4.7 Article

Evaluation functions and decision conditions of three-way decisions with game-theoretic rough sets

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 261, 期 2, 页码 704-714

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.12.048

关键词

Game-theoretic rough sets; Game theory; Three-way decisions; Rough sets; Probabilistic rough sets

资金

  1. NSERC Canada
  2. University of Regina Gerhard Herzberg Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three-way decisions have been used over the years in many application areas. The rough sets and its extensions provide useful approaches for three-way decisions. Typically, these approaches employ a single evaluation function or criterion to induce three-way decisions. When extending the rough set based three-way decisions to multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), two issues are encountered. The first issue is related to the construction and definition of aggregation mechanisms for dealing with differences in results of evaluation functions. The second issue is related to the setting of choice structure for selecting the three types of decision choices. In this article, we consider the role and use of game-theoretic rough set (GTRS) model to resolve and address these two issues. The issue related to differences in evaluation functions is addressed with GTRS by implementing a game that considers multiple evaluation functions as game players. The game-theoretic analysis in the GTRS is employed to resolve the differences by determining a tradeoff between evaluation functions. The issue related to choice structure is addressed by considering the conditions under which different game outcomes could constitute a game solution. In particular, the equilibrium analysis within games is used to construct the rules for three-way decisions. A demonstrative example is used to explain the use of the proposed approach. The relationship between the proposed approach and the probabilistic rough sets is also discussed. (C) 2017 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