Publication:
Paired structures and bipolar knowledge representation

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2014
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics
Citations
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
In this strictly positional paper we propose a general approach to bipolar knowledge representation, where the meaning of concepts can be modelled by examining their decomposition into opposite and neutral categories. In particular, it is the semantic relationship between the opposite categories which suggests the emergence of a paired structure and its associated type of neutrality, being there three general types of neutral categories, namely indeterminacy, ambivalence and conflict. Hence, the key issue consists in identifying the semantic opposition characterizing the meaning of concepts and at the same time the type of neutrality rising in between opposites. Based on this first level of bipolar knowledge representation, paired structures in fact offer the means to characterize a specific bipolar valuation scale depending on the meaning of the concept that has to be verified. In this sense, a paired structure is a standard basic structure that allows learning and building different valuation scales, leading to linear or even more complex valuation scales.
Description
Keywords
Citation
[1] A. Amo, D. Gómez, J. Montero, G. Biging: Relevance and redundancy in fuzzy classification systems, Mathware and Soft Computing 8 (2001), 203-216. [2] A. Amo, J. Montero, G. Biging, V. Cutello. Fuzzy classification systems, European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004), 495-507. [3] K.T. Atanassov: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986), 87-96. [4] K.T. Atanassov: Answer to D. Dubois, S. Gottwald, P. Hajek, J. Kacprzyk and H. Prade's paper "Terminological difficulties in fuzzy set theory - the case of "Intuitionistic fuzzy sets", Fuzzy Sets and Systems 156 (2005), 496-499. [5] A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio: Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions, Brain 123 (2000), 2189–2202. [6] A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A.R. Damasio: Role of the amygdala in decision-making, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 985 (2003), 356–369. [7] N.D. Belnap: A useful four-valued logic. In: G. Epstein and J. Dumme (eds.), Modern uses of multiple valued logics, Reidel, Dordrecht (1977). [8] H. Bustince, J. Fernandez, R. Mesiar, J. Montero, R. Orduna: Overlap functions, Nonlinear Analysis 72 (2010a), 1488-1499. [9] H. Bustince, F. Herrera, J. Montero: Fuzzy Sets and their extensions, representation,aggregation and models. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing 220 (2008). [10] H. Bustince, M. Pagola, E. Barrenechea, J. Fernandez, P. Melo-Pinto, P. Couto, H.R. Tizhoosh, J. Montero: Ignorance functions. An application to the calculation of the threshold in prostate ultrasound images, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 161 (2010b), 20-36. [11] J.T Cacioppo, G.G. Berntson: The affect system, architecture and operating characteristics - Current directions, Psycological Science 8 (1999), 133-137. [12] J.T. Cacioppo, W.L. Gardner, C.G. Berntson: Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures - The case of attitudes and evaluative space, Personality and Social Psychology Review 1 (1997), 3-25. [13] B. De Baets, R. Mesiar: T-partitions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 97 (1998), 211-223. [14] D. Dubois, S. Gottwald, P. Hajek, J. Kacprzyk, H. Prade: Terminological difficulties in fuzzy set theory - the case of intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 156 (2005), 485-491. [15] D. Dubois, H. Prade: An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23 (2008), 866-877. [16] D. Dubois, H. Prade: An overview of the asymmetric bipolar representation of positive and negative information in possibility theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009),1355-1366. [17] D. Dubois, H. Prade: Gradualness, uncertainty and bipolarity - Making sense of fuzzy sets,Fuzzy Sets and Systems 192 (2012), 3-24. [18] J. Dujmovic: Aggregation operators and observable properties of human reasoning. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 228 (2013), 5-16. [19] J. Edwards, T. Ostrom. Cognitive structure of neutral attitudes, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7 (1971), 36-47. [20] M. Espinilla, J. Montero, J.T. Rodríguez: Computational intelligence in decision making,International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 6, Supp. 2 (2013), 1-5. [21] J. Fodor, M. Roubens: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support,Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1994). [22] C. Franco, J. Montero, J.T. Rodríguez: A fuzzy and bipolar approach to preference modeling with application to need and desire, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 214 (2013), 20-34. [23] J. González-Pachón, D. Gómez, J. Montero, J. Yáñez: Soft dimension theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137 (2003), 137-149. [24] M. Grabisch, S. Greco, M. Pirlot. Bipolar and bivariate models in multi-criteria decision analysis: descriptive and constructive approaches. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23 (2008), 930-969. [25] M. Grabisch, Ch. Labreuche: Bi-capacities for decision making on bipolar scales. Proceedings EUROFUSE Workshop in Information Systems (2002), 185-190. [26] K. Kaplan: On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement - A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique, Psychological Bulletin 77 (1972), 361-372. [27] R. Likert: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140 (1932), 1–55. [28] J.M. Mendel: Advances in type-2 fuzzy sets and systems, Information Sciences 177 (2007), 84-110. [29] J. Montero: Arrow's theorem under fuzzy rationality, Behavioral Science 32 (1987),267, [30] J. Montero: Fuzzy logic and science. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing 243 (2009),67-78. [31] J. Montero, D. Gómez, H. Bustince: On the relevance of some families of fuzzy sets,Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2007), 2429-2442. [32] J. Montero, V. López, D. Gómez: The role of fuzziness in decision making, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing 215 (2007), 337-349. [33] J. Montero, J. Tejada, V. Cutello: A general model for deriving preference structures from data, European Journal of Operational Research.98 (1997), 98-110. [34] J. von Neuman, O. Morgenstern: Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, Princeton University Press, 2007. [35] C.E. Osgood, G.J. Suci, P.H. Tannenbaum: The measurement of meaning, University of Illinois Press,Urbana, 1957. [36] M. Ozturk, A. Tsoukias: Modelling uncertain positive and negative reasons in decision aiding, Decision Support Systems, 43 (2007), 1512-1526. [37] P. Perny, A. Tsoukiàs: On the continuous extensions of four valued logic for preference modeling, Proceedings of the IPMU conference (1998), 302-309. [38] J.W. Reich, A.J. Zautra, P.T. Potter: Cognitive structure and the independence of positive and negative affect, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 20 (2001), 99-115. [39] J.T. Rodríguez, C. Franco, J. Montero: On the semantics of bipolarity and fuzziness,Eurofuse 2011: Workshop on Fuzzy Methods for Knowledge-Based Systems, Advances on Intelligent and Soft Computing 107 (2011a), 193-205. [40] J.T. Rodríguez, C. Franco, J. Montero, J. Lu: Paired Structures in Logical and Semiotic Models of Natural Language, in Anne Laurent, Olivier Strauss, Bernadette Bouchon-Meunier, and Ronald R. Yager (Eds.): Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, Part II (2014) 566–575. [41] J.T. Rodríguez, C. Franco, B. Vitoriano, J. Montero: An axiomatic approach to the notion of semantic antagonism. In K. Hirota, M. Mukaidono, S. Kuswadi (Eds.): Proceedings IFSA-AFSS Conference, Surabaya & Bali, Indonesia, June 21-25 (2011b) FT104-1/6. [42] J.T. Rodríguez, E. Turunen, D. Ruan, J. Montero: Another paraconsistent algebraic semantics for Lukasiewicz-Pavelka logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 242 (2014), 132-147. [43] B. Roy: The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods, Springer,(1991) [44] E.H. Ruspini: A new approach to clustering,Information and Control 15 (1969), 22-32. [45] R. Sambuc: Fonctions φ-flues. Application á l'aide au diagnostic en pathologie thyroidienne, Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Marseille, France (1975). [46] G. Shafer: A mathematical theory of evidence,Princeton University Press, NJ (1976). [47] P. Slovic, E. Peters, M.L. Finucane, D.G. MacGregor: Affect, risk, and decision making,Health Psychology 24 (2005), 35-40. [48] A.R. de Soto, E. Trillas: On antonym and negate in fuzzy logic. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 14 (1999), 295-303. [49] E. Trillas: On the use of words and fuzzy sets. Information Sciences 176 (2006), 1463-1487. [50] Trillas E., Moraga C., Guadarrama S., Cubillo S., Castineira E.: Computing with antonyms, Forging New Frontiers: Fuzzy Pioneers I, 217 133-153, 2007 [51] A. Tsoukiàs: A first-order, four valued, weakly paraconsistent logic and its relation to rough sets semantics, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 12 (2002) 85-108. [52] A.Tsoukiàs, Ph. Vincke: An axiomatic foundation of partial comparability theory, Theory and Decision 39 (1995) 79-114. [53] E. Turunen, M. Öztürk, A. Tsoukiás: Paraconsistent semantics for Pavelka style fuzzy sentential logic, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 161 (2010), 1926-1940. [54] A. Tversky, D. Kahneman. Advances in prospect theory - cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (1992), 297-323. [55] L.A. Zadeh: Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965), 338-353. [56] W.R. Zhang, L. Zhang: YinYang bipolar logic and bipolar fuzzy logic. Information Sciences 165 (2004), 265-287.
Collections