From Fuzzy Rule-Based Models to Granular Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzzy rule-based models constructed in the presence of numeric data are nonlinear numeric models producing for any input some numeric output. There are no ideal models so the obtained numeric output could create a false illusion of achieved accuracy. A desirable approach is to augment the results with some measure of confidence (credibility) by admitting a granular rather than numeric format of the produced output values of the model. Our focus of this study is on fuzzy Takagi–Sugeno rule-based models whose conclusions are constant. The ultimate objective is to extend such models to the generalized granular structure with the conclusions formed as information granules. We study information granules described by intervals and fuzzy sets as well as probabilistic Gaussian information granules. The original design of the granular model is realized by involving the principle of justifiable granularity. Using this principle, we also show how to determine the equivalence between information granules. The construction of probabilistic information granules of the model is completed with the aid of optimized Gaussian process models. The granular models built in this way constitute a substantial and application-oriented departure from the numeric fuzzy models by offering a comprehensive insight into the quality of the produced results. The experimental studies based on synthetic and publicly available data demonstrate the design process and discuss the quality of the obtained results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".