Original Article ISSN(Print) 1598-2645

International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems ISSN(Online) 2093-744X

Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2022, pp. 267-275
http://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.267

An Evolving Fuzzy Model to Determine an

Optimal Number of Data Stream Clusters
Hussein A. A. Al-Khamees, Nabeel Al-A’araji, and Eman S. Al-Shamery
Department of Software, Babylon University, Babylon, Iraq

Abstract
Data streams are a modern type of data that differ from traditional data in various characteris-
tics: their indefinite size, high access, and concept drift due to their origin in non-stationary
environments. Data stream clustering aims to split these data samples into significant clusters,
depending on their similarity. The main drawback of data stream clustering algorithms is the
large number of clusters they produce. Therefore, determining an optimal number of clusters
is an important challenge for these algorithms. In practice, evolving models can change their
general structure by implementing different mechanisms. This paper presents a fuzzy model
that mainly consists of an evolving Cauchy clustering algorithm which is updated through a
specific membership function and determines the optimal number of clusters by implementing
two evolving mechanisms: adding and splitting clusters. The proposed model was tested on
six different streaming datasets, namely, power supply, sensor, HuGaDB, UCI-HAR, Luxem-
bourg, and keystrokes. The results demonstrated that the efficiency of the proposed model in
producing an optimal number of clusters for each dataset outperforms that of previous models.
Keywords: Data stream clustering, Clusters number, Evolving mechanisms

1. Introduction

Received: May 15, 2022
Revised : Aug. 31, 2022
Accepted: Sep. 6, 2022
Correspondence to: Hussein A. A. Al-Khamees
(hussein.alkhamees7@gmail.com)
©The Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems
cc This is an Open Access article distrib-
uted under the terms of the Creative Com-
mons Attribution Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc /
3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-
commercial use, distribution, and reproduc-
tion in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a broad branch of computer science, and machine learning is
the backbone of various techniques, among which clustering is one of the most important [1].
It aims to split a dataset into significant clusters of data samples that have a high degree
of similarity between them, and a low degree of similarity with the data samples in other
clusters [2].
Data stream analysis has become one of the most active and effective research fields in
computer science due to the diverse challenges that it poses compared with traditional data
analysis, including the indefinite size, high access, single scan, limited memory and processing
time, and concept drift caused by the non-stationary condition of the environments where data
originate [3]. Data stream mining links two essential computer fields: data mining tasks and
data streams [4].
Many techniques for analyzing traditional data can also be implemented on data streams,
with clustering being one of them. Data stream clustering methods can be categorized into five
types, one of which is the density-based class. This category includes the evolving Cauchy
(e-Cauchy) clustering algorithm, on which this study is based [5].
Evolving systems are naturally able to change the general structure of the model designed
to describe the data stream by updating it after the arrival of each data sample. This is achieved

267 |

through several mechanisms, such as adding, merging, and
splitting clusters to reduce the large number of clusters gener-
ated [6].
Fuzzy systems are extensively used in different fields that are
based on the concept of fuzzy logic. In addition, evolving fuzzy
algorithms are considered an important type of evolving systems
because of their ability to interact with the data provided [7]].
Determining an optimal number of generated clusters re-
mains an open challenge, and traditional solutions cannot be
applied to all cases. Therefore, evolving mechanisms are pro-
posed as a solution to set an appropriate number of data stream
clusters [8].
Most clustering algorithms (including e-Cauchy) generate a
large number of clusters. Thus, the research question addressed
in this study is how to overcome the large number of clusters
generated while applying clustering algorithms to data streams.
To overcome this problem, this study proposes an evolving
model based on the e-Cauchy algorithm, which adopts new
evolving mechanisms such as adding and splitting clusters into
high-quality and low-quality clusters by re-assigning all data
samples from low- to high-quality clusters. Moreover, the paper
presents a new fuzzy method for distributing testing data.
To evaluate the proposed model, several streaming datasets
were used, namely, power supply, sensor, HuGaDB, UCI-HAR,
Luxembourg, and keystrokes. The results demonstrated the
model’s efficiency in producing an optimal number of clusters
for each dataset and showed that it has a higher silhouette
coefficient than other previous models, thus, outperforming
them.
2. Related Work
This section presents the most relevant studies related to the
determination of an optimal number of generated clusters.
The authors in [9] discussed the limitations of the K-means
algorithm, the first of which is the determination of the number
of clusters. They presented a cluster number assisted K-means
(CNAK) model that estimates this number based on bipartite
matching and by adjusting the algorithm parameters. This
model can generate different scores for the number of clusters
(NoC), which ranges from 1 to NoCmax , by applying the Kuhn-
Munkres algorithm to obtain bipartite matching. The authors
selected a random sample, used it as a reference, mapped other
centroid clusters and compared them.
The authors of [10] used one of the most effective validity
indices, the entropy measure, as an indicator to determine the
www.ijfis.org An Evolving Fuzzy Model to Determine an Optimal Number of Data Stream Clusters
http://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.267
optimal number of clusters. Initialization is one of the most im-
portant steps in K-means algorithms; in this model it is achieved
by selecting the first data sample through entropy, hence, the
model is known as an entropy-based initialization model. In
addition, the model aims to maximize Shannon entropy-based
objective function. The authors proved that their model is better
than the K-means algorithm in terms of the number of clusters.
A density-peak-based clustering algorithm for automatically
determining the number (DPADN) of clusters was proposed
in [8]. This model consists of three steps. First, a density
measure is designed by applying a Gaussian kernel function
to compute the density for all dataset samples. Second, a pre-
cluster approach is constructed to find the center of each cluster.
Finally, a method is proposed which automatically sets the
center of the clusters. The evolving mechanisms of this model
include searching the nearest two clusters and then merging
them into one.
Data stream mining can be defined as the uncovering inter-
esting and useful patterns from a large amount of data in a way
that makes these patterns understandable. This can achieved by
many techniques [11].
In recent years, clustering has become one of the most im-
portant and widely used data stream mining techniques. Data
stream learning is divided into two main types: supervised and
unsupervised learning. Clustering is an unsupervised learning
method [12].
Different methods are used to group (cluster) all the samples
in a given dataset into clusters, each containing many samples
that have a high degree of similarity between each other but are
not similar to the samples in other clusters [11].
There are five types of data streams clustering methods: par-
titioning, hierarchical, grid-based, density-based, and model-
based methods [13]].
These same five types are also applied to traditional data.
The model herein proposed is based on the e-Cauchy algorithm,
which is a density-based method.
Cluster validation comprises three major tasks: clustering
evaluation, clustering stability, and clustering tendency. Each
task has several aspects. Clustering stability aims to form a good
background for the clustering result sensitivity to differentiate
algorithm parameters, such as the number of clusters [14].
Cluster validation is also called determining the number of
clusters in a dataset. The methods applied to set the number
of clusters can be classified into three groups: methods based
on merging and splitting, traditional methods, and methods
based on evolutionary computation. The first of these groups
| 268
International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, September 2022

includes evolving methods that can be implemented on datasets learn the antecedent parameters.
to determine cluster numbers [14] 2) Tuning the parameters and structure to apply the evolu-
Traditional models usually fail when dealing with streaming tion mechanisms.
data because of the challenges posed by this modern data type. 3) Implement a learning technique to learn the consequent
Evolving systems represent an important and attractive solu- parameters.
tion for handling data streams [13] One of the most important
characteristics of evolving systems is their ability to change the
general structure of the model designed to describe the data 3. Proposed Method
stream. Accordingly, the major task and key feature of any
evolving system is associated with several mechanisms, such Several clustering algorithms for data streams have been devel-
as adding, splitting, merging, and removing entities. When the oped in recent years. In this study, we employed the e-Cauchy
evolving system is based on the clustering technique, the above algorithm. The main idea was to compute the density of each
mechanisms are implemented in terms of clusters, i.e., adding arriving data sample from the dataset to construct the initial
clusters, splitting clusters, etc. [5]. clusters, which are typically numerous. Subsequently, the clus-
This ensures greater flexibility when the system situations ter splitting mechanism was applied. Figure 1 shows a block
change into non-stationary environments where the data evolve diagram of the proposed model comprising five main parts that
over time or when concept drift appears. In traditional mod- are explained in detail in the following subsections.
els, the data distribution is assumed to be stationary and the
structure of the models and their parameters do not change 3.1 Data Pre-processing
over time. In evolving systems, the data environment is non-
stationary; therefore, both the structure and parameters of the Normalization is an essential data pre-processing step for most
models change over time in what is classified as a dynamic types of problems. Normalization can be accomplished through
state [8]. many methods, including min-max, decimal scaling, z-score,
In these cases, the model is more related to non-stationary median and MAD, double sigmoid, and tanh estimators [19]. In
environments that can generate a continuous stream of data the proposed model, the min-max technique was implemented.
whose distribution does not remain constant. Suppose there is a set of matching scores {M s}, where s = 1,
More specifically, some designers train their models offline
(offline training), which is sometimes known as batch training.
The model may initially perform well, that is, the performance
of the model will gradually deteriorate, especially as the upcom-
ing data evolves. Moreover, evolving systems have the ability
to forget data (especially after updating) in a proactive manner
to maintain memory efficiency so that the data stream faces no
problem [15].
Certainly, the analytics of these data must be performed
in real time; therefore, online analytics may be implemented
through evolving identification methods that allow the simulta-
neous adjustment of the structure and parameters [16]c.
Furthermore, when the system is time-variant, it is necessary
to describe the various behaviors through the evolution of the
model structure and to identify the parameters online [17].
Naturally, because there is a change in the general behavior
of the data stream, the learner should evolve to keep up with
the data change. The training step is the general idea behind an
evolving system. This step comprises the following [18]:
1) Splitting the input space via a clustering algorithm to Figure 1. Block diagram of the proposed method.

269 | Hussein A. A. Al-Khamees, Nabeel Al-A’araji, and Eman S. Al-Shamery

 http://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.267

0
2, ..., n, then the normalized scores (M s ) are computed as:

0 (M s − min)
Ms = . (1)
(max − min)

The dataset is then partitioned into training (70% of the dataset)

and test data (30%).

3.2 Clustering Algorithm

The core step of the e-Cauchy clustering algorithm is the com-

putation of the density of each training data sample. It is worth
noting that this algorithm uses two predefined thresholds: θ
(that is set to 0.1) and the density threshold (Denthr ), which
is unique for any given dataset. Specifically, the latter was
considered the most effective threshold.
The algorithm proceeds as follows: When the first data sam-
ple arrives, the first cluster is constructed and its parameters are
set. When an additional data sample arrives, the density value
is computed and compared with Denthr ; if the density value is Figure 2. Pseudocode for the e-Cauchy algorithm.
less than Denthr , then a new cluster is constructed; otherwise,
the current data sample is appended to an existing cluster and
the parameters of the corresponding cluster are modified. These
steps are repeated for all samples of the selected dataset to si-
multaneously build the initial clusters, thus performing the first
cluster addition mechanism.
The pseudocode for the e-Cauchy algorithm is shown in
Figure 2, where data stream D consists of {x1, x2, ..., xi}, SCj
refers to the samples in cluster (j), CCj denotes the center of
cluster (j), and NoC is the number of clusters.
Figure 3. Pseudocode for the cluster splitting algorithm.

3.3 Splitting Mechanism 3.4 Assignment of Test Data

As mentioned above, the cluster splitting mechanism is applied
to divide all the generated clusters (initial clusters from Algo-
rithm 1 in Figure 2) into high- and low-quality clusters (HQC
and LQC). By applying this mechanism, the model can evolve
by re-assigning the samples in all LQCs to HQCs to produce
the final HQCs.
However, both the cluster adding and splitting mechanisms
occur while training the model (with training data), whereas
the test data samples are assigned only to the HQCs that result
from the cluster splitting mechanism. Figure 3 illustrates the
pseudocode for the splitting algorithm.
In this model, the assignment of the test data samples require
three steps: computing the distance between the current test
data and the first cluster, building a sub-cluster with a radius
equal to the computed distance, and determining all testing data
samples that fall within the built sub-cluster. Subsequently, the
distances of all data samples in the sub-cluster and their average
are calculated.
As a result of these steps, a set of distances is available for
each test data sample. In fact, the number of distances should
be equal to the number of HQCs formed by applying Algorithm
2 in Figure 3.
In some cases, the number of distances is large; thus, addi-
tional calculation time may be required to measure each time

www.ijfis.org An Evolving Fuzzy Model to Determine an Optimal Number of Data Stream Clusters | 270
International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, September 2022

the false positive, and F N is the false negative.

Purity can be calculated by
n
1X
Purity = Precision, (4)
n i=1

where the precision is given by

(T P )
Precision = . (5)
(T P + F P )
Figure 4. Algorithm for assigning test samples.
The proposed model was implemented using the program-
ming language Python 3.6.9 on a Windows 10 Professional
(as in the case of the sensor data stream, which has 54 clusters)
operating system, with a 2.5 GHz core I7 CPU, and 16 GB of
(Table 1). Therefore, it is clear that using a fuzzy membership
RAM.
function is very useful. In the proposed methodology all com-
puted distances were included in a membership function, as
described in line 5 of the pseudocode for the test data assign-
4. Dataset Description
ment algorithm shown in Figure 4. To evaluate the proposed model, different streaming datasets
Finally, the minimum distance is selected (as described in were used, which were generated from diverse domains, such as
line 6 of Algorithm 3 in Figure 4) to assign the current sample questionnaires, user behavior recognition, and human activity
and all samples within the specified radius (as shown in line 7). recognition. Table 1 provides a brief overview of the datasets
This step is performed to ensure that the current data sample is with a numerical data type [22,23].
assigned to the nearest cluster.
5. Results and Discussion
3.5 Evaluation
As explained earlier, the e-Cauchy clustering algorithm contains
The silhouette coefficient (SC) is an internal index that evaluates two thresholds; the most important one is Denthr . However,
the quality of the clustering results. More specifically, SC the value of this threshold is varies from one dataset to another.
indicates whether the data samples were correctly clustered and Therefore, a certain threshold value was set for each streaming
separated (clusters coherence and goodness). The SC for data dataset.
(i) is computed as [20]: The first dataset used to test the proposed model was the
power supply stream dataset, for which Denthr was set to
(bx(i) − ax(i) )
SC x(i) = , (2) 0.0161. Figure 5 shows the results for this dataset. The model
max(ax(i) · bx(i) )
initially generated 1,400 clusters; after implementing the evolv-
where ax(i) is the average distance from x(i) to every data ing step, the number reduced to 678, finally achieving an op-
sample in the same cluster, and bx(i) is the lowest average timal number of clusters of 24. The SC for the training data
distance between x(i) and every data sample in other clusters.
It is worth pointing out that the SC for each stream dataset is
Table 1. Characteristics of numerical streaming datasets
measured before and after the evolving process for both the
training and test data. # Dataset Classes Features Samples
Based on the confusion matrix, which provides good details 1 Power supply 24 2 29,928
about the classifier, we use accuracy and purity [21]. Accuracy 2 Sensor 54 5 2,219,803
is computed according to
3 HuGaDB01 01 4 39 2,435
(T P + T N ) 4 UCI-HAR 6 561 10,299
Accuracy = , (3)
(T P + T N + F P + F N ) 5 Luxembourg 2 30 1,901
where T P is the true positive, T N is the true negative, F P is 6 Keystrokes 4 10 1,600

271 | Hussein A. A. Al-Khamees, Nabeel Al-A’araji, and Eman S. Al-Shamery


(a) (b)
Figure 5. (a) NoC and (b) SC for the power supply dataset.
(a) (b)
Figure 6. (a) NoC and (b) SC for the sensor data stream.
before evolving was −0.75, changing to 0.30 after evolution,
whereas the SC for the test data before and after evolving was
0.31 and 0.33, respectively.
Considering the SC value of the testing step for the power
supply dataset, which is 0.33, the proposed model outperforms
the models presented in [24] and [25], which achieved an SC of
0.18 and 0.32, respectively.
The second dataset used for testing the model was the sensor
data stream. For this dataset, Denthr was set to 0.0011. The
initial number of clusters was 1, 887, which reduces to 1, 052
and then to 412; finally, the optimal number of clusters was
54. In terms of SC, for the training step it was −0.52 before
evolving and 0.22 afterwards; whereas for the test data it was
0.08 and 0.49 before and after evolving, respectively. Figure 6
shows the results for the sensor data stream.
Based on the final SC value of the testing step for this dataset
(0.49), the proposed model achieved a higher SC than the model
proposed in [24], which achieved an SC value of 0.30.
The HuGaDB01 01 sensor dataset was then used to test the
proposed model, and Denthr was set to 0.0038. The number
of clusters was initially 852 and then 221, then decreased to 9
and finally to 4. In terms of SC, its value for the training step
before evolution was −0.68, and after evolving 0.39. The SC
for the testing step before evolving was −0.002, increasing to
0.52 after evolving. Figure 7 illustrates these results.
www.ijfis.org An Evolving Fuzzy Model to Determine an Optimal Number of Data Stream Clusters
http://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.267
(a) (b)
Figure 7. (a) NoC and (b) SC for the HuGaDB dataset.
(a) (b)
Figure 8. (a) NoC and (b) SC for UCI-HAR dataset.
The fourth evaluation dataset was the UCI-HAR stream
dataset, and its Denthr was set to 0.00028. The number of
clusters was initially 3,605, which decreased to 933,412 and
finally 6, which indicates the optimal NoC. The SC of the train-
ing data before evolution was −0.32, which increased to 0.41
after evolving, while the SC for the test data was 0.11 before
evolution, and 0.53 thereafter. Figure 8 shows the results for
the UCI-HAR dataset.
According to the SC value of the UCI-HAR dataset, the pro-
posed model outperforms the model presented in [26], which
achieved an SC of 0.441 by implementing the K-means algo-
rithm.
Next, the model was tested on the Luxembourg stream dataset,
with a Denthr of 0.0026. The number of clusters at the begin-
ning was 1,901, then 666, and finally 2, which was the optimal
NoC. The SC of the training data before evolution was −0.44,
which increases to 0.57 after evolving, whereas the SC for the
test data before the evolution was −0.08 and then 0.57. Figure
9 shows the results for this dataset.
The last dataset was the keystrokes stream dataset, for which
Denthr was set to 0.055. Initially, the number of clusters was
592, then the NoC decreased to 39, to 8 and then to 4. The SC
of the training data before and after evolution were -0.36 and
0.29, respectively. The SC for the test data before the evolution
was 0.01, and then increased to 0.57. These results are shown
| 272
International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, September 2022

6. Conclusion

Data streams are a modern type of data that can be generated

in real-world applications. Their main characteristics are their
massive size, high speed, and concept drift. Many techniques
can be used on data streams, including clustering, which aims
to group similar data samples into different clusters. Fuzzy
(a) (b) systems are widely used in computer science, particularly in the
field of AI. Determining an optimal number of clusters remains
Figure 9. (a) NoC and (b) SC for the Luxembourg dataset. an open problem for researchers, as there is no static method for
this purpose. This paper presents a fuzzy model to overcome
such a problem. The proposed fuzzy model depends on the
e-Cauchy clustering algorithm, which is a density-based data
stream clustering method and implements a specific fuzzy mem-
bership function. The model applies two evolving mechanisms:
adding and splitting clusters. The evaluation step involves find-
ing an optimal number of clusters, as well as computing the
SC, accuracy, and purity. Six streaming datasets were used to
(a) (b)
evaluate this model, namely, power supply, sensor, HuGaDB,
Figure 10. (a) NoC and (b) SC for keystrokes data stream. UCI-HAR, Luxembourg, and keystrokes. The results obtained
from the proposed model were analyzed and compared with
Table 2. Quality indices for the tested stream datasets those of previous models, showing that this model is more effi-
cient and has a better performance than other existing models.
# Dataset Accuracy (%) Purity (%) Our future work will focus on applying the proposed model to
1 Power supply 72.30 71.88 online cloud computing and synchronizing it with login services
2 Sensor 81.48 81.25 to determine the authenticity and validity of users.
3 HuGaDB01 01 89.75 89.12
4 UCI-HAR 77.39 77.00 Conflict of Interest
5 Luxembourg 97.80 97.80 No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was
6 Keystrokes 84.57 84.93 reported.

in Figure 10. References

The accuracy and purity for each stream dataset are listed in
Table 2. Based on the results in Table 2, the proposed model
outperforms many previous models. For the sensor data stream,
this model achieved a purity of 81.25%, whereas the model in
[27] had a purity of 76.5%. In the case of the UCI-HAR dataset,
the accuracy of the proposed model was 77.39%, whereas that
of the model in [28] was 78.79%. Similarly, the proposed model
achieved an accuracy of 84.57% for the keystrokes dataset,
whereas the model in [29] attained an accuracy of 77.0%.
In general, the proposed model is highly accurate in assigning
the data samples to an appropriate cluster, although it is not
suitable for processing highly dimensional stream datasets.
[1] R. Cioffi, M. Travaglioni, G. Piscitelli, A. Petrillo, and F.
De Felice, “Artificial intelligence and machine learning
applications in smart production: progress, trends, and
directions,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 2, article no. 492,
2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020492
[2] A. Abdullatif, F. Masulli, and S. Rovetta, “Clustering of
nonstationary data streams: a survey of fuzzy partitional
methods,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining
and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 8, no. 4, article no. e1258,
2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1258
[3] H. A. Al-Khamees and E. S. Al-Shamery, “Survey: Clus-
tering techniques of data stream,” in Proceedings of

273 | Hussein A. A. Al-Khamees, Nabeel Al-A’araji, and Eman S. Al-Shamery


2021 1st Babylon International Conference on Informa-
tion Technology and Science (BICITS), Babil, Iraq, 2021,
pp. 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1109/BICITS51482.2021.
9509923
[4] M. Al-Tarawneh, “Data Stream classification algorithms
for workload orchestration in vehicular edge computing:
a comparative evaluation,” International Journal of Fuzzy
Logic and Intelligent Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 101-122,
2021. https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2021.21.2.101
[5] I. Skrjanc, S. Ozawa, T. Ban, and D. Dovzan, “Large-
scale cyber attacks monitoring using evolving Cauchy
possibilistic clustering,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 62,
pp. 592-601, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.11.
008
[6] H. A. A. Al-Khamees, N. Al-A’araji, and E. S. Al-
Shamery, “Data stream clustering using fuzzy-based
evolving Cauchy algorithm,” International Journal of In-
telligent Engineering and Systems, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 348-
358, 2021. https://doi.org/10.22266/ijies2021.1031.31
[7] E. Lughofer, Evolving Fuzzy Systems: Methodologies,
Advanced Concepts and Applications. Berlin: Springer,
2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18087-3
[8] W. Tong, S. Liu, and X. Z. Gao, “A density-peak-based
clustering algorithm of automatically determining the
number of clusters,” Neurocomputing, vol. 458, pp. 655-
666, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.03.125
[9] J. Saha and J. Mukherjee, “CNAK: cluster number as-
sisted K-means,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 110, article
no. 107625, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2020.
107625
[10] K. Chowdhury, D. Chaudhuri, and A. K. Pal, “An entropy-
based initialization method of K-means clustering on the
optimal number of clusters,” Neural Computing and Ap-
plications, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 6965-6982, 2021. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05471-9
[11] H. A. A. Al-Khamees, W. R. H. Al-Jwaid, and E. S. Al-
Shamery, “The impact of using convolutional neural net-
works in COVID-19 tasks: a survey,” International Jour-
nal of Computing and Digital Systems, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.
189-197, 2022. https://doi.org/10.12785/ijcds/110194
www.ijfis.org An Evolving Fuzzy Model to Determine an Optimal Number of Data Stream Clusters
http://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.267
[12] Wiharto, A. K. Wicaksana, and D. E. Cahyani, “Modi-
fication of a density-based spatial clustering algorithm
for applications with noise for data reduction in intrusion
detection systems,” International Journal of Fuzzy Logic
and Intelligent Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 189-203, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2021.21.2.189
[13] M. Mousavi, A. A. Bakar, and M. Vakilian, “Data stream
clustering algorithms: a review,” Int J Adv Soft Comput
Appl, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1-15, 2015.
[14] E. Hancer and D. Karaboga, “A comprehensive survey
of traditional, merge-split and evolutionary approaches
proposed for determination of cluster number,” Swarm
and Evolutionary Computation, vol. 32, pp. 49-67, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2016.06.004
[15] P. Angelov and A. Kordon, “Evolving inferential sensors
in the chemical process industry,” in Evolving Intelligent
Systems: Methodology and Applications. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, 2010, p. 313-336. https://doi.org/10.
1002/9780470569962.ch14
[16] I. Skrjanc, G. Andonovski, A. Ledezma, O. Sipele, J. A.
Iglesias, and A. Sanchis, “Evolving cloud-based system
for the recognition of drivers’ actions,” Expert Systems
with Applications, vol. 99, pp. 231-238, 2018. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.11.008
[17] V. Souza, D. M. dos Reis, A. G. Maletzke, and G. E.
Batista, “Challenges in benchmarking stream learning al-
gorithms with real-world data,” Data Mining and Knowl-
edge Discovery, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1805-1858, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-020-00698-5
[18] R. D. Baruah and P. Angelov, “Evolving fuzzy systems for
data streams: a survey,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 1, no. 6, pp.
461-476, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.42
[19] A. Jain, K. Nandakumar, and A. Ross, “Score normaliza-
tion in multimodal biometric systems,” Pattern Recogni-
tion, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2270-2285, 2005. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.patcog.2005.01.012
[20] G. Shamim and M. Rihan, “Multi-domain feature extrac-
tion for improved clustering of smart meter data,” Tech-
nology and Economics of Smart Grids and Sustainable
Energy, vol. 5, article no. 10, 2020. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40866-020-00080-w
| 274
International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, September 2022
[21] H. A. A. Al-Khamees, N. Al-A’araji, and E. S. Al-
Shamery, “Classifying the human activities of sensor data
using deep neural network,” in Intelligent Systems and Pat-
tern Recognition. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022, pp.
107-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08277-1 9
[22] R. Chereshnev and A. Kertesz-Farkas, “HuGaDB: human
gait database for activity recognition from wearable iner-
tial sensor networks,” in Analysis of Images, Social Net-
works and Texts. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017, pp.
131-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73013-4 12
[23] D. Anguita, A. Ghio, L. Oneto, X. Parra, and J. J. Reyes-
Ortiz, “Human activity recognition on smartphones using
a multiclass hardware-friendly support vector machine,”
in Ambient Assisted Living and Home Care. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer, 2012, pp. 216-223. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-35395-6 30
[24] N. A. Supardi, S. J. Abdulkadir, and N. Aziz, “An evo-
lutionary stream clustering technique for outlier detec-
tion,” in Proceedings of 2020 International Conference
on Computational Intelligence (ICCI), Bandar Seri Iskan-
dar, Malaysia, 2020, pp. 299-304. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICCI51257.2020.9247832
[25] X. F. Tang, R. Huang, Q. Chen, Z. Y. Peng, H. Wang,
and B. H. Wang, “An outlier detection method of low-
voltage users based on weekly electricity consumption,”
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engi-
neering, vol. 631, no. 4, article no. 042004, 2019. https:
//doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/631/4/042004
[26] P. P. Ariza-Colpas, E. Vicario, A. I. Oviedo-Carrascal, S.
Butt Aziz, M. A. Pineres-Melo, A. Quintero-Linero, and F.
Patara, “Human activity recognition data analysis: history,
evolutions, and new trends,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 9, article
no. 3401, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093401
[27] J. Shao, Y. Tan, L. Gao, Q. Yang, C. Plant, and I. As-
sent, “Synchronization-based clustering on evolving data
stream,” Information Sciences, vol. 501, pp. 573-587,
2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.09.035
[28] A. Abedin, F. Motlagh, Q. Shi, H. Rezatofighi, and D.
Ranasinghe, “Towards deep clustering of human activities
from wearables,” in Proceedings of the 2020 International
Symposium on Wearable Computers, Virtual Event, 2020,
pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410531.3414312
275 | Hussein A. A. Al-Khamees, Nabeel Al-A’araji, and Eman S. Al-Shamery
[29] C. Fahy and S. Yang, “Finding and tracking multi-density
clusters in online dynamic data streams,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Big Data, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 178-192, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2019.2922969
Hussein A. A. Al-Khamees received his
B.S. degree in Computer Science from
University of Babylon, Iraq, in 1999. He
received his M.S. degree in Information
Technology from the Turkish Aeronauti-
cal Association - Institute of Science and
Technology, Turkey, in 2017. His research interests include
data mining, data stream analysis, deep learning, and intelligent
systems.
E-mail: hussein.alkhamees7@gmail.com
Nabeel Al-A’araji received his B.S. de-
gree in Mathematics from Al-Mustansiryah
University, Iraq, in 1976. He received his
M.Sc. degree in Mathematics from the
University of Baghdad, Iraq, in 1978 and
received his Ph.D. degree in Mathematics,
from University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK, in 1988. He is
currently a professor at the Department of Software, University
of Babylon. His research interests include artificial intelligence,
GIS machine learning, neural networks, deep learning, and data
mining.
E-mail: nhkaghed@itnet.uobabylon.edu.iq
Eman S. Al-Shamery received her B.Sc.,
M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in Computer
Science from the University of Babylon,
Iraq, in 1998, 2001, and 2013, respec-
tively. She is currently a professor at the
Department of Software, University of
Babylon. Her research interests include artificial intelligence,
bioinformatics, machine learning, neural networks, deep learn-
ing, and data mining.
E-mail: emanalshamery@itnet.uobabylon.edu.iq