4.4 Article

Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment

Journal

FUZZY OPTIMIZATION AND DECISION MAKING
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 481-503

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10700-016-9257-5

Keywords

Hesitant probabilistic fuzzy number (HPFE); Maximizing score deviation (MSD) method; Ordered weighted operator; Consensus building; Group decision making

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71561026, 71571123, 61273209]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M570792, 2016T90864]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As a generalized fuzzy number, the hesitant fuzzy element (HFE) has been receiving increased attention and has recently become a popular topic. However, we find that the occurring probabilities of the possible values in the HFE are equal, which is obviously impractical. Consequently, in this paper, we propose a hesitant fuzzy number with probabilities, called the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy number, and construct its score function, deviation function, comparison laws, and its basic operations. It is well known that in the context of a group of decision makers (DMs), one of the basic approaches to built consensus is to aggregate individual evaluations or individual priorities. Thus, to use the hesitant fuzzy numbers for consensus building with a group of DMs, we further propose a method called maximizing score deviation method to obtain the DMs' weights under the HPFE environment, based on which two extended and four new ordered weighted operators are provided to fuse the HPFE information and build the consensus of the DMs. We also analyze the differences among these ordered weighted operators and provide their application scopes. Finally, a practical case is provided to demonstrate consensus building with a group of DMs under the HPFE environment using the proposed approaches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available