Learning of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Using Density Estimate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzzy cognitive maps (FCMs) are convenient and widely used architectures for modeling dynamic systems, which are characterized by a great deal of flexibility and adaptability. Several recent works in this area concern strategies for the development of FCMs. Although a few fully automated algorithms to learn these models from data have been introduced, the resulting FCMs are structurally considerably different than those developed by human experts. In particular, maps that were learned from data are much denser (with the density over 90% versus about 40% density of maps developed by humans). The sparseness of the maps is associated with their interpretability: the smaller the number of connections is, the higher is the transparency of the map. To this end, a novel learning approach, sparse real-coded genetic algorithms (SRCGAs), to learn FCMs is proposed. The method utilizes a density parameter to guide the learning toward a formation of maps of a certain predefined density. Comparative tests carried out for both synthetic and real-world data demonstrate that, given a suitable density estimate, the SRCGA method significantly outperforms other state-of-the-art learning methods. When the density estimate is unknown, the new method can be used in an automated fashion using a default value, and it is still able to produce models whose performance exceeds or is equal to the performance of the models generated by other methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".