The Use of Fuzzy Relations in the Assessment of Information Resources Producers’ Performance

Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 323)

Abstract

The producers assessment problem has many important practical instances: it is an abstract model for intelligent systems evaluating e.g. the quality of computer software repositories, web resources, social networking services, and digital libraries. Each producer’s performance is determined according not only to the overall quality of the items he/she outputted, but also to the number of such items (which may be different for each agent).

Recent theoretical results indicate that the use of aggregation operators in the process of ranking and evaluation producers may not necessarily lead to fair and plausible outcomes. Therefore, to overcome some weaknesses of the most often applied approach, in this preliminary study we encourage the use of a fuzzy preference relation-based setting and indicate why it may provide better control over the assessment process.

Keywords

Fuzzy relations preference modeling producers assessment problem StackOverflow bibliometrics h-index 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F.J., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: h-index: A review focused on its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics 3, 273–289 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouyssou, D.: Ranking methods based on valued preference relations: A characterization of the net flow method. European Journal of Operational Research 60, 60–67 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T.: Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(9), 1761–1769 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cena, A., Gagolewski, M.: OM3: Ordered maxitive, minitive, and modular aggregation operators – Axiomatic and probabilistic properties in an arity-monotonic setting. Fuzzy Sets and Systems (in press, 2014), doi:10.1016/j.fss.2014.04.001Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dasgupta, M., Deb, R.: Transitivity and fuzzy preferences. Social Choice and Welfare 13, 305–318 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fodor, J., Roubens, M.: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support. Springer (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franceschini, F., Maisano, D.A.: The Hirsch index in manufacturing and quality engineering. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 25, 987–995 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fürnkranz, J., Hüllermeier, E. (eds.): Preference Learning. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gagolewski, M.: Scientific impact assessment cannot be fair. Journal of Informetrics 7(4), 792–802 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gagolewski, M., Mesiar, R.: Monotone measures and universal integrals in a uniform framework for the scientific impact assessment problem. Information Sciences 263, 166–174 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F., Luque, M.: Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research 154, 98–109 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hirsch, J.E.: An index to quantify individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(46), 16569–16572 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for internet media: Applying the h-index to YouTube. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(11), 2326–2331 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klement, E., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: A universal integral as common frame for Choquet and Sugeno integral. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 18, 178–187 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nocedal, J., Wright, S.: Numerical Optimization. Springer, New York (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peneva, V., Popchev, I.: Aggregation of fuzzy preference relations to multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 6, 351–365 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quesada, A.: Monotonicity and the Hirsch index. Journal of Informetrics 3(2), 158–160 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sugeno, M.: Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. Ph.D. thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology (1974)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanino, T.: Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making, pp. 54–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woeginger, G.J.: An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index. Mathematical Social Sciences 56(2), 224–232 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Systems Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and Information ScienceWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Interdisciplinary PhD Studies ProgramSystems Research Institute, Polish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations