Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 8

Proceedings of the 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Generalized Majority Decision Reducts


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2016F559

Citation: Proceedings of the 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 8, pages 165174 ()

Full text

Abstract. We discuss several new methods for constructing approximate decision reducts from the rough set theory. We introduce generalized approximate majority decision reducts, which are an extension to standard approximate decision reducts known from literature but with improved calculation performance and complexity. We also discuss the relationship and differences of the new approximate decision reduct notion with so called decision bireducts -- another type of approximate decision reducts.


  1. H. Liu and H. Motoda, Eds., Computational Methods of Feature Selection. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2008.
  2. Z. Pawlak and A. Skowron, “Rudiments of rough sets,” Information sciences, vol. 177, no. 1, pp. 3–27, 2007.
  3. D. Śl̨ezak, “Rough Sets and Functional Dependencies in Data: Foundations of Association Reducts,” LNCS Transactions on Computational Science, vol. V, pp. 182–205, 2009.
  4. S. Widz and D. Ślęzak, “Approximation Degrees in Decision Reduct-based MRI Segmentation,” in FBIT. IEEE, 2007, pp. 431–436.
  5. A. Janusz and S. Stawicki, “Applications of Approximate Reducts to the Feature Selection Problem,” in RSKT. Springer, 2011, pp. 45–50.
  6. S. Stawicki and S. Widz, “Decision bireducts and approximate decision reducts: Comparison of two approaches to attribute subset ensemble construction,” in Proc. of FedCSIS’2012 Conf. IEEE, 2012, pp. 331–338.
  7. D. Śl ̨ezak, “Normalized Decision Functions and Measures for Inconsistent Decision Tables Analysis,” Fundamenta Informaticae, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 291–319, 2000.
  8. D. Ślęzak and W. Ziarko, “The Investigation of the Bayesian Rough Set Model,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 40, no. 1-2, pp. 81–91, 2005.
  9. D. Ślęzak and A. Janusz, “Ensembles of Bireducts: Towards Robust Classification and Simple Representation,” in Proc. of FGIT 2011, ser. LNCS, vol. 7105, 2011, pp. 64–77.
  10. S. Widz and D. Ślęzak, “Rough Set Based Decision Support – Models Easy to Interpret,” in Selected Methods and Applications of Rough Sets in Management and Engineering, ser. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, G. Peters, P. Lingras, D. Ślęzak, and Y. Yao, Eds. Springer, 2012, pp. 95–112.
  11. M. J. Moshkov, M. Piliszczuk, and B. Zielosko, Partial covers, reducts and decision rules in rough sets: theory and applications. Springer, 2009, vol. 145.
  12. W. Ziarko, “Probabilistic approach to rough sets,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 272–284, 2008.
  13. G. Peters, P. Lingras, D. Ślęzak, and Y. Yao, Rough sets: Selected methods and applications in management and engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  14. J. Wroblewski, “Ensembles of classifiers based on approximate reducts,” Fundam. Inform., vol. 47, no. 3-4, pp. 351–360, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://content.iospress.com/articles/fundamenta-informaticae/fi47-3-4-14
  15. M. Lichman, “UCI machine learning repository,” 2013. [Online]. Available: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
  16. D. Ślęzak and S. Widz, “Is It Important Which Rough-Set-Based Classifier Extraction and Voting Criteria Are Applied Together?” in Proc. of Int. Conf. on Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSCTC), ser. LNAI, vol. 6086. Springer, 2010, pp. 187–196.