4.7 Article

A type-2 linguistic set theory and its application to multi-criteria decision making

Journal

COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
Volume 64, Issue 2, Pages 721-730

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2012.11.015

Keywords

linguistic sets; Multi-criteria decision making; Computing with words

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fuzzy set theory (FST), since its introduction in the 1960s, has been continuously developed. Theory development for FST is highly challenging. For instance, various researchers have devoted substantive efforts in developing methodologies for many fundamental tasks, such as ranking type-1 fuzzy numbers, defining arithmetic and logical operations on type-1 and type-2 fuzzy numbers, and defining correlation measure on type-1 and type-2 numbers, resulting in a multitude of approaches, many of which based on differing postulates and assumptions. On the other hand, by interpreting the membership function of a linguistic concept based on a probabilistic framework, and by abandoning Zadeh's extension principle in favor of relying on probabilistic arguments, many of the technical difficulties in developing theory involving type-1 like linguistic concepts and variables can be bypassed, with the resulting probabilistic linguistic framework enabling a uniform approach for theory development for a wide range of elementary operations and measures. In this article, the probabilistic linguistic framework is extended to type-2 linguistic sets that allows, with as few postulates as possible, uniform approach for developing methodologies for fundamental tasks such as taking the union and intersection of and performing arithmetic operations on type-2 linguistic numbers. Furthermore, we demonstrate the resulting methodology by applying it to an industrial data set concerning multi-criteria decision making. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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