2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A biparametric similarity measure on intuitionistic fuzzy sets with applications to pattern recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
142
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 269 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
6
142
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A prominent characteristic of IFS is that it assigns to each element a membership degree and a non-membership degree, and thus, it is more powerful to deal with uncertainty and vagueness in real applications than fuzzy set which is only assigns to each element a membership degree (Hsieh and Chan, 2016). The IFS has received more and more attention since its appearance (Xu, 2007;Yu, 2015;Boran and Akay, 2014;Wan, Wang and Dong, 2016;Zeng and Chen, 2015;Zeng and Xiao, 2016;Zeng, Su and Zhang, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A prominent characteristic of IFS is that it assigns to each element a membership degree and a non-membership degree, and thus, it is more powerful to deal with uncertainty and vagueness in real applications than fuzzy set which is only assigns to each element a membership degree (Hsieh and Chan, 2016). The IFS has received more and more attention since its appearance (Xu, 2007;Yu, 2015;Boran and Akay, 2014;Wan, Wang and Dong, 2016;Zeng and Chen, 2015;Zeng and Xiao, 2016;Zeng, Su and Zhang, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the experimental results shown in Table 1, we can see that the proposed entropy measure overcomes the drawbacks of the existing entropy measures for IFSs (Bustine and Burillo, 1996, Szmidt and Kacprzyk, 2001, Hung and Yang, 2006, Vlachos and Sergiadis, 2007. From the experimental results shown in Table 2 we can see that the proposed similarity measure outperforms the existing similarity measures between IFSs (Chen, 1995, Hong and Kim, 1999, Li and Xu, 2001, Dengfeng and Chuntian, 2002, Mitchell, 2003, Liang and Shi, 2003, Hung and Yang, 2004, Ye, 2011, Boran and Akay, 2014, Song et al, 2015. The obtained results indicate that the proposed measures in this paper are most reliable and accurate for measuring on IFSs in comparison with other recently used measures.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…When a new distance measure is proposed, it is always accompanied with explanations of overcoming counterintuitive cases of other methods and these cases are usually illustrated by single-element IFSs. In [30], Li et al summarized counterintuitive cases proposed by previous literature and constituted an artificial benchmark with six different pairs of single-element IFSs, which has been widely used in the test of distance and similarity measures [31,[44][45][46][47][48][49]. Although these cases cannot represent all counterintuitive situations, they are typical and representative.…”
Section: A Comparison Of Distance Measures For Ifss Based On An Artifmentioning
confidence: 99%