FUZZY LOGIC

THEORY AND DECISION LIBRARY

General Editors: W. Leinfellner (Vienna) and G. Eberlein (Munich)

Series A: Philosophy and Methodology of the Social Sciences

Series B: Mathematical and Statistical Methods

Series C: Game Theory, Mathematical Programming and Operations Research

Series D: System Theory, Knowledge Engiheering and Problem Solving

SERIES D: SYSTEM THEORY, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING

AND PROBLEM SOLVING
VOLUME 12

Editor: R. Lowen (Antwerp); Editorial Board: G. Feichtinger (Vienna), G. J. Klir (New

York) O. Opitz (Augsburg), H. J. Skala (Paderborn), M. Sugeno (Yokohama), H. J.
Zimmermann (Aachen).

Scope: Design, study and development of structures, organizations and systems aimed at
formal applications mainly in the social and human sciences but also relevant to the
information sciences. Within these bounds three types of study are of particular interest.
First, formal definition and development of fundamental theory and/or methodology, second,
computational and/or algorithmic implementations and third, comprehensive empirical
studies, observation or case studies. Although submissions of edited collections will appear
occasionally, primarily monographs will be considered for publication in the series. To
emphasize the changing nature of the fields of interest we refrain from giving a clear
delineation and exhaustive list of topics. However, certainly included are: artificial
intelligence (including machine learning, expert and knowledge based systems approaches),
information systems (particularly decision support .systems), approximate reasoning
(including fuzzy approaches and reasoning under uncertainty), knowledge acquisition and
representation, modeling, diagnosis, and control.

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.
 FUZZYLOGIC
State ofthe Art

edited by

R.LOWEN
University ofAntwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
and
M. ROUBENS
Universitlff de Liege, Liege, Belgium

SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fuzzy logie state of the art / edited by R. Lowen and M. Roubens.

p. em. -- (Theory and deeision library, Series D, System
theory, knowledge engineering, and problem solving ; v. 12)
ISBN 978-94-010-4890-3 ISBN 978-94-011-2014-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-2014-2
1. Fuzzy sets--Congresses. 2. Fuzzy systems--Congresses.
r. Lowen, R. (Robert) II. Roubens, Mare. III. Series.
QA248.F856 1993
511.3--dc20 93-15889

ISBN 978-94-010-4890-3

Printed an acid-free paper

AH Rights Reserved
© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1993
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover Ist edition 1993
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ix

I. MATHEMATICS

Nonmonotonicity, Fuzziness, and Multi-Values 3

P. Doherty and D. Driankov

On some Fuzzy Binary Relations Related to Implication Functions 17

S. Ovchinnikov

Preference Modelling and Aggregation Procedures with Valued Binary Relations 29

J.e. Fodor and M. Roubens

Completions and Compactifications by Means of Monads 39

P. Eklund and W. Gahler

Some Results on Compactification in Fuzzy Topological Spaces 57

R. Lowen. R.e. Steinlage and P. Wuyts

Bounded Linear Transformations Between Probabilistic Normed Vector Spaces 69

MA. Amer and NN. Morsi

A Level-Topologies Criterion for Lowen Fuzzy Uniformizability 77

A. Kandil. KA. Hashem and NN. Morsi

Towards a Mathematical Theory of Fuzzy Topology 83

M.W. Warner

The Parametrization of Fuzzy Sets by Single-Valued Mappings 95

P. Diamond and P. Kloeden

On Possibility/Probability Transformations 103

D. Dubois. H. Prade and S. Sandri

Calculus of Properties and Fuzzy Sets 113

SA. Orlovski

MV Algebras in the Treatment of Uncertainty 123

A. Vi Nola
 vi

An Algebraic Approach to Reasoning with Conditional Information 133

H.T. Nguyen

Empirical Possibility and Minimal Information Distortion 143

C. Joslyn

On Co-Optimal Lifts in the Category of Fuzzy Neighbourhood Spaces 153

E.E. Kerre and NN. Morsi

Cuts Commute with Closures 161

W. Bandler and L.I. Kohout

Toll Sets and Toll Logic 169

D. Dubois and H. Prade

II. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Generating Control Strategies for Resolution-Based Theorem Provers by Means

of Fuzzy Triangle Products and Relational Closures 181
L.I. Kohout and Y-G. Kim

On Zadeh's Compositional Rule of Inference 193

R. Fuller and H-J. Zimmermann

Interval Valued Approximate Reasoning for Ignorance Processing 201

K. Nakamura

A Logical Structure for a Knowledge Base 213

E. Hisdal

Approximate Pattern Classification Using Neural Networks 225

H. Ishibuchi and H. Tanaka

Updating the Biology of the Artificial Neuron 237

AF. Rocha. R.I. Machado and F. Gomide

Fuzzy Screening Systems 251

RR. Yager

III. COMPUTER, MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS SCIENCE

Fuzzy Linear Programming Problems with Min- and Max-Extended Algebraic

Operations on Centered Fuzzy Numbers 265
M. Kovacs
 vii

New Solution Concepts for MuItiobjective Nonlinear Programming Problems

with Fuzzy Parameters Incorporating Fuzzy Goals 277
M. Sakawa and H. Yano

On Optimization with Interdependent Multiple Criteria 287

C. Carlsson

Supporting System for the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Based on Glucose

Tolerance Test Responses Using a Fuzzy Inference 301
S. Arita, M. Yoneda and Y. Hori

Fuzzy 0-1 Programming through Neural Computation 311

S. Sakawa and K. Sawada

A Visual Interactive Method for MOLP Problems with Fuzzy Coefficients 321
P. Czytak and R. Slowinski

A Survey of Fuzzy Intuitionistic Logics in Quantum Mechanics 333

G. Cattaneo, M.L. Dalla Chiara and R. Giuntini

Fuzzy Classifier Systems 345

A. Geyer-Schulz

On the Evaluation of Simple Fuzzy Relational Queries : Principles and Measures 355
P. Bosc and O. Pivert

Numerical and Logical Approaches to Fuzzy Set Theory by the Context Model 365
R. Kruse, J. Gebhardt and F. Klawonn

A Class of Fuzzy FeaturaI Models of Similarity Judgments 377

M. Smithson

Fuzzy Analysis of Fuzzy Data 385

H. Bandemer

Measure-Based Semantics for Modal Logic 395

T. Murai. M. Miyakoshi and M. Shimbo

Least Squares Methods in Fuzzy Data Analysis 407

P. Diamond
Information-Preserving Probability-Possibility Transformations. Recent
Developments 417
G.J. Klir and J.F. Geer

Analyzing the Meaning of Fuzziness in Random Experiments 429

MA. Gil
viii

Fuzzy Implication, and Fuzzy Inclusion: A Comparative Axiomatic Study 441

L. Kitainik

Robust Computations with Fuzzy Sets 453

W. Pedrycz. N. Yubazaki. M. Otani and K. Hirota

IV. ENGINEERING

A Self-Tuning Method of Fuzzy Inference Rules by Descent Method 465

H. Nomura. I. Hayashi and N. Wakami

Mathematical Morphology Based on Fuzzy Operators 477

V. Di Gesu, M.e. Maccarone and M. Tripiciano

Stability Analysis of Fuzzy Control Systems Based on the Conicity Criterion 487
J. Aracil. A. Garda-Cerezo, A. Barreiro and A. Ollero

Model Predictive Control Using Fuzzy Dynamic Models 497

Y. Nakamori. K. Suzuki and T. Yamanaka

Time Weighted Fault Tolerant Control 507

Z. Bien and H. Lee

Use of Natural Language in System Reliability Analysis 517

T.Onisawa

Parameter Adjustment Laws of Fuzzy PI Controllers for First Order Lag

Systems with Dead Time 531
K. Tanaka and M. Sano

Adaptive Fuzzy Control 541

P.Y. G/orennec

Fuzzy Control for High Frequency Tube Welding System 553

T.lokibe

Hybrid Fuzzy Self-Organizing Controller for Visual Tracking 569

Z. Bien and J. Park

Integration of Symbolic Path-Planning and Fuzzy Control for Intelligent Mobile

Robot 579
T. Sawaragi. K. Itoh. O. Katai and S. Iwai
Preface
The present book finds its roots in the IFSA'91 World Conference held in Brussels in
July 1991. A number of contributions to that conference were selected via a refereeing
process and were consequently chosen as basis for extended contributions in the present
volume. Since the final contributions were prepared approximately one year after the
conference, all authors were requested to include also their more recent findings in their
contributions, even if this meant deviating considerably from the original contribution
for the conference. The contents of this volume are therefore more recent than its link
with IFSA'91 leads to believe. For this reason the title also does not refer to IFSA'91.
Nevertheless, as was the case for the conference itself, the contributions are divided
over four topical chapters. Each chapter dealing with a major area of research in fuzzy
logic or fuzzy set theory in general. The first chapter treats mathematical aspects,
the second chapter treats artificial intelligence, the third chapter treats computer,
management and systems science and finally the last chapter treats engineering.

The chapter on mathematical aspects deals with a number of various topics such as,
on the theoretical side, e. g. MV algebras and fuzzy topology, and on the applied side,
e. g. possibility and probability, fuzzy relations, calculus with fuzzy sets, reasoning
with conditional information, and parametrization of fuzzy sets.

The chapter on artificial intelligence, although the shortest of the four, nevertheless
deals with interestinz topics such as e. g. theorem provers, rules of inference,
knowledge bases, and pattern classification.

The chapter on computer, management and systems science deals with e. g. fuzzy
linear programming, multiobjective linear and nonlinear programming, fuzzy 0-1
programming, classifier systems, analysis of fuzzy data, and implication and
inclusion operations.

The chapter on engineering deals with e. g. self-tuning methods of inference rules,

stability analysis of fuzzy control systems, model predictive control, system reliability,
fuzzy PI controllers, adaptive fuzzy control, and hybrid fuzzy self-organizing control.

We are convinced that this book accurately reflects important areas of present-day
work in the field, and we would like to sincerely thank all colleagues who have
contributed to this volume, thus making it a real state of the art, as far as applications
and ongoing research in the wide field of fuzzy set theory is concerned.

R. Lowen M. Roubens
ix
MATHEMATICS
 Nonmonotonicity. Fuzziness, and Multi-Values
Patrick Doherty*and Dimiter Driankov

Department of Computer and Information Science

Linkoping University
S-58183 Linkoping, Sweden
patdo@ida.liu.se

Abstract
The use of fu7,zy sets to represent extensions of predicates has as a
consequence that the truth of a predicate belongs to the interval [0,1].
In this case the underlying logic is a many-valued one in which the law
of excluded middle does not hold. This is due to the presence of a truth-
value which expresses ignorance about whether an object has a property
or not without rejecting the possibility that it might have this property.
This is exactly the type of knowledge used in non-monotonic reasoning
systems which allows a fact to be asserted as true by default. We cap-
italize on the natural existence of such a truth value when interpreting
fuzzy predicates and propose a formalization of a fuzzy non-monotonic
logic. We start by extending fuzzy logic with two connectives M and L
where MO' reads as "it may be the case that 0' is true" and LO' reads
as "it is the case that 0' is true. In addition, a default operator D is
added where DO' is interpret.ed as "0' is true by default". The logic has
an intuitive model theoretic semantics without any appeal to the use of
a fixpoint semantics for the default operator. The semantics is based on
the notion of preferential entailment, where a set of sentences r prefer-
entially entails a sentence 0', if and only if a preferred set of the models
of r are models of 0'. The logic also belongs to the class of cumulative
non-monotonic formalisms which are a subject of current interest.

1 Introduction: fuzzy predicates and incom-

plete knowledge
The fundamental thesis of fuzzy sets theory is that set-membership may be
partial or gradual, that is, it need not be either-or as in ordinary set theory.
A fuzzy set F has no sharp boundaries and the degree of membership of an
element u in it is given by a membership function J.lF : U f---+ L, where U
·This article is a shorter version of a previous publication [4].

3
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.). FuZZY Logic. 3-15.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4

is the universe of discourse and L is a partially ordered set. In practice, L

is usually chosen as the real interval [0,1] with JJF(-) = 1 being the ordinary
membership, JJF(-) = 0 being the ordinary non-membership, and JJF(-) = 0.5
expressing ignorance about whether u belongs to F or not.
In this context, it is easily seen that if one decides to represent the extension
of a first-order predicate F with a fuzzy set (or an n-ary fuzzy relation if F is an
n-place predicate) then the truth of F, when interpreted, will be in the interval
[0,1]. In this case one talks about F being a fuzzy (vague) predicate and the
underlying logic is a many-valued one in which the excluded middle law does
not hold. This is due to the presence of a truth-value, 0.5, which expresses
ignorance about whether an object has the property F or not without rejecting
the possibility that it might have this property. Thus, JJF( u) = 0.5 can be
interpreted as

_ not conclusive evidence for the truth of "u has the property F"

_ not evidence against the truth of "u has the property F"

- evidence which suggests the possibility of "u has the property F" being
true

This is similar to the type of incomplete knowledge used in non-monotonic

reasoning systems which allows some fact, i.e. "u has the property F", to
be asserted as true if there exists a possibility of it being true and nothing
contradicts it. Thus, the natural existence of this special truth value of 0.5 in
fuzzy logic lays the ground for what is often called defeasible reasoning: we
want the option of withdrawing "u has the property F" if later on we decide
to decrease the degree of membership of u in F, ( i.e. to make JJF(U) < 0.5,
which then becomes evidence against the truth of "u has the property F").
Surprisingly enough, in all of the existing fuzzy logics, the presence of this
special truth value has always been hushed up by either making it a member
of the set of designated truth-values or by modifying the notion of satisfiability
of a formula so that, a formula in fuzzy logic is valid if and only if it is valid in
standard first-order logic [10], [6], [8]. The subsequent result is, that standard
first-order logic is a special case of fuzzy logic: if all fuzzy truth-values are in
the set {O, I} then fuzzy logic is reduced to standard first-order logic and thus,
is a monotonic logic.
In the present paper, we depart drastically from the existing treatments of
fuzzy logic and capitalize on the natural existence of a degree of membership of
0.5 in the extension of a fuzzy predicate. We then treat the proposition F( u),
where F is a fuzzy predicate, u a particular object from U, and IlP( u) = 0.5
as a piece of knowledge without conclusive evidence for its truth and with the
possibility of it being true. Now, one can treat F( u) as an assumption rather
than a fact and assert it is true by default. Technically this can be represented
by the following formula:

- MP(u) -+ DP(u)
 5

where we read MP( tt) as "it may be the case that u has the property F", and
DP(u) as "P(u) is true by default". Here, M is a truth-functional connective
which asserts the possibility of P( u) being true when we are ignorant as to
whether u has the-'property F, and D is a modal-like operator which asserts
the truth of P( u) by default.
It is along these lines that we propose a formalization of a fuzzy non-
monotonic logic which integrates the concept of incomplete information states
due to the presence of degrees of membership of 0.5, with the notion of default
defined in terms of a preferential ordering on these incomplete information
states. As an extra feature, the logic belongs to the class of cumulative logics,
which are a subject of current interest.
The paper is structured as follows. In section (2), we consider general
issues regarding non-monotonic formalisms. In section (3), the propositional
version of a fuzzy non-monotonic formalism is described. In section (4), we
consider some properties of FNML3, in particular the property of cumulativity.
In section (5), we comment on future and related work. An extended version
of this paper has already been published as [4].

2 The basic ideas: incomplete knowledge and

defaults
Traditionally, formal logical syst.ems have been characterized as cont.aining the
following components:
1. A formal language L defining the set of well-formed formulas (wff's).
2. A set of wff's called the axioms.
3. A set of "inference rules" for deriving theorems from the axioms.
Different logics can then be distinguished by the minimal set of theorems (in-
cluding the axioms) closed under the rules of inference. Furthermore, extending
the set of axioms car. never prevent the derivation of theorems already derived
from the original set of axioms. This approach has proved to be quite adequate
for modeling the domain of mathematics, as was the intention. Unfortunately,
it has proved to be less than adequate for modeling the domain of common
sense reasoning for two important reasons.
Firstly, reasoning agents are forced to draw conclusions based on an incom-
plete specification of the relevant information. Assumptions are made about the
missing information and conjectures, based upon the assumptions, are derived
instead of the more static notion of theorems. New evidence may prove the
assumptions invalid and the conjectures may no longer be derivable, thus the
non-monotonic nature of common-sense formalisms.
Secondly, the characterization of a logic as a minimal set of theorems gen-
erated by axioms and inference rules is too narrow a characterization for the
types of logic needed t.o adequately model the tentat.ive nature of human rea-
soning. An approach better serving the purpose is to concentrate on "what
6

follows from what", or more formally the semantic notion of entailment, an

idea popularized by Shoham [12]. In FNML3, both the axioms and default
rules are represented as wff's in the logical language. This set, which will be
called the premise set, may be considered as an initial set of hypotheses that
constrain the set of models considered when using the entailment relation.
The assumptions about missing information and the ensuing conjectures
are often classified as defaults. Some of the more important distinguishing
characteristics of default reasoning are:
• Defaults or conjectures are made in the context of incomplete information.
• Before ''jumping'' to a conclusion some form of consistency or possibility
check is made, assuring that the default is coherent relative to the current
reasoning context.
• Default conclusions are weaker than those derived in the normal way.
They are subject to retraction. Surprisingly, most of the standard de-
fault formalisms, fail to mark this difference syntactically. The default
machinery is "hidden" in some sense in the meta-level.
The distinguishing characteristics of our approach parallel the points men-
tioned above:
• Fuzzy logic is used with an information ordering on partial interpretations
of fuzzy predicates. A partial interpretation is interpreted as represent-
ing a situation with incomplete information. Such situations are natural
when interpreting fuzzy predicates due to the presence of membership
degrees of 0.5. Furthermore, the semantics of the different fuzzy truth-
functional connectives is defined relative to a model frame (6., u) where
6. is a set of partial interpretations ordered informationally and u E 6. is
the informationally minimal actual interpretation.

• A normative statement of the type "tall men are normally heavy" ,where
"tall" and "heavy" are fuzzy predicates is represented as the wff
LTall(x)/\MHeavy(x)-+DHeavy(x). Ma may be read as "it may be
the case that Heavy(x) is true (to a degree)". La may be read as "it
is the case that Tall(x) is true (to a degree)". Technically fuzzy logic
is extended with two additional truth-functional connectives M and L
where Ma is true when a is true or undecided and La is true only when
a is true.

• The default connective D is a modal-like operator and its semantics is

given relative to a model frame (6., u): a is accepted as a default in a
partial interpretation v E (6., u) iff

1. a is possibly true to a degree in all partial interpretations informa-

tionally above v.
2. a is true to a degree in at least one potentially reachable partial
interpretation.
 7

3. Da is forced by the context. By "context", we mean a premise set

r which includes default sentences.
Da may be read as "a is true by default". Thus, distinction is made be-
tween the default Da and the assertion a. This distinction resolves some
difficulties associated with consistency-based non-monotonic formalisms,
e.g. it is difficult to resolve problems which arise when defaults inter-
act with each other and the latter case results in certain default theories
having no extensions. The solution is to make the defaults "first class
citizens" placing them on equal footing with the formulas in the base
theory and to use a default operator to syntactically distinguish between
asserting facts and defaulting to facts.

• finally, a cumulative non-monotonic consequence relation is defined where

we say that a set of premises non-monotonically entails a formula a iff a
is true (to a degree) in all preferred model frames of the premise set.

3 A fuzzy non-monotonic logic

In this section we introduce a simple language for propositional logic and a truth
definition based on fuzzy logic. We also introduce an information ordering on
fuzzy models.

3.1 The Language

The language £ consists of a finite set of sentence symbols S. It also contains
the following primitive connectives: ..." V, /\. The set of £ sentences is built up
from S using ..." /\, and V in the usual way.
In addition to the primitive connectives, the following non-primitive con-
nective is introduced:

3.2 Definitions
We begin with some definitions for both a truth and information ordering on
truth values, where the information ordering is extended to partial interpreta-
tions.

Definition 3.1 (Partial Interpretation) A (partial) interpretation v is a

function v : S 1---+ Tr, where S is the domain of sentence symbols, and Tr, the
set of truth-values, is defined as follows:

• Tr =TrT U Tr F U TrU
where

• TrT = {[x, y] : x, y E (0.5,1] and x ::; y} U {(0.5, y] : y E (0.5, I])

8
.,
• TrF = ([x, y] : x, y E [0,-0.5) and x ::; y} U ([x, 0.5) : x E [0, 0.5)}

• TrU = {[0.5, 0.5]}

The values given to the sentence symbols could reflect either a degree-of-
information ordering or a degree-of-truth ordering which can then be extended
to partial interpretations. The degree-of-information ordering will be used to
compare partial interpretations, while the degree-of-truth ordering will be used
to evaluate formulas in a partial interpretation.

Definition 3.2 (Degree-of-Info Ordering - ::;i ) Let II and Iu be the lower

and upper bound respectively of an interval truth-value I.

• TrU <i I,YI E TrT arYl E TrF

• I::;i J, iff I,J E TrT and Iu::; J/

• I::;i J, iff I,J E TrF and II;::: Ju

Definition 3.3 (Degree-of-Info Ordering on partial interpretations)

Let Vl and V2 be two partial interpretations, that is Vl : 5 f-----+ Tr and V2
5 f-----+ T r .

• vl(5) ~i v2(5) iffYs E 5, Vl(S) ::;i V2(S)

• vl(5) -< v2(5) iff3s E 5, Vl(S) <i V2(S) and Ys' t s, Vl(S') ::;i V2(S')
Definition 3.4 (~i-minimal Interpretation) Let ~ be a set of interpreta-
tions. An interpretation u E ~ is a ~i-minimal interpretation if for all v E ~,
if V ~i u then v = u. The set of ~i -minimal interpretations of ~ is denoted by
min:::5;(~)'

Definition 3.5 (Degree-of-Truth Ordering - <t) Let I and J belong to

the set of truth-values Tr.

• I::;t J iff I u ::; J I

3.3 Default Formulas

One of the simplest formalizations of non-monotonic reasoning is to define a
default theory as a pair (T, D), where T is a base theory consisting of a set of
facts and D is a set of defaults. A preferred default theory would be one where
the maximal set of defaults are accepted. In the default logic of [11]' there
appear to be two weaknesses; 1) The distinction made between a base theory
and the set of defaults and 2) The fact that no distinction is made between
asserting a fact I and assert.ing I by default. The former case makes it difficult
to resolve problems which arise when defaults interact with each other and the
latter case results in certain default theories having no extensions. Our solution
is to make the defaults "first class citizens" placing them on equal footing with
the formulas in the base theory and to use a default operator to syntactically
 9

distinguish between asserting facts and defaulting to facts. Thus a normative

statement such as "normally P's are Q's" is represented as the formula

LP(x )AMQ( x)-+ DQ(x)

which can be read as "if it is true that something has the property P, and it
may be the case that it has the property Q, then it has Q by default"

3.4 The Notion of Entailment

Suppose f is a set of wff's in.c. We are interested in those sentences prefer-
entially entailed by the premise set. Classically, a sentence a is entailed by f
if

Ym E Mod(f) : m 1= a
where M od(f) denotes the class of all models for f. Preferential entailment
strengthens the notion of entailment by characterizing a preferred subclass
of M od(f), denoted by Pmod(f). A sentence a is said to be preferentially
entailed by f if it is satisfied by all models in Pmod(f). The set Pmod(f)
can be defined equivalently, by placing an ordering on M od(f). The subclass
of preferred models will then be those that are minimal relative to the defined
ordering. In our formalism, models are replaced by model frames (defined
below) and the preference on model frames is induced by the nature of the wffs
in the premise set.

Definition 3.6 (Model Frame) A model frame is a pair (~, u), where ~
is a (non-empty) set of interpretations and u E ~, is viewed as the actual
situation (interpretation). It is always assumed that u ~i v, for any v E~. If
u E~, then we write~" to denote the set {v E ~: u ~i v}.

3.4.1 The Rules of Satisfaction

/

The rules of satisfaction are defined relative to a model frame M = (~, u) and
an interpretation in ~. The following notation is used:
Let v I=M <pG, mean that v assigns the interval truth-value I, IE TrT(I E
TrF) to <p when 0 is +(- ),respectively. v I=M <p+ and v I=M <p- are abbrevi-
ated to val(<p, v, M) = I, IE TrT and val(<p, v, M) =
I, IE TrF, respectively.
The binary operators min and max are defined on Tr relative to the truth
ordering ~t. The function val is defined recursively as follows:

• val(tp, v, M) = v(<p) for sentence symbols S.

• val(<pA1/J,v,M) = min(val(<p,v,M),val(1/J,v,M)).
• vale tpV1/J, v, M) = max(valetp, v, M), vale 1/J, v, M)).
10

[1 - Iu, 1- Il] E TrT if t'al(rp,v,M) =

[Il,Iu] E TrF
• val(-.rp,v,M) = if vale rp, v, M) =
1
[l-Iu,l-Il]ETrF
[Il,Iu] E TrT
[0.5,0.5] otherwise

Furthermore, min is defined as: Let vale rp, v, M) is equal to either one of
the interval truth-values [x, y], [x, 0.5), or (0.5, y] and val(rp, v, M) is equal to
either one of [z, w], [z, 0.5), or (0.5, w].

• min([x, y], [z, w]) = [min(x, z), minCY, w)]

• min([x, y], (0.5, w]) = [x, minCY, w)] if x ~ 0.5
• min([x, y], (0.5, w]) = (0.5, minCY, w)] if x> 0.5
• min([x, y], [z, 0.5)) = [min(x, z), 0.5) if y ~ 0.5
• min([x, y], [z, 0.5)) = [min(x, z), y] if y < 0.5
• min([x, 0.5), [z, 0.5)) = [min(x, z), 0.5)
• min([x, 0.5), (0.5, w]) = [x, 0.5)
• min((0.5, y], (0.5, w]) = (0.5, minCY, w)]
Finally, max is defined as

• max([x, y], [z, w]) = [max(x, z), maxey, w)]

• max([x, y], (0.5, w]) = (0.5, maxey, w)] if x ~ 0.5
• max([x, y], (0.5, w]) = [x, maxey, w)] if x> 0.5
• max([x, y], [z, 0.5)) = [max(x, z), 0.5) if y < 0.5
• max([x, y], [z, 0.5)) = [max(x, z), y] if y ~ 0.5
• max([x, 0.5), [z, 0.5)) = [max(x, z), 0.5)
• max([x, 0.5), (0.5, w]) = (0.5, w]
• max((0.5, y], (0.5, w]) = (0.5, maxey, w)]
The Assertion Connective
The connective L, is often referred to as the external assertion connective.
Lrp is true to the degree to which rp is true, otherwise it is false to the degree
to which rp is false. When rp is undecided then Lrp is false but since the exact
degree to which it is false can not be determined its truth-value is the whole
interval [0, 0.5). The satisfaction rule is:

if val(rp, v, M) = I, IE TrT or I E TrF

• val(Lrp, v, M) ={ [0, 0.5) if vale rp, v, M) = TrU
 11

The Maybe Connective

Mr.p is true to the degree to which r.p is true, otherwise it is false to the degree
to which r.p is false. When r.p is undecided thenMr.p is true but since the exact
degree to which it is true can not be determined its truth-value is the whole
interval (0.5,1]. Furthermore, Mr.p is equivalent to -.L-.r.p. The satisfaction
rule is:
I ifval(r.p, v,M) = I, IE TrT or I E TrF
• val(Mr.p, v,M) ={ (05
. , 1]'f
1 va l( r.p, v, M) = T r U

The D Operator
In addition, the satisfaction rules are extended for the D operator as follows,

[I, 1] ifVv' E Ll v : val(Mr.p, v', M) = I, IE TrT

• val(Dr.p, v, M) ={ and 3v' E Ll v : val(r.p, v', M) = I, IE TrT
o otherwise

We believe that FNML3 ca.ptures the natura.l interpretation of defaults in

a clear and intuitive way. 0:' is accepted as a default in a situation v iff

1. 0:' is possibly true to a degree in all situations informationally above v.

2. 0:' is true to a degree in at least one potentially reachable situation.

3. DO:' is forced by the context. By "context", we mean a premise set f

which includes default sentences.

Points 1 and 2 clearly follow from the satisfaction condition for the default
operator. Point 3 will become clearer when the preference ordering on model
frames and the notion of preferential entailment is defined below.

3.4.2 Satisfaction and Entailment

We now proceed to define the notions of satisfaction in a model frame and
entailment.

Definition 3.7 (Satisfaction) An interpretation tt E Ll in the model frame

M = (Ll, v) satisfies a sentence r.p in £(p) iff U FM r.p+.
The definition is extended for model frames where M F r.p+ iff U FM r.p+
for all U E Ll according to the satisfaction conditions defined above.
For a set f, of sentences in £(p), M F f iff M F r.p+ for all r.p E f. f is
said to be satisfiable iff it has a model frame.

Definition 3.8 (Preferred Model Frames) Suppose M (Ll, u) and

M' = (Ll', u') are two model frames satisfying a set of premises f. M is
said to be preferred to M', written M <p M', iff
u -(i u'V[u = u' ALl" => Ll",]
12

Remark 3.1 The definition above prefers the model framers) that satisfy the
sentences in the context r using the minimal amount of information. If u = u',
prefer the framers) with the maximal number of interpretations in~. This is
only one of a number of alternatives. Another interesting alternative would be
to minimize only those propositional constants in the scope of the M connective,
thus providing a finer grained minimization criterion.

Remark 3.2 Notice that there is no guarantee of a unique preferred model

frame for a premise set r. Suppose r contains LO'vL,8. There are two preferred
.model frames for r; one where the actual situation makes 0' true and ,8 unknown
and another that makes ,8 true and 0' unknown. It is interesting to note that
while LO'VL,8 is preferentially entailed by r, neither La nor L,8 is.

We now define the notion of preferential entailment:

Definition 3.9 (Preferential Entailment) Let r, II be sets of sentences in

£(p). r preferentially entails II, written r I~ II, iff for all M E Pmod(f) :
M 1= II, where Pmod(f) is the set of preferred model frames for r as defined
by <p above.

We write P E(f) to denote the set of all formulas preferentially entailed by

r. r is preferentially satisfiable (p-satisfiable for short) iff it has a preferred
model frame.

4 Some properties of FNML3

4.1 Cumulative 'Preferential Entailment
One recent approach to the study of non-monotonic formalisms has been to
characterize different classes of non-monotonic logics by studying their conse-
quence operations and the degree to which they lack the condition of mono-
tonicity. The approach was used by Dov Gabbay [5] in a seminal paper and
the investigation has been continued independently, by David Makinson [9] and
Kraus, Lehman and Magidor [7]. The latter two have studied a particularly
interesting class of non-monotonic formalisms which have been given the name
cumulative logics. FNML3 is a cumulative logic.
We list the following theorems without proof. Proofs and a more detailed
discussion of cumulativity may be found in [3].

Theorem 4.1 (Left Logical Equivalence) If 0'+-+,8 E PE(O') and 0'+-+,8 E

PE(,8) and i E PE(O') then i E PE(.B).

Theorem 4.2 (Right Weakening) If 0'-,8 E PE(i) and 0' E PEb) then
,8 E P E(i)·

Theorem 4.3 (Cut) Let {a} be a p-satisfiable set of premisses. If i E P E(0'1\,8

and,8 E PE(O') then i E PE(O').
 13

Theorem 4.4 (Cautious Monotony) Let {a} be a p-satisfiable set of pre-

misses. If l' E PE(O') and {3 E PE(O') then l' E PE(crl\{3).

The conditions of cautious monotony and cut together tell us that if plau-
sible consequences are later acquired as facts, then the original set of plausible
consequences remains unchanged. Such a property is useful, as it can make
the belief revision process normally associated with non-monotonic formalisms
more efficient.

Lemma 4.1 The rules of cut and cautious monotony may be expressed to-
gether by the following principle: if {3 E P E( 0') then P E( 0') == P E( 0'1\{3).

Theorem 4.5 (Or) If l' E P E( 0') and l' E P E({3) then l' E P E( O'V{3).

We strongly suspect that the OR rule holds in our system, but we have no
proof. However, the following weaker result is easily obtainable.
We say that a formula 0' E £ is positively persistent iff for any partial
interpret.ations u and v for £, ujjV and u(O')=T imply v(O')=T.

Theorem 4.6 For any r ~ £(8), any positively persistent formulas 0', {3 E
£(8), (4.5) holds.

4.2 Consistency and Uniqueness of Extensions

We would like to emphasize two important properties of FNML3 not shared by
many of the current non-monotonic formalisms.
Firstly, the set of formulas preferentially entailed from a preferentially sat-
isfiable set of formulas is preferentially satisfiable:

Corollary 4.1 If r is p-satisfiable and r I~ 0', then r u { a} is p-satisfiable.

The second important property of FNML3 is that for each set of premisses
r, there exists a unique set of formulas preferentially entailed by r. In default
logic and auto-epistemic logic, this is simply not the case, although one may
choose to extra-logically define entailment relative to the intersection of all
extensions or stable expansions, respectively.

5 Summary
In this paper, we've introduced a fuzzy non-monotonic logic which permits a
great deal of expressivity in the language. It has a sound and intuitive semantics
which we believe directly modehdhe characteristics normally associated with
default reasoning. The semantics follows naturally from the notion of partial
interpretations which are inherently connected with the use offuzzy predicates.
FNML3 has some nice formal properties and belongs to the class of cumu-
lative logics. At the present moment we are developing a decision procedure
for a subset of the language, based on semantic tableaux.
14

More practically, FNML3 should be applied to a number of different do-

mains and the result.ing entailments compared with our intuitions. We've
capitalized very little on the feature that default rules are part of the object
language and can be manipulated. This property should be useful for study-
ing strategies for adjudicating among conflicting default rules and representing
priority among defaults. In this connection, the study of appropriate types
of implication operators, which can reflect the strength of association between
the degree of truth of the premise and a default conclusion DO', is of special
interest. In the immediate future, we hope to pursue these ideas.

References
[1] Ernest W. Adams. The Logic of Conditionals. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975.

[2] J. P. Burgess. Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals.

Notre Dame 1. Formal Logic, 22:76-84, 1981.

[3] P. Doherty. NML3 - A Non-Monotonic Formalism with Explicit Defaults.

PhD thesis, University of Linkoping, Sweden, 1991.

[4] D. Driankov and P. Doherty. A non-monotonic fuzzy logic. In L. A. Zadeh

and J. Kacprzyk, editors, Fuzzy Logic for the Mangement of Uncertainty.
J. Wiley and Sons, 1991.

[5] D. M. Gabbay. Theoretical foundations for non-monontonic reasoning in

expert systems. In K. R. Apt, editor, Proc. of the NATO Advanced Study
Institute on Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 439-457.
Springer-Verlag, 1985.

[6] M. Ishizuka and N. Kanai. Prolog-elf incorporating fuzzy logic. In Proc.

of the 9th IJCAI, pages 701-703, 1985.

[7] S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, and M. Magidor. Preferential models and cumula-

tive logic. Technical Report TR-88-15, Department of Computer Science,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1988.

[8] R. C. T. Lee. Fuzzy logic and the resolution principle. J. Assoc. for
Computing Machinary, 19:109-119,1972.

[9] D. Makinson. General theory of cumulative inference. In M. Ginsburg,

M. Reinfrank, and E. Sandewall, editors, Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 2nd
International Workshop. Springer, 1988.

[10] I. Orci. Programming in possibilistic logic. Int'l Journal of Expert Systems,

2(1):79-96,1989.

[11] R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81-132,

1980.
 15

[12] Yoav Shoham. Rea.soning about Change. MIT Press, 1988.

[13] F. Veltman. Logics for Conditionals. PhD thesis, Filosofisch Instituut,
Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1986.
 ON SOME FUZZY BINARY RELATIONS RELATED
TO IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS

Sergei Ovchinnikov
Mathematics Department
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132, U.S.A.

MAX and MIN operations are two extreme cases of aggregation

procedures in the problem of synthesizing implication functions. In this
paper, we study a particular class of so-called product implication functions
and characterize completely implication functions obtained as results of MAX
and MIN aggregations.

1. INTRODUCTION

In their recent paper [10] Trillas and Alsina have introduced a

mathematical model based on the notion of a "fuzzy state" to describe some
"residuated" implication functions. They claim that this model allows to
"clarify why some residuated implications which have been used on empirical
basis may be justified theoretically as being 'better' objects than some
classical probabilistic parameters." In particular, they are concerned with the
following implication function (see also [11]):

. { lJ(b)}
I prod( b Ia) = Mill 1, lJ(a)

where a and b are elements of a finite set F (a set of 'facts') and IJ IS a

positive membership function of some fuzzy subset of F.

Synthesizing implications is an important issue in the field of expert

system and a challenging inathematical problem. As Alsina and Trillas note
in [2], "in the case of building an expert system upon the opinions and
17

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 17-27.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18

judgments of several experts, each of which may use a particular way of

making implications, then the problem of synthesizing ... implication
functions arises." In [2] they offer an aggregation procedure based on quasi-
arithmetic means.

In this paper we consider implication functions I prod as fuzzy binary

relations on F. We provide an axiomatic description of the set of all these
relations and study MAX and MIN aggregation procedures defined on this
set. The resulting fuzzy binary relations are completely characterized.

2. MAIN RESULTS

Let A be a finite set and {Rj}j E I be a finite family of fuzzy binary

relations on A (I is a finite set of indices). An aggregation procedure assigns a
fuzzy binary relation R to each finite family of fuzzy binary relations.

For any given finite family {Rj}j E I we denote R min = n

1
R i and

R max URi' These relations represent two extreme cases of

i
of aggregation procedures which we will call MIN and MAX aggregation
procedures, respectivelly.

In this paper we are concerned with a special class of fuzzy binary

relations on A. Let J.l be a positive real function on A such
that J.l(x) < 1 for all x in A. We define
. J.l(x)
R(x, y) = Mm{ 1, J.l(y)}

for all x and y in A. Thus defined valued binary relation on A is essentially

an implication function I prod studied in [10]. The aim of the paper is to
characterize completely fuzzy binary relations R min and R max in the case
when individual fuzzy binary relations R i are given by the above formula.

We begin with axiomatization of valued binary relations that allow

representation (* ).
 19

Defmition 1. A fuzzy binary relation R is a complete fuzzy binary

relation on A if
1) R(x, y) > 0, and
2) Max{ R(x, y), R(y, x)} 1,
for all x and y in A.

Definition 2. A complete fuzzy binary relation R is an ordering if

R(x, y) =1 and R(y, z) =1
imply
R(x, z) =1 and R(z, x) = R(z, y) . R(y, x)
for all x, y, and z in A.

The property III Definition 2 is a form of max-product transitivity

property.

Theorem 1. (cf. [7]) A valued binary relation R is an ordering if and

only if it can be represented in the form (*) for some function J-L.

Proof. I) Suppose R is given by (*) and R(x, y) = 1 and R(y, z)

1 for some x, y, and z in A. Then J-L(x) 2: J-L(Y) 2: J-L(z) implying R(x, z)
1 and
J-L(z) J-L(z) J-L(Y)
R(z, x) = J-L(x) = J-L(Y)' J-L(x) = R(z, y). R(y, z).

II) Suppose now that R is an ordering, that is, R satisfies the

condition of Definition 2. We define
xRl.OY if and only if R(x, y) = 1.
Thus defined binary relation is complete and transitive, i.e., it is a quasi-
ordering on A. Let x max be a maximal element of this quasi-ordering. Then,
by definition of Rl. O' R(x max ' x) = 1 for all x E A. Let us define J-L(x) =
R(x, x max ). To prove (*), consider two cases:

1) R(x, y) = 1. Since R is an ordering and R(x max ' x) 1, we

have
R(y, x) . R(x, x max ),
or, equivalently,
20

J.l(x) R(x, x max )

1 > 1.
J.l(y) R(y, x max ) R(y, x)

Thus, (*) is satisfied.

2) R(x, y) < 1. Then R(y, x) = 1. Since R(xmax ' y) 1 and R is

an ordering, we have
R(x, x max ) = R(x, y) . R(y, x max ),
or, equivalently,
J.l(x) R(x, x max )
rJJ(Y) R( y, x ) = R(x, y) < 1.
max

Thus, (*) is satisfied in this case too.

o
By definition, each R min is an intersection of a family of orderings.
To characterize these relations we introduce the following

Definition 3. A fuzzy binary relation R is a pre-ordering on A if

1) R(x, x) = 1, and
2) R(x, y) . R(y, z) :S R(x, z),
for all x, y, and z in A.

In other words, a pre-ordering on A is a reflexive and max-product

transitive fuzzy binary relation on A. The following theorem is actually so-
called "representation" theorem [7] for max-product transitive fuzzy relations.

Theorem 2. A valued binary relation R is a pre-ordering if and only

if it is a finite intersection of orderings.

Proof. I) Suppose R is a finite intersection of orderings. Then, by

Theorem 1, there exists a finite family of positive functions {J.li} on A such
that

R(x, y) = Mln{ Min{ 1, :~~;~} }.

Obviously, R(x, x) = 1 for all x E A. We have
 21

R(x, y) . R(y, z) = Mln{ Min{ 1, :~~;~} } . Mln{ Min{ 1, ::~~~} } <

· {M' {I fli(X)} M' {I fli(y)}}

< M.In In , - ( ) . In ' - (-) ~
I fli Y fli z

< .{ . { fli(x) fli(y)}} . { . { fli(x) } } R(x, z).

~Ill Mill 1, - ()' - () = ~Ill Mill 1, -(-)
I fli Y fli z I fli Z

Therefore, R is a pre-ordering on A.

II) Suppose now that R is a pre-ordering on A. For each a E A we

define
fla(X) R(x, a).
By Theorem 1, all valued relations

. { fla(X)} . { R(x, a) }
Ra (
x, )
y = Mill 1, fla(Y) = Mill 1, R(y, a)

are orderings. Let us prove that R(x, y) = Min{ Ra(x, y) }.

a
We have
Mln{ Ra(x, y)} ~ Ry(x, y) = R(x, y).

On the other hand, by max-product transitivity,

R(x, y) . R(y, a) ~ R(x, a),
which implies
. { R(x, a) } ()
R(
x, )
y ~ Mill 1, R(y, a) = Ra x, y

for all a EA. Therefore, R(x, y) ~ Mln{ Ra(x, y)}.

o
In order to characterize unions of orderings (Rmax in our notations)
we need the following definitions.

Definition 4. For a given valued binary relation R on A its strict part

P R is defined by

= {R(X' y) , if R(x, y) > R(y, x),

0, otherwise
22

for all x and y in A.

Definition 5. A complete valued binary relation R on A is a quasi-

transitive valued binary relation if
PR(x, y) = 1 and PR(y, z) 1
imply
PR(x, z) 1 and R(z, x) < R(z, y) . R(y, x)
for all x, y, and z in A.

Note, that the strict part P R of a quasi-transitive valued binary

relation R is a crisp partial ordering on A. The well-known Szpilrajn theorem
[9] asserts that there is a numeration of A compatible with a partial ordering
on A. In other words, there is a numeration A = { xl' ..., x n } such that
PR(xi' Xj) = 1 implies i > j. This compatible numeration will be used in the
proof of our last theorem.

Theorem 3. (cf. [6]) A valued binary relation R on A IS a quasi-

transitive relation if and only if it is a finite union of orderings.

Proof. I) Suppose R is a finite union of orderings on A, Le., there is a

finite family of orderings {R} such that R
1
=U R· = M!'tx{ R i }.
ill
Now,

PR(x,y) = 1 implies R(y, x) < 1, which implies Ri(y, x) < 1 for all i, which

implies, by completeness, Ri(x, y) = 1, for all L Similarly, PR(y, z) = 1

implies Ri(z, y) < 1 and Ri(y, z) = 1 for all i. Since each R i is an ordering,

we have Ri(x, z) =1 and Ri(z, x) = Ri(z, y). R/y, x) < 1 for all 1.

Therefore, R(x, z) = 1 and R(z, x) < 1, which implies PR(x, z) = 1.

We have now

R(z, y) . R(y, x) = {MtX{ Ri(z, y)}}. { Mtx{ Ri(y, x)}} >

> M!'tx{ Ri(z, y) . Ri(y, x)} = M.ax{ Ri(z, x)} = R(z, x).
1 1

Therefore, a finite union of orderings is a quasi-transitive fuzzy

 23

binary relation.

II) Suppose now that R is a quasi-transitive fuzzy binary relation. To

prove that R is a finite union of orderings, we will show that, for each pair
(a, b) of elements in A, there is an ordering R such that R(a, b) = R(a, b)
and R ~ R. Then, obviously, R is the union of all R's.

We consider the following cases.

1) R(a, b) = 1. Let A = {xl'"'' x n } be a numeration of A

compatible with P R and a = xk and b = xm for some k and m. Let
E = Min{
x,y
R(x, y)}. We define

I, if i > j,
R(x., x.) = ., -
{ J -I 'f'
1 J E ,I 1 < J..

It is easy to verify that thus defined R is indeed an ordering. To prove that

R ~ R, suppose that R(xi' Xj) = 1, i.e., i ~ j, but R(xi' Xj) < 1. Then

PR(Xj' xi) = 1 implying j > i, a contradiction. The case when R(xi' Xj) < 1
is trivial by definition of E.

2) R(a, b) < 1 and b is a unique maximal element in A with respect

to PRo We define
- . {R(X, b) }
R(x, y) = Mill R(y, b)' 1

for all x and y in A. By Theorem 1, this is an ordering on A (consider

function p.(x) = R(x, b)). Obviously, R(a, b) = R(a, b). Let us prove that
R(x, y) :5 R(x, y). This obviously true if R(x, y) = 1. If R(x, y) < 1, then
PR(y, x) = 1. Since b is a unique maximal element, PR(b, y) = 1. Since R
is a quasi-transitive valued binary relation, R(x, b) :5 R(x, y) . R(y, b),
which implies R(x, y) :5 R(x, y), by definition of R.

3) R(a, b) < 1 and there is a maximal element x max in A with

respect to P R which is different from b. We denote xmin a minimal element
in A with respect to PRo
24

We prove the theorem by induction in this case. For n = 2 the

statement is trivial. For a given n > 2, consider set A' = A \ {xmax }. The
restriction R' of R on A' is a quasi-transitive valued binary relation on A'.
By the induction hypothesis, there is an ordering R' on A' such that R'(a, b)
= R(a, b) and R' ~ R. We define R on A by

R(x, y) = R'(x, y), if x, YEA',

for all x E A, and

-, €
for all x E A',
R (xmin' x)

where 0 < €
-,
< Mln{ R(x, x max ) . R (xmin' x)}.
Let us prove that thus defined R is an ordering on A such that
R(a, b) = R(a, b) and R ~ R.
We have

R(a, b) R'(a, b) R'(a, b) R(a, b),

since a, bE A'.

Now, R(x, y) ::; R(x, y) for all x and y in A' by the induction
hypothesis. If R(x max ' x) < 1, then PR(x, x max ) = 1, which is impossible
since x max is a maximal element. Therefore,
R(x max ' x) = 1 = R(xmax ' x).
We also have

€
-,
R(x, x max ) . R (xmin' x)
-, < -, = R(x, xmax ).
R (xmin' x) R (xmin' x)

We proved that R ~ R.

R is obviously a complete fuzzy binary relation on A. We prove nO\l

that R satisfies the condition of Definition 2, i.e., R is an ordering on A
Suppose R(x, y) = 1 and R(y, z) = 1. If all three elements x, y, and z an
in A', the condition of Definition 2 is satisfied by the induction hypothesis
 25

Otherwise, only x can be the maximal element x max , for R(t, x max ) < 1 for
all tEA'. Then, by definition of R, R(x max ' z) = 1. Suppose
R'(z, xmin) < 1. Then PR(xmin' z) = 1, which is impossible since xmin is a
minimal element. Therefore, R'(z, xmin) = 1 and R'(y, z) = R(y, z) = 1.
By the induction hypothesis, R' is an ordering. Therefore,
R'(xmin' z)· R'(z, y) = R'(xmin' y)
and
€. R'(z, y)
R(z, x max ) -, R'(xmin' z)· R'(z, y)
R (xmin' z)

-, €
= R (z, y) . R-( . ) R(z, y). R(y, x max ).
x mlll ' y
o
Let us denote O(A), ~O(A), and n~(A) the sets of all ordereings,
pre-orderings, and qausi-transitive relations on A, respectively. It follows
from theorems 2 and 3, that any ordering is a pre-ordering and quiasi-
transitive relation. In other words, O(A) ~ ~O(A) n n~(A). The following
theorem shows that orderings are the only fuzzy binary relations satisfying
this property.

Theorem 4. O(A) = ~O(A) n n~(A).

Proof. It suffices to prove that O(A) 2 ~O(A) n n~(A). Let R be

a fuzzy binary relation such that R E ~S)(A) n n~(A). Then R satisfies the
following properties:

i) Max{ R(x, y), R(y, x)} = 1,

ii) R(x, y) . R(y, z) ~ R(x, z), and

iii) PR(x, y) = 1 and PR(y, z) = 1 imply PR(x, z) = 1

and R(z, x) ~ R(z, y). R(y, x),
for all x, y, and z in A. We prove now that R is an ordering.

By i), R is a complete relation. Suppose R(a, b) = 1 and R(b, c) =1

for some a, b, and c in A. By ii), 1 = R(a, b) . R(b, c) ~ R(a, c). Thus,
R(a, c) = 1. We have to prove that R(c, b) . R(b, a) = R(c, a). Let us
26

consider the following cases:

1) R(b, a) < 1 and R(c, b) < 1. Then PR(a, b) = 1 and PR(b, c) = 1

implying, by iii), R(c, a) ::; R(c, b) . R(b, a). On the other hand, by ii),
R(c, a) 2: R(c, b) . R(b, a). Hence, R(c, b) . R(b, a) = R(c, a).

2) R(b, a) = 1. Then, by ii),

R(c, a) = R(c, a)· R(a, b) ::; R(c, b) and R(c, b) = R(c, b) . R(b, a) ::; R(c, a).
Therefore, R(c, a) = R(c, b). We have, again by ii),
R(c, b)· R(b, a) = R(c, a).

3) R(c, b) = 1. Similar to 2).

o

3. CONCLUSION

In this paper we completely characterized just two extreme cases

(Rmin and R max ) of aggregation procedures on the set of all orderings. It is
well-known that operations MIN and MAX (intersection and union in terms
of fuzzy binary relations) are two extreme cases of so-called "generalized
means" [4]. Namely, suppose that <p is an automorphism of the unit interval,
that is, <p is an increasing one-to-one mapping of the unit interval onto itself.
We define
R(x, y) = <p-
1
( ~ ~ <p(Ri(x, y) )
1

for all x and y in A, where N is a number of individual fuzzy binary

relations. Thus defined group preference satisfies the Pareto property. It is an
interesting problem to characterize completely these group preferences. Some
steps in this direction have been made in [1], [2], [3], and [8].
 27

REFERENCES
[1] Aczel, J. and Alsina, C., Synthesizing judgements: a functional equation
approach, Mathematical Modelling 6 (1987), 311-320.
[2] Alsina, C. and Trillas, E., Synthesizing implications, to appear in
Journal of Artificial Intelligence.
[3] Fodor, J. and Roubens, M., Preference modelling and aggregation
procedures with valued binary relations, (to appear).
[4] Hardy, G.H., Littlewood, J.E., and Polya, G., Inequalities (Cambridge,
The University Press, 1934)
[5] Mirkin, B.G., Group Choice (Winston, Washington, D.C., 1979)
[6] Ovchinnikov, S.V., Choice theory for cardinal scales, in: M.M. Gupta
and E. Sanchez (eds.), Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes
(North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982), 323-336.
[7] Ovchinnikov, S.V., Representations of transitive fuzzy relations,
in: H.J. Skala, S. Termini, and E. Trillas (eds.), Aspects of Vagueness
(D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984), 105-118.
[8] Ovchinnikov, S., Means and social welfare functions in fuzzy binary
relation spaces, in: J. Kacprzyk and M. Fedrizzi (eds.), Multiperson
Decision Making Using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), 143-154.
[9] Szpilrajn, E., Sur l'extension de l'ordre partiel, Fund. Math.
16 (1930), 386-389.
[10] Trillas, E. and Alsina, C., Some remarks on approximate entailment,
International Journal of Approximate reasoning, 6 (4), 525-533.
[11] Trillas, E. and Valverde, L., On implication and indistinguishability in
the setting of fuzzy logic, in: Management Decision Support Systems
Using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory, Verlag TUV Rheinland (1985)
 PREFERENCE MODELLING AND AGGREGATION
PROCEDURES WITH VALUED BINARY RELATIONS

Janos C. Fodor*
Lorand EOtvos University
P.O. Box 157, H-1502 Budapest 112, Hungary
Ma,rc Roubens
University of Liege
Avenue des Tilleuls, 15, B-4000 Liege, Belgium

Abstract
In this paper a recent axiomatic approach to fuzzy preference mo-
delling is summarized. These results are applied to multiple criteria
decision making problems in order to find aggregation rules which give
the same global strict preference independently of their use before or
after individual considerations.

1 Axiomatics of valued preference modelling

In the classical theory of preference modelling (see e.g. [16]), a binary relation
R with respect to each pair of alternatives (a, b) of a given set A is considered
as a weak preference relation:

aRb "a is not worse than b" .

This definition implies that R is a reflexive relation, i.e., aRa holds for any
aE A.
Three binary relations corresponding to the given preference relation Rare
also defined as follows:

strict preference P: aPb ~ aRb and not bRa,

indifference I: alb ~ aRb and bRa,
incompambility J: aJb ~ not aRb and not bRa.

These relations form a preference structure (P, I, J) and are linked together:

PuI = R, (1)
• Partially supported by OTKA.

29
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.J, Fuzzy Logic, 29-38.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30

PnI 0, (2)
PnJ 0, (3)
InJ 0, (4)
puIuP- 1 Ru R- 1 . (5)

Introducing the inverse of R: R-1, the complementary of R: RC and the dual

of R: R d = (R-1)C, it is worth mentioning that (1) is equivalent to

(6)

Moreover, I and J are symmetric, Pis antisymmetric, i.e., 1= 1- 1, J = J-1

and P n p-1 = 0. Finally, P, P-l, I and J form a partition of the direct
product A x A:
P U p- 1 U I u J = A x A. (7)
From now we consider problems in which preferences between alternatives
are described by a valued (fuzzy) preference relation R such that the value
°
R(a, b), which lies between and 1 for convenience, is understood as the de-
gree to which the proposition "a is not worse than b" is true. We investi-
gate the problem of defining P, I and J in terms of R and introducing mo-
dels for set-theoretic operations that preserve as many of the classical pro-
perties as possible. For other results on the same topic, see [5, 6, 13, 14]
and the overview paper [7]. Let (T, 8, n) be any De Morgan triple. That is,
T is a t-norm (a commutative, associative and nondecreasing [0, IF -+ [0,1]
function with T(I,x) = x 'tIx E [0,1]) modelling intersection, S is a t-
conorm (a commutative, associative, nondecreasing [0, IF
-+ [0,1] function
with 8(0, x) = x 'tIx E [0,1]) modelling union, n is 11: strict negation (a de-
creasing, continuous [0,1] -+ [0,1] function with n(O) = 1, n(l) = 0) modelling
complementation such that the De Morgan law holds as follows:
8(x, y) = n-1[T(n(x), n(y))].

In what follows only continuous t-norms and t-conorms are considered. A key
role is played by strong (or Lukasiewicz-like) De Morgan triples (T,S,n), i.e.,
for which

T(x, y) cp-1(max{cp(x) + cp(y) -1,0}),

8(x,y) cp-1 (min{ cp(x) + cp(y), I}),
n(x) cp-1(1 - cp(x)),

where cp is an automorphism of the unit interval (Le., a continuous, strictly

increasing [0,1] -+ [0,1] function with cp(O) = O,cp(l) = 1).
To define valued binary relations P, I and J, we propose the following
general axioms:
(IA) Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives:
For any two alternatives a,b the values of P(a, b), I(a,b) and J(a,b)
depend only on the values R(a, b) and R(b, a).
 31

According to (IA), there exist three functions p, i, j from [0, IF to [0,1]

such that

pea, b) peRea, b), R(b, a)),

lea, b) i(R(a, b), R(b, a)),
J(a, b) j(R(a,b), R(b, a)).

(PA) Positive Association Principle:

The functions p(x, n(y)), i(x, y), j(n(x), n(y)) are nondecreasing with
respect to both arguments.

(S) Symmetry:
i(x, y) and j(x, y) are symmetric functions.

Let a, b E A and denote x = R(a, b), y = R(b, a) for short. We can translate
properties (1) and (6) as a system of functional equations:

S(p(x, y), i(x, y)) x, (8)

S(p(x,y),j(x,y)) n(y) (9)

for all x,y E [0,1].

Thus our models are described by < p, i, j, T, S, n >, where p, i,j are func-
tions based on (IA) and (T, S, n) is a De Morgan triple.
We summarize the main results on the solutions of (8) and (9) in the next
theorem. For proofs and more details see [10, 11].

Theorem 1 Assume that axioms (IA), (PA) and (S) hold. If < p, i,j, T, S, n >
fulfils (8) and (9) then

(a) (T, S, n) is a strong De Morgan triple;

(b) the following inequalities hold:

T(x,n(y)) ~ p(x,y) ~ min{x,n(y)},

T(x,y)~ i(x,y) ~min{x,y},
T(n(x),n(y)) ~ j(x,y) ~ min{n(x),n(y)};

(c) P is T-antisymmetric, i.e., T(P(a, b), P(b, a») = 0 for all a, bE A;

(d) P, l, J are linked together as in the classical case:

pnI=0, i.e., T(P(a,b),I(a,b»=O 'v'a,bEA.

pnJ=0, i.e., T(P(a,b),J(a,b»=O 'v'a,bEA.
InJ=0, i.e., T(I(a,b),J(a,b)=O 'v'a,bEA;
32

(e) P U p- 1 U I u J = A x A] i.e.]
S(P(a,b),p-1(a,b),I(a,b),J(a,b)) = 1 for all a,b EA.

(f) If R fulfils the following two conditions:

(i) there exists f E (0,1) such that R(a, b) < 1 implies R(a, b) :::; f for all
a,b E A]
(ii) R(a, b) = 1 implies R(b,c):::; R(a, c)] R(c,a):::; R(c,b)

then there exists an automorphism 1j; of the unit interval such that P is
£1/1 -tmnsitive (P(a, b) 2:: 1j;-l(max{ 1j;(x) + 1j;(y) - 1, O}) for every a, b, c E
A).

Consider now the particular case when

p(x, y) = T1(x, n(y)), i(x,y) = j(n(x), n(y)) = T2(X,y), (10)

where T 1 and T 2 are t-norms. In this case we. have the following result (see
[11]).
Theorem 2 Assume that p, i, j are defined by (10). Then < p, i, j, T, S, n >
fulfils (8) and (9) if and only if there exists s E [0, +00] such that

T1(x,y) = cp-l(TS(cp(x),cp(y))),
T2(X, y) = cp-l(T1/s(cp(x), cp(y))),

with the notation 1/0 = +00, 1/ + 00 = 0] and where cp is the same automor-
phism as in the representation of (T, S, n) and

max{x + y - 1, O} if s = 0
xy if s = 1
TS(x, y) = min(x, y) if s = +00
{
logs (1 + V-;~~Y-l)) otherwise

For the next corollary see also [11.

Corollary 1 Let p(x,n(y)) = i(x,y) = j(n(x),n(y)) = T1(x,y). Then

< p, i,j, T, S, n > fulfils (8) and (9) if and only if T1(x, y) = cp-l(cp(x)cp(y)).
The particular cases s = 0, s = +00 have been characterized in a different
way by [10] as follows.

Theorem 3 A solution < p, i, j, T, S, n > of (8)] (9) is such that

(a) P is min-asymmetric (min(P(a, b), P(b, a)) = 0) if and only if

p(x,y) T(x, n(y)),

i(x,y) min{x, y},
j(x,y) min{n(x), n(y)}.
 33

(b) P U I U p- 1 = R U R- 1 is fulfilled if and only if

p(x,y) min{x, n(y)},

i(x,y) T(x, y),
j(x, y) T(n(x), n(y)).

2 Building monocriterion outranking relations

Suppose that m criteria are given on the set A. We consider here three types of
monocriterion outranking relations R j related to a criterion j (j = 1,2, ... , m):

Rj : A xA -4 [0,1]

(1) a (crisp) complete preorder (Pj , I j ) on the set of actions A is given and

R .(a b) = { 1 if a(Pj.U Ij)b

J' 0 otherwise

(2) a valuation vj(a) is made for every a E A on the j-th criterion - the higher
vj(a), the better the action satisfies the decision maker - and

where Ii : [0, 1F
[0, 1] is nondecreasing in both arguments and
-4

fj(x,n(x)) = 1 for all

x E [0,1]. The concordance index defined by
Roy [18] in ELECTRE III is a particular case of such fj :

R-(a b) = PT [vj(a)]- min{vj(b) - vj(a), PT [vj(a)]}

J' PT [vj(a)]- min{vj(b) - vj(a), IT [vj(a)]}

with PT and IT representing respectively preference thresholds and in-

difference thresholds as in Fig. 1.

Figure 1
34

(3) a fuzzy interval ttj(x) (Le., a fuzzy set of the real line which is normal and
convex and hence every Q;-cut is a closed interval of the real line) related
to any a E A for criterion j is given and
Rj(a, b) = supmin[J.Lj(x),tt~(y)].
x;:::y

R j (a, b) corresponds to the possibility that the proposition a ~j b holds

true (possibility index of Baas and Kwakernaak [2]).
In a recent unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Perny [15] could prove that for the
case (2)
Rj is reflexive (Rj(a, a) = 1)
is complete (lllax(Rj(a, b), Rj(b, a)) = 1)
is semitransitive (min{Rj(a,c),Rj(c,b)} ~ max{Rj(a,d),Rj(d,b)
is Ferrers (min{ Rj(a, b), Rj(c, d)} ~ max{ Rj(a, d), Rj(c, b)}).
Notice that in the case (2) each Ij(x, y) = h(y, n(x)) (j = 1, ... , m) can be
considered as a many-valued implication, (see e.g. [11]) if x, y E [0,1].
Suppose I(x, y) = min(l, y/x). Ovchinnikov proved in [12] that an R(a, b),
which is complete and positive, is an ordering (in the sense that R(a, b) =
1, R(b, c) = 1 together imply R(a, c) = 1 and R(c, a) = R(c, b)R(b, a)) if and
only if there exists a positive function v : A -+ (0,1] such that R(a, b) =
min(l, ~). Moreover, two extreme cases of aggregating valued binary rela-
tions R 1, R 2 , ... , Rm: Rmin = min{R 1 , ... , R m } and R max = max{R 1 , ... , Rm}
are completely characterized. For more details see [12].
It has been proved by Roubens and Vincke [17] and in a revisited way by
Dubois and Prade [4] that for case (3):
Rj is reflexive,
is complete,
is Ferrers
is such thatmin{Rj(a, b), Rj(b, a)} = h(a, b) = supmin{ttj(x), tt~(x)},
x
when h is the height of the intersection of a and b.
Remark also that if R j is reflexive and either semitransitive or Ferrers then
R j is negatively transitive (Rj(a, b) ~ max{Rj(a, c), Rj(c, b)}). Moreover, R j
is reflexive if and only if Rj is irreflexive (Rj(a,a) = 0); R j is complete if
and only if Rj is antisymmetric (min{Rj(a, b), Rj(b, a)} = 0); Rj is negatively
transitive if and only if Rj is transitive (min{Rj(a, c), Rj(c, b)} ~ Rj(a, b)).

3 Aggregation of monocriterion outranking re-

lations
Using the axiomatics of Section 1, one can consider in cases (2) and (3)
Pj(a, b) = Rj(a, b) (because R j is complete),
 35

Ij(a, b) min{ Rj(a, b), Rj(b, a)},

Jj(a, b) o (because R j is complete).
Pj (a, b) is an antisyrnmetric and transitive relation and every a-cut PI" (a, b)
is a crisp partial order.
We would like to preserve completeness and negative transitivity when ag-
gregating R 1 , , Rm (or equivalently, antisyrnmetry and transitivity when ag-
gregating P 1 , , Pm). One can see easily that R is not complete in general if
we use the weighted arithmetic mean as an aggregation.
Thus we have to consider the following aggregation problem: let M and
M' be two aggregation functions (M(R 1 , R2, , R m ) and M'(P1 , P 2, ... Pm))
which are monotonic operators such that M(O, ,0) = M'(O, ... ,0) = 0 and
M(I, ... , 1) = M'(I, ... , 1) = 1. Find a pair (M', M) such that P' = P and

R1,.··,Rm
complete,
negatively transitive

R
:/~ P1, ... ,Pm
complete, antisymmetric,
negatively transitive transitive

~ P
antisymmetric,
~
P'
antisymmetric,
transitive transitive

The relative importance of R 1 , ... , R m is given by non negative values

Am, and maxj Aj = 1.
)'1,' .. ,

Lemma 1 The following equality holds :

max{min(Al' max(xl, yd), , min(A m , max(x m , Ym))} (11)

= max{max{minp'l' xd, , min(A m , xm )},
max{min(Al' Yl),"" min(A m , Ym)}},
Proof. Let us first define a partition of the index set J: {I, 2, ... , m} in the
following way :

J1 {j I Aj :S min(xj, Yj)},
J2 {j IXj <Aj:SYj},
J3 {jIYj<Aj:SXj},
J4 {j I max(xj,Yj) < Aj}.
36

Then obviously, the left hand side of (11) can be expressed as follows :

max{min(>'l' max(xI, YI)), ... , min(A m , max(x m , Ym))}

= max{max Aj, maxAj, max Aj, max [max(xj, Yj)]},
JEJI JE J 2 JEh JE J 4

while the right hand side of (11) is given according to the next expressions:

max{min(AI,xd, ... , min(A m , x m )} = max{lp.aXAj, maxxj, maXAj, maxxj}

JEJ 1 JEJ2 JEJ3 JEJ4

and

By these three last equalities our statement follows immediately.

Theorem 4 Suppose that R I , R 2 , ... , R m are complete and negatively transi-
tive valued binary relations. Then the aggregated relation R defined by

R(a, b) = max{min(AI' R I (a, b), ... , min(A m , Rm(a, b))}

is a complete and negatively transitive vabed binary relation, where Aj E [0,1]
for j = 1, ... , m and maXj=I,... ,m Aj = l.

Proof. Completeness of R follows from the completeness of R I , ... , R m and

the normalization condition maXj=I,... ,m Aj = 1.
We prove that R is negatively transitive with the help of Lemma 1. Indeed,
we have the following chain of inequality-equalities :
R(a, b) max{min(AI' RI(a, b)), . .. , min(A m , Rm(a, b))}
:::; max{min(AI' max(RI(a, c), RI(e, b))), ... ,
min(A m , max(Rm(a, e), Rm(c, b)))}
max{max{min(AI' R1(a, c)), . .. , min(A m , Rm(a, e))},
max{min(AI' R I (e, b)), .. . , min(A m , Rm(c, b))}}
= max{R(a, c), R(e, b)}.

Thus our theorem is proved.

•
We now give an answer to the aggregation problem formulated at the be-
ginning of Section 3. Consider R = M(R1 , ... , R m ) as stated in Theorem 4.
Due to completeness of R,
P = R d = 1- maxmin(Aj,Rjl).
J

Using the same arguments, we define Pj = RJ and we consider

p' M'(P1, ... , Pm) = M'(Rt, ... , m d ) = m~nmax(1 - Aj, R1)
J
min max(1 - Aj, 1 - Rjl) = 1 - max min(Aj, Rjl) = P.
J J
 37

A convenient pair (M ' , M) to obtain pI = P is thus given by the pair of

weighted min and max (see also Dubois and Prade [3]) :

M(RI, ,Rm) max min(Aj, Rj )

J
M'(Pl, ,Pm) minmax(1 - Aj, Pj).
J

Closing this section, consider case (1). Suppose that the relative impor-
tances of criteria are given by WI, .. . , Wm E [0,1]' respectively with Lj Wj = 1.
Define
p+(a,b) = L Wj, p=(a, b) = LWj and p-(a,b) = p+(b,a).
aPjb aljb

Then, obviously,

R(a,b) = LwjRj(a,b) =p+(a,b)+p=(a,b)

j

and
R(b,a) = LW.iRj(b,a) =p-(a,b)+p=(a,b).
j

Moreover, p + (a, b) + p- (a, b) + p= (a, b) = 1. Clearly, R is not complete in

general. However, R is S-complete (i.e. S(R(a, b), R(b, a)) = 1 with S(x,y) =
min{x+y, I}). Defhe P j by p(x,y) = min {x, l-y}. Then it is easy to verify,
by using M'(Xl,'" ,xm ) = 'L';:l WjXj, that pl(a, b) = p+(a, b). On the other
hand, P(a, b) = min{R(a, b), l-R(b, an
= min{p+(a, b) +p=(a,b),p+(a, b)} =
p+(a,b). Thus, we can conclude that P = pI with M = M'.

References
[1] C. Alsina, On a family of connectives for fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
16 (1985) 231-235.
[2] M. Baas and H. Kwakernaak, Rating and ranking of multiple aspect al-
ternatives using fuzzy sets, A~domatica 13 (1977) 47-58.
[3] D. Dubois and H. Prade, Weighted minimum and maximum in fuzzy set
theory, Inform. Sci. 39 (1986) 205-210.
[4] D. Dubois and H. Prade, On the ranking of ill-known values in possibility
theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 43 (1991) 311-317.
[5] J. C. Fodor, Strict preference relations based on weak t-norms, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 43 (1991) 327-336.

[6] J. C. Fodor, An axiomatic approach to fuzzy preference modelling, Fuzzy

Sets and Systems (to appear in 52 (1992)).
38

[7] J. C. Fodor and M. Roubens, Fuzzy preference modelling - an overview,

Annales Univ. Sci. Budapest., Sectio Computatorica XII (1991) 93-100.
[8] J. C. Fodor and M. Roubens, Aggregation and scoring procedures in mul-
ticriteria decision making problems, IEEE International Conference on
Fuzzy Systems (San Diego, USA, 1992) 1261-1267.

[9] J. C. Fodor and M. Roubens, Aggregation of strict preference relations

in MCDM procedures, in: V. Novak and al. (Eds), Fuzzy Approach to
Reasoning and Decision-Making, Kluwer Acad., Dordrecht, 1991.
[10] J. C. Fodor and M. Roubens, Valued preference structures, submitted.

[11] J. C. Fodor and M. Roubens, Aggregation, Ranking and Choice Procedures

with Applications to Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods dealing
with valued binary relations (book in preparation).
[12] S. Ovchinnikov, On aggregation of max-product transitive valued binary
relations, IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (San Diego,
USA, 1992) 1245-1252.
[13] S. Ovchinnikov and M. Roubens, On strict preference relations, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 43 (1991) 319-326.

[14] S. Ovchinnikov and M. Roubens, On fuzzy strict preference, indifference

and incomparability relations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 47 (1992) 313-318
and 49 (1992) 15-20.
[15] P. Perny, Modelisation, agregation et exploitation de preferences f10ues
dans une problematique de rangement, Ph.D. Thesis, Universite Paris-
Dauphine, 1992.
[16] M. Roubens and Ph. Vincke, Preference Modelling, (Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1985).
[17] M. Roubens and Ph. Vincke, Fuzzy possibility graphs and their application
to ranking fuzzy numbers, in: J. Kacprzyk and M. Roubens, Eds., Non-
Conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making, Lecture Notes in
Economics and Mathematical Systems Yol. 301 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1988) 119-128.

[18] B. Roy, ELECTRE III : Un algorithme de classement fonde sur un-

e representation plane des preferences en presence de criteres multiples,
Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes de Recherche Operationnelle, 20 (1978), 3-24.
 COMPLETIONS AND COMPACTIFICATIONS
BY MEANS OF MONADS 1

Patrik EKLUND
Abo Akademi University, Department of Computer Science, SF-20520 Abo, Finland

Werner GAHLER
Universitat Potsdam, Fachbereich Mathematik
Am Neilen Palais, D 0-1571 Potsdam, Germany

Abstract
In this paper a type of completions, called Kowalsky comple-
tions, is constructed. Under some assumption, Kowalsky comple-
tions are special compactifications, called Richardson compactifi-
cations. The completions and with that also the compactifications,
considered here, depend on a fixed monad. Besides the general
case, we focus our attention on two special cases, namely that of
fuzzy filters and that of well-behaved fuzzy filters.

1. Introduction

The type of completions, considered in this paper, used essentially the

idea of completion procedure given by Kowalsky in [71, and is therefore
called Kowalsky completion. Kowalsky completions are constructed for
separated <p-Cauchy spaces by means of a monad (<p, "1, p,), where <P is a
covariant functor from SET to the category PROSET of preordered sets
(prosets) and <p is th~ tmderlying set functor of <P. The constructions
also depend on a fixed set of choice ftmctions. Under some assump-
tion, for a separated <p-limit space A, the Kowalsky completion of an
associated <p-Cauchy space, obtained with respect to one suitable choice
function, is a compactification of A. It will be called the Richardson
compactification of A, since in the filter case it coincides with the usual
Richardson compactification, given in [91.
The outline of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we set forward
conditions for <P and (<p, "1, Ji), where we distinguish two cases. In the
1 Extended version of [4).
39
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.). Fuzzy Logic. 39-56.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40

first case, we only consider one condition, denoted (Bl). It is needed for
constructing the Kowalsky completions. In the second case besides (Bl)
the further conditions (B2) to (B5) appear. (Bl) to (B5) are used for the
Richardson compactifications. These conditions altogether guarantee
that the respecting completions are compactifications.
Sections 3 and 4 deal with the fuzzy filter case. We point out that
in this case conditions (Bl) to (B4) are satisfied, whereas (B5) may not
be fulfilled. Because of this fact, in section 5 we additionally consider
a further case, the so' called well-behaved fuzzy filter case. In this case
(Bl) to (B5) are all satisfied.
Sections 6 and 7 are mainly about definitions. Besides the notion
of regularity for limit spaces an analog notion is introduced for Cauchy
spaces, called Cauchy regularity. Both these notions are defined by
means of /1. It is shown that the associated limit structure of a Cauchy
regular Cauchy space is regular.
Sections 8 and 9 consist of the main part of this paper. They are
devoted to the constructions of Kowalsky completions and Richardson
compactifications. As in the classical case of Richardson compactifica-
tion, regularity plays an important role. In generalizing a well-known
property of the classical Richardson compactification we have that each
continuous mapping from a separated limit space A to a separated, com-
pact and regular limit space is uniquely extendable onto the Richardson
compactification of A. For Kowalsky completions an analog result holds
related to Cauchy regularity.

2. Functors from SET to PROSET and Monads over SET

Let SET denote the category of sets and PROSET the category of pre-
ordered sets (prosets) with the isotone mappings between prosets as
morphisms. Frequently a covariant functor <I> : SET - t PROSET will
be written as a pair (¢J, :::;), where ¢J is the underlying set functor of <I>,
that is, ¢J is the composition of <I> with the underlying set functor of
PROSET. Each covariant functor <I> : SET - t PROSET assigns to each
set X a proset <I>X = (c.pX,:::;) and to each mapping f : X - t Y an
isotone mapping c.p f : (c.pX, :::;) - t (c.pY, :::;). c.p : SET - t SET is the under-
lying set functor of <I>. Concerning examples we refer to [2,3]. In this
paper we will only recall one of them, namely the example of fuzzy filter
functor. It will be considered in the next section.
In the following let a covariant functor <I> : SET -t PROSET and a
 41

monad (cp, "1, p,) over SET be fixed, where cp is the underlying set functor
of <I>. Recall that "1 : id --t cp and It: cp 0 cp --t cp are natural transforma-
tions consisting of mappings "1x : X --t cpX and p, : cpcpX --t cpX, where
id: SET --t SET is the identity set functor (for details see e.g. [3]).
For the completion and compactification constructions we need some
assumptions. These conditions will be listed in the following.
Assumption on <I> and (cp, "1, p,) for completion constructions
For completion constructions only the following condition will be
needed.

(Bl) <I> is ranging in SEMIPLAT and for each set X, P,x : (cpcpX,~) --t

(cpX,~) preserves suprema of pairs.

Compactification will be defined with respect to ultra <I>-objects,

where for each set X by an ultra <I>-object on X we mean a minimal
element of (cpX, ~).
Assumptions on <I> and (cp, f/, p,) for compactification con-
structions
Besides (B 1) for compactification constructions the following further
conditions (B2) to (B5) will be needed.

(B2) For each set X and M E cpX there exists an ultra <I>-object U on
X such that U ~ M.
(B3) For each mapping f : X --t Y and for each ultra <I>-object U on X,
cpf(U) is an ultra <I>-object on Y.

A consequence of (B3) is that there is a subfunctor cp' of cp where

cp'X consists of all ultra <I>-objects on X.

(B4) For each set X and each x E X, "1x(x) is an ultra <I>-object on X.

(B5) For each set X and each ultra <I>-object U on cp'X, (p,x 0 cpe)(U) is
an ultra <I>-object on X, where e is the inclusion mapping of cp'X
into cpX.

(B4) and (B5) can be combined to the following condition:

There exists the submonad (cp', "1', p,') of (cp, "1, p,) with respect to
the subfunctor cp' of cp (defined in a canonical way, see [3]).
42

3. The Fuzzy Filter Case

Let L be a meet semilattice. A mapping M : LX ~ L is an (L- )fuzzy

filter on X, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(1) M(o:) = a for all a E L, where 0: : X ~ L is the constant mapping

with value a,
(2) M(f /\ g) = M(f) /\ M(g) for all f, 9 E LX.

f /\ 9 is defined componentwise.
The fuzzy filter functor FL : SET ~ SET assigns to each set X the
set FLX of all L-fuzzy filters on X and to each mapping f : X ~ Y the
mapping FLf: FLX ~ FLY defined for each M E FLX and 9 E LY by

FLf(M)(g) = M(g 0 f).

Endowing each set FLX with the inversion ~' of the componentwise
defined partial ordering :S' :

M :S' N ~ M(f):S N(f) for all f E LX

gives a covariant functor <I> : SET ~ PROSET, written (F L, ~.). This

functor is ranging in the category SEMILAT of join semilattices.
Each ultra (F L, ~')-object is also called an ultra fuzzy filter.
In [3] we showed that the fuzzy filter functor c.p = FL can be com-
pleted to a monad, when defining, for each set X, "1x : X ~ c.pX and
JLX : c.pc.pX ~ c.pX as follows:

"1X(x)(f) = f(x)

for all x E X and f E LXand

JLX(U) =UoE

for all U E c.pc.pX, where E : LX ~ L'Px is the mapping given through

E(f)(M) = M(f). Hence, for the subfunctor c.p' = UL of c.p we have

(JLX 0 c.pe)(U) = U 0 E'

for all U E c.p'c.p' X, where e is the inclusion mapping of c.p'X into c.pX
and E' : LX ~ L'P' X is the mapping f I--t E(f) 0 e.
 43

For (F L, 2:') and the fuzzy filter monad (F L, "7, J.L), L being a linearly
ordered complete lattice, conditions (Bl) to (B4) are all satisfied. In
particular, the ultra fuzzy filter functor UL can be defined.
Problem: In the classical case L = {O, I} (the usual filter case)
there exists the submonad of (F L, "7, J.L) related to UL, namely the ultra
filter monad, that is, in this case also (B5) is satisfied. However, already
in the case of L = {O,!, I}, (B5) is not fulfilled, which will be shown at
the end of the next section.
To remedy this situation, instead of FL we consider a subfunctor
arising from so-called well-behaved fuzzy filters. Section 5 is devoted to
this subfunctor.

4. Fuzzy Filter Bases

Analogously to the notion of filter base there is a suitable notion of fuzzy

filter base.
Let L be a completely distributive complete lattice and X a set. By
a fuzzy filter base on X we mean a non-empty subset B of LX such that
the following conditions are fulfilled:

(1) a E B for each a E L.

(2) For all f, 9 E B there is a mapping h E B such that h ::; f /\g holds
and sup h = sup f /\ sup g.

For each f E LX, supf means sup{f(x) Ix EX}.

Each fuzzy filter base B on X generates a fuzzy filter M on X by
M(f) = V sup g.
g$./. gEr3

On the other hand we have the following

Proposition 1 Each fuzzy filter M can be generated by a fuzzy filter

base on X. There even exists a greatest one, written base M and called
the large base of M, which is given by

baseM {f I M(f) = sup!}

E LX
= {f /\M(f) I f E LX}.
M and base M correspond in a one-to-one way.
44

Proposition 2 A subset B of LX is the large base of an L-fuzzy filter

on X if and only if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(1) a E B for each 0: E L.

(2) f, 9 E B implies f 1\ 9 E Band sup(f 1\ g) = sup f 1\ sup g.

(3) For each f E LX there exists the greatest element h of {g E Big :::;
f} and we have h = f 1\ sup h.

For each L-fuzzy filter M on X, the set of all non-constant mappings

of base M will be called the main part of the large base of M.
The following example shows that already in the fuzzy filter case
with L = {o,~, I} condition (B5) is not fulfilled.
Example. Let L = {o,~, I} and X = {O, I}. Denote the non-
constant mappings from X into L by iI, ... , f6, whose values at are
resp. ~,O, 1,0, 1, ~ and at 1 are resp. O,~, 0, 1,~, 1. ULX consists of four
°
ultra fuzzy filters, namely U1 = 'f/X(0),U2 = 'f/x(l),Ua andU4 , where the
main part of their large bases are resp. {iI, fa, f5},{f2, f4,
f6}, {f2, !5}, and {iI, f6}. These ultra fuzzy filters are described in the
following table.

iI 12 fa f4 f5 f6

° °1
1 1
U1 2 1 1 2

° °
1 1
U2 2 2 1

° °
1 1 1
Ua 2 2 1 2

° °
1 1 1
U4 2 2 2 1

There are sixteen ultra fuzzy filters on ULX = {UI, ... ,U4}. Let U
be that one for which the main part of the large base consists of the

°
mappings 9 : ULX - 4 Land h : ULX - 4 L defined at U1 , ... ,U4 as
follows: The values of 9 are resp. ~,O, 0, and of hare resp. 0,1,0. !'
Let E' : LX - 4 LULX be the mapping for which E'(f)(Uk) = Uk(f) for
all f E LX and k = 1, ... ,4. Then U 0 E' : LX - 4 L is the fuzzy filter
descibed as follows:
 45

UoE' 1
"2 o 1
"2 o 1 1
"2

Obviously, U 0 E' is not one of the above ultra fuzzy filters Ul, ... ,U4.

In the following results on ultra fuzzy filters the notion of fuzzy filter
base is used. Let L be a completely distributive complete lattice, and
let M a fuzzy filter on a set X.

Proposition 3 M is an ultra fuzzy filter if and only if each mapping

f : X ~ L, for which sup(f 1\ g) = sup f 1\ supg for all 9 E baseM, is
an element of baseM.

Proof. For each f E LX, for which sup(f 1\ g) = supf I\supg for
all 9 E baseM, baseM U {f 1\ gig E baseM} is a base of a fuzzy filter
N?:.M. Because of that, the assertion easily follows. 0

Corollary 1 If L is a complete chain, then Proposition 3 remains true

ifsup(f I\g) = sup f ASUP 9 for all 9 E baseM is replaced by sup(f I\g) =
sup 9 for all 9 E baseM with sup 9 :S sup f·

Proof. Fix f E LX such that sup(f I\g) = supg for all 9 E baseM
with sup 9 :S sup f, and put a = sup f. Then for all 9 E baseM with
sup 9 > a we have sup(f I\g) = sup(f I\g Ni) = sup(g I\a) = sup f I\sup g.
o

Corollary 2 Let L be a complete chain and let a E L, a f= O. Then

La = {13 E L 113 :S a} is a complete chain and {f E baseM I sup f :S a}
is the large base of an La -fuzzy filter M a on X. If M is an ultra L-fuzzy
filter, then M a is an ultra La-fuzzy filter.

Proof . The first part of the assertion is easily seen. Assume now
that M is an ultra L-fuzzy filter. Fix a mapping f : X ~ La such that
sup(f 1\ g) = sup 9 for all 9 E baseM a with sup 9 :S sup f. Because of
Corollary 1 it follows f E baseM and therefore f E baseM a . Thus, M a
is an ultra La-fuzzy filter. 0
46

5. Well-behaved Fuzzy Filters

For sake of simplicity we assume in the sequel that the following condi-
tion is fulfilled:

(*) L is a complete chain such that each a E L, a > 0, has a prede-

cessor.

Examples: L a finite chain, L = {1,~,!, ... , O}, not L = [0,11.

Under (*) for any L-fuzzy filter M on X and any a E L,

a-levM = U-1({a}) If E baseM,supf = a}

is a proper filter on X, the a-level jilterof M. For each f with sup f = a,

f-l({a}) is the a-level set of f.
An L-fuzzy filter M on a set X will be called well-behaved if the
following condition is fulfilled:

For each a E L, a > 0, and each antitone family (Mf3hSJ3$a of

sets Mf3 E ,8-levM we have f E baseM with f defined by

f(x) = V ,8
xEM/3

for all x E X (antitone means: ,8:::;,8' ===> Mf3:2 Mf3I).

(3'
f
,8
x

All proper filters considered as L-fuzzy filters with L = {O, I} are

well-behaved.
 47

Under our assump.tion (*) each L-fuzzy filter M on X can be assigned

a well-behaved fuzzy filter M* on X such that baseM* consists of all f E
LX generated by an antitone family (M{3)og3$O: of sets M{3 E ,B-IevM
as above.

Proposition 4 An L-fuzzy filter M on X is an ultra L-fuzzy filter if

and only if M is well-behaved and each a-level filter a - lev M with
a > 0 is a usual ultra filter on X.

Proof. 1) Assume at first that M is an ultra L-fuzzy filter, and

fix an a E L with a > O. Let (M{3)o${3$O: be an antitone family of sets
M{3 E ,B-IevM and define f by f(x) = V ,B. For each 9 E baseM with
xEM{3
supg::; supf we have g-I{,B} E ,B-IevM and therefore g-I,BnM{3 =1= 0,
where ,B = sup 9 . Thus, sup(f /\ g) = ,B = sup g. Hence, Corollary 1 of
Proposition 3 implies f E baseM and therefore that M is well-behaved.
In the sequel we will show that a - levM is a usual ultra filter.
Because of Corollary 2 of Proposition 3 and a - lev M = a - lev Mo: it
suffices to consider the case of a = 1. Let K be an ultra filter on X with
l-levM ~ K. Choose M I E K and for all,B < 1, M{3 E ,B-IevM. In
changing from M{3 to' U M'Y' (M{3){3EL may be assumed to be antitone.
'Y?13
Define f E LX by f(x) = V ,B for all x E X. Then f-I{l} = MI.
xEM{3
Analogously as in the first part of the proof it follows f E baseM and
therefore MI E l-levM. Hence, l-levM is an ultra filter, namely K.
2) Assume now that M is well-behaved and for each a> 0, a-IevM
is an ultra filter on X. Choose a mapping f E LX such that sup(f /\
g) = sup 9 for all 9 E baseM with sup 9 ::; sup f. Put a = sup f and
M{3 = {x E X I ,B ::; f(x)} for all ,B ::; a. Suppose that there is a ,B ::; a
with M{3 ~ ,B -levM. Clearly, ,B i= O. Since,B -levM is an ultra filter,
we have X \ M{3 E (3 -levM. Hence, there exists a mapping 9 E baseM
such that supg = ,B and g-I{(3} = {x E X I (3 > f(x)}, from which
sup 9 ::; sup f and sup(f /\ g) < sup 9 follow. This contradicts the choice
of f· Hence, M13 E ,B -lev M for all ,B ::; a and therefore f E baseM.
Thus, from Corollary 1 of Proposition 3 we get that M is an ultra fuzzy
filter. 0
There exists the subfunctor, written Fr, of FL which assigns to each
set X the set of all well-behaved L-fuzzy filters on X. (FL, 2::'), obviously
defined, is ranging in.SEMILAT.
48

UL is a subfunctor of FL' FL can be completed to a monad (F L , TJ w ,

J.1 ), where for all sets X, x E X, and M E FLFLX we have TJ~(x) =
W

TJx(x) and J.1~(M) = Itx(M)*.

For (FL, ~.) (obviously defined) and the monad (F L,TJ w , J.1 W ), condi-
tions (B1) to (B4) are all satisfied.
We will speak on the well-behaved fuzzy filter case if <P = (F L, ~.)
and (tp, TJ, 1£) is the related monad, where L is any complete chain which
fulfills the assumption (*) .
Moreover, we will speak on the filter case if <P = (F, ;2), where F is
the (proper) filter functor, and if (tp, TJ, 1£) is the related monad. This
case coincides, up to isomorphisms, with the well-behaved fuzzy filter
case if L consists only of 0 and 1 (=/= 0).
Note that for each set X, each x E X and M E tptpX hence we have
TJx(x) = x (= {U <;;; X I x E U}) and

J.1x(M) = U n
MEM:FEM
F.

6. Limit Spaces

Let <P be a covariant functor from SET to PROSET and (tp, TJ, 1£) a monad,
where tp is the underlying set functor of <P. Assume that tp is connected,
Le. tpI is a singleton. Then TJ is uniquely given by tp (see [3]).
Let X be a set. A tp-convergence structure t on X, L e. a subset t
of tpX x X, is called a <P-limit structure or a <P-pseudo-topology if the
following conditions are satisfied:

(LI) TJx(x) 7" x for all x E X.

(L2) M 7" x and N ~ M imply N 7" x.

(L3) If M 7" x and N 7" x, then there is an U ~ M,N such that
U7"x.

M 7" x means (M,x) E t.

X equipped with a <P-limit structure on X is called a <p-limit space
or a <P-pseudo-topological space.
 49

A mapping j : (X, t) --t (Y, u) between <I>-limit spaces is said to be

continuous, if M "7 x implies '()j(M) -;- j(x).
A <I>-limit space (X, t) is said to be separated or to be Hausdorff if
M T x, y implies x = y, and compact if for each M E '{)X there are an
N E '{)X and x E X such that N ::; M and N "7 x.
Since <I> fulfills (BI), (X, t) is compact if and only if for all ultra
<I>-objects U there is an x E X such that U T x.
The closure of M ~ X, denoted clM, is the set of all x E X such that
'()iM(M) T x for some M E '{)M, where iM is the inclusion mapping
of M to X.
Let (X, t) be a <I>-limit space. The relation t can be written as the
composition t2 0 tIl, where grt is the graph of t and h : grt --t '{)X and
t2 : grt --t X are the first and second projections of grt, respectively.

grt

'{)X ,-----. X

Note that ILx 0 '{)tl and '{)t2 are both mappings from '{)grt to '{)X. As
in [5], (X, t) will be called /L-regular iffor all M E '{)grt and y EX, from
(/LX 0 '()tl)(M) T x it follows '()t2(M) T x.
In the filter case IL-regularity coincides with the usual regularity of
a limit space, as has been shown in [5].

7. Cauchy Spaces and Associated Limit Structures

Our compactification strategy is based upon an extension of (non-comp-

act) <I>-pseudo-topologies with non-convergent ultra <I>-objects, giving
rise to Cauchy spaces., as defined in the following.
A <I>- Cauchy structure on a set X is a subset s of '()X satisfying the
following conditions:

(CI) 'T/x(x) E s for all x E X (stability).

(C2) ME sand N::; M imply N E s.

50

(C3) If M,N E s and {M,N} has a lower bound in (cpX, :sJ, then
there is an upper bound U E s of {M, N}.

The pair (X, s) is called a if>-Cauchy space. Moreover, each M E s is

said to be a (P-Cauchy object of (X, s).
Let (X, s) be a if>-Cauchy space. The associated if>-limit structure
t consists of all pairs (M, x) E cpX x X such that there is an upper
bound N of {M, 1Jx(x)} in (cpX,:S) with N E s. t is indeed a (P-limit
structure on X as has been shown in [21. s, and also (X, s) is said to
be separated provided the associated if> limit structure is. Further, s is
said to be complete if each if>-Cauchy object of (X, s) converges, with
respect to the associated if>-limit structure, to some element of X. On s
an equivalence relation is defined by: M
f',J N if and only if there is an
f',J

upper bound K E s of {M,N}. We shall write M~ for the equivalence

class {N E s I M N}.
f',J

A if>-limit structure t on a set X is said to be weakly separated or

weakly Hausdorff if for all x, y E X, whenever there is an M E 4>X such
that M t x and M t y, then {NI N t x} = {NI N t v}·
As in the filter case (see [6]) one shows the following.

Proposition 5 A if>-limit structure on a set X is the associated if>-limit

structure of a if>-Cauchy structure if and only if t is weakly separated.
If t is weakly separated, then {M I M t x for some x} is the finest
if>-Cauchy structure which has t as associated if>-limit structure.

A mapping f : (X, s) -+ (Y, u) between if>-Cauchy spaces is called

Cauchy continuous if M E s implies 4>f(M) E u. Cauchy continuity
implies continuity with respect to the associated if>-limit structures, as
has been shown in [21.
A if>-Cauchy space (X, s) and also s will be called J1,-Cauchy regular
- or simply Cauchy regular - if for each I:- E cpgrt from (J1,x 0 cptl )(1:-) E s
it follows cpt2(1:-) E s, .where t is the associated if>-limit structure.
Cauchy regularity is not the same as regularity of the associated if>-
limit structure. An analog situation appears in the filter case for tmiform
convergence spaces, where the appropriate notion of regularity is that
of uniform regularity.
In the following we will show that under (Bl), Cauchy regularity
implies regularity of the associated limit structure.
 51

Lemma. Assume that (Bl) is fulfilled. Let (X, t) be a iP-limit space.

Then for each £ E cpgrt there is an £' ~ £ such that (/-LX 0 cptl)(£') :::;
(/-Lx 0 cptI)(£) :::; cpt2(£') holds.
Proof. Let (TX : X - t grt be the mapping x 1-+ (1]x(x), x) (x EX),
U = (/-LX 0 cptl)(£) and £' a supremum of {£, CP(Tx(U)}. By means of
tl 0 (TX = 1]x we get that cptl(£') is a supremum of {cptl(£),Cp1]x(U)}.
U = (/-LX 0 Cp1]x(U) and (Bl) therefore imply that (/-LX 0 cptl)(£') is a
supremum of {U}. Hence, U :::; (/-Lx 0 CPtl)(£') :S U holds. Because of
t2 0 (TX = lx, on the other hand, we get U:S cpt2(£)' 0

Proposition 6 Assume that (Bl) is fulfilled. Let (X, s) be a Cauchy

regular iP-Cauchy space. Then the associated iP-limit structure t is reg-
ular.

Proof. Let £ E cpgrt be given such that U t x, where U =

(/.tx 0 cptl)(£)' Because of the lemma there is an £' ~ £ such that
(/-LX 0 cptI)(£') :::; U :S cpt2)(£') holds. We have U E s and therefore
(/-LX ocptd(£') E s. Since (X, s) is Cauchy regular, it follows cpt2(£) E s.
U t x implies that there is an upper bound V E s of {U, 1]X(x)}. Since
U is a lower bOlmd of {V, cpt2(£')}, there is an upper bound W E s of
{V, cpt2(£')} and hence of {1]X(x) , cpt2(£')}' Thus, we have cp t 2(£') t x.
o

8. Kowalsky Completions

In the sequel assume that (B1) is fulfilled.

The completions, constructed in the sequel, fulfill a diagonal property
(see [7,8]), which is defined as follows. .
Let (X, t) be a iP-limit space and b. a set of mappings ..\ : X - t cpX
such that ..\(x) t x for all x E X. (X, t) is said to be b.-diagonal if
M t x implies (/-LX b cp..\)(M) t x for all ..\ E b..
Note that in the filter case

(Jtx 0 cp..\)(M) = U n
F>"EMxEF>"
..\(x) = {F I FA EM},

where for each subset F of X, FA = {x E X I F E ..\(x)}. For any

rEM and F = n ..\(x) we namely have M ~ FA and F = n ..\(x).
xEM xEF>"
52

Let now A = (X, s) be a separated <I>-Cauchy space and let X" =

{M~ 1M E s}, where M~ are the equivalence classes defined as above.
Moreover, let L: X -4 X" be the mapping x ~ 17X(X)~ (x EX).
For the completion construction we fix a set r of mappings /'i, : X" -
cpX such that /'i,(M~) E M~ for allM E s and, in particular, /'i,OL = 17x.
r will be called the set of choice functions of the Kowalsky completion.
Note that P,X 0 CP/'i, maps cpX" into cpX for all /'i, E r, hence we may
define a cp-convergence structure s" on X" by

K -- M~
S/\
{:::=:> (p,x ° cp/'i,)(K) E M~ for all /'i, E r.

Proposition 7 A" = (XI\, s") is a separated <I>-limit space.

Proof. To see that A" is a <I>-limit space, firstly, we shall obtain

(Ll). For all /'i, E r and M E s, because of CP/'i, 0 17x/\ = 17rpx ° /'i, and
P,X ° 17rpx = lrpx we obtain (p,x ° CP/'i,)(17x/\(M~) = /'i,(M~) E M~, and
therefore (L 1).
Secondly, (L2) follows directly from the isotony of cP and P,X.
Thirdly, to obtain (L3), assume K, £- -- M~. For any /'i, E
S/\
r, then
(p,xocpl\,)(K) , (/LXOCPK-)(£) E M~, and therefore there is an upper bound
UK, E s of {(/LX ° cpl\,)(K) , (/LX ° CPl\,)(£)}. Of course, UK, E M~. For
any supremum N of {K, £} we have (p,x ° cpl\,)(N) ::; UK, and therefore
(p,x ° CP/'i, )(N) E M~ for all /'i, E r, thus, N -- M~.
S/\

Separatedness is trivial. D

Proposition 8 A" is t:J.-diagonal for t:J. = {cpL ° /'i, I /'i, E r}.

Proof. Fix any M E s, K -- M~ and
tIl
I\, E r. For each 1\,' E r,
because of /'i,' ° L = 17x, P,x/\ ° cPcpL = cpl. ° /LX and /LX ° CP17x = lrpx we
have (p,xOcp/'i,')(/LX/\OCP(CPLOl\,))(K) = (p,xocp/'i,)(K) E M~ and therefore
(p,x/\ ° cp(cpL ° I\,))(K) -- M~. D
tIl

Remark. Because of Proposition 5, s* = {KI K--M~ for some

S/\

M E s} is a complete <I>-Cauchy structure which has s" as the associated

<I>-limit structure. In the following, A" will be considered as <I>-Cauchy
space equipped with s*.
 53

Proposition 9 i : i -+ AA is a dense Cauchy space embedding (dense

means that cli[X] = X A ).

Proof. Because of the separatedness of s, i is injective.

In the following we will show that i is a Cauchy continuous, dense
mapping. For this fix any M E s. For all ;;, E r we have;;, 0 i = "lx,
hence (It x 0 ¢;;,)<!)/,(M) = M and therefore ¢i(M) -- M"". Thus, i is
s/\
<J?-Cauchy continuous. Since M"" is any element of X A, moreover we get
that i is dense.
It remains to show that s is the initial <J?-Cauchy structure of s* with
respect to i. Fix any M E ¢X such that ¢i(M) E s*, that is, there is
an N E s such that (It x 0 ¢;;')¢i(M) E N"" for all ;;, E r. Because of
(It x 0 ¢;;')¢i(M) = M it follows M E s and therefore that s is initial as
required. 0
Corollary. i is an epimorphism of the category <J?-CHYsep of separated
<J?- Cauchy spaces.
Proof. Easy consequence of Proposition 8 taking into account
that A is separated. 0

Proposition 10 Let f : A -+ (Y, u) be a Cauchy continuous mapping

of A into a separated, complete and Cauchy regular <J?-Cauchy space.
Assume that for all /'\" A E rand M"" E X A the Cauchy objects (rpf 0
/'\,)(M"") and (rpf 0 A)(M"") are equivalent. Then there exists precisely
one Cauchy continuous mapping fA : AA -+ (Y, u) such that f = fA 0 i.

~lr
(Y,u)

Proof. Let v be the <J?-limit structure associated to u and VI

and V2 resp. the first and second projection of grv. There is a bijection
b : u -+ grv such that i = VI 0 b is the inclusion mapping of u into <pY. V
is a partial mapping and its restriction v' onto u is a mapping of u into
Y. We have v' = V2 0 b. For each, M E sand /'\, E r moreover we have
/'\,(M"") E s and, since f is Cauchy continuous, therefore (rpfo/'\,)(M"") E
54

u. Hence, for each /'i, E r, cp f 0 /'i, has a factorization i 0 aK. with aK. a
mapping of X/\ into u.
Because of the assumption f/\ = v' 0 aK. is a mapping of X/\ into Y
which is independent of /'i,. /'i, 0 /, = fix and the separatedness of v imply
(f/\ 0 /')(x) = (v' 0 cpJ)(flX(X)) = (v' 0 1]Y)(f(x)) = f(x) for each x E X,
and therefore f/\ 0 /, = f.
Fix M~ E X/\ and K E cpX/\ such that K - M~ and hence (/-Lx 0
SA

cp/'i,)(K) E s for all /'i, E r. Because of cpfo/-LX = /-Lyocpcp f, cpJO/'i, = vloboa

and the Cauchy continuity of f we obtain (/-Ly 0 cp(VI 0 b 0 a))(K) E u.
Since u is Cauchy regular, we get cp(V2 oboa)(K) = cpf/\(K) E u. Thus,
f/\ : A/\ - (Y, u) is Cauchy continuous. t. being an epimorphism implies
that f/\ is the only Cauchy continuous mapping for which f = f/\ 0 /,. 0
Remark. The assumption of the proposition that (cpf 0 /'i,)(M~) and
(cpf 0 A)(M~) are always equivalent, is trivially fulfilled if r consists of
only one choice function.

9. The Case of Richardson Compactifications

In the sequel assume that the conditions (Bl) to (B5) are fulfilled.
Let A = (X, t) be a separated ep-limit space and let s consist of all
elements M of cpX converging to some x EX, together with all non-
convergent ultra ep-objects. It is easily seen that (X, s) so becomes a
ep-Cauchy space and t is the associated ep-limit structure. As in the pre-
ceeding section, let X/\ be the corresponding set of equivalence classes.
Note that all ultra ep-objects on X are members of these equivalence
classes. Let also /, : X - X/\ be defined as in the preceeding section.
Here only one choice function /'i, will be used which is given through
flx(X) and /'i,(U~) = U for all x E X and all non-convergent
/'i,(flX(X)~) =
ultra ep-objects U.
The ep-limit structure s/\ defined with respect to r = {/'i,} as in the
preceeding section will be denoted t/\.

Proposition 11 A/\ = (X/\, t/\) is a separated and compact ep-limit

space.

Proof. We only have to show compactness. For this let an ultra

ep-object V on X/\ be fixed. /'i, has a factorization eo /'i,' by a mapping
/'i,' : X /\ - cp'X and the inclusion mapping e : cp'X - cpX. Because
 55

of (B3), cpx;'(V) is an ultra <I>-object on cp' X. Hence, because of (B4),

U = (fLX ocpe)(cpx;(V)) = (fLX ocpx;)(V) is an ultra <I>-object on X. Thus,
we have V -- U"'. 0
t/\

Proposition 12 L: A --t All is a dense embedding.

Proof. Because of Proposition 9, L is as mapping from (X, s)

into (XII, s*) a dense Cauchy space embedding. Clearly, L : A --t All is
therefore continuous. It only remains to show that t is the initial <I>-limit
structure of til with respect to L. Fix any M E cpX and x E X such that
cpL(M) -- L(X), Le. M = (fLX 0 cpx;)cpL(M) E 1Jx(x)"'. Hence, there is
t"
an upper bound.N E s of {M, 1Jx(x)} and therefore M 7" x. 0

Corollary. L is an epimorphism of the category <I>-L1M sep of separated

<I>-limit spaces.
Proof. Easy consequence of Proposition 12. 0
Remark. In the filter case, A II coincides with the Richardson com-
pactification in the usual sense published by Richardson in [9].

Proposition 13 Let f : A --t (Y, u) be a continuous mapping of A

into a separated, compact and regular <I>-limit space. Then there exists
precisely one continuous mapping fll : All --t (Y, u) such that f = fll 0 L.

Proof. In the following let A* = (XII, t*) and (Y, u') be the <I>-Cauchy
spaces whose structures t* and u' resp. consist of all convergent objects
with respect to til and u. (Y, u') is complete and Cauchy regular. A
mapping of All into (Y, u) is continuous if and only it is - as mapping
of A* into (Y, u') - Cauchy continuous. Since f : (X, s) --t (Y, u') is
Cauchy continuous, the assertion therefore follows from Proposition 10.
o
56

References

II] P. Eklund, A class of completely regular spaces, Internat. J. Math.

& Math. Sci. 7 (1984), 197-200.
[2] P. Eklund, W. Gahler, Generalized Cauchy spaces, Math. Nachr.
147 (1990), 219-233.

13] P. Eklund, W. Gahler, Fuzzy filter functors and convergence, in:

Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets, Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London (1992), 109-136.
14] P. Eklund, W. Gahler, Compactifications and monads, 4th IFSA
Congress, Brussels 1991, Mathematics, 54-57.
15] W. Gahler, Monads and converyence, Proc. Conference General-
ized FUnctions, Convergences Structures, and Their Applications,
Dubrovnik (Yugoslavia) 1987, Plenum Press, New York (1988),
29-46.

[6] H. H. Keller, Die Limesuniformisierbarkeit der Limesriiume, Math.

Ann. 176 (1968), 334-341.
17] H.-J. Kowalsky, Limesriiume und Komplettierung, Math. Nachr.
12 (1954), 301-340.

18] E. E. Reed, Completions of uniform convergence spaces, Math.

Ann. 194 (1971), 83-108;

[9] G. D. Richardson, A Stone-Cech compactification for limit spaces,

Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1970), 403-404.
 SOME RESULTS ON COMPACTIFICATION
IN FUZZY TOPOLOGICAL SPACES
R. Lowen* R.C. Steinlage** P. Wuyts*
* Dienst Wiskundige Analyse, Universiteit Antwerpen RUCA, Belgium
** Department of Mathematics, University of Dayton, Ohio USA

INTRODUCTION
In this paper we identify for a fuzzy topological space (X, ,6,) a
collection VeX) of new points, some or all of which can be appended to X in
order to produce various compactifications of X. Specifically, we consider
compactification and ultra-compactification of (X, ,6,). VeX) has its roots in
Shanin's generalization of Wallman's construction as given in [14]. Our
construction is analogous to (Shanin's generalization of) Wallman's
compactification for topological spaces in that we explicitly describe the
closed sets and convergence of prefilters in the compactification; in fact, it
coincides with Wallman's compactification if (X, ,6,) is topologically
generated. Thus our compactifications are good extensions of Wallman's
compactification to the fuzzy setting. Our construction coincides with (and
extends) the corresponding compactifications given in [1] for fuzzy
neighborhood spaces. However, the constructions given here apply to all fuzzy
topological spaces; no separation properties are required nor is (X, ,6,)
restricted in any way. Thus our construction has advantages over previous
fuzzy compactifications in e.g. [1], [2], [4]' and [12], which apply to a smaller
class of fuzzy spaces (sometimes only to topologically generated spaces).

PRELIMINARIES
We assume familiarity with most of the concepts and notations in
the realm of fuzzy topology. Nevertheless, we recall here some of those which
are particularly needed in this paper. We shall work only with real-valued
(not arbitrary lattice-valued) fuzzy sets; i.e., a fuzzy subset of X is a function
p,:X -t I where I denotes the unit interval I = [0, 1]. We shall also have
occasion to use 10 = (0, 1] and 11 = [0, 1). We require all fuzzy topological
spaces (X, ,6,) to be fully stratified; i.e., r E ,6, for all I' E I where r denotes
the constant function with value r. The (ordinary) topology on X generated
by the collection of all sets of the form p, -1 (Ct, 1] where Ii E,6, and Ct E I is
denoted i(,6,). If r is a collection of fuzzy sets we denote by r C the collection
of all its pseudo-complements; i.e., p, E r iff (1 - p) E r C. A collection ir of
fuzzy subsets of X is called a prefilter provided
57

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), FuZZY Logic, 57-67.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
58

a) 0 ~ lr
b) ifJ.L Elrandl/ Elr, then J.L 1\ 1/ Elr
c) if J.L 2: 1/ for some 1/ E If, then J.L E If
A collection If C D. c is called a closed prefilter if it satisfies a) and b) above
and
c/ ) if J.L 2: 1/ for some 1/ E lr and J.L E D. c , then J.L E lr·
A collection lB of fuzzy subsets of X is called a prefilter basis provided
a/) 0 ~ lB
b/) if J.L E lB and 1/ E lB, then there is some 'Y E lB for which
'Y :S J.L 1\ 1/.
If lB C t.c is a prefilter basis, then lB is called a closed prefilter basis; if
furthermore, lB C Bet.c where B is a basis for D. c, then lB is called a B-
closed prefilter basis.
If 6 C IX, then the character of 6 is the real number
c(6) := 1\ { V J.L(x): J.L E 6}; if lr is a (closed) prefilter, then c(lf) is just
the infimum xo¥he values of the constant functions in the prefilter lr. If lB
C IX satisfies the FIP (J.Lll\ I-t2 1\ ... 1\ J.Ln #- 0 for all finite collections I-t l ,
I-t?, ... , J.Ln E lB), then [lB] denotes the smallest prefilter containing lB and is
called the prefilter generated by lB; if lB does not satisfy the FIP, then [lB] is
defined to be IX and in this case c([lB]) := O. If J.L E IX then we denote by [I-t]
the prefilter generated by {J.L}. If Q: is a filter on X then w( Q:) stands for the
prefilter generated by {I E: EEQ3}. Iflr, ID E IX, then lfVID = [lfUID];
if this is a prefilter, it is called the prefilter generated by If and ID. A subset
A of a fuzzy topological space (X, t.) is called dense if it fulfills the property
that for all J.L E D., sup{J.L(x): x E A} = sup{J.L(x) : x E X}. The adherence of
a prefilter !Jl is defined as adh !Jl = 1\ {v : 1/ E !l!} where v denotes the
closure of 1/. A fuzzy topological space (X, t.) is said to be compact provided
sup{(adh !Jl)(x) : x EX} 2: c(!Jl) for all prefilters!l!. Equivalently, (X, t.)
is compact if and only if sup{(adh lB)(x) : x E X} 2: c(!l!) for all B-closed
prefilter bases lB, where B denotes any preselected basis for t.c (B = D. c is
permitted).
An extension (Y, r) of a fuzzy topological space (X, t.) is called a.
compactification of X if X is densely embedded in Y and Y is compact. For
basic results on compactification in topological spaces we refer the reader to
[13) and [14]. For discussions of compactness notions in fuzzy topological
spaces, we refer the reader to [3), [8), and [9).

COMPACTIFICATION OF FUZZY TOPOLOGICAL SPACES

The Pool of New Points
In this section we construct a pool of new pomts, some or all of
 59

which can be appended or adjoined to a fuzzy topological space (X, ~) 111

order to produce various compactifications of that fuzzy topological space. If
(X, ~) is an arbitrary fuzzy topological space, we let
~ := {jl-l([a, 1]): jlE~c, add.
We note that ~ is a subbasis for the closed sets in t(~), and that it contains
o i
and X (using jl-l[!, 1] where jl == ~ and jl == respectively). Then the
collection ~(~) of all finite unions of sets in ~ is a basis for the closed sets of
t( ~) and is itself closed under the operation of taking finite unions. A subset
f> of ~(~) is called a ~(~)-family if it has the finite intersection property
(FIP); it is called a maximal ~(~)-family if it is not properly contained in
any other ~(~)-family; and it is called vanishing if it has an empty
intersection. In [13] it was shown that a maximal ~(~)-family m1 fulfills the
prime-property; i.e., if m1 is a maximal ~(~) family and if AU BE m1 with
A,B E m(~) then either A E m1 or BE m1. Given (X, ~) and m(~) as above
we let V(X) denote the collection of all vanishing maximal m(~)-families.
V(X) is the pool of "new points" we wanted to describe in this section. If all
of these new points are adjoined to X, we obtain X := Xu V(X). Notice that
no separation properties were required on (X, ~) in order to generate our new
points for X.

Extending the Fuzzy Topological Structure on X to All or Part of X

Let X ~ X* ~ X. To extend the fuzzy topological structure of X to
A

X* we extend the closed fuzzy sets in X to X* and then use these as a basis
for the closed fuzzy sets in X*. Given jl E ~c we define jJ,(x) := jl(x) for all x
E X; if m1 E X* - X, then m1 E V(X) and we define jJ,(m1) := c([jl] V w(m1)).
jJ,(m1) can be characterized as the infimum of the constants l' so that jl(x) <
l' for all x in some M E m1:

jJ,(m1) =
inf sup jl(x)
MEm1 xEM

Lemma. jJ,(m1) = sup{a E II : jl-1[a , 1] E m1} for all m1 E V(X);

in fact, jl-l[.8, 1] E m1 for all.8 < jJ,(m1) and jl-l[.8, 1] !t m1 for all.8 > jJ,(m1).
Proof. Let.8 > jt(m1). Then sup{jl(x) : x E M} < .8 for some ME m1
so that p-l[.8, 1] n M = 0 from which it follows that jl-1[.8, 1] !t m1. Clearly
°
p-l[O, 1] = X E m1; if < .8 < jJ,(m1), then sup{p(x) : x E M} > .8 for every M
E m1 so that 11-1[.8, 1] n M f::. 0 for every M E m1. The maximality of m1 then
implies that I/-l[fi, 1] E m1.

Proposition 1. For jl, 1/ E ~ c and a constant the following properties

hold:
(1) a=a
(2) jl V 1/ = it V v
(3) jl A1/ = jJ, /\ v.
60

Proof. The verification of (1) is trivial. For (2) and (3) we first
remark that if ~, () E 6..c satisfy () :::; ~ then iJ:::; ~ so we already have
jJ, V v :::; /-L Vv and /-L Av :::; jJ, /\ V. Now let !JJ1 E \X* - X) satisfy /-L Vv(!JJ1) >
o and observe that if Q E II is such that (/-L V vr [Q, 1] E!JJ1 then, since !JJ1 has
the prime property and (/-L V vr 1[Q, 1] = /-L-l[Q, 1] U v- 1 [Q, 1],
either /-L-l[Q, 1] E!JJ1 or v- 1 [Q, 1] E!JJ1. Thus
1
/-L V v(!JJ1) = sup{Q Ell : (/-L V vr [Q, 1] E!JJ1}
:::; sup{Q E II : /-L-1[Q, 1] E!JJ1} V sup{Q E II : v- 1 [Q, 1] E!JJ1}
= jJ,(!JJ1) V v(!JJ1).
Analogously if Q E II and (3 E II are such that It- 1 [Q, 1] E!JJ1 and v- 1 [(3, 1] E!JJ1
then by the maximality of !JJ1 and the fact that
It- 1 [Q, 1] n V-I [(3, 1] C (/-LI\ vr 1[c¥ 1\ (3, I]
1
we have (It 1\ vr [Q 1\ (3, 1] E!JJ1. Thus
jJ,(!JJ1) 1\ v(!JJ1) = sup{Q El : /-L-l[Q, 1] E!JJ1} 1\ sup{(3 El : v- 1 [(3, 1] E!JJ1}
= sup{Q 1\ (3 : /-L-1[Q, 1] E!JJ1 and v- 1 [(3, 1] E!JJ1}
1
:::; suph Ell : (/-LI\ vr [-y, 1] E!JJ1}
= /-L Av(!JJ1).
As a consequence of this proposition the family B* = {jJ, : /-L E 6.. C} is
a basis for the closed fuzzy sets of some fuzzy topology on X*, which we shall
denote 6..*.

Compactness Properties of (X*, 6..*)

If X is not compact, then there is a closed prefilter basis !ll for which
sup{(adh lB)(x) : x E X} < c(!ll). It then follows that /-L-l[Q, 1] f. 0 provided
/-L E!ll and Q < c(!ll). Since!ll is a closed prefilter basis, the set ~(!ll) =
{ /-L-1[Q, 1] : /-L E!ll and Q < c(!ll)} is a ~(6..)-family and since adh !ll < c(\'Il) ,
~(\'Il) is a vanishing ~(6..)-family. Let !JJ1(\'Il) be a maximal ~(6..) family
containing ~(\'Il); thus !JJ1(\'Il) is also vanishing. Let
V*(X) = {!JJ1(\'Il):\'Il is a closed prefilter basis for which sup (adh \'Il)(x) < c(\'Il)}
xEX

and let X* = Xu V*(X). Then V*(X) ~ VeX) and X ~ x* ~ x.

Theorem 1. (x*, 6..*) is a compactification of (X, 6..).
Proof. Let!ll* be a B*-closed prefilter basis in X*. Then

sup [(adh \'Il*)(x)] = sup [(adh \'Il*)(x)] V sup [(adh \'Il*)(x)].

x E X* xEX x E V*(X)

If sup{(adh \'Il*)(x) : x E X} < c(\'Il*), let \'Il = {v E 6.. c : v E \'Il*}. Then lB is

a closed prefilter basis in X, c(\'Il) = c(\'Il*), and (adh \'Il)(x) = (adh \'Il*)(x)
for all x EX. Thus !JJ1(\'Il) E X* - X. Now
(adh \'Il*)(!JJ1(\'Il))= 1\ {v(!JJ1(\'Il)) : vE\'Il*} = 1\ {v(!JJ1(\'Il)) : vE\'Il}
 61

1\ V{exEI 1 : v- 1 [ex, l]dJI(lB)}

v E !Jl
> 1\ V{exEI 1 : v- 1 [ex, I]E!Jl} = c(!Jl) =c(!Jl*).
v E !Jl
This verifies the compactness of (X*, .6.*). It follows immediately from
Proposition 1(1) that X is dense in X*. Thus (X*, .6.*) is a compactification
of (X, .6.).
The compactification just constructed coincides with X if X is
already compact since in that case no "new points" would be appended to X.
Because this construction is analogous to that of Wallman for topological
spaces, we shall call it the Wallman compactification of X. If we are not
selective in choosing the "new points", to include in X* and instead consider
X, this construction yields an ultra-compactification of X (a compactification
of X which is ultra-compact) [11]. The arguments in this case are somewhat
different and rely on "Shanin's generalization of Wallman's construction ([1:3],
[14]).

Theorem 2. (X, Li) is an ultra-compactification of (X, .6.).

Proof. Ultracompactness of X means that L(X) is compact. We shall
use Alexander's Subbase Lemma with the subbasis
m
:= {jl-1[ex, 1] : IlE .6. c, ex E IJ1
for the closed sets in L(X). Using the Lemma, we obtain

jl-1[ex, 1] = I-L -1[ex, 1] U {!JJ1 E V(X) : f-L - \8, 1] E!JJ1 for all {3 < ex}

P.
for all f-L E c and ex E 11, Let (F)j E J be a subfamily of mwith. n Fj =0
and write FJ" := jl~1[exJ"'
J
1]. Then J EJ
F· = p. U Q.
A •

where P..j = f-L. [exj' 1]

-1 J J J
eX
and Qj = {!JJ1: f-Lj 1[{3j' 1] E!JJ1 V {3 < exj} C V(X).
Therefore, for all K C J, we have
n
jEK
F. = (n
J jEK
p.) U
J
(n
jEK
Q.)
J

and in particular

jEJ
n p. = jEJ
J
n Q. = 0 J
(*)

Now we consider three cases:

(r) :3 K C J with n
jEK
Pj = 0 and :3 L C J with n
jEL
Qj = 0.
Then K U L C J and n
j E K uL
Fj = 0.
62

(2°) V K C J, n
j EK
Pj i= 0.
This means that (P)j E J is a m(b.)-family which thus is contained in a
maximal m(b.)-family ml and which by (*) is vanishing. For each j E J we
now have
jJ-~l[Ct.,
] ]
1] = p.] E ml

and thus, again by the Lemma flj(ml) ~ Ctj' This implies that ml E n Qj
which by (*) is a contradiction. j EJ

(3°) V L C J, n Q i= 0.
jEL
j

If then L C J and ml E n{Qj : j E L} and if for each j E J we take f3j < Ctj it
follows again by the Lemma that jJ- jl([f3 j , 1]) E ml for all j E L. Since this
holds for all L C J and all choices of f3j < Ctj it follows that the whole family
{jJ-~1[f3, 1] : j E J, f3 < Ctj}
is a m(b.)-family and therefore is contained in some maximal m(b.)-farnily
ml. Now if ml is non-vanishing, there exists x E X such that jJ-/x) ~ f3 for
all j E J and f3 < Ct, and thus n {Pj : j E J} i= 0 which is a con~radiction. If
ml is vanishing then it follows from its very definition that ml E Qj for all j E J
which is also a contradiction. This shows that of the three cases which we
have considered only the first one can occur. Alexander's Subbase Lemma
then indicates that /.(X) is compact. Again Proposition 1(1) implies that X is
dense in X so that (X, Li) is an ultra-compactification of (X, b.).
Because of the relationship of this compactification to the Wallman
compactification for topological spaces, we shall call it the Wallman ultra-
compactification of (X< b.).

WALLMAN COMPACTIFICATION OF FUZZY NEIGHBORHOOD SPACES

Fuzzy Neighborhood Space Compactification

A fuzzy neighborhood space (fns) is a fuzzy topological space which
has a basis for the closed fuzzy sets consisting of two-valued fuzzy sets where
one of the values must be 1. A prefilter lr' for which c(lr') = 1 is called a 1-
level prefilter; lr' is said to be saturated provided jJ- E lr' whenever
(jJ- + f) 1\ 1 E lr' for all f > O. A fns (X, b.) IS compact iff
sup{(adh lr')(x) : x E X} = 1 for all I-level prefilters lr'; equivalently (X,b.)
is compact provided sup{(adh lr')(x) : x E X} = 1 for all closed saturated 1-
level prefilters lr'. For more on compactness of fuzzy neighborhood spaces,
the reader is referred to [7]. In [1] a Wallman compactification and a.
Wallman ultra-compactification were constructed for symmetric [15], weakly-
T 1 [16], fuzzy neighborhood spaces. The symmetry and wea.k-T 1 properties
 63

were imposed there in order to be able to identify each point of X with a

special type of maximal closed saturated I-level prefilter. In our
construction, we adjoin to X all or part of V(X); we do not identify points of
X with any class of prefilters. Thereby we are able to obtain
compactifications without dependence on symmetry or weak-T l' The ultra-
compactness construction of [1] was generalized to arbitrary fuzzy
neighborhood spaces in [11]. We present here the analogous generalization of
the construction for compactness.
If (X, Ll) is a fuzzy neighborhood space, then (as in [1]), we denote
by Rc(X) [resp. R(X)] the collection of all maximal closed saturated I-level
prefilters a' on X such that sup{(adh a')(x) : x E X} < 1 [resp. adh a' < 1].
Further we put XC := XU Rc(X) and X = Xu R(X). For anya' E R(X) and
Jl E Llc we also put
1(11, a') := {c E I : (11 + c) 1\ 1 E a'}
and then we define Jt(x) = Il(x) for all x E X and Jt(a') = (1 - inf 1(11, a'))
for all a' E R(X). As in [1], it can be shown that Proposition 1 holds with -
used in place of A. We let Li c [resp. Li] be the fuzzy topology on Xc [resp. X]
obtained using the closed basis {Jl : 11 E Ll C}. Again, as in [1] but without
relying on symmetry or weak-T I , it can be shown that (Xc' Li c ) is a fns
compactification of (X,Ll) and that (X, Li) is a fns ultra-compactification of
(X,Ll)

Relationship Betwet.1 The Two Compactifications X* and Xc

Proposition 2. Let a' E Rc(X) be a FNS "new point"; I.e., a' is a
maximal closed saturated I-level prefilter III (X, Ll) for which
sup{(adh a')(x): x E X} < 1 = c(a'). Let
b(a'):= {CE!l>(Ll): :lIlEa' and aEI I with 11- 1 [a, 1] C C}.
Then b(a') = !m(a') E V*(X).
Proof. That b(a') is a !l>(Ll)-family is clear. For any x E X we have
n
that adh a'(x) < 1 if and only if x It {F : FE b(a'n which proves that
b(a') is a vanishing !l>(Ll)-family. Suppose b(a') is not maximal; then !m(a')
is a maximal !l>(Ll)-family which strictly contains 8(a') and there exist ~ E Llc
and (3 E II such that
C I [(3, 1] E !m(a')\8(a').
By Theorem 4.4 [17] it follows that

c
o := ~ VII (3
r [ ,1) E Ll .

Now for any a E II it is clear that we have

I
O-I[a, 1] = { C [(3, 1] if (3 ~ a
~-I[a, 1] if a < (3
64

If J1 E lr' then for any 0' E [,8, 1) we have

and thus
sup J1f\O(x) = sup{O': J1- 1[0', 1] n 0- 1[0',1] i=- 0} = 1.
xEX
By maximality of lr' this implies that 0 E lr' and thus C1 [,8, 1] =
0- 1 [,8, 1] E 8(lr') which is a contradiction. Consequently 8(lr') is a vanishing
maximal !D(6.)-family and 8(lr') = Wl(lr').
Thus to each FNS new point lr' E Rc(X), there corresponds one of our
new points 8(lr') E V*(X).
In what follows, for each J1 E 6.c and 0' E I we shall put
J10' : = J1 V 1 -1 .
J1 [0', 1)

Again by Theorem 4.4 [17] we know that J1 E 6.c implies J10' E 6.c.

Proposition 3. Let lB be a closed prefilter for which

sup{(adh lB)(x) : x E X} < c(!ll) and let Wl = Wl(lB) E V*(X) be the "new
point" associated with lB; i.e., Wl is a vanishing maximal !D(6.)-family and
Wl J {J.l-1[0', 1] : J.l E lB, 0::; 0' < c(lB)}. Let
£(Wl) := {J.l0': J.l- 1[0', 1] E Wl, J.lE6. c , O'dd·
Then £(Wl) is a maximal closed saturated I-level prefilter. Furthermore
sup{(adh £(Wl))(x) : x E X} < 1 so that £(Wl) E Rc(X).
Proof. That £(Wl) is a closed saturated I-level prefilter is easily
verified and we leave this to the reader. If sup{(adh £(Wl))(x) : x E X} = 1,
then sup [ inf II ,8(x)] = 1 so for 0' < c(lB)::; 1, there is an Xo E X
x E X 11,8 E £(Wl)
for which inf{ IIf3.(x o) : 11,8 E £(Wl)} > 0' which implies II ,8(xo) > 0' for
every 11,8 E £(Wl). Now for J.l E lB, J.l0' E £(Wl) since 0' < c(lB); thus
J1O'(x o) > 0' so that J.l(x o) 2: 0' for all J.l E lB. Thus infm J.l(x o) 2: 0' and then
J.lE'O
sup inf J.l(x) 2: 0' for all 0' < c(lB) and finally sup inf J.l(x) 2: c(lB), a
XEX ItElB XEX J.lElB
contradiction.
Thus, to each of our "new points" Wl E V*(X), there corresponds a
fns new point £(Wl) E Rc(X). It can also be shown (see [11]) that
8(lr') E V(X)\V*(X) when lr' E R(X)\Rc(X) and that £(Wl) E R(X)\Rc(X)
when Wl E V(X)\V*(X). The following proposition establishes the one-to-one
correspondence between our set of new points and the fns set of new points.
 65

Proposition 4. The maps 0 : Rc(X) -+ V*(X) and 2. : V*(X) -+ Rc(X)

are bijective inverses of each other as are their extensions to R(X) and V(X).
Proof. For each m1 E V(X), let
T(m1): = {(J.l, a): J.lEtl c , aEI 1, J.l-l[a, 1] Em1}.
Then for any (J.l, a) E T(m1) we have
J.l-l[a, 1] =
J.la-1[a, 1] E 0(2.(m1))
i.e. m1 C 0(2.(m1)) which by maximality implies m1 = 0(2.(m1)). If tr E R(X)
then for any J.l E tr and E E 10 we have J.ll _ E E 2.( o(tr)). But then
(J.l+E) 1\ 1 =(J.lI-E+E)1\1 2:PI_EE2.(O(tr)) so that PE2.(O('if)) Sll1ce
2.( o(tr)) is saturated. Hence tr C 2.( o(tr)) and again by maximality tr =
2.(0('if)).
The following Theorem establishes the homeomorphism between our
compactification and the FNS compactification when (X, tl) is a fuzzy
neighborhood space.

Theorem 3. If (X, tl)is a fuzzy neighborhood space, then the map

(X, A) _ _0*_--+1 (X, A)

0*
[and its restriction ----+1 (X*, tl*)]

defined by o*(x) := X for all x E X and o*('if) := o(tr) for all 'if E R(X) is a
homeomorphism. 2.* defined by 2.*(x) := x for all x E X and 2.*(m1) := 2.(m1)
for all m1 E V(X) is in each case the inverse of 0*. Furthermore it = j.l 0 0*
and j.l = it 0 2.* hold for any P E tlc.
Proof. From Proposition 4 we already know that 0* is a bijection.
Let P E tlc, Ir E Rc(X), and EE I(p, Ir). Then EE 10 , (J.l + () 1\ 1 E Ir , and
for all (3 E II we have
J.l-l[(3 - E, 1] = [(J.l + E) 1\ 1] -1[(3, 1] E o(Ir)
Thus by the Lemma, (3':'" E:::; j.l(o(Ir)] for all (3 E 11 and then
1 - E :::; j.l(o(tr)]. Consequently it :::; j.l 0 0*.
Conversely, if a < j.l(o(tr)], then p- 1 [a, 1] E o(Ir) and ~-1[(3, 1] E o(tr)
for all (3 E 10 and ~ E Ir so that
r
p-l[a, 1] n 1[,6, 1] =F 0
for all ,6 E 10 and ~ E Ir. Thus
sup(J.l+1-a) 1\ ~(x) = 1
x EX

for all E Ir. Consequently (p + 1 - a) 1\ 1 E Ir; i.e.,

~
a :::; it(Ir).
Thus j.l 0 0* :::; it and hence j.l 0 0* = it. Then using the fact that 0* and
2.* are inverses of each other, we obtain it 0 2.* = j.l. Finally, it follows
from the relationships (2.*r 1 (jJ,) = it 0 2.* and (0*r1(jJ,) = j.l 0 0* that 2.*
66

and 8* are continuous since the inverse image of each basic fuzzy closed set is
then a fuzzy closed set. This completes the proof.

RELATION TO TOPOLOGICAL WALLMAN COMPACTIFICATION

In this section we show that our construction coincides with the usual
Wallman compactification when (X, ~) is topologically generated. For a
topological space (X, ~) we let (W(X), W(~» denote the Wallman
compactification of (X, ~); i.e., W(X) is the set of all maximal vanishing
closed families (hence satisfying the FIP) together with the points of X and
W(~) is the topology with subbasis for the closed sets given by the family
{F* : F closed in X} where F* := F U {$ : !B is a maximal vanishing closed
family such that FE $}, (see e.g. [13]).
For a topological space (X, ~) we let w(~) denote the class of all
lower semi-continuous functions on X with values in I. Then (X, w(~)) is a
fuzzy topological space and is called the fuzzification of (X, ~). A fuzzy
topological space (X, ~) is said to be topologically generated if it is the
fuzzification of some ordinary topology on X.
The next result is proved in exactly the same way as in [1] and so we
omit the proof.
Theorem 4. If (X, ~) is a topological space, then the fns ultra-
compactification of (X, w(~» and the fuzzification of the Wallman
compactification (W(X), (W(~») coincide:
(X, w(~» ::: (W(X), w(W(~)))
From this result and Theorem 3 we immediately deduce our next
result.
Corollary 4.1. If (X, ~) is a topological space, then the fts ultra-
compactification of (X, w(~» and the fuzzification of the Wallman
compactification (W (X), (W (~»)) coincide:
(X, w(~» ::: (W(X), w(W(~)))
Corollary 4.2. The fns and fts compactifications of (X, w(~» also
coincide with the fuzzification of the Wallman compactification
(W(X)), (W(~» in case X is topologically generated, since in this case
compactness and ultracompactness are equivalent:
(Xc, w(~)J ::: (W(X», w(W(~)) ::: (X*, w(~)*)
An extension e(P) of a topological property P to the fuzzy setting is
said to be a good extension provided, for each ordinary topology ~, ~
satisfies P if and only if w(~) satisfies e(P). Thus all of the
cornpactifications discussed here are good extensions of the Wallman
compactification for ordinary topological spaces.
 67

REFERENCES

[1] N. Blasco, R. Lowen, The Wallman compactification in FNS,

submitted for publication.
[2] U. Cerruti, The Stone-Cech compactification in the category of fuzzy
topological spaces, J. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 6 (1981) 197-204.
[3] T. E. Gantner, R. C. Steinlage, and R. H. Warren, Compactness in
Fuzzy Topological Spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 62 (1978) 547-562.
[4] Liu Ying-Ming, Luo Maokang, Fuzzy Stone-Cech type
compactifications, Proc. Polish Symp. Interval & Fuzzy
Mathematics (1986) 117-137.
[5] E. Lowen, R. Lowen, Characterization of convergence in fuzzy topo-
logical spaces, Internat. J. Math. & Math. Sci. 8 (1985) 497-511.
[6] R. Lowen, Convergence in fuzzy topological spaces, Gen. Topology
Appl. 10 (1979) 147-160.
[7] R. Lowen, Compactness notions in fuzzy neighborhood spaces,
Manuscripta Math. 38 (1982) 265-287.
[8] R. Lowen, A Comparison of Different Compactness Notions in Fuzzy
Topological Spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 64 (1978) 446-454.
[9] R. Lowen, Fuzzy Topological Spaces and Fuzzy Compactness, J.
Math. Anal. Appl., 56 (1976) 621-633.
[10] R. Lowen, P. Wuyts, E. Lowen, On the reflectiveness and
coreflectiveness of subcategories of FTS, Math. Nachr., in print.
[11] R. Lowen, R. C. Steinlage, and P. Wuyts, Wallman Compactification
in FTS, Rocky Mountain J. Math., to appear.
[12] H. W. Martin, A Stone-Cech ultrafuzzy compactification, J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 73 (1980) 453-456.
[13] J.1. Nagata, Modern general topology, North Holland 1968.
[14] N.A. Shanin, On the theory of bicompaet extensions of topological
spaces, Dokl. SSSR 38 (1943) 154-156.
[15] P. Wuyts, The Ro-property in fuzzy topological spaces, Comm. IFSA
Math. Chapter 2 (1988) 36-40.
[16] P. Wuyts, R. Lowen, Separation axioms in fuzzy topological spaces,
fuzzy neighborhood spaces and fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 93 (1983) 27-41.
[17] P. Wuyts, R. Lowen, E. Lowen, Reflectors and coreflectors in FTS.
Comput. Math. Applic. 16 (1988) 823-836.
 BOUNDED LINEAR TRANSFORMATIONS
BETWEEN PROBABILISTIC NORMED VECTOR SPACES

Mustafa A. AMER Nehad N. MORSI

Dept. of Physical Sciences Dept. of Mathematics
Faculty of Engineering Military Technical College
Mansura University, Egypt Cairo, Egypt

We denote by the set of all nonnegative fuzzy

~*(I)
real numbers; that is functions n from ~*=[O,oo[ to the
unit interval I which are left continuous and nonascend-
ing, and satisfy n(O) = 1 and n(+oo-) = O. This
set R*(I) canonically includes ~* in the obvious way.
It is ordered by the usual pointwise order of real
functions.
The symbol T will denote a lower semicontinuous
triangular norlll (t-norm) on I, and T* will denote its
associated t-conorm; that is
a T* Y = 1 - (1-a) T (1-Y),
Of particular interest are the t-norm Min, with Min* =
Max, and the t-norm T given by
m
a T y
m
= (a + y - 1) V 0 ,
with
a T~~ y
m
= (a + y) 1\ 1 , (a , y) E I 2 •
For each T, the operation + on "R* is extended in [15]
to an operation of T-addition on the set of nondescending
probability distributions over R*. However, notational
simplifications prompt our choice of nonascending probab-
ility distributions as members of ~*(I). In consequence,
the T-additions of [15] should transform to the following
operations ~ on 'R*(I): for all n,l; E R*(I),
(n $T l;)(s) = inf{n(b) T* l;(s-b) I b E [O,s]},
s ~ O. Likewise, we define T-multiplication 0 T on
R*(I) by: for s ~ 0,
(n 0
T
l;) (s) = inf{,n(b) T* l;(s/b) I b > oJ.
69
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 69-75.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
70

For each T, these two binary operations are commutative

and associative, and have neutral elements and 1, resp- a
ectively. They also preserve order.
Moreover, in the special case of Min we have:

Theorem 1 For all 11,<; E1R*(I) and s > 0:

(i)[9] (11 <f1.1.2n <;)(s) =
sUP{11(b) /\ <;(s-b) b E [O,s]},
(ii) [14] (11 G)Min <;)(s) =
sUP{11(b) /\ <;(s/b) b > oJ.
Thus, ffi ~. and €>.M. are the same operations as the
r12n 2n
now standard ones for fuzzy numbers [16].
Scalar multiplication by nonnegative reals is defined on
1R*(I) as follows: for 11 E "R*(I)
°11 = 0, and b 11 ( s ) 11 ( s/ b ) b ,s > 0.
A probabilistic T-metric d on a set X is a function
d X2 + 11*(1), while a probabilistic T-norm II II
on a real or complex vector space W is a function
II II : W + 11*(1), both satisfying axioms analogous
to the classical case, except that the order on 11*(1),
its scalar multiplication and its T-addition have to be
used to extend their classical counterparts on "R*.
Wi th such II II a probabilistic T-metric d /I /I on
W is canonically associated as follows:
d /I /I (x, y ) = II y - x II ,
2
(x, y) E W •
The terms fuzzy metric and fuzzy norm will be synonyms
for the corresponding probabilistic T-terms when the
triangular norm T is Min [10,11,14].
It is imperative, and possibly beneficial all round, to
test the general concepts of Fuzzy Topology against other
naturally defined concepts in various special settings.
We here proceed to test the central concept of Fuzzy
Topology; that of continuity of functions, against a nat-
urally defined concept of T-boundedness defined in the
special, simple setting of linear transformations between
 71

probabilistic T-normed vector spaces.

Definition 1. A function f : (X,d) + (Y,d'),
between probabilistic T-metric spaces, is said to be
T-continuous (short for T-metric continuous) at a point
x E. X if
V(£,8) E I~ 3 6 E I such that for all z E X,
O (1)
8 T* d (x, z ) (6 ) ~ d' (f (x) , f ( z ) ) (£ ) •
It is said to be T-continuous if it is T-continuous at
all points of X.

This definition raises a number of fuzzy topological

questions. It suffices here to relate our new concept to
two already established fuzzy topological concepts of
metric continuity:
With each fuzzy metric space (X,d) there have been
associated two fuzzy topologies t(d) and Td on X, in
standard manners: The first associated fuzzy topological
space (fts) (X, t(d)) is the fuzzy neighbourhood space
(fns) induced, in the manner of [8], from the Lowen fuzzy
uniformity associated with d by Hohle [4]. The second
fts (X, T d) , associated with d, was introduced by Morsi
in [11]. Their interrelationship is analysed in [10].
Now, a fuzzy metric on X is also a probabilistic
T-metric on X for all T, which can easily be deduced
seeing that Min*=Max is the smallest t-conorm.
Accordingly, it follows by [2] that a function between
fuzzy metric spaces
f : (X,d) + (Y,d') (2)
is T -continuous (according to Definition 1) iff it is
cont~nuous as a function between fns's
f : (X, t(d)) + (Y, t(d' )) •
Likewise, the Min-continuity of the function (2) is equi-
valent, by [2], to its continuity as a function between
fts's
f : (X, Td) + (Y, Td' ).
The following notion is a natural, and good, extension:

Definition 2. A linear transformation between probabi-

listic T-normed vector spaces
72

A : (X, II II) -+- (Y, II II')

is said to be T-bounded if there is some SE ~*(I) such
that
II
Ax II' ~ II x 110T s for all x EX.
In this case, the normT of A is the nonnegative fuzzy
real number
II A liT inf{s € ~*(I) I II Ax II' ~ II x II 0T s
for all x E X} •
(This infimum is attained, because T* is upper semicont-
inuous.)

Our main result is that Definitions 1,2 are compatible:

Theorem 2. The following are three equivalent properties

for a linear transformation
A : (X, II II) -+- (Y, II II')
between probabilistic T-normed vector spaces:
(I) A is T-bounded.
(II) lim inf{Y E I I Y T* II x II (1) ~ II Ax 1I'(s)
s -+- 00 V x E X} = O.
(III) A is T-continuous.

(A necessar1. condition for (I) above is that

II x 11(0+) ~ II Ax 11'(0+) for all x EX.)
As examples of T-bounded linear transformations between
nonclassical fuzzy normed vector spaces, we remark that
every fuzzy inner product, of [3], is a Min-bounded linear
transformation in each argument. This is due to the Fuzzy
Schwarz Inequality of [3]. Consequently, they are also
T-bounded for all T, because Min-boundedness obviously
entails T-boundedness.
In what follows, (X, II II), (Y, II II') and (Z, II II If)
will denote probabilistic T-normed vector spaces, for some
given T.
 73

Definition 3. The product probabilistic T-norm

II I(T = II II xT II II' ,
on the product vector space X x Y, is defined for all
(x, y) E X x Y by
II (x,y) II xT =
It is direct to verify that the above is indeed a prob-
abilistic T-norm. A similar notion of product probabilis~·
tic T-metrics can be similarly defined.
In the case T=Min, this notion is compatible with
that of product fuzzy topology, using either of the two
standard fuzzy metric topologies mentioned above. But,
for other triangular norms, our new notion suffers from
some serious drawbacks which might annul any possibility
of finding a fuzzy topological accommodation for it.
However, this notion of product probabilistic T-norms is
the one which, when employed in the next three theorems,
enabled us to prove:

Theorem 3. Let f: Xx Y + Z be a bilinear function

which satisfies for all (x,y) E Xx Y,
IIf(x,y) II" ~ II x II 0T II y II' .
Then f is T-continuous.

Notice that the absolute value functions on the real or

the complex numbers can be considered probabilistic
T-norms, for all T.

Theorem 4. The two vector space operations are

T-continuous on a probabilistic T-normed vector space.

The set of all T-bounded linear transformations from X

to Y will be denoted by LT(X;Y).

Theorem 5. The composition CoA of a pair of linear

transformations (A,C) E LT(X; Y) x LT(Y;Z) is in
LT(X;Z), and
74

In the case the probabilistic T-norm on X is also

a fuzzy norm, the norm T function II II T on LT(X;X)
will be a fuzzy norm, and LT(X;X) will be closed under
sum. In this case, the three operations of addition,
scalar multiplication and composition, on LT(X;X), will
be Min-continuous, and hence also T-continuous.
Otherwise, LT(X;X) need not be closed under addition!
This could be a further indication of the distinguished
status of fuzzy metrics among probabilistic T-metrics.

REFERENCES

[1] T.M.G. Ahsanullah and N.N. Morsi, Invariant probabi-

listic metrizability of fuzzy neighbourhood groups,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 47 (1992) 233-245.
[2] M.A. Amer and N.N. Morsi, Characterizations of some
fuzzy topological notions in probabilistic metric
spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems (1993) (to appear).
[3] A.M. EI-Abyad and H.M. EI-Hamouly, Fuzzy inner product
spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 44 (1991) 309-326.
[4] U. Hohle, Probabilistic metrization of fuzzy unifor-
mities, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 8 (1982) 63-69.
[5] A.K. Katsaras, Linear fuzzy neighbourhood spaces,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 16 (1985) 25-40. Part II:
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 115 (1986) 560-573.
[6] R. Lowen, Fuzzy topological spaces and fuzzy compact-
ness, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 56 (1976) 621-633.
[7] R. Lowen, Fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
82 (1981) 370-385.
[8] R. Lowen, Fuzzy neighborhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 7 (1982) 165-189.
[9] R. Lowen, On (R(L) , (±)), Fuzzy Sets and Systems
10 (1983) ?03-209.
 75

[10] A.S. Mashhour and N.N. Morsi, Fuzzy metric neighbour-

hood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 45 (1992) 367-
388.
[11] N.N. Morsi, On fuzzy pseudo-normed vector spaces,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 27 (1988) 351-372.
[12] N.N. Morsi, Dual fuzzy neighbourhood spaces I, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 44 (1991) 245-263.
[13] N.N. Morsi, The Urysohn Lemma for fuzzy neighbourhood
spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 39 (1991) 347-360.
[14] N.N. Morsi and S.E. Yehia, Continuity of fuzzy
multiplication in the N-Euclidean space, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 46 (1992) 97-106.
[15] B. Schweizer and A. Sklar, Probabilistic Metric
Spaces (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983).
[16] H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applica-
tions (Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing Co., Norwell MA,
1985).
 A LEVEL-TOPOLOGIES CRITERION FOR
LOWEN FUZZY UNIFORMIZABILITY

A. KANDIL, K.A. HASHEM Nehad N. MORSI

Dept. of Mathematics Dept. of Mathematics
Faculty of Science Military Technical College
Benha University, Egypt Cairo, Egypt

Throughout, X will be a nonempty set. We consider

a subset M of X as a crisp fuzzy set, and denote this
again by M. We denote the strong a-cut of a fuzzy set
]..I E IX by ]..la, and its weak a-cut by ]..Ia*' a E I.
We call the indexed family {l~(T) I aE 1 }, of the
1 spectrum.
a-level topologies of a fts (X,T), its topology
Wuyts [14] has shown that a fuzzy neighbourhood space
(fns) is uniquely determined by its topology spectrum.
And we rely throughout on:

Theorem 1[12]. A family {7 I a E 1 } of topologies

a 1
on X will be the topology spectrum of some fns iff
7a = su py E ]a, 1[ 7y ' Y a € 11 ,
Furthermore, letting denote the fuzzy closure operator
of a fns (X,p), we get for all (M,a) E 2X x 1
1
The la(P)-closure of M = (M-)(1_a)*'

In [6], Lowen characterized, within FNS, his axiom of

(fuzzy) compactness as follows:
"A fns is compact if and only if its a-level spaces, for
all a E 1 0 ,1' are compact."
Identical criteria have since been established for
a number of other axioms in FNS [1,2,10]. Using Theorem 1
we establish identical criteria for the properties NT.,
J.

77
R. LowenandM. Roubens(eds.), Fuzzy Logic. 77-81.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
78

i=0,1,2 (of [16]) and NR o (of [15]). We also characterize

the weak axioms WNT i using zero-level spaces.
However, the axiom of N-normality (of [9,13]) obeys
a somewhat more complicated level-spaces characterization.
This appears to be a reflection of the known irregular
behaviour of normality in regards to weakening, strength-
ening or taking suprema of topologies.

In [7], Lowen introduced for his fuzzy uniformities U

on X (of [4]) their a-level uniformities lu,a(U), a EI 1
as follows:
1 (U) = {].I y E 2X x X ].I E lJ. and y f [0, 1-a [} •
u,a
We call their indexed family the uniformity spectrum of
(X,U) •
It is easily seen that the topology on X induced by the
uniformity lu a(U) is the a-level topology of the fns
(X,t(U)). ' We also have:

Theorem 2. A family of uniformities on X

A = {Ua a EI }
1
is the uniformity spectrum of some fuzzy uniformity on X
if and only if for all a E 11 :
Ua = UyE]a,H Uy •
Moreover, that fuzzy uniformity is uniquely given by
UA = {].I E IX x X Va E 1 '
1 ].Ia Eny E [0, 1-a[ Uy }'

Throughout, Q will denote a dense subset of the interval

1 0 ,1 = ] 0,1 [ •

Theorem 3. A fuzzy uniform space is precompact (accord-

ing to [8]) if and only if its a-level uniformities, for
all a f Q, are precompact.

Theorem 4. The operators lu,a' a E I 1 , between the

two categories of fuzzy uniform spaces and of uniform
spaces, can be turned into functors by letting them act
as identities on morphisms.
 79

Theorem 5. A fns is fuzzy uniformizable if and only if

its a-level spaces, for all a E Q, are uniformizable.
In particular, let a fns (X,p) be such that, for all afQ,
its a-level topology la(p) is induced from some uniform-
ity U • Define an indexed collection of uniformities on
X by a
Wa =su py E ]a,1[ I""'\Q Uy ' a f 11 •
Then tI = {W I a E I } is a uniformity spectrum, and
a 1
its associated fuzzy uniformity Uti (described in Theorem
2) induces the given fns (X,p).

We denote by ~*(I) the set of all (descending) non-

negative fuzzy real numbers, and we order them by their
usual pointwise order as real functions on ~* = [0 ,oo[ •
This choice of the descending fuzzy real numbers allows
for notational simplifications.
We refer to probabilistic pseudo-metrics (functions
d : X2 -+ ~*(I) satisfying certain axioms [3]), under
the triangular norm Min, as fuzzy p-metrics.
The a-level metric of such d, a E 11' is the p-metric
ad on X defined [2] for all x,y E X as follows:
For all y E 1 , define the real number d(y)(x,y) to
1
be the end point of the strong (or weak) y-cut of (the
fuzzy set) d(x,y). (Such y-cut is an interval in ~*

starting at 0.) Then choose the smallest natural number

n wi th a + 1 < 1, and take
ad(x,y) = V J.... [1 1\ d(a+1/ j )(x,y)].
j=n 2J
We then have:
80

Theorem 6. Let (X,d) be a fuzzy p-metric space. Let ll(d)

be the fuzzy uniformity on X associated (by Hohle [3])
with d. Then the uniformity on X induced by the a-level
metric ad of d, a E 1 1 , coincides with the a-level
uniformity 1 (ll(d)) of ll(d).
u,a

In the above notation, the fns (X, t(ll(d))) is said

to be induced by the fuzzy p-metric d.
Next, suppose a fns (X,p) satisfies that, for all a E Q,
its a-level topology is induced by a pseudo-metric ha on
X. By [2], this condition is necessary and sufficient for
the fns (X,p) to be fuzzy metrizable (i.e., induced in the
above manner by some fuzzy p-metric). We now supply
a concrete fuzzy p-metric which induces (X,p)
For each a E 1 , we define a function
1
q : X2 + 1R*
a
by: for all x,y E X,
qa(x,y) = L _1_ [1 1\ h.y(x,y)]
y E Qrl[a,1[ 2<P(y)
•
where Q is a countable subset of Q, also dense in I, and
<P : Q + {1,2,3, ••• }
is some bijection.
We then define a function d: X2 + 1R* (I) by:
for all x,y E X,
d(x,y) V ~ A [0, q (x,y)]) ,
=
a EI a
where ~ is the constant fuzzy subset of 1R* with value a,
and the closed interval [0, qa(x,y)] is considered
a crisp fuzzy subset of 1R*. Then:

Theorem 7. The above d is a fuzzy p-metric on X, and it

induces the above fns (X,p).
 81

REFERENCES

[1] T.M.G. Ahsanullah and N.N. Morsi, Invariant probabi-

listic metrizability of fuzzy neighbourhood groups,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 47 (1992) 233-245.
[2] M.A. Amer and N.N. Morsi, Characterizations of some
fuzzy topological notions in probabilistic metric
spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems (1993), to appear.
[3] U. Hohle, Probabilistic metrization of fuzzy uniform-
ities, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 8 (1982) 63-69.
[4] R. Lowen, Fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
82 (1981) 370-385.
[5] R. Lowen, Fuzzy neighborhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 7 (1982) 165-189.
[6] R. Lowen, Compactness notions in fuzzy neighborhood
spaces, Manuscripta Math. 38 (1982) 265-287.
[7] R. Lowen, On the Existence of Natural, Non-topologi-
cal Fuzzy Topological Spaces (Heldermann-Verlag,
Berlin, 1985).
[8] R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, Completeness, compactness and
precompactness in fuzzy uniform spaces, Part I, J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 90 (1982) 563-581.
[9] A.S. Mashhour and N.N. Morsi, Fuzzy metric neighbour-
hood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 45 (1992) 367-388.
[10] A.S. Mashhour and N.N. Morsi, On regularity axioms in
fuzzy neighbourhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
44 (1991) 265-271.
[11] N.N. Morsi, Nearness concepts in fuzzy neighbourhood
spaces and in their fuzzy proximity spaces, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 31 (1989) 83-109.
[12] N.N. Morsi, Dual fuzzy neighbourhood spaces I, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 44 (1991) 245-263.
[13] N.N. Morsi, The Urysohn Lemma for fuzzy neighbourhood
spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 39 (1991) 347-360.
[14] P. Wuyts, On the determination of fuzzy topological
spaces and fuzzy neighbourhood spaces by their level-
topologies, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 12 (1984) 71-85.
[15] P. Wuyts, The Ro-property in fuzzy topological spaces,
Summary in: Communications IFSA Mathematics Chapter
2 (1988) 36-40.
[16] P. Wuyts and R. Lowen, On separation axioms in fuzzy
topological spaces, J. Math Anal. Appl. 93(1983)27-41.
TOWARDS A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF FUZZY TOPOLOGY

M.W. WARNER

§l. Introduction

This paper attempts to initiate the construction of a

standardised basic theory of fuzzy topology. In general
fuzziness is taken with respect to a complete lattice L
satisfying the distributive law of finite meets over infinite
joins, thus becoming a frame. When L is also continuous we
define goodness in terms of the Scott topology following
[Warner 1990], and insist on this as a minimal criterion in
selecting standard fuzzy topological properties. For the
closed unit interval, I, this reduces to Lowen's goodness
formulated in terms of lower semi-continuous functions [Lowen
1978].

Particular attention will be paid to fuzzy points and

membership of a fuzzy set. Early authors, using elements of
x
I as fuzzy subsets, agreed on identifying a fuzzy point with
a singleton fuzzy set, Le. a fuzzy set x with singleton
A
support x E X and value A E (0,1]. Membership was then
described variously using strict inequality or:S. The latter
was found to yield pathological results e.g. [Gottwald 1981l
while the former has the disadvantage that crisp points (j.e.
points with value 1) cannot be members of any fuzzy set. The
difficulty was ' overcome' by disallowing crisp points
altogether, e.g. [BUlbUl 1985]. But for a crisp point not to
be a particular case of a fuzzy point surely violates the
requirement that fuzzy theory should generalise the classical.
[Pu and Uu 1980) tackled the problem by introducing
quasi-coincidence. A fuzzy point x is quasi-coincident with
A
a fuzzy set A (x qAl if and only if A + A(x) > 1. Here there
A
is no obstacle to A :aking the value 1. [Hu 1985] then
suggested the idea of dual points, the dual of x having value
A
1 - A at x. But to complete the duality we now have to allow
83
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 83-94.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
84

for points x of zero value which seem indistinguishable from

o
the null fuzzy set. Then x qA if and only if xl-A E A where E
A
is strict inequality membership and in the q-theory values lie
in (0, 1l while for E-theory values are taken in [0 ,ll. All
this extends to a lattice L, replacing I-A by A', the
complement of A under an order-reversing involution on L.

Now [Warner 1991l has applied the classical theory of

frames to the lattice Pf(X) of L-fuzzy subsets of the set X,
defining a point to be a frame homomorphism from Pf(X) to the
two element frame {O,l}. Such morphisms are characterised by
the prime elements of Pf(X), which turn out to be the fuzzy
sets g: X ~ L, g(x) = A, A prime in L, g(y) = I, Y '*x.
Writing such a fuzzy point as x ' membership E is given by
A
x E A iff A(x) ~ A. Interpreting this for L I, all
A
elements of I except 1 being prime, x E A iff A < A(x), the
A
value A = 0 being allowed. Zero-valued points correspond to
crisp points. Here, surely, is the standard treatment of
fuzzy points and membership. The link through duality with
quasi-coincidence is obvious.

From this viewpoint consider first countability. With the

lattice I the standard definition that every fuzzy point
should have a countable local base - is seen to coincide, via
duality, withQ-C [Pu and Uu 1980]. It differs apparently
1
from that of [BillbUl 19851 who uses strict inequality,
omitting the zero-valued point. However [Warner 1991l has
shown that in this instance the omission makes no difference.
The two definitions coincide. Pu and Uu's fuzzy C , using :s
1
for membership, must be regarded as non-standard. Q - C is
1
known to be a good extension of classical first countability,
[Mohannadi and Warner 1989], takes its place in a standard
fuzzy topological theory, - for example it is implied by fuzzy
C -' and generalises word by word to the lattice L.
z
The temptation to hope that the zero-valued point never
affects fuzzy topological properties should be avoided.
[Warner 19891 has shown that fuzzy sequentiality for instance
is affected by its status. The standard definition of fuzzy
sequentiality should therefore be that introduced by
 85

[Mohannadi and Warner 1989) (in this case expressed in terms

of q-theory.) It is a consequence of Q - Cl'

For a lattice L which is a spatial frame every L-fuzzy

topology on a set X is isomorphic (as a frame) to a topology
on the set X x pt(L) where pt(L) is the set of points of L
[Warner and McLean 1992). Moreover there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the fuzzy points of X and members of
X x pt(L) which agrees with this isomorphism and with fuzzy
and classical membership respectively. For the case where
L I this implies that every I-fuzzy topology on X is
isomorphic to a topology on X x [0,0, a result known to
[Klein 1987 and Eroglu 1989).

If L is also a continuous lattice (complete distributivity

here would suffice) [Warner 1990) has shown that the set of
continuous functions from a topological space (X, T) to L,
where L has its Scott topology, forms a fuzzy topology W(T).
Then the corresponding topology on X x pt(L) is the product
topology. This will be used to investigate the goodness of
L-fuzzy topological definitions, both global and local.

§2. Isomorphism Theorem

Recall that a point of a frame L is a frame morphism from L to

the frame 2 containing exactly two elements, and that there is
a 0-0 correspondence between these points and the prime
elements of L [Johnstone 1982). We therefore regard points of
L as its prime elements and denote the set of all such points
by pt(L).

Now the map </>: L ~ P(pt(L)) defined by

</>(x) = {i\ E I
pt(L) i\ ~ x} 't:jX E L

is a frame morphism whose image is therefore a topology on

pt(L). [Johnstone 1982). </> is injective if and only if L is
spatial.

As observed in the introduction we can identify the points

xi\ of the frame Pf(X) with the elements of the set X x pt(L).
The above procedure for producing a topology on the set of
points of a frame now gives a topology {</>(A) A E Pf(x)} on I
86

x x pt(L) where </>: Pf(X) ----7 P(X x pt(L)) is the frame morphism
defined by

</>(A) = {(X,A) Ix A E A} = {(X,A) IA f: A(x)}.

This map </> will be injective if and only if the frame Pf(X) is
spatial. [Warner 1991] has shown that this is the case if and
only if L is spatial.

THEOREM. For a frame L and an L-fuzzy topology T on a set X,

the map </>: T ----7 P(X x ptL) defined by

I
</>(A) = {(X,A) A ~ A(x)} VA E T

is a frame morphism and </>(T) is a topology on X x pt(L). If L

is spatial then T is frame isomorphic to the topology </>(T).
[Warner and McLean 19921.

PROOF. The map </> is just a restriction of the map defined in

the preceding paragraph and so is a frame morphism. It
follows that </>(T) is a topology. When L is spatial </> is
injective and so gives a frame isomorphism between T and </>(T).
o

In terms of the map </>: Pf(x) ----7 X x pt(L) we have the

following relation between fuzzy membership and ordinary
membership:

X E A ~ A ~ A(x) ~ (X,A) E </>(A).

A

We are thus able to obtain a correspondence between local

properties of L-fuzzy spaces and the local properties of the
associated topological space. For example it is clear that an
L-fuzzy space is first countable if and only if the
topological space (X x pt(L), </>(T)) is first countable.

We shall denote the topological space (X x pt(L)), </>(T))

of the above theorem by <l>(X,T), and for each map f: X -7 Y
define a map <l>(f): X x pt(L) ----7 Y X pt(L) by

<l>(f)(x,A) = (f(x),A) Vx E X, VA E pt(L).

 87

Then if L-Top denotes the category of L-fuzzy topological

spaces and continuous maps, it is straightforward to prove the
following [Warner and McLean 1992].

PROPOSITION. The map <I> is a functor from L-Top to Top. If

pt(L) is nonempty then <I> is faithful. If L is spatial then <I>
is full. 0

§3. Topological fuzzy topologies and goodness

In this section L is a continuous frame. In particular any

completely distributive lattice is a continuous frame.

THEOREM. If L is a continuous frame and (X, -r) a topological

space, let w(-r) be the fuzzy topology of continuous maps from
X to L where L has the Scott topology. Then the topology
</>(w(-r)) on X x pt(L) is the product topology -r x </>(L).

PROOF. [McLean and Warner uU]. 0

When L = then w( -r) is the set of all lower

semicontinuous maps from (X, -r) to I with its usual topology.
In this case </>( I) is the left half -op"en interval topology.

t£ = {[O,a) Ia E U

on [O,I), and the theorem reduces to that of [Klein 1987 and

Eroglu 1989].

Note that, since continuous frames are spatial [Gierz et

al 1980], when L is continuous the topology </>(L) is isomorphic
(as a frame) to L itself, so the topological properties of
</>(L) are simply those of L.

The isomorphism between w(-r) and -r x </>(L) provides a

simple test for goodness which we illustrate for countability.

DEFINITION. A frame L is second countable if it has a

countable subset C with the property that every element of L
is the join of some subset of C.

In particular the L-fuzzy topological space (X, T) will be

called second countable if the frame T is second countable.
88

PROPOSITION. For a continuous frame L and a topological space

(X,T) then (X,W(T)) is second countable if and only if both L
and (X,T) are second countable.

PROOF. Since continuous frames are spatial, then ¢(W(T)) is

isomorphic to w( T) and ¢(L) is isomorphic to L. Also
¢(W(T)) = T x ¢(L). 0

The correspondence in membership enables the test to be

extended to local properties. For example, using the obvious
definition of first countability for an L-fuzzy space it can
be seen that (X,W(T)) is first countable if and only if the
spaces (pt(L), ¢(L)) and (X,T) are first countable.

§4. Compactness and Hausdorffness

The following is proved in [Johnstone 1982].

PROPOSITION. A set F of completely prime filters of a

continuous lattice L (identified with elements of pt(L)) is
compact if and only if the filter flF is Scott open in L.

We deduce the following consequence.

COROLLARY. If L is a continuous lattice and A E pt(L), then

the set {Il E pt(L)III ::;A} is compact in the topological space
(pt(L) , ¢(L)).

PROOF. We require the union of principal prime ideals

generated by the elements of {Il E pt(L) III ::;
A} to be closed in
the Scott topology. But, since every element of L\'{l} is a
meet of primes, this union is simply the principal prime ideal
[O,A] of L, which is Scott closed. 0

When L = I the corollary simply states that all sets [O,A]

where A E (O,I) are compact in the left half-open interval
topology.

The following definition of compactness emerges naturally

from these remarks.

DEFINITION. An L-fuzzy topological space (X,T) is compact if

for every prime A of L and every collection (A.). J of open
J JE
L-fuzzy sets with (.VJA. )(x) if; A for all x E X, there is a
JE J
 89

finite subset Fof J with (.VFA .)(x) .l: A for all x X.

JE J . r E

PROPOSITION. For a continuous lattice L and an L-fuzzy

topology T on X, the following are equivalent:

(i) (X, T) is fuzzy compact;

(ii) For every A E pt(L), X x {A} is a compact subspace of
(X x pt(L), 1>(T));
(iii) for every A E pt(L), X X {p. E pt(L) Ip. :s A} is a compact
subspace of (X x pt(L), 1>(T)).

PROOF. [Warner and McLean ****]. 0

COROLLARY. L-fuzzy compactness is good, i.e. if L is a

continuous lattice and (X,T) is a topological space then (X,T)
is compact if and only if (X,W(T)) is fuzzy compact.

PROOF. From the proposition, (X,W(T)) is fuzzy compact if and

only if X x {A} is a compact subspace of (X x pt(L), T x 1>(L))
for each prime AE pt(L). But this is equivalent to the space
(X,T) being compact. 0

When L = I this definition of compactness becomes: An

I-fuzzy topological space is compact if for all lX E [0,1),
every family (A.l. J of fuzzy open sets with V. JA. > lX has a
J JE JE J
finite subfamily with join > lX. [Lowen 1978].

And when L {O,I>, pt(L) {O}, so we need every

collection (A.l. J of (fuzzy) open sets with ( .VJA .)(x) > 0
J JE JE J
for all x to have a finite subcollection with join > O.
This can be restated as: every collection (A.). J with
J JE
join equal to 1 (i. e. covering X) has a finite subcover, and
is of course the crisp case.

Note that the most commonly used good version of I-fuzzy

compactness, defined by [Lowen 1978] in terms of ~ and
introducing (lX-E) does not generalise neatly to L-fuzzy. For
I-fuzziness it is however implied by our definition.

There are many definitions of fuzzy Hausdorff in the

literature, e.g. [Srivastava and Srivastava 1985, Rodabaugh
1980] most of which are good. We emphasise that the following
(good) version enables us to show that compact Hausdorff
90

L-fuzzy spaces are topological, thus illustrating that the

corresponding well-known I-fuzzy theorem need not depend upon
non-lattice properties of the unit interval.

DEFINITION. An L-fuzzy topological space - (X,T) is Hausdorff

if for every A, IJ. E pt(L) and every pair x, y of distinct
elements of X, there exist U, VET with

x
A
E U, YIJ. E V, and (Vz E X) U(Z) = ° or V(z) = 0.

THEOREM. If L is a completely distributive lattice then every

compact Hausdorff L-fuzzy topology - T containing all constant
functions is topological, i.e. T = we.)
for some topology 1: on
the underlying set X.

PROOF. [Warner and McLean uU).

Let (X,T) be a compact Hausdorff L-fuzzy space where L is

a completely distributive lattice. Let

1: = {U E P(X) XuI E T}

(where P(X) denotes the power set of X). Then 1: is a topology

on X. We shall show that T = w(1:) where w(1:) is the set of
all continuous maps from (X,1:) to L with its Scott topology.

Since w(1:) is the L-fuzzy topology generated by 1: and the

constant functions from X to L [Warner 1990] it follows that
w(1:) S; T.

We therefore need to show that every f E T is a continuous

map from (X,1:) to L with its Scott topology. Now for a
distributive lattice the Scott topology of L is generated by
sets of the form

{t ELI t :j; A}

where A E pt(L). Hence it is sufficient to show that

-I
(Vf E T)(VA E pt(L» f (L - [O,A]) E 1:.

Let f E T and A E pt(L) be fixed. Let a E f-I(L - [O,A])

-I
and IJ. E pt(L). Then for each x E f ([O,A]) the L-fuzzy
points a and x can be separated by disjoint opens i.e. there
IJ. A
 91

are gx' h E T with

x

a E g ,x E hand ¢(g A h) 0,
q x p x x x

or equivalent with

g (a)
x
:$ IJ., h (x)
x
f A and (Vz E X)g (z) =
x
° or h x (z) = 0.

Now

V({f} u {h
x
Ix E
1
f- ([0,AJ)}) f A

1
so by compactness there are xl' ... , x E f- ([0,A]) with
n

f v h v ... v h ~ A.
xl x
n
1
Now if y E f- ([0,A]) there is an r E {l, .. " n} with h (y)
x
r
f A and it follows that g
x
(y) 0. Define
r

G
q

then G E T and G (y) =

q q
° for all y E f
-1
([O,A]l. Also since
g
xi
(a):j; IJ. for every and IJ. is prime we have G (a)
q
# IJ..

Let a E f-l(L [O,A]). Then for each IJ. E pt(L) there is

aGE T with
IJ.

G (a)
IJ.
f IJ. and G (y) =
. IJ.
° (Vy E f
-1
([O,A])).

Define r by
a

then r E T and r (y) =

a a
° for all y E f- ([0,A]).
1
Also for
each prime IJ. we have g (a)
IJ.
P IJ. so that r (a) :/= IJ. for all IJ. E
a
92

pt(L). Since L is spatial each of its elements, except 1, is

a meet of primes and hence r (a) = 1.
a
1
Thus for every a E f- (L - [O,A]) there is a r E T with
a

r (a) = 1
a
and r (y) =
a
°
Now define g by

g = V{r
a
Ia E
1
f- ([O,i\))}

then

gET, g(y) = 0
1
(Vy E f- ([O,i\))), g(y) = (Vy E f
-1
(L -
[O,i\]J).

This shows that the characteristic function of the set f-1(L -

-1
[O,i\]) belongs to T so f (L - [O,i\]) ETas required. 0

We suggest that other -fuzzy topological properties be

treated in such a way as to fit into a unified theory based on
the suggestions made in this articl-e.
 93

A. Blilbtil
1985. On the connection between the countability proper-
ties of (X,w(J) and (X,J), Fuzzy Sets and Systems
15, 91-97.

M.S. Eroglu
1989. On a topological model for the category of fuzzy to-
pological spaces 1, Fuzzy Sets ahd Systems 32, 327-
336.

G. Gierz et al
1980. A compendium of continuous lattices, Springer
Verlag, Berlin.

S. Gottwald
1981. Fuzzy points and local properties of fuzzy
topological spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 5, 199-
201.

C.M. Hu
1985. Fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. AnaL AppL 110,
141-176.

P. T. Johnstone
1982. Stone Spaces, Cambridge University Press.

A.J. Klein
1987. When is a fuzzy topology topological?, Rocky Mountain
J. Math. 17, 15-18.

R. Lowen
1978. A comparison of different compactness notions in
fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. AnaL AppL 64,
446-456.

R.G. McLean and M.W. Warner

uu Locale theory and fuzzy topology, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems.

F.K. Mohannadi and M.W. Warner

1989. Countability and sequentiality in fuzzy topological
spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 29, 371-379.

S.E. Rodabaugh
1980. The Hausdorff separation axiom for fuzzy topological
94

R. Srivastava and A.K. Srivastava

1985. On fuzzy Hausdorffness concepts, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 17, 67-71.

M.W. Warner
1989. A note on the relation between G- and Q-theories for
first countability and sequentiaiity, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 33, 393-396.

1990. Fuzzy topology with respect to continuous lattices,

Fuzzy Sets and Systems 35, 85-91.

1991. Frame-fuzzy points and membership, Fuzzy Sets and

Systems 42, 335-344.

M.W. Warner and R.C. McLean

1992. Fuzzy topology and frames, BuLLetin pour Les
Sous-EnsembLes FLous et Leurs AppLications, 50.

**** On compact Hausdorff L-fuzzy spaces, preprint.

 THE PARAMETRIZATION OF FUZZY SETS
BY SINGLE-VALUED MAPPINGS

PHIL DIAMOND AND PETER KLOEDEN

University of Queensland, QLD 4072 AUSTRALIA.

Deakin University, Geelong 3127 AUSTRALIA.

ABSTRACT. We give a parametric representation of fuzzy

sets and fuzzy functions, in terms of single-valued functions
parametrized over the unit ball.
Keywords: Fuzzy sets, fuzzy functions, Steiner point, Carathe-
odory parametrization.

1. INTRODUCTION
A fruitful approach to fuzzy set theory is to characterize a fuzzy
set u in terms of its level sets [u].B, (3 E I. Then, for many pur-
poses, the most useful way of considering a fuzzy valued function
F is to model it as a family of set-valued functions {Fp }.BEl. From
this point of view, the subject has a decidably geometric flavour
and many techniques and results serve as generalisations and ex-
tensions of multifunctions and set-valued analysis. Results along
these lines include study of metric spaces [3],[4], theoretical sta-
tistical techniques [2], [7], [8], Optimization Theory [5], [9] and
differential equations [6].
This paper addresses the question of representation by a single-
valued function. More precisely, let (£n, dp ) be the space of normal
fuzzy convex fuzzy sets on ~n, suitably metrized (see Section 2),
let Z ~ ~k and suppose that (0, A) is a measurable space. Con-
sider a mapping F : 0 X Z ~ £n. We study the representation of
95
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 95-101.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
96

F by a function jfrom I x' n x Z x B n to !Rn , where B n is the

unit ball in !Rn , such that

V(w,z)EnxZ, and,8EI,
[F(w,z)].B = {!(,8,w,z,:v) : :v E B n } ,
and ! is continuous in (z,:v) for each (,8, w) aIid measurable in w
for each (z,:v).
Various definitions, known results and preliminaries are set out
in the next section and section 3 sketches the proof of the
parametrization representation.

2. PRELIMINARIES
Let IC eo denote the space of nonempty convex compacta in !Rn .
and let £n denote the class of normal fuzzy convex uppersemicon-
tinuous fuzzy sets on !Rn , with compact support.
If u E £n, then for each 0 < a :s
1, the a-level set [u]a =
{:v E !Rn : u(:v) 2: a} is a nonempty compact convex subset
of !Rn , as' is the support set [u]O ~ The linear structure of IC
induces addition u + v and scalar multiplication cu, c E !R+, on
oo
£n in terms of the a-level sets in the following way: for u, 11 E £n
[u + v]a = [u]a + [v]a [cu]a = c[u]a, for all a E 1= [0,1].
To ~ach K E IC eo there corresponds a support function
c(sn-l, !R), where sn-l is the unit sphere in !Rn ,
8K E

8K(:V) = ~up < a, :v>,:v E sn-l.

- aEK

Then, to each u E £n there corresponds a (support) function

u* E C(IxSn-l,!R)givenbyu*(a,:v) = 8[11.1'" (:v). Thenu*iswell-
defined for all u E £n and it may be shown that u * is uniformly
bounded on I x sn-l , U *(" :v) is nonincreasing and leftcontinuous
in a E I for each :v E sn::-\ u*(a,·) is Lipschitz continuous in :v
a
uniformly in a E I [6]. In particular, if A is nonempty compact,
convex set in !Rn and XA its characteristic function, then XA is
the usual support function of A with domain sn-l.
 97

Let boo denote the Hausdorff metric in ICeD'

boo (A, B) = min{ inf sup lIa- bll, inf sup lIa - bll}.
aEAbEB bEBaEA

The Hausdorff metric is also defined on the space Kn of nonempty

compact sets in ~n. Then for each a E I and u, v E £n,

boo([ut,[vt)= sup lu*(a,x)-v*(a,x)l.

zES n - 1

Define doo(u,v) = SUPO<a<l boo([u]a, [v]a). It is well known that

(£n, d oo ) is a complete -m~tric space ([7], see also [3]).
The Steiner point O"n(K) of a convex set K E KeD is defined by
the expression

where dJ.L is unit Lebesgue measure on the unit sphere. Then

O"n(K) E K. It may be further shown that O"n{) is Lipschitz.
Let (11,A) be a measure space and Z ~ ~k. A mapping F :
11 x Z ~ KeD is called Caratheodory on 11 if Vz E Z, F("z) is
measurable; Vw E 11, F(w,') is continuous on Z. . .
Let B n be the unit ball in ~n. A single valueclJIlap f : 11 x Z x
En ~ ~n is called a Caratheodory parametrization of F on 11 if
(i) V(w,z) E 11 x Z,F(w,z) = f(w,z,B n );
(ii) V(z,p) E Z x Bn,f(',z,p) is measurable;
(iii) Vw E 11, f( w, " .) is continuous on Z x B n .
Denote by B(y,r) the open ball of radius r, centre y, in ~n, and
if K E K eo ,
boo(K, {O}).
put d{x,K) = inf YEK Ilx - yll and write IIKII =

Theorem 2. ([1]). The map P : ~n X KeD ~ KeD defined by

P(y, K) = K n B(y, 2d(y, K)) , d(y, K) inf IIy -1111 ,

= ."EK
is Lipschitz: for all K, L E KeD and x, y E ~n

boo(P(x,K),P(y,L)) ~ 5(boo (K,L) + Ilx - yll) .

98

Theorem 3. (Caratheodory Parametrization [1]). Let Z ~

~k and let F : 0 X Z ~ KeD. If F is Caratheodory on 0, then
there exists a Caratheodory parametrization ! of F. Moreover,
for all wE O,z E Z and x,y E B n ,

11!(w,z,x) - !(w,z,Y)11 ~ cIIF(w,z)llllx -yll

where c is independent of F.

3. THE PARAMETERIZATION
The principal result of this paper is:
Theorem 4. Let (0, A) be a measure space and let Z ~ ~k.
Let F : 0 X Z ~ £n be Caratheodory. Then there exists a
Caratheodory parametrization on I x 0, ! : I x 0 x Z x B n ~ ~n
such that for all (w, x) E 0 x Z,

!(a,w,z,Bn ) = [F(w,z)]Q. (3.1)

As a consequence of this, together with the usual characterization

of fuzzy sets in terms of a-levels,
Corollary 5. For each fuzzy set u E £n there exists a single-
valued mapping h : I x B n ~ ~n such that
(1) IIh(a, x) - h(a,Y)11 ~ 5n Ilh(a,Bn)llllx - yll , Va E Ij
(2) h(ak'x) ~ h(a,x) Vx E B n as ak i a E I or ak 1 a = 0;
(3) h(a,Bn ) = UZEBn h(a,x) = [u]Q , Va E I.
Proof. The proof is adapted from that of Theorem 3 in [1] (their
Theorem 9.6.2) and uses a CGnstruction based on the Steiner point.
Define a mapping
G : I x 0 x Z ~ KeD by G(a,w,z) = [F(w,z)]Q , Va E I. In
particular, for each (w, z) E 0 x Z,

hoo(G(ak,w,z),G(a,w,z)) ---70
as ak i a E I or ak 1 a = 0 in I. It follows that IIG(ak,w, z)11 ---7
IIG(a,w, z)11 under the same restrictions on ak, a. Then define the
set-valued map H: I x 0 x Z X ~n ~ KeD by

H(a,w,z,x) = B(IIG(a,w,z)llx, r(a,w,z))

 99

with radius r(a,w,z) = 2d(IIG(a,w,z)11 x, G(a,w,z)). Write <1> :

I x n x Z X ~n ---t IC as eo
<1>(a,w,z,x) = H(a,w,z,x) n G(a,w,z) .
In the notation of Theorem 2,
<1>(a,w,z,x) = P(IIG(a,w,z)llx, G(a,w,z)).
This is nonempty and is contained in G(a,w,z). By Theorem 2,

000 (<1>( a, w, z, x ),<1>({3, w, z, y))

~ SIIIlG( a, w, z)1I x - IIG({3, w, z )11 yll (3.2)
+ s 0 (G(a,w, z) ,.G({3,w, z))".
00

Finally, define a single-valued mapping f :I x n x Z X ~n ---t ~n

by
f(a,w,z,x) = un (<1>(a,w,z,x))
where un (<1>(a,w,z,x)) is the Steiner point ofthe compact convex
set <1>( a, w, z, x). From the properties of the Steiner centroid,

f(a,w,z,x) E G(a,w,z) Va E I,w E n,z E Z,x E ~n ,

and

Ilun ( <1>( a, w, z, x) )-un ( <1> ({3, w, z, x) )11

(3.3)
~ n 000 (<1>( a, w, z, x), <1> ({3, w, z, x))

Combining (3.2), (3.3) gives

IIf( a, w, z, x)- f({3, w, z, x )11

~ Sn IIIIG(a,w, z)1I x -IIG(,8,w, z)1I y II
+ Sno oo (G(a,w,z),G(,8,w,z)) .
Putting a = ,8, for each (a,w) E I x n, f(a,w,',') is contin-
uous on Z x B n . By construction, fe,·, z, x) is measurable on
I x n for all (z,p) E Z x B n and G(a,w,z) = UZEB n f(a,w,z,x).
Consequently, f is a Caratheodory parametrization on I x nand
it remains now to prove the level set property (3.1). For this,
100

define pz = x/IIG(a,w,z)11 if IIG(a,w,z)11 i= 0 and pz = 0 if

IIG(a,w,z)11 = o. Let x E G(a,w,z). Then pz E B n and
<I>(a,w,z,pz) = IIG(a,w,z)llpz is a singleton, so
!(a,w,z,pz) = O"n(<I>(~,w,z,pz)) = IIG(a,w,z)llpz = x .
Hence G(a,w,z) C !(a,w,z,Bn ). To obtain the opposite inclu-
sion, recall that
!(a,w,z,p) = O"n(<I>(a,w,z,p) E <I>(a,w,z,p) s:;;; G(a,w,z)
for all (a,w,z) E I x n x Z and all p E !Rn (not just confined to
B n ). Thus !(a,w, z, B n ) s:;;; G(a,w, z). Consequently,
!(a,w,z,Bn ) = G(a,w,z) l:> [F(w,z)]O:
for alia E I and the proof is complete. 0

-
Corollary 6. If u : [0, T] - t £n , 0 < T < 00, is continuous in
the doo norm, then for the parametrization
! : I x [0,1] x B n - t !Rn ,
!(·,a,p) is continuous for all a E I and p E B n . Moreover, the
continuity is uniform in t over I X B n .
Proof. Let Z = [0, T] and consider the set-valued function
G(a, z) = [u(z )]0:. This is boo-continuous in t for each fixed a. So
IIG(a,z)11 is continuous in t for each fixed a E I. In the notation
of the proof of Theorem 4, set <I> ( a, z, x) = H( a, z, x) G( a, z). n
Hence, the analogue of (3.2) is
boo (<I> ( a, z, x), <I> ( a, z' , x))
(3.4)
~ Moo(G(a,z),G(a,z')) ,
and that of (3.3) is
110"n ( <I> ( a, z, x)) - 0"n ( <I> ( a, z' , x)) II
(3.5)
~ nboo(<I>(a,z,x), <I>(a,z' ,x))
Since !(a,z,x) = O"n (<I>(a,z,x)) , combining (3.4), (3.5) gives
11!(a,z,x) - !(a,z',x)11 ~ 5nboo (G(a,z),G(a,z'))
~ 5nd oo (u(z),u(z'))
and continuity of u(z) E en is uniform in z over I x B n . 0
There is a converse to Corollary 5.
 101

Theorem 7. Let f : I x B n ~ ~n satisfy

(i) f(a,B n ) E K eo ,for all a E I.
(il) f(ak,B n ) ~ f(a,B n ) in the Hausdorfl"metric as ak i a or
ak 1 0 = a.
(iii) f({3,B n ) ~ f(a,B n ) for all 0:::; a:::; (3 :::;1.
Then there exists a fuzzy set u E £n such that [u]a = f( a, B n )
for all a E I.
Since the family {f(a,B n ) : a E I} satisfies the well-known con-
ditions that characterize a fuzzy set in terms of its a-levels, the
demonstration is straightforward.

REFERENCES
1. J.-P. Aubin and H. Frankowska, Set-Valued Analysis, Birkhauser,
Boston, 1990.
2. P. Diamond, Fuzzy Kriging, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 33 (1989), 315-332.
3. P. Diamond and P. Kloeden, Characterization of compact subsets of fuzzy
sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 29 (1989), 341-348.
4. P. Diamond and P. Kloeden, Metric spaces of fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 35 (19S:l), 241-249.
5. P. Diamond and P. Kloeden, Optimization under uncertainty (with P.
Kloeden), Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Infor-
mation Processing and Management of Uncertainty, 1990, pp. 247-249B.
Bouchon-Meunier and R.R. Yager (eds.), , Paris.
6. O. Kaleva, Fuzzy differential equations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 24
(1987), 301-317.
7. E. P. Klement, M. L. Puri and D. A. Ralescu, Limit theorems for fuzzy
random variables, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 407 (1986), 171-182.
8. M.L. Puri and D.A. Ralescu, Fuzzy random variables, J. Math. Anal.
Applns. 114 (1986), 409-422.
9. H. Tanaka, S. Uejima and K. Asai, Linear regression analysis with fuzzy
model, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 12 (1982), 903-907.
 \
\

ON POSSIBILITY/PROBABILITY
TRANSFORMATIONS

Didier Dubois - Henri Prade - Sandra Sandri

Institut de Recherche en Infonnatique de Toulouse
Universite Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne
31062 Toulouse Cedex, France

The problem of converting possibility measures into probability measures has

received attention in the past, but not by so many scholars. This question is
philosophically interesting as part of the debate between probability and fuzzy sets.
The imbedding of fuzzy sets into random set theory as done by Goodman and
Nguyen (1985), Wang Peizhuang (1983), among others, has solved this question in
principle. However the conversion problem has roots at least as much in the
possibility/probability consistency principle of Zadeh (1978), that he proposed in
the paper founding possibility theory.
Transforming possibility measures into probability measures or conversely can be
useful in any problem where heterogeneous uncertain and imprecise data must be
dealt with (e.g. subjective, linguistic-like evaluations and statistical data). However
it is recalled in this paper that the probabilistic representations and the possibilistic
ones are not just two equivalent representations of uncertainty. Hence there should
be no symmetry between the two mutual conversion procedures. The possibilistic
representation is weaker because it explicitly handles imprecision (e.g. incomplete
knowledge) and because possibility measures are based on an ordering structure
rather than an additive one. Turning a probability measure into a possibility measure
may be useful in the presence of other weak sources of information, or when
computing with possibilities is simpler than computing with probabilities. Turning
a possibility measure into a probability measure might be of interest in the scope
of decision-making (Smets, 1990).
The next section suggests that the transformations should be guided by two different
information principles : the principle of insufficient reason from possibility to
probability, and the principle of maximum specificity from probability to
possibility. The first principle aims at finding a probability measure which
preserves the uncertainty of choice between outcomes, while the second principle
aims at finding the most informative possibility distribution, under the constraints
dictated by the possibility/probability consistency principle. The paper then
proposes two transformations that obey these principles. In the discrete case they are
already known. But here, results in the continuous case are given. It is pointed out
that these transformations are not related to each olher, and the converse
transformations are shown to be inadequate. In the last section we discuss the
103
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic. 103-112.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
.104
,.
relationship between our approach and other works pertaining to the same topic.
Some lines of research are considered.

1. BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR TRANSFORMATIONS

The starting point for devising transformation principles is to· acknowledge the
structural differences between possibility and probability measures. The basic feature
of probabilistic representations of uncertainty is additivity. Probability measures use
the full strength of the algebraic structure of the unit interval. However uniform
probability distributions on finite sets only capture the idea of undecisiveness in
front of a choice between outcomes; and the probability of an outcome depends on
the number of such outcomes. Moreover there is no probability measure that would
assign the same amount of probability to each event (elementary or not) ; only such
a (non-existing) probability measure would capture ignorance. On the contrary,
possibility measures only use the fact that the unit interval is a total ordering ; it
leads to a quasi-qualitative model of uncertainty that is to some extent less
expressive than probability, but also less demanding in information. Especially, it
perfectly captures ignorance, letting the possibility of any event be equal to I,
except for the ever impossible one. Hence probability theory offers a good
quantitative model for randomness and undecisiveness while possibility theory offers
a good qualitative model of partial ignorance. Possibility and probability do not
capture the same facets of uncertainty. .
As it turns out a possibility measure can be viewed as an upper probability function
(Dubois and Prade, 1988), and this state of fact can be taken as providing a
framework for changing a possibility distribution into a probability distribution and
conversely. However, it is clear from the above discussion that by going from a
probabilis.tic representation· to a possibilistic representation, some information is
lost because we go from point-valued probabilities to interval-valued ones; the
converse transformation adds information to some possibilistic incomplete
knowledge. This additional information is always somewhat arbitrary.
Formally, a possibility measure II on a set X is equivalent to the family g:>(II) of
probability measures such that g:>(II) = (P, Y A ~ X, P(A) ::;; II (A) }. It looks
natural to pick the result of transforming a possibility measure into a probability
measure in the set g:>(II). This postulate is the principle of probability-possibility
concistency. The problem is to find the probability measure that is as little
informative as possible (since in any case we shall add information) but that retain
the features of the possibility measure. A possibility measure II on a finite set is
characterized by a possibility distribution n : X ~ [0,1] such that Y A ~ X, II(A) =
max(n(x), x E A}. The basic feature of a possibility distribution is the preference
ordering it induces on X. Namely n describes what is known on the value of a
variable 'If and n(x) > n(x') means that 'If = x is preferred to 'If = x'. Hence the
probability distribution p obtained from n should satisfy the constraint: n(x) >
n(x') ~ p(x) > p(x') (preference preservation).
The converse transformation leads to find a bracketting of P(A) for any A ~ X in
terms of an interval [N(A),II(A)] where N(A) = 1 - II(A) is a degree of necessity of
A, and A is the complement of A (Dubois and Prade, 1988). When [N(A),II(A)]
serves as a bracketting of P(A), n is said to dominate p. Because N(A) > 0 ~
 105

ileA) = 1, thus bracketting is never tight since it is always of the form [a,I] or
[O,~]. In order to keep as much information as possible one should get the tightest
intervals as possible. It means that the fuzzy set with membership function 1t
should be minimal in the sense of inclusion so that 1t is maximally specific. A
refinement in this specificity ordering consists in requesting that this fuzzy set have
minimal cardinality, i.e. 2.xE X 1t(x) is minimum (in the finite case). Of course the
preference preservation constraint should be respected. The above principles for
possibility/ probability transformations sound reasonable but alternative ones have
been proposed as well. These alternative views are interesting as well and are
commented further below in section 6.

2. FROM POSSIBILITY TO PROBABILITY

As from the previous section the problem is as follows : given a possibility
distribution 1t, find a probability distribution p such that
't:f A, peA) ::; ileA) (probability-possibilisty concistency)
1t(x) > 1t(x') ¢::) p(x) > p(x') (preference preservation)
p contains as much uncertainty as possible (least commitment).
A natural way of expressing the last requirement is to use the insufficient reason
principle. The latter claims that if all we know about x is that x lies in a set A, then
we are entitled to assume that the maximal uncertainty about x can be described by a
uniform probability distribution over A. Given a possibility distribution 1t, we
apply this principle twice
* on the unit interval: select a at random in (0,1] and consider Aa = {x 11t(x) ~ a}
* on the selected level-cut Aa : select x at random in Aa .
This procedure has been suggested by Yager (1982). If 1t can be described by a finite
set of level-cuts AI, ... , An corresponding to 1tI = 1> 1t2 >... > 1tn > 1tn+I = 0,
the selection process is guided by the density

p(x) = 2.'=1 1ti -1ti+I 1lA"(x), 't:fx (1)

l,n IAil I

and corresponds to a transformation already proposed in the past by the authors

(Dubois and Prade, 1982, 1983) and several other people such as Williams (1982)
and Smets (1990) in the setting of belief functions. Let us denote T 1(1t) the result of
this transformation. It is easy to see that it satisfies the preference preservation
constraint. Moreover Tl(1t) has a nice property with respect to the set £P(il) of
probabilities compatible with 1t : p is the center of gravity of £Pen).
Theorem 1 : Let {PI, ... , Pm} be the set of probabilities such that £P(il) is the
convex hull of {PI, ... , Pm} then 't:fx, p(x) = TI(1t)(x) = m- I . 2.i=I,m Pj(x).
Proof: A possibility distribution 1t is equivalent to a basic probability assignment
m such that m(Ai) = 1ti -1ti+I, i =I,n. Each extreme point Pj of £P(il) is obtained
by a selection function Sj such that s/Ai) is an element. of Ai, and Pj(x) =
2. sjC Ai)=X m(Ai)' There are m = ilk= I,n 1Akl such selection functions sj- Hence
 106

p(x) = m- 1 . L.j=l.m L.i:Sj(Ai)=X m(Ai) = m- 1 L.i=l.n L.j:sj(Ai)=X m(Ai)' Fixing i

there are nk;ti IAil selection functions Sj such that Sj(Ai) = x. provided that x E Ai'
Hence p(x) satisfies (1). Q.E.D.
This result makes transformation T 1 all the more natural since it amounts to
applying the insufficient reason principle to the polyhedron £P(n) itself. consider
the uniform second order probability so-obtained and compute the corresponding
expected probability. Moreover one is sure that T 1(1t) will contain all the basic
features of 1t.
Another natural way of selecting p in £P(n) is to apply the maximum entropy
principle (Leung. 1980). This problem has been solved by Moral (1986) (see also
Lamata et at. 1990). However the obtained probability distribution violates the
preference preservation constraint. generally. For instance if X = {x l.x2}, 1t(x 1) = 1.
and 1t(x2) ;;:: 0.5 leads to select the uniform probability distribution on X ; this is
not satisfactory except if 1t(x2) = 1 too.

In the continuous case, let. X = [a.b] ~ [R ; assuming that 1t is the membership of

an upper semi-continuous, unimodal. support-bounded fuzzy number. the
transformation T1 reads :
rc(x)
'V x E [a.bl. p(x) =J da/lAal (2)
O
where IAal is the width of the a-cut of 1t. i.e. if Aa = [ma.Mal. then IAal =
M a - rna and p is a probability density. Indeed. selecting a in [0.1] is done with
infinitesimal probability da. and yields the uniform density Pa such that Pa(x) =
1 / IAal for x E Aa . The (infinitesimal) probability of x in Aa is thus equal to
dx.da/IAal. Hence the selection of x results from considering all a such that
x E Aa • i.e. a E [O.1t(x)]. For instance if 1t is a triangular fuzzy number with
support [-1.+1], and modal value O. Le. 1t(x) = max(O. 1 - IxI) then p(x) =
-1/2 Loglxl. This result is given by Chanas and Nowakowski (1988) who also study
transformation T1 in the continuous case. More generally if 1t is a symmetric fuzzy
number on [-1.+1]. such that ft(x) = f(lxl) with f(l) = O. f(O) = 1 and f continuous

f
f(IXI) -
and decreasing, p(x) is of theform 0 da/2r- 1(a) 'V x E [-1,+1], which may be
more or less easy to compute according to the form taken by function f.

3. FROM PROBABILITY TO POSSIBILITY

The problem can be expressed in the finite setting as finding a possibility
distribution dominating P. satisfying the preference preservation constraint. and
maximally specific. The latter can be in the sense of fuzzy set inclusion. Then the
_solution is not unique; they can be as many as the number of permutations of
elements of X. Delgado and Moral have solved the problem of minimizing
L.XE X 1t(x). This problem is a particular case of the one of approximating a
random set by a fuzzy set (Dubois and Prade. 1990b). Namely if X = {Xl. x2.....
 107

xn }, Pi = P([xi}), 1ti = TI({xi}) and PI ~ P2 ~ ... ~ Pn' then the optimal solution is:

'<I i = l,n, 1ti = Lj=i,n Pj- (3)

This transformation was first suggested by the authors (Dubois and Prade, 1982).
Here we give the solution in the continuous case, namely for unimodal continuous
probability density functions (pdf) with bounded support [a,b], say p, such that pis
increasing on [a,xO] and decreasing on [XO,b] where xo is the modal value of p. This
set is denoted D.
Theorem 2 : Let p be a pdf in D. Define a function f : [a,xO] ~ [xO,b] by f(x) =
max[y I p(y) ~ p(x)). Then the most specific possibility distribution 1t (i.e. that

r
minimizes the integral of 1t on [a,b]) that dominates p is defined by

T2(P) : 1t(x) = 1t(f(x)) = p(y)dy + 1-+<>0 p(y)dy. (4)

-00 f(x)
The proof is done in several steps.
Lemma 1 : '<I c E [a,b] , '<Ig : [a,c] ~ [c,b] such that f(c) = c, f is continuous and
decreasing, let 1tf,c be the possibility distribution defined by 1tf,c(x) = 1tf,c(f(x)) =

I~ p(y)dy + I:) p(y)dy.. Then 1tf,c dominates p.

Proof: 1tf c dominates psince '<IA such that c E A, TI(A) = 1 ~ P(A) when A is
measurabl~ ; if sup A = x < c, TI(A) = TI«-oo,x]) = 1tf,c(x) ~ P«-oo,x]) ~ P(A). And
the same if infA > c. Q.E.D.
Lemma 2 : The least specific distribution (in the sense of inclusion) that satisfies
the preference preservation condition is 1tf,xO where f(x) = max (y Ip(y) ~ p(x)).
Proof: The preference preservation condition forces the level cuts of 1t to be of the
form [x Ip(x) ~ p(y)}, '<Iy, and the core of 1t to be [xO}, the modal value of p. From
Lemma 1, 1tf,xO with f(x) = max{y I p(y) ~ p(x)) dominates p. Now if 1t' is such
that 1t'(x) < 1tf,xO(X), for x < xO and 1t' satisfies preference preservation, we clearly
have that 1t'(x) = 1t'(f(x)) and TI'«-oo,x] u [f(x),+oo)) < TIf,xO«-OO,x] u [f(x),+oo)) =
P«-oo,x] u [f(x),+oo)), i.e. 1t' does not dominate p. Q.E.D.

Note that the degree of imprecision 1 +00

-00
1t(x)dx =
Iba 1t(x)dx is equal to
II0 IAalda.
due to Fubini's theorem (Dubois and Prade, 1990a). One way to minimize the
imprecision of 1t is thus to minimize the size of the level cuts of 1t dominating p.
Lemma 3 : Let p be a continuous unimodal pdf, then the interval I =
[x, x + of] with fixed of such that P(I) is maximum is defined by p(x) = p(x + of).

rx + of
Proof: Let <p(x) = Jx p(t)dt, and consider xO the modal value of p. It is easy to
108

check that if x + .f < xo, then cp(x) < cp(xO - .f). This is because p(x) is increasing
on [a,xo]. By symmetry if xO < x, then cp(x) < cp(xO)' Hence only the case when
xO r +.f p(t)dt whose derivative
xo E I is to be considered. Now cp(x) = fx p(t)dt +
xO
J~
is cp'(x) = -p(x) + p(x + .f).Hence cp'(x) = 0 requires p(x) = p(x + .f). The nature of p
is such that this equation is satisfied for a single value of x, Q.E.D.
Lemma 4 : The smallest interval I such that P(I) = a contains the modal value of
=
p and is such that I [x,f(x)] where f(x) = max (y I p(y) ~ p(x)}.
Proof: Note that the function g(x) = P([x,f(x))) where x < xO and f defined as in
Lemma 4, is a continuous deCreasing function such that g(-oo) = 1 and g(xO) = O.
Hence an interval I as defined above exists and is unique. Assume xo < inf I where
P(I) = a and I = [x, yea)]. Let .f(~) = yea) - x. Because p is decreasing on [xO,+oo),
- rxO+.f(a) . (y(a) fy(a)
it is easy to check that Jx p(t)dt = Jx pet + Xo - x)dt > x p(t)dt = a.
o -
Let YO(a) be such that P([xo,yO( a))) =- a ; hence we have YO(a) < xO + .f (a), i.e.
the length of the interval [xo,yO(a)] is smaller than that of [x,y(a)]. The same
reasoning holds if-sup I < xo. Hence xo E I . Now let I = [x,f(x)] as in Lemma 4,
and I' = [x',y'] such that x < x' < xo' III = 11'1, xo E I. From Lemma 3 it is easy to
conclude that PCI') < P(I) = a. Hence y'(a) such that P([x',y'(a))) = a verifies
y'(a) > y', Q.E.D.

r
The situation can be summarized as follows: in order for n to dominate p, we need

that V 1= [x,y], II(O ~ p(n = -00

p(t)dt + Jf<><> p(t)dt for the complement of I.
Y
Lemma 1 tells that if thiscondition is fullfilled for a nested family of intervals, that

are the level cuts of n, then ndominates p. To minimize ff<><> n(t)dt, it is enough to
--00

minimize the size of these intervals, and Lemma 4 tells us that they should be taken
as the level cuts of the probability density itself. Lemma 2 points out that this is
equivalent to request that the preference induced by p should be preserved by n.

4. THE CONVERSE TRANSFORMAnONS

It is important to notice that the two transformations Tl and T2 are not converse of
each other. Indeed they are not based on the same informational principles. The
converse transformation to T 1 can be exhibited as follows, in the finite case, by
simple inversion of (1)
-1 ,
T 1 (p): n(xi) = Lj=l,n mm(p(xi), p(Xj» (5)

This information has been suggested by Dubois and Peade (1983). Although the
 109

obtained possibility distribution makes sense (it does dominate p, and respects the

preference induced by p), itis not maximally specific, i.e. T2(P) <- T1\p) generally;
in other words the possibility distribution obtained from T2(P) is generally more

informative than T1I(P). The continuous counterpart oi (5) is

n(x) =f-+«> min(p(x), p(t»dt. . (6)
-00

For instance, if p(x) =-I Log(lxl) as obtained by T I from n(x) = I - Ixl when x =
2
[-1,+ I] this triangular fuzzy number is recovered when (6) is applied to it.

1 1
2 2=
Let us consider T . In the discrete case T (n) is easily calculated by inversion of
(3), assuming nl ~ n2 ~ ... ~ nn ~ 1tn + I 0 :

-I
T2 : Pi = ni -ni+I' 1. = I,n. (7)

1
2
The main problem with transformation T is that it does not respect the preference
ordering induced on X by the Pi'S especially ni > ni+ I does not imply Pi > Pi+ I'
Clearly the mass ni - ni+ I is moved as a whole to Xi instead of being shared
among the elements of the ni-level cut. This assignment looks arbitrary. In the
continuous case, let us assume n is of the form (4) so that it is
differentiable,unimodal and with bounded support. Let x < xo such that n(xO) = 1.
By differentiating (4) it is found:
n'(x) =p(x) - p(f(x» . f '(x)
where f is defined as in Proposition 2 and the prime denotes the derivatives. Letting
f(x) =y, so that (f is bijective) x =r-I(y), we also find for y > xo

n'(y) = -p(y) + p(rl(y»)!f(rl(y»

which also reads n'(f(x» =-p(f(x» + p(x)/f(x) (assuming f(x) :F- 0). Cancelling f(x)
among the two expressions leads to n'(x) . n'(f(x» =p(x)n'(f{x» - p(f(x»n'(x). Now
we use the fact that p(x) = p(f(x» by definition of f, and conclude
p(x) =1/(lht'(x) - I/n'(y») (8)

where [x,y] is the n(x)-level cut of nand n' is the derivative of n.

Example: Consider the pdf p(x) = max(O, I -Ixl). It!S easy to check that T2(P) is

n(x) = (1 - Ixl) 2 and that T-I -I

2 (n) gives p(x) back. Note that T 2 applied to n(x) =
max(O, I -Ixl) gives p(x) = 1/2, V x E [-1,+1] which greatly differs from TI(P).
110

Especially we get a uniform pdf which forgets about the role of most plausible
value played by O.

5. RELATIONSHIP TO CONFIDENCE INTERVALS

Let p be a probability density function and I be an interval of fixed length f. How to
choose the location of I such that P(I) is maximal? In other words, if v is a random
variable described by p, suppose one wants to locate an interval I of fixed length that
contains v with maximal probability. Lemma 3 establishes that I can be obtained as
a particular level cut of 1t = T I (p). As a consequence any level cut of the pdf p
corresponds to the best confidence interval of p whose length is the length of this
level cut. Now this level cut is also a level cut of 1t = T2(P) due to Proposition 2.
Namely if x is such that 1t(x) = 0. then Ao. = {x 11t(x) ~ o.} is the best confidence
interval with length lAo.' and its probability is I - 0.. By Lemma 3, it is also the
smallest (i.e. most informative) confidence interval with probability 1- 0. of being
hit. Hence it can be claimed that 1t = T2(P) furnishes a nested set of confidence
intervals, where degrees of possibility 1t(x) represent the probability of missing the
1t(x)-cut. 1t = T I (P) is thus a good description of the fuzzy set of most plausible
values of variable v. It goes beyond some aspects of the confidence interval literature
since no confidence threshold is required to defme 1t.

6. DISCUSSION OF OTHER APPROACHES

Lamata et at. (1990) suggest a minimal distance principle, but they do not apply it
to the possibility-probability transformation problem. Klir (Klir, 1990 ; Geer and
Klir, 1992) has suggested a measurement-theoretic view of possibility/probability
transformations. For him, the transformation is based on two assumptions:
- A scaling assumption that forces each value 1ti to be a function of Pi!PI (where
PI ~ P2 ~ ... ~ Pn, that can be ratio-scale, interval scale, Log-interval scale
transformations, etc. ;
- An uncertainty invariance according to which the entropy H(p) should be equal to
the measure of information E(1t) contained in the transform 1t of p. E(1t) can be
the logarithmic imprecision index of Higashi and Klir (Klir, 1990) (E(1t) =
Li=l,n(1ti -1ti+I). Log2 i) or the measure of total uncertainty as the sum of two
heterogeneous terms estimating imprecision and discord respectively (after Klir
and Ramer, 1990).
The uncertainty invariance equation E(1t) = H(P) along with a scaling transformation
assumption (e.g. 1t(x) = o.p(x) + ~, \Ix) reduces the problem of computing 1t from p
to solving an algebraic equation with one or two unknowns.
Several comments are in order : Klir's approach relies on two prerequisites that
sound questionable to us. First the scaling assumption leads to assume that 1ti is a
function of Pi only. This is not the case with the transformations devised here. This
pointwiseness assumption may contradict the probability/possibility consistency
principle that requires n ~ P (see e.g. Dubois and Peade, 1980, pp. 258-259 where
the simple transformation 1ti =Pi!PI is studied; see also Klir, 1990). A second
prerequisite is to admit that possibilistic and probabilistic information measures are
 111

commensurate. It means that entropy and imprecisi()n capture the same facet of
uncertainty, albeit in different guises. Clearly our approach disagrees with this
postulate. The last point of divergence is that Klir does not try to respect the
probability/possibility consistency principle, which enables a nice link between
possibility and probability to be maintained, casting possibility measures in the
setting of upper and lower probabilities. By taking a measurement-theoretic view,
the possibility distribution obtained through uncertainty invariance cannot be
considered as a bracketting approximation of the original probability measure.
Civanlar and Trussell (1986) have considered a transformation T from probability to
possibility by requiring that the probability of the fuzzy event described by 1t = T(p)
should be above a given threshold, and I,1t[ should be minimum. The first
requirement writes p(1t) = I,i=l,n 1tiPi ;::: c. Note that p(1t) was introduced by Zadeh
as a probability/possibility consistency index. The drawbacks of this method are that
its result is threshold-dependent, and may violate the probability/possibility
consistency principle. Moreover minimizing I,1tf for k =1= 2 would give another
solution. Lastly it was proved in Dubois and Prade (1990b) that p(1t) is constant for
all 1t that are minimum elements (in the sense of inclusion) among possibility
distributions that dominate p.
Further research is needed in the continuous case. Especially it is interesting to
investigate for which class of pdf and possibility distributions the transformations
make sense, and what are the minimal assumptions required to ensure that (2) and
(4), as well as (6) and (8) are the converse of each other. Another important issue is
to extend the results presented here to the case of joint probability or possibility
distributions. Probability-possibility transformations have been applied to data
fusion problems in multisource interrogation systems and reliability expert opinion
modeling (Sandri et al., 1989; Sandri, 1990).

Acknowledgements : Theorem lowes much to discussions with S. Moral and

Ph. Smets.

REFERENCES
Chanas S., Nowakowski M. (1988) Single value simulation of fuzzy variable.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 25, 43-57.
Civanlar M.R., Trussell H.J. (1986) Constructing membership functions using
statistical data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 18, 1-13.
Delgado M., Moral S. (1987) On the concept of possibility-probability consistency.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 21, 311-318.
Dubois D., Prarle H. (1980) Fuzzy Sets and Systems : Theory and Applications.
Academic Press, New York.
Dubois D., Prade H. (1982) On several representations of an uncertain body of
evidence. In : Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes (M.M. Gupta,
E. Sanchez, eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 167-181.
Dubois D., Prade H. (1983) Unfair coins and necessity measures: towards a
possibilistic interpretation of histograms. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 10, 15-20.
Dubois D., Prade H. (1988) Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized
112

Processing of Uncertainty. Plenum Press, New York.

Dubois D., Prade H. (1990a) Scalar evaluations of fuzzy sets: overview and
applications. Appl. Math. Lett., 3(2), 37-42.
Dubois D., Prade-R (1990b) Consonant approximations-of belief functions. Int. J.
of Approximate Reasonirig, 4, 419-449. _
Geer J.F., Klir GJ. (1992) A mathematical analysis of information-preserving
transformations between probabilistic and possibilistic formulations of
uncertainty. Int. J. of General Systems, 20(2), 143-176.
Goodman I.R., Nguyen H.T. (1985) Uncertainty Models for Knowledge-Based
Systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam..
Klir GJ. (1990) A principle of uncertainty and information invariance. Int. J. of
General Systems, 17,249-275. .
Klir GJ., Ramer A.(1990) Uncertainty in the Dempster-Shafer theory: a critical
re-examination. Int. J. of General Systems, 18(2), 155-166.
Lamata M.T., Moral S., Verdegay J.L. (1990) Transforming fuzzy measures. In :
Approximate Reasoning Tools for Artificial Intelligence, Verlag TOV
Rheinland, Koln, 146-158.
Leung Y. (1980) Maximum entropy estimation with inexact information. In :
Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory - Recent Developments (RR Yager, ed.),
Pergamon Press, New York, 32-37.
Moral S. (1986) Construction of a probability distribution from a fuzzy
information. In : Fuzzy Sets Theory and Applications (A. Jones, A. Kaufmann,
HJ. Zimmermann, eds.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 51-60.
Sandri S. (1991) La combinaision de l'information incertaine et ses aspects
algorithmiques. PhD Thesis, Universite P. Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Sandri S., Besi A., Dubois D., Mancini G., Prade H., Testemale C. (1989) Data
fusion problems in an intelligent data base interface. In : Reliability Data
Collection and Use in Risk and Availability Assessment (Colombari, ed.),
Springer Verlag, 655-670.
Smets P. (1990) Constructing the pignistic probability function in a context of
uncertainty. In : Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 5 (M. Henrion,
RD. Shachter, L.N. Kanal, J.E Lemmer, eds.), North-Holland, 29-39.
Wang P.Z. (1983) From the fuzzy statistics to the falling random subsets. In :
Advances in Fuzzy Sets, Possibility Theory and Applications (p.P. Wang, ed.),
Plenum Press, New York, 81-96.
Williams P.M. (1982) Discussion of Shafer G. "Belief functions and parametric
models". J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B44, 343 et seq.
Yager RR (1982) Level sets for membership evaluation of fuzzy subsets. In :
Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory: Recent Developments (RR Yager, ed.),
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 90-97.
Zadeh L.A. (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, I, 3-28.
 CALCULUS OF PROPERTIES AND FUZZY SETS
S.A. Orlovski

Computing Center of the Russian Acad. Sci

Vavilova 40, 117333 Moscow

Abstract

The paper outlines an attempt to developing a mathematical

framework for fuzzy sets. A fuzzy set is associated with a
collection of objects shQwing some common property. Different
objects may show this property differently, and a degree to
which an object shows a property, depends on the size, or more
generally, importance of the collection of its elementary
properties, the latter described by mearis of a pseudomeasure. A
fuzzy subset of objects showing a decomposable property is
associated with a mapping from the space of elementary
properties to the class of all subsets of the set of objects.

Keywords: pseudomeasure, fuzzy set, membership function, product of spaces

of elementary properties, intersection of fuzzy sets

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper is_outlines some aspects of the approach to formulating a

mathematical framework for fuzzy set theoretic concepts suggested in
Orlovski, 1990. The basic logic of this approach is borrowed from the
axiomatic formulation of the probability theory.
The membership function is a primary mathematical concept of the fuzzy
sets theory in its present form. To apply methods of this theory to the
analysis of a particular informational situation, one should first be able
to "encode" his subjective knowledge or information in terms of membership
degrees. And this is a difficult task if one does not have a clear
interpretation of these degrees.
We agree with G. Shafer, 1981 that such interpretation of the primary
concept of the theory shcloIld be based on descriptions of types or
"canonical" informational schemes for which the membership function
appears to be a natural mathematical description. Basing on such
interpretation, an expert can in each application compare an appropriate
113
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 113-121.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
114

canonical scheme with the type of information to be analyzed, i.e. perform

a "thought experiment", and accept an appropriate membership function. G.
Shafer, 1981 quite convincingly wrote about the necessity and the role of
canonical examples in the construction of probabilistic information
models.
The theory of fuzzy sets in its present form is commonly understood
as a set theory, where set operations such as intersection, union, etc.
play the basic role. Attempts to find consistent definitions of these set-
theoretic operations for fuzzy sets have resulted in formulating rich
families of T-norms and co-norms. The difficulty with such an approach
lies in that once introduced the set operations must invariably be used
within the theory; but practice shows that it is frequently impossible to
keep up with this requirement in applied problems.
An alternative attempt to developing a mathematical framework for
fuzzy sets outlined, in this paper is similar to that used in the
probability theory. A fuzzy set is associated with a collection of objects
showing some common property. Different objects may show this property
differently, and characterization of these differences is our concern
here.
Different objects may have different collections of elementary
properties, and a degree to which an object shows a property, depends on
the size, or more generally, importance of the collection of its
elementary properties, the latter described by means of a set function
that we refer to as pseudomeasure.
For a set of objects we have a space of elementary properties
equipped with a pseudomeasure that quantifies the importance of different
collections of elementary properties with respect to the decomposable
property in question. A fuzzy subset of objects showing a decomposable
property is associated with a mapping from the space of elementary
properties to the class of all subsets of the set of objects. The
membership function becomes a characteristic of this mapping.
Finally, we would like to note that this paper is not about the
development of a new theory of fuzzy sets. Its focus is an attempt to find
an intuitively understandable. model that could help interpret and more
'--~
logically use some basi9j;i0r1cep;t1il~9f -the existing theory. And, of course,
, (
the approach suggested,~e is iq need of further analysis and
development.
 115

2. SPACES WITH PSEUDCMEASURES

2.1. Basic Definitions

Let P be a set and B be a class of subsets of P such that:

(a) nEB ~ P\fi E B,

(b) 0 E B.
From (a) and (b) we have that FEB. We refer to B as a complete class of
subsets of set P.
Function J.I:B ... [0,1] is called a pseudomeasure on (P,B) iff it
satisfies the following conditions:

(1) J.I(0) = 0,
(2) n ~ fi ~ J.I(n ) ~ J.I(n ) ,
l z l z
(3) J.I(P) = 1.
With each pseudomeasure J.I on (P,B) we associate a function J.I*:B ...
[0,1] as follows:

J.I*(n) = 1 - J.I(p\n), nEB. (2.1)

This function satisfies conditions (1)-(3) and, therefore, is a
pseudomeasure. We refer to J.I* as the pseudomeasure dual to J.I. From (2.1)
we obtain:
-
J.I(n) = 1 - J.I (p\n) , nEB,
* (2.2)
hence, J.I is pseudomeasure dual to J.I*. Therefore, (J.I, J.I*) is a pair of
mutually dual pseudomeasures on (P,B). We call triplet (P,B,J.I) space with
a pseudomeasure.

2.2. Product Spaces

Finite products. We introduce here a product of two spaces. The extension

to a greater number of spaces is rather straightforward.
Let (Pi ,B i ,J.l i ), -i=l,2 be two spaces with pseudomeasures. Consider
l
direct product P=P l xP Z and denote by B class of all (rectangular) subsets
of set P such that:
1
n E B *-n = fi 1 xfi z ' n i E Bi , i=1,2. ~
1 1
l~e add to class B sets of the form p\n, n -E B ilIld obtain a complete
class of subsets of set P, that we shall refer to as the complete class of
116

1
subsets generated by B .
The next step is to equip (P,B) with a pair of mutually dual
pseudomeasures, based on M1 and M*1 • For any set IT E B,1 i.e. IT = IT 1xIT Z ' IT i
E B,1 , i=1,2, we define:

M(IT) = F(M 1 (IT 1 ),M z (IT z ))' M*(IT) = F(M:(IT1),~;(ITz)),

with F being a function [O,l]x[O,l] ... [0,1] that we want to satisfy the
following conditions for any a, e. E [0,1]:

(1) F(a,l) = F(l,a) = a

(2) F(a,t) is nondecreasing in a and .e.,
(3) F(a,a) = a.
As can easily be shown, properties (1)-(3) imply F(a,e.) = min (a,e.).
1
Therefore, we have that for any IT E B :

~(IT) = min {M 1 (ITt),M z (IT z )}; ~*(IT) = min {<(IT1),M;(ITz)}'

Next, we extend this definition to the complete class B that contains also
1
sets of the form P\IT, IT E B , to make these functions mutually dual:

~(P\IT)=l-~*(IT)=l-min{M:(ITt),~;(IT2)}=rnax{M1(P 1\IT 1 ) ,Mz(Pz \IT z )}

M*(P\IT)=l-M(IT)=l-min{M(IT t ) ,M(IT z )}=max{M:(P 1\IT 1 ) ,M;(Pz\IT z )}.

We call M and M* product pseudomeasures, and space (P,B,M) - product of
spaces (Pi,Bi,M i ), i=1,2.
Infinite products. Suppose we have a family of spaces with pseudomeasures
(Pa,Ba'~a)' aEA. Denote
P = UP.
aEA a
Let us introduce a function p:A'" P such that pia) EPa' for any aEA.
Denote by 13 set of all such functions, elements of this set will be
denoted by p(. ).
For any subset IT £ ~ we introduce its projection ITa(IT) onto Pa' aEA as
"follows:

na(IT) = {pEPa : 3p(' )EIT, p(a)=p}.

As can easily be seen from' the above definition, if p(.) is such that
pia) i na(IT) for some aEA, then p'(.) i IT. From here we have:

p(.) E IT .. pia) E na(IT), anyaEA.

For any set IT £ 13 set fi £ 13 is called rectangular hull of IT iff fi is
 117

the maximal (by set inclusion) set having the same projections as n for

all aEA. In other words, set n is the union of all sets ll' such that

na(ll') = nam) for all aEA. Set n s 'l3 is called rectangular iff n = n,
i.e. if it is the rectangular hull of itself.
1
Denote by '8 class of all rectangular subsets of 'l3 such that
1 1
n E '8 ~ n (n) E B , for any aEA. Then we add to '8 sets of the form 'l3\n,
1 a a
n E '8 and denote the resulting class by '8. We shall call '8 the complete
class of subsets of 'l3 generated by the family B , aEA.
a
As a result, we have set 'l3 and complete class '8 of its subsets. Now we
shall define a pair of dual pseudomeasures on 'B, i .e . functions m,
m*:'8 ~ [0,1]. Similarly to the above finite case, we define these
1 1
functions on subclass '8 of rectangular subsets as follows (n E 'B ):

mm) = inf
J.la(llam)); m*m) = inf J.I*(O ill))
aEA aEA a a
and then extend this definition to the complete class 'B (Le. also for
1
sets of the form'l3\n, n E '8 ) as follows:

m*('l3\n) =1 - mill) =1 -
inf J.I ill (0)) = sup J.I*(P \0 ill))
aa aaa
aEA aEA
As a result we have constructed product space with pseudomeasure ('l3,'B,m)
and the dual pseudomeasure m *

3. DECCMPOSABLE PROPERTY

Suppose we have a set X of objects and a space with pseudomeasure

(P,B,J.I). With respect to X we call elements of P elementary properties,
and elements of B - collections of elementary properties. By referring to
elements of P as elementary properties, we mean that for any pEP any
object x either has property p or does not have it.
A set-valued mapping a from space of elementary properties (P,B,J.I) to
class 2
X of all subsets of X such that for any AtX set a -1 (x)={p:xEa(p)}
belongs to B, is called decomposable property defined for X on (P,B,J.I).
Equivalently, we shall say that a fuzzy subset a is defined for set of
objects X, and this fuzzy set is the collection of objects from X showing
decomposable propertya. We shall understand proposition J<Ea as any of the
following equivalent assertions: "x shows decomposable property a", and "x
118

belongs to fuzzy set a".

For any object xEX set a - 1 (xl is the collection of all elementary
1
properties that x has, and set p\a- (x) is the collection of all
elementary properties that x does not have. For set nEB its pseudomeasure
/l m) evaluates the importance of having collection of elementary
properties n with respect to the decomposable property a considered, and
pseudomeasure /l'*(n) evaluates the importance of not having any elementary
property from collection n.
-1
A function v :X->rO,I] defined as Va(x)=/l(a (x)} is called the
a
membership function of a. A value va(x) of this function is interpreted as
the degree to which proposition AEa is true, i. e. the degree to which
object x shows decomposable property a, or, equivalently, the degree to
which object x belongs to fuzzy. subset a.
Suppose we have two decomposable properties a and a'* defined for X on
spaces of elementary properties (P,B,/l) and (P,B,/l'*).respectively with /l
and /l* being mutually dual pseudomeasures. If for any p=:P we have
a'*(p)=X\a(p) , then decomposable properties (fuzzy subsets) a, a* are
called mutually complementary. By the above definition the membership
function of a'* has the form:
'*
va(x) = /l '* (p :xEa '* (p» = /l '* (p : xEX\a(p) )=/l '* (P\a -1 (x» =
=1 - /l(a
- 1
(x» =1 - va(x).
Therefore, for mutually complementary decomposable properties we have:

Va(x) '*
+ va(x) = 1, 'VAEX,
For a decomposable property a we interpret the complementary property
a'* as the property consisting in not showing a. In other words, L'<€a,
x~a*) and (X¢a, .'<€a*) are pairs of equivalent assertions. Therefore, Va(x)
is the degree to which object x shows property a (degree of AEa), or,
equivalently, the degree to which object x does not show property a '*
(degree of .~a'*); similarly, V~(x) is the degree to which object x shows
propertya'* (degree of AEa'*) , or, equivalently, the degree to which x does
not show property a (degree of .~a).

As a simple example of a decomposable property we can consider

property a = "to be clever" for a set of people X. Set of elementary
properties P in this case may be a set of tests that persons from X may
pass or fail to pass.
 119

4. DECCMFQSABLE PROPERTIES ON PRODUCTS OF SPACES

OF ELEMENTARY PROPERTIES

Let X be a set of objects, (Pa,B ), (Pt,B ) be spaces of elementary

a t
properties, and a:Pa~2X, t:Pt~2X be properties-objects mappings. Denote by
P the direct product PaxP
t and by B - the complete class of subsets of P,
generated by B , B . Suppose a mapping c:~2x and a pseudomeasure
a t
~at:B ~ [0,1] (together with the respective dual pseudomeasure ~~t ) are
defined on B. Then we can say that a decomposable property c is defined
for set of objects X such that its set of elementary properties is the
direct product PaxP . The corresponding membership function of c has the
t
form:
-1
LJ c(x) = ~at(C (x}), .,tX.

Suppose now that the decomposable property c in question is logically

expressed as a~, Le. has the meaning of having properties a and t
simultaneously. This means that the mapping c has the form:
-1 -1·-1
c(pa,pt)=a(Pa1nt(Pt), and, therefore, c (x}=a (x)xt (x). Hence, the
- 1
pseudomeasure ~ at is such that ~ at (a (x) xv" - 1
(x}) is the degree to which x
shows properties a and t simultaneously.
Based on ~lat and ~~t' let us introduce the following functions on Bo
and B respectively:
t
~ <IT )= sup ~ t (11 xfl ) = ~at <ITaxPt ) ,
oaflB E o a t
t t
~t(flt)=fls~~ ~at(flaxflt} = ~at(Paxflt),
a a
and
~~(flo)= sup JJ~t(flaxflt) = 11~t (flaxPt) ,
fltEBt

~t(nt)= sup ~~t(naXflt) = ~~t (Paxn t )·

naEBa

These functions can be called projections of pseudomeasures JJat and ~~t on

Ba and Bt respectively. The following theorem can easily be proved.
*: . :*:
Theorem 1. (~a' ~la ), ( ~ t ,~.e,) as introduced above are pairs of mutually dual
pseudomeasures on B
a and Bt respectively.
As can easily be sho',n, the pseudomeasures introduced possess the
following properties for any nO."'-So.' flt"'B t :
120

(3) min /i~ma)' /i~(n.&) } ;:: /i~(naxn.&);

(4) max /i~(Pa\Oa)' /i~(P.&\n.&) } ~ /i~(P\(na~O.&));

5. SIMULTANEOUS POSSESSION OF PROPERTIES

("INTERSECfION OF FUZZY SETS")

Here we consider a problem that is in some sense inverse with respect

to the previous one.
Suppose we have two decomposable properties a and .& defined for set X
of objects, and we would like to construct a decomposable property c for X
consisting in showing both properties a and .& simultaneously. Clearly, a
mapping c:PaxP.& ~ X corresponding to such a property should have the form
c(Pa,p.&)=a(Pa)rr&(p~). To complete the definition of this property we
should appropriately define a pair of dual pseudomeasures /i
c
and /i *c on
PaxP~, Clearly, these pseudomeasures should be such that their projections
onto B and B.& coincide Hith the respective pseudomeasures for properties
a
a and .&. In other words, for any 0a EBa , n b EB b He should have:

sup J1*(n a xn.e,} = J.1~(na)t

n EB c
a a

sup /i (n xO.&) = /i.&(n.&) , sup /i*maxn.&) = /i~m.&).

OEB c a nEB c
b b b b
Otherl.,ise, pseudomeasures /i c' /i *c can be chosen arbitrarily basing on the
meaning that we Hish to put into property c. Possible examples for
pseudomeasure /i c can be:

/i c( naxo.&) = min (/ia (n a ), /i.e. (n.&)} ,

/icmaxn~) = llama)·Il~(n.&),

As can easily be seen, the class of such feasible pseudomeasures includes

(but not limited to) those obtained from /ia(n a ) , /i.&(0.&) using any of the
T-norms widely discussed in the literature on fuzzy sets.
 121

References

1. S.A. Orlovski (1990). Decomposition of Properties and Definition

of Fuzzy Set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 37, 53-63.
2. G. Shafer (1981). Constructive Probability. Synthese 48, 1-59.
 MV ALGEBRAS IN THE TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY

ANTONIO DI NOLA
Mathematical Institute, Faculty of Architecture
University of Naples, via Monteoliveto 3
80134 Naples, Italy

1. INTRODUCTION
In their paper [29], Rose and Rosser gave a proof of the completeness
of the infinite-valued sentential calculus of Lukasiewicz. Their proof is
syntactic in nature. In two subsequent papers [7], [8], Chang introduced MV
algebras (many-valued algebras), and gave an algebraic proof of the
completeness theorem using these structures. Thus, MV algebras were
originally introduced as algebraic counterparts of many-valued logic, just as
Boolean algebras are the algebraic counterpart of classical, two-valued, logic.
Recently, however, MV algebras have found novel and surprising
applications, and today they are studied per se. As proved in [19], MV
algebras are categorically equivalent to abelian lattice-groups with strong unit.
They are also equivalent to bounded commutative BCK algebras [20], and to
several other mathematical structures. Composition with the Grothendieck
functor Ko yields a one-one correspondence between countable MY algebras and
approximately finite-dimensional (AF) C*-algebdls whose Murray von
Neumann ordering of projections is a lattice order. This correspondence has
many applications [10], [19], [21], [22], [23]. AF C*-algebras are the
mathematical counterpart of quantum spin systems.
Our aim in this paper is to survey the connections between MV
algebras and fuzzy set theory, and to see how MV algebras can be used in the
treatment of uncertainty. The present author proved that every MY algebra is
an algebra of nonstandard fuzzy sets, thus generalizing previously known
representation theorems stating that every semisimple MV algebra is an
algebra of fuzzy sets.

2. AXIOMS AND EXAMPLES

Among the many axiomatisations of MY-algebras, the following, due
to Mangani [17], is a particularly simple one: We say that a structure A = (A,
0, 1, *, . , $) is an MValgebra iff A satisfies the following equations

1. x· (y . z) = (x . y) . z
2. x· y = y . x
3. x· 0 = 0
4. x· I = x
5. 0* = 1
6. 1* = 0
7. (x*· y)* . y = (y* . x)* . x
8. x $ y = (x* . y*)*.
123
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.J, Fuzzy Logic, 123-131.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
124

If in equation 7 we replace y by 0 (resp., by I) we get from the

remaining equations 0 = x*·x (resp., x = x**). A tedious but straightforward
computation [19] then shows that Chang's original equations [7] are
equivalent to equations 1-8 above.
Let us now define on A the two new operations /\ and v as follows:
x /\ y = (x* . y)* . y and x v y = (x* Ef) y)* Ef) y. Then, as proved by
Chang- [7], the structure (A, 0, 1, /\, v) is abounded distributive lattice.
Thus, every MV algebra has a built-in order. The operations Ef) and· are
monotone with respect to this order, while the operation * is order reversing.
Further, for every x and y in A we have x· y ~ X/\ Y ~ X ~ X V Y ~
xEf)y.
Boolean algebras are precisely the MV algebras obeying the additional
equation x·x = x. Let B(A) = (x E A: x Ef) x = x} be the set of all
idempotent elements of A . Then B(A) is a subalgebra of A, which is also a
Boolean algebra-indeed, it is the largest Boolean subalgebra of A.

Example 1. Let A = [0, 1] be the real unit interval. For all x and y in A
define the operations of (Lukasiewicz) disjunction, conjunction, and negation
as follows:

xEf) y = min (1, x + y),

x'y = max (0, x + y - 1),
x* = 1 - x.

Then A is an MV algebra. By Theorem 4 below, up to isomorphism,

subalgebras of A exhaust all simple MV algebras (i.e., those MV algebras
having no nontrivial homomorphic images). The built-in lattice operations /\
and v here coincide with the max and min operations. Thus the natural
ordering of [0,1] is definable in terms of the MV operations. Unless
otherwise specified, in this paper [0,1] shall always denote the MV algebra
defined in the present example.

Example 2. Let X be a nonempty set. Then the set B = [0, I]K of all
[O,l]-valued functions over X, equipped with pointwise operations, is an
MV algebra. As we will see in Theorem 3, up to isomorphism, subalgebras
of B provide the most general possible examples of semisimple (i.e., having
zero intersection of maximal ideals) MValgebras.

Example 3. Two formulas J1 and 1C are said to be equivalent iff both J1

~ 1C and 1C ~ J1 are tautologies in the infinite-valued sentential calculus of
Lukasiewicz [31]. Then, as a consequence of Chang's completeness theorem
[8], the set F /( of equivalence classes of formulas over /( many variables is
naturally equipped with an MV structure, induced by the negation, disjunction
and conjunction connectives,_making F /( into the free MV algebra over /(
free generators. McNaughton [18] gave a fundamental representation theorem
of F /( as an MV algebra of piecewise linear continuous functions, each piece
 125

having integral coefficients. As a consequence, the variety of MV algebras

coincides with the variety HSP[O,I] generated by the MV algebra [0,1] of
Example 1. McNaughton gave a nonconstructive proof of his theorem. A
constructive proof was recently given in [27].

Example 4. With reference to [9], let U be a nonprincipal ultrafilter over a

set Y. Let [0,1]* = II U [0,1] be the ultrapower of [0,1] modulo U.
Then [0,1]* is a totally ordered MY algebra. As will be proved in Theorem
2, every MV algebra is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the MV algebra of all
[O,I]*-valuedfunctions over some set X.

Example 5. Generalizing Example I, and with reference to [5], let G be an

abelian lattice-ordered group with a distinguished strong unit u (i.e., an
element u;::: 0 such that for each x E G there is an integer n > 0 with x ::;
nu). Equip the unit interval [O,u] with the following operations: x* = u-x,
x EB y = U 1\ (x + y), and x· y = 0 v (x + y - 1). Then the structure r(G,u)
= ( [0,1], 0, I, *, EB,·) is an MY algebra. Conversely, as proved in [19],
every MValgebra arises in this way from a unique abelian lattice-group with
strong unit.

3. REPRESENTING MV-ALGEBRAS BY FUZZY SETS

. As MV-algebras form an equational class, the notions of MV
isomorphism, ideal (kernel of an homomorphism), quotient, subalgebra,
product, etc., are just the particular cases of the corresponding universal
algebraic notions [15]. An ideal ] of an MV algebra A is called prime iff
]:t:A and whenever x 1\ y E] then either x E ] or y E ]. Every maximal
ideal is prime, but not conversely. As noted by Chang [8], ] is prime iff
the quotient AI] is totally ordered; furthermore, the intersection of all prime
ideals is (O}. As an immediate consequence we have Chang's representation
theorem:

1. Theorem [8] Every MV algebra A is isomorphic to a subdirect product

oftotally ordered MV algebras.
Proof. Let Spec A be the set of all prime ideals of A. Then A is
canonically embeddable in the product II (AI] I] E Spec A}.
QED
This theorem shows the importance of totally ordered MY algebras.
Furthermore, Chang [8] discovered a correspondence between totally ordered
MV algebras and totally ordered abelian groups with strong unit u, as
follows:
-From (G,u) to A: Proceed as in Example 5.
-From A back to (G .u). Let At = A\( I}. Let Z be the additive group
of integers with natural ordering. Let G be obtained by taking Z many
copies of At, in symbols, G= (m,x)lmE Z,XE At). Equip Gwith
the following operations, ordering, and strong unit u:
126

-(m,x) = (-m-l, x*);

(m,x) + (n,y) = (m+n, xEBy) if xEBy < 1 in the MY order,
= (m+n+l, x-y) if xEBy = 1;
(m,x) :<;; (n,y) iff either m < n or (m=n and x:<;; y in the MY order);
u =(1,0).

Then the above two maps are each the inverse of the other; up to isomorphism,
they induce a one-one correspondence between totally ordered MV algebras and
totally ordered abelian groups with strong unit.
Generalizing this duality, Mundici proved in [19] that the restriction
functor rof Example 5 is a categorical equivalence between MV algebras and
abelian lattice-ordered groups with strong unit. Using the properties of r we
can now prove our main representation theorem:

2. Theorem [12] Up to isomorphism. every MV algebra A is an algebra

of [O,I]*-valuedfunctions over Spec A. for a suitable ultrapower [0,1]*
of the MV algebra [0,1].
Proof. As in Theorem 1, let us embed A into n (AI] I ] E Spec A}.
Recalling the properties of the functor r, let GJ be the totally ordered
abelian group with strong unit u] such that rc GJ ' uJ ) is isomorphic to
AI]. As remarked above, up to isomorphism, (G J ' uJ) is uniquely
determined. Canonically embed GJ into a totally ordered divisible abelian
group H J with the same strong unit uJ. Let D J be such that D J =
r(HJ ' uJ). The properties of r ensure that AI] is embeddable into
D J. Further, since any divisible totally orderd abelian group is elementarily
equivalent to the additive groups of real numbers with natural ordering [9,
5.4.10], DJ is elementarily equivalent to the MV algebra [0,1]. By the
Keisler-Shelah theorem [9, 6.1.15], AI] is elementarily embeddable in a
suitable ultrapower [0,1]* J of [0,1]. Another application of the Keisler-
Shelah theorem together with the joint embedding property [9,3.1.4], yields
an ultrapower [0,1]* such that each [0,1]*J is elementarily embeddable into
[0,1]*. Therefore, AI] is embeddable into [0,1]*, and the result follows.
QED
Thus, MY algebras yield an equational characterization of the notion
of nonstandard fuzzy sets [13]. As a particular case of Theorem 2, one
obtains the following representation theorem [8], [1] showing that semisimple
MY-algebras are the same as algebras of fuzzy sets:

3. Theorem Up to isomorphism. every semisimple MValgebra is an

algebra of [O,I]-valuedfunctions over some set.
The converse of Theorem 3 is trivial. As a further refinement, one
obtains the MY analogue of Holder's theorem for abelian lattice-groups [5]:

4. Theorem Up to isomorphism, simple MV algebras coincide with

subalgebras of [0,1].
 127

4. ULAM'S GAME AND THE LOGIC OF MV ALGEBRAS

In his book Adventures of a Mathematician [30], Ulam described a variant of a
familiar game, as follows:

Someone thinks of a number between one and one million (which

is just less than 220 ). Another person is allowed to ask up to
twenty questions, to each of which the first person is supposed to
answer only yes or no. Obviously the number can be guessed by
asking first: Is the number in the first half million? then again
reduce the reservoir of numbers in the next question by one-half,
and so on. Finally the number is obtained in less than log2
(1000000). Now suppose one were allowed to lie once or twice,
then how many questions would one need to get the right answer?

Ulam's game naturally fits in the theory of communication with noise and
feedback [4], and is important in coding theory [28], [11], [24]. Let us
identify the first player with Pinocchio, while author and reader are identified
with the second player. Pinocchio picks a number c within a certain set S.
We must discover c. During the game, Pinocchio is allowed to lie at most I
times.
Our state of knowledge after Pinocchio's answers Al , ,At is
completely described by a function s: S ~ (O, 1/(1+1),2/(1+1), , //(1+1),
I} where for each XES, the truth-value s(x) is the distance of x,
measured in units of 1+1, from the condition offalsifying too many answers.
Thus, s(x) = 0 iff x falsifies too many (i.e., ~ 1+1) answers; s(x) =
1/(1+1) iff x falsifies I answers, ... , s(x) = 1/(1+1) iff x falsifies only
one answer; s(x) = 1 iff x falsifies no answer.
As proved in [26], our current state of knowledge is uniquely
determined by the pointwise conjunction sl· ...·St of the single states of
knowledge Si determined by the answers Ai. In the context of Ulam's game,
the natural pointwise order r $; s simply means that state r is more
informative than state s. Using the negation operation, we can turn
inequations into equations by writing r . s* = 0 instead of r $; s.
Let U(I,S) be the set of states in Ulam's game with I lies and search
space S, equipped with the MV operations * and ., and with the
distinguished constant states 0 (the incompatible state) and 1 (the initial state).
Consider the problem of algorithmically obtaining all absolute inequations-
those inequations that hold in all algebras U(I,S) independently of I and S.
An instance of an absolute inequality is the following obvious principle: "the
conjunction of two states of knowledge is more informative than the first state
alone". By the above discussion, we can safely restrict attention to absolute
equations. Further, it is no loss of generality to introduce the disjunction
operation x Ef) y = (x* . y*)*. Examples of absolute equations are those stating
that conjunction and disjunction are associative and commutative.
128

Theorem [25] An equation is absolute iff it holds in [0,1] iff it holds in

[0,1] n Q, iff it holds for all MV algebras, iff it follows from the above
equations 1-8 via the rules ofequational logic.
Proof It is easy to see that an equation is absolute iff it holds in every finite
subalgebra of [0,1] iff it holds in [0,1] n Q iff it holds in [0,1]. Since, as
mentioned above, MV algebras are the variety generated by [0,1], the result
follows from Birkhoffs theorem for equational logic [15].
QED
As a consequence, a Turing. machine can decide the validity of
absolute inequalities in Ulam's game with lies. Since Ulam's game naturally
leads to equations 1-8, one may ask, conversely, to which extent MV algebras
are algebras of states in Ulam games. To this purpose, generalizing the basic
algebras U(l,S), let us first consider arbitrary MY algebras of continuous
[O,I]-valued functions over some compact Hausdorff space S . By Theorem 3,
these are precisely the MY algebras in which the intersection of all maximal
ideals is zero. In particular, every such MV algebra A has a built-in search
space S-its maximal ideal space-and the elements of A are [O,I]-valued
functions over S. A further (and last) generalization is provided by algebras of
[O,I]*-valued functions over S, where [0,1]* is the unit interval of a
nonstandard real line. By Theorem 2, this is the most general possible
example of an MV algebra. In 'other words, every MV algebra A is an
algebra of states ofknowledge in a nonstandard Ulam game.
Additional equations for the (l+2)-valued case were given by Grigolia
[16]; for instance, the MY algebras arising from Ulam's game with one lie
are those satisfying the extra axiom x· x . x = x . x (which can be read as a
sort of law of quarium non datur). An interesting fact, also discovered by
Grigolia in [16], is that for each l = 0, 1,2,..., the MV algebras arising from
Ulam's game with l lies can always be represented as algebras of continuous
{O, 1/(l+I), 2/(l+1), ... ,l/(l+1),1 }-valued functions over some totally
disconnected compact Hausdorff space. The particular case l =0 is known as
the Stone representation for Boolean algebras.
As already mentioned in the introduction, combining the functor r of
Example 5 with Grothendieck's functor K o , one can interpret yes-no
observables (projections) in AF C*-algebras as states of knowledge in
nonstandard Ulam games; the reader is referred to [25] for further details.

5. LATTICE-GROUPS AND PERFECT MV ALGEBRAS

There is an obvious interest in classifying MV algebras. We have already met
some classes of MV algebras: simple, semisimple, totally ordered. Say that
A is decomposable iff A is isomorphic to the product of two MY algebras
Al and A2. Otherwise, say that A is indecomposable. It follows from
Theorem 4 that every simple MY algebra is totally ordered and indecomposable.
The following is an important example of a totally ordered indecomposable
nonsirnple MV algebra
 129

Example [7]: Chang's algebra C.

Let Z be the totally ordered additive group of integers. Equip the
lexicographic product Z x Z with the strong unit u = (1,0). Then, by
definition, C = r(Z x Z, u). Stated otherwise, the MV algebra C consists
of an infinitesimal e, together with all its positive multiples ne, and the co-
infinitesimals I-ne. The negation operation * sends infinitesimals into co-
infinitesimals (and viceversa) in the natural way. The remaining MV
operations are also defined in the natural way. The set of infinitesimals is the
only maximal ideal of C. A moment's reflection shows that C is
indecomposable.

Local, perfect, and singular MValgebras.

We say that A is local iff A has precisely one maximal ideal. Local algebras
are interesting because, by Theorem 1 every MV algebra is a subdirect product

For each x E A, we write ord x < 00 iff for some integer n> °
of totally ordered MV algebras, and every totally ordered MV algebra is local.
we
have 1 =x <:B x <:B •••<:B x (n times). Otherwise, we write ord x =00. It is
not hard to see that A is local iff for every x E A either ord x < 00 or ord
x* < 00. If A is local its Boolean largest subalgebra B(A) coincides with the
two-element Boolean algebra (O,l). Further, as noted in [2], every local MV
algebra is indecomposable. The converse is not true, as shown by the example
of all continuous functions from the real line into [0,1].
To describe subclasses of local MV algebras, following [2] we say
that A is perfect iff for every x E A we have

ord x < 00 if, and only if, ord x* = 00.

Chang's algebra C is an example of a perfect algebra which is not a Boolean

algebra. Let Rad A denote the intersection of all maximal ideals of A. If
A is perfect then A = Rad A u (Rad A)*, where (Rad A)* = {x* I x E
RadA}.
Let us agree to say that A is singular iff there are x, yEA such
ord x < 00, ord y < 00 and 0'1:- X • Y E Rad A. Note that every ultrapower
of [0,1] modulo a nonprincipal ultrafilter is singular. In [2] we proved thatfor
every local MV algebra A 'I:- (O,l) exactly one of the following conditions
holds: A is perfect, A is singular, A is simple.
A source of interest in perfect MV-algebras also arises from topological
considerations. As a matter of fact, for every MV algebra A, the set Spec A
of prime ideals of A has the natural (hull-kernel) topology [1]. The resulting
topological space is called the spectral space of A. The r functor induces a
canonical homeomorphism between the spectral space of A and the spectral
space [5] of the corresponding abelian lattice-group with strong unit. As
shown in [3], Spec A is a disjoint union of compact connected spaces
arising as spectral spaces of perfect MV algebras.
The category P of perfect MV algebras is equivalent to the category
Ab of abelian lattice-groups. To see this, given an abelian lattice group G,
let Z x G be the lexicographic product of the additive totally ordered group of
integers with G. The element u = (1,0) is a strong unit of Z x G. The
130

MV algebra G(G)::: T(Z x G, u) is perfect. Rad G(G) is the set of all

elements of type (0, g) where g ranges over the positive cone of G.
Further, for every lattice group morphism VI: G ~ G' one has a canonical
homomorphism G(1jf) :G(G) ~ G(G'). In this way one gets a functor G
from Ab to P.
Conversely, to go back from P to Ab, given a perfect MY algebra
A ::: (A, 0, 1, *, Ef>, .) first note that (Rad A, 0, Ef» is an abelian
e
cancellative monoid. Let the congruence ~ Rad A x Rad A be defined
e
by the following stipulation: (x, y) (x', YJ iff x Ef> y' ::: x' Ef> y. By abuse
of notation, let [x,y] denote the equivalence class of (x,y) with respect to e.
For every p, q, r, s E Rad A define [p,q] + [r,s] ::: [pEf>r , qEf>s]. Further,
let us agree to say that [p, q ] $ [r, s] iff p Ef> s $ r Ef> q with respect to the
MY order of A. Both the operation + and the order relation $ are congruent
modulo e. Following common usage, we shall not introduce new symbols
to denote their counterparts on the quotient structure K::: (Rad A x Rad A) /
e. It follows from [6, XIV, § 2, p. 321] that the structure D(A)::: (K ,
+, $) is an abelian lattice-group. One can naturally transform every
homomorphism ':A ~ A' into a lattice-group morphism D(0: D(A) ~
DA'). In this way, D turns out to be a functor from Ab to P.
Combining the two functors D and G we finally obtain

Theorem [14] Perfect MV-algebras are categorically equivalent to abelian

lattice-groups.

REFERENCES
[1] L.P. Belluce, Semisimple algebras of infinite valued logic and boldfuzzy
set theory, Canadian J. Math., 38 (1986) 1356-1379.
[2] L.P. Belluce, A. Di Nola, A. Lettieri, Local MV-algebras, preprint.
[3] L.P. Belluce, A. Di Nola, S. Sessa, On the prime spectrum of MV-
algebras, preprint.
[4] E.R. Berlekamp, Block coding for the binary symmetric channel with
noiseless, delaylessfeedback, In: "Error Correcting Codes", Wiley, New York,
1968, pp.61-68.
[5] A.Bigard, K.Keimel, S.Wolfenstein, "Groupes et anneaux reticules",
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 608, 1977.
[6] G. Birkhoff, "Lattice Theory", Amer. Math. Soc. Colloquium Publ., Vol.
25, 1967.
[7] C.C. Chang, Algebraic analysis of many valued logics, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 88 (1958) 467-490.
[8] C.C. Chang, A new proof of the completeness of the Lukasiewicz
axioms, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 93 (1959) 74-80.
[9] C.c. Chang and H. J. Keisler, "Model Theory", North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1973.
[10] R. Cignoli, G. A. Elliott, D. Mundici, Reconstructing C*-algebras
from their Murray von Neumann orders, Advances in Mathematics, to appear.
[11] J. Czyzowicz, D. Mundici, A. Pelc, Ulam's searching game with lies,
J. Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 52 (1989) 62-76.
 131

[12] A. Di Nola, Representation and reticulation by quotients ofMV-algebras,

Ricerche eli Matematica (Naples), to appear.
[13] A. Di Nola, G. Gerla,Non-standardfuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
18 (1986) 173-181.
[14] A. Di Nola, A. Lettieri, Perfect MV-algebras are categorically equivalent
to abelian l-groups, preprint.
[15] G. Gratzer, "Universal Algebra", 2nd ed., Springer Verlag, New York,
1979.
[16] R. Grigolia, Algebraic analysis of Lukasiewicz-Tarski n-valued logical
systems, In: "Selected Papers on Lukasiewicz Sentential Calculi" (R.
Wojcicki and G. Malinowski, Editors), Polish Acad. of Sciences,
Ossolineum, Wroclaw, 1977, pp. 81-92.
[17] P. Mangani, On certain algebras related to many-valued logics (Ital.),
Bollettino Unione Matematica Italiana, (4) 8, (1973) 68-78.
[18] R. McNaughton, A theorem about infinite-valued sentential logic,
Journal of Symbolic Logic, 16 (1951) 1-13.
[19] D. Mundici, Interpretation of AF C*-algebras in Lukasiewicz sentential
calculus, J. Functional Analysis, 65 (1986) 15-63.
[20] D. Mundici, MV-algebras are categorically equivalent to bounded
commutative BCK-algebras, Math. Japonica, 31 (1986) 889-894.
[21] D.Mundici, Farey stellar subdivisions, ultrasimplicial groups, and Ko of
AF C*-algebras, Advances in Mathematics, 68 (1988) 23-39.
[22] D. Mundici, Free products in the category of abelian l-groups with
strong unit, Journal of Algebra, 113 (1988) 89-109.
[23] D. Mundici, The C*-algebras of three-valued logic, In: "Proceedings
Logic Colloquium '88, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of
Mathematics", North-Holland, Amsterdam (1989) pp.61-77.
[24] D. Mundici, The complexity of adaptive error-correcting codes, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 533 (1991) 300-307.
[25] D. Mundici, Ulam games, Lukasiewicz logic, and AF C*-algebras,
Fundamenta Informaticae, to appear.
[26] D. Mundici, The logic of Ulam's game with lies, "Cambridge Studies
in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory", to appear.
[27] D. Mundici, A constructive proof of McNaughton's theorem, to appear.
[28] A. Pelc, Solution of Ulam's problem on searching with a lie, J.
Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 44 (1987) 129-140.
[29] A. Rose, J. B. Rosser, Fragments of many-valued statement calculi,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 87 (1958) 1-53.
[30] S. M. Ulam, "Adventures of a Mathematician", Scribner's, New York,
1976, p.281.
[31] A. Tarski, J. Lukasiewicz, Investigations into the sentential calculus, In:
"Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics", Oxford University Press 1956, pp.38-
59. Reprinted by Hackett Publishing Company, 1981.
 AN ALGEBRAIC APPROACH TO
REASONING WITH
CONDITIONAL INFORMATION
Hung T. Nguyen
Department of Mathematical Sciences
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003 - USA
and
LIFE Chair of Fuzzy Theory
Department of Systems Science
Tokyo Institute of Technology
4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-Ku
Yokohama 227 - JAPAN

Abstract. This paper is a survey ~f some basic aspects of condi-

tional reasoning under uncertainty. It reflects the recent attempt to
put three-valued logics on a firm mathematical basis. It is natural but
radically different from other existing approaches. Specifically, con-
ditionals are modelled mathematically as intervals in Boolean rings,
and then numerical uncertainties such as probabilities and fuzziness
are attached to them.

1. Introduction.
In view of the successes of knowledge-based systems in general,
and of fuzzy systems in particular, in industrial applications, it is
time to look at two fundamental. problems: explaining the reasons
of their successes and providing more basic tools for further develop-
ments.
For the first problem, the state-of-the-art is this. In a sense, we
are facing the old and well-known problem of approximation offunc-
tions, but from a constructive viewpoint. Neural networks, e.g. as
learning devices, are nothing more than a neat way of constructing
133
R. LowenandM. Raubens(eds.), FuuyLogic. 133,-142.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
134

approximators. As such, their formalism is justified by Kolmogorov's

work on Hilbert's thirteenth problem. In view of approximation the-
ory and functional analysi~, researchers turn to basic and well-known
results in mathematics: searching for dense subsets of the space of
continuous functions, e.g. via Stone-Weierstrass approximation the-
orem. Now, the analogy between neural networks and fuzzy systems
is apparent: instead of connections and associated weights, one has
"if ... then" rules expressed in natural language; instead of combining
operators, one has fuzzy logics; and instead of, say, sigmoid squashing
functions, one has, say, defuzzification procedures, in fuzzy control.
Thus, it is not surprising at all that theoretical justifications in the
field of neural networks (connectionism) can be easily transferred to
fuzzy systems. Hence, as in neural networks, it can be shown that
fuzzy systems are universal approximators.
For the second problem, namely providing more basic tools, it
should be based upon at least two issues:

(i) Heuristic and non-rigorous inference procedures can be improved

by appropriate new mathematical tools;

(ii) While it seems premature to predict, say, a mathematical theory

of fuzzy control, comparable to stochastic control theory, it is
however a mandate to examine desired properties of a system
such as stability, robustness, etc.

In this paper, we discuss one problem in issue (i). Since issue

(ii) will be discussed elsewhere, let us say a few words about it here.
We are aware of one attempt to formalize the concept of robustness
of neural networks. While, in statistics, the need to consider robust
inference procedures stems from the fact that observed data might
contain outliers, or, as in Bayesian statistics, the knowledge of prior
distributions might not be completely specified, the problem of ro-
bustness in neural networks has something to do with the design of
the networks. Specifically, an approximation, a neural net design is
a function of several parameters, such as activation functions, con-
nection weights, combining functions. As such, it is desirable that
the network remains "stable" under small perturbations of these pa-
rameters.
In our view, a similar problem can be addressed as far as fuzzy
systems are concerned. Indeed, showing that fuzzy systems are uni-
 135

versal approximators is beautiful but incomplete. This result merely

tells us that fuzzy systems contain all necessary ingredients for an
approximation task. However, like neural networks, their designs
depend on various choices of factors, such as membership functions
(modeling linguistic rules), logical operations in fuzzy logics, and de-
fuzzification procedures. As an example, in a control task, a system
can be judged as satisfactory if small perturbations of the above de-
sign factors should not produce large deviations from a good control
output. From a mathematical standpoint, robustness is a continu-
ity property of maps. Therefore, to formalize this problem rigor-
ously, we need topologies. One obvious perturbation is due to the
subjectivity in choosing membership functions of fuzzy concepts (in
linguistic rules). To this regard, it is well-known that, in compar-
ing various formalisms for uncertainty management, numerical and
symbolic, the production of membership functions is viewed as a po-
tential disadvantage of the fuzzy logic approach. A moment of reflec-
tion should reveal that fuzzy concepts are primitive and have char-
acteristics such as shapes. The flexibility of subjectively assigning
membership functions to a given fuzzy concept should be somehow
guided by "common sense" or its characteristics. An ambitious task
would be proposing a general enough mathematical formula which
can explain how people derive membership functions of fuzzy con-
cepts. We intend to investigate this issue, using fuzzy measures, in
the near future. All that should constitute foundations for defin-
ing appropriate topologies leading to a rigorous formalization of the
problem of robustness in fuzzy systems.

2. Conditional propositions.
As stated in the Introduction, the rest of this paper is devoted
to an investigation into the possibility of using algebraic logic as a
mathematical foundation for reasoning with conditional and uncer-
tain information in knowledge-based systems.
In view of Stone's representation theorem, we represent proposi-
tions (in some language) by a Boolean algebra R of subsets of some
set n. Elements of R are denoted as a, b, ... j usual set operations are
1\ (or· for intersection), V (union), (.)' (complementation), + (sym-
metric difference or "exclusive or"), and 0,1 sometimes denotes the
empty set (/) and n, respectively. The truth space is the Boolean al-
136

gebra {a, I}. If we represent our knowledge by a probability measure

P on R, then we have an associated (non-truth functional) proba-
bility logic. We can also use the conditional probability P( a I b) to
represent the uncertainty in the rule "a given b", as in probabilistic
networks. But when doing so, the rule cannot be interpreted as ma-
terial implication b'v a. The search for another implication operator
on R is hopeless in view of Lewis' triviality result. In other words,
a conditional proposition of the form "a given b" or "if b then a"
cannot be an element of R. This reminds us of a situation in testing
of statistical hypotheses: when the statistical population is discrete,
we have to consider randomized tests. Identifying a rejection region
with its indicator function, we are led to generalize two-valued indi-
cator functions to three-valued functions. The rejection region in a
randomized test is a sort of a generalized set with a "grey" region.
It turns out that the mathematical definition of the (measure-free)
conditional (a I b) can be formulated exactly in the same way. Specif-
ically:
(a I b): n -+ {O,u,l},
where
° if wE a'b
(a I b)(w) =
{ u (undefined) if wEb'
1 if wE ab
It also turns out that this intuitive idea is the correct one. By this we
mean the following. If we are going to search for a map of f : R2 -+
some space S, such that f is probability compatible, in the sense
that: for any probability measure P on R, the assignment P( a I b)
to f( a, b) is unambiguous, then necessarily f( a, b) = (a I b) in the
above sense.
Now, it is obvious that (a I b) can have several equivalent repre-
sentations. The simplest one is the following. Recall that the partial
order ~ on R is set-inclusion, and by abuse of language, we call a
(closed) "interval" [a,b] in R the set

{x E R: a ~ x ~ b}.

It is not hard to verify that (a I b) can be identified with lab, b'va].

In fact, any closed interval [a, b] represents a conditional, namely
(a I b'v a) since a.~ b. Thus, the above space S is precisely the class
 137

of all closed intervals in R i where [a, a] = a. This space contains

strictly R. We call S the conditional space and denote it by R I R.

3. Conditional logics.
Having specified each conditional proposition as a collection of
ordinary propositions, we are going to investigate the algebraic struc-
ture of the conditional space R I R. First, note that, if we take R =
{O, I}, then R I R is the three-element set {(Oil), (0 I 0), (Ill)}. It
is no longer a Boolean algebra. This can be seen even in the general
case
R I R = {[a,b]: a,b E R,a:::; b}.
If we extend the partial order :::; on R to RI R by

[a, b] :::; [e, d] if and only if a :::; e and b :::; d,

then R I R is a bounded, distributive lattice, where the zero is [0,0],

and the 1 is [1,1]. However R I R is not complemented since if a:::; b
then b' :::; a', where since

sup([a, b], [e,dj) = [a V e,bV d],

inf([a, b], [c, dj) = [ac, bd],

the extended V, /\ on R I Rare

[a,b] V [c,d] = [a V c,bv d]

[a,b] /\ [c,d] = [ac,bd].
Now, observe that
[a, b] /\ [b' , b' ] = [0,0]
(recall that a :::; b); and if

[a, b] /\ [c, d] = [0,0]

then [e,d] :::; [b',b ' ]. Thus [a,b]* = [b',b ' ] is a pseudo-complement of
[a,b]. Moreover, it is easy to verify that

[a, b]** = [b' , b' ]* = [b, b]

so that
[a, b]* V [a, b]** = [1,1],
138

i.e., the Stone identity holds. Such an algebraic structure is known

as a Stone algebra, generalizing Boolean rings. In fact, this is a very
special Stone algebra. Specifically, its skeleton and dense set are R
and
{[a, 1]: a E R}
respectively, and hence are isomorphic. Thus the counterpart of
Stone's representation theorem for abstract Boolean rings should be
restricted to this special class of Stone algebras.
Consider the truth space

{O,l} I {O,l} = {[O,O], [0,1], [1, I]}.

We can immediately write down truth tables corresponding to the
logical conntctives 1\, V, 0* and (a I b)' = (at I b). The situation for
general R I R is the same. Thus, as in classical two-valued logic, we
obtain a truth-functional three-valued logic. It turns out that this
semantic is precisely Lukasiewicz' three-valued logic.

4. Fuzzy conditionals.
The above syntax development for conditionals can be extended
to fuzzy conditionals in various ways. Since we have probability
compatibility condition in mind, we will explore the following path.
First, by a fuzzy conditional we mean an implicative statement
of the form "if B then A" where A, B are fuzzy concepts expressed
in a natural language. The numerical modeling of a fuzzy concept
can be described as follows. A fuzzy concept is a property of some
collection of individuals or objects. For example, A = "tall (men)".
Here, A is related to the population M of men. Some elements of M
do not possess the property A, while others share it but in different
fashions. Quantifying these differences in sharing A leads to the
concept of membership function. Specifically, since in this example,
we are in fact talking about height, we can replace M by the range
of this variable, say, H = [0,10]. For each x E [0,10], we assign a
value f( x) E [0,1], expressing the degree to which x is "compatible"
with A. How to obtain f(·) is the most difficult theoretical question!
At the application level, there are several ways to obtain f(·), either
by common sense (subjective) or by a "frequency" approach.
The following connection with probability concepts might suggest
a clue! If f : H -+ [0,1] is given, then we can see that f is obtained
 139

in the following way.

Let a : (0, B, P) --. [0,1] be a random variable, uniformly dis-
tributed. Pick a point randomly in [0,1], say a(B), and consider the
level set
fa(B) = {h E H : f(h) ~ a(O)}.
We have,
Vh E H, f(h) = P{O : hE S(O)}
where S (.) is the random set 0 --. f a( B).
Of course, given a random set S in H (defined on some probabil-
ity space (0, B, P)), the above one-point coverage function formally
defines a membership function.
Now, it seems that the above procedure is too special in that we
choose uniform random variables and level sets. However, it does
suggest that the process of assigning a membership function f to a
fuzzy concept A has the above pattern with possibly the difference
that P need not be always a probablity measure. Specifically, to
obtain f, one chooses a set-valued mapping S and a set-function P
(or appropriate spaces) and consider

f(h) = P{O : h E S(O)}.

The set-function P might be required simply as a non-decreasing
map, Le., for a, b subsets of 0 such that a ::; b, one has pea) ::; P(b)
(and together with P(0) = 0, P(0) = 1). Such set-functions are
known in the literature as fuzzy measures.
For the time being, let's consider the probabilistic representation
of membership functions, and fuzzy concepts represented as "fuzzy
subsets" of a set n. Let f, 9 denote membership functions of A, B,
respectively, and U, V denote uniformly distributed random variables
associated with f, g, as above. If we denote by F a copula (i.e. a
joint distribution of (U, V) on the unit square), then

P(U::; few) I V::; g(w)) = F(j(w),g(w))jg(w)

when g(w) i: o.
Thus a fuzzy conditional (A I B) can be defined as

(A I B)(w) = {F(j(W),g(W))jg(W) ~f g(w) i: a

[0,1] rfg(w)=O.
140

For example, one might take F(x, y) = min(x, y).

Now, for each t E [0,1], define

(J I gMw) = {tlT(W) II:

f
f °
g(w) =I
g(w)=O.
We have that

(A I B)(w) = (J I g)(w) = {(J I gMw): t E [0, I]}.

The probabilistic semantic evaluation of (J I g) is generalized from
the following considerations.
In probability logic, the base space is a Boolean ring R, and the
semantic evaluation of the indicator function la' a E R, in the model
P, is
Ilialip = Ep(la(~)) = P(a),
where ~ is a random variable with law P on n. When f : n -. [0,1] is
a fuzzy event, then Ilfll p = Ep(J(~)). It is suggested in the literature
that P( a I b) = 1Ir.p( a I b)I!p where r.p(a I b) denotes the generalized
indicator function of the conditional (a I b):

if wE ab
'1'( a I b)(w) ~{ ~ if wE a'b
if wEb'.
But if we let
if wE ab
'1',( a I b)( w) ~{ ~ if wE a'b
if wEb'
then, taking u = [0, 1], we have

r.p(a I b)(.) = {r.pt(a I b)(·): t E [0, I]},

and
Ep(r.pt(a I b)(~)) = P(ab) + tP(b').
Thus P( a I b) is precisely the fixed point of the map t -. Ep( r.pt( a I
b)(O)·
Hence, we can take II(J I g)lIp to be the fixed point of the map
t -. Ep((J I gM~)) which is, in the case of F(x,y) = min(x,y),

Ep(f /\ 9 (0 I g(~) > 0).

9
 141

Selected Bibliography.

[1] Clark, D.A. (1990). Numerical and symbolic approaches to un-

certainty management in AI. Art. Intell. Review (4), 109-145.

[2] Coletti, G., Gilio, A. and Scozzafava, R. (1990). Conditional

events with vague information in expert systems. Proceedings
Third IPMU, Paris, 37-39.

[3] Cotter, N.E. (1990). The Stone-Weierstrass theorem and its ap~
plication to neural networks. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks
(4), 290-295.

[4] Diamond, P. and Fomanko, I. (1991). Robustness and univer-

sal approximation in multilayer feedforward neural networks.
Preprint.

[5] Funahashi, K. (1989). On the approximate realization of con-

tinuous mappings by neural networks. Neural Networks (2),
183-192.

[6] Goodman, I.R. and Nguyen, H.T. (1985). Uncertainty Models

for Knowledge-Based Systems, North-Holland.

[7] Goodman, I.R., Nguyen, H.T. and Walker, E.A. (1991). Condi-
tional Inference and Logic for Intelligent Systems: A Theory
of Measure-Free Conditioning, North-Holland.

[8] Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M. and White, H. (1989). Multila.yer

feedforward networks are universal approximations. Neural
Networks (2), 359-366.

[9] Kosko, B. (1992). Fuzzy systems as universal a.pproximators.

Proceedings First IEEE-Fuzzy Systems, San Diego, CA, 1153-
1162.

[10] Kreinovick, V. et al (1992). What non-linearity to choose?

Mathematical foundations of fuzzy control. Preprint.

[11] Lorentz, G. (1966). Approximation of Functions. Holt, Rine-

hart and Winston.
142

[12] Orlovski, -S.A. (1991). Calculus of properties and fuzzy sets.

Proceedings Fourth IFSA, Vol. Mathematics, 153-156.

[13] Schay, G. (1968). An algebra of conditional events. J. Math.

Anal. Appl. (24),334-344.

[14] Vitushkin, A.G. (1977). On Representation of functions by

means of superposition and related topics. L'Enseign. Math.
II, Series 23, 255-320.

[15] Wang, L.X. (1992). Fuzzy systems are universal approximators.

Proceedings First IEEE-Fuzzy Systems, San Diego, CA, 1163-
1170.

[16] Zadeh, L.A. (1968). Probability measures of fuzzy events. J.

Math. Anal. Appl. (23),421-427.
 Empirical Possibility and
Minimal Information Distortion
Cliff Joslyn * t

Abstract
In order to successfully apply possibility theory to the study of physi-
cal systems, there is a need for methods of taking measurements on them
which yield data governed by possibility theory. Set-based statistics are
used to generate empirically derived random sets. Normal possibility dis-
tributions are available for consistent random sets, and a set of focused
consistent transformations is available for inconsistent random sets. The
Principle of Uncertainty Invariance is modified to provide a method which
selects that consistent transformation with Minimal Information Distor-
tion from the measured random set.

Possibilistic Models and Measurement

A model of a system results from the establishment of a homomorphic rela-
tion between the modeling system and the object system which it models [24].
Models may be deterministic, or may include representations of uncertainty.
Probabilistic models are a staple of classical information theory [22], while pos-
sibilistic models l have been developed [14].
The homomorphic relation of a model involves two measurement oper-
ations taken on the object that yield data. These measurements correspond
to initialization of the modeling system based on the state of the object, and
then corroboration of the validity of the model's predictions against the future
states of the object. In the context of models with uncertainty, the measured
data must conform to the formalism of the uncertainty method being used.
Measurement is a fundamentally semantic relation: measurement proce-
dures are not necessarily determined from the mathematical methods used, but
rest on further pragmatic considerations. While the mathematical syntax of
possibility theory is well established [4], its semantics are still far from such a
state, leaving insufficient methods for measurement in possibilistic models:
'Graduate Fellow, Systems Science, SUNY-Binghamton, 327 Spring St. # 2,
Portland ME, 04102, USA, (207) 774-0029, cjoslyn&bingsuns. cc. binghamton. edu,
joslyn@kong.gsIc.nasa.gov.
tSupported under NASA Grant # NGT 50757.
1 In this paper it will be understood that the terms "possibility value", "possibility distri-
bution", "possibility", "possibilistic", etc. are synonymous with "membership grade", "mem-
bership function", "fuzzy", etc. as appropriate.
143
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 143-152.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
144

Membership has a clear-cut formal definition. However, explicit

requirements for its empirical/experimental measurement are still
missing. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that apart
from first steps ... genuine measurement structures have not yet
been developed. [28, p. 344]

Traditional uses of possibility theory are based on the assumption that while
probabilistic randomness can be measured and applied in the physical world,
possibilistic nonspecificity is a result of human psychology, perception, and de-
scription [27]. This presumption has many consequences. First, the semantics
of fuzziness and possibility have been overwhelmingly dominated by "linguis-
tic variables" and similar concepts which attempt to model the subjectivity
of people. Similarly, there is a preponderance of measurement methods which
derive possibility values from the opinions of people (for example, "experts" in
some field) [21, 28]. Lacking even this level of method, ad hoc possibility dis-
tributions are posited without formal justification (e.g. [9]). Finally, sometimes
the issue of possibilistic measurement is avoided altogether by taking stochastic
frequency data and then converting it to a possibilistic form [3, 16].
Second, while traditional (probabilistic) information theory was developed
in close relation to the physics of many-body problems and thermodynamic
systems [1], applications of possibilistic models are overwhelmingly in the areas
of "knowledge" or "informational engineering" such as knowledge-based control
systems, approximate reasoning, and decision support. Even in those attempts
to apply possibilistic methods to the theory or modeling of natural, physical
systems, data is predominantly collected on the basis of opinion (e.g. [9]).2
We are concerned with developing possibilistic models of physical systems.
Thus we require measurement methods which use empirically derived data, and
a semantics of possibility which is not wedded to human psychology. This paper
discusses a method by which an empirically derived random set can generate
a possibility distribution (see also [11, 13]). In another paper [12] we discuss
measurement techniques that can generate such random sets.

Mathematical Preliminaries
We begin with the standard Dempster-Shafer evidence and possibility theo-
ries [4, 18]. Given a finite universe n = {Wi}, 1 ~ i ~ n, we will call a
set function m: 20 ....... [0,1] an evidence function 3 when m(0) 0 and =
LACO m(A) = 1. Denote a random set generated from an evidence func-
tion as S = {( A j , mj ) : mj > O}, where ( .) is a vector, A j C n, mj = m(A j ),
and 1 ~ j ~ lSI ~ 2n - 1. We also denote the focal set F = {Aj: mj > O}
and the core C(S) = n:F
A j . S is consistent when C(S) =f. 0. The dual
belief and plausibility measures on 'VA C n are Bel(A) =
LAjCA mj and
PI(A) = LAjnA;e0 mj. We denote the plausibility assignment of S as
PI = {PI({w;} ) ) = {PI;}.
2 Although there are some exceptions [23].
3Frequently called a "basic assignment" or "basic probability assignment".
 145

Klir and Ramer [20] identify two complementary uncertainty measures on

random sets. The first is the discord,

which measures the ambiguity of S in terms of the amount of discrepancy among

the evidential claims mj.4 The second is the nonspecificity,

lSI
N(S) =L mj log2(IAj I),
j=1

which measures the "spread" of the evidence. The total uncertainty of

a random set is then given by T(S) = D(S) + N(S). We have that 1 ~
D(S), N(S), T(S) ~ log2(n).
When VAj E F, IAjl = 1, then S is specific, and Pr(Aj) = Bel(Aj) =
Pl(A j ) is an additive probability measure. Pr generates a probability dis-
tribution p = PI = (Pi) with additive normalization L:i Pi = 1. The infor-
mation measures then are D(S) = H(S) = - L:i Pi log2(Pi), where H is the
stochastic entropy, and N(S) = O.
S is consonant (F is a nest) when (without loss of generality for ordering,
and letting A o = 0) A j - 1 C Aj. Now IT(Aj ) = Plj is called a possibility
measure. As Pr is additive, so II is "maximal" in the sense that IT j Aj ) = (U
V j IT(A j ), where V is the maximum operator. Denoting Ai = {W1,W2,'" ,w;},
and assuming that F is complete (i.e. VWi E n,3Ai), then if PI (1I"i) = =
is a possibility distribution with maximal normalization Vi 1I"i = 1. For
information measures, letting 1I"n+1 = 0, we have [7]:

D(S) = - E(1I"i -
,=1
1I"i+d log2 [1- ti
k=,+1
k(:~ 1)]
N(S) = ~1I"ilOg2 [i~ 1] = ~(1I"i -1I"i+1)log2(i).
It has been established [7] that in this case D(S) is bounded from above with
limlsl __ oo < 0.892. Hence, possibility measures are almost discord free; their
discord may often be neglected, especially when lSI is large.

Traditional Measurement Procedures

As discussed above, data gathering in possibilistic modeling has been dominated
by two kinds of methods.
4Further refinements of the discord measure are currently being developed [19].
146

Opinion-Based Methods
There are various means by which possibility distributions are derived from
the opinions of people. Sometimes a certain distribution is simply asserted
based on the opinion of the researcher and the theoretical, methodological,
or other ad hoc considerations which they bring to bear on the problem, e.g.
[9]. In other cases people who have expert knowledge of the modeled system
are submitted to sophisticated polling techniques to provide their opinions of
the possibility values, e.g. [28, pp. 344-349]. Another common technique is
called "fuzzification", in which measured crisp data is compared against a set
of possibility distributions determined from some opinion method, and then
aggregated to give an overall distribution of the measured data, e.g. [10].
No doubt there are situations in which such metlrods are either necessary
or completely sufficient. For example, these methods are natural and useful
when people control and intervene in system operation, and so psychological
disposition is a serious factor. In other circumstances, there is a good theory of
the system being modeled and little or no access to physical measurement. But
these methods are unsatisfactory at best for the modeling of physical systems or
other systems in which individuals do not provide direct input. Where possible,
data should be derived from physical measurements in a manner which directly
captures the possibilistic nature of that data.

Converted Frequencies
In stochastic models, observations are made of the occurrence of one or another
outcome Wi. Denoting that count of these occurrences as Ci, then for a given
total count of M, we can arrive at a frequency distribution I: Q 1-+ [0,1], I(wi) =
f
Ii = cd M. Denoted as a vector, = (Ii ) is a natural probability distribution
with normalization 2::i Ii = 1 and additive measure F: 211 1-+ [0,1], given by the
formula 'VA C Q, F(A) = 2:: w iEA Ii.
A variety of methods are available which convert an observed frequency dis-
tribution f to a possibility distribution if [3,16]. But there can be no doubt that
f is in fact a natural probability distribution. There may be a good conversion
f:::} if, and surely such a transformation must be used when only frequency
data are available. But the representation if is never ultimately appropriate for
the data gathered by a frequency distribution f. It is preferable to obtain data
in a form more directly similar to the ultimate possibilistic representation.

Set-Based Statistics
In a possibilistic model, data are governed by possibility distributions and pos-
sibilistic reasoning methods. While the semantics of probabilistic reasoning is
based on the notions of likelihood, chance, tendency, propensity, and frequency,
the semantics of possibilistic reasoning derives from notions such as similarity,
compatibility, capacity, intensity, and "degree of ease" [25].
Therefore this method begins with the use of set-based statistics [6].
Instead of counting outcomes of the W E Q, outcomes of subsets A C Q are
 147

counted. An observation of a subset A C n indicates an event somewhere in A.

Thus whenever IAI > 1, the observation is somewhat non-specific.
We note that while researchers strive to achieve specific observations, and
are frequently successful, nevertheless subset observations are quite normal. In
particular, subset observations result whenever the sensitivity of an instrument
results in either the recording of a range or error-bars attached to a point
measurement. This issue and other measuring methods which generate set-
based statistics are discussed in [12].
Denote the count of a subset A by CA. Then a frequency function on subsets
can be constructed as frl:2 rl f-t [0,1], with frl(Aj) = ff = cAlM. jn is a
natural evidence function generating an empirically derived random set denoted
as SE with focal set :FE. When SE is specific, in = f

Consonance, Consistency, and Inclusion

The results in this section are adapted from Dubois and Prade [5]. Given an
empirically derived random set SE, we are now concerned with its plausibility
assignment PI, and with deriving an empirical possibility distribution if based
on it. It is clear that SE being specific is necessary and sufficient for PI to be
stochastically normal (I:i Pl i = 1), and thus a probability distribution. But
SE being consonant is not necessary for PI to be a possibility distribution. We
have this result:
Theorem 1 SE is consistent iff Vi PI; = 1.
Therefore it is random set consistency, not the stronger condition of consonance,
which is necessary and sufficient for PI to be a possibility distribution if.
Each possibility distribution if determines a possibility measure II according
to the formula VA C n, II(A) = VwiEA 1I"i, and thus also determines a consonant
random set constructed from II and denoted as S7r. If SE is consistent but not
consonant, then while PI = if and Vi PI = 1, still :JAl, A 2 , PI(A 1 U A 2 ) #
PI(A 1 ) V PI(A 2). Thus in this case SE # S7r, and the original random set SE
cannot be constructed simply from knowledge of the distribution if.
However, we have the following result, again from [5].
Definition 1 (Weak Random Set Inclusion) A random set SI is weakly
included in S2, denoted SI C W S2, when VA C n, Pl1 (A) S PI2(A).

Definition 2 (Optimal Weak Inclusion) A random set SI is optimally weakly

included in S2, denoted 8 1 C:;, S2 when SI C W S2 and SI is the maximal such
random set with respect to the partial ordering C w .

Theorem 2 If SE is consistent, then S7r C:;, SE.

=
Thus, for a consistent, non-consonant SE, we know that PI if is a possibility
:listribution, and that the reconstructed random set S7r is an optimal approx-
imation to SE accordin~ to this measure. Therefore we accept consistency as
3. sufficient criteria to generate a possibility distribution if from a random set
SE.
148

Consistent Transformations
In a consistent random set, all the evidential claims are in partial agreement,
since they all include the core. If F is a nest, then C(S) = A l E F. Therefore
a consistent random set is in some sense a "partial" nest, and it is appropriate
to consider possibility distributions which approximate SE.
But when SE is not even consistent, then it is less clear what a good pos-
sibilistic approximation to it might be. However, SE will need to be modified
from its given form, and in a way which distorts the original structure as little
as possible. We begin with the following definitions:
Definition 3 (Consistent Transformation) A consistent transformation of
a random set S, denoted S 1-+ S with focal set:F and evidence function m, moves
some evidential claims (A, m) E S to A E :F such that A C A.
Since A C A, all the evidence of the old claim is accounted for in the new
claim A. We also have that S C W S, and N(S) ~ N(S). However, sometimes
D(S) ~ D(S), and sometimes D(S) 2: D(S).·
Definition 4 (Focused Consistent Transformations) A consistent trans-
formation focused on Wi E Q of a random set S, denoted S 1-+ Si with focal
set:Fi and evidence functio-d m i , moves '</ Aj E F the evidence mj from Aj to
A j U {w;} E :Fi.
There is a family of n random sets Si' one for each Wi E Q. For a given A j , if
Wi (/. Aj, then m(Aj ) becomes zero while the evidence for Aj is added to the
evidence of the "promoted" subset A j U {w;}; whereas if Wi E A j , then it is
unchanged. Now since '</Aj E :Fi,wi E Aj, therefore all the Si are consistent
with normal possibility distributions, and generating consonant random sets.
When C(S) = 0, then the effect of each Si is to create a core C(Si) {w;} =
with the evidential claims in S concentrated on the focus Wi. What is required
is a method to choose the "correct" focus for a given S.
We have the following results:
Theorem 3
mi(Aj) ={ om,j + m(Aj - {W;}) , Wi E Aj
wi(/.Aj
Proof: Let Wi and Aj be fixed. We can consider the losses, gains, and retentions
of the evidence forA j under the transformation S 1-+ Si. The only losses will
occur if Wi (/. Aj , in which case mj is lost. If Wi E A j then mj is retained.
Finally, Aj will receive gains from any A k such that A k =
A j U {w;}. This is
=
only true for A k A j (considered in the case of retention) or Ak A j - {Wi}. =
Case 1: Let Wi (/. A j . Then we have the loss of mj, no retention, and since
Aj - {w;} = Aj, no gains. Therefore mi(Aj) =
O. Case 2: Let Wi E Aj.
Then we have no losses, mj is retained, and we gain m(Aj - {w;}). Therefore
mi(Aj) = mj + m(Aj - {w;}) . •
Theorem 4 S 1-+ Si induces the transformation:
PI= (Ph, PI2 ,· .. , P4, ... , PI".) 1-+ if = (Ph, PI2 , •.. , 1, ... , PI".)
Proof: See [13].
 149

Principles of Reasoning with Uncertainty

Klir has advanced three principles for reasoning with uncertain systems [17].
These are the principles of Minimum Uncertainty, Maximum Uncertainty, and
Uncertainty Invariance.

Principle of Minimum Uncertainty: This is an arbitration principle to be

used in simplification or approximation problems. It says that that solu-
tion with minimal uncertainty should be chosen so as to loose the least
possible amount of information.
Principle of Maximum Uncertainty: This principle is used in the context
of inductive or ampliative reasoning, when it is necessary to extrapolate
beyond available information. It says that that solution with maximal
uncertainty should be chosen, so that it is maximally noncommittal with
regard to missing information.
Principle of Uncertainty Invariance: This principle is used when translat-
ing a problem from one formalism to another, for example probability to
possibility, and requires that the quantity of uncertainty as measured in
each formalism be preserved under the transformation.

In the context of probabilistic systems, the Principle of Maximum Uncer-

tainty has had wide application as the Principle of Maximum Entropy [26];
and both the maximum and minimum entropy principles have been developed
extensively by Christensen [2].

Minimal Information Distortion

In the present situation, we are interested in transforming evidence represented
in the random set SE to a consistent random set denoted S· , that is, assuming
that SE is not itself consistent. In this context, then, we want to apply the
Principle of Uncertainty Invariance to derive S· with uncertainty equal to that
of SE. Therefore we can state the following manifestation of the Principle of
Uncertainty Invariance:
Principle 1 Given an empirically derived random set SE, let S· be that fo-
cused, consistent transformation 8; such that r(SE) = 1'(8;).
However, Principle 1 cannot be used in this form. As the Principle of Uncer-
tainty Invariance was originally introduced [15], one side of the transformation
was considered to be completely constrained, while the other was constrained
only by the measure of uncertainty. For example, for a given, fixed probability
distribution, the researcher is free to select any possibility distribution with
equal uncertainty. Later results [8] require specific transformation methods be-
cause of their desirable properties, but still the transformed distribution could
range over a continuous parameter a E (0,1), and it was shown that 3a E (0, 1)
such that uncertainty invariance could be satisfied.
But in the present context, the set of focused transformations {S;} provide
only a finite set of candidates from which S· must be selected. If SE is already
150

consistent then of course S* = =

SE and so T(S*) SE. But in general it may
very well be the case that 7lSi' T(Si) = T(SE). We know that Vi, N(SE) <
N(Si)' but such a relation does not necessarily hold for D, and therefore also
not for T. In general, there will be a tradeoff when SE is transformed to Si,
with the discord of SE being transformed into the nonspecificity of the Si. But
the conditions under which T(Si) increases or decreases from T(SE) have yet
to be investigated.
Therefore, we must adopt the following modification of Principle 1 in this
finite case:
Principle 2 (Minimal Information Distortion) Given an empirically de-
rived random set SE, let S* be that focused, consistent transformation Si such
that T(SE) is as "close" to 1\Si) as possible.
It is clear that we require a "distortion" function ~(Sl, S2) with the following
properties:
~(Sl,S2) ~ 0
~(Sl,S2) = 0 ...... T(Sd = T(S2)
and then to select that Si for which ~(SE, Si) is a minimum.
An obvious candidate is ~(Sl, S2) = IT(Sd - T(S2) I, but this might not al-
ways be satisfactory. Choice of a distortion function will depend on the method-
ology of the investigator. If T(SE) < T(Si), then "extra" information is gained
through the transformation that was not included in the data. On the other
hand, ifT(SE) > T(Si), then information in the data is lost through the trans-
formation. In general it should be considered more dangerous to add spurious
information than to excise given information, but a very great loss should not
be chosen over a very small gain. One can imagine a more sophisticated loss
function which would smoothly provide more weight to information loss than
information gain.

An Example
Let n = {x,y,z},n = 3, and assume the following inconsistent empirically
derived random set with the following properties:

SE = {{{x},.I},({x,y},.7)},{{z},.2)}, Pl= (.8,.7,.2)

N(SE) = .7, D(SE) = .805, T(SE) = 1.505
There are three focused consistent transformations. We note that Sz is
actually consonant, and the only one for which T(Si) increases (slightly). We
use ~(SE, Si) = IT(SE) - T(Si)l, and would thus choose S* = Sz.

Sx= {( {x}, .1) , ( {x, y}, .7} , { {x, z}, .2} }, 7rx = {I, .7, .2}
N(Sx) = .9,D(Sx) = .317, T(Sx) = 1.21, ~(SE,Sx) = .288

Sy ={{ {x, y}, .8) , { {x, z}, .2) }, 7ry ={ .8, 1, .2}
 151

D(Sy) = .269, ~(S

E '
, Sy) = .236

Sz = {( {z}, .2), ({x, z}, .1}, (0, .7)}, ii z = (.8, .7, I)

Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the random sets.

.2

Figure 1: The power set 2° is represented as a three-dimensional hypercube.

The directed arcs represent subset inclusion. Numbered nodes indicate values
=
for m, with m 0 for unnumbered nodes.

References
[1] Brillouin, Leon: (1964) Scientific Uncertainty and Information, Academic
Press, New York
[2] Christensen, Ronald: (1980) Entropy Minimax Sourcebook, v. 1-4, Entropy
Limited, Lincoln, MA
[3] Dubois, Didier, and Prade, Henri: (1986) "Fuzzy Sets and Statistical
Data", European J. of Operational Research, v. 25, pp. 345-356
[4] Dubois, Didier and Prade, Henri: (1988) Possibility Theory, Plenum Press,
New York
[5] Dubois, Didier, and Prade, Henri: (1990) "Consonant Approximations of
Belief Functions", Int. J. Approximate Reasoning, v. 4, pp. 419-449
[6] Dubois, Didier and Prade, Henri: (1992) "Evidence, Knowledge and Belief
Functions", Int. J. Approximate Reasoning, v. 6:3, pp. 295-320
[7] Geer, James, and Klir, George: (1991) "Discord in Possibility Theory",
Int. J. General Systems, v. 19, pp. 119-132
[8] Geer, James, and Klir, George: (1992) "A Mathematical Analysis ofInfor-
mation Preserving Transformations Between Probabilistic and Possibilistic
Formulations of Uncertainty", Int. J. General Systems, v. 20, pp. 143-176
[9] Giering, EW, and Kandel, A: (1983) "Application of Fuzzy Set Theory
to the Modelling of Competition in Ecological Systems", Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, v. 9, pp. 103-127
152

[10] Gurocak, HB and Lazaro, A de Sam: (1992) "Fuzzy Logic Approaches

for Handling Imprecise Measurements in Robot Assembly" , in: Proc. 1992
FUZZ-IEEE Conference, ed. Jim Bezdek, pp. 915-922, IEEE, San Diego
[11] Joslyn, Cliff:. (1991) "Towards an Empirical Semantics of Possibility
Through Maximum Uncertainty", in: Proc. IFSA 1991, vol. A, ed. R.
Lowen, M. Roubens, p. 86-89, IFSA, Brussels
[12] Joslyn, Cliff: (1992) "Possibilistic Measurement and Set Statistics" , sub-
mitted to 1992 NAFIPS Conference
[13] Joslyn, Cliff and Klir, George: (1992) "Minimal Information Loss Pos-
sibilistic Approximations of Random Sets", in: Proc. 1992 FUZZ-IEEE
Conference, ed. Jim Bezdek, pp. 1081-1088, IEEE, San Diego
[14] Kandel, Abraham: (1986) Fuzzy Mathematical Techniques with Applica-
tions, Addison-Wesley
[15] Klir, George: (1989) "Probability-Possibility Conversion", Proc. 3rd IFSA
Congress, pp. 408-411
[16] Klir, George: (1990) "A Principle of Uncertainty and Information Invari-
ance", Int. J. General Systems, v. 17, pp. 249-275
[17] Klir, George: (1991) "Measures and Principles of Uncertainty and In-
formation: Recent Development", in: Information Dynamics, ed. H. At-
manspacher, pp. 1-14, Plenum Press, New York
[18] Klir, George and Folger, Tina: (1987) Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Infor-
mation, Prentice Hall
[19] Klir, George and Parviz, Behvad: (1992) "Note on the Measure of Discord" ,
to appear in: Proc. 8th Conference on Uncertainty in Artifical Intelligence,
Stanford
[20] Klir, George, and Ramer, Arthur: (1991) "Uncertainty in Dempster-Shafer
Theory: A Critical Reexamination", Int. J. General Systems, v. 18, pp.
155-166
[21] Norwich, AM and Turksen, IE: (1982) "Meaningfulness in Fuzzy Set The-
ory", in: Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory, ed. R. Yager, pp. 68-74, Perg-
amon, Oxford
[22] Ripley, Brian D: (1987) Stochastic Simulation, Wiley, New York
[23] Roberts, DW: (1989) "Analysis of Forest Succession with Fuzzy Graph
Theory", Ecological Modeling, v. 45, pp. 261-274
[24] Rosen, Robert: (1985) Anticipatory Systems, Pergamon, Oxford
[25] Ruspini, EH: (1989) "The Semantics of Vague Knowledge", Revue Inter-
nationale de Systemique, v. 3, pp. 387-420
[26] Skilling, J, ed.: (1989) Maximum-Entropy and Bayesian Methods, Kluwer,
New York
[27] Zadeh, Lofti A: (1965) "Fuzzy Sets", Information and Control, v. 8,
pp. 338-353
[28] Zimmerman, HJ: (1991) Fuzzy Set Theory, 2nd edition, Kluwer, Boston
 ON CO-OPTIMAL LIFTS IN
THE CATEGORY OF FUZZY NEIGHBOURHOOD SPACES

E.E. KERRE Nehad N. MORSI

Dept. of Mathematics Dept. of Mathematics
State University of Gent Military Technical College
Gent, Belgium Cairo, Egypt

We consider a subset M of a universe X as a crisp fuzzy

set, and denote this again by M. We denote by ~ the cons-
tant fuzzy subset of X with value a E I. We denote the
strong a-cut of a fuzzy set ~ E IX by ~a(E 2X). We
follow Lowen's definition of the category FTS of fuzzy
topological spaces (fts's) and their continuous functions.
All categories appearing below will be categories of sets
with structures, and all functors between them will pres-
erve sets underlying their objects, and will be identities
on morphisms. Therefore, functors will be defined through
their object functions only.
The full subcategory of FTS of fuzzy neighbourhood
spaces (fns's) is denoted by FNS. Wuyts [11] has shown
that a fns is uniquely determined by its topology spectrum
(= its indexed family of level topologies).
The a-level functors, a E 1 , la : FTS + TOP
1
: (X,T) ~ (X,la(T)) preserve optimality [3]. But
neither they nor their restrictions to FNS preserve
co-optimality.
In [5], it is shown that both FTS and FNS are topologi-
cal categories, and that FNS is closed under the formation
of optimal lifts in FTS. Also, the fuzzy neighbourhood
system of an optimal lift in FNS is described there in
terms of the fuzzy neighbourhood systems of the source
fns's.
153
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 153-159.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
154

On the other hand, it is shown in [7] that a fts (X,T)

will be a fns if and only if
a
\;;!(Il,a) E T x I , 1lA.ll E T,
1
from which follows that FNS is also closed under the
formation of co-optimal lifts in FTS.
We devote this article to answering the following
question:
"How to describe the fuzzy neighbourhood system and the
topology spectrum of a co-optimal lift of a sink in FNS
in terms of those of the sink fns's?"
Our answer evolves round the functor
t- FNBS + FNS
of [8]. FNBS is the full subcategory of FTS of fuzzy
neighbourhood-base spaces (fnbs's), where a fnbs (X,T) is
defined [8] to be a fts which satisfies
Y(Il,a) E T x I ,
1
from which follows that FNBS as well is a topological
category, and that it is closed under the formation of
optimal and co-optimal lifts in FTS.
The functor t- FNBS + FNS is defined [8] as
follows:
For (X,T) E IFNBSI, let BT = (BT(x))xEX be the
family of prefilterbases in IX:
BT (x) = {Il E IX I Il(x) = 1}, x EX.
Then B is a fuzzy neighbourhood base in X, and we take
t-(X,T) the associated fns; i.e.,
C(X,T) = (X,t(T)) ~ (X,t(~T)).
This object function of t- is a surjection, and so t
acts to provide "open" bases for all fuzzy neighbourhood
systems.
The functor t- also has the following description [8]
in terms of topology spectra only: for (X,T) E IFNBS I,
la(t(T)) = sU P
YE ]a,1[ l1_y(T), a E I 1•
 155

Now, to meet our stated objective we construct a new

functor
~ : FNS + FNBS,
which will be both a right adjoint and a right inverse of
t-. So, it will also fully embed FNS into FNBS. We let
t: map a fns (X,p) onto the coarsest member (X, t+(p))
in the t--fibre of (X,p); that is t+(p) is the coarsest
one among all fuzzy topologies T on X which satisfy
(X,T) E IFNBSI and t-(X,T) = (X,p).
This is achieved in:

Definition. The full embedding t: : FNS + FNBS

takes each fns (X,p) onto its lower dual fts (X, t+(p))
in FNBS, where t+(p) is the fuzzy topology on X with
subbasis
{MV ~

The existence of the right adjoint t: of t- ensures

that t- preserves co-optimal lifts; due to the following
simple categorial result:

Lemma 1. Let C and D be topological categories. Let

F : D + C and G: C + D
be an adjoint pair of functors, both of which are identi-
ties on morphisms. If the unit of adjunction
e. : 1D + GoF
satisfies for all (X,s) E IDI,
e.(X,s) = idX : (X,s) + (X,GoF(s)),
then the left adjoint F preserves co-optimal lifts, and
the right adjoint G preserves optimal lifts.

We are now in a position to derive the fuzzy neighbour-

hood system of the co-optimal lift of a sink in FNS
(f. : (X. ,t(B.)) + X)'EJ (1)
J J J J
directly from the indexed collection {B
j
I j E J} of
156

the fuzzy neighbourhood systems of the entering fns's:

First, obtain an indexed family {(X.,T.) I j E J} of
fts's in FNBS such that J J
t"'(X.,T.) = (X. ,t(T.)) = (X. ,t(B.)) jE J. (2)
J J J J J J
This can be done by means of the following formula
established in [10]:
T. = {lJ E IX I lJaV~En a B.(x) Va EI }.
J xElJ J 1
(Alternatively, we may take T. = t+(t(B.)).
J J
Second, obtain the co-optimal lift of the sink in FNBS
(equivalently, in FTS):
(f j : (Xj,T j ) + X)jEJ
say (X,T).
Last, the fns t"'(X,T) = (X, t(T)) is the co-optimal
lift in FNS (equivalently, in FTS) of the given sink (1);
because the functor t'" preserves co-optimal lifts, and
because (2) holds. But this means that the family of
prefilters
S'T = (S'T(x))xEX
will be the required fuzzy neighbourhood system of the
co-optimal lift in FNS of the sink (1).

Next, though the restrictions to FNS of the a-level

functors la: FTS + TOP, a € I 1, do not preserve
co-optimality, we show that the other restrictions
la : FNBS + TOP, a E I 1,
preserve co-optimality. This is again due to Lemma 1,
through constructing right adjoints, right inverses
Ka : TOP + FNBS
for these restrictions, where for every (X,7) E ITOpl,
Ka (7) is the fuzzy topology on X with subbasis
{ MV ~ I M E 7} c:: IX.
Having got functors t'" FNBS + FNS and la FNBS
+ TOP which preserve co-optimality, we deduce:
 157

Theorem. Let (f.: (X.,p.) -+ (X,P)).rJ

J J J J'=
be a co-optimal family of morphisms in FNS.
For every y E 1 , let (X,7y ) E /Topi be the co-
1
optimal lift of the sink in TOP
(f. :
J
Then for all a E 11
la(P) = sU Py E ]a, 1 [
We remark that a right inverse and left adjoint of t-,
t+- : FNS -+ FNBS,
is given in [8]. So, by Lemma 1, t- preserves optimal
lifts as well. This t+- is another full embedding of FNS
into FNBS; defined by sending each fns onto the finest
member of its t--fibre in FNBS.
The image of the right a~joint t;: FNS -+ FNBS,
of t-, is denoted by DFNS" (cFNBS), and its objects
are called lower dual fuzzy neighbourhood spaces.
This DFNS" is a topological category. It has the follow-
ing characterization as a full subcategory of FTS:

Let ~ = {7 I a E 11 } be an indexed family of

a
topologies on a set X, which satisfies
70 = the indiscrete topology on X, and
7a = sup{7y l y E ] 0, a [} , a E 10 , 1.
Let T be the fuzzy topology on X with subbasis
i = {M V ~ I a E 10 , 1 and M E 7a} c: I X•
Then (X,T) is the unique object of DFNS" having ~ as its
topology spectrum. Moreover, all objects of DFNS" are
obtainable in this manner.

Furthermore, DFNS" is a reflective full subcategory of

FNBS, and the reflector
40 t - : (X, T ) /+ (X, t+( t ( T) ) )
has the following description:
158

Proposi tion. If (X, T) IFNBS I, then the following

subset of IX is a subbasis of ~(t(T)):
{ MV ~ I a E 1 0 ,1 and M E sUPy € ]O,a[ ly(T)} •

The topological category DFNSA is closed under the

formation of optimal lifts in FTS. However, if a sink in
DFNS A
(f j : (Xj,T j ) -+ X)jEJ (3)
has a fts (X,o) as its co-optimal lift in FTS (i.e., when
(3) is considered a sink in FTS), then that (X,o) is in
FNBS but it need not be in DFNS A • (An example shows that
this happens.) Using the reflector t:ot~: FNBS -+
DFNS A, we find that the lower dual fuzzy neighbourhood
space (X, t+( t (0) ) ) is the co-optimal lift in DFNS A of
the given sink (3).
It may help to envisage the interrelationships between
these categories to notice that
FNBS n FNS = w(TOP),
while DFNS A (J FNS is the full subcategory of
indiscrete objects in FTS.

Finally, the lower dual fts (X, 4(p)) of a fns (X,p)

has the following level topologies:
la(4(P)) = 11_a(P), a E 10 ,1'
and 10(~(P)) is the indiscrete topology on X.
 159

REFERENCES

[1] A.A. Allam, K.M. Abdelhakeim and N.N. Morsi, On

fuzzy neighbourhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
41 (1991) 201-212.
[2] H. Herrlich and G.E. Strecker, Category Theory
(Heldermann-Verlag, Berlin, 1979).
[3] R. Lowen, Initial and final fuzzy topologies and the
fuzzy Tychonoff theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 58
(1977) 11-21.
[4] R. Lowen, Fuzzy neighborhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 7 (1982) 165-189.
[5] R. Lowen, On the Existence of Natural, Non-topologi-
cal Fuzzy Topological Spaces (Heldermann-Verlag,
Berlin, 1985).
[6] R. Lowen and A.K. Srivastava, FTS o : The epireflect-
ive hull of the Sierpinski object in FTS, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 29 (1989) 171-176.
[7] N.N. Morsi, A short note on fuzzy neighbourhood
spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 23 (1987) 393-397.
[8] N.N. Morsi, Dual fuzzy neighbourhood spaces I, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 44 (1991) 245-263.
[9] N.N. Morsi, Nearness concepts in fuzzy neighbourhood
spaces and in their fuzzy proximity spaces, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 31 (1989) 83-109.
[10] N.N. Morsi, Dual fuzzy neighbourhood spaces II,
preprint.
[11] P. Wuyts, On the determination of fuzzy topological
spaces and fuzzy neighbourhood spaces by their level-
topologies, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 12 (1984) 71-85.
 CUTS COMMUTE WITH CLOSURES

Wyllis Bandler
and
Ladislav J. Kohout
Department of Computer Science B-173
The Florida State University
Tallahassee FL 32306-4019
U.S.A.

1 INTRODUCTION: SPECIAL PROPERTIES AND META-

PROPERTIES OF RELATIONS

We are concerned with certain useful special properties which fuzzy relations on
a set may possess or lack. They are generalizations of properties of crisp rela-
tions, which is to say that the fuzzy definitions coincides with the crisp definition
whenever the the relation in question is in fact crisp.

We are also concerned with two meta-properties that are equally useful in the
theory and in practical computation, namely with cutworthiness and closeability.
A special property P will here be called cutworthy when it is true that a fuzzy
relation possesses P (in the fuzzy sense) if and only if every a-cut of the relation
possesses P (in the crisp sense). In [1],[2] the present authors listed a number of
elementary properties with definitions such that all of them were cutworthy, as
were the compound properties derivable from them.

The important novelty was that of locally reflexive, which embodies the idea
that every element is related to itself to at least as high a degree as it is related
to anything else, or as anything else is related to it. If we call the greatest degree
to which an element Xi is related to anything its degree of active participation,
and the greatest degree to which anything is related to it its degree of passive
participation, and the greater of these tout court its degree of participation, then a
relation is locally reflexive iff every element is related to itself to its degree of par-
ticipation. In many actual circumstances this is a more reasonable requirement
than the more familiar one of (global) reflexivity, which requires every element to
be related to itself utterly, that is, to degree 1. Essentially the same list is given
in the following table. The definitions are couched in terms of the components
Rij of the matrix representation of the relation.

Definition: Special properties of fuzzy relations on a set X.

1. Covering <=> Vi E J, 3j E J, ~j = 1.
161
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 161-167.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
162

2. Locally reflexive <=> Vi E J, R;i = V(Rij VRj;).

j
3. Reflexive <=> covering and locally reflexive
<=> Vi E J, Rii = V(R;j V Rji) = 1.
j
4. Transitive <=> R 2 !; R
<=> Vi, k E J, (R 2 )ik::; Rik
<=> Vi, k E J, V(Rij A Rjk) ::; R ik ·
j
5. Symmetric <=> R T = R
<=> R= Ru RT
<=> R= RnRT .
6. Antisymmetric <=> R;j ARji = 0 if j l' i.
7. Strictly Antisymmetric <=> Vi,j E J, R;j A Rji = O.

The transitivity is the kind sometimes called "max-min transitivity" for

transparent reasons. In the same publication we showed that all of these prop-
erties, and their compounds, are cutworthy. We also gave the definition of the
P-closure of a relation [1],[2] where P is a special property (cf. Def.l below).

The second important meta-property, closeability is related to the notion of

closure. A special property P will here be called closeable when it is such that
a P-closure exists for every relation. In [1] (without in fact using the term) we
gave necessary and sufficient conditions for a property to be closeable, and showed
that of the elementary properties defined above the following are closeable: local
reflexivity, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, as are all their usual combinations,
namely those of being a (local) tolerance - (local) reflexivity and symmetry; (local)
preorder - (local) reflexivity and transitivity; (local) equivalence - (local) reflex-
ivity, symmetry and transitivity. To show the closeability of the combinations it
was necessary to establish that the elementary closures do not interfere with one
another unduly.

The meta-properties of cutworthiness and closeabilityare independent. An-

tisymmetry is cutworthy but not closeable. "Max-product transitivity", on the
other hand, can be show to be closeable but is clearly not cutworthy - indeed,
this is a strong reason for adopting, as we did, the "max-min" definition of tran-
sitivity.
 163

2 WHY ARE FUZZY META-PROPERTIES IMPORTANT

AND USEFUL

The present paper proceeds to a single theorem, not difficult but extremely useful.
In practical work with empirical relations it is common to encounter a relation
which "ought to have" certain properties on theoretical or semantic grounds, but
falls short of them in actuality. An empirically recorded preference relation, for
example, is quite likely to fail in transitivity, owing to imperfect consistency of
the human respondent. Must the investigator then throw all the data away, or is
it legitimate to move the results towards the ideal? This immediately raises the
question, "Move them by how much?" if the inconsistency is venial and minor,
that is one thing; if vast and fundamental, that is another. But how is one to
measure these things?

The present authors run into similar problems very frequently. The triangle
product of a relation with its converse [3],[4] would be expected to produce a
(local) preorder. In the realm of medical diagnostics, this underlies a hierarchy
of symptoms or of patients [5],[6],[7] ; in the realm of urbanistics a hierarchy of
mental constructs or of urban objects [8],[9],[10]; in automated reasoning [11],[12];
and so on in many other realms [13],[3],[14],[15],[16],[17]. But human flaws in
the data, and more importantly, the lack of reflexivity and transitivity in the
implication operators used, as well as the vagaries of the averaging process, cause
departures from (local) preorderness. How does one determine when this vitiates
the findings as against when it is only a minor disturbance which can be rectified?

Our answer is, for any closeable property P, compare the original empirically
derived relation with its P-closure. Adopt a measure of deviation or of closeness,
and a criterion of strictness. When your criterion is met, proceed to analyse the
closure in place of the original; when it is not met, recognize genuine failure.

Following our own advice, with great care, has required computation of the
P-closure (in most cases, the (local) preorder closure) of each relation under
scrutiny, and then of every single a-cut of it which we wish to examine [18],[6].
The theorem of the present paper relieves us (or rather, our computer) of this
voluminous labor and redundant output. It is sufficient to take the closure of the
original fuzzy relation once and for all; its a-cuts are the closures of the a-cuts of
the relation. Among other advantages, this encourages the study of more different
a-cuts, and gives a criterion (degree of P-ness) for selecting among them.

3 ALPHA-CUTS OF FUZZY RELATIONS COMMUTE

WITH THEIR CLOSURES

We are concerned with binary (2-place) relations, both crisp and fuzzy, from a
set X to itself, that is "an X". These constitute a class B(X -+ X) = B(X). For
164

any property P which such a relation R may have or may fail to have, there is
the following definition:

Definition 1: A relation C is the P-closure of R, written C = P clo R, iff it

fulfills the following 3 conditions:

1. C has property P

2. R!;;; C

3. If S has property P and R!;;; S , then C!;;; S.

In words, C has P and contains R, and is contained in any relation of which

both of these can be said. We may refer to part (3) of this definition as the
minimality of C.

We define the following two meta-peoperties:

Definition 2: A property P is closeable iff there exists a P-closure for every R in

B(X).

Definition 3: A property P is cutworthy iff is true that a fuzzy relation R pos-

sesses P if and only if every a-cut of R possesses P.

Cutworthiness is a useful criterion in choosing appropriate fuzzy extensions of

crisp definitions of properties. In particular, it singles out max-min transitiv-
ity as the appropriate extension of crisp transitivity in contrast to max-product
transitivity.

Theorem: "Cuts Commute With Closures"

If P is cutworthy and closeable, then for all R E B(X) and all a E]O, 1], the
a-cut of the P-closure of R is the same as the P-closure of the a-cut of R, that
is (P-clo R)a= P-clo (R a ).

Proof: Let us call L=P-clo R, and for each a let us call M(a) =P-clo (Ra ).

1) Now, since L has property P, each a-cut La of L will have property P, and
since R!;;; L, each R a !;;; La. Hence by the minimality of the P-closure (part (3)
of the definition), P-clo R a !;;; La, that is, M(a) !;;; La.

2) If f3 :::; a, then R a !;;; R 13 !;;; P-clo R 13 , and P-clo R 13 has P, so by minimality

P-clo R a !;;;P-clo RI3' Thus the M(a) are nested, and we can well-define the fuzzy
relation

M = U aE )O.l)aM(a),

with the virtue that its a-cuts give us back M(a): Ma =M(a).
 165

What was proved in (1) is now M ~ L, and we seek the appropriate inclusion,
as follows: Since for all a, R OI ~ MOl, we have R ~ M. Since each a-cut of M has
property P (in the crisp sense), so does M (in the fuzzy sense). Then, again by
minimality (part (3) of its definition of P-closure), P-clo R ~ M, that is L ~ M.
This completes the proof.

Remark: The construction of M, which enabled part 2 of the proof to go

through, is based upon exactly the same separate computation of all the crisp
P-closures of the a-cuts of R which in practice are so onerous and which the
theorem allows us once and for all to avoid. For the formula defining M, cf.
Negoita and Ralescu [19].

Addendum: The above is exactly the proof as presented at IFSA'91 conference in

Brussels on July 11, 1991 in session A5 chaired by Ellen Risdal. In September
1991, Dr. Kitainik, unaware of this presentation communicated to us his proof.
It should, however, be noted that his proof which uses different concepts seems
to be more general. Since then his proof has appeared in [20].

References
1. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
Special properties, closures and interiors of crisp and fuzzy relations.
Fuzzy [;-;ts and Systems, 26(3):317-332, June 1988.

2. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.

Fast fuzzy relational algorithms.
In Ballester, A., Cardus, D., and Trillas, E., editors, Proc. of the Second
Internat. Conference on Mathematics at the Service of Man, pages 123-
131, (Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain, 28 June - 3 July), Universidad
Politechnica de las Palmas, Las Palmas, 1982.
3. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
Fuzzy relational products as a tool for analysis and synthesis of the
behaviour of complex natural and artificial systems.
In Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K., editors, Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Ap-
plications to Policy Analysis and Information Systems, pages 341-367,
Plenum press, New York and London, 1980.
4. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
Semantics of implication operators and fuzzy relational products.
Internat. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12:89-116, 1980.
Reprinted in Mamdani, E.R. and Gaines, B.R. eds. Fuzzy Reasoning
and its Applications. Academic Press, London, 1981, pages 219-246.

5. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.

The identification of hierarchies in symptoms and patients through
166

computation of fuzzy relational products.

In Parslow, R.D., editor, BCS'81: Information Technology for the
Eighties (Proc. Con! The British Computer Society, London, 1-3 July
1981), pages 191-194, Heyden & Son, London, 1981.

6. Ben-Ahmeida, B., Kohout, L.J., and Bandler, W.

The use of fuzzy relational products in comparison and verification of
correctness of knowledge structures.
In Kohout, L.J., Anderson, J., and Bandler, W., editors, Knowledge-
Based Systems for Multiple Environments, chapter 16, Ashgate Publ.
(Gower), Aldershot, U.K., 1992.

7. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.

A survey of fuzzy relational products in their applicability to medicine
and clinical psychology.
In Kohout, L.J. and Bandler, W., editors, Knowledge Representation in
Medicine and Clinical Behavioural Science, pages 107-118, an Abacus
Book, Gordon and Breach Pub!., London and New York, 1986.

8. Bandler, W. and Mancini, V.

Internal representation of built environment.
In Bezdek, J., editor, Proceedings of NAFIPS'88 (North American
Fuzzy Information Processing Society, 7th A nnual meeting, San Fran-
cisco, Calif., June 1988), pages 1-6, NAFIPS, 1988.

9. Mancini, V. and Bandler, W.

Congruence of structures in urban knowledge representation.
In Bouchon, B., Saita, L, and Yager, R., editors, Uncertainty and In-
telligent Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), pages 219-225,
Springer -Verlag, Berlin, 1988.

10. Bandler, W., Mancini, V., and Stiller, E.M. (Guest Editors).
The URBS Project: Acquisition, Representation and Manipulation of
Knowledge for a Computerized Advisory System on City Problems.
In Journal of Intelligent Systems (A special issue), Freund Publishing
House Ltd., London, U.K., 1993.

11. Kohout, L.J. and Kim, Yong-Gi.

Use of fuzzy relational information retrieval techniques for generating
control strategies in resolution-based automated reasoning.
In FLAIRS - 90 Proceedings, pages 140-144, The Florida Artificial
Intelligence Research Society, 1990.

12. Kim, Yong-Gi and Kohout, L.J.

Comparison of fuzzy implication operators by means of weighting strat-
egy in resolution-based automated reasoning.
In Berghel, G.E. and Hedrick, G.E., editors, Proc. of the 1992 Sympo-
sium on Applied Computing (SAC '92), ACM, 1992.
 167

13. Kohout, L.J. and Bandler, W.

Fuzzy relational products in knowledge engineering.
In International Symposium on Fuzzy Approach to Reasoning
and Decision-Making, (Bechyne, Czechoslovakia, June 25-29,1990).,
(Bechyne, Czechoslovakia, June 25-29,1990).
In: Selected papers thereof, V. Novak et al. (eds.), North-Holland &
Academia, in press.
14. Kohout, L.J., Anderson, J., Bandler, W., Gao, S., and Trayner, C.
CLINAID: A knowledge-based system for support of decisions in the
conditions of risk and uncertainty.
In Kohout, L.J., Anderson, J., and Bandler, W., editors, Knowledge-
Based Systems for Multiple Environments, chapter 10, Ashgate Publ.
(Gower), Aldershot, U.K., 1992.
15. Kohout, L.J., Keravnou, E., and Bandler, W.
Automatic documentary information retrieval by means of fuzzy rela-
tional products.
In Gaines, B.R., Zadeh, L.A., and Zimmermann, H.-J., editors, Fuzzy
Sets in Decision A nalysis, pages 383-404, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
1984.
16. Kohout, L.J. and Bandler, W.
The use of fuzzy information retrieval techniques in construction of
multi-centre knowledge-based systems.
In Bouchon, B. and Yager, R.R., editors, Uncertainty in Knowledge-
Based Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 286),
pages 257-264, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
17. Kohout, L.J. and Kallala, M.
Evaluator of neurological patients' dexterity based on relational fuzzy
products.
In Proc. of Second Expert Systems International Conference (London,
October 1986), pages 1-12, Learned Information Inc., New Jersey, USA
and Oxford, UK, 1986.
18. Kohout, L.J. and Bandler, W.
Use offuzzy relations in knowledge representation, acquisition and pro-
cessing. In Zadeh, L.A. and Kacprzyk, J., editors, Fuzzy Logic for the
Management of Uncertainty, page, John Wiley, New York, in press.
19. Negoita, C.V. and Ralescu, D.A.
Applications of fuzzy sets to systems analysis.
Wiley, New York, 1975.
20. Kitainik, L.
For closeable and cutworthy properties, closures always commute with
cuts. In Proc. of the IEEE Internat. Conference on Fuzzy Systems 1992,
pages 703-704, IEEE, New York, 1992.
 TOLL SETS AND TOLL LOGIC

Didier Dubois - Henri Prade

Institut de Recherche en Infonnatique de Toulouse
Universite Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne
31062 Toulouse Cedex, France

The introduction of the notion of fuzzy set by Zadeh (1965) was mainly motivated
by the problem of modelling linguistically expressible categories with unsharp
boundaries. Then starting with the usual convention for set characteristic functions:
zero (0) for non-membership, one (1) for membership, it leads to take (0,]) as a
possible set of intennediary degrees of membership. Very soon after the introduction
of fuzzy sets, Goguen (1967) proposed to generalize the idea of a fuzzy set by
replacing the real interval [0,1] by some abstract set L equipped with some
mathematical structure. Until now, in spite of the theoretical interest of
L-fuzzy sets, only [O,I]-valued fuzzy sets are considered in practice.

In this paper, which extends a preliminary version (Dubois and Prade, ]991), we
raise the following questions: Is there any other numerical scale of interest when
generalizing classical subsets by extending the possible range of their characteristic
functions ? Has this change of scale an effect on the practical interpretation of the
corresponding generalized subsets, on the mathematical structure with which we can
equip them?

More particularly, we investigate the use of the real scale [0,+(0) U {+oo} underlying
a cost interpretation. Namely a zero cost will coincide with the idea of an
undebatable, unquestionable membership, while an infinite cost will represent an
impossible membership, an absolute non-membership. Following the development
of fuzzy sets which gave birth to possibility theory (Zadeh, 1978), which in tum is
the basis for possibilistic logic (Dubois and Prade, 1987 ; Dubois et aI., 1989), the
paper is organized in three sections, first introducing so-called "toll sets" where
membership is related to the idea of a cost to pay, then discussing toll measures
defined from toll sets, and finally giving a first insight of toll logic and of its
potential applications.

1. TOLL SETS

Aubin (1990) has recently extended so-called indicator functions used in convex
analysis and thus introduced a special kind of "fuzzy set". The indicator function "'T
169
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 169-177.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
170

of a classical subset T ~ X is defined by

0 if x E T
"'T(x) ={ +00 if x E: T

When X is [R n, T is closed (respectively : convex) if its indicator is lower

semicontinuous (respectively : convex). Aubin (1990) has introduced extended
indicator functions "'T taking their values in [0.+00) u (+00). T is called a "fuzzy
set" by Aubin. Based on this notion of "fuzzy sets". he has also defined "fuzzy" set-
valued maps in order to deal with "fuzzy" differential inclusions (differential
inclusions generalize differential equations to set-valued maps). "'T is regarded as a
"cost" or "penalty function".

Using the scale [0.+00 ) u (+00), a membership grade can be easily interpreted in
terms of the "toll" to pay in order to be admitted as a member of the considered
subset. This is why we propose to call "toll set" this kind of generalized subset,
rather than "fuzzy set" (which does not suggest a cost interpretation). In this
framework, the grade of membership of John to the "fuzzy set" of young people.
"'young(John) would be understood as the price that John must pay. or would have
to pay, to be called a young man (like a club-membership fee). When "'T(x) = O. it
means that there is no obstacle for x to belong to T (free membership) ; when
"'T(x) = +00, it is forbidden for x to belong to T, since only finite costs may be
paid. This interpretation suggests that

(1)

since any x should belong for free to a class or to its complement, and if you have
to pay for being T. this is because you are rather not T, Le. f ; moreover both T
and f cannot be toll-free, Le.

(2)

i.e. max("'T(x)''''f(x» > O. Particularly "'X(x) = O. V X E X. and "'0(x) = +00,

V X E X (the referential X is free, and it is impossible to belong to the empty set).

The union of toll sets is defined by the min operation. Le.

(3)

since to be a member of S or T, x has just to "pay" the cheapest fare. Thus (1)
expresses the law of excluded middle T u f = X. Several choices are possible for the
* operation defining the intersection. i.e. * should obey the following inequalities

The lower bound in (4) corresponds to the maximal possible "discount" for joint
 171

membership (x only pays the higher toll) while the upper bound corresponds to no
discount at all : x has to pay full tolls for both S and T. Note that (2) is thus some
kind of law of non-contradiction, but not completely fulfilled since TnT "# 0.
Inclusion is defined, like for ordinary fuzzy sets (except that the scale works in the
opposite way), by

(5)

Clearly using the one-to-one mapping ex = e-~ from [0,+00) u (+00) to [0,1], we can
compare toll sets with usual fuzzy sets: ([0,+00) u (+00), min, *) is mapped on
([0,1], max, .1.) with min(a,b) ;<: a .1. b ;<: a' b. Note that due to (1)-(2) the
complementation of toll sets is not compositional but should obey the constraint

(6)

The following complementation obeys this requirement:

='x) _ {+oo if'l'T(x) = 0

'1'1\ - 0 if'l'T(x) > 0

which has a "para-consistent" flavor (indeed TnT "# 0 for some T, i.e. it is allowed
for an element x to belong to T and to somewhat belong to T, provided that the
corresponding cost is finite). As we can see, changing the membership scale
modifies the interpretation and leads to privilege operations on [0,+00) U (+00)
which are not necessarily the counterparts (in the sense of a correspondence such as
ex = e-~) of the most standard operations used on the scale [0,1].

As pointed out by Qin and Xu (1992), an extension principle can be defined as in

the case of standard fuzzy sets (Zadeh, 1965) ; namely, let f be a mapping from X to
Y, the image of a toll set T on X is a toll set f(T) defined on Y by

1
'It E Y . ()={infx 'l'T(X)ifr (y);#:.0
y , 'I'f(T) Y +00 otherwise.

This is the exact counterpart of Zadeh's extension principle since 'max' is changed
into 'min' and 'sup' into 'inC in the new scale. It expresses that in order to compute
the toll that y has to pay in order to belong to f(T), we look for the less costly
realization of y = f(x) from an x E X, with respect to T. The algebraic structure of
toll sets needs to be investigated in greater details, as well as its links with "exotic
algebras" (Dubois, 1988).

Note that another way of justifying the scale [0,+00) for membership grades is to
consider 'I'p(x) = 1 - f.lp(x) where f.lp(x) is a usual [O,I]-valued membership grade.
f.lp(x)
In that case, 'I'p(x) is a relative non-membership grade and we have 'I'p(x) . 'I'p(x) =
1 that defines the complementation. This complementation makes no sense when
172

'ifF (x) is interpreted as a toll. Set-theoretic operations for fuzzy sets in tenns of
relative membership grades could be derived from the works of Aczel and Saaty
(1983) and Aczel and Alsina (1987).

2. TOLL MEASURES

Following Zadeh (1978) who built possibility measures from fuzzy sets, we can
induce a set function from a tool set. Based on a toll set T, a "measure" K, from 2 X
to [0,+00) U (+00), is thus defined by

V A k X, K(A) = min xE A 'lfT(x). (7)

As it can be seen, the above extension principle is the expression of a toll measure,
namely 'lff(T)(y) = K(f- 1(y». A similar kind of measures, restricted to integer
values, has been already introduced, independently from fuzzy sets, by Spohn (1988)
under the name "ordinal conditional functions", and their relation to possibility
measures has been recognized (see Dubois and Prade, 1990). Clearly we have

V A k X, V B k X, K(A u B) = min(K(A),K(B»,
and K is monotonically decreasing with respect to set inclusion. The membership
function '1fT of the toll set T plays the role of a toll distribution which estimates the
extent to which each value x E X is impossible or unfeasible (because too costly).
A possibility distribution in the sense of Zadeh (1978) describes an incomplete state
of knowledge by restricting the more or less possible values of a variable refering to
the real state of a described situation. A toll distribution describes the more or less
unfeasible states which may be reached (remember that the toll scale works in the
sense opposite to the one of a possibility distribution). K(A) is an estimate of the
'impossibility" of A as containing a reachable state, since K(A) reflects the cost to
pay (according to '1fT) in order to be somewhere in A : the larger K(A), the more
impossible (i.e. the more costly) A. Note also that as soon as '1fT is normalized, i.e.
:3 x E X, 'lfT(x) =0 (which expresses that a value in X is completely possible), we
have min(K(A),K(A» =0 ; it is in agreement with the idea that among two opposite
events at most one may be somewhat impossible.

Possibility measures belong to a more general class of [O,I]-valued confidence

measures g, introduced in (Dubois and Prade, 1982) and studied by Weber (1984),
which obey the general decomposability axiom

An B=0 ~ g(A u B) = g(A) * g(B). (8)

Possibility measures are obtained for * = max, and then (8) is equivalent to V A,
VB, g(A u B) = max(g(A),g(B» (without the condition A n B = 0). The axiom (8)
written for non-negative set-functions (rather than [O,I]-valued set functions)
characterizes the generalized measures of infonnation introduced by Kampe de Feriet
et al. (1969) and Forte (1969).
 173

A dual measure g(A) = 1 - g(A) is associated with g and satisfies

A u B = X => g(A n B) = g(A) .L g(B). (9)

The particular cases .L = min (which corresponds to necessity measures. namely.

'if A. 'ifB. g(A n B) = min(g(A),g(B))). and .L = product are particularly worth-
considering. In these two cases. g satisfying (8) expresses possibility and its dual g.
satisfying (9). estimates certainty. When moving from the scale [0.1] to the scale
[0.+00 ) u {+oo}. it gives birth to the toll measures r. using the transformation
reA) = - .fn[g(A)] (or equivalently g(A) = e-reA» for instance. which are such that

=
for.L min. =
reA n B) max(reA),r(B» ; (10)
for.L =product. A u B =X => reA n B) =reA) + reB). (11)

In both cases. r is a monotonically decreasing function with respect to set

inclusion. i.e. A 6 B => reA) ~ reB). as it can be easily checked. For .L = min as
well as .L = product. reA) may be viewed as estimating the extent to which it is
costly to have A true. If rCA) =0 it means that A is certain since it costs nothing to
make it true. Clearly the cost reA n B) for A and B is at least equal to the larger of
reA) and reB). or may be considered as additive. as in (11). Note that in both cases.
max(reA).reA» = +00 since we should have r(0) = +00. It guarantees that it is not
possible to pay in order to have both A and A simultaneously true. (10) expresses
that in order to have A and B true it is sufficient to pay the higher toll. while (11)
says that we have to pay for each of them as soon as A and B together cover the
whole referential X.

Clearly. for .L = min. r enjoys a property dual to the one characterizing the set
functions K . With a set function r. we can associate another set function K defined
by 'if A. K(A) = reA). This is similar to the duality between g and g. except that
there is no "natural" involution on [0.+00) n {+oo},like 1 - (.) on [0.1]. Then. K is
valued on a scale with is reversed in comparison with the range of r ; namely
K(0) = 0 and K(X) = +00. (10) and (11) then translate into

For .L = min, K(A u B) = max(K(A).K(B».

For .L =product. A n B =0 => K(A u B) =K(A) + K(B).

As it can be seen. for .L = min. K-functions are similar to Spohn functions K except
that the scale is reversed. while for .L =product. K is a non-finite additive measure.

For X finite. there exists a function X : X ~ [0.+00) U {+oo} such that reA) =
max XE A X(x) if .L = min and rcA) = LXE A X(x) if .L = product. X has an
interpretation dual to the one of the toll set distribution function 'l'T. i.e. X(x)
corresponds to the cost for eliminating x from the pOSSibilities. since A =
n XE A (X - (xl) and X(x) = reX - (xl). In terms of K-functions. we have the
simple expressions K(A) =max XE A X(x), and K(A) =LXE A X(x) for.L =min and
.L =product respectively.
174

The change of scale has a counterpart in probability theory where instead of

considering the probability P(A) of an event A ~ X, some authors have considered

the odds function P(A) or the surprize degree -Ln(p(A», or the weight of evidence
P(A)
Ln(P(~»), where A is the complement of A (see e.g. Tribus, 1969).
P(A)

3. TOLL LOGIC

Toll measures r, introduced in Section 2, are analogous to necessity measures. K-

functions are formally non-finite possibility measures. Necessity and toll measures
are both related to the expression of certainty on different scales, since their
characteristic axioms allow the computation of the estimate attached to the event
A (1 B from the ones attached to A and to B (possibly with a restrictive condition of
application as in (11». Possibilistic logic (Dubois and Prade, 1987 ; Dubois, Lang
and Prade, 1989) deals with classical logic formulas whose certainty is expressed by
lower bounds on the values of a necessity measure.

Similarly, a toll logic knowledge base would be a set of classical logic formulas,
each weighted by an element of [0,+00). To each classical formula p we attach a
finite number C E [0,+00) interpreted as an upper bound of a cost function r, i.e.
r(p) ~ C is understood as "p true" can be considered as realized as soon as we pay C
cost unit(s). This interpretation is consistent with the use of upper bounds since if
we pay more than the minimal amount which is required (and which may be
unknown), p can still be realized. r(p) ~ C can be also interpreted as an
overestimate of the computation cost for establishing p. When r(p) =0, p is true is
certain since it costs nothing, while r(p) = +00 expresses that the truth of p is
impossible to realize or to establish since no finite amount of resource can make it
true.

The idea of associating classical logic formulas with positive weights which can be
combined additively can be also found in a recent work by Pinkas (1991). However
his interpretation of the weights differs from the one advocated here. Indeed, the
weight associated to a formula q> is used by Pinkas as a penalty which is incurred if
preference is given to a model which falsifies q> in a default reasoning system. The
global penalty attached to a model is then the sum of the weight of the formulas
present in the knowledge base which are falsified by this model. Let us also mention
Giles (1985)' additive logic of assertions where weights belonging to [0,1] are
interpreted in a betting framework, and have a probabilistic flavor. Possible links
between toll logic and these two proposals are not investigated here.

Deduction from a toll logic knowledge base will be controlled by the total (finite)
cost allowed : each time a weighted formula is used in a deduction, the
corresponding cost is deduced from the total amount permitted (only the pieces of
knowledge with a zero weight can be used for free I). This idea can be implemented
using the set functions r obeying to (11). Then the following resolution rule holds
 175

r(p v q) ~ C ; r(-,p v r) ~ C'

r(q v r) ~ C + C'

Indeed r(q v r) = r(p v q v r) + r(-,p v q v r) ~ C + C', due to (11) and the

decreasing monotonicity of r. This offers a convenient tool for expressing that a
statement holds only if the corresponding amount of resource which is necessary for
its realization, is indeed available (or more generally an overestimate of this
amount). As for necessity-valued logic (Dubois and Prade, 1987), refutation can be
used, Le. in order to establish p, add -,p with r(-,p) =0 to the knowledge base, and
if r(0) ~ C is obtained by applying the resolution rule iteratively, it would entail
that r(p) ~ C. Clearly, we are then interested in looking for the refutation leading to
the smallest upper bound C for r(p).

Let us consider an example. Let % be the toll logic knowledge base % = {(P,CI),
(-,p v q, C2), (-,p v r, C3), (-,q v -,r v s, C4)}, where weighted formulae are
denoted by pairs of the form (cp,e) to be interpreted as r(cp) ~ C. From % using the
above resolution rule, we can derive (q, CI + C2), (r, CI + C3), then (-,r v s, CI +
C2 + C4), and finally (s, 2CI + C2 + C3 + C4). However letting t == q /\ r, % can
be written %' = {(p,C I), (-,p v t, C'), (-,t v s, C4)} where C' should be such that
C' ~ C2 + C3. Note that %, and %' together with t == q /\ r, are semantically
equivalent in the classical sense when we do not take into account the weights. Then
from %', using the resolution rule we can deduce (s, CI + C2 + C3 + C4), Le. s
with an upper bound smaller than in the first case where we start from %.

This difference of behaviors leads to several comments. The solution of the

following optimization problem, in agreement with the intended meaning of % and
of the r-functions,

maximize r(s)
under constraints r(p) ~ CI ; r(-,p v q) ~ C2 ; r(-,p v r) ~ C3 ;
(
r(-,q v -,r v s) ~ C4

is indeed r(s) =CI + C2 + C3 + C4' i.e. the upper bound obtained only after the
renaming t == q /\ r. This can be easily seen in the following way. Using K-
functions the constraints can be rewritten K(-,p) ~ CI ; K(p /\ -,q) ~ C2 ;
K(p /\ -,r) ~ C3 ; K(q /\ r /\ -,s) ~ C4. Let us choose K such that K(-,p /\ -,s) =CI
and K(-,p /\ s) = 0 ; K(p /\ -,q /\ -,s /\ r) = C2 and K(p /\ -,q /\ (s v -,r» = 0 ;
K(p /\ -,r /\ -,s /\ q) =C3 and K(p /\ -,r /\ (s v -,q» =0 ; K(q /\ r/\ -,s /\ p) =C4 and
K(q /\ r /\ -,s /\ -,p) = 0, which is in agreement with the constraints since An B =
o ~ K(A u B) = K(A) + K(B). Then K(-,s) = K(-,p /\ -,s) + K(p /\ -,q /\ -,s /\ r) +
K(p /\ -,r /\ -,s /\ q) + K(q /\ r /\ -,s /\ p) = CI + C2 + C3 + C4' since K(p /\ -,q /\
-,r /\ -,s) =0, i.e. r(s) = CI + C2 + C3 + C4.

However the other obtained upper bound which is larger is also valid (but not as
accurate as the optimal one). In fact the two solutions, namely the first one obtained
by using the resolution rule syntactically, and the second one obtained by
176

optimization are in agreement with different interpretations. Namely in the purely

syntactic use of the resolution rule, we consider that we have to pay a cost upper-
bounded by C, each time we are using (cp,C) in the proof. For instance, consider that
in the above example, p means "to have 10 Francs in one's pocket", q : "to buy a
pack of cigarettes", r : "to buy a lighter", s : "to smoke". Let Cl represent an
overestimate of the cost to use p. Then clearly you need two times 10 Francs to buy
both cigarettes and a lighter in order to be able to smoke, which requires that 2C1
appear in the final cost of s. On the contrary, the weight may represent the cost to
pay in order to make p true. Then it is allowed to use the formula an unlimited
number of times. This is in agreement with the solution of the optimization
problem with r -functions. For example, let us imagine that the weight represents
the computation time needed for checking that the formula is true, then the
optimization problem yields the minimal overestimate of the total computational
time required to establish the proposition we are interested in.

More generally we may think of extending this approach by introducing several

(non-exchangeable) currencies (e.g. money and time) and attaching to each statement
p a vector of overestimates of the amount of the different currencies required for
using p or making it true. For instance, let us again consider the cigarettes and
lighter example. We may imagine that Cl encodes in a numerical way the amount
of money required for using p, while C2 and C3 rather estimate the amounts of time
necessary to buy cigarettes and to buy a lighter (if you buy both in the same place,
the amount of time necessary may be less than C2 + C3, but this in agreement with
the fact we are computing upper bounds), and C4 the time to smoke a cigarette.
Then given limited amounts of money and time, we can answer if we have enough
money and enough time in order to smoke a cigarette, in our example.

This paper has only introduced the idea of toll sets, outlined some basic ideas
underlying various toll measures based on them, and suggested possible uses of two
kinds of toll logic not including the one by Pinkas (1991). More studies are
necessary to develop this proposal at the algebraic and logical levels especially.
Anyway the idea of reconsidering fuzzy set and possibility theory with a scale other
than [0,1] seems to be fruitful and may lead to new applications.

REFERENCES

Aczel J., Alsina C. (1987) Synthesizing judgements: a functional equation

approach. Mathematical Modelling, 9, 311-320.
Aczel J., Saaty T.L. (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J. Math.
Psychol., 27, 93-102.
Aubin J.P. (1990) A survey of viability theory. SIAM J. Control and Optimization,
28, 749-788.
Dubois D. (1988) Algebre exotiques et ensembles flous. BUSEFAL nO 32, IRIT,
Univ. P. Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 39-51.
Dubois D., Lang J., Prade H. (1989) Automated reasoning using possibilistic logic:
semantics, belief revision and variable certainty weights. Proc. of the 5th
Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Windsor, Ontario,
 177

Aug. 18-20,81-87. Also in IEEE Trans. on Data and Knowledge Engineering,

to appear.
Dubois D., Prade H. (1982) A class of fuzzy measures based on triangular norms.
Int. J. General Systems, 8,43-61.
Dubois D., Prade H. (1987) Necessity measures and the resolution principle. IEEE
Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 17(3),474-478.
Dubois D., Prade H. (1990) Updating with belief functions, ordinal conditional
functions and possibility measures. Proc. of the 6th Conf. on Uncertainty in
Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Mass., July 27-29, 307-315. Revised version
in Uncertainly in Artificial Intelligence 6 (P.P. Bonissone, M. Henrion,
L.N. Kanal, J.F. Lemmer, eds.), North-Holland, 1991,311-329.
Dubois D., Prade H. (1991) Toll sets. Proc. of the 4th Inter. Fuzzy Systems
Association (IFSA) Congress, Brussels, Belgium, July, Vol. : Artificial
Intelligence, 21-24.
Forte B. (1969) Measures of information: the general axiomatic theory. Revue
d'Informatique et de Recherche Operationnelle, Vol. R-2, 63-89.
Giles R. (1985) A resolution logic for fuzzy reasoning. Proc. 15th Inter. Symp. on
Multiple-Valued Logic, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, May 23-30, 60-67.
Goguen J.A. (1967) L-fuzzy sets. J. of Mathematical Analysis and Applications,
18, 145-174.
Kampe de Fenet J., Forte B., Benvenuti P. (1969) Forme generale de l'operation de
composition continue d'une information. C.R. Academie des Sciences de Paris,
t. 269, Ser. A, 529-534.
Pinkas G. (1991) Propositional non-monotonic reasoning and inconsistency in
symmetric neural networks. Proc. of the 12th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial
Intelligence (IJCAI'91), Sydney, Australia, Aug. 24-30, 525-530.
Qin K.Y., Xu Y. (1992) Basic theorems of toll sets. BUSEFAL (IRIT, Univ. P.
Sabatier, Toulouse, France), n° 50, 111-114.
Spohn W. (1988) Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic
states. In : Causation in Decision, Belief Change and Statistics (W. Harper,
B. Skyrms, eds.), 105-134.
Tribus M. (1969) Rational Descriptions, Decisions and Designs. Pergamon Press,
New York.
Weber S. (1984) 1.-decomposable measures and integrals for Archimedean t-eonorms
1.. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 101, 114-138.
Zadeh L.A. (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
Zadeh L.A. (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis of a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 1, 3-28.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
 Generating Control Strategies for
Resolution-Based Theorem Provers by Means of
Fuzzy Triangle Products and Relational
Closures

Ladislav J. KOHOUT and Yong-Gi KIM

Department of Computer Science B-173
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA.

1 INTRODUCTION

Resolution theorem prover systems form an important category of logical ar-

chitectures in the field of Automated Reasoning [1]. In this paper we outline
a method for control of inferential strategies of resolution based architectures
which employs the triangle fuzzy relational products [2] and fast fuzzy relational
algorithms [3]. The method for speeding up the logical inference is tested in con-
junction with the theorem provers called ITP and OTTER. ITP (a newer variant
of which is called OTTER) has been one of the most important systems in the
field [4], developed by Aragonne Laboratory. The ITP was distributed over 200
sites, and used extensively by other workers as publications in the Journal of
Automated Reasoning indicate.

In our approach, ITP is used as the basic architecture, embedded in a many-

valued logic based system which controls the selection and priorities the inference
strategies by means of many-valued and fuzzy logics based relational algorithms
(Bandler and Kohout [3]) and heuristics, respectively.

2 THE USE OF STRATEGIES IN RESOLUTION THEOREM

PROVERS

Current automated theorem prover ITP adopts strategies called set of support
strategy [5] and weighting strategy [6]. The reason for using strategies is that the
automated reasoning program can avoid many fruitless paths by their judicious
and "informed" application. The weighting strategy assigns some priorities to
each term, literal, and clause. With the weighting, one can assist the reasoning
program by contributing some of one's own experience capturing one's intuition,
in order to give the program hints. Weighting means assigning "weights" to
various axioms or concepts. Unfortunately, this weighting strategy is too heuristic
and too dependable on the subjective side of one's experience or intuition.

Here, we describe some of our results in applying the fast fuzzy relational
algorithms [3] as an automatic technique for extracting the weighting strategy.
Instead of determining the weighting patterns heuristically by an trial and error
approach, the new scheme provides a technique for selecting the weights auto-
181
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 181-192.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
182

matically; thus replacing by a fuzzy algorithm, manual selections that had to be

done previously by the users of the ITP or OTTER by a rule of thumb.

3 CONSTRUCTION OF A FUZZY MATRIX FOR BUILDING A

DESCRIPTOR HIERARCHY

In order to construct a descriptor hierarchy in the specific problem domain the

automatic reasoning system needs a matrix which consists of clauses and de-
scriptors which describe the properties of the clauses. The matrix is used for
constructing the descriptor hierarchy. This hierarchy consists of the descriptors
organized in such a way that the highest descriptor is the most relevant to de-
riving the conclusion (the empty clause) from clauses by means of inference rules
such as binary resolution, hyperresolution, etc.

What is involved here, can be expressed essentially by means of the following

three items:

1. A set 0 of clauses 0.

2. A set T of descriptors t (for example properties of clauses).

3. A clause-descriptor relation D, which is a fuzzy relation in the lattice of of all

relations from 0 to T: D ( 'R:F(O -> T).

The set of clauses used in the fuzzy matrix is formed from the logical axioms
of the problem to be solved, and from the immediate consequences of these ax-
ioms. Both are unified with the set of support by a suitable unification algorithm.
The immediate consequences consist of the very first level resolvent that is gen-
erated by applying the selected inference rules to the axioms and set of support,
by means of breadth first search. The set of properties is formed from the terms
which appear in the clauses representing the axioms and the immediate conse-
quences. The fuzzy relational matrix Dij gives the degree of relatedness between
the i-th element of the set clauses and the j-th element of the set of properties.
Let D ij denote the degree to which clause Oi is related to descriptor tj. Its value
can be viewed as the degree of relevance of the features described by descriptor
tj to clause 0i. The fuzzy degrees are determined by the recursive application of
the following rules [7]:

1. If the property j is an element of the clause i, then the degree of the relat-
edness D ij is 1.

2. If the property j is not an element of the clause i, then the degree of the
relatedness D ij is O.
3. If the property j is an element of a subterm (i.e., g(a)) of the clause i, then
the degree of the relatedness Dij is 0.5.
 183

4. If the property j is an element of a subterm of a subterm (i.e., g(g(a)) of

the clause i, then the degree of the relatedness Dij is 0.5 x 0.5, and so on.
5. If the property j is an element of the clause i, and the property j is an
element of a subterm of the clause i at the same time (i.e., P(a,b,g(a))),
then the degree of the relatedness D ij will be bigger one applied to the case
using the above steps 1 to 4.

Once the matrix has been constructed, the next step is to build a descriptor
hierarchy from the fuzzy matrix. For this purpose the triangle relational products
are used. There are several types of product used to produce product-relations,
each distinctive in its intention and use. But, when the relations are fuzzy, there
is a further wide choice of realization for each of the four kinds of products,
because of the plethora of the many-valued logics based candidates [8] for the
role of implication operator and other connectives. The conceptual distinction
among the four main logical types of products (circle, both triangle types, and the
square type) is important [9], [10], as is the way in which the requirement for an
implication or equivalence operator [11] comes in. Each product type performs a
different logical action on the intermediate sets, because each logical type of
the product enforces a distinct specific meaning on the resulting product-relation
R*S.

Where R is a relation from X to Y, and S a relation from Y to Z, a product

relation R* S is a relation from X to Z, determined by Rand S. Let Qij in the
formulas represent the fuzzy degree to which the statement XiQYj is true.

(R OS)ik = Vj(Rij /\Sjk) (R <l S)ik = /\j(Rij - Sjk)

(R I> S)ik = /\j(Rij f - Sjk) (R 0 S)ik = /\j (R;j <--+ Sjk)

The customary logical symbols for the logic connectives AND, OR, both
implications and the equivalence in the above formulas represent the connectives
of some many-valued logic, chosen according to the properties of the products
required. It is important to distinguish from what we call the harsh products
(defined above), the family of the mean products. Given the general formula
(R@S)ik ::= #(Rij * Sjk) the outer connective denoted # is replaced by L
and the resulting product normalized appropriately. The mean products are very
important in some applications [12], although their mathematical theory does not
take such a neat form as that of the harsh products. The mean products are used
in all subsequent investigations described in this paper.

Let us form the mean product type (DT@D)jk = #(D~ * Dik), where @ E
{<l, D} and look at the meaning of the respective relational composites. The
triangle sub-product and square product of D with its transpose DT will acquire
the following meaning:
184

(D T <I D)jk = the mean degree to which property tj is dominated by tk in its

relevance to clauses leading to the derivation of the empty clause (i.e. the proof
conclusion) .

(D T 0 D)jk = mean degree to which properties tj and tk are equally relevant

(synonymous) with respect to some specific set of clauses 0 and set of clause
descriptors T.

In order to extract the descriptor hierarchy from the matrix (D T <I D)jk
derived as described above, we need to test this relation for its local relational
properties, to determine tho~e tis that are related at least in a fuzzy local pre-
order (i.e. have the property of local reflexivity, transitivity to a degree). This
processing is routinely done by the TRISYS program [13]. TRISYS uses the
fast fuzzy relational algorithm described by Bandler and Kohout[3] to compute
the fuzzy closure of the triangle product tracloD T <I D and compare it with
the original fuzzy composite D T <I D, to determine to what degree it possesses
the required local properties which are already fuzzy. The fast fuzzy relational
algorithms and the standard processing of a fuzzy local preorder for building the
Hasse diagram were described in detail by Bandler and Kohout in [3].

So, considered in practical terms, TRISYS accepts a matrix built in the way
shown above and extracts a descriptor hierarchy. The descriptor hierarchy is
a tree of terms or variables which appeared in the input axioms of the theorem
prover. The hierarchy is ordered in such a way, that the higher terms or variables
are more likely to produce the empty clause than lower terms. Since the resolution
theorem prover picks a clause which has the lightest weight first, the weight
assignement has to be ordered in such a way, that a lighter weight is assigned to
a descriptors that appears higher in the hierarchy extracted by the TRYSIS.

4 EFFECT OF THE NEW WEIGHTING TECHNIQUE USING

FUZZY DESCRIPTOR HIERARCHY

Our new weighting technique has been applied to several classes of problems that
are ameneable to the automated reasoning approach. The first example illustrat-
ing the results of the new weighting technique to be described here is the following
theorem of the group theory: "In a group, if the square of every element is the
identity, the group is commutative". The second application listed in the com-
parison below, involves a digital circuit problem of verifying the correct function
of the full adder [14]. The third demonstration of our technique presented here
is concerned with the well known AI problem called" the block problem" .

Our method significantly reduced the total number of steps and CPU time
that the ITP needed to reach the conclusion. The performance results of the
solution to all the three problems just described are listed in the table below. The
experiments were run on SUN 3/50 under UNIX, where the ITP was installed.
 185

TABLE 1: The best case performance in 3 problem domains.

group theorem digital circuit block world

===================================
inference hyperresolution hyperresolution hyperresolution
rule & DR-resolution

default 121 steps 72 steps 65 steps

weighting 146 seconds 26 seconds 22 seconds

weighting 49 steps 49 steps 37 steps

of new tech. 52 seconds 21 seconds 15 seconds
===================================

The Hasse diagrams extracted by TRISYS that provided the weighting leading
to the results listed in the above table were computed by the algorithm described
in [3] using the implication operators as follows: group theorem - L5 (a-cut at
.89, mean level); digital circuit - L6 (a-cut at .93, half-upper level); block world
- L55 (a-cut at .95, half-upper level). L5 is Lukasiewicz and L6 Kiene-Dienes
implication operator, respectively. Note that for each problem domain, a different
implication operator appears to be the best. Eleven different operators were
compared for each problem in this evaluation. For the mathematical definitions
of these operators see [15], [2]. It was concluded that the type of implication
operator in the fuzzy algorithms is strongly problem and data dependent, as
previously demonstrated in other applications [2], [16].

5 APPLICATON OF THE WEIGHTING MECHANISM AI PROB-

LEMS

5.1 Description of the Test Problem

A well known AI micro-world "block world" [17],[18] has been chosen to

demonstrate the effect on the new technique on the complexity of the resolution
proof. This provides a suitable testing ground, because one can easily arrange
problems of widely desparate difficulty, from problems with non-interacting goals
that can be efficiently solved by conventional AI search techniques, to hard prob-
lems with interacting goals. Green's method [19],[20], a plamiing procedure based
on resolution is used to solve various problems within this microworld.

Let us describe in some detail the clause axioms and the example used in this
papers to demonstrate the results. The logical clauses (listed below) describe the
micro-world situation consisting of three blocks that can be spatially re-arranged.
The initial arrangement of the blocks, called the initial state is given together with
the goal state, specifying the final spatial arrangement that is to be achieved. The
notion of state used in the axiomatization is a snapshot of the world at a given
186

point in time. In describing a state of the Block World, we use the binary relation
On, Clear, and a unary relation symbol Table. And, to write state-dependent
sentences, we use the binary relation constant T to assert that a property is true
of a particular state. The symbol On is used to assert that one block is directly
on top of another block in a given state, while the symbol Clear is used to assert
that a block has no blocks on top of it in a given state. The Table is a unary
relation symbol that means a block is on the table in a given state. For example,
T(On(A,B),SI) means that block A is on block B in state S1. An action is to
change a state of world to a new state. An operator is a function from objects
to actions, which maps a group of objects into a common way of manipulating
those objects.

Let us choose the following block arrangement (problem 4): The initial state
is that block a, b, and c are on the table. The goal state is that block a is on block b,
and block b is on block c. The clause language for the block world problem (with
the initial and goal states for problem 4 incorpotated) consists of the following
clauses:

1 -T(On(x,y),z) I-T(Clear(x),z) I T(Table(x),Do(U(x,y),z)).

2 -T(On(x,y),z) I-T(Clear(x),z) I T(Clear(y),Do(U(x,y),z)).
3 -T(Table(x),z) I-T(Clear(x),z) I-T(Clear(y),z) I (x = y) IT(On(x,y),Do(S(x,y),z))

4 -T(Table(u),z) I T(Table(u),Do(U(x,y),z)).
5 -T(Clear(u),z) I T(Clear(u),Do(U(x,y),z)).
6 -T(On(u,v),z) I (u = x) I T(On(u,v),Do(U(x,y),z)).
7 -T(Table(u),z) I (u = x) I T(Table(u),Do(S(x,y),z)).
8 -T(Clear(u),z) I (u = y) I T(Clear(u),Do(S(x,y),z)).
9 -T(On(u,v),z) I T(On(u,v),Do(S(x,y),z)).
10 -T(x,z) I T(x,Do(Noop,z)).
11 -T(x,z) I T(x,Do(O,z)).
12 -T(x,Do(w,Do(y,z))) I T(x,Do([ylw]'z)).
13 -T(Table(x),z) I-T(On(x,y),z).
14 -T(Clear(y),z) I-T(On(x,y),z).
15 -T(On(x,y),z) I (y = w) I-T(On(x,w),z).
16 -T(On(A,B),x) I-T(On(B,C),x) I Goal(x).
17 -Goal(Do(x,y)) I Ans(x).
18 (A != B).
19 (A != C).
20 (B != A).
21 (B != C).
22 (C != A).
23 (C != B).

The set of support is:

24 T(Table(A),Sl).
 187

25 T(Table(B),SI).
26 T(Table(C),SI).
27 T( Clear(A),S 1).
28 T(Clear(B),SI).
29 T(Clear(C),SI).
30 -Ans([S(B,C)IS(A,B)]).

The Green's method uses the executability predicate to check every answer re-
turned by the process. If we find an answer that satisfies the predicate, we return
that term as answer to the overall planning problem.

5.2 Comparison of Various Implication Operators

The effect of various many-valued logic operators on the process of extractions of

the weighting hierarchies derived by the fast fuzzy relational algorithms embeded
in the program TRYSIS (cf. [3]) is evaluated in what follows. For the above
described problems, the implication operators used to calculate the relational
products producing the Hasse diagrams, were all the operators implemented in
the TRISYS.

Choice of implication operator and a-cut used to calculate the relationship in

the fast fuzzy relational algorithm affects the results of the theorem prover. Each
problem shows the best or close to the best result at different implication oper-
ator and a-cut. Here, we need to inspect a particular problem more specifically
to decide the best fit implication operator and the a-cut for the specific domain.
The block world is applied to show the effect of the implication operator and
the a-cut by means of the new weighting mechanism. The implication operators
used to calculate the relational products in TRISYS are all the operators imple-
mented in the TRISYS, which are Ll (Standard Sharp), L2 (Standard Strict),
L3 (Standard Star S*, Godel), L4 (Goguen-Gaines, G43), L5 (Lukasiewicz), L55
(KDL, Reichenbach), L6 (KIene-Dienes), L7 (Early Zadeh), and L8 (Willmot).
See e.g. [2],[15] for the table of definitions.

Shown in Table 2, in each row are: the number of clauses generated, the
number of clauses kept in the proof, and the numbers in the parenthesis indi-
cate the cpu time. The experiment was run on the SUN sparc station under
UNIX, using OTTER. The inference rules hyperresolution and UR-resolution
were used simultaneously, with the best performance 3251 clauses generated and
1446 clauses kept, in 27 seconds. For comparison, the default weighting strat-
egy produces the proof consisting of 18595 clauses generated and 10716 clauses
kept, in 456 seconds, On the other hand, breadth first search reaches the conclu-
sion with 37381 clauses generated and 12455 clauses kept, in 1445 seconds. The
number of input clauses (axioms) is 30 in all cases.

A closer look at the Table 2 given below can help one to decide what is the
most suitable implication operator and the best a-cut for this specific domain.
188

TABLE 2: The Block World Problem - initial state: block A, B, and C are on the
table. Goal state: block B is on block C, block A is on block B.

a-cut I L2,L3 L4 L5,L55 L6 L7

height 27865 27865 27865 3251 27865 18595
16178 16178 16178 1446 10178 10716
(984) (984) (984) (27) (984) (456)
half- 6011 6011 3251 3251 3251 18595
upper 2696 2696 1446 1446 1446 10716
(64) (64) (27) (27) (27) (456)
mean 6011 6011 6011 6011 6011 3251
2696 2696 2696 2696 2696 1446
(64) (64) (64) (64) (64) (27)
half- 27865 27865 27865 27865 27865 27865
lower 16178 16178 16178 16178 16178 16178
(984) (984) (984) (984) (984) (984)

Fuzzy implication operators L5, L6, and L7 at the a-cut of half-upper level
produce best results in the block world problems. The effect of the new weighting
mechanism, and the superiority of our approach using the many-valued logic
implication operators becomes more pronounced with the increase of complexity
of problems in this particular domain. It is interesting to note that the reduction
of complexity of the proofs is relatively higher for the problems that are more
difficult from the AI standpoint, that is for those problem<=; in which the subgoals
of the problem interact.

5.3 Performance Evaluation of the Theorem Prover

To evaluate more accurately the effect of the fuzzy algorithm on the weight-
ing strategy of the theorem prover, we make use of several distinct performance
evaluation measures. Let us define first, the meaning of the symbols used in the
formulas:

P>.: coefficient expressing reduction of the length of the proof.

P p : coefficient expressing reduction of the number of generated clauses.
P r : coefficient expressing reduction of computing time.
DWS: default weigting strategy.
FWS: fuzzy weighting strategy.
..\(DWS), ..\(FWS): the number of used clauses by DWS and FWS.
p(DWS), p(FWS): the number of generated clauses by DWS and FWS.
r(DWS), r(FWS): the CPU time taken to produce the proof by the application
of DWS and FWS, respectively.

Then, the performance evaluation measures P>., Pp , and Pr are defined as

follows:
 189

Four cases of the block world problem that were chosen for comparison were
arranged in the order of complexity. Description of the initial state and the goal
state of each of the four cases follows.

• block world 1: The initial state is that block a is on block b, and block b
is on block c. The goal state is block a is on the table.

• block world 2: The initial state is that block a is on block b, and block b
is on block c. The goal state is both of the block a and block c are on the
table.

• block world 3: The initial state is that block a is on block b, and block b
is on block c. The goal state is block b is on the table.

• block world 4: The initial state is that block a, b, and c are on the table.
The goal state is that block a is on block b, and block b is on block c.

The values of the coefficients Pp , PA, and PT of block problem 4 given above are
as follows:

BLOCK PROBLEM 4

Cl hyper. + OR-resol.
Pp 17 %
PA 13 %
PT 6%

The percentages listed in the tables above display the degree of complexity of
the tested strategy relative to the default strategy. So, for example, in the block
problem listed above, the duration of computation performed by FWS is only 6%
of the duration of computation performed by the default strategy DWS (taken
as 100%). This is a very significant improvement.

We further define the measure of improvement of tested strategy, relative to

the complexity of the proof done by means of the default strategy:

r(DWS/FWS) = p(DWS) / 'x(FWS).

This measure of improvement indicates how effective the tested strategy is in

reducing the number of deductive steps composing a proof, with respect to the
complexity of the comparison background (which is defined as the number of
clauses generated by the default strategy). The following table displays the values
190

of the improvement measure for the proofs of four different block problems (see
above), produced by a FWS in which the new fuzzy mechanism is used to decide
the weights. The four block problems shown in the table below are arranged in
order of increasing complexity and their detailed description can be found in [21].

r ~ BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 4

p\ >. ~====;F::::;:W::;::;;:::S =:==~F::;:W:;:;:S;:= F..,...,W,.....".."S-+-_-.,...,FW:--:-:S,....,
DWS ~ 2.88 2.1 11.82 12.86

As seen in the table, the effect of the fuzzy algorithm becomes stronger when
the search for a conclusion of the proof is more complex. Thus 'block l' and
'block 2' are problems with non-interacting subgoals that are conveniently solved
by the conventional AI technique using and-or graphs. 'Block 3' and 'block 4'
on the other hand represent problems in which the subgoals mutually interact.
These problems are notoriously difficult. In this kind of problems the complexity
of search over and-or graph families representing interacting subgoals sharply in-
creases, in comparison with the problems that have noninteracting subgoals. It is
encouraging to see that for the difficult problems 'block 3' and 'block 4' the im-
provement produced by our new fuzzy-based weighting strategy is approximately
twelvefold. This indicates that our approach may have considerable power when
dealing with complex problems, in which subgoals and activities interact.

References
1. Wos, L., Overbeek R. Lusk E. and Boyle, J.
A utomated Reasoning: Introduction and Applications.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
2. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
Semantics of implication operators and fuzzy relational products.
Internal. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12:89-116, 1980.
Reprinted in Mamdani, E.H. and Gaines, B.R. eds. Fuzzy Reasoning
and its Applications. Academic Press, London, 1981, pages 219-246.
3. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
Special properties, closures and interiors of crisp and fuzzy relations.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 26(3):317-332, June 1988.
4. Lusk, E. L. and Overbeek, R.
The Automated Reasoning System ITP.
Aragonne National Laboratory, Aragonne, IL, 1984.

5. Wos, L.
A utomated Reasoning: 33 Basic Research Problems.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
 191

6. McCharen, J., Overbeek R. and Wos, L.

Complexity and related enhancements for automated theorem proving
programs.
In Computers and Mathematics with Applications 2, pages 1-16, 1976.
7. Kohout, L.J. and Kim, Yong-Gi.
Use of fuzzy relational information retrieval techniques for generating
control strategies in resolution-based automated reasoning.
In FLAIRS - 90 Proceedings, pages 140-144, The Florida Artificial
Intelligence Research Society, 1990.
8. Kohout, L.J.
A Perspective on Intelligent Systems: A Framework for Analysis and
Design.
Chapman and Hall & Van Nostrand, London & New York, 1990.
9. Bandler, W. and Kohout, 1.J.
Fuzzy relational products as a tool for analysis and synthesis of the
behaviour of complex natural and artificial systems.
In Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K., editors, Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Ap-
plications to Policy Analysis and Information Systems, pages 341-367,
Plenum press, New York and London, 1980.
10. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
Relations, ma~hematical.
In Singh, M.G., editor, Systems and Control Encyclopedia, pages 4000
- 4008, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987.
11. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
Fuzzy power sets and fuzzy implication operators.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 4:13-30, 1980.

12. Bandler, W. Clnd Kohout, L.J.

The use of new relational products in clinical modelling.
In Gaines, B.R., editor, General Systems Research: A Science, a
Methodology, a Technology (Proc. 1979 North American Meeting of
the Society for General Systems Research)., pages 240-246, Society for
General Systems Research, Louisville KY, January 1979.
13. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
The identification of hierarchies in symptoms and patients through
computation of fuzzy relational products.
In Parslow, R.D., editor, BCS'81: Information Technology for the
Eighties (Proc. Con! The British Computer Society, London, 1-3 July
1981), pages 191-194, Heyden & Son, London, 1981.
14. Kim, Yong-Gi and Kohout, 1.J.
An improvement of weighting strategy in resolution-based automated
reasonmg.
192

In Harber, K.S.M., editor, Proceedings of the 6th International Sym-

posium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Vol. Poster Session.,
pages 73-82, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORNL/TM-11938, Cesar-
91/32, 1991.
15. Bandler, W. and Kohout, L.J.
A survey of fuzzy relational products in their applicability to medicine
and clinical psychology.
In Kohout, L.J. and Bandler, W., editors, Knowledge Representation in
Medicine and Clinical Behavioural Science, pages 107-118, an Abacus
Book, Gordon and Breach Publ., London and New York, 1986.
16. Ben-Ahmeida, B., Kohout, L.J., and Bandler, W.
The use of fuzzy relational products in comparison and verification of
correctness of knowledge structures.
In Kohout, L.J., Anderson, J., and Bandler, W., editors, Knowledge-
Based Systems for Multiple Environments, chapter 16, Ashgate Publ.
(Gower), Aldershot, U.K., 1992.
17. Genesereth, M. and Nilsson, N.
Logical Foundations of Artificial intelligence.
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.) Los Altos, CA, 1987.
18. Shirai, Y. and Tsujii, J.
A rtificial Intelligence: concepts, techniques, and applications.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984.
19. Green, C. and Raphael, B.
The use of theorem-proving techniques in question-answering systems.
In Proc. of the 23rd National Conf. of ACM, pages 169-181, Brandon
Systems Press, Princeton, 1968.
20. Green, C.
Theorem-proving by resolution as a basis for question-answering sys-
tems.
In Meltzer and Michie, editors) Mach. Intell. 4, pages 183-205, Edin-
burgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.
21. Kim, Yong-Gi and Kohout, L.J.
Comparison offuzzy implication operators by means of weighting strat-
egy in resolution-based automated reasoning.
In Berghel, G.E. and Hedrick, G.E., editors, Proc. of the 1992 Sympo-
sium on Applied Computing (SAC '92), ACM, 1992.
 On Zadeh's Compositional Rule of
Inference
Robert Fuller"
Department of Computer Science
Eotvos Lorand University, H-1502 Budapest 112, P.O.Box 157
Hans-J iirgen Zimmermann
Department of Operations Research,
RWTH Aachen, Templergraben 64, W-5100 Aachen

Abstract
This paper deals with Zadeh's compositional rule of inference [Zad73]
under triangular norms: IF X is P AND X and Y have relation R,
THEN Y is Q, where P and Q are fuzzy sets of the real line R, R
is a fuzzy relation on R and the conclusion Q is defined via sup-T
composition of P and R:

J-lQ(Y) = sup T(J-lP(X),J-lR(X,y)), Y E R.

xER

It is shown that (i) when the triangular norm T and the membership.
function of the observation P are continuous, then the conclusion Q
depends continuously on the observation; (ii) when T and the member-
ship function of the relation R are continuous, then the observation Q
has continuous membership function. Furthermore, we present similar
results for the discrete case and for multiple fuzzy reasoning schemes.

Keywords: Compositional rule of inference, fuzzy relation, fuzzy inter-

val, triangular norm, extension principle

·Supported by the Hungarian Research Foundation under the projects OTKA T 4281,
OTKA I/3 2152 and by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
193
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic. 193-200.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
194

1. PRELIMINARIES
In this Section we set up the notations and present a lemma needed in
order to prove stability and continuity properties of the compositional rule
of inference under continuous triangular norms.
Definition 2.1. A fuzzy interval A is a fuzzy quantity with a contin-
uous, finite-supported, fuzzy-convex and normalized membership function
J.LA : R -+ [0,1].
The family of all fuzzy intervals will be denoted by F. Fuzzy intervals are
often used to represent linguistic variables [Wer90]. An a-level set of a fuzzy
interval A is a non-fuzzy set denoted by [AY:\' and is defined by

for a E (0,1] and [A]e> = cl(supp J.LA) for a = 0.

Definition 2.2. A function T : [0,1] x [0,1] -+ [0,1] is said to be a
triangular norm [Sch63] (t-norm for short) if T is symmetric, associative,
non-decreasing in each argument, and T(x, 1) = x for all x E [0,1].
Definition 2.3. Let A be a fuzzy interval, then for any 0 2: we define
WACO), the modulus of continuity of A by
°
WACO) = max IJ.LA(U) - J.LA(v)l·
lu-vl~e

Definition 2.4. We metricize F by the metric [Kal87],

D(A, B) = sup d([AY\ [B]e»,

e>E[O,I)

where d denotes the classical Hausdorff metric in the family of compact

subsets of R 2 , Le.

d([A]e>, [B]e» = max{lal(a) - bl(a)l, la2(a) - b2(a)!},

and [A]e> = [al(a),a2(a)], [BJe> = [b l (a),b 2(a)].

When the fuzzy sets A and B have finite support {Xl,.'.' x n }, then their
Hamming distance is defined as
n
H(A,B) =L IJ.LA(Xi) - J.LB(xdl·
i=l

The following lemma [Fed92] shows that if the distance between the a-level
sets of fuzzy intervals A and B is small, then the distance between their
membership grades can not be too big.
 195

Lemma 2.1. Let b ~ 0 be a real number and let A, B be fuzzy intervals.

If
D( A, B) ::; b,
then
sup IJ-lA(t) - J-lB(t)1 ::; max{wA(b),WB(b)}.
tER
where WA and WB denote the modolus of continuity of A and B, respectively.

2. STABILITY AND CONTINUITY PROPERTIES OF THE

COMPOSITIONAL RULE OF INFERENCE

In this section we show two very important features of the compositional

rule of inference under triangular norms. Namely, we prove that (i) if the
t-norm defining the composition and the membership function of the ob-
servation are continuous, then the conclusion depends continuously on the
observation; (ii) if the t~norm and the membership function of the relation
are continuous, then the observation has a continuous membership function.
We consider the compositional rule of inference with different observations
p and pI:

Observation: X has property P X has property pI

Relation: X and Y have relation R X and Y have relation R

Conclusion: Y has property Q Y has property Q'

According to Zadeh's compositional rule of inference, Q and Q' are computed

as
Q = PoR, Q' = p' 0 R
i.e.,

J-lQ(Y) = sup T(J-lP(X),J-lR(X,y)), J-lQI(Y) = sup T(J-lpl(X),J-lR(X,y)).

xER xER

The following theorem shows that when the observations are close to each
other in the metric D, then there can be only a small deviation in the
membership functions of the conclusions.
Theorem 3.1. Let b ~ 0 and T be a continuous triangular norm, and
let P, pI be fuzzy intervals. If

D(P, PI) ::; b

196

then
sup I/LQ(Y) - /LQ'(Y)I ~ wT(max{wp(6),wp,(6)}).
yER

Proof. Let Y E R be arbitrarily fixed. From Lemma 2.1. it follows that

I/LQ(Y) - /LQ'(Y)I =
I sup T(/LP(X),/LR(X,y)) - sup T(/LP(X),/LR(X,y))! ~
xER xER
sup IT(/Lp(X),/LR(X,y)) - T(/Lp'(X),/LR(X,Y))1 ~
xER
sup wT(I/Lp(x) - /Lp,(x)I) ~ sup wT(max{wp(6),wp,( 6)}) =
xER xER
wT(max{wp( b),wp,( b)}).

Which proves the theorem.

Remark 3.1 It should be noted that the stability property of the con-
clusion Q with respect to small changes in the membership function of the
observation P in the compositional rule of inference scheme is independent
from the relation R (it's membership function can be discontinuous).
Remark 3.2. Since the membership function of the conclusion in the
compositional rule of inference can have unbounded support, it is possible
that the maximal distance between the a-level sets of Q and Q' is infinite,
but their membership grades are arbitrarily close to each other.
The following theorem establishes the continuity property of the conclusion
in the compositional rule of inference scheme.
Theorem 3.2. Let R be continuous fuzzy relation, and let T be a
continuous t-norm. Then Q is continuous and

Proof. Let b ~ 0 be a real number and let u, v E R such that lu - vi ~ 6.

Then

I/LQ (u) - /LQ (v) I =

I sup T(/LP(X),/LR(X,U)) - sup T(/LP(X),/LR(X,v))1 ~
xER xER
sup IT(/Lp(X),/LR(X,U)) - T(/LP(X),/LR(X,v))1 ~
xER
sup wT(I/LR(X, u) - /LR(X, v)l) ~ sup WT(WR(lu - vi)) =
xER xER
WT(WR(lu - vI)) ~ wT(wR(6)).
 197

Which ends the proof.

Remark 3.3. From Theorem 3.2. it follows that the continuity property
of the membership function of the conclusion Q in the compositional rule
of inference scheme is independent from the observation P (it's membership
function can be discontinuous).
The next theorem shows that the stability property of the conclusion
under small changes in the membership function of the observation holds in
the discrete case, too.
Theorem 3.3. Let T be a continuous t-norm. If the observation P and
the relation matrix R are finite, then

H(Q,Q') S; wr(H(P,P')) (1)

where H denotes the Hamming distance and the conclusions Q and Q' are
computed as
J-lQ(Yj) = . max T(J-lP(Xi), J-lR(Xi, Yj)),
t=l, ... ,m

J-lQI(Yj) = . max T(J-lP,(Xi),J-lR(Xi,Yj)),

t=l, ... ,m

for j = 1, ... , n, supp(J-lQ) = supp(J-lQ') = {Yl, ... , Yn} and supp(J-lp)

sUPP(J-lPI) = {Xl'."X m }.
The proof of this theorem is carried out analogously to the proof of
Theorem 3.1.
It should be noted that in the case of T( u, v) = min {u, v} (1) yields

H(Q, Q') S; H(P, P').

The above them-ems can be easily extended to Multiple Fuzzy Reasoning

(MFR) schemes. Consider the following MFR schemes:

Observation: P P'
Implication 1: PI --+ Ql P'1 --+ Q'1

Implication m: Pm --+ Qm p'm --+ Q'm

Conclusion: Q Q'

where --> denotes a fuzzy implication operator [Mar89].

198

According to Zadeh's compositional rule of inference, Q and Q' are computed

by sup-T composition as follows

Q = Po n
m

i=l
Pi -+ Qi, Q' = P' 0 nPI
i=l
m

-+ Q~,

i.e.,
I-"Q(Y) = sup T(I-"p(x),. min I-"p;(x) -+ I-"Q;(Y)),
xER l=l, ... ,m

I-"QI(Y) = sup T(I-"p,(x), . min I-"P:(x) -+ I-"Q:(Y)),

xER l=l, ... ,m

The following two theorems can be proved similarly to Theorems 3.1 and
3.2.
Theorem 3.4.Let {j ~ 0, let T be a continuous triangular norm,
let P,P',Pi,PI,Qi,Qi, i = 1, ... ,m, be fuzzy intervals and let - + be a
continuous fuzzy implication operator. If

max{D(P,P'), . max D(Pi,Pf), . max D(Qi,Qin::; 0,

t=l, ... ,m t=l, ... ,m

then
sup II-"Q(Y) - I-"QI(Y)I ::; wT(max{w({j),w-;(w({j))}),
yER

where w(b) = max {wp; ({j), wp:({j),wQ;({j),wQ:({j)} and W-; denotes the mod-
ulus of continuity of the fuzzy implication operator.
Theorem 3.5. Let - + be a continuous fuzzy implication operator, let
P, P', Pi, PI, Qi, Qi, i = 1, ... , m, be fuzzy intervals and let T be a continuous
t-norm. Then Q is continuous and

wQ(O) ::; WT(W...... (W(o)) for each {j ~ 0,

where w({j) = max{wp;({j),wp:({j),wQ;({j),wQ:(o)} and w-+ denotes the mod-

ulus of continuity of the fuzzy implication operator.
Other results along this line have appeared in [Dub88, He190, Ful91 ,
Kis85, Mcl89, Zim87, Zim91].
Remark 3.4. From lims-+o w( 6) = 0 and Theorem 3.4. it follows that

sup II-"Q(Y) - I-"Q,(y)I""'"

yER
°
if D(P,P')...,... 0, D(Pi,Pf)""'" 0 and D(Qi,Qi)""'" 0, for i = 1, ... ,m, which
means the stability ofthe conclusion under small changes of the observation
and rules.
 199

The stability property of the conclusion under small changes of the mem-
bership function of the observation and rules guarantees that small rounding
errors of digital computation and small errors of measurement of the input
data can cause only a small deviation in the conclusion, Le. every successive
approximation method can be applied to the computation of the linguistic
approximation of the exact conclusion.

References
[Dub88] D.Dubois, R.Martin-Clouarie and H.Prade, Practical comput-
ing in fuzzy logic, In: M.M.Gupta and T.Yamakawa eds.,
Fuzzy Computing: Theory, Hardware, and Applications, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1988 11-34.

[Fed92] M.Fedrizzi and R.Fuller, Stability in Possibilistic Linear Pro-

gramming Problems with Continuous Fuzzy Number Parame-
ters, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 47(1992) 187-191.

[Fu191] R.Fuller and H.-J.Zimmermann, Computation of the Composi-

tional Rule of Inference, Fuzzy Sets and Systems (to appear).

[Zim91] R.Fuller and H.-J.Zimmermann, On Zadeh's compositional rule

of inference, in: R.towen and M.Roubens eds., Proceedings of
the Fourth IFSA Congress, Vol. Artifical Intelligence, Brussels,
1991 41-44.

[He190] H.Hellendoorn, Closure properties of the compositional rule of

inference, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 35(1990) 163-183.

[Ka187] O.Kaleva, Fuzzy differential equations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,

24(1987) 301-317.

[Kis85] J.B.Kiszka, M.M.Gupta, P.N.Nikiforuk, Some properties of ex-

pert control systems, In: M.M.Gupta, A.Kandel and J.B.Kiszka
eds., Approximate Reasoning in Expert Systems, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1985, 283-306.

[Mcl89] R.Martin-Clouarie, Semantics and computation of the general-

ized modus ponens: The long paper, International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning, 3( 1989) 195-217.
200

[Mar89] P.Margrez and P.Smets, Fuzzy modus ponens: A new model suit-
able for applications in knowledge-based systems, International
Journal of Intelligent systems, 4(1989) 181-200.

[Sch63] B.Schweizer and A.Sklar, Associative functions and abstract

semigroups, Publ. Math. Debrecen, 10(1963) 69-81.

[Wer90] B.Werners, Modellierung und Aggregation Linguistischer

Terme, Arbeitsbericht, No.90/03, RWTH Aachen, Institut fur
Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1990.

[Zad73] L.A.Zadeh, Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex

systems and decision processes, IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, Vol.SMC-3, No.1, 1973 28-44.

[Zad83] L.A.Zadeh, The role of fuzzy logic in the management of un-

certainty in expert systems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1983)
199-228.

[Zim87] H.-J .Zimmermann, Fuzzy sets, Decision Making and Expert Sys-
tems, Boston, Dordrecht, Lancaster 1987.
 INTERVAL VALUED APPROXIMATE REASONING
FOR IGNORANCE PROCESSING

Kazuo Nakamura
Industrial Products Research Institute
1-1-4, Higashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan

INTRODUCTION
Fuzzy sets with interval valued membership functions were introduced for
enhancing conventional fuzzy sets of Zadeh's original type[l5]. They are
briefly called interval valued fuzzy sets ([2][4][5][13]). This must be realistic
way coping with ambiguity of membership functions rather than type 2 fuzzy
sets[l6]. In these circumstances the need to extend approximate reasoning
based on such interval valued fuzzy sets has arisen, but the formalization
frame has not yet been established with significant concepts. For this the
interval valued fuzzy logic might be quite informitive.
In this report the formalization of extended approximate reasoning based on
interval valued fuzzy sets is proposed not only for single rule inference but
also for multiple rules inferences. The basic idea of the proposals derived
from the view points of aggregating the significances of several conventional
types of approximate reasoning for composing interval valued fuzzy relations
corresponding to rules, and from the view points of modifying Dempster's rule
of combination [10] for amalgamating the rules of a family.

IGNORANCE AND INTER VAL VALUED FUZZY SETS

What we call "ignorance" usually means either the absence or the distortion of
true knowledge, and has to be distinguished from what we call "uncertainty" (see
Smithson [12]). In conventional fuzzy sets theory the degree of membership of an
element x in a fuzzy set A of a reference set X is denoted by a (x), and it may
be comprehended as the degree of truth of the proposition "x is A " (see e.g.
Smets & Magrez [11), i.e.;
a(x) = v(x is A) (1)
And the degree of membership of x in the complementary fuzzy set A C of
A of X is
201

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 201-212.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
202

a C (x) = v (x is not A ) (2)

Thus degree of membership is compatible with fuzzy logical representation.
For enhancing fuzzy logic interval valued degree of truth has introduced by,
e.g., Lakoff [6], Schwarts [9], Baldwin [l] or Mukaidono et al. [8]. In these
studies the interval valued degree of truth is called in different ways, but their
meanings are relevant to the degree of ignorance on a given proposition.
In this article a truth interval is designated in two ways described below.
!ill(x) = < a*(x), a-(x), a- (x) > (basic support assignments) (3)
= [a L(x), a u (x) ] (lower am upper degrees of support), (4)
where
a*(x): degree to which the proposition "x is A " is certainly supported,
a-(x): degree to which it is ignorant whether the proposition "x is A" is
supported or not,
a- (x): degree to which the proposition "x is not A" is certainly supported.
And
a dx): degree of necessary support for the proposition "x is A",
a u (x) : degree of possible support for the proposition "x is A".
Hence they hold the following relations.
a*(x) + a-(x) + a-(x) = 1 (5)
a dx) = a*(x) (6)
a u (x) = a*(x) + a-(x) (7)
Let X be the collection of all kind of foods in a store. Suppose the setV
is "vegetables" as the concept for everyday use. Then the various degrees
mentioned above may be assigned for several foods as follows.
v*(carott) = 1.0, v-(carott) = 0.0, v- (carott) = 0.0;
vL(carrot) = vu(carott) = 1.0 ;
v*(tomato) =0.7, v-(tomato) =0.0, v- (tomato) =0.3 ;
vL(tomato) = Vu (tomato) = 0.7 ;
v*(orange) = 0.0, v-(orange) = 0.0, v- (orange) =1.0 ;
vL(orange) = vu(orange) = 0.0 .
In this case the degree:J which it is unknown whether the proposition "x is a
vegetable" is supported or not is assigned the zero value. Next let X be the
collection of real numbers. Suppose the set A is the class of real numbers
containing the sequence of "1234567" in the decimal exression. Then we can
 203

assign the degrees for the circular constant n as follows.

a*(n) =0.0, a-(n) =1.0, a- (n) =0.0; Ot. (n) =0.0, au (n) =1.0
Fig.l illustrates mutual relations between the representaion by lower and
upper degrees of support and the one basic support assignments for the
proposition "x is A".

o 1
truth
a*(x)
1------- a L (x) --~

1-------------------- a u (x) -------------~

Fig. 1 Lower and upper degrees of support
and basic support assignments

Thus the fuzzy set A is called an interval valued fuzzy set (IVFS) if its
membership function is compatible with the interval truth value with respect
to "x is A" for each x in X. Fig.2 illustrates the concept of "OLD AGED".

~)( 1.0 -r-------:.---.,---.,

..
~
.
A :"Old Aged"'·
I
'

~ upper of a(x) /

i 0.5 .f
~ .....
.8 .•••
E ••••
~ 0.0 +-_..:-"'T"'--Lr-.........-.-..,......--j
40 50 60 70 80
Age x

Fig.2 Interval valued fuzzy set for OLD AGED.

The fuzzy sets with extreme interval valued membership functions have
special meaning as described below.
The empty set lP :
l/Jdx) = l/Ju(x) =0, for all x in X, (8)
the universal set Q :
for all x in X, (9)
204

the completely ignorant set r:

YL(x)=o, and Yu(x)=l, for all x in X, (10)
Note that in conventional framework of fuzzy sets the completely ignorant set
r is compatible with the universal set n defined by (9). However
introduction of IVFS can distinguish them.

FUNDAMENTAL OPERAnONS OF IVFS

The fundamental set operations are introduced as shown below. Let A and
B be IVFS's of X.
Complementary set A C

I!lJ C (x) = < a-(x), a-(x), a*(x) >

=[ 1 - a u (x), 1 - a L (x) ]. (11)
This formulation was employed by Lakoff [9].

Conjunction A (l B:
I!lJ (l 1ffi(x)
=< a*(x) ~ b*(x), 1 - a*(x) ~ b*(x) - a- (x) V b- (x), a- (x) V b- (x) >
= [adx) ~ b dx), au(x) ~ b u(x)], (12)

where ~ and V respectively stand for t-norm and t-conorm of various types.
Disjunction A u B :
(IIu b(x)
= < a*(x) V b*(x), 1 - a*(x) V b*(x) - a- (x) ~ b- (x), a- (x) ~ b- (x)
=[ a L (x) V b L (x), a u (x) V b u (x) ]. (13)
The above set operations seem quite natural in the sense that Zadeh's
extension principle on operations of intervals follows such results ([7][16]).
Suppose IVFS's A and B are the set of all tall girls and the one of all
healthy girls of a school. Then the set of all healthy tall girls of the
school is given by A ( l B, and the one of all healthy or tall girls is given
by A u B introduced above.

Combination A © B :
Suppose that X is a collection of "old coins" which includes real ones and
imitations. One expert guesses A of X is the set of real old coins based on
some evidences, while the other expert guesses B of X is the set of real
 205

ones from other evidences. How these informations should be agregated as a

set of real old coins? For this aggregated set the notation A ©B is
introduced, and this is called the combination of A and B. In general A and
B are IVFS's which have the basic support assignment with partial ignorance
for every x.
For establishing this set operation the combinations of the parts of mutual
basic support assignments of A and B are evaluated. Let us focus on a fixed
element of X. Evidently the combination of the truth parts of basic support
assignments of A and B contributes to the truth parts of A ©B, and also the
combination of the falsity parts of A and B contributes to falsity part of A ©B.
The combination of truth part of A (B) and ignorant part of B (A) may
contribute to truth part of A ©B, and similarly the combination of falsity part
of A (B) and ignorance part of B (A) may contribute to truth part of A©B.
These ideas are owing to Dempster's combination rules (see [lO]). On the other
hand the combination of truth part of A (B) and falsity part of B (A)
derives conflict in his thinking process so that the aggregation results in
contribution to ignorance. Fig. 3 shows that this aggregation concept is
acomplished in a modified way of the Dempster's combination rule. The idea
that the contribution of the part of conflict results in ignorance was also
employed by Baldwin[l] and Yager[l4].

B true
A b*(x)
true true
a*(x) a* ~ b*

true
a-~ b*

•
Fig. 3 Combination operation of A and B
206

Specifically mathematical representation of this operation is obtained as

follows.
a©b(x) = < (dQb)*(x), (dQb)-(x), (dQbr (x) >
= [(dQbh.(x), (dQb>u(x) ], (14)
where
i) sum-product type (combination of independent informations)
=a*(x)o(1 - b- (x» + (1 - a- (x»ob*(x) - a*(x)ob*(x)
(dQb)*(x) (15)
(dQbHx) =1 - (dQb)*(x) - (dQbr (x) (16)
(dQbr (x) = tr (x)o(1 - b*(x» + (1 - a*(x»ob- (x) - a (x)ob- (x) (17)

(dQb\ (x) =a dx)ob v (x)+ a v (x)ob dx)- - a L (x)ob dx) (18)

(dQb>U (x) = 1 - (1 - a v (x»o(1 - b L (x» - (1 - a L (x»o(1 - b v (x»
+(1 - a v (x»o(1 - b v (x» (19)
ii) max-min type (combination of supplementary information)
(dQb)*(x) = [a*(x) 1\ (1 - b- (x»} v {(1- a- (x» 1\ b*(x) } (20)
(dQb)-(x) = 1 - (dQb)*(x) - (dQbr (x) (21)
(dQbr (x) = (a- (x) 1\ (1 - b*(x»} v {(1 - a*(x» 1\ b- (x)} (22)
and
(dQb)L(X) = (adx) I\b u (x» v (au (x) I\b L (x» (23)
(dQb>U (x) = 1 - ((1 - a u (x» 1\(1 - b dx»} v ((1 - a L (x» 1\ (1 - b u (x»}
=(a u (x) v b L (x)} 1\ (a L (x) v b u (x» . (24)
Here, 0, 1\ and v stand for algebraic product, min and max. Note that the part

of conflict of combined result may be considered as:

i) for the sum-product type operations,
a*(x) 0 b- (x) + a- (x) 0 b*(x)
= {a L(X) 0 (1 - b u(x»} + ((1 - a u(x) 0 b dx)} (25)
ii) for the max-min type operations,
(a*(x) + b- (x) - 1) v O} v (a- (x) + b*(x) - 1) v 0)
={adx) + (1- b u(x» -I} v ((1- au(x» + b L(X) -I} v 0
=(adx) - b v (x» v (b u(x) - au(x» v O. (26)
We may call the case "pathological conflict case" if and only if the part of conflict is
nonzero for the max-min type operation given by (26).
 207

[Proposition] For any az(x) and hex) and in both type of combinations,
(d9b)dx):S:; (d9b)u(x). (27)

Fig.4 illustrates the combination operations in two cases with different level of
conflict, i.e., a non-pathological conflict case and a pathological conflict case.

o .5 o .5 1
A d"iEfl}'ff::: A
0 . 5 9 1 i l.. . 111 [0,5,0.8]
1 ~l l l li~I I,~1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B
~~3
B
b;.4 [0.4,0,6] I Bjll1l il i l1l1lililll'IIlillillllllllili [0.3,0.5]

i) sum-product type

c[~~:~~~~0~~81'::"-0.-38-T"1 =•• • =.~.=~3=• • •=•• • • •" '1 1 1=~1 c~~.~~~~~~~~6

(a © b)*
(a i \
b)-
(a © bf (a © b)*
/ (a J b)- \
\ (a /© br
\ / ii) max-min type \

0.5 1 1!1 !'i!l ljl l il ~il ~~.~~~~;~O 0.5 l.i~ ~ I I !i',I ~ l il ~~~~i~.t;0.2
a) Non-pathological conflict case b) Pathological conflict case
Fig.4 Some illustrations of combination operations

INTERVAL VALUED APPROXIMATE REASONING (IV AR)

IVAR by a Single Rule
Now we proceed to the compositional rule of inference. Let a fact, a rule
and a conclusion be verbally represented as follows.
fact "x is A'"
rule "if x is A, then y is B "

conclusion "y is B'"

Let A and A' be IVFS's of X, and let B and B' be a IVFS of Y. Then
according to the formulation of compositional rule of inference,
208

B'=A'o R, (28)
where R is an interval valued fuzzy relation on X xY being compatible with
the given rule. That is,
b'dy) = sup [a 'dx) 1\ , dx ,y)] (29)
x
b'u (y) = sup [a 'u(x) 1\ 'u(x,y)]. (30)
x
Thus the issue addressed here is the formulation of R as an IVFS in X x Y .
Though a simple way introducing IVFS to conventional approximate reasoning
is established by employing extension principles (see e.g. Schwarts [9],
Gorzarczany [2]). However we introduce here differrent formulation for taking
account of ignorance positively
'dx,y) = a dX) .1 b L (y) (31)
'u(x,y) = (l-a L (x» V'bu(y) (32)
Note that lower membership function is given by Mamdani type while the
upper one is given by logical type. Further, note that a u(x) is irrelevant to
R. Representative cases are shown below.
(cl) When III '(x) {= [a, /3] : if x = xo
= [ 0, 0] : else,
then
b'L(y) = (a~aL(xo)}~bL(y)'
b' u (y) = ( 13.1 b u (y) ) V' { 13.1 (l - a dxo» ). (33)
Especially
(cl-l) when la, 13] =[ 1 , 1 ],
let a L (xo) =y, then
b'L (y) = y.1 b L (y),
b'u(y) = (l - y) V' bu (y) (34)
See Fig.5 (a) (b) (c) for this case.
(cl-2) When la, 13] =[0,1]
let a L (xo) = y, then
b' L (y) = 0,
b' u(y) = (l - y ) V' b u (y) (35)
(cl-3) when [a, 13] = [0, OJ,
b'dy) = 0,
b' u (y) = O. (36)
 209

· ,.

!
~ 1.0 :0 1.0
~ ~
~

.~
~

~
.
."
0.5 a'

~
."
0.5

~
.0
li
.0
E E
0.0 0.0
~
::E
0 15
:;!
5 X-axl, 10 XO 0 5 Y-axis 10 15

(a) (JJ , (xo) = [1,1], (JJ (xo) = [1, 1]

.· 1.0 ~ 1.0

.~
~
~ l-y .................
b'u /

i
~."

. .
~
."
0.5 0.5
bu
E y :: y ....:..'
b'l
.0
E
!E
:;! 0.0 0.0
0 15
:;! 0 15
5 Y-axis 10

(b) (JJ , (xo) = [1,1], OJ (xo) = [y, 1]

· ,.

r
~ 1.0 :0 1.U
b'u
..
~
~
~
~
.. 0.5
.
~
."
0.5 b uo'/

~ ~
li
b'L
~ .0
E :
:;! 0.0 0.0
0 xo :;! 0 10 15
5 X-axis 10 15 5 V-axis
,
(C) (JJ (XO) = [1,1], (JJ (Xo) = [0, 0]
m· 1.0
,. 1.0

.
.0

....
~

a
~
~
a ~

".
~

0.5 " 05

j
E
~
.8E
:;! 0.0 :;! 0.0
5 _ l0 15 0 10 15
0 X axh 5 V-axis

(d) A' =A with interval valued MF

.
~
1.0
,.
:0 1.0
b'u

I
o'
~ bu,"'-
~
."
0.5 0.5
" ~"
b'L
.... ,
~
.0
CI. li
.0
CI.
o'
E E 0.0
o'
00 :;!
:;! 0 10 15 0 10 15
5 X-axis 5 Y-axis

(e) A' =A C

Fig, 5 Representative approximate reasoning based on IVFS

(in case of ~ : min and YO: max )
210

(c2) When a '(x) = a (x) for all x inX, aM supadx) =sup au(x) =1,
x x
b'dy) =b dy)
b' u (y) = b' u(Y) V sup [a u (x) ~ (1 - a u (x)) } (37)
x
See Fig. 5 (d).
(c3) When a '(x) = aC(x) for all x inX, aM supaL(x) =sup au (x) =1,
x x
b' L(y) = sup (a L(x) ~ (1 - a u (x)) } ~ b L (y),
x
b' u (y) =1 (38)
See Fig. 5 (e).
(c4) When cOl '(x) = [a, 13] for all x in X,
b' L (y) =a. .1 b dy),
b' u (y) =~ (39)

IVAR by a Set of Rules in a Same Universe

Next the cases of multiple rules are considered ( See e.g.[3]). This article focuses
on only the case where these rules are given as a family in a same universe. The
problem is verbally represented as follows.
fact "x is A'"
a rule set "if x is AI, then y is BI "
"if x is A 2 , then y is B2 "

conclusion "y is B'"

Let At, (k E K ) and A' be IVFS's of X, and let Bt , (k E K) and B' be a
IVFS of Y. For every (x,y), while the degree of aggregated necessary support
by given rules increases, the degree of aggregated possibly support decreases
according to addition of new rules. We employ the combination defined by
(14) for aggregating a set of rules on the same universe.
© Rk R = (40)
kEK
[Proposition] When R is given by (40) for any [R t , kEK},
rL(x,y)~ru(x,y) (41)
in both the sum-product type and the max-min type of combination operations.
 211

Then according to the formalism of compositional rule of inference, the

conclusion is obtained as B' = B 0 R.
[Note] Suppose that we employ the following simple combination operetions for
aggregation of a set of rules.
TL(X,y) =/\ (rk)L(x,y) (42)
k
TV (x,y) = v (Tk)V (x,y) (43)
k
Then the inequality (41) might be violated.

CONCLUSIONS
Ignorance is one of the crucial issues in knowledge processing. This paper
focuses on ignorance in approximate reasoning by employing interval valued
fuzzy sets and composing interval valued fuzzy relations for given rules. This
scheme is conceptually considered the aggregation of logical type and Mamdani type
inferences in approximate reasoning.
The author is grateful to Prof. M.Smithson for his comments and suggestions in
connection with the concept of conflict.

[REFERENCES]
[1] J.F.Baldwin, Evidential support logic programming, Fuzzy Sets ans Systems
24 (1987) 1-26.
[2] M.B.Gorzalczany, A method on inference in appoximate reasoning based on
interval-valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 21 (1987) 1-17.
[3] M.B.GorzaIczany, Interval-valued fuzzy inference involving uncertain
(inconsistent) conditional propositions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 29 (1989)
235-240.
[4] K.Hirota and A.Watanabe, Some properties of fuzzy evaluation in knowledge
representation, 4th Fuzzy System Symposium, (1988) 175-180 (in Japanese).
[5] FJ.Klir and T.A.Folger, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information, Prentice-Hall,
(1988).
[6] G.Lakoff, Hedges:A study in meaning criteria and logic of fuzzy concepts,
J.Philosophical Logic 2 (1973) 458-508.
[7] M.Mizumoto and K.Tanaka, Some properties of fuzzy sets of type 2, Information
212

and Control, 31 (1982) 312-340.

[8] M.Mukaidono and H.Kikuchi, Proposal on fuzzy interval logic, J. Japan
Society for Fuzzy Theory and Systems, 2-2 (1990) 209-222 (in Japanese).
[9] D.G.Schwarts, the case for an interval-based representation of linguistic
truth, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17 (1985), 153-165.
[10] G.Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton Univ. Press (1976).
[11] P.Smets and P.Margrez, The measure of the degree of truth and of the
grade of membership, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 25 (1988) 67-72.
[12] M.Smithson, Ignorance and Uncertainty, Springer-Verlag (1989).
[13] I.B.Turksen, Interval valued fuzzy sets based on normal forms, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 20 (1986) 191-200.
[14] R.R.Yager, On the Dempster-Shafer framework ani new combination rules,
Information Sci.ences, 41 (1987) 93-137.
[15] L.A.Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, 8 (1965) 338-353.
[16] L.A.Zadeh, The Concept of Linguistic Variable and its Application to
Approximate reasoning-I, Information Sciences, 8 (1975) 199-249.
 A LOGICAL STRUCTURE
FOR A KNOWLEDGE BASE
Ellen Hisdal, Institute of Informatics, University of Oslo,
Box 1080 Blindern, 0316 Oslo 3, Norway

1. Introduction. This paper describes a structure called chain set for

representing knowledge with negations and AND, OR, and IF THEN
connectives; and for inferences or the answering of questions concerning
this knowledge. The answers are represented in the form of a number in
the interval value [0,1], where l=yes and O=no.
The chain set structure can represent not only complete sentences or
propositions, but also labels A such as 'A=Saturday OR Sunday BUT
NOT Monday'. The same structure can then be used for the knowledge-
base entry of e.g., 'days at home' (under the instance 'Margy') and of
'holidays' produced by the sentences 'Margy is at home on Saturday
OR Sunday BUT NOT Monday' and 'Saturday OR Sunday BUT NOT
Monday are holidays'.
Furthermore, the structure aims at a representation which reflects
the basic simplicity, precision and flexibility of the logical structures
of natural language. For example, when we say 'The drawer contains
knives AND forks', then the contents of the drawer is the union of the
sets {knives} , {forks}, not their intersection. By this I do not wish to
indicate that the representation of the AND connective as an intersection
of sets is wrong in the more complicated cases treated in traditional
theory. What I do want to emphasize is that the basic use of the AND
connective in natural language corresponds to a union of sets. A single
construction rule for AND in the chain set system reflects the basic
union-like operation for AND, as well as the intersection-like operation
for AND in the more complicated cases.
Chain sets are also very well suited for the representation of quantifi-
cation- , of nonfuzzy and fuzzy classification-structures, offamily 'trees',
and of forward and backward chaining.
A chain set is a two-dimensional table which should be read column-
wise. The left margin of the chain set lists its 'ground universe', consist-
ing of the terms (or sentences) of A which are connected by connectives.
The main or 'bloc' entries of the chain set can assume one of the four
values b, 1, 0 and c. The value is 1 when the corresponding element of
the ground universe is affirmed, 0 when it is negated, b (for 'blank' or '0
OR 1') when we have no information, and c in the case of contradicto-
213

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 213-223.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
214

ul=Sunday 1 ul=Sunday 1 ul=Sunday 0

u2=Monday 1 u2=Monday 0 u2=Monday 0
P(Alch) 1 P( Alch) 1 P(Alch) 1
P(chIA) 1 P(chIA) 1 P(chIA) 1
cardinality 2 cardinality 1 cardinality 0

(a) A=Sunday (b) A=Sunday (c) A=NEITHER

AND Monday BUT NOT Mo Su NOR Mo

Figure 1: Chains sets for labels A with AND connectives or their equiv-
alent.

ul=Sunday 1 0 ul=Sunday 1 0 1
u2=Monday 0 1 u2=Monday 0 1 1
P(Alch)=poss 1 1 P( Alch )=poss 1 1 1
P(chi A)=prob 0.5 0.5 P(chIA)=prob 1/3 1/3 1/3
cardinality 1 1 cardinality 1 1 2

I (a) A=Sunday ORE Monday I I (b) A=Sunday ORA Monday I

Figure 2: ORE and ORA denote the exclusive and inclusive OR connec-
tive respectively.

ry information. Figs. 1, 2 illustrate chain set structures for labels with

AND connectives, and with exlusive and inclusive OR connectives.
The succsessive entries of one column or 'chain' ch are, per definition,
connected by AND connectives. Fig. 1 shows that a chain set for an
expression with solely AND connectives consists of a single chain. In
contrast, successive chains are connected by OR connectives. An OR
connective always expresses uncertainty and thus gives rise to two or
more chains as shown in Fig. 2.
The lower margin of a chain set can consist of several rows. Each
entry of a row refers to the corresponding chain ch. The first row lists
P( Alch), the possibility or truth value of the chain. This value repre-
sents the probability of a 'yes' answer to the question 'A?' when the
available information is represented by a chain set containing solely the
chain ch. In contrast, the second or P(chIA) probability row lists the
probability of occurrence of the chain ch when the available information
is A. The entries of this row must always add up to 1. The possibility
 215

and probability entries are connected by the equation

P(ch) P(Alch)
P(chIA) = ~n P(ch n ) P(Alch n ) ,
(1)

the index n running over all chains. ch without index denotes a partic-
ular chain and P( ch) its probability when there is no conditioning by
A. Eq. (1) shows that a possibility 0 always implies a probability O. The
corresponding chains are usually left out from the chain set.
When the bloc entries are all 'pure', Le. either 1 or 0, we can also have
a cardinality row. The cardinality of a pure chain is equal to its number
of 1 entries. Taken together with the probability row, the cardinality
row represents a probability distribution over the nonnegative integers.
For example, Fig. 2(b) shows that when we are informed that 'Margy
is at home on Sunday OR Monday' (inclusive OR), then the number of
days on which Margy is at home (out of the days Sunday, Monday) is
1 with probability 1/3+1/3=2/3, 2 with probability 1/3 and 0 with
probability O.

2. Operations on Chain Sets. Negation of a composite label is

achieved by (1) adding to its chain set all missing 0-1 chains and assign-
ing to them the possibility 0, and (2) replacing all P( Alch) possibility
values by one minus their value.
Conjunction and disjunction of two nonfuzzy, composite labels AI' A2
are performed by 'multiplication' and 'addition' respectively of their
chain sets Ch A " Ch A2 • For both operations, the first step is to prolong
Ch A , , Ch A2 into the ground universe U = U1 uU2 • E.g., Ch A , is prolonged
by adding all elements of U2 which are not elements of U1 to its ground
universe in the left margin. The bloc entries of the new rows are all
assigned the value 'b=don't know'. Figs. 3(a), (b) show two examples
of prolonged chain sets.
The chain set for A=A1 AND A2 is then a chain set over the ground
universe U whose set of chains consists of the intersection of the set of
chains of Ch A , and Ch A2 • In this connection a chain of Ch A , is considered
to be identical with a chain of Ch A2 if all their pure entries (Le. 0 or
1 entries) are identical for the given element of the ground universe. A
'b' bloc entry is a 'joker' which matches both 0 and 1. The conjunction
operation is illustrated in Fig. 3(c). E.g., the first chain of this figure is
the 'product' of the first chain of figure (a) with the second chain of (b).
(See [5, sect. 7]) for more details.)
216

Su 1 0 Su b b b Su 1 0 0
Mo 0 1 Mo 1 0 1 Mo 0 1 1
Tu b b Tu 0 1 1 Tu 1 0 1
poss 1 1 poss 1 1 1 poss 1 1 1
prob .! .! prob .! .! .! prob .! .! .!
2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

(a) A1 =Su (b) A2=Mo

OREMo ORA Tu

Su 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
Mo 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
Tu 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
poss 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
prob "7 "7 "7 "7 "7 "7 "7

Figure 3: Prolongation, multiplication and addition of chain sets. (aJ

and (bJ illustrate the prolongation of two chain sets into the ground uni-
verse {Su, Mo, Tu}. (cJ and (dJ show the product and sum respectively
of the chain sets of (aJ and (bJ.

To find the chain set for 'A1 ORA A2', we first 'extend' every chain
in Ch),l and Ch),2 which contains one or more 'b' entries. This operation
consists of replacing the chain by two chains whose 0 and 1 bloc entries
are the same as those of the original chain. While the 'b' entry of the
original chain is replaced by 0 in one of the chains and by 1 in the other.
If the resultant chains still contain a 'b' entry, the extension operation
is repeated etc..
The chain set for 'A1 ORA A2' is now defined as a chain set over U
whose set of chains consists of the union of the set of chains of Ch),l and
Ch),2 respectively, see Fig. 3(d). To obtain the chain set for 'A1 ORE
A2' (exclusive OR) we must delete from (d) the three chains of (c). In
all cases the probabilities must be normalized so that they add up to 1.

3. Inferences or the Answering of Questions.

Inferences or the answering of questions qu based on information
info are performed by constructing Chinjo and Ch q.." the chain sets rep-
resenting the given information and the declarative form of the question
respectively. (A modified form of this statement holds for IF THEN
questions, see section 4.)
 217

The answer to the question is given in the form of the probability

of occurrence of the event qu decribed in the question, based on the
probability row of Chinjo,

The summation goes over all chains which are common to Ch qu and
Chinjo' We see that in order to answer a question, we need the possibility
row of Ch qu and the probability row of Ch injo '
Expressed in words, the operation of eq. (2) is the following. Take
the first chain of Ch injo , and check whether it has a matching chain in
Ch qu . If it does, then multiply the probability of that chain in Chinjo by
its possibility in Ch qu ' This product is the contribution of the first chain
of Chinjo to the answer value. Repeat this procedure for every chain of
Chinjo' The final answer is the sum of the contributions from each chain
of Ch injo '
As an example, the question 'Su ORA Mo' based on the information
'Su ORE Mo' (see Fig. 2(a),(b) ) gives the answer 0.5·1+0.5'1=1. In
contrast, the question 'Su ORE Mo' based on the information 'Su ORA
Mo' gives the answer (1/3)·1 + (1/3) ·1=2/3.
The above procedure assumes that Chinjo and Ch qu are pure chain
sets over the same ground universe. When the ground universe of Ch qu
is a subset of that of Chinfo, then Chinjo must be 'shortened' before
eq. (2) is applied. This means that all rows of Ch injo corresponding
to elements of its ground universe which are absent from the ground
universe of Ch qu are erased from Chinjo' If there is a duplication of
chains in the resulting chain set, then these chains are replaced by a
single chain whose probability is equal to the sum of the probabilities of
the originally duplicated chains.

4. The Answering of IF THEN Questions. The proba-

bility row of a chain set represents a probability distribution over an

°
I-dimensional cube, where I is the number of elements in the ground
universe. There are two points on each axis, the point for negation
of the corresponding element of the ground universe, and the point 1
for affirmation. Each vertex of the cube represents a 0-1 chain, and th.e
probability of that chain or vertex is the joint probability for the simul-
taneous negation or affirmation of the I elements of the ground universe,
based on the information in Ainjo' However, an IF AA THEN AC ques-
tion, e.g., 'IF Margy is NOT at home on Su, is she THEN at home
on Mo?' enquires about a conditional probability, based on information
Ainjo stored in the knowledge base. This is found in the following way.
218

Let Chinjo, cond be the product of Ch injo and Ch A , the chain set for the
antecedent of the IF THEN question. The question chain set is that of
Ae, the consequent of the conditional question. The question answering
procedure of section 3 is now applied to Chinjo, cond, the question being
represented by Ch e . (See end of sect. 7 for an example.)

5. Fuzzy Chain Sets. The chain sets of figs. 1,2 are nonfuzzy,
Le. the entries of their possibility row are either 1 or o. (The default
possibility value of missing 0-1 chains is 0). The upper table of Fig. 4
illustrates a possible fuzzy chain set for A=tall woman, for which the
P( Alch) possibilities can take values in the continuous interval [0,1].
The ground universe consists of possible exactly measured height values.
Every chain of this chain set has exactly one I-entry, the other entries
being 0, because a person can have one and only one exact height. The
chain set is therefore said to be of the Xl type. An Xl chain set always
degenerates to the form of the more compact table in the lower part of
Fig. 4.

(160,165] 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
(165,170] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
(170,175] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(175,180] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
(180,185] 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
(185,190] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
(190,195] 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Possib 0 0.5 0.8 0.9 1 1 1
Probab 0 0.096 0.154 0.173 0.192 0.192 0.192

measured height in cm
(160, (165, (170, (175, (180, (185, (190,
165] 170] 175] 180] 185] 190] 195]
Possib 0 0.5 0.8 0.9 1 1 1
Probab 0 0.096 0.154 0.173 0.192 0.192 0.192
Figure 4: The upper table represents a possible fuzzy Xl chain set for
'tall woman'. Since every chain may contain exactly one l-entry, it de-
generates to an ordinary possibility and probability distribution, shown
in the lower table, over the universe of measured height values. The
probability distribution is computed from the assumed possibility distri-
bution and an assumed probability distribution of women as a function
of height, using eq. {1J.
 219

J.Ltall =
Margy 0.9 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Ruth 004 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
John 0.7 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Probability .252 .028 .378 .042 .108 .012 .162 .018
Cardinality 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 0
Figure 5: The chain-subset 'tall people' of the set {Margy,Ruth,John}.

Fig. 5 shows a non-Xl, fuzzy chain set which could be the knowledge
base subentry of 'tall people'. Its ground universe is the set of people
{Margy, Ruth, John}. The J.Ltall grades of membership or possibilities of
these persons are shown in the second column of the left margin.
To illustrate the meaning of the probability values we choose the
second chain in Fig. 5, ch= fO 1 11. The probability value of .028 for
this chain is obtained by multiplying 1-0.9=0.1 (the probability of a 'no'
answer to the question 'Is Margy tall?') by 004 and 0.7; its meaning
is Prob[(Margy is NOT tall), (Ruth is tall), (John is tall)], given that
J.Ltall(Margy) = 0.9, J.Ltall(Ruth) = 004, J.Ltall(John) = 0.7. A more
precise formulation of the last sentence must be based on the TEE model
interpretation of grades of membership [2], [4]. Note that the grade of
membership curve of John as a function of the exact height need not be
the same as that used for assigning grades of membership to Margy and
Ruth in order to construct the table of Fig. 5.
The cardinality, together with the probability row of Fig. 5, specify
the probabilistic cardinality of the subset of {Margy, Ruth, John} con-
sisting of those persons who are assigned a 'yes' answer concerning their
being 'tall'.

6. IF THEN Statements. We have already seen in section 4 how to

answer IF THEN questions. But we are still lacking a chain set represen-
tation of IF THEN statements. Again we must remember that an IF A
THEN C statement specifies a conditional probability P(CIA)=I, while
the probability row of a chain set represents joint probabilities. Condi-
tional probabilities follow from joint ones, but not vice versa. We must
therefore see to it that the conditional probabilities which follow from
the IF A THEN C chain set are a correct representation of P(CIA)=1
and of any other relation that may follow from this.
From now on we will make use of the notation illustrated below,
'(1/A)' or '(IA)' or simply 'A' for affirmation of A.
'(0/A)' or '(OA)' for negation of A.
'fl/Su, O/Mo, b/Tul' for first chain in Fig. 3(a).
'(1/A)-(O/C)' for 'IF A THEN NOT C'.
220

A 1 0 A 1 0 0 A 1 0 0
C 1 b C 1 0 1 C 0 1 0
poss 1 b poss 1 1 b poss 1 1 b
prob b b prob b b b prob b b b

(a) A=IF A (b) A=IF A (c) A=IF A

THEN C THEN C THEN NOT C

Figure 6: Chain Sets for Labels with an IF THEN connective. (b)

is more specific and therefore better than (a) as a representation of
(1/A)-+ (J/C). Note the symmetry with respect to A and C of the chain
set (c) for IF A THEN NOT C. It is therefore equivalent to IF C THEN
NOT A. (b stands for 'don't know'.)

Our initial representation of the conditional statement is shown in

Fig. 6(a). It says exactly what the IF A THEN C statement says in
natural language. The first chain (taken together with the fact that
there exist no other chains with a I-entry in the A row) says that if
A is affirmed then C is affirmed. The second chain says that when A
is negated then we do not know anything about C. The two b=[O,I]
probability entries say that when we are given the truth of IF A THEN
C, then we cannot say anything about the probability of occurrence of
I/A versus O/A. Furthermore, according to the P(Alch) interpretation
of possibilities in sect. 1, the b=[O,I] entry in the possibility row of the
second chain indicates that when we are given the chain rO / A, b / Cl ,
then we cannot say anything about the truth of IF A THEN C. When
two matching chains are multiplied, the possibility value of the product
chain in terms of the possibilities of the components follows the rule
0·0=0, 1·1=1, O·b=O, l·b=l, O·I=c (contradictory).
The chain set of Fig. 6(b) can be derived from (a) as follows. Start-
ing with the chain set (a) as our information info, we ask the question
'(O/C)-+(O/A)?'. The procedure of section 4, gives the answer '1' or 'yes'
to this question. Having just found that (O/C)-+(O/A) is true when-
ever (1/A)-+(I/C) is true, their conjunction must also be true when-
ever (1/A)-+(I/C) is true. Multiplying the chain set representation of
(1/A)-+(I/C), Fig. 6(a) with that of (O/C)-+(O/A) according to the
same scheme, we find the chain set of Fig. 6(b) as the most specific,
and therefore best, representation of (I/A)-+(I/C).
(c) of Fig. 6 shows the chain set for IF A THEN NOT C. The
easiest way to derive this chain set is to use 0/C instead of 1/C as the
second element of the ground universe of (b), leaving the bloc entries of
the chain set unchanged. The second row of the resultant chain set is
 221

then 'inverted'. The inversion of a chain set row does not change the
meaning of the chain set. It consists of 1) Replacing the element of the
ground universe of that row by its negation, in our case O/C is replaced
by I/C=C. 2) All the bloc entries of the row are inverted, Le. a 1 is
replaced by 0 and vice versa. A possible 'b' bloc entry is left unchanged.
So are the entries of the possibility and probability row.

7. Chain Sets versus Traditional Implication. Let A=info

and C=qu be two statements or 'formulas' in the terminology of math-
ematicallogic, at least one of which is nonatomic. An inference or valid
argument is then derived in propositional calculus by showing that the
material implication (A)~(C) is a tautology (see, e.g., [1, pp. 5, 7]). In
the chain set system an inference from A to C is confirmed whenever
we find a I-answer to the question qu=C based on info=A. Similarly,
in propositional calculus, a contradiction or identically false implication
is connected up with an A~C truth table having a solid last column
of 'false' values [6, p.28]; and with an answer value 0 in the chain
set system. A tautological equivalence, A= C, in propositional calculus
means that both (A)~(C) and (C)~(A) are tautologies. In the chain
set system it means that the chain sets for A and C are identical.
Most reults in propositional calculus hold also in the chain set sys-
tem. E.g., de Morgan's laws are easily shown to hold in the chain set
system also. However, there exist cases in which the implication of
propositional calculus disagrees with the meaning of IF THEN, not only
as used in everyday natural language, but also as used in connection
with inferences in mathematical reasoning. In these cases the chain set
answers agree with the expected ones.
E.g., the implication A~C, where A=(P~Q) and C=(P ~ ...,Q), is
not a contradiction in propositional calculus. Indeed its truth column
contains three 'true' values and only one 'false' value. In the chain set
system the procedure of sect. 4 gives the answer 0 to the conditional
question qu=C=[(I/P)~(O/Q)]? elicited from the information chain set
info=A=[(I/P)~(I/Q)]. An interesting case in which propositional cal-
culus finds a tautologically true inference, in stark contrast to what we
would expect according to the meaning of IF THEN, is demonstrated
in [5, sect. 12]. It is also shown there that this strange inference is not
confirmed in the chain set system.

8. Chain Sets vs. Tree & Quantification Structures and

Forward & Backward Chaining. Pure tree structures, as well as
more complicated networks based on trees, e.g. fuzzy trees [3], fig. 4.2 &
222

A = IFATHENB
IFB THENC
A '\ IFATHENB A
1\;= IFBTHENC A

A l'
I
IFDTHENC

A £~~
C 1 0 1 1 C 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
B 1 0 0 1 B 1 1 000 1 1
A 1 0 0 0 A 1 1 000 0 0
D 1 o 0 1 0 1 0
poss 1 1 1 oss

(a) (b)

Figure 7: Tree structures versus chain sets.

sect. 6, play an important part in human logical thinking.

A tree, or more generally a non-cyclic directed graph, can be gener-
ated by a series of IF Ai THEN C j statements. Ai and Cj are then nodes
in the tree such that Cj is a supernode of Ai. In the corresponding
chain set, a 1-entry for Ai in a specific chain will then always
imply a I-entry for C j • If we add the requirement that all sibling
and cousin nodes must be mutually exclusive, then this 'classification'
structure can also be used for negative inferences.
Fig. 7(a) shows the tree structure, as well as the chain set generated
by two IF THEN statements according to sections 6 and 2. The single
chain set generated by the addition of a third statement in Fig. 7(b)
gives, however, rise to five possible trees unless the user supplies addi-
tional information. There are many other cases of such proliferation of
trees due to lack of more detailed knowledge, and a consequent expo-
nential increase in the complexity of a tree-based computer system.
No such trouble is encountered with the chain sets for the statements.
The single chain set of Fig. 7(b) embodies the whole collection of five
possible trees. It is also seen that this chain set preserves all the relations
between A,B and C in Fig. 7(a).
In a quantification problem we consider a node such as 'C=animal'
as an abbreviation for 'C=(x is an instance of an animal)'. We could
then have 'B=mammal' and 'A=dog' with the corresponding tree and
chain set structure of Fig. 7(a). Adding the statement 'If x is an instance
of D then x is an instance of animal' results in Fig. 7(b).
A rule-based expert system works also with a conjunction of many
nonfuzzy IF THEN statements and can thus be represented as a single
nonfuzzy chain set, each antecedent and consequent being an element of
 223

physical object 1 1 0 1 1
organism 0 1 0 0 1
non-organism 1 0 0 1 0
virus 1 1 o 0 0
possibility .6 .4 1 1 1

Figure 8: A simple fuzzy tree and its chain set. Notice the two fuzzy
possibility values.

the ground universe. When the chain set table becomes too big, it
can be decomposed into two or more smaller tables by 'cutting it over'
horizontally, and combining identical chains into one.
A forward-chaining inference follows the upward pointers in the rule-
based system. The corresponding procedure in the chain set system
looks for all chains with a I-entry in the row of the given antecedent
or condition, and finds those elements of the ground universe which
have only I-entries in these chains. In backward chaining we follow a
downward direction in the graph to find those nodes which may cause
the given final node. In the chain set we then look for elements of the
ground universe which imply the final specified element.
Multiple partition quantification structures and fuzzy trees are de-
scribed in [3]. Chain sets are well-suited to describe both structures.
Fig. 8 shows a simple fuzzy tree. Its chain set is characterized by fuzzy
possibility values.

References
[1] William S. Ratcher. The Logical Foundations of Mathematics. PWS-Kent Pub-
lishing Company, Boston, 1989.
[2] E. Risdal. Are grades of membership probabilities? Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
25:325-348, 1988.
[3] E. Risdal. A flexible classification structure. In M.M. Gupta and T. Yamakawa,
editors, Fuzzy Logic in Knowledge-Based Systems, Decision and Control, pages
11-67. Elsevier, North Rolland, 1988.
[4] E. Risdal. Infinite-valued logic based on two-valued logic and probability,
parts 1.3, 1.1. "The TEE model" and "Reference experiments and label sets".
Research Reports 147, 148, Institute of Informatics, University of Oslo, Box 1080
Blindern, 0316 Oslo 3, Norway, 1988,1990. ISBN 82-7368-054-1, and 053-3.
[5] E. Risdal. Naturalized logic and chain sets. Information Sciences, 57-58:31-77,
1991. Special number on 'Information Sciences - Past, Present, Future'.
[6] S.C. Kleene. Mathematical Logic. John Wiley, New York, London, 1968.
APPROXIMATE PATTERN CLASSIFICATION USING NEURAL NETWORKS

H.ISHIBUCHI and H. TANAKA

Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Osaka Prefecture
Gakuencho 1-1. Sakal, Osaka 593
JAPAN

ABSTRACT: In this paper. we propose an approximate classification meth-

od using neural networks for two-class classification problems. The con-
ventional classification problems can be described as finding a sharp (or
crisp) boundary that divides a pattern space into two disjoint decision
areas. On the other hand. our approximate classification problems can be
viewed as finding a fuzzy boundary that divides the pattern space into
three disjoint areas: two of them are the decision areas of the two class-
es and the other is the boundary area between them. The proposed method
determines the three areas using two multilayer feedforward neural net-
works.

1. INTRODUCTION

Let us assume that n measurements of each of m patterns are given and

each pattern is known to be in Class I or Class 2. Let Xp = (xp t. Xp2.....
x pn ) be n measurements of the p-th pattern where p=I.2.... m. We denote
the pattern space by Q. which is the set of all possible values that Xp
may assume. The conventional classification problems can be described as
finding a sharp boundary that divides the pattern space Q into two dis-
joint decision areas. say Q I and Q 2. Many approaches such as statistical
methods. neural networks. decision trees and expert systems have been
proposed to the classification problems of this kInd[I].
In Fig.!, we show an example of two decIsion areas Q I and Q 2 that are
obtained using a multilayer feedforward neural network. Fig.l Is the sim-
225
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 225-236.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
226

ulation result after 1,000 iterations of the BP (Back-Propagation[2,3])

algorithm using the three-layer neural network with five hidden units. In
Fig.1, the patterns in Class 1 and Class 2 are denoted by closed circles
and open circles, respectively. The target outputs for the patterns in
Class 1 and Class 2 are specified as 1 and 0, respectively. The boundary
curve between the two classes is drawn by plotting all the points in the
pattern space [0,1] x [0,1] where the outputs from the trained neural net-
work are close to 0.5. This means that the decision areas Q I and Q 2 in
Fig.l are obtained using the threshold value 0.5. From Fig.1, we can see
that all the given patterns are correctly classified by the trained neu-
ral network.

... .HHH •..... H. HH.HHH.

• • • • ..•.•H.
•• • • •'.
~ 1.0

...•.
H • H •

HHHQl Q)
·• • Qr.
• H.• H.H ..• ~> PRR~~+~ ••..•
..., .6."6 .Q.Q • •
;j
··0 ~.Q.~.O ~ • •
§<
H.
0·'0

(:). ()······O .H. 1-1 0.5 6 00 ··66~.·9 ..•

·6···0H~6Q.Q ....•...•
······Q2 I · H~O Q 29 HOO .~ •...•
. (). 0···0 .....• H6H606~H·9H • • •
OQ H60Q Ho·6. H•
0.5 1.0 o 0.5 1.0

Input value Xl Input value Xl

Fig.l An example of the two deci- Fig.2 An example of the two deci-
sion areas that correctly sion areas that have some
classify all the patterns. misclasslfied patterns.

In Fig.2, we show another example of the two decision areas Q 1 and

Q2. Fig.2 is also drawn using the three-layer neural network with five
hidden units that was trained by the BP algorithm. We can see from Flg.2
that some patterns are misclassified by the trained neural network. Theo-
retically, it Is known from the capability of neural networks (see, e.g.,
Funahashl[4J, Hornik[5] and Whlte[6]) that there is a three-layer neural
network that can correctly classify all the given patterns in Fig.2. The
attempt to obtain such a neural network, however, Is not only time-con-
suming but also counterintuitive. If we intuitively derive a classification
rule from the given patterns in Flg.2, we can not assign the dotted area
in Fig.3 to one of the two classes. The dotted area in Flg.3 Is Intuitively
 227

viewed as the boundary area between the two classes.

In this paper, we propose an
approximate classification method
•
that can cope with the existence
•
H.•
of a boundary area such as the
dotted area in Fig.3 in order to
obtain a classification rule that ,
coincides with our intuition. The
proposed approach divides the ••
pattern space into three disjoint
•
areas: Q I , Q 2 and Q 12 where Q 12
is the boundary area between the
two classes. The three areas are
••
0.5
~
1.0
obtained from the given patterns
xp,p=l. 2, .. ,m using two neural net- Input value Xl
works.
Fig.3 Intuitively drawn boundary
area between the two classes.

2. APPROXIMATE CLASSIFICATION
We use 'the following three areas in order to approximately classify the
pattern space Q.

Q,UQ2UQ'2=Q, (2.1)

Q,nQ2=Q2nQ'2= Q,nQ'2= <P, (2.2)

where
Q1 : Decision area of Class 1.
Q 2 : Decision area of Class 2.
Q 12 : Boundary area between the two classes.

When a new pattern is classified, the pattern in Q 1 or Q 2 is classi-

fied as Class 1 or Class 2, respectively. The pattern in the boundary area
Q 12 is not classified as one of the two classes. The three areas are ob-
tained on the following conditions for the given patterns XI', p=1.2.... ,m.

Condition 1: If XI' E Q 1 then Xp belongs to Class 1.

Condi tion 2: If Xp E Q 2 then XI' belongs to Class 2.

The above conditions are equivalent to the conditions:

Condition 3: U' XI' belongs to Class 1 then X" E (Q 1U Q 12),

Condition 4: If XI' belongs to Class 2 then XI' E (Q 2 U Q '2).
228

Conditions 3 and 4 are the contrapositions of Conditions 2 and 1, respec-

tively. It should be noted that the boundary area Q 12 may include both
patterns in Class I and Class 2.
Our problem is to derive the three areas Q I. Q 2 and Q 12 that satisfy
Conditions 3 and 4 (or Conditions I and 2) from the given patterns XP. p=
1.2..... m. From the viewpoint of the rough set[7] and the rough classifica-
tion[8], the decision area Q 1 and Q 2 can be regarded as the lower ap-
proximations of Class I and Class 2. respectively. The unions Q 1 U Q 12
and Q 2 U Q 12 can be viewed as the upper approximations of Class I and
Class 2. respectively. WhIle the upper and the lower approximation in the
rough set are derived ,based on an equivalence relation. the three areas
in this paper are obtained using neural networks.

3. LEARNING ALGORITHMS FOR APPROXIMATE CLASSIFICATION

3.1 The Back-Propagation Algorithm

Before describing learning algorithms for the approximate classification.

we briefly mention the BP algorithm[2.3]. For two class classification
problems. we can employ the following BP network with n inputs and a
single output.

Input units: Op; = XPi. i=I.2..... n. (3.1)

Hidden units: Opj = f(netpj), j=1,2..... n2. (3.2)

n
netpj =::E. Wj;Op; + OJ. j=I.2..... n2. (3.3)
i=1
Output unit: Op = f(net p). (3.4)

n2
net p = ::E. WjOpj + O. (3.5)
j=1

where XP = (XPI. Xp2.... , Xpn) is an n-dimensional input vector (or pat~

tern vector) and n2 Is the number of hidden units. The activation func-
tion f( .) in (3.2) and (3.4) is

f(net) = 1/ {l + exp( -net)}. (3.6)

Let us denote the target output corresponding to Xp by t p and speci-
fyit as
_{I
_ If XP belongs to Class 1,
tp (3.7)
o if Xp belongs to Class 2.
 229

The learning of the neural network is to adjust the weights Wj i, Wj

and the biases 8 j. 8 so as to minimize the cost function:

(3.8)

The weights Wj i and Wj are changed according to the following rules[2.3].

Wj(t+l) = wj(t)+6wj(t+1). (3.9)

Wj i(t+ 1) = Wj itt) + 6Wj i(t+ 1), (3.10)

6wj(t+ 1) = T/ (- (}E p / (lWj)+ a 6wj(t). (3.11)

6wji(t+l) = I) (-oE p /(lwj;)+a6wji(t). (3.12)

where t indexes the number of presentations. I) and a are a learning

constant and a momentum constant, respectively. In computer simulations,
we specified T/ and a as I) = 0.25 and a = 0.9. respectively. The deriva-
tives in (3.11) and (3.12) can be derived as follows[2,3].

(3.13)
(3.14)
where
(3.15)
(3.16)

The biases 8 j and 8 can be changed in the same manner as the weights
Wj i and Wj, respectively.

3.2 Learning Algorithm for Possibility Analysis

For the approximate classification of the pattern space Q using the

three areas Q I . Q 2 and Q 12. we use the two learning algorithms of
neural networks that have been proposed for the possibility and the
necessity analysis by Ishibuchi et al.[9.1O].
The basic idea of the possibility analysis of Class 1 is to attach
greater importance to the patterns in Class 1 than those in Class 2 in the
learning of neural networks. For the possibility analysis of Class I, the
following cost function is employed instead of the cost function (3.8).

if Xp belongs to Class 1,
(3.17)
if Xp belongs to Class 2.

where u is the number of iterations of the learning algorithm and w (u) is

a decreasing functi9n of u such that 0< w (u) < 1. In computer simulations,
we employed the following decreasing function.
230

w (u) = 1/ {l + (u/1000)2}. (3.18)

From (3.17). we can see that the different penalties (L e .• 1 and w (u) to
the patterns in Class 1 and Class 2. respectively) are attached to the
squared errors.
The learning with the cost function (3.17) can be easily implemented
as a computer program by modifying 0 p defined by (3.15) in the BP algo-
rithm as

(tp - op) op (1- op) if Xp belongs to Class 1.

o ={p (3.19)
w (u) (t p - op) op (1- op) if Xp belongs to Class 2.

Since w (u) in (3.18) is close to 1 in the early stage of learning and is

very small in the late stage. the learning with the cost function (3.17)
has the following characteristic features.

(1) In the early stage (Le.• while u is small). the learning with the cost
function (3.17) is similar to the standard BP algorithm.
(2) In the late stage (Le.• while u is large). the learning for the patterns
in Class 2 is slight while it is substantial for the patterns in Class 1.

From the above features. it is expected that

op'=i 1 for all the patterns in Class 1, (3.20)

after enough iterations of the learning algorithm with the cost function
(3.17). The following condition can be used as one of the stopping condi-
tions of the learning algorithm.

op > 0.5 for all the patterns in Class 1. (3.21)

Example 1. We illustrate the

learning with the cost function
(3.17) by a numerical example. Let
the pattern space Q be the unit
interval [0. 1]. Suppose that 21
patterns:

{xp : Xp = 0.00. 0.05..... 1.00},

I
are given and divided into the two () '- -
o 0.5 1.0
classes as
Input value
Class 1 = {O.:J. 0.4. 0.45,
0.50. 0.55. 0.6. 0.7}. Fig.4 Simulation result of the
Class 2 = {O. 0.05, 0.1, 0.15. possibility analysis of Class 1.
 231

0.2, 0.25, 0.35, 0.65, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 0.95, I}.

In this example, all the patterns in the area of 0.4 ~ x ~ 0.6 belong to
Class 1 and all the patterns in x~0.25 or 0.75~x belong to Class 2. Two
areas 0.25 < x < 0.4 and 0.6< x < 0.75 can be viewed as boundary areas be-
tween Class 1 and Class 2.
We show the simulation result of the learning using the cost function
(3.17) in Fig.4. Fig.4 shows the shape of the output from the neural net-
work with five hidden units after 10,000 iterations of the learning algo-
rithm with (3.17). From this figure, we can see that the output is close to
1 (I.e., op'" 1) for all the patterns in Class 1 denoted by closed circles.
The output from the trained neural network can be viewed as indicating
the possibility of Class 1.

3.3 LearnIng Algorithm for Necessity Analysis

For the necessity analysis of Class I, the following cost function is em-
ployed instead of (3.17) used for the possibility analysis.

if Xp belongs to Class I,
(3.22)
if Xp belongs to Class 2.

We can see from w (u) < 1 that greater importance is attached to the pat-
terns in Class 2 than those in Class I, which is opposite to (3.17).
The learning with the cost functIon (3.22) can be easily Implemented
as a computer program by modifying oniy 0 p in the BP algorithm as

if Xp belongs to Class L
(3.23)
If Xp belongs to Class 2.

After enough Iterations of the

learning algorithm with the cost
function (3.22), it is expected
Q)

~:>
l.il .. . •..
that the following relation holds. ....,
~ il<
op '" 0 for all the patterns ....,0. .V

in Class 2. (3.24) ~
o
As one of the stopping condItions
il.5 I.il
of the learnIng algorithm, the
following condition can be used. Input value
op<0.5 for all the patterns Fig.S Simulation result of the
in Class 2. (3.25) necessIty analysIs of Class 1.
232

The simulation result with (3.22) is shown in Fig.5. From Fig.5, we can
see that the output is close to 0 (I.e., op'" 0) for all the patterns in
Class 2 denoted by open circles. The output from the trained neural net-
work can be viewed as Indicating the necessity of Class 1.

3.4 Derivation of the Three Decision Areas

Let the two neural networks trained by the learning algorithms with
(3.17) and (3.22) be NN'" and NN"" respectively. We denote the outputs from
NN'" and NN", for the input vector x as /l. "'(x) and /l. ",(x), respectively. Let
us assume that the following conditions are satisfied (see (3.21) and
(3.25».

/l. "'(xp) > 0.5 for all the patterns in Class I, (3.26)
/l. ",(xp) < 0.5 for all the patterns in Class 2, (3.27)

Then the following inequalities hold since 0< /l. "'(xp)< 1 and 0< /l. ",(x p)< 1.

/l. (xp) > 0.25 for all the patterns in Class 1, (3.28)
/l. (xp) < 0.75 for all the patterns in Class 2, (3.29)
where
Output
/l. (x) = {/l. "'(x) + /l. ",(x)}/2. (3.30)

Therefore we can see from (3.28)

and (3.29) that Conditions 3 and 4
in Section 2 are satisfied by the
three areas Q" Q 2 and Q 12 de-
fined as

Q,UQ'2={X: /l.(x»0.25}.
NN* NN*
(3.31)
Possibility Analysis Necessity Analysis
Q2UQ '2 = {x: /l. (x)<0.75}.
(3.32)

From the relation among Q"

Q and Q, 2 in Section 2, we can

I
2

obtain the three declsion areas as

Q , =Q - (Q UQ
2 12)
Input Vector
= {X: /l. (x)60.75}. (3.33)
Q2 = Q - (Q , U Q '2) Fig.6 Architecture of the proposed
= {x: /l. (x)~0.25}, (3.34) approximate classification system.
 233

Q 12 = (Q 1 U Q 12) n (Q 2 UQ 12) = {X : 0.25 < j.l (x) < 0.75}. (3.35)

From (3.28) and (3.29), it is clear that Conditions 1-4 in Section 2

hold for the three decision areas Q I, Q2 and Q 12 in (3.33)-(3.35).
We show the architecture for the approximate classification in Fig.6.
The output from the architecture in Fig.6 corresponds to j.l (x) defined by
(3.30).

4. SIMULATION RESULTS

We illustrate the proposed method using three numerical examples.

Example 1. Let us reconsider Ex-

ample 1 in Subsections 3.2 and 3.3.
In Fig. 4 and Fig.5, we have al-
ready shown the results of the Q) 1.01-··········,
::l
learning with the cost functions Cd
(3.17) and (3.22), respectively. Us- >
5.
~
ing the two trained neural net- 0.5
works NN'" and NN"" we obtained
~
the approximate classification o
system. In Fig.7, we show the
shape of the output from the ap-
proximate classification system
Input value
together with the decision areas.
From this figure, we can see that Fig.7 The output j.l (x) from the
the classification result with the approximate classification system
boundary area Q 12 coincides with and the three decision areas.
our intuition.

Example 2. Let us assume that the following 24 patterns are given in the
pattern space [0, 1].

Class 1 = {O.4, 0.5, 0.6}

Class 2 = {O, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45,
0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 0.95, I}

In this example, there are two patterns at each of x = 0.4, x = 0.5 and x =
0.6. One of the two patterns belongs to Class 1 and the other to Class 2.
We trained the two neural networks with five hidden units using the
cost functions (3.17) and (3.22), respectively. Using the two trained neu-
ral networks NN'" and NN"" we obtained the approximate classification
system. In Fig.8, we show the shape of the output from the approximate
234

classification system together with the three decision areas Q 1, Q 2 and

Q 12 (the decision area Q I is empty in Fig.B). From this figure. we can see
that the patterns in the area of x ~ 0.35 or O. 65 ~ x (1. e., in the area Q 2)
are classified as Class 2. The patterns in the area of 0.35<x<0.65 (I.e.,
in the area Q 12) are not classified as one of the two classes because the
patterns are included in the boundary area. The result of the approxi-
mate classification in FIg.B coIncides wIth our intuition from the view-
poin t of the possibility of Class 1.
In order to compare the proposed method with the standard BP algo-
rithm, we show the shape of the output from the neural network with five
hidden units trained by the standard BP algorithm. Fig.9 is the simulation
result after 10,000 Iterations of the BP algorithm. From Fig.9. we can see
that all the patterns are classified as Class 2 If we use 0.5 as the
threshold value.

Q)
;::l
1.0 Q) 1.0 ...........
~ ~>
....,> ....,
....,2.
;::l
0.5 0.. 0.5
....,
;::l ;::l
o o
0.5 1.0

Input value
Input value
Fig.8 SImulation result with the Fig.9 Simulation result with the
proposed method. standard BP algorithm.

Example 3. Let us reconsider the classification problem in Fig.3 in Sec-

tion 1. We trained the two neural networks with five hidden units using
the cost function (3.17) and (3.22), respectively. The shape of the output
from the approximate classification system obtained from the two trained
neural networks is shown in Fig.IO. The three decision areas in Fig. 11 are
derived from the output J1 (x) in Fig.10 using (3.33)-(3.35). The result of
the approximate classification in Fig. 11 also coincides with our intuition
(compare Fig. 11 with Fig.3).

5. CONCLUSION

In this paper. we proposed a method for approximate pattern classifica-

tion using two neural networks. In our approach, the pattern space is di-
 -. ......
235

.~.
. ••• • ••• Ql.

••• •••
••
••
•
•
•-+•
O.S 1.0

Input value Xl

Fig.lO The output tJ. (x) from the ap- Fig.ll The three decision areas
proximate classification system. obtained from tJ. (x) in Fig. 10.

vided into the three decision areas: the two areas are the decision areas
of the two classes and the other area is the boundary area between them.
The main contribution of this paper is to propose a classification method
that explicitly assume the existence of the boundary area between the
two classes. A similar approach was also proposed in Archer & Wang[ 11]
from a different learning method where the concept of A -complement was
employed for modifying the target output for each pattern.
From the viewpoint of the learning of neural networks, the learning
algorithms employed in this paper are different from the standard BP al-
gorithm in the point that our approach is based on squared errors with
different penalty for each pattern. Similar learning algorithms were em-
ployed for the approximation of non-linear interval functions by two
neural networks in Ishibuchi et a1. [12,13]. Those learning algori thms can
be applied to the learning of neural networks with interval weights and
interval biases[14].

REFERENCES

[1] S.M.Weiss and C.A.Kulikowski: Computer Systems That Learn - Classifi-

cation and Prediction Methods from Statistics, Neural Nets. Machine
Learning and Expert Systems, Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo, California
(1991).
[2] D.E.Rumelhart, G.E.Hinton and R.J.Williams: "Learning Representations
236

by Back-Propagating Errors", Nature, Vol.323, 533-536 (1986).

[3] D.E.Rumelhart, J.L.McClelland and the PDP Research Group: Parallel
Distributed Processing (Vol.l), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(1986).
[4] K.Funahashi: "On the Approximate Realization of Continuous Mappings
by Neural Networks", Neural Networks, Vol.2, pp.183-192 (1989).
[5] K. Hornik: "Approximation Capabilities of Multilayer Feedforward Net-
works", Neural Networks, VolA, pp.251-257 (1991).
[6] H. White: "Connectionist Nonparametric Regression: Multilayer Feed-
forward Networks Can Learn Arbitrary Mappings", Neural Networks,
Vol.3, pp.535-550 (1990).
[7] Z.Pawlak: "Rough Sets", International J. of Computer and Information
Sciences, Vol. 11, No.5, pp.341-356 (1982).
[8] Z.Pawlak: "Rough Classification", International J. of Man-Machine
Studies, Vol. 20, ppA69-483 (1984).
[9] H.Ishibuchi, R.Fujioka and H.Tanaka: "Possibility and Necessity Data
Analysis Using Neural Networks", Proceedings of IFSA' 91 Brussels
(Artificial Intelligence), pp.74-77 (1991)
[10] II.Ishibuchi, a.Fujioka and H.Tanaka: "Possibility and Necessity Pat-
tern Classification Using Neural Networks", Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
Vol.49, pp.331-340 (1992).
[11] N.P.Archer and S.Wang: "Fuzzy Set Representation of Neural Network
Classification Boundary", IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
Vol.SMC-21, No.4, pp.735-742 (1991).
[12] H.Ishibuchi and H.Tanaka: "Regression Analysis with Interval Model by
Neural Networks", Proc. of IJCNN'91 (November 18-21, 1991, Singapore)
pp.1594-1599.
[13] H.Ishibuchi and H. Tanaka: "Fuzzy Regression Analysis using Neural
Networks", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.49 (1992, to appear).
[14] H.Ishibuchi, H.Okada and H. Tanaka: "A Neural Network with Interval
Weights and Its Learning Algorithm", Proc. of IJCNN' 92 (November 3-6,
1992, Beijing, China, to appear).
 UPDATING THE BIOLOGY OF THE ARTIFICIAL NEURON

A. F. ROCHA*, R. J. MACHADO** and F. GOMIDE***

*RANI - Research on Artificial and Natural Intelligence

Rua Tenente Ary Aps, 172 - 13200 JUNDIAI - BRAZIL
e-mail: eina@bruc.bitnet

** Rio Scientific Center - IBM Brazil

*** Dep. Computational Engineering and Automation

UNICAMP - Campinas - Brazil

ABSTRACT

The Artificial Neuron used in Neural Nets Theory does

not take into consideration the chemical transactions
between nerve cells triggered by the electrical
processing at the synapsis. Biology has shown that this
chemical interactions are very complex: are the
physical substrate for learning; and they influence the
neural electrical processing. A new formal model of
neuron incorporating this knowledge is introduced here.

INTRODUCTION

Since MCCulloch and Pitts [10] introduced their model

of the neuron based on what was known about the nerve
cell in the forties, Neural Nets (NN) have endured as a
computational theory without taking into consideration
the new developments in Neurosciences. Despite 50 years
of outstanding achievements in Neurophysiology,
Biochemistry, Pharmacology, etc., the artificial neuron
remained the very same simplified structure of the
early days [6,14].

This could be an admirable example of foreseeing if

Neural Nets couldbe also a theory for knowledge
representation and processing, as we have to admit
these human capacities to be properties of the
biological neural circuits. The artificial neuron is no
more than an electrical model of the real nerve cell,
disregarding the extensive chemical exchanges between
237

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 237-249.

© 1993 K/uwer Academic Publishers.
238

and inside neurons. Because of this, it does not

provide a good language for symbolic processing, and it
reduces the computational power of neural like
machines.

The knowledge gap between Neurosciences and Neural Nets

Theory is so big that it deserves no future comment
here, other than saying that the purpose of the present
paper is to be a step in updating the biology of the
artificial neuron, by introducing a model of the neuron
which includes the biochemical processes involved in
the physiology of the synapsis as they are understood
nowadays. The model does not intend to be the last word
on the subject, but rather to open the doors to the
application of mathematics other than vectorial
calculus, to a comprehensive formalization of the
nervous system.

THE FORMAL NEURON: THE CLASSICAL MODEL

Since McCulloch and Pitts [10] the artificial neuron is

assumed to be a computational device which:

1a) power averages its n inputs ai.

n
v = ~ ai. Wi. (la)
i=1

according to the weights of the synapses linking the

input (pre-synaptic) neurons ni. to the post-synatpic
neuron nk, and

1b) recodes v E V into the axonic activation ak of

the post-synaptic neuron:
f(v) if v ~ (J(
ak = -{ (lb)
o otherwise
where (J( is the axonic threshold and f is the encoding
function. If
f(v)=1 for all v ~ (J( (lc)

the neuron is called crisp or binary neuron [12] . If

f : V ---> [0,1] (ld)

the neuron is named fuzzy neuron. In this case, two

 239

axonic thresho~ds are defined:

1 if v ~ (X2

f(v) if (Xl S V < (X2 (le)

o otherwise

The actual va~ue of (Xi in many applications is

furnished by a specia~ type of neuron, called bias
ce~~.

UPDATING THE BIOLOGY OF THE FORMAL NEURON

The spikes trave~~ing a~ong the axon have to be recoded

into chemica~ pu~ses in order to be ab~e toinf~uence
the activity of the post-synaptic ce~~. The ~irst step
in this recoding is the re~ease of a chemical ca~~ed,
transmitter (T) and stored in specia~ vesic~es in the
pre-synaptic axonic termina~. The transmitter re~eased
in the synaptic c~eft must then coup~e to some other
specia~ mo~ecu~es, ca~~ed receptors (R) and located at
the post-synaptc membrane. This T-R coup~inq activates
a chain of post-synaptic chemica~ reactions, which
resu~ts into the re~ease of one or a set of other
mo~ecu~es (ca~~ed contro~~ers (C» into the interna~
and externa~ cel~ular spaces; besides triqqerinq the
e~ectrica~ changes at the post-synaptic membrane
required to activate the post-synaptic axon. The action
exercised by the contro~~ers is one or more of the
fo~~owing [12]:

2a) to b~ock the very same T-R coup~ing. In this case,

the contro~~er imp~ements a negative feedback
regu~ating the dynamics of the T-R coupling;

2b) to modify the physiology of the pre-synaptic cel~s,

and

2c) to change the biochemistry o~ the activated

post-synatpic ce~~ itse~f.

The contro~~er C may change the affinity between the

transmitter T and the receptor R; may modify the
energetic supp~y to the membrane; or may influence the
DNA reading on both the pre and post-synaptic cel~.
Modification of DNA reading a~ters the proteic
240

synthesis in the ce11s, augmenting or reducing the

production of raw or specific materia1s used on both
the synaptic and axonic maintenance. In the first case,
the contr011er C inf1uences the synthesis of both T and
R, and even of C itse1f. In the second case, it
requ1ates the production of the pores contr011ing the
ionic permeabi1ity of the membrane and inf1uences the
e1ectrica1 properties (e.g., the ce11u1ar thresh01d and
the spike firing) of the neuron.

Contr01 of the proteic synthesis is the major to01 used

to address the axonic growth during embrioqenesis [5],
as we11 as to maintain ce11s a1ive if contact is
successfu11y acknow1edged by a T-R coup1ing during the
deve10pment of the brain. Axons wi11 protract
if they do not find the adequate partner labelled with
the correspondent R to their transmitters T. Fai1ure in
making contact with other ce11s provokes the neuron's
death [5]. Contr01 of m01ecu1ar precursors for T
and R is crucia1 for favoring or inhibiting the
synaptic growth inv01ved on 1earning. If the contr011er
acts upon both the post-synaptic cell and the
previous1y fired pre-synaptic neuron, the result is a
Bebbian type of learning. otherwise, if controllers act
upon different pre-synaptic ce11s, cooperative and
competitive heterosynaptic interactions are established
depending on the type of action exercised by the
contr011er. Cooperative and competitive heterosynaptic
actions support Associative Learning [3;7].

The chemica1 contr01 of the neuron's physi010qy is so

important that some transmitters 10se their capacity to
induce e1ectrica1 activity in the post-synaptic cell,
to be used on1y to requ1ate the actiyation of
contr011ers [3;7;8]. Such transmitters are ca11ed
modu1ators and they ar produced by neurons in sites of
the brain inv01ved with contr01 of 1earninq and memory
[3]. Modu1ators (M) a1so act in a neighborhood of ce11s
instead just upon on1y one post-synatpic oell, and
their coup1ing with the receptors are in genera1
10ng-1asting than the T-R coup1ing [7].

In summary, the physi010qy of the synapsis involves

besides the we11 known e1ectrica1 processing, • chain
of chemica1 transactions of the type

T or M + R ---> C ---> ACTIONS

 241

These actions are exerted upon chemical affinity

between T or Nand R; and/or over the DNA supporting
the chemical encoding of either T, N, a and C
themselves; or other constituents (pores) of the
cellular membrane related with the control of the
excitability of this membrane. For simplicity, no
distinction will be made between T and "in what
follows.

The key modification to be introduced in the way the

formal neuron will be described here, borrows the idea
of tokens from Petri Nets [11;12;13] to better
formalize the actual knowledge described above, about
the physiology of the synapsis.

FORMALIZING THE CHEMICAL PROCESSING

According to Murata [11]:

A Petri net is a particular kind of directed graph,

together with an initial state called the initial
marking, MO. The underlying graph N of a Petri net is
a directed, weighted, bipartite graph consisting of two
kinds of nodes, called places and transitions, where
arcs are either from a place to a transition Or from a
transition to a place. Arcs are labeled with their
weights (positive integers), where a k weighted arc can
be interpreted as the set of k parallel arcs. A
marking (state) assigns to each place a non-negative
integer. Xf a marking assigns to place p a non-ne~ative
integer k, we say that p is marked with k tokens . . . . A
transition (synapsis) has a certain number of input and
output places representing the preconditions and
post-conditions associated with the place. In another
interpretation, k tokens are put in a place to indicate
k data items or resources available.

In order to simulate the dynamic behavior of a system,

a state or marking in a Petri net is changed according
to the following transition (firing) rule:

3a) a transition t is said to be enabled it each input

place p of t is marked with at least w(p,t) tokens,
where w(p,t) is the weight of the arc from p to t.

3b) an enabled transition mayor aay not fire

242

(depending on whether or not the event actually takes

place) .

3c) a firing of an enabled transition t removes w(p,t)

tokens from each input place p of t, and adds w(t,p)
tokens to each output place p of t, where w(t,p) is the
weight of the arc from t to p.

Let initially be considered 3 sets of tokens:

4a) Transmitters (T): each element t E T may be

assigned in different quantities to the pre-synaptic
terminals of the axons in neural net (NN);

4b) Receptors (R): each element r E R may be assigned

in different amounts to the post-synaptic cells of NN,
and

4c) Controller (C): each element c E C may be activated

the post-synaptic cell by the coupling between T and R.

In this condition, the chemical synaptic activity may

be described by assuming the following:

4d) a(i,t) transmitters (t) or pre-synaptic tokens are

stored at pre-synaptic places i;

4e) a(k,r) receptors (r) or post-synaptic tokens are

stored at the post-synaptic place k;

4f) different places p are defined to receive

controllers activated by the T-R coupling;

4g) the transition s relating the places i and k to the

place p, describes the T-R coupling.

In this condition, the synapsis will be enabled

whenever a(i,t»O and a(k,r»O. The synapSiS will be
activated (fired) by the spikes arriving at the
pre-synaptic places. Whenever the transition S is
activated, then transmitters are removed ~rom the
places i, and controllers are activated or produced at
the places p.

Let strings of capital letters to represent the tokens

 243

R and strings of small letters to represent t~e tokens

T. For example, ABC may be a type of token in It and abc
may be declared a token t E T. The size of these
strings may be any convenient value. Given a qrammar ~
and the dictionaries

Ll{a, . . . . , l} L2 = {A, .... , Z} (6a)

then

~: (L2)n ---> R (5b)

and
~: (Ll) m ---> T (5d)

Let a(k,ABC) and a(i,abc) to represent the amount of

the tokens ABC (receptor) and abc (transmitter)
assigned to the places k and i, respectively.

Now, let be defined a fuzzy matching rule

T x R ---> [0,1] (5e)

used to concatenate transmitters to receptors. The

possibility R(abC,ABC) of the transmitter abc £ T to
binding a receptor ABC £ R is

R(abC,ABC) = p.(abc,ABC) (5f)

where p. (abc, ABC) is the concatenation compatibility

between the transmitter abc and the receptor ABC.
R(abc, ABC) measures the possibility of activation
(firing) of the synapsis (transition).

The synapses in NN are defined by the transmitters

assigned to its pre-synaptic terminals and the
receptors allocated to its post-synaptic neurons. The
activation of the pre-synaptic neurons releases
transmitters which must match the receptors in order to
trigger any response at the post-synaptic cell. This
proposition is strongly supported by the actual
knowledge about the physiology of the synapsis [12]. If
the transmitter ti is assigned to the pre-synaptic
terminal ni and the receptor rk is allocated to the
post-synaptic neuron nk, then a connection is allowed
to be established between ni and nk if

p.(t.i,rk) > 0 (5g)

244

The electrical activation (ni) arriving at the

pre-synaptic cell Hi contacting the post-synaptic
cell Hk is recoded into pulses of transmitter T to
act upon the post-synaptic receptors R. This recoding
is depen on the amount a(i,ti) of available
transmitter ti E Ti in Hi. The action the
transmitter ti may excert upon the Nk is, in turn,
dependent both on the amount a(k,rk) available
receptor rk E Rk binding it, and on the affinity
p(ti,rk) between ti and rk. Thus, the strength
or the weight wki of this synapsis becomes

wki = P (ti, rk) . (a (i, ti) r a (k, rk) (5h)

where r is usual.l.y a t-norm. The amount JIli of

transmitter ti rel.eased at the pre-synaptic te%minal.
site by the incoming axonic activity ai is

mi = a (i, ti) 0 ai (5i)

where 0 is any t-norm or s-norm [12]. In this line of

reasoning, the recoding of the pre-synaptic activation
ai in the post-synaptic activity Vi becomes

n
v = L ai r wi (5j)
i=l

where r is usual.l.y at-norm [12].

Let C be the set of tokens produced by

<1>: (L2) r x (Lr)s ---> C (6a)

where
L2 = {A, .... , Z} L3 = {Ill, •••• ,z}

L4 = Ll 0 L3 (6b)

Let a (p,mpr) be the amount of the controller mpr ... CDF

at the place p.

Also, let the following transformation »between Rand

C
ti - rk » C1 (7a)

indicates that the token rk in the post-synaptic cell.

nk is transformed into C1 as the result o~ the
 245

concatenation of c~ to the comp1ex string- ti ~rj.

Let the fo11owinq to be an examp1e of (7a) :

abc ~ ABC ... MPR » mpr ... CDF (7b)

This chain of concatenations chanqes the binding site

MPR of the receptor ABC ... MPR to CDF by concatenatinq
the contro11er mpr ... CDF to the site MPR, after the
coup1inq of the transmitter abc to the same receptor
ABC ... MPR.

A practica1 imp1ementation of the above may be the

fo11owinq [12]:

8a) ~ is a crisp mappinq from L4 = Ll U L3 to L2

I: L4 x L2 ---> {O,l}
such that

8b) if dr is the correspondinq capita1 1etter of dt

then
]1 (dt, dr) =1
otherwise
]1 (dt,dr) =0
For examp1e, ]1(a,A) = 1 and ]1(a,D)=O;

8c) - is the fuzzy mappinq from T to R defined in (6a)

such that

m n
]1 (ti, rk) = ~ ~]1 (dt, dr)
t=l r=l

where dt and dr are the characters of the strings

ti and rk, respective1y. In other words, the
compatibi1ities between ti and rk are the sum of
the compatibi1ity between the elements of their
strinqs;

8d) » is the fuzzy mappinq from (TxR) into C such that

s n
]1 (c~, rj) = ~ ~]1 (dc, dr)
c=l r=l

where de and dr are the characters of the strinqs

246

C1 and rk, respective1y.

In this approach, eq. 7a describes the symbo1ic

processing a the synapsis, whereas the numeric
processing in the post-synaptic neuron nk may be
considered as usua11y:

n
v = L ai r wi (9a)
i=l

1 if v ~ 02

ak = ---1 f(v) if

o otherwise
01 ~ v ~ 02 (9b)

where ai is the activity in the n pre-synaptic

neurons; v is the aggregation of this activity at the
initia1 portion of the axon; ak is the activity in
the axon of the post-synaptic ce11; Wi is the weight
of the synapsis between the ni and nk and it is
ca1cu1ated according to eq. 6d.

The grammar ~ generating the set of tokens R, T and C,

and the concatenation operations - and» are ca11ed,
here, the genetic G supporting the NN.

THE FORMAL MODEL

The same neuron may produce precursor molecu1es for

different transmitters, the specific synthesis at a
defined axon's branch depending on the post-synaptic
ce11 signa11ed by Cj [12]. The consequence is that
different transmitters may be a110cated ~o distinct
termina1 branches contactin different post-synaptic
ce11s. Fina11y, the same post-synaptic cell will
produce different receptors rj to combine with
different pre-synaptic transmitters ti. Each specific
coup1ing between pre-synaptic transmitter and
post-synaptic receptor, in turn, activates different
types of contro11ers Cj.

Because of a11 of this, fami1ies T of transmitters, R

of receptors and C of contro11ers are associated to
 247

each neuron, which becomes a comp1ex structure as

N = { Q, foe}, {f}, '1', a, C, G, - , », A} (lOa)

where:

lOb) Q is the aqqreqation function associated to the

axon hi11. Xt is usua11y a t-conorm, and c1assica11y it
is the sum;

10c) {oe} is the set ofaxonic thresho1ds associated

with the fami1y ofaxonic encodinq functions (see eq.
9b). Xt is assumed, here, that different termina1
branches of the same axon may exhibit different
fi1terinq properties associated with different va1ues
of the assiqned thresho1ds oei;

lOd) {f} the fami1y of possib1e axonic encodinq

functions to be assiqned to the different term!na1
branches;

10e) '1' is the set of possib1e transmitter to be

~ssiqned to the different axonic endinqs;

10f) a is the set of possib1e receptors to be assiqned

~o the dendrites sites to defined the possib1e synapsis
(transitions) accepted by the neuron;

LOq) C is the set of possib1e contro11ers to be

lctivated by the t-r bindinq. The fam:i1y of these
:ontro11ers specifies the computationa1 capabilities of
:he neuron other than the numerica1 calculus supported
)y the e1ectrica1 activity [20];

..
LOh) G is the qenetic defininq the
'f
syntax of '1', a and

.Oi) '1'he operations - and », toqether with '1', a and C,

~p1ements a symbo1ic ca1cu1us as part of the
:omputationa1 capabi1ities of the formal neuron
:12;13]. This symbo1ic ca1cu1us is supported by the
:hemica1 processinq activities under1yinq the synaptic
'hysio1oqy .

.OJ) A is the set of actions exerted by the contro1lers

.n C.
248

CONCLUSION

A new artificia1 neuron was introduced here, takiJ

into consideration the chemica1 1anguage and processiJ
supported by transmitters, receptors and contro11erl
which are important e1ements of the physioloqy of tJ
synapsis. This neuron may be used for implementing b01
symb01ic and a1gorithm processing in neural circuit I
as a consequence from the fact that concatenation r ;
defined as high1y specific operation depending on tJ
existence of comp1ementarity among substrates in T,
and C; and from the fact that the chain of even1

T r R » C ---> ACT:ION (16a)

may be used to contr01 the processing flow inside tJ

neura1 as fo110ws
if ti r rj then Ck and wi --> 1 (or 0)

e1se if tp r rl then cs and Wp ---> 1 (or 0)

otherwise wi --> 0 (or 1)

The chemica1 1anguage introduced here is a1so importal

if 1earning is considered. :It furnishes a strong toe
for ca1cu1ating the changes of the synaptic weighi
triggered by inductive 1earning, no matter if Rebbi.
or associative procedures are taken into account. Sui
it is a1so a 1anguage to formalize ev01utive learnil
[12;13], which is able to rea11y modify the structu:
of the net, by creating new connections among neurol
either by means of crossover or by inc1usion
de1etion (mutation) of ce11s. :In this regard,
provides a 1anguage to forma1ize the heuristics used 1
guide the ev01utive 1earning. A characteristic that
missing in the Genetic A1gorithm approach [2]. Tl
possibi1ity of deve10ping a 1anguage for representil
heuristic is another interesting research problem 1
embrace in the future.

REFERENCES

[1]-B1ack, :I. B., J. E. Ad1er, C. F. Dreyfus, G. I

Jonakait, D. M. Katz, E .. F. LaGamma and K. M. Markey
Neurotransmitter P1asticity at the Molecular Leve:
Science, 1984/225:1266-1270
 249

]-Booker, L. B., D. E. Go1dberg, and J. B. Bo11and -

assifier Systems and Genetic A1gorithms. Artificia1
telligence, 1989/40:235-282

]-Byme, J. B. - Ce11u1ar Analysis of Associative

aming. Physio1ogica1 Review, 1987/67:329-432

]-Cowan, W. M., J. W. Fawcett, D. D. M. O'Leary and

B. Stanfield - Regressive Events in Neurogenesis.
ience, 1984/225:1258-1265

]-Edelman, G. M. - Neural Darwinism: The Theory of

Llronal Group Se1ection. Basic Books, 1977

]-Binton, G. E. - Connectionist Learning Procedures.

tificial Intelligence: 1989/40:185-234

)-Kande1, E. R. and J. B. Schwart~ Mo1ecu1ar

~logy of Learning: Modulation of Transmitter Release.
ience, 1982/218:433-442

I-Lam, D. M., Y-Y T. Su and C. B. Watt - The

Lf-Regulating Synapse: A Functiona1 Role for the
-existence of Neuroactive Substances. Brain Research
,iews, 1986/11:249-257

I-McI1wain, B. - Extended Ro1es in the Brain for

:ond-Messenger Systems. Neuroscience, 1977/2:357-372

)]-MCCu11och, W. S. and W. Pitts - A logical ealcu1us

the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of
~hematical Biophysics, 1943/5:115-133

L] -Murata, T. - Petri Nets: Properties, analysis and

)1ications. Proc. of the IEEE, 1989/77:541-580

!]-Rocha, A. F. - Neura1 Nets: A theory for brains

I machines. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence,
~inger Verlag, 1992, 400pgs. (in press)

I] -Rocha, A. F., M. Theoto, A. Myiadahira, M. Itoi~umi

L neura1 net for extracting know1edge from natural
19uage data base. IEEE Trans. Neura1 Neta, 1992:2/5

I]-Rume11hart, D. E.; McC1e11and and the PDl» Reaearch

Np Para11e1 Distributed Processing: I - Foundations,
~ Press, 1986
 Fuzzy Screening Systems
Ronald R. Yager
Machine Intelligence Institute
Iona College
New Rochelle, NY 10801
USA
ABSTRACT
We describe a procedure, which we call the Fuzzy
Screening ,method. This procedure is useful in environments in
which we must select, from a large class of alternatives, a small
subset to be further investigated. This initial screening procedure is
based on preliminary information. The technique suggested here
requires only a non-numeric scale for this the evaluation and
selection of alternatives. Using this procedure each alternative is
evaluated by each expert for satisfaction to his multi-criteria selection
function. Each criteria can have a different degree of importance.
The individual expert evaluations can then be aggregated to obtain an
overall evaluation function.

1. Introduction
A large class of decision problems can be characterized by what
we shall call screening problems In these types of problems one
usually starts with a large subset, X, of possible alternative
solutions. Each alternative is essentially represented by a minimal
amount of information supporting its appropriateness as the best
solution. This minimal amount of information provided by each
alternative is used to help select a subset A of X to be further
investigated. Two prototypical examples of this kind of problem
can be mentioned. The first is the job selection problem. Here a
large number of candidates, X, submit a resume, minimal
information, to a job announcement. Based upon these resumes a
small subset of X, A, are called in for interviews. These interviews,
which provide more detailed information, are the basis of selecting
winning candidate from A. A second example of these types of
problems occur in proposal selection problems. Here a large class
of candidates, X, submit preliminary proposals, minimal
information. Based upon these preliminary proposals a small subset
of X, A, are requested to submit full detailed proposals. These
detailed proposals are the basis of selecting winning candidate from
A.
251
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 251-261.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
252

In the above examples the process of selecting the subset A,

required to provide further information, is called a screening
process. In the following we shall suggest a technique for
managing this screening process. We shall call the technique
described the fuzzy screening system.
The kinds of screening problems described above besides being
characterized as decision making with minimal information general
involve multiple participants in the selection process. We shall call
the people whose opinion must be considered in the selection
process an expert. Thus screening problems are a class of multiple
expert decision problems. In addition each individual expert's
decision is based upon the use of multiple criteria. We see we have
ME-MCDM (Multi Expert-Multi Criteria Decision Making)
problem with minimal information.
The fact that we have minimal information associated with each
of the alternatives complicates the problem because it limits the
operations which can be performed in the aggregation processes
needed to combine the multi-experts as well as multi-criteria. The
Arrow impossibility theorem [1] is a reflection of this difficulty.
In this note we suggest an approach to the screening problem
which allows for the requisite aggregations but which respects the
lack of detail provided by the information associated with each
alternative. The technique suggested will only require that
preference information be expressed in by elements draw from a
scale that essentially only requires a linear ordering. This property
will allow the experts to provide information about satisfactions in
the form of a linguistic values such as high, medium, low. This
ability to perform the necessary operations will only requiring
imprecise linguistic preference valuations will enable the experts to
comfortably use the kinds of minimally informative sources of
information about the objects described above.
The fuzzy screening procedure suggested here can be used on
many different kinds of problems. Among some of those that come
readily to mind are pattern recognition, medical diagnosis and
financial decision making. In medical diagnosis an initial focusing
can be used to help suggest further tests. These problems, as are
others amenable to the screening technique, are characterized by a
situation in which we must evaluate the quality of number of
alternatives based on minimal information. We note that further
more detailed information can usually be obtained, at a cost of either
time or money, hence a desire to reduce the alternatives considered.
The fuzzy screening system described in the following is a two
stage process. In the first stage, individual experts are asked to
provide an evaluation of the alternatives. This evaluation consists of
 253

a rating for each alternative on each of the criteria. We note that each
of the criteria may have a different level of importance. As
previously noted the values to be used for the evaluation of the
ratings and importances will be drawn from a linguistic scale which
makes it easier for the evaluator to provide the information. We use
a methodology developed in [2, 3] to provide a single value rating
for each evaluator for each alternative. This rating is again a
linguistic value from the same simple linguistic scale. In the second
stage, we use a methodology introduced in [4] and extended in [5]
to aggregate the individual experts evaluations to obtain an overall
linguistic value for each object. This overall evaluation can then be
used by the decision maker as an aid in the selection process.

2. Problem Formulation
The problem we are interested in addressing can be seen to
consist of three components. The fIrst component is a collection
X = {XJ, ... X p }
of alternative solutions from amongst which we desire to select
some subset to investigated further.
The second component is a group of experts or panelists whose
opinion solicited in screening the alternatives. We denote this set of
experts as A = {A1, . . . Ar }. Generally r is much smaller than p.
A third component is a collection of criteria which are
considered relevant in the choice of the objects to be further
considered. We denote this as C = {CJ, ... Cn }. As we shall
subsequently see it is note required that each expert have the same
importance associated with each of the criteria.

3. A Non-Numeric Technique for Rating

Alternatives
For each alternative each expert is required to provided his
opinion. In particular for each alternative an expert is asked to
evaluate how well that alternative satisfies each of the criteria in the
set c. l These evaluations of alternative satisfaction to criteria will
be given in terms of elements from the following scale S:
Perfect (P) S7
Very High (VH) S6
High (H) S5

1 An expert is not required to provide this information for any criteria which he
considers to have no importance in the decision process or for which he
considers himself unqualified to judge.
254

Memum(M) S4
Low S3
Very Low S2
None Sl
The use of such a scale provides of course a natural ordering,
Si > Sj if i > j. Of primary significance is that the use of such a
scale doesn't impose undue burden upon the evaluator in that it
doesn't impose the meaningless precision of numbers. The scale is
essentially a linear ordering and just implies that one score is better
then another. However, the use of linguistic terms associated with
these scores makes it easier for the evaluator to manipulate. The use
of such a linguistic scale also implicitly implies some concept of
being satisfactory or not. The use of such a seven point scale
appears also to be in line with Miller's [6] observation that human
beings can reasonably manage to keep in mind seven or so items.
Implicit in this scale are two operators, the maximum and
minimum of any two scores:
Max(Si, Sj) = Si if Si ~ Sj
Min(Si, Sj) = Sj if Sj S; Si
We shall denote the max by v and the min by 1\.
Thus for any arbitrary alternative Xi each expert will provide a
collection of n values.
[Xik(Cl), Xik(C2), .... Xik(C n )]
where Xik(Cj) is the rating of the ith alternative on the jth criteria by
the kth expert. Each Xik(Cj) is an element in the set S of allowable
scores.
Assuming n = 6, a typical scoring for an alternative from one
expert would be:
Xik: (high, medium, low, perfect, very high, perfect)
Independent of this evaluation of alternative satisfaction to
criteria each expert must assign a measure of importance to each of
the criteria. An expert uses the same scale, S, to provide the
importance associated with the criteria. It should be noted that there
is no overall requirement on the allocation of importances2. We
shall use Ii(Cj) to indicate the importance assigned to the jth criteria
by the ith expert. A possible realization for importances could be
Ii(ql) = p
Ii(q2) = VH
Ii(q3) = VH

2Prom a pragmatic point of view we suggest that those that are most important
be given the rating P.
 255

Ii(q4) = M
Ii(q5) = L
Ii(q6) = L
The next step in the process is to find the overall valuation for a
alternative by a given expert.
In order to accomplish this overall evaluation, we use a
methodology suggested by Yager [2]. This approach was recently
discussed by Caudell [3].
A crucial aspect of this approach is the taking of the negation of
the importances. In [2], we introduced a technique for taking the
negation on a linear scale of the type we have used. In particular, it
was suggested that if we have a scale of q items of the kind we are
using then
Neg(Si) = Sq-i+ 1.
We note that this operation satisfies the desirable properties of
such a negation as discussed by Dubois & Prade [7].
(1) Closure
For any s E S, Neg(s) E S
(2) Order Reversal
For Si > Sj, Neg(Si) ;5; Neg(Sj)
(3) Ir.volution
Neg(Neg(Si)) =Si for all i
For the scale that we are using, we see that the negation
operation provides the following
Neg(P) = N (Neg(S7) = S1)
Neg(VH) = VL (Neg(S6) = S2)
Neg(H) = L (Neg(S5) = S3)
Neg(M) = M (Neg(S4) = S4)
Neg(L) = H (Neg(S3) = S5)
Neg(VL) = VH (Neg(S2) = S6)
Neg(N) = P (Neg(SI) = S7)
The methodology suggested by Yager [2] which can be used to
find the unit score of each alternative by each expert, which we shall
denote as Xik, is as follows
Xik = Minj [Neg(I(Cj) v Cik(Cj)] I
In the above v indicates the max operation. We first note that this
formulation can be implemented on elements drawn from a linear
scale as it only involves max, min and negation.
We note that I essentially is an anding of the criteria
satisfactions modified by the importance of the criteria. The formula
256

I can be seen as a measure of the degree to which an alternative

satisfies the following proposition:
All imponant criteria are satisfied
Example: We shall use the previous manifestation to provide an
example
Criteria: Cs
Importance: L
Score: VH
In this case
Xik = Min [Neg(P) v H, Neg(VH) v M, Neg(VH) v L,
Neg(M) v P, Neg(L) v VH, Neg(L) v P]
Xik = Min [N v H, VL v M, VL v L, M v P, H v VH, H v P]
Xik = Min [H, M, L, P, VH, P]
Xik=L
The essential reason for the low performance of this object is
that it performed low on the third criteria which has a very high
importance. We note that if we change the importance of the third
criteria to low, then the alternative would evaluate to medium.
The formulation of equation I can be seen as a generalization of
a weighted averaging. Linguistically, this formulation is saying that
if a criterion is important then an should score well on it.
Essentially this methodology starts off by assuming each alternative
has a score of perfect and then reduces its evaluation by its scoring
on each question. However, the amount of this reduction is limited
by the importance of the criteria as manifested by the negation.
In [1, 8, 9] a number of properties required of a multi-criteria
decision function are discussed. Among this properties are Pareto
optimality, independence to irrelevant alternatives, positive
association of individual scores with overall score, non-dictatorship
and symmetry. It can be shown [2, 9] that the formulation
suggested for the aggregation of multi-criteria satisfies these
conditions. A more detailed discussion of this methodology can be
found in [2].
An essential feature of this approach is that we have obtained a
reasonable unit evaluation of each alternative by each expert using an
easily manageable linguistic scale. We had no need to use numeric
values and force undue precision on the experts.

4. Combining Expert's Opinions: Consensus

Formation
As a result of the previous section, we have for each alternative,
 257

assuming there are r experts, a collection of evaluations XiI, Xi2, .

. . Xir where Xik is the unit evaluation of the i th alternative by the
k th expert. If r is small the decision maker may be able to manage
these values to make some overall decision. In this section, we shall
provide a technique for combining the expert's evaluation to obtain
an overall evaluation for each alternative, which we shall denote as
Xi. We are implicitly assuming that each of the experts have the
same importance. We note that in the case of using numeric values
this operation usually corresponds to taking an average. The
technique we shall use is based upon the ordered weighted
averaging (OWA) operators introduced by Yager [4] and extended to
the linear environment in [5].
The first step in this process is for the decision making body to
provide an aggregation function which we shall denote as Q. This
function can be seen as a generalization of the idea of how many
experts it feels need to agree on an alternative for it to be acceptable
to pass the screening process. In particular for each number i,
where i runs from I to r, the decision making body must provide a
value Q(i) indicating how satisfied it would be in passing an
alternative that i of the experts where satisfied with. The values for
Q(i) should be drawn from the scale S = {S 1> S2, ... Sn}
described above.
It should be noted that Q(i) should have certain characteristics to
make it rational:
(l) As more experts agree the decision maker's satisfaction or
confidence should increase;
Q(i) ~ Q(j) i >j
(2) If all the experts are satisfied then his satisfaction should be
the highest possible;
Q(r) = Perfect
A number of special forms for Q are worth noting. [5]:
(l) If the decision making body requires all experts to support a
alternative then we get
Q(i) = none for i < r
Q(r) = perfect
(2) If the support of just one expert is enough to make a
alternative worthy of consideration then
Q(i) =perfect for all i
(3) If at least m experts' support is needed for consideration
then
Q(i) = none i<m
Q(i) = perfect i ~ m.
We note that while these examples only use the two extreme
values of the scale S this is not at all necessary or preferred.
258

In the following we shall suggest a manifestation of Q that can

be said to emulate the usual arithmetic averaging function. In [5] we
provide a formal justification of this relationship. In order to define
this function, we introduce the operation Int [a] as returning the
integer value that is closest to the number a. In the following, we
shall let q be the number of points on the scale (the cardinality of S)
and r be the number of experts participating. This function which
emulates the average is denoted as QA and is defined for all i = 0, 1,
... r as

where
q-1
b(k) = Int [1 + (k * -r-)]'
We note that whatever the values of q and r it is always the case
that
QA(O) = S1
QA(r) = Sq.
As an example of this function if r = 3 and q = 7 then
b(k) = Int [1 + (k * ~)] = Int [1 + 2k]
and
QA(O) = S1
QA(1) = S3
QA(2) =S5
QA(3) = S7
If r = 4 and q = 7 then
b(k) = Int [1 + k * 1.5]
and
QA(O) = S1
QA(1) = S3
QA(2) = S4
QA(3) = S6
QA(4) = S7
In the case where r = 10 and q=7 then
b(k) = lot [1 + k *~]
10
then
QA(O) = S1
QA(1) = S2
QA(2) = S2
QA(3) = S3
 259

QA(4) = S3
QA(5) = S4
QA(6) = S5
QA(7) = S5
QA(8) = S6
QA(9) = S6
QA(lO) = S7
Having appropriately selected Q we are now in the position to
use the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) method [4, 5] for
aggregating the expert opinions. Assume we have r experts, each of
which has a unit evaluation for the ith projected denoted Xik. The
first step in the OWA procedure is to order the Xik'S in descending
order, thus we shall denote Bj as the jth highest score among the
experts unit scores for the project. To find the overall evaluation for
the i th project, denoted Xi, we calculate
Xi = Maxj=l, ...r [Q(j) /\ Bjl.
In order to appreciate the workings of this formulation we must
realize that Bj can be seen as the worst of the jth top scores.
Furthermore Q(j) can be seen as an indication of how important the
decision maker feels that the support of at least j experts is. The
term Q(j) /\ Bj can be seen as a weighting of an objects j best scores,
Bj, and the decision maker requirement that j people support the
project, Q(j). The max operation plays a role akin to the summation
in the usual numeric averaging procedure. More details on this
technique can be found in [4, 5].
Example: Assume we have four experts each providing a unit
evaluation for project i obtained by the methodology discussed in the
previous section.
XiI =M
Xi2=H
Xi3=L
Xi4=VH
Reordering these scores we get
BI =VH
B2=H
B3=M
B4=L.
Furthermore, we shall assume that our decision making body
260

chooses as its aggregation function the average like function, QA.

Then with r = 4 and scale cardinality q = 7, we obtain
QA(l)=L (S3)
QA(2) = M (S4)
QA (3) =VH (S6)
QA(4) = P (S7)
We calculate the overall evaluation as
Xi = Max [L 1\ VH, M 1\ H, VH 1\ M, P 1\ L]
Xi = Max [L, M, M, L]
Xi=M
Thus the overall evaluation of this alternative is medium.
Using the methodology suggested thus far we obtain for each
alternative an overall rating Xi. These ratings allow us to obtain a
evaluation of all the alternative without resorting to a numeric scale.
The decision making body is now in the position to make its
selection of alternatives that are be passed through the screening
process. A level S* from the scale S is selected and all those
alternatives that have an overall evaluation of S* or better are passed
to the next step in the decision process. We note that the choice of
S* is depended on how many elements we want to consider in the
next phase. It should be also noted that a further control can be had
with the selection of the consensus function Q. By making Q
stricter less alternatives will be deemed acceptable.
Figure #1 shows the overall fuzz screening process
EXPERT 1
Satisfactions
1m ortanees

EXPERT 2
Satisfactions

...--------.
1m ortanees
Expert
ConsensU3

L
X

EXPERT n
Satisfactions
1m ortanees
Figure# 1
 261

5. Conclusion
We have described a methodology to be used in the evaluation
of objects which is based upon a non-numeric linguistic scale. The
process allows for the multi-criteria evaluation of each object by
experts and then a aggregation of these individual experts to obtain
an overall object evaluation. This methodology has been suggested
as an approach to the screening of alternatives.

6. References
[1]. Arrow, K. 1., Social Choice and Individual Values, John Wiley
& Sons: New York, 1951.

[2]. Yager, R R, "A new methodology for ordinal multiple aspect

decisions based on fuzzy sets," Decision Sciences 12, 589-600,
1981.

[3]. Caudill, M., "Using neural nets: fuzzy decisions," AI Expert,

April, 59-64, 1990.

[4]. Yager, R. R, "On ordered weighted averaging aggregation

operators in multi-criteria decision making," IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics 18, 183-190, 1988.

[5]. Yager, R. R., "Applications and extensions of OWA

aggregations," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies (To
Appear).

[6]. Miller, G. A., "The organization of lexical memory," in The

Pathology of Memory, Talland, G.A. & Waugh, N.C. (Eds.), New
York: New York, 1969.

[7]. Dubois, D. and Prade, H., "A review of fuzzy sets aggregation
connectives," Information Sciences 36, 85 - 121, 1985.

[8]. Luce, R D. and Raiffa, H., Games and Decisions: Introduction

and Critical Survey, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1967.

[9]. Yager, R R., "Competitiveness and compensation in decision

making: A fuzzy set based interpretation," Computers and
Operations Research 7, 285-300, 1980.
COMPUTER, MANAGEMENT AND
SYSTEMS SCIENCE
 FUZZY LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS
WITH MIN- AND MAX-EXTENDED ALGEBRAIC
OPERATIONS ON CENTERED FUZZY NUMBERS*

Margit KovAcs
Department of Computer Science, L.Eotvos University,
Budapest 112, P.D.Box 157, H-1502, Hungary

Abstract
In this paper a new class of fuzzy linear programming will be treated.
It is supposed that both coefficients of the objective and constraint func-
tions both the unknown decision variables are centered fuzzy numbers
of given basis and the min- and max- extended arithmetic operations
on the centered fuzzy numbers are defined as in (3). Using different
combinations of the min- and max- operations 8 different fuzzy linear
programming problems can be formulated, the optimality conditions of
which will be discussed.
[(eywords: Centered fuzzy numbers, linear programming, fuzzy linear
programming, optimality conditions

1. Introduction
In the classical linear programming it is supposed that the parameters are
well known characteristics of the problem. However, in a lot of practical prob-
lems the parameters are known only approximatively. In the fuzzy linear pro-
gramming the perturbations of the parameters are given by fuzzy sets, ex-
pressing in what degree may be a point acceptable as a real parameter. In the
practical problems, however, we can additionally suppose, that
- for every parameter there exists its desirable value;
- the uncertainty in a data is given as compared to this desirable value;
- the rate of acceptability of the parameters does not increase if we move
away its desirable value.
This assumption motivates us to use fuzzy numbers and consider the desirable
value of the parameter as the center of the fuzzy number.
The usual approach to the fuzzy linear programming defines the fuzzy func-
tion values by the t-norm modified extension principle. It is proved in [2] for
a wide cJass of t-norms that the fuzzified linear function value is also a fuzzy
number vf the same type as the fuzzifying parameters, but the spread of this
"This research has been partially supported by OTKA 1/3-2152 (Hungary)
265
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 265-275.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
266

fuzzy function value depends on the weighted norm of the point in which the
function value is computed, and it grows if this point moves away from the
origin. However, in some practical problems the fuzziness ofthe function value
does not depend on the place of computation, it depends only on the shape of
the fuzzifying parameters. This fact has motivated us to introduce new arith-
metic operations between fuzzy numbers having center and define the fuzzy
linear programming with these operations.
Analogous problem was discussed in [1] extending the sum-operation by the
max-operation and the product by an Archimedean t-norm.

2. Centered fuzzy numbers

A mapping 9 : JR -+ [0,1] will be called generator mapping if
i) 0 E ker 9 = cl {t E JR : g( t) = I} (cl denotes the topological closure of
sets);
ii) g is nondecreasing on (-00,0] and nonincreasing on [0, (0).
Let X {a} denotes the characteristic function of the one point subset {a} and
let 6 denote the everywhere maximal value function on JR, i.e. 6(t) = 1 for
every t E JR.
The subset B of the generator mappings will be called basis of the centered
fuzzy numbers if
i) X{O} E B, 6 E B;
ii) B is closed with respect to the operations /\ and V.
As it was proved in [3] B is a lattice ordered monoid and the lattice ordering
on B will be denoted by :5:f3.
We Sd,y that the pair (a, f) represents the B based centered fuzzy number fa,
if a E JR, fEB and for its membership function we have fa(x) = f(x - a). A
centered fuzzy number is proper if its basis element is neither X{O} nor 6. The
set of B-based centered fuzzy numbers will be denoted by FRf3. We distinguish
two centered fuzzy numbers based on the same basis if either their generators
or their centers or both of them are different.
In F Rf3 we define the relation :5:F using the lexicographic ordering of
the pairs «(/,I),(b,g) E FRf3, i.e. (a,I) :5:F (b,g) iff one of the following
conditions is satisfied:
i) 0 < b;
ii) a = band f :5:f3 g.
(a, f) =7'" (b, g) if(a, I) :5:7'" (b, g) :5:F (0,/).
In [3] the following propositions are proved:
i) (FRf3' :5:F) is lattice ordered;
ii) (FRf3, :5:F) is linear ordered iff B is linear ordered.
Let us introduce on F Rf3 the following min- and max-extended algebraic
operations: Let 0 be an arithmetic operation on JR and * be either the /\ or
the V operation. Then

(a, I) 0(*) (b, g) = (a 0 b, f * g). (1)

 267

It is proved in [3], that F RB is closed for the operations defined by (1) and
(FRB,+(i\),€o), (FRB,+(V),Xo), (FRB,.(i\),€t), (FRB,.(i\),Xl) are lattice
ordered monoids, where Xa =
(a,x{O}) and €a =
(a,€) . Moreover, the
pairs of operations (+(i\), .(i\»), (+(i\), .(V»), (+(V), .(i\»), (+(V), .(V»)
are distributive.

3. Linear programming problems

Let B be a linearly ordered basis with respect to the inclusion and let us
define on F'RB the following linear programming problem:
Problem F LP( R, #, *) :

(-1'1, ct) .(0) (~1, xt) +(#) 00 • +(#) (')'n, en) .(0) (~n, Xn ) ---+ min (2)

subject to

l, ... ,m,

j=l,oo.,n, (4)
where # and * are either the V or the 1\ operations, R is either the :S or the ~
relation,cj,aij,bi,xjEB, 'Yj,O:ij,f3i,~jE/R, i=l, ... ,m, j=l, ... ,n.
The problem F LP(R, #, *) with different combinations of R, # and *
represents 8 different fuzzy linear problems, the optimality conditions of which
are formulated in the following theorems.

Theorem 1 If (e*,X E F RB , X O = (xi, ... ,x~) E Bn,e* = (~i, ... ,~~) E

O
)

/Rn is a solution of the F LP(R, #, *) problem, then e* is optimal for the clas-
sical linear programming problem
n

L 'Yj~j ---+ inf (5)

j=l

subject to

L" O:ij~j R f3i, i = 1, ... ,m, (6)

j=l
~j > 0, j=l,oo.,n. (7)

Proof. It immediatelly follows from the definition of the extended operations

and the relation between centered fuzzy numbers. 0

Theorem 2 Necessary condition for feasible solution of F LP(R, #, *) to exist

is that there exists feasible solution e
E /Rn for (5)-(7) and if the index set
IR(O oj active constraints of (6)-(7) at the point e
is not empty then the
followin,q additional conditions satisfy:
268

1. For F LP('.5., A, V): Aj=laij '.5.8 bi for all i E 1$(0;

2. For FLP('.5., V, V): Vj=laij '.5.8 bi for all i E 1$(0;
3. For FLP(?,A,A): Vj=laij ?8 bi for all i E 1?(~);
4. For FLP(?, V,A): Aj=laij?'8 bi for all i E 1?(0;

In other cases extra condition for the basis functions is not demanded.

e
Proof The necessity of feasibility of for (5)-(7) follows from the definition of
the extended operations and relations between centered fuzzy numbers. On the
other hand it is also obvious from the mentioned definitions, that the spreads
of basis elements of the coefficients and the unknown parameters play role in
the question of feasibility only if there are active constraints at the point for e
(6)-(7) .
(1) If (e, x) is feasible for F LP('.5., A, A) and 1$(~) f. 0 then x must satisfy
the following inequalities:

By virtue of the associativity of the A operation we have

which has solution without any condition.

(2) If (e, x) is feasible for the problem F LP('.5., A, V) and 1$(~) f. 0 then x
must satisfy the inequalities

A'l=l(aij V Xj) '.5.8 bi, i E 1$(~)'

Then for every i E 1$ (~) there exists j E {I, ... , n} such that

which can be satisfied only if for every i there exists j such that aij '.5.8 bi , but
this condition is equivalent with the condition given in the theorem.
(3) The condition of feasibility of (e,x) for FLP('.5., V,A) if 1$(~) f. 0 is

Vj=l(aij AXj) '.5.8 bi, i E 1$(~)'

It fulfill~ iffor every i E I S (~) and j E {I, ... , n}:aij A Xj '.5.8 bi , which is valid
without any condition.
(4) If (e,x) is feasible for FLP('.5., V, V) and 1«~) f. 0 then x must satisfy
the inequalities -
V'l=l(aij V Xj) '.5.8 bi , i E IS(~)'
Using the associativity of the V operation we can describe this inequality in
the equivalent form
 269

This inequality system is solvable only if VJ=laij ~8 bi for all i E I~(~), what
was demanded.
(5) The feasible set fOl" F LP("2, 1\, 1\) is not empty if the system
1\'J=l(aij I\Xj) "28 bi, i E h(~)
has solution. This condition is equivalent with the condition that for every
j E {I, ... , n} the system
aij 1\ Xj "28 bi, i E I~(~)
has solution. This last condition can be fulfilled only iffor every j E {I, ... , n}:
aij "28 bi, i E I~ (~), consequently if the condition of the theorem holds.
(6) For the problem F LP("2, 1\, V) the condition of feasibility of the con-
straint set in an active center point is the existence of a solution of the system
1\'J=l(aij V Xj) "28 bi, i E h(~)
It is equivalent with the condition that for every j E 1, ... , n the system
aij V Xj"28 bi, i E I~({)
has solution. But this condition one can satisfy without any condition for the
basis elements of the coefficients.
(7) If there exists feasible (e, x) for F LP("2, V, 1\) in an active center point
e then x must satisfy the inequality system
Vj"=l(aij I\Xj) "28 bi, i E I~(O·
It means that for every j E 1, ... , n the existence of the solution of the system
aij 1\ Xj "28 bi, i E I~({)
is necessary. But these systems can be solved only if there exists j E {I, ... , n}
such that aij "28 bi fOl" all i E 1>(0. Fwm this condition follows the condition
given in the theol"em.
(8) In the case of F LP("2, V, V) for the feasibility of the constraint set in
e
an active center point the existence of the solution of the system
V J=l(aij V Xj) "28 bi, i E I~(~)
is necessary. Using the associativity of the V operation we have the condition
in the fmm
(Vj=Iaij) V (Vj=IXj)"28 bi, i E I?: ({),
which can be fulfilled without any condition on the parameters. 0
Since the solutione* of the classical linear programming problem (5)-(7)
is a boundery point of the feasible set (6)-(7) , therefore the active index set
IR(C) i.> not empty. Consequently we have to examine the basis system in
point of view of optimality.
Let us intwduce the following denotions:
10 {i E I~(C) : 1\j"=laij <8 bd
II {i E I~(C) : Vj"=Iaij <8 bd
270

Theorem 3 Let us assume, that the coefficients of the objective function (5)
are proper centered fuzzy numbers and the conditions of the Theorem 2 for the
existence of feasible basis in the active constraint points hold. If (e*, x*) is op-
timal for F LP( R, #, *) , then the basis x must satisfy the following conditions:

1. For F LP(~, A, A) :
An
"j=l x*j -- X{OJ,.

2. For F LP(~, A, V) :

3. For F LP(~, V, A) :
V nj=l x*j --13 X{O},.

4. For F LP(~, V, V) :

5. For F LP(?, A, A) :

A']=1 x; ?13 ViEl',?W )bi if A']=ICj ~13 ViE/',?({o)bi ,

A']=l x ; =6 ViE/~W)bi if A'J=l C j >8 ViEl~W)bi;

6. For F LP(?, A, V) :

A']=l X ; ~13 A']=l Cj if 10 = 0,

A']=l X ; =6 ViE/obi if 10 # 0 and A']=l Cj ?8 ViElob i ,
A']=I Cj ?13 A']=l x ; ?13 ViElobi if 10 # 0 and Ai=l Cj <13 ViE/obi;

7. For F LP(?, V, A) :

V']=l x; ?6 ViEl~({O )b i if A']=1 Cj ~6 V iEl~({O )bi'

V']=l X; =6 ViEl',?W)bi if A']=l Cj >8 ViEl',?({o)bi ;

8. For F LP(?, V, V) :

V'J=I X ;~6 V'J=l Cj if II = 0,

V']=I X; =6 ViEll bi if h # 0 and Vi=l Cj ~13 ViEhbi,
V'J=I Cj ?13 V'J=I X; ?13 ViEllbi if II # 0 and V'J=1 Cj >13 ViE/1b i ;

Proof Let (e*,x*) is the optimal solution of FLP(R,#,*).

(1) If (C, x*) is optimalfor F LP(~, A, A) then
 271

for all feasible x. Since /\'!=1 X j =8 X{O} is feasible, the optimal basis must
satisfy the inequality

Taking into consideration that /\1'=1 Cj :f X{O} we obtain that

(2) In the case of F LP('.5., /\, V) from the feasibility of x· follows that for
every i E IS(C) there exists j(i) E {I, ... , n} such that

Since

we have
/\'!=1 x; '.5.6 /\iEI~(e*)bi' (8)
Otherwise, since x j =6 X{O}, j E {I, ... , n} is feasible, for x· we have

/\'!=1(Cj V xj) '.5.6 /\'!=1(Cj V X{O}) = /\'!=lCj.

From this follows that there exists j E {I, ... , n} such that

therefore
(9)
(8) and (9 together give the condition of the theorem.
(3) In the case F LP('.5., V, /\) Xj =6 X{O}, j E {I, ... , n} is feasible, so for
the optimal basis we have to satisfy the inequality

V'!=l(Cj /\xj) '.5.6 V'!=l(Cj /\X{O}) =6 X{O}·

It is possible only if the system

Cj /\x; '.5.6 X{O}, j E {I, ... ,n}

has solution. Since the coefficients are proper fuzzy numbers, this inequality
can be fulfilled only if

xj =6 X{o}, j E {I, . .. ,n}.

(4) The feasibility inequalities for F LP('.5., V, V) are

(Vj'=1 a ij) V (V'!=lXj) '.5.6 bi, i E IS(C),

from where we obtain an upper bound

(10)
 272

Since x j =6 X {o}, j E {I, ... , n} is feasible, for the optimal basis we have

(Vj'=l Cj) V (Vj'=l xj) :S6 Vj'=l Cj.

Since all Cj is proper, we have

(11)

(10) and (11) together give the corresponding condition of the theorem.
(5) From the feasibility inequality for F LP(?, II, II) we have that

(1I']=laij) II (11']=1 x;) ?6 bi, i E T~(e*),

which gives the following upper bound for the optimal basis:

(12)

Let choose x j =6 ViEJ?(E")b i , j E {I, ... , n} . It is feasible, therefore the

optimal basis must satisfy the inequality

J J
(II =1 Cj) II (1Ij'=1 xi) :S6 (II =1 Cj) II (ViE/?({*)b;). (13)

If NJ=ICj :S6 ViE/>(E")bi , then

(A']=lCj) A (1I']=lxj):S6 A']=ICj,

which can be satisfied by any x which fulfills (12).

If A'l=ICj >6 ViEJ?(E")bi, then (13) turns into

(Aj'=I Cj) II (1Ij'=lXj) :S6 ViEJ?(E")bi ,

from which
A']=1 x; :S6 ViE/?({*)b;. (14)
From (12) and (14) we get the corresponding statement of the theorem.
(6) In the case of F LP(?, II, V) x' is feasible at e* if

i.e. if
aij V x; ?6 bi , i E I~(C), j E {I, ... , n}. (15)
Ifi E 1~(C) is such that

then thE inequalities in (15) corresponding to this i can be fulfilled with any x.
Therefore the feasible set depends only on indexes i E 1>(C), which belong to
the index su bset 10 . -
If 10 = 0 then x j =6 X{O}, j E {I, ... , n} is feasible, so the optimal basis
must satisfy the inequality
 273

From this we have, that there exists j E {I, ... ,n} such that Cj V xi ::;8 /\i=1 Cj
i.e. there exists j E {I, ... , n} such that xi ::;8 /\'J=1Cj. Consequently,

If 10 f:; 0, then x can be feasible only if Xj 2:8 bi for all i E 10 , j E

{1, ... , n}. Therefore
/\i=1 xj 2:8 ViEIok (16)
Since xj =8 ViElob i , j E {I, ... , n} is feasible, the optimal basis must
satisfy the inequality

/\'!=1(Cj V xi) ::;8 /\'!=1(Cj V (ViElobd) =8 (/\'!=1Cj) V (ViEIobi)'

It means that there exists j E {I, ... , n} such that

Cj V xi ::;13 (/\'l=1Cj) V (ViElobi ),

which can be satisfied only if for this j we have

therefore
/\'!=1 Xj ::;8 (/\'!=1 Cj) V (ViEIobi).

If /\'J=1Cj 2:8 ViE10b i then

(17)

which gives with (16)

which together with (16) gives

(7) If the necessary condition for the feasibility fulfills then x* is feasible
basis at C if there exists j E {I, ... ,n} such that Xj 2:13 bi for all i E h (C),
from which follows that -

(18)

Let xi =13 ViEl~ w )bi , j E {I, ... , n} . It is a feasible basis, therefore for
the optimal basis
274

If ViEl~(~.)bi ~13 V'!=1 Cj then (19) turns into

from where we obtain the system

which can be satisfied by any x having the property (18).

If ViEI~W)bi <13 V'j=ICj then (19) turns into

V'l=I(Cj 1\ x;) :::; ViEI>W)bi ,

from which follows that

Cj 1\ x; :::;13 ViEI>W)b i , j E {I, ... , n}.

If 1\'1=1 Cj >13 ViEI~W)bi, then x; :::;13 ViEl>(~.)bi must be satisfied for every
j E {I, ... , n}. This condition gives with (i8) together the statement of the
theorem. Ifthere exists j E {I, ... , n} such that Cj :::;13 ViEI>(~.)bi, then for
this index xi can be chosen arbitrary satisfying (18). -
(8) For the problem F LP(~, v, V) the feasibility condition is

(V'1=laij) V (V'1=IXj) ~13 bi, i E I~(C)·

If for an:; i E I ~ (C) V'!= 1 aij ~ 13 bi then for this i the corresponding inequality
can be satisfied with any x. Therefore only the indexes i E 11 play role in
obtainin 6 the feasible set, and if h i- 0 then
(20)

If h = 0 then xj =13 X{O}, j E {1, ... ,n} is feasible, so for the optimal
basis

from where
V'J=1 x; :::;8 V'J=1 Cj.

Let hi- 0. Choose x j =13 ViEhbi, j E {1, ... ,n}. It is feasible, so the
optimal basis must satisfy the inequality

V'l=I(Cj VX;:::;13 V'l=I(Cj V (ViEl,bi » =8 (V'!=ICj)V (ViEl,b;).

From this follows that the optimal basis is a solution of the system
 275

From this one can obtain that x j ::; 13 Vj= 1 Cj for all j E {I, ... , n}, consequently

so with the feasibility property (20) we have

from where
V'l=lXj ::;13 ViEh bi ,

which gives with the feasibility condition (20)

The proof is completed. o

4. Conclusion
The problem of fuzzy linear programming discussed in the previous sections
is useful for modelling many practical problems, the parameters of which are
known only approximativelly and when we want to follow the influence of the
parameter perturbation on the optimal result. Contrary with the usual fuzzy
linear programming models this approach produces the fuzziness of the solution
by coordinates. From computational point of view it is very easy, it requests
to solve only classical LP problem.

References
[1] M. Kovacs. Linear programming with centered fuzzy numbers. Annales
Univ. Sci. Budapest, Sectio Comp., 12:159-165, 1991.

[2] M. Kovacs. A stable embedding of ill-posed linear systems into fuzzy sys-
tems Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 45(3):305-312, 1992.

[3] M. Kovacs and L. H. Tran. Algebraic structure of centered M-fuzzy num-

bers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 39(1):91-99, 1991.
 NEW SOLUTION CONCEPTS FOR MULTIOBJECTIVE
NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS WITH
FUZZY PARAMETERS INCORPORATING FUZZY GOALS

Masatoshi SAKAWA
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Hiroshima University,
Higashi-Hiroshima 724, Japan
Hitoshi YANO
Nagoya Municipal Women's College, Nagoya 464, Japan

ABSTRACT
In this paper, we focus on multiobjective nonlinear programming problems
with fuzzy parameters and introduce new solution concepts by assuming that
the decision maker may have fuzzy goals for each of the objective functions with
fuzzy parameters. In order to deal with multiobjective nonlinear programming
problems with fuzzy parameters, two types offeasibility and two types of Pareto
optimality are introduced by making use of several indices for ranking two
fuzzy numbers proposed by Dubois and Prade. Then new solution concepts
are defined by considering both two types of feasibility and Pareto optimality,
and it is shown that new solutions proposed here can be obtained on the basis
of nonlinear programming for appropriate satisficing levels..
Keywords : multiobjective nonlinear programming problems, fuzzy parame-
ters, fuzzy goals, possibility, necessity.

INTRODUCTION
In general, considering the imprecise nature of the human judgements in
the real-world decision situations, two types of fuzziness of human judgements
should be incorporated in multiobjective programming problems. One is the ex-
perts) ambiguous understanding ofthe nature of the parameters in the problem-
formulation process, and the other is the fuzzy goals ofthe decision maker (DM)
for each of the objective functions.
Recently, Sakawa and Yano [10] defined the four types of a-feasibility and
four types of ,-Pareto optimality concepts for multiobjective nonlinear pro-
gramming problems with fuzzy parameters which reflect the experts' ambigu-
ous understanding of the nature of the parameters in the problem-formulation
process, by using four indices proposed by Dubois and Prade [2,4] for ranking
two fuzzy numbers via the concepts of possibility and necessity. By combining
a-feasibility with ,-Pareto optimality, they introduced (a,,)- Pareto optimal
solution for multiobjective nonlinear programming problems with fuzzy param-
eters, and showed that some (a,,)- Pareto optimal solutions can be obtained
on the basis of nonlinear programming.
More recently, by assuming that the fuzzy goals of the DM for each of the
objective functions can be quantified by eliciting the corresponding membership
277
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 277-286.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
278

functions, Sakawa and Yano [11,12] defined the extended Pareto optimal solu-
tion concepts in the index space for multiobjective linear and linear fractional
programming problems with fuzzy parameters by incorporating fuzzy goals,
and proposed linear programming based interactive decision making methods
to derive the satisficing solution of the DM from among the extended Pareto
optimal solution set.
In this paper, as further generalizations, we focus on the multiobjective
nonlinear programming problems with fuzzy parameters incorporating fuzzy
goals of the DM. To cope with such problems, by adopting two types of indices
as the degree of coincidence between the fuzzy goals of the DM and the objec-
tive function values involving fuzzy parameters, two types of extended Pareto
optimality are defined in the index space. Then an algorithm to generate the
extended Pareto optimal solutions is developed together with an illustrative
numerical example.

COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO FUZZY NUMBERS

For convenience in our subsequent discussion, first recall the several indices
for comparing two fuzzy numbers via the concepts of possibility and necessity.
In order to define the inequality relations between two fuzzy numbers m and
n as natural extension of ranking two closed intervals, Dubois and Prade [2,4]
introduced the following four indices.
Definition 1

Pos(m ~ n) sup{min(Jim(u),Ji,;,(v)) IU v}
~ (1)
Pos(m> n) sup{inf{min(Jim( u) 1 - Ji,;,( v)) I U ::; v}} (2)
u v
Nes(m ~ n) inf{sup{max(l- Pm(u),Ji,;,(v))
u v
I U ~ v}} (3)

Nes(m> n) sup{max(l- Pm(u), 1- p,;,(v)) I u::; v} (4)

where Jim (u) or Ji,;, (v) is the membership function of m or n, and Pos or N es
is short for Possibility or Necessity.
They also defined the following two indices for equality relations between
two fuzzy numbers.
Definition 2

Pos(m = n) sup{ min (Pm (u), Jiii( u))} (5)

u
Nes(m:::) n) inf{max(Jim( u), 1 - Ji,;, (u))} (6)
u

The following theorem shows the relationships between these indices and the
a-level sets of the fuzzy numbers, where m~, m;;, n~ and n;; are the left and
right side extreme points of the a-level sets of the fuzzy numbers m and n
respectively.
Theorem 1

Pos(m n) ~ ~ a {::::::} (7)

Pos(m > n) ~ a {::::::} (8)
 279

N es( m 2: ii) 2: a
<==> (9)
Nes(m > ii) 2: a <==> (10)
Pos(m = ii) 2: a <==> (11)
Nes(m J ii)2: a <==> (12)

PROBLEM FORMULATION
Consider the following multiobjective nonlinear programming problem in-
volving fuzzy parameters (MONLP-FP) [10] :

optimize (!I(x, ad, !z(x, az), ... , fk(X, ak)) } (13)

n
subjectto XEX(b)={XER Igj(x,bj)~O, j=I, ... ,m}
where ai = (ail, ... ,aiPJ and bj = (bj 1, ... , bj qJ represent the vector of fuzzy
parameters reflecting the experts' ambiguous understanding of the nature of
the parameters in the problem-formulation process.
We now assume that these fuzzy parameters ail, ... , aipi, bjl, ... ,bjv in the
MONLP-FP are L-R fuzzy numbers [3] whose membership functions are con-
tinuous, strictly convex, bounded and piecewise differentiable, and are denoted
by J.lai,(ail)" .. ' J.laiPi(aipJ and J.lbj,(bjd,···,
_ _
J.lbjq.(bjqj
..1
), respectively.
Now, let ai = (ail, ... ,aipJ, and bj = (bjl, ... ,bjqJ be mean values [3] of
the corresponding L-R fuzzy numbers, and consider the following multiobjective
nonlinear programming problem (MONLP) where the L-R fuzzy numbers in
the MONLP-FP are replaced by the corresponding mean values:

optimize (it(x,al),!z(x,az),···,fk(x,ak)) } (14)

subject to x E X(b) = {x E R n I gj(x,b j ) ~ 0, j = 1, ... ,m}.
This problem involves no ambiguity and may be interpreted as the nonfuzzy
mathematical model which reflect the greatest possibilities of all of the fuzzy
parameters among the MONLP-FP.
In the MONLP, considering the imprecise nature of the DM's judgement, it
is natural to assume that the DM may have imprecise or fuzzy goals for each
of the objective functions. In a minimization problem, a goal stated by the
DM may be to achieve "substantially less than some value A". This type of
statement can be quantified by eliciting a corresponding membership function.
When restricting ourselves to a minimization problem, the DM has a fuzzy
goal such as "fi(X, ai) should be substantially less than Ai". In the fuzzy ap-
proaches, however, we can further treat a more general case where the DM
has two types of fuzzy goals, namely fuzzy goals expressed in words such as
"fi(x,ai) should be in the vicinity of Ci " (called fuzzy equal) as well as
"fi(X, a;) should be substantially less than Ai or greater than Bi " (called
fuzzy min or fuzzy max). Such a generalized MONLP (GMONLP) problem
may now be expressed as:
fuzzy min f;(x, ai) (i E I,), )
fuzzy max fi( x, ai) (i E Iz),
(15)
fuzzy equal fi( x, ai) (i E I a),
subject to x E X(b),
280

wherehUhUI3={1,2, ... ,k},Iin1j=¢;, i,j=I,2,3,i-:j;j.

In order to elicit a membership function J.la(fi(X,
, ai)) from the DM for a
fuzzy goal Gi like "fi (x, a;) should be in the vicinity of Ci ", it is obvious that
we can use different functions to the left and right sides of Ci .
Concerning the membership functions of the DM, it is reasonable to assume
that J.lai(li(x,ai)),i E h and the right side functions of J.lai(fi(x,a;)),i E
h are strictly monotone decreasing functions with respect to fi(X, ai), and
J.lai(li(x, ai)), i E 12 and the left side functions of J.lai(li(x, ai)), i E hare
strictly monotone increasing functions with respect to Ii(x, ai). To be more
explicit, each membership function J.lai(fi(x,ai)) of the DM for i E 1I ,i E 12
or i E h is defined as follows:
(1) i E h :

if flR 2: Ii,
"oJ/;) = { :CCfl R
- f;)/(J,OR - flR)) if flR < Ii < fpR, (16)
if fpR:s fi,

(2) i E h :

if fpL 2: Ii,
"c.(J,) ~ { ~CC!lL - /;)/C!PL - flL)) if fPL<fi<fl L , (17)
if flL:s Ii,

(3) i E 13 :

o if fpR:s Ii,
R((flR - f;)/(fpR - flR)) if JlR < Ii < fpR,
J.lai(Ji) = 1 if JlL:s fi :S JlR, (18)
L((flL - Ji)/(fpL - ilL)) if fpL < Ii < JlL,
o if fpL 2: Ii,

where fi = fi (x, ai) and L(-) and R(-) are reference functions [3] and fpL and
fpR are unacceptable levels for fi(X, ai) and JlL and flR are totally desirable
levels for Ii(x, ai).
After eliciting the membership function J.la. (.) of the DM for each of the ob-
jective functions in the GMONLP, if we incorporate the fuzzy goals of the DM
into the MONLP-FP, the MONLP-FP can be formally transformed as the fol-
lowing fuzzy multiobjective nonlinear decision making problem (FMONLDMP).

maximize (J.la, (fI_(x, ih)), J.la 2 (f2(x, (2)), ... ,J.la. (!k(x, ak)))} (19)
subject to x E X(b).

In order to deal with this problem involving fuzzy parameters, we must resolve
the following questions.
 281

(1) How can we define the feasibility concept for the constraints involving
fuzzy parameters ?
(2) How can we define the degree of the attainment of the fuzzy goal for the
objective function value involving fuzzy parameters?
In order to resolve these two questions, in the following, we introduce new
solution concepts for the FMONLDMP by using several indices for comparing
two fuzzy numbers which are introduced in the previous section.
a-FEASIBILITY
In order to deal with the constraint set involving fuzzy parameters

(20)
Sakawa and Yano (10) have already introduced foul' types of a-feasibility using
the foUl' indices for ranking two fuzzy numbers.
Definition 3 (a-feasibility)
(1) x E R n is a-Very Weak feasible (a-VWF) to (20), if and only if

x E XvwF(a) = {x ERn I Pos(gj(x, bj) :S 0) 2: a, j = 1, ... , m}. (21)

(2) x E R n is a-Medium Weak feasible (a-MWF) to (20), if and only if

x E XMwF(a) = {x E R n I Pos(gj(x,bj ) < 0) 2: a, j = 1, ... ,m}. (22)

(3) x E R n is a-Medium Strong feasible (a-MSF) to (20), if and only if

x E XMsF(a) = {x E Rn I Nes(gj(x, bj ) :S 0) 2: a, j = 1, ... , m}. (23)

(4) x E Rn is a-Very Strong feasible (a-VSF) to (20), if and only if

x E XvsF(a) = {x E Rn I Nes(gj(x,bj ) < 0) 2: a, j = 1, ... ,m}. (24)

where the value a (0 :S a :S 1) is the threshold for the degree of feasibility.

From the properties of the a-level sets, it can be easily shown that the fol-
lowing theorem holds for XVWF(a), XMwF(a), XMsF(a) and Xvsp(a) [10).
Theorem 2

XVWF(a) = XMsF(a) = {x E Rn Ibj E[by",

min
,bf,,1
gj(x, bj ) :S O,j = 1, ... , m}
(25)

XMwF(a) = XvsF(a) = {x E R n I max gj(x,bj ) :S O,j = 1, ... , m}

bjE[bY.l_" ,bf,,_J
(26)
where bra and bfa are qj-dimensional row vectors whose £-th elements are briO"
bjL, and briO' and b~a are the left and right side extreme points of the a-level
sets of the fuzzy numbers bji .
282

For XVWF(ex) and XMSF(ex), the following theorem holds.

Theorem 3

XVWF(ex) = XMSF(ex) = {x E R n I9j(X, bj ) :::; 0, bj E [bfa, bfa], j = 1, ... , m}

(27)
It should be noted here that X vw F( ex) and X MSF (ex) can be transformed to
the set ofthe usual nonlinear inequalities with respect to X and bj, j = 1, ... , m.

I-PARETO OPTIMALITY
In order to deal with the FMONLDMP, we have to extend the ordinary
Pareto optimality concept. To do so, consider the following multiobjective
nonlinear programming problems where only the parameters of the objective
functions are fuzzy numbers.

ma~imize (PG , (J:(x,iit)), PG~(h(x, a~)), ... '~Gk (!k(x, ak )))} (28)
subject to x E X(b) = {x E R I 9j(x,bj ) :::; 0,) = 1, ... , m}.

As was pointed out by Inuiguchi et al. [6,7], while the fuzziness in the
parameters expresses uncertainty of the parameters, the fuzzy goals of the
DM for each of the objective functions express the indefiniteness in nature
or character as idea, feeling, etc. From such a point of view, in this paper,
by using the two indices for equality relation between two fuzzy numbers, we
adopt the following definition as the degree of the attainment of the fuzzy goals
Gi ,i=I, ... ,k.
Definition 4 (satisficing level)

PGi(Ji(x,ad) == POs(Ji(x,ai) = Gi ) (29)

PGi(Ji(x,ai» == Nes(Ji(x,ai) C Gi ) (30)

Observe that the membership function value of PGi(Ji(x,ai)) is defined as
the degree of possibility that the fuzzy goal Gi is equal to the fuzzy objective
function fi(X, ai), or the degree of necessity that the fuzzy goal Gi includes the
fuzzy objective function Ji(x, ad.
If we apply Definition 4 to the multiobjective nonlinear programming prob-
lem involving fuzzy parameters only in the objective functions, the problem
can be reduced to the following two types of multiobjective decision making
problems, respectively.

maximize (Nes(!l(x,al) C G1), ... ,Nes(!k(x,ak) C Gk)) (32)

xEX(b)

For these multiobjective decision making problems, as natural extension of

usual Pareto optimality, we can define two types of Pareto optimality in the
index space as follows.
Definition 5 (I-Pareto optimality)
 283

(1) x* E X(b) is I-Weak Pareto oQ.timal (I-WP) to (31), if and only if there
does not exist another x E X (b) such that

Pos(f;(x, iii) = C i ) ?:: Pos(f;(x*, iii) = Ci), i = 1, ... , k. (33)

with strictly inequality holding for at least one i.

(2) x* E X(b) is I-Strong Pareto ~ptimal (I-SP) to (32), if and only if there
does not exist another x E X (b) such that

N es(Ji(x, iii) C C;) ?:: N es(Ji(x*, iii) C Ci), i = 1, ... ,k. (34)
with strictly inequality holding for at least one i.

Unfortunately, we cannot obtain 1-WP or I-SP by directly applying the

well-known scalarization methods [1,8] for generating Pareto optimal solutions
to the usual multiobjective programming problem, since the inequalities (33)
and (34) are not yet explicitly represented with respect to x. Therefore, it is
necessary to develop some algorithms to generate I-WP to (31) and I-SP to
(32).
For that purpose, we assume th;~t some 1-WP to (31t or some I-SP to (32)
is given, and is denoted by x* E X(b). For such x* E X(b), set the parameters
(Ji or Ii as follows.

(Ji = Pos(f;(x*, ai) = G i ), i = 1, ... , k, (35)

Ii = Nes(f;(x*,ai) C Gi), i = 1, ... ,k. (36)

Then, from the property of the a-level sets [3] and Definition 5, the following
theorem is obtained, by which we can check whether x* is 1-WP (I-SP) or not.
Theorem 4
(1) x* E X_(b) is I-WP to ~1), if and only if there does not exist another
x E X(b) and ai,a~ E [aiiJi,a~J,i = 1, ... ,k such that

f;(x, ai) ~ G~., i E h U Ia (37)

f;(x, aD ?:: G~i' i E 12 U I a (38)

with strictly inequality holding for at least one i, where (Ji is the constant
defined by (35).
(2) x* E ~(b) is I-SP to (32), if and only if there does not exist another
x E X(b) and ai, a; E [af,l-'Yi' af,l-'YJ, i = 1, ... , k such that

(39)

fi(X, aD?:: Gf-ri' i E 12 U I a (40)

with strictly inequality holding for at least one i, where Ii is the constant
defined by (36).
284

By using this theorem together with the bisection method, we can now con-
struct the algorithm to generate the corresponding 1- WP for some given l3i, i =
1, ... , k.

ALGORITHM 1

Step 1 : Ask the DM to set the initial degree 13?, (0 :S 13? :S 1), i = 1, ... , k,
in his/her subjective manner.
Step 2 : For the initial degree 13?, i = 1, ... , k, check whether an admissible
set satisfying the inequalities (37) and (38) exists or not. If an admissible
set does not exist, then update I3l = 0, i = 1, " ., k. Otherwise, update
I3l = 13? / l3~ax, i = 1, ... , k, where l3~ax = maxi=l .... k I3r set n = 1.
Step 3 : For the degree I3r, i = 1, ... , k, check whether an admissible set sat-
isfying the inequalities (37) and (38) exists or not. If an admissible set
does not exist, then update I3f+1 = I3r- Il3r -l3f- 1 1 /2, i = 1, ... , k.
=
Otherwise, update 13~+1 l3i+ Il3r -13~-1 1/2, i =
1, ... , k.

Step 4 : If the termination condition 1:7=1 Il3f+1 -l3r 1< f is satisfied, then
go to Step 5. Otherwise set n <-- n + 1, and go to Step 3, where f > 0 is
the convergence parameter.
Step 5 : For the values of l3i = .ef+1, i = 1, ... , k, solve one of the following
nonlinear programming problem, where 1 E h is assumed.

m1mm1ze h(x, a1)

subject to j;(x,ai):S G!1i' i E h U 13 i #- 1
fi(x,aD 2 Gff3i , i E 12 U fa (41)
ai,ai E [af,Bi,a!1i]' i E h U 12 U 13
x E X(b)

The algorithm to obtain I-SP to (32) can also be constructed similar to

Algorithm 1, and so omitted.

I-a-PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS

Now we are ready to introduce a new solution concept to the FMONLDMP
by combining the four types of a-feasibility and the two types of I-Pareto op-
timality. In the following, we especially focus on the 1-00- Very Weak Pareto
optimality concept defined as follows.
Definition 6 (1-00- Very Weak Pareto optimal solution)
x* E XvwF(a) is said to be an I-a-Very Weak Pareto optimal (I-a-VWP)
to the FMONLDMP, if and only if there does not exist another x E X vw F( a)
such that

Pos(fi(x,a;) = C;) 2 Pos(fi(x*,a;) = C;), i = 1, ... ,k,

with strictly inequality holding for at least one i.
 285

It is easy to obtain I-a-VWP to the FMONLDMP by applying Algo-

rithm 1, since XvwF(a) is a usual nonlinear inequality set depending on the
feasibility degree a.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
To clarify the concept of I-a-VWP as well as the proposed algorithm
for deriving the satisficing solution of the DM, consider the following three
objective nonlinear programming problem involving fuzzy parameters.

fuzzy min It(x,ch) = a1(x1 - 9)2 + (X2 - 6)2

fuzzy min !z(x, (2) = 3X1 + Q.2X2
fuzzy min fa(X,Q.3) = Q.3X1 + X2
subject to x E X = {x E R 2 Xi 2: O,i = 1,2}
1

where ai, a2 and a3 are fuzzy numbers whose membership functions are defined
by:
fJal (ad = max(l- I a1 - 1.5 I, 0)
fJa2(a2) = max(1 - 0.2 I a2 - 6 1,0)
fJa3(a3) = max(1- 0.2/ a3 - 51,0)
Now, for illustrative purposes, suppose that the interaction with the hypothet-
ical DM establishes the following simple linear membership functions for the
fuzzy goals 6 1,6 2 and 6 3.

h:::; 20
"".eM = { ~- 1f, - 20 1/10, 20 < G 1 < 30
It 2: 30
!z:::; 29
"G,(j,) ={ ~- 1 j, - 291/5, 29 < h < 34
h 2: 34
fa :::; 16
"",(h) = {~-I h - 161/5, 16 < fa < 21
h 2: 21
Also assume that the hypothetical DM selects the initial satisficing levels
((31,/32,(33) to be (3/8,3/5,9/20). Then, by applying Algorithm 1, the param-
eters ((31,(32,(33) converge to (1/2, 4/5, 3/5), and the corresponding nonlinear
programming problem in Step 5 of Algorithm 1 is expressed as:

mllllmize a1 (Xl - 9)2 + (X2 - 6)2

subject to 3X1 + a2x2 :::; 30
a3xl + X2 :::; 18
a1 E [1,2]' a2 E [5,7], a3 E [3,7], x EX.
286

This nonlinear programming problem has the unique optimal solution (xi, xi) =
(5,3), and (ai,ai,a s)=(1,5,3).
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, by assuming that the DM has the fuzzy goals for each of the
objective functions, two types of a-feasibility and two types of I-Pareto opti-
mality are introduced for multiobjective nonlinear programming problems with
fuzzy parameters via the concept of possibility and necessity. By combining
a-feasibility and I-Pareto optimality concepts, I-a-Pareto optimal solutions are
introduced, and it has been shown that any I-a-Pareto optimal solutions can be
obtained on the basis of nonlinear programming. However, applications to the
real-world problems must be carried out in cooperation with a person actually
involved in decision making. From such experiences the proposed method must
be revised.

REFERENCES
[1] Chankong V. and Y. Y. Haimes (1983) Multiobjective Decision Making:
Theory and Methodology. North-Holland, New York.
[2] Dubois D. (1987) Linear Programming with Fuzzy Data, in J. C. Bezdek
(Ed.): Analysis of Fuzzy Information, Vol. 3, CRC Press, pp. 241-263.
[3] Dubois D. and H. Prade (1980) Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and
Applications, Academic Press.
[4] Dubois D. and H. Prade (1983) Ranking Fuzzy Numbers in the Setting of
Possibility Theory, Information Science, 30, pp. 183-224.
[5] Dubois D. and H. Prade (1987) Fuzzy Numbers: An Overview, in J .C.
Bezdek (Ed.) : Analysis of Fuzzy Information, Vol. 1, CRC Press, pp.
3-39.
[6] Inuiguchi M. and Y. Kume (1989) Modality Goal Programming Problems,
JORSJ, 32, pp. 326-351 (in Japanese).
[7] Inuiguchi M., H. Ichihashi and Y. Kume (1989) A Modalistic Formulation
of Fuzzy Mathematical Programming, ISCIE, 2, pp. 69-79 (in Japanese).
[8] Sakawa M. (1986) Optimization in Nonlinear Systems with Single and
Multiple Objectives, Morikita (in Japanese).
[9] Sakawa M. (1989) Theory and Applications of Fuzzy Theory, Morikita (in
Japanese) .
[10] Sakawa M. and H. Yano (1991) Feasibility and Pareto optimality for multi-
objective nonlinear programming problems with fuzzy parameters, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, Vol. 43, pp. 1-15.
[11] Sakawa M. and H. Yano (1990) Interactive decision making for multiobjec-
tive linear fractional programming problems with fuzzy parameters based
on a solution concept incorporating fuzzy goals, Proceedings of Interna-
tional Conference on Fuzzy Logic & Neural Networks, IIZUKA 90, Vol.
2, pp. 821-824, Fukuoka, Japan.
[12] Sakawa M. and H. Yano A Interactive decision making for multiobjective
linear programming problems with fuzzy parameters based on a solution
concept incorporating fuzzy goals, in M. Fedrizzi, J. Kacprzyk and M.
Roubens (Eds.) Interactive Fuzzy Optimization and Mathematical Pro-
gr amming, Springer-Verlag, (to appear).
 ON OPTIMIZATION WITH

INTERDEPENDENT MULTIPLE CRITERIA

Christer Carlsson

Institute for Advanced Management Systems Research

Abo Akaderni University
DataCity A3210
20520 Abo, Finland

INTRODUCTION

In this paper we deal with interdependent multiple criteria, i.e. we will

explore the possibilities to find optimal solutions to problems in which
the criteria for optimality are (i) conflicting, (ii) mutually supportive
or (iii) unilaterally supportive, and in which subsets of criteria form
combinations of (i)-(iii). We propose an algorithm for rank-ordering
fuzzy nondominated alternatives, and demonstrate how it could be
implemented in a DSS; the paper is an extension of some previously
published results (cf [1], [2], [3], [4]).

MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION PROBLEMS

Decision making is possible and required if there is a set x of

available decision alternatives Xi (i :2: 2); if we then introduce DM, a
(in a utility theory sense) well-defined decision maker, and a real-
valued function c(x) it is possible to use preferences as a basis for the
selection of a decision alternative. DM is said to prefer Xi over Xk (both
287
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 287-300.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
288

e x) iff c(x j ) > c(xk), and DM is said to be indifferent between x j and

Xk iff c(x j ) = c(xk). If we consider the set x, and assume that the
function c(x) has some rather normal properties (cf [9]), we have the
following well-defined problem: to find an x· e x such that c(x*) ~
c(x j ) for all x j e x. As this is a question of simple enumeration as soon
as the problem has been formulated, no actual decision making is
involved at this stage (the selection/definition of x and c(x) actually
requires decision making, but of quite another kind).

Consider now, ceteris paribus, the case when the preferences of DM

rest on c(x) = (c1(x),... ,cm(x)) and the ranking of the decision
alternatives Xi and Xk (e x) is not well-defined anymore (cf [9]). The
most we can do is to organize alternatives according to efficiency or
nondominance. Consider the alternative Xi; it is said to be strongly
efficient or Pareto optimal (cf [4]) iff it is impossible to find an X k (k
= i) such that cj(xk) ~ cj(x;) for all j = (l,... ,m) and cj(xk) > c/x j ) for at
least one j.

There are numerous methods available for finding xi(cf e.g. [5], [12],
[13]), if (i) the set of feasible alternatives is well-defined, (ii) there is
a rationally structured model of preferences, where the preferences
satisfy some necessary mathematical properties, and (iii) the problem
of finding an efficient alternative is a well-formulated mathematical
problem (cf [6]). If the criteria are independent, there are various
aggregation methods (additive forms, weighted sums, expected utility,
and utility additive and multiplicative forms) available for comparing
and ranking nondominated alternatives, which (in a sense) reduces the
multiple criteria problem to a situation comparable with the single
criterion decision - and quite a few insights in the decision problem
are simplified away.

A recent paper of Sakawa and Yano [9] very nicely demonstrates the
state of the art when we want to deal with multiple criteria problems
which are - and cannot be - well-defined. Their model is a multiple
objective linear fractional programming model, with fuzzy parameters
and an uncertain goal for the objective function. The uncertainty is of
two types: (i) an uncertainty of the satisfaction with the value of an
objective function; and (ii) an uncertainty of the possibility to generate
 289

the wanted value of the objective function. The Sakawa-Yano method

handles both types of uncertainties and reduces the problem to an
ordinary multiobjective programming problem. The I-y -Pareto
optimality is introduced as a new solution concept; the optimality
denotes the agreement between the multiobjective fuzzy linear
fractional function and the fuzzy goal.

Another approach has been developed by Kacprzyk and Yager [5], in

which they use fuzzy logic with linguistic qualifiers to bring human
consistency to multiobjective decision making. They use rather a
nonconventional solution concept, which is based on searching for
some optimal option which "best satifies most of the important
objectives"; this differs from the traditional notion to try to find an
optimal option which best satisfies "all the objectives".

Both the Sakawa-Yano and the Kacprzyk-Yager papers seem to

support the idea that traditional MCDM-models, and their underlying
notion of an optimal solution, are much too limited for actual, real-
world problem-solving with with MCDM methods. The reason for this
is simple: when the solution derived from a well-formulated
mathematical MCDM-model is applied to an actual problem there are
some major problems to consider (cf [6]): (i) the set of feasible
decision alternatives is fuzzy, and this set changes during the problem
solving process; (ii) the DM does not exist as an active entity, and the
preferences consist of badly formulated beliefs, which are riddled with
conflicts and contradictions; (iii) data on preferences are imprecise,
and (iv) a decision should be good or bad not only in relation to some
model, but in relation to the actual context. These problems have
initiated active and fast-growing research on the use of fuzzy set
theory in solving multiple criteria decision problems (cf e.g. [1], [2],
[3], [7], [8], [11], [13]).

Much more interesting, and much closer to multiple criteria problems

in the real world, than the traditional MCDM-problems are the cases
with interdependent (conflicting, supportive) criteria; in these problems
we do not have to handle just uncertainty and imprecision, there is an
added element of inability to grasp the consequences of the
interdependences; this is also a field of research in which the use of
290

models based on fuzzy set theory should give us decisive advantages.

INTERDEPENDENT CRITERIA

The basic structure of a corporate takeover is simple: there are two

parties, the Buyer and the Seller; the Buyer wants the aquisition price
to get as low as possible (C 1), and the Seller wants the aquisition price
to get as high as possible (C 2); the Buyer and the Seller both have
reservation prices abovelbelow which they will break off negotiations;
if the Buyer's reservation price is higher than the Seller's, a negotiated
settlement can be reached (cf fig. I):

Seller's Buyer's
resetvation price resetvation price

Fig.I The basic structure of negotiations.

In corporate takeover negotiations the two objectives C 1 and ~ are

conflicting. There is, however, much more behind corporate takeovers.
In a real case, in which two Finnish companies were involved, the
following objectives could be identified and gradually formulated (cf
fig.2).

The Seller's objectives C4 , C6 and Cg all support his objective of

getting a high aquisition price; the objectives unilaterally support his
objective C2• Nevertheless, the objectives (C4 , C6), (C6, Cg) and (Cg,
C4) are all pairwise conflicting.

The Buyer's objective C1 unilaterally supports his objectives C3, Cs

and C7 • There is no conflict among his objectives, but the objectives
 291

C3 and C7 mutually support each others.

C 1 aquisition price low C2 aquisition price high

C 3 overall profits high C4 cash inflow high
Cs investments medium C6 max corporate ROC
C, total loans low Cs RD investments high

Fig.2 The structure of multiple objectives.

There is also some interaction among the Seller's and the Buyer's
objectives, which partly explains why they are negotiating. (C 3 and C4)
are mutually supportive; C6 unilaterally supports the objective C3, and
(Cs, Cs) are conflicting.

Thus, there seems to be three different kinds of interdependence

among the objectives: conflict, unilateral support and mutual support.
It seems clear that it would be rather difficult to find a negotiated
solution which would be simultaneously optimal for all the objectives,
as the conflicts seem to eliminate this possibility. It should, however,
be noted that the conflicts are fuzzy, as most of the objectives are
given in a fuzzy form (high, medium, low), which indicates that some
other solution than a simultaneous optimum for all the objectives could
be attempted. There are two possibilities: (i) a negotiated compromise,
based on trade offs among the conflicting objectives, or (ii) alternate
optima for combinations of subsets of the objectives during a
negotiated interval; here we will focus on the alternative (i).

Let the objectives (C\,..., Cs) be represented (cf [9]) by the following
criteria (ck(\)"'" ck(S»), where each of the (k(1),...,k(8)) represents (n\,...,ns)
attribute dimensions. Let the set x be the strategic assets of the
company targeted for the takeover; the strategic assets are evaluated
in the (n\, ns) attribute dimensions, for a strategic planning interval T,
which should form the basis for a negotiated takeover price.

Let Ij(x) denote the importance and Aj(x) the attainment of a criterion
292

and a j = H'(Alx), I;(x)) the effective attainment of criterion i (i =

Ck(i)'
1,8), where H' is a developed form of an OWA-operator (cf [10]). The
OWA-operator is a compromise between "anding", which means that
we want all the objecives to be attained simultaneously, and "oring"
which allows for the objectives to be attained one at a time. The
OWA-operator used here is designed to exploit the interdependences,
which will give us a more meaningful solution to a multiple criteria
decision problem than the original OWA-operator.

Let the attainment of criterion i be defined by,

AjS(x) are fuzzy distance measures (cf [9]), where <

denotes the
independent optimum, and c j • the interdependent optimum of criterion
i, i.e. the minimum criteria values attainable when all other criteria
have reached their optima. The optima are similar Pareto sets as those
used by Sakawa and Yano (cf [7], [8]), and can be derived from the
fuzzy domination structures introduced by Takeda and Nishida (cf
[11]), which are extensions of the cone dominance structures
introduced by Yu (cf [12]).

The Ij(x) = [IP(x), Iq(x), r(xH, Le. the importance is dependent upon
if the criterion i is in conflict with / unilaterally supports / mutually
supports (one or more) other criteria; the importance is evaluated over
all criteria by,

It(x) = W s * A't(x), which is a short notation for,

The weights Ws = [wp, wq, wr] are used to assign importance to the
criteria according to the following scheme:

(i) conflicts:
 293

· close to 0 if criterion i is in conflict with a majority of other criteria;

· [0, 1] for conflicts with about half of the other criteria;
· close to 1 for conflicts with a minority of the other criteria;

(ii) unilateral support:

· close to 0.5 if criterion i unilaterally supports a minority of other

criteria;
· [0.5, 1] for unilateral support to about half ot the other criteria;
· close to 1 for unilateral support to a majority of the other criteria;

(iii) mutual support:

ws(i) = WJ(i)
· about 0.75 for mutual support with a minority of other criteria;
· [0.75, 1] for mutual support with about half of the other criteria;
· close to 1 for mutual support with a majority of the other criteria;

Then H'(Ai(x), Ij(x», the effective attainment, satisfies the following

properties, and can be identified as similar to an OWA-operator:

· H'(O,O) = 0; H'(a,l) = H'(l,a) = a;

· H'(a,b) ~ H'(c,d), whenever a ~ c, b ~ d;
· H'(a,b) = H'(b,a), but
· H'(H'(a,b),c) :/= H'(a, H'(b,c»,
due to the interdependence;

Thus the H'-operator is not a complete fuzzy t-norm, but it can be

identified as a special case of an OWA-operator (cf [10]).

Let us now assume that we (i) know Iis(x) and Ai(x), and (ii) could
construct H', the OWA-operator (cf [10]). Then we could evaluate and
rank-order all criteria according to their grade of effective attainment.
The outcome would differ according to the forms of interdependence:
conflict, unilateral support and mutual support ("O-effective" denotes
294

no attainment; "I-effective" denotes full attainment).

Let us then consider two criteria (ck(i)' ck(j»):

.if a highllow grade of effective attainment of ck(i) is in

conflict with a highllow grade of attainment of ck(j)' and
ck(j) is important, then Ct(i) would be ranked low on
attainment; Ck(i) would have O-effective attainment if not
attained, or if an attainment > 0 would induce no
attainment of ck(j); Ck(i) can never reach an I-effective
attainment;

.if a highllow grade of effective attainment of ck(i)

unilaterally supports an attainment of ck(j)' and Ct(j) is
important, then Ck(i) would be ranked high on attainment;
ck(i) would have I-effective attainment if Ct(j) reaches 1-
effective attainment;

.if a high/low grade of effective attainment of Ck(i) mutually

supports an attainment of ck(j)' and ck(j) is important, then
both Ck(i) and ck(j) would be ranked high on attainment; both
would reach I-effective attainment if either reaches 1-
effective attainment;

There is still no clear-cut algorithm available for handling this type of

multiple criteria problems, which is why we have to rely on the use of
some efficient, interactive method and some knowledgeable decision
maker. In the following section is outlined a possible approach to a
decision support system, which could serve as a basis for handling the
interdependent multiple criteria problem. The framework is constructed
with the IFPS/Personal, which is a DSS-generator, the optimization is
done with the VIG package and the fuzzy logic is tentatively done
with the XI Plus expert system shell; everything is run under Windows
3.0.
 295

OUTLINE OF A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR

DECISIONS WITH INTERDEPENDENT MULTIPLE CRITERIA

The EPCE-model was originally intended to serve the management

team of a division of a Finnish multinational pharamceutical company
- this is the context used here - but was later adapted for use in other
divisions as well and even for consolidated planning on the corporate
level. The EPCE was designed as an integrated system of all the
elements found essential in the strategic planning process (cf fig. 1).

The EPCE was implemented with IFPS, an advanced DSS-generator,

and was both extensively tested and systematically used by the
corporation for several years. As is seen from fig. 2 a lot of estimates
had to be used in order to use the EPCE for strategic planning; we
learned rather quickly that these estimates were not as reliable and as
precise as they appeared to be when given to us by the managers who
were responsible for the strategic planning process.

This made us look for alternatives, which would allow us to represent

the imprecision in an adequate fashion. This is rather important, as we
need to test the EPCE for its sensitivity to imprecision in the
parameters. We gradually learned that fuzzy logic could be used as a
basis for representing the imprecision. Even some fairly simple fuzzy
rules of inference turned out to be helpful (cf fig. 3), and we
implemented them - with a link from the XI Plus expert systems shell
- in the IFPS system. This gave us the fuzzy inference structure shown

SCENARIO
· the necessary growth profile
· expected sales of old product line
· expected sales of new product line
· growth gap: growth profile - expected sales
· expected sales in existing export markets
· expected sales in new export markets
· export gap: growth gap - export sales
296

PROFIT AND LOSS PLAN -

1\ [C t , CzJ

II
· turnover
· - direct costs
· - marketing costs
· marketing margin RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED
· - indirect costs · fin equity
· operating margin · inv equity
· - depreciation · fac equity~
· operating result · ROC - [C 6J
· - interest \
· profit - - [ClJ CASH FLOW PLAN
· cash inflow ~ [C 4J
INVESTMENT PLAN · - change in operating capital
· buildings / · cash flow I
· machines ~ [CsJ · + loans from pension funds
· research and development[CsJ · + new loans
· - investments
FINANCING PLAN · cash flow II
· new loans - [C,J · - taxes
· loan payments · - dividends
· interest new loans · - loan payments
· interest old loans · cash flow III

Fig. 1 Macro structure of EPCE.

Old products: estimated sales [1990J, growth profile (marketing [1991-96])

New products: estimated sales [1990), growth profile (marketing, R&D [1991-96])
Export: estimated sales [1990J, growth profile (export cost, market intel [1991-96))
Marketing: advertising (expansion profile, targeting [1991-96]), sales promotion
(expansion profile, targeting [1991-96])
Production: estim prod costs [1990), growth profile (machine invest, turnover [1991-96])
R&D: estim R&D costs [1990), growth profile (R & D invest [1991-96))
Administration: estim adm costs [1990), growth profile (cost level, turnover [1991-96))
Export costs: estimated export costs [1990), growth profile (export program [1991-96))
Computer costs: estim computer costs [1990), growth profile (R & D invest [1991-96))
Financing: estimated financial costs [1990), growth profile (machine invest [1991-96))
Investments: estimated level [1990], estim program for buildings, machines, R&D
New loans: estimated level [1990), 70% of investments financed by new loans; payback
period 8 years; interest rate 12% p.a.
ROC: operating result / moving average of capital employed
Cash now 1,11,111: normal addition

Fig. 2 The micro structure of EPCE.

 297

Inference with fuzzy probabilities [IFP] Extension principle [EP]

X is A is probable X is A
Y is B if X is A f(X) is f(A)
Y is B is > probable

Dispositional modus ponens [DMP] Conjunctive rule [CR]

X is A X is A
usually (Y is B if X is A) X is B
usually (Y is B) X is AAB

Fig. 3 Fuzzy rules of inference.

Old products New products

Growth profile [EP] Marketing
Marketing [IFP] Market share
where:
Growth profile (0.85,1.12)
Marketing ("extensive","marginal")
Market share ("dominating","marginal")
Export
Growth profile [CR] (GPl,GP2)
GPI [DMP] Market intelligence
GP2 [DMP] Export cost
where
Growth profile (0.95,1.34)
Market intelligence ("covering","marginal")
Export cost (1.05,1.80; 1.10,1.80)
Production
Production [CR] (Pl,P2)
PI [EP] Turnover
Turnover [CR] (GP-OP,GP-NP,GP-E)
P2 [EP] Machine invest
where:
Production (73,118)
GP-OP: Growth profile, old products
GP-NP: Growth profile, new products
GP-E: Growth profile, export
Machine invest (38,60)
Investments
Growth profile [EP] Marketing
Marketing [IFP] R&D
where:
Growth profile (0.82,1.86)
Marketing ("persuasive","marginal")
R&D ("decisive","marginal")
Marketing
Marketing [CR] (Advert, Sales prom)
Advert [CR] (Advl, Adv2)
Sales prom [CR] (Spl,Sp2)
Advl [IFP] Targeting
Adv2 [EP] Advert cost
Spl [IFP] Targeting
Sp2 [EP] Sales prom cost
where:
Marketing (cf old, new products)
Advert ("covering","marginal")
Sales prom ("effective" ,"marginal")
Targeting ("successful","way off')
Advert cost (4.50, 12.00)
Sales prom cost (6.20, 14.50)
R&D
R&D [EP] R&D invest
R&D invest [DMP] Corp image
where:
R&D (88,115)
298

Investments [CRj (Mach, Build, R&D) R&D invest ("high" ,"low")

Mach [EPj Turnover Corp image ("innov","conserv")
Build [EP] Turnover
where:
Investments (72,120)
Turnover (cf Production)
R&D (cfR & D)
Fig. 4 Fuzzy inference structure.

in fig. 4, which now allows us to work with imprecise parameters, and

test key success factors for sensitivity to the imprecision.

We implemented the structure of interdependent objectives (C l , ... ,Cg)

in this context -we assumed that the division represented by EPCE was
the target for a friendry takeover. With the VIG multiple criteria
optimization package it was relatively simple to get the set {Clew} and
then to construct the At(x) measure; as the user interface still is not
very user-friendly, we have to contend with the usual statement, that
the construct seems to work - at least in principle; a complete version
of the system will, most probably, have some impact on the way we
solve multiple criteria problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision making with interdependent multiple criteria is a surprisingly

difficult task. If we have clearly conflicting objectives there normally
is no optimal solution which would simultaneously satisfy all the
criteria. On the other hand, if we have pairwisely supportive
objectives, such that the attainment of one objective helps us to attain
the another objective, then we should exploit this property in order to
find effective optimal solutions. The approach we have chosen here,
to use the fuzzy Pareto optimal set of nondominated alternatives as a
basis for an OWA-type operator, which is used to rank-order the
alternatives according to an effective attainment of the interdependent
criteria, seems promising and will be explored and further developed.
 299

REFERENCES
[1] Carlsson, C. and Korhonen, P. (1986), A Parametric Approach to
Fuzzy Linear Programming, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20, 17-33
[2] Carlsson, C. (1988), Approximate Reasoning through Fuzzy
MCDM-Methods, Operational Research'87, North-Holland, 817-828
[3] Carlsson, C. (1990), On Interdependent Fuzzy Multiple Criteria, in
Trappl (ed.): Cybernetics and Systems'90, World Scientific, 139-146
[4] Carlsson, C. (1991), On Optimization with Interdependent Multiple
Criteria, in Lowen and Roubens (eds.): Proceedings of IFSA '91,
Brussels 1991, 19-22
[5] Kacprzyk, J. and Yager, R.R. (1990), Using Fuzzy Logic with
Linguistic Quantifiers in Multiobjective Decision Making and
Optimization: A Step Towards More Human-Consistent Models, in
Slowinski and Teghem (eds.): Stochastic versus Fuzzy Approaches to
Multiobjective Mathematical Programming under Uncertainty, Kluwer,
331-350
[6] Roy, B. (1990), Decision-Aid and Decision-Making, in Bana e
Costa (ed.): Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, Springer
Verlag, 17-35
[7] Sakawa, M. and Yano, H. (1989), Interactive Decision Making for
Multiobjective Nonlinear Programming Problems, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 315-326
[8] Sakawa, M. and Yano, H. (1990), Feasibility and Pareto
Optimality for Multiobjective Linear Programming Problems with
Fuzzy Decision Variables and Fuzzy Parameters, in Trappl (ed.):
Cybernetics and Systems'90, World Scientific, 155-162
[9] Sakawa, M. and Yano, H. (1991), Interactive Decision Making for
Multiobjective Linear Fractional Programming Problems with Fuzzy
Parameters Based on Solution Concepts Incorporating Fuzzy Goals,
Japanese Journal of Fuzzy Theory and Systems, 3, 45-62
[10] Yager, R.R. (1987), On Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation
Operators in Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Tech. Report #MII-705,
Iona College
[11] Takeda, E. and Nishida, T. (1980), Multiple Criteria Decision
Problems with Fuzzy Domination Structures, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
3, 123-136
300

[12] Zeleny, M. (1982), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-

Hill
[13] Zimmermann, H-J (1990), Decision Making in Ill-Structured
Environments and with Multiple Criteria, in Bana e Costa (ed.):
Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, Springer Verlag, 119-151
 Supporting System for the Diagnosis of
Diabetes Mellitus Based on Glucose Tolerance Test
Responses Using a Fuzzy Inference

Seizaburo Arita, Masaya Yoneda, Yoshimi Hori

Kawasaki Medical School
577 Matsushima, Kurashiki, Okayama
701-01, JAPAN

Abstract

Diabetes Mellitus is one of the most common diseases in adults. This

disease is characterized by an elevated blood glucose (BG) level due to
absolute or relative insulin deficiency. Diagnosis of this disease is based
on the responses to the 75g oral glucose tolerance test.
In the criteria of the WHO, if the value of BG at two hours after
glucose load (BG2h) is more than 200 mg/dl or if the value of fasting
blood glucose (FHG) is more than 14Omg/dl, then the patients is diagnosed
as "Diabetes Mellitus (DM)". If FHG is less than 139 mg/dl, the BG value
at one hour is lower than 160 mg/dl and BG2h is less than 139mg/dl, the
patient is normal (NOR). The boundary region between OM and NOR is
known as "Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT)".
In this criteria a patient, for example, is diagnosed as OM or non OM.
But the real data is a fuzzy set in every aspect. In this paper, responses of
glucose Tolerance Test were examined for the diagnosis of diabetes
mellitus. Our study proposed the concept of diabetes mellitus as fuzzy set
and a new diagnostic system for diabetes using a fuzzy inference with the
time course.

1. Introduction
1-1. Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus
Diabetes Mellitus is one of the most common disease in adult. This
disease is defined as relative rack of insulin effect. Table 1 shows classic
symptoms of diabetes mellitus. The worldwide prevalence rate is 2-5%,
and rapid increase is shown especially in Japan.
301
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (edr.), Fuzzy Logic, 301-310.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
302

Table 1. Signs and Symptoms of DM

1. Very thirsty and drinking water 6. Skin infection

2. Excessive urination 7. Skin itching
3. General Fatigue 8. Loss of libido
4. Weight loss 9. Abnormal menstruation
5. Pain and sensory loss 10. Visual loss
in distribution of a dermatome

Table 2 shows the diagnostic criteria for the 75g oral glucose tolerance
test (OTT) in adults. Diagnosis is mainly carried out according to the
criteria of the WHO. Off course the GTT is unnecessary in the presence
of the classic symptoms of diabetes mellitus together with an unequivocal
elevation on more than one occasion of plasma glucose equal to or higher
than the values described here.

Table 2. Criteria of WHO for DM

glucose concentration. mmol/ f (mg/dJ)
whole blood plasma

venous capillary venous capillary

diabetes mellitus
fasting value 2:6.7 2:6.7 2:7.8 2:7.8
(2: 120) (2: 120) (2:140) (2: IlO)
2 hr. after glucos. load 2: 10.0 2:11.1 2:11.1 2: 12.2
(2:180) (2:200) (2:200) (2:220)
impaired glucose tolerance
fasting value <6.7 <6.7 <7.8 <7.8
«120) ( <120) «140) ( <140)
2 hrs aft.r glucos. load 6.7-10.0 7.8-11.1 7.8-11.1 8.9-12.2
020-180) <140-200) <140-200) <160-220)

There are some serious problems with these criteria. The glucose
tolerance of all patients is dealt with in a crisp set. (Fig.I) A patient, for
example, is diagnosed as diabetes or non diabetic. However, the real data
is a fussy set in every possible aspect. Therefore, clinically, it seems
unreasonable that one person whose glucose level at two hours is
200mgldl should be diagnosed as OM, while another whose value is
I99mgldl is not. Glucose tolerance shows a heterogeneity that reflects the
varied course to onset of diabetes.
The most serious problem is making a diagnosis of diabetes from the
evaluation of glucose tolerance is that no such diagnostic system can be
the equivalent of the direct inspection which is done in a biopsy for a
 303

OM OM

Conventional System (Crisp Logic) Our System (Fuzzy Logic)

Fig. 1. Diagnostic Systems for DM

morphological diagnosis. Therefore, it is needed to reevaluate the

response to the oral glucose tolerance test and to make up a rational and
practical diagnostic system for diabetes using a fuzzy inference.

1-2. Responses of the GTI'

The glucose tolerance test procedures are shown in Fig. 2. After at
least 3 days of an unrestricted diet, the patient is tested after an overnight
fast of 10-12 hours. Glucose is given in the form of sweetened drink. 75g
of dcxtol is given to adult patients, blood samples are taken at 0, 30, 60,

IObservation I
(Measured time sequentially)
75g Glucose
O· - 30· - 60· - 90· - 120· -180·

Glucose Insulin

~o(~m.I")IRI(U~U/")
'0
20

10 5

O· 30· 60· 90·120· \80· O· 30· 60· 90",20· 160.

Fig. 2. 75g Glucose Tolerance Test

304

90, 120 and 180 minutes after the taking of glucose.

We usually describe the results of the glucose tolerance test as Fig. 2.
X-axis is the time course, and the Y-axis is the serum insulin or glucose
concentration. The two variables of serum glucose and insulin are plotted
time sequentially at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 minutes.

1-3. Dynamic Graph of GTT

To illustrate the results of GTT, we made a new graph which we call a
"Dynamic Graph". The X-axis is the serum glucose level and the Y-axis
is the serum insulin level. All data are plotted from 0 to 180 minutes
DM

.
IRI(oU/ml) IRI
BC (mg/dl) (oU/mll
500 800
400 240

180

200 120

100 60

o 2\l €4J 90 120 IS\) (minutes) 0 100 200 300 400 500 (mgB/~lI

IGT
IRI(\JU!ml)
BC (mg/dl)
500

400

300 f'.-..
.. 180 120' 90'
200 120 J /') 60'
100
60 180'~30'1'

NORMAL

.
IRI (\lU/ml) IRI
BG (mg/dl) loU/mll
500 800
400 240

180

120
100 ro
I!
o 2\l €.(J 00 1313 12\l (minutes) 0
"
100 """ -"" '00' 0= BG
~"" "''''' ~ "'""" (mg/dll

Fig. 3. Dynamic Graph of 75g GTI Responses in Typical Cases

from DM, IGT and NORMAL Group
 305

shown in Fig. 3. The characteristic features of this "Dynamic Graph" are

as follows. Two different graphs of glucose and insulin responses are
fused into this "Dynamic Graph" without a defect in data. This
geometrical graph makes it easy to see the patterns of the response to
glucose tolerance. It gives a concrete explanation of our idea for the
analysis of the glucose tolerance. Using the dynamic graph, we show the
typical patterns of responses of three groups, Normal, IGT and DM.

2. Data of GTT Results in Time Course

Based on this dynamic graph, to synthesize a new diagnostic system of
diabetes mellitus, we prepared two methods of data analysis. The first
method is the analysis of spatial distributions of GTT data on each
observation time, such as, 0, 30, 60, and so on. The second method deals
with the dynamic pattern of GTT data using the specific indexes which
characterize the dynamic patterns, such as the slope of L IRI/L.BG.
In this paper, we employ the one of the diagnostic system based on the
first method. We illustrate the spatial distribution of results of glucose
tolerance tests according to the observation time.

2-1. Data at the observation time of zero minute

We obtained the data of the spatial distribution at zero minute of
glucose tolerance test. At this time, separation of the three groups i.e.,
Normal, IGT and DM groups was still unclear and the graphic projection
of data from two-dimensions showed no advantage over that of one-
dimensional data in discriminating the three groups. This is because there
is no significant difference in the insulin level among the three groups at
the basal stage.

2-2. Data at the observation time of 30 minutes

For the data at 30 minutes after glucose load, the data from the three
groups are spreading out, but good separation has not yet taken place.

2-3. Data at 60 minutes

For the data at 60 minutes after glucose load, it was now beginning to
separate three groups. In other words, we could separate the IGT group
from the other groups with regard to distribution on the two-dimensional
plane. This group has been subdivided into an IGT-A group (marked by
the signali1) and IGT-B group (marked by the signal.). The IGT-B
group is intermixed with the DM group, but the IGT-A group is separated
DM group at 60 minutes. (Fig. 4)
306

IRI

..
(pU/hlJ)
200 IGT .•.•• "
, ~' IJo \

,
,,
\

,, I
\

," II
I - 60'
;1 ~
.:
150

, "/ :
Normal .'0',.
, .... "
II
/' X :
. f'
100 O ,
/O:~6
"
:'
,
,., :: t f
:0 :°'6 ,
• ' I I

I I I A I
: I ~ "
; :0 ,III. to 6 '" II: I
O~.,
50 "
: 0CQOO ~O
'...
:6,,.,'..
6 A 11.......... - - .. - .. --,"- .. - - - - - - - .. - ...........

t~'
.,... ....... OM
, 0 0 g"{ .:. A"" nt/ • III
,
\ 0 0,' '~'" II :,' ... III ·11
""II M. II
\
"0°,'
' ......... ',
I
• ....... ,.Jj..........
,..........

\,....111.
,.

.11 • . ,, .
".
100 200 300 ~OO 500
BG(mg/dl)

Fig. 4. GTI Data of (BG, IRI) at 60 Minutes

from OM, IGT and Normal Group

2-4. Data at 90 minutes

For the data at 90 minutes after glucose load again, it seems possible to
discriminate three groups. The IGT-B group is beginning to blench with
the OM group. Generally, all the groups were well separated from one
another at 90 minutes.

2-5. Data at 120 minutes

For the data at 120 minutes after glucose load, both the IGT-A group
and IGT-B groups are separated from the OM group the according to the
borderline of the WHO criteria.

2-6. Data at 180 minutes

For the data at 180 minutes, with the exception of a part of the OM
group, all the other groups are approaching the normal group zone.
 307

3. Fuzzy Inference for the Diagnosis of Diabetes

3-1. Diagnostic system
We made the fuzzy rules corresponding to the sequential times, 0, 30,
60, 90, 120 and 180 minutes. On the fuzzy rule at the time tk , we assigned
the membership functions as the weight for the diagnosis according to the
spatial distributions of blood glucose and insulin level at t~. OUf
membership functions on the two dimensional space are changed through
the time course. (Fig. 5,6)

IRI
D~INAMIC
~RAPH _

ICT
ICT

02 ~D~ ~
t8~
Be

t=60' t:=90'

t=180'

Fig. 5. Time Course of Dynamic Graph

~~B
~ WN0Na.NI EJ
~1.79

~~Cl
~~~

Fig. 6. Fuzzy Inference for Diagnosis of DM

308

We prepared the two kinds of membership functions for input data of

group and for output of weighting. Fuzzy inference, if "the level of BG is
comparatively large and the IRI is comparatively small, then the patient is
diagnosed by moderately DM.
This inference is based on the mapping from the region of two
dimensional glucose-insulin space to the sets for weights of diagnosis
composing by the membership functions.
For the final diagnosis, we employed the center of gravity of the
maximum subset of the two fuzzy subsets which are located in the
maximum region or second. We made a device of diagnostic supporting
system of DM using a personal computer.

3-2. Results and discussions

We illustrate a case which diagnosed as DM by this computer system.
(Fig. 7).
Our diagnostic system gives the continuous degree of DM. On this
degree we can evaluate the degree of the disease and the effect of
treatments such as from DM to IGT. In this system, we deal with the
another variable insulin, which takes part of the characteristics of
heterogeneities. We can assign some useful points of this system.
For analysis two-dimensional data is better than one-dimensional data
to discriminate of the data of glucose tolerance. The suitable point at
which one group may be distinguished from the others may be found in
only one or two sections of the entire course. In addition, the normal,
IGT-A, IGT-B and DM groups are situated in a certain order on the two-
dimensional plane. This order remains unchanged during the entire time
course. And, even through the groups may appear in different places in
another time, their order will not be changed.
The diagnostic logic was synthesized based on the specific features of
the disease. Concerning DM, physicians had two different viewpoints
with regard DM as a crisp set or as a fuzzy sets. It was suggested that a
fuzzy diagnostic system could be useful in the diagnosis of diabetes,
because a fuzzy logic was capable of dealing with the "heterogeneity" and
"continuity" of the responses of patients.
We summarized the conclusion as follows:
1) Continuity and heterogeneity were discussed as the basic characteristics
of body's responses. 2) We considered that the diagnostic region of DM
was the fuzzy set, so the diagnostic logic of DM should be changed from
the crisp judgment to the fuzzy inference. 3) We proposed the new
diagnostic system using a fuzzy inference based on the analytical results of
GTI data, and we obtained good results of the diagnosis by the system.
 309

Fig. 7. Computer Display by Diagnostic System of DM

Using Fuzzy Inference
310

References

1) WHO Diabetes Mellitus. Report of a WHO study group. Technical

Report Series 727, WHO. Geneva: 1985.
2) Al Sayegh, H. and Jarrett, R. J.: Oral glucose tolerance test and the
diagnosis of diabetes: results of a prospective study based on the
Whitehall survey. Lancet 1979 II: 431. 1979.
3) Rushforth, N. B., Miller, M. and Bennett, P. H.: Fasting and two-hour
post-load glucose levels for the diagnosis of diabetes. The
relationship between glucose levels and complications of diabetes in
the Pima Indian. Diabetologia 16: 370, 1979.
4) Jarrett, R. J., Keen, H., Fuller, J. H. and McCartney, M.: Worsening to
diabetes in men with impaired glucose tolerance ("borderline
diabetes"). Diabetologia 16: 25, 1979.
5) Arita, S. and Yoneda, M.: A new approach to the diagnosis of diabetes
based on GTT data. Tech. Report of Stat. Symposium on
"Multivariate Analysis and its Application.": 167-176, 1990.
6) Yoneda, M., Arita, S., Nishida, S. and Horino, M.: New index for the
diagnosis of diabetes. Peptide Hormones in Pancreas, Biomedical
Res. Fund. Tokyo: 96-101, 1990.
7) zadeh, L. A: Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8: 338-353, 1965.
8) Arita, S., Yoneda, M. and Hori, Y.: Diagnostic system for diabetes
mellitus based on the response of glucose tolerance test using a
fuzzy inference. Proceedings of the International Congress of
Biomedical Fuzzy Systems & the Third Annual Meeting of
Biomedical Fuzzy Systems Association: 67-70, 1991.
 FUZZY 0-1 PROGRAMMING
THROUGH NEURAL COMPUTATION

Masatoshi SAKAWA

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering,

Faculty of Engineering, Hiroshima University,
Higashi-Hiroshima 724, Japan

Kazuya SAWADA

Information System Center,

Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd., Osaka 571, Japan

ABSTRACT

The original Hopfield neural network model has been successfully applied
for finding acceptable solutions to combinatorial optimization problems such
as traveling salesperson problems and Hitchcock problems. However, in the
original model, the formulated minimization problem of an energy function
can never escape from the local minimum. By adding a Gaussian noise in the
original neural networks, and using so-called annealing and sharpening schemes,
it becomes possible to reach the global minimum of the energy function. In
this paper, we focus on crisp and fuzzy 0-1 programming problems and examine
the feasibility and efficiency of both the original and modified Hopfield neural
network approaches via their energy minimization processes.

Keywords: 0-1 programming; fuzzy programming; neural computation; Hop-

field model; Gaussian machine

INTRODUCTION

The original Hopfield and Tank neural network model [4,5] with symmetri-
cally interconnected network has been successfully applied for finding reason-
able solutions to combinatorial optimization problems such as traveling sales-
311

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.). Fuzzy Logic. 311-320.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
312

person problems [5] and Hitchcock problems [11]. However, in the model with-
out noise, the formulated minimization problem of an energy function can never
escape from the local minimum when an energy function has multiple minima.
By adding a Gaussian noise in the original neural networks, and using so-called
annealing [6] and sharpening schemes, it is possible to get the global minimum
of the energy function by means of the modified neural networks [1,2,8,9].
In this paper, we focus on a number of interesting crisp and fuzzy 0-1 pro-
gramming problems such as project selection problems, which include inequal-
ity constraints. Then, by realizing that both the original and modified Hopfield
neural networks are essentially an analog implementation of the penalty and
barrier methods for constrained optimization, we examine the feasibility and
efficiency of both the neural network approaches to combinatorial optimization
problems including the fuzzy versions via their spontaneous energy minimiza-
tion processes through a lot of personal computer software simulations using C
language.

0-1 LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS

In general, a 0-1 linear programming problem is formulated as :

mllllmize
subject to :: ~xb } (1)
xj = 0 or 1 for all j
where C = (Cl, ... ,Cn ), X = (xl, ... ,xnf, b = (bl, ... ,bm)T, and A = (a;j) is
an m x n matrix.

In contrast to this conventional 0-1 linear programming problem, it may

be possible to soften the rigid requirements of the decision maker (DM) to
strictly minimize the objective function and to strictly satisfy the constraints.
By considering the imprecision or fuzziness of the DM'sjudgment, the usual 0-1
linear programming problem can be softened into the following fuzzy version

ex:::s Zo }
Ax -< b (2)
XjE{O,I}

where the symbol " :::S " denotes a relaxed or fuzzy version of the ordinary
inequality " :=:; ". To be more explicit, these fuzzy inequalities representing
the DM's fuzzy goal and fuzzy constraints mean that" the objective function
cx should be essentially smaller than or equal to an aspiration level Zo of the
 313

DM" and " the constraints Ax should be essentially smaller than or equal to
b", respectively.

In the same spirit as the fuzzy decision of Bellman and Zadeh [3], considering
the fuzzy goal ex ~ Zo and fuzzy constraints Ax ~ b are equally important, the
problem can be expressed as follows:

Bx -< b' }
(3)
XjE{O,I}
where
(4)

°
Such a fuzzy inequality concept can be treated by introducing membership
functions which assume the value 1 if the conditions are satisfied, and if the
conditions are violated beyond their limits. The simplest version of such a
membership function is a linear one defined by [12] :

(BX)i :s bi
J.li((Bx);) = { ~ _ (BX)i - bi bi:S (BX)i:S bi + di (5)
d·,

where each di
° (BX)i bi + di ~

is subjectively chosen constant expressing the limit of the ad-

missible violation of the ith inequality. Namely, it is assumed that the ith
membership function should be 1 if the ith constraint is well satisfied, ° if the
ith constraint is violated beyond its limit di, and linear from °to 1.

Following the fuzzy decision of Bellman and Zadeh [3] together with the
linear membership functions, the problem of finding the maximizing decision
IS:

maximize. min J.li((Bx)i). (6)

xjE{O,I} ,=O, ... ,m

By introducing the auxiliary variable A, this problem is equivalently trans-

formed to the following 0-1 linear programming problem with °:s .A :s 1 :
minimize .A )
subject to .A:S J.li((Bx)~), i = 0, ... , m (7)
Xj E {0,1}, J = 1, .. . ,n
0:S.A:S1.

However, it should be stressed here that, although numerous solution pro-

cedures have been developed in recent years, a general solution technique for
314

integer programming is yet to be developed. For special types of integer pro-

gramming problems having their variables constrained by upper and/or lower
bounds, the "branch-and-bound" technique is perhaps the most general ap-
proach for obtaining the optimal solution.

Recently, as an alternative approach, the Hopfield neural network model

[4,5] has been successfully applied for finding reasonable solutions to combi-
natorial optimization problems such as traveling salesperson problems [5] and
Hitchcock problems [11]. However, in the original model, the formulated min-
imization problem of an energy function can never escape from the local min-
imum when an energy function has multiple minima. By adding a Gaussian
noise in the original neural networks, and using so-called annealing and sharp-
ening schemes, it is possible to get the global minimum of the energy function
by means of the modified neural network model, called the Gaussian machine
[2].
At present, although a neural computation approach is mainly focused on
0-1 programming problems only including equality constraints, with some de-
vices, it is also applicable to the problems which include not only equality
constraints but also inequality constraints [8,9]. In the remainder of this pa-
per, by realizing that both the original and modified Hopfield neural networks
are essentially an analog implementation of the penalty and barrier methods for
constrained optimization, we suggest applying them for solving crisp and fuzzy
0-1 linear programming problems via their spontaneous energy minimization
processes.

HOPFIELD MODEL AND GAUSSIAN MACHINE

Before presenting the possible neural computational methods for obtaining

the reasonable solutions for the crisp and fuzzy 0-1 linear programming prob-
lems discussed above, it is appropriate to make a brief review of the Hopfield
model and Gaussian machine in the field of neural computation.

In the original Hopfield model [4,5] with symmetrically interconnected net-

works, neurons change their states in such a manner that they minimize an
energy function defined by

1
E = -2 EET;jV;Vj - EliV;, (8)
i j i
 315

and stop at a local minima of this quantity. On the basis of this fact, Hopfield
and Tank [5] demonstrated that a certain class of combinatorial optimization
problems can be solved using their network model. However, when an energy
function has multiple minima, the possibility of the convergence to one of the
local minima is very high. In order to escape from a local minima of an energy
function of a network, a Gaussian machine [2] is proposed by incorporating
both annealing and sharpening techniques. Essentially, a Gaussian machine
can be viewed as a modified version of the original Hopfield model by adding
a Gaussian noise to each neuron i.

In the Hopfield model, each neuron i receives input T ij Vi from other neurons
j and a bias input Ii associated with itself, namely each neuron's net input Ui
is defined by:

z= Iij Vi +
N

Ui = Ii, (9)
j::::l

where Tij represents the effectiveness of a synapse and ith neuron output lI,; is
governed by a nonlinear sigmoid input/output function defined as :

(10)

In the Gaussian machine [2], each neuron's net input Ui is defined by:
N
Ui = L Iij Vi + Ii + C, (11)
j::::l

where the added noise term c is a random variable with mean 0 and variation
(T2 obeying a Gaussian distribution. Standard deviation (T is defined as :

(T = kT (12)

where T is a temperature parameter of a network as defined in the Boltzmann

machines [1], and a constant k is usually assumed as k = ..;sr;.
It should be noted here that, in the Gaussian machine, if c tends to 0, it
becomes the Hopfield model, and it behaves like a Boltzmann machine if j.to

tends to O.

When solving combinatorial optimization problems using a Gaussian ma-

chine, both sharpening and annealing techniques are essential, where sharpen-
ing reduces the value of j.to and annealing decreases the value of temperature
316

T. Using both techniques, it becomes possible to escape from a local minima

of an energy function of a network.

PROJECT SELECTION PROBLEMS

There are various projects awaiting approval. If the ith project is approved
it requires a budget of aj million yens. The total available funds are b million
yens. The expected profit and the success probabilities if the ith project is
approved are dj million yens and Pj, respectively. The problem is to determine
an optimal subset of the projects to be actually approved [7].

By introducing the integer variables Vi with the interpretation that Vi = 1,

if project j is approved and Vj = 0, if project j is not approved, then the
problem is:

maXImIze LdjPjVi
j
subject to La'VJ J <b
-
(13)
j
Vi = 0 or 1 fo< all j. )

For simulating neural networks on digital computers, the following discrete

model is adopted:

Input of neuron i Uxi(k) = L I: Txi,yj Vxi(k - 1) + lxi, (14)

Y j

Output of neuron i: Vxi ()

k = '12 { 1 + tanh ( ---;;;-
Uxi (k) ) } . (15)
For the Gaussian machine, the sharpening scheme:

J-lo = J-l0 * exp( -(elk%100)jTau), (16)

and the annealing scheme:

T = TO * exp( -(elk%100)jTau), (17)

( both in C language representations) are adopted, where elk represents time
and Tau =200.0. Due to elk%100, if it does not converge after elk = 100, J-lo
and T are updated and calculation starts from initial values.
Now as a numerical example of project selection problems, assume that
there are 10 different projects, total funds are 15.0 million yens, and the budget,
expected profits and success probabilities are assumed as is shown in Table 1.
 317

Table 1 Budgets, profits, probability of each projects

Project no. Budgets Profits Probability

1 3.8 6.0 0.50
2 0.5 2.5 0.89
3 2.0 3.9 0.86
4 3.2 4.5 0.76
5 1.5 2.9 0.77
6 3.0 4.9 0.98
7 5.6 8.8 0.91
8 8.0 10.5 0.87
9 2.9 5.1 0.81
10 4.5 6.7 0.79

For this project selection problem, first assume the following energy func-
tion.

E = "2A ""'
LJ Vj(Vj - 1) - "2 LJ(pjdj Vj) 2 + "2
B ""' C F (V), (18)
j j

0 if b - L aj Vj ~ 0
F(V) = j (19)
{ (b-~ajVj)2 ifb-LajVj<O.
J j
Here F(V) can be interpreted to represent the degree of satisfaction of the
constraints.

From this energy function, the synapes weights and thresholds are derived,
and simulations on a personal computer are performed by using both the Hop-
field model and the Gaussian machine. However, concerning this energy func-
tion, the state of the network is very unstable and cannot converge to the
solution satisfying the constraints.

Therefore, by introducing the stack variable s (0 ~ s ~ 1) and transforming

the inequality constraint as the equality constraint as follows:

L aj Vj + bs = b. (20)
j

In this case, an energy function is:

318

(21)

and synapes weights and biases become:

A
Ii = -2" + bCai. (22)

For this energy function, parameter values are assumed to be A = 4.0, B =

0.128 and C = 2.0. Furthermore, J.lo = 0.20 is assumed for the Hopfield model,
and for the Gaussian machine initial values of J.lo = 0.25 and To = 0.05 are
adopted. Then, for this numerical example involving a inequality constraint,
both the Hopfield model and the Gaussian machine yield relatively satisfactory
solutions satisfying the constraint as is shown in Table 2, where the calculation
results by the branch and bound method are also shown.

Table 2 Maximum profits and total funds for each model

Branch Hopfield Gaussian

& bound model Machine
maximum profit 20.6 21.8 21.9
total funds 12.6 15.0 15.0

To illustrate a fuzzy 0-1 linear programming problem, consider the fuzzy

version of the project selection problem discussed thus far. For the original
project selection problem, for simplicity, assume that the decision maker (DM)
has a fuzzy goal that the objective function L djpj 10 should be essentially
larger than or equal to his/her aspiration level zo.

Then the problem is :

maxImIze A
subject to A ~ J.l( - L djpj 10)
j
(23)
LajVj ~ b
j
V = 0 or 1 for all j

where J.l( - Lj djpj Vj) denotes the membership function representing the fuzzy
goal of the DM.
 319

Having specified the admissible violation level, if we use the same data
as in Table 1 with some modifications concerning the energy function, neural
computing methods are applicable.

More specifically, using the energy function

E=

(24)

and assuming linear membership function from J.L(20) = 0 to J.L(23) = 1, to-

gether with A = 4.0, B = 1.0, C = 0.5 and D = 0.1, as shown in Table 3, for
the Gaussian machine, a relatively satisfactory solution is obtained.

Table 3 Maximum profits, total funds and satisfaction level

Hopfield model Gaussian machine

maximum profit 20.6 21.7
total funds 12.6 15.0
A 0.30 0.51

CONCLUSIONS

In the original Hopfield neural network model, minimization of an energy

function can never escape from the local minimum. In order to circumvent such
difficulties, if we add a Gaussian noise in their networks, and using annealing
and sharpening schemes, it becomes possible to reach the global minimum of
the energy function as has been shown in this paper through project selection
problems which include inequality constraints. Possible extensions to fuzzy 0-1
linear programming problems are also discussed. Further extensions to fuzzy
multiobjective combinatorial optimization problems by combining our interac-
tive fuzzy satisficing methods [10] with the Gaussian machines are now under
investigations and will be reported elsewhere. However, the energy functions of
these networks have several parameters that need to be chosen properly for the
network to operate satisfactory. If the energy functions and/or the correspond-
ing parameter values are selected incorrectly, the networks never converge to
an optimal solution. Therefore, further investigations are required concerning
320

how to determine not only the appropriate energy functions but also the proper
parameter values.

REFERENCES
[1] D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton and T. J. Sejonowski, "A learning algorithm
for Boltzmann machines," Cognitive Science 9, 147-169 (1985)
[2] Y. Akiyama, A. Yamasita, M. Kajiura and H. Aiso, "Combinatorialopti-
mization with Gaussian machines," IEEE/INNS International Joint Con-
ference on Neural Networks, 1,533-540 (1989)
[3] R. E. Bellman and L. A. Zadeh, "Decision making in a fuzzy environment,"
Management Science 17, 141-164 (1970)
[4] J. J. Hopfield, "Neurons with graded response have collective computa-
tional properties like those of two-state neurons," Proceedings of National
Academy of Science 81, 3088-3092 (1984)
[5] J. J. Hopfield and D. W. Tank, "Neural computation of decision in opti-
mization problems," Biological Cybernetics 52, 141-152 (1985)
[6] S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, Jr., and M. P. Vecchi, "Optimization by
simulated annealing," Science 220, 671-680 (1983)
[7] K. G. Murty, "Linear and Combinatorial Programming," John Wiley and
Sons (1976)
[8] M. Sakawa, "Fuzzy combinatorial optimization by neural networks," Pro-
ceeding of International Computer Symposium, 751-756, Taipei, (1990)
[9] M. Sakawa and H. Yano, "Combinatorial optimization by neural networks,"
Proceeding ofInternational Conference on Fuzzy logic & Neural Networks,
783-786, IIZUKA, Japan (1990)
[10] M. Sakawa and H. Yano, "An interactive fuzzy satisficing method for gen-
eralized multiobjective linear programming problems with fuzzy parame-
ters," Fuzzy Sets and Systems 35, 125-142 (1990)
[11] M. Takeda and J. W. Goodman, "Neural network for computation: num-
ber representation and programming complexity," Applied Optics 25, 3033-
3046 (1986)
[12] H.-J. Zimmermann, "Description and optimization of fuzzy systems," In-
ternational Journal of General Systems 2, 209-215 (1976)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Mr. Toru Mitani for his cooperation in
this study.
 A VISUAL INTERACTIVE METHOD FOR MOLP PROBLEMS
WITII: FUZZY COEFFICIENTS

Piotr CZYLAK and Roman SLOWINSKI

Institute of Computing Science
Technical University of Poznan
60-965 Poznan, Poland

Abstract: The paper presents a microcomputer implementation of a visual

interactive method, called 'FLIp·', for solving multi-objective linear
programming (MOLP) problems with fuzzy coefficients in the objective functions
and on the both sides of the constraints. It is a modified version of the
'FLIP' method (cf.Czyzak,1990 and Slowinski,1990) which relies on a special
comparison principle of fuzzy numbers in order to transform the fuzzy MOLP
problem into an associate deterministic multi-objective linear fractional
programming (MOLFPl problem. The modification consists in permitting a
different interpretation of fuzzy objectives and constraints, which leads to

an associate deterministic MOLP (instead of MOLFPl problem. The associate MOLP

problem is then solved using an interactive sampling method. The efficient
solutions of the associate MOLP problem are presented to the decision maker
(OM) in terms of the original fuzzy objectives and constraints. The quality of
these solutions can be evaluated by the OM from three following points of
view: (al scores of fuzzy objectives in relation to the goals, (b) possible
dispersion of values of the fuzzy objectives due to uncertainty and (cl safety
of solutions or risk of violation of the constraints. In order to support the
evaluation, an appropriate graphical interface has been implemented.

Keywords: Fuzzy Linear Programming, Multiple Objectives, Visual Interaction,

Computer Implementation.

321
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 321-332.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
322

1. INTRODUCTION

The complexity of real decision problems involves the use of more and
more sophisticated tools for solving them. One of very early proposed tools
for modelling and solving a large class of decision problems was linear
programming (LPl. However. the traditional mono-criterion deterministic
approach is often insufficient in practical situations. especially in
long-term planning problems. development strategies and agricultural decision
problems. In last 20 years a number of a new ideas have emerged to improve the
quality of LP models. First of all, many different approaches were proposed to
handle multiple criteria. We refer to these models as to multi-objective
linear programming (MOLP) ones. On the other hand, the coefficients that
appear in the LP and MOLP problems may not be precise nor certain, either
because their values depend upon other parameters lnot accounted for in the
model) or because they cannot be precisely assessed, and only approximate
estimates of these coefficients are available. Moreover, the constraints
expressed by linear equalities or inequalities are often softer in reality
that what their mathematical expression might let us believe.
This situation has motivated a search for more flexible formulations of
optimization models that, although remaining rigorous. may help bridging the
gap between the mathematical models and the real decision-making situations,
through handling of uncertainty and imprecision. Two distinct lines of
research try to address these issues: stochastic linear programming and fuzzy
linear programming that have developed independently. A large comparative
study of these two approaches to MOLP has been recently described in the
volume edited by Slowinski and Teghem 11990l.
In. this paper, we characterize a method, called 'FLIp·', representing the
fuzzy approach to modelling of uncertainty and imprecision. It is a modified
version of the 'FLIP' method which relies on a special comparison principle of
fuzzy numbers in order to transform the fuzzy MOLP problem into an associate
deterministic problem. The comparison principle has been given first by
Slowinski (J986) and then developed by Slowinski (l990l. 'FLIP' has been
applied for solving many real-life decision problems, in particular, water
supply planning problem lSlowinski, 1986; Slowinski, Urbaniak, W~glarz, 1987;
Slowinski, 1987), diet optimization for farm animals (Czyzak, 1989; Czyzak,
 323

Slowinski. 1989; Czyzak. Slowinski, 1990) and farm structure optimization

(Czyzak, 1990). In all these applictions, the experts taking part in model
bUilding have accepted to express uncertain or imprecise parameters in terms
of tolerance intervals with a most possible value (or subinterval) and
decreasing possibility for other values within the interval. This corresponds
exactly to the definition of fuzzy numbers. i.e. normal convex continuous
fuzzy subsets of the real line. So, the modelling of uncertainty and
imprecision using fuzzy numbers was quite natural there.
The aim of the present paper is to characterize a modification of •FLIP'
consisting in different interpretation of fuzzy objectives and constraints.
which leads to an associate deterministic MOLP problem. Moreover. we pay
particular attention on interactive and visual aspects of the present version
of the method.

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION FOR THE "FLIp·" METHOD

Generally. the fuzzy MOLP problem can be formulated as follows:

0)

S. t. a.x :s
-1-
b.1 l ..... m (2)

2£~Q (3)

where 2£ is a column vector of n decision variables. £1.···. £k are row vectors

of fuzzy cost coefficients corresponding to the objective functions zl ..... zk.
a.
-I
is the i-th row of the matrix of fuzzy coefficients. and b.1 is its
corresponding fuzzy right-hand-side. Notice that a "greater then or equal to"
constraint can be transformed to (2) by multiplying the constraint by -1. and
equality constraint can be presented as a pair of weak inequality constraints
with oppOSite relation signs. If. moreover. the decision maker lDM) is in a
position to define fuzzy aspiration levels for the particular objectives.
thought of as goals. they are denoted by gl· .. ··gk· According to the present
modification of 'FLIP'. the definition of aspiration levels is not necessery
324

from the calculation point of view. It is. however, still very usuful as a
kind of reference for evaluation of solutions generated during the search for
the best compromise solution.
All fuzzy coefficients are given as L-R type fuzzy numbers. i.e. number a
is a triple of parameters (a.a./3) of its membership function

L((a-x)la) if x <a
~a(X)=

1 R((x-a)//3) if x ) a

where a is the "most possible" value. a and /3 are nonnegative left and right
"spreads" of ;;:, respectively. and L. R are symmetric reference functions that
are decreasing in (-'" • OJ) and UO)=R(O)=I. L())=R())=O. When the spreads are
zero. then a is a nonfuzzy (crisp) number equal to a. In a computer
implementation of the 'FLIp·' method. the membership functions of fuzzy
numbers are approximated by piecewise-linear function. We propose to use up to
three linear pieces on each side of a middle value.

3. TRANSFORMATION AND INTERPRETATION OF FUZZY CONSTRAINTS

To transform fuzzy constraints of problem ())-(3) into an associate

deterministic form we applay the comparison principle proposed for 'FLIP' (cL
Slowinski, 1986, 1990). This principle translates each fuzzy constraint into a
pair of deterministic linear constraints.
Let us recall informally the comparison principle using an example of
constraint i for a given ~. Fu=y coefficients of the constraints are given
as L-R fu=y numbers:

b.I i=I .... m.

For the sake of clarity, we assume that the reference functions of all fuzzy
coefficients are of two kinds only: L and R. This is not, however, a general
assumpion of the comparison principle (cf. Slowinski, 1990).
It should be specified that all arithmetic operations on fuzzy numbers
taking place in () )-(3) are extended operations in the sense of Zadeh's
 325

principle. For any ~ ~ Q, the left-hand-side of the j-th constraint can be

summarized to the fuzzy number:

i=l, ... ,ffi.

In order to evaluate the degree of possibility for b.1 to be greater than or

equal to -1-
a. x, 'FLIP' uses two indices, one called optimistic (0") and another
pessimistic (11). The optimistic index <T(b.~a.x)
1 -1-
is defined as an ordinate of
the intersection point of the right slope of b.1 with the left slope of -1-
a. x.
Index 0" is seen as optimistic because even if it takes value close to 1, the
Possibility of violation of the constraint -a.x:sb.
1- 1
may be quite big. Thus, in
order to make the comparison more credible, one should use 0" conjointly with
the pessimistic index 11.

Pessimistic index 11 follows from the comparison of the right slopes of ~i:1£

and b.1 at some level O:S1)~l.

Now, one can admit that b ~~ :1£ at credibility levels 1: and 1) if and only if

and (4)

where 1:,1) E IO,Il and e E (-0:>."'). e~o means that for any pair (v,y) such that
V~~i:1£, y~bi and O:Slla.x(V)=ll . (y):S1). inequality y~v is true. A negative value
-1-
b1
of e makes possible that inequality y~v is not true.
The constants 1:,1) and e are called "safety parameters" because they are
responsible for the safety of the assertion that b.1 is greater than ;;:.
-j-
x. Let
us remark that using 1:.1) and e one can control the risk of violation of the
constraint.
Thus, application of the above comparison principle. transforms every fuzzy
constraint (2) into two linear constraints corresponding to conditions (4) on
0" and 11, respectively (cf. Slowinski, 1990):
-1
:s L (1:i)(~i~ + 0i) i=I•...• m (5)

i=l,. .. ,m (6)

Having the tools for control of the risk of violation of the constraints,
we want to point out two different ways of interpreting fuzzy constraints and
326

the risk of their violation.

First interpretation. called "soft constraint". is an extension of the
traditional crisp constraint ~i ~::sb i' It consist in "fuzzification" of the
right boundary of b i only. The fuzzy right-hand-side is then a fuzzy number of
the type b.=(b
I
.. <D.o.I lRL'
I
The infinite left spread of b.1 means that alI values

1 r-------=---.....,... .

o Ct· X -0('
_ 1_X
_1 _ 9i~ : bi+6i
I
Qi~ + J2i.zs.

Fig.I. ·Soft constraint"

~. x being less than or equal to b.I
of -1- fulfil the constraint with certainty.
So. the only risk of violation of constraint i may appear at the right side of
b and it augments according to R within the right spread 0i considered as a
i
"tolerance interval". As we can see in Fig.l. the risk of violation of such a
constraint can be undestood as proportional to the hatched area.
Second interpretation calIed "imprecise RHS" folIows from the
understanding of the right-hand-side as an imprecise number. The
"fuzzification" of b. concerns. in this case. both sides of b.. so
1 I
b.=(b..•..o.l
I I 1 I RL
. Let us consider the situation presented in Fig.2. Since both
spreads of b.I are finite. when we compare b.I and ii~ at the possibility level
1';. the least and the greatest possible velues of b.I are less than least and
L L R R
the greatest possible values of ~i~' respectively. Le. b~<a~. b~<a~. This
justifies that the hatched areas represent the risk of violation of such a
constraint.
 327

Fig.2. "Imprecise RHS"

4. TRANSFORMATION OF FUZZY OBJECfIVES

Assuming that fuzzy coefficients of objectives are defined as

£1=(£]'c]'Kll , I=I •....k. for a given ~, they are summarized to fuzzy
LR
numbers: £1~=(£I~,cl~.Kl~)LR' 1=1•...• k.
In the 'FLIP' method, in order to transform fuzzy objectives into
associate deterministic ones, it was proposed to minimize a kind of "distance"
between fuzzy objectives and fuzzy goals. Minimization of the "distance" is

1
---

Fig.3. Minimization of a "distance" between £l~ and &r

328

obtained via maximization of the intersection level of appropriate slopes of

fuzzy numbers £l~ and &1=(gl.O'Vl)LL (see fig.3)'
In consequence. the associate deterministic objectives take the following
form:
l=l ..... k (7)

In the case of linear reference functions L. functions f 1(~) become linear

fractional:
1=1..... k (8)

--
~l

O'-------"'''-----!-----I----+--'--------

FigA. Direct minimization of a "mean" value of £ ~ at level £; e(O.I].

In ·FLIp··. we propose a kind of transformation which consists in a direct

minimization of a "mean" value of £l~ at some level £;IE[O.I!. l=l ....• k. The
"mean" can be understood as a combination of middle value £I~ and the least
and greatest possible values of objective I at level £;1 (see Fig.4):
-1 -I
fl(~)=(rl+2r2+r3l14= £I~ - O.25cI~ (£;i) + O.25KI~R (£;1)' 1=1•.... k (9)

The deterministic objectives (9) are linear even if reference functions L

and R are nonlinear.
In consequence. for given safety parameters. the fuzzy MOLP problem
(1)-(3) is transformed in ·FLlp·· into the following deterministic MOLP
problem:
 329

minimize (0)

s. t. (5).(6).(3).

5. VISUAL INTERACfIVE PROCEDURE

The associate deterministic MOLP problem is then solved using an

interactive sampling procedure (cf. Slowinski. 1990). In each calculation
step. a sample of efficient points of the MOLP problem is generated and then
shown to the decision maker (OM) who is asked to select the one that best fits
his preferences. If the selected point is not the final compromise. it becomes
a central point of an efficient region which is sampled in the next
calculation step. In this way. the sampled part of the efficient border is
successively reduced (focusing phenomenon). The interactive process ceases
when the most satisfactory efficient point is reached.
The OM intervenes in two steps of "FLIp·... First. when fixing the safety
parameters, and then in the. course of the guided generation and evaluation of
the efficient points of the associate deterministic problem. Thus, the
interaction with the DM takes place at two levels. As to the first one. it is
worth noting that there are two practical ways of controlling the safety of
sol utions using parameters • i' II i and ei:
(a) fix lli= O. i=l •...• m, and control the optimistic safety with .i' and the
pessimistic safety with e i=l....• m. or
r
(b) fix e i = 0, i=l •.... m, and control the optimistic safety with .rand the
pessimistic safety with II i' i=l•... ,m.
The safety parameters are defined taking into account their interval of
variation and the knowledge acquired in preceding iterations about the
dependency between safety and the quality of the compromise among criteria. If
way (a) is chosen, 'FLIp·' provides the DM with an information about an
approximate interval of variation of 8 at level lli=O 0=1, ... ,m).
i
In the microcomputer implementation of 'FLIp·', the efficient points of the
330

associate deterministic problem are presented to the DM both numerically, in

terms of K and middle values of Zh(KJ. h=l ..... k. and graphically. in terms of
mutual positions of fuzzy numbers corresponding to original objectives and
aspiration levels on the one hand. and to left- and right-hand-sides of
original constraints. on the other hand. In this way, the DM gets quite a
complete idea about the quality of each proposed solution. The quality is
evaluated taking into account the following characteristics:
- scores of fuzzy objectives in relation to the goals.
- dispersion of values of the fuzzy objectives due to uncertainty,
safety of the solution or. using a complementary term. the risk of
violation of the constraints.
So. the definition of the best compromise involves an analysis of the
compromise among criteria and an evaluation of the safety of the corresponding
solution.
The analysis of the above characteristics needs indeed a graphical
display of objectives and constraints. We claim that the comparison of fuzzy
left- and right-hand-sides of the constraints. as well as evaluation of
dispersion of the values of objectives. is practically infeasible on the basis
of one or two numerals. The graphical representation of proposed solutions is
not only a "user's frie-!!dly" interface but the best way of a complete
characterization of these solutions.
In Fig.5, we show exemplary screen displays of ·FLIp·· for a didactic
bi-objective problem solved in Slowinski and Teghem (990). The first four
windows present one efficient solution and second four another efficient
solution of the associate deterministic problem. however, in terms of the
original problem. Windows and 2 show the objective functions for the first
solution while 5 and 6. the objective functions of the second solution. Let us
observe that apart from dispersion of the scores- on particular objectives. the
pictures show the known Pareto dependency between two objectives. Windows 3.4
and 7.8 show two fuzzy constraints of the type "imprecise RHS" for both
solutions, respectively. The hatched area gives an idea about the risk of
violation of the constraints.
 331

Window 1 Window 2
Point 6 Max. crit. 2 Analyse crit. Point 6 Max. cr it 2 Ano.lyse crit. 2
1 .:)( 9 1 ex g_

9.10 15.00 4.92 10.00

Window 3 Window 4
Point G Max.crit. 2 Const. 1=< Point 6 Max. crit. 2 Canst. 2 =<
ba.x ax b
1 ------ 1-- - - - - -

Window 5 Window 6
Point 5 Max. crit. 1 Analyse crit.1 Point 5 Max. crit. 1 Analyse crit. Z
9 ex ex 9_
1---------

15.00 17.27 4.Z5 10.00

Window 7 Window 8
Point 5 Max. crit. 1 Const. 1 =- < Point 5 Max. crit. 1 Coost. 2::: (
OJ( b l __ Q)(_ _ b
1------

7.20 7.50 4.&0 6.00

Fig.S.Examplary screen displays of 'FLIp·'.

We put emphasis on this aspect of visual interaction because it is

underestimated in many procedures proposed for solving multiobjective
programming problems under uncertainty and imprecision.
332

REF ERE N C E S

Czyzak,P.(19891 'Multicriteria agricultural problem solving under

uncertainty', Foundations of Control Engineering 14, 2, 61-80.
Czyzak,P. (1990) 'Application of the FLIP method to farm structure optimization
problems', in R.Slowinski. J. Teghem (eds.1, 'Stochastic vs. Fuzzy
Approaches to Multiobjective Mathematical Programming under
Uncertainty', Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht, 263-278.
Czyzak,P. Slowinski,R.(1989) 'Multiobjective diet optimization problem under
fuzziness', in J.L.Verdegay, M.Delgado leds.), 'The Interface between
Artificial Intelligence and Operations Research in Fuzzy Environment',
Verlag TUV Rheinland, K61n, 85-103.
Czyzak,P. Slowinski,R.!l990) 'Solving Multiobjective Diet Optimization Problem
under Uncertainty', in: P.Korhonen, A.Lewandowski, J. Wallenius, leds.1
'MultipLe Criteria Decision Support', ser. Lecture Notes in Economics and
Mathematical Systems, 356,Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York.
Czyzak,P. Slowinski,R.!l991l 'FLIP - multiobjective fuzzy linear programming
software with graphical facilities', in: M.Fedrizzi, J.Kacprzyk,
M. Roubens leds.): ' Interactive Fuzzy Optimization and MathematicaL
Programming', Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York.
Slowinski,R. (1986) 'A multicriteria fuzzy linear programming method for water
supply system development planning', Fuzzy Sets and Systems 19, 217-237.
Slowinski,R. 0987) 'An interactive method for multiobjective linear
programming with fuzzy parameters and its application to water supply
planning', in: J.Kacprzyk, S.A.Orlovski leds.1, 'Optimization ModeLs
using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory', D.Reidel, Dordrecht,
396-414.
Slowinski,R. (19901 '''FLIP'': An interactive method for multiobjective linear
programming with fuzzy coefficients', in: R.Slowinski, J.Teghem (eds.),
'Stochastic vs. Fuzzy Approaches to Multiobjective Mathematical
Programming under Uncertainty', Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
249-262.
Slowinski,R., Teghem,J. 0988) 'fuzzy Versus Stochastic Approaches to
Multicriteria Linear Programming under Uncertainty', NavaL Research
Logistics, 35, 673-695.
Slowinski,R., Teghem,J., eds. 0990), Stochastic vs. Fuzzy Approaches to
MuLtiobjective Mathematical Programming under Uncertainty, Theory and
Decision Library, ser.D, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Slowinski,R., Urbaniak,A., W~glarz,J. !l987) 'Probabilistic and fuzzy
approaches to capacity expansion planning of a water supply system', in:
L. Valadares Tavares, J.Evaristo da Silva leds.1, 'Systems Analysis
Applied to Water and ReLated Land Resources', Pergamon Press, Oxford,
93-98.
 A Survey of Fuzzy Intuitionistic Logics
In Quantum Mechanics

G. CATTANEO*, M. L. DALLA CHIARA ** AND R. GIUNTINI'*

Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Infonnazione, Universitd di Milano, Milano (Italy)

** Dipartimento di Filosofia, Universitd di Firenze, Firenze (Italy)

1. Brouwer-Zadeh posets
The structure of Brouwer-Zadeh (or BZ)-poset has been first investigated in
Cattaneo and Nistico [1] drawing inspiration from the examples of generalized
characteristic functionals (fuzzy sets) on a reference space and of generalized or-
thogonal projections (fuzzy operators) on a Hilbert space [2-4]. A characteristic
feature of these partially ordered structures is a splitting of the standard ortho-
complementation mapping into two forms of non-usual ortocomplementations:
The first of these orthocompementations " called the Zadeh orthocomplemen-
tation, is the algebraic generalization of usual orthocomplementation of fuzzy
set theory (fuzzy-like orthocomplementation) and the second one -, called
the Brouwer orthocomplementation, generalizes the orthocomplementation ob-
tained from any Brouwerian lattice (intuitionistic-like orthocomplementation).
In conclusion, a BZ poset can be summarized as a structure (~,~, " -,0,1)
°
of poset bounded by the minimum element and the maximum element 1 and
equipped with the two non-usual orthocomplementations' : ~ 1-+ ~ (the fuzzy-
like such that a = 0./1; a ~ & implies &' ~ a'; a ~ a' and &' ~ b imply a ~ &) and
~ : ~ 1-+ ~ (the intuitionistic-like such that a ~ 0.--; a ~ b implies &- ~ a~;
a 1\ a~ =0) interconnected by the rule Va E ~, 0.-' a--. =
In any BZ poset it is possible to distinguish the set of exact (or sharp) ele-
ments, i.e., those elements which are closed with respect to Brouwerian or tho-
complementation: a = a-~; the elements which are not exact are called fuzzy
(or unsharp). In this structure one introduces two unary operators which, in
the framework of BZ-posets, can be considered as algebraic generalized ver-
=
sions of the "necessity" 1/(0.) a ,- and the "possibility" J.l( a) =
0.-' operators
of modal logic ("impossibility" is then J.l( a)' =
a-, i.e., coincides with the
intuition istic-like orthocomplement).

2. The Hilbertian BZ-Poset of all generalized orthogonal projec-

tions
Let E(1i) denote the set of all bounded self-adjoint operators F defined on a
complex lIilbert space 1i, with inner product ( I ), and such that V<p E 1i,
333
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 333-344.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
334

o~ (F<pl<p) ~ 1I<p1l2. I:(1i) gives rise to a BZ-poset, (I:(1i) , ~, I, ~, <D, 1I)

(which in general is not a lattice), where the partial ordering is F 1 ~ F 2 iff
V<p E 1i, (<pIF1 <P) ~ (<pIF2 <P), and the two orthocomplementations are defined
as follows:
F I := 1I - F and F ~ := PRan(F).L = Pker(F) .
(PM being the orthogonal projection which projects onto the subspace M of
1i).
The family I: e (1i) of all exact elements is the orihomodular orthocomplemented
atomic complete lattice II(1i) of all orthogonal (or exact) projections on 1i.
The elements of I:(1i) are the generalized orthogonal projections whose fuzzy
projections are the elements which are not exact, i.e., which are not orthogonal
projections.
To any generalized orthogonal projection F E I:(1i) it is possible to as-
sociate two subspaces of 1i: The certainly-yes kernel M 1 (F) = {'¢> E 1i :
('¢>IF'¢» = 11'¢>1I 2 } = Ker(H - F) and the certainly-no kernel Mo(F) = {<p E 1i :
(<pIF<p) = O} = Ker(F). In Hilbertian BZ-posets the modal-like necessity and
possibility operators are given by

v(F) = F'~ = PKer(lI-F) (necessity)

J.l(F) = F~f = PKer(F).L . (possibility)

Two generalized orthogonal projections F 1 and F 2 are equivalent with respect

to necessity (resp., impossibility) iff they have the same certainly-yes (resp.,
no) kernel. To any property (resp., noperty) [i.e., equivalence class with respect
to necessity (resp., impossibility)] we can associate the certainly-yes (resp.,
no) kernel of any generalized orthogonal projections belonging to this property
(resp., noperty). Any property (resp., noperty) is exactly represented by the
orthogonal projection which projects onto the common certainly-yes (resp., no)
kernel.

3. Physical interpretation of fuzzy projections in Hilbert space QM

In axiomatic quantum mechanics the "logic" of all quantum propositions is
usually identified with the set M (H) of all subspaces (closed linear manifolds)
of H, which has the same orthocomplemented orthomodular atomic complete
lattice structure of IT(H), owing to the ortholattice isomorphism associating
to any subspace M of H the orthogonal projection PM which projects onto
it. The orthogonal projection P AI represents a yes-no device which sharply
(i.e., without noises and imprecisions) measures the quantum proposition A1.
This is the reason why one generally identifies a quantum proposition with the
experimental (sharp) yes-no device which tests it. The generalized orthogonal
projections from I:(H) are interpreted as the Hilbertian representatives of the
yes-no measurement devices testing some effect of the Ludwig' approach to
quantum physics [2][3]. Precisely, the fuzzy projections from I:(H)\IT(H) are
interpreted as fuzzy yes-no measurement devices and the orthogonal projections
from II(H) as exact yes-no meaSU1"ement devices.
 335

Vectors of 7t \ {Q} are interpreted as preparation apparatuses, under well

defined and repeatable conditions, of ensembles of non interacting identical
physical systems. The quantity

(3.1) v<p E 7t \ {Q},

is such that 0 ~ p( <p, F) ~ 1 and is interpreted as the probability of occurence

. of the answer "yes" for the effect measured by F when the system is prepared
in <po Non zero vectors of the certainly-yes (resp., no) kernel MI(F) (resp.,
Mo(F)) represent preparation apparatuses with respect to which the answer
yes (resp., no) to the question tested by F (resp., F') is true (resp., false) with
certainty [i.e., the probability of occurrence of F (resp., F') is 1].
In conclusion we have the identifications

where pr(F) is the necessity equivalence class of F [consisting of all effects FE

E(1i) such that MI(F) = MI(F)]. This class, which defines a property of the
physical system, is the collection of all yes-no measurement devices which test
the common quantum proposition MI(F); this latter being sharply measured
by the unique sharp yes-no measurement device PM 1 (F). Any other yes-no
device F E pr(F) unsharply measures the same quantum proposition MI(F);
hence a fixed quantum proposition is tested by several yes-no apparatuses,
breaking in this way the identification between a quantum proposition and the
experimental sharp yes-no measurement device it is tested by.

4. Propositional BZ-Lattice induced from a Preclusivity Space

A preclusivity space is any pair (X, U) consisting of a non empty set X and a
preclusivity U, i.e., a symmetric (x Uy implies y Ux) and irreflexive (x Uy implies
x oF y) binary relation on X. The preclusivity orthocomplement of a subset A
of X is An := {x EX: Va. E A, x Ua.}; A is closed iff A = Ann, a closed element
is also called a simple proposition. The set of all closed elements gives rise to
a structure (C(X, U), ~,n ,0, X), which is a complete ortho-Iattice with respect
to the usual set theoretic inclusion and the standard orthocomplemention U :
C(X, U) t-+ C(X, U), A ---+ An, such that the g.l.b. t\{Aj} of any family of closed
elements is just the set theoretic intersection n{Aj} and the l.u.b. is

A preclusivity proposition is any ordered pair (AI, A o ) of mutually preclu-

sive closed elements (i.e., Al =A~n, A o = A~a and AI(U)Ao): Al (resp.,
A o ) represents the certainly-true (resp., false) domain. The preclusivity fuzzy-
intuitionistic propositional lattice is the BZ-(complete) lattice
 336

(L J (X,ff), 1;;;, " ~, 0,1), of all preclusivitypropositions endowed with the order-
ing relation (AI, A o) I;;; (B 1, B o) iff Al ~ B 1 and B o ~ A o, and the two ortho-
complementations: (AI,A o)' := (Ao,A I ) (fuzzy) and (A1,Ao)~ := (Ao,A~)
(intuitionistic). This BZ-lattice is bounded by the absurd or contradictory
preclusivity proposition 0 := (0, X) and the certain or tautological preclu-
sivity proposition 1 := (X,0). The g.l.b. and the l.u.b. of any family of
preclusivity propositions are given respectively by the preclusivity proposi-
tions n \
/ AU)
1'0
AU») -
- \
/ nAU)
l'
VAU»)
0
and U \
/ AU) AU») - /(VAU) nAU») .
1'0 -\ l' 0 ,

moreover, the modal-like operators are given by II «AI, A o)) = (AI, A~) and

Jl «AI, A o)) = (A~, A o). The exact preclusivity propositions are of the type
(A, AU), whose collection is denoted by Le(X, U). The orthocomplemented com-
plete lattice C(X, U) of all closed elements of (X, U) is identified with the ortho-
complemented complete lattice of all exact preclusivity propositions, Le(X, U)
according to the diagram:

(A 1 ,A o) ELJ(X,U)
111 UI
(AI,A~)ELe(X,U) = C(X,ff)3A 1

The elements from L J (X, U) \ L e (X, U) are fuzzy preclusivity propositions.

5. Preclusivity quantum fuzzy-intuitionistic propositional logics

In a Hilbert space 1i, a ray x is anyone-dimensional subspace of 1i minus
the zero vector. On the set X(1i) of all such rays the canonical preclusivity
(or orthogonality) relation is: x1.y iff (ipxlipy) = 0, whatever be ipx E x
and ipy E y; the pair (X(1i), 1.) is so a preclusivity or orthogonality space. Of
course, the 1.-closed elements are naturally identified with the subspaces of
1i, i.e., C(X(1i), 1.) == M(1i). The quantum fuzzy-inutitionistic propositional
lattice is the set L J(X(1i), 1.) of all Hilbertian quantum preclusivity propositions
(M I , M o ) (Mi are two subspaces with 1111 1.1110). The Hilbertian quantum exact
propositions are of the form (111, M 1.). In this way, the "lattice" M(1i) of all
Hilbertian quantum propositions is embedded into the "preclusivity lattice"
according to the above diagram.
The extension mapping ext : ~(1i) >-+ L J (X(1i), 1.) associates to any quan-
tum effect F E ~(1i) the extension ext(F) = (M 1 (F),Mo(F)), which is a
quantum preclusivity proposition. Hence, there are several yes-no measure-
ment devices which measure the same quantum preclusivity proposition. The
restriction of this extension mapping to the set of all exact effects (orthog-
onal projections) P E Il(1i) -+ ext(P) = (M 1 (P), M 1 (P)1.) is one-to-one
and onto the quantum lattice L e (X(1i), 1.) == M(1i). As a consequence any
preclusivity proposition of the quantum BZ-lattice LJ(X(1i),1.) is, in gen-
eral, experimentally tested by several different yes-no measurement devices
 337

from E(7-l) whereas any proposition of the corresponding exact quantum lat-
tice Lj(X(7-l), l..)e == M(7-l) is experimentally tested by one and unique exact
yes-no measurement device from II(7-l).

6. Unsharp realization of hilbertian sharp observables

In Hilbert space quantum mechanics any observable A E 0 is (sharply) de-
scribed by a projection-valued (PV) measure on real Borel sets PA : B(lR) >-+
II(7-l) , which via spectral theorem is in a one-to-one correspondence with a
self-adjoint densely defined (in general unbounded) operator A: DA >-+ 7-l. An
exact question is any pair (A,~) E 0 x B(lR) describing the elementary state-
ment of the everyday language: "a measurement of the physical quantity A
gives a value contained in the set ~ of real numbers"; this question is sharply
tested by the exact yes-no measurement device PA(~) (the same yes-no device
can test several different exact questions).
Let c.p be any preparation apparatus and let A be any observable. Let
P<P : II(7-l) >-+ [0, 1] be the probability measure (on exact effects) induced by
(3.1) [i.e., VP E II(7-l), P<p(P) := p(c.p, P)]. The mapping J.1.<p,A : B(lR) >-+ [0,1]
defined for every ~ E B(lR) by

J.1.<p,A(~) = p(c.p, PA(~)) = fIR X6 d(p<p 0 PA ),

is a probability measure on real Borel sets, where X6 (= 1 if .A E ~ and

otherwise) is the characteristic functional of ~; X6 is interpreted as the sharp
°
macroscopic localization device of the "window" that isolates the numerical
subset ~ in the reading scale of the apparatus testing the observable A. In
particular, via spectral therorem, the exact effect PA (~) is implicitely defined
by

(c.p I PA(~)c.p) = (3.1) = 11c.p 11 2 p(c.p, PA(~)) = 1Ic.p1l2 fm. X6 d(p<p 0 PA)

and the self-adjoint opera.tor A by

(c.p I Ac.p) = 1Ic.p 11 2 fm. id d(p<p ° PA).
A concrete macroscopic localization device is any mappingw : B(lR)xlR >-+ [0,1]
such that for any fixed x E JR, W X : B(IR.) >-+ [0,1] is a Borel measure and for
any fixed ~ E B(JR), W6 : lR >-+ [0,1] is a Borel measurable function. An
w-unsharp realization of the observable A is the effect-valued (EV) measure
F~ : B(IR.) >-+ E(7-l) implicitely defined for every ~ E B(JR) by

(c.pIF~(~)c.p):= 1Ic.p1l2 fIR W6 d(p<;oPA );

moreover, for the vectors for which the r.h.s. is defined, a "self-adjoint" oper-
ator AW is implicitely defined by

(c.p I A c.p )
W
= 1Ic.p1l2 f
!Rid d(pcp ° F~) .
338

7. Language of Fuzzy-Intuitionistic Quantum Logics

A formal language for the concrete realization of observables, considered in the
previous section, will consist of elementary sentences corresponding to questions
(A, A, w): "a measurement of the physical quantity A gives a real value in
A when the latter is realized by the concrete localization device w". Any
question (A, A, w) is tested by the corresponding effect F~(.6.) and its semantics
will be characterized by the extension ext(F~(A)), i.e., by the prec/usivity
proposition (M 1 (F~(A)), Alo(F'A(.6.))). Further, our language will allow the use
of the connectives "and", "or", "not", "impossible", "necessary", "possible" to
obtain complex sentences from the elementary ones. These connectives could
be described in the hilbertian preclusivity propositional lattice L j (X(1i),.1)
by the operations n, U, " -,1/, fJ, respectively.
All this leads to the conclusion that, from the logical point of view, it is
interesting to consider languages equipped with these connectives and real-
ized in terms of several kinds of BZ structures. Analogously to BZ posets, a
characteristic feature of these logics, which represent non standard versions of
quantum logic, is a splitting of the connective "not" into two forms of nega-
tion: a fuzzy-like negation, that gives rise to a paraconsistent behaviour and an
intuitionistic-/ike negation. We will consider three forms of fuzzy intuitionistic
quantum logics: BZL (weak Brouwer-Zadeh), BZL 3 (three-valued Brouwer-
Zadeh) and BZL oo (infinite-valued Brouwer-Zadeh logic).
These logics have a common language, which contains a denumerable set
Pl, ... , Pn, ... of sentential letters and the following primitive connectives: -,
(fuzzy-like negation), ......, (intuitionistic-like negation) and A (conjunction). A
privileged sentential letter A will represent the absurd assertion. We will use
P , q , 1· , . . . as metavariables for atomic formulas and a, {3 , 'Y , ... as metavari-
abIes for formulas. Disjunction (v) is metatheoretically defined in terms of
conjunction and of the fuzzy negation: a V {3 := -,(-,a A -,(3). The modal oper-
ators L (necessarily) and AI (possibly) are metatheoretically defined in terms
of the two negations: Lo: :=......, -'a and /II a := -,L-,a.

8. Weak Brouwer-Zadeh Logic

A natural semantical characterization for the weakest BZL can be given in the
framework of an algebraic semantics.

DEFINITION 8.1. - A BZL-algebraic realization is a pair 9Jl = (A, v), where

8.1.1) A = (~, ~ " ,- ,0,1) is a BZ lattice.
8.1.2) v maps formulas into elements of~ according to the followillg conditions:

V(A) =0
v( -,(3) = v({3)'
v(......, (3) = v«(3)-
v({3 A 'Y) = v({3) n v({) .
 339

DEFINITION 8.2. - Truth, consequence, logical consequence

8.2.1) A formula a is true in a BZL-realization 9J1 (F!lJl a) iff v(a) = 1.
8.2.2) a is a consequence in 9J1 of a set of formulas T (T F!lJl a) iff Va E A
[V,8 E T(a ~ v(,8) implies a ~ v(a»)].

8.2.3) a is a BZL logical consequence ofT (T ~ZLa) ifffor any BZL-algebraic

realization 9J1, T F<))l a.
A Kripke-semantics for BZL has been first proposed in Giuntini [10]. A char-
acteristic feature of this semantics is the use of Kripke-frames with two preclu-
sivity relations. One can prove, with standard techniques, that the algebraic
and the Kripke-semantics for B Z L characterize the same logic. B Z L can be
axiomatized: a soundness and a completeness theorem are provable, with re-
spect to both semantics [10]. I\10reover, BZL has the finite model property
and accordingly is decidable [12].
Characteristic logical properties that fail and hold in B Z L are the following:
a) like in paraconsistent quantum logic [7], the distributive principles, the
strong and weak Duns Scoto principles, the non-contradiction and the ex-
cluded middle principles break down for the fuzzy negation.
b) Like in intuitionistic logic, we have:

l- '" (a/l. '" a)' "''''a /,L.. a'

t"JiZL ' 'BZL '

"''''''' a ~ '" a .
BZL'
if a l-
rsZL
,8 then ",,8 l- '"
raZL
a .

c) Moreover, we have:

-." Q' L- -'0" -,n l.L ~ 0' . -, ,....., (l' I- -"'1"">../ (l' .
~ZL' 'BZL' raZL

d) The modal operators give rise to a 5 5 -like behaviour:

La /I. L,8 ~ L( a /I.

BZL
,8) ;

M(a /\,8) ~zLM a /\ M,8; La ~ZLLLa; Ma ~ LMa;

BZL

if ~13ZLa then f.:;BZL La.

9. A semantics with positive and negative certainty domains

An alternative semantical description for a form of fuzzy intuitionistic logic
has been first proposed in Cattaneo and Nistico [1]. The intuitive idea under-
lying this semantics (founded on a generalization of preclusivity propositions
in a Hilbert space) can be sketched as follows: one supposes that interpreting
a language means essentially associating to any sentence two domains of cer-
tainty: the domain of situations where the sentence certainly holds, and the
340

domain of situations where the sentence certainly does not hold. Similarly to
Kripke-semantics, the situations we are referring to can be thought of as a kind
of possible worlds. However, differently from the standard kripkean behaviour,
the positive domain of a given sentence does not generally determine the neg-
ative domain of the same sentence. As a consequence, propositions are here
identified with particular pairs of sets of worlds, rather than with particular
sets of worlds (as happens in the usual possible worlds semantics).
Let us again assume the B Z L language. We will define the notion of re-
alization with positive and negative certainty domains (shortly ortko-pair real-
ization) for a BZL language.

DEFINITION 9.1. - An ortho-pair realization is a system 9J1 = (X, U, L, v),

where:
9.1.1) (X, U) is a preclusivity space.
According to section 4, a simple proposition is a set of worlds A such that
A = Agg. \Ve recall that a possible proposition of the preclusivity space is any
pair (Ai, A o), where Ai, A o are simple propositions such that Ai ~ A~. The
following operations and relations are defined on the set of all propositions:
The order-relation:
(Ai, A o ) ~ (B l ,Bo ) iff Ai ~ B l and B o ~ A o .
The fuzzy complement:

The intuitionistic complement:

(Ai ,A o)- = (A o ,A~) .

The propositional conjunction:

(Ai ,A o ) n (B l ,Bo ) = (Ai nB l ,A o V B o )
The propositional disjunction:
(Ai, A o ) U (E l , Eo) = (Ai V E l ,A o n Eo)
The necessity oper'ator:

1/( (Ai, A o)) = (Ai, AO

The possibility operator:
p((A l ,A o)) = (1/((A 1 ,A o)'))'.
The impossible proposition:
0= (0, X),
The certain proposition:
1 = (X, 0) .
9.1.2) L (the set of the actual propositions)
 341

is a set of possible propositions from Lj(X, U) which contains 0 and is

closed under ',-, n.
9.1.3) v is an interpretation-function that maps formulas into propositions ac-
cording to the following conditions:
V(A) =0
v( -,{3) = v({3)'
= v({3)-
v( ~ {3)
v({3/\ r) = v({3) n v(r)·
The other basic semantical definitions are like in the algebraic semantics.
One can show that in any ortho-pair realization the set of propositions
L gives rise to a BZ lattice [see section 4]. As a consequence, one immedi-
ately proves a soundness theorem with respect to the ortho-pair semantics.
One might guess that the ortho-pair semantics characterizes the logic BZ L.
However, this conjecture has a negative answer. As a counterexample, let us
consider an instance of the fuzzy excluded middle and an instance of the intu-
itionistic excluded middle applied to the same formula ex:
ex V -'ex and ex V ~ ex .
One can easily check that they are logically equivalent in the ortho-pair seman-
tics. Indeed, for any ortho-pair realization 9Jl:
ex V -,ex F!1Jl ex V ~ ex and ex V ~ ex F!1Jl a V -,ex .
However, generally
ex V -,ex fuBZLex V ~ ex .
For instance, let us consider the following B Z L-realization 9Jl = (A, v), where
the support A of 9Jl is the real interval [0,1] and the algebraic structure on A
is defined as follows:
aCb iff a <b
a' =1- a

a- = { 1, if a = 0
o, otherwise
1 = 1; 0 = O.
Let 0 < v(p) < 1/2. We will have v(p V ~ p) max( v(p) ,0)= v(p) < 1/2. But =
v(pV-,p) = max(v(p), I-v(p» = I-v(p) 1/2. Hence: v(pv ~ p) < v(pV-,p).
~
As a consequence, the orthopair-semantics characterizes a logic stronger
than BZL. We will call this logic BZL 3 . BZL 3 can be axiomatized and a
completeness theorem can be proved with respect to the ortho-pair semantics
[5]. BZ L 3 can be equivalently characterized by means of an algebraic semantics
based on the class of all BZ 3 lattices [11], where a BZ 3 lattice is a BZ lattice
A = (I:, ~ " , - ,1,0) which satisfies the following conditions Va, bE A:
(1) (a n b)- = a- U b- ; (2) a'- ~ b and a ~ b-- implies a ~ b.
342

10. Infinite-valued Brouwer-Zadeh logic

In the ortho-pairs semantics, a proposition (AI, A o) of an ortho-pair realization
9Jl = (X, ~,L, v) ,can be thought of a mapping 71" : {O, 1/2, I} ---> P(X) (where
P(X) is the power set of X) which satisfies the following conditions:
i) 71"(1) = AI; ii) 71"(0) = A o; iii) 71"(1/2) = X \ {AI U A o}.
Accordingly, the ortho-pair semantics admits of a natural infinite generalization
by replacing the set {O, 1/2, 1} with the interval [0,1].

DEFINITION 10.1. - An ortho infinite many valued realization is a system 9Jl =

(X, ~, L, v) , where:
10.1.1) (X , ~) is a preclusi vity space. A possible proposition of the preclusivity
space is a mapping 71" : [0,1] ---> P(X) which satisfies tlle following
condi tions:
a) 71"(1) and 71"(0) are simple propositions of tile preclusivity space.
b) 71"(1) ~ 7l"(0)".
c) 71"(7') n 7I"(S) = 0, ifr t- s.
d) \/x EX, 37' E [0,1] such that x E 7I"(r).
Instead oCn:(r), we will write 7I"r. The following relations and operations can
be defined on the set of all possible propositions, whatever be the possible
propositions 71", P : [0, I]I-t P(X):
The order relation:

71" r;;; P iff \/x EX: x(7I"):S; x(p)' where x(7I") = 7' iff x E 7I"(r).

The fuzzy-negation:

(7l"') r = {x I x( 71") = 1 - r} .

The intuitionistic-negation:

(71"-)1 = 71"0·
(71"-)0 = (71"0)" .
(7I"-)r = (7I"')r \ (7l"o)", if l' f/. {O, 1}.

The propositional conjunction:

(7I"np)1 = 71"1 ApI.

(71" n p)o = 7l"0 VPI .
(7I"np)r={xI3a,b(xE7I"a,XEPb and 1'=min(a,b))}\{7I"0VPo},
if rf/. {O,I}.
 343

The propositional disjunction:

(7TUp)1 = 7T 1Vpl.
(7TUp)O = 7ToAPI'
(7T Up),. = {x I :Ja,b(x E 7r a ,X E Pb and l' = max(a,b))} \ { 7r l V pd,
ifl'~{O,l}.

The necessity operation:

(1/(7T))1 = 7Tl·
(1/(7T))0 = (7Td .
(1/(7T))r = {x I X(7T) = I'} \ (7Td , if I' ~ {O, I} .

The possibility operation:

(j.L(7r))1 = {7ro}U .
(j.L(7T))0 = (7T 0).
(j.L(7T))r = 7Tr \ (7TO)U U 7T0) , if r ~ {O, I} .

The impossible proposition:

(0)0 = x.
(0),. = 0, if I' -# o.
The certain proposition:
1 = 0'.
10.1.2) L is defined as in the ortllo-pair semantics.
One can show that the structure (L, n ,U,' ,- ,1 0) is a BZ lattice.
10.1.3) v is defined as in the ortho-pair semantics.
Let BZL oo be the logic which is characterized by the class of all ortho-
infinite many valued realizations. One can prove that

with respect to the relation of Logical consequence. If we take into account only
the notion of Logical truth, then one can prove that

BZL C BZL oo , but

344

REFERENCES
[1] Cattaneo, G. and Nistico, G., "Brouwer-Zadeh posets and three-valued
Lukasiewicz posets", Fuzzy Sets ans Systems, 33, pp. 165-190, 1989.
[2] Cattaneo, G., "Brouwer-Zadeh (fuzzy-intuitionistic) posets for unsharp
quantum mechanics" , to be published in International Journal of Theo-
retical Physics, 31, 1992.
[3] Cattaneo, G., Garola C. and Nistico, G., "Preparation-effect versus
question-proposition structures", PllYS. Essays, 2, 197-216, 1989.
[4] Cattaneo, G. and Nistico, G., "The physical content of substructures
from preparation-question structures and Brouwer-Zadeh lattices", to
be published in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 31, 1992.
[5] Cattaneo, G., Dalla Chiara, M.L. and Giuntini, R., "Fuzzy inutitionistic
quantum logics" , to be published in Studia Logica.
[6] Dalla Chiara, M.L., "Quantum logic", in D. Gabbay, F. Guenthner
(eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, III, pp. 427-469, Reidel, Dor-
drecht, 1986.
[7] Dalla Chiara, M.L. and Giuntini, R., "Paraconsistent quantum logics" ,
Foundations of Physics, 19, pp. 891-904, 1989.
[8] Dishkant, H., "Semantics of the minimal logic of quantum mechanics",
Studia Logica, 30, pp. 23-30, 1972.
[9] Giuntini, R., "Brouwer-Zadeh logic and the operational approach to
quantum mechanics", Foundations of Physics, 20, pp. 701-714, 1990.
[10] Giuntini, R., "A semantical investigation on Brouwer-Zadeh logics",
Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20, pp. 411-433,1991.
[11] Giuntini, R., "Semantic alternatives in Brouwer-Zadeh logics", to be
published in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 31, 1992.
[12] Giuntini, R., "Brouwer-Zadeh logic, decidability and bimodal system",
to be published in Studia Logica.
 Fuzzy Classifier Systems
ANDREAS GEYER-SCHULZ
Department of Applied Computer Science
Institute of Information Processing and Information Economics
Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
Augasse 2-6, A-lOgO Vienna, Austria

Abstract. Fuzzy classifier systems are genetic based machine learning systems
which integrate a fuzzy rule base, a genetic algorithm and an apportionment
of credit function. In this paper we present a Monte-Carlo selection rule which
enables us to give a global convergence proof for (fuzzy) classifier systems and
thus combines the advantages of genetic algorithms and simulated annealing
algorithms. With the help of the representation theorem we define a mapping
from a fuzzy rule language to a crisp rule language and we compare the com-
plexity of the resulting crisp and fuzzy classifier systems. We prove that in the
context of genetic based machine learning the performance of the fuzzy version
is better than the crisp version.

Introduction
A growing number of applications in robotics and industrial automation (e.g.
[1], [9], [11]) documents the success of fuzzy control and its "human opera-
tor" metaphor which basically says that it is often of advantage to substitute
a mathematical control problem with the set of verbal rules used by a human
operator. Because the elicitation of the human operator's control strategy is a
long and expensive process, it is far more attractive to automate the knowledge
acquisition process with the help of learning algorithms. The simple syntactic
structure and the small number of rules which are characteristics often ob-
served in fuzzy control applications support genetic based machine learning
algorithms. We therefore proceed as follows:
In the following section we define a fuzzy classifier system and in the third
section we introduce the Monte Carlo selection rule. In the fourth and fifth
sections we play devil's advocate and ask, why we should prefer a fuzzy clas-
sifier system to a crisp one. In order to find an answer to this question we
345
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 345-354.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
346

use the representation theorem of [10] to translate fuzzy rule bases to crisp ap-
proximations in the fourth section and finally, in the fifth section we establish
the proof that the performance of a fuzzy classifier system is better than the
corresponding crisp approximation.

A Fuzzy Classifier System

A classifier system is a machine learning system which learns rules in order to
guide its performance in an arbitrary environment [4]. Its main components
are a production system, an apportionment of credit function and a genetic
algorithm. A fuzzy classifier system learns rules written in a fuzzy rule language
and uses a fuzzy production system [2, 3].
Consider for example the fuzzy rule language FL = {VT, VN,P,S} used in
[11] with VT = { "IF", "IS", "AND", "THEN", "SL", "~M", "~U", "POSI-
TIVE BIG", "POSITIVE SMALL", "ZERO", "NEGATIVE SMALL", "NEG-
ATIVE BIG" } and VN = { (rule base), (rule), (variable), (label)} and S =
(rule base) and the following productions P:
(rule base) := (rule) I (rule) (rule base)
(rule) := "IF" (variable) "IS" (label) "AND" (variable) "IS" (label) "THEN"
(variable) "IS" (label)
(variable) := "SL" I "~M" I "~U"
(label) := "POSITIVE BIG" I "POSITIVE SMALL" I "ZERO" I
"NEGATIVE SMALL" I "NEGATIVE BIG"
The genetic algorithm imitates natural evolution in order to learn a rule-
base which performs well with regard to the objective function of the system.
Instead of a single current rule-base the genetic algorithm maintains a pop-
ulation of rule-bases as current solution. With a selection rule the genetic
algorithm generates the next generation from the current population. A sim-
ple selection rule of a genetic algorithm is composed of "genetic" operators,
like reproduction, crossover and mutation, but several advanced operators as
for example dominance with diploid or polyploid chromosoms, inversion and
reordering, duplication and deletion, sexual determination and differentiation
have been studied [4].

A "Monte Carlo" Selection Rule

Definition 1 A "Monte Carlo" selection rule for (fuzzy) classifier systems
generates the rule-bases which form the population of the next generation in
the following way:

1. Generate c children by applying a suitable mix of genetic operators to the

p parent individuals in the current population.

2. Select the best of all the p + c individual rule-bases as the first rule-base
in the next population.
 347

3. Generate the second rule-base by the "Monte Carlo" mutation operator

given below.

4. Select p - 2 rule-bases from all the p + c rule-bases by any rule you like.
Definition 2 A "Monte Carlo" mutation operator selects a rule-base from the
set R of all rule-bases which can be generated in a language L with at most d
derivations with probability P = car~(R)'

Note, that because of rule 2 of definition 1 a global optimum will always

remain in the population, as soon as it is found. Rule 2 of definition 1 is taken
from R.F. Hartl [8]. Several variants of rule 4 of definition 1 can be found in
[8].
Mutation operators as used e.g. in Goldberg [4] usually define a small
neighbourhood. The "Monte Carlo" mutation operator essentially generates a
large neighbourhood for each rule-base. For each rule-base r of R it generates
a neighbourhood N(r) for which N(r) = R holds. From a rule-base r of R any
other rule-base x of R is reachable with equal probability.
We say "the optimal rule-base has been learned by a genetic algorithm" if
at least one global optimum is in the current population.

Theorem 1 A genetic algorithm with "Monte Carlo" selection rule learns the
optimal rule-base in language L with respect to the apportionment of credit
function f in n generations with the probability of failure tending to zero as n
tends to 00. (Global Convergence)

Proof See [3] •

The Crisp Representation of a Fuzzy Classifier

System
With the help of the representation theorem of [10] we are able to derive for
each fuzzy rule base of F L a crisp rule base in L which approximates the fuzzy
rule base. The crisp rule language L has the following productions:
(rule base) := (rule) I (rule) (rule base)
(rule) := "IF" (variable) "IN" (interval list) "AND" (variable) "IN"
(interval list) "THEN" (variable) "IS" (real) "WITH" (alpha)
(variable) := "SL" I "LlM" I "LlU"
(interval list) := (interval) I (interval) (interval list)
(interval) := "[" (real) "," (real) "]"
(real) denotes the m-bit representation of a floating point number.
(alpha) is a (real) in [0,1].
According to the representation theorem of [10] we construct a mapping
ip : F L -+ L with the following meta-production:
348

Va E [0,1] : "IF" (variable) "IS" (label) "AND" (variable) "IS" (label)

"THEN" (variable) "IS" (label)
=::} "IF" (variable) "IN" {interval list) "AND" (variable) "IN"
{interval list) "THEN" (variable) "IS" (real) "WITH" (a)

The two occurrences of (label) in the condition part of the rule are sub-
stituted with the (interval list) which represents the a-level set denoted by
(label). The (label) in the action part of the rule is substituted by the (real)
which results from applying an appropriate selector function to the fuzzy set
denoted by (label).
Of course, <P is not suitable for computer implementation, because it gen-
erates for each rule in F L an infinite number of rules in L. By substituting the
real unit interval [0,1] with a finite chain I whose elements are from [0,1] we
approximate <P by <PI:

Va E I : "IF" (variable) "IS" (label) "AND" (variable) "IS" (label) "THEN"

(variable) "IS" (label)
=::} "IF" (variable) "IN" (interval list) "AND" (variable) "IN"
(interval list) "THEN" (variable) "IS" (real) "WITH" (a)

In the following section we assume that I = {0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, I} which is
sufficient for most practical purposes [7]. This means card(I) = 5.

The Complexity of the Crisp and Fuzzy

Classifier Systems
Assume for the moment we are searching for the best rule base in F Land L
respectively by complete enumeration. The search space SPL in F L is restricted
by dPL, the maximal number of derivations allowed in F L, the search space
SL in L by d L . We fix dL, so that all rule-bases which may result from an
application of <PI to rule bases in S P L are in S L. Furthermore, we assume
that any rule base in SL or SPL can be evaluated with regard to some fixed
objective function in constant time t ev '
For the rest of this section we assume that ( real) is represented as 8 byte
real, a number format frequently used in computer applications. This means,
264 - 1 different "patterns" form the real "grid". Furthermore, all ( label )s
are represented as convex fuzzy sets. In robotic and industrial automation
applications this is common practice [1, 9, 11]. This means that the ( interval
list) contains only one interval.

Theorem 2 For a complete enumeration the search time tS PL in SPL is lower

than the search time tS L in SL'

Proof The search time for a complete enumeration is tS FL =card(SPL) . t ev

in SPL. In SL it is tS L = card(SL)' t ev • By lemma 1 we prove that the search
space S P L is smaller than the search space S L •
 349

Theorem 3 By using a classifier system with a Monte Carlo selection rule the
probability P(rFL op ,) of reaching an optimal rule base in SFL is higher than the
probability P(rL opt ) of reaching an optimal rule base in SL'
Proof By definition 2 for a Monte Carlo mutation operator the probability
of reaching an optimal rule base rFLop' in SFL is P(rFLop,) = eard/S FL)' in S L
it is P(rL op ,) = earJ(SL)' Since card(SFd < card(SL) implies P(rFL op ,) >
P(rL op ,)' we use lemma 1 to complete the proof_
Lemma 1 card(SFL,n) < card(SL,1>d n )), for all n E N.
By SFL,n we denote the search space in F L for rule bases with up to n
rules. SL,1>d n ) is the search space in L generated with the minimal number of
derivations, so that all the translations of all rule bases in SFL,n by CPr are in
SL,1>r(n)' <Pr(n) tells us, how many rules we get in L when translating an n-rule
rule base by CPr from F L to L. Note, that in our example <Pr(n) = n· card(I).
Proof In order to prove lemma 1 we proceed by the following steps.
1. We define FL. F L has already been defined in section "A Fuzzy Classifier
System" .
2. We define L. L has already been defined already defined in section "The
Crisp Representation of a Fuzzy Classifier System".
3. We employ the mapping CPr as translation from FL to L. CPr has already
been defined in section "The Crisp Representation of a Fuzzy Classifier
System" .
4. In order to count the derivations necessary for generating a word from
the grammar of a context free language, we need an appropriate counting
function. We can derive a recursive scheme of the counting function
by rewriting the production rules in the following way: We map the
empty word and all terminal symbols to O. We map each derivation
symbol := in the production rules to the assignment symbol = and the
successor function which is defined by s(n) = n + 1 and s(O) = 1. We
map catenation to addition. Each non-terminal symbol is mapped to a
function <p : VN --> N which returns the number of derivations necessary
to generate a word starting with this non-terminal symbol. <pm denotes
the number of derivations necessary to generate a word with the argument
as start symbol and applying the rule corresponding to <p m-times. In
doing so, we exploit a natural interconnection between formal languages
and formal power series [5, 6].
By rewriting the production rules of F L we derive the counting function
<ph ( (rule base}):

1 + <PFL((rule)) if i = 0
4l((,"le bMe)) = { 1 + 'PFL((rule))+ if i > 0
+<ph ((rule base))
350

<PFL( (rule)) 1 + <PFL((variable)) + <PFL((label)) +

+<PFL((variable)) + <PFL((label)) +
+<p FL( (variable)) + <PFL ((label))

<PFL( (variable)) = 1

<PFL ( (label)) =1
In the special case of F L we can easily simplify the recursive scheme of the
counting function and the number of derivations necessary for generating
one rule in F Lis:

<PFL((rule)) =7
And for a rule base with n-rules we get:

<ph((rule base)) = n· (1 + <PFL((rule))) = 8n (1)

Next, by rewriting the production rules of L we derive the counting func-

tion <Pt(n)((rule base)):

1 + <PL( (rule)) if i = 0
<p~+l((rule base)) ={ 1 + <pL((rule))+ if i > 0
+<pi,((rule base))

<pL( (rule)) 1 + <PL( (variable)) + <pi ((interval list) ) +

+<pL((variable)) + <pi ((interval list)) +
+<pL( (variable)) + <pL( (real)) + <PL( (alpha))

1 + <pL( (interval)) if j = 0
<pi+ 1 ((intervallist)) ={ 1 +<pL((interval))+ if j > 0
+<Pi( (interval list) )

<PL( (interval) ) 1 + <PL((real)) + <PL((real))

<PL((alpha)) = 1
 351

<PL( (variable) =1

<PL( (real) =1
Again, we considerably simplify the recursive scheme of the counting
function and the number of derivations needed to generate one rule in L
is:

<pL((rule) = 14

Since a rule-base in F L with n rules translates to a rule base with 1>/(n)

rules in L, we get:

<ptr(n)( (rule base) = n . card(I) . (1 + <pL( (rule))) = 75n (2)

Observe, that <ph((rule base) < <p!r(n)((rule base) holds for all n E N.

The search space sizes card(SPL,n) and card(SL,<f>r(n» can be calculated

with the help of a func~ion which counts all rule bases which can be gen-
erated by a restricted number of derivations. We can derive this function
in a similar way as before: We map catenation to multiplication. Each
non-terminal symbol is mapped to a function II : VN -+ N which returns
the number of words derivable from this start symbol. Obviously, lIm
gives then the number of words derivable in m applications of the rule.
As mentioned above, we again exploit a natural interconnection between
formal languages and furmal power series [5, 6].
For F L we obtain the following recursive scheme:

IIFL((rule) if i = 0
II11( (rule base) =. II~L( (rule)· if i > 0
{ ·IIh((rule base)

IIFL((rule) IIFL ((variable) . IIFL ((label) .

·IIFL( (variable) . IIFL( (label) .
·IIFL( (variable) . IIFL( (label)

IIFL( (variable) = 3

IIFL ((label) =5
352

This simplifies to:

IlFL((rule)) = 3375
This means, we can write 3375 different rules in FL. For the search
space size of rule bases with up to n rules in F L we obtain the following
polynomial:

n n
card(SFL,n) = 2)IlFL( (rule)))i = 2:: 3375 i (3)
i=1 i=1

For L we develop the recursive scheme in the same way:

IlL( (rule)) if i = 0
Il~+I((rule base)) = Il~((rule)). if i > 0
{
.IlL( (rule base))

IlL ((rule)) IlL( (variable)) . Il{ ((interval list)) .

·IlL((variable))· Il{((intervallist)).
·IlL( (variable)) . IlL( (real)) . IlL( (alpha))

IlL( (interval)) if j =0
Il{+I((intervallist)) = IlL((interval))· if j >0
{ .Il{( (interval list) )

IlL( (interval)) = IlL( (real)) . IlL( (real))

IlL( (variable)) = 3

IlL( (real)) = 264

By simplifying this we get:

IlL( (rule)) = 33 .2384

And for the number of different rule bases with ifJI(n) rules in L we derive
the following polynomial:

n.card(I) 5n
card(SL,q,r(n)) = 2:: (IlL((rule)))i = 2::(3 3 • 2384 )i (4)
i=1 i=1
 353

6. Of course, by induction, it is evident that card(SFL,n) < card(SL,4>i(n»),

for all n EN.

In table 1 we show the numerical results for rule-bases with up to 10 rules.

We see that the fuzzy rule language F L considerably reduces search space sizes
(by a factor of 10 5816 for a 10 rule rule-base). In principle, this is exactly,
what we have expected, only the size of the reduction factor is of surprising
magnitude. A comparison ofthe polynomials of (3) and (4) helps us in analyz-
ing this effect. There are two reasons: The first is the large difference in the
number of different values a variable may take, 5 in F L versus 2 128 in L. The
second is the difference in the degree of the polynomials for F Land L which is
caused by the approximation of a fuzzy set as a family of intervals as required
by the representation theorem. Even if we eliminate the first effect by reducing
the real grid to 5 points, the second effect still causes a large difference in the
degree of the polynomials for F Land L.

n rph( (rule base)) card(SFL,n) rp~[tn)( (rule base)) card(SL.d>[(n))

1 8 3375 75 1.36. 10 t>~t>
2 16 1.14. 10 7 150 1.86 . 10 117O
3 24 3.85.10 10 225 2.53. 10 1755
4 32 1.30 . 10 14 300 3.45. 10 2340
5 40 4.38.10 17 375 4.70. 10 2925
6 48 1.48 . 10 21 450 6.40. 103510
7 56 4.99.10 24 525 8.73.10 4095
8 64 1.68. 10 28 600 1.19. 10 4681
9 72 5.68.10 31 675 1.62. 10 5266
10 80 1.92.1035 750 2.21 . 10 5851

Table 1: The Depth of the Derivation Trees and the Search Space Sizes in L
and FL

Summary
In this paper we have presented a fuzzy classifier system based on a Monte
Carlo selection rule. We have shown that fuzzy rule-bases as for instance those
used in fuzzy control are suited for genetic based machine learning systems like
fuzzy classifier systems because of the restricted syntax of the fuzzy rule lan-
guages used and because of the small number of rules used for one application.
For practitioners the main advantage of the algorithm is that no expertise is
required for its application.
With the help of the representation theorem of [10] we have shown that for
learning purposes fuzzy classifier systems perform better than crisp classifier
systems. The reason for this is that fuzzy rule languages are very high level
languages which provide a compact notation for control strategies and thus
keep the cardinality of the search space smaller than crisp rule languages. For
354

all tasks whose performance is predominantly influenced by the search space

size, like verification or testing, the same argument applies.

References
[1] T. Akiyama, T. Sasaki: Extended Fuzzy Traffic Control Model on Urban
Expressway. Preprints of Second IFSA Congress 1 (1987), 1, 278 - 279.
[2] A. Geyer-Schulz: Fuzzy Rule-Based Expert Systems. in: J .R. Kraemer and
P.C. Berry: APL Techniques in Expert Systems. ACM SIGAPL, Syracuse,
NY 1988.
[3] A. Geyer-Schulz: On Learning in a Fuzzy Rule-Based Expert System.
Kybernetika28 (1992), 33-36.
[4] D. E. Goldberg: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization & Machine
Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA 1989.
[5] I. P. Goulden, D. M. Jackson: Combinatorial Enumeration. John Wiley &
Sons, New York 1983.
[6] W. Kuich, A. Salomaa: Semirings, Automata, Languages. EATCS Mono-
graphs on Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 5, Springer Verlag, Berlin,
1986.
[7] R. Kruse, K. D. Meyer: Statistics with Vague Data. D. Reidel Publishing
Company, Dordrecht, 1987.
[8] R.F. Hartl: Global Convergence Proof for a Class of Genetic Algorithms.
Unpublished Manuscript.
[9] K. Hirota, Y. Arai, S. Hachisu: Real Time Pattern Recognition and Fuzzy
Controlled Robot-Arm. Preprints of Second IFSA Congress 1 (1987), 1,
274 - 277.
[10] C. V. Negoita, D. A. Ralescu: Representation Theorems for Fuzzy Con-
cepts. Kybernetes 4 (1975), 4, 169 - 174.
[11] D. Yasuhiko, M. Honma: Improved Fuzzy-Set Temperature Distribution
Control for Electric Furnace. Preprints of Second IFSA Congress 1 (1987),
1,270 - 273.
 ON THE EVALUATION OF SIMPLE
FUZZY RELATIONAL QUERIES :
PRINCIPLES AND MEASURES
Patrick BOSC & Olivier PIVERT
IRISA/ENSSAT
BP447
22305 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the evaluation of queries addressed to usual relations and
involving imprecise predicates. The queries considered here are modelled as lambda-cuts
of complex fuzzy predicates and we study to what extent query processing can be at
least partly performed by a regular database management system. In this respect, we
show that any tuple must comply with some boolean conditions in order to belong to
the lambda-cut of a compound predicate. The transformation process looks like a
rewriting mechanism based on rules. As a matter of fact, some selected tuples do not
really belong to the desired lambda-cut and measures were made in order to estimate the
difference depending on the connectors and the predicates appearing in the query.
INTRODUCTION
The database domain is presently subject to many evolutions and in the context of
ordinary databases where precise data are stored, one interesting field concerns the
facilities and capabilities of querying, the user is provided with. Since the available
DBMS's suffer from a lack of flexibility, we have been suggesting to allow for
imprecision inside user queries [2]. More specifically, we propose a language including
imprecise conditions that are interpreted according to the fuzzy sets theory. An SQL-
like language has been designed that permits conditions to apply to both individual
tuples and sets of tuples [3].
In [4], this powerful language was shown to be as expressive as most of the boolean
based systems aiming at imprecise querying [8, 10] but an important point concerns
the evaluation of such queries. In conventional relational DBMS's, a query expresses
"what" and the system is in charge of determining an algorithm expressing "how" the
query will be processed. This topic remains somewhat open since given a query, in
general the optimal way cannot be reached. We do not intend to solve the problem in
general for fuzzy queries which would be unrealistic since the process cannot become
easier for two main reasons: i) the available access paths cannot be directly used, and
ii) a larger number of tuples is selected by fuzzy conditions with respect to boolean
ones. We will rather consider a subset of queries for which an "efficient" processing can
be found out in order to design a method that is expected to afford acceptable
performances.
The basic idea is to wonder how fuzzy query processing can come down to boolean
query processing (at least partly). In such a context, the boolean part of the processing
can be handled efficiently by means of a conventional DBMS. In other words, the
principle will be based on some properties existing between tuples selected by a usual
query and a fuzzy one. Very often a user is interested only in a very small number of
355
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 355-364.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
356

tuples in the answer. Let us assume that a threshold A is given (i.e the user wants
those tuples whose grade of membership to the resulting fuzzy relation is greater than
A). The idea is to discard as many tuples as possible provided they do not compete to
acceptable resulting tuples. The ideal situation is reached if we succeed in the
determination of exactly those tuples that are the desired A-cut.
Anyway, the number of tuples selected by this step has decreased and then fuzzy query
processing could be naIve without damage for performances. The condition for the
validity of the process lies in the fact that the fuzzy query must lead to the same result
as if it were processed on the original set of tuples and this is similar to equivalences
between queries [1]. We consider relational fuzzy queries, which are called "simple", i.e
involving only one projection and a number of selections and joins, known as PSJ
queries. Since selection and join are basic algebraic operations, boolean PSJ queries
have received attention and it seems interesting to consider their extension to the fuzzy
case.
The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, various kinds of fuzzy predicates likely to
appear in a query are presented as well as the principle used to derive a boolean query
starting with a fuzzy one. The next section contains the boolean expressions obtained
for atomic and compound predicates. Then, we outline the use of the derivation strategy
for relational selections and joins. Generally, this strategy produces extra tuples with
respect to the desired A-cut and the last section is dedicated to the result of measures
performed in order to predict the difference.
FUZZY PREDICATES AND DERIVATION PRINCIPLE
In this section, we will consider predicates P applying to individual elements of
a collection X, i.e P: x E X ~ [0,1], as opposed to operators mapping a whole set
of elements into [0,1]. We now present the principal types of fuzzy predicates and in
the next paragraph, we will describe the basis according to which boolean predicates
can be issued from these fuzzy predicates.
Fuzzy predicates
First of all, we have base (or atomic) predicates, each represented by a
membership function over a subset of the underlying domains of C. Moreover, we can
define other predicates, called modified predicates, using unary operators. Hereafter is a
list of some possible modifiers :
- the negation, according to the definition: Ilnot P (x) = 1 - IIp(x),
- adverbs seen as either exponential operators [9, 14], in which case the predicate
mod P is defined as: J..lmod P (x) = Ilpn (x) = (Ilp(x»n, or powers of fuzzy sets
[13]: J..lmod p (x) = Ilpn (x) = (P e... e P)(x) (e a non idempotent t-norm for a
concentrator (t-conorm for a dilator), is applied n times),
- adverbs seen as translators. For instance, according to B. Bouchon-Meunier
[5], the modifier "really" is applying to an ordered sequence of predicates
{PI> ... , P2n+l} such that: Ilreally p.J (x) = IIp.J (x + d) with d> 0 if i ~ n,
d < 0 otherwise,
- antonyms, such as small and large, or young and old and we have:
'"
IIp (x) =IlP (M - x) where P is the antonym of P defined on x E [O,M]).
 357

Lastly, it is possible to build compound predicates based on n-ary operators. We will

consider the usual connectors AND/OR defined in terms of intersection and union of
fuzzy sets and also a class of operators called "means" allowing for compromises
between the predicates used as parameters :
- arithmetic mean: am(pt. ,Pn)(x) = (PI(X) + + Pn(x» / n,
- geometric mean: gm(Pt. ,Pn)(X) =(PI (x) * * Pn(X» lIn,
- harmonic mean: hmc(PI, ,Pn)(x) = n / (l / PI(x) + ... + 1/ Pn(x»,
- weighted mean: wm(PI, ,Pn)(x) =WI PI(X) + ... + wn Pn(x) where any Wi
belongs to [0,1] and their sum equals 1,
- OWA mean [11] : owam(Pt.... 'pn)(x) =(WI * Pkl (x) +...+wn * Pkn(X) where
Pdx)
1
denotes the ith largest value among the Pi(x)'s, and Wi is as before.

Other aggregation operators and quantifiers are not developed here and are presented in
[12].
The derivation principle
The idea which will be developed in the rest of the paper is situated in the scope of the
evaluation of such predicates for a given threshold A (satisfaction degree). We will
show that any previously defined predicate can be associated with a boolean predicate
that defines a superset of the elements which satisfy P at a degree over A (sometimes
this set can be reached exactly). If one considers a fuzzy predicate P applying to a set X
of tuples, we suggest the construction of a boolean query called envelope E = P [d ~ A]
which delivers a set X' involving at least all the tuples of X whose grade d is over A. It
should be noted that due to the fact that predicates can be negated, the case P [d ~ A]
has to be considered. We can design a set of transformation (derivation) rules to
construct it. Basically, the objective is to express the envelope for P, which may be a
fuzzy selection or fla3zy join predicate as a boolean combination of those of the
components of P.
Let us consider a fuzzy query Q applying to a base B made of relations {RI> ... , Rn}
whose extensions are denoted {SI>'" , Sn} and form a database state 8. We can define a
partial order::; over the database states as : S ::; S' <=> Vi card(Sj) ::; card(S'j). The idea is
to change the initial database state S into S' by means of a boolean predicate BP such
that: i) S ~ S', ii) Q(S) = Q(S') i.e the result of the query Q is preserved, and iii) BP is
a condition derived from a fuzzy predicate FP applying to a given relation R i .
Successive changes can be performed using predicates connected to the various relations
implied in a query Q.
A derivation rule tells that we can replace the expression A by the expression Band
two cases occur depending on whether the set of tuples selected by A is the same as or
a superset of those selected by B. In the first situation, we have a strong rule denoted
A H B (for any tuple t, A(t) <=> B(t), i.e B is a condition equivalent to A),
otherwise the rule is said weak and is written A ~ B (for any tuple t, A(t) => B(t),
i.e B is a necessary condition for A). When only strong rules are used, a minimal
state is reached, i.e a state in which every tuple participates in the construction of the
answer. On the contrary, if at least one weak rule is applied, the state that is built is
potentially reduced but not minimal. This point is obviously important since in the
worst case, step by step, there is a risk for the method to deliver the initial set if only
358

weak rules are applied. The situations likely to happen for weak rules are detailed in the
section "Simulation and measures".
DERIVED EXPRESSIONS
As we mentioned before, various kinds of predicates can appear in an extended
relational query and we successively describe the boolean expressions tied to atomic,
modified and complex fuzzy predicates.
Atomic and modified predicates
Let us recall that according to our assumption, we want to characterize the x's of a set
X whose degree is over a threshold A with respect to a predicate P. First of all, we
consider the case where P is an elementary predicate represented by a one parameter
increasing-decreasing membership function (trapezium or triangle for instance). In this
context, it is clear that P(x) ~ A is equivalent to "x belongs to an interval" and then
we have the rule:

In presence of a negation, we can apply the following rule:

«not P)(x))[d ~ A] f-7 x~ ]Vb V2['

We now review the rules which may apply for the various kinds of modified predicates
and it can be noted that in all cases, we have strong rules. Consider the predicate "mod
P" where mod is a modifier interpreted as an exponential operator, «mod P)(x)) ~ Ais
equivalent to (P(X))h ~ A and then we have the two rules:
(mod P)[d ~ A] f-7 P [d ~ A11h] and (mod P)[d ~ A] f-7 P [d ~ A11h].
If mod is represented by a power of a fuzzy set, a particular formula holds for each
modifier and each norm or co-norm chosen. For example, with the norm e defined as :
e(x, y) =max(x + y - 1,0), the predicate "very P" could be (P e P) and in this case the
following two rules are valid:
(very P)[d ~ A] f-7 P [d ~ «A+ 1)/2)] (2) and (very P)[d ~ A] f-7 P [d:$ «A+ 1)/2)].
If the modifier is a translation, the elements such that (mod P)(x) ~ A are once again
belonging to an interval and we have a strong rule similar to rule (1). Finally, let us
consider a pair <P, Q> of antonym predicates. We have obviously: Q(x) ~ A<=> P(M
- x) ~ Aand consequently, here again, a strong rule analogous to rule (1) is valid.
Complex predicates
First, we present the derived expressions tied to the usual connectors (AND/OR), then
we deal with mean operators. We specify the envelopes related to both P [d ~ A] and P
[d:$ A].
If a predicate P is a conjunction AND(PI,...,Pn), P(x) ~ A <=> min(PI(x),... ,Pn(x)) ~ A
and the rule is : P [d ~ A] f-7 PI [d ~ A] and ... and Pn [d ~ A] (3).
Similarly, we can get the rule: P [d ~ A] f-7 PI [d :$ A] or ... or Pn [d :$ A].
In case of a disjunction P = OR(PI, ... , Pn) : P(x) ~ A <=> max(Pi (x), ... , Pn(x)) ~ A
and the rules are: P [d ~ A] f-7 PI [d ~ A] or ... or Pn [d ~ A],
 359

P [d ~ A] H PI [d ~ A] and ... and P n [d ~ A].

Although not developed here, strong rules exist for the weighted-AND/OR [7].
The operators belonging to the class of "means", denoted me, have two general
properties. The first one is: min(PI(x), ... ,Pn(x)) ~ mc(PI, ... ,Pn)(x) ~ max(PI(x),
... ,Pn(x)). As a consequence, the following two weak rules hold for any mean:

- mC(PI, ; Pn)[d ~ A] ~ PI[d ~ A] or or Pn[d ~ A] (4)

- mC(PI, ,Pn)[d ~ A] ~ PI[d ~ A] or or Pn[d ~ A].

The second property is the monotonicity : mc(xI, ... , xn) ~ mc(x'I, ... , x 'n) iff Vi Xi
~ X'i' According to this, we will point out some more specific rules for the geometric
mean, the harmonic mean, the weighted mean which subsumes the arithmetic mean
and then the ordered weighted averaging aggregation:
- gm(PI, ,Pn)(x) ~ A<=> (PI(X) * ... * Pn(x))1/n ~ A ~ Vi Pi(C) ~ An; the rule is :
gm(PI, ,Pn)[d ~ A] ~ PI[d ~ An] and ... and Pn[d ~ An],

- hm(P}. ... , Pn)(x) ~ A <=> (n/(I/PI(x) + ... + l/Pn(x))) ~ A ~ Vi Pj(c) ~ A./(2 - A),
the rule is : hm(P b ... , Pn)[d ~ A] ~ PI [d ~ A/(2-A)] and ... and P n [d ~ A/(2-A)].
No specific rule was found out for gm/hm(pb ... ,Pn)[d ~ A],

- wm(wI, ... , wn' PI, ... ,Pn)(X) ~ A <=> (WI * PI(x) + ... + wn * Pn(x)) ~ A
~ Vi Wi * Pj(x) + (l - wJ ~ A;

Then, the rule (5) is :

wm(w}, ... , wit' PI,'" ,Pnld~A] ~ Pdd~ (A. + w\-1 )/w\] aKI ... and Pn~ ~ (A.+wn-l)/wnl
Similarly, we have the rule:
wm(w}. ... , wn, PI, ... , PJ[d ~ A] ~ Pdd ~ A/Wa and ... and Pn[d ~ A/wnl

- the rules valid for the arithmetic mean are obtained with the previous formulae with
Wi = lin Vi. So, we have:

am(P I , ... ,Pn)[d ~ A] ~ PI [d ~ (n*A + 1 - n)] and ... and P n [d ~ (n*A + 1 - n)]
and am(PI, ,Pn)[d ~ A] ~ PI [d ~ n*A] and ... and P n [d ~ n*A],

- owam(wI, , w n, PI, ... ,Pn)(X) ~ A <=> (WI * Pk\(x) + ... + wn * Pkn(x) ~ A

~ Vi w\ + ... + w n_\ + w n* Pk(X)
1
~ A;
~ Vi wn * Pk(x) + (1 - wn )~ A.
I

Then, the rule is :

owam(wI, ... ,w n, PI, ... ,Pn)[d~ A] ~ PI [d ~ (A + Wn - I) / wn] and ... and
Pn [d ~ (A + Wn - 1) / w n ].

Similarly, it appears that:

owam(wb ..· ,w n' PI, ..· ,Pn)[d ~ A] ~ PI [d ~ A./wd and ... and P n [d ~ A./wd.
360

Examples
First, let us consider the condition not young and very well-paid with A = }j, where
and is the usual conjunction, very P is interpreted as (P 9 P) with 9(x,y) = x + y - 1
and the membership functions for young and well-paid are drawn below.

well-paid

.8

30 3640 age 20K 28K30K salary

We have to derive a boolean condition for the expression: (not young and very well-
paid) [d ~ .6]. According to rule (3), we have:
(not young and very well-paid)[d~. 6] H (not young)[~.6] and (very well-paid)[d~ .6].
We can derive: (not young)[~.6] H young [d S; .4]
and according to rule (2) : (very well-paid)[~ .6] H well-paid [~ .8].
Finally, using rules of type (1), we have a boolean expression which is equivalent to
the initial cut : age~ 36 and salary ~ 28.
In this second example, we consider a weighted mean with weights (.2,.3,.5), A =.75.
wm(.2,.3,.5,PJ,P2.P3) [d ~ .75] gives rise to two partial (weak) conditions:
PI[d ~ .75] or P2 [d ~ .75] or P3[d ~ .75] according to (4),
PI [d ~ -.25] and P2 [d ~ .5/3] and P3 [d ~ .5] according to (5).
Since PI [d ~ - .25] is trivially satisfied, we can obtain a weak final global boolean
condition by ANDing the two, which yields:
(PI[d ~ .75] or P2 [d ~ .75] or P3[d ~ .75]) and P2 [d ~ .5/3] and P3 [d ~ .5].
USE IN A DBMS CONTEXT
Introductive remarks
This approach can be applied in the scope of a conventional relational database
management system, only able to perform operations based on 1?oolean predicates. We
will consider "simple queries", i.e queries containing only some selection and join
predicates along with one projection, usually called PSI queries. Such queries can be
represented by means of a single complex predicate P applying to one or several
relations in the framework of the SQL language. Our approach will allow for taking
advantage of existing processing strategies implemented in the DBMS (access paths
such as indexes, efficient algorithms) and thus, the computation of the satisfaction
degree for each tuple of the relation, which would be too time consuming, will be
avoided.
However, a first important assumption resides in the knowledge of the value of A (let
us notice that A =0 can always be taken). Two main cases can be considered: the user
gave it in his query and we are done, or the user only indicates a number of results. In
this last situation, sometimes, thanks to some statistical information, an appropriate
value can be deduced; otherwise, the only remaining solution would be to try several
 361

values in an iterative manner, i.e to submit an initial query obtained for Aa, then
another for Al if necessary, and so on.
In addition, with respect to a naIve processing, two kinds of improvements can be
sought: i) to decrease the number of disk accesses which is possible if an
indexed term is connected by an AND to the rest of the query. For instance, the
evaluation of the condition PI allil (P2 Q!. ... Q!. P n ) over the relation R can be
performed in first accessing the set R' of tuples of R satisfying PI (using an available
index) and then verifying the other conditions over R'. This process is prohibited
over P2, ... , P n since they are ORed; ii) to decrease the computations, especially those
related to membership degrees. This point is partly implied by the limitation of tuples
access, but it is also strongly connected to the extra tuples appearing when weak rules
are applied.
Possible use of a regular DBMS

,
From a technical point of view, the major problem is to calculate the membership
degree tied to each selected tuple. Although some other solutions are possible, we
suggest to proceed as shown on the figure drawn below.
initial fuzzy query

,
derivation step

,
boolean query
for a given A

host language program

- sends an SQL query
- receives tuples back
- calculates the degree
- delivers the tuples
whose degree is ~ A

final result

The initial fuzzy query concerns a set of relations and it involves selection and join
predicates (crisp and/or fuzzy). It is easy to show that any such query is equivalent to
the selection of tuples of the cartesian product of the relations according to the various
initial predicates. For example, the SQL-like query :
select A * from R S where predl(R.A, S.A) and pred2(R.B) and pred3(S.C)
362

involves two selection predicates: pred2 and pred3 and a joining predicate predl. To
retrieve the answers over A, we suggest to evaluate the derived query :
select * from R S where predl'(R.A, S.A) and pred2'(R.B) and pred3'(S.C)
where predj' denotes a boolean derived predicate, which will deliver a set of tuples onto
which a degree, with respect to the initial query, will be evaluated. The advantage of
this processing is its simplicity. On the other hand, the number of returned tuples can
be very large if some of the imprecise predicates are derived using weak rules. An
alternate strategy would be to derive one boolean query per relation and then to perform
the initial joins over these reduced relations along with the calculation of the final
membership degree. Such a method can sometimes be efficient when the total size of
all the relations is much smaller than the cartesian product issued in the former
method. The choice is clearly not obvious and is a matter of estimations.
To conclude this paragraph, let us say some words about join predicates. First of all, a
joining condition can be fuzzy, such as in the query : "find the best ten employees
whose salary is much smaller than their manager's one. A fuzzy join where the
condition P refers to the attributes A of relation Rand B of relation S can be
equivalently replaced by a boolean one as far as it complies with:
V (a, b) E domain(A) x domain(B), J..lp(a,b) =f(a-b) or g(a/b)
since we recognize the situation dealt with rule I. So, such fuzzy joins give birth to
strong rules in the derivation process.
Moreover, it was shown that given a join predicate, it is possible to restrict the size of
each of the involved relations through semi-join operations [1]. Such an operation is
not described here but it could be used in the scope of the alternate method tackled
above.
SIMULAnON AND MEASURES
Weak rules cause the appearence of extra tuples with respect to a A-cut. For instance,
let us consider the second example given before, where the initial fuzzy query and the
weakly derived condition (envelope) were:

(PI[d ~ .75] or Pz [d ~ .75] or P3[d ~ .75]) and Pz [d ~ .5/3] and P 3 [d ~ .5].

If we have three tuples such that the values of PI are respectively: I, .8, .8, those of
Pz : .5, .6, .9 and those of P3 : .8, .48, .7, their global satisfaction degree with respect
to the fuzzy condition are : .65, .58 and .78; consequently, only the third one is
satisfactory. However, the first and the third are both selected by the derived boolean
condition since PI > .75, Pz> .5/3 and P3 > .5.

So, it is interesting to have some idea about the difference between the result (issued
from the envelope) and the pure A-cut and we have initialized some measurements
based on a simulation. The parameters considered hert~ are : i) the type of fuzzy
connectors, ii) the value of the threshold I, iii) the selectivity of the fuzzy predicates.
We worked with a 2000 tuples relation EMPLOYEE(#emp, #dep, age, salary,
commission, sales) very close to that of DeWitt's benchmark [6]. The values are
 363

assumed to be uniformly distributed for each attribute which take respectively, #dep :
10 values, age: 40 values, salary: 105 values, commission: 45 values and sales: 70
values. In this experiment made using the INFORMIX database management system,
only binary operators (arithmetic, geometric, weighted mean and OW A) connecting the
two predicates young and well-paid, whose respective selectivity is .5 and .67, were
considered. The ratio r = (n2 - nt) / nt where n2 is the number of tuples selected by the
derived condition and nt is the number of elements of the pure A-cut, is taken as
representing the behaviour of a query. The results obtained are drawn below:

weighted mean wI = .3, w2 = .7

arithmetic mean OWAwl = .7, w2=.3

rin% geometric mean rin%

25 300
20
15 200
10
100
5
o o
o .2 .4 .6 .8 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1 ')..

It is clear that r remains small for the arithmetic and geometric mean. In the case of the
arithmetic mean the specific condition applies for A ~ .5, point where the curve
decreases significantly. A similar phenomenon occurs for the weighted mean and the
OW A when A ~ .7. The most important fact is the high values of r for the OW A
aggregation.

In order to evaluate the influence of the selectivity, we used the fuzzy predicate "salary
around 9000" whose selectivity is .24 and we concluded that: i) the shape of the curves
does not change significantly, ii) the value of the extremum increases (from 25 to 95%
for the arithmetic mean) and iii) the breaking when a specific condition becomes valid
is more stressed
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have been dealing with the evaluation of complex fuzzy predicates in
the scope of a database management system. One interesting objective is to use a
regular DBMS to process at least partly imprecise queries and this implies that boolean
conditions can be issued. We presented a mechanism called derivation, based on the
distribution of the A-cut of a complex predicate over its components, thus providing
boolean conditions. If this approach works for a wide range of complex predicates, we
have shown that very often the initial A-cut and the obtained boolean condition were
not equivalent, since the latter represents only a necessary condition with respect to the
former. This method can be used for simple relational queries involving only selections
and joins where the conditions (selection or join) may be imprecise. Under this
assumption, a query can be seen as a condition applying to a single relation and a
364

possible architecture including both a regular DBMS and an additional module is

suggested. In order to its effective and efficient use, it is important to estimate the
difference between the desired result (the A.-cut) and the result of the derived boolean
condition. To this end, some measures were performed which show that this difference
remains small for the geometric, arithmetic and weighted mean, but can be over 100%
for the OWA aggregation. In the near future, these measures should be extended to a
wider range of predicates and aggregation connectors.

REFERENCES
[I] Bernstein P. A. and Chiu D. M. W., "Using semi-joins to solve relational queries",
Journal of the ACM, 28, I, 1981,25-40.
[2] Bosc P., Galibourg M., Hamon G., "Fuzzy querying with SQL : extensions and
implementation aspects", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 28, 1988,333-349.

[3] Bosc P., Pivert 0., "About equivalences in SQLf, a relational language supporting
imprecise querying", Proc. IFES, Yokohama (Japan), Nov. 1991,309-320.
[4] Bosc P., Pivert 0., "Discriminated answers and databases: fuzzy sets as a unified
expression means", Proc. 1st International IEEE Conference on Fuzzy Systems FUZZ-
IEEE'92, San Diego (USA), March 1992,745-752.

[5] Bouchon-Meunier B., J. Yao, "Linguistic modifiers and imprecise categories",

Journal of Intelligent Systems, to appear.

[6] DeWitt DJ., Bitton D., Turbyfill C., "Benchmarking database systems - A
systematic approach", Proc. VLDB Conference, 1983,8-19.
[7] Dubois D., Prade H., "Weighted minimum and maximum operations in fuzzy set
theory", Information Sciences, 39, 1986,205-210.
[8] Ichikawa T., Hirakawa M., "ARES: a relational database with the capability of
performing flexible interpretation of queries", IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 12, 5, 1986,624-634.

[9] Lakoff G., "Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts",
Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2, 1973,458-508.

[10] Motro A., "VAGUE: a user interface to relational databases that permits vague
queries", ACM Trans. on Off. Inf. Syst., 6,3,1988,187-214.
[II] Yager RR, "On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria
decisionmaking", IEEE Trans. on Syst.. Man and Cyber., 18, 1988, 183-190.
[12] Yager RR, "Connectives and quantifiers in fuzzy sets", Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
40, 1991,39-75.
[13] Yong-Yi c., "An approach to fuzzy operators", Busefal. 9,1981,59-65.
[14] Zadeh L.A., "A fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges", Journal of
Cybernetics. 2, 1972,4-34.
 Numerical and Logical Approaches to
Fuzzy Set Theory by the Context Model

Rudolf Kruse, Jorg Gebhardt & Frank Klawonn

Department of Computer Science

Technical University of Braunschweig
W-3300 Braunschweig, Germany

Keywords
Context Model, Context Logic, Possibility Theory, Fuzzy Set, Extension
Principle, Fuzzy Statistics, Hypotheses Testing

Abstract

The context model [6], [7] is an approach to the representa-

tion, interpretation, and analysis of imperfect data in order to
provide a formal framework in which the comparison of concepts
known from Bayes Theory, Shafer's Evidence Theory, Possibility
Theory, and Fuzzy Set Theory is feasible. The model emphasizes
the importance for clear semantics of the applied concepts, since
pure heuristic methods, where we only assume that uncertainty
and vagueness aspects are expressed by numbers somehow, can-
not provide any rules for the handling of these numbers, when no
meaning is fixed.
For this reason the aim of the paper is to outline some basic
ideas of the context model. We restrict ourselves to the presen-
tation of the most important notions that are relevant for the
treatment of fuzzy data.
From a pure quantitative point of view we consider numeri-
cal' approaches to fuzzy data as well as logical approaches, where
both the physical interpretation (referred to fuzzy sets) and the
epistemic interpretation (referred to possibility distributions) will
be mentioned. The resulting formal and semantical environment
helps us in giving a justification of Zadeh's extension principle and
therefore lots of significant operations on fuzzy data. They enable
us to provide, as an example, a clear generalization of probabil-
ity theory and mathematical statistics from crispness to fuzziness,
where, for instance, hypotheses testing is involved to be discussed.
365
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.). Fuzzy Logic. 365-376.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
366

1 The Context Model: A Short Motivation

The origin of imperfect data is due to situations, where we are not able
to specify an object by an original tuple of elementary characteristics
because of incomplete information available by our observation of this
object in its actual state. To simplify matters we only distinguish be-
tween two kinds of imperfect knowledge, which are vagueness and uncer-
tainty. Vagueness is related to the specification of a vague characteristic
as a description of imprecise, perhaps contradicting and partly incor-
rect observations of the underlying original characteristic within a finite
number of competing contexts of consideration. The view of competing
contexts is related to the phenomenon of conflict, whereas imprecision
indicates that without having further information we are not in a po-
sition to specialize context-dependent observed characteristics into ele-
mentary characteristics. Thus, vagueness is viewed to be a combination
of the two independent phenomena of conflict (competing contexts) and
imprecision.
Uncertainty, on the other hand, is referred to the valuation of vague
characteristics: When applying a vague characteristic as a vague obser-
vation of an inaccessible elementary characteristic related to an object's
attribute in a given state, a decision maker should be enabled to quantify
his or her degree of belief in this vague observation either by objective
measurement or by subjective valuation. Hence, the theory 6f measure-
ment seems to be the adequate formal environment for the handling of
uncertainty aspects.

2 Valuated Vague Characteristics

This section formalizes some basic concepts of the context model, keyed
to the interpretation of fuzzy sets.
Let D be a nonempty universe of discourse (a domain of a data type)
and C a nonempty finite set of contexts.
rc(D) IlJ b I I : C -+ 2D } is called the set of all vague characteristics
of D w.r.t. C. I E rc(D) is elementary, iff (Yc E C)(IJ(c)1 = 1). We
introduce the empty characteristicOc E fc(D) by oc(C) = {0}, which
means that all projections Oc(c), c E C, are contradictory. Assuming
II, 12 E f c( D), then 11 is said to be more specific than 12 (,1 is a
specialization of 12; 12 is correct w.r.t. Id, iff (Yc E C)( 11( c) ~ 12( c».
 367

Any property P defined for vague characteristics is also referable to a

chamcteristic A, A ~ D, ifthe extensionextc[A] of A w.r.t. the required
set C of contexts, defined by extc[A] E fc(D), extc[A](c) I?J A, fulfils
property P.
Let Pc be a finite measure on the measurable space (C, 2C ). Then
, E f(j(D), where f(j(D) I?J fc(D)\{Oc}, is called valuated vague
chamcteristic of D w.r.t. Pc. Choose a ~ 0, A ~ D. Then, is a-correct
w.r.t. A, iff Pc( {c Eel A ~ ,(en) ~ a.
It should be emphasized that there are of course formal analogies to the
concept of a random set recommended by Matheron [14] and Nguyen
[15].
On the other hand an important semantical difference becomes obvious
by the fact that the codomains of random sets contain sets as indivisible
objects, whereas the codomains of (valuated) vague characteristics con-
sist of sets that specify conflicting imprecise observations of an existing,
but unknown original element of the underlying universe of discourse,
which is, by the way, a motivation for the definition of the introduced
correctness properties.

3 Possibility Functions and Fuzzy Sets

Various reasons like inaccessible contexts or the complexity of operations

will often prevent us from the exact valuated specifications, E f(j(D)
of available vague observations. In this case we apply a simplified com-
pressed representation1l"[,] of" which for any elementary A ~ D quan-
tifies the measure of all contexts c of C that support A to be the (un-
known) original of ,. The compression 1l"[,] is essentially comparable
with the creation of a membership function in Fuzzy Set Theory [9] and
a possibility distribution in Possibility Theory [2], respectively.
On the formal level it coincides with the creation of plausibility functions
for singletons and one-point coverages of random sets [13], [15], but,
however, there are significant differences caused by the special semantics
of the underlying valuated vague characteristics.
We now consider relationships between the epistemic view of fuzzy sets
and the context model.
Let, E f(j(D) be valuated w.r.t. Pc. Then, 1l"[,]: D -> JRt, 1l"b](d) I?J
Pc ( {c Eel d E,( c)} ) is called the possibility function of ,.
368

Define the set of all possibility functions w.r.t. D by POSS(D) I?J

{1r 11r : D -+ JR,t
1\ 11r(D) IE .DV}.

For 1r E POSS(D), Repr(1r) I?J {(a,1r a ) Ia E JRt} with the a-cuts

1r a I?J {d E D 11r( d) ~ a} denotes the identifying set representation of
1r.

Definition 1 Let D l , D 2 , ••• , D n , D be nonempty sets and

f : 2 D1 x ... X 2 Dn -+ 2D a mapping.

(1) f is called correctness-preserving, iff

f(AI,''', An) ~ f(BI, ... , B n ) for all Ai, Bi with Ai ~ Bi ~ Di,
i=I, ... ,n.

(2) f is said to be sufficiency-preserving, iff f( Al UBI, , An U En) =

U{F I (:JCl , ... , Cn)(F = f(CI, ... , Cn) 1\('Vj E {I, , n})
(C j = A j V C j = B j )} for all Ai,Bi ~ D i , i = 1, .. . ,n.

(3) f is contradiction-preserving, iff

('VAI, ... ,An)((:Ji E {1, ... ,n})(Ai = 0) ===> f(Al, ... ,An ) = 0).

Definition 2 Let Ii E fi;(Di), i = 1, ... , n, be valuated vague charac-

teristics of D i w.r.t. Pc. Furthermore choose ai > 0 with i = 1" .. , n, a
mapping f : 2D1 x· .. X 2Dn -+ 2D , D i= 0, and a nonempty characteristic
F~D.

(1) F is correct for f w.r.t. ({l"""n) and (al, ... ,an ), iff
('V(A l , ... , An) E 2D1 X ... X 2 Dn )
(('Vi E {I, ... , n} )({i ai- cor'rect w.r.t. Ai) ===> F correct w.r'.t.
J(A l , ... , An)).

(2) F is sufficient for f w.r.t. ({I, .. ",n) and (al, .. . ,an ), iff
F fulfils (1) and ('V F* C F) (F* is not correct for f w. r. t.
({I, .. '"n) and (al, ... ,an )).

The following theorem is a restricted version of a theorem about oper-

ating on possibility functions related to a single set C of contexts [7J.

Theorem 3 Let Ii E fi;(Di), i = I, ... ,n, be valuated w.r.t. Pc. More-

over suppose to have a mapping f : 2 D1 X ... X 2 Dn -+ 2 D with nonempty
D. Let f be contradiction-preserving, and a > O.
 369

(1) f correctness-preserving ==>

f( 1l"[,l](., ... , 1l"[,n]O') is correct w.r.t. bl," ., In) and (a, . .. , a).

(2) f sufficiency-preserving ==>

f(1l"[,l]O', ... ,1l"[,n]O') zs sufficient w.r.t. (,l"""n) and
(a, ... ,a).

Let F(JR) denote the class of all normal fuzzy sets j.t of the real line that
fulfil 1j.t(JR)1 E IN, i.e. F(JR) C POSS(JR).
Suppose to have 1l"[,i] E F(JR), i = 1, ... , n, induced by non-available
specifications Ii E f(j(Di) of valuated vague observations of unknown
elementary originals Ai ~ JR. Consider a function 9 : JRn -+ JR and
define f : (2 lR )n -+ 2R , f(Al, ... ,An ) I?J g(A l x ... x An). It is
easy to show that f is sufficiency- and contradiction-preserving. Since
f( 1l"[,l]O', ... , 1l"[,n]O') is sufficient for f w.r.t. (,ll ... , In) and (a, , a),
it is the most specific characteristic that is correct w.r.t. f(Al, , An)
for all AI, ... , An, if the a-correctness of Ii w.r. t Ai, i = 1, , n, is
assumed. On the other hand, for all a > 0, f( 1l"[,l]O', ... , 1l"[,n]O') is the
a-cut of the fuzzy set which is induced by application of Zadeh's exten-
sion principle [17] w.r.t. 9 and 1l"[,iJ, i = 1, .. . ,n. Hence, we have found
a justification of this principle within the context model.
In a similar way we obtain a justification of the well-known operations
max and min on fuzzy sets, if we apply the sufficiency-preservation of
the set-theoretical union and intersection, respectively.

4 Context Logic

The context model as it was described in the previous sections is based

on settheoretic view. But for some applications it might more convenient
to express the knowledge in the language of logic. In the following we
will modify and generalize the definitions of the context model in or-
der to apply it to a logical framework. This modification will be called
context logic [8]. We consider only first order predicate calculus and the
propositional calculus. A generalization to other first order languages
can be carried out straight forward.

Definition 4 Let L be t~e set of (closed) well formed formulae (wff's)

of a first order predicate language L and let C = (C, A, P) be a probability
space with CT-algebra A together with a mapping j.t : C -+ 2£ s.t.
370

(i) for all c E C: TH(Ji(c)) = {<p ELI Ji(c) I-L <p} = Ji(c)
(ii) for all c E C : ..L ~ Ji(c), (where..L - <p 1\ -'<p)
(iii) for all <p E L : {c E C I <p E Ji(c)} E A.

Then (C, Ji) is called a context evaluation of L.

Ji( c) represents the set of formulae that are known in context c E C. It is

assumed that all possible deductions are carried out in c (condition (i)),
that Ji(c) is consistent (condition (ii)), and that we can attach a number
PJ.L(<p) to each formula <p E L due to the measurability condition (iii) via

PJ.L(<p) = p({c E C I <p E Ji(c)}).

A context evaluation describes an expert's knowledge about a certain

domain. Usually neither the probability space C nor all the numbers
PJ.L(<p), <p E L, are known. In general only lower bounds for PJ.L(<p) for
some <p E L can be specified. For the rest of the formulae 7/J E L we may
assume by default a lower bound of zero. Dealing with lower bounds cor-
responds to the classical approach, when no uncertainty and vagueness
is involved, in the following sense. The stated facts have a lower bound
of one and all other propositions have a (default- )lower bound of zero.
Some of these bounds will be improved (to 1) by deriving new facts from
the known axioms. This inference of new facts is carried out by some
proof procedure.
In the context model this means that the set of facts (axioms) corre-
sponds to a mapping a : L -r [0, 1] giving lower bounds a( <p) for PJ.L( <p)
(<p E L). Usually only a partial mapping is specified, which can be ex-
tended to L by setting a( <p) = 0, if a(<p) was undetermined.
This motivates the following definition.

Definition 5 A mapping a : L -r [0,1] from a first order language L to

the unit interval is called base evaluation.

Definition 6 Let a : L -r [0,1] be ,tl base evaluation of L.

(i) A context evaluation (C,Ji) of L, where C = (C,A,P) is a proba-

bility space, is compatible with a if

for all <p E L: a(<p) ~ PJ.L(<p)

 371

(ii) The mapping Th a : L ~ [0,1] is given by

Th a ( <p) = inf {PJL( <p) I C = (C, A, P) and

(C, J.l) is a context evaluation compatible with a},

where inf 0 = 1.

Note, that Th a is not truth-functional.

Theorem 7 (Compactness of context logic) Let a be a base evalu-

ation of L such that the base evaluation

if <p E L o
aLo : L -+ [0,1],
otherwise

is consistent (i.e. there exists a context evaluation compatible with aLo)

for all finite sets L o ~ L. Then a is also consistent.

Context Logic and Possibilistic Logic

Possibilistic logic [1, 3] can be seen as a translation of the concepts

of possibility theory to logic. The restriction of context logic to nested
context evaluations corresponds to possibilistic logic.

Definition 8 A context evaluation (( C, A, P), J.l) of a first order lan-

guage L is nested if there exists a subset Co ~ C s. t.

(i) P(Co) = 1

(ii) for all c,d E Co: (J.l(c) ~ J.l(d) or J.l(d) ~ J.l(c)).

The restriction to nested contexts yields a new definition for Th a .

Definition 9 Let a be a base evaluation of L. The mapping Th~poss) :

L ~ [0,1] is given by

Th~POSS\ <p) = inf { PJL( <p) I C = (C, A, P) and

(C, J.l) is a nested context evaluation compatible with a } .
372

A nested context evaluation reflects the idea, that there are no contra-
dicting possible worlds, but only worlds being more specific than others,
in the sense that they contain more theorems. On a very strict level, only
those formulae known for sure, are taken into account, but on a more
speculative level more formulae are thought of as possible. In this way,
the nested worlds can be weighted accordingly, inducing the necessity
and possibility measures on L. A nested or consonant view of possibility
distributions was already described in [4] and [5], where also a purely
qualitative view of possibilistic logic is described, indicating the rela-
tions of Spohn's generalized possible worlds model [16] and possibilistic
logic. Without semantics for the numbers, possibilistic logic reduces to
a model with a set of nested possible worlds, describing nothing more
but a (preference) ordering on the worlds. But the semantics provided
by the context model justifies the use of the numbers.
The following three theorems describe the connection between possibilis-
tic logic and context logic.

Theorem 10 Let N be a necessity measure on L. Then there is a nested

context evaluation ((C,A,P),Jl) s.t.

N=Pw

Theorem 11 Let (( C, A, P), Jl) be a nested context evaluation of L.

Then Pit is a necessity measure.

Theorem 12 Let a be a base evaluation of L. If there is at least one

nested context evaluation compatible with a then Th~poss) is a necessity
measure on L.

The interpretation of possibilistic logic as context logic restricted to

nested context evaluations provides a framework in which the numbers
attached to formulae obtain a meaning. In this model it is also possible
to clarify the use of concepts like conditioning [8].

5 An Application: Statistics on Fuzzy Data

Decision making in mathematical statistics may be considered as the

final step of applying statistical inference methods to get information
 373

about important properties of a population based on random, but crisp

observations of the corresponding elements. Since we all know many dif-
ferent situations in pratice, where the assumption of data precision is
rather an idealizing simplification than a realistic model of the given in-
formation source, we are caused to extend concepts of probability theory
and statistics referred to their capability of handling vague data.
Since we have shown that - within the context model - the extension
principle is not just a principle, but rather a special case of a more
general sufficiency-preservation theorem for possibility functions [7], we
are now in the position to evaluate statistical operations in the presence
of fuzzy data on well-founded semantics.
We distinguish between two different ways for the application of fuzzy
sets in mathematical statistics. The first one, following the physical view
of fuzzy data, is connected with the concept of fuzzy random variables
[12], which are mappings: X : n -+ F(IR) that fulfil proper measurability
criteria with respect to a chosen probability space (n, 8, P).
Zadeh's extension principle helps us to define fuzzifications of well-known
probability theoretical notions. R. Kruse and K.D. Meyer [12] verified
that all important limit theorems (e.g. strong law of large numbers, cen-
trallimit theorem, and the theorem of Gliwenko-Cantelli) remain valid
in the more general context of fuzzy random variables. One important
consequence of this view is the assignment of vagueness to the outcomes
of the underlying random experiment.
In this paper we follow a second approach to statistics with fuzzy sets
that is related to the epistemic view of fuzzy data and keeps vagueness in
the observations we may get from the realizations of a random sample.
As one instance we will discuss the calculation of fuzzy parameter tests.
Let (n, 8, P) be a probability space and X : n -+ IR a generic random
variable with induced distribution function Fx = Fx (1') which depends
on a parameter I E f of a predefined parameter space f ~ IRk, .k E iN.
Furthermore let :D be a class of distribution functions, Fx E :D, D :
f -+ :D a mapping, and f 0, f 1 ~ f two sets of parameters that fulfil
f o n f 1 = 0.
A function <P : IRn -+ {O, 1} is called non-randomized parameter test for
(8, f 0, f d with respect to D based on a given significance level 8 E (0, 1),
null hypothesis H o : l' E fa, and alternative hypothesis HI : I E fI, iff
<P is 8-8r measurable (81 denotes the Borel a-field of IR) and (\i , E fa)
(EI'(<P(X 1 ,X2 "",X n )) ~ 8) holds for XI,X 2 "",X n i.i.d. Fx.
374

Applying Zadeh's extension principle [17], the calculation of

(q>[J.L1, ... ,1£n])O' often appears to be a difficult task. Nevertheless it is
possible to specify efficient algorithms for computing the important test
functions of one- or double-sided t-tests, chi-square tests, and F-tests.
We have also considered non-parametric tests like the Wilcoxon signed-
ranks test. Some of the mentioned algorithms require deeper investiga-
tions. So we want to present a simple one due to the following fuzzy
chi-square test.

Theorem 13 Let lJl be the class of all normal distributions N (J.L, a 2)

and X : n -+ JR a N(J.Lo,lJ 2)-distributed random variable with given
expected value J.Lo, but unknown a E f l?J JR+.
Df Df Df
Define D : f -+ lJl, D(a) = N(J.Lo,a ), fa = {ao}, f 1 = f\f o, and
2

chooseX 1, ... ,Xn i.i.d. Fx andtJE(O,I).

Suppose q> : JRn - t {O, I} to be the non-randomized double-sided chi-
square test for (tJ, fa, f d with respect to D.
Let Fc(JR) l?J {J.L E F(JR) I (Va E (O,I])(J.LO' compact interval)}. If
(J.Lll ... ,J.Ln) E [Fc(JR)r, then q>[J.L1, ... ,J.Ln] is the realization of the
corresponding fuzzy chi-square test. For a E (0, 1] we obtain:
q>[J.L1, ... , J.Ln]O' =
{O}, iff 10' [J.L1, .. . ,J.Ln] > a5xi(n) 1\ SO'[J.Lll ... ,J.Ln] < a5xi_!(n),
{I}, iffSO'[J.L1,···,J.Ln]::; a5X~(n)I\IO'[J.L1'''',J.Ln] 2: a5x 2 :(n),
{ 2 1- 2
{O, I}, otherwise
where x~Jn) denotes the ~ -quantile of the chi-square distribution with
2
n degrees of freedom, and
n n
L: (inf(J.LdO' - J.L)2 + L: (J.L - su P(J.Li)O')2 ,
i=l i=l
tt::;inf(tti )0 tt~Sup(tt;)o

SO'[J.L1, . .. , J.Ln] l?J t

i=l
max{(inf(J.Li)O' - J.L)2 , (suP(J.LdO' - J.L)2}.

6 Final Remarks

Since fuzzy statistical operations turned out to be intricate, we developed

an interactive software tool [11] called SOLD-Dialog-System (SOLD:
Statistics On Linguistic Data) by which we can support statistical eval-
uations in the presence of vagueness.
 375

SOLD-Dialog-System is an advanced version of a previously under the

time sharing system VMjCMS on an IBM machine created batch system
[10] that has been extended to dialog application using the programmimg
language PASCAL and the graphical operating system GEMDOS. Fur-
thermore there are commercial versions of SOLD (operating systems:
BS2000, SINIX) which are results of a cooperation contract between
SIEMENS and our institute.

References

[1] Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H. (1991): Fuzzy Sets in Approximate
Reasoning, Part 2: Logical Approaches, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40,
203-244.

[2] Dubois, D., Prade, H. (1987): Possibility Theory - An Approach to

Computerized Processing of Uncertainty. Plenum Press, New York.

[3] Dubois, D., Prade, H. (1988): An Introduction to Possibilistic and

Fuzzy Logics, in: Smets, P., Mamdani, E.H., Dubois, D., Prade, H.:
Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, Academic Press,
London), 287-326.

[4] Dubois, D., Prade, H. (1989): Fuzzy Sets, Probability and Measure-
ment, European Journal of Operational Research 40, 135-154.

[5] Dubois, D., Prade, H. (1991): Epistemic Entrenchment and Possi-

bilistic Logic, Artificial Intelligence 50, 223-239.

[6] Gebhardt, J., Kruse, R. (1992): The Context Model- An Integrat-

ing View of Vagueness and Uncertainty. Int. Journal of Approximate
Reasoning, Special Issue on Fuzzy Expert Systems (to appear).

[7] Gebhardt, J., Kruse, R. (1992): A Possibilistic Interpretation of

Fuzzy Sets by the Context Model. Proc. FUZZIEEE'92, San Diego,
1089-1096.

[8] Klawonn, F., Gebhardt, J., Kruse, R. (1992): Logical Approaches

to Uncertainty and Vagueness in the View of the Context Model.
Proc. Fuzz-IEEE '92, IEEE, San Diego, 1375-1382.

[9] Klir, G.J., Folger, T.A. (1988): Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty and Infor-
mation. Prentice Hall, New York.
376

[10] Kruse, R. (1988): On a Software Tool for Statistics with Linguistic

Data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 24, 377-383.

[11] Kruse, R., Gebhardt, J. (1989): On a Dialog-System for Modelling

and Statistical Analysis of Linguistic Data. Proc. IFSA Congress,
Seattle, 157-160.

[12J Kruse, R., Meyer, K.D. (1987): Statistics with Vague Data. Series
B: Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Reidel, Dordrecht.

[13] Kruse, R., Schwecke, E., Heinsohn, J. (1991): Uncertainty and

Vagueness in Knowledge Based Systems: Numerical Methods. Se-
ries: Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin.

[14] Matheron, G. (1975): Random Sets and Integral Geometry, Wiley,

New York.

[15] Nguyen, H.T. (1978): On Random Sets and Belief Functions. Jour-
nal of Mathemetical Analysis and Appl. 65, 532-542.

[16] Spohn W. (1987): Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic The-

ory of Epistemic States, in: Harper, W.L., Skyrms, B. (eds.), Causa-
tion in Decision, Belief, Change, and Statistics, Vol.2, Reidel, Dor-
drecht, 105-134.

[17] Zadeh, L.A. (1975): The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its
Application to Approximate Reasoning. Part I: Inform. Sciences
8, 199-249, Part II: Inform. Sciences 8, 301-357, Part III: Inform.
Sciences 9,43-80.
 A Class of Fuzzy Featural Models of Similarity Judgments

Dr. Michael Smithson

School of Behavioural Sciences
James Cook University
Queensland 4811 Australia

Tverksy's [10] seminal paper on feature-matching models for similarity

judgments has spawned a number of generalized models (e.g., [2] and [3]) which
purport to handle asymmetric similarity data (i.e., where the statement "A is like B"
elicits a different degree of judged similarity or truth-value than "B is like A"). The
same period has seen rapid development in so-called additive models of clustering
based on the representation of similarities as combinations of overlapping discrete
features as in [7]. The fuzzy clustering literature, on the other hand, has not dealt
explicitly with problems of asymmetric data and it has developed almost
independently of psychological similarity judgment models (cf. for instance, [1], [4],
and [6]). Moreover, their algorithms are distance-based and spatially oriented rather
than tree or feature oriented.
Recently, however, Shiina [8] has produced a model for asymmetric similarities
based on fuzzy sets which simultaneously generalizes Tversky's featural model and
the ADCLUS model from Shepard and Arabie [7]. This is a welcome addition to the
literature because it links fuzzy set theory with a well-known problem in the
psychology of judgment, and at the same time provides a more sophisticated test for
fuzzy theoretic models than earlier attempts (see Chapter 2 in [9] for a review of
earlier tests of fuzzy set theory).
Shiina's model is a special case of a class of additive fuzzy featural models for
estimating the similarity Sjj of fuzzy sets Sj and Sj by
h(~jj) = d{af(Sj n Sj), ~g(Sj,Sj), yg(Sj>Sj)}, (1)
where h is a monotone transformation, d is a 'difference' function (e.g., subtraction
or division), f and g are additive functions, and a, ~, and yare detennined by a
suitable optimization or estimation procedure. Generally, Sjj may not equal Sjj. In
Shiina's model, d is subtraction and g(Sj,Sj) = Sj - Sj, which corresponds to the
features possessed by Sj but not Sj. He utilizes an alternating least-squares
algoritllm for estimating tlle weights, Sj n Sj, and Sj - Sj by constructing a fixed
number (K, say) of underlying "fuzzy features" Jlki for each Sj. These features are
then used to interpret the similarity relations among the fuzzy sets.
The class defined by (1) is very general but pennits 'competitive' selection among
admissible models based on different judgment hypotheses. This paper compares
Shiina's 4-feature model with two simple alternatives that have an identical number
of free parameters. We use Shiina's example data-set consisting of the summed
similarity judgments from 42 subjects on a scale from 1 to 9, on ordered pairs of 8
nations. The data are presented in Table 1, normalized so that the 1-9 scale is in the
[0,1] interval.
The two alternative models assume, like Shiina's, that statements such as "Holland
is like the U.S." invoke judgments about what those two countries have in common
and also a tendency to weigh that commonality against what the subject believes is
unique to on or the other country. The simplest such model assumes tha the first
stimulus dominates entirely (i.e." y = 0 in (1». TIle two models introduced here may be
termed the "size-intersection-ratio" (SIR) and "size-intersection-difference" (SID) models.
377

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), FuZZY Logic, 377-384.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
378

The SIR model represents the Sij by a ratio of Si (J Sj and Si so that the d operator in
(1) is division:
Mij + c =ai/Ci, (2)
where aij = Si (J Sj, q = ~g(Sj,Sj) = Sj, and k and c are constants. In our simplest
model, we determine c on the basis of the smallest possible similarity rating and
consider the model specifiable only up to scalar multiplication, so that the aij and q ar
solved for by the following alternating least-squares estimations:
1
Cj = - Laj'/si'
N-l JFl
"-L' J J
and (3)
1
~j ="2 (CiSij + CjSji).
The SID model represents the Sij by a difference between Si (J Sj and Si so that th<
d operator in (1) is subtraction:
k~ij + c = aij - q, (4)
where aij = Si (J Sj, q = ~g(Si,Sj) = Si - Sj. and k and c are constants. In our simples
model, we determine k on the basis of the largest possible similarity rating and consid<
the model specifiable only up to scalar subtraction, so that the aij and q are solved for
by the following alternating least-squares estimations:
1
Cj = - L(aj' - sj')
N-l J'Fl
'-L" J J
\
and (5)
1
~j ="2 (q + Sij + Cj + Sji).
Table 1: Original Sij from Shiina's Data (Renormalized)
USA HoI. China Thai USSR NKor Brazil Cuba
USA 1 .354 .214 .153 .224 .085 .429 .296
HoI. .431 1 .148 .201 .193 .111 .232 .196
China .232 .175 1 .447 .558 .534 .193 .331
Thai. .187 .185 .508 1 .172 .392 .402 .362
USSR .257 .201 .495 .164 1 .476 .169 .439
N.Kor. .124 .119 .611 .405 .595 1 .172 .423
Brazil .550 .310 .246 .357 .188 .175 1 .511
Cuba .362 .198 .328 .347 .508 .421 .508 1

Shiina's four-featured model requires (8)(4) + 4 = 36 free parameters for

estimation, while the SIR and SID models also require (8)(7)/2 + 8 = 36 parameters.
Yet these models fit the data much better. Shiina reports a Stress level (using the
measure of Stress from [5]) of 0.114, while the SIR model attains a Stress value of
less than 0.0015 and the SID model has a Stress level of about 0.0019 (in 6 and 9
iterations, respectively). A somewhat more informative description of accuracy is
that the average deviation of the SIR (SID) model from the original similarities is
approximately 0.010 (0.014), which corresponds to an average deviation of 0.090
(0.126) from the typical subject's average similarity judgment on the 1-9 scale.
Moreover, these models differ substantially in the mnk-order of derived aij values
from Shiina's model. Figure 1 shows the SIR model's aij values graphed against
 379

those of Shiina's model and against those of the SID model. For the first graph
Spearman's rho = 0.642; for the second rho = 0.997.

60
55 ••
50 • • •
•
45
•
<U 40
•
•• • • ••
,
.~
~ 35 • •
30
25 •• •• • • •
20 • •
15 •
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
SIR

3.45
3.4
•I
3.35
3.3 • •
• •
3.25
3.2 ,.
Cl
00 3.15
••
•••
3.1
..
.
3.05 ~
.~

2.95
3
•
2.9
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
SIR
Figure 1: Scatterplots for aij Values
Can the SIR and SID models provide any interpretive value. and do they yield
similar featural interpretations of the data? A reasonable interpretation for the aij and
Ci is that they are monotonically related to the fuzzy cardinalities of Si n Sj and Si
380

respectively. We may therefore use the estimated values for those parameters to
address questions such as these: (1) What are the relative sizes of the features
common to two or more countries; (2) What are the relative sizes of features unique
to each country; and (3) What part of the aij are unique to each pair of countries.
To do this requires that we derive the values for features Ilki which obey the
constraints:
Lmin(llkj, Ilki) = aij and Lllki = Ci·
k k
An algorithm for doing so -in such a way as to minimize Lllki is as follows:
k
(1) Rank-order the aij from lowest to highest. Let us denote the reordered aij by am.
(2) Set k = m = 1. Add al to all Si.
(3) Set m = m+ 1. Add am to all Si for which there is no Sj such that min(Si'sj) >
aij·
(4) Repeat st~p (3). If-step (3) is no longer possible, then set Illi = Si for all i.
(5) Set k =k+1.
(6) Add am to all Si for which there is no Sj such that
k-l k-l k-l
Lmin(llri> Ilrj) + min {(Si - L Ilri, Sj - L Ilrj} > aij-
r=l r=l r=l
(7) Set m ::;:; m+1. Repeat step (6). If step (6) is no longer possible, then set
k-l
Ilki = Si - L Ilri for all i.
r=l
(8) If the largest am has not been used, then return to step (5). Otherwise, stop.
For the SIR model it is then possible to add a unique component Ilk+li for each
of the sets if for any i, Lllki < ci so that Si ultimately estimates ci. This algorithm
k
is not the only possible method for extracting Ilki but it does maximize
'compression' of the Ilki. Tables 2 and 3 display the Ilki obtained for the SIR and
SID models, respectively. Because in the SIR model the ci are estimates of the
cardinality of Si, it is also possible to convert the algorithm into one which provides
minimally compressed Ilki. Table 2 displays in italicized entries the resultant Ilki
that differ from those obtained under maximal compression. These upper and lower
bounds on the IlId render the SIR model interpretively richer than the SID, since it is
possible to employ sensitivity analysis on relationships among more than two
countries.
For example, it is clear that for both models the outstanding overlap among more
than two countries involves China, the USSR, and North Korea (probably because at
the time of the study they all were geographically proximal Communist nations).
For the SIR model, upper and lower bounds on the joint intersection of these three
countries may be estimated (see [9] pp.161-163 for a discussion of the appropriate
methods for doing so). The size of that intersection is 1.76-1.98,41-46% of the
largest ci among them (USSR). Cuba is Communist but not geo-culturally
proximal, and it overlaps moderately with all three. Likewise, Thailand is geo-
culturally proximal to China and North Korea but not the USSR, and it overlaps
substantially with the fIrst two but not with the latter.
 381

Table 2: Ilki for SIR Model

USA HOL CHINA THAIL USSR N.KOR BRAZI CUBA aij
1 0.413 0.449 0.665 0.665 0.665 0.655 0.617 0.665 .413-.665
2 0.220 0.220 0.220 0 0.220 0 0.092 0.220 .669,.709
3 0.317 0.335 0 0.335 0 0 0.335 0.139 .730, .784, .808
4 0.158 0.158 0 0 0.158 0 0 0 .827
0
5 0.358 0 0.358 0 0 0 0.140 0.358 .849, .991
6 0.174 0.174 0 0 0 0 0.174 0 1.050
7 0.303 0 0 0 0.303 0 0 0.300 1.094,1.430
0.461 0.461
8 0 0 0.077 0.558 0 0.558 0 0.558 1.320,1.362
9 0 0 0 0.467 0 0 0.467 0 1. 419
10 0 0 0.244 0.244 0 0.244 0 0 1. 467
0.021
11 0 0 0 0 0.347 0.347 0 0.347 1. 570
12 0.483 0.483 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 765
0.641 0.641
13 0 0 0.918 0.918 0 0 0 0 1.903
1.141 1.141
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.926 0.926 1. 914
15 0 0 0 0 0.391 0 0 0.391 1. 923
16 0.921 0 0 0 0 0 0.921 0 2.057
17 0 0 1. 214 0 1.096 1. 214 0 0 2.108,2.200
1.437 1.437
18 0 0 0.224 0 0.224 0 0 0 2.205
-----------------------------------------------
3.347 1. 879 3.920 3.187 3.404 3.028 3.672 3.904 Total overlap
3.505 1.977 4.143 3.410 3.562 3.251
1. 557 2.400 0.223 0.626 0.862 0.587 -.026 -.045 Unique Surplus
1.399 2.242 0.000 0.403 0.704 0.364

Table 3: Ilki for SID Model

USA HOL CHINA THAlL USSR N.KOR BRAZl CUBA aij
1 0.955 0.947 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 .947-.985
2 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.032 0.041 0 0.067 0.067 1. 014,1. 026
3 0.026 0.056 0 0.056 0 0 0.026 0.026 1.033-1.040
4 0.069 0.069 0 0 0.069 0 0 0 1. 058
5 0.075 0 0.075 0 0 0 0.005 0 1.057-1.097
6 0.062 0.062 0 0 0 0 0.062 0 1.103
7 0.060 0 0 0 0.060 0 0 0 1.126
8 0 0 0.122 0.168 0 0.168 0 0.168 1.174,1.185
9 0.146 0 0 0 0 0 0.146 0.146 1.194
10 0 0 0 0.160 0 0 0.160 0 1. 203
11 0 0 0 0.063 0 0.063 0 0 1.216
12 0 0 0 0 0.089 0.089 0 0.089 1. 242
13 0.095 0.095 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 264
14 0 0 0.184 0.184 0 0 0 0 1. 323
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.109 0.109 1. 333
16 0.087 0 0 0 0 0 0.087 0 1. 347
17 0 0 0.365 0 0.365 0.298 0 0 1.384,1.391
18 0 0 0 0 0.012 0.012 0 0 1. 405
-----------------------------------------------
1. 642 1. 296 1. 798 1. 648 1. 621 1. 615 1. 647 1. 671 Total overlap
382

Both the SID and SIR models yield 18 features. However, the rank-orders of the
Ilki for the two models agree only moderately: Spearman's rho = 0.577 when the 80
cases for which both models have Ilki = 0 are ignored (Figure 2 shows a scatterplot
of the Ilki without the 80 data-points at (0,0». Moreover, the 1l9i for the SID and
the Ill5i for the SIR have no obvious correspondence with features from the other
model. Nevertheless, the remaining 17 features emerge in the same order from the
algorithm.

1.2

•• .*
.8

0 .6
Ci5

.4
• ••
.2
A
0
•• ff ~
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.2 1.4
SIR
Figure 2: Scatterplot of the Ilki for the SIR and SID Models
It is somewhat suplising that the features extracted from the SIR and SID models
via the same algorithm should differ to such an extent, given the close agreement
between both models and their excellent fit with the original data. How interpretively
important might these differences be? At least some of them may be dismissed as
trivial. The eight points in the upper part of the scatterplot above correspond to the
Illh which simply means that the SID model accords nonunique overlaps among the
countries a greater weight than does the SIR model. Likewise both models agree on
high ranks for the three rightmost points, which represent the nonzero valued 1l17i,
the overlap among China, the USSR, and North Korea.
However, the next right-most cluster containing three pairs of points reveals
what seems to be an obvious disagreement between the two models. Those pairs
represent nonzero ll13h Ill4i, and Ill6i (SIR feature numbers) which correspond to
overlaps between China and Thailand, Brazil and Cuba, and the U.S.A. and Brazil
respectively. The SID model agrees with SIR on the evaluation of the first pair, but
the second two features are given substantially lower rankings in the SID model. The
main reason for this may be appreciated by examining the leftmost triplet which
corresponds to SID's 9th feature, for which there is no equivalent in SIR. That
feature represents a three-way overlap among the U.S.A., Brazil, and Cuba; and it
effectively deflates the importance of those other features. Thus, the two models
 383

actually do agree on the relative importance of those overlaps, but they have
partitioned them differently.
It is noteworthy that Shiina's model's four fuzzy features are captured reasonably
well by the Ilki from either the SIR or the SID models. With only 8 cases, we must
restrict regressions to only a few predictors. Nevertheless, using three SIR features to
predict each of Shiina's features yields adjusted R2 values of .929, .886, .939, and
.979 respectively.
The question about unique features for each country may be addressed directly via
the SIR model and somewhat less so through the SID model. The difficulty with the
ci in the SID model is that they could be interpreted as related to the cardinality of
unique features of the Si or to the cardinality of the Si themselves. Circumstantial
evidence shown in Figure 3 below suggests that they are well-correlated with the
SIR q. As it turns out, they are not highly correlated with the "unique surplus"
values for the SIR model listed in Table 2. Therefore the second interpretation seems
more plausible here.

. 9+-----...&-----L.-"""'-......... ----.&...-----.......- -.........~

.89

.88

. 87 •
• •
.86
o
en .85

. 84

.83

. 82
•
I
. 81 +-"----r--.---r-----r---r-----r--......---,r---+
3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
SIR
Figure 3: SIR versus SID Ci Values
We may use the SIR unique surplus figures, then, to address the question
concerning uniqueness of features. It is clear that the U.S.A. and Holland both carry
high portions of unique Ilki (1.399-1.577 for the U.S.A. which is 28.5%-31.8% of
its cardinality, and 2.242-2.400 for Holland which is 53.1 %-56.9% of its
cardinality). Thailand, the USSR, and North Korea carry smaller portions of unique
Ilki comprising 10%-20% of their cardinalities, while China, Brazil, and Cuba have
virtually no unique components to their features. Lastly, while both models agree
that the U.S.A. and Holland, and China and Thailand share a substantial pairwise
overlap in isolation from their mutual overlap with other countries, they disagree
over whether the U.S.A. and Brazil have a substantial unique overlap.
In conclusion, this paper has proposed a new class of generalized models for
asymmetric similarity judgment data, and demonstrated that certain special cases are
 384

very simple and psychologically plausible while modeling real data quite accurately.
In particular, the SIR and SID models are based on a straightforward hypothesis that
the perceived similarity of two stimuli is a function of the extent to which the first
stimulus presented shares salient features with the second stimulus relative to the
'size' of the first one. When augmented by fuzzy set theory, even simple models such
as these provide us with a number of insights into the molar properties and features
underlying similarity judgments. We are able to extract features that enable us to
determine which stimuli possess unique (unshared) characteristics, and which stimuli
share features with one another.
Our investigations demonstrated that even when one model has a reasonable
degree of fit with the data, improvements on that fit may lead to a substantially
different model. The large differences between Shiina's model and the SIR and SID
results point to a need for researchers to exercise caution regarding their beliefs in the
stability of all aspects of their models despite goodness of fit. A rather more startling
result of this investigation, however, is that even though two models may fit the
data extremely well and agree very closely with one another, the qualitative
interpretations extracted via featural analysis may differ on crucial matters. The rank-
order correlations between the SID and SIR models' aij and Ci estimates are .997 and
.952 respectively, yet their nonzero /lki extracted under an identical algorithm have a
rank-order correlation of only .577. Indeed, ignoring the /lli outliers yields a rho of
.447. Clearly further investigation into the sensitivity of featural models to minor
variations is needed, given that the extraction of features is essential for
interpretation.

References
[1] Bezdek, J.C. 1974 Journal ofMathematical Biology 1, 57-71.
[2] Coulter, S. and Tversky, A. 1986 Psychometrika 51,
[3] DeSarbo, W. 1982 Psychometrika 47, 449-463.
[4] Dunn, J.C . 1974 Journal of Cybernetics 3, 32-57.
[5] Kruskal, J.B. 1964 Psychometrika 29, 115-129.
(6) Ruspini, E.H. 1969 Information and Control 15, 22-32.
-[7] Shepard, R.N. and Arabie, P. 1979 Psychological Review 86,87-123.
[8] Shiina, K. 1988 Japanese Psychological Research 30, 95-104.
[9] Smithson, M. 1987 Fuzzy Set Analysis for Behavioral and Social Sciences. New
York: Springer Verlag.
[10] Tversky, A. 1977 Psychological Review 84, 327-352.
 Fuzzy ANALYSIS OF FUZZY DATA

Hans Bandemer
Department of Mathematics, Freiberg Mining Academy,
DO-9200 Freiberg, Germany

Fuzzy DATA
The wording "datum" means, literally, "something actually given".
It expresses that" something" was found in a state characterized by just
this datum. Obviously, such a datum contains information only if there
are at least two different possibilities for the state of the "something"
in question. Hence we can consider every datum as a realization of a
certain variable u in a set of values, as usually called the universe of
discourse U, and reflecting the possibilities for the state in the given
context.
An element x E U is called an element-valued datum, iff it expresses
the statement

u = x. (1)

Verbally, a fuzzy datum is a datum coupled with uncertainty. Hence

the variable u will now vary on F( U), the set of all fuzzy sets over U, and
A E F(U) is called a simple fuzzy datum, iff it expresses the statement

u= A. (2)

Sometimes this statement occurs as "u is A", for example: "The relia-
bility is HIGH".
Obviously, simple fuzzy data are fuzzy sets on a suitable universe
U. The new denotation refers to the part they have to play within the
process of inference. Simple fuzzy data contain each a certain piece
of information on the state of the "something", on which inference is
required.
Examples of simple fuzzy data are

(i) marks, scores, grades and other ordinal evaluations with a verbal
background
385
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 385-394.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
386

(ii) values of measurements or observations (usually recorded as

pseudo-exact numbers) together with a fuzzy evaluation of their
preciseness and reliability

(iii) trajectories of processes, spectrograms, profiles or surfaces (usu-

ally recorded as pseudo-exact mathematical objects) together with
a fuzzy pointwise or global evaluation of their preciseness and re-
liability

(iv) grey-tone-pictures, where the, greyness represents uncertainty e.g.

with respect to the contour of the surfaces and bodies

(v) verbally expressed opinions of experts.

Besides these kinds of simple data, obviously, even modified and com-
posed fuzzy data can be the starting point of an inference. Moreover,
the given fuzzy data can be provided with an additional evaluation with
respect to their truth, probability, possibility or quantity of extent, in
a crisp sense (Prob(A) = Po) or in a fuzzy manner (The probability of
A is HIGH). Such evaluated fuzzy data can be transformed into simple
fuzzy data by some appropriate chain-rule.
Hence for inference problems only simple fuzzy data are to be con-
sidered.

Fuzzy DATA ANALYSIS

The main aim of data analysis for crisp data is pattern cognition.
By regrouping, plotting and transformation certain structures are to be
found which are inherent in the data and useful for their explanation and
analysis. Examples of such structures are dusters, untypical items, rela-
tionships and, especially, functional relationships for use in interpolation
and prognosis.
Hence fuzzy data analysis aims at cognition of fuzzy patterns in crisp
or fuzzy data.
There are two approaches in dealing with this problem:
(i) Adaption of methods used in data analysis with crisp data.
The best known example of this approach is the fuzzy cluster analysis
as suggested by BEZDEK 1981. Here crisp data are arranged in fuzzy
 387

clusters according to a given objective function. Other examples are pre-

sented in evaluating functional relationships, where fitting procedures
are used in a fuzzy environment (e.g. TANAKA/DEJIMA/ ASAI 1982;
CELMINS 1987; TANAKA/WATADA 1988; DIAMOND 1988). The advan-
tage (and, possibly, the aim) of such procedures is the possibility of using
conventional software, perhaps after some mild adaption.

(ii) Application of methods used for fuzzy sets in general.

Here the usual handling of fuzzy sets is reinterpreted in the framework of

inference from fuzzy data. Combinations, transformations and mappings
of fuzzy data can be tailored according to the given context. A present
disadvantage ofthis approach is that the available software for crisp data
problems is of little use now. However, this handicap is of temporary
character. On the other hand, information from different sources and of
different kind can be considered simultaneously within one framework,
a task impossibly to handle with common data analysis.
This second approach was chosen by Bandemer and Wither (see
BANDEMER/NATHER 1992). The following sections give some insight
into some problems considered in this book.
Fuzzy data analysis can be a qualitative one. Then its main notion
will be similarity, and the data were arranged according to the chosen
mathematical interpretation of this similarity.
Fuzzy quantitative analysis aims at an evaluation of characteristic
values, as, e.g. shape parameters, or it aims at evaluation, estimation or
approximation of functional relationships describing the process or the
situation, which the data were taken from.

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

As a special case of qualitative analysis the handling of information
for diagnostic systems is considered. A reinterpretation of the model as
a fuzzy control system seems obvious.
Let be given a set of objects 0 = {O!, ... ,On}, which can be de-
scribed by t features each. This representation results in a data matrix

(3)
388

where Xij specifies the i-th feature of the j-th object. The Xij'S are
allowed to be fuzzy data over appropriate universes Ui, and the character
of Ui may vary from feature to feature.
The first structural element of a fuzzy diagnostic system is a vector
R = (Rl, ... , R t ) of fuzzy similarity relations Ri on Ui X Ui, respectively,
specifiying the degree of similarity of each pair (x, y) of elements in Ui.
If Xij and Xik are strict fuzzy data then their similarity, in the sense
of Ri, can be expressed by a fuzzy set

Sijk: msijk(z) = sup min{mxi) (U),mxik(V)} (4)

{u,v:mRi (u,v)=z}

using the extension principle. The fuzzy set Sijk can be interpreted as
a value of a linguistic variable SIMILARITY and represents the fuzzily
expressed fuzzy similarity of OJ and Ok with respect to the i-th feature
(in the sense of Ri).
Considering all pairs of objects and all features the hypermatrix

(5)
represents the similarity structure of the system.
Since scalars are better suited for numerical handling there are sev-
eral approaches using functionals of the fuzzy data for expressing their
similarity. Specifying the degree of truth that Xij (= A) and Xik (= B)
are in relation Ri (= R), e.g. by-interpreting the well-known proposal
from mathematical logic

ARB(opt) = 3u 3v( U fA 1\ v fB 1\ (u, v) fR) (6)

in the sense of fuzzy set theory in putting 3 = sup and 1\ mm we
arrive at the functional

rijk r(opt min)(Xij, Xik, Ri)

sup sup min{mxij( u), mXik(v), mRi(u, v)} . (7)

u v

A simple alternative would be

rijk rcard(Xij,Xik,Ri)
card(Xij n Xik n Ri)/card(Xij x Xik) (8)
 389

where Xij and Xik are to be taken as the cylindrical extensions with
respect to Ui X Ui.
Both these suggestions are only examples from a wide class of ap-
proaches (see BANDEMER/NATHER 1992).
Considering all pairs of objects and all features the hypermatrix

(9)

represents also the similarity structure of the system. In contrast with

S the elements of the matrix are now scalars.
Both the hypermatrices can serve in solving problems of classifica-
tion, of course with quite different numerical expense. Hence only R is
considered further.
For fixed i = i o the matrix

(10)

reflects the fuzzy similarity of all objects with respect to the io-th feature.
A neighbourhood of the feature i o can now be defined by

V(io,c) = {iE{l, ... ,t},kE{l, ... ,n}:

Iriojk - rijkl ::; c} :, (11)

where c > 0 is a parameter characterizing the neighbourhoods. In (11),

implicitly,the distance measure for matrices

d( E, F) = m.ax Ieij -
~J
fij I (12)

was used. Obviously, also some other distance can be used for this
purpose, if it reflects the opinion with respect to diversity of features.
This can be the starting point for feature selection as well as for choosing
similar features for interpolating missing values. Moreover, R(i o) can be
used to evaluate the discriminability of the io-th feature with respect to
the given set of objects, e.g. by Shannon's entropy.
For fixed j = jo and k = ko' the vector

(13)
390

reflects the fuzzy similarity of the two objects 0 jo and 0 ko with respect
to all features. A neighbourhood of an object Ojo would then be

V(jojro) = {k E {1, ... ,n}: Vi E {1, ... ,t}: rijok ~ TO} (14)

where 1'0 is the parameter characterizing the neighbourhoods. Obvi-

ously even fuzzy neighbourhoods can be introduced in using 1'ijok itself
for defining the degree that Ok belongs to the neighbourhood of Ojo
with respect to the i-th feature, and mini Tijok in the case of all features.
Now, a (crisp or fuzzy) cluster partition can be performed by con-
sidering neighbourhoods of objects, which are declared as typical repre-
sentations of different classes.
For more details see Chapter 5 in BANDEMER/NATHER 1992.
This approach was used e.g. in chemometrics for pattern recog-
nition in spectroscopic quality control (see OTTO/BANDEMER 1986),
fuzzy inference for spectral libraries (see OTTO/BANDEMER 1988a) and
predicting chemical data from uncertain compound features (OTTO /
BANDEMER 1988b). A first presentation of the approach can be found
in BANDEMER 1990.

QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

As a special case of quantitative analysis the evaluation of an explicit
functional relationship from fuzzy observations is considered. Let

(15)

now denote the fuzzy "point", where a fuzzy response Yi is observed.

The fuzzy observations

M i = (Xi, Yi); i = 1, ... , n, (16)

given by their respective membership functions mi are to be used for

evaluating a functional relationship. If, on an early stage of investiga-
tion, no suitable setup {y = g(x,a); a E A} is available, we recommend
to aggregate the observations Mi e.g. by union

M =U
.
Mi : m( x, y) = m?-x
z
mi ( x, y) (17)
z
 391

and to take the modal trace

h(x) = argsupm(x,y) (18)

y

as a hint for choosing a setup. After the choice of a setup different

transfer principles are suggested for transporting the pieces of informa-
tion contained in the fuzzy observations into the parameter set A.
An example of such a transfer principles is

mA(a) = J
Ux
m(x,g(x,a))dx / J
Ux
dx (19)

where Ux is the universe where the Xi's are defined. The integral mA
considered as a function on a defines a fuzzy set, say A*, over A, and
A* can, e.g., be used as a fuzzy estimation of some true but unknown
parameter value a*, controlling the process under investigation.
Another transfer principle, obtained by fuzzyfication of the state-
ment: "There is a point (x*, y*) in a crisp set C with y* = g( x*)", leads
to the joint grade of validity of the functional relationship

mA(a) = m~n sup mi(x,g(x,a)) (20)

~ xEUx

with a meaning similar to (19).

The fuzzy estimates A* defined by mA can be used, e.g., for inter-
polation and calibration with g, via the extension principle:
for Y* interpolated at the crisp point Xo

mY'(Yixo) = sup mA(a) (21)

a:y:g(xo,a)

for Y* interpolated at the fuzzy point X* with mx

my-(y;X*) = sup min{mA(a),mx(x)} (22)

(x,a):y:g(x,a)

for X* calibrated for the crisp value Yo

mx·(x; Yo) = sup mA(a) (23)

a:yo:g(x,a)
392

for X* calibrated for the fuzzy value Y* with my

mx'(x;Y*) = sup min{mA(a),my(y)}. (24)

(y,a):y=g(x,a)

For more details see chapter 6 in BANDEMR/NATHER 1992.

Adapted to implicit functional relationships this concept was used to
describe shape parameters of natural particles, see BANDEMER/KRAUT
1988, BANDEMER/KRAUT 1990. Besides the construction of transfer
principles, for procedures known from data analysis, so as projection
pursuits and the technique of partial least squares, fuzzy analogues
were introduced, see BANDEMER/NATHER 1988a, BANDEMER/NATHER
1988b. Moreover, local functional approximation was considered see
BANDEMER/RoTH 1987, SCHMERLING/BANDEMER 1988, BANDEMER/
NATHER 1987.
Applications of this approach were sucessfully performed in a tech-
nical environment to investigate functional relationships for Vicker's
hardness as well as in a medical environment to measure the thick-
ness of veins, both from blurred micro grey-tone pictures, see BANDE-
MER/KRAUT 1990.
Further investigations were concerned with fuzzy mathematical mor-
phology and with optimization of empirically point-wise given fuzzy
functions, see BANDEMER/KRAUT /NATHER 1989, BANDEMER 1991.

REFERENCES

BANDEMER, H. 1990:
Quantifying similarity for handling information in knowledge bases
J. Chemometrics 4, 147-158
BANDEMER, H. 1991:
Some ideas to minimize an empirically given fuzzy function
Optimization 22, 139-151

BANDEMER, H. / KRAUT, A. 1988:

Fuzzy-theory-based computer-aided particle shape description
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 27, 105-113
 393

BANDEMER, H. / KRAUT, A. 1990:

On fuzzy shape factors for fuzzy shapes
Freiberger Forschungshefte D197, Grundstoffverlag Leipzig, 9-26

BANDEMER, H. / KRAUT, A. 1990:

A case-study modelling impreciseness and vagueness of observa-
tions to evaluate a functional relationship, in: Progress in Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, Janko/Roubens, Eds., Kluwer, Academic Publ.
Amsterdam, 7-21

BANDEMER, H. /KRAUT, A. / NATHER, W. 1989:

On basic notions of fuzzy set theory and some ideas for their ap-
plication in image processing, in: Geometrical Problems of Image
Processing
Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 153-164

BANDEMER, H. /NATHER, W. 1988:

Fuzzy projection pursuits
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 27, 141-147

BANDEMER, H. / NATHER, W. 1987:

Fuzzy exploratory data analysis
Proc. Sec. World Congress IFSA Tokyo, 266-269

BANDEMER, H. / NATHER, W. 1988:

Fuzzy analogues to partial-laest-squares techniques in multivariate
data analysis
Freiberger Forschungshefte D187, Grundstoffverlag Leipzig, 62-77

BANDEMER, H. / NATHER, W. 1992:

Fuzzy Data Analysis
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Boston-London

BANDEMER, H. / ROTH, K. 1987:

A method of fuzzy-theory-based computer-aided exploratory data
analysis
Biom. J. 29,497-504
394

BEZDEK, J .C. 1981:

Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms
Plenum Press, New York

CELMINS, A. 1987:
Least squares model fitting to fuzzy vector data
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 22, 245-269

DIAMOND, P. 1988:
Fuzzy least squares
Inf. Sciences 46, 141-157

OTTO, M. I BANDEMER, H. 1986:

Pattern recognition based on fuzzy observations for spectroscopic
quality control and chromographic finger-printing
Analytica chimica acta, 184, 21-31

OTTO, M. I BANDEMER, H. 1988:

Fuzzy inference structures for spectral library retrieval systems
Proc. Intern. Workshop on Fuzzy Syst., Appl. Iizuka, 28-9.

OTTO, M. I BANDEMER, H. 1988:

A fuzzy approach to predicting chemical data from incomplete,
uncertain and verbal compound features, in: Physical Property
Prediction in Organic Chemistry
Springer-Verlag, Berlin

SCHMERLING, S. I BANDEMER, H. 1988:

A method of local approximation of a functional relationship from
fuzzy observations
Freiberger Forschungshefte D187, Grundstoft'verlag Leipzig, 39-45

TANAKA, H. I DEJIMA, S.I ASAI, K. 1982:

Linear regression analysis with fuzzy model
IEEE Trans. Systems Man, Cybernet. 12, 903-907

TANAKA, H. I WATADA, J. 1988:

Possibilistic linear systems and their applications to the linear re-
gression model
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 27, 275-289
 Measure-Based Semantics for Modal Logic
Tetsuya MURAI 1 , Masaaki MIYAKOSHI 2 , and Masaru SHIMB0 2

3chool of Allied Health Professions, Sapporo Medical College

.1inami 3, Nishi 17, Chuo-ku, Sapporo 060, JAPAN
)epartment of Information Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
rIokkaido University, Kita 13, Nishi 8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060, JAPAN

Abstract
A fuzzy-measure-hased approach to semantics for modal logic is pre-
sented and its several properties are discussed. Measure-hased models for
modal logic are defined and the soundness and completeness theorems of
several systems of modal logic are proved with respect to classes of fi-
nite measure-hased models, particularly, formulated by fuz;,;y, possibility,
necessity, probability, and Dirac measures.

1 INTRODUCTION
There are two main approaches to treat belief in the area of artificial intelligence
(cf.[7] ): a logical approach using modallogic[l], and a measure-based approach
using probability theory, the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence[6], and so on.
However, the relationship between the two approaches has not been studied in
details. Then, we formulate in this paper fuzzy-mea:mre-based models for modal
logic and discuRs the correspondence between the systems of modal logic and
several fuzzy measures in the sense of soundness and completeness. We adopt
Chellas's notations[l] for logic with some exceptions in the following.

2 MEASURE-BASED MODELS FOR MODAL

LOGIC
2.1 Language
A language [, for modallogic[l] is formulated with primitive symbols:

a set of finite or countable atomic sentences:

395
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 395-405.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
396

logical operators:
T(tr'uth constant), .(negation), /\(coniunction), and
O(necess-ity),
parentheses: (,),

and formation rules:

pEP ~ p E'c, T E'c, p E ,c ~ 'p E ,c,

pEl: ~ Op E 1:, and p, q E I: ~ P /\ q E I: .

Other operators such as 1- (falsity constant), V (disjunction). -> (implication),

+-+ (equivalence), and <> (possibility) are defined in terms of primitive ones as
the usual way.

2.2 Fuzzy-Measure-Based Model

The basic idea of fuzzy-measure-based semantics for modal logic is that a fuzzy
measure defined at each possible world decides a set of necessary sentences at
the world. It is natural that criterion for necessity may changes at each world.
Therefore, we have to set up fuzzy measures generally at every world.

Definition 1 A finite fuzzy-measure-based model for modal logic is a t'uple

< W, {m",} ",EW, '(1 >, where W is a finite set of possible worlds, m", is a fuzzy
mea.mre defined at each wo'rld a E W: m",: 2w -> [0,11 such that m",(</» = O.
m",(W) = 1, and if X ~ Y(~ W) then m",(X) ::; m",(Y), and 11 is a val'uat'ion
for primitive sentences.

For each sentence p, we write F~ p to mean that p is true at the world a

in a model M and that it is defined for non-modal sentences as follows:

F~ PI.: {::::::::} vip/,:, a) = true, for each PI.: E P,

F~ T,
F~ 'p {::::::::} not F~ p, and
F~ p/\q {::::::::} F~ p and F~q·
We have, therefore, the same semantics for non-modal sentences as Kripke or
minimal (or, Scott-Montague) models (d.[l]). On the other hand, a fuzzy mea-
sure decides the truth of modal sentences at each world:

Definition 2 F~ Op {::::::::} m",(11 pill = 1,

where II p II 'is a proposition of a sentence p: II p II ~f {al F~ p}.
A dual measure of m", decides a set of possible sentences:
 397

Lemma 3 F~Op '¢::::} m~(llplll > 0,

wheore m,~ zs a. do,ua.1 mea,sure af 1n a .. 1n a* (A) ~
o 0 0
- I - 1n a (A c ) .

Proof· F~ Op '¢::::} F~ -,O-'P '¢::::} not F~ O-,p '¢::::} ma ( lI-,plll < I

'¢::::} ma (Ilpllc) < I '¢::::} m~ (11plll > o.

2.3 Soundness and Completeness

We write F M p to mean that p is true at every world in a model M. For
a class C of models, FC p to mean that p is valid in C, that is, true at every
world in every model in C. For a system of modal logic I:, we write I- E p to
mean that a sentence p is a theorem of I:. Then, I: is said to be sound with
respect to C just in case I-E p => FC p for every sentence p. I: is said to be
complete with respect to C just in case Fc p => I- E P for every sentence p. And
I: is said to be determined by C just in case I: is both sound and complete with
respect to C, namely, FC '¢::::} I- E P for every sentence p. In what follows, we
prove soundness and completeness theorems of several systems of modal logic
with respect to the following classes of finite measure-based models:
C Fm : the class of finite fuzzy-measure-based models
CPos: the class of finite possibility-measure-based models
C Nee: the class of finite necessity-measure- based models
Cp.,.: the class of finite probability-based models
CD: the class of finite Dirac-measure-based models.

Proof of soundness is relatively easy. It is sufficient to show that rules and

axioms characterizing a system are valid in a class of models.
We prove the completeness of a system of modal logic with respect to a
class of measure-based model by means of the completeness of the system with
respect to its corresponding class of finite minimal models (d.[I]). A minimal
model is a tuple M =< W, N, v >, where W is a set of possible worlds, N
2w
is a mapping from W to 2 , and v is a valuation for primitive sentences.
The relation F~ is similarly defined for non-modal sentences. The mapping
N decides a set of necessary sentences: F~OP '¢::::} IIpll E N(O'.). Note that
N( Ct) ~ 2w . Various conditions on the mapping N correspond to the systems
of modal logic. In particular, the class of all minimal model:,> contains the clas:'>
of all Kripke models as a special case.

2.4 Procedure of Proving Completeness

For almost all of familiar systems snch as KT4(0r. 84), KT5(or, 85), KT(or,
T), KD( or, D) etc., finite determination theorems have been already proved (see
[I}for'<.letails). Let I: be one of such systems and C be a class of finite minimal
models~lich determines I:, that is, I- E p '¢::::} Fc p for any sentence p.
Consid~ rt class of finite measure-based models, C ' . If we can show that
398

(*) FC' P=> FC P

then, by the determination theorem of ~ with respect to C, we have
FC' p => rE P,
which means the completeness of ~ with respect to C'. To prove the formula (*),
it is enough to show that, for any minimal model in C, there is a measure-based
model M' in C', which agrees with M on all sentences. More formally,
Theorem 4 Assume that, for any minimal model M =< W, N, v > in C, there
is a measure-based model M' =< W, {moj"'Ew, v > in C' s'u.ch that, for every
'World a and sentence q, F~q {::::::::} F~' q. Then, 'We have Fc' P => FC p.
Proof. Suppose FC' P, that is, F M" P for any model Mil in C'. For any M in
C, by the assumption, there is a measure-based model M' in C' which agrees
with M on all sentences. Then, since M' is in C', F M ' P and hence FMp hold.
So, we have FMp for any M in C, that is, FC p.

Note that models M =< W, N, v > and M' =< W, {m"'}"'Ew, 11 > agree
from the beginning on non-modal sentences because they have Wand 11 in COlll-
mono So, to construct M' results in defining a fuzzy measure m", : 2 w -> [0,1]
such that
X E N(a) {::::::::} m",(X) =1 (X ~ W)
for each a E W. This is the main point of proving completeness in this paper.

3 FUZZY-MEASURE-BASED MODELS
First, we show the soundness of the system EMNP with respect to C pm .
Lemma 5 For any finite fuzzy-meas'ure-based model M,
(1) F M P <-t q {::::::::} FMOP <-t Oq (RE)
(2) FM O(p/\q) -> Op/\ Oq (M)
(3) FM OT (N)
(4) FM -.0.1 (P)
Proof. (1) Since FM p <-t q is equivalent to Ilpll = Ilqll , m",(lIpID = m",(IlqlD
for each world a. Therefore, FM Op <-t Oq. (2) If F~ O(p /\ q) then
m",(lIp /\ qlll = 1. By the monotonicity of ma , m",(lIplll = m",(lIqlll = 1,
that is, F~ Op /\ Oq. Therefore, F~ O(p /\ q) -> (Op /\ Oq) for any world
a in M. (3) Since IITII = W, m",(IITIIl = m",(W) = 1. (4) Since 11.111 = 4>,
m",(II.111l = m,,,(4)) = 0 < 1.

The system EMNP is the smallest system containing the rule R.E and the ax-
ioms M, N, and P besides the rule and axiollls of propositional logic. Therefore,
we have the following soundness theorem from Lemma 5.
 399

Theorem 6 The system EMNP is so'und with r-espect to the class of finite fuzzy-
meas'ure-based models C Fm.

To show t.he complet.eness of EMNP wit.h respect t.o CFm. we use t.he class
of finite minimal models sat.isfying the following condit.ions:

(m) If X E N(a) and X ~ Y. then Y E N(n).

(n) WE N(a), and
(p) if> fi N(a).

The class, denoted by C EMNP , determines EMNP (d.[l]):

rEMNP p ~ FCEMNP p.

Therefore, because of the discussion in the previous section, it. is sufficient to

show the following lemma.

Lemma 7 For any minimal model M =< W,N,'l1 > in CEMNP, there is a
fuzzy measure mO! on W such that mO!(X) = I ~ X E N(a).

Proof. We define a function mO! on W at each world a by

~f
mO! (X) -
{I0 ifif XE N(a)
X fi N(a)

for any X ~ W. Then, clearly 1nO!(X) = 1 ~ X E N(a) holds. We can iUllue-

diately find the 1n0! to be a fuzzy measure. 1nO!(W) = I and 1n0!(if» = 0 follow
directly from the conditions (n) and (p), respectively. Suppose X ~ Y(~ W).
If X E N(a) then 1nO!(X) = 1. By the condition (m), we have Y E N(a), that.
is, 1nO!(Y) = 1. Therefore, 1nO!(X) $ 1n0!(Y). If X fi N(a) then mO!(X) = 0
and obviously m",(X) $ 1n",(Y). In any case, 1n0! is monotone.

The completeness theorem follows from Theorem 4 and Lemma 7.

Theorem 8 The system EMNP is complete with respect to the class of finite
fuzzy-measure-based models CFm.

4 POSSIBILITY-MEASURE-BASED MODELS
A fuzzy measure Pos satisfying

Pos(X U y) = max(Pos(X), Pos(Y)), for all X, Y E ZW

is called a possibility measure[2]. We can show the soundness of the system
EMFNP wit.h respect to the class CPos'

Lemma 9 For any finite possibility-measure-based model M.

400

pM D(p V q) ----> (Dp V Dq) (F)

Proof. Suppose p~ D(p V q) for each world a. Then, since

p~ D(p V q) ¢=::> Pas", (lIp V qll) =I

and Pas", is a possibility measure, we have

that is, p~ Dp V Dq for each world a.

Since possibility measures are also fuzzy measures, the soundness theorem
follows from Lemmas 5 and 9.

Theorem 10 The system EMFNP is so'und with respect to the class of finite
possibility-measure-based models CPos.

To show the completeness of EMFNP with respect to Cpos' we use the class
of finite minimal models satisfying the condition:

(f) X U YEN (a) => X E N (a) or YEN (a)

besides (m), (n), and (p). The class, denoted by CEMFNP, determines EMFNP
(d.[I]):

f-EMFNP P ¢=::> PCEMFNP p.

Therefore, it is sufficient to show the following lemma.

Lemma 11 For any minimal model M =< W,N,v > in CEMFNP, there is a
possibil'ity measure Pas", on W such that Pos",(X) = 1 ¢=::> X E N(a).

Proof. In general, a possibility measure Pos on W is constructively generated

from its density[2] {Pos",((;3})}{3EW such that max{Pos({!J})} = 1. Then, we
{3EW
define a fuzzy measure Pas", for each world a by its density:

P
as",
({ J})
!
~f {I 0
if;3 E N(a)
if!J (j N(a)

for each world!J E W. Note that N(a) must have 1J,t least one singleton. Because
we can split any X E N (a) using the condition (f) until some singleton {a'} is
isolated and {a'} E N(a). This means max{Pos",({fJ})} = 1 and thus Pas",
{3EW
is a possibility measure. We can conclude om lemma by showing the following
equivalence:

POS",(X) = 1 ¢=::> 3a' E X such that {a'} E N(a) ¢=::> X E N(a).

 401

The fanner equivalence obviously follows from Posa(X)

while the latter does from (m) and (f).

The complet.eness of EMFNP with respect. t.o CPos follows from Theorem 4
and Lemma 11.

Theorem 12 The system EMFNP is complete with respect to the cla.ss of finite
possibility-meas'Ure- based models CPOB'

5 NECESSITY-MEASURE-BASED MODELS
A fuzzy measure N ec satisfying

Nec(X n Y) = min(Nec(X), Nec(Y)), for all X. Y E 2 w

is called a necessity measure[2]. We can show t,he soundnefls of the system KD

with reflpeet to the cIaflfl C Ncc , where KD ifl axiomatized by the following rule
and axioms:

RN. f- KD p :=} f- KD Op
K O(p ----> q) ----> (Op ----> Oq)
Th~ Op ----> Oq.
Note that KDi?iaentical with the system EMCNP (d.[l]). Therefore, to prove
the soundness, we ha;e-ollly to show that the axiom

C. Opl\Oq----> O(pl\q)
is true in any necessity-measure-based model.

Lemma 13 FOT any necessity-rnca.s'ure-based model M.

I=M Op 1\ Oq ----> O(p 1\ q) (C)

P7'00f. Suppose F~ Op 1\ Oq for each world cv. Then, since

and N eCa is a necessity measure, we have

which meanfl I=~ O(p 1\ q) for each world n.

Since necessity measures are also fuzzy measures. we have the following
soundness t.heorem from Lemmas 5 and 13.
402

Theorem 14 The system KD( or, EMCNP) is sO'und w'ith respect to the class
of finite necessity-meaS'u're-based models CNec.

To show the completeness of KD with respect to C Nec , we use the class of

finite minimal models satisfying the following condition:
(c) X E N(n) and Y E N(ex.) => X n Y E N(ex.)
besides (m), (n), and (p). The class, denoted by C KD , determines KD (d.[l]):
f- KD P {::::=:} FenD p.
Therefore, it is sufficient to show the following lemma.
Lemma 15 For any minimal model M =< W. N, v > in C KD • there is a ne-
cessity meas'ure N eco< on W .mch that N eco< (X) = I {::::=:} X E N (ex.).

Proof. In general, a necessity measure N ec on W is constructively generated

from its eo-density[2], {N ec( W - {j3})} I3EW such that min {Ncc(W - {j3})} = O.
I3EW
On the other hand, by (c) and the finiteness of W, N (ex.) has the smallest set
nN(ex.) = n{XIX E N(ex.)} E N(ex.). Note that
(**) X E N(ex.) {::::=:} nN(ex.) ~ X.
Then, we can define a fuzzy measure N eco< for each world ex. by its co-density:

N
eco<
(W _ {tJ}) ~f
I"
{I 0
if nN(ex.) ~ W - {j3}
if nN(ex.) q; W _ {j3}

n
for each world /3 E W. If W - {/3} E N(ex.) for all world /3 E W, then, by (c),
¢= (W - {j3}) E N(ex.), but this contradicts (p). Therefore, there must be a
I3EW
world ex. ' such that W - {(VI} rt N ((V) and equivalently min {N ec", (W - {/3})} = 0
{jEW
Hence, N eco< is a necessity measure. The following equivalence with the above
(**) concludes the proof of this lemma:
Neco«X) = I {::::=:} nN((V) ~ X
for any X E 2w . Suppose Neca(X) = I and n ' E nN(a). Then, obviously
nN(n) q; W - {a'l and so, Neca(W - {(VI}) = O. So if a ' rt X, then
Neca(X) = Nec a ( n (W - {j3}) = min Neca(W - {/3}) = 0,
I3~X I3~X

which contradicts Neco«X) = 1. Hence, (v' E X and thus nN((V) ~ X. Con-

versely, for any world /3 such that j3 rt X, nN((V) ~ X ~ W - {j3} clearly
holds. By the definition of N ec a , N eC a (W - {;3}) = 1 for all /3 f/. X and thus
Neca(X) = 1.

The completeness of KD with respect to C Nec follows from Theorem 4 and

Lemma 15.
 403

Theorem 16 The system KD ,is complete 'W,ith respect to the class of finite
necessity-meaS'ure-based models C Nee.

6 PROBABILITY-BASED MODELS
We can also show that KD is sound with respect to the class C p ,>,

Lemma 17 For any probability-based model M.

pM Op 1\ Oq ---+ O(p 1\ q) (C)

Proof. Suppose p~ Opl\ Oq, that is, Pra(!lpl!) = PT a (lIqll) = 1 for each world
a. Thus, we have Pra(llpll u Ilqll). Then, since

PTa(llp 1\ ql!) = Pra(lIpll n Ilqll) = Pra(!lpl!) + Pra(llql!) - Pr a (lIpll u Ilqll),

we have P1'a(llp 1\ qll) = 1. that is, p~ O(p 1\ q) for each world a.

Since probability measures are also fuzzy measures, we have the following
soundness theorem from Lemmas 5 and 17.

Theorem 18 The systern KD is so'und wdh respect to the class of,finite probability-
based models C p".

To show the completeness of KD with respect to CPr, it is sufficient to show

the following lemma.

Lemma 19 For any 'minimal model M =< W,N,11 > in C KD • there is a

probability Pr a on W s'uch that Pr a (X) = 1 {::::::} X E N (a).

P1'00f. By the condition (c) and the finiteness of W, N (tv) must have the smallest
set nN(n). Let k =1 nN(n) I. Then, we can define a probability PTa for each
world a by its density:

P ({I3}) ~f {11k if j3 E nN(n)

ra 0 if (3 ~ nN (a)
for each (3 E W. The following obviously holds and concludes the proof:

Pr,..(X) =1 {::::::} nN(a) ~ X {::::::} X E N(a)

for any X E ZW.

The completeness of KD with respect to C p ,. followiS from Theorem 4 and

Lemma 19.

Theorem 20 The system KD is complete 'Wdh 7'(~spect to the class of finite

probab'ility-based models CPr.
404

7 DIRAC-MEASURE-BASED MODELS
We can show the soundness of the system KD! with respect to the class CD,
where KD! is axiomatized by the axiom:

D!. op -+ Op

along with the rules and axioms of KD. Note that KD! is identical with the
system EMCFNP (d.[l]). Therefore, to prove the sounchless, it is enough to
show that the axioms C and F is true in M. But, this is trivial since Dirac
measures are both possibility and probability measures.

Lemma 21 For any Dirac-meaS'ure-based model M,

(1) FM Op 1\ Oq -+ O(p /\ q) (C)

(2) FM O(p V q) -+ Op V Oq (F).

The soundness theorem follows from Lemmas 5 and 21:

Theorem 22 The .~ystem KD! is sO'llnd with r'espect to the clo.ss of finite Dirac-
measure-based models CD.

It is sufficient to use the class of finite minimal models satisfying conditions

(m), (c), (f). (nl. and (p), in order to show the completeness of KD! with respect
to CD. The class. denoted by C KD !, determines KD! (d.[l]):

I- KD ! p ¢=:} FC KD ! p.

Therefore, it is sufficient to show the following lemma.

Lemma 23 FoT' o.ny minimal model M =< W, N, 'II> in C KD !, ther'e is 0. Dirac

meaS'llre 8ex on W s'uch that 8ex (X) = 1 ¢=:} X E N (a).

Proof. The conditions (f) and (c) imply that N(a) must. have at least one
singleton and, at the same t.ime, have t.he smallest set. Therefore, t.here is a
unique world a' such that. X E N(a) ¢=:} a' E X for each world a. Then, we
can define a Dirac measure 8ex by

{j
ex
(X) ~f
-
{I0 if a'
if a'
EXX
~

and oex(X) = 1 ¢=:} X E N(a) clearly holds for each world a.

The complet.eness of KD! wit.h respect to CD follows from Theorem 4 and

Lemma 23.

Theorem 24 The systern KD! is complete 'With respect to the cla,ss of finite
Dirac-mea.mre-based models CD.
 405

8 CONCLUSION
The soundness and completeness theorems proved in this paper show us what.
logic Ule extreme value, L of measures is subject to. Such a logic at least
contains the system EMNP determined by fuzzy measures and is at most con-
tained in the system KD! determined by Dirac measures. We can also prove t.he
soundness and completeness for the models formulat.ed by intermediate values of
measures, though we do not treat them here. Hence, we can conclude that modal
logic is inherent in measure-based methods. In particular, this has significant
meaning in modeling of belief in artificial intelligence, because it makes clear
the role of doxastic modal logic in belief revision and updating using the Bayes'
rule, the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, and so on (see [5] for details).
Along such lines, we have applied measure-based semantics for doxastic modal
logic to the modeling of indexing[4] in document retrieval in which an indexer
assigns keywords to documents based on his belief. This approach presents new
framework of weighting logical retrieval, where the weight.s of documents for
keywords are regarded as the bodies of evidence and where retrieval logic is
subject. to t.he laws of doxastic modal logic. This is a quite different approach
to document retrieval from the usual fuzzy one (cf. [3]).

References
[1] B.F.Chellas, Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press,
1980.

[2] D.Dubois and H.Prade, A Class of Fuzzy Measures Based 011 Triangular
Norms. International Journal of General Systems, 8( 1982), 43-61.

[3] S.Miyamoto, Fuzzy Sets in Informat'ion Retrieval and Cz.uster Analysis.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.

[4] T.Mnrai, M.Miyakoshi, and M.Shimbo, Modeling of Indexing in Document

Retrieval Based on Doxastic Modal Operators Defined by Fuzzy Measures.
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fuzzy Logic and Ne'!l-
ral Networks (IIZUKA '92), to appear.

[5] T.Murai, M.Miyakoshi, and M.Shimbo, Multi-Modal Logic of Belief Based

on the Deu:ipster-Shafer Theory, in man'uscript.

[6] G.Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton Universit.y Press,

1976.

[7] P.Smets, A.Mamdani, D.Dubois, and H.Prade (eds.), Non-Standard Logics

for Automated Reasoning, Academic Press, 1988.
 LEAST SQUARES METHODS
IN FUZZY DATA ANALYSIS

PHIL DIAMOND

Mathematics Department,
University of Queensland,
QLD 4072 AUSTRALIA.

ABSTRACT. This paper discusses an L 2 metric for fuzzy sets

with compact support and develops a method of least squares
fitting of fuzzy-valued data, based upon this metric and a projec-
tion theorem. Explicit formulas are given for the parameters in
the case when such data present as triangular fuzzy numbers, for
a variety of linear models. The method is extended to models of
fuzzy random variables measured at spatial points and estimated
by BLUE kriging estimators.

Keywords: Fuzzy Linear Regression, Least Squares, Fuzzy

Kriging, imprecise data.

1. INTRODUCTION
Linear estimation techniques for imprecise data, modelled as fuzzy
sets, fall broadly into two distinct areas. The first consists of adap-
tation of existing algorithms and estimators by the extension prin-
ciple. This technique has been used by Heshmaty and Kandel [8].
Bardossy et al [1] have extended the geostatics kriging functional
to the fuzzy case in much the same way. Yager [15] used fuzzy
arithmetic directly in crisply derived regression equations. A sec-
ond approach is to derive new estimators by directly dealing with
models formulated in a fuzzy context. Tanaka et al performed
linear regression by minimizing a functional subject to possibil-
Ity constraints [13],[14], thus effectively reducing the regression
problem to linear programming. However, these techniques do
407
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 407-416.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
408

not give error estimates in the form of residuals. Celmil}s has ap-
plied least squares methods with possibilistic constraints for least
squares fitting of symmetric fuzzy numbers appearing as vector
elements and having conically dependent membership functions
[2],[3].
Classical least squares is approximation by projection onto a
closed linear subspace or cone. This has recently been applied
to triangular fuzzy number data by introducing a metric on the
set of such fuzzy numbers. Least squares then extends naturally
to a number of linear models [4]' [5]' and to BLUE kriging estima-
tors [6]. These techniques are surveyed below. Section 2 discusses
the appropriate metric space, its completeness, and a projection
theorem. Section 3 looks at a number of linear models and the
last section considers fuzzy kriging.

2. PRELIMINARIES
Let K denote the space of nonempty compact intervals in ~ and
let £ denote the class of normal fuzzy convex uppersemicontinuous
fuzzy sets on ~ that are of compact support. We will refer to these
as fuzzy numbers.
If u E £, then for each 0 < a ::s 1, the a-level set [u]a =
{x E ~ : u(x) 2: a} is a nonempty compact interval, as is the
support set [u]o. The linear structure of K [9] is compatible with
fuzzy addition u + v and scalar multiplication cu, c E ~+, on £
in terms of the a-level sets in the following way: for u, v E £,
[u + v]a = [u]a + [v]a, [cu]a = c[u]a, for all a E 1= [0,1].
Denote by T C £ the set of triangular fuzzy numbers, namely
those u 6 (u-,um,u+) with u- ::s u m ::s u+ and membership
function u(x) = 0 if x < u- or x > u+, while

for u- ::s x ::s u m

for u m < x ::s u +.

Clearly, T is a linear cone in £, that is, it is closed under fuzzy

addition and scalar multiplication. We give T a metric D 2 (·,·)
defined by
 409

Then D 2 is an L 2 -metric on 7, and is in fact an equivalent metric

to the P2 described in [7]. Moreover, it is easy to see that (7, D 2 )
is a complete metric space. Denote by P C 7 the set of triangular
fuzzy numbers u with positive support: u- 2: O.
Definition 1. Let H be a cone in 7 and let u = (u-,um,u+) E
7. If there exists a fuzzy number h o E H such that for every
hE H

then u is is said to be ho-orthogonal to H.

Projection Theorem [4]. Let H be a closed cone in 7. For
any u E 7 there is a unique triangular fuzzy number ho in H such
that D 2 ( u, h o) ::; D 2 (u, h) for all hE H. A necessary and sufficient
condition for ho to be the unique minimising fuzzy number in H
is that u is ho-orthogonal to H.
Remark. The theorem extends to n-vectors of fuzzy numbers
(Ui), (vd E 7 n by defining the distance between such to be
L~=l D2(Ui,Vi)2. The projection theorem is the principle behind
systematic least squares regression and kriging of fuzzy triangular
data.
Write the totality of all symmetric triangular fuzzy numbers,
namely those with u m = (u- + u+)/2, as S. A metric Ds is
defined on S by

Lemma 1. The metrics D 2 , D s are equivalent on S,

Ds(u, v) ::; D 2(u, v) ::; V372 D s (u, v) , u, v E S.

Proof. For symmetric u,u m = (u- + u+)/2. So for u,v E S,

D 2(u,v? = (u- - v-? + (u+ - v+? + (u m _ V m )2

2: DS(u,v)2,
410

while

(u m - vm ? = DS(u,v)2/4 + (u- - v-)(u+ - v+)/2

:::; DS(u,v)2/2,

and the result follows. 0

Thus, (S,D s ) is a complete, separable subspace of (T,D 2 ), and
the subspace topology is the same as the D s-metric topology.
However, symmetric fuzzy numbers u are determined by supp u,
and S may be identified with the space of compact real inter-
vals lC. Moreover, the metric Ds is then the d 2 -metric [4], [10],
which gives an additive variance for random compact intervals [6].
In practice, we shall not distinguish between the metric spaces
(S,Ds) and (lC,d 2 ).
In most that follows, attention could well be restricted to the
simpler symmetric fuzzy numbers, because much triangular fuzzy
data is encountered in symmetric form ([2],[4],[9][13],[14]). How-
ever, it is not that much more complicated to use the more general
case, except in the second model (numerical input, fuzzy output)
of Section 3. .
The metric topology of (T, D 2 ) gives a Borel (7- algebra. Let
(0, A, P) be a probability space. Define a triangular fuzzy ran-
dom variable (TFRV) as a measurable function X : 0 - t T. Con-
sequently, a TFRV is equivalent to a collection {[u]a : 0 :::; a :::; I}
of random compact intervals (the level sets), with expectation de-
fined in term ofthe level sets, [E(u)]a = E([u]a), by means of the
Aumann integral

E([u]a) = in[u]a dP

= {in I dP : lis a P- measurable selection of [u]a} .

From this it is easy to see that when u is integrally bounded, it is

indeed true that [E(u)]a = E ([u]a), 0 :::; a :::; 1, as in [12]. The
variance is well-defined by Varu = ED 2(u, E(u))2.
 411

3. REGRESSION MODELS
fuzzy input, fuzzy output.
Observations consist of data pairs Xi, Yi, i = 1,2, ... , N, where
Xi = (Xi-,Xi,Xt), Yi = (Yi-,Yim,Y/) are triangular fuzzy
numbers. Assume that X E P, i.e. X i- 2 0, by translation of
data if needed. Consider the model Y = a + bX, a, b E ~, to
be fitted to the data in the sense of best fit with respect to the
D 2 -metric. This is the same as minimising :ED2(a + bXi ,Yi)2.
Recall that, if b 2 0, bX = (bX-, bxm, bX+), while if b < 0, bX =
(bX+ , bxm, bX-). If b 2 0, we minimise

and if b < 0, minimise :E(a + bXt - Yi-? + (a + bXi - Yim)2 +

(a + bXi- - Yi+)2. Consequently, if a solution to the problem exists
for b 2 0, it is given by the solutions a*, b* to the equations

a L(Xi- + Xi + Xt)+b L((Xi-? + (Xi)2 + (Xt)2)

= ~(X:-Y-
LJ + X~ym + X7-Y+)
~~ ~~ ~~.

A similar pair of equations will hold for b < 0 (interchange

X-,X+) and the solutions will be written as a*,b*. If the data
set is not degenerate, then b* 2 b* always.
Definition 2. The fuzzy data set Xi, Yi is said to be tight if either
b* 2 0 or b* S; o. This gives a sort of compatibility condition
between the "spreads" of the fuzzy data and the discernible trend
of the regression.
Theorem [4]. The least squares problem has a unique solution if
the data is tight. If b* 2 0 the solution is given by Y = a* + b* X,
and if b* S; 0 by Y = a* + b*X.
PROOF. Apply the projection theorem to the cone in TN gener-
ated by the N-vectors of fuzzy numbers (1,1, ... ,1), (Xl, ... ' XN),
412

where 1 = (1,0,0). If a minimising pair a, b exists, then it is

unique. But if the data is tight, say b* ~ b* ~ 0, only the first
of the two systems can arise. Similarly, if b* :::; b* :::; 0, only the
second system is present. 0
This model can be mildly generalised to Y = A + bX, A E T and
the details are similar, although a stronger compatibility condition
that of definition 2 is required [4].
numerical input, fuzzy output.
For simplicity, we consider only the class of symmetric numbers
5 c T. Suppose that data pairs Xi, Yi, i = 1,2 ... , N, are ob-
served, where the real numbers Xi ~ 0 and Yi E 5. Consider
the model Y = A + xB, where X E ~,A,B E 5, to be fit-
ted to the data as a best D 2 -fit. Solutions are sought in ei-
ther C* = {(A + BXll ... ,A + BXN) : B- ~ O} or C* =
{(A + BXl, ... ,A + BXN) : B+ :::; O}. In this model, the cones
C* or C* could be thought of as representing positive or neg-
ative fuzzy trends. The problem is equivalent to minimising
L: D 2(A+ Bx i, Yi)2. If a solution is sought in C*, this is equivalent
to L:(A- + B-Xi -li-)2 + (A+ + B+Xi -li+?, with a similar
expression for C*.
As in the other models, a compatibility condition is needed for
the solution to be well-defined. Here, it expresses that the trends
of the endpoints of the supports [li- , li+] are not opposite. Write
x = L: xijN, Y'/ = L: li± and say that the data {Xi, Yi} is cohe-
sive if L: xi(li+ - y+) ~ L: xi(li- - y-) ~ o. If all inequalities
are reversed, then the data {2x - Xi, Yi} is cohesive and the model
Y = A + zB,z = 2x - X fitted.
Theorem [4]. Let A, B E P satisfy the system

A- = Y- - B-x,A+ = y+ - B+x,B- = ".,jT 2,B+ = KjT 2,

where

If the data is cohesive, the fuzzy numbers A, B are well-defined

and, if K ~ "., ~ 0, the model Y = A + xB has a unique solution
 413

in the cone C*. If K :s; K :s; 0, then Y = A + zB has a unique

solution in the cone C*.
PROOF. The existence and uniqueness of solutions follows as in
the previous theorem. The equations for the parameters arise as
necessary conditions to minimise
:E D2(A + BXi, Yi)2. If K 2: K, then B E S+, the symmetric
numbers with positive support, while if K :s; K :s; 0 we have
-B E S+. 0
4. FUZZY KRIGING. Let V be a three dimensional region
and suppose that w(x), x E V is a P-valued regionalised variable.
This is regarded as a realisation of a P-valued random function on
V, with the properties that the expectation E W (x) exists and is
in Pi and that the variance is Var W(x) = E D 2(W(x), E W(x)?,
which is a real-valued quantity. This random function is further
assumed to be second order stationary:
(i) EW(x) A w = (w-,wm,w+) exists and is independent of
x E V.
(ii) There exist lower, modal and upper covariance functions
C-(e), Cm(e), C+(e), independent of x E V, such that
E (W.B(x + e)W.B(x)) - (w.B)2 = C.B(e) , f3 E .:J = {-, m, +}.
These assumptions represent physical homogeneity and the exis-
tence of the first two moments of the law underlying the random
function. See [6] for further details and a justification of the re-
sults below.
Properties.
(1) C-(e), Cm(e), C+(e) are each symmetric functions in e.
(2) Var W(x) = C-(O) + Cm(O) + C+(O).
(3) ~E D 2(W(x + e), W(x)? = :E.BE.7(C.B(O) - C.B(e)).
(4) Given the estimator W* = :E~1 AiW(Xi), where Ai 2:
0, i = 1,2, ... ,N, then VarW* = :E~=1 AiAj(C-(Xi-
Xj) + cm(Xi - Xj) + C+(Xi - Xj)) .
Note that the non-negativity of the A'S is essential to prevent the
appearance of "mixed products" E(W-(Xi)W+(Xj)), in the sum
for Var W*, as would occur if AiAj were negative. This is because,
if W E P, then -W = (-W+,-wm,-W-), and a negative
414

weight has the effect of reversing the spreads of the fuzzy number
it multiplies.
With ordinary data that is spatially distributed, kriging under
the stationary hypothesis amounts to finding those weights of an
estimator that is a combination of data values, which minimise
the variance of the estimator. The fuzzy-valued counterpart min-
imises the variance of a linear combination of fuzzy data, where
the variance is with respect to the D 2 -norm in P. Suppose that
w( x) is a fuzzy- valued regionalised variable which is a realisa-
tion of a second order stationary random function W (x), over a
region V. Consider a quantity Yo, fuzzy-valued and associated
with the regionalised variable w(x). For example, yo = w(xo),
the value taken by w at x Iv
= Xo, or Yo = IVI- 1 w( a) da,
which may be interpreted as an ((average value" of the fuzzy vari-
able w(x) over the whole field V. Here IVI denotes the volume
of V while integration is that defined in, for example, [7],[13].
Given N data values w(XI),W(X2)"" ,W(XN) observed at points
Xi E V, i = 1,2"" , N, we want to estimate Yo. It is convenient
to estimate a whole class of estimators into a single problem by
considering Yo as an average value over some region Vo ~ V, con-
taining the point xo. This is certainly justified in the the limit for
the case of integrably bounded regionalised variables which are
also continuous (see [7] for further details).
To estimate Yo, consider a weighted average of the data,
N
y; = L ,xiW(Xi)'
i=l
Let the random function corresponding to Yo be denoted by Yo.
This defines a corresponding estimator Yo* = I:[:l ,xiW (Xi) for
Yo from the set of random variables {W(Xi) : i = 1,2" .. , N}.
The weights ,xi are to be estimated so that the estimator is
unbiased, and minimises the variance E D 2(Yo*, Yo )2, with con-
straints ,xi 2: O. The unbiasedness of Yo* means that E(Yo*) =
E(Yo) = E(W(x)), and this determines the equality constraint
I:[:l ,xi = 1. The quantity to be minimised is
E D 2(Yo*, YO )2 = E((Yo*- ~ Yo-)2 + (Yo*m - Yom )2 + (Yo*+ - YO+)2).
 415

It may be shown that ([6]) :

N
E D 2(YO*' YO)2 = L AiAj(C-(zi - Zj) + Cm(Zi - Zj)
i,j=l

N
- 2 L Ai(C-(zi, YO) + Cm(Zi, Yo) + C+(Zi, Vo))
i=1
+ C-(Vo, Yo) + Cm(VO' YO) + C+(VO, YO),
where the various symbols C(Zi, Yo), C(Vo, Yo), etc., involve in-
tegrals of the covariance functions C-, cm, C+ over the volume
Vo ([6]). It is worth emphasising that without the condition for
non-negative weights, the above equation has no meaning.
To minimise this variance, introduce a Lagrange multiplier J.t for
the equality constraint, and Kuhn-Tucker multipliers L I , . .. ,LN
corresponding to inequality constraints Al ~ 0, ... ,AN ~ O.
Theorem [6]. Let Yo* = ~~I AiW(zi) be an estimator as above.
Suppose the matrix
rij = C-(Zi - Zj) + cm(Zi - Zj) + C+(Zi - Zj), i,i = 1, ... ,N,
is strictly positive definite. Then there exists a unique linear un-
biased P-valued estimator minimising the variance. The weights
satisfy the system
N
L rijAi - Lj - J.t = L Cf3(zj, V), i = 1, ... , N ,
i=1 (3E:J
N N
L Ai = 1, L: Li Ai = 0, Li, Ai ~ 0,
i=1 i=1
with residual
(1"2 = J.t + C-(V, V) + Cm(V, V) + C+(V, V)
N
- L: Ai (C-(Zi, V) + Cm(Zi, V) + C+(Zi, V)) .
i=1
The proof proceeds from the projection theorem, with metric the
expectation of the Lrdistance of T-valued random variables. Fur-
ther details can be found in [6].
416

REFERENCES
1. A. Bardossy, 1. Bogardi and W.E. Kelly, Imprecise (fuzzy) information
in geostatistics, Mathematical Geology 20 (1988), 287-311.
2. A. Celmins, Least squares model fitting to fuzzy vector data, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 22 (1987), 245-269.
3. A. Celmins, Multidimensional least-squares fitting of fuzzy models, Math!.
Modelling 9 (1987), 669-690.
4. P. Diamond, Fuzzy least squares, Information Sciences 46 (1988),
141-157.
5. P. Diamond, Least squares fitting of several fuzzy variables, Analy-
sis of Fuzzy Information, J.C. Bezdek (ed.), CRC Press, Tokyo, 1987,
pp. 329-331.
6. P. Diamond, Fuzzy Kriging, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 33 (1989), 315-332.
7. P. Diamond and P. Kloeden, Metric spaces of fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 35 (1990), 241-249.
8. B. Heshmaty and A. Kandel, Fuzzy linear regression and its applica-
tions to forecasting in uncertain environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
15 (1985), 159-191.
9. A. Kaufman and M. M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1985.
10. E. P. Klement, M. L. Puri and D. A. Ralescu, Limit theorems for fuzzy
random variables, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 407 (1986), 171-182.
11. R.E. Moore, Methods and Applications of Interval Analysis, SIAM,
Philadelphia, 1979.
12. M. L. Puri and D. A. Ralescu, Fuzzy random variables, J. Math. Anal.
Applns. 114 (1986), 409-422.
13. H. Tanaka, S. Uejima and K. Asai, Fuzzy linear regression model, IEEE
Trans. Systems man Cybernet. 10 (1980), 2933-2938.
14. H. Tanaka, S. Uejima and K. Asai, Linear regression analysis with fuzzy
model, IEEE Systems man Cybernet. 12 (1982), 903-907.
15. R.R. Yager, Fuzzy prediction based on regression models, Information Sci-
ences 26 (1982), 45-63.
 INFORMATION-PRESERVING PROBABILITY-
POSSIBILITY TRANSFORMATIONS:
Recent Developments

George J. Klir and James F. Geer

Department of Systems Science
Thomas J. Watson School of Engineering
and Applied Science
State University of New York
Binghamton, New York 13902-6000, U.S.A.

1. INTRODUCTION

It is now generally recognized that uncertainty can be formalized

in different mathematical theories [17]. Some of the theories of
uncertainty are more general than others, while some are not comparable in
this respect. The theories also differ from one another in their meaningful
interpretations, computational complexity, robustness, and other aspects
related to their utility. According to conclusions of several comparative
studies [10, II, 23, 26], none of the theories of uncertainty is superior to
its competitors under all circumstances. Each theory seems to have some
advantages and some disadvantages when compared with the other
theories. Furthermore, this comparison is context-dependent: each theory
is suitable for utilizing some types of evidence and unsuitable for other
types. The different theories of uncertainty should thus be viewed as
complementary.
An important aspect of every theory of uncertainty is the capability
of measuring, in an adequately justified way, the amount of uncertainty
associated with each possible characterization of uncertainty within the
theory. When we choose a particular measurement unit, it is essential that
the measurement be unique.
Uncertainty is a manifestation of either information deficiency or
vagueness of concepts employed. The former manifestation is captured by
the various branches of fuzzy measure theory [27], the latter one is
captured by the various branches of fuzzy set theory [28]. If uncertainty is
a result of information deficiency, which is of our interest in this paper,
then it can be reduced only by obtaining relevant information.
Consider a decision-making situation that involves certain amount
of uncertainty due to information deficiency. When some information-
producing action is taken by which the uncertainty is reduced, the amount
of information obtained by the action can be measured by the amount of
uncertainty reduced. Information and uncertainty (that results from the
417
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 417-428.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
418

lack of relevant information) are thus intimately connected. When

uncertainty is increased by some amount, the same amount of information
is lost; when some amount of relevant information is obtained, uncertainty
is reduced by the same amount.
In order to utilize opportunistically advantages of the various
theories of uncertainty in reasoning or decision making under uncertainty,
we need the capability of moving from one theory to another as
appropriate. These moves, or transformations, from one uncertainty theory
to another should satisfy some justifiable requirements. An essential
requirement is that the numbers expressing uncertainty in one theory
(probabilities, possibilities, weights of evidence, etc.) be transformed into
the corresponding numbers in another theory by an appropriate scale. A
scale is appropriate in transformations of certain type if it preserves
properties that are meaningful in both uncertainty theories involved (ratios,
differences, intervals, orders, etc.). That is, the scale should be neither too
strong nor too weak. However, if additional requirements are imposed on
the transformations, the scale must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate
these requirements.
One important requirement for each transformation from one
mathematical framework to another, as argued by Klir [14], is that the
amount of uncertainty (and the associated information) be preserved under
the transformation. Transformations that satisfy this requirement are called
information-preserving transformations. These transformations guarantee
that no'fictitious information is unwittingly added or real information
unwittingly eliminated solely by moving from one mathematical theory of
uncertainty to another theory within the same experimental frame.

·2. INFORMATION-PRESERVING PROBABILITY-

POSSIBILITY TRANSFORMATIONS
Two theories of uncertainty, on which we focus in this paper, are
probability theory and possibility theory. The paper deals with
information-preserving transformations between the two theories, which
were first proposed at the 1989 IFSA Congress in Seattle [13] and
investigated more thoroughly in subsequent papers [9, 14, 16, 19-21].
In this paper, we deal with probability and possibility theories
defined only on finite sets. We assume that the reader is familiar with
fundamentals of these theories at least at the level of their coverage in the
text by Klir and Folger [17]. First, let us introduce relevant notation and
formulate the notion of information-preserving probability-possibility
transformations.
Let P = (Pt' P2' ..., Pn) and r = (rt , r2, ..., rn) denote, respectively,
 419

probability and possibility distributions (defmed on a fmite set X with n or

more elements) that do not contain zero elements and are ordered in such a
way that Pi ~ Pi+I and ri ~ ri+I for all i = 1,2, ..., n-1. That is, Pi £ (0,1], ri
£ (0,1], PI + P2 +"'+Pn = 1 (probabilistic normalization), and PI = 1
(possibilistic normalization). It is assumed that p and r are alternative
formalizations of knowledge pertaining to a decision-making situation.
Each can be obtained either directly, from the evidence on hand, or
indirectly, by an appropriate transformation from the other one.
Depending on the type of evidence, one of the formalizations is usually
more suited for the direct method. The other one can then be obtained
indirectly by a transformation T, as shown in Fig. 1. Under the
transformation, values Pi must correspond to values ri for all i = I, 2, ..., n
by some appropriate scale and, in addition, the amount of information
should be preselVed. Information contained in p or r is measured by the
difference between the maximum possible uncertainty associated with
decision situation involving n elements, which in both cases is equal to
log2n, and the actual uncertainty. This implies that the equality of
information contained in p or r can be expressed by the equality of their
uncertainties:
Uncertainty (p) = Uncertainty (r).

Decision-making
situation

Probabilistic T
formalization
p=( P1 •P2 • •••• Pn )

Figure 1. Probabilistic and possibilistic formalization of uncertainty:

direct and indirect methods.

Well justified measures of both probabilistic and possibilistic

uncertainty are now established [15, 17, 18,22]. Probabilistic measure of
uncertainty is the well known Shannon entropy
420

n
H(p) = - 1: Pi log2 Pi' (1)
i =1
In possibility theory, two types of uncertainty coexist, which are referred
to as nonspecijicity and strife; their measures are expressed by the formulas

n
N(p) =E (ri - ri + 1) log2 i, (2)
i=2

S(r) =

n
= N(r) - E (ri - ri + 1) log2 E rj (3)
i=2 j=1
respectively, where rn+1 =0 by convention [17]. Total possibilistic
uncertainty, NS, is defined as the sum of the two uncertainty types:

NS(r) = N(r) + S(r)

n .2
=E (ri - ri +1) log2 _._1- . (4)
. 2 1
1= ~ r.
.L J J
J=1
Due to some recent and yet unpublished results, this definition is now well
established on both intuitive and mathematical grounds.
The requirement that information be preserved under each
transformation p -+ r or r -+ p is expressed by constraining the chosen
scale between p and r by the equation
H(p) = NS(r). (5)
In transformations p -+ r, a probability distribution p is given and, hence,
we can calculate the value H(p). Components of r are then determined by
employing Eq. (5), properties of the chosen scale, and possibilistic
normalization (rt = 1). In transformations r -+ p, a possibility distribution
r is given, which allows us to calculate the value NS(r). Components of p
are then determined by using Eq. (5), properties of the chosen scale, and
 421

probabilistic normalization (PI + P2 + ... + Pn = 1).

The following is a summary of key results of our analysis of
information-preselVing probability-possibility transformations under
different scales:
1. Ratio and difference scales do not have enough flexibility to
satisfy Eq. (5) and, consequently, they are not applicable for information-
preselVing transformations [14].
2. Interval scales have the right flexibility to facilitate unique
information preselVing transformations. However, they have the following
deficiency: while information-preselVing transformations p -+ r exist and
are unique, the inverse transformations, r -+ p, do not exist for some given
possibility distributions.
3. Log-interval scales are the only ones for which the information-
preselVing transformations exist for all probability distributions as well as
possibility distributions, are unique, and seem to satisfy the general
requirement of probability possibility consistency: ri ~ Pi for all i = 1, 2,
..., n. These transformations have the form
(6)

where a and 13 are lJOsitive constants. After the value 13 is determined by

the relevant normalization conditions, the transformation formulas for p -+
r and r -+ p are expressed by Eqs. I and III in Fig. 2, respectively. The
value of a in these equations is determined by solving Eq. II in Fig. 2,
which expresses the requirement that the amount of uncertainty be
preselVed when p is transformed into r or vice versa.

4. It was recently proven that the maximum value of S(r)

increases with n, but it is bounded from above by the value logze :::= 1.443.
An estimated value of the upper bound of S(r), obtained by extrapolating
numerical results for 2 ~ n ~ 21, is even smaller: 0.892; the maximum
values of S(r) are shown in Fig. 3, while Fig. 4 shows the values of
possibilities rz, r3, ..., rn for which (together with r I = 1) the maxima are
obtained. Since N(r) £ [0, logzn], S(r) in Eq. II in Fig. 2 may often be
neglected (especially for large n) to simplify the transformation and reduce
computing cost This simplified version of information preselVing
transformations was also analyzed for intelVal and 10g-intelVal scales. The
results were essentially the same: the intelVal scale transformations do not
exist for some given possibility distributions; the 10g-intelVal scale
transformations always exist and are unique.
5. Ordinal scales are too flexible and, consequently,
422

transfonnations based upon them are in general not unique [14,21]. This
flexibility is not necessarily a disadvantage since it allows us to employ
additional requirements. We may require, for example, that the degree of
probability-possibility consistency, c, expressed by the fonnula
n
C =E Pi e ri
(7)
i .1

be maximized, or that certain second order properties of the distributions

be maximally preselVed [3]. Although a convenient fonnulation of
ordinal-scale transfonnations that preselVe infonnation has been presented
[21], it involves some challenging mathematical and computational
problems that have yet to be researched.

From probabilities to possibilities: p. "'r.

I I

a
Eg.!: r.- (Pi)
-
I Pl

Pi

Eg.JI::
,
f
H(p)
I

I
. N(r) + S(r)
I
a.

1/0. rj
rj
Pi ..
Eg.JlI:
I/
k.. '
1/
k a.

From possibilities to probabilities: r i ... Pi

Figure 2. Summary of the unique infonnation preselVing

transfonnation based on log-intelVal scales.
 423

1.0 r----.....---,--~-~--~-~-___..._-___r--,...__-__.___-_,

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 L--_~_~_~ _ _~ _ ~ _ ~_ _~ _ ~ _ ~_ _~_ _'

2 10 20
n

Figure 3. Maxima of S(r) for n = 2,3, ...,21.

n ~¢¢o¢o <> 0 0 0 0

20 o:xxx><>oooooo <> 0 0 0

o00ooo00 <> <> <> 0 <> 0 0 0

0‫סס‬oo000 <> <> <> 0 0 0 0 0

¢<)¢<>ooo <> <> <> 0 0

00000<><> <> <> 0

00000000 0 0 0 0 0

00000(>0 0 0 0 0

000<> <> <> 0 0 0 0

00 <> <> <> 0 0

00 <> <> 0 0

10 000 0 0 0

00 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

2 0

o 0.5 1.0

Figure 4. Possibilities r2' r3 , ..., rn for which S(r) reaches its

maximum.
424

3. A COMPARISON WITH OTHER PROBABILITY·

POSSIBILITY TRANSFORMATIONS

Infonnation-preserving transfonnations were compared with three

other types of probability-possibility transfonnations proposed in the
literature. One of them are transfonnations based upon ratio scales:

Pi (8)
r·=_,
1 PI

ri
Pi=------ (9)
r l + r 2 + ... + r n

Another type of transfonnations are those defined by the equations

n
ri = E min (Pi,Pj), (10)
j==1

(11)

which were proposed by Dubois and Prade [4,5]. The third type of
transfonnations, which were proposed by Dubois, Prade, and Sandri [7],
are asymmetric transfonnations. For r ~ p, they are defined by Eq. (11);
for p ~ r, they are defined by the fonnula
n
ri =E Pj'
(12)
j == i

The extent to which the examined transfonnations fail to preserve

infonnation is expressed for n = 2, 3, ..., 256 on logarithmic scale (base 2)
in Fig. 5, where L\ denotes the average difference between the amounts of
uncertainties of given probability or possibility distributions and
uncertainties of the corresponding distributions obtained by the various
transfonnations labelled as follows: RS--transfonnations based on ratio
scales; DP--transfonnations proposed by Dubois and Prade and defined by
Eqs. (to) and (11); AS--the asymmetric transfonnations defined by Eqs.
 425

(11) and (12); NS--infonnation-preserving transfonnations based on 10g-

interval scales, which are defined by the equations in Fig. 2.

0.8

0.6

0.4 r -. p

0.2

0.0

t
~ -0.2

-0.4

-0.6
p .... r
-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4
2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256
n •
Figure 5. Gain of unsupported (biasing) infonnation or loss of real
infonnation by the various probability-possibility transformations.

Klir and Parviz describe several experimental investigations aimed

at comparing the various types of probability-possibility transfonnations by
their capabilities of preserving second-order properties of given
distributions [19-21]. Results of these investigations demonstrate that the
information-preserving transfonnations outperfonn all the other
 426

transfonnations decisively in preseIVing two second-order properties:

marginal distributions obtained from a given joint distribution, and a joint
distribution obtained from marginal distributions of two independent
variables. Details of these investigations and the results obtained are given
in Ref. [21].

4. CONCLUSIONS
The motivation to study probability-possibility transfonnations has
arisen not only from our desire to comprehend the relationship between the
two theories of uncertainty, but also from some practical problems.
Examples of these problems are: constructing a membership grade
function of a fuzzy set from statistical data [1, 2, 6], constructing a
probability measure from a given possibility measure in the context of
decision making or systems modelling [24, 25], combining probabilistic
and possibilistic infonnation in expert systems [9, 16], or transfonning
probabilities to possibilities to reduce computational complexity.
As argued by Klir and PaIViz [21], probability theory and
possibility theory are complementary theories of uncertainty, neither of
. which is weaker or stronger than the other one. According to this view,
any transfonnations that do not preseIVe infonnation are ill-conceived.
This conclusion is reinforced by extensive experimental results, which
show consistently that second-order properties of given distributions are
best preseIVed under the infonnation-preselVing transfonnations.
Infonnation-preselVing transfonnations between probabilities and
possibilities are well developed for 10g-inteIVal scales. Although these
transfonnations are theoretically sound as well as computationally
convenient, they seem to be unnecessarily rigid. Much greater flexibility
would be obtained by allowing ordinal scales. At this time, however,
ordinal-scale transfonnations that preseIVe infonnation are not sufficiently
developed.
The principle of infonnation preseIVation, also referred to as
principle of uncertainty invariance, is not restricted to probability-
possibility transfonnations. It can be applied to transfonnations between
other uncertainty theories as well [14, 16]. If not applicable, it may be
replaced with a weaker principle of minimal infonnation loss [12].
We should mention that the analysis leading to the results
regarding infonnation-preselVing probability-possibility transfonnations,
which are summarized in Sec. 2, has not been published as yet, but it
almost completely mirrors the analysis presented in Ref. [9]. The two
analyses differ in one of the components of total possibilistic uncertainty.
Instead of strife, the published analysis involves an uncertainty measure
 427

referred to as discord [22]. Since strife is now better justified than discord
as the appropriate measure of uncertainty [18], we employ it in this paper
to formulate the information-preserving transformations. Possibilistic
discord is analyzed in great detail in Ref. [8]; our more recent analysis of
possibilistic strife revealed that both functions are bounded from above by
the same value and that they have exactly the same maxima for various
values of n (Fig. 3), but the maxima are obtained for slightly different
possibility distributions (Fig. 4).

REFERENCES
1. Bharathi-Devi, B. and V.V.S. Sarma, "Estimation of fuzzy
memberships from histograms." Information Sciences, 35, No.1, 1985,
pp.35-59.
2. Civanlar, M.R. and H.I. Trussell, "Constructing membership functions
using statistical data." Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 18, No.1, 1986, pp. 1-
13.
3. Delgado, M. and S. Moral, "On the concept of possibility-probability
consistency." Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 21, No.3, 1987, pp. 311-318.
4. Dubois, D. and H. Prade, Possibility Theory. Plenum Press, New York,
1988.
5. Dubois, D. and H. Prade, "Unfair coins and necessity measures:
towards a possibilistic interpretation of histograms." Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 10, No.1, 1983, pp. 15-20.
6. Dubois, D. and H. Prade, "Fuzzy sets and statistical data." European J.
of Operations Research, 25, 1986, pp. 345-356.
7. Dubois, D., H. Prade, and S. Sandri, "On possibility/probability
transformations." Proc.IFSA '91 (Mathematics), 1991, pp. 50-53.
8. Geer, J.F. and G.J. Klir, "Discord in possibility theory." Intern. J. of
General Systems, 19, No.2, 1991, pp. 119-132.
9. Geer, J.F. and G.J. Klir, "A mathematical analysis of information-
preserving transformations between probabilistic and possibilistic
formulations of uncertainty." Int. J. of General Systems, 20, No.2,
1992, pp. 143-176.
10. Henkind, S.I. and M.C. Harrison, "An analysis of four uncertainty
calculi." IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18, No.5,
1988, pp. 700-714.
11. Horvitz, E.J., D.E. Heckerman, and C.P. Langlotz, "A framework for
comparing alternative formalisms for plausible reasoning." Proc. Fifth
National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 210-
214.
12. Joslyn, C. and G.J. Klir, "Minimal information loss possibilistic
428

approximations of random sets." Proc. IEEE Intern. Conf. on Fuzzy

Systems, San Diego, 1992, pp. 1081-1088.
13. Klir, G.J., "Probability-possibility conversion." Proc. Third IFSA
Congress, Seattle, 1989, pp. 408..:411.
14. Klir, G.J., "A principle of Wlcertainty and information invariance."
Intern. J. of General Systems, 17, Nos. 2-3, 1990, pp. 249-275.
15. Klir, G.J., "Developments in Wlcertainty-based information." In:
Advances in Computers, Vol. 36, ed. by M.C. Yovits, Academic Press,
1993.
16. Klir, G.J., "Some applications of the principle of Wlcertainty
invariance." Proc.Intern. Fuzzy Eng. Symp., Yokohama, Japan, 1991,
pp. 15-26.
17. Klir, G.J. and T.A. Folger, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Ciffs (N.J.), 1988.
18. Klir, G.J. and B. Parviz, "A note on the measure of discord." Proc.
Eighth Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, 1992.
19. Klir, G.J. and B. Parviz, "Possibility-probability conversions: an
empirical study." In: Progress in Cybernetics and Systems, ed. by R
Trappl, Hemisphere, New York, 1992, pp. 19-26.
20. Klir, G.J. and B. Parviz, "On probability-possibility transformations."
Proc. NAFIPS'92, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, 1992.
21. Klir, G.J. and B. Parviz, "Probability-possibility transformations: A
comparison." Intern. J. of General Systems, 21, No.1, 1992.
22. Klir, G.J. and A. Ramer, "Uncertainty in the Dempster-Shafer theory:
a critical re-examination." Intern. J. of General Systems, 18, No.2,
1990, pp. 155-166.
23. Lee, N.S., Y.L. Grize, and K. Dehnad, "Quantitative models for
reasoning under uncertainty in knowledge-based expert systems."
Intern. J. of Intelligent Systems, 2, No.1, 1987, pp. 15-38.
24. Leung, Y., "Maximum entropy estimation with inexact information."
In: Fuzzy Set and Possibility Theory, ed. by RR Yager, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 1982, pp. 32-37.
25. Moral, S., "Construction of a probability distribution from a fuzzy
information." In: Fuzzy Sets Theory and Applications, ed. by A. Jones,
A. Kaufmann, and H.J. Zimmermann, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986, pp.
51-60.
26. Stephanou, H.E. and A.P. Sage, "Perspectives on imperfect information
processing." IEEE Trans. on Systems, Mon. and Cybernetics, SMC-17,
No.5, 1987, pp. 780-798.
27. Wang, Z. and G.1. Klir, Fuzzy Measure Theory. Plenum Press, New
York, 1992.
28. Yager, R.R., S. Ovchinnikov, RM. Tong, and H.T. Nguyen (eds.)
Fuzzy Sets and Applications: Selected Papers by LA. Zadeh. Wiley-
Interscience, New York, 1987.
 ANALYZING THE MEANING OF FUZZINESS
IN RANDOM EXPERIMENTS

Maria Angeles Gil

Departamento de Matematicas
Universidad de Oviedo
33071 Oviedo. Spain

In this paper a discussion on the interpretation and management of fuzziness

as a kind ofrandomness is developed in a statistical framework.

1. INTRODUCTION
Statistics is concerned with the making of decisions or inferences about a popula-
tion, on the basis of the information supplied by the performance of some random
experiment associated with that population. Statistics is closely related to uncer-
tainty. since one cannot usually guarantee that the making of decisions or inferences
is developed under absolutely certain conditions and leads to absolutely certain
conclusions.
Types and sources of uncertainty cannot be described in a unique way. Thus.
some common types of uncertainty are randomness and fuzziness, and some common
sources of uncertainty are experimental errors, lack of information, imprecise data
reports, uncertain meaning, and others.
Among the approaches to model uncertainty, Probability Theory and Fuzzy Set
Theory have become the most used ones, and since fuzzy sets were introduced by
Zadeh several authors have studied different connections between both theories.
Maybe, the most controversial connection is that stating that membership
functions characterizing fuzzy sets can be regarded as an "imitation" of probability
distributions. In that way, Lindley (1982,1987) claimed that "... only probability is
a sensible description of uncertainty ...". Criticisms about Lindley's claim have
been presented based on different arguments, from Generalized Information Theory to
Statistics (see Goodman & Nguyen, 1985, Zadeh, 1986, Nguyen, 1987, Klir, 1989,
Goodmanet al., 1991, Maggi, 1991, Weber, 1991, and others).
429
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 429-439.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
430

On the other hand, Hisdal (1982, 1988) particularized Lindley's assertion by

saying that "... a membership value of an exact element to a fuzzy set is
identified with the subject's estimate of the probability that the label or
property defining the fuzzy set would be assigned to that element ...". The
purpose of the analysis in the present paper is to conclude whether or not member-
ship functions can properly be identified with probabilities when fuzziness is con-
sidered to model the uncertainty in some of the stages in random experiments, and to
discuss advantages and inconveniences of managing fuzziness as a kind of randomness
in those stages.

2. FUZZINESS IN RANDOM EXPERIMENTS

Random experiments involving the observation of a random variable can be tradi-
tionally depicted in a schematic way as follows (Figure I):

A..lgnmenlof
the""", EXACTNESS
d.lbutlan

prior
distribution if ~
Spec'lcatlon
lhepor..._
of
or."lItofnlture
I I
RANDOMNESS I
parameter
value 9
or atate ,

A_gnmentof
Pe CJ) x
expoflmental Numeric'"
Quantlftcatlon
dlatrlbutlon
experimental . . • experimental L.- ....... variable
distribution outcome value
EXACTNESS I RANDOMNESS I EXACTNESS

x
exact
•I1-___I~=..
YES (or NOT)
answer to
~
datum occunence
EXACTNESS EXACTNESS

Figure 1. Elements and stages in random experiments

involving the observation of a random variable.
 431

A random experiment is then mathematically modeled as a probability space

(X,2J x,P e) where X is a real subset, 2JX is the associated Borel a-field, and a is
a parameter or state of nature ranging on e, that occasionally (Bayesian framework)
is regarded as a random variable distributed according to a prior distribution ~.
In random experiments the true parameter value or state and the experimental
outcomes are traditionally assumed to be obtained under randomness, and the rest of
elements are supposed to be obtained under exact and precise conditions.
However, in practice fuzziness can be involved in obtaining those last elements,
that is, in the assignment of the prior and experimental distribution, in the quantifica-
tion process of the random variable, in the observer report of the variable value, and
in defining the events of interest associated with the experiment.
To this respect, we can argue that probabilities can be assigned in terms of
imprecise values like «~ 1W>~)), «~)), «1/ll.O!t-e o-\. €eM 1W>fuUe)),

and so on. On the other hand, the quantification process in the random variable can
associate with each experimental outcome an imprecise value like « a 41~ 'WIAfP.
41a£ue. », or « a tTTVX£eN:tte 41aRae )), or others. In a similar way, the observer can report
the exact variable value through imprecise ones. Finally, the definition of events of
interest associated with the random experiment can involve imprecision, in the sense
that one cannot answer YES or NOT to their occurrence based on exact observer
reports, but rather one prefers to supply the "degree" of occurrence of those events.
Obviously, the four situations we have described can arise combined in the same
problem. Furthermore, fuzziness can be involved in getting the parameter value or
state and/or the experimental outcomes, although this last fact does not affect the
development and application of Probability Theory, since those elements are not
necessarily assumed to be real values or exact outputs.

3. A DISCUSSION ON THE PROBABILISTIC

MEANING OF FUZZINESS
Let Yl be a fuzzy element in a random experiment modeled by the probability space
(X,2J x ,P e)' and let ~ Jl be the membership function characterizing ;;t, ~ Jl(x)
being the degree to which x agrees with YL In this section we are going to discuss
whether or not membership value ~ ix) can be adequately identified with the subject's
estimate of the probability of Yl given x.
432

To that purpose, we have developed in a previous paper (l992b) an extensive

discussion on the suitability of the identification above when fuzziness is involved
either in the numerical quantification stage, or in the observer report, or in the
definition of events of interest. From that discussion we have concluded that

* When fuzziness arises in the numerical quantification process

the identification does not make any sense, since actually an exact
value x is not necessarily given before getting 51-. On the other hand, for a
given input x (the experimental outcome) we get only one output 51- (the
fuzzy variable value associated with that outcome), so there is not any kind of
randomness underlying the numerical quantification stage.

* When fuzziness arises in the observer report the identification

could make some sense. More precisely, for each input x (the variable
value) we cannot guarantee the uniqueness of the output 51- (the observer
report), since otherwise the fuzzy datum 51- could be identified with an
incomplete (nonfuzzy) datum. Thus, the reports of a given variable value could
vary (from observer to observer, or from an experimental outcome to another
one with the same variable value), so there is a kind of randomness underlying
the observer report.

* When fuzziness arises in the definition of events ofinterest the

identification does not make proper sense, since actually we are not
going to assign 51- to the variable value x. Thus, if the imprecision in the
definition of events of interest is properly characterized in terms of fuzziness,
it means that for a given x (the observer report) we are not able to answer
YES or NOT to the occurrence of 51- (the event of interest), but we prefer to
state that it occurs with a specified degree f.1>t(x). It has to be emphasized that
the answer to occurrence of an event could alternatively vary from person to
person, but that variation would mean that the imprecision in the definition of
events of interest would not be appropriately characterized in terms of fuzziness.

The preceding conclusions can be summarized as follows (Figure 2).

 433

INPUT OUTPUT UNIQUENESS

OF
OUTPUTS

c.o ~~:::::::;:-:::;:-::=:::::::::::::::::':::i~~j

-----~.~:~ ~onlllio.llon :~: •

YES
eYnerimental
-~utcome
!!t w ...•..•...••••••.•••.••••••• J: variable
fuzzy (nD RRnDOmnESS)
value
r:·:fu:z·z.:nl:••'·:l
::;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;..:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::;;

NOT
(excepting when
:> fuzzy datum =
incomplete-nonfuzzy
datum)
(RRnDOmnESS??)

-_X-"""l.~!li::::':::'i;~;;:::::::::I'1-! ~_51_(_X)_ _"""l"~ YES

exact ~~\:::::::.::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::~§ degree of (nD RRnDOmnESS)
datum occurrence of 51

Figure 2. Essential differences in the effects of fuzzines

in some of the stages of a random experiment.

On the basis of the discussion we have just presented, we are now going to
develop that corresponding to the assignment of (prior and experimental) probability
distributions.
The assignment of probabilities could be accomplished in accordance with either
an objective or a subjective approach, and the discussion about the meaning of fuzzy
probabilities will depend on the considered approach. Thus,

* If the assignment of probabilities is objective in nature the

identification between fuzziness and randomness could make
some sense, since objective probabilities have to be given by exact real
values. So, if we consider the objective approach and probabilities are assumed
to be imprecisely known, then the interpretation of fuzziness in those proba-
bilities is similar to that in the observer report.
434

* If probabilities are subjective in nature the

identification
between fuzziness and randomness does not make any sense,
since exact probabilities are not necessarily underlying the assignment of the
fuzzy ones. More precisely, the interpretation of fuzziness in those probabil-
ities is similar to that in the numerical quantification process.

In summary, when available imprecise elements in random experiments are

properly expressed in terms of fuzzy sets, the identification of ~ix) as the subject's
estimate of the probability of jt given x can only make some sense if fuzziness is
involved in the observer report or in an objective assignment of probability distribu-
tions. Anyway, it is worth remarking according to (1992b), that the preceding
conclusions state an intuitive but not a formal way to quantify membership degrees.

4. A DISCUSSION ON TREATING FUZZY ELEMENTS

AS RANDOM ONES
A random set of X associated with the probability space (c;,C,P) (defined on the set
c; of elements -observers, experimental outcomes, ete.- through which randomness
is introduced) is a ~-measurable mapping S from c; to :aX (~ being a a-field on
:aX)' The function $S: X ~ [0,1], so that $S(x) = P(x E S) is called the one-
point coverage function associated with S.
The identification of the membership value ~ jil(x) as the probability of jt given
x in the observer report (and, similarly, in the objective assignment of probabilities)
would imply treating the fuzzy set jt of X as a random set of X whose coverage
function coincides with the membership function of the fuzzy set.
The problem of treating fuzzy sets as random sets has been studied in the
literature of Fuzzy Set Theory. Goodman (1982) and Goodman and Nguyen (1985)
indicated that for any random set one can immediately define a fuzzy set of the same
referential space whose membership function coincides with the coverage function of
the random one. The converse result is not so easy to derive, since the coverage
function does not univoquely characterize the random set that function is associated
with. Nevertheless, for any fuzzy set Goodman and Nguyen constructed the class of
all random sets whose coverage functions coincide with the membership function of
the fuzzy one.
 435

In (l992a) we have particularized Goodman and Nguyen's converse result by

establishing a less general but more intuitive connection according to which: given a
fuzzy number (that is, a normal fuzzy set of X = lR characterized by a quasi-concave
upper semi-continuous membership function), there is at least a random interval (or
random set of X = lR associated with a probability space and characterized by a two-
dimensional random variable whose first component -lower limit- is almost surely
not higher than the second one -upper limit-) whose coverage function coincides
with that of the fuzzy number.
The connections above are theoretical, since the nature of fuzzy imprecision and
random uncertainty is definitively different. Thus, a fuzzy number .9l. is imprecise in
the sense that for a given real value x, one is not able to answer YES or NOT to the
implication of .9l., but one can only assert that .9l. is true or occurs with a certain
degree, J.l jil(x). However, a random interval I is imprecise in the sense that for a
given real value x, each person is assumed to be able to answer YES or NOT to the
implication of I, but the answer is assumed to vary from person to person.
We could now try to take advantage of those connections to quantify membership
degrees by means of the corresponding probabilities. The interest of this quantifica-
tion would be due to the fact that Fuzzy Set Theory is a recently introduced field in
comparison with Probability Theory, that is the most common approach to model
uncertainty and represents a very well-developed theory and, consequently, the collec-
tion of main results in Probability Theory are of course much more extensive than
that in Fuzzy Set Theory.
In our previous paper (l992a) we have presented a discussion on the advantages
and inconveniences of quantifying membership degrees of fuzzy numbers by means of
the probabilities derived from the coverage function of the associated random intervals
in the connection established in that paper. The conclusions obtained, when there are
no clear evidences of randomness in the imprecise elements, are the following ones:

* When we use the objective approach to compute the coverage

function of the random interval, there is an obvious advantage in
treating fuzzy numbers as random intervals: objectivity.
436

However, we can find several inconveniences in treating fuzzy

numbers as random intervals. Thus,
* The use of objective probabilities to compute coverage functions,
usually entails an associated cost for inquiries, pools, etc..
* The random set approach requires a much more complex back-
ground than the fuzzy set one, for a proper understanding and
management of concepts in the considered problem.
* Operations between fuzzy numbers admit a general expression
relating the output of an operation with its inputs, and there are
simple algorithms to perform those operations. On the contrary,
operations between random intervals do not admit a general
expression, and they additionally require to explicit a stochastic
dependence relation that often is not obvious at all.

To illustrate the last assertion we can consider a simple example in which a

person is requested to report the price of a small pizza (2 items added) in three
different places, and the reports are given by: for the fIrst place .9l. =« "eItJJ ~ »,
for the second '13 = « aMcun& 7.5 $ », and for the third one C = «ltathell. ch~ to
mc&ell.ate2j; eX~e'MilJe ». If we want to compute the money a man has spent on small
pizzas during two weeks, and we know that for the first week he has bought one in
the first place and one in the second place, and for the second week he has bought one
in the first and one in the third, then the whole spent money is an imprecise amount
given by (.9l. + '13) + (.9l. + C).
Assume now that reports .91., '13, and C, are identified with fuzzy numbers whose
membership functions are given by

I if O<x$;5 (x-5)/2.5 if 5 < x$;7.5

1l5{(x) = { (lO-x)/5 if 5 < x $; lO Il~(x) ={ (lO-x)/2.5 if7.5 < x$;10
o otherwise o othe~se

if 0 < x $; 2.5
if lO < x $; 15
if 2.5 < x $; lO
otherwise
 437

If the addition is perlonned on the basis of Zadeh's extension principle (1975),

then (.9l. +13) + (.9l. +C) is a fuzzy number whose membership function is given by

(x-5)/5 if 5 < x$; 10

Jl{. ) {. ')(x) = (45-x)/17.5 if 10< x $; 15
Jl+$ + Jl+C { 1 if 5 < x $; 27.5
o otherwise

The associated random intervals according to results in our previous paper

(1992a) are given by IJl= [Y Jl' ZJl], 1$= [7.5 -Z$,7.5 + Z1J], and I c = [Y c,
Zc] where Y Jl is a random variable degenerated at 0, and Y C' ZJl' Z$' and Zc
are random variables uniformly distributed on (0,2.5), (5, to), (0,2.5), and
(10,15), respectively.
If the addition (I.9l.+I'B)+(1.9l.+IC) is perfonned on the basis of Minkowski's
addition of ordinary sets, and we assume that all different involved variables are
independent, we have that (I.9l.+I'B)+(I.9l.+IC) = [U,V], where U and V are
jointly distributed according to an absolutely continuous two-dimensional distribu-
tion having the following density function

(u+v-35)2/625 if 5 < u $; 7.5, 35-u < v S; 30

(u-5)(u+2v-65)/625 if 5 < u S; 7.5, 30 < v S; 40-u
(70v+ lOu-v 2-1275)/625 if 5 < uS; 7.5, 40-u < v S; 35
1O(u-5)/625 if 5 < uS; 7.5, 35 < v S; 45-u
(100u+90v-u2-v2_2uv-2075~625
if 5 < u $; 7.5, 45-u < v $; 40
(u-5)(95-u-2v)/625 if 5 < u S; 7.5, 40 < v $; 50-u
(v-45)2/625 if 5 < u S; 7.5, 50-u < v S; 45
f(u,v) = (v-27.5)2/625 if 7.5 < u S; 10,27.5 < v S; 37.5-u
(u-1O)(65-u-2v)/625 if 7.5 < u S; 10, 37.5-u < v S; 32.5
(70u+8Ov-u 2 -vL 2uv-1706.25)/625
if 7.5 < u S; 10,32.5 < v S; 42.5-u
1O(10-u)/625 if 7.5 < u S; 10, 42.5-u < v S; 37.5
(75v-10u-v 2-1306.25)/625
if 7.5 < u S; 10, 37.5 < v S; 47.5-u
(u-10)(u+2v-95)/625 if 7.5 < u S; 10, 47.5-u < u S; 42.5
(u+v-52.5)2/625 if 7.5 < u $; 10,42.5 < u S; 52.5-u
o otherwise

what means a definitively conversome expression that is much harder to get than that
for the "fuzzy addition". On the other hand, under the assumed independence of the
438

involved variables, the membership function of the fuzzy number (.9l. + 13) + (.9l. + C)
does not coincide with the one-point coverage function of the random interval
(I.9l.+113)+(I.9l.+ I C)·

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Randomness and fuzziness are indeed two different types of uncertainty. Randomness
means the uncertainty associated with occurrence of well-defined elements. Fuzziness
means the uncertainty associated with the definition of ill-defined elements. Random-
ness and fuzziness can arise combined in some problems.
In particular, when fuzziness arises in elements of a random experiment, then
fuzziness can only mean a special kind of randomness if it is involved in imprecise
observer reports or in imprecise objective assignments of (prior or experimental)
distributions. Anyway, if there are evidences about the random nature of that
imprecision, then we have to use random sets to model imprecise elements.
However, if there are no evidences about random imprecision, but there are evidences
of an underlying fuzziness, then it is advisable using fuzzy sets to model imprecise
elements, since there are not real advantages in treating fuzzy sets as random ones.

REFERENCES
1. Gil, M.A. (1992a). A note on the connection between fuzzy numbers and random
intervals, Statist. Probab. Lett., 13,311-319.
2. Gil, M.A. (1992b). Statistical management of fuzzy elements in random
experiments. Part 1: a discussion on treating fuzziness as a kind of randomness,
Inform Sciences (to appear).

3. Goodman, I.R (1982). Fuzzy Sets as equivalence classes of possibility random

sets. In Fuzzy Set and Possibility Theory: Recent Developments, (Yager, RR,
Ed.), 327-343. Pergamon, Oxford.

4. Goodman, I.R and Nguyen, H.T. (1985). Uncertainty Models for Knowledge
Based Systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
5. Goodman, I., Nguyen, H.T. and Rogers, G.S. (1991). On the scoring approach to
admissibility of uncertainty measures in expert systems, J. Math. Anal. Appl. ,
16,550-594.
 439

6. Hisdal, H. (1982). Possibilities and probabilities, Proc. Second World Conf. on

Math. at the Service of Man, 172-175.
7. Risdal, H. (1988). Are grades of membership probabilities?, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems,25,325-348.
8. Kendall, D.G. (1974). Foundations of a theory of random sets. In Stochastic
Geometry, (Harding, E.F. and Kendall, D.G., Eds.), 322-376. J. Wiley, New York.
9. Klir, G.J. (1989). Is there more to uncertainty than some probability theorists
might have us believe?, Int. J. General Systems, 15,347-378.
10. Lindley, D.V. (1982). Scoring rules and the inevitability of probabilities ,Intern.
Statist. Rev., 50, 1-26.
11. Lindley, D.V. (1987). The probability approach to the treatment of uncertainty
in Artificial Intelligence and expert systems, Statist. Science, 2,17-24.
12. Maggi, D. (1991). Relazioni tra Ie misure di informazione senza irobabilita e Ie
misure monotone di Sugeno. Tesi di laurea. Universita di Pavia.
13. Matheron, G. (1975). Random Sets and Integral Geometry. J. Wiley, New
York.
14. Nguyen, H.T. (1987). On modeling of expert knowledge and admissibility of
uncertainty measures, Math. Modeling, 19,222-226.
15. Weber, S. (1991). Uncertainty measures, decomposability and admissibility,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 40, 395-405.
16. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets, Inform. Contr., 8,338-353.
17. Zadeh, L.A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning, Inform. Sciences, Part 1,8,199-249; Part 2,8,301-353;
Part 3, 9, 43-80.
 FUZZY IMPLICATION, AND FUZZY INCLUSION:
A COMPARATIVE AXIOMATIC STUDY

Leonid Kitainik
Computing Center of the Russian Acad. Sci.,
Vavilova 40, 117333 Moscow

e-mail: kitainik@sms.ccas.msk.su

Abstract

Comparative study of axiomatic requirements representing

inference properties of fuzzy implications, and set-theoretical
properties of fuzzy inclusions, is undertaken. Exclusive role
of min-norm in the setting of well-defined fuzzy implications,
and inclusions, is demonstrated.

Keywords: fuzzy implication, fuzzy inclusion, Modus Ponens,

contraposition, distributivity, continuity

A challenging problem in fuzzy studies is simultaneous setting of Fuzzy

Logic, and of Fuzzy Set Theory . A convincing solution of this problem
should include investigating the correspondence between logical
connectives, and set operations. A significant pair of semantically close
connectives/operations is that of fuzzy implication, and of fuzzy
inclusion (in [16], an example of successful application of this analogy
to AI problems is demonstrated). In this paper, an attempt of comparative
study of axiomatic approaches to fuzzy implication, and to fuzzy
inclusion, is undertaken. In particular, models of a unified fuzzy
"implication-inclusion" are discussed.
Fuzzy implications are studied in numerous papers. Generally speaking,
one can find three pri.ncipal approaches in this stream:
- axiomatic study [1,5];
- introducing and theoretical research of diverse models motivated by
classical and fuzzy logic (2,3,19];
- building and verifying empiric models (9].
Within the most propagated model of "t-fuzzy logic", two types of fuzzy
implications are used most frequently: residuated implication (pseudo-
complement), and Kleene-Dienes implication.
441
R. Lowen and M. Raubens (eds.J, FUllY Logic, 441-451.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
442

In contrast with fuzzy implication, the concept of fuzzy inclusion is

studied rather sporadically (see [4] for classification, [6,7,18] for the
study of selected properties, and (10-13] for an axiomatic approach).
Let us compare axiomatic bases, that is, general "external"
requirements to fuzzy inclusion, and to fuzzy implication. We denote by I
the unit interval (0, 1] and recall that a t-norm is defined [17] as an
associative and commutative monoid on I with zero and unit elements 0, and
1. Set 1 =]0,1[, and let t be a t-norm. Following [8], we denote the
0
associated conjunction (resp., intersection), that is, t itself, by /\ (/\
t
stands for /\ with t=min); residuated implication is denoted by ~. For
t
brevity, o:k stands for 0:/\0:/\ ... /\0: h,ith k alphas). Let ~k(t), :::T(t) be
t t t
2
respectively the sets of all "k-nilpotents" (o:k=O), and idempotents (0: =1)
of the corresponding monoid. In this section, arbitrary implication,
inclusion, and negation (supplement) are denoted respectively by ~, s,
and ..,. The latter one is considered as an antitone automorphism (not
necessarily involution) of I.
We start axiomatic considerations with
elementary postulating
- 2
properties of fuzzy implications/inclusions. Let us denote by 3s~(I l a
sublattice of all fuzzy binary relations ~ on I satisfying two basic
conditions:
1'1 (Nonotonici ty). 0:~(3 is anti tone/monotone with respect to <X/(3.
H (Heritage). The restriction of ~ on ~0,1~ is a conventional crisp
implication.

Let ~, and ~ be the smallest, and the greatest elements of 3:

I, <x=Ov(3=1 a, (<X,13)=(1,0)
<x~(3= <x~(3=
{ 0, otherwise {1, otherwise

Next, we denote by 3(P) the truth set of a predicate P on 3, by P -

t
the specialization of a predicate P in a t-fuzzy logic.
A natural idea of constructing well-defined models of fuzzy
implications is postulating their "inference properties" such as are Nodus
Ponens (HP) , Hodus Tollens ([VIr), Contraposi tion (C), etc. (see [1] l. In
the same way, to build satisfactory models of fuzzy inclusions, one can
postulate their "set-theoretical properties" . Wi th 'Browerian'
 443

understanding of these postulates, we can interpret them as formal

requirements to ties between fuzzy implication, and inclusion, on the one
hand, and "primary" connectives, on the other hand. With this
interpretation,
the Modus Ponens MP (aA(a~~»~~ turns into (aA(a~~»~~,
t t t
the Modus Tollens lv.T «a~~)A(~~»~~a changes for «a~~)A(~~»~~a,
t t t
the Contraposition C~ (a~~)~(~~~~a) turns into (a~~)=(~~~~a),

thus establishing links between ~, on the one hand, and

~, on the A,
t
other hand. Actually, the above predicates represent crisp versions of
axioms: though the properties concern fuzzy connectives, they are
formulated as crisp assertions. Alternatively, one can consider an
"internal" fuzzy interpretation of axioms: thus,
l~(t,~)=(V a,~)«aA(a~~)}~~)
t
can be considered (with appropriate interpretation of arbitrariness V) as
a fuzzy assertion, so that a natural output of the corresponding theory
can be thought of as the set of all t-norms and implications, best fitting
the fuzzy ~LPaxiom (in the sense of Bellman - Zadeh principle). We cannot
go far into details of this approach; paradoxically, i t turns to be more
rigid than the original crisp version.
We recall that families 3(MP &MT ), and 3(~1Pt&C~l of implications were
t t
studied in [1], with t, and ~ being respectively the min-norm A, and the

classical negation ~(X=l-o:. In what follows, we reject ,"fI't' Hhich is

implied by fr1Pt&C~,

Turning to inclusions, we see that C has a one-to-one analog in

t
ordinary set theory: A£B ~ "B£/i:. However, ~LPtdoes not seem to have
distinct set-theoretical interpretation. Instead, the link between
inclusion and intersection in ordinary set theory is given by the formula
A£(BnC) ~ (A£B)&(A£C) (we refer to [7] for more extended motivations). In
a "t-fuzzy case", this formula is transformed as above into the equality
which is nothing but Distributivit.v D of inclusion
aC;;;(~A"I)=(ac;;;~)A(aC;;;"I)
t t
t
with respect to intersection (Distributivity can also be considered as an
inference property of implication: a~{~A"I) ~ (a~f3)A(a~"I».
t t
444

Is it possible to combine the above-mentioned models? In other words,

do there exist unified fuzzy "implications-inclusions" possessing well-
defined inference properties HP , C-,' and satisfying a set-theoretical
t
(or, alternatively, inference)
requirement D ? In addition, can the
t
combined models be continuous, or at least semi-continuous?
The answer to these questions depends on properties of t-norms.

Proposition 1 (Basic considerations).

is the exact upper bound of 3 (MP ) in a
( i) Residuated implication ~
t
lattice 3 . A necessary and sufficient condition under which ~ is the
greatest element of 3(frlP ) is lower continuity of t(~,~) with respect to ~
t
in each point (~,~~~).

(ii) With any ~3, ~EI, ~=~~1=1.

(iii) With any ~3(Dt)' ~(t) is a left ~-ideal, that is,

(V ~EI, ~E~(t))(a~~E~(t)).

(iv) With any ~3(Dt&C-,), ~EI, both a~O, and 1~ belong to ~(t) •

Proof. (i) It easily follows from definition that ~ is an upper bound of

3 (!"lP ) . To show that it is the exact upper bound, let us select an
t
arbitrarily small £>0 and define an implication ~:
1, a~~
a~~= _
{
a~~A£, otherwise
1
with 1 being Lukasiewicz' norm. Clearly, ~E3; also, since a~~ is
strictly smaller than a~t3 if satisfies J'1P • So, in any
a~~~O, ~
t
neighborhood of ~, there exists an implication from 3 (MP ); it follows
t
that ~ is an exact upper bound of 3 (MP ). Furthermore, the additional
t
continuity condition is equivalent to the requirement that, for any a, ~,
a~~ belongs to the set ~ll~Al~~?; in its turn, this is equivalent to the
t
assertion ~EJ'1Pt; in such case, ~ is the greatest element of 3 (!1Pt) •

(ii) Follows from Heritage and Monotonicity

(~~~O, a~l~l~l) conditions.
(iii) Let us suppose that t3E~(t), that is, ~2=t3. According to Dt'

a~~=~~~2=(a~~)2, so that a~~E~(t).

2 2
(iv) In virtue of D , (a~O) =~~(O )=a~O; hence, ~~OE~(t). Next, due
t
to C-,' l~=-,a~OE~(t) •
 445

Pro}X>sition 1 (i) motivates a natural question: can residuated

implications themselves }X>ssess other properties in the list, except for
the "seminal" MP ? So, let us study the following dual problem: describe
t
all those t-norms t for which residuated implications satisfy Modus
Ponens, Contra}X>sition, Distributivity axioms, and their combinations.
Set 1l(P)=~t-normslt*3(Pt)~' Let (l; be the (U,())-lattice of all "upper
closed" subsets of I, containing ~Q,1~ (JE(l; iff ~O,1~:;J, and, for any K~J,
sup(K)EJ); in particular, all such J's are complete ~v,/\~-sublattices of
I, but not vice versa. Let us denote by (l;1 the sublattice of (l;, containing
all closed subsets of I . With JE(l;, <xEI , we denote <x* =sup ( [0, <x l()J) ,

<X*=inf~](X,1]()J); clearly, if <XEJ, then (X*=<X.

Theorem 1 (t-norms with distributive residuated implications).
(i) 1l(D) is a (v,/\)-sublattice of the lattice of all fuzzy subsets of
2
I • The mapping t :t~~l(t) establishes an isomorphism between 1l(Dl and (l;,
-1
The co-image t=t (J)E1l(D) of a subset JE<l:, and the corres}X>nding
residuated implication can be calculated using the following formulas
2
<x =<x ;
*
<x/\{J, <xv{J=1
<X1\{J= 2
t { (<x/\fJ) , otherwise

1' <x::>{J
a~(3= { *
(3 , otherwise

(ii) (Modus Ponens plus Distributivity). 1l(~ll&D)=~/\~,

(iii) (Contra}X>sition plus Distributivity). 1l(C&D)=~~~.
(iv) (all properties). 1l(~ll&C&D)=0,

(v) (Distributivity plus continuity), The only lower semi-continuous

tE1l(D) is the min-norm 1\. The subset of all upper semi-continuous t-norms,
-1
belonging to 1l(D) , is exactly t . ((l;1) •

Proof (an outline), (i) Set J=~ (t ), We will prove that t is uniquely
determined by J, and that any JE(l; determines at-norm t- 1 (J)E1l(D),
k k
Combining reflexivity of with D , we derive <X~(X =(a~) =1; hence,
~
t
by definition of~, (If k) (If }'E[O, l[) (<x/\}'::>a k ). It follows that a 2::>a/\}'::>a 3 ;
t t
2 3 2
hence, <x =<x , and (If }'E[<x,1[) (a/\}'=a l. Therefore, the following assertions
t
446

are simultaneously satisfied:

(1) (V k>1)(a
k
=oh;
(2) a2E~(t);
2
(3) t can be reconstructed from the function a :
aA~=(aA~)A(av~)=(aA~)2.
t t
If
2
a <a, then, for each ~E[a
2
,a], ~
224
E[a ,a ]=~a
2
r, so that

a2 2 a] =const.
[<x, Th ere f ore, f or each ArchO1med ean e I ement <x, a 2= (a 2)2 1S
.
1
2
the closest to the bottom non-Archimedean element. In other words, a =a*,
Now, let us calculate a~~. Since, for all residuated t-norms, a$~

implies a~l3=l, and a>~ implies a~~<:13 we derive from (3):

2 2
a~fJ=su~ 'II aA 'I$~ r=su~'I1 (o:A 'I) $~ r=s~ 'IE [(3, 1] I'I $(3 r
t t

If 'IE[fJ,~*[, then, 'I<:'I2<:~2, and 'I2E~(t), so that 'I2$~, in which case, as

is already proved, 'I 2=13 2$~. It follows that a~~<:(3 *. In case when '1>(3 , *
there exist two possibilities. If 13=~*, then ~=inf~l~,l]n~(t)r; it follows

that some I1El~,'Il also belongs to ~(t), so that 'I 2<:T) 2 =T»~ *=~. If 13<f3, *
then [f3 *,'I]n~(t)~0, .
so that 11 can be selected 1n the latter intersection,

and again, i<:T)2=11<:~*>~. Hence, no 'I in 1I3*, 1] satisfies the condition

'I2$~; it follows that a~f3$f3*, which, together with thee already proved
a~f3<:13 *, yields a~f3=~ *.
Since J=~(t) is obviously upper closed for any t-norm, we proved that L

is a monomorphism from TI(D) into ~, and that L- 1 (J) can be reconstructed

using the given expressions. To prove that L is an epimorphism, we define,

for JE~, a function L'(J):I2~I,

aA(3, aV~=l
L' (J) (a,I3)=
{ (aA~)*, otherwise

The only thing needed to prove is that L' (J) is a t-norm, and that
~ ( L' (J) )=J. Commutativi ty and properties of 0, and 1 are straightfon~ard

(say, L'(J)(O,a)=«~AO)*=O*=O, since OEJ). Associativity is implied by an

obvious equality «aAI3)i\'I)*=(<XA(I3A'I)*)*=a*A~*t\'I*. Since for altJ, a*~a,
 447

the equality ~(t'(J))=J is also proved.

(ii) If t possesses at least one Archimedean element y, select

a,#EJy 2 ,y[, a>#. Then a~#=# *>y>a>#, and aAa~#=a>~, so that ~ does not
t
satisfy frlP " The min-norm A obviously satisfies frlPA (aAa~~=aA#~~).
t

(iii) In virtue of (i), (V a>~)(a~~=~*), so that C~ can be written in

the form (V a>~)(~*=(~a)*), which is equivalent to ~*=O*=l, that is, t=@.

(iv) 1?( NF&C&D) =1?( NE&D) n1? ( c&D) =~ A~~ @~=0.

(v) Clearly, A is continuous, and hence. lower semi-continuous. For

each tE'fl(D ), there exists at least one Archimedean element a 2 <a. It
t
2
follows from (i) that tl[(a,a),(a,l)[=a <t(a,l)=a, so that t cannot be
lower semi-continuous.
Next, each tE1?(D ) is obviously upper semi-continuous in each point
t
(a,~) with aA~E~(t), and continuous in each point (a,~) with aA~EJy2,y[,
when y~~(t). So, the only points under question are the limits of
decreasing sequences from ~ (t). I f ~ a ~ is the sequence of this type, and
n
a=lim a n ~~(t),
. th en a 2< a= l'1m a =l'1m an'
2 so tha t t , t ogether W1'th th e
n
function a 2 , is diRcontinuous in (a,a) (and in each (a,~), ~'<:a). On the
0PPOS1'te, 1'f a= l'1m anEJ~(t) , then a 2=a= l'1m a n =l'1m an'
2 and a 2 1S
, upper sem1-
,
continuous in the point a, which, together with the assertion (i) (3 ) ,
implies upper semi-continuity in all (a,~) with ~'<:a. So, a necessary and
sufficient condition of upper semi-continuity of t is lower closeness of
~(t), that is, ordinary closeness, since ~(t) is always upper closed.

Theorem 1 demonstrates the exclusive role of min-norm in the setting of

fuzzy implications, and fuzzy inclusions. In fact, this theorem provides
new characterizations of min-norm:
( 1) it is the only continuous (even more - the only lower semi-
continuous) t-norm possessing distributive residuated implication;
(2) it is the only t-norm (irrespective of continuity), for which
residuated implication, in addition to distributivity, satisfies
the Modus Ponens principle.
(See, however, [14 ] for profound alternative motivations in favor of
Lukasiewicz' norm).
448

For arbitrary, not necessarily residuated connectives, there exists a

surprising contrast between Lukasiewicz' norm, and the min-norm.

Proposition 2 (Contraposition and Distributivity of implications for

Archimedean t-norms l .
For any --')€3 (C-,&D l, with an upper semi -continuous Archimedean t-norm t
t
(~(t)=~O,I~), the following assertions hold:
(il either (VaEI)((a~O=O)&(I~=Oll or (V aEI, ~tO)(a~~=I).

(ii) If t has zero divisors (~2(t)~~0~) then (VaEI)((a~O=O)&(I~=O)),

and ~2(t) is left ~-ideal.

( iii) ~ can not be continuous •

Proof, (i) Let a*=inf~ak~. Let us prove that a*=O for all aEI O' Indeed,
2
let us assume that a>O, and a*>O. Since t is Archimedean, a*<a*, On the

other hand, upper semi-continuity of t implies a;=inf~a2k~=inf~ak~=a* - a

contradiction. In virtue of Proposition I (iv), (V aEI)(a~OE~(t)=~O,I~).
Let us suppose that, for some a, a~O=l. Owing to C-,' this implies
l~-,a=l, and, applying D , we come to (V k)((l~(-,alk)=(l~-,a)k=l), Since
t
inf(~ak~)=O, ~J implies that (V ~tO)(I~~=I), and (V aEI)(V ~tO)(I~~=I).
(ii) The proof of the first assertion repeats (i ), with the only di f.-
ference that the existence of non-trivial zero divisors implies U~~(t)=IO'
Hence, a~O=1 '9 l~-,a=l '9 l~(-,a)k=l, and, selecting k Hith ha) =0, He
k
obtain 1~0=1, Hhich is in contradiction with ~condition (l~O=O), Next,

~E~2(t) ~ ~2=0 '9 (V aEI)((a~~)2=a~~2=a~0=0 '9 a~~E~2(t).

(iii) If ~ is continuous, then ((0~0=1)&(l~0=0)) implies that a
subset ~ a~O IaEI ~ covers [0, I], which is in contradiction ,,,,j th the
condition a~OE~(t)=~O,I~ •

In so far, the existence of implications, satisfying both the

Contraposition, and the Distributivity properties is incompatible Hith
continuity of an Archimedean t-norm.

Theorem 2. For each upper semi -continuous Archimedean t-norm t Hi th zero

divisors, which is, in addition, 10li'er semi-oontinuous in the point
2
(1,I)EI , 3(C-,&Dt)=~~~ •
 449

Proof. Let us suppose that, for some a;tO, 1#1, (X~f3>O. Since t is lower
semi-continuous in (l,ll, sup(a 2 )=1. (fi,ing to D , y2~f3 implies
t
2
(a~y\ =a~y ~a~p>O,
2 Q
so that ..,
a~Y~~2(t), which is in contradiction with
Proposition 2 (ii\. So, a~f3=O for all a;tO, f3;t1. Once more referring to
Proposition 2 (ii), we find (VaEI\((a~O=O)&(l~=O)\, so that ~=~.

So, an implication related to a t-norm of this class, including

Lukasiewicz' norm 1 cannot possess both the Distributivity and the
Contraposition conditions.
With the min-norm, the picture is different. There exists a continual
family of "implications/inclusions" satisfying both the Contraposition,
and the Distributivity conditions. We propose without proof the following
result (see [11] for details) .

Theorem 3 [11] (Characterization of the family 3(C,&DA».

3(C,&DA ) is isomorphic to the set ~ of all non-increasing functions on

a triangle T=~(a,f3)EI2Ia~f3>, ~~:T~I, with fixed values in the angles:

~~(0,0)=~~(1,0)=1, ~~(l,l)=O; more precisely,

An extended study of properties of thus defined fuzzy connectives can

be found in [10-13]. In particular, a subfamily of 3(C,&DA ) satisfying the
Modus Ponens property can be described as follows.

Theorem 4 [12,13] (Characterization of the subfamily 3(MPA&C,&DA».

(i) 3U1PA&C,&DA) is the interval [~, w] in a poset 3( C,&DA\, where

1, asf3
a-=-"f3= {
MP OCXAf3, otherwise

is the greatest "unified" implication/inclusion.

(ii) W is strongly reflexive, antisymmetric due to Kauffmann,

(a;tf3 ~ exwf3;tf3MP )a), and transitive.

1
Continuous t-norms of this class are equivalent to Lukasiewicz' norm -
see, for instance, [15]
450

(iii) None of unified connectives in (~, ~] is continuous.

The "negative" result of Theorem 4 (iii) is not a chance failure, but

the regular phenomenon. There exist diverse "compatibility limits" between
lvell-defined algebraic properties, on the one hand, and continuity, on the
other hand. Two more examples of such "intolerance" are given in the
following assertion.

Proposition 3 [10]. A continuous connective in 3( C.,&D,,) cannot possess:

(i) perfect antisymmetry (a-7~>O ~ ~-7a=0);

(ii) reflexivity+transitivity.

We conclude this paper with two general consequences of the above

considerations:
in axiomatic construction of fuzzy inclusions, min-norm should be
preferred to other t-norms;
- ~en constructing satisfactory implication operators in Fuzzy Logic,
and relations of inclusion between fuzzy subsets in Fuzzy Set
Theory, compromises are required between the "algebra", and the
"topology" of these connectives.

References

1. J.F. Baldwin, B.W. Pilsworth, Axiomatic Approach to Implication for

Approximate Reasoning with Fuzzy Logic. FSS, Vol.3 (1980), N 2.

2. W. Bandler and L.J. Kohout, Semantics of implication operators and

fuzzy relational products, Internat. J. Man-Machine Studies, vol. 12
(1980) .

3. A. Di Nola and A.G.S. Ventre, On fuzzy implication in De Morgan

algebras, FSS, Vol. 33 (1989), N 2.

4. D. Dubois, H. Prade, Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications,

Acad. Press, N.Y., 1980.

5. D. Dubois, H. Prade, A Theorem on Implication Functions Defined from

Triangular Norms, Stochastica, V. VIII (1984), No.3.

6. J. Fodor, On Inclusion and Equality of Fuzzy Sets, In: A. Ivanyi

(ed.) "Proceedings of the 4-th Conference of Program Designers", 1988,
Elte, pp. 249-254.
 451

7. R. Giles, LukasieHicz' s Logic and Fuzzy Set Theory, Int. J. 1'1an-

1'1achine Studies, Vol.8 (1986).

8. S. GottHald, ~mmy-valued Logic and the Treatment of Fuzzy Relations

and of Generalized Set Equations. In: E.-P.Klement, Ll.Valverde (eds.)
"THelfth International Seminar on Fuzzy Set Theory", Linz, 1990.

9. J .B. Kiszka, 1'1.E. Kochanska, D.S. SliHinska, The Influence of Some

Fuzzy Implication Operators on the Accuracy of a Fuzzy 1'1odel. FSS, Vol.
15 (1985), N 2,3.

10. L.1'1. Kitainik, A-'{iomatics and Properties of Fuzzy Inclusions,

Scientific Works of the Institute for System Studies, Issue 10 (1986) (in
Russian) .

11. L.M. Kitainik, Fuzzy Inclusions and Fuzzy Dichotomous Decision

Procedures, In: "Optimization 1'1odels Using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility
Theory", J. Kacprzyk and S. Orlovski <Eds.) (1987), D. Reidel.

12. L. Kitainik, Fuzzy Decision Procedures Hith Binary Relations: Theory

and Applications. KluHer, 1992.

13. L. Kitainik, Fuzzy Implication and Fuzzy Inclusion: Compatibility and

Contradictions, In: E.-P.Klement, U.Hohle (eds.) "Non-classical Logics and
their Applications. 14-th International Seminar on Fuzzy Set Theory
(Abstracts)", Linz, 1992.

14. D. t'lundici, Interpretation of AF C*-algebras in LukasieHicz

sentential Calculus, J. Functional Analysis, 65 (1986).

15. S.V. Ovchinnikov, 1'1. Roubens, On Strict Preference Relations. Fuzzy

Sets and Systems, to appear.

16. E. Ruspini, Similarity Relations and the Semantics of Fuzzy Logic.

In: E.-P.Klement, Ll.Valverde (eds.) "THelfth International Seminar on
Fuzzy Set Theory", Linz, 1990.

17. B. SchHeizer, A. Sclar, Associative Functions and Abstract

Semigroups, Publ. ~Bth. (Debrecen), 10 (1963), pp. 69-81.

18. 1'1. Wygralak, Fuzzy Inclusion and Fuzzy Equality of THo Fuzzy Subsets,
Fuzzy Operations for Fuzzy Subsets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 10
(1983), pp. 157-168.

19. R. yager. On the implication operator in fuzzy logic, Inform. Sci.,

31 (1983).
 ROBUST COMPUTATIONS WITH FUZZY SETS

IDepartment of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Manitoba

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2

2MYCOM, Inc., Kyoto 616, Japan

3Dept. of Instrument & Control Engineering, College of Engineering

Hosei University, Koganei-City, Tokyo 184, Japan

ABSTRACT

The paper addresses the issue of robust computations realized in the framework
of fuzzy sets. First we will refer to some qualitative claims made with this respect in
the existing literature and provide some formal definitions leading to a quantitative
characterization of robustness. The robustness is discussed in terms of a standard
frame of cognition (fl:zzy partition) and static transformations. Comparisons are
made with respect to the corresponding results produced in presence of Boolean
(two-valued) partitions. Numerical examples reveal consistently higher robustness
supplied by fuzzy sets as opposed to that provided by sets.

1. INTRODUCTION

The role of fuzzy sets as formal constructs capable of tolerating imprecision or

incompleteness in available information has been emphasized very frequently. One
can refer e.g., to studies on fuzzy controllers where the robustness property has a
primordial effect on control results. The observations made with this respect have
been qualitative in their nature. So far neither a quantitative analysis is available nor
a thorough explanation of the origin of this robustness (insensitivity) has been
provided.
The main objective of this study is to define formally the terms of robustness
and sensitivity in the setting of fuzzy sets (linguistic variables) as well as clarify
their genuine impact on computations involving either sets or fuzzy sets.
First, we will proceed with basic defnitions and study the robustness property of
fuzzy partitions (Section 2). Several general fmdings regarding a range of possible
values of robustness achievable within a given fuzzy partition will be also reported.
Then the robustness of static transformation will be analyzed in Section 3.
453
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic. 453-462.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
454

2. DEFINITIONS. ROBUSTNESS OF FUZZY PARTITIONS

In this section we will start with the simplest structure in which a single
variable is involved along with one -or several linguistic labels associated with it.
The labels constitute a so-called frame of cognitive perspective, see e.g. [3]. Their
role is to complete partition of the space in which the variable is defined into a
certain number of entities (aggregates). Each of them conveys clear semantics. For
instance, in a space of error variable in fuzzy controller we can distinguish several
terms (linguistic labels) of error such as small negative, negative medium. around
zero. positive small, ... etc. They are afterwards utilized to constitute a structure in
which the overall conttol problem is perceived and represented.
We will also refer to these linguistic labels as forming a fuzzy partition of the
universe of discourse. On the other hand, any Boolean partition of the universe is
formed by sets.
1
Starting from a single linguistic label (i.e. fuzzy set) A let x E X be an exact
pointwise input information available to the system. Then A(x) can be viewed as a
degree to which x has activated (matched) A. Now let us consider a noise-biased
version of x in which noise or imprecision E shifts x into a new biased value, say
x + E. In sequel it causes that A becomes activated at a new level, say A(X+E). Our
intent is to minimize (suppress) the impact of the noise on the derived grade of
membership. This calls for a minimization of a difference (or generally any distance
function) between A(X+E) and A(x). In other words we would like to form a
situation in which A is not sensitive to noises. Despite their occurence the degree of
activation of the linguistic label A should remain fairly the same and close to zero.
Bearing this in mind an obvious measure of sensitivity can be introduced as a
distance function p between the grades of membership A(x) and A(x+£). Denote this
quantity by s(x, E)
=
s(x, E) p(A(x), A(x + £» (I)
If for a certain x, A(X+E) and A(x) are similar this indicates that A is not sensitive to
noises at this point of the universe of discourse. The fIrst argument of (I) is used to
highlight its local character. It directly refers to a certain element of the universe of
discourse as well as the properties of noises. Further analysis of (I) can lead to the
following general fmdings:
(i) the more "fuzzy" A, the lower the sensitivity. A transitional character of
changes of the grades of membership can cope with disturbances by lowering the
values of s(x, E). As we can observe a transom part of the fuzzy set A [5] starts to
playa primordial role in this context.
(ii) sets exhibit zero values of s(x, E) for some values of x. This occurs mainly for
x's being situated relatively far from the ends of the support of A. At the borders of
the support, however, the obtained values of sensitivity attain maximum and are
equal to 1. In this way in some regions of X the sensitivity property attains values
equal to I,
s(x, E) = I
The global measure of robustness has a complementary character to the measure of

IPor clarity of presentation we will assume that A has a continuous membership function
defmed inX.
 455

senslUvlty. Let us assume that the universe of discourse in which A is defined has a
finite cardinality, card (X)<+oo. The measure of robustness rA(e) is thus defmed as
rA(e) = card(X) - s(e)
card(X)
where s(e) is averaged over X. s(e) = L
s(x, e)
x
Note that s(x, e) E [0,1] so that rie) E [0,1]. The higher the value ofrA(e) the
higher the robustness of A.

Subsequently we will study robustness of a family of linguistic labels A=(Al'

A,.,..., AJ constituting a so-called frame of cognition. The previous definitions hold
after slight modifications,
c
s(x, e) = L P(Aj(x), Aj(x+e)) (2)
j-l

s(e) =L s(x, e)
x

rA(e) =cocard(X) - s(e) (3)

cocard(X)

It is also evident that, bearing in mind a stochastic character of noise e, the measures
of robustness for a single fuzzy set as well as the fuzzy partition are random
variables. One can then compute expected values E( in order to derive representative
0
)

values of the overall measure of sensitivity or robustness.

From an experimental point of view it requires that simulation experiments be
repeated a sufficient number of times (the reported values become averaged over the
experiments).
The level of robustness can be increased by admitting partitions with fuzzy sets
of a higher overlap. On the other hand one should observe that the maximal overlap
is not acceptable since it makes fuzzy sets identical (of course the level of robustness
is the highest - any error is cancelled by this partition). The range of robustness one
can achieve depends to a significant extent on the admissible levels of overlap of the
elements of the partition. The limit values of the overlap have a direct impact on the
achieved level of robustness. Certainly, if the error distribution is different from a
uniform one then some extra optimization could elevate the robustness. The
optimization is carried out with respect to the distribution of the fuzzy sets in the
given partition. The following example sheds light on how the robustness and
sensitivity can be affected by various parameters both in fuzzy sets and noises.

Example 1

The aim of this numerical experiment is to study the robustness properties of a

given fuzzy partition and compare them to the robustness of a two-valued (Boolean)
partition induced by the fuzzy one. The frame of cognition defined over X = [1, 5] is
constructed with the aid of three fuzzy sets with Gaussian membership functions, see
Fig. 1.
456

to
/
///
\
.8
\\ I
/
I
\ /
.\

~ .6

i
'"

.4
/1 \\
\

.2
/ \
\"

0
1 2 3 4
"""""--- 5

lC

Fig. 1. Frame of cognition constructed with the use of Ai~ A 2, ~

The induced Boolean partition consists of three sets. It is constructed by detennining

the intersection points of the membership functions Ai and A 2, as well as ~ and A 3
(here 1.42 and 3.66, respectively) and defming three sets as follows
Al(x) ={I, if x ~ 1.42 ~(x) ={I, for x E (1.42, 3.66)
0, otherwise 0, otherwise

A3(x) ={I, if x ~ 3.66

0, otherwise

The results of experiments (40 repetitions) for several standard deviations of noise E
for the fuzzy and the Boolean partition are visualized in Fig. 2 (the distance function
is specified as the Hamming one).

.8
\
I J \ a

~
fullY parUlic:n

I
.6 .... - D
,- .. paltiticn
Bod~an
J
.4
I
I J \
r
I \
.'2 1

0
1 '2 3 5

x
 457
10 r----------.,..-------,
b

.8

.6

.4

.2 1 ' - - - - - - - - ·
2 3 4 5

x
17,------;:====::::;-1 .-. -t funy partitm c
.. - -0 BOOean parlitial
•~
13
..
0
0

'2 3 4 5

J(

Fig. 2. s(x) for fuzzy and Boolean partition for selected standard deviation
of noise (a) (1=0.25 (b) (1=1.0 (c) (1=3.0.

It is obvious that in all the cases the Boolean partition yields higher values of
sensitivity measure. For (1=1 the resulting histograms of s(x) show this property
even more transparently, see Fig. 3.

50

a
40

39
ItL 20

10

0
nrJln Inn
0 .5 \0 15 2.0
458

25 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
b
20

15

10

.5 10
nn 15 2.0

Fig. 3. Histogram of values s(x) for fuzzy (a) and Boolean (b) partition

For the same cognitive perspective and a uniform noise distribution (a random
variable with a uniform distribution over [0, 1]; note that this noise implies a
systematic error equal to 1/2) the results are summarized in Fig. 4.

20

15
n t
~ BOOLEAN PARTITI
( I
r
I J I
~ ; t
10 I f I
I I
1 FUZZY PAATITION
\
.5

0
1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 4. Plot of s(x) (uniform noise distribution)

3. ROBUSTNESS OF STATIC TRANSFORMATIONS

While the robustness of any frame of cognition can be conveniently handled by

visualizing distribution of error, the same approach applies also to static transformations
 459

involving fuzzy sets. These transformations are examples of computational structures.

Their common feature is that any structure from this category exhibits a certain
distributive character of processing, namely each fuzzy set of the input variable is
associated with a fuzzy set of the output variable or with a certain analytical mapping
which is valued in a range of inputs defined by a certain fuzzy set. Thus, in
principle, fuzzy sets induce a certain brittleness of the transformation.
More formally, the robustness of the static transformation y=F(x) can be studied
by analyzing the values of y+~ resulting from F(x+e). In general, if ~ tends to zero
for a certain e the robustness of F increases. The formal definitions are introduced
accordingly.
s(y I x, e) = p(F(x+e), F(x» (4)
where p denotes any distance function. The overall sensitivity is computed over all
x's
s(y I e) = ~ p(y I x, e) (5)
x
The definition of robustness is built based on (4) and (5). Note, though, that we
cannot, in advance, specify an upper limit of s(y I x, e) since the resulting values of
the mapping do not necessarily lie within the unit interval. The robustness of the
mapping as defined above depends on the mapping F as well as (implicitly) the fuzzy
partition of the input space.

Example 2

The fuzzy model constructed now uses an architecture of the Cerebellum Model
Articulation Controller (CMAC), see [1], refer also to [2] regarding the interpretation
of the CMAC in the context of fuzzy modelling and fuzzy controllers.
For illustrative purposes we will concentrate on a single-input single-output
model. The architecture of the fuzzy model can be specified accordingly:

(i) the input variable is partitioned into several linguistic labels say AI' ~, ...Ae'
Input data (which might be numerical or, non-numerical) are transformed into the
corresponding levels of activation of A;.s. Denote this vector of activations by
x.
(ii) The transformation of x to the output variable is carried out by a relational
structure, namely
z=xoR ~
where "0" denotes a standard Sot composition, cf. [4], Chapter 5.
(iii) At last the grades of membership z are re-transformed into a scalar quantity
representing the numerical output of the fuzzy model. This is accomplished
accordingly
- -
y = ZlYl + Z2yZ + zpYP (7)
Zl + Z2 + Zp
where Yl, Y2 and yp are selected numerical values defined in the space of the output
variable of the model.
Assuming that yj's are specified in advance, the relational structure has to be
determined by computing the fuzzy relation R. The supervised learning is based on a
460

series of numerical input-output values. The entries of R can be easily derived

through a standard gradient-descent method, see [4], Chapter 9. Because of the overall
structure (6) - (7), the learning has a reinforcement character.
In the numerical studies we will exploit the s-t composition with t-norm being
the product operator and s-norm implemented as a probabilistic sum. Furthermore
we will consider three fuzzy sets in the input space, see Fig. 5 including also an
induced Boolean partition.

10

!
t'

/
.8

6
I
/
4 /

0
0 2 4 8 10

Fig. 5. Fuzzy partition and its Boolean counterpart

The data set and the results produced by the obtained relational structure (based on the
fuzzy partition) are summarized in Fig. 6.
8r------------------.

•
2 0~---::::2----:-4---6:----------l10

x
Fig. 6. Data set and results of the relational structure
 461

The fuzzy relation obtained in that way is equal to

R _ [ 0.03 0.02 0.52 ]
- 0.34 0.02 0.42
0.96 0.18 0.16
The same identification process completed for the Boolean partition of the input
variable yields the following relation:
R _ [ 0.03 0.08 0.47 ]
- 0.27 1.00 0.26
0.31 0.10 0.05
Interesting are the results of robustness obtained in the two models (viz. with the
fuzzy and the two-valued partition). Both for the uniform distribution of noise
situated in [-0.5,0.5]) as well as in the case with the Gaussian noise of a standard
deviation equal to 1.5 the model with the fuzzy partition exhibits higher robustness
(lower sensitivity). The sensitivity of these two partitions becomes dominant at the
intersection points of their membership functions however the fuzzy partition is
characterized by significantly lower error amplitudes the values of the distance function
between F(x+e) and F(x», see Fig. 7.

Again as one could have noticed the fuzzy partition plays a profound stabilizing role
in the computations.

4. CONCLUSIONS

We have introduced and quantitatively characterized robust computations completed

with the help of fuzzy sets. It has been experimentally verified that the robustness
achieved for fuzzy partitions is higher than the corresponding measure of robustness
for the induced two-valued partition. Furthermore we have considered limit values of
robustness determined by some constraints imposed on fuzzy partitions (such as
overlap of their successive elements). For specific probabilistic characteristics of
noise affecting input variable the robustness level could be additionally elevated by
optimizing linguistic labels (in sense of their modal values and spreads). The results
can be directly found useful in designing various static transformations such as, for
instance, fuzzy controllers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
is gratefully appreciated.
462

20
a
..'Iota
~oo~n~~
Qf -. 4
15 I, +

I.'I ~
10 "
'\ I,
I. +

I I 'I
),
.5 I~
,\ '\
fuzzy partitiCl1 J, 1.
etal Qfcr-0074
LJ ;L
2 4 8 to
output

4r------------------,
b

3 +
Bcdear, partltiCl1
\ total Qfcr- 1868
"
2 'I
/Ij 1
If '\
),
I I
~ ~ t \
fl.!ZZY partiti~ 'I t) ~
total errcr-u373.\ , I \
I +
-~
4 6 8 10

o'Jtput

Fig. 7. s(y) for fuzzy partition and its Boolean counterpart.

(a) Gaussian noise (b) uniform noise [-0.5,0.5)

5. REFERENCES

1. J .A. Albus, "A new approach to manipulator control: The Cerebellar Model
Articulation Controller (CMAC)",Trans. of the ASME, 9, 1975,220-227.
2. K. Hirota, W. Pedrycz, "Logic based neural networks", Information Sciences,
submitted.
3. W. Pedrycz, "Fuzzy set framework for development of a perception perspective",
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 37, 1990, pp. 123-137.
4. W. Pedrycz, "Fuzzy Control and Fuzzy Systems", 2nd edition, Research Studies
Pressfl. Wiley, Taunton, New York, 1992.
5. E. Roventa, "On the degree of fuzziness of a fuzzy set", Fuzzy Sets and
Systems~ Vol. 36, 1990, pp. 259-264.
ENGINEERING
 A Self-Tuning Method of Fuzzy Inference Rules
by Descent Method
Hiroyoshi Nomura, Isao Hayashi, Noboru Wakami
Central Research Laboratories
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
3-15, Yagumo-Nakamachi, Moriguchi, Osaka, 570 JAPAN

Abstract
In this paper, we propose a self-tuning method of fuzzy inference rules
by a descent method. From input-output data, the inference rules ex-
pressing the input-output relation of the data are obtained automatically
using the proposed method. The membership functions in antecedent
parts and the real numbers in consequent parts of inference rules are
tuned by means of the descent method. The learning speed and the
generalization capability of this method are higher than those of a con-
ventional backpropagation type neural network. In order to demonstrate
these advantages over the conventional neural network, some numerical
examples, an application to a mobile robot that avoids a moving obstacle
and its computer simulation are reported.

INTRODUCTION

In order to provide fuzzy reasoning with learning function, works are being
carried out to combine a fuzzy reasoning and a neural network. Under these
efforts, the neural network driven fuzzy reasoning[l], the self-tuning method by
Bopfield neural network[2] etc. had been proposed. But, these methods don't
have a sufficient generalization capability and high speed learning capability.
For the purpose of solving such tuning problem, we propose a new self-tuning
method offuzzy inference rules using a descent method[3, 4].
In this self-tuning method, triangular formed membership functions of the
antecedent part and a real number of the consequent part are assumed. The
center value and the width of the triangular membership function and a real
number of consequent part are tuned by means of the descent method[5].
The learning speed of this method are higher than that of a conventional
backpropagation type neural network[6] since only the inference rules matched
input data are tuned. Furthermore, unlike the case of neural network, this
method has a capability to express the knowledge acquired from input-output
data in terms of fuzzy inference rules.
465
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 465-475.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
466

Aij
1.0···························

0.01--~=

Figure 1: Membership Function of Antecedent Part

In this paper, the algorithm of the proposed method is explained first, and
its high speed learning capability is explained next by referring some numeri-
cal examples. Then, in order to demonstrate its generalization capability, an
application to a mobile robot which is capable of avoiding a moving obstacle is
reported.

A SIMPLIFIED FUZZY REASONING

When the input are expressed by Xl, X2, ... ,X m , and the output is expressed
by y, the inference rule of simplified fuzzy reasoning[7] can be expressed by the
following.

Rule i:
If Xl is Ail and ... and Xm is Aim then y is Wi. (i = 1, ... , n)
where i is the rule number, A ij , (j = 1, ... , m) are the membership functions
of the antecedent part, and Wi is a real number of the consequent part.
The membership function Aij of the antecedent part is expressed by an
isoscales triangle shown in Figure 1. The parameters determining the shape of
membership function are the center value aij and the width bij. The member-
ship value is derived by the following formula.

(1)

where bij > O.

The output of fuzzy reasoning y. can be derived from the equations shown
below.
 467

Output Layer

Hidden Layer

Input Layer

Figure 2: Network Structure

JLi = II Aij(xj) (2)

j=l

2:JLi' Wi
i=l
Y = ':='=n-- (3)

where JLi is the membership value of i-th inference rule.

The simplified fuzzy reasoning can be expressed by the three layered network
structure shown in Figure 2, which shows processing units (0), membership
functions A ij and real numbers Wi (0).
The processing unit of the output layer is to derive the weighted average
according with Eq. 3, and the processing units of the hidden layer are to
calculate the membership value JLi of inference rule shown in Eq. 2.
In this self-tuning method, the membership functions and the real numbers
expressed by (0) are tuned by means of the descent method like a neural
network[6].
468

SELF-TUNING BY DESCENT METHOD

Algorithm of Self-Tuning
A descent method[5] is to search for the vector Z which minimizes an ob-
jective function E( Z), where Z is a p-dimensional vector of the tuning param-
eters, (Zl, Z2, •.. , zp). In the descent method, the learning rule for searching is
expressed by the following formula.
aE(Z)
Zi(t + 1) = z;(t) - K----a;:- (i = 1, ... ,p) (4)

where t is a number of iteration of learning and K is a constant. Altering

Z according to this learning rule, the value of the objective function E(Z)
converges into a local minimum[5].
In the self-tuning method proposing here, the parameters of inference rules
are tuned so as to minimize the following objeCtive function E .

(5)

where yr is the desirable output. The objective function E means the inference
error between the desirable output yr and the output of fuzzy reasoning y. By
substituting Eqs. 2 and 3 into Eq. 5, the objective function E can be expressed
by the following.

(6)

Since the shape of membership function A;j is defined by the center value aij
and the width bij , the objective function E consists of the tuning parameters
aij, bij , and Wi. Therefore, when the vector Z is defined as the follows, this self-
tuning method of fuzzy reasoning can be an application of the descent method,

(7)

where p = 2nm+ n
Using Eq. 4, the learning rules of simplified fuzzy reasoning are expressed
by the following formulas.
aE
a;j(t + 1) = a;j(t) - K a aa;j (8)

aE
b;j(t + 1) = b;j(t) - Kb ab (9)
ij
 469

Wi(t + 1) = Wi(t) - K w -
aE (10)
aWi
Eqs. 8 to 10 show respective (t + l)th values of tuning parameters. Ka,Kb and
K w are constants. By substituting Eqs. 1 '" 3 into Eqs. 8 '" 10, the learning
rules of the simplified fuzzy reasoning can be expressed by Eqs. 11 to 13 shown
below.
Pi r 2.sgn(Xj- aij(t))
aij(t+1)=aij(t)-KaLP/Y-Y)(Wi(t)-y) Aij(Xj)bij(t) (11)

fJ" 1-A.,(x·) 1
bij(t+1)=bij(t)-KbL~/y-yr)(wi(t)-Y) Aij(~j/ bij(t) (12)

Wi(t + 1) = Wi(t) - Kw ,/:i (y _ yr) (13)

LJPi
where sgn(z) is a positive or negative sign of z.
The learning rules of Eqs. 11 to 13 are to adaptively change the tuning
parameters for the direction to minimize the objective function E. Thus, using
the learning rules of Eqs. 11 to 13, the tuning parameters of inference rules are
optimized so as to minimize the inference error between the desirable output
y r and the output of fuzzy reasoning y.

Procedure of Self-Tuning
A typical iterative learning procedure is shown in the following.

[Step 1] An initial setting of inference rules is conducted first. The initial

value of aij is so set that the domain of input Xj is divided equally. The
initial value of width bij is set to allow enough overlaps of membership
functions.

[Step 2] The input-output data (Xl, ... ,xm,yr) is inputed.

[Step 3] Fuzzy reasoning is performed for the input data (Xl," ., x m ) by using
Eqs. 1 to 3.

[Step 4] Tuning of the real numbers Wi of consequent parts is performed ac-

cording with Eq. 13.

[Step 5] The fuzzy reasoning conducted in [Step 3] is repeated.

[Step 6] Tuning of the center value aij and the width bij of membership func-
tions of the antecedent parts is conducted according with Eqs. 11 and
12.
470

[Step 7] The inference error E(t) is calculated from Eq. 14, and [Step 3] to
[Step 6] are repeated until its change I E(t) - E(t - 1) I is less than a
threshold value.

(14)

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

In order to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed method, some ex-

ample systems are identified as fuzzy inference rules. Three nonlinear systems
of Eqs. 15 to 17 shown below are taken up as examples. These systems have
two input Xl, x2 and one output y.

System 1: y = 2xi + 4x~ (15)

System 2: y = 4 sin( 1l"Xl) + 2 cos( 1l"X2) (16)

System 3: y = (3exp(3xd + 2exp(- 4x 2))-0.s (17)

By changing the input Xl, X2 in Eqs. 15 to 17 according to random numbers,

forty input-output data are generated respectively. From these, twenty input-
output data for identification and twenty input-output data for evaluation are
prepared in each system. (The output data yr is normalized within [0, 1].)
Applying the self-tuning method to the twenty input-output data for iden-
tification, the inference rules expressing the input-output relation of the given
data are constructed automatically. In this case, sixteen inference rules are
used. The self-tuning method stops the learning when the inference error E'
for the identification data is less than 0.02, where the inference error E' is
derived by Eq. 18 in the following.
20
E' = 2)yq - y;)2 (18)
q=l

where q mean the data number.

Table 1 shows the inference errors E' for the evaluation data, and the number
of iteration of learning, when the learning is stopped.
Table 1 shows also the inference errors and the number of iteration for
learning obtained by backpropagation type neural network applied to the same
data. In this case, the neural network consists of three layers including two units
in the input layer, sixteen units in the hidden layer, one unit in the output layer.
Table 1 shows that the inference errors attained by the present method are
less than those obtained by the neural network for all of the systems. This shows
 471

Table 1: Comparison with Neural Network

System
No. Present Method Neural Network
Inference Error
---
for Evaluation Data 0.0474 0.0537
1
The Number
of Iteration ~
80 3138
Inference Error
for Evaluation Data 0.0365 0.1097
2
The Number
of Iteration 81 11794
Inference Error
for Evaluation Data 0.1187 0.1755
3
The Number
of Iteration 32 2868

the higher capability of this method to express the input-output relation, and
the number of iteration for learning are substantially less than those obtained
by neural network also. In another word, this means the learning of proposed
method can be executed in substantially shorter period.

APPLICATION TO A MOVING OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE

The proposed method has high generalization capability. In order to verify

the capability, this method is applied to a computer simulation of a moving
obstacle avoidance.
The purpose of this control is to let a mobile robot have a capability to
judge the environment wherein it is placed, and to control its steering to arrive
at a target point avoiding a moving obstacle. Figure 3 shows the input variables
involved in this moving obstacle avoiding problem.
The input-output variables of this simulation are shown below.

Input Xl[m] Distance between mobile robot and obstacle.

x2[deg] Angle between mobile robot and obstacle.
X3[m] Distance between mobile robot and target point.
x4[deg] Angle between mobile robot and target point.
Output y[deg] Change of steering angle of mobile robot.

Precondition shown below for this obstacle avoiding problem are assumed
472

Target
Point

Figure 3: Input Variables for Moving Obstacle Avoidance

in this case, i.e.,

1. The mobile robot never encounter plural obstacles at a same time.
ii. Only the steering angle of mobile robot is controlled, and the driving
speed is constant.
Ill. No dynamics of mobile robot are considered.
IV. Although the obstacle is movable, the target point is fixed.
A computer simulation is conducted by taking the following procedure.
1. An initial setting of the inference rules is made first according with [Step
1]. Five membership functions are provided for each of four input vari-
ables. Therefore 625(= 54) inference rules are provided in total. The
domain of X2 and X3 is [-180,180], the domain of Xl and X3 is normalized
within [-1, 1], and the clockwise direction of steering angle y is regarded as
positive. The width of initial membership functions for distance (Xl, X3)
and angle (X2' X4) are set at 180 degree and 1.0 respectively, and all initial
real numbers of consequent parts are set at 0.0.
2. An operator controls the steering angle of mobile robot by using a manual
controller for avoiding the obstacle. The avoiding movement of mobile
robot is taught for two movement patterns of the obstacle. At this time,
the input values (Xl, X2, X3, X4) and the change of steering angle yr inputed
by the operator are acquired as the input-output data. The number of
acquired input-output data is 66. These two movements of mobile robot
are shown in Figure 4, which shows the robot(O) and moving obstacle
(0)·
 473

(a) (b)

Figure 4: Robot Tracks Taught by an Operator

3. Tuning of fuzzy inference rules is performed by using [Step 3]...... [Step 7].
In this case, the number of iteration for learning is set at 10.

Next, letting the robot to make an automatic obstacle avoiding movement

by using the optimized inference rules. Several typical mobile robot movements
are shown in terms of the robot tracks in Figure 5.
Figures 5 (a) and (b) show the movements of the mobile robot, when the
obstacle is moved along the same pattern with the taught pattern shown by
Figures 4 (a) and (b), the mobile robot left tracks smoother than those which
are taught.
Figures 5 (c), (d), and (e) show the movements of the mobile robot, when
the obstacle is moved along the moving patterns which are different from the
taught pattern. Figure 5 (c) is a case when the obstacle is moved toward the
mobile robot by a steeper angle than that originally taught, and Figure 5 (d)
shows a case when the obstacle is moved by a smoother angle on the contrary,
and Figure 5 (e) shows a case when the obstacle is approached at a steeper
angle from an opposite angle.
These experiments show that the mobile robot is capable to avoid the obsta-
cle without colliding even though the obstacle is moved along patterns which are
different from the taught patterns. It can be conclude this self-tuning method
has a high generalization capability.

CONCLUSION

A self-tuning method of fuzzy inference rules by the descent method is pro-

posed. The membership functions in antecedent parts and the real numbers
in consequent parts of simplified fuzzy inference rules are optimized by this
method. Applications to some numerical examples and moving obstacle avoid-
ing problem are reported. In these applications, high-speed learning capability
and generalization capability of this method are shown.
474

(a) (b)

I, '

(c) (d)

I I

(e)

Figure 5: Robot Tracks Controlled by Optimized Inference Rules

 475

REFERENCES

[1] I. Hayashi, H. Nomura, H. Yamasaki and N. Wakami: "Construction

of Fuzzy Inference Rules by NDF and NDFL" International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning, Vo1.6, pp. 241-266, 1992.

[2] H. Nomura, I. Hayashi, N. Wakami : "Self-Thning Method of Fuzzy Rea-

soning by Hopfield Neural Network", Proceedings of 5th Fuzzy System
Symposium, pp. 177-182,1989. ( in Japanese)

[3] H. Nomura, I. Hayashi and N. Wakami: "A Self-Thning Method of Fuzzy

Control by Descent Method", Proceedings of 4th IFSA Congress, Engi-
neering, pp. 155-158, 1991.

[4] H. Nomura, I. Hayashi and N. Wakami: "A Learning Method of Fuzzy

Inference Rules by Descent Method", Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 203-210, 1992.

[5] H. B. Curry: "The Method of Steepest Descent for Nonlinear Minimization

Problems", Quart. J. Appl. Math., 2, pp. 258-261, 1944.

[6] D. E. Rumelhurt, G. E. Hinton and R. J. Williams: "Learning Internal

Representations by Error Propagation", Parallel Distributed Processing,
pp. 318-362, 1986.
"~-,
[7] M. Maeda and S. Murakami: "Self-Thning Fuzzy Logic Controller", Trans-
actions of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers, Vo1.24, No.2,
pp. 191-197, 1988. ( in Japanese)
 MATHEMATICAL MORPHOLOGY
BASED ON FUZZY OPERATORS

V. Di Gesu +, M. C. Maccarone *. M. Tripiciano *

+ Dip. Matematica ed Applicazioni, Universit(] di Palermo. Palemw, Italy

* 1st. Fisica Cosmica e Applicazioni dell'lnformatica. CNR. Palernw, Italy

INTRODUCTION

A vision procedure may be considered as the repeated application of image

operators until the vision goal is reached. The type of these operators and the spaces
on which they are defined and act depends on the specific problem and on what we
are searching on the image. Morphological operations, as filtering, edge detection,
skeletonizing, and so on, are mainly required at low and medium levels of the vision
procedure, where local and global knowledge is used to enhance the image
information content, before a final decision about the image is taken.
Mathematical morphology [1,2,3] provides an approach to analyse digital
images based on shape features; it studies the morphological transformation of an
image (erosion, dilation, and their combinations) under the application of local
operators, named "structuring elements"; the appropriate definition of such operator
allows to perform the required transformation. It follows that mathematical
morphology can play a very important role in the low and medium level vision
phases to preserve relevant shape features.
Mathematical morphology theory has been fully developed on binary images,
and boolean operators applied on classical sets are enough to develop morphological
operators. Its extension to gray-tone images is naturally performed via "min" or
"max" operations, by mainly using the concept of "umbra" [1,3,4]; in this case,
input image and/or structuring element are assumed to be a multi-set, in which each
component is a binary image obtained by thresholding the input data at a given gray-
tone level. Boolean morphological operators are then applied to each component and
the global output image is obtained by an opportune superposition of the resulting
processed components [5,6,7].
On images with values defined in the real domain (real images), a gray-tone
segmentation could not be adequate: fuzzy set theory [8,9] can be successfully used
in this case and solutions have been proposed in the framework of the fuzzy logic
and of the pattern recognition [10,11,12].
Aim of this paper is to show an extension, based on the fuzzy set theory, of
the mathematical morphology to analyse real images: the main idea has been [13] to
transform the original image in a fuzzy set, so that the pixel value may be
interpreted as its membership degree to the original data set. The fuzzified image is
then processed via morphological operators defined in the fuzzy space as extension
477
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.). Fuzzy Logic, 477-486.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
478

of the boolean classical ones. Finally, the application of appropriate fuzzy logical
operators, related to the classical ones, allows to obtain low and medium level
desired results. Gray-tone and real images, either continuous and sparse, have been
used to check the consistency and the performances of the method here proposed.
The program codes have been implemented in FORTRAN 77 on a SUN-
4/110, and integrated as context, named MMFUZZY [14], in the open MIDAS [15]
environment for image analysis and processing.

CLASSICAL MORPHOLOGICAL OPERATORS

Given an image, I, and a structuring element, SE, the two neighbourhood

operators, - and ~ , are at the basis of the classical mathematical morphology:

I - SE = {y I SE cI} the erosion

x
I -} SE = (IC - SE)C = {y I SE cIC}C the dilation
x
(I-SE)-tSE the opening
(I 1- SE) - S E the closing

where "C" represents the complement of a set, and where SEx is the translation of
SE on I, by mapping its own "central pixel" on the image pixel "x". The
transformation obtained by applying a morphological operator on an image is
strictly dependent on the geometry and topology of the structuring element, and on
the definition of its "central pixel". Fig.l shows the results of erosion, dilation,
opening, and closing on a binary image, via a flat square binary structuring element
3x3, with central pixel in position (2,2). Erosion and dilation reduce and enlarge the
input image, respectively (Fig. I-b,c); opening and closing smooth the image
contours from the inside and outside, respectively (Fig. I-d,e).

f
J1P a) b)
I 1fJd) e)
Fig.] - The four basic morphological operators applied via a 3x3
centred flat square structuring element; a) input image; b) erosion; c)
dilation; d) opening; e) closing.

The· and -} neighbourhood operators satisfy several algebraic properties [1],

as listed below, where II and 12 are two input images, and where SEI and SE2
are two structuring elements:

II -} (SEI U SE2) = (II -} SEI) U (II -} SE2)

II . (SE I U SE2) = (II· SE I ) n (II· SE2)
 479

II + (SEI SE2) n k; (II -} SEI) n(II + SE 2)

II 0(SEI SE2) n ;;;? (11 SEI) U (11
0 0
SE2)
(II n
12) SEI0
= (II0 SEI) n(12 0
SEI)
(II n 12) + SEI k; (II + SEI) n(12 -I- SEI)
(II U 12) SEI0 ;;;? (11 SEI) U (12
0 0
SEI)
(II U 12) + SEI = (110} SEt> U (12 + SEI)

FUZZY MATHEMATICAL MORPHOLOGICAL

To extend mathematical morphology on real images, firstly we transform

them in fuzzy sets and therefore we filter them by one or more fuzzy morphological
operators. The filtering can be iteratively repeated, depending on the final aim we
want to reach (morphological gradients, medial axis, ...). Fuzzy logical operators are
involved and combined with the morphological ones. To compare results with the
original image, it is possible to perform a coherent defuzzification of the output
processed data set.

Fuzzifiers

Intuitively, a fuzzy set is a class which admits the possibility of partial

membership in it. Here we briefly recall the definition of fuzzy set, used for our
purposes. Given an universe X, with generic element denoted by "x", a fuzzy set A
of X is the application XA:X~[O,I], characterized by the membership function
XA(X) that associates t,~ch point of X with a real number in the interval [0,1]; the
value of XA(X) represents the grade of membership of "x" to A. If XA(x)=I, the "x"
element is called 'ideal' and a fuzzy set with only ideal elements is called 'normal'; on
the other hand, if XA(X)=O, then the "x" element does not belong to A. The
complement operator of a fuzzy set is defined as XCA(X) = I - XA(X).
To extend classical mathematical morphology to real images, we transform
the original data in a fuzzy set, so that each fuzzified pixel value can be interpreted as
the grade of membership of that pixel to the original data set. Obviously, the
definition of the membership function (the "fuzzifier") depends on the specific
problem to be solved. In our case, we use So, 1t-, or norma-function to fuzzify an
input image I in 1'.
The S-fuzzifier is defined as the well-known S-function: I' = S(I;ex,~,'Y)[lO]
for each pixel Iij ,where ~ is the cross-over point, y is the point at which the height
of S-function is equal to 1, ex (ex=2~-y) is the initial point, and Iij is the intensity
value of the input image at the pixel (ij).
The 1t-fuzzifier is defined as the well-known 1t-function: I' = 1t(I;~,yilO] for
each pixel Iij ,where y-~/2 is the left cross-over, 'Y+~/2 is the right cross-over
point, 'Y is the central point at which the height of 1t-function is 1, ~ is the
bandwidth between the two cross-over points, and Iij is the intensity value of the
input image at the pixel (i,j).
The norma-function is simply defined as:

norma (Iij ;min,max) = (Iij-min) / (max-min)

480

where min and max are the minimum and maximum values of the input
image I, and Iij is the intensity value of the input image at the pixel (i,j).
The use of norma-function performs a simple scaling of the image-values,
while S- and 1t- functions can select intensity bands, depending on the values of
ex,~, and "(.
Fig.2 shows the result of S- and 1t- fuzzifiers applied on a real astronomical
image in the optical range (Fig.2-a) with intensity values ranging from 36.25 to
1008.25 and with intensity distribution given in Fig.2-b. S-fuzzifier has been
applied with ex=300, ~=400, and "(=500; 1t-fuzzifier has been applied with "(=500,
and ~=200. Under these conditions, S-fuzzifier (Fig.2-c) cuts all values less than
300, reduces those in the range [300,400], and enhances the other ones, by setting
equal to I all the values greater than 500; 1t-fuzzifier (Fig.2-d) cuts the values greater
than 700 and less than 300, reduces those in the ranges [300,400] and [600,700], and
enhances the central part [400,600].

b)
.(.

~
1
-1000

t XlC·'
~II ,
-I
-" I

co
0
j
j
'-
zoo '100
,
&1J
'

P1xel value 01
,

)
630 1(00

~) d),

Fig.2 - Fuzzification with S- and tr- functions; a) input image; b) intensity

distribution of the input inwge; c) S-fuzzificotion; d) tr-fuzzification.
 481

Defuzzifiers

A fuzzy image can be defuzzified to be compared with respect to the original

data set. The defuzzification is performed by applying the inverse of the membership
function previously used onto the input original image. This operation is well
defined only if the fuzzifier is invertible, as in the case of the norma-function, or
whenever S-function were used with a and y corresponding to the minimum and the
maximum of the input image. In the case of a n-fuzzification, approximate
solutions must be guessed by heuristic reasoning based on the values of the original
data set; in particular we must refer to the input image whenever we have to choose
between left and right solution of the inverse function; the reversibility is guaranteed
if we also used y-~ and r+-~ as the minimum and the maximum of the input image.

Structuring element

The structuring element SE' is a fuzzy matrix of nxm elements, with a given
central pixel, and active elements values in the real range [0,1]. Moreover,
unconstrained structuring element can be defined by setting equal to -I all those
pixels not considered in the application of the morphological operators.

Fuzzy morphological operators

The standard morphological operators (erosion, dilation, closing and opening)

are re~defined in the framework of the fuzzy sets, by using four different distance
functions; they are applied with a central mapping of the fuzzy structuring element
on all the pixels of the input fuzzy data set.
Given a structuring element SE', of size nxm, the fuzzy erosion is defined as
follows:

Emin(l',SE') = min {I - I I'-SE'I I minimum erosion

Eave (I' ,SE') = 1 - L II'-SE'I j(sizese) average erosion
Edel (I',SE' = 1 - L ~(I' ,SE')j(sizese) delta erosion
E exa (I' ,SE') = min {I - ~(I' ,SE') I exact erosion

where "sizese" is the number of pixels effectively active in the structuring

element, and where ~(I' ,SE') is equal to zero whenever is I'~SE' among all I'
pixel values inside the structuring element window, elsewhere it is equal to 1.
It can be easily demonstrated that these definitions of fuzzy erosion are fuzzy
sets of type 2 [9,10], i.e. they are fuzzy sets defined on the range [0,1].
Minimum and exact erosions correspond to the classical one if the input
image is binary. Average and delta metrics provide a smoother erosion compared to
the other two: in the binary case, they produces images in the real space, too.
All the other operators are based on the fuzzy erosion and on the complement
sets defined as I'c=I-1' and EC(l',SE')=I-E(I',SE'):

D(I',SE') = EC(l'c,SE') = 1- E(l'c,SE') = 1 - E(l- I',SE') dilation

O(I',SE') = D(E(I',SE'),SE') = 1 - E(l- E(I',SE'), SE') opening
C(I',SE') = E(D(I',SE'),SE') = E(l- E(I- I',SE'), SE') closing
482

In the case of fuzzy mathematical operators, the properties found for the
classical ones are transformed as follows, where 1'. and I'z are two fuzzy input
images, and where SE'. and SE'z are two fuzzy structuring elements:

1'. -} (SE'. U SE'z) k (1'."" SE'.) U (I'. {- SE'z)

I'. o(SE'. U SE'z) ;;;;2 (1'.0 SE'.) n (1'.0 SE'z)
1'. "" (SE'. n SE'z) k (I'. -} SE'.) U (I'. {> SE'z)
1'. 0 (SE'. n SE'z) ~ (1'.0 SE'.) n (1'.0 SE'z)
(I'. n I'z) 0 SE'. ;;;;2 (I'. 0 SE'.) n (I'z 0 SE'.)
(I'. n I'z)..;. SE'. k (I'. {> SE'.) U (I'z..;. SE'.)
(I'. U I'z) 0 SE'. ;;;;2 (1'.0 SE'.) n (I'z 0 SE'.)
(I'. U I'z) -} SE'. k (I'. {- SE'.) U (I'z -} SE'.)

As an example, the first property is demonstrated in the following, by using

the notation of membership function previously given:

x (1'1 + SEll) U (I'I + SEf 2 ) =

= max I 1 - min I 1 - I X I' 1 • X SE' 1 I, 1 - min I 1 - I X I' 1 - X SE' 2 I I =
= 1 - min{ 1 - I XCI' - X SE' 1,1 - IXCI' - X SE'
1 1 1 2
I~
;;:: 1 - min{ 1 - I XCI' - max
1
IX SE'
1
,X SE' 2 I I I =
= X I' 1 + (SE' 1 USE')2

Fuzzy logical operators

In the fuzzy framework, "fand" and "for" logical operators are naturally
defined by using "min" and "max", Here we introduce the definition of a new
logical operator, "fxor", that is an extension of the boolean exclusive "or":

fand (A'jj,B'ij) = min IA'jj,B'ijl

for (A'ij,B'ij) = max IA'jj,B'jjl
= {IA\JB\l/max {A'ij,B'ij I if max IA\j ,B'ij 1;tQ.
f xor (A 'I..) ' B',,)
I)
O. if max IA'ij ,B'ij 1=0,

where A' and B' are two fuzzy images of equal size.
Another fuzzy operator named "fxonned" has been defined; it considers the
two maximum differences, dl and d2, between corresponding pixels in the input and
processed fuzzy images inside a 3x3 window centred on the pixel (i,j), together with
the difference d(ij) computed on the corresponding pixels (i,j) we are dealing with:

fxormed (A'"1)' B'"1) ) = ~ d(")

1J • d(ij) + 3ill + d2
 483

FUZZY MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERS AND GRADIENTS

During the last decade, methods based on the mathematical morphology have
been developed to simplify image data preserving their essential geometrical shape
and eliminating irrelevancies. Many researchers [2,3,4,16,17,18,19] were interested
in nonlinear morphological filters applied on binary and gray-tone images, in their
syntactic and statistical properties which are related to the corresponding properties
of the median-type filters, and in their behaviour in noisy conditions.
The basic morphological filters are erosion, dilation, opening, and closing,
that generally perform reduction, enlargement, smoothing from the inside, and
smoothing from the outside of an object, respectively. Furthermore, another
interesting class of such filters includes the open-closing (OC) and the close-opening
(CO) transformations, performed by closing an open image, and by opening a closed
one, respectively. These filters, so as single opening and closing, maintain the
geometrical dimension of the object to be analyzed.
We have applied all these morphological filters on continuous and sparse
images with the fuzzy extension described above, and with metrics chosen according
to the given conditions. Our approach falls within the class of non-linear filtering
techniques; moreover, it allows the easy processing of images in the real domain.
In Fig.3 we present an example of fuzzy morphological filtering performed
on the X-ray supernova remnant Thyco, detected by the EXOSAT satellite
experiment as a sparse image with real values (Fig.3-a). After fuzzification with the
norma-function, the fuzzy morphological filters close Cave(l' ,SE') and close-
opening COave(l' ,SEt) have been applied, (Fig.3-c,d), with a square flat structuring
element of size 3x3. The "average" metrics has been used to take into account the
sparse distribution of the data. The results show the ability of this morphological
filter to enhance the relevant signal region from the background, and to preserve the
inner finer structures of the object. Fig.3-b concerns the intensity plot along a line
of the two filtered images, as marked in Fig.3-c,d, and it shows how, although
close-opening performs a further smoothing of the image, the geometrical
dimension is still maintained.
According to the final aim one wants to reach, a morphological gradient can
be defined by applying a difference operator between two filtered images, or between
input and filtered images [3,4,16,20].
The difference operator we used to detect edges, in the case of fuzzy
mathematical morphology, is the "fxormed" one; for example, if applied between
input and eroded fuzzy images, "fxormed" operator allows to detect the internal
edges, while medium edges are detected if this operator is applied between dilated and
eroded fuzzy images.
FigA shows some results drawn out from a continuous gray-tone image
representing a plane in a cloudy sky (FigA-a). The original data was firstly fuzzified
via a norma-function; edge detection has been perfoflllcd by applying "fxormed"
logical operator between the fuzzified input image and its minimum-erosion (FigA-
c), and its minimum-dilation (FigA-d), computed with a square structuring element
3x3. The two differences respectively enhances internal and external borders and they
are compatible with the results obtained by applying a classical gradient filter on the
original image, as shown in FigA-b. We point out that the same results can be
obtained by using the "umbra" technique with "min" function.
484

~~

i
'Z

i'\. close
IS
\,

II \

)I '//'...\l·f,~Y\ ,
.',71 '\

close-openin

Fig.3 - X-ray Thyco image; a) input image; b) intensity plot of the two lines
marked in c) and d); c) result after application of the average close, and d)
average close-opening filtering.

THE MMFUZZY SYSTEM

The fuzzy morphological analysis of real images has been implemented in an

interactive system, MMFUZZY [14]. Pre-defined structuring elements and fuzzifiers
may be chosen from an existing database or interactively defined by the user.
Intermediate level image operations are included in MMFUZZY, as contrast
enhancement [10], medial axis, edge detection. The user may also define application
programs by calling and combining basic morphological operators. MMFUZZY has
been implemented in FORTRAN 77 on a SUN-4/11O, and integrated as context [21]
in the open ESO-MIDAS (Munich Image Data Analysis System)D5] environment
for image analysis and processing. After that a MIDAS-user enters in the
MMFUZZY context, he may directly apply MMFUZZY commands to analyze an
image or implement a fuzzy procedure that calls fuzzy operators. All the information
related to the entire user procedure is automatically stored in a local pictorial database
(PDB) [22], on which the user may perform management and queries.
 485

CONCLUSIONS

Mathematical morphology is a powerful tool to perform low and medium

level image analysis. Here a fuzzy approach to the problem is introduced; it has
been chosen because it is elegant from the algebraic point of view, and it takes into
account the human visual perceptivity.
The operators introduced satisfy the extension principle; therefore, they can
be used either for real and gray-tone images, and for binary images.
From the computational point of view, the algorithms implemented are fully
local and therefore they can be easily implemented on parallel machines, too.
The experimental results show the robustness of the fuzzy approach with
respect to other techniques.

Fig.4 - Plane test image; a) input; b) gradient filtering; c) internal border detected
as difference between input and eroded images; d) external border detected as
difference between input and dilated images.
486

REFERENCES
[1] J.Serra, Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology ,Acad.Press, N.York, 1982.
[2] J.Serra, Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology: Volume 2 , Academic
Press, New York, 1988.
[3] R.M. Haralick, S.R. Sternberg, and X. Zhuang, "Image Analysis using
Mathematical Morphology" ,IEEE Trans.PAMI ,Vol.9,No.4,pp.532-550,July 1987.
[4] S.R.Sternberg, "Grayscale Morphology", ComputYision Graphics Image Process.,
Vo1.35, pp.333-355, 1986.
[5] F.Y.-C. Shih and O.R. Mitchell, "Threshold Decomposition of Gray-Scale
Morphology into Binary Morphology", IEEE Trans. on PAMI , VoUl, No.1,
pp.31-42, 1989.
[6] P. Maragos and R.D. Ziff, "Threshold Superposition in Morphological Operators
for Gray-Tone Images", IEEE Trans. on PAMI , VoU2, No.5, pp.498-504, 1990.
[7] F.Y.-C. Shih and O.R. Mitchell, "Decomposition of Gray-Scale Morphological
Structuring Elements", Pattern Recognition, Vol.24, No.3, pp.195-203, 1991.
[8] L.Zadeh, "Fuzzy Sets", Information and Control, Vol.8, p.338-353, 1965.
[9] A.Kandel,Fuzzy Mathematical Techniques with Application, AddisonWesley, 1986.
[10] S.K.Pal and D.K.Dutta Majumder, Fuzzy Mathematical Approach to Pattern
Recognition, A Halseted Press Book, John Wiley & Sons, 1986.
[11] C.A. Murthy and S.K. Pal, "Fuzzy Thresholding: Mathematical Framework, Bound
Functions and Weighted Moving Average Technique", Pattern Recognition Letters,
11, pp.197-206, 1990.
[12] W. Pedrycz, "Fuzzy Sets in Pattern Recognition: Methodology and Methods",
Pattern Recognition, Vol.23, No.l/2, pp.121-146, 1990
[13] V. Di Gesu and M. Tripiciano, " Comparison of Morphological Operators for Gray-
Tone Images", Progress in Image Analysis and Processing, V. Cantoni,L.P.
CordelIa,S. Levialdi,G. Sanniti di Baja,(Eds.), World Publ. Corp., pp.59-64, 1990.
[14] V. Di Gesu, M.C. Maccarone, and M. Tripiciano, "MMFUZZY: Mathematical
Morphology based on Fuzzy Operators", Proc. IFSA '91 World Congress, R.
Lowen, M. Roubens, (Eds.), Vol. Engineering, pp.29-32, 1991.
[15] K. Banse, D. Ponz, Ch. Ounnas, P. Grosbol, and R. Warmels, "The MIDAS Image
Processing System", Instrumentation for Ground-Based Optical Astronomy, L.R.
Robinson, (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.431-442, 1988.
[16] I. Pitas and A.N. Venetsanopoulos, Nonlinear Digital Filters - Principles and
Applications, Kluwer Academic Pub!., 1990.
[17] I. Serra and L. Vincent, "An Overview of Morphological Filtering", Circuits
Systems Signal Process, VoUl, No.1, pp.47-108, 1992.
[18] I.-F. Rivest, P. Soille, and S. Beucher, "Morphological Gradients", Proc.
SPIEIIS&T's Symp. on Nonlinear Image Processing, San Jose, CA, Febr. 1992.
[19] L. Koskinen and J. Astola," Statistical Properties of Soft Morphological Filters",
Proc. SPJEIIS&T's Symposium on Nonlinear Image Processing, San Jose, CA,
Febr. 1992.
[20] D. Wang and J. Ronsin, "Comparison of Morphological Filters with Median-type
Filters", Proc. SPIEIIS&T's Symposium on Nonlinear Image Processing, San Jose,
CA, Febr. 1992.
[21] M.C. Maccarone and M. Tripiciano, "Image Analysis Context Development in ESO-
MIDAS Environment at the IFCAI/CNR, Palermo", ESO Conference and Workshop
Proceedings, PJ. Grosbol and R.H. Warmels, (Eds.), No.38, pp.89-93, 1991.
[22] M.C. Maccarone, M. Tripiciano, V. Di Gesu, and D. Tegolo, "PDB: A Pictorial Data
Base oriented to Data Analysis", Software Practice and Experience, (submitted),
1991.
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF FUZZY CONTROL SYSTEMS
BASED ON THE CONICITY CRITERION.

I.Aracil (*), A. Garcia-Cerezo (+), A. Barreiro (#), A. Ollero (+).

(*) E.T.S.Ing. Industriales. Universidad de Sevilla. CI Avda. Reina Mercedes SIN.

41012 Sevilla (Spain) Phone: (34) 54-61 11 50. Fax: (34) 54-629205.

(#) E.T.S.Ing. Industriales. Universidad de Vigo. CI Lagoas-Marcosende n09. Aptdo.

62. 36280 Vigo (Spain). Phone: (34) 86-812232. Fax: (34) 86-812201.

(+) Dpto. de Ingenieria de Sistemas y Automatica. Universidad de Malaga. CI Plaza

de 'EI Ejido' sin. 29013 Malaga (Spain). Phone: (34)5-2131408. Fax: (34)5-2131413

Abstract

In this paper we study a control system where the controller is a nonlinear

function obtained from a set of fuzzy rules. Having in mind the nonlinearities invol-
ved, the main objetive of the methodology presented is to guarantee stability by
applying the Conicity Criterion. Furthermore, a method to find the critical fuzzy
rules influencing stability is proposed. Thus, these rules are easily identified and mo-
dified. Simulation examples confinn the good perfonnance of the method.

The Conicity Stability Criterion.

The conicity criterion [11, [21 is applied to the general feedback system of
Fig. 1, where the controller 0(.) is a p x m nonlinear static function obtained from a
set of fuzzy rules, and G(s) is the m x p transfer function of the time invariant pro-
cess to be controlled. Notice that if the process to be controlled is non linear, then
we can maintain the linearized model in G(s) and include the nonlinear terms additi-
vely with 0(.).

According with the criterion, a sufficient condition for stability is that for
487
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.;, Fuzzy Logic, 487-496.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
488

bOX>
y
pxl
0(x)
pxm

U UmX 1 ,---'-G(S-)
m-------'x
P P=O~
Fig. 1. The general feedback system.

some scalar r (called center) and for some p x m matriz C (called radius), the follo-
wing conditions bold:

1. II 0(x) - Cx II < r II x II, for all x.

2. Tbe linear feedback system formed substituting 0(.) by C, with transfer

1
function F(s) =G(s)(I + CG(s)r , must be stable.

3. (max II FOro) II)·r < 1

ro 2
where the 2-norm is given by II FOro) 11 =\1AX (FT(_jro) FOro».

This criterion gives rise, in the scalar case, to the well known Circle Crite-
rion, wbere the condition 1. means that the graph of y = 0(x) must lie inside the
conic sector of limiting slopes r ± C.

Let n < p x m be the number of variable parameters in the p x m center ma-

trix C. The problem now is to find, in the space of all cones (C, r), of dimension
n+ 1, a suitable one (CO' ro) for wbich the three conditions hold.

The first ant third conditions yield, respectively (see Fig. 2):

def 110(x)-Cxll
f c f 0 (C) = maXx;tO II x II
 489

where rG(C) is the conic deviation of the fuzzy protocol y =0(x) from the linear law
y = Cx, and rG(C) is a measure of the robustness of the feedback linear system for-
med with G(s) and C.

The second condition limits the possible cones to the subset Sc' formed with
centers C that give rise to a stable linear feedback of G(s). In the boundary of Sc'
max ro "F(jro) " tends to infinite, and RG tends to zero.

From Fig. 2, an interpretation of the Conicity Criterion is that for some sta-
ble feedback C, the robustness rG(c) of G(s) with feedback C must be greater than the
conic deviation r0(C) of the fuzzy law y = 0(x) from the linear y = C x.

L-_-~-----------~--- .... C
dim n

Fig. 2. Conicity criterion

Conicity of Fuzzy Control Rules.

Assume without loss of generality, that p x m = 1 x 2 and that we have a set

of fuzzy rules referred to the control action y as a function of the error variables xl'
x 2' of the form:
490

If xl is positive big and x2 is near zero then y must be positive medium.

where the linguistic tenns are based on fuzzy sets defined on the universe of the res-
pective variables. It is posible [3], [4] to compile the protocol rules to produce a
non-linear function 0(x). This function can be segmented into regions, each region
associated to a dominant rule i (Fig. 3). The conic deviation defined above has the
following contribution due to the Xi' Yi pair.

(i) II Yi - c \ II
f0 (C) = IIx.1I
1

with c = (cl' ~) and Xi =(xli' x2i) T. The global deviation of the set of fuzzy rules
is:

f
0
(c) =m~ { fg) (c) }
1

In the r-C space, this deviation is the polyhedrical surface of Fig. 4. where
each face is labelled with (or associated to) one of the fuzzy rules. The surface will
nonnally have a global minimun at some c*. To identify the critical fuzzy rules with
more influency on stability, we must compare the conic deviation surface r with
0

Fig. 3. Fuzzy controller.

 491

Fig. 4. Deviation of the set of fuzzy rules.

the linear feedback surface r a obtained from the plant G(s). These rules will normally
be the associated to one of the adjacents faces at the minimun r0(c*) (rules i, j, k ..
in Fig.4).

Simulation Examples

The results above are applied to the two-joint manipulator in [5]. The model
is strongly nonlinear, so that acomputed torque control is implemented. If the arm
parameters are well known, the computed torque method linearizes the model and
uncouples the two joints, so that the dynamics of each joint are transformed to a
closed loop such as that of Fig.l, where G(s)=(lls2,lIsl is a double integrator
(where the outputs are the angular position and velocity) and cI>( e) is a fuzzy gain
modifier controller (where the inputs are (eP' ev) the position and velocity errors, and
the output is the control torque). Consider the nonlinear control law cI>(e) ,obtained
from a set of fuzzy rules referred to the error ep and error derivative ev signals:
492

To ensure stability, fIrst we must select a central value c=;( c1,c2) for the gains
Kp,Kv' giving a constant stable feedback (that is, Cj,c2 >0). To use similar gain
values as in [4], we choose c=;(200,20). Then, we compute the robustness radius for
the plant with respect to the central feedback c, and obtain rG(200,20) "'" 15.
Finally, the stability condition rH < rG"" 15 implies that the fuzzy gains Kp,Kv
must lie, in the gain plane, inside a circle of center c=;(200,20) and radius rG""15:

The manipulator will normally work with ramp references, so that the critical
time instants will be the times of change of slope of the ramp reference. At these
instants, the velocity error ev is big, the value Kve v will be greater than Kpe p and
the control acceleration u will be possibly saturated. The more signifIcative gain is
K v' and will be adjusted from a set of fuzzy rules referred to the velocity error ev .
The position gain Kp will be kept at the constant value Kp =;200.

Finally, the responses after a positive and negative change of the reference
slope rv will be symmetrical. A way to reduce the number of rules, based on the sign
symmetry, is to use a normalized velocity error eb=;-e v·sign(,1rv)' where ,1rv is the
change of velocity reference. The control action will be:

The fuzzy design of the gain modifIer Kv=;(j)(eb) has been accomplished based
on the membership functions of Fig. 5, referred to the normalized velocity error eb
and to the velocity gain K v. The quantization of the fuzzy rules yields the velocity
gain Kv as a nonlinear function of the velocity error eb (see Fig.6).

The saturation levels of the d.c. motors acceleration is assumed to be of flO

rad/s2 . The qualitative knowledge on the process dynamics is strongly related to the
saturation effect. On the other hand, the stable velocity gain range is Kv =; 20±rG =;
Sg(v53S. The lower values Kv""'S give rise to oscillatory responses and high initial
errors. The higher gains K v ""'20 give rise to smaller errors, but to a more slow
convergence, due to the saturation effect. In practice, and with the objective of
 493

avoiding high oscillations, the low limit for the admisible velocity gain is fixed at
K v =15.

Another problem is that under the influence of saturation, the actual K v

value may be reduced, producing an effective K v value that is even below the lower
stability limit <=5). This problem does not rise when the angular velocity is xv < 4
rad/sg., which is a very high velocity not easily reachable in our particular working
conditions.

NMG NM PN P
FN NG N MPN ,---
1.

If e is FN then k is P
b y
Ife is NG then k is G
b y
If e is N then k is LMG
b y
Ife is MPN then k is M
b y
PM G MG LMG
Ifebis NMGthenk is M
y

If e is NM then k is MG
b y
Ife is PN then k is MG
b y
If e is P then k is P
b y

Fig. 5. Membership functions. Table 1. Fuzzy modifier of K

v
Along the fuzzy design process, we consider the objective of achieving a fast
ramp response, with an absolute error as small as possible, and with a control law
that avoids where possible the saturation effect. As a result of the precedent
considerations, the fuzzy protocol of Table 1 has been developed.

The results of simulation are represented in the Fig.7. The linear gain setting
in Fig.7.a, whith a small velocity gain K v=15, gives big initial errors and an
494

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 .0.2 0.2 0.4

Velocity error

Fig.6. Fuzzy inference vector

0.6 r ..· ·,..·..·· ! , , , 7.~

0.4 r·..·......·..,·\·...... ·.. ·;........·.. 1 ....'.......... C'~

_::,-"J.cr=~:~-······:t·I",:,-;.;-+;~.::;"._.
1- p,{)sitiorl refer~nce (r 10.2$ rad)
-0.4 ......... ; . . . . j ,..,p , .
. 2- ppsitiory (x JP.25 rad)
-0.6 ....; .........................., , P , , .
, 3- Velocity (xviI rad{s) .
-0.8 ;.
···········..4~Aciuatibn . (ujiOrad),~2)···
-I 0"'"--:0.....0..,.5--0~.1--0~.1-5--0~.2:---0.,....~25:---0c:-'.3----,-0.~35--0.~4--0 ....
.4-5--'0.5

Time (Se<:)

Fig.7.a. Results of Linear Implementation. Kv=15

 495

"

0.8 \"
"

0.6 ';,... .
"

! .,. .
.. 0.225

[' .' :,'. ~ ,.,."

~.,: ." ,.,. ,. ~~:,.,. ,.7.<{
0.4

0.2.+ :..;"3' ",' ..., ..... "','

. . --l~ .. : .. ·.·T:·:.:j···.·····..L
.......:
'" .-- ::f..~,~ : ; ..,. ":::;i;·· :.'~' _ ~ "' ~ , '''' n'

·0.2
~··-
9,0275 r,ad 1- Positioh reference (r 10.25 rad.
·0.4 ...., , ,. ,.P , .
j . • 2- fosition (x p /0,25 rad) .
·0,6 '. . ' j~Vel<.lc~ty(x~'lriadJs)

4~Aduati6ri(u/20i'iid!s2) .•
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (Sec)

Fig.7.b. Results of Linear Implementation. Kv=35

0.8 1- , , ,~"' ,........,

0,6 1-...•..•.,.:, , ,..•......, ,••.•.""""'"

0.4 r==t====:7.1--=..~...:...:~~.~".~..
0.2 .•.• ,,);::':;"'<'!'" "'::j" "3" ,
.......:>..::.. ::::
-,c"1~:~75iad 4 , -' .~ ,,, . ", , - -., .
-0,2
1- Position reference (r 10,25 rad)
·0.4 .......;. ...................., ,.......•........., ,..p , .
2- J;'ositiop (x 10.25 r~d)
-0.6 ; ......, , , , P.., , .
3- yeloci~y (xv: II radls) .
-0.8 . . ·· .. ··,························'<2··· ' .
4- {\ctuat~on (u!20 rad/s )
.1 L----,--':-:---,-'-:---:-'-,,-----'--':-:---'---J.-,.---:-'----'----'
o 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0,25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (Sec)

Fig.7.c. Results of Fuzzy Implementation.

496

oscillating response. The linear setting in Fig.7.b, with a high velocity gain K v =35,
gives small errors, but a slow convergence. Compared to the linear gain settings
(200,15) and (200,35) the implementation of the fuzzy gain modifier gives a better
global response, as seen in Fig.7.c. Simulations of the computed torque control, but
with small errors in the estimates of the mechanical parameters, show similar robust
responses.

Conclusions

The combination of fuzzy control techniques and the Conicity stability

criterion, facilitates the design of robust fuzzy controllers, under conditions where
other techniques may be difficult to apply, for example, in robotic manipulators, due
to the complex dynamical models and uncertainties involved.

The heuristic knowledge, based on experience, and expressed as sets of fuzzy

rules, is easily implemented with a low computational effort. The simplicity and
inherent robustness of the Conicity criterion complements the design process, giving
appropriate gain bounds and ensuring stability for the whole nonlinear system.

References

[I] G. Zames , On the 1-0 stability of time Varying Non-Linear Feedback Systems.
IEEE Trans. on Autom. Control, vol AC-ll, pp. 228-238. (1966).

[2] C.A Desoer and M.Vidyasagar, Feesback Systems. Input-Output Properties, Aca-
demic Press. (1975).

[3] A.OHero, AGarcia-Cerezo, Direct Digital Control, Autotuning and Supervision

ussing Fuzzy Logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 30, pp. 135-153. (1989).

[4] J. Aracil, AOHero, AGarcia-Cerezo. Stability Indices for the Global Analysis of
Expert Control Systems. IEEE Trans. on SMC, Vol 19, N 5, pp. 998-1007. (1989).

[5] llCraig. Adaptive Control of mechanical manipulators. Addison-Wesley, (1988).

 MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL USING FUZZY
DYNAMIC MODELS

Y. Nakamori
Department of Applied Mathematics, Konan University
8-9-1 Okamoto, Higashinada-ku, Kobe 658, Japan
K. Suzuki and T. Yamanaka
Laboratory for International Fuzzy Engineering Research
89-1 Yamashita-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama 231, Japan

Abstract

We propose a design method of model predictive control using

fuzzy dynamic models which are extended ones of the Takagi-
Sugeno-type fuzzy model. Although our ultimate concern lies in
actual application fields, we describe here some theoretical aspects
in developing fuzzy dynamic models and in applying them to large-
scale process control problems.

Keywords. Fuzzy modeling, fuzzy dynamic model, model predic-

tive control, process systems, rotary-kiln process.

INTRODUCTION
The fuzzy sets theory[1] has been widely applied to process
control systems which require skilled experts' knowledge in op-
eration. But only a few applications to multi-variable process
systems have been considered so far. The reason of this is that
the design methodology based on the process model has not been
fully equipped in the architecture of the fuzzy control because of
the difficulty to build understandable nonlinear process models.
In this paper we propose a multi-variable fuzzy modeling tech-
nique from input-output time-series data by applying the Takagi-
Sugeno-Kang method[2][3].
497
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 497-506.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
498

The fuzzy control is a multi-model approach to the nonlinear

process control. The multi-model approach[4] is an idea to use a
number of process models which are effective around the respec-
tive operating points and to unify the respective optimal controls
by reasonable weights. The fuzzy sets theory can be used to iden-
tify these reasonable weights: this is the main point in our pro-
posal Another proposal is a design method of model predictive
control[5] based on the identified fuzzy dynamic models.
Our application study includes the stable incineration control
of a rotary kiln of sewage sludge, the reflex and vapor control of
a highly pure distillation column, and the stable incineration con-
trol of a municipal refuse incinerator. In this paper we introduce
an application study on a rotary kiln control, expressing the mo-
tivation of our research and difficulties in applying the theory to
an actual process.
The success of fuzzy modeling depends heavily on the capa-
bility and experience of the individual modeler. Therefore, we
have developed an interactive software to design the model pre-
dictive controllers as well as to carry out the fuzzy modeling in-
teractively. The system integrates statistical and fuzzy modeling
methods with advanced graphic techniques that facilitate person-
computer and interpersonal communication.

FUZZY MODELING
The fuzzy modeling[2][3] consists of some difficult tasks in di-
viding data, determining membership functions, and selecting ex-
planatory variables in linear models. These tasks are strongly
related to each other to make the modeling quite difficult. We
propose an interactive fuzzy modeling technique which utilizes
human subjective knowledge on the process under study. The
basic modeling steps are the following.
Step 1: Data Observation
 499

The following data screening should be carried out before going

into the fuzzy modeling:
(1) adjustment of the sampling interval,
(2) examination of the periodicity,
(3) examination of collinearity,
(4) analysis of dominant frequency,
(5) examination of cross-correlation,
(6) elimination of noises, and
(7) estimation of the steady states.
Step 2: Linear Modeling
An ARX (auto-regressive exogenous) model is identified based
on the all input-output data. The behavior of an identified model
should be checked by computer simulation using other data sets or
random inputs. This step is carried out to examine the application
sphere of the model in the universe of discourse, and to compare
the performances between this model and a fuzzy model which
will be identified in the following steps.
Step 3: Data Division
The data set is divided into several subsets by a clustering
method, for example, the Ward method. Fuzzy variables used in
the premise are selected among output variables by looking at the
scat ter plots.
Step 4: Submodel Building
Linear regression equations are developed in each subspace.
The important points here are the careful selection of explana-
tory variables taking account of time-lag, and the definition of
the range of validity of each regression equation.
The following type of membership function is used:

(1)
500

where ql, q2 and q3 are the first, second and third quartiles of the
subset, respectively, and t1, t2 are parameters to adjust the shape
of the membership function.
Step 5: Parameter Tuning
The behavior of an identified fuzzy model is checked by com-
puter simulation using real data or random inputs. Adjustment of
parameters in membership functions is carried out by minimizing
the prediction error defined by

E = 2- ~ I Yi - yf I (2)
N ~ Yi

where Yi is the given data, yf the predicted value, and N the

number of data.
If the results of simulation are not desirable, we will return to
Step 3 or Step 1 and repea.t Step 4 and Step 5 after re-dividing
the data space.
A Fuzzy ARX model consists of several rules such a.s

Rule R k : If Yo«t - lo<) is A~, and Yf3(t - l(3) is A~, and···,

T T
then ~k = L ef· yt_1 + L Dr· Ut - I + Vk, (3)
1=1 1=1

where A~, A~, ... are fuzzy subsets with respective membership
functions, elk, Dr coefficient matrices, and
Yi = (Y1(t), Y2(t)···, Yo(t))T output variables,
Ut = (1l1 (t), 1l2(t) ... , u I(t)) T input variables,
V k -_ (k k
V1'V2···'V k)T
O ... constants..
The estimate of yt can be obtained by the following formula:
,",p k y,k
Y,* - L..k-1 W t · t
t - ,",P k' (4)
L..k=1 W t
 501

where p is the number of rules, and ~k the output from the rule
R k . The weight w~ is given by the product of membership grades
of all conditional variables.

PREDICTIVE CONTROL
An attempt to design controllers using fuzzy models is done
in Sugeno and Kang[3], where the linear control theory is used to
design optimal regulators based on the respective rule models, and
then the optimal control in the universe of discourse is obtained by
taking account of the degrees of confidence of rules. However, the
weighted sum of respective optimal regulators is not necessarily
optimal in the universe of discourse.
We propose here an algorithm for control design based on the
idea of model predictive control as follows:
Step 1: Model Transformation
First we transform the ARX model to the fuzzy impulse re-
sponse model:
q q
Rule R k : ~k = k
L l I l . Ut-I + LG~. v k . (5)
1=1 1=1

The number of impulse steps q is determined by observing impulse

response curves. lIlk is an impulse response matrix, where lIlk = 0
for 1 > q. Putting
",",p k lIk ",",P
t _ L..,k=l W t '
k GI
k Vk
'
lIt _ L..,k=l W t ' 1
1 - ",",P wk '
G1- P k '
(6)
L..,k=l t Lk=l W t

we can write the output of fuzzy dynamic model as

q q

~m = L lIt . Ut - I + L Gf. (7)

1=1 1=1

We assume that the series of inputs Ut -1, Ut -2,'" were added to

the process, and the series of inputs Ut, Ut + 1 ,"', Ut +M-1 will be
502

added from the current time t, and assume that

Ut +M +1 = U t +M-1 for l ~ O. (8)

We can further rewrite the output equation as follows:

(9)

where
YM = [(~+L)T'(Y;'+L+1)T""'(Y/+L+P_1fjT
YMo = [(l~m)T,(Yr)T, ... ,(Ytm)TjT
U F = [(Ut)T,(Ut+dT,,,,,(Ut+M_dTF

Uo = [(Ut_1)T,(Ut_Z)T, ... ,(Ut_q)TjT

H t+ L H t+ L L:L-M+1 H t + L
L L-M+Z 1=1 1
H t +L +1 JIt+L+1 L:L-M+Z JIt+L+1
L+1 L-M+3 1=1 1
JIF =
JI t + L+ P - 1 H t + L+ P - 1 L:L-M+P H t + L +P - 1
L+P-1 L-M+P+1 1=1 1

H t +L _ H t H t +L _ H t
L+1 1 L+l q
H t + L +1 _ H t H t + +1 _ Ht
L+Z 1 L+q+1 q
Ho =
H t + L +P - 1 _ H t H t + L +P - 1 _ H t
L+P 1 L+q+P-1 q
",q G t +L ",q G t
L...I=l 1 - L...I=l 1
",q G t+L +1 _ ",q Gt
L...I=l 1 L...I=l 1
Go =
",q G t +L + P - 1 _ ",q Gt
L...I=l 1 L...I=l TI

Step 2: Output Prediction

Predicted outputs may differ from the measured data because
of identification errors or the existence of disturba.nces. The fol-
lowing equation is provided to reduce the difference:

(10)
 503

where Yp is the vector of predicted outputs, Y the vector of mea-

sured data:

Yp = [(Yl~.L) T, (1~~L+l) T,"" (Yl~-L+P-l)T]T, (11)

Y = [(yt)T,(yt)T, ... ,(yt)T]T. (12)

Let us introduce a reference trajectory YR:

which is given by
~'+l = O'(l-L+l)}'t + (1 - O'(l-L+l»)y*, (14)

where Y* is the vector of targets, and 0' a tuning parameter.

It is desirable to move the output along a smooth trajectory
to the target than to move it drastically. When a first order delay
curve is chosen as a reference trajectory, the time constant can be
used as a parameter to adjust the response speed.
Step 3: Optimal Control
The control action at the current time should be determined
in order to minimize the difference between the predicted and
reference trajectories during some time period from the current
time. Therefore an optimal control can be obtained by minimizing
the function:
J =11 Yp - YR 11 2 +{311 UF W. (15)
The solution to this problem is that

UF = (H]H F + {3I)-1 H](YR - Y - HoUo - Go). (16)

Though UF includes AI time steps of control actions, just one-step
control will be put into the process.
Here a problem occurs: the future values of confidence of rules
are required in evaluating HF and Ho. One solution to this prob-
lem is that we can adopt membership grades obtained by the
reference trajectory.
504

Step 4: Repetition
The measured out.put.s at the next. time step t + 1 may be
different from the predicted values at t.he current. time t. Then we
repeat the same steps from Step 2 by resetting t + 1 as the current
time.

APPLICATION
We have carried out an application study on a stable incinera-
tion problem of a rot.ary-kiln process treating excess sludge from
a municipal wastewater treatment plant. The rotary-kiln process
has a rotating cylindrical structure of 1.9m in diameter and 22.0m
in length. It is a very complex process system with the following
characteristics:
(1) The input to the system is cake-like substance containing
suspended solid, microorganisms, sands, et.c. which are discharged
from the wastewater treatment process. Their components and
physical states are different day-by-day, that is, water cont.ents,
calorific values, sizes of solids, viscosit.y, etc. are changeable.
(2) There are strong interferences between manipulated vari-
ables and controlled variables; t.his fad forces us to consider a
multi-variable control.
(3) The incineration reaction in the rotary-kiln is very com-
plex because drying, combustion, aging of ash, etc. occur in the
kiln. Since we have no index to represent. t.he incinerat.ion reac-
tion directly, we have to estimat.e t.he state of incinerat.ion in the
kiln indirectly from measurable t.emperatures at. several rest.ricted
points. This fad forces us t.o build st.at.istical models inst.ead of
theoretical models.
The control of this process should maintain the finishing point
of incineration in the desired range to produce good ash with a
few percent of ignition loss and to prevent creation of clinker. In
the case of cement kiln, some control systems has been studied:
 505

(1) the optimal feedback regulator based on auto-regressive

models,
(2) the model predictive control based on the heat balance
model along the axis of the kiln, and
(3) the rule-based fuzzy control based on the general opera-
tional experience.
However, in the present case, almost operations have been left
to the skilled operators yet because of the difficulty in developing
useful mathematical models describing the process dynamics. The
usual operation is to control the fuel gas rate for maintaining the
exhaust gas treatment equipment. Operators regulate the manip-
ulated variables (set points of the fuel gas rate, the air flow rate,
the cake supplying rate, the rotating speed of the kiln) for main-
taining the finishing point of incineration stably within the desired
zone by watching the state of combustion with an industrial TV
camera.. These works put a large load to operators. Therefore,
an effective automatic control satisfying the above objectives has
been required.
\Ve have developed a fuzzy ARX model and tried model pre-
dictive control for the above process by computer simulation, and
demonstrated the software developed on the Sun4 workstation at
the IFES'91[6][7].

CONCLUSION
This paper proposed the algorithms to develop fuzzy dynamic
process models and to design model predictive controllers using
the developed models. The application study presented here was
the stable incineration control of a rotary kiln of sewage sludge, in
which we introduced the motivation of our study and difficulties
in applying the theory t.o an actual situation. -
506

References

[1] L. A. Zadeh: Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, Vol.8,

pp.338-353, 1965.
[2] T. Takagi and M. Sugeno: Fuzzy Identification of Systems
and Its Applications to Modeling and Control. IEEE Trans.
on Syst. Man and Cybern., Vol. 15, No.1, pp.116-132, 1985.

[3] M. Sugeno and G. T. Kang: Fuzzy Modelling and Control

of Multilayer Incinerator, Fnzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.18,
pp.329-346, 1986.
[4] Z. Binder et. al: About a Multimodel Control Methodol-
ogy, Algorithm, Multiprocessors, Implementation and Appli-
cation. The 8th IFAC World Congress. Kyoto, Japan, pp.981-
986, 1981.
[5] M. Oshima: Model Predictive Control. in Text of Process
Control Techniqnes 1989. The Society of Chemical Engineers,
1989.
[6] Y. Nakamori, K. Suzuki and T. Yamanaka: A New Design
of a Fuzzy Model Predictive Control System for Nonlinear
Processes. Proc. of Int. Fnzzy Engineering Symposinm, Yoko-
hama, Japan, November 13-15, pp.788-799, 1991.
[7] K. Suzuki, Y. Nakamori and T. Yamanaka: An Interactive
Support System for Fuzzy Modeling and Fuzzy Model Pre-
dictive Control System Design. Proc. of Int. Fuzzy Engineer-
ing Symposinm, Yokohama, Japa.n, November 13-15, pp.1102-
1103, 1991.
 Time Weighted Fault Tolerant Control

Zeungnam Bien and Heegyoo Lee

Department of Electrical Engineering, KAIST

373-1 Kusongdong, Yusonggu, Daejon, 305-701 KOREA

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a dual redundant control system which is ca-

pable of removing the failed controller by some fault- tolerant policy. The
detection method based on a performance measure can detect controller
failures without relying on mathematical model and failure assumptions.
It can handle gradual degrading failures as well as catastrophic failures
by introducing the concept of failure measure and time weight.

Keywords: Fault-tolerant control, time weight, failure measure

1. Introduction

A conventional way to achieve high reliability is the use of physical

redundancy with fault-tolerant strategy which performs some actions to
remove the faulty hardware from the system. Thus, the redundant control
system depends deeply on the performance of detection mechanism[1-3].
Most of these failure detection and decision mechanisms divide the con-
troller states into two modes, that is, a functioning mode and a failed
mode based on the assumption of catastrophic failure. In practical sit-
uations, however, we can not know the exact analytic models nor can
assume the catastrophic failure. The detection algorithm is likely to be
sensitive to short period disturbances so that the cost of maintenance can
be high due to false alarms. Also, the resulting reliability of the redun-
dant control system has the possibility of being further degraded due to
the complexity of the detection mechanism.
Controller failures can be regarded as the status of losing its tracking
performance because the failed control signal is deviated from its nor-
mal value due to physical fault in its components. Thus, the tracking
performance can be used for detecting controller failures. By monitoring
507

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 507-516.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
508

the trend of the response, if the error does not decrease over a consider-
able duration of time, we can guess that the controller fails. If the error
decreases, the controller will be regarded as functioning well. Such an ob-
servation is represented by a set of linguistic descriptions which generally
makes use of fuzzy logic[4-6].
In this paper, we use the fuzzy logic to propose a new parallel redun-
dant control scheme which effectively minimizes the loss of a controller
due to false alarms caused by short disturbances. The concept of vary-
ing time weight combined with fuzzy failure detection logic has a robust
fault-tolerant capability in ill-defined environments or short period dis-
turbances.

2. Redundant Control System

2.1 Structure of the control system

Figure 1 represents the structure of the proposed control system. In

this scheme, two identical controllers C1 and C 2 are connected in par-
allel via the redundancy management unit, D, and it is assumed that
each controller is designed to have tracking capability. The performance
of the controller in relation to each process output is measured by the
deviation of the actual response from the desired one. This is expressed
as a failure measure which is considered as an approximate indication of
the possibility of the failure. If a controller fails, some ill-effects of the
failed controller are monitored in terms of specified performance measure.
Based on these measures, the time weight continually changes to remove
the failed controller.
To be more specific, let T denote the period of switching operation.
The switch is connected with C1 during the time interval [kT, kT + T sk ],
and then, the control switch is connected with C2 during the remaining
time interval [kT + T:, (k + 1)T], and so on. Here, k is the discrete time
index, and T sk is the switching time at the k-th control period. Since
the switching occurs repetitively, the synthesized control u(t) for the k-th
switching time slot is given by
Ul (t) -if kT ~ t ~ kT + T:
u(t) = (1)
{
U2 (t) if kT + T: ~ t ~ (k + 1)T
where 0 ~ T: ~ T for all k and Ul(t) and U2(t) are the outputs of C 1 and
C 2 , respectively. It is assumed that the time weights of the two controllers
are the same at the start, i.e., T; = T/2.
 509

rl I u.(t)
Controller
CI

y/t) D
!
,,-
Failure Detection u(t) yell
and Controlled
Reconfigur:ltion
I--- Process

L.j Controller
C2
I u (t)
2

Figure 1. Structure of the control system

If two identical controllers are normally functioning, the total control

u( t) is the same as that of the single controller configuration under the
assumption of ideal switching. Then, it is clear that the response of
the control system is also identical to the single controller case for all
T s E [0, T].

2.2 Reliability of the Control System

The reliability of a system is defined as the conditional probability

that performs a required function for a given period of time interval [to, t].
To compute the reliability, the system is divided into three subsystems
which are two controllers, C 1 and C z , and a redundancy management
unit, D.
Assume that each subsystem is either in a functioning mode or in
a failed mode. Denote the functioning modes as C}, C2, and D, and
the failed modes as C\, C2 , and fJ, respectively. Since the two con-
trollers are identical, the functioning modes of the system are C 1 C 2 D,
C1CzD, C 1C2 D, and C1CzD. Let the failure rates of the subsystems be
all constant, and the failure rates of C}, C2 and D be AC, Ac and AD,
respectively. Then the reliability function of the control system becomes
R(t) = e-z'xc t + 2e-('xC+'xD)t _ 2e-(Z'xC+'xD)t (2)

Mean time to failure(MTTF) is the expected operating time before

the first failure occurs. The MTTF of the control system is
2
MTTF = _1_ + 2 (3)
2Ac AC + AD 2Ac+ AD
510

The reliability of the proposed control system is similar to the case of

TMR(Triple Module Redundancy) system, if AD = Ao. In this case, the
reliability becomes

(4)

which is identical to that of the TMR system. It is further remarked

that the redundancy management unit acts as a virtual controller by the
action of changing the time weight. If the failure rates AD = 0, which is
the best case, then the reliability is represented as

(5)

2r
and the MTTF of the system is c . This is 50% longer than that of a
single control system which does not have redundancy.

3. Fault Tolerant Control Algorithm

The fuzzy failure detection and reconfiguration block consists of fuzzi-

fier, defuzzifier, inference mechanism and rule base. In contrast to a con-
ventional fuzzy logic controller, however, it has two rule bases, that is,
one for detection and one for reconfiguration, and two inference levels.

3.1 Fuzzy variable

Figure 2 shows the membership functions for E, CE, FM and TS. For
each variable, five membership functions are defined: PB, PS, ZE, NS and
NB. Here, PB, PS, ZE, NS and NB denote positive big, positive small,
zero, negative small and negative big, respectively. The error and change
in error are scaled to have the same universes ranging from -2 to +2.

NB NS ZE PS PB NB NS ZE PS PB

-2 0 2 -T/2 o T/2
(a) E, CE, and FM (b) TS

Figure 2. Fuzzy variables

 511

3.2 Failure detection by performance measure

The fuzzy algorithm consists of a set of rules in the form of linguistic

conditional statements. For instance, linguistic rules take the form

IF E = PH and CE = PH THEN FM = PH
ELSE
IF E = PH and CE = NH THEN FM = NH.
This expression defines a fuzzy relationship between a set of observed
imprecise values of error(E) and change in error(CE) and the the appro-
priate degree of failure(FM).
For a fuzzy controller, the control action rules are often extracted from
expert operators. For failure detection, however, the situation is different
from control because experiences of failure is rare and this knowledge
about failure is too incomplete to form a functional rule base.
To construct more accurate rule base, consider the performance index
J(k) at t = kT defined as follows:

J(k) = T1 i kT

(k-l)T
e2 (r)dr (6)

The index J( k) indicates a kind of mean squared error or an average

of instantaneous squared error at the k-th time slot. It is noted that
a decision based on observation of instantaneous value of e(t) may be
often erroneous for such an error may not necessarily indicate failures of
system components. Also, note that if the controlled system is normally
functioning, then J(k) - t 0 as time passes. Therefore, to see whether or
not the system functions well, one can examine the following term

i
dJ 2 kT de
-(k) () ()d
er-drr (7)
dt T (k-l)T t

= 2 e(kT) + e((k -l)T) . e(kT) - e((k - l)T) (8)

2 T
The integral term in equation (7) is a kind of average of the e(kT) ~~(kT)
over an interval T. In equation (8), the first term can be regarded as the
approximate mean of error and the second term can be regarded as the
mean of change in error for k-th control period. Denote the average of
e(t) in k-th control period as e(k), and the average of derivative of e(t)
as c-e( k), respectively. Then we may write that

(9)
512

Table 1. Fuzzy Rule of Failure Detection

E
NB NS ZE PS PB
NB PB PB ZE NB NB
NS PB PS ZE NS NB
CE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE
PS NB NS ZE PS PB
PB NB NB ZE PB PB

Obviously, the negative value of equation (7) for a continued time

means that the system under consideration is in normal operation. In
this case, one can conclude the control system operates well and there is
no failure possibility in the controller. On the other hand, the positive
value of equation (7) may indicates the failure possibility of the controller.
From these qualitative and quantitative strategies, one may generate
fuzzy rules for detecting the failures of a controller. The entire fuzzy
failure detection strategy is represented by a single matrix as shown in
Table 1. In the table, fuzzy subset FM is assigned one of five fuzzy
variables. NB can be interpreted as the case that the possibility of failure
is quite low and PB means that the possibility of failure is very certain,
etc.

3.3 Reconfiguration

The time weight, T: for each control period k, is determined according

to the control performances of two controllers.
As a result of first inference, the fuzzy failure representation FM} and
F M 2 for two controllers are obtained, which indicate the possibility of the
failure for each controller. If both the controllers are well functioning, the
performance measures of two controllers should be low. But, if a controller
fails, the measure of failed controller is high, while the failure measure of
the other functioning controller is low. Then, the discrepancy between
the two measures occurs.
By comparing F M} and F M 2 , a controller whose possibility offailure
is higher than the other would be a failed controller. Thus, the time
weight of failed controller should be reduced for better control though
one can not conclude that it fails. This strategy for the change of time
weight is represented as linguistic rules as follows:
 513

Table 2. Fuzzy Rule of Reconfiguration

NB NS ZE PS PB
NB -ZE NS NS NB NB
NS PS ZE ZE NS NB
FMl ZE PS ZE ZE ZE NS
PS PB PS ZE ZE NS
PB PB PB PS PS ZE

IF FM1 = PB and FM2 = NB THEN TS = NB

ELSE
IF FM1 = NB and FM2 = PB THEN TS = PH.

If the discrepancy is large, we conclude that the degree of failure of

the failed controller will be large, too. So, the time weight of the failed
controller must be reduced much more. These strategies are summarized
in Table 2 as a rule table. In the table, NB or NS means that the per-
formance of C 1 is worse than that of C 2 and thus the time weight for C 1
should be reduced. PB or PS denotes the opposite situation. Also, ZE
means that no change of time weight is required.
The result of inference is translated into a crisp value to determine
time weight by defuzzification. For defuzzification, the center of gravity
method is used. The time weight T;+l for next control period is modified
according to the relation:

(10)

During the transient response, even though failure measures of two

controllers are both large, the difference between two measures is small.
In this case, the time weight needs not be changed. Moreover, by ad-
justing the sensitivity of time weight the control system can maintain its
redundancy from the short period disturbances while conventional active
methods may lose redundancy due to false alarms.
514

4. Simulation Example

The proposed scheme is simulated for a conventional control system.

The controlled process is chosen as
1
H(s) = S2 + S + 1 (11)

The conventional PID controllers C 1 and C2 are applied to the plant.

Ci(S) = 1 + -1S + s , i = 1,2 (12)

The choice of control period, T, is related to the time constant of the

process. For a reasonable value of T, T = 4 is chosen.
To show the capability of fault tolerance, three kinds of failure are
examined: (1) jump failure; (2) ramp failure; and (3) short period distur-
bance.
Figure 3 shows the response for the catastrophic failure. If a controller
fails, the single cont~oller system fails to function as shown in Fig. 3(a).
In the proposed scheme, however, the control system preserves the control
capability with small fluctuation during first few seconds as illustrated in
Fig. 3(b). The control weighting of the failed controller decreases and
finally the failed controller is removed from the control loop. So, the
failed control output does not disturb the control system.

Figure 3. Simulation results for the failure type 1

 515

2
! - ,(1) :
h..-_,.....L------,----
[ ,(t) i-
!/\j\ 1\
j' - -,.(t)
0------' ---t-
--,.(t)
!
....
>:; 0 1----
-I
1
-----i-----:-- -I ~
i\
-2L-----i---~--­ -2
o 20 .40 60 0 20 40 60
(a) Single controller case (b) Dual controller case

2 ~--....-------,-----,
! - fml
-----~----- - 1m, 6

~----;-_.-_.

-I ._---+---------1
_21-_ _..........._ _ ~ _ _--J
o 20 40 60 o 20 40 60
(c) Failure measures (d) Switch

Figure 4. Simulation results for the failure type 2

Figure 4 shows the response for the failure type 2. In this case, the
failure measure is relatively smaller than the former case. Thus, the failed
controller is removed from the control loop slowly. Since the weight of
the controller is reduced, the effect of the failed controller is suppressed
as shown in Fig. 4(b).
2 , 2
'~
- ,(t)
--,.(t)
I" 1\

--
- 1(t>

1
Ilf i h---...J-~--l"- ,.(t)
I
....
>:; 0 ---i; ....
>:; 0

-I !\ -I 1\
-2 -2
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
(a) Single controller case (b) Dual controller case

2
-1m,
-- 1m, 6
~
0-'
.E _-J"
e..--'
I
-I '-' cS
-2
0 20 40 60 0
(c) Failure measures (d) Switch

Figure 5. Simulation results for the failure type 3

516

Figure 5 shows the response for the failure type 3. In the conventional
redundant control scheme, it can make the loss of functioning controller
due to its switching mechanism. In the response of the proposed scheme,
however, the control system only reduces the time weight for C 1 during
the period of being disturbed. In this way, the proposed scheme can
maintain its redundancy so that we can reduce the cost of repair.

5. Conclusion

In this paper, a failure detection and reconfiguration method for a du-

plicated control system is proposed to overcome controller failures. Repre-
senting failures in failure measure and introducing the concept of variable
time weight can handle gradual degrading failures as well as catastrophic
failures. This make the detection mechanism robust against short period
failures or even in ill-conditioned environments. The simulation results
show that the redundant control system can maintain its control capabil-
ity even when one of the controllers fails.

References

1. Cho, Y. J. and Bien, Z., "Reliable control via an additive redundant

controller," Int. J. Control, vo1.50, no.l, pp.385-398, 1989.
2. Isermann, R., "Process fault detection based on modeling and esti-
mation methods - A survey," Automatica, vo1.20, pp.387-404, July
1984.
3. Johnson, B. W., Design and Analysis of Fault-Tolerant Digital Sys-
tems, Addison-Wesley, 1989.
4. Li, Y. F. and Lau, G. C., "Development offuzzy algorithms for servo
systems," IEEE ContT. Syst. Mag., vo1.9, no.3, pp.65-72, April 1989.
5. Mamdani, E. H., "Application of fuzzy algorithms for control of a
simple dynamic plant," Proc. IEEE, vo1.121, pp.1585-1588, 1974.
6. Procyk T. J. and Mamdani E. H., "A Linguistic Self-Organizing Pro-
cess Controller," Automatica, vo1.15, pp.15-30, 1979.
USE OF NATURAL LANGUAGE IN SYSTEM RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Takehisa ONISAWA

Institute of Engineering Mechanics, University of Tsukuba,

1-1-1, Tennodai, Tsukuba 305, Japan

ABSTRACT:This paper describes a model of system reliability

analysis using natural language information and numerical in-
formation on system reliability. Meanings of natural language
expressions and subjective estimate of numerical information
are expressed by fuzzy sets on the unit interval. The proposed
model uses the fuzzy sets. The result of the reliability analy-
sis is expressed by a natural language. Through an example use-
fulness of the present model is shown. Finally this paper dis-
cusses a few remarks for future research.

1. INTRODUCTION
A failure rate and an error rate are necessary to the con-
ventional reliability analysis based on the probabilistic meth-
od. Furthermore information about, e.g., the dependence level
between subsystems failures or human errors, a possibility that
a subsystem failure or a human error leads to a system accident,
is also necessary to analyze system reliability. In practice,
however, the failure rate and the error rate are not sometimes
available since we have not enough amount of data to estimate
these rates. And it is much more difficult to get information
on the dependence level, the possibility level, etc. by numeri-
cal values. Even if numerical information is obtained, numeri-
cal values do not necessarily have objectivity and preciseness
as they themselves show. All one can reasonably estimate is the
possibility or the plausibility of such an event taking place,
given the information that you can have on hand or can reason-
ably assemble[l]. Natural language expressions are appropriate
for reliability estimate, the dependence level estimate, the
possibility level estimate, etc. A natural language plays an
important role even in the reliability analysis. Meanings of
natural language expressions are closely related to fuzzy sets
theory and this theory is necessary to the system reliability
analysis.
This paper describes a model of system reliability analysis
using natural language information and numerical information.
In this model numerical information or natural language infor-
mation on system reliability is employed according as which of
the two informations is available. However, since meanings of
natural language information and numerical information about
system reliability have latent fuzziness[2]. they are expressed
517
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.J, Fuzzy Logic, 517-529.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
518

by fuzzy sets on the unit interval. The present model uses the
fuzzy sets. The result of the fuzzy reliability analysis is ex-
pressed by a natural language. Through an example usefulness of
the model is shown. This paper finally discusses a few remarks
about subjective reliability analysis for a future research.

2. FAILURE POSSIBILITY
A failure possibility is defined by a fuzzy set on the unit
interval [0, 1] such as

1
F(x)=------ (1)
m
1+20*lx- xo , l
where x and m are parameters.
o
The conventional probabilistic reliability analysis uses a
failure rate and an error rate as the objective measure of un-
reliability. On the other hand the present model uses the fail-
ure possibility as the subjective measure of unreliability. The
parameter x gives the maximal grade of F(x) and the parameter
m is relateR to fuzziness. Fig. 1 shows the failure possibility.
1..--...,....,.....----------,

ol------!.-------~
XO 1
Fig. 1 An Example of Failure Possibility
In Fig.1 the axis of abscissas mean unreliability based on the
subjective estimate. The failure possibility with x =0.5 shows
O expert's
"standard reliability". "Standard reliability" implles
subjective standard estimate of system reliability. The smaller
the parameter Xo is, the higher reliability the failure possi-
bility shows. Tfie axis of ordinates mean the grade of member-
ship. For example, F(O) shows the grade of unreliability 0 and
F(1) shows the grade of unreliability 1. Unreliability 0 im-
plies that a machine is estimated not to fail during the opera-
tion, or a human operator is estimated not to make an error in
a given task. On the other hand unreliability 1 implies that it
is estimated to fail during the operation or he is estimated to
make an error in the task.
 519

i) In the case that the failure rate and the error rate(numeri-
cal values) are available[3].
The failure rate and the error rate are usually given by the
triplet of [PL' PM' pIll, where PM is the recommended value of
the failure rate and the error rate, PL is its lower bound and
Pu is its upper bound. The parameter xo should be derived from
subjective estimate of the failure rate, the error rate, many
factors which affect machine reliability or human reliability
[3]. In this paper, however, only subjective estimate of the
failure rate or the error rate is considered for simplicity.
The parameter x is derived from Eq.(2).
o
1
(2)
xo=-l-+-(-K-*-l-O-g-(l-/-P-M-))-3-,
S
where KS is a constant and xo=O when PM=O.
In Eq. (2)

KS=1/10g(1/PS) . (3)
where Ps IS a subjective standard failure or error rate.
The parameter Ks means a subjective safety criterion. The para-
meter xo equals to 0.5 when PM=PS' That is, the failure possi-
bility with X =0.5 shows stanaara reliability as mentioned be-
fore. O
The parameter m is derived from ratios k=PM/PL' PU/PM con-
sidering that the larger these ratios are, the fuzzier ~he
estimated reliability is.
ii) In the case that the failure rate and the error rate(nume-
rical values) are not available[2]
It is often difficult to estimate the failure rate and the
error rate by numerical values. However even in this case a
natural language is rather appropriate for the expression of
reliability estimate. In this paper when it is difficult to es-
timate reliability by numerical values, then reliability esti-
mate is expressed by a natural language in the form of estimate
of reliability and its fuzziness. Table 1 shows natural lan-
guage expressions about estimate of reliability. Table 1 also
shows correspondence between natural language expressions and
numerical values of the parameter xo ' The boldfaced numerical
value is assumed to belong to the class. The parameter X in
Eq.(l) is assumed to take a middle value in the range of oX as
o
a representative value of each class when reliability estimate
is expressed by a natural language. The failure possibility in
the class 1 is defined by
I, x=l,
F(x)= (4)
{ 0,
520

Table 1 Natural Language Expressions about Estiaate of

Reliability and Nuaerical Values of Paraaeter Xo
Class Natural Language Expressions Range of xo Representative
Value of xo
1 System has no reliability - -
(System reliability is)
2 quite low 0.9 - 1.0 0.95
3 low 0.7 - 0.9 0.8
4 rather low 0.55 - 0.7 0.625
5 standard 0.45 - 0.55 0.5
6 rather high 0.3 - 0.45 0.375
7 high 0.2 - 0.3 0.25
8 very high 0.1 - 0.2 0.15
9 extremely high 0.05 - 0.1 0.075
(System accident is)
10 next to impossible 0.0 - 0.05 0.025
11 impossible - -

Table 2 Natural Language Expressions about Fuzziness of

Estiaate of Reliability and Nuaerical Values of
Paraaeter a
Class Range of k Natural Language Expressions Parameter m
1 k~3 low 2.0
2 3<k~5 medium ~.5
3 5<k~10 rather High .0
4 10<k high 3.5

and that in the class 11 is defined by

F(x)=
{ 0,

1,
x'%O,

x=O.
(5)

Table 2 shows natural language expressions about fuzziness.

Table 2 also shows correspondence among natural language ex-
pressions about fuzziness, ratios, and numerical values of the
parameter m.
3. MODEL OF SYSTEM RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
The present model employs the fault tree analysis. The basic
operations are an "AND" operation and an "OR" operation of
failure possibilities.

3.1 AND Operation of Failure Possibilities[3]

 521

A function H is employed as the "AND" operation of failure

possibilities.

1
H(x,y)= 1/3 1/3 3 (6)
l+(((l-x)/x) +((l-y)/y) ),
where O<x,y~l and H(O,y)=H(x,O)=O.

The function H is compatible with the "and" operation of fail-

ure rates or error rates, i.e., the product of rates. For exam-
ple, let us consider a parallel system with subsystems A and B,
where these subsystems are assumed to be independent of each
other. Let PMA and PMB be the failure rates of subsystems A and
B, respectiveIy. The system failure rate is estimated by

(7)
The parameter Xo which gives the maximal grade of the failure
possibility of this system is obtained by

XO=H(f(PMA)' f(PMR))' (8)

where the suojective standard failure rate(ps) in f(PMA)
and that in f(PMB) are assumed to be the same.
Substitution of p in Eq.(7) for PM in Eq.(2) leads to Eq.(9).

f(p)=f(PMA*PMB)
=H(f\PMAJ, f(PMB))' (9)

3.2 OR Operation of Failure Possibilities[3]

A function G is employed as the "OR" operation of failure
possibilities.
((X/(1_x))3+(Y/(1_y))3)1/3
G(x,y)= 3 3 1/3 (10)
l+((x/(l-x)) +(y/(l-y)) )
where O~x,y<l and G(l,y)=G(x,l)=l.

The function G is not completely but approximately compatible

with the "or" operation of failure rates or error rate~. Let us
consider a series system with subsystems A and B. These subsys-
tems are assumed to be independent of each other. Let p and
PMR be failure rates of these subsystems. The system faT1ure
rates is estimated by

P=PMA+PMB-PMA*PMB' (11)
The function G is approximately compatible with the "or"
operation of failure rates or error rates in the sense of
Eq.(12).
522

xO=G(f(PMA),f(PMB))
=f(p)=iTPMA+PMB-PMA*PMB), (12)
where PMA and PMB are assumed to be estimated by the same
parameter K in Eq.(2).
S
3.3 Dependence between Subsystems Failures or Human Errors[3]
Two kinds of dependences are considered here. Let FA and F
be failure possibilities of subsystems A and B including humanB
error, respectively, and R be a fuzzy set representing the de-
pendence level.
3.3.1 Dependence I
It is assumed that troubles of subsystems A and B lead to a
system accident and that if the trouble happens to the subsys-
tem A, then the trouble is liable to happen to the subsystem B.
Let F'R be the failure possibility of the subsystem B influ-
enced 5y the trouble in the subsystem A. In this paper F'B is
estimated by "FA AND R". The failure possibility of the total
system is estimated by the following model.
(1) The case in which the subsystem B is influenced by the
trouble in the subsystem A.
F'B.is the failure possibility of the total system in this
case, I.e.,
(13)
(2) The case in which the subsystem B is not influenced by the
trouble in the subsystem A.
As far as the dependence is not complete, the subsystem B is
not always influenced by the trouble in the subsystem A. The
portion of the failure possibility of the subsystem A which
does not influence the subsystem B is obtained by

FA=G(F'A,F'B) (14)
where F'A is this portion.

Eq.(14) implies that the trouble in the subsystem A influences

the subsystem B(F'B) or not(F'A)' The failure possibility of
the total system in this case IS estimated by
F'=H(F'A,F B). (15)
F' is the failure possibility considering the case in which the
trouble happens to the subsystem A and the trouble happens to
the subsystem B not influenced by the subsystem A.
(3) The failure possibility of the total system as a whole is
estimated by

F=G(F'B,F'). (16)

The failure possibility F is estimated by the model considering

 523

two cases: the subsystem B is influenced by the trouble in the

subsystem A(F'B) or not(F').
3.3.2 Dependence II
It is assumed that the subsystem A does not lead to a system
accident directly, but that the trouble in the subsystem A af-
fects the subsystem B and the trouble in the subsystem B leads
to a system accident. There is also a possibility that the
trouble happens to the subsystem B not influenced by the sub-
system A. For example, let us consider the case in which a
human operator performs a task using an instrument. The failure
of the instrument itself does not lead to a system accident di-
rectly. However it influences human error in the task. He some-
times makes an error in the task without the influence of the
instrument failure.
The failure possibility of the total system in this case is
estimated by

F=G(F'A,F B), (17)

wnere F'A=H(FA,R).
Eq.(17) implies that the trouble in the subsystem B occurs in-
fluenced by the subsystem A(F'A) or not influenced by the sub-
system A(F R). That is, FB is atlded by F'A in the sense of the
"OR" operation.

3.4 Uncertainty Whether Some Troubles Lead to an Accident or

Not[3]
It is often uncertain whether a trouble in a subsystem leads
to a system accident or not in a large scale and complex system.
Let F be a failure possibility of the subsystem and R be a
fuzzy set representing the possibility level that the trouble
in the subsystem leads to a system accident. The failure possi-
bility considering the possibility level is obtained by

F'=H(F,R). (18)
For example, if a human operator is estimated to detect and
correct his failure completely, then h(F,R) is equal to O(this
fuzzy set is expressed by Eq. (5)). On the other hand if the
trouble in the subsystem is assumed to lead to an accident cer-
tainly, then H(F,R) is equal to F(this is the failure possibil-
ity of this subsystem).
3.5 Natural Language Expressions of Dependence Level and
Possibility Level[2]
It is difficult to express the dependence level and the pos-
sibility level by numerical values. Even if the dependence
level is expressed by a numerical value, e.g., by a conditional
probability, there is latent fuzziness behind the numerical
value. A natural language is also appropriate for expressions
524

of the dependence level and the possibility level. In this

model meanings of natural language expressions of the depen-
dence level and the possibility level are assumed to be ex-
pressed by fuzzy sets with the same membership function as the
failure possibility.
The dependence level is expressed by a natural language in
the form of estimate of the dependence level and its fuzziness.
Table 3 shows natural language expressions about estimate of
the dependence level. Table 3 also shows numerical values of
the parameter x '
O
Table 3 Natural Language Expressions about Estiaate of
Dependence Level and Nuaerical Values of Paraaeter X
o
Class Natural Language Expressions Parameter x
o
1 Complete Dependence *1
2 Very High Dependence 1.0
3 High Dependence 0.95
4 Medium DependencB 0.75
5 Low Dependence 0'~2
6 Zero Dependence
*1 has the same membership function as Eq. (4).
*2 has the same membership function as Eq. (5).
The possibility level is also expressed by a natural lan-
guage in the form of estimate of the possibility level and its
fuzziness. Table 4 shows natural language expressions about es-
timate of the possibility level. Table 4 also shows numerical
values of the parameter x '
O
Table 4 Natural Language Expressions about Estiaate of
Possibility Level and Nuaerical Values of Paraaeter X
o
Class Natural Language Expressions Parameter xo

1 Complete Possibility *1
2 Very High Possibility 1.0
3 High Possibility 0.95
4 Medium Possibility 0.75
5 Low Possibility 0'~2
6 Zero Possibility

*1 has the same membership function as Eq. (4) .

*2 has the same membership function as Eq. (5) .
As shown in Tables 3 and 4 six kinds of dependence levels
and possibility levels are considered in this model. With re-
spect to fuzziness of estimate of the dependence level and the
 525

possibility level, natural language expressions as shown in

Table 2 are used.
3.6 Natural Language Expressions of Analysis Result[2]
The result of the reliability analysis is expressed by a
natural language in the form of estimate of reliability and its
fuzziness. Let F be a failure possibility that is obtained by
the analysis, an§ F be a failure possibility with a membership
S
function Eq.(I), respectively. Let p-cuts of FR and Fs be.
(FR)()l. =(x iR (oq, x2R (()()) and (FS ~ =(xIS (01), x2S (0"1), respect! vely.
The following disrance between FR ana FS isaefined here.

(1 2 2 1/2
d= )o((X
1R (ot)-X 1S (ot)) +((x 2R (()l')-x 2S (()())) dQl. (19)

The parameters Xo and m are selected so as to mInImIze the

distance d. Tables 1 and 2 are employed to express system reli-
ability by a natural language.
4. EXAMPLE
Let us consider a fuzzy fault tree as shown in Fig. 2. The

o and gate

W or gate

4-6

6-1 6-2

Fig. 2 Fuzzy Fault Tree in an Example

fuzzy fault tree considers both of human error and machine
failure as basic events. R.. 's represent dependence levels or
possibility levels where il~ mean classes of estimate of depen-
dence levels or possibility levels and j's mean classes of
their fuzziness. R1 means the class 1 in Table 5. In this exam-
526

pIe estimate of human reliability is represented by a natural

language and that of machine reliability is represented by nu-
merical values, i.e., triplets of failure rates. Table 5 shows
reliability estimate of basic events. This table includes two
cases. One is the case in which fuzziness of estimate of reli-
ability of a basic event is "low"(l) and the other is the one
in which it is "high"(2).
Table 5 Reliability Estimate of Basic Events
by Natural Language or Numerical Value
(1)

Event Failure Rate Ps Natural Language Expressions

No. (PL' PM' PU) (estimate, fuzziness)

6-1 1E-3,1.752E-3,3E-3 1E-3 -

6-2 2E-2,4.06E-2, 6E-2 5E-2 -
5-2 - rather high, low
5-3 5E-3,lE-2, 2E-2 1E-2 -
5-4 - rather high, low
4-2 - high, low
4-3 2E-2,3.57E-2, 5E-2 5E-2 -
4-4 5E-3,5.782E-3,6E-3 5E-3 -
4-6 - rather high, low
3-4 4E-3,5E-3, 6E-3 5E-3 -

(2)

Event Failure Rate Ps Natural Language Expressions

No. (PL' PM' pu) (estimate, fuzziness)

6-1 1E-4,1.752E-3,2E-2 lE-3 -

6-2 2E-3,4.06E-2, 6E-1 5E-2 -

5-2 - rather high, high

5-3 5E-4,lE-2, 2E-1 1E-2 -
5-4 - rather high, high
4-2 - high, high
4-3 2E-3,3.57E-2, 5E-1 5E-2 -
4-4 5E-4,5.782E-3,6E-2 5E-3 -
4-6 - rather high, high
3-4 4E-4,5E-3, 6E-2 5E-3 -

Fig. 3 shows failure possibilities of the top event of the

fuzzy fault tree in both cases. The failure possibility in
Fig. 3(1) is expressed such as "reliability of this syste. is
very high, and its fuzziness is .edio." On the other hand the
failure possibility in Fig. 3(2) is expressed such as "reli-
ability of this systell is high, and its fuzziness is high."
Natural language expressions of system reliability in two cases
 527

1 1
F
S
Fa

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

M M

o • 1 1
(1) (2)
Fig. 3 Results of Reliability Analysis

are different from each other in spite of the same value of Xo

(=0.15) since the failure possibility in Fig. 3(2) is fuzzier
than that in Fig. 3(1). It is found that the above difference
is expressed very well by a natural language. This is because
natural language expressions consider both reliability esti-
mate and its fuzziness in our model.
5. Remarks for Future Research
The present model uses Eqs.(6) and (10) as the "AND" opera-
tion and the "OR" operation, respectively. These operations are
selected in order to attach much importance to compatibility of
probabilistic operations in the sense of Eqs.(9) and (12). How-
ever, if natural language expressions in the system reliability
analysis is attached much importance, fuzzy sets operations do
not necessarily need to be compatible with probabilistic opera-
tions. Natural language expressions of the analysis results de-
pend on expert's engineering judgement. That is, expert's sub-
jectivity must be also considered in natural language expres-
sions.
Let us consider systems as shown in Fig. 4. And let reli-
subsystem A
subsystem B
-1 subsystem A ~ subsystem B ~
(l)parallel system (2)series system
Fig. 4 Parallel System and Series System

ability estimate of each subsystem be assumed to be "standard

reliability." How should reliability estimate of the parallel
system and the series system be expressed by a natural language?
One expert may express such as "reliability of the parallel
system is high and that of series system is standard." Another
528

expert may express it such as "reliability of the parallel sys-

te. is standard and that of the series syste. is rather low."
Different expressions of system reliability analysis result
depending on expert's subjectivity are necessary to be consid-
ered in our model.
Let us consider the following operations with parameters nH
and nG.
1
H' (x, y ) =------:;-;--;:------:;-;--;:---;-;- (20)
l+(((l_x)/x)l/nH+((l_y)/y))l/nH)nH,
where O<x,y~l and H'(O,y)=H'(x,O)=O,
((X/(l_X))nG+(y/(l_y))nG)l/nG
G' (x, y) =---------:::-------:::-....,.......,.--:::- (21)
l+((X/(l_X))nG+(Y/(l_y))nG)l/nG
where O~,y<l and G'(l,y)=G' (x.1)=1.

These operations are so called t-norm and t-conorm by Dombi[4].

The operation H' ranges from a drastic product to a logical
product (min) depending on the parameter nH. When nH equals to 0.
H' becomes a drastic product. When nH is infinity, H' becomes
a logical product. The operation G' ranges from a logical sum
(max) to a drastic sum depending on the parameter nG. When nG
is infinity, G' becomes a logical sum. When nG equals to 0, G'
becomes a drastic sum. From above considerations expert's sub-
jectivity may be introduced to fuzzy sets operations by para-
meters nH and nG. It is necessary to discuss these points from
the viewpoint of system reliability analysis as a future re-
search in order to evolve subjective system reliability analy-
sis.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In reliability analysis it is often difficult to estimate
the failure rate and the error rate by numerical values. Fur-
thermore it is not easy to express information on the depen-
dence level and the possibility level by numerical values.
Natural language expressions are more appropriate for expres-
sions of information on system reliability than numerical
values.
This paper describes a model of system reliability analysis
by the use of numerical information and natural language infor-
mation. The present model uses either natural language informa-
tion or numerical information according as which of the two in-
formations is available. Two kinds of informations are ex-
pressed in terms of fuzzy sets on the unit interval since their
meanings have latent fuzziness. The result of the reliability
analysis is expressed by a natural language. The example shows
that the fuzzy reliability analysis with natural language in-
formation and numerical information is useful.
 529

Finally this paper discusses parameterized fuzzy sets opera-

tions as remarks for the subjective system reliability analysis.

~~s
[11K.J.Schmucker:Fuzzy Sets, Natural Language Computations, and
Risk Analysis, Computer Science Press, 1984.
[21T.Onisawa:Fuzzy Model for System-Reliability Analysis and a
Prototype of a Fuzzy-Reliability Analyzer, submitted to IEEE
Tans. on Reliabiliy.
[3]T.Onisawa:An Application of Fuzzy Concepts to Modelling of
Reliability Analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.37, No.3,
pp.267-286, 1990.
[4]M.Mizumoto:Pictorial Representations of Fuzzy Connectives,
Part I: Cases of t-norms, t-conorms and Averaging Operators,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, VOl.31, No.2, pp.217-242, 1989.
 PARAMETER ADJUSTMENT LAWS OF FUZZY PI CONTROLLERS
FOR FIRST ORDER LAG SYSTEMS WITH DEAD TIME
Kazuo TANAKA and Manabu SANO
Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering
Kanazawa University

Abstract
This paper presents a new parameter tuning method of
fuzzy controllers for first order lag systems with dead
time. The parameter adjustment laws are employed to
realize a simple and systematic parameter tuning.
Simulation results show that the parameter adjustment
laws guarantee good control performance.

1. Introduction
One of the difficulties for design of fuzzy controllers
is to find optimum parameters. We lack at present sys-
tematic tuning methods in the field of fuzzy control. In
order to develop a systematic tuning method, we should
identify parameter adjustment laws which can find
optimum parameters of fuzzy controllers. The purpose of
this paper is to identify parameter adjustment laws of
fuzzy PI controllers for first order lag systems with
dead time.
A first order lag system with dead time is described as
K - e -LS ,
-- (1.1)
Ts + 1
where K, T and L denote the gain, the time constant and
the dead time, respectively. It is well known that the
optimum parameters of linear PI controllers for first
order lag systems with dead time can be calculated using
K, T and L as follows:
O.6T
Kp = TI= T, (1. 2)
KL
531

R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 531-540.

© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
532

where Kp and T. are the proportional gaIn and the

integral time of linear PI controller, respectively.

2. Fuzzy PI Controller
Table 1 shows a typical control rule table of fuzzy PI
controllers. Fig.l shows membership functions in the
premise and the consequent parts.

Table I Control rule table

NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB

NB NB NB NB NM NM NS ZO
NM NB NB NM NM NS ZO PS
NS NB NM NM NS ZO PS PM
e ZO NM NM NS ZO PS PM PM
PS NM NS ZO PS PM PM PB
PM NS ZO PS PM PM PB PB
PB ZO PS PM PM PB PB PB

NB NM NS ZO PSPM PB NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB

-a
I-b)
o a e
(b) (e) -
C o c '

Fig.l Membership functions

 533

In this paper, we use a convenient structure of fuzzy

controller presented in [1]. The structure can be real-
ized by a rotation of control rule table. This rotation
has the following effects:

(EO decrease of the number of control rules,

(E2) the dead time compensation.

The effect (El) can be achieved by the following

coordinate transformation.

=
[-::::: :~:;:] [:] (2.1)

where, eo is the angle of rotation of rule table, i. e.,

e-e axes as shown in Fig.2.

dv e•
I

Fig.2 Rotation of rule table

It is clear from Fig.2 that the output u of the fuzzy PI

controller depends only on v. It is, therefore, possible
to decrease the number of control rules by means of this
534

coordinate transformation. Fig.3 shows a new rule table

and membership functions generated by the coordinate
transformation.
As mentioned in (E2), it is reported that a rotation of
control rule table has the effect of the dead time
compensation [1]. Assume that the angle of rotation of
control rule table performed for the purpose of the dead
time compensation is t::. (). Then the final angle () 0 f
rotation of control rule table can be defined as

The parameters of fuzzy PI controller are () 0, t::. (). r

and c, where r is the scaling factor of v.

NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB

dv I
any NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB

NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB f'JB NM NS ZO PS PM PB

-I'---f---l---1I---+--f---t- V -1--lf---+--f-----'1- U
-r o r -c C.
2
C

Fig.3 RUle table and membership functions

3. Parameter Adjustment Laws

In this section, we attempt to identify parameter ad-
 535

justment laws for four parameters of fuzzy controllers.

3.1 Derivation of (} and r 0

We define the following reference response for

determining (} 0 and r .
..
e = - ( a e + /3 e) (3.1)

Of course, we must select a and /3 such that Eq. (3.1) is

stable.
Assume that L=O. Then, the angle (} 0 shown in Fig.2 can
be obtained from Eqs. (1.1) and (3.1) as follows.

-1 /3T
(} 0 = tan (- (3.2)
a T-l

Fig.4 shows the derivation process of r. In Fig.4,

eo = r - Yo,
where Yo denotes the initial value of controlled variable
y. Then, the scaling factor r of v is obtained as follows.

r = I eo sin (} 0 (3.3)

dv v

.\:::""
e

Fig.4 Derivation process of r

536

3.2 Derivation of c
The parameter c is closely related to the gain of fuzzy
PI controller. As result of separately considering two
cases of L=O and L>O, we can introduce the parameter ad:"
justment law
L=O,
c =\ 2.0 P (3.4)
0.3 P
L>O,
JT
where

K "
P= - {(aT-i) cos (Jo + ,BTsin (Jo}.

3.3 Derivation of tJ. (J

As mentioned above, tJ. (J is the parameter for the dead
time compensation. We attempt to identify a parameter
adjustment law of tJ. (J in the case of L > O. It is confirmed
from simulation results that T and L influence tJ. (J. 50,
we identify a function f such that tJ. (J = f(T, L). Of course,
f is a nonlinear function.
Table 2 shows optimum values of tJ. (J for 28 pairs of T
and L obtained by computer simulations. In the derivation
of tJ. (J, quickest response with 20 per cent overshoot is
used as a performance index.
Eq. (3. 5) is derived by analyzing the relation between
tJ. (J and the pairs of (T,L) shown in Table 2.

max (0 , 5) L>O,
tJ. (J (rad.) = (3.5)
{
o L=O,

where 5 is defined as follows.

(3.6)

Eq.(3.6) is identified using the method of least squares,

where input-output data (T, Land tJ. (J ) shown in Table 2
are utilized. It can be seen that 5 is a negative value
 537

when T and L are extremely small values, for example,

L=0.5 and T=l. To solve this problem, Eq. (3.5) must be
defined.
In Table 2, ~ () :t" 's show the values which are cal-
culated for the 28 pairs -of (T,L) using Eqs.(3.5) and (3.6).
It is found that the values of ~ ():t" agree well with those
of ~ (). However, we should notice that Eqs.(3.5) and (3.6)
are useful only when I ~ T ~ 30 and I ~ L ~ 7.
Eqs.(3.2)-(3.6) are parameter adjustment laws of fuzzy
PI controllers.

Table 2 Optimum values of ~ () (rad.)

L T ,Lj8 ,Lj 8 • L T ,Lj8 ,Lj 0 •

1 1 O. 000 0.000 5 1 0.290 O. 317

5 0.475 0.466 5 0.640 0.637
10 0.535 0.533 10 0.685 0.672
15 O. 550 0.551 15 O. 100 O. 690
20 0.560 0.571 20 0.705 O. 702
25 0.565 0.581 25 0.710 O. 711
30 O. 570 O. 589 30 O. 715 0.718

3 1 O. 125 0.098 7 1 0.390 0.420

5 O. 600 O. 589 5 0.680 0.666
10 O. 650 0.630 10 0.710 0.700
15 O. 660 0.648 15 0.715 0.717
20 0.670 0.661 20 0.720 O. 729
25 0.675 0.670 25 0.725 O. 738
30 O. 680 0.677 30 0.730 0.745

4. Simulation Results
Fig.5 - Fig. 7 show control results of fuzzy PI
controllers. The parameters of the fuzzy PI controllers
are calculated using Eqs.(3.2)- (3.6), where a = /3 = 2.0.
From these figures, we can point out that the
adjustment laws of Eqs. (3. 2) - (3.6) guarantee good con-
trol performance.
538

TIME lEI

Fig.5 Simulation result (T=28, K=1.3, L=1.5)

y
~ ---

O..........._ _'--_--''--_--''--_--'_ _--J

o TIME IE) 5)

Fig.6 Simulation result (T=5.3,K=O.7,L=3.5)

y
~ ----- - --

O~-..£:.....-.;l...------Jl...-----'----'----J
o TIME IE) 5)

Fig.7 Simulation result (T=17.8,K=1.8,L=4.5)

 539

Fig.8 ...... Fig.9 show control results of a fuzzy PI

controller for some set-points, where a = /3 = 2.0. The
parameters of the controlled object used in this simu-
lation is as follows:T=IO, K=l and L=3.

O;;-"-----'------1.-_ _-l..-_ _. 1 - - _ - - J
o TIME (:xc..) 5)

Fig.8 Simulation result (set-point 30)

O:--o£.----L_ _---1.-_ _-l..-_ _. 1 - - _ - - J

o TIME (:xc..) 5)

Fig.9 Simulation result (set-point 50)

5. Conclusion
We have discussed a new parameter tuning method based
on parameter adjustment laws. From simulation results, we
have pointed out that the parameter adjustment laws
identified in this paper guarantee good control
performance.
540

Reference
[l ]T. Veda et al.: Simplification of Constructing Member-
ship Functions of Fuzzy Control for Power Systems,
T. lEE Japan, Vol.lIO-B, no.5, pp.445-446(l990)
in Japanese.
 ADAPfIVE FUZZY CONTROL

Pierre Yves Glorennec

INSA de Rennes
35043 Rennes Cedex
glorenne@irisa.fr

Abstract
This paper presents an adaptive controller using fuzzy logic and connexionnist
methods. This controller requires two blocks: the first one is an adaptive feedforward
controller, designed by training and/or human knowledge. It learns the inverse
dynamics of an unknown plant and drives it to a desired output. The second block
performs a state feedback to compensate the committed error. The controller is tested
on a non linear system with coupled outputs.

Keywords
Fuzzy logic, neural network, non linear plant, learning, adaptive control.

1. Introduction
In the control of a process, a natural method is to consider two steps: the first
step generates a control input which drives the plant to reach an output near the set
point (feedforward controller), the second corrects the initial control input from the
observed error (feedback controller). The feedforward controller, alone, can't generally
give a correct command at the first go, for several reasons: disturbances modifying
the plant behaviour, incomplete modelling, time varying parameters. On the other
hand, the smaller the feedforward error, the swifter the feedback compensation is. In
the past decades, major advances have been made in adaptive control for linear plant
with unknown parameters. But few results exist for non linear systems. For those
systems, neural networks [I], [10], [II] or fuzzy logic [12], have proved successful
in control.
541
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic. 541-551.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
542

In this paper, we propose to associate two fuzzy controllers for the feedforward
and the feedback actions. Using the feedback error for learning, the feedforward
controller is able to acquire the model of the inverse dynamics of the plant, after a
period of training. We use a steepest descent algorithm for learning. This controller
is tested on a black box which is a two inputs two outputs non-linear system, with
highly coupled outputs.

2. "Neuro-fuzzy" networks
A fuzzy controller has the internal structure of an expert system with a
knowledge base consisting of linguistic rules of the form :

rule i : if x is Ail and y is Ai2 and ... z is Ain then v is Bi

where x,y,... and z are controller inputs,

(Aij )j=l,n are fuzzy subsets on the domains of x, y, ... and z,
v is the input command (controller output),
(B i)i=l,n are fuzzy subsets or fuzzy singletons.

The fuzzy control is composed of three steps:

1. define the fuzzy subsets on the variation domain of each variable and the
membership functions x ~ J.l.A (x) e [0,1]. In this paper, we use triangular
membership functions, for simplicity, but similar results are obtained with smooth
membership functions (gaussian or sigmoidal).

2. for an input (xO'YO"'zO ), compute the truth value of the premise part of
each rule. Usually, the AND operator is chosen as :
~ = min (J.l.Ail (xO ), J.l.Ai2(YO ) ,.. J.l.Ain(zO ) }
or

3. in Mamdani's method, the ith rule leads to :

J.l.B'i (u)= min (~, J.l.Bi (u) )
and the inferred consequence B is pointwise given by
J.l.B(u) = max i ( J.l.B'i (u) )

A defuzzification strategy is required. This fuzzy reasoning process is illustrated in

Fig. 1, for three rules.
 543

fig. 1- Diagrammatic representation of Mamdani's method

A simplified fuzzy reasoning method is obtained, taking only the vertices, b i of

the triangular membership functions of fuzzy sets Bi . This method is equivalent to
Takagi-Sugeno's, [14]. In this case, a crisp control action is directly expressed,
without defuzzification, as the weighted combination:

(1)

It is convenient to represent a system with n rules and m outputs by the scheme:

fig. 2- "neuro-fuzzy" network.

As emphasized by several authors [4], [6], [7], [8], this scheme presents many
analogies with artificial neural networks :
1. parallel processing of the truth values CXj of the premises, by units called
Rule neurons,
544

2. each Rule neuron emits its output signal to the output neurons which
compute (1).
3. with the simplified fuzzy reasoning method, B = (b l ,... ,bn)t is an adaptive
synaptic weight vector.
There are three specialised layers: the first evaluates the inputs according to the
given fuzzy subsets in the premises, the second processes the truth values and the
third gives the consequents. This different presentation of fuzzy controllers places a
multilayer structure in a prominent position, with outputs as nonlinear functions of
weights.
It is possible, by a judicious choice of membership functions and of AND
operator, to entirely map a fuzzy-rule-based system on a Neural Network, cf [5].
However, in this paper, we consider the simpler following case: the last layer is a
Neural Network with, as inputs, the firing strength of each rule and, as output, the
control action expressed by (1). In this case, the weights of this Neural Network are
the crisp values, (hi h, in the consequent part of the rules. Unlike ordinary Neural
Networks, to interpret such a neuro-fuzzy network is obvious. Conversely, if we
have no initial knowledge, the learning algorithm developed in paragraph 4 permits
the subsequent drawing of rules.

3- Interpretation
For simplicity, we take a two inputs-one output system with triangular
membership functions crossing at grade 0.5, and with fuzzy rules:

R··IJ if x is Ai and y is Bi then z is Cij for i, j = 1 to 4

fig. 3 a grid on the input space.

 545

As shown in Fig. 3, the vertices of triangular membership functions form a grid

in the input space. The 16 values cij in the consequent part of the fuzzy rules are the
desired values at the points of this grid.

In consequence,
1- the learning process must tune the 16 Cjj values,
2- and the inference process performs a nonlinear interpolation between these
points.

4. Supervised Learning Algorithm

We suppose that there is a set of input-output samples (uj,dj), i E (l,2,... ,N),
UjE RP, d j E R, giving the response d j of a plant to a command input Uj. This set is
divided into two parts, the first for learning, the second for testing generalization
capabilities.

With an input Uj, the controller output is Yj such as :

for k in the rule set

The error with a particular set of weight is Yj - dj . We must find a B = (hi' .. bn)t
vector which minimizes the global error: E(B) = 1/2 I. I Yj - d j I 2 by gradient
descent:

where 11 is a gain factor

We use ClE/Clbk to change the weights after every input-output case. With the
particular form of the activation function of output neuron, ClE/Clbk is easy to
compute and the weight modification is :

(2)

Weights are modified proportionally to the committed error and the neuron relative
activities. A momentum term speeds up the learning.
For a given input vector, only a few rules are used for inference. Therefore only
the corresponding weights are updated. The learning algorithm acts locally, unlike
BackPropagation which updates every weight. .

s. Application in control problems

In control systems, we must determine the input that can produce a desired
output, that is to say, we must determine and implement a system inverse. There are
two problems:
546

- to determine a system inverse model,

- to modify model parameters according to the signal error.

set point system

inverse
u unknown I----r_...output
plant
model

Fig. 4- control of unknown system

As shown in Fig. 4, we know the error signal at the system output but not the
error between the actual and the desired command. An alternative to analytical
modelling is to use a behaviour model described by rules. We shall use the previous
learning algorithm in a dedicated architecture for on-line training of a feedforward
controller.

5.1 On-line learning

We adopt the architecture of Fig. 5, with the following algorithm:

1- Let S be a given set point.

The feedforward controller (FPC) emits a command signal, U.
Let Y be the plant response
Compute E = Y - S and CE = Change in Error
L=O
UOld=U
2- repeat
Compute the change in command, dU,
UNew = UOId + dU
Ynew =plant response
Compute E and CE
L+=dU
UOld = UNew
until E < given treshold

3- Retropropagate L in FFC

4- Go to 1
 547

Set Point

~'IlI'~L~
disturbances

(1)
dz-1t Plfeedback
controller
dU

Fig. 5 (I) : the feedforward controller gives an a priori command

...o_i_nt
Set P ..... feedforward U disturbances
controller

(II)

Fig. 5 (II) : the feedback controller reduces the committed error.

5.2 implementation
The PI feedback controller is deduced from the operator's knowledge. In some
cases, we have used the MacVicar-Wheelan 's rule base, [9].
The same algorithm can be used for both the feedback and the feedforward fuzzy
controllers.

6. Simulation example: control of a mixer tap

As example, we have considered a mixer tap, proposed in [11], and already used in
a control problem with neural network [2]. Another example in Building Energy
Management can be found in [3].
We consider two manipulated input variables (cold water tap opening, CO, and
hot water opening, HO), two other inputs, hot and cold water temperature, Thw and
T cw ' and two output variables (temperature, T, and flow rate, F). For hot and cold
water opening, we have non linear law:
548

Hot Water Flow = (HO)2 ,Cold Water Flow =...fCO.

Thus, F = (HO)2 + ...fco and T = ( (HO)2 * Thw + ...fco * Tcw ) /
F.
Moreover, we have added a noise on cold and hot water temperatures, with :

E(Thw) =74.13°C a(Thw) =3.62°C

E(Tcw) =3.85°C o(Tcw) =O.88°C

6.1.1. Feedback loop

The feedback controller implements a discrete PI-like controller. As all mixer
taps have the same behaviour, we can write the following qualitative matrix, Fig. 6
a) :
FE

"\.NB NM NS ZR PS PM PB
NB 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.00
NM 0.10 0.05 0.02 om 0.005 0.00 -.005
TE NS 0.05 0.02 om 0.005 0.00 -.005 -.01
ZR 0.02 om 0.005 0.00 -.005 -.01 -.02
PS 0.01 0.005 0.00 -.005 -.01 -.02 -.05
PM 0.005 0.00 -.005 -.01 -.02 -.05 -.10

~ PB 0.00 -.005 -.01 -.02 -.05 -.10 -.IS

a) qualitative matrix b) expanded rule base for change in HO

fig 6- a) "+" means "increase", "0" means "no action"

and "-" means "decrease"
ex: if Flow Error, FE, is negative and Temperature Error, TE, is positive,
then increase hot water opening and zero action on cold water tap.

This matrix is then expanded for seven fuzzy subsets, namely NB, NM, NS,
ZR, PS, PM and PB (N for Negative, M for Medium, B for Big, ... ), cf Fig. 6 b).
For change in CO, we have taken the same matrix with rows in the reverse order.
The matrix coefficients are the weight vectors of the two output neurons of the
feedback controller.
 549

6.1..2. The feedforward controller

This controller generates two commands for desired temperature and flow rate.
The variation domains of T and F are divided into seven fuzzy subsets, fig. 7.
We must therefore determine 49 rules.

~~ O~OC~
l~
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

fig. 7- membership functions for F and T.

We start learning without initial knowledge (all the weights are zero), with a
training set of 200 tupples (Ti , Fi ) and we use the learning algorithm 5.1. The
PI-like fuzzy controller computes the feedforward error and the weights are updated
after each input pattern, according to equation (2), with a gain Tl = 0.08 and a
momentum term y =0.9. Fig. 8 shows the error curve and the learned control surface
for hot water opening.

• ·3

t ) " s

standard deviation or Flow Error.

fig.8- error curve and learned control surface for hot water opening.

After learning, here is an example of extracted rules:

if F is about 1 then if T is about 30 then HO is 0.12 and CO is 0.86

else if T is about 40 then HO is 0.26 and CO is 0.66
else if T is about 50 then HO is 0.41 and CO is 0.59
else if T is about 60 then HO is 0.57 and CO is 0.50
else if T is about 70 then HO is 0.93 and CO is 0.20
550

As we can see, in Fig. 9, the feedforward action gives results close to the desired
output for T and F.
desired T "'" 30 "'" 40 "'" 50 "'" 60 "'" 70
actual T 27.0 41.5 50.5 57.3 72.5
actualF 1.05 0.98 0.99 1.01 0.99
Fig. 9 mixer tap response before the feedback action, for F about 1

Conclusion
The inverse model of a plant can be learned by a feedforward fuzzy controller.
By teaching the controller with a limited number of samples, the control surface can
be learned easily. The feedforward control action speeds up the response of the
system and the feedback part takes random disturbances into consideration.

The advantage of using a fuzzy controller is that "rule of thumb" can be easily
incorporated into the design of the controller, to speed learning up.

Three improvements have been made:

1- For derivable membership functions and a smoothed version of
Lukasiewicz's And, a BackPropagation-like algorithm allows the optimal choice of
both the membership functions and the consequences of the rules, [4].
2- Other algorithms are currently developed to tune membership functions and
consequences of the rules, without BackPropagation, for any membership functions.
3- An evaluation block can tune the PI-like controller, using the learning
algorithm given by equation (2).

references
[1]- Chen and Pao, "Learning control with neural network", Proc. of
Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1989 IEEE.
[2]- Glorennec P.Y., "Association d'un reseau neuronal et de regles floues pour Ie
contrale d'un processus dynamique", Proc. of Third Int. Workshop
Neuro-Nimes'90.
[3]- Glorennec P.Y., "Application of Fuzzy Control for Building Energy
Management", Proc. of IBPSA-BS'91, Nice, Aug. 91.
[4] Glorennec P.Y. "Un reseau neuro-flou evolutif" Proc. of Third Int.
Workshop Neuro-Nimes'91.
[5] Glorennec PY "A Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System Designed for
Implementation on a Neural VLSI Chip", Proc. of Iizuka, july 1992.
[6] Hayashi and AI. "Fuzzy Neural Controoler" Proc. ofFUZZ-IEEE'92
 551

[7]- Horikawa S. and aI., "A fuzzy controller using neural network and its
capability to learn expert's control rules", Proc. of IIZUKA'90,
Fukuoka, july 90.
[8] Lin and Lee "NN-based fuzzy logic control and decision systems" IEEE
Trans. on Computers, vol 20 dec. 91.
[9] MacVicar-Wheelan P.J. "Fuzzy sets for man-machine interaction", Int. J.
Man-Machine Studies, vol 8, nov. 1976.
[10]- Narendra K. and Parthasarathy K., "Identification and control of
dynamical systems using neural networks", IEEE Trans. on Neural
Networks, vol. 1 no 1, March 90.
[11] Saerens & Soquet, "Un systeme de contr6le connexionniste", 4emes joumees
fran~aises de l'apprentissage, 1989.
[12]- Sugeno M., "An introductory survey of fuzzy control", Inform. Sci.,
vol 36, no 1 and 2, july 85.
[13]- Takagi H. "Fusion technology of fuzzy theory and neural networks",
Proc. of IlZUKA'90, Fukuoka, july 90.
[14] Takagi T. & Sugeno M. "Derivation of fuzzy control rules from human
operator's control actions" Proc. of IFAC Symp. on Fuzzy Information, p
55-60, July 1983.
 FUZZY CONTROL
FOR HIGH FREQUENCY TUBE WELDING SYSTEM

Tadashi lokibe
Computer System Division
Meidensha Corporation
5-5, Ohosaki 5-chome
Shinagawa-Ku Tokyo
141 Japan

1. INTRODUCTION

The field of application of electric resistance welded (ERW) tubes continues

to expand these days, and the quality requirements are becoming more sophisticated
from year to year. In order to meet these market conditions, more advanced
technology for forming and welding is essential to ERW tube production, in addition
to improvement of the quality of materials. Heat input control in welding
especially plays a very important role in advancing and stabilizing the quality of
ERW tubes. Various engineering processes related to heat control have been studied
and developed. From the manual control in early days through PID feedback control
to joint feedforward and feedback control based on computerized mathematical
models --- this sums up the development of heat control to this day. Mill lines
today, however, must turn out a greater variety of ERW tubes of superior quality.
The heat control functions and performance required for this purpose have been
increasingly difficult to come by with the conventional computer control.

The previous construction of fuzzy control systems depended on deciding

the fuzzy rules and membership functions by collecting the operation know-how of
experts and tuning it by guesswork, so to speak, in actual systems. With this
approach it is impossible to judge if the know-how of experts is fully incorporated
in fuzzy control systems.
553
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.!. Fuzzy Logic, 553-567.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
554

With this as a background, a fuzzy control for high frequency tube welding
system having functions for automatic generation of fuzzy rules and membership
functions based on expert operation data, fuzzy adaptive control to deal with changes
in mill performance with time and weld temperature true value estimation to make
up for the shortcomings of a two-color pyrometer in application to ERW tube
production, was developed by combining the fuzzy control technology and our heat
control technology.

2. OUTLINE OF SEAM WELDED TUBE PRODUCTION LINE

Fig. 1 shows the configuration of a typical ERW tube production line.

This line consists of an uncoiler to unwind band steel coils produced in a preseling
stage, an accumulator to play the role of a buffer for continuous band steel feed, a
forming unit to form the sheet steel into tubes, a welder for tube seam welding, a
sizing unit to correct the shape of pipes and a cut-off unit to cut tubes to a specified
length. A high frequency current passes through the work for high pressure
welding. This line operates at speeds of several ten meters per minute for medium
size tube production and a little more than 100 meters per minute for small size tube
production, depending on the type of steel, tube outside diameter and sheet steel
thickness.
Welder

Two-color pyrometer

Cut-off unit Sizing unit Squeeze roll unit Forming unit

- Direction of flow of line

Uncoiler
Fig. 1 Electric Resistance Welded Tube Production Line
Configuration
 555

3. FUZZY CONTROL FOR TUBE WELDING

3.1 Outline

This system is built around our f-l PORT-II32 32-bit industrial computer.
Automatic, semi-automatic and manual operation modes are provided.

In the automatic mode the operation is fully automatic, using a proper set
of fuzzy rules based on production conditions (tube type, steel type, pipe outside
diameter and sheet steel thickness) set by a host computer. In the semi-automatic
mode the operation is the same as in the automatic mode except for entering the
production conditions from the CRT display keyboard of the system.

The control modes are on-line, simulation and off-line. In the on-line
mode automatic heat input control is executed using all the control algorithms. In
the simulation mode the validity of the fuzzy rules and membership functions of
self-learning is evaluated. The heat control block diagram of this system is shown
in Fig. 2.

This system consists of feedforward and feedback fuzzy control circuits.

There also are feedforward fuzzy control self-learning function and feedback fuzzy
adaptive control function to support them. In order to eliminate the effect of various
disturbances on the two-color pyrometer, a weld temperature true value estimating
function using a fuzzy reasoning process is provided. These functions are described
in the following pages.

For fuzzy reasoning this system uses a fuzzy reasoning package to run on
the fJ PORT-II series computer mentioned before.

The specification of the fuzzy controller using this package is shown in

Table. 1.
 556

,
Master file

•. - - - - - - Self-learning
Um
Ts w
tandard value FF control self·leamiog unit Ep
V,
decision unit II'

,T ,I
I
0"
se~
FF cOOirol FF fuzzy comrol circuit
:11fOI rule MSFse'

1 l
Ts
Vw
+
Ts

Vw -I Fuzzy reasoning unil ~ Q

UP dO + Vw Vs U
Mill line
ON ~ J
Os~
- ~
I
+

~
Ow

""'Iding FB FB fuzzy control circuil

Vw omrol rule sct
~
Fw Rw
lemperature
KB
tw true value I- 0·.
I
w
estimating unit
.---L. Ow
FB comrol adaptive learning unh Automatic adjuslmem

T, Standard sheet steel thickness Fw Visual field slippage

Vw Line speed Ep Plate voltage
dU Feedback controlled variable dO Manual target temperature correction
Rw Outside light d8s: Target temperature deviation
fw Welder oscillation frequency 8 ,f: Standard welding temperature
8 Welding temperature (measurement) V Controlled variable
V, Standard operation speed Um Manual heat input set point
8s Target welding temperature Ip Plate current
Vb Feedforward controlled variable dVs Target speed deviation
8w Welding temperature (estimated true value) dO s: Target temperature deviation change rale
Pw Temperature measuring position KB : Keyboard

Fig. 2 Heat Control Block Diagram

 557

Table 1 Fuzzy Controller Specification

Item Specification
Rule file Maximum 100 files/system
Reasoning rules Number of rules Maximum 1024 Iines/file
Rule length Maximum 250 characters/rule
Quantity Maximum 512/file
Membership functions Set point Maximum 40 points/function
(MSF) Universe of discourse: 256
Resolution
Grade: 256
Quantity 4 engines/system
Reasoning method 3 methods including a -cut method
Reasoning engines Defuzzying 4 methods including CGM method
Processing rule file I file/engine
Reasoning speed 200 ~ I0,000 rules/second
Input variables Maximum 512/file Fuzzy data and crisp data
Output variables Maximum 512/file Only crisp data
Intermediate variables Maximum 64/file Only fuzzy data

3.2 Feedforward Fuzzy Control Unit

If there is no difference in tube type, steel type and outside diameter in heat
control for ERW tube production, the line speed and heat input are usually related as
shown in Fig. 3, allowing for a difference in sheet steel thickness. This relation is
represented as follows by a mathematical model.
Heat input
p

O,:----------- v
o Line Speed
Fig. 3 Line Speed • Heat Input Characteristic Model
558

P = (Pr + Ps) X T
Pr = aV + b
Ps = e/(cV + d)

Where Pr: Heat input in moving heating area

Ps: Heat input in stationary heating area
T: Sheet steel thickness
V: Line speed
a - e: Coefficients

However, a great deal of data is required for a decision on the parameters a

to e. Another problem is that, in case of producing many types of ERW tubes, it is
impossible to decide on the parameters that will satisfy all cases. For this reason
the feedforward control of this system has the relations between the line speed and
the heat input represented as the fuzzy rules by the self-learning function as described
in 3.4, and provides control over almost an entire line speed area from zero to the
standard speed by estimating Ub from fuzzy reasoning every 50 ms.

3.3 Feedback Fuzzy Control Unit

In order to minimize fluctuations of the welding temperature due to

disturbance in a steady state (operation at a speed close to the standard speed), fuzzy
reasoning is carried out to find and apply a corrected controlled variable (dU) every
500 ms for control, using the deviations between the target and actual welding
temperatures and their change rates as the input parameters.

The actual welding temperatures used for this feedback fuzzy control are
estimated by the welding temperature true value estimating function described later.

A set of fuzzy rules used in this control is shown in Fig. 4.

Usually feedback control starts when an optimum control state is reached

by manual operation after entering into a steady state, and stops upon entry into an
unsteady state.. By arranging the fuzzy rules in a hierarchical order as indicated by
 559

the Rules No. 10 and No. 80 of Fig. 4 this system changes the effectiveness of
control smoothly according to deviations between the standard and line speeds.
Concretely, the closer the line speed to the standard speed, the stronger the control
applied, and vice versa.

In addition, this feedback fuzzy control is used jointly with the fuzzy
adaptive control described later.

10 IF DVS=ZE THEN
20 IF DS=NB THEN DU=PB
30 IF DS=NS THEN DU=PS
40 IF DS=ZE THEN DU=ZE
50 IF DS=PS THEN DU=NS
60 IF DS=PB THEN DU=NB
70 ENDIF
80 IF DVS=¥ZE THEN DU=ZE
90 DEFUZZY DU
100 END.
Fig. 4 Example of Fuzzy Rule Set for Feedback Control

3.4 Feedback Fuzzy Control Self-Learning Unit

This unit automatically generates the fuzzy rules and membership functions
for feedforward fuzzy control based on the data collected in manual operation by
expert operators for production of ERW tubes of identical tube type, steel type and
outside diameter using band steel of typical sheet thickness.

As shown in Fig. 3, the feed forward control can be divided into the
following three areas.

Area I: Stationary heat input (Po) at line speed 0 (Vo) is present.

Area 2: Typical speed (Vx) where the stationary and moving heating
areas overlap and associated heat input (Px) are present.

Area 3: Area generally controllable by operators. Line speed (Vn) and

heat input (Pn) in manual operation are present in this area.
560

How to decide on the fuzzy rules and membership functions for each area is
described below, using the Area 3 data actually measurable and assuming a standard
sheet steel thickness (Ts).

(1) Estimation of characteristic points of Areas 1 and 2

For these areas it is difficult to prepare the rules based on data collected in
manual operation. As the heat input in each of these areas varies with the sheet
steel thickness, the heat inputs (Po, Px) are found by fuzzy reasoning based on the
standard sheetthickness (Ts). Assuming the line speeds ofYo=O and Yx=YwX 1/2
at each characteristic point, the fuzzy rules should then be generated as follows.

IF Yw is Yo THEN Pw is Po
IF Yw is Yx THEN Pw is Px
where Yo, Yx, Po and Px are the fuzzy labels of the speed and heat input.

(2) Estimation of characteristic points of Area 3

The rules for this area can be estimated in the following two ways,
depending on the line characteristics.

(a) Line acceleration/deceleration slow enough for almost complete follow-up by

operator in Area 3

An impedance (R = Ep/l p) should be found as the heat input characteristic,

using the line speed (Yw) sampled every 100 ms, manipulated variable in manual
operation (Urn) and welder plate voltage (Ep) and plate current (Ip).

An impedance (Rs) at the end of learning should be found as the criterion

for evaluation of optimum welding and the fuzzy rules and membership functions
should be prepared by selecting the Yw and Urn combinations of values close to Rs.

(b) Line acceleration/deceleration too fast for operator to follow up

Optimum manual heat inputs should be measured at points (whose number

=N) of proper speeds up to the standard speed (Y s), the measured speed and operator
 561

manipulated variable (Um) at each point should be collected, and the fuzzy rules and
membership functions should be generated in the same way as (a) based on them.

(3) Decision on rules for feed forward control of all areas

The standard sheet thickness (Ts), acceleration (ACC) and acceleration/

deceleration rate (dV) should be counted in the fuzzy rules and membership functions
set in (a) and (b) for a decision on the final rules and membership functions.

3.5 Feedback Fuzzy Adaptive Control Unit

The characteristic values of feedback fuzzy control, that is, the rise
characteristic (El), overshoot (E2) and settling (E3), are found by changing the
target welding temperature step-wise from (J sO to (J sI when feedback control is
applied in a steady state (line speed close to standard speed). The amounts of
correction (Vd (J s and Vd (J s) to be applied to the membership functions are found
by reasoning and the membership functions (d (J s) and (d (J s) are then corrected
automatically.

FE FE control adaptive
control adaptive learning membership
Characteristic value calculating unit learning rule set function set
Tl

e,oR"~;~~ii;~~i; , 1 1
8s
. E2=AI/A 0
E!
E2 Fuzzy reasoning unit
Vdas

8w E3=T2 Vdas

---W-'1
E3
iAl
as!
AD
T2

Fig. 5 Feedback Fuzzy Adaptive Control Block Diagram

3.6 Welding Temperature True Value Estimating Function Unit

In heat input control for ERW tube production the welding temperature is a
major factor of feedback control. However, the reproducibility and stability of its
562

measurements can be problematical because of the presence of many disturbing

factors. The measured and true values of welding temperature tend to be related as
shown in Fig. 6 because of disturbance.

In order to settle the above problems, this system estimates the true value
(8 w) of welding temperature by fuzzy reasoning and uses it as an input for feedback
control. Fig. 7 is the block diagram of this true value estimating function.

It should also be noted that the parameters unmeasurable on-line are entered
from the keyboard.
Measuring point
True value OUTside
00 "
Visual field slippage 0 //
9"
0"
... /'00
Speed ~ / 00
Low."""" 0 IN side
/
o 0 "
Outside light -<r 0 00 9"/
Much a l l 0 ~
Sheet thickness • • .........
".
0 0 High
Thick • •/ • •
/
0(( / ••
Slbl
ou e • • Little
0((0(( .....0((
#/0(( 0((
Frequency MuchA /0((
A A ,,'4 0(( Thin
Low AI' A
, A A
V "I' A
V" Little
V V,," V
V;; _V V
" V .
........ V HIgh
/
/
/

Measuring value
Fig. 6 Relation of Measured and True Values of Welding
Temperature in Presence of Disturbance

4. RESULTS OF OPERATION

The results of use of this system in our test mill and a production mill are
introduced in this section.
 563

Vw
Ts
Rw dOw Ow
f-'w Fuzzy reasoning unit +
w
~ f-

,
1 1
°P-D 8p-p
True value True value
estimating estimating

--
I I Oave
rule set membership
B V function set
8o-p
Sw=8p-p
8o-p
-'-

Mean value
calculating
unit

Fig. 7 Welding Temperature True Value Estimating Block Diagram

4.1 Results at Test Mill

The maximum speed of this test mill was 20 m/min and the feed steel
SUS304, outside diameter 34_0 mm and sheet thicknesses 1.0 mm and 1.4 mm.

Fig. 9 shows the results of operation by an expert operator using SUS304

of 1.0 mm thick. As shown in Fig. 8, the mill speed was changed step-wise and
the state of welding was visually checked (operator not reading pyrometer indicated
values or charts) so that the welding temperature might be controlled to 1300°C.

By sampling the manual operation data in the manner described in 3.4 (2)
(b) the fuzzy rules and membership functions for feedforward fuzzy control were
generated automatically. The results of control using these rules are shown in Fig.
9. The fully rules and membership functions of automatic generation are shown in
Figs. 9 and 10 respectively.

In Fig. 10 the Rules No. 20 - No. 100 apply to operation on steel 1.0 mm
thick and No. 11.0 - 190 supply to 1.4 mm thick. The other rules were added
automatically by the functions described in 3.4 (4) (c).
 564

4.2 Results at Production Plant

The maximum speed of this mill line was 150 mlmin and the feed steel
was SUS430, outside diameter 38.1 mm and sheet steel thickness 1.0 mm.

The fuzzy rules and membership functions were generated automatically

using the feedforward fuzzy control learning function in the same way as 4.1. The
results of automatic operation using these fuzzy rules and membership functions are
shown in Fig. 12. The target welding temperature was 1495"C.

Vw 8.8w Ep Ip
m/min °C kV A
25 1400 8 95 8.24
1300°C

20 1320 t-L-----;----tv'rA-~::\.cl.,T+___;~b~~]5D.fMF=r___t 7.6 6 60

15- 1240 57 496

10 1160 3.8 3.32

5 1080 1. 9 1. 64

Fig. 8 Manual Operation Data at Test Mill

Vw
m/minl %
u I O.Ow Ep Ip
°C kV A
25l 60 1400 9 5 8.2'

20 50 - 1320
Ow
15 40 1240 5 7 -4. 9E

10 30 1160 3 8 3 3:

5 2G 1080 u 1 9 1. 64

o 10 1000.L..---'-'--J..JL...L..JL..----------------...\..L-'--lo.~--L 0-- 0

Fig. 9 Automatic Operation Data at Test Mill

 565

10 IF ACC=ON + VW=¥DCO THEN

20 IF TW=TO • VW=VOO THEN UB=UOO
30 IF TW=TO • VW=VOl THEN UB=U01
40 IF TW=TO • VW=V02 THEN UB=U02
50 IF TW=TO VW=V03 THEN UB=U03
60 IF H/=TO VY/=V04 THEN UB=U04
70 IF TW=TO VW=V05 THEN UB=U05
80 IF TW=TO VY/=V06 THEN UB=U06
90 ENDIF
100 IF H/=TO . . ACC=¥ON • VW=DCO THEN UB=ZEO
110 IF ACC=ON + VW=¥DC1 THEN
;20 IF TW=Tl • VY/=V10 THEN UB=U10
130 IF TW=Tl ~~=V11 THEN UB=Ull
140 IF TW=T1 VW=V12 THEN UB=U12
150 IF TW=Tl VW=V13 THEN UB=U13
160 IF TW=T1 VW=V14 THEN UB=U14
170 IF TW=Tl VW=V15 THEN UB=U15
180 IF TW=Tl VW=V16 THEN UB=U16
190 ENDIF
200 IF TW=T1 . . ACC=¥ON . . VW=OCl THEN U8=ZEl
210 If, ACC=O~ • VW=ZE THEN
220 IF DV=N DV1=Z THEN DUB=NS
230 IF DV=Z DV1=Z THEN DUB=ZE
240 IF DV=P DV1=Z THEN DUB=PB
250 ENDIF
260 IF ACC=¥ON THEN DUB=ZE
270 IF VW=ZE THEN DUB=ZE
280 DEFUZZY UB
290 DEFUZZY DUB
300 END
Fig. 10 Fuzzy Rules of Automatic Generation

w
o
«
0:::
(.9

O--_............--¥JI&.....U&lL...&...~I----+- -+__----l
__
a
Fig. 11
 566

Vw I U 8,fNI Ep Ip
m/ % "C kV A
105 80 1560 10.15 26.6
/95"C
/~fNI
90 70 1480 8,70 22,8
rEp
75- 60 1400 725 19.0
lip
r Vw
60 50 1320 580 152

45 40 1240
r U 435 11.4
I
30 30 1160 2.90 7.6

15 20 1080 1.45 3.8

10 1000 0,00 00

Fig. 12 Results of Operation at Production Plant

S. CONCLUSION

Conventional systems for heat control for ERW tube production suffered
from heavy disturbances in welding temperature measurement itself, making it
considerably difficult to maintain the quality of products at a desired level of
stability by feedback control. However, the heat control system developed by the
authors and featuring the feedforward fuzzy control learning function, feedback fuzzy
control adaptive function and welding temperature true value estimating function
realized stable heat inputs throughout the areas from line speed zero (0) to the
standard speed as shown in Figs. 9 and 12. In previous stainless steel welding
processes it was considered especially difficult to hold the welding temperature
within ±20°C of the target. But the system introduced herein succeeded in
controlling the welding temperature fluctuations within ± 8°C as shown in the
results of its operation at a production plant. This is considered epochal in ERW
tube production.

Another point of note is that the automatic generation of fuzzy rules and
membership functions took about 30 seconds after collection of data. The system
was thus able to be put to operation in a very short time.
 567

[REFERENCE]

(1) Tadashi Iokibe: "Seam Welded Pipe Production Heat Input Control System
Using Fuzzy Reasoning", Collection of Papers Published in FY '90 National
Meeting, Industrial Application division. Japan Society of Electric Engineers.

(2) Tadashi Iokibe: "Seam Welded Pipe Production Heat Input Control System
Using Fuzzy Reasoning, Collection of Papers Published in 6th Fuzzy System
Symposium, Japan Fuzzy System Association.

(3) Tadashi Iokibe: "Fuzzy Control for High Frequency Tube Welding System".
4th Fuzzy System Symposium Proceedings International, Japan Fuzzy system
Association.
Hybrid Fuzzy Self-Organizing Controller for Visual Tracking

Zeungnam Bien and Jongcheol Park

Department of Electrical Engineering, KAIST

373-1 Kusongdong, Yusunggu, Daejon 305-701, KOREA

Abstract

Vision information can be utilized in robotic task in unknown en-

vironments. Typical problems in the feature-based visual servoing are
mathematical modelling of the image feature and efficient acquisition
of the range data. In this paper, an image feature-based hybrid self-
organizing controller for visual tracking is proposed. To use the image
feature effectively, the visual tracking is divided into vertical tracking
and horizontal tracking. In vertical tracking, the main image feature is
the target area projected on CCD camera. For horizontal tracking, the
hybrid fuzzy controller contains PI-type fuzzy rules and PD-type rules.
The proposed algorithm uses image features for the control of the eye-
in-hand robot without range data. Experimental results are reported
to show usefulness of the proposed controller.

Keywords: hybrid fuzzy control, feature-based visual servoing

1. Introduction

The intelligent robot should be equipped with a sensor-based con-

troller to perform complex operations and to deal with uncertain envi-
ronments. Sensor feedback can enhance the performance of a robot in
practical applications. In this paper, we consider the visual servoing of
an eye-in-hand robot.
The robot tracking system with dynamic visual feedback has been
studied by many researchers[1](2](3](4](5). Some of these research activ-
ities are purely for theoretical purpose and some algorithms are still too
slow and unstable for handling a moving object. Many researchers have
tried to model the vision information and find the relationship between
569
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 569-578.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
570

vision information and control parameters without much success. These

approaches require range data. But acquisition of range data is not easy
and suffers from poor accuracy.
In conventional robot control, one should obtain an Image Jacobian.
The Image Jacobian specifies a mapping from the image plane to the
world coordinate. There are, however, shortcomings in the Image Ja-
cobian method. That is, the estimation of Image Jacobian is a time
consuming process. For a stationary object, the vision first looks at
the scene for the required object and estimates the Image Jacobian and
then the robot end-effector moves to that object based on the vision
information. Such an approach requires a lot of time even if the task
can be achieved. Moreover, in the case of the moving object tracking,
the real time tracking becomes an indispensable ingredient. Thus, when

Vertical tracking

Fig. 1 Vertical Tracking and Horizontal Tracking

the conventional way is applied to that case, it is difficult to track the

moving object in real time. Also, the nature of this mapping changes
as the configuration of the manipulator varies and so does the image
feature. At certain points, called singularites, the Jacobian is not in-
vertible.
Finally, it is remarked that real-time range data acquisition from
vision information is not a trivial task. Generally, stereo vision or mo-
tion stereo is used for range data acquisition. In eye-in-hand robot case,
this method become inefficient. In this paper, the algorithm for visual
 571

tracking without range data is described. Specially, the fuzzy S.O.C

and hybrid rules are used for fast tracking.

2. Fuzzy controller for visual servoing

To overcome the difficulties mentioned above, a hybrid fuzzy self-

organizing controller is proposed. The object area projected on the
image plane is a function of position and depth from the object. One
cannot use the object area for depth estimation directly. In particular,
we propose the robot control algorithm without range data is proposed
that consists of horizontal tracking and vertical tracking as shown in
Figure 1.
When the robot is performing the horizontal tracking within error
tolerance, the hand-held camera stays above the target object. In this
position, the object area on the image plane is only a function of depth
from the target. Horizontal tracking without vertical tracking is carried
out with the same control gain because of constant depth. Therefore it
is easy to estimate the horizontal tracking gain.
As a result of this division of robot controller, the motion for opti-
cal axis is separated from the motion of image plane. In this separation
scheme, we can use the object area in vertical tracking as depth infor-
mation and achieve the horizontal tracking more effectively.

3. Vertical tracking controller for visual servoing

If the performance of horizontal tracking is satisfactory, the vertical

tracking is performed. The vertical tracking controller move along the
direction of the optical axis. For the vertical tracking, instead of the
range data, the object area is effectively used. Since the object area
varies according to the viewpoint, the area which is observed at the top
of the object is used. To obtain the vertical tracking rules, we take the
relative distance between the object and the robot as an image feature
and then denote it as RD:

RD = AI- A2 (1)
Al
where Al : the object area at desired position,
A2 : the object area at present position

The key feature of RD is that one can work out the rule regardless of
572

the absolute object area. Using this RD value one can effectively obtain
the fuzzy rules for the vertical tracking, The input linguistic variable of
the fuzzy rules for vertical tracking is RD and the output variable is the
robot motion for the direction of optical axis.

4. Horizontal tracking controller for visual servoing

In horizontal tracking step, the robot is controlled to track the mov-

ing workpiece with constant height. Fuzzy rules should have an adapta-
tion capability for any speed, depth, and moving direction of workpiece.
Therefore we employed a fuzzy self-organizing controller as a horizontal
tracking controller to modify the output fuzzy variable based on the
prespecified performance index of the fuzzy controller, so that the fuzzy
rules are produced by the error and the change error caused due to
changes in accordance with the robot motion, the distance between the
camera and the object and its movement direction. The final goal of
horizontal tracking is to locate the workpiece in the center of image.
The error and the change error between the center of gravity of the
object and the desired position on image plane are quantized into 15
levels, respectively. The input variable is comprised of the error from
the set point and the change error from the previous sampling points.
The output variable is comprised of the output and the change in output
from the previous sampling points. The rules used for SOC are usually
expressed as follows;

IF E* IS ABOUT 4 AND CE* IS ABOUT 1, THEN CHANGE IN

OUTPUT IS ABOUT -2.

This type of rule is qualitatively equivalent to the ordinary PI controller,

and so it can be classified a "PI type". Also, "PD-type" is represented
as follows:

IF E* IS ABOUT 4 CE* IS ABOUT 1, THEN OUTPUT IS ABOUT -2.

The hybrid fuzzy controller is proposed to fast learning. The adopted

fuzzy control rule is a combination of the PI type rules for large error
and steady state and the PD type rules for small error. This type of
 573

rule configuration is shown in Figure 2.

An obvious effect of the integral control is that the type of the system
increasing by one. Therefore, the steady-state error can be reduced due

Change Error
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I
---J
I

"" I
<.1>

....
I PI type Rule

...... -
I
c..:>
I
N
0
..... I

c..:>

....
PI type Rule
<.1>

""
---J

Fig. 2 Hybrid fuzzy rule in state space

to the property of the integral control action. The derivative control

measures the instantaneous slope of error, predicts the large overshoot
ahead of time, and makes a proper correcting effort before the overshoot
actually occurs. Generally, integral control improves the rise time and
reduce the steady-state error. But this type of control shows overshoot,
also. Therefor~, the PI-PD combination type can improve the response
of control, render better learning speed and steady-state response.
The controller output is inferred from the controller input and the
control rule by compositional rule of inference. There are several oper-
ators for implication and inference; here in SOC "max-min" rule and a
simplified defuzzification method are used[6].
The performance index is the quantitative measure of the perfor-
mance of the rules. It indicates how close the rule is near to the optimal
rule. The performance index is shown in Table 1.
574

E -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CE
-7 -6 -6 -5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 0
-6 -6 -6 -5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 0 1
-5 -5 -5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1
-4 -5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1
-3 -4 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2
-2 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2
-1 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3
0 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3
1 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3
2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
3 -2 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4
4 -1 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
5 -1 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 '1 4 5 5 6
6 -1 -0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
7 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6

Table 1. Performance index table

It can be seen from the table that even if E* is positive large, if CE*
is negative large, the process is considered to be in a desired state. Here
E*=O and CE*=O are the final desired state. The rules are modified by
the performance index as follows:

Rij(t) = Rij(t - nT) + a X PI(t) (2)

where Rij(t): rule corresponding to the process,

PI( t): performance index for rule which used the last sampling,
nT: system time delay,
a: learning speed constant,
T: sampling time.

6. Experiments

The practical approach is demonstrated by experiments in which

a moving object is tracked by PUMA manipulator. Fig. 3 shows the
functional relationship between the PUMA, camera and the vision sys-
tem. The CCD camera is held by the robot end-effector. The master
of this system is the PUMA 560 robot manipulator with a high speed
vision system. The system involves a MVME-110 that is operated un-
der XINU and the vision system which is developed by KAIST for high
 575

speed image processing. The PUMA robot controller is connected to

the vision system via RS-232C. One image frame is digitized into 256
x 256.

a) An Eye-in-hand robot configuration.

PUI<A "boO ",.."" _ "'d~

b) Visual Servoing configuration.

Fig. 3 Visual servoing system configuration
576

The fuzzy rules for robot control are as follows;

For vertical tracking:

• IF RD IS LARGE THEN THE ROBOT APPROACH TO OB-
JECT ALONG THE OPTICAL AXIS DIRECTION .

• IF RD IS ZERO THEN THE ROBOT STOP.

For the image processing, we used a set of image special processing
hardware which has capability of real-time (1/30sec) image processing,
including lookup table, histogramer and binary projection processor.
The sampling time of the vision system is 1/30sec. However, the time
during which the robot goes to the target position is not short, thus the
overall sampling time becomes more than 1/30sec. The experiment is
performed for a moving object with the speed of 750mm/min.

PI : P =0.7 PI = 0.0:>

t\ 1\

~ If
\ ~.-om
11\1
· \
1\ f

~
.-om
V IV
~v
· V v

·
· .. o• ..
control step

Fig. 4 Visual tracking by the PI control

Figure 4 shows th~ response of the PI control system. The experi-

mental results of proposed algorithm are shown in Figure 5. We consid-
ered the cases where a motion is repetitively performed so that learning
can take place. The lO'th attempt is more rapid in tracking than the
first attempt. This shows that the hybrid fuzzy SOC improves the re-
sponse of the tracking system
 577

7. Conclusion

An approach for an on-line visual servoing incorporating a hybrid

fuzzy S.O.C is proposed. Since the speed of the object and the depth
between the object and end-effector are unknown in advance and com-
putational delay is caused by the image processing and robot motion,
the hybrid PI-PD type fuzzy SOC is proposed.
The response of this hybrid type fuzzy controller shows short rising
time, a small overshoot and no steady state error for the visual servoing.
Successful experiments with PUMA 560 manipulator demonstrate the
applicability of the approach.
5 x10" area (pixel) RD Error

4 -iF
I
l'
0.8
~
....... 1\ L~
1
3 0.6
E first w

2 + '"
~ 10th "W :1';
t 0.4
Q

f ~

I "-"' 0.2
1)
LUton "Wor , +
first worl :
o o .Ie
o 20 40 o 20 40
control step control step

center U
200

150
(..J...
a;
.:=i
"'" \...' ..
::;- 100 I
.... irst worl :
'"
"''"" 50
!
1 lOth "Wor ;

o - 50 ' - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - '

o 20 40 o 20 40
control step control step

Fig. 5 The image feature error by fuzzy control

References
[1] Sanderson, Arthur C. and Lee E. Weiss, "Adaptive Visual Servo
Control of Robots," in Robot Vision, ed. Alan Pugh, pp.107-116,
IFS Ltd., 1983.
578

[2] Weiss, Lee E., Arthur C. Sanderson and Charles P.Neuman, "Dy-
namic Sensor-based Control of Robots with Visual Feedback,"IEEE
Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol 3, no.6, pp.404-417,
IEEE, Oct. 1987.

[3] Feddema, John T.; C.G.G.Lee, and O.R.Mitchell, "Automatic Se-

lection of Image Feature for Visual Servoing of a Robot Manip-
ulator," in Proceeding 1989 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pp.832-837, IEEE, May 1989.

[4] Feddema, John T.and Owen R. Mitchell, "Vision-Guided Servo-

ing with Feature-based Trajectory Generation," IEEE Transaction
on Robotics and Automation, vol. 5,no. 5, pp.691-700, IEEE, Oct
1989.

[5] Jang W., K.J. Kim, M.J. Chung and Z. Bien, "Concepts of Aug-
mented Image Space and Transformed Feature Space for Efficient
Visual Servoing of Eye-In-Hand Robot," accepted for publication
in ROBOTICA.

[6] Chuen C. Lee, "Fuzzy Logic in Control Systems: Fuzzy Logic Con-
troller", IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, vol.
20, no 2,IEEE, March 1990.
 Integration of Symbolic Path-Planning and Fuzzy Control

for Intelligent Mobile Robot

Tetsuo Sawaragi, Koich Hoh, Osamu Katai and Sosuke Iwai

Dept. of Precision Mechanics, Faculty of Eng., Kyoto University

Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo, Kyoto 606, Japan.

Abstract: This paper presents the control architecture of mobile robots within a
framework of an intelligent contol system. It is based on a dual-looped control system: a
high-level symbolic processing loop and a low-level numerical processing loop. In the
former, goal-directed, supervisory tasks for the other loop are assigned such as planning
paths and generating intermediary subgoals, and the importance and validity of
execution-time planning by spatial reasoning is stressed, while in the latter the local
repetitive control tasks using a fuzzy linguistic controller is implemented so that it can
be reactive to external stimuli.

INTRODUCTION

Intelligent control is a new paradigm for solving control problems, which was
originally proposed by Saridis as an intersection of artificial intelligence, operations
research and control theory [1]. This is characterized by the containment of
recognition in the control loop and by the enlargement of the range of information
besides the one in a conventional mathematical form. In this paper, we present an
architecture of an intelligent control system for a mobile robot that moves about in
a large-scale space. Especially, we put emphasis on the following issues:

• Off-line path-planning and on-line control should be considered as a planning-

control continuum.
• Information needed in the whole control system is quite varied from precisely
numerical one to abstracted qualitative one, which requires multi-level, multi-
resolutional representations and their coordinated integration.
• Involved Uncertainties introduced also varies according to the control aspects of
the system, which needs their proper treatments as are fit to their characteristics.

As shown in Fig.I, our suggesting system is divided into the following three
modules.

(1) Perception module for organizing a diversified information of raw sensor

data from an ultrasonic sonar sensor with a locally restricted range of 127 and an
accuracy of 0.5 inches. This module transforms raw sensing data from environment
into multi-level representations of numerical and qualitative information, both of
which are selectively utilized in the other two modules.
579
R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.), Fuzzy Logic, 579-587.
© 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
580

subgoal event
:;;;::;::=7===%\
observed viewframeIPo=p=po=rt=u=n=is2tic=p=a=th=_
Planner

crossing event Us! of Crossing Events in Activation

000··00
symbols Planning Module symbols

Perception Module .-.......•...__•

/;;igh.level symbolic-\
Control Module
\,_•.• processing loop...!
Event Detector

Landmark Detecto
signals
51 nal Processor

ultrasonic steering
sonar sensor

environment

Fig.l Dual-looped control architecture for mobile robot

(2) Planning module for generating proper control sequences required for
actuations of the robot by doing spatial reasoning about a current visual world. The
necessity of the execution-time planning is due to the fact that the robot may
encounter unexpected situations in which the planned behaviors cannot be executed
properly or the robot may discover opportunities by accident to improve its
execution, both of which were missed in a plan-generation phase.

(3) Control module for a robot's steering using fuzzy linguistic rules in
blending both numerical and symbolic information that are sent from perception and
planning modules, respectively. This enables the robot to execute a goal-directed
task given by the planner, while providing reactivity to external stimuli from the
environment.

Besides the above independent modules, a global database is prepared where

the information on the world is stored, and all of the modules are accessible to this.
The world consists of a number of fixed and moving obstacles, some of which are
utilized as landmarks in the path-planning. The mission provided with a robot is
simply to move to a given place. Neither a precise map of the surrounding world
such as absolute coordinates of the landmarks nor accurate positions of a robot itself
is provided, but only traces of dynamically-changing views in terms of qualitative
and topological relationships among landmarks observed in the tutorial mode are
stored. Using those, the robot moves to the destination in the execution mode.

The key idea behind the above architecture is to establish a dual-looped

control system in which two kinds of control loops are working concurrently. One
is a high-level symbolic loop in which the global and strategic information is
 581

dealt with and the supervisory tasks for the other loop are assigned to it; scheduling,
planning, and generating intermediary subgoals for the low-level controller.
Moreover, it also includes the tasks of monitoring and understanding ongoing
behaviors. The other low-level numerical loop is equivalent to the one of the
conventional controller and deals with numerical signals. The tasks of this loop are
restricted to the local, repetitive control tasks, which should be promptly reactive to
the occurrences of unexpected events.

PERCEPTION MODULE

A Signal Processor

When the robot moves about in the world, the mounted sonar sensor scans the
world in intermittent 24 directions with the interval of 15 degrees. It returns sensing
data that consist of two values (Ph 6i> (i = 1,..,24): a distance Pi « 127 inches) and
a relative orientation 6i between the robot and an object.

A Landmark Detector

The robot successively obtains the data with a fixed time interval and calculates
the relative positions of the reflection points on the reflector of the object. From
this information, the robot at first groups a set of reflection points that are close to
each other into a cluster that represents reflection points from the common obstacle.
Then, comparing these at successive measurement times, it identifies whether each
of those clusters is the one for a fixed obstacle or for a moving obstacle. Moreover,
for a fixed obstacle that is large enough as compared with the size of the robot, the
system monitors a trajectory of the reflection points as the robot moves and detects
the points where the direction of the trajectory drastically changes as feature points
representing comers of the object. Based on these, an object having a complex shape
is approximated as a polygon.

BElWEEN(3.0·O) ..
. .r\ reflection points lor a
• ••.• moving obstacle

{.-"~... ,; ;. :'.~/
...... _......
BElWEEN(6.0·0)

o •.
fixed obstacle \) ..
~
r£.--~~-"1!~
\ BElWEEN(6.8)
lelure point \
\ BElWEEN[3.8]
. \ \
o '. J"A
fixed obstacle \
.
(a) Sonar sensor and an environment (b) Dynamic sensing ollhe world
Fig.2 Simulated result from perception module
582

In this way, in the tutorial mode the robot selectively detects fixed objects from
the environment, and they are stored as landmarks in the global detabase with their
object identifications and their constituent feature points as shown in Fig.2. t

An Event Detector Using Topological Representations of Places

According to Kuipers's idea [2], we defme a place as a region in space, in which

a fixed set of landmarks can be observed from anywhere in the region, and
topological relationships between them do not change in some appropriate
qualitative sense. For instance, if we observe that landmark Ll is on our left hand,
and landmark L2 is on our right, and the angle from Ll to L2 (left to right) is less
than 180 degrees then we denote this side of the landmark pair boundary by [Ll,
L2]. When more than two landmarks are observed, the place is represented as a
conjunction of the above representations for every pair of the observed landmarks.

Based on these considerations, we define a viewframe as a unit for representing

the qualitatively equivalent region of the world in terms of the surrounding
landmarks in a robot's field of views. The viewframe consists of the two kinds of
information; a list of visual landmarks, the elements of which are ordered as are
scanned from left to right by the sensor, and the positions represented as a
conjunction of the above topological region-representations for each pair of the
observable landmarks. Such topological relationships may be shifted according to
the robot's passages over landmark pair boundaries (LPB's), which are classified into
one of the followings;

LEFf[Ll, L2]: cross to the left of Ll,

BETWEEN[Ll,12]: cross between the landmarks,
RIGHT[Ll, L2]: cross to the right of 12.

Note that the verification of these three types of crossing can be easily done by the
sonar sensor by watching which landmark of the pair occludes another. Having
identified the occurrences of those crossing events, two viewframes observed before
and after the crossing are generated and are stored in the global database in the
tutorial mode. Thus, the dynamically changing views that are acquired when the
robot moves along some path is represented as ordered sequences of visual scenes in
which viewframes and crossing events appear in turn. In the execution mode, the
detection of the occurrence of the crossing events is reported to the planning
module.

PLANNING MODULE

A Pre-Planner for Generating a Skeletal Path

Receiving a destination as a mission, the system at first retrieves the stored

prior paths from the global database that contain either the robot's current viewframe
or the one for the destination, and connects them via commonly shared viewframe.

t In the current version, it is assumed that objects are identified from its shape and color
that are detected with an aid of vision sensor.
 583

landmark F •..• ~destination

: ' ••":!§j§I BETWEEN(F,G]
landmark A BETWEEN[C,G) ~••. 1
initial position
~ ""
:'_~·
.' ~-'-"
Iandmark C ••.
:.... .....:
L........ ...:. landmark G
~ • ~~X . '_ " •
BETWEEN(A,B) . (.::::-._._-~;-; •. "./ ~.
BETWEENIC,B~ " .F·' /.' ~ LEFT(A,C)
BETWEENIA,DJ " .---. /" '.: BETWEEN(F,E)
~ ~ ~ BETWEEN[C,E)
landma~: I~.!ark E
\ · ..

BETWEEN[C,D) landmark 0 I BETWEEN(D,E]

BETWEEN(E,D) prior path1
prior path 2
• crossing event

(a) Prior path information obtained in the tutorial mode

BETWEEN(A,B~ BETWEEN[C,B)_BETWEENIA,D~BETWEEN(C,DI

!
BETWEEN[F,GI~BETWEENIC,GIt-LEFTIA,CJ~BETwEEN(F,E)..-eETwEEN(C,E)

(b) Skeletal path generated in pre-panner

Fig.3 Pre·planner for generating an initial skeletal path

Then, the system constructs a path that starts with the current viewframe and ends
with the destination viewframe, and yields a skeletal path as a sequence of crossing
events that are ordered according to their occurrences in the above path. Wherein, the
crossing events that pass through the sanle LPB from different sides are eliminated.
Then, the remaining crossing events are collected into a initial list of "crossing
events in activation," each of which is an intermediary subgoal to be attained for the
provided mission. Fig.3(a) and (b) illustrate these procedures.

An Opportunistic Planner in Execution Time Based on Spatial

Reasoning

Successive exections of the crossing events in the above skeletal path does not
always result in an efficient, purposive behavior for the robot, but it may force it
perform redundant passages and may miss to find an unexpected shortcut. For
instance, let us suppose that the robot is executing a crossing event BETWEEN[A,B]
at position Y different from position X in Fig.3(a). Though the crossing events to
be attained consequently are in an order of BETWEEN[C,B] and BETWEEN[A,D]
according to the skeletal path, it may cause redundant backtracks, and the attainment'
of BETWEEN[A,D] in advance to BETWEEN[C,B] is more rational. Moreover, let us
assume that the robot has to attain the three crossing events as shown in Fig.4(a).
In this situation, an attainment of a single crossing event BETWEEN[B,C] is
equivalent to the attainments of all those events, although this event is not
explicitly present in any of the crossing events in activation. These two examples
are demonstrating that the skeletal path generated in the pre-planner is only loosely
constraining the robot's goal-directed behavior and full specification of execution-
plans should be delayed until the plan-execution time.
584

C
A RIGHT(C,Oj . . •
visible landmarks: IA, B. c. OJ
• :--BETWEEN[!'.Dj ..... ::::::.0
...•. B .,~ . ABC i events in activation
0
land~a;~·.···· cros~ing ··---·--:··--··-:---··-:;---1-····--···--------···.··--
"
inferred
LEFT(A.Bj event t i ("""1 i RIGHT(C.O)
r'· >: . :. i LEFT(A.B)
scanned"~"
direction it ~ i BETWEENIA,OJ
·'.front

[{I ~ BETWEEN[B.Cj
inferred crossing event
robot
(a) (b)

Fig.4 Derivation of subgoal event by spatial reasoning

Based on these investigations, we introduce a symbolic manipulation method

for spatial reasoning that derives an intermediary subgoal event allowing the robot's
goal-directed passage. The reasoning proceeds as follows:

Step 1: Select crossing events that consist of the landmarks contained in the
currently-observed viewframe.
Step 2: Order the landmark list linearly and mark the intervals below it through
which the robot may pass ·for each of the selected crossing events.
Step 3: Detect the interval that is shared by all of the intervals marked in Step 2
and transform it into an equivalent crossing event, which is an intermediary
subgoal event to be sent to the control module.

Having done this reasoning, the planning module remains asleep until the
completion of the subgoal is reported from the event detector, while the other
crossing events are dynamically eliminated from the activation list in reply to the
reports from the event detector.

CONTROL MODULE

Determination of Desired Orientation by Fuzzy Set Operations

The task of the control module is an execution of the subgoal event in reply to
the call from the planning module. This task can be divided into the following two
subtasks; to determine the robot's desirable orientation and to decide the actual
amont of steering to attain this goal. Wherein, two kinds of information is
provided; one is a symbolic subgoal event for attaining the robot's final mission and
the other one is a signal sent from the perception module. The control strategies to
be taken at this time are summarized as follows.

1) Obstacle avoidance strategy providing reactivity to external stimuli of impending

obstacles.
2) Approaching strategy to the pair of landmarks specified in the subgoal event.
3) Performing the crossing of LPB specified in the subgoal event.
 585

1.0

obstacle(P k,6 k~.,,~

.
landmark A
subgoal event !\
\:::.!::

• BETWEEN[A,Bj
(p ~e i)" . :
: .... goal direction

-=~·J{(~·~~·;!dmark ~;~ooL.--i---+-'----++-1800
B
front direction pi p;+90 0 pi+2700
(a) Surrounding world (b) EleJ1'lentary fuzzy set for obstacle avoidance

" fuzzy set for obslacle avoidance

~
fuuy set lor approch to A and B

·180· .18<1'

(c) Fuzzy set representing goal direction

Fig.S Determination of the goal direction

Note that the first strategy concerns only with signals sent from the perception
module, while the latter two are related to a subgoal event that is sent from the
planning module. Thus, the system has to determine the desired orientation
integrating those three kinds of strategies. For this purpose, it at first organizes a
fuzzy set for each strategy that is separately defmed above the common discourse of
universe, i.e., intermittent 24 orientations arround the robot. For the first and the
second strategies, a fuzzy set is organized by taking an intersection of elementary
fuzzy sets, each of which is organized for an individual reflection point (Fig.5(a))
utilizing its values of distance Pi and orientation 6i as parameters of their
membership functions as shown in Fig.5(b) and (c). As for the third strategy, we
introduce another set of primitive predicates left(x) and right(x), which represent that
landmark x is on the robot's left-hand-side and right-hand-side, respectively. In order
to attain the crossing event specified in the subgoal event, the following
conjunctions of the primitives should be true;

BEfWEEN[x,y] ++ left(x) and right(y)

LEFI'[x,y] ++ left(x) and left(y)
RIGHf[x,y] ++ right(x) and right(y),

where the primitives left(x) and right(y) imply constraints on the robot's allowed
steering S as follows;

left(x): 6i < S < 6i + 90°

right(x): 6j - 90° < S < 6i.
586

Thus, a fuzzy concept satisfying the third strategy is an intersection of the

constrained intervals according to the above primitive definitions for each crossing
event, where the constrained intervals are fuzzified as shown in Fig.5(c).

An intersection of the above three kinds of fuzzy sets organized for each
strategy denotes an integrated concept that represents a desirable orientation at a
current position of the robot. From this, the system determines a singleton
orientation having the maximum membership as a desired orientation 6d as
illustrated in Fig.5(c).

Fuzzy Steering Control

The desired orientation 6d is equivalent to a deviation of the robot's current

front direction from the goal. Based on this information as well as on the differential
amount of the deviations among the successive measurement times, 21 fuzzy
steering control rules are defined, each of which is generally represented as "if 6d is
Ai (i=1,..,5) and A6d is Bj (j=1,..,7) then steering is Ck (k=I,..,7)." Wherein, the
containment of the differential terms within the antecedent parts of the rules
contribute to maintaining the robot's smooth behavior even though the desired
orientation were fluctuated frequently. Fig.6(a) shows the result of the simulation
where the marked LPB's are the ones of crossing events that are reasoned by the
planning module. Fig.6(b) details the reasoning tasks within the planning module
as well as the inter-module communications that are performed during the
simulation of Fig.6(a).

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper, we presented an architecture of intelligent control system for the

mobile robot moving about in a large-scale space. Wherein, the system had to
handle three kinds of uncertainties; uncertainties on the measurement errors and
noises, procedural uncertaities in planning goal-directed behavior due to the limited
sensors relative to its task, and uncertaities on the control flows caused by the
occurrences of the unexpected events and failures in execution time. Within the
proposed system, these kinds of uncertainties are treated by fuzzy linguistic
controls, by spatial reasoning on the symbolically abstracted world, and by dual-
loop control architecture, respectively.

Future development will concern mainly the following several tasks. First,
another sensing device such as vision sensor should be introduced for improving the
efficiency in distinguishing landmarks, which requires another planning problem for
sensing tasks. Secondly, the current path-planning only using landmarks is quite
limited especially in a world where the landmarks are distributed sparsely. In such a
situation, another control algorithm like wall-following, as well as the reasoning
capability using part-to-whole relationships of the environment should be
developed. This requires improving a representation of object descriptions to
incorporate different abstract levels of features.
 587

landmark F . "
BElWEEN[F,G]

e
landmark C·

posilionZ landmarkG ,

•
"

'-
//
I '
I
,
" BElWEEN[C,E]
I

landmark B / position Y
• BElWEEN[C,O]
landmark E
landmark 0

(a) Result of plan-execution

»spatial reasoning at place x« ...... «execution by control module»

## observed viewframe:
[A,C,D,B] -> BE.Tl!EEN.1.c El is attai.ne.d....
i# activating crossing event:
[BETWEEN (A,B) ,BETWEEN [C,B) ,BETWEEN »spatial reasoning at place Z«
[A,D] ,BETWEEN [C,D]I i# observed viewframe:
[A,C,F,a,E)
--) inferred sub-goal event is ## activating crossing event:
BETWEEN [C, D) [BETWEEN [F,E] ,LEFT [A,C) ,BETWEEN
[C,a) ,BETWEEN[F,a))
~~exscution by control module»
--) inferred sub-goal event is
-> is attained
BETWEEN [A, 81 BETWEEN(F,a]
-) BETWBENfA,pl is attained
-) BETWEENfc B) is attained ~~execution by control module»
-) BETHEEN[C,P] is attained
-) B6TWE6N[F 61 is attained.
»spatial reasoning at place Y« -) LEFT[A cl is attained
## observed viewframs: -) BETWESN[C Gl is attained.
[A,C,E,D,B] -) BSTWBENfF Gl i8 attained
## activating crossing event:
[BETWEEN [C,E] ,LEFT[A,clJ
--) inferred sub·goal event is
BETWEEN(C,E]

(b) Reasoning process within a planning module

(reports from event detector are underlined)
Fig.6 Simulated results

REFERENCES

[1] Saridis, G.N.: Intelligent Robotic Control, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control,
AC-28-5, 547-557, 1983.
[2] Agee, P. and Chapman, D.: Pengi: An Implementation of a Theory of Activity,
Proc. of 6th AAAI, 268-272, 1987.
[3] Brooks, R.A.: A Robust Layered Control System for a Mobile Robot, IEEE
Journal of Robotics and Automation, 2-1,14-23,.-1986.
[4] Kuipers, BJ.: Modeling Spatial Knowledge, Cognitive Science, 2, pp.128-
153, 1978.
[5] Hayes-Roth, B. et a1.: A Cognitive Model of Planning, Cognitive Science, 3,
275-310, 1979,
 THEORY AND DECISION LIBRARY

SERIES D: SYSTEM THEORY, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING AND

PROBLEM SOLVING

1. E.R. Caianiello and M.A. Aizerman (eds.): Topics in the General Theory of
Structures. 1987 ISBN 90-277-2451-2
2. M.E. Carvallo (ed.): Nature, Cognition and System I. Current Systems-
Scientific Research on Natural and Cognitive Systems. With a Foreword by
G.I. Klir. 1988 ISBN 90-277-2740-6
3. A. Di Nola, S. Sessa, W. Pedrycz and E. Sanchez: Fuzzy Relation Equations
and Their Applications to Knowledge Engineering. With a Foreword by L.A.
Zadeh. 1989 ISBN 0-7923-0307-5
4. S. Miyamoto: Fuzzy Sets in Information Retrieval and Cluster Analysis. 1990
ISBN 0-7923-0721-6
5. W.H. Janko, M. Roubens and H.-J. Zimmermann (eds.): Progress in Fuzzy
Sets and Systems. 1990 ISBN 0-7923-0730-5
6. R. Slowinski and J. Teghem (eds.): Stochastic versus Fuzzy Approaches to
Multiobjective Mathematical Programming under Uncertainty. 1990
ISBN 0-7923-0887-5
7. P.L. Dann, S.H. Irvine and J.M. Collis (eds.): Advances in Computer-Based
Human Assessment. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1071-3
8. V. Novak, J. Ramfk, M. Mares, M. Cerny and J. Nekola (eds.): Fuzzy
Approach to Reasoning and Decision-Making. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1358-5
9. Z. Pawlak: Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. 1991
ISBN 0-7923-1472-7
10. M.E. Carvallo (ed.): Nature, Cognition and System II. Current Systems-
Scientific Research on Natural and Cognitive Systems. Vol. 2: On Com-
plementarity and Beyond. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1788-2
11. R. Slowinski (ed.): Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications
and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1923-0
12. R. Lowen and M. Roubens (eds.): Fuzzy Logic. State of the Art. 1993
ISBN 0-7923-2324-6
13. L. Kitaimik: Fuzzy Decision Procedures with Binary Relations. Toward a
Unified Theory. 1993 ISBN 0-7923-2367-X

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS - DORDRECHT / BOSTON / LONDON