On feature selection via rough sets

  • Ludmila I. Kuncheva
  • Roumen K. Kounchev
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 970)


The paper presents a critical comment on the rough sets approach to feature selection. It is highlighted that the small sample size may lead to spurious results in evaluating the feature subsets. Along with this, some attractive advantages of rough sets criteria are emphasized, and a new criterion is proposed. Two examples have been generated in order to demonstrate the flexibility of the proposed criterion and its advantages over some conventional criteria.


Pattern recognition Rough sets Feature selection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Devijver P., J. Kittler (1982) Pattern Recognition. A statistical approach, Prentice Hall Int.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dubois, D. and H. Prade (1990). Putting rough sets and fuzzy sets together, in: R. Slowiński (ed.) Intelligent Decision Support, Kluwer Academic Publishers/London, 203–232.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dubois, D. and H. Prade (1987). Twofold fuzzy sets and rough sets — some issues in knowledge representation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 23, 3–18.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fibak, J., Z. Pawlak, K. Slowiński and R. Slowiński (1986). Rough sets based decision algorithm for treatment of duodenal ulcer by HSV. Bulletin of PAS 34, 227–248.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kubat, M. (1989). Floating approximation in time-varying knowledge bases. Pattern Recognition Letters 10, 223–227.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuncheva, L. (1992). Fuzzy rough sets. Application to feature selection. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 51, 147–153.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pawlak, Z. (1982). Rough sets. Int. Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 11, 341–356.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pawlak, Z. (1985). Rough sets and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17, 99–102.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pawlak, Z. (1984). Rough classification. Int J Man-Machine Studies 20, 469–483.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pawlak, Z., K. Slowiński, and R. Slowiński (1986). Rough classification of patients after highly selective vagotomy for duodenal ulcer. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 24, 413–433.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Slowiński, K., R. Slowiński, and J. Stefanowski (1988). Rough sets approach to analysis of data from peritoneal lavage in acute pancreatitis. Med. Inform. 13, 143–159.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slowiński, K. and R. Slowiński (1990). Sensitivity analysis of rough classification. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 32, 693–705.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valev V., Yu. Zhuravlev (1991). Integer-valued problems of transforming the training tables in k-valued code in pattern recognition problems, Pattern Recognition 24 283–288.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong, S.K.M. and W. Ziarko (1987). Comparison of the probabilistic approximate classification and the fuzzy set model. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 21, 357–362.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ludmila I. Kuncheva
    • 1
  • Roumen K. Kounchev
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Institute for Information TechnologiesBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations