4.5 Article

Knowledge measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets with attitude towards non-specificity

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13042-018-0844-3

关键词

Intuitionistic fuzzy sets; Amount of knowledge; Knowledge measure; Knowledge personalization; Uncertainty modeling

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71771110]
  2. Planning Research Foundation of Social Science of the Ministry of Education of China [16YJA630014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper is devoted to an entropy-independent measure of knowledge in the context of intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs). We point out and justify that there are at least two facets of knowledge associated with an IFS, namely the information content and the information clarity. Having this in mind, we put forward a novel axiomatic definition of knowledge measure for IFSs. More specifically, a set of new axioms is presented with which knowledge measure should comply in the context of IFSs. A parametric model following these axioms is then developed to realize this measure. Both facets mentioned above are simultaneously taken into account in the axioms and the model so as to better capture the unique features of an IFS. In particular, we suggest the concept of the amount of potential knowledge related to the hesitancy or non-specificity of an IFS. This allows us to introduce the idea of an attitudinal-based knowledge measure for IFSs. We believe that the knowledge measure provided in this manner could truly reflect the nature of IFSs, and what people really want with different attitudes towards the unknown. Finally, a practical application of the developed technique to decision making under uncertainty is illustrated. As such, the developed measure could be considered as a safe and effective alternative to help tackle some special problems that are difficult to handle by using entropy alone, especially when dealing with the complex situation in which different attitudes of users have to be considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据