4.5 Article

A Novel Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method Based on Rough Sets and Fuzzy Measures

期刊

AXIOMS
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/axioms11060275

关键词

rough set; fuzzy measure; multi-criteria decision making; Choquet integral; attribute reduction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61976130]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Education Department of Shaanxi Province [20JK0506]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rough set theory is a useful tool for data analysis, data mining, and decision-making. This paper proposes a novel method for multi-criteria decision making based on rough sets and a fuzzy measure. The method utilizes attribute measures and matching degrees to construct a Choquet integral, providing a solution to the problem of different reduction methods affecting decision results. A numerical example is used to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method.
Rough set theory provides a useful tool for data analysis, data mining and decision making. For multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), rough sets are used to obtain decision rules by reducing attributes and objects. However, different reduction methods correspond to different rules, which will influence the decision result. To solve this problem, we propose a novel method for MCDM based on rough sets and a fuzzy measure in this paper. Firstly, a type of non-additive measure of attributes is presented by the importance degree in rough sets, which is a fuzzy measure and called an attribute measure. Secondly, for a decision information system, the notion of the matching degree between two objects is presented under an attribute. Thirdly, based on the notions of the attribute measure and matching degree, a Choquet integral is constructed. Moreover, a novel MCDM method is presented by the Choquet integral. Finally, the presented method is compared with other methods through a numerical example, which is used to illustrate the feasibility and effectiveness of our method.

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

4.5
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