Coherent conditional plausibility: A tool for handling fuzziness and uncertainty under partial information
Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, ISSN: 1434-9922, Vol: 357, Page: 129-152
2018
- 3Citations
- 2Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
Non-additive measures, such as plausibility, are meaningful when only a partial or indirect information on the events of interest is available, or when imprecision and ambiguity of agents are considered. Our main aim is to study inferential processes, like the Bayesian one, when the information is expressed in natural language and the uncertainty measure is either partially or imprecisely assessed. We deal with partial assessments consistent with a conditional plausibility, and adopt the interpretation of the membership of a fuzzy set in terms of coherent conditional plausibility, regarded as a function of the conditioning events. This kind of interpretation, inspired to that given in terms of coherent conditional probability, is particularly useful for computing the measure of the uncertainty of fuzzy events, when the knowledge on the variable is imprecise and can be managed with a non-additive measure of uncertainty. A simple situation related to a Zadeh’s example can be the following: a ball will be drawn from an urn containing balls of different colours and different diameters, but one knows only the distribution of the different colours. The aim is to compute the uncertainty measure of the fuzzy event “a small ball is drawn”, taking in considerations possible logical constrains among the colours and the diameters.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85021642542&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_9; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_9; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_9; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_9
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know