MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1679909263 · doi:10.3233/ifs-2005-00253

Genetic programming of fuzzy aggregation operations

2005· article· en· W1679909263 on OpenAlexaff
Petr Musı́lek, Rhea Guanlao, Guillermo Barreiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntersection (aeronautics)Fuzzy logicAxiomGenetic programmingMathematical optimizationAlgebraic operationSet (abstract data type)Fitness functionFuzzy setSet operationsGenetic algorithmAlgebraic numberArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMachine learningProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggregation operations play an important role in decision-making problems where a weighted combination of several criteria is used to select an alternative with the strongest support. In fuzzy set theory, aggregation operations are usually modeled as intersection, union, or as combination of both. The particular form and algebraic properties of these operations vary according to requirements for compensation among the criteria and other characteristics of the given decision-making situation. Traditionally, only algebraically well-behaved operations have been considered for this purpose. By relaxing some algebraic constraints, more realistic operations can be obtained that closely capture certain features of human decision-making, such as preferences and a limited level of detail. This paper proposes a method to generate fuzzy aggregation operations using genetic programming. It is shown that an evolutionary process, facilitated by genetic programming, has the capacity to generate new valid fuzzy aggregation operations and to reproduce existing ones. By varying process conditions, encoded in a fitness function, it is possible to obtain operations with different logical and algebraic properties. This approach, based solely on the axioms which define the desired class of operations, explores the space of possible functions and often leads to discovery of new operations. However, the proposed system can also be used to generate aggregation operations that fit a collected data set. This application is very important as it provides a powerful new tool for modeling and processing empirical data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy SystemsSame topicFuzzy Logic and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207