Incremental Learning and Evaluation of Structures of Rough Decision Tables

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3700)


Rough decision tables were introduced by Pawlak in the context of rough set theory. A rough decision table represents, a non-functional in general, relationship between two groups of properties of objects, referred to as condition and decision attributes, respectively. In practical applications, the rough decision tables are normally learned from data. In this process, for better coverage of the domain of interest, they can be structured into hierarchies. To achieve convergence of the learned hierarchy of rough decision tables to a stable final state, it is desirable to avoid total regeneration of the learned structure after new objects, not represented in the hierarchy, are encountered. This can be accomplished through an incremental learning process in which the structure of rough decision tables is updated, rather than regenerated, after new observations appeared. The introduction and the investigation of this incremental learning process within the framework of the rough set model is the main theme of the article. The article is also concerned with evaluation of learned decision tables and their structures by introducing the absolute gain function to measure the quality of information represented by the tables.


Boundary Area Decision Table Incremental Learning Decision Attribute Information Table 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets - theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ślȩzak, D., Ziarko, W.: Variable precision Bayesian rough set model. In: Wang, G., Liu, Q., Yao, Y., Skowron, A. (eds.) RSFDGrC 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2639, pp. 312–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yao, Y.Y., Wong, S.K.M.: A decision theoretic framework for approximating concepts. Intl. Journal of Man-Machine Studies 37, 793–809 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ziarko, W.: Variable precision rough sets model. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences 46(1), 39–59 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ziarko, W.: Probabilistic decision tables in the variable precision rough set model. Computational Intelligence 17(3), 593–603 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ziarko, W.: Acquisition of hierarchy-structured probabilistic decision tables and rules from data. In: Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conference on Fuzzy Systems, Honolulu, USA, pp. 779–784 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziarko, W., Ning, S.: Machine learning through data classification and reduction. Fundamenta Informaticae 30, 371–380 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marek, W., Pawlak, Z.: One dimension learning. Fundamenta Informaticae 8(1), 83–88 (1985)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peng, Y.: Application of Rough Decision Tables to Control Algorithm Acquisition. M.Sc. thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Regina (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aryeetey, K., Ziarko, W.: Application of variable precision rough set approach to car driver assessment. In: New Generation of Data Mining Applications. Willey-IEEE Press (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shang, F., Ziarko, W.: Acquisition of control algorithms. In: Proc. of Intl. Conference on New Trends in Intelligent Information Processing and Web Mining, Zakopane, Poland, Advances in Soft Computing, pp. 341–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziarko, W.: Set approximation quality measures in the variable precision rough set model. In: Soft Computing Systems, Management and Applications, pp. 442–452. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pollack, S., Hicks, H., Harrison, W.: Decision tables: theory and practice. Willey-Interscience, Hoboken (1970)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao, Y.Y., Zhong, N.: An analysis of quantitative measures associated with rules. In: Zhong, N., Zhou, L. (eds.) PAKDD 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1574, pp. 479–488. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slezak, D., Ziarko, W.: Bayesian rough set model. In: Proc. of FDM 2002, Maebashi, Japan, pp. 131–135 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ziarko, W.P.: Probabilistic rough sets. In: Ślęzak, D., Wang, G., Szczuka, M.S., Düntsch, I., Yao, Y. (eds.) RSFDGrC 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3641, pp. 283–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations