4.7 Article

Three sequential multi-class three-way decision models

期刊

INFORMATION SCIENCES
卷 537, 期 -, 页码 62-90

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.05.079

关键词

Three-way decisions; Multi-class; Decision conflict; Sequential; Multilevel granular structure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61402005, 61972001]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province, China [1308085QF114, 1908085MF188]
  3. Higher Education Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province, China [KJ2013A015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision conflict is a crucial issue of three-way decisions of multi-class. To overcome this limitation, there are mainly two ways. One is conflict resolution after decision-making, and the other is conflict resolution before decision-making. Considering insufficient information is a main cause of decision conflict, we propose a sequential approach to solve this problem by adding more detailed information step by step, which is conflict resolution during decision-making. Combining sequential approach with three methods to handle multi-class decision, which are converting m-class decision to m two-class decisions, based on pair-wise comparisons of m decision classes and directly making three-way decisions for each decision class of m-class simultaneously, we propose three sequential multi-class three-way decision models. At each level of three models, we define conflict region. In the sequential process of decision-making, for each model, only the objects belonging to one positive region with certain decision are assigned into corresponding decision classes, the objects in conflict region will be processed at the next level by adding more information sequentially. Finally, we compare the performance of three conflict resolutions and the performance of the proposed three models. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of the proposed three sequential multi-class three-way decision models. (C) 2020 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