4.7 Article

Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their application in multi-criteria decision making

期刊

INFORMATION SCIENCES
卷 271, 期 -, 页码 125-142

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.125

关键词

Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set; Distance measure; Similarity measure; Multi-criteria decision making

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61273209]
  2. Excellent Ph.D. Thesis Foundation of Shanghai Jiao Tong University [20131216]
  3. Scholarship from China Scholarship Council [201306230047]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (HFLTSs), which can be used to represent an expert's hesitant preferences when assessing a linguistic variable, increase the flexibility of eliciting and representing linguistic information. The HFLTSs have attracted a lot of attention recently due to their distinguished power and efficiency in representing uncertainty and vagueness within the process of decision making. To enhance and extend the applicability of HFLTSs, this paper investigates and develops different types of distance and similarity measures for HFLTSs. The paper first proposes a family of distance and similarity measures between two HFLTSs. Then a variety of weighted or ordered weighted distance and similarity measures between two collections of HFLTSs are proposed and analyzed for discrete and continuous cases respectively. After that, the application of these measures to multi-criteria decision making problems is given. Based on the proposed distance and similarity measures, the satisfaction degrees for different alternatives are established and are then used to rank alternatives in multi-criteria decision making. Finally a practical example concerning the evaluation of the quality of movies is given to illustrate the applicability and advantage of the proposed approach and the differences between the proposed distance and similarity measures. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据