4.6 Article

Novel Multi-criteria Decision-making Approaches Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Sets and Prospect Theory

Publisher

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0219622016500152

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision making; hesitant fuzzy sets; prospect theory; TODIM; PROMETHEE

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71571193, 71271218, 71431006]
  2. Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [15YJCZH127]
  3. Science Foundation for Doctors of Hubei University of Automotive Technology [BK201405]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs), an extension of fuzzy sets, are considered to be useful in solving decision making problems where decision makers are unable to choose between several values when expressing their preferences. The purpose of this paper is to develop two hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods based on prospect theory (PT). First, the novel component-wise ordering method for two hesitant fuzzy numbers (HFNs) is defined; however, this method does not consider the length of the two HFNs. Second, by utilizing the directed Hausdorff distance between two imprecise point sets, the generalized hesitant Hausdorff distance is developed, which overcomes the shortcomings of the existing distance measures. Third, based on the proposed comparison method and distance, as well as PT, the extended TODIM and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) approaches are developed in order to solve MCDM problems with hesitant fuzzy information. Finally, a practical example is provided to illustrate the pragmatism and effectiveness of the proposed approaches. Sensitivity and comparison analyses are also conducted using the same example. The findings indicate that the proposed methods do not require complicated computation procedures, yet still yield a reasonable and credible solution.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available