| k's profile脏话就是语气词BlogLists | Help |
|
3/25/2006 开题终于写完开题报告啦!
虽然还没有排版,可心总算可以轻松一下啦。
原来,事情本没有什么复杂的。
一切都是心在作怪。
拖拖拉拉的一个多礼拜。
实际上真正在做事情的也就那么两三天吧。
题是开啦,可然后呢?
天呀。
然后干什么?
PS:在分层模型中,g(x)=g,指要求的x 个元素,包含于g个商集中,只要g<x则可判定这一个分层是收敛的。也就是说,当g(x)>1时,将不同的x尽量分到同一商集中,可以保证收敛,求出最终的目标。 3/22/2006 模糊商空间的聚类分析
1.设X=x1,x2….xn。 2.建立模糊相似矩阵。 3.由模糊相似矩阵生成最小模糊等价矩阵R。 4.对所有的x,定义其距离函数d。 5.基于该距离函数,定义等价关系,求其商空间。 6.基于该商空间得到聚类结果。
哎!每天郁闷。实在是心烦。 3/16/2006 一些问题的理解论域的划分必然引发结构的划分,在划分完毕形成新的商空间后。就要从原论域中提取属性,形成商空间的属性。提取出的属性必然要符合继续研究的需要。
所有与x有R关系的元素形成一个子集,构成x的等价类[x]。论域中所有的等价类构成论域X的商空间。
半序:反自反、反对称、可传递。
在《问题求解理论与应用》中1.3.1节谈到的半序是R之间的半序,1.3.2节以后讨论的半序是论域X上的半序,即X的元素构成的半序结构。
X是全序(两两可比),则依照保序性,为保证商空间[X]为全序,则[X]等价类也必须两两可比,则[X]必是区间〈x,y〉。
T与R不相容<=>T结构不满足使[X]为半序。 所有针对[X]商集的合并与分解的调整都是为了使T中两两元素可比,形成半序。 3/13/2006 快啦眼看着就要开题啦。
心中却一点紧张的意思都没有。
是不是不太正常啦?
自己都怀疑自己。
烦躁倒是有一点。
事情那么多,可就是明日复明日。
模糊商空间的理论还是看懂了一点点的。
可是脑子里面实在是想象不出,能用它做点什么。
倒也不是什么都想不到,
关键是,想到了开头和结果,却想不到中间是什么。
PS:
每次看别人的日志,总是洋洋洒洒的一大片。
他们还没人性,总是搞成丁点大的小字。
看完一篇就搞得头晕眼花。
大家年龄都不小啦。
眼睛都不行,写大点多好。 3/7/2006 我看两种系统 Linux与Windows之争由来已久,网络上的争吵也始终未消。
我不想参与其中。但是我也是有我的看法的。
两种系统哪个好我不想废话,网上太多啦。
我想费几句话讲讲的是。现在网络上有一部分人(特指一部分)自我感觉十分良好自认为用了Linux 就是高人一等。一天到晚上网鄙视Windows用户。对于这一部分人我确实是有一点看法。我觉得工具是为任务服务的,工具合适才能创造高效率。对于认为一种工具就是比另一种好,用了它就是上了层次的人,我觉得他们层次确实不太高。
算啦。不说啦。好像粪青似的。 2/27/2006 基础最重要三元组(X,f,T)。
X的属性函数f决定了X与其等价类之间的关系R,
R决定了商集的划分,
划分的商集之间存在结构T,
由结构联系的商集构成了X的商空间[X]。
应该就是这样吧。 2/23/2006 不好听么?已经有好几个人建议我,不,是强迫我把音乐换掉。
我下午上网找了好久,一直也没发现更好听的歌曲。
所以,决定,不换。
各位同学,你们要用心去听。
难道,不好听么?
ps:好久没上网啦。 2/3/2006 放炮!爽!不太喜欢放炮,因为受不了那种气味。
又很喜欢放炮,因为特别激动于那种迸发时刻的响亮。
今年老爸一冲动买回来两捆“二麻炮”。
年三十晚上,和伟、杰一起放了一个小时都没放完。
看着它们金光一闪便一跃而起,
自己心中也有了一种冲动。
也许冲上九霄云端是一种奢望,
但是,那种冲顶的勇气不也令人赞叹么?
1/9/2006 凌乱的记着多少天没有上网啦。
实在是有一点忙。 忙了点什么? 我自己也不清楚。 也就是最近几天才做了点有意义的事情。 快放假啦。快过年啦。
又可以见到好多朋友。 有一点点期待。 最近看商空间的书慢慢有些感觉啦。
看来,学习还真的是需要静下心来的呢。 今天终于完成了研究生阶段的最后一门考试。
心中有一点的轻松。也有一点的失落。 用着别人的笔记本写日志。
感觉挺爽的。 等咱有了钱也买一个。 思维还乱着呢。 写的也乱了些。 12/28/2005 郁闷的一天 今天还真是够郁闷的。电脑坏掉,修了一整天。
倒不是笨的连个电脑也修不好。关键是机子实在是差到可以。64MB内存的“笨兔”现在谁还在用呀?
好不容易装好了系统找不到驱动。打开机箱才发现这老爷机居然是集成显卡。集成显卡还能识别不出来?
哎!罢了罢了。爷我不干了还不行? 12/26/2005 关于昨天本来昨天想写些东西的
可是浑浑噩噩的过了一天 一个字也没有留下 整整的打了三天游戏
突然发现曾经在几年前是那么有趣的东西 现在看来实在是没什么意思 难道这就是长大? 圣诞节本是鬼子的东西
也不知道什么时候变成了咱自己的 连爸爸妈妈这个年代的人都似乎被传染了一样 和朋友互发短信,彼此祝福。 难道这就是文化渗透? ps:咱也祝福,在身边和不在身边的朋友们,圣诞快乐 12/22/2005 关于忘记今天看到yingsky写的一篇日志 可是很长时间里 12/18/2005 又做了个计划 决心似乎总是那么容易的就下了,期望似乎总是那么的美好与简单。而我也似乎总是成为那些幼教故事中的反面主人公。在一次次的计划与决定之后,被随之而来的困难与麻烦所吓倒。 哎! 12/11/2005 打倒郁闷!我其实不喜欢写什么日记之类的东西。因为每当想写什么的时候大多是郁闷的时候。记下的大多也就是郁闷。留下的这些郁闷难免什么时候又蹦出来,郁闷自己一下。所以,我宁可让它们烂在肚子里,让它们自己郁闷自己。 快乐么,不应该是瞬间的。我要让它每次都能快乐我。 12/7/2005 谁说图书馆没有好书的? 今天借到了张钹、张铃的《问题求解理论及应用》("Theory and Applications of Problem Solving")。据说是经典的商空间基础理论书。翻了翻,实在是有些深奥。大约能看懂的就四五页吧。可全书有476页。 我算是一头扎进了理论的汪洋大海中啦。出不出得来可真是不好说。 12/4/2005 谁看不郁闷?Granular Computing Y.Y. Yao Department of Computer Science, University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S 0A2 E-mail: yyao@cs.uregina.ca, http://www.cs.uregina.ca/~yyao
Abstract The basic ideas and principles of granular computing (GrC) have been studied explicitly or implicitly in many fields in isolation. With the recent renewed and fast growing interest, it is time to extract the commonality from a diversity of fields and to study systematically and formally the domain independent principles of granular computing in a unified model. A framework of granular computing can be established by applying its own principles. We examine such a framework from two perspectives, granular computing as structured thinking and structured problem solving. From the philosophical perspective or the conceptual level, granular computing focuses on structured thinking based on multiple levels of granularity. The implementation of such a philosophy in the application level deals with structured problem solving. Keywords: Granularity, granule, level, hierarchy, structured thinking, structured problem solving
1. Introduction Human problem solving involves the perception, abstraction, representation and understanding of real world problems, as well as their solutions, at different levels of granularity [4, 6, 23, 28, 32-35]. The consideration of granularity is motivated by the practical needs for simplification, clarity, low cost, approximation, and tolerance of uncertainty [32]. As an emerging field of study, granular computing attempts to formally investigate and model the family of granule-oriented problem solving methods and information processing paradigms [14, 23, 28]. Ever since the introduction of the term of “Granular computing (GrC)” by T.Y. Lin in 1997 [8, 32], we have witnessed a rapid development of and a fast growing interest in the topic [2, 5, 8-10, 13, 14, 16-20, 22-31, 33, 35, 37]. Many models and methods of granular computing have been proposed and studied. From the wide spectrum of current research, one can easily make several observations. There does not exist a general agreement about what is granular computing, nor there is a unified model [36]. Many studies concentrate on concrete models in particular contexts, and hence only capture limited aspects of granular computing. Consequently, the potential applicability and usefulness of granular computing are not well perceived and appreciated. The studies of concrete models and methods are important for the development of a field in its early stage. It is equally important, if not more, to study a general theory that avoids constraints of a concrete model. The basic notions and principles of granular computing, though under different names, have in fact been appeared in many related fields, such as programming, artificial intelligence, divide and conquer, interval computing, quantization, data compression, chunking, cluster analysis, rough set theory, quotient space theory, belief functions, machine learning, databases, and many others [8, 23, 28, 32, 33]. However, granular computing has not been fully explored in its own right. It is time to extract the commonality from these diverse fields and to study systematically and formally the domain independent principles of granular computing in a unified and well-formulated framework. In this paper, we study high level and qualitative characteristics of a theory of granular computing. A general domain independent framework is presented, in which basic issues are examined.
2. Perspectives of Granular Computing It may be difficult, if not impossible, to give a formal, precise and uncontroversial definition of granular computing. Nevertheless, one can still extract the fundamental elements from the human problem solving experiences and methods. There are basic principles, techniques and methodologies that are commonly used in most types of problem solving. Granular computing, therefore, focuses on problem solving based on the commonsense concepts of granule, granulated view, granularity, and hierarchy. They are interpreted as the abstraction, generalization, clustering, levels of abstraction, levels of detail, and so on in various domains. We view granular computing as a study of a general theory of problem solving based on different levels of granularity and detail [28]. Granular computing can be studied by applying its principles and ideas. It can be investigated in different levels or perspectives by focusing on its philosophical foundations, basic components, fundamental issues, and general principles. The philosophical level concerns structured thinking, and the application level deals with principles of structured problem solving. While structured thinking provides guidelines and leads naturally to structured problem solving, structured problem solving implements the philosophy structured thinking. The philosophy of thinking in terms of levels of granularity, and its implementation in more concrete models, would result in disciplined procedures that help to avoid errors and to save time for solving a wide range of complex problems.
3. Basic Components of Granular Computing In modeling granular computing, we focus on three basic components and their interactions. 3.1. Granules A granule may be interpreted as one of the numerous small particles forming a larger unit. Collectively, they provide a representation of the unit with respect to a particular level of granularity. That is, a granule may be considered as a localized view or a specific aspect of a large unit. Granules are regarded as the primitive notion of granular computing. Its physical meanings become clearer when dealing with more concrete models. For example, in set-theoretic setting, such as rough sets, quotient space theory and cluster analysis, a granule may be interpreted as a subset of a universal set [12, 13, 34, 35]. In planning, a granule can be a sub-plan [6]. In programming, a granule can be a program module [7]. For the conceptual formulation of granular computing, we do not attempt to interpret the notion of granules based on more intuitive, but rather restrictive, concepts. We focus on some fundamental issues based on this weak view of granules. The size of a granule is considered as a basic property. Intuitively, the size may be interpreted as the degree of abstraction, concreteness, or detail. In the set-theoretic setting, the size of a granule can be the cardinality of the granule. Connections and relationship between granules can be represented by binary relations. In concrete models, they may be interpreted as dependency, closeness, or overlapping. For example, based on the notion of size, one can define an order relation on granules. Depending on the particular context, the relation may be interpreted as “greater than or equal to”, “more abstract than”, or “coarser than”. The order relation may be reflexive and transitive, but not symmetric. The order relation is particularly useful in studying connections between granules in different levels. One can define operations on granules so that one can operate on granules, such as combining many granules to form a new granule or decomposing a granule into many granules. The operations on granules must be consistent with the binary relations on the granules. For example, the combined granule should be more abstract than its components. The sizes of granules, the relations between granules, and the operations on granules provide the essential ingredients for developing a theory of granular computing. 3.2. Granulated views and levels In his work on vision, Marr convincingly made the point that a full understanding of an information processing system involves explanations at various levels [11]. The three levels considered are the computational, algorithmic, and implementational. The computational level describes the information processing problem to be solved by the system. The algorithmic level describes the steps that need to be carried out to solve the problem. The implementational level deals with physical realization of the system. Although there does exist a general agreement on the interpretations and the exact number of levels, it is commonly accepted that the notion of levels is an important one in computer science [3]. Foster critically reviewed and systematically compared various definitions and interpretations of the notion of levels [3]. Three basic issues, namely, definition of levels, number of levels, and relationship between levels, are clarified. Levels are considered simply as descriptions or points of views and often for the purpose of explanation. The number of levels is not fixed, but depends on the context and the purpose of description or explanation. A multi-layered theory of levels captures two senses of abstraction. One is the abstraction in terms of concreteness and is represented by planes along the dimension from top to bottom. The other is the abstraction in terms of the amount of detail and can be modeled along another dimension from less detail to more detail on the same plane. By viewing a level as a description or a point of view, one can immediately apply it as a basic notion to model granular computing. In order to emphasize the context of granular computing, we also refer to a level as a granulated view. A level consists of entities called granules whose properties characterize and describe the subject matters of study, such as a real world problem, a theory, a design, a plan, a program, or an information processing system. Granules are formed with respect to a particular degree of granularity or detail. Granules in a level are defined and formed within a particular context and are related to granules in other levels. There are two types of information and knowledge encoded in a level. A granule captures a particular aspect, and collectively, all granules in the level provide a granulated view. The granularity of a level refers to the collective properties of granules in a level with respect to their sizes. The granularity is reflected by the sizes of all granules involved. 3.3. Hierarchies Granules in different levels are linked by the order relations and operations on granules. The order relation on granules can be extended to granulated views (levels). A level is above another level if each granule in the former level is ordered before a granule in the latter level, and each granule in the latter level is ordered after a granule in the former level, under the order relation. The ordering of levels can be described by the notion of hierarchy. The theory of hierarchy provides a multi-layered framework based on levels. Mathematically, a hierarchy may be viewed as a partially ordered set [1]. For the study of granular computing, the elements of the ordered set are interpreted as hierarchical levels or granulated views. The ordering of levels in a hierarchy is based on criteria that are related to the order relations on granules. A higher level may provide a constraint to and/or context of a lower level, and may contain and be made of lower levels. Depending on the context, a hierarchy may consist of levels of interpretation, levels of abstraction, levels of organization, levels of observation, and levels of detail. A hierarchy represents relationships between different granulated views, and explicitly shows the structure of granulation. A granule in a higher level can be decomposed into many granules in a lower level, and conversely many granules in a lower level can be combined into one granule in a higher level. A granule in a lower level may be a more detailed description of a granule in a higher level with added information. In the other direction, a granule in a higher level is a coarse-grained description of a granule in a lower level by omitting irrelevant details. 3.4. Granular structures With the introduction of the three components, one can examine three types of structures for modeling their interactions. They are the internal structure of a granule, the collective structure of the all granules (i.e., the internal structure of a granulated view or level), and the overall structure of all levels. Although a granule is normally considered as a whole instead of many sub-granules at a given level, its internal structure needs to be examined. The internal structure of a granule provides a proper description, interpretation, and characterization of the granule. A granule may have a complex structure itself. For examples, the internal structure of a granule may be a hierarchy consisting of many levels. The internal structure is also useful in establishing linkage among granules in different levels. All granules in a level may collectively show a certain structure. This is the internal structure of a granulated view. Granules in a level, although may be relatively independent, are somehow related to a certain degree. This stems from the fact that they together form a granulated view. On the other hand, it is expected that in many situations the relationships between different granules are much weaker. The internal structure of a level is only meaningful if all the granules in the level are considered together. A hierarchy represents the overall structure of all levels. In a hierarchy, both the internal structure of granule and the internal structure of granulated views are reflected, to some degree, by the order relations. In a hierarchy, not any two granulated views can be compared based on the order relation. In the special case, the hierarchy is a tree. The three structures as a whole is referred to as the granular structure. One can establish more connections between three structures. For example, granules in a higher level may have greater integrity and higher bond strength than those in a lower level. The structures need to be fully explored to establish a basis of granular computing. 3.5. A partition model The three basic components of granular computing can be easily illustrated by a concrete model known as the partition model of granular computing [28], which is based on rough set theory [12, 13] and quotient space theory [34, 35]. A central notion of the partition model is equivalence relations. In rough set theory, an equivalence relation on a set of objects can be concretely defined in an information table based on their values on a finite set of attributes [12, 31]. Two objects are equivalent if they have exact the same values on a set of attributes. An equivalence relation divides a universal set into a family of pair-wise disjoint subsets, called the partition of the universe. A granule of a partition model is therefore an equivalence class defined by an equivalence relation. The internal structure of an equivalence class is captured by the same values of some attributes. A granulated view is the partition induced by an equivalence relation, and its structure is defined by the properties of the partition. Different equivalence relations can be ordered based on set inclusion, which leads to a hierarchy of partitions. In an information table, we only consider partitions generated by different subsets of attributes. The overall hierarchical structure is therefore induced by subsets of attributes. The partition model may be viewed as a special case of cluster analysis. Following the same argument, one can easily find the correspondence between basic components of granular computing and its structures in cluster analysis. In general, given any concrete model of granular computing, we can easily find the corresponding components and structures.
4. Basic Issues of Granular Computing The discussions of this section summarize and extend the preliminary results reported in [23, 28]. The list of issues discussed should not be viewed as a complete one. It can only be viewed as a set of representatives. Based on the principles of granular computing, these issues may also be studied at different levels of detail. Granular computing may be studied based on two related issues, i.e., granulation and computation [23, 28]. The former deals with the construction, interpretation, and representation of the three basic components, and the latter deals with the computing and reasoning with granules and granular structures. Studies of granular computing cover two perspectives, namely, the algorithmic and the semantic [23, 28]. Algorithmic study concerns the procedures for constructing granules and related computation, and the semantic study concerns the interpretation and physical meaningfulness of various algorithms. Studies from both aspects are necessary and important. The results from semantic study may provide not only interpretations and justifications for a particular granular computing model, but also guidelines that prevent possible misuses of the model. The results from algorithmic study may lead to efficient and effective granular computing methods and tools. 4.1. Granulation Granulation involves the construction of the three basic components, granules, granulated views and hierarchies. Two basic operations are the top-down decomposition of large granules to smaller granules, or the bottom-up combination of smaller granules into larger granules. The notion of granulation can be studied in many different contexts. The granulation of a problem, a theory, or a universe, particularly the semantics of granulation, is domain and application dependent. Nevertheless, one can still identify some domain independent issues. For clarity, some of these issues are discussed in the set-theoretic setting. In the set-theoretic setting, a granule may be viewed as a subset of the universe, which may be either fuzzy or crisp. A family of granules containing every object in the universe is called a granulated view of the universe. A granulated view may consist of a family of either disjoint or overlapping granules. There are many granulated views of the same universe. Different views of the universe can be linked together, and a hierarchy of granulated views can be established. Granulation criteria. A granulation criterion deals with the semantic issues and addresses the question of why two objects are put into the same granule. It is domain specific and relies on the available knowledge. In many situations, objects are usually grouped together based on their relationships, such as indistinguishability, similarity, proximity, or functionality [32]. One needs to build models to provide both semantical and operational interpretations of these notions. They enable us to formally and precisely define various notions involved, and to systematically study the meanings and rationale of a granulation criterion. Granulation methods. From the algorithmic aspect, a granulation method addresses the problem of how to put two objects into the same granule. It is necessary to develop algorithms for constructing granules and granulated views efficiently based on a granulation criterion. Representation/description. The next issue is the interpretation of the results of a granulation method, i.e., the granular structures. Once constructed, it is necessary to describe, to name and to label granules using certain languages. One may assign a name to a granule such that an element in the granule is an instance of the named category. One may also provide a formal description of objects in the same granule. By pooling the representations of granules, one can obtain the overall representation of a granulated view. Qualitative and quantitative characterization. One can associate quantitative measures to the three components, granules, granulated views, and hierarchies. The measures should reflect and be consistent with the three structures, the internal structure of a granule, the collective structure of a granulated view, and the overall structure of a hierarchy. 4.2. Computing with granules Computing and reasoning with granules explore the three types of structures. They can be similarly studied from both the semantic and algorithmic perspectives. One needs to design and interpret various methods based on the interpretation of granules and relationships between granules, as well as to define and interpret operations of granular computing. Mappings. The connections between different levels of granulations can be described by mappings. At each level of the hierarchy, a problem is represented with respect to the granularity of the level. The mapping links different representations of the same problem at different levels of detail. In general, one can classify and study different types of granulations by focusing on the properties of the mappings. Granularity conversion. A basic task of granular computing is to change views with respect to different levels of granularity. As we move from one level of detail to another, we need to convert the representation of a problem accordingly. A move to a more detailed view may reveal information that otherwise cannot be seen, and a move to a simpler view can improve the high level understanding by omitting irrelevant details of the problem. Operators. Operators can precisely define the conversion of granularity in different levels. They serve as the basic building blocks of granular computing. There are at least two types of operators that can be defined. One type deals with the shift from a fine granularity to a coarse granularity. A characteristic of such an operator is that it will discard certain details, which makes distinct objects no longer differentiable. Depending on the context, many interpretations and definitions are available, such as abstraction, simplification, generalization, coarsening, zooming-out, and so on. The other type deals with the change from a coarse granularity to a fine granularity. A characteristic of such an operator is that it will provide more details, so that a group of objects can be further classified. They can be defined and interpreted differently, such as articulation, specification, expanding, refining, zooming-in, and so on. Property preservation. Granulation allows different representations of the same problem in different levels of detail. It is naturally expected that the same problem must be consistently represented. Granulation and its related computing methods are meaningful only if they preserve certain desired properties. For example, Zhang and Zhang studied the “false-preserving” property, which states that if a coarse-grained space has no solution for a problem then the original fine-grained space has no solution [34, 35]. Such a property can be explored to improve the efficiency of problem solving by eliminating a more detailed study in a coarse-grained space. One may require that the structure of a solution in a coarse-grained space is similar to the solution in a fine-grained space. Such a property is used in top-down problem solving techniques. More specifically, one starts with a sketched solution and successively refines it into a full solution. In the context of hierarchical planning, one may impose similar properties, such as upward solution property, downward solution property, monotonicity, etc. [6]. 4.3. The rough set model As an illustration, we discuss the basic issues of granular computing based on the results from the rough set theory. Many applications of the rough set theory are based on the exploration of those issues. Granulation. The granulation criterion is an equivalence relation on a set of objects, which is concretely defined in an information table based on the values of a set of attributes. The granulation method is simply the collection of equivalent objects. One associates a formula to each equivalence class, which provides a formal description of the equivalence class. One also associates quantitative measures to equivalence classes and the partition induced by the equivalence relation. Computing with granules. Many of the applications of rough set theory can be viewed as concrete examples of computing with granules. With respect to an information table, mappings between different granulated views are in fact defined by different subsets of attributes. The conversion of granularity is achieved by adding or deleting attributes. The rough set approximation operators are granularity conversion operators. An important application of rough set theory is to learn classification rules [12, 21]. One of the important steps is to find a reduct of attributes, i.e., a set of individually necessary and collectively sufficient attributes that provide the correct classification [12, 21]. Conceptually, this can be easily modeled as searching the partition hierarchy defined by all subsets of attributes. Even in this simple search process, we have to deal with the issues discussed earlier. The mappings between levels direct the search direction; granularity conversion and property preserving principles govern the quality of the searched granulated views, the operators can be used to define the quality of each decision rule.
5. Conclusion By explicitly introducing an umbrella term of granular computing, one can explore, organize and unify the divergent concepts, theories, and applications into a well-formulated and unified theory of problem solving. It is time to move from studies of particular methods and concrete models of granular computing to a more abstract level. One needs to study its basic philosophy and principles, and to build a more general framework. This paper may be viewed as a step toward this goal. Although this paper does not cover all aspects of a complete model of granular computing, the results are useful in building a concrete model in which one can examine specific techniques and issues of granular computing in the context of particular applications. The notions of granules, granulated views (levels) and hierarchies are sufficient for us to discuss the basic issues of granular computing. The sizes of granules, the granular structures, and the operations on granules provide the essential ingredients for the development of a theory of granular computing. |
|
|