0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

0 visualizzazioni13 paginec

Mar 03, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

0 visualizzazioni13 pagineSei sulla pagina 1di 13

Information Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ins

with applications to pattern recognition

Fatih Emre Boran, Diyar Akay ⇑

Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gazi University, 06570 Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Unlike an ordinary fuzzy set, the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS), characterized both

Received 25 October 2011 by a membership degree and by a non-membership degree, is a more ﬂexible way to cap-

Received in revised form 6 August 2013 ture the uncertainty. One of the important topics in IFS is the measure of the similarity

Accepted 7 August 2013

between IFSs for which several studies have been proposed in the literature. Some of those,

Available online 23 August 2013

however, cannot satisfy the axioms of similarity, and provide counter-intuitive cases. In

this paper, a new general type of similarity measure for IFS with two parameters is pro-

Keywords:

posed along with its proofs. A comparison between the existing similarity measures and

Intuitionistic fuzzy set

Distance measure

the proposed similarity measure is also performed in terms of counter-intuitive cases.

Similarity measure The ﬁndings indicate that the proposed similarity measure does not provide any coun-

Pattern recognition ter-intuitive cases.

Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The theory of fuzzy set, proposed by Zadeh [1], has received a great deal of attention due to its capability of handling

uncertainty. Therefore, over the last decades, several higher order fuzzy sets have been introduced in the literature. Intui-

tionistic fuzzy set (IFS), proposed by Atanassov [2], is one of the higher order fuzzy sets which is capable of dealing with

vagueness. An IFS is characterized by three parameters, namely a membership degree, a non-membership degree, and a hes-

itation margin, while a fuzzy set is characterized by only a membership degree. IFS is therefore a more effective way to deal

with vagueness than fuzzy set. Although Gau and Buehrer [3] later presented vague set, Bustince and Burillo [4] pointed out

that the notion of vague sets was the same as that of IFS.

The degree of similarity measure has received a great deal of attention in the last decades since it is an important tool for

decision making, pattern recognition, medical diagnosis, and the applications of data mining [5]. For that reason, some stud-

ies on the measure of similarity between IFSs have been reported in the literature. A few of them is the extension of the well-

known distance measures. The ﬁrst study was carried out by Szmidt and Kacprzyk [6] extending the well-known distances

measures, such as the Hamming Distance, the Euclidian Distance, to IFS environment and comparing them with the ap-

proaches used for ordinary fuzzy sets. However, Wang and Xin [7] implied that the distance measure of Szmidt and Kacprzyk

[6] were not effective in some cases. Therefore, several new distance measures were proposed and applied to pattern recog-

nition. Grzegorzewski [8] also extended the Hamming distance, the Euclidean distance, and their normalized counterparts to

IFS environment. Later, Chen [9] pointed out that some errors existed in Grzegorzewski [8] by showing some counter exam-

ples. Hung and Yang [10] extended the Hausdorff distance to IFSs and proposed three similarity measures. On the other hand,

instead of extending the well-known measures, some studies deﬁned new similarity measures for IFSs. Li and Cheng [11]

suggested a new similarity measure for IFSs based on the membership degree and the non-membership degree. Mitchell

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 5823844; fax: +90 312 2308434.

E-mail address: diyar@gazi.edu.tr (D. Akay).

0020-0255/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.013

46 F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57

[12] showed that the similarity measure of Li and Cheng [11] had some counter-intuitive cases and modiﬁed that similarity

measure based on statistical point of view. Moreover, Liang and Shi [13] presented some examples to show that the simi-

larity measure of Li and Cheng [11] was not reasonable for some conditions, and therefore proposed several new similarity

measures for IFSs. Li et al. [14] analyzed, compared and summarized the existing similarity measures between IFSs/vague

sets by their counter-intuitive examples in pattern recognition. Ye [15] conducted a similar comparative study of the existing

similarity measures between IFSs and proposed a cosine similarity measure and a weighted cosine similarity measure.

Hwang et al. [16] proposed a similarity measure for IFSs in which Sugeno integral was used for aggregation. The proposed

similarity measure was applied to clustering problem. Xu [17] introduced a series of similarity measures for IFSs and applied

them to multiple attribute decision making problem based on intuitionistic fuzzy information. Xu and Chen [18] introduced

a series of distance and similarity measures, which are various combinations and generalizations of the weighted Hamming

distance, the weighted Euclidean distance and the weighted Hausdorff distance. Xu and Yager [19] developed a similarity

measure between IFSs and applied the developed similarity measure for consensus analysis in group decision making based

on intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Xia and Xu [5] proposed a series of distance measures based on the intuitionistic

fuzzy point operators. In addition to these studies, some works have been interested in relationships between distance mea-

sure, similarity measure and entropy of IFSs. Zeng and Guo [20] investigated the relationship among the normalized dis-

tance, the similarity measure, the inclusion measure, and the entropy of interval-valued fuzzy sets. It was also showed

that the similarity measure, the inclusion measure, and the entropy of interval-valued fuzzy sets could be induced by the

normalized distance of interval-valued fuzzy sets based on their axiomatic deﬁnitions. Wei et al. [21] introduced a entropy

measure generalizing the existing entropy measures for IFS and IFSs. It was also introduced an approach to construct sim-

ilarity measures using entropy measures for IFS and IFSs.

In this paper, we introduce a new distance measure between IFSs and give its relation with the similarity measure for IFSs.

The proposed generalized distance measure on intuitionistic fuzzy sets be presented in Eq. (8) depends on two parameters

where p is the Lp norm and t identiﬁes the level of uncertainty. We compare the existing similarity measures with the pro-

posed similarity measure for IFSs. In order to do so, the rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the def-

initions related to the IFSs, and lists the properties that a distance measure for IFSs and a similarity measure for IFSs should

possess. The new distance measure and corresponding novel type of similarity measure are expressed in Section 3. The inter-

pretation of new distance measure and the explanation of its parameter are brieﬂy introduced in Section 4. A comparative

analysis between the proposed similarity measure and the existing similarity measures is presented in Section 5. The appli-

cations of the proposed similarity measure to pattern recognition are presented in Section 6. The conclusion of the paper is

given in Section 7.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we brieﬂy introduce the basic concepts related to IFS, and then list the properties that a distance measure

for IFSs and a similarity measure for IFSs should possess.

Deﬁnition 1 [1]. A fuzzy set A in the universe of discourse X = {x1,x2, . . . , xn} is deﬁned as follows:

A ¼ fhx; lA ðxÞijx 2 Xg ð1Þ

where lA(x): X ? [0, 1] is the membership degree.

A ¼ fhx; lA ðxÞ; v A ðxÞijx 2 Xg ð2Þ

where lA(x): X ? [0, 1] and vA(x): X ? [0, 1] are membership degree and non-membership degree, respectively, such that:

0 6 lA ðxÞ þ v A ðxÞ 6 1 ð3Þ

The third parameter of the IFS is:

pA ðxÞ ¼ 1 lA ðxÞ v A ðxÞ ð4Þ

which is known as the intuitionistic fuzzy index or the hesitation degree of whether x belongs to A or not. It is obviously seen

that for every:

0 6 pA ðxÞ 6 1 ð5Þ

If pA(x) is small, then knowledge about x is more certain; if pA(x) is great, then knowledge about x is more uncertain. Obvi-

ously, when vA(x) = 1 lA(x) for all elements of the universe, the ordinary fuzzy set is recovered [22].

Deﬁnition 3. Let a ~ where sða

~Þ 2 ½1; 1 is

deﬁned as follows [23]:

F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57 47

~Þ ¼ ðla v a Þ

sða ð6Þ

~ where hða

and the accuracy function of a ~Þ 2 ½0; 1 is deﬁned as follows [24]:

~Þ ¼ ðla þ v a Þ

hða ð7Þ

~1 and a

Let a ~2 be two IFNs, then Xu and Yager [25] proposed the following rules for ranking of IFNs:

~2 .

2. sða~1 Þ > sða~2 Þ then a ~2 is smaller than a~1 , denoted by a ~1 > a

~2 .

3. sða~1 Þ ¼ sða~2 Þ then

(i) hða ~1 Þ ¼ hða ~2 Þ then a~1 is equal to a

~2 , denoted by a ~1 ¼ a

~2 .

(ii) hða ~1 Þ < hða ~2 Þ then a~1 is smaller than a ~2 , denoted by a

~1 < a~2 .

(iii) hða ~1 Þ > hða ~2 Þ then a~2 is smaller than a ~1 , denoted by a

~1 > a~2 .

Deﬁnition 4. A mapping D: IFS IFS ? [0, 1], D(A, B) is said to be a distance between A 2 IFS(X) and B 2 IFS(X) if D(A, B) sat-

isﬁes the following properties:

(A1) 0 6 D(A, B) 6 1

(A2) D(A, B) = 0 if and only if A = B

(A3) D(A, B) = D(B, A)

(A4) If A # B # C then D(A, C) P D(A, B)

Deﬁnition 5. A mapping S: IFS IFS ? [0, 1], S(A, B) is said to be a degree of similarity between A 2 IFS(X) and B 2 IFS(X) if

S(A, B) satisﬁes the following properties:

(A5) 0 6 S(A, B) 6 1

(A6) S(A, B) = 1 if and only if A = B

(A7) S(A, B) = S(B, A)

(A8) If A # B # C then S(A, C) 6 S(A, B)

In this section, we propose a new distance measure. Let A and B be two IFSs in X where X = {x1, x2, . . . , xn}.

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

1 Xn

fjtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp þ jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp g

p

DðA; BÞ ¼ p

2nðt þ 1Þ i¼1 ð8Þ

where t ¼ 2; 3; 4; . . . and p ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .

Here, two parameters, p is the Lp norm and t identiﬁes the level of uncertainty, are expressed in detail in Section 4.

Proof 1.

jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞj ¼ jðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðtlB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞj ð9Þ

jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞj ¼ jðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðtv B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞj ð10Þ

We know that 0 6 lA(xi) 6 1, 0 6 lB(xi) 6 1, 0 6 vA(xi) 6 1 and 0 6 vB(xi) 6 1, and therefore we have the following

inequalities:

t 6 ðtlB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ 6 1 ð12Þ

48 F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57

then we have

ðt þ 1Þ 6 ðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðtlB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ 6 ðt þ 1Þ ð13Þ

It means that

0 6 jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp 6 ðt þ 1Þp ð14Þ

Similarly, we have the following inequalities:

1 6 ðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ 6 t ð15Þ

t 6 ðt v B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ 6 1 ð16Þ

then we have

ðt þ 1Þ 6 ðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðtv B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ 6 ðt þ 1Þ ð17Þ

It means that

0 6 jðtv A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðt v B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp 6 ðt þ 1Þp ð18Þ

Finally we have the following inequality:

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

1 Xn

fjtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp þ jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp g 6 1

p

06 p

2nðt þ 1Þ i¼1

Thus, 0 6 D(A,B) 6 1. h

A(2) Let A and B be two IFSs, if A = B then lA(xi) = lB(xi), vA(xi) = vB(xi) lA (xi) lB(xi) = 0 and vA(xi) vB(xi) = 0. Therefore,

the distance measure, D(A, B), is equal to zero. h

A(3) Let A and B be two IFSs. We can write the following equations:

jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp ¼ jð1ÞftðlB ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðv B ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞgjp ð19Þ

jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp ¼ jð1Þftðv B ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðlB ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞgjp ð20Þ

Based on the deﬁnition of absolute value, we have

jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp ¼ jtðlB ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðv B ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞjp ð21Þ

jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp ¼ jtðv B ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðlB ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞjp ð22Þ

Thus, D(A, B) = D(B, A). h

A(4) Let A, B, and C be three IFSs. The distance measures between A and B, and A and C are the followings:

DðA; BÞ ¼

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Pn p p

i¼1 fjtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞj þ jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞj g

p 1

2nðtþ1Þp

DðA; CÞ

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Pn p p

i¼1 fjtðlA ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞj þ jtðv A ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞj g

1

¼ p 2nðtþ1Þ p

jtðlA ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞj ¼ jðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðt lC ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞj ð23Þ

jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞj ¼ jðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðt lB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞj ð24Þ

jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞj ¼ jðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðt v B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞj ð25Þ

jtðv A ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞj ¼ jðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðt v C ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞj ð26Þ

If A # B # C, then lC(xi) P lB(xi) P lA(xi) and vA(xi) P vB(xi) P vC(xi). We also know from Deﬁnition 2 that 0 6 lA(xi) 6 lB(-

6 lA(xi) 6 lB(xi) 6 lC(xi) 6 1 and 0 6 vC(xi) 6 vB(xi) 6 vA(xi) 6 1.

Therefore, we have the following inequalities:

ðt lC ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞ P ðtlB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ P ðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ð27Þ

ðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ P ðtv B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ P ðt v C ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞ ð28Þ

F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57 49

jðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðtlC ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞjp P jðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðt lB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp ð29Þ

jðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðtv C ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞjp P jðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðt v B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp ð30Þ

and ﬁnally we have the inequalities: D(A, C) P D(A, B) and D(A, C) P D(B, C).

We can say that D(A, B) is a distance measure between IFSs A and B sinceD(A, B) satisﬁes (A1)–(A4). h

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

1 Xn

w fjtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp þ jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp g

p

Dw ðA; BÞ ¼ p i¼1 i

2ðt þ 1Þ

where t ¼ 2; 3; 4; . . . and p ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .

ð31Þ

Pn

where wi is the weights of the features (xi)wi 2 [0, 1] and i¼1 wi ¼ 1.

Proof 2.

A(1) If we product the inequality deﬁned in Eq. (14) with wi, then we have

0 6 wi jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp 6 wi ðt þ 1Þp ð32Þ

X

n X

n

06 wi jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp 6 wi ðt þ 1Þp ð33Þ

i¼1 i¼1

P P

It is easy to see that ni¼1 wi ðt þ 1Þp is equal to (t + 1)p in Eq. (33) since ni¼1 wi ¼ 1.

Similarly, if we product the inequality deﬁned in Eq. (18) with wi, then we have

X

n X

n

06 wi jðtv A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðt v B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp 6 wi ðt þ 1Þp ð34Þ

i¼1 i¼1

P P

It is easy to see that ni¼1 wi ðt þ 1Þp is equal to (t + 1)p in Eq. (34) since ni¼1 wi ¼ 1.

Finally, we have the following inequality considering Eqs. (33) and (34):

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

1 Xn

w fjtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp þ jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp g 6 1

p

06 i¼1 i

2ðt þ 1Þp

Thus, 0 6 Dw(A,B) 6 1. h

A(2) Let A and B be two IFSs, if A = B then lA(xi) = lB(xi), vA(xi) = vB(xi) lA (xi) lB(xi) = 0 and vA(xi) vB(xi) = 0. Therefore,

the distance measure, Dw(A, B), is equal to zero. h

A(3) If we product both sides deﬁned in Eqs. (21) and (22) with wi we have

wi jtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp ¼ wi jtðlB ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðv B ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞjp ð35Þ

p p

wi jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞj ¼ wi jtðv B ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðlB ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞj ð36Þ

Thus,Dw(A,B) = Dw(B,A). h

A(4) If we product the inequalities deﬁned in Eqs. (29) and (30) with wi, then we have

wi jðtlA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðt lC ðxi Þ v C ðxi ÞÞjp P wi jðt lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi ÞÞ ðt lB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp ð37Þ

wi jðtv A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðt v C ðxi Þ lC ðxi ÞÞjp P wi jðt v A ðxi Þ lA ðxi ÞÞ ðt v B ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp ð38Þ

since all wi P 0. Finally we the following inequalities Dw (A, C) P Dw(A, B) and Dw(A, C) P Dw(B, C).

We can say that Dw(A, B) is a distance measure between IFSs A and B since Dw(A, B) satisﬁes (A1)–(A4). h

50 F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57

Theorem 3. If D(A, B) is a distance measure between IFSs A and B, then SpE ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 DðA; BÞ is a similarity measure between A

and B.

SpE ðA; BÞ ¼ 1

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Xn 1

fjtðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp þ jtðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp g

p

i¼1 2nðt þ 1Þp

ð39Þ

Proof 3. From the axiom deﬁnitions of distance and similarity measures, it is easy to get the result. h

In this section, we brieﬂy interpret the novel distance measure and explain the functionality of parameter t deﬁned in

distance measure.

Let (lA, vA) and (lB, vB) be two IFNs. lA can be equal to any value in [lA, lA + pA] and vA can be equal to any value in [vA, -

vA + pA]. The possible values for (lA, vA) are illustrated in Fig. 1 as the shaded area.

Undoubtedly, the most informative point among the all possible points in triangle ABC is D, the center of gravity of tri-

angle ABC. The pair l0A ; v 0A is easily found as lA þ p3A ; v A þ p3A . Based on the Deﬁnition 3, we can get the following equality

such that:

pA pA 3lA þ ð1 lA v A Þ 3v A þ ð1 lA v A Þ 1 þ 2lA v A 1 þ 2v A lA

lA þ ; vA þ ¼ ; ¼ ; ð40Þ

3 3 3 3 3 3

Similarly, we also have the pair l0B ; v B for IFN (lB,vB) as follows:

0

0 0 1 þ 2lB v B 1 þ 2v B lB

lB ; v B ¼ ; ð41Þ

3 3

The absolute difference between l0A ; v 0A and l0B ; v 0B is deﬁned in Eqs. (42) and (43):

l l0 ¼ 1 þ 2lA v A 1 þ 2lB v B ¼ 2ðlA lB Þ ðv A v B Þ

0

A B ð42Þ

3 3 3

0

v v 0 ¼ 1 þ 2 v A l A 1 þ 2 v B l

B

2ðv A v B Þ ðl A l Þ

B

A B ¼ ð43Þ

3 3 3

0

l l0 and v 0 v 0 to the power of p is equal to Eqs. (44) and (45) as follows:

A B A B

0

l l0 p ¼ 1p j2ðl l Þ ðv A v B Þjp ð44Þ

A B A B

3

0 p 1

v v 0 ¼ j2ðv A v B Þ ðl l Þjp ð45Þ

A B

3p A B

p p

The mean of l0A l0B and v 0A v 0B is obtained in Eq. (46) as follows:

1 n 0 o 1

lA l0B p þ v 0A v 0B p ¼ fj2ðlA lB Þ ðv A v B Þjp þ j2ðv A v B Þ ðlA lB Þjp g ð46Þ

2 2 3p

μA + π A

A

μ ′A D

μA

B C

v

vA v′A vA + π A

F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57 51

p p

The p root of the mean of l0A l0B and v 0A v 0B is found as:

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

p 1

n o 1

l0 l0 p þ v 0 v 0 p ¼ p j2ðlA lB Þ ðv A v B Þjp þ j2ðv A v B Þ ðlA lB Þjp ð47Þ

2 A B A B

2 3p

For more than one feature such as (xi),i = 1, 2, . . . , n, Eq. (47) can be deﬁned in Eq. (48) as follows:

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Xn 1 n o

p

l0 ðxi Þ l0 ðxi Þ p þ v 0 ðxi Þ v 0 ðxi Þ p

i¼1 2n A B A B

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

p 1 Xn

¼ p fj2ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞ ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞjp þ j2ðv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ ðlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi ÞÞjp g ð48Þ

2n 3 i¼1

pA pA

It is easy to see that Eq. (48) is the special case of Eq. (8) when t = 2. If we parameterize l0A ; v A ¼ lA þ tþ1 ; v A þ tþ1 and 0

0 0 pB pB

lB ; v B ¼ lB þ tþ1 ; v B þ tþ1 , we shall have Eq. (48) as the distance measure between (lA, vA) and (lB, vB). In Eq. (8), t is the

parameter adjusting the effect of hesitation margin in the computation. If t is very high, then the effect of hesitation margin is

neglected in the computation. If t is very low, then the effect of hesitation margin is taken into consideration in the

computation.

In order to illustrate the superiority of the proposed similarity measure, a comparison between the proposed similarity

measure and all the existing similarity measures is conducted. The existing similarity measures are deﬁned in Table 1.

Table 2 presents a comprehensive comparison of the similarity measures for IFS with counter-intuitive examples (p = 1 in

SHB ; Spe ; Sps ; Sph and p = 1, t = 2 in SpE ). It is clearly seen that the second axiom of similarity measure (A6) is not satisﬁed by SC(A, B),

SDC(A, B), CIFS(A, B) since SC(A, B) = SDC(A, B) = CIFS(A, B)=1 when A = (0.3, 0.3) and B = (0.4, 0.4) which are indeed not equal to

each other. Similarly, the second axiom of similarity measure (A6) is also not satisﬁed by SC(A, B), SDC(A, B) when A =

(0.5, 0.5), B = (0, 0) and A = (0.4, 0.2), B = (0.5, 0.3). Some similarity measures have no capabilities to distinguish positive dif-

ference from negative difference. For example, SH(A, B) = SH(C, D) = 0.9 when A = (0.3, 0.3), B = (0.4, 0.4), C = (0.3, 0.4) and

D = (0.4, 0.3). The same counter-intuitive example exists for SO ; SHB ; Spe ; S1HY ; S2HY and S3HY . Another type of counter-intuitive case

occurs when A = (1, 0), B = (0, 0), C = (0.5, 0.5). In this situation, SH(A, B) and SH(C, B) are equal to 0.5. The same counter-intu-

itive example exists for SHB, Spe and CIFS. Another type of counter-intuitive example can be given for the case in which the

similarity measures are SL(A, B) = SL(A, C) = 0.95 when A = (0.4, 0.2), B = (0.5, 0.3), C = (0.5, 0.2). The same counter-intuitive

example also exists for Sps S1HY ; S2HY and S3HY . An interesting counter-intuitive case occurs when A = (0.4, 0.2), B = (0.5, 0.3),

C = (0.5, 0.2). In this case, it is expected that the similarity degree between A and B is equal or greater than the similarity de-

gree between A and C since they are ordered as C P B P A according to score function and accuracy function given in Def-

inition 3. However, the similarity degree between A and C is greater than the similarity degree between A and B when SH, SO,

SHB,Spe and Sph are used, which does not seem to be reasonable. On the other hand, SpE ðA; BÞ ¼ 0:967 and SpE ðA; CÞ ¼ 0:95. There-

fore, the proposed distance measure is in agreement with score function and accuracy function. The proposed distance mea-

sure is the only measure that have no the counter-intuitive cases as illustrated in Table 1 [14].

In order to illustrate the usefulness of the proposed distance measure for IFS to pattern recognition, we present some

examples in this section.

Example 1. Three known patterns, P1, P2, and P3, with class labels C1, C2, and C3, respectively, are given. The patterns are

represented by the following IFSs in X = {x1, x2, x3, x4}:

P1 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:5; 0:3jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:7; 0:0jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:4; 0:5jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:7; 0:3jx4 2 Xig

P2 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:5; 0:2jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:6; 0:1jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:2; 0:7jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:7; 0:3jx4 2 Xig

P3 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:5; 0:4jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:7; 0:1jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:4; 0:6jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:7; 0:2jx4 2 Xig

Unknown pattern Q is given as follows:

Q ¼ fhx1 ; 0:4; 0:3jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:7; 0:1jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:3; 0:6jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:7; 0:3jx4 2 Xig

It is aimed to ﬁnd out the class that Q belongs to. In order to do that, the similarity degrees between Q and classes C1, C2 and

C3 are calculated, and Q is then assigned to C k described by:

k ¼ arg maxfSðPk ; Q Þg ð49Þ

k

The similarity degree between S(P1,Q), S(P2, Q) and S(P3, Q) are calculated for all existing similarity measures and shown in

Table 3 as follows:

52 F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57

Table 1

Existing similarity measures.

Pn

Chen [31] jðl ðxi Þv A ðxi ÞÞjlB ðxi Þv B ðxi Þjj

SC ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 i¼1 A 2n

Pn

Hong and Kim [32] jðl ðxi ÞlB ðxi ÞÞjv A ðxi Þv B ðxi Þjj

SH ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 i¼1 A 2n

Pn

Fan and Zhangyan [33] fjðl ðxi Þv A ðxi ÞÞðlB ðxi Þv B ðxi ÞÞjþjlA ðxi ÞlB ðxi Þjþjðv A ðxi Þv B ðxi ÞÞjg

SL ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 i¼1 A 4n

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Pn

Li et al. [34] ðlA ðxi ÞlB ðxi ÞÞ2 þðv A ðxi Þv B ðxi ÞÞ2

SO ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 i¼1

2n

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Pn ﬃ

Li and Cheng [11] p jw ðx ÞwB ðxi Þjp

i¼1 A i

SDC ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 n

wA ðxi Þ ¼ ðlA ðxi Þ þ 1 v A ðxi ÞÞ=2

wB ðxi Þ ¼ ðlB ðxi Þ þ 1 v B ðxi ÞÞ=2

Mitchell [12]

1

SHB ðA; BÞ ¼ ðql ðA; BÞ þ qv ðA; BÞÞ

2 s ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Pn p Pn p

i¼1 jlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi Þj i¼1 jv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi Þj

p p

ql ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 qv ðA; BÞ ¼ 1

n n

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Pn ﬃ

Liang and Shi [13] p j/l ðxi Þþ/v ðxi Þj

p

n

/l ðxi Þ ¼ jlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi Þj=2

/v ðxi Þ ¼ jð1 v A ðxi ÞÞ ð1 v B ðxi ÞÞj=2

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Pn p

i¼1 jus1 ðxi Þ þ us2 ðxi Þj

p

Sps ðA; BÞ ¼1

n

us1 ðxi Þ ¼ jmA1 ðxi Þ mB1 ðxi Þj=2;

us1 ðxi Þ ¼ jmA2 ðxi Þ mB2 ðxi Þj=2

mA1 ðxi Þ ¼ jlA ðxi Þ þ mA ðxi Þj=2;

mB1 ðxi Þ ¼ jlB ðxi Þ þ mB ðxi Þj=2;

mA2 ðxi Þ ¼ j1 v A ðxi Þ þ mA ðxi Þj=2;

mB1 ðxi Þ ¼ j1 v B ðxi Þ þ mB ðxi Þj=2;

mA ðxi Þ ¼ jlA ðxi Þ þ 1 v A ðxi Þj=2;

mB ðxi Þ ¼ jlB ðxi Þ þ 1 v B ðxi Þj=2

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ g1 ðiÞ ¼ /l ðxi Þ þ /v ðxi Þ Spe

Pn p

p p

i¼1 ðg1 ðiÞ þ g2 ðiÞ þ g3 ðiÞÞ

g2 ðiÞ ¼ jwA ðxi Þ wB ðxi ÞjðSDC Þ

Sh ðA; BÞ ¼ 1

3n g3 ðiÞ ¼ maxðlA ðiÞ; lB ðiÞÞ minðlA ðiÞ; lB ðiÞÞ

lA ðiÞ ¼ 1 lA ðxi Þ v A ðxi Þ =2 lB ðiÞ ¼ ð1 lB ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞÞ=2

S1HY ðA; BÞ ¼ 1 dH ðA; BÞ S2HY ðA; BÞ ¼ SHY ðA; BÞ ¼

1 e1 1 þ dH ðA; BÞ

1X n

dH ðA; BÞ ¼ maxðjlA ðxi Þ lB ðxi Þj; jv A ðxi Þ v B ðxi ÞjÞ

n i¼1

C IFS ðA; BÞ ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

n i¼1

l2 ðx Þ þ v 2 ðx Þ l2 ðx Þ þ v 2 ðx Þ

A i A i B i B i

F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57 53

Table 2

The comparison of similarity measures (counter-intuitive cases are in bold type). (p = 1 in SHB ; Spe ; Sps ; Sph and p = 1, t = 2 in SpE ).

1 2 3 4 5 6

A (0.3, 0.3) (0.3, 0.4) (1, 0) (0.5, 0.5) (0.4, 0.2) (0.4, 0.2)

B (0.4, 0.4) (0.4, 0.3) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0.5, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2)

SC 1 0.9 0.5 1 1 0.95

SH 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.95

SL 0.95 0.9 0.5 0.75 0.95 0.95

SO 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.93

SDC 1 0.9 0.5 1 1 0.95

SHB 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.95

Spe 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.95

Sps 0.95 0.9 0.5 0.75 0.95 0.95

Sph 0.93 0.933 0.5 0.67 0.93 0.95

S1HY 0.9 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0.9

S2HY 0.85 0.85 0 0.38 0.85 0.85

S3HY 0.82 0.82 0 0.33 0.82 0.82

CIFS 1 0.96 0 0 0.9971 0.9965

SpE 0.967 0.9 0.5 0.833 0.967 0.95

Table 3

The similarity measures between the known patterns and the unknown pattern in Example 1 (Patterns not discriminated are in bold type.) (p = 1 in SHB ; Spe ; Sps ; Sph

and p = 1, t = 2 in SpE ).

SC 0.925 0.863 0.925 Sps 0.950 0.938 0.963

SH 0.975 0.963 0.975 Sph 0.958 0.954 0.958

SL 0.950 0.938 0.963 S1HY 0.925 0.925 0.925

SO 0.929 0.921 0.929 S2HY 0.886 0.886 0.886

SDC 0.950 0.938 0.975 S3HY 0.860 0.860 0.860

SHB 0.950 0.938 0.950 CIFS 0.991 0.987 0.996

Spe 0.950 0.938 0.950 SpE 0.950 0.938 0.967

The results obtained in Table 3 indicate that S1HY ; S2HY and S3HY cannot capable of discriminating the difference between the

known patterns P1,P2 and P3 and unknown pattern Q since the similarity degrees between known patterns and unknown

pattern are equal to each other. In some of the other cases in which the similarity degrees between known patterns P1, P3

and unknown pattern Q are equal to each other when SC, SH,SO, SHB, Sph and Spe are used. The difference between the patterns

is discriminated when SL, SDC, Sps ,CIFS and SpE are used as the similarity measure and unknown pattern Q belongs to C3. How-

ever, this does not mean that SC, SL, SDC, Sps ,CIFS and SpE are capable of differentiating patterns. The following two examples

illustrate some special situations in pattern recognition.

Example 2. Three known patterns, P1, P2, and P3, with class labels C1, C2, and C3, respectively, are given. The patterns are

represented by the following IFSs in X = {x1, x2, x3, x4}:

P1 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:3; 0:3jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:4; 0:4jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:4; 0:4jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:4; 0:4jx4 2 Xig

P2 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:5; 0:5jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:1; 0:1jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:5; 0:5jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:1; 0:1jx4 2 Xig

P3 ¼ fhx1 ; 1:0; 0:0jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:3; 0:3jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:5; 0:5jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:6; 0:0jx4 2 Xig

Unknown pattern Q is given as follows:

Q ¼ fhx1 ; 0:4; 0:4jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:5; 0:5jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:2; 0:2jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:3; 0:3jx4 2 Xig

Table 4

The similarity measures between the known patterns and the unknown pattern in Example 2 (Patterns not discriminated are in bold type.) (p = 1 in SHB ; Spe ; Sps ; Sph

and p = 1, t = 2 in SpE ).

SC 1.000 1.000 0.800 Sps 0.938 0.875 0.738

SH 0.950 0.850 0.925 Sph 0.917 0.833 0.775

SL 0.938 0.875 0.738 S1HY 0.875 0.750 0.650

SO 0.868 0.726 0.654 S2HY 0.814 0.650 0.533

SDC 1.000 1.000 0.800 S3HY 0.778 0.600 0.481

SHB 0.875 0.750 0.675 CIFS 1.000 1.000 0.854

Spe 0.875 0.750 0.675 SpE 0.958 0.917 0.758

54 F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57

It is aimed to ﬁnd out the class that Q belongs to. In order to do that, the similarity degrees between Q and classes C1, C2 and

C3 are calculated, and Q is then assigned to C k described by:

k ¼ rmargmaxk fSðP k ; Q Þg ð50Þ

The similarity degree between S(P1, Q), S(P2, Q) and S(P3, Q) are calculated for all existing similarity measures and shown in

Table 4 as follows:

The results obtained in Table 4 indicate that SC, SDC, and CIFS are not capable of discriminating the difference between the

known patterns P1, P2 and unknown pattern Q since the similarity degrees between known patterns and unknown pattern

are equal to one even though patterns are not identical. Therefore, unknown pattern cannot be properly classiﬁed by using

SC, SDC and CIFS. Moreover, they do not satisfy the second axiom of similarity measure (A6). SH, SL, SO, SHB, Spe ; Sph ; Sps S1HY ; S2HY ; S3HY

and SpE can capable of discriminating the difference, and assign unknown pattern Q to C1.

Example 3. Three known patterns, P1, P2, and P3, with class labels C1, C2, and C3, respectively, are given. The patterns are

represented by the following IFSs in X = {x1, x2, x3, x4}:

P1 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:5; 0:2jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:5; 0:2jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:4; 0:2jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:5; 0:3jx4 2 Xig

P2 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:5; 0:3jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:5; 0:2jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:4; 0:2jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:3; 0:5jx4 2 Xig

P3 ¼ fhx1 ; 0:3; 0:1jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:5; 0:0jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:3; 0:1jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:5; 0:5jx4 2 Xig

Unknown pattern Q is given as follows:

Q ¼ fhx1 ; 0:4; 0:2jx1 2 Xi; hx2 ; 0:5; 0:2jx2 2 Xi; hx3 ; 0:4; 0:2jx3 2 Xi; hx4 ; 0:5; 0:5jx4 2 Xig

It is aimed to ﬁnd out the class that Q belongs to. In order to do that, the similarity degrees between Q and classes C1, C2 and

C3 are calculated, and Q is then assigned to C k described by:

k ¼ argmaxk fSðPk ; Q Þg ð51Þ

The similarity degree between S(P1, Q), S(P2, Q) and S(P3, Q) are calculated for all existing similarity measures and shown in

Table 5 as follows:

As it is clearly seen in Table 5, the similarity degrees S(P1, Q) and S(P2, Q) are equal to each other when SL,Sps ; S1HY ; S2HY and S3HY

are used. Furthermore, the similarity degrees S(P2, Q)S(P3, Q) are equal to each other when SC andSDC are used. These two cases

indicate that these similarity measures cannot capable of discriminating difference between patterns. Thus unknown pattern

cannot be classiﬁed properly when these measure are used. On the other hand, SO, SHB, Spe ; Sph , CIFS and SpE can capable of

discriminating the difference. However, unknown pattern Q belongs to class C1 when SO, SHB, Spe and Sph are used; unknown

Table 5

The similarity measures between the known patterns and the unknown pattern in Example 3 (Patterns not discriminated are in bold type.) (p = 1 in SHB ; Spe ; Sps ; Sph

and p = 1, t = 2 in SpE ).

SC 0.963 0.975 0.975 Sps 0.963 0.963 0.950

SH 0.963 0.975 0.925 Sph 0.963 0.958 0.942

SL 0.963 0.963 0.950 S1HY 0.925 0.925 0.900

SO 0.921 0.913 0.900 S2HY 0.886 0.886 0.849

SDC 0.963 0.975 0.975 S3HY 0.860 0.860 0.818

SHB 0.963 0.950 0.925 CIFS 0.9917 0.9918 0.977

Spe 0.963 0.950 0.925 SpE 0.963 0.967 0.958

Table 6

Four classes of known building materials and unknown building material represented by IFNs (p = 1, t = 2 in SpE ).

lA1 ðxÞ 0.173 0.102 0.53 0.965 0.42 0.008 0.331 1 0.215 0.432 0.75 0.432

vA ðxÞ

1

0.524 0.818 0.326 0.008 0.351 0.956 0.512 0 0.625 0.534 0.126 0.432

lA2 ðxÞ 0.51 0.627 1 0.125 0.026 0.732 0.556 0.65 1 0.145 0.047 0.76

vA 2

ðxÞ 0.365 0.125 0 0.648 0.823 0.153 0.303 0.267 0 0.762 0.923 0.231

lA3 ðxÞ 0.495 0.603 0.987 0.073 0.037 0.69 0.147 0.213 0.501 1 0.324 0.045

vA 3

ðxÞ 0.387 0.298 0.006 0.849 0.923 0.268 0.812 0.653 0.284 0 0.483 0.912

lA4 ðxÞ 1 1 0.857 0.734 0.021 0.076 0.152 0.113 0.489 1 0.386 0.028

vA 5

ðxÞ 0 0 0.123 0.158 0.896 0.912 0.712 0.756 0.389 0 0.485 0.912

lB(x) 0.978 0.98 0.798 0.693 0.051 0.123 0.152 0.113 0.494 0.987 0.376 0.012

vB(x) 0.003 0.012 0.132 0.213 0.876 0.756 0.721 0.732 0.368 0 0.423 0.897

F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57 55

Table 7

Symptoms characteristic for the patients.

Al (0.8, 0.1) (0.6, 0.1) (0.2, 0.8) (0.6, 0.1) (0.1, 0.6)

Bob (0.0, 0.8) (0.4, 0.4) (0.6, 0.1) (0.1, 0.7) (0.1, 0.8)

Joe (0.8, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1) (0.0, 0.6) (0.2, 0.7) (0.0, 0.5)

Ted (0.6, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4) (0.3, 0.4) (0.7, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4)

Table 8

Symptoms characteristic for the diagnoses.

Viral Fever (0.4, 0.0) (0.3, 0.5) (0.1, 0.7) (0.4, 0.3) (0.1, 0.7)

Malaria (0.7, 0.0) (0.2, 0.6) (0.0, 0.9) (0.7, 0.0) (0.1, 0.8)

Typhoid (0.3, 0.3) (0.6, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7) (0.2, 0.6) (0.1, 0.9)

Stomach problem (0.1, 0.7) (0.2, 0.4) (0.8, 0.0) (0.2, 0.7) (0.2, 0.7)

Chest problem (0.1, 0.8) (0.0, 0.8) (0.2, 0.8) (0.2, 0.8) (0.8, 0.1)

Table 9

The results measured by the proposed similarity measure.

Al 0.843 0.833 0.800 0.553 0.500

Bob 0.670 0.540 0.740 0.900 0.653

Joe 0.803 0.713 0.860 0.627 0.567

Ted 0.820 0.770 0.710 0.630 0.550

pattern Q belongs to class C2 when SH, CIFS and SpE are used. It is easy to see that the reason for this difference is the ﬁrst fea-

ture, i.e., (x1). The IFNs of x1 are (0.5, 0.2), (0.5, 0.3) and (0.4, 0.2) for P1, P2 and Q, respectively. It is expected that the similarity

degree between (0.5, 0.3) and (0.4, 0.2) is at least equal or greater than the similarity degree between (0.5,0.2) and (0.4,0.2)

since they are ordered as (0.5, 0.2) > (0.5, 0.3) > (0.4, 0.2) according to Deﬁnition 3. Therefore, it seems that S(P2, Q) > S(P1, Q) is

more reasonable.

Example 4. [7] A1, A2, A3, A4, four classes of known building materials, and B, unknown building material, are given in the

feature space X = {x1, x2, . . . , x12} and represented by IFSs (Table 6). It is aimed to ﬁnd out which class B belongs to.

In order to do that, the distances between four classes of building material and unknown building material are calculated

with (8) as follows:

SðA1 ; BÞ ¼ 0:569 SðA2 ; BÞ ¼ 0:566 SðA3 ; BÞ ¼ 0:803 SðA4 ; BÞ ¼ 0:975

B has been classiﬁed to A4, this result is the same with the result obtained in [7].

Example 5. [21,26–30]Let there be four patients Al, Bob, Joe, Ted, and the set of patients is represented as T = {Al, Bob, Joe,

Ted}. Their symptoms are Temperature, Headache, Stomach pain, Cough, Chest pain, and the set of symptoms is represented

as S={Temperature, Headache, Stomach pain, Cough, Chest pain}. The set of diagnosis is deﬁned, i.e. D = {Viral Fever, Malaria,

Typhoid, Stomach problem, Heart problem}. IFNs are given as relation T ? S and S ? D in Tables 7 and 8.

In order to accomplish a proper diagnosis for each patient, the distance between a diagnosis and all patients is calculated

in context of symptoms. This process is done for all diagnoses. The higher similarity (the lower distance), pointing to a proper

diagnosis is intended. In Table 9, the degree of similarity between patients and diagnoses are presented. According to the

similarity degrees in Table 9, Al suffers from Viral Fever, Bob suffers from Stomach problem, Joe suffers from Typhoid,

and Ted suffers from Viral Fever. When the results are deeply analyzed, the similarity degrees of Viral Fever and Malaria

for Al are so closed. The same problem has been considered in [21,26–30]. The results obtained in these studies are shown

in Table 10. It is obviously seen that Bob suffers from a stomach problem since all the measures provide the same result. Joe

suffers from typhoid in seven out of the nine methods. Five out of the nine methods indicate that Al suffers from Viral Fever,

and other methods indicate that Al suffers from Malaria. Similarly, six out of the nine methods indicate that Ted suffers from

Viral Fever, and other methods indicate that Ted suffers from Malaria. This situation illustrates that it is very hard to

56 F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57

Table 10

All the considered results.

Al Viral fever Viral fever Malaria

Bob Stomach problem Stomach problem Stomach problem

Joe Typhoid Stomach problem Typhoid

Ted Viral fever Viral fever Viral Fever

Szmidt and Kacprzyk in [26] De et al. in [29] Fuzzy similarity in [28]

Al Viral fever Malaria Malaria

Bob Stomach problem Stomach problem Stomach problem

Joe Typhoid Malaria Typhoid

Ted Malaria Malaria Malaria

Vlachos and Sergiadis [30] p = 1,t = 2 SpE Wei et al. in [21]

Al Viral fever Viral fever Malaria

Bob Stomach problem Stomach problem Stomach problem

Joe Typhoid Typhoid Typhoid

Ted Viral fever Viral fever Viral fever

diagnose whether Al and Ted suffers from Viral Fever or Malaria or not because these two symptoms are involved with each

other. The proposed method provides the same results obtained in Own [28] and Vlachos and Sergiadis [30] with less com-

putational burden.

7. Conclusion

Even though several similarity measures are proposed for IFSs in the literature, most of them have provided counter-intu-

itive results. In this study, we have proposed a new general type of similarity measure between IFSs depending on two

parameters, expressing Lp norm and the level of uncertainty, respectively. In some special cases, it has been seen that some

of the existing similarity measure cannot provide reasonable results. The proposed similarity measure is however capable of

differentiating IFSs in these special cases. Moreover, we have reinvestigated ﬁve problems encountered in pattern recogni-

tion by using the proposed method. For pattern recognition problems in Examples 1–4, the results are the same with some of

those of other studies. For Example 5, a compatible result is achieved compared to the results of previous studies. In the light

of this study, the proposed similarity measure can be effectively used in the real applications of decision making, pattern

recognition, linguistic summarization and data mining in the future research.

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Witold Pedrycz, and the anonymous referees, for their con-

structive comments and suggestions that led to an improved version of this paper. This research is supported by The Scien-

tiﬁc and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK: 112M030).

References

[1] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338–353.

[2] K.T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic Fuzzy-Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986) 87–96.

[3] W.L. Gau, D.J. Buehrer, Vague Sets, Ieee Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics 23 (1993) 610–614.

[4] H. Bustince, P. Burillo, Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 403–405.

[5] M.M. Xia, Z.S. Xu, Some new similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy values and their application in group decision making, Journal of Systems

Science and Systems Engineering 19 (2010) 430–452.

[6] E. Szmidt, J. Kacprzyk, Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114 (2000) 505–518.

[7] W.Q. Wang, X.L. Xin, Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Pattern Recognition Letters 26 (2005) 2063–2069.

[8] P. Grzegorzewski, Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the Hausdorff metric, Fuzzy Sets and Systems

148 (2004) 319–328.

[9] T.-Y. Chen, A note on distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the Hausdorff metric, Fuzzy Sets and

Systems 158 (2007) 2523–2525.

[10] W.L. Hung, M.S. Yang, Similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on Hausdorff distance, Pattern Recognition Letters 25 (2004) 1603–1611.

[11] D.F. Li, C.T. Cheng, New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application to pattern recognitions, Pattern Recognition Letters 23 (2002)

221–225.

[12] H.B. Mitchell, On the Dengfeng–Chuntian similarity measure and its application to pattern recognition, Pattern Recognition Letters 24 (2003) 3101–

3104.

[13] Z.Z. Liang, P.F. Shi, Similarity measures on intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Pattern Recognition Letters 24 (2003) 2687–2693.

[14] Y.H. Li, D.L. Olson, Z. Qin, Similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy (vague) sets: a comparative analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters 28 (2007)

278–285.

[15] J. Ye, Cosine similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (2011) 91–97.

[16] C.M. Hwang, M.S. Yang, W.L. Hung, M.G. Lee, A similarity measure of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on the Sugeno integral with its application to

pattern recognition, Information Sciences 189 (2012) 93–109.

[17] Z.S. Xu, Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple attribute decision making, Fuzzy Optim Decis Ma 6

(2007) 109–121.

F.E. Boran, D. Akay / Information Sciences 255 (2014) 45–57 57

[18] Z.S. Xu, J. Chen, An overview of distance and similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Int J Uncertain Fuzz 16 (2008) 529–555.

[19] Z.S. Xu, R.R. Yager, Intuitionistic and interval-valued intutionistic fuzzy preference relations and their measures of similarity for the evaluation of

agreement within a group, Fuzzy Optim Decis Ma 8 (2009) 123–139.

[20] W.Y. Zeng, P. Guo, Normalized distance, similarity measure, inclusion measure and entropy of interval-valued fuzzy sets and their relationship,

Information Sciences 178 (2008) 1334–1342.

[21] C.P. Wei, P. Wang, Y.Z. Zhang, Entropy, similarity measure of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications, Information Sciences 181

(2011) 4273–4286.

[22] M.H. Shu, C.H. Cheng, J.R. Chang, Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for fault-tree analysis on printed circuit board assembly, Microelectronics Reliability 46

(2006) 2139–2148.

[23] S.M. Chen, J.M. Tan, Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set-theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 67 (1994) 163–172.

[24] D.H. Hong, C.H. Choi, Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114 (2000) 103–113.

[25] Z.S. Xu, R.R. Yager, Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets, International Journal of General Systems 35 (2006) 417–

433.

[26] E. Szmidt, J. Kacprzyk, A similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in supporting medical diagnostic reasoning, Artiﬁcial

Intelligence and Soft Computing – ICAISC 2004 3070 (2004) 388–393.

[27] E. Szmidt, J. Kacprzyk, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in intelligent data analysis for medical diagnosis, Computational Science – ICCS 2001, Proceedings Pt 2

2074 (2001) 263–271.

[28] C.M. Own, Switching between type-2 fuzzy sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets: an application in medical diagnosis, Applied Intelligence 31 (2009) 283–

291.

[29] S.K. De, R. Biswas, A.R. Roy, An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 117 (2001) 209–213.

[30] I.K. Vlachos, G.D. Sergiadis, Intuitionistic fuzzy information – applications to pattern recognition, Pattern Recognition Letters 28 (2007) 197–206.

[31] S.M. Chen, Measures of similarity between vague sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 217–223.

[32] D.H. Hong, C. Kim, A note on similarity measures between vague sets and between elements, Information Sciences 115 (1999) 83–96.

[33] L. Fan, X. Zhangyan, Similarity measures between vague sets, J. Software 12 (2001) 922–927.

[34] Y. Li, C. Zhongxian, Y. Degin, Similarity measures between vague sets and vague entropy, Journal of Computer Science 29 (2002) 129–132.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.