Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Novel Dominance-Based Rough Set Model with Advantage (Disadvantage) Neighborhoods and Its Applications to Assess Sales Group

  • Published:
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, a fresh multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) method is proposed for group-oriented decision analysis. For group-oriented multi-attribute decision-making (GOMADM) problems, this paper proposes local advantage–disadvantage degrees and advantage–disadvantage degrees from the perspective of a strict attribute containing relation between group members and other group members, and studies the related properties. Based on the above two degrees, a new GOMADM method is designed, and this method is locally optimized according to the related properties. Finally, an example is used to analyze the rationality of the GOMADM method, and their ranking results are comparatively analyzed and discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Figueira, S., Greco, J., Ehrgott, M.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, New York (2005)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J.: A state-of-the-art survey of topsis applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(17), 13051–13069 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of vikor and topsis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156(2), 445–455 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Roy, B.: The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theor. Decis. 31(1), 49–73 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Brans, J., Vincke, P.: A preference ranking organization method (the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manag. Sci. 31(6), 647–656 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Murat, S., Kazan, H., Coskun, S.: An application for measuring performance quality of schools by using the promethee multi-criteria decision making method. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 195, 729–738 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacquetlagreze, E., Siskos, J.: Assessing a set of additive utility-functions for multicriteria decision-making, the uta method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 10(2), 151–164 (1982)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15(3), 234–281 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Saaty, T.L.: Decision making - the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13(1), 1–35 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Costa, B.E.: Macbeth—an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 1(4), 489–500 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough approximation of a preference relation by dominance relations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 117(1), 63–83 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 129(1), 1–47 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Greco, S., Inuiguchi, M., Slowinski, R.: Fuzzy rough sets and multiple-premise gradual decision rules. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 41(2), 179–211 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R.: Dominance-based rough set approach to case-based reasoning. In: International Conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 7–18. Springer (2006)

  15. Huang, Q., Li, T., Huang, Y., Yang, X., Fujita, H.: Dynamic dominance rough set approach for processing composite ordered data. Knowl.-Based Syst. 187, 104829 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Palangetić, M., Cornelis, C., Greco, S., Słowiński, R.: Fuzzy extensions of the dominance-based rough set approach. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 129, 1–19 (2021)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Błaszczyński, J., Filho, A., Matuszyk, A., Szelag, M., Słowinski, R.: Auto loan fraud detection using dominance-based rough set approach versus machine learning methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 163, 113740 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang, C., Li, D., Liang, J.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic rough set over two universes model and its applications. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 9(4), 577–588 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang, C., Li, D., Liang, J.: Multi-granularity three-way decisions with adjustable hesitant fuzzy linguistic multigranulation decision-theoretic rough sets over two universes. Inf. Sci. 507, 665–683 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahmad, A., Qamar, U., Raza, M.: An optimized method to calculate approximations in Dominance based rough set approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 97, 106731 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kusunoki, Y., Błaszczyński, J., Inuiguchi, M., Słowiński, R.: Empirical risk minimization for dominance-based rough set approaches. Inf. Sci. 567, 395–417 (2021)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Chandra, P.: Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management. McGraw-hill education, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grinold, R., Kahn, R.: Active Portfolio Management. McGraw Hill, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bartling, B.: Relative performance or team evaluation? Optimal contracts for other-regarding agents. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 79(3), 183–193 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Entin, E., Entin, E.: Measures for evaluation of team processes and performance in experiments and exercises. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Command and Control research and Technology Symposium, pp. 1–14 (2001)

  26. Teller, J.: Portfolio risk management and its contribution to project portfolio success: an investigation of organization, process, and culture. Proj. Manag. J. 44(2), 36–51 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Teller, J., Kock, A.: An empirical investigation on how portfolio risk management influences project portfolio success. Int. J. Project Manag. 31(6), 817–829 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zheng, Y., Zheng, J.: A novel portfolio optimization model via combining multi-objective optimization and multi-attribute decision making. Appl. Intell. 52(5), 5684–5695 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liang, Y., Qin, J., Martínez, L.: Consensus-based multicriteria group preference analysis model with multigranular linguistic distribution information. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28(12), 3145–3160 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Xu, BYu.Z.: Advantage matrix: two novel multi-attribute decision-making methods and their applications. Artif. Intell. Rev. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10126-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yu, B., Xu, Z., Dai, J., et al.: A novel multi-attribute decision-making method based on neighborhood approximations and its application. Expert Syst. Appl. 199, 116946 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Robbins, S., Judge, T.: Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Pearson, Boston (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gomes, L., Rangel, L.: An application of the todim method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 193(1), 204–211 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Brauers, W., Zavadskas, E.: The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control. Cybern. 35, 445–469 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2020JJ5346).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Science and Engineering, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, 410081, People’s Republic of China

    Bin Yu, Ruihui Xu & Yu Fu

  2. Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, People’s Republic of China

    Zeshui Xu

Authors
  1. Bin Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruihui Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zeshui Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Fu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, B., Xu, R., Fu, Y. et al. A Novel Dominance-Based Rough Set Model with Advantage (Disadvantage) Neighborhoods and Its Applications to Assess Sales Group. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 24, 3501–3512 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01342-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01342-8

Keywords