A comparison of non-stationary, type-2 and dual surface fuzzy control

Unknown, Conference object, Preprint English OPEN
Benatar, Naisan ; Aickelin, Uwe ; Garibaldi, Jonathan M. (2011)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1109/FUZZY.2011.6007602
  • Subject: Computer Science - Artificial Intelligence | Computer Science - Neural and Evolutionary Computing

Type-1 fuzzy logic has frequently been used in control systems. However this method is sometimes shown to be too restrictive and unable to adapt in the presence of uncertainty. In this paper we compare type-1 fuzzy control with several other fuzzy approaches under a range of uncertain conditions. Interval type-2 and non-stationary fuzzy controllers are compared, along with ‘dual surface’ type-2 control, named due to utilising both the lower and upper values produced from standard interval type-2 systems. We tune a type-1 controller, then derive the membership functions and footprints of uncertainty from the type-1 system and evaluate them using a simulated autonomous sailing problem with varying amounts of environmental uncertainty. We show that while these more sophisticated controllers can produce better performance than the type-1 controller, this is not guaranteed and that selection of Footprint of Uncertainty (FOU) size has a large effect on this relative performance.
  • References (18)
    18 references, page 1 of 2

    [1] L. A. Zadeh, “The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning i,” Information Sciences, pp. 199-249, 1975.

    [2] D. Wu and W. W. Tan, “Interval type-2 fuzzy pi controllers: Why they are more robust,” in IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing, 2010.

    [3] J. M. Mendel and R. I. John, “Footprint of uncertainty and its importance to type-2 fuzzy sets,” in Proceedings of 6th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (ASC 2002), Bannf, Canada, 17 - 19 July 2002, pp. 587-592.

    [4] J. M. Mendel, R. I. John, and F. Liu, “Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 14, 2006.

    [5] N. N. Karnik, J. M. Mendel, and Q. Liang, “Type 2 fuzzy logic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 7, 1999.

    [6] H. Hagras, “A hierachical type 2 fuzzy logic control architechture for autonomous mobile robots,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 12, 2004.

    [7] P. A. Birkin and J. M. Garibaldi, “A novel dual-surface type-2 controller for micro robots,” in Proceedings of FUZZ-IEEE, 2010.

    [8] J. M. Garibaldi, M. Jaroszewski, and S. Musikasuwan, “Non-stationary fuzzy sets,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 16 (4), pp. 1072- 1086, 2008.

    [9] J. M. Garibaldi, S. Musikasuwan, and T. Ozen, “The association between non-stationary and interval type-2 fuzzy sets: A case study,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 05), Reno, USA, 2005, pp. 224-229.

    [10] J. Abril, J. Salon, and O. Calvo, “Fuzzy control of a sailboat,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 16, pp. 359-375, 1997. [Online]. Available: http://mapp1.de.unifi.it/persone/Allotta/ICAD/Abril1997.pdf

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark