4.7 Article

Rough set model based on formal concept analysis

期刊

INFORMATION SCIENCES
卷 222, 期 -, 页码 611-625

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2012.07.052

关键词

FCA; Rough set theory; Rough concept lattice; Rugh concept; Decision dependency

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [60970014, 61070100, 61175067, 61100058, 61170059, 60875040]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi, China [2010011021-1, 2011021013-2]
  3. Foundation of Doctoral Program Research of Ministry of Education of China [200801080006]
  4. Shanxi Foundation of Tackling Key Problem in Science and Technology [20110321027-02]
  5. Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province of China [KJ2011A086]
  6. Graduate Innovation Project of Shanxi Province, China [20103004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a rough set model based on formal concept analysis. In this model, a solution to an algebraic structure problem is first provided in an information system: a lattice structure is inferred from the information system and corresponding nodes are called rough concepts. How to deal with common problems in rough set theory based on rough concepts is then explored, such as upper and lower approximation operators, reducts and cores. Decision dependency has become a common form of knowledge representation owing to its properties of expressiveness and ease of understanding, so it has been widely used in practice: Finally, application of rough concepts to the extraction of decision dependencies from a decision table is studied; a complete and non-redundant set of decision dependencies can be obtained from a decision table. Examples demonstrate that application of the method presented in this paper is valid and practicable. The results not only provide a better understanding of rough set theory from the perspective of formal concept analysis, but also demonstrate a new way of combining rough set theory and formal concept analysis. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据