4.6 Article

An incremental meta-cognitive-based scaffolding fuzzy neural network

期刊

NEUROCOMPUTING
卷 171, 期 -, 页码 89-105

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.06.022

关键词

Evolving fuzzy systems; Fuzzy neural networks; Meta-cognitive learning; Sequential learning

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DP110103733, DP140101366]
  2. UTS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The idea of meta-cognitive learning has enriched the landscape of evolving systems, because it emulates three fundamental aspects of human learning: what-to-learn; how-to-learn; and when-to-learn. However, existing meta-cognitive algorithms still exclude Scaffolding theory, which can realize a plug-and-play classifier. Consequently, these algorithms require laborious pre- and/or post-training processes to be carried out in addition to the main training process. This paper introduces a novel meta-cognitive algorithm termed GENERIC-Classifier (gClass), where the how-to-learn part constitutes a synergy of Scaffolding Theory - a tutoring theory that fosters the ability to sort out complex learning tasks, and Schema Theory - a learning theory of knowledge acquisition by humans. The what-to-learn aspect adopts an online active learning concept by virtue of an extended conflict and ignorance method, making gClass an incremental semi-supervised classifier, whereas the when-to-learn component makes use of the standard sample reserved strategy. A generalized version of the Takagi-Sugeno Kang (TSK) fuzzy system is devised to serve as the cognitive constituent. That is, the rule premise is underpinned by multivariate Gaussian functions, while the rule consequent employs a subset of the non-linear Chebyshev polynomial. Thorough empirical studies, confirmed by their corresponding statistical tests, have numerically validated the efficacy of gClass, which delivers better classification rates than state-of-the-art classifiers while having less complexity. Crown Copyright (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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