 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
A new approach for tuning interval type2 fuzzy knowledge bases using genetic algorithms
Journal of Uncertainty Analysis and Applications volume 2, Article number: 4 (2014)
Abstract
Fuzzy knowledgebased systems (FKBS) are significantly applicable in the area of control, classification, and modeling, having knowledge in the form of fuzzy ifthen rules. Type2 fuzzy theory is used to make these systems more capable of dealing with inherent uncertainties in realworld problems. In this paper, the authors have proposed a genetic tuning approach named lateral displacement and expansion/compression (LDEC) in which α and β parameters are calculated to adjust the parameters of interval type2 membership functions. α tuning deals with lateral displacement, whereas β tuning carries out compression/expansion operation. The interpretability and accuracy features are considered during the development of this approach. The experimental results show the performance of the proposed approach.
Introduction
Fuzzy systems, more specifically fuzzy knowledgebased systems (FKBS) or fuzzy rulebased systems (FRBS), are significantly applicable in areas like control [1], classification [2], and modeling [3]. The essential feature of FKBS is the incorporation of human expert knowledge which is in the form of fuzzy [4] extended ifthen rules. The major components of FKBS are fuzzification interface, inference engine, knowledge base, and defuzzification interface [5]. Knowledge base (KB) is composed of two components: data base (DB) and rule base (RB). DB is the repository of membership functions (MFs) and scaling functions (SFs) representing linguistic values, whereas RB is the collection of knowledge related to problems in terms of fuzzy ifthen rules.
The design and implementation of KB can be assumed as an optimization task. Hence, genetic algorithms (GAs) are used for learning and tuning of various parameters of KB due to their strong capacity of searching in a complicated and poorly defined search space. Such an application of GAs in developing FKBS is specifically named as genetic fuzzy systems (GFS) [5–8]. GFS have been used for handling various types of applications like predicting surface finish in ultraprecision diamond [9], bioaerosol detector [10], classification of intrusion attacks from a network traffic data [11], tool wear monitoring [12], smart base isolation system [13], etc.
Fuzzy systems for applications like in economics, medicine, etc. are to be developed such that the users may understand how they work by inspecting their KB and functioning. Technically, this feature is called ‘interpretability’ [14] which is the subjective feature of a fuzzy system showing how much the system is readable/understandable to the users by observing its functionality. Accuracy [15] is another feature showing the closeness between the real model and the developed model. Interpretability and accuracy are contradictory with each other, i.e., one can be improved at the cost of the other, denoted by ‘interpretabilityaccuracy tradeoff’ (IA TradeOff) [16–19]. For the above applications, interpretability as well as accuracy is required to be maintained at the higher level by maintaining a good IA TradeOff.
Interpretability and accuracy features are directly related to the approaches of developing FKBS which are domain expert method and experimental data method. In the first method, domain experts of the problem are contributing their knowledge to develop the RB of the FKBS. Such FKBS are much more interpretable. In the second method, RB is generated by using some machine learning method applied on the data set of the particular problem. The FKBS developed by the second method are less interpretable but are more generic. An idea of generating FKBS with the experimental data method guided by the domain expert method is good enough toward achieving an IA TradeOff with higher levels of interpretability as well as accuracy.
The special interest of this paper is the use of interval type2 fuzzy systems (IT2FS) [20]. The membership functions are tuned using GAs, which leads toward a new system, the ‘type2 genetic fuzzy system’ (T2GFS).
The paper continues with the ‘Interpretability issues in FKBS’ section in which the interpretability issues of FKBS are discussed. The ‘Tuning and learning operations in FKBS’ section introduces the basics of tuning and learning approaches. The fundamentals of type2 fuzzy systems are discussed in the ‘Type2 fuzzy systems’ section. A new lateral displacement and expansion/compression (LDEC) tuning approach is discussed in the ‘Proposed LDEC tuning approach’ section. The genetic representation of KB and the proposed tuning approach is discussed in the ‘Genetic representation of knowledge base’ section. Experimental results are discussed in the ‘Experiments and results’ section.
Interpretability issues in FKBS
Interpretability [14, 21–23] and accuracy [15] are the two important features considered during the design of fuzzy systems. Basically, interpretability is identified as a feature to understand the significance of something [21], and it is also known with other names like comprehensibility, intelligibility, transparency, readability, understandability, etc. Also, the quantification of interpretability is a highly subjective task depending on various parameters like experience, preference, and the knowledge of the person who interprets the system functionality.
Linguistic fuzzy modeling (LFM) and precise fuzzy modeling (PFM) [24] are two modeling approaches of fuzzy systems. In LFM, fuzzy models are developed by means of linguistic FRBS which are called Mamdanitype FKBS [25] mainly focusing on interpretability. On the other hand, PFM is developed considering the accuracy parameter and called TakagiSugeno FKBS [26]. Accuracy improvement in LFM [15] and interpretability improvement in PFM [14] are carried out to achieve the desired IA TradeOff.
Various approaches have been developed to deal with different issues of the interpretability of fuzzy systems. These are discussed in Table 1.
Many other indexes and methodologies have been developed for assessing the interpretability, which are considered in this paper. These are (1) number of rules (NOR), (2) total rule length (TRL)  the sum of the number of premises in all the rules, and (3) average rule length (ARL)  calculated by TRL/NOR.
Nauck's index (NI) [35] has been proposed to assess the interpretability of fuzzy rulebased classifiers. It is given by
where $\mathrm{\text{comp}}=\frac{\mathrm{\text{number}}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\mathrm{of}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\text{classes}}}{\mathrm{\text{total}}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\text{number}}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\mathrm{of}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\text{premises}}}$ (it measures the complexity), $\mathrm{\text{part}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\text{number}}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\mathrm{of}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\text{labels}}1}$ (it is the average normalized partition index), and cov is the average normalized coverage degree of the fuzzy partition. For strong fuzzy partition (SFP), it is equal to 1.
Similarly, a new global fuzzy index has been proposed in [36]. In this approach, the index has been computed as the outcomes of the inference of hierarchical fuzzy system.
Tuning and learning operations in FKBS
During the design of genetic FKBS, tuning and learning operations (Figure 1) are carried out to improve the performance of FKBS [5, 6]. In the tuning operation, the parameters of DB constituents, MFs and SFs, are adjusted, maintaining no change in the previously defined RB, whereas in the learning operation, the parameters of RB are changed simultaneously with the DB. There are three main approaches for carrying out learning operations: the Pittsburgh approach [37], Michigan approach [38], and iterative rule learning approach [39].
In the literature, two types of approaches are found for tuning operations: one is related to applying SFs for handling linguistic hedges and the other is the tuning of the MF parameters. In this paper, the second approach of MF tuning is considered.
The scaling functions are responsible for adjusting the universe of discourse of input and output variables to the domain. The parameters used for tuning the scaling functions are scaling factor, upper and lower bounds (linear scaling functions), and contraction/dilation parameters (nonlinear scaling function). The linguistic hedges are used and applied on the tuned MFs as discussed in [40–42]. The main linguistic hedges are as follows: very, moreorless, extremely, veryvery, positively, and negatively. Linguistic hedges are playing the role of adjectives and adverbs in the languages responsible for changing the qualitative linguistic statements.
Apart from tuning, learning, and interpretability issues in the design of FKBS, several other burning issues are like dealing with the high dimensionality of the data along with handling imbalanced data sets (Figure 2).
Type2 fuzzy systems
To implement FKBS, type2 fuzzy sets (T2FS) [43, 44] are used having more capacity to deal with inherent uncertainties in the system to be developed. General type2 fuzzy sets require high computational cost and type reduction complexity; hence, interval type 2 fuzzy sets [45–48] are preferred to model and implement various problems.
T2FS which is denoted by A^{*} is characterized by MF ${\mathit{\mu}}_{{\mathit{A}}^{*}}\left(\mathit{x},\mathit{u}\right)$, where x ∈ X and u ∈ J_{ x } ⊆ [0, 1]:
Here, $0\le {\mathit{\mu}}_{{\mathit{A}}^{*}}\left(\mathit{x},\mathit{u}\right)\le 1$; when all ${\mathit{\mu}}_{{\mathit{A}}^{*}}\left(\mathit{x},\mathit{u}\right)=1$, then A* is an interval type2 fuzzy set.
A type2 fuzzy system [49] is identified as a FLS with ifthen rules in which at least one linguistic term is a T2FS. Normally, a type2 fuzzy system differs from a type1 fuzzy system by having one extra component at the output processing, which is called type reducer (Figure 3). Also, in the type 2 fuzzy system, the antecedent and consequent parts of the rule must have at least one T2FS.
Proposed LDEC tuning approach
In this section, the authors have proposed a LDEC tuning approach for adjusting the parameters of interval type2 fuzzy MFs. The twophase procedure of the tuning approach is given in Figure 4. The first phase includes α tuning operation, and in the second phase, β tuning operation is performed.
α tuning operation
In the α tuning operation, all the coordinates of IT2MF are shifted by parameter α and the new coordinates would be as follows: a' = a ± α, b' = b ± α, c' = c ± α, d' = d ± α, e' = e ± α, depending on the positive and negative values of α. When the value of parameter α is positive, it leads to a tuned MF with forward lateral displacement (Figure 5a), and the negative value of α leads to backward lateral displacement (Figure 5b). The value of α is calculated as given below.
β tuning operation
In the β tuning approach, parameter β is applicable on parameters a, b, d, and e. After the tuning operation, the coordinates would be as follows:
The position of c is assumed to be fixed. The value of β is calculated as follows:
A positive value of β leads to compression (Figure 6a), whereas a negative value performs the expansion operation (Figure 6b).
Genetic representation of knowledge base
GAs [50, 51] are popular search techniques for illdefined and complex search spaces. They are based on natural evolution. The initial population G(0) is generated with chromosomes representing DB and RB information and subsequently goes under evolution. During evolution, the next generation G(n + 1) is generated by applying crossover and mutation operators on the generation G(n). On each generation, each individual is evaluated by a fitness function. A termination condition is set to stop the evolution process.
In [52], intervalued fuzzy sets (IVFS) have been used to implement a linguistic fuzzy rulebased classification system based on a new interval fuzzy reasoning method along with a new fuzzy rule learning process, called IVTURSFARC.
In [53], the performance of a fuzzy rulebased classification system is improved using an intervalvalued fuzzy set and a tuning approach using genetic algorithm. The uncertainty is modeled by the function ‘weak ignorance.’
Various parameters of type2 fuzzy systems are optimized using GAs and other bioinspired optimization algorithms. Few of these works are summarized in Table 2.
New proposed KB representation using GA
Encoding scheme
A twofolded encoding scheme has been presented here to represent the DB information:
where CR_{M} encodes the membership function and CR_{T} encodes the tuning information for the membership function.
Each MF would be represented by a fivetuple representation scheme (Figure 7). The i th MF of the j th input will be represented by MF_{ i }(x_{ j }) and mathematically would be expressed as shown in Figure 7.
The following rule is encoded as shown in Figure 8: IF x_{1} is MF_{i 1}(x_{1}) … and x_{ n } is MF_{ in }(x_{ n }), THEN y is MF_{in+1}(y). It is represented by CR_{R}.
The real coded chromosomes are used to encode the DB tuning information (CR_{T}) (Figure 9). For the i th input variable, the chromosome will be represented as shown in Figure 9 if there are n MFs for one variable.
Figure 10 gives the description of the tuning operation on MFs using α and β parameters.
Fitness function
The chromosomes are evaluated with the fitness function that considers the minimization of mean squared error (MSE):
where the size of the data set is M. F(a^{i}) is the output obtained from FRBS for the i th example. The desired output is b^{i}.
GA operators
To perform GA operations, the following GA operators are used:

Selection: Tournament selection has been used for the selection operation.

Crossover: Crossover is the operator that generates new offspring by integrating multiple parents. A simple twopoint crossover has been applied to all the chromosomes.

Mutation: This operator is used to maintain the diversity in the solutions from one generation to another generation. This operator changes the values of one or more bits in the chromosomes. In this proposed approach, a uniform mutation operator has been used in which the bits of chromosomes are altered within uniform random values at userspecified ranges.
Experiments and results
The RB generation methods used in the experiments are the decision tree (DT) method, WangMendel method [64], and fast prototyping algorithms. The experiments are supported by the openaccess free software tool ‘Guaje’ [29, 65] for type1 fuzzy system implementation.
The proposed approach has been tested on Haberman's Survival Data Set. This data set is available at the UCI Machine Learning Repository [66]. The data set is prepared on behalf of the test cases of survivals of patients who have undergone breast cancer surgery. The major characteristics of the data set are tabulated in Table 3.
The IT2MF for the data set input and output are given in Figure 11a,b,c,d.
Type1 fuzzy system implementation
The values of accuracy and interpretability measures calculated in the following experiments are given in Table 4 and Figure 12:

Experiment 1 (E1)

Fuzzy partition method: hierarchical fuzzy partition (HFP) and rule generation method: WangMendel method

Experiment 2 (E2)

Fuzzy partition method: strong fuzzy partition (SFP) and rule generation method: WangMendel method

Experiment 3 (E3)

Fuzzy partition method: HFP and rule generation method: fuzzy decision trees

Experiment 4 (E4)

Fuzzy partition method: SFP and rule generation method: WangMendel method
Type 2 fuzzy system implementation
The values of tuning parameters α and β calculated in the experiment are given in Table 5.

Experiment 5 (E5)

In this experiment (Table 6), the parameters of the genetic algorithm are as follows:

Number of generations = 2,000

Size of population = 70

Tournament size = 2

Size of population = 70

Mutation probability = 0.1

Crossover probability =0.5

Initial rules are generated by using the WangMendel method.

Experiment 6 (E6)

In this experiment (Table 7), the initial rules are generated by a fuzzy decision tree with the following parameter settings:

Minimum cardinality of leaf = 1

Coverage threshold = 0.9

Minimum deviance gain = 0.001

Minimum significant level = 0.2

Pruning condition = yes
The genetic algorithm parameters are the same as those in experiment 5.
The result comparisons of the proposed approach are outlined in Table 8.
Conclusions
Type2 fuzzy systems are strongly capable of modeling uncertainties in FKBS than type1 fuzzy systems using threedimensional membership function representation. General type2 fuzzy systems are deteriorating the interpretability of the systems, so IT2FS have been preferred to implement the proposed model with good interpretability.
The tuning and learning operations in the development of fuzzy systems playa vital role in improving their performance. This is considered as an optimization task and dealt properly with the application of evolutionary approaches, like GAs. The proposed tuning approach LDEC adjusts the parameters of interval type2 fuzzy membership functions. This approach is based on the lateral displacement, expansion, and compression operations on the MFs. The proposed tuning approach is interpretable and the experimental results are found satisfactory.
Abbreviations
 DB:

data base
 FKBS:

fuzzy knowledgebased system
 GAs:

genetic algorithms
 GFS:

genetic fuzzy systems
 KB:

knowledge base
 MFs:

membership functions
 RB:

rule base
 SFs:

scaling functions.
References
 1.
Palm R, Drainkov D, Hellendorn H: Model Based Fuzzy Control. Springer, Berlin; 1997.
 2.
Kuncheva LI: Fuzzy Classifier Design. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin; 2000.
 3.
Pedrycz W: Fuzzy Modelling: Paradigms and Practices. Kluwer, Boston; 1996.
 4.
Ross TJ: Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. Wiley, Chichester; 2009.
 5.
Cordon O, Herrera F, Hoffmann F, Magdalena L: Genetic Fuzzy Systems: Evolutionary Tuning and Learning of Fuzzy Knowledge Bases. World Scientific, Singapore; 2001.
 6.
Herrera F: Genetic fuzzy systems: taxonomy, current research trends and prospects. Evol. Intel. 2008, 1: 27–46. 10.1007/s1206500700015
 7.
Herrera F: Genetic fuzzy systems: status, critical considerations and future directions. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Res. 2005, 1(1):59–67.
 8.
Cordon O, Gomide F, Herrera F, Hoffmann F, Magdalena L: Ten years of genetic fuzzy systems: current framework and new trends. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 2005, 141: 5–31.
 9.
Roy SS: Design of genetic fuzzy expert system for predicting surface finish in ultraprecision diamond tuning of metal matrix composite. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2006, 173: 337–344. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.12.003
 10.
Pulkkinen P, Hytonen J, Koivisto H: Developing a bioaerosol detector using hybrid genetic fuzzy systems. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel. 2008, 21: 1330–1346. 10.1016/j.engappai.2008.01.006
 11.
Tseng CH, Kwong S, Wang H: Genetic fuzzy rule mining approach and evaluation of feature selection techniques for anomaly intrusion detection. Pattern Recogn. 2007, 40: 2373–2391. 10.1016/j.patcog.2006.12.009
 12.
Achiche S, Balazinski M, Baron L, Jemielniak K: Tool wear monitoring using geneticallygenerated fuzzy knowledge bases. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel. 2002, 15: 303–314. 10.1016/S09521976(02)000714
 13.
Kim HS, Roschke PN: Design of fuzzy logic controller for smart base isolation system using genetic algorithms. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28: 84–96. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.07.006
 14.
Cassilas J, Cordon O, Herrera F, Magdalena L: Interpretability Issues in Fuzzy Modeling. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin; 2003.
 15.
Cassilas J, Cordon O, Herrera F, Magdalena L: Accuracy Improvements in Linguistic Fuzzy Modeling. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin; 2003.
 16.
Alcala R, AFdez J, Cassilas J, Cordon O, Herrera F: Hybrid learning models to get the interpretabilityaccuracy tradeoff in fuzzy modeling. Soft. Comput. 2006, 10: 717–734. 10.1007/s0050000500021
 17.
Shukla PK, Tripathi SP: A survey on interpretabilityaccuracy (IA) tradeoff in evolutionary fuzzy systems. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (ICGEC 2011), Kitakyushu, 29 Aug–1 Sept 2011
 18.
Shukla PK, Tripathi SP: A review on the interpretabilityaccuracy tradeoff in evolutionary multiobjective fuzzy systems (EMOFS). Information 2012, 3(3):256–277.
 19.
Shukla PK, Tripathi SP: Interpretability issues in evolutionary multiobjective fuzzy knowledge base systems. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Bioinspired Computing: Theories and Applications (BICTA 2012) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 201. Edited by: Bansal JC. Springer, New Delhi; 2012:473–484.
 20.
Liang Q, Mendel JM: Interval type2 fuzzy logic systems: theory and design. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2000, 8(5):535–550. 10.1109/91.873577
 21.
Alonso JM, Magdalena L: Special issue on interpretable fuzzy systems. Inform. Sci. 2011, 181: 4331–4339. 10.1016/j.ins.2011.07.001
 22.
Alonso JM, Magdalena L, GonzalezRodriguez G: Looking for a good fuzzy system interpretability index: an experimental approach. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2009, 51: 115–134. 10.1016/j.ijar.2009.09.004
 23.
Jin Y: Fuzzy modeling of high dimensional systems: complexity reduction and interpretability improvement. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2000, 8(2):212–221. 10.1109/91.842154
 24.
Cassilas J, Cordon O, Herrera F, Magdalena L: Interpretability improvements to find the balance interpretabilityaccuracy in fuzzy modeling: an overview. In Interpretability Issues in Fuzzy Modeling, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Edited by: Cassilas J, Cordon O, Herrera F, Magdalena L. Springer, Heidelberg; 2003:3–22.
 25.
Mamdani EH: Applications of fuzzy algorithms for controlling a simple dynamic plant. Proceedings of Institution of Electrical Engineers 1974, 121(12):1585–1588. 10.1049/piee.1974.0328
 26.
Takagi T, Sugeno M: Fuzzy identification of systems and its application to modeling and control. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1985, 15: 116–132.
 27.
Guillaume S: Designing fuzzy inference system from data: an interpretability oriented review. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2001, 9(3):426–443. 10.1109/91.928739
 28.
Mikut R, Jakel J, Groll L: Interpretability issues in data based learning of fuzzy systems. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 2005, 150: 179–197. 10.1016/j.fss.2004.06.006
 29.
Alonso JM, Magdalena L: HILK++: an interpretability guided fuzzy modeling methodology for learning readable and comprehensible fuzzy rule based classifiers. Soft. Comput. 2011, 15(10):1959–1980. 10.1007/s0050001006285
 30.
Alonso JM, Magdalena L, Guillaume S: HILK: a new methodology for designing highly interpretable linguistic knowledge bases using fuzzy logic formalism. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2008, 23(7):761–794. 10.1002/int.20288
 31.
Zhou SM, Gan JQ: Low level interpretability and high level interpretability: a unified view of datadriven interpretable fuzzy system modeling. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 2008, 159: 3091–3131. 10.1016/j.fss.2008.05.016
 32.
Mencar C, Fanelli AM: Interpretability constraints for fuzzy information granulation. Inform. Sci. 2008, 178: 4585–4618. 10.1016/j.ins.2008.08.015
 33.
Gacto MJ, Alcala R, Herrera F: Interpretability of linguistic fuzzy rule based systems: an overview of interpretability measures. Inform. Sci. 2011, 181: 4340–4360. 10.1016/j.ins.2011.02.021
 34.
Fazzolari M, Giglio B, Alcala R, Marcelloni F, Herrera F: A study on the application of instance selection techniques in genetic fuzzy rule based classification systems: accuracycomplexity tradeoff. Knowledge Based Syst 2013, 54: 32–41.
 35.
Nauck DD: Measuring interpretability in rule based classification systems. In Proceedings of FUZZIEEE. Missouri; 25–28 May 2003
 36.
Alonso JM, Guillaume S, Magdalena L: A hierarchical fuzzy system for assessing interpretability of linguistic knowledge bases in classification problems. Proceedings of IPMU 2006, Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge Based Systems, Paris, 2–7 July 2006 348–355.
 37.
Smith SF Dissertation. In A learning system based on genetic adaptive algorithms. Department of Computer Science, University of Pittsburgh; 1980.
 38.
Booker LB Dissertation. In Intelligent behavior as an adaptation to the task environment. Department of Computer and Communication Sciences, University of Michigan; 1982.
 39.
Venturini G: SIA: A supervised inductive algorithm with genetic search for learning attribute based concepts. Proceedings of European Conference on Machine Learning, Vienna 5–7 Apr 1993
 40.
Shi H, Ward R, Kharma N: Expanding the definitions of linguistic hedges. Proceedings of Joint 9th IFSA World Congress & 20th NAFIPS, Vancouver, 25–28 July 2001
 41.
Zadeh LA: A fuzzy set theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges. J Cybernetics 1972, 2(3):4–34. 10.1080/01969727208542910
 42.
Cox E: The Fuzzy Systems Handbook. AP Professional, New York; 1998.
 43.
Mizumoto M, Tanaka K: Some properties of fuzzy sets of type 2. Inf. Control. 1976, 31: 312–340. 10.1016/S00199958(76)800113
 44.
Mendel JM, John RIB: Type2 fuzzy sets made simple. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2002, 10(2):117–127. 10.1109/91.995115
 45.
Wu H, Mendel JM: Uncertainty bounds and their use in the design of interval type2 fuzzy logic systems. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2002, 10(5):622–639. 10.1109/TFUZZ.2002.803496
 46.
Wu D: On the fundamental differences between interval type2 and type1 fuzzy logic controllers. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2012, 20(5):832–848.
 47.
Wu D: Approaches for reducing the computational cost of interval type2 fuzzy logic systems: overview and comparison. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, 21(1):80–99.
 48.
Chen SM, Chang YC, Pan JS: Fuzzy rules interpolation for sparse fuzzy rule based systems based on interval type2 Gaussian fuzzy sets and genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, 21(3):412–425.
 49.
Karnik NN, Mendel JM: Type2 fuzzy logic systems. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 1999, 7(6):643–658. 10.1109/91.811231
 50.
Goldberg DE: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. AddisonWesley, Reading; 1989.
 51.
Michalewicz Z: Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. Springer Verlag, Berlin; 1996.
 52.
Sanz JA, Fernandez A, Bustince H: IVTURS: A linguistic fuzzy rule based classification system based on a new interval valued fuzzy reasoning method with tuning and rule selection. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, 21(3):399–411.
 53.
Sanz J, Fernandez A, Bustince H, Herrera F: A genetic tuning to improve the performance of fuzzy rule based classification systems with interval valued fuzzy sets: degree of ignorance and lateral position. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2011, 52(6):751–766. 10.1016/j.ijar.2011.01.011
 54.
Wu D, Tan WW: A simplified type2 fuzzy logic controller for real time control. ISA Trans. 2006, 45(4):503–516. 10.1016/S00190578(07)602286
 55.
Wu D, Tan WW: Genetic learning and performance evaluation of interval type2 fuzzy logic controllers. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel. 2006, 19(8):829–841. 10.1016/j.engappai.2005.12.011
 56.
Sepulveda R, Castillo O, Melin P, R–Diaz A, Montiel O: Exponential study of intelligent controllers under uncertainty using type1 and type2 fuzzy logic. Inform. Sci. 2007, 177(10):2023–2048. 10.1016/j.ins.2006.10.004
 57.
Martinez R, Castillo O, Aguilar LT: Optimization of interval type2 fuzzy logic controllers for a perturbed autonomous wheeled mobile robot using genetic algorithms. Inform. Sci. 2009, 179(13):2158–2174. 10.1016/j.ins.2008.12.028
 58.
Zarandi MHF, Rezaee B, Turksen IB, Neshat E: A type2 fuzzy rulebased expert system model for stock price analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36(1):139–154. 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.09.034
 59.
Castillo O, Melin P, Alanis A, Montiel O, Sepulveda R: Optimization of interval type2 fuzzy logic controllers using evolutionary algorithms. Soft. Comput. 2011, 15(6):1145–1160. 10.1007/s0050001005889
 60.
Castillo O, MMarroquin R, Melin P, Valdez F, Soria J: Comparative study of bioinspired algorithms applied to optimization of type1 and type2 fuzzy controllers for an autonomous mobile robot. Inform. Sci. 2012, 192(1):19–38.
 61.
Hidalgo D, Melin P, Castillo O: An optimization method for designing type2 fuzzy inference systems based on the footprint of uncertainty using genetic algorithms. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39(4):4590–4598. 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.10.003
 62.
Castillo O, Melin P: Optimization of type2 fuzzy systems based on bioinspired methods: a concise review. Inform. Sci. 2012, 205(1):1–19.
 63.
Hosseini R, Qanadli SD, Barman S, Mazinani M, Ellis T, Dehmeshki J: An automatic approach for learning and tuning Gaussian interval type2 fuzzy membership functions applied to lung CAD classification system. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2012, 20(2):224–234.
 64.
Wang LX, Mendel JM: Generating fuzzy rule by learning from examples. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1992, 22(6):1414–1427. 10.1109/21.199466
 65.
Alonso JM, Magdalena L: Generating understandable and accurate fuzzy rule based systems in a Java environment. In Fuzzy Logic and Applications, 9th International Workshop, WILF 2011, Trani, Italy, August 29–31, 2011. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6857. Edited by: Fanelli AM, Pedrycz W, Petrosino A. Springer, Berlin; 2011:212–219.
 66.
Bache K, Lichman M: UCI Machine Learning Repository. School of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA; (2013). Accessed 15 June 2013 http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
Author information
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
Keywords
 Fuzzy System
 Fuzzy Partition
 Fuzzy Decision Tree
 Genetic Fuzzy System
 Tuning Approach