Fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM) and Bayesian belief networks (BBN) are two of the most frequently used causal knowledge frameworks for modelling, representing and reasoning about causal knowledge. In this paper, an evaluation of their different roles in the engineering process of developing causal knowledge systems is conducted, based on their inherent features. The evaluation criteria adopted in this research are understandability, usability, modularity, scalability, expressiveness, inferential capability, rigour, formality and preciseness. All of these are commonly used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of traditional knowledge representation frameworks. These criteria are used to reveal the fundamental characteristics of FCM and BBN. The findings of this study show that FCM is more appropriate for use in modelling causal knowledge, whereas BBN is more superior in model representation and inference. This study deepens the understanding of the role of FCM and BBN in the development of causal knowledge systems.
AxelrodR.Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1976.
2.
KoskoB.Fuzzy cognitive maps, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies24(1) (1986), 65–75.
3.
KoskoB.Fuzzy systems as universal approximatorsProceedings of IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems1992, pp. 1153–1162.
4.
PapageorgiouE.I., SubramanianJ., KarmegamA. and PapandrianosN.A risk management model for familial breast cancer: A new application using fuzzy cognitive map method, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine122(2) (2015), 123–135.
5.
PapageorgiouE.I., MarkinosA.T. and GemtosT.A.Fuzzy cognitive map based approach for predicting yield in cotton crop production as a basis for decision support system in precision agriculture application, Applied Soft Computing11(4) (2011), 3643–3657.
6.
HanJ.H. and KimJ.H.Human intention reading by fuzzy cognitive map: A human robot cooperative object carrying task, Robot Intelligence Technology and Applications (2013), 127–135. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
7.
WeiX., LuoX., LiQ., ZhangJ. and XuZ.Online comment-based hotel quality automatic assessment using improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and fuzzy cognitive map, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems23(1) (2015), 72–84.
8.
PearlJ.Fusion, propagation, and structuring in belief networks, Artificial Intelligence29(3) (1986), 241–288.
9.
PearlJ.Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
10.
SmallwoodR.D.Bayesian product recommendation engine, U.S. Patent No. 263 B2, filed September 23, 2002 and issued August 28, 2012.
11.
SchmittL.H.M. and
BrugereC.Capturing ecosystem services, stakeholders’ preferences and trade-offs in coastal aquaculture decisions: A Bayesian belief network application, PloS one8(10) (2013), e75956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075956.
12.
QuigleyJ.M., BrydenP.A., ScottD.A., KuwabaraH. and CerriK.Relative efficacy and safety of simeprevir and telaprevir in treatment of naïve hepatitis C-infected patients in a Japanese population: A Bayesian network meta-analysis, Hepatology Research45(10) (2015), 89–98. 10.1111/hepr.12467.
13.
AshouriA.H., MarianiG., PalermoG., ParkE., CavazosJ. and SilvanoC.Cobayn: Compiler autotuning framework using Bayesian networks, ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO)13(2) (2016), 21–45.
LiuZ.Q.Causation, Bayesian networks and cognitive maps, Departmental Paper, Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Melbourne: Melbourne, 2000.
19.
DoualiN., CsabaH., De RooJ., PapageorgiouE.I. and JaulentM.C.Diagnosis support system based on clinical guidelines: Comparison between case-based fuzzy cognitive maps and Bayesian networks, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine113(1) (2014), 133–143.
20.
CheahW.P., KimK.Y., YangH.J., KimS.H. and KimJ.S.Fuzzy cognitive map and Bayesian belief network for causal knowledge engineering: A comparative study, The KIPS Transactions: PartB15(2) (2008), 147–158.
21.
SchallesC., CreaghJ. and RebstockM.A causal model for analyzing the impact of graphical modeling languages on usability, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering24(09) (2014), 1337–1355.
22.
JiY.J., ChenX.B., QiG.N. and SongL.W.Modular design involving effectiveness of multiple phases for product life cycle, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology66(9-12) (2013), 1475–1488.
23.
LevesqueH.J. and BrachmanR.J.Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning, Computational Intelligence3(2) (1987), 78–93.
RottmanB.M. and HastieR.Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks, Psychological Bulletin140(1) (2014), 109.
26.
PapageorgiouE.I. and SalmeronJ.L.A review of fuzzy cognitive maps research during the last decade, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems21(1) (2013), 66–79.
27.
R. Van Wessel, Toward corporate IT standardization management: Frameworks and solution, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global, 2010.
28.
BowenJ.P., HincheyM., JanickeH., WardM.P. and ZedanH.Formality, agility, security, and evolution in software development, IEEE Computer47(10) (2014), 86–89.
29.
ShipmanF.M.III and
MarshallC.C., Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in interactive systems, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)8(4) (1999), 333–352.
30.
PérezL.J.F., CallaL.A.R., ValenteL., MontenegroA.A. and CluaE.W.G.Dynamic game difficulty balancing in real time using Evolutionary Fuzzy Cognitive Maps, IEEE 14th Brazilian Symposium on Computer Games and Digital Entertainment (SBGames) (2015), 24–32.
31.
RickardJ.T., AisbettJ. and YagerR.R.A new fuzzy cognitive map structure based on the weighted power mean, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems23(6) (2015), 2188–2201.
32.
GrayS.R.J., GagnonA.S., GrayS.A., O’DwyerB., O’MahonyC., MuirD., DevoyR.J.N., FalaleevaM. and GaultJ.Are coastal managers detecting the problem? Assessing stakeholder perception of climate vulnerability using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping, Ocean and Coastal Management94 (2014), 74–89.
33.
PoczetaK. and YastrebovA.Proceedings of IEEE International Conference in Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), Analysis of fuzzy cognitive maps with multi-step learning algorithms in valuation of owner-occupied homes (2014), pp. 1029–1035.
34.
VidalR., SalmeronJ.L., MenaA. and ChulviV.Fuzzy cognitive map-based selection of TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) trends for eco-innovation of ceramic industry products, Journal of Cleaner Production107 (2015), 202–214.
35.
TsadirasA.K.Comparing the inference capabilities of binary, trivalent and sigmoid fuzzy cognitive maps, Information Sciences178(20) (2008), 3880–3894.
36.
BuenoS. and SalmeronJ.L.Benchmarking main activation functions in fuzzy cognitive maps, Expert Systems with Applications36(3) (2009), 5221–5229.
37.
M. Glykas, Fuzzy cognitive maps: Advances in theory, methodologies, tools and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. 10.1007/978-3-642-03220-2
38.
LeeK.C. and LeeS.A causal knowledge-based expert system for planning an Internet-based stock trading system, Expert Systems with Applications39(10) (2012), 8626–8635.
39.
KoskoB., Neural networks and fuzzy systems: A dynamical systems approach to machine intelligence/book and disk, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1992.
