For the existing Closed Set Recognition (CSR) methods mistakenly identify unknown jamming signals as a known class, a Conditional Gaussian Encoder (CG-Encoder) for 1-dimensional signal Open Set Recognition (OSR) is designed. The network retains the original form of the signal as much as possible and deep neural network is used to extract useful information. CG-Encoder adopts residual network structure and a new Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence is defined. In the training phase, the known classes are approximated to different Gaussian distributions in the latent space and the discrimination between classes is increased to improve the recognition performance of the known classes. In the testing phase, a specific and effective OSR algorithm flow is designed. Simulation experiments are carried out on 9 jamming types. The results show that the CSR and OSR performance of CG-Encoder is better than that of the other three kinds of network structures. When the openness is the maximum, the open set average accuracy of CG-Encoder is more than 70%, which is about 30% higher than the worst algorithm, and about 20% higher than the better one. When the openness is the minimum, the average accuracy of OSR is more than 95%.
Citation: Yan Tang, Zhijin Zhao, Chun Li, Xueyi Ye. Open set recognition algorithm based on Conditional Gaussian Encoder[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 6620-6637. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021328
[1] | Necati Can Açıkgöz, Ceren Sultan Elmalı . On almost set-Menger spaces in bitopological context. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(12): 20579-20593. doi: 10.3934/math.20221128 |
[2] | Songran Wang, Zhinmin Wang . Function space properties of the Cauchy transform on the Sierpinski gasket. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 6064-6073. doi: 10.3934/math.2023306 |
[3] | Sezer Erdem . Compact operators on the new Motzkin sequence spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24193-24212. doi: 10.3934/math.20241177 |
[4] | Necati Can Açıkgöz, Ceren Sultan Elmalı . Nearly Menger covering property via bitopological spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 34042-34066. doi: 10.3934/math.20241623 |
[5] | Heng Yang, Jiang Zhou . Compactness of commutators of fractional integral operators on ball Banach function spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3126-3149. doi: 10.3934/math.2024152 |
[6] | Aydah Mohammed Ayed Al-Ahmadi . Differences weighted composition operators in several variables between some spaces of analytic functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 27363-27375. doi: 10.3934/math.20231400 |
[7] | Babar Sultan, Mehvish Sultan, Aziz Khan, Thabet Abdeljawad . Boundedness of an intrinsic square function on grand p-adic Herz-Morrey spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26484-26497. doi: 10.3934/math.20231352 |
[8] | Muh Nur, Moch Idris, Firman . Angle in the space of p-summable sequences. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2810-2819. doi: 10.3934/math.2022155 |
[9] | Naqash Sarfraz, Muhammad Bilal Riaz, Qasim Ali Malik . Some new characterizations of boundedness of commutators of p-adic maximal-type functions on p-adic Morrey spaces in terms of Lipschitz spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19756-19770. doi: 10.3934/math.2024964 |
[10] | Zhihong Wen, Guantie Deng . The Bedrosian Identity for Lp Function and the Hardy Space on Tube. AIMS Mathematics, 2016, 1(1): 9-23. doi: 10.3934/Math.2016.1.9 |
For the existing Closed Set Recognition (CSR) methods mistakenly identify unknown jamming signals as a known class, a Conditional Gaussian Encoder (CG-Encoder) for 1-dimensional signal Open Set Recognition (OSR) is designed. The network retains the original form of the signal as much as possible and deep neural network is used to extract useful information. CG-Encoder adopts residual network structure and a new Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence is defined. In the training phase, the known classes are approximated to different Gaussian distributions in the latent space and the discrimination between classes is increased to improve the recognition performance of the known classes. In the testing phase, a specific and effective OSR algorithm flow is designed. Simulation experiments are carried out on 9 jamming types. The results show that the CSR and OSR performance of CG-Encoder is better than that of the other three kinds of network structures. When the openness is the maximum, the open set average accuracy of CG-Encoder is more than 70%, which is about 30% higher than the worst algorithm, and about 20% higher than the better one. When the openness is the minimum, the average accuracy of OSR is more than 95%.
Abbreviations:
P: pairwise spaces; KC: closed compact spaces; P-KC: pairwise closed compact spaces; P-Hausdorff: pairwise Hausdorff spaces; KC-spaces: closed compact spaces; P-KC-spaces: pairwise closed compact spaces; LC-spaces: closed lindlöf spaces; P-LC-spaces: pairwise closed lindlöf spaces; R: the set of all real numbers; Q: the set of all rational numbers; Z: the set of all integers; N: the set of all natural numbers; τu: the usual topology; τs: the Sorgenfrey line topology; τcof: the coffinite topology; τcoc: the cocountable topology; τl.r: the left-ray topology; τr.r: the right-ray topology; τdis: the discrete topology; τind: the indiscrete topology; CliA: the τi-closure of A
The basic concepts of bitopological spaces began to be studied in 1963 by mathematician Kelly [1]. Several authors have since addressed the problem of defining compactness in bitopological spaces, as seen in Kim [2].
In 1969, Fletcher et al. [3] introduced the main definitions of τiτj-open covers and P-open covers in bitopological spaces. A cover ˜U of a bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is called τiτj-open if
˜U⊂τi∪τj. |
If ˜U contains at least one non-empty member of τi and at least one non-empty member of τj, it is called P-open. They also defined the concepts of pairwise compact (P-compact) spaces. In 1972, Datta [4] studied the concept of semi-compact (S-compact) spaces in the bitopological space (X,τi,τj). Cooke and Reilly [5] discussed the relationships between these previous definitions in 1975. In 1983, Fora and Hdieb [6] introduced the concepts of pairwise Lindelöf (P-Lindelöf) and semi-Lindelöf (S-Lindelöf) spaces. They also provided the definitions of certain types of functions as follows: function
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
is called P-continuous (or P-closed, respectively) if both functions
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
and
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
are continuous (or closed, respectively).
This overview introduces KC-bitopological spaces, emphasizing their importance in relation to compactness and closedness. The concept of KC-topological spaces was first developed by Hewitt in the early 1940s, with foundational definitions and illustrative examples provided, see [7]. Hewitt introduced minimal topological spaces, establishing that every Hausdorff compact space is a minimal KC-space "mKC-space". By 1947, it was proven that every compact KC-space is an mKC-space. In 1965, the auther Aull, shows his contribution in [7] developed a space thats found between T1 and T2, namely, KC-space. The relationship between them is represented by the following diagram: T2→KC→T1, researchers examined space in [8,9,10,11]. Wilansky [12] explored the relationships between separation axioms between T1 and T2 spaces, highlighting KC-topological spaces. It was established that every T2-space is a KC-space, and every KC-space is a T1-space, see also [13,14]. In 2004, Valdis showed that a minimal space where every compact subset is closed is countably compact[15], leading to the result that every minimal KC-space is countably compact [16,17,18]. Ali [8] in 2006 expanded on this by introducing KC-space, minimal KC-space, and minimal Hausdorff spaces, as well as minimal LC-topological spaces. Ali found that the direct image of a KC-space under a continuous function is not necessarily a KC-space unless certain conditions are met. Further, the relationships between minimal KC-topological spaces and minimal Hausdorff or LC-topological spaces were studied.
In 2006, Alas and Wilson [19] examined the minimal properties of spaces between T1 and T2 spaces, noting that KC-spaces extend Hausdorff spaces. They introduced KC-closed spaces and discussed their relationship with KC-spaces, see also [9,16,19]. In 2008, Bella and Costantini [9] showed that any minimal KC-space must be compact, though not necessarily Hausdorff. In 2009, Oprsal [20] addressed the problem of whether every KC-space with a weaker KC-topology is compact, a question resolved by Bella and Costantini [9]. In 2010, Zarif and Razzak [11] linked KC-topological spaces with concepts such as connected functions, closed functions, and K-functions, yielding significant results. In 2011, Adnan [7] introduced Cooke-topological spaces and analyzed their properties and relationships with KC-spaces. Bella and Costantini [21] introduced SC-spaces, defined by closed convergent sequences and their limits, and explored the relationships between T2, KC, SC, and T1 spaces as T2⟶KC⟶SC⟶T1. Jebour and Saleh [22] introduced K-(SC)-spaces as weaker versions of KC-topological spaces, developing new results, see also [23,24]. In 2015, Ali and Abker [25] introduced minimal compact closed spaces "mKC-spaces" and examined their relations with other spaces, including KC-topological spaces. A new definition for α-KC-spaces was proposed, with results indicating that every KC-space is an α-KC-space, see the study [26]. For more studies about this topic, see [13,27]. In 2018, Almohor and Hdieb [28] explored properties of pairwise L-closed spaces (LC-topological spaces), contributing to the field by generalizing relationships between LC-topological spaces and KC-topological spaces. Nadhim et al. introduced concepts of strong and weak forms of KC-topological spaces[29].
In this paper, we first introduce the concept of closed compactness, referred to as "KC-spaces" in bitopological spaces. We provide basic definitions for KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces, deriving many related results. Illustrative examples and theories of these two main concepts are discussed. We also explore how these concepts relate to other topological concepts within bitopological spaces.
Next, we study the effect of various types of functions on KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces. We examine the necessary conditions for the direct image of a KC-bitopological space and a pairwise KC-topological space to remain a KC-bitopological space and a pairwise KC-topological space, respectively. Additional conditions are established for the inverse image of these spaces to retain their properties.
Finally, we analyze the relationship between KC-bitopological spaces, pairwise KC-topological spaces, and other bitopological spaces, such as P-compact spaces. This involves studying the impact of different functions on KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces. For instance, a bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is considered compact if both (X,τi) and (X,τj) are compact spaces.
In this section, we introduce the concepts of KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces.
We will examine their properties and explore their relationships with other bitopological spaces.
Definition 1. (1) A bitopological space (X,τ1,τ2) is said to be a P-KC-space if each τi-compact subset of X is τj-closed for all (i≠j,i,j=1,2).
(2) A bitopological space (X,τ1,τ2) is said to be a KC-space if each τi-compact subset of X is τi-closed for all (i=1,2).
Remark 1. Part (2) in the above definition is equivalent to that both (X,τ1) and (X,τ2) are KC-spaces.
In general: If both (X,τi) and (X,τj) have the same topological property P, then the bitopological space (X,τi,τj) has property P.
So, we say that a bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is a KC-space, if both (X,τi) and (X,τj) are KC-spaces.
Example 1. (1) The bitopological space (R,τind,τdis) is not a KC-space, since any compact subset of (R,τdis) is closed but (1, 2) is a compact subset in (R,τind), which is not closed.
(2) The bitopological space (R,τdis,τu) is KC-space since any compact subset of both (R,τdis) and (R,τu) is closed.
(3) The bitopological space (R,τcof,τcoc) is a KC-space.
Example 2. (1) The bitopological space (R,τind,τdis) is not a P-KC-space.
(2) The bitopological space (R,τcof,τdis) is a P-KC-space.
(3) The bitopological space (R,τcoc,τdis) is a P-KC-space.
Example 3. (1) The bitopological space (R,τu,τs) is a KC-space, but not a P-KC-space.
(2) The bitopological space (R,τl.r,τr.r) is never a KC-space nor a P-KC-space.
(3) The bitopological space (R,τind,τl.r) is never a KC-space nor a P-KC-space.
Definition 2. (1) A bitopological space (X,τ1,τ2) is said to be a P-LC-space. Each τi-lindlöf subset of X is τi-closed for all (i≠j,i,j=1,2).
(2) A bitopological space (X,τ1,τ2) is said to be a LC-space. Each τi-lindlöf subset of X is τi-closed for all (i=1,2).
Since every compact (τi-compact, respectively) is lindelöf (τi-lindelöf, respectively) the prove of the following two theorems is clear.
Theorem 1. Every P-LC-bitopological space is a P-KC-space.
Theorem 2. Every LC-bitopological space is a KC-space.
Example 4. (R,τdis,τcoc) is a P-LC-space.
Example 5. (R,τdis,τind) is not a LC-space.
Example 6. (R,τr.r,τl.r) is never a LC-space nor a P-LC-space.
It is easy to prove the following theorems:
Theorem 3. Every discrete space is a KC-space.
Theorem 4. Every discrete bitopological space (X,τdis,τdis)is a KC-space.
Definition 3. Let (X,1τX) and (X,2τX) be two topological spaces defined on the same set X and A⊆X. If (A,1τA) and (A,2τA) are two subspaces of (X,1τX) and (X,2τX), respectively, then (A,1τA,2τA) is a subspace of (X,1τX,2τX).
Theorem 5. Every subspace of a P-KC-space is a P-KC-space.
Proof. Assume that (X,1τX,2τX) a P-KC-space and (A,1τA,2τA) a subspace of (X,1τX,2τX). Let K be a 1τA compact subset of (A,1τA), K is a1τX compact subset of (X,1τX) but (X,1τX,2τX) is a P-KCspace, so K is 2τX closed. Hence,
K=K∩A |
is 2τA closed in (A,2τA).
Therefore, any 1τA-compact subset of A is 2τA-closed. In the same way, we prove that any 2τA-compact subset of A is 1τA-closed. Thus, (A,1τA,2τA) is a P-KC-space.
Theorem 6. Every subspace of a KC-bitopological space (X,1τX,2τX)is a KC-space.
Proof. Assume that (X,1τX,2τX) is a KC-space and (A,1τA,2τA) is a subspace of (X,1τX,2τX). Let K be a 1τA compact subset of (A,1τA), K is a 1τAcompact subset of (X,1τX), but (X,1τX,2τX) is a KC-space, so K is 1τX closed. Hence,
K=K∩A |
is 1τA closed in (A,1τA).
Therefore, any 1τA-compact subset of A is 1τA-closed. In the same way we prove that any 2τA-compact subset of A is 2τA-closed. Thus (A,1τA,2τA) is KC- space.
Theorem 7. The intersection of any two KC-spaces is a KC-space.
Proof. Let (X,1τX) and (X,2τX) be two KC-spaces. Let
3τX=1τX∩2τX |
and K be a compact subset of (X,3τX), K is a compact subset of both (X,1τX) and (X,2τX). Thus, K is closed in both 1τX and 2τX, so K is closed in 3τX. Therefore, (X,3τX) is a KC-space.
Definition 4. The intersection of the bitopological spaces (X,τi,τj) and (X,∗τi,∗τj) is the bitopological space (X,τi∩∗τi,τj∩∗τj).
Theorem 8. The intersection of any two KC-bitopological spaces defined on the same set is a KC-bitopological space.
Proof. Let (X,τi,τj) and (X,∗τi,∗τj) be two KC-bitopological spaces, and
(X,σi,σj)=(X,τi,τj)∩(X,∗τi,∗τj)=(X,τi∩∗τi,τj∩∗τj) |
be the intersection of (X,τi,τj) and (X,∗τi,∗τj), where
σi=τi∩∗τi |
and
σj=τj∩∗τj. |
Let K be a σi-compact subset of (X,σi). By above theorem, K is σi-closed subset of (X,σi). Hence, (X,σi) is a KC-space. Similarly, (X,σj) is KC-space. Therefore, (X,σi,σj) is a KC-space.
Theorem 9. The intersection of any two P-KC-topological spaces defined on the same set is a P-KC-space.
Proof. Let (X,τi,τj) and (X,∗τi,∗τj) be two P-KC-topological spaces, and
(X,σi,σj)=(X,τi∩∗τi,τj∩∗τj) |
be the intersection of (X,τi,τj) and (X,∗τi,∗τj), where
σi=τi∩∗τi |
and
σj=τj∩∗τj. |
Let K be a σi- compact subset of (X,σi). K is τi- compact and τ∗i-compact, but both (X,τi,τj) and (X,∗τi,∗τj) are P-KC-spaces, so K is closed in both τj and ∗τj. Hence, K is σj- closed. Therefore, (X,σi,σj) is a P-KC- space.
Definition 5. A bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is called P-Hausdorff if for distinct points a and b, there is a τi-open set U and a τj-open set V such that a∈U,b∈V, and
U∩V=ϕ. |
Definition 6. A bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is called Hausdorff (resp. compact) if both (X,τi) and (X,τj) are Hausdorff (resp. compact) spaces.
Theorem 10. Every Hausdorff space is a KC-space.
Proof. Let A be a τi-compact subset of X. Every compact subspace of a Hausdorff space is closed, then A is τi-closed. Similarly, we can show that if A is a τj-compact subset of X, then A is τj-closed.
Example 7. The bitopological space (R,τdis,τu) is a Hausdorff space; so it is a KC-space.
Remark 2. The converse of above theorem is not true; see the following example.
Example 8. The bitopological space (R,τcof,τcoc) is a KC-space but not a Hausdorff space.
Recall that: In a topological space (X,τX), if every countable intersection of any collection of open sets is open, then X is called a p-space.
Theorem 11. Every Hausdorff p-space is a LC-space.
Proof. Assume that (X,τi,τj) is a Hausdroff P-space. Let D be a τi-Lindelöf subset of X. D is a τi-Lindelöf subset of Hausdroff P-space (X,τi). Therefore, D is τi-closed.
Similarly, we can get if D is a τj-Lindelöf, then D is τj-closed.
Example 9. A space (N,τdis,τcoc) is a Hausdorff P-space, so it is a LC-space.
Definition 7. If (X,1τX) and (X,2τX) are two metric spaces, then (X,1τX,2τX) is called the bitopological metric space.
Corollary 1. Every metric space is a KC-space.
Proof. Since every metric space is a Hausdorff then it is a KC-space.
Corollary 2. Every bitopological metric space is a KC-space.
The following theorem can be found in [6].
Theorem 12. If a bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is a P- Hausdorff space, then for each x in X we have:
a)
{x}=⋂α∈Δ{CliVα:Vαis a τj-open set contains x}, (i≠j,i,j=1,2), |
where CliVα is a τi-closure of Vα.
b)
{x}=⋂β∈Γ{CljUβ:Uβis a τi-open set contains x}, (i≠j,i,j=1,2), |
where CljUβ is a τj-closure of Uβ.
Proof. Let y∈X such that x≠y. There exists a τi-open set Ui and a τj-open set Uj such that y∈Ui, x∈Uj, and
Ui∩Uj=ϕ. |
Since
Uj⊆X−Ui, |
then
x∈Uj⊆CliUj⊆X−Ui. |
Hence, x∈CliUj, ∀τj-open sets Uj and
{x}=⋂α∈Δ{CliVα:Vαis a τj-open set contains x},(i≠j, i,j=1,2) ∀x∈X. |
This proves part (a). The proof of part (b) is similar to (a).
Theorem 13. Let (X,τi,τj) be a P-Hausdorff space. Then, every τi-compact subset of X is τj-closed (i≠j,i,j=1,2).
Proof. Let B be a τi-compact subset of X and x∈X−B. By above theorem,
{x}=⋂α∈Δ{CliUα:Uαis a τj-open set contains x}, (i≠j,i, j=1,2). |
Since
B⊆X−{x}=X−⋂α∈Δ{CliUα:Uαis a τj-open set contains x}=⋃α∈Δ(X−CliUα), |
{X−CliUα:α∈Δ} is a τi-open cover of a τi-compact set B. So, there exists a finite subset ∗Δ⊆Δ such that {X−CliUα:α∈∗Δ} is a cover of B.
Hence,
B⊆⋃α∈∗Δ(X−CliUα)=X−⋂α∈∗Δ{CliUα}⊆X−⋂α∈∗ΔUα. |
Letting
U=⋂α∈∗ΔUα, |
then U is a τj-open set such that
x∈U⊆X−B. |
Hence, B is τj-closed.
Theorem 14. Every P-Hausdorff space (X,τi,τj) is a p-KC-space.
Proof. Let A be a τi-compact subset of a P-Hausdorff space X. By above theorem, A is τj-closed where (i≠j,i,j=1,2). Hence, (X,τi,τj) is a P-KC-space.
Example 10. The bitopological space (R,τcof,τdis) is a P-Hausdorff, so it is a P-KC-space.
Remark 3. The converse of above theorem is not true, see the following example:
Example 11. The bitopological space (R,τcof,τcoc) is a P-KC-space but not a P-Hausdorff.
Theorem 15. Every P-Hausdorff P-space is a P-LC-space.
Proof. Let B be a τi-lindelöf subset of X and x∈X−B.
{x}=⋂α∈Δ{CliUα:Uαis a τj-open set contains x},(i≠j,i,j=1,2). |
Since
B⊆X−{x}=X−⋂α∈Δ{CliUα:Uαis a τj-open set contains x}=⋃α∈Δ(X−CliUα), |
{X−CliUα:α∈Δ} is a τi-open cover of a τi-lindelöf set B. So, there exists a countable subset ∗Δ⊆Δ such that {X−CliUα:α∈∗Δ} is a cover of B. Hence,
B⊆⋃α∈∗Δ(X−CliUα)=X−⋂α∈∗Δ{CliUα}⊆X−⋂α∈∗ΔUα. |
Letting
U=⋂α∈∗ΔUα, |
then U is a τj-open set such that x∈U⊆X−B. Hence, B is τj-closed.
Example 12. (Z,τcoc,τdis) is a P-Hausdorff P-space, so it is a P-LC-space.
Example 13. (N,τcoc,τcof) is a P-LC-space but not a P-Hausdorff and P-space.
Theorem 16. Let (X,τi,τj) be a compact P-KC-space. Then, τi=τj.
Proof. Let ϕ≠W and w∈τi. Then, X−W is a τi-closed subset of a compact space (X,τi). So, X−W is τi-compact subset of P-KC-space X. Therefore, X−W is a τj-closed. Hence, W is a τj-open and τi⊆τj. Similarly, we can get τj⊆τi. Consequently, τi=τj.
Corollary 3. If a space (X,τi,τj) is a compact P-Hausdorff, then τi=τj.
Proof. Let H∈τi. X−H is a τi-closed subset of a compact space (X,τi). Therefore, X−H is a τi-compact subset of P-Hausdorff space X. Hence, X−H is τj-closed, so H is τj-open. So, H∈τj, and then τi⊆τj. In the same way, we get τj⊆τi. Consequently, τi=τj.
Theorem 17. Let (X,τi,τj) be a Lindelöf P-LC-space P-space. Then, τi=τj.
Proof. Let ϕ≠O∈τi. Then, X−O is τi-closed subset of a Lindelöf P-space (X,τi). So, X−O is τi-Lindelöf. But, X is a P-LC-space, so X−O is τj-closed and then O∈τj. Therefore, τi⊆τj. By the same technique, we obtained τj⊆τi. Consequently, τi=τj.
Corollary 4. If the space (X,τi,τj) is a Lindelöf P-Hausdorff P-space, then τi=τj.
The proof comes directly from the fact that "every P-Hausdorff P-space is a P-LC-space".
In this section, we discuss the effects of various types of functions on KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces.
Definition 8. A function
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
is said to be a compact function, if g−1{y} is τi-compact and τj-compact for each y∈Y.
We can find the following definition in [11].
Definition 9. A function
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is said to be a K-function, if g−1{B} is a compact subset of X for all compact subsets B of Y and g(A) is a compact subset of Y for all compact subsets A of X.
Definition 10. A function
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
is said to be a K-function, if both functions
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
and
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
are K-functions.
Theorem 18. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be an onto closed K-function. If X is a P-KC-space, then so is Y.
Proof. Let B be a σi-compact subset of Y. To show that B is a σj-closed subset of Y. Since g is a K-function, then g−1{B} is a τi-compact subset of X.
But, X is a P-KC-space, so g−1{B} is a τj-closed. Since g is an onto closed, function then
g(g−1{B})=B |
is σj-closed in Y. So, Y is a P-KC-space.
We presented some definitions that will be used later.
Definition 11. [6] A function
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
is called P-continuous (P-closed, respectively) if the functions
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
and
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
are continuous (closed, respectively).
Theorem 19. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be an onto P-closed K-function. If X is P-Hausdorff, then Y is a P-KC-space.
Proof. Assume that
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be an onto P-closed K-function. Let A be a σi-compact subset of Y. Since g is a K-function, then g−1(A) is a τi-compact subset of X. Since X is P-Hausdorff, then g−1(A) is τj-closed. Hence,
g(g−1(A))=A |
is σj-closed because
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
is closed. Hence, Y is a P-KC-space.
Theorem 20. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be an onto P-closed K-function. If X is Hausdorff, then Y is a KC-space.
Proof. Assume that
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be an onto P-closed K-function. Let A be a σi-compact subset of Y. Since g is a K-function, then g−1(A) is a τi-compact subset of X. Since X is Hausdorff, then g−1(A) is τi- closed. Hence,
g(g−1(A))=A |
is σi-closed because
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is closed. Hence, Y is a KC-space.
Definition 12. [3] A cover ˜U of a bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is called a P-open cover if ˜U contains at least one non-empty element of τi and at least one non-empty element of τj.
Definition 13. [3] A bitopological space (X,τi,τj) is called P-compact (resp. Lindelöf) if each P-open cover of X has a finite (resp. countable) subcover.
Example 14. The bitopological space (R,τdis,τcoc) is not P-compact. Since
˜U={{xi}:xi∈Q}∪{Irr} |
is a P-open cover of X which has no finite subcover if ˜U has a finite subcover ˊU, then
ˊU={x1,x2,x3,...,xn}∪{Irr}, |
where xi∈Q∀i=1,2,3,...,n.
This means
R⊆{x1,x2,x3,...,xn}∪{Irr}, |
which is a contradiction.
Example 15. Consider X=R. Let
ß1={X,ϕ,{x}:x>5} |
and
ß2={X,ϕ,{x}:x<0}. |
Let τ1 and τ2 be the topologies on X induced by the bases ß1 and ß2, respectively. (R,τ1,τ2) is a P-compact space since any P-open cover of X must contain {X}. Hence, {X} is a finite subcover of any P-open cover.
Theorem 21. Let (X,τi,τj) be a P-compact space, every τi-closed proper subset of X is τj-compact, where (i≠j,i,j=1,2).
Proof. Let F be a τi-closed proper subset of a P-compact X, and
˜U={Uα:α∈Δ} |
be a τj-open cover of F.
For each x∈X−F, there exists a τi-open set U(x) such that
x∈U(x)⊆X−F. |
Now,
{Uα:α∈Δ}∪{U(x):x∈X−F} |
is a P-open cover of the P-compact space X, so there exists a finite set Δ1⊆Δ and a finite set
{x1,x2,x3,...,xn}⊆X−F |
such that
{Uα:α∈Δ1}∪{U(x1),U(x2),U(x3),...,U(xn)} |
is a finite cover of X. Since
U(xi)∩F=ϕ, ∀i=1,2,...,n, |
then
n⋃i=1U(xi)∩F=ϕ. |
So, {Uα:α∈Δ1} is a finite subcover of ˜U for F. Therefore, F is τj-compact.
Remark 4. The expression (proper subset) in the previous theory can not be dispensed with or removed.
Example 16. Consider (Z,τcoc,τdis). Then, Z is τcoc-closed but it is not τdis-compact.
Theorem 22. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be P-continuous and X be P-compact. If Y is a P-KC-space then, g is P-closed.
Proof. Let A be a τi-closed subset of a P-compact space (X,τi,τj). A is a τj-compact, where (i≠j,i,j=1,2). Since g is P-continuous, then g(A) is a σj-compact subset of Y. But, Y is a P-KC-space, so g(A) is a σi-closed subset of Y, where (i≠j,i,j=1,2). Hence,
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is closed. Similarly, we can show that
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
is closed. Therefore, g is P-closed.
Theorem 23. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be P-continuous and X be a compact space. If Y is a KC-space, then g is P-closed.
Proof. Let A be a τi-closed subset of a compact space (X,τi,τj). Then, A is τi-compact. Since g is P-continuous, then g(A) is a σi-compact subset of Y. But, Y is a KC-space, so g(A) is a σi-closed subset of Y. Hence,
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is closed. Similarly, we can show that
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
is closed. Therefore, g is P-closed.
We now remind an important theory in single topological spaces.
Theorem 24. Every locally compact KC-space is T2.
This previous theory can be generelized in bitopological spaces and proven in the same way as follows:
Theorem 25. Every locally compact KC-bitopological space is T2.
Theorem 26. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be an onto P-continuous function. If X is T2 compact, and Y is a KC-space, then Y is T2.
Proof. Since g is an onto, P-continuous function, then Y is compact, so Y is locally compact. But, Y is a KC-space, hence Y is T2.
Theorem 27. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be a P-continuous bijective K-function. If Y is a P-KC-space, then
X=g−1(Y) |
is a P-KC-space.
Proof. Let A be a τi-compact subset of X. We prove that A is τj-closed subset of X. Since A is a τi-compact subset of X, then g(A) is σi-compact subset of Y because g is a K-function. But, Y is a P-KC-space, so g(A) is a σj-closed subset of Y. Since g is P- continuous bijective function, then
g−1(g(A))=A |
is τj-closed in X. Similarly, if A is a τj-compact subset of X, then A is τi-closed. Hence,
X=g−1(Y) |
is a P-KC-space.
Theorem 28. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be a P-continuous bijective K-function. If Y is a KC-space, then
X=g−1(Y) |
is a KC-space.
Proof. Let A be a τi-compact subset of X. We prove that A is a τi-closed subset of X. Since A be a τi-compact subset of X, then g(A) is a σi-compact subset of Y because g is a K-function. But, Y is a KC-space, so g(A) is a σi-closed subset of Y. Since g is a P-continuous bijective function, then
g−1(g(A))=A |
is τi-closed in X. Similarly, if A is a τj-compact subset of X, then A is τj-closed. Hence,
X=g−1(Y) |
is a KC-space.
Theorem 29. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be a K-function. If X and Y are P-compact P-KC-spaces, then g is P-continuous and P-closed.
Proof. First, we show that g is P-continuous. Let A be a σi-closed subset of Y. Since Y is P-compact, then A is σj-compact (i≠j,i,j=1,2). Since g is a K-function, then g−1(A) is a τj-compact subset of X. Hence, g−1(A) is a τi-closed subset of X because X is a P-KC-space. So,
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is continuous. Similarly, we can show that
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
is continuous. Hence, g is P-continuous.
Second, we show that g is P-closed.
Let C be a τi-closed subset of X, then, C is a τj-compact subset of X. Since g is a K-function, then g(C) is a σj-compact subset of Y. So, g(C) is σi-closed subset of Y because Y is P-KC-space. Hence,
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is closed. Similarly, we can show that
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
is closed. Hence, g is P-closed.
Theorem 30. Let
g:(X,τi,τj)⟶(Y,σi,σj) |
be a K-function. If X and Y are compact KC-spaces, then g is P-continuous and P-closed.
Proof. First, we show that g is P-continuous.
Let A be a σi-closed subset of Y. Since Y is compact, then A is σi-compact. Since g is a K-function, then g−1(A) is a τi-compact subset of X. Hence, g−1(A) is a τi-closed subset of X because X is a KC-space. So,
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is continuous. Similarly, we can show that
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
is continuous. Hence, g is P-continuous.
Second, we show that g is P-closed. Let C be a τi-closed subset of X. C is a τi-compact subset of X. Since, g is a K-function, then g(C) is a σi-compact subset of Y. So, g(C) is a σi-closed subset of Y because Y is a KC-space. Hence,
g:(X,τi)⟶(Y,σi) |
is closed. Similarly, we can show that
g:(X,τj)⟶(Y,σj) |
is closed. Hence, g is P-closed.
In the introduction to this research we noted, this research carefully reviewed previous studies on the topic, highlighting the main results and contributions of those studies. At the end of the introduction to the study, we provided an overview and summary of the results and conclusions we reached. The key findings are as follows:
(1) The study introduces and develops the fundamental definitions of KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces.
(2) A variety of illustrative examples are provided to support and reinforce the study's subject matter.
(3) The concepts of KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces are linked to other important topological concepts within bitopological spaces, clarifying their interrelationships.
(4) The study examines the effects of different types of functions on the direct and indirect images of KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces.
(5) Necessary and sufficient conditions are established for certain functions to ensure that the direct and indirect images of KC-bitopological spaces and pairwise KC-topological spaces remain within these respective categories.
Hamza Qoqazeh: proposed and set the main title, wrote the basic definitions of the subject of the study, established and provd the basic theories contained, general supervision of the research implementation process; Ali Atoom: wrote the introduction, added a number of theories and proved them; Maryam Alholi: wrote a summary; enriched the subject with illustrative examples; Eman ALmuhur: developed the main results and conclusions, checked the examples; Eman Hussein: carried out a scientific audit on the correctness of the formulation of the theories contained in the research and their proof; Anas Owledat: checked the grammar and linguistics; Abeer Al-Nana: reviewed the previous studies, documented the main references, examined the percentage of scientific inference. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The researchers express their sincere thanks and appreciation to all who contributed to the preparation and enhancement of this research. We also extend our gratitude and respect to the esteemed scholars whose work in this field has been cited.
The researchers declare no personal interests in the publication of this paper. This research is original, and its primary aim is to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge in the field of general topology.
[1] | F. Q. Yao, Communication anti-jamming engineering and practice, Beijing Publishing House Electron. Industry, (2008), 1-8. |
[2] | Y. Y. Wen, J. Y. Wei, H. Chen, A new algorithm of interferences signals recognition, Space Electron. Technol., 1 (2015), 85-88. |
[3] | J. X. Wang, Q. Chang, Y. Tian, J. Huang, Research on GNSS interference signal detection method, Navig. Position. Tim., 4 (2020), 117-122. |
[4] | G. S. Wang, Q. H. Ren, Z. G. Jang, Y. Liu, B. Z. Xu, Jamming classification and recognition in transform domain communication system based on signal feature space, Syst. Eng. Electron., 39 (2017), 1950-1958. |
[5] | G. C. Huang, G. S. Wang, Q. H. Ren, S. F. Dong, W. T. Gao, S. Wei, Adaptive recognition method for unknown interference based on Hilbert signal space, J. Electron. Inform. Technol., 41 (2017), 1916-1923. |
[6] | J. Y. Liu, Research on electronic jamming identification method based on time frequency domain analysis, University Electron. Sci. Technol. China, 2018. |
[7] | G. J. Xun, Research on identification of typical communication jamming signals, University Electron. Sci. Technol. China, 2018. |
[8] | Q. Liu, W. Zhang, Deep learning and recognition of radar jamming based on CNN, 2019 12th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design (ISCID), IEEE, 1 (2019), 208-212. |
[9] | T. F. Chi, Recognition algorithm for the four kinds of interference signals, Huazhong University Sci. Technol., 2019. |
[10] | Z. B. Zhang, Y. X. Fan, X. Meng, Pattern recognition method of communication interference based on power spectrum density and neural network, J. Terahertz Sci. Electron. Inform. Technol., 17 (2019), 959-963. |
[11] | Y. Cai, K. Shi, F. Song, Y. F. Xu, X. M. Wang, H. Y. Luan, Jamming pattern recognition using spectrum waterfall. a deep learning method, 2019 IEEE 5th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), IEEE, (2019), 2113-2117. |
[12] | Z. L. Wu, Y. L. Zhao, Z. D. Yin, H. C. Luo, Jamming signals classification using convolutional neural network, 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Signal Processing and Information Technology (ISSPIT), IEEE, (2017), 062-067. |
[13] | W. J. Scheirer, A. R. Rocha, A. Sapkota, T. E. Boult, Towards open set recognition, IEEE Transact. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 35 (2013), 1757-1772. |
[14] |
M. D. Scherreik, B. D. Rigling, Open set recognition for automatic target classification with rejection, IEEE Transact. Aerosp. Electron. Systems, 52 (2016), 632-642. doi: 10.1109/TAES.2015.150027
![]() |
[15] | P. R. M. Jnior, R. M. D. Souza, R. D. O. Werneck, B. V. Stein, D.V. Pazinato, W. R. Almeida, et al, Nearest neighbors distance ratio open-set classifier, Mach. Learn., 106 (2017), 359-386. |
[16] | E. M. Rudd, L. P. Jain, W. J. Scheirer, T. E. Boult, The extreme value machine, IEEE Transact. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 40 (2018), 762-768. |
[17] | E. Vignotto, S. Engelke, Extreme value theory for open set classification GPD and GEV classifiers, arXiv preprint, arXiv: 1808.09902, 2018. |
[18] | K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, (2016), 770-778. |
[19] | A Bendale, T. E. Boult, Towards open set deep networks, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, (2016), 1563-1572. |
[20] | S. Prakhya, V. Venkataram, J. Kalita, Open set text classification using convolutional neural networks, International Conference on Natural Language Processing, 2017. |
[21] | L. Shu, H. Xu, B. Liu, DOC: Deep open classification of text documents, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, (2017), 2911-2916. |
[22] | N. Kardan, K. O. Stanley, Mitigating fooling with competitive overcomplete output layer neural networks, International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), (2017), 518-525. |
[23] | A. R. Dhamija, M. Günther, T. Boult, Reducing network agnostophobia, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, (2018), 9157-9168. |
[24] | L. Shu, H. Xu, B. Liu, Unseen class discovery in open-world classification, arXiv preprint, arXiv: 1801.05609, 2018. |
[25] | I. Goodfellow, J. P. Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. W. Farley, S. Ozair, et al., Generative adversarial nets, Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Systems, (2014), 2672-2680. |
[26] | X. Sun, Z. N. Yang, C. Zhang, Xin Sun, K. V. Ling, G. H. Peng, Conditional gaussian distribution learning for open set recognition, Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, (2020), 13480-13489. |
[27] | H. J. Zhang, A. Li, J. Guo, Y. W. Guo, Hybrid models for open set recognition, Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision, (2020), 102-117. |
[28] | Z. Y. Ge, S. Demyanov, Z. Chen, R. Garnavi, Generative OpenMax for multi-class open set classification. British Machine Vision Conference 2017, British Machine Vision Association and Society for Pattern Recognition, 2017. |
[29] | L. Neal, M. Olson, X. Fern, W. K. Wong, F. X. Li, Open set learning with counterfactual images, Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), (2018), 613-628. |
[30] | I. Jo, J. Kim, H. Kang, Y. D. Kim, S. Choi, Open set recognition by regularising classifier with fake data generated by generative adversarial networks, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), (2018), 2686-2690. |
[31] | R. Yoshihashi, W. Shao, R. Kawakami, S. D. You, M. Iida, T. Naemura, Classification-reconstruction learning for open-set recognition, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (2019), 4016-4025. |
[32] | P. Oza, V. M. Patel, C2ae: Class conditioned auto-encoder for open-set recognition, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, (2019), 2307-2316. |
[33] | D. P. Kingma, M. Welling, Auto-encoding variational bayes, arXiv: Machine Learning, 2013. |
[34] | C. Aytekin, X. Ni, F. Cricri, E. Aks, Clustering and unsupervised anomaly detection with l2 normalized deep auto-encoder representations, 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, (2018), 1-6. |
[35] | L. Ruff, R. Vandermeulen, N. Goernitz, P. Liznerski, M. Kloft, K. R. Müller, Deep one-class classification, International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, (2018), 4393-4402. |
[36] | B. Zong, Q. Song, M. R. Min, W. Cheng, C. Lumezanu, D. Cho, et al, Deep autoencoding Gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection, International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. |