Measuring Inter-group Agreement on zSlice Based General Type-2 Fuzzy Sets

Abstract

Recently, there has been much research into modelling of uncertainty in human perception through Fuzzy Sets (FSs). Most of this research has focused on allowing respondents to express their (intra) uncertainty using intervals. Here, depending on the technique used and types of uncertainties being modelled different types of FSs can be obtained (e.g., Type-1, Interval Type-2, General Type-2). Arguably, one of the most flexible techniques is the Interval Agreement Approach (IAA) as it allows to model the perception of all respondents without making assumptions such as outlier removal or predefined membership function types (e.g. Gaussian). A key aspect in the analysis of interval-valued data and indeed, IAA based agreement models of said data, is to determine the position and strengths of agreement across all the sources/participants. While previously, the Agreement Ratio was proposed to measure the strength of agreement in fuzzy set based models of interval data, said measure has only been applicable to type-1 fuzzy sets. In this paper, we extend the Agreement Ratio to capture the degree of inter-group agreement modelled by a General Type-2 Fuzzy Set when using the IAA. This measure relies on using a similarity measure to quantitatively express the relation between the different levels of agreement in a given FS. Synthetic examples are provided in order to demonstrate both behaviour and calculation of the measure. Finally, an application to realworld data is provided in order to show the potential of this measure to assess the divergence of opinions for ambiguous concepts when heterogeneous groups of participants are involved.1 The rationale of doing so is due to the use of the Jaccard similarity measure [23] which is simplified to the case of |A| |B| when A ⊆ B.

Contextual Intelligent Decisions: Expert Moderation of Machine Outputs for Fair Assessment of Commercial Driving

“…Thus, it is intuitively expected that different experts -even though they have similar roles-may provide different answers to questions. When experts focus is changed, the differences in the viewpoints of different professions may also arise, due to their distinct responsibilities, roles and expectations [35]. For example a group of researchers may focus on the aspect of scientific knowledge of road safety by using experiments, whereas fleet managers may focus on optimising the delivery of goods and services in their companies.…”

Contextually Intelligent Decisions: A Co-designed Approach for Commercial Driving Assessment

“…Thus, it is expected that different stakeholders -even though they have similar roles -may provide different answers to questions. In addition, stakeholders with different roles may have varying viewpoints due to their distinct responsibilities and contrasting interests (Navarro and Wagner [2019]). Those input differences must be effectively captured and modelled to provide a comprehensive, reliable and clear representation of knowledge to support collaborative decision-making.…”