4.7 Article

An Accurate Method for Determining Hesitant Fuzzy Aggregation Operator Weights and Its Application to Project Investment

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/int.21651

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71301141]
  2. Humanity and Social Science Youth foundation of Ministry of Education of China [13YJC630247]
  3. Science Application Youth Project of Science and Technology Department of Yunnan Province [2013FD029]
  4. Scientific Research Project of talent introduction of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics [YC2013D29]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a generalization of fuzzy sets, hesitant fuzzy set is a very useful technique to represent decision makers' hesitancy in decision making. Various hesitant fuzzy weighted operators have been developed to aggregate hesitant fuzzy information, but it seems that there is no investigation on the weighted approach of obtaining their weights, which is decisive for the calculation and comparison of hesitant fuzzy elements (HFEs) in multicriteria group decision making. In this paper, we propose an accurate weighted method (AWM) of monotonicity and proportionality, based on nothing but the score function and the new deviation function. Because of the above properties, AWM may be an accurate and objective technique to calculate the weights of HFEs and aggregation operator. Then, based on this weighted approach, we develop two new hesitant fuzzy ordered weighted aggregation operators, that is, hesitant fuzzy ordered accurate weighted averaging and hesitant fuzzy ordered accurate weighted geometric operators, and study their relationships and properties. In the end, an illustrative project investment problem is used to demonstrate how to apply the proposed weighted approach and to observe the computational consequences resulting from new aggregation operators. This work contributes significantly to improve the hesitant fuzzy theory, and proposes two new hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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