The present paper aims to initiate the study of multi attribute group decision making in the presence of incomplete multi attribute and incomplete multi decision while making a decision with preferences in an incomplete information system. The concept of soft preference relation and soft dominance relation corresponding to decision attribute in incomplete multi criteria and incomplete multi decision information system is also presented. The discernibility matrix and discernibility function approach is proposed for decision attribute reduction to find all the reducts in an incomplete information system. A new technique of ranking the feasible alternative is proposed. Using the idea of soft dominance based rough sets, several uncertainty measures, such as approximate precision, rough degree, approximate quality and their mutual relationships are discussed in an incomplete information system. Finally the validity of these concepts are proved by applying these in solving multi-agent conflict analysis problems.
The rough set theory, introduced by Pawlak [29] has been conceived as a useful tool to conceptualize and analyze various types of data. It has diverse applications in various fields such as artificial intelligence, cognitive sciences, medical, engineering, management sciences and economics etc. Decision making is one of the key component to achieve objectives in many areas, particularly in a field which obligates analyzing the conflict. Conflict analysis is one of the fields whose importance is increasing nowadays as huge social networks based on computers, cell phones, tablets and other gadgets systems of computers are starting to play a significant role in the societies [28]. Conflict analysis plays a paramount role in business, governmental, politics, legal disputes, labor-management negotiation, military operations economic and games. In short, such analysis is always needed whenever people have difference of opinions. In a conflict situation, there is always an uncertainty about agreement, neutrality and disagreement among agents. In such situations, the main problem is that how to find a way to model uncertainty.
Applications of rough set theory in case of conflict analysis is introduced by Pawlak in [30] where he discussed a mathematical formulation of conflict situations based on three binary relations, that is, agreement, disagreement and neutrality, and given the axioms for agreement and disagreement relations. He also introduced a conflict graph model by representing the conflict situation with discernibility. Regarding conflict problem using rough sets, the model introduced by Deja [7] is an extension of the model proposed by Pawlak by adding to the model some local aspects of conflicts. Subsequently Deja put forward three basic questions which are related to conflict analysis model: “What are the intrinsic reasons for the conflict?”, “How can a feasible consensus strategy be found?” and “Is it possible to satisfy all the agents?”
The concept of dominance based rough sets which are initiated by Greco et al. [11–13, 15] extended the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation by taking into account the preference order in value sets of criteria. Many extended models of the dominance based rough set approach have been proposed (see [4, 36]). The hybridization of dominance based rough set approach and other mathematical tools have been created and applied to multi criteria decision analysis (see [3, 36]).
Molodtsov’s soft set theory [27] was proposed as a general mathematical tool to deal with uncertainty. The rational behind soft sets is founded on the idea of parameterization, which suggests that complicated objects should be perceived from various points of view. Maji et al. introduced several algebraic operations in soft set theory and examined their basic properties [25]. Ali et al. [1] proposed some new operations in soft set theory to further consolidate the algebraic basis of soft sets. In recent years, some hybrid uncertain models occur, e.g. fuzzy rough sets, fuzzy soft sets, rough soft sets, soft rough sets, soft rough fuzzy sets and soft fuzzy rough sets, to handle the uncertainty [9, 37]. It is noted that all these hybrid systems have their own benefits and drawbacks.
Classical rough set theory can only deal with complete data sets. However, in many real world data sets, it may happen that some attribute values of an object are missing. For example, some measurement data of a patient in the clinical data set are missing, since the expense or difficulty of obtaining certain results. An information system with missing values is called an incomplete information system [21, 22]. A simple way of handling such systems is to transform the incomplete information system into a complete one, of which missing values can be deleted or filled with some values. However, the main disadvantage of this way is that some main information may be lost. Recently, extended rough set models have been developed to handle incomplete information systems directly without any preprocessing. Kryszkiewicz [21] defined the tolerance relation in incomplete information systems, and proposed the concepts of generalized decision and relative reduct.
The decision problem we consider, like the example of the Middle East conflict [30], is a problem of multi-criteria and multi-decision with preference group decision making. Classically, it is extension of the multiple criteria decision analysis problems such as multiple criteria classification with imprecise evaluations and assignments [8], multi attribute dominance fuzzy decision problems, multiple attribute dominance stochastic evaluation problems, multiple criteria group decision and so on [38]. Sun and Ma in [35], transform the multi-agent conflict decision making problem into a multi decision with preference group decision making problem and then gives a new approach to solve it by establishing and using a multi-decision preference dominance based rough set model.
Inspired by the idea of dominance based rough set approach to group decision making theory given by Greco et al. [14], as well as the study of the work by Chakhar and Saad [5], our objective is to consider a kind of multiple attribute (criteria) choice or ranking problem with multiple decisions (or the multiple criteria group decision problem), in which the decision attribute has a different preference description for each action, as in the Middle East example. For this kind of multiple attribute choice problem with multiple decision agents, the original definition of Pawlak rough set, which involves the relation of indiscernibility to identify granules of objects used to build lower and upper approximations, could not handle the evaluation of every action according to the multiple decision preference. Based on the dominance-based rough set approach [33], with two dominance relations, Sun and Ma defined one on the conditional attribute and the other on the decision attribute. Then, they present the lower and upper approximations of the dominance classes determined by the multiple decision attribute of each action using the dominance classes determined by the multiple attribute. Thus they tried to answer Deja’s questions related to conflict analysis problems. But still there are many areas for critics, for example “What are the intrinsic reasons for the conflict?” means what issues are focused by every agent and have different attitudes in a conflict, i.e., the core causes of the conflict. Another infirmity in Sun’s technique is that, it does not answer the question “Is it possible to satisfy all the agents?” One can neutrally asks the following interesting question: Is it possible to address/answer the aforesaid questions in the incomplete information systems?
In the present paper: (i) we present the idea of soft preference and soft dominance relation in an incomplete information system to solve a multi agent conflict analysis problem and tried to answer Deja’s first question in a best manner which is related to conflict analysis; (ii) another worth mentioning contribution of the present paper is that to define two types of approximations and applied these to discussed various properties of the approximations in an incomplete information system; (iii) another worth mentioning contribution of this paper is to disclose the ideas of two kinds of approximate precision, rough degree, approximate quality and their mutual relationship.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2, deals mainly with the problem statement. In Section 3, we present the idea of soft preference and soft dominance relations in an incomplete information system to solve a multi agent conflict analysis labor-management negotiations problem. In Section 4, highlights the study of core cause of conflict analysis. In Section 5, our attention is concentrated on the development of feasible consensus strategy for labor-management negotiation conflict analysis problem based on soft dominance rough sets in an incomplete information system. In addition, several uncertainty measures, such as approximate precision, rough degree, approximate quality, and their mutual relationships are discussed in an incomplete information system.
Problem statement
The incomplete multiple decision problems with preference relations have been studied in this paper. In general these may be the incomplete multi criteria group decision problems or incomplete multi criteria and incomplete multi decision with preference choice problem. It comprises of two parts, the first is the incomplete multi criteria with predefined evaluations for every action and the other is the incomplete multi decision with a predefined preference for every action. An incomplete decision problem may be considered as an S∗ = (A, C, D, E), where A is a finite set of actions ai, C is a finite set of conditional attributes Cj, D is a finite set of decision attributes Dk, and E is a finite set of the domain for the information functions f (ai, Cj) and g (ai, Dk) . In this article, the values of both information functions f (ai, Cj) and g (ai, Dk) are integers. The value of f (ai, Cj) describes the evaluation of action ai based on criterion Cj and the value of g (ai, Dk) describes the evaluation of action ai by the decision maker Dk . That is, it describes the preference of decision maker Dk for action ai . Predominantly speaking, the greater the value of g (ai, Dk) , the greater the preference for action ai by decision maker Dk . It may happen that some attribute values of an action are missing. To indicate such a situation, a distinguished value is often assigned. We denote special symbol “∗” to indicate the missing attribute value. For an information system, if there exist ai ∈ A, Cj ∈ C and Dk ∈ D such that f (ai, Cj) =∗ or g (ai, Dk) = ∗ .
In order to show the incomplete decision problem clearly, an example of a conflict situation for labor-managment negotiations is presented in Table 1.There are five issues (conditionalattributes) and four agents (decisionattributes) with twelve feasible actions A ={ ai : i = 1, 2,. . . , 12 }. The issues may be C1 = employees incomes, C2 = working conditions, C3 = factory profits, C4 = housing facility and C5 = children education, while D1, D2, D3 and D4 are decision makers to handle the conflict situation for labor-managment negotiations. The association of the integers are defined as follows: 0-small (orbad) , 1-medium (oraverage) , 2-high (orgood), 3-highest (or excellent).
Incomplete multi criteria and multi decision information table
A
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
D1
D2
D3
D4
a1
1
0
1
∗
2
2
∗
1
∗
a2
1
∗
1
1
2
1
3
0
1
a3
1
0
2
0
2
3
1
0
3
a4
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
∗
2
a5
∗
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
1
a6
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
a7
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
a8
1
2
∗
0
2
0
∗
0
2
a9
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
∗
a10
1
2
0
0
∗
∗
3
0
3
a11
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
a12
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Table 1 describe the incomplete multi attribute and incomplete multi decision makers with preference for making a decision in the case of labor-management negotiations conflict problem.
Proposed conflict analysis model
We present the idea of soft preference and soft dominance relation in an incomplete information system to solve a multi-agent conflict analysis problem.
According to Deja [6], the conflict analysis decision task is proposed into three problems. In the present paper, we initiate the notion of soft preference and soft dominance relation and applied these to solve the problems/questions posed by Deja.
Let be an outranking relation on a universe A with reference to criteria Cj ∈ C such that aiCjaj which means “ai is at least as good as aj with respect to criteria Cj .” Suppose that is a complete preorder, We employed dominance relation for the study of the problem as follows: denote ai ≽ aj by f (ai, Cj) ≥ f (aj, Cj) according to increasing preference, where Cj ∈ C and ai, aj ∈ A . For any subset of the conditional attributes , means that ai ≽ Cjaj for all that is, ai dominates aj with respect to all attributes in The intersection of complete preorders is a partial preorder and the dominance relation is a partial preorder.
Definition 1. A pair is called a soft set over a set A, where C is a set of parameters and is a set valued mapping, where is the set of all subsets of A .
Definition 2.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with multi decisions information system and be a set valued mapping from C to where C denotes the set of parameters or attributes and the set of all subsets of A × A . If is a preference relation for all Cj ∈ C then is called a soft preference relation corresponding to the decision attributes where
Denote am ≽ an by (am, an). In an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system we answer to the first question of Deja’s which is related to conflict analysis model, that is, “What are the intrinsic reasons for the conflict?” This means what issues are focussed by every agent or feasible action and have different attitudes in a conflict corresponding to a specific decision maker. For any issue Cj ∈ C, we obtain attitude information for every agent with respect to issue Cj ∈ C by using which is a preference relation corresponding to decision maker Dk, where and Thus we have answered the first question of Deja’s which is related to conflict analysis model.
Definition 3. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and be a soft preference relation corresponding to the decision attributes over A . Then there is dominance relation associated with which can be denoted by and is defined by:
where and It is worth mentioning that in an incomplete information system the depicts that which agent(s) is/are preferred by decision maker (Dk) on all criteria by other agents.
Definition 4. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and {} be a family of soft dominance relations over A . Then there exists a soft dominance relation such that
In a similar fashion, family of dominance relations shows which of the agent(s) preferred on all criteria by all decision maker(s). But still we do not have sufficient information about the agent(s) on which all decision maker(s) are agreed. So by Deja’s second question which is related to conflict analysis, “How can a feasible consensus strategy be found”? This means that to find feasible alternative(s) on which all the optimal decision makers agreed or at least suboptimal decision makers. If all the decision makers don’t agree on any feasible alternative(s), then in order to develop feasible consensus strategy some authors remove certain decision maker(s) from the information system (e.g. see [35]).
Example 1. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. For the labor-mangement negotiations conflict situation, with five issues Cj where and four agents Dk,. The system comprises of twelve feasible alternatives ai, pre-established by experts or obtained by other approaches and that every agent has given its preference in advance for every feasible action. The results are presented in Table 1 . Construct soft preference relations for the conditional attributes corresponding to decision attributes, corresponding to D1, similarly corresponding to D2 and so on from the given incomplete information system Applying Definition 4 to construct soft dominance relations.
Finally we get
Core cause of conflict analysis
In [2] it has been seen that there is a very close relationship between soft sets and rough sets. So it is natural to ask, “Can we develop a method of reduction of parameters for soft sets as we do in case of rough sets for attribute reduction without loosing important information?” The present paper aims to initiate another concept of reduction of parameters/attributes in the multi-attributes with multi-decisions incomplete information system based on soft dominance relation. For more clarification we present:
Discernibility matrix and discernibility function for multi-attributes with multi-decisions in incomplete information system
In this subsection, a method based on the discernibility matrix and discernibility function is proposed for decision attribute reduction to find all the reducts in the multi-attributes with multi-decisions in an incomplete information system D, E).
Definition 5. Let be a multi-attributes with multi-decisions incomplete information system. We present the discernibility matrix based approach to compute all the decision reducts in , for ai, aj ∈ A and
Definition 6. Let be a multi-attributes with multi-decisions incomplete information system, a discernibility function f of the system can be defined by
where is the disjunction of all attribute in indicating that the object pair (ai, aj) can be distinguished by any attribute in is the conjunction of all indicating that the family of discernible objects pair can be distinguished by a set of attributes satisfying
Example 2. (Continued from Example 1) For the reduction of decision attributes in multi-criteria and multi-decision incomplete information system applying the Definitions 5 and 6. Thus we can get the following Table 2 .
The discernibility matrix for reduction of decision attributes
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
a10
a11
a12
a1
∅
∅
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a2
∅
D
D4
D
D
D4
D
a3
D3
D
∅
D
D
D
a4
D
D
D
∅
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a5
D
D
∅
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a6
D1
∅
D
D
D
D
D
D
a7
∅
D2
D4
∅
∅
∅
∅
D
D
D
D
D
a8
D
D1
∅
D
D
∅
D
D3
D
a9
∅
D2
D
∅
∅
D
D
∅
∅
D2
D4
a10
D
D
D
∅
D
D
D
∅
D
∅
D
D
a11
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
∅
D
a12
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D3
∅
From the discernibility matrix, we can construct the discernibility function as follows:
By applying the absorption laws, we find that {D1, D2, D3, D4} is the reduct of the incomplete information system .
Definition 7. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and be a soft dominance relation. For a ∈ A, define the soft dominance classes by
and
which represent -k-dominating set and -k-dominated set with respect to a, over the set of conditional attributes C corresponding to the decision attributes Dk, of respectively. describes the set of objects that dominate a and describes the set of objects that dominated by a in terms of
We now discuss some properties and applications of -k-dominating. Where
and
Theorem 1.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and be a soft dominance relation corresponding to over A . Then the following hold:
(1) If C1 ⊆ C, then
(2) If then
(3)
(4) iff f (am, Cj) = f (an, Cj) or f (am, Cj) =∗ or f (an, Cj) =∗ and g (am, Dk) = g (an, Dk) or g (am, Dk) =∗ or g (an, Dk) =∗ for all Cj ∈ C and Dk ∈ D .
Proof. The proof is straightforward.□
Definition 8. Let be an incomplete information system. For any X ⊆ A, the approximate accuracy and of X about and are defined by
and
It is routine to verify that and . For any X, Y ⊆ A, the following properties hold:
(1) if and only if
(2) if and only if
(3)
(4)
(5) If X ⊆ Y, then
(6) and for every a ∈ A,
(7)
Analogous properties also hold in the case of
Method for finding rank of feasible alternatives
In the present section we propose a new technique of ranking the feasible alternative in an incomplete information system .
Definition 9. Let be an incomplete information system. The soft dominance degree between ai and aj with respect to and is defined by
and
Clearly and Furthermore following properties hold:
(1) If then
(2) If then
(3) If then for all z ∈ A .
Obviously, one can construct soft dominance relation matrices with respect to and From these matrices, the whole soft dominance degree of each object is defined by
and
Example 3. (Continued from Example 1) For the ranking of feasible alternative in a multi-criteria and multi-decision incomplete information system the soft dominance classes from are given in the following Table 3:
Dominating classes and Dominated classes
ai
a1
{a1, a7, a9}
{a1, a2}
a2
{a1,a2}
{a2}
a3
{a3}
{a3}
a4
{a4, a7, a9, a10}
{a4}
a5
{a5, a7, a8, a9}
{a5}
a6
{a6, a7}
{a6}
a7
{a7}
{a1, a4, a5,a6, a7}
a8
{a8, a9, a10}
{a5, a8}
a9
{a9}
{a1, a4, a5, a8, a9}
a10
{a10}
{a4, a8, a10}
a11
{a11}
{a11}
a12
{a12}
{a12}
It is seen that the dominance classes in do not constitute a partition of A, rather a covering of A . The soft dominance degree is given by
In a similar manner we can find all i, j = 1, 2,. . . , 12 . The soft dominance relation matrix with respect to is
Furthermore, = 0.951, and (a12) = 0.923 . Thus we achieve the following soft dominating ranking:
The feasible consensus strategy for multi-criteria and multi-decision in incomplete information system is developed with the help of raking (softdominatingranking) which is a novel idea. Thus from the soft dominating ranking, actions a7 and a9 are feasible alternatives for solving this conflict analysis problem, on which all agents have agreed in the incomplete conflict situation The result shows that there is an optimal alternative (actions a7 and a9) which satisfy all agents in the incomplete conflict situation Thus a feasible consensus strategy is developed.
Definition 10. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then for any X ⊆ A the lower and upper approximations with respect to and are:
The lower approximation , is composed of all objects a from A such that all objects ai, having at least the same evaluations on all of the considered criteria from C, also belong to X . Thus one can say that if an object ai has at least as good in evaluation on the criteria from C as the object a belonging to then certainly, ai belongs to X . The upper approximation is made up of all objects a from A whose evaluation on the criteria from C are not worse than the evaluation of at least one other object ai belonging to X . If then it is called soft dominating definable, otherwise soft dominating rough set, where
If then it is called soft dominated definable, otherwise soft dominated rough set.
Theorem 2.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then for any X, Y ⊆ A :
(1)
(2)
(3) =
(4) X ⊆ Y implies
(5) X ⊆ Y implies
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Proof. Follows from the respective definitions.□
Theorem 3.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then for any X ⊆ A :
(1)
(2)
Theorem 4. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then for any X ⊆ A :
(1)
(2)
Theorem 5.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then for any X ⊆ A :
(1)
(2)
Proof. (1) For any , it follows that Which implies that This implies that Hence Therefore
(2) For any it follows that We have This implies that Hence Therefore □
The following theorems give a connection between topology and soft dominating/dominated definable sets.
Theorem 6.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then the collection of soft dominating definable sets form a topology on A .
Theorem 7.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then the collection of soft dominated definable set form a topology on A .
Definition 11. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. For any X ⊆ A, the approximate precisions and of X about and are defined as:
where X ≠ ∅ , and | · | denotes the cardinality of a set.
Let and then and are called the rough degrees of X about and respectively.
By definition and It can be seen that if and only if . Similarly and .
The following theorems describe the relationship of the precisions and (X) also rough degrees and about the intersection and union of any sets X and Y on the universe A .
Theorem 8.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and X, Y ⊆ A . Then the rough degree and precision of the sets X, Y, X ∪ Y and X ∩ Y satisfy the following relations.
Theorem 9.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and X, Y ⊆ A . Then the precision of the sets X, Y, X ∪ Y and X ∩ Y satisfy the following relations.
Definition 12. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. For any X ⊆ A, the approximate quality and of X about and are defined as Follows:
Clearly and
The following theorem illustrate the relationship between rough degree and approximate quality about the intersection and union of sets X and Y on the universe A .
Theorem 10.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and X, Y ⊆ A . Then the approximate quality of the sets X, Y, X ∪ Y and X ∩ Y satisfy the following relations.
The following theorem highlights the relationship between approximate precision and approximate quality about the intersection and union of two sets.
Theorem 11. {Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and X, Y ⊆ A . Then the approximate quality and precision of the sets X, Y, X ∪ Y and X ∩ Y satisfy the following relations.
Definition 13. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and X, Y ⊆ A . Then
X and Y are called lower soft dominating rough equal if , denoted as X≂Y .
X and Yare called upper soft dominating rough equal if denoted as X ≃ Y .
X and Yare called soft dominating rough equal
if and , denoted as X ≈ Y .
Proposition 1.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. Then the relations ≂, ≃ and ≈ are equivalence relation.
The lower approximations table
Xk
X1
{a1, a2, a3, a4, a6, a12}
X2
X3
{a1, a6, a7, a9, a11, a12}
{a4, a6, a11, a12}
X4
Theorem 12.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. For any X, Y, X∼, Y∼ ⊆ A, the following properties hold:
(1) X≂Y if and only if (X ∩ Y) ≂X and (X ∩ Y) ≂Y,
(2) X ≃ Y if and only if (X ∪ Y) ≂X and (X ∪ Y) ≂Y,
(3) If X≂X∼ and Y≂Y∼, then (X ∩ Y) ≂ (X∼ ∩ Y∼) ,
(4) If X ≃ X∼ and Y ≃ Y∼, then (X ∪ Y) ≃ (X∼ ∪ Y∼) ,
(5) If X≂Y, then X ∩ (∼Y) ≂ ∅ ,
(6) If X ≃ Y, then X ∪ (∼Y) ≃ A,
(7) If X≂∅ or Y≂ ∅ , then X ∩ Y≂ ∅ ,
(8) If X ≃ A or Y ≃ A, then X ∪ Y ≃ A .
Definition 14. Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system and X, Y ⊆ A . Then
X and Y are called lower soft dominated rough equal if It is denoted by X≂Y .
X and Y are called upper soft dominated rough equal if It is denoted by X ≃ Y .
Set X and Y are called soft dominated rough equal if and . It is denoted by X ≈ Y .
Theorem 13.Let be an incomplete multi attributes with incomplete multi decisions information system. For any X, Y, X∼, Y∼ ⊆ A, the following properties hold:
(1) X≂Y if and only if (X ∩ Y) ≂X and (X∩ Y) ≂Y ;
(2) X ≃ Y if and only if (X ∪ Y) ≂X and (X∪ Y) ≂Y ;
(3) If X≂X∼ and Y≂Y∼, then (X∩ Y) ≂ (X∼ ∩ Y∼) ;
(4) If X ≃ X∼ and Y ≃ Y∼, then (X∪ Y) ≃ (X∼ ∪ Y∼) ;
(5) If X≂Y, then X∩ (∼Y) ≂ ∅ ;
(6) If X ≃ Y, then X∪ (∼Y) ≃ A ;
(7) If X≂∅ or Y≂ ∅ , then X∩ Y≂ ∅ ;
(8) If X ≃ A or Y ≃ A, then X ∪ Y ≃ A .
To develop the feasible consensus strategy among the agents on feasible alternative(s) and to respond the questions (ii) and (iii) of Deja, we develop the following algorithm utilizing the notion of soft dominance multi-granulation approximations.
Proposed algorithm for conflict analysis model
Input: Information system
Step 1 : Construct corresponding to the Dk for all // according to Definition 2;
Step 2 : Construct for all according to Definition;
Step 3 : Construct // according to Definition 4;
Step 4 : Construct and // according to Definition 10, where Xk ={ a ∈ A : g (a, Dk) ≠0 } ;
Step 5 : If then or otherwise
Step 6 :
go to output.
Otherwise,
go back to step 6 .
Output: Feasible alternative(s) for feasible consensus strategy.
Time complexity of the algorithm
The time complexity of the algorithm is O (4n + i (k - i)) .
Example 4. (Continued from Example 1) For selecting the feasible alternative for feasible consensus strategy, utilizing the above algorithm we have:
Decision table
δk
δ1
{a7, a9, a10}
δ2
{a7}
δ3
{a1, a7, a9}
δ4
{a7}
From Table 4 and Table 5, we get δ = { a7 } . Thus action a7 is the feasible alternative for solving this conflict analysis problem, on which all agents have agreed in the conflict situation That is, we find a feasible consensus strategy which satisfy all the agents. So we not only show whether there exists an optimal alternative (action a7) that satisfy all agents, but also present a method to find the consensus for a given conflict situation. Therefore we answered the second and third questions posed by Deja [6] for the classical Pawlak conflict analysis decision making model of [30].
Novelty and Advantages
(i) The proposed model answer questions posed by Deja.
(ii) Another advantage of the proposed model is that, it can be used for ranking the feasible alternatives simpler than other existing technique/models.
(iii) The proposed model can be used for reduction of attributes.
(iv) Using the proposed model, one can find two types of rough degree, precision and approximate quality and their relationship.
(v) As a real world application, the proposed model can be applied to solve the problem of Middle East conflict analysis problem, determining the governor election results in Indonesia, selection process at university level, for selection of appropriate medicine for a disease.
(vi) The proposed model can be applied to Sun’s problem.
Conclusion
This paper presents the idea of soft preference and soft dominance relation in an incomplete information system to solve a multi agent conflict analysis for labor management negotiations problem. We have developed a feasible consensus strategy for labor management negotiations conflict analysis problem based on soft dominance rough sets in an incomplete information system. Further, this paper, several uncertainty measures, such as approximate precision, rough degree, approximate quality, and their mutual relationships are presented and discussed in an incomplete information system.
References
1.
M.I.Ali, F.Feng, X.Y.Liu, W.K.Min and M.Shabir, On some new operations in soft set theory, Comput Math Appl57 (2009), 1547–1553.
2.
M.I.Ali, A note on soft sets, rough sets and fuzzy soft sets, Appl Soft Comput11 (2011), 3329–3332.
3.
S.Aydin, C.Kahraman and I.Kaya, A new fuzzy multicriteria decision making approach: An application for European quality award assessment, Knowl Based Syst32 (2012), 37–46.
4.
J.Braszczynski, S.Greco, R.Slowinski and M.Szelag, Monotonic variable consistency rough set approaches, Int J Approx Reason20 (2009), 979–999.
5.
S.Chakhar and I.Saad, Dominance-based rough set approach for groups in multicriteria classification problems, Dec Sup Syst54(1) (2012), 372–380.
6.
R.Deja, Conflict model with negotiation, Bull Polish Acad Sci, Tec Sci44(4) (1996), 475–498.
7.
Deja, Conflict analysis, Int J Intell Syst17 (2002), 235–253.
8.
R.K.Dembczynski, S.Greco and R.Slowinski, Rough set approach to multiple criteria classification with imprecise evaluations and assignments, Eur J Oper Res198 (2009), 626–636.
9.
F.Feng, C.Li, B.Davvaz and M.I.Ali, Soft sets combined with fuzzy sets and rough sets: A tentative approach, Soft Comput14(9) (2010), 899–911.
10.
F.Feng, X.Y.Liu, F.Leoreanu-Fotea and Y.B.Jun, Soft sets and soft rough sets, Inorm Sci181 (6) (2011), 1125–1137.
11.
S.Greco, B.Matarazzo and R.Slowinski, Rough approximation of a preference relation by dominance relations, Eur J Oper Res117 (1999), 63–83.
12.
S.Greco, B.Matarazzo and R.Slowinski, Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis, Eur J Oper Res129 (2001), 1–47.
13.
S.Greco, B.Matarazzo and R.Slowinski, Rough sets methodology for sorting problems in presence of multiple attributes and criteria, Eur J Oper Res138(2) (2002), 247–259.
14.
S.Greco, B.Matarazzo and R.Slowinski, Dominance-based rough set approach to decision involving a plurality of decision makers, in: S.Grecoet al.(Eds.), Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, LNAI 4259 Springer Berlin, 2006, pp. 306–317.
15.
S.Greco, R.Slowinski and P.Zielniewicz, Putting dominance-based rough set approach and robust ordinal regression together, Dec Sup Syst54(2) (2013), 891–903.
16.
B.Huang, Graded dominance interval-based fuzzy objective information systems, Knowl Based Syst24(7) (2011), 1004–1012.
17.
B.Huang, H.X.Li and D.K.Wei, Dominance-based rough set model in intuitionistic fuzzy information systems, Knowl Based Syst28 (2012), 15–123.
18.
J.Hu and X.H.Chen, Multi-criteria decision making method based on dominance relation and variable precision rough set, Syst Eng Electr32(4) (2010), 59–763.
19.
M.Inuiguchi, Y.Yoshioka and Y.Kusunoki, Variable-precision dominance based rough set approach and attribute reduction, Int J Approx Reason20 (2009), 1199–1214.
20.
W.Kotlwski, K.Dembczynski, S.Greco and R.Slowinski, Stochastic dominance-based rough set model for ordinal classification, Inform Sci178 (2008), 4019–4037.
21.
M.Kryszkiewicz, Rough set approach to incomplete information systems, Inform Sci112 (1998), 39–49.
22.
Y.Leung and D.Y.Li, Maximal consistent block technique for rule acquisition in incomplete information systems, Inform Sci153 (2003), 85–106.
23.
S.Y.Li and T.R.Li, Incremental update of approximations in dominance-based rough sets approach under the variation of attribute values, Inform Sci294 (2015), 348–361.
24.
P.Lingras, M.Chen and D.Q.Miao, Qualitative and quantitative combinations of crisp and rough clustering schemes using dominance relations, Int J Approx Reason55 (2014), 238–258.
25.
P.K.Maji, R.Biswas and A.R.Roy, Soft set theory, Comput Math Appl45 (2003), 555–562.
26.
D.Meng, X.Zhang and K.Qin, Soft rough fuzzy sets and soft fuzzy rough sets, Comput Math Appl62(12) (2011), 4635–4645.
27.
D.Molodtsov, Soft set theory-First results, Comput Math Appl37 (1999), 19–31.
28.
N.T.Nguyen, Consensus system for solving conflicts in distributed system, Inform Sci1-4(147) (2002), 91–122.
29.
Z.Pawlak, Rough set, Int J Comput Inform Sci11 (1982), 341–356.
30.
Z.Pawlak, An inquiry into anatomy of conflicts, J Inform Sci109 (1998), 65–68.
31.
W.Pedrycz, Granular Computing: Analysis and Design of Intelligent Systems, CRC Press/Francis Taylor, Boca Raton, 2013.
32.
W.Pedrycz, Allocation of information granularity in optimization and decision-making models: Towards building the foundations of granular computing, Eur J Oper Res232 (2014), 137–145.
33.
A.Skowron, S.Ramanna and J.Peters, Confict analysis and information systems: A rough set approach, in: G.Wanget al.(Eds.), RSKT2006, LNAI, 4062, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 233–240.
34.
B.Sun and W.Ma, Soft fuzzy rough sets and its application in decision making, Artif Intell Rev41(1) (2014), 67–80.
35.
B.Sun and W.Ma, Rough approximation of a preference relation by multi-decision dominance for a multi-agent conflict analysis problem, Inform Sci315 (2015), 39–53.
36.
X.B.Yang, Y.Qi, D.J.Yu, H.L.Yu and J.Y.Yang, α-Dominance relation and rough sets in interval-valued information systems, Inform Sci294 (2015), 334–347.
37.
J.Zhan and K.Zhu, A novel soft rough fuzzy set: Z-soft rough fuzzy ideals of hemirings and corresponding decision making, Soft Comput21(8) (2017), 1923–1936.
38.
Z.Zaras, Rough approximation of a preference relation by a multi-attribute dominance for deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy decision problems stochastic and fuzzy decision problems, Eur J Oper Res159 (2004), 196–206.