Conclusions and Future Research

Part of the Cognitive Intelligence and Robotics book series (CIR)


Data mining is an integrated process to deal with cleaning, integration, selection, transformation, extraction of data, evaluation of pattern and knowledge acquisition management.


  1. 1.
    Z. Pawlak, Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, London, Dordrecht 229, 1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Z. Pawlak, Rough set theory and its applications to data analysis. Cybern. Syst. 29, 661–688 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Rama Devi, P. Venu Gopal, P.S.V.S. Sai Prasad, Fuzzy rough data reduction using SVD. Int. J. Comput. Electr. Eng. 3(3) June (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, 2nd edn. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), (1992) 1st edn. (University of Michigan Press) (1975/1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Kennedy, The behavior of particles. The Seventh Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, (March 1998), p. 581–591Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Kennedy, The particle swarm: Social adaptation of knowledge. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, Indianapolis, Indiana, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, 303–308 1997Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Kennedy, R.C. Eberhart, A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, 4104–4109 1997Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Kennedy, R.C. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE international conference on neural networks, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, Perth, Australia, 1942–1948 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Liu, F. Hussain, C.L. Tan, M. Dash, Discretization: An enabling technique. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 6, 393–423 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Ge, F. Cao, R.F. Duan, Impact of discretization methods on the rough set-based classification of remotely sensed images. Int. J. Digit. Earth 4(4), 330–346 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.C.G. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gelatt, M. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(1983), 49–58 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N.R. Pal, J.C. Bezdek, On cluster validity for the fuzzy c-means model. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 3, 370–379 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doulaye Dembele, P. Kaster, Fuzzy c-means method for clustering microarray data. Bioinformatics 19(8), 973–980 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.J.C.H. Watkins, P. Dayan, Q-learning, machine learning, 8(3–4), 279–292 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Mazumder, T. Sharma, R. Mitra, N. Sengupta, J. Sil. Chapter 62 Generation of Sufficient Cut Points to Discretize Network Traffic Data Sets, (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. R. Anaraki, M. Eftekhari, Improving fuzzy-rough quick reduct for feature selection. IEEE 19th Iranian conference on electrical engineering (ICEE), 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    X.Y. Wang, G. Whitwell, J.M. Garibaldi, The application of a simulated annealing fuzzy clustering algorithm for cancer diagnosis. In the proceedings of IEEE 4th international conference on intelligent systems design and application, Budapest, Hungary, Aug 26–28 (2004), pp. 467–472Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Bandyopadhyay, Simulated annealing for fuzzy clustering: variable representation, evolution of the number of clusters and remote sensing application. Machine Intelligence Unit, Indian Statistical Institute (unpublished personal communication) 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. M. Kakade, On the sample complexity of reinforcement learning. PhD thesis, Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, 2003Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. R. Leffler, M. L. Littman, T. Edmunds, Efficient reinforcement learning with re locatable action models. Proceedings of the twenty-second conference on artificial intelligence (2007), pp. p. 572–577Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. Panait, S. Luke, Cooperative multi-agent learning: The state of the art. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 11(3), 387–434 (2005). SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUniversity College of BahrainManamaBahrain
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyIndian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST), ShibpurHowrahIndia

Personalised recommendations