Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Knowledge-Based Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/knosys

A noise-aware fuzzy rough set approach for feature selection

∗
Xiaoling Yang a,b , Hongmei Chen a,b , , Tianrui Li a,b , Chuan Luo c
a
School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwest Jiaotong University, China
b
National Engineering Laboratory of Integrated Transportation Big Data Application Technology, Southwest Jiaotong University, China
c
College of Computer Science, Sichuan University, China

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Feature selection has aroused extensive attention and aims at selecting features that are highly relevant
Received 22 December 2021 to classification from raw datasets to improve the performance of a learning model. Fuzzy rough set
Received in revised form 16 May 2022 theory is a powerful mathematical method for feature selection. The classical fuzzy rough set model
Accepted 17 May 2022
is very sensitive to the noise while the noise samples in classification data often appear. In addition,
Available online 26 May 2022
fuzzy rough set theory does not fit well when the density distribution of the samples in the dataset
Keywords: varies greatly. Thus, it is of great significance to improve the robustness of fuzzy rough set models
Fuzzy rough set and its adaptability to data for feature selection. Inspired by these issues, we focus on the robust
Robust feature selection fuzzy rough set approach for feature selection. We first propose a robust fuzzy rough set model
Noisy data based on data distribution to achieve the purpose of anti-noise i.e., Noise-aware Fuzzy Rough Sets
Density distribution (NFRS) model. This model proposes a novel search mechanism, which weakens the sensitivity of the
Dependency function approximation operator to noise by considering the distribution of samples in the decision classes to
weight the samples, further obtains three kinds of samples, i.e., intra-class samples, boundary samples,
and outlier samples. Then, the degrees of relevance of the feature for class is defined by the dependency
function based on the NFRS model to evaluate the significance of the feature subset. On this basis,
an evaluation function about feature significance is constructed, which simultaneously considers the
relevance and redundancy of a candidate feature provided for the selected subset and the remaining
feature subset. A novel forward greedy search algorithm is presented to select a feature sequence. The
selected features are subsequently evaluated with downstream classification tasks. Experimental using
real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model and its superiority against
comparison baseline methods.
© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Feature selection (or called attribute reduction in the fuzzy
rough set) is a process of select feature subset from the raw
dataset for downstream learning tasks [1–3]. As only features
with more information are reserved through feature selection,
it is favorable to research raw feature space and then possible
to construct an explicable the learning model. Feature selection
method has been widely used in cluster learning [4,5], pattern
recognition [6,7], and classification learning [8,9]. Fuzzy rough set
(FRS) theory introduced by Dubois and Prade [10] is an important
mathematical theory for feature selection by tackling uncertainty
in data [11–14]. On this basis, the feature selection methods using
FRS have been extensively theoretically studied [15,16]. Wang
et al. proposed an inner product dependency to construct the
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yangxl@my.swjtu.edu.cn (X. Yang),
hmchen@swjtu.edu.cn (H. Chen), trli@swjtu.edu.cn (T. Li), cluo@scu.edu.cn
(C. Luo).
evaluation function of feature for fuzzy rough feature selection al-
gorithm [17]. Fuzzy rough set theory can characterize uncertainty
data and further select more informative features for downstream
learning tasks. However, there may be shortcomings in applying
FRS due to its sensitivity to noise in uncertainty data [18–21].
For this reason, the sensitivity of FRS to noise receives certain
attention in recent years.
Noise samples often appear in data so that is also one of
the reasons for data uncertainty. Generally speaking, there are
two types of noise samples in the data [19]. One is that the
conditional attribute of the sample is anomalous (i.e., attribute
noise) [22], and the other is that the decision attribute of the
sample is anomalous (i.e., class noise) [23]. Two types of noise
have different impacts on the dependence degree and down-
stream learning task [19,24]. Given a specific feature selection
algorithm, its performance depends largely on the quality of
the data. Accordingly, improving the quality of the data can be
achieved by improving the anti-noise performance of the fuzzy
rough set model [25,26]. The construction of approximation op-
erations and information granulation is the main focus of many

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109092
0950-7051/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
studies to improve the adaptability and robustness of FRS. For
example, Hu et al. proposed some robust fuzzy rough sets models
by analyzing the reason for noise sensitivity in FRS [19]. Cornelis
et al. advocated a mitigated approach, in which the membership
of the lower and upper approximations is determined by means
of the ordered weighted average operators [27]. Wang et al.
further studied the equivalent expressions of granular variable
precision fuzzy rough sets based on fuzzy (co)implications [28]. It
motivates further developments in fuzzy rough theory from the
perspective of practice.
As the robust fuzzy rough sets model has the advantage of
dealing with fuzzy and uncertain information, this paper focuses
on the robust fuzzy rough set approach for feature selection. The
robust fuzzy rough set methods have been applied effectively
in the feature selection [19,29–31]. For example, considering
the proportion of samples belonging to different classes in the
neighbor of a given sample, Li et al. proposed a different classes’
ratio fuzzy rough set model [32]. Hu et al. proposed the soft
fuzzy rough set model and the soft fuzzy dependency function in
noisy data for feature selection [29]. The optimal feature subset is
selected by using FRS to estimate the classification performance
of the feature subset [25,33,34]. Due to the fact that the fuzzy
rough set is very sensitive to the noise in the uncertainty data, the
evaluation of the uncertainty is not accurate [19]. Thus, An et al.
proposed a probabilistic fuzzy rough model by considering the
distribution information of data [35]. On this basis, the probability
granular distance-based fuzzy rough sets was proposed to reduce
the impact of noise data, whereas the amount of calculation is
very large and it ignores the relationship between the label of
samples in the neighborhood of samples [36]. However, the data
distribution of most datasets is not known in practice and cannot
be modeled by a single distribution. In addition, the certainty and
possibility of a sample being correctly classified are estimated
by the degree of membership of the sample belonging to the
upper and lower approximations. Therefore, both the upper and
lower approximations contain the uncertainty of data, which can
be used as evaluation measure for feature selection. Inspired
by these ideas, we modify the method of calculating the fuzzy
relation to construct a novel fuzzy rough set for feature selection
by considering the effect of noise samples.
Considering the density and location of the sample with its
neighbors from the same class, the samples can be categorized
into intra-class samples, boundary samples, and noise samples.
We further introduce a weight of the sample based on the density
and location of the sample in the fuzzy relation. Firstly, the
information of intra-class samples is more reliable, and they
are assigned high weight. Then, the boundary sample has an
impact on the data uncertainty and has a certain possibility
to become a noise sample, thus its information is not reliable
enough, and it has a lower weight. Furthermore, the information
of the noise samples has a high deviation, thus we should reduce
its influence on data uncertainty. Therefore, the weighted fuzzy
relation between samples is defined by considering the weight
and neighborhood information of samples. We further propose a
Noise-aware Fuzzy Rough Sets (NFRS) model, which is robust by
reducing the influence of noisy samples. According to the defini-
tion of lower approximations, the degree of dispersion between
classes is estimated by the lower approximation of fuzzy deci-
sions. Similarly, the upper approximation of fuzzy decision can
be also used to estimate the degrees of aggregation of intra-class
samples.
The efficient feature evaluation function is useful to select
features with more information and further improves data qual-
ity [37,38]. Hu et al. designed a novel significance of feature
for feature selection by considering intra-class compactness and
between class sparsity [39]. Chen et al. explored the sample sim-
ilarity matrices in spectral graph theory by using approximation
2
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
operators and further built a feature selection algorithm based on
the kernelized fuzzy rough sets [40]. Naz et al. familiarized the
idea of fuzzy bipolar soft sets and studied their algebraic struc-
tures and their applications in decision-making problems [41].
Malik et al. further developed the concept of rough fuzzy bipo-
lar soft sets to handle decision-making problems by using the
uncertainty of the lower and upper approximations [42]. In this
paper, the separability of feature is measured by considering the
intra-class aggregation and between-class dispersion, which is
estimated by using approximation operators. The relevance of the
feature can be measured by considering the intra-class aggrega-
tion and between-class dispersion of a candidate feature in the
selected feature subsets. In addition, the redundancy of the fea-
ture can be measured in the remaining feature subsets. In order to
obtain a more comprehensive relation between feature and class
using the lower and upper approximations, we simultaneously
consider the relevance and redundancy of feature to better select
optimal feature subsets in the feature evaluation function. On this
basis, a robust feature selection algorithm (FNIB) is designed by
applying the novel feature evaluation function in fuzzy rough set
theory. It can select features which have less redundancy between
features and more relevance between features and class using the
feature evaluation function. The comparison experiments with
other feature selection algorithms demonstrate the effectiveness
and robustness of the proposed algorithm.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 intro-
duces the related concepts about this paper. Section 3 presents
the proposed noise-aware fuzzy rough sets model. The feature
selection algorithm including its computational complexity anal-
ysis and the evaluation of feature significance are discussed in
Section 4. Extensive experiments are conducted in Section 5.
Finally, Section 6 concludes this paper.
2. Preliminaries
In this Section, we first review some notational conventions
[43], and then discuss the related concepts about the kernelized
fuzzy rough sets [44].
2.1. Notational conventions
Let ⟨U, C, D⟩ be expressed as a fuzzy decision information
system, where U is a nonempty universe, C = Cc ∪ Cn is the
set of the conditional attribute (i.e., Cn is a numerical attribute
subset and Cc is a categorical attribute subset), and D is called the
decision attribute. For simplicity, we let D = {d}. V is the value
domain of attributes. Va is the domain of attribute a ∈ C ∪ D,
V = ∪Va is the domain of attribute set C ∪ D. Va (x) is the value
of sample x in attribute a. Given a mapping X (·) : U → [0, 1], X
is called a fuzzy set on U, and X (x) is the membership degree
of sample x ∈ U to X . Let F (U) be a fuzzy power set on U,
then X ∈ F (U). The crisp set is a special case of fuzzy set. Let
N : [0, 1] → [0, 1] be a monotonic decreasing function, if
N (0) = 1, N (1) = 0, and N (N (a)) = a (∀a ∈ [0, 1]), N is called
an involutive negator.
2.2. Fuzzy rough set
Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, and B ⊆ C, RB : U × U → [0, 1] is a fuzzy
relation on U induced by B. RB is also a fuzzy set on U × U, then
RB ∈ F (U × U). For a fuzzy set X ∈ F (U), ∀x, y ∈ U, kB (x, y)
is a fuzzy relation calculated by a kernel function on B, and the
upper and lower approximations of kernelized fuzzy rough set are
defined below [44],
kB X (x) = inf max {N (kB (x, y)) , X (y)} , (1)
y∈U
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
kB X (x) = sup min {kB (x, y), X (y)} ,
y∈U
where kB X and kB X are a pair of fuzzy sets.
Assuming that D is a decision attribute, the universe U is
divided into crisp equivalence classes, denoted as U/D = {D1 , D2 ,
. . . , Dr }. The fuzzy positive⋃region of D on B in fuzzy rough set
is defined as POSB (D) = X ∈U/D RB X . The dependency degree
of D on B is defined as γB (D) = B |POS (D)|
. The approximation
|U|
operator of the classical fuzzy rough set model adopts a sen-
sitive max–min statistical strategy, which is very sensitive to
noise in classification data. Therefore, considering the distribu-
tion information of data, An et al. proposed a probabilistic fuzzy
rough model [35]. On this basis, combining data distribution
and neighborhood information granular, the probability gran-
ular distance-based fuzzy rough sets was proposed to reduce
the impact of noise data, whereas the amount of calculation is
very large [36]. Furthermore, the distance between samples is
transformed into a weighted distance between granules by using
the probability density value of the neighboring samples, but
it ignores the relationship between the label of samples in the
neighborhood of samples. The data distribution of most datasets
is not known in practice and cannot be modeled by a single
distribution. The evaluation of the uncertainty is not accurate in
the classical fuzzy rough set model. On this basis, the robust fuzzy
rough set model has been applied effectively, and the certainty
and possibility of a sample being correctly classified can be better
estimated by the degree of membership of the sample belonging
to the robust upper and lower approximations.
3. Noise-aware fuzzy rough set model
Since the classical FRS model is sensitive to noisy information,
this Section presents the Noise-aware Fuzzy Rough Set model
(NFRS). NFRS consists of the neighborhood information of sample,
approximations based on weighted fuzzy relation, and property anal-
ysis. The main theories of each component are presented in the
following.
3.1. The neighborhood information of sample
The neighborhood of a sample is a collection of samples that
are similar to the sample. The distance function between samples
is utilized to measure the similarity among different samples. In
order to obtain the neighborhood information of sample, we first
define the distance function.
3.1.1. Hybrid Euclidean distance function
Data in practical applications usually include numerical, cat-
egorical, and mixed data. The hybrid Euclidean distance metric
(HE) is introduced to effectively deal with the mixed data.
Definition 1. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩ and C = Cc ∪ Cn , for any x, y ∈
U and B ⊆ C ∪ D, the hybrid Euclidean distance function is
computed by
√∑
HEB (x, y) = d{a} (x, y)2 ,
∀a∈B
where
|V (x) − Va (y)| , if a ∈ Cn ,
⎧
⎨ a
1, if a ∈ Cc and Va (x) ̸ = Va (y) ,
⎪
d{a} (x, y) =
⎩ 0,
⎪ if a ∈ Cc and Va (x) = Va (y) ,
1, if Va (x) = ∗ or Va (y) = ∗.
According to Definition 1, the hybrid Euclidean distance func-
tion can not only measure the distance between samples in
mixed datasets, but also measure the distance between samples
in incomplete datasets.
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
(2) 3.1.2. Local density factor of sample
The neighborhood information of the sample is depicted by
the local density of the sample, and the data distribution of the
sample can also be presented. Next, we define the local density of
the sample within the decision classes to describe the distribution
information of sample.
Definition 2. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩ and B ⊆ C, for any x ∈ Di , NBU (x, k)
is the k-nearest neighbors samples of x in U with respect to B ⊆ C
(k is a positive integer and y ̸ = x). NBS (x) is the neighborhood
of sample in NBU (x, k), such that ∀y ∈ NBS (x), it has y ∈ Di and
y ∈ NBU (x, k). The local density of the sample x within the decision
classes is defined as
HE B (x, y)
∑
( )
1+ y∈NBS (x)
LDB (x) = 1/ , (4)
1 + |NBU (x, k)|
where | · | is the cardinality of neighborhood.
If the sample x is a noise, |NBS (x)| ≤ k (or the distance
between x and its neighboring samples in NBS (x) is larger), the
value of the local density of the sample within the decision classes
should be smaller. Therefore, the value of the local density of
the sample within the decision classes (local density for short)
could be used to reflect the distribution information of samples.
In addition, local density of the sample does not fit well when the
density distribution of the samples in the dataset varies greatly.
If the value of the local density is used to identify noise, and the
difference of the local density of the sample in the neighborhood
is ignored, which leads to incorrect conclusions. So, the value of
the local density does not directly reflect whether the sample is
noise. Then, we introduce local density factor to recognize noise
by using the local density of sample.
Definition 3. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, ∀x ∈ Di , and LDB (x) is the local
density of the sample within the decision classes, the local density
factor of sample x in NBU (x, k) is defined as
∑ LDB (y)
y∈NBU (x,k)
LDB (x)
LDF(x) = . (5)
|NBU (x, k)|
The information of sample is related to the information of
its neighboring samples. Then, the local density of the sample
is compared with its neighboring samples, and the difference is
used to determine whether it is noise (see Eq. (5)). If the distribu-
tion of the sample is significantly different from the distribution
of the neighboring samples, the farther the local density factor
value of the sample x is from 1. That is, if the sample is a noise
sample, the local density factor value of the sample x is greater
than 1. Thus, the larger the local density factor value of the
sample is more likely that this sample is a noise sample.
3.1.3. The weighted fuzzy relation between samples
The information provided by noise samples is unreliable. When
(3) calculating the uncertainty of the information system, the influ-
ence of noise samples should be reduced. Next, we define the
weight of samples to perceive the noise in datasets by considering
the density distribution and neighborhood information of the
sample.
Definition 4. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, for any x ∈ U, the weight of
sample is⎧defined as follows.
⎪0,
⎪ NBS (x) = 0 or LDF(x) > λ,
1, { NBS (x) = k and LDF(x) ≤ λ,
⎨
WB (x) = } .
S
LDF(x)∗|NB (x)|
⎩min , 1 , other .
⎪
⎪
U |NB (x,k)|
3
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
Fig. 1. The visualization of two-dimensional datasets.
An example is given in Fig. 1 to illustrate the weight of samples
and possible noise samples in the two-dimension data. It has red
class that is randomly distributed data that satisfy the Gaussian
distribution with a mean value of (2, 5) in two datasets. Specif-
ically, Fig. 1(a) shows the blue class that satisfies the uniform
distribution, and Fig. 1(b) shows the blue class that satisfies the
Gaussian distribution with a mean value of (6, 5). Intuitively,
the sample x is more likely to be noise than the sample y in
Fig. 1(a) and the samples (i.e., x, y, and z) are probably noisy in
Fig. 1(b). If only the local density of the sample (see Definition 3)
is used, the sample y is more likely to be noise than the sample
x in Fig. 1(a), which leads to incorrect conclusions. According
to Definition 4, Figs. 1(c) and 1(d) show the weight value of
the samples in two datasets. Note that the weight value of the
unmarked sample is 1. From Figs. 1(c) and 1(d), the weight of the
samples defined by considering the distribution of the samples
and the neighborhood information leads to correct conclusions,
and it can adapt to situations when the density distribution of the
samples in the dataset varies greatly. Furthermore, as shown in
Fig. 1, we can divide the samples into three parts, i.e., intra-class
samples, boundary samples, and outlier samples. Next, we make
a detailed description as follows.
(1) When a sample is closer to its decision class and the distri-
bution of the sample in its neighborhood is less different,
the weight value of the sample should be 1 or very close
to 1. This sample is called as an intra-class sample.
(2) If a sample is located in the middle region between differ-
ent decision class (we call this area as boundary region), the
weight value of sample should be less 1, and this sample is
called as a boundary sample.
(3) If a sample which is closer to other decision classes or
it is a sample with anomalous distribution by using the
neighborhood information of sample, the weight value of
sample should be 0. This sample is called as an outlier
sample.
The weight value of the sample is determined by considering
the local density and location of the sample with its neighbors
from the same decision class. That is, the weight value of the
sample can perceive the noise in datasets.
Definition 5. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, for any x, y ∈ U and B ⊆ C, the
fuzzy relation of samples is defined as
HEB (x, y)2
( )
RGB (x, y) = exp − . (6)
2δ 2
The fuzzy relation between samples is computed by Gaussian
kernel function. Combining Definitions 4 and 5, the weighted
fuzzy relation between samples is defined as
B (x, y) = WB (y)RB (x, y).
RW G
(7)
Due to considering the local density and location of the sam-
ple, the value of the weight reflects the reliability of the informa-
tion provided by the sample. Then, the weighted fuzzy relation
4
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
between samples reflects the noise information in the dataset.
Thus, the weighted fuzzy relation between samples can better
measure the uncertainty of the information system by reducing
the impact of unreliable samples on the information system, and
it is further used in the following sections. Next, we introduce the
approximations based on the weighted fuzzy relation.
3.2. Approximations based on weighted fuzzy relation
As shown in Section 3.1, the weighted fuzzy relation is con-
structed by combining Gaussian kernel function with the weight
value of samples. The lower and upper approximations are mod-
eled by using the weighted fuzzy relation to construct robust
approximation operators. Next, we will define the noise-aware
fuzzy rough set model (NFRS).
Definition 6. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, for any x, y ∈ U and B ⊆ C.
RWB (x, y) indicates the weighted fuzzy relation between samples x
and y. The membership degree of the sample x belonging to the
lower and upper approximations of X ∈ F (U) with respect to B
are defined as
B (x, y) , X (y) ,
RB X (x) = inf max N RW
{ ( ) }
(8)
∀y∈U
B (x, y), X (y)}.
RB X (x) = sup min{RW (9)
∀y∈U
For classification tasks, for any X ∈ U/D, the membership
degree of the sample x belonging to the lower and upper approx-
imations can be simplified as follows
B (x, y)
N RW ,
{ ( )}
RB X (x) = inf (10)
/X
∀y∈
B (x, y) .
RB X (x) = sup RW
{ }
(11)
∀y∈X
The proposed noise-aware fuzzy rough set model reduces the
impact of the sample with unreliable information when comput-
ing the lower and upper approximations. If the weighted fuzzy
relation is used, the noise sample is ignored in the process of
computing the lower approximation, thus the positive region of
the information system will grow in size. Similarly, the upper
approximation is calculated by the proposed fuzzy relation, which
can be understood as the possibility of being correctly classi-
fied. Thus, the novel lower and upper approximations achieve
robustness to noise by using the weighted fuzzy relation, which
considers the local density and location of the sample. The visu-
alization of Definition 6 on Dataset2 is shown in Fig. 2, where
the membership values of the lower and upper approximations
are described in the legend. Note that the membership value of
the lower approximation is related to the nearest sample with a
different decision (See Fig. 2(a)). The lower approximation further
reflects the degree of dispersion between classes. Similarly, the
upper approximation reflects the degree of aggregation of intra-
class samples (See Fig. 2(b)). According to Figs. 1 and 2, these
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al. Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092

Fig. 2. The visualization of Definition 6 on Dataset2.

(⋃ ) ⋃
Table 1 ii. RB X ∈U/D X = X ∈U/D RB X .
A fuzzy decision information system.
U c1 c2 c3 c4 d c1 c2 c3 c4 d
x1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.6 1 0.500 1.000 0.875 0.625 1 ⋂ For any X ∈ U/D, x,{y ∈ U, and B ⊆ C, we have
Proof.
RB ( X ∈U/D X )(x) = infy∈U max N (RB (x, y)) , minX ∈U/D {X (y)} =
}
x2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 1 1.000 0.667 0.375 0.625 1

) {N (RB (x, y)
( ) , X (y)} )= minX ∈U/D RB X (x)
x3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 0 0.000 0.333 0.625 0.500 0
{ } { }
min(X ∈U/D infy∈U max
x4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 0.000 0.333 0.250 0.250 0 ⋂ ⋂ ⋂
x5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.9 1 1.000 0.667 0.000 1.000 1 = X ∈U/D RB X (x) . Hence, RB = X ∈U/D RB X . In a
X ∈U/D X
x6 0.15 0.1 0.9 0.1 0 0.250 0.000 1.000 0.000 0 (⋃ ) ⋃
similar way, we can obtain RB X ∈U/D X = X ∈U/D RB X . □

conclusions are easily understood. Next, this will be described in Property 2. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, for any X ∈ U/D and B ⊆ C, there
detail in Section 4. Example 1 shows these the membership value are
of the lower and upper approximations.
i. N RB (X ) = RB (N (X )),
( )

ii. N RB (X ) = RB (N (X )).
( )
Example 1. A fuzzy decision information system ⟨U, C, D⟩ is
shown in the left of Table 1, where U = {x1 , x2 , . . . , x6 }, C =
{c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 } with V = [0, 1], D = {d}, U/D = {D1 , D2 }, where Proof. For any x, y ∈ U, and B ⊆ C, we have N RB (X ) (x) =
( )
D1 = {x1 , x2 , x5 } and D2 = {x3 , x4 , x6 }. 1 − RB (X ) (x) = 1 − infy∈U max {N (RB (x, y)) , X (y)} = supy∈U min
{RB (x, y), 1 − X (y)} = RB (N (X )) (x). Hence, N( RB (X )) = RB
( )
Let the radius of nearest neighbor samples k be 3 for the
fuzzy decision information system, δ is set to 1, λ is 1.5, and the (N (X )). In a similar way, we can obtain N RB (X ) = RB
min–max normalization method is used in order to normalize (N (X )). □
the data (see the right of Table 1). The weight of samples is
WC (U) = {0.573, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, calculated by using Definition 4. Property 3. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, for any X1 , X2 ∈ U/D and X1 ⊆ X2 ,
The W W there are
⎛ fuzzy relation matrices RC is obtained as ⎞follows, RC =
0.573 0.737 0.680 0.542 0.531 0.480
i. RB (X1 ) ⊆ RB (X2 ),
⎜0.422 1.000 0.552 0.531 0.869 0.409⎟
⎜0.390 0.552 1.000 0.903 0.417 0.754⎟
⎜ ⎟ ii. RB (X1 ) ⊆ RB (X2 ).
⎜0.311 0.531 0.903 1.000 0.420 0.671⎟.
Proof. For any x ∈ U and y ∈ U, we have RB (X1 ) (x) =
⎜ ⎟
⎝0.304 0.869 0.417 0.420 1.000 0.222⎠
0.275 0.409 0.754 0.671 0.222 1.000 infy∈U max {N (RB (x, y)) , X1 (y)} ≤ infy∈U max {N (RB (x, y)) , X2 (y)}
The lower and upper approximations are calculated as follows. = RB (X2 ) (x). Hence, RB (X1 ) ⊆ RB (X2 ). In a similar way, we can
RC D1 = {0.320, 0.448, 0.000, 0.000, 0.580, 0.000}, obtain RB (X1 ) ⊆ RB (X2 ). □
RC D2 = {0.263, 0.000, 0.448, 0.469, 0.000, 0.591},
RC D1 = {0.737, 1.000, 0.552, 0.531, 1.000, 0.409}, The properties given above can provide a fundamental theory
RC D2 = {0.680, 0.552, 1.000, 1.000, 0.420, 1.000}. for the construction of feature selection algorithm.

3.3. Property analysis 4. Feature selection method based on NFRS

Some properties of the noise-aware fuzzy rough set model are

In this Section, we propose a novel feature selection algorithm
discussed in this Subsection.
based on the proposed NFRS. We call this algorithm FNIB (as
referred to Feature selection algorithm based on NFRS with the
Property 1. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, for any X ∈ U/D, and B ⊆ C, there
are Intra-class aggregation and Between-class dispersion). This Sec-
(⋂ ) ⋂ tion includes three parts, i.e., uncertainty measures, evaluation
i. RB X ∈U/D X = X ∈U/D RB X , function, and the greedy feature selection algorithm.
5
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
4.1. Uncertainty measures
The upper and lower approximations of the decision class can
reflect the intra-class aggregation and between-class dispersion
in the dataset (see Section 3.2). To this end, we next measure the
uncertainty of the fuzzy decision information system on the basis
of the upper and lower approximations.
Definition 7. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩ and B ⊆ C, for any X ∈ U/D
and x ∈ U, RB (X ) (x) is the membership degree of the sample
x belonging to the lower approximation of X . The membership
degree of the sample x belonging to the fuzzy positive region of
the decision D with respect to attribute subset B is defined as
POSRB (D)(x) = sup RB (X ) (x). (12)
∀X ∈U/D
POSRB (D)(x) means the degree to which the sample x is cor-
rectly classified. It also describes the degree of between-classes
dispersion provided by sample x. Next, we will define a evaluation
function based on the fuzzy positive region to measure the de-
gree of between-classes dispersion in fuzzy decision information
system.
Definition 8. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩ and B ⊆ C, POSRB (D)(x) is the mem-
bership degree of the sample x belonging to the fuzzy positive
region of the decision D with respect to B. The fuzzy dependency
of the decision D based on the positive region with respect to B
is defined as
∑ ⏐ ⏐ When B = φ , we set SDRW (D) = 0. The range of SDRW (D)
⏐POSR (D)(x)⏐
∀x∈U B is [0, 2]. SDRW (D) is the measure of uncertainty, it describes the
γRB (D) = .
W (x)̸ =0
(13)
|U|
γRB (D) is a dispersion measurement of between-class samples
under B. Based on Section 3.1.3, the sample x is an outlier sample,
when W (x) = 0. For this reason, the uncertainty information
provided by x is unreliable, we should further exclude the effect of
x on the uncertainty measure. In practice, a large γRB (D) indicates
that the dispersion of between-class samples is large.
Definition 9. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩ and B ⊆ C, for any X ∈ U/D
and x ∈ U, RB (X ) (x) is the membership degree of the sample
x belonging to the upper approximation of X . The membership
degree of the sample x belonging to the fuzzy non-negative region
of the decision D with respect to B is defined as
UPRB (D)(x) = sup RB (X ) (x). (14)
∀X ∈U/D
UPRB (D)(x) means the degree to which the sample x may
be correctly classified. It describes the degree of aggregation of
intra-class samples provided by sample x. Next, we will define
a evaluation function to measure the degree of aggregation of
intra-class samples.
Definition 10. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩ and B ⊆ C, UPRB (D)(x) is the
membership degree of the sample x belonging to the upper
approximation of the decision D with respect to B. The fuzzy
dependency of the decision D based on the fuzzy non-negative
region with respect to B is defined as
∑ we introduce the redundancy of the candidate features c relative
∀x∈U UPRB (D)(x)
γRB (D) = .
W (x)̸ =0
(15)
|U|
γRB (D) is a measure of the intra-class aggregation of all deci-
sion classes under B in the fuzzy decision information system. In
practice, a large γRB (D) indicates that the intra-class aggregation
of all decision classes under B is large.
6
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
Example 2. The continuation of Example 1, the uncertainty of
the fuzzy decision information system on the basis of the upper
and lower approximations is calculated as follows.
The fuzzy positive and non-negative region of the decision
D with respect to attribute set C are calculated as POSRC (D) =
{0.320, 0.448, 0.448, 0.469, 0.580, 0.591}, UPRC (D) = {0.737,
1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000}.
The fuzzy dependency of the decision D based on the fuzzy
positive and non-negative region with respect to C are calculated
as γRC (D) = 0.476, γRC (D) = 0.956.
4.2. Evaluation function
Let B denote the selected condition attribute subset, and D
denote the decision attribute set. γRB (D) and γRB (D) indicate the
degrees of between-classes dispersion and intra-class aggregation
of the fuzzy decision information system, respectively. The fuzzy
membership of the decision D based on the fuzzy positive and
non-negative region of D is employed to calculate the significance
of B relative to the decision D.
Definition 11. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, γRB (D) and γRB (D) indicate the
degrees of between-classes dispersion and intra-class aggrega-
tion of the fuzzy decision information system, respectively. The
separability of B for data is defined as
SDRW (D) = γRB (D) + γRB (D). (16)
B
B B
B
separability of B relative to the decision D based on the intra-class
aggregation and between-class dispersion. In addition, SDRW (D)
B
can describe the relevance of B. Next, we introduce the separabil-
ity of the candidate attribute c relative to the selected condition
attribute subset B for the decision D.
Definition 12. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, SDRW (D) is the separability of
B
attribute subset B. The relevance of the candidate attribute c rel-
ative to the selected condition attribute subset B for the decision
D is defined as
Sep(c , B, D) = SDRW (D) − SDRW (D). (17)
B∪{c } B
Given the selected condition attribute subset B, Sep(c , B, D)
describes the separability that can only be provided by candidate
attribute c. In other words, a large Sep(c , B, D) indicates that
the relevance provided by c is large. The separability influence
provided by B for the condition attribute set is defined as follows.
Definition 13. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩ and B ⊆ C, the separability
influence provided by B for the condition attribute set is defined
as
IN(B, D) = SDRW (D) − SDRW (D). (18)
C C− B
IN(B, D) describes the separability influence provided by B for
the condition attribute set. It also reflects the global redundancy
of B for the condition attribute set. In other words, a large IN(B, D)
indicates that the global redundancy provided by B is small. Next,
to B for the decision D.
Definition 14. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, and B ⊆ C, the redundancy of
the candidate attribute c relative to B for the decision D is then
defined as follows.
Ind(c , B, D) = IN(B ∪ {c }, D) − IN(B, D). (19)
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
Ind(c , B, D) describes the separability influence that only the
candidate features c can provide for the selected feature subset.
It also reflects the redundancy of the candidate feature c in B.
Namely, a large Ind(c , B, D) indicates that the redundancy pro-
vided by B is small. That is, the separability of feature for data is
used to describe the relevance and redundancy of feature. Given
Definitions 13 and 14, the significance of an attribute is then
defined as follows.
Definition 15. Given ⟨U, C, D⟩, and B ⊆ C, the significance of c
on B is defined as follows,
Sig(c , B, D) = Sep(c , B, D) + Ind(c , B, D). (20)
The significance of the candidate attribute c handles two parts
of information, i.e., the selected feature subset B and the remain-
ing feature subset C − B −{c }. Given the selected feature subset B,
Sep(c , B, D) evaluates the separability of the candidate feature c
relative to the decision attribute D for the selected feature subset
B, and Ind(c , B, D) evaluates the separability provided by the
candidate feature c for the remaining feature subsets. A feature
evaluation function in forward greedy searching is established as
below.
c ∗ = arg max Sig(c , B, D). (21)
c ∈C −B
Such a feature selection method deal with both the relevance
and global redundancy of features by using the separability of the
candidate feature c in feature set. In each iteration, we further
consider dynamic relation between the selected features and the
remaining features to make decision, namely, the separability
with respect to the decision attribute D and the separability with
respect to the remaining feature subset C − B. The detail of feature
evaluation is shown in Example 3.
Example 3. The continuation of Example 2, the details of FNIB
are calculated as follows.
The weight of samples for a single feature are Wc1 (U) =
{0.667, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000}, Wc2 (U) = {1.000,
0.667, 0.667, 0.667, 0.667, 1.000}, Wc3 (U) = {0.000, 0.000,
0.000, 0.000, 0.833, 0.833}, and Wc4 (U) = {0.667, 0.667, 0.000,
1.000, 1.000, 1.000}, respectively. The fuzzy relation matrices are
obtained
⎛ as follows.
0.667 0.882 0.882 0.882 0.882 0.969
⎞
⎜0.588 1.000 0.607 0.607 1.000 0.755⎟
⎜0.588 0.607 1.000 1.000 0.607 0.969⎟
⎜ ⎟
W
R c1 = ⎜ ⎟,
⎜0.588 0.607 1.000 1.000 0.607 0.969⎟
⎝0.588 1.000 0.607 0.607 1.000 0.755⎠
⎛0.646 0.755 0.969 0.969 0.755 1.000⎞
1.000 0.631 0.534 0.534 0.631 0.607
⎜0.946 0.667 0.631 0.631 0.667 0.801⎟
⎜0.801 0.631 0.667 0.667 0.631 0.946⎟
⎜ ⎟
RW
c2 = ⎜0.801 ⎟,
⎜ 0.631 0.667 0.667 0.631 0.946⎟
⎝0.946 0.667 0.631 0.631 0.667 0.801⎠
⎛0.607 0.534 0.631 0.631 0.534 1.000⎞
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.568 0.827
⎜0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.777 0.685⎟
⎜0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.685 0.777⎟
⎜ ⎟
RW
c3 = ⎜0.000 ⎟,
⎜ 0.000 0.000 0 .000 0. 808 0. 629⎟
⎝0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.505⎠
⎛0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.505 0.833⎞
0.667 0.667 0.000 0.932 0.932 0.823
⎜0.667 0.667 0.000 0.932 0.932 0.823⎟
⎜0.661 0.661 0.000 0.969 0.882 0.882⎟
⎜ ⎟
RW = ⎟.
c4
⎜0.621 0.621 0.000 1.000 0.755 0.969⎟
⎜ ⎜
⎝0.621 0.621 0.000 0.755 1.000 0.607⎠
0.548 0.548 0.000 0.969 0.607 1.000
7
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
The lower and upper approximations are calculated as follows.
Rc1 D1 = {0.031, 0.245, 0.000, 0.000, 0.245, 0.000},
Rc1 D2 = {0.118, 0.000, 0.393, 0.393, 0.000, 0.245},
Rc2 D1 = {0.393, 0.199, 0.054, 0.054, 0.199, 0.000},
Rc2 D2 = {0.000, 0.054, 0.199, 0.199, 0.054, 0.393},
Rc3 D1 = {0.173, 0.315, 0.223, 0.371, 0.495, 0.167},
Rc3 D2 = {0.432, 0.223, 0.315, 0.192, 0.167, 0.495},
Rc4 D1 = {0.068, 0.068, 0.031, 0.000, 0.245, 0.000},
Rc4 D2 = {0.068, 0.068, 0.118, 0.245, 0.000, 0.393}.
Rc1 D1 = {0.882, 1.000, 0.607, 0.607, 1.000, 0.755},
Rc1 D2 = {0.969, 0.755, 1.000, 1.000, 0.755, 1.000},
Rc2 D1 = {1.000, 0.946, 0.801, 0.801, 0.946, 0.607},
Rc2 D2 = {0.607, 0.801, 0.946, 0.946, 0.801, 1.000},
Rc3 D1 = {0.568, 0.777, 0.685, 0.808, 0.833, 0.505},
Rc3 D2 = {0.827, 0.685, 0.777, 0.629, 0.505, 0.833},
Rc4 D1 = {0.932, 0.932, 0.882, 0.755, 1.000, 0.607},
Rc4 D2 = {0.932, 0.932, 0.969, 1.000, 0.755, 1.000}.
The fuzzy positive and non-negative region of the decision D
with respect to a single feature are calculated as follows.
POSRc1 (D) = {0.118, 0.245, 0.393, 0.393, 0.245, 0.245},
POSRc2 (D) = {0.393, 0.199, 0.199, 0.199, 0.199, 0.393},
POSRc3 (D) = {0.432, 0.315, 0.315, 0.371, 0.495, 0.495},
POSRc4 (D) = {0.068, 0.068, 0.118, 0.245, 0.245, 0.393}.
UPRc1 (D) = {0.969, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000},
UPRc2 (D) = {1.000, 0.946, 0.946, 0.946, 0.946, 1.000},
UPRc3 (D) = {0.827, 0.777, 0.777, 0.808, 0.833, 0.833},
UPRc4 (D) = {0.932, 0.932, 0.969, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000}.
The fuzzy dependency of the decision D based on the fuzzy
positive and non-negative region with respect to a single feature
are calculated as follows.
γRc1 (D) = 0.273, γRc2 (D) = 0.264, γRc3 (D) = 0.165, γRc4 (D) =
0.170.
γRc (D) = 0.995, γRc (D) = 0.964, γRc (D) = 0.278, γRc (D) =
1 2 3 4
0.811.
The separability for a single feature is calculated as follows.
SDRW (D) = 1.268, SDRW (D) = 1.228, SDRW (D) = 0.443, and
c1 c2 c3
SDRW (D) = 0.981.
c4
The relevance for a single feature is calculated as follows.
Sep(c1 , Φ , D) = 1.268, Sep(c2 , Φ , D) = 1.228, Sep(c3 , Φ , D) =
0.443, and Sep(c4 , Φ , D) = 0.981.
The weight of samples for the remaining feature subset of
a single feature is WC −{c1 } (U) = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, WC −{c2 } (U) =
{1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, WC −{c3 } (U) = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, and WC −{c4 } (U) =
{1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, respectively. The fuzzy relation matrices for the
remaining feature subset of a single feature are obtained as fol-
lows.
1.000 0.835 0.467 0.372 0.601 0.300
⎛ ⎞
⎜0.835 1.000 0.552 0.531 0.869 0.329⎟
⎜0.467 0.552 1.000 0.903 0.417 0.778⎟
⎜ ⎟
RWC −{c1 } = ⎜0.372 ⎟,
⎜ 0.531 0.903 1.000 0.420 0.692⎟
⎝0.601 0.869 0.417 0.420 1.000 0.179⎠
⎛0.300 0.329 0.778 0.692 0.179 1.000⎞
1.000 0.779 0.515 0.410 0.561 0.480
⎜0.779 1.000 0.354 0.340 0.869 0.310⎟
⎜0.515 0.354 1.000 0.903 0.267 0.797⎟
⎜ ⎟
RWC −{c2 } = ⎜0.410 ⎟,
⎜ 0 .340 0.903 1.000 0. 269 0. 709 ⎟
⎝0.561 0.869 0.267 0.269 1.000 0.168⎠
⎛0.480 0.310 0.797 0.709 0.168 1.000⎞
1.000 0.835 0.425 0.400 0.778 0.293
⎜0.835 1.000 0.345 0.324 0.932 0.302⎟
⎜0.425 0.345 1.000 0.969 0.307 0.809⎟
⎜ ⎟
RW = ⎟,
C −{c3 }
⎜0.400 0.324 0.969 1.000 0.263 0.889⎟
⎝0.778 0.932 0.307 0.263 1.000 0.222⎠
0.293 0.302 0.809 0.889 0.222 1.000
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
1.000 0.737 0.415 0.353 0.569 0.354
⎛ ⎞
⎜0.737 1.000 0.337 0.345 0.932 0.302⎟
⎜0.415 0.337 1.000 0.932 0.286 0.855⎟
⎜ ⎟
RW =⎜ ⎟.
C −{c4 }
⎜0.353 0.345 0.932 1.000 0.337 0.692⎟
⎝0.569 0.932 0.286 0.337 1.000 0.222⎠
0.354 0.302 0.855 0.692 0.222 1.000
The lower and upper approximations for the remaining feature
subset of a single feature are calculated as follows.
RC −{c1 } D1 = {0.533, 0.448, 0.000, 0.000, 0.580, 0.000},
RC −{c1 } D2 = {0.000, 0.000, 0.448, 0.469, 0.000, 0.671},
RC −{c2 } D1 = {0.485, 0.646, 0.000, 0.000, 0.731, 0.000},
RC −{c2 } D2 = {0.000, 0.000, 0.485, 0.590, 0.000, 0.520},
RC −{c3 } D1 = {0.575, 0.655, 0.000, 0.000, 0.693, 0.000},
RC −{c3 } D2 = {0.000, 0.000, 0.575, 0.600, 0.000, 0.698},
RC −{c4 } D1 = {0.585, 0.655, 0.000, 0.000, 0.663, 0.000},
RC −{c4 } D2 = {0.000, 0.000, 0.585, 0.647, 0.000, 0.646}.
RC −{c1 } D1 = {1.000, 1.000, 0.552, 0.531, 1.000, 0.329},
RC −{c1 } D2 = {0.467, 0.552, 1.000, 1.000, 0.420, 1.000},
RC −{c2 } D1 = {1.000, 1.000, 0.515, 0.410, 1.000, 0.480},
RC −{c2 } D2 = {0.515, 0.354, 1.000, 1.000, 0.269, 1.000},
RC −{c3 } D1 = {1.000, 1.000, 0.425, 0.400, 1.000, 0.302},
RC −{c3 } D2 = {0.425, 0.345, 1.000, 1.000, 0.307, 1.000},
RC −{c4 } D1 = {1.000, 1.000, 0.415, 0.353, 1.000, 0.354},
RC −{c4 } D2 = {0.415, 0.345, 1.000, 1.000, 0.337, 1.000}
The positive and non-negative region for the remaining feature
subset of a single feature can be calculated as follows.
POSRC −{c } (D) = {0.533, 0.448, 0.448, 0.469, 0.580, 0.671},
1 Se with the highest classification accuracy by using classifiers;
POSRC −{c } (D) = {0.485, 0.646, 0.485, 0.590, 0.731, 0.520},
2 19: return Re .
POSRC −{c } (D) = {0.575, 0.655, 0.575, 0.600, 0.693, 0.698},
3
POSRC −{c } (D) = {0.585, 0.655, 0.585, 0.647, 0.663, 0.646}.
4
UPRC −{c } (D) = {1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000},
1
UPRC −{c } (D) = {1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000},
2 is O(n). In the second part, Steps 8–10 are to obtain the fuzzy
UPRC −{c } (D) = {1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000},
3 relation between samples and its time complexity is O(n2 ), and
UPRC −{c } (D) = {1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 1.000}.
4 its space complexity is O(n2 ). In the three part, Steps 3–17 are
The fuzzy dependency of the decision D based on the fuzzy
positive and non-negative region for the remaining feature subset
of a single feature are calculated as follows.
γRC −{c } (D) = 0.525, γRC −{c } (D) = 0.576,
1 2
γRC −{c3 } (D) = 0.633, γRC −{c4 } (D) = 0.630.
γRC −{c } (D) = 1.000, γRC −{c } (D) = 1.000,
1 2
γRC −{c } (D) = 1.000, γRC −{c } (D) = 1.000.
3 4
The separability for the remaining feature subset of a single
feature is calculated as follows.
SDRW (D) = 1.525, SDRW (D) = 1.576, SDRW (D) = 1.633,
C −{c1 } C −{c2 }
and SDRW (D) = 1.630.
C −{c4 }
The separability influence for a single feature is calculated as
follows.
INRW (D) = SDRW (D) − SDRW (D) = γRC (D) + γRC (D) −
C −{c1 } C C−{c1 }
SDRW (D) = −0.093, INRW (D) = −0.144, INRW
C−{c1 } C −{c2 }
−0.200, and INRW (D) = −0.198.
C −{c4 }
Then, the redundancy for a single feature is calculated as
follows.
Ind(c1 , Φ , D) = 0.093, Ind(c2 , Φ , D) = 0.144, Ind(c3 , Φ , D) =
0.200, and Ind(c4 , Φ , D) = 0.198.
The significance for a single feature is calculated as follows.
Sig(c1 , Φ , D) = 1.361, Sig(c1 , Φ , D) = 1.372, Sig(c1 , Φ , D) =
0.643, and Sig(c1 , Φ , D) = 1.178.
4.3. The greedy feature selection algorithm
In this Section, we present the forward greedy Feature se-
lection algorithm based on our NFRS model with the Intra-class
aggregation and Between-class dispersion (FNIB).
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
Let B denote the selected feature subset using a forward
greedy algorithm, C is the conditional feature set, C − B is the
remaining feature subset, and c is the current candidate features.
We select a candidate feature using the feature evaluation criteria
(i.e., Eq. (21)) in each iteration. Formally, the proposed feature
selection algorithm FNIB is listed in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 The FNIB algorithm
Input: Fuzzy decision system ⟨U, C, D⟩, B ⊆ C, a predefined thresholds
d, and three predefined parameters λ, k, and δ .
Output: A reduct of C, i.e., the selected features Re .
1: Initialize Se , Re ← ∅, and B ← C − Se , where Se is an ordered
sequence of selected features;
2: Calculate U/D;
3: while B ̸ = ∅ do
4: for any c ∈ B do
5: for any x ∈ U do
6: Calculate WC −Se −{c } (x) and WSe ∪{c } (x);
7: end for
8: for any x, y ∈ U do
Se ∪{c } (x, y) and RC −Se −{c } (x, y);
Calculate RW W
9:
10: end for
11: Calculate Sep(c , Se , D) and Ind(c , Se , D);
12: Calculate Sig(c , Se , D) according to Eq. (20);
13: end for
14: Select the feature c ∗ with maximum value Sig(c ∗ , Se , D);
15: Se ← Se ∪ {c ∗ };
16: B ← B − c∗;
17: end while
18: Select the feature subset Re from an ordered sequence of features
The computational complexity of FNIB mainly consists of three
parts. In the first part, Steps 5–7 are to obtain the weight of
samples, its time complexity is O(kn2 ), and its space complexity
to find the best candidate feature until Step 3 does not hold, its
time complexity is O(km2 n2 ), and its space complexity is O(mn2 ).
In summary, the overall time and space complexity of FNIB are
O(km2 n2 ) and O(mn2 ), respectively.
5. Experiments
In this Section, the robustness and effectiveness of the pro-
posed NFRS model are evaluated by series of experiments, respec-
tively. To verify the robustness of the NFRS model and differences
C −{c3 }
in the effect of noise distribution on models, we first contrast the
dependence degree. The classification performance of selected
features of FNIB are then compared with other algorithms on real-
world datasets. These experiments are performed on a Windows
system Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-8500 CPU @ 3.00 GHz, 8 GB RAM and
(D ) = MATLAB development environment. That is, all experiments are
C −{c3 }
performed in the same environment.
5.1. The effectiveness of the FNIB algorithm
We experiment on twenty-four real-world datasets. All datasets
are from UCI Machine Learning Repository,1 Arizona State Univer-
sity,2 and KEEL-Dataset Repository.3 The information of datasets
is summarized in Table 2. Some datasets are incomplete, and
the missing values in the incomplete dataset are filled with the
most frequently values on those attributes. Categorical values in a
1 http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/index.php.
2 https://jundongl.github.io/scikit-feature/datasets.html.
3 https://sci2s.ugr.es/keel/datasets.php.
8
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al. Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092

Table 2
The summary of the experimental datasets.
No. Datasets Abbreviation Samples Features Classes Data type
1 Glass identification Glass 214 9 6 Numerical
2 Sonar, mines vs. rocks Sonar 208 60 2 Numerical
3 Ecoli Dataset Ecoli 336 8 8 Numerical
4 Ionosphere Iono 351 34 2 Numerical
5 Pima Indians diabetes Pima 768 8 2 Mixed
6 Credit Approval Credit-A 690 16 2 Mixed
7 Car Evaluationn Car 1728 6 4 Categorical
8 Wilt Wilt 4889 5 2 Numerical
9 Statlog (German Credit Data) German 1000 20 2 Numerical
10 Dermatology Derma 366 34 6 Mixed
11 Lymphography Lymph 148 18 4 Categorical
12 Wisconsin prognostic breast cancer Wpbc 198 33 2 Numerical
13 Zoo Zoo 101 17 7 Categorical
14 Autos Autos 205 25 6 Mixed
15 Statlog(heart) Heart 270 13 2 Mixed
16 Hepatitis Hepati 155 19 2 Mixed
17 Parkinsons Parkin 197 23 2 Numerical
18 SPECT SPECT 267 22 2 Categorical
19 Sick Sick 3772 29 2 Mixed
20 Breast Cancer Wisconsin Wbc 699 10 2 Numerical
21 Lung_discrete Lung 73 325 7 Numerical
22 Colon Colon 62 2000 2 Numerical
23 Yale database Yale 165 1024 15 Numerical
24 ORL ORL 400 1024 40 Numerical

dataset are replaced by integers if a comparison algorithm cannot
process categorical data. Furthermore, in order to reduce the
influence of dimension on the experimental results, we perform
min–max normalization on each dataset.
We compare FNIB with seven baseline algorithms including
the minimal-redundancy maximal-relevance feature selection al-
gorithm (mRMR) [45], the mutual information-based feature se-
lection algorithm (MIFS) [46], the fast correlation-based filter
(FCBF) [47], the rough fuzzy bipolar soft sets with the Intra-
class aggregation and Between-class dispersion (RFBSIB) [42], and
the feature selection algorithm based on the fuzzy dependency
function of some existing robust fuzzy rough set models, i.e. FRS-
FS [10], PFRS-FS [35], PGDFRS-FS [36] and SFRS-FS [29]. Note that
RFBSIB is based on the rough fuzzy bipolar soft set model [42],
and adopts the evaluation function of the proposed features in
order to better evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed NFRS
model. The selected features using each algorithm are then eval-
uated on downstream classification tasks. The raw features are
also evaluated as a baseline. To have a comprehensive evaluation,
we use two classifiers to evaluate the performance of the selected
features against the raw features, i.e., K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN,
K=3) and Support Vector Machine (SVM).
In this experiment, each feature selection algorithm is first
applied to each dataset. We adopt 5-fold cross-validation on each
dataset in the experiments. For each dataset, data are randomly
divided into five subsets. Each of the five subsets is used as
test set and the remaining four subsets are used as training
set. That is, every feature selection algorithm is executed five
times on each dataset. Then, the features selected by each feature
selection algorithm are used to build a classifier on training set.
The performance of the classifier built on the selected features is
evaluated on test data. We record and calculate the average and
standard deviations of the classification accuracy of each method
in Tables 3–8, (i.e., Acc±std). Note that the average accuracy
indicates the trend of concentration of the classification accuracy
and the standard deviation indicates the degree of dispersion of
the classification accuracy.
For simplicity, the parameter k was set to 10. We also ad-
just the number of selected features and two other parameters
of the algorithm to compare the optimal performance of these
feature selection algorithm for each dataset. Then, the optimal
classification performance of these feature selection algorithm is
9
shown in Tables 3–4, and the best results are highlighted in bold.
Two classifiers are executed on the features selected from each
dataset.
From the results in Tables 3–4, we can observe that the clas-
sification performance on the selected features using the FNIB
algorithm is better than the performance on the all features. This
shows that some features are redundant in the data and the
selected features can help improve classification performance. For
two classifiers, the FNIB algorithm achieves better results on 16
and 18 datasets, respectively. From the perspective of dimen-
sionality reduction, the average number of features selected by
the FNIB algorithm is not the smallest, while the highest average
classification accuracy can be achieved.
5.2. Robustness analysis of NFRS
To analyze the robustness of our NFRS model and differences
in the effect of noise distribution on models, we compare the
dependency degree with different fuzzy rough sets models on
two two-dimensional datasets (as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b))
and real-world datasets. Note that the dependency degree of our
NFRS model is calculated by Eq. (13). In order to achieve this goal,
we analyze the sensitivity curve of dependence degree calculated
with different fuzzy rough sets models (i.e., FRS [10], PFRS [35],
PGDFRS [36] and SFRS [29]). First, we add a new sample to the
two two-dimensional datasets and change the location of this
sample, which is (x, 5) (i.e., x = −5, −4.65, −4.3, −3.95, . . . , 30
in Dataset1, and x = −2, −1.88, −1.76, . . . , 10 in Dataset2). As
shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), the region where x ≤ 4 belongs to
red class and vice versa. Consequently, if x ≤ 4, this sample is
marked as blue class in order to make the newly added sample
noise, and vice versa as red class. Then, we add some samples
to the two two-dimensional datasets, and some random attribute
value on the two-dimensional space of the Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) as
attribute noise [19]. Finally, we add some class noise into two
datasets by randomly selecting some samples from the datasets
to change their class [19]. We calculate the dependence degree
with different fuzzy rough models when the location and noise
level of the samples changes. For real-world datasets, we add
some samples with some random attribute value and some class
value to real-world datasets as noise. The experimental results
are illustrated in Fig. 3 (two two-dimensional datasets) and Fig. 4
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al. Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092

Fig. 3. Dependency comparison of two visualization two-dimensional datasets.

Fig. 4. Comparison results in terms of dependency under different noise settings.

(four real-world datasets), where the vertical axis denotes the
fuzzy dependency degree with different fuzzy rough sets models
on datasets.
These curves of the dependence degree reflect the robustness
performance of different fuzzy rough sets with noise samples
(as shown Figs. 3 and 4). The more robustness of fuzzy rough
sets has a high degree of dependence and the curve is relatively
flat. First, the dependence degree calculated with different fuzzy
rough set model changes significantly when the location of the
noise sample changes by observing FRS, PFRS, and PGDFRS. For
Dataset1 and Dataset2, the curves of the dependence degree
calculated with the SFRS and NFRS models is relatively small
when the location of the class-noisy sample changes. If the den-
sity of the sample is more concentrated, the noise sample has a
10
greater effect on the dependence degree when the location of the
noise sample changes by observing Dataset1. Furthermore, these
dependence degree with different fuzzy rough set model decrease
when the class noise level and attribute noise level increases in
Dataset1 and Dataset2. In fact, if the attribute noise (like x as
shown in Fig. 1) is increased, the dependence will increase as the
fuzzy relation between samples decreases. This is the reason why
these dependence degree with different fuzzy rough set model
increase slightly when the attribute noise level increases in real-
world datasets. The randomly generated noise has a large number
of samples like x. These curves show that the NFRS model has
good robustness performance for both attribute noise and class
noise. Next, the robustness and effectiveness of the FNIB would
been verified in some real-world datasets.
 X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
Table 3
Classification performance in terms of accuracy (%) using classifier KNN on twenty-four datasets.
Datasets raw MRMR FCBF MIFS FRS-FS SFRS-FS PFRS-FS PGDFRS-FS RFBSIB FNIB
Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num
Glass 66.35 ± 2.25 9 71.96 ± 9.62 7 66.86 ± 6.13 9 66.86 ± 6.13 9 62.65 ± 7.88 6.6 66.86 ± 6.13 9 66.86 ± 6.13 9 66.86 ± 6.13 9 66.86 ± 6.13 9 70.56 ± 7.53 2
Sonar 81.25 ± 6.61 60 86.49 ± 3.85 39 84.13 ± 5.86 56 88.88 ± 6.64 47 79.83 ± 6.91 11.8 85.62 ± 4.97 43.4 84.58 ± 4.83 26.2 82.12 ± 6.29 10 85.07 ± 2.80 19 90.87 ± 2.65 35
Ecoli 85.10 ± 3.68 7 85.71 ± 2.26 7 85.71 ± 2.26 7 85.71 ± 2.26 7 85.95 ± 3.27 6 85.71 ± 2.26 6 85.71 ± 2.26 7 84.83 ± 4.05 6.6 85.71 ± 2.26 7 85.71 ± 2.26 5
Iono 85.19 ± 3.57 34 88.88 ± 5.30 7 88.30 ± 4.48 14 89.73 ± 6.36 18 89.74 ± 5.67 11.4 89.46 ± 4.58 16 88.03 ± 6.91 15.4 87.74 ± 5.13 21.2 91.44 ± 3.05 5 93.16 ± 3.97 4
Pima 73.96 ± 3.75 8 72.92 ± 1.01 8 74.23 ± 3.88 6 72.53 ± 2.81 8 72.53 ± 2.81 8 72.53 ± 2.81 8 72.53 ± 2.81 8 72.53 ± 2.81 8 72.53 ± 2.81 8 74.74 ± 3.20 2
Credit-A 83.48 ± 3.38 15 85.22 ± 3.28 15 85.22 ± 3.28 15 85.22 ± 3.28 15 85.80 ± 3.98 12.6 85.94 ± 3.56 12 85.37 ± 3.75 13 85.22 ± 3.28 13.6 85.22 ± 3.28 15 87.10 ± 3.37 9
Car 88.89 ± 2.72 6 92.88 ± 0.63 6 92.88 ± 0.63 6 92.88 ± 0.63 6 70.02 ± 0.11 2 79.29 ± 12.71 3.6 92.88 ± 0.63 6 83.51 ± 8.88 1.4 92.88 ± 0.63 6 92.88 ± 0.63 5
Wilt 95.14 ± 0.32 5 95.47 ± 0.29 5 96.80 ± 0.41 5 98.14 ± 0.15 3 94.98 ± 0.91 4 95.47 ± 0.29 5 95.47 ± 0.29 5 95.14 ± 0.32 5 98.31 ± 0.28 3 98.14 ± 0.15 1
German 69.90 ± 0.89 20 71.80 ± 1.15 15 70.60 ± 3.58 12 70.90 ± 2.43 20 71.90 ± 4.04 8 72.60 ± 1.56 7.6 69.40 ± 2.22 18.8 69.90 ± 1.78 19 69.40 ± 1.78 16 73.40 ± 3.15 12
Derma 96.99 ± 1.79 34 97.81 ± 0.77 28 96.71 ± 1.60 35 98.08 ± 1.58 29 96.72 ± 2.65 8 96.18 ± 1.78 19 97.26 ± 1.68 25.2 88.27 ± 5.09 14.4 96.98 ± 1.54 32 97.80 ± 2.09 28
Lymph 76.85 ± 8.84 18 85.04 ± 6.06 15 83.77 ± 6.02 12 80.54 ± 7.23 18 83.71 ± 5.32 7.6 81.66 ± 6.27 10 81.21 ± 6.51 16.8 79.75 ± 6.11 17.6 83.19 ± 5.00 18 85.78 ± 4.73 12
Wpbc 71.21 ± 1.50 33 78.78 ± 5.81 11 75.23 ± 6.57 33 75.23 ± 6.57 33 80.29 ± 6.01 12.4 78.79 ± 3.73 23.8 79.77 ± 8.58 16.4 77.31 ± 6.75 14 79.28 ± 4.21 6 82.32 ± 5.07 23
Zoo 91.05 ± 4.24 16 95.99 ± 5.50 16 94.04 ± 6.37 13 94.99 ± 5.03 15 92.93 ± 7.60 7.2 91.92 ± 2.94 4.4 94.09 ± 6.27 9.2 83.24 ± 1.75 3.2 95.04 ± 6.92 12 95.99 ± 5.50 12
Autos 54.49 ± 7.17 25 69.85 ± 11.11 6 71.34 ± 7.47 7 64.22 ± 6.86 24 70.11 ± 7.86 12.6 66.33 ± 12.02 17.4 66.23 ± 7.83 17 61.45 ± 5.95 13.6 74.02 ± 2.11 3 77.01 ± 8.23 4
Heart 78.89 ± 5.00 13 80.37 ± 8.03 9 81.48 ± 6.93 11 79.63 ± 7.05 11 81.48 ± 5.24 9.8 81.48 ± 5.40 5.6 79.63 ± 9.26 9.4 79.26 ± 8.43 12.6 80.37 ± 8.03 13 82.96 ± 3.56 5
Hepati 67.10 ± 4.21 19 69.03 ± 5.86 18 70.32 ± 7.36 9 67.10 ± 3.53 19 65.81 ± 6.29 13 70.32 ± 5.30 16.2 67.10 ± 2.70 17.2 65.81 ± 1.77 19 68.39 ± 2.70 18 72.90 ± 6.69 3
Parkin 93.33 ± 5.32 22 93.90 ± 5.75 6 94.37 ± 1.05 16 92.83 ± 2.07 22 95.37 ± 2.86 8.8 94.87 ± 2.57 11.2 95.37 ± 2.86 9.6 92.83 ± 2.07 20.6 93.37 ± 3.75 19 95.42 ± 4.12 16
SPECT 78.26 ± 4.01 22 79.77 ± 1.65 22 79.77 ± 1.65 22 79.77 ± 1.65 22 79.40 ± 0.21 2 78.28 ± 0.90 9.2 79.76 ± 1.75 10.8 79.77 ± 1.65 13.8 79.78 ± 0.78 22 80.14 ± 1.81 17
Sick 96.10 ± 0.95 29 96.47 ± 0.38 22 97.53 ± 0.63 9 96.39 ± 0.61 29 97.27 ± 0.48 2 96.18 ± 0.88 15.40 96.90 ± 0.70 19.4 93.88 ± 0.94 3.2 96.74 ± 0.53 24 97.35 ± 0.31 16
Wbc 96.42 ± 1.14 9 96.85 ± 1.39 9 96.85 ± 1.39 9 96.85 ± 1.39 9 96.42 ± 0.87 3.8 97.00 ± 1.37 8.8 97.14 ± 1.43 8 96.14 ± 0.83 9 97.28 ± 1.28 8 97.14 ± 1.33 6
Lung 84.80 ± 5.96 325 93.31 ± 6.73 102 87.77 ± 5.39 226 89.10 ± 3.47 208 84.80 ± 5.96 325 83.38 ± 8.24 263.8 70.45 ± 13.75 3.6 84.80 ± 5.96 325 90.81 ± 10.62 54 92.06 ± 8.44 155
Colon 75.77 ± 16.55 2000 83.97 ± 9.85 121 75.77 ± 16.55 361 79.10 ± 15.92 801 77.44 ± 12.28 4 77.56 ± 8.39 2 75.90 ± 10.93 12.6 67.56 ± 10.66 4.4 75.77 ± 16.55 301 82.18 ± 14.82 211
Yale 59.03 ± 6.37 1024 59.68 ± 6.54 881 58.63 ± 8.11 801 58.58 ± 7.29 1001 50.01 ± 7.93 11 57.15 ± 8.44 47.6 52.40 ± 10.49 50.2 36.27 ± 10.36 8.2 59.03 ± 6.37 1021 59.63 ± 5.86 666
ORL 86.25 ± 3.54 1024 86.00 ± 2.85 1001 85.75 ± 2.74 1001 86.50 ± 1.63 841 86.25 ± 3.54 16 86.00 ± 1.37 104.8 82.75 ± 4.54 46.8 60.00 ± 3.64 11.4 87.00 ± 1.90 1021 87.25 ± 2.24 1021
Avg. 80.66 ± 4.32 199.04 84.09 ± 4.40 99.00 83.09 ± 4.60 112.29 82.91 ± 4.27 133.96 81.31 ± 4.61 21.40 82.11 ± 4.52 27.91 81.53 ± 4.96 15.86 78.09 ± 4.61 24.33 83.52 ± 3.97 110.83 85.52 ± 4.24 94.58
11

Table 4
Classification performance in terms of accuracy (%) using classifier SVM on twenty-four datasets.
Datasets raw MRMR FCBF MIFS FRS-FS SFRS-FS PFRS-FS PGDFRS-FS RFBSIB FNIB
Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num
Glass 51.87 ± 9.36 9 56.85 ± 9.98 7 58.39 ± 6.05 9 54.91 ± 11.18 9 58.71 ± 8.61 7 56.81 ± 10.05 7.4 57.33 ± 10.55 7.8 54.91 ± 11.18 9 56.96 ± 6.12 8 59.59 ± 10.66 6
Sonar 77.38 ± 6.37 60 81.18 ± 5.88 39 80.71 ± 6.45 56 80.69 ± 6.29 47 78.33 ± 4.37 11.8 79.81 ± 4.39 32.4 79.33 ± 3.56 26.2 78.81 ± 8.55 10 80.69 ± 6.29 60 83.18 ± 2.91 26
Ecoli 81.82 ± 7.01 7 82.75 ± 5.22 7 82.42 ± 3.89 7 82.42 ± 3.89 7 82.75 ± 5.22 6 82.42 ± 3.89 6 82.42 ± 3.89 7 80.95 ± 6.51 0 82.42 ± 3.89 7 82.42 ± 3.89 5
Iono 88.03 ± 2.40 34 87.74 ± 3.16 7 87.45 ± 4.48 14 89.17 ± 2.99 18 88.04 ± 2.11 11.4 89.45 ± 2.98 24.6 88.03 ± 2.99 15.4 88.02 ± 4.72 6.6 87.45 ± 4.48 34 89.18 ± 2.96 27
Pima 76.55 ± 5.18 8 77.22 ± 2.15 8 77.35 ± 1.62 6 76.83 ± 3.09 8 76.83 ± 3.09 8 76.83 ± 3.09 8 76.83 ± 3.09 8 76.83 ± 3.09 21.2 77.22 ± 3.30 7 77.74 ± 1.56 4
Credit-A 85.51 ± 2.71 15 85.51 ± 2.32 16 85.51 ± 2.32 15 85.51 ± 2.32 15 85.51 ± 2.32 9.8 85.51 ± 2.32 9.2 85.51 ± 2.32 11.6 85.51 ± 2.32 8 85.51 ± 2.32 14 85.51 ± 2.32 1
Car 83.39 ± 0.80 6 84.20 ± 1.57 6 83.85 ± 1.76 6 84.32 ± 1.46 6 77.43 ± 1.09 2 80.50 ± 2.11 4.4 83.91 ± 1.69 6 81.19 ± 2.48 13.6 84.32 ± 1.46 5 83.56 ± 0.87 5
Wilt 94.61 ± 0.67 5 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 3 94.61 ± 0.04 4 94.61 ± 0.04 1 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.67 5 94.61 ± 0.04 1 94.61 ± 0.04 1

Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092

German 73.80 ± 3.63 20 74.20 ± 1.60 15 72.90 ± 2.38 12 73.60 ± 1.98 20 72.90 ± 2.38 20 73.30 ± 2.68 18.8 72.70 ± 2.20 18.8 72.90 ± 2.38 20 72.90 ± 2.38 20 74.90 ± 2.33 12
Derma 97.00 ± 2.24 34 98.35 ± 1.16 28 97.82 ± 1.82 34 98.09 ± 0.74 29 96.46 ± 2.98 8 97.55 ± 1.49 19.6 97.82 ± 1.82 25.2 89.63 ± 3.22 14.4 98.09 ± 1.54 33 98.09 ± 0.74 28
Lymph 80.97 ± 9.50 18 87.23 ± 4.12 15 86.59 ± 4.95 12 85.19 ± 3.53 18 83.87 ± 5.69 7.6 86.59 ± 6.03 15.6 85.88 ± 4.74 16 84.50 ± 2.67 17.6 85.19 ± 3.53 18 87.97 ± 5.72 12
Wpbc 77.21 ± 6.76 33 78.82 ± 3.61 11 78.32 ± 3.99 33 78.32 ± 3.99 33 76.27 ± 1.18 5.6 77.81 ± 3.97 22.4 76.78 ± 1.88 20.4 78.32 ± 3.99 33 78.32 ± 3.99 33 78.82 ± 3.61 23
Zoo 95.99 ± 4.19 16 97.10 ± 4.29 16 94.14 ± 7.81 13 94.14 ± 7.81 15 93.98 ± 6.36 7.2 93.08 ± 4.55 7.2 94.09 ± 6.27 9.2 84.19 ± 1.47 5.4 95.04 ± 5.84 15 96.09 ± 6.23 12
Autos 60.49 ± 6.31 25 61.93 ± 7.91 6 61.93 ± 7.91 7 62.42 ± 7.12 24 61.42 ± 9.64 12.6 62.42 ± 9.48 17 61.93 ± 7.54 17.8 60.95 ± 7.75 21.4 62.42 ± 7.12 23 63.40 ± 6.02 4
Heart 84.07 ± 4.83 13 85.19 ± 4.54 9 84.81 ± 4.01 11 85.19 ± 5.24 11 84.44 ± 5.65 9.8 85.19 ± 5.71 8.4 84.81 ± 4.97 11.2 84.07 ± 5.94 13 84.44 ± 6.36 13 86.30 ± 4.83 5
Hepati 70.32 ± 6.61 19 70.32 ± 5.30 18 70.32 ± 5.30 9 71.61 ± 9.78 19 70.97 ± 5.10 8.6 70.32 ± 6.20 13.4 71.61 ± 5.77 17.4 70.97 ± 6.45 17.4 70.97 ± 3.95 16 72.26 ± 3.68 3
Parkin 86.67 ± 6.88 22 87.72 ± 6.05 6 86.69 ± 4.12 16 87.20 ± 5.05 22 87.20 ± 3.52 4.2 87.22 ± 6.43 9.4 87.20 ± 5.05 11.4 87.20 ± 3.52 8 87.20 ± 5.05 19 88.24 ± 6.35 16
SPECT 81.30 ± 4.64 22 83.53 ± 3.31 23 83.92 ± 4.75 23 81.65 ± 3.61 22 79.40 ± 0.21 2 83.52 ± 4.85 9.2 81.66 ± 3.31 12.8 81.28 ± 1.80 14.4 83.54 ± 3.95 16 82.78 ± 2.70 17
Sick 93.88 ± 0.94 29 93.88 ± 0.06 22 93.88 ± 0.06 9 93.88 ± 0.06 29 93.88 ± 0.06 2 93.88 ± 0.94 15.4 93.88 ± 0.06 22.4 93.88 ± 0.94 3.2 93.88 ± 0.06 1 93.88 ± 0.06 16
Wbc 96.57 ± 0.31 9 96.57 ± 2.16 9 96.57 ± 1.85 9 96.57 ± 1.85 9 96.86 ± 2.06 5.8 96.86 ± 2.75 4.8 96.71 ± 1.72 8.8 96.57 ± 0.31 9 96.57 ± 1.85 8 96.85 ± 1.99 6
Lung 87.76 ± 7.24 325 91.77 ± 5.01 102 89.09 ± 7.99 226 87.76 ± 6.47 208 87.76 ± 7.24 325 87.76 ± 7.24 263.8 77.30 ± 15.62 3.6 87.76 ± 7.24 325 90.52 ± 7.25 63 93.02 ± 5.08 72
Colon 79.23 ± 15.40 2000 82.44 ± 11.66 121 83.97 ± 7.89 361 80.90 ± 14.09 801 74.36 ± 5.79 4 80.51 ± 7.77 2 75.64 ± 13.41 16.4 68.85 ± 17.65 4.4 83.97 ± 7.89 441 83.97 ± 7.89 451
Yale 71.24 ± 7.62 1024 72.86 ± 3.53 881 71.88 ± 9.64 801 70.66 ± 7.23 1001 56.47 ± 7.32 11 62.28 ± 7.91 41.8 60.31 ± 8.05 50.2 34.85 ± 6.97 8.2 72.23 ± 4.14 781 72.82 ± 4.50 971
ORL 95.00 ± 3.54 1024 94.75 ± 4.37 1001 94.50 ± 3.49 1001 94.75 ± 3.58 841 95.00 ± 3.54 16 91.00 ± 3.47 104.8 87.75 ± 3.89 57.2 53.75 ± 6.79 11.4 95.25 ± 3.69 1001 95.25 ± 3.69 1001
Avg. 82.11 ± 5.21 199.04 83.61 ± 4.12 99.08 83.23 ± 4.36 112.29 82.93 ± 4.72 133.96 81.39 ± 3.98 21.23 82.30 ± 4.60 27.78 81.42 ± 4.77 16.91 77.94 ± 4.94 25.03 83.32 ± 4.02 109.88 84.18 ± 3.78 113.50
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
Fig. 5. Performance comparison of average classification accuracy vs. the values of α and λ.
5.3. The robustness analysis of the FNIB algorithm
In order to analyze the robustness of the FNIB algorithm, we
contaminate the label and attribute of all train subsets with 20%
noise levels. Its method for generating the contaminated train
subsets is the same as that in Section 5.2. The subset of data used
for testing is not contaminated. In each dataset, the remaining
experimental protocol is shown in Section 5.1.
Tables 5–8 show the classification performance comparison
of different feature selection algorithm on test set with KNN
and SVM, respectively. By comparing Tables 5–8 with Tables 3–
4, the classification accuracy is reduced when there is noise
in dataset. However, for the average classification accuracy on
datasets with class noise and attribute noise, the FNIB algorithm
obtains higher classification performance than other algorithms
in terms of accuracy using SVM and KNN. The results demonstrate
the FNIB algorithm is robust to noise with class and attribute,
due to the reason that the proposed algorithm considers the
different influence of intra-class samples, boundary samples, and
outlier samples with respect to the target sample, and the uncer-
tainty measure information with the intra-class aggregation and
between-class dispersion, simultaneously.
5.4. Sensitivity analysis of FNIB
The proposed FNIB algorithm includes two parameter i.e., a
kernel parameter δ and a predefined parameter λ, which may
affect the effectiveness of the algorithm FNIB, we conduct two
parameter analysis on this experiment. In order to verify the
range of parameters and its impact, we perform a grid search
(from 0.1 to 1.0 in a step of 0.1 for δ and from 1 to 3 in a
step of 0.2 for λ). Using the average classification accuracy under
the corresponding parameters, the 3D shaded surface is created
and a contour map is created under the 3D shaded surface. The
experimental results of FNIB on four datasets are shown in Fig. 5.
We record the comparison results on the datasets Hepati, Lymph,
12
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
Parkin and Wpbc on original datasets, 20% class noise level, and
20% attribute noise level, respectively. From Fig. 5, we have the
following observations:
(1) The values of parameters δ and λ have influence on the
classification accuracy on four datasets in the proposed
FNIB algorithm. The parameter δ has certain impact on
the optimal classification accuracy on all datasets. It also
demonstrates that the number of outlier samples con-
trolled by λ has an effect on the classification performance.
(2) For the same dataset, observing the contour map under the
3D coloring surface, the contour density roughly shows an
increasing relationship between the original datasets, 20%
attribute noise level, and 20% class noise level. It can be
seen from Fig. 5 that there are relatively more contours
parallel to the λ axis, so overall δ has a greater effect
on classification performance than λ within the range of
parameters studied.
(3) When the range of δ is [0.1, 0.4] and the range of λ is
[1, 1.8] (as known from the contour map trend), the classi-
fication accuracy of the features selected is promising and
the optimal classification accuracy can be achieved in most
datasets. This shows that the feature selected by the FNIB
algorithm correlates with the class.
6. Conclusions
Feature selection method has been widely used in cluster
learning, pattern recognition, and classification learning. This pa-
per presents a novel robust feature selection approach based on
the noise-aware fuzzy rough set model for classification, called
the feature selection algorithm based on our NFRS model with
the intra-class aggregation and between-class dispersion (FNIB).
FNIB couples a robust fuzzy rough set model (i.e., the noise-
aware fuzzy rough set model), the intra-class aggregation, the
between-class dispersion, and feature selection into a joint frame-
work. The NFRS model considers the distribution information of
 X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
Table 5
Classification performance in terms of accuracy (%) using classifier KNN on twenty-four datasets (Attribute noise level is 20%).
Datasets raw MRMR FCBF MIFS FRS-FS SFRS-FS PFRS-FS PGDFRS-FS RFBSIB FNIB
Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num
Glass 50.50 ± 6.26 9 57.32 ± 8.27 7 57.30 ± 9.82 7 54.14 ± 6.43 10 54.69 ± 4.68 8.4 55.04 ± 7.19 8.4 54.59 ± 6.93 8.8 54.14 ± 6.43 9 54.14 ± 6.43 9 61.55 ± 6.34 5
Sonar 71.20 ± 5.02 60 75.48 ± 8.55 42 72.11 ± 7.56 40 77.87 ± 4.38 46 69.76 ± 10.20 5 73.10 ± 9.33 45.4 73.63 ± 6.66 34.2 71.21 ± 8.63 8.8 74.48 ± 6.96 32 77.43 ± 3.44 22
Ecoli 64.07 ± 3.38 7 71.93 ± 3.46 6 67.12 ± 3.98 8 67.12 ± 3.98 8 69.80 ± 4.43 6 67.12 ± 3.98 7 67.12 ± 3.98 7 67.73 ± 4.12 6.8 67.22 ± 6.40 6 71.43 ± 4.24 4
Iono 77.77 ± 3.12 34 84.32 ± 3.95 4 82.90 ± 4.87 20 83.18 ± 7.62 8 79.75 ± 4.29 5.4 83.19 ± 4.78 11.2 80.06 ± 3.61 23.4 78.34 ± 3.87 12.2 82.62 ± 4.24 6 85.76 ± 3.87 4
Pima 65.24 ± 2.21 8 69.66 ± 2.82 8 69.01 ± 0.87 8 68.23 ± 2.14 8 67.84 ± 2.78 8 67.84 ± 2.78 8 67.84 ± 2.78 8 67.84 ± 2.78 8 69.66 ± 1.29 5 70.83 ± 1.54 4
Credit-A 68.41 ± 3.32 15 69.86 ± 3.59 8 70.30 ± 3.77 15 69.42 ± 1.87 8 69.27 ± 2.93 9.4 68.70 ± 3.09 10.4 68.41 ± 3.31 14 69.14 ± 2.86 14.4 70.30 ± 3.77 14 70.87 ± 1.71 10
Car 72.97 ± 2.48 6 72.51 ± 1.35 6 71.70 ± 0.82 7 72.51 ± 1.35 6 71.70 ± 0.82 6 71.70 ± 0.82 6 71.70 ± 0.82 6 71.70 ± 0.82 6 71.70 ± 0.82 6 72.97 ± 2.77 4
Wilt 94.03 ± 0.67 5 94.07 ± 0.40 5 94.11 ± 0.39 4 94.07 ± 0.40 5 94.07 ± 0.40 5 94.07 ± 0.40 5 94.07 ± 0.40 5 94.03 ± 0.75 5 94.07 ± 0.40 5 94.19 ± 0.87 3
German 66.50 ± 1.76 20 67.70 ± 5.33 4 66.20 ± 3.83 2 65.90 ± 2.90 21 65.90 ± 2.90 20 66.80 ± 3.29 19 65.90 ± 3.25 1 66.00 ± 3.22 14.6 65.90 ± 2.90 20 69.40 ± 2.75 4
Derma 74.31 ± 4.81 34 76.50 ± 2.95 33 74.04 ± 1.39 22 74.57 ± 3.94 33 73.47 ± 4.10 34 70.21 ± 6.38 18.6 63.14 ± 8.92 10 73.47 ± 4.10 34 74.58 ± 1.71 33 76.21 ± 2.50 26
Lymph 62.53 ± 5.19 18 69.68 ± 7.74 18 68.74 ± 7.91 14 68.23 ± 9.66 19 69.41 ± 13.65 12.8 68.78 ± 3.55 5 65.98 ± 6.19 9.2 67.26 ± 9.63 15 70.42 ± 7.21 14 74.53 ± 12.80 2
Wpbc 70.18 ± 7.17 33 76.78 ± 5.63 23 74.76 ± 2.96 27 75.28 ± 8.45 18 78.81 ± 4.07 14 77.28 ± 4.62 30 76.77 ± 6.21 24 74.79 ± 6.19 24.8 76.85 ± 8.19 22 78.32 ± 8.34 8
Zoo 61.30 ± 20.07 16 70.25 ± 5.09 12 70.58 ± 5.15 12 68.71 ± 10.97 17 68.71 ± 10.97 16 69.04 ± 9.81 10.8 57.24 ± 8.99 5.6 68.71 ± 10.97 16 69.51 ± 8.77 15 72.61 ± 12.23 14
Autos 31.71 ± 9.13 25 52.58 ± 7.31 3 51.03 ± 4.54 12 37.37 ± 7.52 26 50.55 ± 5.50 6 52.51 ± 3.18 1 45.63 ± 3.91 1 40.14 ± 10.78 13.8 54.74 ± 8.76 5 61.41 ± 6.37 1
Heart 64.07 ± 3.63 13 68.15 ± 6.33 6 71.48 ± 5.49 10 65.56 ± 7.36 8 70.00 ± 3.56 9.6 66.67 ± 6.14 4 64.07 ± 6.49 10 65.56 ± 3.84 11 71.48 ± 4.26 9 72.22 ± 2.27 3
Hepati 66.45 ± 9.70 19 67.74 ± 8.83 20 69.68 ± 8.10 18 67.74 ± 8.83 20 67.74 ± 3.23 6.8 66.45 ± 14.35 10.6 67.74 ± 4.56 16 69.03 ± 7.77 18.2 67.74 ± 8.83 19 72.90 ± 9.29 11
Parkin 84.62 ± 5.85 22 85.11 ± 3.45 21 84.56 ± 5.09 23 85.06 ± 4.83 19 83.07 ± 1.45 11.6 85.62 ± 1.58 19.8 83.60 ± 3.83 14.4 84.56 ± 5.09 22 84.57 ± 5.05 21 87.70 ± 5.51 6
SPECT 77.88 ± 5.03 22 80.51 ± 3.94 8 79.40 ± 0.21 2 79.78 ± 0.78 8 77.16 ± 2.42 22 77.16 ± 2.42 22 77.52 ± 1.99 10 77.16 ± 2.42 22 79.40 ± 0.21 1 79.40 ± 0.21 1
Sick 93.29 ± 0.82 29 94.94 ± 0.71 5 94.38 ± 0.42 10 93.27 ± 0.52 15 94.38 ± 0.65 3 93.43 ± 0.79 21.2 93.35 ± 0.32 17.4 93.85 ± 0.92 23.8 93.58 ± 0.26 20 94.22 ± 0.48 7
Wbc 92.13 ± 2.37 9 93.14 ± 3.29 8 92.70 ± 1.46 7 92.42 ± 3.01 10 92.28 ± 3.24 9 92.28 ± 3.24 9 93.14 ± 3.69 8.6 96.57 ± 0.93 9 92.99 ± 3.04 8 93.42 ± 2.91 6
Lung 82.29 ± 11.73 325 89.10 ± 3.10 56 87.57 ± 3.04 151 87.57 ± 3.04 221 86.23 ± 4.84 325 77.95 ± 14.84 199.6 57.81 ± 14.20 15.2 82.29 ± 11.73 325 89.48 ± 9.54 215 90.52 ± 7.25 73
Colon 72.69 ± 16.81 2000 83.97 ± 8.81 121 75.77 ± 14.80 121 82.31 ± 12.88 881 74.23 ± 10.61 3.8 75.90 ± 9.21 2 75.77 ± 5.99 13.6 56.79 ± 19.29 4.4 77.31 ± 12.50 281 82.18 ± 10.75 301
Yale 60.78 ± 5.63 1024 58.79 ± 5.69 921 59.72 ± 6.26 961 60.21 ± 4.59 1001 45.93 ± 10.34 11.4 47.88 ± 13.07 39.2 47.50 ± 5.26 59.8 30.79 ± 7.66 8.6 61.34 ± 4.71 1021 60.78 ± 5.63 1021
ORL 85.25 ± 2.05 1024 86.50 ± 2.29 1001 85.75 ± 0.61 1001 86.50 ± 0.94 921 85.25 ± 2.05 15.4 84.75 ± 5.55 122.6 79.50 ± 4.01 22.6 40.75 ± 6.41 10.6 86.00 ± 1.05 1001 85.75 ± 1.43 961
Avg. 71.26 ± 5.76 199.04 75.69 ± 4.70 97.79 74.62 ± 4.31 104.25 74.04 ± 4.93 139.08 73.33 ± 4.75 23.90 73.06 ± 5.60 26.49 70.50 ± 4.85 14.37 69.24 ± 5.88 26.79 75.00 ± 4.89 116.17 77.36 ± 4.81 104.21
13

Table 6
Classification performance in terms of accuracy (%) using classifier SVM on twenty-four datasets (Attribute noise level is 20%).
raw MRMR FCBF MIFS FRS-FS SFRS-FS PFRS-FS PGDFRS-FS RFBSIB FNIB
Datasets
Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num
Glass 41.15 ± 6.03 9 53.22 ± 6.17 7 51.40 ± 3.99 7 50.91 ± 6.55 10 52.27 ± 7.00 8.4 51.82 ± 7.08 8.4 52.27 ± 7.00 8.8 50.91 ± 6.55 9 51.36 ± 6.55 8 53.71 ± 5.15 4
Sonar 68.28 ± 9.29 60 75.93 ± 4.95 42 73.64 ± 6.57 40 74.56 ± 5.82 46 69.79 ± 6.18 12.2 70.23 ± 8.47 45.4 69.82 ± 7.11 36.8 72.18 ± 5.09 8.8 73.64 ± 6.57 60 76.44 ± 6.39 7
Ecoli 61.60 ± 1.56 7 66.96 ± 1.30 6 66.93 ± 4.08 8 66.93 ± 4.08 8 66.93 ± 4.08 7 66.93 ± 4.08 7 66.93 ± 4.08 7 66.93 ± 4.08 6.8 66.93 ± 4.08 7 67.54 ± 1.61 4
Iono 81.48 ± 3.02 34 82.90 ± 2.30 4 81.76 ± 5.11 20 83.75 ± 3.77 8 82.04 ± 3.33 12.8 82.62 ± 4.34 25.2 82.62 ± 2.56 25.8 80.91 ± 4.68 12.2 81.75 ± 4.27 29 84.03 ± 4.49 27
Pima 71.36 ± 1.76 8 73.18 ± 1.11 8 72.92 ± 0.74 8 72.27 ± 0.74 8 71.87 ± 1.82 8 71.87 ± 1.82 8 71.87 ± 1.82 8 71.87 ± 1.82 8 73.18 ± 0.84 6 73.44 ± 0.66 3
Credit-A 70.58 ± 4.43 15 70.58 ± 2.37 8 70.58 ± 2.37 15 70.58 ± 2.37 8 70.58 ± 2.37 15 70.58 ± 2.37 13 70.58 ± 2.37 14 70.58 ± 2.37 14.4 70.58 ± 2.37 14 70.58 ± 2.37 12
Car 70.02 ± 2.18 6 70.02 ± 0.11 6 70.02 ± 0.11 7 70.02 ± 0.11 6 70.02 ± 2.18 6 70.02 ± 0.11 6 70.02 ± 0.11 1 70.02 ± 0.11 6 70.02 ± 0.11 1 70.02 ± 2.44 1
Wilt 94.61 ± 0.60 5 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 4 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 1 94.61 ± 0.04 4.8 94.61 ± 0.67 5 94.61 ± 0.04 1 94.61 ± 0.67 1

Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092

German 70.00 ± 1.45 20 70.00 ± 0.00 4 70.00 ± 0.00 2 70.00 ± 0.00 21 70.00 ± 0.00 9.6 70.00 ± 0.00 1 70.00 ± 0.00 1 70.00 ± 0.00 14.6 70.00 ± 0.00 1 70.00 ± 0.00 4
Derma 80.58 ± 4.06 34 80.85 ± 4.33 33 80.05 ± 3.80 22 81.13 ± 1.97 33 80.58 ± 4.06 34 76.52 ± 5.63 18.8 80.58 ± 11.03 10 79.76 ± 5.28 34 80.88 ± 5.35 32 83.86 ± 4.05 26
Lymph 76.14 ± 4.55 18 77.80 ± 7.25 18 79.11 ± 6.07 14 75.49 ± 6.86 19 76.14 ± 4.55 12.8 74.87 ± 5.38 14.4 78.42 ± 6.69 6.4 72.96 ± 11.50 15 75.49 ± 6.86 18 80.47 ± 7.29 2
Wpbc 74.69 ± 5.59 33 76.78 ± 1.88 23 76.28 ± 2.65 27 76.28 ± 2.65 18 76.27 ± 1.18 5 76.28 ± 2.65 26.6 76.78 ± 1.88 26.4 76.28 ± 2.65 31.8 76.28 ± 2.65 33 76.78 ± 1.88 8
Zoo 69.36 ± 13.05 16 69.39 ± 10.71 12 69.92 ± 11.45 12 68.19 ± 9.65 17 68.19 ± 9.65 16 71.11 ± 8.01 10.8 57.61 ± 6.53 4.4 68.19 ± 9.65 16 69.92 ± 10.82 15 78.19 ± 6.91 14
Autos 46.34 ± 8.02 25 50.28 ± 5.32 3 50.28 ± 5.32 12 50.28 ± 6.52 26 50.77 ± 5.99 6 50.78 ± 7.05 20 50.24 ± 5.38 13 50.28 ± 5.32 25 51.27 ± 4.08 24 53.21 ± 5.31 1
Heart 73.70 ± 5.42 13 74.44 ± 4.22 6 74.44 ± 4.22 10 74.44 ± 4.22 8 74.44 ± 4.22 9.6 74.44 ± 4.22 12.8 73.70 ± 5.30 12.6 74.44 ± 4.22 13 74.44 ± 4.22 13 75.56 ± 6.06 3
Hepati 66.45 ± 5.62 19 70.97 ± 5.59 20 70.97 ± 5.59 18 70.97 ± 5.59 20 70.97 ± 6.03 6.8 70.97 ± 5.59 6.2 70.97 ± 5.59 12.2 70.32 ± 5.30 15 69.68 ± 4.89 16 72.26 ± 7.07 11
Parkin 85.13 ± 8.17 22 85.14 ± 4.89 21 84.58 ± 4.95 23 85.65 ± 5.27 19 85.15 ± 4.83 11.6 85.62 ± 5.39 19.6 85.66 ± 4.17 15.6 85.10 ± 5.98 21.4 84.58 ± 4.95 22 86.18 ± 5.22 6
SPECT 78.66 ± 1.82 22 79.40 ± 0.21 8 79.40 ± 0.21 2 79.40 ± 0.21 8 78.66 ± 1.82 22 79.40 ± 0.21 6.4 79.40 ± 0.21 10 77.89 ± 6.03 22 79.77 ± 0.97 12 80.13 ± 4.81 1
Sick 93.88 ± 0.84 29 93.88 ± 0.06 5 93.88 ± 0.06 10 93.88 ± 0.06 15 93.88 ± 0.06 3 93.88 ± 0.94 16.8 93.88 ± 0.06 16.6 93.88 ± 0.94 23.8 93.88 ± 0.06 1 93.88 ± 0.06 7
Wbc 93.42 ± 1.25 9 93.85 ± 3.59 8 93.42 ± 3.47 7 93.42 ± 3.47 10 93.42 ± 3.47 9 93.42 ± 3.47 9 93.57 ± 3.64 8.6 96.14 ± 1.39 9 93.57 ± 3.34 8 93.99 ± 3.44 6
Lung 86.23 ± 4.84 325 89.09 ± 7.99 196 84.88 ± 10.76 206 84.98 ± 2.01 281 82.29 ± 11.73 325 72.86 ± 16.04 199.6 68.77 ± 13.70 15.2 86.23 ± 4.84 325 86.78 ± 12.38 119 89.27 ± 9.45 98
Colon 80.64 ± 7.33 2000 80.64 ± 6.55 121 80.64 ± 3.90 121 82.18 ± 9.61 881 72.69 ± 12.20 3.8 85.64 ± 10.40 2.6 80.64 ± 19.14 12.4 58.33 ± 14.33 4.4 80.64 ± 4.36 401 83.72 ± 6.14 36
Yale 71.87 ± 8.12 1024 72.42 ± 7.32 921 71.87 ± 7.26 961 71.88 ± 8.40 1001 49.44 ± 13.29 11.4 55.63 ± 4.82 34.8 54.02 ± 6.94 52.6 37.07 ± 9.05 8.6 71.87 ± 8.12 961 72.42 ± 6.98 961
ORL 92.75 ± 3.89 1024 92.75 ± 3.89 1001 92.75 ± 3.00 1001 92.75 ± 3.89 921 92.75 ± 3.89 15.4 89.00 ± 4.87 115.6 84.50 ± 3.60 61.2 37.75 ± 5.18 10.6 92.75 ± 3.58 961 92.75 ± 3.58 961
Avg. 74.96 ± 4.71 199.04 76.88 ± 3.84 103.63 76.43 ± 3.99 106.54 76.44 ± 3.91 141.58 74.74 ± 4.75 23.98 74.96 ± 4.71 26.21 74.06 ± 4.96 16.02 71.36 ± 4.88 27.48 76.41 ± 4.23 115.13 78.04 ± 4.25 91.83
 X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
Table 7
Classification performance in terms of accuracy (%) using classifier KNN on twenty-four datasets (Class noise level is 20%).
Datasets raw MRMR FCBF MIFS FRS-FS SFRS-FS PFRS-FS PGDFRS-FS RFBSIB FNIB
Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num
Glass 60.82 ± 10.99 9 62.68 ± 9.16 7 64.91 ± 8.15 5 62.67 ± 5.79 9 62.67 ± 5.79 7.6 62.67 ± 5.79 9 62.67 ± 5.79 9 63.14 ± 5.56 9 63.61 ± 11.44 6 67.74 ± 4.54 4
Sonar 73.61 ± 8.53 60 78.87 ± 5.14 40 75.50 ± 7.09 55 78.79 ± 5.49 47 77.85 ± 9.24 13.8 77.40 ± 5.31 41 75.39 ± 6.99 24.6 73.58 ± 3.96 14.4 76.45 ± 5.20 50 82.20 ± 5.83 19
Ecoli 82.89 ± 5.33 7 83.20 ± 3.09 7 83.20 ± 3.09 8 83.20 ± 3.09 8 83.20 ± 3.09 6.2 83.20 ± 3.09 6 83.20 ± 3.09 7 74.38 ± 11.54 5.4 83.20 ± 3.09 7 83.20 ± 3.09 5
Iono 74.08 ± 5.21 34 80.06 ± 3.86 23 76.92 ± 2.76 8 80.06 ± 8.12 11 79.21 ± 6.49 10.8 79.48 ± 4.60 11.4 80.04 ± 6.02 17 75.22 ± 4.34 30.4 82.04 ± 2.67 6 83.19 ± 6.66 4
Pima 67.58 ± 3.09 8 67.58 ± 2.70 4 68.23 ± 4.40 5 63.81 ± 4.52 9 63.81 ± 4.52 8 63.81 ± 4.52 8 63.81 ± 4.52 8 63.81 ± 4.52 8 63.81 ± 4.52 8 69.27 ± 3.06 1
Credit-A 75.51 ± 1.91 15 76.09 ± 3.97 8 76.08 ± 2.91 16 76.08 ± 2.91 16 76.80 ± 2.37 15 77.53 ± 3.16 12.2 76.08 ± 3.21 12.8 77.39 ± 2.14 12.2 76.08 ± 2.91 15 76.95 ± 2.22 10
Car 84.67 ± 1.78 6 86.63 ± 1.26 6 84.08 ± 2.90 7 86.63 ± 1.26 6 84.67 ± 1.78 6 84.08 ± 2.90 6 81.82 ± 7.77 5.2 84.08 ± 2.90 6 84.08 ± 2.90 6 92.13 ± 0.86 5
Wilt 83.92 ± 1.26 5 84.38 ± 1.34 5 87.46 ± 0.79 5 87.58 ± 0.98 4 84.38 ± 1.34 5 84.38 ± 1.34 5 83.74 ± 1.32 4.6 84.38 ± 1.34 5 86.71 ± 1.47 4 97.95 ± 0.29 2
German 62.50 ± 1.61 20 66.20 ± 4.31 3 64.40 ± 3.13 12 67.60 ± 2.16 4 63.70 ± 4.96 8.4 64.30 ± 4.88 10.6 63.00 ± 4.34 1 62.80 ± 1.64 20 62.80 ± 2.05 17 71.90 ± 2.53 1
Derma 86.90 ± 4.25 34 89.90 ± 2.77 29 87.14 ± 3.24 26 90.71 ± 2.04 29 86.06 ± 6.66 15.4 86.89 ± 2.05 25 87.74 ± 8.68 10.8 86.10 ± 5.94 21 89.87 ± 2.73 29 90.16 ± 3.65 19
Lymph 68.38 ± 12.42 18 79.77 ± 8.06 4 75.85 ± 7.28 12 71.50 ± 2.93 11 73.62 ± 2.70 8.4 72.71 ± 1.36 15.8 70.51 ± 5.90 14.8 73.45 ± 8.26 16.6 73.29 ± 6.79 13 79.45 ± 7.50 4
Wpbc 65.67 ± 4.32 33 71.64 ± 8.39 10 67.72 ± 6.03 7 66.65 ± 7.97 34 71.17 ± 8.28 13.2 69.68 ± 8.48 16.2 69.64 ± 7.40 14.4 67.65 ± 8.40 30 66.65 ± 7.97 33 72.78 ± 7.38 19
Zoo 90.05 ± 4.53 16 92.09 ± 8.07 17 93.94 ± 6.73 11 93.04 ± 6.57 16 93.13 ± 5.58 9.8 91.88 ± 5.88 9.8 94.04 ± 6.37 12.8 92.09 ± 8.07 13.4 92.09 ± 8.07 15 93.08 ± 5.56 13
Autos 54.81 ± 14.42 25 65.89 ± 4.17 10 65.77 ± 4.62 6 61.99 ± 12.00 24 63.64 ± 10.82 9.6 63.70 ± 11.04 16.6 65.06 ± 11.50 16.6 62.34 ± 12.22 21.8 61.53 ± 12.06 25 68.90 ± 5.75 6
Heart 71.11 ± 3.99 13 75.93 ± 8.38 6 74.44 ± 0.83 7 72.59 ± 9.02 8 71.48 ± 10.11 7 73.70 ± 9.57 5.6 72.22 ± 9.44 11.6 71.48 ± 10.11 12.8 71.48 ± 11.39 12 76.67 ± 2.11 3
Hepati 58.71 ± 3.76 19 67.10 ± 4.21 8 60.65 ± 4.78 9 61.94 ± 6.99 18 62.58 ± 5.40 14 61.29 ± 2.28 10.8 61.94 ± 5.30 14.2 61.29 ± 5.10 18.4 59.35 ± 3.68 19 70.97 ± 6.03 2
Parkin 89.74 ± 3.24 22 90.78 ± 1.31 21 92.29 ± 1.91 13 90.24 ± 3.84 23 90.78 ± 3.84 9.6 90.79 ± 3.76 13.4 91.82 ± 3.70 12.8 90.24 ± 3.84 22 90.24 ± 3.84 22 92.31 ± 4.80 18
SPECT 69.24 ± 6.64 22 77.50 ± 4.16 6 79.40 ± 0.21 2 79.40 ± 0.21 2 69.24 ± 6.64 22 70.06 ± 5.83 9.8 66.61 ± 7.90 11.2 65.49 ± 7.12 22 77.90 ± 2.51 3 79.40 ± 0.21 2
Sick 86.37 ± 0.87 29 86.48 ± 0.91 22 93.88 ± 0.06 2 93.88 ± 0.06 2 85.95 ± 0.92 3 93.74 ± 0.91 23.2 87.35 ± 1.64 12.6 93.88 ± 0.94 6.6 93.88 ± 0.06 1 88.55 ± 2.55 6
Wbc 82.84 ± 4.50 9 89.42 ± 3.24 8 87.70 ± 5.27 7 86.41 ± 5.59 9 84.11 ± 5.82 9 84.97 ± 5.06 7 84.25 ± 5.96 9 96.14 ± 0.83 9 91.28 ± 3.04 6 90.13 ± 2.21 4
Lung 76.79 ± 5.78 325 82.71 ± 9.79 116 78.68 ± 12.70 301 76.90 ± 10.29 321 76.79 ± 5.78 325 76.79 ± 5.78 325 67.61 ± 9.81 3.6 76.79 ± 5.78 325 80.12 ± 14.35 148 85.09 ± 5.35 210
Colon 68.97 ± 18.53 2000 75.77 ± 5.99 321 69.23 ± 7.38 401 73.97 ± 9.60 601 77.05 ± 17.35 3.8 69.36 ± 3.40 2.2 78.72 ± 12.94 16.8 61.41 ± 5.52 4.8 69.23 ± 11.13 281 74.23 ± 13.11 126
Yale 52.13 ± 7.14 1024 52.73 ± 8.43 921 52.38 ± 4.94 841 54.60 ± 2.94 161 50.41 ± 4.44 11.4 45.45 ± 5.82 48.4 46.95 ± 8.82 18.2 23.05 ± 11.46 8.6 52.97 ± 7.22 421 53.43 ± 5.74 456
ORL 76.75 ± 1.90 1024 75.25 ± 2.85 961 74.00 ± 5.55 1001 77.75 ± 5.03 761 76.75 ± 1.90 419.6 75.00 ± 3.06 102.6 69.75 ± 6.27 47 45.75 ± 10.99 11.6 77.25 ± 3.79 1021 77.50 ± 3.54 1021
Avg. 73.50 ± 5.67 199.04 77.44 ± 4.81 106.83 76.41 ± 4.45 115.29 76.58 ± 4.98 88.96 75.38 ± 5.66 40.07 75.12 ± 4.58 30.86 74.33 ± 6.45 13.15 71.91 ± 5.94 27.25 76.08 ± 5.62 90.33 79.88 ± 4.36 81.67
14

Table 8
Classification performance in terms of accuracy (%) using classifier SVM on twenty-four datasets (Class noise level is 20%).
Datasets raw MRMR FCBF MIFS FRS-FS SFRS-FS PFRS-FS PGDFRS-FS RFBSIB FNIB
Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num Acc±std num
Glass 50.44 ± 5.98 9 53.24 ± 6.20 7 53.24 ± 6.20 5 52.75 ± 6.01 9 53.20 ± 6.46 7.6 52.75 ± 6.01 8.8 53.24 ± 6.20 2.8 52.75 ± 6.01 9 53.24 ± 6.20 8 54.10 ± 7.03 5
Sonar 71.13 ± 6.00 60 75.06 ± 6.90 40 75.06 ± 6.90 55 75.48 ± 6.98 47 72.11 ± 4.10 13.8 76.45 ± 4.58 36.2 74.97 ± 4.60 25.8 73.56 ± 5.87 14.4 76.96 ± 4.44 37 80.25 ± 3.39 46
Ecoli 80.32 ± 3.53 7 82.77 ± 5.48 7 80.65 ± 4.61 8 80.65 ± 4.61 8 81.24 ± 3.75 5.6 80.65 ± 4.61 6 80.65 ± 4.61 7 69.69 ± 9.84 5.4 80.65 ± 4.61 7 81.24 ± 3.75 5
Iono 84.92 ± 3.80 34 86.89 ± 2.35 23 84.89 ± 3.16 8 88.02 ± 3.61 11 86.89 ± 5.68 10.8 87.17 ± 5.07 26.4 87.17 ± 3.68 17 84.02 ± 5.52 30.4 84.91 ± 2.55 7 88.88 ± 5.11 13
Pima 76.03 ± 3.82 8 75.92 ± 2.66 4 75.52 ± 1.64 5 74.74 ± 2.41 9 74.74 ± 2.41 8 74.74 ± 2.41 8 74.74 ± 2.41 8 74.74 ± 2.41 8 74.74 ± 2.41 8 76.05 ± 2.50 5
Credit-A 85.51 ± 2.43 15 85.51 ± 2.32 8 85.51 ± 2.32 16 85.51 ± 2.32 16 85.51 ± 2.32 10.2 85.51 ± 2.32 10 85.51 ± 2.32 12.8 85.51 ± 2.32 12.2 85.51 ± 2.32 13 85.51 ± 2.32 1
Car 79.40 ± 1.63 6 79.86 ± 1.95 6 79.75 ± 1.84 6 79.75 ± 2.20 6 79.69 ± 1.93 6 79.69 ± 1.93 6 77.49 ± 4.46 5.2 79.69 ± 1.93 6 79.69 ± 1.93 6 83.56 ± 0.87 5
Wilt 94.61 ± 0.60 5 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 4 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 1 94.61 ± 0.04 4.6 94.61 ± 0.04 5 94.61 ± 0.04 1 94.61 ± 0.67 1

Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092

German 72.60 ± 2.82 20 73.60 ± 3.83 3 72.40 ± 4.60 12 73.20 ± 4.16 4 72.40 ± 4.60 20 72.70 ± 3.29 9.4 72.40 ± 4.60 20 72.40 ± 4.60 20 72.40 ± 4.60 20 74.80 ± 3.68 1
Derma 94.54 ± 1.50 34 96.98 ± 1.82 29 95.90 ± 2.14 26 96.98 ± 1.54 29 94.24 ± 3.01 15.4 95.90 ± 1.38 27.4 94.81 ± 1.80 18 93.18 ± 2.11 23.6 95.62 ± 1.81 30 96.18 ± 1.77 19
Lymph 76.02 ± 9.51 18 80.55 ± 8.34 4 81.30 ± 9.49 12 77.98 ± 8.73 11 78.63 ± 6.52 7.4 78.33 ± 11.04 13 78.67 ± 8.31 14.8 76.60 ± 3.97 16.6 77.98 ± 8.73 18 81.34 ± 8.73 4
Wpbc 76.73 ± 5.04 33 78.78 ± 3.83 10 76.74 ± 4.97 7 76.74 ± 4.97 33 76.78 ± 1.88 6 78.27 ± 5.25 23.8 78.28 ± 4.18 19.6 76.76 ± 3.35 30 76.74 ± 4.97 33 79.31 ± 5.08 19
Zoo 91.84 ± 6.79 16 94.03 ± 6.75 16 92.98 ± 7.62 11 93.13 ± 5.58 16 92.88 ± 8.74 9.8 88.88 ± 11.22 9.8 92.88 ± 5.91 15 92.88 ± 5.91 13.4 92.98 ± 7.62 15 92.88 ± 5.91 13
Autos 53.66 ± 7.71 25 56.09 ± 9.78 10 55.62 ± 7.57 6 55.62 ± 7.57 24 56.08 ± 6.89 14.2 57.08 ± 8.97 17.6 56.08 ± 8.51 16.6 54.62 ± 9.09 21.8 55.62 ± 7.57 25 59.54 ± 6.63 6
Heart 80.74 ± 4.91 13 83.33 ± 7.05 6 82.96 ± 7.10 7 81.85 ± 8.43 8 82.22 ± 7.81 10.8 82.59 ± 8.55 10.4 82.22 ± 9.31 12.6 81.85 ± 8.82 13 81.85 ± 8.82 13 84.07 ± 6.36 3
Hepati 69.68 ± 8.31 19 70.32 ± 1.44 8 70.32 ± 1.44 9 70.32 ± 1.44 18 67.74 ± 2.28 14 68.39 ± 4.78 15.8 67.74 ± 3.23 15.4 69.68 ± 1.77 16.6 69.03 ± 2.89 18 70.97 ± 2.28 2
Parkin 81.54 ± 10.18 22 83.69 ± 9.54 21 84.14 ± 6.76 13 83.61 ± 6.58 23 83.64 ± 7.22 6.4 83.65 ± 7.60 10.2 84.12 ± 6.53 8.6 84.12 ± 6.53 20.8 84.14 ± 6.73 18 85.66 ± 5.53 18
SPECT 78.64 ± 3.57 22 79.40 ± 0.21 6 79.40 ± 0.21 2 79.40 ± 0.21 2 78.64 ± 1.78 22 79.40 ± 0.21 9.8 79.40 ± 0.21 11.2 78.64 ± 1.78 22 79.40 ± 0.21 1 79.78 ± 0.78 2
Sick 93.88 ± 0.84 29 93.88 ± 0.06 22 93.88 ± 0.06 2 93.88 ± 0.06 2 93.88 ± 0.06 3 93.88 ± 0.94 23.2 93.88 ± 0.06 12.6 93.88 ± 0.94 7.4 93.88 ± 0.06 1 93.88 ± 0.06 6
Wbc 96.14 ± 1.07 9 96.14 ± 2.12 8 95.85 ± 1.63 7 95.85 ± 1.63 9 95.85 ± 2.28 8.4 95.85 ± 2.28 8.4 95.85 ± 2.28 9 96.57 ± 0.31 9 95.85 ± 2.28 9 96.28 ± 2.10 4
Lung 78.33 ± 9.88 325 84.83 ± 10.19 91 80.43 ± 13.81 86 80.82 ± 10.39 186 78.33 ± 9.88 325 78.33 ± 9.88 325 68.68 ± 13.08 3.6 78.33 ± 9.88 325 81.00 ± 8.81 146 86.33 ± 9.77 150
Colon 71.15 ± 8.36 2000 72.82 ± 9.99 321 76.03 ± 7.07 401 75.90 ± 12.83 601 73.85 ± 19.22 3.8 70.90 ± 7.59 2.2 78.85 ± 17.33 15.6 64.23 ± 10.36 4.8 77.69 ± 9.72 441 77.56 ± 8.39 246
Yale 56.23 ± 10.36 1024 56.92 ± 10.55 921 56.07 ± 12.07 841 55.58 ± 11.82 161 53.37 ± 6.29 11.4 47.72 ± 7.31 44.2 45.26 ± 7.17 42 20.40 ± 12.07 8.6 57.34 ± 12.41 921 58.04 ± 13.98 906
ORL 79.75 ± 8.17 1024 80.75 ± 6.41 961 80.25 ± 7.57 1001 80.25 ± 6.81 761 79.75 ± 8.17 419.6 75.25 ± 5.26 102.6 72.75 ± 8.22 47 37.00 ± 10.70 11.6 81.00 ± 7.09 1001 81.00 ± 7.09 1001
Avg. 78.08 ± 5.28 199.04 79.83 ± 4.99 105.79 79.31 ± 5.04 106.33 79.28 ± 5.04 83.33 78.59 ± 5.14 40.18 78.28 ± 5.11 31.47 77.93 ± 5.38 15.20 74.41 ± 5.26 27.28 79.28 ± 4.95 116.54 80.91 ± 4.74 103.38
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
samples within the decision classes. The NFRS model not only
reduces the impact of noise data (attribute noise and class noise)
for fuzzy decision information system, but also the lower and
upper approximations reflect the degree of dispersion between-
classes and aggregation intra-class samples. In particular, FNIB
uses a new evaluation function by simultaneously considering
the separability of a candidate feature provided for both the
selected subset and the remaining feature subset to describe the
relevance and redundancy of feature. The evaluation function
can also integrate the uncertainty of the lower and upper ap-
proximations. Thus, the uncertainty of the information system
would be decreased in NFRS. Experiment results on twenty-four
real-world datasets demonstrate the robustness of the proposed
NFRS model, and the robustness and superiority classification
performance of features selection algorithm by using the NFRS
model, by comparing it with other baselines. However, the pro-
posed method also has shortcomings. Firstly, the proposed NFRS
model requires estimating the local density of data, so that the
time complexity of the FNIB algorithm will be increased. Second,
FNIB obtains feature subsets by using a downstream classification
model, and thus the size of the feature subsets is influenced
by the classification learning model. Our future work includes
designing a novel framework that works in dynamic and ordered
data by using dominance rough set theory. We are also interested
in exploring techniques to speed up our method for large-scale
data.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xiaoling Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Writing – original draft, Validation, Formal analysis, Investi-
gation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Hongmei
Chen: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Visualization,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation. Tianrui Li: Writing –
review & editing, Supervision, Resources. Chuan Luo: Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by grants from the Na-
tional Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61976182, 62076171,
61876157, and 61976245), and Sichuan Key R&D Project (no.
2020YFG0035).
References
[1] H.T. Shen, Y. Zhu, W. Zheng, X. Zhu, Half-quadratic minimization for
unsupervised feature selection on incomplete data, IEEE Trans. Neural
Netw. Learn. Syst. 32 (7) (2021) 3122–3135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TNNLS.2020.3009632.
[2] L. Wang, J. Meng, R. Huang, H. Zhu, K. Peng, Incremental feature weighting
for fuzzy feature selection, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 368 (2019) 1–19.
[3] L. Sun, L. Wang, W. Ding, Y. Qian, J. Xu, Feature selection using fuzzy
neighborhood entropy-based uncertainty measures for fuzzy neighborhood
multigranulation rough sets, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 29 (1) (2021) 19–33,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2989098.
[4] J. Chen, Y. Zeng, Y. Li, G. Huang, Unsupervised feature selection based
extreme learning machine for clustering, Neurocomputing 386 (2020)
198–207.
[5] P. Zhang, T. Li, G. Wang, C. Luo, H. Chen, J. Zhang, D. Wang, Z. Yu, Multi-
source information fusion based on rough set theory: A review, Inf. Fusion
68 (2021) 85–117.
15
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
[6] Z. Yin, L. Liu, J. Chen, B. Zhao, Y. Wang, Locally robust EEG feature selection
for individual-independent emotion recognition, Expert Syst. Appl. 162
(2020) 113768.
[7] X. Zhang, H. Yao, Z. Lv, D. Miao, Class-specific information measures and
attribute reducts for hierarchy and systematicness, Inform. Sci. 563 (2021)
196–225.
[8] G. Kou, P. Yang, Y. Peng, F. Xiao, Y. Chen, F.E. Alsaadi, Evaluation of feature
selection methods for text classification with small datasets using multiple
criteria decision-making methods, Appl. Soft Comput. 86 (2020) 105836.
[9] X. Zhang, H. Gou, Z. Lv, D. Miao, Double-quantitative distance measurement
and classification learning based on the tri-level granular structure of
neighborhood system, Knowl.-Based Syst. 217 (2021) 106799.
[10] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets, Int. J. Gen.
Syst. 17 (2–3) (1990) 191–209.
[11] W. Qian, C. Xiong, Y. Wang, A ranking-based feature selection for multi-
label classification with fuzzy relative discernibility, Appl. Soft Comput.
102 (2021) 106995.
[12] C. Wang, Y. Huang, W. Ding, Z. Cao, Attribute reduction with fuzzy rough
self-information measures, Inform. Sci. 549 (2021) 68–86.
[13] J. Chen, J. Mi, Y. Lin, A graph approach for fuzzy-rough feature selection,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 391 (2020) 96–116.
[14] L. Sun, T. Wang, W. Ding, J. Xu, Y. Lin, Feature selection using Fisher
score and multilabel neighborhood rough sets for multilabel classification,
Inform. Sci. 578 (2021) 887–912.
[15] W. Ding, J. Wang, J. Wang, Multigranulation consensus fuzzy-rough based
attribute reduction, Knowl.-Based Syst. 198 (2020) 105945.
[16] A. Kumar, P.S. Prasad, Scalable fuzzy rough set reduct computation using
fuzzy min–max neural network preprocessing, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28
(5) (2020) 953–964.
[17] C. Wang, Y. Qian, W. Ding, X. Feng, Feature selection with fuzzy-rough
minimum classification error criterion, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2021) 1,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2021.3097811.
[18] L. D’eer, N. Verbiest, C. Cornelis, L. Godo, A comprehensive study of
implicator–conjunctor-based and noise-tolerant fuzzy rough sets: Defini-
tions, properties and robustness analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 275
(2015) 1–38.
[19] Q. Hu, L. Zhang, S. An, D. Zhang, D. Yu, On robust fuzzy rough set models,
IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 20 (4) (2012) 636–651.
[20] A. Namburu, S. kumar Samay, S.R. Edara, Soft fuzzy rough set-based MR
brain image segmentation, Appl. Soft Comput. 54 (2017) 456–466.
[21] N. Verbiest, E. Ramentol, C. Cornelis, F. Herrera, Preprocessing noisy
imbalanced datasets using SMOTE enhanced with fuzzy rough prototype
selection, Appl. Soft Comput. 22 (2014) 511–517.
[22] J.A. Sáez, E. Corchado, ANCES: A novel method to repair attribute noise in
classification problems, Pattern Recognit. 121 (2022) 108198.
[23] S. Xia, G. Wang, Z. Chen, Y. Duan, et al., Complete random forest based class
noise filtering learning for improving the generalizability of classifiers, IEEE
Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 31 (11) (2019) 2063–2078.
[24] X. Zhu, X. Wu, Class noise vs. attribute noise: A quantitative study of their
impacts, Artif. Intell. Rev. 22 (2004) 177–210.
[25] S. An, E. Zhao, C. Wang, G. Guo, S. Zhao, P. Li, Relative fuzzy rough
approximations for feature selection and classification, IEEE Trans. Cybern.
(2021) 1–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2021.3112674.
[26] S. An, J. Liu, C. Wang, S. Zhao, A relative uncertainty measure for fuzzy
rough feature selection, Internat. J. Approx. Reason. 139 (2021) 130–142.
[27] C. Cornelis, N. Verbiest, R. Jensen, Ordered weighted average based fuzzy
rough sets, in: International Conference on Rough Sets and Knowledge
Technology, Springer, 2010, pp. 78–85.
[28] C.Y. Wang, L. Wan, New results on granular variable precision fuzzy rough
sets based on fuzzy (co) implications, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 423 (2021)
149–169.
[29] Q. Hu, S. An, D. Yu, Soft fuzzy rough sets for robust feature evaluation and
selection, Inform. Sci. 180 (22) (2010) 4384–4400.
[30] W. Ji, Y. Pang, X. Jia, Z. Wang, F. Hou, B. Song, M. Liu, R. Wang, Fuzzy rough
sets and fuzzy rough neural networks for feature selection: A review, Wiley
Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 11 (3) (2021) e1402.
[31] L. Sun, T. Yin, W. Ding, Y. Qian, J. Xu, Feature selection with missing
labels using multilabel fuzzy neighborhood rough sets and maximum
relevance minimum redundancy, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2021) 1, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2021.3053844.
[32] Y. Li, S. Wu, Y. Lin, J. Liu, Different classes’ ratio fuzzy rough set based
robust feature selection, Knowl.-Based Syst. 120 (2017) 74–86.
[33] A. Tan, J. Liang, W. Wu, J. Zhang, L. Sun, C. Chen, Fuzzy rough discrimina-
tion and label weighting for multi-label feature selection, Neurocomputing
465 (2021) 128–140.
[34] Z. Yuan, H. Chen, P. Xie, P. Zhang, J. Liu, T. Li, Attribute reduction methods
in fuzzy rough set theory: An overview, comparative experiments, and
new directions, Appl. Soft Comput. 107 (2021) 107353.
[35] S. An, Q. Hu, W. Pedrycz, P. Zhu, E.C. Tsang, Data-distribution-aware fuzzy
rough set model and its application to robust classification, IEEE Trans.
Cybern. 46 (12) (2015) 3073–3085.
X. Yang, H. Chen, T. Li et al.
[36] S. An, Q. Hu, C. Wang, Probability granular distance-based fuzzy rough set
model, Appl. Soft Comput. 102 (2021) 107064.
[37] J. Wan, H. Chen, T. Li, X. Yang, B. Sang, Dynamic interaction feature
selection based on fuzzy rough set, Inform. Sci. 581 (2021) 891–911.
[38] P. Ni, S. Zhao, X. Wang, H. Chen, C. Li, E.C. Tsang, Incremental feature
selection based on fuzzy rough sets, Inform. Sci. 536 (2020) 185–204.
[39] M. Hu, E.C.C. Tsang, Y. Guo, W. Xu, Fast and robust attribute reduction
based on the separability in fuzzy decision systems, IEEE Trans. Cybern.
(2021) 1–14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.3040803.
[40] J. Chen, Y. Lin, J. Mi, S. Li, W. Ding, A spectral feature selection approach
with kernelized fuzzy rough sets, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2021) http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2021.3096212.
[41] M. Naz, M. Shabir, On fuzzy bipolar soft sets, their algebraic structures and
applications, J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems 26 (4) (2014) 1645–1656.
16
Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022) 109092
[42] N. Malik, M. Shabir, Rough fuzzy bipolar soft sets and application in
decision-making problems, Soft Comput. 23 (5) (2019) 1603–1614.
[43] G. Liu, Axiomatic systems for rough sets and fuzzy rough sets, Internat. J.
Approx. Reason. 48 (3) (2008) 857–867.
[44] Q. Hu, D. Yu, W. Pedrycz, D. Chen, Kernelized fuzzy rough sets
and their applications, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 23 (11) (2011)
1649–1667.
[45] H. Peng, F. Long, C. Ding, Feature selection based on mutual information
criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy, IEEE
Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27 (8) (2005) 1226–1238.
[46] R. Battiti, Using mutual information for selecting features in supervised
neural net learning, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 5 (4) (1994) 537–550.
[47] L. Yu, H. Liu, Efficient feature selection via analysis of relevance and
redundancy, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 5 (2004) 1205–1224.