Advertisement

Complexity of Rule Sets Induced by Two Versions of the MLEM2 Rule Induction Algorithm

  • Patrick G. Clark
  • Cheng Gao
  • Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10246)

Abstract

We compare two versions of the MLEM2 rule induction algorithm in terms of complexity of rule sets, measured by the number of rules and total number of conditions. All data sets used for our experiments are incomplete, with many missing attribute values, interpreted as lost values, attribute-concept values and “do not care” conditions. In our previous research we compared the same two versions of MLEM2, called true and emulated, with regard to an error rate computed by ten-fold cross validation. Our conclusion was that the two versions of MLEM2 do not differ much, and there exists some evidence that lost values are the best. In this research our main objective is to compare both versions of MLEM2 in terms of complexity of rule sets. The smaller rule sets the better. Our conclusion is again that both versions do not differ much. Our secondary objective is to compare three interpretations of missing attribute values. From the complexity point of view, lost values are the worst.

Keywords

Incomplete data Lost values Attribute-concept values “Do not care” conditions MLEM2 rule induction algorithm Probabilistic approximations 

References

  1. 1.
    Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: Three approaches to missing attribute values–a rough set perspective. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Foundation of Data Mining, in Conjunction with the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 55–62 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: Rough set strategies to data with missing attribute values. In: Notes of the Workshop on Foundations and New Directions of Data Mining, in Conjunction with the Third International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 56–63 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grzymala-Busse, J.W., Ziarko, W.: Data mining based on rough sets. In: Wang, J. (ed.) Data Mining: Opportunities and Challenges, pp. 142–173. Idea Group Publ., Hershey (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pawlak, Z., Skowron, A.: Rough sets: some extensions. Inf. Sci. 177, 28–40 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pawlak, Z., Wong, S.K.M., Ziarko, W.: Rough sets: probabilistic versus deterministic approach. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 29, 81–95 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ślȩzak, D., Ziarko, W.: The investigation of the Bayesian rough set model. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 40, 81–91 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wong, S.K.M., Ziarko, W.: INFER–an adaptive decision support system based on the probabilistic approximate classification. In: Proceedings of the 6-th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their Applications, pp. 713–726 (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yao, Y.Y.: Probabilistic rough set approximations. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 49, 255–271 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yao, Y.Y., Wong, S.K.M.: A decision theoretic framework for approximate concepts. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 37, 793–809 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ziarko, W.: Variable precision rough set model. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 46(1), 39–59 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ziarko, W.: Probabilistic approach to rough sets. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 49, 272–284 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grzymała-Busse, J.W.: Generalized parameterized approximations. In: Yao, J.T., Ramanna, S., Wang, G., Suraj, Z. (eds.) RSKT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6954, pp. 136–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24425-4_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clark, P.G., Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: Experiments on probabilistic approximations. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing, pp. 144–149 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark, P.G., Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: Rule induction using probabilistic approximations and data with missing attribute values. In: Proceedings of the 15-th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing ASC 2012, pp. 235–242 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clark, P.G., Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: A comparison of two versions of the MLEM2 rule induction algorithm extended to probabilistic approximations. In: Cornelis, C., Kryszkiewicz, M., Ślȩzak, D., Ruiz, E.M., Bello, R., Shang, L. (eds.) RSCTC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8536, pp. 109–119. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08644-6_11 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark, P.G., Gao, C., Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: A comparison of two MLEM2 rule induction algorithms applied to data with many missing attribute values. In: Proceedings of DBKDA 2016 International Conference on Advances in Databases, Knowledge, and Data Applications, pp. 60–65 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: Data with missing attribute values: generalization of indiscernibility relation and rule induction. Trans. Rough Sets 1, 78–95 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grzymala-Busse, J.W., Rzasa, W.: Local and global approximations for incomplete data. In: Greco, S., Hata, Y., Hirano, S., Inuiguchi, M., Miyamoto, S., Nguyen, H.S., Słowiński, R. (eds.) RSCTC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4259, pp. 244–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11908029_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: A new version of the rule induction system LERS. Fundamenta Informaticae 31, 27–39 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grzymala-Busse, J.W.: MLEM2: a new algorithm for rule induction from imperfect data. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, pp. 243–250 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick G. Clark
    • 1
  • Cheng Gao
    • 1
  • Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Expert Systems and Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of Information Technology and ManagementRzeszowPoland

Personalised recommendations