Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Fuzzy Mod
For the internal node at (k, i), we can use chain rule
to write zq
aEp as
84 #(k+l)
jjq=c h+l*
aE, dO+l
(4
??a=1 tQn
Figure 2: The reasoning mechanism adopted
where 1 < k 5 L - 1. Therefore for all 1 5 k 5 L and
1 5 i < #(k), we can find a by Equation 3 and 4.
For illustration, we assume the system to be mod-
Now if cy is a parameter of thegiven GNN, we have eled has (1) two input variables x and y, each of which
aEPc
-=
da *Es
aE,
dO*dcu
do*
(5)
has three membership functions associated with it, (2)
and one output variable z. Ideally, these three mem-
bership functions correspond to three commonly used
JANG 763
linguistic terms, i.e., small, medium and large, Kalman Filter Algorithm
to describe the input variables. The basic configuration From Figure 3, it is observed that given the values of
of the GNN-based fuzzy inference system is shown in the premise parameters and P entries of training data,
Figure 3, where nodes in the same layer have the same we can form P linear equations in terms of the conse-
type of node functions explained below. quence parameters. For simplicity, assume there are m
consequence parameters and the resulting linear equa-
(llnk8 kom X mtd, Y ue not rhomn)
tions can be expressed in the following matrix form:
AX=B (11)
where the elements of X are consequence parameters.
Several approaches have been developed to solve this
kind of over-constrained simultaneous linear equations,
and one of the most concise is
Z
X* = (ATA)-lATB (12)
where AT is the transpose of A, and (ATA)-lAT is
called the pseudo-inverse of A if ATA is non-singular.
In many cases, the row vectors of matrix A (and cor-
responding elements in B) are obtained sequentially,
hence it may be desirable to compute the least-square
Figure 3: A GNN-based fuzzy inference system.
estimate of X in Equation 11 recursively. Let the
ith row vector of matrix A defined in Equation 11
Layer 1 Every node in this layer is a square node with be ai and the ith element of B be ba, then X can
node function: be calculated recursively using the following formulas
1 [Ikeda et al., 1976,Astrom and Wittenmark, 19841:
o1 = /Q(x) =
1 + [( y)2]
X*a+1 = XS + Si+laf&i+l - ai+m)
where x is one of the input variables, {a, b, c} is the
SiUr++lUi+lSi
parameter set, and A is the linguistic term. As the I*
a+1 = si - i = O,l,*.*,P- 1
l+ai+iSia~+;,'
values of a, b and c change, this bell-shaped node X = xp
function varies accordingly, thus exhibiting various
concepts of corresponding linguistic term. Parame-
with initial conditions
ters in this layer are usually called premise parame-
ters. x0 = 0 and SO= rI.
Layer 2 Every node in this layer is a circle node la-
where y is a positive big number, I is the identity ma-
beled II which multiplies the incoming signals and trix of dimension m x m.
sends the product out. Each node output corre- The least-square estimate of X can be interpreted
sponds to the firing strength of a rule. as a Kalman filter [Kalman, 19601 for the process
Layer 3 Every node in this layer is a circle node la-
beled N. The i-th node calculates the ratio of the X(/c + 1) = X(/C) (15)
i-th rules firing strength to the sum of all rules fir- Y(k) = A(k)X(b) + noise (16)
ing strengths.
where X( Ic) = Xk, Y( Jc) = bk and A(L) = al,. There-
Layer 4 Every node in this layer is a square node with fore the formulas in Equation 13 are usually referred
node function:
to as Kalman jilter algorithm.
04=w,*(d*x+e*y+f) (10)
where wrs are is from layer 3, and {d, e, f } is the Simulation Results
parameter set. Parameters in this layer are usually In the first example, the training data are obtained
called consequence parameters. from a fuzzy inference system with 2 inputs and 1
Layer 5 Its a circle node labeled C that sums all in- output, where 3 membership functions are assigned to
coming signals. each input variable. We use 121 training data which
Thus we have constructed a fuzzy inference system are sampled uniformly from [-lo, lo] x [-lo, lo] of the
by a GNN with 5 layers, 34 nodes, and 45 parameters input space of the original system.
( 18 in layer 1,27 in layer 4). Then the proposed learn- The GNN used here is exactly the same as Fig-
ing procedure can be applied to tune the parameters ure 3. The initial values of the premise param-
according to given training data. One way to speed up eters are set in such a way that the membership
the tuning process is to employ Kalman filter algorithm functions along X and Y axis satisfy c completeness
which is to be discussed in the next section. [Lee, 199Oa,Lee, 1990b] (e = 0.5 in our case), normality
Y X Y -1o.r-10. x
2 z t
800 ma loo. 100.
CR. w. Da (ICI.
Jo. 30. a. 0.
0. a -00. -m.
-xl. -30. -100. -100.
-6a. -130. -100,
10. t10. la 10. +10. Ia +)rD.
surface after 20 epochs surface after 200 epochs surface aft,er 20 epochs surface aft,er 200 epochs
(4 (4
epochs epochs
tb) 04
(4
Figure 4: Example 1, (a) target surface and identified Figure 5: Example 2, (a) target surface and identified
surfaces in different stages, (b) average percentage er- surfaces in different stages, (b) average percentage er-
ror, (c) initial and final membership functions (MFs). ror, (c) initial and final membership functions (MFs).
JANG 765
and convexity [Kaufmann and Gupta, 19851. Though
these initial membership functions are set heuristically
and subjectively, they do provide an easy interpreta-
tion parallel to human thinking. The initial and fi-
nal membership functions are shown in Figure 4(c).
The consequence parameters can always be found by
Kalman filter algorithm as long as the premise param-
eters are fixed. Therefore, the initial values of conse-
quence parameters are irrelevant here. The 3-D dia-
gram of the training data is shown as the target sur-
face in Figure 4(a). Other identified surfaces at differ-
ent epoch numbers are also shown in that figure. (Note
that the initial surface is obtained after the first time
the consequence parameters have been identified, so it
looks similar to the target surface already.) In order
to evaluate the performance of the GNN-based fuzzy
inference system, we define average percentage error
(APE) as
(x + 4)n
z = (3e6 -1)*15*tanh( ;)+(4+e%)*8*sin 1.
(18)
The simulation results are shown in Figure 5. After
initial MFs final MFs of x 200 epochs, we end up with an APE equal to 0.4641%,
which is quite good considering the complexity of the
target function.
In the third example, the training data are obtained
from
output = (1 + xos5 + y-r + r--l.5)2 (19)
This example has been used by Takagi
[Takagi and Hayashi, 19911, Sugeno
[Sugeno and Kang, 19881 and Kondo [Kondo, 19861 to
verify their approaches. The GNN used here has 18
premise parameters in layer 1 and 24 consequence pa-
final MFs of Y rameters in layer 4. We use 216 training data which
final MFs of z
are sampled uniformly from [l, 61 x [l,S] x [l, 61. In or-
der to compare the simulation results with previously
(b) reported research, we use a different APE:
References
Astrom, K. J. and Wittenmark, B. 1984. Computer
controller systems: theory and design. Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Cybenko, G. 1989. Continuous value neural networks
with two hidden layers are sufficient. Math Contr.
Signal and Sys. 2:303-314.
Ikeda, S.; Ochiai, M.; and Sawaragi, Y. 1976. Sequen-
tial GMDH algorithm and its application to river flow
prediction. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cy-
bernetics 6(7):473-479.
Kalman, R. E. 1960. A new approach to linear filter-
ing and prediction problems. Journal of Basic Engi-
neering 3545.
Kaufmann, Arnold and Gupta, Madan M. 1985. In-
troduction Van Nostrand Rein-
to Fuzzy Arithmetic.
hold Company.
Kondo, T. 1986. Revised GMDH algorithm esti-
mating degree of the complete polynomial. Tran.
of the Society of Instrument and Controrl Engineers
22(9):928-934. (Japanese).
Lee, Chuen-Chien 1990a. fuzzy logic in control sys-
tems: fuzzy logic controller-part 1. IEEE Trans. on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20(2):404-418.
Lee, Chuen-Chien 1990b. fuzzy logic in control sys-
tems: fuzzy logic controller-part 2. IEEE Trans. on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20(2):419-435.
JANG 767