4.7 Article

A note on ranking generalized fuzzy numbers

Journal

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
Volume 39, Issue 7, Pages 6454-6457

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.12.062

Keywords

Generalized fuzzy numbers; Ranking fuzzy numbers; Modification

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [60874105, 61174022]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-08-0345]
  3. Chongqing Natural Science Foundation [CSCT, 2010BA2003]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [XDJK2010C030, XDJK2011D002]
  5. Southwest University Scientific & Technological Innovation Fund for Postgraduates [ky2011011]
  6. Southwest University [SWU110021]
  7. Hangzhou Key Lab of E-Business and Information Security, Hangzhou Normal University [HZEB201001]
  8. Key Subject Laboratory of National defense for Radioactive Waste and Environmental Security [10zxnk08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ranking fuzzy numbers plays an important role in decision making under uncertain environment. Recently, Chen and Sanguansat (2011) [Chen, S. M. & Sanguansat, K. (2011). Analyzing fuzzy risk based on a new fuzzy ranking method between generalized fuzzy numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), (pp. 2163-2171)] proposed a method for ranking generalized fuzzy numbers. It considers the areas on the positive side, the areas on the negative side and the heights of the generalized fuzzy numbers to evaluate ranking scores of the generalized fuzzy numbers. Chen and Sanguansat's method (2011) can overcome the drawbacks of some existing methods for ranking generalized fuzzy numbers. However. in the situation when the score is zero, the results of the Chen and Sanguansat's ranking method (2011) ranking method are unreasonable. The aim of this short note is to give a modification on Chen and Sanguansat's method (2011) to make the method more reasonable. (C) 2011 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