IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO.
3, MARCH 2024
Multiview Fuzzy Clustering Based on Anchor Graph
Weizhong Yu , Liyin Xing , Feiping Nie , Senior Member, IEEE, and Xuelong Li, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—With the development of information technology, a
large number of multiview data has emerged, which makes multi-
view clustering algorithms considerably attractive. Previous graph-
based multiview clustering methods usually contain two steps:
obtaining the fusion graph or spectral embedding of all views;
and performing clustering algorithms. The two-step process cannot
obtain optimal results since the two steps cannot negotiate with
each other. To address this drawback, a novel algorithm named as
multi-view fuzzy clustering based on anchor graph is presented.
The proposed method can simultaneously obtain the membership
matrix and minimize the disagreement rates of different views. A
novel regularization based on trace norm is also presented in this
article, which can not only obtain a clear clustering partition to
prevent that all samples belonging to each cluster with the same
membership value 1c , but also balance the size of each cluster. More-
over, we exploit the reweighted method to optimize the proposed
model, which can introduce an adaptive weight to each view to deal
with the unreliable views. A series of experiments are conducted
on different datasets, and the clustering performance verifies the
effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed algorithm.
Index Terms—Fuzzy clustering, graph, multiview clustering,
reweighted optimization framework.
I. INTRODUCTION
LUSTERING algorithm is an important research direction
C in machine learning, whose purpose is to divide samples
with higher similarity into the same category. With the devel-
opment of information technology, a large number of multiview
data has emerged, such as documents in different languages,
images, sounds and subtitles in videos, and faces in different
angles and light. How to process and divide these multiview
data has become a new problem. Usually, multiview clustering
algorithms use the principle of consensus and complementarity
to explore the underlying data clustering structure shared be-
tween different views, synthesize the different information of
Manuscript received 10 March 2023; revised 28 June 2023 and 8 August 2023;
accepted 14 August 2023. Date of publication 18 August 2023; date of current
version 1 March 2024. This work was supported in part by the Key Research
and Development Program of Shaanxi under Grant 2023YBGY034, and in part
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62176212.
Recommended by Associate Editor P. D’Urso. (Weizhong Yu and Liyin Xing
contributed equally to this work.) (Corresponding author: Feiping Nie.)
Weizhong Yu, Feiping Nie, and Xuelong Li are with the School of Artificial
Intelligence, OPtics and ElectroNics (iOPEN), the School of Cybersecurity,
Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China, and also with the
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Interaction and Applications (Northwestern Poly-
technical University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Xi’an
710072, China (e-mail: yuwz05@mail.xjtu.edu.cn; feipingnie@gmail.com;
li@nwpu.edu.cn).
Liyin Xing is with the School of Cybersecurity and the School of Artificial
Intelligence, Optics and Electronics (iOPEN), Northwestern Polytechnical Uni-
versity, Xi’an 710072, China (e-mail: liyinxing@mail.nwpu.edu.cn).
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2023.3306639.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TFUZZ.2023.3306639
1063-6706 © 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
755
each single view, thus achieving better clustering performance
than directly concatenate the features of different views.
Multiview clustering algorithms has been widely used in
image classification [1], natural language processing [2], [3],
[4], and bioinformatics and health informatics [5], [6]. The
graph-based multiview clustering algorithms have also attracted
lots of interests due to their excellent performance [7], [8]. Many
graph-based multiview clustering methods usually first learn a
fusion graph for all views, and then, conduct an additional clus-
tering algorithm on the fusion graph to obtain the final clustering
results. This kind of algorithm can better fuse the multiview
information, but it cannot directly obtain the clustering results.
In order to avoid the two-step process, Nie et al. [9] propose the
constrained Laplacian rank (CLR) algorithm, which can obtain
a graph with c connected components directly. The advantages
of the CLR has been clarified and widely applied in graph-based
clustering algorithms [10]. Nie et al. [11] propose a multi-view
clustering algorithm that can adaptively assign weights to each
view, and then, divided the fusion graph into c components via
CLR algorithm. However, it takes O(n2 c) to optimize the model
(where n is the number of samples and c is the number of
clusters). In order to accelerate it, Li et al. [12] introduced a
bipartite graph into this framework and proposed an algorithm
that can be applied to large-scale datasets.
However, these methods lose some information in the original
data during the fusion. Therefore, in order to better exploit
the complementary information between multiple views, some
methods integrate graph construction and fusion into a unified
framework, which have attracted widespread attention. Brbić
and Kopriva [13] learns a joint subspace representation by con-
structing the affinity matrix shared among all views. Although
these multiview subspace clustering algorithms have a good
clustering performance, they usually suffer from high computa-
tional complexity and cannot apply to large-scale datasets. To
solve this problem, Kang et al. [14] and Wang et al. [15] pro-
posed several linear complexity algorithms inspired by the idea
of anchor graph. In addition to subspace learning, Huang et al.
[16] proposed an algorithm that learns similarity relationships in
kernel spaces. Some scholars also use the adaptive neighborhood
method to obtain the similarity matrix of each view, and then,
fuse them to generate a unified similarity matrix [17]. Li and
He [18] also adapt the strategy but introduce the bipartite graph
into it to accelerate the algorithm. Recently, in order to further
preserve the complementary information and spatial structure
in different views, Wang et al. [19] and Liang et al. [20] focus
on the representation complementarity between different views
by introducing an additional exclusivity term. Huang et al.
[21] simultaneously detected the multiview consistency and the
756
multiview diversity, and then, fused the consistent parts to an
target graph with a clear clustering structure. Following this,
Huang et al. [22] introduced a novel algorithm that unifies the
adaptive learning of similarity graphs alongside the detection of
consistency and cross-view diversity. Li et al. [23] and Shu et al.
[24] introduce tensors into the algorithm to explore higher level
information between different views.
Another kind of graph-based algorithms aim to obtain the
consistent spectral embedding from the similarity graph of each
view. Kumar et al. [2] proposed the coregularized multiview
spectral clustering algorithm based on the idea of collaborative
training. However, this method cannot distinguish the reliability
of different views. In order to minimize the effect of unreliable
views, Xia et al. [25] introduce an additional parameter as
the index of weight, and then, adaptively learn the weights
during the optimization process, but this parameter has a greater
impact on the clustering effect. Nie et al. [26] propose a method
that can automatically learn the optimal weight of each graph
without parameter tuning. Li et al. [27] introduce a bipar-
tite graph to accelerate the algorithm so that it can adapt to
large-scale datasets. Although these algorithms fuse the spectral
embedding of all views, they still need a postprocessing step
to obtain the final clustering results. To solve this problem,
Shi et al. [28] use the spectral rotation (SR) technology to
obtain clustering results from the spectral embeddings. Nie
et al. [29] use SR to learn consistent clustering results from
spectral embedding of multiple views. Shi et al. [30] propose
a framework that jointly learns consistent spectral embedding
and final clustering results via SR. Similarly, Qiang et al. [31]
propose a new framework that can directly obtain indicator
matrix on the fusion graph of all views to avoid the two-step
process. Yang et al. [32], Yang et al. [33], Shi et al. [34], and
Hu et al. [35] use the non-negative matrix factorization (NMF)
method to directly obtain the indicator matrix.
To summarize, there is a lot of research focusing on the
two crucial problems for graph-based multiview algorithms:
postprocessing step and high computational complexity. How-
ever, these methods can only identify which cluster the sample
belongs to and do not provide information about the membership
between different clusters. Nevertheless, fuzzy clustering plays
a crucial role in various practical applications. For example,
in the field of marketing, fuzzy clustering can be a valuable
tool for grouping customers based on diverse perspectives such
as their needs, brand preferences, psycho-graphic profiles, or
other relevant marketing factors. Therefore, graph-based fuzzy
clustering is worth exploring to address these challenges and
improve the clustering performance in real-world scenarios. In
this article, we present a new multiview fuzzy clustering based
on the anchor graph (abbreviated as MVFCAG) that is designed
to address these problems. The algorithm flow of the proposed
MVFCAG is illustrated in Fig. 1. The main contributions of this
article can be summarized as follows.
1) We integrate anchor graph construction and membership
matrix learning into a unified framework to obtain the
membership matrix Fi for each single view, and then,
we minimize the disagreement rate between each Fi and
the final membership matrix Y to fuse the information in
different views. Thus, the proposed approach can obtain
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 3, MARCH 2024
Fig. 1. Algorithmic flows for the proposed algorithm.
the membership matrix directly without a postprocessing
step.
2) We propose a novel regularization based on trace norm,
which can not only obtain a clear clustering partition to
prevent that all samples belonging to each cluster with the
same membership value 1c , but also avoid that all samples
belonging to the same cluster by balancing the size of each
cluster. Furthermore, we have provided a theoretical proof
of this property in this article.
3) We exploit the reweighted method to optimize the pro-
posed model, which can not only solve the nonconvex
minimization problem but also adaptively add an weight
for each view. Therefore, the proposed algorithm is able
to deal with the unreliable views.
4) Most of the fast algorithms is based on the anchor graph,
which is also employed by the proposed algorithm. By this
way, the computational complexity of our approach will
be reduced, making it suitable for large datasets.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. We review the
works related to anchor graph in Section II. Subsequently, our
new method for multiview clustering is presented in Section III.
Experiments on different datasets are conducted to validate the
effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method in Section
IV. Finally, Section V concludes this article.
Notations: Throughout this article, Tr(M) denotes the trace of

a matrix M, while MF = Tr(MT M) denotes the Frobe-
nius norm of M. ρ√i (M) denotes the ith eigenvalue of the matrix
c 
M. M∗ = Tr( M M) = i=1 ρi (MT M) denotes the
T
trace norm of M. x2 = Tr(xT x) denotes the 2-norm of a
vector x.
II. RELATED WORKS
A. Anchor-Based Graph Model
A crucial problem for graph-based algorithms is the construc-
tion of the similarity graph. Traditional approaches to graph
construction include k-nearest neighbor graphs, -neighborhood
graphs, and fully connected graphs. However, these graphs re-
quire high computational complexity to construct and are unsuit-
able for large datasets. Therefore, some fast graph construction
YU et al.: MULTIVIEW FUZZY CLUSTERING BASED ON ANCHOR GRAPH 757

methods via a bipartite graph have recently been proposed [36],

Algorithm 1: Reweighted Method for Problem (5).
[37].
In order to construct a similarity graph efficiently via a bipar- Input: x ∈ Ω
tite graph, we first need to find a subset U = [u1 , u2 , . . . , um ] ∈ 1: while nor converge do
Rm×d as anchor points. The anchors can be selected via k-means 2: Update each Di by Di = hi (g
i (x)).

clustering, or simply at random. Let B ∈ Rn×m represent the 3: Update x by x = arg minx∈Ω i T r(DiT gi (x)).
bipartite similarity graph between anchors and samples, where 4: end while
bij is the similarity between the sample xi and the anchor uj . Output: x.
Since each row of the matrix needs to be normalized, we can
calculate B as follows:
 K(xi ,uj ) membership matrix of anchors. Thus, the membership matrix of
 ∀j ∈ Φi data points can be expressed as F = BZ.
s∈Φi K(xi ,us )
bij = (1)
0 j∈/ Φi
C. Reweighted Optimization Framework
where Φi is the set containing the indexes of the k nearest anchors Recently, Nie et al. [40] put forward a novel reweighted
of xi , while K(·) is a kernel function. optimization framework applicable to a range of nonconvex
Rather than using a Gaussian kernel function to calculate the problems efficiently. The formulation of the nonconvex prob-
bipartite graph B, Nie et al. [9] propose an effective adaptive lems that can be solved by the method is shown as follows:
neighbor assignment strategy, and He et al. [38] adopt it to 
construct the anchor graph, which can be used to obtain the min hi (gi (x)), s.t. x ∈ Ω (5)
x
ith row of B in the following way: i


m where the composite function hi (gi (x)) is a concave function
min xi − uj 2 bij + γbij 2
(b)i T 1=1,bij ≥0 j=1
where bi T represents the ith row of B, while γ is a parameter
that can be optimized as γ = k2 d(i, k + 1) − 12 kj=1 d(i, j)
according to [9]. d(i, j) = xi − uj 2 represents the distance
between xi and its jth nearest anchor uj . This method is also a
nonparametric way to obtain a normalized bipartite graph. The
solution of problem (2) is as follows:
 d(i,k+1)−d(i,j)
k ∀j ∈ Φi
bij = kd(i,k+1)− j=1 d(i,j) (3)
0 j∈/ Φi
where Φi still represents the set containing the indexes of the k
nearest anchors of xi .
B. Anchor-Based Fuzzy Clustering
Fuzzy clustering is one of the most popular clustering
algorithms but suffers from high computational complexity.
Nie et al. [39] integrated anchor-based similarity graph construc-
tion and membership matrix learning into a unified framework
to improve the clustering performance on large-scale datasets.
They designed a quadratic programming model to learn the
membership matrix of selected anchors. Then, the anchor graph
that contains connectivity between data points and anchors can
be exploited to calculate the membership of all the data points.
The membership value fij that data point i belongs to the cluster
j can be calculated by the weighted sum of the membership
values of all anchors belonging to this cluster, shown as follows:

m B. Multiview Fuzzy Clustering Based on Anchor Graph
fij = bi1 z1j + bi2 z2j + · · · + bim zmj = bil zlj
l=1
where m is the number of anchors, zij is the membership value
of the anchor i belonging to cluster j, and Z ∈ Rm×c is the
(2) of the subfunction gi (x), and x ∈ Ω is the feasible region of x.
i (gi (x))
Let hi (gi (x)) = ∂h∂g i (x)
, then the solution to the problem (5)
based on the reweighted optimization framework is presented
in Algorithm 1. In this article, we will exploit the reweighted
framework to optimize the proposed model.
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Motivation
As mentioned in Section II, the membership matrix of each
view can be obtained by Fi = Bi Zi . Thus, the specific cluster-
ing structure of each view can be easily revealed. In order to get a
consist clustering partition of all views, the membership matrices
Fi should be close to each other. Therefore, we can introduce
Y ∈ Rn×c as the final membership matrix of all views, which
can be obtained by solving the following problem:

v
min Bi Zi − YF
Zi ,Y
i=1
s.t. Zi 1 = 1, Zi  0, Y1 = 1, Y  0 (6)
where MF = T r(MT M) denotes the Frobenius norm of the
matrix M.
However, the problem (6) cannot divide the data points clearly
into clusters. We put forward a novel regularization to deal
with it in Section III-B, and then, exploit the reweighted frame-
work [40] to introduce an adaptive weight for each view during
optimization.
(4) (MVFCAG)
In order to achieve a clear clustering assignment, we introduce
the novel regularization as shown by problem (7), which can not
only clearly divide the data points but also balance the size of

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
758 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 3, MARCH 2024

each cluster. In this case, we can calculate that YT Y ∈ Rc×c is a diagonal

matrix where the ith diagonal element is the number of samples
max Y∗ (7)
Y1=1,Y0 in the ith cluster. Thus, (8) can be rewritten as
√  
where Y∗ = Tr( YT Y) = ci=1 ρi (YT Y) denotes the √  c
√
trace norm (also known as the nuclear norm) of Y. The trace Y∗ = T r YT Y = ni . (12)
i=1
norm serves as a convex envelope of the rank function rank(M)
and is commonly employed in mathematical optimization to We can further transformed (9) into
identify low-rank matrices. In our approach, we maximize the √ √ √ 2
trace norm to prevent the occurrence of empty clusters. Addi- ( n1 + n2 + · · · + nc )  (n1 + n2 + · · · + nc ) c
√ √ √ √
tionally, by imposing the constraint Y1 = 1, Y  0 in problem ⇔ n1 + n2 + · · · + nc  nc. (13)
(7), we not only address the issue of empty clusters, but generate
the most clear and balanced clustering results. According to the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality [41], the equality
The proof of why maximizing the problem (7) can achieve only holds when n1 = n2 = · · · = nc = nc . Therefore, Y∗
the most clear and balanced clustering results is given in achieves its maximum value nc when Y is a discrete indicator
Theorem 1. matrix and n1 = n2 = · · · = nc = nc . 
Theorem 1: Given n1 + n2 + · · · + nc = n and nj  0 According to Theorem 1, we can come to the conclusion that
√the size of the jth cluster, Y∗ arrives its maximum
denotes maximizing the problem (7) can introduce competition among
value nc when Y∈Rn×c is a discrete indicator matrix and clusters so that the membership will be more clear and the size
nj = nc . of clusters will be more balanced. That is to say, the data points
Proof: The trace norm of Y can be written as prefer to be clear divided with a large relationship value into
c  c balanced clusters with the size of nc . Therefore, the problem

Y∗ = ρi (YT Y) . (8) (7) can be a regularization for a clear clustering partition and a
i=1
balanced size of clusters.
 Combining problem (6) and problem (7) with a regularization
Let p ∈ Rc×1 be a column vector, where pi = ρi (YT Y) parameter λ, the overall optimization problem can be formulated
and q ∈ R1×c be row vector with all elements as 1. According as follows:
to the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality [41], | p, q |2  p22 q22 ,

v
we have min Bi Zi − YF − λ Y∗
  Zi ,Y
(p1 + p2 + · · · + pc )2  p21 + p22 + · · · + p2c (1+1+· · · + 1) i=1

c s.t.Zi 1 = 1, Zi  0, Y1 = 1, Y  0. (14)

c
 
⇔ Y2∗  c ρi YT Y . (9) C. Optimization
i=1
1) Update Y With the Fixed Zi : In order to address problem
Then, the problem (7) can be transformed into the following (14), we iteratively optimize the variables Zi and Y. When
maximization problem: updating Y with the fixed Zi , we exploit the reweighted
 method [40] to deal with the optimization problem. Therefore,
c
 
max ρi YT Y we need to transform the problem (14) into the same form as
Y1=1,Y0
i=1 problem (5). Thus, we can set
 
⇔ max T r YT Y gi (Y) = Bi Zi − Y2F , hi (gi (Y)) = (gi (Y)) 2
1

Y1=1,Y0
⎛ ⎞
G (Y) = Y, H (G (Y)) = −λ G (Y)∗ . (15)

n c
⇔ max ⎝ 2⎠
yij . (10)
Y1=1,Y0 Then, the problem (14) can be transformed into
i=1 j=1

v
It is obvious that the problem (10) is independent for each i. min hi (gi (Y)) + H (G (Y)) . (16)
Thus, the problem (10) can be divided into n subproblems. For Y1=1,Y0
i=1
each i, we have
It is obvious that the gradient of hi (gi (Y)) is

c
2
max yij . (11) 1
yi 1=1,yi 0 hi (gi (Y)) = . (17)
j=1 Bi Zi − Y2F
The solution to the maximum problem (11) should be Then, we need to calculate the gradient of the trace norm. If
achieved when yi contains one and only one element equalling the reduced singular value decomposition of Y is UΣVT , it is
to 1 and 0 otherwise, and the maximum value should be 1. There- shown in [42] that the subgradient of Y∗ is
fore, we can conclude that problem (10) reached its maximum  
value only when Y is the discrete cluster indicator matrix. ∂ Y∗ = UVT +W : UT W = 0, WV = 0, W2  1 .

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
YU et al.: MULTIVIEW FUZZY CLUSTERING BASED ON ANCHOR GRAPH 759

Here, we present one of the subgradient of Y∗ that is It is obvious that problem (23) is independent for each row of
employed in this article Zi , thus it can be transformed into
∂ Y∗  − 1    2
  zi 
= Y YT Y 2 min  b B − Y 
∂Y zi 1=1,zi 0  i r
Zr 
 T − 12 F

= UΣVT UΣVT UΣVT ⇔ min bi zi + Br Zr − Y2F

zi 1=1,zi 0

= UVT . (18)  
⇔ min T r zTi bTi bi zi + 2zTi bTi (Br Zr − Y)
zi 1=1,zi 0
Thus, we can conclude that one of the subgradient of  2
H(G(Y)) is  (Br Zr − Y)T bi 
 
⇔ min zi −  (24)
 − 1 zi 1=1,zi 0  bTi bi 
H  (G (Y)) = −λY YT Y 2 . (19) 2

According to Algorithm 1, problem (16) can be transformed where zi denotes the ith row of Zi and bi denotes the ith column
into problem (20) since hi (gi (Y)) and H(G(Y)) are both of Bi .
concave with the subfunction. Problems (22) and (24) share the same formulation, which
 can be rewritten as a more compact form
v
 
min T r (di gi (Y)) + T r −λDT G (Y) 1
Y1=1,Y0
i=1 min x − v22 s.t.xT 1 = 1, x  0 (25)
x 2

v
 
⇔ min di Bi Zi − Y2F − λT r DT Y (20) where x and v denote any column vectors. This problem have
Y1=1,Y0 been solved by Huang et al. [43], and then, we will present the
i=1

−1
solution. First, we should write the Lagrangian function of the
1
where di = and D = Y(YT Y) 2 . Note that di is
Bi Zi −Y2F problem (25) as
also a adaptive weight for each view, which can distinguish the  
1
reliability of different views. L (x, α, β) = x − v22 + α xT 1 − 1 − β T x (26)
2
To solve problem (20), we can rewrite it as follows:
where α and β are the Lagrangian multipliers, both of which are

v
 
min di Bi Zi − Y2F − λT r DT Y to be determined. Suppose the optimal solution to the minimiza-
Y1=1,Y0
i=1 tion problem (25) is x∗ , the associate Lagrangian multipliers
are α∗ and β ∗ . According to the KKT condition, we have the

v
   
⇔ min di T r (Bi Zi −Y)T (Bi Zi −Y) −λT r YT D following equations:
Y1=1,Y0
i=1 ⎧ ∗ ∗ ∗
⎪∀j, xj∗ − vj + α − βj = 0
⎪
⎨
(27)

v
    ∀j, xj  0 (28)
⇔ min di T r YT Y − 2YT Bi Zi − λT r YT D ∗
Y1=1,Y0 ⎪
⎪ ∀j, βj  0 (29)
i=1 ⎩ ∗ ∗
v  ∀j, xj βj = 0 (30)
 
v
 
⇔ min Tr di Y Y−2Y
T T
diBi Zi −λT r YT D where x∗j is the jth element of vector x∗ , vj is the jth element
Y1=1,Y0
i=1 i=1 of vector v, and βj∗ is the jth element of vector β ∗ . Equation
 v 2 (27) can be written as x∗j = vj + βj∗ − α∗ . According to (30),
 1 
i=1 di Bi Zi + 2 λD 
⇔ 
min Y − v we have βj∗ = 0 or x∗j = 0. Therefore, x∗j = vj − α∗ if βj∗ = 0,
 . (21)
Y1=1,Y0 di i=1 F x∗j = 0 if βj∗ = α∗ − vj . And for (28) and (29), we have
v
d B Z + 12 λD
Let M = i=1 i v i dii , then the problem (21) can be vj − α ∗ vj − α ∗  0
i=1
x∗j =
rewritten as follows: 0 vj − α ∗ < 0
min Y − M2F s.t. Y1 = 1, Y  0 = (vj − α∗ )+ (31)
Y

⇔ min yi − mi 22 s.t. yi 1 = 1, yi  0 (22) where x+ = max(x, 0). According to the constraint xT 1 = 1,
yi
we have
where yi is the ith row of Y and mi is the ith row of M. The

c
problem (22) can be seen as a proximal problem, which will be (vj − α∗ )+ = 1. (32)
discussed in detail later. j=1
2) Update Each Zi With the Fixed Y: When updating each 
Zi with the fixed Y, the problem (14) can be transformed into Define a function as f (α) = cj=1 (vj − α)+ − 1, and then,
the following: we can obtain α∗ by solving the root finding problem. Note
that when α∗  0, f  (α)  0 and f (α) is a piecewise linear and
min Bi Zi − Y2F . (23) convex function, we can use the Newton method to find the root
Zi 1=1,Zi 0

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
760 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 3, MARCH 2024

views are complete. The anchors are selected by k-means and

Algorithm 2: The Algorithm of MVFCAG.
the input affinity matrix is obtained by (2) and (3).
Input: The anchor graphs {B1 , B2 , · · · Bv } of all views.
The number of clusters c. The regularization parameter λ.
A. Experimental Results on Synthetic Datasets
1: Initialize: Randomly initialize each Zi and Y in their
domains of definition. 1) Settings: To prove the effectiveness of the proposed
2: while not converge do model, we conduct two toy experiments, the results of which are
3: Fix Zi , update Y via the re-weighted method: shown in Figs. 2 and 3. We first test the clustering performance of
4: while not converge do the proposed method, and then, verify its capability to deal with
5: Update each di = B Z 1−Y2 and the unreliable views on two synthetic datasets, which is shown
i i F
−1 by observing the visualized clustering results. The number of
D = Y(YT Y) 2 . anchors is set to be 100 and the regularization parameter λ is
6: Update Y by solving problem (22). 2.7.
7: end while 2) Datasets: In this section, we generate two datasets that
8: Fix Y, update each Zi sequentially: both contain three views and 300 samples. One of the datasets
9: for each Zi do consists of three two moon datasets with different width and
10: for each row of Zi do distance for each view, as shown in Fig. 2(a). And the other
11: Update the ith row of Zi by solving problem consists of three spherical datasets but are overlapped in each
(24). view, which are shown in Fig. 2(d). In order to evaluate the
12: end for ability to weaken the effectiveness of unreliable views, we add
13: end for a view of noise to both of the synthetic datasets, which is shown
14: end while in Fig. 3(a) and (d) .
Output: The membership matrix Y. 3) Results: Figs. 2 and 3 show the experimental results on
synthetic datasets. Different views of the datasets are shown by
the first column of subfigures, where different colors indicate
of f (α) = 0 efficiently, i.e., the different classes of the data points. The second column of
subfigures are the anchor graphs constructed in advance. It can be
f (αt )
αt+1 = αt − (33) seen that both of the datasets are hard to divide in any single view,
f  (αt ) even for graph-based methods. The third column of subfigures
where t denotes the iterations. show the clustering results obtained by the proposed algorithm.
Different colors indicate that which cluster the data point belongs
to and the purity of the color indicates the uncertainty. Fig. 2
D. Complexity Analysis
shows that our method is effective for multiview datasets, since
The proposed algorithm consists of two stages: 1) update Y it can not only clearly divide the samples with a very small
via the reweighted method; and 2) update the membership matrix between-class distance in each view, but also succeed to cluster
Zi of each view. It takes O(nmc) to obtain the membership ma- the samples completely overlap in some views. Fig. 3 shows the
trix Y in the first stage and O(nm2 c) to obtain the membership ability of our method to deal with the unreliable views. Although
matrixes of all views since the algorithm is independent for each the uncertainty of the samples at the edge of clusters is larger
view and suitable for parallel computing in the second stage. while there is a noise view, as observed in Fig. 3(c) and (f), the
Therefore, the total computational complexity of the proposed proposed method can still correctly divide them into clusters. We
algorithm is O(nm2 c). also present the adaptive weight di of each view calculated by
the reweighted method. It can be seen that the weight of the noise
IV. EXPERIMENTS view is smaller than others, which proves that the algorithm is
able to reduce the impact of unreliable views.
In this section, we conduct several experiments to validate
the advantages of the proposed algorithm. All experiments
are conducted on a desktop computer with a 2.90-GHz Intel B. Experimental Results on Real-World Datasets
Core i7 CPU and 32.0-GB RAM, MATLAB 2020b (64 bit). 1) Settings: The proposed algorithm is evaluated in terms of
The first group of experiments is to show the effectiveness of two aspects: one is the clustering performance, and the other
the proposed MVFCAG by presenting the visualization results is the efficiency. The clustering performance is evaluated with
on the synthetic datasets. The learned clusters will prove the reference to clustering accuracy (ACC) and normalized mutual
capability to obtain the sharing structure of all views, and simul- information (NMI). ACC calculates the percentage of correctly
taneously, overlook the unreliable views. The second group will clustered samples, while NMI computes the mutual information
show the clustering results on real-world datasets to demonstrate between cluster labels and real labels. The efficiency is evaluated
the superiority of MVFCAG compared with baselines, including with reference to the time consumption of each algorithm. For
clustering performance and running time. The third group is to the proposed MVFCAG the number of anchors is set to be about
test the parameter sensitivities of the number of anchors m and 10% of samples and the number of nearest neighbors is set to
the regularization parameter λ. In this article, we assume all be 5. The value of the regularization parameter λ is presented

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
YU et al.: MULTIVIEW FUZZY CLUSTERING BASED ON ANCHOR GRAPH 761

Fig. 2. Experimental results for synthetic datasets without noise views. (a) and (d) Two datasets for experiment and different colors indicate the different classes
of the samples. (b) and (e) Anchor graph of each view constructed in advance along with the adaptive weight calculated by the algorithm. (c) and (f) Clustering
results obtained by the proposed algorithm and the different colors point out that which cluster the data point belongs to according to the proposed algorithm.
(a) Data. (b) Graph. (c) Result. (d) Data. (e) Graph. (f) Result.

Fig. 3. Experimental results for synthetic datasets with a noise view. (a) and (d) Two datasets for experiment and different colors indicate the different classes
of the samples. (b) and (e) Anchor graph of each view constructed in advance along with the adaptive weight calculated by the algorithm. (c) and (f) Clustering
results obtained by the proposed algorithm and the different colors point out that which cluster the data point belongs to according to the proposed algorithm.
(a) Data. (b) Graph. (c) Result. (d) Data. (e) Graph. (f) Result.

in Table II. We will provide a simple method to determine the
value of λ by observing the objective function, as discussed in the
upcoming section. To randomize the experiments, each method
is run for 20 times and the average results are recorded in the
tables.
2) Datasets: The proposed algorithm and the compared ap-
proaches are tested on seven real-world datasets. The real-
world datasets include outdoor scene images (MSRC [44]
and scene [45]) face images (ORL [46]), articles collection
(WikipediaArticles [47]), object images (Caltech101-20 [48]),
and handwritten digits (UCI Digits [49] and MNIST [50]), as
described in Table I.
3) Baselines: To evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency
of the approach proposed in this article, we compare it with
several representative approaches, including four graph-based
multiview clustering approaches auto-weighted multiple graph
learning (AMGL) [26], self-weighted multi-view clustering
(SwMC) [11], Co-Reg [2], and graph-based multi-view
clustering (GMC) [17]), two multiview subspace clustering
algorithms fast parameter-free multi-view subspace clustering

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
762
TABLE I
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO REAL DATASETS
TABLE II
PARAMETER SETTINGS
with consensus anchor guidance (FPMVS-CAG) [15] and
large-scale multi-view subspace clustering (LMVSC) [14]),
two fast multiview clustering algorithms scalable and
parameter-free multi-view graph clustering (SFMC) [12]
and adaptively-weighted integral space for Fast multi-view
clustering (AIMC) [51]), a late fusion multi-view clustering
method late fusion alignment maximization (LFA) [52]), and a
multiview fuzzy clustering method (MVFCM [53]). The relevant
information on these methods are presented in Table VII.
4) Results: Tables III and IV show the clustering results of
the proposed method and baselines on the seven real-world
datasets. We highlight the best results in bold and underline the
second best results. From the tables, it can be observed that the
proposed method MVFCAG performs better than the baselines.
As shown in the tables, our method MVFCAG can ensure
the clustering effect of the top place for 4 out of 7 datasets
(MSRC, scene, Caltech101-20, and MNIST) in terms of ACC
or NMI while get the second place for another two datasets
(ORL and UCI Digits). Compared with the graph-based SwMC,
GMC, and SFMC, our method learns a sharing clustering results
of all views instead of learning a sharing similarity graph.
While the advantages of the proposed MVFCAG in terms of
clustering results may not be highly apparent, it significantly
improves the algorithm’s efficiency. The other two graph-based
algorithms, AMGL and Co-Reg, learn the sharing clustering
results of all views by obtaining the consensus spectral em-
beddings of different views. Thus, postprocessing step is still
necessary, which may cause a bad clustering result. The two
multiview subspace clustering methods are both designed to
construct a consensus anchor graph based on the subspace
theory. FPMVS-CAG can obtain a consensus anchor graph with
c connected components, while LMVSC still need to conduct
the spectral clustering algorithm to achieve the final clusters.
Therefore, a unified framework, which is also an advantage of
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 3, MARCH 2024
the proposed MVFCAG, is effective since both FPMVS-CAG
and MVFCAG outperforms LMVSC a lot. AIMC is a fast mul-
tiview clustering method that effectively learns a shared cluster
indicator matrix for all views. Its fusion strategy is mapping
the original observations from each view into a latent integral
space, and then, obtaining the sharing cluster indicator matrix
through nonnegative matrix factorization. Our method surpasses
AIMC’s performance on nearly all datasets, with the exception
of WikipediaArticles. Consequently, we can confidently assert
that our proposed method significantly improves the data par-
titioning process. LFA is a late-fusion multiview method that
aligns the cluster partitions of each view to achieve a common
clustering result. However, late-fusion methods often face a
significant challenge: their performance relies heavily on the
quality of partitioning within each individual view, potentially
leading to poor clustering results for LFA. In contrast, our
method also incorporates direct fusion of the membership matrix
from each view, but we address the aforementioned problem by
adjusting the labels of anchor points in each view based on the
common membership matrix. Additionally, this strategy does
not compromise the computational superiority of late-fusion
methods, as the number of anchor points is usually much smaller
than the number of samples. MVFCM is a multiview fuzzy clus-
tering method that conducts fuzzy c-means (FCM) in each single
view, and then, generates the membership matrix via collabo-
rative training. In comparison, our proposed MVFCAG method
demonstrates remarkable superiority over MVFCM across all
datasets, highlighting the advantages of our approach.
We also conduct several statistical tests to confirm the su-
periority of the proposed method, whose results are shown in
Tables V and VI. Here, we use t-test (also named student’s test)
to confirm if the proposed MVFCAG outperforms the compared
methods. The null hypothesis H0 is that the proposed MVFCAG
cannot obtain better performance than the comparing algorithm,
and h = 1 means the proposed MVFCAG outperforms the com-
pared methods. p-value is the probability that the null hypothesis
is correct. It is observed that, in most of the datasets, the results
confirmed that the proposed method outperforms the comparing
methods.
The effectiveness of the proposed MVFCAG has been eval-
uated by all the aforementioned experiments. Then, we ex-
plore the efficiency of our method by comparing the running
time of algorithms. Table VIII shows the time consumption of
the comparing methods including the proposed MVFCAG. It
can be observed that our method has much shorter running
YU et al.: MULTIVIEW FUZZY CLUSTERING BASED ON ANCHOR GRAPH 763

TABLE III
CLUSTERING ACC ON THE REAL-WORLD DATASETS [MEAN ± STD(%)]

TABLE IV
CLUSTERING NMI ON THE REAL-WORLD DATASETS [MEAN ± STD(%)]

TABLE V
t-TEST FOR CLUSTERING ACC ON THE REAL-WORLD DATASETS

TABLE VI
t-TEST FOR CLUSTERING NMI ON THE REAL-WORLD DATASETS

TABLE VII complexity of our algorithm is quadratic with respect to the

RELEVANT INFORMATION OF THE METHODS IN COMPARISON
number of anchor points. Although the three fast methods have
less running time, their clustering performance is poorer than
the proposed MVFCAG.
In sum, experimental results demonstrates that the proposed
method MVFCAG is not only effective but also efficient for
multiview clustering problems. MVFCAG enjoys compara-
ble computational complexity with existing anchor-based fast
multiview clustering methods and better clustering performance
than the existing graph-based multiview clustering methods.

time than most of the graph-based methods on the datasets with

more than 2000 samples, especially the largest dataset MNIST,
demonstrating the efficiency of the proposed method. However,
compared with the three methods, LMVSC, AIMC, and LFA,
the proposed MVFCAG seems to perform poorly on the large
dataset MNIST. It might be due to the fact that the computational
C. Parameter Sensitivity
In this section, we go through the effects of the number
of anchors m and the regularization parameter λ in detail.
Another parameter for graph construction, the number of nearest
neighbors k = 5 is set to be a fixed value. We choose the

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
764 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 3, MARCH 2024

TABLE VIII
RUNNING TIME OF THE COMPARED ALGORITHMS ON THE REAL-WORLD DATASETS (SECONDS)

Fig. 4. Clustering accuracy of the proposed MVFCAG under the condition of different parameters combinations. (a) MSRC. (b) ORL. (c) Scene. (d) Caltech101-20.
(e) UCI Digits. (f) MNIST.

Fig. 5. Relationship between D, R, clustering accuracy, and the value of λ. The blue bars record the clustering accuracy, the red line records the values of D
(represented as “Difference” in the figure), and the blue line records the value of R (represented as “Regularization” in the figure). (a) MSRC. (b) ORL. (c) Scene.
(d) Caltech101-20. (e) UCI Digits. (f) MNIST.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
YU et al.: MULTIVIEW FUZZY CLUSTERING BASED ON ANCHOR GRAPH
percentage of anchors from the set {0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
and the regularization parameter λ from the set {0.25, 0.5, 1,
1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25, 2.5}. Then, we record the clustering
accuracy on six real-world datasets under the condition of dif-
ferent parameters combinations in Fig. 4. As can be seen from
the figure, when the number of anchors increases, the clustering
accuracy improves. However, the clustering performance will
not continually improve with the increase of anchors. In order
to make the algorithm more efficient, 15% of anchors will be
enough to obtain an effective clustering result.
Nevertheless, the value of the regularization parameter λ
shows great influence to the accuracy of clustering results. To
further explore the effects of λ, and then, design an approach
to choose
 a suitable value, we record two additional values
D = vi=1 Bi Zi − Y and R = −Y∗ , where D represents
how different the clusters of each view are from the final results
and R represents how clear the clustering is. Fig. 5 shows how
this two values and clustering accuracy change with regard to
the value of λ. It can be seen that with the increase of λ, the
value of R continuing declines, while the value of D increases,
and finally, reaches its maximum and keeps steady. According
to the theoretical analysis, both of the two values need to be
minimized for better clustering results. Therefore, when the
value of R is not small enough or D reaches its maximum,
the clustering accuracy will significantly decrease. Thus, we can
simply choose a suitable value for λ by continuously increasing
it until D reaches its maximum.
V. CONCLUSION
In this article, we present a novel graph-based multiview fuzzy
clustering algorithm that can directly obtain the membership
matrix without any postprocessing step. An adaptive weight
will be introduced to each view during optimization to deal
with the unreliable views. The computational complexity of
the algorithm is linear to the number of samples so that it is
suitable for large-scale datasets. The advantages of the proposed
approach are verified both on synthetic datasets and real-world
datasets. The experimental results demonstrate that our algo-
rithm is able to obtain a more reliable membership matrix than
the previous multiview fuzzy clustering algorithm. Additionally,
our algorithm significantly improved the efficiency compared to
previous graph-based algorithms. However, the algorithm is a
little bit sensitive to the regularization parameter λ. Although
we have designed an approach to choose a suitable value for
λ, parameter tuning is still a time-consuming process. How to
adjust the parameter during the optimization will be explored in
the future. Additionally, the computational complexity of our
algorithm is quadratic with respect to the number of anchor
points. Consequently, we observed during the experiments that
our method consumes a long time when dealing with a large
number of anchor points. This is also a topic that merits further
study. Another concern pertains to the requirement of prior
knowledge regarding the number of classes, which may not
always be available in practical applications. To address this
issue, we will investigate strategies that enable the algorithm to
adaptively adjust the number of clusters.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
765
REFERENCES
[1] G. Li, D. Song, W. Bai, K. Han, and R. Tharmarasa, “Consensus and
complementary regularized non-negative matrix factorization for multi-
view image clustering,” Inf. Sci., vol. 623, pp. 524–538, 2023.
[2] A. Kumar, P. Rai, and H. Daume, “Co-regularized multi-view spectral
clustering,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process Syst., 2011, pp. 1413–1421.
[3] A. Kumar and H. Daumé, “A co-training approach for multi-view spectral
clustering,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2011, pp. 393–400.
[4] J. Liu, C. Wang, J. Gao, and J. Han, “Multi-view clustering via joint
nonnegative matrix factorization,” in Proc. SIAM Int. Conf. Data Mining,
2013, pp. 252–260.
[5] J. Sun, J. Lu, T. Xu, and J. Bi, “Multi-view sparse co-clustering via
proximal alternating linearized minimization,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach.
Learn., 2015, pp. 757–766.
[6] G. Chao et al., “Multi-view cluster analysis with incomplete data
to understand treatment effects,” Inf. Sci., vol. 494, pp. 278–293,
2019.
[7] Z. Li, F. Nie, X. Chang, Y. Yang, C. Zhang, and N. Sebe, “Dynamic
affinity graph construction for spectral clustering using multiple features,”
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 6323–6332,
Dec. 2018.
[8] R. Zhou, X. Chang, L. Shi, Y.-D. Shen, Y. Yang, and F. Nie, “Person
reidentification via multi-feature fusion with adaptive graph learning,”
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1592–1601,
May 2019.
[9] F. Nie, X. Wang, M. I. Jordan, and H. Huang, “The constrained Laplacian
rank algorithm for graph-based clustering,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif.
Intell., 2016, pp. 1969–1976.
[10] Z. Li, F. Nie, X. Chang, L. Nie, H. Zhang, and Y. Yang, “Rank-constrained
spectral clustering with flexible embedding,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw.
Learn. Syst., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 6073–6082, Dec. 2018.
[11] F. Nie et al., “Self-weighted multiview clustering with multiple graphs.,”
in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., 2017, pp. 2564–2570.
[12] X. Li, H. Zhang, R. Wang, and F. Nie, “Multiview clustering: A scalable
and parameter-free bipartite graph fusion method,” IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 330–344, Jan. 2020.
[13] M. Brbić and I. Kopriva, “Multi-view low-rank sparse subspace cluster-
ing,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 73, pp. 247–258, 2018.
[14] Z. Kang, W. Zhou, Z. Zhao, J. Shao, M. Han, and Z. Xu, “Large-scale
multi-view subspace clustering in linear time,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif.
Intell., vol. 34, no. 04, 2020, pp. 4412–4419.
[15] S. Wang et al., “Fast parameter-free multi-view subspace clustering
with consensus anchor guidance,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 31,
pp. 556–568, Dec. 2021.
[16] S. Huang, Z. Kang, I. W. Tsang, and Z. Xu, “Auto-weighted multi-view
clustering via kernelized graph learning,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 88,
pp. 174–184, 2019.
[17] H. Wang, Y. Yang, and B. Liu, “Gmc: Graph-based multi-view clustering,”
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1116–1129, Jun. 2019.
[18] L. Li and H. He, “Bipartite graph based multi-view clustering,” IEEE
Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 3111–3125, Jul. 2020.
[19] X. Wang, X. Guo, Z. Lei, C. Zhang, and S. Z. Li, “Exclusivity-consistency
regularized multi-view subspace clustering,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput.
Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2017, pp. 923–931.
[20] Y. Liang, D. Huang, C.-D. Wang, and S. Y. Philip, “Multi-view
graph learning by joint modeling of consistency and inconsis-
tency,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3192445.
[21] S. Huang, I. W. Tsang, Z. Xu, and J. Lv, “Measuring diversity in graph
learning: A unified framework for structured multi-view clustering,” IEEE
Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 5869–5883, Dec. 2021.
[22] S. Huang, I. W. Tsang, Z. Xu, and J. Lv, “Cgdd: Multiview graph clustering
via cross-graph diversity detection,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn.
Syst., to be published, doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3201964.
[23] Z. Li, C. Tang, X. Liu, X. Zheng, W. Zhang, and E. Zhu, “Consensus graph
learning for multi-view clustering,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia, vol. 24,
pp. 2461–2472, 2021.
[24] X. Shu, X. Zhang, Q. Gao, M. Yang, R. Wang, and X. Gao, “Self-weighted
anchor graph learning for multi-view clustering,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia,
to be published, doi: 10.1109/TMM.2022.3193855.
[25] T. Xia, D. Tao, T. Mei, and Y. Zhang, “Multiview spectral embed-
ding,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cyberne. B, Cybern., vol. 40, no. 6,
pp. 1438–1446, Jun. 2010.
[26] F. Nie et al., “Parameter-free auto-weighted multiple graph learning: A
framework for multiview clustering and semi-supervised classification.,”
in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., 2016, pp. 1881–1887.
766
[27] Y. Li, F. Nie, H. Huang, and J. Huang, “Large-scale multi-view spectral
clustering via bipartite graph,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 2015,
pp. 2750–2756.
[28] S. Shi, F. Nie, R. Wang, and X. Li, “Fast multi-view clustering via prototype
graph,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 443–455,
Jan. 2021.
[29] F. Nie, L. Tian, and X. Li, “Multiview clustering via adaptively weighted
procrustes,” in Proc. 24th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data
Mining, 2018, pp. 2022–2030.
[30] S. Shi, F. Nie, R. Wang, and X. Li, “Auto-weighted multi-view clustering
via spectral embedding,” Neurocomputing, vol. 399, pp. 369–379, 2020.
[31] Q. Qiang, B. Zhang, F. Wang, and F. Nie, “Fast multi-view discrete
clustering with anchor graphs,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., vol. 35,
no. 11, 2021, pp. 9360–9367.
[32] B. Yang, X. Zhang, Z. Lin, F. Nie, B. Chen, and F. Wang, “Efficient and
robust multiview clustering with anchor graph regularization,” IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. Video, Technol., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 6200–6213, Sep. 2022.
[33] B. Yang, X. Zhang, B. Chen, F. Nie, Z. Lin, and Z. Nan, “Efficient
correntropy-based multi-view clustering with anchor graph embedding,”
Neural Netw., vol. 146, pp. 290–302, 2022.
[34] S. Shi, F. Nie, R. Wang, and X. Li, “Multi-view clustering via nonnegative
and orthogonal graph reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn.
Syst., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 201–214, Jan. 2023.
[35] Z. Hu, F. Nie, R. Wang, and X. Li, “Multi-view spectral clustering via
integrating nonnegative embedding and spectral embedding,” Inf. Fusion,
vol. 55, pp. 251–259, 2020.
[36] W. Liu, J. He, and S.-F. Chang, “Large graph construction for scal-
able semi-supervised learning,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2010,
pp. 679–686.
[37] X. Hu et al., “Multi-view fuzzy classification with subspace clustering and
information granules,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2022.3231929.
[38] F. He, F. Nie, R. Wang, H. Hu, W. Jia, and X. Li, “Fast semi-supervised
learning with optimal bipartite graph,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.,
vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 3245–3257, Sep. 2021.
[39] F. Nie, C. Liu, R. Wang, Z. Wang, and X. Li, “Fast fuzzy clustering based
on anchor graph,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 2375–2387,
Jul. 2021.
[40] F. Nie, D. Wu, R. Wang, and X. Li, “Truncated robust principle component
analysis with a general optimization framework,” IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 1081–1097, Feb. 2020.
[41] J. M. Steele, The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class: An Introduction to the Art
of Mathematical Inequalities. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press,
2004.
[42] G. A. Watson, “Characterization of the subdifferential of some matrix
norms,” Linear Algebra its Appl., vol. 170, no. 1, pp. 33–45, 1992.
[43] J. Huang, F. Nie, and H. Huang, “A new simplex sparse learning model
to measure data similarity for clustering,” in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artif.
Intell., 2015, pp. 3569–3575.
[44] Y. J. Lee and K. Grauman, “Foreground focus: Unsupervised learning from
partially matching images,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 85, pp. 143–166,
2009.
[45] G.-S. Xie, X.-B. Jin, Z. Zhang, Z. Liu, X. Xue, and J. Pu, “Retargeted
multi-view feature learning with separate and shared subspace uncover-
ing,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 24895–24907, 2017.
[46] F. S. Samaria and A. C. Harter, “Parameterisation of a stochastic model for
human face identification,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop Appl. Comput. Vis.,
1994, pp. 138–142.
[47] J. C. Pereira et al., “On the role of correlation and abstraction in cross-
modal multimedia retrieval,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.,
vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 521–535, Mar. 2013.
[48] D. Dueck and B. J. Frey, “Non-metric affinity propagation for unsuper-
vised image categorization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2007,
pp. 1–8.
[49] D. Dua and C. Graff, “UCI machine learning repository,” 2017. [Online].
Avalibale: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
[50] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning
applied to document recognition,” vol. 86, no. 11, 1998, pp. 2278–2324.
[51] M.-S. Chen, T. Liu, C.-D. Wang, D. Huang, and J.-H. Lai, “Adaptively-
weighted integral space for fast multiview clustering,” in Proc. 30th ACM
Int. Conf. Multimedia, 2022, pp. 3774–3782.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE Cote d'Azur (Nice). Downloaded on March 12,2024 at 14:50:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 3, MARCH 2024
[52] S. Wang et al., “Multi-view clustering via late fusion alignment maximiza-
tion.,” in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., 2019, pp. 3778–3784.
[53] M.-S. Yang and K. P. Sinaga, “Collaborative feature-weighted multi-
view fuzzy c-means clustering,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 119, 2021,
Art. no. 108064.
Weizhong Yu received the Ph.D. degree in electronic
science from Xi’an Research Institute of Hi-Tech,
Xi’an, China, in 2012. During 2005 and 2011, he also
studied in the Institute of Microelectronics, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China for his Ph.D. degree.
He is currently an Associate Researcher with the
School of Artificial Intelligence, OPtics and Elec-
troNics (iOPEN), Northwestern Polytechnical Uni-
versity, Xi’an. His main research interests include
machine learning and computer vision.
Liyin Xing received the B.S. degree in automation
from Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an,
China, in 2021. She is currently working toward the
M.S. degree in cybersecurity with the School of Cy-
bersecurity and the School of Artificial Intelligence,
Optics and Electronics (iOPEN), Northwestern Poly-
technical University. Her research interests include
clustering and its applications.
Feiping Nie (Senior Member, IEEE) received the
Ph.D. degree in computer science from Tsinghua Uni-
versity, Beijing, China, in 2009. He is currently a Full
Professor with Northwestern Polytechnical Univer-
sity, Xi’an, China. He has authored and co-authored
more than 100 papers in the following journals and
conferences: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analy-
sis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), International
Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), IEEE Transac-
tions on Image Processing (TIP), IEEE Transactions
on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (TNNLS),
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE), International
Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Conference on Neural Information
Processing Systems (NIPS), ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Dis-
covery and Data Mining (KDD), International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (IJCAI), Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
(AAAI), International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), IEEE/CVF
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), ACM Mul-
timedia Conference (ACM MM). His papers have been cited more than 20 000
times and the H-index is 84. His research interests include machine learning
and its applications, such as pattern recognition, data mining, computer vision,
image processing, and information retrieval. Dr. Nie is currently serving as an
Associate Editor or PC member for several prestigious journals and conferences
in the related fields.
Xuelong Li (Fellow, IEEE) is currently a Full Professor with the School
of Artificial Intelligence, OPtics and ElectroNics, Northwestern Polytechnical
University, Xi’an, China.