如果我们在同一个专家系统中使用不同的 "和 "操作,该怎么办?

Mahdokht Afravi, V. Kreinovich
{"title":"如果我们在同一个专家系统中使用不同的 \"和 \"操作,该怎么办?","authors":"Mahdokht Afravi, V. Kreinovich","doi":"10.1109/NAFIPS.2016.7851618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In expert systems, we often face a problem of estimating the expert's degree of confidence in a composite statement A&B based on the known expert's degrees of confidence a = d(A) and b = d(B) in individual statements A and B. The corresponding estimate f&(a, b) is sometimes called an “and”-operation. Traditional fuzzy logic assumes that the same “and”-operation is applied to all pairs of statements. In this case, it is reasonable to justify that the “and”-operation be associative; such “and”-operations are known as t-norms. In practice, however, in different areas, different “and”-operations provide a good description of expert reasoning. As a result, when we combine expert knowledge from different areas into a single expert system, it is reasonable to use different “and”-operations to combine different statements. In this case, associativity is no longer a natural requirement. We show, however, that in such situations, under some reasonable conditions, associativity of each “and”-operation can still be deduced. Thus, in this case, we can still use associative t-norms.","PeriodicalId":208265,"journal":{"name":"2016 Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS)","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What if we use different “and”-operations in the same expert system\",\"authors\":\"Mahdokht Afravi, V. Kreinovich\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/NAFIPS.2016.7851618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In expert systems, we often face a problem of estimating the expert's degree of confidence in a composite statement A&B based on the known expert's degrees of confidence a = d(A) and b = d(B) in individual statements A and B. The corresponding estimate f&(a, b) is sometimes called an “and”-operation. Traditional fuzzy logic assumes that the same “and”-operation is applied to all pairs of statements. In this case, it is reasonable to justify that the “and”-operation be associative; such “and”-operations are known as t-norms. In practice, however, in different areas, different “and”-operations provide a good description of expert reasoning. As a result, when we combine expert knowledge from different areas into a single expert system, it is reasonable to use different “and”-operations to combine different statements. In this case, associativity is no longer a natural requirement. We show, however, that in such situations, under some reasonable conditions, associativity of each “and”-operation can still be deduced. Thus, in this case, we can still use associative t-norms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2016 Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS)\",\"volume\":\"140 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2016 Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.2016.7851618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.2016.7851618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在专家系统中,我们经常面临这样一个问题:根据已知专家对单个语句 A 和 B 的置信度 a = d(A)和 b = d(B),估计专家对综合语句 A&B 的置信度。传统的模糊逻辑假定所有成对的语句都采用相同的 "和 "运算。在这种情况下,有理由认为 "和 "运算是关联的;这种 "和 "运算被称为 t 规范。但实际上,在不同的领域,不同的 "和 "操作可以很好地描述专家推理。因此,当我们把不同领域的专家知识整合到一个专家系统中时,使用不同的 "和 "操作来组合不同的语句是合理的。在这种情况下,关联性不再是一个自然要求。不过,我们证明,在这种情况下,在一些合理的条件下,每个 "和 "操作的关联性仍然可以推导出来。因此,在这种情况下,我们仍然可以使用关联 t 规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What if we use different “and”-operations in the same expert system
In expert systems, we often face a problem of estimating the expert's degree of confidence in a composite statement A&B based on the known expert's degrees of confidence a = d(A) and b = d(B) in individual statements A and B. The corresponding estimate f&(a, b) is sometimes called an “and”-operation. Traditional fuzzy logic assumes that the same “and”-operation is applied to all pairs of statements. In this case, it is reasonable to justify that the “and”-operation be associative; such “and”-operations are known as t-norms. In practice, however, in different areas, different “and”-operations provide a good description of expert reasoning. As a result, when we combine expert knowledge from different areas into a single expert system, it is reasonable to use different “and”-operations to combine different statements. In this case, associativity is no longer a natural requirement. We show, however, that in such situations, under some reasonable conditions, associativity of each “and”-operation can still be deduced. Thus, in this case, we can still use associative t-norms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信