4.5 Article

Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Group DEMATEL Method with Multi-granular Evaluation Scales

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FUZZY SYSTEMS
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 2187-2201

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40815-017-0397-8

Keywords

Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory; Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets; Multi-granular; Ranking algorithm

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71561015, 71261013]
  2. Applied Basic Research Foundation of Yunnan Province of China [2015FB137, 2016FB116]
  3. Science Research Foundation of Yunnan Provincial Education Department of China [2017ZZX153]
  4. Educational Science in Philosophy and Social-science Foundation of Yunnan Province of China [AB16002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory is a widely applied method used in the research of complicated socioeconomic system issues. However, this traditional method is not feasible when experts are non-homogeneous and hesitant between two or more statements. In this paper, hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (HFLTSs) are applied to facilitate the experts' expressions with regard to a direct influence level between factors, in order to analyze the causal relationship of the relevant system. Experts can use a linguistic expression (which is close to human expression) to show their opinions, which can be easily transferred into HFLTSs. Meanwhile, by using the concept of regarding the influence between factors as object and the level of influence as criteria, this paper proposes a comparison-based ranking algorithm to cope with the aggregation process of multi-granular scaled evaluation. In the algorithm, two adjustable possibility thresholds are introduced to control the output granule of the group consensus direct-influence scores. The validity and effectiveness of the proposed approach are finally demonstrated through an illustrative example and analysis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available