Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

A Method to Reduce Boundary Regions in Three-Way Decision Theory

  • Conference paper
Rough Sets and Knowledge Technology (RSKT 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8818))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A method for dealing the boundary region in three-way decision theory is proposed. In the three-way decision theory, all the elements are divided into three regions: positive region, negative region and boundary region. Positive region makes a decision of acceptance, negative region makes a decision of rejection. They can generate certain rules. However, boundary region makes a decision of abstaining. They generate uncertain rule. In classification, we always do with the boundary region. In this paper, we propose a method based on tri-training algorithm to reduce the boundary region. In the tri-training algorithm, we build up three classifiers based on three-way decision. We divide all the data into three parts randomly, aiming to keep the three classifiers different. We adopt a voting mechanism to label test samples. Experiments have shown that in most cases, tri-training algorithm is not only benefit for reducing boundary regions but also for improving classification precision. We also find some rules about the parameters alpha and beta how to affect boundary regions and classification precision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yao, Y.Y., Wong, S.K.M., Lingras, P.: A decision-theorectic rough set model. Methodologies for Intelligent Systems 5, 17–24 (1990)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Science 11(5), 341–356 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Pawlak, Z.: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ziarko, W.: Variable precision rough set model. Journal of Computer and System Science 46, 39–59 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Slezak, D., Ziarko, W.: The investigation of the Bayesian rough set model. International Journal of Approximation Reasoning 40, 81–91 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Yao, Y.Y.: Three-way decision: An interpretation of rules in rough set theory. Rough Sets and Knowledge Technology, 642–649 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chan, A., Gilon, D., Manor, O., et al.: Probabilistic reasoning and clinical decision-making: do doctors overestimate diagnostic probalities. An International Journal of Medicine 96, 763–769 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lurie, J.D., Sox, H.C.: Principles of medical decision making. Spine 24, 493–498 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pauker, S.G., Kassirer, J.P.: The threshold approach to clinical decision making. The New England Journal of Medicine 302, 1109–1117 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Der Gaag, L.C., Coupe, V.M.H.: Sensitive analysis for threshold decision making with Bayesian belief network. In: Advances in Artifical Intelligence. LNCS, vol. 1792, pp. 37–48 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sherif, M., Hovland, C.I.: Social judgement: assimilation and constrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press, New Haven (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Forster, M.R.: Key concepts in model selection performance and generalizability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44, 205–231 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Goudey, R.: Do statistical inferences allowing three alternative decisions give better feedback for environmentally precautionary decision-making. Journal of Environment Management 85, 338–334 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Woodward, P.W., Naylor, J.C.: An application of Bayesian methods in SPC. The Staatistician 42, 461–469 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weller, A.C.: Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weakness. Information Today, Inc., Medford (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jia, X., Zheng, K., Li, W., Liu, T., Shang, L.: Three-way decisions solution to filter spam email: An empirical study. In: Yao, J., Yang, Y., Słowiński, R., Greco, S., Li, H., Mitra, S., Polkowski, L. (eds.) RSCTC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7413, pp. 287–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhou, B., Yao, Y.Y., Luo, J.G.: Cost-sensitive three-way email spam filtering. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Li, W., Miao, D.Q., Wang, W.L., Zhang, N.: Hierarchical rough decision theoretic framework for text classification. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Congnitive Informatics, pp. 484–489 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou, Z.H., Li, M.: Tri-training: Exploiting unlabeled data using three classifiers. IEEE Transactions Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1529–1541 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Blum, A., Mitchell, T.: Combining Labeled and Unlabeled Data with Co-Training. In: Computational Learning Theory, pp. 92–100 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. UCI Machine Learning Repository, http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ping Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Li, P., Shang, L., Li, H. (2014). A Method to Reduce Boundary Regions in Three-Way Decision Theory. In: Miao, D., Pedrycz, W., Ślȩzak, D., Peters, G., Hu, Q., Wang, R. (eds) Rough Sets and Knowledge Technology. RSKT 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8818. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11740-9_76

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11740-9_76

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11739-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11740-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics