Semi-supervised and unsupervised extreme learningmachinesGao Huang,Shiji Song,Jatinder N.D.Gupta,and Cheng WuAbstract—Extreme learning machines(ELMs)have proven to be an efficient and effective learning paradigm for pattern classification and regression.However,ELMs are primarily applied to supervised learning problems.Only a few existing research studies have used ELMs to explore unlabeled data. In this paper,we extend ELMs for both semi-supervised and unsupervised tasks based on the manifold regularization,thus greatly expanding the applicability of ELMs.The key advantages of the proposed algorithms are1)both the semi-supervised ELM (SS-ELM)and the unsupervised ELM(US-ELM)exhibit the learning capability and computational efficiency of ELMs;2) both algorithms naturally handle multi-class classification or multi-cluster clustering;and3)both algorithms are inductive and can handle unseen data at test time directly.Moreover,it is shown in this paper that all the supervised,semi-supervised and unsupervised ELMs can actually be put into a unified framework. This provides new perspectives for understanding the mechanism of random feature mapping,which is the key concept in ELM theory.Empirical study on a wide range of data sets demonstrates that the proposed algorithms are competitive with state-of-the-art semi-supervised or unsupervised learning algorithms in terms of accuracy and efficiency.Index Terms—Clustering,embedding,extreme learning ma-chine,manifold regularization,semi-supervised learning,unsu-pervised learning.I.I NTRODUCTIONS INGLE layer feedforward networks(SLFNs)have been intensively studied during the past several decades.Most of the existing learning algorithms for training SLFNs,such as the famous back-propagation algorithm[1]and the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm[2],adopt gradient methods to optimize the weights in the network.Some existing works also use forward selection or backward elimination approaches to con-struct network dynamically during the training process[3]–[7].However,neither the gradient based methods nor the grow/prune methods guarantee a global optimal solution.Al-though various methods,such as the generic and evolutionary algorithms,have been proposed to handle the local minimum This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant61273233,the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education under Grant20120002110035and20130002130010, the National Key Technology R&D Program under Grant2012BAF01B03, the Project of China Ocean Association under Grant DY125-25-02,and Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program under Grants 2011THZ07132.Gao Huang,Shiji Song,and Cheng Wu are with the Department of Automation,Tsinghua University,Beijing100084,China(e-mail:huang-g09@;shijis@; wuc@).Jatinder N.D.Gupta is with the College of Business Administration,The University of Alabama in Huntsville,Huntsville,AL35899,USA.(e-mail: guptaj@).problem,they basically introduce high computational cost. One of the most successful algorithms for training SLFNs is the support vector machines(SVMs)[8],[9],which is a maximal margin classifier derived under the framework of structural risk minimization(SRM).The dual problem of SVMs is a quadratic programming and can be solved conveniently.Due to its simplicity and stable generalization performance,SVMs have been widely studied and applied to various domains[10]–[14].Recently,Huang et al.[15],[16]proposed the extreme learning machines(ELMs)for training SLFNs.In contrast to most of the existing approaches,ELMs only update the output weights between the hidden layer and the output layer, while the parameters,i.e.,the input weights and biases,of the hidden layer are randomly generated.By adopting squared loss on the prediction error,the training of output weights turns into a regularized least squares(or ridge regression)problem which can be solved efficiently in closed form.It has been shown that even without updating the parameters of the hidden layer,the SLFN with randomly generated hidden neurons and tunable output weights maintains its universal approximation capability[17]–[19].Compared to gradient based algorithms, ELMs are much more efficient and usually lead to better generalization performance[20]–[22].Compared to SVMs, solving the regularized least squares problem in ELMs is also faster than solving the quadratic programming problem in standard SVMs.Moreover,ELMs can be used for multi-class classification problems directly.The predicting accuracy achieved by ELMs is comparable with or even higher than that of SVMs[16],[22]–[24].The differences and similarities between ELMs and SVMs are discussed in[25]and[26], and new algorithms are proposed by combining the advan-tages of both models.In[25],an extreme SVM(ESVM) model is proposed by combining ELMs and the proximal SVM(PSVM).The ESVM algorithm is shown to be more accurate than the basic ELMs model due to the introduced regularization technique,and much more efficient than SVMs since there is no kernel matrix multiplication in ESVM.In [26],the traditional RBF kernel are replaced by ELM kernel, leading to an efficient algorithm with matched accuracy of SVMs.In the past years,researchers from variesfields have made substantial contribution to ELM theories and applications.For example,the universal approximation ability of ELMs has been further studied in a classification context[23].The gen-eralization error bound of ELMs has been investigated from the perspective of the Vapnik-Chervonenkis(VC)dimension theory and the initial localized generalization error model(LGEM)[27],[28].Varies extensions have been made to the basic ELMs to make it more efficient and more suitable for specific problems,such as ELMs for online sequential data [29]–[31],ELMs for noisy/missing data[32]–[34],ELMs for imbalanced data[35],etc.From the implementation aspect, ELMs has recently been implemented using parallel tech-niques[36],[37],and realized on hardware[38],which made ELMs feasible for large data sets and real time reasoning. Though ELMs have become popular in a wide range of domains,they are primarily used for supervised learning tasks such as classification and regression,which greatly limits their applicability.In some cases,such as text classification, information retrieval and fault diagnosis,obtaining labels for fully supervised learning is time consuming and expensive, while a multitude of unlabeled data are easy and cheap to collect.To overcome the disadvantage of supervised learning al-gorithms that they cannot make use of unlabeled data,semi-supervised learning(SSL)has been proposed to leverage both labeled and unlabeled data[39],[40].The SSL algorithms assume that the input patterns from both labeled and unlabeled data are drawn from the same marginal distribution.Therefore, the unlabeled data naturally provide useful information for exploring the data structure in the input space.By assuming that the input data follows some cluster structure or manifold in the input space,SSL algorithms can incorporate both la-beled and unlabeled data into the learning process.Since SSL requires less effort to collect labeled data and can offer higher accuracy,it has been applied to various domains[41]–[43].In some other cases where no labeled data are available,people may be interested in exploring the underlying structure of the data.To this end,unsupervised learning(USL)techniques, such as clustering,dimension reduction or data representation, are widely used to fulfill these tasks.In this paper,we extend ELMs to handle both semi-supervised and unsupervised learning problems by introducing the manifold regularization framework.Both the proposed semi-supervised ELM(SS-ELM)and unsupervised ELM(US-ELM)inherit the computational efficiency and the learn-ing capability of traditional pared with existing algorithms,SS-ELM and US-ELM are not only inductive (straightforward extension for out-of-sample examples at test time),but also can be used for multi-class classification or multi-cluster clustering directly.We test our algorithms on a variety of data sets,and make comparisons with other related algorithms.The results show that the proposed algorithms are competitive with state-of-the-art algorithms in terms of accuracy and efficiency.It is worth to mention that all the supervised,semi-supervised and unsupervised ELMs can actually be put into a unified framework,that is all the algorithms consist of two stages:1)random feature mapping;and2)output weights solving.Thefirst stage is to construct the hidden layer using randomly generated hidden neurons.This is the key concept in the ELM theory,which differs it from many existing feature learning methods.Generating feature mapping randomly en-ables ELMs for fast nonlinear feature learning and alleviates the problem of over-fitting.The second stage is to solve the weights between the hidden layer and the output layer, and this is where the main difference of supervised,semi-supervised and unsupervised ELMs lies.We believe that the unified framework for the three types of ELMs might provide us a new perspective to understand the underlying behavior of the random feature mapping in ELMs.The rest of the paper is organized as follows.In Section II,we give a brief review of related existing literature on semi-supervised and unsupervised learning.Section III and IV introduce the basic formulation of ELMs and the man-ifold regularization framework,respectively.We present the proposed SS-ELM and US-ELM algorithms in Sections V and VI.Experiment results are given in Section VII,and Section VIII concludes the paper.II.R ELATED WORKSOnly a few existing research studies on ELMs have dealt with the problem of semi-supervised learning or unsupervised learning.In[44]and[45],the manifold regularization frame-work was introduce into the ELMs model to leverage both labeled and unlabeled data,thus extended ELMs for semi-supervised learning.However,both of these two works are limited to binary classification problems,thus they haven’t explore the full power of ELMs.Moreover,both algorithms are only effective when the number of training patterns is more than the number of hidden neurons.Unfortunately,this condition is usually violated in semi-supervised learning since the training data is relatively scarce compared to the hidden neurons,whose number is commonly set to several hundreds or several thousands.Recently,a co-training approach have been proposed to train ELMs in a semi-supervised setting [46].In this algorithm,the labeled training sets are augmented gradually by moving a small set of most confidently predicted unlabeled data to the labeled set at each loop,and ELMs are trained repeatedly on the pseudo-labeled set.Since the algo-rithm need to train ELMs repeatedly,it introduces considerable extra computational cost.The proposed SS-ELM is related to a few other mani-fold assumption based semi-supervised learning algorithms, such as the Laplacian support vector machines(LapSVMs) [47],the Laplacian regularized least squares(LapRLS)[47], semi-supervised neural networks(SSNNs)[48],and semi-supervised deep embedding[49].It has been shown in these works that manifold regularization is effective in a wide range of domains and often leads to a state-of-the-art performance in terms of accuracy and efficiency.The US-ELM proposed in this paper are related to the Laplacian Eigenmaps(LE)[50]and spectral clustering(SC) [51]in that they both use spectral techniques for embedding and clustering.In all these algorithms,an affinity matrix is first built from the input patterns.The SC performs eigen-decomposition on the normalized affinity matrix,and then embeds the original data into a d-dimensional space using the first d eigenvectors(each row is normalized to have unit length and represents a point in the embedded space)corresponding to the d largest eigenvalues.The LE algorithm performs generalized eigen-decomposition on the graph Laplacian,anduses the d eigenvectors corresponding to the second through the(d+1)th smallest eigenvalues for embedding.When LE and SC are used for clustering,then k-means is adopted to cluster the data in the embedded space.Similar to LE and SC,the US-ELM are also based on the affinity matrix,and it is converted to solving a generalized eigen-decomposition problem.However,the eigenvectors obtained in US-ELM are not used for data representation directly,but are used as the parameters of the network,i.e.,the output weights.Note that once the US-ELM model is trained,it can be applied to any presented data in the original input space.In this way,US-ELM provide a straightforward way for handling new patterns without recomputing eigenvectors as in LE and SC.III.E XTREME LEARNING MACHINES Consider a supervised learning problem where we have a training set with N samples,{X,Y}={x i,y i}N i=1.Herex i∈R n i,y i is a n o-dimensional binary vector with only one entry(correspond to the class that x i belongs to)equal to one for multi-classification tasks,or y i∈R n o for regression tasks,where n i and n o are the dimensions of input and output respectively.ELMs aim to learn a decision rule or an approximation function based on the training data. Generally,the training of ELMs consists of two stages.The first stage is to construct the hidden layer using afixed number of randomly generated mapping neurons,which can be any nonlinear piecewise continuous functions,such as the Sigmoid function and Gaussian function given below.1)Sigmoid functiong(x;θ)=11+exp(−(a T x+b));(1)2)Gaussian functiong(x;θ)=exp(−b∥x−a∥);(2) whereθ={a,b}are the parameters of the mapping function and∥·∥denotes the Euclidean norm.A notable feature of ELMs is that the parameters of the hidden mapping functions can be randomly generated ac-cording to any continuous probability distribution,e.g.,the uniform distribution on(-1,1).This makes ELMs distinct from the traditional feedforward neural networks and SVMs. The only free parameters that need to be optimized in the training process are the output weights between the hidden neurons and the output nodes.By doing so,training ELMs is equivalent to solving a regularized least squares problem which is considerately more efficient than the training of SVMs or backpropagation algorithms.In thefirst stage,a number of hidden neurons which map the data from the input space into a n h-dimensional feature space (n h is the number of hidden neurons)are randomly generated. We denote by h(x i)∈R1×n h the output vector of the hidden layer with respect to x i,andβ∈R n h×n o the output weights that connect the hidden layer with the output layer.Then,the outputs of the network are given byf(x i)=h(x i)β,i=1,...,N.(3)In the second stage,ELMs aim to solve the output weights by minimizing the sum of the squared losses of the prediction errors,which leads to the following formulationminβ∈R n h×n o12∥β∥2+C2N∑i=1∥e i∥2s.t.h(x i)β=y T i−e T i,i=1,...,N,(4)where thefirst term in the objective function is a regularization term which controls the complexity of the model,e i∈R n o is the error vector with respect to the i th training pattern,and C is a penalty coefficient on the training errors.By substituting the constraints into the objective function, we obtain the following equivalent unconstrained optimization problem:minβ∈R n h×n oL ELM=12∥β∥2+C2∥Y−Hβ∥2(5)where H=[h(x1)T,...,h(x N)T]T∈R N×n h.The above problem is widely known as the ridge regression or regularized least squares.By setting the gradient of L ELM with respect toβto zero,we have∇L ELM=β+CH H T(Y−Hβ)=0(6) If H has more rows than columns and is of full column rank,which is usually the case where the number of training patterns are more than the number of the hidden neurons,the above equation is overdetermined,and we have the following closed form solution for(5):β∗=(H T H+I nhC)−1H T Y,(7)where I nhis an identity matrix of dimension n h.Note that in practice,rather than explicitly inverting the n h×n h matrix in the above expression,we can use Gaussian elimination to directly solve a set of linear equations in a more efficient and numerically stable manner.If the number of training patterns are less than the number of hidden neurons,then H will have more columns than rows, which often leads to an underdetermined least squares prob-lem.In this case,βmay have infinite number of solutions.To handle this problem,we restrictβto be a linear combination of the rows of H:β=H Tα(α∈R N×n o).Notice that when H has more columns than rows and is of full row rank,then H H T is invertible.Multiplying both side of(6) by(H H T)−1H,we getα+C(Y−H H Tα)=0,(8) This yieldsβ∗=H Tα∗=H T(H H T+I NC)−1Y(9)where I N is an identity matrix of dimension N. Therefore,in the case where training patterns are plentiful compared to the hidden neurons,we use(7)to compute the output weights,otherwise we use(9).IV.T HE MANIFOLD REGULARIZATION FRAMEWORK Semi-supervised learning is built on the following two assumptions:(1)both the label data X l and the unlabeled data X u are drawn from the same marginal distribution P X ;and (2)if two points x 1and x 2are close to each other,then the conditional probabilities P (y |x 1)and P (y |x 2)should be similar as well.The latter assumption is widely known as the smoothness assumption in machine learning.To enforce this assumption on the data,the manifold regularization framework proposes to minimize the following cost functionL m=12∑i,jw ij ∥P (y |x i )−P (y |x j )∥2,(10)where w ij is the pair-wise similarity between two patterns x iand x j .Note that the similarity matrix W =[w ij ]is usually sparse,since we only place a nonzero weight between two patterns x i and x j if they are close,e.g.,x i is among the k nearest neighbors of x j or x j is among the k nearest neighbors of x i .The nonzero weights are usually computed using Gaussian function exp (−∥x i −x j ∥2/2σ2),or simply fixed to 1.Intuitively,the formulation (10)penalizes large variation in the conditional probability P (y |x )when x has a small change.This requires that P (y |x )vary smoothly along the geodesics of P (x ).Since it is difficult to compute the conditional probability,we can approximate (10)with the following expression:ˆLm =12∑i,jw ij ∥ˆyi −ˆy j ∥2,(11)where ˆyi and ˆy j are the predictions with respect to pattern x i and x j ,respectively.It is straightforward to simplify the above expression in a matrix form:ˆL m =Tr (ˆY T L ˆY ),(12)where Tr (·)denotes the trace of a matrix,L =D −W isknown as the graph Laplacian ,and D is a diagonal matrixwith its diagonal elements D ii =l +u∑j =1w i,j .As discussed in [52],instead of using L directly,we can normalize it byD −12L D −12or replace it by L p (p is an integer),based on some prior knowledge.V.S EMI -SUPERVISED ELMIn the semi-supervised setting,we have few labeled data and plenty of unlabeled data.We denote the labeled data in the training set as {X l ,Y l }={x i ,y i }l i =1,and unlabeled dataas X u ={x i }ui =1,where l and u are the number of labeled and unlabeled data,respectively.The proposed SS-ELM incorporates the manifold regular-ization to leverage unlabeled data to improve the classification accuracy when labeled data are scarce.By modifying the ordinary ELM formulation (4),we give the formulation ofSS-ELM as:minβ∈R n h ×n o12∥β∥2+12l∑i =1C i ∥e i ∥2+λ2Tr (F T L F )s.t.h (x i )β=y T i −e T i ,i =1,...,l,f i =h (x i )β,i =1,...,l +u(13)where L ∈R (l +u )×(l +u )is the graph Laplacian built fromboth labeled and unlabeled data,and F ∈R (l +u )×n o is the output matrix of the network with its i th row equal to f (x i ),λis a tradeoff parameter.Note that similar to the weighted ELM algorithm (W-ELM)introduced in [35],here we associate different penalty coeffi-cient C i on the prediction errors with respect to patterns from different classes.This is because we found that when the data is skewed,i.e.,some classes have significantly more training patterns than other classes,traditional ELMs tend to fit the classes that having the majority of patterns quite well but fits other classes poorly.This usually leads to poor generalization performance on the testing set (while the prediction accuracy may be high,but the some classes are neglected).Therefore,we propose to alleviate this problem by re-weighting instances from different classes.Suppose that x i belongs to class t i ,which has N t i training patterns,then we associate e i with a penalty ofC i =C 0N t i.(14)where C 0is a user defined parameter as in traditional ELMs.In this way,the patterns from the dominant classes will not be over fitted by the algorithm,and the patterns from a class with less samples will not be neglected.We substitute the constraints into the objective function,and rewrite the above formulation in a matrix form:min β∈R n h×n o 12∥β∥2+12∥C 12( Y −Hβ)∥2+λ2Tr (βT H TL Hβ)(15)where Y∈R (l +u )×n o is the training target with its first l rows equal to Y l and the rest equal to 0,C is a (l +u )×(l +u )diagonal matrix with its first l diagonal elements [C ]ii =C i ,i =1,...,l and the rest equal to 0.Again,we compute the gradient of the objective function with respect to β:∇L SS −ELM =β+H T C ( Y−H β)+λH H T L H β.(16)By setting the gradient to zero,we obtain the solution tothe SS-ELM:β∗=(I n h +H T C H +λH H T L H )−1H TC Y .(17)As in Section III,if the number of labeled data is fewer thanthe number of hidden neurons,which is common in SSL,we have the following alternative solution:β∗=H T (I l +u +C H H T +λL L H H T )−1C Y .(18)where I l +u is an identity matrix of dimension l +u .Note that by settingλto be zero and the diagonal elements of C i(i=1,...,l)to be the same constant,(17)and (18)reduce to the solutions of traditional ELMs(7)and(9), respectively.Based on the above discussion,the SS-ELM algorithm is summarized as Algorithm1.Algorithm1The SS-ELM algorithmInput:The labeled patterns,{X l,Y l}={x i,y i}l i=1;The unlabeled patterns,X u={x i}u i=1;Output:The mapping function of SS-ELM:f:R n i→R n oStep1:Construct the graph Laplacian L from both X l and X u.Step2:Initiate an ELM network of n h hidden neurons with random input weights and biases,and calculate the output matrix of the hidden neurons H∈R(l+u)×n h.Step3:Choose the tradeoff parameter C0andλ.Step4:•If n h≤NCompute the output weightsβusing(17)•ElseCompute the output weightsβusing(18)return The mapping function f(x)=h(x)β.VI.U NSUPERVISED ELMIn this section,we introduce the US-ELM algorithm for unsupervised learning.In an unsupervised setting,the entire training data X={x i}N i=1are unlabeled(N is the number of training patterns)and our target is tofind the underlying structure of the original data.The formulation of US-ELM follows from the formulation of SS-ELM.When there is no labeled data,(15)is reduced tomin β∈R n h×n o ∥β∥2+λTr(βT H T L Hβ)(19)Notice that the above formulation always attains its mini-mum atβ=0.As suggested in[50],we have to introduce addtional constraints to avoid a degenerated solution.Specifi-cally,the formulation of US-ELM is given bymin β∈R n h×n o ∥β∥2+λTr(βT H T L Hβ)s.t.(Hβ)T Hβ=I no(20)Theorem1:An optimal solution to problem(20)is given by choosingβas the matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors (normalized to satisfy the constraint)corresponding to thefirst n o smallest eigenvalues of the generalized eigenvalue problem:(I nh +λH H T L H)v=γH H T H v.(21)Proof:We can rewrite the problem(20)asminβ∈R n h×n o,ββT Bβ=I no Tr(βT Aβ),(22)Algorithm2The US-ELM algorithmInput:The training data:X∈R N×n i;Output:•For embedding task:The embedding in a n o-dimensional space:E∈R N×n o;•For clustering task:The label vector of cluster index:y∈N N×1+.Step1:Construct the graph Laplacian L from X.Step2:Initiate an ELM network of n h hidden neurons withrandom input weights,and calculate the output matrix of thehidden neurons H∈R N×n h.Step3:•If n h≤NFind the generalized eigenvectors v2,v3,...,v no+1of(21)corresponding to the second through the n o+1smallest eigenvalues.Letβ=[ v2, v3,..., v no+1],where v i=v i/∥H v i∥,i=2,...,n o+1.•ElseFind the generalized eigenvectors u2,u3,...,u no+1of(24)corresponding to the second through the n o+1smallest eigenvalues.Letβ=H T[ u2, u3,..., u no+1],where u i=u i/∥H H T u i∥,i=2,...,n o+1.Step4:Calculate the embedding matrix:E=Hβ.Step5(For clustering only):Treat each row of E as a point,and cluster the N points into K clusters using the k-meansalgorithm.Let y be the label vector of cluster index for allthe points.return E(for embedding task)or y(for clustering task);where A=I nh+λH H T L H and B=H T H.It is easy to verify that both A and B are Hermitianmatrices.Thus,according to the Rayleigh-Ritz theorem[53],the above trace minimization problem attains its optimum ifand only if the column span ofβis the minimum span ofthe eigenspace corresponding to the smallest n o eigenvaluesof(21).Therefore,by stacking the normalized eigenvectors of(21)corresponding to the smallest n o generalized eigenvalues,we obtain an optimal solution to(20).In the algorithm of Laplacian eigenmaps,thefirst eigenvec-tor is discarded since it is always a constant vector proportionalto1(corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue0)[50].In theUS-ELM algorithm,thefirst eigenvector of(21)also leadsto small variations in embedding and is not useful for datarepresentation.Therefore,we suggest to discard this trivialsolution as well.Letγ1,γ2,...,γno+1(γ1≤γ2≤...≤γn o+1)be the(n o+1)smallest eigenvalues of(21)and v1,v2,...,v no+1be their corresponding eigenvectors.Then,the solution to theoutput weightsβis given byβ∗=[ v2, v3,..., v no+1],(23)where v i=v i/∥H v i∥,i=2,...,n o+1are the normalizedeigenvectors.If the number of labeled data is fewer than the numberTABLE ID ETAILS OF THE DATA SETS USED FOR SEMI-SUPERVISED LEARNINGData set Class Dimension|L||U||V||T|G50C2505031450136COIL20(B)2102440100040360USPST(B)225650140950498COIL2020102440100040360USPST1025650140950498of hidden neurons,problem(21)is underdetermined.In this case,we have the following alternative formulation by using the same trick as in previous sections:(I u+λL L H H T )u=γH H H T u.(24)Again,let u1,u2,...,u no +1be generalized eigenvectorscorresponding to the(n o+1)smallest eigenvalues of(24), then thefinal solution is given byβ∗=H T[ u2, u3,..., u no +1],(25)where u i=u i/∥H H T u i∥,i=2,...,n o+1are the normal-ized eigenvectors.If our task is clustering,then we can adopt the k-means algorithm to perform clustering in the embedded space.We summarize the proposed US-ELM in Algorithm2. Remark:Comparing the supervised ELM,the semi-supervised ELM and the unsupervised ELM,we can observe that all the algorithms have two similar stages in the training process,that is the random feature learning stage and the out-put weights learning stage.Under this two-stage framework,it is easy tofind the differences and similarities between the three algorithms.Actually,all the algorithms share the same stage of random feature learning,and this is the essence of the ELM theory.This also means that no matter the task is a supervised, semi-supervised or unsupervised learning problem,we can always follow the same step to generate the hidden layer. The differences of the three types of ELMs lie in the second stage on how the output weights are computed.In supervised ELM and SS-ELM,the output weights are trained by solving a regularized least squares problem;while the output weights in the US-ELM are obtained by solving a generalized eigenvalue problem.The unified framework for the three types of ELMs might provide new perspectives to further develop the ELM theory.VII.E XPERIMENTAL RESULTSWe evaluated our algorithms on wide range of semi-supervised and unsupervised parisons were made with related state-of-the-art algorithms, e.g.,Transductive SVM(TSVM)[54],LapSVM[47]and LapRLS[47]for semi-supervised learning;and Laplacian Eigenmap(LE)[50], spectral clustering(SC)[51]and deep autoencoder(DA)[55] for unsupervised learning.All algorithms were implemented using Matlab R2012a on a2.60GHz machine with4GB of memory.TABLE IIIT RAINING TIME(IN SECONDS)COMPARISON OF TSVM,L AP RLS,L AP SVM AND SS-ELMData set TSVM LapRLS LapSVM SS-ELMG50C0.3240.0410.0450.035COIL20(B)16.820.5120.4590.516USPST(B)68.440.9210.947 1.029COIL2018.43 5.841 4.9460.814USPST68.147.1217.259 1.373A.Semi-supervised learning results1)Data sets:We tested the SS-ELM onfive popular semi-supervised learning benchmarks,which have been widely usedfor evaluating semi-supervised algorithms[52],[56],[57].•The G50C is a binary classification data set of which each class is generated by a50-dimensional multivariate Gaus-sian distribution.This classification problem is explicitlydesigned so that the true Bayes error is5%.•The Columbia Object Image Library(COIL20)is a multi-class image classification data set which consists1440 gray-scale images of20objects.Each pattern is a32×32 gray scale image of one object taken from a specific view.The COIL20(B)data set is a binary classification taskobtained from COIL20by grouping thefirst10objectsas Class1,and the last10objects as Class2.•The USPST data set is a subset(the testing set)of the well known handwritten digit recognition data set USPS.The USPST(B)data set is a binary classification task obtained from USPST by grouping thefirst5digits as Class1and the last5digits as Class2.2)Experimental setup:We followed the experimental setup in[57]to evaluate the semi-supervised algorithms.Specifi-cally,each of the data sets is split into4folds,one of which was used for testing(denoted by T)and the rest3folds for training.Each of the folds was used as the testing set once(4-fold cross-validation).As in[57],this random fold generation process were repeated3times,resulted in12different splits in total.Every training set was further partitioned into a labeled set L,a validation set V,and an unlabeled set U.When we train a semi-supervised learning algorithm,the labeled data from L and the unlabeled data from U were used.The validation set which consists of labeled data was only used for model selection,i.e.,finding the optimal hyperparameters C0andλin the SS-ELM algorithm.The characteristics of the data sets used in our experiment are summarized in Table I. The training of SS-ELM consists of two stages:1)generat-ing the random hidden layer;and2)training the output weights using(17)or(18).In thefirst stage,we adopted the Sigmoid function for nonlinear mapping,and the input weights and biases were generated according to the uniform distribution on(-1,1).The number of hidden neurons n h wasfixed to 1000for G50C,and2000for the rest four data sets.In the second stage,wefirst need to build the graph Laplacian L.We followed the methods discussed in[52]and[57]to compute L,and the hyperparameter settings can be found in[47],[52] and[57].The trade off parameters C andλwere selected from。
