Comparison between two different methodologies to design neural classifiers

被引:0
|
作者
Prieto, R [1 ]
Rosendo, JA [1 ]
Herrera, AA [1 ]
Padrón, A [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Ctr Ciencias Aplicadas & Desarrollo Tecnol, Lab Comp Adaptable, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico
来源
7TH WORLD MULTICONFERENCE ON SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, VOL XIV, PROCEEDINGS: COMPUTER SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND APPLICATIONS | 2003年
关键词
artificial neural networks; neural classifiers; back-propagation training; evolutionary algorithms; genetic algorithms;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
In this work we present the design of a neural classifier to be used in an automatic system aimed to recognize and count cells in different stages of development. The purpose of the neural classifier subsystem is to determine the kind of cell a pattern obtained from the digital image processing units belongs. However, the different cells presented in a preparation are not easy to discriminate, even to a human expert, due to the fact that the cell features that can be processed are not totally discriminatory. In this way, the neural classifier must provide a reliable classification of a set of overlapping patterns. In order to build a neural classifier, its structural and performance features must be adapted to the problem characteristics. Nevertheless, to find the best structure that produces the best classifier is a problem in itself that involves several factors. We had faced this problem comparing two different methodologies: one using classical neural network techniques to select the proper architecture and training process; the other using multi-evolutionary techniques to search optimal configuration of the classifier.
引用
收藏
页码:391 / 395
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison between different neural networks as EEG pattern classifiers
    Sánchez, JLM
    Navarro, RA
    Vázquez, LB
    Quintas, MM
    Cagigas, SEP
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND IASTED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2004, : 297 - 300
  • [2] Quantitative comparison between two different methodologies to define rainfall thresholds for landslide forecasting
    Lagomarsino, D.
    Segoni, S.
    Rosi, A.
    Rossi, G.
    Battistini, A.
    Catani, F.
    Casagli, N.
    NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2015, 15 (10) : 2413 - 2423
  • [3] Comparison of different methodologies for parameter extraction in circuit design
    Anile, A. M.
    Rinaudo, S.
    Ciccazzo, A.
    Martino, V. Cinnera
    Milazzo, C.
    Spinella, S.
    SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, 2006, 9 : 283 - +
  • [4] BRAIN MACHINE INTERFACE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN FUZZY AND NEURAL CLASSIFIERS
    Hema, C. R.
    Paulraj, M. P.
    Nagarajan, R.
    Yaacob, Sazali
    Adom, A. H.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE COMPUTING INFORMATION AND CONTROL, 2009, 5 (07): : 1819 - 1827
  • [5] Comparison of two different methodologies for correcting refraction in vertical angles
    Nikolitsas, K.
    Lambrou, E.
    APPLIED GEOMATICS, 2021, 13 (01) : 119 - 129
  • [6] Design and evaluation of neural classifiers
    HintzMadsen, M
    Pedersen, MW
    Hansen, LK
    Larsen, J
    NEURAL NETWORKS FOR SIGNAL PROCESSING VI, 1996, : 223 - 232
  • [7] Comparison between Different Classifiers Used in a Motor Imagery BCI
    Toderean, Roxana
    Dimian, Mihai
    Lazar, Anca Mihaela
    2019 E-HEALTH AND BIOENGINEERING CONFERENCE (EHB), 2019,
  • [8] Comparison of two different methodologies for correcting refraction in vertical angles
    K. Nikolitsas
    E. Lambrou
    Applied Geomatics, 2021, 13 : 119 - 129
  • [9] A COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT CLASSIFIERS FOR TENNIS MATCH RESULT PREDICTION
    Ghosh, Soumadip
    Sadhu, Shayak
    Biswas, Sushanta
    Sarkar, Debasree
    Sarkar, Partha Pratim
    MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, 2019, 32 (02) : 97 - 111
  • [10] Comparison of different evolutionary methodologies applied to electronic filter design
    Zebulum, RS
    Pacheco, MA
    Vellasco, M
    1998 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION - PROCEEDINGS, 1998, : 434 - 439