INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL COGNITION (HTTP://WWW.YANGSKY.COM/YANGIJCC.HTM), VOL. 3, NO.
4, DECEMBER 2005 73
Fuzzy Controller: Choosing an Appropriate and
Smallest Rule Set
Seema Chopra, R. Mitra and Vijay Kumar
Abstract— Design of fuzzy controller depends mainly on rule
base and to derive the desired and small fuzzy rule base
is still based on trial and error. This paper concentrates on
choosing the rule base and gives some useful results. Firstly,
it has been shown that increasing the rules and number of
membership functions beyond a certain limit is useless as it
increases the complexity of FLC and has almost no effect on
output response on the system. Secondly, the authors investigate
how fuzzy subtractive clustering approach, modelled from a set
of input/output data; can be applied to the area of control theory
for linear and nonlinear dynamic systems. The objective of using
this approach is to design a fuzzy logic controller with less
number of rules leading to a smaller amount of computational
time. Although the number of rules is automatically determined
by this method, an user-specified parameter ra (the radius
of influence of cluster center) strongly affects the number of
rules that will be generated. Thirdly, a suggestion to choose
the value of ra is also given. To support the work, well-known
examples of linear and nonlinear systems are simulated under
the Matlab/Simulink environment. Both noisy and non-noisy data
have been considered. Simulation shows the effectiveness of the
proposed fuzzy logic controller as compared to existing fuzzy
logic controllers. Copyright ° c 2005 Yang’s Scientific Research
Institute, LLC. All rights reserved.
Index Terms— Fuzzy control, fuzzy subtractive clustering,
extraction of small rule base, radius of cluster center.
I. I NTRODUCTION
W HILE modern control theory has made a modest inroad
into practice, fuzzy logic control has been rapidly
gaining popularity among practicing engineers. This increased
popularity can be attributed to the fact that fuzzy logic pro-
vides a powerful vehicle that allows engineers to incorporate
human reasoning in the control algorithm. As opposed to the
modern control theory, fuzzy logic design is not based on the
mathematical model of the process. The controller designed
using fuzzy logic implements human reasoning that has been
programmed into fuzzy logic language (membership functions,
rules and the rule interpretation).
When it comes to implementing a fuzzy controller, one often
wants to try to minimize the amount of memory used and the
time that it takes to compute the fuzzy controller outputs given
some inputs. If the inputs to the fuzzy controller are increased
Manuscript received August 30, 2005; revised September 14, 2005.
Seema Chopra, R. Mitra and Vijay Kumar, Department of Electronics
and Computer Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.
Emails: seemadec@iitr.ernet.in(S. Chopra), rmtrafec@iitr.ernet.in(R. Mitra),
vijecfec@iitr.ernet.in(V. Kumar)
Publisher Item Identifier S 1542-5908(05)10407-2/$20.00
Copyright c
°2005 Yang’s Scientific Research Institute, LLC. All
rights reserved. The online version posted on September 15, 2005 at
http://www.yangsky.us/ijcc/ijcc34.htm
with membership functions for each input, then the number of
rules increases exponentially (assuming all possible rules are
used, which is often the case). For example, in a two-input
fuzzy controller with 11 membership functions for each input,
the possible rules are 112 =121, and if the number of inputs
are increased, this number will quickly increase. To overcome
this problem, the user may want to put constraints on the type
of fuzzy controller (e.g., membership functions) or limit the
rules. One of the most important problems while designing
fuzzy controller is to derive the desired fuzzy rule base. Trial
and error has been a natural choice to design fuzzy controller
in this case. The selection of fuzzy if-then rules often relies
on a substantial amount of heuristic observations to express
proper strategy. Obviously it is difficult for human experts to
examine all the input-output data from a complex system to
find the number of proper rules for a fuzzy system. To cope
with this difficulty, much research effort has been devoted to
develop alternative design methods.
Guillaume reviewed many fuzzy inference systems designed
from data and concluded that the blind improvement of the
performance by a numerical index may conflict with the
originality of fuzzy logic: its interpretability [1]. Instead he
suggested three conditions to make a set of induced rules: 1)
fuzzy sets can be interpreted as linguistic labels, 2) the set
of rules must be as small as possible and 3) rules should be
incomplete rules. Zadeh suggested linguistic analysis and em-
phasized significant statements for complex systems [2]. This
requires that fuzzy rules should be expressed in linguistically
meaningful forms and that the size of the rule base should
be small enough to allow modelling of complex systems
to be easily interpreted by experts. Tang-Kai [4] presents
a characteristic-point-based fuzzy inference system (CPFIS)
for fuzzy modelling aimed to minimize the number of rules.
The aim of the CFPIS is not only a satisfactory and precise
performance, but also to employ as few purely linguistic fuzzy
rules as possible by using a minimization-based systematic
training method. Zhiqiang Gao, Thomas A. Trautzsch and
James G. Dawson [3] concluded that Unlike some fuzzy
controllers with hundreds and even thousands, of rules running
on dedicated computer systems, a unique FLC using a small
number of rules and straightforward implementation may be
employed to solve a class of temperature control problems
with unknown dynamics or variable time delays commonly
found in industry.
Based on the above research, we are motivated to design
a Fuzzy logic controller (FLC), which exhibits good perfor-
mance with smallest possible rule base. In a conventional
fuzzy logic controller, the number of rules is decided by an
74 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL COGNITION (HTTP://WWW.YANGSKY.COM/YANGIJCC.HTM), VOL. 3, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2005
expert who is familiar with the system to be modelled. In our
simulation, however, no expert is available and the number of
membership functions (MF’s) assigned to each input variable
is chosen empirically, i.e., by examining the desired input-
output data [8]. Basically, there are two types of fuzzy logic
controllers. One is Mamdani type, the other is Takagi-Sugeno
(TS) type [12,14]. Compared with Mamdani type FLC, TS
type FLC can have similar performance with much less
number of rules. Unfortunately, the physical meaning of rule
consequent in TS type FLC is not as straightforward as that
in Mamdani type. The determination of the parameters for
the rule consequents is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Various TS type FLC design and optimization approaches have
been proposed. To design TS type FLC, the number of fuzzy
values for each linguistic variable, the membership function
for each fuzzy value, the number of rules, the rule antecedents,
and the form of consequent function must be determined.
In our previous research [13, 15 and 19] for the reduction
of rules for fuzzy controllers we used Fuzzy curve, Fuzzy
subtracting clustering (FSC) and neural networks. It has also
been proved in [13] that after reducing the rules (using the
FSC approach) the performance of the reduced rule controller
is similar to the original system. Although the number of rules
is automatically determined by this method, the user-specified
parameter ra (the radius of influence of cluster center) strongly
affects the number of rules that will be generated. A large ra
generally results in fewer rules, while a small ra can produce
excessive number of clusters and thus a large number of rules.
Unfortunately, there is no standard procedure for choosing ra .
In this paper, a method to choose the value of ra is also
suggested.
This paper has two main contributions. Firstly, it has been
shown that by increasing the rules and number of membership
functions beyond a certain limit is useless. It only increases
the complexity of FLC and has no effect on output response
on the system. Secondly, the rules are reduced using FSC
approach with a constant ra (which is decided by a common
criterion in all cases) and the results are compared with
larger rule set. A comparison between the clustering based
Fuzzy Logic Controllers (FLC) and conventional Fuzzy Logic
Controllers using simulation of a wide range of linear and
nonlinear processes is presented. Simulation results of well
known examples of pendulum, coupled tank and robot arm
has also been tested. Due to limitation of space, all the results
are not included here.
II. F UZZY L OGIC C ONTROLLER
A block diagram of a fuzzy control system is shown in
Figure 1.The fuzzy controller is composed of the following
four elements:
1) A rule-base (a set of if-then rules), which contains
a fuzzy logic quantification of the expert’s linguistic
description of how to achieve good control.
2) An inference mechanism (also called a fuzzy inference
engine), which emulates the expert’s decision making in
interpreting and applying knowledge about how best to
control the plant.
3) A fuzzification interface, which converts controller in-
puts into information that the inference mechanism can
easily use to activate and apply rules.
4) A defuzzification interface, which converts the conclu-
sions of the inference mechanism in to actual inputs for
the process.
For choosing the inputs and outputs of fuzzy controller,
the controller is to be designed to automate how a human
expert who is successful at this task would control the system.
First, the expert tells us (the designers of the fuzzy controller)
what information the user will use as inputs to the decision-
making process. Suppose that for the inverted pendulum [18],
the expert says that the user will use
d
e(t) = r(t) − y(t) and e(t) (1)
dt
as the variables on which decisions are based [10, 11].
Certainly, there are many other choices (e.g., the integral of the
error e could also be used) but this choice makes good intuitive
sense. Next the controlled variable of fuzzy controller is u(t)
but in this paper the incremental change in controller output
∆u is taken as output. This will be helpful for common rule
base for any type of fuzzy controller (may be fuzzy PI type,
PD type or PID type controller). Once the fuzzy controller
inputs and outputs are chosen, one must think about what
are the membership functions (MFs) are for these input and
output variables. After surveying the literature, for a two input
fuzzy controller MFs are 3, 5, 7, 9 or 11 for each input are
mostly used. It is a general view that if the number of MFs
between the defined ranges is larger, then the possible rules
increases and the response will be good. In this paper, all
membership functions for controller inputs (i.e., e and ∆e)
and incremental change in controller output (i.e., ∆u) are
defined on the common normalized domain [−1, 1]. Here, the
7 membership functions are shown in Fig. 2. Similarly all
other MFs when the number is 3, 5, 9 or 11 can be divided
into the normalized domain.
Fuzzy Controller
Inference
Fuzzification
Defuzzification
Reference Input Output
signal r(t)
mechanism
u(t) y(t)
Process
Rule-base
Fig. 1. Block diagram of fuzzy controller.
Now the next step is to design the rule base. The incremental
change in controller output ∆u for a fuzzy controller is
determined by the rules of the form:
If e is E and ∆e is ∆E, then ∆u is ∆U .
CHOPRA, MITRA & KUMAR, FUZZY CONTROLLER 75

NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
1 ∆e/e NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
NM NB NB NB NM NS NS ZE
NM NB NM NM NM NS ZE PS
NS NB NM NS NS ZE PS PM
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 ZE NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
Fig. 2. MFs for e, ∆e and ∆u. PS NM NS ZE PS PS PM PB
PM NS ZE PS PM PM PM PB
The set of rule bases for computing the output is shown in PB ZE PS PS PM PB PB PB
Fig. 3, which is a fairly standard one. If the number of MFs
for inputs is 7 the corresponding rules are 72 = 49. Similarly Fig. 5. Rule base 3. NB-Negative Big, NM-Negative Medium, NS-Negative
in all other cases the possible rules are 32 =9, 52 =25, 92 =81, Small, NVS-Negative Very Small, ZE-Zero Error, PS-Positive Small, PVS-
Positive Very Small, PM-Positive Medium, PB-Positive Big.
and 112 =121. These are an often used rule base designed with
a two-dimensional phase plane in mind where the FLC drives
the system into the so-called sliding mode. The rule base 1 ∆e/e NB NM NS NVS ZE PVS PS PM PB

for 9 rules, rule base 2 for 25 rules, rule base 3 for 49 rules NB NB NB NB NB NB NM NS NVS ZE

and rule base 4 for 81 rules is shown in Fig. 3 to Fig. 6. NM NB NB NB NB NM NS NVS ZE PVS
NS NB NB NB NM NS NVS ZE PVS PS
NVS NB NB NM NS NVS ZE PVS PS PM

∆e/e
ZE NB NM NS NVS ZE PVS PS PM PB
NB ZE PB PVS NM NS NVS ZE PVS PS PM PB PB
PS NS NVS ZE PVS PS PM PB PB PB

NB NB NB ZE PM NVS ZE PVS PS PM PB PB PB PB
PB ZE PVS PS PM PB PB PB PB PB

ZE NB ZE PB Fig. 6. Rule base 4. NB-Negative Big, NM-Negative Medium, NS-Negative

Small, NVS-Negative Very Small, ZE-Zero Error, PS-Positive Small, PVS-
Positive Very Small, PM-Positive Medium, PB-Positive Big.

PB ZE PB PB
Fig. 3. Rule base 1. NB-Negative Big, NM-Negative Medium, NS-Negative
Small, NVS-Negative Very Small, ZE-Zero Error, PS-Positive Small, PVS-
Positive Very Small, PM-Positive Medium, PB-Positive Big. III. F UZZY L OGIC C ONTROLLER U SING FSC A PPROACH
To identify the Fuzzy controller using FSC approach, some
data is needed, i.e., a set of two-dimensional input vectors
X = {X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn } where X = {e and ∆e} and the
associated set of one-dimensional output vectors as Y =
∆e/e NB NM ZE PM PB {Y1 , . . . , Yn } where Y = {u} is required. In the present work
this data has been generated by sampling input variables e
NB NB NB NB NM ZE and ∆e uniformly at the step size of 0.1 from the above
Fuzzy controllers, and computing the value of {u} for each
NM NB NB NM ZE PM sampled point. The Fuzzy toolbox of Matlab and programming
in Matlab has been used to generate the data points. In all
ZE NB NM ZE PM PB the above fuzzy controllers the membership functions for
controller inputs (i.e., e and ∆e) and incremental change in
PM NM ZE PM PB PB controller output (i.e., ∆u) are all defined on the common
normalized domain [-1, 1]. The number of data points thus
PB ZE PM PB PB PB generated in is 441 each case. The next task is to extract a
smaller set of rules using FSC approach to do the same.
Fig. 4. Rule base 2. NB-Negative Big, NM-Negative Medium, NS-Negative To extract rules from data, we first separate the data into
Small, NVS-Negative Very Small, ZE-Zero Error, PS-Positive Small, PVS-
Positive Very Small, PM-Positive Medium, PB-Positive Big. groups according to their respective classes. Here it is a
collection of 441 data points {x1 , x2 ,..., xn } in 3 dimensional
space (because X has 2 columns and Y has 1 column) .
Without loss of generality, it is assumed that the data points
have been normalized in each dimension so that they are
76 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL COGNITION (HTTP://WWW.YANGSKY.COM/YANGIJCC.HTM), VOL. 3, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2005

bounded by a unit hypercube. Each data point is considered as
a possible cluster center and defines a measure of the potential
of data point xi as
n
X 2
Pi = e−αkxi −xj k (2)
j=1
where
4 In order to demonstrate the effectiveness and better com-
α= . (3)
ra2
k · k denotes the Euclidean distance, and ra is a positive
constant. Thus, the measure of the potential for a data point is
a function of its distances to all other data points. A data point
with many neighboring data points will have a high potential
value.
The constant ra is effectively the radius defining a neigh-
borhood; data points outside this radius have little influence
on the potential. The parameter ra strongly affects the number
of clusters that will be generated. Now to choose the radius
ra we always keep in mind that it has a value between 0 and
1 and it specifies the size of the cluster in each of the data
dimensions. Specifying a smaller cluster radius will usually
yield more (smaller) clusters in the data. We suggest that the
radius of influence in the first data dimension is half the width
of the data space (range of data) and the range of influence
in the second data dimension is one quarter the width of the
data space and so on [13,15] is a good choice. When data is
generated after sampling the inputs variables to calculate the
output variable the range of output lies between -1 and 1 and
exact range depends on the shape and number of membership
functions. When e, ∆e and ∆u have 9 membership functions
then the output is in the range of −0.85 to 0.85. Hence the
value of ra for the entire 3 data dimension is [1 0.5 0.2125].
Similarly, we choose value in all other cases when the rules
are 121, 49 and 25.
After the potential of every data point has been computed,
we select the data point with the highest potential as the first
cluster center as discussed in [5]. The process of acquiring
new cluster center and revising potentials repeats until the
remaining potential of all data points falls below some fraction
of the potential of the first cluster center P1∗ . Hence, after the
whole process eight clusters are found in each case.
of membership functions beyond 49 rules is futile. It increases
the complexity of FLC and has no effect on output response
on the system. The results using 9 rules, 25 rules, 49 rules and
81 rules are presented in support of this. Secondly, the rules
are reduced to 8 rules using FSC approach. A comparison
between the clustering based Fuzzy Logic Controllers (FLC)
and conventional Fuzzy Logic Controllers using unit step input
in both cases is presented.
parison of the presented approach, the computational time is
calculated using the Process Explorer —Sysinternals software.
It has been shown clearly in the Table I that the value of
computational time reduces for each system in case of 8 rules
then 49 and 81 rules even using same simulation time.
The general control scheme of the system comprising of a
Fuzzy PI type Controller is shown in Fig. 7. The change in
error is defined as
∆e(k) = e(k) − e(k − 1) (4)
where e(k) is the error at the kth sample. Here the input and
output gains are Ge , G∆e and Gu . The operation of PI type
FLC can be described by
u(k) = u(k − 1) + ∆u(k) (5)
In (5), ∆u is the incremental change in controller output,
which is determined by the rules of the form
If e is E and ∆e is ∆E, then ∆u is ∆U .
Here it is emphasized that this accumulation (5) of controller
output takes place outside the FLC and is not reflected in the
rules themselves. On the other hand, if the output of the FLC
is u (not ∆u) and there is no accumulation of controller output
then Fig 7 is converted to a PD type FLC [9, 11].
∆eN
- ∆e
Z-1 G∆e ∆uN ∆u +
+ u
R + e e eN
Control
Gu
Rule-Base
Ge +
-
y Z-1
y Process

To extract the rules, firstly data is separated into groups

according to their respective classes. Subtractive clustering Fig. 7. Fuzzy PI type controller.
is then applied to the input space of each group of data
individually for identifying each class of data [6, 7, 20-22].
Hence the total rules are 8 in each case. Now it has been seen
The proposed FLC is applied to a PT2 system (inverted
that using subtractive clustering and by choosing the value of
pendulum) [18] which is given by the following differential
ra by the above mentioned method 81, 49, and 25 rules can be
equation:
converted into 8 rules. In the next section, the implementation
and results using the FSC approach and without clustering is 1 2D
presented. ẍ + ẋ + x = V y (6)
wo2 wo
where
IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS √
2√
wo = 50, D =
2, V = 1. (7)
The proposed controller has been tested on a variety of 5
processes. Two sets of simulation results are presented next. The PT2 system models the behavior of a two mass system
Firstly it has been shown that increasing the rules and number where y as an input variable and x as an output variable, for
CHOPRA, MITRA & KUMAR, FUZZY CONTROLLER 77

0.7
example, spring damper combinations or revolution controls
for electric motors. This system is controlled by FPDC in all
0.6
cases (using 9 rules, 25 rules, 49 rules and 81 rules) and results
are compared in Fig. 8.
0.5
It is observed that when the rules are increased from 49 rules
to 81 rules then the unit step response is almost same as using
0.4
49 rules. And when the rules are 9 and 25 then the response

Output
is distinctly different. Hence when rules are less (may be upto
25) it is desirable to increase the rules for a proper response 0.3

but after increasing the rules to a certain limit (49 rules in this
case) there is no need to go beyond since the response does 0.2
not change appreciably.
Now the next objective is to justify whether the Fuzzy 0.1
FPDC
controller with reduced number of rules (obtained by FSC) can HFPDC
provide the same level of performance as that of the system 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
with 49 rules and 81 rules. To demonstrate the effectiveness of Time (sec.)
the FSC approach, the results are reported for system with 49
rules and 81 rules and system with FSC minimized rule base Fig. 9. Unit step response of inverted pendulum with 81 rules (FPDC) and
(8 rules). In case of Fuzzy PI type and PD type controller, 8 rules (HFPDC).
the system with 49 rules and 81 rules is denoted by FPIC
and FPDC and system with 8 rules is denoted by HFPIC and
HFPDC. In this paper, it is emphasize that a reduced rule 1
base system is called satisfactory only with respect to the G2 (s) = .e−0.1S (8)
s+1
closeness of its step response to the large rule base system. In
Fig 9, it has been shown that the unit step response of inverted A 2% random noise is also added in the system in case of
pendulum system with 81 rules (FPDC) is very close to 8 rules FPDC system. Fuzzy controller with 49 and 81 rules again
(HFPDC). gives an identical performance in case of FPIC as shown in
Fig 10. The response characteristics of FPDC (with noisy data)
and FPIC (with non-noisy data) with 49 rules and 8 rules using
0.7 FSC approach are also shown in the Fig 11 and 12. Here again
the performance of 8 rules (with FSC approach) is close to the
0.6 original system (49 rules).

0.5 1.4

0.4 1.2
Output

0.3 1

0.2 0.8
Output

9 rules
0.1 25 rules 0.6
49 rules
81 rules
0 0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (sec.)
9 rules
0.2 25 rules
Fig. 8. Unit step response of inverted pendulum system with FPDC. 49 rules
81 rules
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec.)

Fig. 10. Unit Step Response of G1 (s) = e−0.1s /(s + 1) with FPIC.
Finally, the proposed fuzzy logic controller is applied on a
well-known example of first order time delay process. This
form of transfer function is typically used to approximate
process control systems (8). The process plant is taken as first
order system with time delay and transfer function is given To summarize, firstly the response using 9, 25, 49 and 81
by: rules are shown and it has been proved that increasing the
78 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL COGNITION (HTTP://WWW.YANGSKY.COM/YANGIJCC.HTM), VOL. 3, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2005

0.7 1.4

0.6 1.2

0.5 1

0.4 0.8
Output

Output
0.3 0.6

0.2 0.4

0.1 0.2
FPDC FPIC
HFPDC HFPIC
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)

Fig. 11. Unit step response of G1 (s) = e−0.1s/(s+1) including noisy data Fig. 12. Unit Step Response of G1 (s) = e−0.1s /(s + 1) without noisy
with FPDC (49 rules) and HFPDC (8 rules). data with FPIC (49 rules) and HFPIC (8 rules).

number of rules after a certain limit is useless. Secondly, data R EFERENCES

set is generated by the FLC with 49 and 81 rules by choosing
the value of ra as specified. Using the same data Fuzzy
controller is designed using FSC approach and it gives 8 rules
in both cases. The overall performance of the proposed Fuzzy
Controllers (with 8 rules) is compared with those of Fuzzy
Controller with 49 rules and 81 rules. Response characteristics
of the identified system in both cases (FPDC and FPIC) are
very close to the original one.
TABLE I
Sr. No. System With 8 rules With 49 rules
1 Inverted pendulum 422 ms 2 sec 47 ms
2 -0.1s
e /(s+1) with 687 ms 5 sec 297 ms
noise
3 e-0.1s /(s+1) with 859 ms 7 sec 672 ms
FPIC
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper presents two valuable results regarding rule
base of fuzzy controller. Firstly it has established that rules
should be in a certain limit. Increasing the rules beyond that
limit is ineffective. Secondly, the rules can be reduced using
FSC approach and gives the similar performance as by the
larger rule set. But in FSC approach to choose the value of
radius of influence is based on hit and trial. In this paper,
an idea to choose the value of ra is also given. Based on
that value of ra the rules are reduced in all cases. The rules
are reduced to 8 from 81, 49 and 25. Simulation results
show that by choosing the value of ra in this way gives
us a closed performance. In addition, well-known examples
of inverted pendulum and a delayed process with noisy and
non-noisy data are simulated and comparison of results has
shown effectiveness of a proposed fuzzy controller using FSC
approach.
[1] S. Guillaume, “Designing fuzzy inference systems from data: an
interpretability-oriented review,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy System, vol. 9, pp.
426-443, June 2001.
[2] L. A. Zadeh, “Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex sys-
tems and decision processes,” IEEE Trans. System., Man, Cybernetics,
vol. SMC-3 pp. 28-24, Jan, 1973.
[3] Zhiqiang Gao, Thomas A. Trautzsch and James G. Dawson, “A Sta-
ble Self-Tuning Fuzzy Logic Control System for Industrial Tempera-
ture Regulation”. URL: http://academic.csuohio.edu/aerl/papers/IAS200-
FLC-Tempctrl.pdf
[4] Tang-Kai, “A Characteristic-point-based fuzzy inference system aimed
to minimize the number of rules,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy System, vol. 12,
No. 2, pp. 250-273, April 2004.
With 81 rules
3 sec 406 ms
[5] S.L. Chiu, “Fuzzy model identification based on cluster estimation”,
8 sec 953 ms Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy System, Vol.2, pp. 267-278, 1994
[6] S. Chiu, “Extracting fuzzy rules from data for function approximation
9 sec 625 ms and pattern classification,” to appear as Chapter 9 in Fuzzy Set Methods
in Information Engineering: A Guided Tour of Applications, ed. D.
Dubois, H. Prade, and R. Yager, John Wiley, 1997.
[7] S. Chiu, “An Efficient Method for Extracting Fuzzy Classification Rules
from High Dimensional Data” J. Advanced Computational Intelligence,
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1997.
[8] F. Klawonn, R. Kruse, “Constructing a fuzzy controller from data”,
Fuzzy sets and Systems Vol. 85, 1997 pp 177-193.
[9] Kuhu Pal, Rajani K. Mudi, and Nikhil R. Pal, “A New Scheme for
Fuzzy Rule-Based System Identification and Its Application to Self-
Tuning Fuzzy Controllers”, IEEE transactions on systems, man, and
cybernetics—part b: cybernetics, vol. 32, no. 4, August 2002.
[10] Petr Pivonka, “Comparative analysis of Fuzzy PI/PD/PID
controller based on classical PID controller approach”. URL:
http://www.feec.vutbr.cz/∼pivonka/
[11] R.K.Mudi and N.R.Pal, A robust self-tuning scheme for PI and PD type
fuzzy controllers, IEEE trans. Fuzzy System., 7(1), 1999, 2-16.
[12] James Carvajal, Guanrong Chen, Haluk Ogmen, “Fuzzy PID controller:
Design, performance evaluation, and stability analysis,” Information
Sciences, 123, 2000, 249- 270.
[13] Seema Chopra, R. Mitra and Vijay Kumar, “Identification Of Rules
Using Subtractive Clustering With Application To Fuzzy Controllers,”
Proc. of the Third International Conference on Machine Learning and
Cybernetics, 2004, 4125-4131.
[14] D. Driankov, H. Hellendorn, and M. Reinfrank, An Introduction to Fuzzy
Control. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[15] Seema Chopra, R. Mitra and Vijay Kumar, “Identification of Self-
Tuning Fuzzy PI type controllers with reduced rule set,” Proc. of the
IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control,
(Accepted) Conference is in March, 2005.
CHOPRA, MITRA & KUMAR, FUZZY CONTROLLER 79

[16] K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, 1970.
[17] M. Gopal, Control Systems Principles and Design. India: Tata McGraw-
Hill, 1993.
[18] Kevin M.Passino and Stephen Yurkovich, “Fuzzy Control”, Addison
Wesley Longman, Inc., California, 1998.
[19] Seema Chopra, R Mitra, Vijay Kumar, “Analysis and Design of Fuzzy
models using Fuzzy Curves”, Proceedings of the Second national
Conference on Intelligent systems & networks, Page 65-71, Feb, 25-26,
2005.
[20] Dae-Won Kim, Ki Young Lee, Doheon Lee, and Kwang H. Lee, “A
kernel-based subtractive clustering method,” Pattern Recognition Letters
26 (2005) 879–891.
[21] Plamen Angelov and Richard Buswell, “Evolving Rule- based Models:
A Tool for Intelligent Adaptation”, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
[22] P. Angelov and R. Buswell, “Identification of evolving fuzzy rule-based
models,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 10, pp. 667-677, Oct. 2002.