Skip to main content

Classification for Inconsistent Decision Tables

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 9920)


Decision trees have been used widely to discover patterns from consistent data set. But if the data set is inconsistent, where there are groups of examples with equal values of conditional attributes but different labels, then to discover the essential patterns or knowledge from the data set is challenging. Three approaches (generalized, most common and many-valued decision) have been considered to handle such inconsistency. The decision tree model has been used to compare the classification results among three approaches. Many-valued decision approach outperforms other approaches, and \( M\_ws\_entM \) greedy algorithm gives faster and better prediction accuracy.


  • Decision trees
  • Greedy algorithms
  • Classifications
  • Many-valued decisions
  • Inconsistent decision tables

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions


  1. Alcalá-Fdez, J., Fernández, A., Luengo, J., Derrac, J., García, S.: KEEL data-mining software tool: data set repository, integration of algorithms and experimental analysis framework (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asuncion, A., Newman, D.J.: UCI Machine Learning Repository (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Azad, M., Chikalov, I., Moshkov, M.: Three approaches to deal with inconsistent decision tables - comparison of decision tree complexity. In: RSFDGrC, pp. 46–54 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clare, A., King, R.D.: Knowledge discovery in multi-label phenotype data. In: Raedt, L., Siebes, A. (eds.) PKDD 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2168, pp. 42–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-44794-6_4

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Demsar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 1–30 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Hüllermeier, E., Beringer, J.: Learning from ambiguously labeled examples. Intell. Data Anal. 10(5), 419–439 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Mingers, J.: An empirical comparison of selection measures for decision-tree induction. Mach. Learn. 3(4), 319–342 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets-Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Azad .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Azad, M., Moshkov, M. (2016). Classification for Inconsistent Decision Tables. In: Flores, V., et al. Rough Sets. IJCRS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9920. Springer, Cham.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47159-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47160-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)