IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v263y2017i3p910-921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-stage optimization of decision and inhibitory trees for decision tables with many-valued decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Azad, Mohammad
  • Moshkov, Mikhail

Abstract

We study problems of optimization of decision and inhibitory trees for decision tables with many-valued decisions. As cost functions, we consider depth, average depth, number of nodes, and number of terminal/nonterminal nodes in trees. Decision tables with many-valued decisions (multi-label decision tables) are often more accurate models for real-life data sets than usual decision tables with single-valued decisions. Inhibitory trees can sometimes capture more information from decision tables than decision trees. In this paper, we create dynamic programming algorithms for multi-stage optimization of trees relative to a sequence of cost functions. We apply these algorithms to prove the existence of totally optimal (simultaneously optimal relative to a number of cost functions) decision and inhibitory trees for some modified decision tables from the UCI Machine Learning Repository.

Suggested Citation

  • Azad, Mohammad & Moshkov, Mikhail, 2017. "Multi-stage optimization of decision and inhibitory trees for decision tables with many-valued decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 263(3), pages 910-921.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:263:y:2017:i:3:p:910-921
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221717305659
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pawlak, Zdzisaw & Sowinski, Roman, 1994. "Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 443-459, February.
    2. Muller, Wolfgang & Wiederhold, Eckhard, 2002. "Applying decision tree methodology for rules extraction under cognitive constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 282-289, January.
    3. Pawlak, Zdzislaw, 1997. "Rough set approach to knowledge-based decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 48-57, May.
    4. Frini, Anissa & Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2012. "A general decomposition approach for multi-criteria decision trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 452-460.
    5. Abellán, Joaquín & Masegosa, Andrés R., 2010. "An ensemble method using credal decision trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(1), pages 218-226, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aleksey I. Shinkevich & Irina G. Ershova & Farida F. Galimulina & Alla A. Yarlychenko, 2021. "Innovative Mesosystems Algorithm for Sustainable Development Priority Areas Identification in Industry Based on Decision Trees Construction," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(23), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Gambella, Claudio & Ghaddar, Bissan & Naoum-Sawaya, Joe, 2021. "Optimization problems for machine learning: A survey," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(3), pages 807-828.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chikalov, Igor & Hussain, Shahid & Moshkov, Mikhail, 2018. "Bi-criteria optimization of decision trees with applications to data analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(2), pages 689-701.
    2. Zaras, Kazimierz, 2001. "Rough approximation of a preference relation by a multi-attribute stochastic dominance for determinist and stochastic evaluation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 305-314, April.
    3. Salvatore Barbagallo & Simona Consoli & Nello Pappalardo & Salvatore Greco & Santo Zimbone, 2006. "Discovering Reservoir Operating Rules by a Rough Set Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 20(1), pages 19-36, February.
    4. Gülgönül Bozoğlu Batı & İsmail Hakkı Armutlulu, 2020. "Work and family conflict analysis of female entrepreneurs in Turkey and classification with rough set theory," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Mak, Brenda & Munakata, Toshinori, 2002. "Rule extraction from expert heuristics: A comparative study of rough sets with neural networks and ID3," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 212-229, January.
    6. Renaud, J. & Thibault, J. & Lanouette, R. & Kiss, L.N. & Zaras, K. & Fonteix, C., 2007. "Comparison of two multicriteria decision aid methods: Net Flow and Rough Set Methods in a high yield pulping process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1418-1432, March.
    7. Sarah Ben Amor & Fateh Belaid & Ramzi Benkraiem & Boumediene Ramdani & Khaled Guesmi, 2023. "Multi-criteria classification, sorting, and clustering: a bibliometric review and research agenda," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 771-793, June.
    8. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    9. Fernandez del Pozo, J. A. & Bielza, C. & Gomez, M., 2005. "A list-based compact representation for large decision tables management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(3), pages 638-662, February.
    10. Nijkamp, Peter & Poot, Jacques, 2015. "Cultural Diversity: A Matter of Measurement," IZA Discussion Papers 8782, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Azam, Nouman & Zhang, Yan & Yao, JingTao, 2017. "Evaluation functions and decision conditions of three-way decisions with game-theoretic rough sets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 704-714.
    12. Abellán, Joaquín & Baker, Rebecca M. & Coolen, Frank P.A., 2011. "Maximising entropy on the nonparametric predictive inference model for multinomial data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 112-122, July.
    13. Pawlak, Zdzislaw, 1997. "Rough set approach to knowledge-based decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 48-57, May.
    14. Sung-Shun Weng & Yang Liu & Juan Dai & Yen-Ching Chuang, 2020. "A Novel Improvement Strategy of Competency for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) of University Teachers Based on Data Mining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Qiang Yang & Ping-an Du & Yong Wang & Bin Liang, 2018. "Developing a rough set based approach for group decision making based on determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 757-779, October.
    16. Maurizio d’Amato, 2007. "Comparing Rough Set Theory with Multiple Regression Analysis as Automated Valuation Methodologies," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 10(2), pages 42-65.
    17. Hu, Qiwei & Chakhar, Salem & Siraj, Sajid & Labib, Ashraf, 2017. "Spare parts classification in industrial manufacturing using the dominance-based rough set approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(3), pages 1136-1163.
    18. Lin, Rong-Ho, 2012. "An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 55-61.
    19. Alessandro Scuderi & Luisa Sturiale & Giuseppe Timpanaro & Agata Matarazzo & Silvia Zingale & Paolo Guarnaccia, 2022. "A Model to Support Sustainable Resource Management in the “Etna River Valleys” Biosphere Reserve: The Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    20. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2004. "Axiomatic characterization of a general utility function and its particular cases in terms of conjoint measurement and rough-set decision rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 271-292, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:263:y:2017:i:3:p:910-921. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.