Mass Assignment Methods for Medical Classification Diagnosis

  • Jim F. Baldwin
  • Carla Hill
  • Christiane Ponsan
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 83)


Nowadays, in areas such as medicine, many real-world classification problems rely heavily on large collections of data that are not understandable to human users. Therefore, there is a need for transparent models to represent such databases. In this chapter, we present two methods for learning classification rules which aim at being simplistic and transparent in nature. Both methods use fuzzy sets to describe the universes of discourse since their fuzzy boundaries allow a realistic representation of neighbouring concepts. As a consequence, interpolation effects as well as data compression are obtained in the learned models. Moreover, the fuzzy sets can be labelled with words which allows the inferred rules to be interpreted linguistically. In order to generate these rules, probability distributions need to be extracted from fuzzy sets, which is feasible using the fundamental results of mass assignment theory [2].


Membership Degree Original Feature Fuzzy Partition Mass Assignment Genetic Programming Algorithm 
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]
    Baldwin JF (1987) Support Logic Programming. In: A.I. et al (eds) Fuzzy Sets — Theory and Applications. Reidel, Dordrecht-Boston, pp 133–151Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Baldwin JF (1991) A Theory of Mass Assignments for Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 833:22–34Google Scholar
  3. [5]
    Baldwin JF, Martin TP, Pilsworth BW (1988) Fril Manual. Fril Systems Ltd., Bristol, BS8 1QX, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. [3]
    Baldwin JF, Martin TP, Pilsworth BW (1995) Fril — Fuzzy and Evidential Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence. Research Studies Press LtdGoogle Scholar
  5. [4]
    Baldwin JF, Lawry J, Martin TP (1998) Mass Assignment Based Induction of Decision Trees on Words. In: Proceedings IPMU, Paris, France, pp 524–531Google Scholar
  6. [7]
    Koza JR (1998) Genetic Programming, On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. A Bradford Book, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. [6]
    Mangasarian OL, Bennett KP (1989) Robust Linear Programming Discrimination of Two Linearly Inseparable Sets.Optimization Methods and Software 1:23–34Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Quinlan JR (1990) Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5(3):239–266Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Quinlan JR, Cameron-Jones RM (1995) Induction of Logic Programs: Foil and Related Systems. New Generation Computing, Special Issue on ILP 13:287–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Wolberg WH, Tanner MS, Loh WY (1988) Diagnosis Schemes for Fine Needle Aspirates of Breast Masses. Analytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology 10:225–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Wolberg WH, Street WN, Heisey DM, Mangasarian OL (1995) Computerderived Nuclear Features Distinguish Malignant from Benign Breat Cytology. Human Pathology 26:792–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jim F. Baldwin
    • 1
  • Carla Hill
    • 1
  • Christiane Ponsan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Engineering MathematicsUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations