MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403775493 · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10911-2

$$p,q,r-$$Fractional fuzzy sets and their aggregation operators and applications

2024· article· en· W4403775493 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

VenueArtificial Intelligence Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFuzzy logicApplied mathematicsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using $$p,q,r-$$ fractional fuzzy sets ( $$p,q,r-$$ FFS) to demonstrate the stability of cryptocurrencies is considered due to the complex and volatile nature of cryptocurrency markets, where traditional models may fall short in capturing nuances and uncertainties. $$p,q,r-$$ FFS provides a flexible framework for modeling cryptocurrency stability by accommodating imprecise data, multidimensional analysis of various market factors, and adaptability to the unique characteristics of the cryptocurrency space, potentially offering a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing stability. Existing studies have explored Picture Fuzzy Sets and Spherical Fuzzy Sets, built on membership, neutrality, and non-membership grades. However, these sets can’t reach the maximum value (equal to $$1$$ ) due to grade constraints. For example, when considering $$\wp =(h,\langle \text{0.9,0.8,1.0}\rangle \left|h\in H\right.)$$ , these sets fall short. This is obvious when a decision-maker possesses complete confidence in an alternative, they have the option to assign a value of 1 as the assessment score for that alternative. This signifies that they harbor no doubts or uncertainties regarding the chosen option. To address this, $$p,q,r-$$ Fractional Fuzzy Sets ( $$p,q,r-$$ FFSs) are introduced, using new parameters $$p$$ , $$q$$ , and $$r$$ . These parameters abide by $$p$$ , $$q\ge 1$$ and $$r$$ as the least common multiple of $$p$$ and $$q$$ . We establish operational laws for $$p,q,r-$$ FFSs. Based on these operational laws, we proposed a series of aggregation operators (AOs) to aggregate the information in context of $$p,q,r-$$ fractional fuzzy numbers. Furthermore, we constructed a novel multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) method to deal with real-world decision-making problems. A numerical example is provided to demonstrate the proposed approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.222 · 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