4.7 Article

Three-way conflict analysis: A unification of models based on rough sets and formal concept analysis

期刊

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
卷 194, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105556

关键词

Conflict analysis; Formal concept analysis; Rough sets; Three-valued situation table; Three-way decision

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council [201808430120]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61603063]
  3. Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation, PR China [2018JJ3518, 2018JJ2027]
  4. Hunan Provincial Education Department Foundation, PR China [19B027]
  5. Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Mathematical Modelling and Analysis in Engineering, PR China [2018MMAEZD10]
  6. NSERC, Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Pawlak model of conflict analysis uses three-valued ratings (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative) of a set of agents on a set of issues. Several extensions to the Pawlak model, namely, rough sets based qualitative and quantitative models, formal concept analysis based quantitative models, and three-way conflict analysis models, have been proposed in recent years. The main objective of this paper is to propose a more general model that unifies these existing models in an evaluation-based framework of three-way decision. The proposed model uses a pair of evaluations, one for support and the other for opposition, for trisecting the set of agents. By considering qualitative and quantitative evaluations, we derive a qualitative model and a quantitative model of three-way conflict analysis, respectively. The corresponding two models built based on rough sets and the corresponding two models built based on formal concept analysis are special cases. A unification of existing models provides insights into a common structure in formulating three-way conflict analysis with different choices of evaluations. We illustrate an application of the three-way conflict analysis model in making development plans for Gansu Province in China. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据