1 / 30

DOMINIK ŚLĘZAK infobright infobright

ROUGH SETS and FCA Foundations and Case Studies of Feature Subset Selection and Knowledge Structure Formation. DOMINIK ŚLĘZAK www.infobright.com www.infobright.org. Contents. Rough Sets & Feature Selection Association Reducts Conceptual Reducts Building Ensembles Towards Clustering

afya
Télécharger la présentation

DOMINIK ŚLĘZAK infobright infobright

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ROUGH SETSand FCAFoundations and Case Studies of Feature Subset Selection andKnowledge Structure Formation DOMINIK ŚLĘZAK www.infobright.com www.infobright.org

  2. Contents • Rough Sets & Feature Selection • Association Reducts • Conceptual Reducts • Building Ensembles • Towards Clustering • Rough Sets & Infobright Story • Rough & Granular Computation • Knowledge Structure Formation

  3. Rough Sets • Rough set theory proposed by Z. Pawlak in 82 is an approximate reasoning model • In applications, it focuses on derivation of approximate knowledge from databases • It provides good results in such domains as, e.g., Web analysis, finance, industry, multimedia, medicine, and bioinformatics

  4. Decision Systems IF (H=Normal) AND (T=Mild) THEN (S=Yes) It corresponds to a data block included in the positive region of the decision class “Yes”

  5. Rulesand Approximations Lower & Upper Approximations POS(Sport?|B)

  6. Feature Reduction (Selection) • Reducts: optimal attribute subsets, which approximate well enough the pre-defined target concepts or the whole data source • Feature reduction is one of the steps in the knowledge discovery in databases process • In real-world situations, we may agree to slightly decrease the quality, if it leads to asignificantly simpler knowledge model

  7. Discernibility

  8. {a,b,c}  {d,e} {a,b,d,f}  {c,e} {a,b,f}  {e} {a,c,e}  {b,d} {a,c,f}  {d} {a,d,e}  {b,c} {a,d,f}  {c} {a,e,f}  {b} {b,c,d}  {a,e} {b,d,e}  {a,c} {b,e,f}  {a} {c,d,f}  {a} {c,e,f}  {a,b,d} Association Reducts

  9. Association Reducts as Association Rules in InDiscernibility Tables

  10. Most Interesting Reducts • Given association reduct (C,D), we evaluate it with the value F(|C|,|D|) • Function F: N  N  R should hold: IF n1 < n2 THEN F(n1,m) > F(n2,m) IF m1 < m2 THEN F(n,m1) < F(n,m2) • F(|C|,|D|) is maximized subject to # from the space of approximation parameters • Such maximization problem is NP-hard

  11. What # can actually mean? 1) |POS(d|B)| 2) Disc(d|B) = Disc(B{d}) – Disc(B) where Disc(X) = |{(u1,u2): X(u1)≠X(u2)}| 3) Relative Gain R(d|B) = 4) Entropy H(d|B) = H(B{d}) – H(B)

  12. (empty,empty) ({3,7,12,13},{O}) ({1-3,7,9,12,13},{O,T}) ({1-3,7-9,11-13},{O,H}) ({3-7,10,12-14},{O,W}) ({10,11,13},{T,H}) ({2,5,9},{T,W}) ({5,9,10,13},{H,W}) ({1-3,7-13},{O,T,H}) (1-14,{O,T,W}) (1-14,{O,H,W}) ({2,5,9-11,13},{H,T,W}) Conceptual Reducts Reduct as a pair (X,B), where XU, POS(B)=X, POS(C)X for any CB

  13. Reduct „Lattice” empty empty 3,7,12,13 O 1-3,7,9,12,13 O,T 1-3,7-9,11-13 O,H 3-7,10,12-14 O,W 10,11,13 T,H 2,5,9 T,W 5,9,10,13 H,W 1-3,7-13 O,T,H 1-14 O,T,W 1-14 O,H,W 2,5,9-11,13 H,T,W

  14. Most Interesting Reducts • Given conceptual reduct (X,B), we evaluate it with the value F(|X|,|B|) • Function F: N  N  R should hold: IF n1 < n2 THEN F(n1,m) < F(n2,m) IF m1 < m2 THEN F(n,m1) > F(n,m2) • So we should maximize F(|X|,|B|) or... • ... shall we rather search for ensembles?

  15. “Good” Ensembles of Reducts • Reducts with minimal cardinalities (or rules) • Reducts with minimal pairwise intersections ATTRIBUTES Challenge: How to modify the existing attribute reduction methods to search for such „good” ensembles R1 R2 R3

  16. Hybrid Genetic Algorithm (1) • Genetic part, where each chromosome encodes a permutation of the attributes • Heuristic part, where permutationsare put into the following algorithm: • LETLEFT = A • FOR i = 1 TO |A| REPEAT • LETLEFT  LEFT \ {a(i)} • IF NOT LEFT #dUNDO(a) • EVALUATE REDUCTLEFT

  17. Hybrid Genetic Algorithm (2) • LET(LEFT,RIGHT)= (,A) • FOR i = 1 TO|U|+|A| REPEAT IF (i){1,...,|U|} THEN IF u(i)POS(RIGHT) THEN LETLEFT  LEFT {u(i)} IF (i){|U|+1,...,|U|+|A|} THEN IF POS(RIGHT \ {a(i)})  LEFTTHEN LETRIGHT RIGHT \ {a(i)} • EVALUATE REDUCT(LEFT,RIGHT)

  18. Reduct „Lattice” once more empty empty 3,7,12,13 O 1-3,7,9,12,13 O,T 1-3,7-9,11-13 O,H 3-7,10,12-14 O,W 10,11,13 T,H 2,5,9 T,W 5,9,10,13 H,W 1-3,7-13 O,T,H 1-14 O,T,W 1-14 O,H,W 2,5,9-11,13 H,T,W

  19. Feature Clustering / Selection • Frequent occurrence of representatives in reducts yields splitting clusters • Rare occurrence of pairs of close representatives yields merging clusters Grużdź, Ihnatowicz, Ślęzak:Interactive gene clustering – a casestudy of breast cancer microarray data. Inf. Systems Frontiers 8 (2006). REDUCTS WITH CLUSTER REP-RESENTATIVES CLUSTERS OF ATTRIBUTES FEEDBACK

  20. How about groups of rows (1) Data-based knowledge models, classifiers... Database indices, data partitioning, data sorting... Difficulty with fast updates of structures...

  21. How about groups of rows (2)

  22. Infobright’s Technology

  23. Two-Level Computing Large Data (10TB) & Mixed Workloads

  24. SELECT MAX(A) FROM T WHERE B>15; DATA STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3

  25. Knowledge Structures (Nodes) Order Detail Table – assume many more rows Supplier/Part Table – assume many more rows

  26. DATA – Best Inspiration • New Objectives • New Schemas • New Volumes • New Queries • New Types • New KNs • ...........

  27. References (Unfinished List) • D. Ślęzak, J. Wróblewski, V. Eastwood, P. Synak: Brighthouse - An Analytic Data Warehouse for Ad-hoc Queries. VLDB 2008: 1337-1345. • D. Ślęzak: Rough Sets and Few-Objects-Many-At-tributes Problem - The Case Study of Analysis of Gene Expression Data Sets. FBIT 2007: 437-440. • D. Ślęzak: Rough Sets and Functional Dependen-cies inData - Foundations of Association Reducts. To appear. • ......

  28. THANK YOU!! www.infobright.com www.infobright.org slezak@infobright.com

More Related