Financial markets give a large number of trading opportunities. However, over-complicated systems make it very difficult to be effectively used by decision-makers. Volatility and noise present in the markets evoke a need to simplify the market picture derived for the decision-makers. Symbolic representation fits in this concept and greatly reduces data complexity. However, at the same time, some information from the market is lost. Our motivation is to answer the question: What is the impact of introducing different data representation on the overall amount of information derived for the decision-maker? We concentrate on the possibility of using entropy as a measure of the information gain/loss for the financial data, and as a basic form, we assume permutation entropy with later modifications. We investigate different symbolic representations and compare them with classical data representation in terms of entropy. The real-world data covering the time span of 10 years are used in the experiments. The results and the statistical verification show that extending the symbolic description of the time series does not affect the permutation entropy values.
Classification is one of the main problems of machine learning, and assessing the quality of classification is one of the most topical tasks, all the more difficult as it depends on many factors. Many different measures have been proposed to assess the quality of the classification, often depending on the application of a specific classifier. However, in most cases, these measures are focused on binary classification, and for the problem of many decision classes, they are significantly simplified. Due to the increasing scope of classification applications, there is a growing need to select a classifier appropriate to the situation, including more complex data sets with multiple decision classes. This paper aims to propose a new measure of classifier quality assessment (called the preference-driven measure, abbreviated p-d), regardless of the number of classes, with the possibility of establishing the relative importance of each class. Furthermore, we propose a solution in which the classifier’s assessment can be adapted to the analyzed problem using a vector of preferences. To visualize the operation of the proposed measure, we present it first on an example involving two decision classes and then test its operation on real, multi-class data sets. Additionally, in this case, we demonstrate how to adjust the assessment to the user’s preferences. The results obtained allow us to confirm that the use of a preference-driven measure indicates that other classifiers are better to use according to preferences, particularly as opposed to the classical measures of classification quality assessment.
This paper is conceptual in nature and presents the assumptions of a holistic approach to corporate real estate management. The approach is based on the imperative of sustainability, which has become a determinant of the proposed Sustainable Corporate Real Estate Management (SCREM) model. Moreover, the authors indicate that in addition to the presence of the sustainability imperative, corporate real estate management requires the integration and formalization of knowledge about the concepts of corporate real estate management (CREM) with those of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This approach is intended to enable the identification and improvement of real estate management processes and, as a result, contribute to more efficient and effective corporate real estate management and continuous and flexible development of enterprises, as well as boosting economic growth and building prosperity for present and future generations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.