Advertisement

Granular Computing

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 545–558 | Cite as

Object and attribute oriented m-polar fuzzy concept lattice using the projection operator

  • Prem Kumar SinghEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In the current decade, descriptive analysis of uncertainty existing in m-polar fuzzy attributes is addressed as one of the crucial tasks. To deal with these types of attributes mathematical algebra of m-polar fuzzy graph and its concept lattice representation was introduced recently. In this process, a problem is addressed when an expert wants to discover some useful pattern based on maximal acceptance of m-polar fuzzy attributes (or objects) for solving the particular issue of a given problem. To deal with this problem, the current paper focuses on drawing the object and attribute based m-polar fuzzy concept lattice using the projection operator. One of the suitable examples for the proposed method is also given with illustration of object and attribute based concepts. The analyses obtained from both of the proposed methods are compared with recently available approaches on handling the m-polar fuzzy attributes.

Keywords

Formal concept analysis Fuzzy concept lattice m-polar fuzzy concepts m-polar fuzzy graph m-polar fuzzy set 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable suggestions and comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Funding

Teh author declares that there is no funding for this research and analysis.

References

  1. Akram M, Younas HR (2017) Certain types of irregular \(m\)-polar fuzzy graphs. J Appl Math Comput 53(1–2):365–382MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliev R, Memmedova K (2015) Application of Z–Number based modeling in psychological research. Comput Intell Neurosci.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/760403 (Article ID 760403)
  3. Antoni L, Krajči S, Krídlo O, Macek B, Piskova L (2014) On heterogeneous formal contexts. Fuzzy Sets Syst 234:22–33MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aswani Kumar C (2012) Knowledge discovery in data using formal concept analysis and random projections. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 21(4):745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bělohlávek R (2004) Concept lattices and order in fuzzy logic. Ann Pure Appl Logic 128(1–3):277–298MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bělohlávek R, Sklenǎŕ V, Zackpal J (2005) Crisply generated fuzzy concepts. In: International conference on formal concept analysis ICFCA 2005: Formal concept analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 269–284.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32262-7_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry A, Sigayret A (2004) Representing concept lattice by a graph. Discr Appl Math 144(1–2):27–42MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bravo G, Farjam M, Moreno FG, Birukou F, Squazzoni F (2018) Hidden connections: network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals. J Informetr 12(1):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burusco Juandeaburre A, Fuentes-González R (1994) The study of the L-fuzzy concept lattice. Math Soft Comput 1(3):209–218MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen SM (1996) A fuzzy reasoning approach for rule-based systems based on fuzzy logics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cyber 26(5):769–778MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen SM, Chen CD (2011) Handling forecasting problems based on high-order fuzzy logical relationships. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):3857–3864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen J, Li S, Ma S, Wang X (2014) m-Polar Fuzzy Sets: An Extension of Bipolar Fuzzy Sets. Sci World J.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/416530 (Article ID 416530)
  13. Chen SM, Lin TE, Lee LW (2014) Group decision making using incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on the additive consistency and the order consistency. Inf Sci 259:1–15MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen SM, Munif A, Chen GS, Liu HC, Kuo BC (2012) Fuzzy risk analysis based on ranking generalized fuzzy numbers with different left heights and right heights. Expert Syst Appl 39(7):6320–6334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen SM, Tanuwijaya K (2011) Fuzzy forecasting based on high-order fuzzy logical relationships and automatic clustering techniques. Expert Syst Appl 38(12):15425–15437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen SM, Wang NY, Pan JS (2009) Forecasting enrollments using automatic clustering techniques and fuzzy logical relationships. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):11070–11076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Djouadi Y (2011) Extended Galois derivation operators for information retrieval based on fuzzy formal concept lattice. In: Benferhal S, Goant J (eds) SUM 2011, LNAI, vol 6929. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 346–358Google Scholar
  18. Dubois D, Prade H (2012) Possibility theory and formal concept analysis: characterizing independent sub-contexts. Fuzzy Sets Syst 196:4–16MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ganter B, Wille R (1999) Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundation. Springer-Verlag, BerlinzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghosh P, Kundu K, Sarkar D (2010) Fuzzy graph representation of a fuzzy concept lattice. Fuzzy Sets Syst 161(12):1669–1675MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar CA, Singh PK (2014) Knowledge representation using formal concept analysis: a study on concept generation. Global trends in knowledge representation and computational intelligence. IGI Global Publishers, Hershey, pp 306–336Google Scholar
  22. Lee LW, Chen SM (2015) Fuzzy decision making based on likelihood-based comparison relations of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and hesitant fuzzy linguistic operators. Inf Sci 294:513–529MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loia V, D’Aniello G, Gaeta A, Orciuoli F (2016) Enforcing situation awareness with granular computing: a systematic overview and new perspectives. Granul Comput 1(2):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macko J (2013) User-friendly fuzzy FCA. Lect Notes Comput Sci 7880:156–171zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Medina J, Ojeda-Aciego M (2012) On multi-adjoint concept lattice based on heterogeneous conjunctors. Fuzzy Sets Syst 208:95–110MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mesiarová-Zemanková A (2015) Multi-polar t-conorms and uninorms. Inf Sci 301:227–240MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mesiarová-Zemanková A, Ahmad K (2014) Extended multi-polarity and multi-polar-valued fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 234:61–78MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pandey LK, Ojha KK, Singh PK, Singh CS, Dwivedi S, Bergey EA (2016) Diatoms image database of India (DIDI): a research tool. Environm Tech Innov 5:148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pedrycz W, Chen SM (2011) Granular computing and intelligent systems: design with information granules of high order and high type. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pedrycz W, Chen SM (2015a) Granular computing and decision-making: interactive and iterative approaches. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pedrycz W, Chen SM (2015b) Information granularity, big data, and computational intelligence. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollandt S (1997) Fuzzy begriffe. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-HeidelbergzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samanta S, Akram M, Pal M (2015) m-Step fuzzy competition graphs. J Appl Math Comput 47:461–472MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarwar M, Akram M (2017) Novel applications of \(m\)-polar fuzzy concept lattice. New Math Nat Comput 13(3):261–287MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sebastian S, Ramakrishnan TV (2010) Multi-fuzzy sets. Int Math Forum 5(50):2471–2476MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Sebastian S, Ramakrishnan TV (2011) Multi-fuzzy sets: An extension of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Inform Eng 3(1):35–43MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singh PK (2016) Processing linked formal fuzzy contexts using non-commutative composition. Inst Integr Omics Appl Biotechnol (IIOAB) J 7(5):21–32Google Scholar
  38. Singh PK (2017a) Three-way fuzzy concept lattice representation using neutrosophic set. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 8(1):69–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-016-0585-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh PK (2017b) Complex vague set based concept lattice. Chaos Solitons Fractals 96:145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2017.01.019 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singh PK (2018a) Interval-valued neutrosophic graph representation of concept lattice and its (\(\alpha, \beta, \gamma\))-decomposition. Arab J Sci Eng 43(2):723–740.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2718-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Singh PK (2018b) \(m\)-polar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Eng Appl Artif Intell 67:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh PK (2018c) Concept lattice visualization of data with \(m\)-polar fuzzy attribute. Granul Comput 3(2):123–137.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-017-0060-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh PK (2018d) Similar vague concepts selection using their Euclidean distance at different granulation. Cogn Comput 10(2):228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh PK (2018e) Bipolar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Soft Comput 67:52–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3114-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C (2012) A method for reduction of fuzzy relation in fuzzy formal context. Commun Comput Inform Sci 283:343–350MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C (2014) Bipolar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Inf Sci 288:437–448MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C (2015) A note on computing crisp order context of a fuzzy formal context for knowledge reduction. J Inform Process Syst 11(2):184–204Google Scholar
  48. Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C (2016) Analysis of composed fuzzy contexts using projection. Int J Data Anal Tech Strateg 8(3):206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C (2017) Concept lattice reduction using different subset of attributes as information granules. Granul Comput 2(3):159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang HY, Chen SM (2008) Evaluating students’ answerscripts using fuzzy numbers associated with degrees of confidence. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 16(2):403–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang C, Fu X, Meng S, He Y (2017) Multi-attribute decision-making based on the SPIFGIA operators. Granul Comput 2:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wille R (1982) Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In: Rival I (ed) Ordered sets, ordered sets, NATO advanced study institutes, vol 83. Springer, New York, pp 445–470Google Scholar
  53. Yao YY(2004) A comparative study of formal concept analysis and rough set theory in data analysis. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on rough sets and current trends in computing 2004, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 59–68Google Scholar
  54. Yao YY (2017a) Interval sets and three-way concept analysis in incomplete contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 8(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yao YY (2017b) A triarchic theory of granular computing. Granul Comput 1(2):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yuan M, Li W, Zhangang L (2009) Projection granular space in formal concept. In: 2009 WRI world congress on software engineering. IEEE, pp 94–98. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5319704/
  57. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zadeh LA (1975) The concepts of a linguistic and application to approximate reasoning. Inf Sci 8:199–249MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zadeh LA (2011) A note on Z-numbers. Inf Sci 181:2923–2932zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity Institute of Information TechnologyAmity UniversityNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations