Opposites with Evolving Rules
  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 $x\in[a,b]$ assigns its
opposite as $\breve{x}_I=a+b-x$. This, of course, is a very naive estimate of
the actual or true (non-linear) opposite $\breve{x}_{II}$, which has been
called type-II opposite in literature. In absence of any knowledge about a
function $y=f(\mathbf{x})$ 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
$\breve{x}_I$ 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 $\breve{x}_{II}=f(\mathbf{x},y)$.
