Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information Fusion
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/inffus

Representation, optimization and generation of fuzzy measures

Gleb Beliakov a ,∗,1 , Jian-Zhang Wu a ,1 , Weiping Ding b ,1
a
School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
b
School of Information Science and Technology, Nantong University, 226019, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: We review recent literature on three aspects of fuzzy measures: their representations, learning optimal fuzzy
Fuzzy measure measures and random generation of various types of fuzzy measures. These three aspects are interdependent:
Equivalent representations methods of learning fuzzy measures depend on their representation, and may also include random generation
Fuzzy measure identification
as one of the steps, on the other hand different representations also affect generation methods, while random
Random generation
generation plays an important role in simulation studies for post-hoc analysis of sets of measures learned
Optimization
from data and problem-specific constraints. Explicit modelling of interactions between the decision variables
is a distinctive feature of integrals based on fuzzy measures, but its price is high computational complexity.
To extend their range of applicability efficient representations and computational techniques are required.
All three mentioned aspects provide mathematical and computational tools for novel applications of fuzzy
measures and integrals in decision making and information fusion, allow scaling up significantly the domain
of applicability and reduce their complexity.

1. Introduction
In this review we focus on the most recent developments in the
field of fuzzy measures and integrals, specifically the ones associated
with their representations and construction. There are several detailed
treatments of fuzzy measures presented in the monographs [1–4], from
which we borrowed the basic definitions. While information fusion and
aggregation is one particular and most relevant to this review area,
where fuzzy measures gained prominence in recent years, these set
functions are extensively used in mathematical economics under the
name of cooperative games, in decision theory and pure mathematics.
In economics several prominent researchers have been awarded Nobel
prizes for their advances in cooperative games, including Harsanyi,
Nash, Aumann and Shapley.
As their name indicates, fuzzy measures generalize classical mea-
sures — mathematical objects to quantify properties of sets. Indeed,
fuzzy measures are set functions, that is, functions defined on collec-
tions of subsets of some universal set. A classical measure is an additive
function — the measure of a union of two non-intersecting subsets is the
sum of the measures of each subset. In contrast, a fuzzy, or nonadditive
measure results in a value which can be smaller or greater than the sum.
This way it accounts not only for the ‘‘sizes’’ of the combined subsets
but also for their ‘‘interaction’’.
In this review we focus on discrete finite sets and functions defined
on them. In the context of information fusion these universal sets are
decision criteria or other inputs that somehow interact with each other
and are combined into a representative value. So fuzzy measures are
set functions defined on the power sets of inputs. We also impose two
generic conditions to model reasonable application specific require-
ments, a rather technical boundary condition (the range of values is
the unit interval), and the monotonicity condition, which states that the
measure of a set is bigger than the measure of any of its subsets. This
condition relaxes additivity (for which monotonicity obviously holds),
and gives rise to a large number of interesting types of behaviour when
aggregating the inputs by the fuzzy integrals defined with respect to
monotone nonadditive set functions.
In this review we focus on some particular aspects of fuzzy measures
which are valuable in many operational tasks, such as performing
efficient calculations and simplifying fuzzy measures, simulations in-
volving fuzzy integrals, as well as quantifying and interpreting certain
properties of fuzzy measures such as degrees of interaction in a subset
of inputs.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gleb@deakin.edu.au (G. Beliakov).
1
All autors share equal credit for the development of the methods and the manuscript.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102295
Received 5 November 2023; Received in revised form 1 February 2024; Accepted 4 February 2024
Available online 7 February 2024
1566-2535/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
G. Beliakov et al.
Our survey provides the following contributions. (1) An analysis of
recent literature on representations of fuzzy measures and transforms
between them, suitability of representations to particular families; (2)
a review of recent methods of learning fuzzy measures from data
and problem-specific requirements; (3) a review of recent methods for
random sampling the set of fuzzy measures and its special families.
These three areas are inter-dependent: different representations are
suitable for developing efficient methods of learning fuzzy measures,
while random sampling is often a particular step in the learning process.
In another direction, learning fuzzy measures may identify not one
optimal fuzzy measure but a whole subset, which in turn can be
sampled to perform post-hoc and sensitivity analysis.
The review has three main sections after the Introduction and
Preliminaries. In Section 3 we discuss various representations of fuzzy
measures and transformations between them, including also the com-
putational aspects. In the next section we briefly outline recent progress
in eliciting fuzzy measures from data by optimization and machine
learning. Then Section 5 outlines recent methods of random generation
of general and particular types of fuzzy measures for simulation studies.
The last section points to further directions and presents conclusions.
2. Preliminaries
Let 𝑁 = {1, 2, … , 𝑛}, 𝑛 ≥ 2, be the discrete set of input arguments,
items or criteria, (𝑁) the power set of 𝑁, and |𝑆| or 𝑠 the cardinality
of a subset 𝑆 ⊆ 𝑁.
Definition 1 ([5–8]). A set function 𝜇 ∶ (𝑁) → [0, 1] is called as a
fuzzy measure on 𝑁 if it satisfies
(i) Boundary condition: 𝜇(∅) = 0, 𝜇(𝑁) = 1;
(ii) Monotonicity condition: ∀𝐴, 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁, if 𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 then 𝜇(𝐴) ≤ 𝜇(𝐵).
A fuzzy measure is also called a capacity [6], monotone mea-
sure [9,10], nonadditive measure [7,11,12], sometimes with further
qualifications such as ‘‘normalized’’. When condition (ii) is not satisfied,
a fuzzy measure is called a nonmonotonic fuzzy measure [13–15]. A
study on the evolution of notions of fuzzy measure can be found in [16].
The key feature of fuzzy measures is their ability to model explicitly
the interactions among the inputs, by quantifying not only the relative
importance of an input but also that of all possible inputs’ coalitions.
An input, such as decision criterion, may not be particularly important
by itself but gain importance in presence of other criteria.
Based on that feature one can design aggregation functions to com-
bine the inputs into a representative output value (or the total score),
which account for all inputs’ interactions. Such aggregation functions
are expressed by means of fuzzy integrals.
The direction in which the inputs interact, that is, whether they
reinforce or weaken each other, are quantified by various interaction
indices and also the overall behaviour of fuzzy measures related to their
‘‘convexity’’.
The interaction index of a subset, which extends the Shapley val-
ues, quantifies the simultaneous marginal interaction. The nonadditiv-
ity and modularity indices serve as quantifiers of the convexity in a
fuzzy measure, providing intuitive insights into the diverse range of
interaction phenomena observed among elements.
Definition 2 ([11,12,17,18]). A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is additive (su-
peradditive, subadditive), if 𝜇(𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) = (≥, ≤)𝜇(𝐴) + 𝜇(𝐵) for nonempty
disjoint subsets 𝐴, 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁.
Definition 3 ([1,2,19–21]). A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on a set 𝑁 is called
modular (supermodular, submodular) if 𝜇(𝐴 ∪ 𝐵) + 𝜇(𝐴 ∩ 𝐵) = (≥, ≤
)𝜇(𝐴) + 𝜇(𝐵), for all subsets 𝐴, 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁.
2
Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295
Nonmodularity is a broader concept compared to nonadditivity.
Typically, an additive or modular fuzzy measure indicates a degree
of independence among all elements. Similarly, a superadditive/super-
modular (subadditive/submodular) measure represents complementar-
ity (substitutability) among the inputs, respectively. Supermodularity
is often associated with the notion of convexity of set functions.
Definition 4 ([8,20]). The dual of a fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is defined as
𝜈(𝐴) = 𝜇(𝑁) − 𝜇(𝑁 ⧵ 𝐴), ∀𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁.
Definition 5 ([1,10,22]). A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is called symmetric
measure, if for any 𝐴, 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁, |𝐴| = |𝐵| implies 𝜇(𝐴) = 𝜇(𝐵). It is called
balanced if |𝐴| > |𝐵| implies 𝜇(𝐴) ≥ 𝜇(𝐵).
The fuzzy integral is often used as an aggregation function with
respect to a fuzzy measure, with typical examples being the Choquet
integral and the Sugeno integral.
Definition 6 ([6,23]). For a given 𝐱 ∈ [0, 1]𝑛 , the discrete Choquet
integral  of 𝐱 with respect to fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is defined as
follows:
∑
𝑛
(𝐱) = (𝑥(𝑖) − 𝑥(𝑖−1) )𝜇({(𝑖), … , (𝑛)}),
𝑖=1
where 𝑥(.) is a non-decreasing permutation induced by 𝑥𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛,
i.e., 𝑥(1) ≤ ⋯ ≤ 𝑥(𝑛) , and 𝑥(0) = 0 by convention.
Definition 7 ([5,24]). For a given 𝐱 ∈ [0, 1]𝑛 , the discrete Sugeno
integral  of 𝑥 with respect to fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is defined as
follows:
⋁
𝑛
(𝐱) = (𝑥(𝑖) ∧ 𝜇({(𝑖), … , (𝑛)})),
𝑖=1
where 𝑥(.) is a non-decreasing permutation induced by 𝑥𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛,
i.e., 𝑥(1) ≤ ⋯ ≤ 𝑥(𝑛) .
Fuzzy integral-based aggregation functions are averaging, and they
account not only for different contributions (weights) of individual in-
puts, but also their coalitions. The special case of independent inputs is
represented by additive measures, and the respective Choquet integral
becomes the weighted arithmetic mean. For non-additive measures the
behaviour of fuzzy integrals is much richer, offering sophisticated ways
to aggregate the inputs accounting for redundancies and synergies.
3. Representations and special measures
Fuzzy measures have multiple representations and one-to-one map-
pings between them, including the Möbius representation [25], prob-
abilistic simultaneous interaction index [26], possibilistic/necessity
Möbius transform [8,27], nonadditivity index [18], nonmodularity in-
dex [19], probabilistic bipartition interaction index [28], and (max- +)
transform [29]. These representations play significant roles in eliciting
practical interpretations of fuzzy measures, and also in constructing
special measures to manage the exponential growth (with 𝑛) of the
number of coefficients associated with them.
An important feature is that most transformations are linear, thus
allowing to perform calculations in the linear algebra formalism [30,
31] (see Fig. 1 and Table 1).
3.1. Möbius representation and k-additive measures
Definition 8 ([26,32–34]). Let 𝜇 be a fuzzy measure on 𝑁. The Möbius
value of a subset 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁 w.r.t. 𝜇 is defined as
∑
𝑚𝜇 (𝐴) = (−1)|𝐴∖𝐶| 𝜇(𝐶),
𝐶⊆𝐴
G. Beliakov et al. Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295

Table 1
Representations and special fuzzy measures.
Representations Special measures References Pros and Cons
Möbius 𝑘-additive measure [26,32–34] Reduces the number of parameters by
representation overlooking higher order interactions.
Easy expression of the Choquet integral.
Needs large number of monotonicity
constraints
Possibilistic and k-maxitive and [27,35] Reduces the number of parameters,
necessity Mobius minitive measure needs no extra constraints. Operations
transform nonlinear, Choquet integral not easily
expressed, but suitable for Sugeno
integrals
Nonadditivity/ k-nonadditive/- [1,18,19,36] Reduces the number of parameters but
nonmodularity nonmodular not monotonicity constraints. The
index measure measure sum based interpretation
approach of interaction in a subset.
Marginal buoyant measure [26,37–40] A subset of derivatives parameterizes the
contribution measure, but requires a number of other
constraints. Useful for modelling
convexity/concavity.
Fuzzy measure 𝑘-interactive, [41–43] Reduces the number of parameters and
itself 𝑘-(in)tolerant monotonicity constraints, easy
measure, 𝑝-symmetric expression for the Choquet integral. A
measure different interpretation of the parameters
as overall interaction in a set.

Definition 9 ([33]). Let 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛}. A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is said

to be 𝑘-additive if its Möbius representation satisfies 𝑚𝜇 (𝐴) = 0 for all
𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁 such that |𝐴| > 𝑘 and there exists at least one subset 𝐴 of 𝑘
elements such that 𝑚𝜇 (𝐴) ≠ 0.

1-additive measure is just the additive measure. To identify a 𝑘-

additive measure 𝜇 on 𝑁, we only need to define the Möbius values
∑ ()
of the 𝑘𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖 subsets whose cardinalities are not greater than 𝑘 [34]
(see Fig. 2).
The dual of any 𝑘-additive measure remains a 𝑘-additive measure.
Furthermore, an additive measure is self-dual.

3.2. Possibilistic and necessity Mobius transform and k-maxitive and mini-
tive measures

Definition 10 ([27]). The possibilistic Möbius transform of a fuzzy

measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is a mapping 𝑚𝑝𝜇 ∶ (𝑁) → [0, 1] defined by

⎧
⎪𝜇(𝐴) if 𝜇(𝐴) > max
𝐵⊂𝐴
𝜇(𝐵),
Fig. 1. A graphical representation of a fuzzy measure for 𝑛 = 8. The sizes of the 𝑚𝑝 (𝐴) = ⎨ (1)
circles reflect the values of 𝜇(𝐴), and the edges reflect monotonicity constraints. The ⎪0 otherwise.
complexity of fuzzy measures is the price for their flexibility. ⎩
The possibilistic Zeta transform of 𝑚𝑝 is the mapping 𝑍𝑚𝑝 ∶ (𝑁) →
[0, 1] defined by:
The linear inverse of the Möbius representation is given as
∑ 𝑚𝑝 (𝐴) = max 𝑚𝑝 (𝐵). (2)
𝐵⊆𝐴
𝜇(𝐴) = 𝑚𝜇 (𝐵), ∀𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁.
𝐵⊆𝐴
Definition 11 ([27,35]). Let 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛}. A fuzzy measure 𝜇 is called
Using this inverse transformation called zeta-transform, we can effort-
𝑘-maxitive if its possibilistic Möbius transform satisfies 𝑚𝑝 (𝐴) = 0 for
lessly derive the expressions for boundary and monotonicity conditions,
any 𝐴 such that |𝐴| > 𝑘 and there exists at least one subset 𝐴0 of 𝑁 of
as well as for fuzzy integrals in terms of the Möbius representation [13,
exactly 𝑘 elements such that 𝑚𝑝 (𝐴0 ) ≠ 0.
26,32,34,44].
The Choquet integral can be expressed in terms of Möbius represen- A 𝑘-maxitive fuzzy measure is totally determined by the fuzzy
tation as ∑ ()
measure values at 𝑘𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖 subsets whose cardinalities are equal to or
∑
𝑚 (𝐱) = 𝑚𝜇 (𝐴) min(𝑥𝑖 ), less than 𝑘, since the 𝑘 + 1 and higher order subsets’ values can be
𝑖∈𝐴 obtained by:
𝐴⊆𝑁
⋁
Alternatively, it can be represented in terms of fuzzy measure as [44]: 𝜇(𝐴) = 𝜇(𝐵), |𝐴| ≥ 𝑘 + 1. (3)
∑ 𝐵⊂𝐴,|𝐵|=|𝐴|−1
𝜇 (𝐱) = 𝜇(𝐴) max(0, min 𝑥𝑖 − max 𝑥𝑖 ).
𝑖∈𝐴 𝑖∈𝑁∖𝐴
𝐴⊆𝑁 The dual of 𝑘-maxitive measure is called 𝑘-minitive fuzzy mea-
Some generalization of the Choquet integral expressed in Möbius sure [47]. 1-maxitive measure is just the possibility fuzzy measure, and
transform are presented in [45,46]. 1-minitive measure is the necessity fuzzy measure [47,48].

3
G. Beliakov et al. Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295

Fig. 2. Interaction diagrams for (a) a full (unconstrained) fuzzy measure and (b) a 2-additive fuzzy measure where edges and nodes for 0-valued subsets (in Möbius representation)
are removed.

3.3. (Max, +) transform and 𝑘-maxitive measures A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 can be represented through nonadditivity
index 𝑛𝜇 as
Definition 12 ([29,49,50]). Let 𝜇 be a fuzzy measure on 𝑁. Then, we
define the (Max,+)-transform as the set function 𝜏𝜇 ∶ (𝑁) → [0, 1] ∑ |𝐴|−1
∑ |𝐴|−1 ∏ |𝐴| − 𝑗
𝜇(𝐴) = 𝑛𝜇 (𝐴) + 𝑛 (𝐶), ∀𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁. (7)
such that: 𝐶⊂𝐴 𝑖=|𝐶| 𝑗=𝑖
2𝑗 − 1 𝜇

𝜏𝜇 (𝐵) = 𝜇(𝐵) − max 𝜇(𝐴) (4)

𝐴⊂𝐵 Definition 14 ([19]). The nonmodularity index of subset 𝐴 with respect
It can be seen from this definition that 𝜏𝜇 is always positive and to a fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is given as
that for an arbitrary normalized measure 𝜇 and any set 𝐵 ⊂ 𝑁, the 1 ∑
(max, +)-transform 𝜏𝜇 is at most one. When 𝜇 is an additive measure, 𝑑𝜇 (𝐴) = 𝜇(𝐴) − [𝜇({𝑖}) + 𝜇(𝐴∖{𝑖})]. (8)
|𝐴| {𝑖}⊂𝐴
𝜏𝜇 (𝐵) = min𝑖∈𝐵 𝜇({𝑖}).
The inverse transform is obtained by recursion A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 can be represented through its nonmodu-
larity index 𝑑𝜇 as
𝜇(𝐵) = 𝜏𝜇 (𝐵) + max 𝜇(𝐴) (5)
𝐴⊂𝐵 ( )−1
∑ |𝐴| ∑
One can see here that the monotonicity condition is automatically 𝜇(𝐴) = 𝑑𝜇 (𝐴) + 𝑑𝜇 (𝐵) + 𝑑𝜇 ({𝑖}), ∀𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁. (9)
𝐵⊂𝐴,|𝐵|≥2
|𝐵| {𝑖}⊂𝐴
satisfied, but in difference to the possibilistic transform, the values
𝜏𝜇 (𝐴) express the marginal contribution to the total value of the set Nonadditivity and nonmodularity indices possess several desirable
𝐴. Some of those contributions can be explicitly set to 0, similar to properties, including additivity, uniform range, maximality, and mini-
the Möbius values. The transformations between Möbius, possibilistic mality [1,18,19]. The axiomatic characterizations of the nonadditivity
Möbius transforms and (max, +)-transform are specified in [29]. index and nonmodularity index are presented in [55,56].
In difference to the 𝑘-additive fuzzy measures, which despite of the
reduction in the number of parameters still require the same number Definition 15. Let 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛}. A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is said to
of linear constraints to satisfy monotonicity, the values 𝜏𝜇 require be 𝑘-nonadditive (𝑘-nonmodular) if its nonadditivity (nonmodularity)
no additional monotonicity constraints, which has advantages when index satisfies 𝑛𝜇 (𝐴) = 0 (𝑑𝜇 (𝐴) = 0) for all 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁, |𝐴| > 𝑘 and
learning fuzzy measures in that particular representation. there exists at least one subset 𝐴 of 𝑘 elements such that 𝑛𝜇 (𝐴) ≠ 0
By replacing the operation + with any co-norm operation ⊕ (while (𝑑𝜇 (𝐴) ≠ 0).
keeping max unchanged), and − with the corresponding norm operation
⊖, we obtain the (max, ⊕) transform, which exhibits similar properties The 1-nonadditive/nonmodular fuzzy measure is the additive fuzzy
to the (max, +) transform [29]. measure. A 𝑘-nonadditive/nonmodular fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 can be
∑ ()
defined by 𝑘𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖 nonadditivity/nonmodularity indices.
3.4. Nonadditivity/nonmodularity index and k-nonadditive/-nonmodular
measures 3.5. Marginal contribution representation and buoyant measures

To explicitly capture the nature and intensity of interactions among The marginal contribution of any criterion 𝑖 to any subset 𝐵 is
the inputs [51–54], nonadditivity and nonmodularity indices have been defined as [26,40]
sequentially introduced [1,18,19]. These indices provide a framework
for quantifying and characterizing different types of interactions. 𝛥𝑖 𝜇(𝐵) = 𝜇(𝐵 ∪ {𝑖}) − 𝜇(𝐵).

These marginal contributions can be visualized using the latter [57,58]

Definition 13 ([18]). The nonadditivity index of subset 𝐴 with respect
and weighted matrix forms [59]. Then the monotonicity condition can
to a fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is given as
be rewritten as
1 ∑
𝑛𝜇 (𝐴) = 𝜇(𝐴) − 𝜇(𝐶). (6)
2|𝐴|−1 − 1 𝐶⊂𝐴 𝛥𝑖 𝜇(𝐵) ≥ 0, ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝑁, 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁 ⧵ {𝑖}. (10)

4
G. Beliakov et al.
Fig. 3. A fuzzy measure for 𝑛 = 4 in marginal contribution representation. The new
variables are the edges marked with thick lines (only some are labelled).
A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is submodular (supermodular) if [2]
𝛥𝑖 𝜇(𝐴) ≤ (≥) 𝛥𝑖 𝜇(𝐵), ∀𝐵 ⊂ 𝐴, 𝐴, 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁.
A fuzzy measure 𝜇 is buoyant (antibuoyant) [37–39] if
𝛥𝑖 (𝐴 ∪ {𝑖, 𝑗}) ≤ (≥) 𝛥𝑗 (𝐴 ∪ {𝑗}), ∀𝑖, 𝑗 ∉ 𝐴.
A buoyant measure is a distinct subclass of submodular measures
[39]. That is, any fuzzy measure that is buoyant must necessarily be
submodular. However, the converse is not true, i.e., submodularity does
not imply buoyancy. By applying duality, antibuoyant fuzzy measures
can be characterized as supermodular but not vice versa. The discrete
derivatives form a decreasing (increasing) sequence along any maximal
chain. Furthermore a fuzzy measure is anti-buoyant if and only if
the respective Choquet integral satisfies the Pigou–Dalton principle of
progressive transfers [38].
3.6. Special families defined directly on fuzzy measure values
Another approach involves directly fixing the values of the fuzzy
measure for all subsets with a cardinality greater than 𝑘, as seen
in the examples of the 𝑘-interactive measure [41] and the 𝑘-tolerant
measure [42].
Definition 16 ([41]). A fuzzy measure is called 𝑘-interactive if for some
chosen 𝐾 ∈ [0, 1]
𝑎−𝑘−1
𝜇(𝐴) = 𝐾 + (1 − 𝐾), for all 𝐴, 𝑎 > 𝑘.
𝑛−𝑘−1
In particular, the 𝑘-interactive measure maximizes the average con-
tribution of the 𝑛 − 𝑘 − 1 smallest inputs as well as the partial entropy of
the calculated over subsets of cardinality greater than 𝑘. The 𝑘-tolerant
fuzzy measures arise as the special cases (see Fig. 4).
The 𝑘-interactive fuzzy measures exhibit a notable property: the
Möbius values of their duals are all zero for subsets of cardinalities
ranging from 2 to 𝑛 − 𝑘, provided that 𝑛 − 𝑘 ≥ 2. Therefore they can
also be represented compactly in Möbius representation through their
duals.
Definition 17 ([42]). Let 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛}. A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is said
to be 𝑘-tolerant if 𝜇(𝐴) = 1 for all 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁 such that |𝐴| ≥ 𝑘 and there
exists a subset 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁, with |𝐵| = 𝑘 − 1, such that 𝜇(𝐵) ≠ 1;
The dual of 𝑘-tolerant measure is called the 𝑘-intolerant measure,
i.e., if 𝜇(𝐴) = 0 for all 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁 such that |𝐴| ≤ 𝑛 − 𝑘 and there exists a
subset 𝐵 ⊆ 𝑁, with |𝐵| = 𝑛 − 𝑘 + 1, such that 𝜇(𝐵) ≠ 0.
Indeed, most of the special fuzzy measures mentioned earlier can be
uniformly termed as lower/upper 𝑘-order representative measures [36],
∑ ()
each defined by 𝑘𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖 coefficients.
Another special type of special fuzzy measure is proposed from
indifference sets.
Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295
Fig. 4. A 3-interactive fuzzy measure for 𝑛 = 6 and the implied partial order. The
sizes of the circles reflect the values of the respective values. Since all 𝜇(𝐴) are the
same for every fixed cardinality |𝐴| = 4, 5, 6, they are treated as equivalent and hence
represented by single nodes.
(11)
(12) Definition 18 ([43]). Let 𝜇 be a fuzzy measure on 𝑁, a subset 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑁
is a subset of indifference with respect to 𝜇 if ∀𝐵1 , 𝐵2 ⊆ 𝐴, |𝐵1 | = |𝐵2 |,
then 𝜇(𝐶 ∪ 𝐵1 ) = 𝜇(𝐶 ∪ 𝐵2 ), ∀𝐶 ⊆ 𝑁 ⧵ 𝐴.
Definition 19 ([43]). A fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁 is said to be 𝑝-symmetric
if the coarsest partition of 𝑁 into subsets of indifference contains
exactly 𝑝 subsets 𝐴1 , … , 𝐴𝑝 , where 𝐴𝑖 is a subset of indifference, 𝐴𝑖 ∩
𝐴𝑗 = ∅, ∪𝑝𝑖=1 𝐴𝑖 = 𝑁, 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑝, and a partition 𝜋 is coarser than
another partition 𝜋 ′ if all subsets of 𝜋 are union of some subsets of 𝜋 ′ .
The partition {𝐴1 , … , 𝐴𝑝 } is called the basis of 𝜇.
1-symmetric fuzzy measure is just the symmetric fuzzy measure.
Let {𝐴1 , … , 𝐴𝑝 } be the basis of a 𝑝-symmetric fuzzy measure 𝜇 on 𝑁,
then any subset 𝑆 ⊆ 𝑁 can be identified with a 𝑝-dimensional vector
𝐛𝑆 = (𝑏1 , … , 𝑏𝑝 ), where 𝑏𝑖 = |𝑆 ∩ 𝐴𝑖 |, 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑝. That is, a 𝑝-symmetric
∏
fuzzy measure needs to define 𝑝𝑖=1 (|𝐴𝑖 | + 1) coefficients [43].
We also briefly mention ways to encode fuzzy measures and their
transformations for computation. The values of a set function can be
stored in an array of length 2𝑛 on a computer. The most direct scheme
is to use cardinality based ordering, that is, to store first the empty
set, singletons, pairs, triples, followed by all 𝑘-tuples. This scheme is
usually used for k-order fuzzy measures, such as k-additive, because one
does not need to store many zeros (i.e. the Möbius values for subsets of
higher cardinalities). However identifying the subset composition (and
hence performing set operations) from the index of a given element in
the array is complicated.
Another way to order the fuzzy measure values in an array is to use
binary ordering, where the index of an element in binary expresses the
set composition (e.g., 01101𝑏 represents {1, 3, 4}). However set functions
with many zero values (call them sparse fuzzy measures) are not stored
efficiently, although the set operations are very efficient in binary
arithmetic.
Another related scheme is used to store fuzzy measures in marginal
contributions representation [30,40], see Fig. 3. General sparse fuzzy
measures can also be stored in sparse matrix representation [60], where
only the nonzero values together with their set composition are stored,
which provides efficient subset operations and storage, but at the cost
of extra data to keep.
Some operations on fuzzy measures, such as transformations and
differentiation, can be expressed in sparse linear formalism as presented
in [1,31,61].
5
G. Beliakov et al.
4. Optimization models and machine learning for fuzzy measures
4.1. Fuzzy measure fitting with nonlinear optimization models
Fuzzy measure identification approaches are typically built upon
optimization models featuring nonlinear objective functions alongside
explicit and implicit preference constraints [34,62]. These models
encompass various methodologies, including least-squares-based ap-
proaches [24,34], maximum split approaches [63], TOMASO (Tool
for Ordinal Multi-Attribute Sorting and Ordering) approaches [64,
65], the least absolute deviation criterion-based linear programming
model [66], nonadditive robust ordinal regression models [67–73],
minimum mean absolute error models [74], maximum log-likelihood
principle-based optimization models [75,76], maximum margin
principle-based optimization models [77], the maximum entropy prin-
ciple [78], the compromise principle [79], least square and absolute de-
viation principles based on MCCPI (Multiple Criteria Correlation Prefer-
ence Information) [80,81], interaction index-oriented models [62,73],
OWA vector and probability vector based crescent method [82–84],
basic uncertain information based generation methods [85,86], param-
eterized construction and transformation methods [87,88], weighting
models [89], preference levelled evaluation functions based construc-
tion methods [90], and tolerance perspective determining method [91].
4.2. Linear representation of optimization models
Linear programming offers advantages over nonlinear program-
ming due to its computational efficiency in finding global optima,
well-established methods, algorithmic maturity, interpretability, and
straightforward sensitivity analysis [37]. Some nonlinear objectives can
be replaced by linear ones. For instance, the least square form can be
alternatively represented by the least absolute deviation and further
into multiple goal linear programming [66,80]. Nonlinear constraints
on special fuzzy measures can also be converted into linear constraints.
For example, the 𝑘-maxitive measure defined in (3) has equivalent
representations in the following 0-1 linear constraints [47,92]:
⎧𝜇(𝐴) − 𝜇(𝐴∖{𝑖}) ≤ 𝑦 , |𝐴| ≥ 𝑘 + 1, 𝑖 ∈ 𝐴,
⎪ { 𝐴,𝑖
⎪ 0 if 𝜇(𝐴) − 𝜇(𝐴∖{𝑖}) = 0
⎨𝑦𝐴,𝑖 =
⎪ 1 if 𝜇(𝐴) − 𝜇(𝐴∖{𝑖}) ≠ 0
⎪∑ 𝑦 ≤ |𝐴| − 1.
⎩ 𝐴 𝐴,𝑖
Choquet integral and Sugeno integral based objective function both
can be rewritten in linear goal constraints and multiple goal liner
objectives [30,38,93,94].
4.3. Inconsistency checking and adjustment
The inconsistency check and adjustment approaches of the correla-
tive preference information can be classified into two major branches.
One branch uses the 0-1 mixed linear programming to find the con-
tradictory constraints and then directly remove them from the set
without further programmable process of adjustment [68,69,71]. An-
other branch uses the multiple goals linear programming (MGLP) to
recognize the contradictory as well as the redundant constraints and
then provide some adjustment suggestions [95–98].
4.4. Fuzzy measure based machine and deep learning
Fuzzy measure-based Choquet and Sugeno integral models find
applications in machine and deep learning models, serving as aggre-
gation functions for combining and ensembling classifiers [99–103].
These models are also used to fuse and regularize outputs from mod-
ular artificial neural networks (ANN) or convolutional neural net-
works (CNN) [104–110], with applications spanning highly imbalanced
6
Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295
classification [111], sparse modelling [112], image quality thresh-
olding [113], tuberculosis detection from chest X-ray images, gene
selection, and cancer prediction [107,110], edge detection [114], clus-
ter analysis [115], facial emotion recognition [108], brain–computer
interface, social network analysis [116], as well as cancer histology
classification [109].
4.5. Non-monotonic measure learning
Non-monotonic measures are normalized set functions without
monotonicity constraints, which offer greater flexibility than regu-
lar fuzzy measures in representing intricate and chaotic situations.
Refs. [14,117] provide the axiomatic characterization of non-monotonic
measures in conjunction with Choquet integral and the Shapley index.
This framework is extended to regression tasks, showcasing improved
performance, swift computation, and strong interpretability [118].
Additionally, it proves effective for autoregressive models, facilitating
efficient time series analysis that incorporates nonlinear features [119].
Furthermore, the non-monotonic measure-based Choquet integral has
been extended to include interval values [120,121], set values [122,
123], and fuzzy valued [124–126] forms by using the Möbius repre-
sentation [45].
4.6. Other special optimization tasks
In the context of portfolio selection, the knapsack problem inher-
ently addresses interdependencies, often synergies, among items. This
can be effectively formulated through the utilization of the Choquet
integral with a supermodular measure, ultimately resulting in the for-
mulation of linear mixed-integer programs. For large-scale knapsack
problems, the scalability and interaction representation capabilities of
a 2-additive measure make it a suitable choice [127].
The Difference of Convex Functions Algorithm (DCA) is an op-
timization technique designed for problems where the objective is
expressed as the difference between two convex or concave functions.
Through iterative steps, it minimizes these components, progressively
converging to solutions for non-convex problems by tackling simpler
convex subproblems [94]. This approach can be employed effectively
in the optimization of Sugeno and Choquet integrals, leveraging the
insight that any fuzzy measure can be represented as a difference
between two supermodular fuzzy measures [2,17]. By appropriately de-
composing the objective function into convex or concave components,
the optimization of these integrals can be formulated [57,93,94,128,
129]. Moreover, the 𝑘-order measure and Möbius representation offer
suitable simplifications for managing the complexity and sparsity of
large-scale problems (see Table 2).
(max,+)-transforms do not require any monotonicity constraints
and are used successfully in genetic algorithms for fuzzy measure
identification [29,49].
5. Random generation methods for fuzzy measures
5.1. Challenges for generating fuzzy measures
Random generation of fuzzy measures plays a pivotal role in solving
the previously mentioned optimization models by introducing stochas-
tic elements into the problem-solving process. It facilitates exploration
of the solution space, aiding the algorithm in escaping local optima and
diversifying its search for better solutions and empowers optimization
algorithms to address uncertainty, complex constraints, and nonlinear-
ity effectively [134]. Methods based on evolutionary heuristics depend
heavily on generation random solutions in a feasible domain.
It turns out that random generation of fuzzy measures with uniform
distribution is a very challenging problem. The difficulties are related
to the high dimensionality of the space containing fuzzy measures and
a complicated structure of the set of fuzzy measures. It is known [135]
G. Beliakov et al. Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295

Table 2
Optimization and machine learning for fuzzy measures.
Topic Content References
Fuzzy measure fitting Implicit and explicit information based fitting and [1,19,34,80]
learning models
Linear represented Linear expressions of special families of fuzzy [38,47,92–94]
optimization models measures, Choquet integral and Sugeno integral
objective function oriented optimization models
Inconsistency 0-1 mixed linear programming and multiple goals [68,69,71,95–98].
checking and linear programming (MGLP)
adjustment
Least squares Quadratic expressions for special families of fuzzy [34,76,99,130–133]
optimization models measures, Choquet integral objective function
oriented optimization models
Fuzzy measure based Combining outputs and classifiers ensembles, ANNs [105–110]
machine and deep and CNNs
learning
Non-monotonic Offer much flexibility without monotonicity [14,117–119]
measure learning constraints, easier to fit, but lack of any
monotonicity may be questionable in applications

that the set of all fuzzy measures is a polytope with an extremely large
number of vertices related to the Dedekind numbers 𝑀(𝑛) (the OEIS
sequence A000372: 2, 3, 6,20, 168, 7581, 7828354, 2414682040998,
…), and hence it is infeasible to use convex combinations of its vertices,
for example, for random sampling. General methods of uniformly sam-
pling polytopes [136,137] are also infeasible in such a high dimension.
On the other hand, the structure of the polytopes of fuzzy measures
𝑃 , called the order polytopes, is established [2,135,138]. It allows one
to perform decomposition of 𝑃 into simplices (of equal volume) [139],
then randomly pick up one simplex and finally generate a random point
within that simplex (the last step is almost trivial [137,140]). The catch
here is the extremely large cardinality of the simplicial partition, given
by the OEIS sequence A046873, which reads (starting from 𝑛 = 1) 1,
2, 48, 1680384, 14807804035657359360,. . . . Hence these simplices
cannot be explicitly enumerated for 𝑛 > 4.
Recent research has introduced efficient techniques for randomly
generating fuzzy measures and their specific types, including random
node generation [135,141], topological sort generation [134], linear
extensions based generation [135,139,142], vertex–convex combina-
tion generation [138,143].
It should be noted that random generation of fuzzy measures can be
performed in any representation related to 𝜇 linearly, such as Möbius,
interaction, non-additivity and non-modularity, mentioned in Section 3.
It is due to the fact that a uniform distribution remains uniform under
a linear transformation, hence some approaches use Möbius represen-
tation, for instance. However order polytopes in one representation are
no longer order polytopes in another, and hence specialized methods
are not equally applicable in different representations.
5.2. Random node generation method
A straightforward approach to generating a random fuzzy measure
on set 𝑁 is to randomly select a subset (node) from 𝑁 first, and
then to identify a random value within its allowable range [138,141].
The most notable advantage of this method lies in its low complexity
and fast execution speed. However, from a theoretical standpoint,
the fuzzy measures it generates are not uniform. This non-uniformity
stems from two factors: the dependence of a subset’s allowable range
on its cardinality and rank, and the distribution of generated values
deviating significantly from a uniform distribution [144]. Moreover,
efforts have been made to enhance random node generation by lever-
aging distribution information of measure values and probabilities
of linear extensions, particularly under monotonicity and additional
conditions [144].
5.3. Vertex–convex combination generation method
The feasible range determined by a set of linear constraints is a
convex set, and hence convex combinations of feasible solutions will
also be feasible. The convex combination of fuzzy measures 𝜇1 , … , 𝜇𝑡 ,
𝑡 > 1, is defined as [138]:
∑
𝑡
𝜆1 𝜇1 + ⋯ + 𝜆𝑡 𝜇𝑡 , 𝜆𝑖 = 1, 𝜆𝑖 ≥ 0. (13)
𝑖=1
This formula allows any number of feasible fuzzy measures to serve
as the parent measures for generating new fuzzy measures between
them. However, one of the ultimate goals of a random generation
method is to cover the entire feasible range as much as possible. In
this context, the use of extreme fuzzy measures [138], which usually
correspond to the boundary or vertex points of the polytope of fuzzy
measures, can provide a better coverage of the feasible domain [143].
If one restricts herself only to the boundary and monotonicity con-
ditions, the extreme values of 𝜇(𝐴) can reach 0 and 1 in two opposite
directions, and one basic fact is that any fuzzy measure is a convex
combination of 0-1 valued extreme fuzzy measures [2]. The number of
extreme fuzzy measures that take only 0 or 1 as their values is given
by 𝑀(𝑛) − 2, where 𝑀(𝑛) is a Dedekind number that grows very quickly
with 𝑛.
5.4. Linear extension based generation method
The set of all fuzzy measures, which is an order polytope 𝑃 , is
determined by the 𝑑 = 2𝑛 − 2 non-negative values 𝜇(𝐴) and the 𝑛2𝑛−1
non-redundant monotonicity constraints. Note that the values 𝜇(𝐴)
constitute a poset, which corresponds to the Boolean lattice 𝐵𝑛 . It is
known that this polytope has simplicial partition, and each simplex
corresponds to a linear extension of (𝑁). A linear extension of a poset
 is a linear order (i.e. chain) compatible with the order relations in .
The number of linear extensions of the Boolean lattice 𝐵𝑛 is given
by the OEIS sequence A046873, which makes it prohibitively expensive
to construct the partition explicitly. Some (approximately) random
algorithms for picking linear extensions have been proposed [145].
The MinimalsPlus approach [139] employs random walks to select
simplices in a non-enumerative manner, making it suitable for both
general fuzzy measures and 𝑝-symmetric fuzzy measures. For 2-additive
fuzzy measures, a method based on the simplicial partition in Möbius
representation has been developed [22]. An alternative technique uti-
lizes Markov chains to approximate linear extensions, resulting in a
two-layer approximation that significantly reduces time consumption

7
G. Beliakov et al.
Table 3
Fuzzy measure generation methods.
Methods Basic principle
Random node Randomly select a subset (node) from N
generation first and identify a random value within
its allowable range
Topological sort Considers poset  as a directed acyclic
generation graph (DAG) where an edge between
vertices 𝑢 and 𝑣 means 𝑢 ≤ 𝑣 in that
ordering
Linear extensions View the random generation of fuzzy
based generation measures as a process of assigning
ordered random values to the linear
extensions of all subsets in (𝑁).
Vertex–convex The convex combination of boundary or
combination vertex measures can provide a better
generation coverage of the feasible domain.
compared to traditional Markov chain methods [145]. Another way of
picking a linear extension of a poset is by topological sorting [146]
which considers poset  as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) where an
edge between vertices 𝑢 and 𝑣 means 𝑢 ≤ 𝑣 in that ordering. The oldest
topological sort method is due to Kahn [146], which is implemented
in most unix-based computer systems, as a useful routine to perform
objects linking. A different algorithm is based on depth-first search from
the nodes of the DAG in arbitrary order [147].
One additional simple technique to improve the uniformity of the
randomly generated measures is symmetrization. Note that we expect
the distribution to be independent on the way the inputs are labelled.
Whatever is the permutation of the indices of the inputs {1, 2, … , 𝑛},
the distribution must be the same. The symmetrization technique picks
an arbitrary permutation 𝜎 and then relabels the inputs 𝑖 → 𝜎(𝑖) in
every subset 𝐴 ⊂ 𝑁, thus making the output of any random generation
algorithm nonsensitive to the way the inputs are labelled.
5.5. Generation of special measures
A method for generating supermodular measures has been proposed
in [148], which used MinimalsPlus, randomized topological sort and
Markov chain random walk, combined with a smaller set of linear con-
straints and amenable to acceptance/rejection. This approach translates
into an efficient algorithm for generating supermodular capacities, and
by duality, also the submodular ones. The implementation has been
released as part of fmtools package (in C/C++ with interfaces to R and
Python) [60].
Relying on the fact that convex combinations of (anti)buoyant
fuzzy measures remain within the same class, Ref. [37] constructed
various subsets of vertices for (anti)buoyant fuzzy measures based on
their desired cardinalities and linear extensions. These subsets were
further utilized to create possible representations of (anti)buoyant fuzzy
measures by employing their convex combinations.
In [147], the MinimalsPlus and topological sort methods were em-
ployed to generate 𝑘-interactive capacities, and a random walk (Markov
chain) was used on a modified Boolean lattice corresponding to 𝑘-
interactive capacities to ensure more uniform distribution of outputs
(see Table 3).
6. Further directions and conclusion
Aggregation methods in which only the individual inputs are weigh-
ted implicitly assume inputs independence. In reality a large number of
practical problems involve inputs synergies and redundancies. Fuzzy
measures quantify possible inputs interaction by assigning values to
all of inputs’ subsets. The main challenge of this modelling approach
is the high number of inputs coalitions (for 𝑛 inputs it is 2𝑛 ), and
8
Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295
References Features
[135,141] Simple to
implement but does
not produce uniform
distribution
[134,147] Efficient, produces
linear extensions
distributed
uniformly
[22,135,139,145] Produces linear
extensions
distributed
uniformly, needs
many Markov steps
[37,138] Better coverage but
for uniformity needs
additional steps
subsequently huge computational complexity, which involves not only
the parameters but relations among them, such as monotonicity or
convexity. Modern practical applications produce large universal sets,
which imply the need to develop suitable representation, simplification,
characterization, eliciting, computation, and other tools.
In this survey we reviewed three aspects related to modelling with
fuzzy measures: representations, learning and random generation. An
important issue is fuzzy measure simplification to reduce their com-
plexity, both in terms of computational cost and interpretability [149].
The latter is particularly useful for eXplainable Artificial Intelligence
(XAI), where high predictive power is delivered side by side with
explainability and interpretability of parameters [150].
Promising new directions related to fuzzy measure representations
are sparse fuzzy measures and hierarchical decompositions of the fuzzy
integrals [37,103,149]. Sparse representations disregard some of the
less important inputs’ interactions and focus on the most significant
ones. Methods of identification and learning sparse fuzzy measures are
needed. Hierarchical decompositions also lead to sparse representations
but in a structured and top-down driven way, mimicking the approach
taken by people to decompose complex problems into simpler blocks.
Scaling up fuzzy measure-based models to larger universes is an-
other direction which aims at broadening their applicability. Big data
leads to big fusion problems that at the moment are beyond the reach of
fuzzy integrals. Suitable simplifications and decompositions, as well as
sparse modelling must be combined with highly efficient computational
tools and high performance computing.
Another promising direction is fuzzy measure-based optimization
models. One aspect of it is aggregation in multiobjective optimization
(by reducing multiobjective problems to single-objective). It involves
dynamic data-driven approximations to the Pareto fronts, which ac-
counts for mutual dependencies of the objectives. Such problems in-
volve repeated learning and adjustments of fuzzy measures within an
optimization algorithm, as well as their random generation.
Another aspect is formulating and executing optimization models
with the objectives and constraints based on fuzzy integrals. Linear
objectives which underpin the area of linear programming assume
independence of the variables, which is often not justified. Choquet
integral-based objectives generalize linear programming, and for spe-
cific types of interactions (e.g., variables synergy) can be transformed
into larger linear programming problems. When the variables interac-
tions are mixed, alternative formulations are being developed [128].
In the same vein, mixed linear integer problems, such as knapsack, can
be generalized by using fuzzy integrals, and sometimes converted into
larger mixed linear integer problems [127].
Overall, aggregation based on fuzzy measures facilitates develop-
ment of sophisticated models which account for inputs interactions,
but at the cost of high computational complexity. This challenge can
G. Beliakov et al.
be overcome through fuzzy measure simplifications, hierarchical and
sparse representation, and the development of efficient computational
tools. The potential gain is in better interpretability of the parameters
of such models and predictability of their behaviour, something that
current black-box based models are missing.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Gleb Beliakov: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – origi-
nal draft, Writing – review & editing. Jian-Zhang Wu: Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writ-
ing – review & editing. Weiping Ding: Conceptualization, Methodol-
ogy, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal rela-
tionships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Beliakov reports financial support was provided by Australian Research
Council. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no
known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgement
The work was supported by the Australian Research Council Discov-
ery project DP210100227.
References
[1] G. Beliakov, S. James, J.-Z. Wu, Discrete Fuzzy Measures: Computational
Aspects, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
[2] M. Grabisch, Set Functions, Games and Capacities in Decision Making, Springer,
Berlin, New York, 2016.
[3] B. Peleg, P. Sudholter, Introduction to the Theory of Cooperative Games,
Springer, Berlin, 2007.
[4] G. Chalkiadakis, E. Elkind, M. Wooldridge, Computational Aspects of Co-
operative Game Theory, Morgan and Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, USA,
2012.
[5] M. Sugeno, Theory of Fuzzy Integrals and Its Applications (Ph.D. thesis), Tokyo
Institute of Technology, 1974.
[6] G. Choquet, Theory of capacities, Ann. l’inst. Fourier 5 (1954) 131–295.
[7] E. Pap, Null-Additive Set Functions, Kluwer Academic Pub, Dordrecht, 1995.
[8] Z. Wang, G.J. Klir, Generalized Measure Theory, Springer Science & Business
Media, New York, 2010.
[9] Z. Wang, G.J. Klir, Fuzzy Measure Theory, Springer Science & Business Media,
2013.
[10] M. Grabisch, T. Murofushi, M. Sugeno, J. Kacprzyk, Fuzzy Measures and
Integrals: Theory and Applications, Springer, 2000.
[11] D. Denneberg, Non-Additive Measure and Integral, Springer Science & Business
Media, Dordrecht, 1994.
[12] V. Torra, Y. Narukawa, M. Sugeno, Non-Additive Measures: Theory and
Applications, vol. 310, Springer, 2013.
[13] M. Grabisch, The representation of importance and interaction of features by
fuzzy measures, Pattern Recognit. Lett. 17 (6) (1996) 567–575.
[14] T. Murofushi, M. Sugeno, M. Machida, Non-monotonic fuzzy measures and the
Choquet integral, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 64 (1) (1994) 73–86.
[15] Y. Narukawa, T. Murofushi, M. Sugeno, Space of fuzzy measures and
convergence, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 138 (3) (2003) 497–506.
[16] L. Garmendia, The evolution of the concept of fuzzy measure, in: Intelligent
Data Mining: Techniques and Applications, Springer, 2005, pp. 185–200.
[17] I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler, Additive representations of non-additive measures and
the choquet integral, Ann. Oper. Res. 52 (1994) 43–65.
[18] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Nonadditivity index and capacity identification method in
the context of multicriteria decision making, Inform. Sci. 467 (2018) 398–406.
[19] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Nonmodularity index for capacity identifying with
multiple criteria preference information, Inform. Sci. 492 (2019) 164–180.
[20] G. Beliakov, A. Pradera, T. Calvo, Aggregation Functions: A Guide for
Practitioners, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.
9
Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295
[21] M. Grabisch, J.-L. Marichal, R. Mesiar, E. Pap, Aggregation Functions, in:
Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Foundations, Cambridge University Press,
2009.
[22] P. Miranda, P. García-Segador, Combinatorial structure of the polytope of 2-
additive measures, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.
2019.2945243.
[23] M. Grabisch, Fuzzy integral in multicriteria decision making, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 69 (3) (1995) 279–298.
[24] M. Grabisch, C. Labreuche, A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno
integrals in multi-criteria decision aid, Ann. Oper. Res. 175 (1) (2010) 247–286.
[25] A. Chateauneuf, J.-Y. Jaffray, Some characterizations of lower probabilities and
other monotone capacities through the use of Möbius inversion, Math. Social
Sci. 17 (3) (1989) 263–283.
[26] M. Grabisch, J.-L. Marichal, M. Roubens, Equivalent representations of set
functions, Math. Oper. Res. 25 (2) (2000) 157–178.
[27] R. Mesiar, Generalizations of k-order additive discrete fuzzy measures, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 102 (3) (1999) 423–428.
[28] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Probabilistic bipartition interaction index of multiple
decision criteria associated with the nonadditivity of fuzzy measures, Int. J.
Intell. Syst. 34 (2) (2019) 247–270.
[29] V. Torra, (Max, ⊕)-transforms and genetic algorithms for fuzzy measure
identification, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 451 (2022) 253–265.
[30] G. Beliakov, D. Divakov, On representation of fuzzy measures for learning
choquet and sugeno integrals, Knowl.-Based Syst. 189 (2020) 105134.
[31] R.-J. Xi, J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Matrix representation of capacity-based
multicriteria decision analysis, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 185543–185553.
[32] K. Fujimoto, I. Kojadinovic, J.-L. Marichal, Axiomatic characterizations of
probabilistic and cardinal-probabilistic interaction indices, Games Econom.
Behav. 55 (1) (2006) 72–99.
[33] M. Grabisch, K-order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 92 (2) (1997) 167–189.
[34] M. Grabisch, I. Kojadinovic, P. Meyer, A review of methods for capacity iden-
tification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications
of the Kappalab R package, European J. Oper. Res. 186 (2) (2008) 766–785.
[35] R. Mesiar, A. Kolesárová, k-maxitive aggregation functions, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 346 (2018) 127–137.
[36] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, k-order representative capacity, J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems
38 (3) (2020) 3105–3115.
[37] G. Beliakov, M. Gagolewski, S. James, Reduction of variables and constraints
in fitting antibuoyant fuzzy measures to data using linear programming, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 451 (2022) 266–284.
[38] G. Beliakov, S. James, Choquet integral optimisation with constraints and the
buoyancy property for fuzzy measures, Inform. Sci. 578 (2021) 22–36.
[39] G. Beliakov, S. James, Choquet integral-based measures of economic welfare
and species diversity, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 37 (4) (2022) 2849–2867.
[40] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Marginal contribution representation of capacity-based
multicriteria decision making, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 35 (3) (2020) 373–400.
[41] G. Beliakov, J.-Z. Wu, Learning fuzzy measures from data: simplifications and
optimisation strategies, Inform. Sci. 494 (2019) 100–113.
[42] J.-L. Marichal, K-intolerant capacities and choquet integrals, European J. Oper.
Res. 177 (3) (2007) 1453–1468.
[43] P. Miranda, M. Grabisch, P. Gil, p-Symmetric fuzzy measures, Int. J. Uncertain.
Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 10 (supp01) (2002) 105–123.
[44] G. Beliakov, H. Bustince Sola, T. Calvo, A Practical Guide to Averaging
Functions, Springer, New York, 2016.
[45] J. Fernandez, H. Bustince, L. Horanská, R. Mesiar, A. Stupňanová, A general-
ization of the Choquet integral defined in terms of the Möbius transform, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28 (10) (2019) 2313–2319.
[46] G. Pereira Dimuro, J. Fernandez, B. Bedregal, R. Mesiar, J. Sanz, G. Lucca, H.
Bustince, The state-of-art of the generalizations of the Choquet integral: From
aggregation and pre-aggregation to ordered directionally monotone functions,
Inf. Fusion 57 (2020) 27–43.
[47] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, k-minitive capacities and k-minitive aggregation
functions, J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems 37 (2) (2019) 2797–2808.
[48] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 100 (1999) 9–34.
[49] V. Torra, Optimal transport and the wasserstein distance for fuzzy measures:
An example, in: International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems,
Springer, 2023, pp. 39–44.
[50] V. Torra, The transport problem for non-additive measures, European J. Oper.
Res. (2023).
[51] I. Kojadinovic, Modeling interaction phenomena using fuzzy measures: on the
notions of interaction and independence, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 135 (3) (2003)
317–340.
[52] J.-L. Marichal, Aggregation of interacting criteria by means of the discrete
choquet integra, in: T. Calvo, G. Mayor, R. Mesiar (Eds.), Aggregation Operators:
New Trends and Applications, Springer, 2002, pp. 224–244.
[53] J.-Z. Wu, L.-P. Yu, G. Li, J. Jin, B. Du, The sum interaction indices of some
particular families of monotone measures, J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems 31 (3) (2016)
1447–1457.
G. Beliakov et al.
[54] J.-Z. Wu, L.-P. Yu, G. Li, J. Jin, B. Du, Using the monotone measure sum to
enrich the measurement of the interaction of multiple decision criteria, J. Intell.
Fuzzy Systems 30 (5) (2016) 2529–2539.
[55] G. Beliakov, J.-Z. Wu, The axiomatic characterisations of non-modularity index,
Int. J. Gen. Syst. 49 (2020) 675–688.
[56] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Axiomatic representations for nonadditivity and non-
modularity indices: describing interactions of fuzzy measures, J. Intell. Fuzzy
Systems (2023) in press.
[57] G. Beliakov, D. Divakov, Aggregation with dependencies: Capacities and fuzzy
integrals, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 446 (2022) 222–232.
[58] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Some ideas about graphic representations of discrete
fuzzy measures, 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06871.
[59] A.R. Buck, D.T. Anderson, J.M. Keller, T. Wilkin, M.A. Islam, A weighted matrix
visualization for fuzzy measures and integrals, in: 2020 IEEE International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems, FUZZ-IEEE, IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–8.
[60] G. Beliakov, Rfmtool package, version 4, 2018-2022, https://CRAN.R-project.
org/package=Rfmtool, http://personal-sites.deakin.edu.au/~gleb/fmtools.html.
[61] G. Beliakov, On the derivatives of set functions in matrix representation, Inform.
Sci. 546 (2021) 469–480.
[62] J.-Z. Wu, E. Pap, A. Szakal, Two kinds of explicit preference information
oriented capacity identification methods in the context of multicriteria decision
analysis, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 25 (2018) 807–830.
[63] J.-L. Marichal, M. Roubens, Determination of weights of interacting criteria
from a reference set, European J. Oper. Res. 124 (3) (2000) 641–650.
[64] P. Meyer, M. Roubens, Choice, ranking and sorting in fuzzy multiple criteria
decision aid, in: J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. Ehrogott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria
Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer New York, 2005, pp.
471–503.
[65] M. Roubens, Ordinal multiattribute sorting and ordering in the presence of
interacting points of view, in: Aiding Decisions with Multiple Criteria: Essays
in Honor of Bernard Roy, Springer, 2002, pp. 229–246.
[66] G. Beliakov, Construction of aggregation functions from data using linear
programming, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (1) (2009) 65–75.
[67] S. Angilella, M. Bottero, S. Corrente, V. Ferretti, S. Greco, I.M. Lami, Non
Additive Robust Ordinal Regression for urban and territorial planning: an
application for siting an urban waste landfill, Ann. Oper. Res. 245 (1–2) (2016)
427–456.
[68] S. Angilella, S. Greco, B. Matarazzo, Non-additive robust ordinal regression: A
multiple criteria decision model based on the Choquet integral, European J.
Oper. Res. 201 (1) (2010) 277–288.
[69] S. Corrente, S. Greco, M. Kadziński, R. Słowiński, Robust ordinal regression in
preference learning and ranking, Mach. Learn. 93 (2–3) (2013) 381–422.
[70] S. Corrente, S. Greco, A. Ishizaka, Combining analytical hierarchy process
and choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression, Omega 61
(2016) 2–18.
[71] S. Greco, V. Mousseau, R. Slowinski, Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple
criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions, European J. Oper. Res.
191 (2) (2008) 416–436.
[72] S. Greco, V. Mousseau, R. Słowiński, Robust ordinal regression for value
functions handling interacting criteria, European J. Oper. Res. 239 (3) (2014)
711–730.
[73] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Nonadditive robust ordinal regression with nonadditivity
index and multiple goal linear programming, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34 (2019)
1732–1752.
[74] M. Gagolewski, S. James, G. Beliakov, Supervised learning to aggregate data
with the Sugeno integral, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 27 (4) (2019) 810–815.
[75] A. Fallah Tehrani, W. Cheng, E. Hüllermeier, Preference learning using the
Choquet integral: The case of multipartite ranking, in: Proceedings of the 20th
Workshop Computational Intelligence, 2010, pp. 119–130.
[76] E. Hüllermeier, A.F. Tehrani, Efficient learning of classifiers based on the 2-
additive choquet integral, in: C. Moewes, A. Nürnberger (Eds.), Computational
Intelligence in Intelligent Data Analysis, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp.
17–29.
[77] A. Fallah Tehrani, W. Cheng, K. Dembczynski, E. Hüllermeier, Learning mono-
tone nonlinear models using the Choquet integral, Mach. Learn. 89 (1–2) (2012)
183–211.
[78] J.-L. Marichal, Entropy of discrete choquet capacities, European J. Oper. Res.
137 (3) (2002) 612–624.
[79] J.-Z. Wu, Q. Zhang, Q. Du, Z. Dong, Compromise principle based methods of
identifying capacities in the framework of multicriteria decision analysis, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 246 (2014) 91–106.
[80] J.-Z. Wu, S. Yang, Q. Zhang, S. Ding, 2-additive capacity identification methods
from multicriteria correlation preference information, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.
23 (6) (2015) 2094–2106.
[81] J.-Z. Wu, Y.-P. Zhou, L. Huang, J.-J. Dong, Multicriteria correlation pref-
erence information (MCCPI) based ordinary capacity identification method,
Mathematics 7 (3) (2019) 300.
[82] L. Jin, R. Mesiar, R.R. Yager, Melting probability measure with OWA operator
to generate fuzzy measure: the crescent method, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 27 (6)
(2018) 1309–1316.
10
Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295
[83] B. Llamazares, On the relationship between the Crescent Method and SUOWA
operators, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28 (10) (2019) 2645–2650.
[84] L. Jin, R. Mesiar, R.R. Yager, The properties of crescent preference vectors
and their utility in decision making with risk and preferences, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 409 (2021) 114–127.
[85] L. Jin, R. Mesiar, S. Borkotokey, M. Kalina, Certainty aggregation and the
certainty fuzzy measures, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 33 (4) (2018) 759–770.
[86] L. Jin, R. Mesiar, R.R. Yager, Some fuzzy measures constructing paradigm and
methods from given measure spaces and evaluation information, IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Syst. 30 (3) (2020) 878–884.
[87] L. Jin, R. Mesiar, R.R. Yager, Derived fuzzy measures and derived Cho-
quet integrals with some properties, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 29 (5) (2020)
1320–1324.
[88] R. Mesiar, S. Borkotokey, L. Jin, M. Kalina, Aggregation functions and
capacities, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 346 (2018) 138–146.
[89] L. Jin, R. Mesiar, G. Qian, Weighting models to generate weights and capacities
in multicriteria group decision making, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 26 (4) (2017)
2225–2236.
[90] C. Zhu, L. Jin, R. Mesiar, R.R. Yager, Using preference leveled evaluation
functions to construct fuzzy measures in decision making and evaluation, Int.
J. Gen. Syst. 49 (2) (2020) 161–173.
[91] J. Li, X. Yao, X. Sun, D. Wu, Determining the fuzzy measures in multiple criteria
decision aiding from the tolerance perspective, European J. Oper. Res. 264 (2)
(2018) 428–439.
[92] G. Beliakov, J.-Z. Wu, Learning k-maxitive fuzzy measures from data by mixed
integer programming, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 412 (2021) 41–52.
[93] G. Beliakov, M. Gagolewski, S. James, Aggregation on ordinal scales with the
sugeno integral for biomedical applications, Inform. Sci. 501 (2019) 377–387.
[94] G. Beliakov, M. Gagolewski, S. James, DC optimization for constructing discrete
Sugeno integrals and learning nonadditive measures, Optimization 69 (12)
(2020) 2515–2534.
[95] J.-Z. Wu, L. Huang, R.-J. Xi, Y.-P. Zhou, Multiple goal linear programming-
based decision preference inconsistency recognition and adjustment strategies,
Information 10 (7) (2019) 223.
[96] J.-Z. Wu, R.-J. Xi, Y. Zhu, Correlative decision preference information consis-
tency check and comprehensive dominance representation method, J. Intell.
Fuzzy Systems 38 (2) (2020) 2009–2019.
[97] G. Beliakov, J.-Z. Wu, D. Divakov, Towards sophisticated decision models:
Nonadditive robust ordinal regression for preference modeling, Knowl.-Based
Syst. 190 (2020) 105351.
[98] J.-Z. Wu, F.-F. Chen, Y.-Q. Li, L. Huang, Capacity random forest for correlative
multiple criteria decision pattern learning, Mathematics 8 (8) (2020) 1372.
[99] M. Uriz, D. Paternain, H. Bustince, M. Galar, A supervised fuzzy measure
learning algorithm for combining classifiers, Inform. Sci. 622 (2023) 490–511.
[100] M. Uriz, D. Paternain, I. Dominguez-Catena, H. Bustince, M. Galar, Unsupervised
fuzzy measure learning for classifier ensembles from coalitions performance,
IEEE Access 8 (2020) 52288–52305.
[101] S. Abbaszadeh, E. Hüllermeier, Machine learning with the sugeno integral: The
case of binary classification, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 29 (12) (2020) 3723–3733.
[102] G.J. Scott, R.A. Marcum, C.H. Davis, T.W. Nivin, Fusion of deep convolutional
neural networks for land cover classification of high-resolution imagery, IEEE
Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 14 (9) (2017) 1638–1642.
[103] C.-Y. Chen, J.-J. Huang, Integration of genetic algorithms and neural networks
for the formation of the classifier of the hierarchical Choquet integral, Inform.
Sci. 537 (2020) 46–61.
[104] S.-L. Wu, Y.-T. Liu, T.-Y. Hsieh, Y.-Y. Lin, C.-Y. Chen, C.-H. Chuang, C.-T.
Lin, Fuzzy integral with particle swarm optimization for a motor-imagery-based
brain–computer interface, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 25 (1) (2016) 21–28.
[105] G. Martinez, P. Melin, O. Castillo, Optimization of modular neural networks
using hierarchical genetic algorithms applied to speech recognition, in: Pro-
ceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005,
Vol. 3, IEEE, 2005, pp. 1400–1405.
[106] P. Melin, A. Mancilla, M. Lopez, J. Soria, O. Castillo, Pattern recognition for
industrial monitoring and security using the fuzzy Sugeno integral and modular
neural networks, in: 2007 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks,
IEEE, 2007, pp. 2977–2981.
[107] S. Dey, R. Roychoudhury, S. Malakar, R. Sarkar, An optimized fuzzy ensemble
of convolutional neural networks for detecting tuberculosis from Chest X-ray
images, Appl. Soft Comput. 114 (2022) 108094.
[108] C.-J. Lin, C.-H. Lin, S.-H. Wang, C.-H. Wu, Multiple convolutional neural
networks fusion using improved fuzzy integral for facial emotion recognition,
Appl. Sci. 9 (13) (2019) 2593.
[109] P. Bhowal, S. Sen, J.D. Velasquez, R. Sarkar, Fuzzy ensemble of deep learning
models using Choquet fuzzy integral, coalition game and information theory for
breast cancer histology classification, Expert Syst. Appl. 190 (2022) 116167.
[110] J. Wang, Z. He, S. Huang, H. Chen, W. Wang, F. Pourpanah, Fuzzy measure
with regularization for gene selection and cancer prediction, Int. J. Mach. Learn.
Cybern. 12 (2021) 2389–2405.
G. Beliakov et al.
[111] M.X. Uriz Martín, D. Paternain Dallo, H. Bustince Sola, M. Galar Idoate,
An empirical study on supervised and unsupervised fuzzy measure construc-
tion methods in highly imbalanced classification, in: 2020 IEEE International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems, FUZZ-IEEE, Glasgow, UK, 2020, 1–8, IEEE, 2020.
[112] H.E. de Oliveira, L.T. Duarte, J.M.T. Romano, Identification of the Choquet
integral parameters in the interaction index domain by means of sparse
modeling, Expert Syst. Appl. 187 (2022) 115874.
[113] F. Bardozzo, B. De La Osa, L. Horanská, J. Fumanal-Idocin, M. delli Priscoli, L.
Troiano, R. Tagliaferri, J. Fernandez, H. Bustince, Sugeno integral generalization
applied to improve adaptive image binarization, Inf. Fusion 68 (2021) 37–45.
[114] G.E. Martínez, C.I. Gonzalez, O. Mendoza, P. Melin, General type-2 fuzzy sugeno
integral for edge detection, J. Imag. 5 (8) (2019) 71.
[115] M. Boczek, M. Kaluszka, On the extended Choquet–Sugeno-like operator,
Internat. J. Approx. Reason. 154 (2023) 48–55.
[116] J. Fumanal-Idocin, Z. Takáč, L. Horanská, T. da Cruz Asmus, G. Dimuro, C.
Vidaurre, J. Fernandez, H. Bustince, A generalization of the Sugeno integral to
aggregate interval-valued data: An application to brain computer interface and
social network analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 451 (2022) 320–341.
[117] M. Cardin, S. Giove, Aggregation functions with non-monotonic measures, Fuzzy
Econ. Rev. 13 (2) (2008) 3.
[118] T.C. Havens, D.T. Anderson, Machine learning of choquet integral regression
with respect to a bounded capacity (or non-monotonic fuzzy measure), in: 2019
IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, FUZZ-IEEE, IEEE, 2019, pp.
1–6.
[119] S.H. Kwon, M. Sugeno, Extension of the subset interactive AR model using non-
monotonic fuzzy measures, in: FUZZ-IEEE’99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy
Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 99CH36315), Vol. 2, IEEE, 1999,
pp. 1191–1195.
[120] Z. Gong, X. Kou, T. Xie, Interval-valued choquet integral for set-valued
mappings: definitions, integral representations and primitive characteristics,
AIMS Math. 5 (6) (2020) 6277–6297.
[121] B. Mihailovic, E. Pap, Non-monotonic set functions and general fuzzy integrals,
in: 2008 6th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics,
IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–4.
[122] D. Zhang, C. Guo, D. Liu, Set-valued choquet integrals revisited, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 147 (3) (2004) 475–485.
[123] Y. Huang, C. Wu, Real-valued choquet integrals for set-valued mappings,
Internat. J. Approx. Reason. 55 (2) (2014) 683–688.
[124] P. Meyer, M. Roubens, On the use of the Choquet integral with fuzzy numbers
in multiple criteria decision support, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (7) (2006)
927–938.
[125] P. Fortemps, M. Roubens, Ranking and defuzzification methods based on area
compensation, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 82 (3) (1996) 319–330.
[126] R. Yang, Z. Wang, P.-A. Heng, K.-S. Leung, Fuzzy numbers and fuzzification of
the choquet integral, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 153 (1) (2005) 95–113.
[127] G. Beliakov, Knapsack problems with dependencies through non-additive
measures and choquet integral, European J. Oper. Res. 301 (1) (2022) 277–286.
[128] G. Beliakov, Optimising non-convex choquet integrals using DC (difference of
convex) algorithm, in: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems,
FUZZ-IEEE, IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6.
[129] G. Beliakov, J.-Z. Wu, Discrete choquet integral optimisation with positive
and negative interactions, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2023) http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/TFUZZ.2023.3318631.
11
Information Fusion 106 (2024) 102295
[130] I. Kojadinovic, Minimum variance capacity identification, European J. Oper.
Res. 177 (2) (2007) 498–514.
[131] M. Grabisch, I. Kojadinovic, P. Meyer, A review of methods for capacity
identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory, Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 186 (2008) 766–785.
[132] J. Murillo, S. Guillaume, E. Tapia, P. Bulacio, Revised HLMS: A useful algorithm
for fuzzy measure identification, Inf. Fusion 14 (4) (2013) 532–540.
[133] J. Murillo, S. Guillaume, P. Bulacio, k-maxitive fuzzy measures: A scalable
approach to model integractions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 324 (2017) 33–48.
[134] G. Beliakov, J.-Z. Wu, Random generation of capacities and its application in
comprehensive decision aiding, Inform. Sci. 577 (2021) 424–435.
[135] E.F. Combarro, I. Díaz, P. Miranda, On random generation of fuzzy measures,
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 228 (4) (2013) 64–77.
[136] R.L. Smith, Efficient Monte Carlo procedures for generating points uniformly
distributed over bounded regions, Oper. Res. 32 (6) (1984) 1296–1308.
[137] P.A. Rubin, Generating random points in a polytope, Comm. Statist. Simulation
Comput. 13 (3) (1984) 375–396.
[138] E. Combarro, P. Miranda, Identification of fuzzy measures from sample data
with genetic algorithms, Comput. Oper. Res. 33 (10) (2006) 3046–3066.
[139] E.F. Combarro, J. Hurtado de Saracho, I. Díaz, Minimals Plus: An improved
algorithm for the random generation of linear extensions of partially ordered
sets, Inform. Sci. 501 (2019) 50–67.
[140] L. Devroye, Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation, Springer Verlag, New
York, 1986.
[141] T.C. Havens, A.J. Pinar, Generating random fuzzy (capacity) measures for
data fusion simulations, in: 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational
Intelligence, SSCI, IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8.
[142] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Generating fuzzy measures from additive measures, 2023,
arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15399.
[143] J.-Z. Wu, G. Beliakov, Random generation of linearly constrained fuzzy mea-
sures and domain coverage performance evaluation, Inform. Sci. 659 (2024)
120080.
[144] P. Sun, M. Grabisch, C. Labreuche, An improvement of random node generator
for the uniform generation of capacities, in: International Conference on
Scalable Uncertainty Management, Springer, 2022, pp. 202–216.
[145] M. Grabisch, C. Labreuche, P. Sun, An approximation algorithm for random
generation of capacities, Order (2023) 1–26.
[146] A.B. Kahn, Topological sorting of large networks, Commun. ACM 5 (1962)
558–562.
[147] G. Beliakov, F.J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, J.-Z. Wu, Random generation
of k-interactive capacities, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 430 (2022) 48–55.
[148] G. Beliakov, On random generation of supermodular capacities, IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Syst. 30 (1) (2022) 293–296.
[149] S.G. Arcidiacono, S. Corrente, S. Greco, As simple as possible but not simpler in
multiple criteria decision aiding: the robust-stochastic level dependent Choquet
integral approach, European J. Oper. Res. 280 (2020) 988–1007.
[150] B. Murray, M.A. Islam, A.J. Pinar, T.C. Havens, D.T. Anderson, G. Scott,
Explainable ai for understanding decisions and data-driven optimization of the
Choquet integral, in: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems,
FUZZ-IEEE, IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8.