Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzzy logic became the core of a different approach to computing. Whereas traditional approaches to computing were precise, or hard edged, fuzzy logic allowed for the possibility of a less precise or softer approach (Klir et al., 1995, pp. 212-242). An approach where precision is not paramount is not only closer to the way humans thought, but may be in fact easier to create as well (Jin, 2000). Thus was born the field of soft computing (Zadeh, 1994). Other techniques were added to this field, such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and genetic algorithms, both modeled on biological systems. Soon it was realized that these tools could be combined, and by mixing them together, they could cover their respective weaknesses while at the same time generate something that is greater than its parts, or in short, creating synergy. Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy is perhaps the most prominent of these admixtures of soft computing technologies (Mitra et al., 2000). The technique was first created when artificial neural networks were modified to work with fuzzy logic, hence the Neuro-fuzzy name (Jang et al., 1997, pp. 1-7). This combination provides fuzzy systems with adaptability and the ability to learn. It was later shown that adaptive fuzzy systems could be created with other soft computing techniques, such as genetic algorithms (Yen et al., 1998, pp. 469-490), Rough sets (Pal et al., 2003; Jensen et al., 2004, Ang et al., 2005) and Bayesian networks (Muller et al., 1995), but the Neuro-fuzzy name was widely used, so it stayed. In this chapter we are using the most widely used terminology in the field. Neuro-fuzzy is a blanket description of a wide variety of tools and techniques used to combine any aspect of fuzzy logic with any aspect of artificial neural networks. For the most part, these combinations are just extensions of one technology or the other. For example, neural networks usually take binary inputs, but use weights that vary in value from 0 to 1. Adding fuzzy sets to ANN to convert a range of input values into values that can be used as weights is considered a Neuro-fuzzy solution. This chapter will pay particular interest to the sub-field where the fuzzy logic rules are modified by the adaptive aspect of the system. The next part of this chapter will be organized as follows: in section 1 we examine models and techniques used to combine fuzzy logic and neural networks together to create Neuro-fuzzy systems. Section 2 provides an overview of the main steps involved in the development of adaptive Neuro-fuzzy systems. Section 3 concludes this chapter with some recommendations and future developments.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".