Rough Set Theory. Andrew Kusiak Intelligent Systems Laboratory 2139 Seamans Center The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa

Similar documents
Outline. Introduction, or what is fuzzy thinking? Fuzzy sets Linguistic variables and hedges Operations of fuzzy sets Fuzzy rules Summary.

Data Mining. Preamble: Control Application. Industrial Researcher s Approach. Practitioner s Approach. Example. Example. Goal: Maintain T ~Td

A new Approach to Drawing Conclusions from Data A Rough Set Perspective

Drawing Conclusions from Data The Rough Set Way

The University of Iowa Intelligent Systems Laboratory The University of Iowa. f1 f2 f k-1 f k,f k+1 f m-1 f m f m- 1 D. Data set 1 Data set 2

An algorithm for induction of decision rules consistent with the dominance principle

CMPSCI 240: Reasoning about Uncertainty

1.4 Outer measures 10 CHAPTER 1. MEASURE

Hence C has VC-dimension d iff. π C (d) = 2 d. (4) C has VC-density l if there exists K R such that, for all

Notes on Discriminant Functions and Optimal Classification

Econ 6900: Statistical Problems. Instructor: Yogesh Uppal

On Rough Set Modelling for Data Mining

Data mining using Rough Sets

1 Chapter 1: SETS. 1.1 Describing a set

Hierarchical Structures on Multigranulation Spaces

REDUCTS AND ROUGH SET ANALYSIS

Any Wizard of Oz fans? Discrete Math Basics. Outline. Sets. Set Operations. Sets. Dorothy: How does one get to the Emerald City?

Probabilistic Systems Analysis Spring 2018 Lecture 6. Random Variables: Probability Mass Function and Expectation

Rough Set Theory Fundamental Assumption Approximation Space Information Systems Decision Tables (Data Tables)

Section 2: Classes of Sets

Fuzzy and Rough Sets Part I

Banacha Warszawa Poland s:

Notes for Math 324, Part 12

Solving Systems of Linear Equations

ROUGH SETS THEORY AND DATA REDUCTION IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND DATA MINING

2.1 Sets. Definition 1 A set is an unordered collection of objects. Important sets: N, Z, Z +, Q, R.

Rough Sets, Rough Relations and Rough Functions. Zdzislaw Pawlak. Warsaw University of Technology. ul. Nowowiejska 15/19, Warsaw, Poland.

Classification Based on Logical Concept Analysis

The Scott Isomorphism Theorem

APPLICATION FOR LOGICAL EXPRESSION PROCESSING

General Scheduling Model and

9/19/2018. Cartesian Product. Cartesian Product. Partitions

Research Article Special Approach to Near Set Theory

Properties of Probability

NEAR GROUPS ON NEARNESS APPROXIMATION SPACES

Mathematical Approach to Vagueness

Probability. 25 th September lecture based on Hogg Tanis Zimmerman: Probability and Statistical Inference (9th ed.)

Statistics for Financial Engineering Session 2: Basic Set Theory March 19 th, 2006

ARPN Journal of Science and Technology All rights reserved.

A Well-Balanced Menu Planning with Fuzzy Weight

Andrzej Skowron, Zbigniew Suraj (Eds.) To the Memory of Professor Zdzisław Pawlak

Lecture 1. Chapter 1. (Part I) Material Covered in This Lecture: Chapter 1, Chapter 2 ( ). 1. What is Statistics?

Easy Categorization of Attributes in Decision Tables Based on Basic Binary Discernibility Matrix

Data Analysis - the Rough Sets Perspective

cse303 ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION Professor Anita Wasilewska

Fundamentals of Probability CE 311S

Introduction to Decision Sciences Lecture 11

Axioms of Probability. Set Theory. M. Bremer. Math Spring 2018

Learning Rules from Very Large Databases Using Rough Multisets

Rough Sets and Conflict Analysis

Application of Rough Set Theory in Performance Analysis

EXACT EQUATIONS AND INTEGRATING FACTORS

Section 1.1: Systems of Linear Equations

Foundations of Classification

LECTURE 1. 1 Introduction. 1.1 Sample spaces and events

Qualifying Exam Logic August 2005

Probability Review I

ECE353: Probability and Random Processes. Lecture 2 - Set Theory

A Rough Set Interpretation of User s Web Behavior: A Comparison with Information Theoretic Measure

Classification of Voice Signals through Mining Unique Episodes in Temporal Information Systems: A Rough Set Approach

MATH 225 Summer 2005 Linear Algebra II Solutions to Assignment 1 Due: Wednesday July 13, 2005

AMS regional meeting Bloomington, IN April 1, 2017

Automata and Languages

Instance Selection. Motivation. Sample Selection (1) Sample Selection (2) Sample Selection (3) Sample Size (1)

Isomorphisms between pattern classes

Chapter 2 Rough Set Theory

Statistics for Linguists. Don t pannic

3 Hausdorff and Connected Spaces

A Logical Formulation of the Granular Data Model

Some remarks on conflict analysis

Deep Learning for Computer Vision

Lecture 8: Probability

Content. Learning. Regression vs Classification. Regression a.k.a. function approximation and Classification a.k.a. pattern recognition

Content. Learning Goal. Regression vs Classification. Support Vector Machines. SVM Context

Machine Learning. Probability Theory. WS2013/2014 Dmitrij Schlesinger, Carsten Rother

Decision tables and decision spaces

DRAFT CONCEPTUAL SOLUTION REPORT DRAFT

1 Introduction. Σ 0 1 and Π 0 1 equivalence structures

Chapter 4. Probability-The Study of Randomness

Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov Vol 10(59), No Series III: Mathematics, Informatics, Physics, 67-82

Section Partitioned Matrices and LU Factorization

Tree Decompositions and Tree-Width

Index. Cambridge University Press Relational Knowledge Discovery M E Müller. Index. More information

Semantic Rendering of Data Tables: Multivalued Information Systems Revisited

Mining Approximative Descriptions of Sets Using Rough Sets

Permutation groups/1. 1 Automorphism groups, permutation groups, abstract

Final Exam, Machine Learning, Spring 2009

Algebra 2 Mississippi College- and Career- Readiness Standards for Mathematics RCSD Unit 1 Data Relationships 1st Nine Weeks

Review CHAPTER. 2.1 Definitions in Chapter Sample Exam Questions. 2.1 Set; Element; Member; Universal Set Partition. 2.

A B is shaded A B A B

Stat 225 Week 1, 8/20/12-8/24/12, Notes: Set Theory

Relations. Relations of Sets N-ary Relations Relational Databases Binary Relation Properties Equivalence Relations. Reading (Epp s textbook)

Recap. The study of randomness and uncertainty Chances, odds, likelihood, expected, probably, on average,... PROBABILITY INFERENTIAL STATISTICS

POISSON RANDOM VARIABLES

Elementary maths for GMT

Sets and Functions. MATH 464/506, Real Analysis. J. Robert Buchanan. Summer Department of Mathematics. J. Robert Buchanan Sets and Functions

7 RC Simulates RA. Lemma: For every RA expression E(A 1... A k ) there exists a DRC formula F with F V (F ) = {A 1,..., A k } and

FARMER: Finding Interesting Rule Groups in Microarray Datasets

Lecture Lecture 5

Databases 2011 The Relational Algebra

Transcription:

Rough Set Theory Andrew Kusiak 139 Seamans Center Iowa City, Iowa 54-157 Iowa City Tel: 319-335 5934 Fa: 319-335 5669 andrew-kusiak@uiowa.edu http://www.icaen.uiowa.edu/~ankusiak Benefits Evaluation of the importance of features Reduction of redundant objects and features Determination of minimal subsets of features ensuring satisfactory classification of objects Creation of models for objects in various decision classes Results in the form close to natural language (decision rules) 1

Definition Information system is a 4-tuple S = U, Q, V, ρ, where U is a finite set of objects, Q is a finite set of features, V= UVq, where Vq is a domain of feature q, q Q and ρ: U Q V is a function such that ρ(, q) V for every q Q, U, called information function. q Definition The information system is a finite data table, columns of which are features, rows are objects and each entry in column q and row has a value. Each row in the table represents the information about an object in S.

Indiscernibility Relation Let S = U, Q, V, ρ be an information system and let P Q,, y U. We say that and y are indiscernible by the set of features P in S (notation Py ~ ) if r (, q) = r( y, q) for every q P. ~ P Equivalence classes of relation are called P-elementary sets in S. Q-elementary sets are called atoms in S. Eample Q U p Q r s 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 3

Eample Atoms and {p}-elementary sets in the information system from the table are as follows: Q A = {p}-elementary sets U = {3, 5, 6, 9, 1} 1 X = {1, 8} = {, 4, 7} 3 Atoms (Q-elementary sets) Z 1 ={1, 8} Z 5 ={4} Z ={, 7} Z 6 ={1} Z 3 ={3, 6} Z 4 ={5, 9} p q r s 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 Approimation of Sets Let P Q and Y U. The P - lower approimation of Y, denoted by PY, and the P - upper approimation of Y, denoted by PY, are defined as: PY * = UX{ X P and X Y} * PY = U X{ X P andx Y } The P - boundary (P doubtful region of classification) is defined as Bn p ( Y ) = PY PY 4

Approimation of Sets Lower Approimation: For a given concept, its lower approimation refers to the set of observations that can all be classified into this concept. Upper Approimation: For a given concept, its upper approimation refers to the set of observations that can be possibly classified into this concept. Approimation Accuracy With every subset Y U, we can associate an accuracy of approimation of set Y by P in S, or in short, accuracy of Y, defined as card( PY ) μ p ( Y ) = card( PY ) 5

Eample Revisited Table 1 Q U p q r s 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 Consider the information system of Table 1. Let Y = {1, 4, 5, 7, 9} and P = Q = {p, q, r, s}. The approimations are: QY = Z4 + Z5 = ={5, 9}+ {4} = {4, 5, 9} Q Y = Z1 + Z + Z4 + Z5 = {1,, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9} Bn Q (Y ) Z 1 ={1, 8} Z ={, 7} = Z1 + Z ={1, 8} + {, 7} and the accuracy is μ Q (Y) = 3/7 =.49 Definition The basic construct in rough set theory is called a reduct It is defined as a minimal sufficient subset of features RED A such that: Relation R(RED) = R(A), i.e., RED produces the same categorization of objects as the collection A of all features, and For any g RED, R (RED - {g})r(a), i.e., a reduct is a minimal subset of features with respect to the first property 6

Core Core (A) = Red(A) The intersection of all reducts of A is a core Eight Objects Eample F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 3 8 3 1 1 7

Reducts and Core F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 3 8 3 1 1 Reducts: F1, F3, F4 CORE = Empty set Feature Classification Quality F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 3 8 3 1 1 CQ (F1) = 1% CQ (F3) = 1% CQ (F4) = 1% CQ (F) = % 8

Question What is the classification quality of a reduct? 1% by the definition Eample Object No. F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 Data set Object No. o-reduct No. F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1 3 3 4 1 5 5 6 3 4 7 1 8 1 Minimum number of features representation (Min length rules) 9

Eample Object No. F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 Data set Object No. o-reduct-no. F1 F F3 F4 D 1 4 7 1 3,5 3,5 8 1 Min number of rules representation Sample Decision Rules Data set F1 F F3 F4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 3 8 3 1 1 Rule 1. IF (F1 = ) THEN (D = 1); [4, 1.%][, 5, 6, 8] Rule. IF (F1 = 1) THEN (D = ); [4, 1.%] [1, 3, 4, 7] 1

Eample Continuous feature value data set F1 F F3 F4 O 1 1..5.98.3.3 3.4 1.4.3 1 3.99.95 3.4 1.97 4.3.5 3.11 3.1 5.3 1.97.96. 1 6.4.5 1.4 1.4 1 7.99 3.4 1.4 1.4 8 1..97.94 3.1 1 Reducts and Core Continuous feature value data set After discretization F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1..5.98.3.3 3.4 1.4.3 1 3.99.95 3.4 1.97 4.3.5 3.11 3.1 5.3 1.97.96. 1 6.4.5 1.4 1.4 1 7.99 3.4 1.4 1.4 8 1..97.94 3.1 1 Reducts F1, F, F3 F, F3, F4 Core: F, F3 11

Decision Rules 1 F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1..5.98.3.3 3.4 1.4.3 1 3.99.95 3.4 1.97 4.3.5 3.11 3.1 5.3 1.97.96. 1 6.4.5 1.4 1.4 1 7.99 3.4 1.4 1.4 8 1..97.94 3.1 1 Rule 1. (IF F1 in [.35,.515]) THEN (D = 1); [1, 5%][6] Rule. (IF F1 in [.3,.35]) THEN (D = 1); [1, 5%][5] Rule 3. (IF F in [.96, 1.47]) THEN (D = 1); [1, 5%][8] Rule 4. (IF F4 in [.5,.5]) AND (A3 in [1,.1]) THEN (D = 1); [1, 5%][] Rule 5. (IF F1 in [.515, 1.5]) THEN (D = ); [, 5%][3,7] Rule 6. (IF F in [.1,.545]) THEN (D = ); [1, 5%][4] Rule 7. (IF F3 in [.1, 3.1]) THEN (D = ); [1, 5%][1] Decision Rules F1 F F3 F4 D 1 1..5.98.3.3 3.4 1.4.3 1 3.99.95 3.4 1.97 4.3.5 3.11 3.1 5.3 1.97.96. 1 6.4.5 1.4 1.4 1 7.99 3.4 1.4 1.4 8 1..97.94 3.1 1 Rule 1. IF (F <=.55) AND(F3 <=.1) THEN (D = 1); [3, 75%][5, 6, 8] Rule. IF (F1 >= 1.55) AND (F3 <=.75) THEN (D = 1); [1, 5%][] Rule 3. IF (F1 in [.515, 1.5]) THEN (D = ); [, 5%] [3, 7] Rule 4. IF (F3 >=.1) THEN (D = ); [3, 75%] [1, 3, 4] 1

Types of Rules Eact One set of conditions implies one outcome Approimate One set conditions implies more than one outcome Question Are the two rule eact or approimate? Rule 1. IF (F <=.55) AND (F3 <=.1) THEN (D = 1) Rule. IF (F1 >= 1.55) AND (F3 <=.75) THEN (D = 1) Eact! 13

Rule Accuracy - Coverage Relationship Coverage Accuracy Rule antecedent length Eample Eight objects, each with four features and outcome D Object No. F 1 F F 3 F 4 D 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 3 8 3 1 1 14

More about Reducts Single feature reducts for objects 1 and Object No. F 1 F F 3 F 4 D 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 3 8 3 1 1 1 Object 1 1 Object 1 1 1 Reduct Generation Algorithm (Based on Pawlak 1991) Step. Initialize object number i = 1. Step 1.Select object i and find a set of reducts with one feature only. If found, go to Step 3, otherwise go to Step. Step. For object i, find an reduct with m - 1 features, where m is the number of input features. This step is accomplished by deleting one feature at a time. Step 3. Set i = i + 1. If all objects have been considered, Stop; otherwise go to Step 1. 15

RG Algorithm The reduct generation algorithm enumerates reducts with one or m - 1 features only Considering k out of m features would result in m!/k!(m - k)! reducts Eample Object No. F 1 F F 3 F 4 O 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 16

All reducts for object 1 Object No. F 1 F F 3 F 4 D Reduct No. 1 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 F 1 F F 3 F 4 D 1 1 1 1 1 All reducts for object Object F 1 F F 3 F 4 O Reduct F 1 F F 3 F 4 O No. No. 1 3 11 3 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 17

Eample: Decision Table Object Condition Features Decision Features X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Information system: Definition S = < U, Q, V, f > Information System Components Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Information System S = < U, Q, V, f > Universe U = { 1,,..., 8 } Set of features Q = {q 1, q, q 3, q 4 } = {MONITOR, OS, CPU, d} Domain of the features V = U q Q Vq Decision function f : U Q V 18

Attribute Domain Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Domain of the features V = U q Q Vq Vq = {Color, Monochrome}; Vq = {DOS, Windows}; 1 Vq 3 = {386, 486, Pentium} ; Vq 4 = {Poor, Good, Ecellent}; Eample Concepts Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent X = {Inefficient PCs configuration} = {, } 1 3 5 X = {PCs with good price/performance relationship} = {, 4 } X = {Obsolete PCs} = { 3 5, 8 } 19

Eample Classification Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent A*= {CPU, d} = { = { 1, 6 }, X = { }, = { 3 }, = { 4 }, = { 5 }, = { 7 }, = { 8 }} ; The following partitions of U grouped in the equivalence classes: {, X,..., } have been obtained Eample: Equivalence Class Description Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Des A ( ) = {(q 1, Color), (q, DOS), (q 3, 486), (q 4, Good)} = {(q 1 = Color), (q = DOS), (q 3 = 486), (q 4 = Good)}

Indiscernibility Relation 1 Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Given A = {MONITOR}, the indiscernibility relation IND (A), is determined as follows: f ( 1, q 1 ) = f (, q 1 ) = f ( 4, q 1 ) = f ( 5, q 1 ) = f ( 8, q 1 ) = {Color}; f ( 3, q 1 ) = f ( 6, q 1 ) = f ( 7, q 1 ) = {Monochrome}; The above relation generates the following equivalence classes: XThe 1 = University { 1,, of Iowa 4, 5, 8 }, X = { 3, 6, 7 } Equivalence Class Description 1 Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent The description of each equivalence class is as follows: Des A( ) = {( q 1, Color)} = {( q 1 = Color)}; Des A(X ) = {( q 1, Monochrome)} = {( q 1 = Monochrome)}; 1

Classification 1 Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent The family of equivalence classes {, X } partitions the objects universe into two disjoint groups: PCs having Color Monitors and PCs having Monochrome Monitors, forming the following classification U/IND (A) = A * = { = { 1,, 4, 5, 8}, X = { 3, 6, 7}}. Indiscernibility relation Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Given the feature set A = {MONITOR, CPU}, the following objects form indiscernibility relation IND (A): f {( 1, q 1 ), ( 1, q 3 )} = f {( 4, q 1 ), ( 4, q 3 )} = {Color, 486}; f {(, q 1 ), (, q 3 )} = {Color, Pentium}; f {( 3, q 1 ), ( 3, q 3 )} = f {( 7, q 1 ), ( 7, q 3 )} = {Monochrome, Pentium}; f {( 5, q 1 ), ( 5, q 3 )} = f {( 8, q 1 ), ( 8, q 3 )} = {Color, 386}; f {( 6, q 1 ), ( 6, q 3 )} = {Monochrome, 486};

Equivalence Class Description Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Des A( ) = {(q 1, Color), (q 3, 486)} = {(q 1 = Color), (q 3 = 486)}; Des A(X ) = {(q 1, Color), (q 3, Pentium)} = {(q 1 = Color), (q 3 = Pentium)}; Des A( ) = {(q 1, Monochrome), (q 3, Pentium)} = {(q 1 = Monochrome), (q 3 = Pentium)}; Des A( ) = {(q 1, Color), (q 3, 386)} = {(q 1 = Color), (q 3 = 386)}; Des A( ) = {(q 1, Monochrome), (q 3, 486)} = {(q 1 = Monochrome), (q 3 = 486)}; Classification Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent The family of equivalence classes {, X,,, } partitions the objects universe into five disjoint groups, for the considered feature set A = {MONITOR, CPU}: {Color, 486}, {Color, Pentium}, {Monochrome, Pentium}, {Color, 386 }and {Monochrome, 486}, forming the following classification U/IND(A) = A * = { = { 1, 4}, X = { }, = { 3, 7}, = { 5, 8}, = { 6}}. 3

Approimations: Eample 1 Object Condition Features Decision X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent For the set of features A = {MONITOR}, and objects X = { 1,, 3, 4 } determine A-lower, A-upper approimations and A-boundary region Eample 1 A = {MONITOR} X = { 1,, 3, 4 } The following equivalence classes are defined for the set of features A = {MONITOR}: [ 1 ] A = { 1,, 4, 5, 8 }, [ ] A = { 3, 6, 7 }. The A-lower approimation is given by: AX = { U: [] A X}, the A-upper approimation is given by: À X = { U: [] A X } and the A-boundary region is given by: BN A (X) = À X - AX, then: Union A-lower approimation = AX = (empty set). A-upper approimation = À X = [ 1 ] A [ ] A = { 1,, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 } = U. A-boundaryregion = BN A (X) = U - = U. 4

Eample 1 X = { 1,, 3, 4 } Object Condition Features Decision Attribute X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Card (AX) = Card BNA(X) = 8 - = 8 Card (AX) = 8 Accuracy μq (X) = /8 = Eample Object Condition Features Decision Attribute X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent For the set of features A = {MONITOR, OS}, and objects X = { 1,, 3, 6 } determine A-lower, A-upper approimations and A-boundary region 5

AX = { U: [] A X} À X = { U: [] A X } Eample A = {MONITOR, OS}, X = { 1,, 3, 6 } The following equivalence classes are determined for this particular set of features A: [ 1 ] A = { 1, 5 }, [ ] A = {, 4, 8 }, [ 3 ] A = { 3 }, [ 4 ] A = { 6, 7 }, then: A-lower approimation = AX = { 3 }; A-upper approimation = À X = [ 1 ] A [ ] A [ 3 ] A [ 4 ] A = { 1,, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 } = U. A-boundaryregion = BN A (X ) = U -{ 3 } = { 1,, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 }. L Appro Eample Object Condition Features Decision Attribute X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Card (AX) = 1 Card BNA(X) = 8-1 = 7 Card (AX) = 8 Accuracy μq (X) = 1/8 =.15 6

Eample 3 Object Condition Features Decision Attribute X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent For the set of features A= {MONITOR, OS, CPU}, and objects X = { 1,, 4, 6 } A-lower, A-upper approimation and A-boundary region AX = { U: [] A X} Eample 3 À X = { U: [] A X A = {MONITOR, OS, CPU}, X = { 1,, 4, 6 }. The following equivalence classes are determined for this particular set of features A: [1]A = {1}, []A = {}, [3]A = {3}, [4]A = {4}, [5]A = {5}, [6]A = {6}, [7]A = {7}, [8]A = {8} so: A-lower approimation = AX = {1,, 4, 6} A-upper approimation = À X = [ 1]A []A [4]A [6]A = { 1,, 4, 6} A-boundary region = BNA(X) = {1,, 4, 6} - {1,, 4, 6} =. 7

Eample 3 L Appro Object Condition Features Decision Attribute X Color Windows Pentium Ecellent Color Windows 486 Ecellent Card (AX) = 4 Card BNA(X) = 4-4 = Card (AX) = 4 Accuracy μq (X) = 4/4 = 1 Classification Accuracy Revisited Accuracy μa (X) = Card (AX) Card (AX) Given the set of objects X = {X1, X, X4, X6} and the subset of features A = {Monitor, OS, CPU} The accuracy of approimation of set X by the set of features A is μa (X) = 4/4 = 1 (for short the accuracy of X) ρa (X) = 1 - μa (X) is called the A-roughness of the set A (A-roughness for short) 8

U Q Eample c1 c d 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 1 7 8 1 9 1 1 1 Classification Accuracy Consider equivalence classes created on basis of (c1, c) The A ={c1, c}-elementary sets are as follows: { Q 1, }, { 3, 4 }, { 5 }, { 6 }, { 7, 8 }, { 9, 1 }. U Set of objects { 3, 5, 6, 8 } X = with d = 1 AX = { 5 } { 6 } AX={ 5 } { 6 } { 3, 4 } { 7, 8 } μa( X)= /6 =.33 c 1 c d 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 1 7 8 1 9 1 1 1 9

Classification Quality Classification Quality = Lower approimation/ Number of eamples in a given decision class Entire Data Set Classification accuracy = Number of objects in all lower approimations / Number of objects in all upper approimations Classification quality = Number of objects in all lower approimations/ Number of all objects in the data set 3

Quality Loss Assume the set of features P = {a, b, c}, and Feature a is removed from P Quality Loss = Classification Quality (P) - Classification Quality (P -{ a }) Quality Gain Assume the set of features P = {a, b, c}, and Feature d is added to P Quality Gain = Classification Quality (P + {d }) - Classification Quality (P) 31