Discrete Interval Type 2 Fuzzy System Models Using Uncertainty in Learning Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzzy system modeling (FSM) is one of the most prominent tools that can be used to identify the behavior of highly nonlinear systems with uncertainty. Conventional FSM techniques utilize type 1 fuzzy sets in order to capture the uncertainty in the system. However, since type 1 fuzzy sets express the belongingness of a crisp value$x^{\prime}$of a base variable$x$in a fuzzy set$A$by a crisp membership value$\mu_{A} (x^{\prime})$, they cannot fully capture the uncertainties due to imprecision in identifying membership functions. Higher types of fuzzy sets can be a remedy to address this issue. Since, the computational complexity of operations on fuzzy sets are increasing with the increasing type of the fuzzy set, the use of type 2 fuzzy sets and linguistic logical connectives drew a considerable amount of attention in the realm of fuzzy system modeling in the last two decades. In this paper, we propose a black-box methodology that can identify robust type 2 Takagi–Sugeno, Mizumoto and Linguistic fuzzy system models with high predictive power. One of the essential problems of type 2 fuzzy system models is computational complexity. In order to remedy this problem, discrete interval valued type 2 fuzzy system models are proposed with type reduction. In the proposed fuzzy system modeling methods, fuzzy C-means (FCM) clustering algorithm is used in order to identify the system structure. The proposed discrete interval valued type 2 fuzzy system models are generated by a learning parameter of FCM, known as the level of membership, and its variation over a specific set of values which generate the uncertainty associated with the system structure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".