Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840 www.elsevier.

com/locate/fss

Interval-valued fuzzy sets constructed from matrices: Application to edge detection

H. Bustince , E. Barrenechea, M. Pagola, J. Fernandez
Departamento de Automtica y Computacin, Universidad Pblica de Navarra, Campus Arrosadia s/n, P.O. Box 31006, Pamplona, Spain Received 15 February 2008; received in revised form 12 August 2008; accepted 12 August 2008 Available online 27 August 2008

Abstract In this paper we present a method to construct interval-valued fuzzy sets (or interval type 2 fuzzy sets) from a matrix (or image), in such a way that we obtain the length of the interval representing the membership of any element to the new set from the differences between the values assigned to that element and its neighbors in the starting matrix. Using the concepts of interval-valued fuzzy t-norm, interval-valued fuzzy t-conorm and interval-valued fuzzy entropy, we are able to detect big enough jumps (edges) between the values of an element and its neighbors in the starting matrix. We also prove that the unique t-representable interval-valued fuzzy t-norms and the unique s-representable interval-valued fuzzy t-conorms that preserve the length zero of the intervals are the ones generated by means of the t-norm minimum and the t-conorm maximum. 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Interval-valued fuzzy set; Interval-valued fuzzy entropy; t-Representable interval-valued fuzzy t-norm; s-Representable interval-valued fuzzy t-conorm; Edge detector

1. Introduction The concept of fuzzy sets was rst presented by Zadeh in 1965 [45]. In fuzzy set theory, a degree of membership in the interval [0, 1] is assigned to each element of the set. This addition proves a strong tool for representing human knowledge. Nevertheless, in 1973 Zadeh indicated the necessity of generalizing the theory and proposed the rst extension of these sets [46,11]. One very well-known extension is the theory of interval-valued fuzzy sets (IVFSs). The membership degree of each element on an IVFS is dened on a closed subinterval of [0, 1]. Sambuc used this theory to support medical diagnosis in thyroidian pathology [36]. IVFSs have since been used in a number of different elds: image processing [40], approximate reasoning [10,6,22], interval-valued logic [4244], medicine [29] and so on. Atanassovs intuitionistic fuzzy sets (A-IFSs) are another popular extension of the theory. Atanassov in 1983 [1] proved that A-IFSs were equivalent to IVFSs, followed by Deschrijver and Kerre in 2003 [19]. For this reason, from a mathematical point of view, we can work with either IVFSs or A-IFSs; the results are the same. Conceptually, however,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 94816 9254.

E-mail address: bustince@unavarra.es (H. Bustince). 0165-0114/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2008.08.005

1820

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

the two types appear totally different [31,41]. These fact can be veried easily by the application presented in this paper. Finally, another extension closely related to IVFSs theory bears mention: the concept of type 2 fuzzy sets presented by Zadeh in 1975 [47]. In these sets, the membership function is itself represented by a fuzzy set on the interval [0, 1]. Mendel and John [30] proved that one particular case of a type 2 fuzzy set is an interval type 2 fuzzy set, which is equivalent to an IVFS. For this reason, the results of this paper are valid for A-IFSs and interval type 2 fuzzy sets as well as IVFSs. The principal aim of this paper is to analyze some concepts of IVFS theory and their application to edge detection in grayscale images. This research will employ the concepts of t-norms and t-conorms with intervals and the concept of entropy of IVFSs. The results will be demonstrated with a concrete application. Some fuzzy approaches to edge detection already exist, all using fuzzy sets (see, for example, [3,2326,35,34,38,39]). Why then do we choose to work with IVFSs? Consider the fact that edge detection techniques attempt to nd pixels whose intensity (gray level) is very different from those of its neighbors [13,3235,39]. As mentioned before, each element of an IVFS is associated with not just a membership degree but also the length of its membership interval. As the interval length can be used to indicate the range of intensities associated with a pixel and its neighbors, IVFS is a convenient choice for edge detection problems. In future research, we will study the problem of edge detection in very noisy environments (taking into account some preprocessing techniques). This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of IVFSs. Section 3 presents a method of constructing an IVFS from a matrix. develop theoretical arguments justifying our choice of IVFSs operations. Next, Section 6 describes a practical algorithm for edge detection in grayscale images. Finally, Section 7 presents several experimental examples and compares our results with those obtained by Canny [13]. Section 8 concludes and suggests directions for future research. 2. Preliminaries In this section, we introduce concepts of IVFS theory that will be used extensively throughout the paper. We will denote with L([0, 1]) the set of all closed subintervals of the closed interval [0, 1]. That is, L([0, 1]) = {x = [x , x ]|(x , x ) [0, 1]2 and x

x }.

Denition 1. An IVFS A, on the universe U , is a set such that A = {(u, A(u) = [ A(u), A(u)])|u U },

where the function A : U L([0, 1]) is called the membership function. We denote by IVFSs(U ) the set of all IVFSs on U. Similarly, FSs(U ) is the set of all fuzzy sets on U. W is dened as the length of the interval considered: i.e., W ( A(u)) = A(u) A(u). This set can be considered a fuzzy L-set in Goguens sense [21]. In this case L([0, 1]) is a partially ordered set with respect to the relation L , which is dened in the following way: given x, y L([0, 1]), x
Ly

if and only if x

y and x

y.

The relation L is transitive and antisymmetric; it expresses the idea that x links strongly to y [28]. Indeed, (L , L ) forms a complete lattice of intervals, where the smallest is 0 L = [0, 0] and the largest is 1 L = [1, 1]. Evidently, it is not a linear lattice, for there exist elements that are not comparable. Other relations comparing IVFSs can be found in Ref. [28]. In this paper, we will also use xy if and only if x

y and y

x.

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1821

Next, recall the denition of K given by Atanassov (see [1]): Denition 2. Let

[0, 1]; we dene K as a function K : L([0, 1]) [0, 1] such that

(1) if x = x then K (x) = x ; (2) K 0 (x) = x , K 1 (x) = x for all x L([0, 1]); (3) if x L y, with x, y L([0, 1]), then K (x) K (y) for all (4) if and only if K (x) K (x), for all x L([0, 1]).

[0, 1];

The K operators are used to associate an IVFS with a FS or a family of FSs as follows [4,5]: K : IVFSs(U ) FSs(U ) given by K (A) = {(u,
K

(u) = K ([ A(u), A(u)]))|u U }.

Obviously, there are several possible constructions of the K operator. In this paper, we will use the construction presented by Atanassov [1]: K (x) = K ([x , x ]) = x + ( x x ) = K 0 (x) + W (x)

(1)

with [0, 1], x L([0, 1]). We justify this choice for the K operator because, as indicated in the introduction, the length of the interval is fundamental to our study. Moreover, this expression will enable us to increase the number of the elements belonging to the edge. Next, we provide the denitions of interval-valued fuzzy connectives. In fuzzy set theory a strictly decreasing, continuous function n : [0, 1] [0, 1] such that n(0) = 1 and n(1) = 0 is called a strict negation. If n is also involutive, then it is called a strong negation. On this basis, we give the following denition for an interval-valued fuzzy negation (IV negation): Denition 3. An IV negation is a function N : L([0, 1]) L([0, 1]) that is strictly decreasing (with respect to such that N (1 L ) = 0 L and N (0 L ) = 1 L . If for all x L([0, 1]), N (N (x)) = x, N is said to be involutive.
L)

A deep study of IV negations can be found in [18]. A characterization of IV negations using the operator K is provided in [12,8]. Given A IVFSs(U ), we can now dene the concept of complement of A in the following way: A N (u) = N (A(u)) for all u U. It is well known that t-norm (T) and t-conorm (S) functions on [0, 1] can be used to model the union and intersection, respectively, of fuzzy sets. In this paper we will use t-norms and t-conorms of the Frank family, a very large class including popular choices such as the product, minimum, and Lukasiewicz t-norms. The Frank family satisfy T (x, y) + S(x, y) = x + y for all x, y [0, 1]. We will now extend these concepts to IVFSs [8,14,18]. Denition 4. A function T : (L([0, 1]))2 L([0, 1]) is said to be an interval-valued t-norm (IV t-norm) if it is commutative, associative, increasing in both arguments (with respect to the order L ), and includes the neutral element 1 L = [1, 1]. In the same way, a function S : (L([0, 1]))2 L([0, 1]) is said to be an interval-valued t-conorm (IV t-conorm) if it is commutative, associative, increasing, and includes the neutral element 0 L = [0, 0]. Denition 5. (a) An IV t-norm is said to be t-representable if there are two t-norms Ta and Tb in [0, 1] such that T(x, y) = [Ta (x , y ), Tb ( x , y )] for all x, y L([0, 1]).

1822

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

(b) An IV t-conorm is said to be s-representable if there are two t-conorms Sa and Sb in [0, 1] such that S(x, y) = [Sa (x , y ), Sb ( x , y )] for all x, y L([0, 1]).

We will use TTa ,Tb to denote the t-representable IV t-norm that can be represented by Ta and Tb as dened above. Similarly, a specic s-representable IV t-conorm will be denoted S Sa ,Sb . Remark 1. In Refs. [18,8], it is proven that not all IV t-norms (IV t-conorms) are t-representable (s-representable). In this paper we only use t-representable IV t-norms and s-representable IV t-conorms. By this means we obtain a good localization of elements belonging to the edge. The concept of entropy on IVFSs(U ) is also fundamental to our approximation. The idea of dening different magnitudes to measure the degree of interval-valuation of an IVFS has been developed in [4]. Denition 6. A real function E : IVFSs(U ) R+ may be called an entropy on IVFSs(U ) if it has the following properties: (1) E( A) = 0 if and only if A FSs(U ),

(2) E( A) = Car dinal(U ) = N if and only if A(u) = 0 and A(u) = 1 for all u U , (3) E( A) = E( A N ) for all A IVFSs(U ) (N being the involutive and strict IV negation generated by n(x) = 1 x for all x [0, 1]), and (4) if AB, then E(A) E(B). The most commonly used expression for entropy coincides with the indetermination index for IVFSs given by Sambuc [36]:
N N

E(A) =
i=1

W (A(u i )) =
i=1

A(u i ) A(u i ).

(2)

In this paper, we use only expression (2). Let U = {u 1 , . . . , u N } be the referential set. We will call the following expression the normalized entropy of A IVFSs(U ): EN (A) = E(A) . N (3)

3. Construction of an IVFS from a matrix For us, an image of N M pixels is a collection of N M elements arranged in rows and columns. Each element is assigned a numerical value belonging to {0, 1, . . . , L 1}, representing its intensity (grayscale). Thus, an image is a matrix. Throughout the paper, the terms image and matrix are used interchangeably. We now show a construction method of an IVFS from a matrix (image) using t-representable IV t-norms and s-representable IV t-conorms. We will use the following notation: f denotes a matrix of N M elements. f (x, y) represents the grayscale value of element (x, y) X Y , where X = {0, . . . , N 1} and Y = {0, . . . , M1}. M is the set of all N M matrices f. Mn is the set of all matrices generated from f by eliminating the rst and the last n rows, and the rst and the last n columns (n N{0}). In these matrices, the elements (x, y) have indices in the ranges X = {n, n +1, . . . , N n 1} and Y = {n, . . . , M n 1}.

Throughout the paper, we will normalize the image intensity to the scale [0, 1]; i.e., we divide f (x, y) by L 1 (L = 256).

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1823

An element of f belongs to an edge if there is a big enough difference between its intensity and its neighbors intensities. (Notice that this denition is intentionally fuzzy in its own right.) In this paper we represent the difference between f (x, y) and the intensities of neighboring elements as a length, which becomes from the interval associated with the element (x, y). For this reason, we begin assigning an IVFS to each matrix f and therefore each element has associated an interval as membership degree. The lower and upper bounds of this interval are determined by the concepts of tn-processing and sn-processing, which will be dened below. (A deeper study of these two concepts is made in Ref. [9].) Denition 7 (Bustince et al. [9]). Consider a matrix f M, any two t-norms T1 and T2 in [0, 1], and a positive integer n less than or equal to (N 1)/2 and (M 1)/2. We dene the tn-processing of f as follows:
n gT1 ,T2 : M Mn given by n gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) = T1 (T2 ( f (x i, y j), f (x, y))) i=n j=n n

with n

N (n + 1), n

M (n + 1).

In this case it is said that we use a submatrix of order (2n + 1) (2n + 1). Next, we present the algorithm that we apply to an image to calculate its tn-processing: Algorithm of tn-processing FOR each pixel (x, y) of the image f that is not in the rst n rows, or in the last n rows, or in the rst n columns or in the last n columns, DO (1) Construct a matrix (2n + 1) (2n + 1) so that all of the elements have the value of f (x, y). (2) Take the corresponding submatrix ((2n + 1) (2n + 1)) of the image f centered on the pixel (x, y). (3) Calculate the (2n + 1) (2n + 1) values that are obtained by applying T2 to each pair of pixels that occupy the same position in both matrices (2n + 1) (2n + 1). (4) Apply T1 to the (2n + 1) (2n + 1) values obtained in step (3). n (5) Assign to the pixel (x, y) the new intensity gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) as the lower extreme of the interval. END FOR The concept of sn-processing is dened in an analogous way, by using two t-conorms (S1 and S2 in [0, 1]) instead. Concerning the denitions of tn-processing and sn-processing, it is necessary to mention that they are completely different from the fuzzy morphological operations of dilation and erosion, see Section 2 in [15], where different approaches to the classical fuzzy morphological concepts [16,17] are generalized. They are also different from erosion and dilation as dened in classical mathematical morphology [37]. The processes described here coincide with these concepts only in very particular cases. Remark 2. The submatrices used for tn-processing and sn-processing in practice are either (3 3) or (5 5). In [2] is proved that submatrices of higher orders move the edge from its real position. Next, we introduce a construction method of an IVFS by means of tn-processing and sn-processing in the following way: Denition 8 (Bustince et al. [9]). Let n be a whole number greater than zero. We dene the IVn matrix associated with f M as the IVFS G n given by
n n G n = {((x, y), G n (x, y) = [gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)), g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y))] L([0, 1]))|x X, y Y }, n n being gT1 ,T2 and g S1 ,S2 the tn-processing and the sn-processing given by Denition 7.

1824

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

Fig. 1. Original images and their W-matrices.

Obviously, we can also associate with each matrix f the following IVFS f: f = {((x, y), f(x, y) = [ f (x, y), f (x, y)] L([0, 1]))|x X, y Y }. This trivial IVFS is normally compared to G n , as we will see later on. The following denition associates with the IVFS G n a fuzzy set whose membership function is the length of the intervals in G n . Denition 9 (Bustince et al. [9]). Given a matrix f M and its corresponding G n . We call W-matrix of f, a new matrix obtained by assigning to each of its elements the corresponding interval length of G n . It is denoted as W (G n ). Therefore
n n W (G n ) = {((x, y), W (G n )(x, y) = g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)))|(x, y) X Y } F Ss(X Y ).

Every matrix f is thus associated with an IVFS G n and a fuzzy set W (G n ). Example 1. The rst row of Fig. 1 depicts images (matrices) of a house, Lena, and a plane. In the second row, their corresponding W-matrices are displayed. In all cases we have used the t1-processing given by T1 = T2 = and the s1-processing given by S1 = S2 = . W -matrices depending on other varieties of tn-processing and sn-processing appear in Ref. [9]. This work also compares the W-matrices obtained by our method to those obtained by FIRE and the TakaniSugeno approach [3,35,34,38]. Notice that the W-matrices are in grayscale, and on the other hand, several pixels identify as edge when really there is one only pixel that is an edge (see [13]). Remark 3. It is necessary to emphasize that our edge detector should create a matrix where each element has only two possible values: 0 (black) or 1 (white). This is what is usually meant by an edge in image processing. The elements with value 1 belong to the edge.

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1825

3.1. An interpretation of entropy on IVFSs Based on expressions , the normalized entropy of G n is given by the following expression:
n n x y N (n+1) M(n+1) n n g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y))

EN (G ) =
n

(N 2 n) (M 2 n)

(4)

It is logical to relate those elements of G n whose membership degree intervals are large to the location of the edge. This fact leads us to establish the following: The normalized entropy of G n establishes the average length of the intervals that represent the membership function n of the elements. A large entropy implies that the intervals are large, meaning that the difference between gT1 ,T2 and n g S1 ,S2 tends to be large for each element. In such a matrix there are many changes in intensity, and a higher proportion of elements belong to an edge. Conversely, a small entropy implies that few elements of the matrix belong to an edge. The normalized entropy of G n therefore indicates the proportion of elements that are part of an edge. From now on, we will refer to the normalized entropy of an IVFS as the IVn entropy. 4. Elements of G n with interval length zero or one In this section we analyze those W (G n ) elements whose membership degrees are equal to zero or one, or equivalently those G n elements whose associated intervals have lengths zero or one. 4.1. Elements with interval length zero If there is no change of intensity between a pixel and its neighbors, then we can be sure that this pixel does not belong to the edge. This fact is reected in the following rule: (RULE1) IF the elements membership degree in the W-matrix is zero THEN the element does not belong to the edge. This rst rule leads us to study the conditions under which the membership degree of an element of the W-matrix is zero: Theorem 1. Let n be a positive integer less than or equal to (N 1)/2 and (M 1)/2, and let f (x i, y j) = f (x, y) for all i = n, . . . , n and for all j = n, . . . , n. Under these conditions, W (G n (x, y)) = 0 if and only if T1 = T2 = and S1 = S2 = . Proof. See Appendix A. From Theorem 1 we deduce that n n (RULE1) holds if and only if we take g, ( f (x, y)) as the tn-processing function and g, ( f (x, y)) as the sn-processing function. n n In the rest of the paper, we will use g, ( f (x, y)) and g, ( f (x, y)). 4.2. Elements with interval length one If an element of the W-matrix has a membership degree of 1, we can be sure that this element belongs to an edge. Formally,
n n if W (G n (x, y)) = 1 then g, ( f (x, y)) = 1 and g, ( f (x, y)) = 0.

Under the hypothesis of the previous condition, one of the following conditions is fullled:
n (i) If f (x, y) = g, ( f (x, y)) = 1, then element (x, y) belongs to the edge. In this case we say by denition that the edge is marked on the bright zone. (The central pixel has value 1, corresponding to the color white.)

1826

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

Fig. 2. (a) Original binary image, (b) edge on bright zone and (c) edge on dark zone.

n (ii) If f (x, y) = g, ( f (x, y)) = 0, then element (x, y) belongs to the edge. In this case we say by denition that the edge is marked on the dark zone. (The central pixel has value 0, corresponding to the color black.) (iii) If f (x, y) 0 and f (x, y) 1, then element (x, y) belongs to the edge (because W (G n (x, y)) = 1). However, we do not know if it belongs to the dark zone or the bright zone.

Remark 4. If item (i) or item (ii) is satised, then the edge is perfectly localized. This fullls one of the criteria demanded by Canny of any edge detector (see [13]). An specic case of grayscale images are binary images (all the elements are equal to 1 or equal to 0). In this type of images, all elements of W (G n ) will have length zero or length one. Therefore taking into account conditions (i) and (ii), we obtain two different algorithms for binary images, one on bright zone and other on dark zone. Next, we show the algorithm on bright zone: (1) Given a binary image f, calculate G n and its corresponding W (G n ). (2) FOR each pixel (x, y) of G n DO IF W (G n (x, y)) = 1 and f (x, y) = 1, THEN mark this pixel (x, y) as belonging to the edge ELSE mark this pixel (x, y) as not belonging to the edge. ENDFOR The algorithm on dark zone is the same but changing the condition f (x, y) = 1 by f (x, y) = 0, that is, the condition (i) by the condition (ii). Example 2. In Fig. 2(b) we execute the algorithm on bright zone, so the stem of the ower looks thicker. In Fig. 2(c) we execute the algorithm on dark zone, so the stem looks thinner. 5. Elements of G n with any interval length To analyze the relationship between W (TTa ,Tb (f, G n )) and W (G n ), we use t-norms and t-conorms of the Frank family (see [20]). As with the elements of G n having an interval length of one, we have to distinguish between edges traced on the bright and dark zones. This fact has led us to study the ability of IV t-norms and IV t-conorms to provide good edge localization (see [13]). Theorem 2. Let Ta and Tb be two t-norms of the Frank family in [0, 1] and let their corresponding dual t-conorms Sa and Sb of the Frank family. Let TTa ,Tb be a t-representable IV t-norm, and S Sa ,Sb an s-representable IV t-conorm.

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1827

T, (f (x, y), G n(x, y))

S, (f (x, y), G n(x, y))

f (x, y)
n g, ( f (x, y)) n g, ( f (x, y))

Fig. 3. Description of Theorem 2 for Ta = = Tb and Sa = = Sb .

Under these conditions, given a matrix f M and its associated G n , the following equality holds: W (TTa ,Tb (f, G n )) + W (S Sa ,Sb (f, G n )) = W (G n ). Proof. The proof follows directly from the characterization of the Frank family (see Fig. 3 for an example).

Corollary 1. Given f M and its associated G n dened as given in Denition 8, the following items are true: (i) If TTa ,Tb is the t-representable IV t-norm T, , then
n W (TTa ,Tb (f, G n )(x, y)) = W (G n (x, y)) if and only if f (x, y) = g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)).

(ii) If S Sa ,Sb is the s-representable IV t-conorm S, , then

n W (S Sa ,Sb (f, G n )(x, y)) = W (G n (x, y)) if and only if f (x, y) = gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)).

Proof. The proof follows directly from Theorem 2.

Corollary 1 provides the conditions under which the central element of a window belongs to the bright zone edge (item (i)) or dark zone edge (item (ii)). Of course, such elements are also perfectly localized (see [13] and Fig. 3). In addition, we can be sure that the bright zone and dark zone edges have no elements in common. Nevertheless, it has been veried experimentally that the elements satisfying items (i) and (ii) of Corollary 1 are not sufcient to correctly describe the edge of an image. We therefore investigate a method for increasing the number of elements belonging to an edge. 5.1. Method for increasing the number of elements in an edge First we consider how to add elements to the bright zone edge. We propose a method using the operator K (expression (1)). In order to obtain the main objective of this work we give the following denition: Denition 10. We say that an element (x, y) belongs to the bright zone edge if it satises the following two items:
n n (i) f (x, y) (g, ( f (x, y)) + g, ( f (x, y)))/2 = K 0.5 (G n (x, y)), and (ii) its interval has sufcient length.

This denition suggests the following theorem, which describes a relationship between K ) and the value of the central pixel f (x, y).

[0, 1] (used in the operator

Theorem 3. For an f M, let G n and W (G n ) be the IVn matrix and W-matrix, respectively. Let the t-representable IV t-norm T, and let the W-matrix W (T, (f, G n )). Under these conditions, pixels (x, y) of the W-matrix that satisfy W (G n (x, y)) will also fulll W (T, (f, G n )(x, y)) f (x, y) K (G n (x, y)) [0, 1]. (5)

and vice versa (for these pixels), with

1828

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

K0.5 (Gn (x, y))

f (x, y)

n g, ( f (x, y))

n g, ( f (x, y))

Fig. 4. Description of Theorem 3 with

= 0.5.

Proof. See Appendix A. Of course, this theorem depends on the value chosen for . If = 1, then item (i) of Corollary 1 holds. The rule therefore represents elements belonging to the bright zone edge, but does not select sufcient elements for good visualization of the edge. n If = 0, then f (x, y) g, ( f (x, y)). Under these conditions we select all the edge elements, whether they belong to the dark zone or the bright zone. We only want to select elements that belong to the bright zone. 1 n n If = 2 , then f (x, y) (g, ( f (x, y)) + g, ( f (x, y)))/2. These elements satisfy one of the two conditions for belonging to the bright zone edge (see item (i) of Denition 10, and Fig. 4). A similar approach can increase the number of pixels chosen when working on dark zone edge. The signs of the inequalities change: f (x, y) K (G n (x, y)) is replaced by f (x, y) < K (G n (x, y)), and T, (f, G n ) by S, (f, G n ). Obviously, in this case the value must be lower than 0.5. In the next section, we analyze condition (ii) of Denition 10 and establish the necessary concepts to calculate an appropriate value of . 5.2. Elements of G n with enough interval length to be an edge element To identify elements of G n with a long enough interval to belong to an edge, we start by considering two intensity values p and q whose values are yet to be determined. For the moment, we simply require p q and p, q [0, 1] (in a binary image, we would have p = 0 and q = 1). From these two values we base on the following rule to obtain the edges: (RULE2) (a) If W (G n (x, y)) q, then the element belongs to an edge. (b) If p W (G n (x, y)) < q, then we need a way of distinguishing elements that belong to the edge from those that do not belong. (c) If W (G n (x, y)) < p, then the element (x, y) generally does not belong to the edge. Such elements can be considered, however, if very few elements satisfy conditions (a) and (b). To choose values for p and q, we use the concept of IVn entropy dened in Section 3.1. Appendix B presents one possible method to calculate p and q (see [27]), an adaptation of classical methods used for calculating double thresholding. Evidently, fuzzy techniques can also be used to obtain two thresholds [7]. Once the limits p and q are known, we construct three IVFSs associated with f. Each represents one of the categories recognized in rule (RULE2) (see Fig. 5); subscript q refers to (RULE2a), and so on:
n n G q = {((x, y), G q (x, y))|(x, y) X Y } where

n G q (x, y) =

G n (x, y) if q 0

W (G n (x, y)),

otherwise,

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1829

Gp

Gp, q

n Gq

n Fig. 5. Representation of G n , G n and G q . p p,q

G n = {((x, y), G n (x, y))|(x, y) X Y } where p,q p,q G n (x, y) = p,q G n (x, y) if p 0 W (G n (x, y)) < q,

otherwise,

G n = {((x, y), G n (x, y))|(x, y) X Y } where p p G n (x, y) = p G n (x, y) if 0 < W (G n (x, y)) < p, 0 otherwise.

Note that the fuzzy set G n does not include elements where W (G n (x, y)) = 0 as per (RULE1). These elements are p already known not to belong to an edge. Example 3. Starting from the original images of Lena and the house (Fig. 1), Fig. 6 depicts their associated IVFSs 27 79 23 80 n G n , G n and G q . For Lena we obtain p = 255 and q = 255 and for the house p = 255 and q = 255 . White elements p p,q belong to a set, while black elements do not.
n n In general, all elements of G q belong to an edge (they satisfy (RULE2a)). It is clear, however, that G q is not sufcient. n n as well. Recalling the arguments of Section We will need to take a certain number of elements from G p,q and G p n 3.1, the number of elements to be taken from G q , G n and G n is proportional to their IVn entropy values: EN (G n ), p,q p p n ) and E (G n ). Our algorithm therefore examines the six possible order relations between the three IVn EN (G p,q N q entropies: n C AS E(1)EN (G n ) EN (G n ) EN (G q ), p p,q n C AS E(2)EN (G n ) EN (G q ) EN (G n ), p p,q n C AS E(3)EN (G n ) EN (G n ) EN (G q ), p,q p n C AS E(4)EN (G q ) EN (G n ) EN (G n ), p,q p n C AS E(5)EN (G n ) EN (G q ) EN (G n ), p,q p n C AS E(6)EN (G q ) EN (G n ) EN (G n ). p p,q

Remark 5. (RULE2) refers to the length of G n in selecting pixels that belong to the edge. This subset is really the sum of the bright zone and dark zone edges; the denition does not differentiate them. If we wish to limit ourselves to the bright zone edge, the items of (RULE2) must refer to the length of T, (f, G n ). Therefore, in an analogous way to the construcn tion of G n , G n and G q , we construct three interval-valued fuzzy subsets denoted by T, (f, G n )n , T, (f, G n )n p p,q p p,q n )n (see Appendix C). We must also establish different order relations between E (T n n and T, (f, G q N , (f, G ) p ), n EN (T, (f, G n )n ) and EN (T, (f, G n )q ). These IVn entropies are also necessary to calculate the value of (see p,q Appendix C). Obviously, a similar procedure would be carried out for the dark zone edges (see Section 5.1). We are now in a position to detail the edge detection algorithm.

1830

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

n n n Fig. 6. Construction of G n , G n and G q : (a) G q , (b) G n , (c) G n , (d) G q , (e) G n and (f) G n . p p,q p,q p p,q p

6. General algorithm for detecting the bright zone and dark zone edges We begin with a general algorithm for detecting the bright zone edges, denoted BZ:

(BZ1) (BZ2) (BZ3) (BZ4) (BZ5)

n n Calculate the IVn matrix G n and its associated W-matrix (by means of g, and g, ). n , G n and G n . Calculate p and q, then construct the sets G p p,q q n Calculate the entropies EN (G n ), EN (G n ) and EN (G q ). p p,q Calculate T, (f, G n ). Calculate EN (T, (f, G n )n ), EN (T, (f, G n )n ) and p p,q n EN (T, (f, G n )q ). (BZ6) Execute (Action1), (Action2) or (Action3). (BZ7) Sum the binary images obtained in (BZ6). (BZ8) Clean and thin the lines.

Step (BZ6) may execute up to three actions, depending on the order relation in step (BZ3) (that is, CASE (1)CASE (6)) and on the order relation in step (BZ5). Each action constructs a binary image. The three actions are the following: (Action1) FOR each pixel (x, y) of G n DO IF W (T, (f, G n )(x, y)) q THEN Calculate IF f (x, y) K (G n (x, y)) THEN mark this pixel (x, y) as belonging to the edge ELSE mark this pixel (x, y) as not belonging to the edge ENDIF ELSE mark this pixel (x, y) as not belonging to the edge ENDIF ENDFOR

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1831

Fig. 7. Bright zone detector: (a) Original image, (b) Bright Zone Detector, (c) Cannys Detector, (d) F1, (e) F2, (f) F3, (g) Original image, (h) Bright Zone detector, (i) Cannys Detector, (j) F1, (k) F2 and (l) F3.

(Action2) FOR each pixel (x, y) of G n DO IF p W (T, (f, G n )(x, y)) < q THEN Calculate IF f (x, y) K (G n (x, y)) THEN mark this pixel (x, y) as belonging to the edge ELSE mark this pixel (x, y) as not belonging to the edge ENDIF ELSE mark this pixel (x, y) as not belonging to the edge ENDIF ENDFOR

1832

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

Fig. 8. Original images (a) size 256 240 (b) size 256 256 (c) size 378 251 (d) size 404 271 (e) size 256 256 (f) size 554 375 (g) size 256 256 (h) size 363 310 (i) size 256 256.

(Action3) FOR each pixel (x, y) of G n DO IF 0 < W (T, (f, G n )(x, y)) < p THEN Calculate IF f (x, y) K (G n (x, y)) THEN mark this pixel (x, y) as belonging to the edge ELSE mark this pixel (x, y) as not belonging to the edge ENDIF ELSE mark this pixel (x, y) as not belonging to the edge ENDIF ENDFOR Example 4. We give two example images (Fig. 7(a) and (g)) for which the BZ algorithm produces the sequences F1, F2, F3 (Fig. 7(d)(f) and (j)(l)). These three intermediate images are generated in steps (BZ1)(BZ6) of the algorithm. Fig. 7(b) and (h) represents the edges obtained after applying steps (BZ7) and (BZ8). For purposes of comparison, Fig. 7(c) and (i) display the results of Cannys edge detector. Our detector can perform the detection in image details more accurate. Appendix D provides more information on the algorithm for bright zone edge detection. It also indicates the changes that are necessary for dark zone edge detection, and provides the same set of dark zone images based on Fig. 7(a) and (g). The following section will discuss the differences between our algorithm and Cannys edge detector in more detail.

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1833

Fig. 9. Edges of Fig. 8(a)(c).

7. Experimental results and comparison with Cannys detector In this section we present some experimental obtained on a sample of more than 1000 images. For each image, we produce three edges: two generated by our own algorithms (corresponding to the bright and dark zones), and one obtained using Cannys detector [13]. We will compare the three methods and discuss which is most suitable for a given application. All the images were processed using Matlab 5.3 R11.1. The images used in this experiment were mainly obtained from the computer vision home page (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/ci/vision.html). Of course, they also have some noise; steps BZ8 and DZ8 (which clean and thin the lines) have been executed with standard functions of Matlab and Cannys detector has used default parameters of MATLAB. In Fig. 8 we show some of the original images. Figs. 9, 10 and 11 display the three edges of the rst, second and third row of Fig. 8, respectively. From these experimental results we deduce the following: Our edge detectors have the great advantage of constructing partial edges before determining the nal edge. Depending on the application it is good to use those partial edges which really are useful in every case. Due to this fact, Cannys detector is uniformly faster than ours, but the difference in computation times is not large. We must indicate that IVFSs do not increase the complexity of the algorithms, it only increases the number of necessary calculations for

1834

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

Fig. 10. Edges of Fig. 8(d)(f).

each algorithm. Bearing in mind the latest technological advances, it results that the expense in time for the execution of our algorithms with IVFSs is practically the same as other algorithms with FSs (see [12]). The performance of Cannys detector is also dependent on the parameters selected. Our edge detectors are unsupervised, requiring no such user decisions. Canny states that for sampling reasons, he focused on the ramp edge [13]. Our algorithm, on the other hand, works well for any type of change in intensity (see second row of Fig. 10 and rst row of Fig. 11, notice the corners of the square and rectangle). This may be attributed to the highly general nature of our approach. In images that can effectively be processed using a uniform window size, our detectors provide very good edges. Observe Fig. 9 (rst and second row), Figs. 10 and 11 where images have more edge information and the contours are clearer than ones obtained by Canny. If the image needs windows of different sizes in different regions, however, although our edges are good, those provided by Cannys detector are more complete, Cannys detector provides more complete edges (see third row of Fig. 9). 8. Conclusions and future research The two edge detectors presented in this paper represent a practical application of interval-valued fuzzy sets. In their construction we used several basic concepts of this theory, such as interval-valued fuzzy entropy, t-representable IV t-norms, and s-representable t-conorms.

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1835

Fig. 11. Edges of Fig. 8(g)(i).

Furthermore, we have made it clear that T, and S, are the only t(s)-representable IV t-norm(conorm) that locate edges well. Given the experimental results, we may conclude that our edges usually compare favorably with (and sometimes are much better than) those obtained by Cannys detector. Furthermore, a great advantage of our detector is that it produces a several intermediate edges as it reaches the nal result. This is very important when we wish to interpret the image in an intelligent way, for example by identifying its most relevant object. Regarding future lines of research, we are pursuing the following objectives: (1) Construct an algorithm that combines the bright zone and dark zone edges. We would need to associate each change in gray level with a direction in order to use such an algorithm. (2) Study a method for selecting windows of different sizes in different zones of the image. (3) Improving the algorithms for studying noise and pre-processing images. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the referees and the editors for their valuable comments and suggestions, which have helped to improve this work. This research has been partially supported by Grant TIN2007-65981 from the Government of Spain.

1836

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

Appendix A Here we present the proofs of Theorems 1 and 3. Proof of Theorem 1. (Sufciency) Evident.
n n n (Necessity) If W (G n (x, y)) = 0, then g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) = gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)). Therefore g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) = n n n i=n j=n

S1 (S2

n ( f (x i, y j), f (x, y))) = S1 (S2 ( f (x, y), f (x, y))) = gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) = T1 (T2 ( f (x i, y j), f (x, y))) = i=n j=n i=n j=n n i=n j=n

T1 (T2 ( f (x, y), f (x, y))). The proof results directly from the following items:
n (i) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) n i=n j=n n i=n j=n

( f (x i, y j))

f (x, y) for all (x, y) X Y ; (T2 ( f (x i, y j),

n (ii) if T1 = and T2 is a superiorly semi-continuous triangular norm, then g,T2 ( f (x, y)) = n i=n j=n n (iii) g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) n i=n j=n

f (x, y))) = T2 ( f (x, y),

( f (x i, y j))); f (x, y) for all (x, y) X Y ;

( f (x i, y j))

(iv) if S1 = and S2 an inferiorly semi-continuous t-conorm, then

n n g,S2 ( f (x, y)) = i=n j=n

n i=n j=n

(S2 ( f (x i, y j), f (x, y))) = S2 f (x, y),

( f (x i, y j)) .

n Proof of Theorem 3. Considering pixels such that f (x, y) K (G n (x, y)), we have f (x, y) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) + n n n n n (g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y))) = (g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y))). Therefore f (x, y) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) n (x, y)); that is, W (T n )(x, y)) = f (x, y)g n n (x, y)). Reciprocally, for pixels such W (G W (G , (f, G T1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) n n n )(x, y)) n (x, y)), we have f (x, y)g n W (G (g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y))gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y))). that W (T, (f, G T1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) n n n n (x, y)). Therefore f (x, y) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y)) + (g S1 ,S2 ( f (x, y)) gT1 ,T2 ( f (x, y))) = K (G

Appendix B A possible method to calculate the values p and q [27]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Eliminate pixels of the W-matrix with zero length. Calculate EN1 (W (G n )) for the remaining pixels. Eliminate from the W-matrix pixels with length less than EN1 , then calculate EN2 for the remaining pixels. If EN1 + EN2 1, then calculate EN3 for those pixels with lengths greater than EN1 + EN2 . If EN1 + EN2 + EN3 1, then calculate EN4 for those pixels with lengths greater than EN1 + EN2 + EN3 . Continue the process implied by steps 3 and 4 until the sum considered is greater than 1. Once this point is reached, we have the values of EN1 , EN2 , . . . , ENr .

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1837

Fig. 12. Method to calculate limits p and q.

6. Calculate EN11 for the pixels with lengths greater than zero and less than or equal to EN1 . 7. Calculate EN21 for the pixels with lengths greater than EN1 and less than or equal to EN2 . Continue the process until EN111 is reached. 8. Repeat the process implied by steps 6 and 7 until only two values remain. The smaller will be p, and the larger will be q. Fig. 12 depicts the method described above for calculating p and q. Appendix C
n In the same way that we dened three interval-valued subsets of G n (G n , G n and G q ), we can introduce three p p,q n ). These are denoted T n )n , T n )n and T n n interval-valued subsets of T, (f, G , (f, G p , (f, G p,q , (f, G )q :

T, (f, G n )n = {((x, y), T, (f, G n )n (x, y))|(x, y) X Y } where p p T, (f, G n )n (x, y) = p T, (f, G n )(x, y) if 0 < W (T, (f, G n )(x, y)) < p, 0 otherwise,

T, (f, G n )n = {((x, y), T, (f, G n )n (x, y))|(x, y) X Y } where p,q p,q T, (f, G n )n (x, y) = p,q T, (f, G n )(x, y) if p W (T, (f, G n )(x, y)) < q, 0 otherwise,

n n T, (f, G n )q = {((x, y), T, (f, G n )q (x, y))|(x, y) X Y } where n T, (f, G n )q (x, y) =

T, (f, G n )(x, y) if q W (T, (f, G n )(x, y)), 0 otherwise. for the bright zone. Of course, in some cases we can x this value.

Next, we present the algorithm that determines

(1) Calculate the average intensity of the subimage (denoted by AI). That is, in G n would be AI = p/2. If we are in p n subimage G n , will be AI = ( p + q)/2; in subimage G q , will be AI = (q + 1)/2. p,q (2) Calculate EN of T, in the same subimage. (3) If 0 (AI EN )/AI < 0.5, then take = 0.5 + ( AI EN )/AI < 1. If 0.5 ( AI EN )/AI 1, then take = ( AI EN )/AI . In any other case, take = 0. An analogous algorithm was developed to obtain for the dark zone (the necessary changes are indicated in Section 5.1). Obviously, this value is lower than 0.5. Experimentally, these algorithms have provided very good results.

1838

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

Appendix D Some remarks on the bright zone algorithm: About step (BZ3): once the image is located in one of the six groups (CASE (1)CASE (6)), we must establish how much greater an entropy is with respect to the others to decide the gray level with which we begin to trace the edge. Step (BZ5): for each of the six orderings presented in (BZ3), we establish the relations between EN (T, (f, G n )n ), p n EN (T, (f, G n )n ) and EN (T, (f, G n )q ). These entropies are also used to calculate (see Appendix C). p,q Depending on the results of steps (BZ3) and (BZ5), a different sequence of actions will be executed in step (BZ6). Each action creates a single binary image. Note that in many applications, having this sequence available for analysis provides a signicant advantage over Cannys edge detector. Also, we wish to emphasize that the rst two images obtained usually include the most important edges. In most cases these rst two images are created by the Action1 and Action2, which are detailed in the text.
n Next, we detail as an example the sentences of the algorithm corresponding to CASE(2), that is, EN (G n ) EN (G q ) p n ): EN (G p,q n IF EN ((T, ( f, G n ))q ) > 3EN ((T, ( f, G n ))n ) THEN p,q Execute (Action1) with = 0.5. We obtain a binary image F1. Execute (Action2) with = 0.5. We obtain a binary image F2. ELSE Execute (Action1) with = 0.5. We obtain a binary image F1. Execute (Action2) with = 0.5. We obtain a binary image F2. Execute (Action3) with value calculate by means of its algorithm taking into account that we are working on the subimage T, (f, G n )n p and therefore AI = p/2. We obtain a binary image F3. ENDIF Later we execute the steps (BZ7) and (BZ8). Other cases can be handled in a similar way. Notice that the order relations in step (BZ5) are obtained experimentally. The algorithm for edge detection on the dark zone is similar to that developed in Section 6. One merely changes the sense of the inequalities: f (x, y) K (G n (x, y)) becomes f (x, y) < K (G n (x, y)), and T, (f, G n ) becomes S, (f, G n ). Otherwise it consists of exactly the same steps, which we denote (DZ1)(DZ8).

Fig. 13. Sequence of images obtained with dark zone detector: (a) Dark Zone Detector, (b) F1, (c) F2, (d) Dark Zone Detector, (e) F1 and (f) F2.

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

1839

Example 5. Images F1 and F2 (Fig. 13(b), (c), (e) and (f)) are obtained by applying steps (DZ1)(DZ6) of the algorithm to Fig. 7(a) and (g), respectively. Fig. 13(a) and (d) show the dark zone edges obtained after steps (DZ7) and (DZ8) are applied. Note that in this particular case, the bright zone edge detector produces a sequence of three images (F1, F2 and F3) before nalizing the edge. (The bright zone algorithm executed three actions; the dark zone algorithm chose only two.) We can also observe differences in the nal edges produced by the bright zone detector, the dark zone detector, and Cannys detector (see Figs. 7 and 13). References
[1] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, VII ITKRS Session, Deposed in Central Science-Technical Library of Bulgarian Academy of Science, 16841697, Soa, June 1983. [2] E. Barrenechea, Image processing with interval-valued fuzzy sets. Edge detection. Contrast, Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Publica de Navarra, 2005. [3] J.C. Bezdek, R. Chandrasekhar, Y. Attikiouzel, A geometric approach to edge detection, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 6 (1998) 5275. [4] P. Burillo, H. Bustince, Entropy on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and on interval-valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 78 (1996) 305316. [5] P. Burillo, H. Bustince, Construction theorems for intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 84 (1996) 271281. [6] H. Bustince, Indicator of inclusion grade for interval-valued fuzzy sets. Application to approximate reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets, Internat. J. Approx. Reason. 23 (2000) 137209. [7] H. Bustince, E. Barrenechea, M. Pagola, Image thresholding using restricted equivalence functions and maximizing the measures of similarity, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2007) 496516. [8] H. Bustince, E. Barrenechea, M. Pagola, Generation of interval-valued fuzzy and Atanassovs intuitionistic fuzzy connectives from fuzzy connectives and from K operators. Laws for conjunctions and disjunctions. Amplitude, Internat. J. Intell. Systems 23 (2008) 680714. [9] H. Bustince, E. Barrenechea, M. Pagola, R. Orduna, Construction of interval type 2 fuzzy images to represent images in grayscale. False edges, in: Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, London, July 2326, 2007, pp. 7378. [10] H. Bustince, P. Burillo, Mathematical analysis of interval-valued fuzzy relations: application to approximate reasoning, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 113 (2000) 205219. [11] in: H. Bustince, F. Herrera, J. Montero (Eds.), Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions: Representation Aggregation and Models, Springer, Berlin, 2007. [12] H. Bustince, J. Montero, M. Pagola, E. Barrenechea, D. Gmez, A survey of interval-valued fuzzy sets, in: W. Pedrycz (Ed.), Handbook of Granular Computing, Wiley, New Jersey, 2008. [13] J. Canny, A computational approach to edge detection, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 8 (1986) 679698. [14] C. Cornelis, G. Deschrijver, E. Kerre, Intuitionistic fuzzy connectives revisited, in: Proc. Ninth Internat. Conf. IPMU 2002, Annecy-France, July 15, 2002, pp. 18391844. [15] B. De Baets, Generalized idempotence in fuzzy mathematical morphology, in: E. Kerre, M. Nachtegael (Eds.), Fuzzy Techniques in Image Processing, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 52, Physica-Verlag, 2000. [16] B. De Baets, E. Kerre, M. Gupta, The fundamentals of fuzzy mathematical morphology. Part 1: basic concepts, Internat. J. Gen. Systems 23 (1994) 155171. [17] B. De Baets, E. Kerre, M. Gupta, The fundamentals of fuzzy mathematical morphology. Part 2: idempotence, convexity and decomposition, Internat. J. Gen. Systems 23 (1995) 307322. [18] G. Deschrijver, C. Cornelis, E.E. Kerre, On the representation of intuitionistic fuzzy t-norms and T-conorms, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 12 (2004) 4561. [19] G. Deschrijver, E.E. Kerre, On the relationship between some extensions of fuzzy set theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 133 (2003) 227235. [20] M.J. Frank, On the simultaneous associativity of F(x, y) and x + y F(x, y), Aequationes Math. 19 (1979) 194226. [21] J.A. Goguen, L-fuzzy sets, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 18 (1967) 623668. [22] M.B. Gorzalczany, A method of inference in approximate reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 21 (1987) 117. [23] M.M. Gupta, G.K. Knopf, P.N. Nikiforuk, Edge perception using fuzzy logic, in: M.M. Gupta, T. Yamakawa (Eds.), Fuzzy Computing, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 3551. [24] K.H.L. Ho, Fuzzy categorisation and classication in pattern recognition and computer vision, in: Proc. Seventh Australian Joint Conf. on Articial Intelligence (AI94), Armidale, N.S.W., Australia, 1994. [25] K.H.L. Ho, FEDGE-fuzzy edge detection by fuzzy categorization and classication of edges, in: IJCAI95 Workshop, Montral, Canada, 1995, pp. 182196. [26] L. Hu, H.D. Cheng, M. Zhang, A high performance edge detector based on fuzzy inference rules, Inform. Sci. 177 (2007) 47684784. [27] R. Jain, R. Kasturi, B.G. Schunck, Machine Vision, McGraw-Hill International Editions (Computer Sciences Series), New York, 1995. [28] S. Jenei, A more efcient method for dening fuzzy connectives, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 2535. [29] L.J. Kohout, W. Bandler, Fuzzy interval inference utilizing the checklist paradigm and BK-relational products, in: R.B. Kearfort et al. (Eds.), Application of Interval Computations, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996, pp. 291335. [30] J.M. Mendel, R.I. John, Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 10 (2002) 117127. [31] J. Montero, D. Gmez, H. Bustince, On the relevance of some families of fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2007) 24292442. [32] M.S. Prewitt, Object enhancement and extraction, in: A. Rosenfeld, B.S. Lipkin (Eds.), Picture Processing and Psychophysics, Academic Press, New York, 1970.

1840

H. Bustince et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 1819 1840

[33] L.G. Roberts, Machine perception of three-dimensional solids, in: J. Tippett (Ed.), Optical and Electro Optical Information Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1965, pp. 159197. [34] F. Russo, FIRE operators for image processing, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 103 (1999) 256275. [35] F. Russo, G. Ramponi, Edge extraction by FIRE operators, in: Third IEEE Internat. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, Orlando, 1994, pp. 249253. [36] R. Sambuc, Function -Flous, Application a laide au Diagnostic en Pathologie Thyroidienne, These de Doctorat en Medicine, Marseille, 1975. [37] J. Serra, Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology, Academic Press, London, 1982. [38] M.A. Sutton, J. Bezdek, Enhancement and analysis of digital mammograms using fuzzy models, in: J.M. Selander (Ed.), Proc. 26th Applied Imagery and Pattern Recognition (AIPR) Workshop: Exploiting New Image Sources and Sensors, SPIE, Vol. 3240, SPIE Press, Bellingham, WA, 1998. [39] H.R. Tizhoosh, Fast and robust fuzzy edge detection, in: M. Nachtegael, D. van der Weken, D. van De Ville, E.E. Kerre (Eds.), Fuzzy Filters for Image Processing, Springer, Germany, 2003, pp. 178193. [40] H.R. Tizhoosh, Image thresholding using type II fuzzy sets, Pattern Recognition 38 (2005) 23632372. [41] H.R. Tizhoosh, Interval-valued versus intuitionistic fuzzy sets: isomorphism versus semantics, Pattern Recognition 41 (2008) 18121813. [42] I.B. Turksen, Interval valued fuzzy sets based on normal forms, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986) 191210. [43] I.B. Turksen, Interval-valued fuzzy sets and compensatory AND, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 51 (1992) 295307. [44] I.B. Turksen, Z. Zhong, An approximate analogical reasoning schema based on similarity measures and interval-valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 34 (1990) 323346. [45] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform. and Control 8 (1965) 338353. [46] L.A. Zadeh, Outline of a new approach to analysis of complex systems and decision processes, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 3 (1973) 2844. [47] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoningI, Inform. Sci. 8 (1975) 199249.