Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets in MCDM

  • Chapter
Multicriteria Decision Making

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 21))

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banzhaf, J. F.: Weighted voting doesn’t work: A mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review 19(1965)317–343

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bazan, J., Skowron, A., Synak, P.: “Dynamic reducts as a tool for extracting laws from decision tables”. In: M. Zemankowa, Z. Ras (eds): Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. LNAI, Vol. 869, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1994, pp. 346–355

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bouyssou, D.: Outranking relations: Do they have special properties? Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 5(2) (1996)99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bouyssou, D., Pirlot, M: A general framework for the aggregation of semiorders. Technical Report, ESSEC, Cergy-Pontoise, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chmielewski, M., Grzymala-Busse, J.: “Global discretization of continuous attributes as preprocessing for machine learning”. In: Lin, T. Y., Wildberger, A. (eds): Soft Computing: Rough Sets, Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks, Uncertainty Management. Simulation Councils Inc., San Diego, CA 1995, pp. 294–301

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dennemberg, D., Grabisch, M.: Shapley value and interaction index. 19%, Working paper

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. Int. J. of General Systems 17(1990)191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: “Putting rough sets and fuzzy sets together”. In: R. Slowinski (ed): Intelligent Decision Support, Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht 1992, pp.203–233

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dubois, D., Prade, H., Yager, R. R.: “A manifesto: Fuzzy information engineering”. In: D. Dubois, H., Prade, R. R. Yager (ed): Fuzzy Information Engineering. Wiley, New York 1997, pp. 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fayyad, U. M., Irani, K. B.: On the handling of continuous-valued attributes in decision tree generation. Machine Learning 8(1992)87–102

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fishburn, P. C: Methods for estimating additive utilities. Management Science 13(1967)435–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fishburn, P. C.: Nontransitive additive conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 35(1991)1–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fodor, J., Roubens, M.: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support. Kluwer, Dordrecht 1994

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grabisch, M: The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 89(1996) 445–456

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grabisch, M.: k-order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 92(1997)167–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grabisch, M, Roubens, M: “Equivalent representations of a set function with application to decision making”, paper presented at FUZZ-IEEE ′97 Conference, Barcelona 1997

    Google Scholar 

  17. Greco S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough set approach to multi-attribute choice and ranking problems. ICS Research Report 38/95, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 1995, and in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference, Hagen (Germany); G. Fandel, T. Gal (eds): Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Berlin 1997, pp. 318-329

    Google Scholar 

  18. Greco S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough approximation of a preference relation by dominance relations. ICS Research Report 16/96, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 1996 and in print in European Journal of Operational Research (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough approximations by fuzzy similarity relations. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1997

    Google Scholar 

  20. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough approximation of a preferential information. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1997

    Google Scholar 

  21. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Exploitation procedures for rough set analysis of multicriteria decision problems. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1997

    Google Scholar 

  22. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Preference modeling by decision rules. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1997

    Google Scholar 

  23. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Fuzzy measures representation as technique for rough set analysis. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1997

    Google Scholar 

  24. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: “A new rough set approach to evaluation of bankruptcy risk”. In: C. Zopounidis (ed): Operational Tools in the Management of Financial Risks. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998, pp. 121–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: “Rough approximation of a preference relation in a pairwise comparison table”. In: L. Polkowski, A. Skowron (eds): Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg 1998, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  26. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: “A new rough set approach to multicriteria and multiattribute classification” In: L. Polkowski, A. Skowron (eds): Proceedings of the First International Conference on Rough sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSTCTC ′98), Warsaw, June 22-26, 1998; Springer-Verlag, 1998, 60–67

    Google Scholar 

  27. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough approximation of a fuzzy preference relation. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1998

    Google Scholar 

  28. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: “Fuzzy similarity relation as a basis for rough approximation”. In: L. Polkowski, A. Skowron (eds): Proceedings of the First International Conference on Rough sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSTCTC’ 98), June 22-26, Warsaw 1998, Springer-Verlag, 1998, 283–289

    Google Scholar 

  29. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Fuzzy dominance as a basis for rough approximations. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1998

    Google Scholar 

  30. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough approximation of a preference relation using ordinal scales of preference. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1998

    Google Scholar 

  31. Greco, S., Matarazzo. B., Slowinski. R.: A conjoint measurement model to represent preference on ordinal scales. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1998

    Google Scholar 

  32. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: A general model of conjoint measurement to represent preference inconsistencies. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1998

    Google Scholar 

  33. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: A rough approximation using indiscernbility, similarity and dominance relations. Working paper, University of Catania, Catania 1998

    Google Scholar 

  34. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., Tsoukias, A.: Exploitation of a rough approximation of the outranking relation. Cahier du LAMSADE no. 152, Université de Paris-Dauphine, Paris 1997

    Google Scholar 

  35. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., Tsoukias, A.: “Exploitation of a rough approximation of the outranking relation in multicriteria choice and ranking”. In: T. Stewart (ed): Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference, Cape Town (South Africa), January 1997; Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  36. Grzymala-Busse, J. W.: “LERS — a system for learning from examples based on rough sets”. In: R. Slowinski, (ed) Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1992, pp. 3–18

    Google Scholar 

  37. Grzymala-Busse, J. W.: A new version of the rule induction system LERS. Fundamenta Informaticae. 31(1997)27–39

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jacquet-Lagrèze, E.: Systèmes de décision et acteurs multiples — Contribution à une théorie de l’action pour les sciences des organisations. Thèse d’Etat, Université de Paris-Dauphine, Paris 1981

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., Siskos, J.: Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research 10(1982)151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H.: Decision with Multiple Objectives — Preferences and value Tradeoffs. Wiley. New York 1976

    Google Scholar 

  41. Krantz, D. M., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A: Foundations of Measurements I. Academic Press. 1978

    Google Scholar 

  42. Krawiec, K., Slowinski, R., Vanderpooten, D.: “Learning of decision rules from similarity based rough approximations”. In: A. Skowron, L. Polkowski (eds): Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg 1998, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  43. Krusinska, E., Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J.: Discriminant versus rough set approach to vague data analysis. Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis 8(1992)43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kryszkiewicz, M., Rybinski, H.: Computation of reducts of composed information systems. Fundamenta Informaticae 27(1996)183–195

    Google Scholar 

  45. Langley, P., Simon, H. A.: “Fielded applications of machine learning”. In: R. S. Michalski, I. Bratko, M. Kubat (eds): Machine Learning and Data Mining, Wiley, New York 1998, pp. 113–129

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lin, T.: “Neighborhood systems and approximation in database and knowledge base systems”, in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  47. Luce, R. D.: Semi-orders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 24(1956)178–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. March, J. G.: “Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice”. In: D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, A. Tversky (eds): Decision Making, Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge University Press, New York 1988, pp. 33–58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Marcus, S.: Tolerance rough sets, Cech topologies, learning processes. Bull, of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Technical Sciences 42(3)(1994)471–487

    Google Scholar 

  50. Michalski, R. S., Bratko, I. Kubat, M. (eds). Machine Learning and Data Mining — Methods and Applications. Wiley, New York 1998

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mienko, R., Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J., Susmaga, R.: “Rough family — software implementation of rough set based data analysis and rule discovery techniques”. In: Shusaku Tsumoto et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Machine Discovery, Tokyo University Press, Tokyo, November 6-8 1996, pp. 437–440

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mienko, R., Stefanowski, J., Toumi, K., Vanderpooten, D.: Discovery-oriented induction of decision rules. Cahier du LAMSADE no. 141, Université de Paris Dauphine, Paris 1996

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mousseau, V.,: Problèmes liés àl’évaluation de l’importance en aide multicritère à la décision: Réflexions théoriques et expérimentations, Thèse, Université de Paris-Dauphine, Paris 1993

    Google Scholar 

  54. Murofushi, T.: “A technique for reading fuzzy measures (i): the Shapley value with respect to a fuzzy measure”. Proc. 2nd Fuzzy Workshop, Nagaoka, Japan, October 1992, pp. 39–48, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  55. Murofushi, T., Soneda, S.: “Techniques for reading fuzzy measures (iii): interaction index”. Proc. 9th Fuzzy Systems Symposium, Sapporo, Japan, May 1993, pp. 693–696, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nguyen, S. H., Skowron, A: “Quantization of real value attributes: rough set and Boolean reasoning approach”. Proc. 2nd Joint Annual Conference on Information Sciences, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 1995, pp. 34–37

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nieminen, J.: Rough tolerance equality. Fundamenta Informaticae 11(3)(1988)289–296

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. International Journal of Information & Computer Sciences 11(1982)341–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pawlak, Z.: Rough probability. Bull. Polish Acad.. Scis., Technical Sci. 33(1985) 9–10

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17(1985)99–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer, Dordrecht 1991

    Google Scholar 

  62. Pawlak, Z: Rough set approach to knowledge-based decision support. European Journal of Operational Research 99(1997)48–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pawlak, Z., Slowinski, R.: Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 72(1994)443–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Polkowski, L., Skowron, A.: “Rough mereology”. Proc. Symp. on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 869, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994, pp. 85–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Polkowski, L., Skowron, A, Zytkow, J.: “Rough foundations for rough sets”. In: T. Y. Lin, A Wildberger (eds): Soft Computing: Rough Sets, Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks, Uncertainty Management, Knowledge Discovery. Simulation Councils, Inc., San Diego, CA 1995, pp. 142–149

    Google Scholar 

  66. Roubens, M.: Interaction between criteria through the use of fuzzy measures, Report 96.007, Institut de Mathématique Université de Liège, Liège 1996

    Google Scholar 

  67. Roy, B.: Méthodologie Multicritère d’Aide à la Décision. Economica, Paris 1985

    Google Scholar 

  68. Roy, B.: The outranking approach and the foundation of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision 31(1991) 49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Roy, B.: Decision science or decision aid science? European Journal of Operational Research, Special Issue on Model Validation in Operations Research 66(1993)184–203

    Google Scholar 

  70. Roy, B.: L’aide à la décision ajourd’hui: Que devrait-on en attendre? Document du LAMSADE no. 104, Université de Paris Dauphine, Paris 1997. English version: “Aiding the Decision Maker”, chapter in the present volume

    Google Scholar 

  71. Roy, B., Bouyssou, D.: Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas. Economica, Paris 1993

    Google Scholar 

  72. Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1976

    Google Scholar 

  73. Shapley, L. S.: “A value for n-person games”. In: H. W. Kuhn, A W. Tucker (eds): Contributions to the Theory of Games II. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1953, pp. 307–317

    Google Scholar 

  74. Shoemaker, P. J. H.: The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, XX(1982)529–562

    Google Scholar 

  75. Skowron, A.: “Boolean reasoning for decision rules generation”. In: J. Komorowski, Z. W. Ras (eds): Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1993, pp. 295–305

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. Skowron, A., Grzymala-Busse, J. W.: “From the rough set theory to the evidence theory”. In: M. Fedrizzi, J. Kacprzyk, R. R. Yager (eds); Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. John Wiley and Sons, New York 1994, pp. 193–236

    Google Scholar 

  77. Skowron, A., Polkowski, L.: Decision algorithms: a survey of rough set-theoretic methods. Fundamenta Informaticae 27(3/4)(1997)345–358

    Google Scholar 

  78. Skowron, A, Rauszer C: “The discernibility matrices and functions in information systems”. In: R. Slowinski (ed): Intelligent Decision Support, Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Set Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1992, pp. 331–362

    Google Scholar 

  79. Skowron, A, Stepaniuk, J.: “Generalized approximation spaces”. In: T. Y. Lin, A. Wildberger (eds): Soft Computing: Rough Sets, Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks, Uncertainty Management, Knowledge Discovery. Simulation Councils, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1995, pp. 18–21

    Google Scholar 

  80. Slovic, P.: Choice between equally-valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance 1(1975)280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Slowinski, K., Slowinski, R.: Sensitivity analysis of rough classification. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 32(1990)693–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Slowinski, K., Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J.: Rough set approach to analysis of data from peritoneal lavage in acute pancreatitis. Medical Informatics 13(1988)143–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Slowinski, K., Stefanowski, J.: “On limitations of using rough set approach to analyse non-trivial medical information systems”. In: Shusaku Tsumoto et al. (eds): Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Machine Discovery, Tokyo University Press, Tokyo 1996, pp. 176–183

    Google Scholar 

  84. Slowinski, R. (ed): Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1992

    Google Scholar 

  85. Slowinski, R.: A generalization of the indiscernibility relation for rough set analysis of quantitative information. Rivista di matematica per le scienze economiche e sociali 15(1993)65–78

    Google Scholar 

  86. Slowinski, R.: “Rough set processing of fuzzy information”, In: T. Y.Lin, A. Wildberger (eds): Soft Computing: Rough Sets, Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks, Uncertainty Management, Knowledge Discovery. Simulation Councils, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1995, pp. 142–145

    Google Scholar 

  87. Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J.: Rough classification in incomplete information systems. Mathl. Comput. Modelling 12(10/11) (1989)1347–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J.: “RoughDAS and RoughClass software implementations of the rough sets approach”. In: R. Slowinski (ed): Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1992}, pp. 445–

    Google Scholar 

  89. Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J.: “Handling various types of uncertainty in the rough set approach”. In: W. P. Ziarko (ed): Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Knowledge Discovery, Springer-Verlag, London 1994, pp. 366–376

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  90. Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J.: Rough set reasoning about uncertain data. Fundamenta Informaticae 27(1996)229–243

    Google Scholar 

  91. Slowinski, R., Vanderpooten, D.: Similarity relation as a basis for rough approximations, ICS Research Report 53/95, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 1995. Also in: P. P. Wang (ed): Advances in Machine Intelligence & Soft-Computing, vol. IV, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1997, pp. 17–33

    Google Scholar 

  92. Slowinski, R., Vanderpooten, D.: A generalized definition of rough approximations based on similarity. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering 1998, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  93. Stefanowski, J.: Rough sets theory and discriminant methods as tools for analysis of information systems. A comparative study. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 17(1992)81–98

    Google Scholar 

  94. Stefanowski, J.: “On rough set based approaches to induction of decision rules”. In: A Skowron, L. Polkowski (eds): Rough Sets in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg 1998, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  95. Susmaga, R.: Analysing discretizations of continuous attributes given a monotonic discrimination function. Intelligent Data Analysis 1(3)(1997) on-line journal, http://www-east.elsevier.com

  96. Susmaga, R.: “Experiments in incremental computation of reducts”. In: A Skowron, L. Polkowski (eds): Rough Sets in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg 1998, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  97. Tsoukias, A., Vincke, Ph.: A new axiomatic foundation of the partial comparability theory. Theory and Decision 39(1995)79–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Tsoukias, A, Vincke, Ph.: “Extended preference structures in MCDA”. In: J. Climaco (ed): Multicriteria Analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1997, pp. 37–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  99. Tversky, A: Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review 76(1969)31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tversky, A: Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84(4)(1977)327–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Vincke, Ph.: Multicriteria Decision-Aid. John Wiley and Sons, New York 1992

    Google Scholar 

  102. Wakker, P. P.: Additive représentions of preferences. A new foundation of decision analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1989

    Google Scholar 

  103. Yao, Y.: “Combination of rough sets and fuzzy sets based on a-level sets”. In: T. Y. Lin, N. Cercone (eds): Rough Sets and Data Mining, Kluwer, Boston 19%, pp. 301–321

    Google Scholar 

  104. Yao, Y, Wong, S.: “Generalization of rough sets using relationships between attribute values”. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Joint Conference on Information Sciences, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 1995, pp. 30–33

    Google Scholar 

  105. Ziarko, W., Shan, N.: “An incremental learning algorithm for constructing decision rules”. In: W. P. Ziarko (ed): Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Knowledge Discovery. Springer-Verlag, London 1994, pp. 326–334

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Salvatore Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benedetto Matarazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roman Slowinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fern Universität, Hagen, Germany

    Tomas Gal  & Thomas Hanne  & 

  2. University of Cape Town, Rep. of South Africa

    Theodor J. Stewart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R. (1999). The Use of Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets in MCDM. In: Gal, T., Stewart, T.J., Hanne, T. (eds) Multicriteria Decision Making. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 21. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5025-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5025-9_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7283-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5025-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation