Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The Measure of a Man (Star Trek: The Next Generation) wikipedia , lookup
Pattern recognition wikipedia , lookup
Time series wikipedia , lookup
Narrowing of algebraic value sets wikipedia , lookup
Neural modeling fields wikipedia , lookup
Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems wikipedia , lookup
RECENT ADVANCES in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING and DATA BASES Generalized Weighted Fuzzy Expected Values in Uncertainty Environment ANNA SIKHARULIDZE GIA SIRBILADZE I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Department of Exact and Natural Sciences Department of Exact and Natural Sciences University St. 2, 0143 Tbilisi University St. 2, 0143 Tbilisi GEORGIA GEORGIA [email protected] [email protected] NATIA SIRBILADZE I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Department of Exact and Natural Sciences University St. 2, 0143 Tbilisi GEORGIA [email protected] Abstract: Two new versions of the most typical value (M T V ) [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9] of the population (generalized weighted averages) are introduced. The first version, W F EVg , is a generalization of the weighted fuzzy expected value (W F EV ) [4]–[6] for any fuzzy measure g [7] on a finite set and it coincides with the W F EV when a sampling probability distribution is used. The construction process is based on the Friedman-Schneider-Kandel (FSK) [4]–[6] principle and the probability representation of a fuzzy measure [6]–[10]. The second, GW F EVg is the generalization of W F EVg for any fuzzy measure. Furthermore, the generalized weighted fuzzy expected value is expressed in terms of two monotone expectation (M E) [10] values. The convergence of iteration processes is provided by an appropriate choice of a “weight” function. Example of the use of the new weighted averages is discussed. In many cases these averages give better estimations than classical estimators of central tendencies such as mean, median or the fuzzy “classical” estimators F EV and M E [4, 10]. Key–Words: Fuzzy measure, fuzzy statistics, fuzzy expected value, most typical value, weighted fuzzy expected value 1 Introduction representative value among the values of a compatibility function of a fuzzy set [2]. Different authors believe the M T V to be different fuzzy values. In our opinion, there cannot be any preferable M T V in fuzzy statistics since all of them are expert estimators and give better or worse results depending on a specific problem. Our objective here is to carry out analysis in order to establish which fuzzy expected value gives a better representation and when. In this paper we formulate the new definitions of weighted fuzzy expected value with respect to any fuzzy measure W F EVg` and the generalized weighted fuzzy expected Value GW F EVg` and investigate their properties. An example illustrating the application of generalized fuzzy expected values is also discussed. There exist two sources of fuzzy uncertainty: the first one is when uncertainty is caused by some notion and the second one when data are inexact, nonclear, overlapped or when some individual (expert) is involved in representation or reception of data and in most cases subjectively estimates or, what is worse, appoints them. In that case data themselves contain fuzziness. They are of dual probabilistic-possibilistic nature. In such a situation only classical estimators of central tendencies cannot be believed to be good estimators. They must be replaced by the corresponding fuzzy statistical characteristics such as F EV , M E, W F EV , F EI ([2]–[6], [8]–[10], etc.), by which the objective-subjective (expert) data are to be evaluated. Fuzzy statistics originates in the 80s when A. Kandel [8] called Sugeno’s integral [7] fuzzy statistics and when the notion of the most typical value (M T V ) of the population corresponding to the fuzzy notion was introduced. The M T V became the most typical ISSN: 1790-5109 59 ISBN: 978-960-474-154-0 RECENT ADVANCES in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING and DATA BASES 2 3 Weighted Fuzzy Expected Value (W F EV ) M. Friedman, M. Schneider and A. Kandel proposed a new scheme for calculating the M T V [4], which is based on a two-factor principle. Consider, for example, the following two population groups: Group # i j χ χi χj In this section we present a new version of W F EV . the variational sampling Suppose (x1 , x2 , . . . , xk ) e is given, χi = χAe(xi ) (n1 , n2 , . . . , nk ) are the compatibility values of some fuzzy set e ⊂ {x1 , . . . , xn }. Let w be a non-negative monoA tonically decreasing function defined over the interval [0,1] and l > 1 be a real number. Eq. (1) can be rewritten as n ni nj where χk is a compatibility level and nk is a frequency of population element. Suppose ni > nj . We consider two postulates of construction of M T V : s = (χ1 w (|x1 − s|) 2. The effective location of the M T V with respect to compatibility values: the distance between the M T V and the compatibility value of the i-th group |χi − M T V | participates in the definition of the M T V with weight values proportional to w (|χi − M T V |), where w is a strictly decreasing function. 2 k P x ∈A l (A) ≡ i gsampling k ni l n l A , = k is called a fuzzy measure induced by a sampling distribution. s = (χ1 w(|χ1 − s|)nl1 + χ2 w(|χ2 − s|)nl2 Then + · · · + χk w(|χk − s|)nlk ) × (w(|χ1 − s|)nl1 + w(|χ2 − s|)nl2 l gsampling ({xi }) = (1) n l i k , i = 1, 2, . . . , k. (3) It is obvious that during the weighting we conl sider the values of the measure gsampling in Eq. (2) only on the sets of one element (fuzzy “weights” of sets of one element). Let X = {x1 , . . . , xk } be a finite set, X, 2X , g be a fuzzy measure space, χAe be a compatibility e function of the fuzzy subset A, χAe : X → [0; 1] χi = χAe(xi ) ; let w be some “weight” function and l > 1 be a real number. By virtue of Eq. (2) and Definition 2 the following two new postulates of constructing the M T V with respect to the fuzzy measure g on the set X can be formulated, which in what follows are referred to as the Friedman-Schneider-Kandel (FSK) principles: Definition 1 ([4]). The solution of Eq. (1) is called the weighted fuzzy expected value (W F EV ) of order l with the attached weight function w of compatibility values (χ1 , . . . , χk ). M T V ≡ W F EV χAe, w . The parameter l measures the dependence of frequencies of population groups on the W F EV . The rate at which the function w decreases defines the“closeness” of the W F EV to higher compatibility values of χi . By virtue of the above-mentioned two-factor principle, the mapping of weighting (1) is invariant with respect to the M T V which is the fixed point of the mapping. The examples of use of W F EV and its composition with F EV are illustrated in [4], [6]. ISSN: 1790-5109 n l 1 Definition 2. A fuzzy measure, which for any subset A of the sampling X = {x1 , . . . , xk } is equal to the l-th power of the frequency of A a variational sampling Suppose (x1 , x2 , . . . , xk ) is given, χi = χAe(xi ) e (n1 , n2 , . . . , nk ) are the compatibility values of some fuzzy set e ⊂ X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xk }, w(x) is a non-negative A monotonically decreasing function defined over the interval [0, 1] and l > 1 is a real number. Consider the following equation with respect to s: + · · · + w(|χk − n l +χ2 w (|x2 − s|) k n l k + · · · + χk w (|xk − s|) ) k n l n l 2 1 + w (|x2 − s|) × (w (|x1 − s|) k k n l k −1 + · · · + w (|xk − s|) ) . (2) k 1. Population effectiveness: the M T V must be “less far” from χi than from χj since ni > nj . s|)nlk )−1 . Weighted Fuzzy Expected Value with respect to a the Fuzzy Measure (W F EVgl ) 60 ISBN: 978-960-474-154-0 RECENT ADVANCES in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING and DATA BASES 1. Fuzzy measure distribution effectiveness: the M T V is “less far” from χi than from χj if g ({xi }) > g ({xj }). 2. The effective location of the M T V with respect to compatibility values: a distance between the M T V and the compatibility values χi of the element xi ∈ X): |χi − M T V | participates in the definition of the M T V with weight values proportional to w (|χi − M T V |), where w is a strictly decreasing function. Similarly to Eq. (2), let us consider the following equation with respect to s: k P s= This is the probabilistic representation of the W F EVgl by associated probabilities (l) (l) (l) Pτ1 , Pτ2 , . . . , Pτn of the fuzzy measure g. Obviously, we can construct the iteration process for Eq. (5) as we have done for Eq. (1) [6]: k P sn = w |(χi − ({xi }) 4 Definition 3. The solution of Eq. (4) is called the weighted fuzzy expected value of order l with the attached weight function w of the compatibility function χ with respect to the fuzzy measure g. It is denoted by W F EVgl χAe, w , (M T V = W F EVgl ). On the set {1, 2, . . . , k} there exist k! permutations. Denote any permutation by σ = (σ(1), σ(2), . . . , σ(k)) and the set of all possible permutations by Sk . is called an associated probability distribution of the fuzzy measure g l ; (l) (l) (l) {Pσ }σ∈Sk = {Pσ (xσ(1) ), . . . , Pσ (xσ(k) )}σ∈Sk is called the class of associated probabilities of the fuzzy measure g l . It is known that ∀xi ⊂ X, ∃τi ∈ Sk permutation such that [6] (l) g ` ({xi }) = Pτ(l) (x ) ≡ P x . i τ (1) τ i i i Now Eq. (4) takes the form s= (l) i=1 k P xτi (1) . (l) w |(χi − s)| Pτi i=1 ISSN: 1790-5109 xτi (1) , w |(χi − (l) sn−1 )| Pτi xτi (1) Generalized Weighted Fuzzy Expected Value (GW F EV ) W EF Vg` (Eq. (5)) is constructed according to the Friedman-Schneider-Kandel (FSK) principle when on the finite set we consider not the probabilistic, but the fuzzy measure g ` . The first postulate of FSK principle concerns effectiveness of distribution of the fuzzy measure g in the “weighting” procedure. In (4) this is represented by “fuzzy weights” g ` ({xi }) of singleton sets {xi }, i = 1, 2, . . . , k. The second postulate states that the M T V has a location such that it is close to the values of “high” compatibility. This is represented in the “weighting process” by weights w(|χi − M T V |). Both postulates are combined into a normalized sum χi w(|χi − s|)g ` ({xi }) presented in Eq. (4). This means that M T V ≡ W F EVg` (the solution of (5) is invariant with respect to the “weight” function constructed by the FSK principle which is certainly understandable and justified. As the authors of the FSK principle [4] admit, the two postulates of the “weighting” process cannot be perfect. Some other postulates can also be added. We think that in the case of the first postulate the “weighting” process has one drawback. The values g ` ({xi }) of the fuzzy measure g ` are considered only on singleton sets {xi }, i = 1, 2, . . . , k, while the values of the same measure on the subsets of X with two or more elements are not. The point is that the values of compatibility χ1 , χ2 , . . . , χk are described by the consonant body (Theorem of Decomposition), i.e., by focal subsets of the form {xi ∈ X | χAe(xi ) ≥ α}, 0 < α < 1. But if we consider the second postulate of the FSK principle, w(|χi − M T V |), i = 1, 2, . . . , n weights, then it becomes obvious that the values of the fuzzy measure g ` on the cuts α-level {xi ∈ X | χAe(xi ) ≥ α}, 0 ≤ α < 1 of participate in the ”weighting” process. This strengthens the first postulate. If we consider the condition of normalizing Definition 4 ([10]). If σ ∈ Sk is a permutation, then the following probability distribution (l) Pσ xσ(1) = g l xσ(1) , (l) Pσ xσ(2) = g l xσ(1) , xσ(2) − g l xσ(1) , .................. (l) Pσ xσ(i) = g l xσ(1) , . . . , xσ(i) −g l xσ(1) , . . . , xσ(i−1) , .................. (l) Pσ xσ(k) = 1 − g l xσ(1) , . . . , xσ(k−1) . χi w |(χi − s)| Pτi (4) i=1 k P xτi (1) where s0 = F EV χAe , F EV is Sugeno’s integral of a χAe with respect to a fuzzy measure g on 2X . . s)| g l i=1 k P i=1 χi w |(χi − s)| g l ({xi }) i=1 k P (l) χi w |(χi − sn−1 )| Pτi (5) 61 ISBN: 978-960-474-154-0 RECENT ADVANCES in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING and DATA BASES of the “weighting” process, then the invariant form of the “weighting” function is defined by the ratio of two monotone expectations (see (8)). All this leads us to the definition of a new weighted fuzzy average which can be defined generally for any fuzzy measure space. Suppose X is any universe, and (X, F, g) is any fuzzy measure space, χAe is a measurable compatibile χe : X → ity function F of the fuzzy subset A, A [0, 1]. The monotone expectation of χAe with respect to the fuzzy measure g as Choquet integral is written as [10]: Z1 Eg (χAe) = In practice, for a numerical solution of (8) the following simple iteration process is used: s(N +1) = f (s(N ) ), A i.e. for Eq. (8) we have the iteration process g {x ∈ X | χAe ≥ α} dα s 0 g ` ({χβe(x)w(|χβe(x) − s|) ≥ α})dα 0 σ1 × k X (i) σ1 (i) − s(N ) |) ) (x (N ) (N ) (i) σ (`) σ1 1 w(|χβ (N ) i=1 σ2 ·P (i) (`) (N ) σ2 − s(N ) |) −1 (xσ(N ) (i) ) , (10) 2 (N ) (N ) where the permutations σ1 = σ1 and σ2 = σ2 depend on the iteration step N and thus A A R1 χβ (N ) w(|χβ (N ) ·P Definition 5. If w(·) is a positive “weight” function, strictly decreasing, with values in the interval [0, 1] and ` ≥ 1, β > 0 are real numbers, then the solution of the equation (with respect to s) s= = k X (6) where Hα is a fuzzy subset of α level of χAe; g(Hα ) is said to be a measure function of χAe. R1 (N +1) i=1 g(Hα )dα, A X Z = (9) where s(0) is the fuzzy expected value Z β (0) s ≡ F EVg` (χ e) =6 χβe ◦ g ` , 0 def N = 0, 1, . . . , , (7) f (s(N ) ) ≡ Eg` χβew(|χβe − s(N ) |) A g ` ({w(|χβe(x) − s|) ≥ α})dα A Eg` w(|χβe − s(N ) |) . (11) A A is called the generalized weighted fuzzy expected value of power β of the compatibility function χAe with weight w and with respect to the fuzzy measure g ` . It can be easily shown that if the function w is chosen effectively [6], the function f has compression in the neighborhood of s(0) and the convergence of (11) is guaranteed: We denote this value by lim s(N ) = GW F EVg`β . GW F EVg`β ≡ GW F EVg` (χβe, w). N →∞ A In terms of the Monotone Expectation Eq. (7) can be rewritten as s = Ege χβew(|χβe − s|) Ege w(|χβe − s|) . (8) A A Following [6], the function w(t) = e−λt is frequently used in the role of w (where λ is some positive parameter). A Proposition 1 (without proof). If X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xk } is a finite set and β > 1, ` > 1, are real numbers, χi ≡ χAe(xi ) are values of the e ⊂ X, then compatibility function of a fuzzy subset A there exist two probabilistic distributions P1 and P2 on X with respect to which Eq. (8) takes the form of a ratio of mathematical expectations EP1 χβew(|χβe − s|) A A s= . EP2 w(|χβe − s|) 5 Let us consider an example of the use of the GW F EVg` which is a solution of Eq. (8) (β = 1, ` = 2, w(|t|) = e−|t| , S0 = F EV ). Example 1. Suppose X = {x1 , x2 , x3 } and Fe is a fuzzy subset Fe = {0.4/x1 , 0.6/x2 , 0.8/x3 }, A ISSN: 1790-5109 Example 62 ISBN: 978-960-474-154-0 RECENT ADVANCES in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING and DATA BASES Table 1: Associated probabilities of g ` (`) σ ∈ S3 (1,2,3) (1,3,2) (2,1,3) (2,3,1) (3,1,2) (3,2,1) Pσ (x1 ) (1/3)` (1/3)` ` (2/3) − (1/3 − ε)` ) 1 − (2/3 − ε)` (2/3 − ε)` − (1/3)` ) 1 − (2/3 − ε)` (`) Pσ (x2 ) (2/3)` − (1/3)` ) 1 − (2/3 − ε)` (1/3 − ε)` (1/3 − ε)` 1 − (2/3 − ε)` (2/3 − ε)` − (1/3)` Calculations yield 1 , if 0 < ε ≤ 15 0.6 1 4 2 − ε if < ε ≤ F EV (χFe ) = 15 15 , 3 4 0.4 if 15 < ε ≤ 13 . Table 2: Distributions of g on X B⊂X ∅ {x1 } {x2 } {x3 } {x1 , x2 } {x1 , x3 } {x2 , x3 } {x1 , x2 , x3 } g(B) 0 1/3 1/3 − ε 1/3 2/3 2/3 − ε 2/3 − ε 1 Note that when ε = 0, g is a probabilistic measure (a uniform distribution on X) and W F EVg = W F EV . Because of small values of ε it makes sense to calculate the mean: 1 X − ε 0.6 . mean = g({xi })χFe (xi ) = 0.4 + 3 and also the fuzzy measure g is given on X, whose associated probabilities are shown in the table below (0 < ε < 1/3 is a parameter) (Table 1), if the distribution of g takes the form from Table 2. Now according to (10) we obtain the following iteration process for calculating GW F EVg2 : i If we give a small step to the parameter ε and gather calculations of mean, F EV , W F EVg2 , GW F EVg2 in one chart (see Chart 1), then it becomes obvious that for ε ≈ 0 all three M T V s are close to 0.6 (except only GW F EVg2 ), but χ−1 (M T V ) = x2 and thus x2 becomes the most typical element of the set X (population). But here a high level of the compatibility of x3 in Fe − 0.8 is not taken into account. With the growth of ε, the values of mean and F EV decrease, which means that M T V → 0.4 and χ−1 (M T V ) → x1 , or x1 beFe comes a new typical element from the population X, which does not consider levels of the compatibility of x2 −0.6 and x3 −0.8 in Fe. We certainly cannot regard this as a good representation. We have a different situation with the W F EVg2 because W F EVg2 → 0.56, i.e., W F EVg2 retains closeness to 0.6 though it tends to 0.5, i.e., it takes into account high levels of the compatibility of x2 and x3 . Obviously, in this case x1 ∪ x2 is the most typical element of the population X, which is better seen in the W F EVg2 than in the F EV or the mean. Note that here the fuzzy measure g corrects the decision for which the fuzzy averaging has been carried out. For ε ≈ 0, x3 has the highest compatibility level 0.8, and the distribution of the fuzzy measure g gives preference almost to none of the elements (Table 2). This means that χ−1 (M T V ) must be shifted towards x3 and the compatibility values of x1 and x2 must be considered and therefore GW F EVg2 > W F EVg2 . With the growth of ε the role of x3 decreases and the sN +1 = (0.4e−|0.4−sN | Pσ(2) (x1 ) 1 + 0.6e−|0.6−sN | Pσ(2) (x2 ) + 0.8e−|0.8−sN | Pσ(2) (x3 )) 1 1 × (e−|0.4−sN | Pσ(2) (x1 ) + e−|0.6−sN | Pσ(2) (x2 ) 1 1 + e−|0.8−sN | Pσ(2) (x3 ))−1 , 1 where s0 ≡ F EV (χFe ). (2) Following (8), the probabilities Pσj (xi ), j = 1, 2; i − 1, 2, 3, depend on SN and for any N we (2) choose different probabilities Pσj from the associated probabilities of the fuzzy measure g 2 (Table 1). Now we obtain the following iteration process for calculating the W F EVg2 : sN +1 = (0.4e−|0.4−sN | (1/3)2 + 0.6e−|0.6−sN | (1/3 − ε)2 + 0.8e−|0.8−sN | (1/3)2 ) × (e−|0.4−sN | (1/3)2 + e−|0.6−sN | (1/3 − ε)2 + e−|0.8−sN | (1/3)2 )−1 , where s0 = F EV . ISSN: 1790-5109 (`) Pσ (x3 ) 1 − (2/3)` (2/3 − ε)` − (1/3)` 1 − (2/3)` (2/3 − ε)` − (1/3 − ε)` ) (1/3)` (1/3)` 63 ISBN: 978-960-474-154-0 RECENT ADVANCES in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING and DATA BASES average value becomes χ−1 (M T V ) = x2 . When ε → 1/3, the role of x2 decreases, the role of x3 is also slightly weakened, though its compatibility value is the highest one and must be considered anyway. But the role of x1 increases. This is best of all described in GW F EVg2 . (Grant #GNSF/ST08/1-361). Any idea in this publication is possessed by the author and may not represent the opinion of the Georgian National Science Foundation itself. References: [1] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Théorie des Possibilités. Applications á la représentation des connaissances en informatique, Paris, Milan, Barcelone, Mexico, 1988. [2] M. Friedman, M. Henne, A. Kandel, Most typical values for fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and Systems 87, 1997, pp. 27–37. [3] M. Schneider, M. Friedman, A. Kandel, On fuzzy reasoning in expert systems. Proc. 1987 International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, Boston, MA, 1987. [4] M. Friedman, M. Schneider, A. Kandel, The use of weighted fuzzy expected value (WFEV) in fuzzy expert systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 31, 1989, pp. 37–45. [5] M. Schneider, A. Kandel, Properties of the fuzzy expected value and the fuzzy expected interval in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 28, 1988, pp. 55–68. [6] G. Sirbiladze, A. Sikharulidze, Weighted Fuzzy Averages in Fuzzy Environment, Parts I, II, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 2(2), 2003, pp. 139–157, 159–172. [7] M. Sugeno, Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. Ph. D. Thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1974. [8] A. Kandel, Fuzzy statistics and forecast evaluation. IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. SMC8, 1978, no. 5, 396–401. [9] A. Kandel, On the control and evaluation of uncertain processes. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 25, 1980, no. 6, 1182–1187. [10] I. Campos, C. Bolanos, Representation of Fuzzy Measures Through Probabilities. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 31, 1989, pp. 23–36. Chart 1. 6 Conclusion The paper is mainly of descriptive character. The existing weighted fuzzy expected value is generalized for any fuzzy measure (GW F EVg`β ). The obtained new weighted expected values actually represent iteration processes whose convergence is guaranteed by an appropriate choice of a weight function. Propositions on the correctness of generalization are formulated. Generalized weighted average may be defined using Sugeno integral [7] as an aggregation instrument with respect to FSK principle s= R (s) {χβe(x)w(|χβe(x) − s|)} ◦ g ` (·) A X A (s) {w(|χβe(x) − s|)} ◦ g ` (·) R X A or using any other aggregation instrument. An interesting problem is to investigate all aggregated GW EF V on examples and choose an optimal statistics. Generalized weighted averages can be successfully used in expert systems (for example [3]), where F EV and W F EV are used but cannot be estimated because of data scarcity. Acknowledgement The designated project has been fulfilled by financial support of the Georgian National Science Foundation ISSN: 1790-5109 64 ISBN: 978-960-474-154-0