4.6 Article

Recurrent Broad Learning Systems for Time Series Prediction

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 1405-1417

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2863020

关键词

Artificial neural networks; Time series analysis; Learning systems; Zinc; Predictive models; Complex systems; Feedforward systems; Broad learning systems (BLSs); prediction; neural networks (NNs); time series

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61702077, 61773087, 61751202, 61751205, 61572540, 61672131]
  2. Macau Science and Technology Development Fund (FDCT) [019/2015/A1, 079/2017/A2, 024/2015/AMJ]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT16RC(3)123]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The broad learning system (BLS) is an emerging approach for effective and efficient modeling of complex systems. The inputs are transferred and placed in the feature nodes, and then sent into the enhancement nodes for nonlinear transformation. The structure of a BLS can be extended in a wide sense. Incremental learning algorithms are designed for fast learning in broad expansion. Based on the typical BLSs, a novel recurrent BLS (RBLS) is proposed in this paper. The nodes in the enhancement units of the BLS are recurrently connected, for the purpose of capturing the dynamic characteristics of a time series. A sparse autoencoder is used to extract the features from the input instead of the randomly initialized weights. In this way, the RBLS retains the merit of fast computing and fits for processing sequential data. Motivated by the idea of fine-tuning in deep learning, the weights in the RBLS can be updated by conjugate gradient methods if the prediction errors are large. We exhibit the merits of our proposed model on several chaotic time series. Experimental results substantiate the effectiveness of the RBLS. For chaotic benchmark datasets, the RBLS achieves very small errors, and for the real-world dataset, the performance is satisfactory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据