# Fuzzy Set Extensions of the Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach

• Chapter
• 1464 Accesses

Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ,volume 220)

## Abstract

Rough set theory has been proposed by Pawlak in the early 80s to deal with inconsistency problems following from information granulation. It operates on an information table composed of a set U of objects described by a set Q of condition and decision attributes. Decision attributes make a partition of U into decision classes. Basic concepts of rough set theory are: indiscernibility relation on U, lower and upper (rough) approximations of decision classes, dependence and reduction of attributes from Q, and decision rules induced from rough approximations of decision classes. The original rough set idea was failing, however, to handle preferential ordering of domains of attributes (scales of criteria), as well as preferential ordering of decision classes. In order to deal with multiple criteria decision problems a number of methodological changes to the original rough set theory were necessary. The main change is the substitution of the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits approximation of ordered sets. In multiple criteria decision context, the information table is composed of decision examples given by a decision maker. The Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA) applied to this information table results with a set of decision rules, being a preference model of the decision maker. It is more general than the classical multiple attribute utility model or outranking model, and it is more understandable because of its natural syntax. In this chapter, after recalling the classical rough set approach and DRSA, we review their fuzzy set extensions. Moreover, we characterize the dominance-based rough approximation of a fuzzy set, and we show that the classical rough approximation of a crisp set is its particular case. In this sense, DRSA is also relevant in the case where preferences are not considered, but just a kind of monotonicity relating values of different attributes is meaningful for the analysis of data at hand. In general terms, monotonicity concerns relationship between different aspects of a phenomenon described by data: for example, “the larger the house, the higher its price” or “the closer the house to the city centre, the higher its price”. In this perspective, DRSA gives a very general framework for reasoning about data using only monotonicity relationships.

### Keywords

• Membership Degree
• Decision Class
• Fuzzy Similarity
• Fuzzy Extension
• Fuzzy Connective

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
• DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-73723-0_13
• Chapter length: 23 pages
• Own it forever
• Exclusive offer for individuals only
• Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
• ISBN: 978-3-540-73723-0
• Own it forever
• Exclusive offer for individuals only
• Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

## References

1. Dubois, D., Prade, H., Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets, Internat. J. General Systems, 17 (23) (1990) 191-–209.

2. Dubois, D., Prade, H., Gradual inference rules in approximate reasoning, Information Sciences, 61 (1992) 103–122.

3. Dubois, D., Prade, H., Putting rough sets and fuzzy sets together, in R. Słowiński (ed.), Intelligent Decision Support: Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1992, pp. 203–232.

4. Dubois, D., Grzymala-Busse, J., Inuiguchi, M. and Polkowski, L. (eds.), Transations on Rough Sets II: Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets, LNCS 3135, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.

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

6. Greco, S., Inuiguchi, M., Słowiński, R., Dominance-based rough set approach using possibility and necessity measures, in J.J. Alpigini, J.F. Peters, A. Skowron, N. Zhong (eds.), Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, LNAI 2475, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002, pp. 85–92.

7. Greco, S. Inuiguchi, M., Słowiński, R., A new proposal for rough fuzzy approximations and decision rule representation, in D. Dubois, J. Grzymala-Busse, M. Inuiguchi and L. Polkowski (eds.), Transations on Rough Sets II: Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets, LNCS 3135, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004, pp. 156–164.

8. Greco, S., Inuiguchi, M., Słowiński, R., Fuzzy rough sets and multiple-premise gradual decision rules, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 41 (2006) 179–211.

9. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R., The use of rough sets and fuzzy sets in MCDM, chap. 14 in T. Gal, T. Stewart, T.Hanne (eds.), Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1999, pp. 14.1–14.59.

10. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R., Rough set processing of vague information using fuzzy similarity relations, in C. Calude and G. Paun (eds.), From Finite to Infinite, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000, pp. 149–173.

11. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R., A fuzzy extension of the rough set approach to multicriteria and multiattribute sorting, in J. Fodor, B. De Baets and P. Perny, Preferences and Decisions under Incomplete Information, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 131–154.

12. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński R., Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, 129 (2001) 1–47.

13. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R., Decision rule approach, in J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. Ehrgott (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005, pp. 507–563.

14. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R., Generalizing rough set theory through Dominance-based Rough Set Approach, in D. Slezak, J. Yao, J. Peters, W. Ziarko, X. Hu (eds.), Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets, Data Mining, and Granular Computing, LNAI 3642, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005, pp. 1–11.

15. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R., Dominance-based Rough Set Approach to Case-Based Reasoning, in V. Torra, Y. Narukawa, A. Valls, J. Domingo-Ferrer (eds.), Modelling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 3885, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006, pp. 7–18.

16. Klement, E. P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.,Triangular Norms, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000.

17. Marchant, T., The measurement of membership by comparisons, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 148 (2004) 157–177.

18. Nakamura, A., Gao, J.M., A logic for fuzzy data analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 39 (1991) 127–132.

19. Pawlak, Z., Rough Sets, International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 11 (1982) 341–356.

20. Pawlak, Z., Rough Sets, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991.

21. Radzikowska, A. M., Kerre, E. E., A comparative study of fuzzy rough sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 126 (2002) 137-–155.

22. Słowiński, R., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Rough set based decision support, chap. 16 in E.K. Burke and G. Kendall (eds.), Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimization and Decision Support Techniques, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005, pp. 475–527.

23. Zadeh, L., Fuzzy sets, Information Control, 8 (1965) 338–353.

Authors

## Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

### Cite this chapter

Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R. (2008). Fuzzy Set Extensions of the Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach. In: Bustince, H., Herrera, F., Montero, J. (eds) Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions: Representation, Aggregation and Models. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 220. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73723-0_13