Article Outline
Glossary
Definition of the Subject
Introduction
Rough Set Theory: Extensions
Rough Set Theory: Applications
Nearest Neighbor Method
Case-Based Reasoning
Complexity Issues
Future Directions
Bibliography
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Abbreviations
- Knowledge:
-
This is a many‐faceted and difficult notion to define and it is used very frequently without any attempt at definition as a notion that explains per se. One can follow J.M. Bocheński in claiming that the world is a system of states of things, related to themselves by means of the network of relations; things, their features, relations among them and states are reflected in knowledge: things in objects or notions, features and relations in notions (or, concepts), states of things in sentences. Sentences constitute knowledge. Knowledge allows its possessor to classify new objects, model processes, make predictions etc.
- Reasoning:
-
Processes of reasoning include an effort by means of which sentences are created; various forms of reasoning depend on the chosen system of notions, symbolic representation of notions, forms of manipulating symbols etc.
- Knowledge representation:
-
This is a chosen symbolic system (language) by means of which notions are encoded and reasoning is formalized.
- Boolean functions:
-
An n‑ary Boolean function is a mapping \( { f \colon \{0,1\}^n\rightarrow \{0,1\} } \) from the space of binary sequences of length n into the doubleton \( { \{0,1\} } \). An equivalent representation of the function f is as a formula \( { \phi_f } \) of propositional calculus; a Boolean function can be thus represented either in DNF form or in CNF form. The former representation: \( { \vee_{i \in I} \wedge_{j \in J_i} l^i_j } \), where \( { l^i_j } \) is a literal, i. e., either a propositional variable or its negation, is instrumental in Boolean Reasoning: when the problem is formulated as a Boolean function, its solutions are searched for as prime implicants \( { \bigwedge_{j\in J_i} l^i_j } \). Applications are to be found in various reduct induction algorithms.
- Information systems:
-
One of the languages for knowledge representation is the attribute‐value language in which notions representing things are described by means of attributes (features) and their values; information systems are pairs of the form (U, A) where U is a set of objects – representing things – and A is a set of attributes; each attribute a is modeled as a mapping \( { a \colon U\rightarrow V_a } \) from the set of objects into the value set V a . For an attribute a and its value v, the descriptor \( { (a=v) } \) is a formula interpreted in the set of objects U as \( { [(a=v)]=\{u\in U \colon a(u)=v\} } \). Descriptor formulas are the smallest set containing all descriptors and closed under sentential connectives \( { \vee, \wedge, \neg, \Rightarrow } \). Meanings of complex formulas are defined recursively: \( { [\alpha\vee\beta]=[\alpha]\cup [\beta] } \), \( { [\alpha\wedge\beta]=[\alpha]\cap [\beta] } \), \( { [\neg \alpha]=U\setminus [\alpha] } \), \( { [\alpha\Rightarrow\beta]=[\neg\alpha\vee\beta] } \). In descriptor language each object \( { u\in U } \) can be encoded over a set B of attributes as its information vector \( { \operatorname{Inf}_B(u)=\{(a=a(u)) \colon a\in B\} } \).
- Indiscernibility:
-
The Leibnizian Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles affirms that two things are identical in case they are indiscernible, i. e., no available operator acting on both of them yields distinct values; in the context of information systems, indiscernibility relations are induced from sets of attributes: given a set \( { B\subseteq A } \), the indiscernibility relation relative to B is defined as \( \operatorname{Ind}(B)=\{(u,u^{\prime}) \colon a(u)=a(u^{\prime})\ \textrm{for each}\ a\in B\} \). Objects \( { u, u^{\prime} } \) in relation Ind(B) are said to be B‑indiscernible and are regarded as identical with respect to knowledge represented by the information system (U, B). The class \( { [u]_B=\{u^{\prime} \colon (u,u^{\prime})\in \operatorname{Ind}(B)\} } \) collects all objects identical to u with respect to B.
- Exact, inexact notion:
-
An exact notion is a set of objects in the considered universe which can be represented as the union of a collection of indiscernibility classes; otherwise, the set is inexact. In this case, there exist a boundary about the notion consisting of objects which can be with certainty classified neither into the notion nor into its complement (Pawlak, Frege).
- Decision systems:
-
A particular form of an information system, this is a triple \( { (U,A,d) } \) in which d is the decision, the attribute not in A, that does express the evaluation of objects by an external oracle, an expert. Attributes in A are called conditional in order to discern them from the decision d.
- Classification task:
-
The problem of assigning to each element in a set of objects (test sample) of a class (of a decision) to which the given element should belong; it is effected on the basis of knowledge induced from the given collection of examples (the training sample). To perform this task, objects are mapped usually onto vectors in a multi‐dimensional real vector space (feature space).
- Decision rule:
-
A formula in descriptor language that does express a particular relation among conditional attributes in the attribute set A and the decision d, of the form: \( { \bigwedge_{a\in A}(a=v_a)\Rightarrow (d=v) } \) with the semantics defined in (Glossary: “Indiscernibility”). The formula is true in case \( [\bigwedge_{a\in A}(a=v_a)]=\bigcap_{a\in A}[(a=v_a)]\subseteq [(d=v)] \). Otherwise, the formula is partially true. An object o which matches the rule, i. e., \( { a(o)=v_a } \) for \( { a\in A } \) can be classified to the class \( { [(d=v)] } \); often a partial match based on a chosen distance measure has to be performed.
- Distance functions (metrics):
-
A metric on a set X is a non‐negative valued function \( { \rho \colon X\times X \rightarrow R } \) where R is the set of reals, which satisfies conditions: 1. \( \rho (x,y)=0 \) if and only if \( { x=y } \). 2. \( \rho (x,y)=\rho (y,x) \). 3. \( \rho (x,y)\leq \rho (x,z) + \rho (z,y) \) for each z in X (the triangle inequality); when in 3.\( { \rho (x, y) } \) is bound by \( \max \{\rho (x,z), \rho (z,y)\} \) instead of by the sum of the two, one says of non‐archimedean metric.
- Object closest to a set:
-
For a metric ρ on a set X, and a subset Y of X, the distance from an object x in X and the set Y is defined as \( \operatorname{dist}(x,Y)=\operatorname{inf} \{\rho (x,y) \colon y \in Y\} \); when Y is a finite set, then infimum inf is replaced with minimum min.
- A nearest neighbor:
-
For an object \( { x_0 \in X } \), this is an object \( { n(x_0) } \) such that \( { \rho (x_0, n(x_0)) = dist (x_0, X\setminus \{x_0\}) } \); \( { n(x_0) } \) may not be unique. In plain words, \( { n(x_0) } \) is the object closest to x 0 and distinct from it.
- K-nearest neighbors:
-
For an object \( { x_0 \in X } \), and a natural number \( { K\geq 1 } \), this is a set \( { n(x_0, K)\subseteq X\setminus \{x_0\} } \) of cardinality K such that for each object \( y\in X\setminus [n(x_0,K)\cup \{x_0\}] \) one has \( { \rho(y, x_0) \geq \rho (z,x_0) } \) for each \( { z\in n(x_0,K) } \). In plain words, objects in \( { n(x_0,K) } \) for a set of K objects that are closest to x 0 among objects distinct from it.
- Rough inclusion:
-
A ternary relation μ on a set \( U\times U\times [0,1] \) which satisfies conditions: 1. \( { \mu(x,x,1) } \). 2. \( { \mu(x,y,1) } \) is a binary partial order relation on the set X. 3. \( { \mu(x,y,1) } \) implies that for each object z in U: if \( { \mu(z,x,r) } \) then \( { \mu(z,y,r) } \). 4. \( { \mu(x,y,r) } \) and \( { s<r } \) imply that \( { \mu(x,y,s) } \). The formula \( { \mu(x,y,r) } \) is read as “the object x is a part in object y to a degree at least r”. The partial containment idea does encompass the idea of an exact part, i. e., mereological theory of concepts (Leśniewski, Leonard–Goodman).
- Similarity:
-
An extension and relaxing of an equivalence relation of indiscernibility. Among similarity relations, we single out the class of tolerance relations τ (Poincaré, Zeeman) which are reflexive, i. e., \( { \tau(x,x) } \), and symmetric, i. e., \( { \tau(x,y) } \) implies necessarily \( { \tau(y,x) } \). The basic distinction between equivalences and tolerances is that the former induce partitions of their universes into disjoint classes whereas the latter induce covering of their universes by their classes; for this reason they are more difficult in analysis.The symmetry condition may be over‐restrictive, for instance, rough inclusions are usually not symmetric.
- Case:
-
A case is informally a part of knowledge that describes a certain state of the world (the context), along with a query (problem) and its solution, and a description of the outcome, i. e., the state of the world after the solution is applied.
- Retrieve:
-
A process by means of which a case similar in a sense to the currently considered is recovered from the case base.
- Reuse:
-
A process by means of which the retrieved case's solution is re-used in the current new problem.
- Revise:
-
A process by means of which the retrieved solution is adapted in order to satisfactorily solve the current problem.
- Retain:
-
A process by means of which the adapted solution is stored in the case base as the solution to the current problem.
Bibliography
Primary Literature
Aamodt A (1991) A knowledge intensive approach to problem solving and sustained learning. Dissertation, University Trondheim, Norway. University Microfilms PUB 92–08460
Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7:39–59
Aggarwal CC, Hinneburg A, Keim DA (2001) On the surprising behavior of distance metrics in high dimensional space. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on database theory, London, pp 420–434
Aha DW (1998) The omnipresence of case-based reasoning in science and applications.Knowl-Based Syst 11:261–273
Bayes T (1763) An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos Trans R Soc (London) 53:370–418
Bazan JG (1998) A comparison of dynamic and non‐dynamic rough set methods for extracting laws from decision tables. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery, vol 1. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 321–365
Bazan JG et al (2000) Rough set algorithms in classification problems. In: Polkowski L, Tsumoto S, Lin TY (eds) Rough set methods and applications. New developments in knowledge discovery in information systems. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 49–88
Bentley JL (1975) Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching.Commun ACM 18:509–517
Berchtold S, Keim D, Kriegel HP (1996) The X-tree: an index structure for high dimensional data. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Very Large Databases VLDB'96 1996 Mumbai, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 29–36
Brin S (1995) Near neighbor search in large metric spaces. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Very Large Databases VLDB'95 Zurich, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 574–584
Ciaccia P, Patella M, Zezula P (1997) M-tree: an efficient access method for similarity search in metric spaces. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Very Large Databases VLDB'97, Athens, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 426–435
Clark P, Evans F (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35:445–453
Cover TM, Hart PE (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans Inf Theory IT-13(1):21–27
Czyżewski A et al (2004) Musical phrase representation and recognition by means of neural networks and rough sets. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol 1. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3100. Springer, Berlin, pp 254–278
Deja R (2000) Conflict analysis. In: Polkowski L, Tsumoto S, Lin TY (eds) Rough set methods and applications. New developments in knowledge discovery in information systems. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 491–520
Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2001) Pattern classification. Wiley, New York
Düntsch I, Gediga G (1998) GROBIAN. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 555–557
Faucett WM (1955) Compact semigroups irreducibly connected between two idempotents.Proc Am Math Soc 6:741–747
Fernandez‐Baizan MC et al (1998) RSDM: Rough sets data miner. A system to add data mining capabilities to RDBMS. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 558–561
Finkel R, Bentley J (1974) Quad trees: a data structure for retrieval and composite keys. Acta Inf 4:1–9
Fix E, Hodges JL Jr (1951) Discriminatory analysis: Nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. USAF Sch Aviat Med 4:261–279
Fix E, Hodges JL Jr (1952) Discriminatory analysis: Nonparametric discrimination: Small sample performance. USAF Sch Aviat Med 11:280–322
Frege G (1903) Grundlagen der Arithmetik II. Jena, Hermann Pohle
Fukunaga K, Narendra PM (1975) A branch and bound algorithm for computing k‑nearest neighbors. IEEE Trans Comput 24:750–753
Gabriel KR, Sokal RR (1969) A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis. Syst Zool 18:259–278
Greco S, Matarazzo B, Słowiński R (1999) On joint use of indiscernibility, similarity and dominance in rough approximation of decision classes. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference of the decision sciences institute, Athens, Greece, pp 1380–1382
Grzymala‐Busse JW (1992) LERS – a system for learning from examples based on rough sets.In: Słowiński R (ed) Intelligent decision support. Handbook of Advances and Applications of the Rough Sets Theory.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 3–18
Grzymala‐Busse JW (2004) Data with missing attribute values: Generalization of indiscernibility relation and rule induction. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol 1. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3100. Springer, Berlin, pp 78–95
Grzymala‐Busse JW, Ming H (2000) A comparison of several approaches to missing attribute values in data mining. In: Lecture notes in AI, vol 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 378–385
Hart PE (1968) The condensed nearest neighbor rule. IEEE Trans Inf Theory IT-14(3):515–516
Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1996) Discriminant adaptive nearest‐neighbor classification.IEEE Pattern Recognit Mach Intell 18:607–616
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning.Springer, New York
Kalantari I, McDonald G (1983) A data structure and an algorithm for the nearest point problem. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 9:631–634
Katayama N, Satoh S (1997) The SR-tree: an index structure for high dimensional nearest neighbor queries. In: Proceedings of the 1997 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, Tucson, AZ, pp 369–380
Klee V (1980) On the complexity of d‑dimensional Voronoi diagrams. Arch Math 34:75–80
Klösgen W, Żytkow J (eds) (2002) Handbook of data mining and knowledge discovery. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kolodner JL (1983) Maintaining organization in a dynamic long-term memory. Cogn Sci 7:243–80
Kolodner JL (1993) Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo
Komorowski J, Skowron A et al (1998) The ROSETTA software system. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 572–575
Kostek B (2007) The domain of acoustics seen from the rough set perspective. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol VI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4374. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–151
Koton P (1989) Using experience in learning and problem solving. Ph D Dissertation MIT/LCS/TR-441, MIT, Laboratory of Computer Science, Cambridge
Kowalczyk W (1998) TRANCE: A tool for rough data analysis, classification and clustering. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 566–568
Krawiec K et al (1998) Learning decision rules from similarity based rough approximations. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery, vol 2.Physica, Heidelberg, pp 37–54
Leśniewski S (1916) Podstawy Ogólnej Teoryi Mnogosci (On the Foundations of Set Theory), in Polish. The Polish Scientific Circle, Moscow; see also a later digest: (1982) Topoi 2:7–52
Lin KI, Jagadish HV, Faloustos C (1994) The TV-tree: an index structure for high dimensional data. VLDB J 3:517–542
Lin TY (1997) From rough sets and neighborhood systems to information granulation and computing with words. In: 5th European Congress on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing, 1997 Aachen, Verlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp 1602–1606
Lin TY (2005) Granular computing: Examples, intuitions, and modeling. In: Proceedings of IEEE 2005 conference on granular computing GrC05, Beijing, China. IEEE Press, pp 40–44, IEEE Press, New York
Ling C-H (1965) Representation of associative functions. Publ Math Debrecen 12:189–212
Michalski RS et al (1986) The multi‐purpose incremental learning system AQ15 and its testing to three medical domains. In: Proceedings of AAAI-86. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 1041–1045
Mostert PS, Shields AL (1957) On the structure of semigroups on a compact manifold with a boundary. Ann Math 65:117–143
Nguyen SH (1997) Discretization of real valued attributes: Boolean reasoning approach.Ph D Dissertation, Warsaw University, Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Mechanics
Nguyen SH, Skowron A (1995) Quantization of real valued attributes: Rough set and Boolean reasoning approach. In: Proceedings 2nd annual joint conference on information sciences, Wrightsville Beach, NC, pp 34–37
Nguyen SH (2000) Regularity analysis and its applications in Data Mining. In: Polkowski L, Tsumoto S, Lin TY (eds) Rough set methods and applications. New developments in knowledge discovery in information systems. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 289–378
Nguyen TT (2004) Handwritten digit recognition using adaptive classifier construction techniques. In: Pal SK, Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough – neural computing. Techniques for computing with words. Springer, Berlin, pp 573–586
Novotny M, Pawlak Z (1988) Partial dependency of attributes. Bull Pol Acad Ser Sci Math 36:453–458
Novotny M, Pawlak Z (1992) On a problem concerning dependence spaces. Fundam Inform 16:275–287
Pal SK, Dasgupta B, Mitra P (2004) Rough-SOM with fuzzy discretization. In: Pal SK, Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough – neural computing. Techniques for computing with words.Springer, Berlin, pp 351–372
Parzen E (1962) On estimation of a probability density function and mode. Ann Math Stat 33(3):128–152
Patrick EA, Fisher FP (1970) A generalized k‑nearest neighbor rule. Inf Control 16(2):128–152
Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inf Sci 11:341–356
Pawlak Z (1985) On rough dependency of attributes in information systems. Bull Pol Acad Ser Sci Tech 33:551–559
Pawlak Z (1991) Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Pawlak Z, Skowron, A (1993) A rough set approach for decision rules generation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI'93 workshop W12. The management of uncertainty in AI. also: ICS Research Report 23/93 Warsaw University of Technology
Pawlak Z, Skowron A (1994) Rough membership functions. In: Yaeger RR, Fedrizzi M, Kasprzyk J (eds) Advances in the Dempster–Schafer theory of evidence. Wiley, New York, pp 251–271
Peters J, Ramanna S (2004) Approximation space for software models. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3100. Springer, Berlin, pp 338–355
Poincaré H (1902) Science et hypothese and I'Hypothese.Flammarion, Paris
Polkowski L (2003) A rough set paradigm for unifying rough set theory and fuzzy set theory. In: Proceedings RSFDGrC03, Chongqing, China, 2003. Lecture Notes in AI, vol 2639.Springer, Berlin, pp 70–78; also: Fundam Inf 54:67–88
Polkowski L (2004) Toward rough set foundations. Mereological approach. In: Proceedings RSCTC04, Uppsala, Sweden. Lecture Notes in AI, vol 3066. Springer, Berlin, pp 8–25
Polkowski L (2005) Formal granular calculi based on rough inclusions. In: Proceedings of IEEE 2005 conference on granular computing GrC05, Beijing, China. IEEE Press, New York, pp 57–62
Polkowski L (2005) Rough-fuzzy‐neurocomputing based on rough mereological calculus of granules. Int J Hybrid Intell Syst 2:91–108
Polkowski L (2006) A model of granular computing with applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE 2006 conference on granular computing GrC06, Atlanta, USA May 10-12. IEEE Press, New York, pp 9–16
Polkowski L, Araszkiewicz B (2002) A rough set approach to estimating the game value and the Shapley value from data. Fundam Inf 53(3/4):335–343
Polkowski L, Artiemjew P (2007) On granular rough computing: Factoring classifiers through granular structures. In: Proceedings RSEISP'07, Warsaw. Lecture Notes in AI, vol 4585, pp 280–290
Polkowski L, Skowron A (1994) Rough mereology. In: Proceedings of ISMIS'94. Lecture notes in AI, vol 869. Springer, Berlin, pp 85–94
Polkowski L, Skowron A (1997) Rough mereology: a new paradigm for approximate reasoning. Int J Approx Reason 15(4):333–365
Polkowski L, Skowron A (1999) Towards an adaptive calculus of granules. In: Zadeh LA, Kacprzyk J (eds) Computing with words in information/intelligent systems, vol 1. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 201–228
Polkowski L, Skowron A, Żytkow J (1994) Tolerance based rough sets. In: Lin TY, Wildberger M (eds) Soft Computing: Rough sets, fuzzy logic, neural networks, uncertainty management, knowledge discovery. Simulation Councils Inc., San Diego, pp 55–58
Porter BW, Bareiss ER (1986) PROTOS: An experiment in knowledge acquisition for heuristic classification tasks. In: Proceedings of the first international meeting on advances in learning (IMAL), Les Arcs, France, pp 159–174
Preparata F, Shamos MI (1985) Computational geometry: an introduction. Springer, New York
Rauszer C (1985) An equivalence between indiscernibility relations in information systems and a fragment of intuitionistic logic. Bull Pol Acad Ser Sci Math 33:571–579
Ripley BD (1997) Pattern recognition and neural networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Skowron A et al (1994) A system for data analysis. http://logic.mimuw.edu.pl/~rses/
Schank RC (1982) Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Semeniuk‐Polkowska M (2007) On conjugate information systems: A proposition on how to learn concepts in humane sciences by means of rough set theory. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol VI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4374. Springer, Berlin, pp 298–307
Simard P, Le Cun Y, Denker J (1993) Efficient pattern recognition using a new transformation distance. In: Hanson SJ, Cowan JD, Giles CL (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 5. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 50–58
Simpson RL (1985) A A computer model of case-based reasoning in problem solving: An investigation in the domain of dispute mediation. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Skellam JG (1952) Studies in statistical ecology, I, Spatial pattern. Biometrica 39:346–362
Skowron A (1993) Boolean reasoning for decision rules generation. In: Komorowski J, Ras Z (eds) Proceedings of ISMIS'93. Lecture Notes in AI, vol 689. Springer, Berlin, pp 295–305
Skowron A, Rauszer C (1992) The discernibility matrices and functions in decision systems.In: Słowiński R (ed) Intelligent decision support. Handbook of applications and advances of the rough sets theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 311–362
Skowron A, Stepaniuk J (1996) Tolerance approximation spaces. Fundam Inf 27:245–253
Skowron A, Stepaniuk J (2001) Information granules: towards foundations of granular computing.Int J Intell Syst 16:57–85
Skowron A, Swiniarski RW (2004) Information granulation and pattern recognition. In: Pal SK, Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds), Rough – Neural Computing. Techniques for computing with words. Springer, Berlin, pp 599–636
Slezak D (2000) Various approaches to reasoning with frequency based decision reducts: a survey. In: Polkowski L, Tsumoto S, Lin TY (eds) Rough set methods and applications. New developments in knowledge discovery in information systems. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 235–288
Słowiński R, Stefanowski J (1992) “RoughDAS” and “RoughClass” software implementations of the rough set approach. In: Słowiński R (ed) Intelligent decision support: Handbook of advances and applications of the rough sets theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 445–456
Słowiński R, Stefanowski J (1998) Rough family – software implementation of the rough set theory. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2.Physica, Heidelberg, pp 580–586
Stanfill C, Waltz D (1986) Toward memory‐based reasoning. Commun ACM 29:1213–1228
Mackie M (2006) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: Transworld identity http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-transworld Accessed 6 Sept 2008
Stefanowski J (1998) On rough set based approaches to induction of decision rules. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 1. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 500–529
Stefanowski J (2007) On combined classifiers, rule induction and rough sets. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol VI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4374. Springer, Berlin, pp 329–350
Stepaniuk J (2000) Knowledge discovery by application of rough set models. In: Polkowski L, Tsumoto S, Lin TY (eds) Rough set methods and applications. New developments in knowledge discovery in information systems. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 138–233
Suraj Z (1998) TAS: Tools for analysis and synthesis of concurrent processes using rough set methods. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery, vol 2.Physica, Heidelberg, pp 587–590
Suraj Z (2000) Rough set methods for the synthesis and analysis of concurrent processes. In: Polkowski L, Tsumoto S, Lin TY (eds) Rough set methods and applications. New developments in knowledge discovery in information systems. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 379–490
Swiniarski RW (1998) RoughFuzzyLab: A system for data mining and rough and fuzzy sets based classification. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2.Physica, Heidelberg, pp 591–593
Swiniarski RW, Skowron A (2004) Independent component analysis, principal component analysis and rough sets in face recognition. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3100. Springer, Berlin, pp 392–404
Sycara EP (1987) Resolving adversial conflicts: An approach to integrating case-based and analytic methods. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Toussaint GT (1980) The relative neighborhood graph of a finite planar set. Pattern Recognit 12(4):261–268
Tsumoto S (1998) PRIMEROSE. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 594–597
UCI Repository http://www.ics.uci.edu/mlearn/databases/ University of California, Irvine, Accessed 6 Sept 2008
Uhlmann J (1991) Satisfying general proximity/similarity queries with metric trees.Inf Process Lett 40:175–179
Veloso M (1994) Planning and learning by analogical reasoning. Springer, Berlin
Vitoria A (2005) A framework for reasoning with rough sets. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol IV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3100. Springer, Berlin, pp 178–276
Ward J (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–244
Watson I, Marir F (1994) Case-based reasoning: A review http://www.ai-cbr.org/classroom/cbr-review.html Accessed 6 Sept 2008; see also: Watson I (1994). Knowl Eng Rev 9(4):327–354
White DA, Jain R (1996) Similarity indexing with the SS-tree. In: Proceedings of the twelve international conference on data engineering, New Orleans LA, pp 516–523
Wilson DR, Martinez TR (1997) Improved heterogeneous distance functions. J Artif Intell Res 6:1–34
Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, London
Wojdyłło P (2004) WaRS: A method for signal classification. In: Pal SK, Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough – neural computing. Techniques for computing with words. Springer, Berlin, pp 649–688
Wojna A (2005) Analogy‐based reasoning in classifier construction. In: Transactions on rough sets, vol IV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3700. Springer, Berlin, pp 277–374
Wróblewski J (1998) Covering with reducts – a fast algorithm for rule generation.In: Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 1424. Springer, Berlin, pp 402–407
Wróblewski J (2004) Adaptive aspects of combining approximation spaces. In: Pal SK, Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough – neural computing. Techniques for computing with words.Springer, Berlin, pp 139–156
Yao YY (2000) Granular computing: Basic issues and possible solutions. In: Proceedings of the 5th Joint Conference on Information Sciences I. Assoc Intell Machinery, Atlantic NJ, pp 186–189
Yao YY (2005) Perspectives of granular computing. In: Proceedings of IEEE 2005 Conference on Granular Computing GrC05, Beijing, China. IEEE Press, New York, pp 85–90
Zadeh LA (1979) Fuzzy sets and information granularity. In: Gupta M, Ragade R, Yaeger RR (eds) Advances in fuzzy set theory and applications. North‐Holland, Amsterdam, pp 3–18
Zeeman EC (1965) The topology of the brain and the visual perception. In: Fort MK (ed) Topology of 3‑manifolds and selected topics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 240–256
Ziarko W (1998) KDD-R: Rough set-based data mining system. In: Polkowski L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 598–601
Books and Reviews
Avis D, Bhattacharya BK (1983) Algorithms for computing d‑dimensional Voronoi diagrams and their duals. In: Preparata FP (ed) Advances in computing research: Computational geometry. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 159–180
Bocheński JM (1954) Die Zeitgenössischen Denkmethoden. A. Francke, Bern
Dasarathy BV (ed) (1991) Nearest neighbor (NN) norms: NN Pattern classification techniques. IEEE Computer Society, Washington
Friedman J (1994) Flexible metric nearest‐neighbor classification. Technical Report, Stanford University
Polkowski L (2002) Rough sets. Mathematical foundations.Physica, Heidelberg
Russell SJ, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence. A modern approach, 2nd edn.Prentice Hall Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River
Toussaint GT, Bhattacharya BV, Poulsen RS (1984) Application of voronoi diagrams to nonparametric decision rules. In: Proceedings of Computer Science and Statistics: The Sixteenth Symposium on the Interface. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 97–108
Watson I (1997) Applying case-based reasoning. Techniques for enterprise systems.Morgan Kaufmann, Elsevier, Amsterdam
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag
About this entry
Cite this entry
Polkowski, L. (2012). Data-Mining and Knowledge Discovery: Case-Based Reasoning, Nearest Neighbor and Rough Sets. In: Meyers, R. (eds) Computational Complexity. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1800-9_50
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1800-9_50
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1799-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1800-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceReference Module Computer Science and Engineering