Hierarchical Architectures of Fuzzy Models: From Type-1 fuzzy sets to Information Granules of Higher Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex phenomena are perceived from different perspectives, diversified conceptual points of view and at various levels of granularity. Symbolic and sub-symbolic processing becomes an inherently visible computing practice. Distributed nature of perception becomes reflected in topologies of multi-agent systems. All of these facets challenge the well-established paradigms of system modeling including fuzzy models and neural networks. In spite of the diversity of existing architectures and underlying algorithms, a vast majority of fuzzy models adheres to the surprisingly homogeneous principles of Granular Computing, that are associated with the processing of granular information. In this study, being cognizant of this underpinning, we concentrate on the architectures and fundamentals supporting the reconciliation and characterization of a family of fuzzy models aimed at the representation of the same system (phenomenon) from different cognitive perspectives. The variety of points of view is reflected in different levels of granularity (specificity) of fuzzy sets present in individual models as well as different feature (attribute) spaces being used in the individual models. We discuss a way in which type-2 fuzzy sets come to the play as a result of the overall characterization. An effective way of determining of such fuzzy sets is presented. Further studies on the interpretability of fuzzy sets at the level of linguistic valuation are presented and with this regard where it is shown how these can be carried out in the setting of type-2 fuzzy sets. The question of logic operators constructed in presence of a large number of fuzzy sets is raised along with a proposal of statistically grounded logic operators, which capture some characteristics of membership degrees to be processed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".