MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Systems

2009· book-chapter· en· W223840354 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft computingFuzzy logicNeuro-fuzzyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkField (mathematics)AdaptabilityFuzzy control systemFuzzy setCover (algebra)Machine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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