Fuzzy Mixed Variational-like and Integral Inequalities for Strongly Preinvex Fuzzy Mappings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a familiar fact that convex and non-convex fuzzy mappings play a critical role in the study of fuzzy optimization. Due to the behavior of its definition, the idea of convexity plays a significant role in the subject of inequalities. The concepts of convexity and symmetry have a tight connection. We may use whatever we learn from one to the other, thanks to the significant correlation that has developed between both in recent years. Our aim is to consider a new class of fuzzy mappings (FMs) known as strongly preinvex fuzzy mappings (strongly preinvex-FMs) on the invex set. These FMs are more general than convex fuzzy mappings (convex-FMs) and preinvex fuzzy mappings (preinvex-FMs), and when generalized differentiable (briefly, G-differentiable), strongly preinvex-FMs are strongly invex fuzzy mappings (strongly invex-FMs). Some new relationships among various concepts of strongly preinvex-FMs are established and verified with the support of some useful examples. We have also shown that optimality conditions of G-differentiable strongly preinvex-FMs and the fuzzy functional, which is the sum of G-differentiable preinvex-FMs and non G-differentiable strongly preinvex-FMs, can be distinguished by strongly fuzzy variational-like inequalities and strongly fuzzy mixed variational-like inequalities, respectively. In the end, we have established and verified a strong relationship between the Hermite–Hadamard inequality and strongly preinvex-FM. Several exceptional cases are also discussed. These inequalities are a very interesting outcome of our main results and appear to be new ones. The results in this research can be seen as refinements and improvements to previously published findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".