Data mining in soft computing framework: a survey

The present article provides a survey of the available literature on data mining using soft computing. A categorization has been provided based on the different soft computing tools and their hybridizations used, the data mining function implemented, and the preference criterion selected by the model. The utility of the different soft computing methodologies is highlighted. Generally fuzzy sets are suitable for handling the issues related to understandability of patterns, incomplete/noisy data, mixed media information and human interaction, and can provide approximate solutions faster. Neural networks are nonparametric, robust, and exhibit good learning and generalization capabilities in data-rich environments. Genetic algorithms provide efficient search algorithms to select a model, from mixed media data, based on some preference criterion/objective function. Rough sets are suitable for handling different types of uncertainty in data. Some challenges to data mining and the application of soft computing methodologies are indicated. An extensive bibliography is also included

Fuzzy expert systems in civil engineering

Imperial Users onl

Representing archaeological uncertainty in cultural informatics

This thesis sets out to explore, describe, quantify, and visualise uncertainty in a cultural informatics context, with a focus on archaeological reconstructions. For quite some time, archaeologists and heritage experts have been criticising the often toorealistic appearance of three-dimensional reconstructions. They have been highlighting one of the unique features of archaeology: the information we have on our heritage will always be incomplete. This incompleteness should be reflected in digitised reconstructions of the past. This criticism is the driving force behind this thesis. The research examines archaeological theory and inferential process and provides insight into computer visualisation. It describes how these two areas, of archaeology and computer graphics, have formed a useful, but often tumultuous, relationship through the years. By examining the uncertainty background of disciplines such as GIS, medicine, and law, the thesis postulates that archaeological visualisation, in order to mature, must move towards archaeological knowledge visualisation. Three sequential areas are proposed through this thesis for the initial exploration of archaeological uncertainty: identification, quantification and modelling. The main contributions of the thesis lie in those three areas. Firstly, through the innovative design, distribution, and analysis of a questionnaire, the thesis identifies the importance of uncertainty in archaeological interpretation and discovers potential preferences among different evidence types. Secondly, the thesis uniquely analyses and evaluates, in relation to archaeological uncertainty, three different belief quantification models. The varying ways that these mathematical models work, are also evaluated through simulated experiments. Comparison of results indicates significant convergence between the models. Thirdly, a novel approach to archaeological uncertainty and evidence conflict visualisation is presented, influenced by information visualisation schemes. Lastly, suggestions for future semantic extensions to this research are presented through the design and development of new plugins to a search engine

Evaluation of Quantified Statements using Gradual Numbers - 64

Dr. Ludovic Liétard is currently assistant professor at the University of Rennes 1 (IUT Lannion) in France. His research mainly concerns flexible querying of relational databases using fuzzy set theory and various applications of fuzzy set theory in databases. Dr. Daniel Rocacher is currently assistant professor at the University of Rennes 1 (ENSSAT Lannion) in France. He has proposed new directions to define gradual numbers in the framework of fuzzy set theory. His current research concerns their applications in databases. Evaluation of Quantified Statements using Gradual Numbers -2 -Abstract. This paper is devoted to the evaluation of quantified statements which can be found in many applications as decision-making, expert systems or flexible querying of relational databases using fuzzy set theory. Its contribution is to introduce the main techniques to evaluate such statements and to propose a new theoretical background for the evaluation of quantified statements of type "Q X are A" and "Q B X are A". In this context, quantified statements are interpreted using an arithmetic on gradual numbers from ℕ f , ℤ f and ℚ f . It is shown that the context of fuzzy numbers provides a framework to unify previous approaches and can be the base for the definition of new approaches

A Scoping Inquiry into the Potential Contribution of Subjective Probability Theory, Dempster-Shafer Theory and Possibility Theory in Accommodating Degrees of Belief in Traveller Behaviour Research

There is a small but growing interest in traveller behaviour research on investigating ways to identify and quantify degrees of belief (as subjective probabilities or other propositions) associated with behavioural responses, especially in the context of popular travel choice methods such as stated choice experiments, as a way of adding to our understanding of decision making in real-world contexts that are associated with inevitable risk and uncertainty. This paper reviews three major theories that are not well known in the transportation literature that have been developed in psychology and decision sciences to accommodate belief, namely Subjective Probability Theory, Dempster-Shafer Theory and Possibility Theory. We focus on how degrees of belief are measured in these theories. The key elements of each theoretical approach are compared, including their mathematical properties and evidence patterns. Despite their being few applications to date in transportation, the review promotes the relevance of accounting for degrees of belief in travel choice analysis.Australian Research Council Discovery Progra

Recommendation Framework Based on Subjective Logic in Decision Support Systems

In this thesis our goals are to investigate the suitability of subjective logic within the decision support context that requires connectivity to complex data, user specification of frames of discernment, representation of complex reasoning expressions, an architecture that supports distributed usage of a decision support tool based on a client-server approach that separates user interactions on the browser side from computational engines for calculations on the server side, and analysis of the suitability and limitations of the proposed architecture

Comparing and Extending the Use of Defeasible Argumentation with Quantitative Data in Real-World Contexts

Dealing with uncertain, contradicting, and ambiguous information is still a central issue in Artificial Intelligence (AI). As a result, many formalisms have been proposed or adapted so as to consider non-monotonicity. A non-monotonic formalism is one that allows the retraction of previous conclusions or claims, from premises, in light of new evidence, offering some desirable flexibility when dealing with uncertainty. Among possible options, knowledge-base, non-monotonic reasoning approaches have seen their use being increased in practice. Nonetheless, only a limited number of works and researchers have performed any sort of comparison among them. This research article focuses on evaluating the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, a formalism particularly envisioned for modelling non-monotonic reasoning. In addition to this, fuzzy reasoning and expert systems, extended for handling non-monotonicity of reasoning, are selected and employed as baselines, due to their vast and accepted use within the AI community. Computational trust was selected as the domain of application of such models. Trust is an ill-defined construct, hence, reasoning applied to the inference of trust can be seen as non-monotonic. Inference models were designed to assign trust scalars to editors of the Wikipedia project. Scalars assigned to recognised trustworthy editors provided the basis for the analysis of the models’ inferential capacity according to evaluation metrics from the domain of computational trust. In particular, argument-based models demonstrated more robustness than those built upon the baselines despite the knowledge bases or datasets employed. This study contributes to the body of knowledge through the exploitation of defeasible argumentation and its comparison to similar approaches. It provides publicly implementations for the designed models of inference, which might be a useful aid to scholars interested in performing non-monotonic reasoning activities. It adds to previous works, empirically enhancing the generalisability of defeasible argumentation as a compelling approach to reason with quantitative data and uncertain knowledge

Formalising Human Mental Workload as a Defeasible Computational Concept

Human mental workload has gained importance, in the last few decades, as a fundamental design concept in human-computer interaction. It can be intuitively defined as the amount of mental work necessary for a person to complete a task over a given period of time. For people interacting with interfaces, computers and technological devices in general, the construct plays an important role. At a low level, while processing information, often people feel annoyed and frustrated; at higher level, mental workload is critical and dangerous as it leads to confusion, it decreases the performance of information processing and it increases the chances of errors and mistakes. It is extensively documented that either mental overload or underload negatively affect performance. Hence, designers and practitioners who are ultimately interested in system or human performance need answers about operator workload at all stages of system design and operation. At an early system design phase, designers require some explicit model to predict the mental workload imposed by their technologies on end-users so that alternative system designs can be evaluated. However, human mental workload is a multifaceted and complex construct mainly applied in cognitive sciences. A plethora of ad-hoc definitions can be found in the literature. Generally, it is not an elementary property, rather it emerges from the interaction between the requirements of a task, the circumstances under which it is performed and the skills, behaviours and perceptions of the operator. Although measuring mental workload has advantages in interaction and interface design, its formalisation as an operational and computational construct has not sufficiently been addressed. Many researchers agree that too many ad-hoc models are present in the literature and that they are applied subjectively by mental workload designers thereby limiting their application in different contexts and making comparison across different models difficult. This thesis introduces a novel computational framework for representing and assessing human mental workload based on defeasible reasoning. The starting point is the investigation of the nature of human mental workload that appears to be a defeasible phenomenon. A defeasible concept is a concept built upon a set of arguments that can be defeated by adding additional arguments. The word ‘defeasible’ is inherited from defeasible reasoning, a form of reasoning built upon reasons that can be defeated. It is also known as non-monotonic reasoning because of the technical property (non-monotonicity) of the logical formalisms that are aimed at modelling defeasible reasoning activity. Here, a conclusion or claim, derived from the application of previous knowledge, can be retracted in the light of new evidence. Formally, state-of-the-art defeasible reasoning models are implemented employing argumentation theory, a multi-disciplinary paradigm that incorporates elements of philosophy, psychology and sociology. It systematically studies how arguments can be built, sustained or discarded in a reasoning process, and it investigates the validity of their conclusions. Since mental workload can be seen as a defeasible phenomenon, formal defeasible argumentation theory may have a positive impact in its representation and assessment. Mental workload can be captured, analysed, and measured in ways that increase its understanding allowing its use for practical activities. The research question investigated here is whether defeasible argumentation theory can enhance the representation of the construct of mental workload and improve the quality of its assessment in the field of human-computer interaction. In order to answer this question, recurrent knowledge and evidence employed in state-of-the-art mental workload measurement techniques have been reviewed in the first place as well as their defeasible and non-monotonic properties. Secondly, an investigation of the state-of-the-art computational techniques for implementing defeasible reasoning has been carried out. This allowed the design of a modular framework for mental workload representation and assessment. The proposed solution has been evaluated by comparing the properties of sensitivity, diagnosticity and validity of the assessments produced by two instances of the framework against the ones produced by two well known subjective mental workload assessments techniques (the Nasa Task Load Index and the Workload Profile) in the context of human-web interaction. In detail, through an empirical user study, it has been firstly demonstrated how these two state-of-the-art techniques can be translated into two particular instances of the framework while still maintaining the same validity. In other words, the indexes of mental workload inferred by the two original instruments, and the ones generated by their corresponding translations (instances of the framework) showed a positive and nearly perfect statistical correlation. Additionally, a new defeasible instance built with the framework showed a better sensitivity and a higher diagnosticity capacity than the two selected state-of-the art techniques. The former showed a higher convergent validity with the latter techniques, but a better concurrent validity with performance measures. The new defeasible instance generated indexes of mental workload that better correlated with the objective time for task completion compared to the two selected instruments. These findings support the research question thereby demonstrating how defeasible argumentation theory can be successfully adopted to support the representation of mental workload and to enhance the quality of its assessments. The main contribution of this thesis is the presentation of a methodology, developed as a formal modular framework, to represent mental workload as a defeasible computational concept and to assess it as a numerical usable index. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by providing a modular framework built upon defeasible reasoning and formalised through argumentation theory in which workload can be optimally measured, analysed, explained and applied in different contexts

Biomedical applications of belief networks

Biomedicine is an area in which computers have long been expected to play a significant role. Although many of the early claims have proved unrealistic, computers are gradually becoming accepted in the biomedical, clinical and research environment. Within these application areas, expert systems appear to have met with the most resistance, especially when applied to image interpretation.In order to improve the acceptance of computerised decision support systems it is necessary to provide the information needed to make rational judgements concerning the inferences the system has made. This entails an explanation of what inferences were made, how the inferences were made and how the results of the inference are to be interpreted. Furthermore there must be a consistent approach to the combining of information from low level computational processes through to high level expert analyses.nformation from low level computational processes through to high level expert analyses. Until recently ad hoc formalisms were seen as the only tractable approach to reasoning under uncertainty. A review of some of these formalisms suggests that they are less than ideal for the purposes of decision making. Belief networks provide a tractable way of utilising probability theory as an inference formalism by combining the theoretical consistency of probability for inference and decision making, with the ability to use the knowledge of domain experts.nowledge of domain experts. The potential of belief networks in biomedical applications has already been recog¬ nised and there has been substantial research into the use of belief networks for medical diagnosis and methods for handling large, interconnected networks. In this thesis the use of belief networks is extended to include detailed image model matching to show how, in principle, feature measurement can be undertaken in a fully probabilistic way. The belief networks employed are usually cyclic and have strong influences between adjacent nodes, so new techniques for probabilistic updating based on a model of the matching process have been developed.An object-orientated inference shell called FLAPNet has been implemented and used to apply the belief network formalism to two application domains. The first application is model-based matching in fetal ultrasound images. The imaging modality and biological variation in the subject make model matching a highly uncertain process. A dynamic, deformable model, similar to active contour models, is used. A belief network combines constraints derived from local evidence in the image, with global constraints derived from trained models, to control the iterative refinement of an initial model cue.In the second application a belief network is used for the incremental aggregation of evidence occurring during the classification of objects on a cervical smear slide as part of an automated pre-screening system. A belief network provides both an explicit domain model and a mechanism for the incremental aggregation of evidence, two attributes important in pre-screening systems.Overall it is argued that belief networks combine the necessary quantitative features required of a decision support system with desirable qualitative features that will lead to improved acceptability of expert systems in the biomedical domain