Nie-Tan Method and its Improved Version: A CounterexampleMétodo Nie-Tan y su Versión Mejorada: Un contraejemplo

• Salazar, Omar ^[2] ; Rojas, Juan Diego ^[1] ; Serrano, Humberto ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas

     Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas

     Colombia

     
  2. [2] Universidad Distrital email: osalazarm@correo.udistrital.edu.co
• Localización: Ingeniería, ISSN-e 2344-8393, ISSN 0121-750X, Vol. 21, Nº. 2, 2016, pág. 1
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  • AbstractContext: The bottleneck on interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems is the output processing when using Centroid Type-Reduction + Defuzzification (CTR+D method). Nie and Tan proposed an approximation to CTR+D (NT method). Recently, Mendel and Liu improved the NT method (INT method). Numerical examples (due to Mendel and Liu) exhibit the NT and INT methods as good approximations to CTR+D.Method: Normalization to the unit interval of membership function domains (examples and counterexample) and variables involved in the calculations for the three methods. Examples (due to Mendel and Liu) taken from the literature. Counterexample with piecewise linear membership functions. Comparison by means of error and percentage relative error.Results: NT vs. CTR+D: Our counterexample showed an error of 0.1014 and a percentage relative error of 30.53%. This is respectively 23 and 32 times higher than the worst case obtained in the examples. INT vs. CTR+D: Our counterexample showed an error of 0.0725 and a percentage relative error of 21.83%.This is respectively 363 and 546 times higher than the worst case obtained in the examples.Conclusions: NT and INT methods are not necessarily good approximations to the CTR+D method.