On the Mitchell similarity measure and its application to pattern recognition
Highlights
► We revised questionable results in (Mitchell, 2003) that had been cited 47 times. ► We proved that similarity measures based on one-norm is larger than that on two-norm. ► We proposed a new similarity measure for pattern recognition problems.
Introduction
Intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs), first proposed by Atanassov, 1986, Atanassov, 1989, Atanassov, 1999, are a valuable approach to handling the vagueness and uncertainty that arise when applied to various fields. Since their first appearance, many different distance and similarity measures of IFSs have been presented, but there still remain some questionable aspects that have yet to be improved. In this paper, we will discuss the findings of Mitchell (2003). To date, forty-seven papers have cited that work; the aims of all of them can be classified into the following four categories:
- (a)
The development of new similarity measures: Hung and Yang, 2004, Huang, 2007, Hung and Yang, 2007, Lv et al., 2007a, Vlachos and Sergiadis, 2007, Zhou and Wu, 2007, Hao et al., 2008, Hung and Yang, 2008, Xu and Chen, 2008, Meng et al., 2009, Xia and Xu, 2010, Zhang et al., 2010, Chen, 2011, Wei et al., 2011, Xu and Xia, 2011, Ye, 2011, Yusoff et al., 2011.
- (b)
The construction of new solution methods: Mitchell, 2004b, Mitchell, 2005, Wang and Xin, 2005, Li et al., 2006, Quanming et al., 2006, Pelekis et al., 2008, Xu et al., 2008, Zhang and Jiang, 2008, Chen et al., 2009, Lv et al., 2007b, Lv et al., 2009, Own, 2009, Xu, 2009, Yang et al., 2009, Yue et al., 2009, Zeng et al., 2009, Zhang et al., 2009, Pelekis et al., 2011, Zhang et al., 2011,
- (c)
The application to decision making problems: Mitchell, 2004a, Maghrebi et al., 2007, Ning et al., 2008, Baccour and Alimi, 2009, Burduk, 2009, Khatibi and Montazer, 2009a, Khatibi and Montazer, 2009b, Yuan et al., 2009.
- (d)
The revision of existing similarity measures: Li et al., 2007, Park et al., 2007, Xu and Yager, 2009.
Papers in the first three categories were so eager to pioneer new territory that they failed to perform an in depth examination of the work in question.
The papers in the last category are the only ones that discuss previous similarity measures. We will provide only a brief summary of their findings here; for a more complete picture, please refer to their original papers. Li et al. (2007) pointed out that with one-norm, the similarity measure of Mitchell (2003) will degenerate to the similarity measure of Hong and Kim (1999). On the other hand, Li et al. (2007) provided two counter examples for the similarity measure of Hong and Kim (1999) to show that it cannot help decision makers solve pattern recognition problems. Park et al. (2007) mentioned that Mitchell (2003) improved the axiom for the similarity measures for IFSs. Four new similarity measures of Park et al. (2007) are all satisfied by the axiom provided by Mitchell (2003). Xu and Yager (2009) claimed that Mitchell (2003) made some modifications to the axioms of Li and Cheng (2002). Xu and Yager (2009) also presented a detailed study on the similarity measure of Szmidt and Kacprzyk (2004). These three papers provided valuable comments on previous similarity measures. However, they did not pay attention to the similarity measure and pattern recognition problems of Mitchell (2003). In this paper, we will first review and examine her similarity measure. Then, we will check the pattern recognition problems in her paper and provide revisions.
In addition, we have followed the valuable suggestion of the anonymous referee to add a hesitancy degree in our future research for the study of similarity measures, as done in Szmidt and Kacprzyk, 2004, Xu, 2007, and Xu and Yager (2009).
Our findings will help future researchers obtain a deeper understanding of the similarity measure in question.
Section snippets
Review the similarity measure of Mitchell (2003)
In Mitchell (2003), for IFSs, where X is the disclose of universe, μA is the membership function, and vA is the non-membership function. She defined a new membership function,where μA and ϕA denote the “low” and “high” membership functions. Based on the similarity measure of Li and Cheng (2002) for two functions, f and g, under the p-normwhere w(x) is the weight function that satisfies and with .
Mitchell
Our examinations of her computation for similarity values
Owing to the domain, the pattern recognition of Section 2 is restricted to and so the uniform weight w(x) yieldsFigure 2 of her paper is shown as Fig. 1 in this paper; it did not give us the exact values of a and b in the definition of membership functions and non-membership functions. Since, from the information given, we can only know that 0 < a < 0.5 < b < 1, we found thatandwhich
Our proposed similarity measure
We will propose a new similarity measure between and , under p-normWith p = 2 and uniform weight w(x), for the above example in Sections 2 Review the similarity measure of, 3 Our examinations of her computation for similarity values, we found thatFrom the Fig. 1, we may assume that a = 0.2 and b = 0.8, and so we derive that
Further review of pattern recognition of Mitchell (2003)
Mitchell (2003) provided a pattern recognition application for its new similarity measure. However, the exact membership and non-membership functions for three patterns , and , and one sample , were absent from the paper, and only graphic expressions were offered in Figure 3 of that paper. For convenience, her Figure 3 is provided as Fig. 2 in this paper.
We assumed thatandfor pattern . We also assumed that
Conclusions
In this paper, we first noted that the results computed in Mitchell (2003) do not fit her definition of a similarity measure. Then we provided a new similarity measure. For a pattern recognition problem, we study her results to prepare a new lemma to verify that the similarity value for one-norm is greater than that for two-norm. Moreover, after correcting Mitchell’s similarity value, we pointed out that our proposed similarity measure can offer a more recognizable difference to help
References (55)
Intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Fuzzy Sets Systems
(1986)A comparative analysis of score functions for multiple criteria decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy settings
Inform. Sci.
(2011)- et al.
A note on similarity measures between vague sets and between elements
Inform. Sci.
(1999) - et al.
Similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on Hausdorff distance
Pattern Recognition Lett.
(2004) - et al.
Similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on Lp metric
Int. J. Approximate Reasoning
(2007) - et al.
On the J-divergence of intuitionistic fuzzy sets with its application to pattern recognition
Inform. Sci.
(2008) - et al.
Intuitionistic fuzzy set vs. fuzzy set application in medical pattern recognition.
Artif. Intell. Med.
(2009) - et al.
Similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy (vague) sets: A comparative analysis
Pattern Recognition Lett.
(2007) On the Dengfend–Chuntian similarity measure and its application to pattern recognition
Pattern Recognition Lett.
(2003)Pattern recognition using type-II fuzzy sets
Inform. Sci.
(2005)
Intuitionistic fuzzy information – Applications to pattern recognition
Pattern Recognition Lett.
Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Pattern Recognition Lett.
Entropy, similarity measure of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications
Inform. Sci.
Clustering algorithm for intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Inform. Sci.
Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets
Inform. Sci.
Cosine similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications
Math. Comput. Modell.
Some information measures for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Inform. Sci.
A note on information entropy measures for vague sets and its applications
Inform. Sci.
More on intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Fuzzy Sets Systems
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application to pattern recognitions
Pattern Recognition Lett.
Cited by (33)
A critical review on theoretical drawbacks and mathematical incorrect assumptions in fuzzy OR methods: Review from 2010 to 2020
2020, Applied Soft Computing JournalIFS-IBA similarity measure in machine learning algorithms
2017, Expert Systems with ApplicationsDeveloping similarity based IPA under intuitionistic fuzzy sets to assess leisure bikeways
2015, Tourism ManagementA complete pattern recognition approach under Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy sets
2014, Knowledge-Based SystemsCitation Excerpt :To be compatible with [12], we use wi = 1/6 for i = 1, … , 6 and δi = 1/3 for i = 1, 2, 3. Moreover, we recall [9] with p = 2, [19] with p = 2, [24,26] with wi = 1/6 for i = 1, … , 6 to compare their findings to indicate all have the same results. The results of the diagnostic technique for the considered samples are given in Table 3.
Intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measures based on Frank t-norms family
2014, Pattern Recognition LettersAnalysis on comparison of distances derived by one-norm and two-norm with weight functions
2013, Applied Mathematics and ComputationCitation Excerpt :They mentioned that Mitchell [3] had been cited 47 times; however, none of those 47 papers pointed out that Mitchell [3] contained questionable results that may lead decision makers to make wrong judgments for similarity measure among patterns for the sample. To support their computation, Julian et al. [2] stated the following theorem: The similarity measure derived by one-norm should be bigger than that derived by two-norm.