Welcome to the InfoSci Platform
Reference Hub1
Comparision Between Features of CbO based Algorithms for Generating Formal Concepts

Comparision Between Features of CbO based Algorithms for Generating Formal Concepts

Nuwan Kodagoda, Koliya Pulasinghe
Copyright: © 2016 |Volume: 4 |Issue: 1 |Pages: 34
ISSN: 2166-7292|EISSN: 2166-7306|EISBN13: 9781466693722|DOI: 10.4018/IJCSSA.2016010101
Cite Article Cite Article

MLA

Kodagoda, Nuwan, and Koliya Pulasinghe. "Comparision Between Features of CbO based Algorithms for Generating Formal Concepts." IJCSSA vol.4, no.1 2016: pp.1-34. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJCSSA.2016010101

APA

Kodagoda, N. & Pulasinghe, K. (2016). Comparision Between Features of CbO based Algorithms for Generating Formal Concepts. International Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications (IJCSSA), 4(1), 1-34. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJCSSA.2016010101

Chicago

Kodagoda, Nuwan, and Koliya Pulasinghe. "Comparision Between Features of CbO based Algorithms for Generating Formal Concepts," International Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications (IJCSSA) 4, no.1: 1-34. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJCSSA.2016010101

Export Reference

Mendeley
Favorite Full-Issue Download

Abstract

Formal Concept Analysis provides the mathematical notations for representing concepts and concept hierarchies making use of order and lattice theory. This has now been used in numerous applications which include software engineering, linguistics, sociology, information sciences, information technology, genetics, biology and in engineering. The algorithms derived from Kustenskov's CbO were found to provide the most efficient means of computing formal concepts in several research papers. In this paper key enhancements to the original CbO algorithms are discussed in detail. The effects of these key features are presented in both isolation and combination. Eight different variations of the CbO algorithms highlighting the key features were compared in a level playing field by presenting them using the same notation and implementing them from the notation in the same way. The three main enhancements considered are the partial closure with incremental closure of intents, inherited canonicity test failures and using a combined depth first and breadth first search. The algorithms were implemented in an un-optimized way to focus on the comparison on the algorithms themselves and not on any efficiencies provided by optimizing code. The main contribution of this paper is the complete comparison of the three main enhancements used in recent variations of the CbO based algorithms. The main findings were that there is a significant performance improvement partial closure with incremental closure of intents is used in isolation. However, there is no significant performance improvement when the depth and breadth first search or the inherited canonicity test failure feature is used in isolation. The inherited canonicity test failure needs to be combined with the combined depth and breadth first feature to obtain a performance increase. Combining all the three enhancements brought the best performance.

Request Access

You do not own this content. Please login to recommend this title to your institution's librarian or purchase it from the IGI Global bookstore.