Similar Vague Concepts Selection Using Their Euclidean Distance at Different Granulation
- 52 Downloads
- 1 Citations
Abstract
Recently, the calculus of fuzzy concept lattice is extensively studied with interval-valued and bipolar fuzzy set for the precise representation of vagueness in cognitive concept learning. In this process, selecting some of the semantic similar (or interesting) vague concept at user required granulation is addressed as one of the major issues. To conquer this problem, current paper aims at analyzing the cognitive concept learning based on the properties of vague graph, concept lattice and granular computing within (m × m) computational time. To mimic with the cognitive computing and its contextual data sets, two methods are proposed for the precise representation of human cognition based on the evidence to accept or reject the attributes using the calculus of vague set. The hierarchical order visualization among the extracted cognitive vague concept is shown through calculus of concept lattice for adequate description of their textual syntax analysis. In addition, another method is proposed to improve the quality of sentic (or cognitive) reasoning using semantics relationship among the discovered vague concepts at user defined information granulation. The obtained results from the proposed methods approve that the vague concept lattice and its reduction at user defined granulation provides an alternative way to analyze the cognitive contextual data set with an improved description of vague attributes “tall” and “young.” Euclidean distance provides a way to select some of the interesting vague concepts based on their semantic similarity. The obtained results from both of the proposed methods correspond to each other which validate the results. This paper establishes that cognitive contextual data set can be processed through the calculus of vague concept lattice, and granular computing. This gives an alternative and compact visualization of discovered patterns from the cognitive data set when compared to its numerical representation. In this way, the proposed method provides an adequate analysis for cognitive concept learning when compared to any of the available approaches. In addition, the proposed method provides various ways to select some of the interesting cognitive vague concepts at user defined granulation for their Euclidean distance within (m × m) computational time. However, the proposed method is unable to measure the fluctuation in uncertainty for the cognitive context at given phase of time. In the future, the author will focus on conquering this research problem with an illustrative example.
Keywords
Cognitive learning Concept lattice Formal concept analysis Formal fuzzy concept Interesting pattern Vague graphNotes
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the anonymous reviewers and Editor for their compliments to improve the quality of this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals.
References
- 1.Abdullah A, Hussain A. A cognitively inspired approach to two–way cluster extraction from one–way clustered data. Cogn Comput 2015;7(1):161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Agarwal B, Poria S, Mittal N, Gelbukh A, Hussain A. Concept–level sentiment analysis with dependency–based semantic parsing: a novel approach. Cogn Comput 2016;7(4):487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Akram M, Feng F, Sarwar S, Jun YB. Certain type of vague graphs. UPB Bull Sci Series 2014;76 (1):143–154.Google Scholar
- 4.Alcalde C, Burusco A, Fuentez–Gonzales R. The use of two relations in L–fuzzy contexts. Inf Sci 2015; 301:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Antoni L, Krajči S, Krìdlo O, Macek B, Piskoví L. On heterogeneous formal contexts. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2014;234:22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Ayesh A, Blewitt W. Models for computational emotions from psychological theories using Type-II fuzzy logic. Cogn Comput 2015;7(3):309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bělohlívek R. Concept lattices and order in fuzzy logic. Ann Pure Appl Logic 2004;128(1–3):277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bělohlívek R, Vychodil V. What is fuzzy concept lattice. In: Proceedings of CLA Olomuc; 2005 Czech Republic. p. 34–45.Google Scholar
- 9.Berry A, Sigayret A. Representing concept lattice by a graph. Discret Appl Math 2004;144(1–2):27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Bloch I. Geometry of spatial vague sets based on vague numbers and mathematical morphology. In: Fuzzy logic and applications, lecture notes in computer science; 2009, vol. 5571, p. 237–245.Google Scholar
- 11.Borzooei RA, Rashmanlou H. 2016. New concepts of vague graphs. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-015-0475-x.
- 12.Burusco A, Fuentes–Gonzalez R. The study of the L-fuzzy concept lattice. Matheware Soft Comput 1994; 1(3):209–218.Google Scholar
- 13.Burusco A, Fuentes–Gonzales R. The study on interval–valued contexts. Fuzzy Set Syst 2001;121(3):439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Cambria E, Fu J, Bisio F, Poria S. AffectiveSpace 2: enabling affective intuition for concept-level sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of 29th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence; 2015, p. 508–514.Google Scholar
- 15.Cambria E, Hussain A. Sentic computing. Cogn Comput 2016;7:183–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Chen SM. Measures of similarity between vague sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1995;74:217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Chen SM. Similarity measure between vague sets and between elements. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 1997; 27:153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Chunsheng C, Zhenchun Z, Feng L, Ying Q. Application of vague set in recommender systems. In: Proceedings of 2nd International conference on logistics, informatics and service science (LISS); 2012, p. 1353–1359 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32054-5-192.
- 19.Djouadi Y. Extended Galois derivation operators for information retrieval based on fuzzy formal concept lattice. SUM 2011. In: Benferhal S. and Goant J., editors. LNAI: Springer–Verlag; 2011. p. 346–358.Google Scholar
- 20.Djouadi Y, Prade H. Interval–valued fuzzy formal concept analysis. ISMIS 2009. In: Rauch et al., editors. LNAI: Springer–Verlag; 2009. p. 592–601.Google Scholar
- 21.Dubois D, Prade H. Formal concept analysis from the standpoint of possibility theory. Proceedings of ICFCA 2015. LNAI; 2015. p. 21–38.Google Scholar
- 22.Ganter B, Wille R. Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundation. Berlin: Springer–Verlag; 1999, p. 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Gau WL, Buehrer DJ. Vague sets. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1993;23(2):610–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ghosh P, Kundu K, Sarkar D. Fuzzy graph representation of a fuzzy concept lattice. Fuzzy Set Syst. 2010;161(12):1669–1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Hu BQ. Three-way decision spaces based on partially ordered sets and three–way decisions based on hesitant fuzzy sets. Knowled–Based Syst 2016;91:16–31.Google Scholar
- 26.Hussain A, Tao D, Wu J, Zhao D. Computational intelligence for changing environments. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 2015;10(4):10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kang XP, Li DY, Wang SG, Qu KS. Formal concept analysis based on fuzzy granularity base for different granulations. Fuzzy Set Syst 2012;203:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Khan S, Gani A, Wahab AW Ab, Singh PK. 2017. Feature selection of Denial-of-Service attacks using entropy and granular computing. Arab J Sci Eng, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2634-8.
- 29.ŁadyŻyńskia P, Grzegorzewski P. Vague preferences in recommender systems. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(24):9402–9411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Li J, Mei C, Lv Y. Incomplete decision contexts: approximate concept construction. Rule acquisition and knowledge reduction. Int J Approx Reason. 2013;54(1):149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Li J, Mei CL, Xu WH, Qian YH. Concept learning via granular computing: a cognitive viewpoint. Inform Sci. 2015;298:447– 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Li J, Huang C, Qi J, Qian Y, Liu W. Three-way cognitive concept learning via multi-granularity. Inf Sci 2017;378:244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Li J, Ren Y, Mei C, Qian Y, Yang X. A comparative study of multigranulation rough sets and concept lattices via rule acquisition. Knowl-Based Syst 2016;91:152–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Li C, Li J, He M. Concept lattice compression in incomplete contexts based on K-medoids clustering. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. 2016;7(4):539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Li Y, Olson D L, Qin Z. Similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy (vague) sets: a comparative analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2007;28:278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Liu H, Li Q, Zhou X. L–information systems and complete L–lattices. Neural Comput Applic. 2012;23 (3):1139–1147.Google Scholar
- 37.Liu P., Tang G. Multi–criteria group decision–making based on interval neutrosophic uncertain linguistic variables and choquet integral. Cogn Comput 2016;8(6):1036–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Meng F, Wang C, Chen X. Linguistic interval hesitant fuzzy sets and their application in decision making. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(1):52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Oneto L, Bisio F, Cambria E, Anguita D. Semi–supervised learning for affective common–sense reasoning. Cogn Comput 2017;9(1):18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Pandey LK, Ojha KK, Singh PK, Singh CS, Dwivedi S, Bergey EA. Diatoms image database of India (DIDI): a research tool. Environ Technol Innov 2016;5:148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Pollandt S. Fuzzy Begriffe. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer–Verlag; 1997, p. 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Pedrycz W. Granular computing: analysis and design of intelligent systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Francis Taylor; 2013, p. 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Pedrycz W. Knowledge management and semantic modeling: a role of information granularity. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 2013;23(1):5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Qin X, Liu Y, Xu Y. Vague congruences and quotient lattice implication algebras. Sci World J 2014; Article ID 197403:7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/197403.Google Scholar
- 45.Ramakrishna N. Vague graphs. International Journal of Computational Cognition 2009;7:51–58.Google Scholar
- 46.Rosenfeld A. Fuzzy graphs. Fuzzy sets and their applications. In: Zadeh L A, Fu K S, and Shimura M, editors. New York: Academic Press; 1975. p. 77–95.Google Scholar
- 47.Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C. Bipolar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Inform Sci. 2014;288: 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C. A note on computing crisp order context of a fuzzy formal context for knowledge reduction. J Inf Process Syst 2015;11(2):184–204.Google Scholar
- 49.Singh PK, Gani A. Fuzzy concept lattice reduction using Shannon entropy and Huffman coding. J Appl Non-Classical Logics 2015;25(2):101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C, Li J. Knowledge representation using interval–valued fuzzy concept lattice. Soft Comput 2016;20(4):1485–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Singh PK, Aswani Kumar C, Gani A. A comprehensive survey on formal concept analysis and its research trends. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci. 2016;26(2):495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Singh PK. Processing linked formal fuzzy context using non-commutative composition. Inst Integr Omics Appl Biotechnol (IIOAB) J 2016;7(5):21–32.Google Scholar
- 53.Singh PK, Aswani Kumar Ch. Concept lattice reduction using different subset of attributes as information granules. Granul Comput 2017;2(3):159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Singh PK. Three–way fuzzy concept lattice representation using neutrosophic set. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 2017;8(1):69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Singh PK. Complex vague set based concept lattice. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 2017;96:145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Singh PK. 2017. Concept learning using vague concept lattice. Neural Process Lett; 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-017-9699-y.
- 57.Singh PK. m–polar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2018;67:52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 58.Skowron A. Rough sets and vague concepts. Fundam Inform. 2005;64(2005):417–431.Google Scholar
- 59.Sun Z, Zao Y, Cao D, Hao H. Hierarchical multilabel classification with optimal path predictions. Neural Process Lett 2017;45(1):263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 60.Tran HN, Cambria E, Hussain A. Towards GPU–based common-sense reasoning: using fast subgraph matching. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(6):1074–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Wille R. Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. Ordered sets. In: Rival I., editors. NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series; 1982. p. 445–470.Google Scholar
- 62.Yang HL, Li SG, Wang WH, Lu Y. Notes on “Bipolar fuzzy graphs”. Inform Sci. 2013;242:113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 63.Yao YY. Concept lattices in rough set theory. Proceedings of 2004 Annual meeting of the North American fuzzy information processing society. Washington D.C.: IEEE Computer Society; 2004. p. 796–801.Google Scholar
- 64.Yao YY. Interval sets and three-way concept analysis in incomplete contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 2017; 8(1):3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Zeng W, Zhao Y, Gu Y. Similarity measure for vague sets based on implication functions. Knowl–Based Syst 2016;94:124–131.Google Scholar
- 66.Zhang Q, Zeng G, Xiao C, Yue Y. A rule conflict resolution method based on Vague set. Soft Comput. 2014;18:549–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 67.Zhang Q, Wanga J, Wanga G, Hong Y. The approximation set of a vague set in rough approximation space. Inform Sci. 2015;300(2015):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 68.Zhang QS, Jiang SY. A note on information entropy measures for vague sets and its applications. Inform Sci. 2008;178:4184–4191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 69.Zhang WR, Zhang L. YinYang bipolar logic and bipolar fuzzy logic. Inform Sci. 2004;165(3–4):265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar