Linguistic Approximation and Semantic Adjustment in the Modeling Process

  • Eric Fimbel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1821)


The transcription of data into a discrete representation system (numerical or qualitative) may be inaccurate either because there exist no exact representation or because a concise but inexact description is preferred. This kind of inaccuracy is studied within a general framework using Description Languages, either Qualitative or Numerical. Two principles are stated: 1) the writer always selects a description following a complexity-accuracy tradeoff (Linguistic Approximation Principle); 2) in a Description Language, in every specific context, the Meaning of an expression optimally represents the set of values that it can describe (Semantic Adjustment Principle). Consequently, the Meaning of Qualitative Expressions 1) may change in different contexts; 2) can generally be determined without introducing arbitrary parameters. The corresponding algorithm is presented in the case of Linguistic Modeling, to calculate the fuzzy values associated with Qualitative Expressions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akaike H., “A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification”, IEEE trans. on automatic control, AC-19 No.6 pp. 716–723, 1974.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellis A. W., Young A. W., “Human Cognitive Neuropsychology”, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grice H. P., “Logic and conversation”, in “Syntax and Semantics-volume 3-Speech acts”, Cole & Morgan editors, Academic press, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katz P., “Digital Control using microprocessors”, Prentice Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirkpatrick S., Gelatt C. D. Vecchi M. P., “Optimization by simulated annealing”, Science vol. 220 pp. 671–680, 1983.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saussure F., “A Course in General Linguistics”, Duckworth, London, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slaughter J., “Quantization errors in digital control systems”, IEEE trans. on Automatic Control, AC-9 pp. 70–74, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugeno M., Yasukawa T., “A Fuzzy-Logic-Based Approach to Qualitative Modeling”, IEEE trans. on fuzzy systems, vol.1 No.1, pp. 7–31, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yager R. R., “On the Interpretation of Fuzzy IF-THEN Rules”, Applied Intelligence vol.6 No. 2 pp. 141–151, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yen J., Wang L., “Application of Statistical Information Criteria for Optimal Fuzzy Model Construction”, IEEE trans. on fuzzy systems vol.6 No. 362–372, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zadeh L. A, “Fuzzy sets”, inform. contr., vol. 8 pp. 338–353, 1965.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zadeh L. A., “Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision Processes”, IEEE trans. SMC-3 No. 1, pp. 28–44, 1973.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Fimbel
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre de Recherche en NeuropsychologieInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontrealMontreal

Personalised recommendations