Methods for Lower Approximation Reduction in Inconsistent Decision Table Based on Tolerance Relation

Abstract

It is well known that most of information systems are based on tolerance relation instead of the classical equivalence relation because of various factors in real-world. To acquire brief decision rules from the information systems, lower approximation reduction is needed. In this paper, the lower approximation reduction is proposed in inconsistent information systems based on tolerance relation. Moreover, the properties are discussed. Furthermore, judgment theorem and discernibility matrix are obtained, from which an approach to lower reductions can be provided in the complicated information systems.

Share and Cite:

Zhang, X. and Xu, W. (2013) Methods for Lower Approximation Reduction in Inconsistent Decision Table Based on Tolerance Relation. Applied Mathematics, 4, 144-148. doi: 10.4236/am.2013.41024.

1. Introduction

The rough set theory, proposed by Pawlak in the early 1980s [1], is an extension of the classical set theory for modeling uncertainty or imprecision information. The research has recently roused great interest in the theoretical and application fronts, such as machine learning, pattern recognition, data analysis, and so on.

Attribute reduction is one of the hot research topics of rough set theory. Much study on this area had been reported and many useful results were obtained [2-8]. However, most work was based on consistent information systems, and the main methodology has been developed under equivalence relations (indiscernibility relations). In practice, most of information systems are not only inconsistent, but also based on tolerance relations because of various factors. The tolerance of properties of attributes plays a crucial role in those systems. For this reason, J. Jarinen [9-13] proposed an extension rough sets theory, called the rough sets based on tolerances to take into account the tolerance relation properties of attributes. This innovation is mainly based on substitution of the indiscernibility relation by a tolerance relation. And many studies have been made in DRSA [14-18]. But useful results of attribute reductions are very poor in inconsistent information systems based on tolerance relations until now.

In this paper, the lower approximation reduction is proposed in inconsistent information systems based on tolerance relations. Moreover, some properties are discussed. Furthermore, judgment theorem and discernibility matrix are obtained, from which an approach to lower approximation reductions can be provided in inconsistent information systems based on tolerance relations.

2. Rough Sets and Information Systems Based on Tolerance Relations

The following recalls necessary concepts and preliminaries required in the sequel of our work. Detailed description of the theory can be found in [5,17].

An information system with decisions is an ordered quadruple, where

is a non-empty finite set of objects;

is a non-empty finite attributes set;

denotes the set of condition attributes;

denotes the set of decision attributes, and;

, is the value of

for, is the domain of, where;

, is the value of

for, is the domain of,.

If a binary relation T on the universe U is reflexive and symmetric, it is called a tolerance relation on U. The set of all tolerance relations on U is denoted by. A tolerance relation T can construct a covering of the universe U, not a partition. For any tolerance relation and denote

;

;

where means x and have the tolerance, or and haven’t the tolerance, and the is called the tolerance neighborhood or tolerance class of the object.

An information system is called an information system based on tolerance relations, in brief TIS, if all relations of condition attributes are tolerance relations.

In general, we call an information system based on tolerance relations with decision to be a decision table based tolerance relations, denoted by, that is  . Thus the following definition can be obtained.

Definition 2.1. Let be a decision table based on tolerance relations, for any, denote and are tolerance relations of information system.

If we denote

;

then the following properties of a tolerance relation are trivial.

Proposition 2.1. Let be a tolerance relation. The following hold.

(1) is reflexive, symmetric, but not transitive, so it is not an equivalence relation.

(2) If, then.

(3) If, then

(4) constitutes a covering of.

For any subset of, and of define

;

,

and are said to be the lower and upper approximation of with respect to a tolerance relation. And the approximations have also some properties which are similar to those of Pawlak approximation spaces.

Proposition 2.2. Let be an information systems based on tolerance relation and, then its lower and upper approximations satisfy the following properties.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6) If, then and ;

where is the complement of.

Definition 2.2. For an information system based on tolerance relations with decisions , if, then this information system is consistent, otherwise, this system is inconsistent.

Example 2.1. Given an information system based on tolerance relations in Table 1.

Define the tolerance relation as following:

From the table, we have

and

Obviously, by the above, we have, so the system in Table 1 is inconsistent.

For simple description, the following information system with decisions is based on tolerance relations, i.e. information systems based on tolerance relations.

3. Theories of Lower Approximation Reduction in Inconsistent Information Systems Based on Tolerance Relation

Let be an information system based on tolerance relations with decisions, and

Table 1. An information system based on tolerance relations.

be tolerance relations derived from condition attributes set and decision attributes set respectively. For, denote

where. Furthermore, we said is the lower approximation function about attributions sets B.

Definition 3.1. Let and be two vectors with dimensions. If, we said that is equal to, denoted by. If, we said that is less than, denoted by. Otherwise, If it exists such that, we said is not less than, denoted by.

Such as, and.

From the above, we can have the following propositions immediately.

Proposition 3.1. Let be an information system based on tolerance relations with decisions. If, then.

Definition 3.2. Let be an Inconsistent information system. If, for all, we say that is a lower approximation consistent set of. If is a lower approximation consistent set, and no proper subset of is lower approximation consistent set, then is called an lower approximation consistent reduction of.

Example 3.1. Consider the system in Table 1.

For the system in Table 1, we denote

We can have

When, it can be easily checked that, for all. So that , and is a lower approximation consistent set of. Furthermore, we can examine that and are not lower approximation consistent set of. That is to say is a lower approximation reduction of.

Moreover, it can be easily calculated that and are not lower approximation consistent sets of. Thus there exist only one lower approximation reduction of in the system of Table 1, which is.

In the following, detailed judgment theorems of lower approximation reduction are obtained.

4. Methods for Attribute Reduction in Inconsistent Information Systems Based on Tolerance Relations

This section provides approaches to lower approximation reduction in inconsistent information systems.

Definition 4.1. Let be an information system, Denote

is called lower approximation discernibility attribute set, and matrixes

is referred to lower approximation discernibility matrix of respectively.

Theorem 4.1. Let be an information system, , then is a lower approximation consistent set if , then exists such that, for any.

Proof. Assume that exists, for any, and, if, then

.

Since B is a lower approximation consistent set, therefore, for any, we can have

. According to, so we can obtain and. Moreover for

, then, therefore and

. Hence we have, which is contradiction.

Supposed that isn’t a lower approximation consistent set, then exists, such that

, therefore exists and

. So we can have and

.

Moreover, , so there exists

and, i.e.. In addition, we can have that exists such that, which is contradict with.

Therefore is a lower approximation consistent set.

Theorem 4.2. Let be an information system., then is a lower approximation consistent set if and only if for any, we can have.

Proof. For any, there exists such that, so according to Theorem 4.1, we can have that exists such that, so.

Therefore, if is a lower approximation consistent set then for any, we can have .

If for any, , then exists such that, so we have

, and.

Therefore is a lower approximation consistent set according to Theorem 4.1.

Definition 4.2. Let be an information system, is referred to lower approximation discernibility matrix of, denote

is called discernibility formula of lower approximation.

Theorem 4.3. Let be an information system. The minimal disjunctive normal form of discernibility formula of lower approximation is

Denote, then

is just set of all distribution reductions of.

Proof. It follows directly from Theorem 4.1 and the definition of minimal disjunctive normal of the discernibility formula of lower approximation.

Theorem 4.3 provides a practical approach to lower

Table 2. Lower approximation discernibility matrix ML.

approximation reductions of information systems with decisions based on tolerance relation. The following we will consider the system in Table 1 using this approach.

Example 4.1. For the system in Table 1, the function of distribution and maximum distribution have been obtained in Example 3.1. In additional, we can have

The above table (Table 2) is the lower approximation discernibility matrix of system in Table 1.

Consequently, we have

Therefore, we obtain that is all lower approximation reduction of information system in Table 1, which accords with the result of Example 3.1.

5. Conclusion

It is well known that most of information systems are not only inconsistent, but also based on tolerance relations because of various factors in practice. Therefore, it is important to study the lower approximation reduction in inconsistent information systems. In this paper, we are concerned with approaches to the problem. The lower approximation reduction is introduced in inconsistent information systems based on tolerance relations. The judgment theorem and discernibility matrix are obtained, from which we can provide the approach to attribute reductions in inconsistent information systems based on tolerance relations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

 [1] Z. Pawlak, “Rough Sets,” International Journal of Computer and Information Science, Vol. 11, No. 5, 1982, pp. 341-356. doi:10.1007/BF01001956 [2] M. Kryszkiewicz, “Comparative Studies of Alternative Type of Knowledge Reduction in Inconsistent Systems,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2001, pp. 105-120. doi:10.1002/1098-111X(200101)16:1<105::AID-INT8>3.0.CO;2-S [3] Y. Leuang, W. Z. Wu and W. X. Zhang, “Knowledge Acquisition in Incomplete Information Systems: A Rough Set Approach,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 168, No. 1, 2006, pp. 164-180. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.03.032 [4] Z. Pawlak, “Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data,” Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1991. [5] W. X. Zhang, W. Z. Wu, J. Y. Liang and D. Y. Li, “Theory and Method of Rough Sets,” Science Press, Beijing, 2001. [6] W. Z. Wu, Y. Leuang and J. S. Mi, “On Characterizations of (I,T)-Fuzzy Rough Approximation Operators,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 154, No. 1, 2005, pp. 76-102. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2005.02.011 [7] W. Z. Wu, M. Zhang, H. Z. Li and J. S. Mi, “Knowledge Reduction in Random Information Systems via Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence,” Information Sciences, Vol. 174, No. 3-4, 2005, pp. 143-164. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2004.09.002 [8] M. Zhang, L. D. Xu, W. X. Zhang and H. Z. Li, “A Rough Set Approach to Knowledge Reduction Based on Inclusion Degree and Evidence Reasoning Theory,” Expert Systems, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2003, pp. 298-304. [9] S. Greco, B. Matarazzo and R. Slowingski, “Rough Approximation of a Preference Relation by Dominance Relatioin ICS Research Report 16/96, Warsaw University of Technology, 1996,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 117, 1999, pp. 63-83. [10] S. Greco, B. Matarazzo and R. Slowingski, “A New Rough Set Approach to Multicriteria and Multiattribute Classification,” In: L. Polkowsik and A. Skowron, Eds., Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSCTC’98), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, pp. 60-67. [11] S. Greco, B. Matarazzo and R. Slowingski, “A New Rough Sets Approach to Evaluation of Bankruptcy Risk,” In: X. Zopounidis, Ed., Operational Tools in the Management of Financial Risks, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999, pp. 121-136. [12] S. Greco, B. Matarazzo and R. Slowingski, “Rough Sets Theory for Multicriteria Decision Analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 129, No. 1, 2001, pp. 11-47. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00167-3 [13] S. Greco, B. Matarazzo and R. Slowingski, “Rough Sets Methodology for Sorting Problems in Presence of Multiple Attributes and Criteria,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 138, No. 2, 2002, pp. 247-259. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00244-2 [14] K. Dembczynski, R. Pindur and R. Susmaga, “Generation of Exhaustive Set of Rules within Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach,” Electronic Notes Theory Computer Science, Vol. 82, No. 4, 2003, p. 1. [15] K. Dembczynski, R. Pindur and R. Susmaga, “Dominance-Based Rough Set Classifier without Induction of Decision Rules,” Electronic Notes Theory Computer Science, Vol. 82, No. 4, 2003, pp. 84-95 [16] Y. Sai, Y. Y. Yao and N. Zhong, “Data Analysis and Mining in Ordered Information Tables,” Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, New York, 2001, pp. 497-504. [17] M. W. Shao and W. X. Zhang, “Dominance Relation and Rules in an Incomplete Ordered Information System,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2005, pp. 13-27. [18] W. Z. Wu, Y. Leung and W. X. Zhang, “Connections between Rough Set Theory and Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence,” International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2002, pp. 405-430. doi:10.1080/0308107021000013626

 +1 323-425-8868 customer@scirp.org +86 18163351462(WhatsApp) 1655362766 Paper Publishing WeChat