Measuring Similarity between Generalized Fuzzy Numbers Based on Standard Deviation for Fuzzy Recommendation Problems ()
Abstract
This study proposes a new method to measure the similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers based on a standard deviation. The properties of the proposed similarity measure are demonstrated with 44 sets of generalized fuzzy numbers applied to compare the proposed method with existing similarity measures. Comparative results indicate the proposed method is better than existing methods. Solving fuzzy recommendation problems uses the proposed similarity measure.
Share and Cite:
Chen, S. (2026) Measuring Similarity between Generalized Fuzzy Numbers Based on Standard Deviation for Fuzzy Recommendation Problems.
Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics,
14, 446-465. doi:
10.4236/jamp.2026.141023.
1. Introduction
Measuring the similarity between fuzzy numbers is important in fuzzy decision-making [1]-[3] and fuzzy risk analysis [4]-[7]. Researchers have presented methods for determining the degree of similarity between fuzzy numbers [4] [5], and [8]-[13]. However, those similarity measures have limitations. These could not consistently or accurately yield the degree of similarity between two generalized fuzzy numbers. Therefore, this study proposes a new method to measure the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers based on a standard deviation to overcome these shortcomings. The proposed similarity measure is compared to eight existing methods [4] [5], and [8]-[13] using 44 sets of generalized fuzzy numbers. Comparative results reveal that the proposed method of measuring similarity overcomes the limitations of the existing methods. Furthermore, we applied the proposed similarity measure to solve fuzzy recommendation problems, specifically exemplified by evaluating the quality of healthcare at a hospital.
The remainder of the paper is in five sections. Section 2 briefly reviews the concept of standard deviation [14], the definitions of generalized fuzzy numbers [15] [16], and existing measures of similarity among fuzzy numbers [4] [5], and [8]-[13]. Section 3 analyses and describes the shortcomings of the existing similarity measure. Section 4 presents a new method based on standard deviation to calculate the degree of similarity between generalized fuzzy numbers, and demonstrates some properties of the proposed similarity measure. Section 5 compares the proposed similarity measure with existing measures using 44 sets of generalized fuzzy numbers. Section 6 applies the proposed similarity measure to solve a fuzzy recommendation problem. Section 7 presents the conclusions.
2. Preliminaries
This section reviews the concept of standard deviation [14], the definitions of generalized fuzzy numbers [15] [16], and existing measures of similarity among fuzzy numbers [4] [5], and [8]-[13].
2.1. Standard Deviation
The positive square root of the variance is the standard deviation. The standard deviation gives a measure of the dispersion of the data from the sample mean. The standard deviation is:
(1)
where
![]()
[14].
2.2. Generalized Fuzzy Numbers
Chen [15] [16] denoted a generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number as
, where
, and
,
,
, and
are real numbers. If
, then the generalized fuzzy number
is called a normal trapezoidal fuzzy number, denoted as
. If
, then
is called a generalized triangular fuzzy number. If
,
and
, then
is called a crisp interval. If
and
, then
is a real number. Figure 1 displays a generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number
, while
denotes the opinion of a decision-maker. The value of
represents the degree of confidence of the decision maker’s opinion.
2.3. The Existing Similarity Measures between Fuzzy Numbers
Chen [4] proposed a distance-based similarity measure of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Consider two trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
, where
and
. The degree of similarity
, between
and
can be calculated as follows:
(2)
where
. If
and
represent triangular fuzzy numbers, where
and
, then the degree similarity
between
and
can be calculated as follows [4]:
(3)
A larger value of
represents a greater similarity between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
.
Figure 1. Generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number
.
Lee [11] proposed a similarity measure for trapezoidal fuzzy numbers and applied the similarity measure to handle fuzzy opinions for group decision-making. If
and
are trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
, then the degree of similarity
between
and
can be calculated as follows:
(4)
where
is the universe of discourse,
(5)
And
(6)
A larger value of
corresponds to greater similarity between the trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
.
Hsieh and Chen [10] proposed a similarity measure based on the “graded mean integration representation distance”, where the degree of similarity
between fuzzy numbers
and
is calculated as follows:
(7)
where
(8)
and
are the “graded mean integration representation” of
and
, respectively. If
and
represent triangular fuzzy numbers, then the “graded mean integration representation”
and
of
and
are defined as:
(9)
(10)
If
and
denote trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, then the “graded mean integration representation”
and
of
and
are defined as follows:
(11)
(12)
A larger value of
corresponds to a greater similarity between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
.
Chen and Chen [5] proposed a method to measure the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers using the Simple Center of Gravity Method (SCGM) that calculates the center of gravity (COG) of generalized fuzzy numbers, followed by the degree of similarity between those numbers. The degree of similarity
between the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
, where
and
is calculated as follows:
(13)
where
, and
is defined as follows.
(14)
where
and
are the length of the bases of the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
, respectively, and defined as:
(15)
(16)
The two values
and
, are calculated as follows:
(17)
(18)
Similarly, the two values
and
are calculated by (17) and (18). A larger
corresponds to a greater similarity between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
.
Yong et al. [13] proposed a method to measure the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers based on the radius of gyration (ROG) points. In their method, the degree of similarity
between the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
are calculated as follows:
(19)
where
. The value
is from (14). The two values
and
are the ROG of the generalized fuzzy number
, and are calculated as follows:
(20)
(21)
where
is the moment of inertia of
on the x-axis
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
In a special case, if the generalized fuzzy number
and
and
, such that
is a real number, then the two values
and
are obtained using the following:
(28)
(29)
A larger
corresponds to greater similarity between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
.
Chen [8] proposed a method to measure the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers using the geometric-mean operator to eliminate the shortcomings of the similarity measure of Yong et al. [13]. The degree of similarity
between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
is calculated as follows:
(30)
where
and
are given by (17). A larger
corresponds to a greater similarity between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
.
Wei and Chen [12] presented a method using the arithmetic-mean averaging operator and the perimeter of the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number. The degree of similarity of
between
and
is calculated as follows:
(31)
where
and
are the perimeters of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
, respectively. These two values are calculated as follows:
(32)
(33)
A larger value of
corresponds to greater similarity between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
.
Chen [9] presented a method to measure the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers based on the quadratic-mean. The degree of similarity of
between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
is calculated as follows:
(34)
where
. A larger value of
corresponds to a greater similarity between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
.
3. Analysis of the Existing Similarity Measure
This section analyses the weaknesses of the existing similarity measure. In 2003, Chen and Chen [5] described the three properties of the similarity measure between generalized fuzzy numbers
and
as:
Property 1: Two generalized fuzzy numbers
and
are identical if and only if
.
Property 2:
.
Property 3: If
and
are two real numbers, then
.
Chen and Chen [5] also proposed a method for measuring the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers using the SCGM. Yong et al. [13] pointed out that the method of Chen and Chen [5] cannot handle two generalized fuzzy numbers with the same COG points, and presented a method for measuring the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers based on the ROG to overcome the weaknesses of Chen and Chen’s [5] method. Chen [8] proposed a method using the geometric-mean averaging operator to eliminate the drawbacks of the similarity measure of Yong et al. [13]. Wei and Chen [12] noted that Chen’s method [8] cannot correctly measure the similarity between two generalized fuzzy numbers in some cases, and proposed a method that uses the arithmetic-mean averaging operator and the perimeter of the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number. In 2009, Chen indicated that Wei and Chen’s method [12] has similar weaknesses identified in Chen’s method [8]. Therefore, Chen proposed a method that uses the quadratic-mean operator to eliminate these shortcomings [9].
However, this study indicates that the similarity measure based on the quadratic-mean [9] still has drawbacks:
1) Consider the following two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers (Figure 2):
Figure 2. Two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers.
The degrees of similarity
and
can be calculated from (34). However,
should not exceed
because the shapes of
and
are more similar than the shapes of
and
.
2) Consider the following two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers:
According to Chen’s method [9], the degrees of similarity are
and
. However,
cannot reasonably equal the degree of similarity
because again the shapes of
and
are more similar to each other than those of
and
, and the relative distance between
and
is the same as the relative distance between
and
(Figure 3).
Figure 3. Two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers.
3) Consider the following two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers (Figure 4):
Figure 4. Two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers.
According to Chen’s method [9], the degrees of similarity are
and
. However,
cannot reasonably exceed
because the shapes of
and
are more similar than those of
and
.
4) Consider the following two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers shown in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Two sets of generalized fuzzy numbers.
According to Chen’s method [9], the degrees of similarity are
and
. However,
should not exceed
because the shapes of
and
are more similar than those of
and
.
This discussion demonstrates that Chen’s method [9] still has some shortcomings in some situations. Hence, to measure the similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers requires a new method.
4. New Similarity Measure among Generalized Fuzzy Numbers Based on Standard Deviation
This section presents a new similarity measure based on the standard deviation operator to calculate the degree of similarity among generalized fuzzy numbers, as well as elucidating some properties of the proposed similarity measure. The choice of standard deviation as the basis for the new measure is justified by its strength as a statistical measure of dispersion, which effectively captures the distribution and spread of the generalized fuzzy number
’s key control points
, thereby quantifying the fuzzy number’s shape and spread in the single parameter
. Consider two generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
, where
and
,
,
,
, and
. The degree of similarity of
between the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
is calculated as:
(35)
where
and
are the standard deviations
(36)
(37)
and
. A higher value of
corresponds to a greater similarity between the fuzzy numbers
and
. The proposed similarity measure based on the standard deviation has the following properties:
Property 1: Two generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
are identical if and only if
.
Proof: 1) If
and
are identical, then
,
,
,
and
. The degree of similarity between
and
can be calculated as follows:
2) If
, then
This result indicates that
must be 0, and
must be 1. So,
,
,
,
and
. In this situation,
will be the same as
by (36) and (37). Hence, the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
and
are identical.
Property 2:
.
Proof: Since
where
,
and
, thus,
.
Property 3: If
and are two real numbers, then
where
,
.
Proof: The following is derived from (35):
Consider the two generalized fuzzy numbers
and
. The generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number
represents the generalized triangular fuzzy number
. Based on (36) and (37), the standard deviations of
and
are calculated as follows:
The degree of similarity
between the two generalized fuzzy numbers is calculated as:
5. Comparing Existing Similarity Measures with Proposed
Similarity Measure
This section compares the proposed similarity measure with eight existing similarity measures [4] [5], and [8]-[13] by using 44 sets of generalized fuzzy numbers, which are shown in Figure 6. Table 1 compares the calculations of the nine similarity measures. Generally, desirable similarity measure must exhibit sufficient sensitivity to the differences in shape, spread, and relative distance between two generalized fuzzy numbers
and
. A person also uses the criteria for fuzzy number ranking problems [17]. The parts of 44 sets of generalized fuzzy numbers are from [4] [5], and [8]-[13], and some are extended in Figures 1-4 in section 3. The aforementioned criteria can determine these sets of generalized fuzzy numbers.
Table 1 and Figure 6 show that the existing similarity measures [4] [5], and [8]-[13] have some shortcomings described below.
1) Set 1 in Figure 6 indicates that the two generalized fuzzy numbers
and
are unequal because their shapes differ. However, based on Table 1, Hsieh and Chen’s [10] similarity measure yields
.
2) Sets 3 and 4 are different sets of generalized fuzzy numbers because the shapes and spreads of generalized fuzzy numbers
and
in Set 4 are more similar than in Set 3, and the relative distance between the generalized fuzzy numbers
and
in Set 3 is the same as that in Set 4. However, the methods of Chen [4], Hsieh and Chen [10] and Lee [11] yield the same degree of similarity for Sets 3 and 4.
3) In Set 5,
and
differ in their shapes; however, the methods of Chen [4], Hsieh and Chen [10] and Lee [11] yield
.
4) Set 6 indicates that Lee’s method cannot correctly calculate the degree of similarity between two identical real values because the denominator
of (4) would become zero yielding
. Additionally, in Set 7 the degree of similarity of
is not zero. However, Lee’s method [11] yields
.
Figure 6. The 44 sets of generalized fuzzy numbers [9].
5) Sets 7 and 8 are different sets of generalized fuzzy numbers. However, the methods of Hsieh and Chen [10], and Chen [4] yield the same degree of similarity for Sets 7 and 8.
Table 1. Comparison of the calculation results made using the proposed similarity measure and the existing methods.
|
Lee’s Method [11] |
Hsieh-and-Chen’s Method [10] |
Chen’s Method [4] |
Chen-and-Chen’s Method [5] |
Yong et al.’s Method [13] |
Chen’s Method [8] |
Wei and Chen’s Method [12] |
Chen’s Method [9] |
The Proposed Method |
Set 1 |
0.9617 |
1 |
0.975 |
0.8357 |
0.7954 |
0.8356 |
0.95 |
0.9646 |
0.9091 |
Set 2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Set 3 |
0.5 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.42 |
0.4028 |
0.5997 |
0.68 |
0.6979 |
0.6578 |
Set 4 |
0.5 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.49 |
0.4931 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Set 5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8248 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
Set 6 |
* |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Set 7 |
0 |
0.909 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Set 8 |
0.5 |
0.909 |
0.9 |
0.54 |
0.5754 |
0.5991 |
0.8411 |
0.8775 |
0.7002 |
Set 9 |
0.6667 |
0.909 |
0.9 |
0.81 |
0.8112 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Set 10 |
0.8333 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8854 |
0.8974 |
0.7833 |
0.8586 |
0.6132 |
Set 11 |
0.75 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.72 |
0.6914 |
0.72 |
0.8003 |
0.9 |
0.6978 |
Set 12 |
0.8 |
0.9375 |
0.9 |
0.78 |
0.7744 |
0.8959 |
0.8289 |
0.8419 |
0.6371 |
Set 13 |
0.4 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.49 |
0.4868 |
0.6971 |
0.6222 |
0.6838 |
0.5195 |
Set 14 |
0.25 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.49 |
0.4904 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Set 15 |
0.5 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.49 |
0.4931 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Set 16 |
0.6407 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.49 |
0.4576 |
0.6915 |
0.5014 |
0.5617 |
0.3907 |
Set 17 |
0.5 |
0.6897 |
0.55 |
0.3025 |
0.309 |
0.55 |
0.55 |
0.55 |
0.55 |
Set 18 |
0.3333 |
0.6897 |
0.55 |
0.3025 |
0.2945 |
0.5418 |
0.2464 |
0.3485 |
0.2429 |
Set 19 |
0.6 |
0.8333 |
0.8 |
0.5486 |
0.5278 |
0.6854 |
0.7794 |
0.7969 |
0.7510 |
Set 20 |
0.6 |
0.8333 |
0.8 |
0.5486 |
0.5266 |
0.6854 |
0.7794 |
0.7969 |
0.7510 |
Set 21 |
0.9 |
0.9091 |
0.9 |
0.81 |
0.8135 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Set 22 |
0.9 |
0.9091 |
0.9 |
0.81 |
0.8101 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Set 23 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.8077 |
0.8177 |
0.8077 |
0.8055 |
0.9 |
0.6899 |
Set 24 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.8028 |
0.8227 |
0.8028 |
0.8012 |
0.8945 |
0.6858 |
Set 25 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7209 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Set 26 |
0.75 |
1 |
0.95 |
0.9048 |
0.9366 |
0.9042 |
0.6215 |
0.6505 |
0.5191 |
Set 27 |
0.3 |
0.7317 |
0.65 |
0.4279 |
0.4288 |
0.6492 |
0.65 |
0.6464 |
0.6464 |
Set 28 |
0.5333 |
0.7407 |
0.65 |
0.4225 |
0.4289 |
0.65 |
0.65 |
0.65 |
0.65 |
Set 29 |
0.5 |
0.8571 |
0.85 |
0.7296 |
0.7296 |
0.8493 |
0.85 |
0.8419 |
0.8419 |
Set 30 |
0.6667 |
0.87 |
0.85 |
0.7225 |
0.7251 |
0.85 |
0.85 |
0.85 |
0.85 |
Set 31 |
0.8571 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.8077 |
0.8177 |
0.8077 |
0.8055 |
0.9 |
0.6899 |
Set 32 |
0.8571 |
0.909 |
0.9 |
0.7269 |
0.7674 |
0.8053 |
0.8055 |
0.8586 |
0.6582 |
Set 33 |
0.7143 |
0.8333 |
0.8 |
0.5744 |
0.609 |
0.7155 |
0.716 |
0.7764 |
0.5952 |
Set 34 |
0.5714 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.4397 |
0.4686 |
0.6256 |
0.6265 |
0.6838 |
0.5242 |
Set 35 |
0.5 |
0.9375 |
0.95 |
0.9183 |
0.9187 |
0.9494 |
0.95 |
0.9293 |
0.9293 |
Set 36 |
0.6667 |
0.9524 |
0.95 |
0.9025 |
0.9029 |
0.95 |
0.95 |
0.95 |
0.95 |
Set 37 |
0.25 |
0.7692 |
0.7 |
0.49 |
0.4904 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
Set 38 |
0.3125 |
0.7894 |
0.725 |
0.3464 |
0.3678 |
0.483 |
0.7035 |
0.7216 |
0.6767 |
Set 39 |
0.6 |
0.8333 |
0.8 |
0.64 |
0.6429 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
Set 40 |
0.65 |
0.8571 |
0.825 |
0.5775 |
0.5526 |
0.7067 |
0.8044 |
0.8197 |
0.7866 |
Set 41 |
0.75 |
1 |
0.95 |
0.6333 |
0.669 |
0.6329 |
0.8879 |
0.9293 |
0.7415 |
Set 42 |
0.8333 |
0.9677 |
0.95 |
0.8867 |
0.8876 |
0.9494 |
0.95 |
0.9293 |
0.9293 |
Set 43 |
0 |
0.9091 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Set 44 |
0.25 |
0.9231 |
0.925 |
0.5756 |
0.6101 |
0.6163 |
0.8937 |
0.9134 |
0.7690 |
Note: “*” means that the similarity measure cannot calculate the degree of similarity between two generalized fuzzy numbers. “”means incorrect results.
6) Sets 8 and 9 are different sets of generalized fuzzy numbers because the shapes and spreads of
and
in Set 9 are more similar than the shapes and spreads of
and
in Set 8. However, the methods of Chen [4] and Hsieh and Chen [10] yield the same degree of similarity for both sets.
7) Sets 10, 11 and 12 are different sets of generalized fuzzy numbers. However, Chen’s method [4] yields the same degree of similarity for each set of generalized fuzzy numbers.
8) In Set 10,
and
differ in shape where Hsieh and Chen’s method [10] yields
. Furthermore, Set 11 reveals the same problem encountered in Hsieh and Chen’s method [10].
9) Set 15 has a greater similarity than Set 16 does because the shapes and spreads of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 15 are more similar than those in Set 16 are. However, the methods of Chen [4], Chen and Chen [5] and Hsieh and Chen [10] yield the same degrees of similarity for both sets. Moreover, the methods of Lee [11] and Yong et al. [13] yield the incorrect result that Set 16 has more similarities than Set 15 does.
10) Sets 17 and 18 are different sets of generalized fuzzy numbers because the shapes and spreads of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 17 are more similar than those in Set 18 are. However, the methods of Chen [4], Chen and Chen [5] and Hsieh and Chen [10] yield the same degrees of similarity for Sets 17 and 18.
11) Set 19 has the same degree of similarity as Set 20 because the relative distance between the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 19 equals the relative distance of those in Set 20. The generalized fuzzy number
in both sets has the same shape, as does the generalized fuzzy number
. However, the method of Yong et al. [13] yields the degree of similarity of Set 19 exceeds that of Set 20.
12) Set 21 has the same degree of similarity as Set 22 because the relative distance between the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 21 equals the relative distance of those in Set 22. Moreover, the shapes of the four generalized fuzzy numbers in Sets 21 and 22 are identical although the method of Yong et al. [13] yields the degree of similarity in Set 21 exceeds that of Set 22.
13) The relative distance between the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 23 equals the relative distance of those in Set 24. The shapes of the generalized fuzzy number
in both sets are identical, but those of the generalized fuzzy number
in both sets differ. Thus, the degree of similarity in Set 23 exceeds that in Set 24. However, the methods of Chen [4], Hsieh and Chen [10], Lee [11] yield the same degree of similarity for both sets. Moreover, the method of Yong et al. [13] yields the incorrect result the degree of similarity in Set 24 exceeds that of Set 23.
14) The generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 25 are more similar than in Set 26 because the shapes of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 25 are all triangular, whereas those of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 26 differ. However, Table 1 indicates that the methods of Chen [4], Chen and Chen [5] and Yong et al. [13] yield the incorrect result that generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 26 are more similar than those in Set 25.
15) Set 25
and
differ because their shapes are different due to the fact that
is higher than
. However, Table 1 indicates that the methods of Chen [4], Hsieh and Chen [10] and Lee [11] yield
, and Set 26
and
are unequal. However, Hsieh and Chen’s method [10] yields
.
16) The relative distance between the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 28 is shorter than that between the identical generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 27. However, the methods of Chen [4] and Wei and Chen [12] yield the same degree of similarity for Sets 27 and 28. Moreover, Chen and Chen’s method [5] yields Set 27 has greater similarity than Set 28 does.
17) The generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 30 are more similar than in Set 29 because the shapes and spreads of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 30 are more similar than those in Set 29 are. However, the methods of Chen [4], and Wei and Chen [12] yield the same degree of similarity for Sets 29 and 30, while the methods of Chen and Chen [5] and Yong et al.[13] yield Set 29 has a greater similarity than Set 30.
18) The generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 31 are more similar than those in Sets 32, 33 and 34 because relative distance between the two generalized fuzzy numbers
and
varies among the sets, and the distance in Set 31 is shorter than those in Sets 32, 33 and 34. However, the methods of Lee [11], Chen [4], and Wei and Chen [12] yield the same degree of similarity for Sets 31 and 32.
19) The generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 36 are more similar than in Set 35 because the shapes of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 36 are identical, whereas those in Set 35 are not. However, the methods of Chen [4], and Wei and Chen [12] yield the same degree of similarity for Sets 35 and 36 while the method of Yong et al. [13] yields the degree of similarity in Set 35 exceeds that in Set 36.
20) The generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 37 are more similar than in Set 38 because the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 37 are all rectangular, whereas the generalized fuzzy numbers in set 38 have different shapes. However, Table 1 indicates that the methods of Chen [4], Hsieh and Chen [10], Lee [11], Wei and Chen [12], and Chen [9] yield the incorrect result that Set 38 is more similar than Set 37 is.
21) The generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 39 are more similar than Set 40 are because the shapes of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 39 are identical, but those in Set 40 are not. However, the methods of Chen [4], Hsieh and Chen [10], Lee [11], Wei and Chen [12], and Chen [9] yield the incorrect result that Set 40 is more similar than Set 39 is.
22) The relative distance between the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 41 is the same as between the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 42, but the shapes and spreads of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 42 are more similar than the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 41. However, the methods of Chen [4], and Chen [9] yield the same degree of similarity for Set 41 and Set 42.
23) Set 41 indicates that the two generalized fuzzy numbers
and
differ in shapes. However, Hsieh and Chen’s method [10] yields that
.
24) The shapes and spreads of the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 43 are more similar than the generalized fuzzy numbers in Set 44. However, the methods of Chen [4], Hsieh and Chen [10], Lee [11], and Chen [9] yield the result that Set 44 is more similar than Set 43 is. Moreover, in Set 43, the degree of similarity
is not zero. However, Lee’s method [11] yields
.
6. Fuzzy Recommendation Process Based on Proposed Similarity Measure for Evaluating Quality of Health
Care at a Hospital
The section uses the proposed similarity measure to solve fuzzy recommendation problems. Martinez et al. [18] pointed out the recommendation process has the following steps: a) fusion of the human linguistic evaluating values, b) calculation of the similarity between the user profile and recommended items, and c) provision of a recommendation to the user. Assume there are
items
described by a set of m features
, and the nine-member set of linguistic terms in Table 2 can be adopted to describe these features.
Table 2. A nine-member linguistic term set [18].
Linguistic Term |
Generalized Fuzzy Numbers |
Negligible |
(0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0; 1.0) |
Very inferior |
(0.0, 0.0, 0.02, 0.07; 1.0) |
Inferior |
(0.04, 0.1, 0.18, 0.23; 1.0) |
Fairly inferior |
(0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42; 1.0) |
Average |
(0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65; 1.0) |
Fairly superior |
(0.58, 0.63, 0.80, 0.86; 1.0) |
Superior |
(0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97; 1.0) |
Very superior |
(0.93, 0.98, 1.0, 1.0; 1.0) |
Outstanding |
(1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0; 1.0) |
This study proposes an algorithm based on Chen’s [19] proposed similarity measure for the fuzzy recommendation process.
Step 1: Use the weighted mean method and the generalized fuzzy number arithmetic operations to fuse the evaluated linguistic values
and the real numbers
, that are the degree of strength and weight of feature
in item
,
,
and
, and yield the evaluated value
for item
, as follows:
(38)
where
(39)
and
is a generalized fuzzy number.
Step 2: Use the proposed fuzzy similarity measure (i.e., formula (35)) to calculate the degree of similarity between the generalized fuzzy number
and each linguistic term in Table 2. We translate the generalized number
into a linguistic term that has the largest degree of similarity to
.
Step 3: The recommended item is the closest to the requirements of the user.
This study adopted the fuzzy recommendation process [19] to suggest a hospital to patients. In 2005, Choi et al. [20] assessed the quality of health services on four quality dimensions: degree of physician concern, degree of staff concern, convenience of the care process, and tangibles. They adopted these dimensions to evaluate patient satisfaction in hospitals in South Korea [20]. Fletcher et al. [21] and Ware et al. [22] found that the importance of each dimension varies with the age of the patient. These dimensions [20] were adopted in the recommendation process. Consider three hospitals
, each described by a set of four features
, where
is the degree of physician concern;
is the degree of staff concern;
is the convenience of the care process, and
is tangibles. Taken from Table 2, evaluated values are represented by generalized fuzzy numbers (Table 3) where
denotes the degree of strength of feature
in hospital
;
is the weight of feature
in the hospital;
,
and
.
Table 3. Evaluating
,
and
for different hospitals.
|
|
Hospitals |
|
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
The algorithm for the fuzzy recommendation process is adopted to recommend a hospital for patients.
[Step 1] Based on (38), (39) and Table 3,
for hospital
is calculated as:
The value for hospital
is
and for hospital
is
.
[Step 2] Based on (35), (36) and (37) and Table 2, the degrees of similarity between
for hospital
and the linguistic terms in Table 2 can be calculated as:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
has the largest value, the value
for hospital
is “Fairly inferior”. The degree of similarity exceeds the degrees of similarity between
and linguistic terms in Table 2,
for hospital
is “Fairly superior”. The degree of similarity exceeds the degrees of similarity between
and linguistic terms in Table 2,
for hospital
is “Average”.
[Step 3] Based on the results, hospital
is recommended as matching the needs of the user.
7. Conclusion
This study presents a new approach for calculating the similarity between generalized fuzzy numbers. The study demonstrated the proposed similarity measure with 44 sets of generalized fuzzy numbers applied for comparison with the eight existing similarity measures. Figure 6 and Table 1 indicate that the proposed similarity measure overcomes the shortcomings of existing similarity measures. The proposed similarity measure is more flexible and effective than existing methods. Future research could extend the application of the proposed similarity measure to other domains, such as Fuzzy Pattern Recognition, to further validate its flexibility and effectiveness across different contexts.