Advanced Concepts in Fuzzy Logic and Systems With Membership Uncertainty - STARCZEWSKI

Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing
Editor-in-Chief
Prof. Janusz Kacprzyk
Systems Research Institute
Polish Academy of Sciences
ul. Newelska 6
01-447 Warsaw
Poland
E-mail: kacprzyk@ibspan.waw.pl
For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/2941
284
Janusz T. Starczewski
Advanced Concepts
in Fuzzy Logic and Systems
with Membership Uncertainty
ABC
Author
Dr. Janusz T. Starczewski
Czestochowa University of Technology
Poland
ISSN 1434-9922
e-ISSN 1860-0808
ISBN 978-3-642-29519-5
e-ISBN 978-3-642-29520-1
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-29520-1
Springer Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012936523
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of
this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any
errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
To my beloved Agnieszka, and to the

sweetest little Laura, whose father works
where computers live.
Preface
It is well known that fuzzy sets can describe gradual properties, such as
young or big, using functions for membership to sets. Fuzzy sets of type-2
are equipped with fuzzy membership functions, and hence are called fuzzyvalued fuzzy sets. Whilst fuzzy sets are used to model vagueness, fuzzy-valued
fuzzy sets have the capacity to model the imprecision of the actual membership function. Both, vagueness and imprecision are intrinsic aspects of any
engineering design.
This book summarizes achievements of the author in type-2 fuzzy set theory, reasoning using rough approximations of fuzzy sets, and construction of
fuzzy logic systems. The original contribution is situated on a background of
the most important scientic developments in these elds. To date, mostly
interval type-2 fuzzy sets have been used to construct many concrete working
designs of fuzzy logic systems. Unfortunately, most of such realizations are
burdened with the same level of uncertainty regarding membership function.
Moreover, it is common practice to add membership uncertainty to a fuzzy
model having no specic cause or source of such uncertainty. By defuzzifying
outputs to crisp values, it would be naive to expect that the performance in
such cases will be improved beyond that of the classical fuzzy logic systems.
However, uncertainty taken into account for some particular system parameters, for which we have only limited perception, undoubtedly, bring more
reliable responses of a fuzzy-valued fuzzy system. The use of type-2 systems
is also justied if we want to get the full spectrum of systems responses under parametric uncertainty, rather than crisp responses. Consequently, this
book sets new trends in handling of uncertainty with as simple as possible
formulations of proposed type-2 and rough-fuzzy methods without limiting
a broad perspective on fuzzy and rough reasoning. Hopefully, this book is
a largely complete source of information about extensions to fuzzy sets and
systems.
VIII
Preface
Particularly:
starting from semantics, we aim to categorize dierent types of uncertainty
regarding various sources of it within fuzzy logic framework,
then, we derive a number of formulae for t-norms, t-conorms and
S-implications extended on fuzzy subsets of the membership interval,
alternatively, we demonstrate how to create a new class of fuzzy-valued
fuzzy systems based on axiomatic norms, departing from the extension
principle,
we generalize type-2 fuzzy logic systems, rough-fuzzy systems and fuzzyrough systems to a so called uncertain fuzzy logic systems,
in this matter, we exhibit particular constructions of uncertain fuzzy logic
systems, including systems based on triangular, trapezoidal and Gaussianvalued fuzzy sets,
we provide several methods to generate membership uncertainty, therein,
a membership uncertainty tting using the fuzzy C-means algorithms, an
approach to multiperson decision making, incomplete information reasoning based on rough-fuzzy sets, and generalized fuzzication,
we point out the possibility to use approximations of some uncertain fuzzy
logic systems to ordinary fuzzy systems, when the uncertainty is either
uniform or proportional to activation of rules,
nally, we include all derived methods in the new methodology for designing fuzzy systems under parametric uncertainty.
With hope, this book delivers a sucient mathematical background to treat
a matter of computing seriously, respecting important engineering properties
of fuzzy sets and of their uncertain extensions. Experiments and numerical
simulations are attached for exemplary purposes especially in order show
the potential of uncertain fuzzy logic systems. For more advanced methods
the reader is referred to the literature, while further methods are still under elaboration at the Department of Computer Engineering in Czestochowa
University of Technology. This book has been written in partial fullment
of habilitation qualication and the work has been partly supported by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Habilitation Project N N516
372234 20082011).
I am very grateful to Professor Leszek Rutkowski and Professor Janusz
Kacprzyk for their help and valuable comments.
Czestochowa, January 22, 2012
Janusz T. Starczewski
Contents
Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1 Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.1 Operations on Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Fuzzy Sets of Type-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1 Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.2 Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Possibility and Necessity Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.1 Possibility and Necessity Measures of a Fuzzy Event . .
1.4 Rough Sets and Their Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1 Rough-Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.2 Fuzzy-Rough Sets as -Compositions of Rough-Fuzzy
Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.3 Fuzzy-Rough Sets as Possibility and Necessity of
Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 Sources of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
4
9
11
12
13
17
18
21
22
25
27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2
Algebraic Operations on Fuzzy Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . .

2.1 Set Theoretic Operations with the Extension Principle:
State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 Operations on Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2 Operations on Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Analytical Formulae for Extended T-Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Basic Remark for Fuzzy Truth Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 Extended Minimum T-Norms Based on Arbitrary
T-Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3 Extended Continuous Triangular Norms Based on
the Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
33
35
36
38
40
41
44
Contents
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.2.4 Extended Continuous T-Norms Based on the Drastic

Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.5 Extended Algebraic Product T-Norm Based on the
Product for Trapezoidal Fuzzy Truth Intervals . . . . . . .
2.2.6 Extended L
ukasiewicz T-Norm Based on a
Continuous Archimedean T-Norm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analytical Formulae for Extended T-Conorms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximate Extended Triangular Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Gaussian Approximation to the Minimum-Based
Extended Product T-Norm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Asymmetric-Gaussian Approximations to the
Extended Product Based on the Minimum . . . . . . . . . . .
Triangular Norms and Complementary Norms on Fuzzy
Truth Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications with Fuzzy Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
51
53
58
61
62
63
66
70
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3
Defuzzication of Uncertain Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1 State of the Art of Defuzzication Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 KM Iterative Procedure for Interval Extended
Defuzzication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Defuzzication in Classication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3 Approximate Extended Centroid of Interval-Valued
Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 State of the Art of Defuzzication Methods for General
Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Exhaustive Extended Centroid Based on the
Extension Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2 Ecient Strategy of Type-Reduction Based on
-Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3 Approximate Extended Centroid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.4 Final Defuzzication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Centroid for Convex Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Trapezoidal Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Triangular Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3 Asymmetric-Gaussian Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . .
3.3.4 Gaussian Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.5 Symmetric Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Approximate Centroids for Convex Fuzzy-Valued
Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 Triangular and Trapezoidal Fuzzy-Valued
Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.2 Gaussian Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
77
79
80
82
85
86
87
89
90
90
92
99
103
113
116
117
118
125
Contents
XI
3.5 Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4
Generalized Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1 State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Interval-Valued Approximate Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2 Fuzzy Logic Systems of Type-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Novel Formulations of Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Interval Fuzzy Logic Systems Employing
Fuzzication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 General Systems Based on Fuzzy-Rough Sets in the
Sense of Nakamura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Particular Realizations of Convex Uncertain Fuzzy Logic
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 A Triangular Uncertain Fuzzy Logic System . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 A Trapezoidal Uncertain Fuzzy Logic System . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 Gaussian Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .
137
137
140
143
146
146
160
168
169
171
173
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5
Uncertainty Generation in Uncertain Fuzzy Logic

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 State of the Art on Uncertainty Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 Conjunctive and Disjunctive Normal Forms . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 Interval Fuzzy C-Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Multiperson Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Perceptual Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Coding and Computing with Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Encoding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 Triangular Type-2 Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.5 Decoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.6 Simulation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Membership Uncertainty Fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Interval Membership Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 General Membership Uncertainty of Type-2
Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Rough-Fuzzy Systems for Discretization of Inputs and
Missing Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Generalized Fuzzication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.1 Non-singleton Fuzzication in Possibilistic-Fuzzy
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
181
181
181
182
184
186
186
187
189
192
193
201
202
206
206
210
210
217
219
XII
Contents
5.5.2 Non-singleton Fuzzication by the Fuzzy-Rough

Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.5.3 Simulation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
5.5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6
Designing Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1 Complete Methodology of Designing Uncertain Fuzzy Logic
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Logic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Fusion of Multiple System Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Reduction of Computational Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Approximations of Interval-Valued Fuzzy Logic
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Specicity of the Interval-Valued Approach . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
279
279
280
282
282
283
299
302
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Chapter 1
Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets
Abstract. Vagueness and uncertainty are intrinsic aspects of engineering

design. Therefore, in this chapter, we introduce mathematical tools for
modelling various types of vagueness and uncertainty, including fuzzy sets,
interval-valued fuzzy sets, fuzzy-valued (type-2) fuzzy sets, rough sets, rough
approximations of fuzzy sets, and two dierent denitions of fuzzy-rough sets.
Finally, we aim to categorize dierent types of uncertainty regarding various
sources of it.
1.1 Fuzzy Sets

Fuzzy sets were proposed by Zadeh [Zadeh 1965] in order to manage data with
non-statistical uncertainty. They allow us to describe partial membership
of objects in a set by ill-dened boundaries. The membership is actually a
generalization of a set-characteristic function. Namely, in classical set theory,
a subset A of a set X is induced by its characteristic function A mapping
the elements of X with the elements of the set {0, 1},
A : X {0, 1} .
(1.1)
An answer to the classical question does x belong to A is given by the

ordered pair (x, A (x)), where x is an element of X. The answer is either
true when the second element of the pair is equal to 1 or false when the second
element is equal to 0. Therefore, the set of ordered pairs {x, A (x)}, where
for each x X there is exactly one pair, is an another way of representation
of classical subsets.
Fuzzy set theory denes a fuzzy subset A of a set X by its membership
function A as a mapping from the elements of X to the unity interval [0, 1].
Denition 1.1. Let X be a non-empty set. A fuzzy set A in X is characterized by its membership function
J.T. Starczewski: Advanced Concepts in Fuzzy Logic and Systems, STUDFUZZ 284, pp. 131.
springerlink.com
1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets
A : X [0, 1] .
(1.2)
Again, an answer to the question, whether x belong to A, is given by the

ordered pair (x, A (x)). The answer is not only true or false, but could be
also partially true when the second element is between 0 and 1. The set of
ordered pairs {x, A (x)}, with exactly one pair present for each x, represents
a fuzzy subset.
Actually, this is a continuation of a propositional logic with the innite set
of truth values being the real unit interval [Lukasiewicz and Tarski 1930]. This
multi-valued logic is, however, an extension of the three-valued L
ukasiewicz
logic which uses a third truth value in the sense of possible [Lukasiewicz
1920c], later studied, inter alia, by Kleene as an undened truth degree
in the context of partial functions [Kleene 1952]. What is more, Godel, in
his short paper, proved that intuitionistic logic cannot have a nitely-valued
semantics [Godel 1932],
Going back to sets of Zadeh, a fuzzy subset A of X is normal if there
exists x X such that A (x) = 1. Otherwise A is called a subnormal fuzzy
set. A part of the domain, for which a fuzzy set satises normality, is called
a kernel.
Denition 1.2. A kernel of A, being a fuzzy subset of X, denoted by
ker (A), is the ordinary subset of X whose all elements have membership
grades equal to unity in A, i.e.,
ker (A) = {x X|A (x) = 1} .
(1.3)
A part of the domain, for which a fuzzy set is informative, is called a

support.
Denition 1.3. A support of A, being a fuzzy subset of X, denoted by
support (A), is the ordinary subset of X whose all elements have positive
membership grades in A, i.e.,
support (A) = {x X|A (x) > 0} .
(1.4)
Introducing levels of uncertainty for a fuzzy set lead us to the following

denition.
Denition 1.4. An -cut of A, being a fuzzy subset of X, is an ordinary
set of elements denoted by [A] and dened by

{x X|A (x) } if > 0
[A] =
,
(1.5)
closure (support (A)) if = 0
where closure is a function that makes the open support set closed.
1.1 Fuzzy Sets
A fuzzy subset A of X is called convex if [A] is a convex subset of X for

all [0, 1]. The convex fuzzy set can be dened equivalently as a fuzzy set
that satises
(x1 + (1 ) x2 ) min ((x1 ) , (x2 ))
(1.6)
for all x1 , x2 X, and [0, 1]. A membership function satisfying (1.6) is

said to be a fuzzy-convex as opposed to the usual convexity of a function.
A fuzzy set, A, with a membership function is called a fuzzy interval if it is normal, i.e., x [0, 1] (x) = 1, and convex, x1 , x2 ,
[0, 1] , (x1 + (1 ) x2 ) min ( (x1 ) , (x2 )). Only convex fuzzy sets have
natural linguistic translations as for example high, medium, and low. A representative family of continuous fuzzy intervals is composed of trapezoidal
fuzzy sets.
A particular type of fuzzy intervals with its kernel limited to a single value
is called a fuzzy number which are normal for a unique x, i.e. !x [0, 1],
such that (x) = 1. This family is primarily represented by triangular and
Gaussian fuzzy sets. The former representative is of closed support while the
latter have an open support.
Additionally to fuzzy-convexity, it is usually required that membership
functions of fuzzy intervals or numbers are also continuous such that small
changes in the value of an attribute describing a linguistic term result in small
changes in the membership function. Moreover, a continuous fuzzy interval
(or number as its particular case) which has two strictly monotonic slopes
has an inverse function. In general, however, even continuous membership
functions of convex fuzzy sets may be not invertible on their separate slopes.
In such cases, we are forced to use so called pseudo-inverse functions.
Nothing will change in the use of pseudo-inverse functions if we extend
a continuous membership function to one of segmentally continuous functions, called an upper semicontinuous membership function. We can say that
function is upper semicontinuous at x0 if for every > 0 there exists
a neighborhood X0 of x0 such that (x) (x0 ) + for all x in X0 , i.e.,
limxx0 sup (x) (x0 ). Although fuzzy intervals with upper semicontinuous membership functions are highly theoretical, they give us a lot of freedom
in deriving new concretized formulae for representing statements raised and
proved in this book.
A standard pseudo-inverse is dened as follows:
Denition 1.5. Let f : [a, b] [c, d] be a non-decreasing (alternatively, nonincreasing) and non-constant function, where [a, b] and [c, d] are closed subintervals of the real line R. Then a pseudo-inverse f (1) : [c, d] [a, b] of f is
dened by the two forms:
f (1) () = sup {u [a, b] |f (u) < }
(f
(1)
() = sup {u [a, b] |f (u) > }),
respectively, where sup = a.
(1.7)
(1.8)
It is known [Klement et al 2000] that f (1) is non-decreasing and leftcontinuous whenever f is non-decreasing and f (1) is non-increasing and
right-continuous whenever f is non-increasing. The double use of the pseudo
(1)
inverse gives an original function f , i.e., f (1)
= f , if and only if
f is either non-decreasing and left-continuous such that f (a) = c or nonincreasing and right-continuous such that f (a) = d. Unfortunately, upper
semicontinuous functions are either non-decreasing and right-continuous or
non-increasing and left continuous. Thus, we need to dene a new pseudoinverse, which is the least upper bound of all quasi-inverses presented
[Klement et al 1999].
Denition 1.6. Let f : [a, b] [c, d] be a non-decreasing (non-increasing)
and non-constant function, where [a, b] and [c, d] are closed subintervals of
the real line R. Then an upper pseudo-inverse f [1] : [c, d] [a, b] of f is
dened by
f [1] () = inf {u [a, b] |f (u) > }
(f [1] () = inf {u [a, b] |f (u) < }) ,
(1.9)
(1.10)
where inf = b.
It is easy to verify that f [1] is non-decreasing and right-continuous whenever
f is non-decreasing and f [1] is non-increasing and left-continuous whenever
f is non-increasing. Moreover, the upper pseudo-inverse fullls the require
[1]
ment f [1]
= f for non-decreasing and right-continuous functions when
f (b) = d, and for non-increasing and left-continuous functions when f (b) = c.
1.1.1 Operations on Fuzzy Sets

Classical set theoretic operations can be extended to fuzzy sets in the following way.
Denition 1.7. Let A and B be two fuzzy subsets of non-empty X with their
membership functions A and B , respectively. For all x X, the standard
intersection of A and B is dened with its membership function
Amin B (x) = min (A (x) , B (x)) ,
(1.11)
the standard union of A and B is dened with its membership function

Amin B (x) = max (A (x) , B (x)) ,
(1.12)
1.1 Fuzzy Sets
the standard negation of A is dened by the membership function

A (x) = neg (A (x)) 1 A (x) .
(1.13)
In ordering fuzzy sets we use the following inclusion relation.

Denition 1.8. Let A and B be fuzzy subsets of X. Fuzzy set A is said to
be a subset of B, what is denoted by A B, whenever for all x X
A (x) B (x) .
It can be easily veried that grades a = A (x), and b = B (x) for ordinary fuzzy sets form a distributive lattice under the maximum and minimum
operations, ([0, 1] , max, min), i.e. the commutative (a b = b a) and associative ((a b) c = a (b c)) algebraic structure satisfying absorption
(a (a b) = a) and consequently idempotency (a a = a), and additionally distributivity (a (b c) = (a b) (a c)), for (, ) being sequentially
(min, max) and (max, min). If the lattice is complemented by neg, it satises
also De Morgans laws, i.e. union and intersection interchange under complementation, neg (b c) = neg (a)neg (b), for (, ) being the two permutations
of (min, max). Obviously, in contrast to a Boolean lattice, the complement
laws (min (a, neg (a)) = 0 and max (a, neg (a)) = 1) do not hold for grades in
[0, 1] which is the specicity of fuzzy set theory. The lattice is bounded with
the least element 0 and the greatest element 1 All identity laws hold, i.e.,
max (a, 0) = a, max (a, 1) = 1, min (a, 0) = 0, and min (a, 1) = a.
For standard fuzzy set operations, we can summarize some properties for
the -cut.
1. [A]1 [A]2 , if 1 2 .
2. [A max B] = [A] [B] .
3. [A min B] = [A] [B] .
The following theorem states that any fuzzy set can be decomposed into
family of its -cuts.
Theorem 1.1 (-cut decomposition). A fuzzy set A can be represented
as the union of its -cuts A over all possible [0, 1], i.e.,

A ,
A=
[0,1]
where
denotes the standard fuzzy union realized by the maximum.
The proof of this theorem is in [Negoita and Ralescu 1975]. Two other extensions of it can be found in [Klir and Yuan 1995].
It can be easily notied that the standard fuzzy operations dened by
(1.11), (1.12) and (1.13) are not the only possible generalizations of classical
set operations. Conventional fuzzy logic performs intersection and union of
fuzzy sets also by calculating triangular norms and triangular conorms, respectively. The triangular norms operate on crisp membership grades of fuzzy
sets taking part in set operations. Having two fuzzy subsets of X, A X and
B X, characterized by their membership functions, A : X [0, 1] and
B : X [0, 1], respectively, a membership grade of the intersection A B
of the two sets at x X, AB is expressed by
AB (x) = T (A (x) , B (x)) ,
(1.14)
where T denotes a triangular norm called also a t-norm.

Analogically, a membership grade of union A B is expressed as
AB (x) = S (A (x) , B (x)) ,
(1.15)
where S stands for a triangular conorm called a t-conorm operation.

A complement of a fuzzy set is performed by a negation function N
A (x) = N (A (x)) .
(1.16)
Triangular norms were originally studied as triangular inequalities from classical metric spaces to probabilistic metric spaces [Menger 1942; Schweizer
and Sklar 1983b].
Denition 1.9. A t-norm is a function of two variables T : [0, 1] [0, 1]
[0, 1] that for all x, y, z [0, 1] satises the following four axioms:
1. monotonicity: T (x, y) T (x, z) if y z,
2. commutativity: T (x, y) = T (y, x),
3. associativity: T (T (x, y) , z) = T (x, T (y, z)),
4. existence of the unit element: T (x, 1) = x.
In addition to the existence of the unit element, form this denition the
following boundary can be derived:
T (x, 0) = 0.
(1.17)
The four remarkable examples of triangular norms are the minimum,

the product, the L
ukasiewicz t-norm and the drastic product dened by,
respectively:
1. the minimum: TM (x, y) = min (x, y),
2. the product: TP (x, y) = xy,
3. the L
ukasiewicz t-norm: TL (x, y)= max (x + y 1, 0),
min (x, y) if max (x, y) = 1 ,
4. the drastic product: TD (x, y) =
0
otherwise .
If two t-norms T1 and T2 are associated with the inequality T1 (x, y)
T2 (x, y) for all pairs {x, y} [0, 1]2 , we call T2 stronger than T1 , or
1.1 Fuzzy Sets
equivalently, T1 weaker than T2 . The four basic t-norms are ordered in the
following way
(1.18)
TD < TL < TP < TM ,
while the drastic product and the minimum are the smallest (weakest) and
the largest (strongest) t-norm of all t-norms. Moreover, the minimum t-norm
is the unique triangular norm in which each x [0, 1] is an idempotent
element, i.e. T (x, x) = x. Contrary, the drastic product is the unique t-norm
that satises T (x, x) = 0 for all x [0, 1).
The product t-norm is a prototype of a subclass of continuous t-norms
called strict t-norms, which is dened by the inequality T (x, z) < T (y, z)
whenever x < y and z > 0. Each strict t-norm is isomorphic to the product tnorm, which means there exist a strictly increasing bijection : [0, 1] [0, 1]
2
such that for all pairs {x, y} [0, 1]
Ts (x, y) = 1 ( (x) (y)) .
(1.19)
The L
ukasiewicz t-norm is a prototype of a subclass of t-norms called nilpotent t-norms being continuous and such that for all x (0, 1) there exists

n
n N such that T x, x, . . . , x = 0. Each nilpotent t-norm is isomorphic to
the L
ukasiewicz t-norm, which means that there exists a strictly increasing
2
bijection : [0, 1] [0, 1] such that for all pairs {x, y} [0, 1]
Tn (x, y) = 1 (max ( (x) + (y) 1) , 0) .
(1.20)
Throughout this book, especially in Chapt. 2, quite often continuous Archimedean t-norms will be employed. The t-normis called Archimedean whenn

ever there exists n N such that T x, x, . . . , x < y for each {x, y} (0, 1)2 .
Narrowing its meaning to a continuous Archimedean t-norm, its denition
may be reduced to the statement that T (u, u) < u for all u (0, 1). Each
continuous Archimedean t-norm is either strict or nilpotent [Schweizer and
Sklar 1983a]. From [Mostert and Shields 1957; Ling 1965], it follows a well
known characterization that a t-norm is continuous if and only if it is isomorphic to an ordinal sum of the minimum, L
ukasiewicz, and product t-norms.
While t-norms are used in modelling logical conjunction of fuzzy sets,
to model a logical disjunction of fuzzy sets, a notion of a triangular norm
complementary to a t-norm is introduced, called a t-conorm for short.
Denition 1.10. A t-conorm is a function of two variables S : [0, 1][0, 1]
[0, 1] that for all x, y, z [0, 1] satises the following four axioms:
1. monotonicity: S (x, y) S (x, z) if y z,
2. commutativity: S (x, y) = S (y, x),
3. associativity: S (S (x, y) , z) = S (x, S (y, z)),
4. existence of the zero element: S (x, 0) = x.
A t-conorm is always associated with its dual t-norm by the following

S (x, y) = 1 T (1 x, 1 y)
(1.21)
that holds for all {x, y} [0, 1] .

Using this duality, the four fundamental triangular conorms can be derived
from the minimum, the product, the L
ukasiewicz t-norm and the drastic
product t-norm, respectively as:
1. the maximum: SM (x, y) = max (x, y),
2. the probabilistic sum: SP (x, y) = x + y xy,
3. the bounded sum (the L
ukasiewicz
t-conorm): SL (x, y) = min (x + y, 1),

max (x, y) if min (x, y) = 0 ,
4. the drastic sum: SD (x, y) =
1
otherwise .
Whilst t-norms are in accordance with the boolean truth table of logical
conjunction, and t-conorms model the usual two-valued disjunction, fuzzy
implications are associated with the two-valued material conditionals x y,
which is false if and only if both x is true and y is false. That is to say that
the implication is true if both components x and y are true obviously, and if
the antecedent x is false, since we cannot say anything about the consequent
y if we know nothing about the the antecedent.
Naturally, extending the truth table of the boolean implication to the
partial truth is the simplest way to the fuzzy implication. Additionally, it is
required that the fuzzy implication is non-increasing with its antecedent and
non-decreasing with the consequent. Fuzzy implications can be constructed
in one of the following ways [Mas et al 2007], as:
strong implications, called also s-implications,
Is (x, y) = S (N (x) , y) ,
(1.22)
residua of t-norms, called residual implications or r-implications

Ir (x, y) = sup {z|T (x, z) y} ,
(1.23)
z[0,1]
quantum logic implications (ql-implications)

Iql (x, y) = S (N (x) , T (x, y)) .
(1.24)
Using the standard fuzzy negation, the four fundamental s-implications

can be constructed directly from the maximum, the probabilistic sum, the
bounded sum and the drastic t-conorm, respectively as:
1. the Kleene-Dienes implication: IKD (x, y) = max (1 x, y),
2. the Reichenbach implication: IR (x, y) = 1 x + xy,
3. the L
ukasiewicz implication: IL (x, y) = min (1 x + y, 1),
1.2 Fuzzy Sets of Type-2
4. the Dubois-Prade
implication:

max (1 x, y) if min (1 x, y) = 0 ,
IDP (x, y) =
.
1
otherwise .
The foundation of residual implications is that these implications reect a
partial ordering on propositions, i.e., Ir (x, y) = 1 if and only if x y. The
four fundamental r-implications can be determined as residua of the minimum, the product, the L
ukasiewicz and the drastic product t-norm, respectively as:

y if x > y ,
1. the Godel implication: IG (x, y) =
,
1 otherwise .

min xy , 1 if x > 0 ,
,
2. the Goguen implication: IGog (x, y) =
1
otherwise .
3. the L
ukasiewicz implication IL (x, y),

y if x = 1 ,
4. residuum of the drastic product: IrD (x, y) =
.
1 otherwise .
Note that the L
ukasiewicz implication is both the strong and the residual implication. Similarly, Kleene-Dienes implication may be constructed
as the residuum of the nilpotent minimum t-norm dened by TnM (x, y) =
{min (x, y) if x + y > 1; 0 otherwise}.
Derivations of quantum logic implications successively by TM , TP , TL , TD
and their dual t-conorms with respect to the standard fuzzy negation are
presented as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Zadeh implication: IZ (x, y) = max (1 x, min (x, y)),

IqlP (x, y) = 1 x (1 xy),
Kleene-Dienes IKD ,
Dubois-Prade IF .
A great review on fuzzy implication can be found in [Baczy

nski and Jayaram
2008].

Two years after the introduction of fuzzy sets by Zadeh, his student Goguen
extended the denition of the fuzzy set by mapping a domain of elements to
the lattice rather than to the unit interval [Goguen 1967].
Denition 1.11. An L-fuzzy set, L, in the real line R, is a vague collection
of elements characterized by membership function L : R L, where L is
an ordered set of secondary membership values (often a complete lattice at
least).
10
Several years after, in 1975, returning to this topic, Zadeh generalized the
notion of the fuzzy set to the well known fuzzy sets of type-2, whose membership grades are fuzzy subsets of the unit interval [Zadeh 1975]. As in recent
years the concept of the type-2 fuzzy set has been severely devalued by using
it almost exclusively in the context of interval-valued fuzzy sets, we will refer
to general type-2 fuzzy sets using its alternative name of fuzzy-valued fuzzy
sets.
Denition 1.12. A type-2 fuzzy subset of a set X (called also a fuzzy is a vague collection of elements characvalued fuzzy set), denoted by A,
terized by membership function A : X F ([0, 1]), where F ([0, 1]) is a set
of all classical fuzzy sets in the unit interval [0, 1].
In detail, each x X is associated with a secondary membership function
fx F ([0, 1]) being a mapping fx : [0, 1] [0, 1]. The fuzzy membership
grade A (x) applied is called a fuzzy truth value, since its domain is the
truth interval [0, 1].
Denition 1.13. A fuzzy truth value, F , is a fuzzy subset of the unit
interval [0, 1].
We can say that F belongs to the power set of all fuzzy truth values F ([0, 1]).
Only convex fuzzy truth values have linguistic interpretation as for example more or less high, denitely medium, and somehow low. Thus, usually
F ([0, 1]) is restricted to fuzzy truth intervals (called also at fuzzy truth
numbers) or fuzzy truth numbers for their fuzzy-convexity. In Chapt. 2,
we will show that the fuzzication of operations for non-convex fuzzy sets
according to the extension principle does not always lead to t-norms on these
fuzzy truth values, which is not the case for convex fuzzy truth values. Hence,
the application of non-convex fuzzy truth values to fuzzy logic is questionable.
Convex fuzzy truth intervals which are also normal, in the context of secondary membership functions, can be regarded as an uncertain interval.
Denition 1.14. A fuzzy truth value F with a membership function f is
called a fuzzy truth interval if it is normal, u [0, 1] f (u) = 1, and
convex, u1 , u2 , [0, 1] , f (u1 + (1 ) u2 ) min (f (u1 ) , f (u2 )).
Secondary membership functions in the particular form of fuzzy truth intervals, which are fuzzy truth numbers, may instead be seen as a fuzzied single
membership grade.
Denition 1.15. A fuzzy truth interval is a fuzzy truth number when
the normality is additionally satised by a unique number, i.e., !u
[0, 1] f (u) = 1.
Note that fuzzy truth intervals represent a more general concept than intervals in interval type-2 fuzzy sets or interval-valued fuzzy sets. Specically,
11
a fuzzy truth interval may be characterized by a trapezoidal membership

function. Figure 1.1 shows various forms of fuzzy truth intervals.
Throughout this paper, only fuzzy truth intervals and their specic cases,
fuzzy truth numbers, will be applied. If a fuzzy truth interval F has an
upper semicontinuous membership function, it can be pointed out that for
all [0, 1] the -cut [F ] is a closed subinterval of X (see e.g. [Klement
et al 2000]).
1.2.1 Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets

Interval-valued fuzzy sets have been imprinted into the concept of interval
analysis developed since the 1950s, which involves the processing of measurement and rounding errors in the form of intervals in mathematical computation. Interval analysis aims to nd reliable solutions to many optimization
problems under uncertainty, in particular, its methods have been confronted
to many sources of interval uncertainty as rounding computational errors,
quantization errors, measurement (especially non-statistical) errors, component tolerances, and knowledge uncertainties about exact values of physical
parameters [Moore 1966]. There is nothing in the way that uncertainty in the
knowledge of the exact values for membership functions could be handled by
interval arithmetic. We only need to extend arithmetic operations such as
the minimum and the t-norms on intervals.
If memberships characterizing a fuzzy set are extended to subintervals of
[0, 1], this fuzzy set turns into an interval-valued fuzzy set. Let I ([0, 1]) denote
be fuzzy sets characterized
the set of all subintervals of [0, 1], and let A and B
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
Fig. 1.1 Examples of fuzzy truth intervals
0.6
0.8
12
by interval membership functions, A (x) = [ux , ux ] I ([0, 1])and B (x) =

can be
[v x , v x ] I ([0, 1]). For each x R, the standard intersection A B
performed by an extended version of the minimum, i.e.,
(x) , (x)) = [min(ux , v x ), min(ux , v x )] ,
A
B
(x) = min (A
B
(1.25)
B
can be realized using an extension of the maximum,
the standard union A
i.e.,
(A (x) , B (x)) = [max(ux , v x ), max(ux , v x )] ,
A
B
(x) = max
(1.26)
and the standard complement A can be characterized by an extended negation function, i.e.,

eg (A (x)) = [1 ux , 1 ux ] .
A (x) = n
(1.27)
The algebraic operations for interval-valued fuzzy sets are well dened and
elaborated [Dziech and Gorzalczany 1987; Gorzalczany 1987; Karnik and
Mendel 2000; Uncu and T
urksen 2007; Walker and Walker 2009; Zadeh 1975].
The set of truth intervals I ([0, 1]) is only a partially ordered set under max

[Dubois and Prade 1980], while the ordering relation for truth inand min,
tervals is dened by [Zadeh 1975] as
[u, u] [v, v] u v u v .
(1.28)

The algebra of interval-valued fuzzy sets, denoted by I ([0, 1]) , max,
min,
n

eg, [0, 0] , [1, 1]), is a bounded distributive lattice with an involution n

eg that
satises De Morgans laws [Walker and Walker 2009].
1.2.2 Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

Zadeh, in his pioneering paper [Zadeh 1975], dened the set-theoretic operations on general fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets by applying a level-set (i.e. -cut)
form of the extension principle to type-2 fuzzy sets characterized by -level
sets (i.e. -cuts) of their memberships. One year later, Mizumoto and Tanaka
published a study of properties concerning fuzzy set operations extended on
general type-2 fuzzy sets with two forms of aggregating secondary membership grades [Mizumoto and Tanaka 1976]. In accordance with these studies,
we present set-theoretic operations extended on general fuzzy-valued fuzzy
sets with aggregation performed by the minimum operation. Details of the
extension principle as well as other forms of operations will be supplied in
Chapt. 2.
is
Let A be characterized by its fuzzy membership grades A (x), and B
characterized by B (x), A (x) , B (x) F ([0, 1]), x R. The standard
1.3 Possibility and Necessity Measures
13
is dened via its fuzzy membership grades calculated by

intersection A B
i.e.,
the extension of the minimum operator, min,
(x) = min
( (x) , (x)) ,
A B
AB
A
B
sup
min (fx (u) , gx (v)) ,
min
( (x), (x)) (w) =
A
(1.29)
(1.30)
min(u,v)=w
is dened using the extended maximum min,

i.e.,
the standard union A B
(x) = min
( (x) , (x)) ,
A B
AB
A
B
min
(fx (u) , gx (v)) ,
max
(w)
=
sup
( (x), (x))
A
(1.31)
(1.32)
max(u,v)=w
the standard negation A is dened by the extended negation n

eg, i.e.,
A A (w) = n

eg (A (x)) ,
n
(w)
=
f
x (1 w) ,
eg( (x))
A
(1.33)
(1.34)
where fx and gx are bounded membership functions of fuzzy membership

grades A (x) and B (x), respectively.
Using the widespread terminology of partially ordered sets, (1.30) and
(1.32) express the so called meet and join operations (see e.g. [Dubois and
Prade 1980; Mendel 2001; Zadeh 1975]). Algebraic structures of type-2 fuzzy
sets in the context of meet and join operations was investigated in [Mizumoto and Tanaka 1976] and then summarized in [Walker and Walker 2005].
Only convex and normal fuzzy grades, i.e. fuzzy truth intervals, form a De
Morgan algebra which is also a distributive lattice (satisfying commutativity,
associativity, absorption, idempotency and additionally distributivity). The
distributive law is not satised for non-convex fuzzy grades. However, even
convex but subnormal fuzzy grades do not form a lattice, since the absorption
low is not satised. Obviously, n

eg is involutive, and all four identity laws are
satised for normal fuzzy grades.

Commonly spoken sentences of the kind It is possible but not probable
that you will become a millionaire characterize briey a type of uncertainty
represented by two concepts, the possibility and the necessity of the event.
Possibility theory was introduced by Zadeh as an alternative to probability
theory [Zadeh 1978]. Later, Dubois and Prade contributed numerous studies
in possibility, e.g. in [Dubois and Prade 1991, 1987, 1988, 1990a; Dubois et al
2001].
14
As contrasted to the probability distribution in probability theory (called

probability density function or probability mass function), in possibility theory a possibility distribution can be dened as follows.
Denition 1.16. A possibility distribution on a set X is a function
: X [0, 1] such that supxX (x) = 1.
Due to the normalization condition, every possibility distribution can be
viewed as a special kind of a membership function from fuzzy set theory.
Let P (X) denote the set of all classical subsets of X. Having given a subset
A of X, i.e. A P (X), a degree of possibility that an element x belongs to
A may be obtained via the so called maximum possibility principle, i.e.,
(A) = sup (x) .
(1.35)
xA
In this manner, we have provided a measure for possibility on nite sets,

which in its general form can be dened in the following way:
Denition 1.17. A possibility measure is a set function : P (X) [0, 1]
satisfying
1. () = 0, and (X) = 1;

2. for any family {Ai } of subsets of X, ( i Ai ) = supi (Ai ).
A dual concept to possibility is formed by a degree of necessity that an
element x belongs to A is equivalent to the statement that non A is not
possible. This leads us to the following denition.
Denition 1.18. A necessity measure is a set function : P (X) [0, 1]
such that
(A) = 1 (A) .
(1.36)
It means that the lack of possibility to be out of the set A makes A certain.
Hence using the possibility distribution we have
(A) = 1 sup (x)
(1.37)
xA
/
= inf (1 (x)) .
xA
/
(1.38)
It can be easily veried that, with respect to the possibility, the necessity
measure satises
1. () = 0, and (X) = 1;

2. for any family {Ai } of subsets of X, ( i Ai ) = inf i (Ai ).
15
Moreover, measures of possibility and necessity constrain each other such that
at least one of possibility and necessity degrees takes the extreme value, i.e.,
(A) = 0 or (A) = 1. Of course, they can take these values simultaneously,
which characterizes the largest uncertainty about A. For every A P (X),
any necessity measure on P (X) and the associated possibility measure
satisfy the following implications [Klir and Yuan 1995] (see also [Kruse et al
1994]):
(A) < 1 (A) = 0,
(1.39)
(A) > 0 (A) = 1.
(1.40)
It is natural, since when x in A is not completely possible (even impossible),

then it cannot be certain to any degree. Further, if there is any certainty
that x A, the possibility of this situation must be complete. However,
from the complete possibility of x A, i.e. (A) = 1, we cannot deduce
anything about its certainty. Analogically, lack of certainty that x is in A, i.e.
(A) = 0, leaves the possibility unconstrained. Therefore, totally possible A,
(A) = 1, can occur together with totally uncertain A, (A) = 0, which has
the interpretation of lack of any knowledge about A. Citing Socratic o,
o o ` o, lack of knowledge is a huge knowledge, which can be used in
the process of inference.
The following example calculate measures of possibility and necessity for
three dierent sets.
Example 1.1. Considering the Gaussian possibility distribution

2
1 x5
,
(x) = exp
2
2.5
(1.41)
let us measure possibility and necessity of A1 = [0.5, 2.5], A2 = [2.5, 3.5], and
A3 = [2.5, 10]. According to (1.35) and (1.36), we obtain the following
1
(A1 ) = sup (x) = (2.5) = ,
e
xA1
(A1 ) = inf (1 (x)) = 1 (5) = 0,
xA
/ 1
1
,
0.18
e
xA2
(A2 ) = inf (1 (x)) = 1 (5) = 0,
(A2 ) = sup (x) = (3.5) =

xA
/ 2
(A3 ) = sup (x) = (0) = 1,

xA3
1
(A3 ) = inf (1 (x)) = 1 (2.5) = 1 .
e
xA
/ 3
16
Figure 1.2 presents the construction of possibility and necessity degrees for
the three crisp sets from Example 1.1. It may seem surprising that the left
endpoint of A1 does not have any inuence neither on the possibility degree
nor the necessity degree. Identically, the actual value of the left endpoint A2
is of no importance. This is a specicity of applying the possibility measure
given by (1.35).
Now, let us recall some basic properties of fuzzy measures.
Denition 1.19. The fuzzy measure is dened as a set function g : P (X)
[0, 1], which satises
1. boundary constraints
g () = 0,
g (X) = 1.
(1.42)
(1.43)
(a)
1
0.8
A1,
(A1) 0.6
0.4
0.2
(A1) 0
10
10
10
x
(b)
1
A2,
(A2)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
(A ) 0
2
4
x
(c)
(A3) 1
A3,
0.8
0.6
(A ) 0.4
3
0.2
0
4
x
Fig. 1.2 Calculation of possibility and necessity degrees of crisp sets: possibility distribution (dashed lines), Ai crisp sets (solid lines), (Ai ) and (Ai )
possibility and necessity, i = 1, 2, 3
17
2. monotonicity
g (A) g (B) if A B, A, B P (X) ,
3. continuity (for an innite reference set X)

lim g (Ai ) = g lim Ai
i
(1.44)
(1.45)
if A1 A2 . . . or A1 A2 . . . , i N, Ai P (X) ,
For any two sets A and B, both A, B AB, thus the monotonicity of fuzzy
measures ensures that every fuzzy measure g satises the following inequality
g (A B) max (g (A) , g (B)) .
(1.46)
Similarly, both A, B A B, thus, by the monotonicity of fuzzy measures,

every fuzzy measure g satises also the subsequent inequality
g (A B) min (g (A) , g (B)) .
(1.47)
Obviously, the possibility and necessity measures are special forms of fuzzy
measures. The following basic operations of possibility theory hold for every
A, B P (X) (see e.g. [Klir and Yuan 1995; Kruse et al 1994])
(A B) = max ( (A) , (B))
(1.48)
(A B) = min ( (A) , (B))
(1.49)
In general, for the possibility of a conjunction of sets only (1.47) holds, with
g acting as , while for the necessity of a disjunction of sets (1.46) is valid,
with g representing . Next, if we compare (1.48) with the general property
(1.46), and (1.49) with (1.47), we can observe that possibility theory is based
on marginal fuzzy measures with respect to disjunctions and conjunctions of
sets.
1.3.1 Possibility and Necessity Measures of a Fuzzy

Event
Since possibility distributions are weak forms of membership functions, and
two of properties for possibility and necessity measures take the marginal
forms of fuzzy measures, possibility theory commonly uses a richer mathematical model derived from fuzzy set theory. Besides, we may dene possibility and necessity measures the way that an element is within a fuzzy event.
18
If now A denote a fuzzy set in X, the degrees of possibility and necessity of

the fuzzy event can be dened as follows [Zadeh 1978]
(A) = sup min ( (x) , A (x)) ,
(1.50)
xX
(A) = inf max (1 (x) , A (x)) .

xX
(1.51)
Although instead of min and max, generally t-norms and t-conorms may be
considered, Dubois et al. proposed set of axioms justifying the use of min
and max in the denitions of possibility and necessity measures [Dubois et al
2001]. Note that these equations are even valid when A is a classical subset
of X, which will be helpful in understanding notions of rough-fuzzy sets and
fuzzy-rough sets in the next section.
Example 1.2. Considering the Gaussian possibility distribution (1.41) from
Example 1.1, we can measure possibility and necessity of fuzzy
events
charac

terized by following membership functions A1 (x) = exp 21 x2 , A2 (x) =
max (0, min (x/2.5, (5 x) /2.5)), and A3 (x) = {1 if x [2.5, 10] , 0 otherwise }.
The respective possibility and necessity degrees determined according to
(1.50) and (1.51) are presented in Fig. 1.3. Obviously the constraining properties (1.40) and (1.39) are not valid for the case of possibility and necessity
of fuzzy sets.
1.4 Rough Sets and Their Extensions

Rough sets model indiscernibility between objects in a set rather than
ill-dened boundaries of sets of objects, which is a matter of fuzzy sets.
The notion of a rough set was introduced by Pawlak [Pawlak 1982] as a
representation of a classical set A in X by means of partitions of X, e.g. real
intervals.
Example 1.3 ([Pawlak 1984]). Consider an information system with X being a set of objects. Let A denote a set of object attributes a, and Va denote
the set {a (x) |x X} of values of attribute a. The equivalence relation is
dened by R (x1 , x2 ) a A, a (x1 ) = a (x2 ). An equivalence class [x]R
contains all objects sharing the same description in terms of attributes in A.
The following question arises: How to represent a subset X X by means
of the equivalence classes? This representation should be composed of two
subsets of the partitioned X, called upper and lower approximations of A
which are as close as possible to A.
19
The aim of introducing the concept of the rough set is to approximate A

from below and above in an approximation space generated by a reexive,
symmetric and transitive relation R.
Denition 1.20. Let X be a set, A be a subset of X and R be an equivalence
relation on X, i.e. reexive, symmetric and transitive. An equivalence class
of x X can be denoted with respect to the equivalence relation
by [x]R . A

rough set of X with respect to R is a tuple R (X) , R (X) composed of the
lower and upper approximations of A by R dened by the following subsets
R (A) = {x| [x]R A} ,
(1.52)
R (A) = {x| [x]R A = } .
(1.53)
Therefore, the rough set is an approximation by two crisp sets, one representing the lower boundary of the target set A, and the other representing the
upper boundary of A. Equation (1.52) represents the union of all equivalence
classes [x]R that are contained in A, while an another meaning of (1.53) is the
(a)
1
A1,
0.8
0.6
(A1) 0.4
0.2
(A ) 0
1
10
10
10
x
(b)
1
A2,
(A2)
0.8
0.6
0.4
(A2) 0.2
0
4
x
(c)
(A3) 1
A3,
0.8
0.6
0.4
(A )
3
0.2
0
4
x
Fig. 1.3 Calculation of possibility and necessity degrees of fuzzy sets: possibility distribution (dashed lines), Ai membership functions of fuzzy sets (solid
lines), (Ai ) and (Ai ) possibility and necessity, i = 1, 2, 3
20
union of all equivalence classes that overlap with each other in A. Obviously,
A cannot be precisely described if there is the evident indiscernibility between elements in A, i.e. R (A) = R (A). The equivalence relation R (x1 , x2 )
signies that elements x1 and x2 are such similar that are indiscernible. The
equivalence class [x]R induced by R acts as an information granule of coarsened X.
A one-dimmensional example in measure processing can help to clarify
rough sets.
Example 1.4. Suppose we have to measure a length of an objects within
interval X = [0, 10) mm. Furthermore, we assume that technically only millimeters can be measured; thus X must be coarsened into elementary intervals
Xi = [i, i + 1), i = 0, . . . , 9. Formally, an equivalence relation R (x, i) informs
that x can be rounded by i and induces the class of objects labelled with the
same description
[x]R . In consequence, the rough approximation of subset

is
evaluated
as follows
A = 53 , 10
3
R (A) = {x| [x]R A} = X2
R (A) = {x| [x]R A = } =
(1.54)
(X1 , X2 , X3 ) ,
(1.55)
Figure 1.4 presents the case when A from Example 1.4 is approximated by
the partition dened as X1 = [1, 2), X2 = [2, 3), X3 = [3, 6), and X4 = [6, 9).
To better understand the notion of rough sets, we may compare them
to fuzzy sets. In the concept of rough sets, an object cannot be precisely
described since some other objects are indiscernible to the considered one.
On the contrary, the concept of fuzzy sets introduces an intrinsic vagueness
of an object, as for example we cannot describe a yellow color in therms of
its wavelength. Some colors may be even ambivalent. Therefore roughness is
the problem connected with granularity of X, while fuzziness is the problem
of ill-denition of the object itself.
The following properties are satised by rough sets.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
R (X) X R (X),
R () = R () = and R (X) = R (X) = X,
R (X Y ) = R (X) R (Y ) and R (X Y ) = R (X) R (Y ),
X Y implies that R (X) R (Y ) and R (X) R (Y ),
R (X X) = XR (X) and R (X X) = XR (X).
Let R (X) be the set of all rough sets on X. Following property

4, a natu

ral partial ordering relation on R (X) can be dened by R (X) , R (X)

R (Y ) , R (Y ) whenever R (X) R (Y ) and R (X) R (Y ). Under this
relation R (X) forms a bounded lattice, and (R (X) , , , 0, 1) is a bounded
distributive lattice [Nguyen and Walker 2000]. Numerous studies have been
devoted to rough sets, see e.g. [Skowron 2005b,a].
21
A, X
(a)
R(A)1
R(A)1 =
1
5
x
(b)
10
5
x
(c)
10
10
10
A, X
R(A)2
R(A)2
1
A, X
R(A)3
R(A)3 =
0
5
x
(d)
R(A)
R(A)
0
5
x
Fig. 1.4 Rough approximations of a set A (thin solid lines); Xi partition sets
(dashed lines); (ac) R (A)i and R (A)i lower and upper rough approximations
by individual partition sets (thick solid lines), i = 1, 2, 3, (d) R (A) and R (A)
rough set of A by crisp partition sets
1.4.1 Rough-Fuzzy Sets

The most straightforward combination of rough sets and fuzzy sets can be dened as rough approximations of a fuzzy set, called a rough-fuzzy set [Dubois
and Prade 1990b]. Rough-fuzzy sets are dened in the presence of equivalence
relations identically as original rough sets, whereas the object of approximation is a fuzzy set.
Denition 1.21. Let R be an equivalence relation on a universe X, and A
be a fuzzy set in X. Let Xi , i = 1, 2 . . ., be subinterval partitions
of X induced
by the equivalence relation R. A rough-fuzzy set is a tuple R (A) , R (A)
composed of the lower and upper fuzzy sets approximating A, which are
characterized by the following membership functions1
1
In [Dubois and Prade 1990b], the rough approximation of a fuzzy set is provided
such that a label Xi indicates the equivalence class in the condition clause. In
our approach, we identify a coarse subset of X with its label, such that the upper
and lower approximations are functions of subsets of X rather than mappings
from names to membership degrees.
22
R(A) (Xi ) = inf {A (x) |x Xi } ,

R(A) (Xi ) = sup {A (x) |x Xi } .
(1.56)
(1.57)
The lower approximation can be comprehended as the membership degree of

object x which must belong to fuzzy set A, while the upper approximation
is characterized by the membership degree of x which may belong to fuzzy
set A.
Note that the original denition of Dubois and Prade, as well as the definition by (1.56) and (1.57), refers to a pair of fuzzy sets on the quotient
set {Xi } rather than fuzzy sets on universe X. coarsening of X coarsened
However, the extension of this result on X is straightforward in the case of
crisp partitioning, i.e.,
R(A) (x) = inf {A (x) |x Xi } ,
R(A) (x) = sup {A (x) |x Xi } .
(1.58)
(1.59)
Figure 1.5 depicts

the rough approximation
of the fuzzy set A, dened by

2
A (x) = exp 0.5 (x 5) 22 , for the same partition as in Fig. 1.4; note
that in subgure (d), the rough-fuzzy set is interpreted as rened piecewise
constant functions on the whole universe X.
We may compare rough approximations of a fuzzy set A to the possibility
and necessity measures of a classical set X. The lower approximation is the
membership degree of object x which certainly belongs to fuzzy set A, and the
upper approximation is the membership grade of x which possibly belongs to
A, whereas the possibility and necessity express boundary degrees of certainty
that either possibly or necessarily an object x of possibilistic distribution, let
us say A , is labeled with X. Therefore, these concepts are opposed to each
other.
On the other hand, upper and lower rough approximations of a fuzzy set
A within a single partition Xi are isomorphic to the possibility and necessity
measures of the fuzzy event A under the crisp possibility distribution Xi .
1.4.2 Fuzzy-Rough Sets as -Compositions of

Rough-Fuzzy Sets
Both rough-fuzzy sets and ordinary rough sets are approximations of an object in a crisp approximation space. By linking the concept of the rough set
more to the concept of fuzzy set, we may consider an approximation of fuzzy
sets under the crisp setting of equivalence classes. In other words, Xi being
actually a granule of X may be extended to a fuzzy granule and respectively,
the notion of the rough-fuzzy set may be extended to a fuzzy-rough set.
23
(a)
A, X
0.5
R(A) (X1 )
A, X2
R(A) (X1 )
0
0
5
x
(b)
10
5
x
(c)
10
5
x
(d)
10
5
x
10
R(A) (X2 )
0.5
R(A) (X2 )
0
R(A) (X3 )
1
A, X
R(A) (X3 )
0.5
1
R(A)
0.5
R(A)
Fig. 1.5 Rough approximations of fuzzy sets: A fuzzy set (solid line), Xi
partition sets (dashed lines); (ac) R(A) (Xi ) and R(A) (Xi ) membership set
functions of individual partition sets for lower and upper rough approximations
(thick solid lines), i = 1, 2, 3, (d) R(A) and R(A) rened membership functions
of x for the rough-fuzzy set
A general and exible interpretation of the these approximations was proposed in [Nakamura 1988] as a fuzzy-rough sets based on extended equivalence relations that correspond to Zadehs similarity relations. More precisely, Nakamura considered a fuzzy relation R on X, which are reexive
(R (x, x) = 1 x X), symmetric (R (x, y) = R (y, x) x, y X), and
transitive (R (x, z) supy min (R (x, y) , R (y, z)) x, y, z X), which
can be decomposed into -cuts allowing the fuzzy-rough set to be an composition of rough-fuzzy sets of the forms given by (1.56) and (1.57).
Denition 1.22 ([Nakamura 1988]). Let X be a set, X be a subset of
X and R be a fuzzy equivalence relation on X, i.e. reexive, symmetric and
transitive, characterized by its membership function R . A fuzzy-rough
approximation of a fuzzy set A in the sense of Nakamura is a composition
of upper and lower rough approximations of A, by -cuts of R , characterized
by
24
R (A) (x) = sup {A (y) |R (x, y) } ,
(1.60)
R (A) (x) = inf {A (y) |R (x, y) } .
(1.61)
From this denition, the following properties follow directly.

1. The upper approximation of a fuzzy set A is -satisable, i.e. R (A) (x)
y : (x, y) R and A (y) .
2. The lower approximation of a fuzzy set A is -satisable, i.e. R (A) (x)
y : (x, y) R and A (y) .
Note that the original denition of a fuzzy-rough set is valid for single fuzzy
relation R. Extending this, many fuzzy equivalence relations Ri forms a fuzzy
partition on X, which is put up by fuzzy sets Fi . The fuzzy partition
have to cover whole X, i.e.,
inf max Fi (x) > 0 .
x
(1.62)

Therefore, a fuzzy-rough set may also be interpreted as a pair (A) , (A)
of the lower and upper approximations of A by which may be derived in
the spirit of Nakamuras denition. Now, fuzzy partition sets Fi can be decomposed into -cuts allowing the fuzzy-rough set to be an -composition of
rough-fuzzy sets.
Let {Fi } be a family of fuzzy partition sets. A fuzzy-rough approximation
of a fuzzy set A is a family of lowerand upper
rough

approximations of A by
-cuts of Fi , denoted by i, (A) and i, (A) , (0, 1], for each i-th
partition set, i.e.,
i, (A) = sup {A (x) |x [Fi ] } ,
(1.63)
i, (A) = inf {A (x) |x [Fi ] } .
(1.64)
Such interpreted fuzzy-rough sets are always dened on weak fuzzy partitions
on X with disjoint subpartition fuzzy sets Fi satisfying

sup min Fi (x) , Fj (x) < 1 i = j .
(1.65)
x
Moreover it is not straightforward to extend (1.63) and (1.64) on rened X,

since Fi for dierent i may overlap such that single x may belong to many
partition sets Fi with a certain membership degree greater than 0.
Figures 1.6 and 1.7 present construction of fuzzy-rough sets under triangular and Gaussian fuzzy partition settings, respectively.
2010], we

have noticed that the composition of -cuts
In [Starczewski
(A)
,
(A)
formally represents a fuzzy grade of type-2.
i,
i,
(0,1]
25
(b)
(a)
1
A, F
[1, (A), 1, (A)]
0.5
5
x
(c)
[2, (A), 2, (A)]
A, F
0.5
5
x
(e)
10
A, F
[3, (A), 3, (A)]
0.5
10
0.5
5
x
10
0.5
(d)
0.5
(f)
0.5
0.5
0.5
Fig. 1.6 Fuzzy-rough approximations of a triangular fuzzy set in the sense of

Nakamura: (a,c,e) A triangular
fuzzy set (solid lines), Fi fuzzy partition

sets (dashed lines), (b,d,f) i, (A) , i, (A) -cuts of the fuzzy-rough set,
i = 1, 2, 3
1.4.3 Fuzzy-Rough Sets as Possibility and Necessity

of Fuzzy Sets
Concerning fuzzy partition setting composed of fuzzy subsets Fi , Dubois
and Prade dened fuzzy-rough sets by means of the necessity and possibility
of a fuzzy set [Dubois and Prade 1990b]. This fuzzy-rough approximation
of a fuzzy set A was actually derived in the spirit of fuzzy sets dened on
referential of fuzzy sets by Willaeys and Malvache [Willaeys and Malvache
1981]. Using possibilistic interpretation, the lower and upper approximations
are characterized by certain and possible membership grades, respectively, of
Fi in A.
Denition 1.23 ([Dubois and Prade 1990b]). Let X be a set, A be a subset of X, and R be a fuzzy equivalence relation on X, i.e. reexive, symmetric
and transitive. Suppose that R forms a fuzzy partition on X composed of
in the sense of Dubois and Prade set
fuzzy subsets
Fi . A fuzzy-rough

is the tuple R (A) , R (A) of the upper and lower approximations of A by a
fuzzy equivalence R are dened by the following membership functions:
R(A) (Fi ) = sup min (Fi (x) , A (x)) ,
(1.66)
R(A) (Fi ) = inf max (1 Fi (x) , A (x)) .
(1.67)
26

(a)
(b)
1
[1, (A), 1, (A)]
A, F1
0.5
[2, (A), 2, (A)]
A, F2
0.5
5
x
(e)
[3, (A), 3, (A)]
A, F3
0.5
5
x
10
0.5
(d)
0.5
(f)
0.5
0.5
10
10
5
x
(c)
0.5
0.5
Fig. 1.7 Fuzzy-rough approximations of a Gaussian fuzzy set in the sense of Nakamura: (a,c,e) A Gaussian fuzzy set (solid lines), Fi fuzzy partition sets (dashed
lines), (b,d,f) i, (A) , i, (A) -cuts of the fuzzy-rough set, i = 1, 2, 3
It can be easily observed that fuzzy-rough sets, with respect to normal fuzzy
partition sets, are isomorphic to the possibility and necessity measures of
a fuzzy event. One may nd similarities between (1.56)(1.57) and (1.50)
(1.51). For that reason, a graphical explanation of the fuzzy-rough set is
identical with that presented in Fig. 1.3 if only we replace a possibility distribution to the fuzzy partition set Fi , and possibility degrees (Ai ) to
the upper approximations of Ai , and necessity degrees (Ai ) to the lower
approximations of Ai .
By analogy to the two concepts, the possibility and necessity measures,
fuzzy-rough sets of Dubois and Prade can be expressed with the use of a
t-norm and a fuzzy implication operator, i.e.,
R(A) (Fi ) = sup T (Fi (x) , A (x)) ,
(1.68)
R(A) (Fi ) = inf I (Fi (x) , A (x)) .
(1.69)
There is an extensive literature on rough sets [Greco et al 2006, 1998;

Inuiguchi and Tanino 2004; Nguyen et al 2011; Liu et al 2004; Yao 2004].
An interesting new deniton of fuzzy-rough sets based on certainty qualications can be found in [Greco et al 1998].
1.5 Sources of Uncertainty
27
1.5 Sources of Uncertainty

The study [Dubois et al 2005] introduces six scenarios leading to vagueness in
an information processing perspective. The rst scenario describes an object
using gradual predicates, i.e. statements, which may be simultaneously
true and false. Hence, the non-contradiction law A A = cannot be
satised for gradual properties. An example of the gradual predicate might
be a sentence uttered by my three-year-old daughter: I have clean hands but
a little dirty, since clean and dirty, interpreted as antonyms, do not form a
binary partition of the domain of hand hygiene. It is well known that a natural
description of gradual predicates can be supplied by the fuzzy sets theory.
Fuzzy and many-valued logics are well-placed to capture the vagueness
or partial truth. The source of graduality can be ascribed to continuity
of a referential, which allows for assigning an innite number of levels in
the membership scale. Fuzzy sets deal with this continuity containing more
information than boolean yes-or-no propositions. However, here comes the
problem of precise assignment and measurement of memberships.
Another scenario, that renes precisely dened boolean properties in order
to make them gradual, rely on the use of closeness or similarity relations. With
their help, we can measure the membership function of central elements of
some set and apply interpolation reasoning. Hence, this type of vagueness
might arise from a metric space.
The next situation considers uncertain boundaries of a set in which
semantic ambiguity does not allow to classify an element either to A or
to A. The diculty to assign elements which are within the boundaries to
a set or its complement results from limited capability to discern objects.
Semantic ambiguity may also apply to gradual properties. This type of uncertainty can be handled by type-2 fuzzy sets, and consequently, their
use should follow from limited perception or lack of knowledge about
the exact membership function. Fuzzy set of this type are characterized by
ill-known memberships in the truth interval. Therefore the main source for
type-2 fuzzy sets is an incomplete knowledge of the membership description.
The particular kind of these type-2 fuzzy sets an interval-valued fuzzy set
is characterized by memberships of ill-known boundaries on the truth scale.
Also an intuitionistic fuzzy set is described by ill-know boundaries [Atanassov
1986, 1999]. Its lower boundary is simply dened as a membership function
and the upper boundary is complemented by so called non-membership degrees, since the Atanassov theory is actually isomorphic to interval-valued
fuzzy sets under some mild assumptions [Bustince and Burillo 1996]. Neverhtheless, the intuitionistic fuzzy sets will not be considered in this study.
Another scenario, considered by Dubois et al., considers many experts
(or agents) giving conicting opinions. Here, a conict between experts assignments is seen as a main source of uncertainty. This type of uncertainty
can be formally expressed under probability settings of random sets or the
theory of evidence [Shafer 1976]. A family of probabilities can be represented
28
by a so called clouds, which can be viewed as particular forms interval-valued

fuzzy sets [Dubois and Prade 2005]. However, the problems in terms of probabilities will not be at issue in this book.
When vagueness stems from the diculty to describe objects by means
of suitable attributes, Dubois et al. distinguish two sources of it. Firstly,
the information about objects may be imprecise or incomplete. If the possibility distribution describes attributes for objects, standard possibility and
necessity measures can classify objects with these two labels of certainty.
Thus possibility theory comes to help in situations where the imprecise description of objects is due to the fact that attribute values are ill-known.
Secondly, there may be an insucient number of attributes to fully describe
an object. In such cases, we have limited ability to classify objects. Hence,
an ill-description of objects is mainly caused by lack of attributes. This
can be handled by the concept of rough sets, in which an object cannot
be precisely described since some other objects are indiscernible to the considered one. A rough set is a collection of objects which cannot be precisely
characterized in terms of the values of a set of attributes, while a lower and
upper approximation of the collection can be characterized in terms of these
attributes. On the contrary, the concept of fuzzy sets introduces an intrinsic
vagueness of an object, as for example we cannot describe a yellow color in
therms of its wavelength. Some colors may be even ambivalent. Therefore
roughness is the problem connected with granularity of X, while fuzziness is
the problem of ill-denition of the object itself.
References
Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20, 8796 (1986)
Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets: theory and applications. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 35. Springer-Verlag (1999)
Baczy
nski, M., Jayaram, B.: Fuzzy implications. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 231. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Borkowski, L. (ed.): Selected Works of J. L
ukasiewicz, North-Holland, Amsterdam
(1970)
Bustince, H., Burillo, P.: Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 79(3), 403405 (1996)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Fuzzy sets and systems: Theory and applications. Academic
Press, Inc., New York (1980)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Necessity measures and the resolution principle. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 17, 474478 (1987)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility Theory. Plenum Press, New York (1988)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Resolution principles in possibilistic logic. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 4, 121 (1990a)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. International Journal
on General Systems 17, 191209 (1990)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning, part 1: inference with
possibility distributions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40, 143202 (1991)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Interval-valued fuzzy sets, possibility theory and imprecise probability. In: Proceedings of International Conference in Fuzzy Logic and
Technology, pp. 314319 (2005)
Dubois, D., Prade, H., Sabbadin, R.: Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory. European Journal on Operational Research 128, 459478
(2001)
Dubois, D., Esteva, F., Godo, L., Prade, H.: An information-vased discussion of
vagueness. In: Cohen, H., Lefebvre, C. (eds.) Handbook of Categorization in
Cognitive Science, ch. 7, pp. 892913. Elsevier (2005)
Dziech, A., Gorzalczany, M.B.: Decision making in signal transmission problems
with interval-valued fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 23, 191203 (1987)
G
odel, K.: Zum intuitionistischen aussagenkalk
ul (on the intuitionistic propositional
calculus). Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 69, 6566 (1932)
30
References
Goguen, J.: L-fuzzy sets. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 18,
145174 (1967)
Gorzalczany, M.B.: A method of inference in approximate reasoning based on
interval-valued fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 21, 117 (1987)
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowi
nski, R.: Fuzzy Similarity Relation as a Basis for
Rough Approximations. In: Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) RSCTC 1998.
LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1424, pp. 283289. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Greco, S., Inuiguchi, M., Slowi
nski, R.: Fuzzy rough sets and multiple-premise gradual decision rules. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 41(2), 179
211 (2006)
Inuiguchi, M., Tanino, T.: New fuzzy rough sets based on certainty qualication.
In: Pal, S.K., Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) Rough-Neural Computing: Techniques for Computing with Words, pp. 277296. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122, 327348 (2000)
Kleene, S.: Introduction to Metamathematics. Van Nostrand (1952)
Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Quasi- and pseudo-inverses of monotone functions, and the construction of t-norms. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 104, 313 (1999)
Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)
Klir, G.J., Yuan, B.: Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: Theory and applications. Prentice
Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1995)
Kruse, R., Gebhardt, J., Klawonn, F.: Foundations of fuzzy systems. John Wiley
& Sons (1994)
Ling, C.H.: Representation of associative functions. Publicationes Mathematicae
Debrecen 12, 189212 (1965)
Liu, W.N., Yao, J., Yao, Y.: Rough Approximations Under level Fuzzy Sets.
In: Tsumoto, S., Slowi
nski, R., Komorowski, J., Grzymala-Busse, J.W. (eds.)
RSCTC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3066, pp. 7883. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
L
ukasiewicz, J.: O logice tr
ojwartosciowej (on three-valued logic). Ruch Filozoczny 5, 170171 (1920c) (in english translation) [Borkowski 1970]
L
ukasiewicz, J., Tarski, A.: Untersuchungen u
ber den aussagenkalk
ul. Comptes
Rendus des Seancs de la Societe des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie 23,
3050 (1930) (in english translation) [Borkowski 1970]
Mas, M., Monserrat, M., Torrens, J., Trillas, E.: A survey on fuzzy implication
functions. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15(6), 11071121 (2007)
Mendel, J.M.: Uncertain rule-based fuzzy logic systems: Introduction and new directions 2001. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2001)
Menger, K.: Statistical metrics. Proc. National Academy of Science 28(12), 535537
(1942)
Mizumoto, M., Tanaka, K.: Some properties of fuzzy sets of type-2. Information
and Control 31, 312340 (1976)
Moore, R.: Interval Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis (1966)
Mostert, P., Shields, A.: On the structure of semigroups on a compact manifold
with boudary. Annals of Mathematics 65, 117143 (1957)
Nakamura, A.: Fuzzy rough sets. Note on Multiple-Valued Logic in Japan 9(8), 18
(1988)
Negoita, C., Ralescu, D.: Applications of Fuzzy Sets to Systems Analysis. Wiley,
New York (1975)
References
31
Nguyen, H.S., Pal, S.K., Skowron, A.: Rough sets and fuzzy sets in natural computing. Theoretical Computer Science 412(42), 58165819 (2011)
Nguyen, H.T., Walker, E.A.: A rst course in fuzzy logic, 2nd edn. Chapman &
Hall/CRC (2000)
Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Science 11, 341356 (1982)
Pawlak, Z.: Rough classication. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 20,
469485 (1984)
Schweizer, B., Sklar, A.: Probabilistic Metric Spaces. North-Holland, New York
(1983a)
Schweizer, B., Sklar, A.: Statistical metric spaces. Pacic Journal of Mathematics 10, 313334 (1983b)
Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, Princenton
(1976)
Skowron, A.: Rough sets and vague concepts. Fundamenta Informaticae 64(14),
417431 (2005)
Skowron, A.: Rough Sets in Perception-Based Computing. In: Pal, S.K., Bandyopadhyay, S., Biswas, S. (eds.) PReMI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3776, pp. 2129.
Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Starczewski, J.T.: General type-2 FLS with uncertainty generated by fuzzy rough
sets. In: Proc. IEEE-FUZZ 2010, Barcelona, pp. 17901795 (2010)
Uncu, O., T
urksen, I.B.: Discrete interval type 2 fuzzy system models using uncertainty in learning parameters. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15(1),
90106 (2007)
Walker, C.L., Walker, E.A.: The algebra of fuzzy truth values. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 2, 309347 (2005)
Walker, C.L., Walker, E.A.: Sets with type-2 operations. International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning 50, 6371 (2009)
Willaeys, D., Malvache, N.: The use of fuzzy sets for the treatment of fuzzy information by computer. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 5, 323328 (1981)
Yao, Y.: Semantics of Fuzzy Sets in Rough Set Theory. In: Peters, J.F., Skowron,
A., Dubois, D., Grzymala-Busse, J.W., Inuiguchi, M., Polkowski, L. (eds.) Transactions on Rough Sets II. LNCS, vol. 3135, pp. 297318. Springer, Heidelberg
(2004)
Zadeh, L.: Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338353 (1965)
Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate
reasoning I. Information Sciences 8, 199249 (1975)
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 1, 328 (1978)
Chapter 2
Algebraic Operations on Fuzzy Valued

Fuzzy Sets
Abstract. In this chapter, new analytical formulae for membership functions

of extended t-norms are derived. We consider the following cases: extended
minimum, minimum-based extensions of continuous t-norms, extended continuous t-norms based on drastic-product, and extended L
ukasiewicz t-norm
based on continuous Archimedean t-norms. As a dual concept to extended
t-norms, extended t-conorms and their formulae are considered. These cases
cover almost all practical engineering situations when we implement type-2
fuzzy logic systems. In many cases, we get formulae that preserve shapes,
which enable us to derive adaptive network fuzzy inference systems of type2. Otherwise, some approximations are needful, or more general notion of a
triangular norm on fuzzy truth values (t-norm of type-2 for short) is needed,
whose axiomatics we provide briey. Finally, implications on fuzzy truth values, especially their family called s-implicatoins, are derived in order to prepare foundations for structures of uncertain fuzzy logic systems.
2.1 Set Theoretic Operations with the Extension

Principle: State of the Art
Despite of an increasing interest in type-2 fuzzy logic systems, the lack of
exact formulae for the extended t-norm hampered the development of general type-2 fuzzy systems, which, in our convention, are distinguished from
the interval-valued fuzzy systems by the term fuzzy-valued. Even over ten
years after the theoretical foundation of general type-2 fuzzy logic systems
was published [Karnik et al 1999], almost all designs of type-2 fuzzy logic
systems operate on interval-valued fuzzy sets (see e.g. [Castillo and Melin
2008; Choi and Rhee 2009; Hagras 2004; Mendel 2001; Sepulveda et al 2007;
Uncu and T
urksen 2007; Zhou et al 2009]). Mendel noticed that our results
concerning operations on fuzzy-sets with triangular secondary membership
functions an interesting compromise between interval secondary [membership functions] MFs and general secondary MFs [Starczewski 2009b, 2006]
springerlink.com
34
2 Algebraic Operations on Fuzzy Valued Fuzzy Sets
seem very promising and are continuing [Mendel 2007]. Operations on triangular [Starczewski and Rutkowski 2002; Starczewski 2009a] and Gaussian
type-2 fuzzy sets [Starczewski 2005] have been just the rst steps we made
in this direction. Therefore, it is necessary to supply analytical formulae for
extensions of t-norms and t-conorms. This problem is studied and solved in
this chapter.
In the case of ordinary fuzzy sets, triangular norms operate on crisp membership grades of fuzzy sets taking part in set operations. In the context of
fuzzy-valued or interval-valued fuzzy sets, classical set-theoretic operations
are extended to operations on fuzzy quantities in accordance with the Zadeh
extension principle [Zadeh 1975].
Denition 2.1 (Zadeh Extension Principle). For a non-fuzzy operation
w = (u1 , . . . , un ) the extension principle induces from fuzzy sets characterized by their membership functions A1 (u1 ),. . . ,An (un ) a fuzzy set
characterized by the following membership function
min (A1 (u1 ) , . . . , An (un )) if 1 (w) =

sup
B (w) = (u1 ,...,un )=w
0
otherwise,
(2.1)
where 1 (w) is the inverse image of w.
The extension principle in this rst formulation rely on the use of minimum in aggregation of memberships. However any t-norm, T , in the place
of the minimum has dierent properties, as for example an interactivity distinguishes the product t-norm from the minimum [Dubois and Prade 1980].
In this book we mostly look into the extension principle in its more general
form [Nguyen 1978]. According to the extension principle, the extended operation is expressed as the least upper bound of the Cartesian product with
the non-extended operation as a constraint.
Denition 2.2 (Generalized Extension Principle). For a non-fuzzy operation w = (u1 , . . . , un ) the generalized extension principle induces
from fuzzy sets characterized by their membership functions A1 (u1 ),. . . ,
An (un ) a fuzzy set characterized by the following membership function
T (A1 (u1 ) , . . . , An (un )) if 1 (w) =

sup
B (w) = (u1 ,...,un )=w
(2.2)
0
otherwise,
where T is an arbitrary t-norm, and 1 (w) is the inverse image of w.
be characterized by fuzzy membership funcLet the fuzzy sets A and B
tions, A and B , where each membership grade A (x) is characterized by fx
2.1 Set Theoretic Operations with the Extension Principle: State of the Art
35
and each B (x) is characterized by gx ; x R, with fx : [0, 1] [0, 1], and

gx : [0, 1] [0, 1]. For each x R, the membership grade of intersection
at x, is expressed by
A B
AB
(x) , (x)) ,
A
B
(x) = T (A
B
(2.3)
is expressed as
and the membership grade of union A B
(x) , (x)) ,
A
B
(x) = S (A
B
(2.4)
where T denotes an extended t-norm and S stands as a symbol for an extended t-conorm operation. Also the complementation function N has to be
extended to operate on truth intervals, i.e.
( (x)) .
A (x) = N
A
(2.5)
2.1.1 Operations on Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets

According to [Zadeh 1975], to dene such operations as complementation,
union, intersection, etc. for fuzzy sets of type-2, it is natural to make use of
the extension principle. It is convenient, however, to accomplish this in two
stages: rst, by extending the type-1 denitions to fuzzy sets with intervalvalued membership functions; and second, generalizing from intervals to fuzzy
sets by the use of the level set form of the extension principle assuming that
fuzzy sets are convex.
In Sect. 1.2.1 of the previous chapter, we have introduced the standard in B
given by its interval (1.25), the standard union A
B
with its
tersection A
interval (1.26), and the standard complement A with (1.27). The presented
formulae are direct results of applying the extension principle (2.1) to the
minimum, the maximum and a continuous, strictly monotone and involutive
complement neg(u) 1 u. Let I ([0, 1]) denote the set of all subintervals
of the unit interval. If membership grades characterizing a fuzzy set are extended from numbers to subintervals of [0, 1], the resultant membership grade
turns into an interval from I ([0, 1]) as well, i.e.,

u] , [v, v]) = [min(u, v), min(u, v)] ,
min([u,
(2.6)
max([u,

u] , [v, v]) = [max(u, v), max(u, v)] ,
[ux , ux ] = [1 ux , 1 ux ] ,
N
(2.7)
(2.8)
[u, u] , [v, v] I ([0, 1]). In the context of intervals, we refer to these operations as an extended minimum, an extended maximum, and an extended
negation.
36
The operations on interval-valued fuzzy sets are well dened and elaborated [Dziech and Gorzalczany 1987; Gorzalczany 1987; Karnik and Mendel
2000; Uncu and T
urksen 2007; Walker and Walker 2009; Zadeh 1975]. The
set of truth intervals I ([0, 1]) is only a partially ordered set under max
and
with the ordering dened by (1.28) [Dubois and Prade 1980].
min
Concerning weaker intersections and unions, t-norms and t-conorms can
be extended to perform calculations on I ([0, 1]), i.e.,
T([u, u] , [v, v]) = [T (u, v), T (u, v)] ,
(2.9)

S([u,
u] , [v, v]) = [S(u, v), S(u, v)] ; [u, u] , [v, v] I ([0, 1]) . (2.10)
Note that the use of a generalized extension principle, given by (2.2), does
not lead to other forms of extended triangular norms than (2.9) and (2.10).
2.1.2 Operations on Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

Introduced in [Zadeh 1975], fuzzy sets of type-2 are indeed fuzzy-valued
fuzzy sets, i.e. sets characterized by ordinary fuzzy subsets of the unit interval as membership grades, henceforth called fuzzy truth values (dened in
Chapt. 1). As a consequence, secondary membership functions are characteristic functions of fuzzy truth values, i.e. their domain is restricted to [0, 1].
We can say that fuzzy truth value F belongs to F ([0, 1]), which denotes the
power set of all fuzzy truth values. Recall that only convex fuzzy truth values
have linguistic interpretation, e.g. more or less high, denitely medium, and
somehow low. Due to the linguistic interpretability of convex fuzzy truth values, usually F ([0, 1]) is restricted to fuzzy truth intervals (known also as at
fuzzy truth numbers) or even further to fuzzy truth numbers, especially that
triangular norms extended via the extension principle on general F ([0, 1])
not always satisfy monotonicity or associativity, which we will have demonstrated in Sect. 2.5. Hence, the application of non-convex fuzzy truth values
to fuzzy logic is questionable.
Now we can extend the set-theoretic operations of conventional fuzzy set
theory to allow them to be performed on fuzzy truth values rather than on
crisp truth values. To fuzzify triangular norms, t-conorms, as well as involution operations, commonly the extension principle is used [Zadeh 1975]. In
this situation, fuzzy truth values play a role of arguments in extensions of triangular norms. Following this, standard fuzzy set operations can be fuzzied
to model the intersection of fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets.
In Sect. 1.2.2 of the previous chapter, we have introduced the standard
intersection with the membership function of the so called meet operation
(1.30), the standard union in terms of the membership function of the join
2.1 Set Theoretic Operations with the Extension Principle: State of the Art
37
operation (1.32), and the standard complement in relation to (1.34). The

forms of these membership functions are direct results of applying the extension principle (2.1) to the minimum, the maximum and the continuous,
strictly monotone and involutive complement neg(u) 1 u.
Henceforth, we refer to the join, meet and negation, as an extended minimum based on the minimum t-norm, an extended minimum based on the
minimum t-norm, and an extended negation, denoting their membership
functions by
min(f
(u),g(v)) =
max(f
(u),g(v)) =
sup
min (f (u) , g (v)) ,
(2.11)
min (f (u) , g (v)) ,
(2.12)
min(u,v)=w
sup
max(u,v)=w
n
eg(f (u)) = f (1 w) ,
(2.13)
is characterized
where A is characterized by its membership grades Fx , and B
by Gx , Fx , Gx F ([0, 1]), x R.
If we abolish the restriction to the minimum and maximum operations,
classical triangular norms and conorms can be fuzzied with the use of (2.2)
to model the alternative operations on fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets.
Denition 2.3. Let F and G be fuzzy truth values, with their membership
functions f and g, respectively, at x R, where for simplicity x is omitted,
and let T and T be arbitrary t-norms. An extended t-norm T based on T
according to the generalized extension principle, denoted by T T
(F, G), is
characterized by the following membership function,
TT
(F,G)
(w) =
sup
T (f (u) , g (v)) ,
(2.14)
T (u,v)=w
By analogy, an extended t-conorm S based on T is characterized by

ST
(F,G)
(w) =
sup
T (f (u) , g (v)) ,
(2.15)
S(u,v)=w
and an extended complementation N is characterized by

N (F ) (w) =
sup f (u) .
(2.16)
N (u)=w
At the beginning of this section, we found non-convex fuzzy truth values

hardly applicable to fuzzy logic. However, if we restrict the extension base T
to continuous t-norms and the fuzzy truth values to upper semi-continuous
fuzzy truth intervals then the extended t-norms can successfully serve in
modelling intersection and union. Additionally, if operands are dened on
dierent domains, extended t-norms are able to form fuzzy-valued relations
38
on dierent product spaces apart from the intersection of fuzzy-valued fuzzy

sets.
The formulae for extended t-norms and t-conorms are, however, very dicult to compute since the resultant membership grades are the maximal values
of T (f (u) , g (v)) for all pairs {u, v} which are equivalent in the sense that
they produce the same element w. Therefore, such extended operations are
considerably dicult to perform, as quite often there is an innite number of
combinations of input variables producing only one discrete value of the continuous range. Consequently, the standard approach requires discretization
of domains for u and v. As a result, a discrete set of function values (usually non-uniformly distributed in [0, 1]), instead of an analytical function of
w [0, 1], is obtained. Hardly any combinations of t-norms and membership
functions allow us to obtain exact analytical formulae for extended t-norms.
Just several such formulae exist in the literature but only in the context of
the extended minimum and the extended maximum [Dubois and Prade 1980;
Karnik and Mendel 2000; Tahayori et al 2009]. Hence, in the following subsections, we discuss particular combinations of fuzzied t-norms (T , t-norms on
which the extended operations are based on (T ), and membership functions
(f and g in (2.14)).
2.2 Analytical Formulae for Extended T-Norms

This section presents original exact formulae for membership functions of
extended t-norms, assuming certain combinations of fuzzied t-norms, basis
of the extension, and argument forms [Starczewski 2005, 2009b]. The unique
formulae for the extended minimum t-norm and the extended maximum tconorm based on an arbitrary t-norm for convex and normal fuzzy sets were
presented by Dubois and Prade, and then by Karnik and Mendel [Dubois
and Prade 1980; Karnik and Mendel 2000]. We generalize these results to the
extended minimum (and the maximum in the next section) based on an arbitrary t-norm. Further, we present extended continuous t-norms based on the
minimum, extensions of continuous t-norms and t-conorms based on the drastic product, extended L
ukasiewicz norms based on continuous Archimedean
t-norms for particular forms of arguments, and the extended algebraic product and sum based on product. Figure 2.1 summarizes the contribution to
this section.
While constructing fuzzy-valued (type-2) fuzzy systems, it is considered
advantageous when an extended t-norm preserves its shapes, i.e., it is reproducible operation such that the result remains in the class of arguments. The
shape preserving property is crucial in order to expand the subsequent results into their multi-argument forms. An another prot from the preserving
shapes property arises in the fact that classes of input and output fuzzyvalued fuzzy sets can be usually represented by their function parameters.

TM
c
s
n
t
t o
n
i
r
n
c
u
a
n
o

t
.
r
t
c

n
h
a
i
r

TDP

base
t-norm
extended
t-norm
39
upper semi-continuous fuzzy truth intervals

Thm. 2.2
TP
f
trapezoidal
Thm. 2.4
TP
Thm. 2.6
fuzzy
truth
intervals
Thm. 2.1
f
Thm. 2.5
f
Thm. 2.7
TL
fuzzy truth numbers

Thm. 2.3

nilpotent
strict
continuous Archimedean

TM
continuous
Fig. 2.1 Analytical expressions for extended t-norms and application areas of pro
a
fuzzy truth
vided in this chapter theorems; particular forms of arguments:
f um
1
a a
interval such that f is concave on slopes, f (u) =
40
For example, knowing that a extended t-norm preserves the Gaussian shape,
we are able to express ring fuzzy grades only with their mean values and
standard deviations. This approach evidently reduces the computational cost
of operations performed on fuzzy truth intervals and provides the opportunity for converting the fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems into their network
structures, called type-2 adaptive network fuzzy inference systems.
2.2.1 Basic Remark for Fuzzy Truth Intervals

Considering extended t-norms on fuzzy truth intervals, some basic considerations may follow, which will be helpful in most of the proofs discussed in
this section. In case of arbitrary fuzzy truth intervals, F with its membership function f and G with its membership function g, 1-cut of any extended
t-norm T based on any t-norm T depends only on [F ]1 and [G]1 in the
following manner

T T
(F, G) = {w = T (u, v) |u [F ]1 and v [G]1 } ,
(2.17)
1
which follows from T (a, b) = 1 min (a, b) = 1. Next, let us denote [F ]1 =

[mF , nF ] and [G]1 = [mG , nG ].
For any T (u, v) < T (mF , mG ), from the monotonicity of T , it can be
inferred that u < mF or v < mG . At rst, it can be assumed that u < mF .
Then assuming that T is continuous, for any [0, u w], there exists at
least one 0, such that w = T (u, mG ) = T (u , mG + ). Therefore, for
any w [0, T (mF , mG ))
sup
T (f (x) , g (y)) T (f (u) , g (mG )) T (f (u ) , g (mG + )) ,
T (x,y)=w
(2.18)
where the second inequality is valid since f is non-decreasing on [0, mF ] and
g is non-increasing on [mG , 1]. For any positive , the resultant membership
grade at points (u , mG + ) is not greater than the grade at (u, mG ).
Such situation is claried in Fig. 2.2 for three representative examples. Observe that subgure (a) applies also to the drastic product or to the noncontinuous nilpotent minimum, and subgure (b) applies to any t-norm that
has monotonic horizontal cuts as the product t-norm for example. Therefore
in order to obtain the solution, v may be bounded by mG , i.e. the maximal
membership grade may be reached only when also v mG . Together with
the case of v < mG , (u < mF v mG ) (u mF v < mG ).
Similarly, from T (u, v) > T (nF , nG ) it can be implied that u > nF v
nG or u nF v > nG . The above discussion leads to the following remark.

(a)
41
(b)
(c)
T(u,v) = const
=0
T(u,v) = const
T(u,v) = const
Fig. 2.2 Representative horizontal cuts of t-norms: (a) min, (b) TL , (c)
ordinal sum of (0.2, 1, TL )
Remark 2.1. Finding the membership function of a continuous extended tnorm when fuzzy truth intervals are used can be considered independently
on three intervals, i.e., when {u, v} belongs to [0, mF ] [0, mG ] or [mF , nF ]
[mG , nG ] or [nF , 1] [nG , 1].
The most intricate membership grade of an extended t-norm is probably
observed in case of w = 0, since it may be produced by many pairs {u, v}.
Therefore, if Ts is strict, the condition w = 0 implies u = 0 or v = 0, which
leads to the particular result for the extension of Ts based on T
TsT (0) = max (f (0) , g (0)) .
(2.19)
In case of a general TA being continuous and Archimedean, it can only be

pointed out that a membership grade for the extension of TA based on T
TAT (0) = 1
if TA (mF , mG ) = 0,
(2.20)
otherwise the result relies on the maximization of T (f (u) , g (v)) with the
constraint of the form TA (u, v) = 0.
The exact formulae for membership functions of T T
(F, G) are hardly
possible to obtain for some extended operations T based on several t-norms
T and for some types of arguments (i.e. their membership functions). Nevertheless, such formulae exist in certain cases, some of them will be derived
in the following subsections.
2.2.2 Extended Minimum T-Norms Based on

Arbitrary T-Norms
Eective construction procedures for sup-min extensions of the minimum
and the maximum on fuzzy truth numbers has been described by Dubois
and Prade in [Dubois and Prade 1980]. This result has been generalized to
42
the forms of so called meet and join operations under minimum by Karnik
and Mendel [Karnik and Mendel 2000]. We expand this to the case of fuzzy
truth intervals and an arbitrary t-norm extension.
Theorem 2.1 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Consider the two fuzzy truth intervals F and G with membership functions f and g, such that [F ]1 = [mF , nF ]
and [G]1 = [mG , nG ] (normality). Then the extended minimum t-norm based
on an arbitrary t-norm T can be expressed by the following membership function
max (f (w) , g (w)) if w

[0, min (mF , mG ))
min (mF , mG ) ,
if w
1
min (nF , nG )
min
(2.21)
T (F,G) (w) =
f (w)
if w (nF , nG ]
g(w)
if w (nG , nF ]
if w (max (nF , nG ) , 1] .
T (f (w) , g (w))
We have restated this theorem without the original assumption that nF nG ,
which is more suitable for implementation.
Proof. The membership function of the extended minimum relies on the generalized extension principle in the following way
min
T
(F,G)
sup
T (f (u) , g (v)).
(2.22)
min(u,v)=w
If w [0, min (mF , mG )), we rstly assume that u = w; then with the use
of the constraint min (u, v) = w, it follows that v w. Consequently, T
is maximal for v = mG . Assuming that v = w, it follows that u w.
Consequently, T is maximal for u = mF . By substituting u and v in (2.22),
we obtain the partial formula
max [T (f (w) , g (mG )) , T (f (mF ) , g (w))] = max (f (w) , g (w)) . (2.23)
If w (nF , nG ], we again assume that u = w, then the minimum operation
ensures that v w. Consequently, T is maximal for v = nG . Assuming that
v = w, it follows that u w, then T is maximal for u = w, since f (t) is
non-increasing when t > nF and T in non-decreasing. Accordingly, (2.22) is
equivalent to the following formula
max (T (f (w) , g (nG )) , T (f (w) , g (w))) = f (w) .
(2.24)
For the other arrangement of arguments F and G, i.e. if w (nF , nG ], instead

of f we obtain g. If w (nG , 1], T is maximal when u = v = w since both
f and g are non-increasing. If w [min (mF , mG ) , nF ], by (2.17), the rest of
the proof follows.

43
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 2.3 Extended minimum t-norm based on the L

ukasiewicz t-norm.
Example 2.1. Consider fuzzy

intervals
with trapezoidal membership
truth

0.6u
v 0.7v
functions, f (u) = min u0.1
,
, 0.2
and
g (v) = min 0.5
,
0.2
0.2
where /x/ stands for max (0, min (1, x)). The objective is to nd an analytical formula for the extended minimum t-norm based on the L
ukasiewicz
t-norm TL (a, b) = /a + b 1/.
We calculate mF = 3, nF = 4, and mG = nG = 5. We do not have
to change the order of arguments, since nF nG . Therefore, the extended
minimum t-norm based on the L
ukasiewicz t-norm is expressed as follows:

w
if w [0, min (0.3, 0.5))
max w0.1
0.2 , 0.5 , 0
1
if w [min (0.3, 0.5) , 0.4]
(2.25)
(w) =
min

0.6w
TL
(F,G)
if w (0.4, 0.5]
0.2
1.12w
if w (0.5, 1] .
0.2
The calculations are demonstrated in Fig. 2.3.
The result of Karnik and Mendel [Karnik and Mendel 2000] follows as a direct
corollary from Theorem 2.1, if the extension is based on minimum t-norm and
arguments are restricted to fuzzy truth numbers, i.e., when mF = nF and
mG = n G ,
max (f (w) , g (w)) if w [0, mF )

min
=
(2.26)
f (w)
if w [mF , mG ]
min (F,G)
min (f (w) , g (w)) if w (mG , 1] .

Theorem 2.1 and formula (2.26) can be hardly employed in fuzzy logic
systems, since processing secondary membership functions for all values
w [0, 1] is not eective. Moreover, in general, the membership function
of extended minimum does not remain in the class of its arguments, in other
44
words, the formula (2.21) does not preserve the shape. Consequently, it cannot be directly applied in adaptive network fuzzy inference systems, although
some approximations of (2.21) or (2.26) can help in deriving such systems.
2.2.3 Extended Continuous Triangular Norms Based

on the Minimum
We aim to provide continuous t-norms with their analytical extensions in a
more general setting, i.e., when its arguments are upper semicontinuous fuzzy
truth intervals. As the strictness of t-norms is no longer assumed, we need
to use pseudo-inverses of non-continuous functions introduced by Denitions
1.5 and 1.6.
Theorem 2.2 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Consider the two fuzzy truth intervals F and G with upper semicontinuous membership functions f and g. Let
us denote their cores as subintervals of their supports [mF , nF ] [lF , rF ]
[0, 1], and [mG , nG ] [lG , rG ] [0, 1]. If a t-norm T is continuous, then the
membership function of the extended t-norm T based on the minimum t-norm
can be expressed as follows
[1]
(w) if w [0, T (mF , mG ))

w
(2.27)
Tmin (F,G) (w) = 1
if w [T (mF , mG ) , T (nF , nG )]
[1]
w
(w) if w (T (nF , nG ) , 1] ,
where

w () = T f (1) () , g (1) ()
[1]

w () = T f
() , g[1] () ,
(2.28)
(2.29)
with [0, 1], and f , g, f , g are dened by

f (u) = f (u)
if u [lF , mF ]
(2.30)
g (v) = g (v)
if v [lG , mG ]
(2.31)
f (u) = f (u)
if u [nF , r F ]
(2.32)
g (v) = g (v)
if v [nG , r G ] .
(2.33)
The quickest proof for this theorem relies on the use of the Nguyen theorem
[Nguyen 1978] for the extension of a continuous monotone operation.
Proof. The Nguyen theorem [Nguyen 1978] states that for a continuous binary
operation, let us say T (or S while proving the complementary theorem for the
minimum-based extension of a continuous t-conorm), its extension based on
45

T = min can be derived from formula T min
(F, G) = T ([F ] , [G] ). Note
that plays a role of the resultant membership grade T min (F,G) ( for short).

For the 1-cut, TT (F, G) = T ([F ]1 , [G]1 ), i.e., the resultant membership
1
function is equal
to unity
F , mG ) , T (nF , nG )]. For other
whenw [T (m
cuts we get, T T (F, G) = T [F ] , [G] , or equivalently,

[1] = T f [1] () , g [1] ()
(2.34)
for the right slope of , i.e. if w (T (nF , nG ) , 1], and

[1] = T f (1) () , g (1) ()
(2.35)

for the left slope, i.e. if w [0, T (mF , mG )). Let us denote [F ] = f , f

and [G] = g , g . Using Remark 2.1, for w (T (nF , nG ) , 1], we take
[1]
() (nF , 1] and
into account only upper bounds of -cuts, i.e., f
g [1] () (nG , 1], and for w [0, T (mF , mG )), lower bounds of -cuts are
calculated from f (1) () [0, mF ) and g (1) () [0, mG ). For all [0, 1],
f (1) () = f and g(1) () = g . Therefore, (2.28) is valid. Similarly with
the use of the upper pseudo-inverse, (2.29)
is valid. Theinterval [w () , w ()]
is obviously the -cut of the result, i.e. T min
(F, G) . The use the upper
pseudo-inverse ends the proof, since both the non-decreasing function w and
the non-increasing function w are left-continuous.

A detailed graphical explanation of the procedure described by this theorem
can be found in Fig. 2.4.
The following two examples apply Theorem 2.2 to continuous triangular
and trapezoidal fuzzy truth intervals. The extension of the L
ukasiewicz tnorm partially leads to unexpected results.
Example 2.2. Consider two fuzzy
! membership
! truth
intervals with triangular
umF +F L mF +F R u
and g (v) =
,
functions dened as, f (u) = min
F L
F R
!

!
vmG +GL mG +GR v
min
. Now, the L
ukasiewicz t-norm TL (u, v) =
,
GL
GR
/u + v 1/ can be extended according to Theorem 2.2, i.e., with the lower

and upper inverses calculated as
w () = max (0, (F L +GL ) + mF + mG (F L +GL ) 1) ,
(2.36)
w () = max (0, (F R +GR ) + mF + mG + F R +GR 1) . (2.37)

Consequently, the extended L
ukasiewicz t-norm based on the minimum
is characterized by the two following cases presented in Fig. 2.5. If
TL (mF , mG ) > 0,
46
(a)
(b)
0.5
0.5
0.5
(c)
0.5
0.5
(d)
1
(e)
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.5
(f)
0.5
0.5
0.5
(g)
0.5
(h)
0.5
(i)
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0
0.5
1
1
0.5
0
0.5
Fig. 2.4 Extended product based on the minimum: (a) f , (b) g, (c) pseudo-inverse
f (1) (), (d) pseudo-inverse g (1) (), (e) product of the pseudo-inverses w, (f)
[1]
(), (g) upper pseudo-inverse g [1] (), (h) product of

upper pseudo-inverse f
the upper pseudo-inverses w, (i) extended product based on the minimum by the
use of the pseudo-inverses
"
TLmin (F,G) (w) =
min
w(mF +mG 1)+F L +GL

,
F L +GL
mF +mG 1+F R +GR w
F R +GR
"
,
(2.38)
otherwise

TLmin (F,G) (w) =
1
!
mF +mG 1+F R +GR w

F R +GR
! w=0
.
elsewhere.
(2.39)
Note that in the rst case the result (2.38) remains a triangular membership
function. Regrettably, (2.39) requires some approximation to a triangular
shape. A simple approximation method allowed us for implementation of
ecient triangular type-2 fuzzy logic systems [Starczewski 2009a; Starczewski
and Rutkowski 2002; Starczewski 2006]. To extend the following result on
trapezoidal fuzzy truth intervals we provide the following example.
Example 2.3. Consider two fuzzy
! membership
! truth
intervals with trapezoidal
r
umF +F L nF +F u
and g (v) =
,
functions dened as, f (u) = min
F L
rF
!

!
vmG +lG nG +GR v
min
. Again using Theorem 2.2, the L
ukasiewicz
,
GR
lG
t-norm can be extended by the lower and upper inverses calculated as
47
(b)
(a)
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 2.5 Extended L

ukasiewicz t-norm based on the minimum for triangular fuzzy
truth intervals: (a) the case of preserving shapes, (b) the case caused by clipping
the triangular membership function
w () = max (0, (F L +GL ) + mF + mG (F L +GL ) 1) ,

w () = max (0, (F R +GR ) + nF + nG + F R +GR 1) .
(2.40)
(2.41)
Ultimately, the extended L

ukasiewicz t-norm based on the minimum for
trapezoidal fuzzy truth intervals is characterized by the two following cases
(presented in Fig. 2.6). Whenever TL (nF , nG ) > 0, the result preserves trapezoidal shape, i.e.
"

"
w(mF +mG 1)+F L +GL
,
F L +GL
TLmin (F,G) (w) =
min
,
(2.42)
nF +nG 1+F R +GR w
F R +GR
otherwise, the result is no longer continuous, i.e.

1
(w) = !
TLmin (F,G)
nF +nG 1+F R +GR w

F R +GR
! w=0
elsewhere.
(2.43)
The reader may try to advance Theorem 2.2 by the use of the generalized
Nguyens theorem [Fuller and Keresztfalvi 1991] valid for all continuous functions, here denoted by T , and upper semicontinuous t-norms in the class of
upper semicontinuous and compactly supported fuzzy sets (see also [Carlsson
and Fuller 2002]). However, simplied results for min-based extended t-norms
seem to be more practical. A similar theorem restricted to fuzzy truth numbers can be found in [Starczewski 2005]. Moreover, formula of Theorem 2.2
may be simplied when the t-norm T is strict, i.e. a continuous and strictly
monotone t-norm Ts [Klement et al 2000],
Ts (a, c) < Ts (b, c)
whenever a < b and c > 0.
(2.44)
48

(a)
(b)
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 2.6 Extended L

ukasiewicz t-norm based on the minimum.for trapezoidal fuzzy
truth intervals: (a) the case of preserving shapes, (b) the case caused by clipping
of the trapezoidal membership function
If arguments for the extended t-norm have strictly monotone functions on

slopes and the t-norm is strict, then pseudo-inverses can be restricted to
classical inverse functions, and the following corollary follows immediately.
Corollary 2.1 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Consider the two fuzzy truth numbers F and G with continuous membership functions f and g, such that
f (mF ) = g (mG ) = 1 (normality), and f is strictly monotone on [lF , mF ]
and on [mF , rF ], separately, and g is strictly monotone on [lG , mG ] and
on [mG , rG ], separately; mF , mG (0, 1), lF [0, mF ), rF (mF , 1],
lG [0, mG ), rG (mG , 1]. The membership function of an extended strict
t-norm Ts based on the minimum can be expressed as follows
1 1
1
T f , g (w) if w (Ts (lF , lG ) , Ts (mF , mG ))

1
Tsmin (F,G) (w) = T 1 f , g1 (w) if w [Ts (mF , mG ) , Ts (rF , rG ))
0
otherwise,
(2.45)
where
f (u) = f (u)
if u [lF , mF )
(2.46)
g (v) = g (v)
if v [lG , mG )
(2.47)
f (u) = f (u)
g (v) = g (v)
if u [mF , rF ]
if v [mG , r G ] .
(2.48)
(2.49)
This corollary can help in derivation of extended strict t-norms on

Gaussian fuzzy truth values [Mendel 2001; Starczewski 2005] as well as in
49
approximation of extended t-norms, one of which, i.e. Gaussian approximation of the extended product based on the minimum, will be presented in
Sect. 2.4.1 after [Starczewski 2005].
2.2.4 Extended Continuous T-Norms Based on the

Drastic Product
While the minimum is the strongest t-norm, the drastic product TD (x, y) =
{min (x, y) if max (x, y) = 1; 0 otherwise} is the weakest form of all t-norms.
Consequently, extended continuous t-norms based on the drastic product are
characterized by the lowest interactions between u and v in formulating pairs
{u, v} producing elements w of the extended t-norms. It directly lead us to
the following theorem restated here without the assumption that argument
fuzzy truth numbers are somehow ordered.
Theorem 2.3 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Let the fuzzy truth numbers F and
G be characterized by normal membership functions f and g (i.e. such that
f (mF ) = g (mG ) = 1), respectively. Then an extended continuous t-norm
T based on the drastic product t-norm TD is characterized by the following
membership function
T
(w)
TD
(F,G)

[1]
[1]
max
f
T
(w)
,
g
T
(w)
m
m
G
F

(1)
(1)
max
f
T
(w)
,
g
T
(w)
m
m
G
F

(1)
= f Tm
(w)
G
(1)
g
T
(w)
m
(2.50)
if w [0, T (mF , mG )]
if w (T (mF , mG ), min (mF , mG )]
if w (mF , mG ]
if w (mG , mF ]
otherwise.
A proof of this theorem is a plain consequence of applying the generalized

extension principle [Starczewski 2009b].
Proof. Applying the normality of arguments and the form of TD , the membership function for all w [0, T (mF , mG )] may be evaluated as follows

max
sup
f (u) ,
T (u,mG )=w
= max
sup
[1]
u=TmG (w)
sup
g (v)
T (mF ,v)=w
f (u) ,
sup
[1]
v=TmF (w)
g (v) .
50
Since f and g are non-decreasing on [0, mF ] and [0, mG ], respectively, the

supremum requires maximal u and v. The horizontal section of T is continuous and non-increasing, hence maximal u and v are for the left-continuous,
i.e. upper pseudo-inverse. Similar calculations can be performed for w
(T (mF , mG ), T (mF , 1)] with the use of the pseudo-inverse which is rightcontinuous. Next, if w (T (mF , 1), 1] then v such that T (mF , v) = w
does not exist. Narrowing the interval, if w (T (1, mG ) , 1] then u fullling T (u, mG ) = w does not exist either. The result follows.

Example 2.4 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Let two Gaussian
fuzzy truth numbers

2
1 umF
be given by their membership functions f (u) = exp 2
and
F

2
G
g (v) = exp 12 vm
. The extended product t-norm based on the
G
drastic product for all w [0, min (mF , mG )] may be evaluated as follows

2
1 wmF mG
exp
2
mG F

T
(2.51)
(w)
=
max

2
P TD
(F,G)
F mG
exp 12 wm
mF G

2

1
wmF mG
= exp
.
(2.52)
2 max(mG F ,mF G )
Applying the whole expression (2.50), we obtain
T
(w)
P TD
(F,G)

2
wmF mG
1
exp
2 max(mG F ,mF G )

exp 1 wmF mG 2
2
mG F
=

2
1 wmF mG
exp
2
mF G
(2.53)
if w [0, min (mF , mG )]
if w (mF , mG ]
if w (mG , mF ]
otherwise.
As it can be seen in Fig. 2.7, the extended product based on the weakest tnorm preserves the Gaussian shape on [0, min(mF , mG )] and on[min(mF , mG ),
max (mF , mG )], separately. Therefore, some approximation of this result can
be applied to adaptive network fuzzy inference systems with small computational costs. Is seems somehow unexpectedly, that this result in [0, mF ]
have the same form as the approximate result of Karnik and Mendel derived
without the context of the drastic product t-norm [Karnik and Mendel 2000;
Mendel 2001].
51
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 2.7 Extended product t-norm based on the drastic product
2.2.5 Extended Algebraic Product T-Norm Based on

the Product for Trapezoidal Fuzzy Truth
Intervals
In the case of the product-based extension of the product t-norm, an interesting result has been derived in [Starczewski 2009b] under assumption
that arguments are trapezoidal fuzzy truth intervals or triangular fuzzy truth
numbers as well.
Theorem 2.4 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Let TP be the product t-norm and let
F
functions,
! by trapezoidal
! membership

! e.g. f (u) =
! andG be characterized
u
F
G
and g (v) = min mvl
, respectively;
, rrFFn
, rG v
min mul
F lF
F
G lG rG nG
0 < lF < mF nF < rF 1; 0 < lG < mG nG < rG 1. Then
the extended product t-norm based on TP is characterized by the following
membership function
)
)

lF
lG
w
g
w
,
l
l
G F if w [lF lG , mF mG )
max
w
w
f mG , g mF
1
)
if w [mF mG , nF nG ]
)
T
(w) =
r
r
P TP
(F,G)
F
G
f
w ,
rG w g
if w (nF nG , rF rG ]
rF

max
w
w
,
g
f
nG
nF
0
otherwise.
(2.54)
Proof. For all w [lF lG , mF mG ], the minimized function is as follows
w
*
+

F
u lG
w (u) = inf log mul
log
,
(2.55)
mG lG
F lF
u
w
mG
,mF
52

mG . From w
(u) = 0,
)
lF
1
w
1
u2 = 0, which is fullled whenever u = lG w. This
we get ulF w
u lG

solution, together with u mwG , mF lead to the following result
where the limits for u comes from u mF and v =
w
u
)
)

lF
lG
w
g
w
,
f
lF
lG
w
T
(w)
=
max
g
(m
f
)
,
G
mG
P TP
(F,G)

f (mF ) g mwF
)

)
w
w
lF
lG
,g
.
= max f
lG w g
lF w , f
mG
mF
(2.56)
For all w [nF nG , rF rG ], the minimized function is

w (u) =
inf

u nF , nw
log
rF u
rF nF
log
rG w
u
rG nG

.
(2.57)

Performing identical argumentation ends the proof.

This theorem can be illustrated with the following numerical example.
Example 2.5. Fixing the parameters as follows lF = 0.2, mF = 0.4, nF =

0.5, rF = 0.9, and lG = 0.4, mG = 0.6, nG = 0.7, rG = 1, the extended
product based on the product takes the form
,
w
f
g 2w ,
w2 w
max
0.6 , g 0.4
1

T
(w) =
, w
P TP
(F,G)
f
,
0.9w
g
w w 0.9

max
f
,
g
0.7
0.5
if w [0.08, 0.24)
if w [0.24, 0.35]
if w (0.35, 0.9]
otherwise.
(2.58)
Fig. 2.8 presents the result.

It can be easily noted that the above result does not preserve the linearity
of shapes, which invalidates this method for a straight use in fuzzy logic
systems. However, some approximations that preserve shapes of membership
functions can be derived on the basis of this exact result.
53
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 2.8 Extended product t-norm based on the product[Starczewski 2009b]
2.2.6 Extended L
ukasiewicz T-Norm Based on a
Continuous Archimedean T-Norm
The extended L
ukasiewicz t-norm can be represented by analytical formulae
if only the generalized extension principle based on continuous Archimedean
t-norms and arguments are of special type. A certain combination
Theorem 2.5 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Let Ta be a continuous Archimedean
t-norm with an additive generator . Moreover, let fuzzy truth intervals F
and G be characterized by their membership functions f , increasing only on
[lF , mF ] and decreasing only on [nF , rF ], and g, increasing only on [lG , mG ]
and decreasing only on [nG , rG ], respectively, and such that f is concave
on [lF , mF ] and [nF , rF ] and g is concave on [lG , mG ] and [nG , rG ]; 0
lF < mF nF < rF 1, 0 lG < mG nG < rG 1. Then the extension
of the L
ukasiewicz t-norm TL based on Ta is characterized by the following
membership function
TLT (F,G) (w)
a
0
if w = 0;
T
(f
(max
(w
m
+
1,
l
))
,
g
(min
(m
,
w
l
+
1)))
,
a
G
F
G
F
max
Ta (f (min (mF , w lG + 1)) , g (max (w mF + 1, lG )))
if w [TL (lF , lG ) , TL (mF , mG )) ;
= 1
if w [TL (mF , mG ) , TL (nF , nG )];

Ta (f (max (nF , /w rG + 1/)) , g (min (/w nF + 1/ , rG ))) ,
max
Ta (f (min (/w nG + 1/ , rF )) , g (max (nG , /w rF + 1/)))
if w (TL (nF , nG ) , TL (rF , rG )) ;
0
otherwise .
(2.59)
54
where
0
1
if TL (mF , mG ) =
0
Ta (f (max (1 mG , lF )) , g (min (mG , 1 lF ))) ,

= max
Ta (f (min (mF , 1 lG )) , g (max (1 mF , lG )))
otherwise.
(2.60)
This result was inspired by the result of Fuller and Keresztfalvi, [Fuller
and Keresztfalvi 1992], and other papers on the addition of fuzzy numbers
[Hong and Hwang 1994; Mesiar 1996], and on the addition of fuzzy intervals
[Mesiar 1997].
Proof. For Ta being either strict or nilpotent, the common way of construction of an Archimedean t-norm Ta is via its additive generator . As
a consequence, our objective is to minimize a function w : [w, 1] [0, ],
which can be dened for all w (0, 1] by
w (u) = f (u) + g (v (u)) = f (u) + g (w u + 1) ,
(2.61)
For w [TL (lF , lG ) , TL (mF , mG )), f is decreasing and g is increasing

in u. For the reason that the both summands f and g are concave,
the function w reaches its minimum at one of border values of u. The least
border value is an aggregation of the least argument values for w , g, and
f , i.e. max (w, w mG + 1, lF ), where w may be evidently neglected. The
greatest border value is equal to min (mF , w lG + 1). Thus,
inf w (u) = min (w (max (w mG + 1, lF )) , w (min (mF , w lG + 1))) .
u[w,1]
(2.62)
For w (TL (nF , nG ) , TL (rF , rG )], f is increasing in u and g is
decreasing in u. By reason of the concavity of the composites, the function
w reaches its minimum at the border values: max (nF , w, /w rG + 1/) and
min (/w nG + 1/ , rF ), where for the bounding operator, it is sucient that
/x/ = min (1, x). Thus,
inf w = min (w (max (nF , /w rG +1/)) , w (min (/w nG +1/ , rF ))) .
u[w,1]
(2.63)
For w = 0, either TL (mF , mG ) = 0 or TL (mF , mG ) > 0. In the former case
w obviously belongs to the kernel. In the latter case we shall minimize a
function 0 : [0, 1] [0, ], dened by
u (u, v) = f (u) + g (v) ,
(2.64)
55
where TL (u, v) = 0. Since both f and g are decreasing, the minimum

is achieved for the greatest values u and v with the restriction u + v
1. The greatest value of u is equal to min (mF , 1 lG ) and v is restricted
to max (1 mF , lG ). The greatest value of v is min (mG , 1 lF ) and the
corresponding u is max (1 mG , lF ). Thus,

0 (max (1 mG , lF ) , min (mG , 1 lF )) ,
inf 0 = min
.
(2.65)
0 (min (mF , 1 lG ) , max (1 mF , lG ))
u+v0
Evaluating w together with 0 ends the proof.

!
!
!
!
0.15
0.55
and g (v) = 0.5+|0.75v|
. Let Ta
Example 2.6. Let f (u) = 0.1+|0.55u|
be realized by the product t-norm TP , whose additive generator is (x) =
log x. Then both log f and log g are concave, and by applying Theorem
2.5, we obtain for all w [0, 0.2)
TLT
a (F,G)
(w) = max (f (w + 0.3) g (0.7) , f (0.5) g (w + 0.5))

0.55
0.75w ,
(2.66)
and for all w (0.3, 1],

TLT
a (F,G)
(w) = max

=
f (max ( 0.6, w)) g (/w + 0.4/) ,

f (/w + 0.2/) g (max (0.8, w))
if w (0.4, 0.6]
if w (0.6, 1] .
0.55
w+0.15
0.11
w0.45
(2.67)
Otherwise the resultant membership grades are equal to unity, what can be
seen in Fig. 2.9.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 2.9 Extended L

ukasiewicz t-norm based on the product t-norm for special
arguments [Starczewski 2009b]
56
Some results for the addition of fuzzy intervals have been derived without
restrictions to concavity, but assuming a specic membership function form
[Mesiar 1997]. However, the conveyance of that result on a wide range of tnorms is no longer easy, but can be done for the extension of the L
ukasiewicz
t-norm. As we stated earlier each continuous Archimedean t-norm can be
either strict or nilpotent. Applying a strict t-norm Ts as a base for the extension of an arbitrary t-norm, the generalized extension principle transforms
itself into

TT (F,G) (w) = 1
(2.68)
inf ( f (u) + g (v)) ,
s
T (u,v)=w
where denotes additive generator of Ts , : [0, 1] [0, ]. The generalized

extension principle based on a nilpotent t-norm Tn with its normed additive
generator : [0, 1] [0, 1], applied to an arbitrary t-norm, is equivalent to

TT (F,G) (w) = 1
(2.69)
inf (/ f (u) + g (v)/) .
n
T (u,v)=w
Recall that both additive generators, are strictly decreasing functions. In

both of this cases, only particular forms of the composites f and g
may lead us to derive exact formulae for extended t-norms.
Theorem 2.6 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Let : [, ] [0, ) be a continuous convex function and strictly monotone in [0, ] such that (0) = 0,
and (x) = (x) for all x R. Let Ts be a strict t-norm with an additive
generator . Moreover, let the operands
their
F and
G be characterized
byvn

1
membership functions f (u) = 1 a um
and
g
(v)
=
b
,
a
b
respectively; a, b > 0; m, n [0, 1]. Then the the extended L
ukasiewicz t-norm
TL based on Ts is characterized by the following membership function

0

if w = 0
(2.70)
TLT (F,G) (w) =
wmn+1
1
s
(a + b)
otherwise,
a+b
where

0 =
1
1

(a + b) 1mn
a+b
if TL (m, n) = 0
otherwise.
(2.71)
Proof. Using the generalized extension principle in the form of (2.68), the
following expression shall be minimized
um

(u, v) =
inf
a a + b vn
,
(2.72)
b
u+v1=w
um
wu+1n
w (u) = inf a a + b
.
(2.73)
b
u[w,1]
57
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 2.10 Extended L

ukasiewicz t-norm based on the product for Gaussian
arguments

=
The
minimum
is reached with the use of the necessary condition um
a

um
wun+1
vn
,
which
is
fullled
when
=
=
,
or,
after
some
wu+1n
b
a
b
b
calculations, when um
= wmn+1
. The sucient condition for obtaining
a
a+b
the minimum is that is convex and monotone in [0, ). The rest of the
proof follows immediately.

Example 2.7. Consider the extended L
ukasiewicz t-norm based on the product on Gaussian fuzzy truth numbers. The product TP is obviously a strict
t-norm. with the add For the additive generator = log x, the function
may be dened by = x2 and the following substitutions may be performed:
2
= b, mF = m, mG = n; mF , mG [0, 1]. Thus,
2F2 = a, 2G
the arguments
2
1 umF
are described by their membership functions f (u) = exp 2
and
F

2
G
g (v) = exp 12 vm
. Moreover, let us assume that mF + mG > 1.
G
The use of Theorem 2.6 leads to the result described by the membership
function
1
T
(w) = exp
L T P
w mF mG + 1
,
2
F2 + G
2
.
(2.74)
The illustration is given in Fig. 2.10. This result, due to its preserving shape
for TL (mF , mG ) > 0, after some approximations may be applied in adaptive network fuzzy inference systems by performing operations on parameters
mi , i for each i-th fuzzy set.
58
If we assume that the extension base is a nilpotent t-norm, the following

theorem results.
Theorem 2.7 ([Starczewski 2009b]). Let : [, ] [0, ) be a continuous convex function and strictly monotone in [0, ] such that (0) = 0
and (x) = (x) for all x R. Let Tn be a nilpotent t-norm with
an additive generator . Moreover, let the operands F and G be
charum
1
a
and
acterized by their membership
functions
f
(u)
=
a

,
respectively;
a,
b
>
0;
m,
n
[0,
1].
Then
the
exg (v) = 1 b vn
b
tended L
ukasiewicz t-norm TL based on Tn is characterized by the following
membership function

0 !

! if w = 0
(2.75)
TLT (F,G) (w) =
wmn+1
1
n
(a + b)
otherwise,
a+b
where

0 =
1
1
!

!
(a + b) 1mn
a+b
if TL (m, n) = 0
otherwise.
(2.76)
Proof. The proof diers from the proof of Theorem 2.6 in a detail, i.e., we
minimize

vn
a um
+
b
inf
(2.77)
a
b
u+v1=w

wu+1n
+
b
.
=
inf a um
a
b
u[w,1]
Evidently, the above equivalence must be additionally checked only

for
the

> 1,
case when one of the summands is out of bounds. Indeed, if a um
a
.
Therefore,
the equivalence is reduced to the unity independently of b vn
b
only the outer bounding operator is sucient.

2.3 Analytical Formulae for Extended T-Conorms

All derived formulae for extended t-norms can be easily transformed into
their counterparts, i.e. t-conorms, by substituting new variables: u = 1 u ,
v = 1 v and w = 1 w . mF = 1 n F , nF = 1 m F , mG = 1 n G ,
nG = 1 m G , f (w) = f (1 w). Consequently, the generalization of the
well known result for the extended maximum (join under minimum) [Karnik
and Mendel 2000] follows from Theorem 2.1.
2.3 Analytical Formulae for Extended T-Conorms
59
Corollary 2.2. Consider the two fuzzy truth intervals F and G with membership functions f and g, such that [F ]1 = [mF , nF ] and [G]1 = [mG , nG ]
(normality). Then the extended maximum t-norm based on an arbitrary tnorm T can be expressed by the following membership function
T (f (w) , g (w))
if w [0, min (mF , mG ))
g(w)
if
w [mF ,mG )
f (w)
if w [m
G ,mF )

max
T (F,G) (w) =
max
(m
,
m
)
,
F
G
1
if w
max (nF , nG )
max (f (w) , g (w)) if w (max (nF , nG ) , 1] .

(2.78)
Theorem 2.2 leads us to the extension of any continuous t-conorm based on
the minimum t-norm.
Corollary 2.3. Consider the two fuzzy truth intervals F and G with upper
semicontinuous membership functions f and g. Let us denote their cores as
subintervals of their supports [mF , nF ] [lF , rF ] [0, 1], and [mG , nG ]
[lG , rG ] [0, 1]. If a t-conorm S is continuous, then the membership function
of the extended t-conorm S based on the minimum t-norm can be expressed
as follows
[1]
(w)
w
Smin (F,G) (w) = 1
[1]
w
(w)
if w [0, S (mF , mG )]
if w (S (mF , mG ) , S (nF , nG ))
if w [S (nF , nG ) , 1] ,
(2.79)
where

w () = S f (1) () , g(1) () ,
[1]

w () = S f
() , g [1] () ,
(2.80)
(2.81)
with [0, 1], and f , g, f , g are dened by

f (u) = f (u)
if u [lF , mF ] ,
(2.82)
g (v) = g (v)
if v [lG , mG ] ,
(2.83)
f (u) = f (u)
g (v) = g (v)
if u [nF , rF ] ,
if v [nG , r G ] .
(2.84)
(2.85)
60
As a consequence of Theorem 2.3, any extended continuous t-conorm based

on the drastic product t-norms can be calculated as follows.
Corollary 2.4. Let the fuzzy truth numbers F and G be characterized by
normal membership functions f and g (i.e. such that f (mF ) = g (mG ) = 1),
respectively. Then an extended continuous t-conorm S based on the drastic
product t-norm TD is characterized by the following membership function

(1)
g
S
(w)
m
(1)
f SmG (w)
(1)
f
S
,
m
G (w)
max

(1)
S
(w) =
g SmF (w)
TD
(F,G)
[1]
f
S
,
m
G (w)
max [1]
g SmF (w)
if w [mF , mG )
if w [mG , mF )

max (mF , mG ) ,
if w
S (mF , mG )
if w [S (mF , mG ) , 1]
otherwise.
(2.86)
Theorem 2.6 leads us to the extended bounded sum formula.

Theorem 2.8. Let : [, ] [0, ) be a continuous convex function
and strictly monotone in [0, ] such that (0) = 0, and (x) = (x) for
all x R. Let Ts be a strict t-norm with an additive generator . Moreover,
let the operands
their
F and
G be characterized
by
vn
membership functions
1
and
g
(v)
=
b
, respectively; a, b > 0;
f (u) = 1 a um
a
b
m, n [0, 1]. Then the extended bounded sum (Lukasiewicz) t-conorm SL
based on Ts is characterized by the following membership function

1

if w = 1
SLT (F,G) (w) =
(2.87)
wmn
1
s
(a + b)
otherwise,
a+b
where

1 =
1
1

(a + b)
1mn
a+b
if SL (m, n) = 1
otherwise .
(2.88)
While proving this theorem we use minimization of (2.72) with the constraint u + v = 1 (from the bounded sum) instead of u + v 1 = w (from
L
ukasiewicz t-norm). Hence the minimization proceeds identically. The utility
of this corollary may be followed by the example.
2.4 Approximate Extended Triangular Norms
61
Example 2.8. Consider the extended bounded t-norm based on the product
on Gaussian fuzzy truth numbers. The product TP is obviously a strict t-norm
with its additive generator = log x, the function is dened by = x2
2
and the following substitutions are performed: 2F2 = a, 2G
= b, mF =
m, mG = n; mF , mG [0, 1].
The
arguments
are
described
by
their
member

2

2
1 umF
1 vmG
ship functions f (u) = exp 2
and
g
(v)
=
exp
.
F
2
G
Moreover, let us assume that mF + mG < 1. The use of Corollary 2.8 leads
to the result described by the membership function

2
w
m
1
G
.
, F
S
(2.89)
(w) = exp
2
L TP
2
F2 + G
Evidently, if SL (mF , mG ) < 1, this result preserves the Gaussian shape.
Theorem 2.7 together with the Theorem 2.8 lead us to the following corollary.
Corollary 2.5. Let : [, ] [0, ) be a continuous convex function
and strictly monotone in [0, ] such that (0) = 0 and (x) = (x) for all
x R. Let Tn be a nilpotent t-norm with an additive generator . Moreover,
let the operands
functions

F and G
be characterized
by their
membership

vn
1
and
g
(v)
=
b
,
respectively;
a, b >
f (u) = 1 a um
a
b
0; m, n [0, 1]. Then the extended bounded sum (Lukasiewicz) t-conorm SL
based on Tn is characterized by the following membership function

1 !

! if w = 1
SLT (F,G) (w) =
(2.90)
wmn
1
n
(a + b)
otherwise,
a+b
where

1 =
1
1
!

!
(a + b) 1mn
a+b
if TL (m, n) = 0
otherwise.
(2.91)

Calculations of the extended product are usually complicated for Gaussian
arguments. Moreover, the exact results of the extended t-norms quite often do
not remain Gaussian. Therefore, some Gaussian approximations of extended
t-norms may be presented. One known approach for Gaussian approximations of the product-based extended product has been proposed by Karnik
62
and Mendel [Karnik and Mendel 2000; Mendel 2001]. We recall this result
here. If there are two Gaussian fuzzy truth numbers, F and G, with means
mF , mG and standard deviations F , G , respectively, then, the formula for
Gaussian approximation to the product-based extended product
t-norm can be expressed by

1
T
(w) = exp
P TP
(F,G)
2
2
wmF mG
(F mG )2 +(G mF )2
(2.92)
2.4.1 Gaussian Approximation to the

Minimum-Based Extended Product T-Norm
Here we may propose new approximation derived from our theorem [Starczewski 2005]. Corollary 2.1 allows for deriving an analytical formula for
Gaussian approximations of the minimum-based extended product. Having
Gaussian
fuzzy truth
values given by their membership
functions f (u) =

2

2
F
G
and g (v) = exp 21 vm
, the inverse functions
exp 21 um
F
G
of their slopes are as follows:
,
2 ln [0, mF ]
,
1
g () = mG G 2 ln [mF , 1]
,
1
f () = mF + F 2 ln [0, mG ]
,
g 1 () = mG + G 2 ln [mG , 1]
f 1 () = mF F
if u [lF , mF )
(2.93)
if v [lG , mG )
(2.94)
if u [mF , r F ]
(2.95)
if v [mG , r G ] .
(2.96)
The product operation leads us to the lower and upper inverse functions:
f 1 () g1 () = mF mG (mG F + mF G )
,
2 ln 2F G ln
if [0, mF mG ] ,
(2.97)
,
() g1 () = mF mG + (mG F + mF G ) 2 ln 2F G ln
(2.98)
if [mF mG , 1] ,
At this point, we have to compare forms of (2.97) and (2.93). Since a Gaussian
membership function is strongly expected as the result, we must consider
whether we can ignore the summand F G log in (2.97) and (2.98). Hence,
the approximating assumption can be evaluated in the following way:
,
(mG F + mF G ) 2 ln |2F G ln | = 2F G ln ,
(2.99)
,
mF
mG
ln .
(2.100)
G + F
63
It is easy to check that the function 2 ln is decreasing on [0, 1] and its

.1
.1
,
average can be calculated as 0 2 ln d/ 0 d =
2 . As the mean
values mF and mG are some principal numbers in [0, 1], suciently small
standard deviations F and G justify the Gaussian approximation. Obviously, in a fortunate case, the greater mean value is, the lower corresponding
standard deviation should be. Therefore, the lower and upper inverse functions can be approximated as
,
f 1 () g 1 () mF mG (mG F + mF G ) 2 ln if [0, mF mG ] ,
(2.101)
,
1
f () g 1 () mF mG + (mG F + mF G ) 2 ln if [mF mG , 1] ,
(2.102)
from which it follows

1 wmF mG 2
(w)
exp
.
P TM
(F,G)
2 F mG +G mF
(2.103)
As expected, the mean value of the obtained membership function is the

product of mF and mG . What interpretation can be assigned to the standard
deviation of the Gaussian? This is an average spread cross-weighted by mean
values, since the standard deviation value is a sum of spreads of arguments
multiplied transversely by the mean values.
2.4.2 Asymmetric-Gaussian Approximations to the

Extended Product Based on the Minimum
All presented Gaussian approximations of the extended t-norms vary
signicantly from the usually strongly asymmetric exact results of applying
the generalized extension principle. For that simple reason, a better approximation can be accomplished by two monotonic pieces of Gaussian functions
with the same mean value and with not necessarily equal standard deviations,
i.e.,

2
1 umF
u [0, mF ]
exp 2
F

(2.104)
f (u) =

2
,
1]
,
u
(m
exp 12 um
F
F

2
1 vmG
v [0, mG ]
exp 2
G

g (v) =
(2.105)

2
,
1]
.
v
(m
exp 12 vm
G
G
64
Obviously, the extended product of fuzzy truth numbers characterized by

(2.104) and (2.105) has a membership function with the mean value m =
mF mG . Here we can assume that the result consists of Gaussian components
of the form

2
w [0, m]
exp 21 wm

2
(w)
=
T
P TM
(F,G)
w (m, 1] .
exp 12 wm
(2.106)
If we assume that the approximation has an exact value at w = 0, it is

sucient that u = 0 or v = 0. The use of the normality of f and g leads to
the expression

supv[0,1] min (f (0) , g (v)) ,
T
(0)
=
max
(2.107)
P TM
(F,G)
supu[0,1] min (f (u) , g (0))
= max (f (0) , g (0)) .
Consequently,

1 m 2
exp
2

2
2

1 mF
1 mG
= max exp
, exp
(2.108)
2 F
2 G

2
2

1 mF mG
1 mF mG
= max exp
, exp
. (2.109)
2 F mG
2 G mF
Since both functions under the maximum are normal, the greater one has a
greater standard deviation

2
1 m 2
mF mG
1
exp
.
(2.110)
= exp
2
2 max (F mG , G mF )
The assumption of the exact value of the result at w = 1 ensures that both
u = 1 and v = 1, accordingly,
T
(1) = min (f (1) , g (1))

1 1mG 2
1 1mF 2
,
exp
.
= min exp
F
G
2
2
TP TM
(F,G)
(2.111)
65

Since exp x2 is a decreasing function of any positive x, the minimum of
the functions goes into the function of the maximum of the arguments such
that

2

2

1
1 mF 1 mG
1 1m
,
= exp max
. (2.112)
exp
2
2
F
G
Combining (2.110) and (2.112), we get the following formula for an assymetricGaussian approximation

2
wmF mG
1
exp 2 max(F mG ,G mF )
if w [0, mF mG ]

2
(w) exp 1
T
wmF mG

P TM
(F,G)
1mF mG
1mF mG
2
min F 1m
,G 1m
F
G
if w (mF mG , 1] .
(2.113)
Actually this approximation is a rather simple three-point piecewise Gaussian interpolation of the exact membership function. However, it is one exemplary step toward parametrized operations preserving shapes of membership
functions.
2.4.2.1
Use of Classical T-Norms for an Assymetric-Gaussian

Approximation
The aim of this subsection is to present a class of approximations of extended

t-norms for assymetric-Gaussian fuzzy truth numbers which use ordinary
t-norms. Let the arguments be characterized by (2.104) and (2.105). The
approximate extended t-norm is dened in terms of (2.106) where the center
m = T (mF , mG ) and two remaining interpolation points satisfy the following
equations:
m = T (/mF F / , /mG G /) ,
(2.114)
m + = T (/mF + F / , /mG + G /) .
(2.115)
= m T (/mF F / , /mG G /) ,
(2.116)
= T (/mF + F / , /mG + G /) m.
(2.117)
Therefore,
This approach reduces calculations of extended t-norms to computing only

the three characteristic variables m, and . Arbitrary conventional t-norms
here may be used.
66
2.5 Triangular Norms and Complementary Norms on

Fuzzy Truth Values
Triangular norms have been used widely as basic operations on fuzzy sets
allowing to construct various structures of fuzzy logic systems. Within last
ten years, they have been extended to form the algebra of type-2 fuzzy sets
[Kawaguchi and Miyakoshi 1999; Walker and Walker 2005]. From the algebraic point of view, there is no need to employ the extension principle in
order to obtain a t-norm that operates on fuzzy truth values. Some analytical formulae for triangular norms on fuzzy truth values can be derived
without limitations of the extension principle. We may provide an axiomatic
way for expressing t-norms and t-conorms on a partially ordered set of fuzzy
truth values.
Let the two fuzzy truth values F and G be characterized by their membership functions f : [0, 1] [0, 1] and g : [0, 1] [0, 1]. An ordering of these
and max
fuzzy truth values can be dened intermediately with the use of min

are dened respectively by
(F, G) =
min
sup
min (f (u) , g (v)) ,
(2.118)
min (f (u) , g (v)) .
(2.119)
min(u,v)=w
max
(F, G) =
sup
max(u,v)=w
Following Mizumoto and Tanaka [Mizumoto and Tanaka 1976], the relation
ordering fuzzy truth values can be dened as
(F, G) = F
F G min
and max
(F, G) = G,
(2.120)
(2.121)
Mizumoto and Tanaka [Mizumoto and Tanaka 1976] have proven that under
these order relations (not necessarily both) the set of arbitrary fuzzy truth
values forms a partially ordered set, i.e., the relations are reexive, transitive
and antisymmetric. It can be easily veried that only fuzzy truth values of
the same height can satisfy the ordering relation given by both (2.120) and
(2.121).
Let L = (F ([0, 1]) , ) denote an underlying lattice of the fuzzy set theory,
where F ([0, 1]) is the power set of fuzzy truth values. The smallest element
of L is 0 = 1/0, and the largest element is 1 = 1/1. An axiomatic notation
of triangular norms on L can be provided as follows.
Denition 2.4. A t-norm on the complete lattice L = (F ([0, 1]) , ) is a
function of two variables T : F ([0, 1]) F ([0, 1]) F ([0, 1]) that satises:
2.5 Triangular Norms and Complementary Norms on Fuzzy Truth Values
67
1. monotonicity: T (F, H) T (G, H) if F G,

2. commutativity:
T (F, G) = T(G, F ),

3. associativity: T T (F, G) , H = T F, T (G, H) ,
4. existence of the unit element: T (F, 1) = F ,
while F, G, H F ([0, 1]).
In the context of type-2 fuzzy logic the t-norm on this complete lattice is
called a type-2 t-norm.
Restricting fuzzy truth values to fuzzy truth intervals, we can take advantage of Theorem 2.1 for the minimum-based extended minimum and maximum. The ordering relation (2.120) and (2.121) is equivalent to the following
both (not equivalent) inequalities:
f (w) g (w)
f (w) g (w)
if w [0, mF ]
if w [nG , 1] .
(2.122)
(2.123)
where mF is the greatest lower bound of the kernel of F and nG is the least
upper bound of the kernel of G.
The following question arises. Does every t-norm extended using the extension principle is a t-norm on L? The answer to this question is in the
following theorem presenting conditions under which extensions of t-norms
are t-norms on the complete lattice.
Theorem 2.9 ([Starczewski 2009b]). An extended continuous t-norm on
fuzzy truth intervals is a t-norm on L = (F ([0, 1]) , ).
Proof. The existence of the unit element and commutativity can be easily
proved by the following:
TT
(F,1)
TT
(F,G)
(w) =
sup
T (f (u) , 1) = f (w) ,
(2.124)
T (u,1)=w
(w) =
sup
T (f (u) , g (v)) =
T (u,v)=w
= TT
(G,F )
sup
T (g (v) , f (u))
T (v,u)=w
(w) .
The associativity can be proved as follows:

TT (TT (F,G),H ) (y) = sup T
T (x,w)=y
sup

T (f (u) , g (v)) , h (w)
T (u,v)=x
(2.125)
=
sup
T (u,T (v,w))=y
T (f (u) , T (g (v) , h (w))) = TT (F,TT (G,H)) (y) ,
68
where an arbitrary T preserves its supremum on the closed level-set given

by {(u, v) |T (u, v) = x} since T is continuous. While proving monotonicity,
from F G, i.e.,
f (u) g (u)
f (u) g (u)
if u [0, mF )
if u (nG , 1] .
(2.126)
(2.127)
it must be inferred that for all fuzzy truth intervals H, T (F, H) T (G, H).
For z [0, T (mF , mH )], by Remark 2.1, u [0, mF ] and w [0, mH ]. Then
by the monotonicity of T ,
T (f (u) , h (w))
sup
sup
T (u,w)=z
T (g (u) , h (w)) .
(2.128)
T (u,w)=z
For z [T (nG , nH ) , 1], by Remark 2.1, u [nG , 1] and w [nH , 1]. Again,
by the monotonicity of T ,
T (g (u) , h (w))
sup
T (u,w)=z
sup
T (f (u) , h (w)) .
(2.129)
T (u,w)=z

However, if the participant sets are not convex, formula (2.14) no longer
represents the type-2 t-norm.
Example 2.9. Consider membership functions dened as follows: f = 1/0.4,
g = 1/0.6 and h = 1/0 + 1/1. It is obvious that F G. While checking monotonicity, this has to imply that T (F, H) T (G, H). Since T (f (u) , h (v)) =
0 for v = 0 and v = 1, only v = 0 or v = 1 will be considered. Then,
TT
(F,H)
(0) =
sup
T (f (u) , h (v))
(2.130)
T (u,v)=0
= max
T (f (u) , h (0)) ,
sup
T (u,0)=0
sup
T (f (u) , h (1))
T (u,1)=0
= max ( T (f (0.4) , 1) , T (f (0) , 1)) = max (1, 0) = 1

(2.131)
and for w > 0
TT
(F,H)
(w) =
sup
T (f (u) , h (1))
(2.132)
T (u,1)=w
= T (f (w) , 1) = f (w) .
(2.133)
= 1/0 + 1/0.4.
(2.134)
= 1/0 + 1/0.6.
(2.135)
Therefore,
TT
(F,H)
Similarly,
TT
(G,H)
2.5 Triangular Norms and Complementary Norms on Fuzzy Truth Values
Now, let us examine (2.121) at 0.4, i.e.,

max
TT (F,H) , TT (G,H)
min T T
(F, H) (u) , T T
(G, H) (v)
=
sup
69
(2.136)
max(u,v)=0.4

min T T
(F, H) (0.4) , T T
(G, H) (0) = 1,
which states that

max
TT
, TT
(F,H)
(G,H)
= TT
(G,H)
(2.137)
(2.138)
Thus T T
on non-convex fuzzy truth values does not satisfy monotonicity.
An example of a type-2 t-norm which preserves the triangular shape can be
dened following [Starczewski 2009a].
Denition 2.5. Let a complete lattice L = (F ([0, 1]) , ) of triangular fuzzy truth numbers be bounded by the unity element expressed as
1 = singleton (u 1) and the zero element expressed by 0 = singleton (u). A
regular t-norm on a set of triangular fuzzy truth numbers can be dened by
its membership function as follows
(u) = max (0, min ( (u) , (u))) ,
TN
n=1 Fn
(2.139)
where
/
(u) =
/
(u) =
ul
ml
if m > l
singleton (u m) if m = l,
ru
rm
if r > m
singleton (u m) if m = r,
(2.140)
(2.141)
and
N
l = T ln ,
(2.142)
n=1
N
m = T mn ,
(2.143)
n=1
N
r = T rn .
(2.144)
n=1
The following theorem substantiates the application of this formula in triangular type-2 fuzzy systems.
Theorem 2.10. The function given by (2.139) operating on triangular and
normal fuzzy truth values is a t-norm on L = (F ([0, 1]) , ) (of type-2).
70
Proof. Inclusion of triangular fuzzy truth numbers, denoted F G, means

that lF lG , mF mG and rF rG . For every fuzzy truth number H,
lF H = T (lF , lH ) and lGH = T (lG , lH ), the inequality T (lF , lH ) T (lG , lH )
is satised by the property of any non-extended t-norm whenever lF lG ;
similarly mF H mGH and rF H rGH . Therefore, monotonicity is proved.
Commutativity and associativity of the type-2 t-norm are satised since
non-extended t-norms are commutative and associative.
The unit element does not change F since mF = mF 1, rF = rF 1 and
lF = lF 1.

Although the analyzed formula represents only an approximate extension of
the traditional t-norm, it is still a fuzzy-valued t-norm serving for conjunction
and Cartesian product, and it can be directly applied to fuzzy-valued fuzzy
logic systems. Similarly, a family of regular t-norms on trapezoidal fuzzy
truth intervals can be provided as follows.
Denition 2.6. Let a complete lattice L = (F ([0, 1]) , ) of trapezoidal
fuzzy truth intervals be bounded by 1 and 0. A regular t-norm on a set of
trapezoidal fuzzy truth intervals can be dened by its membership function
T N
(u) = /min ( (u) , (u))/ ,
i=1 Fi
(2.145)
where is expressed by (2.140) and

/
(u) =
ru
rn
if r > n
singleton (u n) if n = r,
(2.146)
and
N
l = T li ,
(2.147)
i=1
N
m = T mi ,
(2.148)
i=1
N
n = T ni ,
(2.149)
i=1
N
r = T ri .
(2.150)
i=1
2.6 Implications with Fuzzy Valued Fuzzy Sets

A large study on type-2 implicative operations on non-interactive fuzzy
truth values has been delivered by [Gera 2009; Gera and Dombi 2008].
These all kinds of type-2 fuzzy implications are dened on the algebra of
71

fuzzy truth values A = F ([0, 1]) , 0, 1, (2.120) , (2.121) as straightforward
extensions of the classical implication satisfying the boundary conditions
I (0, 0) = I (0, 1) = I (1, 1) = 1, I (1, 0) = 0, which are also decreasing
in the rst and increasing in the second argument with respect to at least
one of the partial orders given by (2.120) and (2.121).
However, the extensions of fuzzy implications are not always type-2 fuzzy
implications. Let us consider the extended s-implication construction, i.e.
IR
s T (F,G)
(w) =
sup
T (f (u) , g (v)) .
(2.151)
S((1u),v)=w
Gera has proven that this extended s-implication is a type-2 fuzzy implication
over algebra A if and only if A is a subalgebra of the algebra of convex
normal functions. He has also proposed pointwise formulae for calculations
of extended s-implications of the four fundamental t-norms in a fairly general
form.
More specic analytical formulae for extended s-implications can be derived using our corollaries about representation of extended t-conorms. Consequently, the extension of the known Kleene-Dienes implication IKD (a, b) =
max (1 a, b) follows from Corollary 2.2.
Corollary 2.6. Consider the two fuzzy truth intervals F and G with membership functions f and g, such that [F ]1 = [mF , nF ] and [G]1 = [mG , nG ]
(normality). Then the extended Kleene-Dienes implication based on an arbitrary t-norm T can be expressed by the following membership function
T (f (1 w) , g (w))
if w [0, min (1 nF , mG ))
g(w)
if w [1 nF ,mG )
f (1 w)
if w
[mG , 1 nF )

IKDT (F,G) (w) =
max
(1
n
,
m
)
,
F
G
1
if w
max (1 mF , nG )
max (f (1 w) , g (w)) if w (max (1 mF , nG ) , 1] .

(2.152)
Whereas Corollary 2.3 leads us to various minimum-based extensions of continuous s-implications such as IKD , the Reichenbach implication IR (a, b) =
1 a + ab or the L
ukasiewicz implication IL (a, b) = min (1, 1 a + b).
Corollary 2.7. Consider the two fuzzy truth intervals F and G with upper
semicontinuous membership functions f and g. Let us denote their cores as
subintervals of their supports [mF , nF ] [lF , rF ] [0, 1], and [mG , nG ]
[lG , rG ] [0, 1]. If an t-conorm S is continuous, then the membership function
of the extended s-implication Is (a, b) = S (1 a, b) based on the minimum tnorm can be expressed as follows
72
[1]
(w)
w
Is,min (F,G) (w) = 1
[1]
w
(w)
where
if w [0, S (1 nF , mG )]
if w (S (1 nF , mG ) , S (1 mF , nG ))
if w [S (1 mF , nG ) , 1] ,
(2.153)

w () = S n(1) () , g(1) () ,

w () = S n[1] () , g[1] () ,
(2.154)
(2.155)
with [0, 1], and n, g, n, g are dened by

n (u) = f (1 u)
if u [1 rF , 1 nF ] ,
(2.156)
g (v) = g (v)
if v [lG , mG ] ,
(2.157)
n (u) = f (1 u)
if u [1 mF , 1 lF ] ,
(2.158)
g (v) = g (v)
if v [nG , rG ] .
(2.159)
As a consequence of Corollary 2.3, some continuous s-implications can be

extended using the drastic product t-norm in the following way.
Corollary 2.8. Let the fuzzy truth numbers F and G be characterized by
normal membership functions f and g (i.e. such that f (mF ) = g (mG ) = 1),
respectively. Then an extended continuous s-implication Is based on the drastic product t-norm TD is characterized by the following membership function

(1)
g S1mF (w)
if w [1 mF , mG )
(1)
if w [mG , 1 mF )
f 1 SmG (w)
if
(1)
w

max f 1 SmG (w) ,

max
(1
m
,
m
)
,
F
G
(1)
I
(w) =
g S1mF (w)
s, TD
(F,G)
I (mF , mG )
[1]
f 1 SmG (w) ,

if w [Is (mF , mG ) , 1]
max
[1]
g
S
(w)
1mF
0
otherwise.
(2.160)
Theorem 2.8 leads us to the extended L
ukasiewicz implication, which can be
constructed either as the s-implication or as the residual implication called
r-implication.
Theorem 2.11. Let : [, ] [0, ) be a continuous convex function
and strictly monotone in [0, ] such that (0) = 0, and (x) = (x)
for all x R. Let Ts be a strict t-norm with an additive generator .
73
Moreover, let the operands

their
F and
G be characterized
byvn
membership
1
and
g
(v)
=
b
, respectively;
functions f (u) = 1 a um
a
b
a, b > 0; m, n [0, 1]. Then the extension of L
ukasiewicz s-implication
IL (a, b) = min (1, 1 a, b) based on Ts is characterized by the following membership function

1

if w = 1
SLT (F,G) (w) =
(2.161)
w+mn1
1
s
(a + b)
otherwise,
a+b
where

1 =
1
1

(a + b)
mn
a+b
if SL (m, n) = 1
otherwise.
(2.162)
Proof. Using the generalized extension principle in the form of (2.68), the
following expression shall be minimized
um

(u, v) =
inf
a a + b vn
,
(2.163)
b
1u+v=w
um
w+u1n
w (u) = inf a a + b
.
(2.164)
b
u[w,1]
In order to have the necessary condition to obtain the minimum in the form
of (x) = (x) , we use the property that (x) = (x) . Consequently,

w (u) = inf a um
+ b wu+1+n
.
(2.165)
a
b
u[w,1]

= nwu+1
, which is fullled when um
= n+1wu
,
Therefore, um
a
b
a
b
um
n+1wm
.
The
sucient
condior, after some calculations, when a =
a+b
tion for obtaining the minimum is that is convex and monotone in [0, )
and in (, 0]. Using the property of symmetry of , the rest of the proof
follows.

The utility of this corollary may be followed by the example.
Example 2.10. Consider the extended L
ukasiewicz s-implication based on the
product on Gaussian fuzzy truth numbers. The product TP is obviously a
strict t-norm with the add additive generator = log x, the function may
2
= b, mF = m, mG = n; mF , mG
be dened by = x2 and 2F2 = a, 2G
[0, 1]. As a consequence, the arguments
are
described by their
membership

2

2
um
1
1 vmG
F
functions f (u) = exp 2
and g (v) = exp 2
.
F
G
Moreover, let us assume that mF < mG . The use of Theorem 2.11 leads
to the following result
74
1
T
(w) = exp
L T P
w + mF mG 1
,
2
F2 + G
2
.
(2.166)
If IL (mF , mG ) < 1, the result preserves the Gaussian shape with

,the mean
2.
value m = mG mF +1 and the standard deviation given by = F2 + G
Since the L
ukasiewicz implication can be constructed also as the r-implication,
it satises the general formula for extended residual implications given by
IrT
(F,G)
(w) =
sup
supz[0,1] {z|T (u,z)v}=w
T (f (u) , g (v)) .
(2.167)
Favorably, all extended residual implications fulll the necessary boundary

conditions of implicative operators [Gera 2009].
From the algebraic point of view, implications can be provided in an
axiomatic way following [Baldwin and Pilsworth 1980; Dubois and Prade
1991; Fodor and Roubens 1994]. Some reasonable properties were collected
in [Reiser et al 2008].
Denition 2.7. An implication on the complete lattice L = (F ([0, 1]) , ) is
a function of two variables I: F ([0, 1]) F ([0, 1]) F ([0, 1]) that satises:
1) = I(0,
1) = I(0,
0) = 1 and I(1,
0) = 0,
1. boundary conditions: I(1,

2. antitonicity in the rst argument: (F H) I (F, G) I (H, G) ,

3. monotonicity in the second argument: (G H) I (F, G) I (F, H) ,

4. left neutrality:
I(1, F ) =F ,

H) ,
5. exchange: I F, I (G, H) = I G, I(F,
G) = I(
N
(G) , N
(F )),
6. contraposition: I(F,
while F, G, H F ([0, 1]).
In order to be in accordance with the algebra of fuzzy truth values, not only
extensions of fuzzy implications but all material implications on fuzzy-valued
fuzzy sets satisfying the above properties can be employed in fuzzy logic
systems.
References
Baldwin, J.F., Pilsworth, B.W.: Axiomatic approach to implication for approximate

reasoning with fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 3(2), 193219 (1980)
Carlsson, C., Fuller, R.: Fuzzy reasoning in decision making and optimization. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 82. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2002)
Castillo, O., Melin, P.: Type-2 fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Studies in
Fuzzines and Soft Computing, vol. 223. Springer (2008)
Choi, B.I., Rhee, F.C.H.: Interval type-2 fuzzy membership function generation
methods for pattern recognition. Information Sciences 179, 21022122 (2009)
Fodor, J., Roubens, M.: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision
Support. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1994)
Fuller, R., Keresztfalvi, T.: On generalization of nguyens theorem. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 41, 371374 (1991)
Fuller, R., Keresztfalvi, T.: t-norm based addition of fuzzy intervals. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 51, 155159 (1992)
Gera, Z.: Fuzzy reasoning models and fuzzy truth value based inference. PhD thesis.
University of Szeged (2009)
Gera, Z., Dombi, J.: Type-2 implications on non-interactive fuzzy truth values.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 159(22), 30143032 (2008)
Hagras, H.A.: A hierarchical type-2 fuzzy logic control architecture for autonomous
robots. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 12(4), 524539 (2004)
Hong, D.H., Hwang, S.Y.: On the convergence of t-sum of lr fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 63, 176180 (1994)
Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122, 327348 (2000)
Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M., Liang, Q.: Type-2 fuzzy logic systems. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 7(6), 643658 (1999)
76
References
Kawaguchi, M., Miyakoshi, M.: Extended triangular norms in type-2 fuzzy logic.
In: EUFIT 1999 7th European Congress on Intelligent Techniques & Soft Computing, Aachen (1999)
Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)
Mendel, J.M.: Advances in type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. Information Sciences 177,
84110 (2007)
Mesiar, R.: A note to the t-sum of lr fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79,
259261 (1996)
Mesiar, R.: Triangular norm-based addition of fuzzy intervals. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 91, 231237 (1997)
Mizumoto, M., Tanaka, K.: Some properties of fuzzy sets of type-2. Information
and Control 31, 312340 (1976)
Nguyen, H.T.: A note on the extension principle for fuzzy sets. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 64, 369380 (1978)
Reiser, R.H.S., Dimuro, G.P., Bedregal, B.C., Santiago, R.H.N., Callejas-Bedregal,
R.: Simplications on complete lattices and the interval constructor. TEMA
Tendencias em Matemtica Aplicada e Computacional 9(1), 143154 (2008)
Sepulveda, R., Castillo, O., Melin, P., Montiel, O.: An ecient computational
method to implement type-2 fuzzy logic in control applications. In: Melin, P.,
et al. (eds.) Analysis and Design of Intelligent Systems using Soft Computing
Techniques, 1st edn., vol. 41, ch. 5, pp. 4552. Springer, Germany (2007)
Starczewski, J., Rutkowski, L.: Neuro-fuzzy systems of type 2. In: Proc. 1st Intl
Conf. on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, Singapore, vol. 2, pp. 458462
(2002)
Starczewski, J.T.: Extended triangular norms on gaussian fuzzy sets. In: Proc.
EUSFLAT-LFA 2005 Conf., Barcelona, Spain, pp. 872877 (2005)
Starczewski, J.T.: A triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system. In: Proc. IEEE-FUZZ
2006, Vancouver CA, pp. 72317238 (2006)
Starczewski, J.T.: Ecient triangular type-2 fuzzy logic systems. International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning 50, 799811 (2009a)
Starczewski, J.T.: Extended triangular norms. Information Sciences 179, 742757
(2009b)
Tahayori, H., Tettamanzi, A., Degli Antoni, G., Visconti, A.: On the calculation
of extended max and min operations between convex fuzzy sets of the real line.
Uncu, O., T
90106 (2007)
Walker, C.L., Walker, E.A.: The algebra of fuzzy truth values. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 2, 309347 (2005)
Walker, C.L., Walker, E.A.: Sets with type-2 operations. International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning 50, 6371 (2009)
Zhou, S., Garibaldi, J., John, R., Chiclana, F.: On constructing parsimonious type2 fuzzy logic systems via inuential rule selection. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems 17(3), 654667 (2009)
Chapter 3
Defuzzification of Uncertain Fuzzy Sets
Abstract. At the present time, the only deciency in developing ecient

realizations of general type-2 fuzzy logic systems are eective defuzzication
procedures for general fuzzy valued fuzzy sets, since the common defuzzication procedures (like the exhaustive centroid method and the -cut strategy)
require them to be discrete in two dimensions. We propose to limit the discretization only to the primary domain, which is a dimension of elements,
and to obtain a convex and normal centroid fuzzy set (conditions for this are
given in a corresponding theorem). Our main contribution to this chapter
are exact and approximate formulae and procedures for the extended centroid of triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian and asymmetric-Gaussian fuzzyvalued fuzzy sets. Additionally, this chapter provides conditions under which
centroids preserve triangular, trapezoidal or Gaussian shapes of membership
functions. Since our results are still based on the KM iterative procedure for
interval type-reduction, we recall basic defuzzication methods for intervalvalued fuzzy sets. To make the following discussion complete, we leave proofs
of propositions and theorems in this chapter instead of referring the reader
to appendices.
3.1 State of the Art of Defuzzification Methods for

Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets
Up to now, the most widely used type-2 fuzzy sets are interval-valued
fuzzy sets since they are regarded as a tool computationally simply to
use [Mendel and Wu 2007]. Literature abounds with examples of interval
fuzzy logic systems, e.g. [Castillo et al 2008; Hagras 2008; Liang and Mendel
2000; Torres and Sez 2008]. Although the rst attempts of fuzzy inference
based on interval-valued fuzzy sets have emerged in the eighties [Dziech
and Gorzalczany 1987; Gorzalczany 1987], the real boom of interval fuzzy
logic systems began with the papers [Karnik et al 1999; Liang and Mendel
springerlink.com
78
3 Defuzzication of Uncertain Fuzzy Sets
2000; Mendel 2001]. This work introduced a two step centroid defuzzication method. The rst step of defuzzication, which is called type-reduction,
transforms a type-2 fuzzy set into a type-1 fuzzy set. The latter needs a nal defuzzication of the traditional type. Since the centroid type-reduction
for general type-2 fuzzy set required a dense discretization in two dimensions, only a method of type-reduction for interval-valued fuzzy sets, known
as a Karnik-Mendel (KM) iterative procedure [Karnik et al 1999; Liang and
Mendel 2000], was pertaining to practical realizations of fuzzy logic systems.
The KM iterative procedure requires a suciently small number of computations, which is one of the major reasons that IT2 FLSs have received
attention whereas general T2 FLSs have not [Mendel and Wu 2007]. During the recent years mostly modications of the basic KM algorithm have
been being developed; among others Wu and Tan have proposed quite efcient type-reduction strategies [Wu and Tan 2005], Sepulveda et al. have
reduced the computational complexity of the KM algorithm [Sepulveda et al
2007], and also Melgarejo has dedicated a fast defuzzication algorithm to
interval type-2 sets [Melgarejo 2007]; and also Wu and Mendel have dened
new optimal values of initial switch points for the enhanced KM algorithms
[Wu and Mendel 2009]. While these approaches rely mostly on savings in
the computation time of the type-reduced set, two other interesting methods have simplied the original idea of the defuzzication: Wu and Mendel
have provided uncertainty bounds for the type-reduced set instead of costly
computations of type-reduction [Wu and Mendel 2002]; Greeneld et al. have
proposed a collapsing method of defuzzication for an interval type-2 fuzzy
set discretized along the domain of elements via a type-1 representative embedded set [Greeneld et al 2009]. Although, this representative set is an
intermediate result whose defuzzied value by the denition is equal to that
of the type-2 fuzzy set, mathematically, it is no longer the type-reduced set
in the sense of the extension principle. We will attache the last two methods
to this chapter for comparison purposes.
As we need to defuzzify interval-valued fuzzy sets into a ordinary fuzzy
set, which has to be further defuzzied into a crisp output value, we need
to apply the extension principle to the centroid defuzzication or to its discrete form called a height defuzzication. The following considerations have a
general signicance since K either denotes the number of consequents for the
extended height defuzzication, or is a discretization density for the extended
centroid.
The centroid of an interval-valued fuzzy set, given by its lower and upper
memberships, k and k , can be fuzzied via the extension principle, i.e.,
0
K
yk uk 0
1 if y = k=1
0
K
k=1 uk
uk [k ,k ] ,
(y) =
(3.1)
0 otherwise
where k = 1, . . . , K.
3.1 State of the Art of Defuzzication Methods
79
Assume that discrete points of the interval-valued set to be defuzzied are

arranged in the following order y1 < y2 < . . . , yK . The extended centroid is
a fuzzy set of normal and rectangular membership function, which is actually
a classical interval, i.e. [ymin , ymax ]. The bounds for this set can be expressed
generally by
1K
k=1 k yk +
k=L k yk
,
1L1
1K
k=1 k +
k=L k
1K
1R
k=1 k yk +
k=R+1 k yk
1L1
ymin =
ymax =
1R
k=1
k +
1K
k=R+1
(3.2)
(3.3)
where L and R may be determined by the Karnik-Mendel (KM) iterative

procedure for so called type-reduction or other (approximate) methods. The
calculation of L and R is major computational problem for interval-valued
fuzzy sets.
The nal defuzzication can be performed trivially by
y =
ymin + ymax
.
2
(3.4)
3.1.1 KM Iterative Procedure for Interval Extended

Defuzzication
A great researchers interest in applications of interval type-2 fuzzy logic
started when the KM type-reduction algorithm was published [Karnik et al
1999]. Here, we solve the optimization problem of nding the centroid for
interval-valued fuzzy sets after [Karnik and Mendel 2001]. For the centroid set given by (3.1), ymax can be obtained by maximization of centroid
1K
1K
by minimization of the same
k=1 yk uk /
k=1 uk and ymin can be obtained

centroid, both in boundaries uk k , k . The standard optimization approach uses dierentiation, i.e.,
y (u1 , . . . , uk )
yq y (u1 , . . . , uk )
=
.
1K
uq
k=1 uk
The necessary condition y/uq = 0
1
not depend on uq , i.e., yq K
k=1 uk =
1K
k=1,k =q yk uk . Therefore, inequality yq
increasing on uq and yq < y (u1 , . . . , uk )
(3.5)
leads to the equation that does

1K
1K
k=1 yk uk yq
k=1,k =q uk =
> y (u1 , . . . , uk ) implies that y is
implies that y is decreasing on uq .
80

Putting arguments within the boundaries k , k , y attains its maximal
value when

q for yq > y (u1 , . . . , uk )
uq =
k for yq y (u1 , . . . , uk )
and y attains its minimal value when

q for yq < y (u1 , . . . , uk )
uq =
k for yq y (u1 , . . . , uk )
for all q = 1, . . . , K.
The following Karnik-Mendel iterative procedure has been brought to a
standard. Here, we present it in its simplest form; for other modications we
refer to [Mendel 2001]. Let the consequent values be ordered in the following
way y1 < y2 < . . . < yK . The KM iterative procedure can be enumerated as
follows.
1. calculate principal output
ypr as an average of yk weighted by mean
membership grades, i.e., k + k /2,
2. set the initial values ymin = ymax = ypr ,
3. for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K, if yk > ymax then k = k , otherwise k = k ,
4. nd nearest ynext = min yk : yk > ymax ,
k=1,...,K
5.
6.
7.
8.
calculate ymax as an average of yk weighted by new grades k ,

if ymax ynext calculation is completed, else go to step 3,
for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K, if yk < ymin then = k , otherwise = k ,
k
k
nd nearest ynext = max yk : yk < ymin ,
k=1,...,K
9. calculate ymin as an average of yk weighted by new grades ,

k
10. if ymin ynext calculation is completed, else go to step 7.
3.1.2 Defuzzication in Classication

When defuzzication is dedicated to classication, an interesting result has
been derived independently in the eld of fuzzy-rough computing [Nowicki
2008, 2009]. Nowicki has come to the conclusions concurrent with the procedure of Karnik and Mendel, proving the validity of a similar optimization procedure to obtain the maximum and minimum centroids for a rough
(interval-valued) fuzzy set on the assumption that crisp memberships of objects to classes are given, i.e., the k-th rule consequent that object either
belongs to the j-th class or not is binary, yk,j {0, 1}. His theorem may be
rewritten using our notation.
81
Theorem 3.1 (Rough membership of class, [Nowicki 2009]). Let us

consider the neuro-fuzzy classier dened by the equation
1K
k=1
k : yj,k =1
1K
yj =
k=1
Ak (x)
Ak (x)
(3.6)
where
Ak (x) is a rough approximation of a fuzzy set Ak given by its upper
and lower approximations, A (x) and Ak (x), respectively, and the singlek
rule membership of object to the j-th class is binary

1 if x Cj
(3.7)
yj,k =
0 if x
/ Cj
for all rules k = 1, . . . , K and all classes j = 1, . . . , J. Then, the lower and
upper approximations of the membership of object x to class Cj is given by
1K
ymin (j) =
and
1K
ymin (j) =
where
(x) =
Ak
and
Ak (x) =
Ak (x)
k=1
k : yj,k =1
1K
k=1 Ak (x)
Ak (x)
k=1
k : yj,k =1
1K
k=1 Ak (x)
A (x)
if yj,k = 1
Ak (x)
if yj,k = 0
A (x)
if yj,k = 0
Ak (x)
if yj,k = 1
(3.8)
(3.9)
(3.10)
(3.11)
However the most useful result emerging from Nowickis works concerns the
defuzzication in the case of binary memberships of objects to classes. The
crucial thing is that this result does not require any arrangement of yj,k as
the Karnik-Mendel method does. Here, we put this result in the framework
of a theorem and deliver a formal proof.
Theorem 3.2 (based on [Nowicki 2008]). Having rough approximations,
the upper j,k and the lower j,k , of a binary set yj,k = {0, 1} representing
the single-rule class membership (3.7), where k is the index for rules k =
1, . . . , K and j is the index for classes j = 1, . . . , J, the lower and upper
approximations of the membership of an object to class Cj is given by
82
1K
j,k yj,k
,
1K
k=1 j,k yj,k +
k=1 j,k yj,k
1K
k=1 j,k yj,k
.
ymax (j) = 1K
1K
k=1 j,k yj,k +
k=1 j,k yj,k
ymin (j) = 1K
k=1
(3.12)
(3.13)
Proof. For simplicity, we omit the class index j. Therefore, given (3.2), we
make use of the fact that yk is either 0 or 1 in rearrangement (3.14), and
then, in the denominator, we add two components, whose value is equal to
0, i.e.,
1
1
1
k : yk =0 k 0 +
1k : yk =1 k
1
(3.14)
ymin =
+
k : yk =0 k
k : yk =1 k
1
1
0 + k : yk =1 k 1
1k : yk =0 k
1
1
= 1
k : yk =0 k +
k : yk =1 k 0 +
k : yk =0 k 0 +
k : yk =1 k
1
k=1,...,K k yk
1
= 1
,
(3.15)
k=1,...,K k yk +
k=1,...,K k yk
where yk denotes a binary negation dened by yk = 1 yk . By analogy,
the right bound is determined as follows.
1
1
k : yk =0 k 0 +
k : yk =1 k 1
1
1
(3.16)
ymax =
+
k : yk =0 k
k : yk =1 k
1
1
0 + k : yk =1 k 1
1k : yk =0 k
1
1
= 1
k : yk =0 k +
k : yk =1 k 0 +
k : yk =0 k 0 +
k : yk =1 k
1
k=1,...,K k yk
1
= 1
.
(3.17)
k=1,...,K k yk +
k=1,...,K k yk

Observe that K can be extended to Kj , and in such manner, the number
of rules does not necessarily has to be the same for each class.
3.1.3 Approximate Extended Centroid of

Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets
3.1.3.1
Uncertainty Bounds in Interval Type-Reduction
In [Wu and Mendel 2002], the authors have presented a design method for
fuzzy logic systems, based on bound sets. In their intentions, their wanted
to relieve the computation burden of an interval type-2 FLS during its
83
operation, which makes an interval type-2 FLS useful for real-time applications. Namely, instead of strict ymin and ymax , they proposed to use innerand outer-bound sets for a centroid set, described in the following theorem
rewritten with our notations.
Theorem 3.3 ([Wu and Mendel 2002]). The end points ymin and ymax
of the centroid of an interval-valued fuzzy set, are bounded from below and
above by
ymin ymin y min ,
y max ymax y max ,
where the outer-bound set is given by
1P
ymin =
y max =
p=1 yp wp
min
,
1P
p=1 w p
1P
p=1 yp wp
max
,
1P
p=1 w p
(3.18)
(3.19)

1P
p=1 yp wp
1P
p=1 w p

1P
p=1 yp wp
1P
p=1 w p
(3.20)
(3.21)
and the inner-bound set is then calculated

1P
p=1 w p wp
y min = ymin 1P
1P
p=1 w p
p=1 wp
1P
1P
p=1 (yp y1 ) w p
p=1 (yP yp ) w p
1P
,
1P
p=1 (yp y1 ) wp +
p=1 (yP yp ) w p

1P
p=1 w p w p
y max = ymax + 1P
1P
p=1 w p
p=1 w p
1P
1P
p=1 (yp y1 ) wp
p=1 (yP yp ) w p
1P
.
1P
p=1 (yp y1 )p w p +
p=1 (yP yp ) w p
(3.22)
(3.23)
A proof of this theorem is given in [Wu and Mendel 2002].

Therefore, ymin and ymax can be determined using the inner and outer
bounds by the following approximation.
ymin =
ymax =
y min + ymin
,
2
y max + y max
2
(3.24)
,
(3.25)
An approximation accuracy of this defuzzication method is described in the

following theorem.
84
Theorem 3.4 ([Wu and Mendel 2002]). The dierence, , between the
defuzzied outputs of the type-reduced set and its approximation set, which is
dened as
0

0
0 ymin + ymax
ymax + y max 0
1 y min + y min
0
0
+
=0
(3.26)
0
2
2
2
2
is bounded from above as
=

1
y min ymin + y max y max
4
(3.27)
From our experience, presented in this section approximation method can

be successfully applied only together with the error estimation given by
(3.27), since dierences y min y min and ymax y max may be signicant,
what we will present in the section of comparative analysis at the end of this
chapter.
3.1.3.2
Collapsing Method
Recently, a collapsing method of defuzzication for an interval type-2 fuzzy

set discretized along the domain of elements via a type-1 representative embedded set has been proposed [Greeneld et al 2009]. We rewrite their main
results.
Theorem 3.5 (Interval representative embedded set approximation
[Greeneld et al 2009]). Let F be an interval type-2 fuzzy set whose
domain X is discretized into N vertical slices, and whose lower and upper membership functions, L and U , are also discretized using n (n 2)
I
, with primary membership grades at distances bI0 =
points B0I , B1I , . . . , Bn1
0, bI1 , . . . , bIn1 = U (xI ) L (xI ) from L (xI ). The membership function
of the representative embedded set R approximates to
R (xI ) L (xI ) + rI I = 1, . . . , n,
(3.28)

1n1 I I I
1n1
1n1
I
where rI = i=0 w
i bi ; w
i = wiI / i=0 wiI ; wiI = 1/
+
R
+
b
l1
i ;
i=0 L
1I1
and Rl1 k=0 rk with R0 = 0.
Theorem 3.6 (Defuzzied value of a discretised interval type-2 FS
[Greeneld et al 2009]). For the conditions and notation of Theorem 3.5,
the defuzzied value of F approximates to
1N
I=1 rI (xI XL )
,
XF XL + 1n1
1N
i=0 L +
I=1 rI
where XL is the centroid of L.
(3.29)
85
From the experience of the author, the procedure behaves similarly to the
ordinary centroid for average membership grades, what we will show in the
section of comparative analysis at the end of this chapter.
3.2 State of the Art of Defuzzification Methods for

General Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets
Some scientic eort has been made to provide capable computation techniques for conjunctions of general type-2 fuzzy sets [Karnik and Mendel 2000;
Starczewski 2005, 2009b] as well as for type-2 fuzzy implications [Gera and
Dombi 2008]. From the time that a computationally ecient design of the
fuzzy logic system based on triangular type-2 fuzzy sets was published [Starczewski 2009a], it became necessary to derive ecient defuzzication methods
for other secondary shapes of membership functions. Our analysis of the triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system brought optimistic experimental results in
classication, although the results had been elaborated on an approximation
of the extended defuzzication.
The defuzzication of general fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets is a direct consequence of the extension principle applied to the ordinary centroid defuzzication. However, the extended centroid requires a dense discretization along
the domain of elements, called a primary domain, and also along a domain
of membership uncertainty, called a secondary domain [Karnik and Mendel
2001; Karnik et al 1999; Mendel 2001]. For the last decade, the lack of computationally ecient defuzzication techniques dedicated for fuzzy-valued fuzzy
sets other than interval ones has been setting up a barrier to developing
so called general type-2 fuzzy logic systems. Coupland and John have presented a method for a geometric type-2 defuzzication [Coupland and John
2008a,b]. However, calculating gravity of hyperplanes contradicts with the
centroid defuzzication based on the extension principle, since wide intervals
of uncertainty in spite of their greater gravity have less importance in the corresponding type-reduced set. Consequently, the last result cannot be applied
to type-2 fuzzy logic systems derived in terms of Zadeh extension principle.
Recently, in the context of general type-2 fuzzy sets with uneven uncertainty
of secondary memberships, extraordinary methods, inexact and approximate,
have been suggested; among others Liu has derived an ecient centroid typereduction strategy for general type-2 fuzzy sets by multiple use of the KM
algorithm for several -planes [Liu 2008], Greeneld and John have presented
a similar extension of the KM algorithm to general type-2 fuzzy sets [Greeneld and John 2008]. Unfortunately, both formulations require discretization
along the domain of elements and along the levels of secondary uncertainty,
and the multiple use of the KM procedure. In the narrow context of triangular type-2 fuzzy sets, we have proposed a triangular approximation of the
centroid based on a single run of the KM algorithm, which may be viewed as a
86
particular case of the -plane strategy [Starczewski 2006, 2009a]. Finally, we

will give exact analytical formulae for trapezoidal and asymmetric-Gaussian
fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets as generalizations of defuzzication for triangular and
Gaussian type-2 fuzzy sets [Starczewski unpublished] assuming that only primary domain has to be discrete.
To begin with, in the next section, preliminaries about the general extended centroid procedure and the ecient strategy based on -planes will
be given. Since our novel methods for defuzzication are not such prevalent,
we describe them thoroughly in subsequent sections.
3.2.1 Exhaustive Extended Centroid Based on the

Extension Principle
The fundamental method for defuzzication is the centroid method, which
calculates the center of area of a membership function B for the fuzzy conclusion set, B, usually composed using a t-conorm. If we discretize the domain
Y of y into K distinct points y1 , y2 , . . . , yK , or the domain is discrete itself,
e.g. if we apply a height type defuzzication that reduces each rule output set
by a singleton at the point having the maximum membership in that output
set, then the centroid calculation simplies to the known discrete centroid
formula
K
1
yk B (yk )
y = k=1
.
(3.30)
K
1
B (yk )
k=1
with its
Now let the same formula be applied to a fuzzy-valued fuzzy set, B,
fuzzy-membership function, B , dened by secondary membership functions
fk : [0, 1] [0, 1] for each yk , k = 1, . . . , K. Via the extension principle this
formula can be fuzzied into the following one [Karnik and Mendel 2001;
Karnik et al 1999; Mendel 2001].

0
K
yk uk 0
sup
if y = k=1
min fk (uk )
0
K
k=1,...,K
k=1 uk
uk Uk [0,1] .
B (y) =
(3.31)
0
otherwise
In practise, until the publication of our formulae for extended centroids of
Gaussian and triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets, we were not able to conusually requires the
sider continuous uk [0, 1]. The calculation
procedure

discretization of each domain Uk = supp B (yk ) [0, 1] for uk so that
each of them contains a nite number of points, let us say uk1 , . . . , ukQk ,
87
k = 1, . . . , K. With such a discretization chosen, (3.31) can be rearranged

into the following equation.
B (y) =
sup
y=
K
y u
k=1 k ki

K
u
k=1 ki
min
k=1,...,K
fk (uki ) .
(3.32)
It is possible that more than one K-tuple (u1q1 , . . . , ukqk , . . . , uKqK ) induce
the same element y of the centroid fuzzy set. In this case, the membership
degrees of this element must be determined as the supremum over all equivalent K-tuples. In this discrete approach,
2Kwe achieve the number of K-tuples
(including equivalent ones) equal to k=1 Qk . If we assume that each Uk
contains an equal number of discrete points, Q, we obtain the number of
QK (K-th power of Q) set of fuzzy sets. This sets up the highest barrier for
applying this exhaustive method fuzzy logic systems especially with the rigor
of real-time.
The sequence of computations needed to obtain the fuzzy centroid set is
as follows.
1. Discretize the output space Y into K points, y1 , . . . , yK .
2. Discretize the domain [0, 1] of each B (yk ) into a suitable number of points
uk1 , . . . , ukQk , k = 1, . . . , K.
3. Compute the centroid fuzzy set using (3.32) for all possible K-tuples
(u1q1 , . . . , ukqk , . . . , uKqK ), qk = 1, . . . , Qk , k = 1, . . . , K.
Although other extended defuzzication methods based on dierent t-norms
may be considered, they are of no practical importance when a t-norm satK
fk (uk ) = 0 for fk (uk ) < 1. This occurs for
ises the condition limK Tk=1
dense discretization also when a nite number of fk (uk ) is equal to 1. In this
case the the centroid type-reduced set becomes a centroid of a discrete principal membership function,
3k = uk : fk (uk ) = 1. The problem was pointed
out by Karnik and Mendel in the context of algebraic product t-norm [Karnik
and Mendel 2001].
3.2.2 Ecient Strategy of Type-Reduction Based on

-Planes
It is well known that several operations on classical fuzzy sets can be decomposed using -cuts. In [Liu 2008; Mendel et al 2009], this concept has been
extended to so called -planes in order to perform the known ecient centroid computation on each interval-valued -plane. The (two-dimensional)
-plane as the union of all primary membership whose secondary grades are
greater than or equal to the special value . We improve that denition ensuring that 0-plane becomes a so called footprint of uncertainty which is a

support of A.
88
which is a type-2 fuzzy subset of X, is an

Denition 3.1. An -plane of A,
interval-valued (type-2) fuzzy set denoted by [A] and dened by

=
A
}
{u [0,1] |fx (u)

closure FOU A
if > 0
if = 0

is an interval-valued fuzzy set with its interval membership
where FOU A

closed.
grades FOU(A) = support (fx (u)) and closure makes FOU A
-planes are known to preserve properties similar to those of -cuts.

1. A
1 A2 ,if 1 2 .

=A

max
2. A max
B
B .

B
=A

B
3. A
min
min .
The ordering of interval-valued fuzzy sets is dened by (2.120) and (2.121).

Note that the union and the intersection are dened here with help of the extended maximum and the extended minimum (both based on the minimum).
Now, we restate the theorem about decomposition into -planes known also
as the -plane representation theorem.
can
Theorem 3.7 (-plane decomposition). A general type-2 fuzzy set A

be represented as the union of its -planes A over all possible [0, 1], i.e.,

=
,
A
A
[0,1]
where
denotes the union realized by the extended maximum.
The value of the -plane decomposition theorem can be recognized in decomposition of an extended centroid into multiple computing of type-reduced sets
of interval-valued -planes.
Theorem 3.8. For the minimum t-norm operation, centroid type-reduction
is the union of the centroids of its associated -planes
for a type-2 fuzzy set A
, with [0, 1], i.e.,
A
4
4

. (3.33)
C=
centroid (A ) =
/support centroid A
[0,1]
[0,1]
The proof of this theorem can be found in [Liu 2008]. As a direct consequence,
an -cut C is nothing else but the domain of the centroid of the -plane
. Then, with the use of the Karnik-Mendel iterative procedure, this -cut
A
can be described as follows:
C = / [yleft, , yright, ] ,
(3.34)
89
where yleft, and yright, are the left and the right end-point of the interval
type-reduced set. Lius has presented a strategy to compute centroid typereduction for a general type-2 set in the following way:
1. Break the into values, which are 0, 1/, 2/, ..., ( 1)/, 1. De with the
compose the general type-2 fuzzy set into multiple -planes A
chosen values.
2. Compute the centroid / [yleft, , yright, ] for each associated type-2 fuzzy
.
set A
3. Compute the union of all these centroids.
Comparing with the exhaustive computation approach, this strategy reduces
the computation complexity from exponential into linear, however Lius approach suers from a dense discretization of the domain of .
3.2.3 Approximate Extended Centroid

An interesting formula for Gaussian approximation to the extended centroid
has been presented in [Karnik and Mendel 2001]. We restate this result using
our notation. Let a type-2 fuzzy set be characterized by Gaussian secondary
membership functions at each ordered k-th primary value, i.e.,

2

3k
1 uk
fk (uk ) = exp
, k = 1, 2, . . . , K,
(3.35)
2
k
Theorem 3.9 ([Karnik and Mendel 2001]). The centroid of a Gaussian
is approximately a Gaussian type-1 set with mean M,
type-2 fuzzy set A
where
1K
yk
3k
,
(3.36)
M = 1k=1
K
3k
k=1
and standard deviation , where
1K
=
|yk M| k
,
1K
3k
k=1
k=1
(3.37)
as long as the standard deviations of the secondary memberships are small

compared to their means, i.e., if
1K
k=1 k
k 1K
3k
k=1
(3.38)
is satised, where k is the number of standard deviations of a Gaussian considered signicant (generally, k = 2 or 3).
90
3.2.4 Final Defuzzication

The second step for defuzzication is to transform the centroid fuzzy set into a
crisp number. If the centroid is an interval fuzzy set the nal defuzzication is
trivially given by (3.4). For general fuzzy sets obtained as a centroid, ordinary
defuzzication methods are usually applied.
The fundamental method for defuzzication is the centroid method,
known also as the center of gravity, which calculates the center of area
of membership grades B (y) using the Riemann integral, i.e.,
.
yB (y)dy
yY

.
.
(3.39)
y =
B (y)dy
yY
There are two ways to calculate the centroid in fuzzy logic systems: numerical
integration with the use of approximation and restriction of B to the specic
shapes of known integrals, see e.g. [Van Broekhoven and De Beats 2006].
For discrete y values, y1 , . . . , yd , . . . , yD , the centroid can be calculated by
the discrete centroid given by (3.30) [Wang 1994]
D
1
y =
yd B (yd )
d=1
D
1
(3.40)
B (yd )
d=1
The origin of the discrete centroid method comes from the height type defuzzication (known also as the center average defuzzication) that
disregards exact shapes of membership functions of fuzzy rule conclusions,
and takes into account only their height. This approach is equivalent to reducing fuzzy rule conclusions to singleton membership grades. The drawback
of the height type defuzzication is that it cannot be applied directly to fuzzy
logic systems with logical reasoning, in which the aggregation operation has
to be performed previously, as it is pointed out by [Rutkowska et al 1999].
3.3 Centroid for Convex Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

At the present time the only deciency in developing exact realizations of
general type-2 fuzzy logic systems are eective defuzzication procedures
for general fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets or at least for the most typical classes
of fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets. Our goal is to limit the discretization only to
the primary domain, which is a dimension of elements. Quite often we do
not need to discretize the primary domain; using singleton consequents in
fuzzy logic systems, output domain is routinely discrete. It is notable that, in
91
our approach, we always get continuous membership functions of the fuzzy

centroid set for continuous secondary membership functions.
Consequently, fast computing methods for exact centroids of trapezoidal,
triangular, Gaussian and asymmetric-Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets are
provided in this section. We focus on defuzzication of these classes of sets
since triangular and Gaussian functions are quite useful in description of
membership uncertainty. The rationale for the triangular functions is that,
in addition to interval uncertainties, captured by interval-valued fuzzy sets,
they model a central tendency of memberships. In specic cases, triangular
secondary memberships processed in a fuzzy logic system give highly better performance than interval fuzzy logic systems, e.g. [Starczewski 2009a].
Whereas the main reason serving to account for utility of Gaussian functions
in description of secondary memberships is that the functions cover the whole
secondary domain. A simple method to obtain triangular and Gaussian secondary memberships for fuzzy-rough sets has been presented in [Starczewski
2010]. Generation of other types of secondary membership functions will be
presented in this book.
Since the results in the rest of this chapter serve practical applications,
they are often generalized to cover the trapezoidal, asymmetric-Gaussian secondary membership functions, or the generalized triangular with its possibility of being the singleton. Quite often the previously proved theorems become
here corollaries of more general theorems. Therefore, the reader who nds the
results somehow complicated will be kindly referred to more primary results
that will be published soon [Starczewski unpublished].
For general fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets discrete in the primary domain, to
date, we had no procedure for exact calculating a centroid fuzzy set. It may
seem intuitive that a shape of a secondary membership function determines
somehow a membership function of the centroid fuzzy set. It can be proven
that, normal and fuzzy-convex secondary membership functions generate also
a normal and fuzzy-convex membership function of the centroid fuzzy set
[Starczewski unpublished].
Theorem 3.10. The centroid of a fuzzy-valued (type-2) fuzzy set with normal and fuzzy-convex secondary membership functions is characterized by a
normal and fuzzy-convex membership function.
One of the proof can be based on the use of -cuts. With respect to a fuzzy
set, characterized by : X [0, 1], convexity is a property such that all cuts [] are convex1 subsets of X, [0, 1]. Recall that the -cut has been
dened as [] = {x X : (x) } for (0, 1], while the 0-cut has been
the closure of the support of .
Observe that -cuts of secondary membership functions can be treated as
intervals. Consequently, the problem of nding the minimum-based centroid
1
Here comes the denition of fuzzy convexity instead from the classical convexity
of a function.
92
of a convex fuzzy-valued fuzzy set may be considered as the known interval

type-reduction dependent on . Denoting [fk ] = [uk () , uk ()], the left
and the right elements of the centroid can be expressed in terms of ,
1K
k=1 uk () yk +
k=L uk () yk
,
1K
1L1
k=1 uk () +
k=L uk ()
1K
1R
k=1 uk () yk +
k=R+1 uk () yk
.
1K
1R
k=1 uk () +
k=R+1 uk ()
1L1
yleft () =
yright () =
(3.41)
(3.42)
This is a starting point for the next considerations.
3.3.1 Trapezoidal Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

The Lius ecient strategy of type-reduction based on -planes [Liu 2008]
relies on the -cut decomposition of convex type-2 fuzzy sets and on the independent centroid type-reduction runs for interval-valued fuzzy sets given
by the -cuts. In this strategy, for each separate , the KM procedure can be
used independently to compute the lower bound and the upper bound for the
interval centroid type-reduced set. In [Starczewski unpublished], we have observed that calculations of the separate intervals need not to be independent
if the arguments are convex. Our objective is to nd an analytical formula
for the extended centroid which does not suer from a dense discretization of
the domain of , as the Lius approach does. The formula could rely on the
double run of the KM iterative procedure, rst for the kernel, and second for
the support of the centroid set.
Exact computation procedures for the centroid of fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets
with triangular secondary membership function has been described in [Starczewski unpublished]. We generalize this result to the trapezoidal secondary
membership function. We begin from a simply case when two trapezoidal
fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets are singletons in the domain of y. The case occurs
when just two singleton consequents are red in a fuzzy logic system. The
simplicity of this case will allow us to more easily interpret the results. Let
the secondary membership function of the two ring grades be denoted by
"

"
u 1 1 u 1 1
min
,
,
(3.43)
f1 (u1 ) =
1 1 1 1
"

"
u 2 2 u 2 2
f2 (u2 ) =
min
,
.
(3.44)
2 2 2 2
93
The bounds of -cuts for these fuzzy membership grades can be calculated
from f1 (u1 ) = f2 (u2 ) = . Subsequently, we can rearrange upper and lower
bounds of uncertainty into functions of . In consequence, the problem of the
type-reduction for trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets can be considered as
an -dependent interval type-reduction.
Proposition 3.1. Suppose we have two trapezoidal fuzzy-valued singletons
characterized by (3.43) and (3.44) at y1 and y2 arranged by y1 < y2 , with
upper, upper-principal, lower-principal, and lower membership grades satisfying k < k k < k , k = 1, 2. The support [ymin , ymax ] can be calculated
as a centroid fuzzy set for the interval fuzzy sets constituted by the upper and
lower membership grades. The kernel [ylpr , yrpr ] can be calculated as a centroid fuzzy set for the interval fuzzy sets constituted by the upper-principal
and lower-principal membership grades. Then the centroid of two trapezoidal
fuzzy-valued singletons is characterized by the following membership function:
yymin
if y [ymin, ylpr ] ,
(1ql )y+ql ylpr ymin
1
if y [ylpr , yrpr ] ,
(y) =
(3.45)
yymax (y)
if
y
[y
,
y
]
,
rpr
max
(1q
)y+q
y
y
(y)
r
r
rpr
max
0
otherwise.
where the parameters are expressed by
1 + 2
,
1 + 2
+ 2
qr = 1
.
1 + 2
ql =
(3.46)
(3.47)
Proof. The bounds of -cuts for fuzzy membership grades are solutions of
equations
f1 (u1 ) = ,
f2 (u2 ) = ;
(3.48)
(3.49)
note that all the solutions are within the unity interval [0, 1] for the secondary
membership functions given by (3.43) and (3.44). By inversion, we get upper
and lower bounds of uncertainty as linear functions of , i.e.,

u1 () = 1 1 + 1 ,
(3.50)
u1 () = ( 1 1 ) + 1 ,

u2 () = 2 2 + 2 ,
(3.52)
u2 () = ( 2 2 ) + 2 .
(3.53)
(3.51)
94
Now we may consider the problem as an -dependent interval type-reduction.

The expression for the bounds of the interval centroid fuzzy set in case of
two singletons is trivial, i.e., the left boundary value yl is
u1 () y1 + u2 () y2
u1 () + u2 ()

( 1 1 ) y1 + 2 2 y2 + 1 y1 + 2 y2

=
,
1 1 + 2 2 + 1 + 2
yl () =
(3.54)
(3.55)
and the right boundary value yr is also functions of

u1 () y1 + u2 () y2
u () + u2 ()
1

1 1 y1 + ( 2 2 ) y2 + 1 y1 + 2 y2

=
.
1 1 + 2 2 + 1 + 2
yr () =
(3.56)
(3.57)
The bounds of the support [ymin , ymax ] and the kernel [ylpr , yrpr ] are expressed
by
ymin = yl (0) =
(3.58)
,
1 + 2
1 y1 + 2 y2
= yl (1) =
,
1 + 2
y1 + 2 y2
= yr (1) = 1
.
1 + 2
(3.59)
ymax = yr (0) =
ylpr
yrpr
1 y 1 + 2 y 2
1 + 2
1 y 1 + 2 y 2
Therefore, we can apply these values in (3.54) and (3.56),

1 y1 + 2 y2
y
+ ymin
min
1 +

2
yl () =
,
1 + 2
+
1
1 +
2

1 y1 + 2 y2
ymin + ymin
+2
1

.
yr () =
1 + 2
+
1
+
1
(3.60)
(3.61)
(3.62)
(3.63)
Further simplication of these expressions can be done by introducing new

parameters (3.46) and (3.47), i.e.,

yl () =
1 y1 + 2 y2
1 +2

ymin + ymin

1 +1
1 + 2
1 + 2
1 + 2
1 +2
(ql ylpr ymin ) + ymin

,
(ql 1) + 1

1 y1 + 2 y2 1 + 2
+ ymax
y
max
1 +2
1 + 2

yr () =
1 + 2
+ 1 + 1
95
(3.64)
(3.65)
(qr yrpr ymax ) + ymax

=
.
(qr 1) + 1
Finally, we have to invert these equations in order to obtain the membership
function of the centroid fuzzy set, as a function of y. If y [ymin, ylpr ]
(ql 1) y + y = (ql ypr ymin) + ymin
y ymin
=
,
(1 ql ) y + ql ypr ymin
(3.66)
else if y [yrpr , ymax ]

(qr 1) y + y = (qr ypr ymax ) + ymax
y ymax
=
,
(1 qr ) y + qr ypr ymax
(3.67)
in other cases the result is trivially equal to either 1 or 0. Since plays the
role of the membership, i.e. (y) = , we immediately achieve (3.45) as the
analytical expression for a centroid fuzzy set.

Observe that the arms of the membership function (3.45) are two hyperbolas which are parameterized by the left- and the right-principal values ylpr
and yrpr , end-points ymin and ymax , and parameters ql and qr . Moreover, the
result preserves the trapezoidal shape if and only if both ql = 1 and qr = 1.
Now, we generalize the two singleton case to the case of multiple elements
in the discrete primary domain. Let fk be a trapezoidal membership function
of a k-th primary value,
"

"
u k k u k k
min
,
,
(3.68)
fk (uk ) =
k k k k
where k < k < k < k , k = 1, 2, . . . , K.
96
Theorem 3.11 (Centroid of Trapezoidal FV Fuzzy Sets). Suppose we

have a trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy set of ordered discrete primary values yk
with their secondary membership functions (3.68) specied by upper, upperprincipal, lower-principal and lower membership grades, k < k k < k ,
k = 1, 2, . . . , K. Assume that both the interval centroid fuzzy set [ymin , ymax ]
for the interval-valued fuzzy set constituted by the upper and lower membership grades, and the interval centroid fuzzy set [ylpr , yrpr ] for the intervalvalued set of principal membership grades are determined by the KM algorithm. Then the centroid of the trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy set is characterized by the following membership function:
yyleft (y)
if y [ymin , ylpr ] ,
(1ql (y))y+ql (y)yleftpr (y)yleft (y)
1
if y [ylpr , yrpr ] ,
,
(3.69)
(y) =
yyright (y)
if y [yrpr , ymax ] ,
(1qr (y))y+qr (y)yrightpr (y)yright (y)
0
otherwise.
1K
k (y)
ql (y) = 1k=1
,
K
k=1 k (y)
1K
k (y)
,
qr (y) = 1k=1
K
k=1 k (y)
(3.70)
(3.71)
and
1K
k=1 k (y) yk
yleft (y) = 1
,
K
k=1 k (y)
1K
k=1 k (y) yk
yright (y) = 1
,
K
k=1 k (y)
1K
k=1 k (y) yk
yleftpr (y) = 1
,
K
k=1 k (y)
1K
k=1 k (y) yk
yrightpr (y) = 1
,
K
k=1 k (y)
with
(y) =
k (y) =

(3.72)
(3.73)
(3.74)
(3.75)
k
k
if yk y
,
otherwise
(3.76)
k
k
if yk y
,
otherwise
(3.77)
k (y) =
k (y) =

97
k
k
if yk y
,
otherwise
(3.78)
k
k
if yk y
.
otherwise
(3.79)
and
k are stepped functions, i.e., they
Note that membership grades
k
can change their values only at the discrete points yk . As a result, ql , qr , yleft
and yright can be calculated once for each interval between subsequent yk .
Proof. In comparison to Proposition 3.1, a vector ofmemberships
chosen for
(y) = , . . . , , is dierent
the left end-point of an -cut, denoted by
1
K
for each interval [yk , yk+1 ], k = 1, 2 . . . , K 1. Therefore, it can be treated

for y within the rstly
as a function of y (3.76). Note that vector function
considered interval [ymin , yk ] is identical as the vector of memberships selected

in the KM iterative procedure for the left end-point of the centroid fuzzy set
(support). Similarly, vector function

(y) = [ 1 , . . . , K ] is constructed in
the KM algorithm for
the
left
end-point
of the resultant kernel. Again, vector

functions (y) = 1 , . . . , K and (y) = [ 1 , . . . , K ] corresponding to
right end-points of 0-cut and 1-cut, respectively, are composed of (3.78) and
(3.79).
Analogically to the case of two singletons, we obtain the uncertainty
bounds of arguments selected for the left and right end-points of the centroid fuzzy set as linear functions of , i.e.,
(, y) = (
(y)) +
(y) ,
u
(y)
u (, y) = (
(y)
(y)) +
(y) .
(3.80)
(3.81)
In consequence, the left and right end-points of an interval centroid fuzzy set
for a given can be represented by:
1K
k=1 u k (, yl ) yk
yl () = 1
K
k=1 u k (, yl )
1K
(y )) y + 1K
k=1 (
k (yl )
k
l
k
k=1 k (yl ) yk
=
,
1K
1
(y )) + K
k=1 (
k (yl )
k
l
k=1 k (yl )
1K
k=1 u k (, yr ) yk
yr () = 1
K
k=1 u k (, yr )
1K
1K
k (yr ) yk
k=1 (
k (yr )
k (yr )) yk + k=1
.
=
1K
1K
k=1 ( k (yr ) k (yr )) + k=1 k (yr )
(3.82)
(3.83)
(3.84)
(3.85)
98
For yl within each interval [yk , yk+1 ] [ymin , ylpr ], k = 1, . . . , K 1, we may

determine the following boundary functions:
1K
k=1 k (yl ) yk
yleft (yl ) = yl (0) = 1
,
K
k=1 k (yl )
1K
k=1 k (yl ) yk
yleftpr (yl ) = yl (1) = 1
.
K
k=1 k (yl )
Note that functions yleft and yleftpr are constant within the range [yk , yk+1 ]
[ymin , ylpr ]. Moreover, for each closed range, these boundary points yleft and
yleftpr lie outside the open range (yk , yk+1 ) (ymin , ylpr ). Analogically, for yr ,
1K
k=1 k (yr ) yk
yright (yr ) = yr (0) = 1
,
K
k=1 k (yr )
1K
k=1 k (yr ) yk
yrightpr (yr ) = yr (1) = 1
.
K
k=1 k (yr )
Now, we introduce (3.70) in (3.83) making also the use of (3.72) and (3.74),
i.e.,
K

K
K
(y )y
k
l
k
k=1 k (yl )yk
k=1 k (yl )yk

+ k=1
(y ) K
(y )
K
K
k
l
k
l
k=1
k=1
k=1 k (yl )
K

yl () =
k (yl )
k=1
1
+1
K
(y )
k=1
(ql (yl ) yleftpr (yl ) yleft (yl )) + yleft (yl )

,
=
(ql (yl ) 1) + 1
(3.86)
Similarly, (3.85) can be rearranged with the use of (3.71), (3.73) and (3.75),
i.e.,
K

K
K
k=1 k (yr )yk

k=1 k (yr )yk
k=1 k (yr )yk

K
K
K
k=1 k (yr )
k=1 k (yr )
k=1 k (yr )

K
yr () =
k (yr )
k=1
1 +1
K
(y )
k=1
(qr (yr ) yrightpr (yl ) yright (yr )) + yright (yr )

=
.
(qr (yr ) 1) + 1
(3.87)
Finally, y is either represented by yl if y [ymin , ylpr ] or equal to yr if y

[yrpr , ymax ]. The evaluation of (y) = ends the proof.
Example 3.1. Suppose we have a discrete primary domain given by y= [0 1 2],
and lower memberships = [0 0.1 0.2], lower-principal memberships =
[0.1 0.2 0.5], right-principal memberships = [0.2 0.5 0.7], as well as upper
memberships = [0.8 0.9 0.9]. From the KM method we get the bounds of
5
the support, ymin = 11
= 0.4545 and ymax = 1.9, as well as the bounds of
(y) is a vector
the kernel, ylpr = 1.25 and yrpr = 1.6. For all y [ymin , y2 ],
99
of memberships
elected
for the left end-point of the centroid fuzzy set, i.e.

(y) = 1 , 2 , 3 . Initially let yleft (y) = ymin . Then,

ql (y) =
[0.1 0.2 0.5] 1t

8
=
= 0.7273.
[0.8 0.1 0.2] 1t
11
Consequently the membership function of the centroid fuzzy set is as follows:

y 0.4545
y 0.4545
if y [ymin, y2 ]
=
0.2727y + 0.7273 1.25 0.4545
0.2727y + 0.4546

(y) = , , and
For all y [y2 , ylpr ],
1
2
3
(y)
=
yleft (y) =
[0.8 0.9 0.2] [0 1 2]t

13
=
= 0.6842,
[0.8 0.9 0.2] 1t
19
ql (y) =
[0.1 0.2 0.5] 1t

8
=
= 0.4211.
[0.8 0.9 0.2] 1t
19

(y)
=
y 0.6842
y 0.6842
if y [y2 , ylpr ]
=
0.5789y + 0.4211 1.25 0.6842
0, 5789y 0.1578
For all y [yrpr , ymax ],

(y) is a vector of memberships
elected
for the right

end-point of the centroid fuzzy set, i.e. (y) = 1 , 2 , 3 . Now yright (y) =
ymax . Then,
[0.1 0.2 0.5] 1t
= 0.8.
qr (y) =
[0 0.1 0.9] 1t
(y) =
y 1.9
y 1.9
=
if y [yrpr , ymax ]
0.2y + 0.8 1.6 1.9
0.2y 0.62
The membership function of the fuzzy centroid is either equal to 1 for the
kernel or equal to 0 otherwise. Figure 3.1 shows the arguments and the result. Emphasize that the obtained shape is quite irregular due to the specially
chosen parameters of the arguments in order to distinguish separate constructions of the parts of the membership function.
3.3.2 Triangular Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

In [Starczewski unpublished], we have demonstrated and proved the procedure for obtaining centroids for the triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets. Again,
we have started from an uncomplicated case of two triangular fuzzy-valued
100

(a)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0y
1
0.5
1y
y 2
(b)
0.5
ymin
1y
y 2
1.5
2y
3
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
ylpr
1.5 y
rpr
2
ymax
Fig. 3.1 Centroid of fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets with trapezoidal secondary membership functions: (a) upper, upper- and lower-principal, and lower
membership grades; (b) centroid fuzzy set
singletons (in the domain of y), which can be characterized by their secondary
membership functions:
"

"
u 1 1 1 u 1
f1 (u1 ) =
min
,
,
(3.88)
31 1 1
31
"

"
u 2 2 2 u 2
min
,
f2 (u2 ) =
.
(3.89)
32 2 2
32
Now, the centroid for triangular fuzzy-valued singletons can be viewed as an
immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1 whenever
3k = k = k , k = 1, 2.
Corollary 3.1. Suppose we have two triangular fuzzy-valued singletons characterized by (3.88) and (3.89) at y1 and y2 ordered by y1 < y2 , with upper,
principal and lower membership grades satisfying k >
3k > k , k = 1, 2.
Let [ymin , ymax ] be a centroid fuzzy set for the interval-valued fuzzy sets constituted by the upper and lower membership grades and let ypr be a centroid
2 y2
of the principal membership function ypr = 1 y11 +
+
2 . Then the centroid of
the triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy set of two singletons is characterized by the
following membership function:

yymin
if y [ymin , ypr ]
l ypr ymin
(y) = (1ql )y+q
,
(3.90)
yymax (y)
if y [ypr , ymax ]
(1qr )y+qr ypr ymax (y)
101

ql =
32
31 +
,
1 + 2
(3.91)
qr =
32
31 +
.
1 + 2
(3.92)
The extension of this result to the case of multiple elements in the discrete
primary domain can be considered as a consequence of Theorem 3.11 with the
following constraint
3k = k = k , k = 1, . . . , K. Let the triangular fuzzyvalued fuzzy set be characterized by its secondary membership function
"

"
u k k k u k
min
,
(3.93)
fk (uk ) =
3k k k
3k
for k = 1, . . . , K.
Corollary 3.2. Suppose we have a triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy set of ordered discrete primary values yk with their secondary membership functions
3k >
(3.93) specied by upper, principal and lower membership grades, k >
k , k = 1, 2, . . . , K. Assume also that the KM algorithm determined an interval centroid fuzzy set [ymin , ymax ] for the interval-valued fuzzy set constituted
by the upper and lower membership grades. Moreover, let ypr be a centroid of
the principal membership grades calculated by
ypr =
K
5
3k yk
k=1
3k
(3.94)
Then the centroid of the triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy set is characterized by

the following membership function:

yyleft (y)
if y [ymin , ypr ]
l (y)ypr yleft (y)
,
(3.95)
(y) = (1ql (y))y+q
yyright (y)
if y [ypr , ymax ]
(1qr (y))y+qr (y)ypr yright (y)
1K
3k
,
ql (y) = 1K k=1
k=1 k (y)
1K
3k
qr (y) = 1K k=1
,
k=1 k (y)
and
(3.96)
(3.97)
102
1K
k=1 k (y) yk
,
yleft (y) = 1
K
k=1 k (y)
1K
k=1 k (y) yk
yright (y) = 1
,
K
k=1 k (y)
with
(y) =
k (y) =

k
k
if yk y
,
otherwise
k
k
if yk y
.
otherwise
Example 3.2. Suppose we have a discrete primary domain given by y=

[0 1 2], and lower memberships = [0 0.1 0.1], principal memberships
3 = [0.1 0.9 0.5], and upper memberships = [0.8 1 0.9]. From the KM
method we get the bounds of the 0-plane centroid fuzzy set, ymin = 0.3 and
ymax = 1.9. The principal value of the centroid set is calculated then as:
ypr =
[0.1 0.9 0.5] [0 1 2]t

19
= 1.2 (6) .
=
t
[0.1 0.9 0.5] 1
15
(y) is a vector of memberships elected for the left endFor all y [ymin , y2 ],

(y) = , , . Initially, let y (y) = y .
point of the centroid set, i.e.
left
min
1
2
3
Then,
[0.1 0.9 0.5] 1t
ql (y) =
= 1.5 .
[0.8 0.1 0.1] 1t
Consequently, the membership function of the centroid within the considered
range [ymin , y2 ] is obtained as
y 0.3
y 0.3 .
=
0.5y + 1.5 1.2667 0.3
0.5y + 1.6

(y) = , , and
For all y [y2 , ypr ],
1
2
3
(y)
=
yleft (y) =
ql (y) =
[0.8 1 0.1] [0 1 2]t

12
=
= 0.6316 ,
t
[0.8 1 0.1] 1
19
[0.1 0.9 0.5] 1t
15
=
= 0.7895 .
t
[0.8 1 0.1] 1
19
Consequently, the membership function of the centroid in [y2 , ypr ] set is obtained as
103
(a)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0y
1
0.5
1y
y 2
(b)
ymin 0.5
1y
y 2
1.5
2y
3
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
ypr
1.5
2
ymax
Fig. 3.2 Centroid of fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets with triangular secondary membership
functions: (a) upper, principal and lower membership grades; (b)
centroid fuzzy set
(y)
=
y 0.6316
y 0.6316
.
=
0.2105y + 0.7895 1.2667 0.6316
0.2105y + 0.3685
(y) is a vector
elected for the right
For all y [ypr , ymax ],

of memberships
end-point of the centroid set (y) = 1 , 2 , 3 and yright (y) = ymax . Then,
qr (y) =
[0.1 0.9 0.5] 1t

= 1.5 .
[0 0.1 0.9] 1t
Consequently, the membership function of the centroid set within [ypr , ymax ]
is obtained as
(y) =
y 1.9
y 1.9
.
=
0.5y
0.5y + 1.5 19
1.9
15
Otherwise, the membership function of the centroid set is equal to 0.
3.3.3 Asymmetric-Gaussian Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

In this section, we generalize our previous result for the centroid of Gaussian
fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets [Starczewski unpublished]. Again in order to obtain
an interpretable result, we start from the elementary case when two convex
asymmetric-Gaussian fuzzy-valued singletons (in the primary domain) with
their secondary membership functions dened in the form of (2.104):
104

2
exp 21 u1
1

f1 (u1 ) =

2
exp 21 u1
1

2
exp 21 u2
2

f2 (u2 ) =

2
exp 21 u2
2
31 ] ,
u1 [0,
(3.98)
1 , 1] ,
u1 (3
32 ] ,
u2 [0,
(3.99)
2 , 1] ,
u2 (3
Proposition 3.2. Suppose we have a fuzzy-valued fuzzy set composed of

two asymmetric-Gaussian fuzzy-valued singletons characterized by (3.98) and
(3.99) at y1 and y2 , arranged such that y1 < y2 , with principal membership
grades
3k (0, 1) and spreads k > 0, k > 0, k = 1, 2. Let ypr be a centroid
of the principal membership function calculated by (3.94). Then the centroid
of such Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy set is characterized by the membership
function

2
2 )yy1
2 y2
1 (1+
exp
if y [y1 , ya )
2
2 (yy2 )

2 )y(
1 y1 +
2 y2 )
if y [ya , ypr ]
exp 12 ( 11 +
y1 2 y2 y(1 2 )

2
(3.100)
(y) = exp 1 (1+ 1 )yy2 1 y1
if y [ypr , yb ]
2
1 (yy1 )

2
2 +
1 )y(
2 y2 +
1 y1 )
1 (
if y (yb , y2 ]
exp
2
2 y2 1 y1 (2 1 )y
0
otherwise
where the boundary values for conditions are expressed by

y1
2
1
1
y2
+
2
2
1
ya =
,
1+
2
1
1
2 1

y2
1
1
2
y1
1 + 1 2
yb =
.
1+
1 +
1
2
2
1
Proof. For the minimum-based centroid and fuzzy-convex secondary membership functions, their -cuts producing the result should be of the same
level, i.e. [f1 ] and [f2 ] . Upper and lower bounds of uncertainty can be
expressed as functions of ., i.e.,

u1 () = max 0,
31 1 2 ln
(3.101)

u1 () = min 1,
31 + 1 2 ln
(3.102)

u2 () = max 0,
32 2 2 ln
(3.103)

u2 () = min 1,
32 + 2 2 ln
(3.104)
105
With a new variable dened by = 2 ln , the bounds of uncertainty take

the form of bounded linear functions of , i.e.,
u1 () = max (0,
31 1 ) ,
u1 () = min (1,
31 + 1 ) ,
(3.105)
(3.106)
u2 () = max (0,
32 2 ) ,
(3.107)
u2 () = min (1,
32 + 2 ) ,
(3.108)
with [0, ).
Now the problem of nding a centroid of Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets
reduces to the interval centroid calculation dependent on . Consequently,
the left bound yl of the resultant interval set is a function of , i.e.,
u1 () y1 + u2 () y2
(3.109)
u1 () + u2 ()
min (1,
31 + 1 ) y1 + max (0,
32 2 ) y2
=
min (1,
31 + 1 ) + max (0,
32 2 )
if
31 + 1 > 1 and
32 2 < 0,
y1
y1 +( 2 2 )y2
if
3
+
>
1
and
32 2 0,
1
1
1+
2 2
=
y1
if
31 + 1 1 and
32 2 < 0,
( 1 +1 )y1 +( 2 2 )y2
otherwise,
1 +1 +
2 2
if > 22 ,
y

1
2 y2 +y1 +
2 y2
1
1
2
if
,
(3.110)
=
2 +1+
2
1
2 ,

(
y
y
)+
y
+
y
1
1
2
1 1
2 2
1 1 2 2
otherwise (if min
,
).
yl () =
(1 2 )+
1 +
2
We can invert this formula with respect to and then obtain which equivalent to for y [y1 , ypr ]. Consequently,

2
for < exp 2 22

,
for
2

2
2
1
(1+
)yy

y
,
exp
2
1
2 2
2 2
(y) = exp 12
(yy
)
2
2

2
1
1 1
exp
2
1

exp 1 ( 1 + 2 )y( 1 y1 + 2 y2 )
otherwise,
2
1 y1 2 y2 y(1 2 )

y1
2
1
1

2
y2
2 + 2 1
2 )yy1
2 y2
1 (1+
,
exp 2
if y <
1+
2
1
1
2 (yy2 )
2
1

=
(3.111)

2
2 )y(
1 y1 +
2 y2 )
exp 12 ( 11 +
otherwise.
y1 2 y2 y(1 2 )
106
The right bound yr of an interval set can also be expressed in terms of , i.e.,
u1 y1 + u2 y2
(3.112)
u1 + u2
32 + 2 ) y2
max (0,
31 1 ) y1 + min (1,
=
max (0,
31 1 ) + min (1,
32 + 2 )
y2
if
31 1 < 0 and
32 + 2 > 1,
1 y1 +y2 + 1 y1
if
31 1 0 and
32 + 2 > 1,
1 +1+
1
=
if
<
0
and
32 + 2 1,
y
2
1
1
(2 y2 1 y1 )+ 2 y2 + 1 y1
otherwise,
(2 1 )+
2 +
1
if > 11 ,
y2

1 y1
1
2
1
1 y1 +y2 +
if
,
=
(3.113)
1
2
1 ,
1 +1+
(2 y2 1 y1 )+ 2 y2 + 1 y1 otherwise.
yr () =
(2 1 )+
2 +
1
Then its inverse is the membership function of the centroid fuzzy set for
y [ypr , y2 ], i.e.,

2
for < exp 2 11

,
for
2

2
1
1
(1+
)yy

y
,
exp
1
2
1 1
2 1
(y) = exp 12
(yy
)
1
1

2
2
1 1
exp
2
2

exp 1 ( 2 + 1 )y( 2 y2 + 1 y1 )
otherwise,
2
2 y2 1 y1 (2 1 )y

y2
1
1
2

2
y1
1 + 1 2
1 )yy2
1 y1
1 (1+
exp 2
< y,
if
1+
1
1
2
1 (yy1 )
1
2

(3.114)
.
=

2
2 +
1 )y(
2 y2 +
1 y1 )
1 (
otherwise.
exp 2 2 y2 1 y1 (2 1 )y

We now need to generalize the previous result for the case of multiple points
in the domain of y.
Theorem 3.12. Suppose we have a asymmetric-Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy
set with its principal membership function
3 : Y [0, 1], its upper spread
function : Y [0, 1] and its lower spread function : Y [0, 1] where Y
is a discrete domain consisting K points yk , k = 1, . . . , K. Let a secondary
membership function is described by

2
exp 12 uk
k

fk (uk ) =

2
exp 12 uk
k
107
3k ] ,
if uk [0,
(3.115)
otherwise.
The centroid of a asymmetric-Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy set (discrete in the

primary domain) can be calculated according to the following algorithm:
K
k k
1. calculate ypr = k=1
,
K
k
k=1
2. n = 1; ya = yn ; i = 1,
3. calculate (ya ) =
minK
k=2

2
1
exp 2 kk
,
4. for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K calculate mik (y) , sik (y) according to (3.116)

and (3.117)

2
k
1 1
1
for
(y)
<
exp
and if k i,
2
k

2
mik = 0
(3.116)
for (y) < exp 12 kk
and if k > i,
3k otherwise.

2
k
1 1
k
for (y) exp 2
and if k i,

2
sik =
for (y) exp 12 kk
and if k > i, (3.117)
k
0
otherwise,
5. choose yb (ya , ypr ] closest to ya from ybrk,k , k = 1, 2, . . . , K, and yn+1
(if they exist),
1 k K
K
q=1 siq yq +
q=1 miq yq
k
if k i

1
k K
K
miq +
q=1 siq
k

ybrk,k = k q=1
(3.118)
K
K
q=1 siq yq +
i=1 miq yq
otherwise
kK
k K
q=1
miq +
q=1
siq
6. determine (y) given by (3.119) for y (ya , yb ]
1
2
1K
K
m
y
m
y
1
ik
ik k
k=1
k=1
,
(y) = exp
1K
1K
2
s
y
s
y
k=1 ik k
k=1 ik
7. if yb = yn+1 then increase n,
8. ya = yb ; go to step 4,
9. n = K; ya = yn ,

2
K1
1
10. calculate (ya ) = mink=1 exp 2 kk
,
(3.119)
108
11. for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K calculate mjk (y) , sjk (y) according to (3.120)
and (3.121)

2
1
1
k
1
for (y) < exp 2
and k i,

2
mjk = 0
(3.120)
and k < i,
for (y) < exp 21 kk
3k otherwise,

2
k
1 1
for
(y)
exp
and k i,
2
k
k

2
sjk =
k
1
for
(y)
exp
and k < i, (3.121)

k
2
k
0
otherwise,
12. choose yb [ypr , ya ) closest to ya from ybrk,k (3.118), k = 1, 2, . . . , K,
and yn1 (if they exists),
13. determine (y) given by (3.119) for y [yb , ya )
1
2
1K
K
1
k=1 mik y
k=1 mik yk
,
(y) = exp
1K
1K
2
k=1 sik yk
k=1 sik y
14. if yb = yn1 then decrease n,
15. ya = yb ; go to step 11.
In step 3. (and also in 10.), a necessary condition for starting the procedure
is that at least one of the lower parts of Gaussian secondary membership
functions is not clipped by 0.
Proof. Analogically to the previous case, we get a spread of uncertainty corresponding to the left and right slopes of a centroid set

= max 0, min 1,
2 ln
3+
(3.122)
u
i
i

3+
j 2 ln
(3.123)
u j = max 0, min 1,
= [
,...,
] with
=
where vector
3 = [3
1 , . . . ,
3K ]; vector
i
i1
iK
ik
k
whenever yk yi and ik = k otherwise; and vector j = [ j1 , . . . ,

jK ]
with
jk = k whenever yj yk and
jk = k otherwise; i =
1, 2, . . . :
yi ypr , j = 1, 2, . . . : ypr yj , k = 1, 2, . . . , K. Substituting for 2 ln ,
the spread of uncertainty take the following form:
= max (0, min (1,

))
3+
u
i
i
3+
j ))
u j = max (0, min (1,
(3.124)
(3.125)
109
Now, the centroid set for a given can be represented by its left and right
slopes
1K
u ik yk
yl () = 1k=1
K
k=1 u ik
1K
(y) )) y
3k +
ik
k
k=1 max (0, min (1,
= 1
,
K
3k + ik (y) ))
k=1 max (0, min (1,
1K
u jk yk
yr () = 1k=1
K
k=1 u jk
1K
(y) )) y
3k +
jk
k
k=1 max (0, min (1,
= 1
.
K
3k + jk (y) ))
k=1 max (0, min (1,
(3.126)
(3.127)
(3.128)
(3.129)
Subsequently, the left slope function can be expressed with the use of conditions for the secondary membership functions to be clipped either by 0 or 1,
i.e.,
1K
k=1 (mik + sik ) yk
,
(3.130)
yl () = 1
K
k=1 (mik + sik )
where
mik
sik
for
3k + k > 1 and k i,
1
= 0
for
3k k < 0 and k > i,
3k otherwise,
for
3k + k 1 and k i,
k
= k for
3k k 0 and k > i,
0
otherwise.
(3.131)
(3.132)
Solving in (3.130), we obtain

K

K
K
K
5
5
5
5
mik +
sik yl =
mik yk +
sik yk
k=1
k=1
k=1
k=1
1K
1K
k=1 mik yl
k=1 mik yk
1K
1K
k=1 sik yk
k=1 sik yl
(3.133)
.
(3.134)

Therefore, for y [y1 , ypr ], we achieve (y) = = exp 2 /2 in the form
(3.119):
1
2
1K
K
m
y
m
y
1
ik
ik
k
k=1
k=1
,
(y) = exp
1K
1K
2
s
y
s
y
ik
k
ik
k=1
k=1
110
where i is such that y [yi , yi+1 ) and mik and sik are expressed by (3.116)
and (3.117), respectively,

2
1
1
k
1
for (y) < exp 2
and if k i ,

2
mik = 0
and if k > i ,
for (y) < exp 21 kk
3k otherwise ,

2
k
1 1
for
(y)
exp
and if k i ,
2
k
k

sik = for (y) exp 1 k 2 and if k > i ,
k
2
k
0
otherwise .
Observe that (3.119) is an implicit function of y, since i depends on a current
y value. Up to now we know only membership values for which mik changes
from 0 or 1 to
3k , and sik changes from 0 to k or k . Hence, we have to
obtain corresponding values for y, i.e.,
1K
2
1K
m
y
m
y
iq brk,k
iq q
1
q=1
q=1
(3.135)
exp
1K
1K
2
s
y
s
y
q=1 iq q
q=1 iq brk,k

2
k
1 1
if k i
exp 2
k

=
2
otherwise
exp 12 kk
1 k K
K
q=1 siq yq +
q=1 miq yq
k
if k i
K

1

K
k
m
+
iq
q=1 siq
k
K
.
(3.136)
ybrk,k = k q=1
K
q=1 siq yq +
i=1 miq yq
otherwise
kK
k K
q=1
miq +
q=1
siq
Similarly, we obtain the right slope of the centroid expressed by the same
equation (3.119) but with mjk and sjk dened dierently

2
1
1
k
1
for (y) < exp 2
and k i,

2
mjk = 0
and k < i,
for (y) < exp 12 kk
3k otherwise,

2
k
1 1
for (y) exp 2

and k i,
k
k

2
sjk = for (y) exp 1 k
and k < i,
2 k
k
0
otherwise,
111
where j is such that y (yj1 , yj ].

We have therefore achieved a recurrence since is a function of mjk and sjk
which depend on changes of . Taking into account the obtained recurrences,
we can start the algorithm from the boundaries of the centroid fuzzy set,
namely y1 and yK .

Example 3.3. Suppose we have the discrete primary domain given by y=
[0 1 2], the principal membership grades
3 = [0.1 0.2 0.5], the upper spread
= [2.5 0.2 0.4], and the lower spread = [0.3 0.1 0.7]. Obviously bounds of
a centroid fuzzy set are ymin = y1 = 0 and ymax = y3 = 2. The rst loop of
the algorithm described in Theorem 3.12 is demonstrated in details.
1. The principal value of the centroid fuzzy set is calculated in the following
way:
[0.1 0.2 0.5] [0 1 2]t
= 1.5 .
ypr =
[0.1 0.2 0.5] 1t
2. We initialize parameters n := 1; ya := yn = 0.
3. Then we calculate an initial membership grade

2
K
3k
1
= f2 (0) = e2
(ya ) = min exp
= 0.1353 .
k=2
2 k
4. According to (3.116) and (3.117) we determine m = [1 0.2 0] and s =
[0 0.1 0].
5. We have to choose a right bound for y which is closest to ya , i.e., yb :=
min (ybrk,1 , ybrk,3 , y2 , ypr )
= min (0.1439, 0.1139, 1, 1.5)
= ybrk,3
= 0.1139
while ybrk,2 = 0.
6. Consequently, for y [0, 0.1139], we determine

2

2
1.2y 0.2
1
1 m 1t y m y t
= exp
(y) = exp
2
s y t s 1t y
2 0.1 + 0.1y

2
6y 1
= exp 2
y1
according to (3.119).
7. Condition yb = yn+1 is not satised.
8. We initialize a new left bound ya := yb ; and we go back to step 4 to begin
the second loop.
In the second loop, m = [1 0.2 0.5] and s = [0 0.1 0.7]. The right
bound yb := min (ybrk,1 , y2 , ypr )
= min (0.4674, 1, 1.5)
= ybrk,1
= 0.4674
while ybrk,2 < ybrk,3 = ya . Consequently, for y [0.1139, 0.4674], we determine
112

2
2
17y 12
1.7y 1.2
= exp
.
(y) = exp
1.5y + 0.8
15y 8
In the third loop, m = [0.1 0.2 0.5] and s = [2.5 0.1 0.7]. The right
bound yb := min (y2 , ypr ) = min (1, 1.5) = y2 = 1. Consequently, for y
[0.4674, 1], we determine

2
2
8y 12
0.8y 1.2
= exp
.
(y) = exp
1.5 1.7y
17y + 15
In this loop n := n + 1 = 2 since yb = y2 .
In the fourth loop, m = [0.1 0.2 0.5] and s = [2.5 0.2 0.7]. The right
bound yb := ypr = 1.5 . Then, for y [1, 1.5],

2
2
0.8y 1.2
4y 6
(y) = exp
= exp
.
1.2 2y
y+6
A right slope of a membership function for the centroid has to be calculated
in the reverse direction. We start from n := K = 3 and the new right bound
ya := yn = 2. In the rst loop, m = [0 0.2 1] and s = [0 0.1 0]. Now the
left bound yb = max (ybrk,1 , ybrk,3 , ypr )
= max (1.8571, 1.9302, 1.5)
= ybrk,3
=
1.9302. Consequently, for y [1.9302, 2], we determine

2
2
12y 22
1.2y 2.2
= exp
.
(y) = exp
0.1 + 0.1y
y1
In the second loop, m = [0 0.2 0.5] and s = [0 0.1 0.4]. The left bound
yb = max (ybrk,1 , ypr )
= max (1.7363, 1.5)
= ybrk,1
= 1.7917. Consequently,
for y [1.7917, 1.9302], we determine

2
2
7y 12
0.7y 1.2
= exp
.
(y) = exp
0.7 0.3y
3y 7
The third loop in the reverse direction produces: m = [0.1 0.2 0.5], s =
[0.3 0.1 0.4] and yb = ypr = 1.5. Thus, for y [1.5, 1.7917],

2
2
0.8y 1.2
8y 12
(y) = exp
= exp
.
0.7
7
Otherwise the membership function of the centroid fuzzy set is equal to 0.
The membership function in the whole domain is presented in Fig. 3.3.
113
(a)
1
0.5
0
1
f3
f2
f1
0.5
x
0 x1
0
u
1 x2
0.5
x
(b)
f1(0)
0.5
f3(1)
f1(1)
f3(0)
f2(0)
0
x1
0
x (1)
b
x (2)
b
0.5
xb(3) = x2
1
x
xpr
x (2)
b
xb(1) x
3
1.5
f (0)
2
Fig. 3.3 Centroid of fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets with piecewise-Gaussian secondary

membership functions: (a) secondary membership functions; (b) centroid fuzzy set
3.3.4 Gaussian Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

The Gaussian shapes of the membership functions may be obtained by various approximate extended t-norm operations as in [Karnik and Mendel 2000;
Starczewski 2005]. Therefore, a method of exact determining the extended
centroid of sets with Gaussian secondary membership functions is crucial for
the implementation of fuzzy logic systems. In this section, we recall our previous result for the centroid of Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets [Starczewski
unpublished]2 . Again in order to obtain a simple result, we start from the
elementary case when two Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets are singletons in
the primary domain. Let the secondary membership functions of these sets
be denoted by

2

31
1 u1
,
(3.137)
f1 (u1 ) = exp
2
1

2

32
1 u2
f2 (u2 ) = exp
.
(3.138)
2
2
Assuming that 1 = 1 and 2 = 2 a direct corollary from Proposition
3.2 can be summarized as follows.
2
While reading [Starczewski unpublished] please be carefull with all proofs

and derivations,
since Gaussian functions were dened in the form of
2

.
exp um
114
Corollary 3.3. Suppose we have two Gaussian fuzzy-valued singletons characterized by (3.137) and (3.138) at y1 and y2 , arranged such that y1 < y2 ,
with principal membership grades
3k (0, 1) and standard deviations k > 0,
k = 1, 2. Let ypr be a centroid of the principal membership function calculated by (3.94). Then the centroid of such Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets is
characterized by the membership function

2
2 )yy1
2 y2
1 (1+
exp 2
if y [y1 , ya )
2 (yy2 )

2 )y(
1 y1 +
2 y2 )
if y [ya , ypr ]
exp 12 ( 11 +
y1 2 y2 y(1 2 )

2
(y) = exp 1 (1+ 1 )yy2 1 y1
(3.139)
if y [ypr , yb ]
2
1 (yy1 )

2
2 +
1 )y(
2 y2 +
1 y1 )
1 (
if y (yb , y2 ]
exp
2
2 y2 1 y1 (2 1 )y
0
otherwise
where the boundary values for the condition parts are expressed by

y1
2
1
1
y2
+
2
2
1
ya =
,
1+
2
1
1
2 1

y2
1
1
2
+
y1
1
1
2
yb =
.
1+
1 +
1
2
2
1
A generalization of this result for the case of multiple points in the domain
of y ows immediately from Theorem 3.12 if k = k , k = 1, . . . , K.
Corollary 3.4. Suppose we have a Gaussian fuzzy-valued fuzzy set with its
principal membership function
3 : Y [0, 1] and standard deviation function
: Y [0, 1] where Y is a discrete domain consisting K points y1 , y2 , . . . , yK .
Let a secondary membership function be described by (3.35)

2

3k
1 uk
, k = 1, . . . , K.
fk (uk ) = exp
2
k
The algorithm described in Theorem 3.12 is valid for Gaussian fuzzy-valued
fuzzy sets if only (3.116) and (3.117) are replaced by

2
k
1 1
1
for (y) < exp 2
and if k i,

2
mik = 0
(3.140)
and if k > i,
for (y) < exp 12 kk
3k otherwise,
sik =
115

2
k
for (y) exp 12 1
and if k i,
k

2
(3.141)
for (y) exp 12 kk
and if k > i,
otherwise,
and (3.120) and (3.121) are replaced by

2
k
1 1
1
for (y) < exp 2
and k i,

2
mik = 0
(3.142)
for (y) < exp 12 kk
and k < i,
3k otherwise,

2
k
1 1
for
(y)
exp
and k i,
k
2
k

2
sik =
(3.143)
for (y) exp 12 kk
and k < i,
k
0
otherwise,
Example 3.4. Suppose we have the discrete primary domain given by y=
[0 1 2], the principal membership grades
3 = [0.1 0.2 0.5], and the standard
deviations = [0.1 0.2 0.5] proportional to the principal grades. Obviously
bounds of the centroid fuzzy set are ymin = y1 = 0 and ymax = y3 = 2. The
rst loop of the algorithm is demonstrated in details.
1. The principal value of the centroid fuzzy set is calculated in the following
way:
ypr =
[0.1 0.2 0.5] [0 1 2]t

= 1.5 .
[0.1 0.2 0.5] 1t
2. We initialize parameters n := 1; ya := yn = 0.
3. Then we calculate an initial membership grade

2
K
1
3k
(ya ) = min exp
= f2 (0) = f3 (0)
= 0.6065 .
k=2
2 k
4. According to (3.140) and (3.141) we determine m = [0.1 0.2 0.5] and s =
[0.1 0.2 0.5].
5. We have to choose a right bound which is closest to ya from the right,
i.e., yb := min (ybrk,1 , y2 , ypr ) = min (2.087, 1, 1.5) = y2 = 1, since ybrk,2 =
ybrk,3 = 0.
116
6. Consequently, for y [0, 1], we determine

2
1 m 1t y m y t
(y) = exp
2
s y t s 1t y

2

2
0.8y 1.2
1 4y 6
1
= exp
= exp
2 1.2 + 0.6y
2 3y 6
according to (3.119).
7. n := n + 1 = 2, since yb = yn+1 .
8. We initialize new left bound ya := yb ; and we go back to step 4 for the
second loop.
In the second loop, m = [0.1 0.2 0.5] and s = [0.1 0.2 0.5]. The right bound
yb := min (ybrk,1 , ybrk,3 , ypr ) = min (6, 2/3, 1.5) = ypr = 1.5. Consequently,
for y [1, 1.5], we determine

2

2
0.8y 1.2
1 4y 6
1
= exp
.
(y) = exp
2 0.8 + 0.2y
2 y4
A right slope of the membership function has to be calculated in the reverse
direction. We start from n := K = 3 and the new right bound ya := yn = 2.
We calculate m = [0.1 0.2 0.5] and s = [0.1 0.2 0.5]. Now the left bound
yb = ypr = 1.5, since ybrk,1 = ybrk,2 = ybrk,3 = 2 = ya . Consequently, in the
single loop for y [1.5, 2], we determine

2

2
1 4y 6
1 0.8y 1.2
= exp
.
(y) = exp
2 0.8 0.2y
2 y4
Otherwise the membership function of the centroid fuzzy set is equal to 0.
The membership function, in the whole domain, is presented in Fig. 3.4.
3.3.5 Symmetric Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

In fuzzy logic systems, symmetric fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets appear quite often
when a single but non-singleton consequent is red. However, the symmetry
allows us for a reduction in the computational cost of the centroid. A similar
theorem regarding the centroid of an interval type-2 fuzzy set has been proven
in [Mendel 2005] by Mendel. Now, consider a symmetric general fuzzy-valued
fuzzy set.
Theorem 3.13. The centroid of a fuzzy-valued fuzzy set with normal and
fuzzy-convex secondary membership functions symmetrical at s is characterized by the membership function symmetrical about s, i.e.,
3.4 Approximate Centroids for Convex Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets
117
(y) = (2s y) .
(3.144)
Proof. For the proof we refer to [Starczewski unpublished].

This theorem benets from a saving of 50% in the computation of a centroid
set. Having a left slope of a membership function, we immediately obtain a
right slope by transformation (3.144) for y s.
3.4 Approximate Centroids for Convex Fuzzy-Valued

Fuzzy Sets
Even if for some particular forms of secondary membership functions, we are
able to use the analytical formulae for the extended centroid, equally satisfactory results in the fuzzy inference are performed by approximate centroids.
An ecient centroid calculation method for triangular type-2 fuzzy sets was
derived in [Starczewski 2009a] (rst outlined in [Starczewski 2006]) as an extension of the well known KM iterative procedure for type-reduction [Karnik
and Mendel 2001]. In addition, we pointed out that the method realizes the
three-node linear interpolation of the exact result, for which reason we will
refer to presented in this section approximations as interpolative centroid
methods. Soon after, Liu proposed an ecient centroid type-reduction strategy for general type-2 fuzzy sets by multiple use of KM algorithm for several
-planes [Liu 2008]. This strategy is in fact a generalization of our triangular
type-reduction, since assuming decomposition of a triangular type-2 fuzzy set
only into 1-plane and 0-plane, the classical defuzzication together with the
(a)
1
0.5
0
1
f3
f2
0.5
x
0 x1
0
u
1 x2
0.5
x
(b)
f (0) = f (0)
f (0)
1
= f (0)
2
= f (1)
0.5
x
0
0.5
1
x
x
1.5
pr
Fig. 3.4 Centroid of fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets with Gaussian secondary membership
functions: (a) secondary membership functions; (b) centroid fuzzy set
118
KM algorithm are performed to obtain 1-cut and 0-cut, which coincides with
our method.
3.4.1 Triangular and Trapezoidal Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy

Sets
3.4.1.1
Trapezoidal Approximation
We describe the method which is an extension of our triangular centroid approximation [Starczewski 2009a, 2006] to trapezoidal membership functions.
3k ) membership function
Let fk be a trapezoidal (triangular for k = k =
of the k-th primary value (3.68),
"
"

u k k k u k
, k = 1, 2, . . . , K.
min
,
fk (uk ) =
k k k k
Using the fact that ring sets have trapezoidal secondary membership functions, the centroid fuzzy set can be expressed by its membership function,
which is not always of trapezoidal shape.
"

"
K
u k k k u k
min min
,
(3.145)
(y) =
sup
K
k=1
k k k k
y u
k=1 k k
y=
K
u
k=1 k
for all uk = [0, 1], where the parameters of the trapezoidal membership functions are ordered k k k k , k = 1, . . . , K. Note that secondary
membership functions becomes triangular whenever k = k =
3k .
The following observations are inspired by those presented in [Karnik and
Mendel 2001].
1. If secondary membership functions in (3.145) are discretized only in their
vertex points, i.e. k , k , k , k , the discrete centroid has a trapezoidal (triangular) membership function, uniquely specied by its left bound ymin ,
left-principal point ylpr , right-principal point yrpr , and right bound ymax .
2. From the t-norm T property of the unity existence, the kernel [ylpr , yrpr ]
has to be generated by elements with unity secondary memberships. Consequently the KM iterative procedure can be applied for calculating this
kernel from intervals [ k , k ], k = 1, . . . , K.
a. If triangular secondary membership functions are employed, the principal value of output ypr can be calculated as an average of yk weighted
by
3k .
119
3. Since the support of the

[ymin , ymax ] is the widest interval cal
centroid
culated from intervals k , k , the KM iterative procedure can be here
adopted as well.
Consequently, the four (three) point linear interpolation can be summarized
in the following trapezoidal centroid calculation algorithm. Let the consequent values be ordered in the following way y1 < y2 < . . . < yK .
1. If all k = k , calculate principal output ylpr = yrpr as an average of yk
weighted by
3k = k = k and go to step 8,
2. for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K, if yk > yrpr then k = k , otherwise k = k ,
3. nd nearest ynrst := min yk |yk > yrpr ,
k=1,...,K
4. calculate yrpr as an average of yk weighted by new grades k , if yrpr ynrst

calculation is completed, else go to step 2,
5. for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K, if yk < ylpr then k = k , otherwise k = k ,
6. nd nearest ynrst := max yk |yk < ylpr ,
k=1,...,K
7. calculate ymin as an average of yk weighted by new grades , if ymin

k
ynrst calculation is completed, else go to step 5,
8. set the initial values ymin = ylpr and ymax = yrpr ,
9. for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K, if yk > ymax then k = k , otherwise k = k ,
10. nd nearest ynrst := min yk |yk > ymax ,
k=1,...,K
11. calculate ymax as an average of yk weighted by new grades k , if ymax

ynrst calculation is completed, else go to step 9,
12. for each k = 1, 2, . . . , K, if yk < ymin then = k , otherwise = k ,
13. nd nearest ynrst :=
max
k=1,...,K
yk |yk < ymin ,
14. calculate ymin as an average of yk weighted by new grades , if ymin

k
ynrst calculation is completed, else go to step 12.
In this approximation method, we always obtain a trapezoidal membership
function of the centroid fuzzy set.

y ymin
ymax y
,
.
(3.146)
(y) = min
ylpr ymin ymax yrpr
Thus, the overall defuzzication of this set is obviously performed by the
centroid calculation of the triangle, i.e.,
. ylpr uymin
. yrpr
. ymax ymax u
udu
+
udu
+
y
y
y
y
yrpr ymax yrpr udu
min
min
. lpr
. ymax
(3.147)
y = . ylprlpruymin
yrpr
ymax u
ymin ylpr ymin du + ylpr du + yrpr ymax yrpr du
=
2
2
2
2
ylpr
+ ymax
ymin
+ yrpr ymax ymin ylpr
1 yrpr
3
yrpr ylpr + ymax ymin
1 (yrpr + ymax ) yrpr ymax (ylpr + ymin ) + ymin ylpr

(3.149)
3
yrpr + ymax ylpr ymin
(3.148)
120
or
y =
ymin + ypr + ymax

3
(3.150)
in the triangular subcase.

The subsequent theorem, based on the theorem proven in [Starczewski
2009a], reveals the conditions, under which the centroid set is triangular.
Theorem 3.14. Let a fuzzy-valued fuzzy set be characterized by generalized
triangular secondary membership functions given by (3.93) for all ordered kth primary values,
k = 1, 2, . . . , K. Suppose from the KM iterative procedure

for intervals k , k we get a nal set of memberships elected for the left
end-point of the centroid fuzzy set, ymin , represented by the vector (y) =
1 , . . . , K , and a vector of memberships elected for the right end-point

y
, denoted by
(y) = , . . . , . A principal element can be calculated
max
as a centroid weighted by the principal memberships (3.94), i.e.

ypr =
K
5
3k yk
k=1
3k
Assuming that ymin < ypr < ymax , the following formula

y ymin ymax y
(y) = min
,
ypr ymin ymax ypr
(3.151)
represents a membership function of the centroid fuzzy set as long as the

successive condition is satised
K
5
k=1
3k =
K
5
k=1
k (y) =
K
5
(y) .
(3.152)
k=1
Proof. We know that the secondary membership function of the k-th ring
grade is triangular, i.e.,
"

"
u k k k u k
=
min
,
.
3k k k
3k

3k and uk,upp [3
k , k ] have their
Both slopes of this function uk,low k ,
inverse functions:
uk,low = k (1 ) +
3k ,
(3.153)
uk,upp = k (1 ) +
3k .
(3.154)
121
The KM algorithm, in order to obtain the right slope of the centroid fuzzy
set, selects one of these functions for each k. We denote the selected functions
with the unied notation
3k ,
uk = k (1 ) +
(3.155)
where k stands for either k or k depending on the KM selection. Consequently, the maximal output value is expressed by
1K
y k k
(3.156)
ymax = 1k=1
K
k=1 k
and the principal output is weighted by the principal ring grades, i.e.,
1K
yk
3k
.
(3.157)
ypr = 1k=1
K
3k
k=1
The exact output value with the use of (3.155) is expressed by

1K
1K
1K
3k k
k=1 yk k +
k=1 yk
k=1 yk uk
y = 1K
= 1K
.
1K
3k k
k=1 uk
k=1 k +
k=1
From (3.158), it follows that
1K
1K
k
k=1 yk k y
= 1K
1K k=1
.
3k k k=1 yk
3k k
y k=1
(3.158)
(3.159)
The approximate membership function (3.151), in whole [ypr , ymax ], is a linear

function of y, i.e.,
ymax y
.
(3.160)
apx =
ymax ypr
Substituting (3.156) and (3.157) into the (3.160), we get
1K
1K
k=1 yk k y
k=1 k
apx = 1
K
.
1
K
K
k
k=1
y
3
k
k
K
k=1 yk k
k=1

k=1
(3.161)
Since the numerators in right hand sides of formulae (3.159) and (3.161) are
equal,
1it remains1toK prove that under the condition assumed in the theorem,
3k = k=1 k , the denominators are also equal, i.e.,
i.e., K
k=1
K
5
1K
yk k 1k=1
K
k=1
k=1
K
5
k=1
K
k 5
3k
k=1
yk
3k =
K
5
y k k
k=1
K
5
yk
3k
k=1
K
K
5

5

3k k = y
3k k
3k k .
yk
yk
k=1
k=1
Identical calculations can be performed for y [yminypr ].

122

h
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
min3
|
max
6y
Fig. 3.5 An example of the triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy set satisfying condition
(3.152) for Theorem 3.14; upper, principal and lower membership
functions; the grades elected to compute ymin , ypr and ymax are connected by lines
Condition (3.152) is not very restrictive. On the left hand side of the condition, all principal ring grades are summed. Since k are either upper ring
grades (for consequents greater than the output) or lower ring grades (for
consequents lower than the output), the right hand side may be only slightly
dierent from the LHS of the condition. Consequently, the approximate defuzzication method for triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets is close to the extended defuzzication. Fig. 3.5 presents a quite possible case when condition
(3.152) is exactly fullled.
(y) and
Note that
(y) may change only at points of discrete yi positioned between ymin and ymax . Therefore, the following corollary holds.
Corollary 3.5. Let {yi } be a set of elements that belong to the open interval
(ymin , ymax ). An necessary condition for (3.152) to be true is that at least of
the following statements is true:
1. either {yi } is empty,
2. or there is a unique yi = ypr ,
3i .
3. or {yi } is characterized by crisp membership grades, i.e., i = i =
Nevertheless, if condition (3.152) is more or less satised, the resultant centroid fuzzy set is quasi-triangular, which allows for a triangular approximation
of the real centroid This approximation is addressed especially to the situation when the secondary membership functions situated out of a support of
the centroid fuzzy set are much more uncertain than secondary membership
functions within (ymin , ymax ). It has been demonstrated that approximate
triangular type-2 fuzzy logic systems are a reasonable compromise between
interval fuzzy systems and ordinary fuzzy systems in classication tasks when
only the characteristic points of the centroid fuzzy set are subject to interpretation [Starczewski 2009a]. This means that an exact membership function
is of no importance whenever classication can be performed on the base of
the principal point (or kernel) and the horizontal end-points of the centroid
set.
123
Besides, our approximate method coincides with the recent type-2 defuzzication strategy of Liu [Liu 2008] when only two -planes are employed. The
experiment of Liu exhibited that the centroid error of our method is less than
0.1%.
Now we generalize the previous theorem to trapezoidal membership
functions.
Theorem 3.15. Let a fuzzy-valued fuzzy set be characterized by generalized
trapezoidal secondary membership functions given by (3.68) for all ordered
k-th primary values, k = 1, 2, . . . , K. Assume that kernels and supports of
the trapezoidal secondary membership functions are treated as intervals and
, respectively. Suppose from [ k , k ] the KM iterative procedure determines
a nal set of memberships elected for the kernel of the centroid fuzzy set,
(y) = [ 1 , . . . , K ] and
[ymin , ymin ], represented by the respective vectors
(y) = [ 1 , . . . , K ] , and from intervals k , k the second run of the KM

procedure determines a nal set of memberships elected
for thesupport of the

(y) = , . . . ,
centroid fuzzy set, [ylpr , yrpr ], denoted by
and
(y) =
1
K

1 , . . . , K , respectively. Assuming that ymin < ylpr and yrpr < ymax , the
following formula for a membership function

y ymin
ymax y
,
(y) = min
(3.162)
ylpr ymin ymax yrpr
characterizes the centroid fuzzy set of the trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy set
as long as the successive condition is satised
K
5
k=1
k (y) =
K
5
k (y) =
k=1
K
5
k (y) =
k=1
K
5
(y) .
(3.163)
k=1
Proof. The proof diers from the one of Theorem 3.14 only in details. Namely,
instead of (3.157) we use ylpr and yrpr interchangeably depending on the
choice of
(y) and
(y). The result follows.
3.4.1.2
Hyperbolic Approximation
A closer approximation to the centroid of a triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy set,

given in (3.95), can be derived using a single hyperbolic function for each slope
of the resultant fuzzy set. Assuming that ql and qr are constant and xed in
ymin and ymax , respectively, and that yleft (y) = ymin and yright (y) = ymax ,
the approximation can be dened by the following membership function:
yymin

if y [ymin , ypr ]

y+ KK
k=1 k (y y)y
pr
min
k
k=1
(y) =
(3.164)
yymax
K
y+ k=1 k (ypr y)ymax if y [ypr , ymax ]
K
k
k=1
124
and
where
k denote the memberships elected in the preceding KM

k
procedure while obtaining ymin and ymax , respectively.
It can be easily observed that the result given in (3.164) is the exact
centroid whenever there is no yk in the open interval (ymin , ypr ) and similarly
yk
/ (ypr , ymax ), k = 1, . . . , K. That justies the second approximation for
relatively small density of discretization for the primary domain.
We can obtain a formula for the overall centroid with the help of the
following integrals
4
y y
y2
(y ) y
dy = 2
(3.165)
y + ( y)
2 + 1 2 2
ln ( 1) ( y + y)
( ) ( ) ,
3 32 + 3 1
4
y
y
dy =
(3.166)
y + ( y)
1
ln ( 1) ( y + y) ,
2
2 + 1
After some calculations, the overall centroid of a triangular-valued fuzzy set
for the hyperbolic approximation is expressed by
y =
) ln(1)+1
1 2 2
( )2 (
2 1
(1)(+1)
( ) ln(1)+1
ln(1)+1
+ ( ) ( )1
1
) ln(1)+1
( )2 (
(1)(+1)
( )
1 2 2
2 1
(3.167)
where the subsequent substitutions are made: = ypr , = ymin , = ymax ,

1K
1K
1K
1K
= k=1
k , and = k=1
k.
3k / k=1
3k / k=1
Analogically, the second (hyperbolic) approximation to the centroid of the
trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy set can be dened by the following membership
function:
yymin
K
if y [ymin , ylpr ]
y+
(ylpr y)ymin
k=1
k=1
1
if y [ylpr , yrpr ]
(y) =
(3.168)
yymax

if y [yrpr , ymax ]
k=1
y+ K
(yrpr y)ymax
k=1
0
otherwise,
where
k and
k denote the memberships elected in the preceding KM
,
procedure while obtaining ylpr and yrpr , respectively, and
k k denote are
elected while obtaining ymin and ymax , respectively.
The overall centroid of the hyperbolic approximation to the centroid of
the trapezoidal-valued fuzzy sets can be calculated as

1

2
() ln 1
+1
2
12 1
+ 12 2 2
(1)(+1)
2
2
) ln(1)+1
2
+ 12 1
( ) (
(1)(+1)
() ln(1)+1
ln(1)+1
+ + ( ) ( )1
1
125
( )
y =
( )
, (3.169)
with the following substitutions: = ylpr , = yrpr , = ymin , = ymax ,

1K 1K
, and = 1K
1K
= k=1
v k / k=1
k
k=1 v k /
k=1 k .
We left the derivation of accuracy for these two approximations, and conne ourselves to carry out a comparative analysis of defuzzication methods
in the next section.
3.4.2 Gaussian Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

A proposition similar to Proposition 3.14 may be conveyed to Gaussian fuzzyvalued fuzzy sets.
Proposition 3.3. Let a fuzzy-valued fuzzy set be characterized by Gaussian
secondary membership functions (3.35) at each ordered k-th primary value,
i.e.,

2

3k
1 uk
fk (uk ) = exp
, k = 1, 2, . . . , K,
2
k
Assume that -cuts of
functions are treated

Gaussian secondary
membership
as intervals
3k k ln 2,
3k + k 2 ln , k = 1, 2, . . . , K. For a generalized threshold, dened as
K
min = max max (fk (0) , fk (1)) ,

k=1
(3.170)
we get a vector of spreads (associated with their signs) elected for the left
= [+ , . . . , ], and a vector
bound of a produced min -cut, denoted by
1
K
of spreads elected for the right bound, denoted by

= [1 , . . . , +K ]. As
long as the following condition is satised
K
5
k =
k=1
K
5
= 0,
(3.171)
k=1
formula

2
1 yypr
exp 2

(y) =

2
1 yypr
exp 2

if y ypr 2 ln min , ypr

if y ypr , ypr + 2 ln min ,
(3.172)
represents a membership function of the centroid set where the principal element is calculated by (3.94) and the standard deviations are expressed by
126
1K
=
k=1
1K
1K
yk
k
3k
(3.173)
(3.174)
k=1
k=1
1K
k=1
3k
The proof is similar to 3.14 and diers in that we must pay attention to the
clipping of Gaussian functions, see [Starczewski unpublished] for details. Note
that condition (3.171) for Gaussian secondary memberships is less frequently
occurring than condition (3.152) in the context of triangular secondary membership functions.
However
obtaining a Gaussian
centroid
fuzzy set in a nar

rowed range ypr 2 ln min , ypr + 2 ln min is theoretically possible, we rstly use this result as an asymmetric-Gaussian approximation of a
centroid fuzzy set.
The following denite integrals are useful to derive a formula for the overall
centroid for approximation given in (3.172). The rst of the following
integrals
may have changed the limits of integration by substitution y = 2t + , i.e.,

2
4
1 y
dy
(3.175)
y exp
2
4
4

= 2 2
(3.176)
t exp t2 dt + 2
exp t2 dt.
0
The rst of the RHS integrals, by substitution t2 = z, is equal to 1/2.

The
second one is the Euler-Poisson integral, which is known to be equal to /2,
and may be calculated using the Wallis formula or by polar coordinates with
shell integration. Hence,

9

2
4
1 y
2
.
(3.177)
y exp
dy = +
2
For the other integration interval, we have to use substitution y = 2t+ ,

i.e.,

2
4
1 y
y exp
dy
2
4
4

2
2
= 2
t exp (t) dy + 2
exp t2 dy (3.178)
0
0
9
= 2 +
.
(3.179)
2
127
The Euler-Poisson integral can be calculated as follows

2

2
4
4
1 y
1 y
exp
exp
dy =
dy (3.180)
2
4

(3.181)
exp t2 dt
= 2
0
9
.
(3.182)
=
2
With = ypr , the overall centroid of the asymmetric-Gaussian approximation
is expressed by
.
. ypr
y (y) dy + ypr y (y) dy
.
(3.183)
y = . ypr
(y) dy + ypr (y) dy
9
2
( ) .
(3.184)
= ypr +
To calculate the nal centroid

valuewithin
a narrowed range, which may

be expressed as ypr 2a, ypr + 2b , the following denite may have
changed the limits of integration by substitution y = 2t + , i.e.,

2
4 + 2b
1 y
y exp
dy
(3.185)
2
4 b
4 b

2

2
= 2
(3.186)
t exp t dt + 2
exp t2 dt.
0
2
The rst of the RHSintegrals, by substitution t = z, is equal to
1 exp ln min /2. The second one is the Gauss error function, de.b

ned by erf (b) = 2 0 exp t2 dt, which can be calculated using Taylor
expansion or approximated. Hence,

9

2
4 + 2b
1 y
erf (b) .
y exp
dy = 2 (1 exp (b)) +
2
(3.187)
and by analogy,

2
4
1 y
dy
y exp
2
2a
9
2
= (1 exp (a)) +
erf (a) .
(3.188)
2
128
Clearly,
+ 2b
1
exp
2
2
9
dy =
erf (b) .
2
(3.189)
With = ypr , the overall centroid of the asymmetric-Gaussian approximation

is expressed by in [yleft , yright ]
. ypr

y =
y (y) dy +
yleft
. ypr
yleft
. yright
y
. yprright
y (y) dy
(3.190)
(y) dy + ypr (y) dy
9
2 2 (1 exp (b)) 2 (1 exp (a))
,
(3.191)
= ypr +
erf (b) + erf (a)

where a = (ypr yleft ) / 2 and b = (yright ypr ) / 2 .
Much closer approximations to the centroid can be derived in the spirit of
hyperbolic approximations for triangular and trapezoidal secondary membership functions, (3.164) and (3.168). An another Gaussian approximation,
that has been already presented in Theorem 3.9, can be found in [Karnik
and Mendel 2001], where the authors have proved that the centroid of a
Gaussian type-2 set is approximately a Gaussian type-1 set as long as the
standard deviations of the secondary memberships are small compared to
their means.
3.5 Comparative Analysis

Our analysis may be started from defuzzication of interval-valued fuzzy
sets. In cases of two interval-valued singletons, the KM iterative procedure is
exact and can be used as a reference to the uncertainty bound and interval
representative set approximations. Exemplary calculations are summarized
in Table 3.1.
In a very particular case indicated by 2StI1 , the intervals of uncertainty of
two singletons are equal. This guarantees that the uncertainty bound approximation converges with the KM method. Moreover, it can be observed that
a simple average of upper and lower membership functions lead to the same
result. In the next case, two singletons has lower membership grades proportional to the upper memberships as it occurs frequently in typical designs
of interval-valued fuzzy logic systems. This case justies the use of only one
uncertainty bound approximation. Although the theoretically derived upper
bound of the approximation given by (3.27) has a considerable value of 1.5
is almost ten times smaller. The absolute error of the centroid approximation by average membership grades is twice bigger than the error of uncertainty bound approximation. In the very specic case indicated by 2StI3 , no
129
Table 3.1 Defuzzication of interval-valued fuzzy sets using various methods:

the KM iterative procedure, the uncertainty bound approximation, the collapsing
method (IRSA), and the simple centroid of average membership functions; 2StI1
two singletons with interval membership values: [0.2, 0.8]10 and [0.4, 1]10 , 2StI2
two singletons with interval membership values: [0.2, 0.4]10 and [0.4, 0.8]10 , 2StI3
two singletons with interval membership values: [0.01, 0.011]10 and [0.001, 1]10 ,
1TrI1 interval-valued fuzzy set with symmetrical triangular upper and lower
membership functions presented in Figs. 3.6 (a1)(c1), 1TrI2 interval-valued
fuzzy set with asymmetrical triangular upper and lower membership functions presented in Figs. 3.6 (a2)(c2), 3GssI interval-valued fuzzy set with upper and
lower memberships aggregated from three Gaussian functions presented in Figs.
3.6 (a3)(c3).
Test KM iterat. proc.
ymin ymax y
2StI1 -3.33 6.67 1.67

2StI2 0.00 6.00 3.00
2StI3 -8.33 9.80 0.73
1TrI1 -2.65 2.65 -0.00
1TrI2 -1.28 4.23 1.47
3GsI -2.76 3.19 0.21
Uncertainty bounds appx.

ymin ymax y
-1.85 5.19 1.67 0.002.41

1.67 4.67 3.17 0.171.50
-9.01 18.69 4.84 4.114.86
-3.33 3.33 -0.00 0.003.33
-1.98 4.58 1.30 0.173.28
-2.73 3.33 0.30 0.082.77
IRSA
y

1.30 0.37
3.49 0.49
9.73 8.99
0.00 0.00
1.70 0.23
0.57 0.35
AVG
y
1.67
3.33
9.59
-0.00
1.67
0.41
approximation can be used. The reason is certainly that the singleton placed
at 10 is described by the very large interval of membership uncertainty, while
the singleton at 10 has the very thin membership interval and its upper
membership grade is still much greater than the lower membership grade of
the other singleton. We can interpret this as meaning that the precise membership, in spite of its small value, attracts ymin to the left singleton because
of the large membership uncertainty of the right singleton. The next three
cases consider interval-valued fuzzy sets continuous in the primary domain
for symmetrical and asymmetrical triangular upper and lower membership
functions as well as for the aggregated interval-valued Gaussian membership
functions, whose defuzzication computations are illustrated in Fig. 3.6. In
the case of symmetrical fuzzy set, the centroids of all methods trivially converge to the axis of symmetry. Otherwise, although the uncertainty bound
approximation give somehow satisfactory centroid values, its behavior cannot
be guaranteed since is signicant.
All these cases will be studied in details in the context of equivalence
between fuzzy-valued and ordinary fuzzy logic systems in Chapt. 6. Unfortunately, in non of this cases the collapsing method was able to cope with
the defuzzication of interval-valued fuzzy sets. This stems probably from
the fact that the interval representative embedded set approximation has a
totally dierent interpretation that the KM method derived from the Zadeh
extension of classical defuzzication.
130
(a1)
(b1)
(c1)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
10
10
0
10
(a2)
10
0
10
(b2)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
10
10
0
10
(a3)
10
0
10
(b3)
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
10
0
10
10
10
(c3)
0
10
0
(c2)
10
0
10
10
Fig. 3.6 Defuzzication of interval-valued fuzzy sets characterized by: (a1)(c1)

symmetrical triangular upper and lower membership functions, (a2)(c2)
asymmetrical triangular upper and lower membership functions, (a3)(c3) upper
and lower memberships aggregated from three Gaussian functions; upper and lower
membership functions (solid lines), embedded membership functions for left and
right end-points of the cntroid fuzzy set (bold dashed lines), embedded membership
functions for left and right end-points approximated by the uncertainty bounds
method ( thin dashed lines), representative embedded sets (RES) ( dotted lines),
average membership function (dash-dotted lines)
Figure 3.7 presents the defuzzication of three exemplary fuzzy sets with
triangular secondary membership functions. In addition to the exact centroid computation procedure, the triangular approximation given by 3.146,
the hyperbolic approximation given by 3.164, simple average and principal
approximations are examined. The centroid fuzzy sets of the triangular and
hyperbolic approximations are plotted according to (3.150) and (3.167), respectively. The numerical result for the comparison of these methods are
summarized in Table 3.2. Observe that although the triangular approximation gives results closed to the exact defuzzifed values, the hyperbolic approximation is burdened with almost zero error.
Figure 3.8 illustrates the defuzzication by the Karnik&Mendel Gaussian
approximation of the centroid according to Theorem 3.9 and the asymmetricGaussian approximation of the centroid given by (3.172). Optically, both
methods reect the nature of the centroid fuzzy sets. The dierence between
the exact centroid fuzzy sets and its approximations are apparent. Recall that
131
(a1)
(b1)
0.5
0.5
0
10
10
(a2)
1
0.5
0.5
0
10
10
(a3)
1
0.5
0.5
(b3)
0
10
2
(b2)
10
Fig. 3.7 Defuzzication of triangular-valued fuzzy sets characterized by: (a1),(b1)

an asymmetrical triangular principal membership function, (a2),(b2) an aggregation of two sets with equidistant upper and lower membership functions,
(a3),(b3) an aggregation of two sets with proportional upper, principal and lower
membership functions; principal membership functions (solid lines in (a1)(a3)),
upper and lower membership functions (dashed lines), centroid fuzzy set (solid lines
in (b1)(b3)), triangular approximation of the centroid fuzzy set (dotted lines), hyperbolic approximation of the centroid fuzzy set (dash-dotted lines)
Table 3.2 Defuzzication of triangular-valued fuzzy sets using various methods:
the exact method, the triangular approximation, the hyperbolic approximation, the
simple centroid of average membership functions, and the principal output.
Test
Exact
y
1TrTr 1.559
2TrTr 0.292
3TrTr 0.168
Triangular appx.
y
1.537 0.021
0.232 0.060
0.134 0.034
Hyperbolic appx.
y
1.559 0.000
0.293 0.000
0.164 0.004
Average
y
1.667
0.454
0.277
Principal
ypr
1.667
0.556
-0.000
the Karnik&Mendel Gaussian approximation is theoretically accurate while

the standard deviations of the secondary memberships are small compared
to their means. Similarly the asymmetric-Gaussian approximation behaves.
While nal defuzzied values for the Karnik&Mendel approximation are
trivially equal to the principal centroids, nal centroids of the asymmetricGaussian approximation have to be calculated according to (3.184).
132

(a1)
(b1)
0.5
0.5
0
10
10
0
6
0.5
0.5
0
10
10
0
6
0.5
0.5
(b3)
(a3)
0
10
0
(b2)
(a2)
10
0
6
Fig. 3.8 Defuzzication of Gaussian-valued fuzzy sets characterized by: (a1),(b1)

Gaussian-valued fuzzy set characterized by an asymmetrical-Gaussian principal membership function, (a2),(b2) Gaussian-valued fuzzy set aggregated of
three sets with standard deviations proportional to principal membership functions, (a3),(c3) asymmetric-Gaussian-valued fuzzy set aggregated of three sets
with constant standard deviations; secondary membership functions (pictorial representation the degree of shade in (a1)(a3) corresponds to values of secondary
membership functions), centroid fuzzy set (solid lines), Karnik&Mendel Gaussian
approximation of the centroid fuzzy set (dotted lines), asymmetric-Gaussian approximation of the centroid fuzzy set (dash-dotted lines)
Table 3.3 Defuzzication of Gaussian-valued fuzzy sets using various methods: the
exact method, the asymmetricGaussian approximation, the Karnik and Mendel
Gaussian approximation, and the principal output.
Test
Exact
y
1AGsGs 1.695
3GsGs 0.688
3GsAGs -0.000
Asymmetric-Gaussian appx. Gaussian appx.

y
1.670 0.025
1.837 0.142
-0.022 0.710
-0.000 0.688
-0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
Principal
ypr
1.837
0.000
0.000
In general, the both approximations are not accurate as indicated by the

case 3GsGs. The numerical result for the comparison of these methods are
summarized in Table 3.3. Observe that, in the case of symmetrical fuzzyvalued fuzzy set, as in part (a3) of Fig. 3.8, the centroid fuzzy set is always
symmetric and the nal output indicates the axis of symmetry.
3.6 Summary
133
3.6 Summary
In this chapter we have proposed new calculation methods for defuzzication
of triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian and asymmetric-Gaussian fuzzy-valued
fuzzy sets. The rst step of the defuzzication has been regarded as extended
centroid calculation, i.e. the sup-min extension of the ordinary centroid defuzzication.
The centroids for aforementioned trapezoidal and their particular forms
triangular fuzzy-valued (type-2) fuzzy sets rely on analytical formulae
and employ the known interval fuzzy defuzzication methodology called the
KM iterative procedure. Trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets require the KM
computation separately for the kernel and support of the centroid fuzzy set,
while triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets needs only performing the single KM
procedure for the support. When only two triangular fuzzy-valued singletons
are defuzzied, the resultant formula consists two hyperbolas for each slope
of the function. For a densely discretized primary domain, a hyperbolic shape
of the result is maintained between points of discretization.
Simplifying the exact analytical formulae to the piecewise-linear functions,
we have obtained the family of interpolation methods for triangular and
trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets. Closer approximations have been derived
using a single hyperbolic function for each slope of the resultant fuzzy set.
Concerning Gaussian and asymmetric-Gaussian secondary membership
functions, the extended centroid can be determined recursively without the
use of the KM procedure. But, only in the cases of two fuzzy-valued singletons
and in cases of approximation the formulae are no longer recursive.
Extending the idea presented in this paper, further extended centroid
procedures and their approximations for other-type fuzzy-convex secondary
membership functions can be derived alike.
References
Castillo, O., Aguilar, L., Cazarez-Castro, N., Boucherit, M.: Application of type-2
fuzzy logic controller to an induction motor drive with seven-level diode-clamped
inverter and controlled infeed. Electrical Engineering 90(5), 347359 (2008)
Coupland, S., John, R.I.: A fast geometric method for defuzzication of type-2
fuzzy sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 16(4), 929941 (2008a)
Coupland, S., John, R.I.: New geometric inference techniques for type-2 fuzzy sets.
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 49(1), 198211 (2008b)
Greeneld, S., John, R.I.: Stratication in the type-reduced set and the generalised
karnik-mendel iterative procedure. In: Proc. IPMU 2008, Malaga, pp. 12821289
(2008)
Greeneld, S., Chiclana, F., Coupland, S., John, R.: The collapsing method
of defuzzication for discretised interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 179(13), 20552069 (2009)
Hagras, H.: Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controllers: A Way Forward for Fuzzy Systems in
Real World Environments. In: Zurada, J.M., Yen, G.G., Wang, J. (eds.) Computational Intelligence: Research Frontiers (WCCI 2008). LNCS, vol. 5050, pp.
181200. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 122, 327348 (2000)
Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Centroid of a type-2 fuzzy set. Information
Sciences 132, 195220 (2001)
Liang, Q., Mendel, J.M.: Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: Theory and design.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 8, 535550 (2000)
Liu, F.: An ecient centroid type-reduction strategy for general type-2 fuzzy logic
system. Information Sciences 178(9), 22242236 (2008)
Melgarejo, M.: A fast recursive method to compute the generalized centroid of an
interval type-2 fuzzy set. In: Proc. NAFIPS 2007, pp. 190194 (2007)
References
135
Mendel, J.M.: On a 50% savings in the computation of the centroid of a symmetrical
interval type-2 fuzzy set. Information Sciences 172, 417430 (2005)
Mendel, J.M., Wu, H.: New results about the centroid of an interval type-2 fuzzy
set, including the centroid a fuzzy granule. Information Sciences 177, 360377
(2007)
Mendel, J.M., Liu, F., Zhai, D.: -plane representation for type-2 fuzzy sets: theory
and applications. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 17, 11891207 (2009)
Nowicki, R.: On combining neuro-fuzzy architectures with the rough set theory to
solve classication problems with incomplete data. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data
Eng. 20(9), 12391253 (2008)
Nowicki, R.: Rough-neuro-fuzzy structures for classication with missing data.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. B 39 (2009)
Rutkowska, D., Nowicki, R., Rutkowski, L.: Singleton and non-singleton fuzzy systems with nonparametric defuzzication. In: Computational Intelligence and
Application, pp. 292301. Springer (1999)
Sepulveda, R., Castillo, O., Melin, P., Montiel, O.: An ecient computational
method to implement type-2 fuzzy logic in control applications. In: Melin, P.,
et al. (eds.) Analysis and Design of Intelligent Systems Using Soft Computing
Techniques, 1st edn., vol. 41, ch. 5, pp. 4552. Springer-Verlag, Germany (2007)
Starczewski, J.T.: Extended triangular norms on gaussian fuzzy sets. In: Proc.
EUSFLAT-LFA 2005 Conf., Barcelona, Spain, pp. 872877 (2005)
2006, Vancouver, CA, pp. 72317238 (2006)
Journal of Approximate Reasoning 50, 799811 (2009a)
Starczewski, J.T.: Extended triangular norms. Information Sciences 179, 742757
(2009b)
Starczewski, J.T.: Centroid of triangular and gaussian type-2 fuzzy sets (submited
to review) (unpublished)
Torres, P., Sez, D.: Type-2 fuzzy logic identication applied to the modeling of a
robot hand. In: Proc. FUZZ-IEEE 2008, Hong Kong (2008)
Van Broekhoven, E., De Beats, B.: Fast an accurate center of gravity defuzzication
of fuzzy system outputs dened on trapezoidal fuzzy partitions. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 157, 904918 (2006)
Wang, L.: Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control. PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood
Clis (1994)
Wu, D., Mendel, J.M.: Enhanced karnik-mendel algorithms. IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems 17(4), 923934 (2009)
Wu, D., Tan, W.: Computationally ecient type-reduction strategies for a type-2
fuzzy logic controller. In: Proc. IEEE Fuzzy Conference, Reno, NV, pp. 353358
(2005)
Wu, H., Mendel, J.M.: Uncertainty bounds and their use in the design of interval
type-2 fuzzy logic systems. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 10(5), 622639
(2002)
Chapter 4
Generalized Uncertain Fuzzy Logic

Systems
Abstract. In this chapter, basic constructions of fuzzy logic systems with

uncertain membership functions are presented. We begin with historical
approaches to reasoning with interval-valued fuzzy sets and known formulations of general type-2 fuzzy logic systems. Next we provide new formulations grounded in non-singleton fuzzication. In the context of ordinary fuzzy
systems, we demonstrate that variously interpreted non-singleton fuzzication, for typical structures fuzzy logic systems, can be implemented by the
classical singleton structures only using modied antecedent fuzzy sets. The
rst approach to fuzzication of premises is done by the interpretation in
terms of possibility distributions of actual inputs. Consequently, the possibility and necessity measures of antecedent fuzzy sets create boundaries for the
interval-valued antecedent membership function. The second approach applies rough approximations to antecedent fuzzy sets by non-singleton fuzzy
premise sets considered as fuzzy-rough partitions. Two known denitions,
the one of Dubois and Prade, and the second proposed by Nakamura, lead to
dierent formulations of fuzzy logic systems. Employing fuzzy-rough sets of
Dubois and Prade, we obtain the interval-valued fuzzy logic system. Then, it
can be immediately proved that upper approximations in fuzzy-rough systems
are concurrent to fuzzication in conjunction-type fuzzy systems. Unexpectedly, lower approximations in fuzzy-rough systems coincide with fuzzication
in logical-type fuzzy systems. Therefore, the proposed methods can be viewed
as extensions to the conventional non-singleton fuzzication method. Fuzzyrough sets in the sense of Nakamura result with a formulation of a general
fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic system. For this purpose, three realizations of general fuzzy-valued fuzzy systems: triangular, trapezoidal and Gaussian, are
presented in details.
4.1 State of the Art

As it is depicted in Fig. 4.1, the classical fuzzy logic system consists of a base
of fuzzy rules, an inference engine returning a fuzzy conclusion on the basis
springerlink.com
138
4 Generalized Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems

RULE BASE:
fuzzy sets
Rk
xc
FUZZIFIER
Ac
INFERENCE
ENGINE
Bc
DEFFUZZIFIER
yc
Fig. 4.1 Fuzzy logic system
of a fuzzy premise and fuzzy rules, a defuzzier reducing fuzzy conclusion set
to a crisp value, and an optional input fuzzier converting crisp input values
into a fuzzy premise set (see e.g. [Rutkowski 2004b, 2008]).
The knowledge base for a typical MISO (multiple input single output)
system contains k pairs of fuzzy antecedents and fuzzy consequents forming
the following rules
Rk : IF x is Ak THEN y is Bk ,
(4.1)
where x is an N -dimensional premise and Akk is an N -dimensional antecedent

fuzzy set, and Bk is a scalar consequent fuzzy set used in the k-th rule,
k = 1, . . . , K.
There are two approaches to interpret the conditional statement IF-THEN.
One common in fuzzy control employes t-norms, hence, a rule function R is
a conjunction
(4.2)
R(x, y) = T (x1 , . . . , xN , y) .
The second approach employes material implications (see [Rutkowska et al
2002; Rutkowski 2004a; Rutkowski and Cpalka 2003] for more detailed study),
for which the following constructions can be enumerated:
(strong) s-implications
R(x, y) = S (N (x) , y) ,
(4.3)
R(x, y) = sup {z|T (x, z) y} ,
(4.4)
(residual) r-implications
z[0,1]
(quantum logic) ql-implications

R(x, y) = S (N (x) , T (x, y)) ,
(4.5)
(Dishkant) d-implications
R(x, y) = S (T (N (x) , N (y)) , y) .
(4.6)
Exemplary constructions of these implications are presented in Chapt. 1.
139
The result of fuzzy inference is the conclusion of the form y is B , which is

an aggregation of all single rule conclusions B k . The k-th rule conclusion can
be obtained via the so called compositional rule of inference B k = A (Ak "
Bk ), which is implemented with the use of the sup-T composition, i.e.,
B k (y) = sup {T (A (x) , R (Ak (x) , Bk (y)))} .
xX
(4.7)
At this point, there is a need of representing input values x by fuzzy sets A ,

which is commonly performed by the fuzzication operation.
The fuzzication is dened as a mapping from real input space X Rn to
fuzzy sets dened in X. It can be performed on the basis of some additional
knowledge about uncertainty of input data. If no such knowledge is given, we
chose the simplest form called a singleton fuzzication. In fact, it is the most
commonly used method of blurring premises. The singleton fuzzication is a
way of representation of a crisp value in the form of a fuzzy set, i.e., it maps
real input values x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] into the fuzzy set A X characterized
by the following membership function

1
A (x) =
0
if x = x
.
if x =
x
(4.8)
An additional knowledge about uncertainty of inputs allows us assume a

type of a fuzzication function, e.g. in the form of a Gaussian fuzzy number
expressed by

t

x x
x x
1
,
A (x) = exp
(4.9)
2
where is a vector of standard deviation, or in the popular form of triangular

fuzzy number given by

x x + L x + R x
,
,
(4.10)
A (x) = max 0, min
L
R
where L , R denote the left and right positive spreads of the triangular fuzzy set, i.e. min (L , R ) 0. A membership function of a fuzzied
premise usually reaches unity only if x = x . Pay attention that ba (with the
bold fraction sign) denotes the so called Hadamard division, i.e. the entrywise
matrix division, in which each element of a is divided by the corresponding
element of b.
140
In the case of no fuzzication of inputs, i.e. when the singleton representation is used, the compositional rule of inference (4.7) simplies signicantly

sup {T (1, R (Ak (x ) , Bk (y)))} ,
(4.11)
B k (y) = max
supxX\{x } {T (0, R (Ak (x) , Bk (y)))}
= R (Ak (x ) , Bk (y)) .
(4.12)
The aggregation of single-rule fuzzy conclusions depends on the chosen

method of inference. In the case of reasoning
using conjunctions, we expect
R
the aggregated conclusion to be B = k=1 B k , hence,
K
B (y) = S B k (y) .
k=1
(4.13)
In
of reasoning using material implications, we expect that B =
Rthe case

k=1 B k , consequently,
K
B (y) = T B k (y) .
k=1
(4.14)
4.1.1 Interval-Valued Approximate Reasoning

Operations on fuzzy sets with interval-valued membership functions were introduced by Zadeh as the simplest case of fuzzy sets of type-2 [Zadeh 1975].
Roughly the same time, Sambuc applied interval-valued fuzzy sets under a
name of -fuzzy functions to medical diagnosis in thyroid pathologies [Sambuc 1975], and also Grattan-Guiness extended fuzzy membership functions
to interval- and many-valued quantities [Grattan-Guiness 1975]. An intervalvalued logic approach to approximate reasoning was then formulated as a
result of the dierence between conjunctive and disjunctive normal forms of
logical fuzzy connectives [T
urksen 1986]. This method will be outlined in
Chapt. 5 as a method for generation of interval uncertainty.
Generally, a system of K rules is employed in approximate reasoning
schema, i.e.,
is A
k THEN B
is B
k .
k : IF A
(4.15)
R
, A
k , B
k and B
are interval-valued fuzzy sets
with the dierence that A
which can be expressed
as subintervals
of [0, 1] by means of upper and lower

bounds, e.g. Ak = A (x) , Ak (x) [0, 1] for each x X. There were
k
several approaches to approximate reasoning with interval-valued fuzzy sets.
Among others, interval-valued fuzzy sets were applied to approximate reasoning using a degree of compatibility between two interval-valued fuzzy sets
[Gorzalczany 1987]. In conditional fuzzy proposition given by (4.15) the con is
nection between a premise and a consequent can be understood that A
141
k . Gorzalczany dened the interval-valued compatibility

compatible with A

k as

degree between A and A

, A
k = min , , max , ,
A
(4.16)
where max A (x) > 0 and
xX
:

;
max min A (x) , A (x)
xX
max A (x)
xX

max min A (x) , Ak (x)
xX
max A (x)
(4.17)
(4.18)
xX
The conclusion is calculated in the usual way, i.e.,

= max
k .
k , B
, A
A
B
(4.19)
k=1,...,K min

k , A
, A
, A
k = A
. For identical sets A
k I ([0, 1]),
In general, A

, A
k = [1, 1] obviously. However, as long as max (x) = max (x)
A
A
A
xX
xX

and max A (x) = max Ak (x), no matter how dierent the shapes of A
xX
xX

k are, Gorzalczanys compatibility measure always gives A
, A
k =
and A

k , A
= [1, 1] [Wu and Mendel 2008].
A
As an alternative concept to the compatibility degree, an inclusion grade
for interval-valued fuzzy sets was introduced to establish a method for approximate reasoning [Bustince 2000]. The interval-valued indicator of the grade
of inclusion for interval-valued fuzzy sets is dened as follows
+

*

A , Ak = inf (1, min ( (x) , (x))) , inf (1, max ( (x) , (x))) ,
xX
xX
(4.20)
where

(x) = g c A (x) + g A (x) ,
k

(x) = g (c (A (x))) + g Ak (x) ,
(4.21)
(4.22)
such that g : [0, 1] [0, 1] is continuous and strictly increasing function satisfying boundary conditions g (0) = 0, g (1) = 1, and c (u) = g 1 (1 g (u)).
We see that c becomes the standard negation if g (u) = u. This indicator helps
in each of
to calculate the inclusion of an input interval-valued fuzzy set A
142
k , and can be applied to the multiconditional

antecedent interval fuzzy sets A
approximate reasoning
k : IF A
is included in A
k THEN B
is B
k .
R
(4.23)
Then, the conclusion can be calculated typically as

= max
, A
k .
k , B
A
B
k=1,...,K min
(4.24)
According to the reasoning schema given by (4.15), Bustince proposed

also to apply a similarity measure instead of inclusion . The
similar

ity is dened with the help of an extended t-norm, i.e. S A , Ak =

, A
k , A
k , A
.
T A
Unfortunately, in both of these methods, we obtain an interval-valued
fuzzy set as the conclusion rather than a fuzzy set or a crisp value. This
disadvantage was removed when interval-valued fuzzy sets were put in the
framework of type-2 fuzzy logic systems by [Liang and Mendel 2000]. In this
context, the conditional fuzzy proposition (4.15) is considered as an interval

= (x, y) , (x, y) expressed by
valued fuzzy relation R
Rk
Rk

(x) , (y) ,
R (x, y) = R
(4.25)
Ak
Bk
k

(x) , (y) .
Rk (x, y) = R
(4.26)
Ak
Bk
An interval conclusion is produced by the following compositional rule of
inference
= A
R
k ,
B
(4.27)
k
whose membership function can be derived using an interval version of sup-T
composition, i.e.
:

;
,
sup T A (x) , R A (x) , B (y)

k
k
;
B (y), B k (y) = xX :
.
k
sup T A (x) , R Ak (x) , Bk (y)
xX
(4.28)
However, if we do not need to fuzzify input values x , this composition can
be simplied. Since A (x) is non-zero only at x , we do not need to nd
supremum over the whole X. Therefore,

B (y), B k (y)
(4.29)
k

= T 1, R A (x ) , B (y) , T 1, R Ak (x ) , Bk (y)
k
k

(4.30)
= R A (x ) , B (y) , R Ak (x ) , Bk (y) .
k
143
LEFT KM
ALGORITHM
LOWER FLS
xc
yc
RIGHT KM
ALGORITHM
UPPER FLS
Fig. 4.2 Interval-valued fuzzy logic system
Using conjunctions as relations

calculated by t-norms, we expect the aggre k . Consequently,
= R B
gated conclusion to be B
k=1
+

*K
K
B (y), B (y) = S B (y), S B k (y) .
(4.31)
k=1
k=1
Generalizing the original Karnik and Mendel formulation, R can be realized

by fuzzy conjunctionsas well as by material fuzzy implications. In this case,
k . Consequently,
= R B
we expect that B
k=1
+

*K
K
B (y), B (y) = T B (y), T B k (y) .
(4.32)
k=1
k=1
The problem of extending the centroid defuzzication to interval-valued fuzzy

sets was solved by Karnik and Mendel. They derived the type-reduction algorithm, known as the KM iterative procedure, which was explained thoroughly
in Chapt. 3. The KM procedure emerges a type-1 fuzzy set, called a typereduced set, which is characterized by a normal and rectangular membership
function. The overall output of the fuzzy logic system requires only trivial
calculating the average of the two bounds of the type-reduced set. This all
together leads to a general structure of the interval-valued fuzzy logic system
demonstrated in Fig. 4.2.
4.1.2 Fuzzy Logic Systems of Type-2

The general structure of a type-2 fuzzy logic system is an extended version of
that of type-1, with a dierence that the four basic blocks, i.e. the fuzzier,
rule base, inference engine and defuzzier deal with type-2 fuzzy sets. The
most distinct is the type-2 defuzzier, which can decomposed into two subblocks: a type reducer and the ordinary type-1 defuzzier. This fundamental
structure of type-2 fuzzy logic systems, depicted in Fig. 4.3, has become a
standard since the publication of [Karnik et al 1999] (see also [Mendel 2001]).
The key to achieving this general structure by Karnik et al. was to extend
methods of defuzzication, which was done not until twenty-four years after
Zadeh pointed out how to extend any operation on type-2 fuzzy sets [Zadeh
1975].
144

RULE BASE:
type-2 fuzzy sets
~
Rk
xc
TYPE-2
FUZZIFIER
~
Ac
TYPE-2
INFERENCE
ENGINE
~
Bc
TYPE REDUCER
Bc
DEFFUZZIFIER
yc
Fig. 4.3 Fuzzy logic system of type-2
Consider a type-2 fuzzy logic system of N inputs, represented by an N dimensional input variable x, and single output y. The rule base is formed
by K rules
k : IF A
is A
k THEN B
is B
k ,
R
is a type-2 conclusion
is a type-2 fuzzied N -dimensional input x, B
where A
k is

fuzzy set, Ak is an N -dimensional antecedent fuzzy set of type-2, and B

a consequent fuzzy set, k = 1, . . . , K. We can interpret relations Rk either
as conjunctions realized in general by type-2 t-norms and their special types
constructed as extended t-norms, which were thoroughly described in Sect.
2, or as material implications of type-2 [Gera and Dombi 2008].
, which is an
The fuzzy inference produces the conclusion of the form y is B

aggregation of all single rule conclusions B k . The individual rule conclusion,
k = A
(A
k " B
k ), can be
given by the compositional rule of inference B
obtained using an extended version of sup-T composition, i.e.
:

;
(x) , (y)
B k (y) = sup T A (x) , R
,
(4.33)
Ak
Bk
xX
which in its simplest form of extended sup-min composition was rst presented by [Dubois and Prade 1980]. Obviously, antecedent membership grades
Ak (x) are realized by any of type-2 t-norms.
The highly theoretical fuzzication of x can be dened as a mapping from
real input space X Rn to type-2 fuzzy subsets of X. However, usually input
values x without fuzzication are represented by singleton type-2 fuzzy sets
. As a consequence, composition (4.33) reduces to the following form
A
:

;
(x ) , (y)
sup T 1, R
,
Bk
: Ak
; (4.34)
B k (y) = max

supxX\{x } T 0, R Ak (x ) , Bk (y)

(x ) , (y) .
(4.35)
=R
Ak
Bk
In the case of reasoningwith conjunction relations, we expect the aggregated
= R B
k . Consequently,
conclusion to be B
k=1
145
K
B (y) = S B k (y) ,
(4.36)
k=1
where S is a type-2 t-conorm. In the

reasoning using type-2 material
case of
k , consequently,
= R B
implications, we expect that B
k=1
K
B (y) = T B k (y) .
(4.37)
k=1
Now, the main problem is to apply the extended centroid defuzzication in

the form given by (see Chapt. 3)
B (y) =
sup
y=
K
y u
k=1 k ki

K
u
k=1 ki
min
k=1,...,K
fk (uki ) .
(4.38)
According to [Karnik and Mendel 2001; Karnik et al 1999; Mendel 2001],

the calculation procedure
requires the discretization of each domain for uk ,
i.e. Uk = supp B (yk ) , so that each of them contains a nite number of
points, let us say uk1 , . . . , ukQk , k = 1, . . . , K. It is possible that more than
one K-tuple (u1q1 , . . . , ukqk , . . . , uKqK ) induce the same element y of the centroid fuzzy set. In this case, the membership degrees of this element must be
determined as the supremum over all equivalent K-tuples.
The sequence of computations needed to obtain the fuzzy centroid set is
as follows.
1. Discretize the output space Y into K points, y1 , . . . , yK .
2. Discretize the domain [0, 1] of each B (yk ) into a suitable number of points
uk1 , . . . , ukQk , k = 1, . . . , K.
3. Compute the centroid fuzzy set using (4.38) for all possible K-tuples
(u1q1 , . . . , ukqk , . . . , uKqK ), qk = 1, . . . , Qk , k = 1, . . . , K.
This discretization leads to the representation of a type-2 fuzzy logic systems
by a family of embedded type-1 fuzzy logic systems, which is presented in
Fig. 4.4. In this discrete approach, we achieve the number of K-tuples (includ2
ing equivalent ones) equal to K
k=1 Qk . Recall that, if we assume that each
Uk contains an equal number of discrete points, Q, we obtain the number of
TYPE-1 FLS #1
TYPE-1 FLS #2
...
xc
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
yc
TYPE-1 FLS #s
Fig. 4.4 Embedded type-1 subsystems of a type-2 fuzzy logic system
146
QK fuzzy sets. This sets up the highest barrier for applying this exhaustive
method fuzzy logic systems.
4.2 Novel Formulations of Uncertain Fuzzy Logic

Systems
Many formulations of uncertain fuzzy logic systems arise in their nonsingleton fuzzication. The fuzzication is widely employed to handle the
imprecision of measurements or noisy data [Mouzouris and Mendel 1997;
Rutkowska et al 1999]. A need of an apriori knowledge about the imprecision of inputs is crucial to determine an adequate fuzzication of membership
functions. The usual result of non-singleton fuzzication applied to fuzzy systems is a reduction of sensitivity to changes of input values. Only a few researchers have addressed fuzzication of type-2 fuzzy systems [Mendel 2001;
Mendez et al 2010]; however, the publications either assume a predened
shape of fuzzication or convex type-2 fuzzy sets are obtained from data distribution [Sahab and Hagras 2011]. In our approach, the main motivation to
apply various forms of fuzzication is the possibility to obtain interval-valued
and fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems by novel interpretations of fuzzication.
Firstly, we can interpret the fuzzication of premises as the possibility
distribution of the actual input. As a consequence, the possibility and necessity measures of antecedent fuzzy sets can create boundaries for the interval
antecedent membership function.
Secondly, we can apply rough approximations to antecedent fuzzy sets by
non-singleton fuzzy premise sets considered as fuzzy partitions. Two known
denitions, the one of Dubois and Prade, and the second proposed by Nakamura, lead to dierent formulations of fuzzy logic systems: the interval-valued
and general fuzzy-valued, respectively.
In the following subsections we prove that variously interpreted nonsingleton fuzzication, for typical structures fuzzy logic systems, can be implemented by the classical singleton structures only using modied antecedent
fuzzy sets.
4.2.1 Interval Fuzzy Logic Systems Employing

Fuzzication
Two approaches that handle the uncertainty and imprecision of input data
lead to an interval description of membership functions:
the possibilistic fuzzication applying two measures to antecedent fuzzy
sets,
and the Dubois&Prade fuzzy-rough approximation of antecedent fuzzy
sets.
4.2 Novel Formulations of Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems
147
Both cases are, as it turns out later, a compilation of conventional fuzzication applied to fuzzy reasoning based on conjunctions, and to reasoning
relying on s-implications. Therefore, the proposed methods can be viewed as
extensions to the conventional non-singleton fuzzication method.
Besides, we discover that the same upper and lower bounds the antecedent
membership function, aected by fuzzication, can be used both in the conjunction and implication reasoning.
To these reasoning methods on the ground of the possibility theory, we
also devote a short discussion about possibility and necessity qualications.
4.2.1.1
Embedding Non-singleton Fuzzication in Singleton

Fuzzy Systems
Since the implementation of (4.12) is much simpler than the use of formula
(4.7), the majority of fuzzy systems are derived from the singleton fuzzication. After our work [Nowicki and Starczewski 2010], the following theorems
recapitulate the statement that we can model non-singleton fuzzication with
ordinary singleton frameworks of fuzzy logic systems. Precisely, we show how
k from an original fuzzy anto obtain a modied antecedent fuzzy set A
tecedent Ak embedding a non-singleton premise fuzzy set A . First we recall
the known composition of non-singleton fuzzication with conjunction-type
fuzzy reasoning.
Theorem 4.1 ([Nowicki and Starczewski 2010]). Consider a non-singleton conjunction-type fuzzy logic system equipped with the discrete centroid
defuzzication (3.30). If all consequent fuzzy sets are non-overlapping singletons (yj = yk j = k) then there exists a singleton fuzzy system which is
equivalent to the non-singleton fuzzy system whenever
Ak (x ) = sup T (A (x , x), Ak (x)) ,
xX
(4.39)
where Ak is an antecedent fuzzy set in the modied singleton fuzzy system,

Ak is an antecedent fuzzy set in the original non-singleton fuzzy system, and
A is a fuzzied input vector; k = 1, . . . , K; K is a total number of rules.
By Theorem 4.1, the non-singleton fuzzication can be anytime embedded
k in an ordinary singleton fuzzy logic system.
into an antecedent fuzzy set A
An interesting formula for Ak , when a Gaussian antecedent fuzzy set is
fuzzied by a Gaussian membership function, can be taken from [Mouzouris
and Mendel 1997].
Example 4.1. Suppose we have two Gaussian membership functions, An and
Ak,n , and assume a t-norm in (4.39) to be the algebraic product. The antecedent membership function embedding Gaussian fuzzication by An (x)
can be evaluated as follows:
148

Ak (xn ) = sup An (xn , xn )Ak,n (xn )
xn Xn

2
2

1 xn xn
1 xn mk,n
exp
exp
= sup
2
n
2
k,n
xn Xn

2

2
1 xn xn
1 xn mk,n
= sup exp
.
2
n
2
k,n
xn Xn
(4.40)
(4.41)
(4.42)
Using dierentiation, An (xn , xn )Ak,n (xn ) attains its supremum at

xn =
(n ) mk,n + (k,n ) xn
2
(n )2 + (k,n )2
(4.43)
After simple algebra, we obtain the following membership function which

remains Gaussian, i.e.,

2

x
m
1
k,n
n
Ak (xn ) = exp
,
(4.44)
2
k,n
where
k,n =
)
2
2
(n ) + (k,n ) .
(4.45)
A simple analytical formula can be also derived when a triangular antecedent

fuzzy set is fuzzied by a triangular membership function.
Example 4.2. Suppose we have two triangular
membership
functions: !
the
!

xn xn +n xn +n xn
premise membership function, An (xn ) = min
,
,
n
n
and the
!
k-th antecedent membership
! function, expressed by Ak,n (xn ) =
xn mk,n +k,n mk,n +k,n xn
min
. Besides, let us assume a t-norm in
,
k,n
k,n
(4.39) to be the minimum. The antecedent membership function embedding
triangular fuzzication by An (x) is given by

Ak (xn ) = sup min An (xn , xn ), Ak,n (xn ) .
(4.46)
xn Xn

For the left slope, min An (xn , xn ), Ak,n (xn ) attains its supremum at xn
satisfying
xn + n xn
x mk,n + k,n
= n
.
(4.47)
n
k,n
Hence,
xn =
n mk,n + k,n xn
.
n + k,n
(4.48)
149
Evaluating Ak,n (xn ) for xn gives the left slope of Ak (xn ), i.e.

xn + n mk,n + k,n
if xn [mk,n n k,n , mk,n ] .
n + k,n
(4.49)
By analogy, we obtain the formula for the right slope. Consequently, the
membership function embedding triangular fuzzication which remains triangular, i.e.,
"
"

xn mk,n + k,n mk,n + k,n xn

,
(4.50)
Ak (xn ) =
min
,
k,n
k,n
Ak,n (xn ) =
where
k,n = n + k,n ,
k,n = n + k,n .
(4.51)
(4.52)
The subsequent theorems reveal embedding non-singleton fuzzication in

fuzzy systems with reasoning based on implications.
Lemma 4.1. Consider a non-singleton fuzzy logic system based on a material
implication I and equipped with discrete centroid defuzzication (3.30). If
there exists a singleton fuzzy system which is equivalent to the non-singleton
fuzzy system, the following must hold

I Ak (x ) , 1 = supxX T (A (x , x), I (Ak (x), 1)) k
I Aj (x ) , 0 = supxX T A (x , x) , I Aj (x) , 0 kj = k,
(4.53)
where Ak is an antecedent fuzzy set in the modied singleton fuzzy system, Ak
is an antecedent fuzzy set in the original non-singleton fuzzy system, A is a
non-singleton input vector, and all consequent fuzzy sets are non-overlapping
singletons (yj = yk j = k); k = 1, . . . , K; K is a total number of rules.
Proof. If the two fuzzy systems are equivalent, their aggregated conclusions
must be the same, i.e., for each k = 1, . . . , K,
B (yk ) = B (yk ) .
(4.54)
Disregarding of the aggregation method, their conclusions of separate rules

have to satisfy

B (yk ) = Bk (yk )
k
(4.55)
B (yk ) = Bj (yk ) j = k.
j
Introducing the sup-T composition formula (4.7) and its simplication for
singleton premises (4.12), we obtain
150

(yk ) = supxX T (A (x , x), I (Ak (x), Bk (yk )))
I Ak (x ), Bk

I Aj (x ), Bj (yk ) = supxX T A (x , x), I Aj (x), Bj (yk ) j = k,
(4.56)
for each k = 1, . . . , K. Using normality of Bj and the fact that consequents
are non-overlapping, the result follows.

Theorem 4.2 (based on [Nowicki and Starczewski 2010]). Consider a

non-singleton fuzzy logic system based on an s-implication and equipped with
discrete centroid defuzzication (3.30). If all consequent fuzzy sets are nonoverlapping singletons (yj = yk j = k), then there exists a singleton fuzzy
system which is equivalent to the non-singleton fuzzy system whenever
Ak (x ) = sup S (N (A (x , x)) , Ak (x)) ,
xX
(4.57)
where N is an involutive negation and S is dual to T with respect to N .

Proof. For an s-implication, the rst subequation of condition (4.53) can be
evaluated as follows

S N Ak (x ) , 1 = sup T (A (x , x) , S (N (Ak (x)) , 1)) , (4.58)
xX
1 = sup T (A (x , x) , 1) ,
xX
(4.59)
which is the identity as long A is normal, k = 1, . . . , K. The second

subequation, for all j = k and any S leads to

S N Aj (x ) , 0 = sup T A (x , x) , S N Aj (x) , 0 ,(4.60)
xX

N Aj (x ) = sup T A (x , x) , N Aj (x) ,
(4.61)
xX
which comes down to (4.57), in which S is dual to T with respect to

involutive N .

Theorem 4.3. Consider a non-singleton fuzzy logic system based on an rimplication obtained as a residuum of a left-continuous T . If all conditions
in Lemma 4.1 are valid, then there exists a singleton fuzzy system which is
equivalent to the non-singleton fuzzy system satisfying,

(4.62)
N Ak (x ) = sup T A (x , x) , N Ak (x )
xX
where additionally negation N (x) is obtained as a contour line at T (x, z) =

0, i.e. the upper limit of the horizontal cut sup {z [0, 1]|T (x, z) = 0}.
Proof. For an r-implication, the rst subequation of condition (4.53) can be
evaluated for all k = 1, . . . , K,

sup z [0, 1] |T Ak (x ) , z 1

= sup T (A (x , x) , sup {t [0, 1] |T (Ak (x) , t) 1}) ,

xX
151
(4.63)
(4.64)
which is the identity for normal A . As any t-residuum IR is obtained from

T , which must be left-continuous in each component, it follows that
:

;

sup z [0, 1] |T Aj (x ) , z = 0
(4.65)

:

;
= sup T A (x , x) , sup t [0, 1] |T Aj (x ) , t = 0 ,
xX

N Aj (x ) = sup T A (x , x) , N Aj (x ) ,
(4.66)
xX
where the residual negator N is, in general, only non-increasing (and not
necessarily continuous) negation.

If T has a continuous contour line at 0, as for a prototypical example, the
L
ukasiewicz t-norm has, then the residual negator N is continuous and, by
the commutativity of T , strictly decreasing and involutive. We say that a
contour line of T is orthosymmetrical. As a consequence of this assumption,
the following corollary follows.
Corollary 4.1. If a non-singleton fuzzy logic system is based on the rimplication obtained as a residuum of a left-continuous T which has a continuous contour line, then there exists a singleton fuzzy system which is equivalent to the non-singleton fuzzy system, and this equivalence is given by (4.57).
Theorem 4.4 (based on [Nowicki and Starczewski 2010]). Consider a
non-singleton fuzzy logic system based on a ql-implication. If all conditions
in Lemma 4.1 are valid then there exists a singleton fuzzy system which is
equivalent to the non-singleton fuzzy system, and this equivalence is given by
(4.57), when additionally S is dual to T with respect to involutive N .
Proof. For a ql-implication, the rst subequation of condition (4.53) can be
evaluated as

(4.67)
S N Ak (x ) , T Ak (x ) , 1
= sup T (A (x , x) , S (N (Ak (x)) , T (Ak (x) , 1))) ,
xX

S N Ak (x ) , Ak (x )
(4.68)
= sup T (A (x , x) , S (N (Ak (x)) , Ak (x))) .

xX
Not all operators S (N (a) , T (a, b)) are implications, since monotonicity in a
can fail. The necessary condition for the ql-operator to be a ql-implication is
that S (N (a) , a) = 1 [Mas et al 2006]. Hence,
152
1 = sup T (A (x , x) , 1) ,
xX
which is obviously the identity as long A is normal, k = 1, . . . , K. The

second subequation, for all j = k and any S leads to

S N Aj (x ) , T Aj (x ) , 0
(4.69)

= sup T A (x , x) , S N Aj (x) , T Aj (x) , 0
,
xX

(4.70)
xX
which comes down to (4.57), in which S is dual to T with respect to involutive

N.

Theorem 4.5. Consider a non-singleton fuzzy logic system based on a
Dishkant implication (d-implication). If all conditions in Lemma 4.1 are
valid then there exists a singleton fuzzy system which is equivalent to the
non-singleton fuzzy system, and this equivalence is given by (4.57), when additionally S is dual to T with respect to involutive N .
Proof. For a d-implication, the rst subequation of condition (4.53) can be
evaluated as

S T N Ak (x ) , 0 , 1 = sup T (A (x , x) , S (T (N (Ak (x)) , 0) , 1)) ,
xX
1 = sup T (A (x , x) , 1) ,
xX
(4.71)
which is obviously the identity as long A is normal, k = 1, . . . , K. The

second subequation, for all j = k and any S leads to

S T N Aj (x ) , 1 , 0 = sup T A (x , x) , S T N Aj (x) , 1 , 0 ,
xX

(4.72)
xX
which comes down to (4.57), in which S is dual to T with respect to involutive

N.

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, respectively, by depicting
all combinations between triangular and Gaussian fuzzication sets and fuzzy
sets to be fuzzied.
153
(a)
1
0.8
Ak
0.6
0.4
Ak
0.2
0
A |x =5
4
10
10
x
(b)
1
0.8
Ak
0.6
0.4
Ak
0.2
0
A |x =5
4
6
x
Fig. 4.5 Fuzzication of antecedent fuzzy sets by the minimum t-norm: premises
(dotted lines), antecedents (dashed lines), and fuzzied antecedents (solid lines)
(a)
1
0.8
0.6
Ak
0.4
Ak
0.2
0
A |x =5
4
10
10
x
(b)
1
0.8
0.6
Ak
0.4
Ak
0.2
0
A |x =5
4
6
x
Fig. 4.6 Fuzzication of antecedent fuzzy sets by s-implication: premises (dotted

lines), antecedents (dashed lines), and fuzzied antecedents (solid lines)
154
4.2.1.2
Possibilistic-Fuzzy Systems Extended from Non-singleton

Fuzzication
Uncertainty of input data can be captured by a non-singleton fuzzication of

systems inputs. In common problems, we have an apriori knowledge about
the uncertainty of input data, so thus we can assign adequate shapes of fuzzifying functions. We can also observe that a weaker form than fuzzy set can
be applied to fuzzify input values. Hence, fuzzication of premises can be
considered in terms of possibility of the input value x . By virtue of this, a
membership function of the fuzzy premise, A , can be interpreted as a possibility distribution A . Therefore, we can apply the possibility and necessity
to measure the antecedent fuzzy set Ak , emphasizing that the membership of
A is also an explicit function of x . Specically, the possibility of Ak forms
an upper bound of fuzzication
Ak (x ) = sup T (A (x, x ) , Ak (x)) ,
xX
(4.73)
and the necessity of Ak forms a lower bound of fuzzication

A (x ) = inf S (N (A (x, x )) , Ak (x)) .
k
xX
(4.74)
Notice that the possibility degree (4.73) is identical with the fuzzication
formula for conjunction reasoning (4.39). Thus, the calculation of possibilities
is equivalent to the conventional fuzzication method [Mouzouris and Mendel
1997].
Surprisingly, the necessity degree given by (4.74) has the same form as the
fuzzication formula for implication reasoning (4.57). Using possibility grades
with added necessity, we can involve the whole information about fuzzication
in a fuzzy system using interval version of composition of a fuzzy premise A
with a fuzzy antecedent Ak .
The possibility together with the necessity degree may be regarded as an
extension of traditional non-singleton fuzzication in fuzzy systems.
To delve into details, let us assume that A (x, x ) varies in the whole
spectrum of possible values of x independently of x. In this way, we can
determine the upper limit of a t-norm according to (4.73), as well as the lower
limit of an s-implication in (4.74). In Fig. 4.7, the construction of possibility
and necessity of antecedent Ak is demonstrated for ve exemplary values of x .
In a concise form, two examples of the possibilistic fuzzication are shown in
Fig. 4.8. An analytical computation of the lower bound produced by necessity
grades is provided by the following example, in which both the antecedent
fuzzy set and the possibility distribution (fuzzication) are characterized by
triangular functions.
Example 4.3. Suppose we have two triangular
membership
functions: !
the
!

xn xn +n xn +n xn
,
,
premise membership function, An (xn ) = min
n
n
155
(a)
1
A1
A2
A4
A3
A5
Ak
x1
x2
x3
A k
x4
x5
(b)
A
1 A1
0
1 A2
x1
1 A3
x2
1 A4
x3
Ak
1 A5
x4
x5
Fig. 4.7 Construction of upper (a) and lower (b) membership functions of an antecedent fuzzy set as possibility and necessity measures; Ak antecedent membership function (dashed line), Ai (x) = A (x, xi ) examples of non-singleton fuzzy
premise sets (dotted lines) i = 1, 2, 3, Ak and A upper and lower antecedent
k
membership function (dashed lines)
(a)
1
0.8
Ak
0.6
0.4
Ak
0.2
0
A |x =5
4
10
10
x
(b)
1
0.8
Ak
0.6
0.4
Ak
0.2
0
A |x =5
4
6
x
Fig. 4.8 Examples of fuzzied antecedent sets with the use of possibility and
necessity: (a) Gaussian fuzzication (dotted line) of Gaussian antecedent (dashed
line) and the resultant upper and lower membership functions (solid lines), (b)
triangular fuzzication (dotted line) of triangular antecedent (dashed line) and the
resultan upper and lower membership functions
156
and
! function, expressed by Ak,n (xn ) =
! the
k-th antecedent membership
xn mk,n +k,n mk,n +k,n xn
. Assuming a t-conorm in (4.74) to be
,
min
k,n
k,n
the maximum, the necessity antecedent function embedding triangular fuzzication by An (x) is given by

A (xn ) = inf max 1 An (xn , xn ), Ak,n (xn ) .
(4.75)
k
xn Xn

For the left slope, max An (xn , xn ), Ak,n (xn ) attains its inmum at xn
satisfying
x xn + n
x mk,n + k,n
1 n
= n
.
(4.76)
n
k,n
Hence,
k,n xn + n (mk,n k,n )
.
n + k,n
n mk,n + k,n xn
xn =
.
n + k,n
xn =
(4.77)
(4.78)
Evaluating Ak,n (xn ) for xn gives the left slope of Ak (xn ), i.e.

Ak,n (xn ) =

xn mk,n + k,n
if xn mk,n n k,n , mk,n ,
n + k,n
(4.79)
where mk,n denotes a new center.

By analogy, we obtain the formula for the right slope.
Ak,n (xn ) =

mk,n + k,n xn
if xn mk,n , mk,n + n + k,n .
n + k,n
(4.80)
Consequently, the necessity function embedding triangular fuzzication which

remains triangular, i.e.,
"

"

A (xn ) =
min
,
,
(4.81)
k
k,n
k,n
where
k,n = n + k,n ,
k,n = n + k,n .
157
New center mk,n can be calculated as xn satisfying the following equality

x
mk,n + k,n x
n mk,n + k,n
n
=
,
n + k,n
n + k,n
n (k,n k,n )
mk,n = x
+ mk,n .
n =
2n + k,n + k,n
(4.82)
(4.83)
By substituting mk,n into (4.81)

hk,n =
=
n (k,n k,n )
2n +k,n +k,n
+ mk,n mk,n + k,n
n + k,n
k,n + k,n
.
2n + k,n + k,n
(4.84)
(4.85)
Although the possibilistic view on antecedents employs the necessity convergent with ordinary non-singleton fuzzication implemented by implications,
the reasoning scheme still relies on fuzzy conjunctions. As a further development, (4.73) and (4.74), without any changes, can act as an extended (possibilistic) non-singleton fuzzication in fuzzy systems with reasoning based on
material implications. Therefore, both in implication and conjunction reasoning schemes, the membership functions can be evaluated in the same manner.
The rest of calculations can be performed according to the standard KarnikMendel computing procedure for interval-valued fuzzy logic systems described
in Sect. 4.1.1.
4.2.1.3
Fuzzy Systems Based on Possibility and Necessity

Qualications of Fuzzy Statements
This formulation of an uncertain fuzzy logic system is inspired a study on

fuzzy reasoning under possibility and necessity qualications in [Dubois and
Prade 1991]. Recall that possibility and necessity of fuzzy events, given by
(1.50) and (1.51), have the forms of conjunction and implication functions,
respectively. Here, we consider the possibility and necessity measures of fuzzy
events in a more general context such that they can be realized by various
t-norms and corresponding material implications, i.e.,
A (B) = sup T (A (x) , B (x)) ,
(4.86)
xX
A (B) = inf I (A (x) , B (x)) .

xX
(4.87)
Possibility qualication imposes to interpret fuzzy rules as statements of the

form the more x is in A, the more possible is that y is in B with the level
of possibility at least A (u). Such statements, called possibility qualication
rules, can be put in the fuzzy reasoning framework as
158
A (x) B (B) = inf I (B (y) , B (y)) ,

y
(4.88)
where A is the antecedent fuzzy set with its membership grade A (x), B is
the consequent fuzzy set characterized by its membership function B , and
B is the conclusion fuzzy set with its possibility distribution B .
Any possibility distribution satises the following
B (y) B (y) ,
(4.89)
which means that y is in B is possible. Consequently, the rule that y is

in B is at least A (x)-possible is expressed by
B (y) min (B (y) , A (x)) .
(4.90)
This is actually the lower bound of possibility, and it explains the fact that
the fuzzy output of linguistic controllers is generally subnormalized [Dubois
and Prade 1991].
Let us consider another type of a fuzzy rule, called a certainty qualifying
rule, of the form the more x is in A, the more certain is that y is in B with
the certainty at least A (x). In the fuzzy reasoning framework, the certainty
qualication rule can be formalized with the help of the necessity measure
A (x) B (B) = inf I (B (y) , B (y)) .
y
(4.91)
In the general case, certainty qualication (4.91) can not be solved for B (y).
However, if the implication I is realized by the reciprocal of an r-implication,
denoted by IR , we are able to nd the greatest possibility distribution B (y)
satisfying
A (x) B (B) = inf IR (N (B (y)) , N (B (y))) , x.
y
(4.92)
Since any I decreases as B (y) increases, the solution can be evaluated as

sup {b [0, 1] |I (b, B (y)) A (x)}
= sup {b [0, 1] |IR (N (B (y)) , N (b)) A (x)}
= sup {b [0, 1] |T (N (B (y)) , A (x)) N (b)} ,
(4.93)
(4.94)
(4.95)
where t-norm T is at least left-continuous and such that IR is a residuum of

T . Therefore, the solution is described by any s-implication, i.e.,
B (y) = S (N (A (x)) , B (y)) ,
(4.96)
which is the t-conorm dual to T with respect to complement N .

The crucial point of our interpretation is that possibility and certainty
qualications not necessarily lead to two individual reasoning schemes.
159
Precisely, the possibility and necessity reasoning can be used together in a

single interval-valued fuzzy logic system, since the level of possibility A (x)
is in general not lower than the level of necessity A (x), i.e.

(4.97)
B (y), B k (y)
k
*
:

;+
= min (B (y) , A (x )) , sup T A (x) , R Ak (x) , Bk (y)
.
xX
Nevertheless, if we do not need to fuzzify input values x , this composition

can be simplied. Since A (x) is non-zero only at x , we do not need to nd
supremum over the whole X. Therefore,

(4.98)
B (y), B k (y)
k

= T 1, R A (x ) , B (y) , T 1, R Ak (x ) , Bk (y)
(4.99)
k
k

= R A (x ) , B (y) , R Ak (x ) , Bk (y) .
(4.100)
k
Using conjunctions as relations

by t-norms, we expect the aggre calculated
= R B
k . Consequently,
gated conclusion to be B
k=1
+

*K
K
B (y), B (y) = S B (y), S B k (y) .
(4.101)
k=1
k=1
Generalizing the original Karnik and Mendel formulation, R can be realized

by fuzzy conjunctionsas well as by material fuzzy implications. In this case,
k . Consequently,
= R B
we expect that B
k=1
+
*K
K
B (y), B (y) = T B (y), T B k (y) .
k=1
k=1
(4.102)
The problem of extended the centroid defuzzication to interval-valued fuzzy

sets was solved by Karnik and Mendel.
4.2.1.4
Systems Based on Fuzzy-Rough Sets in the Sense of

Dubois and Prade
Although fuzzy sets and rough sets are semantically quite descriptions of
data uncertainty, there are known approaches combining these two theories,
e.g. [Czogala and Roderer 1995; Greco et al 2006, 1998; Inuiguchi and Tanino
2004; Jensen and Shen 2007; Lingras 2001; Liu et al 2004; Nakamura 1988;
Nowicki 2008, 2009; Radzikowska and Kerre 2002; Yao 2004]. In this subsection, we use the denition of the fuzzy-rough set by [Dubois and Prade 1990,
1992]. Recall that this notion is basically dierent than rough-fuzzy sets of
the same authorial, i.e., comparing fuzzy-rough sets to rough-fuzzy sets, we
160
obtain upper and lower approximations of fuzzy sets which are fuzzy rather
than crisp approximation degrees.
When fuzzication is interpreted as imprecision of the measurements, it
can be imposed by fuzzy-rough sets, or more precisely, as fuzzy-rough approximations of an antecedent fuzzy set Ak . In this case, the fuzzy partitioning
is determined by imprecision of input data, and consequently, a premise
fuzzy set A plays a role of a fuzzy partition set Fi .
Applying the extended version of the fuzzy-rough set dened in Chapt. 1
by (1.66) and (1.67), we obtain the same bounds of fuzzication as in the
possibilistic approach (4.73) and (4.74), i.e.,
Ak (x ) = sup T (A (x, x ) , Ak (x)) ,
xX
A (x ) = inf S (N (A (x, x )) , Ak (x)) ,

k
xX
where a generalized fuzzy partition is introduced as the single function A

of two variables x and x .
We can assume that A (x, x ) takes values for the set of values of x
independently of x. Then, the same way as for the possibility fuzzication,
we can determine the upper limit of a t-norm according to (4.73), as well as
the lower limit of an s-implication in (4.74).
In Fig. 4.7, the construction of possibility and necessity of antecedent Ak is
demonstrated for ve exemplary values of x . In a concise form, two examples
of the possibilistic fuzzication are shown in Fig. 4.8. An analytical computation of the lower bound produced by necessity grades is provided by the
following example, in which both the antecedent fuzzy set and the possibility
distribution (fuzzication) are characterized by triangular functions.
Although the fuzzy-rough approximations of antecedents is formalized by
the corresponding limits of a t-norm and s-implication, the choice between
implications and conjunctions in reasoning can be considered as an independent design. Therefore, the same interval antecedent membership grades can
be attached either to implication or conjunction reasoning schemes. Examples
of the two approaches are show in Figs. 4.9 and 4.10.
4.2.2 General Systems Based on Fuzzy-Rough Sets in

the Sense of Nakamura
In Sect. 1.4.2 of Chapt. 1, we have provided a general interpretation of
the fuzzy-rough approximations in the sense of Nakamura [Nakamura 1988].
Fuzzy partition sets Fi have been decomposed into -cuts allowing the fuzzyrough set of A to be an -composition of rough-fuzzy sets. Then the fuzzyrough set has been dened
as a family of lower and upper approximations,

{ (A)} and (A) , of the forms given by (1.61) and (1.60) for dierent

(b1)
(a1)
1
A1
A
1
0
0
5
y
(a2)
10
A12
5
y
(b2)
10
5
y
(c)
10
5
y
10
161
5
y
10
Fig. 4.9 Conjunction reasoning scheme: Ak (x ) and Ak (x ) upper and lower
membership functions of antecedent fuzzy sets; Bk (y) consequent membership functions; Bk (y) and Bk (y) upper and lower conclusion membership
functions, k = 1, 2; B (y) and B (y) upper and lower aggregated conclusion
(a1)
(b1)
1
A1
A
1
0
0
5
y
(a2)
10
5
y
(c)
10
5
y
10
10
5
y
(b2)
A12
5
y
10
Fig. 4.10 Implication reasoning scheme: Ak (x ) and Ak (x ) upper and lower
membership functions of antecedent fuzzy sets; Bk (y) consequent membership functions; Bk (y) and Bk (y) upper and lower conclusion membership
functions, k = 1, 2; B (y) and B (y) upper and lower aggregated conclusion
162
-cuts,
(0, 1]. Finally,
we have demonstrated that the union of -cuts

(A)
,
(A)
is formally a type-2 fuzzy set. Thus, the use of such
(0,1]
constructed fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets in fuzzy logic requires the application of
the type-2 fuzzy logic system architecture.
4.2.2.1
Fuzzy-Rough Approximations of Fuzzy Intervals
When both approximated fuzzy sets, A, and fuzzy partition sets, Fi , are fuzzy
intervals or, in particular, fuzzy numbers. The following theorem links the
notion of the fuzzy-rough set with a convex fuzzy-valued fuzzy set represented
by a secondary membership function.
Theorem 4.6 ([Starczewski 2010]). Let A and Fi be continuous fuzzy
numbers with their membership functions strictly monotone on slopes. The
secondary membership function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set, induced by a
fuzzy-rough set of A with the fuzzy partition set Fi , is expressed as

1

f (u) = max Fi 1
(u)
,
(u)
,
(4.103)
F
i
A
A
where A and A denote respectively the left and the right slope of the membership function of A, i.e., A : [X mA ] [0, 1] and A : [X mA ]
[0, 1] with A (mA ) = 1, Fi (mFi ) = 1 and A (mFi ) > 0.
The proof relies on the use of inverses and the fact that for convex membership functions rough-fuzzy sets are generated by boundaries of alpha cuts of
[Fi ] [Starczewski 2010]. With the use of pseudoinverses, this result will be
proved here in more general settings without the assumption of the strict
monotonicity on slopes.
Theorem 4.7. Let A be a continuous fuzzy interval and Fi be a fuzzy interval
with upper semicontinuous membership functions. The secondary membership
function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set, induced by a fuzzy-rough set of A with
the fuzzy partition set Fi , is expressed as

[1]
f (u) = max Fi (1)
(u)
,
(u)
,
(4.104)
F
i
A
A
where A and A denote respectively the left and the right slope of the membership function of A, i.e., A : [X mA ] [0, 1] and A : [X mA ]
[0, 1] with A (mA ) = 1.

Proof. We decompose the fuzzy-rough set into intervals (A) , (A)
which are -dependent rough approximations
of fuzzy set A by the parti
1
tioning interval [Fi ] = 1
()
,
()
.
The
lower approximation of this
Fi
Fi
rough-fuzzy set using convexity of A may be evaluated as follows
(A) ([Fi ] ) = inf A ([Fi ] )

1
= min A 1
()
,
()
,
A
Fi
F
i
163
(4.105)
(4.106)
where F (x) = Fi (X mF ) and Fi (x) = Fi (X mF ) with F (mF ) =

i
1.
The peak element mA divides the evaluation of the upper approximation
of the rough-fuzzy set into two cases, i.e.,
(A) ([Fi ] ) = sup A ([Fi ] )

1

1
=
max A 1
()
,
()
Fi
A
F
i
(4.107)
if mA [Fi ] ,
otherwise,
(4.108)
where the case for mA

/ [Fi ] is valid by the monotonicity of A.
The secondary membership function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set, induced
by the fuzzy-rough set given by its -cuts, may be evaluated in the following
manner
1
(A) ([Fi ] ) if u A (mF ) ,
(4.109)
f (u) =
1
([Fi ] ) otherwise,
(A)

1
1 1
1
, A Fi
if u A (mF ) ,
max A Fi

=
(4.110)
1
1
otherwise,
max A 1
F
i
A
F
i
where the minimum operator in (4.106) changes into the maximum in (4.110)
since both A 1
and A 1
Fi are increasing functions of whenever u
Fi
A (mF ) while the maximum operator in (4.108) remains without changes
since both A 1
and A 1
Fi are decreasing with whenever u A (mF ).
F
i
Using the fact that (g h)1 = h1 g 1 , the secondary membership

function becomes

1

1
max
(u)
,
(u)
if u A (mF ) ,
F
A
i

Fi A

f (u) =
(4.111)

1
1
max
A (u) , Fi A (u)
otherwise,
F
i
which may be combined into the single-case equation (4.103).

Figure 4.11 illustrates the construction of a fuzzy-rough set according to

Theorems 4.6, 4.7. For better understanding, the antecedent fuzzy set, the
fuzzied premise set and the resultant fuzzy-rough set are presented separately in the three dimensions. Two construction methods for asymmetric
triangular fuzzy partitions, via the denition of the fuzzy-rough set and using Theorem 4.6, are presented Fig. 4.12. Noticeably in subgure (e), the
164
1
0.8
Fi (x)
0.6
u
f (u)
0.4
0.2
0
0
A (x)
0
A (x)
0.5
5
1
10
Fig. 4.11 Construction of fuzzy-rough sets according to Corollary 4.6: A and

A upper and lower slopes of an antecedent membership function, Fi fuzzy
partition set; f secondary membership function of the resultant fuzzy-rough set
(a)
(c)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
x
(b)
10
[2, (A), 2, (A)]
A, F
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
x
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
u
A, F
0.8
(e)
0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.5
(d)
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
f
(f)
0.5
f
[1, (A), 1, (A)]
0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.5
Fig. 4.12 Construction of fuzzy-rough sets according to Theorem 4.6: (a,b) A

original Gaussian antecedent membership
function (solid
lines), Fi triangular

fuzzy partitions (dashed lines); (c,d) i, (A) , i, (A) -cut representations
of fuzzy-rough sets according to the denition; (e,f) f secondary membership
functions of fuzzy-rough sets (bold solid lines)
maximum operation of formula 4.103 change the character and smoothness

of the resulting function.
The mentioned maximum operator can be omitted while using symmetric
fuzzy sets. Therefore, an immediate consequence of application of symmetric
membership functions is summarized in the following corollary.
165
Corollary 4.2 ([Starczewski 2010]). If A and Fi are continuous fuzzy

numbers with symmetric and strictly monotone on slopes membership functions, the secondary membership function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set, induced by the fuzzy-rough approximation of A with the fuzzy partition set Fi ,
is expressed as

Fi 1
A (u) if mA mF
f (u) =
.
(4.112)
Fi 1
(u)
otherwise
A
A practical use of Theorem 4.6 is illustrated in the following example.
Example 4.4. Let both A and Fi be triangular fuzzy numbers, i.e., let the
triangular fuzzy set A be characterized by

xm+ mx+
,
A (x) = max 0, min
,
(4.113)
and the triangular fuzzy-rough approximation set Fi be characterized by

x x + x x +
,
Fi (x) = max 0, min
,
(4.114)
where and denote left spreads, and denote right spreads, and of the
corresponding membership functions.
The secondary membership function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set induced
by a fuzzy-rough approximation may be evaluated as follows:

(u) , Fi 1
(4.115)
f (u) = max Fi 1
A (u)
A
= max (Fi (m (1 u)) , Fi (m + (1 u)))
(4.116)
or more precisely
!

!

+ x m++ u
min u+mx
,
,

!
f (u) = max !
(4.117)
mx ++u u+x m+
min
,
-

u+(mx +)/ (x m++ )/u
,
,
min
/
/

= max
(4.118)
(mx ++)/u u+(x m+ )/

,
min
/
/
for u [0, 1].
Employing fuzzy sets characterized by triangular secondary membership
functions of the form (4.118) as antecedents in a rule base leads to a particular kind of the general type-2 fuzzy logic system. The next example allows
us to design an uncomplicated triangular-fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic system.
166
Example 4.5. Let both A and Fi be symmetric triangular fuzzy numbers, i.e.,

xm+ mx+
A (x) = max 0, min
,
,
(4.119)

x x + x x +
,
Fi (x) = max 0, min
.
(4.120)
where and denote spreads of the triangular membership functions.

The secondary membership function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set induced
by a fuzzy-rough approximation may be evaluated as follows:

Fi (m + (1 u)) if m x
(4.121)
f (u) =
Fi (m (1 u)) otherwise
or more precisely
!
!

min m+(1u)x + , x m(1u)+

!
f (u) = !

min m(1u)x + , x m+(1u)+
if m x
, (4.122)
otherwise
for u [0, 1], which may be rewritten in the following manner
"
"
1+(mx +)/u
/
min
if m x
u1+(x m+)/
/
"
f (u) = "
,
u1+(mx +)/
/
min
otherwise
1+(x m+)/u
(4.123)
Figure 4.13 demonstrates graphically the method of construction membership functions for fuzzy-rough sets according to Theorem 4.6 in the case of
asymmetric triangular fuzzy sets, and according to Corollary 4.2 in the case
of symmetric triangularities (subgures b,d,f). It is easy to observe, that the
triangular secondary membership function of the fuzzy-rough set can be preserved if we use only symmetric triangular fuzzy sets such that the center
of the premise fuzzy set has any non-zero membership representation in the
antecedent fuzzy set.
The subsequent example allows us to design Gaussian-fuzzy-valued fuzzy
logic systems.
Example 4.6. If we consider another situation, where A is characterized by
the symmetric triangular membership function given by (4.119), and Fi is
described by the following Gaussian membership function

2
1 x x
Fi (x) = exp
.
(4.124)
2

(c)
(a)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
x
(b)
10
[2, (A), 2, (A)]
A, F
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
x
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
u
A, F
0.8
(e)
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
(d)
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
f
(f)
0.5
f
[1, (A), 1, (A)]
167
0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.5

original triangular antecedent membership function (solid lines), Fi triangular
fuzzy
partitions (dashed
lines): asymmetric in (a,c,e) and symmetric in (b,d,f); (c,d)

i, (A) , i, (A) -cut representations of fuzzy-rough sets according to the
denition; (e,f) f secondary membership functions of fuzzy-rough sets (bold solid
lines)
In the case of m x m + , the secondary membership function of the

fuzzy-valued fuzzy set induced by the fuzzy-rough approximation may be
evaluated as follows:
f (u) = Fi (m + (1 u))

2

u + x m
1
1
.
= exp
(4.125)
(4.126)
In the case of m x m, the secondary membership function may be

evaluated as:
f (u) = Fi (m (1 u))

2

u + mx
1
1
= exp
(4.127)
(4.128)
Providing new assignments m = 1 |x m| / and = /, we directly

get a Gaussian membership function

/ [m , m + ]
1
if u = 0 and x

2
f (u) =
(4.129)
exp 21 um
otherwise
for u [0, 1].
168

(c)
(a)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
x
(b)
10
[2, (A), 2, (A)]
A, F
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
x
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
u
A, F
0.8
(e)
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
(d)
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
f
(f)
0.5
f
[1, (A), 1, (A)]
0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.5

original triangular antecedent membership
function (solid
lines), Fi Gausian

fuzzy partitions (dashed lines); (c,d) i, (A) , i, (A) -cut representations
of fuzzy-rough sets according to the denition; (e,f) f secondary membership
functions of fuzzy-rough sets (bold solid lines)
Figure 4.14 illustrates the method given by Corollary 4.2 for a symmetric
triangular antecedent fuzzy set and Gaussian fuzzy partitions (premises).
Again it may be observed, that the Gaussian secondary membership function
can be preserved if we use only triangular fuzzy sets such that the center
of the premise fuzzy set has any non-zero membership representation in the
antecedent fuzzy set. It can be also demonstrated that allowing the triangular
antecedent fuzzy set to be asymmetric, in particular, we obtain an asymmetric
Gaussian secondary membership function.
4.3 Particular Realizations of Convex Uncertain Fuzzy

Logic Systems
Interval type-2 fuzzy logic has attracted great attention since the KM
type-reduction algorithm was published [Karnik et al 1999]. However, the
interval-valued fuzzy reasoning suers from uniform uncertainty in secondary
membership functions. Overcoming this limitation through our fuzzy logic
systems based on triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets hopefully has brought
new possibilities in the fuzzy logic modeling [Starczewski 2009; Starczewski
and Rutkowski 2002; Starczewski 2006]. Till now, due to the computational
complexity of the general type-2 fuzzy logic systems with exhaustive defuzzication, no other applications employ systems non-interval fuzzy systems.
4.3 Particular Realizations of Convex Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems
169
10
Fig. 4.15 Upper, principal, and lower membership functions (ordered from the
top)
4.3.1 A Triangular Uncertain Fuzzy Logic System

In this subsection, we extend our design of ecient triangular type-2 fuzzy
logic systems [Starczewski 2009, 2006]. In order to do this, let us formalize
the notion of three characteristic membership functions describing triangular
secondary uncertainty.
Recall that, if the singleton representation of fuzzy premises is used, the
compositional rule of inference is given by (4.35), which for conjunction-type
reasoning can be rewritten into

(4.130)
B (y) = T Ak (x ) , Bk (y) .
k
Assuming also all consequents, Bk , to be singletons at yk , fuzzy-valued fuzzy

conclusions are given by ring fuzzy grades, i.e.,
N
B (y) =
hk (yk ) = T Ak,n (xn ) .
k
n=1
(4.131)
k,n be characterized by triangular

Let all antecedent fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets A
fuzzy truth numbers as membership grades. A crisp membership function, denoted by
3Ak,n , constituted by elements for which the (triangular) secondary
membership function is equal to unity is called a principal membership function, i.e.,
3Ak,n (x) = u|fk,n,x (u) = 1. An upper membership function, denoted by Ak,n , and lower membership function, denoted by A , are created
k,n
by upper and lower bounds of the support of triangular fuzzy truth numbers,
i.e., Ak,n (x) = sup u|fk,n,x (u) > 0 and A (x) = inf u|fk,n,x (u) > 0.
k,n
k,n can be uniquely
Obviously, if each fk,n,x is normal and triangular then A
dened by its principal, upper and lower membership functions as functions
of Fig. 4.15.
170

UPPER FLS
xc
KM ALGORITHM
(left bound)
PRINCIPAL FLS
yc
KM ALGORITHM
(right bound)
LOWER FLS
Fig. 4.16 Ecient triangular-valued fuzzy logic system
With this representation, instead of (4.131) the easiest way is to apply

our family of regular t-norms on bounded triangular fuzzy truth numbers
dened by (2.139). Note that Denition 2.5 is isomorphic to the triple use of
an arbitrary classical t-norm, i.e.,
N
hk (yk ) = T A (xn ) ,
k,n
(4.132)
n=1
N
3
3Ak,n (xn ) ,
hk (yk ) = T
(4.133)
n=1
N
hk (yk ) = T Ak,n (xn ) .
(4.134)
n=1
Henceforth, the ring fuzzy grades are triangular and can be determined
independently by three ordinary fuzzy logic subsystems: upper, principal
and lower. The remaining problem is to defuzzify the aggregated conclusions
(4.132)(4.134).
The use of the triangular approximation to defuzzication given by (3.151)
results with the design of the ecient triangular type-2 fuzzy logic systems
[Starczewski 2009, 2006]. Since the approach relies on the three-node linear
interpolation of a general result for centroid defuzzication, the standard or
enhanced KM algorithm can be used together with the overall defuzzication
given by (3.150). Consequently, the structure of the ecient triangular-valued
fuzzy system can be recognized as in Fig. 4.16.
It should be noted that the -plane centroid type-reduction, [Liu 2008],
leads in general to multiple fuzzy upper and lower subsystems. However,
using only the three subsystems it is recommended to apply the hyperbolic
approximation (3.164), which is a sucient compromise between the simple
triangular and costly -plane strategy or its improvement the centroid
ow algorithm [Zhai and Mendel 2010]. Figure 4.17 shows a connectionist
implementation of hyperbolic approximation to defuzzication of triangularvalued fuzzy sets together with the nal defuzzication.
Note also that we need not be limited to the use of the height type defuzzication. Thus, if the assumption that all consequents must be singletons
is not obligatory, instead of (4.131), we can use (4.35) with the relation expressed either by conjunctions or extended material implications.
171
/..
ln
left ratio (1st loop KM)
P k
Pk
/..
left bound (KM)
ymin
principal output
y pr
..
right bound (KM)
ymax
right ratio (1st loop KM)
Pr
P
yc
/..
..
/..
ln
/..
Fig. 4.17 Implementation of overall defuzzication with hyperbolic approximation

for triangular-valued fuzzy conclusions; adder, multiplier, +1, 1
incrementation and decrementation, k multiplication by a constant, ..2
power, ln natural logarithm, 1/.. reciprocal
4.3.2 A Trapezoidal Uncertain Fuzzy Logic System

In order to design an ecient trapezoidal-valued fuzzy logic system by introducing four characteristic membership functions describing trapezoidal
secondary membership functions. With the same notations as in the previous subsection, a crisp membership function, denoted by Ak,n , and constituted by upper bounds of the kernels of trapezoidal fuzzy truth intervals,
i.e. Ak,n (x) = sup u|fk,n,x (u) = 1, is called an upper-principal membership
function. By analogy a lower-principal membership function is constructed
from upper bounds of the kernels, i.e., Ak,n (x) = inf u|fk,n,x (u) = 1. Now,
k,n with normal and trapezoidal membership funca fuzzy-valued fuzzy set A
tions fk,n,x can be uniquely dened by its upper-principal, lower-principal,
and ordinary upper and lower membership functions.
With this representation, we can use the family of regular t-norms on
bounded trapezoidal fuzzy truth intervals dened by (2.145) instead of
(4.131). Denition 2.5 is isomorphic to the quadruple use of an arbitrary tnorm on the characteristic membership functions, i.e., in addition to (4.132)
and (4.134), the lower-principal and upper-principal ring grades can be
determined by
172

UPPER FLS
SUBORDINATE
KM (left bound)
UPPER-PRINCIPAL FLS
PRINCIPAL KM
(left bound)
LOWER-PRINCIPAL FLS
PRINCIPAL KM
(right bound)
LOWER FLS
SUBORDINATE
KM (right bound)
xc
TRAPEZOIDAL
OVERALL
DEFUZZIFIER
yc
Fig. 4.18 Ecient trapezoidal-valued fuzzy logic system
left subordinate KM
ymin
left principal KM
ylpr
right principal KM
yrpr
..
yc
/..
right subordinate KM
ymax
..
Fig. 4.19 Implementation of overall defuzzication with trapezoidal approximation; adder, multiplier, ..2 power, k multiplication by a constant,
1/.. reciprocal
N
k (yk ) = T Ak,n (xn ) ,
(4.135)
n=1
N
k (yk ) = T Ak,n (xn ) .
(4.136)
n=1
Henceforth, the trapezoidal ring fuzzy grades can be determined independently by four ordinary fuzzy logic subsystems: an upper, upper-principal,
lower-principal and lower one. The trapezoidal approximation to defuzzication given by (3.146) requires a double use of the KM algorithm separately
for the support and the kernel of the resultant fuzzy set, which may be called
subordinate and principal KM algorithms, respectively. Consequently, the
structure of an ecient trapezoidal-valued fuzzy system can be recognized as
in Fig. 4.18. Next, the nal defuzzication can be performed by (3.149). Figure 4.17 shows a connectionist implementation of the overall defuzzication
for the trapezoidal approximation.
A closer approximation to the centroid can be realized by the hyperbolic
approximation (3.168), whose connectionist implementation is shown in Fig.
4.20 shows an implementation of the hyperbolic approximation to defuzzication of trapezoidal-valued fuzzy sets.
173
/..
ln
s
left ratio (1st loop KM)
left bound (KM)
Qs
P
k
/..
ymin
..
left-principal output
y lpr
/..
right-principal output
right bound (KM)
y rpr
ymax
yc
..
right ratio (1st loop KM)
Qr
P
k
/..
ln
/..
Fig. 4.20 Implementation of overall defuzzication with hyperbolic approximation

for trapezoidal-valued fuzzy conclusions; adder, multiplier, +1, 1
incrementation and decrementation, k multiplication by a constant, ..2
power, ln natural logarithm, 1/.. reciprocal
4.3.3 Gaussian Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems

k,n be characterized by GausLet all antecedent fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets A
sian fuzzy truth numbers fk,n,x as membership grades. Next to the principal
membership function, we can dene a deviation function Ak,n : Xn [0, )
as a projection of deviations of Gaussian secondary membership function on
k,n can be uniquely dened by its principal memberdomain Xn . Hereby, A
ship function and its deviation function. Consequently, the structure of the
ecient Gaussian-valued fuzzy system can be recognized as in Fig. 4.21 (a).
If the principal subsystem is realized by any of the extensions of product
t-norm, i.e.,
3
hk (yk ) =
?N
n=1
3Ak,n (xn ) ,
(4.137)
the deviation computation module can determine deviations of ring fuzzy

grades according to several approximate formulae introduced in Chapt. 2:
using the result for Gaussian approximation to the extended product tnorm based on the minimum (2.103), we obtain
174

(a)
PRINCIPAL FLS
KM ALGORITHM
(left deviation)
(right deviation)
xc
DEVIATION COMPUTATION
ASYMMETRICGAUSSIAN
OVERALL
DEFUZZIFIER
yc
ASYMMETRICGAUSSIAN
OVERALL
DEFUZZIFIER
yc
(b)
UPPER DEVIATION
COMPUTATION
xc
PRINCIPAL FLS
KM ALGORITHM
(left deviation)
LOWER DEVIATION
COMPUTATION
(right deviation)
Fig. 4.21 Ecient fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems: (a) Gaussian, (b)
assymetric-Gaussian
k (yk ) =
5N
n=1
Ak,n (xn )
?N
j =n,j=1

3Ak,j xj ;
(4.138)
using the Gaussian approximation to the extended product t-norm based

on the product of Karnik and Mendel (2.92), we obtain
@

?N
5N
2
k (yk ) =
3Ak,j xj
;
(4.139)
Ak,n (xn )
n=1
j =n,j=1
using the Gaussian approximation to the extended product t-norm based

on the drastic product (2.52), we obtain
/
A
?N

N
3Ak,j xj .
(4.140)
k (yk ) = max Ak,n (xn )
j =n,j=1
n=1
An interesting observation is that if the product t-norm is based on the minimum the deviation is computed as an average of deviations cross-weighted
by the means. Likewise, in the case of the product-based extended product,
the deviation is an Euclidean norm of the deviations crosswise normed by
the means. Lastly, if the product t-norm is based on the drastic product, the
resultant deviation is the largest of the deviations crosswise normed by the
mean values.
In the case of principal subsystem being realized by Gaussian approximation to the extended L
ukasiewicz t-norm based on the product (2.74), the
principal ring grades are given by
-5
N

3
3Ak,n (xn ) N + 1 ,
(4.141)
hk (yk ) =
n=1

principal output
ypr
KM algorithm selection
r
s
y k (V k V k )
P
k
175
yc
/
Fig. 4.22 Implementation of overall defuzzication with assymetric-Gaussian

ap
proximation for Gaussian-valued fuzzy conclusions; adder, 2/ multiplication by the constant
and the deviation of ring grades can be computed as

9
5N
2
A
(xn ),
k (yk ) =
k,n
n=1
(4.142)
which can be simply interpreted as the Euclidean norm of all deviations.

Considering defuzzication of conclusions red by the obtained Gaussian
fuzzy grades, we must choose a balanced method of defuzzication. Unfortunately, any centroid Gaussian approximation like that of Karnik and Mendel
formalized in Theorem 3.9 is nally defuzzied to the principal output, and
we lose all the information about uncertainty of memberships. On the other
hand, the exact result for Gaussian secondary memberships is burdened with
a large computational cost. Consequently, ecient realizations of Gaussian
fuzzy logic systems may employ the assymetric-Gaussian approximation of
the centroid given by (3.172) with the nal output calculation (3.184). Recall
that this approximation method is based on a single use of the KM iterative
procedure. A connectionist implementation of defuzzication in such a case
is presented in Fig. 4.22.
The application of assymetric-Gaussian secondary memberships requires
separate deviation computation modules for upper and lower deviations, as
in Fig. 4.21 (b). In the case of secondary membership functions dened by
(2.104), which may be rewritten into

u

(xn ) 2
A
u 0,
3Ak,n (xn )
exp 21 A k,n(xn )
k,n,x

fk,n,xn (u) =

2

k,n,x (xn )
1
u
3Ak,n (xn ) , 1 ,
exp 2
A
(xn )
k,n
k,n may be realized by the assymetric-Gaussian

the Cartesian product of A
approximation to the extended product based on the minimum (2.113). In
consequence, the lower deviations, denoted by k , are described by (4.140),
while the upper deviation values can implemented in one of the two equivalent
forms
176

?N
N
Ak,n (xn )
(4.143)
1
3Ak,n (xn ) min
n=1
n=1 1
3Ak,n (xn )
?
/
A

N
1
N
= max Ak,n (xn )
3Ak,j xj +
(4.144)
,
j =n,j=1
n=1
1
3Ak,n (xn )
k (yk ) =
which is the largest of upper deviations weighted by reciprocals of complements to their means and cross-weighted by the other means.
In other cases, one can make use of the classical t-norms for the assymetricGaussian approximation presented in Sect. 2.4.2.1, i.e.,
N
3
3Ak,n (xn ) ,
hk (yk ) = T
n=1
hk (yk ) T
k (yk ) = 3
3Ak,n (xn ) Ak,n (xn ) ,
(4.145)
3Ak,n (xn ) + Ak,n (xn ) 3
hk (yk ) .
(4.146)
n=1
k (yk ) = T
n=1
Obviously, the discussion about the possibility of going beyond the height
type defuzzication and reasoning with conjunctions in Sect. 4.3.1 is also
valid for ecient Gaussian and assymetric-Gaussian fuzzy logic systems.
References
Bustince, H.: Indicator of inclusion grade for interval-valued fuzzy sets. application to approximate reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning 23, 137209 (2000)
Czogala, E., Roderer, H.: On the control of allpass components using conventional,
fuzzy and rough fuzzy controllers. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, International Joint Conference of the Fourth IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and the Second International Fuzzy
Engineering Symposium, vol. 3, pp. 14051412 (1995)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. International Journal
on General Systems 17, 191209 (1990)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Putting rough sets and fuzzy sets together. In: Slowi
nski,
R. (ed.) Intelligent Decision Support: Handbook of Applications and Advances
of the Rough Sets Theory, pp. 203232. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1992)
Grattan-Guiness, I.: Fuzzy membership mapped onto interval and many-valued
quantities. Zeitschrift fr Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 22, 149160 (1975)
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowi
nski, R.: Fuzzy Similarity Relation as a Basis for
Rough Approximations. In: Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) RSCTC 1998.
LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1424, pp. 283289. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Greco, S., Inuiguchi, M., Slowi
nski, R.: Fuzzy rough sets and multiple-premise
gradual decision rules. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 41(2),
179211 (2006)
Inuiguchi, M., Tanino, T.: New fuzzy rough sets based on certainty qualication.
In: Pal, S.K., Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) Rough-Neural Computing: Techniques for Computing with Words, pp. 277296. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
178
References
Jensen, R., Shen, Q.: Fuzzy-rough sets assisted attribute selection. IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Syst. 15(1), 7389 (2007)
Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Centroid of a type-2 fuzzy set. Information Sciences 132, 195220 (2001)
Liang, Q., Mendel, J.M.: Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: Theory and design.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 8, 535550 (2000)
Lingras, P.: Fuzzy-rough and rough-fuzzy serial combinations in neurocomputing.
Neurocomputing 36(1-4), 2944 (2001)
Liu, F.: An ecient centroid type-reduction strategy for general type-2 fuzzy logic
system. Information Sciences 178(9), 22242236 (2008)
Liu, W.-N., Yao, J., Yao, Y.: Rough Approximations Under Level Fuzzy Sets.
In: Tsumoto, S., Slowi
nski, R., Komorowski, J., Grzymala-Busse, J.W. (eds.)
RSCTC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3066, pp. 7883. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Mas, M., Monserrat, M., Torrens, J.: QLimplications versus Dimplications. Kybernetika 42(3), 351366 (2006)
Mendez, G.M., Hern
andez, A., Cavazos, A., Mata-Jimenez, M.-T.: Type-1 NonSingleton Type-2 Takagi-Sugeno-Kang Fuzzy Logic Systems Using the Hybrid
Mechanism Composed by a Kalman Type Filter and Back Propagation Methods.
In: Gra
na Romay, M., Corchado, E., Garcia Sebastian, M.T. (eds.) HAIS 2010
Part-I. LNCS, vol. 6076, pp. 429437. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Mouzouris, G.C., Mendel, J.M.: Nonsingleton fuzzy logic systems: theory and
application. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 5(1), 5671 (1997)
(1988)
Eng. 20(9), 12391253 (2008)
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern B 39 (2009)
Nowicki, R.K., Starczewski, J.T.: On Non-Singleton Fuzzication with DCOG Defuzzication. In: Rutkowski, L., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2010 Part-I. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6113, pp. 168174.
Radzikowska, A.M., Kerre, E.E.: A comparative study of fuzzy rough sets. Fuzzy
sets and systems 126, 137155 (2002)
Rutkowska, D., Nowicki, R., Rutkowski, L.: Singleton and non-singleton fuzzy systems with nonparametric defuzzication. In: Computational Intelligence and
Application, pp. 292301. Springer (1999)
Rutkowska, D., Nowicki, R., Hayashi, Y.: Parallel Processing by ImplicationBased Neuro-Fuzzy Systems. In: Wyrzykowski, R., Dongarra, J., Paprzycki, M.,
Wasniewski, J. (eds.) PPAM 2001. LNCS, vol. 2328, pp. 599607. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Rutkowski, L.: Flexible neuro-fuzzy systems: structures, learning and performance
evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2004b)
References
179
Rutkowski, L.: New soft computing techniques for system modeling, pattern classication and image processing. In: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing,
Springer (2004b)
Rutkowski, L.: Computational intelligence - methods and techniques. Springer
(2008)
Rutkowski, L., Cpalka, K.: Flexible neuro-fuzzy systems. IEEE Transactions on
Neural Networks 14(3), 554574 (2003)
Sahab, N., Hagras, H.: A type-2 nonsingleton type-2 fuzzy logic system to handle
linguistic and numerical uncertainties in real world environments. In: Proc. 2011
IEEE International Symposium on Advances in Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Systems
(2011)
Sambuc, R.: Fonctions -ous. application a laide au diagnostic en pathologie thyroidienne. PhD thesis. These Univ. de Marseille, Marseille (1975)
(2002)
2006, Vancouver, CA, pp. 72317238 (2006)
T
urksen, I.B.: Interval valued fuzzy sets based on normal forms. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 20, 191210 (1986)
Wu, D., Mendel, J.M.: A vector similarity measure for linguistic approximation:
Interval type-2 and type-1 fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 178, 381402 (2008)
Yao, Y.: Semantics of Fuzzy Sets in Rough Set Theory. In: Peters, J.F., Skowron,
A., Dubois, D., Grzymala-Busse, J.W., Inuiguchi, M., Polkowski, L. (eds.) Transactions on Rough Sets II. LNCS, vol. 3135, pp. 297318. Springer, Heidelberg
(2004)
Zhai, D., Mendel, J.M.: Centroid of a general type2 fuzzy set computed by means
of the centroidow algorithm. In: Proc. IEEE FUZZ, Barcelona, pp. 18 (2010)
Chapter 5
Uncertainty Generation in Uncertain

Fuzzy Logic Systems
Abstract. In this chapter, against the background of existing methods, we

provide several methods to generate membership uncertainty. In particular,
we present an approach to multiperson decision making that generates triangular secondary memberships. Then, we make use of nonlinear tting to
expand interval (as well as triangular) secondary membership functions over
data partitioned by the fuzzy C-means algorithm. We also introduce an incomplete and discrete information reasoning schema based on rough-fuzzy
sets. Finally, we apply generalized fuzzication performed either via possibility and necessity measures or by fuzzy-rough sets.
5.1 State of the Art on Uncertainty Generation

Generation methods for type-2 fuzzy sets have been unveiled in many realizations of fuzzy logic systems [Bartczuk and Rutkowska 2008, 2009; Castillo
et al 2008; Castillo and Melin 2008; Choi and Rhee 2009; Hagras 2004; Hwang
and Rhee 2007; Karnik and Mendel 1999; Mendel 2001; Torres and Sez 2008;
Uncu and T
urksen 2007; Wu and Mendel 2007a]; however, all of them consider interval-valued fuzzy sets.
Only two methods deserve attention:
uncertainty in normal forms of connectives by T
urksen,
interval fuzzy c-means studied by Ozkan and T
urksen, and then derived
by Hwang and Rhee,
5.1.1 Conjunctive and Disjunctive Normal Forms

An interval-valued logic approach to reasoning by employing two dierent
forms of fuzzy connectives was formulated in [T
urksen 1986]. The point is
springerlink.com
182
5 Uncertainty Generation in Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems
that conjunctive normal forms1 and disjunctive normal forms2 of all 16 basic logical connectives not always coincide in multiple-valued logic. In the
two-valued case, the conjunctive and disjunctive normal forms of material
implication are dened as follows
CN F (p q) = p q ,
(5.1)
DN F (p q) = (p q) (p q) (p q) .
(5.2)
In multiple-valued logic, the conjunctive normal form (5.1) is realized by

an s-implication (4.3), while the disjunctive normal form (5.2) leads to the
implication expressed by
DN F (a b) = S (T (a, b) , T (N (a) , b) , T (N (a) , N (b))) .
(5.3)
Similarly, the fuzzy conjunctive normal form of conjunction is given by

CN F (a b) = T (S (a, b) , S (N (a) , b) , S (a, N (b))) ,
(5.4)
while the disjunctive normal forms of conjunction expressed by the t-norm

T . T
urksen demonstrated that DN F () CN F () holds for many families
of dual complementary norms T and S with respect to fuzzy negation N .
5.1.2 Interval Fuzzy C-Means

Conventional fuzzy c-means (FCM) algorithms are iterative procedures that
assign fuzzy memberships in a cluster to patterns and update a center (or
a prototype) of the cluster with respect to the assigned memberships. FCM
algorithms rely on minimizing the objective function
C 5
N
5
(uk (xt ))m d2kt
(5.5)
uk (xt ) = 1, t = 1, . . . , N ,
(5.6)
J (U, V) =
k=1 t=1
subject to the following constraint

C
5
k=1
where U = [uk (xt )]kt is a fuzzy partition matrix of patterns {xt } in the k-th
cluster, V = [v1 , . . . , vC ] is a vector of clusters prototypes, and m > 1 is the
level of fuzziness.
1
2
A logical formula is in conjunctive normal form if it consists of a conjunction

of disjunctions of literals or literals where no disjunction contains a conjunction.
A logical formula is in disjunctive normal form if it consists of a disjunction
of conjunctions of literals or literals where no conjunction contains a disjunction.
5.1 State of the Art on Uncertainty Generation
Minimization of (5.5) leads to the

2 1
1C dkt m1
j=1 djt
uk (xt ) =
1
183
following update for memberships in U

if dkt > 0 and dit > 0 for all i = k ,
if dkt = 0 ,
otherwise ,
(5.7)
where the distance between prototype vk of the k-th cluster and pattern xt
is expressed by
dkt = #xt vk # .
if dkt = 0 then ukt = 1 and uit = 0 for i = k.
(5.8)
(5.9)
The centroid of the cluster can be determined by

1N
xt uk (xt )
vk = 1t=1
.
N
t=1 uk (xt )
(5.10)
Ozkan and T
urksen were the rst to consider the level of fuzziness m as
a source of uncertainty for type-2 membership functions determined by the
FCM algorithm [Ozkan and T
urksen 2004]. According to their method, a level
of fuzziness can be evaluated with the use of the possibilistic entropy measure. In [Ozkan and T
urksen 2007], the lower and upper values for the level
of fuzziness are identied. Namely, signicant changes in FCM membership
values can be observed roughly between 1.4 and 2.6.
An interesting method, in which genetic algorithms are used to optimize
the secondary membership function of the type-2 fuzzy set based on fuzzy
c-regression with dierent levels of fuzziness, was presented in [Celikyilmaz
and T
urksen 2008].
Hwang and Rhee noticed that the pattern set can be extended to interval
type-2 sets by allowing the degree of fuzziness m to be in some interval, e.g.
[m1 , m2 ] [Hwang and Rhee 2007]. Consequently, they proposed to manage
the uncertainty of the fuzzier in the FCM algorithm by the following two
procedures:
1. procedure for updating cluster centers,
2. procedure for hard partitioning (defuzzication) of the nal clustering
decision.
To begin with, using two dierent values of m we can obtain an interval membership given by its lower and upper memberships u
k (xt ) = [uk (xt ) , uk (xt )].
The lower and upper memberships can be dened by
uk (xt ) = min (uk (xt , m1 ) , uk (xt , m2 )) ,
(5.11)
uk (xt ) = max (uk (xt , m1 ) , uk (xt , m2 )) ,
(5.12)
184
where it is exhibited that uk (xt , m) depends also on the fuzzier value m.

Now, (5.10) becomes
1N
xt u
k (xt )
k = 1t=1
v
.
(5.13)
N
k (xt )
t=1 u
k = [vk,L , vk,R ] by any centroid typeand it can be reduced to the interval v
reduction method, e.g. by the KM iterative procedure described in Chapt. 3.
A crisp value for the interval cluster center can be trivially obtained by
vk =
vk,L + vk,R
.
2
(5.14)
Finally, a pattern should be assigned to a cluster according to a fuzzy membership, which can be considered as a defuzzication of a fuzzy set. In the
hard partitioning, we assign xt to cluster k if uk (xt ) > uj (xt ) for j = 1, . . . , C
and j = k. For this purpose, we need membership to be defuzzied, i.e.,
uk (xt ) =
uk,L (xt ) + uk,R (xt )

.
2
(5.15)
The representative values for the left and right memberships can be computed
for each feature in the following way
1M
uk,L (xt ) =
l=1
ukl (xt )
,
M
where ukl (xt )

1M
uk,R (xt ) =
l=1
ukl (xt )
,
M
where ukl (xt )
uk (xt ) if xtl uses uk (xt ) for vk,L

,(5.16)
uk (xt ) otherwise
(5.17)
uk (xt ) if xtl uses uk (xt ) for vk,R
,(5.18)
uk (xt ) otherwise
where M denotes the number of features available for patterns. The method
is demonstrated to be very eective in image segmentation [Choi and Rhee
2009].
5.2 Multiperson Decision Making

According to Zadeh [Zadeh 1975], by a linguistic variable we mean a variable
whose values are words or sentences in a natural or articial language. These
variables take their values from a term-set, i.e. the collection of all linguistic
values. The term set is composed of so called primary terms e.g., high and
low, and optionally linguistic modiers e.g., extremely, very and more or less.
In the Zadehs formulation, semantic rules associating linguistic values with
185
their meanings are expressed by fuzzy sets and the linguistic modiers are
performed by hedge operations.
However, the human descriptions of semantic rules are usually ill-dened,
since words can mean dierent things to dierent people, as Mendel pointed
out in [Mendel 1999]. Also the linguistic hedges are very context dependent.
Accordingly, the linguistic values frequently are associated with the concept
of fuzzy truth-values specied by linguistic values such as true, rather true
or more or less true.
Many papers [Kacprzyk et al 2006; Kacprzyk and Yager 2001; Kacprzyk
et al 2000; Kacprzyk and Zadrozny 2005; Liu and Mendel 2008; Lawry 2001;
Lawry et al 2003; Mendel 2002, 2007a, 1999, 2007b; T
urksen and Resconi
2006; Wang 2001; Wu and Mendel 2007a,b, 2008; Zadeh 1999; Zadeh and
Kacprzyk 1999] adopt fuzzy logic systems (fuzzy logic system) to computing
with words (CWW) a new methodology performing computations in a
natural language proposed by Zadeh [Zadeh 1996]. The concept of CWW is
closely related to manipulation of perceptions [Zadeh 1999] and perceptual
computers [Mendel 2002]. In this section, the employment of the perceptual computer is put in the framework of knowledge engineering. The aim
of the knowledge engineering is to acquire a base of rules from experts in
some domain. The main intention for the knowledge representation in the
form of fuzzy rules is to adequately reect the semantic meaning of linguistic
variables.
When a membership function is assigned by more than one expert, the
assignments need to be somehow fused. The standard method uses the probabilistic interpretation and results with the calculation of the arithmetic mean
of all experts membership functions. Naturally, the method is satisfactory
when competencies of all experts are equal, otherwise when the degrees of
competence of particular experts are dierent, we may apply the weighted average. Disregarding the homogeneity of competencies, the experts perception
of the knowledge domain of interest may be dierent, and consequently, the
experts assignments of membership functions may dier signicantly form
each other.
When the assignments given by experts are completely dierent, the most
radical opinions may falsify the reasoning process. Usually in such cases, we
may erase the two most outstanding assignments, but we lose some the experts opinions. If there was only 3 experts, we would be forced to make a
decision basing on the only one expert opinion. Nevertheless, the extreme
opinions, even if they are the least reliable, are still signicant for fuzzy
reasoning. From the selected opinions about a membership function, it is
necessary to set up an aggregate of these opinions. Simple averaging of membership functions, which leads to the type-1 fuzzy logic, is one kind of such
fusion.
A modern methodology supported by many scientists [Liu and Mendel
2008; Mendel 2002; Wu and Mendel 2007a] relies on the aggregation of
fuzzy sets to type-2 fuzzy sets. In [Wu and Mendel 2007a], Wu and Mendel
186
proposed to leave the evaluation process to the type-2 fuzzy logic especially
if one reviewer suggests rejection of the paper, another suggests a revision
of the paper, and the third reviewer suggest acceptance of the paper. This
statement partially coincides with the opposite statement of Starczewski:
the uniform uncertainty of memberships in a trained interval type-2 fuzzy
logic system acts a supposition that this type-2 fuzzy logic system may be
reduced to the corresponding type-1 system [Starczewski 2008].
By modelling the aggregates with interval type-2 (interval-valued) fuzzy
sets, only the extreme assignments are considered to dene the upper and
lower membership functions of the interval fuzzy sets. What if outlier or
not trustable membership functions are also present? The more robust technique than the interval-valued approach is needed. Helpfully, triangular type2 (triangular-valued ) fuzzy sets give also the possibility of modelling a central
tendency of assigned membership functions in addition to the spread of uncertainty these membership functions. The uncertainty associated with words
is modeled adequately by interval-valued fuzzy sets, while the uncertainty associated with the rules assembled from more than two experts require using
triangular-valued fuzzy sets.
5.2.1 Perceptual Computing

The architecture illustrated in Figure 5.1. is consistent with the framework
of a perceptual computer proposed by Mendel in [Mendel 2002] . While the
approach of Mendel is more focused on considering the input and the output
of the perceptual computer as perceptions (i.e., as words or granulated terms),
the approach proposed in this section is focused mostly on interacting with
multiple experts constructing a rule base of this computer. Nevertheless, by
the perceptual computer we mean the computational system that interact
with humans via at least one of the following interfaces: the input, the output,
and the expert linguistic interface. The perceptual computer consists of an
input encoder, a rule base encoder, a rule aggregator, an inference engine,
and a decoder for an output information.
5.2.2 Coding and Computing with Words

The encoder transforms a linguistic value into a triangular-valued fuzzy set
in general, i.e. An = (1/1) /xn for each input n = 1, . . . , N . However, in many
cases, the set of all possible linguistic values is restricted to quite few words,
e.g. poor, marginal, adequate, good and excellent, which in the thought
of a system designer should be uniformly and linearly ordered. In such
cases, the encoder should make the transformation into a set of equidistant
187
T2 FSs
Encoder
Computing With Words

Engine
TypeReducer
Rule Base
T1 FSs
words
T2 FSs
Decoder
Aggregator
T1 FSs
Evaluator
MF assignment
...
Rule Encoders
words
words
...
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3
Head
Expert #I
Fig. 5.1 Perceptual computer based on triangular-valued fuzzy systems
ordinary fuzzy sets or crisp values xn , which correspond to the singleton type
fuzzication in fuzzy logic systems.
In a more sophisticated direct approach, engineers are required to assign
directly membership grades to each element of the input domain. In [Mendel
2007a], there are proposed two approaches for transformation the linguistic
value into a interval-valued fuzzy set: the person membership function approach a kind of direct method, in which each engineer provides their
assignments of interval-valued fuzzy sets for a word, and the interval endpoint approach, in which each person provides the end-points for an interval
associated with a linguistic value. The interval end-point approach can be
summarized in a coding table (codebook). An other approach known as indirect method [Klir and Yuan 1995] relies on pairwise comparisons of elements
of the input domain according to their relative weights of belonging to the
fuzzy set. In Section 5.2.3, a triangular approach for modeling words is proposed, and described in detail in the context of rule encoding.
5.2.3 Encoding Rules

The triangular approach for modelling words with triangular-valued fuzzy
sets is divided into two stages: a transformation of single linguistic values into
ordinary fuzzy sets, and an aggregation of multiple ordinary fuzzy sets to a
triangular-valued fuzzy set. In order to transform the one-expert linguistic
value into the ordinary fuzzy set, we propose to use two independent semantic
modiers: a degree of intensity, and a dilution grade [Dziwi
nski et al 2010].
188
The degree of intensity together with the modied word are expressed by
terms like: extremely high, very high, (moderately or just) high, more than low,
and not low. The degrees of intensity move the membership function of a fuzzy
set along its domain in the way presented in Fig. 5.2. Note that the use of the
comparative description more than low and the negative expressions not low
are dictated by the human way of understanding English words [Sutherland
1998], while the term not very high means high with exception of very high,
and this should be characterized by a convex membership function.
high
extremely
extremely
low
1
0.5
0
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
more than low [moderately]
less than high [moderately]

not high
very
0.5
0
0.5
not low
very
0.5
0
Fig. 5.2 Degree of intensity along the domain for descriptions low and high
The dilution modier, like relatively, somehow or more or less, and the
concentration modier, like absolutely, convert the fuzzy set in a way presented in Fig. 5.3. In our intention, the word really remains the standard
meaning of the linguistic terms, therefore it can be omitted. The author is
convinced that the introduced dilution words rather extend the segment of
membership function between the empty and the full membership than modify the linearity of the triangular membership function as the hedge operators
do3 .
A syntactic rule compose the two proposed modiers with a fuzzy description as high or small. Fig. 5.4 illustrates the all possible combinations
of the word modiers and Table 5.1 summarizes the fuzzy meaning of these
modiers.
3
The modication expressed by the word very usually is realized by the concentration hedge, i.e., by performing the square of a membership function. However, the
square-hedge operation concentrates the the -membership function only within
its increasing part rather than concentrates the meaning of the words high or
low. The use of the square-hegde very we leave to the modication of words like
middle.
absolutely
189
1
0.5
0
[really]
1
0.5
relatively
0
1
0.5
more or less
somehow
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.3 Concentration and dilution term modiers

MORE or LESS
high
SOMEHOW
more than low
R
more than low

not low
A
not low
high
I
high
R
E
A
more than low
B
S
O
more than low
very high
L
U
high
L
Y
high
T
very high
E
L
very high
Y
extremely high
Fig. 5.4 Pyramid of linguistic terms describing high
5.2.4 Triangular Type-2 Aggregation

Let the E experts to provide their ith assignments of membership function
Ak,n according to a coding table or via the direct method. In order to collect all experts membership functions into the form of the triangular-valued
fuzzy set, the bounding upper and lower membership functions have to be
acquired by taking the ordinary maximum and the minimum for each n-th
input independently, n = 1, . . . , N ,
190
Table 5.1 Exemplary type-1 membership function coding table (for the one-expert
use); optional words in brackets
Concentration
Absolutely
Absolutely
Absolutely
Absolutely
Absolutely
[really]
[really]
[really]
[really]
Relatively
Relatively
Relatively
Somehow
Somehow
More or less
l
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
r
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
5
4
5
min Ak,ni
(5.19)
Ak,n = mean Ak,ni
(5.20)
Ak,n = max Ak,ni ,
(5.21)
k,n
Degree
extremely high
very high
high
more than low
not low
very high
high
more than low
not low
very high
high
more than low
high
more than low
high
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
where upper indexes indicate the rule numbers, k = 1, . . . , K.

Not on every occasion, the individual expert assignments of membership
functions have the same importance. If we take into account also grades of
condence corresponding to each expert, denoted by wi [0, 1], the central tendency of all experts membership functions may be expressed by the
weighted mean, i.e.,
1
i=1,...,E Ak,ni wi
1
.
Ak,n =
i=1,...,E wi
Obviously, depending on the interpretation of the middle membership function, we can employ other central tendencies like the geometric mean, the
harmonic mean, RMS or the median.
5.2.4.1
Simplied Calculations for Aggregates
All expert membership functions are assumed to be of the -function form

presented in Fig. 5.5. Therefore, each i-th expert assigns the parameters lni
and rni for each n-th input via the direct or indirect method. If we assume
also the -form of the aggregating triangular-valued fuzzy set, the upper and
191
lower membership functions, Ak,n and A , are approximated with some

k,n
allowance comparing to (5.19) and (5.21). In the same manner, the principal
membership function
Ak,n shall be linearized between the two l and r points
of a function. Consequently, the triangular-valued aggregate is given by its
left parameters
lk,n = max lni
(5.22)
3
lk,n = mean lni
(5.23)
lk,n =
(5.24)
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
min lni
i=1,...,E
and its right parameters

rk,n = max rni ;
(5.25)
r3k,n = mean rni
(5.26)
rk,n =
(5.27)
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
min rni
i=1,...,E
for each n-th input independently, n = 1, . . . , N . Parameters lk,n and rk,n

dene the upper membership function Ak,n for the kth rule antecedent, lk,n
and rk,n dene the principal membership function
Ak,n , and lk,n and rk,n
dene the lower membership function A ; k = 1, . . . , K.
k,n
rejection
acceptance
ni
ni
Fig. 5.5 Membership functions possiblie to assign by an expert
If the individual expert assignments of membership functions have dierent

importance, the central tendency of all experts membership functions, with
the use of condence grades wi , may be done by the following equations:
1
i=1,...,E lni wi
1
3
(5.28)
ln = 1
i=1,...,E wi
1
i=1,...,E rni wi
1
.
(5.29)
r3n = 1
i=1,...,E wi
192
5.2.5 Decoding
There are three possibilities with decoding. One relies on direct mapping
of a consequent fuzzy-valued fuzzy set to a linguistic label, the second is a
based on a type-reduction and decoding complementary to the type-2 encoder
presented in Section 5.2.3, and the third possibility relies on the use of the
type-reduction together with the common defuzzication. The last one may
be followed by a simply linguistic ranking, while the two rst approaches
need a similarity method between output fuzzy set (either type-2 or type-1)
and fuzzy set given in the term-set (output codebook).
5.2.5.1
Type-2 Decoding
The perceptual computer output in its most general form is a fuzzy-valued

fuzzy set. This set needs to be transformed into an intelligible linguistic value
with the use of a table coding fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets to linguistic terms. The
route of this transformation needs to compare the similarity of the output
fuzzy-valued fuzzy set and the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set from the table. The
most similar set found in the table can be directly mapped into its linguistic
value.
As the classic methods for measuring the similarity of interval-valued fuzzy
sets, the following measures can be counted: a degree of compatibility of
Gorzalczany [Gorzalczany 1987], a normal interval-valued similarity measure
of Bustince [Bustince 2000], a similarity measure of Mitchell [Mitchell 2005].
Recently, Wu and Mendel proposed a two-element Vector Similarity Measure
for expressing the similarity of interval-valued fuzzy sets both in shape and
proximity [Wu and Mendel 2008].
Although it is imaginable to dene a similarity measure for triangularvalued fuzzy sets, it would be dicult or impossible to nd linguistic interpretations of these sets in terms of any natural language. For this reason, we
restrict this method to interval-valued fuzzy sets.
5.2.5.2
Triangular Type-Reduction and Type-1 Decoding
For a general aggregated type-2 conclusion, as the triangular-valued fuzzy

set is, the type-reduction is performed by the most common centroid method
(the fuzzied center of gravity method). Consequently, the triangular typereduced set needs to be transformed into a linguistic value with the use of
a table coding ordinary fuzzy sets to linguistic terms. There is an extensive
number of methods for measuring the similarity of ordinary fuzzy sets (see
e.g. [Dubois and Prade 1980; Hirota and Pedrycz 1991]). The fuzzy set from
the table, which is the most similar to the output fuzzy set, can be directly
decoded into its linguistic value.
5.2.5.3
193
Type-2 Defuzzication and Linguistic Ranking
This method in its rst stage uses the triangular type-reduction described
in the previous section. The benet of the proposed triangular approach is
that we always obtain a triangular membership function of the type-reduced
set. Owing to this shape, the overall defuzzication of the type-reduced set
is obviously performed by the centroid calculation of the triangle, i.e.,

=
y

+ y + ymax
ymin
.
3
(5.30)
This crisp centroid, although lost the information about its central tendency
and its marginal values, is the most capable by human thinking, and therefore
can be immediately translated by a linguistic ranking with the codebook
containing words like accept, accept with minor revision, accept with major
revision, or decline to accept.
5.2.6 Simulation Examples

In the both presented examples: the on-line evaluation of tests and the automatic paper evaluation, no objective function was given, so thus the knowledge were acquired by the experts opinion on the subject of membership
functions. Each ith expert had to assign linguistic description for the rules,
which successively had to be encoded into the parameters lni and rni of the
membership functions, presented in Fig. 5.5, for each n-th input. One of the
presented membership functions corresponds to the rule for the acceptance
rule, while its fuzzy complement corresponds to the rejection rule.
The triangular type-2 fuzzy antecedents as aggregations of all experts
membership functions, were performed by the following equations for each
n-th input independently:
l1,n = max lni
(5.31)
r 1,n = max rni
(5.32)
3
l1,n = mean lni
(5.33)
r31,n = mean rni
(5.34)
l1,n =
min lni
(5.35)
min rni
(5.36)
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
r 1,n =
i=1,...,E
i=1,...,E
where upper indexes indicate the rule numbers: 1 for the acceptance and 2
for the rejection, the number of experts E = 4, n = 1, 2, . . . , 6. Parameters
lk,n and r k,n dene the upper antecedent membership function Ak,n , lk,n and
194
rk,n dene the principal membership function

Ak,n , and lk,n and r k,n dene
the lower membership function A (k = 1, 2), as it is shown in Fig. 5.6.
k,n
In all analyzed examples, the membership functions for the rejection rule
was set as fuzzy complement of the acceptance membership function, hence
their l-r parameters are as follows:
l2,n = l1,n
r 2,n = r 1,n
(5.37)
(5.38)
3
l1,n
l2,n = 3
r32,n = r31,n
(5.39)
(5.40)
l2,n = l1,n
r 2,n = r 1,n
(5.41)
(5.42)
The comparative study of triangular-valued , interval-valued and ordinary

perceptual computers was based on the hypothesis that the more details in
type-2 membership functions are provided the better solution is given by
the system. Since no objective desired output was accessible, the numerical
output values of the triangular-valued perceptual computer had to be compared with the output values of the interval-valued and ordinary perceptual
computers. In the type-1 system, always the principal membership functions
were directly applied. The interval-valued perceptual computer had the same
upper and lower memberships as the triangular one. Although the subsequent
two-rules systems were somehow trivial, the simulations showed in details answers of the perceptual computers and allowed us to analyze the performance
of these systems in the following representative cases. Note that the systems
did not always dier in their performance.
5.2.6.1
On-Line Evaluation of Students Tests
Here, the testing component of the on-line learning platform as the exemplary
application of the triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system to the multiple expert
decision making is demonstrated. It is sucient that the system incorporates
only two type-2 fuzzy rules derived from 4 experts-examiners for 6 inputs
computed by (5.31)(5.42) (E = 4, N = 6). These inputs correspond to the
students replies submitted on-line for 6 questions. Each question had 5 check
points (or subsequent questions) like in check-box type of tests with many
possible answers for one question. Corrected answers for the check points
were summed and presented as the input value. Throughout the reasoning
process the minimum Cartesian product is used.
The numeric outputs of the perceptual computer take their values from
the Grade Point Average (GPA), which is commonly used in United States
as a metric by employers to compare students and evaluate their skill. Thus,
in all analyzed cases, the two rules are concluded with crisp 4 for passing the
test and 0 for rejecting.
195
Table 5.2 Numeric and linguistic students grades: Grade Point Average (GPA),
standard grading scale (SGS), linguisitic ECTS grading (LECTS), typical percentage range (PR)
GPA
SGS
LECTS
PR
00.99
F
Fail
059%
11.49
D
Below average
60%69%
1.52.49
C
Average
70%79%
2.53.49
B
Above average
80%89%
3.54
A
Excellent
90%-100%
The numeric values can be directly translated into the standard letter
grading scale supported by many universities in U.S. as well as by European
Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) in European Union. The
coding table for this purpose is presented in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 also presents a typical percentage for passing tests and exams.
Normally, these percentages are summed for a considered test. However, each
question, according to teachers leading the same subject, may be of dierent
importance. This group of teachers have to play a role of the experts dening
the marginal numbers of points or percentages for passing the test as well as
the punctation sucient for apprising the test as excellent. Since teachers my
be unfamiliar with fuzzy logic, it is necessary to give them a tool for linguistic
expression of the importance of particular questions.
Case 1
In the rst case, the experts provided us with their assignments diering each
from the other. The descriptions of high acceptance of the test is presented
in Table 5.3. This descriptions were encoded according to Table 5.1 so thus
the resulting parameters of membership functions are summarized in Table
5.4. The aggregated antecedents for two rules according to (5.31)(5.42) are
presented in Fig. 5.6a.
Table 5.3 Expert (E1,E2,E3,E4) descriptions of acceptance related to 6 inputs
(I1I6); case 1
E1
E2
E3
E4
I1
More
More
More
More
E1
E2
E3
E4
or
or
or
or
less
less
less
less
high
high
high
high
I2
More or less high
More or less high
More or less high
Somehow high
I4
More or less high
Not low
More than low
Relatively high
I3
More or less high
More or less high
More or less high
Somehow more than low
I5
Relatively very high
Relatively more than low
Relatively more than low
I6
More or less high
Relatively high
Relatively high
Relatively high
196
Table 5.4 Expert (E1,E2,E3,E4) parameters of membership functions related to

6 inputs (I1I6); case 1
E1
E2
E3
E4
I1
l1 r 1
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
I2
l2 r 2
0 5
0 5
0 5
1 5
I3
l3 r 3
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 4
I4
l4 r 4
0 5
0 2
1 3
1 4
I5
l5 r 5
2 5
0 3
0 3
0 4
(1)
(a)
1
1
0.5
(2)
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
(4)
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
1
0.5
0
0.5
0
(5)
(6)
(3)
(b)
0.5
0
I6
l6 r 6
0 5
1 4
1 4
1 4
0.5
0
Fig. 5.6 Triangular type-2 fuzzy antecedents for the acceptance rule (nondecreasing) and for the rejection rule (non-increasing); principal membership functions (solid lines), upper and lower membership functions (dashed lines); (16)
inputs
The calculations were performed on the discrete domain, which can be

represented as {0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5}. For all possible input combinations, we measured a maximal dierence between numeric output of the

, and the interval systriangular-valued perceptual computer, denoted by y

tem output, yI , as well as the mean and standard deviation for these differences. In the same manner, we compared the triangular-valued perceptual
computer with the type-1 fuzzy logic system with the output y (principal
type-1 subsystem embedded in the triangular-valued CWW engine). The results are presented in Table 5.5.
197
Table 5.5 The maximum, mean value and standard deviation of the absolute difference between the triangular type-2 and interval-valued numeric outputs of perceptual computer, and between the triangular type-2 and type-1 computer outputs;
case 1

max |y
yI |
0.5098

max |y
y|
1.0196

mean |y
yI |
0.0499

mean |y
y|
0.0997

std |y
yI |
0.1037

std |y
y|
0.2074
Table 5.6 Triangular, interval and type-1 perceptual computer outputs for the
maximal absolute dierence triangular type-2 and interval-valued numeric outputs;
case 1

y
yI
y
|y
yI | |y
y|
1.4902 2.0000 0.4706 0.5098
1.0196
Table 5.7 Expert (E1,E2,E3,E4) descriptions of acceptance related to 6 inputs

(I1I6); case 2
E1
E2
E3
E4
I1
I2
I3
Somehow more than low Somehow more than low Somehow more than low
Somehow high
Somehow high
Somehow high
Relatively high
More or less high
More or less high
More or less high
Relatively high
Relatively high
E1
E2
E3
E4
I4
I5
Somehow high
More or less high
Somehow more than low Somehow high
Relatively high
Relatively high
More or less high
I6
More or less high
Relatively high
Somehow high
It can be seen that the triangular type-2 approach for modeling deviating membership uncertainties gives strongly dierent results from the interval
type-2 and type-1 approaches. In the most distinct case, the triangular-valued
perceptual computer infers the output value diering in 1.0196 from the output of the corresponding type-1 fuzzy system, which is relatively equal to
25% since the output domain varies from 0 to 4. Further, the mean dierence
between these systems is equal to the meaningful 2.49%. In details, we found
the occurrence of the largest absolute dierence between the triangular and
the interval system, i.e., when input sets is [0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 2, 0.5, 0.5]. Table 5.6
shows nal outputs of compared systems for this occurrence.
Looking at dierent outputs of the perceptual computers, we intuitively
incline toward the answer of the triangular-valued computer, which uses the
upper, lower and principal (average) membership functions in the reasoning process instead of using no more than the upper and lower membership
198
Table 5.8 Expert parameters of membership functions related to 6 inputs; case 2
E1
E2
E3
E4
I1
l1 r 1
0 4
1 5
1 4
0 5
I2
l2 r 2
0 4
1 5
0 5
1 4
I3
l3 r 3
0 4
1 5
0 5
1 4
I4
l4 r 4
1 5
0 4
1 4
0 5
I5
l5 r 5
0 5
1 5
1 4
0 4
I6
l6 r 6
0 4
0 5
1 4
1 5
Table 5.9 The maximum, mean value and standard deviation of the absolute
dierence between the triangular type-2 and interval-valued perceptual computer
numeric outputs, and between the triangular type-2 and type-1 computer outputs;
case 2

max |y
yI |
0.2222

max |y
y|
0.4444

mean |y
yI |
0.0224

mean |y
y|
0.0447

std |y
yI |
0.0618

std |y
y|
0.1237
functions (in the interval approach) or instead of simply averaging membership functions (in the type-1 approach).
The nal step is to decode the numeric output values, by use of Table 5.2.
The linguistic answers of the triangular-valued perceptual computer diered
from the interval-valued linguistic outputs in one grade at most, and the rate
of occurrence was 28514 to 116 . The same linguistic answers diered from the
ordinary linguistic outputs maximally in 2 grades with 32966 occurrences,
which stays behind the use of triangular-valued fuzzy logic.
Case 2
In the second case, we assumed that the experts provided us with assignments
lni and rni specied in Table 5.8, which were uniformly distributed within
some intervals. The aggregated antecedents for two rules are presented in Fig.
5.6b and the results for all the possible input combinations ranging from 0
to 5, as in the previous case, are summarized in Table 5.9.
In this case, the dierences between systems diminish roughly twice. One
of the two most distinct cases is when the input vector is [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4.5].
An interesting fact is that the numerical dierences occur when some of the
inputs take its values from the borders of the domain, this will be eliminated
in the next subsection.
Applying the Table 5.2, we get the linguistic values of compared perceptual
computers. The linguistic answers of the triangular-valued computer diered
from the interval-valued linguistic outputs in one grade at most, and the rate
of occurrence was 39962 to 116 . The dierence between linguistic outputs of
the triangular-valued and ordinary perceptual computers were in one grade
at most with 147004 occurrences.
199
case 2a

max |y
yI |
4.44e-16

max |y
y|
4.44e-16

mean |y
yI |
3.41e-17

mean |y
y|
1.93e-17

std |y
yI |
1.08e-16

std |y
y|
7.72e-17
Case 2a
In this simulation, we modeled the same circumstances as in Case 2, but the possible input values were restricted to the following set: {1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4}.
The results for all the possible input combinations are summarized in
Table 5.10.
This case sustains Theorem 6.1. The triangular-valued perceptual computer gives extremely close results to the interval type-2 and type-1 systems.
Even in the most distinct case, when the input vector is [2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3.5],
the numeric outputs of all compared systems give roughly 2.4. With the use
of nal defuzzication preceding the decoding into words, both interval and
triangular-valued perceptual computers seems useless for modelling problems
similar to the presented one. A detailed study of similar cases and the mathematical explanation are delivered in [Starczewski 2008]. Expectedly, there
were no dierences between linguistic outputs of the three compared perceptual computers.
5.2.6.2
Automatic Paper Evaluation
The second potential application of the triangular-valued perceptual computer is an automatic paper evaluation. Nowadays, an editor makes the decision to accept or reject the submitted paper basing mostly on overall evaluations delivered by reviewers. Unfortunately for authors, there are no precise
review rules merging evaluations within categories with the overall evaluation.
That makes the reviewing process very subjective and incomprehensible.
In the proposed application, we employed the standard 6 measures for
reviewing the paper: importance, original content, depth, readable style, precise organization and ordered presentation. The 6 measures correspond to 6
inputs of the perceptual computer. The vocabulary used for this inputs consisted of: poor, marginal, adequate, good and excellent. Not alike in [Wu and
Mendel 2007a], we decided to code the input vocabulary uniformly into the
real numbers from 0 to 4, since, in my impression, the words are precise and
linearly ordered. The evaluation of three reviewers were rstly encoded and
then averaged in the following way:
200
xi = mean xir ,
(5.43)
r=1,2,3
where xir denotes the numeric evaluation of the rth reviewer for the ith
measure. The same level of expertise for the reviewers were assumed, however,
taking into account the self-evaluated expertise level, the weighted average
instead of (5.43) could be employed.
The experts constructing the rule base (members of the editorial committee) were to answer for the following question: With regard to the one of the
measures, what should be the condition for the acceptance of a paper? The
answer had to be put within linguistic limits from the same vocabulary as
used for inputs. The linguistic conditions for the acceptance are summarized
in Table 5.11. The transformation of these linguistic intervals into membership function parameters is demonstrated in Table 5.12.
Two rules: paper accepted and paper rejected were concluded with 1 for
the acceptance and 0 for the rejection. The minimum t-norm for the Cartesian
product was applied. The outputs produced crisp numeric values, which had
to serve as ranking values before the editorial decision of acceptation.
Table 5.11 Expert (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5) lingustic conditions for the acceptance of
the paper related to importance (I), original content (C), depth (D), readable style
(S), precise organization (O) and ordered presentation (P)
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
I
C
D
marginal to excellent adequate to excellent marginal to excellent
adequate to excellent adequate to excellent marginal to excellent
adequate to excellent adequate to excellent marginal to excellent
adequate to excellent adequate to excellent marginal to good
adequate to excellent marginal to excellent marginal to excellent
S
O
P
E1 poor to excellent
poor to excellent poor to excellent
E2 poor to adequate
marginal to good marginal to good
E3 marginal to good
E4 poor to good
E5 marginal to excellent poor to good
marginal to excellent
Table 5.12 Expert (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5) parameters of membership functions related

to importance (I), original content (C), depth (D), readable style (S), precise organization (O) and ordered presentation (P)
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
I
l1
1
2
2
2
2
r1
4
4
4
4
4
C
l2
2
2
2
2
1
r2
4
4
4
4
4
D
l3
1
1
1
1
1
r3
4
4
4
3
4
S
l4
0
0
1
0
1
r4
4
2
3
3
4
O
l5 r 5
0 4
1 3
1 3
1 3
0 3
P
l6
0
1
1
1
1
r6
4
3
3
3
4
5.3 Membership Uncertainty Fitting
201
automatic paper evaluation

max |y
yI |
0.119

max |y
y|
0.238

mean |y
yI |
0.005

mean |y
y|
0.010

std |y
yI |
0.017

std |y
y|
0.034
Table 5.14 Triangular, interval and type-1 perceptual computer outputs for the
maximal absolute dierence triangular type-2 and interval-valued numeric outputs;
automatic paper evaluation

y
yI
y
|y
yI | |y
y|
0.381 0.500 0.144 0.119
0.238
Having no objective function for the paper evaluation, only the numeric
crisp outputs of the triangular-valued perceptual computer could be compared with outputs of the interval-valued and ordinary computers. For type-1
fuzzy logic engine principal membership functions were used. The results for
all combinations of words from the input vocabulary (poor, marginal, adequate, good and excellent ) for 6 measures of the submitted paper and for 3
reviewers are summarized in Table 5.13
We can see that triangular approach for modeling membership uncertainties gives quite dierent results from the interval type-2 and the type-1 approach. Since in the triangular approach more information about the expert
opinions were used, it can be concluded that the triangular type-2 fuzzy
logic systems are more reliable than interval fuzzy logic systems and type-1
fuzzy logic systems for this kind of not-uniform setting of the rule base. The
largest absolute dierence between the triangular-valued and interval-valued
perceptual computers, i.e., when input sets (after averaging of reviews) is
[1.3 (3) , 1.3 (3) , 1.3 (3) , 2, 0.3 (3) , 0.3 (3)], is described in Table 5.14.
An interesting heuristic approach that combines type-2 fuzzy logic with
modular classier structures is presented in [Starczewski et al 2008], where
fuzzy logic subsystems are trained with the AdaBoost algorithm and the back
propagation method, and nally, the ensemble of classiers is aggregated to
a form of triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system.

Generally, fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets have their origin in the uncertainty of a
fuzzy model in relation to data. The most straightforward way to expand secondary membership functions over data relies on the use of nonlinear tting.
202
The data should be partitioned by a membership to antecedents in fuzzy

rules with the use of any type of fuzzy clustering such as the fuzzy C-means
algorithm.
5.3.1 Interval Membership Uncertainty

Following [Starczewski et al 2010; Bartczuk et al 2010], we would like to
propose the most straightforward method to obtain interval uncertainty.
The method consist of two phases: classical type-1 learning and tting of
uncertainty.
5.3.1.1
Type-1 Learning
The purpose of the rst phase is to compute centers of membership functions

for each fuzzy antecedent set Ak,n . Without loss of generality, we can apply
Gaussian membership functions, i.e.

2

1 x mk,n
Ak,n (x) = exp
,
(5.44)
2
k,n
and a T-norm Cartesian product, i.e.
N
Ak = Tn=1
Ak,n .
(5.45)
Tuning antecedent parameters, mk,n and k,n , as well as consequent parameters, y k and k , can be realized by any method of learning like gradient
methods (e.g. Error Back Propagation) or genetic algorithms.
5.3.1.2
Interval Type-2 Uncertainty Fitting Based on FCM
The purpose of the second phase is to create type-2 fuzzy membership functions, which should cover the inner uncertainty of a modeled process. To perform this, let us assume that the number of cluster centers is equal to K. Each
cluster center is a vector that contains centers of antecedents and consequent,
i.e., vk = [mk,1 , mk,2 , . . . , mk,N , yk ]. This vector is actually determined by
the preceding type-1 learning phase. In analogy to a cluster center, any t-th
instance can be represented by the extended vector xt = [x1 (t) , x2 (t) . . . ,
xN (t) , y (t)]. In this setting, we are able to employ fuzzy memberships dened
by the standard FCM method using (5.7) and (5.10).
Doing this, we assume that training data are not corrupted by any measurement error, and the uncertainty is due to the nature of the modeled process. Therefore, we can bound the training extended data by an upper and
lower membership functions. Upper memberships can be assumed as normal
Gaussian membership functions, i.e.,
203
2

1 xn mk,n
,
Ak,n (xn ) = exp
2
k,n

2

1 y yk
Bk (y) = exp
,
2
k

as upper limits of a function family drawn through points (xn (t) , ukt ), i.e.,

B
2

1 xn (t) mk,n
k,n = max t : exp
= ukt
(5.46)
t
2
t
|xn (t) mk,n |
k,n = max
,
t
2 log ukt
(5.47)
as well as through points (y (t) , ukt ), i.e.,

|y (t) yk |
k = max
.
t
2 log ukt
(5.48)
Each lower membership function can be assumed as a subnormal Gaussian

membership function, i.e.,

2

1 xn mk,n
,
(5.49)
A (xn ) = hk,n exp
k,n
2
k,n

2

1 y yk
B (y) = hk exp
,
(5.50)
k
2
k
which are lower limits of a function family drawn through points (xn (t) , ukt ),
i.e.,

B
2

1 xn (t) mk,n
hk,n = min ht : ht exp
= ukt
(5.51)
t
2
k,n
ukt

hk,n = min
(5.52)

2 ,
t
x
n (t)mk,n
1
exp 2
k,n
as well as
hk = min
t
ukt

2 .
1 y(t)yk
exp 2
k
(5.53)
Fig. 5.7 presents a graphical representation of the membership function obtained for the third dimension (Petal Length) of the second cluster achieved
by the FCM algorithm for the Iris classication problem. Symbols x
204

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fig. 5.7 Type-2 membership function obtained by the Gaussian function tting
indicate the points which selected to determine the upper and lower membership functions.
5.3.1.3
Contextual Type-2 Uncertainty Fitting
In Fig. 5.7, an unfavorable phenomenon can be observed, i.e., the lower membership function is characterized by too small height. Consequently, we obtain
too wide interval of uncertainty, which does not provide us substantial information. The reason for this is that the lower membership function is a lower
bound of the function family drawn through points (xn (t), ukt ), xn (t) x.
With such selected function family, all instances are obligatory considered
with no respect into which main cluster they were assigned by the FCM
algorithm.
To overcome this drawback, the previous algorithm can be modied by
putting it into the context of a particular cluster. Namely, we can calculate
fuzzy memberships ukt of each instance in every cluster. Turning to hard
partitioning, we can dene instance x(t) assigned to the -th cluster, =
1, . . . , K, by arg(max ukt ) = . After assigning all instances to particular
k
clusters, we can partition them into K disjoint sets, i.e.,

xk = {x(t) : t = k},
(5.54)
where t is a cluster to which instance x(t) is assigned. Then, (5.47) and (5.48)
apply adequately to compute the width of upper membership functions.
By analogy, scaled factors of lower membership functions can be calculated
within the context of particular clusters, i.e., taking into consideration only
those instances that belong to set xk ,
205
|xk,n (t) mk,n |
,
t
2 log ukt
ukt

= min

2 .
t
x
(t)m
exp 21 k,n k,n k,n
k,n = max
(5.55)
hk,n
(5.56)
An example of a membership function obtained by the contextual uncertainty

tting method is presented in Fig. 5.8. After this modication, the interval
membership function has a more tailored form.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fig. 5.8 Type-2 membership function obtained the contextual Gaussian function
tting
5.3.1.4
Asymmetric-Gaussian Membership Functions
Another improvement of the interval membership function is due to

assymetric-Gaussian membership functions. Such function can be expanded
over contextual data as an upper membership function,

2
1 xm
for x < m,
exp 2 k,n

(x) =

2
otherwise.
exp 21 xm
k,n
(5.57)
where k,n and k,n have to be computed independently for {xk (t) : xk,n (t)
mk,n } and {xk (t) : mk,n < xk,n (t)}. The result is presented in Fig. 5.9.
206

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fig. 5.9 Type-2 membership function obtained by the non-symmetrical Gaussian

function tting
5.3.2 General Membership Uncertainty of Type-2

Fuzzy Sets
A method presented here was rst outlined in [Starczewski 2009]. Let us
assume that principal membership functions are of the asymmetric-Gaussian
form:

2
for x < m,
exp 12 xm

2
3 (x) =
otherwise,
exp 21 xm
where m is the cluster center generated by FCM.

To model general type-2 uncertainties, each principal membership function was used to separate the cluster memberships. The cluster membership
grades situated above the principal membership function were applied to
t an upper membership function with an additional parameter p 1, i.e.
(x) = min (1, p3
(x)). The memberships situated below the principal membership function were used to t a lower membership function with a height
(x). These upper and lower membership
parameter h [0, 1], i.e. (x) = h3
functions can be employed both in the interval and the triangular type-2
fuzzy logic systems.

To examine the presented methods for interval uncertainty tting, we employed the classic Iris data set [Fisher 1936] from the University of California
Irvine Machine Learning Repository [Frank and Asuncion 2010]. The data
207
set is composed of 150 instances uniformly distributed among three classes of

iris species: Setosa, Versicolor, and Virginica. One class is linearly separable
from the other two classes, while the latter are not linearly separable from
each other. The instances are characterized by four input attributes: sepal
length and width, and petal length and width.
Four structures of interval-valued fuzzy logic systems were examined:
1. basic interval uncertainty tting with Gaussian antecedent membership
functions, described in Sect. 5.3.1.2,
2. basic interval uncertainty tting with asymmetric-Gaussian antecedent upper membership functions and Gaussian lower membership functions,
3. contextual interval uncertainty tting with Gaussian antecedent membership functions, described in Sect. 5.3.1.3,
4. contextual interval uncertainty tting with asymmetric-Gaussian
antecedent upper membership functions and Gaussian lower membership
functions,
Each of the systems was composed of three rules describing objects from
particular classes. The 5-folds cross-validation method was applied.
For each instance, interval ring degrees of rules were computed. The assignment of particular classes were performed with the use of one of the
following methods:
1. standard comparison of intervals (Interval), which detected a rule with
the maximal upper ring grade and a rule with the maximal lower ring
grade. If the choices indicated the same rule, the instance were assigned
to the class corresponding to the rule. Otherwise, the classication, based
on upper red rules, was not certain.
2. searching for the maximum of upper membership functions (Upper)
3. searching for the maximum of average of upper and lower membership
functions (Average)
4. using inequality of fuzzy sets instead of the maximum; the algorithm comparing this inequality grade [Dorohonceanu 2002] determines a degree from
[0, 1] of satisfying an inequality between two fuzzy quantities A1 and A2 .
The value 1 indicates a full certainty that A1 is greater than A2 , while 0
indicates A1 < A2 , and 0.5 was reserved for the equal fuzzy quantities.
We assumed that the correct classication is performed if a fuzzy interval
ring grade of a rule satises the inequality with all remaining rules with
the inequality degree greater than 0.6. Otherwise, the state of the system
was set to NoClass..
The experiments are summarized in Tables 5.155.18. Additionally comparisons with non-interval antecedent membership functions of a standard fuzzy
logic system (Gaussian membership function, algebraic Cartesian product,
singleton consequents) were supplied.
208
The inequality method of comparing interval fuzzy numbers has given the
lowest number of incorrect classications (Misclass.). Unfortunately, the
greatest number of correct classications (Class.) is still a domain of the
type-1 fuzzy logic.
Table 5.15 Classication rates for Gaussian interval functions obtained by the
basic uncertainty tting method
Class.
NoClass.
Misclass.
Type-1 Interval Upper Average Inequality

0.88
0.83
0.87
0.87
0.75
0.06
0.25
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.01
Table 5.16 Classication rates for asymmetric-Gaussian upper membership functions and symmetric Gaussian lower membership functions obtained by the basic
uncertainty tting method
Class.
NoClass.
Misclass.

0.88
0.81
0.85
0.85
0.79
0.07
0.19
0.12
0.11
0.15
0.15
0.03
Table 5.17 Classication rates for Gaussian interval membership functions obtained by the contextual uncertainty tting method
Class.
NoClass.
Misclass.

0.90
0.86
0.88
0.89
0.75
0.06
0.23
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.02
Table 5.18 Classication rates for asymmetric-Gaussian upper membership functions and symmetric Gaussian lower membership functions obtained by the contextual uncertainty tting method
Class.
NoClass.
Misclass.

0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.83
0.02
0.14
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.03
To study classication abilities of triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system,

apart of the Iris classication, we used a Wine classication problem also
from the UCI Repository of machine learning databases. The wine dataset
contains 59 instances labelled as class 1, 71 instances assigned to class 2
and 48 to class 3. We chose the typical modeling scheme, One-against-All, in
209
which each of the classes was trained against all other classes in independent
fuzzy logic systems. As a consequence the number of the classifying singleoutput fuzzy logic systems was equal to the number of classes. The outputs
of these subsystems were combined using the maximum decision function.
In each problem, we compared the triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system
with the interval and type-1 fuzzy logic system. The rules (3 rules per class in
the Iris problem and only 2 rules per class in the Wine classication problem)
were generated by the classical FCM algorithm (with fuzziness degree = 2)
basing on the instances described by attributes and class labels. We assumed
all principal membership functions to be of the asymmetric-Gaussian form,
such that the least squares tting method could be used to t these functions
to the membership degrees of data to each cluster obtained from the FCM
algorithm. The same principal membership functions were used in the triangular type-2 and the basic type-1 fuzzy logic systems. The upper and lower
membership functions were obtained by the basic interval uncertainty tting
using asymmetric-Gaussian membership functions. In the type-1 fuzzy logic
system, the Cartesian product was realized by the algebraic product t-norm
and the approximate extended product t-norm in the type-2 case.
Every run of the proposed FCM-based algorithm was performed on randomly chosen training instances (75 in the Iris problem, 89 in the Wine classication) and the rest of instances were used for testing the systems. Table
5.19 demonstrates the best, the worst as well as the average classication rates
of the type-1, interval and triangular type-2 fuzzy logic systems obtained in
10 independent runs of the training algorithm [Starczewski 2009]. Comparing
the overall outputs of the systems, the triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system
performs not worse and sometimes even signicantly better than interval and
type-1 systems.
Table 5.19 Classication accuracy of the type-1, interval and triangular type-2
FLSs after 10 independent runs of the FCM algorithm
problem result
Iris
best
worst
average
Wine
best
worst
average
type-1
0.9733
0.6800
0.8400
0.9101
0.5843
0.7652
interval
0.9733
0.6267
0.7627
0.8315
0.5955
0.6831
triangular type-2
0.9733
0.7067
0.8494
0.9213
0.6067
0.7753
Obviously, the classication accuracy could be improved using other learning methods, e.g. [Dziwi
nski and Rutkowska 2006, 2008; Nowicki 2008, 2009].
However, the aim of this simulation was just to demonstrate that triangular uncertainty of memberships brings benets of both the interval type-2
fuzzy logic and the classical type-1 fuzzy reasoning. Incorporating a type-1
fuzzy logic system as the principal subsystem into the interval type-2 fuzzy
210
subsystem guarantees an improved or at least not worsened performance of

the composed triangular type-2 fuzzy logic system over its components.
5.4 Rough-Fuzzy Systems for Discretization of Inputs

and Missing Attributes
In real world cases values of some attributes can be unavailable to a classier,
and only a subset of all attributes must allow for uninterrupted operations
of the classier. Typical fuzzy logic systems are not able to perform when
not all attributes expected by the classiers designers are available. We may
redesign a fuzzy classier in using marginalization, i.e. ignoring features with
unknown values and all the membership grades connected with these features
set to one; however, this approach could lead to unexpected results.
An other approach relies on imputation, i.e. on replacing unknown attribute values by their estimates. The most straightforward method is to
make use of mean estimation. Nevertheless, Nowicki have developed a new
algorithm for classication in the case of incomplete knowledge about classied objects based on rough-fuzzy sets [Nowicki 2008, 2009]. He has proposed
to replace each missing attribute by upper and lower rough approximations of
all fuzzy antecedent sets connected to this attribute with the assumption that
the rough partitioning set is equal to the domain of the missing attribute.
This has led him to achieve interval membership grades in only antecedents
of the unknown input.
In this section, we expand the eld of activity of this method not limiting to classication, as well as we apply rough-fuzzy sets to discrete input
signals. Such situation can happen when a signal from analog measuring
devices is substituted by a less expensive digital measuring system with a
lower resolution. The rough partition, in such cases, is an immediate result
of discretization. Recall that the lower and upper approximations of a fuzzy
antecedent set are given by:
(x) = inf {Akn (x) |x Xi } ,
(5.58)
Akn (x) = sup {Akn (x) |x Xi } ,
(5.59)
kn
where k is the index of rule, n is the index of input with missing information,
and Xi is the set resulting from discretization, e.g. Xi = [xi , xi + i ].

The proposed methods dealing with discretization inputs and missing attributes were examined on the four standard datasets: classication of Iris
species, classication of Wisconsin Breast Cancer cases, approximation of a
5.4 Rough-Fuzzy Systems for Discretization of Inputs and Missing Attributes 211
Nonlinear Dynamic Plant, and prediction of a distance in Kinematics of a

robot arm.
The classic Iris data set [Fisher 1936] was taken from the University of
California Irvine Machine Learning Repository [Frank and Asuncion 2010].
The data set is composed of 150 patterns uniformly distributed among three
classes of iris species: Setosa, Versicolor, and Virginica. One class is linearly
separable from the other two classes, while the latter are not linearly separable
from each other. The patterns are characterized by four input attributes: sepal
length and width, and petal length and width. In Iris classication problem,
introduced in Sect. 5.3, we chose a simplied modelling scheme, in which a
single class is trained against all other classes.
The source Wisconsin Breast Cancer data are reports of clinical cases
[Mangasarian and Wolberg 1990]. The original data set contains 699 instances distributed into two classes: benign breast cancer (65.5% of instances)
and malignant cancer (34.5%). Each instance is described by nine attributes:
clump thickness, uniformity of cell size, uniformity of cell shape, marginal adhesion, single epithelial cell size, bare nuclei, bland chromatin, normal nucleoli, and mitoses, with an attention that 16 instances have missing attributes.
By removing these 16 instances, we employ only 683 cases in order to ensure
the removal or fuzzication of systems inputs.
The Nonlinear Dynamic Plant is a frequently studied data set [Wang and
Yen 1999]. It consists of 400 samples generated by the following second-order
dierence equation:
y (t) = g (y (t 1) , y (t 2)) + u (t) ,
where
g (y (t 1) , y (t 2)) =

y (t 1) y (t 2) y (t 1) 12
.
1 + y 2 (t 1) + y 2 (t 2)
(5.60)
(5.61)
It considers the problem of approximation of g on the basis of y (t 1) and

y (t 2). Starting from the equilibrium state (0, 0), 200 samples were obtained
presenting on input u a random signal uniformly distributed in [1.5, 1.5],
and 200 next samples were collected with a sinusoidal input signal given, i.e.,
u (t) = sin (2t/25).
The Kinematics data set was taken from the Data for Evaluating Learning in Valid Experiments (DELVE) repository of the University of Toronto
[DELVE 2011]. This is data set, contributed by Ghahramani, is concerned
with the forward kinematics of an 8 link all-revolute robot arm. Among the
existing variants of this data set we used the variant of 8nm, which is known
to be highly non-linear and medium noisy. The task in this dataset is to
predict the distance of the end-eector from a target, given 8 angular joint
positions. The total number of instances is 8192.
212
All simulations were carried out in the following order:

1. As basic systems, classical fuzzy logic systems were trained on whole sets
of exact (laboratory) data with the use of Back Propagation method;
however, more sophisticated methods can be applied as well. In the experiments, the systems were constructed with Gaussian antecedent membership functions and the singleton fuzzication, rules were red by the
algebraic Cartesian product, and singleton consequents were used in the
height type defuzzication. Such systems were reference singleton fuzzy
logic systems and also played roles of initial systems for interval-valued
fuzzy logic systems.
2. Input data, single inputs or all of them, were assumed to be discretized
to a certain degree i or particular inputs were not available. In case of a
missing attribute, an input value was replaced by the interval covering of
all possible values in a data set Xi , where i denotes an index of an input.
Such situations frequently happen in the real industrial systems working
on digitally measured data (which are discrete) or in case of failure of one
of the measuring systems.
3. With these assumptions interval-valued fuzzy antecedents were calculated
using the rough-fuzzy approach. Note, that such calculations can be performed once ahead-of-time.
4. Finally, interval (rough-fuzzy) fuzzy logic systems were compared with
the basic fuzzy logic systems on discrete input values or missing input
attributes. In all simulations, the results are averaged from 10 epochs of
generations of corrupted samples.
Systems in the Iris classication problem consisted of 4 rules, the Wisconsin
Breast Cancer employed 3 rules, the Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximator
was consisted of 6 rules, and 13 rules were used in the Kinematics prediction.
In approximation and prediction, the comparative criterion is the root
mean square error of the nal output, which for interval fuzzy systems is
given by
@
2

ymin (t) + ymax (t)
1 5P

d (t) .
(5.62)
RM SE (y d) =
t=1
P
2
In classication the desired outputs take binary values, i.e. either 0 or 1,
therefore, to dierentiate between responses of the system, a classication
threshold is used. Its value was set to = 0.5. For the basic systems, the
classication was performed if y > , and the rejection was the case of
y < . The classication rate (Class.) was counted as the average of correct
classications or rejections, while the misclassication rate (Misclass) was
the average of incorrect classications.
The specicity of interval-valued fuzzy logic systems allow us for an analysis on a lower level of classication if only we make use of the interval outputs
of the system: ymin and ymax . Using this information, instead of hard classication, we obtain three groups of classied object with the following labels:
certain classication if ymin > ,
uncertain classication if ymax ymin,
and certain rejection if ymax < .
As a result, we obtain three groups of rates: classication, misclassication,
and no classication (NoClass.) when classication cannot be performed
certainly. This could help in the real classication systems such as the medical diagnosis, when uncertain classication cases can be again directed to a
thorough examination.
The classication results with the imputation of input values by means of
rough-fuzzy sets are presented in Tables 5.205.23.
Table 5.20 Iris-Setosa with rough-fuzzy imputation of missing inputs
MissingInput
1
2
3
4
Basic FLS
Interval (rough-fuzzy) FLS
Class./Misclass. Class./NoClass./Misclass.
0.967/0.033
0.560/0.440/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.973/0.027/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.640/0.360/0.000
0.800/0.200
0.000/1.000/0.000
Table 5.21 Iris-Versicolor with rough-fuzzy imputation of missing inputs

MissingInput
1
2
3
4
Basic FLS
0.927/0.073
0.827/0.160/0.013
0.940/0.060
0.520/0.480/0.000
0.440/0.560
0.000/1.000/0.000
0.940/0.060
0.620/0.367/0.013
Table 5.22 Iris-Virginica with rough-fuzzy imputation of missing inputs

MissingInput
1
2
3
4
Basic FLS
0.967/0.033
0.873/0.127/0.000
0.967/0.033
0.507/0.493/0.000
0.873/0.127
0.207/0.793/0.000
0.920/0.080
0.033/0.967/0.000
214
Needless to say that this novel interpretation of interval classication characterizes with a number of misclassication tending to 0, at the expense of
the rate of correct classications. The both rates are balanced by the noclassication rate, when the interval system is not decided. High values of
this rate testify about the importance of the missing input for the emergence
of a given class. In particular, the fourth input is necessary for correct classication of species of the Setosa (corresponding no-classication rate is equal
to 0), in the same way, the third input is indispensable to correctly classify
the Versicolor species; however, substantial features for the classication of
Virginica are inputs 3 and 4. For the proper classication of the WisconTable 5.23 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with rough-fuzzy imputation of missing
inputs
MissingInput
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Basic FLS
0.977/0.023
0.795/0.193/0.012
0.974/0.026
0.385/0.612/0.003
0.972/0.028
0.593/0.407/0.000
0.978/0.022
0.936/0.050/0.015
0.978/0.022
0.895/0.097/0.009
0.963/0.037
0.893/0.100/0.007
0.977/0.023
0.198/0.799/0.003
0.978/0.022
0.927/0.061/0.012
0.971/0.029
0.291/0.704/0.004
sin Breast Cancer cases the list of important features that we cannot miss
includes: 2, 7 and 9.
Nonlinear function approximation and prediction with missing inputs using rough-fuzzy sets are presented in Tables 5.24 and 5.25.
Table 5.24 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with rough-fuzzy imputation
of missing inputs
MissingInput
1
2
Basic FLS Interval (rough-fuzzy) FLS

RMSE
RMSE
0.5899
0.5389
0.3467
0.2638
In the case of Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation, interval roughfuzzy systems perform signicantly better than their basic fuzzy logic systems
in terms of RMSE. But this is not the rule, what can be seen in Table 5.25.
Most likely, the problem here is due to an inadequately trained basic system.
Table 5.25 Kinematics prediction with rough-fuzzy imputation of missing inputs
MissingInput
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Basic FLS Interval (rough-fuzzy) FLS

RMSE
RMSE
0.1081
0.1160
0.1089
0.1272
0.1944
0.2116
0.1510
0.1791
0.1710
0.2158
0.1850
0.2473
0.1841
0.2468
0.1434
0.1857
The classication results for discretized inputs performed by means of

rough-fuzzy sets are presented in Table 5.26.
=0.1
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.2
1
0.5
0
0.5
=0.5
=1
1
0.5
0
0.5
=2.5
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.10 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Setosa with rough-fuzzy partition of

input space X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines, upper
and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
Exemplary generation of interval fuzzy antecedents for Iris-Setosa with

rough-fuzzy partition for the rst input is demonstrated in Fig. 5.10. Since
the basic fuzzy logic system was well trained on Setosa classication data, the
number of misclassication is zero for all grids of discretization. If interval
of discretization i increase, no-classication cases are more frequent, which
means less certainty about the decision of the basic fuzzy logic system. The
the basic fuzzy logic system for the Versicolor classication is no longer thoroughly trained, thus the misclassication rate only is close to zero in most
cases.
216
Table 5.26 Iris-Setosa with rough-fuzzy partition of input space Xi

1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
Basic FLS
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.960/0.040/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.720/0.280/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.360/0.640/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
0.980/0.020/0.000
0.960/0.040/0.000
0.580/0.420/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.987/0.013
0.987/0.013
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
0.940/0.060/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.980/0.020
0.960/0.040
0.800/0.200
0.800/0.200
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
0.833/0.167/0.000
0.000/1.000/0.000
0.000/1.000/0.000
Similarly, the misclassication rates for the Virginica classication are

much closer to zero than the corresponding rates of the basic system. Interestingly, with decreasing density of discretization, misclassication rates
of the interval systems reach zero.
In the Wisconsin Breast Cancer problem, it does not make sense to discretize input values by intervals lower than 1, since all the input data are
already discrete (i.e. natural numbers between 1 and 10).
The approximation and prediction results for discrete inputs values using
rough-fuzzy sets are presented in Tables 5.305.31. In Table 5.30, it can be
observed that RMSE of rough-fuzzy systems is lower than the error for the
basic fuzzy logic system if values of the discretization degree for the rst input
is 0.4 and higher . In the case of X2 partitioned, RMSE of the rough-fuzzy
systems is much lower than the error of the basic system for all discretization
values.
5.5 Generalized Fuzzication
217
Table 5.27 Iris-Versicolor with rough-fuzzy partition of input space Xi

i
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
Basic FLS
0.927/0.073
0.933/0.007/0.060
0.927/0.073
0.933/0.007/0.060
0.927/0.073
0.920/0.027/0.053
0.900/0.100
0.907/0.053/0.040
0.860/0.140
0.853/0.107/0.040
0.847/0.153
0.753/0.247/0.000
0.933/0.067
0.933/0.067
0.933/0.067
0.927/0.073
0.927/0.073
0.927/0.073
0.927/0.013/0.060
0.920/0.020/0.060
0.900/0.040/0.060
0.900/0.047/0.053
0.527/0.473/0.000
0.373/0.627/0.000
0.933/0.067
0.947/0.053
0.953/0.047
0.880/0.120
0.927/0.073
0.667/0.333
0.887/0.047/0.067
0.880/0.080/0.040
0.827/0.153/0.020
0.633/0.353/0.013
0.627/0.360/0.013
0.293/0.693/0.013
0.933/0.067
0.953/0.047
0.960/0.040
0.953/0.047
0.940/0.060
0.940/0.060
0.933/0.007/0.060
0.913/0.020/0.067
0.853/0.087/0.060
0.680/0.280/0.040
0.613/0.373/0.013
0.613/0.373/0.013
5.5 Generalized Fuzzification

The idea of introducing other than singleton fuzzication to antecedent fuzzy
sets is quite old [Mouzouris and Mendel 1997; Rutkowska et al 1999]. The
motivation to apply the non-singleton fuzzication comes from managing the
imprecision of the measurements or from employing fuzzy systems in the case
of noisy data [Mouzouris and Mendel 1997; Rutkowska et al 1999]. A need of
an apriori knowledge about the imprecision of inputs is crucial to match a
fuzzication function adequately to the imprecisions. Usually, we have such
knowledge, since data are measured imprecisely with a known fault tolerance
or there is some additional noise of known distribution. The fact that nonsingleton fuzzication makes the system less sensitive to disturbance of input
218
=0.1
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.2
1
0.5
0
0.5
=0.5
=1
1
0.5
0
0.5
=2.5
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.11 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Versicolor with rough-fuzzy partition

of input space X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines,
upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
0.5
=0.1
=0.2
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
=1
=2.5
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.12 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Virginica with rough-fuzzy partition

of input space X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines,
data is a great motivation to apply various generation methods of secondary

uncertainties in fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems.
Generally, the fuzzication is a mapping from the input space to a fuzzy
set. In the non-singleton fuzzication method, we obtain a fuzzy set A (x),
called a fuzzy premise set, which is non-zero on some interval x X rather
than a membership grade positive at single x. Presented in this chapter approach regards the non-singleton fuzzication as the mapping to a generalized membership function A (x, x ) in order to analyze the whole spectrum
of fuzzied x values ahead of time of reasoning. Methods based on possibility
and necessity measures or fuzzy-rough sets described in detail in Chapt. 4 can
219
Table 5.28 Iris-Virginica with rough-fuzzy partition of input space Xi

1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
Basic FLS
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.000/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.000/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.000/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.960/0.007/0.033
0.953/0.047
0.953/0.013/0.033
0.927/0.073
0.853/0.133/0.013
0.967/0.033
0.960/0.040
0.940/0.060
0.920/0.080
0.847/0.153
0.847/0.153
0.967/0.000/0.033
0.960/0.007/0.033
0.920/0.060/0.020
0.753/0.247/0.000
0.600/0.400/0.000
0.367/0.633/0.000
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.980/0.020
0.953/0.047
0.840/0.160
0.687/0.313
0.953/0.013/0.033
0.947/0.020/0.033
0.900/0.080/0.020
0.827/0.160/0.013
0.687/0.300/0.013
0.473/0.513/0.013
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.980/0.020
0.907/0.093
0.720/0.280
0.720/0.280
0.967/0.000/0.033
0.933/0.033/0.033
0.873/0.100/0.027
0.600/0.400/0.000
0.027/0.973/0.000
0.027/0.973/0.000
be used interchangeably. This means that we can prepare type-2 antecedents

ahead of time knowing only the nature of fuzzication, instead of fuzzifying
incessantly each time the uncertain data has been posed for inputs.
5.5.1 Non-singleton Fuzzication in

Possibilistic-Fuzzy Systems
The shape of the premise membership function of A is usually specied by a
chosen fuzzication method. In common problems, we have an apriori knowledge about the imprecision of input data, so thus we can assign spreads of
a fuzzifying function in each dimension. Uncertainty of input data can be
220
Table 5.29 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with rough-fuzzy partition of input space
X1
Basic FLS
Interval (rough fuzzy) FLS
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.980/0.020
0.965/0.020/0.015
5.0 0.972/0.028
0.915/0.070/0.015
2
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.975/0.025
0.959/0.023/0.018
5.0 0.974/0.026
0.947/0.040/0.013
3
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.977/0.023
0.958/0.028/0.015
5.0 0.962/0.038
0.857/0.141/0.003
4
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.977/0.023
0.977/0.004/0.019
5.0 0.975/0.025
0.965/0.019/0.016
5
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.978/0.022
0.971/0.010/0.019
5.0 0.977/0.023
0.956/0.028/0.016
6
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.975/0.025
0.968/0.018/0.015
5.0 0.975/0.025
0.941/0.045/0.013
7
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.977/0.023
0.966/0.018/0.016
5.0 0.969/0.031
0.893/0.095/0.012
8
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.978/0.022
0.972/0.009/0.019
5.0 0.974/0.026
0.959/0.023/0.018
9
0.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.000/0.022
2.0 0.978/0.022
0.968/0.015/0.018
5.0 0.978/0.022
0.950/0.035/0.015
i
221
=0.2
1
0.5
0
10
10
10
10
10
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2.5
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.13 Generation of Antecedents for Wisconsin Breast Cancer with roughfuzzy partition of input space X1 (original membership functions - solid and dotdashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
Table 5.30 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with rough-fuzzy partition
of input space Xi
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Basic FLS Interval (rough fuzzy) FLS

RMSE
RMSE
0.0727
0.0754
0.0739
0.0807
0.0818
0.0829
0.0948
0.0932
0.1068
0.0881
0.1207
0.1135
0.1503
0.1232
0.0780
0.0891
0.1101
0.1174
0.1325
0.1563
0.1749
0.0771
0.0784
0.0877
0.0893
0.0951
0.1078
0.1057
captured by the standard non-singleton fuzzication of systems inputs

[Mouzouris and Mendel 1997; Rutkowska et al 1999]. We can also examine
whether a weaker form of set than fuzzy set can be applied to fuzzify input
values. Hence, fuzzication of premises can be considered in terms of possibility of the input value x . By virtue of this, a membership function of the fuzzy
premise, A , can be interpreted as a possibility distribution A . Therefore, we
can apply the possibility and necessity to measure the antecedent fuzzy set Ak ,
222
Table 5.31 Kinematics prediction with rough-fuzzy partition of input space Xi

1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
3
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
4
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
5
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
6
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
7
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
8
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
Basic FLS Interval (rough fuzzy) FLS

RMSE
RMSE
0.0962
0.0962
0.0970
0.0965
0.0989
0.0971
0.1008
0.0982
0.0961
0.0967
0.0979
0.1001
0.0962
0.0964
0.0969
0.0981
0.0974
0.1031
0.1122
0.1229
0.0964
0.0980
0.1016
0.1064
0.0971
0.1008
0.1069
0.1146
0.0962
0.0970
0.0989
0.1024
0.0968
0.1002
0.1063
0.1144
0.0962
0.0972
0.1000
0.1043
0.0969
0.1020
0.1102
0.1198
0.0963
0.0984
0.1023
0.1101
0.0970
0.1020
0.1100
0.1193
0.0962
0.0974
0.1013
0.1084
0.0960
0.0975
0.1014
0.1063
0.0962
0.0971
0.0989
0.1026
=0.3
0.5
=0.4
0.5
=0.5
0.5
=0.6
0.5
0.5
=0.1
=0.2
0.5
=0.7
1
0.5
223
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
Fig. 5.14 Generation of antecedents for Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation

with rough-fuzzy partition of input space X1 (original membership functions - solid
and dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted
lines)
=0.1
1
0.5
=0.2
0
2
1
=0.3
0
2
1
=0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0
2
1
0.5
0
2
1
=0.7
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
2
Fig. 5.15 Generation of antecedents for Kinematics prediction with rough-fuzzy

partition of input space X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed
lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
emphasizing that the membership of A is also an explicit function of x . Specifically, the possibility of Ak forms an upper bound of fuzzication (4.73), i.e.,
Ak (x ) = sup T (A (x, x ) , Ak (x)) ,
xX
which represents also the standard fuzzication. The necessity of Ak forms a

lower bound of fuzzication (4.74)
A (x ) = inf S (N (A (x, x )) , Ak (x)) ,
k
xX
224
which is convergent with ordinary non-singleton fuzzication implemented

by implications.
In order to obtain continuous possibility and necessity functions, we have
to vary A (x, x ) in the whole spectrum of possible values of x independently
of x. In this way, we can determine the upper limit of a t-norm as well as the
lower limit of an S-implication according to the above formulae.
Note that these formulae can also be interpreted in terms of -upper and
-lower rough approximations of Ak by fuzzy partitions A . Considering nonsingleton fuzzication as fuzzy partitioning, it is natural, within this interpretation, to obtain a nite set of fuzzy-rough sets, i.e. upper and lower
membership grades, rather than continuous upper and lower membership
functions. If we allow a fuzzy partitioning set to move its center x along
the x dimension, the fuzzy-rough set interpretation in the sense of Dubois
and Prade can be applied to the following considerations as well.
5.5.1.1
Possibility and Necessity Fuzzication of Antecedents in

Triangular Fuzzy-Valued System
Assuming that both fuzzifying fuzzy sets and sets to be fuzzied are triangular, the possibility and necessity fuzzications remain triangular. Starting
from
a symmetric premise membership
(fuzzication) function An (xn ) =
!
!
min
xn xn +n xn xn +n
,
n
n
and an asymmetric antecedent membership

!
!

x m
+k,n mk,n xn +k,n
, the possibility
function Ak,n (xn ) = min n k,n
,
k,n
k,n
function has been formulated in Example 4.2. This possibility function embedding triangular fuzzication is triangular as well,
"

"
k,n
xn mk,n + k,n mk,n xn +

Ak (xn ) =
min
,
,
(5.63)
k,n
k,n
where
k,n = k,n + n ,
(5.64)
k,n = k,n + n .
(5.65)
Further, we recall the triangular necessity function given by (4.81)

"

"

A (xn ) =
min
,
.
k
k,n
k,n
This triangular function has a center mk,n calculated by
mk,n =
n (k,n k,n )
+ mk,n .
2n + k,n + k,n
(5.66)
225
and a height given by

hk,n =
k,n + k,n
.
2n + k,n + k,n
If we impose! symmetry
on the antecedent !
membership function, i.e.,

xn mk,n +k,n mk,n xn +k,n
, the possibility function
Ak,n (xn ) = min
,
k,n
k,n
embedding also symmetric triangular fuzzication is described as follows:
"

"
xn mk,n + k,n mk,n xn + k,n

Ak (xn ) =
min
,
,
(5.67)
k,n
k,n
and the necessity presents in its form
"

"

min
,
,
A (xn ) =
k
k,n
k,n
(5.68)
where k,n is given by (4.51). This triangular function has a center at mk,n and
a corresponding height given by
hk,n =
5.5.1.2
k,n
.
k,n + n
(5.69)
Possibility and Necessity Fuzzication of Antecedents in

Gaussian Fuzzy-Valued System
Possibility and necessity Gaussian fuzzications of Gaussian fuzzy antecedents

are no longer easy to represent. Especially, a formula for the necessity grade
does not provide a Gaussian function. Let
denote a premise
membership
us
2
xn xn
1
(fuzzication) function as An (xn ) = exp 2
and an antecedent
n

2
1 xn mk,n
. In the context
membership function as Ak,n (xn ) = exp 2
k,n
of classical fuzzication approach, example 4.1 have shown a Gaussian formula, which may be interpreted as the possibility calculated by Gaussian
fuzzication of a Gaussian fuzzy antecedent, i.e.,

2

1 xn mk,n

Ak (xn ) = exp
,
(5.70)
2
k,n
where
k,n =
)
2 .
n + k,n
(5.71)
Assuming a t-conorm in (4.74) to be the algebraic sum, the necessity antecedent membership function embedding triangular fuzzication by An (x)
can be expressed as
226

1 An (xn , xn ) 1 Ak,n (xn )
xn Xn

2

1 xn xn
= 1 sup exp
2
n
xn Xn

2

1 xn mk,n
1 exp
,
2
k,n
A (xn ) =
k
inf
(5.72)
(5.73)
(5.74)
and this has to be solved numerically.
5.5.2 Non-singleton Fuzzication by the Fuzzy-Rough

Approximation
The same knowledge about a function form of fuzzication can be involved
by the fuzzy-rough approximations in the sense of [Nakamura 1988]. In Sect.
4.2.2 of Chapt. 4, we have observed that the concept of the fuzzy-rough set
can be applied to the fuzzication of antecedents in fuzzy logic systems.
This subsection demonstrates practical system solutions of fuzzy-rough
fuzzication in general fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems. Specically, we construct fuzzy-rough sets which can be processed as general type-2 fuzzy antecedents instead of interval-valued antecedents structured in the previous
subsection.
5.5.2.1
Fuzzy Rough Sets as Antecedents in Triangular

Fuzzy-Valued System
Consider a fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic system with uncertainty of the general

form [Karnik et al 1999; Mendel 2001]. It can be easily observed that fuzzy
partitions Fi reect somehow imprecision of input data, since facts in Generalized Modus Ponens can be represented by fuzzy partition set Fi , i.e.
expressed linguistically as
x is Fi .
(5.75)
Hence, the imprecision of inputs has been realized by non-singleton fuzzication which maps an input vector x to the fuzzy-rough partition membership
function usually with single peak value at x , like the triangular or the popular Gaussian fuzzication. Naturally, there is a need of an apriori knowledge
about the imprecision of inputs in order to determine an adequate shape of
fuzzication.
To formalize our fuzzy-valued approach to fuzzication, we regard nonsingleton fuzzication as a generalized membership function F (x, x ) = Fi (x).
Obviously, other parameters of this membership function, like deviations or
227
spreads, are xed. This helps us to analyze all constructions of fuzzy-rough

sets from x values. In accordance with Theorem 4.6 (Chapt. 4, Sect.4.2.2),
the secondary membership function of the fuzzied version of antecedent Ak,n
may be expressed by

1

,
,
(5.76)
(u)
,
x
(u)
,
x
fn (u, xn ) = max Fn 1
F
n
n
n
Ak,n
A
k,n
where k indicates a rule, and n is an index for inputs.

A practical use of corollary to this theorem (Corollary 4.2) has been illustrated in Example 4.5 from Chapt. 4. If both
! Ak,n and Fn are symmetric
!
x m
x +
n
n
k,n
k,n
k,n
, k,n k,n
triangular fuzzy numbers, i.e. Ak,n (xn ) =
k,n
!
!
xn xn +n xn xn +n
, respectively, where n and k,n
,
and Fn (xn ) =
n
n
denote spreads of the triangular membership functions, the secondary membership function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set induced by a fuzzy-rough approximation may be expressed as follows:
m
x +n
1+ k,n n
u
k,n
min
,

k,n
fk,n u, xn =
m
x +n
u1+ k,n n
k,n
,
min
k,n
x m
+n
u1+ n k,n
k,n
n
k,n
x m
+n
1+ n k,n
u
k,n
n
k,n
if mk,n xn
.
otherwise
(5.77)
This function has a triangular shape for xn [mk,n k,n , mk,n + k,n ]. The
principal memberships is obviously described by
3Ak,n (xn ) = Ak,n (xn ) .
(5.78)
The upper membership function has a trivial kernel [mk,n n , mk,n + n ]

and is characterized by the trapezoidal membership function
-
xn mk,n + n + k,n mk,n + n xn + k,n

Ak,n (xn ) =
,
, (5.79)
k,n
k,n
since fk,n (u, x ) = 0 for all u [0, 1] whenever mk,n k,n xn + n or
mk,n + k,n xn n . Following this path, the lower membership function is
triangular and supported by [mk,n k,n + n , mk,n + k,n n ], and subnormal with peak value calculated for xn = mk,n in the following way:

mk,n (mk,n + n ) + k,n
,0
(5.80)
hk,n = Ak,n (mk,n + n ) = max
k,n

n
= 1 min
,1 .
(5.81)
k,n
228
Therefore,
-
A (xn )
k,n
= hk,n
xn mk,n n + k,n mk,n n xn + k,n

,
k,n
k,n
n
= 1
k,n
-
xn mk,n n + k,n mk,n n xn + k,n
,
.
k,n
k,n
(5.82)
(5.83)
For xn
/ [mk,n k,n , mk,n + k,n ], the fuzzy partition set does not intersect
suciently with the antecedent fuzzy set, hence, the secondary membership
function of the fuzzy-rough set is quasi-triangular. However while constructing a system, we assume triangularity due to very low values of the upper
membership functions found in such cases.
In Figure 5.16, the construction of secondary membership functions is
demonstrated in three exemplary x , i.e., xa , xb and xc . In order to construct
a complete fuzzy-valued fuzzy antecedent set we have to vary F (x, x ) in the
whole spectrum of possible x values.
Example 4.4 from Sect. 4.2.2 in Chapt. 4 has provided more general formulae for triangular fuzzication of triangular antecedent membership functions
according to Theorem 4.6. Assuming that k,n and k,n denote left and right
(a)
1
A, Fi
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10
x
(b)
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
u
10
Fig. 5.16 Construction of fuzzy-rough sets: a) Ak antecedent membership function (solid line), F1 , F2 , F3 three realizations of non-singleton premise membership functions (dashed lines), b) fx (u) corresponding secondary membership
functions constituting f (u, x ).
229
spreads of the triangular fuzzy antecedent set Ak,n (of k-th rule and n-th
input), i.e.,

,
, (5.84)
Ak,n (xn ) = max 0, min
k,n
k,n
and n and n denote left and right spreads of the triangular fuzzy-rough
approximation set Fn fuzzifying n-th input, i.e.,

xn xn + n x xn + n

,
,
(5.85)
F n (xn , xn ) = max 0, min
n
n
the secondary membership function of the antecedent may be evaluated as
follows:
fk,n (u)

u+(mk,n xn k,n +n )/k,n (xn mk,n +k,n +n )/k,n u
min
,
,
n /k,n
n /k,n

= max

(mk,n xn +k,n +n )/k,n u u+(xn mk,n k,n +n )/k,n

,
min
n /
n /
k,n
k,n
(5.86)
Nevertheless, we are rather interested in constructing systems with symmetric

triangular fuzzication, which lead us to
fk,n (u) = max

max
=
k,n
n
k,n
n

m
x
+
x m
+k,n +n
min u + k,n nk,n k,n n , n k,n
u
,
k,n

mk,n xn +k,n +n
xn mk,n k,n +n
min
u, u +
k,n
/n |k,n u + mk,n xn k,n |/ ,

/n |mk,n xn + k,n k,n u|/
n
k,n
(5.87)

.
(5.88)
This function not always has a triangular shape. Obviously, the principal
membership function is expressed by (5.78). The upper membership function has a trivial kernel [mk,n n , mk,n + n ] and is characterized by the
trapezoidal membership function alike
-
xn mk,n + n + k,n mk,n + n xn + k,n

Ak,n (xn ) =
,
, (5.89)
k,n
k,n
since fk,n (u, x ) = 0 for all u [0, 1] whenever mk,n k,n xn + n or
mk,n + k,n xn n . The lower membership is a subnormal triangular
function with support [mk,n k,n + n , mk,n + k,n n ] and peak value
calculated for in the following way.
Since we are interested in u satisfying fk,n (u) = 0 such that u bounds
support of fk,n from below, we can calculate two possibilities for u by starting
with the observation that the rising slopes of the two maximized component
230
functions in (5.87) reach 0 from above, and therefore we can omit boundary
operation / /, i.e.
u1 +
mk,n xn k,n + n
=0
k,n
x mk,n n + k,n
u1 = n
,
k,n
(5.90)
(5.91)
and the rising slope of the second component function

u2 +
xn mk,n k,n + n
=0
k,n
mk,n xn n + k,n
u2 =
k,n
(5.92)
(5.93)
Obviously, the lower membership function needs to be aggregated in the

following way:
A
k,n
(xn ) = /min (u1 , u2 )/
(5.94)

xn mk,n n + k,n mk,n xn n + k,n
= min
,
.
k,n
k,n
(5.95)
Then using the fact that the lower membership function is triangular and
supported by [mk,n + n k,n , mk,n n + k,n ], the center of this triangle, denoted by ck,n , can be calculated as xn at the point of equal values of
both slopes, i.e.,
mk,n ck,n n + k,n
ck,n mk,n n + k,n
=
(5.96)
k,n
k,n
k,n ck,n k,n mk,n k,n n = k,n mk,n k,n ck,n k,n n (5.97)
k,n k,n
ck,n = mk,n
n .
(5.98)
k,n + k,n
Consequently, the corresponding peak is expressed by
hk,n =
ck,n mk,n n + k,n

k,n
k,n
k,n
n n + k,n
k,n +k,n
= 1
(5.99)
k,n
2n
.
k,n + k,n
(5.100)
(5.101)
5.5.2.2
231
Fuzzy Rough Sets as Antecedents in Gaussian

Fuzzy-Valued System
A successive practical use of Corollary 4.2 has been illustrated in Example

4.6 (Chapt. 4). If an antecedent fuzzy set, denoted
by Ak,n , is a symmetric
!
!
x m
x +
n
n
k,n
k,n
k,n
,
triangular fuzzy number, i.e. Ak,n (xn ) =
, k,n k,n
k,n
and a fuzzy partition
set
is
characterized
by
a
Gaussian
membership
function

2

1 xn xn
Fn (xn ) = exp 2
, where n denotes the xed deviation, the
n
secondary membership function of the fuzzy-valued fuzzy set induced by a

fuzzy-rough approximation can be rewritten as follows:
1 u +
fk,n (u, xn ) = exp
2
|xn mk,n |
k,n
n
k,n
2
1
,
(5.102)
whenever xn [mk,n k,n , mk,n + k,n ].

The principal memberships function is trivially the non-fuzzied antecedent membership function, i.e.,
3Ak,n (xn ) = Ak,n (xn ) .
(5.103)
The deviation function,
k,n (xn ) =
n
,
k,n
(5.104)
logically indicates that the standard deviation of the fuzzication function

increases the secondary fuzziness. However, the spread of the antecedent
proportionally decreases the secondary standard deviation of the obtained
Gaussian-valued fuzzy set.
For a considerable distance between the type-1 fuzzy sets, i.e. whenever
/ [mk,n k,n , mk,n + k,n ], the fuzzy fuzzication set does not intersect
xn
suciently with the triangular antecedent fuzzy set, hence, the Gaussian secondary membership function of the fuzzy-rough set is clipped by 0. However
we simplify this inexactness in the construction of a fuzzy logic system, by
decreasing the standard deviation proportionally to the distance between xn
and mk,n . This preserves the Gaussian shape secondary membership functions in a system, and allows us to perform extended t-norms on Gaussians.
For asymmetric triangular fuzzy antecedents,
calculations are slightly!more
!
xn mk,n +k,n mk,n xn +k,n
. By
,
complicated. Suppose that Ak,n (xn ) =
k,n
k,n
Theorem 4.6, if xn [mk,n k,n , mk,n + k,n ] or u = 0,
232
fn (u, xn ) = max (Fn (mk,n k,n (1 u)) , Fn (mk,n + k,n (1 u)))

2

1 mk,n k,n (1u)xn
,
n
exp 2

= max

2
mk,n +k,n (1u)xn

exp 12
n

2

1
mk,n xn
(5.105)
(5.106)
k,n
exp 1
,
n
2
k,n
= max
m x
2
,
n
1+ k,n
u
k,n
1
exp
n
2
(5.107)
k,n
otherwise fk,n (u, xn ) = 1.

The proposed methods of fuzzication were examined on the four standard
datasets introduced in Sect. 5.4: classication of Iris species, classication
of Wisconsin Breast Cancer cases, approximation of a Nonlinear Dynamic
Plant, and prediction of a distance in Kinematics of a robot arm. In the Iris
classication problem, a simplied modelling scheme was applied, in which a
single class is trained against all other classes. In the Wisconsin Breast Cancer
data 16 instances with missing attributes were removed in order to make
possible to apply the developed fuzzication methods of systems inputs.
All the experiments were carried out in the following order:
1. As basic systems, classical fuzzy logic systems were trained on whole sets of
exact (laboratory) data with the use of Back Propagation method; however, more sophisticated methods can be applied as well. In the experiments, the systems were constructed on asymmetric-triangular or Gaussian
antecedent membership functions with the singleton fuzzication, rules
were red by the algebraic Cartesian product, and singleton consequents
were used in the height type defuzzication, with clarication that values
of consequents in classiers were restricted to 0 or 1, while all approximators had continuous ranges for singleton consequents. Systems in the
problems of Iris classication, the Wisconsin Breast Cancer classication,
the Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation, and the Kinematics prediction were consisted of 4, 3, 6, and 13 rules, respectively. Such systems are
reference singleton fuzzy logic systems and also play roles of initial systems
(principal subsystems) for fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems.
233
2. Input data, single inputs or all of them, were assumed to be corrupted by

additive noise with a triangular distribution or with the Gaussian distribution. This usually can happen in the real industrial systems working on
uncertain data.
3. Depending on the distribution of noise, adequate secondary membership
functions of fuzzy-valued fuzzy antecedents were calculated. Namely, the
possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication applied to Gaussian fuzzy logic systems
as well as the possibilistic triangular fuzzication applied to triangular
fuzzy logic systems served in construction of interval-valued fuzzy logic systems. Moreover, triangular fuzzication of triangular fuzzy logic systems
with the use of fuzzy-rough sets results in developing triangular-valued
fuzzy logic systems, while Gaussian fuzzy-rough fuzzication of triangular fuzzy logic systems, after some approximations, leads to asymmetricGaussian-valued fuzzy logic systems. Note, that such transformations can
be performed just once ahead-of-time. For comparison, a standard methods for triangular fuzzication of triangular antecedents and for Gaussian
fuzzication of Gaussian antecedent membership functions were used to
construct non-fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems.
4. Finally, input data were corrupted by additive noise with a triangular distribution and symmetrical spread values i or with the Gaussian distribution and standard deviations values i , where i is an index of an input.
These noisy samples were used as testing data for the developed systems
as in the real-time environment. White additive noise was applied; however, the noise does not need to be white. In all simulations, the results
are averaged from 10 epochs of generations of corrupted samples.
Recall that in binary classication the desired outputs take either 0 or 1
values, so that system outputs need to be demarcated by the classication
threshold, which in all simulations was set to = 0.5. For the basic (type-1)
systems, the classication was performed if y > , and the rejection was the
case of y < . Then, the classication rate (Class.) was counted as the
average of correct classications or rejections, while the misclassication rate
(Misclass) was the average of incorrect classications.
The specicity of interval-valued fuzzy logic systems allow us for an analysis on a lower level of classication if only we make use of the interval outputs
of the system: ymin and ymax . Using this information, instead of hard classication, we obtain three groups of classied object with the following labels:
certain classication if ymin > ,
uncertain classication if ymax ymin,
and certain rejection if ymax < .
As a result, we obtain three groups of rates: classication, misclassication,
and no classication (NoClass.) when classication cannot be performed
certainly. This could help in the real classication systems such as medical diagnosis, when uncertain classication cases can be again directed to a
thorough examination.
234
The specicity of triangular fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems allow us for

an analysis on a deeper level of classication if only we make use of the
intermediate outputs of the system: principal, maximal and minimal alternatively to the overall output. With this information, instead of yes-or-no
classication, we obtain four groups of classied objects with the following
labels:
certain classication if ymin ,

rather certain classication if ypr > ymin,
rather uncertain classication if ymax > ypr ,
and certain rejection (ymax < ).
In the quoted example of medical diagnosis, we may distinguish between a

support for the case of rather certain and a decision for the case of rather
uncertain classication, since the former case may require some exact repetition of a test, while the latter may need a complete physical examination.
As a result, instead of no classication in interval systems, we obtain good
suggestions, when a rather certain classication is indicated for the true desired output or a rather uncertain classication is indicated for false desired
output, which were labeled by Suggest., and confused classication rates
(marked by Confus.), otherwise.
5.5.3.1
Possibilistic Gaussian Fuzzication
Gaussian fuzzication in the sense of possibilistic reasoning of a fuzzy system with Gaussian antecedent membership functions transforms this system
always into an interval-valued fuzzy logic system. The classication ranks
for the Iris-Setosa subproblem in the case of Gaussian noise disturbance are
summarized in Tables 5.32 and 5.33.
Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Iris-Setosa classication with
possibilistic fuzzication of the rst input are demonstrated in Fig. 5.17. The
number of wrong classications for each interval (possibilistic) fuzzy systems
is equal to zero when either X1 , X2 or X3 is fuzzied, in the other case the
misclassication rate only is close to 0. The dierence in the misclassication
rate is especially evident in Table 5.33 for all inputs corrupted with high
values of i , particularly, the misclassication rates for the singleton system
and the standard non-singleton system reach 0.51 and 0.24, respectively, while
for the interval system is only 0.007 for i = 0.2, i = 1, . . . , 4. However, the
number of correct classications of the interval system becomes signicantly
less than for the singleton and standard non-singleton systems.
The results for the Iris-Versicolor classication in the case of Gaussian
noise disturbance are summarized in Tables 5.34 and 5.35. Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Iris-Versicolor classication with possibilistic
fuzzication of the rst input are demonstrated in Fig. 5.18. In the IrisVersicolor classication subproblem, the number of misclassications for each
interval (possibilistic) fuzzy system is equal or close to zero. The dierence
235
Table 5.32 Iris-Setosa with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input Xi
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
Interval (possibilistic)
Class./Misclass. Class./Misclass. Class./NoClass./Misclass.
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.980/0.020/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.960/0.040/0.000
0.993/0.007
1.000/0.000
0.940/0.060/0.000
0.960/0.040
1.000/0.000
0.820/0.180/0.000
0.887/0.113
1.000/0.000
0.607/0.393/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.993/0.007
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.993/0.007
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
0.980/0.020/0.000
0.927/0.073/0.000
0.833/0.167/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.987/0.013
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
1.000/0.000/0.000
0.987/0.013/0.000
0.993/0.007/0.000
0.933/0.067/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.993/0.007
0.967/0.033
0.827/0.173
0.560/0.440
1.000/0.000
0.993/0.007
0.920/0.080
0.847/0.153
0.873/0.127
0.973/0.027/0.000
0.967/0.027/0.007
0.773/0.227/0.000
0.240/0.760/0.000
0.027/0.967/0.007
=0.1
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.2
1
0.5
0
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.17 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Setosa with possibilistic Gaussian

fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines,
236
Table 5.33 Iris-Setosa with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.940/0.060/0.000
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.867/0.133/0.000
0.927/0.073
0.940/0.060
0.507/0.493/0.000
0.733/0.267
0.827/0.173
0.000/1.000/0.000
0.487/0.513
0.753/0.247
0.013/0.980/0.007
Table 5.34 Iris-Versicolor with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian

membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input Xi
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.933/0.067
0.933/0.067
0.900/0.053/0.047
0.933/0.067
0.933/0.067
0.887/0.067/0.047
0.940/0.060
0.940/0.060
0.907/0.053/0.040
0.933/0.067
0.933/0.067
0.847/0.100/0.053
0.900/0.100
0.933/0.067
0.773/0.200/0.027
0.933/0.067
0.933/0.067
0.940/0.060
0.940/0.060
0.933/0.067
0.840/0.160
0.660/0.340
0.633/0.367
0.620/0.380
0.613/0.387
0.833/0.120/0.047
0.647/0.307/0.047
0.580/0.393/0.027
0.533/0.467/0.000
0.393/0.607/0.000
0.940/0.060
0.900/0.100
0.867/0.133
0.780/0.220
0.720/0.280
0.973/0.027
0.953/0.047
0.707/0.293
0.533/0.467
0.513/0.487
0.847/0.133/0.020
0.813/0.180/0.007
0.360/0.640/0.000
0.200/0.793/0.007
0.093/0.880/0.027
0.920/0.080
0.933/0.067
0.907/0.093
0.813/0.187
0.820/0.180
0.920/0.080
0.927/0.073
0.933/0.067
0.887/0.113
0.853/0.147
0.853/0.113/0.033
0.853/0.120/0.027
0.767/0.213/0.020
0.707/0.260/0.033
0.627/0.347/0.027
in the misclassication rate is especially evident for all inputs corrupted with
high values of i (Table 5.35), particularly, the misclassication rates for the
singleton system and the standard non-singleton system reach 0.38 and 0.62,
respectively, while for the interval system the rate is equal to 0 for i = 0.2,
i = 1, . . . , 4. As in the previous case, the number of correct classications of
237
=0.1
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.2
1
0.5
0
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.18 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Versicolor with possibilistic Gaussian

Table 5.35 Iris-Versicolor with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian
membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.913/0.087
0.847/0.153
0.533/0.467/0.000
0.887/0.113
0.660/0.340
0.293/0.707/0.000
0.847/0.153
0.493/0.507
0.060/0.933/0.007
0.747/0.253
0.380/0.620
0.000/1.000/0.000
0.620/0.380
0.380/0.620
0.000/1.000/0.000
the interval system becomes 0 which is signicantly less than for the singleton
and standard non-singleton systems.
The classication ranks for the Iris-Virginica subproblem in the case
of Gaussian noise disturbance are summarized in Tables 5.36 and 5.37.
Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Iris-Virginica classication with
possibilistic fuzzication of the rst input are demonstrated in Fig. 5.19. In
the Iris-Virginica classication, the number of misclassications for each interval (possibilistic) fuzzy system is equal or close to zero. The dierence in
the misclassication rate is especially evident for all inputs corrupted with
high values of i (Table 5.37), particularly, the misclassication rates for the
singleton system and the standard non-singleton system reach 0.38 and 0.32,
respectively, while for the interval system the rate is equal to 0 for i = 0.2,
i = 1, . . . , 4. As in the previous case, the number of correct classications of
the interval system becomes even close to 0 which is signicantly less than
for the singleton and standard non-singleton systems.
238
Table 5.36 Iris-Virginica with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian

membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input Xi
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.000/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.967/0.000/0.033
0.967/0.033
0.960/0.040
0.940/0.033/0.027
0.960/0.040
0.820/0.180
0.760/0.240/0.000
0.927/0.073
0.707/0.293
0.560/0.440/0.000
0.960/0.040
0.967/0.033
0.953/0.047
0.940/0.060
0.847/0.153
0.960/0.040
0.947/0.053
0.693/0.307
0.700/0.300
0.707/0.293
0.913/0.080/0.007
0.793/0.207/0.000
0.573/0.427/0.000
0.513/0.487/0.000
0.327/0.673/0.000
0.967/0.033
0.953/0.047
0.920/0.080
0.907/0.093
0.773/0.227
0.973/0.027
0.953/0.047
0.933/0.067
0.900/0.100
0.867/0.133
0.840/0.133/0.027
0.853/0.107/0.040
0.753/0.220/0.027
0.673/0.307/0.020
0.520/0.467/0.013
0.960/0.040
0.973/0.027
0.900/0.100
0.840/0.160
0.660/0.340
0.960/0.040
0.973/0.027
0.907/0.093
0.873/0.127
0.800/0.200
0.940/0.047/0.013
0.907/0.087/0.007
0.727/0.227/0.047
0.393/0.573/0.033
0.133/0.867/0.000
=0.1
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.2
1
0.5
0
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.19 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Virginica with possibilistic Gaussian

239
Table 5.37 Iris-Virginica with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian

membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.960/0.040
0.947/0.053
0.733/0.260/0.007
0.920/0.080
0.900/0.100
0.407/0.593/0.000
0.900/0.100
0.707/0.293
0.113/0.887/0.000
0.740/0.260
0.687/0.313
0.007/0.993/0.000
0.620/0.380
0.673/0.327
0.007/0.993/0.000
The results for Gaussian possibilistic fuzzication of a Gaussian fuzzy logic

system in the Wisconsin Breast Cancer classication problem are collected in
Table 5.38. The number of misclassications for each interval (possibilistic)
fuzzy system is equal or close to zero and lower than the same rate for all other
systems. The dierence in the misclassication rate is especially evident for
all inputs corrupted with high values of i , particularly, the misclassication
rates for the singleton system and the standard non-singleton system reach
0.25 and 0.2, respectively, while for the interval system this rate is equal
to 0 for i = 0.2, i = 1, . . . , 9. As in the previous simulations, the number
of correct classications of the interval system decreases close to 0 which is
signicantly less than for the singleton and standard non-singleton systems
(0.75 and 0.8, respectively).
Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Wisconsin Breast Cancer
classication with possibilistic fuzzication of the rst input are demonstrated in Fig. 5.20.
The errors for interval fuzzy logic systems obtained via the Gaussian possibilistic fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions in the Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation are compared with the basic fuzzy logic systems
in Tables 5.39 and 5.40. Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with possibilistic fuzzication of the rst
input are demonstrated in Fig. 5.21. In terms of the nal output response, the
root mean square error (RMSE) of the interval (possibilistic) fuzzy logic system is comparable (X1 fuzzied) or lower (X2 or both inputs fuzzied) than
the error of the singleton and non-singleton systems, especially for greater
values of standard deviation.
Exemplary results for interval fuzzy logic systems obtained via the Gaussian possibilistic fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions in the Kinematics prediction is presented Tables 5.41 and 5.42.
The presented results as well as similar results for fuzzication of the remaining inputs, which were not included due to limitations of this book,
240
Table 5.38 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of

Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single
input X1 , . . . , X9 as well as to all inputs Xi
Singleton
Non-singleton
1.0 0.978/0.022
0.977/0.023
0.965/0.019/0.016
2.0 0.972/0.028
0.975/0.025
0.933/0.050/0.018
5.0 0.931/0.069
0.966/0.034
0.672/0.316/0.012
2
1.0 0.977/0.023
0.975/0.025
0.963/0.016/0.020
2.0 0.977/0.023
0.975/0.025
0.927/0.056/0.018
5.0 0.962/0.038
0.968/0.032
0.659/0.334/0.007
3
1.0 0.972/0.028
0.975/0.025
0.911/0.075/0.015
2.0 0.968/0.032
0.978/0.022
0.848/0.139/0.013
5.0 0.912/0.088
0.972/0.028
0.590/0.406/0.004
4
1.0 0.978/0.022
0.977/0.023
0.975/0.009/0.016
2.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.022
0.971/0.013/0.016
5.0 0.966/0.034
0.975/0.025
0.835/0.152/0.013
5
1.0 0.977/0.023
0.975/0.025
0.971/0.010/0.019
2.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.022
0.965/0.019/0.016
5.0 0.978/0.022
0.974/0.026
0.792/0.198/0.010
6
1.0 0.978/0.022
0.974/0.026
0.949/0.034/0.018
2.0 0.975/0.025
0.977/0.023
0.933/0.059/0.009
5.0 0.939/0.061
0.959/0.041
0.823/0.167/0.010
7
1.0 0.980/0.020
0.978/0.022
0.960/0.025/0.015
2.0 0.978/0.022
0.978/0.022
0.895/0.094/0.012
5.0 0.972/0.028
0.977/0.023
0.633/0.362/0.006
8
1.0 0.978/0.022
0.975/0.025
0.968/0.012/0.020
2.0 0.977/0.023
0.972/0.028
0.958/0.026/0.016
5.0 0.975/0.025
0.966/0.034
0.852/0.139/0.009
9
1.0 0.981/0.019
0.980/0.020
0.968/0.015/0.018
2.0 0.972/0.028
0.972/0.028
0.944/0.040/0.016
5.0 0.946/0.054
0.977/0.023
0.717/0.271/0.012
i
1.0 0.975/0.025
0.966/0.034
0.518/0.482/0.000
2.0 0.946/0.054
0.953/0.047
0.003/0.997/0.000
5.0 0.753/0.247
0.807/0.193
0.001/0.999/0.000
1
241
=0.2
1
0.5
0
10
10
10
10
10
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.20 Generation of antecedents for Wisconsin Breast Cancer with possibilistic
Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian
noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid and dotdashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
Table 5.39 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with possibilistic Gaussian
fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input Xi
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Singleton Non-singleton Interval (possibilistic)

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0842
0.0860
0.0987
0.1062
0.1178
0.1213
0.1442
0.1627
0.1571
0.1951
0.2046
0.2050
0.2279
0.2473
0.2430
0.2759
0.2811
0.2820
0.2948
0.3030
0.2896
0.0872
0.1217
0.1502
0.1910
0.2314
0.2555
0.2894
0.0866
0.1151
0.1479
0.1862
0.2087
0.2482
0.2524
0.0990
0.1247
0.1414
0.1706
0.1868
0.2177
0.2296
indicate a worse t to the Kinematics prediction problem of the interval fuzzy

system. An explanation of this poor performance can be noticed in Fig. 5.22.
Evidently, not all fuzzy antecedent sets a the basic fuzzy logic system are
tuned accurately, and some functions for the rst input are almost constant.
=0.3
0.5
=0.4
0.5
=0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
=0.1
=0.2
0.5
=0.6
1
0.5
=0.7
242
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5

with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions
- solid and dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and
dotted lines)
Table 5.40 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with possibilistic Gaussian
fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0970
0.0984
0.1267
0.1344
0.1328
0.1530
0.2156
0.2222
0.2230
0.2584
0.2523
0.2448
0.2975
0.2906
0.2771
0.3532
0.3345
0.3203
0.3841
0.3583
0.3391
Table 5.41 Kinematics prediction with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of

Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single
input X1
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0963
0.0966
0.1246
0.0974
0.0992
0.1262
0.0994
0.1027
0.1289
0.1045
0.1121
0.1355
0.1099
0.1216
0.1424
243
Table 5.42 Kinematics prediction with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of

Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all
inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.7312
0.7341
1.4481
0.8765
0.9072
1.5572
1.0686
1.1365
1.6601
1.4762
1.5278
1.7970
1.8455
1.7501
1.8642
=0.1
1
0.5
=0.2
0
2
1
=0.3
=0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0
2
1
0.5
0
2
1
0.5
0
2
1
=0.7
1.5
0.5
0
2
Fig. 5.22 Generation of antecedents for Kinematics prediction with possibilistic Gaussian fuzzication of Gaussian membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid and
dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted
lines)
5.5.3.2
Possibilistic Triangular Fuzzication
Triangular fuzzication in the sense of possibilistic reasoning of a triangular

fuzzy system transforms it always into an interval-valued fuzzy logic system. The classication ranks for the Iris-Setosa subproblem in the case of
triangular fuzzication are summarized in Tables 5.43 and 5.44. Note that
numbers of correct classications and misclassication rates not always sum
up to unity. In some cases of the singleton fuzzy system, there is a significant residual of no classication. This is due to the lack of ring at least
one of the rules, what may be the case for triangular membership functions.
The simulations conrm the general principle that misclassications of possibilistic fuzzy systems is usually lower than rates of the singleton and nonsingleton fuzzy systems at the expense of correct classications.
244
Table 5.43 Iris-Setosa with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input Xi ,
i = 1, . . . , 4
1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
3
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
4
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.000/0.007
0.984/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.990/0.003/0.007
0.971/0.003
0.993/0.007
0.980/0.013/0.007
0.893/0.010
0.993/0.007
0.927/0.063/0.009
0.583/0.015
0.993/0.007
0.702/0.287/0.011
0.989/0.007
0.984/0.007
0.942/0.020
0.752/0.044
0.415/0.029
0.995/0.005
0.999/0.001
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
1.000/0.000
0.990/0.005/0.005
0.990/0.009/0.001
0.953/0.047/0.000
0.780/0.220/0.000
0.489/0.511/0.000
0.991/0.007
0.987/0.006
0.943/0.005
0.883/0.005
0.701/0.027
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.992/0.008
0.987/0.013
0.993/0.000/0.007
0.990/0.003/0.007
0.952/0.041/0.007
0.903/0.090/0.007
0.762/0.230/0.008
0.993/0.006
0.983/0.005
0.912/0.004
0.760/0.028
0.403/0.047
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.007
0.993/0.000/0.007
0.991/0.003/0.007
0.901/0.093/0.007
0.767/0.206/0.027
0.469/0.501/0.029
Table 5.44 Iris-Setosa with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs Xi
i
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.984/0.006
0.993/0.007
0.989/0.005/0.007
0.945/0.005
0.971/0.029
0.816/0.181/0.003
0.813/0.016
0.879/0.121
0.675/0.318/0.007
0.461/0.059
0.727/0.273
0.319/0.651/0.031
0.072/0.026
0.669/0.331
0.045/0.937/0.018
245
=0.2
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.23 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Setosa with possibilistic triangular

fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise
applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed
lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Iris-Setosa classication with

triangular possibilistic fuzzication of the rst input with triangular membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.23. Observe that the triangular
fuzzication results in increased spreads of an upper triangular membership
function, and in subnormalized height of a lower membership function.
The classication ranks for the Iris-Versicolor subproblem in the case of
triangular fuzzication are summarized in Tables 5.45 and 5.46. The results
show again the better performance of possibilistic fuzzy systems in terms of
misclassication, and better performance of non-singleton systems in terms of
correct classications. It seems as if classication using non-singleton systems
were too optimistic, while the interval possibilistic classication seems to be
skeptical with frequent hesitation.
The classication ranks for the Iris-Virginica subproblem in the case of
triangular fuzzication are summarized in Tables 5.47 and 5.48. These results conrm the validity of previous statements with respect to the Setosa
and Versicolor classications. Note that in the case of i = 0.2 applied to
all inputs the non-singleton classies almost 79% of instances correctly, on
the other hand 21% of instances is erroneously classied, which can cause
confusion in the sale of Iris owers and claims costs disproportionate to any
additional expertise in the case of attaching the label No Classication to
a ower by a possibilistic interval-valued fuzzy logic system.
The results for triangular possibilistic fuzzication of a triangular fuzzy
logic system in the Wisconsin Breast Cancer classication problem are collected in Tables 5.49 and 5.50.
246
Table 5.45 Iris-Versicolor with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular

membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input Xi ,
i = 1, . . . , 4
1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
3
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
4
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.958/0.041
0.960/0.040
0.959/0.000/0.041
0.949/0.041
0.960/0.040
0.955/0.004/0.041
0.928/0.040
0.960/0.040
0.939/0.027/0.034
0.851/0.043
0.963/0.037
0.875/0.103/0.021
0.535/0.041
0.963/0.037
0.683/0.305/0.012
0.959/0.040
0.955/0.044
0.922/0.041
0.749/0.053
0.381/0.037
0.960/0.040
0.958/0.042
0.957/0.043
0.962/0.038
0.953/0.047
0.960/0.001/0.039
0.951/0.019/0.030
0.920/0.051/0.029
0.803/0.179/0.019
0.629/0.362/0.009
0.957/0.040
0.952/0.040
0.915/0.043
0.843/0.048
0.640/0.073
0.960/0.040
0.959/0.041
0.957/0.043
0.955/0.045
0.954/0.046
0.960/0.000/0.040
0.956/0.004/0.040
0.939/0.021/0.040
0.906/0.062/0.032
0.725/0.258/0.017
0.954/0.041
0.909/0.069
0.781/0.121
0.567/0.209
0.338/0.116
0.953/0.047
0.926/0.074
0.896/0.104
0.851/0.149
0.843/0.157
0.939/0.028/0.033
0.881/0.080/0.039
0.726/0.221/0.053
0.455/0.489/0.057
0.235/0.753/0.013
Table 5.46 Iris-Versicolor with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular

membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs Xi
i
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.950/0.045
0.951/0.049
0.906/0.071/0.023
0.889/0.075
0.881/0.119
0.700/0.281/0.019
0.695/0.145
0.713/0.287
0.301/0.671/0.028
0.329/0.189
0.571/0.429
0.075/0.893/0.032
0.051/0.029
0.460/0.540
0.010/0.985/0.005
247
Table 5.47 Iris-Virginica with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular

membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input Xi ,
i = 1, . . . , 4
1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
3
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
4
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.973/0.021
0.978/0.021
0.978/0.002/0.020
0.958/0.022
0.979/0.021
0.969/0.013/0.018
0.931/0.025
0.979/0.021
0.960/0.023/0.017
0.841/0.038
0.979/0.021
0.905/0.077/0.017
0.511/0.048
0.980/0.020
0.700/0.288/0.012
0.971/0.019
0.951/0.030
0.917/0.041
0.746/0.068
0.389/0.035
0.970/0.023
0.968/0.025
0.967/0.027
0.967/0.027
0.967/0.027
0.969/0.013/0.018
0.957/0.023/0.020
0.931/0.050/0.019
0.812/0.169/0.019
0.592/0.396/0.012
0.962/0.025
0.956/0.023
0.905/0.033
0.805/0.068
0.593/0.091
0.969/0.025
0.965/0.029
0.965/0.029
0.962/0.031
0.957/0.036
0.963/0.019/0.019
0.963/0.019/0.018
0.948/0.031/0.021
0.905/0.055/0.040
0.773/0.181/0.046
0.932/0.031
0.854/0.053
0.769/0.099
0.665/0.153
0.428/0.187
0.957/0.043
0.942/0.058
0.933/0.067
0.930/0.070
0.912/0.088
0.949/0.031/0.021
0.925/0.041/0.033
0.868/0.081/0.051
0.785/0.131/0.083
0.627/0.235/0.138
Table 5.48 Iris-Virginica with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular

membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs Xi
i
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.918/0.029
0.951/0.049
0.937/0.049/0.015
0.830/0.053
0.907/0.093
0.853/0.124/0.023
0.687/0.099
0.860/0.140
0.590/0.362/0.048
0.379/0.139
0.787/0.213
0.307/0.605/0.088
0.063/0.045
0.695/0.305
0.055/0.909/0.036
248
Table 5.49 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of

triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single
input Xi , i = 1, . . . , 9
Singleton
Non-singleton
2.0 0.954/0.023
0.973/0.027
0.969/0.011/0.021
3.0 0.921/0.025
0.970/0.030
0.963/0.016/0.021
5.0 0.841/0.028
0.968/0.032
0.943/0.033/0.023
2
2.0 0.747/0.023
0.976/0.024
0.749/0.231/0.020
3.0 0.719/0.023
0.975/0.025
0.728/0.251/0.021
5.0 0.661/0.022
0.974/0.026
0.693/0.288/0.019
3
2.0 0.939/0.021
0.980/0.020
0.970/0.011/0.019
3.0 0.877/0.021
0.980/0.020
0.963/0.019/0.018
5.0 0.787/0.022
0.980/0.020
0.944/0.039/0.017
4
2.0 0.952/0.022
0.975/0.025
0.966/0.016/0.018
3.0 0.892/0.021
0.975/0.025
0.958/0.025/0.017
5.0 0.801/0.022
0.974/0.026
0.940/0.043/0.017
5
2.0 0.967/0.020
0.980/0.020
0.976/0.006/0.018
3.0 0.916/0.030
0.980/0.020
0.965/0.009/0.025
5.0 0.837/0.033
0.980/0.020
0.952/0.019/0.029
6
2.0 0.926/0.020
0.971/0.029
0.951/0.034/0.015
3.0 0.840/0.023
0.967/0.033
0.860/0.125/0.015
5.0 0.734/0.027
0.963/0.037
0.766/0.216/0.018
7
2.0 0.958/0.020
0.978/0.022
0.970/0.013/0.017
3.0 0.917/0.021
0.978/0.022
0.960/0.023/0.017
5.0 0.828/0.022
0.978/0.022
0.941/0.043/0.016
8
2.0 0.876/0.029
0.979/0.021
0.958/0.016/0.027
3.0 0.816/0.029
0.979/0.021
0.944/0.031/0.025
5.0 0.722/0.031
0.979/0.021
0.922/0.052/0.026
9
2.0 0.926/0.021
0.976/0.024
0.959/0.030/0.011
3.0 0.846/0.022
0.976/0.024
0.942/0.046/0.011
5.0 0.747/0.021
0.976/0.024
0.925/0.061/0.013
1
249
Table 5.50 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of

triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied at the
same time to all inputs Xi , i = 1, . . . , 9
i
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
Singleton
Non-singleton
0.888/0.028
0.977/0.023
0.875/0.112/0.013
0.802/0.031
0.972/0.028
0.661/0.327/0.011
0.551/0.044
0.968/0.032
0.405/0.572/0.023
0.330/0.039
0.930/0.070
0.232/0.750/0.018
0.150/0.030
0.761/0.239
0.094/0.892/0.014
Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Wisconsin Breast Cancer

classication with triangular possibilistic fuzzication of the rst input with
triangular membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.24.
=0.5
1
0.5
0
10
10
10
10
10
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
=3
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.24 Generation of antecedents for Wisconsin Breast Cancer with possibilistic
triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid and
dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
The errors for interval fuzzy logic systems obtained via the triangular
possibilistic fuzzication of triangular membership functions in the Nonlinear
Dynamic Plant approximation are compared with the classical fuzzy logic
systems in Tables 5.51 and 5.52. In the case of X1 fuzzied, the interval fuzzy
logic systems outperform non-singleton systems, while the standard singleton
system performs slightly better than the interval systems. In the case of X2
fuzzied, the interval fuzzy system outperforms both the non-singleton and
singleton fuzzy logic systems, which is also the case of both inputs fuzzied
for high values of i , i = 1, 2.
250
Table 5.51 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with possibilistic triangular

applied to single inputs X1 and X2
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0815
0.0877
0.0833
0.0856
0.1057
0.0915
0.0904
0.1256
0.1014
0.1000
0.1470
0.1146
0.1131
0.1736
0.1309
0.1230
0.1962
0.1444
0.1362
0.2157
0.1580
0.0824
0.0895
0.1035
0.1167
0.1317
0.1501
0.1674
0.0836
0.0980
0.1138
0.1318
0.1463
0.1663
0.1841
0.0811
0.0877
0.0969
0.1068
0.1163
0.1293
0.1415
Table 5.52 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with possibilistic triangular

applied simultaneously to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0843
0.0932
0.0853
0.0962
0.1231
0.1002
0.1138
0.1555
0.1181
0.1320
0.1830
0.1356
0.1548
0.2166
0.1560
0.1742
0.2390
0.1705
0.1979
0.2616
0.1905
Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents for the Nonlinear Dynamic Plant

approximation with triangular possibilistic fuzzication of the rst input with
triangular membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.25.
The errors for interval fuzzy logic systems obtained via the triangular
possibilistic fuzzication of triangular membership functions in the Kinematics prediction are compared with the classical fuzzy logic systems in Tables
5.53 and 5.55. For most of the fuzzied inputs, interval fuzzy systems perform better than singleton and non-singleton systems; however, in the case of
X5 fuzzied, the singleton system outperforms slightly the interval systems.
Nevertheless, it can be generally noted that possibilistic interval fuzzy logic
=0.3
0.5
=0.4
0.5
=0.5
0.5
=0.6
0.5
0.5
=0.1
=0.2
0.5
=0.7
1
0.5
251
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
Fig. 5.25 Generation of Antecedents for Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation

with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and
additional triangular noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed
and dotted lines)
systems, if do not have the best performance, are always close to the better of
singleton and non-singleton systems. Exemplary interval fuzzy antecedents
for the Kinematics prediction with triangular possibilistic fuzzication of the
rst input with triangular membership functions are demonstrated in Fig.
5.26.
=0.1
1
0.5
=0.2
0
2
1
=0.5
0
2
1
=0.7
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0
2
1
0.5
0
2
1
=1
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
2
Fig. 5.26 Generation of antecedents for Kinematics predictions with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid
and dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted
lines)
252
Table 5.53 Kinematics predictions with possibilistic triangular fuzzication of

input X1
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
5.5.3.3

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0972
0.0972
0.0971
0.0973
0.0974
0.0973
0.0983
0.0984
0.0980
0.1001
0.0993
0.0989
0.1056
0.1004
0.1008
0.0972
0.0973
0.0991
0.1040
0.1279
0.0972
0.0975
0.0989
0.0998
0.1011
0.0972
0.0973
0.0983
0.0998
0.1051
0.0975
0.0985
0.1054
0.1132
0.1257
0.0980
0.1007
0.1131
0.1219
0.1333
0.0975
0.0988
0.1060
0.1126
0.1225
0.0973
0.0978
0.1023
0.1079
0.1228
0.0977
0.0991
0.1063
0.1114
0.1188
0.0974
0.0981
0.1024
0.1058
0.1130
Triangular Fuzzication via Fuzzy Rough Sets
The fuzzy-rough approach to triangular fuzzication of triangular antecedent

membership functions leads to triangular-valued fuzzy logic systems. In simulations, we assumed triangular shape of secondary membership functions in
order to make use of the uncertain method for classication or to apply the
hyperbolic approximation of nal defuzzication (3.167). If we omit principal
membership function of such triangular-valued systems, we obtain intervalvalued fuzzy systems, which are a result of the rough-fuzzy approach as in
the solution to the problem of discretization at the beginning of this chapter.
Classication rates for the triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of a triangular fuzzy logic system in the Iris-Setosa classication problem are collected
in Tables 5.56 and 5.57.
The resultant triangular-valued fuzzy logic systems are characterized by
the most rigorous approach to fuzzication. The misclassication rate is
nearly always zero as long as the initial singleton system is perfectly trained.
253

input X5
5
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
6
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
7
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
8
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0974
0.0983
0.0976
0.0981
0.1009
0.0987
0.1029
0.1130
0.1045
0.1078
0.1230
0.1098
0.1182
0.1372
0.1193
0.0974
0.0987
0.1088
0.1191
0.1413
0.0984
0.1017
0.1163
0.1263
0.1385
0.0976
0.0990
0.1073
0.1144
0.1253
0.0975
0.0987
0.1075
0.1184
0.1404
0.0985
0.1020
0.1159
0.1251
0.1362
0.0976
0.0992
0.1066
0.1132
0.1242
0.0975
0.0983
0.1061
0.1139
0.1336
0.0982
0.1000
0.1057
0.1093
0.1140
0.0976
0.0985
0.1023
0.1052
0.1119

triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied simultaneously to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0989
0.1021
0.0998
0.1048
0.1132
0.1077
0.1406
0.1535
0.1450
0.1790
0.1780
0.1700
0.2513
0.2070
0.2029
254
Table 5.56 Iris-Setosa with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced by
triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input Xi , i = 1, . . . , 4
1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
3
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
4
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Interval (rough fuzzy)
Triangular
Class./Misclass. Class./NoClass./Misclass. Class./Suggest./Confus./Misclass.
0.992/0.007
0.992/0.001/0.007
0.992/0.001/0.000/0.007
0.981/0.007
0.947/0.046/0.007
0.947/0.045/0.001/0.007
0.972/0.006
0.742/0.251/0.007
0.742/0.245/0.006/0.007
0.907/0.011
0.311/0.678/0.011
0.311/0.645/0.033/0.011
0.587/0.018
0.305/0.682/0.013
0.305/0.567/0.115/0.013
0.991/0.007
0.984/0.006
0.954/0.009
0.751/0.035
0.413/0.023
0.983/0.012/0.005
0.902/0.097/0.001
0.337/0.663/0.000
0.297/0.703/0.000
0.233/0.767/0.000
0.983/0.009/0.003/0.005
0.902/0.087/0.009/0.001
0.337/0.644/0.019/0.000
0.297/0.607/0.097/0.000
0.233/0.579/0.188/0.000
0.989/0.007
0.987/0.007
0.947/0.004
0.883/0.005
0.705/0.023
0.989/0.004/0.007
0.879/0.114/0.007
0.719/0.274/0.007
0.443/0.551/0.007
0.295/0.695/0.010
0.989/0.003/0.001/0.007
0.879/0.111/0.003/0.007
0.719/0.238/0.036/0.007
0.443/0.480/0.071/0.007
0.295/0.573/0.121/0.010
0.993/0.007
0.977/0.005
0.909/0.005
0.773/0.023
0.399/0.053
0.989/0.004/0.007
0.765/0.229/0.007
0.379/0.615/0.007
0.283/0.697/0.020
0.215/0.756/0.029
0.989/0.004/0.000/0.007
0.765/0.221/0.007/0.007
0.379/0.570/0.045/0.007
0.283/0.606/0.091/0.020
0.215/0.549/0.207/0.029
Table 5.57 Iris-Setosa with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced by
triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs
i
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Triangular
0.984/0.008
0.852/0.142/0.006
0.852/0.139/0.003/0.006
0.958/0.004
0.373/0.623/0.004
0.373/0.605/0.019/0.004
0.779/0.030
0.318/0.673/0.009
0.318/0.543/0.130/0.009
0.448/0.068
0.193/0.777/0.029
0.193/0.515/0.262/0.029
0.065/0.029
0.031/0.952/0.017
0.031/0.630/0.322/0.017
The same can not be held in relation to the singleton and non-singleton systems. Exemplary triangular fuzzy antecedents for the Iris-Setosa classication
with triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of the rst input with triangular
membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.27. It can be noticed that
255
upper and lower membership functions (dashed lines) form a much larger
area, called also a footprint, of uncertainty than it is formed by the possibilistic (or fuzzy rough approach in the sense of Dubois and Prade).
=0.2
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.27 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Setosa with triangular type-2 fuzzy
(fuzzy-rough) sets induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership
functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
in Tables 5.58 and 5.59. Comparing Tables 5.58 and 5.59 with 5.45 and 5.46,
respectively, we can observe that the number of misclassications for the
triangular-valued fuzzy systems created with fuzzy-rough sets of Nakamura
is never greater than the misclassication rate of the interval possibilistic
fuzzy systems. Noteworthy is also the fact that the number of correct suggestions is much higher than the confusion rate, while the singleton fuzzy system
has inactive rules and all interval systems can not perform any classication.
Exemplary triangular fuzzy antecedents for the Iris-Versicolor classication with triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of the rst input with triangular
membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.28.
in Tables 5.60 and 5.61.
Exemplary triangular fuzzy antecedents for the Iris-Virginica classication
with triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of the rst input with triangular
membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.29.
The results for triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of a triangular fuzzy
logic system in the Wisconsin Breast Cancer classication problem are
256
Table 5.58 Iris-Versicolor with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced
by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1
1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
3
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
4
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Triangular
0.958/0.042
0.947/0.021/0.031
0.947/0.011/0.011/0.031
0.951/0.041
0.846/0.153/0.001
0.846/0.113/0.039/0.001
0.923/0.044
0.576/0.421/0.003
0.576/0.379/0.042/0.003
0.853/0.046
0.469/0.528/0.003
0.469/0.465/0.063/0.003
0.552/0.032
0.475/0.520/0.005
0.475/0.371/0.149/0.005
0.958/0.040
0.957/0.039
0.920/0.043
0.755/0.053
0.378/0.038
0.928/0.059/0.013
0.686/0.313/0.001
0.483/0.512/0.005
0.479/0.511/0.009
0.479/0.517/0.003
0.928/0.032/0.027/0.013
0.686/0.275/0.039/0.001
0.483/0.466/0.046/0.005
0.479/0.417/0.095/0.009
0.479/0.305/0.212/0.003
0.959/0.040
0.955/0.040
0.922/0.039
0.841/0.051
0.631/0.093
0.953/0.008/0.039
0.910/0.067/0.023
0.771/0.227/0.003
0.467/0.533/0.000
0.436/0.563/0.001
0.953/0.007/0.001/0.039
0.910/0.050/0.017/0.023
0.771/0.190/0.037/0.003
0.467/0.482/0.051/0.000
0.436/0.407/0.157/0.001
0.951/0.045
0.917/0.065
0.791/0.123
0.564/0.208
0.359/0.101
0.844/0.152/0.004
0.513/0.485/0.001
0.275/0.725/0.000
0.165/0.835/0.000
0.115/0.885/0.000
0.844/0.111/0.041/0.004
0.513/0.422/0.063/0.001
0.275/0.602/0.123/0.000
0.165/0.585/0.249/0.000
0.115/0.601/0.283/0.000
Table 5.59 Iris-Versicolor with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced
by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs
i
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Triangular
0.952/0.043
0.591/0.409/0.001
0.591/0.367/0.042/0.001
0.889/0.070
0.389/0.607/0.005
0.389/0.541/0.066/0.005
0.709/0.134
0.119/0.877/0.004
0.119/0.740/0.137/0.004
0.351/0.188
0.040/0.950/0.010
0.040/0.653/0.275/0.010
0.041/0.041
0.003/0.995/0.003
0.003/0.640/0.334/0.003
257
Table 5.60 Iris-Virginica with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced
by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1
1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
3
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
4
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Triangular
0.973/0.019
0.958/0.028/0.014
0.958/0.021/0.006/0.014
0.963/0.019
0.897/0.098/0.005
0.897/0.079/0.019/0.005
0.929/0.025
0.702/0.292/0.006
0.702/0.263/0.029/0.006
0.829/0.041
0.503/0.495/0.002
0.503/0.425/0.070/0.002
0.506/0.039
0.478/0.514/0.008
0.478/0.389/0.125/0.008
0.968/0.023
0.949/0.031
0.909/0.046
0.733/0.075
0.392/0.045
0.932/0.056/0.012
0.828/0.164/0.008
0.541/0.450/0.009
0.485/0.506/0.009
0.443/0.547/0.010
0.932/0.039/0.011/0.012
0.828/0.135/0.023/0.008
0.541/0.401/0.042/0.009
0.485/0.385/0.115/0.009
0.443/0.325/0.216/0.010
0.968/0.021
0.959/0.025
0.891/0.043
0.805/0.065
0.596/0.105
0.952/0.038/0.010
0.893/0.101/0.007
0.736/0.251/0.013
0.490/0.486/0.024
0.479/0.478/0.043
0.952/0.020/0.011/0.010
0.893/0.075/0.019/0.007
0.736/0.213/0.032/0.013
0.490/0.420/0.059/0.024
0.479/0.350/0.121/0.043
0.921/0.032
0.859/0.050
0.767/0.097
0.667/0.149
0.447/0.180
0.905/0.089/0.007
0.710/0.281/0.009
0.551/0.421/0.028
0.526/0.419/0.055
0.541/0.337/0.122
0.905/0.062/0.026/0.007
0.710/0.237/0.044/0.009
0.551/0.347/0.075/0.028
0.526/0.321/0.099/0.055
0.541/0.227/0.110/0.122
Table 5.61 Iris-Virginica with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced
by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs
i
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
Singleton
Triangular
0.919/0.029
0.808/0.185/0.007
0.808/0.161/0.025/0.007
0.822/0.063
0.461/0.531/0.009
0.461/0.467/0.064/0.009
0.669/0.115
0.395/0.571/0.033
0.395/0.456/0.115/0.033
0.403/0.145
0.268/0.649/0.083
0.268/0.478/0.171/0.083
0.057/0.043
0.051/0.917/0.032
0.051/0.610/0.307/0.032
258
collected in Table 5.62. Note that subsequent fuzzications of the initial

triangular system are characterized by not a constant but ever-lower misclassication rates with increasing spread of the triangular fuzzication. The
triangular fuzzy-rough system is somewhat more precautionary than its interval possibilistic counterpart.
=0.2
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.28 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Versicolor with triangular type-2 fuzzy
=0.2
1
0.5
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
=0.5
1
0.5
0
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.29 Generation of antecedents for Iris-Virginica with triangular type-2 fuzzy
259
Table 5.62 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough)
sets induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and
additional triangular noise applied to single input X1
Singleton
Triangular
2.0 0.955/0.023
0.916/0.073/0.011
0.916/0.060/0.012/0.011
3.0 0.918/0.024
0.857/0.134/0.009
0.857/0.118/0.016/0.009
5.0 0.847/0.030
0.788/0.200/0.012
0.788/0.173/0.027/0.012
2
2.0 0.757/0.022
0.448/0.542/0.010
0.448/0.528/0.015/0.010
3.0 0.728/0.023
0.378/0.616/0.006
0.378/0.595/0.021/0.006
5.0 0.664/0.022
0.326/0.667/0.006
0.326/0.642/0.026/0.006
3
2.0 0.942/0.021
0.898/0.092/0.010
0.898/0.080/0.011/0.010
3.0 0.871/0.020
0.850/0.142/0.008
0.850/0.129/0.013/0.008
5.0 0.793/0.020
0.802/0.193/0.005
0.802/0.175/0.018/0.005
4
2.0 0.953/0.022
0.889/0.101/0.010
0.889/0.089/0.012/0.010
3.0 0.886/0.023
0.849/0.144/0.008
0.849/0.127/0.017/0.008
5.0 0.800/0.021
0.806/0.189/0.004
0.806/0.168/0.021/0.004
5
2.0 0.969/0.020
0.895/0.095/0.011
0.895/0.085/0.010/0.011
3.0 0.924/0.027
0.851/0.133/0.016
0.851/0.121/0.012/0.016
5.0 0.840/0.033
0.798/0.180/0.021
0.798/0.167/0.014/0.021
6
2.0 0.924/0.024
0.815/0.176/0.008
0.815/0.158/0.018/0.008
3.0 0.839/0.023
0.626/0.367/0.006
0.626/0.339/0.028/0.006
5.0 0.738/0.025
0.455/0.542/0.003
0.455/0.498/0.044/0.003
7
2.0 0.958/0.020
0.885/0.106/0.009
0.885/0.094/0.011/0.009
3.0 0.918/0.020
0.843/0.151/0.006
0.843/0.136/0.015/0.006
5.0 0.834/0.021
0.795/0.200/0.006
0.795/0.180/0.019/0.006
8
2.0 0.890/0.027
0.836/0.147/0.017
0.836/0.135/0.012/0.017
3.0 0.814/0.030
0.810/0.172/0.018
0.810/0.155/0.017/0.018
5.0 0.732/0.028
0.780/0.206/0.014
0.780/0.182/0.024/0.014
9
2.0 0.924/0.024
0.859/0.135/0.006
0.859/0.114/0.021/0.006
3.0 0.848/0.023
0.832/0.163/0.005
0.832/0.140/0.024/0.005
5.0 0.743/0.022
0.808/0.187/0.005
0.808/0.159/0.028/0.005
Exemplary triangular fuzzy antecedents for the Wisconsin Breast Cancer

classication with triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of the rst input with
triangular membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.30. It is interesting that when non of the rules of the singleton system is red because at
least one input value for each rule is mapped in the areas of zero values of the
260
Table 5.63 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough)
sets induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and
additional triangular noise applied to all inputs
Singleton
Triangular
2.0 0.545/0.042
0.371/0.611/0.018
0.371/0.536/0.075/0.018
3.0 0.327/0.040
0.174/0.809/0.017
0.174/0.655/0.154/0.017
5.0 0.144/0.031
0.078/0.907/0.015
0.078/0.658/0.249/0.015
i
=0.5
1
0.5
0
10
10
10
10
10
=1
1
0.5
0
=2
1
0.5
0
=3
1
0.5
0
=5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 5.30 Generation of antecedents for Wisconsin Breast Cancer with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular
membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1
(original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
antecedent functions, the triangular-valued fuzzy system is still able to re

some rules but with the use of upper membership grades. This causes that
the type-reduced set is no longer triangular but interval.
The errors for triangular-valued fuzzy logic systems obtained via the triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of triangular membership functions in the
Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation are compared with the basic fuzzy
logic system in Tables 5.64 and 5.65. It can be observed that the triangularvalued fuzzy system outperforms the two others when the corresponding interval rough-fuzzy system has better performance than the singleton system.
Otherwise, the performance of triangular-valued system is only close to the
singleton fuzzy system. Exemplary triangular fuzzy antecedents for the Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication
of the rst input with triangular membership functions are demonstrated in
Fig. 5.31.
261
Table 5.64 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with triangular type-2 fuzzy
functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Singleton Interval (rough fuzzy) Triangular

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.8131
0.8115
0.8111
0.8531
0.8656
0.8529
0.9155
0.9947
0.9390
1.0221
1.1910
1.0753
1.1495
1.4632
1.2718
1.2727
1.8067
1.4953
1.3443
2.2033
1.7372
0.8255
0.8955
1.0076
1.1444
1.2785
1.4772
1.6487
0.8194
0.8704
0.9522
1.0647
1.1776
1.3487
1.4989
0.8205
0.8726
0.9525
1.0520
1.1446
1.2788
1.3920
Table 5.65 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with triangular type-2 fuzzy
functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.8374
0.8446
0.8403
0.9601
0.9926
0.9664
1.1068
1.2385
1.1432
1.3106
1.5995
1.3975
1.5220
1.9604
1.6500
1.7325
2.4054
1.9175
1.9309
2.8651
2.2128
The errors for triangular-valued fuzzy logic systems obtained via the triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of triangular membership functions in the
Kinematics approximation are compared with the basic fuzzy logic system
in Tables 5.665.68. Although triangular-valued fuzzy systems have slightly
less performance than singleton systems for single inputs disturbed, their
performance is still much better than the one of interval fuzzy systems.
=0.3
0.5
=0.4
0.5
=0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
=0.1
=0.2
0.5
=0.6
1
0.5
=0.7
262
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1
0
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5

with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced by triangular fuzzication
of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single
input X1 (original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines, upper and
lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
Nevertheless, the fuzzy-rough set approach to triangular fuzzication outperforms all systems when disturbance of all inputs follows the triangular
distribution.
Exemplary triangular fuzzy antecedents for the Kinematics prediction with
triangular fuzzy-rough fuzzication of the rst input with triangular membership functions are demonstrated in Fig. 5.32.
5.5.3.4
Gaussian Fuzzication via Fuzzy Rough Sets
The fuzzy-rough approach to Gaussian fuzzication of triangular antecedent

membership functions leads to Gaussian-valued fuzzy logic systems. In simulations, we used the extended product t-norm based on the drasitic product
(4.140) as the Cartesian product and the approximation of bounded Gaussian
type-reduced sets given by (3.191). Considering classication, each Gaussian
secondary membership function is non-zero, and therefore, we cannot apply
the uncertain classication categories like certain and uncertain classications
and rejections in triangular-valued fuzzy logic systems. Consequently, we have
moderate benets of the Gaussian fuzzication in classication. Tables 5.69
and 5.74 show that dierences in classication accuracy of Gaussian-valued
and singleton systems are easily noticeable.
The results for Gaussian fuzzy-rough fuzzication of a triangular fuzzy
logic system in the Wisconsin Breast Cancer classication problem, collected
in Tables 5.75 and 5.76, conrm slightly better accuracy in classication.
263
Table 5.66 Kinematics predictions with triangular type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets
induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0972
0.0972
0.0972
0.0973
0.0975
0.0974
0.0983
0.1034
0.1006
0.1000
0.1151
0.1066
0.1051
0.1458
0.1229
0.0972
0.0973
0.0994
0.1042
0.1288
0.0972
0.0977
0.1130
0.1328
0.1682
0.0972
0.0975
0.1057
0.1159
0.1396
0.0975
0.0987
0.1055
0.1119
0.1253
0.0974
0.0988
0.1102
0.1265
0.1615
0.0974
0.0986
0.1064
0.1162
0.1378
0.0973
0.0978
0.1025
0.1089
0.1218
0.0974
0.0983
0.1115
0.1264
0.1597
0.0973
0.0980
0.1061
0.1151
0.1350
The errors for Gaussian-valued fuzzy logic systems obtained via the Gaussian fuzzy-rough fuzzication of triangular membership functions in the Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation are compared with the basic fuzzy logic
systems in Tables 5.77 and 5.78. In this case of approximation, the Gaussianfuzzy-rough fuzzy systems outperform the singleton ones.
The errors for Gaussian-valued fuzzy logic systems obtained via the Gaussian fuzzy-rough fuzzication of triangular membership functions in the Kinematics prediction are compared with the basic fuzzy logic systems in Tables
5.79 and 5.80. The Gaussian-fuzzy-rough fuzzy systems slightly outperform
the singleton systems in cases of single inputs fuzzied. When all inputs are
subject to Gaussian fuzzication, the dierence in eciency is even more
evident.
264
induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X5
5
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
6
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
7
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
8
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0973
0.0973
0.0973
0.0979
0.0978
0.0977
0.1032
0.1069
0.1039
0.1071
0.1190
0.1109
0.1177
0.1467
0.1275
0.0976
0.0987
0.1083
0.1194
0.1433
0.0973
0.0993
0.1190
0.1414
0.1780
0.0973
0.0986
0.1110
0.1254
0.1508
0.0975
0.0985
0.1073
0.1191
0.1395
0.0974
0.0991
0.1163
0.1414
0.1772
0.0974
0.0986
0.1095
0.1249
0.1498
0.0974
0.0984
0.1068
0.1154
0.1327
0.0976
0.0992
0.1142
0.1300
0.1631
0.0975
0.0985
0.1079
0.1176
0.1391
induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
Singleton Interval (rough-fuzzy) Triangular

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
0.0989
0.1087
0.1030
0.1048
0.1506
0.1255
0.1414
0.2587
0.1939
0.1795
0.2642
0.2058
0.2495
0.2652
0.2287
265
Table 5.69 Iris-Setosa with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy rough) sets induced by
Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and addional Gaussian
noise applied to single input Xi
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
0.989/0.007
0.984/0.007
0.957/0.003
0.835/0.019
0.603/0.018
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.989/0.007
0.988/0.007
0.971/0.007
0.887/0.021
0.723/0.020
0.989/0.007
0.984/0.007
0.922/0.017
0.703/0.043
0.440/0.032
0.989/0.007
0.986/0.007
0.933/0.017
0.753/0.043
0.541/0.032
0.991/0.007
0.981/0.007
0.932/0.005
0.848/0.009
0.711/0.023
0.993/0.007
0.987/0.007
0.947/0.007
0.877/0.011
0.783/0.025
0.993/0.006
0.977/0.006
0.878/0.007
0.695/0.034
0.415/0.062
0.993/0.007
0.977/0.007
0.885/0.009
0.732/0.037
0.507/0.067
Table 5.70 Iris-Setosa with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced by
Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional Gaussian
noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
0.983/0.007
0.959/0.005
0.730/0.023
0.361/0.066
0.078/0.032
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.985/0.007
0.969/0.006
0.771/0.028
0.455/0.093
0.164/0.073
266
Table 5.71 Iris-Versicolor with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy rough) sets induced
by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and addional Gaussian
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
0.958/0.041
0.951/0.041
0.911/0.046
0.797/0.048
0.601/0.037
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.959/0.041
0.957/0.041
0.945/0.045
0.888/0.047
0.781/0.035
0.961/0.039
0.950/0.041
0.893/0.045
0.678/0.059
0.415/0.040
0.961/0.039
0.958/0.040
0.933/0.045
0.827/0.061
0.686/0.040
0.958/0.040
0.954/0.040
0.903/0.043
0.803/0.060
0.646/0.087
0.960/0.040
0.960/0.040
0.949/0.042
0.909/0.060
0.788/0.087
0.950/0.047
0.922/0.061
0.745/0.147
0.526/0.187
0.364/0.135
0.950/0.047
0.923/0.061
0.751/0.144
0.533/0.187
0.371/0.137
Table 5.72 Iris-Versicolor with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced
by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
0.947/0.044
0.898/0.063
0.598/0.174
0.240/0.165
0.060/0.049
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.950/0.044
0.913/0.064
0.643/0.183
0.323/0.203
0.129/0.087
267
Table 5.73 Iris-Virginica with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy rough) sets induced by
Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and addional Gaussian
1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
0.971/0.021
0.968/0.019
0.911/0.027
0.797/0.040
0.560/0.047
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.977/0.021
0.978/0.019
0.959/0.028
0.893/0.041
0.745/0.048
0.964/0.025
0.959/0.027
0.875/0.052
0.663/0.058
0.413/0.047
0.969/0.025
0.967/0.027
0.915/0.052
0.779/0.061
0.617/0.051
0.967/0.024
0.950/0.029
0.906/0.039
0.777/0.076
0.625/0.089
0.969/0.024
0.962/0.030
0.949/0.039
0.889/0.076
0.800/0.094
0.919/0.033
0.859/0.048
0.753/0.107
0.613/0.174
0.443/0.195
0.965/0.033
0.946/0.049
0.876/0.108
0.761/0.179
0.645/0.200
Table 5.74 Iris-Virginica with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced
by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
0.915/0.031
0.832/0.057
0.614/0.126
0.289/0.127
0.071/0.049
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.961/0.031
0.917/0.057
0.754/0.128
0.467/0.170
0.222/0.140
268
Table 5.75 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy rough)
sets induced by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and addional Gaussian noise applied to single input Xi
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
1.0 0.938/0.023
2.0 0.849/0.028
3.0 0.758/0.032
2
1.0 0.737/0.023
2.0 0.679/0.022
3.0 0.622/0.019
3
1.0 0.925/0.019
2.0 0.808/0.020
3.0 0.723/0.019
4
1.0 0.929/0.022
2.0 0.813/0.023
3.0 0.732/0.023
5
1.0 0.948/0.025
2.0 0.848/0.036
3.0 0.777/0.035
6
1.0 0.891/0.025
2.0 0.757/0.027
3.0 0.682/0.029
7
1.0 0.937/0.020
2.0 0.849/0.020
3.0 0.766/0.022
8
1.0 0.856/0.030
2.0 0.744/0.028
3.0 0.673/0.027
9
1.0 0.899/0.023
2.0 0.750/0.020
3.0 0.687/0.018
1
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.971/0.023
0.949/0.029
0.928/0.033
0.750/0.023
0.710/0.023
0.681/0.021
0.975/0.020
0.954/0.021
0.935/0.020
0.968/0.023
0.945/0.023
0.926/0.024
0.974/0.025
0.955/0.036
0.940/0.035
0.903/0.025
0.791/0.027
0.733/0.029
0.971/0.020
0.950/0.020
0.935/0.022
0.957/0.030
0.936/0.029
0.917/0.028
0.965/0.023
0.933/0.021
0.922/0.019
269
Table 5.76 Wisconsin Breast Cancer with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough)
sets induced by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
Singleton
Class./Misclass.
1.0 0.455/0.041
2.0 0.170/0.029
3.0 0.067/0.018
i
Gaussian
Class./Misclass.
0.619/0.063
0.304/0.065
0.161/0.050
Table 5.77 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy
(fuzzy-rough) sets induced by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to single input X1
1
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
2
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Singleton
RMSE
0.0826
0.0879
0.1082
0.1434
0.1718
0.2090
Gaussian
RMSE
0.0803
0.0828
0.1022
0.1388
0.1701
0.2050
0.0831
0.0957
0.1312
0.1707
0.2051
0.2437
0.0810
0.0912
0.1229
0.1589
0.1907
0.2251
Table 5.78 Nonlinear Dynamic Plant approximation with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy
(fuzzy-rough) sets induced by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Singleton
RMSE
0.0852
0.1023
0.1524
0.2017
0.2559
0.3116
Gaussian
RMSE
0.0817
0.0964
0.1444
0.1914
0.2416
0.2962
270
Table 5.79 Kinematics approximation with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy rough)
sets induced by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and addional Gaussian noise applied to single input Xi
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
Singleton
RMSE
0.0975
0.0984
0.1006
0.1158
Gaussian
RMSE
0.0974
0.0984
0.1006
0.1143
0.0975
0.0998
0.1079
0.1552
0.0975
0.0998
0.1076
0.1486
0.0991
0.1052
0.1140
0.1365
0.0991
0.1052
0.1140
0.1354
0.0982
0.1027
0.1106
0.1336
0.0982
0.1027
0.1106
0.1330
0.0987
0.1028
0.1088
0.1266
0.0987
0.1030
0.1090
0.1263
0.0996
0.1076
0.1210
0.1627
0.0997
0.1080
0.1217
0.1629
0.0996
0.1075
0.1206
0.1601
0.0996
0.1075
0.1204
0.1556
0.0993
0.1053
0.1163
0.1475
0.0992
0.1053
0.1164
0.1447
271
=0.1
1
0.5
=0.2
0
2
1
=0.5
=0.7
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0
2
1
0.5
0
2
1
0.5
0
2
1
=1
1.5
0.5
0
2
Fig. 5.32 Generation of antecedents for Kinematics predictions with triangular

type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy-rough) sets induced by triangular fuzzication of triangular
membership functions and additional triangular noise applied to single input X1
(original membership functions - solid and dot-dashed lines, upper and lower membership functions - dashed and dotted lines)
Table 5.80 Kinematics approximation with Gaussian type-2 fuzzy (fuzzy rough)
sets induced by Gaussian fuzzication of triangular membership functions and additional Gaussian noise applied to all inputs
i
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
Singleton
RMSE
0.1082
0.1418
0.1916
0.3079
Gaussian
RMSE
0.1088
0.1421
0.1891
0.2954
5.5.4 Summary
This chapter has provided a few methods to generate membership
uncertainty:
incomplete and discrete information reasoning schema based on rough
fuzzy sets;
nonlinear tting, which draws a principal membership function and expands upper and lower membership functions over data partitioned by the
fuzzy C-means algorithm, and to forms, basing on three of this functions,
triangular secondaries (or interval, omitting the principal function);
multiperson decision making, which generates triangular secondary memberships;
generalized fuzzication performed either via possibility and necessity
measures or by fuzzy-rough sets.
272
The experiments have demonstrated the potential of fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic

systems in connection with specic methods of generation of membership
uncertainty.
In the case of classication, the specicity of fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems allow us for an analysis on a lower level of classication if only we make
use of the interval outputs of the system. Namely, we obtain more groups of
classied objects with uncertain classications (or even with uncertain rejections for triangular-valued fuzzy systems) rather than hard classication. As
a result we obtain more classication rates in addition to classication and
misclassication rates, i.e., the no-classication rate, when an interval system
is not decided, and suggestions rates, when a triangular-valued fuzzy system
performs correct classication uncertainly or confusion rates, otherwise. This
novel interpretation of interval classication allows the fuzzy-valued systems
to obtain a number of misclassication tending to 0, at the expense of the
correct-classication rate. Such interpretation can help in the real classication systems such as the medical diagnosis, when uncertain classication
cases may require some supplemented tests or even may be again directed to
a thorough examination.
When an interval-valued fuzzy classier is a result of discretization of
inputs, the number of misclassications should be zero for all grids of discretization; however, if intervals of discretization increase, no-classication
rate becomes higher, which means less certainty about the decision. The
same applies to triangular-valued fuzzy classiers designed with fuzzy-rough
fuzzication of inputs, since -cuts of a fuzzy rough set in the sense of Nakamura are fuzzy-rough sets. Theoretically, the zero misclassication rate is
guaranteed as long the initial fuzzy logic system performs no misclassication when applied to not corrupted or discretized data. The same zero misclassication rate cannot be guaranteed in interval fuzzy classiers based on
possibilistic view on fuzzication; however, the classication results for possibilistic fuzzy systems show better performance in terms of misclassication
than singleton and classical non-singleton systems. In terms of classication
rate, better performance is a domain of non-singleton systems. It seems as
if classication using non-singleton systems were too optimistic, while the
interval possibilistic classication seems to be skeptical with frequent hesitation. Gaussian fuzzy-rough fuzzication brings moderate benets, since
Gaussian secondary membership functions are non-zero, and the uncertain
classication categories cannot be applied. Simulations have shown that differences in classication accuracy of Gaussian-valued and singleton systems
are unnoticeable, even when all inputs are subject to fuzzication.
In the membership tting approach, interval fuzzy systems give the lowest number of incorrect classications and the best of correct classication rate is still a domain of the classical fuzzy logic. On the other hand,
triangular-valued fuzzy logic systems performs not worse and sometimes even
signicantly better than interval and classical fuzzy systems. In the case of
aggregation of membership functions from multiple experts, the triangular
273
approach for modeling membership uncertainties has given quite dierent results from the interval and the classical fuzzy approach as long as there were
signicant disagreement in experts designs. Since in this triangular approach
more information about the expert opinions have been used, it can be concluded that triangular-valued fuzzy logic systems are more reliable than the
interval and standard fuzzy logic systems as long as membership uncertainty
of particular rules is not uniform or not proportional. In summary, incorporating a principal fuzzy logic subsystem into an interval fuzzy classier
somehow guarantees an improved or at least not worsened performance of
the composed triangular-valued fuzzy system over its components.
In prediction and approximation, fuzzy-valued fuzzy systems can be compared with other classical fuzzy systems only considering their nal output
responses in terms of the root mean square error. It has been demonstrated
experimentally that this error for rough-fuzzy systems is usually lower than
the error of the basic systems for higher discretization intervals of inputs.
Also for greater values of standard deviation, the error rate of the possibilistic interval fuzzy systems is especially lower than the error of the singleton
and non-singleton systems. In the case of possibilistic fuzzication, interval
fuzzy systems perform better than singleton and non-singleton systems for
most of the fuzzied inputs; however, in several cases, singleton systems outperform slightly interval systems. Nevertheless, it can be generally found that
possibilistic interval fuzzy logic systems, if they do not have the best performance, are always close to the better accuracy of singleton and non-singleton
systems. In the case of fuzzy-rough approach to fuzzication, a triangularvalued fuzzy system usually outperforms both interval and singleton systems
when the corresponding interval rough fuzzy systems has better performance
than the singleton system. Otherwise, the performance of triangular-valued
system is only close to the singleton fuzzy system. A detailed study should be
devoted to the nature of this phenomenon. Gaussian-fuzzy-rough fuzzy systems either slightly outperform the singleton systems or their performance
is very similar. Only when all inputs are subject to Gaussian fuzzication,
eciency of Gaussian-valued fuzzy systems is even more evident.
Summarizing, all fuzzy-valued approaches studied in this chapter have the
ability to handle the uncertainty about the input features or the discrepancy about the membership independent designs. Moreover, the use of the
intermediate outputs (just before the nal defuzzication) could be a break
out in elaborating the real rst-sieve classication systems in such areas as
medical diagnosis, 3D face recognition, intelligent information retrieval or in
other cases when there is no real time regime, and the system can subject
some instances to an additional analysis. Systems using uncertain classication ranks and which the percentage of incorrect classications tends to
zero are more reliable than often misclassifying binary classiers. The initial
experimental results show the potential of general and interval fuzzy-valued
fuzzy logic systems and are especially promising in adjusting classiers to
zero misclassications.
References
Bartczuk, L
., Rutkowska, D.: Type-2 Fuzzy Decision Trees. In: Rutkowski, L.,
Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2008. LNCS (LNAI),
vol. 5097, pp. 197206. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Bartczuk, L
., Rutkowska, D.: Medical Diagnosis with Type-2 Fuzzy Decision Trees.
In: Kacki, E., Rudnicki, M., Stempczy
nska, J. (eds.) Computers in Medical Activity. Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing (AISC 2009), vol. 65, pp.
Bartczuk, L
., Dziwi
nski, P., Starczewski, J.T.: New Method for Generation Type2 Fuzzy Partition for FDT. In: Rutkowski, L., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R.,
Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2010 Part-I. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6113,
pp. 275280. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Bustince, H.: Indicator of inclusion grade for interval-valued fuzzy sets. application to approximate reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. International
Castillo, O., Melin, P.: Type-2 fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Studies in
Fuzzines and Soft Computing, vol. 223. Springer (2008)
Castillo, O., Aguilar, L., Cazarez-Castro, N., Boucherit, M.: Application of type-2
fuzzy logic controller to an induction motor drive with seven-level diode-clamped
inverter and controlled infeed. Electrical Engineering 90(5), 347359 (2008)
Celikyilmaz, A., T
urksen, I.B.: A type 2 fuzzy c-regression method. In: Magdalena,
L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., Verdegay, J.L. (eds.) Proc. of IPMU 2008, Torremolinos
(Malaga), pp. 12901295 (2008)
Choi, B.I., Rhee, F.C.H.: Interval type-2 fuzzy membership function generation
methods for pattern recognition. Information Sciences 179, 21022122 (2009)
DELVE, Data for evaluating learning in valid experiments (2011),
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/delve/
Dorohonceanu, B.: Comparing fuzzy numbers, algorithm alley. Dr Dobbs Journal 343, 3845 (2002)
Dziwi
nski, P., Rutkowska, D.: Algorithm for Generating Fuzzy Rules for WWW
Document Classication. In: Rutkowski, L., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A.,
Zurada,
J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4029, pp. 11111119.
References
275
Dziwi
nski, P., Rutkowska, D.: Ant Focused Crawling Algorithm. In: Rutkowski, L.,
Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2008. LNCS (LNAI),
vol. 5097, pp. 10181028. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Dziwi
nski, P., Starczewski, J.T., Bartczuk, L
.: New Linguistic Hedges in Construction of Interval Type-2 FLS. In: Rutkowski, L., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R.,
Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2010 Part-I. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6114,
pp. 445450. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Fisher, R.: The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annual Eugenics Part II (7), 179188 (1936)
Frank, A., Asuncion, A.: UCI machine learning repository (2010),
http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
Hagras, H.A.: A hierarchical type-2 fuzzy logic control architecture for autonomous
robots. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 12(4), 524539 (2004)
Hirota, K., Pedrycz, W.: Matching fuzzy quantities. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics 21(6), 908914 (1991)
Hwang, C., Rhee, F.C.H.: Uncertain fuzzy clustering: interval type-2 fuzzy approach
to c-means. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15, 107120 (2007)
Kacprzyk, J., Yager, R.: Linguistic summaries of data using fuzzy logic. Int. J. of
General Systems 30, 33154 (2001)
Kacprzyk, J., Zadrozny, S.: Linguistic database summaries and their protoforms:
toward natural language based knowledge discovery tools. Information Sciences 173, 281304 (2005)
Kacprzyk, J., Yager, R., Zadrozny, S.: A fuzzy logic based approach to linguistic
summaries of databases. Int. J. of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science 10, 813834 (2000)
Kacprzyk, J., Wilbik, A., Zadrozny, S.: Linguistic summaries of time series via a
quantier based aggregation using the sugeno integral. In: Proc. IEEE-FUZZ
2006, Vancouver, BC, pp. 36103616 (2006)
Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Applications of type-2 fuzzy logic systems to forecasting of time series. Information Sciences 120, 98111 (1999)
Klir, G.J., Yuan, B.: Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: Theory and applications. Prentice
Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1995)
Lawry, J.: An alternative to compuing with words. Int. J. of Uncertainty, Fuzziness
and Knowledge-Based Systems 9, 316 (2001)
Lawry, J., G. Shanahan, J., L. Ralescu, A. (eds.): Modelling with Words. LNCS,
vol. 2873. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Liu, F., Mendel, J.M.: Encoding words into interval type-2 fuzzy sets using an
interval approach. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 16(6), 15031521 (2008)
Mangasarian, O., Wolberg, W.: Cancer diagnosis via linear programming. SIAM
News 23(5), 118 (1990)
Mendel, J.M.: Computing with words, when words can mean dierent things to
dierent people. In: Proceedings of the International ICSC Congress on Computational Intelligence Methods and Applications (1999)
276
References
Mendel, J.M.: An architecture for making judgments using computing with words.
Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 12(3), 325335 (2002)
Mendel, J.M.: Computing with words and its relationships with fuzzistics. Information Sciences 177(4), 9881006 (2007a)
Mendel, J.M.: Computing with words: Zadeh, turing, popper and occam. IEEE
Computational Intelligence Magazine 2, 1017 (2007b)
Mitchell, H.: Pattern recognition using type-ii fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 170,
409418 (2005)
Mouzouris, G.C., Mendel, J.M.: Nonsingleton fuzzy logic systems: theory and application. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 5(1), 5671 (1997)
(1988)
Eng. 20(9), 12391253 (2008)
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern B 39 (2009)
Ozkan, I., T
urksen, I.B.: Entropy assessment for type-2 fuzziness. In: Proc. FUZZIEEE, Budapest, vol. 2, pp. 11111115 (2004)
Ozkan, I., T
urksen, I.B.: Upper and lower values for the level of fuzziness in FCM.
Information Sciences 177, 51435152 (2007)
Rutkowska, D., Nowicki, R., Rutkowski, L.: Singleton and non-singleton fuzzy systems with nonparametric defuzzication. In: Computational Intelligence and Application, pp. 292301. Springer (1999)
Starczewski, J.T.: On Defuzzication of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets. In: Rutkowski,
L., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) Articial Intelligence and
Soft Computing ICAISC 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5097, pp. 333340. Springer,
Heidelberg (2008)
Starczewski, J.T., Scherer, R., Korytkowski, M., Nowicki, R.: Modular Type-2
Neuro-Fuzzy Systems. In: Wyrzykowski, R., Dongarra, J., Karczewski, K., Wasniewski, J. (eds.) PPAM 2007 Part-I. LNCS (LONAI), vol. 4967, pp. 570578.
Starczewski, J.T., Bartczuk, L
., Dziwi
nski, P., Marvuglia, A.: Learning Methods for
Type-2 FLS Based on FCM. In: Rutkowski, L., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R.,
Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6113, pp. 224231.
Sutherland, F.: Random house websters college thesaurus (1998)
Torres, P., Sez, D.: Type-2 fuzzy logic identication applied to the modeling of a
robot hand. In: Proc. FUZZ-IEEE 2008, Hong Kong (2008)
T
urksen, I.B.: Interval valued fuzzy sets based on normal forms. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 20, 191210 (1986)
T
urksen, I.B., Resconi, G.: Fuzzy truthoods based on an additive semantic measure
with break of global symmetry in modal logic. Int. J. of Fuzzy Systems 8(1), 14
38 (2006)
Uncu, O., T
90106 (2007)
References
277
Wang, L., Yen, J.: Extracting fuzzy rules for system modeling using a hybrid of genetic algorithms and kalman lter. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 101, 353362 (1999)
Wang, P. (ed.): Computing With Words. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (2001)
Wu, D., Mendel, J.M.: Aggregation using the linguistic weighted average and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15(6), 11451161
(2007a)
Wu, D., Mendel, J.M.: Uncertainty measures for interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 177(23), 53785393 (2007b)
Wu, D., Mendel, J.M.: A vector similarity measure for linguistic approximation:
Interval type-2 and type-1 fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 178, 381402 (2008)
Zadeh, L.: Fuzzy logic = computing with words. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 4, 103111 (1996)
Zadeh, L.: From computing with numbers to computing with wordsfrom manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions. IEEE Trans. Circuits
SystI: Fundam Theory Appl. 4, 105119 (1999)
Zadeh, L., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.): Computing With Words in Information/Intelligent
Systems 1 & 2. Physica-Verlag, New York (1999)
Chapter 6
Designing Uncertain Fuzzy Logic

Systems
Abstract. This chapter provides a complete methodology for construction

of uncertain fuzzy logic systems. The methodology comprises all techniques
delivered by this book including: rough-fuzzy discretization of input domains
(as well as imputation of missing inputs), possibilistic and fuzzy-rough fuzzication of inputs, fusion of multiple expert designs. Besides, this chapter
answers the question whether it is worth to make use of fuzzy-valued fuzzy
logic systems instead of ordinary crisp-valued fuzzy systems at the cost of
the complexity. In response, two methods for the approximation of intervalvalued fuzzy systems by ordinary fuzzy logic systems are presented. In the
rst approximation the interval-valued fuzzy system is assumed to perform
the extended minimum Cartesian product and conjunction reasoning, and
to use uniform uncertainty of membership functions. In the latter approximation the interval system is assumed to perform the algebraic Cartesian
product and employ lower membership functions proportional to their upper counterparts. The chapter is complemented by a comparative analysis
of the interval and non-interval fuzzy systems and a brief discussion about
generalization of this analysis to general fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems.
6.1 Complete Methodology of Designing Uncertain

Fuzzy Logic Systems
The main objective of this chapter is to provide a unied methodology for
designers of decision systems based on fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets. This methodology includes innovative solutions to the following problems:
generation of membership uncertainty for fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets,

reasoning with discretized or missing attributes,
reasoning with fuzzied attributes,
collection of multiple system designs,
reduction of computational complexity of fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems.
springerlink.com
280
6 Designing Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems
As a result, system designers receive the support in the following project

activities:
in the adaptation of a fuzzy logic system to deal with discretized or missing
input values using rough-fuzzy sets,
in the adaptation of a fuzzy logic system to handle fuzzied input values
using either possibility and necessity measures of fuzzy sets or fuzzy-rough
sets,
in the fusion of membership functions designs from multiple expert,
in the tuning of parameters for secondary membership functions (interval,
triangular, Gaussian and asymmetric Gaussian),
and optionally, in the replacing fuzzy-valued fuzzy systems by approximate
ordinary fuzzy logic systems with a small loss of accuracy.
The overall concept of this methodology is presented in Fig. 6.1.
6.1.1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Logic Systems

Recall the discussion from Chapt. 1, which was focused on two main sources
of uncertainty: semantic ambiguity and vagueness. Generally, semantic ambiguity is usually handled by type-2 fuzzy sets. Their use should follow from
limited perception or lack of knowledge about the exact membership function. Therefore, the tting method for membership uncertainties, described
in Sect. 5.3, appears to be the most natural way of obtaining secondary membership functions; however, this method is computationally expensive. The
shape of secondary membership functions depends only on a form of the
assumed tting function.
Vagueness in object description may occur in two situations: when the
description of an object is imprecise or incomplete, or when we try to describe
an object with an insucient number of attributes. In the rst situation,
possibility theory, with its two measures of certainty applied to fuzzy sets,
comes to help. Poor knowledge about the attribute values translates into a
fuzzy system in the form fuzzication. In the latter situation, we have limited
ability to classify objects due to lack of attributes, and this we can handle
in fuzzy systems by rough-fuzzy antecedent sets. In both cases, we obtain
interval-valued structures of fuzzy logic systems.
If we apply fuzzied rough partitioning to fuzzy antecedent sets, i.e.,
we construct Nakamuras fuzzy-rough sets, basically we balance between a
discrete attribute and its more certain value. In this approach, a general
fuzzy-valued fuzzy system rather than interval one is obtained. Triangular or
Gaussian secondary membership functions can be extremely helpful. Figure
6.2 shows adaptation of a fuzzy system to uncertain data.
6.1 Complete Methodology of Designing Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems
281
START:
BASIC FLS GIVEN
MEASUREMENT:
PERFORMANCE
ACCURACY
A1
ANY INPUT SIGNAL

IS MISSING?
DIFFERENCE
IN ACCURACY A2 A1
ACCEPTABLE?
ANY INPUT SIGNAL

IS CORRUPTED?
Y
<<PARALLEL MODE>>
REDUCTION
OF CONSEQUENTS TO
SINGLETONS
N
N
POSSIBILISTIC
COMPUTATION
IS TRIANGULAR
BASIC FLS?
Y
FITTING TO UNCERTAINTY
IN MEMBERSHIPS
or
FUSION OF MULTIPLE
SYSTEM DESIGNS
WHAT TYPE OF
CORRUPTION
TRIANGULAR
OR GAUSSIAN
INTERVAL
ROUGH FUZZY
COMPUTATION
CASE OF:
TRIANGULAR CORRUPT. FUZZY ROUGH
COMPUTATION
MEASUREMENT:
PERFORMANCE
ACCURACY
A3
N
DIFFERENCE
IN ACCURACY A3 A2
ACCEPTABLE?
ORDER-REDUCTION TO
NON-UNCERTAIN FLS
CASE OF:
GAUSSIAN CORRUPT.
CONSTRUCTION
OF INTERVALVALUED FLS
MEASUREMENT:
PERFORMANCE
ACCURACY
A2interval
CONSTRUCTION
TO TRIANGULARVALUED FLS
CONSTRUCTION
TO (ASYMMETRIC) GAUSSIANVALUED FLS
MEASUREMENT:
PERFORMANCE
ACCURACY
A2fuzzyVal
MEASUREMENT:
PERFORMANCE
ACCURACY
A4
DIFFERENCE
IN ACCURACY A4 A3
ACCEPTABLE?
SELECTION OF SYSTEM
A2 = max (A2interval, A2fuzzyVal)
STOP
Fig. 6.1 Methodology of designing uncertain fuzzy logic systems
N
RECOVERY
OF PREVIOUS
SYSTEM STRUCTURE
282
fusion
of
multiple
designs
Fuzzy Logic System
missing
corrupted
quotient
discretization
corrupted
adaptation
triangular
disturbance
Gaussian
disturbance
Object
Fig. 6.2 Adaptation of FLS model to various forms of corrutption of inputs
6.1.2 Fusion of Multiple System Designs

If assignments of membership functions given by experts are completely different, the most radical opinions may falsify the reasoning process. Usually in
such cases, we may erase the two most outstanding assignments, but we lose
some the experts opinions. If there was only three expert opinions, we would
be forced to make a decision basing on only one of them. Nevertheless, the
extreme opinions, even if they are the least reliable, are still signicant in the
reasoning process. It is necessary to set up an aggregate of all the opinions
about a membership function. Simple averaging of membership functions,
which leads to the type-1 fuzzy logic, is the most trivial kind of such fusion.
Case studies of evaluation processes, delivered by Sect. 5.2, have conrmed
the validity type-2 fuzzy logic systems as aggregates of independent expert
designs especially if some of the experts present a completely dierent opinion
than the others [Wu and Mendel 2007].
6.2 Reduction of Computational Complexity

Basically, we have presented two methods for reduction of computational
complexity of fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems. The rst method has arisen
from the possibility of replacing discrete secondary membership grades by
283
parametrized versions of secondary membership functions of a certain shape,

like Gaussian or triangular. The latter method comes from the observation
that some interval-valued fuzzy systems can be simplied without loss of
knowledge about a modeled problem.
The condition for the transformation of fuzzy-valued fuzzy logic systems
to adaptive network fuzzy inference systems is to preserve the shape of the
secondary membership function. Only in this case, fuzzied-memberships of
fuzzy sets can be represented parametrically. In Chapt. 2, we have investigated the property of preserving shapes for all obtained analytical expressions
for extended t-norms, t-conorms and some extended implications. In the cases
of absence of this property, some approximations of the analytical formulae
can be applied to adaptive systems. Moreover, we have introduced forms of
axiomatic t-norms that preserve the shape of fuzzy truth intervals, i.e. which
is closed on particular classes of fuzzy truth intervals.
Actually, approximations of general fuzzy-valued fuzzy systems arise in an
informal extension of Lemma 6.1. In our comparative study What diers
type-2 FLS from Type-1 FLS? , we have noted that in most of applications, interval-valued fuzzy systems give output values very close to that of
ordinary fuzzy system. On the background of these considerations, an innovative method reduction of interval uncertainty in fuzzy logic systems will be
proposed in the next section.
6.2.1 Approximations of Interval-Valued Fuzzy Logic

Systems
Quite often noisy training data are acknowledged as a source of uncertainty.
Commonly, system designers heuristically translate input uncertainties into
interval antecedent membership functions. Usually, they equip all antecedents
with lower membership functions as a scaled versions of normal upper membership functions or they simply use equal intervals of memberships, with
either the algebraic product or the minimum reasoning mechanism. The new
developments in this subject [Starczewski 2009, 2008] prove that such approaches discards the potential of interval-valued and fuzzy-valued fuzzy
sets. Also Birkin and Garibaldi have conrmed that the type-1 and interval type-2 controllers cannot be statistically distinguished from each other in
a micro-robot context [Birkin and Garibaldi 2009]. Recently, Tao et al. have
approximated an interval type-2 fuzzy controller using a fuzzy ratio switching type-1 fuzzy controller to avoid the complex type-reduction process [Tao
et al 2011]. We are able to demonstrate that there exist an ordinary fuzzy
logic system which is equivalent to an interval-valued fuzzy logic systems in
particular cases. In general, we can study these equivalent systems in the context of approximations of the interval-valued fuzzy logic systems. The uniform
284

(b)
(a)
1
1
L2
L1
Fig. 6.3 Examples of arithmetic mean approximation of antecedents with uniform

intervals of uncertainty: (a) clipped interval-valued triangular fuzzy set, (b) intervalvalued Gaussian fuzzy set
uncertainty of memberships in a trained interval-valued fuzzy logic system

acts a supposition that this system may be reduced to the corresponding
crisp-valued fuzzy system. The conveyance of this analysis on general fuzzyvalued fuzzy logic systems are not straightforward. However, some insights
may arise from logical inclinations.
6.2.1.1
Arithmetic Mean Approximation for Uniform

Uncertainties and the Minimum Cartesian Product
This approximation of interval-valued fuzzy logic systems to their meanvalued counterparts is taken from [Starczewski 2009, 2008, 2004]. Consider
an interval-valued fuzzy logic system with all antecedents having uniform intervals of uncertainty, i.e., when the upper and lower membership functions
are almost entirely equidistant except the parts clipped by x axis, as it is
shown in Fig. 6.3. Let us denote the distance between the upper and the
lower membership functions at central points of the interval-valued fuzzy set
by , and refer to it as an interval of uncertainty.
Using singleton fuzzication, the minimum Cartesian product of antecedents leads to the lower ring grade dependent on the upper ring grade,
i.e.,
n
hk = min k,i ,
i=1
n

hk = min max 0, k,i
i=1

n
= max 0, min k,i
i=1

= max 0, hk .
(6.1)
(6.2)
(6.3)
(6.4)
285
The proposed approximation method substitutes interval-valued antecedents

by the arithmetic means of upper and lower membership functions, i.e.,
k,i =
k,i + k,i
2
(6.5)
or more precisely,

ki
k,i
k,i
2
if k,i (, 1]
if k,i (0, )

k,i
= max
, k,i
.
2
2
(6.6)
(6.7)
Finally, ring grades of the approximate fuzzy logic system can be calculated
as

n
k,i
, k,i )
(6.8)
hk = min max(
i=1
2
2

n k,i
n
= max min
, min k,i
(6.9)
i=1 2
i=1
2

1
hk , hk
.
(6.10)
= max
2
2
To begin with, let us assume the singleton form of consequents of the
interval-valued fuzzy logic system, i.e., singletons in the primary output domain and possibly interval in the secondary domain of memberships. Figure
6.4 presents nal output surfaces in the case of two interval-valued conclusions. Further, we assume that all consequents have the same intervals of
uncertainty as the antecedent have, and we use the minimum reasoning rule.
In the case of normal singletons also as the secondary membership functions, we can use any of t-norms in the reasoning process. In the sequel, we
compare the overall output of the interval-valued fuzzy logic system to the
approximate fuzzy system for various combinations of multiple red rules.
Note that singleton inputs may be projected on interval fuzzy antecedents
without clipping the lower membership function, which is depicted by line L1
in Fig. 6.3 (a) and is also true for all possible projections of the interval-valued
membership function of part (b) of this gure. The need of approximation
arises in handling clipped lower membership functions, which is indicated by
projection line L2 of subgure (a).
Single Fired Rule
In the case of a single red rule, both interval-valued fuzzy logic system and
its approximation give the same output values. Trivially,
286
yI =
1
(y1 + y1 ) = y1 = yA .
2
(6.11)
Two Fired Rules: Equivalence of an Interval-Valued Fuzzy Logic System

and the Mean-Approximate Fuzzy System
Usually multiple fuzzy rules are red in a fuzzy logic system. Even though the
triangular or trapezoidal orthogonal fuzzy partition is used to cover the input
domain, we still have 2N red rules, where N is the dimension of inputs. Only
in the unidimensional case there are two red rules. However, we can assume
that only two of the multiple rules are signicant, and then compare the
overall output of the interval-valued fuzzy logic system with the approximate
fuzzy system. Then, suppose that only two singleton consequents are red as
in Fig. 6.5.
(a)
0.5
h2 = 1
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
h2
0.8
1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
h1 = h1
(b)
(c)
0.6
0.5
0.5
h1 = 0, h2 = 1
0.4
h2 = 0
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
h2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.6
h1
0.6
0.8
h1 = h1
0.8
1
h2
Fig. 6.4 Dierence between outputs of interval-valued fuzzy logic systems and
arithmetic mean approximate systems y1 = 0, y2 = 1
287
Lemma 6.1. If an interval-valued fuzzy logic system, with singleton consequents, and with reasoning and Cartesian product realized by the minimum
t-norm, has only two active rules with equal intervals between upper and lower
ring grades, i.e. hk hk = with k = 1, 2, the system is equivalent to the
ordinary fuzzy logic system with membership functions described by (6.5).
Proof. Since the both lower ring grades are positive, hk 0, the distance
between the upper and the lower ring grades is constant, i.e. hk hk = ,
k = 1, 2. Obviously, the output of the interval-valued fuzzy logic system is an
average of the bounds of the fuzzy centroid. Hence,

h1 y 1 + h2 y 2
1 h1 y1 + h2 y2
(6.12)
yI =
+
2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2

h1 2 y1 + h2 2 y2

= yA .
(6.13)
=
h1 2 + h2 2

The rest of the proof follows.
It means that the interval-valued system produces the same output as its
approximation [Starczewski and Rutkowski 2002; Starczewski 2004]. This explains that both interval-valued and ordinary fuzzy approaches to reasoning
are equivalent as long as the uncertainty intervals of two active rules are
equal.
Two Fired Rules: One Interval of Uncertainty Clipped
Suppose that one of the interval ring grades is clipped by the projection L2
in Fig. 6.3 (a). Since 0 < h1 , the lower ring grades of the two subsystems
are h1 = 0 and h1 = h1 /2. Obviously, h2 . Consequently, the output of
the interval system can be evaluated as follows:

h1 y 1 + h2 y 2
1 0y1 + h2 y2
yI =
+
2
0 + h2
h1 + h2

h1
h2
1
=
y1 + 1 +
y2
(6.14)
2 h1 + h2
h1 + h2
and the ordinary system output is
yA =
h1
2 y 1 + h2
h1
2 + h2
y2
(6.15)
288

1
0.9
h1
0.8
0.7
h1
h2
0.6
0.5
0.4
= const
h1
h2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

y1 ymin
yT 1
yT 2
h2
ymax
y2
Fig. 6.5 Outputs of the interval-valued and arithmetic mean approximation fuzzy
logic systems in case of uniform uncertainty of memberships; arithmetic mean membership grades indicated by *
Then, the dierence between can be evaluated as:

1
h1
h1
e=
y1
2 h1 + h2
h1 + 2h2

1 h1 + 2h2 2
2h2
+
y2
2 h1 + h2
h1 + 2h2

h1 h1

(y2 y1 ) .
=
2 h1 + h2 h1 + 2h2
(6.16)
(6.17)
We dene the approximation error that it does not depend on y, i.e.,

=
hence,
e
,
y2 y1

h1 h1

.
=
2 h1 + h2 h1 + 2h2
(6.18)
(6.19)
The approximation error grows with h2 and has a minimum for h2 = , since

2
h1 h1
=
2
2 0
h2
2h2 + h1
2 h2 + h1
(6.20)
289
for all h1 (0, ] and h2 (, 1]. The second partial derivative is

2
1 3h1 h2 + 4h1 h2 6h1 h2 2h2 h1 + 2 2 h1 + 3 2 h2 3

=
,

2
2
2
h1
h1 + h2
h1 + 2h2
(6.21)
which, in the case of h2 = , transforms into
=
2 0
h1
h1 +
(6.22)
In consequence, the error tends to 0.5 when h1 0 and h2 = .

Higher values of h2 diminishes the approximation error signicantly. If the
upper membership of the dominant rule is normal, i.e. h2 = 1, the necessary
condition for the the existence of extremes is of the form:
|h2 =1
h1
(3 ) h1 + 2 ( 2) ( 1) h1 ( 2) ( 1)
= 0.

2
2
2 h1 + 1
h1 + 2
It can be easily veried that this error achieves a minimal value at

,
( 2) ( 1) 2 ( 2) ( 1)
,
h1 |h2 =1 =
3
(6.23)
(6.24)
which is the lowest for

= 0.700 81, solved numerically. This leads to
h1 |h2 =1
= 0.214 42, and
|h2 =1

h1 h1

=
2 h1 + 1 h1 + 2
= 0.06 707 7.
(6.25)
This situation for = 0.5 is illustrated in Fig. 6.6. It can be observed that
the absolute error reaches 0.025255 at h1
= 0.1899. The level of this error
reinforces our belief that under such working conditions the interval-valued
approach to reasoning is approximately the same applicable as ordinary fuzzy
logic systems.
Two Fired Rules: Two Intervals of Uncertainty Clipped
If the interval ring grades of both rules are clipped, i.e., 0 < h2 , 0 <
h1 , then h2 = h1 = 0, h2 = h2 /2 and h1 = h1 /2. Hence, the output of
the interval system is expressed by

h2 y 2
1 h1 y 1
1
yI =
+
(6.26)
= (y1 + y2 ) .
2
2
h1
h2
290

(a)
1
h1
0.5
yI , yA
= const
y1
y2
(b)
1
0.8
0.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
(c)
h1
0.04
0.02
0
0.2
0.4
h1
Fig. 6.6 Artithmetic mean approximation in the case of two singletons with uniform intervals of uncertainty: (a) conclusions, (b) outputs of an interval-valued
fuzzy system (solid line) and of its approximation (dashed line) for h1 varying in
[0, 1], (c) corresponding approximation error
It is an interesting fact that output does not depend on the ring grades. It
is not the case of the approximated fuzzy logic system, which has the output
expressed by
h1 y 1
+ h22y2
h1 y 1 + h2 y 2
=
.
(6.27)
yA = 2
h1
h2
h1 + h2
+
2
The dierence between outputs can be calculated as

h1 y 1 + h2 y 2
1
(y1 + y2 )
2
h + h2

1
h2 h1 y 1 + h1 h2 y 2

=
2 h1 + h2
e=
1 h1 h2
(y2 y1 ) ,
2 h1 + h2
(6.28)
(6.29)
(6.30)
and consequently the approximation error is given by

=
1 h1 h2
.
2 h1 + h2
(6.31)

(a)
y2
0.5
yI , yA
0
1.5
291
= const
y1
0.5
(b)
0.5
y2
y3
0.5
1.5
y
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
h1
0.5
1
h1
(c)
0.1
0.05
0
1
0.5
Fig. 6.7 Artithmetic mean approximation in the case of three singletons with
uniform intervals of uncertainty: (a) conclusions, (b) outputs of an intervalvalued fuzzy system (solid line) and of its approximation (dashed line) for y2 varying
in [y1 , y3 ], (c) corresponding approximation error
The maximal approximation error can be observed, when h2 0. In consequence, 0.5. Note that (6.19) or (6.31) do not apply when membership
functions in the system are of the form presented in Fig. 6.3 (b).
Three Fired Rules
In order to nd some regularity in generalizing the previous results, we extend
the case of equal membership uncertainties to three singleton consequents, as
the exemplary ones shown in Fig. 6.7. With the dominant consequent y2 varying in the primary domain between y1 and y3 , the approximate fuzzy logic
system diers insignicantly in the output from the interval-valued fuzzy
system. The dierence increases as y2 tends to the singleton with more contrasting membership interval, that is to say y1 . Such contrasts should not
occur with further extension of these results to continuous output domain,
or to multiple singleton consequents in the absence of conicting rules. This
allows us to suppose that, in practise, the approximation error may be noticeable but should not be meaningful from the viewpoint of defuzzication.
292

(a)
(b)
e
0.4
0.35
0.35
h2 = 1
0.3
h2 = 1
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
0.2
1
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
h2
0.4
0.8
0.2
1
h1 = h1
0
0
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
h2
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.8
1
h1 = h1
Fig. 6.8 Dierence between outputs of interval-valued fuzzy systems with two
red interval consequents and the arithmetic mean systems: (a) y1 [1, 1] and
y2 [2, 2.5], (b) y1 [1.5, 1] and y2 [0, 2]
Non-Singleton Consequent Fuzzy Sets

Suppose that two interval-valued conclusions, given by y 1 , y 1 and y 2 , y2 ,
are red by a uniform interval of membership uncertainty as in the situation
presented in Fig. 6.9 (a). Two exemplary output surfaces of the interval
fuzzy logic system are depicted in Fig. 6.8, while output and error curves
with xed h2 are plotted in Fig. 6.9 (b) and (c). Observing this, we cannot
detect any
dierence
of outputs in changes of the membership

signicant

interval max 0, h1 , h1 . Apparently, the defuzzifed values of intervalvalued and ordinary fuzzy systems are almost identical in a whole range of
input combinations.
Approximation Error Surfaces
In the case of various intervals of uncertainty, dierent surfaces of the approximation error at presence of two red singletons can be plotted, as it can
be seen in Fig. 6.10. Small values of , usually less than 0.5, make almost
the entire surface is zero, and there is no important dierence between the
interval-valued fuzzy system and its approximation. Although in the case of
thin and uniform intervals of uncertainty, the prot of using interval-valued
sets is little, greater values of makes the interval fuzzy system hard to approximate, since two apparent extremal at regions are marked on the error
plot. This is a specicity of interval fuzzy reasoning.
This qualies the working conditions, in which the interval-valued approach to fuzzy reasoning does not provide additional benets compared to
ordinary fuzzy logic systems. This means that uniform and narrow range of
293
(a)
1
h1
0.5
= const
yI , yA
0
1.5
0.5
0
(b)
0.5
y1.5
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
h1 1
0.6
0.8
h1 1
(c)
0.1
0.05
0
0.2
0.4
Fig. 6.9 Artithmetic mean approximation in the case of two singletons with uniform intervals of uncertainty = 0.5: (a) conclusions, (b) outputs of an
interval-valued fuzzy system (solid line) and of its approximation (dashed line) for
h1 varying in [0, 1], (c) corresponding approximation error
(a)
(b)
(c)
=0.2
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
=0.5
=0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
Fig. 6.10 ([Starczewski 2009]) Error of the arithmetic mean approximation for
equal intervals of uncertainty: (a) = 0.2, (b) = 0.5, (c) = 0.9
294
membership uncertainties, which occur in an interval-valued fuzzy logic system trained in any way, inclines to believe that this system can be reduced
to the approximate counterpart based on ordinary fuzzy sets.
Conclusion
Generally, if the dominant rule (with upper ring grade tending to 1) is characterized by a wide interval of its membership uncertainty, then less activated rules (but with upper ring grades greater than the lower ring grades
of the dominant rule) signicantly aect the overall (crisp) output of the
interval-valued fuzzy logic system. Otherwise, if dominant rules are activated
by precise ring grades with almost no membership uncertainty, the crisp
output of a interval-valued fuzzy system is very close to an approximating
fuzzy system. Intuitively, it is logical that if a conclusion is dominant but
not certain and there are no alternatives, then this conclusion is a reliable
answer of the considered system. On the contrary, if, apart from an uncertain
dominant conclusion, there is an other subordinate but certain conclusion,
then the latter should have a comparable impact on the output.
6.2.1.2
Geometric Mean Approximation for Uniform

Uncertainties and the Algebraic Cartesian Product
In this section, we provide an approximation of interval-valued fuzzy logic

systems to their geometric-mean-valued counterparts. To begin with, let us
consider an interval-valued fuzzy logic system with all antecedents having
lower membership functions proportional to the respective upper membership
functions. Therefore, lower membership functions can be considered as scaled
versions of the upper membership functions, i.e.,
k,i = ak,i ,
(6.32)
where a is some xed scale of uncertainty, k = 1, . . . , K and i = 1, . . . , N are

the rule and input indices, respectively.
The algebraic Cartesian product allows a lower ring grade to be proportional to the corresponding upper ring grade, i.e.,
hk =
hk =
n
?
i=1
n
?
i=1
k,i ,
ak,i = an
(6.33)
n
?
k,i = hk .
(6.34)
In the sequel, the obtained scale will be referred as a proportionality factor.
295
Fig. 6.11 Geometric mean approximation of an antecedent with proportional upper and lower membership functions
A new method for approximation of interval fuzzy systems relies on the

substitution of interval-valued antecedents by geometric means of their upper
and lower membership functions, i.e.,
)
(6.35)
k,i = k,i k,i = ak,i .
Exemplary upper and lower membership functions and their geometric mean
function are shown in Fig. 6.11. Accordingly, ring grades of the geometric
mean approximate fuzzy logic system are in the form
hk =
=
n
?
i=1
n
?
k,i
n
n?
ak,i = a
k,i
i=1
(6.36)
hk .
(6.37)
i=1
(6.38)
Two Fired Singleton Consequents

In the case of two red consequents, the output of the interval-valued fuzzy
logic system can be evaluated as follows:
296

1 h1 y1 + h2 y2
h1 y1 + h2 y2
ymin + ymax
=
+
(6.39)
2
2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2

1
h1 y 1
h2 y 2
1
=
+
+
+
.
2
2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2
(6.40)
yI =
Interestingly, the output of the approximate system is equal to a centroid

weighted by upper (or lower) ring grades, i.e.,
h1 y 1 + h2 y 2
h1 + h2
h1 y1 + h2 y2
=
h1 + h2
yA =
h1 y 1 + h2 y 2
.
h1 + h2
(6.41)
(6.42)
(6.43)
Therefore, the dierence between the interval-valued fuzzy system and its
approximation system is
e = yI yA

1
h1 y 1
h2 y 2
1
=
+
+
+
2
2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2
h1 + h2
h1 y 1 + h2 y 2
(6.44)
h1 + h2

2 1 2 h2 h1 h1 h2

(y2 y1 ) .
(6.45)
=
2 h1 + h2 h1 + h2 h1 + h2
Thus, the relative approximate error presents in the closed form

2 1 2 h2 h1 h1 h2

.
=
2 h1 + h2 h1 + h2 h1 + h2
(6.46)
The error reaches its maximum for the minimal proportionality factor , i.e.,

2 1 2 h2 h1 h1 h2

lim = lim
(6.47)
0
0 2 h1 + h2
h1 + h2 h1 + h2

h2 h1 h1 h2
2 1 2
lim

=
(6.48)
2
2
0
2 h1 + h2
h1 + h1 h2 + 2 h1 h2 + h2

h2 h1 h1 h2 (1)

=
(6.49)
2 h1 + h2
h1 h2
=
h1 h2

.
2 h1 + h2
(6.50)

(a)
297
(b)
=0.0001
(c)
=0.2
0.5
(d)
=0.5
0.2
=0.9
0.1
0.015
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.005
0
0.005
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.015
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
Fig. 6.12 Error of the geometric mean approximation for proportional intervals
of uncertainty: (a) = 0.0001, (b) = 0.2, (c) = 0.5, (d) = 0.9
Only with 0, if h1 = 1 h2 tends to boundary membership values

(either 0 or 1), the absolute value of the error seeks to 0.5. Looking at error
surfaces depicted in Fig. 6.12, it can be observed that the geometric mean
approximation is very sensitive to changes of . For example, if = 0.5, then
the approximation error becomes

1
4 h2 h1 h1 h2

.
=0.5 =
(6.51)
h1 + 2h2 h1 + 12 h2 h1 + h2
In search of extremes, we can equate to zero the derivative of the error with
respect to h1 , i.e. after some calculations,
=0.5
=0
h1
4
2 2
h 2h1 h2 7h1 h2 2h1 h2 + h2

1
h1 1
2
2 1
2 = 0.
4
2h2 + h1
h2 + h1
h2 + h1
2
The solution is given by

4
2 2
h1 2h1 h2 7h1 h2 2h1 h2 + h2 = 0,
(6.52)
for h1 , h2 [0, 1] : h1 + h2 > 0. One of the pairs satisfying (6.52) is h1 = 1

and h2
= 0.256. Thence, =0.5,max
= 0, 02223.
Two Fired Interval Consequents

Suppose that two interval-valued conclusions, given by y 1 , y 1 and y 2 , y2 ,
are present with a proportional interval of membership uncertainty as in the
situation presented in Fig. 6.14 (a). Observing output and error curves, in
Fig. 6.9 (b) and (c), for h2 xed, we cannot measure any signicant value of
the approximation error.
298

(a)
1
h1
0.5
yI , yA
k = phk
y1
y2
(b)
1
0.8
0.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
h1
(c)
0.04
0.02
0
0.2
0.4
h1
Fig. 6.13 Geometric mean approximation in the case of two singletons with proportional intervals of uncertainty ( = 0.5): (a) conclusions, (b) outputs of
an interval-valued fuzzy system (solid line) and of its approximation (dashed line)
for h1 varying in (0, 1], (c) corresponding approximation error
(a)
1
h1
0.5
k = phk
yI , yA
0
1.5
0.5
0
(b)
0.5
y1.5
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
h1 1
0.6
0.8
h1 1
(c)
0.1
0.05
0
0.2
0.4
Fig. 6.14 Geometric mean approximation in the case of interval consequents
299
(a)
1
h2 = 1
h1 > h2 = 0
y1
yI , yA
= const
h1
0.5
y2
(b)
0.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
(c)
h1
0.5
0.2
0.4
h1
Fig. 6.15 Specicity of the interval-valued approach in relation to the arithmetic

mean approximation in the case of two singletons with h1 > h2 = 0 and h2 = 1: (a)
conclusions, (b) outputs of an interval-valued fuzzy system (solid line) and
of its arithmetic mean approximation (dashed line) for h1 varying in [h1 , 1], (c)
corresponding arithmetic mean approximation error
6.2.2 Specicity of the Interval-Valued Approach

Since we have analyzed multiple cases when the interval fuzzy logic systems
may be substituted by the ordinary fuzzy systems, it is worth exploring specic cases when the interval defuzzication is not equivalent to the common
defuzzication. Potentially specic cases, when neither the arithmetic mean
approximation nor the geometric mean fuzzy logic system can approximate an
interval-valued fuzzy system, may be noticed at the presence of non-uniform
and not proportional uncertainty of memberships.
6.2.2.1
Two Fired Singleton Consequents
One of these specic cases, presented in Fig. 6.15 (a), is when the two singleton consequents are red. The membership

uncertainty of y2 stretches
throughout the whole unit interval, i.e. h2 , h2 [0, 1], while the upper
membership h1 varies up to 1 with h1 clipped by y axis. Obviously, the interval defuzzication leads directly to 0.5 value independently of h1 , while
an ordinary fuzzy logic system with average membership functions gives the
output in the range (0.5, 1] as long as h1 > 0. These output waveforms and
the arithmetic mean approximation error are plotted in Fig. 6.15.
300

(a)
1
h1 = h1
0.5
yI , yA
1 = 0, 2 = 1
y1
y2
(b)
0.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
(c)
h1 1
0.5
0.2
0.4
h1
Fig. 6.16 Arithmetic mean approximation in the case of one precise consequent
Another specic situation occurs when the less red consequent has crispvalued membership function, while the other ranges in the whole unit interval,
as it is illustrated in Fig. 6.16. Similarly to the previous case, the interval
output is less than 0.5 when h1 = h1 are small enough but greater than h2 ,
and the arithmetic mean approximate output ranges from 0.5 asymptotically
to the interval output.
This indicates situations when interval-valued fuzzy logic systems have
no possibility of successful approximation by ordinary fuzzy logic systems.
Speaking generally, the situation when some rules are much more certain
than others is the technical rationale for using interval-valued logic. This
happens because if the dominant rule is characterized by a wide interval
membership uncertainty then less activated rules with upper memberships
greater than lower memberships of the dominant rule signicantly mark its
presence in the crisp output of the interval-valued fuzzy logic system. It
seems to be reasonable that if a conclusion is signicant but not certain and
there is no alternative then this conclusion is a reliable answer of the system,
otherwise, if apart from the uncertain signicant conclusion there is an other
less signicant but certain conclusion then the latter has comparable inuence
on the output.

However, if h2 , h2 extends to some tight interval rather than to the unit
interval, the situation is no more specic and both interval-valued and arithmetic mean approximate fuzzy systems give similar responses (see Fig. 6.17).
301
(a)
1
h1 = h1
0.5
0
1 = 0, 2 = 0.5
y1
y2
(b)
yI , yA
0.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
(c)
h1
0.02
0.01
0
0.2
0.4
h1 1

mean approximation in the case of two singletons with h1 = h1 > 0, h2 = 0.5
and h2 = 1: (a) conclusions, (b) outputs of an interval-valued fuzzy system
(solid line) and of its arithmetic mean approximation (dashed line) for h1 varying
in (0, 1], (c) corresponding arithmetic mean approximation error
6.2.2.2
Two Fired Interval Consequents
It can be expected that the most distinct situation when the type-reduction
is not close
type-1 defuzzication is when the membership uncertainty
to the
of y2 is h2 , h2 [0, 1] and the upper membership h1 varies in (h2 , 1]. In
Fig. 6.18, it can be seen that type-1 defuzzication gives the result varying in
[0, 0.7] while the KM type-reduction algorithm gives 0 independently of h1 .
Conclusion
On the one hand, the convergence of interval-valued fuzzy systems to approximate fuzzy systems invalidates a fuzzy-valued approach in many real
application tasks. On the other hand, the type of problems, the interval-valued
fuzzy logic can be addressed, is restricted to the problems requiring neither
uniform and wide nor proportional intervals of membership uncertainty. By
reason of that, it is still hard to verify wether a real problem requires fuzzy
rules to be diversied strongly in their intervals of memberships.
302

(a)
1
= const
h1
0.5
h1 > h2 = 0
1
0.5
0
(b)
0.5
y1.5
yI , yA
0
1.5
h2 = 1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
h1 1
0.6
0.8
h1 1
(c)
1
0.5
0
0.2
0.4

mean approximation in the case of two interval conclusions with h1 > h2 = 0 and
h2 = 1: (a) conclusions, (b) outputs of an interval-valued fuzzy system (solid
line) and of its approximation (dashed line) for h1 varying in [h1 , 1], corresponding
approximation error
6.3 Summary
Usually, it is assumed that all disturbances of data have a stochastic character. The most popular is additive white noise with Gaussian distribution.
However, in real-world situations, we meet other forms of disturbance. First,
the values of a disturbance need not to be statistically independent. Second, the distribution of values is not necessarily Gaussian due to the central
limit theorem. The problem is that, in real world, all disturbances always
are bounded. For example, in business decision making and management,
the triangular distribution is frequently used, especially when not much is
known about the distribution of an outcome, i.e., with smallest, largest and
the most likely values of the disturbance. However, the theory of probability
implies that even if the probability density function is bounded, the random
variable generated according to this distribution need not be bounded. As
a consequence the possibilistic theory, fuzzy logic and rough sets are more
appropriate for capturing such kinds of uncertainty of data.
Consequently, corrupted data given to a conventional fuzzy system can be
processed by rough-fuzzy sets, possibility and necessity measures, and fuzzyrough sets besides the usual fuzzy sets. Rough-fuzzy sets are used to retune a
system from continuous to discrete or incomplete data. From all the methods
studied in Chapt. 5, fuzzy-rough sets, used in fuzzication, allow a fuzzy
system to obtain the highest reliability in terms of minimizing the occurrences
of misclassication. However, not always such approach is protable regarding
the classication rate interval-valued fuzzy logic systems generated by the
6.3 Summary
303
possibilistic approach give more correct classication preserving a reasonably

low number of misclassications.
In many practical situations, developers do not know whether the intervalvalued fuzzy logic approach is more appropriate than the ordinary fuzzy
logic. Quite often their simulation results are not so successful as they wish
to be. For this reason, we have proposed two methods of approximation of
interval-valued fuzzy logic system by an ordinary fuzzy logic system. First of
these methods is accurate for uniform membership uncertainties, if they are
not too wide, whilst the second approximation method works well for lower
memberships proportional to upper membership functions. The proposed approximations can be very useful for validations of interval-valued fuzzy logic
applications by comparing them with the approximate ordinary fuzzy logic
systems. Both approximation methods can be immediately extended to the
systems based on triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets considering only their supports in the secondary domain. A Gaussian fuzzy-valued
fuzzy logic system can be only compared with its principal fuzzy subsystem
created by mean values of secondary membership functions. However, we are
able to scan output hyper-planes of the fuzzy-valued and approximate fuzzy
logic systems, and then measure an extremal approximation error. If this error is acceptable, we can turn the fuzzy-valued system to the ordinary fuzzy
logic system.
This chapter has provided a methodology for applying fuzzy-valued fuzzy
logic systems to almost any nonlinear modelling problems with a potential
success. Optimization of such architectures is a huge subject, and partially
it has been solved in Chapt. 4. The future work is to extend these results
on other architectures of uncertain fuzzy logic systems, for instance, Gaussian fuzzication by means of the Nakamuras fuzzy-rough approximation is
especially needed.
References
Birkin, P.A.S., Garibaldi, J.M.: A comparison of type-1 and type-2 fuzzy controllers
in a micro-robot context. In: FUZZ-IEEE, pp. 18571862 (2009)
(2002)
Starczewski, J.T.: What Diers Interval type-2 FLS From Type-1 FLS? In:
Rutkowski, L., Siekmann, J.H., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.) ICAISC
2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3070, pp. 381387. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Starczewski, J.T.: On Defuzzication of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets. In: Rutkowski,
L., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2008. LNCS
(LNAI), vol. 5097, pp. 333340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Starczewski, J.T.: A type-1 Approximation of Interval Type-2 FLS. In: Di Ges`
u,
V., Pal, S.K., Petrosino, A. (eds.) WILF 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5571, pp.
Tao, C.W., Taur, J.S., Chuang, C.C., Chang, C.W., Chang, Y.H.: An approximation of interval type-2 fuzzy controllers using fuzzy ratio switching type-1 fuzzy
controllers. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B 41(3),
828839 (2011)
Wu, D., Mendel, J.M.: Aggregation using the linguistic weighted average and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15(6), 11451161
(2007)
Index
-cut 2, 5
-cut decomposition
algebraic operations
on fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets 36
on interval-valued fuzzy sets 35
ambiguity 27, 282
centroid of an interval-valued fuzzy set
80
complement
of a fuzzy set 6
computing with words 189
conditional 8
conjunction 7, 8, 17, 140, 142, 146,
159, 161, 162
continuity 27
decoder of a rule 193
defuzzication 91
of an interval-valued fuzzy set
nal 81
in classication 82
of interval-valued sets
collapsing method 86
degree of intesity 189
dilution grade 189
discretization 212
disjunction 7, 8, 17
encoder of a rule 189
entrywise matrix division 141
Euler-Poisson integral 128
extended centroid
approximate 91, 119130

exhaustive method 88
for asymmetric-Gaussian-valued
fuzzy sets 105114
for convex-valued fuzzy sets 92
for Gaussian-valued fuzzy sets
115118
for symmetric fuzzy-valued fuzzy sets
118
for trapezoidal-valued fuzzy sets
94105
for triangular-valued fuzzy sets 101
Gaussian approximation 127
hyperboilic approximation for
triangular-valued fuzzy sets 126
hyperbolic approximation for
triangular-valued fuzzy sets 125
trapezoidal approximation 120, 125
extension principle 3435
generalized 36, 37
fuzzication
by fuzzy-rough sets 162170,
228234, 254265
by fuzzy-rough sets of Dubois and
Prade 161162
generalized 219
possibilistic 156161, 221228,
236253
fuzzy c-means 184
interval 184
fuzzy interval 3
fuzzy logic system
Gaussian-valued 175178
306
Index
non-singleton 149
of type-2 145
trapezoidal-valued 173174
triangular-valued 171172
uncertain 148178
fuzzy set 1
convex 2
normal 2
fuzzy truth interval 10, 13, 36
fuzzy truth number 10, 36
fuzzy truth value 10, 36, 67
fuzzy-rough set
as possibility and necessity of a fuzzy
set 25
fuzzy approximation of a fuzzy set
22
of Dubois and Prade 25
of Nakamura 22
Gauss error function 129
gradual predicates 27
Hadamard matrix division
multiperson decision making

necessity measure 14, 28
of a fuzzy event 18
negation
of fuzzy sets 5
normal form
conjunctive 183
disjunctive 183
normality of a fuzzy set 2
ordering
of fuzzy sets
implication 8
fuzzy 145, 147, 159, 161, 162
d-implication 140
on fuzzy truth values 75
ql-implication 8, 140
r-implication 8, 140
s-implication 8, 140
intersection
of fuzzy sets 4
interval-valued approximate reasoning
142
Karnik&Mendel Iterative Procedure
81
kernel of a fuzzy set 2
lack of knowledge 27
limited perception 27
linguistic ranking 194
many-valued logic 27
membership function
upper semicontinuous 3
membership uncertainty tting
212
missing inputs 212
203,
perceptual computing 188

possibility distribution 13
possibility measure 14, 27, 28
of a fuzzy event 18
pseudo-inverse 3, 4450
upper 4, 45, 46, 50
pseudo-inverse function 34
quasi-inverse
141
186203
rough approximation of a set 19

rough set 18, 28
rough-fuzzy set 21
rough approximation of a fuzzy set
21
subset
of a fuzzy set 5
support of a fuzzy set
triangular complementary norm,

t-conorm 7
L
ukasiewicz 8
bounded sum 8
drastic sum 8
extended 37, 5861
L
ukasiewicz 60, 61
analytical formula 5861
bounded sum 60
maximum 8
probabilistic sum 8
triangular norm
extended
triangular norm, t-norm 6, 9
L
ukasiewicz 6, 43, 4547, 5358
algebraic product 6
Archimedean 7, 41, 53
Index
drastic product 6, 4950, 60, 73
extended 3368
L
ukasiewicz 5358
algebraic product 51
approximate 6166
approximate Gaussian n-ary
operation 176
minimum 6
nilpotent 7, 54, 56, 58, 61
of type-2 (on fuzzy truth values) 67
307
on fuzzy truth values 6771
strict 7, 47, 54, 56, 60, 61, 73
type-2 fuzzy set 27
type-reduction
-planes strategy 89
uncertainty bounds 84
union
of fuzzy sets 4, 5
upper pseudo-inverse
vagueness
4, 45, 46, 50
20, 2728, 282

Advanced Concepts in Fuzzy Logic and Systems With Membership Uncertainty - STARCZEWSKI

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Advanced Concepts in Fuzzy Logic and Systems With Membership Uncertainty - STARCZEWSKI

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing

For further volumes:

To my beloved Agnieszka, and to the

Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Algebraic Operations on Fuzzy Valued Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . .

2.2.4 Extended Continuous T-Norms Based on the Drastic

Defuzzication of Uncertain Fuzzy Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5 Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Generalized Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Uncertainty Generation in Uncertain Fuzzy Logic

5.5.2 Non-singleton Fuzzication by the Fuzzy-Rough

Designing Uncertain Fuzzy Logic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

Abstract. Vagueness and uncertainty are intrinsic aspects of engineering

1.1 Fuzzy Sets

An answer to the classical question does x belong to A is given by the

1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

Again, an answer to the question, whether x belong to A, is given by the

A part of the domain, for which a fuzzy set is informative, is called a

Introducing levels of uncertainty for a fuzzy set lead us to the following

1.1 Fuzzy Sets

A fuzzy subset A of X is called convex if [A] is a convex subset of X for

for all x1 , x2 X, and [0, 1]. A membership function satisfying (1.6) is

() = sup {u [a, b] |f (u) > }),

respectively, where sup = a.

1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

1.1.1 Operations on Fuzzy Sets

the standard union of A and B is dened with its membership function

1.1 Fuzzy Sets

the standard negation of A is dened by the membership function

In ordering fuzzy sets we use the following inclusion relation.

denotes the standard fuzzy union realized by the maximum.

1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

where T denotes a triangular norm called also a t-norm.

where S stands for a triangular conorm called a t-conorm operation.

The four remarkable examples of triangular norms are the minimum,

1.1 Fuzzy Sets

1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

A t-conorm is always associated with its dual t-norm by the following

that holds for all {x, y} [0, 1] .

residua of t-norms, called residual implications or r-implications

quantum logic implications (ql-implications)

Using the standard fuzzy negation, the four fundamental s-implications

1.2 Fuzzy Sets of Type-2

Zadeh implication: IZ (x, y) = max (1 x, min (x, y)),

A great review on fuzzy implication can be found in [Baczy

1.2 Fuzzy Sets of Type-2

1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

1.2 Fuzzy Sets of Type-2

a fuzzy truth interval may be characterized by a trapezoidal membership

1.2.1 Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets

Fig. 1.1 Examples of fuzzy truth intervals

1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

by interval membership functions, A (x) = [ux , ux ] I ([0, 1])and B (x) =

1.2.2 Fuzzy-Valued Fuzzy Sets

1.3 Possibility and Necessity Measures

is dened via its fuzzy membership grades calculated by

is dened using the extended maximum min,

the standard negation A is dened by the extended negation n

where fx and gx are bounded membership functions of fuzzy membership

1.3 Possibility and Necessity Measures

1 Uncertainty in Fuzzy Sets

As contrasted to the probability distribution in probability theory (called

In this manner, we have provided a measure for possibility on nite sets,

R (A) = {x| [x]R A = } .

min (A1 (u1 ) , . . . , An (un )) if 1 (w) =

T (A1 (u1 ) , . . . , An (un )) if 1 (w) =