Advertisement

Implicative Weights as Importance Quantifiers in Evaluation Criteria

  • Vicenç Torra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11144)

Abstract

This paper investigates properties of implicative weights and the use of implicative weights in evaluation criteria. We analyze and compare twelve different forms of implication and compare them with multiplicative weights and exponential weights that are also used in evaluation criteria. Since weighted conjunction is based on implicative weights, we also investigate the usability of weighted conjunction in evaluation criteria.

Keywords

Graded logic Importance Implicative weights GCD Evaluation Logic aggregation 

References

  1. 1.
    Yager, R.R.: An approach to inference in approximate reasoning. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 12, 323–338 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yager, R.R.: On some new classes of implication operators and their role in approximate reasoning. Inf. Sci. 167, 193–216 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larsen, H.L.: Efficient andness-directed importance weighted averaging operators. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 12(Suppl.), 67–82 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larsen, H.L.: Multiplicative and implicative importance weighted averaging aggregation operators with accurate andness direction. In: Carvalho, J.P., Dubois, D., Kaymak, U., da Costa Sousa, J.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Joint 2009 International Fuzzy Systems Association World Congress and 2009 European Society of Fuzzy Logic and Technology Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 402–407 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dujmović, J., Larsen, H.L.: Generalized conjunction/disjunction. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 46, 423–446 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fodor, J., Roubens, M.: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baczyński, M., Jayaram, B.: Fuzzy Implications. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 231. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69082-5CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baczynski, M., Jayaram, B.: Yager’s classes of fuzzy implications: some properties and intersections. Kybernetika 43(2), 157–182 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Massanet, S., Pradera, A., Ruiz-Aguilera, D., Torrens, J.: From three to one: equivalence and characterization of material implications derived from co-copulas, probabilistic S-implications and survival S-implications. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 323, 103–116 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baczynski, M., Jayaram, B., Massanet, S., Torrens, J.: Fuzzy implications: past, present, and future. In: Kacprzyk, J., Pedrycz, W. (eds.) Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence, pp. 183–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43505-2_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dujmović, J.: Weighted compensative logic with adjustable threshold andness and orness. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 23(2), 270–290 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dujmović, J.: Partial absorption function. J. Univ. Belgrade EE Dept. Ser. Math. Phys. 659, 156–163 (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dujmović, J.: Soft Computing Evaluation Logic. Wiley/IEEE (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations