IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/foi/msapwp/06_2014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Paired structures and bipolar knowledge representation

Author

Listed:
  • Javier Montero

    (Faculty of Mathematics, Complutense University)

  • Humberto Bustince

    (Departamento de Automática y Computación, Universidad Pública de Navarra)

  • Camilo Franco

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • J. Tinguaro Rodríguez

    (Faculty of Mathematics, Complutense University)

  • Daniel Gómez

    (Faculty of Statistics, Complutense University)

  • Miguel Pagola

    (Departamento de Automática y Computación, Universidad Pública de Navarra)

  • Javier Fernandez

    (Departamento de Automática y Computación, Universidad Pública de Navarra)

  • Edurne Barrenechea

    (Departamento de Automática y Computación, Universidad Pública de Navarra)

Abstract

In this strictly positional paper we propose a general approach to bipolar knowledge representation, where the meaning of concepts can be modelled by examining their decomposition into opposite and neutral categories. In particular, it is the semantic relationship between the opposite categories which suggests the emergence of a paired structure and its associated type of neutrality, being there three general types of neutral categories, namely indeterminacy, ambivalence and conflict. Hence, the key issue consists in identifying the semantic opposition characterizing the meaning of concepts and at the same time the type of neutrality rising in between opposites. Based on this first level of bipolar knowledge representation, paired structures in fact offer the means to characterize a specific bipolar valuation scale depending on the meaning of the concept that has to be verified. In this sense, a paired structure is a standard basic structure that allows learning and building different valuation scales, leading to linear or even more complex valuation scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier Montero & Humberto Bustince & Camilo Franco & J. Tinguaro Rodríguez & Daniel Gómez & Miguel Pagola & Javier Fernandez & Edurne Barrenechea, 2014. "Paired structures and bipolar knowledge representation," MSAP Working Paper Series 06_2014, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:foi:msapwp:06_2014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/MSAPpdf/MSAP2014/MSAP_WP06_2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Michel Grabisch & Salvatore Greco & Marc Pirlot, 2008. "Bipolar and bivariate models in multi-criteria decision analysis: descriptive and constructive approaches," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00340374, HAL.
    3. Amo, A. & Montero, J. & Biging, G. & Cutello, V., 2004. "Fuzzy classification systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 495-507, July.
    4. Montero, J. & Tejada, J. & Cutello, C., 1997. "A general model for deriving preference structures from data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 98-110, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Florentin Smarandache, 2019. "Refined Neutrosophy and Lattices vs. Pair Structures and YinYang Bipolar Fuzzy Set," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-16, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    2. Wei Song & Zhiya Chen & Aijun Liu & Qiuyun Zhu & Wei Zhao & Sang-Bing Tsai & Hui Lu, 2018. "A Study on Green Supplier Selection in Dynamic Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Oliver Linton & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Yoon-Jae Wang, 2002. "Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: a subsampling approach," CeMMAP working papers 03/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Heiko Karle & Georg Kirchsteiger & Martin Peitz, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Consumption Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 101-120, May.
    5. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    6. Muhammad Kashif & Thomas Leirvik, 2022. "The MAX Effect in an Oil Exporting Country: The Case of Norway," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    8. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    9. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    10. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    11. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    12. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    13. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    14. Alex Stomper & Marie-Louise Vierø, 2015. "Iterated Expectations Under Rank-dependent Expected Utility And Model Consistency," Working Paper 1228, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    15. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    16. Kazi Iqbal & Asad Islam & John List & Vy Nguyen, 2021. "Myopic Loss Aversion and Investment Decisions: From the Laboratory to the Field," Framed Field Experiments 000730, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    18. Shuli Liu & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 749-774, July.
    19. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    20. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:foi:msapwp:06_2014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Geir Tveit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/msakudk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.