Neuro-Fuzzy based Maneuver Detection for Collision Avoidance in Road Vehicles M. A. Zamora-Izquierdo1 , R. Toledo-Moreo2 , M. Vald´es-Vela1 , and D. Gil-Galv´an1 1
Univ. Murcia, DIIC, Faculty of Computer Science, 30100 Murcia, Spain [email protected]
, [email protected]
, http://libra.inf.um.es/ants vehicles Univ. Politecnica de Cartagena, DETCP, Edif. Antigones, 30202 Cartagena, Spain, [email protected]
Abstract. The issue of collision avoidance in road vehicles has been investigated from many different points of view. An interesting approach for Road Vehicle Collision Assistance Support Systems (RVCASS) is based on the creation of a scene of the vehicles involved in a potentially conflictive traffic situation. This paper proposes a neuro-fuzzy approach for dynamic classification of the vehicles roles in a road scene. For that purpose, different maneuver state models for longitudinal movements of road vehicles have been defined, and a prototype has been equipped with INS (Inertial Navigation Systems) and GPS (Global Positioning System) sensors. Trials with real data show the suitability of the proposed neurofuzzy approach for solving support to the problem under consideration.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are one of the keys to advance in the development of future societies. ITS-R consists of the applications of telematics to the transportation problem along roads. Navigators, automated vehicles or collision avoidance support systems are a few examples of interesting applications that ITS-R aim . The problem of road vehicles collisions have been intensively reached lately. One interesting approach is based on the situation awareness concept. The issue of situation awareness has been pointed by several authors from the point of view of the artificial intelligence, specially for military purposes  – . Most of these authors agree to divide multi-sensor data fusion into four levels of increasing situation complexity. Some other approaches, like the one proposed by University of Melbourne, prefer different architecture schemas not necessarily oriented to military scenes . One of the main aspects of situation awareness is the maneuver recognition of the vehicles in a scene. Very different approaches depending of the sensors used can be found in the current literature. Several authors have been focusing their efforts in the recognition of vehicle behaviors by using a set of diverse kinematical models. Each model is developed to represent the vehicle behavior in a particular maneuvering state. In  a concrete model is selected according
to its dynamic state. In , FIR filters are used to detect maneuvers and track targets. The work presented in this paper is based on a Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) for maneuver classification. Then, the navigation system of the vehicle employs a different model-set to represent the vehicle behavior along the road. The navigation system employs an onboard equipment (OBE) based on GPS/INS, running several extended Kalman filters (EKF) describing the different maneuver states. Previous papers published by the authors showed the suitability of this proposal for road vehicle navigation, even in unfriendly scenarios, like those with low GPS coverage or changing scenarios , , . FISs use IF-THEN rules to describe qualitative relationships among the variables in the system being modeled. Their strength relies on their two fold identity. On one hand, they look like natural language statements and, therefore, they are suitable for interpretation. On the other, they can be regarded as flexible mathematical structures able to perform nonlinear mappings between input and output data. Besides, FISs have been widely used to achieve classification tasks , given that a fuzzy classifier is only a FIS with crisp and discrete outputs. Rules in a FIS are usually obtained from expert knowledge. However, these kind of models may show poor performance. This can be sorted out by means of methods to build or update fuzzy models from numerical input-output data. This approach is called Data Driven Fuzzy Modeling (DDFM) [20, 22]. However, they pay little attention to the transparency of the resulting FISs what is their main drawback. Nevertheless, in the last years several approaches to achieve a trade-off between performance and transparency have arised . In this job we apply DDFM techniques to build a FIS for classifying road vehicles maneuvers. Concretely, it has been applied a clustering technique followed by a neuro-fuzzy approach in which the adaptive capabilities of neural networks have been used to tune the parameters of the target FIS. As we will see in section 6 very promising performance results have been obtained. Nevertheless, the current job must be regarded as a first approximation to the application of fuzzy models to the current problem. Future jobs will be devoted to the generation of more interpretable and accurate FIS for maneuver classification.
System Architecture: Quadrant
Quadrant is an architecture for ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) applications based on the separation of four layers according the level of abstraction of the fusion performed, paying special attention to its communication framework . The first layer (or sensor layer) is in charge of the measurement collection, sorting and synchronization. These measurements are sent to upper layers via the sensor network. Secondly, the fusion layer fuses the data coming from the sensors. This layer, oriented to the interpretation of the vehicle behavior to be performed in the following phase, is described by a set of models, representing different dynamic states of the vehicle. The difficulty to find a unique behavior that properly describes all possible maneuvers of a vehicle encourages
the definition of multiple models to better describe its movements along roads. Besides, whether the system is able to determine the dynamic behavior of the vehicle, the use of multiple models supplies additional information relative to the maneuver state. Fused data are then supplied to the third layer via ad hoc networks in the vehicle environment. Those networks are supported by WLAN connection availability, thanks to the WIFI PCMCIA card installed in the vehicle computer. Third layer or interpretation layer is in charge of the dynamic classification of the vehicle and the scene interpretation. The use of the multiple models in the lower layer eases the dynamic classification process, according to the selection of the maneuver states of the vehicle, performed as explained in subsequent Sections. Finally, the interpreted data (and any other data coming from previous phases) can be used by the application in order to provide the final service to the user. A scene will be defined by the information of the vehicle itself, those surrounding, and geographical information of interest in the area (type of road, speed limits, geographical accidents, etc.). Each vehicle in the scene is in charge of identifying its maneuver state and reporting it, along with its pose, to the rest of vehicles in the scene (typically a few close enough to be involved and capable to communicate via ad hoc WLAN). The on board equipment is described in details in .
Multiple Model Filtering
The basic idea of using multiple models is based on the fact that a vehicle performs very different maneuvers depending on the scenario features. For a road vehicle, typical maneuvers in highways differ from those usual in city environments. Thus, a single vehicle model can hardly represent all possible maneuvers, and the use of multiple models, representing different maneuver states and running in parallel is advisable. The output of the multiple model approach is typically the model with highest probability value, or a weighted composite of the individual filters . In our proposal we have distinguished between lateral and longitudinal movements of the vehicle. Lateral movements are categorized in keep the lane and change the lane states. Regarding longitudinal movements, four different maneuver states are defined for collision avoidance support: acceleration, deceleration, cruise and stationary. This paper focuses on longitudinal movements. Future investigations will analyze the issue of lateral movements. 3.1
Due to the division established between lateral and longitudinal maneuver states, different lateral and longitudinal model-sets are used separately to represent the vehicles movements along roads. In the longitudinal case presented in this paper, the most common approach found in the current literature, proposes models representing constant acceleration (CA) and constant velocity (CV) maneuver
states. However, we proposed another approach, based on two different constant acceleration models with different noise parameter adjustments. Moreover, a stationary model is included to consider this non-maneuver state. The combination of CV and CA models has been analyzed lately in the literature , . However, some of these authors found problems with the transition to the CA model, including those who used the IMM method . In this interesting paper, the tuning of the CA noise parameters to avoid often unrealistic switches from one state to the other was found problematic, impoverishing the perception of the situation. In case of highways, typical accelerations and decelerations do not last long enough to accomplish the transition from the CV state, to the CA state. By using two CA models with different tunings we expect to overcome these difficulties. The kinematic model proposed is a simplified bicycle model, in which the orientation of the acceleration and velocity are assumed to be equal. Different tests done proved that this assumption can be done for highway scenarios. Despite the fact that we must distinguished between acceleration and deceleration maneuver states for collision avoidance support, both maneuver states can be represented by a unique model definition. Acceleration/Deceleration (AD) The state vector of the acceleration/deceleration model is xAD = (x, y, φ, v, ω, a), representing north, east, velocity angle, velocity, yaw rate of turn, and the acceleration, in the center of mass of the vehicle. The dynamics of this model are described by 0 (v + at) cos(φ) (v + at) sin(φ) 0 0 ω (1) x˙ AD = + 0 a ηωAD 0 ηaAD 0 where ηωAD and ηaAD are white noise terms representing the errors due to model assumptions of constant acceleration and constant yaw rate. Cruise (CR) The state vector of the cruise model is the same as in the AD model. However, in this case constant yaw rate is assumed, being ω = 0, and the differential equation (v + at) cos(φ) 0 (v + at) sin(φ) 0 ηφCR 0 x˙ CR = (2) + 0 a ηωCR 0 0 ηaCR In this case, a new term ηφCR must be considered for errors in the constant yaw assumption. In addition, noise parameters due to ω and a must be much
lower to represent the cruise vehicle dynamics. As can visible comparing 3.1 and 3.1, a higher order equation has been employed to model the behavior of the velocity angle in AD maneuver states. Despite the fact that we focus on longitudinal movements, this consideration has been done to better model the vehicle behavior during typical accelerations and decelerations in turns. Stationary (S) In this case, the vector state is simplified being v = ω = a = 0, and the differential equation x˙ S = [ ηxS ηyS ηφS 0 0 0 ]0
where ηxS and ηyS are white noise terms representing the errors due to the model assumptions. All the noise parameters will be fixed in the tuning process of the filter, starting from the sensor datasheet error values. Observations for the AD, CR and S individual filters are GPS north and east values (xgps , ygps ), odometry velocity (vodo ) and inertial measurements for angular rate (ωins ) and longitudinal acceleration (ains ).
TSK Fuzzy Inference System
In this paper we are concerned with FISs of type TSK  (see figure 5.2(a)). In such kind of FISs the rule consequents are usually constant linear functions of the inputs: IF x1 is A11 AND . . . AND xp is A1p THEN y = a10 + a11 x1 + . . . + a1p xp IF x1 is A21 AND . . . AND xp is A2p THEN y = a20 + a21 x1 + . . . + a2p xp ··· IF x1 is Ar1 AND . . . AND xp is Arp THEN y = ar0 + ar1 x1 + . . . + arp xp where r is the number of rules, p is the number of input variables, x1 , x2 , . . . , xp are de input variables and y is the output one. Ai1 , Ai2 , . . . , Aip are the antecedent fuzzy sets of i-th rule. They can have an attached linguistic label. The fuzzy sets serve as a smooth interface between the numerical nature of input and output variables and the linguistic labels. A type of TSK FIS where every consequent is a crisp value is considered a special case of TSK FIS with zero-order polynomials in the consequents, the so-called Zero-Order TSK FIS. This is more suitable for classification tasks. As we will see in our maneuver classification problem a natural number from 1 to 4 is associated to each maneuver. Nevertheless, first-order TSK FISs (the ones with linear consequents) can also be used. To obtain the output inferred with a TSK model (of any order), first of all it is necessary to compute the degree of fulfillment of the ith rule, denoted as τi , with i = 1, . . . , r. This degree of fulfillment is given by the true value of the proposition ”x1 is Ai1 AND . . . AND xp is Aip ”, whose meaning is given through a t-norm as, for instance, the product operator. Therefore, given the input x1 , . . . , xp , the degree of fulfillment of the i-th rule is computed as:
τi = Ai1 (x1 ) · Ai2 (x2 ) · Aip (xp ) Finally, the FIS output y is obtained adding the partial outputs of each rule, weighted with their respective degrees of fulfillment through the equation: r P
τi y i y = i=1 r P τi i=1
where yi is the output of the i-th rule: yi = ai0 + ai1 x1 + . . . + aip xp , in a first-order TSK yi = ai0 , in a zero-order TSK Our strategy starts with the selection of the number of rules. Instead of an automatic selection a suitable number can be chosen according to the distribution of the available input-output data. Therefore this number is an initial parameter to a clustering optimization method resulting in a first approximation to the target FIS. Finally, a neuro-fuzzy architecture is fed with the centroids detected. Afterwards, the adaptive capabilities of this network are used in order to adjust the FIS parameters.
A Maneuver Classification FIS: the DDFM Process
In general, three main stages compose a DDFM process: first, the number of rules must be detected (rules number identification). After that, a rough approximation to the set of rules is obtained (rules generation). Afterward the fuzzy sets involved in the rules are adjusted in the parameter optimization stage to better mimic the system behaviour. Concretely, our strategy, instead of an automatic selection of a suitable number, it is chosen manually according to the visual distribution of the available input-output data. Therefore this number is an initial parameter to a subsequent clustering optimization method applied to the input-output data. Every cluster can be regarded as a rough fuzzy rule. So, their centroids are the initial values to the fuzzy sets involved in the FIS which will be tuned using the adaptive capabilities of a neuro-fuzzy architecture. 5.1
The Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Method (FCM)  is one of the most used in order to optimize an initial partition of the data. Given a set of examples, the algorithm must be provided with a previously established number c, a set of c centroids and an initial fuzzy c-partition of the data. Then, this algorithm optimices the c-partition in such a way that certain cost function J is minimiced. This function is the weighted within groups sum of squared-errors.
At each step, three operation are sucessively carried out until the centroids are stable with respect to a given tolerance (): (1) computation of the centroids (assuming that the membership degrees composing the partition are constants numbers); (2) calculus of the distances from each data to every centroid (the more often used measure of distance is the euclidean, it induces spherical clusters); (3) update the membership degree of each data point to every cluster (asumming that the centroids are constants numbers). The partition of the input-output data obtained by means of this clustering method is considered as a first approximation to the target FIS . These clusters centroids are the initial parameters for the fuzzy sets involved in the FIS. The next step is the tuning of those parameters. This stage is described in the next section. 5.2
In order to optimize the parameters, we use a neuro-fuzzy approach. Neuro-fuzzy mechanisms merge the adaptive capabilities of artificial neural networks with the human-readable information representation provided by FISs. Concretely we use the Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS)  that is functionally equivalent to a TSK FIS. It is compound of five layers. The nodes in layer 1 and layer 4 correspond to the antecedent and consequent parameters of the TSK FIS respectively. The ANFIS architecture is shown in the figure 5.2(a). We have supposed fuzzy sets with gaussian membership functions. Therefore, the mean of the fuzzy sets in the antecedents layer are initialized with the centroids obtained in the previous phase of DDFM and then the training is carried out during several epoches (iterations). Every epoch of the training is compound of a forward and a backward pass. In the forward pass the network is evaluated for every input data and the rule consequent parameters are identified by means of the Least-Squares Estimator. Afterwards, errors for every training data are calculated and, in the backward pass, error signals are propagated and the rule antecedents are modified through backpropagation.
In order to obtain the training and test input-output data we count on a vehicle equipped with two IMU (inertial Measurement Unit) sensors (MT9-B Xsens and Xbow VG-400 IMU units) with low cost MEMS (Micro-electro-mechanical system) technology. A Trimble DGPS sensor and the odometry of the car were also utilized to obtain the data set. With these information, the sensor fusion layer also estimates the vehicle pose through the different Extended Kalman Filters (with the different kinematic models). Finally, real data coming from five different circuits (6908 instances) have been used in the experiments. Different configurations related to the inputs were analyzed, and we finally decided to use four inputs to feed the target FIS: the two last velocity measures
Fig. 1. (a) ANFIS architecture. (b) Training data coming from four circuits.
(v(k) and v(k −1)) provided by the odometry of the car, the longitudinal acceleration (ax (k)) provided by the IMU unit, and the previous output (o(k − 1)). No angular information is taken into account because only longitudinal maneuvers have to be identified in this preliminary experiments. Concretely, four different maneuver have been considered: stop (denoted as ST in the remaining paper and being 1 the constant representing it in a zero-order TSK consequent), acceleration (AC or 2), cruise (CR or 3) and deceleration (DC or 4). From a kinematics point of view the acceleration and deceleration maneuvers follow the same model, but we have distinguished between them in order to improve the DDFM process performance. Input-output data coming from four of the five mentioned circuits were used for training. They are shown in figure 5.2(b). Given the distribution of the data in the input-output space it was decided to set the FCM algoritm with c = 12, that is, 12 clusters and hence 12 rules. The tolerance index was set to 10−4 . Let us call FCS the model of 12 clusters generated by means of the FCM method. Afterward each cluster was projected into each one of the axis obtaining a first approximation of the target FIS (let us call it FCS-p). Afterwards, an ANFIS architecture was fed twice with this rough FIS in order to obtain a zero and a first order TSK FIS respectively. The two times it was trained for 100 epoches and, finally, two different classifiers were obtained, TSK-0 and TSK-1. Final and intermediate FISs were validated using the fifth circuit. In table 6(a) training and validation errors for every FIS are deployed, where RMSE stands for Root Means Squared Error (RMSE) and is computed by the equation: v n uP u (y t − yˆt )2 t i i RM SE = i=1 n being yit and yˆit the inferred and real outputs for the i-th datum and being n the number of data. It must be remarked that training and validation errors were comparable, indicating the absence of overtraining.
It can be observed that TSK-1 has better performance than TSK-0 due to the more powerful approximation capabilities of the polynomial consequents. On the other side, TSK-0 is more transparent since most of the rule consequents matches the maneuver themselves (it can not be shown due to the limited space). The confusion matrixes of TSK-0 and TSK-1 classifiers are shown in tables 6(b) and 6(c) respectively, where each column of the matrix represents the instances in a inferred maneuver, while each row represents the instances in actual maneuver. The two models classify pretty well the stop instances while TSK-1 is better than TSK-0 classifying the remaining maneuvers. (a) FIS RMSE Tr. RMSE Va. FCS 0.47 0.83 FCS-p 0.40 0.54 TSK-0 0.24 0.28 TSK-1 0.15 0.24
ST AC CR DC
ST 499 0 0 2
(b) AC 28 231 50 12
CR 0 3 857 0
DC 0 1 6 409
ST AC CR DC
ST 499 1 0 1
(c) AC 1 306 3 11
CR 0 6 854 0
DC 1 8 7 400
Table 1. : (a)RMSE of the different FISs. (b) TSK-0 confusion matrixes. (c)TSK-1 confusion matrixes.
In figure 6(a) the data extracted from the validation circuit are deployed. Besides figure 6(b) the maneuver inferred by the TSK-0 and TSK-1 classifiers versus the actual outputs. It can be observed, for example, that many of the errors are concentrated about instant 200 where AC points are classified as CR in TSK-1 and DC in TSK-0 due to the large oscillations in v(t). Once a fuzzy classifier has been obtained it can be used inside the system. In a higher level the system decides the kinematic model taking into account the output of the fuzzy classifier. With the mentioned four inputs, the system is able to learn about changes in the velocity fusing information coming from two different sensors. The last output adds information about the current maneuver to the system.
Conclusions and Future Work
The use of a model-set representing different state maneuvers of a road vehicle provides an appropriate modeling of the vehicle behavior in many different dynamic situations with realistic pose and noise estimates. This paper proposes a fuzzy classifier for state maneuver detection that has been obtained from inputoutput data by means of a clustering technique and a subsequent neuro-fuzzy approach. In this first work, promising results have been obtained. Trials performed with real data in a set of road scenarios show the suitability of the proposed system for the problem of detecting different maneuver states for longitudinal movements.
Fig. 2. (a) Fifth circuit used for evaluation. (b) actual maneuvers and those inferred by TSK-1 and TSK-0 FISs.
Next step is to analyze the system capability for transversal maneuvers, including lane change. Regarding the fuzzy inference system, several improvements can be introduced. In the current experiments the number of fuzzy rules have been fixed a priori. Future works will be focused on the use of automatic methods for the detection of this number directly from data. Besides, further researches will lead us to the generation of more accurate and user-friendly fuzzy rules susceptible of being contrasted with a human expert.
Acknowledgments The Authors would like to thank the Spanish Ministerio de Fomento and the European Space Agency (ESA) for sponsoring the research activities under the grants FOM/3929/2005 and GIROADS 332599 respectively.
References 1. Skarmeta A., Toledo R., Zamora M.A., Ubeda B., Santa J., Sotomayor C.: Master Plan for ITS in Spain. Ministerio de Fomento Espa˜ nol (2006) 2. Huang D., Leung H.: EM-IMM based land-vehicle navigation with GPS/INS, Proceedings of the IEE ITSC Conference. Washington DC USA. Oct. (2004). pp. 624– 629. 3. Barrios C., Himberg H., Motai Y., Sadek A.: Multiple Model Framework of Adaptive Extended Kalman Filtering for Predicting Vehicle Location, Proceedings of the IEEE-ITSC 2006, Toronto, Canada, September 17-20, (2006). pp. 1053–1059. 4. Hoffmann C., and Dang T.: Cheap Joint Probabilistic Data Association Filters in an Interacting Multiple Model Design, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE-MFI 2006. September 3-6, (2006), Heidelberg, Germany. pp. 197–202. 5. Bar-Shalom,Y., and X.R.Li, Multitarget-multisensor tracking: principles and techniques. Storrs, CT. YBS Publishing, (1995).
XI 6. Mieczyslaw M. Kokar, Christopher J. Matheus, Jerzy A. Letkowski, Association in Level 2 fusion., SPIE (2004). 7. Marion G. Ceruti, Ontology for Level-One Sensor Fusion and Knowledge Discovery. SPIE (2004). 8. Christopher J. Matheus Mieczyslaw M. Kokar Kenneth Baclawski, A Core Ontology for Situation Awareness. Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Information Fusion, Cairns, Australia, July (2003), pp. 545–552. 9. Mieczyslaw M. Kokar Christopher J. Matheus Kenneth Baclawski, Jerzy A. Letkowski Michael Hinman John Salerno, Use Cases for Ontologies in Information Fusion. Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Information Fusion, Cairns, Australia, July (2003), pp. 545–552. 10. M.G. Ceruti and J.L. Kaina, Enhancing Dependability of the Battlefield Single Integrated Picture through Metrics for Modeling and Simulation of Time-Critical Scenarios. Proc. of the IEEE 9th Intl. Workshop on Real-time Dependable Systems, (WORDS 2003F), Oct. (2003). 11. M.G. Ceruti and M.N. Kamel, Preprocessing and Integration of Data from Multiple Sources for Knowledge Discovery. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, vol. 8, no. 3, June (1999), pp. 159-177. 12. E. Waltz and J. Llinas, Multisensor Data Fusion. Artech House, Boston (1990). 13. S. Dance, T. Caelli, Z.Q. Liu, An architecture for a traffic scene interpretation system, Technical Report 94/12, Dept. of Computer Science. University of Melbourne. (1994). 14. K. Weiss, D. Stueker, A. Kirchner, Target Modelling and Dynamic Classification for Adaptive Sensor Data Fusion. Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium 2003 June (2003), pp. 132–137. 15. S.Hwan Park, W.Hyun Kwon, Oh-Kyu Kwon and P. So Kim, Maneuver Detection and Target Tracking Using State-Space Optimal FIR Filters. Proceedings of the American Control Conference. San Diego, California June (1999). pp. 4253–4257. 16. R.Toledo, M.A.Zamora,B.Ubeda and A.F.Gomez-Skarmeta, An Integrity Navigation System based on GNSS/INS for Remote Services Implementation in Terrestrial Vehicles. Proceedings of the IEEE-ITSC 2004. Washington D.C., Oct. (2004), Vol IV. pp.477–480. 17. R. Toledo, A High Integrity Navigation System for Road Vehicles in Unfriendly Environments Phd. Dissertation. Universidad de Murcia Publishing. (2005). 18. R.Toledo, M.A.Zamora and A.F.Gomez-Skarmeta, A Novel Design of a High Integrity Low Cost Navigation Unit for Road Vehicle Applications, Proceedings of the IEEE-IV 2006, Tokyo, Japan, June (2006) pp.577-582. 19. G´ omez-Skarmeta A.F., Vald´es M., Jim´enez F. and Mar´ın-Bl´ azquez J.G., Approximative fuzzy rules approaches for classification with hybrid-GA techniques. Information Sciences (2001) vol. 136, no. 1-4, pp.193–214. 20. Babuˇ ska R., Fuzzy Modeling for Control, Kluwer Academic Publishes (1998). 21. Teng Y. W. and Wang W. J., Constructing a User Friendly GA-Based Fuzzy System Directly From Numerical Data,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part B (2004), vol.34, no. 5 pp.2060–2070. 22. Vald´es M. G´ omez-Skarmeta A.F. and Bot´ıa J. A., Towards a Framework for the Specification of Hybrid Fuzzy Modeling, International Journal of Intelligent Systems (2005), vol 20 no. 2, pp.225–252. 23. Toledo R., Sotomayor C. Gomez-Skarmeta A.F., Quadrant: An Architecture Design for Intelligent Vehicle Services in Road Scenarios. Monograph on Advances in Transport Systems Telematics (2006) pp.451-460.
XII 24. Jang J. S. ANFIS: Adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference systems, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (1993), vol. 23, no. 3,pps665–685. 25. Takagi T. and Sugeno M., Fuzzy Identification of Systems and its Applications to Modeling and Control, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetic (1985), vol. 15, pp.116–132. 26. Bezdeck J. C., Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms, Plenum, New York,(1981).