Fuzzy Wavelet Polynomial Neural Networks: Analysis and Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we propose a concept of fuzzy wavelet polynomial neural networks (FWPNNs) based on concepts and constructs of polynomial neural networks and fuzzy wavelet neurons (FWNs). These networks exhibit a rule-based architecture while each rule in the FWN consists of the premise part and consequence part. The premise part is realized by using C-means clustering method, while the consequence part is realized by means of wavelet functions whose parameters are estimated with the aid of the least square method. In some sense, the FWPNN can be regarded as a generalized fuzzy wavelet neural network (FWNN). Unlike Gaussian membership functions that are commonly utilized to implement the premise part of the rules in typical FWNNs, C-means method is employed here to overcome a possible curse of dimensionality. Polynomial neural networks (PNNs) are used to express the nonlinearity of a complex system. Furthermore, the particle swarm optimization is used to optimize the design parameters of the proposed network. Based on the PNNs and FWNNs, the proposed FWPNNs take advantages of these two neural networks: it exhibits the abilities to describe high-order nonlinear relations between input and output variables and it is beneficial to describe models impacted by uncertainty. The proposed FWPNNs are applied for time-series prediction and regression problems (e.g., control of dynamic plants). Several well-known modeling benchmarks including regression and time series are considered to evaluate the performance of the proposed FWPNNs. A comparative analysis shows that the proposed FWPNNs result in better performance when comparing with some previous models reported in the literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".