Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 24, pp 13247–13261 | Cite as

Local multigranulation decision-theoretic rough set in ordered information systems

  • Jia Zhang
  • Xiaoyan ZhangEmail author
  • Weihua Xu
  • Yanxue Wu
Methodologies and Application
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

As a generalized extension of Pawlak’s rough set model, the multigranulation decision-theoretic rough set model in ordered information systems utilizes the basic set assignment function to construct probability measure spaces through dominance relations. It is an effective tool to deal with uncertain problems and widely used in practical decision problems. However, when the scale of dataset is large, it takes a lot of time to characterize the approximations of the target concept, as well as complicated calculation processes. In this paper, we develop a novel model called local multigranulation decision-theoretic rough set in an ordered information system to overcome the above-mentioned limitation. Firstly, to reduce the computing time of the information granule independent of the target concept, we only use the characterization of the elements in the target concept to approximate this target concept. Moreover, the corresponding local multigranulation decision-theoretic rough set in an ordered information system is addressed according to the established local model, and the comparisons are made between the proposed local algorithm and the algorithm of original multigranulation decision-theoretic rough set in ordered information systems. Finally, the validity of the local approximation operators is verified through the experimental evaluation using six datasets coming from the University of California-Irvine (UCI) repository.

Keywords

Multigranulation decision-theoric rough set Probabilistic rough set Local rough set Ordered information systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our thanks to the Editor-in-Chief, handling associate editor and anonymous referees for his/her valuable comments and constructive suggestions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61772002).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bansal S (2018) Nature-inspired-based multi-objective hybrid algorithms to find near-OGRs for optical WDM systems and their comparison. In: Handbook of research on biomimicry in information retrieval and knowledge management. IGI Global, pp 175–211Google Scholar
  2. Bansal S, Gupta N, Singh AK (2017) NatureCinspired metaheuristic algorithms to find nearCOGR sequences for WDM channel allocation and their performance comparison. Open Math 15(1):520–547MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bansal S, Singh AK, Gupta N (2017) Optimal golomb ruler sequences generation for optical WDM systems: a novel parallel hybrid multi-objective bat algorithm. J Inst Eng 98(1):43–64Google Scholar
  4. Bansal S, Sharma K (2018) Nature-inspired-based modified multi-objective BB-BC algorithm to find near-OGRs for optical WDM systems and its performance comparison. In: Handbook of research on biomimicry in information retrieval and knowledge management. IGI Global, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  5. Chen J, Zhang YP, Zhao S (2016) Multi-granular mining for boundary regions in three-way decision theory. Knowl Based Syst 91:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Du WS, Hu BQ (2016) Dominance-based rough set approach to incomplete ordered information systems. Inf Sci 346–347:106–129MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du WS, Hu BQ (2017) Dominance-based rough fuzzy set approach and its application to rule induction. Eur J Oper Res 261(2):690–703MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duntsh I, Gediga G (1998) Uncertainty measures of rough set prediction. Artif Intell 106(1):109–137MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang Y, Min F (2019) Cost-sensitive approximate attribute reduction with three-way decisions. Int J Approx Reason 104:148–165MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2002) Rough approximation by dominance relations. Int J Intell Syst 17(2):153–171zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greco S, Slwìski R, Yao YY (2007) Bayesian decision theory for dominance-based rough set approach. Rough Sets Knowl Technol 4481:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu XH, Cercone N (1995) Learning in relational databases: a rough set approach. Comput Intell 11(2):323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeon G, Kim D, Jeong J (2016) Rough sets attributes reduction based expert system in interlaced video sequences. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 52(4):1348–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li SY, Li TR (2015) Incremental update of approximations in dominance-based rough sets approach under the variation of attribute values. Inf Sci 294:348–361MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li WT, Xu WH (2015) Multigranulation decision-theoretic rough set in ordered information system. Fundam Inform 139(1):67–89MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li HX, Zhang LB, Huang B, Zhou XZ (2016) Sequential three-way decision and granulation for cost-sensitive face recognition. Knowl Based Syst 91:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li WT, Pedrycz W, Xue XP, Xu WH, Fan BJ (2018) Distance-based double-quantitative rough fuzzy sets with logic operations. Int J Approx Reason 101:206–233MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li WT, Pedrycz W, Xue XP et al (2018) Fuzziness and incremental information of disjoint regions in double-quantitative decision-theoretic rough set model. Int J Mach Learn Cybern.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-018-0893-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liang DC, Pedrycz W, Liu D, Hu P (2015) Three-way decisions based on decision-theoretic rough sets under linguistic assessment with the aid of group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 29:256–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liang DC, Liu D, Kobina A (2016) Three-way group decisions with decision-theoretic rough sets. Inf Sci 345(1):46–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li W, Miao DQ, Wang WL et al (2010) Hierarchical rough decision theoretic framework for text classification. In: IEEE international conference on cognitive informatics, pp 484–489Google Scholar
  22. Liu D, Yao YY, Li TR (2011) Three-way investment decisions with decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Comput Intell Syst 4(1):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu D, Li TR, Liang DC (2012) Three-way government decision analysis with decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 20(supp01):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma WM, Sun BZ (2012) Probabilistic rough set over two universes and rough entropy. Int J Approx Reason 539(4):608–619MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pawlak Z (1982) Rough set. Int J Comput Inf Sci 11(5):341–356zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pawlak Z (1992) Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Alphen ann den RijnzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Pawlak Z, Wong SKM, Ziarko W (1988) Rough sets: probabilistic versus deterministic approach. Int J Man Mach Stud 29(1):81–95zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pedrycz W (2013) Granular computing: analysis and design of intelligent systems. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qian YH, Liang JY (2006) Rough set method based on multi-Granulations. IEEE Int Conf Cognit Inform 1:297–304Google Scholar
  30. Qian YH, Zhang H, Sang YL et al (2014) Multigranulation decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Approx Reason 55(1):225–237MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Qian YH, Li SY, Liang JY et al (2014) Pessimistic rough set based decisions: a multigranulation fusion strategy. Inf Sci 264:196–210MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Qian YH, Liang XY, Lin GP et al (2017) Local multigranulation decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Approx Reason 82:119–137MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Qian J, Liu CH, Yue XD (2019) Multigranulation sequential three-way decisions based on multiple thresholds. Int J Approx Reason 105:396–416MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shao MW, Zhang WX (2005) Dominance relation and rules in an incomplete ordered information system. Int J Intell Syst 20(1):13–27zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun BZ, Ma WM, Li BJ, Li XN (2016) Three-way decisions approach to multiple attribute group decision making with linguistic information-based decision-theoretic rough fuzzy set. Int J Approx Reason 93:424–442MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Susmaga R (2014) Reducts and constructs in classic and dominance-based rough sets approach. Inf Sci 271:45–64MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu WH (2013) Ordered information systems and rough sets theory. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  38. Xu WH, Li WT (2016) Granular computing approach to two-way learning based on formal concept analysis in fuzzy datasets. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(2):366–379MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu WH, Yu JH (2017) A novel approach to information fusion in multi-source datasets: a granular computing viewpoint. Inf Sci 378:410–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu WH, Zhang XY, Zhong JM et al (2010) Attribute reduction in ordered information systems based on evidence theory. Knowl Inf Syst 25(1):169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yao YY (1998) Generalized rough set models. Rough Sets Knowl Discov 1:286–318MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Yao YY (2007) Decision-theoretic rough set models. Rough Sets Knowl Technol 4481:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yao YY (2008) Probabilistic rough set approximation. Int J Approx Reason 49(2):255–271zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yao YY (2009) Three-way decision: An interpretation of rules in rough set theory. Rough Sets Knowl Technol 5589:642–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yao YY, Wong SKM (1992) A decision theoretic framework for approximating concepts. Int J Man Mach Stud 37(6):793–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yao YY, Zhou B (2010) Naive Bayesian rough sets. Rough Sets Knowl Technol 6401:719–726Google Scholar
  47. Yu JH, Xu WH (2017) Incremental knowledge discovering in interval-valued decision information system with the dynamic data. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8(1):849–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yu H, Liu ZG, Wang GY (2014) An automatic method to determine the number of clusters using decision-theoretic rough set. Int J Approx Reason 55(1):101–115MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu JH, Zhang B, Chen MH, Xu WH (2018) Double-quantitative decision-theoretic approach to multigranulation approximate space. Int J Approx Reason 98:236–258MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang XY, Miao DQ (2017) Three-way attribute reducts. Int J Approx Reason 88:401–434MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang HY, Leung Y, Zhou L (2013) Variable-precision-dominance-based rough set approach to interval-valued information systems. Inf Sci 244:75–91MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ziarko W (1993) Variable precision rough set model. J Comput Syst Sci 46(1):39–59MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jia Zhang
    • 1
  • Xiaoyan Zhang
    • 2
    Email author
  • Weihua Xu
    • 2
  • Yanxue Wu
    • 3
  1. 1.School of SciencesChongqing University of TechnologyChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Mathematics and StatisticsSouthwest UniversityChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceSouthwest Petroleum UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations