Abstract
We investigate different notions of decision superreducts, their interrelations, their way of dealing with inconsistent data and their so-called discernibility characteristics. We refer to superreducts understood as attribute subsets that are aimed at maintaining – when compared to original sets of attributes – unchanged rough set approximations of decision classes, positive regions and generalized decision values. We also include into our studies superreducts that maintain the same data-driven conditional probability distributions (known as rough membership functions), as well as those which let discern all pairs of objects belonging to different decision classes that are also distinguishable using all available attributes. We compare strengths of the corresponding attribute reduction criteria when applied to the whole data sets, as well as families of their subsets (which is an idea inspired by so-called dynamic reducts). We attempt to put together mostly known mathematical results concerning the considered criteria and prove several new facts to make overall picture more complete. We also discuss about importance of developing attribute reduction criteria for inconsistent data sets from the perspectives of machine learning and knowledge discovery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The paper [3] is a highly valuable source of information about different ways of specifying data reduction criteria. However, we cannot refer to this in context of “knowledge reduction”, as by finding superreducts and reducts we extend – rather than reduce – our knowledge about analyzed data sets. This is analogous to the tasks of reducing complexity – or in other words, searching for simpler solutions – in other fields of data exploration and modeling [4].
- 2.
As already mentioned, D1 is equivalent to D2–D5 for decision tables with two decision classes. However, in this paper we consider the case of their arbitrary amount.
References
Pawlak, Z.: A treatise on rough sets. In: Peters, J.F., Skowron, A. (eds.) Transactions on Rough Sets IV. LNCS, vol. 3700, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11574798_1
Nguyen, H.S.: Approximate Boolean reasoning: foundations and applications in data mining. In: Peters, J.F., Skowron, A. (eds.) Transactions on Rough Sets V. LNCS, vol. 4100, pp. 334–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11847465_16
Kryszkiewicz, M.: Comparative study of alternative types of knowledge reduction in inconsistent systems. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 16(1), 105–120 (2001)
Betliński, P., Ślęzak, D.: The problem of finding the sparsest Bayesian network for an input data set is NP-hard. In: Chen, L., Felfernig, A., Liu, J., Raś, Z.W. (eds.) ISMIS 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7661, pp. 21–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34624-8_3
Ślęzak, D.: On generalized decision functions: reducts, networks and ensembles. In: Yao, Y., Hu, Q., Yu, H., Grzymala-Busse, J.W. (eds.) RSFDGrC 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9437, pp. 13–23. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25783-9_2
Ślęzak, D.: Searching for dynamic reducts in inconsistent decision tables. In: Proceedings of IPMU 1998 Part I I, 1362–1369 (1998)
Widz, S.: Introducing NRough framework. In: Polkowski, L., et al. (eds.) IJCRS 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10313, pp. 669–689. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60837-2_53
Dash, M., Liu, H.: Consistency-based search in feature selection. Artif. Intell. 151(1–2), 155–176 (2003)
Janusz, A., Ślęzak, D.: Computation of approximate reducts with dynamically adjusted approximation threshold. In: Esposito, F., Pivert, O., Hacid, M.-S., Raś, Z.W., Ferilli, S. (eds.) ISMIS 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9384, pp. 19–28. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25252-0_3
Chakraborty, M.K., Banerjee, M.: Rough dialogue and implication lattices. Fundamenta Informaticae 75(1–4), 123–139 (2007)
Bazan, J.G., Skowron, A., Synak, P.: Dynamic reducts as a tool for extracting laws from decisions tables. In: Raś, Z.W., Zemankova, M. (eds.) ISMIS 1994. LNCS, vol. 869, pp. 346–355. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58495-1_35
Yao, Y., Zhao, Y., Wang, J.: On reduct construction algorithms. In: Gavrilova, M.L., Tan, C.J.K., Wang, Y., Yao, Y., Wang, G. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Science II. LNCS, vol. 5150, pp. 100–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87563-5_6
Gyssens, M., Niepert, M., Van Gucht, D.: On the completeness of the semigraphoid axioms for deriving arbitrary from saturated conditional independence statements. Inf. Process. Lett. 114(11), 628–633 (2014)
Clark, P.G., Gao, C., Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: Rule set complexity for incomplete data sets with many attribute-concept values and “do not care” conditions. In: Flores, V. (ed.) IJCRS 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9920, pp. 65–74. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47160-0_6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ślęzak, D., Dutta, S. (2018). Dynamic and Discernibility Characteristics of Different Attribute Reduction Criteria. In: Nguyen, H., Ha, QT., Li, T., Przybyła-Kasperek, M. (eds) Rough Sets. IJCRS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99368-3_49
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99368-3_49
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99367-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99368-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)