Mediative Fuzzy Logic was conceived as a practical scheme for reconciling hesitant or conflicting assessments in fuzzy control and decision-making. However, its logical and semantic foundations remain underdeveloped, especially beyond operational type-1 settings. This article develops a unified account of the type-1 core together with interval type-2, granular type-3, and quantum extensions. We characterize the mediative operator as a convex aggregation controlled by hesitation and contradiction, model mediative truth values as independent truth-falsity pairs in a continuous bilattice-like structure, and introduce a propositional system extending a standard t-norm-based fuzzy logic with a mediative connective. We establish soundness, paraconsistency, and conservativity over the underlying fuzzy base for formulas without mediation, and formulate coherent semantic extensions to interval type-2 truth values, granule-indexed local evaluations, and effects and density operators on Hilbert spaces. An autonomous-braking sensor-fusion example illustrates how the framework supports transparent, conservative, and safety-first decisions under incomplete, heterogeneous, and mildly contradictory evidence. Under suitable assumptions, the higher-level formulations reduce to the type-1 case, clarifying coherence across levels and reliably supporting future work in intelligent decision systems.
Fuzzy Integral (FI) based aggregation provides a powerful mechanism for nuanced aggregation, for example, in ensemble approaches or decision-level fusion more generally. The main challenge of this approach is the appropriate parametrization of the Fuzzy Measure (FM), which captures the worths of the individual components--and their combinations--which are being fused. Here, widely used approaches including the Sugeno-λ and Decomposable FMs, parametrize the FM by extrapolating from the densities, i.e. the weights associated with individual sources, while respecting the FM's monotonicity constraint. This paper articulates that this information is, in general, insufficient to uniquely identify a discrete FM; but shows how an interval-valued FM can indeed be determined uniquely. We proceed to show how the incorporation of additional information beyond the above, such as the choice of a specific FI and a dataset, then allows for obtaining even more specific interval-valued FMs. In practice, establishing the quality of an empirically determined FM is not trivial. To help address this, we show how the likelihood with which a resulting interval FM encompasses the ideal', i.e. the commonly intangible, best, or ground-truth numeric FM, can be determined, producing a confidence interval at a given confidence level. Finally, based on a series of experiments, we demonstrate empirically that the Choquet FI output based on this FM can also be regarded as the confidence interval for the ideal' information fusion result, providing a novel means to characterize FI fusion outcomes a priori and charting a pathway for future research.
Human reasoning often operates through qualitative concepts expressed by linguistic labels such as high, low, expensive, or cheap, whose interpretation depends on context and is usually vague, despite being rooted in numerical data. This paper explores a novel fuzzy-logic-based qualitative extension of Answer Set Programming (ASP) to bridge numerical information and qualitative reasoning. The underlying language, formally introduced in a separate work, provides a principled framework that avoids rigid thresholds and supports robust reasoning under vagueness. Focusing on a representative use case, we illustrate how the framework integrates numerically grounded inputs (such as outputs of machine learning models) with symbolic reasoning over qualitative labels. Key features, including learning-based membership functions and semantically enriched predicates, enable the combination of expert knowledge, contextual factors, and subjective interpretations within a unified declarative setting.
Judgment aggregation studies how to combine individual judgments on logically related propositions into a collective judgment. Classical impossibility results show that sufficiently strong logical interconnections force dictatorship under natural aggregation axioms. In this paper, we ask whether such impossibility can still arise when the objects of aggregation are required to be genuinely modal judgments rather than plain factual propositions. Since modal logic contains propositional logic, this question is meaningful only if one excludes fact-based aggregation in disguise. We show that Arrow-type impossibility already re-emerges in a strikingly sparse modal setting. We prove an impossibility theorem on a simple cyclic frame for an agenda generated from a single propositional variable by repeated applications of a single modal operator, and we further demonstrate this phenomenon for an alternative family of frames satisfying a natural symmetry condition. Thus, even under a modal-operator requirement, semantic structure alone can generate the logical interconnections needed for dictatorship. Technically, our analysis has two layers. First, we prove a semantic reduction theorem showing that certain iterated modal patterns can be collapsed by shifting the evaluation point. Second, building on this reduction, we identify a local-to-global frame mechanism by which frame geometry yields minimally inconsistent modal judgment sets and the strong path-connectivity required for impossibility. The same reduction also turns consistency checking into a small combinatorial covering problem, which yields efficient implementations of non-dictatorial aggregation procedures.