| Literature DB >> 24790553 |
Xixiang Zhang1, Weimin Ma2, Liping Chen3.
Abstract
The similarity of triangular fuzzy numbers is an important metric for application of it. There exist several approaches to measure similarity of triangular fuzzy numbers. However, some of them are opt to be large. To make the similarity well distributed, a new method SIAM (Shape's Indifferent Area and Midpoint) to measure triangular fuzzy number is put forward, which takes the shape's indifferent area and midpoint of two triangular fuzzy numbers into consideration. Comparison with other similarity measurements shows the effectiveness of the proposed method. Then, it is applied to collaborative filtering recommendation to measure users' similarity. A collaborative filtering case is used to illustrate users' similarity based on cloud model and triangular fuzzy number; the result indicates that users' similarity based on triangular fuzzy number can obtain better discrimination. Finally, a simulated collaborative filtering recommendation system is developed which uses cloud model and triangular fuzzy number to express users' comprehensive evaluation on items, and result shows that the accuracy of collaborative filtering recommendation based on triangular fuzzy number is higher.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24790553 PMCID: PMC3980791 DOI: 10.1155/2014/215047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Two triangular fuzzy numbers and .
Figure 2The intersection area of and .
Figure 3Similarity distribution of the different approaches.
Similarity distribution rate of different approaches.
| Similarity interval | MB | UV | GRIM | COG | SIAM (ours) | max | VS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0,0.05) | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 0.2 |
| [0.05,0.15) | 0 | 0.74 | 0 | 0.62 | 1.43 | 1.07 | 0.16 |
| [0.15,0.25) | 0.03 | 1.99 | 0 | 1.91 | 4.3 | 2.71 | 0.63 |
| [0.25,0.35) | 0.33 | 4.15 | 0 | 4.73 | 6.54 | 4.35 | 1.09 |
| [0.35,0.45) | 1.09 | 7.18 | 0 | 10.52 | 10.62 | 7.92 | 1.62 |
| [0.45,0.55) | 3.84 | 11.9 | 0.01 | 12.5 | 12.72 | 11.34 | 2.79 |
| [0.55,0.65) | 9.03 | 14.76 | 3.65 | 17.9 | 18.93 | 14.16 | 4.73 |
| [0.65,0.75) | 20.83 | 16.11 | 18.6 | 15.05 | 19.31 | 18.12 | 9.42 |
| [0.75,0.85) | 35.05 | 17.15 | 30.89 | 21.97 | 14.91 | 19.57 | 17.92 |
| [0.85,0.95) | 26.7 | 17.32 | 30.22 | 14.22 | 9.35 | 16.47 | 36.89 |
| [0.95,1] | 3.1 | 8.5 | 16.63 | 0.58 | 1.76 | 4.05 | 24.55 |
Users' evaluation on 10 items.
| User | I1 | I2 | I3 | I4 | I5 | I6 | I7 | I8 | I9 | I10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| B | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| C | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| D | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Users' similarity based on CM.
| Similarity | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1 | 0.956 | 0.965 |
|
| B | 0.956 | 1 |
| 0.967 |
| C | 0.965 |
| 1 | 0.975 |
| D |
| 0.967 | 0.975 | 1 |
Users' similarity based on TFN.
| Similarity | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1 | 0.461 | 0.522 |
|
| B | 0.461 | 1 |
| 0.516 |
| C | 0.522 |
| 1 | 0.489 |
| D |
| 0.516 | 0.489 | 1 |
Figure 4MAE based on CL and TFN.