Available online at www.HighTechJournal.

org

HighTech and Innovation

Journal
Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021
ISSN: 2723-9535

Optimization of Fuzzy Support Vector Machine (FSVM) Performance

by Distance-Based Similarity Measure Classification

Sugiyarto Surono 1* , Tia Nursofiyani 1, Annisa E. Haryati 1

1
Department of Mathematics, Ahmad Dahlan Univesity, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Received 08 September 2021; Revised 05 November 2021; Accepted 15 November 2021; Published 01 December 2021

Abstract
This research aims to determine the maximum or minimum value of a Fuzzy Support Vector Machine (FSVM)
Algorithm using the optimization function. As opposed to FSVM, which is less effective on large and complex data
because of its sensitivity to outliers and noise, SVM is considered an effective method of data classification. One of the
techniques used to overcome this inefficiency is fuzzy logic, with its ability to select the right membership function,
which significantly affects the effectiveness of the FSVM algorithm performance. This research was carried out using the
Gaussian membership function and the Distance-Based Similarity Measurement consisting of the Euclidean, Manhattan,
Chebyshev, and Minkowsky distance methods. Subsequently, the optimization of the FSVM classification process was
determined using four proposed FSVM models and normal SVM as comparison references. The results showed that the
method tends to eliminate the impact of noise and enhance classification accuracy effectively. FSVM provides the best
and highest accuracy value of 94% at a penalty parameter value of 1000 using the Chebyshev distance matrix.
Furthermore, the model proposed will be compared to the performance evaluation model in preliminary studies. The
result further showed that using FSVM with a Chebyshev distance matrix and a Gaussian membership function provides
a better performance evaluation value.
Keywords: FSVM; Membership Function Fuzzy; Soft Computing; Classification; Distance-based Similarity Measure.

1. Introduction
Classification is a grouping method based on the characteristics possessed by objects. The Support Vector Machine
(SVM) is one of the classification methods that has been the subject of debate over the last decade due to its high
generalization performance and wide application. Research related to SVM performance, such as SVM, ANN, KNN,
fuzzy logic, and RF (random forest) methods [1] to classify driving models, indicates that SVM has the highest
accuracy value of 96%. Furthermore, in [2] and [3], SVM is proven to have a high level of accuracy and generalization
performance compared to other classification methods. In the real world, this method is applied in many areas, such as
text categorization [4-6], speech recognition [7], bioinformatics [8-11], and network security [11].
Vanpik introduced SVM in 1995 [12] based on structural risk minimization theory. It is one of the superior
methods trained with an algorithm and used to separate a dataset into two or more classes. Stave Gunn stated that the
SVM method is used to determine the optimal global solution and works by mapping the training data into a high-
dimensional space while looking for a classification capable of maximizing the margin between the two classes [13,

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2021-02-04-02
 This is an open access article under the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
© Authors retain all copyrights.

285
HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021

14]. Margin is the distance between the support vector and the hyperplane, while the support vector is the pattern of
each class with the closest distance to the hyperplane.
Due to noise and outliers, the SVM method suffers greatly in complex problems with many parameters, which
causes a decrease in generalization performance [15]. Therefore, one of the methods used to solve this problem is by
combining the SVM method with fuzzy logic [16-18]. Preliminary studies applied fuzzy logic to two events, namely
using fuzzy rules [19, 20], and its membership functions [21-26]. In each sample, new input was used to provide a
different contribution to eliminate the noise and outlier effect and to improve the generalization performance of SVM
classification.
Fuzzy logic is a mathematical way of describing obscurity and was introduced by Lotfi A. Zadeh in 1965 [27]. The
SVM method with a combination of fuzzy logic is called the Fuzzy Support Vector Machine (FSVM), where the
membership function is a crucial step in classification [28]. Several methods, such as function approach, intuition,
rank-ordering, inductive reasoning, neural networks, and genetic algorithm, were used to build a membership function
in fuzzy.
Euclidean distance is a general criterion chosen to determine the similarity of the data used to construct the
membership function. Xiaokang et al. (2016) [25] proposed the FSVM method based on the Euclidean distance using 3
methods, namely FSVM-1, FSVM-2, and FSVM-3, by comparing the distances of positive and negative samples.
However, in the FSVM-3 method, point samples are mapped into a high-dimensional space and calculated using the
FSVM-2 method. This research indicates that the best accuracy is given by FSVM-3 followed by FSVM-2 and FSVM-
1 [29].
The measuring methods commonly used to determine similarity measurements are Euclidean, Manhattan,
Chebyshev, Minkowski, Hamming, Mahanalobis, and Minkowski Chebyshev distances. There are various advantages
and disadvantages associated with the use of these methods. According to Mohammed and Abdulazeez (2018),
euclidean distance is the most commonly used method for calculating distances in numerical data. It works efficiently
by calculating the similarity in the grouping and has the ability to separate the data adequately [29]. Manhattan
distance is often used due to its ability to detect special circumstances such as the presence of outliers [30]. This is in
addition to the sensitivity of the Chebyshev distance in detecting objects with outliers.
Based on the description of several preliminary studies, the combination of SVM and fuzzy logic (FSVM) methods
tend to optimize classification by selecting the right membership function. Therefore, this research aims to apply the
FSVM with a Gaussian membership function to determine distance measures. Furthermore, comparative research is
carried out using several methods such as Euclidean, Manhattan, Chebyshev, Minkowski, Hamming, and Minkowski
Chebyshev distances.

2. Materials and Methods

The fuzzy system proposed by Lotfi A. Zadeh was built based on fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic. This method is
useful for dealing with complex real-world problems such as uncertainty and imprecision. Set theory and classification
techniques are very useful in dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity, which leads to an increase in the generalizability
of the classifier. FSVM is an extension method proposed by Lin and Wang in 2002 to reduce the sensitivity of SVM to
outliers or noise. It works by assigning a low weight to each sample by determining a fuzzy membership function
based on the similarity of data (distance). The application of fuzzy membership function (𝑠𝑖 ) where 0 < 𝑠𝑖 ≤ 1 is on
the training dataset 𝑥𝑖 with class 𝑦𝑖 ∈ [1, −1] . Therefore, the fuzzy version dataset is determined as follows:
{(𝑥1 , 𝑦1 , 𝑠1 ) , (𝑥2 , 𝑦2 , 𝑠2 ) , … . , (𝑥𝑛 , 𝑦𝑛 , 𝑠𝑛 )} . Meanwhile, the optimal FSVM hyperplane is obtained by entering the
membership function value in the standard SVM formula.
𝑛
1 2
min ‖𝑤‖ + 𝐶 ∑ 𝑠𝑖 𝜉𝑖 (1)
2
𝑖=0
𝑇 (2)
𝑦𝑖 (𝑤 𝑥𝑖 + 𝑏) ≥ 1 − 𝜉𝑖 ; 𝜉𝑖 ≥ 0; 1≤𝑖≤𝑛

where 𝑠𝑖 denotes a fuzzy membership function with a value between 0 and 1 (0 < 𝑠𝑖 ≤ 1). In 2016, Xiaokang et al.
proposed a research to determine the degree of membership of each data by adopting the calculation of the
membership function. This research was carried out by comparing the distance from each positive and negative sample
to the center of each class using the formula for calculating Euclidean, Manhattan, Chebyshev distance, and the
Minkowsky distances. The calculation of the membership function is stated as follows:

286
HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021

𝑓(𝑑𝑖+ ), 𝑖𝑓‖𝑥𝑖+ − 𝑥 +𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖ ≥ ‖𝑥𝑖+ − 𝑥 −𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖

1, 𝑖𝑓𝑗 ‖𝑥𝑖+ − 𝑥 +𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖ < ‖𝑥𝑖+ − 𝑥 −𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖
𝑠𝑖 = (3)
1, 𝑖𝑓‖𝑥𝑖− − 𝑥 +𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖ > ‖𝑥𝑖− − 𝑥 −𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖
− − + − −
{ 𝑓(𝑑𝑖 ), 𝑖𝑓‖𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖ ≤ ‖𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖
where;

‖𝑥 + − 𝑥 +𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖
𝑑𝑖 { 𝑖− (4)
‖𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥 +𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 ‖

When the distance of the positive class is less than the negative, it is considered a "useful point," and its membership is
set as 1. However, supposing the distance of the positive class is greater than the negative, it is considered a “noisy
point” and calculated according to the Gaussian Membership Function formula.

2.1. Gaussian Membership Function

The Gauss curve Membership Function formula is written as follows:
−(𝑥𝑖 −𝑐)
𝐺(𝑥𝑖 ; 𝜎, 𝑐) = 𝑒 2𝜎 2 (5)

2.2. Kernel Radial Basic Function (TBF)

The RBF kernel formula is as follows:
2
||𝑥 − 𝑦||
𝐾(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) (6)
2𝜎 2

2.3. Distance Based Similarity Measure

The similarity measure is an important part that needs to be considered in pattern matching and to carry out various
types of classification. Distance-Based Similarity Measure works to measure the level of similarity of two objects in
terms of the geometric distance from the variables included in both objects. These include the following.

2.3.1. Euclidean Distance

Euclidean distance is often used in measuring data similarities, as shown in Equation 7:

𝑛
2
𝑑𝑒𝑢𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑛 = √∑ (𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖 ) , 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑛 (7)
𝑖=1

2.3.2. Manhattan Distance (Minkowski Distance)

Manhattan distance is used to calculate the absolute difference between the coordinates of a pair of objects, as
shown in Equation 8:
𝑛

𝑑𝑀𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑛 = ∑ ‖𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖 ‖ , 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑛 (8)

𝑖=1

2.3.3. Chebysev Distance

The Chebyshev distance is measured using the following formula:

𝑑𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑏𝑦𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑣 = (𝑚𝑎𝑥 |𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖 |) , 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑛 (9)

2.3.4. Minkowski Distance

The Minkowsky distance is a generalization of the Euclidean and the Manhattan, whereby the power (p) acts as the
determining parameter. When p equals 1 and 2, the Minkowsky distance space becomes equivalent to Manhattan and
Euclidean, respectively. The following formula is used to calculate the Minkowski distance:

287
HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021

1
𝑛 𝑝
𝑃 (10)
𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑜𝑤𝑠𝑘𝑖 = (∑ |𝑥𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖 | ) , 𝑖 = 1,2,3, … , 𝑛
𝑖=1

3. Results and Discussion

The Fuzzy Support Vector Machine algorithm proposed in this research is applied to 3 datasets considered as a
representative that effectively verifies the proposed FSVM model. Furthermore, the data processing was carried out
using Jupyter Notebook Software with Python programming language. The details of the 3 datasets are shown in Table
1.

Table 1. Dataset information

Dataset Sample variable Number of samples Positive sample Negative sample

Herberman 3 306 225 81

Wine 13 130 59 71

Quality 11 3365 1457 2198

The basic concept of the Fuzzy Support Vector Machine is first used to determine the degree of fuzzy membership
of the data used for FSVM calculation, which comprises positive and negative classes. Therefore the center of the class
can be defined as the average vector of the attributes determined using Equation 11.
𝑛+
+ 1
𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 = ∑ 𝑥𝑖
𝑛+
𝑖=1 (11)
𝑛−
−
1
𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 = ∑ 𝑥𝑖
𝑛−
𝑖=1

+ −
where 𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 and 𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 denote the means of the positive and negative classes, while 𝑛+ and 𝑛− are the number of
data points in the positive and negative classes, respectively.
The calculation of the distance matrix from the data points of each class to the center uses Equations 7 to 10. The
results are used to determine the value of the degree of fuzzy membership based on Equation 3 as follows:
{(𝑥1 , 𝑦1 , 𝑠1 ), (𝑥2 , 𝑦2 , 𝑠2 ), … . , (𝑥𝑛 , 𝑦𝑛 , 𝑠𝑛 )}.
This research uses a different penalty parameter (C), including the values of 𝐶 = 2, 𝐶 = 10, 𝐶 = 50, 𝐶 = 200, 𝐶 =
500, 𝐶 = 1000, and the RBF kernel. In 2013, Bekker et al. proposed the AUC approximation method in the binary
case, as shown in the Equation 12.
1
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 = (𝑆𝐸 + 𝑆𝑃) (12)
2
where SE (sensitivity) and SP (specivity) are the ratios of the completeness or accuracy of the correct prediction of
positive and negative data, respectively. The results of the FSVM classification accuracy based on the AUC (Area
Under Curve) approach are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2 shows that when the penalty parameter is 2 (C=2) while using Manhattan and Chebyshev distances, the
best accuracy generator is FSVM. Furthermore, at parameters C=50 and 500, FSVM using the Manhattan penalty
distance produces the best accuracy from other methods. The best accuracy result for the penalty parameter C=10 is
obtained by the FSVM method using Euclidean distance. Meanwhile, the highest accuracy in the penalty parameters
C=200 and C=1000 is generated by FSVM with Chebyshev distance. The results of the accuracy of each method are
shown in Table 2.

288
HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021

Figure 1. FSVM and SVM accuracy results

Table 2. Classification accuracy results

FSVM 1 FSVM 2 FSVM 3 FSVM 4 SVM

𝐶=2 68.83% 77.92% 77.92% 0.0% 64.93%

𝐶 = 10 75.32% 74.02% 74.03% 74.03% 66.23%

𝐶 = 50 70.13% 81.81% 71.43% 71.43% 67.53%

𝐶 = 200 80.52% 83.12% 91.30% 76.62% 85.36%

𝐶 = 500 72.72% 89.58% 88.37% 72.72% 40.32%

𝐶 = 1000 74.03% 79.22% 94% 71.42% 80.52%

With a value of C=1000, the accuracy is determined with different training and testing data scenarios as follows:

Table 3. Evaluation of Model Performance with Different Training and Testing Data Partitions

Training data and testing data FSVM 1 FSVM 2 FSVM 3 FSVM 4 SVM

60:40 73.45% 77.23% 92.34% 69.07% 78.2%

70:30 73.33% 79.58% 91.62% 68.91% 82.33%

75:25 74.03% 79.22% 94% 71.42% 80.52%

80:20 76.09% 82.15% 99% 71.48% 81.67%

289
HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021

Figure 2. Graph of Model Performance Evaluation with Different Partitions of Training and Testing Data

Table 3 and Figure 2 show that the best performance of FSVM using Chebyshev distance and RBF kernel with
C=1000 is obtained from the proposed methods. Furthermore, the results of the G-means (GM), SE, SP from FSVM
are compared with the FSVM proposed by Xiaokang et al. (2016) as shown in Equation 3 using the membership
function linearly ascending and exponential FSVM with the Euclidean function. The results of the performance
evaluation are shown in Table 3.

Table 4. Model performance evaluation

Dataset Performance evaluation FSVM 1 FSVM 2 FSVM 3 FSVM 4 FSVM 5 FSVM 6

GM 72.79% 79.12% 93.80% 68.8% 60% 63.57%
Habermen SE 87.54% 83.18% 100% 90.6% 51.42% 58.85%
SP 60.52% 75.26% 88% 52.24% 70% 68.67%
GM 0% 73.57% 97.33% 52.03% 54.77% 54.77%
Wine SE 0% 94.73% 94.73% 42.1% 30% 30%
SP 100% 57.14% 100% 64.43% 100% 100%
GM 49.633 69.25% 81.08% 0% 53.65% 53.7%
Quality SE 43.5% 67.98% 78.37 100% 33.9% 33.6%
SP 56.70% 70.54% 83.9% 0% 84.91% 85.83%

Figure 3. Model Performance Evaluation Graph for Wine and Quality Datasets

290
HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021

Description:
FSVM 1: FSVM with Euclidean distance matrix and Gaussian membership function;
FSVM 2: FSVM with Manhattan distance matrix and Gaussian membership function;
FSVM 3: FSVM with Chebyshev distance matrix and Gaussian membership function;
FSVM 4: FSVM with Minkowsky distance matrix and Gaussian membership function;
FSVM 5: FSVM proposed by Xiaokang et al. (2016) with an increased Linear membership function;
FSVM 6: FSVM proposed by Xiaokang et al. (2016) with exponential membership function.
Table 4 and Figure 3 show that FSVM 2 and FSVM 3 provide better classification performance evaluations than
previous studies. Meanwhile, FSVM 5 and FSVM 6 provided better classification performance evaluations than
FSVM 1. Out of all the models discussed in this research, FSVM 3 provides the best classification evaluation.

4. Conclusion
This research introduced a fuzzy membership function based on Distance-Based Similarity Measure with the
Euclidean, Manhattan, Chebyshev, and Minkowsky distance methods to determine the best method capable of
optimizing the Fuzzy Support Vector Machine classification process. This application is a new method because there
are no previous studies on the analysis of FSVM based on Distance-Based Similarity Measures. Therefore, based on
the results and discussion of this study, it is concluded that the FSVM using the Chebyshev distance and the Gaussian
membership function has the best performance in reducing the effects of noise and outliers.

5. Declarations
5.1. Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.S. and T.N.; methodology, S.S.; software, S.S.; validation, S.S., T.N. and A.E.H.; formal
analysis, S.S.; investigation, S.S.; resources, S.S.; data curation, S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S.;
writing—review and editing, S.S.; visualization, S.S.; supervision, S.S.; project administration, S.S.; funding
acquisition, T.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

5.2. Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in article.

5.3. Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

5.4. Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

6. References
[1] Silva, I., & Naranjo, J. E. (2020). A systematic methodology to evaluate prediction models for driving style classification.
Sensors (Switzerland), 20(6), 1–21. doi:10.3390/s20061692.

[2] Asri, H., Mousannif, H., Al Moatassime, H., & Noel, T. (2016). Using Machine Learning Algorithms for Breast Cancer Risk
Prediction and Diagnosis. Procedia Computer Science, 83(Fams), 1064–1069. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.04.224.

[3] Fauzi, F. (2017). K-Nearset Neighbor (K-NN) dan Support Vector Machine (SVM) untuk Klasifikasi Indeks Pembangunan
Manusia Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Jurnal Mipa, 40(2), 118–124.

[4] Han, K. X., Chien, W., Chiu, C. C., & Cheng, Y. T. (2020). Application of support vector machine (SVM) in the sentiment
analysis of twitter dataset. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(3). doi:10.3390/app10031125.

[5] Lin, Y., Yu, H., Wan, F., & Xu, T. (2017). Research on Classification of Chinese Text Data Based on SVM. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 231(1), 0–5. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/231/1/012067.

[6] Widiastuti, N. I., Rainarli, E., & Dewi, K. E. (2017). Peringkasan dan Support Vector Machine pada Klasifikasi Dokumen.
Jurnal Infotel, 9(4), 416. doi:10.20895/infotel.v9i4.312.

[7] Pavithra, S., & Janakiraman, S. (2020). Enhanced polynomial kernel (EPK)–based support vector machine (SVM) (EPK-SVM)
classification technique for speech recognition in hearing-impaired listeners. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and
Experience, 1–12,. doi:10.1002/cpe.5210.

291
HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 2021

[8] Orlando, G., Raimondi, D., Khan, T., Lenaerts, T., & Vranken, W. F. (2017). SVM-dependent pairwise HMM: An application
to protein pairwise alignments. Bioinformatics, 33(24), 3902–3908. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx391.

[9] Sohail, A., & Arif, F. (2020). Supervised and unsupervised algorithms for bioinformatics and data science. Progress in
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 151, 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2019.11.012.

[10] Lin, X., Li, C., Zhang, Y., Su, B., Fan, M., & Wei, H. (2018). Selecting feature subsets based on SVM-RFE and the
overlapping ratio with applications in bioinformatics. Molecules, 23(1). doi:10.3390/molecules23010052.

[11] Akbani, R., & Korkmaz, T. (2010). Applications of Support Vector Machines in Bioinformatics and Network Security.
Application of Machine Learning, February. doi:10.5772/8618.

[12] Vanpik, V., & Cortes, C. (1995). Support Vector Network. Mach. Learn, 20, 273–297. doi:10.1007/BF00994018.

[13] Pushpita Anna Octaviani, Yuciana Wilandari, D. I. (2014). Penerapan Metode SVM Pada Data Akreditasi Sekolah Dasar Di
Kabupaten Magelang. Jurnal Gaussian, 3(8), 811–820.

[14] Brereton, R. G., & Lloyd, G. R. (2010). Support Vector Machines for classification and regression. Analyst, 135(2), 230–267.
doi:10.1039/b918972f.

[15] Wu, Q., & Wang, W. (2013). Piecewise-smooth support vector machine for classification. Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/135149.

[16] Lin, C. F., & Wang, S. De. (2002). Fuzzy support vector machines. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 13(2), 464–471.
doi:10.1109/72.991432.

[17] An, W., & Liang, M. (2013). Fuzzy support vector machine based on within-class scatter for classification problems with
outliers or noises. Neurocomputing, 110, 101–110. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2012.11.023.

[18] Guernine, T., & Zeroual, K. (2011). New fuzzy multi-class method to train SVM classifier. 3rd International Conference on
Advances in Databases, Knowledge, and Data Applications, Netherlands Antilles, 77–82.

[19] Castro, J. L., Flores-Hidalgo, L. D., Mantas, C. J., & Puche, J. M. (2007). Extraction of fuzzy rules from support vector
machines. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 158(18), 2057–2077. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2007.04.014.

[20] Wu, K., Zhou, M., Sean Lu, X., & Huang, L. (2017). Fuzzy logic-based text classification method for social media data. 2017
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC 2017, January, Banff, Canada, 1942–1947.
doi:10.1109/SMC.2017.8122902.

[21] Sridevi, P. (2019). Identification of suitable membership and kernel function for FCM based FSVM classifier model. Cluster
Computing, 22, 11965–11974. doi:10.1007/s10586-017-1533-9.

[22] Gupta, D., Richhariya, B., & Borah, P. (2019). A fuzzy twin support vector machine based on information entropy for class
imbalance learning. Neural Computing and Applications, 31(11), 7153–7164. doi:10.1007/s00521-018-3551-9.

[23] Ding, X. K., Yang, X. J., Jiang, J. Y., Deng, X. L., Cai, J. C., & Ji, Y. Y. (2018). Optimization and analysis on fuzzy SVM for
objects classification. Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, 9(6), 1421–1429.

[24] Wang, R., Zhang, X., & Cao, W. (2016). Clifford Fuzzy Support Vector Machines for Classification. Advances in Applied
Clifford Algebras, 26(2), 825–846. doi:10.1007/s00006-015-0616-z.

[25] Xiaokang, D., Lei, Y., Jianping, Y., & Zhaozhong, Z. (2016). Optimization and Analysis on Fuzzy SVM for Targets
Classification in Forest. The Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal, 10(1), 155–162. doi:10.2174/1874110x01610010155.

[26] Jiang, X., Yi, Z., & Lv, J. C. (2006). Fuzzy SVM with a new fuzzy membership function. Neural Computing and Applications,
15(3–4), 268–276. doi:10.1007/s00521-006-0028-z.

[27] Al-Mumtazah, N. S., & Surono, S. (2020). Quadratic Form Optimization with Fuzzy Number Parameters: Multiobjective
Approaches. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 22(4), 1191–1197. doi:10.1007/s40815-020-00808-x.

[28] Liu, W., Ci, L. L., & Liu, L. P. (2020). A new method of fuzzy support vector machine algorithm for intrusion detection.
Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(3). doi:10.3390/app10031065.

[29] Mohammed, N. N., & Abdulazeez, A. M. (2018). Evaluation of partitioning around medoids algorithm with various distances
on microarray data. Proceedings - 2017 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things, IEEE Green Computing and
Communications, IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing, IEEE Smart Data, IThings-GreenCom-CPSCom-SmartData
2017, January, 1011–1016. doi:10.1109/iThings-GreenCom-CPSCom-SmartData.2017.155.

[30] Syaripudin, U., Badruzaman, I., Yani, E., K, D., & Ramdhani, M. (2013). Studi Komparatif Penerapan Metode Hierarchical,
K-Means Dan Self Organizing Maps (SOM) Clustering Pada Basis Data. Istek, VII(1), 132–149.

292