Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 21, pp 10793–10809 | Cite as

Hybrid rough fuzzy soft classifier based multi-class classification model for agriculture crop selection

  • N. DeepaEmail author
  • K. Ganesan
Methodologies and Application


In this paper, rough, fuzzy and soft set approaches have been integrated to develop a multi-class classification model to assist the farmers in taking decision on crop cultivation for a given agriculture land. The model is divided into three major sections, namely weight calculation of variables, conversion of continuous data to fuzzified values and classification rule generation. Dominance-based rough set approach is used for the calculation of relative weights of variables. Fuzzy proximity relation is applied to convert the continuous data into fuzzified values. Bijective soft set approach is used to generate classification rules for five agriculture crops, namely paddy, groundnut, sugarcane, cumbu and ragi. The developed model has been tested with agriculture dataset which showed 92% accuracy for the validation dataset and proved to be confident and robust for agriculture development. Further, the performance of the proposed model is compared with three popular classifiers such as naïve Bayes, support vector machine and J48. The obtained experimental results showed high predictive performance, and the potential of the proposed model is compared with the other classifiers.


Rough set Fuzzy proximity relation Soft set Grey relational analysis Agriculture crop Multi-class classification 



This work forms part of the R and D activities of TIFAC-CORE in Automotive Infotronics located at VIT University, Vellore. The authors would like to thank DST, Government of India, for providing necessary hardware and software support for completing this work successfully.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Bagherzadeh A, Gholizadeh A (2017) Parametric-based neural networks and TOPSIS modeling in land suitability evaluation for alfalfa production using GIS. Model Earth Syst Environ. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chandanapalli SB, Reddy ES, Lakshmi DR (2017) DFTDT: distributed functional tangent decision tree for aqua status prediction in wireless sensor networks. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conţiu Ş, Groza A (2016) Improving remote sensing crop classification by argumentation-based conflict resolution in ensemble learning. Expert Syst Appl 64:269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Das AK (2018) Weighted fuzzy soft multiset and decision-making. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 9(5):787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dass A, Chandra S, Uphoff N, Choudhary AK, Bhattacharyya R, Rana KS (2017) Agronomic fortification of rice grains with secondary and micronutrients under differing crop management and soil moisture regimes in the north Indian Plains. Paddy Water Environ 15(4):745–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deepa N, Ganesan K (2018) Multi-class classification using hybrid soft decision model for agriculture crop selection. Neural Comput Appl 30(4):1025–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dehghani H, Siami A, Haghi P (2017) A new model for mining method selection based on grey and TODIM methods. J Min Environ 8(1):49–60Google Scholar
  8. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Siddiqui N (2017a) Aggregation operators on triangular cubic fuzzy numbers and its application to multi-criteria decision making problems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33(6):3323–3337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ali A (2017b) Precursor selection for sol–gel synthesis of titanium carbide nanopowders by a new cubic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making model. J Intell Syst. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ahmed R, Ali A (2018a) Triangular cubic linguistic hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators and their application in group decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 34(4):2401–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ali A (2018b) Weighted average rating (war) method for solving group decision making problem using triangular cubic fuzzy hybrid aggregation (tcfha). Punjab Univ J Math 50(1):23–34MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Ali A, Ahmad Khan W (2018c) Some geometric operators with triangular cubic linguistic hesitant fuzzy number and their application in group decision-making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahmi A, Abdullah S, Amin F, Khan MSA (2018d) Trapezoidal cubic fuzzy number Einstein hybrid weighted averaging operators and its application to decision making. Soft Comput 5:156. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farid DM, Zhang L, Rahman CM, Hossain MA, Strachan R (2014) Hybrid decision tree and naïve Bayes classifiers for multi-class classification tasks. Expert Syst Appl 41(4):1937–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng F, Li C, Davvaz B, Ali MI (2010) Soft sets combined with fuzzy sets and rough sets: a tentative approach. Soft Comput 14(9):899–911zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Gong K, Xiao Z, Zhang X (2010) The bijective soft set with its operations. Comput Math Appl 60(8):2270–2278MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greco S, Matarazzo B, Słowiński R (2016) Decision rule approach. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira J (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 233. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma A, Zhong Y, Zhang L (2015) Adaptive multiobjective memetic fuzzy clustering algorithm for remote sensing imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 53(8):4202–4217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ma X, Liu Q, Zhan J (2017) A survey of decision making methods based on certain hybrid soft set models. Artif Intell Rev 47(4):507–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahalakshmi P, Ganesan K (2012) Decision making models for aquaculture farming development. Today & Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  21. Maji PK, Roy AR, Biswas R (2002) An application of soft sets in a decision making problem. Comput Math Appl 44(8–9):1077–1083MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meng D, Zhang X, Qin K (2011) Soft rough fuzzy sets and soft fuzzy rough sets. Comput Math Appl 62(12):4635–4645MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Molodtsov D (1999) Soft set theory-first results. Comput Math Appl 37(4–5):19–31MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Özcan T, Çelebi N, Esnaf Ş (2011) Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9773–9779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roy AR, Maji PK (2007) A fuzzy soft set theoretic approach to decision making problems. J Comput Appl Math 203(2):412–418zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shen KY, Hu SK, Tzeng GH (2017) Financial modeling and improvement planning for the life insurance industry by using a rough knowledge based hybrid MCDM model. Inf Sci 375:296–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sirsat MS, Cernadas E, Fernández-Delgado M, Khan R (2017) Classification of agricultural soil parameters in India. Comput Electron Agric 135:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slowínski R, Stefanowski J, Greco S, Matarazzo B (2000) Rough sets based processing of inconsistent information in decision analysis. Control Cybern 29(1):379–404zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Slowínski R, Greco S, Matarazzo B (2002) Rough set analysis of preference-ordered data. In: Alpigini J, Peters J, Skowron A, Zhong N (eds) Rough sets and current trends in computing. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 2475. Springer, Berlin, pp 44–59zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Tang XQ, Zhu P (2013) Hierarchical clustering problems and analysis of fuzzy proximity relation on granular space. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 21(5):814–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tiwari V, Jain PK, Tandon P (2017) A bijective soft set theoretic approach for concept selection in design process. J Eng Des 28(2):100–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10(2):56–66MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang TK, Zhang Q, Chong HY, Wang X (2017) Integrated supplier selection framework in a resilient construction supply chain: an approach via analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and grey relational analysis (GRA). Sustainability 9(2):289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhan J, Zhu K (2015) Reviews on decision making methods based on (fuzzy) soft sets and rough soft sets. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 29(3):1169–1176MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhan J, Liu Q, Herawan T (2017a) A novel soft rough set: soft rough hemirings and corresponding multicriteria group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 54:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhan J, Ali MI, Mehmood N (2017b) On a novel uncertain soft set model: Z-soft fuzzy rough set model and corresponding decision making methods. Appl Soft Comput 56:446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhong Y, Ma A, Soon Ong Y, Zhu Z, Zhang L (2017) Computational intelligence in optical remote sensing image processing. Appl Soft Comput 64:75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringVIT UniversityVelloreIndia
  2. 2.TIFAC-CORE in Automotive InfotronicsVIT UniversityVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations