Rough Sets Theory
1 / 107

Johanna GOLD - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Rough Sets Theory Logical Analysis of Data. Monday , November 26, 2007. Johanna GOLD. Introduction. Comparison of two theories for rules induction. Different methodologies Same results?. Generalities. Set of objects described by attributes. Each object belongs to a class.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Johanna GOLD

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Rough Sets Theory

Logical Analysis of Data.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Johanna GOLD


  • Comparison of two theories for rules induction.

  • Different methodologies

  • Same results?


  • Set of objects described by attributes.

  • Each object belongs to a class.

  • We want decision rules.


  • There are two approaches:

    • Rough Sets Theory (RST)

    • Logical Analysis of Data (LAD)

  • Goal : compare them


Rough Sets Theory

Logical Analysis Of data




  • Two examples having the exact same values in all attributes, but belonging to two different classes.

  • Example: two sick people have the same symptomas but different disease.

Covered by RST

  • RST doesn’t correct or aggregate inconsistencies.

  • For each class : determination of lower and upper approximations.


  • Lower : objects we are sure they belong to the class.

  • Upper : objects than can belong to the class.

Impact on rules

  • Lower approximation → certain rules

  • Upper approximation → possible rules


  • Rules induction on numerical data → poor rules → too many rules.

  • Need of pretreatment.


  • Goal : convert numerical data into discrete data.

  • Principle : determination of cut points in order to divide domains into successive intervals.


  • First algorithm: LEM2

  • Improved algorithms:

    • Include the pretreatment

    • MLEM2, MODLEM, …


  • Induction of certain rules from the lower approximation.

  • Induction of possible rules from the upper approximation.

  • Same procedure

Definitions (1)

  • For an attribute x and its value v, a block [(x,v)] of attribute-value pair (x,v) is all the cases where the attribute x has the value v.

  • Ex : [(Age,21)]=[Martha]

    [(Age,22)]=[David ; Audrey]

Definitions (2)

  • Let B be a non-empty lower or upper approximation of a concept represented by a decision-value pair (d,w).

  • Ex : (level,middle)→B=[obj1 ; obj5 ; obj7]

Definitions (3)

  • Let T be a set of pairs attribute-value (a,v).

  • Set B depends on set T if and only if:

Definitions (4)

  • A set T is minimal complex of B if and only if B depends on T and there is no subset T’ of T such as B depends on T’.

Definitions (5)

  • Let T be a non-empty collection of non-empty set of attribute-value pairs.

    • T is a set of T.

    • T is a set of (a,v).

Definitions (6)

  • T is a local cover of B if and only if:

    • Each member T of T is a minimal complex of B.

    • T is minimal



  • LEM2’s output is a local cover for each approximation of the decision table concept.

  • It then convert them into decision rules.


Heuristics details

Among the possible blocks, we choose the one:

  • With the highest priority

  • With the highest intersection

  • With the smallest cardinal

Heuristics details

  • As long as it is not a minimal complex, pairs are added.

  • As long as there is not a local cover, minimal complexes are added.


  • Illustration through an example.

  • We consider that the pretreatment has already been done.

Data set

Cut points

  • For the attribute Height, we have the values 160, 170 and 180.

  • The pretreatment gives us two cut points: 165 and 175.

Blocks [(a,v)]

  • [(Height, 160..165)]={1,3,5}

  • [(Height, 165..180)]={2,4}

  • [(Height, 160..175)]={1,2,3,5}

  • [(Height, 175..180)]={4}

  • [(Hair, Blond)]={1,2}

  • [(Hair, Red)]={3}

  • [(Hair, Black)]={4,5,6}

First concept

  • G = B = [(Attraction,-)] = {1,4,5,6}

  • Here there is no inconsistencies. If there were some, it’s at this point that we have to chose between the lower and the upper approximation.

Eligible pairs

  • Pair (a,v) such as [(a,v)]∩[(Attraction,-)]≠Ø

    • (Height,160..165)

    • (Height,165..180)

    • (Height,160..175)

    • (Height,175..180)

    • (Hair,Blond)

    • (Hair,Black)

Choice of a pair

  • We chose the most appropriate, which is to say (a,v) for which

    | [(a,v)] ∩ [(Attraction,-)] |

    is the highest.

  • Here : (Hair, Black)

Minimal complex

  • The pair (Hair, Black) is a minimal complex because:

New concept

  • B = [(Attraction,-)] – [(Hair,Black)]

    = {1,4,5,6} - {4,5,6}

    = {1}

Choice of a pair (1)

  • Through the pairs (Height,160..165), (Height,160..175) and (Hair, Blond).

  • Intersections having the same cardinality, we chose the pair having the smallest cardinal:

    (Hair, Blond)

Choice of a pair (2)

  • Problem :

  • (Hair, Blond) is non a minimal complex.

  • We chose the following pair:


Minimal Complex

  • {(Hair, Blond),(Height,160..165)} is a second minimal complex.

End of the concept

  • {{(Hair, Black)}, {(Hair, Blond), (Height, 160..165)}}

    is a local cover of [(Attraction,-)].


  • (Hair, Red) → (Attraction,+)

  • (Hair, Blond) & (Height,165..180 ) → (Attraction,+)

  • (Hair, Black) → (Attraction,-)

  • (Hair, Blond) & (Height,160..165 ) → (Attraction,-)


Rough Sets Theory

Logical Analysis Of data




  • Work on binary data.

  • Extension of boolean approach on non-binary case.

Definitions (1)

  • Let S be the set of all observations.

  • Each observation is described by n attributes.

  • Each observation belongs to a class.

Definitions (2)

  • The classification can be considered as a partition into two sets

  • An archiveis represented by a boolean function Φ :

Definitions (3)

  • A literal is a boolean variable or its negation:

  • A term is a conjunction of literals :

  • The degree of a term is the number of literals.

Definitions (4)

  • A term Tcovers a point

    if T(p)=1.

  • A characteristic term of a point p is the unique term of degree n covering p.

  • Ex :

Definitions (5)

  • A term T is an implicant of a boolean function f if T(p) ≤ f(p) for all

  • An implicant is called prime if it is minimal (its degree).

Definitions (6)

  • A positive prime patternis a term covering at least one positive example and no negative example.

  • A negative prime patternis a term covering at least one negative example and no positive example.



  • is a positive pattern :

    • There is no negative example such as

    • There is one positive example : the 3rd line.

  • It's a positive prime pattern :

    • covers one negative example : 4th line.

    • covers one negative example : 5th line.

Pattern generation

  • symmetry between positive and negative patterns.

  • Two approaches :

    • Top-down

    • Bottom-up


  • we associate each positive example to its characteristic term→ it’s a pattern.

  • we take out the literals one by one until having a prime pattern.


  • we begin with terms of degree one:

    • if it does not cover a negative example, it is a pattern

    • If not, we add literals until having a pattern.


  • We prefer short pattern → simplicity principle.

  • we also want to cover the maximum of examples with only one model → globality principle.

  • hybrid approach bottom-up – top-down.

Hybrid approach

  • We fix a degree D.

  • We start by a bottom-up approach to generate the models of degree lower or equal to D.

  • For all the points which are not covered by the 1st phase, we proceed to the top-down approach.

Extension to the non binary case

  • Extension from binary case : binerization.

  • Two types of data :

    • quantitative : age, height, …

    • qualitative : color, shape, …

Qualitative data

  • For each value v that a qualitative attribute x can be, we associate a boolean variable b(x,v) :

    • b(x,v) = 1 if x = v

    • b(x,v) = 0 otherwise

Quantitative data

  • there are two types of associated variables:

    • Level variables

    • Interval variables

Level variables

  • For each attribute x and each cut point t, we introduce a boolean variable b(x,t) :

    • b(x,t) = 1 if x ≥ t

    • b(x,t) = 0 if x < t

Intervals variables

  • For each attribute x and each pair of cut points t’, t’’ (t’<t’’), we introduce a boolean variable b(x,t’,t’’) :

    • b(x,t’,t’’) = 1 if t’ ≤ x < t’’

    • b(x,t’,t’’) = 0 otherwise









Supporting set

  • A set of binary attributes is called supporting set if the archive obtained by the elimination of all the other attributes will remained "contradiction-free".

  • A supporting set is irredundant if there is no subset of it which is a supporting set.


  • We associate to the attributea variable

    such as if the attribute belongs to the supporting set.

  • Application : elements a and e are different on attributes 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 13 :

Linear program

  • We do the same for all pairs of true and false observations :

  • Exponential number of solutions : we choose the smallest set :

Solution of

our example

  • Positive patterns :

  • Negative patterns :


Rough Sets Theory

Logical Analysis Of data



Basic idea

  • LAD more flexible than RST

  • Linear program -> modification of parameters

Comparisonblocks / variables

  • RST : couples (attribute, value)

  • LAD : binary variables

  • Correspondence?

Qualitative data

  • For an attribute a taking the values:

Quantitative data

  • Discretization : convert numerical data into discrete data.

  • Principle : determination of cut points in order to divide domains into successive intervals :

Quantitative data

  • RST : for each cut point, we have two blocks :

Quantitative data

  • LAD : for each cut point, we have a level variable :

    • ...

Quantitative data

  • LAD : for each pair of cut points, we have a interval variable :

    • ...

Quantitative data

  • Correspondence :

    • Level variable :

Quantitative data

  • Correspondence :

    • Interval variable :

Variation of LP parameters

  • Three parameters can change :

    • Right hand side of constraints:

    • coefficients of the objective function:

    • coefficients of the left hand side of the constraints:

Heuristics adaptation

  • We try to adapt the three heuristics :

    • The highest priority

    • The highest intersection with the concept

    • The smallest cardinality

The highest priority

  • Priority on blocks -> priority on attributes

  • Introduction as weights in the objective function

  • Minimization : choice of pairs with first priorities

The highest intersection

  • Pb : in LAD, no notion of concept ; everything is done symmetrically, the same time.

The highest intersection

  • Modification of the heuristic : difference between the intersection with a concept and the intersection with the other.

  • The highest, the better.

The highest intersection

  • Goal of RST : find minimal complexes:

    • Find blocks covering the most examples of the concept : highest possible intersection with the concept

    • Find blocks covering the less examples of the other concept : difference of intersections

The highest intersection

  • For LAD : difference between the number of times a variable takes the value 1 in

    and in .

  • Introduction as weights in the constraints : we choose first the variable with the highest difference.

The smallest cardinality

  • Simple : number of times a variable takes the value 1.

  • Introduction as weight in the constraints.

Weight of the constraints

  • Two calculations to be introduced :

    • The highest difference

    • The smallest cardinality

  • Difference of the two calculations

Right hand side of the constraints

  • Before : everything is 1.

  • Pb : modification of the weights of the left hand side has no signification.

Ideas of modification

  • Average of compared to the number of attributes.

  • Average of in each constraint

  • Inconvenient : not a real signification

Ideas of modification

  • Not touch the weight in the constraints: introduce everything in the coefficients of the objective function:


Rough Sets Theory

Logical Analysis Of data




  • Use of two approximations : lower and upper.

  • Rules generation: sure and possible.


  • Classification mistakes: positive point classified as negative or the other way.

  • Two different cases.

Pos. Point

classified as neg.

  • All other points are well classify : our point will not be covered.

  • If the number of non covered points is high: generation of longer patterns.

  • If this number is small : erroneous classification and we forgot the points for the following.

Neg. Point

classified as pos.

  • Terms covering a lot of positive points : also some negative points.

  • Probably wrongly classified : not taken into account for the evaluation of candidates terms.


  • We introduce a ratio.

  • A term is still candidate if the ratio between negative and positive points is smallest than:

Inconsistenciesand mistakes

  • An inconsistence can be considered as a mistake of classification

  • Inconsistence : two « identical » objects differently classified.

  • One of them is wrongly classified (approximations)


  • Let consider an inconsistence in LAD :

    • two points :

    • two classes :

  • There are two possibilities :

    • is not covered by small degree patterns

    • is covered by patterns of

1st case

  • We have only one inconsistence.

  • The covered point is isolated ; it’s not taken into account.

  • Patterns of will be generated without the inconsistence point

    -> lower approximation

2nd case

  • A point covered by the other concept patterns is wrongly classified.

  • It’s not taken into account for the candidate terms.

  • It’s not taken into account for the pattern generation of

    -> lower approximation

2nd case

  • Not taken into account for but not a problem for

  • For : upper approximation


  • According to a ratio, LAD decide if a point is well classified or not.

  • For an inconsistence, it’s the same as consider:

    • The upper approximation of a class

    • The lower approximation of the other

  • On more than 1 inconsistence : we re-classify the points.


  • Complete data : we can try to match LAD and RST.

  • Inconsistencies : classification mistakes of LAD can correspond to approximations.

  • Missing data : different management

Sources (1)

  • Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse, MLEM2 - Discretization During Rule Induction, Proceedings of the IIPWM'2003, International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing and WEB Mining Systems, Zakopane, Poland, June 2-5, 2003, 499-508. Springer-Verlag.

  • Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse, Jerzy Stefanowski, Three Discretization Methods for Rule Induction, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2001.

  • Endre Boros, Peter L. Hammer, Toshihide Ibaraki, Alexander Kogan, Eddy Mayoraz, Ilya Muchnik, An Implementation of Logical Analysis of Data, Rutcor Research Raport 22-96, 1996.

Sources (2)

  • Endre Boros, Peter L. Hammer, Toshihide Ibaraki, Alexander Kogan, Logical Analysis of Numerical Data, Rutcor Research Raport 04-97, 1997.

  • Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse, Rough Set Strategies to Data with Missing Attribute Values,Proceedings of theWorkshop on Foundation and New Directions in Data Mining, Melbourne, FL, USA. 2003.

  • Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse, Sachin Siddhaye, Rough Set Approaches to Rule Induction from Incomplete Data, Proceedings of the IPMU'2004, the 10th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based System[C],Perugia,Italy, July 4, 2004 2 : 923- 930.

Sources (3)

  • Jerzy Stefanowski, Daniel Vanderpooten, Induction of Decision Rules in Classi_cation and Discovery-Oriented Perspectives, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 16 (1), 2001, 13-28.

  • Jerzy Stefanowski, The Rough Set based Rule Induction Technique for Classification Problems, Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing EUFIT 98, Aachen 7-10 Sept., (1998) 109.113.

  • Roman Slowinski, Jerzy Stefanowski, Salvatore Greco, Benedetto Matarazzo, Rough Sets Processing of Inconsistent Information in Decision Analysis, Control and Cybernetics 29, 379±404, 2000.

  • Login