Interpretability assessment of fuzzy knowledge bases: A cointension based approach

Abstract

Computing with words (CWW) relies on linguistic representation of knowledge that is processed by operating at the semantical level defined through fuzzy sets. Linguistic representation of knowledge is a major issue when fuzzy rule based models are acquired from data by some form of empirical learning. Indeed, these models are often requested to exhibit interpretability, which is normally evaluated in terms of structural features, such as rule complexity, properties on fuzzy sets and partitions. In this paper we propose a different approach for evaluating interpretability that is based on the notion of cointension. The interpretability of a fuzzy rule-based model is measured in terms of cointension degree between the explicit semantics, defined by the formal parameter settings of the model, and the implicit semantics conveyed to the reader by the linguistic representation of knowledge. Implicit semantics calls for a representation of user’s knowledge which is difficult to externalise. Nevertheless, we identify a set of properties – which we call “logical view” – that is expected to hold in the implicit semantics and is used in our approach to evaluate the cointension between explicit and implicit semantics. In practice, a new fuzzy rule base is obtained by minimising the fuzzy rule base through logical properties. Semantic comparison is made by evaluating the performances of the two rule bases, which are supposed to be similar when the two semantics are almost equivalent. If this is the case, we deduce that the logical view is applicable to the model, which can be tagged as interpretable from the cointension viewpoint. These ideas are then used to define a strategy for assessing interpretability of fuzzy rule-based classifiers (FRBCs). The strategy has been evaluated on a set of pre-existent FRBCs, acquired by different learning processes from a well-known benchmark dataset. Our analysis highlighted that some of them are not cointensive with user’s knowledge, hence their linguistic representation is not appropriate, even though they can be tagged as interpretable from a structural point of view.