Machine learning soft computing fuzzy set to identify ubiquitous integrated network state at different AM operations

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 219
Author(s):  
K. Harinadha Reddy
Author(s):  
Shafagat Mahmudova

The study machine learning for software based on Soft Computing technology. It analyzes Soft Computing components. Their use in software, their advantages and challenges are studied. Machine learning and its features are highlighted. The functions and features of neural networks are clarified, and recommendations were given.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1002-1015
Author(s):  
Zhenlong Hu ◽  
Hojat Karami ◽  
Alireza Rezaei ◽  
Yashar DadrasAjirlou ◽  
Md. Jalil Piran ◽  
...  

Increased attentiveness on the environmental and effects of aging, deterioration and extreme events on civil infrastructure has created the need for more advanced damage detection tools and structural health monitoring (SHM). Today, these tasks are performed by signal processing, visual inspection techniques along with traditional well known impedance based health monitoring EMI technique. New research areas have been explored that improves damage detection at incipient stage and when the damage is substantial. Addressing these issues at early age prevents catastrophe situation for the safety of human lives. To improve the existing damage detection newly developed techniques in conjugation with EMI innovative new sensors, signal processing and soft computing techniques are discussed in details this paper. The advanced techniques (soft computing, signal processing, visual based, embedded IOT) are employed as a global method in prediction, to identify, locate, optimize, the damage area and deterioration. The amount and severity, multiple cracks on civil infrastructure like concrete and RC structures (beams and bridges) using above techniques along with EMI technique and use of PZT transducer. In addition to survey advanced innovative signal processing, machine learning techniques civil infrastructure connected to IOT that can make infrastructure smart and increases its efficiency that is aimed at socioeconomic, environmental and sustainable development.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 9243-9256
Author(s):  
Jordan J. Bird ◽  
Anikó Ekárt ◽  
Diego R. Faria

Abstract In this work, we argue that the implications of pseudorandom and quantum-random number generators (PRNG and QRNG) inexplicably affect the performances and behaviours of various machine learning models that require a random input. These implications are yet to be explored in soft computing until this work. We use a CPU and a QPU to generate random numbers for multiple machine learning techniques. Random numbers are employed in the random initial weight distributions of dense and convolutional neural networks, in which results show a profound difference in learning patterns for the two. In 50 dense neural networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), QRNG increases over PRNG for accent classification at + 0.1%, and QRNG exceeded PRNG for mental state EEG classification by + 2.82%. In 50 convolutional neural networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), the MNIST and CIFAR-10 problems are benchmarked, and in MNIST the QRNG experiences a higher starting accuracy than the PRNG but ultimately only exceeds it by 0.02%. In CIFAR-10, the QRNG outperforms PRNG by + 0.92%. The n-random split of a Random Tree is enhanced towards and new Quantum Random Tree (QRT) model, which has differing classification abilities to its classical counterpart, 200 trees are trained and compared (100 PRNG/100 QRNG). Using the accent and EEG classification data sets, a QRT seemed inferior to a RT as it performed on average worse by − 0.12%. This pattern is also seen in the EEG classification problem, where a QRT performs worse than a RT by − 0.28%. Finally, the QRT is ensembled into a Quantum Random Forest (QRF), which also has a noticeable effect when compared to the standard Random Forest (RF). Ten to 100 ensembles of trees are benchmarked for the accent and EEG classification problems. In accent classification, the best RF (100 RT) outperforms the best QRF (100 QRF) by 0.14% accuracy. In EEG classification, the best RF (100 RT) outperforms the best QRF (100 QRT) by 0.08% but is extremely more complex, requiring twice the amount of trees in committee. All differences are observed to be situationally positive or negative and thus are likely data dependent in their observed functional behaviour.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document