The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Analysis of K-Means and Fuzzy C-Means Algorithms
Open accessAbstract
In the arena of software, data mining technology has been considered as useful means for identifying patterns and trends of large volume of data. This approach is basically used to extract the unknown pattern from the large set of data for business as well as real time applications. It is a computational intelligence discipline which has emerged as a valuable tool for data analysis, new knowledge discovery and autonomous decision making. The raw, unlabeled data from the large volume of dataset can be classified initially in an unsupervised fashion by using cluster analysis i.e. clustering the assignment of a set of observations into clusters so that observations in the same cluster may be in some sense be treated as similar. The outcome of the clustering process and efficiency of its domain application are generally determined through algorithms. There are various algorithms which are used to solve this problem. In this research work two important clustering algorithms namely centroid based K-Means and representative object based FCM (Fuzzy C-Means) clustering algorithms are compared. These algorithms are applied and performance is evaluated on the basis of the efficiency of clustering output. The numbers of data points as well as the number of clusters are the factors upon which the behaviour patterns of both the algorithms are analyzed. FCM produces close results to K-Means clustering but it still requires more computation time than K-Means clustering.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Data mining: concepts and techniques
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-3305 · Cited by 28,531
Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., & Flynn, P. J. (1999) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/331499.331504 · Cited by 13,199
Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms
Bezdek, J. C. (1981) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0450-1 · Cited by 9,881
Survey of Clustering Algorithms
Xu, R., & WunschII, D. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2005.845141 · Cited by 6,197
An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: analysis and implementation
Kanungo, T., Mount, D. M., Netanyahu, N. S., Piatko, C. D., Silverman, R., & Wu, A. Y. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2002.1017616 · Cited by 5,660
Data Mining - Concepts and Techniques.
Perner, P. (2002) · Künstliche Intell. · Cited by 4,886
Chen, S., & Zhang, D. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2004.831165 · Cited by 1,142
K-Means Clustering Versus Validation Measures: A Data-Distribution Perspective
Xiong, H., Wu, J., & Chen, J. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2008.2004559 · Cited by 277
Cited by
A review of clustering techniques and developments
Saxena, A., Prasad, M., Gupta, A., Bharill, N., Patel, O. P., Tiwari, A., Er, M. J., Ding, W., & Lin, C.-T. (2017) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2017.06.053 · Cited by 1,357
Geographic Information Systems and Science
(2019) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.75243 · Cited by 305
Tang, M., & Liao, H. (2021) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2019.102141 · Cited by 287
Metadata
- Authors
- Ghosh, S., & Kumar, S.
- Venue
- International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 2156-5570 (ISSN-L)
- 2158-107X
- OpenAlex
- W2106581202
- Cited by
- 536
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 35.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative Analysis of K-Means and Fuzzy C-Means Algorithms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14569/ijacsa.2013.040406
- The paper
- Ghosh, S., & Kumar, S. (2013). Comparative Analysis of K-Means and Fuzzy C-Means Algorithms. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2013.040406
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.