Granular Aggregation of Fuzzy Rule-Based Models in Distributed Data Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quite often, complex systems or phenomena are observed from various points of view yielding the particular subsets of data usually being composed of locally available attributes. Such datasets give rise to individual models. As is reflective of the local behavior of the system (global data), each model can produce different, albeit similar results. A critical issue is to aggregate the results coming from the individual models. In virtue of the diversity of the produced results, the aggregation process has to be reflective of this variety. Equally important is a way of quantifying the diversity of the individual results. In this article, we provide an efficient and original way of aggregation of the results by engaging a principle of justifiable granularity and in this manner leading to interval-valued results summarizing the results produced by a collection of models. We develop an overall design process and discuss the associated optimization mechanism leading to a granular fuzzy model of a global nature. The detailed scheme of the principle of justifiable granularity is discussed along with the related performance indexes; in particular, two modes of design of information granules are investigated. The quality of the granular model is quantified with the aid of the criteria of coverage and specificity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".