Advertisement

Introduction: What You Always Wanted to Know about Rough Sets

  • Ewa Orłowska
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 13)

Abstract

In this chapter the major principles and the methodology of the rough set—style analysis of data are presented and discussed. A survey of various formalisms that provide the tools of this analysis is given. We discuss the aspects of incompleteness of information that can be handled in the presented formalisms. The formalisms are related to the methods and/or structures presented in this volume, in each case we point out a relevant link and we give the reference to the respective chapter.

Keywords

Boolean Algebra Information Relation Weak Relation Information Operator Symmetric Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [B]
    Balbiani, Ph. (1997) A modal logic for data analysis. Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, Krakow, Poland, September 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1113, Springer, 167–179.Google Scholar
  2. [BW]
    Baneerje, M. and Wasilewska, A. (1995) Rough sets and topological quasi—Boolean algebras. Proceedings of CSC’95 Workshop on Rough Sets and Database Mining, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 54–59.Google Scholar
  3. [BWS]
    Bryniarski, E. and Wybraniec—Skardowska, U. (1997) Calculus of contextual rough sets in contextual spaces. Journal of Applied Non—Classical Logics, to appear.Google Scholar
  4. [C]
    Cattaneo, G. (1997) Generalized rough sets. Preclusivity fuzzy—intuitionistic ( BZ) lattices. Studia Logica 58, 47–77.Google Scholar
  5. [CN]
    Cattaneo, G. and Nistico, G. (1989) Brouver—Zadeh posets and three—valued Lukasiewicz posets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 33, 165–190.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [CDG]
    Cattaneo, G., Dalla Chiara, M. L. and Giuntini, R. (1993) Fuzzy—intuitionistic quantum logics. Studia Logica 52, 1–24.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Co]
    Corner, S. (1991) An algebraic approach to the approximation of information. Fundamenta Informaticae 14, 492–502.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [CMP]
    Czogala, E., Mrózek, A. and Pawlak, Z. (1995) The idea of rough-fuzzy controler. International Journal of Fuzzy Sets and Systems 72, 61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Cz]
    Czyzewski, A. (1997) Speaker—independent recognition of digits — experiments with neural networks, fuzzy logic and rough sets. Journal of the Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, to appear.Google Scholar
  10. [D1]
    Demri, S. (1996) Private communication.Google Scholar
  11. [D2]
    Demri, S. (1996a) The validity problem for logic DALLA is decidable. Bulletin of the PAS, Mathematics, vol. 44, No 1, 79–86.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [D3]
    Demri, S. (1996b) A class of information logics with a decidable validity problem. Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, Krakow, Poland, September 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1113, Springer, 291–302Google Scholar
  13. [D4]
    Demri, S. (1997) A completeness proof for a logic with an alternative necessity operator. Studia Logica 58, No 1, 99–112.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [DO1]
    Demri, S. and Orlowska, E. (1996) Every finitely reducible logic has the finite model property with respect the class of —formulae. ICS Research Report 10/96, Warsaw University of Technology.Google Scholar
  15. [DO2]
    Demri, S. and Orlowska, E. (1996a) Logical analysis of indiscernibility. ICS Research Report 11/96, Warsaw University of Technology. Also in this volume.Google Scholar
  16. [DO3]
    Demri, S. and Orlowska, E. (1996b) Informational representability of models for information logics. ICS Research Report 9/96, Warsaw University of Technology. Extended abstract in: Proceedings of the First Online Workshop on Soft Computing, Nagoya, Japan, 1996, 139–144.Google Scholar
  17. [DO4]
    Demri, S. and Orlowska, E. (1996c) Informational representability of complementary relations. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  18. [Dul]
    Düntsch, I. (1994) Rough relation algebras. Fundamenta Informaticae 21, 321–331.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [Du2]
    Düntsch, I. (1997) A logic for rough sets. Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.Google Scholar
  20. [DG1]
    Düntsch, I. and Gediga, G. (1995) Rough set dependency analysis in evaluation studies: An application in the study of repeated heart attacks. Informatics Research Reports 10, University of Ulster, 25–30.Google Scholar
  21. [DG2]
    Düntsch, I. and Gediga, G. (1997) Algebraic aspects of attribute dependencies in information systems. Fundamenta Informaticae 29, 119–133.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [DG3]
    Düntsch, I. and Gediga, G. (1997a) Statistical evaluation of rough set dependency analysis. International Journal of Human—Computer Studies, to appear.Google Scholar
  23. [FO]
    Farinas del Cerro, L. and Orlowska, E. (1985) DAL—a logic for data analysis. Theoretical Computer Science 36, 251–264. Corrigendum: ibidem 47, 1986, 345.Google Scholar
  24. [G]
    Gargov, G. (1986) Two completeness theorems in the logic for data analysis. ICS PAS Report 581, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  25. [GPT]
    Gargov, G., Passy, S. and Tinchev, T. (1987) Modal environment for Boolean speculations. In: Skordev, D. (ed) Mathematical Logic and Applications. Plenum Press, New York, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [Go]
    Goldblatt, R. (1993) Mathematics of Modality. CSLI Publications, Lecture Notes No. 43, Stanford, California, USA.Google Scholar
  27. [Grl]
    Grzymala—Busse, J. (1988) Knowledge acquisition under uncertainty — a rough set approach. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 1, 3–16.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [Gr2]
    Grzymala—Busse, J. (1992) LERS—a system for learning from examples based on rough sets. In [SI], 3–18.Google Scholar
  29. [I]
    Iwifski, T. (1987) Algebraic approach to rough sets. Bulletin of the PAS, Mathematics, vol 35, 673–683.Google Scholar
  30. [JT1]
    Jonsson, B. and Tarski, A. (1951) Boolean algebras with operators. Part I. American Journal of Mathematics 73, 891–939.Google Scholar
  31. [JT2]
    Jonsson, B. and Tarski, A. (1952) Boolean algebras with operators. Part II. American Journal of Mathematics 74, 127–162.Google Scholar
  32. [KZ]
    Katzberg, J. and Ziarko, W. (1996) Variable precision extension of rough sets. Fundamenta Informaticae 27, 155–168.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. [Kl]
    Konikowska, B. (1987) A formal language for reasoning about indiscernibility. Bulletin of the PAS, Mathematics, vol 35, 239–249.Google Scholar
  34. [K2]
    Konikowska, B. (1997a) A logic for reasoning about relative similarity. Studia Logica 58, 185–226.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [KOP]
    Konrad, E., Orlowska, E. and Pawlak, Z. (1981) Knowledge representation systems. ICS PAS Report 433.Google Scholar
  36. [Ko]
    Kostek, B. (1997) Rough set and fuzzy set methods applied to acoustical analyses. Journal of the Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, to appear.Google Scholar
  37. [Kr]
    Krysinski, J. (1995) Rough sets in the analysis of the structure—activity relationships of antifungal imidazolium compounds. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 84, 243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [LW]
    Lin, T. Y. and Wildberger, A. M. (eds) (1994) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Rough Sets and Soft Computing, San Jose, USA, November 1994.Google Scholar
  39. [NSS]
    Nowicki, R., Slowinski, R. and Stefanowski, S. (1992) Rough set analysis of diagnostic capacity of vibroacoustic symptoms. Journal of Computers and Mathematics with Applications 24, 109–123.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [1]
    Orlowska, E. (1983) Semantics of vague concepts. In: Dorn, G. and Weingartner, P. (eds) Foundations of Logic and Linguistics. Problems and Solutions. Selected contributions to the 7th International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Salzburg 1983. London—New York, Plenum Press, 465–482.Google Scholar
  41. [2]
    Orlowska, E. (1984) Logic of indiscemibility relations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 208, Springer, Berlin—Heidelberg—New York, 177–186.Google Scholar
  42. [3]
    Orlowska, E. (1985) Logic of nondeterministic information. Studia Logica XLIV, 93–102.Google Scholar
  43. [4]
    Orlowska, E. (1987) Logic for reasoning about knowledge. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 16, No 1, 26–38. Also in the Zeitschrift ftir Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 35, 1989, 559–572.Google Scholar
  44. [5]
    Orlowska, E. (1988) Kripke models with relative accessibility and their application to inferences from incomplete information. In: Mirkowska, G. and Rasiowa, H. (eds) Mathematical Problems in Computation Theory. Banach Center Publications 21, 329–339.Google Scholar
  45. [6]
    Orlowska, E. (1988a) Logical aspects of learning concepts. Journal of Approximate Reasoning 2, 349–364.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [7]
    Orlowska, E. (1995) Information algebras. Proceedings of the AMAST’95, Montreal. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 639, Springer, Berlin—Heidelberg—New York, 50–65.Google Scholar
  47. [8]
    Orlowska, E. (1996) Studying incompleteness of information: A class of information logics. ICS Research Report 27/96, Warsaw University of Technology. To appear in: Kijania—Placek, K. and Wolenski, J. (eds) The Lvov—Warsaw School and Contemporary Philosophy. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  48. [9]
    Orlowska, E. (1997) Many—valuedness and uncertainty. Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Multiple—Valued Logic, Antigonish, Canada, May 1997.Google Scholar
  49. [Pa]
    Pawlak, Z. (1994) Rough Sets. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  50. [PS]
    Pawlak, Z. and Skowron, A. (1994) Rough membership functions. In: Yaeger, R. R., Fedrizzi, M. and Kacprzyk, J. (eds) Advances in the Dempster—Shaefer Theory of Evidence, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 251–271.Google Scholar
  51. [P1]
    Pomykala, J. A. (1987) Approximation operations in approximation space. Bulletin of the PAS, Mathematics, vol 35, 653–662.Google Scholar
  52. [P2]
    Pomykata, J. A. (1988) On definability in the nondeterministic information system. Bulletin of the PAS, Mathematics, vol 36, 193–210.Google Scholar
  53. [P3]
    Pomykala, J. A. (1993) Approximation, similarity and rough constructions. ILLC Prepublication Series, University of Amsterdam, CT-93–07.Google Scholar
  54. [PP]
    Pomykala, J. A. and Pomykala, J. M. (1988) The Stone algebra of rough sets. Bulletin of the PAS, Mathematics, vol 36, 495–508.Google Scholar
  55. [R1]
    Rasiowa, H. (1988) Logic of approximation reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 239, Springer, Berlin—Heidelberg—New York, 188–210.Google Scholar
  56. [R2]
    Rasiowa, H. (1991) On approximation logics, a survey. Jahrbuch 1990, Kurt Goedel Gesellschaft, Vienna 1990, 63–87.Google Scholar
  57. [RO]
    Rasiowa, H. and Orlowska, E. (eds) (1997) Reasoning with Incomplete Information. Studia Logica 58, No 1. Special Issue.Google Scholar
  58. [RS]
    Rasiowa, H. and Skowron, A. (1985) Approximation logic. In: Bibel, W. and Jantke, K. P. (eds) Mathematical Methods of Synthesis and Specification of Software Systems. Mathematical Research 31, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 123–139.Google Scholar
  59. [RaS]
    Rauszer, C. and Skowron, A. (1992) The discernibility matrices and functions in information systems. In: [SI], 331–362.Google Scholar
  60. [Re]
    Read, S. (1994) Thinking about Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  61. [SJ]
    SanJuan, E. (1996) Information frames and algebras. Manuscript, Pierre Mendes France University, Grenoble.Google Scholar
  62. [S]
    Shepherdson, J. C. (1956) On the interpretation of Aristotelian syllogistic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 21, 137–147.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [SB]
    Skowron, A. and Grzymala—Busse, J. (1994) From rough set theory to evidence theory. In: Yaeger, R. R, Fedrizzi, M. and Kacprzyk, J. (eds) Advances in the Dempster—Shaefer Theory of Evidence, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 193–236.Google Scholar
  64. [SI]
    Slowinski, R. (ed) (1992) Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications and Advances in the Rough Set Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  65. [T]
    Tsumoto, S., Kobayashi, S., Yokomori, T., Tanaka, H. and Nakamura, A. (eds) (1996) Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Machine Discovery, Tokyo, Japan, November 1996.Google Scholar
  66. [V1]
    Vakarelov, D. (1987) Abstract characterization of some knowledge representation systems and the logic NIL of nondeterministic information. In: Jorrand, Ph. and Sgurev, V. (eds) Artificial Intelligence II, Methodology, Systems, Applications. North Holland, Amsterdam, 255–260.Google Scholar
  67. [V2]
    Vakarelov, D. (1989) Modal logics for knowledge representation systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 363, Springer, Berlin—Heidelberg—New York, 257–277. Also in Theoretical Computer Science 90, 1991, 433–456.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. [V3]
    Vakarelov, D. (199la) Logical analysis of positive and negative similarity relations in property systems. Proceedings of the First World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence, Paris, France, 1991, 491–500.Google Scholar
  69. [V4]
    Vakarelov, D. (199 lb) A modal logic for similarity relations in Pawlak knowledge representation systems. Fundamenta Informaticae 15, 61–79.Google Scholar
  70. [W]
    Wasilewska, A. (1997) Topological rough algebras. In: Lin, T. Y. (ed) Rough Sets and Database Mining, Kluwer, Theory and Decision Library, Dordrecht. Chapter 21, 411–425.Google Scholar
  71. [WV1]
    Wasilewska, A. and Vigneron, L. (1995) Rough equality algebras. Proceedings of the Annual Joint Conference on Information Sciences, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, USA, 26–30.Google Scholar
  72. [WV2]
    Wasilewska, A. and Vigneron, L. (1996) Rough and modal algebras. Proceedings of CESA’96 IMACS Multiconference: Computational Engineering in Systems Applications, Lille, France. Vol. I, 123–130.Google Scholar
  73. [WV3]
    Wasilewska, A. and Vigneron, L. (1997) Rough R4 and R5 algebras. International Journal of Information Sciences, to appear.Google Scholar
  74. [We]
    Wedberg, A. (1948) The Aristotelian theory of classes. Ajatus, vol. 15, 299–314.Google Scholar
  75. [WG]
    Woolery, L. K. and Grzymala—Busse, J. (1994) Machine learning for an expert system to predict preterm birth risk. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1, 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [Z1]
    Ziarko, W. (1993) Variable—precision rough set model. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 40, 39–59.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [Z2]
    Ziarko, W. (ed) (1993) Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Knowledge Discovery. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Rough Sets and Knowledge Discovery, Banff, Canada, October 1993. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewa Orłowska
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of TelecommunicationsWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations