Parallel computing techniques for concept-cognitive learning based on granular computing

Original Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Concept-cognitive learning, as an interdisciplinary study of concept lattice and cognitive learning, has become a hot research direction among the communities of rough set, formal concept analysis and granular computing in recent years. The main objective of concept-cognitive learning is to learn concepts from a give clue with the help of cognitive learning methods. Note that this kind of studies can provide concept lattice insight to cognitive learning. In order to deal with more complex data and improve learning efficiency, this paper investigates parallel computing techniques for concept-cognitive learning in terms of large data and multi-source data based on granular computing and information fusion. Specifically, for large data, a parallel computing framework is designed to extract global granular concepts by combining local granular concepts. For multi-source data, an effective information fusion strategy is adopted to obtain final concepts by integrating the concepts from all single-source data. Finally, we conduct some numerical experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed parallel computing algorithms.

Keywords

Formal concept analysis Granular computing Parallel computing Concept-cognitive learning Information fusion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61562050, 61305057 and 61573173).

References

  1. 1.
    Aswani Kumar Ch, Ishwarya MS, Loo CK (2015) Formal concept analysis approach to cognitive functionalities of bidirectional associative memory. Biol Inspir Cogn Architect 12:20–33Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angluin D (1998) Queries and concept learning. Mach Learn 2(4):319–342MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen HM, Li TR, Ruan D et al (2013) A rough-set-based incremental approach for updating approximations under dynamic maintenance environments. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25(2):274–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dias SM, Vieira NJ (2017) A methodology for analysis of concept lattice reduction. Inform Sci 396:202–217MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duntsch I, Gediga G (2002) Modal-style operators in qualitative data analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. Springer, Washington, DC, pp 155–162Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fielding AH (2007) Clustering and classification techniques for the biosciences. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank A, Asuncion A (2010) UCI machine learning repository. University of California, School of Information and Computer Science, Irvine. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml. Accessed 16 Sept 2010
  8. 8.
    Ganter B, Wille R (1999) Formal concept analysis. Mathematical foundations. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ganter B, Kuznetsov SO (2008) Scale coarsening as feature selection. In: Proceeding of the 6th International Conference on Formal Concept Analysis. Montreal, Canada, pp 217–228Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang CC, Li JH, Mei CL, Wu WZ (2017) Three-way concept learning based on cognitive operators: an information fusion viewpoint. Int J Approx Reason 83:218–242MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konecny J, Osicka P (2014) Triadic concept lattices in the framework of aggregation structures. Inf Sci 279:512–527MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuznetsov SO (2004) Complexity of learning in concept lattices from positive and negative examples. Discr Appl Math 142(1–3):111–125MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuznetsov SO (2013) Fitting pattern structures to knowledge discovery in big data. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Formal Concept Analysis. Dresden, Germany, pp 254–266Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lake BM, Salakhutdinov R, Tenenbaum JB (2015) Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science 350:1332–1338MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lang GM, Li QG, Cai MJ et al (2015) Characteristic matrixes-based knowledge reduction in dynamic covering decision information systems. Knowl-Based Syst 85:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li JH, Mei CL, Xu WH, Qian YH (2015) Concept learning via granular computing: a cognitive viewpoint. Inf Sci 298:447–467MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li JH, Huang CC, Xu WH, Qian YH, Liu WQ (2015) Cognitive concept learning via granular computing for big data. In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on machine learning and cybernetics. Guangzhou, China, pp 289–294Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li JH, Huang CC, Qi JJ, Qian YH, Liu WQ (2017) Three-way cognitive concept learning via multi-granularity. Inf Sci 378:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li JH, Mei CL, Lv YJ (2013) Incomplete decision contexts: approximate concept construction, rule acquisition and knowledge reduction. Int J Approx Reason 54(1):149–165MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li JH, Ren Y, Mei CL et al (2016) A comparative study of multigranulation rough sets and concept lattices via rule acquisition. Knowl-Based Syst 91:152–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li WT, Xu WH (2015) Double-quantitative decision-theoretic rough set. Inf Sci 316:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo C, Li TR, Yi Z et al (2016) Matrix approach to decision-theoretic rough sets for evolving data. Knowl-Based Syst 99:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ma JM, Zhang WX, Leung Y, Song XX (2007) Granular computing and dual Galois connection. Inf Sci 177(23):5365–5377MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Medina J (2012) Relating attribute reduction in formal, object-oriented and property-oriented concept lattices. Comput Math Appl 64(6):1992–2002MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inform Sci 11:341–356CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pedrycz W (2013) Granular computing: analysis and design of intelligent systems. CRC Press/Francis Taylor, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poelmans J, Kuznetsov SO, Ignatov DI, Dedene G (2013) Formal concept analysis in knowledge processing: a survey on models and techniques. Expert Syst Appl 40(16):6601–6623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Qi JJ, Qian T, Wei L (2015) The connections between three-way and classical concept lattices. Knowl-Based Syst 91:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Qiu GF, Ma JM, Yang HZ, Zhang WX (2010) A mathematical model for concept granular computing system. Sci China Inform Sci 53(7):1397–1408MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Radhika S, Aswani Kumar Ch, Li JH (2017) Establishment of cognitive relations based on cognitive informatics. Cogn Comput 9(5):721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saquer J, Deogun JS (2001) Concept approximations based on rough sets and similarity measures. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 11(3):655–674MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shao MW, Liu M, Zhang WX (2007) Set approximations in fuzzy formal concept analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 158(23):2627–2640MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    She YH, Li JH, Yang HL (2015) A local approach to rule induction in multi-scale decision tables. Knowl-Based Syst 89:398–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Singh PK, Kumar CA, Gani A (2016) A comprehensive survey on formal concept analysis, its research trends and applications. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 26(2):495–516MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang GY, Xu CL, Li DY (2014) Generic normal cloud model. Inf Sci 280:1–15MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang Y (2008) On concept algebra: a denotational mathematical structure for knowledge and sofrware modelling. Int J Cogn Inform Nat Intell 2(2):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang Y (2009) On cognitive computing. Int J Softw Sci Comput Intell 1(3):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang C, Shao M, He Q, Qian Y, Qi Y (2016) Feature subset selection based on fuzzy neighborhood rough sets. Knowl-Based Syst 111(1):173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang C, Qi Y, Shao M et al (2016) A fitting model for feature selection with fuzzy rough sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(4):741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang C, Hu Q, Wang X et al (2017) Feature selection based on neighborhood discrimination index. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2017.2710422
  41. 41.
    Wang R, Wang XZ, Kwong S et al (2017) Incorporating diversity and informativeness in multiple-instance active learning. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(6):1460–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang XZ, Hong JR (1998) On the handling of fuzziness for continuous-valued attributes in decision tree generation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 99(3):283–290MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang XZ, Li CG (2005) A new definition of sensitivity for RBFNN and its applications to feature reduction. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3496:81–86CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang XZ, Dong CR, Fan TG (2007) Training T-S norm neural networks to refine weights for fuzzy if-then rules. Neurocomputing 70(13–15):2581–2587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wei L, Wan Q (2016) Granular transformation and irreducible element judgment theory based on pictorial diagrams. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(2):380–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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
  47. 47.
    Wu WZ, Leung Y, Mi JS (2009) Granular computing and knowledge reduction in formal contexts. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 21(10):1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Xu WH, Li MM, Wang XZ (2017) Information fusion based on information entropy in fuzzy multi-source incomplete information system. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19(4):1200–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xu WH, Yu JH (2017) A novel approach to information fusion in multi-source datasets: a granular computing viewpoint. Inf Sci 378:410–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Xu WH, Li WT (2016) Granular computing approach to two-way learning based on formal concept analysis in fuzzy datasets. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(2):366–379MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Xu WH, Li JH, Wei L, Zhang T (2016) Formal concept analysis: theory and application. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Xu WH, Pang JZ, Luo SQ (2014) A novel cognitive system model and approach to transformation of information granular. Int J Approx Reason 53(3):853–866CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yang YY, Chen DG, Wang H et al (2017) Fuzzy rough set based incremental attribute reduction from dynamic data with sample arriving. Fuzzy Sets Syst 312:66–86MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yao YY (2004a) Concept lattices in rough set theory. In: Proceedings of 2004 annual meeting of the north American fuzzy information processing society. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 796–801Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yao YY (2004b) A comparative study of formal concept analysis and rough set theory in data analysis. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on rough sets and current trends in computing. Uppsala, Sweden, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yao YY (2009) Interpreting concept learning in cognitive informatics and granular computing. IEEE Trans Cybern 39(4):855–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yao YY (2016) Three-way decisions and cognitive computing. Cogn Comput 8(4):543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yao YY (2017) Interval sets and three-way concept analysis in incomplete contexts. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 8(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zadeh LA (1979) Fuzzy sets and information granularity. In: Advances in Fuzzy Set Theory and Applications. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 433–448Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhang WX, Xu WH (2007) Cognitive model based on granular computing. Chin J Eng Math 24(6):957–971MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhang QH, Xing YK (2010) Formal concept analysis based on granular computing. J Comput Inform Syst 6(7):2287–2296Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zhai YH, Li DY, Qu KS (2015) Decision implication canonical basis: a logical perspective. J Comput Syst Sci 81(1):208–218MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhi HL, Li J (2016) Granule description based on formal concept analysis. Knowl-Based Syst 104:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiaojiao Niu
    • 1
  • Chenchen Huang
    • 2
  • Jinhai Li
    • 1
  • Min Fan
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceKunming University of Science and TechnologyKunmingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute for Data Science and EngineeringEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations