Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 804–818 | Cite as

Knowledge acquisition and decision making based on Bayes risk minimization method

  • Mingliang SuoEmail author
  • Zhiping Zhang
  • Ying Chen
  • Ruoming An
  • Shunli LiEmail author
Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

There are two central parts in multiple attribute decision making (MADM), which are weight assignment and attribute selection. However, attribute selection is usually ignored in the existing researches, which will result in the difficulty of knowledge acquisition and the error of decision making. In addition, with respect to the data set with labels, the existing methods of weight assignment usually neglect or do not take full advantage of the supervisory function of labels, which may also lead to some decision making mistakes. To make up for these deficiencies, this paper proposes a method for knowledge acquisition and decision making based on Bayes risk minimization. In this method, a novel Bayes risk model based on neighborhood and Gaussian kernel is raised, and a heuristic forward greedy algorithm is designed for attribute selection. Finally, a number of experiments, including the comparison experiments on University of California Irvine (UCI) data and the effectiveness evaluation of fighter, are carried out to illustrate the superiority and applicability of the proposed method.

Keywords

Multiple attribute decision making Bayes risk minimization Weight assignment Attribute selection Effectiveness evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all anonymous reviewers for their guidance and comments to this paper. This study is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. HIT.KLOF.2017.074).

References

  1. 1.
    Amaldi E, Kann V (1998) On the approximability of minimizing nonzero variables or unsatisfied relations in linear systems. Theor Comput Sci 209(1-2):237–260MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bongers A, Torres JL (2014) Technological change in US jet fighter aircraft. Res Policy 43(9):1570–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandrashekar G, Sahin F (2014) A survey on feature selection methods. Comput Electr Eng 40(1):16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen YW, Lin CJ (2005) Combining svms with various feature selection strategies. Studies in Fuzziness & Soft Computing 207:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified topsis with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27(10):963–973CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L (1995) Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Comput Oper Res 22(7):763–770CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2001) Pattern Classification, 2nd. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fei DY, An X (2006) Synthesized index model for fighter plane air combat effectiveness assessment. Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica 27(6):1084–1087Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goel V, Kumar S, Byrne W (2002) Segmental minimum bayes-risk asr voting strategies. pp 334–344Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonzlez-Rubio J, Casacuberta F (2015) Minimum bayes AF risk subsequence combination for machine translation. Pattern Anal Applic 18(3):523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gu Q, Li Z, Han J (2011) Generalized fisher score for feature selection. In: 27th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp 266–273Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    He Y, Guo H, Jin M, Ren P (2016) A linguistic entropy weight method and its application in linguistic multi-attribute group decision making. Nonlinear Dyn 84(1):1–6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu L, Gao W, Zhao K, Zhang P, Wang F (2018) Feature selection considering two types of feature relevancy and feature interdependency. Expert Syst Appl 93:423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu Q, Yu D, Liu J, Wu C (2008) Neighborhood rough set based heterogeneous feature subset selection. Inf Sci 178(18):3577–3594MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    IT J (1986) Principle component analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jiang F, Sui Y (2015) A novel approach for discretization of continuous attributes in rough set theory. Knowl-Based Syst 73(1):324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kira K, Rendell LA (1992) A practical approach to feature selection. In: International workshop on machine learning, pp 249–256Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kononenko I (1994) Estimating attributes: Analysis and extensions of relief. In: European conference on machine learning on machine learning, pp 171–182Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumar S, Byrne W (2002) Minimum bayes-risk word alignments of bilingual texts. In: Acl-02 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 140–147Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu J, Lin Y, Lin M, Wu S, Zhang J (2017) Feature selection based on quality of information. Neurocomputing 225:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu S, Li H (2016) A Human Factors Integrated Methods for Weapon System Effectiveness Evaluation. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ma F, He J, Ma J, Xia S (2017) Evaluation of urban green transportation planning based on central point triangle whiten weight function and entropy-ahp. Transportation Research Procedia 25:3638–3648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peng H, Long F, Ding C (2005) Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 27(8):1226–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saeys Y, Inza I, Larrañaga P (2007) A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinforma 23(19):2507–2517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Song QJ, Jiang HY, Liu J (2017) Feature selection based on fda and f-score for multi-class classification. Expert Syst Appl 81:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Valkenhoef GV, Tervonen T (2016) Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models. Omega 64:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang L, Zhang H, Xu H (2008) Multi-index synthesize evaluation model based on rough set theory for air combat efficiency. Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica 29(4):880–885Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang L, Shen J, Mei X (2017) Cost sensitive multi-class fuzzy decision-theoretic rough set based fault diagnosis. In: Chinese control conference, pp 6957–6961Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang YM, Luo Y (2010) Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Math Comput Model 51(1-2):1–12MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang GL, Yang JB, Xu DL, Khoveyni M (2016) A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in madm. Omega 71:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yao Y (2004) A partition model of granular computing. In: LNCS transactions on rough sets, pp 232–253Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhu B, Zhu R, Xiong X (1993) Fighter plane effectiveness assessment. Aviation Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhu XZ, Zhu W, Fan XN (2017) Rough set methods in feature selection via submodular function. Soft Comput 21(13):3699–3711CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Reliability and Systems EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Science, Technology on ReliabilityEnvironmental Engineering LaboratoryBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of AstronauticsHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations