Derivation of relational fuzzy classification rules using evolutionary computation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evolutionary system for derivation of fuzzy classification rules is presented. This system uses two populations: one of fuzzy classification rules, and one of membership function definitions. A constrained-syntax genetic programming evolves the first population and a mutation-based evolutionary algorithm evolves the second population. These two populations co-evolve to better classify the underlying dataset. Unlike other approaches that use fuzzification of continuous attributes of the dataset for discovering fuzzy classification rules, the system presented here fuzzifies the relational operators “greater than” and “less than” using evolutionary methods. For testing our system, the system is applied to the Iris dataset. Our experimental results show that our system outperforms previous evolutionary and non-evolutionary systems on accuracy of classification and derivation of interrelation between the attributes of the Iris dataset. The resulting fuzzy rules of the system can be directly used in knowledge-based systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it