IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pcz/journl/v7y2013i1p245-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discovering Knowledge With The Rough Set Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jiøí Mazurek

    (Sileasian University in Opava, School of Business Administration in Karviná, Department of Mathematical Methods in Economics)

Abstract

The rough set theory, which originated in the early 1980s, provides an alternative approach to the fuzzy set theory, when dealing with uncertainty, vagueness or inconsistence often encountered in real-world situations. The fundamental premise of the rough set theory is that every object of the universe is associated with some information, which is frequently imprecise and insufficient to distinguish among objects. In the rough set theory, this information about objects is represented by an information system (decision table). From an information system many useful facts and decision rules can be extracted, which is referred as knowledge discovery, and it is successfully applied in many fields including data mining, artificial intelligence learning or financial investment. The aim of the article is to show how hidden knowledge in the real-world data can be discovered within the rough set theory framework. After a brief preview of the rough set theory’s basic concepts, knowledge discovery is demonstrated on an example of baby car seats evaluation. For a decision rule extraction, the procedure of Ziarko and Shan is used

Suggested Citation

  • Jiøí Mazurek, 2013. "Discovering Knowledge With The Rough Set Approach," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 7(1), pages 245-254, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:pcz:journl:v:7:y:2013:i:1:p:245-254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pjms.zim.pcz.pl/PDF/PJMS7/DISCOVERING%20KNOWLEDGE%20WITH%20THE%20ROUGH%20SET%20APPROACH.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.pjms.zim.pcz.pl/discovering-knowledge-with-the-rough-set-approach.php
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiøí Mazurek, 2012. "The Evaluation Of Conflicts’ Degree In Group Decision Making," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 5(1), pages 107-119, June.
    2. Tay, Francis E. H. & Shen, Lixiang, 2002. "Economic and financial prediction using rough sets model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(3), pages 641-659, September.
    3. 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.
    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. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia & Guerreiro, João & Tussyadiah, Iis, 2021. "Artificial intelligence in business: State of the art and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 911-926.

    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. Ravi Kumar, P. & Ravi, V., 2007. "Bankruptcy prediction in banks and firms via statistical and intelligent techniques - A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(1), pages 1-28, July.
    2. Tzay-An Shiau & Chia-Chin Chuang, 2015. "Social construction of port sustainability indicators: a case study of Keelung Port," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 26-42, January.
    3. Wen-Min Lu & Qian Long Kweh & Chung-Wei Wang, 2021. "Integration and application of rough sets and data envelopment analysis for assessments of the investment trusts industry," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 163-194, January.
    4. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    5. Eduardo Fernández & José Rui Figueira & Jorge Navarro, 2023. "A theoretical look at ordinal classification methods based on comparing actions with limiting boundaries between adjacent classes," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 819-843, June.
    6. Doumpos, M. & Marinakis, Y. & Marinaki, M. & Zopounidis, C., 2009. "An evolutionary approach to construction of outranking models for multicriteria classification: The case of the ELECTRE TRI method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 496-505, December.
    7. Skorupski, Jacek & Uchroński, Piotr, 2017. "A fuzzy model for evaluating metal detection equipment at airport security screening checkpoints," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 39-48.
    8. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, II: More than two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 246-276, April.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4080 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Becchio, Cristina & Bottero, Marta Carla & Corgnati, Stefano Paolo & Dell’Anna, Federico, 2018. "Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrated evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 803-817.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    14. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    15. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    16. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    17. Bouyssou, Denis & Pirlot, Marc, 2009. "An axiomatic analysis of concordance-discordance relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 468-477, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    20. Fernández, Eduardo & Figueira, José Rui & Navarro, Jorge & Solares, Efrain, 2022. "Handling imperfect information in multiple criteria decision-making through a comprehensive interval outranking approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PB).
    21. Beynon, Malcolm J., 2005. "A novel technique of object ranking and classification under ignorance: An application to the corporate failure risk problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(2), pages 493-517, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    information system; knowledge discovery; rough sets; rule extraction; uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pcz:journl:v:7:y:2013:i:1:p:245-254. 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: Paula Bajdor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzpczpl.html .

    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.