Closed-Form Mathematical Representations of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Systems
Sherif M. Abuelenin1, Rabab F. Abdel-Kader2
1

Electrical Engineering Department, Port-Said University,
Port-Fouad, Port-Said 42526 Egypt.
E-mail: s.abuelenin@eng.psu.edu.eg

2

Electrical Engineering Department, Port-Said University,
Port-Fouad, Port-Said 42526 Egypt.
E-mail: rababfakader@eng.psu.edu.eg

Abstract
Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems (IT2 FLSs) have a wide range of applications due to
their abilities to handle uncertainties compared to their type-1 counterparts. This paper
discusses the representation of IT2 FLSs in closed mathematical form. Two novel
inference mechanisms are introduced, each of them represents a whole IT2 FLS. The two
forms are based on approximating Coupland and John’s geometric method and the NieTan method. Having closed-form representations is preferred in the design of control
systems, especially when stability analysis is studied. Additionally, the simplicity of the
proposed mechanisms, offers an easy way for implementation. Simulation results show
that the proposed method perform very closely to other methods. Simulation results are
provided.

Keywords: Fuzzy system, Interval type-2 fuzzy logic control (IT2 FLC), Closed-form
representation, Type reduction, Defuzzification.

1. Introduction
Type-2 fuzzy sets (T2 FSs) were first proposed by Zadeh in 1975 [1] as an extension to type-1 fuzzy sets
(T1 FSs) to better handle uncertainties. The main difference between a T2 FS and a T1 FS is that the
membership grades are not crisp numbers, but fuzzy sets (secondary membership functions) [2, 3, 34],
making the T2 FS a three-dimensional set. A T2 FS has a footprint of uncertainty (FOU) that represents
uncertainties in defining its shape and position. When the secondary membership function (MF) is a unit
interval for all the points in the primary membership this set is called an interval type-2 fuzzy set (IT2 FS)
[4, 40]. An IT2 FS is totally defined by its FOU because no information is contained in the third
dimension [4, 5].

A fuzzy system that utilizes at least one IT2 FS in the antecedent or consequent part of its rule-base is
known as an interval type-2 fuzzy logic system (IT2 FLS) [3, 6]. IT2 FLSs have been used in several
applications [3, 6, 33, 36-40], and they often outperform their type-1 (T1) counterparts when handling
uncertainties. The output of the inference engine of an IT2 FLS is an IT2 FS. It requires conversion to a
T1 FS before the final crisp output can be calculated. This process is called type-reduction (TR) [7, 8].
Originally, TR was performed using the iterative Karnik-Mendel (KM) algorithms [9], which are
computationally intensive. Several methods were introduced to enhance the computational performance
of KM algorithms (see for example, [10-13, 35] and references therein). Other methods proposed noniterative alternatives to TR. A summary of several alternative approaches is provided in [14], and a
comparison of their computational cost in [13]. Both categories of methods have demonstrated good
performance; and the question of which category is better remains an open problem [14].
Having a closed-form fuzzy inference engine relationship is preferred in control design, especially
when stability analysis is required [41-43]. The iterative KM algorithms cannot be suitable in providing
such a form; therefore, alternative approaches must be utilized [44]. To the best of the authors’
knowledge, none of the alternative methods directly provides a simple closed mathematical form that
fully represents an IT2 FLS. In [44], the authors developed an inference mechanism for an IT2 Takagi–
Sugeno–Kang fuzzy logic control system that has a closed-mathematical form when antecedents are type2 fuzzy sets and consequents are crisp numbers. It was based on the Wu-Mendel Uncertainty Bounds
method.
In this paper, we develop two alternative closed-form representations for IT2 FLSs. The two
representations are based on approximating two existing methods, namely, Coupland and John’s
Geometric Centroid, and the Nie-Tan method. Coupland and John’s Geometric Centroid (GC)
defuzzification [15-21] provides a good approximation to the type-reduced Centroid [22]. TR is by-passed
by directly finding the x-coordinate of the geometric centroid of the FOU of the output of the IT2 FS. One
of the characteristics of using the GC method is that the two implication operations performed to find the
upper and lower bounds of the resulting IT2 FS are completely independent from one another and can be
performed concurrently [15], and type-1 fuzzy operations can be utilized in doing so.
We introduce an approach to reach a closed-form mathematical representation for IT2 FLSs based on
the GC method. We also extend the results to provide another closed-form mathematical representation
based on the Nie-Tan operator [30]. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we provide
background information on IT2 FLSs with detailed review of the GC method along with the mathematical
formulations. Section 3 introduces the closed form representations. Section 4 provides simulation results
of the outputs of the two introduced systems, followed by the conclusions in section 5. Summary of the
symbols and the abbreviations used in the paper, and their meanings is provided in the appendix.

2. Background
Consider a two-input single-output IT2 FLS. The domain of each input is partitioned into N IT2 FSs.
There are 𝑀 = 𝑁 2 possible rules in the rule-base. The kth rule (denoted Rk) is given by;
𝑗
𝑅 𝑘 : IF 𝑥1 𝑖𝑠 𝐹̃1𝑖 AND 𝑥2 is 𝐹̃2 THEN 𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝐺̃ 𝑖𝑗 ; (𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, … , 𝑁)

(1)

where 𝑘 = (𝑖 − 1)𝑁 + 𝑗, 𝑘 ∈ [1, 𝑀], [3]. The kth rule can also be referred to as the ijth rule. The rules
consequents 𝐺̃ 𝑖𝑗 are, in general, IT2 FSs, but they can be intervals or type-1 fuzzy sets. For singleton
fuzzification, the firing set (firing level) of Rk is given by (2).

𝐹 𝑖𝑗 (𝑥) = 𝒯 (𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥1 ), 𝜇𝐹̃𝑗 (𝑥2 )) = 𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥1 ) ⋆ 𝜇𝐹̃𝑗 (𝑥2 )
1

1

2

(2)

2

where both 𝒯(.) and ‘’ indicate the utilized t-norm operator (commonly, the minimum or product
operator). It follows that:
𝑖𝑗

𝐹 𝑖𝑗 (𝑥) = [𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥1 ) ⋆ 𝜇𝐹̃𝑗 (𝑥2 ), 𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥1 ) ⋆ 𝜇𝐹̃𝑗 (𝑥2 )] ≡ [𝑓 𝑖𝑗 , 𝑓 ]
1

where 𝑓 𝑖𝑗 and 𝑓

2

𝑖𝑗

1

(3)

2

are the lower and upper firing degrees of the kth rule, and 𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥) and 𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥) are the

lower and upper membership grades of 𝐹̃ 𝑖 (𝑥). When the consequent of Rk is a T1 FS, 𝐺 𝑘 [15], then, the
implied fuzzy set is given by:
𝑖𝑗

𝜇𝐵̃𝑘 (𝑦) = [𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦), 𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦)] = [𝑓 𝑖𝑗 ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑖𝑗 (𝑦), 𝑓 ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑖𝑗 (𝑦)]

(4)

Both the upper and lower bounds, in the previous steps, are reached independently using type-1
operations. The next step is to find the overall output IT2 FS by aggregating the implied sets from all
fired rules. Assuming that all rules are being fired (the non-fired rules are considered to be fired with zero
firing strengths), the output fuzzy set is given by;
𝑘

𝑀
𝑀
𝑘
𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦) = ⨆𝑀
𝑘=1 𝜇𝐵̃𝑘 (𝑦) = [⨆𝑘=1 (𝑓 ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑘 (𝑦)), ⨆𝑘=1 (𝑓 ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑘 (𝑦))]

(5)

Here we use “⨆” to represent the aggregation operation. Since we use type-1 operations to find each
of the two bounds, it is natural to utilize type-1 aggregation operators (max, sum, or probabilistic or are
the common ones used with T1 FSs [23]).
In the GC method, type-reduction is bypassed by finding the center of area (CoA) of the FOU of the
output T2 FS (the area bounded by the upper and lower output membership functions (UMF and
LMF), 𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦) and 𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦)), an approach assumed to be natural extension to commonly using the center of
area defuzzifier in T1 FS [20]. The upper and lower membership functions (UMF(𝐵̃) and LMF(𝐵̃)) are
respectively given by (6) and (7).

Fig. 1. FOU of a sample output IT2 FS.

𝑘

𝑀
𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦) = ⨆𝑀
𝑘=1 (𝑓 ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑘 (𝑦)) = ⨆𝑘=1 (𝜇𝐹̃ 𝑖 (𝑥1 ) ⋆ 𝜇𝐹̃ 𝑗 (𝑥2 ) ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑘 (𝑦))

(6)

𝑀
𝑘
𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦) = ⨆𝑀
𝑘=1 𝑓 ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑘 (𝑦)) = ⨆𝑘=1 ( 𝜇𝐹̃ 𝑖 (𝑥1 ) ⋆ 𝜇𝐹̃ 𝑗 (𝑥2 ) ⋆ 𝜇𝐺 𝑘 (𝑦))

(7)

1

1

2

2

Mathematically, the area of the region bounded by the UMF and LMF is found by integrating dA with
respect to the output variable y (see Fig. 1). The centre of area can be found [24] using the expression in
Eq. (9).
𝑑𝐴 = (𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦) − 𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦)) ∙ 𝑑𝑦
yCrisp


 CoA( B) 



y  dA








(8)




dA



y  (  B ( y )   B ( y ))  dy








(  B ( y )   B ( y ))  dy

(9)

When the output membership functions of the fuzzy systems are T1 sets, Eq. (9) can be simplified to;









y  (  B ( y ))  dy   y  (  B ( y))  dy








(  B ( y )   B ( y ))  dy



Cu Au  Cl Al
Au  Al

(10)

where Cu, Cl, Au and Al respectively represent the centers and the areas of the upper and lower
membership functions of 𝐵̃(𝑦) [26-28].
The integration process involved in (9) is computationally intensive. An approach to reduce the
complexity, as in T1 FLSs [15], is to replace the integration process by using discretized weighted
average operation (discretized in n points). In this case, Eq. (9) can be rewritten as:


CoA( B) 

n

i 1
n

yi B ( yi )

i 1

B ( yi )

(11)

Alternatively, in John and Coupland’s Geometric Centroid method [15, 21], the integration is replaced
by using simple geometry to replicate the weighted average operation. The FOU is first approximated by
regular polygons, mostly triangles, and then the weighted average of the polygons is calculated.
Operations such as join and meet are carried out using methods from computational geometry. In the
following section we introduce approximations to the above discussed expressions to reach the required
representation of the IT2 FS.

3. Closed Form Representation
Equation (11) provides an expression that represents the output of an IT2 FLS, using the CoA of the
output FOU as an IT2 defuzzification method. As discussed in the background section, the arithmetic
steps involved in computing both the upper and lower MFs were mostly independent of each other. Type1 operations are utilized in reaching both the UMF and LMF. Using the same reasoning, we can use other
T1 techniques to further simplify the representation of the IT2 FLS.

3.A. Derivation of the Expressions
When using center average defuzzification the shape of the membership functions associated with the
output fuzzy sets does not affect the final output. Therefore, one can use singletons centered at the
appropriate positions [29]. In (8) and (9), if sum operator is used for join, product for t-norm, and utilizing
singleton fuzzy membership functions 𝜇𝐺 𝑘 (𝑦) = 𝛿(𝑦 − 𝑏𝑘 ) for the outputs (Gk), where the ‘δ’ is the
Dirac delta function, used to represent the fuzzy singleton, and bk are the locations of the output
membership functions (this is equivalent to using center-average defuzzification, with bk representing the
centers of the output membership functions). Substituting in (11), the output is rewritten as:
ycrisp 









b  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )   k 1 bk  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )

M

k 1 k



1

M

2

M

1

2



 F ( x1 )   F ( x2 )   k 1  F ( x1 )   F ( x2 )
M

k 1

i
1

j
2

(12)

j
2

i
1

Equation (12) can be represented in a more compact form:





ycrisp



b  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )   F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )

M

k 1 k
M
k 1

1

2

1

2



(13)

(  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )   F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 ))
1

2

1

2

It is understood that carefulness is required when designing the fuzzy system, so that the denominator
of (13) is not equal to zero for any value of the inputs. Also, if different output singletons are used for
upper and lower, the crisp output of (12) can be re-written as:
ycrisp 



M
k 1







b k  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )   k 1 b k  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )



1

M
k 1

2

M

1

2



(14)

(  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )   F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 ))
1

2

1

2

Equation (13) represents a whole IT2 FLS in a closed-form, similar to its T1 counterpart [29].
An alternative closed-form mathematical expression can be obtained by utilizing the Nie-Tan operator
[30]. It was recently shown [31] that the closed-form Nie-Tan (NT) operator is an accurate IT2
defuzzifing method. The method outputs a T1 FS that is the average of the upper and lower bounds of the
FOU of the output IT2 FS ‘𝐴̃’, as given by Eq. (15). The final system output is then found by calculating
the center-of-gravity of 𝐴̃, which can be computed by (16).
1

𝜇∗ (𝑦) = 2 (𝜇̅ (𝑦) + 𝜇(𝑦))


C ( A) 

ymax
ymin



(15)

 * ( y )  ydy

ymax
ymin

(16)

 * ( y )dy

Using (15) and following similar approach to our earlier discussion, we can reach another closed-form
approximation for the IT2 FLS, as given in (17), based on the Nie-Tan method.




M

ycrisp



b  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )   F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )

k 1 k

1

2

1

2

(  F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 )   F i ( x1 )   F j ( x2 ))
k 1
M

1

2

1

2



(17)

3.B. Selection of Membership Functions
In principle, any form of membership function can be used with the developed fuzzy systems, represented
by equations (13) and (17). To have a true mathematical representation (i.e. to avoid the discontinuities
associated with expressing membership functions such as trapezoidal, triangular, etc.), we limit the
membership functions to be Gaussian;
 1  x  m 2 
i
 
2  i  



 F ( x)  exp   

i

(18)

When the utilized IT2 membership functions have certain means and uncertain variances, both UMFs
and LMFs are simpler to represent [32]. On the other hand, when they have uncertain means, it becomes
necessary to redefine the UMFs and LMFs to avoid using max and min operators. As shown in fig. 2, to
circumvent this we may approximate both the UMF and LMF with Gaussian equivalents using curve
fitting techniques. In the following section we examine both presented IT2 systems. In this figure, the
LMF is exactly described by (19), while the approximate LMF is described by (20). Similar expressions
can be written for the UMF.


 1  x  0.1 2 

 1  x  0.1 2  


 ( x)  min  exp   
,exp   
 2  0.418  
 2  0.418   






 1

x

2
 

 ( x)  0.9183exp   
 2  0.3651  



(19)

(20)

To summarize this section, equations (13) and (17) are introduced to provide two different closedform simple representations of IT2 FLSs. The main difference between the two equations is that each of
them is based on a different IT2 FLS architecture. Eq. (13) is based on “Geometric interval type-2
systems” approach, initially introduced by Coupland and John in Ref. [18]. Their method approximates
the crisp output of the system by computing the geometric center (GC) of the footprint of uncertainty
(FOU) of the output IT2 FS. Eq. (13) is a simplified representation (single closed-form expression) of
their method.
On the other hand, Eq. (17) is based on the Nie-Tan approach, originally introduced by Nie and Tan in
[30] and further investigated by John, Coupland and Kendall in [31]. Contrary to the GC method, the NieTan method computes a representative type-1 fuzzy set (T1 FS) that is an average of the upper and lower
membership functions of the output IT2 FS. The crisp output is computed as the center-of-gravity of this
representative T1 set. Eq. (17) is a simplified representation of the NT method. We also used approximate
Gaussian forms for both the UMF and LMF to simplify the representation when the utilized IT2
membership functions have uncertain means.

Fig. 2. An example of a Gaussian membership function with uncertain mean ∈ [𝜇 − ∆𝜇, 𝜇 + ∆𝜇], and fixed standard
deviation σ (green shaded area, here μ = 0, ∆𝜇 = 0.1, and σ = 0.418), and the approximation of its UMF and LMF
(black solid lines; the approximate UMF is Gaussian with μ = 0, and σ = 0.4937, the LMF is a scaled-down
Gaussian, with μ = 0, σ = 0.3651, and a scaling factor of 0.9183).

Fig. 3. The three membership functions for one of the inputs x1. By limiting the range of the input to values [-1, 1],
the left and right membership functions are practically S and Z Gaussian. For the three membership functions, (the
means are μ1 = -1, μ2 = 0, μ3 = 1, ∆𝜇 = 1/8, and σ = 0.418), and the approximation of its UMF and LMF (black solid
lines; the approximate UMF is Gaussian with μ = 0, and σ = 0.5128, the LMF is a scaled-down Gaussian, with μ = 0,
0.3532, and a scaling factor of 0.895.

4. Results and discussions
In this section we first show how the proposed equations can be used to design an IT2 FLS, and then we
show how they perform in stabilizing an inverted pendulum.
4.A. Control Surface
We used (13) and (17) to represent a simple two-input single-output IT2 fuzzy system. The system
utilizes three membership functions in the domain of each input. Fig. 3 illustrates the three membership
functions utilized in one of the input domains (both are identical). The rule-base used is shown in table 1,
with the corresponding values of bi’s. The three membership functions have uncertain means that vary
between μi - ∆𝜇 and μi + ∆𝜇 (μ1 = -1, μ2 = 0, μ3 = 1, ∆𝜇 = 1/8, and σ = 0.418). To use (13) and (17), each
UMF and LMF was approximated using Gaussian functions, as described in the previous section. The
approximate UMFs are as follows; (with the same values of μi) with σ = 0.5128. Each LMF is a scaleddown Gaussian with σ = 0.3532, and an amplitude scaling factor of 0.895.

Figures 4 to 7 show the resulting surfaces of the introduced systems of (13) and (17) with both exact
and approximate forms of UMFs and LMFs.
TABLE 1. RULE-BASE FOR THREE MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS
Rule
Corresponding bi
1st input 2nd input Output
number
value
1
N
N
P
1
2
N
Z
P
1
3
N
P
Z
0
4
Z
N
P
1
5
Z
Z
Z
0
6
Z
P
N
-1
7
P
N
Z
0
8
P
Z
N
-1
9
P
P
N
-1

Fig. 4. Surface using the introduced closed-form mathematical representation for (13), with the approximated
Gaussian functions.

Fig. 5. Surface using the introduced closed-form mathematical representation for (13), with the exact representations
of UMF and LMF.

Fig.6. Surface using the closed-form mathematical Nie-Tan representation for (17), with the approximated Gaussian
functions.

Fig. 7. Surface using the closed-form mathematical Nie-Tan representation for (17), with the exact representations
of UMF and LMF.

4.B. Application Example: Control of an Inverted Pendulum
Balancing an inverted pendulum is a common control problem. We utilize the two introduced equations
(i.e. (13) and (17)) in a feedback control scheme to balance an inverted pendulum and compare the
performance to that of the two reference IT2 methods (i.e. NT and GC).
An inverted pendulum mounted on a cart is balanced by applying dynamic force f to the cart. It is
common to use the error signal (the angular difference between the upright position and the actual
position of the pendulum) and its derivative as inputs to the feedback controller utilized in balancing the
pendulum. Figure 8 shows a block diagram of the control system. As discussed earlier, the gains are
introduced to scale the universes of discourse for the fuzzy membership functions. Here, the values for g1,
g2, and gy are 4/π, 0.4/π, and 100, respectively. We use the model described by (21) and (22) for the
inverted pendulum system [29].


  f  0.25 y 2 sin( y )  
 g sin( y )  cos( y ) 
 
1.5


y
2 1

2
  cos ( y ) 
3 6


(21)

f  100 f  100 f

(22)

where, f is the applied force in Newton, y is the angular position in radians, and g is the gravity of Earth.

Fig. 8. Block-diagram model of inverted pendulum control.

Figure 9 shows the MATLAB simulation results of controlling this inverted pendulum utilizing the
GC method (numerically evaluated), and utilizing the two different realizations of (13) discussed earlier
(i.e. using exact Gaussian membership functions, and using the approximate form). Figure 10 shows
similar results when the NT method and (17) are utilized. Both figures show that the introduced formulas
performed very closely to their more complexly-represented counterparts.

Fig. 9. Error in angular position of an inverted pendulum controlled by the GC method, and by the proposed eq. (13)

Fig. 10. Error in angular position of an inverted pendulum controlled by the NT method, and by the proposed eq.
(17).

5. Conclusions
The paper presented an approach for reaching closed-form mathematical representations of interval type-2
fuzzy logic systems based on the notation that both the UMF and LMF can be found independently. First,
by using the CoA of the FOU as an approximation of the crisp output of an IT2 FLS, a mathematical
expression is reached. The same approach was utilized with the Nie-Tan operator, resulting in a different
closed-form mathematical expression. Simulation results are introduced to show the resulting IT2 fuzzy
output surfaces. Both expressions provide simpler methods of utilizing and studying IT2 FLSs, their
performance in control system is an open research problem, as is the case for the several previously
presented alternative representations of T2 FLSs.

References
[1] L. A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning,
Information Sciences, vol. 8, pp. 43-80, 1975.
[2] J. Mendel, Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: an overview, IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine,
vol. 2, pp. 20-29, February 2007.
[3] D. Wu and W. W. Tan, A simplified architecture for type-2 FLSs and its application to nonlinear
control, in Proc. IEEE Conf. On Cybern. and Intell. Syst., Singapore, Dec. 2004, pp. 485–490.
[4] J. M. Mendel and R. I. B. John, Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 10,
no. 2, pp. 117–127, Apr. 2002.
[5] J. M. Mendel, Advances in type-2 fuzzy sets and systems, Information Sciences, Vol. 177, pp. 84–
110, 2007.

[6] Q. Liang, N. N. Karnik and J. M. Mendel, Connection admission control in ATM networks using
survey-based type-2 fuzzy logic systems, IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C
(Applications and Reviews), vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 329-339, Aug 2000.
[7] N. N. Karnik, J. M. Mendel, and Q. Liang, Type-2 fuzzy logic systems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems,
vol. 7, pp. 643–658, 1999.
[8] J. M. Mendel, Uncertain rule-based fuzzy logic systems: Introduction and new directions. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001. ISBN 978-3-319-51370-6
[9] N. N. Karnik and J. M. Mendel, Centroid of a type-2 fuzzy set, Information Sciences, vol. 132, no. 1,
pp. 195–220, 2001.
[10] J. M. Mendel, F. Liu, Super-exponential convergence of the Karnik-Mendel algorithms used for typereduction in interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems, in Proc. FUZZ-IEEE 2006, pp. 1253-1260, 2006.
[11] J. M. Mendel, F. Liu, Super-exponential Convergence of the Karnik–Mendel Algorithms for
Computing the Centroid of an Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 15, pp.
309-320, 2007, ISSN 1063-6706.
[12] M. A. Khanesar, A. Jalalian, O. Kaynak and H. Gao, Improving the speed of center of set typereduction in interval type-2 fuzzy systems by eliminating the need for sorting, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Systems, vol. PP, no. 99, Aug. 2016.
[13] D. Wu, Approaches for reducing the computational cost of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems:
overview and comparisons, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 80-99, Feb. 2013.
[14] D. Wu, An overview of alternative type-reduction approaches for reducing the computational cost of
interval type-2 fuzzy logic controllers, in Proc. FUZZ-IEEE 2012, Brisbane, QLD, 2012, pp. 1-8.
[15] S. Coupland and R. John, Geometric type-1 and type-2 fuzzy logic systems, in IEEE Trans Fuzzy
Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3-15, Feb. 2007.
[16] S. Coupland and R. John, A new and efficient method for the Type-2 meet operation, in Proc. FUZZIEEE 2004, Budapest, Hungary, Jul. 2004, pp. 959–964.
[17] S. Coupland and R. John, Fuzzy logic and computational geometry, in Proc. RASC 2004,
Nottingham, U.K., Dec. 2004, pp. 3–8.
[18] S. Coupland and R. John, Towards more efficient type-2 fuzzy logic systems, in Proc. FUZZ-IEEE
2005, Reno, NV, May 2005, pp. 236–241.
[19] S. Coupland and R. John, Geometric interval type-2 fuzzy systems, in Proc. EUSFLAT 2005,
Barcelona, Spain, Sep. 2005, pp. 449–454.
[20] S. Coupland, Type-2 fuzzy sets: geometric defuzzification and type-reduction, 2007 IEEE Symposium
on Foundations of Computational Intelligence, Honolulu, HI, 2007, pp. 622-629.
[21] S. Coupland and R. John, A fast geometric method for defuzzification of type-2 fuzzy sets, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 929-941, Aug. 2008.
[22] C.-Y. Yeh, W.-H. Jeng, and S.-J. Lee, An enhanced type-reduction algorithm for type-2 fuzzy sets,
IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 227–240, Apr. 2011.
[23] R. R. Yager, and D. P. Filev, Essentials of fuzzy modeling and control. New York, 1994. ISBN:0-47401761-2
[24] Weisstein, Eric W. Function Centroid. From MathWorld–A Wolfram Web Resource.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FunctionCentroid.html
[25] J. M. Mendel, M. R. Rajati, and P. Sussner, On clarifying some definitions and notations used for
type-2 fuzzy sets as well as some recommended changes, Information Sciences, vol. 340, no. C, pp.
337-345, May 2016.

[26] J. M. Mendel and H. Wu, Type-2 Fuzzistics for Symmetric Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets: Part 1,
Forward Problems, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 781-792, Dec. 2006.
[27] J. M. Mendel and H. Wu, Type-2 fuzzistics for nonsymmetric interval type-2 fuzzy sets: forward
problems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 916-930, Oct. 2007.
[28] S. M. Abuelenin, Decomposed interval Type-2 fuzzy systems with application to inverted pendulum,
in Proc ICET-2014, Cairo, Egypt, 2014, pp. 1-5.
[29] K. M. Passino, S. Yurkovich, and M. Reinfrank, Fuzzy control, Vol. 2725. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1998.
[30] M. Nie and W. W. Tan, Towards an efficient type-reduction method for interval type-2 fuzzy logic
systems, in Proc 2008 IEEE Inter. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems (IEEE World Congress on Computational
Intelligence), Hong Kong, 2008, pp. 1425-1432.
[31] J. Li, R. John, S. Coupland and G. Kendall, On Nie-Tan operator and type-reduction of interval type2 fuzzy sets, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. PP, no. 99, Feb. 2017.
[32] Q. Liang, and J. M. Mendel, Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: theory and design, IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Systems, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 535-550, Oct 2000.
[33] H. R. Hassanzadeh, M. R. Akbarzadeh-T, A. Akbarzadeh, A. Rezaei, An interval-valued fuzzy
controller for complex dynamical systems with application to a 3-PSP parallel robot, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, Vol. 235, pp. 83-100, 2014.
[34] N. N. Karnik, J. M. Mendel, Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 122, no. 2,
pp. 327-348, 2001.
[35] S. Han, X. Liu, Global convergence of Karnik–Mendel algorithms, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 283,
pp. 108-119, Jan 2016.
[36] H. Hagras, V. Callaghan, M. Colley, G. Clarke, A. Pounds-Cornish, and H. Duman, Creating an
ambient-intelligence environment using embedded agents, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 19, no. 6,
pp. 12-20, Nov.-Dec. 2004.
[37] B. Yao, H. Hagras, J. J. Lepley, R. Peall and M. Butler, An evolutionary optimization based interval
type-2 fuzzy classification system for human behavior recognition and summarization, 2016 IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Budapest, 2016, pp. 4706-4711.
[38] G. Acampora, D. Alghazzawi, H. Hagras, A. Vitiello, An interval type-2 fuzzy logic based
framework for reputation management in Peer-to-Peer e-commerce, Information Sciences, Vol. 333,
pp. 88-107, Mar. 2016.
[39] J. R. Castro, O. Castillo, P. Melin, and A. Rodríguez-Díaz, A hybrid learning algorithm for a class of
interval type-2 fuzzy neural networks, Information Sciences, Vol. 179, no. 13, pp 2175-2193, Jun
2009.
[40] J. R. Castro, O. Castillo and P. Melin, An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Toolbox for Control
Applications, 2007 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems Conference, London, 2007, pp. 1-6.
[41] M. B. Begian, W. W. Melek and J. M. Mendel, Stability analysis of type-2 fuzzy systems, 2008 IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence),
Hong Kong, 2008, pp. 947-953.
[42] H. K. Lam, and L. D. Seneviratne, Stability Analysis of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy-Model-Based Control
Systems, IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 38, no. 3, pp.
617-628, June 2008.
[43] O. Castillo, L. Aguilar, N. Cázarez, and S. Cárdenas, Systematic design of a stable type-2 fuzzy logic
controller, Applied Soft Computing 8, no. 3, pp 1274-1279, 2008.

[44] M. Biglarbegian, W. W. Melek and J. M. Mendel, On the Stability of Interval Type-2 TSK Fuzzy
Logic Control Systems, in IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol.
40, no. 3, pp. 798-818, June 2010.

Appendix A.
Table A1. Abbreviations and their meanings
Abbreviation
CoA
FOU
GC
IT2 FLS
IT2 FS
IT2 TSK FLC
KM
LMF
MF
NT
T1
T2
T1 FS
T2 FS
TR
UMF

Meaning
Center of area
Footprint of uncertainty
Geometric Centroid
Interval type-2 fuzzy logic system
Interval type-2 fuzzy set
Interval type-2 Takagi–Sugeno–Kang fuzzy logic controller
Karnik-Mendel algorithms
Lower membership function
Membership function
Nie-Tan operator
Type-1
Type-2
Type-1 fuzzy set
Type-2 fuzzy set
Type-reduction
Upper membership function
Table A2. Symbols and their meanings

Symbol

Meaning

𝐴̃
Al
Au
bk
Cl
Cu
δ
𝐹 𝑖𝑗 (𝑥)
𝑓 𝑖𝑗

Type-2 fuzzy set
The area under the LMF of the output IT2 FS 𝐵̃(𝑦)
The area under the UMF of the output IT2 FS 𝐵̃(𝑦)
The locations of the output membership functions
The geometric center of the LMF of the output IT2 FS 𝐵̃(𝑦)
The geometric center of the UMF of the output IT2 FS 𝐵̃(𝑦)
The Dirac delta function (used to represent the fuzzy singleton)
The firing set (firing level) of the kth (the ijth) rule

𝑖𝑗

𝑓
Rk or Rij
𝒯(.) and ‘’

The lower firing degree of the kth (the ijth) rule
The upper firing degree of the kth (the ijth) rule
The kth rule of the rule-base
The T-norm operator (commonly the minimum or product)

𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥)
𝜇𝐹̃𝑖 (𝑥)
𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦)
𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦)
𝜇𝐵̃ (𝑦)
⨆

The upper membership grades of 𝐹̃ 𝑖 (𝑥).
The lower membership grade of 𝐹̃ 𝑖 (𝑥).
The membership grade of the IT2 FS 𝐵̃
The lower membership function LMF(𝐵̃)
The upper membership function UMF(𝐵̃)
The join operation

