European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Rough sets methodology for sorting problems in

presence of multiple attributes and criteria
a,*
Salvatore Greco , Benedetto Matarazzo a, Roman Slowinski b

a
Faculty of Economics, University of Catania, Corso Italia, 55, 95129 Catania, Italy
b
Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznan, Poland

Abstract

We consider a sorting (classification) problem in the presence of multiple attributes and criteria, called the MA&C
sorting problem. It consists in assignment of some actions to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes.
The actions are described by a finite set of attributes and criteria. Both attributes and criteria take values from their
domains; however, the domains of attributes are not preference-ordered, while the domains of criteria (scales) are
totally ordered by preference relations. Among the attributes we distinguish between qualitative attributes and
quantitative attributes. In order to construct a comprehensive preference model that could be used to support the
sorting task, we consider preferential information of the decision maker (DM) in the form of assignment examples, i.e.
exemplary assignments of some reference actions to the decision classes. The preference model inferred from these
examples is a set of ‘‘if . . . , then . . . ’’ decision rules. The rules are derived from rough approximations of decision classes
made up of reference actions. They satisfy conditions of completeness and dominance, and manage with possible
ambiguity (inconsistencies) in the set of examples. Our idea of rough approximations involves three relations together:
indiscernibility, similarity and dominance defined on qualitative and quantitative attributes, and on criteria, respec-
tively. The usefulness of this approach is illustrated by an example.
2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Rough sets; Sorting; Classification; Multiple criteria decision analysis; Decision rules

1. Introduction (DM’s) preferential information. Very often, this

The main difficulty with application of many
existing multiple-criteria decision aiding (MCDA)
methods lies in acquisition of the decision maker’s
* alyst. For this reason, the idea of inferring pref-
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: salgreco@mbox.unict.it (S. Greco),
matarazz@mbox.unict.it (B. Matarazzo),
slowinsk@sol.put.poznan.pl (R. Slowinski).
information has to be given in terms of preference
model parameters, like importance weights, sub-
stitution rates and various thresholds. It is gener-
ally acknowledged, however, that people prefer to
make exemplary decisions than to explain them in
terms of the preference model adopted by the an-
erence models from exemplary decisions provided
by the DM is very attractive. The exemplary de-
cisions may, however, be inconsistent because of

0377-2217/02/$ - see front matter
2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 4 4 - 2
248 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
limited discriminatory power of criteria and be-
cause of hesitation of the DM. These inconsisten-
cies cannot be considered as a simple noise or error
that should be corrected or neglected. They can
convey important information that should be ta-
ken into account in the construction of the DM’s
preference model.
Rough sets theory (RST) deals with the incon-
sistency problem by separation of certain and
doubtful knowledge extracted from exemplary
decisions. The original rough set approach (see,
e.g., Pawlak, 1991; Slowinski, 1992) is not able,
however, to discover inconsistencies related to
consideration of criteria, i.e. attributes with pref-
erence-ordered domains (scales), like return on
investment, market share, debt ratio. Regular at-
tributes, e.g. symptoms, colours, textural features,
traditionally considered in the rough set method-
ology, are different from criteria because their
domains are not preference-ordered. The presence
of criteria requires consideration of dominance
relation in data analysis. We say that action x
dominates action y if:
1. x is at least as good as y on all considered crite-
ria and
2. x and y have identical or similar description on
all considered attributes.
According to rational behaviour, assignment of
actions to preference-ordered classes should re-
spect the following dominance principle: if action x
dominates action y, then x should be assigned to a
class not worse than y. When actions x and y do
not satisfy the dominance principle, we say that
the pair ðx; yÞ is inconsistent.
Consider a simple example of firms evaluated
for assessment of bankruptcy risk. The firms de-
scribed by one criterion (return on investment) and
by one regular attribute (location) are assigned by
overall evaluation to ordered classes of bank-
ruptcy risk. The assignment examples are shown in
Table 1.
Let us remark that Firm B has a better overall
evaluation (medium risk) than Firm A (high risk),
which is rational because B has a higher return on
investment than A while their location is the same.
Firm C has also a better overall evaluation than
Firm A (medium risk vs. high risk), although A
has a higher return on investment. This overall
Table 1
Example of firms evaluated for assessment of bankruptcy risk
Firms Return on Location Bankruptcy
investment (%) risk
Firm A 5 City X High risk
Firm B 8 City X Medium risk
Firm C 3 City Y Medium risk
Firm D 3 City X Medium risk
evaluation does not violate the dominance princi-
ple, however, because A and C are located in dif-
ferent cities where conditions of investment may be
different. Finally, comparing Firm A to Firm D,
one discovers that D also has overall evaluation of
bankruptcy risk better than A (medium risk vs.
high risk), although A has a higher return on in-
vestment. In this case, however, the overall eval-
uation of D and A cannot be explained by different
location because D and A are located in the same
city, so this case violates the dominance principle.
Consequently, Firms A and D are an inconsistent
pair of examples.
Let us observe that the above inconsistency will
not be detected either by the original rough set
approach or by other methods of data analysis
that do not take into account the preference order
in the domains of attributes (criteria) and among
decision classes. In the context of the original
rough set approach, Firm A is clearly discernible
from Firm D, because they have different de-
scription by attributes, and this legitimates their
different assignment to decision classes. So, no
inconsistency will be stated.
To deal with preference-ordered domains of
criteria and preference-ordered decision classes,
Greco et al. (1996, 1998a, 1999) have proposed an
extension of the RST. This innovation is based on
substitution of the indiscernibility relation by a
dominance relation in the rough approximation of
decision classes. An important consequence of this
fact is a possibility of inferring from exemplary
decisions the preference model in terms of decision
rules, being logical statements of the type ‘‘if . . . ,
then . . . ’’, with a specific syntax proposed by the
authors. The extended RST is also able to deal
with inconsistencies, like the ones presented in
Table 1, which are typical to exemplary decisions
in MCDA problems. The separation of certain and
 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
doubtful knowledge about the DM’s preferences is
done by distinction of different kinds of decision
rules, depending on whether they are induced from
lower approximations of decision classes or from
the boundaries of these classes composed of in-
consistent examples. Such a preference model is
more general than the classical functional or rela-
tional model in MCDA and it is more under-
standable for the users because of its natural
syntax (Greco et al., 2001b). A survey of the ex-
tended rough set approach to different MCDA
problems has been recently presented in Greco
et al. (2001a).
In this paper, we wish to concentrate on the
extended rough set approach to one of major
classes of MCDA problems, which is the multiple-
criteria sorting problem. This problem is stated as
follows: given a set of actions evaluated by a set of
criteria, assign these actions to some pre-defined
and preference-ordered decision classes, such that
each action is assigned to exactly one class. The
sorting problem is very similar to the problem of
classification; however, in the latter, the actions are
evaluated by regular attributes and the decision
classes are not necessarily preference-ordered. The
novelty of our present study is a joint consider-
ation of criteria and regular attributes in one
sorting problem. Such a problem will be called an
MA&C sorting problem. Although it has many
counterparts in real life, it has not been considered
either within MCDA or within methodologies
dealing with multiple-attribute classification
problems, like discriminant analysis, machine
learning or neural networks.
The interest of using the extended RST to
MA&C sorting problems is multiple indeed:
1. It permits one to build the preference model of
a DM from a set of decision examples (s)he has
provided; these are exemplary assignments of
some reference actions to the decision classes.
2. The preference model is in the form of a finite
set of specific decision rules, which ensures in-
telligibility of the model; it also enables an easy
definition of possible strategies for passing from
one class to a better class through improvement
on some criteria.
3. When building the preference model, it does not
eliminate inconsistent examples that result from
249
hesitation of the DM and unstable character of
her/his preferences.
4. For a given set of decision examples, it is able to
determine what criteria and/or attributes are
relevant for approximation of the assignment
made by the DM; such subsets of relevant crite-
ria and/or attributes are called reducts and their
intersection is called the core.
5. It permits one to handle criteria and attributes
jointly and, moreover, to consider two types
of attributes: qualitative (symbolic, nominal,
like location) and quantitative (numerical, like
number of personnel).
No other known approach to MCDA has all
the above features. Our idea of extension of RST
to deal with MA&C sorting problems consists in
building rough approximations of decision classes
using a generalized ‘‘granule of knowledge’’. It is
defined by three relations considered jointly: in-
discernibility, defined on qualitative attributes,
similarity, defined on quantitative attributes, and
dominance, defined on criteria. The indiscernibility
relation is reflexive, symmetric and transitive,
while the similarity relation is reflexive and the
dominance relation is reflexive and transitive.
Decision rules with a special syntax are further
induced from these approximations of decision
classes. The above idea builds on our previous
study of MA&C sorting problems (Greco et al.,
1998b), where only dominance and indiscernibility
relations were used together in the rough set ap-
proach.
In Section 2, we define multicriteria and mul-
tiattribute rough approximations. Then, in Section
3, we characterize the syntax and semantics of
decision rules induced from rough approxima-
tions. Section 4 presents an illustrative example
solved by the original RST and by the extended
RST. Section 5 contains conclusions.
2. Multicriteria and multiattribute rough approxi-
mation
For algorithmic reasons, knowledge about ref-
erence actions is represented in the form of an in-
formation table. The rows of the table are labelled
by reference actions, whereas columns are labelled
250 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
by attributes and entries of the table are attribute
values, called descriptors. Formally, by an infor-
mation table we understand the 4-tuple
S ¼ hU ; Q; V ; f i, where U is a finite set of reference
S concerns mainly quantitative attributes (see
actions, Q is a finite set of attributes, V ¼ q2Q Vq
and Vq is a domain of the attribute q, and f : U 
Q ! V is a total function such that f ðx; qÞ 2 Vq for
every q 2 Q, x 2 U , called an information function
(see Pawlak, 1991).
An information table can be seen as a decision
table if in the set of attributes Q there are distin-
guished two disjoint sets: set C of condition attri-
butes and set D of decision attributes.
As was mentioned in Section 1, the notion of
attribute differs from that of criterion because the
domain (scale) of a criterion has to be ordered
according to a decreasing or increasing preference,
while the domain of the attribute does not have to
be ordered. Formally, for each q 2 C being a cri-
terion there exists an outranking relation (Roy,
1985) Sq on the set of actions U such that xSq y
means ‘‘x is at least as good as y with respect to
criterion q’’. We suppose that Sq is a total pre-or-
der, i.e. a strongly complete and transitive binary
relation defined on U on the basis of evaluations
f ð ; qÞ. If domain Vq of criterion q is quantitative
and for each x; y 2 U , f ðx; qÞ P f ðy; qÞ implies
xSq y, then Vq is a scale of preference of criterion q.
If, however, for criterion q, Vq is not quantitative,
or f ðx; qÞ P f ðy; qÞ does not imply xSq y, then in
order to define a scale of preference of criterion q
one can choose a function gq : U ! R such that
for each x; y 2 U , xSq y if and only if gq ðxÞ P gq ðyÞ
(see, e.g., Roubens and Vincke, 1985); passing
from f ðx; qÞ to gq ðxÞ for every x 2 U is called re-
coding of the domain Vq . To recode Vq it is enough
to order the actions of U from the worst to the best
on criterion q and to assign to gq ðxÞ consecutive
numbers corresponding to the rank of x in this
order, i.e. for z being the worst, gq ðzÞ ¼ 1, for w
being the second worst, gq ðwÞ ¼ 2, and so on.
Then, the domain of function gq ð Þ becomes the
scale of preference of criterion q.
For each attribute q 2 C which is not a crite-
rion, we admit a possibility of defining one of the
two following binary relations on U :
1. indiscernibility relation Iq , which, according to
the original rough sets theory, is an equivalence
relation, i.e. reflexive, symmetric and transitive;
it concerns mainly qualitative attributes;
2. similarity relation Rq , which is only reflexive; it
Slowinski and Vanderpooten, 1997, 2000).
We introduce the following notation for disjoint
subsets of C: C > is a subset of criteria, C ¼ is a
subset of qualitative attributes and C is a subset of
quantitative attributes. Therefore, C > [ C ¼ [
C ¼ C and C > \ C ¼ ¼ ;, C > \ C ¼ ; and C ¼ \
C ¼ ;. Moreover, for any P  C we denote by P > ,
P ¼ and P the following subsets of P , respectively:
• the subset of criteria for which outranking rela-
tions are considered, i.e. P > ¼ P \ C > ,
• the subset of qualitative attributes for which in-
discernibility relations are considered, i.e. P ¼ ¼
P \ C¼ ,
• the subset of quantitative attributes for which
similarity relations are considered, i.e. P ¼
P \C .
For each x; y 2 U we say that action x domi-
nates action y on criteria from P > if and only if
xSq y for all q 2 P > . The dominance relation is re-
flexive and transitive. Similarly, we say that x is
indiscernible from y on attributes from P ¼ if and
only if xIq y for all q  P ¼ , and x is similar to y on
attributes from P if and only if xRq y for all
qP .
Furthermore, assuming that the set of decision
attributes D (possibly a singleton fdg) makes a
partition of the set of actions U into a finite number
of decision classes, let Cl ¼ fClt ; t 2 T g,
T ¼ f1; . . . ; ng, be a set of these classes such that
each x 2 U belongs to one and only one Clt 2 Cl.
We suppose that the classes are ordered, i.e. for all
r; s 2 T , such that r > s, the actions from Clr are
preferred (strictly or weakly, Roy, 1985) to the ac-
tions from Cls . More formally, if S is a compre-
hensive outranking relation on U , i.e. if for all
x; y 2 U , xSy means ‘‘x is at least as good as y’’, we
suppose: ½x 2 Clr ; y 2 Cls ; r > s ) ½xSy and not
ySx. The above assumptions are typical for con-
sideration of a multiple-criteria sorting problem.
In other words, the DM has assigned the ref-
erence actions to the classes of Cl according to the
following comprehensive evaluation: the worst
actions are in Cl1 , the best actions are in Cln , the
other actions belong to the remaining classes Clr ,
 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259 251

according to the principle that the higher r 2 T ,
the better class Clr . For example, in the risk as-
sessment problem, a financial manager can con-
sider Cl ¼ fCl1 ; Cl2 ; Cl3 g, where Cl1 is a class of
firms with ‘‘high risk’’, Cl2 is a class of firms with
‘‘medium risk’’ and Cl3 is a class of firms with
‘‘low risk’’.
The sets to be approximated are called the up-
ward union and downward union of decision classes,
respectively:
[ [
CltP ¼ Cls ; Clt6 ¼ Cls ; t ¼ 1; . . . ; n:
sPt s6t
The statement x 2 CltP means ‘‘x belongs at least
to class Clt ’’, while x 2 Clt6 means ‘‘x belongs at
most to class Clt ’’. Let us remark that Cl1P ¼
Cln6 ¼ U , ClnP ¼ Cln and Cl16 ¼ Cl1 . Further-
more, for t ¼ 2; . . . ; n we have
6
Clt1 ¼ U  CltP and CltP ¼ U  Clt1
6
: For any P  C we say that x 2 U belongs to
The key idea of the rough set philosophy is
approximation of one knowledge by another
knowledge. In the original approach, the knowl-
edge being approximated is a partition of U into
decision classes generated by a set of decision at-
tributes; the knowledge used for approximation is
a partition of U into elementary sets of actions
that are indiscernible by a set of condition attri-
butes. The elementary sets are seen as ‘‘granules of
knowledge’’ used for approximation.
In our case, where among condition attributes
there are criteria, and decision classes are prefer-
ence-ordered, the knowledge being approximated
is a collection of upward and downward unions of
decision classes and the ‘‘granules of knowledge’’
are sets of actions defined using dominance, simi-
larity and indiscernibility relations together, in-
stead of indiscernibility relation alone. This is the
main difference between the original rough set
Given P  C and x 2 U , the ‘‘granules of knowl-
edge’’ used for approximation in the extended
approach are:
• a set of actions y dominating action x on P > and
indiscernible from x on P ¼ , and such that x is
similar to y on P , DLþ P ðxÞ ¼ fy 2 U : yDP xg,
• a set of actions y dominating action x on P > and
indiscernible from x on P ¼ , and such that y is

similar to x on P , DUþ P ðxÞ ¼ fy 2 U : yDP xg,
• a set of actions y dominated by action x on P >
and indiscernible from x on P ¼ , and such that

x is similar to y on P , DL
P ðxÞ ¼ fy 2 U : xDP yg,
• a set of actions y dominated by action x on P >
and indiscernible from x on P ¼ , and such that
y is similar to x on P ; DU
P ðxÞ ¼ fy 2 U : xDP yg.
The sets DLþ ðxÞ Uþ
P and D P ðxÞ are called ‘‘in-sim-
dominating’’ sets, and the sets DL U
P ðxÞ and DP ðxÞ,
‘‘in-sim-dominated’’ sets.
CltP without any ambiguity if x 2 CltP and for each
action y 2 U dominating x on P > and indiscernible
from x on P ¼ , and such that x is similar to y on P ,
also y belongs to CltP , i.e. DLþ P
P ðxÞ  Clt . Fur-
thermore, we say that y 2 U could belong to CltP if
there exists at least one action x 2 CltP such that y
dominates x on P > , y is indiscernible from x on P ¼
and y is similar to x on P , i.e. y 2 DUþP ðxÞ.
Thus, with respect to P  C, the set of all ac-
tions belonging to CltP without any ambiguity
constitutes the P -lower approximation of CltP ,
denoted by P ðCltP Þ, and the set of all actions that
could belong to CltP constitutes the P -upper ap-
proximation of CltP , denoted by P ðCltP Þ:
P ðCltP Þ ¼ fx 2 U : DLþ P
P ðxÞ  Clt g;
[
P ðCltP Þ ¼ DUþ
P ðxÞ; for t ¼ 1; . . . ; n:
x2CltP
Analogously, using DL U
P ðxÞ and DP ðxÞ, one can

approach and the present extension. define P -lower approximation and P -upper ap-
For any P  C let us define two reflexive binary proximation of Clt6 :
relations on U , denoted by DP and DP , and called P ðClt6 Þ ¼ fx 2 U : DL 6
P ðxÞ  Clt g;
‘‘in-sim-dominance’’ relations, such that for each [
x; y 2 U : P ðClt6 Þ ¼ DU
P ðxÞ; for t ¼ 1; . . . ; n:
• xDP y if and only if xSq y for each q 2 P > , xIq y for x2Clt6

each q 2 P ¼ and yRq x for each q 2 P and

• xDP y if and only if xSq y for each q 2 P > , xIq y for Theorem 1 (Rough inclusion). For any t 2 T and
each q 2 P ¼ and xRq y for each q 2 P . for any P  C,
252 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259

P ðCltP Þ  CltP  P ðCltP Þ; P ðCltP Þ  RðCltP Þ; P ðClt6 Þ  RðClt6 Þ;

P ðClt6 Þ  Clt6  P ðClt6 Þ: P ðCltP Þ  RðCltP Þ; P ðClt6 Þ  RðClt6 Þ;

BnP ðCltP Þ  BnR ðCltP Þ; BnP ðClt6 Þ  BnR ðClt6 Þ:
Proof. Let x 2 P ðCltP Þ. DP being reflexive, x 2
DLþ Lþ P
P ðxÞ. Since DP ðxÞ  Clt , we have x 2 Clt .
P
P  Uþ Proof. From the definition of the ‘‘in-sim-domi-
Let x 2 Clt . DP being reflexive, x 2 DP ðxÞ, which
implies x 2 P ðCltP Þ. Analogous proof holds for nance’’ relations it follows that for any P  R  C,
P ðClt6 Þ  Clt6  P ðClt6 Þ.  xDR y implies xDP y and xDR y implies xDP y, for each
x; y 2 U . From the first implication we have
Theorem 2 (Complementarity). For any P  C, DLþ Lþ
P ðxÞ  DR ðxÞ for each x 2 U and, in conse-
quence, DP ðxÞ  CltP implies DLþ
Lþ
R ðxÞ  Clt .
P
P ðCltP Þ ¼ U  P ðClt1
6
Þ; t ¼ 2; . . . ; n;
From the second implication it follows that
P
P ðClt6 Þ ¼ U  P ðCltþ1 Þ t ¼ 1; . . . ; n  1: DUþ Uþ
P ðxÞ  DR ðxÞ for each x 2 U . Thus, on the
basis of the definition of approximations and
Proof. If x 2 P ðCltP Þ, then DLþ P boundary of CltP , we obtain the proof with re-
P ðxÞ  Clt and,
therefore, there is no y 62 CltP such that yDP x. spect to CltP . Analogous proof holds for Clt6 . 
Since the complement of CltP in U is Clt16
, we can
P For any t 2 T and for any P  C, we define the
also say that x 2 P ðClt Þ if and only if there is no
6 6 accuracy of the approximation of CltP and Clt6 by
y 2 Clt1 such that yDP x. Since x 2 P ðClt1 Þ if and
P as the respective ratios
only if there exists at least one y 2 U such that
6
y 2 Clt1 and yDP x, this means that x 2 P ðCltP Þ if cardðP ðCltP ÞÞ
6
and only if x 62 P ðClt1 Þ. Thus, we have proved aP ðCltP Þ ¼ ;
P 6
cardðP ðCltP ÞÞ
that P ðClt Þ ¼ U  P ðClt1 Þ. Analogous proof
6
holds for P ðClt Þ ¼ U  P ðCltþ1P
Þ.  cardðP ðClt6 ÞÞ
aP ðClt6 Þ ¼ :
cardðP ðClt6 ÞÞ
The P -boundaries (doubtful regions) of the
The coefficient
unions CltP and Clt6 are defined, respectively, as
!
BnP ðCltP Þ ¼ P ðCltP Þ  P ðCltP Þ; [
cP ðClÞ ¼ card U  BnP ðClt6 Þ
BnP ðClt6 Þ ¼ P ðClt6 Þ  P ðClt6 Þ; for t ¼ 1; . . . ; n: t2T
!!,
[
[ BnP ðCltP Þ cardðU Þ
Theorem 3 (Identity of boundaries). For any t2T
t 2 T  f1g and for any P  C,
is called the quality of approximation of partition Cl
BnP ðCltP Þ ¼ BnP ðClt1
6
Þ:
by the set of attributes and criteria P , or in short,
quality of approximation. It expresses the ratio of
Proof. From Theorem 2 we have all P -correctly sorted actions to all actions in the
BnP ðCltP Þ ¼ P ðCltP Þ  P ðCltP Þ table. Due to identity of boundaries stated by
Theorem 3, the formula of cP ðClÞ can be rewritten
6 6
¼ ½U  P ðClt1 Þ  ½U  P ðClt1 Þ as
6 6
¼ P ðClt1 Þ  P ðClt1 Þ  S 
6
6 card U  t2T BnP ðClt Þ
¼ BnP ðClt1 Þ:  cP ðClÞ ¼
cardðU Þ
 S P

Theorem 4 (Monotonicity). For any t 2 T and for card U  t2T BnP ðClt Þ
¼ :
any P  R  C, cardðU Þ
 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
Due to monotonicity stated by Theorem 4, it is
possible to define the reduct and the core within
the extended RST. Each minimal subset P  C
such that cP ðClÞ ¼ cC ðClÞ is called a reduct of Cl
and denoted by REDCl ðCÞ. Let us remark that a
decision table can have more than one reduct. The
intersection of all reducts is called the core and
denoted by CORECl ðCÞ. The algorithm for gen-
eration of all reducts in the dominance-based
rough set approach has been presented in Susmaga
et al. (1999).
3. Decision rules
The rough approximations of upward and
downward unions of classes can serve to induce a
generalized description of actions contained in the
information table in terms of ‘‘if . . . , then . . . ’’
decision rules. For a given upward union of classes
CltP the decision rules induced under a hypothesis
that actions belonging to P ðCltP Þ are positive and
all the others negative suggest an assignment to ‘‘at
least class Clt ’’. Analogously, for a given down-
ward union Cls6 , the rules induced under a hy-
pothesis that actions belonging to P ðCls6 Þ are
positive and all the others negative suggest an as-
signment to ‘‘at most class Cls ’’. On the other
hand, the decision rules induced under a hypoth-
esis that actions belonging to the intersection
P ðCls6 Þ \ P ðCltP Þ are positive and all the others
negative suggest an assignment to some class be-
tween Cls and Clt ðs < tÞ.
We assume that domain Vq of each criterion
q 2 P > is its preference scale (eventually after re-
coding). Moreover, for each quantitative attribute
q 2 P , we suppose that the similarity between
actions is represented by a similarity relation de-
fined on the set of attribute values Vq . In other
words, for each q 2 P and actions x; y 2 U , we
conclude the similarity of x to y with respect to q
on the basis of the similarity of value f ðx; qÞ ¼ r to
value f ðy; qÞ ¼ s, r; s 2 Vq . In the decision rules
presented below, we use the similarity relation
among values.
Each rule has three parts in the premise. The
first one corresponds to dominance on a subset of
criteria, the second to indiscernibility on a subset
253
of qualitative attributes, and the last to similarity
on a subset of quantitative attributes.
The following three types of decision rules can
be considered:
• D P -decision rules which are generated from the
lower approximation P ðCltP Þ, having the fol-
lowing form:
‘‘if f ðx; q1 Þ P rq1 and . . . f ðx; qu Þ P rqu and
f ðx; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðx; qv Þ ¼ rqv and
f ðx; qvþ1 Þ is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðx; qz Þ is
similar to rqz , then x 2 CltP ’’, (STAT 1)
where
P ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qz g  C; P > ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qu g;
P ¼ ¼ fquþ1 ; . . . ; qv g and P ¼ fqvþ1 ; . . . ; qz g;
ðrq1 ; . . . ; rqz Þ 2 Vq1  Vq2   Vqz and t 2 T ;
• D 6 -decision rules which are generated from the
lower approximation P ðClt6 Þ, having the fol-
lowing form:
‘‘if f ðx; q1 Þ 6 rq1 and . . . f ðx; qu Þ 6 rqu and
f ðx; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðx; qv Þ ¼ rqv and
f ðx; qvþ1 Þ is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðx; qz Þ is
similar to rqz , then x 2 Clt6 ’’, (STAT 2)
where
P ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qz g  C; P > ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qu g;
P ¼ ¼ fquþ1 ; . . . ; qv g and P ¼ fqvþ1 ; . . . ; qz g;
ðrq1 ; . . . ; rqz Þ 2 Vq1  Vq2   Vqz and t 2 T ;
• D P 6 -decision rules which are generated from
the upper approximations P ðCls6 Þ \ P ðCltP Þ,
having the following form:
‘‘if f ðx; q1 Þ P rq1 and . . . f ðx; qu Þ P rqu and
f ðx; quþ1 Þ 6 rquþ1 and . . . f ðx; qv Þ 6 rqv and
f ðx; qvþ1 Þ ¼ rqvþ1 and . . . f ðx; qw Þ ¼ rqw and
f ðx; qwþ1 Þ is similar to rqwþ1 and . . . f ðx; qz Þ is
similar to rqz , then x 2 Cls [ Clsþ1 [
[Clt ’’, (STAT 3)
where
P ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qz g  C;
P > ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qu g [ fquþ1 ; . . . ; qv g;
254 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
P ¼ ¼ fqvþ1 ; . . . ; qw g and P ¼ fqwþ1 ; . . . ; qz g;
ðrq1 ; . . . ; rqz Þ 2 Vq1  Vq2   Vqz
and s; t 2 T such that s < t; observe that not
necessarily fq1 ; . . . ; qu g \ fquþ1 ; . . . ; qv g ¼ ;:
The statement (STAT 1) is accepted as a D P -
decision rule if and only if
1. there exists at least one prototype y 2 P ðCltP Þ,
having the description on P ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qz g
equal to the right-hand sides (RHS) of elemen-
tary conditions in (STAT 1), i.e. f ðy; q1 Þ ¼ rq1
and . . . f ðy; qu Þ ¼ rqu and f ðy; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and
. . . f ðy; qv Þ ¼ rqv and f ðy; qvþ1 Þ ¼ rqvþ1 and
. . . f ðy; qz Þ ¼ rqz , and
2. there exist no counterexample, i.e. for all z 2 U
such that f ðz; q1 Þ P rq1 and . . . f ðz; qu Þ P rqu
and f ðz; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðz; qv Þ ¼ rqv and
f ðz; qvþ1 Þ is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðz; qz Þ is sim-
ilar to rqz , we have z 2 CltP .
Analogously, the statement (STAT 2) is ac-
cepted as a D 6 -decision rule if and only if
3. there exists at least one prototype y 2 P ðClt6 Þ
having the description on P ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qz g
equal to RHS of elementary conditions in
(STAT 2), i.e. f ðy; q1 Þ ¼ rq1 and . . . f ðy; qu Þ ¼
rqu and f ðy; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðy; qv Þ ¼
rqv and f ðy; qvþ1 Þ ¼ rqvþ1 and . . . f ðy; qz Þ ¼ rqz ,
and
4. there exist no counterexample, i.e. for all z 2 U
such that f ðz; q1 Þ 6 rq1 and . . . f ðz; qu Þ 6 rqu and
f ðz; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðz; qv Þ ¼ rqv and f ðz;
qvþ1 Þ is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðz; qz Þ is similar
to rqz , we have z 2 Clt6 :
Finally, the statement (STAT 3) is accepted as a
D P 6 -decision rule if and only if
5. there exist at least two prototypes
y1 ; y2 2 CðCls61 Þ \ CðCltP 1
Þ, s 6 s1 6 t1 6 t, not
necessarily different and not belonging to
CðCla6 Þ \ CðClbP Þ where a < s and/or b > t,
such that their description on P ¼ fq1 ; . . . ; qz g
gives values to RHS of elementary conditions
in (STAT 3), i.e. y1 DP y2 and/or y1 DP y2 and
f ðy2 ; q1 Þ ¼ rq1 and . . . f ðy2 ; qu Þ ¼ rqu and f ðy1 ;
quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðy1 ; qv Þ ¼ rqv and f ðy1 ;
qvþ1 Þ ¼ f ðy2 ; qvþ1 Þ ¼ rqvþ1 and . . . f ðy1 ; qw Þ ¼
f ðy2 ; qw Þ ¼ rqw and f ðy1 ; qwþ1 Þ ¼ rqwþ1 or f ðy2 ;
qwþ1 Þ ¼ rqwþ1 and . . . f ðy1 ; qz Þ ¼ rqz or f ðy2 ;
qz Þ ¼ rqz , and
6. there exist no counterexample, i.e. for all z 2 U
such that f ðz; q1 Þ 6 rq1 and . . . f ðz; qu Þ P rqu and
f ðz; quþ1 Þ 6 rquþ1 and . . . f ðz; qv Þ 6 rqv and f ðz;
quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðz; qv Þ ¼ rqv and f ðz; qvþ1 Þ
is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðz; qz Þ is similar to
rqz , we have z 2 Cls2 [ Cls2þ1 [ [ Clt2 ,
s 6 s2 6 t2 6 t.
Let us remark that conditions (2), (4) and (6)
above follow from asymmetry of the similarity
relation and its specific use in the definition of the
rough approximations. If the similarity relation
were not considered, or if it were symmetric, then
conditions (1), (3) and (5) would be enough. Let us
explain this point in detail. For the sake of sim-
plicity we shall consider decision rules involving
conditions on similarity only. Consider a universe
U ¼ fy; w; zg, set X ¼ fy; wg and an asymmetric
similarity relation defined as follows: y is similar to
w, z is similar to y (of course, each action from U is
similar to itself). The lower approximation of X is
composed of y and w. Therefore, y could be chosen
as a prototype for a rule: ‘‘if x is similar to y, then x
belongs to X ’’. However, applying this rule to
universe U , one could assign action z to X , which
is not true. Thus, to avoid such an anomaly, apart
from the condition that the prototype action for a
rule must belong to the lower approximation of X
[conditions (1), (3) and (5)], we impose the condi-
tion that there is no action from outside X that is
similar to the prototype (conditions (2), (4) and
(6)).
Since each decision rule is an implication, by a
minimal decision rule we understand such an im-
plication that there is no other implication with an
antecedent of at least the same weakness and a
consequent of at least the same strength. More
formal definition of minimal decision rules is pre-
sented below.
A D P -decision rule ‘‘if f ðx; q1 Þ P rq1 and . . .
f ðx; qu Þ P rqu andf ðx; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðx; qv Þ ¼
rqv and f ðx; qvþ1 Þ is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðx; qz Þ is
similar to rqz , then x 2 CltP 1
’’ is minimal iff there is
no other rule ‘‘if f ðx; p1 Þ P rp1 and . . . f ðx; pa ÞP rpa
and f ðx; paþ1 Þ ¼ rpaþ1 and . . . f ðx; pb Þ ¼ rpb and
f ðx; pbþ1 Þ is similar to rpbþ1 and . . . f ðx; pc Þ is similar
to rpc , then x 2 CltP 2
’’ such that fp1 ; . . . ;
 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
pa ; paþ1 ; . . . ; pb ; pbþ1 ; . . . ; pc g  fq1 ; . . . ; qu ; quþ1 ; . . . ;
qv ; qvþ1 ; . . . ; qz g, rj 6 rj for any j 2 fp1 ; . . . ; pa g and
t2 P t1 .
A D 6 -decision rule ‘‘if f ðx; q1 Þ 6 rq1 and . . .
f ðx; qu Þ 6 rqu and f ðx; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðx; qv Þ ¼
rqv and f ðx; qvþ1 Þ is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðx; qz Þ is
similar to rqz , then x 2 Clt61 ’’ is minimal iff there is
no other rule ‘‘if f ðx; p1 Þ 6 rq1 and . . . f ðx; pa Þ 6 rpa
and f ðx; paþ1 Þ ¼ rpaþ1 and . . . f ðx; pb Þ ¼ rpb and
f ðx; pbþ1 Þ is similar to rpbþ1 and . . . f ðx; pc Þ is similar
to rpc , then x 2 Clt62 ’’ such that fp1 ; . . . ; pa ;
paþ1 ; . . . ; > pb ; pbþ1 ; . . . ; pc g  fq1 ; . . . ; qu ; quþ1 ; . . . ;
qv ; qvþ1 ; . . . ; qz g and rj P rj for any j 2 fp1 ; . . . ; pa g
and t2 6 t1 .
A D P 6 -decision rule ‘‘if f ðx; q1 Þ P rq1 and . . .
f ðx; qu Þ P rqu and f ðx; quþ1 Þ 6 rquþ1 and . . . f ðx; qv Þ
6 rqv and f ðx; qvþ1 Þ ¼ rqvþ1 and . . . f ðx; qw Þ ¼ rqw
and f ðx; qwþ1 Þ is similar to rqwþ1 and . . . f ðx; qz Þ is
similar to rqz , then x 2 Cls1 [ Cls1 þ1 [ [ Clt1 ’’ is
minimal iff there is no other rule ‘‘if f ðx; p1 Þ P rp1
and . . . f ðx; pa Þ P rpa and f ðx; paþ1 Þ 6 rpaþ1 and . . .
f ðx; pb Þ 6 rpb and f ðx; pbþ1 Þ ¼ rpbþ1 and . . . f ðx;
pc Þ ¼ rpc and f ðx; pcþ1 Þ is similar to rpcþ1 and . . .
f ðx; pd Þ is similar to rpd , then x 2 Cls2 [ Cls2 þ1
[ [ Clt2 ’’ such that fp1 ; . . . ; pa ; paþ1 ; . . . ; pb ;
pbþ1 ; . . . ; pc g  fq1 ; . . . ; qu ; quþ1 ; . . . ;qv ; qvþ1 ; . . . ;
qz g, rj 6 rj for any j 2 fp1 ; . . . ; pa g, rj P rj for any
j 2 fpaþ1 ; . . . ; pb g, s2 P s1 and t2 6 t1 .
An action y 2 U supports a decision rule if it
matches its condition part. Formally, y 2 U sup-
ports the D P -decision rule (STAT 1) iff
f ðy; q1 Þ P rq1 and . . . f ðy; qu Þ P rqu and f ðy; quþ1 Þ ¼
rquþ1 and . . . f ðy; qv Þ ¼ rqv and f ðy; qvþ1 Þ is similar
to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðy; qz Þ is similar to rqz , and
y 2 CltP . An action y 2 U supports the D 6 -deci-
sion rule (STAT 2) iff f ðy; q1 Þ 6 rq1 and . . .
f ðy; qu Þ 6 rqu and f ðy; quþ1 Þ ¼ rquþ1 and . . . f ðy;
qv Þ ¼ rqv and f ðy; qvþ1 Þ is similar to rqvþ1 and
. . . f ðy; qz Þ is similar to rqz , and y 2 Clt6 . Finally,
an action y 2 U supports the D P 6 -decision rule
(STAT 3) iff f ðy; q1 Þ P rq1 and . . . f ðy; qu Þ P rqu and
f ðy; quþ1 Þ 6 rquþ1 and . . . f ðy; qv Þ 6 rqv and f ðy; qvþ1 Þ
is similar to rqvþ1 and . . . f ðy; qw Þ is similar to rqw ,
and y 2 Cls [ Clsþ1 [ [ Clt .
The number of actions supporting a rule is
called its strength.
Another property often required for a set of
decision rules is completeness. In the case of the
255
multiple-criteria sorting problem, a set of decision
rules is complete if:
1. Each action from lower approximation of any
upward or downward union of decision classes
is reassigned to the corresponding union by at
least one D P -decision rule or D 6 -decision rule
from this set.
2. Each pair of inconsistent actions belonging, re-
spectively, to classes Cls and Clt ðs < tÞ is reas-
signed to a union of contiguous decision
classes, ranging from Cls to Clt , by at least
one D P 6 -decision rule from this set.
Due to asymmetry of the similarity relation
considered in the definition of rough approxima-
tions and due to its impact on the definition of
decision rules, the above conditions of complete-
ness in the context of MA&C sorting problem
have to be refined. Let us explain the reason for
this refinement in the following small example. For
the sake of simplicity we shall consider decision
rules involving conditions of similarity only.
Consider a universe U ¼ fv; y; w; zg, set
X ¼ fv; y; zg and an asymmetric similarity relation
defined as follows: w is similar to y, z is similar to v
and to w (of course, each action from U is similar
to itself). The lower approximation of X is com-
posed of y and v; z does not belong to the lower
approximation of X because it is also similar to w
from outside X . Although action y is in the lower
approximation of X , it cannot be a prototype for a
decision rule because it is not true that each action
similar to y belongs to X (w from outside X is
similar to y). Therefore, there is no rule that could
reassign univocally y to X , even if y belongs to
lower approximation of X .
Remark, however, that action z will be reclas-
sified to set X , even if it does not belong to the
lower approximation of X . This reclassification is
possible due to the rule: ‘‘if x is similar to v, then x
belongs to X ’’, which is based on prototype v. Fi-
nally, y and w will be assigned (approximately) to X
or to U  X by decision rule: ‘‘if x is similar to y,
then x belongs to X or U  X , without enough in-
formation to assign x exactly to one of these sets’’.
Reassignment of an action from U , matching
some D P - and D 6 -decision rules, is made to a
class (or a set of contiguous classes) resulting from
intersection of unions of decision classes suggested
256 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259

by the rules. Moreover, reassignment of an action One of three induction strategies can be adop-
from U matching some D P 6 -decision rules is ted to obtain a set of decision rules (Stefanowski
made to a set of contiguous classes being a union and Vanderpooten, 1994; Mienko et al., 1996;
of classes suggested by the rules. Stefanowski, 1998; Slowinski et al., 2000):
In consequence of using the asymmetric simi- • generation of a minimal description, i.e. a mini-
larity relation, the above conditions of completeness mal set of rules,
should be read as: the set of actions reassigned by • generation of an exhaustive description, i.e. all
the complete set of rules to original decision classes possible minimal rules for a given information
should be maximal and the assignment should be table,
the most precise possible. Let us explain what • generation of a characteristic description, i.e. a
‘‘maximal’’ and ‘‘most precise’’ means. This means set of minimal rules covering relatively many ac-
that no other rule can be induced which would re- tions each, however, altogether not necessarily
assign more actions to original classes or to smaller all actions from U .
sets of contiguous classes. For example, a set of rules
is not complete if it assigns action x to classes Cl2
and Cl3 , but there exists another rule, not included 4. An example
in this set, permitting precise assignment of x to Cl3 .
Analogously, a set of rules is not complete if it as- The following example (extending the one given
signs action x to classes Cl2 , Cl3 and Cl4 , but there by Pawlak, 1997) illustrates the concepts introduced
exists another rule, not included in this set, permit- above and shows the main differences between the
ting more precise assignment of x to Cl3 and Cl4 . original RST and the present extension. In Table 2,
The maximal set of actions that can be reclas- there are shown exemplary decisions of a DM con-
sified exactly by a complete set of rules can be cerning eight warehouses (reference actions) de-
formally characterized as follows: scribed by means of three condition attributes:
1. For each P  C, the set LtP ðP Þ ¼ fw 2 U : • A1 , capacity of the sales staff,
DLþ P
and DUþ P • A2 , geographical region,
P ðwÞ  Clt P ðwÞ  Clt g is com-
posed of all prototypes of D P -decision rules in- • A3 , area.
volving criteria and attributes from P . The decision attribute d specifies the assignment
Therefore, one can reclassify by D P -decision made by the DM into two sets of warehouses
rules based on these prototypes all actions y making either profit or loss. Table 2 represents
such that there exists P  C and w 2 LtP ðP Þ preferential information given by the DM.
for which yDP w.
2. For each P  C, the set y 2 Lt6 ðP Þ ¼ 4.1. The results of the original rough set approach
fw 2 U : DL 6
P ðwÞ  Clt and DP
U
ðwÞ  Clt6 g
is composed of all prototypes of D 6 -decision Class Cl1 of the warehouses making loss and
rules involving criteria and attributes from P . class Cl2 of the warehouses making profit were
Therefore, one can reclassify by D 6 -decision
rules based on these prototypes all actions y
such that there exists P  C and w 2 Lt6 ðP Þ Table 2
Decision table with exemplary decisions
for which wDP y.
All actions that cannot be reclassified exactly by Warehouse A1 A2 A3 d
D P - and D 6 -decision rules are assigned to sets of w1 Medium A 500 Loss
w2 Good A 400 Profit
contiguous classes by D P 6 -decision rules, so that
w3 Medium A 450 Profit
all actions are classified by a complete set of rules. w4 Good B 400 Loss
We call minimal each set of minimal decision w5 Good B 475 Profit
rules that is complete and non-redundant, i.e. ex- w6 Medium B 425 Profit
clusion of any rule from this set makes it non- w7 Medium B 350 Profit
w8 Medium B 350 Loss
complete.
 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
approximated by means of the original rough set
approach. It is clear that C ¼ fA1 ; A2 ; A3 g and
D ¼ fdg. The C-lower approximations, the C-up-
per approximations and the C-boundaries of sets
Cl1 and Cl2 are, respectively:
CðCl1 Þ ¼ fw1; w4g;
CðCl1 Þ ¼ fw1; w4; w7; w8g;
BnC ðCl1 Þ ¼ fw7; w8g;
CðCl2 Þ ¼ fw2; w3; w5; w6g;
CðCl2 Þ ¼ fw2; w3; w5; w6; w7; w8g;
BnC ðCl2 Þ ¼ fw7; w8g:
Therefore, the accuracy of the approximation is
equal to 0.5 for the class of warehouses making
loss and to 0.67 for the class of warehouses making
profit, while the quality of classification is equal to
0.75. There is only one reduct which is also the
core, i.e. REDCl ðCÞ ¼ CORECl ðCÞ ¼ fA2 ; A3 g.
Continuing the original rough set approach, the
following minimal set of decision rules has been
induced from the considered decision table using
the LERS induction algorithm (Grzymala-Busse,
1992) (within parentheses there are the actions
supporting the corresponding rules):
1. if f ðx; A3 Þ ¼ 500, then x 2 Cl1 , ðw1Þ
2. if f ðx; A2 Þ ¼ B and f ðx; A3 Þ ¼ 400, then x 2 Cl1 ,
ðw4Þ
3. if f ðx; A2 Þ ¼ A and f ðx; A3 Þ ¼ 400, then x 2 Cl2 ,
ðw2Þ
4. if f ðx; A3 Þ ¼ 450, then x 2 Cl2 , ðw3Þ
5. if f ðx; A3 Þ ¼ 475, then x 2 Cl2 , ðw5Þ
6. if f ðx; A3 Þ ¼ 425, then x 2 Cl2 , ðw6Þ
7. if f ðx; A3 Þ ¼ 350, then x 2 Cl1 or x 2 Cl2 .
ðw7; w8Þ
4.2. The results of approximations by ‘‘in-sim-
dominance’’ relations
With this approach we approximate class Cl16
of the warehouses making at most loss and the
class Cl2P of the warehouses making at least profit.
Since only two classes are considered, we have
Cl16 ¼ Cl1 and Cl2P ¼ Cl2 . Also in this case
257
C ¼ fA1 ; A2 ; A3 g and D ¼ fdg; however, we must
observe that A1 is a criterion, while A2 and A3 are
attributes. With respect to A1 , ‘‘good’’ is better
than ‘‘medium’’, while with respect to A2 and A3 no
preference is expressed on their domains. More-
over, for attribute A2 , the classical indiscernibility
relation is considered, i.e. for each x; y 2 U , xIq y if
and only if f ðx; A2 Þ ¼ f ðy; A2 Þ, and for attribute
A3 , a similarity relation is defined such that for
each x; y 2 U , xRq y if and only if
j f ðy; A3 Þ  f ðx; A3 Þj
6 10%:
f ðy; A3 Þ
The C-lower approximations, the C-upper ap-
proximations and the C-boundaries of sets C16 and
Cl1P are, respectively:
CðCl16 Þ ¼ fw1g;
CðCl16 Þ ¼ fw1; w3; w4; w6; w7; w8g;
BnC ðCl16 Þ ¼ fw3; w4; w6; w7; w8g;
CðCl2P Þ ¼ fw2; w5g;
CðCl2P Þ ¼ fw2; w3; w4; w5; w6; w7; w8g;
BnC ðCl2P Þ ¼ fw3; w4; w6; w7; w8g:
Therefore, the accuracy of the approximation is
equal to 0.17 for Cl16 and to 0.29 for Cl2P , while
the quality of classification is equal to 0.37. There
is only one reduct, which is also the core, i.e.
REDCl ðCÞ ¼ CORECl ðCÞ ¼ fA2 ; A3 g.
The following minimal set of decision rules can
be obtained from the considered decision table
(within parentheses there are the actions support-
ing the corresponding rules and prototype actions
of D P - and D 6 -decision rules are marked in
bold):
1. if f ðx; A2 Þ ¼ A and f ðx; A3 Þ is similar to 500,
then x 2 Cl1 [ Cl2 , ðw1; w3Þ
2. if f ðx; A1 Þ is at least ‘‘good’’ and f ðx; A2 Þ ¼ A,
then x 2 Cl2P , ðw2Þ
3. if f ðx; A2 Þ ¼ B and f ðx; A3 Þ is similar to 400,
then x 2 Cl1 [ Cl2 , ðw4; w6Þ
4. if f ðx; A1 Þ is at least ‘‘good’’ and f ðx; A3 Þ is sim-
ilar to 475, then x 2 Cl2P , ðw5Þ
5. if f ðx; A3 Þ is similar to 350, then
x 2 Cl1 [ Cl2 . ðw7; w8Þ
258 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
4.3. Comparison of the results
The advantages of the rough set approach
based on ‘‘in-sim-dominance’’ relations over the
original rough set analysis based on the indis-
cernibility relation can be summarized in the fol-
lowing points.
Let us observe that the quality of classification
using indiscernibility is equal to 0.75 since ware-
houses w7; w8 are indiscernible while belonging to
different classes. The quality of classification using
‘‘in-sim-dominance’’ is equal to 0.375 due to ad-
ditional inconsistency introduced by warehouses
w3, w4, and w6. For example, with respect to cri-
terion A1 , w4 outranks w6; with respect to attribute
A2 , w4 and w6 are indiscernible; with respect to the
attribute A3 , w6 is similar to w4. Therefore, w4 ‘‘in-
sim-dominates’’ w6, such that w4DC w6 (also
w4DC w6, since w4 is similar to w6). However, w4
has a comprehensive evaluation worse (loss) than
w6 (profit). Therefore, this can be interpreted as an
inconsistency revealed by the approximation based
on ‘‘in-sim-dominance’’ that cannot be captured
when the approximation is based on indiscern-
ibility and/or similarity only.
Let us remark that, according to what was
written at the end of Section 3, the reassignment of
the eight warehouses using the minimal set of rules
based on ‘‘in-sim-dominance’’ gives the following
result (‘‘!’’ means assignment):
w1 ! Cl1 or Cl2 ðloss or profitÞ;
w2 ! Cl2 ðprofitÞ;
w3 ! Cl1 or Cl2 ðloss or profitÞ;
w4 ! Cl1 or Cl2 ðloss or profitÞ;
w5 ! Cl2 ðprofitÞ;
w6 ! Cl1 or Cl2 ðloss or profitÞ;
w7 ! Cl1 or Cl2 ðloss or profitÞ;
w8 ! Cl1 or Cl2 ðloss or profitÞ:
Although warehouse w1 belongs to C-lower
approximation of Cl16 , it is not reassigned to Cl1
but to Cl1 or Cl2 because of asymmetry of the
similarity relation on A3 . More precisely, this is
due to the following facts: w3 is similar to w1 on
attribute A3 , w1 ‘‘in-sim-dominates’’ w3, such that
w1DC w3, and it is not possible to construct a D 6 -
decision rule from w1 as prototype because w3 is a
counterexample for such a rule, i.e. w3 is domi-
nated by w1 on A1 , w3 is indiscernible from w1 on
A2 and w3 is similar to w1; however, w3 belongs to
Cl2 (see condition 4 for existence of a D 6 -decision
rule in Section 3).
Let us also remark that the minimal set of de-
cision rules induced from the decision table by the
new approach gives a smaller number of stronger
rules (5 against 7).
The minimal set of rules based on ‘‘in-sim-
dominance’’ represents a preference model of the
DM that is perfectly compatible with the DM’s
exemplary decisions and, moreover, reveals all
kinds of inconsistency (with respect to indiscern-
ibility, similarity and dominance) in the preferen-
tial information. The reaction of the DM to such a
model of preferences could be either its acceptance
or a revision of assignment examples.
5. Conclusions
We presented a new rough set method for
MA&C sorting problems whose purpose is to ap-
proximate a partition of some reference actions
described by criteria and by attributes, which are
not criteria, into pre-defined and preference-or-
dered decision classes. The ‘‘granules’’ of knowl-
edge with which the partition is (roughly)
approximated are defined using a dominance re-
lation on criteria and indiscernibility or similarity
relation on attributes. We showed that the basic
concepts of rough sets theory are restored in this
new methodology. The comparison of the original
rough set approach with the extended rough set
approach on a didactic example gives evidence of
advantages of the new methodology.
Because of frequent heterogeneity in descrip-
tion of decision situations, the MA&C sorting
problems are quite realistic but there was no
methodology for dealing with them. The prefer-
ence model is inferred from a set of assignment
examples provided by the DM. The preference
model has an unusual form of ‘‘if . . . , then . . . ’’
 S. Greco et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2002) 247–259
decision rules. They satisfy conditions of com-
pleteness, and dominance, and manage with pos-
sible inconsistencies in the set of examples.
Moreover, such a preference representation is
more understandable for the users because of its
natural syntax. For this reason, it facilitates an
interactive construction of the DM’s preference
model.
Other extensions of RST for dealing with
problems of MCDA are described in Greco et al.
(1999, 2000, 2001a).
Acknowledgements
The research of the first two authors has been
supported by the Italian Ministry of University
and Scientific Research (MURST). The third au-
thor wishes to acknowledge financial support from
the State Committee for Scientific Research, grant
KBN 8T11F 006 19.
References
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 1996. Rough approx-
imation of a preference relation by dominance relations.
ICS Research Report 16/96, Warsaw University of Tech-
nology, Warsaw. European Journal of Operational Re-
search 117, 63–83 (1999).
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 1998a. A new rough
set approach to evaluation of bankruptcy risk. In: Zo-
pounidis, C. (Ed.), Operational Tools in the Management of
Financial Risks. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
pp. 121–136.
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 1998b. A new rough
set approach to multicriteria and multiattribute classifica-
tion. In: Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (Eds.), Rough Sets and
Current Trends in Computing, Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence, vol. 1424. Springer, Berlin, pp. 60–67.
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 1999. The use of rough
sets and fuzzy sets in MCDM. In: Gal, T., Stewart, T.,
Hanne, T. (Eds.), Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision
Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 14.1–
14.59 (Chapter 14).
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 2000. Extension of the
rough set approach to multicriteria decision support.
INFOR Journal (Canadian Journal of Operational Re-
search and Information Processing) 38, 161–196.
259
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 2001a. Rough sets
theory for multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal
of Operational Research 129, 1–47.
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 2001b. Conjoint
measurement and rough set approach for multicriteria
sorting problems in presence of ordinal criteria. In: Colorni,
A., Paruccini, M., Roy, B. (Eds.), AMCDA – Aide
Multicritere a la Decision (Multiple Criteria Decision
Aiding). EUR Report, Joint Research Centre, The Euro-
pean Commission, Ispra, pp. 114–141.
Grzymala-Busse, J.W, 1992. LERS – a system for learning from
examples based on rough sets. In: Slowinski, R. (Ed.),
Intelligent Decision Support. Handbook of Applications
and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 3–18.
Mienko, R., Stefanowski J., Toumi, K., Vanderpooten, D.,
1996. Discovery-oriented induction of decision rules. Cahier
du LAMSADE no. 141, Universite de Paris Dauphine, Paris.
Pawlak, Z., 1991. Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reason-
ing about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Pawlak, Z., 1997. Rough set approach to knowledge-based
decision support. European Journal of Operational Re-
search 99, 48–57.
Roubens, M., Vincke, Ph., 1985. Preference Modelling. Spring-
er, Berlin.
Roy, B., 1985. Methodologie Multicritere d’Aide a la Decision.
Economica, Paris.
Slowinski, R. (Ed.), 1992. Intelligent Decision Support. Hand-
book of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets
Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Slowinski, R., Stefanowski, J., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., 2000.
Rough sets based processing of inconsistent information in
decision analysis. Control and Cybernetics 29, 379–404.
Slowinski, R., Vanderpooten, D., 1997. Similarity relation as a
basis for rough approximations. In: Wang, P.P. (Ed.),
Advances in Machine Intelligence and Soft Computing.
Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 17–33.
Slowinski, R., Vanderpooten, D., 2000. A generalised definition
of rough approximations. IEEE Transactions on Data and
Knowledge Engineering 12, 331–336.
Stefanowski, J., 1998. On rough set based approaches to
induction of decision rules. In: Polkowski, L., Skowron, A.
(Eds.), Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery, vol. 1. Physica-
Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 500–529.
Stefanowski, J., Vanderpooten, D., 1994. A general two stage
approach to rule induction from examples. In: Ziarko, W.
(Ed.), Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Knowledge Discovery.
Springer, Berlin, pp. 317–325.
Susmaga, R., Slowinski, R., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., 1999.
Computation of reducts for multi-attribute and multi-
criteria classification. In: Proceedings of the VIIth Work-
shop on Intelligent Information Systems. Institute of
Computer Science Fundamentals, Polish Academy of Sci-
ences, Warsaw, pp. 154–163.