Skip to main content

Three Approaches to Deal with Inconsistent Decision Tables - Comparison of Decision Tree Complexity

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8170))

Abstract

In inconsistent decision tables, there are groups of rows with equal values of conditional attributes and different decisions (values of the decision attribute). We study three approaches to deal with such tables. Instead of a group of equal rows, we consider one row given by values of conditional attributes and we attach to this row: (i) the set of all decisions for rows from the group (many-valued decision approach); (ii) the most common decision for rows from the group (most common decision approach); and (iii) the unique code of the set of all decisions for rows from the group (generalized decision approach). We present experimental results and compare the depth, average depth and number of nodes of decision trees constructed by a greedy algorithm in the framework of each of the three approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asuncion, A., Newman, D.J.: UCI Machine Learning Repository, http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/

  2. Azad, M., Chikalov, I., Moshkov, M., Zielosko, B.: Greedy algorithm for construction of decision trees for tables with many-valued decisions. In: Popova-Zeugmann, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Concurrency, Specification and Programming, Berlin, Germany, September 26-28. CEUR-WS.org, pp. 13–24 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clare, A.J., King, R.D.: Knowledge discovery in multi-label phenotype data. In: Siebes, A., De Raedt, L. (eds.) PKDD 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2168, pp. 42–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Comité, F.D., Gilleron, R., Tommasi, M.: Learning multi-label alternating decision trees from texts and data. In: Perner, P., Rosenfeld, A. (eds.) MLDM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2734, pp. 35–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Mencía, E.L., Fürnkranz, J.: Pairwise learning of multilabel classifications with perceptrons. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, IJCNN 2008, part of the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, WCCI 2008, Hong Kong, China, June 1-6, pp. 2899–2906. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moshkov, M., Zielosko, B.: Combinatorial Machine Learning – A Rough Set Approach. SCI, vol. 360. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moshkov, M., Zielosko, B.: Construction of α-decision trees for tables with many-valued decisions. In: Yao, J., Ramanna, S., Wang, G., Suraj, Z. (eds.) RSKT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6954, pp. 486–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Moshkov, M.J.: Greedy algorithm for decision tree construction in context of knowledge discovery problems. In: Tsumoto, S., Słowiński, R., Komorowski, J., Grzymała-Busse, J.W. (eds.) RSCTC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3066, pp. 192–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets – Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Skowron, A., Rauszer, C.: The discernibility matrices and functions in information systems. In: Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Set Theory, pp. 331–362. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1992)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsoumakas, G., Katakis, I.: Multi-label classification: An overview. IJDWM 3(3), 1–13 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tsoumakas, G., Katakis, I., Vlahavas, I.P.: Mining multi-label data. In: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook, 2nd edn., pp. 667–685. Springer (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou, Z.H., Zhang, M.L., Huang, S.J., Li, Y.F.: Multi-instance multi-label learning. Artif. Intell. 176(1), 2291–2320 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Azad, M., Chikalov, I., Moshkov, M. (2013). Three Approaches to Deal with Inconsistent Decision Tables - Comparison of Decision Tree Complexity. In: Ciucci, D., Inuiguchi, M., Yao, Y., Ślęzak, D., Wang, G. (eds) Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets, Data Mining, and Granular Computing. RSFDGrC 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8170. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41218-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41218-9_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41217-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41218-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics