MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125413478 · doi:10.18280/mmep.121229

Managing Partitioning Uncertainty and Transition Ambiguity in Fuzzy Time Series: A Robust IT2FCM-Markov Chain Approach

2025· article· W7125413478 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Bardadi, Budi Warsito, Bayu Surarso, Wibowo Harry Sugiharto

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicAmbiguityChain (unit)Robustness (evolution)Markov chainTransition (genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuzzy Time Series (FTS) models are effective for handling uncertain and vague datasets, but their performance is often limited by subjective partitioning and ambiguous state transitions.Objectives: This study aims to address partitioning uncertainty caused by empirical fuzzifier parameters in Fuzzy C-Means (FCM) and resolve the one-to-many transition ambiguity in Fuzzy Logical Relationship Groups (FLRGs).We propose a novel hybrid model, IT2FCM-MC-FTS, which integrates Interval Type-2 Fuzzy C-Means (IT2FCM) with a first-order Markov Chain (MC).The methodology involves using IT2FCM to generate robust, data-driven interval partitions that account for noise, followed by the application of MC transition probabilities to provide logical weights for resolving complex relationship groups.The model was validated using ambient CO concentration data from Semarang, Indonesia.Experimental results show that the proposed model achieved an RMSE of 887.47 and a SMAPE of 17.86%, significantly outperforming traditional FTS, FCM-FTS, and FTS-MC models.By synergizing robust clustering with probabilistic inference, the IT2FCM-MC-FTS model provides a more reliable and accurate framework for time series forecasting (TSF) in volatile environments.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207