Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Attribute Reduction Algorithms Determined by Invariants for Decision Tables

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rough set theory is a field of research pertaining to human-inspired computation. Attribute reduction is an important component of rough set theory and has been extensively studied. The reduction invariant is a key concept for an attribute reduction and finding new reduction invariants is an important task of attribute reduction. This paper explores the effect of different reduction invariants on the same attribute reduction types. The aim of this paper was to elucidate the mathematical structure of attribute reduction, thereby facilitating the use of new reduction invariants and their corresponding algorithms for positive region reduction and relative reduction in decision tables. New reduction invariants provide the opportunity to design significantly improved reduction algorithms. Two main reduction algorithms are used to identify reducts. One is a heuristic algorithm and the other is a discernibility matrix-based algorithm. Mathematically, the latter is far more complicated than the former. Although the discernibility matrix-based algorithm has a high time complexity, it remains the only approach to identify all reducts. This paper uses the discernibility matrix-based methods to study the attribute reduction problem. We focus on the mathematical structures of attribute reduction with respect to invariants and provide different algorithms to solve the same reduction problem. This research on reduction invariants provides a new perspective for attribute reduction. Positive region reduction and relative reduction are two frequently used types of reduction for decision tables. We provide three invariants for positive region reduction. Based on these invariants, we derive the corresponding discernibility matrix-based reduction algorithms that yield the same reduction results. For relative reduction, we also obtain similar results regarding invariants and algorithms. The shortcoming of this work is that we do not offer a simpler algorithm than the heuristic algorithm. However, the presented mathematical framework unifies previous work on the subject and is conducive to simplifying the associated decision tables for identifying all of the reducts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pawlak Z. Rough sets. Int J Comput Inform Sci. 1982;11(5):341–56.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Pawlak Z. Rough sets. Kluwer, Netherlands, Boston: Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data; 1991.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Fang Y, Min F. Cost-sensitive approximate attribute reduction with three-way decisions. Int J Approximate Reasoning. 2019;104:148–65.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Gao C, Zhi H, Zhou J, Jia J, Wong W. Granular maximum decision entropybased monotonic uncertainty measure for attribute reduction. Int J Approximate Reasoning. 2019;104:9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mollestad T, Skowron A. A rough set framework for data mining of prepositional default rules, in: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Springer. 1996;448–457.

  6. Nguyen HS. Approximate Boolean Reasoning: Foundations and Applications in Data Mining. Transactions on Rough Sets V LNCS. 2006;4100:334–506.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Radaideh QA, Al-Qudah GY. Application of rough set-based feature selection for arabic sentiment analysis. Cogn Comput. 2017;9:436–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stawicki S, Slezak D, Janusz A, Widz S. Decision bireducts and decision reducts - a comparison. Int J Approximate Reasoning. 2017;84:75–109.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Wu W, Leung Y. Theory and applications of granular labelled partitions in multi-scale decision tables. Inf Sci. 2011;181:3878–97.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Skowron A, Rauszer C. The discernibility matrices and functions in information systems, in: Intelligent Decision Support, Springer. 1992:331–362.

  11. Du W, Hu B. Attribute reduction in ordered decision tables via evidence theory. Inf Sci. 2016;364–365:91–110.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoa NS, Son NH. Some efficient algorithms for rough set methods, in: Proceedings of the Conference of Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, Citeseer. 1996:1451–1456.

  13. Hu X, Cercone N. Learning in relational databases: a rough set approach. Comput Intell. 1995;11(2):323–38.

  14. Nguyen HS, Skowron A. Boolean reasoning for feature extraction problems, in: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Springer. 1997:117–126.

  15. Zhang W, Qiu G, Wu W. A general approach to attribute reduction in rough set theory. Inf Sci. 2007;50(2):188–97.

  16. Min F, Zhu W. Attribute reduction of data with error ranges and test costs. Inf Sci. 2012;211:48–67.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Slezak D. Approximate entropy reducts. Fund Inform. 2002;53(3–4):365–90.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Slezak D. Normalized decision functions and measures for inconsistent decision tables analysis. Fund Inform. 2000;44(3):291–319.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen R, Lin T. Supporting rough set theory in very large databases using oracle rdbms, in: Fuzzy Systems Symposium, 1996. Soft Comp Int Sys Info Proc, Proceedings of the 1996 Asian, IEEE. 1996:332–337.

  20. Starzyk J, Nelson DE, Sturtz K. Reduct generation in information systems. Bulletin of International Rough Set Society. 1999;3(1/2):19–22.

  21. Stepaniuk J. Approximation spaces, reducts and representatives, in: Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery 2, Springer. 1998;109–126.

  22. Walczak B, Massart D. Rough sets theory. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 1999;47(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Xu L, Ding S, Xu X, Zhang N. Self-adaptive extreme learning machine optimized by rough set theory and affinity propagation clustering. Cogn Comput. 2016;8:720–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yao Y. Three-way decisions and cognitive computing. Cogn Comput. 2016;8:543–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang W, Mi J, Wu W. Approaches to knowledge reductions in inconsistent systems. Int J Intell Syst. 2003;18(9):989–1000.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Meng Z, Shi Z. A fast approach to attribute reduction in incomplete decision systems with tolerance relation-based rough sets. Inf Sci. 2009;179:2774–93.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Yao Y, Zhang X. Class-specific attribute reducts in rough set theory. Inf Sci. 2017;418–419:601–18.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Henzel J, Janusz A, Sikora M, Slezak D. On positive-correlation-promoting reducts, The Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Rough sets (IJCRS2020), LNCS. 2020;12179:213–221.

  29. Kryszkiewicz M. Rough set approach to incomplete information systems. Inf Sci. 1998;112:39–49.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu G, Hua Z, Zou J. A unified reduction algorithm based on invariant matrices for decision tables. Knowl-Based Syst. 2016;109:84–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu G, Feng Y, Yang J. A common attribute reduction form for information systems. Knowl-Based Syst. 2020;193:105466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu G, Hua Z, Chen Z. A general reduction algorithm for relation decision systems and its applications. Knowl-Based Syst. 2017;119:87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the an onymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions which greatly improved the exposition of the paper.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61972052) and the Discipline Team support Program of Beijing Language and Culture University (No. GF201905).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Science, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China

    Guilong Liu

Authors
  1. Guilong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guilong Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, G. Attribute Reduction Algorithms Determined by Invariants for Decision Tables. Cogn Comput 14, 1818–1825 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09887-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09887-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation