4.7 Article

A hesitant fuzzy linguistic bidirectional projection-regret decision making model br

Journal

COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
Volume 169, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.108197

Keywords

Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set; Bidirectional projection model; Regret theory

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61773123]
  2. Spanish National research project [PGC2018-099402-B-I00]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Postdoctoral fellow Ramon y Cajal [RYC-2017- 201978]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Real-world decision-making problems are often defined under uncertain contexts. To overcome these problems, this paper introduces a new decision-making model that considers the psychological behavior of decision makers and facilitates preference modeling under uncertainty.
Real-world decision-making problems are usually defined under uncertain contexts due to their complexity. In such situations, the psychological behavior of decision makers is often ignored, and it is assumed that they can provide accurate knowledge despite of being in a context defined as 'uncertain'. Such assumptions are not realistic and may bias final decisions. To overcome such problems, this paper aims to consider the psychological behavior of decision makers and facilitate preference modeling under uncertainty in the decision-making pro-cess. It will do so by introducing a novel decision-making model that includes new bidirectional projection-based regret theory (RT) measures under a hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (HFLTS) environment, thus establishing novel utility and new regret-rejoice functions to handle decision-making situations. Eventually, a supplier se-lection case study is used to show the performance of the proposed method, and a fair comparison with two existing methods is carried out to illustrate the advantages of our method

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available