Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-granular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Three-Way Decision Model Based on the Risk Preference Outranking Relation

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As an important extension of decision-theoretic rough sets, three-way decision theory provides a new perspective for people to deal with uncertain problems. However, the traditional multi-granularity decision-theoretic rough sets model has limited ability in describing the risk preferences of decision-makers and the processing of intuitionistic fuzzy information. In addition, as far as we know, most of the risk loss functions in existing studies are based on utility theory. However, the complete compensability between attributes is not always true, and this fact may lead to inconsistencies between the final calculated results and the actual situation. We propose a multi-granular intuitionistic fuzzy three-way decision model based on the risk preference outranking relation. In this scenario, we first define the outranking relation on the intuitionistic fuzzy set and fuse it for the purpose of risk preference calculation. Next, starting from the single granularity, the relations between the membership outranking relation class, the nonmembership outranking relation class, and the rough approximation are analyzed, and the related properties are proven. Then, the single granularity is extended to construct the multi-granular intuitionistic fuzzy decision-theoretic rough sets and their corresponding three-way decision model. Furthermore, by systematically studying the decision loss costs of optimistic and pessimistic states, three-way decision rules are induced. The rationality and effectiveness of our proposed model are verified through a case study analysis and comparisons with existing methods. The results show that our proposed model can quantitatively analyze and calculate the uncertainty of decision-makers’ cognitive risk preferences, achieve global control of the decision-making process, and reduce the loss of decision-making costs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

RS:

Rough set

Pos:

Positive

Neg:

Negative

Bnd:

Boundary

DTRSs:

Decision-theoretic rough sets

3WD:

Three-way decision

TAO:

Trisecting-acting-outcome

IF3WD:

Intuitionistic fuzzy three-way decision

OR:

Outranking relation

MGIF:

Multi-granular intuitionistic fuzzy

OMGRS:

Optimistic multi-granular rough set

PMGRS:

Pessimistic multi-granular rough set

MOR:

Membership-OR

NOR:

Nonmembership-OR

IOR:

Intuitionistic-OR

RL:

Risk lover

RA:

Risk aversion

RN:

Risk neutral

IFSMR:

Intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measurement reasoning

IFMADM:

Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making

References

  1. Pawlak ZA. Rough sets. Int J Comput Inform Sci. 1982;11(5):341–56.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang K, Zhan J, Wu W. Novel fuzzy rough set models and corresponding applications to multi-criteria decision-making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2020;383:92–126.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Kong Q, Xu W. The comparative study of covering rough sets and multi-granulation rough sets. Soft Comput. 2019;23(10):3237–51.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Yao Y, Wong SKM, Lingras P. A decision-theoretic rough set model. Metho for Intell Sys. 1990;5:17–24.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Yao Y. Three-way decision: an interpretation of rules in rough set theory. In: International Conference on Rough Sets and Knowledge Technology. 2009. pp. 642–649.

  6. Yao Y. Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inf Sci. 2010;180:341–52.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Yao Y. The superiority of three-way decisions in probabilistic rough set models. Inf Sci. 2011;180:1080–96.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Xin X, Song J, Xue Z, Peng W. Intuitionistic fuzzy three-way formal concept analysis based attribute correlation degree. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2021;40(1):1567–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Li Z, Xie N, Huang D, Zhang G. A three-way decision method in a hybrid decision information system and its application in medical diagnosis. Artif Intell Rev. 2020;53(7):4707–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li Z, Zhang P, Xie N, Wen C. A novel three-way decision method in a hybrid information system with images and its application in medical diagnosis. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2020;92:103651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang B, Li J. Complex network analysis of three-way decision researches. Int J Mach Learn Cyb. 2020;11(5):973–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sun B, Ma W, Xiao X. Three-way group decision making based on multigranulation fuzzy decision-theoretic rough set over two universes. Int J Approx Reason. 2017;81:87–102.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Pan R, Wang X, Yi C, Zhang Z, Fan Y, Bao W. Multi-objective optimization method for thresholds learning and neighborhood computing in a neighborhood based decision-theoretic rough set model. Neurocomputing. 2017;266:619–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Liang D, Xu Z, Liu D, Wu Y. Method for three-way decisions using ideal TOPSIS solutions at Pythagorean fuzzy information. Inf Sci. 2018;435:282–95.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Yao Y. A triarchic theory of granular computing. Granul Comput. 2016;1(2):145–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yao Y. Three-way decision and granular computing. Int J Approx Reason. 2018;103:107–23.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Xin X, Song J, Peng W. Intuitionistic fuzzy three-way decision model based on the three-way granular computing method. Symmetry. 2020;12(7):1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang X, Li T, Liu D, Fujita H. A temporal-spatial composite sequential approach of three-way granular computing. Inf Sci. 2019;486:171–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Xue Z, Zhao L, Sun L, Zhang M, Xue T. Three-way decision models based on multigranulation support intuitionistic fuzzy rough sets. Int J Approx Reason. 2020;124:147–72.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Ma W, Lei W, Sun B. Three-way group decisions based on multigranulation hesitant fuzzy decision-theoretic rough set over two universes. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2020;38(2):2165–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li J, Huang C, Qi J, Qian Y, Liu W. Three-way cognitive concept learning via multi-granularity. Inf Sci. 2017;378:244–63.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Li Y, Zhang L, Xu Y, Yao Y, Lau RYK, Wu Y. Enhancing binary classification by modeling uncertain boundary in three-way decisions. Ieee T Knowl Data En. 2017;29(7):1438–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yu H, Wang X, Wang G, et al. An active three-way clustering method via low-rank matrices for multi-view data. Inf Sci. 2020;507:823–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Qian J, Dang C, Yue X, Zhang N. Attribute reduction for sequential three-way decisions under dynamic granulation. Int J Approx Reason. 2017;85:196–216.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Yao Y. Three-way decisions and cognitive computing. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(4):543–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang Q, Xie Q, Wang G. A novel three-way decision model with decision-theoretic rough sets using utility theory. Knowl-Based Syst. 2018;159:321–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Azam N, Zhang Y, Yao J. Evaluation functions and decision conditions of three-way decisions with game-theoretic rough sets. Eur J Oper Res. 2017;261(2):704–14.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Roy B. Problems and methods with multiple objective functions. Math Program. 1971;1(1):239–66.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhan J, Jiang H, Yao Y. Three-way multi-attribute decision-making based on outranking relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3007423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yao Y. Probabilistic approaches to rough sets. Expert Syst. 2003;20(5):287–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Qian Y, Zhang H, Sang Y, Liang J. Multigranulation decision-theoretic rough sets. Int J Approx Reason. 2014;55(2):225–37.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Qian Y, Li S, Liang J, Shi Z, Wang F. Pessimistic rough set based decisions: A multigranulation fusion strategy. Inf Sci. 2014;264:196–210.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Atanassov KT. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986;20(1):87–96.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Yukalov VI, Sornette D. Quantitative predictions in quantum decision theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 2018;48(3):366–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yao Y, Wong SKM. A decision theoretic framework for approximating concepts. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1992;37:793–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang Y, Liu S, Niu W, Liu K, Liao Y. Threat assessment method based on intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measurement reasoning with orientation. China Commun. 2014;11(6):119–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gao Y, Li D, Zhong H. A novel target threat assessment method based on three-way decisions under intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making environment. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2020;87:103276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Editor-in-Chief, editor, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 61877004 and No. 62007004), the Major Program of National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 18ZDA295), and the Doctoral Interdisciplinary Foundation Project of Beijing Normal University (Grant No. BNUXKJC1925).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China

    Xian-wei Xin, Ji-hua Song, Jing-bo Sun & Wei-ming Peng

  2. College of Computer and Information Engineering, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China

    Zhan-ao Xue

Authors
  1. Xian-wei Xin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ji-hua Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhan-ao Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jing-bo Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei-ming Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

X.X.: data curation, investigation, resources, software, writing—original draft. J.S.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, writing—review and editing. Z.X., J.S., and W.P.: formal analysis, project administration, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ji-hua Song.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xin, Xw., Song, Jh., Xue, Za. et al. Multi-granular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Three-Way Decision Model Based on the Risk Preference Outranking Relation. Cogn Comput 14, 1826–1843 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09888-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09888-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation