IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v286y2020i1p282-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multicriteria approach based on rough set theory for the incremental Periodic prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Bouzayane, Sarra
  • Saad, Inès

Abstract

This paper proposes a Multicriteria Approach for the Incremental Periodic Prediction (MAI2P). This approach is periodically applied while considering the sequential evolution of the dynamic information system under the variation of the set of actions in an ever-evolving learning sample. It is based on the Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA) and consists of three phases. The first aims at constructing a decision table and is based on three steps: (1) constructing a representative learning sample of “Actions of reference”, (2) constructing a coherent criteria family for the actions’ characterization and (3) building a decision table. The second consists in an incremental updating of the DRSA approximations in order to infer a preference model resulting in a set of decision rules. The third consists of classifying the potential actions in one of the predefined decision classes. The first two phases run at the end of the current period and the third phase runs at the beginning of the next period. The approach MAI2P has been applied in the context of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). It has been validated on a French MOOC proposed by a Business School in France. Experiments showed that the pessimistic cumulative approach gives the most efficient preference model with an F-measure and an accuracy values reaching 0.66 and 0.89 respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Bouzayane, Sarra & Saad, Inès, 2020. "A multicriteria approach based on rough set theory for the incremental Periodic prediction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 282-298.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:286:y:2020:i:1:p:282-298
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2020.03.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221720302381
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.03.024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    2. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Yang, Jian-bo, 2015. "A group decision-making approach based on evidential reasoning for multiple criteria sorting problem with uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 858-873.
    3. Edward I. Altman, 1968. "Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis And The Prediction Of Corporate Bankruptcy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 589-609, September.
    4. Beccali, M. & Cellura, M. & Mistretta, M., 2003. "Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 2063-2087.
    5. Ryu, Young U. & Chandrasekaran, R. & Jacob, Varghese S., 2007. "Breast cancer prediction using the isotonic separation technique," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 842-854, September.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3744 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ines Saad & Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux & Michel Grundstein, 2005. "Improving the Decision Making Process in the Design Project by Capitalizing on Company’s Crucial Knowledge," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 131-145, March.
    8. Hu, Qiwei & Chakhar, Salem & Siraj, Sajid & Labib, Ashraf, 2017. "Spare parts classification in industrial manufacturing using the dominance-based rough set approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(3), pages 1136-1163.
    9. Chakhar, Salem & Ishizaka, Alessio & Labib, Ashraf & Saad, Inès, 2016. "Dominance-based rough set approach for group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 206-224.
    10. Blaszczynski, Jerzy & Greco, Salvatore & Slowinski, Roman, 2007. "Multi-criteria classification - A new scheme for application of dominance-based decision rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1030-1044, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Ben Amor & Fateh Belaid & Ramzi Benkraiem & Boumediene Ramdani & Khaled Guesmi, 2023. "Multi-criteria classification, sorting, and clustering: a bibliometric review and research agenda," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 771-793, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azam, Nouman & Zhang, Yan & Yao, JingTao, 2017. "Evaluation functions and decision conditions of three-way decisions with game-theoretic rough sets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 704-714.
    2. Hu, Qiwei & Chakhar, Salem & Siraj, Sajid & Labib, Ashraf, 2017. "Spare parts classification in industrial manufacturing using the dominance-based rough set approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(3), pages 1136-1163.
    3. Chakhar, Salem & Ishizaka, Alessio & Thorpe, Andy & Cox, Joe & Nguyen, Thang & Ford, Liz, 2020. "Calculating the relative importance of condition attributes based on the characteristics of decision rules and attribute reducts: Application to crowdfunding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(2), pages 689-712.
    4. Du, Wen Sheng & Hu, Bao Qing, 2017. "Dominance-based rough fuzzy set approach and its application to rule induction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 690-703.
    5. Julio Cezar Soares Silva & Diogo Ferreira de Lima Silva & Luciano Ferreira & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida-Filho, 2022. "A dominance-based rough set approach applied to evaluate the credit risk of sovereign bonds," 4OR, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 139-164, March.
    6. Fatima‐Zohra Younsi & Salem Chakhar & Alessio Ishizaka & Djamila Hamdadou & Omar Boussaid, 2020. "A Dominance‐Based Rough Set Approach for an Enhanced Assessment of Seasonal Influenza Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1323-1341, July.
    7. Chakhar, Salem & Ishizaka, Alessio & Labib, Ashraf & Saad, Inès, 2016. "Dominance-based rough set approach for group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 206-224.
    8. Miłosz Kadziński & Lucia Rocchi & Grzegorz Miebs & David Grohmann & Maria Elena Menconi & Luisa Paolotti, 2018. "Multiple Criteria Assessment of Insulating Materials with a Group Decision Framework Incorporating Outranking Preference Model and Characteristic Class Profiles," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 33-59, February.
    9. Mota, Caroline Maria de Miranda & Figueiredo, Ciro José Jardim de & Pereira, Débora Viana e Sousa, 2021. "Identifying areas vulnerable to homicide using multiple criteria analysis and spatial analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Fernandez, Eduardo & Navarro, Jorge & Bernal, Sergio, 2010. "Handling multicriteria preferences in cluster analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 819-827, May.
    11. Pawel Lezanski & Maria Pilacinska, 2018. "The dominance-based rough set approach to cylindrical plunge grinding process diagnosis," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 989-1004, June.
    12. Oppio, Alessandra & Dell’Ovo, Marta & Torrieri, Francesca & Miebs, Grzegorz & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2020. "Understanding the drivers of Urban Development Agreements with the rough set approach and robust decision rules," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    13. Abbas Mardani & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Madjid Tavana & Romualdas Bausys & Othman Ibrahim, 2017. "Recent Fuzzy Generalisations of Rough Sets Theory: A Systematic Review and Methodological Critique of the Literature," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-33, October.
    14. Tlili, Ali & Belahcène, Khaled & Khaled, Oumaima & Mousseau, Vincent & Ouerdane, Wassila, 2022. "Learning non-compensatory sorting models using efficient SAT/MaxSAT formulations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(3), pages 979-1006.
    15. Du, Wen Sheng & Hu, Bao Qing, 2018. "A fast heuristic attribute reduction approach to ordered decision systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 440-452.
    16. Fernandez, Eduardo & Navarro, Jorge & Bernal, Sergio, 2009. "Multicriteria sorting using a valued indifference relation under a preference disaggregation paradigm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 602-609, October.
    17. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    18. Wu, Siqi & Wu, Meng & Dong, Yucheng & Liang, Haiming & Zhao, Sihai, 2020. "The 2-rank additive model with axiomatic design in multiple attribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 536-545.
    19. Atteya, T.E.M. & Chakhar, Salem & Labib, Ashraf & Cox, Adam & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2024. "Estimating relative importance of criteria by post-processing dominance-based rough set approach’s outputs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(3), pages 1096-1122.
    20. Silvia Angilella & Maria Rosaria Pappalardo, 2022. "Performance assessment of energy companies employing Hierarchy Stochastic Multi-Attribute Acceptability Analysis," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 299-370, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:286:y:2020:i:1:p:282-298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.