doi:10.1016/S0925-2312(02)00568-4
Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
On the inherent property of the decision boundary in complex-valued neural networks
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), AIST Tsukuba Central 2, 1-1-1 Umezono, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 305-8568, Japan
Received 1 July 2000;
accepted 17 February 2002. ;
Available online 16 May 2002.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
This paper shows the differences between the real-valued neural network and the complex-valued neural network by analyzing their fundamental properties from the view of architectures. The main results may be summarized as follows: (a) A single complex-valued neuron with n-inputs is equivalent to two real-valued neurons with 2n-inputs which have a restriction on a set of weight parameters. (b) The decision boundary of a single complex-valued neuron consists of two hypersurfaces which intersect orthogonally. (c) The decision boundary of a three-layered complex-valued neural network has the orthogonal structure. (d) The orthogonality of the decision boundary in the three-layered Complex-BP network can improve its generalization ability. (e) The average of the learning speed of the Complex-BP is several times faster than that of the Real-BP, and the standard deviation of the learning speed of the Complex-BP is smaller than that of the Real-BP.
Author Keywords: Complex numbers; Complex-valued neural networks; Learning; Decision boundary
Fig. 1. Two real-valued neurons which are equivalent to a complex-valued neuron.
Fig. 2. An example of the decision boundary of the 1-12-1 Complex-BP network learned with the learning pattern 1. The meanings of the numerals in Fig. 2 are as follows. 1: Real part OFF(0.0–0.5), Imaginary part OFF, 2: Real part ON(0.5–1.0), Imaginary part OFF, 3: Real part OFF, Imaginary part ON, and 4: Real part ON, Imaginary part ON. The decision boundary for the real part (i.e., the boundary that the region “1+3” and the region “2+4” form) and that for imaginary part (i.e., the boundary that the region “1+2” and the region “3+4” form) intersect orthogonally.
Fig. 3. An example of the decision boundary of the 2-14-2 Real-BP network learned with the learning pattern 1. The numbers 1–4 have the same meanings as those of Fig. 2. The decision boundary for the real part (i.e., the boundary that the region “1+3” and the region “2+4” form) and that for imaginary part (i.e., the boundary that the region “1+2” and the region “3+4” form) do not intersect orthogonally.
Fig. 4. Comparison of the angles of the decision boundaries (the average and the standard deviation). (a) Learning pattern 1, (b) Learning pattern 2, (c) Learning pattern 3. The definition of network structures is as follows. Case 1: the 1-3-1 Complex-BP and 2-4-2 Real-BP networks, Case 2: the 1-6-1 Complex-BP and 2-7-2 Real-BP networks, Case 3: the 1-9-1 Complex-BP and 2-11-2 Real-BP networks, and Case 4: the 1-12-1 Complex-BP and 2-14-2 Real-BP networks.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the generalization ability (the average and the standard deviation). (a) Learning pattern 1, (b) Learning pattern 2, (c) Learning pattern 3. The definition of network structures is the same as that of Fig. 4.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the learning speed (the average and the standard deviation). (a) Learning pattern 1, (b) Learning pattern 2, (c) Learning pattern 3. The definition of network structures is the same as that of Fig. 4.
Table 1. Learning pattern 1

Table 2. Learning pattern 2

Table 3. Learning pattern 3

Table 4. The number of parameters in the Real-BP and Complex-BP networks
