1 / 43

Dependencies in Structures of Decision Tables

Dependencies in Structures of Decision Tables. Wojciech Ziarko University of Regina Saskatchewan, Canada. Contents. Pawlak’s rough sets Attribute-based classifications Probabilities and rough sets VPRS model Probabilistic decision tables Dependencies between sets Gain function

sven
Télécharger la présentation

Dependencies in Structures of Decision Tables

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. Dependencies in Structures of Decision Tables Wojciech Ziarko University of Regina Saskatchewan, Canada

  2. Contents • Pawlak’s rough sets • Attribute-based classifications • Probabilities and rough sets • VPRS model • Probabilistic decision tables • Dependencies between sets • Gain function • -dependencies between attributes • -dependencies between attributes • Hierarchies of decision tables • Dependencies between partitions in DT hierarchies • Faces example

  3. Approximation Space(U,R) • U – universe of objects of interest , can be infinite • target set of interest • equivalence relation, U/R is finite • elementary sets are atoms, the set of atoms is finite

  4. Approximate Definitions If a set can be expressed as a union of some elementary classes of R, we say that the X is R-definableotherwise, we say that the X is undefinable, i.e. it is impossible to describe X precisely using knowledge R. In this case, X can be represented by a pair of lower and upper approximations:

  5. Classical Pawlak’s Rough Set Negative region: X  E= Elementary set E U Boundary region: X  E  , E X set X Positive region: E  X

  6. Approximation Regions Based on the lower and upper approximations of ,U can be divided into three disjoint definable regions:

  7. Attribute-Based Classifications • The observations about objects are typically expressed via finite-valued functions called attributes: • The attribute-based classifications may not produce classification of the universe U (for example, when the attribute values are affected by random noise) • This means attributes are not always functions on U (they could be better modeled by approximate functions)

  8. Attributes and Classifications • The attributes fall into two disjoint categories: condition attributes C and decision attributes D • Each subset of attributes defines a mapping: • The subset B of condition attributes generates partition U/B of U into B-elementary classes • The corresponding equivalence relation is called B-indiscernibility relation

  9. Undiscretized Data Complex multidimensional functions on features can be used to create final discrete attribute-value representation

  10. Discretized Representation D C peak: Peak of the Wave size: Area of Peak m1: Steroid Oral therapy m2: Double Filtration Plasmapheresis

  11. Attributes and Classifications • -elementary sets atoms • C-elementary sets elementary sets • D-elementary sets decision categories We assume that the set of all atoms is finite Each B-elementary set is a union of some atoms

  12. Probabilistic Background of Rough Sets U - outcome space: the set of possible outcomes σ(U) – σ-algebra of measurable subsets of U Event – an element of σ(U), a subset of U Assumption 1:all outcomes are equally likely . Assumption 2:event X occurs if an outcome e belongs to X. Assumption 3:the prior probability of every event exists, and Probability estimators (other estimators are possible):

  13. Probabilistic Approximation Space(U, R, P) • U – universe of objects of interest • target set of interest • equivalence relation, U/R is finite • elementary sets atoms, the set of atoms is finite • P(G) probability function on atoms and X • 0 < P(X) < 1

  14. Probabilistic Approximation Space Atoms G Elementary sets E U Set X Atoms are assigned probabilities P(G)

  15. Probabilities of Interest • Each atom is assigned joint probability P(G) • The probability P(E) of an elementary set • Prior probability P(X) of the decision category This is the probability of X in the absence of any attribute value-based information, the reference probability

  16. Conditional Probabilities and Elementary Sets • To represent the degree of confidence in the occurrence of decision category X, based on the knowledge that elementary set E occurred, the conditional probabilities are used: • The conditional probabilities can be expressed in terms of joint probabilities:

  17. Probabilistic Interpretation for Pawlak’s Approximations

  18. Pawlak’s Approximation Measures in Probabilistic Terms Let F={X1,…,Xn}be a partition of U corresponding to U/D, in the approximation space (U, U/C) • Accuracy measure of approximation of F by U/C • -dependency measure between C and D

  19. Classification Table • The classification table represents complete classification and probabilistic information about the universe U • It is a collection of tuples representing individual atoms and their joint probabilities

  20. Example Classification Table C D Atoms Elementary sets

  21. Variable Precision RS Model • An extension of the classical RS (Pawlak’s) model • Other related extensions are VC-DRSA (Greco, Mattarazo, Slowinski), decision theoretic approach (Yao) • The classical approach is to define the positive and negative regions of a set X based on total inclusion, or exclusion with X, respectively; There is no uncertainty in these regions • In the VPRSM the positive and negative regions are defined in terms of controlled certainty improvement (gain) with respect to the set X

  22. Variable Precision RS Model Negative region: Elementary set E U Boundary region: l < P(X|E) < u set X Positive region:

  23. VPRSM Approximations • Positive Region (u-lower approximation) • Negative Region • Boundary Region • Upper Approximation

  24. Probabilistic Decision Tables where t is a tuple in C(U)

  25. Example Classification Table C D Atoms Elementary sets

  26. -Dependency Between Attributes in the VPRSM Generalization of partial functional dependency measure  Represents the size of positive and negative regions of X:

  27. -Dependency Between Attributes: Preliminaries • The degree of influence the occurrence of an elementary set E has on the likelihood of X occurrence.

  28. Expected Gain Functions Expected change of occurrence certainty of a given decision category X due to occurrence of any elementary set: Average expected change of occurrence certainty of any decision category X due to occurrence of any elementary set:

  29. Properties of Gain Functions - summary deviation from independence - analogous to Bayes equation Basis for generalized measure of attribute dependency

  30. -Dependency Between Attributes Measure of dependency between attributes Applicable to both classification tables and probabilistic decision tables

  31. Hierarchies of Decision Tables • Decision tables learned from data suffer from both the low accuracy and incompleteness • Increasing the number of attributes or increasing their precision leads to exponential growth of the tables • An approach to deal with these problems is forming decision table hierarchies

  32. Hierarchies of Decision Tables • The hierarchy is formed by treating the boundary area as a sub-approximation space • The sub-approximation space is independent from “parent” approximation space, normally defined in terms attributes different from the ones used by the parent • The hierarchy is constructed recursively, subject to dependency, attribute and elementary set support constraints. • The resulting hierarchical approximation space is not definable in terms of condition attributes over U

  33. U DT Hierarchy Formation POS U’ BND U’’ NEG

  34. Hierarchical “Condition” Partition U U’=BND Based on nested structure of condition attributes

  35. “Decision” Partition U Based on values of the decision attribute

  36.  -Dependency Between Partitions in the Hierarchy of Decision Tables • Let (X, X) bethe partition corresponding to the decision attribute • Let R be the hierarchical partition of U and R’ be the hierarchical partition of boundary area of X, • The dependency can be computed recursively by:

  37. -Dependency Between Partitions in the Hierarchy of Decision Tables • Let (X, X) bethe partition corresponding to the decision attribute • Let R be the hierarchical partition of U and R’ be the hierarchical partition of boundary area of X, • The dependency can be computed recursively by:

  38. “Faces” Example

  39. Hierarchy of DT’s Based on “Faces” Layer 1

  40. Layer 2

  41. Layer 3

  42. Conclusions • The original rough set approach is mainly applicable to problems in which the probability distributions in the boundary area do not matter • When the distributions are of interest, the extensions such as VPRSM, Bayesian etc. are applicable • The contradiction between DT learnability vs. its completeness and accuracy is a serious practical problem • The DT hierarchy construction provides only partial remedy • Softer techniques are needed for attribute value representation, to better handle noisy data – incorporation of fuzzy set ideas

More Related