Advertisement

DYNAMIC CLUSTERING ALGORITHM BASED ON ADAPTIVE RESONANCE THEORY

  • D.X. Tian
  • Y.H. Liu
  • J.R. Shi
Conference paper

Abstract

Artificial neural network can be categorized according to the type of learning, that is, supervised learning versus unsupervised learning. Unsupervised learning can find the major features of the origin data without indication. Adaptive resonance theory can classify large various data into groups of patterns. Through analysing the limit of adaptive resonance theory, a dynamic clustering algorithm is provided. The algorithm not only can prevent from discarding irregular data or giving rise to dead neurons but also can cluster unlabelled data when the number of clustering is unknown. In the experiments, the same data are used to train the adaptive resonance theory network and the dynamic clustering algorithm network. The results prove that dynamic clustering algorithm can cluster unlabelled data correctly.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    H. Ressom, D. Wang and P. Natarajan (2003), Adaptive double self-organizing maps for clustering gene expression profiles. Neural Network, 16, 633–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Hammer, A. Micheli, A. Sperduti and M. Strickert (2004), A general framework for unsupervised processing of structured data.Neurocomputing, 57, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.L. Wu and M.S. Yang (2003), A fuzzy-soft learning vector quantization. Neuroncomputing, 55, 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.K. Fung and Y.H. Liu (2001), A game-theoretic adaptive categorization mechanism for ART-type networks. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2130, 170–176.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.K. Fung and Y.H. Liu (2003), Adaptive categorization of ART networks in robot behavior learning using game-theoretic formulation. Neural Networks, 16, 10, 1403–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Kamimura (2003), Competitive learning by information maximization: Eliminating dead neurons in competitive learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2714, 99–106.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Andrew (2000), Analyses on the generalized lotto-type competitive learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1983, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Stephen, S. Jonathan and N. Ulrich (2002), A self-organising network that grows when required. Neural Networks, 15, 1041–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Hirotaka and N. Hiroyuki (2003), Efficiency of self-generating neural networks applied to pattern recognition. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38, 1225–1232.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    T.M. Nair, C.L. Zheng and J.L. Fink (2003), Rival penalized competitive learning (RPCL): A topology-determining algorithm for analyzing gene expression data. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 27, 565–574.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Z.Y. Liu, K.C. Chiu and L. Xu (2003), Local PCA for line detection and thinning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2683, 21–34.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.A. Garcia-Bernal, J. Munoz-perez, J.A. Gomez-Ruiz and I. Ladron de Guevara-lopez (2003), A competitive neural network based on dipoles. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2686, 398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Acciani, E. Chiarantoni, G. Fornarelli and S. Vergura (2003), A feature extraction unsupervised neural network for an environment data set. Neural Networks, 16, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • D.X. Tian
    • 1
  • Y.H. Liu
    • 1
  • J.R. Shi
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Computer Science and TechnologyJilin UniversityChangchunChina
  2. 2.Automation DepartmentJilin Chemical Institute of TechnologyJilinChina

Personalised recommendations