| Literature DB >> 33265514 |
Ferdinando Di Martino1,2, Salvatore Sessa1,2.
Abstract
We present a new method for assessing the strength of fuzzy rules with respect to a dataset, based on the measures of the greatest energy and smallest entropy of a fuzzy relation. Considering a fuzzy automaton (relation), in which A is the input fuzzy set and B the output fuzzy set, the fuzzy relation R1 with greatest energy provides information about the greatest strength of the input-output, and the fuzzy relation R2 with the smallest entropy provides information about uncertainty of the input-output relationship. We consider a new index of the fuzziness of the input-output based on R1 and R2. In our method, this index is calculated for each pair of input and output fuzzy sets in a fuzzy rule. A threshold value is set in order to choose the most relevant fuzzy rules with respect to the data.Entities:
Keywords: fuzzy energy; fuzzy entropy; fuzzy relations; fuzzy rules
Year: 2018 PMID: 33265514 PMCID: PMC7512945 DOI: 10.3390/e20060424
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Schema of the process.
Municipalities of the city of Naples and their districts.
| Municipality Number | Districts |
|---|---|
| 1 | Chiaia, Posillipo, S.Ferdinando |
| 2 | Avvocata, Montecalvario, Porto, S.Giuseppe, Pendino, Mercato |
| 3 | Stella, S.Carlo all’Arena |
| 4 | Vicaria, S.Lorenzo, Poggioreale |
| 5 | Vomero, Arenella |
| 6 | Ponticelli, Barra, S.Giovanni aTeduccio |
| 7 | Miano, Secondigliano, S.Pietro a Patierno |
| 8 | Chiaiano, Piscinola-Marianella, Scampia |
| 9 | Pianura, Soccavo |
| 10 | Bagnoli, Fuorigrotta |
The I/O data extracted for the 10 municipalities.
| Municipality | x | y |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.26% | 5 |
| 2 | 4.77% | 6 |
| 3 | 5.05% | 6 |
| 4 | 4.93% | 3 |
| 5 | 3.80% | 3 |
| 6 | 5.61% | 9 |
| 7 | 5.40% | 5 |
| 8 | 5.35% | 8 |
| 9 | 5.29% | 6 |
| 10 | 4.11% | 5 |
The fuzzy partition for Ux.
| Label | a1 | a2 | a3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| low | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| adequate | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| fair | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| high | 5 | 6 | 8 |
The fuzzy partition for Uy.
| Label | a1 | a2 | a3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| very low | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| low | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| mean | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| high | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| very high | 7 | 10 | 12 |
Figure 2Graph of the fuzzy sets of the fuzzy partition for Ux.
Figure 3Graph of the fuzzy sets of the fuzzy partition for Uy.
E, H, I value obtained by setting p = 1.
| Rule | p = 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| E | H | I | |
| Rule 1 | 99.00 | 0.00 | 0.99 |
| Rule 2 | 82.50 | 3.68 | 0.79 |
| Rule 3 | 75.78 | 5.76 | 0.70 |
E, H, I value obtained by setting p = 2.
| Rule | p = 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| E | H | I | |
| Rule 1 | 95.60 | 0.00 | 0.95 |
| Rule 2 | 75.85 | 4.36 | 0.71 |
| Rule 3 | 64.66 | 6.87 | 0.58 |
The I/O data extracted for the 10 municipalities.
| Municipality | x1 | x2 | y |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30.86% | 60.86% | 13.46 |
| 2 | 13.62% | 52.52% | 26.77 |
| 3 | 11.58% | 53.47% | 26.53 |
| 4 | 8.330% | 48.41% | 30.34 |
| 5 | 29.94% | 69.54% | 13.53 |
| 6 | 4.410% | 43.85% | 36.51 |
| 7 | 4.280% | 36.34% | 41.52 |
| 8 | 5.640% | 36.21% | 40.69 |
| 9 | 6.880% | 54.69% | 31.42 |
| 10 | 12.84% | 62.39% | 22.76 |
The fuzzy partition for Ux1.
| Label | a1 | a2 | a3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| very low | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| low | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| mean | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| high | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| very high | 7 | 10 | 12 |
The fuzzy partition for Ux2.
| Label | a1 | a2 | a3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| low | 0 | 30 | 40 |
| adequate | 30 | 40 | 60 |
| fair | 40 | 60 | 80 |
| high | 60 | 80 | 100 |
The fuzzy partition for Uy.
| Label | a1 | a2 | a3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| very low | 0 | 10 | 15 |
| low | 10 | 15 | 30 |
| mean | 15 | 30 | 50 |
| high | 30 | 50 | 60 |
| very high | 50 | 60 | 100 |
Figure 4Graph of the fuzzy sets of the fuzzy partition for Ux1.
Figure 5Graph of the fuzzy sets of the fuzzy partition for Ux2.
Figure 6Graph of the fuzzy sets of the fuzzy partition for Uy.
Values of the index I obtained for p = 2.
| Rule | Pair | p = 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | H | I | I Rule | ||
| Rule 1 | (A1 = very low, B = very high) | 32.00 | 0.00 | 0.32 | 0.32 |
| (A2 = low, B = very high) | 84.50 | 0.00 | 0.84 | ||
| Rule 2 | (A1 = low, B = high) | 64.24 | 2.67 | 0.61 | 0.61 |
| (A2 = low, B = high) | 88.88 | 0.00 | 0.89 | ||
| Rule 3 | (A1 = mean, B = mean) | 84.65 | 1.20 | 0.83 | 0.80 |
| (A2 = adequate, B = mean) | 82.92 | 2.67 | 0.80 | ||
| Rule 4 | (A1 = mean, B = mean) | 95.30 | 0.00 | 0.95 | 0.72 |
| (A2 = fair, B = mean) | 76.58 | 5.68 | 0.72 | ||
| Rule 5 | (A1 = mean, B = low) | 88.59 | 2.00 | 0.87 | 0.87 |
| (A2 = high, B = low) | 90.81 | 0.00 | 0.91 | ||
| Rule 6 | (A1 = high, B = low) | 90.60 | 2.00 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| (A2 = high, B = low) | 90.81 | 0.00 | 0.91 | ||
| Rule 7 | (A1 = high, B = very low) | 86.68 | 1.85 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
| (A2 = high, B = very low) | 86.20 | 0.00 | 0.86 | ||
| Rule 8 | (A1 = very high, B = very low) | 100.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.91 |
| (A2 = high, B = very low) | 90.81 | 0.00 | 0.91 | ||