Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 4503–4520 | Cite as

Bipolar fuzzy concept learning using next neighbor and Euclidean distance

  • Prem Kumar SinghEmail author
Methodologies and Application


To handle the bipolarity in data with fuzzy attributes the properties of bipolar fuzzy set are introduced in the concept lattice theory for precise representation of formal fuzzy concepts and their hierarchical order visualization. In this process, adequate understanding of meaningful pattern existing in bipolar fuzzy concept lattice becomes complex when its size becomes exponential. To resolve this problem, the current paper proposes two methods based on the properties of next neighbors and Euclidean distance with an illustrative example. It is also shown that the proposed method provides similar knowledge extraction when compared to available subset-based method drawing for bipolar fuzzy concept lattice.


Bipolar fuzzy concept Bipolar information Formal concept analysis Formal fuzzy concept Fuzzy concept lattice Granular computing 



Author thanks the anonymous reviewers and editor for their insight to improve the presentation and quality of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.


  1. Akram M (2011) Bipolar fuzzy graphs. Inf Sci 181(24):5548–5564MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Akram M (2013) Bipolar fuzzy graphs with applications. Knowl-Based Syst 39:1–8zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcalde C, Burusco A, Fuentes-Gonzales R (2015) The use of two relations in L-fuzzy contexts. Inf Sci 301:1–12MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Antoni L, Krajci S, Kridlo O, Macek B, Piskova L (2014) On heterogeneous formal contexts. Fuzzy Sets Syst 234:22–33MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bělohlávek R (1998) Fuzzy concepts and conceptual structures: induced similarities. Proc JCIS 1:179–182Google Scholar
  6. Bělohlávek R, Macko J (2011) Selecting important concepts using weights. Lect Notes Comput Sci 6628:65–80zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloch I (2011) Lattices of fuzzy sets and bipolar fuzzy sets, and mathematical morphology. Inf Sci 181(10):2002–2015MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Burusco A, Fuentes-Gonzalez R (1994) The study of the L-fuzzy concept lattice. Mathw Soft Comput 1(3):209–218MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Burusco A, Fuentes-Gonzales R (2001) The study on interval-valued contexts. Fuzzy Sets Syst 121(3):439–452MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Delgado M, Marín N, Pérez Y, Vila MA (2016) Bipolar queries on fuzzy univalued and multivalued attributes in object databases. Fuzzy Sets Syst 292:175–192MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Dias SM, Viera NJ (2013) Applying the JBOS reduction method for relevant knowledge extraction. Exp Syst Appl 40(5):1880–1887Google Scholar
  12. Djouadi Y, Prade H (2009) Interval—valued fuzzy formal concept analysis. In: Rauch J et al (eds) ISMIS 2009, LNAI 5722. Springer, Berlin, pp 592–601Google Scholar
  13. Djouadi Y, Prade H (2010) Interval-valued fuzzy Galois connections: algebraic requirements and concept lattice construction. Fundam Inf 99(2):168–186MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubois D, Prade H (2012) Gradualness, uncertainty and bipolarity: making sense of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 192:3–24MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubois D, Prade H (2015) Formal concept analysis from the standpoint of possibility theory. In: Proceedings of ICFCA 2015, LNAI 9113, pp 21–38Google Scholar
  16. Franco C, Montero J, Rodriguez JT (2013) A fuzzy and bipolar approach to preference modeling with application to need and desire. Fuzzy Sets Syst 214:20–34MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Formica A (2008) Concept similarity in formal concept analysis: an information content approach. Knowl Based Syst 21:80–87Google Scholar
  18. Ganter B, Wille R (1999) Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundation. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Hu BQ (2014) Three-way decisions space and three-way decisions. Inf Sci 281:21–52MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Khan S, Gani A, Wahab AWA, Singh PK (2017) Feature selection of denial-of-service attacks using entropy and granular computing. Arab J Sci Eng 43(2):499–508. Google Scholar
  21. Klawonn F, Castro JL (1995) Similarity in fuzzy reasoning. Mathw Soft Comput 2:97–228MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar CA, Singh PK (2014) Knowledge representation using formal concept analysis: a study on concept generation. Glob Trends Knowl Represent Comput Intell 2014:306–336Google Scholar
  23. Lee KM (2000) Bipolar-valued fuzzy sets and their basic operations: In: Proceedings of the international conference, Bangkok, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  24. Li Y, Olson DL, Qin Z (2007) Similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy (vague) sets: a comparative analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 28:278–285Google Scholar
  25. Li JH, Mei CL, Xu WH, Qian YH (2015) Concept learning via granular computing: a cognitive viewpoint. Inf Sci 298:447–467MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Li JH, Huang C, Qi J, Qian Y, Liu W (2017) Three-way cognitive concept learning via multi-granularity. Inf Sci 378:244–263Google Scholar
  27. Liu H, Li Q, Zhou X (2012) L-information systems and complete L-lattices. Neural Comput Appl 23(3):1139–1147Google Scholar
  28. Mao H (2017) Representing attribute reduction and concepts in concept lattice using graphs. Soft Comput 21(24):7293–7311zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Pandey LK, Ojha KK, Singh PK, Singh CS, Dwivedi S, Bergey EA (2016) Diatoms image database of India (DIDI): a research tool. Environ Technol Innov 5:148–160Google Scholar
  30. Pedrycz W (2013) Granular computing: analysis and design of intelligent systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 2013Google Scholar
  31. Pedrycz W, Chen SM (2015) Granular computing and decision-making: interactive and iterative approaches. Springer, Heidelberg ISBN: 978-3-319-16829-6Google Scholar
  32. Pollandt S (1997) Fuzzy begriffe. Springer, Berlin, p 1997zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh PK (2016) Processing linked formal fuzzy context using non-commutative composition. Inst Integr Omics Appl Biotechnol (IIOAB) J 7(5):21–32Google Scholar
  34. Singh PK (2017a) Three-way fuzzy concept lattice representation using neutrosophic set. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 8(1):69–79Google Scholar
  35. Singh PK (2017b) Complex vague set based concept lattice. Chaos Solitons Fractals 96:145–153zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh PK (2017c) Interval-valued neutrosophic graph representation of concept lattice and its (\(\alpha,\beta,\gamma \))-decomposition. Arab J Sci Eng 43(2):723–740. Google Scholar
  37. Singh PK (2017d) Concept learning using vague concept lattice. Neural Process Lett. Google Scholar
  38. Singh PK (2017e) Similar vague concepts selection using their Euclidean distance at different granulation. Cogn Comput. Google Scholar
  39. Singh PK (2018) \(m\)-polar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Eng Appl Artif Intell 67:52–62Google Scholar
  40. Singh PK, Gani A (2015) Fuzzy concept lattice reduction using Shannon entropy and Huffman coding. J Appl Nonclassical Log 25(2):101–119MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Singh PK, Kumar CA (2012) A method for decomposition of fuzzy formal context. Proc Eng 38:1852–1857Google Scholar
  42. Singh PK, Kumar CA (2014a) A note on bipolar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Int J Comput Sci Math 5(4):381–393MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh PK, Kumar CA (2014b) Bipolar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Inf Sci 288:437–448MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh PK, Kumar CA, Li J (2016) Knowledge representation using interval-valued fuzzy concept lattice. Soft Comput 20(4):1485–1502zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Tamani N, Lietard L, Rocacher D (2011) Bipolarity in flexible querying of information systems dedicated to multimodal transport networks. In: Proceedings of 10th international symposium on programming and systems 2011, Algeria, pp 108–115Google Scholar
  46. Wille R (1982) Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In: Rival I (ed) Ordered sets, NATO advanced study institutes series, vol 83, pp 445–470Google Scholar
  47. Wu WZ, Leung Y, Mi JS (2009) Granular computing and knowledge reduction in formal context. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 21(10):1461–1474Google Scholar
  48. Yao YY (2004) Concept lattices in rough set theory. In: Proceedings of 2004 annual meeting of the North American fuzzy information processing society. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 796–801Google Scholar
  49. Yao YY (2017) Interval sets and three-way concept analysis in incomplete contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8(1):3–20Google Scholar
  50. Yang HL, Sg Li, Wang WH, Lu Y (2013) Notes on “Bipolar fuzzy graphs”. Inf Sci 242:113–121MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. Zadeh LA (1971) Similarity relation and fuzzy ordering. Inf Sci 1:177–200MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Zadrozny S, Kacprzyk J, De Tre G (2012) Bipolar queries in textual information retrieval: a new perspective. Inf Process Manag 48(3):390–398Google Scholar
  53. Zhang WR (1994) Bipolar fuzzy sets and relations: a computational framework for cognitive modeling and multiagent decision analysis. Proc IEEE Conf 1994:305–309Google Scholar
  54. Zhang WR (2017) Programming the mind and decrypting the universe a bipolar quantum-neuro-fuzzy associative memory model for quantum cognition and quantum intelligence. In: Proceedings of 2017 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN).
  55. Zhang WR, Zhang L (2004) YinYang bipolar logic and bipolar fuzzy logic. Inf Sci 165(3–4):265–287zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang WX, Ma JM, Fan SQ (2007) Variable threshold concept lattices. Inf Sci 117(2):4883–4892MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity Institute of Information TechnologyAmity UniversityNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations