| Literature DB >> 33286810 |
Amirhosein Mosavi1,2, Manouchehr Shokri3, Zulkefli Mansor4, Sultan Noman Qasem5,6, Shahab S Band7,8, Ardashir Mohammadzadeh9.
Abstract
In this study, a new approach to basis of intelligent systems and machine learning algorithms is introduced for solving singular multi-pantograph differential equations (SMDEs). For the first time, a type-2 fuzzy logic based approach is formulated to find an approximated solution. The rules of the suggested type-2 fuzzy logic system (T2-FLS) are optimized by the square root cubature Kalman filter (SCKF) such that the proposed fineness function to be minimized. Furthermore, the stability and boundedness of the estimation error is proved by novel approach on basis of Lyapunov theorem. The accuracy and robustness of the suggested algorithm is verified by several statistical examinations. It is shown that the suggested method results in an accurate solution with rapid convergence and a lower computational cost.Entities:
Keywords: Lyapunov function; fuzzy systems; singular multi-pantograph differential equations; square root cubature kalman filter; statistical analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 33286810 PMCID: PMC7597098 DOI: 10.3390/e22091041
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Block diagram of the proposed solver.
Figure 2The structure of suggested T2-FLS.
Example 1: Statistical analysis.
|
| Min | Mean | Med | IR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.0218 | 0.0776 | 0.0823 | 0.0451 |
| 0.0500 | 0.0228 | 0.0786 | 0.0830 | 0.0448 |
| 0.1000 | 0.0223 | 0.0788 | 0.0835 | 0.0455 |
| 0.1500 | 0.0200 | 0.0774 | 0.0827 | 0.0473 |
| 0.2000 | 0.0154 | 0.0736 | 0.0799 | 0.0498 |
| 0.2500 | 0.0089 | 0.0672 | 0.0746 | 0.0519 |
| 0.3000 | 0.0014 | 0.0589 | 0.0675 | 0.0523 |
| 0.3500 | 0.0040 | 0.0505 | 0.0595 | 0.0520 |
| 0.4000 | 0.0001 | 0.0430 | 0.0514 | 0.0500 |
| 0.4500 | 0.0030 | 0.0373 | 0.0434 | 0.0416 |
| 0.5000 | 0.0039 | 0.0323 | 0.0354 | 0.0328 |
| 0.5500 | 0.0003 | 0.0279 | 0.0278 | 0.0202 |
| 0.6000 | 0.0006 | 0.0242 | 0.0231 | 0.0139 |
| 0.6500 | 0.0042 | 0.0211 | 0.0209 | 0.0129 |
| 0.7000 | 0.0026 | 0.0179 | 0.0167 | 0.0159 |
| 0.7500 | 0.0001 | 0.0149 | 0.0124 | 0.0138 |
| 0.8000 | 0.0019 | 0.0121 | 0.0120 | 0.0127 |
| 0.8500 | 0.0012 | 0.0092 | 0.0091 | 0.0112 |
| 0.9000 | 0.0000 | 0.0062 | 0.0057 | 0.0087 |
| 0.9500 | 0.0003 | 0.0033 | 0.0030 | 0.0053 |
| 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
Example 2: Statistical analysis.
|
| Min | Mean | Med | IR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.0004 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | 0.0001 |
| 0.0500 | 0.0006 | 0.0009 | 0.0009 | 0.0002 |
| 0.1000 | 0.0010 | 0.0014 | 0.0015 | 0.0003 |
| 0.1500 | 0.0013 | 0.0016 | 0.0016 | 0.0002 |
| 0.2000 | 0.0000 | 0.0008 | 0.0008 | 0.0005 |
| 0.2500 | 0.0002 | 0.0014 | 0.0013 | 0.0014 |
| 0.3000 | 0.0013 | 0.0048 | 0.0047 | 0.0025 |
| 0.3500 | 0.0038 | 0.0090 | 0.0092 | 0.0038 |
| 0.4000 | 0.0065 | 0.0133 | 0.0137 | 0.0050 |
| 0.4500 | 0.0090 | 0.0171 | 0.0176 | 0.0059 |
| 0.5000 | 0.0112 | 0.0204 | 0.0210 | 0.0067 |
| 0.5500 | 0.0134 | 0.0234 | 0.0240 | 0.0073 |
| 0.6000 | 0.0155 | 0.0261 | 0.0268 | 0.0077 |
| 0.6500 | 0.0175 | 0.0285 | 0.0292 | 0.0079 |
| 0.7000 | 0.0191 | 0.0301 | 0.0309 | 0.0079 |
| 0.7500 | 0.0201 | 0.0307 | 0.0316 | 0.0075 |
| 0.8000 | 0.0206 | 0.0306 | 0.0314 | 0.0069 |
| 0.8500 | 0.0207 | 0.0298 | 0.0306 | 0.0064 |
| 0.9000 | 0.0205 | 0.0283 | 0.0291 | 0.0057 |
| 0.9500 | 0.0193 | 0.0255 | 0.0262 | 0.0041 |
| 1.0000 | 0.0157 | 0.0201 | 0.0205 | 0.0028 |
Example 3: Comparison.
|
| Exact Solution | Proposed Method | Method of Reference [ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| 0.1 | 1.1052 | 1.1051 | 1.1051 |
| 0.2 | 1.2214 | 1.2213 | 1.2213 |
| 0.3 | 1.3499 | 1.3498 | 1.3497 |
| 0.4 | 1.4918 | 1.4917 | 1.4917 |
| 0.5 | 1.6487 | 1.6486 | 1.6486 |
| 0.6 | 1.8221 | 1.8221 | 1.8220 |
| 0.7 | 2.0138 | 2.0137 | 2.0136 |
| 0.8 | 2.2255 | 2.2254 | 2.2253 |
| 0.9 | 2.4596 | 2.4595 | 2.4594 |
| 1 | 2.7183 | 2.7181 | 2.7181 |