Semantics-preserving dimensionality reduction rough and fuzzy rough based approaches

Post on 03-Jan-2016

38 views 3 download

description

Semantics-preserving dimensionality reduction rough and fuzzy rough based approaches. Author :Richard Jensen and Qiang Shen Reporter : Tse Ho Lin 2008/5/20. TKDE, 2004. Outline. Motivation Objectives Feature Selection Approaches Review Rough Fuzzy Rough Conclusion Personal Comments. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Semantics-preserving dimensionality reduction rough and fuzzy rough based approaches

國立雲林科技大學National Yunlin University of Science and Technology

Semantics-preserving dimensionality reduction rough and fuzzy rough based approaches

Author :Richard Jensen and Qiang Shen

Reporter : Tse Ho Lin

2008/5/20

1

TKDE, 2004

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Outline

Motivation Objectives Feature Selection Approaches Review

Rough Fuzzy Rough

Conclusion Personal Comments

2

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Motivation

Conventional rough set theory are unable to deal with real-valued attributes effectively.

What’s current trends and future directions for rough-set-based methodologies.

3

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Objectives

This review focuses on those recent techniques for feature selection that employ a rough-set-based methodology for this purpose.

4

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Feature Selection Review

Rough Rough Set Attribute Reduction Discernibility Matrix Approach Dynamic Reducts Experimental Results

Fuzzy Rough Fuzzy Rough Attribute Reduction Rough Set-Based Feature Grouping

5

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Feature Selection Review

Rough Rough Set Attribute Reduction Discernibility Matrix Approach Dynamic Reducts Experimental Results

Fuzzy Rough Fuzzy Rough Attribute Reduction Rough Set-Based Feature Grouping

6

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Rough Set Attribute Reduction

e=12,5e=0

e=2

0,4

31,6,7

QUICKREDUCT:

Variable precision rough sets

7

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Discernibility Matrix Approach

Removing those sets that are supersets of others

8

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Dynamic Reducts

9

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Experimental Results

RSAR < EBR<=SimRSAR<= AntRSAR<= GenRSARTime cost:

AntRSAR and SimRSAR outperform the other three methods.Performance:

10

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Feature Selection Review

Rough Rough Set Attribute Reduction Discernibility Matrix Approach Dynamic Reducts Experimental Results

Fuzzy Rough Fuzzy Rough Attribute Reduction Rough Set-Based Feature Grouping

11

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Fuzzy Rough Attribute Reduction

12

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Rough Set-Based Feature Grouping

Selection Strategies:

•Individuals

•Grouping

13

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Conclusion

This prompted research into the use of fuzzy-rough sets for feature selection. Additionally, the new direction in feature selection, feature grouping, was highlighted.

14

N.Y.U.S.T.

I. M.

Personal Comments

Application Feature selection.

Advantage Fuzzy.

Drawback Fuzzy!

15