Abstract
Generally, in a risk analysis problems, data are collected from experts in terms of linguistic variables, which are then observed as fuzzy numbers. Eventually, the total risk is calculated, and obtained as fuzzy numbers, using the arithmetic operations of fuzzy numbers. Finally, the risk so obtained has to be expressed in terms of linguistic variables, so that it becomes communicable to the general audience. One such tool in fuzzy mathematics is the similarity measure. In this paper, a new method of determining the similarity between two interval-valued fuzzy numbers has been developed. Generally, various parameters were used in deriving a similarity measure. However, the parameters that describe the shape of an interval-valued fuzzy numbers was never a concern in the earlier studies. Hence, in this study, these parameters are incorporated in the similarity measure. Further, a few reasonable properties are being developed, which will be considered as standard in developing a similarity measure. Finally, a risk analysis problem in paddy cultivation is discussed. Using the proposed similarity measure, the final risk is expressed in terms of a linguistic variable. The final risk so obtained for paddy cultivation, under the assumed scenario, is low.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adamie BA, Balezentis T, Asmild M (2019) Environmental production factors and efficiency of smallholder agricultural households: using non-parametric conditional frontier methods. J Agric Econ 70(2):471–487
Aydın T, Enginoğlu S (2020) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy parameterized interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and their application in decision-making. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02227-0
Basu S (2005) Classical sets and non-classical sets? An overview. Resonance 10(8):38–48
Chen SM, Chen JH (2009a) Fuzzy risk analysis based on ranking generalized fuzzy numbers with different heights and different spreads. Expert Syst Appl 36(3, Part 2): 6833–6842
Chen SM, Chen JH (2009b) Fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures between interval-valued fuzzy numbers and interval-valued fuzzy number arithmetic operators. Expert Syst Appl 36(3, Part 2): 6309–6317
Chen SJ, Chen SM (2004) A new similarity measure between interval-valued fuzzy numbers. In: Proceedings of the joint 2nd international conference of soft computing and intelligent systems and 5th international symposium on advanced intelligent systems. Yokohama, Japan
Chen SJ (2007) A novel similarity measure for interval-valued fuzzy numbers based on geometric-mean averaging operator. In: Proceedings of the BAI international conference on business and information. Tokyo, Japan
Chen SM (1997) Fuzzy system reliability analysis based on vague set theory. In: 1997 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, vol. 2: pp. 1650–16552
Chen SM (1996) New methods for subjective mental workload assessment and fuzzy risk analysis. Cybern Syst 27(5):449–472
Chen SJ (2011) Measure of similarity between interval-valued fuzzy numbers for fuzzy recommendation process based on quadratic-mean operator. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):2386–2394
Chen SJ, Chen SM (2003) Fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 11(1):45–56
Chen SJ, Chen SM (2007) Fuzzy risk analysis based on the ranking of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Appl Intell 26(1):1–11
Chen SJ, Chen SM (2008) Fuzzy risk analysis based on measures of similarity between interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Comput Math Appl 55(8):1670–1685
Chen SM, Sanguansat K (2011) Analyzing fuzzy risk based on similarity measures between interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 38(7):8612–8621
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):6320–6334
Chung K, Yoo H, Choe DE (2020) Ambient context-based modeling for health risk assessment using deep neural network. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 11(4):1387–1395
Chutia R (2018) Fuzzy risk analysis using similarity measure of interval-valued fuzzy numbers and its application in poultry farming. Appl Intell 48:3928–3949
Chutia R, Gogoi MK (2018a) Fuzzy risk analysis in poultry farming based on a novel similarity measure of fuzzy numbers. Appl Soft Comput 66:60–76
Chutia R, Gogoi MK (2018b) Fuzzy risk analysis in poultry farming using a new similarity measure on generalized fuzzy numbers. Comput Ind Eng 115:543–558
De UK, Bodosa K (2014) Crop diversification in assam and use of essential modern inputs under changing climatic condition: indication of a retrograded option. Available at SSRN 2472581
Gorzalczany MB (1987) A method of inference in approximate reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 21(1):1–17
Guijun W, Xiaoping L (1998) The applications of interval-valued fuzzy numbers and interval-distribution numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 98(3):331–335
Hejazi SR, Doostparast A, Hosseini SM (2011) An improved fuzzy risk analysis based on a new similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9179–9185
Hong DH, Lee S (2002) Some algebraic properties and a distance measure for interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Inf Sci 148(1–4):1–10
Hsieh MY, Hsu YC, Lin CT (2018) Risk assessment in new software development projects at the front end: a fuzzy logic approach. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 9(2):295–305
Husain M (1982) Crop combinations in India: a study. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi
Kangari R, Riggs LS (1989) Construction risk assessment by linguistics. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 36(2):126–131
Klir G, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and application, vol. 4. Prentice hall New Jersey, New Jersey, pp 07458
Liu J, Martínez L, Wang H, Rodróguez RM, Novozhilov V (2010) Computing with words in risk assessment. Int J Comput Intell Syst 3(4):396–419
Patra K, Mondal SK (2015) Fuzzy risk analysis using area and height based similarity measure on generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers and its application. Appl Soft Comput 28:276–284
Schmucke KJ (1984) Fuzzy Sets: natural language computations, and risk analysis. Computer Science Press, Incorporated, Maryland, pp 20850
Sen S, Patra K, Mondal SK (2016) Fuzzy risk analysis in familial breast cancer using a similarity measure of interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Pacific Sci Rev Natl Sci Eng 18(3):203–221
Singha M, Wu B, Zhang M (2016) An object-based paddy rice classification using multi-spectral data and crop phenology in Assam, northeast India. Remote Sens 8(6):479
Tang TC, Chi LC (2005) Predicting multilateral trade credit risks: comparisons of logit and fuzzy logic models using ROC curve analysis. Expert Syst Appl 28(3):547–556
Toledo R, Engler PA, Ahumada VMC (2011) Evaluation of risk factors in agriculture: An application of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) methodology. Chil J Agric Res 71:114–121
Uluçay V (2020) Some concepts on interval-valued refined neutrosophic sets and their applications. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02512-y
Vasu D, Tiwary P, Chandran P, Singh SK (2020) Soil quality for sustainable agriculture. nutrient dynamics for sustainable crop production. Springer, Singapore, pp 41–66
Wang YM, Elhag TMS (2006) Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Syst Appl 31(2):309–319
Wei SH, Chen SM (2009a) Fuzzy risk analysis based on interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 36(2, Part 1): 2285–2299
Wei SH, Chen SM (2009b) A new approach for fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 36(1):589–598
Williams R, Ahuja L (2003) Scaling and estimating the soil water characteristic using a one-parameter model. Scaling methods in soil physics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 35–48
Wu D, Mendel JM (2009) A comparative study of ranking methods, similarity measures and uncertainty measures for interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 179(8):1169–1192
Xu Z, Shang S, Qian W, Shu W (2010) A method for fuzzy risk analysis based on the new similarity of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 37(3):1920–1927
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3):338–353
Zhang WR, Knowledge Representation Using Linguistic Fuzzy Relations, PhD thesis, USA, 1986
Zhao T, Xiao J, Li Y, Deng X (2014) A new approach to similarity and inclusion measures between general type-2 fuzzy sets. Soft Comput 18(4):809–823
Zhu LS, Xu RN (2012) Fuzzy risks analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 569–587
Zindani D, Maity SR, Bhowmik S (2020) Complex interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy todim approach and its application to group decision making. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02308-0
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to offer grateful thanks to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dhemaji, Assam, India for some fruitful discussions on various risk factors in paddy cultivation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Propositions, Theorems and their proofs
Propositions, Theorems and their proofs
Proposition 1
Consider the interval \({\tilde{a}}=[0,1]\), that is, \({\tilde{a}}=(0,0,1,1;1,1)\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) be any arbitrary fuzzy number such that \({\tilde{b}}\subseteq {\tilde{a}}\). If \({\tilde{b}}\) is obtained by horizontal translation within \({\tilde{a}}\), then the geometric distance between \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) always remain constant.
Proof
Consider \({\tilde{a}}=(0,0,1,1;1,1)\) and \({\tilde{b}}=(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}})\) such that \({\tilde{b}} \subseteq {\tilde{a}}\). Let \({\tilde{b}}\) is translated horizontally to obtain \({\tilde{b}}_r\), \(r\in I=[0,1]\) such that \({\tilde{b}}_r=(b_1+r,b_2+r,b_3+r,b_4+r;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}})\), then the geometric distance between \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}_r\) is \(|0-(b_1+r)|+|0-(b_2+r)|+|1-(b_3+r)|+|1-(b_4+r)|\). Equivalently, it can be written as \(|0-b_1|+r+|0-b_2|+r+|1-b_3|-r+|1-b_4|-r\), which implies that \(|0-b_1|+|0-b_2|+|1-b_3|+|1-b_4|\), which is the geometric distance between \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\). Hence, the proposition. \(\square\)
Proposition 2
Let \({\tilde{a}}=(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}})\) and \({\tilde{b}}=(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}},h_2^{{\tilde{b}}})\) are two arbitrary GFNs, then \(\frac{1}{4}\sum \limits _{i=1}^4|a_i-b_i| =1\) if, and only if, either \({\tilde{a}}=(1,1,1,1;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}})\) and \({\tilde{b}}=(0,0,0,0;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}},h_2^{{\tilde{b}}})\) or \({\tilde{a}}=(0,0,0,0;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}})\) and \({\tilde{b}}=(1,1,1,1;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}},h_2^{{\tilde{b}}})\).
Proof
Proof is very trivial. \(\square\)
Proposition 3
If \({\tilde{a}} \cap {\tilde{b}} \ne \Phi\), then \(\frac{1}{4}\sum \limits _{i=1}^4|a_i-b_i|<1\).
Proof
From the proposition 2, the result follows immediately. \(\square\)
Proposition 4
For any two arbitrary fuzzy numbers \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\), \(\frac{1}{2}|\text {ar}({\tilde{a}})-\text {ar}({\tilde{b}})| < 1\).
Proof
As \(0 \le \text {ar}({\tilde{a}}), \text {ar}({\tilde{b}}) \le 1\), therefore \(\frac{1}{2}|\text {ar}({\tilde{a}})-\text {ar}({\tilde{b}})| < 1\). \(\square\)
Proposition 5
Let \(L_i^{{\tilde{a}}}\) and \(L_i^{{\tilde{b}}}\) are edge-lengths of any two non-empty GFNs \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\), then \(\frac{1}{4}\sum \limits _{i=1}^4|L_i^{{\tilde{a}}}-L_i^{{\tilde{b}}}|<1\).
Proof
As \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are non-empty GFNs, therefore \(0 < \sum \limits _{i=1}^4L_i^{{\tilde{a}}}, \sum \limits _{i=1}^4L_i^{{\tilde{b}}} \le 4\). Hence, \(\frac{1}{4}\sum \limits _{i=1}^4|L_i^{{\tilde{a}}}-L_i^{{\tilde{b}}}| < 1\). \(\square\)
Proposition 6
Let \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}}\) and \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}}\) are angles of any two non-empty GFNs \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) respectively, then \(\prod _{i=1}^4\frac{\min (\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}},\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}})}{\max (\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}},\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}})} > 0\).
Proof
As \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are non-empty GFNs, therefore \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}}, \theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}} > 0\). Hence, the result follows immediately. \(\square\)
Theorem 1
If \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are two IVFNs then \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=1\) if, and only if, \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are identical.
Proof
Consider two IVFNs \({\tilde{a}}=[{\tilde{a}}^L,{\tilde{a}}^U]=[(a_1^L, a_2^L, a_3^L, a_4^L;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^L} ,h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^L}),(a_1^U,a_2^U,a_3^U,a_4^U;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^U},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^U})]\) and \({\tilde{b}}=[{\tilde{b}}^L,{\tilde{b}}^U]=[(b_1^L, b_2^L, b_3^L, b_4^L;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^L} ,h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^L}),(b_1^U,b_2^U,b_3^U,b_4^U;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^U},h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^U})]\). Assume that \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are identical; that is, \(a_i^L=b_i^L\) and \(a_i^U=b_i^U\) for \(i=1,2,3,4\); \(h_i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=h_i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}\) and \(h_i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=h_i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}\) for \(i=1,2\); \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^L)=\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^L)\) and \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^U)=\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^U)\); \(L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}\) and \(L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}\) for \(i=1,2,3,4\); \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}\) and \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}\) for \(i=1,2,3,4\). Then, it follows that
Similarly, it can be obtained that \(S\left( {\tilde{a}}^U,{\tilde{b}}^U\right) =1\). Hence \(S\left( {\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}}\right) =1\).
Conversely, let \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=1\), then
and
Thus, it follows that
Eventually, it follows
\(\square\)
Theorem 2
If \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are two IVFNs, then \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=S({\tilde{b}},{\tilde{a}})\).
Proof
Let \({\tilde{a}}=[{\tilde{a}}^L,{\tilde{a}}^U]=[(a_1^L, a_2^L, a_3^L, a_4^L;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^L} ,h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^L}),(a_1^U,a_2^U,a_3^U,a_4^U;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^U},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^U})]\) and \({\tilde{b}}=[{\tilde{b}}^L,{\tilde{b}}^U]=[(b_1^L, b_2^L, b_3^L, b_4^L;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^L} ,h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^L}),(b_1^U,b_2^U,b_3^U,b_4^U;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^U},h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^U})]\) be two IVFNs such that \(0 \le a_1^L \le a_2^L \le a_3^L \le a_4^L \le 1\), \(0 \le a_1^U \le a_2^U \le a_3^U \le a_4^U \le 1\), \(0 \le b_1^L \le b_2^L \le b_3^L \le b_4^L \le 1\) and \(0 \le b_1^U \le b_2^U \le b_3^U \le b_4^U \le 1\) , then we have
Similarly it follows that \(S\left( {\tilde{a}}^U,{\tilde{b}}^U\right) = S\left( {\tilde{b}}^U,{\tilde{a}}^U\right)\). Hence, \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=S({\tilde{b}},{\tilde{a}})\). \(\square\)
Theorem 3
If \({\tilde{a}} \cap {\tilde{b}} \ne \Phi\) then \(0<S({\tilde{a}}, {\tilde{b}})\).
Proof
As \({\tilde{a}} \cap {\tilde{b}} \ne \Phi\), therefore \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are non-empty GFNs. Hence, from the Propositions 3, 4, 5 and 6 the result follows immediately. \(\square\)
Theorem 4
If \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are two IVFNs, \(0 \le S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}}) \le 1\)
Proof
Let \({\tilde{a}}=[{\tilde{a}}^L,{\tilde{a}}^U]=[(a_1^L, a_2^L, a_3^L, a_4^L;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^L} ,h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^L}),(a_1^U,a_2^U,a_3^U,a_4^U;h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^U},h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^U})]\) and \({\tilde{b}}=[{\tilde{b}}^L,{\tilde{b}}^U]=[(b_1^L, b_2^L, b_3^L, b_4^L;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^L} ,h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^L}),(b_1^U,b_2^U,b_3^U,b_4^U;h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^U},h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^U})]\) be two IVFNs such that \(0 \le a_1^L \le a_2^L \le a_3^L \le a_4^L \le 1\), \(0 \le a_1^U \le a_2^U \le a_3^U \le a_4^U \le 1\), \(0 \le b_1^L \le b_2^L \le b_3^L \le b_4^L \le 1\) and \(0 \le b_1^U \le b_2^U \le b_3^U \le b_4^U \le 1\) , then from the Definition 13 , we have
where
and
This implies,
Therefore \(S({\tilde{a}}^L,{\tilde{b}}^L) \le 1\) and \(S({\tilde{a}}^U,{\tilde{b}}^U) \le 1\). Further,
Therefore \(S({\tilde{a}}^L,{\tilde{b}}^L) \ge 0\) and \(S({\tilde{a}}^U,{\tilde{b}}^U) \ge 0\). Hence, the property \(0 \le S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}}) \le 1\). \(\square\)
Theorem 5
Let \({\tilde{a}}_1\) and \({\tilde{a}}_2\) are two IVFNs. If \({\tilde{a}}_1 \ne {\tilde{a}}_2\), then \(0 \le S({\tilde{a}}_1,{\tilde{a}}_2) < 1\).
Proof
Proof is trivial. \(\square\)
Theorem 6
Let \({\tilde{a}}_1=\Phi\) and \({\tilde{a}}_2\) be arbitrary normal fuzzy number, then \(S({\tilde{a}}_1,{\tilde{a}}_2)=0\)
Proof
Proof is trivial. \(\square\)
Theorem 7
Let \({\tilde{a}}_1=\Phi\) and \({\tilde{a}}_2\) be arbitrary non-empty fuzzy number, then \(0 \le S({\tilde{a}}_1,{\tilde{a}}_2) < 1\)
Proof
As \({\tilde{a}}_1=\Phi\) and \({\tilde{a}}_2\) is non-empty, therefore they are not identical. Using Theorem 5, it follows that \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}}) < 1\). Now, from the Theorem 4, the result follows immediately. \(\square\)
Theorem 8
If \({\tilde{a}}\), \({\tilde{b}}\) and \({\tilde{c}}\) are symmetric IVFNs and \({\tilde{b}}\) is the mirror image of \({\tilde{a}}\) with respect to the axis of symmetric of \({\tilde{c}}\), then \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{c}})=S({\tilde{c}},{\tilde{b}})\)
Proof
As \({\tilde{a}}\), \({\tilde{b}}\), \({\tilde{c}}\) are symmetric IVFNs, therefore their left height and right heights are equal. As \({\tilde{b}}\) is the image of \({\tilde{a}}\), therefore heights of \({\tilde{a}}^L\) and \({\tilde{a}}^U\) are equal with heights of \({\tilde{b}}^L\) and \({\tilde{b}}^U\) (say \(h^L\) and \(h^U\)) respectively. Let \({\tilde{a}}=[(a_1^L, a_2^L, a_3^L, a_4^L;h^L ,h^L),(a_1^U,a_2^U,a_3^U,a_4^U;h^U,h^U)]\), \({\tilde{b}}=[(b_1^L, b_2^L, b_3^L, b_4^L;h^L ,h^L),(b_1^U,b_2^U,b_3^U,b_4^U;h^U,h^U)]\) and \({\tilde{c}}=[(c_1^L, c_2^L, c_3^L, c_4^L;h^{{\tilde{c}}^L} ,h^{{\tilde{c}}^L}),(c_1^U,c_2^U,c_3^U,c_4^U;h^{{\tilde{c}}^U},h^{{\tilde{c}}^U})]\), as shown in the Fig. 8, where \(h^{{\tilde{c}}^L}\) and \(h^{{\tilde{c}}^U}\) are the heights of the GFNs \({\tilde{c}}^L\) and \({\tilde{c}}^U\) respectively.
Let \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}\), \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}\), \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}\), \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}\), \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{c}}^L}\), \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{c}}^U}\) are the angles as defined in Definition 12, \(L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}\), \(L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}\), \(L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}\), \(L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}\), \(L_i^{{\tilde{c}}^L}\), \(L_i^{{\tilde{c}}^U}\) are the edge-lengths as defined in Definition 11, and \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^L)\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^U)\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^L)\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^U)\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{c}}^L)\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{c}}^U)\) are the areas as defined in Definition 10 of \({\tilde{a}}^L\), \({\tilde{a}}^L\), \({\tilde{b}}^L\), \({\tilde{b}}^L\), \({\tilde{c}}^L\), \({\tilde{c}}^L\) respectively. As \({\tilde{c}}\) is symmetric IVFN and \({\tilde{b}}\) is the image of \({\tilde{a}}\) with respect to the symmetric axis of \({\tilde{c}}\), therefore \(|a_i^L-c_i^L|=|c_i^L-b_i^L|\), \(|a_i^U-c_i^U|=|c_i^U-b_i^U|\), \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}\), \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}\), \(L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}\), \(L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^L)=\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^L)\) and \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^U)=\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^U)\). Thus,
Hence from the definition 13 , the result follow immediately. \(\square\)
Theorem 9
Consider \({\tilde{a}}=[0,1]\), \({\tilde{b}}_r \subseteq {\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}_r\) translate in \({\tilde{a}}\), then \(0 \le S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}}_r)=S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}}_s) \le 1\), \(r,s\in I=[0,1]\), .
Proof
Consider \({\tilde{a}}=[(0,0,1,1;1,1),(0,0,1,1;1,1)]\) and \({\tilde{b}}_r, {\tilde{b}}_s\subseteq {\tilde{a}}\). Then from the Proposition 1, geometric distance among \({\tilde{a}}^L\) and \({\tilde{b}}_r^L\), \({\tilde{a}}^U\) and \({\tilde{b}}_r^U\), \({\tilde{a}}^L\) and \({\tilde{b}}_s^L\), \({\tilde{a}}^U\) and \({\tilde{b}}_s^U\) are always remain constant. Again, under horizontal translation, height, edge-lengths, area and angles of \({\tilde{b}}_r^L, {\tilde{b}}_r^U, {\tilde{b}}_s^L, {\tilde{b}}_s^U\) remain invariant. Hence, the result follows immediately. \(\square\)
Corollary 1
If \({\tilde{a}}=[(0,0,0,0;1,1),(0,0,0,0;1,1)]\) and \({\tilde{b}}=[(1,1,1,1;1,1),(1,1,1,1;1,1)]\), then \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=0\)
Proof
The proof is trivial. \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=0\) that means \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) are completely dissimilar. \(\square\)
Corollary 2
If \({\tilde{a}}=[(m,m,m,m;1,1),(m,m,m,m;1,1)]\) and \({\tilde{b}}=[(n,n,n,n;1,1),(n,n,n,n;1,1)]\), then \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})= 1-|m-n|\).
Proof
For crisp-valued IVFN numbers \({\tilde{a}}\) and \({\tilde{b}}\) heights difference, areas difference and edge-lengths difference are zero. That is, \(|h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^L}-h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^L}|+|h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^L}-h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^L}|=0\), \(|h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^U}-h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^U}|+|h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^U}-h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^U}|=0\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^L)-\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^L)=0\), \(\text {ar}({\tilde{a}}^U)-\text {ar}({\tilde{b}}^U)=0\), \(\sum \limits _{i=1}^4|L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}-L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}|=0\) and \(\sum \limits _{i=1}^4|L_i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}-L_i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}|=0\). Also \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^L}=90^{\circ }\) and \(\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^U}=90^{\circ }\) (\(i=1,2,3,4\)); that is, \(\prod _{i=1}^4\frac{\min (\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^L},\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^L})}{\max (\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^L},\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^L})}=1\) and \(\prod _{i=1}^4\frac{\min (\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^U},\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^U})}{\max (\theta _i^{{\tilde{b}}^U},\theta _i^{{\tilde{a}}^U})}=1\). Hence, by the definition of proposed similarity measure
and
Thus, \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})= (1-|m-n|)\). \(\square\)
Corollary 3
If \({\tilde{a}}=[(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4;1.0,1.0),(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4;1.0,1.0)]\) and \({\tilde{b}}=[(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4;0.0,0.0),(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4;0.0,0.0)]\), then \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=0\).
Proof
Here \(h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^L}=1\), \(h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^U}=1\), \(h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^L}=h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^L}=0\), \(h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^U}=h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^U}=0\). As, \(|h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^L}-h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^L}|=|h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^L}-h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^L}|=1\) and \(|h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^U}-h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^U}|=|h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^U}-h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^U}|=1\), so \(1-\frac{1}{2}(|h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^L}-h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^L}|+ |h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^L}-h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^L}|)=0\) and \(1-\frac{1}{2}(|h_1^{{\tilde{a}}^U}-h_1^{{\tilde{b}}^U}|+ |h_2^{{\tilde{a}}^U}-h_2^{{\tilde{b}}^U}|)=0\), Hence, using the proposed similarity measure 13, it follows that \(S({\tilde{a}},{\tilde{b}})=0\). \(\square\)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gogoi, M.K., Chutia, R. Similarity measure of the interval-valued fuzzy numbers and its application in risk analysis in paddy cultivation. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 13, 1829–1852 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-02949-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-02949-9