Abstract

The rough sets theory has been proposed by Z. Pawlak in the early 80’s to deal with inconsistency problems following from information granulation. It operates on an information table composed of a set U of objects (actions) described by a set Q of attributes. Its basic notions are: indiscernibility relation on U, lower and upper approximation of a subset or a partition of U, dependence and reduction of attributes from Q, and decision rules derived from lower approximations and boundaries of subsets identified with decision classes. The original rough sets idea has proved to be particularly useful in the analysis of multiattribute classification problems; however, it was failing when preferential ordering of attributes (criteria) had to be taken into account In order to deal with problems of multicriteria decision making (MCDM), like sorting, choice or ranking, a number of methodological changes to the original rough sets theory were necessary. The main change is the substitution of the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation (crisp or fuzzy), which permits approximation of ordered sets in multicriteria sorting In order to approximate preference relations in multicriteria choice and ranking problems, another change is necessary: substitution of the information table by a pairwise comparison table, where each row corresponds to a pair of objects described by binary relations on particular criteria. In all those MCDM problems, the new rough set approach ends with a set of decision rules, playing the role of a comprehensive preference model. It is more general than the classic functional or relational model and it is more understandable for the users because of its natural syntax. In order to workout a recommendation in one of the MCDM problems, we propose exploitation procedures of the set of decision rules. Finally, some other recently obtained results are given: rough approximations by means of similarity relations (crisp or fuzzy) and the equivalence of a decision rule preference model with a conjoint measurement model which is neither additive nor transitive.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call