year 11, Issue 2 (2025)
JRA 2025, 11(2): 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kabirian M, Taheri S M, Niknami K A, Ramezani M. (2025). Development of a Fuzzy Inference System for Estimating the Sex of Human Skeletal Remains Based on Two Morphological Studies. JRA. 11(2), : 10 doi:10.66224/jra.2025.11.210
URL: http://jra-tabriziau.ir/article-1-462-en.html
URL: http://jra-tabriziau.ir/article-1-462-en.html
1- Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran , ma.kabirian@gmail.com
2- School of Engineering Science, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4- Noor Genetics Research Center, Tehran, Iran
2- School of Engineering Science, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4- Noor Genetics Research Center, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1446 Views)
Sex estimation of human skeletal remains is one of the fundamental steps in bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology, providing crucial demographic information about past populations and assisting in forensic identification cases. Traditional methods, such as the Buikstra-Ubelaker standard, offer valuable frameworks but suffer from subjective interpretations, interobserver variability, and regional morphological differences. To address these challenges, this study not only develops two fuzzy inference systems (FIS) designed to estimate the sex of skeletal remains based on morphological features, but also aims to highlight the potential of fuzzy logic in anthropological and archaeological studies. The first fuzzy system is constructed according to the Buikstra-Ubelaker standard, treating selected cranial traits equally and using predefined feature weights. The second system is developed based on empirical osteological data collected from 128 Iranian skeletal samples, integrating both cranial and pelvic features. Fuzzy rules were extracted systematically using decision tree modeling, enhancing the data-driven nature of the second system. Both fuzzy inference systems were developed using a Mamdani-type architecture and implemented in the Python programming environment. Validation of the models involved applying the first system to a dataset of 50 individuals and the second system to a dataset of 19 individuals, all with sex estimations previously made by experts and confirmed through DNA analysis. The Buikstra-Ubelaker-based system achieved an accuracy rate of 48%, whereas the empirical-data-based system demonstrated 83% accuracy. Findings indicate that fuzzy inference systems, particularly those built on empirical, population-specific data, can provide more accurate and objective sex estimations than standard-based methods. Further refinement in membership function design, feature weighting, and dataset expansion is recommended to optimize performance and enhance the applicability of fuzzy systems in archaeological and forensic contexts.
Article number: 10
Keywords: Fuzzy Inference System, Sex Estimation, Archaeological Anthropology, Forensic, Osteological Data Analysis
Technical Note: Original Research |
Subject:
Archaeometry
Received: 2025/04/27 | Accepted: 2025/09/23 | Published: 2025/12/30 | ePublished: 2025/12/30
Received: 2025/04/27 | Accepted: 2025/09/23 | Published: 2025/12/30 | ePublished: 2025/12/30
References
1. Agarwal, P., & Nayal, H. S. (2015). Possibility theory versus probability theory in fuzzy measure theory. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 5(2), 37-43.
2. Alirezazadeh, M & Heydarian, M & Khosrowzadeh, A. (2020). GIS and fuzzy logic in the management of cultural resources; presenting the predictive model of chalcolithic sites in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari. Journal of Archaeological Studies. 12(3), 193-216.
3. Buikstra, J. E., & Douglas H. Ubelaker (Eds.). (1994). Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. (12154th ed.). Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey.
4. Canal, E., & Cavazzoni, S. (1990). Ancient human settlements in the venice lagoon: A multivariate analysis using "fuzzy c-means clus-tering", Archeologia e Calcolatori, 1, 165-177 [in Italian].
5. Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2015). Possibility theory and its applications: where do we stand? In j. Kacprzyk & w. Pedrycz (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence (pp. 31-60). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-43505-2_3]
6. Dubois, Didier., & Prade, H. M. (1988). Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty. Springer US.
7. Figuera, M. (2021). A fuzzy approach to evaluate the attributions relia-bility in the archaeological sources. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 22(3). [DOI:10.1007/s00799-020-00284-6]
8. Gaines, B. R., & Kohout, L. (1975). Possible automata. International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, 183-196.
9. Hermon, S., & Niccolucci, F. (2017). Formally defining the time-space-archaeological culture relation: Problems and prospects. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 28.
10. Hermon, S., Niccolucci, F., Alhaique, F., Iovino, M.-R., & Leonini, V. (2004). Archaeological typologies-an archaeological fuzzy reality. BAR International Series, 1227, 30-34.
11. Kabirian, M. (2018). Application of Fuzzy Logic in Archaeology (A Case Study of Jafar Abad and Tu-Ali Kurgans), Master's Thesis, Art University of Isfahan, Iran [in Persian].
12. Kafetzaki, D., Poblome, J., & Aerts, J. (2023). Fuzzy typological (re)arrangement: a prototype of rethinking the typology of roman tablewares from sagalassos, southwest Anatolia. Journal of Archaeo-logical Method and Theory. [DOI:10.1007/s10816-023-09614-9]
13. Klales, A. R. (Ed.). (2020). Sex estimation of the human skeleton: history, methods, and emerging techniques. In Sex Estimation of the Human Skeleton: History, Methods, and Emerging Techniques (pp. 1-378). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-03550-4 [DOI:10.1016/C2017-0-03550-4.]
14. Klales, A. R., Ousley, S. D., & Passalacqua, N. V. (2020). Statistical approaches to sex estimation. In A. R. Klales (Ed.), Sex Estimation of the Human Skeleton (pp. 203-217). Academic Press, an Imprint of Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00013-4 [DOI:10.1016/b978-0-12-815767-1.00013-4]
15. The MathWorks Inc. (2024). Mamdani and Sugeno Fuzzy Inference Systems. (2024). The MathWorks Inc. https://www.mathworks.com/help/fuzzy/types-of-fuzzy-inference-systems.html
16. Maghsoudi, M, Zamanzadeh S., Ehdaei A, Yousefi Zoshk R, Yamani M. (2015). Analysis of the role of environmental factors in site selecting of prehistoric settlements in Varamin Plain with usage fuzzy logic. Journal of Spatial Planning and Geomatics. 19:233-63. [in Persian]
17. Mamdani, E. H., & Assilian, S. (1975). An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7(1), 1-13. [DOI:10.1016/S0020-7373(75)80002-2]
18. Migliorini, S., Quintarelli, E., & Belussi, A. (2022). Tracking data provenance of archaeological temporal information in presence of uncertainty. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 15(2). [DOI:10.1145/3480956]
19. Murphy, K. M., Gittings, B., & Crow, J. (2018). Visibility analysis of the Roman communication network in southern Scotland. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 17, 111-124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.047 [DOI:10.1016/J.JASREP.2017.10.047]
20. Niccolucci, F., D'Andrea, A., & Crescioli, M. (2001). Archaeological applications of fuzzy databases. BAR International Series International Series, 931, 107-116.
21. Niccolucci, F., & Hermon, S. (2015). Time, chronology and classifica-tion. In J. Barceló and I. Bogdanovic (Ed.), Mathematics and Archae-ology,
22. CRC Press. [DOI:10.1201/b18530]
23. Niccolucci, F., Pardi, G., & Zoppi, T. (1996). A georeferenced archive of archaeological settlements. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 7, 161-177 [in Italian].
24. Taheri, S., Iravani Ghadim, F., & Kabirian, M. (2019). Application of fuzzy inference systems in archaeology. 7th Iranian Joint Congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Systems (CFIS), 148-155.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CFIS.2019.8692167 [DOI:10.1109/CFIS.2019.8692167.]
25. Taheri, S., Iravani Ghadim F, Kabirian M. (2018). Using of fuzzy mathematics in archeology. The 6th Iranian joint congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Systems, Kerman. 307-14. [in Persian].
26. Taheri S., Iravani Ghadim F, Kabirian M. (2018a). Fuzzification of archaeological data for using in fuzzy statistics. 8th Seminar of Fuzzy Statistics and Probablity, Mashhad. 93-8. [in Persian].
27. Taheri, S., Iravani Ghadim, F., Kabirian, M. (2018b). An introduction to the use of fuzzy mathematics in archeology (acase study: virtual reconstruction of Togrul Tower by using fuzzy reliability). Journal of Reasearch in Archaeometry. 4(2), 35-48. doi:10.29252/jra.4.2.35 [in Persian]. [DOI:10.29252/jra.4.2.35]
28. Thomas, R. M. (2020). Sex determination using DNA and its impact on biological anthropology. In A. R. Klales (Ed.), Sex Estimation of the Human Skeleton (pp. 343-350). Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00021-3 [DOI:10.1016/b978-0-12-815767-1.00021-3]
29. Wang, L.-X. (1997). A Course in Fuzzy Systems and Control (1st ed.). Prentice Hall.
30. Wang, l. (1999). Course In Fuzzy Systems and Control. (Translated by Teshneh-lab, M., safapour, N. & Afyooni, D.) [in Persian].
31. White, T. D., Black, M. T., & Folkens, P. A. (2012). Human Osteology (3rd ed.). Elsevier/Academic Press.
32. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 338-353. [DOI:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X]
33. Zadeh, L. A. (1978). Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1, 3-28. [DOI:10.1016/0165-0114(78)90029-5]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
