Fuzzy control: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Giangiacomo Gerla
No edit summary
imported>Giangiacomo Gerla
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
By the expression '''Fuzzy logic''' one denotes several topics which are related with the notion of [[fuzzy subset]] defined in [[1965]] by [[Lotfi Asker Zadeh|Lotfi Zadeh]] at the [[University of California, Berkeley]]. Given a nonempty set ''S'', a ''fuzzy subset'' of ''S'' is a map ''s'' from ''S'' into the interval [0,1]. Then elements in [0,1]are interpreted as truth values. In accordance, for every x in S, the value s(x) is interpreted as a membership degree of x to s. In other words, a fuzzy subset is a characteristic function in which graded truth values are admitted.  
By the expression '''Fuzzy logic''' one denotes several topics which are related with the notion of [[fuzzy subset]] defined in [[1965]] by [[Lotfi Asker Zadeh|Lotfi Zadeh]] at the [[University of California, Berkeley]]. Given a nonempty set ''S'', a ''fuzzy subset'' of ''S'' is a map ''s'' from ''S'' into the interval [0,1]. Then elements in [0,1]are interpreted as truth values. In accordance, for every x in S, the value s(x) is interpreted as a membership degree of x to s. In other words, a fuzzy subset is a characteristic function in which graded truth values are admitted.  
The notion of fuzzy subset enables us to represent the extension of vague predicates and relations as "big","slow", "near" "similar", ... and so on. More formally, we can interpret a first order logic in which vague predicates are admitted by associating any n-ary predicate with an n-ary fuzzy relation. In this sense we can consider fuzzy logic as a chapter of multi-valued logic. As an example, since 1996 in the book "Continuous model theory" by Chang and Kisler all the main notions of fuzzy logic where defined in a theoretical setting.


If we consider fuzzy logic as a formal logic with a semantics and a deduction apparatus, then we can consider it as a new chapter of multi-valued logic. Sometimes in such a case one uses the expression "fuzzy logic in narrow sense" or "formal fuzzy logic".
Now, even if from a semantical point of view fuzzy logic is not different from first order multi-valued logic, a basic difference lies in the deduction apparatus. In fact, in multi-valued logic the deduction operator is a tool to associate every (classical) set of axioms with the related (classical) set of theorems. Also,  several authors consider sufficient to define an apparatus able to generate the set of valid formulas. From such a point of view the paradigm of the deduction in multi-valued logic is not different in nature from the one of classical logic. Instead in fuzzy logic the notion of [[approximate reasoning]] which is based on the one of graded inference rule is crucial. This notion enables us to associate any fuzzy set of proper axioms with the related fuzzy subset of consequences.   
 
In fact in first order fuzzy logic vague predicate are admitted and these predicate can be interpreted by fuzzy subsets. Then, from a semantical point of view, fuzzy logic is not different from first order multi-valued logic. As an example, since 1996 in the book "Continuous model theory" by Chang and Kisler all the main notions of fuzzy logic where defined in a theoretical setting. Instead, with respect to the notion of a proof and from the point of view of the deduction apparatus the approach of fuzzy logic is completely new. In fact, in multi-valued logic the deduction operator is a tool to associate every (classical) set of axioms with the related (classical) set of theorems. Also,  several authors consider sufficient to define an apparatus able to generate the set of valid formulas. From such a point of view the paradigm of the deduction in multi-valued logic is not different in nature from the one of classical logic. Instead in fuzzy logic the notion of [[approximate reasoning]] is crucial and this notion enables us to associate any fuzzy set of proper axioms with the related fuzzy subset of consequences.   
Onother basic difference is in the origin and in the agenda. Indeed the origin of fuzzy logic is in control and aim of fuzzy logic is to find applications. Instead, multi-valued logic originates from philosophical and theoretical questions, in general.
Onother basic difference is in the origin and in the agenda. Indeed the origin of fuzzy logic is in control and aim of fuzzy logic is to find applications. Instead, multi-valued logic originates from philosophical and theoretical questions, in general.
 
Sometimes in such a case one uses the expression "fuzzy logic in narrow sense" or "formal fuzzy logic".  
Fuzzy logic usually allows for truth values to range (inclusively) between 0 and 1, and in its linguistic form, imprecise concepts like "slightly", "quite" and "very". Specifically, it allows graded membership of an elements in a set.  





Revision as of 03:00, 18 June 2007

By the expression Fuzzy logic one denotes several topics which are related with the notion of fuzzy subset defined in 1965 by Lotfi Zadeh at the University of California, Berkeley. Given a nonempty set S, a fuzzy subset of S is a map s from S into the interval [0,1]. Then elements in [0,1]are interpreted as truth values. In accordance, for every x in S, the value s(x) is interpreted as a membership degree of x to s. In other words, a fuzzy subset is a characteristic function in which graded truth values are admitted. The notion of fuzzy subset enables us to represent the extension of vague predicates and relations as "big","slow", "near" "similar", ... and so on. More formally, we can interpret a first order logic in which vague predicates are admitted by associating any n-ary predicate with an n-ary fuzzy relation. In this sense we can consider fuzzy logic as a chapter of multi-valued logic. As an example, since 1996 in the book "Continuous model theory" by Chang and Kisler all the main notions of fuzzy logic where defined in a theoretical setting.

Now, even if from a semantical point of view fuzzy logic is not different from first order multi-valued logic, a basic difference lies in the deduction apparatus. In fact, in multi-valued logic the deduction operator is a tool to associate every (classical) set of axioms with the related (classical) set of theorems. Also, several authors consider sufficient to define an apparatus able to generate the set of valid formulas. From such a point of view the paradigm of the deduction in multi-valued logic is not different in nature from the one of classical logic. Instead in fuzzy logic the notion of approximate reasoning which is based on the one of graded inference rule is crucial. This notion enables us to associate any fuzzy set of proper axioms with the related fuzzy subset of consequences. Onother basic difference is in the origin and in the agenda. Indeed the origin of fuzzy logic is in control and aim of fuzzy logic is to find applications. Instead, multi-valued logic originates from philosophical and theoretical questions, in general. Sometimes in such a case one uses the expression "fuzzy logic in narrow sense" or "formal fuzzy logic".


Applications

Fuzzy logic can be used to control household appliances such as washing machines (which sense load size and detergent concentration and adjust their wash cycles accordingly) and refrigerators.

A basic application might characterize subranges of a continuous variable. For instance, a temperature measurement for anti-lock brakes might have several separate membership functions defining particular temperature ranges needed to control the brakes properly. Each function maps the same temperature value to a truth value in the 0 to 1 range. These truth values can then be used to determine how the brakes should be controlled.

Warm fuzzy logic member function.gif

In this image, cold, warm, and hot are functions mapping a temperature scale. A point on that scale has three "truth values" — one for each of the three functions. For the particular temperature shown, the three truth values could be interpreted as describing the temperature as, say, "fairly cold", "slightly warm", and "not hot".


Misconceptions and controversies

Fuzzy logic is the same as "imprecise logic".
Fuzzy logic is not any less precise than any other form of logic: it is an organized and mathematical method of handling inherently imprecise concepts. The concept of "coldness" cannot be expressed in an equation, because although temperature is a quantity, "coldness" is not. However, people have an idea of what "cold" is, and agree that there is no sharp cutoff between "cold" and "not cold", where something is "cold" at N degrees but "not cold" at N+1 degrees — a concept classical logic cannot easily handle due to the principle of bivalence.
Fuzzy logic is a new way of expressing probability.

Degrees of truth are often confused with probabilities. However, they are conceptually distinct; fuzzy truth represents membership in vaguely defined sets, not likelihood of some event or condition. To illustrate the difference, consider this scenario: Bob is in a house with two adjacent rooms: the kitchen and the dining room. In many cases, Bob's status within the set of things "in the kitchen" is completely plain: he's either "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen". What about when Bob stands in the doorway? He may be considered "partially in the kitchen". Quantifying this partial state yields a fuzzy set membership. With only his big toe in the dining room, we might say Bob is 99% "in the kitchen" and 1% "in the dining room", for instance. No event (like a coin toss) will resolve Bob to being completely "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen", as long as he's standing in that doorway. Fuzzy sets are based on vague definitions of sets, not randomness.

However, this is a point of controversy. Many statisticians are persuaded by the work of Bruno de Finetti that only one kind of mathematical uncertainty is needed and thus fuzzy logic is unnecessary. On the other hand, Bart Kosko argues that probability is a subtheory of fuzzy logic, as probability only handles one kind of uncertainty. He also claims to have proven a derivation of Bayes' theorem from the concept of fuzzy subsethood. Observe that Zadeh has created a fuzzy alternative to probability, which he calls possibility theory and which is related with Dempster-Shafer theory.

Examples where fuzzy logic is used

How fuzzy logic is applied

Template:Unreferenced Fuzzy Set Theory defines Fuzzy Operators on Fuzzy Sets. The problem in applying this is that the appropriate Fuzzy Operator may not be known! For this reason, Fuzzy logic usually uses IF/THEN rules, or constructs that are equivalent, such as fuzzy associative matrices.

Rules are usually expressed in the form:
IF variable IS set THEN action

For example, an extremely simple temperature regulator that uses a fan might look like this:
IF temperature IS very cold THEN stop fan
IF temperature IS cold THEN turn down fan
IF temperature IS normal THEN maintain level
IF temperature IS hot THEN speed up fan


Notice there is no "ELSE". All of the rules are evaluated, because the temperature might be "cold" and "normal" at the same time to differing degrees.

The AND, OR, and NOT operators of boolean logic exist in fuzzy logic, usually defined as the minimum, maximum, and complement; when they are defined this way, they are called the Zadeh operators, because they were first defined as such in Zadeh's original papers. So for the fuzzy variables x and y:

NOT x = (1 - truth(x))

x AND y = minimum(truth(x), truth(y))

x OR y = maximum(truth(x), truth(y))

There are also other operators, more linguistic in nature, called hedges that can be applied. These are generally adverbs such as "very", or "somewhat", which modify the meaning of a set using a mathematical formula.

In application, the programming language Prolog is well geared to implementing fuzzy logic with its facilities to set up a database of "rules" which are queried to deduct logic. This sort of programming is known as logic programming.

Once fuzzy relations are defined, it is possible to develop fuzzy relational databases. The first fuzzy relational data base, FRDB, appeared in Maria Zemankova's dissertation.

Other examples

  • If a man is 1.8 meters, consider him as tall:

IF male IS true AND height >= 1.8 THEN is_tall IS true; is_short IS false

  • The fuzzy rules do not make the sharp distinction between tall and short, that is not so realistic:

IF height <= medium male THEN is_short IS agree somewhat
IF height >= medium male THEN is_tall IS agree somewhat

In the fuzzy case, there are no such heights like 1.83 meters, but there are fuzzy values, like the following assignments:

dwarf male = [0, 1.3] m
short male = (1.3, 1.5]
medium male = (1.5, 1.8]
tall male = (1.8, 2.0]
giant male > 2.0 m

For the consequent, there are also not only two values, but five, say:

agree not = 0
agree little = 1
agree somewhat = 2
agree a lot = 3
agree fully = 4

In the binary, or "crisp", case, a person of 1.79 meters of height is considered short. If another person is 1.8 meters or 2.25 meters, these persons are considered tall.

The crisp example differs deliberately from the fuzzy one. We did not put in the antecedent

IF male >= agree somewhat AND ...

as gender is often considered as a binary information. So, it is not so complex as being tall.


Formal fuzzy logic

In mathematical logic, there are several formal systems that model the above notions of "fuzzy logic". Note that they use a different set of operations than above mentioned Zadeh operators.

Propositional fuzzy logics

All these logics encompass the traditional propositional logic (whose models correspond to Boolean algebras).

Predicate fuzzy logics

These extend the above-mentioned fuzzy logics by adding universal and existential quantifiers in a manner similar to the way that predicate logic is created from propositional logic.

Effectiveness for fuzzy set theory

The notions of a "decidable subset" and "recursively enumerable subset" are basic ones for classical mathematics and classical logic. Then, the question of a suitable extension of such concepts to fuzzy set theory arises. A first proposal in such a direction was made by E.S. Santos by the notions of fuzzy Turing machine, Markov normal fuzzy algorithm and fuzzy program. Successively, L. Biacino and G. Gerla proposed the following definition where Ü denotes the set of rational numbers in [0,1].

Definition A fuzzy subset μ : S [0,1] of a set S is recursively enumerable if a recursive map h : S×N Ü exists such that, for every x in S, the function h(x,n) is increasing with respect to n and μ(x) = lim h(x,n). We say that μ is decidable if both μ and its complement –μ are recursively enumerable.

An extension of such a theory to the general case of the L-subsets is proposed in a paper by G. Gerla. In such a paper one refer to the theory of effective domains.

Effectiveness for fuzzy logic

Define the set Val of valid formulas as the set of formulas assuming constantly value equal to 1. Then it is possible to prove that among the usual first order logics only Goedel logic has a recursively enumerable set of valid formulas. In the case of Lukasiewicz and product logic, for example, Val is not recursively enumerable (such a fact was extensively examined in the book of Hajek). Neverthless, from these results we cannot conclude that these logics are not effective and therefore that an axiomatization is not possible. Indeed, if we refer to the just exposed notion of effectiveness for fuzzy sets, then the following theorem holds true (provided that the deduction apparatus of the fuzzy logic satisfies some obvious effectiveness property).

Theorem. Any axiomatizable fuzzy theory is recursively enumerable. In particular, the fuzzy set of logically true formulas is recursively enumerable in spite of the fact that the crisp set of valid formulas is not recursively enumerable, in general. Moreover, any axiomatizable and complete theory is decidable.

It is an open question to give a support for a Church thesis for fuzzy computability and to give Gödel’s theorems for fuzzy logic using the notion of recursively enumerable fuzzy subset. To this aim, it is very important to refer to adequate definitions of fuzzy grammar and of fuzzy Turing machine (see for example Wiedermann's paper).

See also

Bibliography

  • Ahmad M. Ibrahim, Introduction to Applied Fuzzy Electronics, ISBN 0-13-206400-6
  • Von Altrock C., Fuzzy Logic and NeuroFuzzy Applications Explained (2002), ISBN 0-13-368465-2
  • Biacino L., Gerla G., Fuzzy logic, continuity and effectiveness, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 41, (2002), 643-667.
  • Chang C. C.,Keisler H. J., Continuous Model Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996.
  • Cignoli R., D’Ottaviano I. M. L. , Mundici D. , ‘’Algebraic Foundations of Many-Valued Reasoning’’. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999.
  • Cox E., The Fuzzy Systems Handbook (1994), ISBN 0-12-194270-8
  • Elkan C.. The Paradoxical Success of Fuzzy Logic. November 1993. Available from Elkan's home page.
  • Hájek P., Metamathematics of fuzzy logic. Kluwer 1998.
  • Hájek P., Fuzzy logic and arithmetical hierarchy, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 3, (1995), 359-363.
  • Höppner F., Klawonn F., Kruse R. and Runkler T., Fuzzy Cluster Analysis (1999), ISBN 0-471-98864-2.
  • Klir G. and Folger T., Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information (1988), ISBN 0-13-345984-5.
  • Klir G. , UTE H. St. Clair and Bo Yuan Fuzzy Set Theory Foundations and Applications,1997.
  • Klir G. and Bo Yuan, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic (1995) ISBN 0-13-101171-5
  • Bart Kosko, Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic (1993), Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-8021-X
  • Gerla G., Effectiveness and Multivalued Logics, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71 (2006) 137-162.
  • Montagna F., Three complexity problems in quantified fuzzy logic. Studia Logica, 68,(2001), 143-152.
  • Novák V., Perfilieva I, Mockor J., Mathematical Principles of Fuzzy Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, (1999).
  • Scarpellini B., Die Nichaxiomatisierbarkeit des unendlichwertigen Prädikatenkalküls von Łukasiewicz, J. of Symbolic Logic, 27,(1962), 159-170.
  • Yager R. and Filev D., Essentials of Fuzzy Modeling and Control (1994), ISBN 0-471-01761-2
  • Zimmermann H., Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications (2001), ISBN 0-7923-7435-5.
  • Kevin M. Passino and Stephen Yurkovich, Fuzzy Control, Addison Wesley Longman, Menlo Park, CA, 1998.
  • Wiedermann J. , Characterizing the super-Turing computing power and efficiency of classical fuzzy Turing machines, Theor. Comput. Sci. 317, (2004), 61-69.
  • Zadeh L.A., Fuzzy algorithms, Information and Control, 5,(1968), 94-102.
  • Zadeh L.A., Fuzzy Sets, ‘’Information and Control’’, 8 (1965) 338­353.
  • Zemankova-Leech, M., Fuzzy Relational Data Bases (1983), Ph. D. Dissertation, Florida State University.