Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 56 references

On the nonlinear programming problems subject to a system of generalized bipolar fuzzy relational equalities defined with continuous t-norms

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For any continuous t-norm, the feasible region of a bipolar fuzzy relational equality system is a finite union of compact blocks, and its nonlinear optimization reduces to checking one extremal point per block.

desk verdict Core decomposition for bipolar FREs with arbitrary continuous t-norms is solid and worth citing, but Algorithm 1's infeasibility handling has a fixable gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15225 v2 pith:N5ZVVHGD submitted 2024-11-21 math.OC

Amin Ghodousian , Mohammad Sedigh Chopannavaz This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C7003E7290C30
keywords bipolarfuzzyrelationalequationscontinuoust-normsmax-continuouscompositionsglobaloptimizationnonlinearfeasiblesetdecompositionadmissiblefunctionsDubois-Pradet-norm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper develops a general theory for systems of bipolar fuzzy relational equalities in which each constraint is a maximum of two continuous t-norm compositions, one on the variable $x_j$ and one on its complement $1-x_j$. The authors prove that the feasible set of such a system is exactly a union of finitely many Cartesian products, each indexed by an 'admissible function' that assigns every equation to one variable column; this holds for every continuous t-norm, including non-Archimedean ones where the feasible blocks can be disconnected. From that decomposition they show that for any continuous objective $f$ that is non-decreasing in some variables and non-increasing in the others, the global minimum is obtained by evaluating $f$ at one extremal point per block and taking the smallest value. The result matters because it turns a hard-looking nonlinear constraint system into a finite enumeration and covers many common objectives, from linear functions to maximum eigenvalues and support functions.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the scalar solution-set lemma: for a fixed continuous t-norm $\varphi$ and fixed $a,b\in[0,1]$, the set $\{x\in[0,1]:\varphi(a,x)=b\}$ is either empty or a closed interval $[l,u]$, with $l,u$ given by closed-form formulas (Lemma 2.2 and Table A2). This turns each bipolar term $\max\{\varphi(a^+_{ij},x_j),\varphi(a^-_{ij},1-x_j)\}=b_i$ into interval conditions, and the paper's sets $S'_{ij}=S_{ij}\cap I_j$ encode the values of $x_j$ that are compatible with equation $i$ and with the global upper and lower bounds $I_j$. The central combinatorial object is the admissible function $e\in E$: a choice, for each equation $i$, of a column $j$ such that the intersections $\bigcap_{i:e(i)=j}S'_{ij}$ are nonempty. $E$ is finite, bounded by $\prod_i |J_i|$, and Theorem 3.9 shows that the feasible set is exactly the union of the Cartesian products $S(e)$ over all $e\in E$; optimization then reduces to comparing the extremal points $x^*(e)$.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a product-t-norm instance with one variable and two equations in which $I_1\neq\emptyset$ and $S'_{11},S'_{21}\neq\emptyset$ but $S'_{11}\cap S'_{21}=\emptyset$; the algorithm will output a nonempty $S$, whereas the true feasible set is empty. Exhibiting such an instance (which exists) settles whether the necessary checks are sufficient for the algorithm's correctness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a continuous t-norm $\varphi$, each scalar equation $\varphi(a,x)=b$ has a solution set that is either empty or a closed interval $[l,u]$ (Lemma 2.2). The paper uses this to characterize, for every cell $(i,j)$, the set $S_{ij}$ of values $x_j$ that can make equation $i$ fire without exceeding $b_i$, and then intersects with the coordinate-wise interval $I_j$ to obtain $S'_{ij}=S_{ij}\cap I_j$. An admissible function $e$ assigns each equation $i$ to a column $j$ so that the sets $S'_{ij}$ assigned to the same column have nonempty intersection; Theorem 3.9 states that the feasible set $S(A^+,A^-,b)$ equals $\bigcup_{e\in E}\prod_{j\in J} S(e)_j$, where $S(e)_j = \bigcap_{i:e(i)=j} S'_{ij}$ (or $I_j$ if no equation is assigned to column $j$). Because each block $S(e)$ is compact and $f$ is monotone in each coordinate in a fixed direction, the extremal point $x^*(e)$ that takes the minimum on $J^+$ coordinates and the maximum on $J^-$ coordinates minimizes $f$ on that block, and the global optimum is the minimum of $f(x^*(e))$ over all admissible $e$ (Theorems 5.2 and 5.3).

Load-bearing premise

Algorithm 1 relies on the system being feasible before simplification, but its Steps 2–3 only test necessary conditions, so an infeasible system that passes them can be assigned a spurious nonempty feasible set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any continuous t-norm, the feasible region is a finite union of compact (possibly disconnected) sets, so the global optimum of any order-compatible continuous objective is attained and can be found by finite enumeration.
  • Traditional fuzzy relational equations $A\circ x=b$ are the special case $A^-=0$, so the same decomposition and algorithm apply to max-continuous-t-norm FRE systems.
  • Non-Archimedean t-norms such as Dubois-Prade, which produce disconnected feasible blocks, are handled without extra assumptions beyond continuity.
  • The five simplification rules identify redundant equations and fixed variables before enumeration, reducing the number of admissible functions and the cost of the search.
  • The finite candidate set $F^*=\{x^*(e):e\in E\}$ contains all global optimizers, so the problem has only finitely many local optima to compare.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the decomposition depends only on the scalar intervals $[l,u]$ for the chosen t-norm, the same software could solve problems for any continuous t-norm by swapping the formulas in Table A2; the paper does not present this as a design principle.
  • The candidate-set structure suggests that branch-and-bound or column-generation methods could be built on the $S'_{ij}$ data to avoid enumerating all admissible functions when $m,n$ grow; this is an extension, not a claim in the paper.
  • If the necessary conditions of Lemma 3.1 were strengthened to a complete feasibility test, Algorithm 1 would be sound without an external feasibility oracle; the paper leaves that strengthening open.
  • Since the decomposition is independent of the objective, it could be reused for multi-objective or robust optimization over the same constraint system, evaluating several different $f$ against the same precomputed blocks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies systems of bipolar fuzzy relational equalities of the form max_j max(phi(a+_ij,x_j), phi(a-_ij,1-x_j)) = b_i, where phi is an arbitrary continuous t-norm. It characterizes the feasible set S(A+,A-,b) as a finite union of Cartesian products S(e) indexed by admissible functions e (Theorem 3.9), derives two necessary feasibility conditions (Lemma 3.1), proposes five simplification rules and an algorithm (Algorithm 1) for generating the feasible region, and then solves nonlinear optimization problems with objective functions that are monotone in each variable by evaluating extremal points x*(e) over all admissible functions (Theorems 5.2 and 5.3). A fully worked example using the Dubois-Prade t-norm is provided.

Significance. The main structural result, Theorem 3.9, is a genuine generalization of earlier work on bipolar FREs with Archimedean t-norms to arbitrary continuous t-norms, and the observation that the feasible set splits into finitely many compact, not necessarily connected components is valuable. The paper also supplies explicit formulas for the solution intervals for many common continuous t-norms (Table A2), which makes the framework directly applicable. The optimization results (Theorems 5.2 and 5.3) are clean consequences of the decomposition and correctly cover a wide class of objective functions. However, the correctness of the algorithmic pipeline is not adequately justified for infeasible inputs, and the paper overstates the feasibility conditions as 'necessary and sufficient' in the abstract. These issues affect the main deliverable (Algorithm 1) and need to be addressed.

major comments (1)
  1. [Algorithm 1] Rules 4.1-4.5 are all proved in Appendix B under the explicit standing hypothesis S(A+,A-,b) != empty (see Lemma B1 and the proofs of each rule). Algorithm 1, however, applies these rules after checking only the necessary conditions of Lemma 3.1 (Step 2: Ij != empty; Step 3: for each i some S'_ij != empty). These conditions are not sufficient for feasibility. A concrete counterexample with the minimum t-norm is: n=1, m=2, a+_11=0.6, a-_11=0, b1=0.6, a+_21=0, a-_21=0.6, b2=0.6. Then I1=[0,1], S'_11=[0.6,1], and S'_21=[0,0.4], so both necessary conditions hold, but the equations force x1>=0.6 and x1<=0.4, hence S(A+,A-,b)=empty. In this particular example the final intersection step still yields empty, but the algorithm's Step 4 may delete equations before that final step, and the proofs provide no guarantee that deleting an equation in an infeasible system cannot make the reduced problem feasible. The paper should either prove that the simplification rules are valid without the feasibility assumption, insert a sufficiency test before Step 4 (for example, checking that at least one admissible function in the original problem yields a nonempty S(e)), or state a precise feasibility detection procedure. Without this, the claim that Algorithm 1 generates the feasible set S(A+,A-,b) is not established for all inputs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'some necessary and sufficient conditions are presented' for feasibility, but Lemma 3.1 gives only necessary conditions; Lemma 3.2 is a necessary and sufficient condition for a given point to be feasible, not a feasibility test for the system. The wording should be adjusted.
  2. [Section 2] In Definition 2.3, 'For each i ∈ J and each j ∈ J' should read 'for each i ∈ I and each j ∈ J'.
  3. [Section 2] Line 'S(A+, A−, b) = T i∈J Si' should have the intersection over i∈I, not i∈J.
  4. [Section 3] References to 'Theorem 1' and 'Remark 1' in the discussion after Theorem 3.9 should be to Theorem 3.9 and Remark 2.8, respectively; the theorem numbering used in the text is inconsistent.
  5. [Theorem 5.3] The statement 'If f (x∗ (e∗)) = min {x∗(e) : e ∈ E}' should be 'min {f(x∗(e)) : e ∈ E}' since x∗(e) is a vector and the minimum is taken over objective values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasible-set decomposition and the global-optimum characterization are derived in-paper, with no fitted prediction or self-referential construction at the core.

full rationale

The core result is Theorem 3.9, giving S(A+,A-,b)=union_{e in E} S(e). The proof is self-contained: Lemma 3.2 characterizes feasibility solely via x_j in I_j and each row hitting S'_ij, and Theorem 3.9 explicitly constructs the admissible function e from a feasible x and shows the converse. Nothing is fitted and no prediction is made; x*(e) computed in Definition 5.1 is demonstrably the min (or max) of S(e) for monotone objectives, so Theorems 5.2-5.3 do not reduce an input to an output. The only external input is Lemma 2.2 from the authors' earlier work [20], but it is an elementary interval fact for continuous t-norms, parameter-free, and it is independently tabulated for standard t-norms in Table A2. It does not assume the paper's target result. The reader's concern about Algorithm 1 using only necessary conditions before simplification is a correctness gap on infeasible instances, not a circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters and no invented entities. The only inputs are the continuous t-norm setting, the monotonicity restriction on the objective, and the inherited interval lemma. The algorithm additionally assumes feasibility before applying simplification rules, which is the main unstated premise.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption φ is a continuous t-norm
    Used throughout; Lemma 2.2 and Corollary 2.6 rely on continuity and monotonicity of φ(a,·).
  • standard math The scalar equation φ(a,x)=b has solution set [l,u] when a≥b (Lemma 2.2, cited from [20])
    Inherited from prior literature; used to compute all Sij and Iij intervals.
  • domain assumption The objective f is continuous and non-decreasing in variables in J+ and non-increasing in variables in J-
    Needed for Theorem 5.2 to reduce each S(e) to the componentwise extremal point x*(e).
  • ad hoc to paper Feasibility S(A+,A-,b) ≠ ∅ is assumed in Rules 4.1-4.5 and in Theorem 5.3's application
    Algorithm 1 applies the rules before establishing this; a concrete infeasible example shows the gap.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the nonlinear programming problems subject to a system of generalized bipolar fuzzy relational equalities defined with continuous t-norms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N5ZVVHGD

@misc{pith2026241115225,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the nonlinear programming problems subject to a system of generalized bipolar fuzzy relational equalities defined with continuous t-norms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N5ZVVHGD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15225}
}
read the original abstract

As a starting point, this paper develops the system of bipolar fuzzy relational equations (FRE) to the most general case, where bipolar FREs are defined by an arbitrary continuous t-norm. Due to the fact that fuzzy relational equations are special cases of bipolar FREs, the proposed system can also be viewed as a generalization of traditional FREs, in which the fuzzy composition can be defined by a continuous t-norm. In order to determine the feasibility of the proposed system, some necessary and sufficient conditions are presented for studying continuous bipolar FREs. This is followed by a complete analysis of the set of feasible solutions to the problem. Contrary to FREs and bipolar FREs defined by continuous Archimedean t-norms, the feasible solutions set of generalized bipolar FREs consists of a finite number of compact sets that are not necessarily connected. Further, five techniques have been outlined in an attempt to simplify the current problem, and then an algorithm has been presented to find the feasible region of the problem. Next, we present a class of optimization models subject to continuous bipolar FRE constraints, in which the objective function incorporates a wide range of (non)linear functions, such as maximum functions, geometric mean functions, log-sum-exp functions, maximum eigenvalues of symmetric matrices, support functions for sets, etc. Considering that the problem has a finite number of local optimal solutions, the global optimal solution can always be obtained by choosing the point with the minimum objective value among these local optimal solutions. Lastly, as a means to illustrate the definitions, theorems, and algorithms presented in the paper, a step-by-step example is presented in several sections, in which the constraints are a system of bipolar FREs defined by the Dubois-Prade t-norm, which is a continuous non-Archimedean t-norm.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms

    Mokhtar S Bazaraa, Hanif D Sherali, and Chitharanjan M Shetty. Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms . John wiley & sons, 2006. ISBN 9780471787778. doi: 10.1002/0471787779

    work page doi:10.1002/0471787779 2006

  2. [2]

    Convex optimization

    Stephen P Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convex optimization . Cambridge university press, 2004. ISBN 9780521833783. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511804441

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804441 2004

  3. [3]

    Linear optimization problem constrained by fuzzy max–min relation equations

    Cheung-Wen Chang and Bih-Sheue Shieh. Linear optimization problem constrained by fuzzy max–min relation equations. Information Sciences, 234:71–79, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.04.042

    doi:10.1016/j.ins.2011.04.042 2013

  4. [4]

    Fuzzy relation equations (i): the general and specialized solving algorithms

    Li Chen and Paul P Wang. Fuzzy relation equations (i): the general and specialized solving algorithms. Soft Computing, 6:428–435, 2002. doi: 10.1007/s00500-001-0157-3

    doi:10.1007/s00500-001-0157-3 2002

  5. [5]

    Fuzzy relation equations (ii): the branch-point-solutions and the categorized minimal solutions

    Li Chen and Paul P Wang. Fuzzy relation equations (ii): the branch-point-solutions and the categorized minimal solutions. Soft Computing , 11:33–40, 2007. doi: 10.1007/s00500-006-0050-1

    doi:10.1007/s00500-006-0050-1 2007

  6. [6]

    Bipolar fuzzy relation equations based on the product t- norm

    M Eugenia Cornejo, David Lobo, and Jesiis Medina. Bipolar fuzzy relation equations based on the product t- norm. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2017. doi: 10.1109/fuzz-ieee.2017.8015691

    work page arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    On the calculation of a membership function for the solution of a fuzzy linear optimization problem

    Stephan Dempe and Alina Ruziyeva. On the calculation of a membership function for the solution of a fuzzy linear optimization problem. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 188(1):58–67, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2011.07.014

    doi:10.1016/j.fss.2011.07.014 2012

  8. [8]

    Fuzzy relation equations and their applications to knowledge engineering , volume 3

    Antonio Di Nola, Salvatore Sessa, Witold Pedrycz, and Elie Sanchez. Fuzzy relation equations and their applications to knowledge engineering , volume 3. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-1650-5. 36 A. Ghodousian, M. S. Chopannavaz

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1650-5 2013

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Fuzzy linear programming under interval uncertainty based on ifs representation

    Dipti Dubey, Suresh Chandra, and Aparna Mehra. Fuzzy linear programming under interval uncertainty based on ifs representation. Fuzzy sets and systems , 188(1):68–87, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2011.09.008

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference

    Didier Dubois and Henri Prade. An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference. Inter- national Journal of Intelligent Systems , 23(8):866–877, 2008. doi: 10.1002/int.20297

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    An overview of the asymmetric bipolar representation of positive and negative information in possibility theory

    Didier Dubois and Henri Prade. An overview of the asymmetric bipolar representation of positive and negative information in possibility theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 160(10):1355–1366, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2008.11.006

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Generalized fuzzy linear programming for decision making under uncertainty: Feasibility of fuzzy solutions and solving approach

    YR Fan, Gordon H Huang, and AL Yang. Generalized fuzzy linear programming for decision making under uncertainty: Feasibility of fuzzy solutions and solving approach. Information Sciences , 241:12–27, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2013.04.004

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Solving fuzzy relation equations with a linear objective function

    Shu-Cherng Fang and Guangzhi Li. Solving fuzzy relation equations with a linear objective function. Fuzzy Sets and systems , 103(1):107–113, 1999. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0114(97)00184-x

    1999 doi

  6. [14]

    Linear optimization with bipolar max–min constraints

    Steven Freson, Bernard De Baets, and Hans De Meyer. Linear optimization with bipolar max–min constraints. Information Sciences, 234:3–15, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.06.009

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Linear optimization problem subjected to fuzzy relational equations and fuzzy constraints

    A Ghodousian and F Samie Yousefi. Linear optimization problem subjected to fuzzy relational equations and fuzzy constraints. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems , 20(2):1–20, 2023. doi: 10.22111/ijfs.2023.7552

    2023

  8. [16]

    Optimization of linear problems subjected to the intersection of two fuzzy relational inequalities defined by dubois-prade family of t-norms

    Amin Ghodousian. Optimization of linear problems subjected to the intersection of two fuzzy relational inequalities defined by dubois-prade family of t-norms. Information Sciences, 503:291–306, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.06. 058

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    An efficient genetic algorithm for solving nonlinear optimization problems defined with fuzzy relational equations and max-lukasiewicz composition

    Amin Ghodousian and Ali Babalhavaeji. An efficient genetic algorithm for solving nonlinear optimization problems defined with fuzzy relational equations and max-lukasiewicz composition. Applied Soft Computing , 69:475–492,

  10. [18]

    Solving linear optimization problems subject to bipolar fuzzy relational equalities defined with max-strict compositions

    Amin Ghodousian and Mohammad Sedigh Chopannavaz. Solving linear optimization problems subject to bipolar fuzzy relational equalities defined with max-strict compositions. Information Sciences , 650:119696, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2023.119696

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fuzzy linear optimization in the presence of the fuzzy relation inequality constraints with max–min composition

    Amin Ghodousian and Esmaile Khorram. Fuzzy linear optimization in the presence of the fuzzy relation inequality constraints with max–min composition. Information sciences , 178(2):501–519, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2007.07. 022

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Linear optimization with an arbitrary fuzzy relational inequality

    Amin Ghodousian and Esmaile Khorram. Linear optimization with an arbitrary fuzzy relational inequality. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 206:89–102, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2012.04.009

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Nonlinear optimization problem subjected to fuzzy relational equations defined by dubois-prade family of t-norms

    Amin Ghodousian, Marjan Naeeimi, and Ali Babalhavaeji. Nonlinear optimization problem subjected to fuzzy relational equations defined by dubois-prade family of t-norms. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 119:167– 180, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.038

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    An algorithm for solving optimization problems with fuzzy relational inequality constraints

    Fang-Fang Guo, Li-Ping Pang, Dan Meng, and Zun-Quan Xia. An algorithm for solving optimization problems with fuzzy relational inequality constraints. Information Sciences, 252:20–31, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.09.030

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Minimizing a linear objective function with fuzzy relation equation constraints

    Sy-Ming Guu and Yan-Kuen Wu. Minimizing a linear objective function with fuzzy relation equation constraints. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making , 1:347–360, 2002. doi: 10.1023/A:1020955112523

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    Minimizing a linear objective function under a max-t-norm fuzzy relational equation constraint

    Sy-Ming Guu and Yan-Kuen Wu. Minimizing a linear objective function under a max-t-norm fuzzy relational equation constraint. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 161(2):285–297, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2009.03.007

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    Solving fuzzy relational equations through logical filtering

    Kaoru Hirota and Witold Pedrycz. Solving fuzzy relational equations through logical filtering. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 81(3):355–363, 1996. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(95)00221-9

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    On the optimal three-tier multimedia streaming services

    Hsi-Chieh Lee and Sy-Ming Guu. On the optimal three-tier multimedia streaming services. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making , 2:31–39, 2003. doi: 10.1023/A:1022848114005

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    Fuzzy relation inequalities about the data transmission mechanism in bittorrent- like peer-to-peer file sharing systems

    Jian-Xin Li and ShaoJun Yang. Fuzzy relation inequalities about the data transmission mechanism in bittorrent- like peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In 2012 9th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, pages 452–456. IEEE, 2012. doi: 10.1109/fskd.20...

    2012

  20. [28]

    On the resolution and optimization of a system of fuzzy relational equations with sup-t composition

    Pingke Li and Shu-Cherng Fang. On the resolution and optimization of a system of fuzzy relational equations with sup-t composition. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making , 7:169–214, 2008. doi: 10.1007/s10700-008-9029-y

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    On the resolution of bipolar max-min equations

    Pingke Li and Qingwei Jin. On the resolution of bipolar max-min equations. Kybernetika, 52(4):514–530, 2016. doi: 10.14736/kyb-2016-4-0514

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Linear optimization with bipolar fuzzy relational equation constraints using the lukasiewicz triangular norm

    Pingke Li and Yuhan Liu. Linear optimization with bipolar fuzzy relational equation constraints using the lukasiewicz triangular norm. Soft Computing , 18(7):1399–1404, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s00500-013-1152-1

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    On the relation between fuzzy max-archimedean t-norm relational equations and the covering problem

    Jun-Lin Lin. On the relation between fuzzy max-archimedean t-norm relational equations and the covering problem. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 160(16):2328–2344, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2009.01.012

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    On fuzzy relational equations and the covering problem

    Jun-Lin Lin, Yan-Kuen Wu, and Sy-Ming Guu. On fuzzy relational equations and the covering problem. Informa- tion Sciences, 181(14):2951–2963, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.03.004

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    Linear optimization of bipolar fuzzy relational equations with max- lukasiewicz composition

    Chia-Cheng Liu, Yung-Yih Lur, and Yan-Kuen Wu. Linear optimization of bipolar fuzzy relational equations with max- lukasiewicz composition. Information Sciences, 360:149–162, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.04.041

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Optimization of fuzzy relation equations with max-product com- position

    Jiranut Loetamonphong and Shu-Cherng Fang. Optimization of fuzzy relation equations with max-product com- position. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 118(3):509–517, 2001. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0114(98)00417-5

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    On the relation between equations with max-product composition and the covering problem.Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 153(2):261–273, 2005

    A V Markovskii. On the relation between equations with max-product composition and the covering problem.Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 153(2):261–273, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2005.02.010

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Comparison of fuzzy reasoning methods

    Masaharu Mizumoto and Hans-J¨ urgen Zimmermann. Comparison of fuzzy reasoning methods. Fuzzy sets and systems, 8(3):253–283, 1982. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0114(82)80004-3

    1982 doi

  29. [37]

    Fuzzy relational equations with generalized connectives and their applications

    Witold Pedrycz. Fuzzy relational equations with generalized connectives and their applications. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 10(1-3):185–201, 1983. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0114(83)80114-6

    1983 doi

  30. [38]

    Granular computing: analysis and design of intelligent systems

    Witold Pedrycz. Granular computing: analysis and design of intelligent systems . CRC press, 2018. doi: 10.1201/ 9781315216737

    2018

  31. [39]

    Minimization of linear objective functions under the constraints expressed by a system of fuzzy relation equations

    Xiao-Bing Qu and Xue-Ping Wang. Minimization of linear objective functions under the constraints expressed by a system of fuzzy relation equations. Information Sciences, 178(17):3482–3490, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2008.04.004

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    Conditions under which the solution sets of fuzzy relational equations over complete brouwerian lattices form lattices

    Xiao-Bing Qu, Xue-Ping Wang, and Man-hua Lei. Conditions under which the solution sets of fuzzy relational equations over complete brouwerian lattices form lattices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 234:34–45, 2014. doi: 10.1016/ j.fss.2013.03.017

    2014

  33. [41]

    Resolution of eigen fuzzy sets equations

    Elie Sanchez. Resolution of eigen fuzzy sets equations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 1(1):69–74, 1978. doi: 10.1016/ 0165-0114(78)90033-7

    1978

  34. [42]

    Solutions in composite fuzzy relation equations: application to medical diagnosis in brouwerian logic

    Elie Sanchez. Solutions in composite fuzzy relation equations: application to medical diagnosis in brouwerian logic. In Readings in Fuzzy Sets for Intelligent Systems , pages 159–165. Elsevier, 1993. doi: 10.1016/b978-1-4832-1450-4. 50017-1

    1993 doi

  35. [43]

    Infinite fuzzy relation equations with continuous t-norms

    Bih-Sheue Shieh. Infinite fuzzy relation equations with continuous t-norms. Information Sciences, 178(8):1961– 1967, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2007.12.006

    1961 doi

  36. [44]

    Minimizing a linear objective function under a fuzzy max-t norm relation equation constraint

    Bih-Sheue Shieh. Minimizing a linear objective function under a fuzzy max-t norm relation equation constraint. Information Sciences, 181(4):832–841, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2010.10.024

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    Conditions for the existence of the least solution and minimal solutions to fuzzy relation equations over complete brouwerian lattices

    Feng Sun. Conditions for the existence of the least solution and minimal solutions to fuzzy relation equations over complete brouwerian lattices. Information Sciences, 205:86–92, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2012.04.002

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    Minimal join decompositions and their applications to fuzzy relation equations over complete brouwerian lattices

    Feng Sun, Xue-ping Wang, and Xiao-bing Qu. Minimal join decompositions and their applications to fuzzy relation equations over complete brouwerian lattices. Information Sciences, 224:143–151, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2012.10. 038

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    Optimization of fuzzy relational equations with max-av composition

    Yan-Kuen Wu. Optimization of fuzzy relational equations with max-av composition. Information Sciences, 177 (19):4216–4229, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2007.02.037. 38 A. Ghodousian, M. S. Chopannavaz

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    Minimizing a linear function under a fuzzy max–min relational equation con- straint

    Yan-Kuen Wu and Sy-Ming Guu. Minimizing a linear function under a fuzzy max–min relational equation con- straint. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 150(1):147–162, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2004.09.010

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    An efficient procedure for solving a fuzzy relational equation with max– archimedean t-norm composition

    Yan-Kuen Wu and Sy-Ming Guu. An efficient procedure for solving a fuzzy relational equation with max– archimedean t-norm composition. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , 16(1):73–84, 2008. doi: 10.1109/tfuzz. 2007.902018

    2008

  42. [50]

    Reducing the search space of a linear fractional programming problem under fuzzy relational equations with max-archimedean t-norm composition

    Yan-Kuen Wu, Sy-Ming Guu, and Julie Yu-Chih Liu. Reducing the search space of a linear fractional programming problem under fuzzy relational equations with max-archimedean t-norm composition. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 159 (24):3347–3359, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2008.04.007

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    Fuzzy relational equations on complete brouwerian lattices

    Qing-quan Xiong and Xue-ping Wang. Fuzzy relational equations on complete brouwerian lattices. Information Sciences, 193:141–152, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.12.030

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    An algorithm for minimizing a linear objective function subject to the fuzzy relation inequalities with addition–min composition

    Shao-Jun Yang. An algorithm for minimizing a linear objective function subject to the fuzzy relation inequalities with addition–min composition. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 255:41–51, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2014.04.007

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    Resolution of bipolar fuzzy relation equations with max- lukasiewicz composition

    Xiao-Peng Yang. Resolution of bipolar fuzzy relation equations with max- lukasiewicz composition. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 397:41–60, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2019.08.005

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Latticized linear programming subject to max-product fuzzy relation inequalities with application in wireless communication

    Xiao-Peng Yang, Xue-Gang Zhou, and Bing-Yuan Cao. Latticized linear programming subject to max-product fuzzy relation inequalities with application in wireless communication. Information Sciences, 358:44–55, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.04.014

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Solving nonlinear optimization problems with bipolar fuzzy relational equation constraints

    Jian Zhou, Ying Yu, Yuhan Liu, and Yuanyuan Zhang. Solving nonlinear optimization problems with bipolar fuzzy relational equation constraints. Journal of Inequalities and Applications , 2016:1–10, 2016. doi: 10.1186/ s13660-016-1056-6

    2016

  48. [2018]

    doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.029

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.