MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Adaptive Network Based Fuzzy Inference Systems and B-spline Neuro-Fuzzy Mode Choice Models

2003· article· en· W2097735268 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing in Civil Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuro-fuzzyAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFuzzy logicMachine learningArtificial neural networkCurse of dimensionalityInferenceRepresentation (politics)Fuzzy control system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the use of neuro-fuzzy models for behavioral mode choice modeling. The concept of neuro-fuzzy models has emerged in recent years as researchers have tried to combine the transparent, linguistic representation of a fuzzy system with the learning ability of artificial neural networks. Several neuro-fuzzy systems have been reported in the literature. They include various representations and architectures and therefore are suitable for different applications. In this paper, the performance of two of the most widely used neuro-fuzzy models, namely: B-spline associative memory networks and adaptive network based fuzzy inference systems, is compared. The theoretical backgrounds of both systems are presented and their relative advantages are discussed using a mode choice modeling case study. Areas of comparison include: model performance, dealing with the curse of dimensionality, automatic exclusion of irrelevant inputs, and model transparency.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.237 · 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