Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Knowledge acquisition and decision making based on Bayes risk minimization method

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are two central parts in multiple attribute decision making (MADM), which are weight assignment and attribute selection. However, attribute selection is usually ignored in the existing researches, which will result in the difficulty of knowledge acquisition and the error of decision making. In addition, with respect to the data set with labels, the existing methods of weight assignment usually neglect or do not take full advantage of the supervisory function of labels, which may also lead to some decision making mistakes. To make up for these deficiencies, this paper proposes a method for knowledge acquisition and decision making based on Bayes risk minimization. In this method, a novel Bayes risk model based on neighborhood and Gaussian kernel is raised, and a heuristic forward greedy algorithm is designed for attribute selection. Finally, a number of experiments, including the comparison experiments on University of California Irvine (UCI) data and the effectiveness evaluation of fighter, are carried out to illustrate the superiority and applicability of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. http://weka.wikispaces.com, v3.6.13

  2. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets.html

  3. δ = 0.05 in NGBR.

References

  1. Amaldi E, Kann V (1998) On the approximability of minimizing nonzero variables or unsatisfied relations in linear systems. Theor Comput Sci 209(1-2):237–260

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bongers A, Torres JL (2014) Technological change in US jet fighter aircraft. Res Policy 43(9):1570–1581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chandrashekar G, Sahin F (2014) A survey on feature selection methods. Comput Electr Eng 40(1):16–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen YW, Lin CJ (2005) Combining svms with various feature selection strategies. Studies in Fuzziness & Soft Computing 207:315–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified topsis with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27(10):963–973

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L (1995) Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Comput Oper Res 22(7):763–770

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2001) Pattern Classification, 2nd. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fei DY, An X (2006) Synthesized index model for fighter plane air combat effectiveness assessment. Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica 27(6):1084–1087

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goel V, Kumar S, Byrne W (2002) Segmental minimum bayes-risk asr voting strategies. pp 334–344

  10. Gonzlez-Rubio J, Casacuberta F (2015) Minimum bayes AF risk subsequence combination for machine translation. Pattern Anal Applic 18(3):523–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gu Q, Li Z, Han J (2011) Generalized fisher score for feature selection. In: 27th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp 266–273

  12. He Y, Guo H, Jin M, Ren P (2016) A linguistic entropy weight method and its application in linguistic multi-attribute group decision making. Nonlinear Dyn 84(1):1–6

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Hu L, Gao W, Zhao K, Zhang P, Wang F (2018) Feature selection considering two types of feature relevancy and feature interdependency. Expert Syst Appl 93:423–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu Q, Yu D, Liu J, Wu C (2008) Neighborhood rough set based heterogeneous feature subset selection. Inf Sci 178(18):3577–3594

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. IT J (1986) Principle component analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jiang F, Sui Y (2015) A novel approach for discretization of continuous attributes in rough set theory. Knowl-Based Syst 73(1):324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kira K, Rendell LA (1992) A practical approach to feature selection. In: International workshop on machine learning, pp 249–256

  18. Kononenko I (1994) Estimating attributes: Analysis and extensions of relief. In: European conference on machine learning on machine learning, pp 171–182

  19. Kumar S, Byrne W (2002) Minimum bayes-risk word alignments of bilingual texts. In: Acl-02 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 140–147

  20. Liu J, Lin Y, Lin M, Wu S, Zhang J (2017) Feature selection based on quality of information. Neurocomputing 225:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu S, Li H (2016) A Human Factors Integrated Methods for Weapon System Effectiveness Evaluation. Springer, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Ma F, He J, Ma J, Xia S (2017) Evaluation of urban green transportation planning based on central point triangle whiten weight function and entropy-ahp. Transportation Research Procedia 25:3638–3648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Peng H, Long F, Ding C (2005) Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 27(8):1226–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Saeys Y, Inza I, Larrañaga P (2007) A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinforma 23(19):2507–2517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Song QJ, Jiang HY, Liu J (2017) Feature selection based on fda and f-score for multi-class classification. Expert Syst Appl 81:22–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Valkenhoef GV, Tervonen T (2016) Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models. Omega 64:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang L, Zhang H, Xu H (2008) Multi-index synthesize evaluation model based on rough set theory for air combat efficiency. Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica 29(4):880–885

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wang L, Shen J, Mei X (2017) Cost sensitive multi-class fuzzy decision-theoretic rough set based fault diagnosis. In: Chinese control conference, pp 6957–6961

  29. Wang YM, Luo Y (2010) Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Math Comput Model 51(1-2):1–12

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Yang GL, Yang JB, Xu DL, Khoveyni M (2016) A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in madm. Omega 71:93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yao Y (2004) A partition model of granular computing. In: LNCS transactions on rough sets, pp 232–253

  32. Zhu B, Zhu R, Xiong X (1993) Fighter plane effectiveness assessment. Aviation Industry Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zhu XZ, Zhu W, Fan XN (2017) Rough set methods in feature selection via submodular function. Soft Comput 21(13):3699–3711

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all anonymous reviewers for their guidance and comments to this paper. This study is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. HIT.KLOF.2017.074).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China

    Mingliang Suo

  2. Science, Technology on Reliability, Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Beijing, China

    Mingliang Suo

  3. School of Astronautics, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

    Zhiping Zhang, Ying Chen, Ruoming An & Shunli Li

Authors
  1. Mingliang Suo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhiping Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ying Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ruoming An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shunli Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mingliang Suo or Shunli Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suo, M., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y. et al. Knowledge acquisition and decision making based on Bayes risk minimization method. Appl Intell 49, 804–818 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1272-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1272-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation