Advertisement

How to Enhance, Use and Understand Fuzzy Relational Compositions

  • Nhung Cao
  • Martin ŠtěpničkaEmail author
  • Michal Burda
  • Aleš Dolný
Chapter
  • 32 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 835)

Abstract

This article focuses on fuzzy relational compositions, that unquestionably played a crucial role in fundamentals of fuzzy mathematics since the very beginning of their development. We follow the original works aiming at medical diagnosis, where the compositions were actually used for a sort of classification and/or pattern recognition based on expert knowledge stored in the used fuzzy relations. We provide readers with short repetition of theoretical foundations and two recent extensions of the compositions and then, we introduce how they may be combined together. No matter the huge potential of the original compositions and their extensions, if the features are constructed in a certain specific yet very natural way, some limitations for the applicability may be encountered anyhow. This will be demonstrated on a real classification example from biology. The proposed combinations of extensions will be also experimentally evaluated and they will show the potential for further improvements.

References

  1. 1.
    W. Bandler, L.J. Kohout, Semantics of implication operators and fuzzy relational products. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 12(1), 89–116 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Belohlavek, Sup-t-norm and inf-residuum are one type of relational product: unifying framework and consequences. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 197, 45–58 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Burda, Linguistic fuzzy logic in R, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, (Istanbul, Turkey, 2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Běhounek, M. Daňková, Relational compositions in fuzzy class theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160(8), 1005–1036 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Bělohlávek, Fuzzy Relational Systems: Foundations and Principles (Kluwer Academic, Plenum Press, Dordrecht, New York, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Cao, M. Štěpnička, How to incorporate excluding features in fuzzy relational compositions and what for, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 611), (Springer, Berlin, 2016), pp. 470–481Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Cao, M. Štěpnička, Incorporation of excluding features in fuzzy relational compositions based on generalized quantifiers, in The 10th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology, p. to appear, (Springer, Warsaw, Poland, 2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Cao, M. Štěpnička, M. Burda, A. Dolný, Excluding features in fuzzy relational compositions. Expert Syst. Appl. 81, 1–11 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Cao, M. Štěpnička, M. Holčapek, An extension of fuzzy relational compositions using generalized quantifiers, in Proceedings of the 16th World Congress of the International Fuzzy Systems Association (IFSA) and 9th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy-Logic and Technology (EUSFLAT), Advances in Intelligent Systems Research, vol. 89, (Atlantis press, Gijón, 2015), pp. 49–58Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Cao, M. Štěpnička, M. Holčapek, Extensions of fuzzy relational compositions based on generalized quantifer. Fuzzy Sets Syst. (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. De Baets, Analytical Solution Methods for Fuzzy Relational Equations, in The Handbook of Fuzzy Set Series, vol. 1, ed. by D. Dubois, H. Prade (Academic Kluwer Publ, Boston, 2000), pp. 291–340Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. De Baets, E. Kerre, Fuzzy relational compositions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 60, 109–120 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Delgado, D. Sánchez, M.A. Vila, Fuzzy cardinality based evaluation of quantified sentences. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 23, 23–66 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Di Nola, S. Sessa, W. Pedrycz, E. Sanchez, Fuzzy Relation Equations and Their Applications to Knowledge Engineering (Kluwer, Boston, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Dolný, F. Harabiš, D. Bárta, Vážky (in Czech) (Prague, Czech Republic, Nakladatelství Academia, 2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Dubois, M. Nakata, H. Prade, Find the items which certainly have (most of the) important characteristics to a sufficient degree, in Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Fuzzy Systems Association (IFSA’97), vol. 2, (Prague, Czech Republic, 1997), pp. 243–248Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Dubois, H. Prade, Semantics of quotient operators in fuzzy relational databases. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 78, 89–93 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Dvořák, M. Holčapek, L-fuzzy quantifiers of type \(\langle 1\rangle \) determined by fuzzy measures. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 160(23), 3425–3452 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Harabiš, A. Dolný, Ecological factors determining the density-distribution of central European dragonflies (Odonata). Eur. J. Entomol. 107, 571–577 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Kohout, E. Kim, The role of bk-products of relations in soft computing. Soft Comput. 6, 92–115 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Kuhn, J. Wing, S. Weston, A. Williams, C. Keefer, A. Engelhardt, T. Cooper, Z. Mayer, B. Kenkel, the R Core Team, M. Benesty, R. Lescarbeau, A. Ziem, L. Scrucca, Y. Tang, C. Candan, T. Hunt, Caret: Classification and Regression Training (2016). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caret. R package version 6.0–73
  22. 22.
    Y. Lee, Y. Kim, L. Kohout, An intelligent collision avoidance system for auvs using fuzzy relational products. Inf. Sci. 158, 209–232 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Liaw, M. Wiener, Classification and regression by randomforest. R News 2(3), 18–22 (2002). http://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/
  24. 24.
    C.K. Lim, C.S. Chan, A weighted inference engine based on interval-valued fuzzy relational theory. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(7), 3410–3419 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Mandal, B. Jayaram, SISO fuzzy relational inference systems based on fuzzy implications are universal approximators. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 277, 1–21 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    V. Novák, A comprehensive theory of trichotomous evaluative linguistic expressions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 159(22), 2939–2969 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    W. Pedrycz, Fuzzy relational equations with generalized connectives and their applications. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 10, 185–201 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    W. Pedrycz, Applications of fuzzy relational equations for methods of reasoning in presence of fuzzy data. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 16, 163–175 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O. Pivert, P. Bosc, Fuzzy Preference Queries to Relational Databases (Imperial College Press, London, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Sanchez, Resolution of composite fuzzy relation equations. Inf. Control 30, 38–48 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Sussner, M. Valle, Implicative fuzzy associative memories. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 14, 793–807 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. Sussner, M. Valle, Classification of fuzzy mathematical morphologies based on concepts of inclusion measure and duality. J. Math. Imaging Vis. 32, 139–159 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Štěpnička, B. De Baets, Interpolativity of at-least and at-most models of monotone single-input single-output fuzzy rule bases. Inf. Sci. 234, 16–28 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Štěpnička, B. De Baets, L. Nosková, Arithmetic fuzzy models. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 18, 1058–1069 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Štěpnička, M. Holčapek, Fuzzy relational compositions based on generalized quantifiers, Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 443, PT II (IPMU’14), Communications in Computer and Information Science (Springer, Berlin, 2014), pp. 224–233Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Štěpnička, B. Jayaram, On the suitability of the Bandler–Kohout subproduct as an inference mechanism. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 18(2), 285–298 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Štěpnička, B. Jayaram, Interpolativity of at-least and at-most models of monotone fuzzy rule bases with multiple antecedent variables. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 297, 26–45 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nhung Cao
    • 1
  • Martin Štěpnička
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michal Burda
    • 1
  • Aleš Dolný
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Research and Applications of Fuzzy Modeling, CE IT4InnovationsUniversity of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Biology and EcologyUniversity of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations