Advertisement

Granular Computing

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 337–350 | Cite as

Granule description based on positive and negative attributes

  • Huilai Zhi
  • Jinhai LiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Granule description is a fundamental problem in granular computing. The existing studies are mainly based on Wille’s concept lattice, and attribute reduction techniques, e.g., minimal generators of granules, are often adopted to compute the most concise description of a given granule. However, on one hand, as the construction of concept lattice has a relatively high time complexity especially for large formal contexts, it may bring difficulties in real applications. On the other hand, how to use positive and negative attributes for granule description is still an open problem. In this paper, to improve the description efficiency, we first consider attribute-induced atomic granules as the building blocks of more complicated granules. And then, we discuss granule description based on positive and negative attributes, respectively. Finally, granule description is also investigated by combining positive and negative attributes. The main contribution of this study is to find the most concise descriptions of definable granules from the perspectives of positive and negative attributes.

Keywords

Granular computing Granule description Atomic granule Basic granule Atomic granule diagram 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 61502150 and 61562050).

References

  1. Ahmad SSS, Pedrycz W (2017) The development of granular rule-based systems: a study in structural model compression. Granul Comput 2:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargiela A, Pedrycz W (2002) Granular computing: an introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartl E, Konecny J (2016) \(L\)-concept analysis with positive and negative attributes. Inf Sci 360:96–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belardinelli A, Butz M (2014) Report on the 35th annual cognitive science conference. AI Mag 35(2):79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bělohlávek R, De Baets B, Konecny J (2014) Granularity of attributes in formal concept analysis. Inf Sci 260:149–170MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourne L (1970) Knowing and using concepts. Psychol Rev 77:546–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Aniello G, Gaeta A, Loia V, Orciouli F (2017) A granular computing framework for approximate reasoning in situation awareness. Granu Comput 2:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis R, Shrobe H, Szolovits P (2002) What is a knowledge representation? AI Mag 14(1):17–33Google Scholar
  9. Düntsch I, Gediga G (2002) Modal-style operators in qualitative data analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE international conference on data mining. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C., pp 155–162Google Scholar
  10. Ganter B, Wille R (1999) Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundations. Springer, BerlinzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jia X, Shang L, Zhou B, Yao Y (2016) Generalized attribute reduction in rough set theory. Knowl Based Syst 91:204–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kent R (1996) Rough concept analysis: a synthesis of rough sets and formal concept analysis. Fundam Inform 27:169–181MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuznetsov S, Obiedkov S (2002) Comparing performance of algorithms for generating concept lattices. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 14(2–3):189–216zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lang G, Li Q, Cai M, Yang T (2015) Characteristic matrixes-based knowledge reduction in dynamic covering decision information systems. Knowl Based Syst 85:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li J, Mei C, Lv Y (2013a) Incomplete decision contexts: approximate concept construction, rule acquisition and knowledge reduction. Int J Approx Reason 54(1):149–165MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li J, Mei C, Cherukuri A, Zhang X (2013b) On rule acquisition in decision formal contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 4(6):721–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li J, Mei C, Xu W, Qian Y (2015) Concept learning via granular computing: a cognitive viewpoint. Inf Sci 298:447–467MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li J, Huang C, Qi J, Qian Y, Liu W (2017) Three-way cognitive concept learning via multi-granularity. Inf Sci 378:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Medina J (2012) Relating attribute reduction in formal, object-oriented and property-oriented concept lattices. Comput Math Appl 64(6):1992–2002MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niu J, Huang C, Li J, Fan M (2018) Parallel computing techniques for concept-cognitive learning based on granular computing. Int J Mach Learn Cybern.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-018-0783-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Novak V (2004) Intensional theory of granular computing. Soft Comput 8(4):281–290zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inform Sci 11:341–356zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pawlak Z (1991) Rough sets-theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Publishers, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Pedrycz W, Chen SM (2011) Granular computing and intelligent systems: design with information granules of high order and high type. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pedrycz W, Chen SM (2015a) Granular computing and decision-making: interactive and iterative approaches. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pedrycz W, Chen SM (2015b) Information granularity, big data, and computational intelligence. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pedrycz W, Homenda W (2013) Building the fundamentals of granular computing: a principle of justifiable granularity. Appl Soft Comput 13:4209–4218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qi J, Wei L, Yao Y (2014) Three-way formal concept analysis. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8818:732–741zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qi J, Qian T, Wei L (2016) The connections between three-way and classical concept lattices. Knowl Based Syst 91:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richard K (1972) Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In: Miller RE, Thatcher JW (eds) Complexity of computer computations. Plenum Press, New York, pp 85–103Google Scholar
  31. Shivhare R, Aswani Kumar Ch (2017) Three-way conceptual approach for cognitive memory functionalities. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8(1):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh PK (2017b) Three-way fuzzy concept lattice representation using neutrosophic set. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh PK (2018a) Bipolar fuzzy concept learning using next neighbor and Euclidean distance. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3114-0 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Singh PK (2018b) Similar vague concepts selection using their Euclidean distance at different granulation. Cogn Comput 10(2):228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singh PK (2018c) Interval-valued neutrosophic graph representation of concept lattice and its (\(\alpha, \beta, \gamma\))-decomposition. Arab J Sci Eng 67:52–62Google Scholar
  36. Singh PK (2018d) m-polar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Eng Appl Artif Intell 43(2):723–740Google Scholar
  37. Singh PK, Aswani Kumar Ch (2014) Bipolar fuzzy graph representation of concept lattice. Inf Sci 288:437–448MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh PK, Aswani Kumar Ch (2017) Concept lattice reduction using different subset of attributes as information granules. Granul Comput 2(3):159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang G (2017) DGCC: data-driven granular cognitive computin. Granul Comput 2(4):343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang L, Liu X (2008) Concept analysis via rough set and AFS algebra. Inf Sci 178(21):4125–4137MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Y, Wang Y (2006) Cognitive informatics models of the brain. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 36(2):203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang G, Yang J, Xu J (2017) Granular computing: from granularity optimization to multi-granularity joint problem solving. Granul Comput 2(3):105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wei L, Wan Q (2017) Granular transformation and irreducible element judgment theory based on pictorial diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 46(2):380–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wille R (1982) Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In: Rival I (ed) Ordered sets. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 445–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. William-West TO, Singh D (2018) Information granulation for rough fuzzy hypergraphs. Granul Comput 3(1):75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu X, Zhang C, Zhang S (2004) Efficient mining of both positive and negative association rules. ACM Trans Inf Syst 22(3):381–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu W, Leung Y, Mi J (2009) Granular computing and knowledge reduction in formal contexts. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 21(10):1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Xu W, Li W (2016) Granular computing approach to two-way learning based on formal concept analysis in fuzzy datasets. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(2):366–379MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xu W, Pang J, Luo S (2014) A novel cognitive system model and approach to transformation of information granules. Int J Approx Reason 55(3):853–866MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu W, Li W, Zhang X (2017) Generalized multigranulation rough sets and optimal granularity selections. Granul Comput 2(4):271–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yao Y (2001) Modeling data mining with granular computing. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual international computer software and applications conference. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C., pp 638–643Google Scholar
  52. Yao Y (2004) Concept lattices in rough set theory. In: Proceedings of 23rd international meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C., pp 796–801Google Scholar
  53. Yao Y (2009) Interpreting concept learning in cognitive informatics and granular computing. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 39(4):855–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yao Y (2010) Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inf Sci 180:341–353MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yao Y (2016a) Rough-set analysis: interpreting RS-definable concepts based on ideas from formal concept analysis. Inf Sci 346–347:442–462MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yao Y (2016b) A triarchic theory of granular computing. Granul Comput 1(2):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yao Y (2016c) Two sides of the theory of rough sets. Knowl Based Syst 80:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yao Y (2017) Interval sets and three-way concept analysis in incomplete contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yao Y, Zhou B (2007) A logic language of granular computing. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE international conference on cognitive informatics. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C. pp 178–185Google Scholar
  60. Yu H, Li Q, Cai M (2018) Characteristics of three-way concept lattices and three-way rough concept lattices. Knowl Based Syst 146:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zadeh L (1997) Towards a theory of fuzzy information granulation and its centrality in human reasoning and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets Syst 19:111–127MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang W, Qiu G (2005) Uncertain decision making based on rough sets. Tsinghua University Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhi H, Li J (2016) Granule description based on formal concept analysis. Knowl Based Syst 104:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhi H, Li J (2018) Influence of dynamical changes on concept lattice and implication rules. J Mach Learn Cybern 9:705–805Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyHenan Polytechnic UniversityJiaozuoPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceKunming University of Science and TechnologyKunmingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations