Abstract

Processing information in fuzzy rule-based systems generally employs one of two patterns of inference: composition or compatibility modification. Composition originated as a generalization of binary logical deduction to fuzzy logic, while compatibility modification was developed to facilitate the evaluation of rules by separating the evaluation of the input from the generation of the output. The first step in compatibility modification inference is to assess the degree to which the input matches the antecedent of a rule. The result of this assessment is then combined with the consequent of the rule to produce the output. This paper examines the relationships between these two patterns of inference and establishes conditions under which they produce equivalent results. The separation of the evaluation of input from the generation of output permits a flexibility in the methods used to compare the input with the antecedent of a rule with multiple clauses. In this case, the degree to which the input and the rule antecedent match is determined by the application of a compatibility measure and an aggregation operator. The order in which these operations are applied may affect the assessment of the degree of matching, which in turn may cause the production of different results. Separability properties are introduced to define conditions under which compatibility modification inference is independent of the input evaluation strategy.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.