Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 169–184 | Cite as

Attribute reduction in ordered information systems based on evidence theory

  • Wei-hua Xu
  • Xiao-yan Zhang
  • Jian-min Zhong
  • Wen-xiu Zhang
Regular Paper


Attribute reduction is one of the most important problems in rough set theory. However, in real-world lots of information systems are based on dominance relation in stead of the classical equivalence relation because of various factors. The ordering properties of attributes play a crucial role in those systems. To acquire brief decision rules from the systems, attribute reductions are needed. This paper deals with attribute reduction in ordered information systems based on evidence theory. The concepts of plausibility and belief consistent sets as well as plausibility and belief reducts in ordered information systems are introduced. It is proved that a plausibility consistent set must be a consistent set and an attribute set is a belief reduct if and only if it is a classical reduction in ordered information system.


Attribute reduction Consistent set Evidence theory Rough set Ordered information system 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beynon M (2001) Reducts with in the variable precision rough set model: a further investigation. Eur J Oper Res 134: 592–605zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dembczynski K, Pindur R, Susmaga R (2003) Generation of exhaustive set of rules within Dominance-based rough set approach. Electronic Notes Theory Computer Science 82(4): 96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dembczynski K, Pindur R, Susmaga R (2003) Dominance-based rough set classifier without induction of decision rules. Electronic Notes Theory Computer Science 82(4): 84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38: 325–339zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (1999) Rough approximation of a preference relation by dominance relation. ICS Research Report 16(96, Warsaw University of Technology; 1996 and in Eur J Oper Res 117): 63–83Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (1998) A new rough set approach to multicriteria and multiattribute classification. In: Polkowsik L, Skowron A (eds) Rough sets and current trends in computing (RSCTC’98). Lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 1424. Springer, Berlin, pp 60–67Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (1999) A new rough sets approach to evaluation of bankruptcy risk. In: Zopounidis X (eds) Operational tools in the management of financial risks. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 121–136Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2001) Rough set theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129: 11–47CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2002) Rough sets methodology for sorting problems in presence of multiple attributes and criteria. Eur J Oper Res 138: 247–259zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2007) Dominance-based Rough Set approach as a proper way of handling graduality in rough set theory. Transactions on Rough Sets VII. Lecture notes in computer science, 4400:36–52Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo D, Xiong H, Atluri V, Adam NR (2009) Object discovery in high-resolution remote sensing images: a semantic perspective. Knowl Inform Syst 19(5): 211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Intan R, Mukaidono M (2004) Fuzzy conditional probability relations and their applications in fuzzy information systems. Knowl Inform Syst 6: 345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kryszkiewicz M (1998) Rough set approach to incomplete information system. Inform Sci 112: 39–49zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kryszkiewicz M (2001) Comparative studies of alternative type of knowledge reduction in inconsistent systems. Int J Intell Syst 16: 105–120zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leuang Y, Wu WZ, Zhang WX (2006) Knowledge acquisition in incomplete information systems: a rough set approach. Eur J Oper Res 168(1): 164–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inform Sci 11(5): 341–356zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qiu L, Li YJ, Wu XT (2008) Protecting business intelligence and customer privacy while outsourcing data mining tasks. Knowl Inform Syst 17(10): 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Resconi G, Kovalerchuk B (2009) Agents model of uncertainty. Knowl Inform Syst 18(2): 213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sai Y, Yao YY, Zhong N (2001) Data analysis and mining in ordered information tables. In: Proceeding of the 2001 IEEE international conference on data mining. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 497–504Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shao MW, Zhang WX (2005) Dominance relation and relus in an incomplete ordered information system. Int J Intell Syst 20: 13–27zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skowron A, Graymala-Busse J (1994) From rough set theory to evidence theory. In: Yager RR, Fedrizzi M, Kacprzyk J (eds) Advance in the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. Wiley, New York, pp 193–236Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slezak D (1998) Searching for dynamic reducts in inconsistent decision tables. In: Proceedings of IPMU’ 98(Paris, France 2): 1362–1369Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Susmaga R, Slowinski R, Greco S, Matarazzo B (2000) Generation of reducts and rules in multi-attribute and multi-criteria classification. Control Cybernet 4: 969–988Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Starzyk JA, Nelson DE, Sturtz K (2000) A mathematical foundation for improved reduct generation in information systems. Knowl Inform Syst 2: 131–146zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang KJ, Zhang JY, Shen FS, Shi LF (2008) Adaptive learning of dynamic Bayesian networks with changing structures by detecting geometric structures of time series. Knowl Inform Syst 17(10): 121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu QX, Bell D, McGinnity M (2005) Multiknowledge for decisioin making. Knowl Inform Syst 7: 246–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu WZ, Leung Y, Zhang WX (2002) Connections between rough set theory and Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. Int J Gen Syst 31: 405–430zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu WZ, Zhang M, Li HZ, Mi JS (2005) Knowledge reduction in random information systems via Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. Inform Sci 174: 143–164zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu WH, Zhang WX (2007) Measuring roughness of generalized rough sets induced by a covering. Fuzzy Sets Syst 158: 2443–2455zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xu WH, Shao MW, Zhang WX (2006) Knowledge reduction based on evidence reasoning theory in ordered information systems. Lect Notes Artif Intell 4092: 535–547Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yao YY, Lingras P (1998) Interpretations of belief functions in the theory of rough sets. Inform Sci 104: 81–106zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang M, Xu LD, Zhang WX, Li HZ (2003) A rough set approach to knowledge reduction based on inclusion degree and evidence reasoning theory. Expert Syst 20: 298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang WX, Mi JS, Wu WZ (2003) Approaches to knowledge reductions in inconsistent Systems. Int J Intell Syst 21(9): 989–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang WX, Wu WZ, Liang JY, Li DY (2001) Theory and method of rough sets. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei-hua Xu
    • 1
  • Xiao-yan Zhang
    • 1
  • Jian-min Zhong
    • 1
  • Wen-xiu Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mathematics and PhysicsChongqing University of TechnologyChongqingChina
  2. 2.School of ScienceXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations