Operators for Convolution of Fuzzy Measures

  • Andrew G. Bronevich
  • Alexander E. Lepskiy
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 16)


In this paper we investigate different mappings of fuzzy measures in the framework of probabilistic approach. Usually these mappings in the decision-making theory are called convolution (aggregation) operators [1,2]. We study what kind of restrictions is required to the convolution operator that one family of fuzzy measures (for example belief measures) is mapped to the same family.


Probability Measure Probabilistic Approach Convolution Operator Fuzzy Measure Possibility Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dubois D. and Prade, H. (1988) Possibility Theory. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grabisch, M., Nguyen, H.T., and Walker, E.A. (1995). Fundamentals of Uncertainty Calculi with Applications to Fuzzy Inference. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bronevich, A.G. and Karkishchenko, A.N. (2002) The structure of fuzzy measure families induced by upper and lower probabilities. Statistical modeling, analysis and management of fuzzy data. Heidelberg; New York: Physica-verl., 160–172.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dempster, A.P. (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by multivalued mapping. Ann. Math. Statist., 38, 325–339MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walley, P. (1991) Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities, Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sugeno, M. (1972) Fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral. Trans. SICE, 8, 95–102Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shafer, G. (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chateauneuf, A. and Jaffray, J.Y. (1989) Some characterizations of lower probabilities and other monotone capacities through the use of Mobius inversion, Mathematical Social Sciences, 17, 263–283.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, A.O. (1967) Calculi of finite differences. “Nauka” Press, Moscow. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fihtengoltz, G. (1969) Course of the differential and integral calculi, V.1, “Nauka” Press, Moscow. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murofushi, T., Sugeno, M. (1989) An interpretation of fuzzy measure and Choquet integral as an integral with respect to fuzzy measure. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 29, 229–235.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mesiar R. (1995) Choquet-like integrals, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 194, 477–488.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubois, D., Farinas del Cerro, Herzig, A., Prade, H. (1994) An original view of independence with application to plausible reasoning. Proceedings of 10-th conference “Uncertainty in Artificial reasoning”, 195–203.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Cooman, G. Possibility Theory I-III.International journal of General systems, 25, 291–371.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew G. Bronevich
    • 1
  • Alexander E. Lepskiy
    • 1
  1. 1.Taganrog State University of Radio-EngineeringTaganrogRussia

Personalised recommendations