Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 92 - 102 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.35414/akufemubid.429540 İndeks Tarihi: 06-11-2019

Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods

Öz:
Clustering is a process of dividing the objects into subgroups so that the same set of data is similar, butthe data of different clusters is different. The basis of the fuzzy clustering algorithms is the C- Meansfamilies and the strongest algorithm is the Fuzzy C-means (FCM) algorithm. In this study; FCM,Possibilistic Fuzzy C-means (PFCM), Fuzzy Possibilistic C-means (FPCM) and Possibilistic C- means (PCM)algorithms are used to classify the several real data sets which are E.coli, wine and seed data sets intodifferent clusters by MATLAB program. Also, the results of PFCM, FPCM, PCM and FCM algorithms arecompared according to the classification accuracy, root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absoluteerror (MAE). The results show that the PFCM and FPCM algorithms have better performance than FCMand PCM according to criteria for comparing the performances.
Anahtar Kelime:

Kümeleme Yöntemlerinde BCO, OCO, BOCO ve OBCO Algoritmalarının Karşılaştırılması

Öz:
Kümeleme, nesneleri özelliklerine göre kümelere bölme işlemidir, böylece aynı veri kümesi benzerdir, farklı kümelerin verileri farklıdır. Bulanık kümeleme algoritmalarının temeli C- ortalamalar aileleridir ve en güçlü algoritma Bulanık C- ortalamalar (BCO) algoritmasıdır. Bu çalışmada; BCO, Olabilirlikli Bulanık C-ortalamalar (OBCO), Bulanık Olabilirlikli C-ortalamalar (BOCO) ve Olabilirlikli C- ortalamalar (OCO) algoritmaları, E.koli, şarap ve tohum veri setleri olarak ifade edilen birkaç gerçek veri setini farklı kümeler halinde sınıflandırmak için MATLAB programı vasıtasıyla kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, OBCO, BOCO ve OCO ve BCO algoritmaları sonuçları sınıflandırma doğruluğuna, hata kareler ortalamasının karekökü (HKOK) ve ortalama mutlak hata (OMH) değerlerine göre karşılaştırılmıştır. Deney sonuçları, performans karşılaştırmada kullanılan kriterlere göre OBCO ve BOCO algoritmalarının BCO ve OCO algoritmalarından daha iyi performansa sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Anderson, D. T., Zare, A. and Price, S., 2013. Comparing fuzzy, probabilistic and possibilistic partitions using the earth mover’s distance. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 21, 766-775.
  • Asuncion, A. and Newman, D. J., 2007. UCI Machine Learning Repository. Irvine, CA: University of California, School of Information and Computer Science.
  • Berry, M. W., 2004. Survey of Text Mining. SpringerVerlag, New York, USA.
  • Bezdek, J. C., 1981. Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms. New York: Plenum.
  • Bora, D. J. and Gupta, A. K., 2014. A comparative study between fuzzy clustering algorithm and hard clustering algorithm. International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology, 10, 108-113.
  • Cebeci, Z. and Yildiz, F., 2015. Comparison of k-means and fuzzy c-means algorithms on different cluster structures. Journal of Agricultural Informatics, 6, 13- 23.
  • Cebeci, Z., Kavlak, A.T. and Yıldız, F., 2017. Validation of fuzzy and possibilistic clustering results. International Artificial Intelligence and Data Processing Symposium, IEEE.
  • Charytanowicz, M., Niewczas, J., Kulczycki, P., Kowalski, P.A., Lukasik, S. and Zak, S., 2010. A complete gradient clustering algorithm for features analysis of x-ray images. Information Technologies in Biomedicine, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg.
  • Correa, C., Valero, C., Barreiro, P., Diago, M. P. and Tardaguila, J., 2011. A comparison of fuzzy clustering algorithms applied to feature extraction on vineyard. International Conference in Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 234-239.
  • Ganbold, G. and Chasia, S., 2017. Comparison between possibilistic c-means and artificial neural network classification algorithms in land use/ land cover classification. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology, 7, 57-78.
  • Jafar, M. O. A. and Sivakumar, R., 2012. A study on possibilistic and fuzzy possibilistic c- means clustering algorithms for data clustering. International Conference on Emerging Trends in Science, Engineering and technology, 90-95.
  • Krishnapuram, R. and Keller, J., 1993. A possibilistic approach to clustering. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 1, 98-110.
  • Nakai, K. and Kanehisa, M., 1991. Expert system for predicting protein localization sites in gram-negative bacteria. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 11, 95-110.
  • Nefti, S. and Oussalah, M., 2004. Probabilistic-fuzzy clustering algorithm. IEEE international Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 4786-4791.
  • Ozdemir, O. and Kaya, A., 2018. Effect of parameter selection on fuzzy clustering. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 2, 22-33.
  • Ozdemir, O. and Kaya, A., 2018. K-medoids and fuzzy cmeans algorithms for clustering CO2 emissions of Turkey and other OECD countries. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16, 2513-2526.
  • Pal, N. R., Pal, K. and Bezdek, J. C., 1997. A mixed c-means clustering model. IEEE International Conference Fuzzy Systems, 11 -21.
  • Pal, N. R., Pal, K., Keller, J. M. and Bezdek, J. C., 2005. A possibilistic fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 13, 517-530.
  • Saad, M. F. and Alimi, A.M., 2012. Validity index and number of cluster. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 9, 52-56.
  • Saad, M. F. and Alimi, A.M., 2016. Selecting parameters of the fuzzy possibilistic clustering algorithm. Communications on Applied Electronics, 5, 42-52.
  • Singhal, R. and Deepika, N., 2016. Classification of words: using PFCM clustering. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 5, 114-117.
  • Şahinli, F., 1999. Kümeleme analizine fuzzy set teorisi yaklaşımı. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 119.
  • Şanlı, K. and Apaydın, A., 2006. Robust kümeleme yöntemleri. Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 7, 33-39.
  • Timm, H, Borgelt, C., Doring, C. and Kruse, R., 2004. An extension to possibilistic fuzzy cluster analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 147, 3-16.
  • Zadeh, L., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
  • https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/index.php (07.03.2019)
APA ÖZDEMİR Ö, KAYA A (2019). Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. , 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
Chicago ÖZDEMİR ÖZER,KAYA ASLI AYTEN Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. (2019): 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
MLA ÖZDEMİR ÖZER,KAYA ASLI AYTEN Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. , 2019, ss.92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
AMA ÖZDEMİR Ö,KAYA A Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. . 2019; 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
Vancouver ÖZDEMİR Ö,KAYA A Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. . 2019; 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
IEEE ÖZDEMİR Ö,KAYA A "Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods." , ss.92 - 102, 2019. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
ISNAD ÖZDEMİR, ÖZER - KAYA, ASLI AYTEN. "Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods". (2019), 92-102. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.429540
APA ÖZDEMİR Ö, KAYA A (2019). Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(1), 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
Chicago ÖZDEMİR ÖZER,KAYA ASLI AYTEN Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 19, no.1 (2019): 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
MLA ÖZDEMİR ÖZER,KAYA ASLI AYTEN Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, vol.19, no.1, 2019, ss.92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
AMA ÖZDEMİR Ö,KAYA A Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019; 19(1): 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
Vancouver ÖZDEMİR Ö,KAYA A Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019; 19(1): 92 - 102. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
IEEE ÖZDEMİR Ö,KAYA A "Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods." Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 19, ss.92 - 102, 2019. 10.35414/akufemubid.429540
ISNAD ÖZDEMİR, ÖZER - KAYA, ASLI AYTEN. "Comparison of FCM, PCM, FPCM and PFCM Algorithms in Clustering Methods". Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 19/1 (2019), 92-102. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.429540