4.7 Article

A general model of decision-theoretic three-way approximations of fuzzy sets based on a heuristic algorithm

期刊

INFORMATION SCIENCES
卷 507, 期 -, 页码 522-539

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.10.051

关键词

Shadowed sets; Three-way decisions; Fuzzy sets; Particle swarm optimization

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of PR China [61472056, 61876201, 61572091]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A model of decision-theoretic three-way approximations of fuzzy sets that can calculate a pair of interpretable thresholds (alpha, beta) by combining shadowed sets with three-way decisions was established by Deng. In that model, the significant contribution is that the value 0.5, which denotes a membership grade with the highest uncertainty, is used to replace the uncertain region with the interval [0,1] in shadowed sets. From the principle of the minimum decision cost, although the lowest overall cost can be achieved precisely in some data distributions based on the value 0.5, there is a difference between the obtained overall cost and the least cost in some cases. Therefore, in this paper, based on Deng's model, the concept of a general three-way approximation of a fuzzy set is proposed to replace 0.5 with a variable value c(0 < c < 1). Then, the loss function composed of the elevation and reduction operations in shadowed sets is established. In addition, the relationship between the required thresholds (alpha, beta) with the different significance and variable value c is discussed. To optimize the loss function, particle swarm optimization (PSO) as a heuristic algorithm is introduced to search for the optimal value c by minimizing the total cost. Finally, the experimental results indicate that the proposed model, which is an extension of Deng's model, can provide richer insight into data analysis. These conclusions further enrich shadowed sets and three-way decisions to simplify complex problems by a few membership grades. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. 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