From Computing with Numbers to Computing with Words — From Manipulation of Measurements to Manipulation of Perceptions
Computing, in its usual sense, is centered on manipulation of numbers and symbols. In contrast, computing with words, or CW for short, is a methodology in which the objects of computation are words and propositopns drawn from a natural language, e.g., small, large, far, heavy, not very likely, the price of gas is low and declining, Berkeley is near San Francisco, CA, it is very unlikely that there will be a significant increase in the price of oil in the near future, etc. Computing with words (CW) is inspired by the remarkable human capability to perform a wide variety of physical and mental tasks without any measurements and any computations. Familiar examples of such tasks are parking a car, driving in heavy traffic, playing golf, riding a bicycle, understanding speech, and summarizing a story. Underlying this remarkable capability is the brain’s crucial ability to manipulate perceptions — perceptions of distance, size, weight, color, speed, time, direction, force, number, truth, likelihood, and other characteristics of physical and mental objects. Manipulation of perceptions plays a key role in human recognition, decision and execution processes. As a methodology, computing with words provides a foundation for a computational theory of perceptions — a theory which may have an important bearing on how humans make — and machines might make — perception-based rational decisions in an environment of imprecision, uncertainty and partial truth.
A basic difference between perceptions and measurements is that, in general, measurements are crisp whereas perceptions are fuzzy. One of the fundamental aims of science has been and continues to be that of processing from perceptions to measurements. Pursuit of this aim has led to brilliant successes. We have sent men to the moon; we can build computers that are capable of performing billions of computations per second; we have constructed telescopes that can explore the far reaches of the universe; and we can date the age of rocks that are millions of years old. But alongside the brilliant successes stand conspicuous underachievements and outright failures. We cannot build robots which can move with the agility of animals or humans; we cannot automate driving in heavy traffic; we cannot translate from one language to another at the level of a human interpreter; we cannot create programs which can summarize nontrivial stories; our ability to model the behavior of economic systems leaves much to be desired; and we cannot build machines that can compete with children in the performance of a wide variety of physical and cognitive tasks.
It may be argued that underlying the underachievements and failures is the unavailability of a methodology for reasoning and computing with perceptions rather than measurements. An outline of such a methodology — referred to as a computational theory of perceptions is presented in this paper. The computational theory of perceptions, or CTP for short, is based on the methodology of CW. In CTP, words play the role of labels of perceptions and, more generally, perceptions are expressed as propositions in a natural language. CW-based techniques are employed to translate propositions expressed in a natural language into what is called the Generalized Constraint Language (GCL). In this language, the meaning of a proposition is expressed as a generalized constraint, X isr R, where X is the constrained variable, R is the constraining relation and isr is a variable copula in which r is a variable whose value defines the way in which R constrains X. Among the basic types of constraints are: possibilistic, veristic, probabilistic, random set, Pawlak set, fuzzy, graph and usuality. The wide variety of constraints in GCL makes GCL a much more expressive language than the language of predicate logic.
In CW, the initial and terminal data sets, IDS and TDS, are assumed to consist of propositions expresed in a natural language. These propositions are translated, respectively, into antecedent and consequent constraints. Consequent constraints are derived from antecedent constraints through the use of rules of constraint propagation. The principal constraint propagation rule is the generalized extension principle. The derived constraints are retranslated into a natural language, yielding the terminal data set (TDS). The rules of constraint propagation in CW coincide with the rules of inference in fuzzy logic. A basic problem in CW is that of explicitation of X, R, and r in a generalized constraint, X isr R, which represents the meaning of a proposition, p in a natural language.
There are two major imperatives for computing with words. First, computing with words is a necessity when the available information is too imprecise to justify the use of numbers; and second, when there is a tolerance for imprecision which can be exploited to achieve tractability, robustness, low solution cost and better rapport with reality. Exploitation of the tolerance for imprecision is an issue of central importance in CW and CTP. At this juncture, the computational theory of perceptions — which is based on CW — is in its initial stages of development. In time it may come to play an important role in the conception, design and utilization of information/intelligent systems. The role model for CW and CTP is the human mind.
KeywordsNatural Language Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Number Canonical Form Constraint Satisfaction Problem
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Bosch, P.: Vagueness, Ambiguity and All the Rest. In: van de Velde M., Vandeweghe, W. (eds.): Sprachstruktur, Individuum und Gesellschaft. Niemeyer, Tubingen (1978)Google Scholar
- 4.Bowen, J., Lai, R., Bahler, D.: Fuzzy Semantics and Fuzzy Constraint networks. In: Proc. 1st IEEE Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, San Francisco (1992) 1009–1016Google Scholar
- 5.Bowen, J., Lai, R., Bahler, D.: Lexical Imprecision in Fuzzy Constraint Networks. In: Proc. Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1992) 616–620Google Scholar
- 6.Cresswell, M.J.: Logic and Languages. Methuen, London (1973)Google Scholar
- 7.Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H.: Propagation and Satisfaction of Flexible Constraints. In: Yager, R.R., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.): Fuzzy Sets, Neural Networks, and Soft Computing. Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1994) 166–187.Google Scholar
- 8.Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H.: Possibility Theory in Constraint Satisfaction Problems: Handling Priority, Preference, and Uncertainty. J. Appl. Intell., to be publishedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H.: The Calculus of Fuzzy Restrictions as a Basis for Flexible Constraint Satisfaction. In: Proc. 2nd IEEE Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, San Francisco (1993) 1131–1136Google Scholar
- 10.Freuder, E.C., Snow, P.: Improved Relaxation and Search Methods for Approximate Constraint Satisfaction with a Maximum Criterion. In: Proc. 8th Biennial Conf. on the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligfence, Ontario (1990) 227–230Google Scholar
- 13.Katai, O. et al.: Synergetic Computation for Constraint Satisfaction Problems Involving Continuous and Fuzzy Variables by Using Occam. In: Noguchi, S., Umedo, H. (eds.): Transputer/Occam, Proc. 4th Transputer/occam Int. Conf. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1992) 146–160Google Scholar
- 16.Lano, K.: A Constraint-Based Fuzzy Inference System. In: Barahona, P., Pereira, L.M., Porto, A. (eds.): EPIA 91, 5th Portuguese Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991) 45–59Google Scholar
- 18.Mamdani, E.H., Gaines, B.R. (eds.): Fuzzy reasoning and Its Applications, London (1981)Google Scholar
- 22.Oshan, M.S., Saad, O.M., Hassan, A.G.: On the Solution of Fuzzy Multiobjective Integer Linear Programming Problems with a Parametric Study. Adv. Modeling Anal. A 24 (1995) 49–64Google Scholar
- 23.Partee, B.: Montague Grammar. Academic, New York (1976)Google Scholar
- 25.Qi, G., Friedrich, G.: Extending Constraint Satisfaction Problem Solving in Structural Design. In: Belli, F., Rademacher, F.J. (eds.): Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, 5th Int. Conf., IEA/AIE-92. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1992) 341–350Google Scholar
- 26.Rasiowa, H., Marek, M.: On Reaching Consensus by Groups of Intelligent Agents. In: Ras, Z.W. (eds.): Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1989) 234–243Google Scholar
- 29.Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton (1976)Google Scholar
- 30.Tong, S.C.: Interval Number and Fuzzy Number Linear programming. Adv. in Modeling Anal. A 20 (1994) 51–56Google Scholar
- 31.Vallee, R.: Cognition et Systeme. L’Intersisciplinaire Systeme(s ), Paris (1995)Google Scholar
- 35.Zadeh, L.A.: Probability Measures of Fuzzy Events. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 23 (1968) 421427Google Scholar
- 37.Zadeh, L.A.: Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex System and Decision processes. IEEE trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. SMC-3 (1973) 28–44Google Scholar
- 38.Zadeh, L.A.: On the Analysis of Large-Scale Systems. In: Gottinger, H. (ed.): Systems Approaches and Environment Problems. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Goettingen (1974) 2337Google Scholar
- 39.Zadeh, L.A.: Calculus of Fuzzy Restrictions. In: Zadeh, L.A., Fu, K.S., Shimura, M. (eds.): Fuzzy Sets and Their Application to Cognitive and Decision Processes. Academic, New York (1975) 1–39Google Scholar
- 44.Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy Sets and Information Granularity. In: Gupta, M., Ragade, R., Yager, R.R. (eds.): Advances in Fuzzy Set Theory and Applications. North-Holland, Amstaerdam (1979) 3–18Google Scholar
- 45.Zadeh, L.A.: A Theory of Approximate Reasoning. In: Hayes, J., Michie, D., Mikulich, L.I. (eds.): Machine Intelligence, vol.. 9. Halstead, New York (1979) 149–194Google Scholar
- 46.Zadeh, L.A.: Test-Score Semantics for Natural Languages and Meaning Representation via PRUF. In: Rieger, B. (ed.): Empirical Semantics. Brockmeyer, Germany (1981) 281–349Google Scholar
- 47.Zadeh, L.A.: Test-Score Semantics for Natural Languages. In: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics. Prague (1982) 425–430Google Scholar
- 48.Zadeh, L.A.: Syllogistic Reasoning in Fuzzy logic and Its Application to Reasoning with Dispositions. In: Proc. 1984 Int. Symp. on Multiple-Valued Logic, Winnipeg (1984) 148–153Google Scholar
- 49.Zadeh, L.A.: Outline of a Computational Approach to Meaning and Knowledge Representation Based on the Concept of a generalized Assignment Statement. In: Thoma, M., Wyner, A. (eds.): Proc. Int. Seminar on Artificial Intelligence and Man-Machine Systems. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (1986) 198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar