**

## Granular-Balls based Fuzzy Twin Support Vector Machine for Classification

Lixi Zhao, Weiping Ding, Senior Member, IEEE , Duoqian Miao, Guangming Lang

Abstract -The twin support vector machine (TWSVM) classifier has attracted increasing attention because of its low computational complexity. However, its performance tends to degrade when samples are a ff ected by noise. The granularball fuzzy support vector machine (GBFSVM) classifier partly alleviates the adverse e ff ects of noise, but it relies solely on the distance between the granular-ball's center and the class center to design the granular-ball membership function. In this paper, we first introduce the granular-ball twin support vector machine (GBTWSVM) classifier, which integrates granularball computing (GBC) with the twin support vector machine (TWSVM) classifier. By replacing traditional point inputs with granular-balls, we demonstrate how to derive a pair of nonparallel hyperplanes for the GBTWSVM classifier by solving a quadratic programming problem. Subsequently, we design the membership and non-membership functions of granular-balls using Pythagorean fuzzy sets to di ff erentiate the contributions of granular-balls in various regions. Additionally, we develop the granular-ball fuzzy twin support vector machine (GBFTSVM) classifier by incorporating GBC with the fuzzy twin support vector machine (FTSVM) classifier. We demonstrate how to derive a pair of non-parallel hyperplanes for the GBFTSVM classifier by solving a quadratic programming problem. We also design algorithms for the GBTSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier. Finally, the superior classification performance of the GBTWSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier on 20 benchmark datasets underscores their scalability, e ffi ciency, and robustness in tackling classification tasks.

problems instead of one large-scale quadratic programming problem. It not only retains the advantage of SVM in handling high-dimensional and nonlinear classification and regression problems but also achieves a training speed theoretically four times faster than SVM [10]. However, when samples are contaminated by noise, the performance of SVM and its variants will deteriorate [11]. To reduce the uncertainty caused by outliers and noise, researchers have assigned a membership degree to each sample based on its confidence level with respect to the native class, and proposed the fuzzy support vector machine (FSVM) classifier [12]-[15]. While the FSVM classifier improves the robustness, its membership function only considers the distance between the sample and the class center, and leads to confusing support vectors positioned far from the class center as noise. In response to this problem, numerous scholars have redefined the membership function [16][21]. For instance, Fan et al. defined an entropy-based fuzzy membership function, and proposed the entropy-based fuzzy support vector machine (EFSVM) classifier [16]. Rezvani, Wang, and Pourpanah provided the intuitionistic fuzzy twin support vector machine (IFTSVM) classifier by integrating the intuitionistic fuzzy sets with the TWSVM classifier [17]. These studies not only reduce the impact of noise on classification tasks but also distinguish support vectors from noise.

Index Terms -Twin support vector machine, Fuzzy support vector machine, Granular-ball computing, Granular-ball rough sets, Pythagorean fuzzy sets.

## I. I ntroduction

S UPPORT Vector Machine (SVM), developed by Vapnik in 1995 [1], is a machine learning technique for both classification and regression tasks. It is grounded in statistical learning theory and structural risk minimization theory. Up to now, SVM and its variants have shown unique advantages in analyzing high-dimensional and nonlinear datasets [2]-[5]. Especially, TWSVM generates two non-parallel hyperplanes instead of a single hyperplane for classification [6]-[9]. It ensures that each sample point is close to one of the two hyperplanes and far away from the other hyperplane. For classification tasks, a new sample is assigned to the nearest hyperplane class. Moreover, TWSVM determines the classification hyperplane by solving two small-scale quadratic programming

Lixi Zhao and Guangming Lang are with the School of Mathematics and Statistics, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410114, China; Weiping Ding is with the School of Information Science and Technology, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu 226019, China; Duoqian Miao is with the Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai, 201804, China (email: zhaolixi0915@163.com, langguangming1984@126.com, dwp9988@163.com, dqmiao@tongji.edu.cn; Corresponding author: Guangming Lang).

Granular Computing (GC) is a computational paradigm that utilizes information granulation to process imprecise, inaccurate, and incomplete datasets. In 1979, Zadeh took vast amounts of information to achieve intelligent systems and controllers by leveraging the principles of GC [22]. Since then, numerous scholars have integrated granular computing with machine learning [23]-[31]. In 1982, Chen pointed out that human cognition has the characteristic of largescale priority [32]. Motivated by the cognitive mechanism of the human brain, Wang developed a framework of multigranularity cognitive computing to handle uncertain information [33]. Additionally, Xia et al. provided a framework of granular-ball computing by merging granular computing and granular-balls [34]. Subsequently, GBC has been widely used in various fields such as granular-ball classifiers [34][37], granular-ball clustering [38]-[40], granular-ball rough sets [41]-[44], and feature selection [45]-[47]. Recently, Xia et al. introduced the granular-ball support vector machine (GBSVM) classifier by integrating granular-balls and the SVM classifier [34]. Unlike traditional methods that use samples as inputs, the GBSVM classifier employs granular-balls as data inputs, and represents a non-point input approach with remarkable robustness and e ff ectiveness. The robustness of GBC to noise and the e ffi ciency of TWSVM motivate us to design a new classifier by combining granular-balls and the

TWSVM classifier. Additionally, Xue, Shao, and Xia designed the GBFSVM classifier, which exhibits higher robustness compared to the traditional FSVM classifier [35]. However, the GBFSVM classifier only considers the membership degree of granular-balls to the class center, and granular-balls located in the boundary region of two classes have the same membership degree for both classes, it may lead to incorrect classifications and predictions. The current methodology solely determines granular-ball memberships by the Euclidean distance from the granular-ball's center to the class center of samples, and possibly overlooks support granular-balls situated far from class centers yet proximate to the classification boundary. It motivates us to design the GBFTSVM classifier by integrating granular-balls with the FSVM classifier. The contributions of this paper are listed as follows.

(1) We integrate GBC with the TWSVM classifier to construct the GBTWSVM classifier. This classifier uses coarsegrained granular-balls instead of traditional sample points as inputs. It ensures that the hyperplane is positioned as close as possible to one class of granular-balls while being distant from the other class of granular-balls, which enhances the robustness and e ffi ciency of the TWSVM classifier.

(2) We combine GBC, PFS, GBRS, and FTSVM to propose the GBFTSVM classifier. This classifier introduces a new scoring function that assigns di ff erent scores to granularballs within positive and boundary regions, and distinguishes the varied contributions of granular-balls in di ff erent regions for classification. It further enhances the performance of the GBTWSVM classifier.

(3) We perform the experiment with the GBTWSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier on twenty benchmark datasets from the UCI machine learning repository. The experimental results demonstrate that the GBTWSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier outperform five mainstream classifiers in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and running time. Particularly, the GBTWSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier exhibit higher robustness to noise in the classification task.

The rest of this paper is listed as follows: Section II reviews GBRS, TWSVM, and FSVM. Section III designs the GBTWSVM classifier. Section IV gives the GBFTSVM classifier. Section V conducts the experiment with the GBTWSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier. Section VI concludes this paper and shows the future work.

## II. P reliminaries

In this section, we review some concepts of GBC [34], TWSVM [6], and FSVM [12].

## A. Granular-Ball Computing

The core idea of GBC is to take a family of granularballs to cover the original set, and use granular-balls instead of sample points as inputs. Given a dataset U = { ( x 1 , l 1 ) , ( x 2 , l 2 ) , ..., ( xn , l n ) , } where X = { xk | xk ∈ R d , k = 1 2 , , ..., n } stands for the feature value matrix of U with d features, and L = { l k | l k ∈ R , k = 1 2 , , ..., n } is the corresponding label vector. The sample universe U is covered by a family of

1 ni granular-balls GB = { GBi | i = 1 2 , , ..., m } , and ci = ni P k = 1 xik stands for the centre of the i -th granular-ball GBi , where xik and ni stand for the ik -th sample and the number of samples in the i -th granular-ball GBi , respectively. There are two methods to calculate the radius ri of the granular-ball GBi : ri = max xik ∈ GBi | xik -ci | and ri = 1 ni P ni k = 1 | xik -ci | . To eliminate the e ff ect of noisy data within each granular-ball, the overall label yi = arg max l k ∈L | { ( x l , ) ∈ GBi | l = l k } | of GBi takes the label that appears most frequently within the granular-ball. The purity pi = |{ ( x l , ) ∈ GBi l | = yi }| ni denotes the proportion of samples with the label yi in GBi .

In GBC, the initial primary objective is to generate a family of granular-balls GB , the objective function of granular-ball generation is shown as follows:

$$\min \left ( \lambda _ { 1 } \times \frac { n } { \sum _ { \substack { G B _ { i } \in \mathcal { G B } \\ \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

$$\text{s.t.} \ \ q u a l i t y ( G B _ { i } ) \geq T,$$

where λ 1 and λ 2 stands for the weight coe ffi cients, m is the number of granular-balls, and quality GBi ( ) is the proportion of the majority of samples with the same label in the granularball GBi . However, the classical method of granular-ball generation faces challenges in adapting to the data distribution of each dataset. This di ffi culty arises from the purity threshold parameter that struggles to align with individual dataset characteristics. To address this limitation, Xia et al. proposed a purity-adaptive method of granular-ball generation, and made the granular-ball generation completely parameter-free [37]. The objective function can be expressed as follows:

$$\colon \quad \text{$mcvocross$ maximum can $v$} \varphi \text{sources as innvso.} \\ \colon \quad \begin{array} {$$

where T 0 stands for the initial purity of the granular-ball, GB i is the set of the child granular-balls of GBi , and W ( GB i ) signifies the weighted sum of purities of the child granularballs of GBi .

Suppose S = ( X C V f , , , ) is an information system, and GB is a family of granular-balls towards the attribute set Q ⊆ C , the indiscernible granular-ball relation INDGB Q ( ) with respect to Q is defined as: INDGB Q ( ) = { ( x z , ) ∈ X 2 | ∃ GB ∈ GB , x z , ∈ GB } , and X D / = { Xi | i = 1 2 , , .., N } is the partition of the universe X with respect to the decision attribute set D , the upper and lower approximations of Xi with respect to Q are defined as: GBRQXi = S { [ x ] Q ∈ X Q / | [ x ] Q ∩ Xi , ∅} ; GBRQXi = S { [ x ] Q ∈ X Q / | [ x ] Q ⊆ Xi } , where [ x ] Q = { z ∈ X | ( x z , ) ∈ INDGB Q ( ) . } Moreover, the upper approximation and the lower approximation of X D / with respect to Q are defined as: GBRQX = S N i = 1 GBRQXi ; GBRQX = S N i = 1 GBRQXi . The positive region and boundary region of X D / with respect to Q are defined as:

$$P O S _ { Q } ( X / D ) = G B R _ { Q } X ;$$

$$B N D _ { Q } ( X / D ) = \overline { G B R _ { Q } } X - G B R _ { Q } X. \text{ \quad \ \ } ( 5 )$$

## B. TWSVM and FSVM

TWSVM seeks to find a pair of non-parallel hyperplanes, and positions each hyperplane closer to homogeneous samples and somewhat far away from heterogeneous samples. A new sample x ∈ R d is assigned to class + 1 or -1 depending on which hyperplane it is closest to. A pair of non-parallel hyperplanes of the TWSVM classifier is obtained by solving the following quadratic programming problems (QPPs):

$$\min _ { \omega _ { 1 }, b _ { 1 }, \xi _ { 2 } } & \ \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( x _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) ^ { T } ( x _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) + C _ { 1 } e _ { 2 } ^ { T } \xi _ { 2 }, \quad ( 6 ) \quad \Big | \quad \cdot \\ \text{s.t.} & - ( x _ { B } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 2 } b _ { 1 } ) + \xi _ { 2 } \geq e _ { 2 }, \xi _ { 2 } \geq 0, \quad \Big | \quad \cdot$$

and

$$\min _ { \omega _ { 2 }, b _ { 2 }, \xi _ { 1 } } & \quad \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( x _ { B } \omega _ { 2 } + e _ { 2 } b _ { 2 } ) ^ { T } ( x _ { B } \omega _ { 2 } + e _ { 2 } b _ { 2 } ) + C _ { 2 } e _ { 1 } ^ { T } \xi _ { 1 }, \quad ( 7 ) \quad \Big \rangle \\ \text{s.t.} & \quad ( x _ { A } \omega _ { 2 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 2 } ) + \xi _ { 1 } \geq e _ { 1 }, \xi _ { 1 } \geq 0,$$

where matrices xA and xB stand for the samples of classes + 1 and -1, respectively, C 1 and C 2 are penalty parameters, e 1 and e 2 are vectors of ones with suitable dimensions, and ξ 1 and ξ 2 are slack variables.

A pair of non-parallel hyperplanes for the dual model of the TWSVM classifier is obtained by solving the following quadratic programming problems:

$$\max _ { \alpha } & \quad \alpha ^ { T } e _ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \alpha ^ { T } G ( H ^ { T } H ) ^ { - 1 } G ^ { T } \alpha, \quad \ \ \ \ ( 8 ) \quad \text{class} \\ \text{s.t.} \quad & 0 \leq \alpha \leq C _ { 1 }, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

and

$$\max _ { \gamma } & \quad \gamma ^ { T } e _ { 1 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \gamma ^ { T } P ( Q ^ { T } Q ) ^ { - 1 } P ^ { T } \gamma, \quad \quad ( 9 ) \quad \text{the h} \\ \text{s.t.} \quad & 0 \leq \gamma \leq C _ { 2 }, \quad \quad \text{the} \\ & \quad + 1 \text{ an}$$

where H = [ xA e 1 ], G = [ xB e 2 ], P = [ xA e 1 ] , Q = [ xB e 2 ], u = [ ω 1 b 1 ] T = ( H T H ) -1 G T α , and v = [ ω 2 b 2 ] T = ( Q T Q ) -1 P T γ .

Assume e U = { ( x 1 , l 1 , s 1 ) , ( x 2 , l 2 , s 2 ) , ..., ( xn , l n , sn ) } is a training dataset with fuzzy membership degrees, where sk ∈ (0 , 1] is the membership degree that xk belongs to its label l k . The goal of FSVM is to find an optimal hyperplane by solving the following optimization problems:

$$\min \quad & \frac { 1 } { 2 } \| \omega \| ^ { 2 } + C \sum _ { k = 1 } ^ { n } s _ { k } \xi _ { k }, \\ \text{s.t.} \quad & l _ { k } ( \omega ^ { T } \phi ( x _ { k } ) + b ) \geq 1 - \xi _ { k }, \\ & \xi _ { k } \geq 0, k = 1, 2, \dots, n, \\ & \text{and}$$

where C is a penalty parameter, and ξ k is a slack variable.

## III. G ranular -B all T win S upport V ector M achine

In this section, we give the principle of the GBTWSVM classifier [48].

Fig. 1: The GBTWSVM classifier.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00699v1-figure-0437ed24-5692-4a79-b983-71d2642b16c7.jpg)

## A. Granular-Ball Twin Support Vector Machine

We define two non-parallel hyperplanes f 1 ( x ) : x T ω 1 + b 1 = 0 and f 2 ( x ) : x T ω 2 + b 2 = 0, where f 1 ( x ) stands for the hyperplane close to the positive-class granular-ball ( yi = + 1), and f 2 ( x ) stands for the hyperplane close to the negativeclass granular-ball ( yi = -1), ω t and bt stand for the normal vector and bias of f t ( x ), respectively, where t ∈ { 1 2 . The two , } hyperplanes are constrained by two rules: (1) the hyperplane should be as close as possible to the center of the granularball belonging to the same class; (2) the distance between the hyperplane and the surface of granular-balls belonging to the other class should be as far as possible. For binary classification problems, assume that m 1 granular-balls of class + 1 and m 2 granular-balls of class -1 are generated, the centers of the granular-balls of classes + 1 and -1 are represented by the matrices cA and cB , respectively, and the radii of the granular-balls of classes + 1 and -1 are represented by the matrices rA and rB , respectively. For example, we show the GBTWSVM classifier by Figure 1, where the red and blue circles stand for granular-balls of class + 1 and class -1, respectively. A pair of non-parallel hyperplanes of the GBTWSVM classifier is derived by solving the following quadratic programming problems:

$$\min _ { \omega _ { 1 }, b _ { 1 }, \xi _ { 2 } } & \quad \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( c _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) ^ { T } ( c _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) + C _ { 1 } e _ { 2 } ^ { T } \xi _ { 2 }, \quad ( 1 1 ) \\ \text{s.t.} & \quad - ( c _ { B } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 2 } b _ { 1 } ) - r _ { B } + \xi _ { 2 } \geq e _ { 2 }, \xi _ { 2 } \geq 0,$$

and

$$\min _ { \omega _ { 2 }, b _ { 2 }, \xi _ { 1 } } & \quad \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( c _ { B } \omega _ { 2 } + e _ { 2 } b _ { 2 } ) ^ { T } ( c _ { B } \omega _ { 2 } + e _ { 2 } b _ { 2 } ) + C _ { 2 } e _ { 1 } ^ { T } \xi _ { 1 }, \quad ( 1 2 ) \\ \text{s.t.} & \quad ( c _ { A } \omega _ { 2 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 2 } ) - r _ { A } + \xi _ { 1 } \geq e _ { 1 }, \xi _ { 1 } \geq 0,$$

where C 1 and C 2 are constants and both are greater than 0, and e 1 and e 2 are unit vectors of the appropriate dimension.

## B. The Dual Model of the GBTWSVM classifier

GBTWSVM minimizes the structural risk by adding the regularization term to the margin maximization objective. This pair of quadratic programming problems can be achieved by solving the following Lagrange function:

$$& L ( \omega _ { 1 }, b _ { 1 }, \xi _ { 2 }, \alpha, \beta ) \\ & = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \| c _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } \| ^ { 2 } + C _ { 1 } e _ { 2 } ^ { T } \xi _ { 2 } - \alpha ^ { T } ( - ( c _ { B } \omega _ { 1 } ) \quad ( 1 3 ) \quad \ 1 \colon \, \text{in} \\ & \quad + e _ { 2 } b _ { 1 } ) + \xi _ { 2 } - r _ { B } - e _ { 2 } ) - \beta ^ { T } \xi _ { 2 }, \\ & \quad + e _ { 2 } b _ { 1 } ) + \xi _ { 2 } - r _ { B } - e _ { 2 } ) - \beta ^ { T } \xi _ { 2 },$$

where α and β are Lagrangian multipliers.

According to KKT conditions, we get:

$$\frac { \partial L } { \partial \omega _ { 1 } } & = c _ { A } ^ { T } ( c _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) + c _ { B } ^ { T } \alpha = 0 ; \quad \quad ( 1 4 ) \quad \ 8 \colon \text{e} \\ \frac { \partial L } { \partial b _ { 1 } } & = e _ { 1 } ^ { T } ( c _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) + e _ { 2 } ^ { T } \alpha = 0. \quad \quad ( 1 5 ) \quad \text{fi} \\ \quad \ \ \ 8 \colon \text{e}$$

By Equations (14) and (15), we obtain:

$$\begin{bmatrix} c _ { A } ^ { T } \\ e _ { 1 } ^ { T } \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} c _ { A } & e _ { 1 } \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \omega _ { 1 } \\ b _ { 1 } \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} c _ { B } ^ { T } \\ e _ { 2 } ^ { T } \end{bmatrix} \alpha = 0. \quad \quad ( 1 6 ) \ \frac { 1 3 \colon \mathbf r } { c \colon. }$$

By taking E = [ cA e 1 ], F = [ cB e 2 ], and u = [ ω 1 b 1 ] T , Equation (16) is reformulated as:

$$E ^ { T } E u + F ^ { T } \alpha = 0. \text{ \quad \ \ } ( 1 7 ) \text{ \ } b a l l s$$

To improve its generalization capacity, we add the regularization item, and get the expression of u :

$$u = - ( E ^ { T } E + \varepsilon I ) ^ { - 1 } F ^ { T } \alpha. \quad \quad ( 1 8 ) \quad \_.$$

Similarly, by taking R = [ cA e 1 ], S = [ cB e 2 ], and v = [ ω 2 b 2 ] T , we get the expression of v :

$$v = ( S ^ { T } S + \varepsilon I ) ^ { - 1 } R ^ { T } \gamma. \quad \quad ( 1 9 ) \quad \text{boun}$$

A pair of non-parallel hyperplanes for the dual model of the GBTWSVM classifier is obtained by solving the following quadratic programming problems:

$$\max _ { \alpha } & \quad \alpha ^ { T } ( e _ { 2 } + r _ { B } ) - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \alpha ^ { T } F ( E ^ { T } E ) ^ { - 1 } F ^ { T } \alpha, \quad \ ( 2 0 ) \begin{array} { c } \frac { \text{samp} { c } } { \{ G B _ { i } \ | } \\ \text{non-m} \\ \text{such tl} \end{array}$$

and

$$\max _ { \gamma } & \quad \gamma ^ { T } ( e _ { 1 } + r _ { A } ) - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \gamma ^ { T } R ( S ^ { T } S ) ^ { - 1 } R ^ { T } \gamma, \quad \quad ( 2 1 ) \quad \ m e m b \\ \text{s.t.} \quad & 0 \leq \gamma \leq C _ { 2 }.$$

A new sample x ϵ R d is labeled as class t ∈ { 1 2 , } depending on which of the two hyperplanes is closer:

$$C l a s s \ t = a r g \min _ { t \in \{ 1, 2 \} } \frac { | \langle \omega _ { t }, x \rangle + b _ { t } | } { \| \omega _ { t } \| }. \quad \quad ( 2 2 )$$

## C. Algorithm Design

We give the algorithm for the GBTWSVM classifier as follows:

## Algorithm 1 The GBTWSVM classifier..

Input: A set of granular-balls GB = { ( ci , ri , pi , yi ) | i = 1 2 , , ..., m } .

Output: ω , ω , 1 2 b 1 , and b 2 .

- 1: Initialize cA , cB , rA , and rB as empty matrices.
- 2: for each GBi ∈ GB do
- 3: if yi = + 1 then
- 4: add ci and ri to matrices cA and rA , respectively;
- 5: else
- 6: add ci and ri to matrices cB and rB ,
- 7: end if
- 8: end for
- 9: According to Equations (20) and (21), define the objective function for optimization;
- 10: Perform L-BFGS-B optimization for α and γ ;
- 11: According to Equation (18), calculate ω 1 and b 1 ;
- 12: According to Equation (19), calculate ω 2 and b 2 .
- 13: return ω , ω , 1 2 b 1 , and b 2 .

Given a sample size n with approximately n / 2 samples in each class, the time complexity of SVM is O n ( 3 ). The time complexity of TWSVM is O (2 × ( n / 2) ), which is four times 3 faster than SVM. Assume that n samples generate m granularballs, where m is less than n , and each class has approximately m / 2 granular-balls, the time complexity of GBTWSVM is O (2 × ( m / 2) ). If the number of generated granular-balls 3 m is approximately n / 2, the computational speed of GBTWSVM is eight times faster than TWSVM.

## IV. G ranular -B all F uzzy T win S upport V ector M achine

In this section, we define the scoring function for granularballs by utilizing Pythagorean fuzzy sets [49]. We then assign distinct scores to granular-balls situated in the positive and boundary regions. Lastly, we present a detailed discussion on the GBFTSVM classifier.

## A. Pythagorean Fuzzy Membership Assignment

Assume X = { xk | k = 1 2 , , ..., n } is a dataset with n sample points, we derive a set of granular-balls GB = { GBi | i = 1 2 , , ..., m } , and assign a pair of membership and non-membership degrees ( µ GBi , ν GBi ) to each granular-ball GBi such that 0 ≤ µ GBi , ν GBi ≤ 1 and µ 2 GBi + ν 2 GBi ≤ 1, which depicts the relationship between the granular-ball GBi and a specific class. If µ P ( xik ) and ν P ( xik ) are the membership and nonmembership degrees of a sample xik in a class, respectively, the membership and non-membership degrees of the granular-ball GBi in this class are defined by:

$$\mu _ { G B _ { i } } = \frac { 1 } { n _ { i } } \sum _ { \substack { k = 1 \\ n. } } ^ { n _ { i } } \mu _ { P } ( x _ { i k } ) ;$$

$$\nu _ { G B _ { i } } = \frac { 1 } { n _ { i } } \sum _ { k = 1 } ^ { \kappa - \kappa } \nu _ { P } ( x _ { i k } ),$$

respectively;

where xik and ni stand for the ik -th sample and the number of samples in the i -th granular-ball GBi . In most cases, the membership and non-membership degrees of samples are unknown. So we design the membership and non-membership functions of the granular-balls as follows.

(1) The membership degree: the majority of methods for constructing membership functions are based on the distance from samples to the class center. For binary-class granularballs GB = { ( ci , ri , pi , yi ) | 1 ≤ i ≤ m } , where ci , ri , pi , and yi represent the center, radius, purity, and label of GBi , respectively, we define the class center C + and the maximum radius R + of positive-class granular-balls ( yi = + 1), as well as the class center C -and the maximum radius R -of negativeclass granular-balls ( yi = -1) as:

$$C ^ { + } = \frac { 1 } { m _ { + } } \sum _ { \substack { y _ { i } = + 1 \\ \omega } } c _ { i }, \quad \quad \quad ( 2 5 ) \quad \Big |$$

$$R ^ { + } = \max _ { y _ { i } = + 1 } \left \| c _ { i } - C ^ { + } \right \| ; \quad \quad \ \ ( 2 6 ) \quad \right \rangle$$

$$C ^ { - } = \frac { \mu } { m _ { - } } \sum _ { \substack { y _ { i } = - 1 \\ \omega } } c _ { i }, \quad \quad \quad$$

$$R ^ { - } = \max _ { y _ { i } = - 1 } \left \| c _ { i } - C ^ { - } \right \|, \quad \quad \quad ( 2 8 ) \quad \det _ {$$

where m + and m -stand for the numbers of positive and negative granular-balls, respectively. For a granular-ball GBi , the membership degree can be defined as:

$$\mu _ { G B _ { i } } = \begin{cases} 1 - \frac { \| c _ { i } - C ^ { + } \| } { R ^ { * } + \varepsilon }, & \text$$

where ε &gt; 0, and ε is a very small number.

(2) The non-membership degree: by using the granularball's membership degree and the granular-ball's purity, we give the non-membership function as follows:

$$\nu _ { G B _ { i } } ^ { 2 } = ( 1 - \mu _ { G B _ { i } } ^ { 2 } ) ( 1 - p _ { i } ),$$

where pi stands for the purity of GBi . For each granular-ball GBi , the membership degree µ GBi and the non-membership degree ν GBi satisfy the following conditions: 0 &lt; µ GBi , ν GBi ≤ 1, and 0 ≤ µ 2 GBi + ν 2 GBi ≤ 1.

The impact of samples is not uniform. Especially, the samples in the boundary region play a crucial role in achieving accurate classifications. Conversely, the samples far from the boundary contribute relatively less to the classification. To accurately measure the contribution of granular-balls in di ff erent regions to classification, we categorize them into positive and boundary regions based on GBRS, and assign them di ff erent scoring functions. Since the overlap between heterogeneous granular-balls reduces the accuracy of classification, we employ an adaptive method of granular-ball generation to ensure that there are no heterogeneous overlaps. Based on the closeness index of Pythagorean fuzzy sets, we define the granular-ball closeness function as follows:

$$\theta _ { G B _ { i } } = \sqrt { \frac { 1 - \nu _ { G B _ { i } } ^ { 2 } } { 2 - \mu _ { G B _ { i } } ^ { 2$$

Granular-balls located in the boundary region are often close to the classification hyperplane, which significantly aids in

Fig. 2: The GBFTSVM classifier.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00699v1-figure-e08009b5-4572-4564-a11d-ca8d41c12ac9.jpg)

determining the decision boundary. Conversely, granular-balls in the positive region are typically far from the classification hyperplane and contribute little to determine the decision boundary. According to GBRS, if the purity of granular-ball GBi is equal to 1, then GBi belongs to the positive region. If the purity of granular-ball GBi is not equal to 1, then GBi belongs to the boundary region. Therefore, we assign a lower score µ GBi to the granular-ball in the positive region and a higher score θ GBi to that in the boundary region. Thus, the scoring function of the granular-ball GBi is defined as follows:

$$s _ { G B _ { i } } = \begin{cases} \mu _ { G B$$

In Figure 2, dashed granular-balls stand for those belonging to the boundary region, and they are typically positioned close to the separating hyperplane. We assign them a higher score. In contrast, solid granular-balls stand for those belonging to the positive region, and they are often positioned far from the separating hyperplane. This scoring function for granular-balls enables us to clearly distinguish the contribution of granularballs in di ff erent regions.

## B. The Linear GBFTSVM Classifier

Consider a set of granular-balls GB = { ( ci , ri , pi , yi ) | 1 ≤ i ≤ m } , where ci is the center of granular-ball GBi , ri is the radius of granular-ball GBi , pi is the purity of granular-ball GBi , and yi ∈ {-1 , + 1 } signifies the label of granular-ball GBi . A pair of non-parallel hyperplanes for the linear GBFTSVM classifier is obtained by solving the following quadratic programming problems:

$$\underset { \infty } { \min } \quad & \frac { 1 } { 2$$

and

$$\min _ { \omega _ { 2 }, b _ { 2 }, \xi _ {$$

where C 1 and C 2 are constants and both are greater than 0, and e 1 and e 2 are unit vectors of the appropriate dimension, sA ∈ R and sB ∈ R are the score values of positive and negative granular-balls, respectively.

## C. The Dual Model of the GBFTSVM Classifier

We tackle the quadratic programming problem of the linear GBFTSVM classifier by incorporating Lagrange multipliers α , 1 β , 1 α 2 , and β 2 as follows.

$$\begin{array} {$$

where α 1 and β 1 are Lagrangian multipliers.

According to KKT conditions, we get:

$$\frac { \partial L } { \partial \omega _ { 1 } } = c _ {$$

$$\frac { \partial \dot { L } } { \partial \xi _ { 2 } } = C _ { 2 } s _ { B } ^ { T } - \alpha _ { 1 } - \beta _ { 1 }.$$

$$\frac { \partial L } { \partial \omega _ { 1 } } & = c _ { A } ^ { T } ( c _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) + c _ { B } ^ { T } \alpha = 0 ; \quad \quad ( 3 6 ) \quad \ \ 1 3 \colon \\ \frac { \partial L } { \partial b _ { 1 } } & = e _ { 1 } ^ { T } ( c _ { A } \omega _ { 1 } + e _ { 1 } b _ { 1 } ) + e _ { 2 } ^ { T } \alpha = 0 ; \quad \ \ ( 3 7 ) \quad \ \ 1 4 \colon \\ \frac { \partial L } { \partial \xi _ { 2 } } & = C _ { 2 } s _ { B } ^ { T } - \alpha _ { 1 } - \beta _ { 1 }. \quad \ \ ( 3 8 ) \quad \ \ 1 6 \colon$$

By Equations (36) and (37), we obtain:

$$\begin{bmatrix} c _ { A } ^ { T } \\ e _ { 1 } ^ { T } \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} c _ { A } & e _ { 1 } \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \omega _ { 1 } \\ b _ { 1 } \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} c _ { B } ^ { T } \\ e _ { 2 } ^ { T } \end{bmatrix} \alpha _ { 1 } = 0. \quad \begin{pmatrix} ( 3 9 ) & \frac { 1 8 \colon A } { \mathbf f _ { 1 } } \\ _ { - } & \frac { 1 9 \colon P } \end{bmatrix}$$

By taking E = [ cA e 1 ], F = [ cB e 2 ], and u = [ ω 1 b 1 ] T , Equation (39) is changed as:

$$E ^ { T } E u + F ^ { T } \alpha = 0. \quad \quad \ ( 4 0 ) \ \frac { 2 2 \colon } { }$$

Then, by adding the regularization item, we get the expression of u :

$$u = - ( E ^ { T } E + \varepsilon I ) ^ { - 1 } F ^ { T } \alpha _ { 1 }. \quad \quad ( 4 1 ) \quad \text{is less}.$$

Similarly, by taking R = [ cA e 1 ], S = [ cB e 2 ], and v = [ ω 2 b 2 ] T , we get an expression of v :

$$v = ( S ^ { T } S + \varepsilon I ) ^ { - 1 }$$

A pair of non-parallel hyperplanes for the dual model of linear GBFTSVM classifier is obtained by solving the following quadratic programming problems:

$$\lambda \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \lambda \cdot$$

and

$$\begin{array} {$$

A new input data x ϵ R d can be labeled as class t ∈ { 1 2 , } depending on which of the two hyperplanes is closer:

$$C l a s s \ t = a r g \min _ { t \in [ 1, 2$$

## D. Algorithm Design

We give the algorithm for the GBFTSVM classifier as follows:

## Algorithm 2 The GBFTSVM classifier.

Input: A set of granular-balls GB = { ( ci , ri , pi , yi ) | i = 1 2 , , ..., m } .

Output: ω , ω , 1 2 b 1 , and b 2 .

- 1: According to Equations (29) and (31), calculate µ GBi and θ GBi ;
- 2: Initialize si as empty matrices.
- 3: for each GBi ∈ GB do
- 4: if pi = 1 then
- 5: add µ GBi to matrix si ;
- 6: else
- 7: add θ GBi to matrix si ;

8:

end if

- 9: end for
- 10: Initialize cA , cB , rA , rB , sA , and sB as empty matrices.
- 11: for each GBi ∈ GB do
- 12: if yi = 1 then

13:

add ci , ri , and si to matrices cA , rA , and sA , respectively;

- 14: else
- 15: add ci , ri , and si to matrices cB , rB , and sB , respectively;

16:

end if

- 17: end for
- 18: According to Equations (43) and (44), define the objective function for optimization;
- 19: Perform L-BFGS-B optimization for α 1 and α 2 ;
- 20: According to Equation (41), calculate ω 1 and b 1 ;
- 21: According to Equation (42), calculate ω 2 and b 2 .
- 22: return ω , ω , 1 2 b 1 , and b 2 .

Assume that n samples generate m granular-balls, where m is less than n and each class has approximately m / 2 granularballs, the time complexity of GBFTSVM is O GLYPH&lt;16&gt; 2 × ( m / 2) 3 GLYPH&lt;17&gt; . If the number of generated granular-balls m is approximately n / 2, the computational speed of GBFTSVM is eight times faster than TWSVM.

## V. E xperiment A nalysis

In this section, we compare GBFTSVM and GBTWSVM with TWSVM [6], EFSVM [16], IFTSVM [17], GBSVM [34] and GBFSVM [35]. All methods are implemented using Python 3.11 on a desktop with an Intel ® Core TM i7-10700 CPU @ 2.90 GHz with 16 GB RAM.

## A. Experimental Datasets

We download twenty benchmark datasets from the UCI machine learning repository [50], and show the statistics of these benchmark datasets in Table I. Moreover, we use ten-fold cross-validation to evaluate the performance of the seven methods in terms of Accuracy ( Acc ), Precision ( Prec ), Recall ( Rec ), and Standard deviation of Accuracy ( Sd ). To

ensure a fair comparison of e ffi ciency, the seven models are solved using the optimize library in Python under the optimal parameter settings.

TABLE I: Datasets information.

| Datasets                      |   Numbers of samples |   Numbers of attributes |
|-------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|
| Australian                    |                  690 |                      13 |
| Breast-cancer                 |                  277 |                       9 |
| Breast-cancer-wisc            |                  683 |                       9 |
| Chronic-kidney-disease        |                  158 |                      24 |
| Congressional-voting- records |                  231 |                      16 |
| Conn-bench-sonar- mines-rocks |                  208 |                      60 |
| Credit-approval               |                  653 |                      15 |
| Diabetes                      |                  768 |                       7 |
| Diabetes-upload               |                  520 |                      16 |
| Electrical                    |                10000 |                      13 |
| Fourclass                     |                  682 |                       2 |
| German.numer                  |                 1000 |                      23 |
| Heart                         |                  270 |                      12 |
| Ionosphere                    |                  351 |                      34 |
| Liver-disorders               |                  145 |                       4 |
| Messidor-features             |                 1151 |                      19 |
| Spambase                      |                 4601 |                      57 |
| Tic-tac-toe                   |                  958 |                       8 |
| WDBC                          |                  569 |                      30 |
| Wholesale-customers           |                  440 |                       7 |

## B. Penalty Parameters

We perform a grid search on the penalty parameters that appear in di ff erent methods, and the best results obtained are reported as the final results. The parameters of the TWSVM classifier, the IFTSVM classifier, the GBTWSVM classifier, and the GBFTSVM classifier are set as follows: Ci ( i = 1 2 3 4) , , , is explored in the grid { 2 i | i = -5 , -4 , ..., + 4 , + 5 } by setting C 1 = C 3 , C 2 = C 4 . The parameters of the EFSVM classifier, the GBSVM classifier, and the GBFSVM classifier are set as follows: C is explored in the grid { 2 i | i = -5 , -4 , ..., + 4 , + 5 . } To investigate the impact of di ff erent parameter values on the performance of the GBFTSVM classifier, we collect the experimental results on various datasets. Due to space limitations, we select four datasets, as shown in Figure 3. From the graph, it can be observed that the GBFTSVM classifier is highly sensitive to changes in parameter values. We select the parameters corresponding to the highest Acc achieved by seven models on di ff erent datasets without noise, as shown in Table II.

## C. Experimental Results on Datasets without Noise

1) Comparison of Training Times: In the absence of noise, we show the training time of these models across various datasets in Table III. Notably, the GBTWSVM classifier exhibits the shortest training time across all datasets, and achieves remarkable speedups of hundreds of times in certain cases. In addition to the GBTWSM classifier, the GBFTSVM classifier has the shortest training time among the remaining models. This observation can be attributed to two primary reasons. First, the number of granular-balls generated in the datasets is significantly smaller than the

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00699v1-figure-53c7dd93-e20c-4855-ab60-b38f5d783cf1.jpg)

(a) Congressionalvoting-records

(b) Conn-bench-sonarmines-rocks

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00699v1-figure-a521616b-f399-4290-974f-cddfad284e0d.jpg)

Fig. 3: Acc of GBFTSVM with di ff erent C 1 , C 3 and C 2 , C 4 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00699v1-figure-64e6bb3c-e285-4279-9d55-de68a040fb58.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00699v1-figure-301def5a-4c1b-4c28-b166-f18a50b8e894.jpg)

sample size. Second, both GBTWSVM and GBFTSVM derive the hyperplane by two smaller-scale quadratic programming problems instead of a single large-scale one. Furthermore, although the GBTWSVM classifier performs slightly worse Acc than the GBFTSVM classifier, it exhibits faster. This is because the GBFTSVM classifier requires the computation of a scoring function for each granular-ball to di ff erentiate their contributions to classification, whereas the GBTWSVM classifier does not incorporate this aspect.

2) Comparison of Performance: To comprehensively evaluate the performance of the GBTWSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier on multiple datasets without noise, we conduct a rigorous comparison of seven models across 20 benchmark datasets. We evaluate these models based on their Acc , Pre , Rec , and Sd . The results are summarized in Table IV. After a thorough analysis, we arrive at the following conclusions: the GBFTSVM classifier exhibits the highest Acc , Pre , and Rec in 17 out of the 20 datasets, and firmly establishes its superior classification capabilities. Notably, the GBFTSVM classifier also gives a relatively low standard deviation in Acc , which indicates its consistent and reliable performance. While the GBTWSVM classifier trails the GBFTSVM classifier slightly in terms of overall Acc , it achieves high Acc in 14 datasets with a low standard deviation, and emerges as a strong contender among the remaining six models. Furthermore, we compare the average Acc of each model across all datasets. Evidently, the GBFTSVM classifier achieves the highest average Acc , and outperforms the other models by 2%-12%, which underscores its superior classification performance. In comparison with the GBTWSVM classifier, the notable improvement of the GBFTSVM classifier's

TABLE II: The optimal parameters of seven models on UCI datasets without noise.

| Dataset                      | TWSVM C 1 , C 2   | EFSVM C   | IFTSVM C 1 , C 2   | GBSVM C   | GBFSVM C   | GBTWSVM C 1 , C 2   | GBFTSVM C 1 , C 2   |
|------------------------------|-------------------|-----------|--------------------|-----------|------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| Australian                   | 2 2 , 2 0         | 2 - 5     | 2 2 , 2 - 4        | 2 - 1     | 2 0        | 2 - 4 , 2 - 4       | 2 - 3 , 2 - 5       |
| Breast-cancer                | 2 - 5 , 2 - 4     | 2 - 5     | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5      | 2 1       | 2 - 1      | 2 - 5 , 2 - 3       | 2 4 , 2 - 2         |
| Breast-cancer-wisc           | 2 - 5 , 2 - 1     | 2 - 4     | 2 - 2 , 2 2        | 2 - 1     | 2 0        | 2 0 , 2 - 4         | 2 2 , 2 - 2         |
| Chronic-kidney-disease       | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5     | 2 - 5     | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5      | 2 - 1     | 2 - 1      | 2 - 4 , 2 - 5       | 2 - 1 , 2 0         |
| Congressional-voting-records | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5     | 2 - 5     | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5      | 2 - 1     | 2 - 1      | 2 - 4 , 2 0         | 2 - 3 , 2 - 1       |
| Conn-bench-sonar-mines-rocks | 2 0 , 2 - 5       | 2 5       | 2 - 4 , 2 0        | 2 - 2     | 2 0        | 2 0 , 2 - 1         | 2 3 , 2 2           |
| Credit-approval              | 2 - 2 , 2 - 5     | 2 - 5     | 2 2 , 2 - 4        | 2 - 1     | 2 0        | 2 1 , 2 0           | 2 0 , 2 3           |
| Diabetes                     | 2 - 5 , 2 - 4     | 2 - 5     | 2 4 , 2 - 1        | 2 - 2     | 2 - 1      | 2 3 , 2 - 1         | 2 - 4 , 2 - 5       |
| Diabetes-upload              | 2 0 , 2 0         | 2 - 3     | 2 - 3 , 2 - 3      | 2 - 1     | 2 0        | 2 - 2 , 2 - 3       | 2 2 , 2 2           |
| Electrical                   | 2 - 4 , 2 - 3     | 2 3       | 2 - 1 , 2 - 1      | 2 - 1     | 2 0        | 2 2 , 2 1           | 2 3 , 2 4           |
| Fourclass                    | 2 0 , 2 - 1       | 2 3       | 2 1 , 2 3          | 2 1       | 2 - 1      | 2 2 , 2 0           | 2 - 5 , 2 - 4       |
| German.numer                 | 2 - 5 , 2 - 4     | 2 - 5     | 2 - 1 , 2 5        | 2 1       | 2 - 1      | 2 2 , 2 3           | 2 - 1 , 2 - 1       |
| Heart                        | 2 - 4 , 2 - 3     | 2 - 1     | 2 2 , 2 2          | 2 - 1     | 2 0        | 2 - 3 , 2 - 5       | 2 1 , 2 - 5         |
| Ionosphere                   | 2 - 4 , 2 - 5     | 2 - 5     | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5      | 2 - 1     | 2 0        | 2 - 5 , 2 3         | 2 - 4 , 2 0         |
| Liver-disorders              | 2 - 5 , 2 - 2     | 2 - 1     | 2 - 4 , 2 - 5      | 2 0       | 2 - 1      | 2 - 1 , 2 - 4       | 2 1 , 2 - 4         |
| Messidor-features            | 2 - 3 , 2 - 5     | 2 5       | 2 0 , 2 - 4        | 2 0       | 2 0        | 2 3 , 2 4           | 2 - 3 , 2 - 3       |
| Spambase                     | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5     | 2 5       | 2 2 , 2 - 2        | 2 0       | 2 0        | 2 - 2 , 2 - 2       | 2 1 , 2 - 2         |
| Tic-tac-toe                  | 2 - 5 , 2 - 5     | 2 - 5     | 2 4 , 2 0          | 2 - 1     | 2 - 1      | 2 1 , 2 0           | 2 - 2 , 2 - 2       |
| WDBC                         | 2 4 , 2 3         | 2 0       | 2 - 4 , 2 - 4      | 2 0       | 2 - 1      | 2 - 5 , 2 1         | 2 0 , 2 2           |
| Wholesale-customers          | 2 3 , 2 1         | 2 - 5     | 2 - 3 , 2 - 1      | 2 0       | 2 0        | 2 - 5 , 2 - 4       | 2 - 2 , 2 - 2       |

TABLE III: The running time of seven models for classification.

| Dataset                      |   TWSVM |    EFSVM |   IFTSVM |   GBSVM |   GBFSVM |   GBTWSVM |   GBFTSVM |
|------------------------------|---------|----------|----------|---------|----------|-----------|-----------|
| Australian                   |   2.309 |    4.178 |    5.64  |   8.758 |    6.764 |     0.172 |     0.49  |
| Breast-cancer                |   0.289 |    0.162 |    1.495 |   1.217 |    0.638 |     0.067 |     0.1   |
| Breast-cancer-wisc           |   2.269 |    4.541 |    5.431 |   0.149 |    0.032 |     0.016 |     0.054 |
| Chronic-kidney-disease       |   0.45  |    0.055 |    1.061 |   0.016 |    0.046 |     0.003 |     0.009 |
| Congressional-voting-records |   0.762 |    0.109 |    1.703 |   0.362 |    0.13  |     0.017 |     0.037 |
| Conn-bench-sonar-mines-rocks |   0.862 |    0.102 |    0.451 |   1.067 |    0.868 |     0.032 |     0.064 |
| Credit-approval              |   2.099 |    3.475 |    5.195 |   9.206 |    6.884 |     0.09  |     0.171 |
| Diabetes                     |   0.762 |    5.443 |    4.202 |   5.867 |    4.382 |     0.194 |     0.274 |
| Diabetes-upload              |   1.541 |    1.687 |    4.215 |   0.208 |    0.136 |     0.045 |     0.11  |
| Electrical                   | 536.677 | 1511.62  | 2055.8   | 347.536 |  347.615 |     3.126 |     3.662 |
| Fourclass                    |   1.233 |    7.462 |    7.034 |   0.156 |    0.057 |     0.034 |     0.088 |
| German.numer                 |   1.555 |   13.508 |    6.12  |  36.314 |   22.802 |     1.038 |     1.147 |
| Heart                        |   1.327 |    0.144 |    1.565 |   0.402 |    0.786 |     0.064 |     0.122 |
| Ionosphere                   |   1.465 |    0.266 |    2.963 |   0.745 |    0.275 |     0.075 |     0.118 |
| Liver-disorders              |   0.12  |    0.022 |    0.137 |   0.065 |    0.154 |     0.027 |     0.05  |
| Messidor-features            |   2.12  |   22.039 |    6.854 |  37.686 |   42.537 |     0.94  |     1.671 |
| Spambase                     |  99.972 |   91.115 |  651.741 | 210.924 |  201.019 |     3.129 |     3.176 |
| Tic-tac-toe                  |   0.73  |   11.01  |    4.421 |  38.297 |   27.621 |     0.692 |     1.023 |
| WDBC                         |   1.649 |    2.309 |    4.709 |   0.204 |    0.448 |     0.04  |     0.112 |
| Wholesale-customers          |   1.499 |    1.046 |    3.284 |   0.366 |    0.356 |     0.107 |     0.112 |

average Acc validates the significance of our optimizations and enhancements to the membership function for classification.

D. Experimental Results on Datasets with Noise

To overcome the potential bias caused by a model's high Acc in one dataset and low Acc s in others, we calculate the average rank of each model across the datasets. The model with the highest Acc is ranked first, and in cases of equal Acc , the average of the corresponding ranks is taken. The GBFTSVM classifier emerges with the lowest average rank, and firmly establishes its superiority among all the compared models. Similarly, the GBTWSVM classifier's second-lowest average rank demonstrates its strong performance among the remaining models, excluding the GBFTSVM classifier.

To assess the robustness of the GBTWSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier to noise, we add 5% and 10% label noise to 20 datasets and compare the Acc of seven models. In Table V, the GBFTSVM classifier gives the highest Acc on 18 datasets with 5% noise and on 19 datasets with 10% noise, and outperforms the other six models. Notably, in the Messidor-features and WDBC datasets, although the GBFTSVM classifier does not exhibit optimal performance in the absence of noise, its stability in the face of noise leads to improved classification performance. Especially, it surpasses other models on datasets with 10% noise. It is noteworthy that classifiers based on granular-balls exhibits a

TABLE IV: The performance of seven models on UCI datasets without noise.

| Dataset                      | TWSVM Acc ± Sd                      | EFSVM Acc ± Sd                      | IFTSVM Acc ± Sd                                 | GBSVM Acc ± Sd                      | GBFSVM Acc ± Sd                     | GBTWSVM Acc ± Sd                    | GBFTSVM Acc ± Sd                    |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Dataset                      | (Prec,Rec)                          | (Prec,Rec)                          | (Prec,Rec)                                      | (Prec,Rec)                          | (Prec,Rec)                          | (Prec,Rec)                          | (Prec,Rec)                          |
| Australian                   | 0.90 ± 0.03 (0.90,0.90)             | 0.84 ± 0.08 (0.83,0.84)             | 0.90 ± 0.01 (0.90,0.90)                         | 0.89 ± 0.04 (0.89,0.89)             | 0.84 ± 0.04 (0.85,0.84)             | 0.91 ± 0.03 (0.91,0.91)             | 0.92 ± 0.02 (0.92,0.92)             |
| Breast-cancer                | 0.84 ± 0.05 (0.83,0.84)             | 0.84 ± 0.05 (0.76,0.84)             | 0.86 ± 0.06 (0.85,0.86)                         | 0.86 ± 0.07 (0.73,0.86)             | 0.87 ± 0.09 (0.88,0.87)             | 0.91 ± 0.04 (0.91,0.91)             | 0.92 ± 0.03 (0.93,0.92)             |
| Breast-cancer-wisc           | 0.99 ± 0.01 (0.99,0.99)             | 0.98 ± 0.02 (0.98,0.98)             | 0.99 ± 0.01                                     | 0.98 ± 0.02                         | 0.98 ± 0.02 (0.98,0.98)             | 0.98 ± 0.02                         | 0.99 ± 0.01                         |
|                              | 1.00 ± 0.00                         | 0.99 ± 0.03                         | (0.99,0.99) ±                                   | (0.98,0.98) 1.00 ± 0.00             | 0.96 ± 0.21                         | (0.98,0.98)                         | (0.99,0.99)                         |
| Chronic-kidney-disease       | (1.00,1.00)                         | (0.99,0.99)                         | 1.00 0.00 (1.00,1.00)                           | (1.00,1.00)                         | (0.96,0.96)                         | 0.98 ± 0.03 (0.98,0.98)             | 1.00 ± 0.00 (1.00,1.00)             |
| Congressional-voting-records | 0.98 ± 0.02 (0.98,0.98) 0.85 ± 0.04 | 0.98 ± 0.03 (0.98,0.98) 0.80 ± 0.08 | 0.99 ± 0.02 (0.99,0.99) 0.79 ± 0.05             | 0.91 ± 0.06 (0.92,0.91) 0.74 ± 0.09 | 0.92 ± 0.05 (0.92,0.92) 0.71 ± 0.10 | 0.97 ± 0.04 (0.97,0.97)             | 0.99 ± 0.02 (0.99,0.99)             |
| Conn-bench-sonar-mines-rocks | (0.86,0.85) 0.91 ± 0.03             | (0.82,0.80) ±                       | (0.80,0.79) 0.89 ± 0.02                         | (0.74,0.74) 0.86 ± 0.03             | (0.77,0.71) 0.88 ± 0.05             | 0.93 ± 0.03 (0.94,0.93) 0.89 ± 0.02 | 0.97 ± 0.04 (0.97,0.97) 0.92 ± 0.03 |
| Credit-approval              | (0.92,0.91)                         | 0.82 0.11 (0.79,0.82)               | (0.89,0.89) 0.76 ± 0.02                         | (0.87,0.86)                         | (0.89,0.88)                         | (0.90,0.89)                         | (0.92,0.92)                         |
| Diabetes                     | 0.81 ± 0.03 (0.82,0.81)             | 0.65 ± 0.16 (0.71,0.65)             | (0.76,0.76)                                     | 0.79 ± 0.03 (0.78,0.79)             | 0.76 ± 0.05 (0.78,0.76)             | 0.83 ± 0.02 (0.83,0.83)             | 0.84 ± 0.03                         |
| Diabetes-upload              | 0.96 ± 0.03 (0.96,0.96)             | 0.92 ± 0.03 (0.93,0.92)             | 0.94 ± 0.04 (0.94,0.94)                         | 0.84 ± 0.15 (0.86,0.84)             | 0.82 ± 0.08 (0.83,0.82)             | 0.96 ± 0.02 (0.96,0.96)             | (0.85,0.84) 0.98 ± 0.02 (0.98,0.98) |
| Electrical                   | 0.99 ± 0.00 (0.99,0.99) 0.79 ± 0.04 | 1.00 ± 0.00 (1.00,1.00) ±           | 0.98 ± 0.01 (0.98,0.98) 0.82 ± 0.03             | 0.75 ± 0.03 (0.76,0.75) 0.83 ± 0.04 | 0.80 ± 0.07 (0.82,0.80)             | 1.00 ± 0.00 (1.00,1.00)             | 1.00 ± 0.00 (1.00,1.00)             |
| Fourclass                    | (0.81,0.79) 0.77 ± 0.03             | 0.74 0.06 (0.81,0.74) 0.75 ± 0.05   | (0.83,0.82) 0.76 ± 0.03                         | (0.84,0.83) 0.80 ± 0.04             | 0.76 ± 0.04 (0.78,0.76) 0.80 ± 0.04 | 0.83 ± 0.03 (0.85,0.83)             | 0.84 ± 0.03                         |
| German.numer                 | (0.77,0.77)                         | (0.71,0.75)                         | (0.76,0.76)                                     | (0.79,0.80) 0.85 ± 0.04             | (0.82,0.80)                         | 0.81 ± 0.04                         | (0.85,0.84) 0.83 ± 0.03             |
|                              | 0.88 ± 0.06                         | 0.89 ± 0.06                         | 0.90 ± 0.04                                     | (0.86,0.85)                         | 0.83 ± 0.08                         | (0.80,0.81)                         | (0.82,0.83)                         |
| Heart Ionosphere             | (0.89,0.88) 0.93 ± 0.04             | (0.90,0.89) 0.86 ± 0.14             | (0.90,0.90) 0.95 ± 0.03 (0.95,0.95)             | 0.80 ± 0.04 (0.83,0.80)             | (0.85,0.83) 0.78 ± 0.06             | 0.91 ± 0.05 (0.91,0.91) 0.93 ± 0.02 | 0.95 ± 0.04 (0.95,0.95) 0.97 ± 0.02 |
|                              | (0.93,0.93) 0.87 ± 0.12 (0.86,0.87) | (0.84,0.86) 0.75 ± 0.07 (0.82,0.75) | 0.85 ± 0.08 (0.87,0.85)                         | 0.86 ± 0.12 (0.88,0.86)             | (0.74,0.78) 0.79 ± 0.10 (0.78,0.79) | (0.94,0.93) 0.90 ± 0.05             | (0.97,0.97) 0.93 ± 0.04 (0.94,0.93) |
| Liver-disorders              | 0.80 ± 0.03                         | 0.70 ± 0.05                         | 0.76 ± 0.02                                     | 0.70 ± 0.05 (0.70,0.70)             | 0.71 ± 0.04                         | (0.91,0.90) 0.82 ± 0.03             | 0.80 ± 0.03                         |
| Messidor-features Spambase   | (0.82,0.80) 0.85 ± 0.02 (0.87,0.85) | (0.76,0.70) 0.91 ± 0.04 (0.91,0.91) | (0.78,0.76) 0.88 ± 0.02 (0.89,0.88) 0.70 ± 0.04 | 0.66 ± 0.02 (0.67,0.66) 0.67 ± 0.06 | (0.71,0.71) 0.60 ± 0.13             | (0.82,0.82) 0.94 ± 0.01             | (0.82,0.80) 0.93 ± 0.00             |
| Tic-tac-toe                  | 0.70 ± 0.04 (0.68,0.70)             | 0.56 ± 0.13 (0.33,0.56) 0.97 ± 0.02 | (0.73,0.70) 1.00 ± 0.01                         | (0.68,0.67) 0.96 ± 0.03 (0.96,0.96) | (0.60,0.60) 0.68 ± 0.04 (0.55,0.68) | (0.94,0.94) 0.75 ± 0.05 (0.76,0.75) | (0.93,0.93) 0.77 ± 0.03 (0.80,0.77) |
|                              | 0.98 ± 0.01 (0.98,0.98)             | (0.98,0.97)                         | (1.00,1.00)                                     | 0.85 ± 0.05                         | ±                                   | ±                                   | 0.99 ± 0.01                         |
|                              |                                     | ±                                   | 0.94 ± 0.03                                     |                                     | 0.87 0.15                           | 0.96 0.03                           | (0.99,0.99)                         |
| WDBC                         | 0.95 ± 0.04                         | 0.85 0.21                           |                                                 |                                     | (0.85,0.87)                         | (0.97,0.96) 0.95 ± 0.04             | 0.96 ± 0.02                         |
| Wholesale-customers          | (0.95,0.95)                         | (0.84,0.85)                         | (0.94,0.94)                                     | (0.85,0.85)                         | 0.84 ± 0.04 (0.85,0.84)             | (0.95,0.95)                         | (0.97,0.96)                         |
|                              | 0.89 ± 0.03                         |                                     |                                                 | 0.83 ± 0.05                         |                                     | 0.91 ± 0.03                         | 0.93 ± 0.02                         |
| Average Performance          | (0.89,0.89)                         | 0.84 ± 0.07 (0.83,0.84)             | 0.88 ± 0.03                                     | (0.83,0.83)                         | 0.81 ± 0.07                         | (0.91,0.91)                         | (0.93,0.93)                         |
| Average Rank of Acc          |                                     |                                     | (0.89,0.88)                                     |                                     | (0.81,0.81)                         | 2.825                               | 1.35                                |
|                              | 3.4                                 | 5.175                               | 3.55                                            | 5.05                                |                                     |                                     |                                     |
|                              |                                     |                                     |                                                 |                                     | 6.525                               |                                     |                                     |

relatively stable Acc fluctuation of approximately 2% with noise addition, compared to a fluctuation of over 2% for classifiers based on point inputs. This suggests that classifiers based on granular-balls o ff er better robustness to noise in terms of prediction stability. Furthermore, the GBFTSVM classifier emerges as the top performer in terms of average Acc across all noise levels (0%, 5%, and 10%). Several factors contribute to this performance. First, the coarser size of granular-balls and the assignment of majority point labels reduce the impact of noisy points. Second, the GBFTSVM classifier employs two symmetric support vectors based on granular-balls, which, through their symmetry, e ff ectively resists noise and outliers, and enhances generalization ability. Third, the assignment of scoring functions to granular-balls e ff ectively distinguishes supportive granular-balls, and minimizes their influence on determining the separation hyperplane.

## E. Statistical Analysis

To validate the statistical significance of the GBFTSVM classifier, we conduct Friedman test and Nemenyi posthoc test on seven models across 20 datasets without noise. Initially, we assume that all models are equivalent under the null hypothesis. Friedman statistic follows a chi-square distribution, which is calculated using the formula: χ 2 F = 12 N M M ( + 1) h P M j = 1 R j 2 -M M ( + 1) 2 4 i , where Rj ( j = 1 2 , , ... 7) stands for the average rank of the j th model, N is the number of datasets,

TABLE V: The performance of seven models on UCI datasets with di ff erent noise levels.

| Dataset                      | Noisy    | TWSVM     | EFSVM     | IFTSVM    | GBSVM     | GBFSVM    | GBTWSVM   | GBFTSVM   |
|------------------------------|----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
|                              |          | Acc       | Acc       | Acc       | Acc       | Acc       | Acc       | Acc       |
| Australian                   | 0        | 0.90      | 0.84      | 0.90      | 0.89      | 0.84      | 0.91      | 0.92      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.88      | 0.82      | 0.89      | 0.86      | 0.84      | 0.90      | 0.90      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.88      | 0.88      | 0.89      | 0.89      | 0.86      | 0.89      | 0.91      |
| Breast-cancer                | 0        | 0.84      | 0.84      | 0.86      | 0.86      | 0.87      | 0.91      | 0.92      |
|                              | 0.05 0.1 | 0.80 0.81 | 0.79 0.83 | 0.84 0.86 | 0.78 0.80 | 0.82 0.88 | 0.90 0.88 | 0.90 0.90 |
|                              |          |           |           | 0.99      |           | 0.98      | 0.98      | 0.99      |
| Breast-cancer-wisc           | 0        | 0.99      | 0.98      |           | 0.98      | 0.98      | 0.99      | 0.99      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.98 0.98 | 0.95 0.93 | 0.98 0.97 | 0.98 0.98 | 0.98      | 0.99      | 0.99      |
| Chronic-kidney-disease       | 0.1 0    | 1.00      | 0.99      | 1.00      | 1.00      | 0.96      | 0.98      | 1.00      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.99      | 1.00      | 1.00      | 1.00      | 1.00      | 0.99      | 1.00      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.99      | 1.00      | 1.00      | 1.00      | 0.99      | 1.00      | 0.99      |
| Congressional-voting-records | 0        | 0.98      | 0.98      | 0.99      | 0.91      | 0.92      | 0.97      | 0.99      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.98      | 0.97      | 0.98      | 0.90      | 0.90      | 0.98      | 0.98      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.97      | 0.95      | 0.98      | 0.91      | 0.93      | 0.98      | 0.99      |
| Conn-bench-sonar-mines-rocks | 0        | 0.85      | 0.80      | 0.79      | 0.74      | 0.71      | 0.93      | 0.97      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.83      | 0.83      | 0.79      | 0.78      | 0.60      | 0.90      | 0.92      |
| Credit-approval              | 0.1      | 0.80      | 0.75      | 0.76      | 0.72      | 0.61      | 0.90      | 0.90      |
|                              | 0        | 0.91      | 0.82      | 0.89      | 0.86      | 0.88      | 0.89      | 0.92      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.90      | 0.77      | 0.88      | 0.88      | 0.88      | 0.89      | 0.90      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.89      | 0.87      | 0.89      | 0.85      | 0.87      | 0.90      | 0.92      |
| Diabetes                     | 0 0.05   | 0.81      | 0.65      | 0.76      | 0.79      | 0.76      | 0.83      | 0.84      |
|                              |          | 0.81      | 0.62      | 0.80      | 0.77      | 0.75      | 0.84      | 0.85      |
|                              | 0.1      |           |           | 0.76      | 0.76      | 0.74      | 0.83      | 0.84      |
| Diabetes-upload              | 0 0.05   | 0.79 0.96 | 0.47 0.92 | 0.94      | 0.84      | 0.82      | 0.96      | 0.98      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.94 0.93 | 0.83      | 0.94      | 0.83 0.83 | 0.90 0.82 | 0.96      | 0.96 0.97 |
| Electrical                   | 0        | 0.99      | 0.86 1.00 | 0.93 0.98 | 0.75      | 0.80      | 0.97 1.00 | 1.00      |
|                              | 0.05     |           | 0.97      | 0.96      | 0.74      | 0.81      | 1.00      | 1.00      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.93 0.89 |           |           |           | 0.80      | 0.99      |           |
|                              | 0        |           | 0.90      | 0.93      | 0.73      |           |           | 0.99 0.84 |
| Fourclass                    | 0.05     | 0.79      | 0.74      | 0.82      | 0.83 0.81 | 0.76 0.73 | 0.83 0.82 | 0.83      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.80 0.79 | 0.77 0.71 | 0.78 0.79 | 0.81      | 0.73      | 0.82      | 0.82      |
| German.numer                 |          |           |           |           |           |           |           |           |
|                              | 0        | 0.77      | 0.75      | 0.76      | 0.80      | 0.80      | 0.81      | 0.83      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.78      | 0.79      | 0.78      | 0.81      | 0.78      | 0.82      | 0.83      |
| Heart                        | 0.1      | 0.77      | 0.76      | 0.76 0.90 | 0.81 0.85 | 0.78 0.83 | 0.80 0.91 | 0.82      |
|                              | 0        | 0.88      | 0.89      |           |           |           |           | 0.95      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.88      | 0.81      | 0.86      | 0.82      | 0.86      | 0.91      | 0.92      |
| Ionosphere                   | 0.1      | 0.86      | 0.81      | 0.87      | 0.83 0.80 | 0.81 0.78 | 0.91      | 0.93      |
|                              | 0 0.05   | 0.93 0.93 | 0.86 0.76 | 0.95 0.94 | 0.78      | 0.81      | 0.93 0.93 | 0.97 0.94 |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.91      | 0.71      | 0.94      | 0.78      | 0.78      | 0.93      | 0.96      |
| Liver-disorders              |          |           |           |           |           | 0.79      |           |           |
|                              | 0        | 0.87      | 0.75      | 0.85      | 0.86      |           | 0.90      | 0.93      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.83      | 0.83      | 0.83      | 0.83      | 0.73      | 0.90      | 0.94      |
| Messidor-features            | 0.1 0    | 0.81      | 0.75      | 0.81      | 0.82 0.70 | 0.59 0.71 | 0.88 0.82 | 0.93      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.80      | 0.70      | 0.76      |           |           |           | 0.80      |
|                              |          | 0.78 0.76 | 0.69      | 0.75 0.73 | 0.70 0.69 | 0.70 0.71 | 0.80 0.77 | 0.79 0.78 |
| Spambase                     | 0.1 0    | 0.85      | 0.67 0.91 | 0.88      | 0.66      | 0.60      | 0.94      | 0.93      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.83      | 0.88      | 0.86      | 0.68      | 0.62      | 0.93      |           |
| Tic-tac-toe                  | 0.1 0    | 0.80 0.70 | 0.86 0.56 | 0.84 0.70 | 0.66 0.67 | 0.61 0.68 | 0.92      | 0.94 0.94 |
|                              |          |           |           |           |           |           | 0.75      | 0.77      |
| WDBC                         | 0.05 0.1 | 0.68      | 0.46      | 0.68      | 0.65      | 0.67      | 0.74      | 0.75      |
|                              |          | 0.67      | 0.61      | 0.63      | 0.63      | 0.63      | 0.73      | 0.73      |
|                              | 0        | 0.98      | 0.97      | 1.00      | 0.96      | 0.77      | 0.96      | 0.99      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.97      | 0.97      | 0.99      | 0.94      | 0.81      | 0.97      | 0.98      |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.97      | 0.90      | 0.98      | 0.93      | 0.89      | 0.97      | 0.98      |
| Wholesale-customers          | 0        | 0.95      | 0.85      | 0.94      | 0.85      | 0.87      | 0.95      | 0.96      |
|                              | 0.05 0.1 | 0.93      | 0.82      | 0.94      | 0.87      | 0.82      | 0.95      | 0.96      |
|                              |          | 0.92      | 0.64      | 0.90      | 0.81      | 0.82      | 0.95      |           |
|                              |          |           |           |           |           |           |           | 0.95      |
| Average Acc                  | 0        |           |           | 0.88      | 0.83      | 0.81      | 0.91      | 0.93      |
|                              | 0.05     | 0.89 0.87 | 0.82      | 0.87      |           |           | 0.91      |           |
|                              |          |           | 0.84      |           |           |           |           |           |
|                              |          |           | 0.79      | 0.86      | 0.82      |           |           |           |
|                              | 0.1      | 0.86      |           |           | 0.81      | 0.80 0.79 | 0.90      | 0.91      |
|                              |          |           |           |           |           |           |           | 0.91      |

and M is the number of models. Alternatively, when Friedman statistic follows an F-distribution with (( M -1) , ( M -1)( M N -)) degrees of freedom, the formula is: FF = ( N -1) χ 2 F N M ( -1) -χ 2 F . Based on Table IV, we obtain an FF value of 28.6 with degrees of freedom (6,114). At a significance level of 0.05, the critical value of F (6 , 114) is 2.179. Since FF exceeds this critical value, we reject the null hypothesis. Subsequently, we ultilize Nemenyi post-hoc test to further distinguish these models. It involves calculating the critical di ff erence (CD): CD = q α q M M ( + 1) 6 N . At a significance level of 0.05, q α is 2.949. To visualize the di ff erences among seven classifiers, we generate a CD diagram depicted in Figure 4. This figure clearly shows that the horizontal line representing the GBFTSVM classifier does not overlap with those of the TWSVM classifier, the EFSVM classifier, the IFTSVM classifier, the GBSVM classifier, and the GBFSVM classifier. This indicates that the GBFTSVM classifier significantly di ff ers from and outperforms other models.

Fig. 4: The comparison of various models in terms of CD diagrams.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00699v1-figure-453abd0a-cae1-45d1-9e85-52fbf3950e59.jpg)

## VI. C onclusions

Inspired by GBC and TWSVM, we have proposed the GBTWSVM classifier for binary classification problems, which utilizes granular-balls as inputs instead of individual samples, and provides a scalable, e ffi cient, and robust data processing method. Subsequently, we have introduced the GBFTSVM classifier by integrating GBC, PFS, and FTSVM, in which it defines the granular-ball membership and nonmembership functions based on the Pythagorean closeness index. Additionally, the GBFTSVM classifier distinguishes the contribution of granular-balls from di ff erent regions to classification. Finally, the experimental results on 20 benchmark datasets have demonstrated that the GBFTSVM classifier exhibits excellent results in terms of classification Acc , while the GBTWSVM classifier shows superior performance in training time.

In real-world applications, there are numerous instances of nonlinear classification problems and multi-classification challenges. Our forthcoming research will be dedicated to proficient classifiers and algorithms specifically designed to tackle these diverse challenges.

## A cknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (No. 2022YFB3104700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62076040, 61976158, 62376198), Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2020JJ3034), and the Scientific

Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department (No. 22A0233).

## R eferences

- [1] V.N. Vapnik, Statistical learning theory, Wiley , vol. 1, Sep. 1998.
- [2] B. Heisele, P. Ho, and T. Poggio, Face recognition with support vector machines: Global versus component-based approach, Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , vol. 2, pp. 688-694, Jul. 2001.
- [3] O.L. Mangasarian and E.W. Wild, Multisurface proximal support vector machine classification via generalized eigenvalues, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 69-74, Jul. 2006.
- [4] N.Y. Deng, Y.J. Tian, and C.H. Zhang, Support vector machines: optimization based theory, algorithms, and extensions, CRC Press , Nov. 2012.
- [5] V.N. Vapnik and R. Izmailov, Knowledge transfer in svm and neural networks, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , vol. 81, pp. 3-19, Feb. 2017.
- [6] J.R. Khemchandani and S. Chandra, Twin support vector machines for pattern classification, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 905-910, May 2007.
- [7] J.R. Khemchandani and S. Chandra, Optimal kernel selection in twin support vector machines, Optimization Letters , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 77-88, Jan. 2009.
- [8] Z. Qi, Y. Tian, and Y. Shi, Robust twin support vector machine for pattern classification, Pattern recognition , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 305-316, Jan. 2013.
- [9] X.J. Xie and S.L. Sun, PAC-bayes bounds for twin support vector machines, Neurocomputing , vol. 234, pp. 137-143, Apr. 2017.
- [10] X. Peng, A v -twin support vector machine ( v -TSVM) classifier and its geometric algorithms, Information Sciences , vol. 180, pp. 3863-3875, Oct. 2010.
- [11] B.B. Gao, Coordinate descent fuzzy twin support vector machine for classification, 2015 IEEE 14th international conference on machine learning and applications (ICMLA) , pp. 7-12, Dec. 2015.
- [12] C.F. Lin and S.D. Wang, Fuzzy support vector machines, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 464-471, Mar. 2002.
- [13] X.W. Yang, G.Q. Zhang, J. Lu, and J. Ma, A kernel fuzzy c-means clustering fuzzy support vector machine algorithm for classification problems with outliers or noises, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 105-115, Oct. 2011.
- [14] Y.T. Xu, A rough margin-based linear support vector regression, Statistics and Probability Letters , vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 528-534, Mar. 2012.
- [15] A. Shigeo, Fuzzy support vector machines for multilabel classification, Pattern Recognition , vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 2110-2117, Jun. 2015.
- [16] Q. Fan, Z. Wang, D.D. Li, D.Q. Gao, and H.Y. Zha, Entropy-based fuzzy support vector machine for imbalanced datasets, Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 115, pp. 87-99, Jan. 2017.
- [17] S. Rezvani, X. Wang, and F. Pourpanah, Intuitionistic fuzzy twin support vector machines, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 2140-2151, Nov. 2019.
- [18] D. Gupta, B. Richhariya, and P. Borah, A fuzzy twin support vector machine based on information entropy for class imbalance learning, Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 31, pp. 7153-7164, Nov. 2019.
- [19] Z.Z. Liang and L. Zhang, Intuitionistic fuzzy twin support vector machines with the insensitive pinball loss, Applied Soft Computing , vol. 115, pp. 108231, Jan. 2022.

| [20]   | H. Duan, T. Feng, S.N. Liu, Y.L. Zhang, and J.L. Su, Tumor classi- fication of gene expression data by fuzzy hybrid twin SVM, Chinese Journal of Electronics , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 99-106, Jan. 2022.                                                   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [21]   | Z.Z. Liang and S.F. Ding, Fuzzy twin support vector machines with distribution inputs, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 240-254, Jan. 2024.                                                                                     |
| [22]   | L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets and information granularity, Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems: selected papers , pp. 433-448, Jul. 1979.                                                                                                               |
| [23]   | Y.Y. Yao, Interpreting concept learning in cognitive informatics and granular computing, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber- netics , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 855-866, Mar. 2009.                                                                 |
| [24]   | W.P. Ding, Y. Sun, M. Li, J. Liu, H.R. Ju, J.S. Huang, and C.T. Lin, A novel spark-based attribute reduction and neighborhood classification for rough evidence, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1470-1483, Mar. 2024.           |
| [25]   | W.P. Ding, W. Pedrycz, I. Triguero, Z.H. Cao, and C.T. Lin, Multigran- ulation supertrust model for attribute reduction, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1395-1408, Jun. 2021.                                                 |
| [26]   | Y.J. Zhang, T.N. Zhao, D.Q. Miao, and W. Pedrycz, Granular multilabel batch active learning with pairwise label correlation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 52, no. 5, May 2022.                                    |
| [27]   | K.H. Yuan, D.Q. Miao, Y.Y. Yao, H.Y. Zhang, and X.R. Zhao, Feature selection using zentropy-based uncertainty measure, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 32, no. 4, Apr. 2024.                                                                  |
| [28]   | S. Ding, H. Huang, J. Yu, and H. Zhao, Research on the hybrid models of granular computing and support vector machine, Artificial Intelligence Review , vol. 43, pp. 565-577, Apr. 2015.                                                                |
| [29]   | H. Liu and M. Cocea, Granular computing-based approach for clas- sification towards reduction of bias in ensemble learning, Granular Computing , vol. 2, pp. 131-139, Nov. 2016.                                                                        |
| [30]   | S. Butenkov, A. Zhukov, A. Nagorov, and N. Krivsha, Granular com- puting models and methods based on the spatial granulation, Procedia Computer Science , vol. 103, pp. 295-302, Jan. 2017.                                                             |
| [31]   | L. Chen, L. Zhao, Z. Xiao, Y. Liu, and J. Wang, A granular computing based classification method from algebraic granule structure, IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 68118-68126, May 2021.                                                                     |
| [32]   | L. Chen, Topological structure in visual perception, Science , vol. 218, no. 4573, pp. 699-700, Nov. 1982.                                                                                                                                              |
| [33]   | G.Y. Wang, DGCC: data-driven granular cognitive computing, Granular Computing , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 343-355, Jul. 2017.                                                                                                                                  |
| [34]   | S.Y. Xia, Y.S. Liu, X. Ding, G.Y. Wang, H. Yu, and Y.G. Luo, Granular ball computing classifiers for e ffi cient, scalable and robust learning, Information Sciences , vol. 483, pp. 136-152, May 2019.                                                 |
| [35]   | Y.F. Xue, Y.B. Shao, and H. Xia, GBFSVM: a robust classification learning method, Scientific Journal of Intelligent Systems Research , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 238-245, Jan. 2022.                                                                           |
| [36]   | S.Y. Xia, S.Y. Zheng, G.Y. Wang, X.B. Gao, and B.G. Wang, Granular ball sampling for noisy label classification or imbalanced classification, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2144-2155, Apr. 2023.     |
| [37]   | S.Y. Xia, X.C. Dai, G.Y. Wang, X.B. Gao, and E. Giem, An e ffi cient and adaptive granular-ball generation method in classification problem, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , pp. 1-13, Oct. 2022.                           |
| [38]   | S.Y. Xia, D.W. Peng, D.Y. Meng, C.Q. Zhang, G.Y. Wang, E. Giem, W. Wei, and Z.Z. Chen, Ball k -means: Fast adaptive clustering with no bounds, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence , vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 87-99, Jan. 2022. |
| [39]   | J. Xie, W.Y. Kong, S.Y. Xia, G.Y. Wang, and X.B. Gao, An e ffi cient spectral clustering algorithm based on granular-ball, IEEE Transactions                                                                                                            |

- [39] J. Xie, W.Y. Kong, S.Y. Xia, G.Y. Wang, and X.B. Gao, An e ffi cient spectral clustering algorithm based on granular-ball, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9743-9753,
- Sep. 2023.
- [40] D.D. Cheng, S.S. Liu, S.Y. Xia, and G.Y. Wang, Granular-ball computing-based manifold clustering algorithms for ultra-scalable data, Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 247, no. 1, pp. 123313, Aug. 2024.
- [41] S.Y. Xia, H. Zhang, W.H. Li, G.Y. Wang, E. Giem, and Z.Z. Chen, GBNRS: A novel rough set algorithm for fast adaptive attribute reduction in classification, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1231-1242, Mar. 2022.
- [42] Q.H. Zhang, C.Y. Wu, S.Y. Xia, F. Zhao, M. Gao, Y.L. Cheng, and G.Y. Wang, Incremental learning based on granular ball rough sets for llassification in dynamic mixed-type decision system, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9319-9332, Sep. 2023.
- [43] X. Ji, J.H. Peng, P. Zhao, and S. Yao, Extended rough sets model based on fuzzy granular ball and its attribute reduction, Information Sciences , vol. 640, pp. 119071, Sep. 2023.
- [44] S.Y. Xia, C. Wang, G.Y. Wang, X.B. Gao, E. Giem, and J.H. Yu, GBRS: A unified model of Pawlak rough set and neighborhood rough set, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , pp. 1-15, Nov. 2023.
- [45] X.L. Peng, P. Wang, S.Y. Xia, C. Wang, and W.Q. Chen, VPGB: A granular-ball based model for attribute reduction and classification with label noise, Information Sciences , vol. 611, pp. 504-521, Sep. 2022.
- [46] W.B. Qian, W.Y. Ruan, Y.H. Li, and J.T. Huang, Granular ball-based label enhancement for dimensionality reduction in multi-label data, Appllied Intelligence , vol. 53, pp. 24008-24033, June 2023.
- [47] W.B. Qian, F.K. Xu, J. Qian, W.H. Shu, and W.P. Ding, Multi-label feature selection based on rough granular-ball and label distribution, Information Sciences , vol. 650, pp. 119698, Dec. 2023.
- [48] L.X. Zhao, Z.F. Zhang, W.J. Liu, and G.M. Lang, GBTWSVM: Granular-ball twin support vector machine, The 2024 International Joint Conference on Rough Sets , Halifax (Canada), May. 2024.
- [49] G.M. Lang, D.Q. Miao, and H. Fujita, Three-way group conflict analysis based on Pythagorean fuzzy set theory, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 447-461, Mar. 2020.
- [50] M. Kelly, R. Longjohn, and K. Nottingham, The UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2023, Available: https: // archive.ics.uci.edu.

## A ppendix : A bbreviations

| Abbreviation   | Full Term                                        |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| GC             | Granular Computing                               |
| PFS            | Pythagorean Fuzzy Sets                           |
| SVM            | Support Vector Machine                           |
| GBC            | Granular-Ball Computing                          |
| GBRS           | Granular-Ball Rough Set                          |
| FSVM           | Fuzzy Support Vector Machine                     |
| TWSVM          | Twin Support Vector Machine                      |
| GBSVM          | Granular-Ball Support Vector Machine             |
| FTSVM          | Fuzzy Twin Support Vector Machine                |
| EFSVM          | Entropy-based Fuzzy Support Vector Machine       |
| IFTSVM         | Intuitionistic Fuzzy Twin Support Vector Machine |
| GBFSVM         | Granular-Ball Fuzzy Support Vector Machine       |
| GBTWSVM        | Granular-Ball Twin Support Vector Machine        |
| GBFTSVM        | Granular-Ball Fuzzy Twin Support Vector Machine  |
Lixi Zhao Weiping Ding Duoqian Miao Guangming Lang
Granular-Balls based Fuzzy Twin Support Vector Machine for Classification
The twin support vector machine (TWSVM) classifier has attracted increasing
attention because of its low computational complexity. However, its performance
tends to degrade when samples are affected by noise. The granular-ball fuzzy
support vector machine (GBFSVM) classifier partly alleviates the adverse
effects of noise, but it relies solely on the distance between the
granular-ball's center and the class center to design the granular-ball
membership function. In this paper, we first introduce the granular-ball twin
support vector machine (GBTWSVM) classifier, which integrates granular-ball
computing (GBC) with the twin support vector machine (TWSVM) classifier. By
replacing traditional point inputs with granular-balls, we demonstrate how to
derive a pair of non-parallel hyperplanes for the GBTWSVM classifier by solving
a quadratic programming problem. Subsequently, we design the membership and
non-membership functions of granular-balls using Pythagorean fuzzy sets to
differentiate the contributions of granular-balls in various regions.
Additionally, we develop the granular-ball fuzzy twin support vector machine
(GBFTSVM) classifier by incorporating GBC with the fuzzy twin support vector
machine (FTSVM) classifier. We demonstrate how to derive a pair of non-parallel
hyperplanes for the GBFTSVM classifier by solving a quadratic programming
problem. We also design algorithms for the GBTSVM classifier and the GBFTSVM
classifier. Finally, the superior classification performance of the GBTWSVM
classifier and the GBFTSVM classifier on 20 benchmark datasets underscores
their scalability, efficiency, and robustness in tackling classification tasks.