4.5 Article

Group Decision-Making for Hesitant Fuzzy Sets Based on Characteristic Objects Method

Journal

SYMMETRY-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym9080136

Keywords

hesitant fuzzy sets; L-R-type generalized fuzzy numbers; Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making (MCGDM); Characteristic Objects Method (COMET)

Funding

  1. National Science Centre [DEC-2016/23/N/HS4/01931]
  2. Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin statutory funds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are many real-life problems that, because of the need to involve a wide domain of knowledge, are beyond a single expert. This is especially true for complex problems. Therefore, it is usually necessary to allocate more than one expert to a decision process. In such situations, we can observe an increasing importance of uncertainty. In this paper, the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method called the Characteristic Objects Method (COMET) is extended to solve problems for Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making (MCGDM) in a hesitant fuzzy environment. It is a completely new idea for solving problems of group decision-making under uncertainty. In this approach, we use L-R-type Generalized Fuzzy Numbers (GFNs) to get the degree of hesitancy for an alternative under a certain criterion. Therefore, the classical COMET method was adapted to work with GFNs in group decision-making problems. The proposed extension is presented in detail, along with the necessary background information. Finally, an illustrative numerical example is provided to elaborate the proposed method with respect to the support of a decision process. The presented extension of the COMET method, as opposed to others' group decision-making methods, is completely free of the rank reversal phenomenon, which is identified as one of the most important MCDM challenges.

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